方法对比

	稳健故障树分析	稳健的失效模式与影响分析
领域	实验设计	实验设计
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	1980s–2000s (robustness extensions to classical FTA ca. 1961)	1980s–1990s
提出者	Extended from classical FTA (Watson, 1961; Bell Labs / U.S. Air Force); robustness extensions developed through reliability engineering and uncertainty quantification research from the 1980s onward	Extension of traditional FMEA (MIL-P-1629, 1949) integrated with Taguchi robust design philosophy (Genichi Taguchi, 1980s)
类型	Quantitative reliability and safety analysis with uncertainty propagation	Risk analysis with variability quantification
开创性文献	Vesely, W. E., Goldberg, F. F., Roberts, N. H., & Haasl, D. F. (1981). Fault Tree Handbook. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0492.	Stamatis, D. H. (2003). Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: FMEA from Theory to Execution (2nd ed.). ASQ Quality Press. ISBN: 978-0873895989
别名	Robust FTA, Uncertainty-aware FTA, FTA with interval analysis, Imprecise probability FTA	Robust FMEA, Noise-Aware FMEA, Variability-Integrated FMEA, Robustness-Based FMEA
相关	6	4
摘要	Robust Fault Tree Analysis (Robust FTA) extends classical fault tree analysis by explicitly representing and propagating uncertainty in component failure probabilities. Rather than assigning single point estimates to basic events, it uses probability distributions, interval bounds, or imprecise probabilities, then propagates these through the logical tree structure to obtain bounds or distributions on the top-event failure probability. This makes risk conclusions defensible under incomplete or variable data.	Robust Failure Mode and Effects Analysis extends the classical FMEA framework by explicitly incorporating noise factors, parameter variability, and environmental variation into the risk assessment process. Rather than treating failure likelihood as a single deterministic estimate, it uses robust design principles — most notably from Taguchi's quality engineering — to evaluate how process variability and uncontrollable noise factors influence the probability and severity of each failure mode, yielding risk priority numbers that reflect real-world variability.