Change search
Refine search result
1 - 14 of 14
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Guay, Fanny
    et al.
    DBI Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, Denmark.
    Bouffier, Christian
    INERIS Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques, France.
    Lange, David
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Safety.
    Mira da Silva, Miguel
    University of Lisbon, Portugal.
    Petersen, Laura
    EMSC European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre, France.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Storesund, Karolina
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Theocharidou, Marianthi
    European Commission, Italy.
    Supporting disaster risk reduction through better critical infrastructure resilience2017Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 2.
    Ioannou, Ioanna
    et al.
    University College London, UK.
    Aspinall, Willy
    University College London, UK.
    Bouffier, Christian
    INERIS, France.
    Carreira, Elisabete
    INOV, Portugal.
    Honfi, Daniel
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Bygg och Mekanik, Strukturer och Komponenter.
    Lange, David
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research, Brandmotstånd.
    Melkunaite, Laura
    DBI, Denmark.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.
    Rosetto, Tiziana
    University College London, UK.
    Storesund, Karolina
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.
    Teixeira, Rui
    DAS Divisão de Águas e Saneamento, Portugal.
    IMPROVER D2.1 Methodology for identifying hazard scenarios to assess  the resilience of critical infrastructure2015Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Critical infrastructure is exposed to a wide range of hazards, capable to disrupt its operations in various degrees. This raises the question of which hazard scenario an operator shall use to assess the resilience of their critical infrastructure asset. Various techniques aiming to prioritize the various risks are commonly used in the literature. This study proposed an 8-step methodology, which aims to rank the risks of pre-defined hazard scenarios by eliciting the opinions of the stakeholders through a structured expert elicitation technique termed paired comparison. The novelty of the proposed technique is its ability to quantify the degree of disagreement regarding the ranking order of the scenarios and thus to capture the uncertainty associated with these risks.

     

    The proposed methodology has been applied to four living labs, namely: the Oresund region, the port of Oslo, the A31 Highway in France and the potable water network in Barreiro. The applications aims to rank scenarios of natural and operational hazards according to their disaster- and emergency-risk. Despite the small number of participants, the results provide an excellent basis for further discussion regarding the most likely disaster or emergency risk scenarios. For most living labs, the ranking of the hazards using paired comparison was successful in identifying the scenarios associated with the highest risk. Overall, ranking the natural hazards according to their disaster- or emergency-risk has been associated with a higher degree of consensus than the ranking of the operational hazards reflecting on the higher complexity and perhaps the limited understanding of the later.

     

    In more detail, snow storm is the hazard with the highest disaster risk for the A31 Highway. Similarly, earthquake is the hazard with the highest disaster risk for the water network in Barreiro. Three meteorological hazards ranked the highest for both the likelihood to occur and to cause disaster to the Øresund region. By contrast, the ranking of the hazards for the port of Oslo identified several scenarios with similar likelihood to cause disaster, which ranked very different in their likelihood to occur in the next 5 years. This raises question as to whether the most of least likely to occur scenarios is most suitable which can be answered in collaboration with the stakeholders.

     

    With regard to the operational hazards, the contamination of the water in the water source or the distribution network due to an accident at the high-risk industrial SEVECO operations has been identified as the single scenario with the highest risk of disaster for the water network in Barreiro. Three events including a multiple day strike and two accidents in the wet bulk terminal have been identified as having the highest disaster risk for the port of Oslo. By contrast, no operational hazards can be identified as having the highest risk of occurrence for the A31 highway and the Øresund region

  • 3.
    Lange, David
    et al.
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Safety.
    Honfi, Daniel
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Safety.
    Theocharidou, Marianthi
    European Commission Joint Research Centre, Italy.
    Giannopoulos, Georgios
    European Commission Joint Research Centre, Italy.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Storesund, Karolina
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Incorporation of resilience assessment in critical infrastructure risk assessment frameworks2017In: Safety and Reliability - Theory and Applications - Proceedings of the 27th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2017, CRC Press/Balkema , 2017, p. 1031-1038Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper explores the concept of Critical Infrastructure (CI) resilience and its relationship with current Risk Assessment (RA) processes. It proposes a framework for resilience assessment of CI, which integrates the resilience paradigm into the RA process according to ISO 31000. The framework consists of three levels, namely (a) asset (focus on individual CI assets), (b) system (focus on dependencies between CI assets) and (c) national or regional (focus on societal aspects). It is applicable to individual CI or their combinations, accounting both for existing RA processes, for interdependencies and their effect on interconnected CI, while at the same time employing current, available resilience analysis tools and methodologies. This approach is also compatible with the current European guidelines for national RA applied by the EU Member States. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, London.

  • 4.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    et al.
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Bouffier, C.
    INERIS Institut National de l’Environnement Industriel et des Risques, France.
    Durgun, Özüm
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Built Environment, Energy and Circular Economy.
    Guay, F.
    DBI Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, Denmark.
    Ioannou, I.
    University College London, UK.
    Mira da Silva, M.
    University of Lisbon, Portugal.
    Petersen, L.
    EMSC European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre, France.
    Sesseng, Christian
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Storesund, Karolina
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Theocharidou, M.
    European Commission Joint Research Centre, Italy.
    Vigh, L. G.
    Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary.
    Infrastructures facing disaster risk: Pilot implementation of a new resilience management framework2017Conference paper (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    et al.
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.
    Fjellgaard Mikalsen, Ragni
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.
    Sikker brensellagring i Norge2015In: Brandposten, no 52, p. 24-25Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 6.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    et al.
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Friquin, Kathinka
    SINTEF, Norway.
    Fjellgaard Mikalsen, Ragni
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Brannsikkerhet ved bruk av krysslaminert massivtre i bygninger – en litteraturstudie2019Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    © RISE Research Institutes of SwedenAbstractFire safety in cross laminated timber buildings; a reviewKey words: Cross laminated timber; CLT; fire safety; exposed CLT; auto-extinction; charring; delamination; detailingThis literature study presents recent research on fire safety in cross laminated timber (CLT) buildings. Results from large fire experiments and other studies in the period 2010 - 2018 are summarized, with focus on the following research questions:• How do constructions consisting of protected or exposed CLT contribute to the fire development in a room?• How can contribution to the fire development from detailing of CLT be avoided?There is an increasing desire to use wooden structures in tall buildings, as a substitute for more traditional construction materials. However, the use of combustible construc-tions in buildings in Norwegian Fire Class 3 (usually five floors or more) is not pre-accepted in the guideline to Regulations on technical requirements for construction works (TEK17), and fire safety must therefore be documented by analysis in such structures. When designing tall and complex timber buildings, it must be taken into account that a fire involving a timber construction may have more severe consequences than in buildings with constructions of steel or concrete, if the fire design of the construction and detail solutions is insufficient. Several studies show that fire exposed CLT, or CLT with insufficient protection, can cause a fire to develop faster, be more intense and last longer than a fire where the only fuel is the furniture and fixtures in the fire room. It is shown that the amount of fire exposed timber in a room may have impact on the extent and duration of a fire, but the knowledge has not yet been sufficient enough to be used in fire modeling, design and analysis.Research on charring rates, delamination and auto-extinction, all of which are factors that can have major impact on fire development and the fire resistance of the construction, takes place in Europe, Australia and North America. Although extensive research has been carried out, it is based on few large fire experiments, and the literature is still pointing to several knowledge gaps. However, the research projects have increased the knowledge of fire in timber buildings, and have contributed to the design of detail solutions, guidelines and development of models for function-based design. Revision of EN 1995-1-2 is under preparation and expected to apply from 2022. A knowledge base for the audit can be found in the network COST Action FP1404 Fire Safety Use of Bio-Based Building Products (COST FP1404) Working Group 2 (WG2). They have published several guidelines relevant for the fire design of CLT, including e.g. calculation methods for the prediction of charring rates and depths, determination of reduced CLT cross-section, design of CLT detailing and a suggested test method for evaluating adhesive performance.Based on the literature review, the following conclusions and recommendations are given for CLT constructions:• The design phase must sufficiently consider protection of the construction and con-tribution of the construction to the fire energy, and to a greater extent include the assessment of detailing and ventilation conditions. It should be considered whether analytic fire engineering design also should be required for buildings in the Norwegian Fire Classes 1 and 2 where more than one CLT wall is exposed.• By protecting all CLT surfaces of the structure with cladding, the construction may retain the stability and the load bearing capacity during the required time of fire resistance.• In buildings with only one exposed CLT wall in each fire cell, it may also be appropriate to use solutions that satisfy the pre-accepted performances, but one must consider whether a somewhat longer and more intense heat radiation and flame exposure on the facade outside window openings will require measures beyond the pre-accepted performances given in the guideline to TEK17.• Rooms where two or more CLT walls in addition to the ceiling are exposed, are configurations that should be avoided.• The risk of delamination can be reduced by using heat-resistant glue.• There is generally a need for relevant documentation for fire-resistant solutions for joints between CLT walls and floors and service penetrations in CLT constructions.• Test methods for testing of joints and penetrations in CLT constructions should be standardized. For example, there exists no standardized test for corner joints. Tests of penetration seals for CLT constructions are scarce, although they can be tested according to EN 1366-3. However, CLT is not a standard supporting construction according to EN 1366-3, and this must be taken into consideration when the test results are evaluated. Joints in glulam constructions should also be tested because they are often used in conjunction with CLT elements.

  • 7.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    et al.
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.
    Storesund, Karolina
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.
    Rød, Bjarte
    University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway.
    Pursiainen, Christer
    University of Tromsø - The Arctic University of Norway.
    Mira da Silva, Miguel
    INOV.
    Lange, David
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research, Brandmotstånd.
    Petersen, Laura
    EMSC.
    Melkunaite, Laura
    DBI.
    Bouffier, Christian
    INERIS.
    IMPROVER D2.3 Evaluation of resilience concepts applied to criticalinfrastructure using existing methodologies2016Report (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The current Deliverable of the IMPROVER H2020 project is the third and last in the project’s Work Package 2. While it draws heavily on previous work and deliverables, it shows the direction for the following workpackages, helping in their task to develop an approach for critical infrastructure (CI) resilience assessment which is applicable across Europe and to different infrastructure sectors as well as being compatible with the EU Risk Assessment guidelines.

     

    The current report combines the work done most notably in Task 2.4 and Task 2.5 as defined in the project’s work plan. These tasks aim to evaluate the contribution of individual resilience concepts to the resilience of critical infrastructure and to compare a number of existing methodologies for implementation of resilience concepts to critical infrastructure.

     

    In short, a set of existing, relevant, resilience analysis or assessment approaches were identified that. Based on well-defined criteria, three of the approaches were selected for more detailed comparison. In Chapter 1, these three approaches are concisely presented and reviewed. In Chapter 2, a set of several individual indicators that are widely used in resilience analysis are selected to be used as ‘test’ indicators to discuss their use vis-à-vis the selected three approaches. Chapter 3 presents four fictional scenarios, based on the projects living labs and representing different sectors of critical infrastructure in different countries. In Chapter 4, the use of the selected set of indicators is illustrated both vis-à-vis the three selected approaches and the four scenarios. Chapter 5 goes deeper in this discussion, and demonstrates how each of the approaches could be used against the four scenarios. Finally, in Chapter 6 the three critical infrastructure resilience analysis or assessment approaches are evaluated and their relative performance compared, identifying their pros and cons based on the author’s experiences from using the methodologies for the illustrations and demonstration. A more detailed, qualitative, comparison of the functioning of the three methodologies against the chosen criteria is also given.

     

    The feedback from illustrations and demonstrations of the three selected methodologies shows that all approaches have pros and cons. Moreover, there seems not to be any strict objective way to evaluate the approaches, but much depends on what one wants to do with a resilience analysis or assessment approach, and how much one is ready put effort and time to it, and who is doing it.

     

    These notions lead to the conclusion that, first, in the subsequent phases the IMPROVER project should aim at combining – in so far it is possible and commensurable – the identified/perceived pros while avoiding the identified/perceived cons. Second, the IMPROVER project should aim at developing a CI resilience assessment approach which can utilise the strengths of the analysis methods shown taking into account the idiosyncrasies of different type of CI and its operators. Such an assessment approach should take the form of a framework that combines a resilience analysis and a resilience evaluation methodology and is compatible with the EU Risk Assessment Guidelines.

  • 8.
    Rosenqvist, H.
    et al.
    Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, Denmark.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Petersen, L.
    EMSC, France.
    Lange, David
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Safety.
    ISRA: IMPROVER societal resilience analysis for critical infrastructure2018In: Safety and Reliability - Safe Societies in a Changing World - Proceedings of the 28th International European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2018, 2018, p. 1211-1220Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Resilience of Critical Infrastructure (CI) has been a research focus for several years now, with efforts being made to develop methods for the analysis and assessment of CI resilience. However, these efforts are often carried out without consideration of enriching societal risk or resilience assessments with knowledge of the resilience of CI. Bearing in mind that the definition of CI according to the EU reflects the fact that it exists to deliver vital societal functions, the consideration of its resilience in isolation of the community it serves is only addressing part of the problem. The Horizon 2020 project IMPROVER has already developed methodologies for assessing and managing CI resilience. This paper proposes an evolution of the management framework for CI resilience which enriches societal resilience assessment with knowledge of the CI resilience. The framework and societal resilience analysis methodology are both described along with an application of the analysis method.

  • 9.
    Rød, Bjarte
    et al.
    UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
    Pursiainen, Christer
    UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Storesund, Karolina
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Lange, David
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Safety.
    Mira da Silva, Miguel
    INOV INESC Inovação, Portugal.
    Evaluation of resilience assessment methodologies2017In: Safety and Reliability - Theory and Applications - Proceedings of the 27th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2017, CRC Press/Balkema , 2017, p. 1039-1052Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    There are a wide range of different frameworks and methodologies for analysing Critical Infrastructure (CI) resilience, covering organisational, technological and social resilience. However, there is a lack of a clear methodology combining these three resilience domains into one framework. The final goal of the ongoing EU-project IMPROVER, ‘Improved risk evaluation and implementation of resilience concepts to Critical Infrastructure,’ is to develop one single improved and easy-to-use critical infrastructure resilience analysis tool which will be applicable within all resilience domains and to all types of critical infrastructure. This article presents part of this work, in which IMPROVER comprehensively evaluated, by demonstration and comparison, a selection of existing resilience methodologies in order to integrate their best features into the new methodology. The selected methodologies were The Benchmark Resilience Tool (BRT) (Lee et al., 2013), Guidelines for Critical Infrastructures Resilience Evaluation (CIRE) (Bertocchi et al., 2016) and the Critical Infrastructure Resilience Index (CIRI). The latter was developed within the consortium (Pursiainen et al., 2017). The results show that it is hard to evaluate and compare the different methodologies considering that the methodologies are not aiming to achieve the same thing. However, this evaluation shows that all the methodologies have pros and cons, and that the IMPROVER project should aim at combining, in so far as is possible and commensurable, the identified pros while avoiding the identified cons into a Critical Infrastructure resilience assessment framework compatible with the current guidelines for risk assessment in the Member States. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, London.

  • 10.
    Sesseng, Christian
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Fjær, Sindre
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Mapping of gas concentrations, effect of deadair space and effect of alternative detection technology in smouldering fires2016Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Eight out of ten fire-related fatalities occur in dwellings. It is a fact that smoke detectors save lives, which emphasizes the importance of every home having a functioning smoke detector. In Norway, smoke detectors in dwellings are mandatory, and recommendations on which detector technology to use and the position of the detectors are given. Smoke detectors should be installed on the ceiling, outside of dead-air space (close to walls). In this study, ten smouldering fire experiments have been conducted to: • investigate if smoke detectors with CO sensing can alert residents at an earlier stage than photoelectric smoke detectors, consequently increasing chances of egress and survival for a sleeping person. • measure concentrations of toxic gases in a room where a smouldering fire occurs and investigate if tenability limits are exceeded when n photoelectric smoke detector is activated. • investigate if smoke detectors placed within dead-air space are activated at a later stage than smoke detectors placed according to the recommendations.

  • 11.
    Sesseng, Christian
    et al.
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    RISE, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, SP Fire Research AS, Norge.
    Experimental investigation of using CO sensors to detect smouldering fires in dwellings2016In: Suppression, Detection and Signaling Research and Applications Conference (SupDet 2016), 2016Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    SP Fire Research has recently conducted a research project which demonstrated that CO sensors may be more suitable than photoelectric detectors for detecting smouldering fires at an early stage. This was done by experimentally comparing photoelectric detectors with CO sensor in simulated bedroom fires. The response times of the CO sensors were significantly faster than for the photoelectric detectors. Furthermore, whereas the levels of fire gases at the time of CO alarm activation were sub-toxic, the results indicate that the CO dose may exceed critical values before photoelectric detectors activated.

  • 12.
    Sesseng, Christian
    et al.
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Investigation of the use of smoke alarms in Norwegian dwellings2016In: Interflam 2016: Conference Proceedings, 2016, p. 387-388Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A survey mapping the use of smoke alarms and residents’ awareness of their legal obligations for protecting their dwellings with smoke alarms has been carried out. A total of 628 individual households geographically distributed throughout Norway were included in this study. The results demonstrated that factors such as level of education, age, gender, and if the dwelling is owned or rented by the resident, affects the awareness and compliance with the regulations and recommendations for the use of smoke alarms in dwellings.

  • 13.
    Sesseng, Christian
    et al.
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    Fjær, Sindre
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Kartlegging av gasskonsentrasjoner, effekt av dødluftsrom og effekt av alternativt deteksjonsprinsipp ved ulmebrann2015Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [no]

    Åtte av ti som omkommer i brann dør i hjemmet. Det er stadfestet at røykvarslere redder liv, noe som understreker hvor viktig det er at alle hjem har fungerende røykvarsler. I Norge er det krav om at fungerende røykvarsler er installert i alle boliger, og det er også gitt anbefalinger om deteksjonsprinsipp og plassering av røykvarslere. Det er anbefalt å benytte optiske røykvarslere fremfor ioniske, og at disse monteres i tak, utenfor dødluftsrom (nær vegg). I denne studien er det utført ti forsøk med ulmebrann i et testrom innredet med en seng for å: • undersøke om røykdetektorer med CO-sensor kan varsle beboer på et tidligere tidspunkt enn optiske detektorer, og følgelig øke sjansene for evakuering. • kartlegge nivået av giftige gasser i et rom hvor ulmebrann oppstår, og undersøke om grenseverdiene for forgiftning er overskredet når en tradisjonell, optisk røykvarsler går til alarm. • undersøke om røykdetektorer som er plassert i dødluftsrom reagerer tregere enn detektorer som er plassert i henhold Norsk brannvernforenings anbefalinger.

  • 14.
    Storesund, Karolina
    et al.
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Reitan, Nina Kristine
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Fire Research Norway.
    Sjöström, Johan
    RISE - Research Institutes of Sweden, Safety and Transport, Safety.
    Rød, B.
    UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Norway.
    Guay, F.
    INOV INESC Inovação, Portugal.
    Almeida, R.
    Danish Institute of Fire and Security Technology, Denmark.
    Theocharidou, M.
    European Commission, Italy.
    Novel methodologies for analysing critical infrastructure resilience2018In: Safety and Reliability - Safe Societies in a Changing World - Proceedings of the 28th International European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2018, 2018, p. 1221-1230Conference paper (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In the field of Critical Infrastructures (CI), both policy and research focus has shifted from protection to resilience. The IMPROVER project has developed a CI resilience management framework (ICI-REF), applicable to all types of CI and resilience domains (technological, organisational and societal) allowing operators to understand and improve their resilience. IMPROVER has also developed methodologies to be used within the framework, accompanied with resilience indicators for operators to assess their technological and organisational resilience. The framework allows CI operators to incorporate resilience management as part of their risk management processes. The ICI-REF, the resilience analysis methodologies and indicators have been optimised, applied and demonstrated in a pilot implementation, focusing on the potable water supply in Barreiro, Portugal. Conclusions from the operators so far are that the indicators, well-defined and unambiguously described, are crucial for monitoring resilience activities, to ensure objective, consistent, repeatable and representative results from the assessed processes.

1 - 14 of 14
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
v. 2.35.7