4.7 Article

Methodology for computer aided fuzzy fault tree analysis

期刊

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
卷 87, 期 4, 页码 217-226

出版社

INST CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2009.04.004

关键词

Probabilistic risk assessment; Fuzzy probability analysis; Fuzzy weighted index; Fault tree analysis

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is a comprehensive, structured and logical analysis method aimed at identifying and assessing risks of complex process systems. PRA uses fault tree analysis (FTA) as a tool to identify basic causes leading to an undesired event, to represent logical dependency of these basic causes in leading to the event, and finally to calculate the probability of occurrence of this event. To conduct a quantitative fault tree analysis, one needs a fault tree along with failure data of the basic events (components). Sometimes it is difficult to have an exact estimation of the failure rate of individual components or the probability of occurrence of undesired events due to a lack of sufficient data. Further, due to imprecision in basic failure data, the overall result may be questionable. To avoid such conditions, a fuzzy approach may be used with the FTA technique. This reduces the ambiguity and imprecision arising out of subjectivity of the data. This paper presents a methodology for a fuzzy based computer-aided fault tree analysis tool. The methodology is developed using a systematic approach of fault tree development, minimal cut sets determination and probability analysis. Further, it uses static and dynamic structuring and modeling, fuzzy based probability analysis and sensitivity analysis. This paper also illustrates with a case study the use of a fuzzy weighted index and cutsets importance measure in sensitivity analysis (for system probabilistic risk analysis) and design modification. (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier B.V on behalf of The institution of Chemical Engineers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据