4.7 Article

Action selection in risk assessment with fuzzy Fine-Kinney-based AHP-TOPSIS approach: a case study in gas plant

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 29, Issue 44, Pages 66222-66234

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20498-2

Keywords

Fine-Kinney method; Fuzzy; AHP; TOPSIS; Action selection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates the hazards in a medium-sized gas filling facility using fuzzy Fine-Kinney risk analysis, and determines the most critical hazards. Action plans are developed for these critical hazards, and the TOPSIS method is used to select the actions, taking into account the relationship between the actions and the hazards.
In this study, the hazards occurring in a medium-sized gas filling facility were defined, and the risk scores of these hazards were determined by the expert team according to the Fine-Kinney risk analysis method. However, since the same risk significance score is obtained in different combinations of scale values in the classical Fine-Kinney risk analysis method and the characteristics/constraints of the company applied in the risk analysis are not taken into account, the hazards were evaluated using fuzzy Fine-Kinney risk analysis, and the most critical hazards were determined. Action plans are defined for critical hazards determined as a result of fuzzy Fine-Kinney risk analysis. Among the actions that require company resources, the action selection was performed with the TOPSIS method, taking into account their relationship with the hazards by integrating the weights, which was calculated with the AHP method, of affected groups. The effect of operating constraints is included in the last step of the study to calculate the final weights. Calculating the results by including the risk-affected groups and company constraints and ranking the actions reveals that the study is an original, objective, and applicable study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available