Risk-Based Inspection and Maintenance

  • Adnan BakriEmail author
  • Mohd Al-Fatihhi Mohd Szali Januddi
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology book series (BRIEFSAPPLSCIENCES)


Modern business environment can tolerate no failures, especially involving unscheduled shutdowns, environmental contamination, individual injuries, and human fatalities.


  1. 1.
    Kletz T, Amyotte P (2019) What went wrong?: case histories of process plant disasters and how they could have been avoided. Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar U (1998) Maintenance strategies for mechanized and automated mining systems: a reliability and risk analysis based approach. J Mines Met Fuels 46:343–347Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bevilacqua M, Braglia M (2000) The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 70:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen LN, Toyoda J (1989) Maintenance scheduling based on two level hierarchical structure to equalize incremental risk. In: Conference papers power industry computer application conference (IEEE), pp 431–437Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Inspection R-B (2000) Base resource document. API Publications 581Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang M, Chang R, Shu C, Lin K (2005) Application of risk based inspection in refinery and processing piping. 18 397–402Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ridgway M (2001) Classifying medical devices according to their maintenance sensitivity: a practical, risk-based approach to PM program management. Biomed Instrum Technol 35:167–176Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee C, Teo Y (2001) Det Norske Veritas RBI study for the ammonia storage plant. Fertil. Kaohsiung Ammon. Termin, ROC TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khan FI, Haddara MM (2003) Risk-based maintenance (RBM): a quantitative approach for maintenance/inspection scheduling and planning. J Loss Prev Process Ind 16:561–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan FI, Haddara M (2004) Risk-Based Maintenance (RBM): a new approach for process plant inspection and maintenance. Process Saf Prog 23:252–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khan FI (2001) Use maximum-credible accident scenarios for realistic and reliable risk assessment. Chem Eng Prog 97:56–64Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan FI, Abbasi SA (1998) MAXCRED—A new software package for rapid risk assessment in chemical process industries. Environ Model Softw 14:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan FI, Abbasi SA (2000) Analytical simulation and PROFAT II: a new methodology and a computer automated tool for fault tree analysis in chemical process industries. J Hazard Mater 75:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shafaghi A (1988) Structure modeling of process systems for risk and reliability analysis. Kandel, Avni, pp 45–64Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fadt P, Analysis T (1999) PROFAT: a user friendly system for probabilistic fault tree analysis. Process Saf Prog 18:42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lees F (2012) Lees’ loss prevention in the process industries: hazard identification, assessment and control. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rice WP (2007) Medical device risk based evaluation and maintenance using fault tree analysisGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jamshidi A, Abbasgholizadeh S, Ait-kadi D, Ruiz A (2015) A comprehensive fuzzy risk-based maintenance framework for prioritization of medical devices. Appl Soft Comput J 32:322–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adnan Bakri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohd Al-Fatihhi Mohd Szali Januddi
    • 1
  1. 1.Advance Facilities Maintenance Engineering Technology (AFET) Research Cluster, Facilities Maintenance Engineering Section, Malaysian Institute of Industrial TechnologyUniversiti Kuala LumpurJohor BahruMalaysia

Personalised recommendations