skip to main content
10.1145/3400934.3400961acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesapcoriseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Conceptual Model of Analysing Risk in a Fuel Gas Supply System (FGSS) on LNG Fuelled-gas Vessel

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 August 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

This study aims to propose a risk analysis framework using the FMEA method and system dynamics approach. FMEA is used as a first stage to identify critical equipment/ system based on the highest RPN, then uses the value of the O (Occurrence) as an input to simulate the extent of the effectiveness of the costs incurred and to see the possibility of a decrease in critical system failure occurrences from time to time. The simulation carried out using a system dynamic approach by constructing a structural model of non-linear variables (cause-effect relationships) and considering the system boundary associated with risk management. With this modeling framework, it is expected that the various mitigation actions expected can be simulated with this modeling framework, and policy instruments related to risk management on the identified critical equipment can be evaluated to reduce the failure occurrences. In this paper, the proposed approach will apply to analyze various scenarios of risk management strategies implemented for the critical equipment of fuel gas supply systems (FGSS) on an LNG fueled gas vessel.

References

  1. Cullinane, K. and Bergqvist, R. Emission control areas and their impact on maritime transport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28 (2014/05/01/ 2014), 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Aymelek, M., Boulougouris, E. K. and Turan, O. Challenges and opportunities for LNG as a ship fuel source and an application to bunkering network optimisation Challenges and opportunities for LNG as a ship fuel source and an application to bunkering network optimisation, September (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Thomson, H., Corbett, J. J. and Winebrake, J. J. Natural gas as a marine fuel. Energy Policy, 87 (2015), 153--167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Wuersig, G. M. The future of LNG as a ship fuel. 18th International Conference and Exhibition on Liquefied Natural Gas 2016, LNG 2016 (2016), 668--673.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. IMO Adoption of the Iinternational Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code). IMO (International Maritime Organization), City, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. IMO Amendments to the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code). IMO (International Maritime Organization), City, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. ABS Rules for Building And Classing Marine Vessels July 2019 Part 5C. ABS (American Bureau of Shipping), City, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. DNV-GL. Rules for Classification Ships Edition July 2019 Amended October 2019 Part 6 Additional class notations Chapter 2 Propulsion, power generation and auxiliary systems. DNV-GL., City, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lo, H.-w. and Liou, J. J. H. A novel multiple-criteria decision-making-based FMEA model for risk assessment. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 73 (2018), 684--696.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Punyamurthula, S. and Badurdeen, F. Assessing Production Line Risk using Bayesian Belief Networks and System Dynamics. Procedia Manufacturing, 26 (2018), 76--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Di Nardo, M., Gallo, M., Murino, T. and Santillo, L. C. System dynamics simulation for fire and explosion risk analysis in home environment. International Review on Modelling and Simulations, 10, 1 (2017), 43--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu, H.-C., Liu, L. and Liu, N. Risk evaluation approaches in failure mode and effects analysis: A literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 40, 2 (2013), 828--838.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Wang, W., Liu, X., Qin, Y. and Fu, Y. A risk evaluation and prioritization method for FMEA with prospect theory and Choquet integral. Safety Science, 110, June (2018), 152--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrester, J. W. Industrial dynamics. M.I.T. Press, [Cambridge, Mass., 1961.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Zhang, Y., Ge, X., Yang, W. and Guo, J. Analysing railway safety with systems thinking. ICRT 2017: Railway Development, Operations, and Maintenance -Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Rail Transportation 2017, 2017-July (2017), 464--475.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Tjendani, H. T., Anwar, N. and Putu Artama Wiguna, I. Two stage simulation to optimize risk sharing in performance-based contract on national road a system dynamic and game theory approach. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 13, 15 (2018), 4432--4439.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeong, B., Lee, B. S. and Zhou, P. Quantitative risk assessment of fuel preparation room having high-pressure fuel gas supply system for LNG fuelled ship. Ocean Engineering, 137, December 2016 (2017), 450--468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Goo, B., Lee, J., Seo, S., Chang, D. and Chung, H. Design of reliability critical system using axiomatic design with FMECA. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering (2017), 0--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Garbolino, E., Chery, J.-p. and Guarnieri, F. Systems Dynamics Modelling To Improve Risk Analysis In The Context Of Seveso Industries, January 2014 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mosè, G., Mario, D. I. N. and Carmela, S. L. A simulation based approach to support risk assessment. City, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Renjith, V. R., Jose kalathil, M., Kumar, P. H. and Madhavan, D. Fuzzy FMECA (failure mode effect and criticality analysis) of LNG storage facility. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 56 (2018/11/01/ 2018), 537--547.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Ahn, J., Noh, Y., Park, S. H., Choi, B. I. and Chang, D. Fuzzy-based failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) of a hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and gas turbine system for marine propulsion. Journal of Power Sources, 364 (2017/10/01/ 2017), 226--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Sterman, J. Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Yi, T. and Xiao, G. Applying System dynamics to analyze the impact of incentive factors' allocation on construction cost and risk. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, ICMLC, 2, July (2008), 676--680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Seo, S., Han, S., Lee, S. and Chang, D. A pump-free boosting system and its application to lique fi ed natural gas supply for large ships. Energy, 105 (2016), 70--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. ABS Guide for Propulsion And Auxiliary Systems For Gas Fuelled Ships. ABS (American Bureau of Shipping), City, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jack, H. Engineering design, planning, and management. Elsevier/AP, Acadenic Press is an imprint of Elsevier, Amsterdam; Boston, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Press, D. Guidelines for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), for automotive, aerospace, and general manufacturing industries. CRC Press, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. van der Lei, T. E., Enserink, B., Thissen, W. A. H. and Bekebrede, G. How to use a systems diagram to analyse and structure complex problems for policy issue papers. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 7 (2011/07/01 2011), 1391--1402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Enserink, B., TU Delft, F. o. T. P. and Management Policy Analysis of Multi-actor Systems: EPA1121. TU Delft, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Khorshidi, H. A., Gunawan, I. and Ibrahim, M. Y. Reliability centered maintenance using system dynamics approach. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, 2015-June, June (2015), 1932--1936.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Mrquez, A. C. Dynamic Modelling for Supply Chain Management: Dealing with Front-end, Back-end and Integration Issues. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Walker, W. E. Policy analysis: A systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the public sector. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 9, 1-3 (2000), 11--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Conceptual Model of Analysing Risk in a Fuel Gas Supply System (FGSS) on LNG Fuelled-gas Vessel

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      APCORISE '20: Proceedings of the 3rd Asia Pacific Conference on Research in Industrial and Systems Engineering
      June 2020
      410 pages
      ISBN:9781450376006
      DOI:10.1145/3400934

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 August 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      APCORISE '20 Paper Acceptance Rate68of110submissions,62%Overall Acceptance Rate68of110submissions,62%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader