The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches
Open accessAbstract
Safety analysis in gas process facilities is necessary to prevent unwanted events that may cause catastrophic accidents. Accident scenario analysis with probability updating is the key to dynamic safety analysis. Although conventional failure assessment techniques such as fault tree (FT) have been used effectively for this purpose, they suffer severe limitations of static structure and uncertainty handling, which are of great significance in process safety analysis. Bayesian network (BN) is an alternative technique with ample potential for application in safety analysis. BNs have a strong similarity to FTs in many respects; however, the distinct advantages making them more suitable than FTs are their ability in explicitly representing the dependencies of events, updating probabilities, and coping with uncertainties. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate the application of BNs in safety analysis of process systems. The first part of the paper shows those modeling aspects that are common between FT and BN, giving preference to BN due to its ability to update probabilities. The second part is devoted to various modeling features of BN, helping to incorporate multi-state variables, dependent failures, functional uncertainty, and expert opinion which are frequently encountered in safety analysis, but cannot be considered by FT. The paper concludes that BN is a superior technique in safety analysis because of its flexible structure, allowing it to fit a wide variety of accident scenarios.
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
Cited by
Moradi, R., & Groth, K. M. (2019) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.041 · Cited by 1,390
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-citationDynamic 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-citationFault 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
Mohammadfam, I., & Zarei, E. (2015) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.07.117 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Khakzad, N., Khan, F., & Amyotte, P.
- Venue
- Reliability Engineering & System Safety
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 925-932
- ISSN
- 0951-8320 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2086668606
- Cited by
- 765
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.26
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ress.2011.03.012
- The paper
- Khakzad, N., Khan, F., & Amyotte, P. (2011). Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.03.012
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.