IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijsaem/v15y2024i7d10.1007_s13198-024-02352-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative analysis of failure consequences using qualitative and quantitative methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Mohamed Attia

    (Central Engineering Services, Saudi Aramco)

  • Jyoti Sinha

    (The University of Manchester)

Abstract

As a management tool, risk-based inspection (RBI) addresses an area of risk management not completely addressed in other organizational risk management Efforts, such as process hazard analysis (PHA) or reliability-centered maintenance (RCM). The RBI approach is a defined process for establishing and managing an inspection program based on understanding the failure probability and consequences of each equipment item. The RBI approach can focus the inspection program of the facility on the higher-risk equipment items, reducing the overall plant risk of a catastrophic failure while simultaneously providing a significant reduction to the cost of the ongoing inspection program. Moreover, it ensures all damage mechanisms identified in the corrosion study are being addressed. This paper outlines the different types of RBI models, i.e., qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative models. Moreover, it provides insights into the basis of the most widely used quantitative RBI models in the oil and gas industry, i.e., API risk models, and then implemented them through a case study at an offshore gas production platform to evaluate and critically discuss the difference in the calculated consequences of failure resulting from the two methodologies of estimating the impact areas. The case study presented in this paper demonstrated the inconsistency in the calculated risk resulting from the two risk models, whereas the difference was several orders of magnitude for some equipment items. The resulting inspection and maintenance plans are likely to be significantly different if the same risk matrix and risk tolerance are used for both risk models.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohamed Attia & Jyoti Sinha, 2024. "Comparative analysis of failure consequences using qualitative and quantitative methodologies," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 15(7), pages 3451-3465, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijsaem:v:15:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s13198-024-02352-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s13198-024-02352-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13198-024-02352-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13198-024-02352-5?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.

    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:spr:ijsaem:v:15:y:2024:i:7:d:10.1007_s13198-024-02352-5. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.