4.5 Article

A bayesian network-based safety assessment method for solid propellant granule-casting molding process

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2023.105089

关键词

Solid propellant; Granule -casting molding process; Bayesian network; Fault tree analysis; Safety analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a Bayesian network (BN) model to assess the safety of the solid propellant granule-casting molding process. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is used to establish a causal link between process variables and process failures. Expert experience and fuzzy set theory (FST) are utilized to obtain failure probabilities of the basic events (BEs). The results of this study can provide effective supporting information for managers to conduct process safety analysis.
The safety of the solid propellant molding process is vital for the stable production of high-quality propellants. Failure events caused by abnormal parameters in the molding process may have catastrophic consequences. In this paper, a Bayesian network (BN) model is proposed to assess the safety of the solid propellant granule-casting molding process. Fault tree analysis (FTA) is developed to construct a causal link between process variables and process failures. Subsequently, expert experience and fuzzy set theory (FST) are used to obtain failure probabilities of the basic events (BEs). Based on the mapping rules, FTA provides BN with reliable prior knowledge and a network structure with interpretability. Finally, when new evidence is obtained, the probability is updated with the diagnostic reasoning capability of BN. The results of the sensitivity analysis and diagnostic inference were combined to identify key parameters in the granule-casting molding process, including curing temperature, vacuum degree, extrusion, calendering roll distance, length setting value, holding time, and polish time. The results of this paper can provide effective supporting information for managers to conduct process safety analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据