Dynamic safety assessment of natural gas stations using Bayesian network

Journal of Hazardous Materials

Volumn 321, Issue , 2017, Pages 830-840

  Zarei, Esmaeil ^a   Azadeh, Ali ^b   Khakzad, Nima ^c   Aliabadi, Mostafa Mirzaei ^a   Mohammadfam, Iraj ^a  

^a HAMADAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN   (Iran)

^c DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bayesian network; Bow tie approach; City gate station; Dynamic risk analysis; FMEA

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENTS; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; GASES; HAZARDS; NATURAL GAS; PIPELINES; RISK ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION; RISKS; SAFETY ENGINEERING;

BOW TIE; CITY GATE STATION; DYNAMIC RISKS; DYNAMIC SAFETY ASSESSMENTS; FMEA; OCCURRENCE PROBABILITY; QUANTITATIVE RISK ANALYSIS; RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS;

NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION;

NATURAL GAS;

ACCIDENT; ASSESSMENT METHOD; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; GAS PIPELINE; GAS TRANSPORT; HAZARD MANAGEMENT; NATURAL GAS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; URBAN AREA;

ACCIDENT; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; VAPOR;

EID: 84992028305     PISSN: 03043894     EISSN: 18733336     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.09.074     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. [1] Batzias, F.A., Siontorou, C.G., Spanidis, P.M.P., Designing a reliable leak bio-detection system for natural gas pipelines. J. Hazard. Mater. 186 (2011), 35–58.
2. [2] Papadakis, G.A., Assessment of requirements on safety management systems in EU regulations for the control of major hazard pipelines. J. Hazard. Mater. 78 (2000), 63–89.
3. [3] Ramírez-Camacho, J.G., Carbone, F., Pastor, E., Bubbico, R., Casal, J., Assessing the consequences of pipeline accidents to support land-use planning. Safety Sci., 2016, 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.01.021 In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 17 February 2016.
4. [4] Vianello, C., Maschio, G., Quantitative risk assessment of the Italian gas distribution network. J. Loss Prev. Proc. 32 (2014), 5–17.
5. [5] Han, Z.Y., Weng, W.G., Comparison study on qualitative and quantitative risk assessment methods for urban natural gas pipeline network. J. Hazard. Mater. 189 (2011), 509–518.
6. [6] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36563635 in, 2016 (accessed 31.08.16).
7. [7] Wang, H., Duncan, I.J., Understanding the nature of risks associated with onshore natural gas gathering pipelines. J. Loss Prev. Proc. 29 (2014), 49–55.
8. [8] Russo, P., Parisi, F., Risk-targeted safety distance of reinforced concrete buildings from natural-gas transmission pipelines. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 148 (2016), 57–66.
9. [9] Mohammadfama, I., Zarei, E., Safety risk modeling and major accidents analysis of hydrogen and natural gas releases: a comprehensive risk analysis framework. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (2015), 13653–13663.
10. [10] Wang, H., Duncan, I.J., Likelihood causes, and consequences of focused leakage and rupture of U.S. natural gas transmission pipelines. J. Loss Prev. Proc. 30 (2014), 177–187.
11. [11] Jamshidi, A., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Yakhchali, S.H., Khaleghi, S., Developing a new fuzzy inference system for pipeline risk assessment. J. Loss Prev. Proc. 26 (2013), 197–208.
12. [12] Dormohammadi, A., Zarei, E., Delkhosh, M., Gholami, A., Risk analysis by means of a QRA approach on a LPG cylinder filling installation. Process Saf. Prog. 33 (2014), 77–84.
13. [13] Jo, Y.-D., Ahn, B.J., A method of quantitative risk assessment for transmission pipeline carrying natural gas. J. Hazard. Mater. 123 (2005), 1–12.
14. [14] Han, Z.Y., Weng, W.G., An integrated quantitative risk analysis method for natural gas pipeline network. J. Loss Prev. Proc. 23 (2010), 428–436.
15. [15] Khosravirad, F., Zarei, E., Mohammadfam, I., Shoja, E., Daryani, M.M., Explosion risk analysis on town border stations (TBS) of natural gas using failure mode & effect analysis (FMEA) and fault tree analyses (FTA) methods. Iran Occup. Health 12 (2016), 16–27.
16. [16] Pasman, H.J., Jung, S., Prem, K., Rogers, W.J., Yang, X., Is risk analysis a useful tool for improving process safety?. J. Loss Prev. Proc. 22 (2009), 769–777.
17. [17] Pasman, H., Rogers, W., Bayesian networks make LOPA more effective, QRA more transparent and flexible and thus safety more definable!. J. Loss Prev. Proc. 26 (2013), 434–442.
18. [18] Kalantarnia, M., Khan, F., Hawboldta, K., Dynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22 (2009), 600–606.
19. [19] Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 104 (2012), 36–44.
20. [20] Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Dynamic safety analysis of process systems by mapping bow-tie into Bayesian network. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 91 (2013), 46–53.
21. [21] Ayyub, B.M., Risk Analysis in Engineering and Economics. 2003, CRC Press Company, Washington D.C.
22. [22] Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Paltrinieri, N., On the application of near accident data to risk analysis of major accident. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 126 (2014), 116–125.
23. [23] Zarei, E., Jafari, M., Badri, N., Risk assessment of vapor cloud explosions in a hydrogen production facility with consequence modeling. J. Res. Health Sci. 13 (2013), 181–187.
24. [24] Mannan, S., Lees' Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control. third edn, 2005, Elsevier Inc.
25. [25] Jensen, F.V., Nielsen, T.D., Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs. 2nd edition, 2007, Springer, New York.
26. [26] Pearl, J., Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems. 1988, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California.
27. [27] Participants, O., Offshore and Onshore Reliability Database Handbook. 2002, Høvik, Det Norske Veritas (DNV).
28. [28] Qinglei Tan, G.C., Zhang, Lei, Fu, Jianmin, Li, Zemin, Dynamic accident modeling for high-sulfur natural gas gathering station. Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 92 (2014), 565–576.
29. [29] Kjærulff, Uffe B., Madsen, A.L., Bayesian Networks and Influence Diagrams: A Guide to Construction and Analysis. 2013, Springer New York.
30. [30] Yuan, Z., Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Risk analysis of dust explosion scenarios using Bayesian networks. Risk Anal. 35 (2015), 278–291.
31. [31] Khakzad, N., Khan, F., Amyotte, P., Safety analysis in process facilities: comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96 (2011), 925–932.
32. [32] Zarei, E., Mohammadfam, I., Aliabadi, M., Jamshidi, A., Ghasemi, F., Efficiency prediction of control room operators based on human reliability analysis and dynamic decision-making style in the process industry. Process Saf. Prog. 33 (2016), 192–199.
33. [33] Kariuki, K.L.S.G., Integrating human factors into process hazard analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92 (2007), 1764–1773.
34. [34] Rena, J., Jenkinsona, I., Wanga, J., Xub, D.L., Yangb, J.B., A methodology to model causal relationships on offshore safety assessment focusing on human and organizational factors. J. Saf. Res. 39 (2008), 87–100.
35. [35] Aven, T., Nøkland, T.E., On the use of uncertainty importance measures in reliability and risk analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95 (2010), 127–133.
36. [36] Birnbaum, Z., On the Importance of Different Components in a Multicomponents SystemIn: Mulitivariate Analysis-II Krishnaiah PR. 1969, Academic Press, New York.