The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods and models in process safety and risk management: Past, present and future
Open accessAbstract
The paper reviews past progress in the development of methods and models for process safety and risk management and highlights the present research trends; also it outlines the opinions of the authors regarding the future research direction in the field. Based on the open literature published in the leading journals in the field of safety, risk and reliability, the review covers the evolution of the methods and models developed for process safety and risk management. The methods and models are categorized as qualitative, semi-quantitative, quantitative and hybrid. The progress in the last few decades is discussed in the context of the past. Developments in the current decade formulate the basis of the present trends; future directions for research in these fields are also outlined. The aim of the article is to provide a historical development in this field with respect to the driving forces behind the development. It is expected that it will help researchers and industrial practitioners to gain a better understanding of the existing concepts. At the same time the aim is to provide direction to bridge the existing gaps through research and developments.
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
A new accident model for engineering safer systems
Leveson, N. (2004) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/s0925-7535(03)00047-x · Cited by 2,243
Chemical process safety: fundamentals with applications
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-1486 · Cited by 992
Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks
Bobbio, A., Portinale, L., Minichino, M., & Ciancamerla, E. (2001) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(00)00077-6 · Cited by 933
Probabilistic Risk Analysis: Foundations and Methods
Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. (2001) · Cited by 825
Industrial accident prevention
Hienrich, H. W., Peterson, D., & Roos, N. R. (1941) · Cited by 815
Vesely, W. E., Goldberg, F. F., Roberts, N. H., & Haasl, D. F. (1987) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 775
Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches
Khakzad, N., Khan, F., & Amyotte, P. (2011) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2011.03.012 · Cited by 765
Self-citationb'Roberts, N. H. '., b'Vesely, W. E. '., b'Haasl, D. F. '., et al. (1981) · Cited by 671
Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis
Grossel, S. S. (2001) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/s0950-4230(01)00002-x · Cited by 665
Dynamic safety analysis of process systems by mapping bow-tie into Bayesian network
Khakzad, N., Khan, F., & Amyotte, P. (2013) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2012.01.005 · Cited by 603
Self-citationAssessing safety culture in offshore environments
Cox, S. J., & Cheyne, A. J. T. (2000) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/s0925-7535(00)00009-6 · Cited by 529
Dust explosions–Cases, causes, consequences, and control
Abbasi, T., & Abbasi, S. A. (2007) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.11.007 · Cited by 507
Marhavilas, P. K., Koulouriotis, D., & Gemeni, V. (2011) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.03.004 · Cited by 436
Quantitative risk analysis of offshore drilling operations: A Bayesian approach
Khakzad, N., Khan, F., & Amyotte, P. (2013) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.022 · Cited by 401
Self-citationEstimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis
Yuhua, D., & Datao, Y. (2005) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2004.12.003 · Cited by 388
Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment
Rao, K. D., Gopika, V., Rao, V. V. S. S., Kushwaha, H. S., Verma, A. K., & Srividya, A. (2008) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2008.09.007 · Cited by 383
Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach
Khakzad, N., Khan, F., & Amyotte, P. (2012) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2012.04.003 · Cited by 373
Self-citationMajor accidents in process industries and an analysis of causes and consequences
Khan, F. I., & Abbasi, S. A. (1999) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/s0950-4230(98)00062-x · Cited by 357
Self-citationRisk Analysis and Risk Management: An Historical Perspective
Covello, V. T., & Mumpower, J. (1985) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1985.tb00159.x · Cited by 345
Techniques and methodologies for risk analysis in chemical process industries
Khan, F. I., & Abbasi, S. A. (1998) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/s0950-4230(97)00051-x · Cited by 344
Self-citationGuidelines for Risk Based Process Safety
(2007) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470925119 · Cited by 323
Markowski, A. S., & Mannan, M. S. (2008) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.03.055 · Cited by 292
Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations
Lee, T., & Harrison, K. (2000) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/s0925-7535(00)00007-2 · Cited by 290
Domino Effect Analysis Using Bayesian Networks
Khakzad, N., Khan, F. I., Amyotte, P. R., & Cozzani, V. (2012) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01854.x · Cited by 286
Self-citationDynamic risk assessment using failure assessment and Bayesian theory
Kalantarnia, M., Khan, F. I., & Hawboldt, K. (2009) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2009.04.006 · Cited by 271
Self-citationČepin, M., & Mavko, B. (2002) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(01)00121-1 · Cited by 262
Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations
Ferdous, R., Khan, F., Sadiq, R., Amyotte, P., & Veitch, B. (2011) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01475.x · Cited by 252
Self-citationKatsakiori, P., Sakellaropoulos, G., & Manatakis, E. (2009) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.11.002 · Cited by 245
Some extensions on risk matrix approach
Ni, H., Chen, A., & Chen, N. (2010) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.04.005 · Cited by 241
Bouissou, M., & Bon, J.-L. (2003) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(03)00143-1 · Cited by 230
Analyzing system safety and risks under uncertainty using a bow-tie diagram: An innovative approach
Ferdous, R., Khan, F., Sadiq, R., Amyotte, P., & Veitch, B. (2013) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2011.08.010 · Cited by 224
Self-citationIntegrated inherent safety index (I2SI): A tool for inherent safety evaluation
Khan, F. I., & Amyotte, P. R. (2004) · Process Safety Progress · doi:10.1002/prs.10015 · Cited by 217
Self-citationDeveloping a new fuzzy inference system for pipeline risk assessment
Jamshidi, A., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Yakhchali, S. H., & Khaleghi, S. (2013) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2012.10.010 · Cited by 215
DELVOSALLE, C., FIEVEZ, C., PIPART, A., & DEBRAY, B. (2006) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.005 · Cited by 213
System Safety Engineering And Risk Assessment: A Practical Approach
Bahr, N. J. (1997) · Cited by 201
SHIPP methodology: Predictive accident modeling approach. Part I: Methodology and model description
Rathnayaka, S., Khan, F. I., & Amyotte, P. R. (2011) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2011.01.002 · Cited by 201
Self-citationBuilding Safety indicators: Part 1 – Theoretical foundation
Øien, K., Utne, I. B., & Herrera, I. (2010) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.05.012 · Cited by 198
A new method for assessing domino effect in chemical process industry
Abdolhamidzadeh, B., Abbasi, T., Rashtchian, D., & Abbasi, S. A. (2010) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.06.049 · Cited by 197
Modelling of safety management systems
Hale, A. R., Heming, B. H. J., Carthey, J., & Kirwan, B. (1997) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/s0925-7535(97)00034-9 · Cited by 171
Posbist fault tree analysis of coherent systems
Huang, H., Tong, X., & Zuo, M. J. (2004) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2003.11.002 · Cited by 168
Kennedy, R., & Kirwan, B. (1998) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/s0925-7535(98)00025-3 · Cited by 167
A dynamic Bayesian networks modeling of human factors on offshore blowouts
Cai, B., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., Fan, Q., Liu, Z., & Tian, X. (2013) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2013.01.001 · Cited by 159
Li, P., Chen, G.-H., Dai, L., & Zhang, L. (2012) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.03.017 · Cited by 156
Aven, T., & Kristensen, V. (2004) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.008 · Cited by 154
Fuzzy logic for piping risk assessment (pfLOPA)
Markowski, A. S., & Mannan, M. S. (2009) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2009.06.011 · Cited by 142
Efficient Bayesian network modeling of systems
Bensi, M., Kiureghian, A. D., & Straub, D. (2012) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2012.11.017 · Cited by 140
Mohaghegh, Z., & Mosleh, A. (2009) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.12.008 · Cited by 139
Safety-barrier diagrams as a safety management tool
Duijm, N. J. (2008) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.031 · Cited by 138
A fault tree analysis strategy using binary decision diagrams
Reay, K. A., & Andrews, J. (2002) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(02)00107-2 · Cited by 134
Handling and updating uncertain information in bow-tie analysis
Ferdous, R., Khan, F. I., Sadiq, R., et al. (2011) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.06.018 · Cited by 128
Self-citationThe application of Petri nets to failure analysis
Liu, T. S., & Chiou, S.-B. (1997) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/s0951-8320(97)00030-6 · Cited by 125
Shalev, D. M., & Tiran, J. (2007) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2006.05.015 · Cited by 119
Statistical analysis of domino chemical accidents
Kourniotis, S. P., Kiranoudis, C. T., & Markatos, N. C. (2000) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/s0304-3894(99)00081-3 · Cited by 113
Eleye‐Datubo, A. G., Wall, A., & Wang, J. (2008) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01004.x · Cited by 111
Svenson, O. (1991) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00635.x · Cited by 111
Fuzzy risk assessment of oil and gas offshore wells
Lavasani, S. M. M., Yang, Z., Finlay, J., & Wang, J. (2011) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2011.06.006 · Cited by 104
The Repeatability of Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses for Complex Probabilistic Risk Assessments
Iman, R. L., & Helton, J. C. (1991) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00649.x · Cited by 101
A semi-quantitative approach to risk analysis, as an alternative to QRAs
Aven, T. (2007) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2007.03.025 · Cited by 98
Dynamic Procedure for Atypical Scenarios Identification (DyPASI): A new systematic HAZID tool
Paltrinieri, N., Tugnoli, A., Buston, J. Ε. H., Wardman, M., & Cozzani, V. (2013) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2013.01.006 · Cited by 96
Designing and evaluating a human factors investigation tool (HFIT) for accident analysis
Gordon, R. J., Flin, R. H., & Mearns, K. J. (2005) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2005.02.002 · Cited by 94
Quantitative risk assessment model of hazardous chemicals leakage and application
Si, H., Ji, H. M., & Zeng, X.-H. (2012) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.01.011 · Cited by 87
Fay, J. A. (2006) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.11.095 · Cited by 85
Quantitative analysis of a fault tree with priority AND gates
Yuge, T., & Yanagi, S. (2008) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2008.02.016 · Cited by 84
The SAM Framework: Modeling the Effects of Management Factors on Human Behavior in Risk Analysis
Murphy, D. M., & Paté‐Cornell, M. E. (1996) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01096.x · Cited by 80
Models of accident causation and their application: Review and reappraisal
Lehto, M. R., & Salvendy, G. (1991) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/0923-4748(91)90028-p · Cited by 78
PHASuite: An Automated HAZOP Analysis Tool for Chemical Processes
Zhao, C., Bhushan, M., & Venkatasubramanian, V. (2005) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1205/psep.04055 · Cited by 71
Inherent risk assessment—A new concept to evaluate risk in preliminary design stage
Shariff, A. M., & Leong, C. T. (2009) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1016/j.psep.2009.08.004 · Cited by 70
A safety barrier-based accident model for offshore drilling blowouts
Xue, L., Fan, J., Rausand, M., & Zhang, L. (2012) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2012.10.008 · Cited by 69
Pasman, H. J., & Rogers, W. (2012) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2012.07.016 · Cited by 67
Leak location of pipelines based on transient model and PSO-SVM
Ni, L., Jiang, J., & Pan, Y. L. (2013) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2013.04.004 · Cited by 66
Inherent safety key performance indicators for hydrogen storage systems
Landucci, G., Tugnoli, A., & Cozzani, V. (2008) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.02.080 · Cited by 61
An overview of inherently safer design
Hendershot, D. C. (2006) · Process Safety Progress · doi:10.1002/prs.10121 · Cited by 61
A systems approach to human error identification
Stanton, N. A., & Baber, C. (1996) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/0925-7535(96)00016-1 · Cited by 47
PHASuite: An Automated HAZOP Analysis Tool for Chemical Processes
Zhao, C., Bhushan, M., & Venkatasubramanian, V. (2005) · Process Safety and Environmental Protection · doi:10.1205/psep.04056 · Cited by 46
Towards automation of HAZOP with a new tool EXPERTOP
Khan, F. I., & Abbasi, S. A. (2000) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/s1364-8152(99)00022-5 · Cited by 45
Self-citationEstimating the Probability of Rare Events: Addressing Zero Failure Data
Quigley, J., & Revie, M. (2011) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01568.x · Cited by 43
Uncertainty and Variability Analysis in Multiplicative Risk Models
Rai, S. N., & Krewski, D. R. (1998) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00914.x · Cited by 38
Supporting systems of systems hazard analysis using multi-agent simulation
Alexander, R., & Kelly, T. (2012) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.07.006 · Cited by 37
An ontology-based framework for process monitoring and maintenance in petroleum plant
Elhdad, R., Chilamkurti, N., & Torabi, T. (2012) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2012.10.001 · Cited by 36
A systemic approach to managing safety
Santos‐Reyes, J., & Beard, A. N. (2007) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2007.06.009 · Cited by 35
Failure Probability Under Parameter Uncertainty
Gerrard, R., & Tsanakas, A. (2010) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01549.x · Cited by 25
On probabilistic safety assessment in the case of zero failures
Coolen, F. P. A. (2006) · Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability · doi:10.1243/1748006xjrr15 · Cited by 21
A SSMS model with application to the oil and gas industry
Santos‐Reyes, J., & Beard, A. N. (2008) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2008.07.009 · Cited by 18
Integrated treatment of model and parameter uncertainties through a Bayesian approach
Droguett, E. L., & Mosleh, A. (2012) · Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part O Journal of Risk and Reliability · doi:10.1177/1748006x12461332 · Cited by 17
Automatic generation of accident scenarios in domain specific chemical plants
Kim, D., Moon, I., Lee, Y., & Yoon, D. (2003) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/s0950-4230(02)00111-0 · Cited by 15
Yang, X., Rogers, W. J., & Mannan, M. S. (2009) · Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries · doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2009.07.006 · Cited by 14
Cited by
Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation
Aven, T. (2016) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023 · Cited by 1,713
“The future of risk assessment and risk management is discussed in SRA (2015b) and Aven and Zio (2014) ; see also reviews and reflections by Venkatasubramanian (2011), Pasman and Reniers (2014) and Khan, Rathnayaka, and Ahmed (2015) .”
BackgroundZio, E. (2018) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2018.04.020 · Cited by 401
Fault Tree Analysis Improvements: A Bibliometric Analysis and Literature Review
Yazdi, M., Mohammadpour, J., Li, H., Huang, H., Zarei, E., Pirbalouti, R. G., & Adumene, S. (2023) · Quality and Reliability Engineering International · doi:10.1002/qre.3271 · Cited by 199
Metadata
- Authors
- Khan, F., Rathnayaka, S., & Ahmed, S.
- Venue
- Process Safety and Environmental Protection
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-11
- Volume
- 98
- Pages
- 116-147
- ISSN
- 0263-8762 (ISSN-L)
- 0957-5820
- OpenAlex
- W1837982956
- Cited by
- 649
- References
- 86
- FWCI
- 25.12
- 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.
