HAZOP风险评级的变权犹豫模糊方法

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.05.1335

中国安全科学学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (5): 61-67.doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.05.1335

HAZOP风险评级的变权犹豫模糊方法

王铁旦(), 穆毅强(), 彭定洪^**()

昆明理工大学管理与经济学院,云南昆明 650093

收稿日期:2021-12-12 修回日期:2022-03-15 出版日期:2022-08-17 发布日期:2022-11-28
通讯作者: 彭定洪
作者简介:
王铁旦 (1971—),男,河南焦作人,博士,高级工程师,主要从事模糊决策与质量管理方面的研究。E-mail: 1605889907@qq.com。
穆毅强 (1996—),男,山西吕梁人,硕士研究生,主要研究方向为模糊决策在HAZOP方法中的应用。E-mail: 2220505866@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助(71861018); 云南省哲学社会科学规划项目(YB2019067); 云南省基础研究计划项目(202201AT070190)

Hesitant fuzzy method with variable weight for HAZOP risk sorting

WANG Tiedan(), MU Yiqiang(), PENG Dinghong^**()

Faculty of Management and Economics, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming Yunnan 650093, China

Received:2021-12-12 Revised:2022-03-15 Online:2022-08-17 Published:2022-11-28
Contact: PENG Dinghong

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提高危险与可操作性分析(HAZOP)的质量和效率,提出一种基于犹豫模糊信息且融合连续奖惩变权功能的危害风险评级方法。首先,以犹豫模糊集(HFS)表征专家组的群体评价信息,旨在充分汇聚HAZOP小组的集体智慧;其次,提出一种连续惩罚—激励的变权方法,用以反映指标状态值对风险评级的影响;然后,进一步构建基于变权犹豫模糊逼近理想解评级法(TOPSIS-Sort)的HAZOP分析流程;最后,应用该方法分析某原油稳定装置的风险等级,验证该方法的科学性和有效性。结果表明:H₁等5个危害因素被评为风险可忽略级别,H₄等5个危害被评为最低合理可行级别,对应排序为H₁₀<H₈<H₅<H₄<H₇。

关键词: 危险与可操作性分析(HAZOP), 犹豫模糊集(HFS), 变权方法, 风险评级, 逼近理想解评级法(TOPSIS-Sort)

Abstract:

In order to improve quality and efficiency of HAZOP, a hazard risk sorting method was proposed based on hesitant fuzzy information and incorporating continuous punishment-reward variable weight function. Firstly, HFS was used to describe group evaluation information of expert group for full convergence of HAZOP group's intelligence. Secondly, a continuous punishment-reward variable weight method was proposed to reflect influence of indicator state values on risk sorting. Then, HAZOP analysis process based on variable-weight hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS-Sort method was further constructed. Finally, the proposed method was used in a crude stabilization unit for risk level analysis, which verified its scientificity and effectiveness. The results show that five hazards, including H₁, are sorted into Negligible level, another five hazards, including H₄, are sorted into As Low As Reasonably Practicable level and the corresponding ranking is H₁₀<H₈<H₅<H₄<H₇.

Key words: hazard and operability study (HAZOP), hesitant fuzzy set (HFS), variable weight, risk sorting method, technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution-sort (TOPSIS-Sort)

王铁旦, 穆毅强, 彭定洪. HAZOP风险评级的变权犹豫模糊方法[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(5): 61-67.

WANG Tiedan, MU Yiqiang, PENG Dinghong. Hesitant fuzzy method with variable weight for HAZOP risk sorting[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(5): 61-67.

图/表 6

表1

图1

图2

表3

表4

危害风险评级结果

序号	$d i / P k +$	$d i / P k -$	$C i / P k$	排序	级别
p₁	2.617	0.261	0.091	—	—
p₂	1.778	1.107	0.384	—	—
H₁	2.724	0.135	0.047	9	N
H₂	2.654	0.23	0.08	6	N
H₃	2.676	0.208	0.072	7	N
H₄	2.266	0.615	0.213	4	ALARP
H₅	2.169	0.714	0.248	3	ALARP
H₆	2.822	0.064	0.022	10	N
H₇	2.539	0.34	0.118	5	ALARP
H₈	2.075	0.81	0.281	2	ALARP
H₉	2.691	0.195	0.068	8	N
H₁₀	1.921	0.96	0.333	1	ALARP

表4

表5

参考文献 16

[1]	WANG Rui, WANG Jingsong. Risk analysis of out-drum mixing cement solidification by HAZOP and risk matrix[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2020, 147: DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107679. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107679
[2]	BAYBUTT P. A critique of the hazard and operability (HAZOP) study[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2015, 33: 52-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2014.11.010
[3]	HU Jinqiu, ZHANG Laibin, WANG Qianlin, et al. A structured hazard identification method of human error for shale gas fracturing operation[J]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2019, 25(5): 1189-1206. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2018.1461008
[4]	CHERAGHI M, BALADEH A E, KHAKZAD N. A fuzzy multi-attribute HAZOP technique (FMA-HAZOP): application to gas wellhead facilities[J]. Safety Science, 2019, 114: 12-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.024
[5]	MARHAVILAS P K, FILIPPIDIS M, KOULINAS G K, et al. An expanded HAZOP-study with fuzzy-AHP (XPA-HAZOP technique): application in a sour crude-oil processing plant[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 124: DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104590. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104590
[6]	VIEGAS R A, MOTA F D A D S, COSTA A P C S, et al. A multi-criteria-based hazard and operability analysis for process safety[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020, 144: 310-321. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.07.034
[7]	GRASSI A, GAMBERINI R, MORA C, et al. A fuzzy multi-attribute model for risk evaluation in workplaces[J]. Safety Science, 2009, 47(5): 707-716. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2008.10.002
[8]	王恩杰, 赵国彦, 吴浩, 等. 充填管道磨损变权-模糊风险评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(3):149-154. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.03.026
	WANG Enjie, ZHAO Guoyan, WU Hao, et al. Weight-variation-fuzzy model for assessing wear risk of backfilling pipeline and its application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(3):149-154. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.03.026
[9]	TORRA V. Hesitant fuzzy sets[J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2010, 25(6):529-539.
[10]	WANG Yansheng, JIN Zhixin, DENG Cunbao, et al. Comprehensive decision making with fuzzy compromised variable weights and its application on maintenance order for entries in underground coal mine[J]. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2019, 21(5):1379-1388. doi: 10.1007/s40815-019-00638-6
[11]	曾一凡, 武强, 杜鑫, 等. 再论含水层富水性评价的“富水性指数法”[J]. 煤炭学报, 2020, 45(7):2423-2431.
	ZENG Yifan, WU Qiang, DU Xin, et al. Further research on "water-richness index method" for evaluation of aquifer water abundance[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2020, 45(7):2423-2431.
[12]	BAI Chunguang, SARKIS J. The water, energy, food, and sustainability nexus decision environment: a multistakeholder transdisciplinary approach[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2019, 99: 1-15.
[13]	XU Zeshui, XIA Meimei. Distance and similarity measures for hesitant fuzzy sets[J]. Information Sciences, 2011, 181(11):2128-2138. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.01.028
[14]	YANG Dongke, PENG Dinghong. Hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS method and its application in the cloud resource scheduling[C]. International Conference on Information Technology, 2017:179-182.
[15]	SILVA D, FILHO A. Sorting with TOPSIS through boundary and characteristic profiles[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2020, 141: DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2020.106328. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2020.106328
[16]	BAYBUTT P. The ALARP principle in process safety[J]. Process Safety Progress, 2014, 33(1): 36-40. doi: 10.1002/prs.11599

变权力度	a_j取值范围	具体描述
弱	(0,A)	极值的状态变权值为一般值的1~1.5倍
中等	[A,2A]	极值的状态变权值为一般值的1.5~2倍
强	(2A,4A]	极值的状态变权值为一般值的2~3倍

序号	参数	指导词	偏离	可能的原因	后果	安全措施
H₁	液位	过多	缓冲罐水位高	往复式泵停机	脱盐装置脱盐效果不佳	①液位调节阀关闭; ②水溢出排水口; ③液位计报警
H₂		过多	缓冲罐水位高	通向往复式泵的管道堵塞	脱盐装置脱盐效果不佳	①液位调节阀关闭; ②水溢出排水口; ③液位计报警
H₃		过少	缓冲罐水位低	通往缓冲罐的管道堵塞	①往复式泵吸入空气; ②脱盐装置存在爆炸危险	①油低液位警报; ②液位计报警
H₄	压力	过多	往复式泵的工作压力大	输出原油的管道发生堵塞	①往复式泵损坏; ②管道破裂	泄压阀门打开
H₅	压力	过多	往复式泵的工作压力大	输入的原油压力增大	①往复式泵损坏; ②管道破裂	①泄压阀门将打开; ②压力变送器报警
H₆	流量	过多	注入缓冲罐的水流大	液位调节阀失效	产生工业废水	①液位计报警; ②水溢出排水口
H₇		过少	注入缓冲罐的水流小	液位计失效	①往复式泵吸入空气; ②脱盐装置存在爆炸危险	油低液位警报
H₈		相反	往复式泵与缓冲罐间发生逆流	水泵停机	①缓冲罐中注入酸性原油; ②该节点内的原油溢出; ③H₂S泄漏; ④发生火灾; ⑤发生爆炸	往复式泵的单向阀外泄
H₉		没有	往复式泵中无水流	往复式泵停机	脱盐装置脱盐效果不佳	往复式泵的单向阀外泄
H₁₀	密封装置	没有	往复式泵的排出管道无密封装置	因腐蚀而导致的管道故障	①原油泄漏;②H₂S泄漏; ③发生火灾;④发生爆炸	对应区域的H₂S 检测器

传统HAZOP 风险评估的缺陷	文献 [3]	文献 [5]	文献 [6]	所提方法
①仅考虑频率与危害性且视为同等重要^[4⇓⇓-7]	×	Π	Π	Π
②使用在现实中难以获取的精确数据^[4,6-7]	Π	Π	Π	Π
③无法提供具备区分度的准确排序^[4,6]	Π	Π	×	Π
④关注群决策而忽略个体思考的创造性^[2]	×	×	部分解决	部分解决
⑤风险评价指标的准确赋权难以实现^[7]	×	×	×	部分解决

HAZOP风险评级的变权犹豫模糊方法

Hesitant fuzzy method with variable weight for HAZOP risk sorting

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 16

相关文章 5

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	王军武, 胡蝶, 吴寒, 王梦雨, 刘登辉. 小直径深层排水隧道盾构施工安全风险评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(6): 113-120.
[2]	邱泽阳, 梁伟, 王雪, 林扬, 张萌. 油气输送动设备实时定量风险评估模型[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(2): 106-112.
[3]	刘辉, 张智超. 定量改进HAZOP法在瓦斯隧道施工通风安全中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(4): 92-97.
[4]	张雪，王峰，高金吉. 计算机辅助HAZOP技术的研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(2): 171-.
[5]	白永忠，李奇，姜巍巍，吴重光. 过程工业计算机辅助安全防护层分析技术进展[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2008, 18(12): 154-.