Advertisement

Defining safety functions and safety barriers from fault and event trees analysis of major industrial hazards

  • Bruno Debray
  • Christian Delvosalle
  • Cécile Fiévez
  • Aurore Pipart
  • Henry Londiche
  • Emmanuel Hubert
Conference paper

Abstract

The prevention of major accident hazard is the main objective of the SEVESO II directive. It relies notably on risk analysis and on the implementation of a safety management system. However, the methodology for risk analysis is not provided by the directive and different approaches are adopted within the European union. The objective of the European project ARAMIS is to build up a new integrated risk assessment method that will be used as a supportive tool to speed up the harmonized implementation of SEVESO II Directive. ARAMIS not only focuses on the identification and evaluation of the risk but also on the vulnerability of the environment by proposing tools to evaluate it and crosses this result with a spatial representation of the accident effect. A last innovative aspect of ARAMIS is to take explicitly the management into account by defining a management index which reduces or increases the global severity of the dreaded scenarios.

Keywords

Critical Event Fault Tree Pool Fire Management Index Safety Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hourtolou D. and Salvi O. ARAMIS Project: development of an integrated accidental risk assessment methodology for industries in the framework of SEVESO II directive, Safety and Reliability — Bedford & van Gelder, BLKEMA, Lisse, 2003; 829–836 (ESREL 2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.J. Duijm et al. Assessing the effect of safety management efficiency on industrial risk Safety and Reliability — Bedford & van Gelder, BLKEMA, Lisse, 2003; 575-581Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Planas et al. ARAMIS project: the severity index, Safety and Reliability — Bedford & van Gelder, BLKEMA, Lisse, 2003; 1247-1253Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Delvosalle et al. ARAMIS project: identification of reference accident scenarios in SEVESO establishments Safety and Reliability — Bedford & van Gelder, BLKEMA, Lisse, 2003; 479-487Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Tixier et al. Assessment of the environment vulnerability in the surroundings of an industrial site, Safety and Reliability — Bedford & van Gelder, BLKEMA, Lisse, 2003;1543-1551Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J-C. Le Coze et al. Comparison between two organisational models for major hazard prevention, Safety and Reliability — Bedford & van Gelder, BLKEMA, Lisse, 2003; 431-438Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank P. Lees, Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Hazard identification, assessment and control, Second Edition, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CCPS Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety, New-York, 1993Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.J. Bellamy, T.A.W. Geyer, J.A. Astley, Evaluation of the human contribution to pipework and in-line equipment failure frequency, HSE contract research report 15/1989, may 1989Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Hourtolou, S. Bouchet, O. Salvi, Mieux démontrer la maîtrise des risques industriels, Phoebus, Editions Préventique, Bordeaux; 2003, N°27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Debray
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christian Delvosalle
    • 2
  • Cécile Fiévez
    • 2
  • Aurore Pipart
    • 2
  • Henry Londiche
    • 1
  • Emmanuel Hubert
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole des Mines de St EtienneSt-EtienneFrance
  2. 2.Major Risk Research CentreMonsBelgium
  3. 3.INERISVerneuil en HalatteFrance

Personalised recommendations