Risk Assessment for Geotechnical Solutions Offshore (Invited Lecture)

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Lacasse
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Bearing Capacity ◽  
Slope Instability ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Acceptable Risk ◽  
Geological Evidence ◽  
Underwater Slope ◽  
Practice Methods

More and more frequently, it is required to quantify risk in practice. Statistics, reliability analysis and risk assessment are important tools to account for uncertainties and to assist the process of decision-making. After briefly reviewing concepts of uncertainties, reliability, safety and risk, the paper presents applications and approaches for offshore geotechnical practice. Methods for analysis of bearing capacity and settlement to couple statistical observations, e.g. from geological evidence of underwater slope instability, and computed failure probabilities are presented. The geotechnical profession needs to improve its understanding of geological risks and its ability to deal with them. Risk perception in society triggers discussion of acceptable risk level and public protection guidelines. The paper concludes that the profession can only gain by implementing in practice more systematically than before probabilistic and risk-based thinking and, where appropriate, risk-based methodology.

Forestry and landslides: What's acceptable in BC?

2009 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
R H Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Public Key ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Forest Industry ◽  
Landslide Risk ◽  
Acceptable Risk ◽  
The Public ◽  
Landslide Risk Assessment

Landslides are unavoidably linked to forestry operations in coastal BC. A neglected component of landslide risk assessment is the degree to which impacts from landslides may be acceptable. One hundred and thirteen professionals in the BC forest industry, including foresters, biologists, geoscientists and engineers, examined landslide tolerability criteria. Despite differences by sector, there was general agreement that landslides resultant of ignoring expert advice or where an expert was clearly at fault were unacceptable, and penalties were high. In more ambiguous cases, increased consequences resulted in increased scrutiny and it was clear that experts should expect to be held responsible for their decisions by government officiators and the public. Key words: landslide, risk, risk perception, acceptable risk, landslides and forestry

scholarly journals Investment Risk Assessment of Dispersed Wind Power in Low Wind Speed Area Using a Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Environment

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Lingyun Liu ◽  
Jianli Zhou ◽  
Haoxin Dong ◽  
Yao Tao ◽  
Yunna Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Wind Speed ◽  
Risk Analysis ◽  
Wind Power ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Low Wind Speed ◽  
Fuzzy Linguistic

Reducing the phenomenon of wind curtailment is essential to improve the level of wind power consumption. Wind power development in China has shifted to southeast region and dispersed wind power has developed rapidly and gradually become the new main force. However, various obstacles limit the smooth progress of dispersed wind power in low wind speed area. An important point is the absence of targeted risk analysis and evaluation methods. Therefore, the principal contribution of this paper is to find out the critical risk factors of such projects and propose the risk assessment model. First, 18 critical risk factors are identified using the constructed five-dimensional risk analysis model. Second, the hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set with credibility is utilized to collect evaluation information on one hand and to improve the multicriteria decision-making methods involved on the other hand. Third, the risk evaluation and ranking for 10 provinces that mainly develop dispersed wind power is carried out. The evaluation results indicate that the risk level of dispersed wind power projects is “Relatively Low” in most study provinces and the risk levels of Guangdong and Fujian are higher. It is worth noting that the consistency between the evaluation results and the distribution of wind resources can be used to guide the formulation of stimulus policies. Besides, the ranking results show some preference for investment choice. Finally, dual sensitivity analysis tests the stability of the model and shows the ranking results under different decision preferences. Scenario analysis gives the possible risk scenarios and evaluation results in the future. This study can provide insightful inspiration to wind power investors, risk management practitioners, and policymakers.

Health Risk Assessment of Wastewater with Carbinol in Gas Field

2012 ◽  
Vol 178-181 ◽  
pp. 424-428
Author(s):  
Peng Kang Jin ◽  
Xing Wang Ning ◽  
Xin Jin ◽  
Xian Bao Wang
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Health Risk Assessment ◽  
Health Risks ◽  
Human Body ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Acceptable Risk ◽  
Soil Infiltration ◽  
Gas Field

The carbinol in wastewater from inhalation and direct contact present more risk to human health, as well as cause hazard to ecological environment through waste water emission directly and soil infiltration. In this paper, health risk assessment of wastewater with carbinol in gas field is performed using mathematical models of non-carcinogenic health risk assessment. The results show that the non-carcinogenic health risks caused by wastewater with carbinol are in the range of 6.33×10-5 to 9.20×10-5, which are much higher than the acceptable risk level 7.00×10-5. Through the calculation of the threshold of the carbinol concentration in the wastewater, the carbinol concentration in the wastewater is less than 24500mg/L, not on human body risks. However, the carbinol concentration in the wastewater is much than 24500mg/L, it is a health risk to human body, which provides the scientific basis for the prevention and mitigation of wastewater with carbinol health risks.

Study on Acceptable Risk for Oil and Gas Pipelines in China

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hua Zhang ◽  
Jinheng Luo ◽  
Juanli Chen ◽  
Xinwei Zhao ◽  
Guangli Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Gas Pipeline ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Gas Pipelines ◽  
Acceptable Risk ◽  
Risk Criteria ◽  
Oil And Gas Pipelines ◽  
Integrity Management

Risk assessment is basis to put pipeline integrity management in practice and the acceptable risk level is important criteria to execute risk assessment and constitute maintenance safeguard. So it is very important to establish a rational and practicable acceptable criterion and present a specific acceptable risk level. It is just for this need that the present paper gave a review of all the available research around the acceptable risk level and analyzed various domestic and overseas standards and documentation concerning how to define the acceptable risk criteria. As a result, a criterion suitable for oil and gas pipeline was presented and recommended acceptable risk level was gave.

Key elements to assess proposals for rockfall risk mitigation in the context of a technical and economic feasibility project – the experience of two alpine italian regions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Strada ◽  
Davide Bertolo ◽  
Volkmar Mair ◽  
Marco Paganone
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Project Managers ◽  
Residual Risk ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Acceptable Risk ◽  
Italian Regions ◽  
Geological Conditions ◽  
Hazard And Risk

<p>The Valle d'Aosta Region and the Autonomous Province of Bolzano territories include the highest mountain areas of Italy, where most of the communication infrastructures or strategic activities are totally or in part partially exposed to the rockfall hazards.  </p><p>For this reason, the two administrations have established an operational cooperation in order to compare their procedures and to define the criteria and best practices to prioritize and project the mitigation the rockfall mitigation measures. The result achieved by the work group have inspired a new incoming version of the Italian technical standard UNI 11211 “Rockfall protective measures”.   </p><p>As a part of the rockfall risk assessment of the designing the mitigation measures, it is necessary to assess the actual effectiveness of the alternative mitigation options which have been identified.  </p><p>The choice whether to mitigate the event intensity or the expected damage, with either structural or non-structural measures, will usually achieve a risk mitigation level, associated to a complimentary residual risk. </p><p>Therefore, the project management has to evaluate the degree of hazard and risk mitigation for any given solution. The acceptability of the residual risk and its possible mitigation through organizational measures are to be evaluated as well. A long-term cost/benefit analysis has to be performed, taking also into account the tolerability over time of the handling costs. </p><p>The first milestone in the decisional process the definition of the acceptable risk level. As a matter of fact, which is the key criterion supporting the decision to undertake cost-effective investments in mitigation works. For that reason, a preliminary analysis of the in-situ geological conditions should be as complete and detailed as possible. Project managers have to be aware that the zero-option has to be taken in to account as well, in the case the risk level would not be acceptable. </p><p>Moreover, it has to be taken into account that the risk evaluation is always site-specific, because the rockfall mitigation projects have to be based on a detailed geological reference model. Local changes in geological, hydrogeological, morphological and structural conditions, vegetation, vulnerability and exposure of the objects at risk may lead to different hazard and risk conditions even at a local scale. Therefore, a risk assessment analysis is consistent to a single project and can’t be directly upscaled to implement, for instance, a municipal land management plan.   </p><p>Another key point in the decision-making process is the expected damage assessment, which has to include not only the direct damages (e.g.: loss of human lives) but also the indirect damages and their economic and social impacts. As a consequence, in assessing the acceptable risk both the probability of direct and indirect damage and the economic and social benefits derived from its acceptance have to be weighted. </p><p>The final result has led to guidelines based on QRA (Quantitative Risk Assessment) method and defining three risk levels: Acceptable, ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) and Unacceptable, providing to the project managers a rational and objective framework to manage rockfall hazards in Italy. </p>

scholarly journals Water Quality Pollutants and Health Risk assessment for Four Different Drinking Water Sources

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 03004
Author(s):  
Miaomiao Tian ◽  
Wenzhao Li ◽  
Meijuan Ruan ◽  
Jing Wei ◽  
Weiwei Ma
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Drinking Water ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Health Risk Assessment ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Risk Assessment Model ◽  
Acceptable Risk

Drinking water quality has become a great concern to the whole society, especially in heavily polluted rural areas. This paper analyzes the water quality of 100 water supping the US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) recommended health risk assessment model. The results showed that the microbial indicators exceeded the standard in the whole year, and some of the water supply units which lead, nitrated and dissolved solids exceeding the standard. The model recommended by EPA is applied to establish risk assessment model for health risk assessment of adults in wet and dry seasons, respectively. Results of HRA indicated that carcinogenic risk of chromium was 7.61E-05a-1 and the risk value of arsenic was 9.92E-06a-1 which exceed the maximum acceptable risk level recommended by USEPA 5.0×10-5 closely to the ICPR recommendation 1.0×10-6. Meanwhile we conduct health risk assessment (HRA) on relevant non-carcinogenic indicators: nitrate is 2.95E-09a-1, the risk value of fluoride (F) is 2.49E-09a-1, the risk value of lead is 2.39E-09a-1 and copper (Cu) 9.00E-10a-1 exceeds the maximum acceptable risk level risk value recommended by USEPA 1.0×10-9. The above indicators require priority control and management of pollutants that are prioritized and managed.

The Influence of the Phonetic Elements of a Name on Risk Assessment

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 128-145
Author(s):  
Keith A Botner ◽  
Arul Mishra ◽  
Himanshu Mishra
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Perception ◽  
Real World ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Product Evaluations ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Phonetic Symbolism ◽  
Product Service ◽  
The Given

Abstract The authors propose that the phonetic elements of a name affect risk perception. Specifically, they find that people prefer a name that evokes volatility when faced with a risky prospect, but prefer a name that evokes calmness when faced with a safe prospect. The authors posit that a volatile (vs. calm) prospect name results in more perceived fluctuations, and thus greater movement from, the given risk level. Therefore, a volatile prospect name results in a wider range of probabilities compared to a calm prospect name. The authors test the proposed effect and the role of the phonetic elements of a name using real-world data and controlled studies within diverse consumer domains (e.g., product evaluations, wagering, and branding). Findings contribute to the larger theoretical area of phonetic symbolism and provide guidance for practitioners trying to maximize preference for a given product, service, or policy.

scholarly journals Patient and Surgeon Perceptions of the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS): A Mixed Methods Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Bronsert ◽  
Anne Lambert-Kerzner ◽  
William G. Henderson ◽  
Karl E. Hammermeister ◽  
Chisom Atuanya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Patient Risk ◽  
Surgical Risk ◽  
Provider Perceptions

Abstract Background Risk assessment is essential to informed decision making in surgery. Preoperative use of the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) providing individualized risk assessment, may enhance informed consent. We assessed patient and provider perceptions of SURPAS as a risk assessment tool. Methods A convergent mixed-methods study assessed SURPAS’s trial implementation, concurrently collecting quantitative and qualitative data, separately analyzing it, and integrating the results. Patients and providers were surveyed and interviewed on their opinion of how SURPAS impacted the preoperative encounter. Relationships between patient risk and patient and provider assessment of SURPAS were examined. Results 197 patients were provided their SURPAS postoperative risk estimates in nine surgeon’s clinics. 98.8% of patients reported they understood their surgical risks very or quite well after exposure to SURPAS; 92.7% reported SURPAS was very helpful or helpful. 83.4% of the time providers reported SURPAS was very or somewhat helpful; 44.7% of the time the providers reported it changed their interaction with the patient and this change was beneficial 94.3% of the time. As patient risk increased, providers reported that SURPAS was increasingly helpful (p<0.0001).Conclusions Patients and providers reported the use of SURPAS helpful and informative during the preoperative risk assessment of patients, thus improving the surgical decision making process. Patients thought that SURPAS was helpful regardless of their risk level, whereas providers thought that SURPAS was more helpful in higher risk patients.

scholarly journals Determining Factors Affecting Fire Risk in a Hospital in Qazvin, Iran

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
Hazhir Kurd ◽  
◽  
Vida Zaroushani ◽  
Yousef Akbari ◽  
Ali Safari Variani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Potential Risk ◽  
Fire Risk ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Acceptable Risk ◽  
Fire Load ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Effective Factors ◽  
Activation Factor ◽  
Fire Risk Assessment

Background: Hospitals are highly vulnerable to fire because of the presence of vulnerable people (patients, medical staff, and visitors), expensive equipment, and the ignorance and low-risk perception of occupants. Injuries caused by fire can result in life and financial losses and can disrupt the performance of a hospital. Fire risk assessment is an effective way to assess vulnerability, capacity, and capability. This study aims to evaluate the risk of fire and identify the effective factors and their contribution to a hospital. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted using the Fire Risk Assessment Method for Engineering (FRAME) in the equipment room of a hospital in Qazvin, Iran. The fire risk was first calculated by using the related formulas in Excel software. Then, the influential factors and their contribution to the overall risk were determined to perform corrective measures for reducing the risk. Results: The numerical value of risk for the building and its contents, occupants, and activities were 2.075, 3.315, and 2.481, respectively (>1), indicating its unacceptable level. Factors affecting the potential risk level for the building and its content and occupants were fire load, venting, and access. Regarding the acceptable risk level, the activation factor was identified as an influential factor in all domains. The highest contribution in the potential risk level for the building and its content and occupants was related to the fire load factor (1.6). In the acceptable risk level, the highest contribution was related to the activation factor (0.4). Conclusion: The FRAME method can also identify effective factors and their contribution to the overall fire risk of medical centers such as hospitals to help develop plans and special measures to reduce the risk.

scholarly journals Risk Assessment of Tunnel Portals in the Construction Stage Based on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 69-87
Author(s):  
Xianghui Deng ◽  
Rui Wang ◽  
Tian Xu
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Hierarchy Process ◽  
Tunnel Portal

AbstractThis study presents a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) by integrating analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy cognition to evaluate the construction risks of tunnel portals. Wuguanyi Tunnel is taken as the research objective to validate the performance of the proposed method. The result shows that the proposed decision making method can effectively identify risk factors and determine the risk level during the construction of tunnel portals. Finally, the corresponding control measures during the construction of the Wuguanyi Tunnel portal are proposed according to the risk assessment results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document