基于模糊综合评价的安全性能评估

1、 to get the membership R3. The check contents of power supply system are voltage of power supply modules, electric current power supply modules, power supply cables, maintenance frequency of power supply modules, source capacity, meeting the cables layout standard and power supply redundancy which u

2、sed to obtain the membership R4. Safety checklist of grounding system includes signal grounding of cabinets, shield grounding of cabinets, grounding system cables, the number of cabinet grounding lines meet electrical demand and cables between cabinet bus and earth terminal. Then the membership R5 i

3、s achieved. Obtained memberships are shown as follows: R11 = 0,0.2857,0.1429,0.2857,0.2857 R12 = 0,0.1818,0.2727,0.3636,0.1818 R2 = 0.2500,0.2500,0.5000,0,0 R3 = 0,0,0.6667,0.3333,0 R4 = 0,0,0.1818,0.6364,0.1818 R5 = 0,0,0.3333,0.4444,0.2222 According to the fuzzy operator calculation rule, after in

4、tegrated treatment, the following results of the evaluation can be obtained: R R1 = A1 11 = 0,0.1991,0.2511,0.3506,0.1991 R12 R1 B=A = 0.0529,0.0973,0.3110,0.4041,0.1325 R5 safety score of a system, and apply this approach in control system safety assessment successfully. As an example, the safety s

5、core of a field control station of DCS is calculated. Through the application, the conclusion is achieved that calculating safety score is a straightforward approach to express system safety. The proposed safety assessment effectively includes enough information of control system, which helps to ref

6、lect safe current situation of control system clearly. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their critical review and the pointing suggestions. The authors wish to thank Jiaping Zheng for his help of establishing the Safety Assessment System. REFERENCES 1 G. Emre G

7、urcanli and I. Ugur Mungen, “An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets,” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics , Istanbul, vol. 39, pp. 371387, November 2009. 2 S.M. Miri Lavasani, Z. Yang, J. Finlay and J. Wang, “An occupational safety risk analysis

8、 method at construction sites using fuzzy sets,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Liverpool, vol. 89, pp. 277-294, June 2011. 3 Ying-Ming Wang and Taha M.S. Elhag, “A fuzzy group decision making approach for bridge risk assessment,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 53, pp. 137-

9、148, August 2007. 4 J. Ren, I. Jenkinson and J. Wang, “An occupational safety risk analysis method at construction sites using fuzzy sets,” Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, UK, vol. 131, pp. 1-12, November 2009. 5 Seraphin C. Abou, “Fuzzy-logic-based network for complex systems

10、risk assessment: Application toship performance analysis,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, USA, AAP-2532, No. of Pages 12, July 2011, in press. 6 Li Ling-juan and Shen Ling-tong, “An improved multilevel fuzzy comprehensive evaluation algorithm for security performance,” The Journal of China Univer

11、sities of Posts and Telecommunications, vol. 13, no.4, pp. 48-53, December 2006. 7 T. L. Satty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. 8 Yoram Wind and Thomas L.Saaty, “Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process,” Management Science, vol.26, pp. 641658, July 1980.

12、 9 Sun Lixin, Li Liangbao, Li Xiaodong, and Wang Qiang, “Multi-level fuzzy comprehensive appraisal on social effects of projects,” Journal of Harbin Institute of Technoology (New Series, vol 11, No 5, 2004 10 Jing Jianghong, “Industrical Enterprises Electrical Safety Assessment Method and applicatio

13、n Research.” Beijing: Capital University of Economics and Business, 2002. 11 Zhang Xiaorui, Yue Zhichun, “Research on Technological Innovation Ability for Enterprises in Handan Based on Fuzzy Comprehensive Appraisal Model,” Second International Conference on Education Technology and Training, pp. 12

14、6129, 2009 12 Xu Kaili, Chen Baozhi, and Chen Quan, “Characteristic quantity of safety grade and its calculate method,” China Safety Science Journal, vol. 9, No 6, pp. 612, December 1999 Normalization process of B is as follows: B = 0.0530,0.0975,0.3117,0.4050,0.1328 Fuzzy characteristic range of sa

15、fety grade of the field control station is H B = 3.1126,3.8215 , median of the fuzzy eigenvalue of safety grade is H MB = 3.4670 . The possibility of the field control station in safety grade 3 is 59.22%, and the possibility of the field control station in safety grade 4 is 40.78%, then the safety s

16、core of the field control station is 84.0777. Similarly, safety score of DCS, ESD and PSS can be achieved by the proposed approach, which are 81.5466, 84.5312 and 87.8327, respectively. Finally, the general control system safety score can be got through the new safety assessment presented in this paper, which is