Jump to content

Talk:Fault tree analysis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plan for expansion

[edit]

This page was created to give a higher amount of detailed FTA information than could be realistically provided in safety engineering. Here's the plan of information to be added:

  1. Links to relavent pages
  2. Reduction in FTA detail in safety engineering article and incorporate of links to fault tree analysis
  3. Diagrams of event types
  4. Diagrams of gate types
  5. Explanation of cutsets and minimal cutsets
  6. Discussion on some of the advantages and disadvantages of FTA versus other methods

Colin H 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix solution method

[edit]

We use the matrix soution method to got the final result of the FTA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.10.154 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 November 2009‎

Figure

[edit]

The figure does not conform to standard FTA usage. The inputs and outputs should be events. In particular, the top output should be "Top Undesired Event" or the like, not "Subsystem A". Van Parunak (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even more seriously it connects one gate to another without an intermediate event. Chemical Engineer (talk) 11:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History section

[edit]

The fifth paragraph under History is a mess -- the Software discussion takes over in an almost incoherent way. Someone with specific knowledge of FTA, its relationship with Software, and a grasp of English should address that paragraph. Picojeff (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took this content out. It might be useful to include history of the application of FTA to software in the history section, but discussion about the quantitative and qualitative aspects of FTA with respect to software and humans probably belongs under analysis. Rich Baldwin (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The links I removed were all off topic or promotional. Of those restored:

  • SAPHIRE is software, so it most definitely doesn't belong.
  • RIAC is an organization, so it most definitely doesn't belong.
  • FAA System Safety Handbook - I don't understand why this was linked after briefly skimming it.

The applicable policies/guidelines are WP:NOT and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of these links were promotional - they are government-sponsored, not private interests. All three are very much on-topic. FTA cannot be effectively performed on any significant scale without software. SAPHIRE is a long-standing government-published FTA software tool, and is mentioned in the article. As one of the earliest FTA software tools it deserves mention (as does CAFTA from EPRI). RIAC (now DSIAC) is a DoD-sponsored organization that has published works on reliability and safety for decades. It is well known to professionals who perform FTA and is definitely topical. The FAA System Safety Handbook includes extensive materials on FTA in the chapters on analysis methods. I've moved the FAA and RIAC content to the history section with cites so this is placed in perspective. Rich Baldwin (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at WP:EL?
"The FAA System Safety Handbook includes extensive materials on FTA in the chapters on analysis methods." Thanks. I figured there must be something relevant in there, I just couldn't find it quickly. Which chapters, pages? --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See chapters 7, 8, and 9 of the FAA SSH. I did read WP:EL and was attempting to comply. RIAC for example is a recognized authority, and its material has generally not been considered promotional because it is government-sponsored. Since there is now content in the article the EL section should no longer be needed. Rich Baldwin (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, thanks! How about using FAA SSH as a reference?
We're not discussing in general material from RIAC, just what is offered from the link. Does RIAC have information specific to FTA that isn't included in the article and cannot be included in the article body, properly reference? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAA SSH and RIAC are now linked as references in the history section, as noted above. See paragraphs 2 and 3 under History. The article has several references to RAC/RIAC publications. The military history could still be fleshed out a bit more. Rich Baldwin (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

[edit]

I've added it to WikiProject Systems and upgraded it to a C-class article; the article is well-referenced and has good supporting materials. I'd recommend taking it through a B-class review, which I may do myself if I have time, but I'll gladly defer to anyone with subject knowledge. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priority AND gate

[edit]

Given that the Priority AND gate requires a conditioning event to specify the priority sequence, wouldn't it therefore include a side branch by default (i.e. in the same way as the Inhibit gate)? Does it need to be added? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for refimprove

[edit]

After a further read of the rest of the article, I've noticed that "History" is the only section that is well-cited; others are mostly or entirely uncited. I've tagged it for {{refimprove}} for the other sections to have added citations. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Noticed a link to theriac.org in the text leads to a 404 now. Someone more knowledgeable in this subject than I should see if those materials are available elsewhere and update the links.

I don't want to remove the broken links without giving them a fair chance to be redirected to a working set of content.173.250.185.124 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now.Rich Baldwin (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fault tree analysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fault_tree_analysis&oldid=1207190035"