Currently, a high percentage of accidents in railway systems are accounted to human factors. As a consequence, safety engineers try to take into account this factor in risk assessment. However, human reliability data are very difficult to quantify, thus, qualitative methods are often used in railway system’s risk assessments. Modeling of human errors through probabilistic approaches has shown some limitation concerning the quantification of qualitative aspects of human factors. The proposed article presents an original method to account for the human factor by using evidential networks and fault tree analysis.
SwainADGuttmannHE. Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report. Technical report, Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1983.
2.
WilliamsJ. (1986) HEART - A proposed method for assessing and reducing human error. Proceedings of 9th Advances in Reliability Technology Symposium, University of Bradford, 1986.
3.
KirwanB. A resources flexible approach to human reliability assessment for PRA. In: Safety and reliability symposium, Altrincham, London, UK, 1990, pp.114–135. Elsevier Applied Sciences.
4.
HollnagelE. Human reliability analysis: Context and control. London: Academic Press, 1993.
5.
ReasonJ. Human error. Cambridge University Press, UK, 1990.
6.
BellJHolroydJ. Review of human reliability assessment methods. Technical report, Health and Safety Executive, Buxton, Derbyshire, UK, 2009.
7.
BoringRLForesterJAByeA. Lessons learned on benchmarking from the international human reliability analysis empirical study. Technical report, Idaho National Laboratory, June2010.
8.
KirwanB. The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part I technique descriptions and validation issues. Applied Ergonom1996; 27(6): 359–373.
9.
KirwanBKennedyRTaylor-AdamsS. The validation of three human reliability quantification techniques THERP, HEART and JHEDI: Part II Results of validation exercise. Applied Ergonom1997; 28(1): 17–25.
10.
HovdenJAlbrechtsenEHerreraIA. Is there a need for new theories, models and approaches to occupational accident prevention?Saf Sci2010; 48(8): 950–956.
11.
BelmonteFSchönWHeurleyL. Interdisciplinary safety analysis of complex socio-technological systems based on the functional resonance accident model: An application to railway traffic supervision. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2011; 96: 237–249.
12.
KnaggsSTAberdMD. Human reliability and its relation to accidents by railway and on sea. Human reliab1896: 879–880.
13.
VanderhaegenF. APRECIH: a human unreliability analysis method application to railway system. Control Engng Pract1999; 7(11): 1395–1403.
14.
VanderhaegenF. A non-probabilistic prospective and retrospective human reliability analysis method application to railway system. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2001; 71(1): 1–13.
15.
BaysariMTMcIntoshASWilsonJR. Understanding the human factors contribution to railway accidents and incidents in Australia. Accident; Analysis Preven2008; 40(5): 1750–1757.
16.
BaysariMTCaponecchiaCMcIntoshAS. Classification of errors contributing to rail incidents and accidents: A comparison of two human error identification techniques. Saf Sci2009; 47: 948–957.
17.
KimDSBaekDHYoonWC. Development and evaluation of a computer-aided system for analyzing human error in railway operations. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2010; 95(2): 87–98.
18.
ApostolakisG. The concept of probability in safety assessments of technological systems. Science1990; 250: 1359–1364.
19.
AvenTNoklandT E. On the use of uncertainty importance measures in reliability and risk analysis. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2010; 95: 127–133.
20.
OberkampfWLHeltonJCJoslynCA. Challenge problems: uncertainty in system response given uncertain parameters. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2004; 85: 11–19.
21.
AvenT. Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2011; 96: 353–360.
22.
LaplacePS. A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1814, English edition 1951.
23.
VennJ. The logic of chance, Macmillan And Company, Osmania University, 1866.
24.
De FinettiB. Theory of probability. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1974.
25.
KaplanSGarrickBJ. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis1981; 1: 11–27.
26.
CornellP. Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliab Engng Sys Saf1996; 54: 95–111.
27.
KonstandinidouaMNivolianitoubZKiranoudisaC. A fuzzy modeling application of cream methodology for human reliability analysis. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2006; 91: 706–716.
28.
HeltonJCJohnsonJDOberkampfWL. A sampling-based computational strategy for the representation of epistemic uncertainty in model predictions with evidence theory. Computer Methods Applied Mech Engng2007; 196: 37–40.
29.
BaudritCDuboisDGuyonnetD. Joint propagation and exploitation of probabilistic and possibilistic information in risk assessment. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Systems2006; 14: 593–608.
SmetsP. Belief functions: The disjunctive rule of combination and the generalized Bayesian theorem. Int J Approximate Reasoning1993; 9(1): 1–35.
32.
GuthMAS. A probabilistic foundation for vagueness and imprecision in fault tree analysis. IEEE Trans Reliab1991; 40: 563–571.
33.
InagakiT. Independence between safety-control policy and multiple-sensors schemes via \ textsc{D}empster- \ textsc{S}hafer theory. IEEE Trans Reliab1991; 40: 182–188.
34.
SallakMSchönWAguirreF. Transferable belief model for reliability analysis of systems with data uncertainties and failure dependencies. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2010; 224(4): 266–278.
35.
SimonCWeberP. Evidential networks for reliability analysis and performance evaluation of systems with imprecise knowledge. IEEE Trans Reliab2009; 58: 69–87.
36.
SimonC. Bayesian networks inference algorithm to implement Dempster Shafer theory in reliability analysis. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2008; 93(7): 950–963.
37.
ContiniSAmendolaAZiomasI. Benchmark exercise on major hazard analysis. Vol. 1. Description of the project, discussion of the results and conclusions. Technical report, Joint Research Center – ISPRA Site, 1991.
38.
DempsterAP. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Annals Math Stat1967; 38: 325–339.
39.
ShaferG. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, 1976.
40.
DempsterAKongA. Uncertain evidence and artificial analysis. J Stat Planning and Inference1988; 20: 355–368.
41.
AlmondRG. Graphical belief modeling. Chapman and Hall, 1995.
42.
BaeHRGrandhiRVCanfieldRA. An approximation approach for uncertainty quantification using evidence theory. Reliab Engng Sys Saf2004; 86: 215–225.
43.
LimbourgP.SaviR.Fault tree analysis in an early design stage using the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. RiskReliabilitySafety-AvenSocietalvinnem (eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, 2007.
44.
PashazadehSSharifiM. Reliability assessment under uncertainty using Dempster-Shafer and vague set theories. In IEEE conference on computational intelligence for measurement systems and applications proceedings, Turkey, 2008.
45.
RakowskyUKGochtU. Reasoning in reliability centred maintenance based on a Dempster-Shafer approach. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2008; 222: 605–612.
46.
SmetsP. The combination of evidence in the Transferable Belief Model. IEEE Trans Pattern Analysis and Machine Intell1990; 12: 447–458.
47.
KlirGJFolgerTA. Fuzzy sets, uncertainty and information. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1999.
48.
AlbrechtsenEHokstadP. Conditioning in Dempster-Shafer theory: prediction vs. revision, belief functions: theory and applications. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on belief functions, 2012. Springer, AISC 164, pp.385–392.
49.
ShenoyPP. A valuation-based language for expert systems. Int J Approximate Reasoning1989; 3: 383–411.
50.
BenavoliAChisciLFarinaA. Modelling uncertain implication rules in evidence theory. Proceedings of 11th International conference on information fusion, Cologne, 2008, pp.1–7.
51.
WassermanLA. Prior envelopes based on belief functions. Annals Stat1990; 18: 454–464.
52.
MilanD. Probabilistic transformations of belief functions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 3571, 2005, pp 539–551.
53.
AguirreFSallakMSchönW. Generalized expressions of reliability of series-parallel and parallel-series systems using the transferable belief model. In: BerenguerCGrallAGuedes SoaresC (eds) Advances in safety, reliability and risk management. Troyes, France: Taylor & Francis Group, 2011, pp.344.
54.
MilanD. Probabilistic transformations of belief functions. 2005, pp. 539–551.
