The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Methods and models in process safety and risk management: Past, present and future
Khan, F., Rathnayaka, S., & Ahmed, S. (2015) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2015.07.005 · Cited by 649
Self-citationShahriar, A., Sadiq, R., & Tesfamariam, S. (2012) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.12.007 · Cited by 306
Self-citationAfzal, F., Yunfei, S., Nazir, M., & Bhatti, S. M. (2021) · International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · doi:10.1108/ijmpb-02-2019-0047 · Cited by 172
Islam, M. S., Nepal, M. P., Skitmore, M., & Attarzadeh, M. (2017) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2017.06.001 · Cited by 163
Zhang, C., Zhang, D., Zhang, M., & Mao, W. (2019) · Ocean Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.05.053 · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferdous, R., Khan, F., Sadiq, R., Amyotte, P., & Veitch, B.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-19
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 86-107
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2163961586
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01475.x
- The paper
- Ferdous, R., Khan, F., Sadiq, R., Amyotte, P., & Veitch, B. (2011). Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01475.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.