The accidental release of hot materials is one of the most widely experienced and potentially fatal problems in cement plants. It often results in catastrophic consequences for health, safety, and the environment. This paper aims to present a systematic framework for investigating what factors contribute to the release of hot materials in cement firing systems and the associated risks. It considers not only technical aspects but also human and organizational factors. Inspections and interviews with operators have allowed us to pinpoint potential initiating events that could lead to spillage. Various barrier systems are in place to prevent these initiating events from escalating into accidents. These barrier systems are depicted through Barrier Block Diagrams as Independent Protection Layers (IPLs). Fault Tree Analysis has been used to model the failure of IPLs. Moreover, Risk Influencing Factors (RIFs) affecting the performance of IPLs are identified, assigned scores, and weighted accordingly. These RIFs will be used to establish specific risk estimates for the pyro-processing unit. The proposed approach examines the Barrier and Operational Risk Analysis (BORA) technique and attempts to extend its usefulness beyond the oil and gas industry by applying it to cement plants. Application to a real case study demonstrated a significant contribution in predicting and preventing the leakage of hot materials. Therefore, it is particularly well suited for assessing risk reduction measures and resilience.
KumarMMishraMK.A case study of cement manufacturing process: a review. Int J Res Eng Technol2019; 6(4): 426–429.
2.
MadloolNASaidurRHossainMS, et al. A critical review on energy use and savings in the cement industries. Renew Sustain Energ Rev2011; 15(4): 2042–2060.
3.
KarahanVAkosmanC.Occupational health risk analysis and assessment in cement production processes. Turk J Sci Technol2018; 13(3): 29–37.
4.
WuW-NLiuX-YHuZ, et al. Improving the sustainability of cement clinker calcination process by assessing the heat loss through kiln shell and its influencing factors: a case study in China. J Clean Prod2019; 224: 132–141.
5.
DeerySJDoughertyA.Best safe practices in cement plants. In: IEEE-IAS/PCA 2001 cement industry technical conference record (Cat No. 01CH37150) 2001, pp.313–331. New York: IEEE.
6.
GäbelKForsbergPTillmanA-M.The design and building of a lifecycle-based process model for simulating environmental performance, product performance and cost in cement manufacturing. J Clean Prod2004; 12(1): 77–93.
7.
ConroyGH.Modern cement plant design with a view to efficiency and the environment. IEEE Trans Ind Appl1995; 31(3): 542–552.
8.
CodeE. Official Journal of the French Republic: Classification and Nomenclature of Installations for Environmental Protection (ICPE), 2024), https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr.
9.
ISO 9001. 2015 Quality management systems-requirements. Guidance Document 2015.
10.
ISO 45001. Occupational health and safety management systems: requirements with guidance for use. ISO, 2018.
11.
ISO 14001. 2015 Environmental management systems: a practical guide for SMEs. ISO, 2017.
12.
ISO 50001. 2018 energy management. ISO, 2018.
13.
DeviKSLakshmiVVAlakana, et al. Impacts of cement industry on environment-an overview. Asia Pac J Res2017; 1(1): 156–161.
14.
XiangQPanHMaX, et al. Impacts of energy-saving and emission-reduction on sustainability of cement production. Renew Sustain Energ Rev2024; 191: 114089.
15.
MohamadNMuthusamyKEmbongR, et al. Environmental impact of cement production and solutions: a review. Mater Today Proc2022; 48: 741–746.
16.
BenhelalEZahediGShamsaeiE, et al. Global strategies and potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement industry. J Clean Prod2013; 51: 142–161.
17.
IgeOEVon KallonDVDesaiD.Carbon emissions mitigation methods for cement industry using a systems dynamics model. Clean Technol Environ Policy2024; 26(3): 579–597.
18.
GuoYLuoLLiuT, et al. A review of low-carbon technologies and projects for the global cement industry. J Environ Sci2024; 136: 682–697.
19.
HaoXWangXLiuJ, et al. A multi-indicator prediction method for NOx emission concentration and ammonia escape value for cement calciner system. J Comput Sci2024; 76: 102212.
20.
ZhangXTianJWangX, et al. Multiphase flow simulation and industrial application of an in-line gasifier for NOx emissions control from cement kiln. J Ind Eng Chem2024; 143: 151–164.
21.
Almeida dos SantosBde Souza SilvaASantos JuniorE, et al. Proposal for reducing emissions of SOx in cement plants. Am J Environ Eng2014; 4(6): 143–146.
22.
CiobanuCIstrateIATudorP, et al. Dust emission monitoring in cement plant mills: a case study in Romania. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18(17): 9096.
23.
MetwallyEMZahranAAFattahMK.Uses of alternative fuels in cement industrial sectors as sustainable development option: case study cement company in Egypt. Int J Environ Stud Res2024; 3(2): 66–73.
24.
EshkoraevS.Alternative raw materials and fuels in cement production: shaping sustainable practices. Multidiscip J Sci Technol2024; 4(4.30): 193–206.
25.
BarbhuiyaSKanavarisFDasBB, et al. Decarbonising cement and concrete production: Strategies, challenges and pathways for sustainable development. J Build Eng2024; 86: 108861.
26.
ManikandanRPradeep KannanPRajpradeeshT, et al. Risk assessment using bow-tie tool in cement industry. In: ICAMR 2019 Springer proceedings in materials, 2021, vol. 5. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-8319-3_44
27.
ManikandanRRajpradeshGRRajeshTS, Job safety analysis for various operations in cement industry using risk assessment matrix. In: ICAMR 2019 Springer proceedings in materials, 2021, vol. 5. Singapore: Springer. DOI: 101007/978-981-15-8319-3_44
28.
İnanlıAÖzbakırO. Comparative analysis of hazard identification and risk assessment methods in Ağrı cement factory: Fine-Kinney vs. 3T approach. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi2024; 14(2): 448–467.
29.
KhaviyaSKavithaSManojS.A risk assessment study on occupational hazards in cement industry. Int Res J Eng Technol2017; 4(10): 12.
30.
GuimarãesAGVaz-FernandesPRamosMR, et al. Co-processing of hazardous waste: the perception of workers regarding sustainability and health issues in a Brazilian cement company. J Clean Prod2018; 186: 313–324.
31.
RahmaniAHAlmatroudiABabikerAY, et al. Effect of exposure to cement dust among the workers: an evaluation of health related complications. Open Access Maced J Med Sci2018; 6(6): 1159–1162.
32.
ManjulaRPraveenaRClevinR, et al. Effects of occupational dust exposure on the health status of portland cement factory workers. Int J Med Public Health2013; 3(3): 192.
33.
HamidiNOmidvariMMeftahiM.The effect of integrated management system on safety and productivity indices: case study; Iranian cement industries. Saf Sci2012; 50(5): 1180–1189.
34.
RachidCIonVIrinaC, et al. Preserving and improving the safety and health at work: Case of Hamma Bouziane cement plant (Algeria). Saf Sci2015; 76: 145–150.
35.
ZebKAliYKhanMW.Factors influencing environment and human health by cement industry: Pakistan a case in point. Manage Environ Qual2018; 30(4): 751–767.
36.
TomarMK.Study of occupational health, safety and environmental aspects in major cement manufacturing industry (Ultratech Cement Limited). J Environ Earth Sci2014; 4: 117–120.
37.
ValderramaCGranadosRCortinaJL, et al. Implementation of best available techniques in cement manufacturing: a life-cycle assessment study. J Clean Prod2012; 25: 60–67.
38.
GomathiVSrinivasanSRamkumarK, et al. Structural analysis based sensor measurement fault diagnosis in cement industries. Control Eng Pract2017; 64: 148–159.
39.
NetoJACarvalhoIMonteiroP, et al. Unveiling the key factors for clinker reactivity and cement performance: a physic-chemical and performance investigation of 40 industrial clinkers. Cem Concr Res2025; 187: 107717.
40.
KrughKASommersJR. Safety observation system and near miss reporting programs: methods to maintain employee engagement in behavioral based safety practices. In: 2010 IEEE-IAS/PCA 52nd cement industry technical conference, 2010, pp.1–10. New York: IEEE.
41.
AvenTSkletSVinnemJE. Barrier and operational risk analysis of hydrocarbon releases (BORA-Release): Part I. Method description. J Hazard Mater2006; 137(2): 681–691.
42.
BourarecheMNait-SaidROuazraouiN.Implementing BORA in oil and gas process case study: Algerian industry. In: 2015 International conference on industrial engineering and operations management (IEOM), 2015, pp.1–8. New York: IEEE.
43.
ZhenXVinnemJE.Prioritization of critical risk influencing factors in quantitative risk analyses for offshore petroleum installations. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2021; 235(1): 63–79.
44.
SkletSVinnemJEAvenT.Barrier and operational risk analysis of hydrocarbon releases (BORA-Release): Part II: Results from a case study. J Hazard Mater2006; 137(2): 692–708.
45.
AkhtarMJUtneIB. Modelling the impact of human fatigue on the risk of shipping accidents. In: Transport Research Arena (TRA) 5th Conference: Transport Solutions from Research to Deployment, European CommissionConference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR) European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC) WATERBORNETPEuropean Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC) Institut Francais des Sciences et Technologies des Transports, de l’Aménagement et des Réseaux (IFSTTAR) Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement Durable et de l’Énergie, 2014.
46.
ZhenXVinnemJEPengC, et al. Quantitative risk modelling of maintenance work on major offshore process equipment. J Loss Prev Process Ind2018; 56: 430–443.
47.
HuangYMaGLiJ, et al. Confidence-based quantitative risk analysis for offshore accidental hydrocarbon release events. J Loss Prev Process Ind2015; 35: 117–124.
48.
VinnemJESeljelidJHaugenS, et al. Generalised methodology for operational risk analysis. In: Proceedings of ESREL2007, pp.61-68.
49.
AvenTHaugeSSkletS, et al. Methodology for incorporating human and organizational factors in risk analysis for offshore installations. Int J Mater Struct Reliab2006; 4(2): 1–14.
50.
ZemanF.Oxygen combustion in cement production. Energy Proc2009; 1(1): 187–194.
51.
Yunusa-KaltungoAKermaniMMLabibA.Investigation of critical failures using root cause analysis methods: case study of ASH cement PLC. Eng Fail Anal2017; 73: 25–45.
52.
ChenHZhangXHongP, et al. Recognition of the temperature condition of a rotary kiln using dynamic features of a series of blurry flame images. IEEE Trans Ind Inform2015; 12(1): 148–157.
53.
AtmacaAYumrutaşR.Analysis of the parameters affecting energy consumption of a rotary kiln in cement industry. Appl Therm Eng2014; 66(1-2): 435–444.
54.
MakaremiIFatehiAAraabiBN, et al. Abnormal condition detection in a cement rotary kiln with system identification methods. J Process Control2009; 19(9): 1538–1545.
55.
FallahpourMFatehiAAraabiBN, et al. A supervisory fuzzy control of back-end temperature of rotary cement kilns. In: 2007 International conference on control, automation and systems, 2007, pp.429–434. New York: IEEE.
56.
WorrellEPriceLMartinN, et al. Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry. Annu Rev Energy Environ2001; 26(1): 303–329.
57.
ChenHYanTZhangX.Burning condition recognition of rotary kiln based on spatiotemporal features of flame video. Energy2020; 211: 118656.
58.
MatiasTGabrielDSouzaF, et al. Fault detection and replacement of a temperature sensor in a cement rotary kiln. In: 2013 IEEE 18th Conference on emerging technologies & factory automation (ETFA), 2013, pp.1–8. New York: IEEE.
59.
StephanKDPearceJAWangL, et al. Cement kiln temperature measurements using microwave radiometry. In: IEEE MTT-S International microwave symposium digest, 2005, 2005, pp.151–154. New York: IEEE.
60.
ShankarSThomasLPratheeshH, et al. Burning zone temperature estimation of rotary kiln using flame image analysis in cement plants. In: 2018 International CET conference on control, communication, and computing (IC4), 2018, pp.255–259. New York: IEEE.
61.
RahmanARasulMGKhanMMK, et al. Impact of alternative fuels on the cement manufacturing plant performance: an overview. Procedia Eng2013; 56: 393–400.
62.
BartknechtFSiegfriedMWeberH.Sensors solutions and predictive maintenance tools to decrease kiln and conveyor belt downtime. In: 2019 IEEE-IAS/PCA cement industry conference (IAS/PCA), 2019, pp.1–9. New York: IEEE.
63.
KnopfelHSchmidtD. Optimized kiln operation by keeping kiln shell temperatures at set point with controlled water cooling. In: 2018 IEEE-IAS/PCA cement industry conference (IAS/PCA), 2018, pp.1–11. New York: IEEE.
64.
YuanSYangMReniersG, et al. Safety barriers in the chemical process industries: a state-of-the-art review on their classification, assessment, and management. Saf Sci2022; 148: 105647.
65.
OnifadeMGencB.Spontaneous combustion of coals and coal-shales. Int J Min Sci Technol2018; 28(6): 933–940.
66.
SeljelidJHaugenSSkletS, et al. Operational risk analysis - total analysis of physical and non-physical barriers. Bryne: BORA Handbook, 2007.
67.
IEC. Fault tree analysis (FTA). Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2006, p.61025.
68.
LeeJCameronIHassallM.Dynamic simulation for process hazard analysis: affordances and limitations in the application to complex process systems. J Loss Prev Process Ind2024; 87: 105232.
69.
CollinsRL.Using failure Modes to enhance what-if analysis. Process Saf Prog2014; 33(3): 231–236.
70.
StaufferTClarkeP.Using alarms as a layer of protection. Process Saf Prog2016; 35(1): 76–83.
71.
BinningerT. The virtual cement plant-the benefits and technology of simulators. In: IEEE-IAS/PCA 2004 cement industry technical conference (IEEE Cat No04CH37518), 2004, pp.235–244. New York: IEEE.
72.
XiaoYXueY.A review on application of microwave in cement life cycle. Renew Sustain Energ Rev2024; 199: 114498.
73.
Correa-JullianCRamosMMoslehA, et al. Operational safety hazard identification methodology for automated driving systems fleets. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2024; 0(0): 1748006X241233863.
74.
KimHLundteigenMAHafverA, et al. Utilization of risk priority number to systems-theoretic process analysis: a practical solution to manage a large number of unsafe control actions and loss scenarios. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2021; 235(1): 92–107.
75.
WuXHuangHYuW, et al. Accident analysis and risk prediction of tank farm based on Bayesian network method. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2024; 238(2): 366–386.
76.
AminZMohammadR.Bowtie analysis for risk assessment of confined space at sewerage construction project. Prog Energy Environ2023; 24(1): 22–34.
77.
ThomasSGrothKM.Toward a hybrid causal framework for autonomous vehicle safety analysis. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2023; 237(2): 367–388.
