Paper Titles

Performance Study of Ni Catalyst with Quicklime (CaO) as CO₂ Adsorbent in Palm Kernel Shell Steam Gasification for Hydrogen Production
p.292

Density, Viscosity and CO₂ Solubility of Novel Solvent
p.301

Preparation and Characterization of Polysulfone Membrane for Gas Separation
p.307

Gas Permeation Models in Mixed Matrix Membranes for Gas Separation
p.317

Operational Training Management System (OPTRAMS) for Safe Operation in Process Plant
p.325

Evaluation of Inherent Safety Strategies Using FAHP to Reduce Human Error
p.332

Modification of Adsorbents for High CO₂ Content Capture from Stranded Natural Gas Reserve: A Critical Review
p.342

Prediction of CO₂ Solubility in Aqueous DEA and MDEA Binary Solutions Using O'Connell's Expression
p.350

Hydrogen Adsorption Capacity Investigation of Ni-Co-Al Mixed Oxides
p.360

HomeAdvanced Materials ResearchAdvanced Materials Research Vol. 917Evaluation of Inherent Safety Strategies Using...

Evaluation of Inherent Safety Strategies Using FAHP to Reduce Human Error

Article Preview

Abstract:

Inherent safety concept has been introduced to overcome the shortcoming of traditional hazard assessments by allowing modification to be made at any stage of lifecycle of a process plant. However, most of the proposed inherent safety modifications were suitable to prevent fire, explosion and toxic hazards assessment but less attention on human and organizational factor. Therefore, this paper introduces the inherently safer analysis for human and organizational factor to be implemented during design stage or process operation. Analytic Hierarchy Process model integrated with fuzzy logic and known as FAHP was employed to rank identified inherently safer strategies. The model was applied to select inherently safer strategies to reduce collision risk of a floating production, storage and offload and the authorized vessel. The result shows that minimization of hazardous procedure when the procedure is unavoidable is the best strategy to increase human performance. It is proven that the proposed methodology is capable to select the inherently safer strategy without requiring a bunch of precise information to transfer expert judgment in human performances perspective.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

The Proceedings of the International Conference on Process Engineering and Advanced Materials 2012 (ICPEAM 2012)

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volume 917)

Pages:

332-341

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.917.332

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

June 2014

Authors:

Nordiana Abdul Wahab, Risza Rusli*, Azmi Mohd Shariff

Keywords:

Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, Human Error, Human Factor, Inherent Safety

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Request Permissions

Permissions PLS:

Request Permissions

Сopyright:

© 2014 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

* - Corresponding Author

[1] CCPS, Guidelines for Preventing Human Error in Process Safety. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York (1994).

[2] T.A. Kletz, Cheaper, safer plants, or wealth and safety at work. Rugby: Institution of Chemical Engineers (1984).

[3] INSIDE Project, Inherent SHE: The cost effective route to improved safety, health and environmental performance, London, London, UK: IBC UK Conferences Limited June 16-17 (1997).

[4] R.W. French, D.D. Williams, and E.D. Wixom, Inherent safety, health, and environmental (SHE) reviews. Process Safety Progress, 15: 48–51. doi: 10. 1002/prs. 680150112 (1996).

DOI: 10.1002/prs.680150112

[5] D.C. Hendershot, Design of inherently safer chemical processing facilities, presented at Texas Chemical Council Safety Seminar, June 11, Galveston, TX, Session D (1991).

[6] S.A. Berger, and R.J. Lantzy, Reducing inherent risk through consequence modelling, In H. Cullingford (Ed. ), Process Plant Safety Symposium, Volume 1, April 1-2, Houston, TX (pp.15-23). Houston, TX: South Texas Section of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers (1996).

[7] F.I. Khan, and P.R. Amyotte, Integrated inherent safety index (I2SI): a tool for inherent safety evaluation, Process Safety Progress 23 (2) (2004) 136–148.

DOI: 10.1002/prs.10015

[8] F.I. Khan, and P.R. Amyotte, I2SI: a comprehensive quantitative tool for inherent safety and cost evaluation, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 15, (2005) 279–289 (Elsevier Science Ltd. ).

DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.022

[9] A. Tugnoli, and V. Cozzani, A consequence based approach to the quantitative assessment of inherent safety, AIChE Journal AIChE 53 (2), (2008) 3171–3181 (Wiley InterScience).

DOI: 10.1002/aic.11315

[10] A. Mohd Shariff, R. Rusli, T.L. Chan, V.R. Radhakrishnan, A. Buang, Inherent Safety Tool For Explosion Consequences Study, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 19 (2006) pp.409-418.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2005.10.008

[11] C.T. Leong, and A. Mohd Shariff, Inherent Safety Index Module (ISIM) to Asses Inherent Safety Level during Preliminary Design Stage, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol 86 (2008), 113 – 119.

DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2007.10.016

[12] C.T. Leong, and A. Mohd Shariff, Process Route Index (PRI) to Assess Level of Explosiveness for Inherent Safety Quantification, Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries, 22: (2009) 216-221.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2008.12.008

[13] A.M. Shariff, and C.T. Leong, Inherent Risk Assessment – A new concept to evaluate risk in preliminary design stage, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, doi: 10. 1016/j. PSEP. 2009. 08. 004 (2009).

DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2009.08.004

[14] R. Rusli, and A. Mohd Shariff, Qualitative assessment for inherently safer design (QAISD) at preliminary design stage, Journal of Loss Prevention in Process Industries, 22 (2009), 1-9.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2009.07.005

[15] A.M. Shariff, and D. Zaini, Toxic release consequence analysis tool (TORCAT) for inherently safer design plant. Journal of Hazardous Materials 182, (2010) pp.394-402.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.06.046

[16] T.L. Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill (1980).

[17] H. Deng, Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pair-wise comparison. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21, (1999) pp.215-231.

DOI: 10.1016/s0888-613x(99)00025-0

[18] C. Kahraman, U. Cecebi, and Z. Ulukan, Multi-criteria supplier selection using Fuzzy AHP. Logistics Information Management, 16 (6), (2003) pp.382-394.

DOI: 10.1108/09576050310503367

[19] T.C. Wang, and Y.H. Chen, Y.H., Applying consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership selection. Omega, the International Journal of Management Science, 35, (2007) pp.384-388.

DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2005.07.007

[20] A.N. Paralikas, and A.I. Lygeros, A Multi-Criteria and Fuzzy Logic Based Methodology for the Relative Ranking of the Fire Hazard of Chemical Substances and Installations. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 83(B2), (2005) p.122–134.

DOI: 10.1205/psep.04236

[21] Z. Ma, L. Sylla, D. Xiong, and X. Zhang, Fuzzy Ranking Methodology for Risk Assessment of Potential Pollution Accidents in Chemical Plants. 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering (iCBBE), (2010) pp.1-4.

DOI: 10.1109/icbbe.2010.5518075

[22] G. Zheng, N. Zhu, Z. Tian, Y. Chen, and B. Sun, Application of a Trapezoidal Fuzzy AHP Method for Work Safety Evaluation and Early Warning Rating of Hot and Humid Environments. Safety Science, 50, (2012) pp.228-239.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.08.042

[23] T.Y. Hsieh, S.T. Lu, and G.H. Tzeng, Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22, (2004) pp.573-584.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.002

[24] S.K. Lee, G. Mogi, J.W. Kim, and B.J. Gim, A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Assessing National Competitiveness in the Hydrogen Technology Sector. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 33, (2008) pp.6840-6848.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.09.028

[25] Q. Hao, C. Fan, L. Pingying, and S.T. Li, Architectural Design Porposals Selection Based on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEM. pp.2266-2270 (2009).

DOI: 10.1109/ieem.2009.5373058

[26] M.Z. Naghadehi, R. Mikaeil, and M. Ataei, The application of fuzzy hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran. Expert Systems with Applications 36, (2009) pp.8218-8226.

DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.006

[27] C. Ozan, and S.C. Mustafa, A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert systems with applications, Vol. 35, No. 3, (2008) pp.1367-1378.

DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.041

[28] F. Kong, Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making theory, method and its application. Beijing: China Agricultural Science and Technology Press, (2008) pp.62-63.

[29] L.S. Thomas, Modeling unstructured decision problems – the theory of analytical hierarchies. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Vol. 20, No. 3, (1978) pp.147-158.

DOI: 10.1016/0378-4754(78)90064-2

[30] J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, Vol. 17, (1985) pp.407-409.

[31] J. Ren, I. Jenkinson, J. Wang, D.L. Xu, and J.B. Yang, A methodology to model causal relationships on offshore safety assessment focusing on human and organizational factors. Journal of Safety Research, 39, (2008) pp.87-100.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.09.009