Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 16, Issue 5, pp 747–760 | Cite as

Probabilistic Fault Diagnosis of Safety Instrumented Systems based on Fault Tree Analysis and Bayesian Network

  • Zakarya Chiremsel
  • Rachid Nait Said
  • Rachid Chiremsel
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


Safety instrumented systems (SISs) are used in the oil and gas industry to detect the onset of hazardous events and/or to mitigate their consequences to humans, assets, and environment. A relevant problem concerning these systems is failure diagnosis. Diagnostic procedures are then required to determine the most probable source of undetected dangerous failures that prevent the system to perform its function. This paper presents a probabilistic fault diagnosis approach of SIS. This is a hybrid approach based on fault tree analysis (FTA) and Bayesian network (BN). Indeed, the minimal cut sets as the potential sources of SIS failure were generated via qualitative analysis of FTA, while diagnosis importance factor of components was calculated by converting the standard FTA in an equivalent BN. The final objective is using diagnosis data to generate a diagnosis map that will be useful to guide repair actions. A diagnosis aid system is developed and implemented under SWI-Prolog tool to facilitate testing and diagnosing of SIS.


SIS Fault tree Bayesian network Decision tree Model-based diagnosis Evidence Diagnostic importance factor 


  1. 1.
    W.M. Goble, A.C. Brombacher, Using a failure modes, effects and diagnostic analysis (FMEDA) to measure diagnostic coverage in programmable electronic systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 66, 145–148 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Rausand, Reliability of safety-critical systems: theory and application (Wiley, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Hoboken, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.C. Grebe, W.M. Goble, FMEDAAccurate product failure metrics. Technical report,, Sellersville, PA (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Novak, A. Zuzek, A. Biasizzo, Sequential diagnosis tool. Microprocess. Microsyst. Embedded Hardw Design. 24(4), 191–197 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K.R. Pattipati, M.G. Alexandridis, Application of heuristic search and information theory to sequential fault diagnosis. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 20(4), 872–887 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Center for Chemical Processes Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for safe automation of chemical processes (Wiley, New York, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Z. Fan, H. Li, A hybrid approach for fault diagnosis of planetary bearings using an internal vibration sensor. Measurement 64, 71–80 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Ming, J. Li, P. Minjun, Y. Shengyuan, Z. Zhijian, A Hybrid Approach for Fault Diagnosis based on Multilevel Flow Models and Artificial Neural Network. Computational Intelligence for Modeling, Control and Automation (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    X. Liu, Z. Liu, A hybrid approach of fault inference and fault identification for aircraft fault diagnosis. Inf. Technol. Comput. Intell. 211, 151–158 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Z. Dong-Hua, Y.H. Yan, Fault diagnosis techniques for dynamic systems. Acta Autom. Sin. 35(6), 748–757 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Assaf, J.B. Dugan, Diagnosis based on reliability analysis using monitors and sensors. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93(4), 509–521 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.K. Sharma, K. Vinesh, Vague reliability analysis for fault diagnosis of cannula fault in power transformer. Appl. Math. Sci. 8(18), 851–863 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Hu, A.G. Starr, A.Y.T. Leung, Operational fault diagnosis of manufacturing systems. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 133, 108–117 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Y. Chang-hao, Z. Chang-an, H. Xiao-jian, Inference method for fault diagnosis of complex systems based on Bayesian network. Intell. Inf. Technol. Appl. 3, 131–136 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P.K. Wojtek, T. Don, Construction of Bayesian networks for diagnostic. Aerospace Conf. Proc. IEEE 5, 193–200 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Z. Yongli, H. Limin, L. Jinling, Bayesian Networks-Based Approach for Power Systems Fault Diagnosis. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 21(2), 634–639 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Bedford, C. Roger, Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    E.G. Frankel, Systems Reliability and Risk Analysis (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1984)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    V. Ramesh, R. Saravannan, Reliability assessment of cogeneration power plant in textile mill using fault tree analysis. Springer. J Fail. Anal. Prevent. 11, 56–70 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    C.H. Lo, Y.K. Wong, A.B. Rad, Bayesian network for fault diagnosis. Department of Electrical Engineering, The HongKong University.
  21. 21.
    A. Darwiche, Modeling and Reasoning with Bayesian Networks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M.S. Hamada, A. Wilson, C.S. Reese, H. Martz, Bayesian Reliability (Springer, New York, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Bobbio, L. Portinale, M. Minichino, E. Ciancamerla, Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 71(3), 249–260 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    L.A. Mary, R. Marvin, Common cause failures in safety instrumented systems on oil and gas installations: implementing defense measures through function testing. Prev. Process Ind. 20, 218–229 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    W.M. Goble, L.C. Harry, Safety Instrumented Systems Verification: Practical Probabilistic Calculations. (The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society ISA, 2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    T.L. Teague, P.J. Gary, Diagnosis procedures from fault trees. Department of Chemical Engineering. (1979)
  27. 27.
    T. Assaf, J.B. Dugan, Diagnosis based on reliability analysis using monitors and sensors. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93(4), 509–521 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prolog (2015), Swi Prolog, Accessed Oct 2015
  29. 29.
    AgenaRisk (2015), Agena Ltd, Accessed Sept 2015

Copyright information

© ASM International 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zakarya Chiremsel
    • 1
  • Rachid Nait Said
    • 1
  • Rachid Chiremsel
    • 2
  1. 1.IHSI-LRPIUniversity of Batna 2BatnaAlgeria
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Batna 2BatnaAlgeria

Personalised recommendations