IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v31y2011i1p86-107.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations

Author

Listed:
  • Refaul Ferdous
  • Faisal Khan
  • Rehan Sadiq
  • Paul Amyotte
  • Brian Veitch

Abstract

Quantitative risk analysis (QRA) is a systematic approach for evaluating likelihood, consequences, and risk of adverse events. QRA based on event (ETA) and fault tree analyses (FTA) employs two basic assumptions. The first assumption is related to likelihood values of input events, and the second assumption is regarding interdependence among the events (for ETA) or basic events (for FTA). Traditionally, FTA and ETA both use crisp probabilities; however, to deal with uncertainties, the probability distributions of input event likelihoods are assumed. These probability distributions are often hard to come by and even if available, they are subject to incompleteness (partial ignorance) and imprecision. Furthermore, both FTA and ETA assume that events (or basic events) are independent. In practice, these two assumptions are often unrealistic. This article focuses on handling uncertainty in a QRA framework of a process system. Fuzzy set theory and evidence theory are used to describe the uncertainties in the input event likelihoods. A method based on a dependency coefficient is used to express interdependencies of events (or basic events) in ETA and FTA. To demonstrate the approach, two case studies are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Refaul Ferdous & Faisal Khan & Rehan Sadiq & Paul Amyotte & Brian Veitch, 2011. "Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 86-107, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:86-107
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01475.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01475.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01475.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio, 2008. "A Combined Monte Carlo and Possibilistic Approach to Uncertainty Propagation in Event Tree Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1309-1326, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rahman, Md Samsur & Khan, Faisal & Shaikh, Arifusalam & Ahmed, Salim & Imtiaz, Syed, 2020. "A conditional dependence-based marine logistics support risk model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Ravinder Kumar & Sumit Gupta & Ubaid Ur Rehman, 2023. "Circular Economy a Footstep toward Net Zero Manufacturing: Critical Success Factors Analysis with Case Illustration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Žužek Tena & Rihar Lidija & Berlec Tomaž & Kušar Janez, 2020. "Standard Project Risk Analysis Approach," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 11(2), pages 149-158, October.
    4. Fan, Cunlong & Montewka, Jakub & Zhang, Di, 2022. "A risk comparison framework for autonomous ships navigation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    5. Wu, Jiansong & Bai, Yiping & Fang, Weipeng & Zhou, Rui & Reniers, Genserik & Khakzad, Nima, 2021. "An Integrated Quantitative Risk Assessment Method for Urban Underground Utility Tunnels," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    7. Tomasz Zwęgliński, 2022. "Conventional Event Tree Analysis on Emergency Release of Liquefied Natural Gas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-12, March.
    8. Brouwer, Sander R. & Al-Jibouri, Saad H.S. & Cárdenas, Ibsen Chivatá & Halman, Johannes I.M., 2018. "Towards analysing risks to public safety from wind turbines," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 77-87.
    9. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2013. "Uncertainty Analysis in Fault Tree Models with Dependent Basic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1146-1173, June.
    10. Sezer, Sukru Ilke & Camliyurt, Gokhan & Aydin, Muhmmet & Akyuz, Emre & Gardoni, Paolo, 2023. "A bow-tie extended D-S evidence-HEART modelling for risk analysis of cargo tank cracks on oil/chemical tanker," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    11. Yılmaz, Emre & German, Brian J. & Pritchett, Amy R., 2023. "Optimizing resource allocations to improve system reliability via the propagation of statistical moments through fault trees," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    12. Tzu Yang Loh & Mario P. Brito & Neil Bose & Jingjing Xu & Kiril Tenekedjiev, 2019. "A Fuzzy‐Based Risk Assessment Framework for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Under‐Ice Missions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2744-2765, December.
    13. Guo, Jian & Ma, Kaijiang, 2024. "Risk analysis for hazardous chemical vehicle-bridge transportation system: A dynamic Bayesian network model incorporating vehicle dynamics," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    14. Tu Duong Le Duy & Laurence Dieulle & Dominique Vasseur & Christophe Bérenguer & Mathieu Couplet, 2013. "An alternative comprehensive framework using belief functions for parameter and model uncertainty analysis in nuclear probabilistic risk assessment applications," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(5), pages 471-490, October.
    15. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.
    16. Yuan, Shuaiqi & Cai, Jitao & Reniers, Genserik & Yang, Ming & Chen, Chao & Wu, Jiansong, 2022. "Safety barrier performance assessment by integrating computational fluid dynamics and evacuation modeling for toxic gas leakage scenarios," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    17. Kai Pan & Hui Liu & Xiaoqing Gou & Rui Huang & Dong Ye & Haining Wang & Adam Glowacz & Jie Kong, 2022. "Towards a Systematic Description of Fault Tree Analysis Studies Using Informetric Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-28, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Salomon, Julian & Winnewisser, Niklas & Wei, Pengfei & Broggi, Matteo & Beer, Michael, 2021. "Efficient reliability analysis of complex systems in consideration of imprecision," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    2. Matteo Vagnoli & Francesco Di Maio & Enrico Zio, 2018. "Ensembles of climate change models for risk assessment of nuclear power plants," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 232(2), pages 185-200, April.
    3. Terje Aven, 2012. "Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(10), pages 1647-1656, October.
    4. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2013. "Uncertainty Analysis in Fault Tree Models with Dependent Basic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1146-1173, June.
    5. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio, 2012. "An imprecision importance measure for uncertainty representations interpreted as lower and upper probabilities, with special emphasis on possibility theory," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 226(6), pages 656-665, December.
    6. Morales-Torres, Adrián & Escuder-Bueno, Ignacio & Serrano-Lombillo, Armando & Castillo Rodríguez, Jesica T., 2019. "Dealing with epistemic uncertainty in risk-informed decision making for dam safety management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2013. "Capturing and Integrating Knowledge for Managing Risks in Tunnel Works," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 92-108, January.
    8. Baustert, Paul & Othoniel, Benoit & Rugani, Benedetto & Leopold, Ulrich, 2018. "Uncertainty analysis in integrated environmental models for ecosystem service assessments: Frameworks, challenges and gaps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PB), pages 110-123.
    9. Roger Flage & Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio & Terje Aven, 2013. "Probability and Possibility‐Based Representations of Uncertainty in Fault Tree Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 121-133, January.
    10. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    11. Desheng Dash Wu & Xie Kefan & Chen Gang & Gui Ping, 2010. "A Risk Analysis Model in Concurrent Engineering Product Development," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1440-1453, September.
    12. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.
    13. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    14. Xing, Jinduo & Zeng, Zhiguo & Zio, Enrico, 2019. "A framework for dynamic risk assessment with condition monitoring data and inspection data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Xinyue Dong & Zeyu Cao & Yi Guo & Jingyuan Lin & Hanze Yan & Mengyu Li & Peng Yao, 2024. "Assessment of Carbon Storage in a Multifunctional Landscape: A Case Study of Central Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, June.
    16. Hong Yao & Xin Qian & Hong Yin & Hailong Gao & Yulei Wang, 2015. "Regional Risk Assessment for Point Source Pollution Based on a Water Quality Model of the Taipu River, China," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(2), pages 265-277, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:31:y:2011:i:1:p:86-107. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.