IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v157y2017icp23-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Functional quantitative security risk analysis (QSRA) to assist in protecting critical process infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • van Staalduinen, Mark Adrian
  • Khan, Faisal
  • Gadag, Veeresh
  • Reniers, Genserik

Abstract

This article proposes a quantitative security risk assessment methodology that can assist management in the decision-making process where and when to protect critical assets of a chemical facility. An improvement upon previous work is the approach of conducting concurrent Threat and Vulnerability Assessments, as opposed to a sequential approach. Furthermore, this method introduces a Bow Tie risk model mapped into a Bayesian Network model that allows for various logical relaxation assumptions to be applied. Different uncertainty relaxation approaches such as “Noisy-OR†and “Leaky Noisy-OR†and “Noisy-AND†are tested to improve Threat and Vulnerability likelihood. Finally, integrating threat/vulnerability likelihood with potential losses, the security risk is quantified. The potential security countermeasures are characterized into either decreasing vulnerability or decreasing threat likelihood and are reassessed considering a cost analysis. A theoretical case study is conducted to exemplify the execution and application of the proposed method.

Suggested Citation

  • van Staalduinen, Mark Adrian & Khan, Faisal & Gadag, Veeresh & Reniers, Genserik, 2017. "Functional quantitative security risk analysis (QSRA) to assist in protecting critical process infrastructure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 23-34.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:157:y:2017:i:c:p:23-34
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016303751
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Delvosalle, C. & Fiévez, C. & Pipart, A. & Fabrega, J. Casal & Planas, E. & Christou, M. & Mushtaq, F., 2005. "Identification of reference accident scenarios in SEVESO establishments," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 238-246.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iaiani, Matteo & Casson Moreno, Valeria & Reniers, Genserik & Tugnoli, Alessandro & Cozzani, Valerio, 2021. "Analysis of events involving the intentional release of hazardous substances from industrial facilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    2. Wu, Xingguang & Huang, Huirong & Xie, Jianyu & Lu, Meixing & Wang, Shaobo & Li, Wang & Huang, Yixuan & Yu, Weichao & Sun, Xiaobo, 2023. "A novel dynamic risk assessment method for the petrochemical industry using bow-tie analysis and Bayesian network analysis method based on the methodological framework of ARAMIS project," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    3. Fabio De Felice & Ilaria Baffo & Antonella Petrillo, 2022. "Critical Infrastructures Overview: Past, Present and Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-20, February.
    4. Misuri, Alessio & Khakzad, Nima & Reniers, Genserik & Cozzani, Valerio, 2019. "A Bayesian network methodology for optimal security management of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Chen, Yinuo & Tian, Zhigang & He, Rui & Wang, Yifei & Xie, Shuyi, 2023. "Discovery of potential risks for the gas transmission station using monitoring data and the OOBN method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    6. Dong, Mingxin & Zhang, Zhen & Liu, Yi & Zhao, Dong Feng & Meng, Yifei & Shi, Jihao, 2023. "Playing Bayesian Stackelberg game model for optimizing the vulnerability level of security incident system in petrochemical plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    7. Iaiani, Matteo & Sorichetti, Riccardo & Tugnoli, Alessandro & Cozzani, Valerio, 2024. "Modelling standoff distances to prevent escalation in shooting attacks to tanks storing hazardous materials," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    8. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    9. Casson Moreno, Valeria & Marroni, Giulia & Landucci, Gabriele, 2022. "Probabilistic assessment aimed at the evaluation of escalating scenarios in process facilities combining safety and security barriers," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    10. Zhang, Laobing & Reniers, Genserik & Chen, Bin & Qiu, Xiaogang, 2019. "CCP game: A game theoretical model for improving the scheduling of chemical cluster patrolling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Babaleye, Ahmed O. & Kurt, Rafet Emek & Khan, Faisal, 2019. "Safety analysis of plugging and abandonment of oil and gas wells in uncertain conditions with limited data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 133-141.
    2. Hu, Shenping & Fang, Quangen & Xia, Haibo & Xi, Yongtao, 2007. "Formal safety assessment based on relative risks model in ship navigation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 369-377.
    3. Khakzad, Nima & Khan, Faisal & Amyotte, Paul, 2012. "Dynamic risk analysis using bow-tie approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 36-44.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:157:y:2017:i:c:p:23-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.