280 likes | 300 Views
Learn about the use of Fuzzy Logic in Human Reliability Analysis with the CREAM methodology for accurate assessments. Explore methodology, results, and conclusions.
E N D
Fuzzy Systems in Use for Human Reliability Analysis Myrto Konstandinidou Zoe Nivolianitou Nikolaos Markatos Christos Kyranoudis Loss PreventionPrague, June 2004
Outline • Introduction • The Fuzzy Logic as a modeling tool • Methods for Human Reliability Analysis • The CREAM methodology • Development of the Fuzzy Classification System • Results • Conclusions
Introduction • HRA is a critical element for PRA • Most important concerns: - the subjectivity of the methods - the uncertainty of data - the complexity of the human factor per se • Fuzzy logic theory has had many relevant applications in the last years
Fuzzy Logic as a modeling tool (1) • Fuzzy logic (FL) is a very useful tool for modeling - complex systems - qualitative, inexact or uncertain information • FL resembles the way humans make inference and take decisions • FL accommodates ambiguities of real world human language and logic
Fuzzy Logic as a modeling tool (2) • Applications - Automatic control - Data classification - Decision analysis - Computer Vision - Expert systems The most used fuzzy inference method: Mamdani’s method (1975)
Fuzzy Logic as a modeling tool (3) • Definitions FL allows an object to be a member of more that one sets and to partially belong to them. - Fuzzy set - Degree of membership - Partial membership
Fuzzy Logic as a modeling tool (4) • The 3 steps of a FL system Fuzzification: the process of decomposing input variables to fuzzy sets Fuzzy Inference: a method to interpret the values of the input vectors Defuzzification: the process of weighting and averaging the outputs Fuzzification Defuzzification Crisp Output Crisp Input Inference
Methods of Human Reliability Analysis • Fundamental Limitations • Insufficient data • Methodological limitations • Uncertainty • Most important methods developed for HRA: • THERP • CREAM • ATHEANA
CREAM Methodology (1) The choice of CREAM was made because: • It is well structured and precise • It fits better in the general structure of FL • It presents a consistent error classification system • This system integrates individual, technological and organizational factors
CREAM Methodology (2) Control Modes • Scrambled • Opportunistic • Tactical • Strategic Definition of Common Performance Conditions (CPCs) to be used in FL model
Experience - Accident analysis - Risk assessment - Human reliability Data - Diagrams of CREAM - MARS Database - Incidents and accidents from the Greek Petrochemical Industry Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (1)
STEP 1 Selection of input parameters STEP 3 Development of the Fuzzy Rules STEP 2 Development of the Fuzzy sets Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (2) The Development of the Fuzzy Classification System for Human Reliability Analysis
Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (3) STEP 1: Selection of the input parameters
Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (4) STEP 2: Development of the Fuzzy sets • Each input is given a number based on its quality 0 (worst case) - 100 (best case) • “Time of day” from 0:00 (midnight) to 24:00 • Output scale 0.5*10-5 - 1.0*100
Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (6) Output fuzzy sets: Probability of a human erroneous action
Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (7) Input variable
Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (8) Action Failure Probability 1 0 -5.30E+00 -4.30E+00 -3.30E+00 -2.30E+00 -1.30E+00 -3.00E-01 Strategic Probability interval Output Tactical Opportunistic Scrambled
Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (9) STEP 3: Development of the fuzzy rules • Based on CREAM basic diagram • Simple linguistic terms • Logical AND operation
Σ improved reliability 7 . 6 5 4 3 2 1 Σ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 reduced reliability Strategic Tactical Opportunistic Scrambled CREAM basic diagram
Fuzzification Defuzzification Probability that operator performs erroneous action Input values Inference Development of a Fuzzy Classifier (10) Fuzzy model operations
Scenarios Five independent scenarios characterizing 5 different industrial contexts: • Scenario 2 represents a best case scenario • Scenario 4 represents a worst case scenario • Scenarios 4 and 5 have slight differences in the values of input parameters
Fuzzy Model results 1.0*10-2 9.81*10-4 6.33*10-2 2.02*10-1 1.91*10-1 Results of test runs Scenario Control Mode Probability interval 1 1.0*10-3<p<1.0*10-1 Tactical 2 (Best case) 0.5*10-5<p<1.0*10-2 Strategic 3 1.0*10-2<p<0.5*100 Opportunistic 4 (Worst case) 1.0*10-1<p<1.0*100 Scrambled 5 1.0*10-1<p<1.0*100 Scrambled
Comments on the results • All FL model results in accordance with CREAM • Best case scenario very low action failure probability • Worst case scenario very high action failure probability • Small differences in input have impact to output • The results can be used directly in PSA methods (event trees, fault trees, etc.)
Conclusions (1) FL system to estimate the probability of human erroneous action has been developed: • Based on CREAM methodology • 9 input variables • 1 output parameter
Conclusions (2) • Test runs for 5 different scenarios • Very satisfactory results • Main difference between FL model and CREAM: probabilities estimation are exact numbers • The results can and will be used in other PSA methods
Further goals • Model calibration with data from the Greek Petrochemical Industry • Addition of other CPCs or PSFs • Expansion to other fields of the chemical industry • Application in other fields of technology (e.g aviation technology, maritime transports, etc…)
Acknowledgments The Financial support of the EU Commission through project “PRISM” GTC1-2000-28030 to this research is kindly acknowledged