Hazard Studies & Risk Assessment

Bow-Tie Risk Analysis

Barrier-based major-accident model — the lingua franca of modern safety-case argument

What this study delivers

Bow-Tie Risk
Analysis

Bow-Tie has matured from a Shell-developed visualisation aid in the 1990s into the dominant barrier-based risk model across upstream oil and gas, COMAH safety cases, and increasingly hydrogen, ammonia, and battery-storage operations. The CCPS Bow-Tie Guidelines (2018) and Energy Institute Bow-Tie Standard (2019, rev. 2024) codify the discipline — Threat → Preventive Barrier → Top Event → Mitigative Barrier → Consequence — with explicit treatment of escalation factors, degradation controls, and barrier effectiveness scoring. The technique's strength is communicating major-accident logic to non-specialists: directors, operators, and regulators see the same picture. Its execution risk is barrier inflation (claiming non-independent or non-effective controls), missing degradation factors, and disconnection from LOPA. A defensible Bow-Tie programme integrates with HAZOP findings upstream, with LOPA / SIL allocation in parallel, and with barrier-health KPIs and SCE (Safety Critical Element) performance standards downstream.

Bow-Tie Risk Analysis — Overview
Study execution

How the study is executed

A structured, facilitated process — from scope definition through close-out — producing defensible, actionable outputs.

MAH Register & Top Event Definition

Define Major Accident Hazard (MAH) set from HAZID / QRA; specify Top Events per loss-of-containment category (gas cloud, liquid spill, BLEVE, toxic release, fire); confirm Top Event definitions with physical-state taxonomy per Energy Institute Bow-Tie Standard (2019).

Threat Decomposition & HAZOP Alignment

Decompose each Top Event to its threat (cause) set with HAZOP deviation traceability; assign threat categories (hardware failure, human error, external event, corrosion / degradation); build Threat-Top-Event-Consequence chain for each MAH.

Barrier Classification & Effectiveness Scoring

Map preventive and mitigative barriers per EI / CCPS taxonomy (passive, active hardware, active human, instrumented); score each barrier against CCPS effectiveness criteria — independence, reliability, audit frequency, validation record; flag weak or uncredited barriers.

Escalation Factor & Degradation Control Mapping

Identify escalation factors (maintenance backlog, weather, MOC state, bypass) for each barrier; specify degradation controls (inspection intervals, proof-test regimes, impairment permits); link escalation factors to Bow-Tie barrier to create risk-pathway visibility.

SCE Designation & Performance Standards

Designate Safety Critical Elements (SCEs) per UK KP4 / PFEER / NORSOK S-001 criteria; specify performance standards (functionality, availability, reliability, survivability) per SCE; align LOPA SIF designations and SIL targets to SCE performance-standard requirements.

KPI Framework, MOC Integration & Software Package

Specify barrier-health KPI dashboard per API RP 754 Tier 3/4 leading indicators; build MOC impact assessment procedure for barrier-affecting modifications; export BowTieXP / RiskView files with version control; produce COMAH / CCPS RBPS-aligned safety-case deliverable.

Bow-Tie Risk Analysis — Scope
Study scope

What the study covers in full

Top-event definition discipline — Loss of Containment categories by physical state (gas, liquid, two-phase, BLEVE)
Threat (cause) decomposition with HAZOP-deviation traceability
Preventive barrier classification per Energy Institute — passive, active hardware, active human, instrumented
Mitigative barrier mapping for escalation control (detection, isolation, fire/blast protection, evacuation)
Escalation factor identification with degradation-control specification
Barrier effectiveness scoring against CCPS criteria — independence, reliability, audit, validation
SCE designation per UK KP4 with performance standards (functionality, availability, reliability, survivability)
Barrier-health KPI framework — leading indicators per API RP 754 Tier 3 / 4
Software-supported delivery (BowTieXP, RiskView, Audatex) with version control and MOC linkage
Cybersecurity-aware Bow-Tie for IACS-driven top events per IEC 62443
Why it matters

Outcomes of Bow-Tie Risk Analysis

Barrier Integrity & MAH Control
  • Surfaces the silent single-point barrier dependencies that incident reviews repeatedly cite
  • Builds the line-of-sight from operator action through to corporate MAH risk
  • Drives barrier-health KPIs that complement Tier 1/2 lagging indicators
  • Addresses the Texas City / Buncefield / Macondo escalation-control gaps
COMAH / CCPS RBPS Safety-Case Defence
  • Audit-defensible under COMAH / Seveso III / NORSOK S-001 safety-case examination
  • Aligns with HSE KP4 SCE designation and PFEER demonstrate-ALARP requirements
  • Supports OSHA PSM PHA recommendation-tracking with structured barrier evidence
  • Provides regulator-grade barrier-effectiveness logic for novel hazards (H₂, NH₃, BESS)
Barrier-Health KPI & MOC Governance
  • Translates engineering risk into language that operators, supervisors, and directors all understand
  • Aligns inspection, maintenance, and proof-test priorities to SCE criticality
  • Provides MOC reviewers with a clear barrier-impact view
  • Drives barrier-degradation reporting culture from the shop floor
Targeted Barrier Investment Value
  • Targets capex to genuinely weak barriers rather than across-the-board uplift
  • Defers SIS rebuild capex by demonstrating layered preventive barriers
  • Reduces underwriter loadings through visible barrier-management rigour
  • Cuts incident-driven retrofit cost — typically 5–10× the proactive Bow-Tie investment
Get Started

Ready to start your project?

Speak with our team to scope an engagement tailored to your facility, regulatory context, and lifecycle stage.