Reliability assessment of man-machine systems subject to probabilistic common cause errors
Kehui Li
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorJianbin Guo
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorShengkui Zeng
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Haiyang Che
School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Science and Technology on Reliability and Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Beijing, China
Correspondence
Haiyang Che, School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorKehui Li
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorJianbin Guo
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorShengkui Zeng
School of Reliability and Systems Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Haiyang Che
School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
Science and Technology on Reliability and Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Beijing, China
Correspondence
Haiyang Che, School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
The occurrence of probabilistic common cause errors (PCCEs) in man-machine systems can lead to multiple human errors being affected by common causes and will contribute greatly to the reliability of the system. In this paper, A reliability modeling method based on event tree (ET)-fault tree (FT) model for man-machine systems subjected to PCCEs is proposed. Under the influence of PCCEs, risk factors in the system are not independent, and human errors affected by the same common cause will occur with different probabilities. To describe the dependencies among risk factors, a PCCE gate is proposed to extend FTs in the ET-FT model. To analyze the impact of common causes on the human error probabilities and quantify the extended FT, an explicit method and an implicit method based on the Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method are proposed. The proposed quantification methods consider the different relationships among multiple common causes in a single model. Finally, the proposed methods are validated in the reliability assessment of the emergency response system under malfunction of the solar wing mechanism.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1Nazarizadeh F, Alemtabriz A, Zandieh M, Raad A. An analytical model for reliability assessment of the rail system considering dependent failures (case study of Iranian railway). Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2022; 227:108725.
- 2Ling L, Li Y, Fu S. A reliability analysis strategy for main shaft of wind turbine using importance sampling and Kriging model. Int J Struct Integr. 2022; 13: 297-308.
- 3Li X, Song L, Bai G. Recent advances in reliability analysis of aeroengine rotor system: a review. Int J Struct Integr. 2021; 13: 1-29.
- 4Gao C, Guo Y, Zhong M, Liang X, Wang H, Yi H. Reliability analysis based on dynamic Bayesian networks: a case study of an unmanned surface vessel. Ocean Eng. 2021; 240:109970.
- 5Che H, Zeng S, Guo J. Semi-Markov reliability model of manufacturing systems considering machine degradation, human errors, and their mutual facilitation effects. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2022; 38: 2586-2605.
- 6Luo C, Shen L, Xu A. Modelling and estimation of system reliability under dynamic operating environments and lifetime ordering constraints. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2022; 218:108136.
- 7Zhai Q, Ye Z. Degradation in common dynamic environments. Technometrics. 2018; 60(4): 461-471.
- 8Qiu S, Ming X. Explicit and implicit Bayesian Network-based methods for the risk assessment of systems subject to probabilistic common-cause failures. Comput Ind. 2020; 123:103319.
- 9Zhai Q, Ye Z. A multivariate stochastic degradation model for dependent performance characteristics. Technometrics. 2023; 1-13.
- 10Xu A, Zhou S, Tang Y. A unified model for system reliability evaluation under dynamic operating conditions. IEEE Trans Reliab. 2021; 70(1): 65-72.
- 11Zeng Y, Sun Y. A reliability modeling method for the system subject to common cause failures and competing failures. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2022; 38: 2533-2547.
- 12Li YF, Liu Y, Huang T, Huang HZ, Mi J. Reliability assessment for systems suffering common cause failure based on Bayesian networks and proportional hazards model. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2020; 36: 2509-2520.
- 13Song Y, Mi J, Cheng Y, Bai L, Wang X. Application of discrete-time Bayesian network on reliability analysis of uncertain system with common cause failure. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2019; 35: 1025-1045.
- 14Fan M, Zeng Z, Zio E, Kang R, Chen Y. A stochastic hybrid systems model of common-cause failures of degrading components. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2018; 172: 159-170.
- 15Li P, Zhang L, Dai L, Li X, Jiang Y. A new organization-oriented technique of human error analysis in digital NPPs: model and classification framework. Ann Nucl Energy. 2018; 120: 48-61.
- 16Ceylan BO, Akyuz E, Arslan O. Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP) approach to analyse socio-technical systems of ship allision in narrow waters. Ocean Eng. 2021; 239:109804.
- 17Che H, Zeng S, Guo J. Reliability assessment of man-machine systems subject to mutually dependent machine degradation and human errors. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2019; 190:106504.
- 18Che H, Zeng S, Li K, Guo J. Reliability analysis of load-sharing man-machine systems subject to machine degradation, human errors, and random shocks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2022; 226:108679.
- 19Groth K, Wang C, Mosleh A. Hybrid causal methodology and software platform for probabilistic risk assessment and safety monitoring of socio-technical systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2010; 95: 1276-1285.
- 20Shekhar C, Devanda M, Kaswan S. Reliability analysis of standby provision multi-unit machining systems with varied failures, degradations, imperfections, and delays. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2023; 39: 3119-3139.
- 21Kančev D, Čepin M. A new method for explicit modelling of single failure event within different common cause failure groups. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2012; 103: 84-93.
- 22Kang DI, Hwang MJ, Han SH, Yang J-E. Approximate formulas for treating asymmetrical common cause failure events. Nucl Eng Des. 2009; 239: 346-352.
- 23Rejc ŽB, Čepin M. An extension of Multiple Greek Letter method for common cause failures modelling. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2014; 29: 144-154.
- 24Zheng X, Yamaguchi A, Takata T. α-Decomposition for estimating parameters in common cause failure modeling based on causal inference. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2013; 116: 20-27.
- 25Di V, Iannone R, Miranda S, Riemm S. An overview of human reliability analysis techniques in manufacturing operations. In: M Schiraldi, ed. Operations Management. InTech; 2013.
10.5772/55065 Google Scholar
- 26Ahn SI, Kurt RE. Application of a CREAM based framework to assess human reliability in emergency response to engine room fires on ships. Ocean Eng. 2020; 216:108078.
- 27Chen X, Liu X, Qin Y. An extended CREAM model based on analytic network process under the type-2 fuzzy environment for human reliability analysis in the high-speed train operation. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2021; 37: 284-308.
- 28Chen D, Fan Y, Ye C, Zhang S. Human reliability analysis for manned submersible diving process based on CREAM and Bayesian network. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2019; 35: 2261-2277.
- 29Andrews JD, Dunnett SJ. Event-tree analysis using binary decision diagrams. IEEE Trans Reliab. 2000; 49: 230-238.
- 30Jiang C, He Z, Li F, et al. A hybrid computing framework for risk-oriented reliability analysis in dynamic PSA context: a case study. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2022: 1-27.
- 31Mohaghegh Z, Kazemi R, Mosleh A. Incorporating organizational factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) of complex socio-technical systems: a hybrid technique formalization. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2009; 94: 1000-1018.
- 32Tolo S, Andrews J. An integrated modelling framework for complex systems safety analysis. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2022; 38: 4330-4350.
- 33De Ruijter A, Guldenmund F. The bowtie method: a review. Saf Sci. 2016; 88: 211-218.
- 34Targoutzidis A. Incorporating human factors into a simplified “bow-tie” approach for workplace risk assessment. Saf Sci. 2010; 48: 145-156.
- 35Abad F, Naeni LM. A hybrid framework to assess the risk of change in construction projects using fuzzy fault tree and fuzzy event tree analysis. Int J Constr Manag. 2022; 22: 2385-2397.
- 36Li Y, Huang HZ, Zhang T, Huang S, Li Y. Reliability analysis for command-and-control systems based on edge extension diagram and binary decision diagram. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2022: 1-19.
- 37Zhang Y, Prescott D. Using reliability analysis to support decision making in phased mission systems: reliability Analysis for Decision Making Support in PMS. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2017; 33: 2105-2119.
- 38Zhou Q, Wong YD, Loh HS, Yuen KF. A fuzzy and Bayesian network CREAM model for human reliability analysis—The case of tanker shipping. Saf Sci. 2018; 105: 149-157.
- 39Xi YT, Yang ZL, Fang QG, Chen WJ, Wang J. A new hybrid approach to human error probability quantification–applications in maritime operations. Ocean Eng. 2017; 138: 45-54.
- 40Vladykina S, Thurner TW. Cognitive Reliability Error Analysis Method (CREAM) at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2019; 35: 1621-1633.
- 41Ung ST. Evaluation of human error contribution to oil tanker collision using fault tree analysis and modified fuzzy Bayesian Network based CREAM. Ocean Eng. 2019; 179: 159-172.
- 42Chen J, Zhou D, Lyu C, Zhu X. A method of human reliability analysis and quantification for space missions based on a Bayesian network and the Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2018; 34: 912-927.
- 43Hollnagel E. Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method: CREAM. 1st ed. Elsevier; 1998.
- 44Nývlt O, Rausand M. Dependencies in event trees analyzed by Petri nets. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2012; 104: 45-57.
- 45Wang T, Wu Q, Diaconeasa MA, Yan X, Mosleh A. On the use of the hybrid causal logic methodology in ship collision risk assessment. JMSE. 2020; 8: 485.
- 46Gascard E, Simeu-Abazi Z. Quantitative analysis of dynamic fault trees by means of monte carlo simulations: event-driven simulation approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2018; 180: 487-504.
- 47Zhu C, Jiang Y, Liu G, Zhang T. Integration frameworks and intelligent research in dynamic fault tree: a comprehensive review and future perspectives. Qual Reliab Eng Int. 2023: 1-22.
- 48Wang C, Xing L, Levitin G. Explicit and implicit methods for probabilistic common-cause failure analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2014; 131: 175-184.
- 49Guo Y, Sun L. Fault tree analysis method based on a matrix. J Harbin Eng Univ 2016; 07: 896-900.
- 50Wang Y, Wang K, Wang T, et al. Reliabilities analysis of evacuation on offshore platforms: a dynamic Bayesian Network model. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2021; 150: 179-193.
- 51Rieger T, Manzey D. Human performance consequences of automated decision aids: the impact of time pressure. Hum Factors. 2022; 64: 617-634.
- 52David M, William F, John R. Electronic Parts Reliability Data (EPRD-2014). Reliability Information Analysis Center; 2014.
- 53Zhou T, Wu C, Zhang J, Zhang D. Incorporating CREAM and MCS into fault tree analysis of LNG carrier spill accidents. Saf Sci. 2017; 96: 183-191.
- 54Boryczko K, Szpak D, Żywiec J, Tchórzewska-Cieślak B. The use of a fault tree analysis (FTA) in the operator reliability assessment of the critical infrastructure on the example of water supply system. Energies. 2022; 15: 4416.