Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.01.033

Development of a structure analytic hierarchy approach for the evaluation of the physical protection system effectiveness  

Zou, Bowen (School of Electric Power, South China University of Technology)
Wang, Wenlin (School of Automation, Wuhan University of Technology)
Liu, Jian (State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Power Safety Monitoring Technology and Equipment, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Engineering, Design Co. Ltd.)
Yan, Zhenyu (State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Power Safety Monitoring Technology and Equipment, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Engineering, Design Co. Ltd.)
Liu, Gaojun (State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Power Safety Monitoring Technology and Equipment, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Engineering, Design Co. Ltd.)
Wang, Jun (School of Electric Power, South China University of Technology)
Wei, Guanxiang (School of Electric Power, South China University of Technology)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.52, no.8, 2020 , pp. 1661-1668 More about this Journal
Abstract
A physical protection system (PPS) is used for the protection of critical facilities. This paper proposes a structure analytic hierarchy approach (SAHA) for the hierarchical evaluation of the PPS effectiveness in critical infrastructure. SAHA is based on the traditional analysis methods "estimate of adversary sequence interruption, EASI". A community algorithm is used in the building of the SAHA model. SAHA is applied to cluster the associated protection elements for the topological design of complicated PPS with graphical vertexes equivalent to protection elements.
Keywords
Physical protection system; Structure analytic hierarchy approach; Community algorithm;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 U.N. Raghavan, R. Albert, S. Kumara, Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks, Phys. Rev.E 76 (3) (2007), 036106.   DOI
2 J. Shi, J. Malik, Normalized cuts and image segmentation, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 22 (8) (2000) 888-905.   DOI
3 B.W. Kernighan, S. Lin, An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs, Bell .Syst.Tech.J 49 (2) (1970) 291-307.   DOI
4 F. Sayadi, Y. Said, M. Atri, et al., Physical Protection Systems and Critical Infrastructure Protection in the Czech Republic. Recent Researches in Automatic Control, Systems Science and Communications, 2012.
5 Sadia, Adversary Sequence Diagram (ASD) Model, International Training Course on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Facilities and Materials, 2018 (Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA).
6 International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Security Recommendations on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities (INFCIRC/225/Revision 5), IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 13, IAEA, Vienna, 2011.
7 J. Wood, Control Room Design, Human factors for engineers, 2004, pp. 203-233.
8 M.E.J. Newman, Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks, Phys. Rev.E 69 (6) (2004), 066133.   DOI
9 V.D. Blondel, J.L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, et al., Fast unfolding of communities in large networks, J. Stat. Mech. Theor. Exp. 2008 (10) (2008) P10008.   DOI
10 M.E.J. Newman, Detecting community structure in networks, Eur. Phys. J.B 38 (2) (2004) 321-330.   DOI
11 B. Everitt, A. Skrondal, The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002, p. 96.
12 M.L. Garcia, The Design and Evaluation of Physical Protection Systems, second ed., Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA, 2008.
13 Y.A. Setiawan, S.S. Chirayath, E.D. Kitcher, MAPPS: a stochastic computational tool for multi-path analysis of physical protection systems, Ann. Nucl. Energy (2019) 107074.
14 F. Argenti, G. Landucci, G. Reniers, et al., Vulnerability assessment of chemical facilities to intentional attacks based on Bayesian Network, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 169 (2018) 515-530.   DOI
15 T. Lovecek, J. Vaculík, L. Kittel, Qualitative approach to evaluation of critical infrastructure security systems, Eur. J.Secur.Saf. 1 (1) (2012) 1-11.
16 M. Coole, J. Corkill, A. Woodward, Defence in Depth, Protection in Depth and Security in Depth: A Comparative Analysis towards a Common Usage Language, 2012.
17 R. Nunes-Vaz, S. Lord, Designing physical security for complex infrastructures, Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct.Protect. 7 (3) (2014) 178-192.   DOI
18 C.D. Jaeger, N.S. Roehrig, T. Torres, Development of an Automated Security Risk Assessment Methodology Tool for Critical Infrastructures, Sandia report, 2008.
19 F. Argenti, G. Landucci, V. Cozzani, et al., A study on the performance assessment of anti-terrorism physical protection systems in chemical plants, Saf. Sci. 94 (2017) 181-196.   DOI
20 Z. Vintr, M. Vintr, J. Malach, Evaluation of physical protection system effectiveness. Security Technology (ICCST), in: 2012 IEEE International Carnahan Conference on, IEEE, 2012, pp. 15-21.
21 M.L. Garcia, Vulnerability Assessment of Physical Protection Systems, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA, 2006.
22 H.A. Bennett, EASI Approach to Physical Security Evaluation, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, 1977. SAND-760500.
23 S.S. Jang, S.W. Kwak, H. Yoo, J.S. Kim, W.K. Yoon, Development of a vulnerability assessment code for a physical protection system: systematic analysis of physical protection effectiveness (SAPE), Nucl. Eng.Technol 41 (5) (2009) 747-752.   DOI
24 D.W. Whithead, C.S. Potter, S.L. O'Connor, Nuclear Power Plant Security Assessment Technical Manual, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, 2007. SAND-007-5591.
25 S.A.V.I. Sandia National Laboratory, Systematic Analysis of Vulnerability to Intrusion, SAND89-0926, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, 1989.
26 R.A. Al-Ayat, T.D. Cousins, E.R. Hoover, ASSESS Update - Current Status and Future Developments, UCRL-JC-104360, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1990.