Browsing by Subject "Risk Management"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item A design approach to a risk review for fuel cell-based distributed cogeneration systems(Texas A&M University, 2004-09-30) Luthringer, Kristin LynA risk review of a fuel cell-based distributed co-generation (FC-Based DCG) system was conducted to identify and quantify the major technological system risks in a worst-case scenario. A risk review entails both a risk assessment and a risk analysis of a designed system, and it is part of risk engineering. Thorough literature reviews and expert interviews were conducted in the field of fuel cells. A thorough literature review of the risk engineering field was also conducted. A procedure for a risk review of the FC-Based DCG System was developed. The representative system design was identified by the current DCG design technology. The risk assessment was carried out, identifying the system components and potential failure modes and consequences. Then, using probabilities of failure for the various system components, the risk associated with a particular system design was determined. A Monte Carlo simulation on the total system reliability was used to evaluate the potential for system failure at a time of 1 hour, 5 hours, 10 hours, 50 hours, 100 hours and 500 hours of continuous operation. The original system was found to be acceptable at the initial times, but after 100 hours was predicted to fail. The components which consistently contribute significantly to the overall system risk are the membrane electrode assembly (MEA) and the nickel-metal foam flow fields. A revised system was analyzed with the reliability of the MEA and the Ni-foam set to 100%. After the revision, the components which contributed significantly to the system risk were the pumps. Simulations were run for several alternative systems to provide feedback on risk management suggestions. The risk engineering process developed with the design approach for this research is applicable to any system and it accommodates the use of many different risk engineering tools.Item Application of analytic hierarchy process in upstream risk assessment and project evaluations(2009-06-02) Mota-Sanchez, FreddyThis report adapts the application of a methodology known as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to upstream Exploration & Production (E&P) project evaluations for the oil and gas industry. The method can be used to simplify the process of decision making, specifically when several parameters or variables?mostly uncertainties or risk variables?are being considered for different investment options. This method has been used in a large number of applications in several research areas where evaluation and decision making is a key issue. It simplifies the considerations that the evaluators must be aware of to assign probability or certainty factors to the parameters by using a relative intensity scale. We apply the method to the quantification of the risk involved in typical upstream projects. Although a decision as large as investment in oil and gas projects can not be based solely on risk factors, it is true that the risk attitude of the investor will ultimately play a significant role. This method gathers all the possible factors that can affect a project at any stage and provides the user with a single number; it condenses all the considerations and preferences of the investor or decision maker and ranks the investment alternatives from a risk point of view. A typical problem confronted with E&P project assessment (as well as in many other industries) is that the criteria selected may be measured on different scales, such as dollar value, stock-tank barrels, standard cubic feet, units of area, and so on. Some might even be intangible for which no scales exist, such as financial environment, management problems, or social unsteadiness. Measures on different scales, obviously, can not be directly combined, and this is part of what makes an integral assessment of any project such a difficulty. It is up to the decision maker to put all these evaluations?which may be still in different or subjective scales?on an overall comparative basis. This is where the AHP becomes useful, by gathering criteria of different natures and dimensions, and putting them all together on a single scale, which is derived from the decisions maker?s preferences and risk attitude.