Production Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 53–60 | Cite as

Proposal method for the classification of industrial accident scenarios based on the improved principal components analysis (improved PCA)

  • Hafaidh Hadef
  • Mébarek DjebabraEmail author
Production Management


Using a risk matrix for Risk mapping constitutes the basis of risk management strategy. It aims to classify the identified risks with regards to their management and control. This risk classification, which is based on the frequency and the severity dimensions, is often carried out according to a procedure founded on experts’ judgments. In order to overcome the subjectivity bias of this classification, this paper presents the contribution of the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) method: an exploratory method for graphing risks based on factors that allow a better visualized classification of scenarios accidents. Still, the commonly encountered problem in the data classified by the PCA method resides in the main factors of classification; we judged useful to frame these letters by an algebraic formulation to make an improvement of this classification possible. The obtained results show that the suggested method is a promising alternative to solve the recurring problems of risk matrices, notably in accident scenarios’ classification.


Risks Cartography Accident Scenario Classification PCA 


  1. 1.
    American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICE) (1992) Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures, 2nd edn. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AICE) (1995) Tools for making acute risk decisions. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barshan E, Ghodsi A, Azimifar Z, Jahromi MZ (2011) ,”Supervised principal component analysis: visualization, classification and regression on subspaces and sub-manifolds”. Pattern Recogn 44(7):1357–1371CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baybutt P (2014) The use of risk matrices and risk graphs for SIL determination. Process Saf Prog 33(2):179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baybutt P (2016) Guidelines for designing risk matrices. Process Saf Prog 37(1):41–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CCPS (2000) Guidelines for chemical process quantitative risk analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Da Cunha SB (2016) A review of quantitative risk assessment of onshore pipelines. J Loss Prev Process Ind 44(11):282–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dejan R (2013) Atool for risk assessment. Saf Eng 3(3):121–127Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duijm NJ (2015) Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Saf Sci 76:21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferjencik M (2004) The role of the two-phase scenarios concept in the matrix relative risk ranking procedure. Process Saf Prog 16(2):117–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang L, Xiao B, Yu H, You Q (2018) A stable systemic risk ranking in China’s banking sector: based on principal component analysis. Phys A 492:1997–2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gul M, Guneri AF (2016) A fuzzy multi criteria risk assessment based on decision matrix technique: a case study for aluminum industry. J Loss Prev Process Ind 40(3):89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gupta A, Barbu A (2018) Parameterized principal component analysis. Pattern Recognit 78:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W (1998) Multivariate data analysis. 5th Prentice Hall International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    He L, Chen Y, Liu LY (2013) A risk matrix approach based on clustering algorithm. J Appl Sci 13(20):4188–4194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huihui N, Chen A, Chen N (2010) Some extensions on risk matrix approach. Saf Sci 48(10):1269–1278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO 31000:2009 (2009) Risk management—principles and guidelines. ISO 31000:2009, International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jolliffe LT (1986) Principal component analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jung S, Ng D, Laird CD, Sam Mannan M (2010) A new approach for facility siting using mapping risks on a plant grid area and optimization. J Loss Prev Process Ind 23:824–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    LRET (LLOYD’S Register Energy and Transport) (2007) A severe accident analysis report of the industrial group “Total—Sonatarch—Repsol. Report ABN0961615/01 REV.04, realized by LLOYD’S Register EMEA Group Energy and TransportGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manwendra K, Tripathi PP, Chatto P, Ganguly S (2015) Multivariate analysis and classification of bulk metallic glasses using principal component analysis. Comput Mater Sci 107:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marhavilas PK, Koulouriotis D, Gemeni V (2011) Risk analysis and assessment methodologies in the work sites: on a review, classification and comparative study of the scientific literature of the period 2000–2009. J Loss Prev Process Ind 24(5):477–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merad M (2004) Analyse de l’état de l’art sur les grilles de criticité. INERIS report, France, DRA–D38Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moore DA (2004) The use of a ranking matrix and recommendation prioritization system for process hazard analysis studies. Process Saf Prog 16(2):83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palese LL (2018) A random version of principal component analysis in data clustering. Comput Biol Chem 73(4):57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Peeters W, Peng Z (2015) An approach towards global standardization of the risk matrix. J Space Saf Eng 2(1):31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Penkova TG (2017) Principal component analysis and cluster analysis for evaluating the natural and anthropogenic territory safety. Proc Comput Sci 112:99–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reniers G-L-L, Dullaert W, Ale B-J-M, Soudan K (2005) Developing an external domino accident prevention framework: Hazwim. J Loss Prev Process Ind 18(3):127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ringnér M (2008) “What is principal component analysis? “Nat Biotechnol 26(3):303–304Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ng SC (2017) Principal component analysis to reduce dimension on digital image. Proc Comput Sci 111:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmidt MS (2016) Making sense of risk tolerance criteria. J Loss Prev Process Ind 41(5):344–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tixier J, Dusserre G, Salvi O, Gaston D (2002) Review of 62 risk analysis methodologies of industrial plants. J Loss Prevent Process Ind 15(4):291–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Villeneuve E (2012) Hybridization of the cognitive and static experience feedbacks for risks assessment. PhD thesis presented at the University of Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhu Q, Kuang X, Shen Y (2003) Risk matrix method and its application in the field of technical project risk management. Eng Sci 5(1):89–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© German Academic Society for Production Engineering (WGP) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LRPI LaboratoryUniversity of BatnaBatnaAlgeria

Personalised recommendations