Enhanced Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment for Human-in-the-Loop Systems

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to enhance the existing system hazard analysis (SHA) technique by introducing the concepts of human and automation reliability quantification as well as fuzzy classification of system risks. These enhancements led to formulation of a new overall system risk-reliability score.

Background:

Many system safety analysis methods focus on individual physical component failure. Some human reliability analyses (HRA) consider human-automation interaction in determining system failure rates. There is no system safety analysis technique that quantifies the impact of human and automation reliability on the risk of hazard exposure.

Method:

Classification of the probability and severity of hazard exposure is typically made in terms of linguistic rather than numerical variables. Fuzzy sets are applicable for transforming linguistic classifications to numerical quantities. We focused on using fuzzy sets to define overlapping bands of system risk exposure with reference to the hazard risk categories defined in MIL-STD 882B. Fuzzy sets were also used for human-automated system reliability classification.

Results:

Introduction of human and automation reliability assessment in the SHA allows for definition of a system risk-reliability modeling space. The enhanced SHA (E-SHA) technique yields a mishap risk index, which is projected based on a composite assessment of human-automated system reliability at the time of operation. The E-SHA was compared with one of the most advanced HRA techniques.

Conclusion:

The E-SHA technique supports broader safety control recommendations and provides comparable, if not more detailed, results than prior systems safety and HRA techniques.

Keywords

systems safety analysis hazard analysis risk assessment human-automaton interaction system reliability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bahr

N. J.

(1997). System safety engineering and risk assessment: A practical approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Blackman

H. S.

Gertman

D. I.

Boring

R. L.

(2008). Human error quantification using performance shaping factors in the SPAR-H method. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 52nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1733–1737). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Bligård

L. O.

Osvalder

A. L.

(2014). Predictive use error analysis—Development of AEA, SHERPA and PHEA to better predict, identify and present use errors. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44(1), 153–170.

Chandler

Chang

Mosleh

Marble

Boring

Gertman

(2006). Human reliability analysis methods: Selection guidance for NASA. Washington, DC: NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance.

Chen

Pham

T. T.

(2000). Introduction to fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy control systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press.

Clemens

P. L.

Simmons

R. J.

Cincinnati

(1998). System safety and risk management: A guide for engineering educators (NIOSH Instruction module). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Cooper

S. E.

Wreathall

Thompson

Drouin

Bley

(1996, October). Knowledge-base for the new human reliability analysis method: A technique for human error analysis (ATHEANA). Presented at the International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment Moving Toward Risk Based Regulation, Park City, UT.

De Felice

Petrillo

Carlomusto

Ramondo

. (2012). Human reliability analysis: A review of the state of the art. IRACST–International Journal of Research in Management & Technology (IJRMT), 2(1).

Embrey

(2004). Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human error in risk assessment. In Sandom

Harvey

R. S.

(Eds.), Human factors for engineers (pp. 151-202). London: IET.

10.

Ericson

C. A.

(2005). Hazard analysis techniques for system safety. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

11.

Forester

Dang

V. N.

Bye

Boring

Liao

Lois

(2012, June). Conclusions on human reliability analysis (HRA) methods from the International HRA Empirical Study. Presented at the 11th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (PSAM11) and the Annual European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2012), Helsinki, Finland.

12.

Gertman

Blackman

Marble

Byers

Smith

(2005). The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method, NUREG/CR-6883. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

13.

Hollnagel

(1998). Cognitive reliability and error analysis method—CREAM. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

14.

Kim

I. S.

(2001). Human reliability analysis in the man-machine interface design review. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 28(11), 1069–1081.

15.

Lewis

E. E.

(1994). Introduction to reliability engineering (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

16.

Meister

(1964). Methods of predicting human reliability in man-machine systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 6, 621–646.

17.

MIL-STD-882B . System safety program requirements (Technical report). (1984). Washington, DC: Department of Defense.

18.

Ramsey

J. D.

(1985). Assessment of warnings based on an ergonomic accident sequence model. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 4, 195–199.

19.

Suokas

(1982). Safety analysis of a liquefied gas storage and loading system. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 4(2), 347–354.

20.

Swain

A. D.

(1990). Human reliability analysis: Need, status, trends and limitations. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 29(3), 301–313.

21.

Zadeh

L. A.

(1975). The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Information Sciences, 8(3), 199–249.