M. Kiwan, D.V. Berezkin, A. Hamed

Bauman Moscow State Technical University (Moscow, Russia)

Statement of a problem. The increasing complexity in high-tech systems leads to potentially disastrous failure models and new kinds of safety issues. This led to the development of new approaches, for modeling accidents and risk management. In recent years, extended and hybrid approaches have been gaining popularity due to their effectiveness in decision-making for the design and operation of socio-technical systems. The proliferation of these approaches makes it difficult to select the appropriate approach for a particular system. Purpose. Conduct a comparative analysis of various hybrid approaches of accidents in complex systems, identify the strengths and weaknesses of each one, and study the feasibility of their use in risk management in socio-technical systems.

Results. The paper analyzes the main approaches of accident modeling (FRAM, STAMP, failure tree, AcciMap) and their limitations in determining cause-effect relationships and dynamics of modern complex systems. New approaches to safety and accident modeling in sociotechnical systems are discussed, these approaches depend on combining several models into one hybrid approach: FuzzyFTA, FRAM-ANP, ACAT-FRAM, STAMP-HFACS, AcciMap-ANP, and SD-ET-FT-ANN. A review of hybrid approaches of accident modeling in complex systems and identify weaknesses and strengths, as well as the application field of each one of these approaches. Practical importance. This study will be a guide for researchers in the field of accident modeling and risk management in sociotechnical systems. It also concludes that it is necessary to use different approaches to risk management depending on the type of risk and the complexity of the system.

Kiwan M., Berezkin D.V., Hamed A. Hybrid approaches of accident modeling for risk management in socio-technical systems. Dynamics of complex systems. 2021. T. 15. № 2. Р. 14−27. DOI: 10.18127/j19997493-202102-02 (In Russian)

1. Kivan M., Berezkin D.V., Raad M., Rashid B. Analiz osnovnyh podhodov k modelirovaniyu avarijnyh situacij dlya upravleniya riskami v sociotekhnicheskih sistemah. Dinamika slozhnyh sistem. 2021. T. 15. № 1. S. 22−37 (In Russian).
2. Dugan J.B., Bavuso S.J., Boyd M.A. Fault trees and sequence dependencies 1990. P. 286–293.
3. Huang W., Liu Y., Zhang Y. и др. Fault Tree and Fuzzy DS Evidential Reasoning combined approach: An application in railway dangerous goods transportation system accident analysis. Information Sciences. 2020. № 520. P. 117–129.
4. Liu P., Yang L., Gao Z. и др. Fault tree analysis combined with quantitative analysis for high-speed railway accidents. Safety science. 2015. № 79. P. 344–357.
5. Hollnagel E., Goteman O. The functional resonance accident model. Proceedings of cognitive system engineering in process plant. 2004. № 2004. P. 155–161.
6. Macchi L. A Resilience Engineering approach for the evaluation of performance variability: development and application of the Functional Resonance Analysis Method for air traffic management safety assessment. 2010.
7. Rosa L.V., Haddad A.N., Carvalho P.V.R. de Assessing risk in sustainable construction using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM). Cognition, Technology & Work. 2015. № 4 (17). P. 559–573.
8. Patriarca R., Gravio G. Di, Costantino F. A Monte Carlo evolution of the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) to assess performance variability in complex systems. Safety science. 2017. № 91. P. 49–60.
9. Slim H., Nadeau S. A proposal for a predictive performance assessment model in complex sociotechnical systems combining fuzzy logic and the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM). American Journal of Industrial and Business Management. 2019. № 6 (9). P. 1345–1375.
10. Li W., Zhang L., Liang W. An Accident Causation Analysis and Taxonomy (ACAT) model of complex industrial system from both system safety and control theory perspectives. Safety science. 2017. № 92. P. 94–103.
11. Li W., He M., Sun Y. и др. A proactive operational risk identification and analysis framework based on the integration of ACAT and FRAM. Reliability Engineering \& System Safety. 2019. № 186. P. 101–109.
12. Leveson N. A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety science. 2004. № 4 (42). P. 237–270.
13. Li C., Tang T., Chatzimichailidou M.M. et al. A hybrid human and organisational analysis method for railway accidents based on STAMP-HFACS and human information processing. Applied ergonomics. 2019. № 79. P. 122–142.
14. Rasmussen J. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Safety science. 1997. № 2–3 (27). P. 183–213.
15. Akyuz E. A hybrid accident analysis method to assess potential navigational contingencies: The case of ship grounding. Safety science. 2015. № 79. P. 268–276.
16. Saaty T.L. Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. RWS publications Pittsburgh. 1996.
17. Kiwan M., Berezkin D.V. Disaster Recognition System for Risk Management in Socio-Technical Systems. in 2021 International Conference on Advances in Electrical, Computing, Communication and Sustainable Technologies (ICAECT). Feb. 2021. P. 1–7. DOI: 10.1109/ICAECT49130.2021.9392625.
18. Hollnagel E. FRAM, the functional resonance analysis method: modelling complex socio-technical systems. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. 2012.