Journal of the Korean Society of Safety (한국안전학회지)

The Korean Society of Safety (한국안전학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Study of Explanatory Power of Deterministic Risk Assessment's Probability through Uncertainty Intervals in Probabilistic Risk Assessment

고장률의 불확실구간을 고려한 빈도구간과 결정론적 빈도의 설명력 연구

  • Man Hyeong Han (Program in Environment Technology & Safety Technology, Inha University) ;
  • Young Woo Chon (Program in Environment Technology & Safety Technology, Inha University) ;
  • Yong Woo Hwang (Department of Environmental Engineering, Inha University)
  • 한만형 (인하대학교 환경.안전융합전공) ;
  • 천영우 (인하대학교 환경.안전융합전공) ;
  • 황용우 (인하대학교 환경공학과)
  • Received : 2024.02.05
  • Accepted : 2024.04.23
  • Published : 2024.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Accurately assessing and managing risks in any endeavor is crucial. Risk assessment in engineering translates the abstract concept of risk into actionable strategies for systematic risk management. However, risk validation is met with significant skepticism, particularly concerning the uncertainty of probability. This study aims to address the aforementioned uncertainty in a multitude of ways. Firstly, instead of relying on deterministic probability, it acknowledges uncertainty and presents a probabilistic interval. Secondly, considering the uncertainty interval highlighted in OREDA, it delineates the bounds of the probabilistic interval. Lastly, it investigates how much explanatory power deterministic probability has within the defined probabilistic interval. By utilizing fault tree analysis (FTA) and integrating confidence intervals, a probabilistic risk assessment was conducted to scrutinize the explanatory power of deterministic probability. In this context, explanatory power signifies the proportion of probability within the probabilistic risk assessment interval that lies below the deterministic probability. Research results reveal that at a 90% confidence interval, the explanatory power of deterministic probability decreases to 73%. Additionally, it was confirmed that explanatory power reached 100% only with a probability application 36.9 times higher.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2024년도 정부(산업통상자원부)의 재원으로 한국산업기술진흥원의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구입니다. (P0012787, 2024년 산업혁신인재성장지원사업)

References

  1. American Petroleum Institute, API 580 Risk based Inspection, p. 7, 2016. 
  2. International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 61511 part 3 : Guidance for the Determination of the Required Safety Integrity Levels, p. 15, 2016. 
  3. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 31000 Risk management - Guidelines, p. 12, 2018. 
  4. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, Investigation Report - BP Texas City Refinery Explosion and Fire, p. 34, 2007. 
  5. J. L. Fuentes-Bargues , C. Gonzalez-Cruz, C. G. Gaya and P. B. Perez, "Risk Analysis of a Fuel Storage Terminal Using HAZOP and FTA", International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 14, p. 705, 2017. 
  6. Health and Safety Executive, Safety and Environmental Standards for Fuel Storage Sites, p. 112, 2009. 
  7. Center for Chemical Process Safety, Layer of Protection Analysis Simplified Process Risk Assessment, p. 28, 2001. 
  8. Offshore Reliability Data, Offshore Reliability Data Handbook, 2002. 
  9. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Special Notice on the Application of Standards for Transfer and Succession of High-Pressure Gas Manufacturing Business, 2018. 
  10. International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 61511 part 2 : Guidelines for the application of IEC 61511-1, p. 60, 2016. 
  11. J. S. Lee and B.Y. Kee, "Evaluation of Creep Crack Growth Failure Probability for High Temperature Pressurized Components Using Monte Carlo Simulation", J. Korean Soc. Saf., Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 28, 2006. 
  12. International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 31010 Risk Management - Risk Assessment Techniques, p. 82, 2019. 
  13. Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, Guidelines on Probabilistic Risk Assessment Procedures, 2014. 
  14. Center for Chemical Process Safety, Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk analysis Second edition, p. 445, 2000. 
  15. A. Gelman and S. Greenland, "Are Confidence Intervals better Termed "Uncertainty Intervals?", the British Medical Journal, 2019. 
  16. Y. H. Kim, S. I. Um and J.W. Ko, "A Comparative Study on the Risk(Individual and Societal) Assessment for Surrounding Areas of Chemical Process", J. Korean Soc. Saf., Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 56, 1995.