A comparative critical study between FMEA and FTA risk analysis methods

Abstract

Today there is used an overwhelming number of different risk analyses techniques with acronyms such as: FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) and its extension FMECA (Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis), DRBFM (Design Review by Failure Mode), FTA (Fault Tree Analysis) and and its extension ETA (Event Tree Analysis), HAZOP (Hazard & Operability Studies), HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) and What-if/Checklist. However, the most used analysis techniques in the mechanical and electrical industry are FMEA and FTA. In FMEA, which is an inductive method, information about the consequences and effects of the failures is usually collected through interviews with experienced people, and with different knowledge i.e., cross-functional groups. The FMEA is used to capture potential failures/risks & impacts and prioritize them on a numeric scale called Risk Priority Number (RPN) which ranges from 1 to 1000. FTA is a deductive method i.e., a general system state is decomposed into chains of more basic events of components. The logical interrelationship of how such basic events depend on and affect each other is often described analytically in a reliability structure which can be visualized as a tree. Both methods are very time-consuming to be applied thoroughly, and this is why it is oftenly not done so. As a consequence possible failure modes may not be identified. To address these shortcomings, it is proposed to use a combination of FTA and FMEA.