IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i6p1060-1071.html

Extended GTST‐MLD for Aerospace System Safety Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Chiming Guo
  • Shiyu Gong
  • Lin Tan
  • Bo Guo

Abstract

The hazards caused by complex interactions in the aerospace system have become a problem that urgently needs to be settled. This article introduces a method for aerospace system hazard interaction identification based on extended GTST‐MLD (goal tree‐success tree‐master logic diagram) during the design stage. GTST‐MLD is a functional modeling framework with a simple architecture. Ontology is used to extend the ability of system interaction description in GTST‐MLD by adding the system design knowledge and the past accident experience. From the level of functionality and equipment, respectively, this approach can help the technician detect potential hazard interactions. Finally, a case is used to show the method.

Suggested Citation

  • Chiming Guo & Shiyu Gong & Lin Tan & Bo Guo, 2012. "Extended GTST‐MLD for Aerospace System Safety Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 1060-1071, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:6:p:1060-1071
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01718.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01718.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01718.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. Galán, S.F. & Mosleh, A. & Izquierdo, J.M., 2007. "Incorporating organizational factors into probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants through canonical probabilistic models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 1131-1138.
    2. Mohaghegh, Zahra & Kazemi, Reza & Mosleh, Ali, 2009. "Incorporating organizational factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of complex socio-technical systems: A hybrid technique formalization," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(5), pages 1000-1018.
    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. Wang, Qianlin & Diao, Xiaoxu & Zhao, Yunfei & Chen, Feng & Yang, Guoan & Smidts, Carol, 2021. "An expert-based method for the risk analysis of functional failures in the fracturing system of unconventional natural gas," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 220(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. Farcasiu, M. & Prisecaru, I., 2014. "MMOSA – A new approach of the human and organizational factor analysis in PSA," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 91-98.
    2. Carole Duval & Geoffrey Fallet-Fidry & Benoît Iung & Philippe Weber & Eric Levrat, 2012. "A Bayesian network-based integrated risk analysis approach for industrial systems: application to heat sink system and prospects development," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 226(5), pages 488-507, October.
    3. Justin Pence & Zahra Mohaghegh, 2020. "A Discourse on the Incorporation of Organizational Factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Key Questions and Categorical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1183-1211, June.
    4. Pence, Justin & Sakurahara, Tatsuya & Zhu, Xuefeng & Mohaghegh, Zahra & Ertem, Mehmet & Ostroff, Cheri & Kee, Ernie, 2019. "Data-theoretic methodology and computational platform to quantify organizational factors in socio-technical risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 240-260.
    5. Wu, Bing & Yip, Tsz Leung & Yan, Xinping & Guedes Soares, C., 2022. "Review of techniques and challenges of human and organizational factors analysis in maritime transportation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    6. J Vatn, 2012. "Can we understand complex systems in terms of risk analysis?," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 226(3), pages 346-358, June.
    7. Sven Ove Hansson & Terje Aven, 2014. "Is Risk Analysis Scientific?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1173-1183, July.
    8. Eichhorn Colombo, Konrad W., 2023. "Financial resilience analysis of floating production, storage and offloading plant operated in Norwegian Arctic region: Case study using inter-/transdisciplinary system dynamics modeling and simulation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    9. Inger Lise Johansen & Marvin Rausand, 2014. "Defining complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems: A conceptual framework," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 228(3), pages 272-290, June.
    10. Bui, Ha & Sakurahara, Tatsuya & Pence, Justin & Reihani, Seyed & Kee, Ernie & Mohaghegh, Zahra, 2019. "An algorithm for enhancing spatiotemporal resolution of probabilistic risk assessment to address emergent safety concerns in nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 405-428.
    11. A Léger & P Weber & E Levrat & C Duval & R Farret & B Iung, 2009. "Methodological developments for probabilistic risk analyses of socio-technical systems," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 223(4), pages 313-332, December.
    12. Kenneth Pettersen Gould, 2021. "Organizational Risk: “Muddling Through” 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 456-465, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Gh. A. Shirali & D. Kh. Afshin & K. Ahamadi Angali & Sh. Rostam Niakan Kalhori, 2022. "Modelling and assessing the influence of organizational culture norms on safety culture using Bayesian networks approach: the case of an oil industry," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 13(1), pages 304-317, February.
    15. Mohsendokht, Massoud & Li, Huanhuan & Kontovas, Christos & Chang, Chia-Hsun & Qu, Zhuohua & Yang, Zaili, 2026. "Systemic risk analysis of complex socio-technical systems from the safety-II perspective," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    16. Tsagkas, Vassilis & Nathanael, Dimitris & Marmaras, Nicolas, 2014. "A pragmatic mapping of factors behind deviating acts in aircraft maintenance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 106-114.
    17. Tao, Longlong & Wu, Jie & Ge, Daochuan & Chen, Liwei & Sun, Ming, 2022. "Risk-informed based comprehensive path-planning method for radioactive materials road transportation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    18. Mkrtchyan, L. & Podofillini, L. & Dang, V.N., 2015. "Bayesian belief networks for human reliability analysis: A review of applications and gaps," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1-16.
    19. Konstantinos Kazaras & Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, 2014. "Challenges for current quantitative risk assessment (QRA) models to describe explicitly the road tunnel safety level," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(8), pages 953-968, September.
    20. Skogdalen, Jon Espen & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2011. "Quantitative risk analysis offshore—Human and organizational factors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(4), pages 468-479.

    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:32:y:2012:i:6:p:1060-1071. 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.