IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v99y2012icp183-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An extended risk assessment approach for chemical plants applied to a study related to pipe ruptures

Author

Listed:
  • Milazzo, Maria Francesca
  • Aven, Terje

Abstract

Risk assessments and Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) in particular have been used in the chemical industry for many years to support decision-making on the choice of arrangements and measures associated with chemical processes, transportation and storage of dangerous substances. The assessments have been founded on a risk perspective seeing risk as a function of frequency of events (probability) and associated consequences. In this paper we point to the need for extending this approach to place a stronger emphasis on uncertainties. A recently developed risk framework designed to better reflect such uncertainties is presented and applied to a chemical plant and specifically the analysis of accidental events related to the rupture of pipes. Two different ways of implementing the framework are presented, one based on the introduction of probability models and one without. The differences between the standard approach and the extended approaches are discussed from a theoretical point of view as well as from a practical risk analyst perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Aven, Terje, 2012. "An extended risk assessment approach for chemical plants applied to a study related to pipe ruptures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 183-192.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:99:y:2012:i:c:p:183-192
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095183201100264X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2011.12.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dubois, Didier, 2006. "Possibility theory and statistical reasoning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 47-69, November.
    2. James Berger & Elías Moreno & Luis Pericchi & M. Bayarri & José Bernardo & Juan Cano & Julián Horra & Jacinto Martín & David Ríos-Insúa & Bruno Betrò & A. Dasgupta & Paul Gustafson & Larry Wasserman &, 1994. "An overview of robust Bayesian analysis," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 3(1), pages 5-124, June.
    3. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    4. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2009. "On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 1-11, January.
    5. Aven, Terje & Guikema, Seth, 2011. "Whose uncertainty assessments (probability distributions) does a risk assessment report: the analysts' or the experts'?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(10), pages 1257-1262.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emilio Palazzi & Fabio Currò & Bruno Fabiano, 2013. "Accidental Continuous Releases from Coal Processing in Semi-Confined Environment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Montewka, Jakub & Goerlandt, Floris & Kujala, Pentti, 2014. "On a systematic perspective on risk for formal safety assessment (FSA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 77-85.
    3. Tai–ran Wang & Vincent Mousseau & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2015. "Assessing the Performance of a Classification‐Based Vulnerability Analysis Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(9), pages 1674-1689, September.
    4. Maria Milazzo & Giuseppa Ancione & Anna Basco & David Lister & Ernesto Salzano & Giuseppe Maschio, 2013. "Potential loading damage to industrial storage tanks due to volcanic ash fallout," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 66(2), pages 939-953, March.
    5. Wang, Tai-Ran & Mousseau, Vincent & Pedroni, Nicola & Zio, Enrico, 2017. "An empirical classification-based framework for the safety criticality assessment of energy production systems, in presence of inconsistent data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 139-151.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    2. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.
    3. Aven, Terje & Guikema, Seth, 2011. "Whose uncertainty assessments (probability distributions) does a risk assessment report: the analysts' or the experts'?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(10), pages 1257-1262.
    4. Li, Yanfu & Zio, Enrico, 2012. "Uncertainty analysis of the adequacy assessment model of a distributed generation system," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 235-244.
    5. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    6. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    7. Goerlandt, Floris & Montewka, Jakub, 2015. "Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 115-134.
    8. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Veland, H. & Aven, T., 2013. "Risk communication in the light of different risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 34-40.
    10. Yu, Xuchao & Liang, Wei & Zhang, Laibin & Reniers, Genserik & Lu, Linlin, 2018. "Risk assessment of the maintenance process for onshore oil and gas transmission pipelines under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 50-67.
    11. Aven, Terje, 2012. "On the link between risk and exposure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 191-199.
    12. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    13. Aven, T. & Steen, R., 2010. "The concept of ignorance in a risk assessment and risk management context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1117-1122.
    14. Zio, Enrico & Aven, Terje, 2011. "Uncertainties in smart grids behavior and modeling: What are the risks and vulnerabilities? How to analyze them?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6308-6320, October.
    15. Aven, Terje, 2013. "A conceptual framework for linking risk and the elements of the data–information–knowledge–wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 30-36.
    16. Nguyen, Son & Chen, Peggy Shu-Ling & Du, Yuquan & Shi, Wenming, 2019. "A quantitative risk analysis model with integrated deliberative Delphi platform for container shipping operational risks," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 203-227.
    17. Ripamonti, G. & Lonati, G. & Baraldi, P. & Cadini, F. & Zio, E., 2013. "Uncertainty propagation in a model for the estimation of the ground level concentration of dioxin/furans emitted from a waste gasification plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 98-105.
    18. Peng Hou & Xiaojian Yi & Haiping Dong, 2020. "A Spatial Statistic Based Risk Assessment Approach to Prioritize the Pipeline Inspection of the Pipeline Network," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Tang, Yang & Liu, Qingyou & Jing, Jiajia & Yang, Yan & Zou, Zhengwei, 2017. "A framework for identification of maintenance significant items in reliability centered maintenance," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1295-1303.
    20. Hu, Lunhu & Kang, Rui & Pan, Xing & Zuo, Dujun, 2020. "Risk assessment of uncertain random system—Level-1 and level-2 joint propagation of uncertainty and probability in fault tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:99:y:2012:i:c:p:183-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.