Hesitant fuzzy method with variable weight for HAZOP risk sorting

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.05.1335

Abstract

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)

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.

Figures/Tables 6

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Sorting results of hazard risks

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

Tab.4

Tab.5

References 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