SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Energy Systems / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 2

Analysis and performance of safety barriers in industrial processes: Rotary kiln and preheating tower of the cement plant

Manel Bidi(MODERNA Laboratory, Universitu of brothers Mentouri, Constantine 1)0009-0005-2969-9198
Ahcène Akni(MODERNA Laboratory, University of brothers Mentouri, Constantine 1)0000-0002-3180-4218
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-06-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This analysis has led to the proposal of more effective safety measures aimed at reducing risks to an acceptable level, with total PFDs estimated at 5.88x10⁻¹⁰ and 6.5x10⁻⁸ for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The safety system is a key element in optimizing the operational safety of industrial facilities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The objective of this work is to contribute to solving specific issues related to risk analysis and the performance evaluation of protective layers at the Sigus cement plant in Algeria.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This analysis has led to the proposal of more effective safety measures aimed at reducing risks to an acceptable level, with total PFDs estimated at 5.88x10⁻¹⁰ and 6.5x10⁻⁸ for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:AdE · Cement plant · HAZOP

Abstract

The safety system is a key element in optimizing the operational safety of industrial facilities. It enables the effective implementation of safety barriers, which are essential for preventing incidents and controlling deviations in the operational parameters of industrial processes. The objective of this work is to contribute to solving specific issues related to risk analysis and the performance evaluation of protective layers at the Sigus cement plant in Algeria. Adverse events are identified using the HAZOP method. Subsequently, certain critical events are selected to calculate the frequencies of initiating events as well as the probabilities of failure on demand (i.e. PFD) of the independent protective layers associated with the preheating tower and rotary kiln. The Layer of Protection Analysis (i.e. LOPA) approach enables the assessment of these safety barriers based on the previously identified risks within the installation. This analysis has led to the proposal of more effective safety measures aimed at reducing risks to an acceptable level, with total PFDs estimated at 5.88x10⁻¹⁰ and 6.5x10⁻⁸ for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bidi, M., Akni, A. (2026). Analysis and performance of safety barriers in industrial processes: Rotary kiln and preheating tower of the cement plant. Journal of Energy Systems, Volume: 10 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.30521/jes.1822796

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. International Electrotechnical Commission. IEC 61508: Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. Geneva: IEC; 2010.
  2. Center for Chemical Process Safety. Layer of Protection Analysis: Simplified Process Risk Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-AIChE; 2001.
  3. Wei C, Rogers WJ, Mannan MS. Layer of protection analysis for reactive chemical risk assessment. J Hazard Mater. 2008;159(1):19-24. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.06.105
  4. Willey RJ. Layer of Protection Analysis. Procedia Eng. 2014;84:12-22. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.10.405
  5. Dowell AM III. Layer of protection analysis for determining safety integrity level. ISA Trans. 1998;37(3):155-165. doi:10.1016/S0019-0578(98)00018-4
  6. Yuan S, Cai J, Reniers G, Yang M, Chen C, Wu J. Safety barrier performance assessment by integrating computational fluid dynamics and evacuation modeling for toxic gas leakage scenarios. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2022;226:108719. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2022.108719
  7. Sklet S. Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2006;19(5):494-506. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2005.12.004
  8. Brissaud F, Lanne B. Les probabilités de défaillances comme indicateurs de performances des barrières techniques de sécurité – approche analytique. In: QUALITA 2009, 8e Congrès International Pluridisciplinaire; 2009 Mar 18-20; Besançon, France.
  9. Myers PM. Layer of Protection Analysis – Quantifying human performance in initiating events and independent protection layers. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2013;26(3):534-546. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2012.07.003
  10. Bin Ab Rahim MS, Reniers G, Yang M, Bajpai S. Risk assessment methods for process safety, process security and resilience in the chemical process industry: A thorough literature review. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2024;88:105274. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2024.105274
  11. Cong G, Lu D, Liu M, Wang Q, Yu W. A New Semi-Quantitative Process Safety Assessment Method and Its Application for Fluorochemical Industry. Processes. 2021;9(10):1695. doi:10.3390/pr9101695
  12. Durmuş Şenyapar HN. Unveiling Greenwashing Strategies: A Comprehensive Analysis of Impacts on Consumer Trust and Environmental Sustainability. J Energy Syst. 2024;8(3):164-181. doi:10.30521/jes.1436875
  13. Koch D, Balve P, Gerdes JN, Hertwig M, Kröll M, Lentes J. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of ultra-efficiency projects: Commonalities, differences, and lessons learned. J Energy Syst. 2025;9(1):68-84. doi:10.30521/jes.1524221
  14. Liu G. Introduction to cementing engineering. In: Dai H, DeBruijn G, Guo B, et al., editors. Applied Well Cementing Engineering. Houston, TX: Gulf Professional Publishing (Elsevier); 2021. p. 1-15.
  15. Schneider M. Process technology for efficient and sustainable cement production. Cem Concr Res. 2015;78:14-23. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.05.014
  16. Gao T, Shen L, Shen M, Liu L, Chen F. Analysis of material flow and consumption in cement production process. J Clean Prod. 2016;112:553-565. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.054
  17. Roux E. Étude des modes d'action d'agents de mouture sur le broyage du clinker [dissertation]. Saint-Étienne, France: University Jean Monnet of Saint-Étienne; 2006.
  18. Barbhuiya S, Kanavaris F, Das BB, Idrees M. Decarbonising cement and concrete production: Strategies, challenges and pathways for sustainable development. J Build Eng. 2024;86:108861. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108861
  19. Guo Y, Luo L, Liu T, Hao L, Li Y, Liu P, et al. A review of low-carbon technologies and projects for the global cement industry. J Environ Sci. 2024;136:682-697. doi:10.1016/j.jes.2023.01.021
  20. Bouglada MS, Naceri A, Baheddi M, Pereira-de-Oliveira L. Characterization and modelling of the rheological behaviour of blended cements based on mineral additions. Eur J Environ Civ Eng. 2021;25(4):655-672. doi:10.1080/19648189.2018.1539675
  21. Kirchsteiger C. On the use of probabilistic and deterministic methods in risk analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 1999;12(5):399-419. doi:10.1016/S0950-4230(99)00013-3
  22. Akni A, Bidi M. Quantitative risk assessment of hazardous chemical discharges and simulation of threat zones in hydrocarbon storage systems. Bull Pol Acad Sci Tech Sci. 2025;73:e152705. doi:10.24425/bpasts.2024.152705
  23. Royer M. HAZOP: a risk analysis method - Presentation and background. Tech Ing. 2020. doi:10.51257/a-v1-se4030
  24. Wang Q, Chen S, Chen F, Zhang J, Chen L, Li J, et al. A dynamic assessment method for risk evolution in chemical processes based on MFM-HAZOP-FDBN. Chem Eng Res Des. 2024;204:471-486. doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2024.02.049
  25. Marhavilas PK, Filippidis M, Koulinas GK, Koulouriotis DE. An expanded HAZOP-study with fuzzy-AHP (XPAHAZOP technique): Application in a sour crude-oil processing plant. Saf Sci. 2020;124:104590. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104590
  26. Chastain JW, Delanoy P, Devlin C, Mueller T, Study K. Beyond HAZOP and LOPA: Four different company approaches. Process Saf Prog. 2017;36(1):38-53. doi:10.1002/prs.11831
  27. Cui L, Zhao J, Zhang R. The integration of HAZOP expert system and piping and instrumentation diagrams. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2010;88(5):327-334. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2010.04.002
  28. Chia MF, Naraharisetti PK. HAZOP using Stateflow software: Methodology and case study. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2023;179:137-156. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2023.09.005
  29. Kościelny JM, Syfert M, Fajdek B, Kozak A. The application of a graph of a process in HAZOP analysis in accident prevention system. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2017;50:55-66. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2017.09.003.