HAZOP analysis has become a versatile tool for industrial risk assessment and optimization in the past decades. It facilitates systematical design review with wide applications spanning across entire project lifecycle, from initial design to operation and decommission stages. Traditional qualitative HAZOP process that largely depends on historical experience and brainstorming can lead to inaccurate hazard identification and severe accident consequences. This study aims at improving the depth and accuracy of HAZOP analysis by delivering a comprehensive exploration of the critical factors and advanced quantitative approach. The impact factors were illustrated from prerequisite and assurance aspects. Prerequisite factors serve as the fundamentals of HAZOP which involve design technical details, HAZOP team management, execution strategy and HSE culture, while assurance factors denote the systematical PSI data and quantitative analytical frameworks. A classical chemical case study via semi-quantitative method was exemplified. Countermeasures and international leading practices were introduced with a summary chart at the end. Special attention should be paid to the effectiveness of safety guards and coming up HAZOP recommendations. Motivating future works can be explored such as HAZOP efficiency optimization, finer study targeting different project types, and broader industry applications. By incorporating the critical factors with integrated quantitative approach, the influence of enterprise HAZOP analysis will be more profound with enhanced accident prevention and risk awareness in the overall industrial environment.
| Published in | American Journal of Chemical Engineering (Volume 9, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12 |
| Page(s) | 18-24 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
HAZard and OPerability (HAZOP) Analysis, Process Safety, Risk Management, Risk Matrix, Enterprise HSE, Chemical Engineering
| [1] | Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA PSM (29 CFR 1910.119), Process Safety Management of highly hazardous chemicals. 29 CFR Ch. XVII (7–1–99 Edition). |
| [2] | Cagno, E., F. Caron, et al. Risk analysis in plant commissioning: the Multilevel HAZOP. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2002, 77, 309–323. [DOI: 10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00064-9] |
| [3] | Dunjó, J.; Fthenakis, V.; Vílchez, J. A.; Arnaldos, J. Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) Analysis. A literature review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 173, 19–32. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.08.076] |
| [4] | Li, Y. J. The exploration of integrity assurance of project HAZOP analysis and adoption extension of its method. J. Modern Chemical Industry, 2019, 39, 11–15. |
| [5] | Cheng, Xi'an; Zhang, Q. Research and application of HAZOP deviation quantization based on process simulation. J. Modern Chemical Industry. 2017, 37, 187–191. |
| [6] | Baybutt, P. A critique of the Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2015, 33, 52–58. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2014.11.010] |
| [7] | Common Mistakes When Conducting a HAZOP and How to Avoid Them. Article in Chemical Engineering, New York, Mcgraw Hill Incorporated then Chemical Week Publishing llc-122 (12): 54–58 December 2015. |
| [8] | Baybutt, P. On the completeness of scenario identification in process hazard analysis (PHA). J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2018, 55, 492–499. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2018.05.010] |
| [9] | Rossing, N. L.; Lind, M.; Jensen, N.; Jorgensen, S. B; A Goal based methodology for HAZOP analysis, Published in, J. International journal of nuclear safety and simulation. 2010, 1, 133–142. |
| [10] | Aminbakhsh, S.; Gündüz, M.; Sonmez, R. Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction projects. J. Saf. Res. 2013, 46, 99–105. |
| [11] | Rossing, N. L. Method development for systematic risk assessment, Kgs. Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark Dept. of Chemical Engineering, M. Sc. Thesis, 2006. |
| [12] | Zhai, Q. W., Tang, B. How to apply chemical reaction heat data to HAZOP analysis and engineering practice protection. The 4th China International Chemical Process Safety Conference, Suzhou. 2019.11. |
| [13] | Chen, Y.; Lai, X. L. The latest development of HAZOP analysis method and its application. J. Petrochemical Safety and Environmental Technology. 2013, 29, 30–34. |
| [14] | Venkatsubramanian, V.; Zhao, J.; Viswa, N. S. Intelligent systems for HAZOP analysis of complex process plants, computers chemical engineering, 2000, 24, 2291–2302. [DOI: 10.1016/S0098-1354(00)00573-1] |
| [15] | Marhavilas, P. K.; Filippidis, M.; Koulinas, G. K.; Koulouriotis, D. E. The integration of HAZOP study with risk-matrix and the analytical-hierarchy process for identifying critical control-points and prioritizing risks in industry-A case study. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2019. |
| [16] | Trammell, S. R.; Lorenzo, D. K.; Davis, B. J. Integrated hazards analysis-using the strengths of multiple methods to maximize effectiveness. J. Professional Safety. 2004, 49, 29–37. |
| [17] | Feng, Y.; Ma, K.; Liao, Z. G. PHAST- based Leakage Simulation of Propylene Sphere. J. Safety, Health and Environment. 2015, 15, 46–49. |
| [18] | Ozog, H.; Bendixen, L. M. Hazard identification and quantification: the most effective way to identify, quantify, and control risks is to combine a hazard and operability study with fault tree analysis. J. Chemical Engineering Progress. 1987, 83, 55–64. |
| [19] | Yan, W. Q.; Yun, Y. T.; Qi, M.; Zhao, D. F. Quantitative HAZOP Analysis and Research Based on Aspen. Collected Papers of the Sixth CCPS China Process Safety Conference 999-1007. Qingdao, 2018.9. |
| [20] | James, A. B.; Nancy, L.; Frank L.; Skip, B.; et al. BP American Refinery Independent Safety Review Team Report. |
| [21] | MOGFORD, J.: Fatal accident investigation report, Texas City: BP, 2005. |
| [22] | Wu. H. J. Application of Risk Matrix in Liquid Ammonia Transportation Mode Decision. J. Safety Health &Environment. 2017, 17, 41–44. |
| [23] | Alaei, R.; Mansoori, S. A. A.; Moghaddam, A. H.; Mansoori, S. M.; Mansoori, N. Safety assessment approach of hazard and operability (HAZOP) for sulfur recovery unit Claus reaction furnace package; blower; heat exchanger equipment in South Pars gas processing plant. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2014, 20, 271–284. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2014.07.007]. |
| [24] | Demichela, M.; Marmo, L.; Piccinini, N. Recursive operability analysis of a complex plant with multiple protection devices. J. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2002, 77, 301–308. [DOI: 10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00063-7]. |
| [25] | Hurme, M; Rahman, M. Implementing inherent safety throughout process lifecycle. J. Journal of loss prevention in the Process Industries. 2005, 18, 238–244. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.013]. |
APA Style
Jingyi Li. (2021). Improving the Depth and Accuracy of HAZOP Analysis for Safer Process Development in Chemical Industries. American Journal of Chemical Engineering, 9(1), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12
ACS Style
Jingyi Li. Improving the Depth and Accuracy of HAZOP Analysis for Safer Process Development in Chemical Industries. Am. J. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9(1), 18-24. doi: 10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12
AMA Style
Jingyi Li. Improving the Depth and Accuracy of HAZOP Analysis for Safer Process Development in Chemical Industries. Am J Chem Eng. 2021;9(1):18-24. doi: 10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12,
author = {Jingyi Li},
title = {Improving the Depth and Accuracy of HAZOP Analysis for Safer Process Development in Chemical Industries},
journal = {American Journal of Chemical Engineering},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
pages = {18-24},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajche.20210901.12},
abstract = {HAZOP analysis has become a versatile tool for industrial risk assessment and optimization in the past decades. It facilitates systematical design review with wide applications spanning across entire project lifecycle, from initial design to operation and decommission stages. Traditional qualitative HAZOP process that largely depends on historical experience and brainstorming can lead to inaccurate hazard identification and severe accident consequences. This study aims at improving the depth and accuracy of HAZOP analysis by delivering a comprehensive exploration of the critical factors and advanced quantitative approach. The impact factors were illustrated from prerequisite and assurance aspects. Prerequisite factors serve as the fundamentals of HAZOP which involve design technical details, HAZOP team management, execution strategy and HSE culture, while assurance factors denote the systematical PSI data and quantitative analytical frameworks. A classical chemical case study via semi-quantitative method was exemplified. Countermeasures and international leading practices were introduced with a summary chart at the end. Special attention should be paid to the effectiveness of safety guards and coming up HAZOP recommendations. Motivating future works can be explored such as HAZOP efficiency optimization, finer study targeting different project types, and broader industry applications. By incorporating the critical factors with integrated quantitative approach, the influence of enterprise HAZOP analysis will be more profound with enhanced accident prevention and risk awareness in the overall industrial environment.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Improving the Depth and Accuracy of HAZOP Analysis for Safer Process Development in Chemical Industries AU - Jingyi Li Y1 - 2021/02/10 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12 DO - 10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12 T2 - American Journal of Chemical Engineering JF - American Journal of Chemical Engineering JO - American Journal of Chemical Engineering SP - 18 EP - 24 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-8613 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajche.20210901.12 AB - HAZOP analysis has become a versatile tool for industrial risk assessment and optimization in the past decades. It facilitates systematical design review with wide applications spanning across entire project lifecycle, from initial design to operation and decommission stages. Traditional qualitative HAZOP process that largely depends on historical experience and brainstorming can lead to inaccurate hazard identification and severe accident consequences. This study aims at improving the depth and accuracy of HAZOP analysis by delivering a comprehensive exploration of the critical factors and advanced quantitative approach. The impact factors were illustrated from prerequisite and assurance aspects. Prerequisite factors serve as the fundamentals of HAZOP which involve design technical details, HAZOP team management, execution strategy and HSE culture, while assurance factors denote the systematical PSI data and quantitative analytical frameworks. A classical chemical case study via semi-quantitative method was exemplified. Countermeasures and international leading practices were introduced with a summary chart at the end. Special attention should be paid to the effectiveness of safety guards and coming up HAZOP recommendations. Motivating future works can be explored such as HAZOP efficiency optimization, finer study targeting different project types, and broader industry applications. By incorporating the critical factors with integrated quantitative approach, the influence of enterprise HAZOP analysis will be more profound with enhanced accident prevention and risk awareness in the overall industrial environment. VL - 9 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: