1984
DOI: 10.1016/0143-8174(84)90007-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An illustrative example of fault tree synthesis based on control loop structure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1986
1986
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There have been two approaches to the representation of process plant behaviour for the purposes of automatic fault-tree synthesis. One of these we may call the "tree-approach" (Martin-Solis et al, 1982;Taylor, 1982), which is device-centred, and the other we may call the "structure approach" (Shafaghi et al, 1984;Lapp & Powers, 1977), which exploits wider knowledge of the system involved. The former of these is essentially rule-based, though the references quoted precede the development of rule-based shells and languages.…”
Section: Fault-tree Synthesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There have been two approaches to the representation of process plant behaviour for the purposes of automatic fault-tree synthesis. One of these we may call the "tree-approach" (Martin-Solis et al, 1982;Taylor, 1982), which is device-centred, and the other we may call the "structure approach" (Shafaghi et al, 1984;Lapp & Powers, 1977), which exploits wider knowledge of the system involved. The former of these is essentially rule-based, though the references quoted precede the development of rule-based shells and languages.…”
Section: Fault-tree Synthesismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This model is based on the function of units within the context of the process, the arrangement of the unit functions into systems, and the composition, boundaries, and interdependencies of process systems. This approach is similar to that used by Shafaghi et al (1984) for the construction of fault trees. In this section, we present the framework for development of this model, using a functional decomposition approach.…”
Section: Functional Decompositionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fussell developed a typical fault tree synthesis methodology using transfer functions and system schematic diagrams [3], while Lapp and Powers proposed their wellknown algorithm based on digraphs; a digraph represents an accurate representation of the qualitative relationships between process variables, human errors, and equipment failures [4]. The following are proposed methods for making computer-aided FT synthesis more efficient and concise: the reliability graphs approach of Camarda and Trentadue [5], the decomposition approach of Shafaghi et al [6], the mini-fault tree model of Kelly and Lees [7], and the knowledge-based approach of Elliott [8]. Based on these approaches, computerized FT synthesis software and automated FTA software have been developed, e.g., the software package PROFAT-II of Khan and Abbasi [2], CARA-Fault Tree of Sysdvest Software [9], and Fault Tree+ of Isograph Software Ltd. [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%