基于不确定随机Bow-tie模型的航空保障人因风险评估

doi:10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2025.09.23

系统工程与电子技术 ›› 2025, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (9): 3022-3030.doi: 10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2025.09.23

• 系统工程 • 上一篇

基于不确定随机Bow-tie模型的航空保障人因风险评估

褚健¹(), 潘星², 呼伦呼³^,*(), 魏金鹏¹, 刘振祥¹

1. 中国航空工业集团公司沈阳飞机设计研究所，辽宁沈阳 110035
2. 北京航空航天大学可靠性与系统工程学院，北京 100191
3. 内蒙古工业大学机械工程学院，内蒙古呼和浩特 010051

收稿日期:2024-07-30 出版日期:2025-09-25 发布日期:2025-09-16
通讯作者: 呼伦呼 E-mail:buaachujian@163.com;hulunhu@imut.edu.cn
作者简介:褚　健（1991—），男，高级工程师，硕士，主要研究方向为航空人因工程、通用质量特性设计
潘　星（1979—），男，教授，博士，主要研究方向为可靠性与风险分析、体系工程理论、人机系统安全性分析、人因可靠性分析
魏金鹏（1983—），男，研究员，博士，主要研究方向为飞行性能、航空人因工程
刘振祥（1981—），男，高级工程师，硕士，主要研究方向为航空人因工程、通用质量特性设计
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（72071011）；内蒙古自治区自然科学基金（2024QN05017）资助课题

Human-factor risk assessment of aviation support based on uncertain random Bow-tie model

Jian CHU¹(), Xing PAN², Lunhu HU³^,*(), Jinpeng WEI¹, Zhenxiang LIU¹

1. Shenyang Aircraft Design & Research Institute，Aviation Industry Corporation of China，Shenyang 110035，China
2. School of Reliability and Systems Engineering，Beihang University，Beijing 100191，China
3. School of Mechanical Engineering，Inner Mongolia University of Technology，Hohhot 010051，China

Received:2024-07-30 Online:2025-09-25 Published:2025-09-16
Contact: Lunhu HU E-mail:buaachujian@163.com;hulunhu@imut.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对航空保障活动机务人员行为评价中的认知不确定性量化问题，以不确定理论为基础，建立机务人员行为不确定性评价框架，明确感知类、决策类、执行类行为的评价模型。基于航空保障活动人机交互的特点，提出基于不确定随机Bow-tie模型的场景解构方法及其不确定性传播计算方法。作战飞机武器挂装过程的事故分析结果表明增加内埋武器舱门保险装置、安排机务人员在舱外观察可降低灾难性事故发生概率。所提方法在航空保障人因风险评估具备有效性。

关键词: 人因失误, 确信可靠性, 人因可靠性, 风险评估, 不确定理论

Abstract:

Addressing the issue of uncertainty quantification in the evaluation of aviation support activity maintenance personnel behavior, this study establishes an evaluation framework for behavioral uncertainty of maintenance personnel based on uncertainty theory, clarifying the evaluation models for perception class, decision-making class, and execution class behaviors. Based on the characteristics of human-machine interaction in aviation support activities, a scenario decomposition method and its uncertainty propagation calculation method based on the uncertain random Bow-tie model are proposed. Accident analysis results of the weapon mounting process of combat aircraft indicates adding safety devices to the internal weapons bay doors and arranging for maintenance personnel to observe from outside the bay can reduce the probability of catastrophic accidents. The proposed method is effective in assessing human-factors risk of aviation support.

Key words: human error, belief reliability, human reliability, risk assessment, uncertainty theory

中图分类号:

TB 114.3

褚健, 潘星, 呼伦呼, 魏金鹏, 刘振祥. 基于不确定随机Bow-tie模型的航空保障人因风险评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2025, 47(9): 3022-3030.

Jian CHU, Xing PAN, Lunhu HU, Jinpeng WEI, Zhenxiang LIU. Human-factor risk assessment of aviation support based on uncertain random Bow-tie model[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2025, 47(9): 3022-3030.

图/表 8

表1

图1

图2

表2

表3

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 36

1	OBENG F, DOMEH D, KHAN F, et al. An operational risk management approach for small fishing vessel[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2024, 247, 110104.
2	康锐. 确信可靠性理论与方法[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2020.
	KANG R. Belief reliability theory and methodology[M]. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2020.
3	LIU B. Uncertainty theory[M]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2007.
4	KANG R, ZHANG Q Y, ZENG Z G, et al. Measuring reliability under epistemic uncertainty: review on non-probabilistic reliability metrics[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2016, 29 (3): 571- 579.
5	ZHANG Q Y, LI X Y, ZU T P, et al. Belief reliability: a scientific exploration of reliability engineering[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2024, 35 (3): 619- 643.
6	WANG Y, KANG R, GUO L H, et al. Uncertain process-based data integration and residual lifetime evaluation of PCB in airborne equipment with ADT and field data[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2024, 37 (8): 233- 245.
7	WANG Y J, KANG R, CHEN Y. Belief reliability modeling for the two-phase degradation system with a change point under small sample conditions[J]. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2022, 173, 108697.
8	CHEN W B, LI X Y, WU J P, et al. Uncertain random accelerated degradation modelling and statistical analysis with aleatory and epistemic uncertainties from multiple dimensions[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2024, 243, 109906.
9	HU L H, KANG R, PAN X, et al. Risk assessment of uncertain random system—level-1 and level-2 joint propagation of uncertainty and probability in fault tree analysis[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2020, 198, 106874.
10	HU L H, KANG R, PAN X, et al. Uncertainty expression and propagation in the risk assessment of uncertain random system[J]. IEEE Systems Journal, 2021, 15 (2): 1604- 1615.
11	HU L H, PAN X, KANG R, et al. Dynamic risk assessment of uncertain random system considering operator’s simple emergency-stop action in short time window[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2024, 252, 110479.
12	HU L H, PAN X, DING S, et al. A quantitative input for evaluating human error of visual neglection: prediction of operator’s detection time spent on perceiving critical visual signal[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2022, 225, 108582.
13	HU L H, PAN X, DING S, et al. Human decision time in uncertain binary choice[J]. Symmetry, 2022, 14, 201.
14	姚博清, 陈嘉宇, 谷长超, 等. 基于分层安全控制结构的导弹装备任务安全性动态评价方法[J]. 航空学报, 2024, 45 (6): 228858.
	YAO B Q, CHEN J Y, GU C C, et al. A dynamic evaluation method for mission safety of missile equipment based on hierarchical safety control structure[J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2024, 45 (6): 228858.
15	PORTHIN M, PODOFILLINI L, DANG V N. Task reliability index for operator performance and failure probability assessment in control room simulators[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2024, 251, 110390.
16	WICKENS C D, MCCARLEY J S. Applied Attention Theory[M]. Boca Raton : CRC Press, 2007.
17	GRUNDGEIGER T, HOHM A, MICHALEK A, et al. The validity of the SEEV model as a process measure of situation awareness: the example of a simulated endotracheal intubation[J]. Human Factors, 2021, 64, ：1181- 1194.
18	WICKENS C D. Noticing events in the visual workplace: the SEEV and NSEEV models[M]. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
19	MORDKOFF J T. Effects of average uncertainty and trial-type frequency on choice response time: a hierarchical extension of Hick/Hyman law[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2017, 24, 2012- 2020.
20	王华, 罗绍峰. 基于HAZOP与模糊扩展蝴蝶结模型的甲烷化装置系统风险分析[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 30 (2): 27- 34.
	WANG H, LUO S F. Risk analysis of methanation unit system based on HAZOP and fuzzy extended bow tie （FEBT） model[J]. Safety and Environmental Engineering, 2023, 30 (2): 27- 34.
21	GARG V, VINOD G, PRASAD M, et al. Human reliability analysis studies from simulator experiments using Bayesian inference[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2023, 229, 108846.
22	WU B, YIP T L, YAN X, et al. Review of techniques and challenges of human and organizational factors analysis in maritime transportation[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2022, 219, 108249.
23	LIU Y H. Uncertain random programming with applications[J]. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 2013, 12, 153- 163.
24	LIU Y H. Uncertain random variables: a mixture of uncertainty and randomness[J]. Soft Computing, 2013, 17, 625- 634.
25	WEN M L, KANG R. Reliability analysis in uncertain random system[J]. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 2016, 15, 491- 506.
26	WICKENS C D, HOLLANDS J G, BANBURY S, et al. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance[M]. New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2012.
27	LIO W J, LIU B D. Residual and confidence interval for uncertain regression model with imprecise observations[J]. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 2018, 35 (2): 2573- 2583.
28	YE T Q, LIU B D. Uncertain hypothesis test for uncertain differential equations[J]. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 2023, 22, 195- 211.
29	LI H X, YANG X F, NI Y D. Uncertain yield-density regression model with application to parsnips[J]. International Journal of General Systems, 2023, 52 (7): 777- 801.
30	ZU T P, KANG R, WEN M L, et al. Belief reliability distribution based on maximum entropy principle[J]. IEEE Access, 2017, 6, 1577- 1582.
31	RITA S M, TEMPRADO J J, BERTON E. Age-related dedifferentiation of cognitive and motor slowing: insight from the comparison of Hick-Hyman and Fitts’ laws[J]. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 2013, 5, 62.
32	DJEMAI Z, AISSANI N, BEKRAR A, et al. Risk analysis of petroleum storage tank based on uncertain data incorporated into mapped Bow-tie to Bayesian network[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2024, 190, 1202- 1221.
33	孙效华, 张义文, 秦觉晓, 等. 人机智能协同研究综述[J]. 包装工程, 2020, 41 (18): 1- 11.
	SUN X H, ZHANG Y W, QIN J X, et al. Review on human-intelligent system collaboration[J]. Packaging Engineering, 2020, 41 (18): 1- 11.
34	LI H M, LIANG M X, NIU K, et al. A human-machine trust evaluation method for high-speed train drivers based on multi-modal physiological information[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2024, 41 (4): 2659- 2676.
35	CHAUHAN H, JANG Y, JEONG I. Predicting human trust in human-robot collaborations using machine learning and psychophysiological responses[J]. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 2024, 62, 102720.
36	LOVE J, GRONAU Q F, PALMER G, et al. In human–machine trust, humans rely on a simple averaging strategy[J]. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2024, 9, 58.

行为分类	模型名称	总结
感知类行为	视觉感知时间模型；听觉感知时间模型	方法细节参考文献[12]
决策类行为	确定规则下的决策时间模型；不确定规则下的决策时间模型	方法细节参考文献[13]
执行类行为	人机工效相关模型	可参考文献[26]或利用人机工效仿真软件获得

事件代码	事件描述	概率分布类型	参数值
B₁	座舱内人员误触关闭按钮	均匀分布	（0,8000）
B₂	飞管计算机故障	指数分布	0.00025
B₃	舱门驱动装置锁定机构失效	指数分布	0.0002
B₄	舱门驱动装置故障	指数分布	0.0004
B₅	液压电磁阀故障	指数分布	0.00035
B₆	应急控制单元异常输出开锁信号	指数分布	0.00025
B₇	伺服阀液压锁故障	指数分布	0.00025
B₈	应急控制单元异常采集到指令信号	指数分布	0.0003
B₉	应急控制单元异常输出驱动信号	指数分布	0.0005

事件代码	事件描述
M₁	舱门驱动系统意外建立压力
M₂	武器舱门关闭指令意外触发
M₃	液压系统异常供压收起武器舱门
M₄	伺服阀液压锁意外打开
M₅	应急控制单元异常输出控制信号
M₆	正常系统意外作动
M₇	应急系统意外作动
TE	挂弹过程武器舱门意外收起

[1]	董磊, 张元珊, 陈曦, 刘嘉琛, 彭新麒. 考虑多元耦合交互作用的飞机硬着陆风险综合评价方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2025, 47(4): 1265-1274.
[2]	张晗, 王强. 基于有向网络的航空安全事故风险识别与评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2024, 46(6): 1995-2001.
[3]	杨晗, 王浩伟, 李清荣, 陈敏, 彭博. 基于确信可靠性理论的蠕变寿命模型应用研究[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2022, 44(3): 1044-1051.
[4]	陈志聪, 康锐, 祖天培, 张清源. 基于技术成熟度的确信可靠性分配方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2022, 44(1): 327-337.
[5]	李泊远, 康锐, 余丽. 基于概率测度的确信可靠性建模与分析方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43(7): 1995-2004.
[6]	张清源, 文美林, 康锐, 李泊远, 余丽. 基于确信可靠性的功能、性能与裕量分析方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43(5): 1413-1419.
[7]	史佳辉, 徐吉辉, 陈玉金, 王晓琳. 基于交互作用矩阵-多维云模型的飞机重着陆风险评估方法研究[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43(10): 3026-3032.
[8]	王浩伟, 康锐. 基于不确定理论的退化数据分析方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2020, 42(12): 2924-2930.
[9]	胡林敏, 刘朝彩, 刘思佳. 双重不确定冷贮备系统的可靠性分析[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41(11): 2656-2661.
[10]	孟祥飞, 王瑛, 亓尧, 吕茂隆, 李超. 基于P_EV准则的I-UMOP问题求解方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2018, 40(2): 338-345.
[11]	龙伟军, 龚树凤, 韩清华, 商妮, 魏海涛. 基于不确定相关机会规划的机会阵方向图综合[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2017, 39(1): 49-56.
[12]	王玮, 余家祥, 杨绍清, 王磊. 信息化海上编队作战决心方案风险评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2016, 38(3): 569-574.
[13]	施志坚, 王华伟, 王祥. 基于多元联系数集对分析的航空维修风险态势评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2016, 38(3): 588-594.
[14]	李廷鹏, 李岳, 徐永成, 钱彦岭. 基于改进PERT的装备使用保障过程建模分析[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2015, 37(7): 1575-1580.
[15]	刘瑛1,2，李敏强1，陈富赞1. 飞行器机动动作风险定量评估模型[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2014, 36(3): 469-475.

基于不确定随机Bow-tie模型的航空保障人因风险评估

Human-factor risk assessment of aviation support based on uncertain random Bow-tie model

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 36

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价