The bowtie method: A review

Safety Science

Volumn 88, Issue , 2015, Pages 211-218

  de Ruijter, A ^a,b   Guldenmund, F ^b  

^a CGE Risk Management Solutions Vlietweg   (Netherlands)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bowtie; Qualitative risk assessment; Quantitative risk assessment; Risk analysis

Indexed keywords

RISK ANALYSIS; RISK PERCEPTION;

BOW TIE; BOW-TIE METHODS; CAUSE-EFFECT; EVENT TREES; FAULT AND EVENT TREES; FAULT-TREES; QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT; QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARTICLE; BOWTIE METHOD; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; HUMAN; MONITORING; OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

EID: 84961218774     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: 18791042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.001     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abimbola, M., Khan, F., Khakzad, N., Dynamic safety risk analysis of offshore drilling. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 30:July (2014), 74–85.
2. Ale, B.J.M., Baksteen, H., Bellamy, L.J., Bloemhof, A., Goossens, L.H., Hale, A.R., Mud, M.L., Oh, J., Papazoglou, I.A., Post, J., Whiston, J.Y., Quantifying occupational risk: the development of an occupational risk model. Saf. Sci. 46:2 (2008), 176–185.
3. Ale, B.J.M., Bellamy, L.J., Baksteen, H., Damen, M., Goossens, L.H.J., Hale, A.R., Mud, M., Oh, J., Papazoglou, I.A., Whiston, J.Y., Accidents in the construction industry in the Netherlands: an analysis of accident reports using Storybuilder. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 93:10 (2008), 1523–1533.
4. Aneziris, O.N., Papazoglou, I.A., Baksteen, H., Mud, M., Ale, B.J., Bellamy, L.J., Hale, A.R., Bloemhoff, A., Post, J., Oh, J., Quantified risk assessment for fall from height. Saf. Sci. 46:2 (2008), 198–220.
5. Aneziris, O.N., Papazoglou, I.A., Konstandinidou, M., Baksteen, H., Mud, M.L., Damen, M., Bellamy, L.J., Oh, J., Quantification of occupational risk owing to contact with moving parts of machines. Saf. Sci. 51 (2013), 382–396.
6. Aneziris, O.N., Papazoglou, I.A., Mud, M., Damen, M., Bellamy, L.J., Manuel, H.J., Oh, J., Occupational risk quantification owing to falling objects. Saf. Sci. 69 (2014), 57–70.
7. Aneziris, O.N., Papazoglou, I.A., Mud, M.L., Damen, M., Kuiper, J., Baksteen, H., Ale, B.J., Bellamy, L.J., Hale, A.R., Bloemhoff, A., Post, J.G., Oh, J., Towards risk assessment for crane activities. Saf. Sci. 46:6 (2008), 872–884.
8. Aqlan, F., Mustafa Ali, E., Integrating lean principles and fuzzy bow-tie analysis for risk assessment in chemical industry. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29:May (2014), 39–48.
9. Badreddine, A., Amor, N.B., A new approach to construct optimal bow tie diagrams for risk analysis. Trends Appl. Intell. Syst., 2010, 595–604.
10. Badreddine, A., Amor, N.B., A Bayesian approach to construct bow tie diagrams for risk evaluation. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 91:3 (2013), 159–171.
11. Badreddine, A., Romdhane, T.B., HajKacem, M.A.B., Amor, N.B., A new multi-objectives approach to implement preventive and protective barriers in bow tie diagram. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 32 (2014), 238–253.
12. Bellamy, L.J., Ale, B.J.M., Geyer, T., Goossens, L.H., Hale, A.R., Oh, J., Mud, M.L., Bloemhof, A., Papazoglou, I.A., Whiston, J., Storybuilder – a tool for the analysis of accident reports. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92:6 (2007), 735–744.
13. Bellamy, L.J., Ale, B.J.M., Whiston, J.Y., Mud, M.L., Baksteen, H., Hale, A.R., Papazoglou, I.A., Bloemhoff, A., Damen, M., Oh, J.I.H., The software tool Storybuilder and the analysis of the horrible stories of occupational accidents. Saf. Sci. 46:2 (2008), 186–197.
14. Bellamy, L.J., Mud, M., Manuel, H.J., Oh, J.I.H., Analysis of underlying causes of investigated loss of containment incidents in Dutch Seveso plants using the Storybuilder method. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26:6 (2013), 1039–1059.
15. Chevreau, F., Wybo, J., Cauchois, D., Organizing learning processes on risks by using the bow-tie representation. J. Hazard. Mater. 130:3 (2006), 276–283.
16. Cockshott, J., Probability bow-ties: a transparent risk management tool. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 83:4 (2005), 307–316.
17. Cullen, W.D., The Public Inquiry into the Piper Alpha Disaster. 1990, Stationery Office, London.
18. de Dianous, V., Fiévez, C., Aramis project: a more explicit demonstration of risk control through the use of bow-tie diagrams and the evaluation of safety barrier performance. J. Hazard. Mater. 130:3 (2006), 220–233.
19. Deacon, T., Amyotte, P.R., Khan, F.I., Mackinnon, S., A framework for human error analysis of offshore evacuations. Saf. Sci. 51:1 (2013), 319–327.
20. Delvosalle, C., Fiévez, C., Pipart, A., Debray, B., Aramis project: a comprehensive methodology for the identification of reference accident scenarios in process industries. J. Hazard. Mater. 130:3 (2006), 200–219.
21. Delvosalle, C., Fievez, C., Pipart, A., Fabrega, J.C., Planas, E., Christou, M., Mushtaq, F., Identification of reference accident scenarios in Seveso establishments. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 90 (2005), 238–246.
22. Duijm, N.J., Safety-barrier diagrams as a safety management tool. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 94:2 (2009), 332–341.
23. Ericson, C.A., Fault tree analysis – a history. The 17th International System Safety Conference. Seattle, 1999, 1–9.
24. Ericson, C.A., Event tree analysis. Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety, 2005, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 223–234 (Chapter 12).
25. Ferdous, R., Khan, F., Sadiq, R., Amyotte, P., Veitch, B., Handling and updating uncertain information in bow-tie analysis. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 25:1 (2012), 8–19.
26. Ferdous, R., Khan, F., Sadiq, R., Amyotte, P., Veitch, B., Analyzing system safety and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: an innovative approach. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 91:1–2 (2013), 1–18.
27. Franks, A., Whitehead, R., Crossthwaite, P., Smail, L., 2002. Application of QRA in Operational Safety Issues. Tech. Rep., HSE UK.
28. Guldenmund, F.W., Hale, A.R., Goossens, L.H., Betten, J., Duijm, N.J., The development of an audit technique to assess the quality of safety barrier management. J. Hazard. Mater. 130:3 (2006), 234–241.
29. Haddon, W., Energy damage and the 10 countermeasure strategies. J. Trauma 13 (1973), 321–331.
30. IADC, 2010. Health Safety and Environment Case Guidelines for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units. Tech. Rep., International Association of Drilling Contractors, Houston.
31. ISO, 2000. Iso 17776 – Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Offshore Production Installations – Guidelines on Tools and Techniques for Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Reference Number.
32. ISO, IEC, 2009. Iso 31010 Risk Management – Risk Assessment Techniques.
33. Jacinto, C., Silva, C., A semi-quantitative assessment of occupational risks using bow-tie representation. Saf. Sci. 48:8 (2010), 973–979.
34. Johnson, W.G., 1973. The Management Oversight and Risk Tree – Mort. Tech. Rep., U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
35. Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 104:August (2012), 36–44.
36. Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Dynamic safety analysis of process systems by mapping bow-tie into Bayesian network. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 91:1–2 (2013), 46–53.
37. Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Quantitative risk analysis of offshore drilling operations: a Bayesian approach. Saf. Sci. 57 (2013), 108–117.
38. Lisbona, D., Johnson, M., Millner, A., McGillivray, A., Maddison, T., Wardman, M., Analysis of a loss of containment incident dataset for major hazards intelligence using Storybuilder. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 25:2 (2012), 344–363.
39. Markowski, A.S., Kotynia, A., Bow-tie model in layer of protection analysis. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 89:4 (2011), 205–213.
40. Markowski, A.S., Mannan, M.S., Bigoszewska, A., Fuzzy logic for process safety analysis. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22:6 (2009), 695–702.
41. Mokhtari, K., Ren, J., Roberts, C., Wang, J., Application of a generic bow-tie based risk analysis framework on risk management of sea ports and offshore terminals. J. Hazard. Mater. 192:2 (2011), 465–475.
42. Nielsen, D.S., 1971. The Cause/Consequence Diagram Method as a Basis for Quantitative Accident Analysis. Tech. Rep., Danish Atomic Energy Commission, Roskilde, Denmark.
43. Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Cozzani, V., Dynamic approach to risk management: application to the Hoeganaes metal dust accidents. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 92:6 (2014), 669–679.
44. Papazoglou, I.a., Ale, B.J.M., A logical model for quantification of occupational risk. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92:6 (2007), 785–803.
45. Pasman, H., Rogers, W., How can we use the information provided by process safety performance indicators? Possibilities and limitations. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 30:1 (2014), 197–206.
46. Rathnayaka, S., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Risk-based process plant design considering inherent safety. Saf. Sci. 70 (2014), 438–464.
47. Reason, J.T., Human Error. 1990, Cambridge University Press.
48. Salvi, O., Debray, B., A global view on ARAMIS, a risk assessment methodology for industries in the framework of the Seveso II directive. J. Hazard. Mater. 130:3 (2006), 187–199.
49. Shahriar, A., Sadiq, R., Tesfamariam, S., Risk analysis for oil & gas pipelines: a sustainability assessment approach using fuzzy based bow-tie analysis. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 25:3 (2012), 505–523.
50. Sklet, S., Safety barriers: definition, classification, and performance. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 19:5 (2006), 494–506.
51. Suardin, J.A., Jeff McPhate, A., Sipkema, A., Childs, M., Mannan, M.S., Fire and explosion assessment on oil and gas floating production storage offloading (FPSO): An effective screening and comparison tool. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 87:3 (2009), 147–160.
52. Targoutzidis, A., Incorporating human factors into a simplified bow-tie approach for workplace risk assessment. Saf. Sci. 48:2 (2010), 145–156.
53. Trbojevic, V.M., 2008. Optimising Hazard Management by Workforce Engagement and Supervision. Tech. Rep., HSE UK.
54. Trbojevic, V.M., Carr, B.J., Risk based methodology for safety improvements in ports. J. Hazard. Mater. 71:1–3 (2000), 467–480.
55. 2 storage in a depleted gas field, UK North Sea. Energy Proc. 37 (2013), 4804–4817.
56. Tugnoli, A., Gyenes, Z., Wijk, L.V., Christou, M., Spadoni, G., Cozzani, V., Reference criteria for the identification of accident scenarios in the framework of land use planning. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26:4 (2013), 614–627.
57. Van Scyoc, K., Hughes, G., Rail ruminations for process safety improvement. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22:6 (2009), 689–694.
58. Visser, J., Developments in HSE management in oil and gas exploration and production. Hale, A., Baram, M., (eds.) Safety Management: The Challenge of Change, 1998, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, 43–65 (Chapter 3).
59. Wilday, J., Paltrinieri, N., Farret, R., Hebrard, J., Breedveld, L., Addressing emerging risks using carbon capture and storage as an example. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 89:6 (2011), 463–471.
60. Zuijderduijn, C., Risk management by shell Pernis, the netherlands refinery/chemicals. Proceedings of the Seveso 2000 European Conference, 1999.