A set pair analysis based layer of protection analysis and its application in quantitative risk assessment

Abstract As an effective risk assessment method, layer of protection analysis (LOPA) is widely used in the evaluation of protection measures, i.e., independent protection layers (IPLs). However, traditional LOPA can only make semi-quantitative assessments for risk. Thus, assessment results with respect to risk will not be accurate or detailed enough, and the evaluation for IPLs may not be scientific or reasonable. By taking advantage of the quantitative analysis of the set pair analysis (SPA), a quantitative LOPA called the set pair analysis-layer of protection analysis (SPA-LOPA) is proposed in this study. The severity of the risk is judged by experts, and expert judgements are reflected by the connection degree (CD) while the corresponding algorithm for the CD is developed. In addition, the diversity degree (DD) and its algorithm are presented to process the CD with respect to the severity, and the assessed severity is measured by the calculated value of the DD. Next, the risk is quantified by the value of the DD and its frequency. Subsequently, the steps of the SPA-LOPA and corresponding assessment flowchart are provided. The SPA-LOPA and semi-quantitative LOPA are utilized to evaluate risks of gas leakage in biomass gasification. It is proved that the SPA-LOPA is more scientific and reasonable in the evaluation for IPLs, based on the comparison results.

[2]  Mark Slezak,et al.  Critical Mitigation Element methodology: An approach to achieving consistent risk evaluation results ☆ , 2016 .

[3]  Chao Wu,et al.  Fishbone diagram and risk matrix analysis method and its application in safety assessment of natural gas spherical tank , 2018 .

[4]  Jianghong Jin,et al.  Theoretical basis of quantification for layer of protection analysis (LOPA) , 2016 .

[5]  Anne Bertelsmann.  One company's observations on the implementation of LOPA , 2017 .

[6]  Paul Baybutt.  Using layers of protection analysis to evaluate fire and gas systems , 2012 .

[7]  M. Sam Mannan,et al.  A formulation to optimize the risk reduction process based on LOPA , 2013 .

[8]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Framework for the quantitative assessment of the risk of leakage from LNG-fueled vessels by an event tree-CFD , 2016 .

[9]  Richard Gowland,et al.  The accidental risk assessment methodology for industries (ARAMIS)/layer of protection analysis (LOPA) methodology: a step forward towards convergent practices in risk assessment? , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[10]  Jian Li,et al.  A novel set pair analysis method based on variable weights for liquefaction evaluation , 2013, Natural Hazards.

[11]  Xuhong Yang,et al.  Determining the effects of land consolidation on the multifunctionlity of the cropland production system in China using a SPA-fuzzy assessment model , 2015 .

[12]  Abhinav Gupta,et al.  Probabilistic risk assessment framework for structural systems under multiple hazards using Bayesian statistics , 2017 .

[13]  Yuan Lu,et al.  A hybrid wavelet de‐noising and Rank‐Set Pair Analysis approach for forecasting hydro‐meteorological time series , 2018, Environmental research.

[14]  ShuJiao Tong,et al.  Study on risk assessment of chemical process based on an advanced layers of protection analysis method , 2016, Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering.

[15]  Hongwen Jing,et al.  Set pair analysis for risk assessment of water inrush in karst tunnels , 2017, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment.

[16]  Alejandro C. Torres-Echeverria.  On the use of LOPA and risk graphs for SIL determination , 2016 .

[17]  Faisal Khan,et al.  Human error risk analysis in offshore emergencies , 2010 .

[18]  Kaili Xu,et al.  Physicochemical Properties and Possible Applications of Waste Corncob Fly Ash from Biomass Gasification Industries of China , 2016 .

[19]  M. L. (Marty) Weirick,et al.  Short Communication: Dust Explosion Scenario Identification for Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) , 2009 .

[20]  Adam S. Markowski,et al.  “Bow-tie” model in layer of protection analysis , 2011 .

[21]  M. Sam Mannan,et al.  Risk assessment of LNG importation terminals using the Bayesian–LOPA methodology , 2009 .

[22]  Michael S. Schmidt.  Villains, victims, and heroes: Accounting for the roles human activity plays in LOPA scenarios , 2014 .

[23]  Hans J. Pasman,et al.  Bayesian networks make LOPA more effective, QRA more transparent and flexible, and thus safety more definable! , 2013 .

[24]  Arthur M. Dowell.  Layer of protection analysis and inherently safer processes , 1999 .

[25]  Chatchai Raka,et al.  An Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach to Risk Analysis: A Case Study of a New Generic Drug Development Process , 2017, Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation.

[26]  Kaili Xu,et al.  Hazard Assessment for Biomass Gasification Station Using General Set Pair Analysis , 2016 .

[27]  Juliang Jin,et al.  Set pair analysis method for coordination evaluation in water resources utilizing conflict , 2017 .

[28]  Jean-Marie Flaus,et al.  Uncertainty quantification in dynamic system risk assessment: a new approach with randomness and fuzzy theory , 2016 .

[29]  Mª Carmen González-Cruz,et al.  Risk Analysis of a Fuel Storage Terminal Using HAZOP and FTA , 2017, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[30]  Yanpeng Cai,et al.  Risk assessment of water pollution sources based on an integrated k-means clustering and set pair analysis method in the region of Shiyan, China. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[31]  Xiwen Yao,et al.  Fuzzy Bayesian Network-Bow-Tie Analysis of Gas Leakage during Biomass Gasification , 2016, PloS one.

[32]  Xiaohua Yang,et al.  Nonlinear optimization set pair analysis model (NOSPAM) for assessing water resource renewability , 2011 .

[33]  Wang Wensheng,et al.  Hazard degree assessment of landslide using set pair analysis method , 2011, Natural Hazards.