The chemical industry involves the production, storage, and use of many flammable, explosive, toxic, and other hazardous chemicals. Once an accident occurs, it will cause serious harm to human and economic activities. In order to prevent chemical accidents, this paper combines Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Bayesian network (BN) to quantitatively study the relationship and interaction strength among accident risk factors in chemical industry. Through the analysis of accident cases and questionnaire survey, 21 accident risk factors in chemical industry are selected. According to the decision of experts, the influence relationship between risk factors is determined, and a multi-level directed graph of ISM is obtained. And the ISM model is transformed into a quantitative BN model. The BN model is applied to forward reasoning, sensitivity analysis, and reverse reasoning. The results indicate that there is a positive correlation between various risk factors and chemical accidents, and the supervision mechanism has the highest probability of occurrence in production activities. Illegal operation has the highest sensitivity and the greatest impact on chemical accidents. Inherent hazards of materials and products is the most likely cause of accidents. Based on the research results, feasible measures have been proposed to improve safety management in the chemical industry.
KrauseJSpickaJ.Economic analysis of chemical industry. Chem Listy2013; 107(7): 573–578.
2.
JungSWooJKangC.Analysis of severe industrial accidents caused by hazardous chemicals in South Korea from January 2008 to June 2018. Saf Sci2020; 124: 104580.
3.
HuangKChenGKhanF, et al. Dynamic analysis for fire-induced domino effects in chemical process industries. Process Saf Environ Protect2021; 148: 686–697.
4.
WangWLiuZYCuiFQ, et al. Statistical analysis and countermeasures of large and above chemical accidents in China during 1981- 2020. Appl Chem Ind2021; 50(8): 2187–2193.
5.
ChenCReniersGKhakzadN.A dynamic multi-agent approach for modeling the evolution of multi-hazard accident scenarios in chemical plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 207: 107349.
6.
BasheerATauseefS MAbbasiT, et al. Methodologies for assessing risks of accidents in chemical process industries. J Fail Anal Prev2019; 19(3): 623–648.
7.
ArstadIAvenT.Managing major accident risk: concerns about complacency and complexity in practice. Saf Sci2017; 91: 114–121.
8.
HuangWCShuaiBZuoBR, et al. A systematic railway dangerous goods transportation system risk analysis approach: the 24 model. J Loss Prev Process Ind2019; 61: 94–103.
9.
HuangWCZhangYZuoBR, et al. Using an expanded Safety Failure Event Network to analyze railway dangerous goods transportation system risk-accident. J Loss Prev Process Ind2020; 65: 104122.
10.
SalzanoEDebernardiMLRiccioD, et al. A case study of multiple explosions of chemicals under fire conditions. J Loss Prev Process Ind2019; 62: 103932.
11.
WangZHuYYYangYX, et al. Study on accident propagation ability of chemical industry park based on mixture degree decomposition algorithm and accident propagation probability. Proc Safety Prog2020; 40(3): e12229.
12.
KoyuncugilASOzgulbasN.Financial early warning system model and data mining application for risk detection. Expert Syst Appl2012; 39(6): 6238–6253.
13.
MarhavilasPKFilippidisMKoulinasGK, et al. The integration of HAZOP study with risk-matrix and the analytical-hierarchy process for identifying critical control-points and prioritizing risks in industry: a case study. J Loss Prev Process Ind2019; 62: 103981.
14.
DakkouneAVernières-HassimiLLeveneurS, et al. Risk analysis of French chemical industry. Saf Sci2018; 105: 77–85.
15.
AhammedESomanARGopakumarB, et al. Covariate model-based fault tree analysis for risk assessment in chemical process industries: a case study of a chlorine manufacturing facility. J Indian Chem Soc2022; 99(6): 100463.
16.
HeZCWengWG.A dynamic and simulation-based method for quantitative risk assessment of the domino accident in chemical industry. Process Saf Environ Protect2020; 144: 79–92.
17.
HuangWCZhangYKouXY, et al. Railway dangerous goods transportation system risk analysis: an interpretive structural modeling and Bayesian network combining approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 204: 107220.
18.
StudicMMajumdarASchusterW, et al. A systemic modelling of ground handling services using the functional resonance analysis method. Transp Res C Emerg Technol2017; 74: 245–260.
19.
YangZSYangZLYinJB.Realising advanced risk-based port state control inspection using data-driven Bayesian networks. Transp Res A Policy Pract2018; 110: 38–56.
20.
WangZKZengSKGuoJB, et al. A bayesian network for reliability assessment of man-machine phased-mission system considering the phase dependencies of human cognitive error. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 207: 107385.
21.
WuXGHuangHRYuWC, et al. Accident analysis and risk prediction of tank farm based on Bayesian network method. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability. Epub ahead of print 11December2022. DOI: 10.1177/1748006X221139906.
22.
LiuQPérèsFTchanganiA.Object oriented Bayesian network for complex system risk assessment. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2018; 232(4): 340–351.
23.
FanLXZhangZMYinJB, et al. The efficiency improvement of port state control based on ship accident Bayesian networks. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2019; 233(1): 71–83.
24.
WuBTianHBYanXP, et al. A probabilistic consequence estimation model for collision accidents in the downstream of Yangtze River using Bayesian Networks. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2020; 234(2): 422–436.
25.
HuangRLiuBSunJ, et al. A multistate Bayesian network-based approach for risk analysis of tunnel collapse. Arab J Sci Eng2022; 47(4): 4893–4911.
26.
ChenPRZhangZPHangYJ, et al. Risk assessment of marine accidents with Fuzzy Bayesian Networks and causal analysis. Ocean Coastal Manage2022; 228: 106323.
27.
MiHFZhangXMWangWH, et al. A risk analysis method of cable fire in utility tunnel based on a Bayesian network. Math Probl Eng2022; 2022: 1952263.
28.
PfohlHGallusPThomasD.Interpretive structural modeling of supply chain risks. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag2011; 41(9): 839–859.
29.
NandalVKumarRSinghSK.Barriers identification and analysis of solar power implementation in Indian thermal power plants: an interpretative structural modeling approach. Renew Sust Energ Rev2019; 114: 109330.
30.
SushilP.How to check correctness of total interpretive structural models?Ann Oper Res2018; 270(1–2): 473–487.
31.
WarfieldJN.On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form. IEEE Trans Man Cybern Syst1973; 2: 121–132.
32.
ThakkarJDeshmukhSGuptaA, et al. Development of a balanced scorecard: an integrated approach of interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and analytic network process (ANP). Int J Prod Perform Manag2007; 56(1): 25–59.
33.
WickensCDHollandsJGSimonB, et al. Engineering psychology and human performance. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis, 2015.
34.
PearlJ.Fusion, propagation, and structuring in belief networks. Artif Intell1986; 29(3): 241–288.
35.
WuWSYangCFChangJC, et al. Risk assessment by integrating interpretive structural modeling and Bayesian network, case of offshore pipeline project. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2015; 142: 515–524.
36.
WangJFanKFMoW, et al. A method for information security risk assessment based on the dynamic Bayesian network. In: Proceedings 2016 international conference on networking and network applications NaNA, Hakodate, Japan, 23–25 July 2016. New York, NY: IEEE.
37.
MartinJERivasTMatiasJM, et al. A Bayesian network analysis of workplace accidents caused by falls from a height. Saf Sci2009; 47(2): 206–214.
38.
WeberPMedina-OlivaGSimonC, et al. Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas. Eng Appl Artif Intell2012; 25(4): 671–682.
39.
ChengYLuoY.Analysis of Natech risk induced by lightning strikes in floating roof tanks based on the Bayesian network model. Proc Safety Prog2021; 40: e12164.
40.
LiXWLiuTZLiuYK.Cause analysis of unsafe behaviors in hazardous chemical accidents: combined with HFACs and Bayesian network. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17(1): 11.
41.
NadkarniSShenoyPP.A causal mapping approach to constructing Bayesian networks. Decis Support Syst2004; 38(2): 259–281.
42.
FuGXieXJiaQ, et al. The development history of accident causation models in the past 100 years: 24 Model, a more modern accident causation model. Process Saf Environ Prot2020; 134: 47–82.
43.
LuYMWangTTLiuTZ.Bayesian network-based risk analysis of chemical plant explosion accidents. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17(15): 5364.
44.
WangJHFuGYanMW.Investigation and analysis of a hazardous chemical accident in the process industry: triggers, roots, and lessons learned. Processes2020; 8(4): 477.
45.
WangJFanYXGaoY.Analysis of causes of accidents in chemical industry based on HFACS model. China Saf Sci J2018; 28(9): 81–86.
46.
DongHHLiuYZhaoDF, et al. Lessons learned from analyzing an explosion at Shanghai SECCO petrochemical plant. Proc Safety Prog2020; 39(1): e12094.
47.
HuangLShaoZJBaoWL, et al. The influencing factors of the WTP for the risk reduction of chemical industry accidents in China. Front Env Sci Eng2012; 6(6): 860–868.
48.
WuW.Research on the relationship between causal factors and consequences of incidents occurred in tank farm using ordinal logistic regression. J Loss Prev Process Ind2019; 61: 287–297.
49.
YangTRenYAShiL, et al. The circular transformation of chemical industrial parks: an integrated evaluation framework and 20 cases in China. J Clean Prod2018; 196: 763–772.
50.
WangFZhaoYKYangO, et al. Process safety data management program based on HAZOP analysis and its application to an ethylene oxide/ethylene glycol plant. J Loss Prev Process Ind2013; 26(6): 1399–1406.
51.
FatemiFDehdashtiAJannatiM.Implementation of chemical health, safety, and environmental risk assessment in laboratories: a case-series study. Front Public Health2022; 10: 898826.
52.
CronbachLJ.Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika1951; 16(3): 297–334.
53.
CronbachLJShavelsonRJ.My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Meas2004; 64(3): 391–418.
54.
EscobozaMLaborin-AlvarezJFAlvarez-ChavezCR, et al. Safety climate perceived by users of academic laboratories in higher education institutes. Saf Sci2019; 121: 93–99.
