Analysis Techniques

  • Jan-Erik VinnemEmail author
  • Willy Røed
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)


Chapter  14 has presented an overview of all the steps involved in performing a QRA. This chapter is devoted to the main analysis techniques that may be used. Hazard identification, analysis of causes, frequencies and dependencies as well as accident sequences are covered. Leak modelling and ignition modelling as well as escalation modelling are also main topics of this chapter.


  1. 1.
    Crawley F, Preston M, Tyler B (2000) HAZOP: guide to best practice for the process and chemical industries. UK, Institution of Chemical EngineersGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lees FP (2004) Lees’ loss prevention in the process industries, 3rd edn. Butterworth–Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lloyds Register Consulting (2004) An assessment of safety, risks and costs associated with subsea pipeline disposals, Kjeller, Norway. Report No.: 32.701.001/R1Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CCPS (2018) Bow ties in risk management: a concept book for process safety. Wiley. ISBN: 978-1-119-49039-5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGlone J (2015) Inherent safety against cyber attack for process facilities. In: SPE/IATMI Asia Pacific oil & gas conference and exhibition, Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 20–22 Oct 2015Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rausand M, Haugen S (2013) Risk assessment: theory, methods, and applications, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vesely WE, Goldberg FF, Roberts NM, Haasl DF (1981) Fault tree handbook (NUREG–0492). Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aven T (1992) Reliability and risk analysis. Elsevier, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stamatis DH (1995) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. American Society for Quality, MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ripley BD (1987) Stochastic simulation. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vinnem JE, Aven T, Hundseid H, Vassmyr KA, Vollen F et al (2003) Risk assessments for offshore installations in the operational phase. In: European safety and reliability conference 2003, Maastricht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vinnem JE, Hauge S, Seljelid J, Aven T (2003) Operational risk analysis—total analysis of physical and non–physical barriers. Preventor, Bryne, Norway, Preventor Report 200254–03, 16 Oct 2003Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vinnem JE, Aven T, Hauge S, Seljelid J, Veire G (2004) Integrated barrier analysis in operational risk assessment in offshore petroleum operations. In: Proceedings of the international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management PSAM7 and European safety and reliability conference, Berlin, Germany, 14–18 June 2004Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aven T, Sklet S, Vinnem JE (2006) Barrier and operational risk analysis of hydrocarbon releases (BORA–release). Part I, method description, J Hazard Mater A137:681–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thomassen O, Sørum M (2002) Mapping and monitoring the safety level. In: SPE international conference on health, safety and environment in oil and gas exploration and production, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. SPE paper 73923, 20–22 Mar 2002Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tinmannsvik RK, Sklet S, Jersin E (2005) Investigation methodology: man, technology, organisation (In Norwegian only). SINTEF. Report No.: STF38 A04422, Oct 2005.–11AA–4AC7–931F–A6A6CB790573/0/UlykkesgranskingSTF38A04422.pdf
  17. 17.
    PSA (2006) Trends in risk levels, main report 2017 (in Norwegian only). Petroleum Safety Authority, 26 Apr 2018Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhen X, Vinnem JE, Penga C, Huang Y (2018) Quantitative risk modelling of maintenance work on major offshore process equipment. Loss Prev Process Ind 56:430–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jensen FV (2001) Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pearl J (2001) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufman, San MateozbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mosleh A, Dias A, Eghbali G, Fazen K (2004) An integrated framework for identification, classification and assessment of aviation systems hazards. In: Proceedings of the international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management PSAM7 and European safety and reliability conference, Berlin, Germany, 14–18 June 2004Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Røed W, Mosleh A, Vinnem JE, Aven T (2009) On the use of hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(2):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kongsvik T, Johnsen SÅ, Sklet S (2011) Safety climate and hydrocarbon leaks: an empirical contribution to the leading-lagging indicator discussion. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vinnem JE, Veire G, Heide B, Aven T (2004) A method for developing and structuring risk activity indicators for major accidents, presented at PSAM7, Berlin, 14–18 June, 2004Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sklet S, Ringstad AJ, Steen SA, Tronstad L, Haugen S, Seljelid J, Kongsvik T, Wærø I (2010) Monitoring of human and organizational factors influencing risk of major accidents. In: SPE international conference on health, safety and environment in oil and gas exploration and production, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 12–14 April 2010Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Øien K (2001) Risk indicators as a tool for risk control. Reliab Eng Syst Saf (RESS) 74(2):147–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vinnem JE et al (2012) Risk modelling of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore petroleum installations. Loss Prev Process Ind 25(2):274–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gran BA et al (2012) Evaluation of the risk model of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore petroleum installations. Loss Prev Process Ind 25(3):582–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vinnem JE (2013) On the development of failure models for hydrocarbon leaks during maintenance work in process plants on offshore petroleum installations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nielsen DS (1976) The cause consequence diagram as a basis for quantitative accident analysis. RISØ National Laboratory, Denmark. Report No.: M–1374Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    SCI (1998) Blast and fire engineering for topside systems, phase 2. Ascot. SCI. Report No.: 253Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Standard Norge (2010) Z-013 risk and emergency preparedness assessment (Rev. 3, Oct. 2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lloyds Register Consulting (2006) Riskspectrum® software.
  34. 34.
    Bäckström O (2003) Pilot project fault tree analysis for Statfjord A (in Swedish only). Stockholm; Lloyds Register Consulting. Report No.: 99161–R–005, May 2003Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    IEC (2010) Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. Part 1: general requirements. IEC 61508:2010Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Norwegian Oil and Gas (2018) 070 guidelines for the application of IEC 61508 and IEC 61511 in the petroleum activities on the continental shelf (Recommended SIL requirements), 26 June 2018Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    IEC (2016) Functional safety—safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector. Part 1: framework, definitions, system, hardware and software requirements, IEC61511-1Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morris MI, Miles A, Cooper JPS (1994) Quantification of escalation effects in offshore quantitative risk assessment. J Loss Prev Process Ind 7(4):337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jones JC, Irvine P (1997) PLATO software for offshore risk assessment: a critique of the combustion features incorporated. J Loss Prev Process Ind 10(4):259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Skogdalen JE, Vinnem JE (2012) Combining precursor incidents investigations and QRA in oil and gas industry. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 101:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Skogdalen JE, Vinnem JE (2011) Quantitative risk analysis offshore-human and organizational factors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 96:468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    PSA (2005) Investigation of the anchor line failures on ocean vanguard, 14 Dec 2004, well 6406/1–3 (In Norwegian only) PSA, 23 May 2005. Petroleum Safety Authority, Stavanger.–7F2D–470C–9A36–1153AADE50A7/7950/ovgrrappkomprimertny.pdf
  43. 43.
    DNV GL (1996). JIP ignition modelling, time dependent ignition probability model, DNV report 96–3629, Rev. 04Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lloyds Register Consulting (2006) Ignition modelling in risk analysis. Lloyds Register Consulting, Kjeller, Norway. Report No.: 27.390.033/R1Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    PSA (2012). Trends in risk level on the Norwegian continental shelf, main report (in Norwegian only, English summery report). Petroleum Safety Authority, Stavanger, 25 Apr 2012Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lloyd’s Register Consulting (2018) Modelling of ignition sources on offshore oil and gas facilities—MISOF(2). Kjeller, Norway. Report No.: 107566/R2Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cox AW, Lees FP, Ang ML (1991) Classification of hazardous locations. Institution of Chemical Engineers, UKGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vinnem JE, Hauge S (1999) Operational safety of FPSOs, MP3; riser failure due to inadequate response to rapid wind change. NTNU, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vinnem JE, Pedersen JI, Rosenthal P (1996) Efficient risk management: use of computerized QRA model for safety improvements to an existing installation. In: Presented at SPE 3rd international conference on health, safety and environment, New Orleans, June 1996Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    IOGP (2010). Vulnerability of plant/structure, iogp risk assessment data directory. Report No. 434–15, IOGP, Mar 2010Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mendonos S (2003) Improvement of rule sets for quantitative risk assessment in various industrial sectors, safety and reliability. In: Proceedings of ESREL 2003, vol 2. Balkema PublishersGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gowan RG (1978) Developments in fire protection of offshore platforms. Applied Science Publisher Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    API (1976). Recommended practice for the design and installation of pressure–relieving systems in refineries. Part 1—Design, API recommended practice 520. American Petroleum Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    American Iron and Steel Institute (1979). Fire-safe structural steel. A Design Guide, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    DNV GL/ Lloyds Register Consulting (2001). Human resistance against thermal effects, explosion effects, toxic effects and obscuration of vision. (
  56. 56.
    Henderson Y, Haggard HW (1943) Noxious gases, 2nd edn. Reinhold Publishing Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sax NI (1984) Dangerous properties of industrial materials, 6th edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    HSE (2018) Offshore statistics & regulatory activity, report 2017, August 2018.
  59. 59.
    Statoil (2016) Statoil’s global risk management including IT security, lecture by Monica Solem at NTNU Marin Technology Dept, October 2016Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jacobs T (2016) Industrial-sized cyber attacks threaten the upstream sector. J Petrol TechnolGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Slowik J (2018) The rising tide threats to industrial control systems. Infowarcon. (
  62. 62.
    Kott A, Wang C, Erbacher RF (2014) Cyber defense and situational awareness. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Connors E, Jones RET, Endsley MR (2010) A comprehensive study of requirements and metrics for cyber defense situation awareness. SA Technologies Inc, Marietta, GAGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    API (1997) Guide for pressure relieving and depressuring systems, RP 521. American Petroleum Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations