Early warning sign attributes for the safety of drinking water treatment works

A proactive risk management strategy seeks to prevent accidents from taking place and maintain the safety of a system. In this context, the task of identifying and disseminating early warning signs and signals is among the most important. The problem is that warning signs that are present before an accident takes place are often being overlooked and not picked up or identified as warning signs. If these warning signs were responded to, then an accident may be averted. Accidents occuring in the critical domain of a drinking water treatments works can have serious implications for the public health of consumers of the water supplied. Realising and comprehending early warning signs is a major challenge for the domain of systems safety and especially in the domain of a water treatment works. The approaches that are typically used to enhance the realisation, comprehension and dissemination of early warning signs in the water treatment domain in Ireland mainly involves the creation of accident scenarios, the use of monitoring data and procedures for the dissemination of warnings. While all of these approaches are all useful to inform the mental or process models of possible accident scenarios, nevertheless, accidents are still occurring in this domain. Therefore, a new approach to enhance the comprehension of and effective dissemination of early warning signs is required in order to improve safety and proactive risk management strategies. The contributions of this thesis is the provision of a set of attributes associated with the early warning sign concept that provides meaningful data on the early warning signs and allows recipients to better comprehend them. The values of these attributes were customised for application in the water treatment domain. This research proves that early warning signs at a water treatment works received with information on their attributes are comprehended and communicated more effectively and efficiently than the usual pragmatic approach and thereby improves the safety and proactive risk management strategies.

Comparison of deterministic, stochastic and fuzzy logic uncertainty modelling for capacity extension projects of DI/WFI pharmaceutical plant utilities with variable/dynamic demand

The last 30 years have seen Fuzzy Logic (FL) emerging as a method either complementing or challenging stochastic methods as the traditional method of modelling uncertainty. But the circumstances under which FL or stochastic methods should be used are shrouded in disagreement, because the areas of application of statistical and FL methods are overlapping with differences in opinion as to when which method should be used. Lacking are practically relevant case studies comparing these two methods. This work compares stochastic and FL methods for the assessment of spare capacity on the example of pharmaceutical high purity water (HPW) utility systems. The goal of this study was to find the most appropriate method modelling uncertainty in industrial scale HPW systems. The results provide evidence which suggests that stochastic methods are superior to the methods of FL in simulating uncertainty in chemical plant utilities including HPW systems in typical cases whereby extreme events, for example peaks in demand, or day-to-day variation rather than average values are of interest. The average production output or other statistical measures may, for instance, be of interest in the assessment of workshops. Furthermore the results indicate that the stochastic model should be used only if found necessary by a deterministic simulation. Consequently, this thesis concludes that either deterministic or stochastic methods should be used to simulate uncertainty in chemical plant utility systems and by extension some process system because extreme events or the modelling of day-to-day variation are important in capacity extension projects. Other reasons supporting the suggestion that stochastic HPW models are preferred to FL HPW models include: 1. The computer code for stochastic models is typically less complex than a FL models, thus reducing code maintenance and validation issues. 2. In many respects FL models are similar to deterministic models. Thus the need for a FL model over a deterministic model is questionable in the case of industrial scale HPW systems as presented here (as well as other similar systems) since the latter requires simpler models. 3. A FL model may be difficult to "sell" to an end-user as its results represent "approximate reasoning" a definition of which is, however, lacking. 4. Stochastic models may be applied with some relatively minor modifications on other systems, whereas FL models may not. For instance, the stochastic HPW system could be used to model municipal drinking water systems, whereas the FL HPW model should or could not be used on such systems. This is because the FL and stochastic model philosophies of a HPW system are fundamentally different. The stochastic model sees schedule and volume uncertainties as random phenomena described by statistical distributions based on either estimated or historical data. The FL model, on the other hand, simulates schedule uncertainties based on estimated operator behaviour e.g. tiredness of the operators and their working schedule. But in a municipal drinking water distribution system the notion of "operator" breaks down. 5. Stochastic methods can account for uncertainties that are difficult to model with FL. The FL HPW system model does not account for dispensed volume uncertainty, as there appears to be no reasonable method to account for it with FL whereas the stochastic model includes volume uncertainty.