Four perspectives on safety analysis

Tor Ståhlhane, Timo Malm

Research output: Contribution to conferenceConference articleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

We have studied the reports from four Nordic companies which did safety analysis of the same system. The system’s safety requirements were based on the EN 954 series and the system is required to comply with this standard’s requirements for category 4. We wanted to study what they did the same way, what they did different and how the differences influenced their assessment of the system. We
went through each company’s report and compared the methods used and the results obtained. These results were then compared – noting what was equal and what was different. They often used different methods and if they used the same method, it was used in different ways and focussing on different part of the system. When they identified the same safety problem, they used different term to describe it and it was thus problematic to compare the results. In order to control that a safety analysis is done according to a specified international standard we need to specify analysis methods, how they will be used and the vocabulary to use when describing the results.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages8
Publication statusPublished - 5 Nov 2020
MoE publication typeNot Eligible
Event30th European Safety and Reliability Conference ESREL 2020, The 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference, PSAM 15 - Venice, Italy
Duration: 1 Nov 20206 Nov 2020
https://www.esrel2020-psam15.org/index.html

Conference

Conference30th European Safety and Reliability Conference ESREL 2020, The 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference, PSAM 15
Abbreviated titleESREL 2020 PSAM 15
CountryItaly
CityVenice
Period1/11/206/11/20
Internet address

Keywords

  • safety analysis
  • safety analysis methods
  • system vocabulary
  • subcontractor agreement

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Four perspectives on safety analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this