IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v30y2010i8p1277-1297.html

Using Expert Models in Human Reliability Analysis—A Dependence Assessment Method Based on Fuzzy Logic

Author

Listed:
  • Luca Podofillini
  • Vinh Dang
  • Enrico Zio
  • Piero Baraldi
  • Massimo Librizzi

Abstract

In human reliability analysis (HRA), dependence analysis refers to assessing the influence of the failure of the operators to perform one task on the failure probabilities of subsequent tasks. A commonly used approach is the technique for human error rate prediction (THERP). The assessment of the dependence level in THERP is a highly subjective judgment based on general rules for the influence of five main factors. A frequently used alternative method extends the THERP model with decision trees. Such trees should increase the repeatability of the assessments but they simplify the relationships among the factors and the dependence level. Moreover, the basis for these simplifications and the resulting tree is difficult to trace. The aim of this work is a method for dependence assessment in HRA that captures the rules used by experts to assess dependence levels and incorporates this knowledge into an algorithm and software tool to be used by HRA analysts. A fuzzy expert system (FES) underlies the method. The method and the associated expert elicitation process are demonstrated with a working model. The expert rules are elicited systematically and converted into a traceable, explicit, and computable model. Anchor situations are provided as guidance for the HRA analyst's judgment of the input factors. The expert model and the FES‐based dependence assessment method make the expert rules accessible to the analyst in a usable and repeatable way, with an explicit and traceable basis.

Suggested Citation

  • Luca Podofillini & Vinh Dang & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi & Massimo Librizzi, 2010. "Using Expert Models in Human Reliability Analysis—A Dependence Assessment Method Based on Fuzzy Logic," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1277-1297, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:8:p:1277-1297
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01425.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01425.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01425.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 1041-1060.
    2. Kennedy, G.A.L. & Siemieniuch, C.E. & Sinclair, M.A. & Kirwan, B.A. & Gibson, W.H., 2007. "Proposal for a sustainable framework process for the generation, validation, and application of human reliability assessment within the engineering design lifecycle," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(6), pages 755-770.
    3. Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 4: IDAC causal model of operator problem-solving response," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 1061-1075.
    4. Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 997-1013.
    5. Harry Otway & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1992. "Expert Judgment in Risk Analysis and Management: Process, Context, and Pitfalls," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 83-93, March.
    6. Kirwan, Barry & Gibson, W. Huw & Hickling, Brian, 2008. "Human error data collection as a precursor to the development of a human reliability assessment capability in air traffic management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 217-233.
    7. Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 1076-1101.
    8. Konstandinidou, Myrto & Nivolianitou, Zoe & Kiranoudis, Chris & Markatos, Nikolaos, 2006. "A fuzzy modeling application of CREAM methodology for human reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(6), pages 706-716.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaoyan Su & Sankaran Mahadevan & Peida Xu & Yong Deng, 2015. "Dependence Assessment in Human Reliability Analysis Using Evidence Theory and AHP," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1296-1316, July.
    2. Peter J. Majewicz & Paul Blessner & Bill Olson & Timothy Blackburn, 2020. "Estimating the Probability of Human Error by Incorporating Component Failure Data from User‐Induced Defects in the Development of Complex Electrical Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 200-214, January.
    3. Arigi, Awwal Mohammed & Park, Gayoung & Kim, Jonghyun, 2020. "Dependency analysis method for human failure events in multi-unit probabilistic safety assessments," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Ji, Changcheng & Gao, Fei & Liu, Wenjiang, 2024. "Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on cloud model and best-worst method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    5. Park, Jooyoung & Boring, Ronald L., 2025. "Dynamic human reliability analysis using the EMRALD dynamic risk assessment tool," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 264(PA).
    6. Wang, Lijing & Wang, Yanlong & Chen, Yingchun & Pan, Xing & Zhang, Wenjin, 2020. "Performance shaping factors dependence assessment through moderating and mediating effect analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    7. Kim, Yochan & Kim, Jaewhan & Park, Jinkyun, 2023. "A data-informed dependency assessment of human reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    8. Patriarca, Riccardo & Ramos, Marilia & Paltrinieri, Nicola & Massaiu, Salvatore & Costantino, Francesco & Di Gravio, Giulio & Boring, Ronald Laurids, 2020. "Human reliability analysis: Exploring the intellectual structure of a research field," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    9. Wang, Lijing & Wang, Yanlong & Chen, Yingchun & Pan, Xing & Zhang, Wenjin & Zhu, Yanzhi, 2020. "Methodology for assessing dependencies between factors influencing airline pilot performance reliability: A case of taxiing tasks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peng Liu & Zhizhong Li, 2014. "Human Error Data Collection and Comparison with Predictions by SPAR‐H," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(9), pages 1706-1719, September.
    2. Di Pasquale, Valentina & Miranda, Salvatore & Iannone, Raffaele & Riemma, Stefano, 2015. "A Simulator for Human Error Probability Analysis (SHERPA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-32.
    3. Su, Xiaoyan & Mahadevan, Sankaran & Xu, Peida & Deng, Yong, 2014. "Inclusion of task dependence in human reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 41-55.
    4. Wang, Lijing & Wang, Yanlong & Chen, Yingchun & Pan, Xing & Zhang, Wenjin & Zhu, Yanzhi, 2020. "Methodology for assessing dependencies between factors influencing airline pilot performance reliability: A case of taxiing tasks," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Kim, Yochan & Park, Jinkyun & Jung, Wondea, 2017. "A classification scheme of erroneous behaviors for human error probability estimations based on simulator data," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 1-13.
    6. Zhao, Yunfei & Smidts, Carol, 2019. "A method for systematically developing the knowledge base of reactor operators in nuclear power plants to support cognitive modeling of operator performance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 64-77.
    7. Zarei, Esmaeil & Khan, Faisal & Abbassi, Rouzbeh, 2021. "Importance of human reliability in process operation: A critical analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    8. Jung, Wondea & Park, Jinkyun & Kim, Yochan & Choi, Sun Yeong & Kim, Seunghwan, 2020. "HuREX – A framework of HRA data collection from simulators in nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    9. Groth, Katrina M. & Smith, Reuel & Moradi, Ramin, 2019. "A hybrid algorithm for developing third generation HRA methods using simulator data, causal models, and cognitive science," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    10. Bandeira, Michelle Carvalho Galvão Silva Pinto & Correia, Anderson Ribeiro & Martins, Marcelo Ramos, 2018. "General model analysis of aeronautical accidents involving human and organizational factors," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 137-146.
    11. Maturana, Marcos Coelho & Martins, Marcelo Ramos & Frutuoso e Melo, Paulo Fernando Ferreira, 2021. "Application of a quantitative human performance model to the operational procedure design of a fuel storage pool cooling system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    12. Lee, Hyun-Chul & Seong, Poong-Hyun, 2009. "A computational model for evaluating the effects of attention, memory, and mental models on situation assessment of nuclear power plant operators," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1796-1805.
    13. Zhao, Yunfei & Smidts, Carol, 2021. "CMS-BN: A cognitive modeling and simulation environment for human performance assessment, part 1 — methodology," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    14. Schroer, Suzanne & Modarres, Mohammad, 2013. "An event classification schema for evaluating site risk in a multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 40-51.
    15. Parhizkar, Tarannom & Utne, Ingrid Bouwer & Vinnem, Jan Erik & Mosleh, Ali, 2021. "Supervised dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of complex systems, part 2: Application to risk-informed decision making, practice and results," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    16. Zhang, Xiaoge & Mahadevan, Sankaran & Lau, Nathan & Weinger, Matthew B., 2020. "Multi-source information fusion to assess control room operator performance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    17. Hogenboom, Sandra & Parhizkar, Tarannom & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2021. "Temporal decision-making factors in risk analyses of dynamic positioning operations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    18. Park, Jong Woo & Lee, Seung Jun, 2022. "Simulation optimization framework for dynamic probabilistic safety assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    19. Groth, Katrina M. & Mosleh, Ali, 2012. "A data-informed PIF hierarchy for model-based Human Reliability Analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 154-174.
    20. Karanki, D.R. & Rahman, S. & Dang, V.N. & Zerkak, O., 2017. "Epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety assessment: Tradeoff between accuracy and accident simulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 91-102.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:30:y:2010:i:8:p:1277-1297. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.