Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Journal of Advanced
ResearchOF
in Engineering
and Technology
(IJARET),
0976 6480(Print),
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
ADVANCED
RESEARCH
INISSN
ENGINEERING
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume AND
5, Issue TECHNOLOGY
10, October (2014), pp. (IJARET)
01-11 IAEME
IJARET
IAEME
ABSTRACT
Quantitative risk assessment and reliability are essential issues in modern safety to make
reliable decision. Risk assessment approaches are designed primarily to reduce the existing risk
inherent in engineering system to a tolerable level and maintain it over time. This reduction is often
achieved by successive interposition of several protective barriers between the source of danger,
which can be an industrial process, and potential targets as people, property and environment. Layer
of protection analysis is an approach to estimate the risk by quantifying risk results. A fuzzy set is a
new mathematical tool to model inaccuracy and uncertainty of data based on the surgeon method. In
this study, new model proposed to deal with quantitative risk assessment and precise the severity of
the scenario and determine the safety integrity level SIL based on LOPA and Bow-tie analysis using
fuzzy set, and the results illustrates that this models is more powerful than logical and arithmetic
computation.
Keywords: Quantitative Risk Assessment, Reliability, Layer of Protection Analysis, Bow-Tie
Analysis and Fuzzy Sets.
1. INTRODUCTION
The increasing complexity of engineering system has imposed substantial uncertainties and
imprecise associated with data in risk assessment problems. Reliability of system is the ability to
operate under designated operating conditions for a designated period of time or number of cycles
through a probability. The improve of reliability for prolonging the life of the item based on two
steps essential, on the one hand, study reliability issues and on the other hand, estimate and reduce
the failure rate (Mohammad, 1999; Dasgupta, 1991). Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) for
objective to estimates the outcome event probability of event tree and uses crisp probabilities of
events to estimate the outcome event probability or frequency (Kenarangui, 1991; Lees, 2005;
1
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
Ferdous, 2006; A.Nieto-Morote, 2011). The classifications of uncertainty, aleatory and epistemic
uncertainties are the major classes (Thacker and Huyse, 2003; Adam, 2010; ThallesVitelli, 2014;
Mohammad, 1999; H.J. Pasman, 2009; N. Ouazraouia, 2013).Expert systems can be built based on
fuzzy logic and they provide reasonably accurate outcomes useful in systems analysis (LSZL,
2002). Layer of protection analysis LOPA can be used a screening tool for QRA(CCPS, 2001).
In this study, LOPA and Bow-tie analysis using fuzzy logic are proposed to solve problem of
quantitative risk assessment. Fuzzy inference (Sugeno model) is the approach used in this paper; the
frequency of the mitigated scenario is calculated using fault tree analysis and event tree analysis by
generic data for the initiating event frequency and PFD of the independent protection layers
(KambizMokhtari, 2011; Anjuman, 2012; Adam S,2011).
2. FUZZY LAYER OF PROTECTION ANALYSIS
2.1 LAYER OF PROTECTION ANALYSIS LOPA
2.1.1 Definition: Layer of protection analysis is semi-quantitative approach, It can be viewed as a
simplification of the quantitative risk analysis methods using event tree analysis based on selection
and estimation of magnitude the scenarios for enhance the system by the protection needs
(ChunyangWei, 2008; SohrabKhaleghi, 2013).
I
P
L
I
P
L
I
P
L
ConsequenceOccurs
success
SafeOutcome
Initiating Event
success
Undesired but
tolerableoutcome
success
Undesired but
tolerableoutcome
Failure
Failure
Consequenceexceeding
criteria
Failure
Figure.1: Integration Layer of protection analysis in the Event tree analysis
2.1.2 LOPA and Risk Decisions Making
The flow chart shown in Figure.2 illustrates one organization for three approaches qualitative,
semi-quantitative and quantitative risk assessment (CCPS, 2001).
2
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
Qualitative study
YES
Is consequence
II ou III ?
LOPA
YES
NO
Is frequency
of consequence > 1/10
years?
YES
NO
YES
Is risk
in immediate action or
action at next
opportunity box?
Is a SIL required
for one or more SIF?
Is frequency of initiating
event understood?
NO
YES
Managemen
t review
Management
review
Is risk
in optional action
box?
YES
NO
NO
YES
Full QRA
study on all or
part of the
YES
Is risk
still in immediate action
or action atnext
opportunity box?
NO
NO
Complete study based
on qualitative judgment
Management
review
Figure.2: Flowchart shows the relationship between Qualitative approach, semi-quantitative and
Quantitative risk assessment
2.1.3 Determining the Frequency of Scenarios
The following is the general procedure for calculating the frequency for are lease scenario
with a specific consequence endpoint.
1
3
4
Consequence
class
1 and 2
3
4
5
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
Frequency of
consequence (/yr)
100 10-1
10-1 10-2
10-2 10-3
10-3 10-4
10-4 10-5
10-5 10-6
10-6 10-7
Category
5
Intermediate range
Acceptable
2.2 FUZZY LOGIC FL AND FUZZY SET THEORY FS: The fuzzy logic provides an inference
structure that enables appropriate human reasoning capabilities.
2.2.1 Fuzzy Sets FS: The utility of fuzzy sets lies in their ability to model uncertain or ambiguous
data, FS is important to observe that there is an intimate connection between Fuzziness and
Complexity. Fuzzy sets provide means to model the uncertainty associated with vagueness,
imprecision, and lack of information regarding a problem or a plant, etc (Dubois, 1980, Zadeh,
1978).The uncertainty is found to arise from ignorance, from chance and randomness, due to lack of
knowledge, from vagueness. (Canos, 2008; R. Nait-Said, 2008, 2009; Bouchon et al, 1995;
RadimBris, 2013).
2.2.2 FUZZY NUMBERS: The membership function!" (x) has the following characteristics
(Dubois & Prade 1978).The membership function of the number #$ can be expressed as follows.
!% & , ( & )
)&*
!" (x) = 1,
+!% & , * & ,
(5)
-!% &=
(6)
0,otherwise
-!+% &
./0
1/0
2/.
2/3
(7)
!" (x)
!" (x)
1
1
-!% &
0
-!% &
-!+% &
-!+% &
a b =c
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
Final output =
8
69: 56
(9)
Input MF
Input 1
F1(x)
x
Input 2
AND
RuleWeight
(firingstrength)
y
F2(x)
Output MF
Input MF
Output
level
Z=ax+by+c
Knowledge base
Database
Rule base
OUTPUT
INPUT
Crisp
Defuzzification interface
Fuzzification interface
Fuzzy
Decision-making unit
Crisp
Fuzzy
(
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
Instruments
P = Pressure, T = Temperature
L = Level, F = Flow,
I = Indicator, C = Controller
A = Alarm; H = High, L = Low
To flare
To atmosphere
Nitrogene
PV-2
RV-1
PV-1
PICA-1
V-8
H
V-7
From tank
trucks
FlammableLiquid
Storage Tank
T=1
TIA-1
H
FICA
-1
LIA-1
V-1
To process
V-4
V-3
1
PI-1
P=1
FV-1
M1=1.10-8
Failure BPCS
release
and
via RV-1
human action
M2=1.10-5
PFD=1.10-1
T
H
E
N
LPG tank
release
T=1.10-6
M1=1.10-8
I
M1=5.03*10-9
F
M1=1.5*10-8
A M2=1.10-5
N
-6
D M2=5.09*10
A PFD=1.10-1
N
D PFD=0.0509
M2=1.5*10-5
PFD=0.149
T T=1.6*10-6
H
-6
E T=1.55*10
N
T=1.65*10-6
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
THEN
BLEVE
P=1.6*10-8
0.1
0.1
2.42*10-8
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
Wrong
material
in tank
truck,
B1=1.10
Tank
rupture
due to
reactio
n
M1=1.
81*10-8
-3
An
d
Tank truck
not sampled
before
unloading,
2
B2=1.10-
Reagent reacts
with unloaded
material,
B3=1.10-1
Insuffici
ent
volume
in tank
to
unload
truck,
B5=1.10
Pressure
rise
exceeds
capacity
of PV-I,
B4=1.10-1
-2
Local
Thermal
hazard
Or
-2
Failure
of or
ignoring
LIA-I,
B6=1.10
BLEVE
An
d
2.42x10-8
PFD
Tank
overfil
ls and
release
via
RV-1,
M2=1.
62*10 -
VCE
LPG
tank
releas
e
T=1.6
*10-6
29.3x10-8
1.88x10-8
-8
Flash fire 0.405x10
and
1- PFD
Flash fire
4.55x10-8
Safe
dispersal
35.3x10-8
VCE
3.92x10-8
3
T=2.1
Flash fire
and
4.57x10-8
Flash fire
49.4x108
Safe
dispersal
432x10-8
Figure.9: Bow-tie analysis with results of fuzzy sets (sugeno approach) to calculate probability
of the top event and consequences LPG tank release
Table.5: Alpha-cut at left for scenario (*10-8/yr)
cut
Seq1
Seq2
Seq3
Seq4
Seq5
Seq6
Seq7
Seq8
Seq9
Seq10
2.228
27.57
1.531
0.3662
4.203
33.14
3.61
4.226
46.21
410.6
0.1
2.2472 27.743 1.5659 0.37008 4.2377 33.356 3.641 4.2604 46.529 412.74
0.2
2.2664 27.916 1.6008 0.37396 4.2724 33.572 3.672 4.2948 46.848 414.88
0.3
2.2856 28.089 1.6357 0.37784 4.3071 33.788 3.703 4.3292 47.167 417.02
0.4
2.3048 28.262 1.6706 0.38172 4.3418 34.004 3.734 4.3636 47.486 419.16
0.5
2.324
0.6
2.3432 28.608 1.7404 0.38948 4.4112 34.436 3.796 4.4324 48.124 423.44
0.7
2.3624 28.781 1.7753 0.39336 4.4459 34.652 3.827 4.4668 48.443 425.58
0.8
2.3816 28.954 1.8102 0.39724 4.4806 34.868 3.858 4.5012 48.762 427.72
0.9
2.4008 29.127 1.8451 0.40112 4.5153 35.084 3.889 4.5356 49.081 429.86
2.42
28.435 1.7055
29.3
1.88
0.3856
0.405
4.3765
4.55
34.22
35.3
3.765
3.92
4.398
4.57
47.805
49.4
421.3
432
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
Membership degree
Sequence 1
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
classical
fuzzy
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
Frequency (*10-8/yr)
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print),
ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 5, Issue 10, October (2014), pp. 01-11 IAEME
[22] SohrabKhaleghi, Saeed Givehchi, Saeed Karimi, Fuzzy Risk Assessment and
Categorization, based on Event Tree Analysis (ETA) and Layer of Protection Analysis
(LOPA): Case Study in Gas Transport System, World Applied Programming, Vol (3),
Issue (9), September 2013. 417-426.
[23] Sugeno, M., Industrial applications of fuzzy control, Elsevier Science Pub. Co., 1985.
[24] ThallesVitelliGarcez, Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, A risk measurement tool for an
underground electricity distribution system considering the consequences and uncertainties of
manhole events, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 124 (2014) 68-80.
[25] Takagi.T And Sugeno.M, Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling
and control, ieee transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, vol. smc-15, no. 1, 1985
[26] Zadeh, L.A, 'Fuzzy sets', Inform. Control, vol. 8 (1965) pp. 338-353.
[27] Zadeh, L.A, 'Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility', Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 1. (1978),
no. 1, pp. 3-28.
[28] Saleh Alawi Ahmad, Usama H. Issa, Moataz Awad Farag and Laila M. Abdelhafez,
Evaluation of Risk Factors Affecting Time and Cost of Construction Projects in Yemen,
International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 4, Issue 5, 2013, pp. 168 - 178,
ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510.
[29] S.G.Umashankar and Dr.G.Kalivarathan, Prediction of Transportation Specialized Views
of Median Safety by using Fuzzy Logic Approach, International Journal of Civil
Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 1, 2013, pp. 38 - 44, ISSN Print: 0976
6308, ISSN Online: 0976 6316.
[30] Er. Amit Bijon Dutta and Dr. M. J. Kolhatkar, Study of Risk Management in Construction
Projects, International Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 5, Issue 6, 2014, pp. 32 - 39,
ISSN Print: 0976-6502, ISSN Online: 0976-6510.
11