Fault Tree Analysis

21
Fault Tree Analysis Part 2: Problem Definition and Heuristic Guidelines for Fault Tree Synthesis

description

Fault Tree Analysis. Part 2: Problem Definition and Heuristic Guidelines for Fault Tree Synthesis. FTA Procedure. Problem Definition Fault Tree Synthesis Solution - Minimal Cut Sets Probability Calculation. Step 1: PROBLEM DEFINITION. TOP Event Boundary Conditions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Fault Tree Analysis

Page 1: Fault Tree Analysis

Fault Tree Analysis

Part 2: Problem Definition and Heuristic Guidelines for Fault Tree

Synthesis

Page 2: Fault Tree Analysis

FTA Procedure

• Problem Definition

• Fault Tree Synthesis

• Solution - Minimal Cut Sets

• Probability Calculation

Page 3: Fault Tree Analysis

Step 1: PROBLEM DEFINITION

• TOP Event

• Boundary Conditions

- unallowed events (impossible events)

- existing events (certain events)

- system physical bounds

- level of resolution

- other assumptions , e. g. Initial conditions.

Page 4: Fault Tree Analysis

E M

COOLING WATER EMERGENCYHEAD TANK

Step 2: FAULT TREE SYNTHESIS

REACTANT YREACTANT X

COOLING WATER

OUT

COOLING WATER

IN

COOLING WATER

SUPPLY PUMPPUMP X

Page 5: Fault Tree Analysis

LOSS OFREACTION CONTROL (A+B+C)+(B+D+E)+(B+F).G

OR

LOSS OFAGITATION

SUPPLY OF REACTANTX STOPS

LOSS OF COOLINGON JACKET

OR OR AND(A+B+C) (B+D+E) (B+F).G

PUMP XFAILS

OPERATORERROR

FAILURE OFPOWER SUPPLY

AGITATORMECHANICAL

FAILURE

FAILURE OFWAWER SUPPLYFAILS

EMERGENCYSUPPLYFROM

HEAD TANKFAILS

OR

PUMP XMACHANICAL

FAILURE

FAILURE OFPOWER SUPPLY

OPERATORERROR

FAILURE OFPOWER SUPPLY

WATER PUMPMECHANICAL

FAILURE

B FDBA

C B EGOR

(A+B) (B+F)

Page 6: Fault Tree Analysis

HEURISTIC GUIDELINES

1) Replace an abstract event by a less abstract event.

Loss of Cooling water

No Water from Pump

2) Classify an event into more elementary events.

Tank Explosion

OR

Explosion Explosion by by Overfilling Runaway Reaction

Page 7: Fault Tree Analysis

HEURISTIC GUIDELINES

3) Identify distinct causes for an event.

Runaway Reaction

OR

Excessive Loss of Feed Cooling

4) Couple trigger event with “no protective action”.

Overheating

AND

Loss of No System Cooling shutdown Water

Page 8: Fault Tree Analysis

HEURISTIC GUIDELINES

5) Find cooperative causes for an event.

Fire

AND

Leak of Source of Flammable Fluid Sparks

6) Pinpoint a component failure event.

No Cooling Water

AND

Main Valve Bypass Valve is Closed isn’t Opened

Note, 1) - 6) are state-of-system events.

Page 9: Fault Tree Analysis

Component failure(state-of-component event)

CommandfaultPrimary

failure Secondaryfailure

7) Develop a component failure using Fig. 2.22

State-of-system event

Figure 2.22. Development of a component failure (state-of-component event).

Page 10: Fault Tree Analysis

Example - The Process

This example shows how the heuristic guidelines can be used to construct fault trees.

In the pumping system shown in the next page, the tank is filled in 10 min and empties in the next 50 minutes; thus, the cycle time is 1 hr. After the switch is closed, the timer is set to open the contacts in 10 min. If the mechanisms fail, then the alarm horn sounds and the operator opens the switch to prevent a tank rupture due to overfilling.

Page 11: Fault Tree Analysis

Timer

PumpTank

Horn

Switch

Powersupply

Contacts

Operator

Schematic diagram for a pumping system.

Page 12: Fault Tree Analysis

Example - The Fault Tree

A fault tree with the top event of “tank rupture (at time t)” is shown in the next page.

This tree shows which guidelines are used to develop events in the tree.

Page 13: Fault Tree Analysis
Page 14: Fault Tree Analysis

Operator Failures

The operator in this example can be regarded as a system component, and the gate E is developed by using the guidelines of Fig. 2.22.

A primary operator failure means that the operator functioning within the design envelope fails to push the panic button when the alarm sounds.

The secondary operator failure is, for example, “operator has been killed by a fire when the alarm sounded.” The command fault for the operator is “no alarm sounds.”

Page 15: Fault Tree Analysis

Lambert, H. E. , “System Safety Analysis and Fault Tree Analysis,” UCID-16238, 31, May 9, 1973

Expect no miracles; if the “normal” functioning of a component helps to propagate a fault sequence, it must be assumed that the component functions “normally.”

Write complete, detailed fault statements.

Avoid direct gate-to-gate relationships.

Think locally. Always complete the inputs to the gate.

Include notes on the side of the fault tree to explain assumptions not explicit in the fault statements.

Repeat fault statements on both sides of the transfer symbols.

Page 16: Fault Tree Analysis

Example

The following figure shows a reaction system in which the temperature increases with the feed rate of flow-controlled stream D.

Heat is removed by water circulation through an exchanger.

Normal reactor temperature is 200 F, but a catastrophic runaway will start if the reactor temperature reaches 300 F.

Page 17: Fault Tree Analysis
Page 18: Fault Tree Analysis

Example

In view of this situation, 1. The reactor temperature is monitored;2. Rising temperature is alarmed at 225 F (see

horn);3. An interlock shuts off stream D at 250 F,

stopping the reaction (see solenoid and valve A);

4. The operator can initiate the interlock by pushing the panic button.

Page 19: Fault Tree Analysis

Assumptions

• Secondary failures are neglected.

• The alarm signal always reaches the operator whenever the horn sounds

Page 20: Fault Tree Analysis
Page 21: Fault Tree Analysis