‫‪1392‬ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻰ‬

‫ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪/3‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪/3‬‬ ‫ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪﮔﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ‬ ‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ‬

‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ‬
‫‪79‬‬ ‫ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻰ‬

‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺯﻫﺮﻩ ﻗﺮﺑﻌﻠﻰ‪ - *1‬ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮﻯ‪ - 2‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﻰ‪ - 3‬ﺳﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﻣﻴﺮﻯ ﻟﻮﺍﺳﺎﻧﻰ‬

‫‪zghorbali_safety@yahoo.com‬‬

‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﺵ‪92/6/6 :‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪92/5/6 :‬‬

‫ﭼﻜﻴﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‪ :‬ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺧﻄﺮ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪﻳﻦ ﻻﻳﻪ ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺖ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺧﻄﺮ ﻭ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻣﻨﻴﺘﻰ ﻣﺠﻬﺰ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻛﻤﻚ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﻠﻰ ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪ ﺍﻃﻤﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻜﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺳﺎﺩﮔﻰ ﺁﻥ ﺭﻭﺷﻰ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﻭ ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻰ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﻛﺎﺭ‪ :‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩﻯ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﻣﻰ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻣﺮﺳﻮﻡ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺑﻨﺪﻯ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻛﻤﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻰ ﺁﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺨﺼﻴﺺ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﺯﻧﻰ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ‬

‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﻴﺮﻯ‪ :‬ﺑﺎ ﺑﻪﻛﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻫﻢ ﺗﺮﺍﺯ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻗﺒﻠﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺯﻳﺮﺳﻄﺢ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﻣﻰ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﻓﻪ ﺟﻮﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩﻯ‪ ،‬ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺁﻳﺰﻭﻣﺎﻛﺲ ﭘﺎﻻﻳﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﺵ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﮔﺬﺍﺭﻯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻰ ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻛﻠﻤﺎﺕ ﻛﻠﻴﺪﻯ‪ :‬ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺁﻳﺰﻭﻣﺎﻛﺲ‬

‫‪ -1‬ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﺭﺷﺪ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ‪ ،HSE‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﻜﺪﻩ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺮژﻯ‪ ,‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻰ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻋﻠﻮ ﻡ ﻭﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻰ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﺣﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻯ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﻜﺪﻩ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﺣﺮﻓﻪ ﺍﻯ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﭘﺰﺷﻜﻰ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﻳﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻣﻬﻨﺪﺳﻰ ﺷﻴﻤﻰ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﻬﻴﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻛﺮﻣﺎﻥ‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﻳﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻣﺪﻳﺮﻳﺖ ‪، HSE‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﻜﺪﻩ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺮژﻯ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻰ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‬
 ‫ﺯﻫﺮﻩ ﻗﺮﺑﻌﻠﻰ ‪ -‬ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮﻯ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﻰ ‪ -‬ﺳﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﻣﻴﺮﻯ ﻟﻮﺍﺳﺎﻧﻰ‬
‫ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻜﻰ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﻯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻯ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻓﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺮﺳﻮﻡ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﺩﭼﺎﺭ ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻡ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺩﺭ ﭘﻰ ﺭﻭﺷﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪ ﺭﺍ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﻜﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻯ ﻣﻔﻴﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺣﻞ ﻣﺴﺎﻳﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻭ ﻓﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺩﻗﺖ ﻣﻮﺍﺟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻄﻰ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻰ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻨﻄﻖ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺭﺍﻫﻜﺎﺭﻯ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﻭﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻭ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺘﺮﻝ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺭﻭﺷﻰ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻰ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻰ ﺭﺳﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫‪ SIL‬ﻛﻤﻰ‪،‬ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻛﺎﺭﮔﺸﺎ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺳﻨﺘﻰ ﺩﺭﻳﻚ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺁﻟﻤﺎﻧﻰ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ) ‪.(DIN V 19250, 1994‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺰﻳﻨﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺳﻨﺘﻰ‬
‫ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻰ ﺩﻫﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ‪ SIL‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺷﻮﺩ )‪.(Ormos, et al., 2004‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﻳﻚ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺁﻭﺭﻯ‬
‫ﻗﻀﺎﻭﺗﻬﺎﻯ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺷﺪ )‪.(Simon, et al.,2007‬‬
‫ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ‪ DIN V 19250‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﺳﻌﻰ ﺷﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮﺍﺗﻰ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‪ ،‬ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮ‬
‫ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻯ )‪ (IRG‬ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﻰ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫÷‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺧﻄﺮ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ‬
‫ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﻻﻳﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻲ ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﭼﻨﺪﻳﻦ ﻻﻳﻪ ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺘﻲ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻻﻳﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫‪80‬‬
‫ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ )‪ (SIS‬ﺟﻬﺖ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖ ﺍﻃﻤﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢ ﻫﺎ ﺗﺎﺑﻊ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺑﻪﻛﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ‪ IEC 61508‬ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ‬
‫‪SIS‬ﻫﺎ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖ ﺍﻃﻤﻴﻨﺎﻥ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﺮﻭﺯ ﺧﻄﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ )‪ (PFD‬ﺑﻪ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺳﻄﺢ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ)‪ .(IEC615081,1998‬ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﻭﻓﻨﺪ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻭ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖ ﺳﻴﺴﺘﻢﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ‬
‫)‪ (SIL‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ‪SIS‬ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻭ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ‬
‫)‪ (QRA‬ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻻﻳﻪ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺣﻔﺎﻇﺘﻰ )‪(LOPA‬‬
‫ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺭﻏﻢ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺑﺎﻻ‬
‫ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻣﻨﺪ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﻯ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‬
‫)‪(Markowski, et al., 2010; Pitblad, et al 2011‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺵ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫)‪ (RG‬ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﻏﻢ ﺳﺎﺩﮔﻲ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺸﻜﻼﺗﻲ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺩﺧﻴﻞ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﺷﺨﺼﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻭ ﮔﺎﻫﻰ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ‬
‫ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻫﺎﻯ‬
 ‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻰ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻛﺎﺳﺘﻪ ﻧﺸﻮﺩ‪.‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﺴﺨﻪ ﺧﻼﻗﺎﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺮ ﻭ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ‪SIL‬‬
‫ﻫﺎ ﻛﻪ ‪ PFD‬ﻳﺎ ﻣﻌﻜﻮﺱ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﻓﺎﻛﺘﻮﺭ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ‬
‫‪81‬‬
‫)‪ (RRF‬ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﻰ ﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻭ ﻧﻴﻤﻪ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺯ ﭘﻨﺞ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ ﺭﻭﺵ ‪ IRG‬ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫ﺷﺮﺡ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺳﻮﻡ ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮔﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﮔﺎﻡ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﻮﻳﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺁﻳﺰﻭﻣﺎﻛﺲ ﭘﺎﻻﻳﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻧﻔﺖ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺭﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﭘﻨﺠﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺑﻰ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺧﻄﺮ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻧﻤﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺩﭼﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻒ‪ -‬ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ‪ IRG‬ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﻯ ﺗﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﻯ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻭﻝ ﻭ ﺳﻮﻡ‬
‫ﻭﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ‪ 2‬ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻧﻪ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺧﻮﺵ ﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ‪ SIL‬ﻣﻰ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻯ‬
‫ﺷﻮﺩ )‪.(Baybutt, 2007‬‬
‫ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻨﺪ ﺍﺯ‪:‬‬
‫ﺁﻏﺎﺯﮔﺮﻫﺎ ‪-‬ﺗﻨﺎﻭﺏ ﻋﻠﺖ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﮔﺮﻫﺎ؛ ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﻭﺯ ﺣﺎﺩﺛﻪ ﻣﻮﺛﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻯ ﺷﺶ‬
‫ﺳﻄﺢ‪I1-10-5,I2-10-4,I3-10-3,I4-10-2,I5-10-1,I6-1‬‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﻨﺘﻰ ﺭﺍ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺩﻫﺪ ﻭ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺧﻄﺮ ﺑﻄﻮﺭﺻﺤﻴﺢ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝ ﻛﻨﺪ )‪.(Baybutt, 2007‬‬
‫ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ ﺑﻜﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ) ‪.(Markowski, et al., 2009‬‬
‫ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻏﻠﺒﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻣﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ‬
‫ﮔﺮﺍﻑِ ﺳﻨﺘﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‬
‫)‪.(Nait-Said, 2009‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺗﺎ ﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‪ ،‬ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﻣﻰ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ‬
‫ﻫﺮ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻣﻨﺪ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﻣﺎﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺱ ﻧﻤﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻰ ﺍﺻﻠﻰ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ‬
‫ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺎﺩﮔﻰ ﻭ ﻛﻢ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﺎﻣﻼ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺳﻨﺘﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻯ ﭘﺎﻝ ﺑﻴﺒﺎﺕ )‪ (Baybutt, 2007‬ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺰﺍﻳﺎﻯ ﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺩﻭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﻣﻨﺪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ )‪ (FIRG‬ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ‪ SIL‬ﺧﺮﻭﺟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ‬
‫ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ ﻣﺪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﻯ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ‪ IRG‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺗﺮﻡ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻰ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺳﻄﺢ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ‪ SIL‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﻛﻤﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻃﻮﺭ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺗﺮﻯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻭﻟﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺩﮔﻰ ﻭ ﻛﻢ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ‬
 ‫ﺯﻫﺮﻩ ﻗﺮﺑﻌﻠﻰ ‪ -‬ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮﻯ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﻰ ‪ -‬ﺳﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﻣﻴﺮﻯ ﻟﻮﺍﺳﺎﻧﻰ‬ ‫÷‬

‫‪82‬‬

‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :1‬ﺷﻤﺎﻯ ﻛﻠﻰ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ )‪(Baybutt,2007‬‬

‫ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﻣﻰﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﺮﻙﻫﺎ ‪ -‬ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ‪ /‬ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﻚﻛﻨﻨﺪﻩ‬

‫ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻗﻄﻊ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻌﺎﺭﻳﻒ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ‬ ‫ﻳﺎ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ؛ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﮔﺮ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺷﺨﺼﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺤﺮﻙ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻯ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺳﻮء ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻑ‬ ‫ﻋﺪﻡ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ E1_10-1‬ﻭ ‪_E2‬‬

‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬

‫ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻋﺪﺩﻯ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﻭ ‪SIL‬‬
‫ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻓﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺠﻰ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ ﻓﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻛﻪ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺨﻠﻒ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ‬
‫)‪.(Markowski,et al., 2009‬‬
‫‪ IRG‬ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻯ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺗﺎ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ )‪.(Baybutt, 2007‬‬
‫ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺏ‪ -‬ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻝ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ‪ IRG‬ﺭﺍ ﺣﻔﻆ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻭ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﻰ ﺑﻪﻃﻮﺭ ﻋﺪﺩﻯ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫)ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ( ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪﺗﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ‬
‫‪ SIL‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮔﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﮔﺎﻡ ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‬
‫ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ‪ IRG‬ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ‪ -‬ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﺳﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫‪ 10-2-S1, 10-1_S ,1 _S3‬ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ ‪ -‬ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩ ﻳﺎ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺮﻧﺎﻙ؛ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻯ ﭘﻨﺞ ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ C1‬ﺗﺎ ‪C5‬‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ SIL‬ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 1‬ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺮ ﭼﻨﺪ ‪IRG‬ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺍﺟﺮﺍ ﺳﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻧﺎﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﻭ ﮔﺎﻫﻰ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ‬
‫‪ SIL‬ﻣﻨﺘﺞ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ‬
‫ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻃﺮﺍﺣﻰ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﺧﺖ‪ ،‬ﺧﺮﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺼﺐ ﻭ ﻧﮕﻬﺪﺍﺭﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﺖ ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﻩ ﺗﺮ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ‪SIS‬‬
‫ﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﺎ ‪ SIL‬ﺑﺎﻻﺗﺮ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﺑﺮﻭﺯ ﺧﻄﺎﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﻧﮕﻬﺪﺍﺭﻯ ﻭ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﺒﺮﻩ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
 ‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻰ‬

‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﺍﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﻛﻤﻰ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﻓﺎﺯﻱ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﺑﺎ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﻪ ﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻰ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺮﻡ ﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪ ﻓﺎﺯﻱ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪ ﻓﺎﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﻻﺯﻡ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪.1‬ﺑﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪83‬‬ ‫ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪ ﻓﺎﺯﻱ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺮﺥ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪ ﻓﺎﺯﻱ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 2‬ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬

‫ﺍﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﻓﺎﺯﻱ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﺑﺎ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‬

‫ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻧﻴﺴﺎﻭﺍ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪2‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻦ ‪ ،EP‬ﻧﺮﺥ ﺧﻄﺎ )‪ (ER‬ﻣﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻲ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺫﻳﻞ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻭﺯﻧﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﺯﻱ ﭘﻴﺸﺎﻣﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻣﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ ) ‪Zhang et al., 2010.‬‬
‫‪.(Dong et al., 1987‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺑﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 2‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺩﻭ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﺜﻠﺜﻰ ﻭ ﺫﻭﺯﻧﻘﻪ ﺍﻯ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬

‫ﻃﺒﻖ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 1-‬ﺗﺎ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 4-‬ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻫﺮ ﭘﻨﺞ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ‬

‫ﺷﺪﻩ ﻯ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ‪ EP‬ﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ‪ ER‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ؛ ‪ER‬‬ ‫ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 1 -‬ﻭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‪ 2 -‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻠﻴﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ 2‬ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﺧﻄﺎ )‪(EP‬ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪:‬‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ :2‬ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻛﻤﻰ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ :1‬ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺑﺎﺯﻩ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻰ‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :2‬ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‬

 ‫ﺯﻫﺮﻩ ﻗﺮﺑﻌﻠﻰ ‪ -‬ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮﻯ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﻰ ‪ -‬ﺳﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﻣﻴﺮﻯ ﻟﻮﺍﺳﺎﻧﻰ‬ ‫÷‬

‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ :‬ﻛﻤﻰ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‬

‫ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻛﻠﻴﻪ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‬
‫‪IRG‬ﺑﻪ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ FIRG‬ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺍﻋﺪﺍﺩ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪PFD) 3‬ﻫﺎ(‬
‫ﺳﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺭﻭﺩﻯ ﺍﻭﻝ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﮔﺮﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻭ ﻣﺤﺮﻙ ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺑﻪﻛﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻛﻤﻰ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻯ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﻰ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ )‪.(Baybutt,2007‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎ ﻛﻪ‬
‫‪84‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻰ ﻭ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰﺍﺗﻰ‬

‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬

‫ﺑﻪ ‪ SIL‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻋﻜﺲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﺩ‬ ‫ﻭ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻰ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 4‬ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﻰﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻦ ﻫﺮ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﻓﺮﺿﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ )‪(Risk Factor‬‬
‫ﺷﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 4‬ﻭ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ‪ ،‬ﺳﻄﺢ ‪SIL‬‬ ‫ﺭﺍ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﻛﺮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻦ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ‪SIL‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻰ ﺁﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﻳﻚ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ‪ SIL‬ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻰ ﺁﻳﺪ‪:‬‬

‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :3‬ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ )ﻛﻤﻰ(‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :4‬ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ‪ PFD‬ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ‪SIL‬‬

 ‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻰ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻫﺎﻯ ﺣﺎﺩﺛﻪ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺖ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻫﺎﻯ ﺣﺎﺩﺛﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰ ﺧﻄﺮﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ‪ HAZOP‬ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ‬
‫‪85‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻫﺎﻯ ﺣﺎﺩﺛﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻭﺯ‪ ،‬ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﻯ ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﻣﺎﻟﻰ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻧﻰ ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺯﻳﺴﺘﻰ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻭ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ‪ SIL‬ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﻰﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻭ ﻭﺯﻥ ﺩﻫﻰ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺖ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﭼﻨﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪،‬ﺳﭙﺲ‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬
‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :3‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻭﺯﻥ ﺩﻫﻰ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﻰ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ‪ FIRG‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺭﺳﻴﺪﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ‪ SIL‬ﺑﻴﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ 2‬ﻭ ‪ 3‬ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻭ ﺑﺮﺣﺴﺐ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺧﻮﺷﺒﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﺑﺮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻰ‬
‫ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ ﺗﺮ ﺷﻮﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺷﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ ﺩﺭ ‪ IRG‬ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺭﻭﺵ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪SIL‬‬
‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 5‬ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ ﺭﻭﺵ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻰ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :5‬ﻓﻠﻮﭼﺎﺭﺕ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪SIL‬‬
 ‫ﺯﻫﺮﻩ ﻗﺮﺑﻌﻠﻰ ‪ -‬ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮﻯ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﻰ ‪ -‬ﺳﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﻣﻴﺮﻯ ﻟﻮﺍﺳﺎﻧﻰ‬
‫ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻭ ﺗﻼﺵ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ‬
‫ﺁﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻤﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺭﻭﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺷﺶ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﻭ‬
‫ﺣﻴﺎﺗﻰ ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺣﺎﺩﺛﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺷﺪﺕ‬
‫ﻭﻗﻮﻉ ﺁﻥ ﻭ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺯﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻰ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺁﻳﺰﻭﻣﺎﻛﺲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﻻﺳﺖ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ‪ SIL‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻳﻚ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﺍﻭﻝ‪ :‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ‪ Hazop‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﺎﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻃﻪ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺘﻴﻢ ﺷﺶ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻤﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﺣﺎﺩﺛﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺑﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﺷﺪﻳﺪﻯ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﺧﺴﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﺎﻟﻰ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻧﻰ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺯﻳﺴﺘﻰ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ‪ SIL‬ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﻳﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﺩﻭﻡ‪ :‬ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ ،4‬ﻧﻤﺮﻩ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻰ ﺩﻫﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﺯﻥ ﻫﺮ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 5‬ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﭘﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻓﺮﻡ ﻫﺎ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ ,SIL‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻫﺮ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮ ﻳﻚ ﻓﺮﻡ ﭘﺮﻡ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 6‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎﺕ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻭﻝ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻰ ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ :5‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﺯﻥ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ‬
‫÷‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻫﺮ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﻳﻚ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﺯﻧﻰ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 3‬ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻰﭘﺬﻳﺮﺩ‬
‫)‪.(Clemen, et al., 1999. Renjith, et al 2010‬‬
‫‪86‬‬
‫ﭘﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻓﺮﻡ ﻫﺎ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻫﺮ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮ ﻳﻚ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 6‬ﭘﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﻛﻤﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 3‬ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻋﺪﺩﻯ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ‪ SIL‬ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻪ ‪ SIL‬ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ ﻭ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻭﺯﻧﻰ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺎ ﻳﻚ ‪SIL‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﻰ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 4‬ﻋﺪﺩ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﻭ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺍﺯ ‪ SIL‬ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺩﻯ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺁﻳﺰﻭﻣﺎﻛﺲ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺩﺍﺭﺍ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻭ ﺗﺠﻬﻴﺰﺍﺕ ﺑﺎ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺩﻣﺎﻯ ﺑﺎﻻ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻧﻘﺎﻁ ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻮﻩ‬
‫ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﺮﻭﺯ ﺣﺎﺩﺛﻪ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :4‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﻤﺮﻩ ﻯ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‬
 ‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻰ‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :6‬ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎﺕ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺍﻭﻝ‬

‫‪87‬‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬

‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﺑﺎ‬ ‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﭼﻬﺎﺭﻡ‪ :‬ﺑﺎ ﺭﺟﻮﻉ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 3‬ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻛﻤﻰ‬
‫‪ SIL2 100%‬ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 6‬ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ SIL‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻫﺮ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬

‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ‪ a‬ﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﻰ ﺁﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫‪ SIL1‬ﻭ ‪ SIL2‬ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﻋﻘﺎﻳﺪ ﻭ ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺧﻮﺵ ﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺑﺪ ﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺑﺪﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ‪ SIL‬ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ‪ FIRG‬ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﭘﻨﺠﻢ‪ :‬ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻉ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻯ ‪ SIL2 100%‬ﻣﻰ ﺭﺳﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻰﺩﻫﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻭﺯﻧﻰ‬
‫ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ 2‬ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻜﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ِ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺿﺮﻳﺐ ﻭﺯﻧﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 6‬ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﻫﺮ ﻳﻚ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪SIL ،‬‬
‫‪ SIL‬ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻧﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ‪ %100‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﻳﺮ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺣﺼﻮﻝ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻚ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ‪3‬‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺷﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ ﺑﺎ‪:‬‬

‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ‪ 2 ،‬ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺳﻄﺢ‬ ‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﺷﺸﻢ‪ :‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‬
‫‪ 3‬ﻭ ﻳﻚ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ 4‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ 4‬ﻋﺪﺩ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ 3‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺳﻄﺢ‬ ‫ﮔﺎﻡ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ‬
 ‫ﺯﻫﺮﻩ ﻗﺮﺑﻌﻠﻰ ‪ -‬ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮﻯ ‪ -‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﻰ ‪ -‬ﺳﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﻣﻴﺮﻯ ﻟﻮﺍﺳﺎﻧﻰ‬ ‫÷‬

‫‪88‬‬

‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :6‬ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ‪ SIL‬ﻛﻤﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ SIL:7‬ﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﻯ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻫﺎ‬

‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬

‫ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻰﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺼﻮﺹ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺩﺭ ‪ SIL‬ﻫﺎﻯ ﻫﻢ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﻘﺎﻃﻰ‬
‫ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻯ ‪ SIL‬ﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭﻟﻰ ﺑﺎ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﭼﺸﻤﮕﻴﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺭﻭﻳﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﻣﺜﻼ ﻫﺮ ‪ SIL4‬ﺑﺎ ‪ SIL4‬ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻯ ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻯ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻢ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﻮﻣﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺳﻰ ﺳﺮﻳﻊ ﻭ ﺁﺳﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺛﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ‬
‫ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻃﻮﺭﻯﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺣﺪﺍﻗﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﻰ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﺪﺍﻣﻴﻚ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻭﺭﻭﺩﻯ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﭘﻴﺸﻨﻬﺎﺩﻯ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ ﻭﺯﻧﻰ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻥ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﻟﺬﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻰ ﺭﺳﺪ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ 3‬ﺣﺎﻛﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﻮﺷﺒﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ‪ SIL4‬ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻛﻤﻚ ﺷﺎﻳﺎﻧﻰ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪ ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻭﻝ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ‪ SIL‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻛﻠﻰ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ‬
‫ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻰ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ‪ SIL‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ‬
 ‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﺍﻛﺰ ﺻﻨﻌﺘﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﻗﺒﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻰ ﺁﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﻜﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻰ ﻭ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻋﻰ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺧﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﺮﺳﻮﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ ،SIL‬ﺳﻄﻮﺡ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ﺗﺮﺍﺯ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻗﺒﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺯﻳﺮﺳﻄﺢ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻤﻰ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻰ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻪ‬
‫‪89‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﻣﻰﺩﻫﺪ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﺆﺛﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﻓﻪ ﺟﻮﻳﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺮﻑ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺩﻗﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﻣﻰﻳﺎﺑﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺧﻮﺵ ﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻧﻪ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ‬
‫ﻫﺮ ‪ SIL‬ﺯﻳﺮﺳﻄﺢ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻯ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻟﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ‪ /3‬ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ /3‬ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ ‪1392‬‬
‫ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻰ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺗﺮﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ SIL‬ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻘﺎﺩﻳﺮ ﻋﺪﺩﻯ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ‪ SIL‬ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻗﺒﻠﻰ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﺴﺎﻧﻰ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ ﺭﺍ ﻋﺎﻣﻠﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺛﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﻗﺪﺍﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺑﻬﻴﻨﻪ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﺍﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺷﺪﻥ ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﮔﺬﺍﺭﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ‪ SIL‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺁﻳﺰﻭﻣﺎﻛﺲ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻻﻳﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﻗﺒﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﮕﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺯﻧﻰ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺳﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﻳﻚ ‪ SIL‬ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻣﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺳﻪ‬
‫ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ‪ a، SIL1، SIL2‬ﺑﻮﺩ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﻯ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻫﺎﻯ ﺧﻮﺷﺒﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﺎ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﺍﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺳﻄﺢ ‪ a‬ﻳﺎ ‪ SIL2‬ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ‪ SIL‬ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻳﻚ ‪ SIL‬ﻛﻤﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺗﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺛﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ‪ SIL‬ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻜﺎﺭ ﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻛﻤﻰ ﺑﻪﺩﺳﺖ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺩﻗﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺧﺮﻭﺟﻰ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﻓﺰﺍﻳﺶ‬
‫ﺳﻄﺢ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﻛﺮﺩ؛ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ‪ SIL‬ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﻫﺮ‬
‫ﺷﺶ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 7‬ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺤﺚ ﻭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﻪ ﻗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻦ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻧﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻪﻛﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺧﻄﺮ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺑﻰ ﻣﺪﻝ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‬
‫ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻰ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ‪ SIL‬ﺩﺭ ﺻﻨﺎﻳﻊ ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪﻯ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻰ‬
‫ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺭﺳﻴﺪﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﻄﻠﻮﺑﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻜﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻳﻜﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻗﺪﺍﻣﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻛﺎﻫﺶ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻰﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻟﺬﺍ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻗﺖ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ‬
‫ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻫﺮ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻧﺒﺎﻳﺪ ﺳﺎﺩﮔﻰ ﻭ ﻛﻢ ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺭﻭﺵ‬
‫ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺍﺭﺍﻳﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻛﻤﻚ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﺑﺮ ﺧﻼﻑ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺳﻨﺘﻰ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺩﮔﻰ ﻳﻚ ﺭﻭﺵ ﻛﻴﻔﻰ ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺮﺩ ﻣﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺳﻨﺘﻰ ﺳﻨﺎﺭﻳﻮﻯ ﺧﻄﺮ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﺻﺤﻴﺢ ﺗﺮﻯ ﻣﺪﻝ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻡ ﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﭘﺎﺭﺍﻣﺘﺮﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺞ ﻧﺎﺳﺎﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺎﻟﺖ‬
‫‪ SIL‬ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩﻯ ﻣﻰ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻳﺎ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻰ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻪﻛﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻣﺎﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻳﺴﻚ ﮔﺮﺍﻑ ﺑﻬﺒﻮﺩ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬
 ‫ ﺳﻴﺪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺭﺿﺎ ﻣﻴﺮﻯ ﻟﻮﺍﺳﺎﻧﻰ‬- ‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻘﺎﻳﻰ‬- ‫ ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﻧﺼﻴﺮﻯ‬- ‫ﺯﻫﺮﻩ ﻗﺮﺑﻌﻠﻰ‬
R. Nait-Said, F. Zidani, and N. Ouzraoui, “Modi-
fied risk graph method using fuzzy rule-based
approach,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol.
164, pp. 651-658, 2009.
R. Pitblado, B. Bain, A. Falck, K. Litland, and C.
Spitzenberger, “Frequency data and modifica-
tion factors used in QRA studies,” Journal of
Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol.
24, pp. 249-258, 2011.
R. T. a. W. Clemen, R. L., “Combining probability
distribution from experts in risk analysis,” Risk
Analysis, vol. 19, pp. 187-203, 1999.
T. Onisawa, “A representation of human reliability
using fuzzy concepts,” Information Sciences,
vol. 45, pp. 153-173, 1988.
T. Onisawa, “An approach to human reliability in
man-machine systems using error possibility,”
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 27, pp. 87-103,
1988.
V. R. Renjith, G.Madhu, V. L. G. Nayagam, and
A. B. Bhasi, “Two-dimensional fuzzy fault tree
analysis for chlorine release froma chlor-alkali
industry using expert elicitation,” Journal of
Hazardous Materials, vol. 183, pp. 103-110,
2010.
W. M. Dong and F. S. Wong, “Fuzzy weighted
averages and implementation of the extension
principle,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 21, pp.
183-199, 1987.
X. Zhang and P. Liu, “Method for aggregating trian-
gular fuzzy intuitionistic fuzzy information and
its application to decision making,” Technologi-
cal and Economic Development of Economy,
vol. 16, pp. 280-290, 2010/01/01 2010.
÷
‫ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ﻋﻜﺲ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻓﺎﺯﻯ‬.‫ﺁﻣﺪ‬
SIL2 ‫ ﻟﺬﺍ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ‬.‫ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﺪﺍﺭ ﻣﻰ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻄﺎﻯ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻰ‬
.‫ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﻰ ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻯ ﺷﻮﺩ‬a ‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ‬
90
‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﻬﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻰ ﻛﺎﺭ‬
A. S. Markowski and M. Sam Mannan, “ExSys-
LOPA for the chemical process industry,” Jour-
nal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries,
vol. 23, pp. 688-696, 2010.
A. S. Markowski, M. S. Mannan, and A. Bigosze-
wska, “Fuzzy logic for process safety analysis,”
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Indus-
tries, vol. 22, pp. 695-702, 2009.
1392 ‫ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﺰ‬/3 ‫ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‬/3 ‫ﺟﻠﺪ‬
DINV 19250,” in Control technology: Fundamental
Safety Aspects to be Considerd for measurment
and Control Equipment, ed. Germany, 1994.
IEC 61508 Standard,” in Functional Safety of
Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic
Safety related Systems, ed, 1998.
L.Ormos and I.Ajyoni, “Soft Computing Method
for Determining the Safety of Technological
System by IEC 61508,” in Proceedings of the
1st Romanian-Hungarian Joint Sympsiom on
Applied Computational Inelligence (SACI ’04),
Timisoara, Romania,, May 2004.
M. S. C. Simon, and J. -F. Aubry “SIL allocation
of SIS by aggregation of experts opinions,” in
Proceedings of the Safety and Reliability Con-
ference (ESREL ’07), Stavanger, Norway, 2007.
P. Baybutt, “An improved risk graph approach for
determination of safety integrity levels (SILs),”
Process Safety Progress, vol. 26, pp. 66-76,
2007.
 Journal of Health and Safety at Work Vol. 3; No.3; Atumn 2013

Representing the Fuzzy improved risk graph for determination of

optimized safety integrity level in industrial setting
Z. Qorbali 1*; P. Nasiri2; A. Baqaei3 ; S. M. R. Mirilavasani4
1
Dep of HSE management. Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch
2
Professor, Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of
Medical Sciences
3
Assistant Professor Dep of chemical engineering shahidbahonar university of kerman
4
Assistant Professor Dep of HSE management. Islamic Azad University Science and Research

Abstract
Introduction: Due to the presence of extreme hazard sources and high intrinsic risk in refineries and pro-
cess industry sectors, different layers of protection are being used to reduce the risk and avoid the hazardous
events. Determining Safety Integrity Levels (SILs) in Safety Instrumented Systems (SISs) helps to ensure
the safety of the whole process. Risk Graph is one of the most popular and cost effective techniques to do
so. Despite Risk Graph simplicity it’s a qualitative method which is highly subjective and suffers from in-
terpretation problems that can lead to inconsistent or conservative SILs.
Material and Method: In this paper, Improved Risk Graph (IRG) method was presented and evaluated,
and using Fuzzy Logic a novel approach namely Fuzzy Improved Risk Graph (FIRG) was suggested. In
the proposed method consequence levels which were defined as qualitative terms were transformed into
quantitative intervals. Having those numerical values, risk graph table was converted to a quantitative one.
Finally, applying the presented approach and using three experts’ opinions and attributing weight factors, an
ultimate numeric value was produced.
Conclusion: as a result of establishing the presented method, identical levels in conventional risk graph ta-
ble are replaced with different sublevels that not only increases the accuracy in determining the SIL, but also
elucidates the effective factor in improving the safety level and consequently saves time and cost signifi-
cantly. The proposed technique has been employed to develop the SIL of Tehran Refinery ISOMAX Center.
IRG and FIRG results have been compared to clarify the efficacy and importance of the proposed method

Key words: Safety Integrity Level, Risk Graph, Fuzzy logic, ISOMAX center

* Corresponding Author Email: zghorbali_safety@yahoo.com