系统安全的思维转型:风险与韧性的比较研究

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.01.011

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (1): 62-68.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.01.011

系统安全的思维转型:风险与韧性的比较研究

汪洋^1,2 副教授, 黄金辉^1,2, 付姗姗^1,2,3, 魏晓阳^**1,2, 吴兵^1,2

1 武汉理工大学智能交通系统研究中心,湖北武汉 430063
2 国家水运安全工程技术研究中心,湖北武汉 430063
3 上海海事大学海洋科学与工程学院,上海 201306

收稿日期:2017-10-29 出版日期:2018-01-28 发布日期:2020-09-28
通讯作者: ** 魏晓阳(1990—),男,河南安阳人,硕士研究生,主要研究方向为安全科学与工程。E-mail: weixiaoyang@whut.edu.cn。
作者简介:汪洋 (1976—),男,湖北武汉人,博士,副教授,主要从事安全事故的分析研究。E-mail: wangyang.itsc@whut.edu.cn。
基金资助:
国家科技支撑计划项目(2015BAG20B05);国家自然科学基金资助(51479158)。

A shift in paradigm for system safety: comparative study of risk and resilience

WANG Yang^1,2, HUANG Jinhui^1,2, FU Shanshan^1,2,3, WEI Xiaoyang^1,2, WU Bing^1,2

1 Intelligent Transportation System Research Center,Wuhan University of Technology,Wuhan Hubei 430063, China
2 National Engineering Research Center for Water Transport Safety,Wuhan Hubei 430063,China
3 College of Ocean Science and Engineering,Shanghai Maritime University,Shanghai 201306,China

Received:2017-10-29 Online:2018-01-28 Published:2020-09-28

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为深入理解安全工程中韧性理论的核心思路,论述国内外韧性研究的主要成果和进展,找出传统风险理论体系和研究的瓶颈,揭示韧性理论的发展动因和轨迹;在此基础上,分析韧性与风险的定位及关系,比较两者在研究方法上的共同点和差异,展望两者的发展趋势及其对安全工程研究的推动作用。研究结果表明:相对于安全科学领域中传统的风险理论,韧性理论强调全过程的系统性能表现;这2种理论并不相互排斥,也不存在取代关系。面对日趋复杂的社会-技术系统,韧性和传统风险理论为系统安全提供不同的视角,共同推动系统安全的发展。

关键词: 系统安全, 韧性, 风险分析, 建模方法, 事故防范

Abstract: Resilience has become an emerging research paradigm in safety science for years. In contrast with the traditional risk theory in safety science,resilience emphasizes the full-cycle system performance,including the phases before,during and after disruptions. In this paper, the main results and advances in this domain were reviewed the theoretical structure of and the difficulties in risk study were described, and the motivation and trajectory of the development of the theory were examined. The positions of and relations between the two theories were analyzed,and a comparative study was conducted on the two theories in terms of similarities and differences in research methods. The research trends of the two theories and their joint impact on the safety engineering were predicted.

Key words: system safety, resilience, risk analysis, modeling method, accident prevention

中图分类号:

X928.0

汪洋, 黄金辉, 付姗姗, 魏晓阳, 吴兵. 系统安全的思维转型:风险与韧性的比较研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(1): 62-68.

WANG Yang, HUANG Jinhui, FU Shanshan, WEI Xiaoyang, WU Bing. A shift in paradigm for system safety: comparative study of risk and resilience[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(1): 62-68.

参考文献

[1] AVEN T. What is safety science?[J]. Safety Science, 2014, 67: 15-20.
[2] AVEN T. On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience[J]. Risk Analysis, 2011,31(4):515–522.
[3] HAIMES Y Y. Responses to Terje Aven's paper: on some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience[J]. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(5): 689-692.
[4] HOLLING C S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems[J]. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematic, 1973, 4(1): 1-23.
[5] RIGHI A W,SAURIN T A,WACHS P. A systematic literature review of resilience engineering: research areas and a research agenda proposal[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2015, 141: 142-152.
[6] HOLLNAGEL E,DAVID D W,LEVESON N. Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts[M]. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006: 9-14.
[7] HOLLNAGEL E. Resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook[M]. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, 2013: 7-8.
[8] HOLLNAGEL E. Resilience engineering and the built environment[J]. Building Research & Information,2014,42(2): 221-228.
[9] Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disaster, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Disaster resilience: a national imperative[M]. Washington: The National Academies Press,2012: 1-22.
[10] JEROME K. Risk and resilience: exploring the relationship[R]. Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute (USA), 2010.
[11] HAIMES Y Y. On the definition of resilience in systems[J]. Risk Analysis, 2009, 29(4): 498-501.
[12] BRUNEAU M,CHANG S E,EGUCHI R T,et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2003, 19(4): 733-752.
[13] FANG Yiping,PEDRONI N,ZIO E. Resilience-based component importance measures for critical infrastructure network systems[J]. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2017, 65(2): 502-512.
[14] ZOBEL C W, KHANSA L. Characterizing multi-event disaster resilience[J]. Computers & Operations Research, 2014, 42(2): 83-94.
[15] HENRY D,RAMIREZ-MARQUEZ J E. Generic metrics and quantitative approaches for system resilience as a function of time[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2012, 99: 114-122.
[16] ROSE A Z. Economic resilience to disasters[J]. Disaster Prevention & Management An International Journal,2009,13(4): 307-314.
[17] STROGATZ S H. Exploring complex networks[J]. Nature, 2001, 410: 268-276.
[18] NEWMAN M E J. The structure and function of complex networks[J]. Siam Review, 2006, 45(2): 167-256.
[19] GANIN A A,MASSARO E,GUTFRAIND A,et al. Operational resilience: concepts, design and analysis[J]. Scientific Reports, 2016, 6: 1-12.
[20] GAO Jianxi,BAZEL B,BARABASI A L. Universal resilience patterns in complex networks[J]. Nature, 2016, 530: 307-312.
[21] CIMELLARO G P,REINHORN A M,BRUNEAU M. Framework for analytical quantification of disaster resilience[J]. Engineering Structures,2010,32(11): 3 639-3 649.
[22] CHANG S E,SHINOZUKA M. Measuring improvements in the disaster resilience of communities[J]. Earthquake Spectra,2004,20(3): 739-755.
[23] FRANCIS R,BEKERA B. A metric and frameworks for resilience analysis of engineered and infrastructure systems[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,2014,121(1): 90-103.
[24] OUYANG Min. Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety,2014,121: 43-60.
[25] AZADEH A,SALEHI V,ARVAN M,et al. Assessment of resilience engineering factors in high-risk environments by fuzzy cognitive maps: a petrochemical plant[J]. Safety Science,2014,68(10): 99-107.
[26] KAPLAN S,GARRICK B J. On the quantitative definition of risk[J]. Risk Analysis,1981,1(1): 11-27.
[27] AVEN T,ZIO E. Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management[J]. Risk Analysis,2014,32(10): 1 164-1 172.
[28] PARK J,SEAGER T P,RAO P S,et al. Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems[J]. Risk Analysis,2013,33(3): 356-367.
[29] AVEN T,ZIO E. Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,2011,96(1): 64-74.
[30] ZIO E. Reliability engineering: old problems and new challenges[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,2009,94(2): 125-141.
[31] WALKER W E,MARCHAU V A W J,SWANSON D. Addressing deep uncertainty using adaptive policies: introduction to section2[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,2010,77(6): 917-923.
[32] RAUSAND,M. Risk assessment: theory,methods,and applications[M]. Manhattan: John Wiley & Sons,2011: 94-95.
[33] LUNDBERG J,JOHANSSON B J. Systemic resilience model[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,2015,141: 22-32.
[34] APOSTOLAKIS G. The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems[J]. Science,1990,250(4986): 1 359-1 364.
[35] AVEN T. The risk concept:historical and recent development trends[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,2012,99: 33-44.
[36] 付姗姗,张笛,桑凌志,等.柔性工程理论在极地船舶航行风险防控中的应用[J]. 极地研究,2016,28(2): 250-256.
FU Shanshan,ZHANG Di,SANG Lingzhi,et al. Incorporation of trsilience engineering theory into risk prevention and control in polar waters[J] Chinese Journal of Polar Research,2016,28(2): 250-256.
[37] 魏晓阳,汪洋,严新平,等. 事故建模方法研究进展[J]. 中国安全科学学报,2016,26(3): 46-52.
WEI Xiaoyang, WANG Yang, YAN Xinping, et al. Progress in research on methods for modeling accidents[J]. China Safety Science Journal,2016,26(3): 46-52.
[38] MADNI A M,JACKSON S. Towards a conceptual framework for resilience engineering[J]. IEEE Systems Journal,2009,3(2): 181-191.
[39] SUTER M. Resilience and risk management: exploring the relationship and comparing its use[R]. Center for Security Studies,2011.
[40] RASMUSSEN J,SVEDUNG I. Proactive risk management in dynamic society[M]. Karstad: Swedish Rescue Services Agency, 2000: 101-104.
[41] 严新平,张笛,张明阳,等.从ESREL2015国际会议的动态展望交通安全发展[J].交通信息与安全,2015,33(5): 1-8.
YAN Xinping,ZHANG Di,ZHANG Mingyang,et al. Research trends of transportation safety: identified from ESREL 2015 conference[J]. Journal of Transport Information and Safety,2015,33(5): 1-8.

系统安全的思维转型:风险与韧性的比较研究

A shift in paradigm for system safety: comparative study of risk and resilience

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	罗福周, 袁慧卿, 张扬. 旧工业建筑再生项目消防安全韧性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(3): 167-173.
[2]	庄越, 梁晓晓. 面向疫情危机的城市公共卫生系统韧性^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(2): 167-175.
[3]	魏强, 刘加奇, 王景春, 王鹏. 基于理想模糊物元的隧道施工安全韧性评估^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(8): 62-68.
[4]	毕玮, 汤育春, 冒婷婷, 孙新红, 李启明. 城市基础设施系统韧性管理综述[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(6): 14-28.
[5]	韩林, 赵旭东, 陈志龙, 龚华栋, 侯本伟. 蓄意攻击下城市电力网络毁伤韧性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(6): 161-169.
[6]	华俊杰, 申满对, 宋贤生. 化工装置泄漏频率数据源比较研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(3): 35-40.
[7]	高涵, 多依丽, 孙铁, 王志荣, 郭品坤. 基于DBT-DBN模型的气化炉超温动态风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(3): 73-81.
[8]	韩林, 赵旭东, 陈志龙, 龚华栋. 地震灾害下城市供水网络韧性评估及优化研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(2): 135-142.
[9]	龙丹冰, 魏君豪, 杨成. 知识图谱改进的施工行为安全风险与危险位置识别算法^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(12): 10-16.
[10]	李浩然, 王子恒, 杨起帆, 张亚君, 欧阳作林. 复杂网络下地铁灾害链演化模型与风险分析^*[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(11): 141-147.
[11]	王起全, 刘志刚, 杨鑫刚, 刘建, 王睿智. 化工园区重大危险源风险情景构建分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(8): 63-69.
[12]	李岩峰, 尹家骁, 刘朝峰, 王威, 于小晨, 李子芃. 基于投影寻踪聚类的供水管网地震韧性评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(6): 152-157.
[13]	李西凡, 熊祖强, 王鹏. 高水巷旁充填材料力学性能改进试验研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(5): 95-100.
[14]	罗军华, 林孝松, 牟凤云, 李宏伟, 张莉. 山区暴雨-农业灾害链复杂网络静态风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(3): 163-170.
[15]	王金江, 王舒辉, 张兴, 张来斌. 基于RBI技术的储气库分离器风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(2): 21-27.