期刊文献+

地铁行车调度系统人误情景评价模型研究 被引量:4

A Model for Evaluating Human Error Context in Subway Traffic Scheduling System Based on Fuzzy Cognitive Map
下载PDF
导出
摘要 为解决地铁行车调度系统人误影响因素(PIF)研究缺乏系统性的问题,建立人误情景(EC)评价模型,探索以专家经验为基础的PIF效应评估方法。首先,构建考虑PIF间的相互作用的EC概念模型。然后,以模糊认知图(FCM)方法为基础,建立PIF的影响效应路径搜索算法及PIF综合效应的评定技术。最后,以实例分析验证所建模型。结果表明:单个PIF状态的变化对整个EC产生影响,且PIF的综合影响程度远大于直接影响程度。因此,制定人误预防或减少措施时,有必要考虑PIF状态变化带来的综合效应。 For sake of solving the problem of lack of methods for analyzing human error PIFs in subway traffic dispatching system systematically, a EC evaluation model was built. An expert experience-based method for evaluating effects of PIFs was built. An algorithm for searching affecting paths of PIFs and a technique for evaluating PIFs integrated effect were worked out on basis of FCM method. Finally, a validation analysis was carried out with an example. Results showed that a change in a single human error PIF state may impact on the whole EC, and its indirect effect was much more than direct effect. Therefore, the integrated effects of a change in PIF state need to be considered during development of a human error pre- vention or reduction method.
作者 王洁 方卫宁
出处 《中国安全科学学报》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第10期38-43,共6页 China Safety Science Journal
基金 轨道交通控制及安全国家重点实验室自主课题(RCS2011ZT004) 国家"863"计划(2011AA110502)
关键词 人误情景(EC) 模糊认知图(FCM) 评价模型 人误影响因素(PIF) 行车调度系统 human error context(EC) fuzzy cognitive map(FCM) evaluation model human error performance influencing factors (PIF) subway traffic scheduling system
  • 相关文献

参考文献13

  • 1Hollnagel E. Human Reliability Analysis: Context and Control[M] London: Academic Press, 1993:135 -159.
  • 2Andrew W Evans. Fatal train accidents on Europe's railways: 1980 -2009[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2011, 43(1) :391 -401.
  • 3赵跃,叶龙,沈梅.铁路调度系统中人的失误原因分析及控制对策[J].北方交通大学学报,2001,25(5):77-79. 被引量:19
  • 4东方早报.地铁事故原因查明申通12名责任人被严惩[EB/OL].[2011-10-07].http://money.163.com/11/1007/04/7F03LOF80025380H.html.
  • 5李鹏程,陈国华,张力,戴立操.人因可靠性分析技术的研究进展与发展趋势[J].原子能科学技术,2011,45(3):329-340. 被引量:42
  • 6Melissa T B, Andrew S M, John R W. Understanding the human factors contribution to railway accidents and incidents in Australia[J]. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2008, 40(5):1 750- 1 757.
  • 7Reinach S, Viale A, Green D. Human Error Investigation Software Tool (HEIST) (DOT/FRA/ORD -07/15)[ R]. USA : Federal Railroad Administration, 2007.
  • 8ATKINS & IOE. Rail-specific Human Reliability Assessment Technique for Driving Tasks (Final Report) [ R]. London : RSSB, 2005.
  • 9王洁,方卫宁,张嬿.地铁行车调度系统人误影响因素识别及评定研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2011,21(8):74-79. 被引量:19
  • 10Katrina M G. A Data-informed Model of Performance Shaping Factors for Use in Human Reliability Analysis[D]. Mary- land: University of Maryland,2009.

二级参考文献78

  • 1侯文江,金磊,袁炳龙,李瑾.安全科学管理与人为失效研究——分析铁路运输中的人为失效规律[J].中国安全科学学报,1993,3(2):52-57. 被引量:3
  • 2KIM M C, SEONG P H. An analytic model for situation assessment of nuclear power plant oper ators based on Bayesian inferenee[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2006, 91: 270- 282.
  • 3WOODS D D, ROTH E M, POPI.E H. Cogni tive environment simulation: An artifical intelli gence system for human performance assess ment, NUREG/CR-4862 [R]. Washington D C. : USNRC, 1987.
  • 4CACCIABUE P C, DECORTIS F, DROZDOWICZ B, et al. COSIMO:A cognitive simulation model of human decision making and behavior in accident management of complex plants[J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1992, 22(5): 1 058-1 074.
  • 5DANG V N, SIU N O. Simulating operator cognition for risk analysis: Current models and crewsim[C].// Proceedings of PSAM- Ⅱ. San Diego, California, USA: [s. n. ], 1994: 7-13.
  • 6DANG V N. Modeling operator cognition for ac cident sequence analysis: Development of an op erator-plant simulation [D]. Cambridge, MA Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996.
  • 7SMIDTS C, SHEN S H, MOSLEH A. The IDA cognitive model for the analysis of nuclear power plant operator response under accident conditions-Part 1 Problem solving and decision making model[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1997, 55: 51-71.
  • 8CHANG Y H J, MOSLEH A. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of oper- ating crew response to complex system accidents-Part 2 IDAC performance influencing factors model[J ].Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2007, 92:1 014-1 040.
  • 9CHANG Y H J, MOSLEH A. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system aeeidents-Part 3 IDAC operator response model [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2007, 92:1 041-1 060.
  • 10CHANG Y H J, MOSLEH A. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents-Part 4 IDAC causal model of operator problemsolving response [J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2007, 92: 1 061- 1 075.

共引文献76

同被引文献18

引证文献4

二级引证文献10

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部