Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State-based modelling in hazard identification

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The signed directed graph (SDG) is the most commonly used type of model for automated hazard identification in chemical plants. Although SDG models are efficient in simulating the plant, they have some weaknesses, which are discussed here in relation to typical process industry examples. Ways to tackle these problems are suggested, and the view is taken that a state-based formalism is needed, to take account of the discrete components in the system, their connection together, and their behaviour over time. A strong representation for operations and actions is also needed, to make the models appropriate for modelling batch processes. A research prototype for HAZOP studies on batch plants (CHECKOP) is also presented, as an illustration of the suggested approach to modelling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lees FP (1984) Process computer alarm and disturbance analysis: Outline of methods for systematic synthesis of the fault propagation structure. Comput Chem Eng 8(2):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Venkatasubramanian V, Rengaswamy R, Kavuri SN (2003) A review of process fault detection and diagnosis, Part II: Qualitative models and search strategies. Comput Chem Eng 27:313–326

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hunt A, Kelly BE, Mullhi JS, Lees FP, Rushton AG (1993) The propagation of faults in process plants (Parts 6-10). Reliab Eng Sys Saf 39:173–250

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heino P, Kotikunnas E, Shei WF, Shao CC, Chen CH (1995) Computer-aided HAZOP with knowledge-based identification of hazardous event chains. Loss Prev Saf Prom Proc Ind 1:645–656

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shimada Y, Suzuki K, Sayama H (1996) Computer-aided operability study. Comput Chem Eng 20(6):905–913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Catino CA, Ungar LH (1995) Model based approach to automated hazard identification of chemical plants. AIChE J 41(1):97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan FI, Abbassi SA (2000) Towards automation of HAZOP with a new tool EXPERTOP. Envir Mod Soft 15(1):67–77

    Google Scholar 

  8. McCoy SA, Wakeman SJ, Larkin FD, Jefferson ML, Chung PWH, Rushton AG, Lees FP, Heino PM (1999) HAZID, a computer aid for hazard identification. Trans IChemE, Part B (Process Safety and Environmental Protection) 77:317–353 (Papers 1 to 3 in a series of 5)

    Google Scholar 

  9. McCoy SA, Wakeman SJ, Larkin FD, Chung PWH, Rushton AG, Lees FP (2000) HAZID, a computer aid for hazard identification. Trans IChemE, Part B (Process Safety and Environmental Protection) 78:91–142 (P. 4 and 5 in a series of 5)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vaidhyanathan R, Venkatasubramanian V, Dyke FT (1996) HAZOPExpert: An expert system for automating HAZOP analysis. Proc Saf Progr 15(2):80–88

    Google Scholar 

  11. ANSI/ISA (1995) ANSI/ISA-S88.01-1995 Standard-Batch Control, Part 1: Models and Terminology

  12. Murata T (1989) Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proc IEEE 77(4):541–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. De Kleer J, Brown, JS (1984) A qualitative physics based on confluences. Art Intelli 24:7–83

    Google Scholar 

  14. Forbus KD (1984) Qualitative process theory. Art Intelli 24:85–168

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kuipers B (1986) Qualitative simulation. Art Intelli 29:289–388

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Chemical Industries Association Limited. A Guide to Hazard and Operability Studies. Chemical Industry Safety and Health Council of the Chemical Industries Association, 1977

  17. Knowlton RE (1992) A Manual of Hazard and Operability Studies: The creative identification of deviations and disturbances. Chemetics International Ltd. (Vancouver, B.C.)

  18. Lawley HG (1974) perability studies and hazard analysis. Chem Eng Prog 70(4)

  19. Mushtaq F, Chung PWH (2000) A systematic Hazop procedure for batch processes, and its application to pipeless plants. J Loss Prev Proc Ind 13:41–48

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kletz T (1999) HAZOP and HAZAN (4th edn). Institution of Chemical Engineers (Rugby), ISBN: 0 85295 421 2

  21. Batres R, Soutter J, Asprey SP, Chung PWH (2002) Operating procedure synthesis: Science or art? Knowl Eng Rev 13(3):261–294

    Google Scholar 

  22. Soutter J, Chung PWH (1997) Utilising hybrid problem solving to solve operating procedure synthesis problems. In Proc. 1997 IChemE Jubilee Res Event

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hazid Technologies Ltd., Suite 21, SGCS Business Park, Technology Drive, Beeston, Nottingham, NG9 2ND, UK

    Stephen A. McCoy

  2. Department of Computer Science, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leics., LE11 3TU, United Kingdom

    Dingfeng Zhou & Paul W. H. Chung

Authors
  1. Stephen A. McCoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dingfeng Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul W. H. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen A. McCoy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCoy, S.A., Zhou, D. & Chung, P.W.H. State-based modelling in hazard identification. Appl Intell 24, 263–279 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-006-8517-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-006-8517-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation