Inspiring the next generation of engineers

EE2010

P074

Major Hazards Management a finishing module for

undergraduate engineers on how to manage risk
Graham Schleyer1 (schleyer@liv.ac.uk), Nicholas Underwood1, Graham Dalzell2 and
Nicola Stacey3
1

University of Liverpool, School of Engineering, UK; Consultant; Health and Safety Laboratory, UK

Abstract: Risk specialists from the Health and Safety Laboratory and staff from the Engineering
School at the University of Liverpool collaborated to embed safety risk education materials into the
undergraduate curriculum. The project, funded by the Health and Safety Executive, took 4 years to
implement and assess. The outcome was an approach that can be promoted to other higher education
institutions on the basis of its success, namely to make undergraduate engineering students more
aware of their professional responsibilities for their own safety and the safety of others in their role as
engineers. Independently of the above project, the lead author undertook an industrial secondment to
Shell Global Solutions (UK), funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering. This paper will describe
the development and delivery of a new fourth year module called Major Hazards Management in
which many of the risk concepts introduced earlier in the undergraduate programme are given a more
detailed treatment for students electing to progress to a deeper specialist level of understanding.
Moreover, it will describe how the module, which is part philosophical and part analytical, draws
upon the experiences of both the secondment and earlier project to provide the opportunity for
students to put into practice the methods used by industry, in particular the oil and gas industry, to
manage hazards. A key aspect of the module is the industrial input by specialists who are prepared to
pass on their knowledge and experience to the next generation of engineers.

Introduction
Students completing a four-year accredited engineering degree programme are expected to have a
level of understanding to a specialist depth in a few topics as well as a solid grounding in fundamental
engineering principles. Some specialist modules are provided in the final year of the degree
programme often linked to research topics pursued by staff. One such module was Explosion
Hazards and Evaluation, taken by both undergraduate and postgraduate students on the MEng
mechanical engineering programme and the MSc aerospace and mechanical systems engineering
programme, with the objective of acquainting them to procedures for the analysis and design of
structures subjected to extreme loads arising from accidental explosions. This provided these
students with a specialist insight into methods used by industry for assessing the resilience of
buildings and structures against blast. The module, however, did not address the wider issues of
accident causation and safety culture within an organisation which are equally important to consider
from the viewpoint of risk management. The opportunity to address these issues came with an
industrial secondment to a major hazards consultancy, Shell Global Solutions (UK), in 2008 that paved
the way and provided the motivation to update the module. Furthermore, safety risk concepts had
already been introduced earlier in the curriculum as a result of a previous project that would link well to
the new module.
A further motivation for revising the module was to enable the students to apply a generic approach to
risk management in any major hazards industry not just the oil and gas industry. The concept of
interrelationships between hazards within an organisation is illustrated by Reasons Swiss cheese
model (Reason, 1990). Each layer of cheese represents a defence (barrier) against failure. The holes
in the cheese represent weaknesses in the defences in the system. They vary in size and position in
the slice. The entire system fails if the holes in each slice momentarily align, producing a possible

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre

Inspiring the next generation of engineers

EE2010

Accident Trajectory. One line of defence could be protection but to consider protection in isolation
would result in a failure to take a holistic systems approach to managing hazards and thereby
managing risk.
The University of Liverpool School of Engineering has been working with the Health and Safety
Laboratory (HSL), with funding from their parent body the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), to
integrate risk concepts into undergraduate engineering courses since October 2004. As a result,
various new materials have been developed and merged into core engineering modules in the form of
case studies and real-life examples to teach the fundamentals of safety and risk concepts including a
role-play accident investigation simulation (Schleyer et al, 2008). These materials were not merely an
add-on to an existing module but embedded so as to demonstrate direct connections between the risk
theme and the main subject. All the materials used or identified during the HSE project are described
in the project report (Stacey et al 2009). Since its conclusion in January 2009, HSL and HSE have
continued to provide advice to help consolidate and build upon this earlier work.
The paper discusses the structure and syllabus of the new module showing how it draws on concepts
of safety and risk introduced earlier in the curriculum, and the content and impact of the secondment.

Secondment experience
The Industrial Secondment Scheme funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK provides
an opportunity for engineering teaching staff in Higher Education institutions to update their knowledge
of methods and practices used in industry. The objective is that the secondment experience will lead
to the development of new materials and ideas for improving the industrial relevance of teaching as
well as developing links with industry. In the case of the lead author, this was a matter of renewing
links with industry. There are benefits for both the academic member of staff and the company
hosting the secondment. The company benefits through having an academic expert working
alongside staff for a fixed period.
The lead author applied in 2008 for a secondment to Shell Global Solutions (UK), Chester. The period
of the secondment was from July through to December 2008. During this time the secondee worked
as if an employee of Shell complying with Shell business and safety rules. The direct contact for the
secondee at Shell was Prof Geoff Chamberlain and subsequently Dr Michael Persaud, successor of
Prof Chamberlain. A mutually agreed work plan, originally submitted at the application stage, was
followed to ensure maximum benefit for all parties involved. This was considered both challenging
and of significant relevance to the organisation. The secondee was fully aware of the importance of
the topics in the plan having been previously contracted by Shell to work alongside staff in the group.
The primary aim was to improve existing methodologies to bridge the gap between loading and
response of structures subjected to accidental explosions. A procedure for evaluating building
damage using single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) methods and spreadsheet analysis tools was
developed during the six months, including an appraisal of current practices within the Health, Safety
and Environment (HSE) consultancy group in the UK to address blast response problems.
One of the requirements of the secondment was to use the experience to revise the secondees
teaching module Explosion Hazards and Evaluation. The companys principal business is major
hazards management consultancy which it offers to the oil and gas industry concerned with gas
explosion, fire and toxic release hazards. The idea of developing a module that essentially covered
the activities of a major hazards management consultancy like Shell Global Solutions was formed
during the secondment. Experience of the nature of the work, the methods used and the prominent
safety culture led to the present structure and syllabus described in the next section. The spreadsheet
analysis tools developed on secondment to help extend the hosts technical assessment capabilities
could also be used to demonstrate how a pragmatic suite of methodologies are suited for fast and
efficient application in hazard and risk screening within the oil and gas industry. It is hard to imagine
how the School might have had access to Shells major hazard management software tools without
the secondment. Hazard analysis and risk management is part of the culture and practice of
engineering as a whole and this secondment has enabled a fresh new insight into this industrial
practice.

Structure and syllabus

Revision of the module commenced in June 2009 with the short-term appointment of a research
assistant, Nicholas Underwood, to help in developing the new syllabus and implementing the module

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre

Inspiring the next generation of engineers

EE2010

in time for the start of the 2009-10 session. The 7.5 credit module consisted of formal lectures, some
of which were recorded, class exercises and group project presentations over a period of 12 weeks,
the entire duration of the first semester. The class each week lasted 2 hours with a short break in the
th
middle. The module is offered as an option to 4 year mechanical engineering undergraduates (5 out
of 24 elected to take the module) but compulsory for the postgraduates. The cohort of students, 23 in
total, was made up of the 5 MEng undergraduate students on the mechanical engineering programme
and the rest MSc students on the aerospace and mechanical systems engineering postgraduate
programme, the majority of whom were from overseas. Most weeks with a few exceptions saw 100%
attendance. Assessment was in the form of a 2-hour written exam (70%) in January 2010 and a group
project (30%). More details of the group project are given later.
The new module aims to put academic theory into the context of industrial experience and balance
philosophical with analytical content. Global discipline leaders in fires, explosions and hazards
management from industry were approached about contributing to the new module. They were more
than willing to offer subject guidance, to lecture on their specialist topics, and to pass on their
knowledge and experience to the next generation of engineers. Going by their response and
feedback, the students appreciated this aspect of the new module the most, being exposed to
specialists from industry. With their permission, the guest lectures were recorded and made available
on the Universitys virtual learning environment VITAL.

Syllabus
The objectives of the module for students were:
To raise awareness of the priority given to health and safety in major hazards industries
particularly the oil and gas industry; and
To impart knowledge and understanding of current practice particularly in the oil and gas industry
to manage the risks associated with major hazards.
The learning outcomes of the module for students were:
To understand their role and involvement in industry to improve safety performance; and
To demonstrate ability in
Identifying the causes of accidents and the interacting factors for accident avoidance; and
Applying methods of hazard analysis and consequence assessment for managing the risks
associated with major hazards.
An overview of the syllabus is given in Table 1. The * symbol next to a topic indicates this is a guest
lecture.
Table 1: Syllabus
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Topic (*guest lectures)

Introduction to major hazards management*
HAZID & HAZAN*
HAZID class exercise
Vapour cloud explosions*
E-lecture on human factors*
Accident causation and introduction to group project
Group work
Blast effects and loading
Blast response and SDOF methods
Process fires*
Group project presentations
Buncefield case study

Lecturers/facilitators

Mr Graham Dalzell, Consultant (previously BP)

Professor Geoff Chamberlain, Consultant, Waverton Consultancy Ltd (previously Shell Global
Solutions) and visiting professor, Loughborough University

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre

Inspiring the next generation of engineers

EE2010

Dr Michael Persaud, Global Discipline Leader, Major Hazards Management, Shell Global
Solutions
Mr Graham King, Principal Inspector, Health and Safety Executive
Dr Graham Schleyer, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, University of Liverpool
Mr Nicholas Underwood, Research Assistant, School of Engineering, University of Liverpool
Mrs Nicola Stacey, Senior Risk Scientist, Health and Safety Laboratory

Introduction to major hazards management

Everyone from the managing director to the person working on the shopfloor in an organisation has a
part to play in managing hazards and reducing the risk of accidents that cost loss of reputation, loss of
income and loss of life. Ideally, those who direct and manage an organisations operations should
lead on safety and risk management and cascade their knowledge through an organisational structure
resulting in a safety culture that every employee understands.
An example of this is the mission statement for the employees of the BP Trinidad project:
We will know what is dangerous, why it is dangerous and what each of us has to do to keep
us safe.
Unfortunately, as a trail of past incidents has shown, a breakdown of safety culture in an organisation
is one of the main factors of increasing the risk of accidents.
Knowledge and understanding is a key to minimising the potential for major incidents. This is
underlined by the most common statements during accident investigations:
I didnt think that would happen; I didnt know it would be like that; I didnt think they would do
that with it. I didnt think!
This module is geared to make students think about what could go wrong, the consequences of some
process going wrong and what can be done to prevent escalation. Employers and businesses that are
committed to health and safety are looking for evidence of these skills in recruiting the next generation
of engineers. Thus it is important to demonstrate the relevance of the subject to students with real
examples and case studies but perhaps one of the best methods to instil a sense of the importance of
the subject is for the students to be exposed to leaders from industry who have had many years of
experience in managing hazards, investigating incidents, solving problems and responding to urgent
requests.

HAZID & HAZAN

The understanding of hazards, causation, severity and consequence is the most powerful means of
reducing risk. Risk assessments must distil and deliver appropriate knowledge to everyone who
designs, operates, maintains and manages equipment or plant. They must not be a one-off specialist
activity but a living process owned by those responsible for the hazards. This series of two lectures
delivered by Mr Graham Dalzell, a safety specialist, covers the fundamental concepts of hazards and
risk through to the structured approach to risk assessment, a skill that every engineer must be able to
apply. The content builds on materials delivered earlier in the undergraduate programme and
contains real life examples many of which are drawn from Mr Dalzells personal experience. A hazard
analysis exercise was devised to be carried out in class following these two lectures. This was an
opportunity to consolidate the previous two weeks learning. The exercise was based around a petrol
filling station. There have been 243 reported incidents of fires breaking out at petrol stations around
the world, between 1993 and 2004. There are in excess of 9,000 filing stations in the UK. Students
were asked to work in groups and identify possible hazards for three different situations, namely (1)
tanker delivery, (2) storage of fuel in underground tanks, and (3) manual filling at the petrol pumps.
They were then to estimate the level of risk (low, medium, high) considering frequency of exposure,
the possibility to limit harm, severity of harm and probability of occurrence of harm.

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre

Inspiring the next generation of engineers

EE2010

E-lecture on human factors

st

During the earlier joint project with HSL the opportunity to embed four keynote lectures into 1 year
design was recognised. These were all professionally recorded by HSLs visual and presentation
services with a view to turning them into e-lectures for future use. One by Graham Dalzell, who also
lectures on this new module, continued to be used but the other three were not used due to
timetabling changes so as to introduce more active learning activities into year one. However, during
the development of this module these recordings were reviewed and one by Graham King, a principal
HSE inspector with a mechanical engineering background was identified as being particularly relevant
to the new module. The lecture, We are All Human, was therefore edited for reuse.
This lecture explains, through the use of case studies, the role of human factors in accident causation.
The different types and causes of human errors, the reasons why employees violate rules and
procedures are described in the lecture as well the factors that influence human performance. Finally
a number of solutions are proposed for both reducing the likelihood and impact of human error,
misuse and procedural violations.
Students watch the e-lecture on VITAL during one of their timetabled periods.

Accident causation
Major accidents, involving loss of reputation, loss of income and loss of life continue to occur across a
wide variety of industries. This lecture highlights that practically all accidents have multiple causes,
each occurring when an appropriate combination of causes comes together at one time and place. It
has been shown that the most common generic sources of accident causes are Engineering problems
followed by Management problems then Operator issues and Environmental factors. A detailed study
(Neale, 2007) of 45 well-known reported accidents drawn from a number of operating areas including
Railways, Ships, Aircraft, Power Stations, Chemical Process Plant, and Bridges and Structures was
used to identify the four major sources of accident causes each with a number of sub-sections totalling
14 sources. Analysis of the 45 accidents indicated contributions from 169 causes. Analysis of causes
in the operating areas identified patterns emerging between areas, with Engineering problems being
the leading cause in all areas followed by Management problems particularly in the Railways and
Bridges and Structures then Operator errors particularly in Ships, Aircraft and Power Stations, and
then Environmental factors particularly in Chemical Process Plant.
A detailed accident analysis of the Port of Ramsgate walkway collapse served to illustrate a number of
the sources described in the generic list and linked well with its previous adoption earlier in the
programme as a case study on safety and risk management, and laboratory exercise (Schleyer et al,
2008).
This lecture led directly onto the group project.

Group project
Students were given details of the group project in week 6 and divided into five groups of 4 and one
group of 3. The groups were given 4 weeks to complete the project which accounted for 30% of the
module assessment. Each group was asked to:
Analyse a major accident, in particular the engineering issues which arose;
Investigate the causes of the accident;
Recommend how the incident could have been prevented; and
Present the results of their analysis/investigation in a short report and orally.
The groups were given a major accident to investigate from the following list:
BP Texas City
Herald of Free Enterprise
Kings Cross Escalator
Challenger Shuttle
Piper Alpha
Ladbroke Grove

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre

Inspiring the next generation of engineers

EE2010

The project consisted of 3 stages:

Individual report (1 page max.) describing the key facts of the accident;
Group report (2 pages max.) presenting the analysis of the causes and their interaction using the
template on causes of accidents (see Accident causation) together with their case for
prevention; and
Group presentation covering
Introduction to the accident;
General hazards in the particular industry;
Causes; and
Prevention.
In giving the students different accidents to analyse exposed them to more cases and a variety of
situations and industries, allowing the groups to learn from each other. This also eliminates the
problem of collusion.
Group presentations took place in week 11. The standard of presentations was excellent with
everyone taking part. About 5 minutes was allowed after each presentation for questions and this
stimulated useful interaction. The students agreed to their presentation being made available on
VITAL.

Vapour cloud explosions

Prof Chamberlain was invited to give a lecture on his specialist subject of vapour cloud explosions
being a leading authority and having worked in this area for many years. Vapour cloud explosions
(VCEs) are a major hazard in the petrochemical industry. Examples of VCEs include the piper alpha
th
explosion on the 6 July 1988 which still ranks as the worst disaster in the history of offshore
operations; 167 people died. In more recent times there was the Texas City Oil Refinery and
Buncefield in 2005 that serve as classic case studies. Buncefield is mentioned later.
This lecture provides an insight into the fundamentals of gas explosions, the mechanisms that lead to
pressure rise and the effects of confinement and congestion, illustrated by the Shelkin feedback loop.
Examples are given of how experimental research has been used successfully to validate computer
simulations.

Blast effects
This series of two lectures introduces the students to procedures for the analysis and design of
structural elements subjected to explosion loading and directly links with the lecture on vapour cloud
explosions. First, methods of determining air blast loading on structures are given. This is followed by
an introduction to structural dynamics and the single-degree-of-freedom methods commonly used in
industry to estimate structural response and damage. The students are given the opportunity to use
the spreadsheet tools developed by the lead author on secondment to analyse typical problems. It is
emphasised that the physical effects modelling of explosions is a process that informs risk particularly
at the initial design phase of a project. Other applications of this technology are facility siting studies,
upgrading existing buildings for improved blast resilience and accident investigation.

Process fires
Process fires are another major hazard in the oil and gas production industry. In the case of the Piper
Alpha explosion, it was the subsequent fires that caused the large loss of life not the explosion itself.
This lecture given by Mr Graham Dalzell, a leading expert on process fires safety, shares his
experience over many years working in BP investigating incidents like Piper Alpha and leading a
safety team in BP.

Buncefield case study

The massive explosion and fires at the Buncefield Oil Depot, Hertfordshire in December 2005 was
used as a classic case study in week 12 to illustrate how a disaster of this scale was allowed to
happen, the severity of damage to surrounding buildings and structures, the potential wider
environmental impact and implications, and the organisational failures that led to the disaster. The
case study served to pull together all the topics covered earlier and show the interrelationship of the
various factors that contributed to the disaster.

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre

Inspiring the next generation of engineers

EE2010

Feedback
The module, as described above, was delivered for the first time to year 4 students in the first
semester of the current 2009-10 academic year. At the end of the module students were encouraged
to give feedback.
The feedback which is summarised below suggests the structure and content of the revised module is
about right. They liked in particular
The different style of the module over the more conventional style;
The significance of the subject matter illustrated by many examples and real life situations;
The structure with guest lecturers able to illustrate from experience and make the subject
interesting and relevant; and
The group project.
They suggested that the module could be enhanced by
Having some practical or simulated experiments;
Video presentation of examples; and
More interaction in class.

Conclusions
Both safety professionals and industry recognise that every engineer must be able to apply a formal
structured approach to assessing risk. The inspiration to revise and restructure a final year module to
include methods practiced in industry to manage risk in a major hazards industry arose through an
industrial secondment to Shell Global Solutions (UK) funded by the Royal Academy of Engineering.
Such schemes offer excellent opportunities to academic staff to update teaching materials, develop
industrial case studies and make useful links that will benefit their teaching.
A particular feature of the newly revised module has been the significant industrial input in the form of
subject guidance and guest lectures in specialist areas. The visiting lecturers are able to draw on reallife examples largely from their own personal experience. The School of Engineering at the University
of Liverpool believe strongly in supporting visiting lecturers and actively engaging with industry through
an industrial liaison board and a recently introduced resident engineer scheme. This is one way of
sustaining the support of visiting lecturers at a relatively low cost.
The new major hazards management module is an important contribution to the MEng degree
programmes as it consolidates the safety risk concepts introduced earlier in the programme and
prepares the next generation of graduate engineers for the professional practice of hazard analysis
and risk management, an ever increasing part of the culture and practice of engineering.
Student feedback following the first year of its implementation and delivery suggests the structure and
content of the new module are about right. The suggestions for enhancing the module will be
considered. The Shell major hazard software could be used to simulate different hazard scenarios
and could also be used as the basis of a future group project variation.

References
Neale M. (2007) The causes of accidents. The Presidents Choice. IMechE.
Reason J. (1990) Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schleyer GK, Duan RF and Stacey N. (2008) Role-play experience through virtual reconstruction of
accident investigation. In Proceedings of International Conference on Innovation, Good Practice
and Research in Engineering Education. Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre,
Loughborough.
Stacey N, Simpson, K and Schleyer GK. (2009) Integrating risk concepts into undergraduate
engineering courses. RR702. Bootle, HSE.

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre

Inspiring the next generation of engineers

EE2010

Acknowledgements
The following organisations are acknowledged as having a supporting technical and/or financial role in
the projects mentioned in this paper:
The Royal Academy of Engineering for funding the secondment;
Shell Global Solutions (UK) for hosting the secondment; and
The Health and Safety Executive for funding the earlier risk education project.
Copyright 2010 University of Liverpool and British Crown: The authors grant to the EE2010 organisers and educational nonprofit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the
article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to the
Engineering Subject Centre to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) on flash memory
drive and in printed form within the EE2010 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express
permission of the authors.

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre