Fault Tree Analysis



The fault tree analysis is a standard method for improvement of reliability, which is applied in various sectors, such as nuclear industry, air and space industry, electrical industry, chemical industry, railway industry, transport, software reliability, and insurance. The fault tree analysis is described in a way of the procedure for application together with small practical examples. The development of the fault trees and their qualitative and quantitative evaluation is presented. The illustrative examples for the application of the importance measures, such as Fussel?Vesely importance, risk achievement worth, risk reduction worth, and Birnbaum importance, are given. The applications of the fault tree analysis are mentioned, and a comprehensive list of related references is given.


Failure Probability Basic Event Fault Tree Test Interval Fault Tree Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    ASME RA-S-2002 (2002) Standard for probabilistic risk assessment for nuclear power plant applications, addendum (2005). ASMEGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    RA-S-2008 (2008) Standard for level 1/large early release frequency probabilistic risk assessment for nuclear power plant applications. ASMEGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    IEC 61025 (2006) Fault tree analysis (FTA). IECGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roberts NH, Vesely WE, Haasl D, Goldberg FF (1981) Fault tree handbook, NUREG-0492. NRC, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vesely W, Dugan J, Fragola J et al (2002) Fault tree handbook with aerospace applications. National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumamoto H, Henley EJ (1996) Probabilistic risk assessment and management for engineers and scientists. IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Villemeur A (1992) Reliability, availability, maintainability and safety assessment: methods and techniques. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    No 50-P-8 (1995) Procedures for conduction probabilistic safety assessments of nuclear power plants (level 2), Safety Series. IAEAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    No 50-P-12 (1996) Procedures for conduction probabilistic safety assessments of nuclear power plants (level 3), Safety Series. IAEAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    No 50-P-12 (1996) Procedures for conduction probabilistic safety assessments of nuclear power plants (level 3), Safety Series. IAEAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide (1982) NUREG/CR-2300, NRCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Probabilistic safety analysis procedures guide (1985) NUREG/CR-2815, NRCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    PRA NASA Guide (2002) Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide for NASA managers and practitioners. NASAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Čepin M (2005) Analysis of truncation limit in probabilistic safety assessment. Rel Eng Syst Saf 87(3):395?403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Interim reliability evaluation program procedures guide (1983) NUREG/CR-2728, NRCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Analysis of core damage frequency (1990) NUREG/CR-4550, NRCGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    WASH-1400 (1975) Reactor safety study: an assessment of accident risks in US commercial nuclear power plants, NRCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    WASH-740 (1957) Theoretical possibilities and consequences of major accidents in large nuclear power plants (The Brookhaven Report), AECGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    German Risk Study (1979) Deutsche Risikostudie Kernkraftwerke, GRS, FRGGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brisbois J, Lanore JM, Villemeur A et al (1990) Les etudes probabilistes de surete des centrales nucleaires francaises de 900 et 1300 MWeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Severe accident risks: an assessment for five US nuclear power plants (1989) NUREG/CR-1150, NRCGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Swaminathan S, Smidts C (1999) The mathematical formulation for the event sequence diagram framework. Rel Eng Syst Saf 65:103?118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Papazoglou IA (1998) Mathematical foundations of event trees. Rel Eng Syst Saf 61:169?183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Čepin M, Mavko B (2002) A dynamic fault tree. Rel Eng Syst Saf 75(1):83?91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vrbani? I, Kaštelan M (1997) Optimization of NPP Krško PSA model structure by the employment of house events. Nuclear Energy in Central Europe, Proceedings, pp 414?421Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    IEEE Standard 500 (1984) IEEE Guide to the collection and presentation of electrical, electronic, sensing component, and mechanical equipment reliability data for nuclear-power generating stations, appendix D. Reliability Data for Nuclear-Power Generating Stations, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    T-book: reliability data of components in nordic nuclear power plants (2000) Villingby, Sweden TUD Office and P²n ConsultingGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    T-Book (1992), ATVGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    IAEA-TECDOC-478 (1988) Component reliability data for use in probabilistic safety assessment. IAEAGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jordan Cizelj R, Mavko B, Kljenak I (2001) Component reliability assessment using quantitative and qualitative data. Rel Eng Syst Saf 71:81?95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atwood CL, La Chance JL, Martz HF et al (2003) Handbook of parameter estimation for probabilistic risk assessment (NUREG/CR-6823). NRCGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Measures of risk importance and their applications (1983) NUREG/CR-3385, NRCGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Borgonovo E, Apostolakis GE (2001) A new importance measure for risk-informed decision making. Rel Eng Syst Saf 72:193?212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Čepin M (2010) Applications of the fault tree analysis for vulnerability studies (Chapter 8). In: Lesage A, Tondreau J (eds) Nuclear fuels: manufacturing processes, forms, and safety. Nova, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Čepin M, Cizelj L, Leskovar M, Mavko B (2006) Vulnerability analysis of a nuclear power plant considering detonations of explosive devices. J Nucl Sci Tech 43(10):1258?1269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Muthukumar CT, Guarro SB, Apostolakis G (1994) Dependability of embedded software systems, reliability and safety assessment of dynamic process systems. In: Aldemir T, Siu NS, Mosleh A, Cacciabue PC, Goktepe BG (eds) NATO ASI series F. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 59?77Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Čepin M, Mavko B (1999) Fault tree developed by an object-based method improves requirements specification for safety-related systems. Rel Eng Syst Saf 63:111?125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Garrett J, Guarro SB, Apostolakis GE (1995) The dynamic flowgraph methodology for assessing the dependability of embedded software systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(5):824?840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vaurio JK (1995) Optimization of test and maintenance intervals based on risk and cost. Rel Eng Syst Saf 49:23?36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Čepin M, Mavko B (1997) Probabilistic safety assessment improves surveillance requirements in technical specifications. Rel Eng Syst Saf 56:69?77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Martorell S, Carlos S, Sanchez A, Serradell V (2000) Constrained optimization of test intervals using a steady-state genetic algorithm. Rel Eng Syst Saf 67:215?232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Čepin M (2002) Optimization of safety equipment outages improves safety. Rel Eng Syst Saf 77:71?80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yang JE, Sung TY, Yin Y (2000) Optimization of the surveillance test interval of the safety systems at the plant level. Nucl Tech 132:352?365Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Harunuzzaman M, Aldemir T (1996) Optimization of standby safety system maintenance schedules in nuclear power plants. Nucl Tech 113:354?367Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Čepin M, Gomez Cobo A, Martorell S et al (1999) Methods for testing and maintenance of safety related equipment: examples from an IAEA research project. In: Proceedings of ESREL99: safety and reliability, pp 247?251Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    IAEA-TECDOC-669 (1992) Case study on the use of PSA methods: assessment of technical specifications for the reactor protection system instrumentation. IAEA, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Čepin M, Martorell S (2002) Evaluation of allowed outage time considering a set of plant configurations. Rel Eng Syst Saf 78:259?266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Siu N (1994) Risk assessment for dynamic systems: an overview. Rel Eng Syst Saf 43:43?73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ren Y, Dugan JB (1998) Optimal design of reliable systems using static and dynamic fault trees. IEEE Trans Rel 234?244Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dugan JB (1991) Automated analysis of phased-mission reliability. IEEE Trans Rel 40(1):45?52CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dugan JB, Lyu MR (1994) System reliability analysis of an N-version programming application. IEEE Trans Rel 43(4):513?519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Burdick GR, Fussel JB, Rasmuson DM, Wilson JR (1977) Phased mission analysis: a review of new developments and an application. IEEE Trans Rel R 26(1):43?49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Modarres M, Cheon SW (1999) Function-centered modeling of engineering systems using the goal-success tree technique and functional primitives. Rel Eng Syst Saf 64:181?200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hu YS, Modarres M (1999) Evaluating system behavior through dynamic master logic diagram modeling. Rel Eng Syst Saf 64:241?269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Matsuoka T, Kobayashi M (1988) GO-FLOW: a new reliability analysis methodology. Nucl Sci Eng 98:64?78Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Farmer F (1967) Reactor safety and siting: a proposed risk criterion. Nucl Saf 8:539?548Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Apostolakis GE (2004) How useful is quantitative risk assessment? Risk Anal 24:515?520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Berg HP, Gortz R, Schimetschka E (2003) Quantitative probabilistic safety criteria for licensing and operation of nuclear plants. BFS-SK-03/03, BFSGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Čepin M (2007) The risk criteria for assessment of temporary changes in a nuclear power plant. Risk Anal 27(4):991?998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Caruso MA, Cheok MC, Cunningham MA et al (1999) An approach for using risk assessment in risk-informed decisions on plant-specific changes to the licensing basis. Rel Eng Syst Saf 63:231?242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Use of probabilistic risk assessment methods in nuclear activities: final policy statement (1995) Federal Register, NRCGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Individual plant examination for severe accident vulnerabilities-10CFR 50.54(f) (1988) Generic Letter, GL 88-20, NRCGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Criteria for the performance of probabilistic safety assessment applications (2002) GS-1.14, CSNGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Safety assessment principles for nuclear plants (1992) Health & Safety Executive, LondonGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    RG 1.174 (2002) An approach for using probabilistic risk assessment in risk-informed decisions on plant-specific changes to the licensing basis, NRCGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    RG 1.177 (1998) An approach for plant-specific, risk-informed decision making: technical specifications, NRCGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    RG 1.200 (2007) An approach for determining the technical adequacy of probabilistic risk assessment results for risk-informed activities, NRCGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    RG 1.201 (2006) Guidelines for categorizing structures, systems, and components in nuclear power plants according to their safety significance, NRCGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) for nuclear power plants, regulatory standard (2005) S-294, Canadian Nuclear Safety CommissionGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Probabilistic safety analysis in safety management of nuclear power plants (2003) YVL-2.8, STUKGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Holmberg J, Puikkinen U, Rosquist T, Simola K (2001) Decision criteria in PSA applications. NKS-44Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Samanta P, Kim IS, Mankamo T, Vesely WE (1995) Handbook of methods for risk-based analyses of technical specifications (NUREG/CR-6141). NRCGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    TR-105396 (1995) PSA applications guide. Electric Power Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Martorell S, Carlos S, Villanueva JF, Sánchez AI et al (2006) Use of multiple objective evolutionary algorithms in optimizing surveillance requirements. Rel Eng Syst Saf 91(9):1027?1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Keller W, Modarres M (2005) A Historical overview of probabilistic risk assessment development and its use in the nuclear power industry: a tribute to the late Professor Norman Carl Rasmussen. Rel Eng Syst Saf 89(3):271?285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    NUREG/CR-1278 (1983) Handbook for human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plants application. NRCGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Čepin M (2008) DEPEND-HRA: a method for consideration of dependency in human reliability analysis. Rel Eng Syst Saf 93(10):1452?1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Čepin M (2007) Importance of human contribution within the human reliability analysis (IJS-HRA). J Loss Prev Proc Ind 21(3):268?276Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Prošek A, Čepin M (2008) Success criteria time windows of operator actions using RELAP5/MOD33 within human reliability analysis. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 21(3):260?267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Volkanovski A, Čepin M, Mavko B (2009) Application of the fault tree analysis for assessment of power system reliability. Rel Eng Syst Saf 94(6):1116?1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations