Assessing Emergency Risks in Chemical Parks: The AHP-Fuzzy Evaluation Method

A sophisticated approach to predicting and preventing catastrophic incidents in complex industrial environments

Risk Assessment Chemical Safety Emergency Preparedness

The Unseen Dangers: Why Chemical Parks Need Emergency Preparedness

Imagine an industrial park where a single accident can trigger a catastrophic chain reaction—a leak becomes a fire, a fire triggers an explosion, and the explosion releases toxic gases that endanger entire communities.

This isn't theoretical; incidents like the "2.28" explosion at Zhao County Industrial Park in Hebei Province and the "8.26" explosion at Tuochuang Industrial Park in Wuhan demonstrate the devastating potential of chemical park emergencies 1 . These accidents resulted in significant property damage and casualties, revealing a critical truth: traditional risk assessment methods often fall short in evaluating the complex, interconnected risks present in modern chemical industrial parks.

High-Risk Concentration

Chemical industry parks concentrate numerous petrochemical enterprises, with raw materials, intermediates, and products often being dangerous chemicals typically handled under high-temperature or high-pressure conditions 2 .

Domino Effect

This concentration generates development benefits but also creates high regional safety risks. The problem is compounded by what safety experts call the "domino effect"—where an accident in one enterprise can trigger disasters in neighboring facilities 2 .

The Dynamic Duo: How AHP and Fuzzy Logic Create a Powerful Evaluation Tool

What is the AHP-Fuzzy Evaluation Method?

The AHP-fuzzy evaluation method represents a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of two mathematical frameworks: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and fuzzy logic theory.

  • AHP provides structured decision-making through pairwise comparisons
  • Fuzzy Logic handles imprecise information and uncertainty
  • Combined they integrate quantitative data and qualitative judgments

Why Traditional Methods Fall Short

Traditional risk assessment methods have significant limitations in modern chemical parks:

These methods often rely too heavily on static data, making them poorly suited to the dynamic risk evolution characteristic of today's chemical parks 1 .

A Peek Inside the Toolbox: How the AHP-Fuzzy Method Works in Practice

The Two-Stage Process

1

The AHP Phase

Researchers create a hierarchical structure of evaluation criteria and determine relative weights through expert pairwise comparisons 3 .

2

The Fuzzy Evaluation Phase

Using fuzzy membership functions, qualitative judgments transform into quantitative values, capturing inherent uncertainty in assessments 4 .

Handling Uncertainty with Fuzzy Numbers

A key strength is modeling uncertain reasoning patterns using triangular fuzzy numbers—represented by three points (l, m, u) where l ≤ m ≤ u 4 .

Linguistic Term Triangular Fuzzy Number Risk Level
Very Low (0, 0, 0.25) Minimal concern
Low (0, 0.25, 0.5) Minor concern
Medium (0.25, 0.5, 0.75) Moderate concern
High (0.5, 0.75, 1) Significant concern
Very High (0.75, 1, 1) Critical concern

Case Study: Evaluating Beijing's Fangshan District Emergency Industrial Park

A Diverse Industrial Landscape

A recent study demonstrates the practical application of the AHP-fuzzy method in assessing the Beijing Fangshan District Emergency Industrial Park 1 . This park contains a diverse mix of enterprises, each with distinct risk profiles.

Researchers classified enterprises into seven categories based on their professional focus and characteristics 1 :

Enterprise Type Characteristics Primary Risks
Medical & Healthcare Biological agents, pharmaceuticals Chemical leaks, biohazards
New Energy Storage Batteries, energy systems Lithium battery fires, explosions
Composite Materials Chemical processing, manufacturing Fires, toxic releases
Intelligent Manufacturing Electronics, automation Electrical fires, equipment failure
Mechanical Manufacturing Heavy machinery, fabrication Industrial accidents, mechanical failures
Consulting & Technical Services Office-based, laboratories Minor chemical incidents
Construction & Installation Temporary operations, varied sites Worksite accidents, material hazards

Key Finding

The assessment revealed that emergency prevention capability and emergency preparedness capability were the most critical factors in the evaluation system, receiving the highest weights in the AHP analysis 3 .

From Theory to Practice: Implementing the Evaluation System

The Four-Day Assessment Scheme

For the Fangshan District case study, researchers developed a practical 4-day working scheme to implement the AHP-fuzzy evaluation methodology 5 :

Day 1

Orientation and Document Review

Analysis of emergency plans, safety procedures, and historical incident data

Day 2

On-site Inspections and Expert Evaluations

Using the established indicator system to assess current conditions

Day 3

Data Processing and Evaluation

Weight calculation and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

Day 4

Feedback and Reporting

Preliminary reporting of findings and recommendations

Big Data Fusion

Modern implementations incorporate big data fusion to monitor multiple sensor data streams in real-time and create comprehensive digital twins of chemical parks 2 .

Virtual Simulation

Virtual simulation technologies allow safety managers to simulate accident progression and test emergency responses without real-world risks 2 .

The Future of Chemical Park Safety: Advancements and Applications

Emerging Technologies and Expanding Applications

The AHP-fuzzy method continues to evolve with emerging technologies and expanding applications.

AI Integration

Machine learning enhances predictive capabilities

IoT Sensors

Continuous data feeding from distributed sensors

Hybrid Models

Combining with neural networks for pattern recognition

Standardized Frameworks

Adaptable evaluation systems across industrial parks

The methodology has already expanded beyond chemical parks to assess human reliability in petrochemical operations 4 , occupational risks in university laboratories 4 , and environmental risks in mining operations 4 .

Conclusion: Building Safer Industrial Futures

The AHP-fuzzy evaluation method represents a significant advancement in how we approach the complex challenge of chemical park safety.

By combining the structured decision-making of AHP with the uncertainty-handling capabilities of fuzzy logic, this approach provides safety managers with a powerful tool to identify vulnerabilities, prioritize improvements, and prevent catastrophic accidents.

As chemical parks continue to evolve in complexity and scale, methodologies that can effectively evaluate and manage their interconnected risks become increasingly vital. The AHP-fuzzy method offers a scientifically rigorous yet practically implementable approach that bridges the gap between theoretical risk models and the messy reality of industrial operations.

Through continued refinement and integration with emerging technologies like big data analytics and virtual simulation, this methodology promises to play a crucial role in building safer, more resilient industrial parks that can harness the benefits of chemical concentration while minimizing the risks to people, property, and the environment.

References