Hazards analysis indexing methods

The risk indexes of debris flow are evaluated by geological hazard analysis assessment method. The risk indexes of Zhiyang valley are analyzed and the risk analysis structure model of debris flow is established. 

Methods for performing hazard analysis and risk assessment include safety review, checkhsts, Dow Fire and Explosion Index, what-if analysis, hazard and operabihty analysis (HAZOP), failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, and event tree analysis. Other methods are also available, but those given are used most often. 

Chemical Exposure Index (CEI) Chemical Exposure Index, 1994). The CEI provides a method of rating the relative potential of acute health hazard to people from possible chemical release incidents. It may be used for conducting the initial process hazard analysis and it establishes the degree of mrther analysis needed. The CEI also may be used as part of the site review process. 

Chemical Exposure Index (CEI) (Chemical Exposure Index, 1994 Mannan, 2005, pp. 8/22-8/26.) The CEI provides a method of rating the relative potential of acute health hazard to people from possible chemical release incidents. It may be used for prioritizing initial process hazard analysis and establishing the degree of further analysis needed. The CEI also may be used as part of the site review process. The system provides a method of ranking one risk relative to another. It is not intended to define a particular containment system as safe or unsafe, but provides a way of comparing toxic hazards. It deals with acute, not chronic, releases. Flammability and explosion hazards are not included in this index. To develop a CEI, information needs include... 

Software System Hazard Analysis This type of analysis is conducted similar to a hardware system hazard analysis (SHA), analyzing software functional processing steps to determine whether they may have any particular hazardous effect on the system. The analysis utilizes a hazard-risk index to illustrate the severity of each potential failure. The main advantage to this method is in its ability to positively identify safety-critical hardware and software functions as well as consider the effect of the human element in system software operations. The results of the software SHA, which identifies single-point failures or errors within a system, can often be used to assist in the development of a software fault tree analysis or, to some degree, a system FMEA. However, as with the other various SWHA techniques briefly described above, this method is also time-consuming and costly to perform. 

In the second method, the inherent safety index proposed by Heikkila [36] is appHed for safety analysis, which requires less information and covers lots of safety aspects [53]. Table 6.14 shows the results obtained from the inherent safety index method for both the technologies. In the inherent safety index method, the chemical inherent safety index and process inherent safety index are assigned to analyze the hazards caused by chemicals. 

Several methods are available for identifying and assessing hazards (Kletz, 1990). Hazards can be identified through checklists, failure mode effect analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis, event tree analysis, what-if analysis, and hazard and operability studies (HAZOP). Assessing hazards can be done through hazard analysis (HAZAN), codes of practice, the Dow Explosion Index, and prototype index of inherent safety (PIIS). 

It is prudent that a few terms associated with PHA, mainly for PSM systems, are discussed. In Table II/2.1.2-1, a few hazard analysis methods have been highlighted such as the Dow FEI and the Mond Index, etc. for quick risk assessment in process plants. 

The number of commercial indexing and QRA assisting software tools is surprisingly small. Furthermore these tools are only applicable for fire risks and do not consider explosion risks and hazards. Currently, there is no clarity which of the specified tools is more preferable to the quantitative analysis. Often these tools do not asses risk but hazards (i.e. ignoring the frequentistic risk element) or only weight and evaluate the overall levels of fire safety of buildings, which is characteristic for indexing methods. 

The assessment and analysis of the inherent safety performance in the hydrogen system requires sound and appropriate metrics. Several valuable proposals for inherent safety metrics (Cozzani et al. 2007, Tugnoli et al. 2007) as well as the main issues needed for such assessment are well summarized in the literature (Roller ef a/. 2001, Khan eta/. 2003). Recently, a novel consequence-based approach for inherent safety key performance indicators (KPI) assessment was proposed (Tugnoli et al. 2007). The approach bases the calculation of safety indicators on the evaluation of the expected outcomes of the hazard present in the system, by runs of specific physical consequence models. The KPI method was preferred in the current assessment framework, since, unlike other approaches, it allows easily fitting the peculiarities of the analysed systems and does not require subjective judgment. Furthermore, the KPI method was newly reviewed to describe some particular features of the hydrogen chain. In particular the assessment of transport units was added and new index aggregation rules were defined. 

---