Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 657–661 | Cite as

Safety and Risk Analysis of an Operational Heater Using Bayesian Network

Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed

Abstract

Industrials systems, including chemical industries, can be exposed to undesired events that may cause terrible accidents. These accidents must be controlled and reduced. To this end, numerous risk analysis management approaches have been aimed at reducing the risks to a tolerable level to avoid the catastrophic accident. This reduction is achieved by implementing several layers of protection, including organizational and technical barriers, this later known as safety-instrumented systems (SIS). The main objective assigned to a SIS is the detection of dangerous situations and implementation of a set of reactions necessary at a specific time to ensure that the equipment is under control. This function is typically name the safety-instrumented function and is characterized by a safety integrity level (SIL). A SIL is defined as a measure of the confidence to perform the safety function. This paper deals with the uncertainties of SIS using one of several robust probabilistic methods from a group of Bayesian networks (BN). A case study of an operational heater is used to illustrate the application. The results are then compared with the risk tolerance criteria and the safety of the improved process by updating the BN model.

Keywords

Bayesian network Safety-instrumented system Failure analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their comments that have allowed the improvement of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (2003) IEC 61511: functional safety—safety instrumented systems for the process industry. Part1: framework, definitions, system, hardware and software requirementsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Electrotechnical Commission (2010) IEC 61508: functional safety of electrical/ electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. Part1: General requirements. Edition 2.0, April 2010Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y. Liu, M. A. Lundteigen, Reliability Importance of the Channels in Safety Instrumented Systems, in 2nd International Conference on Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Applications (ICIMSA2015), Tokyo, Japan, 2015Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Y. Dutuit, F. Innal, A. Rauzy, J.-P. Signoret, Probabilistic assessments in relationship with safety integrity levels by using Fault Trees. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93(12), 1867–1876 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.R. Kannan, Bayesian networks: application in safety instrumentation and risk reduction. ISA Trans. 46(2), 255–259 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. Ouazraouia, R. Nait-Saida, M. Bourarechea, I. Sellami, Layers of protection analysis in the framework of possibility theory. J. Hazard. Mater. 262, 168–178 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference (Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, 1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Philippe, L. Jouffe, Complex system reliability modelling with Dynamic Object Oriented Bayesian Networks (DOOBN). Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 91(2), 149–162 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Hanea, B. Ale, Risk of human fatality in building fires: A decision tool using Bayesian networks. Fire Saf. J. 44(5), 704–710 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Bobbioa, L. Portinalea, M. Minichinob, E. Ciancamerlab, Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 71(3), 249–260 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    F.V. Jensen, T.D. Nielsen, Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs, 2nd edn. (Springer, New York, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. Doguc, J.E. Ramirez-Marquez, A generic method for estimating system reliability using Bayesian networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 94(2), 542–550 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IEC61882. Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP studies)—Application Guide, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 2001Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    AgenaRisk software, version 6.1 (2015). <www.agenarisk.com>
  15. 15.
    Methodology for Layer of Protection Analysis, SONATRACH Company, Hassi-R’Mel, Rep. S-30-1240-140, 2007Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    OREDA, Offshore Reliability Data Handbook, 4th edn. (OREDA, Norway, 2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    CCPS, Layer Of Protection Analysis, Simplified Process Assessment (Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute for Chemical Engineers, New York, 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Batna University, IHSI-LRPIBatnaAlgeria

Personalised recommendations