ARAMIS.
Accidental Risk Assessment Methodology for Industries (EU 5th FP)
Originators Salvi, Debray, Delvosalle, Casal et al. (EU Consortium, 2002–2004)
Paradigm Integrated bow-tie risk assessment
Unit of analysis Major accident scenarios at Seveso sites
Primary domain Chemical process industry under Seveso II/III

ARAMIS was developed to meet the requirements of the EU Seveso II Directive by providing a common, auditable methodology that links hazard identification, barrier performance, safety-management efficiency, risk severity and vulnerability mapping — all built around the bow-tie.

Overview of the framework

ARAMIS (Salvi & Debray, 2006) unfolds in five integrated modules. MIMAH — Methodology for the Identification of Major Accident Hazards — uses generic fault and event trees to build bow-ties centred on critical events. Safety barrier identification and assessment scores each barrier on effectiveness, response time and level of confidence. A safety-management audit produces a management efficiency score that modulates barrier reliability. MIRAS — Methodology for the Identification of Reference Accident Scenarios — selects representative scenarios. Finally, risk severity and vulnerability mapping overlay consequence zones on the plant's surroundings (Delvosalle et al., 2006).

Cause C₁ Cause C₂ Cause C₃ B-p1 B-p2 Critical Event B-m1 B-m2 Conseq. 1 Conseq. 2 Conseq. 3 Safety Management Efficiency (audit score) → modulates barrier reliability
Figure 1. ARAMIS bow-tie: causes → prevention barriers → critical event → mitigation barriers → consequences, with a safety-management audit that modulates barrier reliability.

When to use it

Typical applications

  • Seveso-II/III safety reports for hazardous establishments.
  • Assessment of reference accident scenarios and land-use planning.
  • Benchmarking safety-management system effectiveness.
  • Integration of technical, human and organisational barriers in QRA.

Aviation & cross-domain relevance

  • Bow-tie thinking aligns with ICAO SMS barrier-based analysis; ARAMIS contributes a structured audit of management efficiency.
  • Adapted for airport fuel farms, chemical tankers (Park et al., 2023), LNG terminals, and rail freight of hazardous goods.
  • Complement to aviation runway-safety and ground-handling bow-tie analyses.

Benefits

Analytical strengths

  • Integrates hazard identification, barrier performance and management in a single coherent framework.
  • Uses generic bow-ties as a starting point, improving consistency across sites and assessors.
  • Links risk severity to vulnerability of the surroundings — people, environment, property.
  • Enables semi-quantitative ranking of reference accident scenarios.

Practical strengths

  • Developed and recommended under the EU Seveso II Directive (Salvi & Debray, 2006).
  • Detailed user guide and audit instruments publicly available.
  • Harmonised with emergency planning and land-use regulation.
  • Compatible with established QRA software and bow-tie tooling.

Limitations

  • Complexity. The full method is resource-intensive; smaller sites often apply selected modules only.
  • Expert judgement. Audit scoring and barrier performance grading depend heavily on assessor competence.
  • Scope. Built around the process industry; transfer to transport (aviation, rail, shipping) requires mapping of barriers and scenarios.
  • Not a systems-theoretic model. Like classical bow-ties, ARAMIS treats causation as largely linear.
In short ARAMIS translates the Seveso Directive into operational practice, turning the bow-tie into a full socio-technical risk assessment that accounts for management quality, barrier performance and vulnerability of surroundings.

References (APA 7)

Salvi, O., & Debray, B. (2006). A global view on ARAMIS, a risk assessment methodology for industries in the framework of the SEVESO II directive. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 130(3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.034

Delvosalle, C., Fievez, C., Pipart, A., & Debray, B. (2006). ARAMIS project: A comprehensive methodology for the identification of reference accident scenarios in process industries. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 130(3), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.005

Duijm, N. J. (2009). Safety-barrier diagrams as a safety management tool. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 94(2), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.031

Planas-Cuchi, E., Vílchez, J. A., & Casal, J. (2006). A global view on the ARAMIS risk severity tool. Journal of Risk Research, 9(5), 485–494.

ARAMIS Consortium. (2004). ARAMIS user guide. INERIS & Faculté Polytechnique de Mons. https://safetybarriermanager.duijm.dk/files/aramis/ARAMIS_FINAL_USER_GUIDE.pdf

Further reading

Debray, B., Delvosalle, C., Fievez, C., Pipart, A., & Casal, J. (2006). ARAMIS project: Reference accident scenarios definition in SEVESO establishment. Journal of Risk Research, 9(5), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870500419529

Hourtolou, D., & Salvi, O. (2003). ARAMIS: Accidental risk assessment methodology for industries in the context of Seveso II. Proceedings of ESREL.

Park, S., Kim, J., Lim, Y., & Yoon, H. (2023). Implementation of ARAMIS methodology in the risk assessment of chemical tankers: The case of loading operation. Ocean Engineering, 268, 113413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.113413

Duijm, N. J. (2015). Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Safety Science, 76, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.02.014

European Commission. (2012). Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (Seveso III). Official Journal of the European Union.