Tree analysis

Keywords reducing uncertainty, cost-effective information, ranking sources of uncertainty, re-processing seismic, interference tests, aquifer behaviour, % uncertainty, decision tree analysis, value of information, fiscal regime, suspended wells, phased development. 

P. O. Chelsau, ReHabihty Computation Using Fault Tree Analysis, TR32-1542, NASA, Airport, Md., 1971. 

Methods for performing hazard analysis and risk assessment include safety review, checkhsts, Dow Fire and Explosion Index, what-if analysis, hazard and operabihty analysis (HAZOP), failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, and event tree analysis. Other methods are also available, but those given are used most often. 

Fault Tree Analysis. Fault trees represent a deductive approach to determining the causes contributing to a designated failure. The approach begins with the definition of a top or undesired event, and branches backward through intermediate events until the top event is defined in terms of basic events. A basic event is an event for which further development would not be useful for the purpose at hand. For example, for a quantitative fault tree, if a frequency or probabiUty for a failure can be deterrnined without further development of the failure logic, then there is no point to further development, and the event is regarded as basic. 

It is important in fault tree analysis to consider only the nearest contributing event. There is always a tendency to jump immediately to the details, skipping all of the intermediate events. Some practice is required to gain experience in this technique. 

Process Hazards Analysis. Analysis of processes for unrecogni2ed or inadequately controUed ha2ards (see Hazard analysis and risk assessment) is required by OSHA (36). The principal methods of analysis, in an approximate ascending order of intensity, are what-if checklist failure modes and effects ha2ard and operabiHty (HAZOP) and fault-tree analysis. Other complementary methods include human error prediction and cost/benefit analysis. The HAZOP method is the most popular as of 1995 because it can be used to identify ha2ards, pinpoint their causes and consequences, and disclose the need for protective systems. Fault-tree analysis is the method to be used if a quantitative evaluation of operational safety is needed to justify the implementation of process improvements. 

Eault tree analysis (ETA) is a widely used computer-aided tool for plant and process safety analysis (69). One of the primary strengths of the method is the systematic, logical development of the many contributing factors that might result ia an accident. This type of analysis requires that the analyst have a complete understanding of the system and plant operations and the various equipment failure modes. 

Failure Mode and Ejfect Analysis (FMEA) This is a systematic study of the causes of failures and their effects. All causes or modes of failure are considered for each element of a system, and then all possible outcomes or effects are recorded. This method is usually used in combination with fault tree analysis, a quantitative technique. FMEA is a comphcated procedure, usually carried out by experienced risk analysts. 

Fault Tree Analysis Faiilt tree analysis permits the hazardous incident (called the top event) frequency to be estimated from a logic model of the failure mechanisms of a system. The top event is traced downward to more basic failures using logic gates to determine its causes and hkelihood. The model is based on the combinations of fail-... 

Frequency Estimation There are two primary sources for estimates of incident frequencies. These are historical records and the apphcation of fault tree analysis and related techniques, and they are not necessarily applied independently. Specific historical data can sometimes be usehiUy applied as a check on frequency estimates of various subevents of a fault tree, for example. 

In some instances, plant-specific information relating to frequencies of subevents (e.g., a release from a relief device) can be compared against results derived from the quantitative fault tree analysis, starting with basic component failure rate data. 

Identification and quantitative estimation of common-cause failures are general problems in fault tree analysis. Boolean approaches are generally better smted to mathematically handle common-cause failures. 

Layer of protection analysis (LOPA) is a simplified form of event tree analysis. Instead of analyzing all accident scenarios, LOPA selects a few specific scenarios as representative, or boundary, cases. LOPA uses order-of-magnitLide estimates, rather than specific data, for the frequency of initiating events and for the probability the various layers of protection will fail on demand. In many cases, the simplified results of a LOPA provide sufficient input for deciding whether additional protection is necessary to reduce the likelihood of a given accident type. LOPAs typically require only a small fraction of the effort required for detailed event tree or fault tree analysis. 

A simplified form of event tree analysis using selected accident scenarios and order-of-magnitude estimates to determine whether additional protection is needed... 

Design teehniques (for example, FMEA or Fault Tree Analysis (FTA))... 

Today there are many tools available to aid in problem solving or f ure analysis. These include the Weibull Analysis, Failure Mode i Effect Analysis, and Fault Tree Analysis, to name a few. One of the m widely accepted is the Weibull analysis. This method can provide accurate engineering analysis based on extraordinary small samples [1]. 

Recognized systematic approaches include hazard operability study (HAZOP) event tree analysis fault tree analysis. 

Eault tree analysis is used to assess the frequeney of an ineident. A fault tree is a diagram that shows how primary eauses produee events, whieh ean eontribute to a partieular hazard. There are several pathways in whieh a single primary eause ean eombine with other primary eauses or events. Therefore, a single eause may be found in more than one hazard and may oeeur at different loeations in the fault tree. 

It is interesting that NASA in their review of WASH-1400 Draft (included in W.ASH-1400 Final Appendix II), indicated that they had discontinued the use of fault tree analysis in fas or of the FMEA. 

---