A Knowledge-Driven Model to Assess Inherent Safety in Process Infrastructure
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (a)
- Presenting a scientific-applied computational approach to assessing inherent safety;
- (b)
- Developing a computational framework for evaluating inherent safety;
- (c)
- Considering all technical, process, human, and organizational factors.
2. The Proposed Model
2.1. Developing Taxonomy of Inherent Safety Assessment
2.2. Developing a Knowledge-Driven Framework
2.2.1. Mamdani Fuzzy Inference Sets
TruthValue(X is D|X = x)) = max(µC(x), µD(x))
TruthValue(X is D|X = x)) = min(µC(x), µD(x))
2.2.2. Calculating SMEs’ Weight
2.2.3. Calculating the Importance Level of the Contributing Factors
Verbal Expressions | Weight Definition | Fuzzy Numbers |
---|---|---|
Equal importance | 1 | [1, 1, 1] |
A little more importance | 2 | [1, 1.5, 2] |
Relatively more importance | 3 | [1.5, 2, 2.5] |
Very importance | 4 | [2, 2.5, 3] |
Most importance | 5 | [2.5, 3, 3.5] |
2.2.4. Inherent Safety Situation Evaluation
3. Application of the Methodology
3.1. The Model Application: Steam Methane Reforming Plant to Produce Hydrogen
3.2. The Identified Contributing Factors
3.3. The SMEs Reliability Findings
3.4. Dimensions and Contributing Factors’ Importance Level
- (a)
- Planning for the implementation of regular and documented educational programs (theoretical and operational) in the mentioned unit;
- (b)
- Improving the level of the organization’s safety culture through the cooperation of all organizational levels;
- (c)
- Redesigning the hydrogen production unit from the point of view of safer material selection, better tank placement, more standardized piping arrangement, and more appropriate material selection;
- (d)
- Designing timed monitoring systems to identify defects in time and fix them at the right time.
- Providing complete information about the safety and health of the workplace to all employees;
- Collective participation and receiving suggestions and comments from employees and reviewing them from the management side;
- Prioritizing safety under any circumstances, even at the cost of reducing or stopping production;
- Frequent supervision of managers on the atmosphere of the work environment and consultation with personnel;
- Updating information in the field of health and safety permanently;
- Complete review and analysis of incidents and present the results of this review to all employees;
- Allocation of sufficient funds to the health and safety department;
- Providing necessary training to personnel suitable for each work environment;
- Creating an atmosphere full of empathy and companionship among employees by providing honest safety policies.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Calculating the Weight of the Expert 2
Number of Experts | Educational Degree | Type of Industry | Field of Education | Experience (Years) | Job Position | Relation between Degree and Position | Expert Weight |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4 | Master’s | Oil company | Chemical engineering | 15 | HSE management | No | 0.913 |
(TruthValue(X is C|X = x), (TruthValue(X is D|X = x)) = min(µA(x), µAk(x), µBk(y), µCk(y), µDk(y) = min (0.7, 0.89, 0.9, 0.88) = 0.36
(TruthValue(X is C|X = x), (TruthValue(X is D|X = x)) = min(µA(x), µAk(x), µBk(y), µCk(y), µDk(y) = min (0.7, 0.89, 0.9, 0.88) = 0.4
Appendix B. Calculating the Weight of the A4: LEL/UEL
Low Limit | Medium Limit | High Limit | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
V(S4 > S6) | 0/962 | V(S4 > S6) | 0/977 | V(S4 > S6) | 0/985 |
V(S1 > S6) | 1/059 | V(S1 > S6) | 1/023 | V(S1 > S6) | 1/008 |
V(S2 > S6) | 1/057 | V(S2 > S6) | 1/027 | V(S2 > S6) | 1/014 |
V(S3 > S6) | 1/106 | V(S3 > S6) | 1/095 | V(S3 > S6) | 1/077 |
V(S5 > S6) | 0/896 | V(S5 > S6) | 0/881 | V(S5 > S6) | 0/903 |
V(S7 > S6) | 1/048 | V(S7 > S6) | 1/059 | V(S7 > S6) | 1/052 |
Appendix C. Calculating the Required Positive Dimension
References
- Mohammadfam, I.; Kalatpour, O.; Gholamizadeh, K. Quantitative Assessment of Safety and Health Risks in HAZMAT Road Transport Using a Hybrid Approach: A Case Study in Tehran. ACS Chem. Health Saf. 2020, 27, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benson, C.; Argyropoulos, C.D.; Dimopoulos, C.; Mikellidou, C.V.; Boustras, G. Safety and risk analysis in digitalized process operations warning of possible deviating conditions in the process environment. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 149, 750–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barua, S.; Gao, X.; Mannan, M. Comparison of prescriptive and performance-based regulatory regimes in the USA and the UK. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2016, 44, 764–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CCPS. Reporting and Investigating Near Misses; CCPS: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Athar, M.; Shariff, A.M.; Buang, A. A review of inherent assessment for sustainable process design. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 242–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarei, E.; Gholamizadeh, K.; Khan, F.; Kakzad, F. A dynamic domino effect risk analysis model for rail transport of hazardous material. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2022, 74, 104666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swuste, P.; van Gulijk, C.; Groeneweg, J.; Zwaard, W.; Lemkowitz, S.; Guldenmund, F. From clapham junction to macondo, deepwater horizon: Risk and safety management in high-tech-high-hazard sectors: A review of English and Dutch literature: 1988–2010. Saf. Sci. 2020, 121, 249–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kletz, T.A.; Amyotte, P. Process Plants: A Handbook for Inherently Safer Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, F.I.; Amyotte, P.R. I2SI: A comprehensive quantitative tool for inherent safety and cost evaluation. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2005, 18, 310–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anastas, P.T.; Hammond, D.G. Inherent Safety at Chemical Sites; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, X.; Raman, A.A.A.; Hizaddin, H.F.; Buthiyappan, A.; Bello, M.M. Systematic inherent safety and its implementation in chlorine liquefaction process. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2020, 65, 104133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jafari, M.J.; Mohammadi, H.; Reniers, G.; Pouyakian, M.; Nourai, F.; Torabi, S.A.; Miandashti, M.R. Exploring inherent process safety indicators and approaches for their estimation: A systematic review. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2018, 52, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, R.; Natarajan, S. Developments in inherent safety: A review of the progress during 2001–2011 and opportunities ahead. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2012, 90, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayub, Y.; Zhou, J.; Shi, T.; Ren, J. Process safety assessment of thermal technologies for biomass valorization by numerical descriptive approach. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2023, 171, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassani, A.; Vianello, C.; Mocellin, P.; Dell’Angelo, A.; Spigno, G.; Fabiano, B.; Maschio, G.; Manenti, F. Aprioristic Integration of Process Operations and Risk Analysis: Definition of the Weighted F&EI-Based Concept and Application to AG2S Technology. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2022, 62, 500–510. [Google Scholar]
- Rahman, M.; Heikkilä, A.-M.; Hurme, M. Comparison of inherent safety indices in process concept evaluation. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2005, 18, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abidin, M.Z.; Rusli, R.; Khan, F.; Shariff, A.M. Development of inherent safety benefits index to analyse the impact of inherent safety implementation. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 454–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.I.; Hashim, H.; Hassim, M.H.; Rashid, R. Development of hazard prevention strategies for inherent safety assessment during early stage of process design. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 121, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Kim, J.; Ahmed, U.; Kim, C.; Lee, Y.W. Multi-objective optimization of Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) design considering exergy efficiency and inherent safety for LNG cold energy utilization. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2019, 58, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.; Zhang, B.; Sun, Y.; Escobar, H.; Jain, P.; Zhu, W.; Gopalaswami, N.; Roy, N.; Mu, S.; Mannan, M.S. Development of a Risk Based Inherent Safety Index Using an Integrated Approach. In Proceedings of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers 2018 Spring Meeting and 14th Global Congress on Process Safety, Orlando, FL, USA, 22–25 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, D.W.; Lawrence, D. Assessing the inherent safety of chemical process routes: Is there a relation between plant costs and inherent safety? Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 1993, 71, 252–258. [Google Scholar]
- Athar, M.; Shariff, A.M.; Buang, A.; Hermansyah, H. Equipment-based route index of inherent safety. Process Saf. Prog. 2020, 39, e12108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shariff, A.M.; Athar, M.; Buang, A.; Khan, M.I.; Hermansyah, H. Distillation column inherent safety index at preliminary design stage. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 458, 012047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, J.X.; Yang, D.L.; Du, P.H.; He, P.Y. Power Grid Emergency Management Capability Assessment Based on the Fuzzy-AHP Comprehensive Evaluation. Adv. Mater. Res. 2015, 1092–1093, 429–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barkhuizen, W.F.; Pretorius, J.H.C.; Pretorius, L. An integrated systems approach to risk management within a technology-driven industry, using the design structure matrix and fuzzy logic: Case study. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2012, 23, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.I.; Hashim, H.; Hassim, M.H. Numerical descriptive inherent safety technique (NuDIST) for inherent safety assessment in petrochemical industry. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2014, 92, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentile, M.; Rogers, W.; Mannan, M. Development of a fuzzy logic-based inherent safety index. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2003, 81, 444–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alipour-Bashary, M.; Ravanshadnia, M.; Abbasianjahromi, H.; Asnaashari, E. A Hybrid Fuzzy Risk Assessment Framework for Determining Building Demolition Safety Index. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 25, 1144–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vázquez, D.; Ruiz-Femenia, R.; Caballero, J.A. OFISI, a novel optimizable inherent safety index based on fuzzy logic. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2019, 129, 106526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, D.-Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996, 95, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadfam, I.; Zarei, E.; Yazdi, M.; Gholamizadeh, K. Quantitative Risk Analysis on Rail Transportation of Hazardous Materials. Math. Probl. Eng. 2022, 2022, 6162829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izquierdo, S.; Izquierdo, L.R. Mamdani Fuzzy Systems for Modelling and Simulation: A Critical Assessment. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2900827 (accessed on 19 January 2017).
- Kickert, W.; Mamdani, E. Analysis of a Fuzzy Logic Controller. Readings in Fuzzy Sets for Intelligent Systems; Elsevier: London, UK, 1993; pp. 290–297. [Google Scholar]
- Omidvari, M.; Lavasani, S.; Mirza, S. Presenting of failure probability assessment pattern by FTA in Fuzzy logic (case study: Distillation tower unit of oil refinery process). J. Chem. Health Saf. 2014, 21, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarei, E.; Khakzad, N.; Cozzani, V.; Reniers, G. Safety analysis of process systems using Fuzzy Bayesian Network (FBN). J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2019, 57, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholamizadeh, K.; Zarei, E.; Omidvar, M.; Yazdi, M. Fuzzy Sets Theory and Human Reliability: Review, Applications, and Contributions. In Linguistic Methods Under Fuzzy Information in System Safety and Reliability Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 91–137. [Google Scholar]
- Gholamizadeh, K.; Ghasemi, F.; Pashootan, Z.; Kalatpour, O. Quantitative Analysis on Time Delay Factors Influencing Firefighters’ Response Time in the Process Industries Using Fuzzy Sets Theory. Int. J. Occup. Hyg. 2022, 14, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Gholamizadeh, K.; Zarei, E.; Poursiahbidi, S.; Kalatpour, O. A hybrid framework to analyze crisis management system maturity in sociotechnical systems. J. Saf. Sci. Resil. 2022, 3, 302–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jafari, M.J.; Mohammadfam, I.; Zarei, E. Analysis and simulation of severe accidents in a steam methane reforming plant. Int. J. Occup. Hyg. 2014, 6, 120–130. [Google Scholar]
- Barelli, L.; Bidini, G.; Gallorini, F.; Servili, S. Hydrogen production through sorption-enhanced steam methane reforming and membrane technology: A review. Energy 2008, 33, 554–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ade, N.; Liu, G.; Al-Douri, A.F.; El-Halwagi, M.M.; Mannan, M.S. Investigating the effect of inherent safety principles on system reliability in process design. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2018, 117, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidam, K.; Sahak, H.A.; Hassim, M.H.; Shahlan, S.S.; Hurme, M. Inherently safer design review and their timing during chemical process development and design. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2016, 42, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Q.; Wang, L.; Peng, W.; Zhang, P.; Chen, S. Safety analysis of leakage in a nuclear hydrogen production system. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 4916–4931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Huh, C.; Lee, W.B. Inherently safer process design of natural gas liquefaction processes through multiobjective optimization—Part I. with inherent safety indexes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2019, 58, 4186–4198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, X.; Bai, C.; Zhang, B.; Sun, B. The effect of ignition delay time on the explosion behavior in non-uniform hydrogen-air mixtures. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 9810–9818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsaid, K.; Abdelfatah, S.; Elabsir, A.M.A.; Hassiba, R.J.; Ghouri, Z.K.; Vechot, L. Direct alcohol fuel cells: Assessment of the fuel’s safety and health aspects. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 30658–30668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azadeh, M.; Keramati, A.; Mohammadfam, I.; Jamshidnedjad, B. Enhancing the availability and reliability of power plants through macroergonomics approach. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2006, 65, 873–878. [Google Scholar]
- Dawood, F.; Anda, M.; Shafiullah, G. Hydrogen production for energy: An overview. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 3847–3869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, W.; Zhao, H.; Jiaqiang, E.; Li, Q.; Li, D. Numerical investigations on thermal performance and flame stability of hydrogen-fueled micro tube combustor with injector for thermophotovoltaic applications. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 263, 125957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giarola, J.M.; Calderon-Hernández, J.W.; Quispe-Avilés, J.M.; Avila, J.A.; Bose Filho, W.W. Hydrogen-induced cracking and corrosion behavior of friction stir welded plates of API 5L X70 pipeline steel. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 28166–28179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarei, E.; Khan, F.; Abbassi, R. A dynamic human-factor risk model to analyze safety in sociotechnical systems. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 164, 479–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.I.; Yunus, N.A.; Ali, M.R.A.; Hashim, H.; Mustaffa, A.A.; Rashid, R. Solvent design and inherent safety assessment of solvent alternatives for palm oil recovery. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2020, 65, 104120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reader, T.W.; O’Connor, P. The Deepwater Horizon explosion: Non-technical skills, safety culture, and system complexity. J. Risk Res. 2014, 17, 405–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iannaccone, T.; Landucci, G.; Scarponi, G.E.; Bonvicini, S.; Cozzani, V. Inherent safety assessment of alternative technologies for LNG ships bunkering. Ocean. Eng. 2019, 185, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghasemi, F.; Gholamizadeh, K.; Farjadnia, A.; Sedighizadeh, A.; Kalatpour, O. Human and organizational failures analysis in process industries using FBN-HFACS model: Learning from a toxic gas leakage accident. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2022, 78, 104823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fam, I.M.; Azadeh, A.; Faridan, M.; Mahjub, H. Safety behaviors assessment in process industry: A case study in gas refinery. J. Chin. Inst. Ind. Eng. 2008, 25, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammadfam, I.; Gholamizadeh, K. Assessment of security risks by FEMA and fuzzy FEMA methods, A case study: Combined cycle power plant. J. Occup. Hyg. Eng. 2021, 8, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholamizadeh, K.; Alauddin, M.; Aliabadi, M.M.; Soltanzade, A.; Mohammadfam, I. Comprehensive Failure Analysis in Tehran Refinery Fire Accident: Application of Accimap Methodology and Quantitative Domino Effect Analysis. Fire Technol. 2023, 59, 453–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Y.; Zou, Q.; Jin, Z.; Lin, Z. Data-driven diagnosis of the high-pressure hydrogen leakage in fuel cell vehicles based on relevance vector machine. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 12281–12292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arsad, A.Z.; Hannan, M.; Al-Shetwi, A.Q.; Mansur, M.; Muttaqi, K.M.; Dong, Z.Y.; Blaabjerg, F. Hydrogen energy storage integrated hybrid renewable energy systems: A review analysis for future research directions. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 17285–17312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mearns, K.; Rundmo, T.; Flin, R.; Gordon, R.; Fleming, M. Evaluation of psychosocial and organizational factors in offshore safety: A comparative study. J. Risk Res. 2004, 7, 545–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fadonougbo, J.O.; Park, K.B.; Na, T.-W.; Park, C.S.; Park, H.K.; Ko, W.S. An integrated computational and experimental method for predicting hydrogen plateau pressures of TiFe1-xMx-based room temperature hydrides. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2022, 47, 17673–17682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, L.; Dong, J.; Peng, K.; Zhang, C. Hierarchical monitoring and root-cause diagnosis framework for key performance indicator-related multiple faults in process industries. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 15, 2091–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Xu, S.; Rogers, W.; Pasman, H.; El-Halwagi, M.M. Incorporating inherent safety during the conceptual process design stage: A literature review. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2020, 63, 104040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Shobaki, M.J.; Abu Amuna, Y.M.; Abu-Naser, S.S. The impact of top management support for strategic planning on crisis management: Case study on UNRWA-Gaza Strip. Int. J. Acad. Res. Dev. 2016, 1, 2455–4197. [Google Scholar]
- Aliabadi, M.M.; Gholamizadeh, K. Locating urban CNG stations using quantitative risk assessment: Using the Bayesian network. Saf. Reliab. 2021, 40, 48–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramezanifar, E.; Gholamizadeh, K.; Mohammadfam, I.; Mirzaei Aliabadi, M. Risk assessment of methanol storage tank fire accident using hybrid FTA-SPA. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0282657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, C.T.; Shariff, A.M. Inherent safety index module (ISIM) to assess inherent safety level during preliminary design stage. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2008, 86, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, J.; Hao, L.; Bai, W.; Zhu, Z.; Zhang, B.; Wei, H. A design framework for optimized economic and inherently safe operation conditions for isoperibolic semi-batch reactors. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 168, 166–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tugnoli, A.; Landucci, G.; Salzano, E.; Cozzani, V. Supporting the selection of process and plant design options by Inherent Safety KPIs. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2012, 25, 830–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholamizadeh, K.; Tapak, L.; Mohammadfam, I.; Soltanzadeh, A. Investigating the Work-Related Accidents in Iran: Analyzing and Comparing the Factors Associated With the Duration of Absence From Work. Iran. Rehabil. J. 2022, 20, 589–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CCPS. Inherently Safer Chemical Processes: A Life Cycle Approach, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- NRC. 4 The Concepts of Inherently Safer Processes and Assessment. In The Use and Storage of Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) at Bayer CropScience; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Guldenmund, F.W. The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 215–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirbalouti, R.G.; Dehkordi, M.K.; Mohammadpour, J.; Zarei, E.; Yazdi, M. An advanced framework for leakage risk assessment of hydrogen refueling stations using interval-valued spherical fuzzy sets (IV-SFS). Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choudhry, R.M.; Fang, D.; Mohamed, S. The nature of safety culture: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Saf. Sci. 2007, 45, 993–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pidgeon, N.F. Safety culture and risk management in organizations. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1991, 22, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pidgeon, N. Safety culture: Key theoretical issues. Work Stress 1998, 12, 202–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athar, M.; Zaidi, N.A.B.; Shariff, A.M.; Buang, A.; Khan, M.I. Chemical reactor inherent safety index at preliminary design stage. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 458, 012048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, S.I.; Hashim, H.; Hassim, M.H. A graphical method for assessing inherent safety during research and development phase of process design. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2016, 42, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eini, S.; Javidi, M.; Shahhosseini, H.R.; Rashtchian, D. Inherently safer design of a reactor network system: A case study. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2018, 51, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Negative Dimensions | Contributing Factor | Reference(s) | Positive Dimensions | Contributing Factor | Reference(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(A) Chemical | A1. Combustion enthalpy | [41] | (D) Equipment | D1. Equipment integrity | [22] |
D2. Materials quality | [42] | ||||
A2. Combustibility | [43] | D3. Process structure | [44] | ||
A3. Explosiveness | [45] | D4. Control system | [18] | ||
A4. LEL/UEL | [46] | D5. Reliability | [47] | ||
A5. Boiling point | [48] | D6. Design | [41] | ||
A6. Stability class | [49] | D7. Security equipment | [10] | ||
A7. Toxicity | [11] | D8. Calibration | |||
A8. Corrosively | [50] | (E) Human factors | E1. Education/training | [51] | |
A9. Flashpoint | [52] | E2. Expert | [53] | ||
(B) Process | B1. Flow rate | [54] | E3. Physical & Psychological situation | [55] | |
E4. Job satisfaction | [56] | ||||
B2. Volume | [41] | E5. Security guard | [57] | ||
B3. Temperature | [41] | (F) Organization | F1. Maintenance | [58] | |
B4. Pressure | [59] | F2. Safety culture | [41] | ||
B5. System complexity | [60] | F3. Procedures | [61] | ||
(C) Reaction | C1. Reaction enthalpy | [62] | F4. Monitoring system | [63] | |
F5. Management involvement | [64] | ||||
C2. Consequences modeling | [44] | F6. Emergency planning | [65] | ||
F7. Risk management system | [66,67] |
Number | Question | Score |
---|---|---|
1 | What is the risk level of enthalpy combustion of chemicals used in the desired section? (A1) | |
2 | What is the level of combustion of the chemicals used in the desired section? (A2) | |
3 | What is the explosiveness of the chemicals used in the desired section? (A3) | |
4 | What is the risk level of the boiling temperature of the chemicals used in the desired section? (A5) | |
5 | What is the hazard level of the chemical stability class used in the desired section? (A6) | |
6 | What is the level of toxicity of the chemicals used in the desired section? (A7) | |
7 | What is the hazard of the flashpoint of the chemicals used in the desired section? (A9) | |
8 | What is the level of the corrosive chemicals used in the desired section? (A8) | |
9 | What is the hazard level of the chemicals used in the desired section between the upper and lower explosion limits (UEL-LEL)? (A4) | |
10 | What is the flow rate level in the pipelines in the desired section? (B1) | |
11 | What is the level of the volume of chemical storage tanks in the desired section? (B2) | |
12 | What is the storage (tanks) temperature level in the desired section? (B3) | |
13 | What is the level of pressure in the desired section? (B4) | |
14 | What is the level of complexity of the system in the desired section? (B5) | |
15 | What is the level of reaction enthalpy in the desired section? (C1) | |
16 | What is the consequence of the reaction deviation in the desired section? (C2) | |
17 | What is the level of equipment integrity in the sector? (D1) | |
18 | What is the level of safety quality of the materials used in the process structure in the desired section? (D2) | |
19 | What is the level of process control systems in the desired section? (D4) | |
20 | What is the level of integration of process structures in the desired section? (D3) | |
21 | What is the level of reliability of instrumentation equipment in the desired sector? (D5) | |
22 | What is the process’s ergonomic design level in the desired section? (D6) | |
23 | What is the status of security systems (CCTV cameras, automatic alarms, and other security equipment) to prevent and eliminate sabotage in the desired section? (D7) | |
24 | What is the quantitative and qualitative equipment calibration level in the desired section? (D8) | |
25 | What is the level of education, compliance with job duties, and related personnel training in the department? (E1) | |
26 | What is the personnel’s work experience in their field of work in the desired department? (E2) | |
27 | What is the level of compliance with the mental and physical conditions of the personnel to perform the assigned tasks in the desired section? (E3) | |
28 | What is the level of personnel’s job satisfaction in the desired section? (E4) | |
29 | What is the level of coherence of the reactions of the security guards (human resources) to prevent and eliminate possible sabotage in the desired section? (E5) | |
30 | What is the level of coherence of the maintenance program of the desired section? (F1) | |
31 | What is the level of safety culture in the desired section? (F2) | |
32 | What is the level of accessibility to the instructions in the desired section? (F3) | |
33 | What is the level of coherence of the safety inspection program in the desired section? (F4) | |
34 | What is the level of management involvement in process safety issues in the desired section? (F5) | |
35 | What is the qualitative level of emergency response management in the desired section? (F6) | |
36 | What is the desired section’s qualitative level of safety and health risk management programs? (F7) |
Number of Experts | Educational Degree | Type of Industry | Field of Education | Experience (Years) | Job Position | Relation between Degree and Position | Expert Weight (Error Percent) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Master | Gas refinery | Chemical engineering | 6 | Process safety expert | Yes | 0.869 (±13.10) |
2 | Master | Petrochemical industry | Chemical engineering | 8 | HSE supervisor | No | 0.907 (±0.9.30) |
3 | Master | Gas refinery | HSE management | 15 | HSE boss | Yes | 0.915 (±8.05) |
4 | Master | Oil Company | Chemical engineering | 15 | HSE management | No | 0.913 (±8.07) |
5 | Master | Oil Company | HSE management | 16 | HSE management | Yes | 0.932 (±6.80) |
6 | PhD | Member of faculty | Environmental Protection | 25 | University faculty | Yes | 0.982 (±1.80) |
7 | Bachelor | Petrochemical industry | Mechanical engineering | 8 | Senior engineer | No | 0.867 (±13.30) |
8 | Master | Gas refinery | Chemical engineering | 12 | Process safety expert | Yes | 0.945 (±5.50) |
9 | Master | Oil Company | Chemical engineering | 16 | Head of process safety management | Yes | 0.967 (±3.30) |
Factors | Weight | Factors | Weight | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low Limit | Med Limit | High Limit | Low Limit | Med Limit | High Limit | ||
Negative dimension | D2: Materials quality | 0.4862 | 0.5460 | 0.9631 | |||
A1: Combustion enthalpy | 0.5720 | 0.4440 | 0.6497 | D3: Process structure | 0.8494 | 0.8730 | 0.9788 |
A2: Combustibility | 0.7114 | 0.9249 | 0.9629 | D4: Control system | 0.6418 | 0.6778 | 0.6798 |
A3: Explosiveness | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | D5: Reliability | 0.8088 | 0.8450 | 0.9936 |
A4: LEL/UEL | 0.9015 | 0.8803 | 0.9318 | D6: Design | 0.9326 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
A5: Boiling Point | 0.1766 | 0.2777 | 0.3304 | D7: Security equipment | 0.1638 | 0.2321 | 0.9932 |
A6: Stability Class | 0.4619 | 0.5317 | 0.5680 | D8: Calibration | 0.0846 | 0.1797 | 0.9908 |
A7: Toxicity | 0.2969 | 0.3605 | 0.4078 | E1: Education/Training | 0.7039 | 0.7276 | 0.7399 |
A8: Corrosively | 0.1074 | 0.1172 | 0.1479 | E2: Expert | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
A9: Flash Point | 0.3164 | 0.4017 | 0.5770 | E3: Physical & Psychological situation | 0.6842 | 0.7070 | 0.8167 |
B1: Flow rate | 0.9665 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | E4: Job satisfaction | 0.5400 | 0.6146 | 0.7759 |
B2: Volume | 0.8586 | 0.9216 | 0.9433 | E5: Security guard | 0.1313 | 0.2499 | 0.4669 |
B3: Temperature | 0.8673 | 0.9467 | 0.9993 | F1: Maintenance | 0.4753 | 0.4999 | 0.9450 |
B4: Pressure | 0.8423 | 0.9600 | 1.0000 | F2: Safety culture | 0.9673 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
B5: System complexity | 0.3849 | 0.5704 | 0.7326 | F3: Procedures | 0.4097 | 0.4506 | 0.9670 |
C1: Reaction enthalpy | 0.7725 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | F4: Monitoring system | 0.2664 | 0.2721 | 0.9648 |
C2: Consequence modeling | 0.7617 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | F5: Management involvement | 0.4843 | 0.5330 | 0.9873 |
Positive dimension | F6: Emergency planning | 0.1361 | 0.1512 | 0.9782 | |||
D1: Equipment integrity | 0.5857 | 1 | 0.9437 | F7: Risk management system | 0.3039 | 0.6180 | 1.0000 |
Dimension | Indicators | Weight |
---|---|---|
Negative | Chemical | 0.5922 |
Process | 0.2391 | |
Reaction | 0.1686 | |
Positive | Equipment | 0.5973 |
Human factors | 0.2371 | |
Organization | 0.1654 |
Contributing Factor | NRS | Contributing Factor | NRS |
---|---|---|---|
Negative dimension | D2. Materials quality | 0.7 | |
A1. Combustion enthalpy | 0.9 | D3. Process structure | 0.6 |
A2. Combustibility | 1 | D4. Control system | 0.7 |
A3. Explosiveness | 1 | D5. Reliability | 0.6 |
A4. LEL/UEL | 1 | D6. Design | 0.5 |
A5. Boiling point | 0.6 | D7. Security equipment | 0.7 |
A6. Stability class | 0.3 | D8. Calibration | 0.7 |
A7. Toxicity | 1 | E1. Education/training | 0.6 |
A8. Corrosively | 0.3 | E2. Expert | 0.7 |
A9. Flashpoint | 0.8 | E3. Physical & Psychological situation | 0.5 |
B1. Flow rate | 0.8 | E4. Job satisfaction | 0.4 |
B2. Volume | 0.7 | E5. Security guard | 0.6 |
B3. Temperature | 0.5 | F1. Maintenance | 0.6 |
B4. Pressure | 0.8 | F2. Safety culture | 0.5 |
B5. System complexity | 0.8 | F3. Procedures | 0.6 |
C1. Reaction enthalpy | 0.5 | F4. Monitoring system | 0.6 |
C2. Consequence modeling | 0.6 | F6. Management involvement | 0.5 |
Positive dimension | F7. Emergency planning | 0.6 | |
D1. Equipment integrity | 0.6 | F8. Risk management system | 0.5 |
Different Study | P | C | O | H | HU | W | MM | A | E |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Athar et al. [79] | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | - | - | - | ✓ | - |
Xu et al. [20] | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Vázquez et al. [29] | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | ✓ | - | ✓ | ✓ | - |
Abidin et al. [17] | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | - |
Ahmad et al. [26] | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Ahmad et al. [80] | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Einia et al. [81] | ✓ | ✓ | - | - | ✓ | - | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Present study | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gholamizadeh, K.; Zarei, E.; Kabir, S.; Mamudu, A.; Aala, Y.; Mohammadfam, I. A Knowledge-Driven Model to Assess Inherent Safety in Process Infrastructure. Safety 2023, 9, 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9020037
Gholamizadeh K, Zarei E, Kabir S, Mamudu A, Aala Y, Mohammadfam I. A Knowledge-Driven Model to Assess Inherent Safety in Process Infrastructure. Safety. 2023; 9(2):37. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9020037
Chicago/Turabian StyleGholamizadeh, Kamran, Esmaeil Zarei, Sohag Kabir, Abbas Mamudu, Yasaman Aala, and Iraj Mohammadfam. 2023. "A Knowledge-Driven Model to Assess Inherent Safety in Process Infrastructure" Safety 9, no. 2: 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9020037