An Evidential Reasoning-Based CREAM to Human Reliability Analysis in Maritime Accident Process

Risk Analysis

Volumn 37, Issue 10, 2017, Pages 1936-1957

  Wu, Bing ^a,b   Yan, Xinping ^a   Wang, Yang ^a   Soares, C Guedes ^b  

^a WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

CREAM; evidential reasoning; human reliability analysis; maritime accident process; safety engineering

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENTS; RELIABILITY; SAFETY ENGINEERING; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

COMMON PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS; CREAM; EVIDENTIAL REASONING; EVIDENTIAL REASONING APPROACHES; HUMAN ERROR PROBABILITY; HUMAN RELIABILITY ANALYSIS; INCOMPLETE INFORMATION; MARITIME ACCIDENTS;

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS;

ACCIDENT; COGNITION; ERROR ANALYSIS; ESTIMATION METHOD; PROBABILITY; RELIABILITY ANALYSIS; SAFETY;

ACCIDENT; ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REASONING; RELIABILITY; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 85030646908     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12757     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Celik M, Cebi S. Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2009; 41:66–75.
2. Kristiansen S, Koster E, Schmidt WF, Olofsson M, Guedes Soares C, Caridis P. A New Methodology for Marine Casualty Analysis Accounting for Human and Organisational Factors. Learning from Marine Incidents. London: RINA, 1999.
3. Guedes Soares C, Teixeira AP, Antao P. Accounting for human factors in the analysis of maritime accidents. Pp. 521–528 in Cottam M, Harvey D, Pape R, Tait J (eds). Foresight and Precaution. Rotterdam: Balkema, 2000.
4. Antao P, Guedes Soares C. Causal factors in accidents of high speed craft and conventional ocean going vessels. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2008; 93:1292–1304.
5. Graziano A, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C. Classification of human errors in grounding and collision accidents using the TRACEr taxonomy. Safety Science, 2016; 86:245–257.
6. Antao P, Guedes Soares C. Organisation of Databases of Accident Data. Southampton, UK, Boston: WitPress, 2002.
7. Akyuz E, Celik M. Utilisation of cognitive map in modelling human error in marine accident analysis and prevention. Safety Science, 2014; 70:19–28.
8. Chauvin C. Human factors and maritime safety. Journal of Navigation, 2011; 64:625–632.
9. Bolt H, Morris J, Pedrali M, Antão P, Guedes Soares C. Techniques for human reliability evaluation. Pp. 141–156 in Guedes Soares C (ed). Safety and Reliability of Industrial Products, Systems and Structures. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2010.
10. Marseguerra M, Zio E, Librizzi M. Human reliability analysis by fuzzy "CREAM". Risk Analysis, 2007; 27:137–154.
11. Akhtar MJ, Utne IB. Human fatigue's effect on the risk of maritime groundings—A Bayesian network modeling approach. Safety Science, 2014; 62:427–440.
12. Akhtar MJ, Utne IB. Common patterns in aggregated accident analysis charts from human fatigue-related groundings and collisions at sea. Maritime Policy & Management, 2014; 42:1–21.
13. Akyuz E, Celik M. A methodological extension to human reliability analysis for cargo tank cleaning operation on board chemical tanker ships. Safety Science, 2015; 75:146–155.
14. He X, Wang Y, Shen Z, Huang X. A simplified CREAM prospective quantification process and its application. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2008; 93:298–306.
15. Sun Z, Li Z, Gong E, Xie H. Estimating human error probability using a modified CREAM. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2012; 100:28–32.
16. Yang ZL, Bonsall S, Wall A, Wang J, Usman M. A modified CREAM to human reliability quantification in marine engineering. Ocean Engineering, 2013; 58:293–303.
17. Hollnagel E. Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd., 1998.
18. Akyuz E, Celik M. Application of CREAM human reliability model to cargo loading process of LPG tankers. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2015; 34:39–48.
19. Konstandinidou M, Nivolianitou Z, Kiranoudis C, Markatos N. A fuzzy modeling application of CREAM methodology for human reliability analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2006; 91:706–716.
20. Wang A, Luo Y, Tu G, Liu P. Quantitative evaluation of human-reliability based on fuzzy-clonal selection. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2011; 60:517–527.
21. Ung ST, Shen WM. A novel human error probability assessment using fuzzy modeling. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31:745–757.
22. Mkrtchyan L, Podofillini L, Dang V. Bayesian belief networks for human reliability analysis: A review of applications and gaps. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2015; 139:1–16.
23. Musharraf M, Hassan J, Khan F, Veitch B, MacKinnon S, Imtiaz S. Human reliability assessment during offshore emergency conditions. Safety Science, 2013; 59:19–27.
24. Antao P, Grande O, Trucco P, Guedes Soares C. Analysis of maritime accident data with BBN models. Pp. 3265–3273 in Martorell S, Guedes Soares C, Barnett J (eds). Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
25. Yang Z, Bonsall S, Wang J. Fuzzy rule-based Bayesian reasoning approach for prioritization of failures in FMEA. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 2008; 57:517–528.
26. Kim MC, Seong PH, Hollnagel E. A probabilistic approach for determining the control mode in CREAM. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2006; 91:191–199.
27. Bedford T, Bayley C, Revie M. Screening, sensitivity, and uncertainty for the CREAM method of Human Reliability Analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2013; 115:100–110.
28. Yang J-B, Liu J, Wang J, Sii H-S, Wang H-W. Belief rule-base inference methodology using the evidential reasoning approach-RIMER. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 2006; 36:266–285.
29. Yang J-B, Xu D-L. Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination. Artificial Intelligence, 2013; 205:1–29.
30. Su X, Mahadevan S, Xu P, Deng Y. Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis using evidence theory and AHP. Risk Analysis, 2015; 35:1296–1316.
31. Yang ZL, Wang J, Li KX. Maritime safety analysis in retrospect. Maritime Policy & Management, 2013; 40:261–277.
32. Kryszkiewicz M. Rough set approach to incomplete information systems. Information Sciences, 1998; 112:39–49.
33. Mullai A, Paulsson U. A grounded theory model for analysis of marine accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2011; 43:1590–1603.
34. Chauvin C, Lardjane S, Morel G, Clostermann JP, Langard B. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2013; 59:26–37.
35. Chen S-T, Wall A, Davies P, Yang Z, Wang J, Chou Y-H. A human and organisational factors (HOFs) analysis method for marine casualties using HFACS-Maritime Accidents (HFACS-MA). Safety Science, 2013; 60:105–114.
36. Kim DS, Baek DH, Yoon WC. Development and evaluation of a computer-aided system for analyzing human error in railway operations. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2010; 95:87–98.
37. Mazaheri A, Montewka J, Kujala P. Modeling the risk of ship grounding—A literature review from a risk management perspective. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 2014; 13:269–297.
38. Antao P, Guedes Soares C. Fault-tree models of accident scenarios of RoPax vessels. International Journal of Automation and Computing, 2006; 3:107–116.
39. Guarin L, Konovessis D, Vassalos D. Safety level of damaged RoPax ships: Risk modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis. Ocean Engineering, 2009; 36:941–951.
40. Goerlandt F, Ståhlberg K, Kujala P. Influence of impact scenario models on collision risk analysis. Ocean Engineering, 2012; 47:74–87.
41. Sklet S. Safety barriers: Definition, classification, and performance. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2006; 19:494–506.
42. Rathnayaka S, Khan F, Amyotte P. SHIPP methodology: Predictive accident modeling approach. Part I: Methodology and model description. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2011; 89:151–164.
43. Rathnayaka S, Khan F, Amyotte P. SHIPP methodology: Predictive accident modeling approach. Part II. Validation with case study. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2011; 89:75–88.
44. Xue L, Fan J, Rausand M, Zhang L. A safety barrier-based accident model for offshore drilling blowouts. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2013; 26:164–171.
45. Hänninen M, Kujala P. Influences of variables on ship collision probability in a Bayesian belief network model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2012; 102:27–40.
46. Perera LP, Carvalho JP, Guedes Soares C. Fuzzy logic based decision making system for collision avoidance of ocean navigation under critical collision conditions. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2010; 16:84–99.
47. Perera LP, Carvalho JP, Guedes Soares C. Intelligent ocean navigation and fuzzy-Bayesian decision-action formulation. Journal of Oceanic Engineering (IEEE), 2012; 37:204–219.
48. Uluscu OS, Ozbas B, Altiok T, Or I. Risk analysis of the vessel traffic in the Strait of Istanbul. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29:1454–1472.
49. Khaddaj-Mallat C, Rousset J-M, Ferrant P. The transient and progressive flooding stages of damaged Ro-Ro vessels: A systematic review of entailed factors. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 2011; 133:1–10.
50. Santos TA, Guedes Soares C. Monte-Carlo simulation of damaged ship survivability. Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 2005; 219:25–35.
51. Yang JB. Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001; 131:31–61.
52. Yang JB, Xu DL. On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part A-Systems and Humans, 2002; 32:289–304.
53. Yang J-B, Wang Y-M, Xu D-L, Chin K-S. The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 2006; 171:309–343.
54. Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977; 15:234–281.
55. Yang ZL, Wang J, Bonsall S, Fang QG. Use of fuzzy evidential reasoning in maritime security assessment. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29:95–120.
56. Yang Z, Ng AKY, Wang J. A new risk quantification approach in port facility security assessment. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2014; 59:72–90.
57. Tzannatos E, Kokotos D. Analysis of accidents in Greek shipping during the pre- and post-ISM period. Marine Policy, 2009; 33:679–684.
58. Batalden B-M, Sydnes AK. Maritime safety and the ISM code: A study of investigated casualties and incidents. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 2013; 13:3–25.