Application of data mining to minimize fire‐induced domino effect risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data mining (DM) has been applied in many advanced science and technology fields, but it has still not been used for domino effect risk management to explore minimum risk scenarios. This work investigates the feasibility of DM in minimizing the risk of fire-induced domino effects in chemical processing facilities. Based on DM, an evidential failure mode and effects analysis (E-FMEA), which could bridge chemical facilities' operational reliability and domino effect risk, is combined with fault tree analysis (FTA) for the occurrence risk modeling of loss of containment (LOC) event of chemical facilities, which is often the triggering point of fire-induced domino effects. Industry specific data such as reliability data, inspection records, and maintenance records are of great value to model the potential occurrence criticality of LOC. The data are used to characterize the LOC risk priority number (RPN) of chemical facilities through FTA and E-FMEA, search and statistics rules are proposed to mine inspection records to assess LOC risk factors. According to the RPN scores of facilities, inherent safety strategies to minimize risk via inventory control are proposed, and their effectiveness is tested using a well-known probit model. In this way, the approach proposes a unit-specific evidence-based risk minimization strategy for fire-induced domino effects. A case study demonstrates the capability of DM in the risk minimization of fire-induced domino effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".