IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v227y2013i4p368-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of evidential networks in quantitative analysis of railway accidents

Author

Listed:
  • Felipe Aguirre
  • Mohamed Sallak
  • Walter Schön
  • Fabien Belmonte

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Felipe Aguirre & Mohamed Sallak & Walter Schön & Fabien Belmonte, 2013. "Application of evidential networks in quantitative analysis of railway accidents," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(4), pages 368-384, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:4:p:368-384
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X12475044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X12475044
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X12475044?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. Belmonte, Fabien & Schön, Walter & Heurley, Laurent & Capel, Robert, 2011. "Interdisciplinary safety analysis of complex socio-technological systems based on the functional resonance accident model: An application to railway trafficsupervision," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 237-249.
    2. Kim, Dong San & Baek, Dong Hyun & Yoon, Wan Chul, 2010. "Development and evaluation of a computer-aided system for analyzing human error in railway operations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 87-98.
    3. Aven, T., 2011. "Interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 353-360.
    4. Aven, T. & Nøkland, T.E., 2010. "On the use of uncertainty importance measures in reliability and risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 127-133.
    5. Simon, C. & Weber, P. & Evsukoff, A., 2008. "Bayesian networks inference algorithm to implement Dempster Shafer theory in reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(7), pages 950-963.
    6. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    7. 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)

    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. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio, 2012. "An imprecision importance measure for uncertainty representations interpreted as lower and upper probabilities, with special emphasis on possibility theory," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 226(6), pages 656-665, December.
    2. Øystein Amundrud & Terje Aven & Roger Flage, 2017. "How the definition of security risk can be made compatible with safety definitions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 286-294, June.
    3. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    4. Tatsuya Sakurahara & Seyed Reihani & Ernie Kee & Zahra Mohaghegh, 2020. "Global importance measure methodology for integrated probabilistic risk assessment," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(2), pages 377-396, April.
    5. Bing Wu & Xinping Yan & Yang Wang & C. Guedes Soares, 2017. "An Evidential Reasoning‐Based CREAM to Human Reliability Analysis in Maritime Accident Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(10), pages 1936-1957, October.
    6. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    7. 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).
    8. Lijie, Chen & Tao, Tang & Xianqiong, Zhao & Schnieder, Eckehard, 2012. "Verification of the safety communication protocol in train control system using colored Petri net," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 8-18.
    9. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    10. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    11. Marzio Marseguerra & Enrico Zio & Massimo Librizzi, 2007. "Human Reliability Analysis by Fuzzy “CREAM”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 137-154, February.
    12. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    13. Kasai, Naoya & Matsuhashi, Shigemi & Sekine, Kazuyoshi, 2013. "Accident occurrence model for the risk analysis of industrialfacilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 71-74.
    14. Donghun Lee & Hyungju Kim & Kwiyeon Koo & Sooyeon Kwon, 2024. "Human Reliability Analysis for Fishing Vessels in Korea Using Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-26, April.
    15. J. C. Helton & F. J. Davis, 2002. "Illustration of Sampling‐Based Methods for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 591-622, June.
    16. Michael Greenberg & Paul Lioy & Birnur Ozbas & Nancy Mantell & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Lahr & Tayfur Altiok & Joseph Bober & Clifton Lacy & Karen Lowrie & Henry Mayer & Jennifer Rovito, 2013. "Passenger Rail Security, Planning, and Resilience: Application of Network, Plume, and Economic Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1969-1986, November.
    17. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    18. Limbourg, Philipp & de Rocquigny, Etienne, 2010. "Uncertainty analysis using evidence theory – confronting level-1 and level-2 approaches with data availability and computational constraints," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 550-564.
    19. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2015. "An Evaluation of the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 701-712, April.
    20. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.

    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:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:4:p:368-384. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.