Analysis Techniques

  • Jan-Erik VinnemEmail author
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.


Fault Tree Ignition Source Pool Fire Fault Tree Analysis Ignition Probability 
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.


  1. 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
  2. API (1997) Guide for pressure relieving and depressuring systems, RP 521. American Petroleum Institute, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Aven T (1992) Reliability and risk analysis. Elsevier, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bäckström O (2003) Pilot project fault tree analysis for Statfjord A (in Swedish only). Stockholm; Relcon; 2003 May. Report no.: 99161–R–005Google Scholar
  6. Cox AW, Lees FP, Ang ML (1991) Classification of hazardous locations. Institution of Chemical Engineers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Crawley F, Preston M, Tyler B (2000) HAZOP: guide to best practice for the process and chemical industries. Institution of Chemical Engineers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. DNV (1996) JIP ignition modelling, time dependent ignition probability model. DNV report no. 96-3629, rev. 04Google Scholar
  9. DNV (1998a) Ignition modelling, time dependent ignition probability model. Høvik; DNV; 1998 Feb. Report no.: 96-3629Google Scholar
  10. DNV (1998b) Benchmark of JIP ignition model against experience data. Høvik; DNV; 1998 Oct. Report no.: 98-3290Google Scholar
  11. DNV/Scandpower (2001) Human resistance against thermal effects, explosion effects, toxic effects and obscuration of vision. Accessed 20 Mar 2001
  12. Gowan RG (1978) Developments in fire protection of offshore platforms. Applied Science Publisher Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Gran BA et al (2012) Evaluation of the risk model of maintenance work on major process equipment on offshore petroleum installations. J Loss Prev Process Ind 25(3):582–593MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Henderson Y, Haggard HW (1943) Noxious gases, 2nd edn. Reinhold Publishing Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Høyland A, Rausand M, (1994) System reliability, theory, models and statistical methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  16. HSE (1992) Tolerability of Risk from Nuclear Power Stations. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
  17. IEC (1999) Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems—Part 1: General requirements. IEC61508Google Scholar
  18. IEC (2003) Functional safety–safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector—Part 1: Framework, definitions, system, hardware and software requirements. IEC61511Google Scholar
  19. Jensen FV (2001) Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Lees FP (2004) Lees’ loss prevention in the process industries, 3rd edn. Butterworth–Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 Publishers, LisseGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Nielsen DS (1976) The cause consequence diagram as a basis for quantitative accident analysis. RISØ National Laboratory, Denmark. Report no.: M-1374Google Scholar
  27. Norwegian oil and gas (2004) Application of IEC 61508 and IEC 61511 in the Norwegian Petroleum Industry, Guideline 070, 29.10.2004Google Scholar
  28. OGP (2010) Vulnerability of plant/structure, OGP risk assessment data directory. Report no. 434-15, OGP, March 2010Google Scholar
  29. Øien K (2001) Risk indicators as a tool for risk control. Reliab Eng Syst Safety (RESS) 74(2):147–167Google Scholar
  30. Pearl J (2001) Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufman, San MateoGoogle Scholar
  31. PSA (2005) Investigation of the anchor line failures on ocean vanguard 14.12.2004, Well 6406/1–3 (In Norwegian only). PSA 23.5.2005. Stavanger; Petroleum Safety Authority.–7F2D–470C–9A36–1153AADE50A7/7950/ovgrrappkomprimertny.pdf
  32. PSA (2006a) Trends is risk levels, Main report 2005, Phase 6 (In Norwegian only) Report 06-02, Petroleum Safety Authority; 28.4.2006Google Scholar
  33. PSA (2006b) Trends is risk levels, Summary report Phase 6; Report 06–04, Petroleum Safety Authority; 28.4.2006Google Scholar
  34. PSA (2012) Trends in risk level on the norwegian continental shelf, main report, (in Norwegian only, English summery report). Petroleum Safety Authority, Stavanger, 25.4.2012Google Scholar
  35. Rausand M (2011) Risk assessment: theory, methods, and applications (statistics in practice). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Relcon (2006) Riskspectrum® software.
  37. Ripley BD (1987) Stochastic simulation. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Røed W, Mosleh A, Vinnem JE, Aven T (2009) On the use of hybrid causal logic method in offshore risk analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 94(2):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sax NI (1984) Dangerous properties of industrial materials, 6th edn. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Scandpower Risk Management (2004) An assessment of safety, risks and costs associated with subsea pipeline disposals. Scandpower; 2004 Sep. Kjeller, Norway; Report no.: 32.701.001/R1Google Scholar
  41. Scandpower Risk Management (2006) Ignition modelling in risk analysis. Scandpower; 2006 Feb. Kjeller, Norway; Report no.: 27.390.033/R1Google Scholar
  42. SCI (1998) Blast and fire engineering for topside systems, Phase 2. Ascot; SCI. Report no.: 253Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Skogdalen JE, Vinnem JE (2011) Quantitative risk analysis offshore-human and organizational factors. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 96:468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Skogdalen JE, Vinnem JE (2012) Combining precursor incidents investigations and QRA in oil and gas industry. Reliab Eng Syst Safety 101:48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stamatis DH (1995) Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. American Society for Quality, MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
  47. Standard Norway (2010) Risk and emergency preparedness analysis, NOROSK standard Z-013. Rev. 3Google Scholar
  48. 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, SPE paper 73923, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 20–22 Mar 2002Google Scholar
  49. Tinmannsvik RK, Sklet S, Jersin E (2005) Investigation methodology: man, technology, organisation (in Norwegian only). SINTEF; 2005 Oct. Report no.: STF38 A04422.–11AA–4AC7–931F–A6A6CB790573/0/UlykkesgranskingSTF38A04422.pdf
  50. Vesely WE, Goldberg FF, Roberts NM, Haasl DF (1981) Fault tree handbook (NUREG–0492), office of nuclear regulatory research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  51. Vinnem JE, Pedersen JI, Rosenthal P (1996). Efficient risk management: use of computerized qra model for safety improvements to an existing installation. In: SPE 3rd international conference on health, safety and environment, New Orleans, June 1996Google Scholar
  52. Vinnem JE, Vinnem JE (1998) Risk levels on the norwegian continental shelf. Preventor, Bryne, Norway; 1998 Aug. Report no.: 19708-03Google Scholar
  53. Vinnem JE, Hauge S (1999) Operational safety of FPSOs, MP3; riser failure due to inadequate response to rapid wind change. NTNU, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  54. Vinnem JE, Aven T, Hundseid H, Vassmyr K-A, Vollen F et al (2003a) Risk assessments for offshore installations in the operational phase. In: European safety and reliability conference 2003, Maastricht, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  55. Vinnem JE, Hauge S, Seljelid J, Aven T (2003b) Operational risk analysis—total analysis of physical and non-physical barriers. Preventor, Bryne, Norway, Preventor report 200254-03; 16 Oct 2003Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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 113:112–121Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations