Risk Analysis Methods for Gas Explosion

  • Guowei MaEmail author
  • Yimiao Huang
  • Jingde Li


This chapter gives a broad literature review on the state-of-the-art explosion risk analysis methods including both qualitative and quantitative approaches, such as risk checklist, HAZOP, HAZIP, event tree, fault tree and Bayesian network. A 3 × 3 risk matrix is used to classify the risk level by considering both likelihood and consequence of an explosion event. For the quantitative methods, detailed calculation procedure of each approach is presented, and the strengths and weaknesses of each method are discussed.


  1. Aven, T., Sklet, S., & Vinnem, J. E. (2006). Barrier and operational risk analysis of hydrocarbon releases (BORA-Release): Part I. Method description. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 137(2), 681–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. CCPS. (2011). Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures (3rd Ed.). Center for Chemical Process Safety.Google Scholar
  3. CIA. (1992). A guide to hazard and operability studies. Chemical Industries Association.Google Scholar
  4. Dong, Y., & Yu, D. (2005). Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by fuzzy fault tree analysis. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 18(2), 83–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferdous, R., Khan, F., Sadiq, R., Amyotte, P., & Veitch, B. (2011). Fault and event tree analyses for process systems risk analysis: Uncertainty handling formulations. Risk Analysis, 31(1), 86–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huang, D., Chen, T., & Wang, M. J. J. (2001). A fuzzy set approach for event tree analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 118(1), 153–165.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, R., Freund, J., & Miller, I. (2011). Probability and statistics for engineers. Boston, MA: Pearson.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Khakzad, N., Khan, F., & Amyotte, P. (2011). Safety analysis in process facilities: Comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(8), 925–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kletz, T. A. (1999). HAZOP and HAZAN: Identifying and assessing process industry hazards. IChemE.Google Scholar
  10. Kumamoto, H., & Henley, E. J. (2000). Probabilistic risk assessment and management for engineers and scientists. Wiley-IEEE.Google Scholar
  11. Mannan, S. (2012). Lees’ Loss prevention in the process industries: Hazard identification, assessment and control: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  12. Nielsen, T. D., & Jensen, F. V. (2009). Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  13. Pearl, J. (2014). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  14. Spouge J. (1999). A guide to quantitative risk assessment for offshore installations. The Centre of Marine and Petroleum Technology (CMPT), United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  15. UKOOA. (2003). Fire and explosion guidance part 1: Avoidance and mitigation of explosions (Issue 1). United Kingdom: UK Offshore Operation Association.Google Scholar
  16. Vincoli, J. W. (2006). Chapter 6 preliminary hazard analysis. In Basic guide to system safety (2nd Ed., pp. 65–84). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  17. Vinnem, J. E. (2014). Offshore risk assessment principles, modelling and applications of QRA studies. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Wang, D., Zhang, P., & Chen, L. (2013). Fuzzy fault tree analysis for fire and explosion of crude oil tanks. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26(6), 1390–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil and Transportation EngineeringHebei University of TechnologyTianjinChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Infrastructural Monitoring and ProtectionCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations