The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Analyzing system safety and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: An innovative approach
Open accessAbstract
Abstract A bow-tie diagram combines a fault tree and an event tree to represent the risk control parameters on a common platform for mitigating an accident. Quantitative analysis of a bow-tie is still a major challenge since it follows the traditional assumptions of fault and event tree analyses. The assumptions consider the crisp probabilities and “independent” relationships for the input events. The crisp probabilities for the input events are often missing or hard to come by, which introduces data uncertainty. The assumption of “independence” introduces model uncertainty. Elicitation of expert's knowledge for the missing data may provide an alternative; however, such knowledge incorporates uncertainties and may undermine the credibility of risk analysis. This paper attempts to accommodate the expert's knowledge to overcome missing data and incorporate fuzzy set and evidence theory to assess the uncertainties. Further, dependency coefficient-based fuzzy and evidence theory approaches have been developed to address the model uncertainty for bow-tie analysis. In addition, a method of sensitivity analysis is proposed to predict the most contributing input events in the bow-tie analysis. To demonstrate the utility of the approaches in industrial application, a bow-tie diagram of the BP Texas City accident is developed and analyzed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On the quantitative definition of risk
Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1981.tb01350.x · Cited by 3,103
Identification and Review of Sensitivity Analysis Methods
Christopher Frey, H., & Patil, S. R. (2002) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.00039 · Cited by 1,036
Cited by
Methods and models in process safety and risk management: Past, present and future
Khan, F., Rathnayaka, S., & Ahmed, S. (2015) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2015.07.005 · Cited by 649
Self-citationVilla, V., Paltrinieri, N., Khan, F., & Cozzani, V. (2016) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.002 · Cited by 294
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferdous, R., Khan, F., Sadiq, R., Amyotte, P., & Veitch, B.
- Venue
- Process Safety and Environmental Protection
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 1-18
- ISSN
- 0263-8762 (ISSN-L)
- 0957-5820
- OpenAlex
- W2030488534
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.