In this research, the safety/risk level of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) carrier system is investigated through the application of a fuzzy evidential reasoning (FER) method to uncertainty treatment of its failure modes. A fuzzy set manipulation formula with multiple parameters such as consequence severity, failure consequence probability, and failure likelihood is used to assess the safety/risk levels of failure modes of the system. Such failure estimations are synthesized to evaluate the whole system’s safety/risk level using an evidential reasoning (ER) approach. Risk control options (RCOs) are developed for reduction/control of high-risk level of the system. The best RCO, which is the one with the highest preference degree, is used to improve the safety level of the system.
Eleye-DatuboA. G.WallA.SaajediA.WangJ.Enabling a powerful marine and offshore decision-support solution through Bayesian network technique. Risk Analysis, 2006, 26(3), 695–721.
2.
FangQ.YangZ.HuS.WangJ.Formal safety assessment and application of the navigation simulators for preventing human error in ship operations. J. Marine Sci. and Applic., 2005, 4(3), 5–12.
3.
HuS.FangQ.XiaH.XiY.Formal safety assessment based on relative risks model in ship navigation. Reliab. Engng System Saf., 2007, 92(3), 369–377.
4.
LeeJ. O.YeoI. CYangY. S.A trial application of FSA methodology to the hatchway watertight integrity of bulk carriers. Marine Struct., 2001, 14(6), 651–667.
5.
IACS. Experience with formal safety assessment at international maritime organization, MSC 78/19/1, 2004.
6.
IMO. Guideline for formal safety assessment for use in the IMO rule-making process. MSC/Circ.1023, MEPC/Circ. 392, London, 5April, 2002.
7.
RosqvistT.TuominenR.Qualification of formal safety assessment: an exploratory study. Safety Sci., 2004, 42 (2), 99–120.
VanemE.AntãoP.ØstvikI.De ComasF. D. C.Analysing the risk of LNG carrier operations. Reliab. Engng Syst. Saf., 2008, 93(9), 1328–1344.
10.
WangJ.The current status and future aspects in formal safety assessment. Saf. Sci., 2001, 38, 19–30.
11.
WangJ.FoinikisP.Formal safety assessment of containerships. Marine Policy, 2001, 25, 143–157.
12.
YangZ.WangJ.BonsallS.FangQ.YangJ. B.A subjective risk analysis approach for container supply chains. Int. J. Autom. Computing, 2005, 2(1), 85–92.
13.
YangJ. B.SinghM. G.An evident reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man and Cybernetics, 1994, 23(1), 1–18.
14.
WangJ.A subjective methodology for safety analysis of safety requirements specifications. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 1997, 5(3), 418–430.
15.
LiuL.YangJ. B.WangJ.SiiH. S.Engineering system safety analysis and synthesis using the fuzzy rule-based evidential reasoning approach. Qual. Reliab. Engng Int., 1994, 21, 387–411.
16.
GodaliyaddeD.Phylip-JonesG.YangZ. L.BatakoA. D.WangJ.An analysis of ship hull vibration failure data. J. UK Saf. Reliab. Soc., 2009, 29(1), 15–26.
WangJ.YangJ. B.SenP.Safety analysis and synthesis using fuzzy set modelling and evidential reasoning. Reliab. Engng System Saf, 1995, 47, 103–118.
19.
WangJ.YangJ. B.SenP.Multi-person and multi-attribute design evaluations evidential reasoning based on subjective safety and cost analyses. Reliab. Engng System Saf.1996, 52(2), 113–128.
20.
TrbojevicV. M.CarrB. J.Risk based methodology for safety improvements in ports. J. Hazardous Mater, 2000, 71, 467–480.
21.
IMO. Interim guidelines for application of formal safety assessment to the IMO rule-making process. IMO/MSC Circular 829, London, 17November1997a.
22.
House of Lords. Safety aspects of ship design and technology. Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2nd Report, HL Paper 30-I, 1992.
23.
Department of Energy. The public inquiry into the piper alpha disaster. Cullen Report, ISBN 0 10 113102, London, 1990.
24.
WangJ.TrbojevicV. M.Design for safety of marine and offshore systems, 2007 (Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology, London).
25.
PillayA.Formal safety assessment of fishing vessels. PhD Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, UK, 2001.
26.
LoughranC.PillayA.WangJ.WallA. D.RuxtonT.A preliminary study of fishing vessel safety. J. Risk Res., 2003, 5(1), 3–21.
27.
UngS. T.The development of safety and security assessment techniques and their application to port operations. PhD Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, UK, 2007.
28.
SiiH. S.Marine and offshore safety assessment. PhD Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, UK, 2001.
29.
GodaliyaddeD.Application of formal safety assessment for ship hull vibration modelling. PhD Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, UK, 2008.
YangZ.Risk assessment and decision making of container supply chains. PhD Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, UK, 2006.
32.
IMO. Formal safety assessment trial application to high speed passenger vessels. International Maritime Organization, London, UK, MSC 68/14/2 and 68/INF, May, 1997b.
33.
IMO. Formal safety assessment study on disabled oil tankers. International Maritime Organization, London, UK, MSC70/20/2, July, 1998a.
34.
IMO. Formal safety assessment novel emergency propulsion and steering devices for oil tanker analysed with the formal safety assessment method. International Maritime Organization, London, UK, MSC69/14/1, February, 1998b.
35.
IMO. Trial application of formal safety assessment to the dangerous goods on passenger/ro-ro vessels. International Maritime Organization, London, UK, MSC69/INF24, 1998c.
36.
MCA. Formal safety assessment for bulk carriers. (Including Annexes A-1), Informal Paper submitted by UK to IMO/MSC, 70th Session, London, 27 November (IMO/MSC 70/INF PAPER), 1998.
37.
MSA. Formal safety assessment MSC66/14. Submitted by the United Kingdom to IMO Maritime Safety Committee, Marine Safety Agency, 1993.
38.
PillayA.WangJ.Technology and safety of marine systems, 2004, series 7 (Elsevier Ocean Engineering).
39.
WangJ.SiiH. S.YangJ. B.PillayA.YuD.LiuJ.MaistralisE.SaajediA.Use of advances in technology for maritime risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 2004, 24(4), 1041–1063.
40.
YangJ. B.XuD. L.Intelligent decision system via evidential reasoning. Version 1.1, IDSL, Cheshire, England, 2000.
41.
PVA. A guide to improving the safety of passenger vessel operations by addressing risk, Arlington, 1–28, 1997.
42.
California Energy Commission. Liquefied natural gas in California: history, risk, siting. July, USA, 2003.
