Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach

Accident probability estimation is a common and central step to all quantitative risk assessment methods. Among many techniques available, bow-tie model (BT) is very popular because it represent the accident scenario altogether including causes and consequences. However, it suffers a static structure limiting its application in real-time monitoring and probability updating which are key factors in dynamic risk analysis. The present work is focused on using BT approach in a dynamic environment in which the occurrence probability of accident consequences changes. In this method, on one hand, failure probability of primary events of BT, leading to the top event, are developed using physical reliability models, and constantly revised as physical parameters (e.g., pressure, velocity, dimension, etc) change. And, on the other hand, the failure probability of safety barriers of the BT are periodically updated using Bayes’ theorem as new information becomes available over time. Finally, the resulting, updated BT is used to estimate the posterior probability of the consequences which in turn results in an updated risk profile.

[1]  Michalis Christou,et al.  Identification of reference accident scenarios in SEVESO establishments , 2005, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[2]  Warren D. Seider,et al.  Plant-specific dynamic failure assessment using Bayesian theory , 2006 .

[3]  Nathan Siu,et al.  Bayesian parameter estimation in probabilistic risk assessment , 1998 .

[4]  F R Chevreau,et al.  Organizing learning processes on risks by using the bow-tie representation. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[5]  Luigi Portinale,et al.  Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks , 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[6]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Dynamic safety analysis of process systems by mapping bow-tie into Bayesian network , 2013 .

[7]  Norman E. Fenton,et al.  Improved reliability modeling using Bayesian networks and dynamic discretization , 2010, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[8]  William Marsh,et al.  Generalising Event Trees Using Bayesian Networks with a Case Study of Train Derailment , 2005, SAFECOMP.

[9]  Joanne Bechta Dugan,et al.  A discrete-time Bayesian network reliability modeling and analysis framework , 2005, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[10]  Ccps Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis , 1999 .

[11]  J. E. Cockshott Probability Bow-Ties: A Transparent Risk Management Tool , 2005 .

[12]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Use Maximum-Credible Accident Scenarios for Realistic and Reliable Risk Assessment , 2001 .

[13]  Joseph Tiran,et al.  Condition-based fault tree analysis (CBFTA): A new method for improved fault tree analysis (FTA), reliability and safety calculations , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[14]  P. L Hall,et al.  Probabilistic physics-of-failure models for component reliabilities using Monte Carlo simulation and Weibull analysis: a parametric study , 2003, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[15]  Sou-Sen Leu,et al.  Bayesian updating of reliability of civil infrastructure facilities based on condition-state data and fault-tree model , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[16]  Christian Delvosalle,et al.  ARAMIS project: a comprehensive methodology for the identification of reference accident scenarios in process industries. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[17]  Benoît Iung,et al.  Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas , 2012, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[18]  G. Apostolakis Bayesian Methods in Risk Assessment , 1981 .

[19]  Andrew Thomas,et al.  WinBUGS - A Bayesian modelling framework: Concepts, structure, and extensibility , 2000, Stat. Comput..

[20]  Richard Gowland,et al.  The accidental risk assessment methodology for industries (ARAMIS)/layer of protection analysis (LOPA) methodology: a step forward towards convergent practices in risk assessment? , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[21]  Faisal Khan,et al.  SHIPP methodology: Predictive accident modeling approach. Part II. Validation with case study , 2011 .

[22]  Charles E Ebeling,et al.  An Introduction to Reliability and Maintainability Engineering , 1996 .

[23]  Curtis Smith,et al.  Construction of event-tree/fault-tree models from a Markov approach to dynamic system reliability , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[24]  Curtis Smith,et al.  Bayesian inference in probabilistic risk assessment - The current state of the art , 2009, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[25]  Nima Khakzad,et al.  Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches , 2011, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[26]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Techniques and methodologies for risk analysis in chemical process industries , 1998 .

[27]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Dynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory , 2009 .

[28]  Cécile Fiévez,et al.  ARAMIS project: a more explicit demonstration of risk control through the use of bow-tie diagrams and the evaluation of safety barrier performance. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[29]  Karl N. Fleming,et al.  Comparison of Markov model and fault tree approach in determining initiating event frequency for systems with two train configurations , 1996 .

[30]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Modelling of BP Texas City refinery accident using dynamic risk assessment approach , 2010 .

[31]  Adam S. Markowski,et al.  Fuzzy logic for process safety analysis , 2009 .