Analytical Methods in Process Safety Management and System Safety Engineering – Layers of Protection Analysis

Baybutt, Paul

doi:10.1002/9783527650644.ch23

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as more companies perform LOPA studies, there is an increased incentive to identify enablers during PHA studies (Baybutt, 2013c). Of course, enablers play key roles in real-world accidents and their inclusion in PHA studies is desirable (Baybutt, 2014a).…”

Section: Scenario Detailmentioning

confidence: 99%

Requirements for improved process hazard analysis (PHA) methods

Baybutt¹

2014

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Scenario Detailmentioning

confidence: 99%

Requirements for improved process hazard analysis (PHA) methods

Baybutt¹

2014

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Qualitative estimates are often used in PHRA to produce a risk ranking of hazard scenarios . Quantitative estimates are used in Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) and a hybrid of qualitative severity and quantitative likelihood is often used in Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) . In all methods, the scenario likelihood must incorporate the frequency of the initiating event, the probabilities of failure of safeguards (PFDs), and risk multipliers for various types of enablers .…”

Section: Sil Determinationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interface of functional safety with process safety and risk analysis

Baybutt¹

2013

Process Safety Progress

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fundamental requirement of the IEC 61511/ISA 84 standard on Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) is to establish the Safety Integrity Levels (SILs) required for Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs) by evaluating process risks and comparing them to risk tolerance criteria. This article addresses issues that impact the determination of SILs for SIFs and their implications for use of the standard. The issues largely revolve around the interface of the standard with process safety and risk analysis. They include the justification for relative contributions to risk reduction from SIS and non‐SIS protection layers, use of appropriate risk tolerance criteria, difficulties with defining hazardous events consistently, the appropriateness of different SIL determination methods, the importance of fully considering common cause failures, the importance of addressing uncertainties, the need to verify risk reduction for non‐SIS as well as SIS protection layers, the role of systematic failures, and the need to ensure quality in supporting process hazard analysis studies. © 2013 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Process Saf Prog 32: 346–350, 2013

show abstract

“…Common hazard analysis methods include the hazard and operability study and What If analysis . Common risk analysis methods (HAZOP) include risk matrices , layers of protection analysis (LOPA) , and quantitative, or probabilistic, risk analysis (QRA or PRA) . Simple risk analysis methods, such as risk matrices, may be integrated into hazard analysis studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The validity of engineering judgment and expert opinion in hazard and risk analysis: The influence of cognitive biases

Baybutt¹

2017

Process Safety Progress

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hazard and risk analysis depends heavily on human decision making in the form of engineering judgment and expert opinion. Human decision making may be flawed by the effects of heuristics and cognitive biases. The influence of these psychological factors may invalidate the results of hazard and risk analysis studies. They must be managed carefully to minimize their possible adverse impacts. This article provides a pragmatic view of cognitive biases and guidance on how to address them in hazard and risk analysis.

show abstract

Analytical Methods in Process Safety Management and System Safety Engineering – Layers of Protection Analysis

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

Requirements for improved process hazard analysis (PHA) methods

Requirements for improved process hazard analysis (PHA) methods

The interface of functional safety with process safety and risk analysis

The validity of engineering judgment and expert opinion in hazard and risk analysis: The influence of cognitive biases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About