Online Process Safety Performance Indicators Using Big Data: How a PSPI Looks Different from a Data Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The manuscript must be accepted in the present form.

Author Response

Good afternoon,

Many thanks for taking the time to review my submission as well as your endorsement.

Best regards,

Paul.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

We recommend improving the structure of the sentences.

Good luck!

Some minor revisions are necessary.

Author Response

Good afternoon,

Many thanks for your comments and suggestions.  The paper has been re-reviewed and minor changes have been made to the structure of sentences throughout the document.  The changes have been noted using track-changes in the document.

Best regards,

Paul.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The same words should not be present both in the paper title and keywords, in particular Big Data and safety.

A better explanation of the presented equations could be useful, in particular n. (3) in the paragraph n. 2.3.1. and n. (6) in the paragraph n. 4.

Then, in order to consider other approaches and to complete the state of art, in particular with regard to indicators and methods for evaluating safety, you could refer to the following papers:

- Di Bona G., Silvestri A., De Felice F., Forcina A., Petrillo A. (2016) An Analytical Model to Measure the Effectiveness of Safety Management Systems: Global Safety Improve Risk Assessment (G-SIRA) Method. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 16(6), pp. 1024-1037

- Yadav, O.P., Zhuang, X. (2014). A practical reliability allocation method considering modified criticality factors. Reliability Engineering and System Safety; 129, pp. 57-65

- Silvestri A.., De Felice F., Falcone D,, Di Bona G., Duraccio V. (2007) Risk assessment in a co-generation system: Validation of a new safety allocation technique. Applied Simulation and Modelling. Palma de Mallorca, 29-31 August, CALGARY: Acta Press, vol. 1, p. 256-261

The manuscript would also benefit from a general English revision

Author Response

Point 1:The same words should not be present both in the paper title and keywords, in particular Big Data and safety.

Response 1: Big Data and safety have been removed

Point 2: A better explanation of the presented equations could be useful, in particular n. (3) in the paragraph n. 2.3.1. and n. (6) in the paragraph n. 4.

Response 2:  Additional text added to describe the software code used for those formulae to add clarity

Point 3: Then, in order to consider other approaches and to complete the state of art, in particular with regard to indicators and methods for evaluating safety, you could refer to the following papers:

- Di Bona G., Silvestri A., De Felice F., Forcina A., Petrillo A. (2016) An Analytical Model to Measure the Effectiveness of Safety Management Systems: Global Safety Improve Risk Assessment (G-SIRA) Method. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 16(6), pp. 1024-1037

- Yadav, O.P., Zhuang, X. (2014). A practical reliability allocation method considering modified criticality factors. Reliability Engineering and System Safety; 129, pp. 57-65

Silvestri A.., De Felice F., Falcone D,, Di Bona G., Duraccio V. (2007) Risk assessment in a co-generation system: Validation of a new safety allocation technique. Applied Simulation and Modelling. Palma de Mallorca, 29-31 August, CALGARY: Acta Press, vol. 1, p. 256-261

Response 3:  The recommended papers and future areas of research and study have been noted and were useful ways to explain risk scoring, resource allocation and reduction of costs.

Many thanks for your comments and recommendations.  With these suggestions, I believe that the submission has been improved.  The paper has been reviewed by a native english speaker.

Best regards,

Paul

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work presents a method to use data generated from site to monitor the core functions of safety barriers on a batch reactor. While the proposed topic is of interest for practitioners in the field of process safety and well fits with the Journal topics, its scientific contribution is highly questionable. Detailed comments are listed below.

Minor comments

1.  The first time they are mentioned, acronyms should be preceded by their explanation to allow also readers who are not-familiar with the specific topic to understand. For instance, the acronym PSI is used in the abstract, without any previous explanation.

2.   Within the manuscript, the style of references should be consistent, i.e. by authors or numbers in square brackets.

3.   It is not clear to me the reason why every number is firstly written by letters (e.g. six) and then followed by the corresponding Arabic number (e.g. 6). The latter may lead the reader to a potential misinterpretation, e.g. thinking (6) is a formula.

4.   Equation numbers are wrong, and (3) appears three times.

5.   In my opinion, the Introduction should be reorganized, simplified and deeply revised in term of contents, making it more fluent. For instance, Sections 1.1 and 1.2 may be merged, as well as 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.3. The meaning of leading and lagging indicators should be clarified, and somewhere in the Introduction the goal of the paper should be clearly stated.

6.   As concerns Material and Methods, the sub-sections 2.1 and 2.2 should be revised, e.g. firstly describing the process and then introducing the current used PSPIs. Finally, the advancement proposed by the Authors could be described. This way, the section is not clear to me. For instance, in line 190, page 4, Authors write “This PSPI ensures..”. Which one? I guess Authors are speaking about the temperature difference (introduced later), but the indicator should be firstly defined. Moreover, in line 219, page 5, Authors write “The data is extracted from the data-lake and then the algorithm computes the PSPI to then be reported to middle and senior management”. Which algorithm? The one proposed by the Authors in the subsequent sub-section 2.3?

Major comments

As already stated, the goal of the paper is not clear to me, mainly with relation to the advancement in respect to the state of the art. Based on sensors whose signals are sent to e.g. DCS, process safety control loops have been in usage for many years. Obviously, the key enabling technologies of Industry 4.0 are suited to improve and enhance the process control real time, owing to the nowadays possibility to collect and manage a huge amount of data. However, the contribution of the paper to the scientific community is questionable. It seems to me just a practical implementation of a commercial software which collects data from a hub. While the data-hub is AVEVA, the used software is Seeq®. Seeq® already enables users to get more value out of data arising from different sources, by providing interactive visual tools and reports to monitor the industrial process real time. Therefore, I guess that the Authors contribution is to set the three formulas (3) into the software, to record the hazardous situations occurring over time. Authors more than once refer to their algorithm implementation and validation, but I do not understand which algorithm they are speaking about. In line 190, page 4, or in line 254, page 6, Authors refer to the temperature difference measurement as an algorithm. May the difference between two values be defined as an algorithm? An algorithm encompasses a finite sequence of rigorous instructions or rules, for performing calculations and data processing. The difference is just a mathematical operator. In the current form, I regret not to understand the scientific contribution of the work.

Summing up, my decision is to the reject the paper.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

please check attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article"Online Process Safety Performance Indicators Using Big Data: 2
How a PSPI looks different from a data perspective" written by Singh et.al presents a study that surely will contribute the readers to broaden up the view about process safety indicators. The article must be considered for publication.

The usage of technical language is adequate.

Author Response

please check attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The main drawbacks of the paper are the following:

First, the Introduction section should be divided into two sections:

One Introduction and the second Literature review.

In the Introduction section, the authors should provide additional literature to support the research questions and explain why it is important for this research study.

We recommend focusing on the research framework to avoid overstating the research scope and provide a more precise explanation of making the case to the academic world on why the study raises discussions and importance in the field.

The literature review section can be improved by adding other theories related to the topic. Moreover, the study's objectives need more discussion with literature to be supported. 

The results were not well-presented to readers to understand the focus of the research study.

Figure 4: February T-100 Readings During Catalyst Addition of Reaction, Figure 5: February T-100 Readings Highlighting Exceeding Limits, Figure 7: Reactor Temperature Control PSPI for 2022 Calendar Year, and Figure 8: Process PSPIs for February 2022 are not critically analyzed.

 

Figure 7: Reactor Temperature Control PSPI for 2022 Calendar Year and Figure 8: Process PSPIs for February 2022 can be presented as tables, not figures.

 

The Discussion needs to integrate with the research study's results to provide a coherent scholarly argument.

The Discussion section should connect the research results with relevant literature citations.

 

The research data does not support the conclusions, which does not indicate a clearer path for future studies on the topic.

 

The quality of the figures should be seriously improved.

On p. 2, r. 86, the source is not in the journal template [xx] and is mentioned “By Selvik et al. (2021),” and the article contains many sources that are not in the journal template. We suggest reading the paper and eliminating this error carefully.

The references are limited to 30 sources; only ten are from the last five years.

 

 

Good luck!

The English Language and the structure of the sentences should be improved.

Author Response

please check attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf