Advertisement

Assessment of Transportation System Resilience

  • Simon Enjalbert
  • Frédéric Vanderhaegen
  • Marianne Pichon
  • Kiswendsida Abel Ouedraogo
  • Patrick Millot
Conference paper

Abstract

A transportation system like tramway or train is a system in which the functions of the human and the machine are interrelated and necessary for the operation of the whole system according to Human–Machine System (HMS) definition. Both human and machines are sources of system reliability and causes of accident occurrences. Considering the human behaviour contribution to HMS resilience, resilience can only be diagnosed if the human actions improve the system performances and help to recover from instability. Therefore, system resilience is the ability for a HMS to ensure performances and system stability whatever the context, i.e. after the occurrence of regular, unexpected or unprecedented disturbances. The COR&GEST platform is a railway simulation platform developed in the LAMIH in Valenciennes which involves a miniature railway structure. In order to study the human behaviour during the train driving activities with or without any technical failure occurrences, an experimental protocol was built with several inexperienced human operators. In railway transportation systems, traffic safety is the main performance criterion to take into account. Based on this criterion, authors propose to evaluate an instantaneous resilience indicator in order to assess the “local resilience” of HMS. As others performance criteria must be aggregated to reflect the whole studied HMS performance, the “global resilience” of HMS will be defined.

Keywords

Human Machine Systems Resilience assessment Transportation system 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 218496 Project ITERATE.

The present research work has also been supported by:

• CISIT (International Campus on Safety and Intermodality in Transportation),

• The Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region,

• The European Community,

• The Regional Delegation for Research and Technology,

• The Ministry of Higher Education and Research,

• And the National Center for Scientific Research.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of these institutions.

References

  1. 1.
    Chen C-M, Lin C-W, Chen Y-C (2007) Adaptive error-resilience transcoding using prioritized intra-refresh for video multicast over wireless networks. Signal Processing: Image and Communication 22:277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gu L, Enjalbert S, Vanderhaegen F (2009) Human-machine systems resilience—safety application. EAM 2009, Reims, FranceGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hollnagel E, Woods DD (2006) Epilogue: resilience engineering precepts. In: Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate, Burlington, Vermont, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ludwig D, Walker B, Holling CS (1997) Sustainability, stability and resilience. Conserv Ecology 1(1):7Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Luo M-Y, Yang C-S (2002) Enabling fault resilience for web services. Comput Commun 25:198–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ouedraogo KA, Enjalbert S, Vanderhaegen F (2010) How to learn from the resilience of human-machine systems? IFAC HMS 2010, Valenciennes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orwin KH, Wardle DA (2004) New indices for quantifying the resistance and resilience of soil biota to exogenous disturbances. Soil Biol Biochem 36:1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pérez-España H, Sánchez A (2001) An inverse relationship between stability and maturity in models of aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Modell 145:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pichon M, Millot P, Enjalbert S (2010) Toward an on-line and non-obtrusive workload assessment method. IFAC HMS 2010, Valenciennes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Polet P, Vanderhaegen F, Wieringa P (2002) Theory of safety related violations of system barriers. Cogn Technol Work 4:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schonpflug W (1985) On the role of psychophysiological recording in stress research. In: Klix F, Naatanen R, Zimmer K (eds) Psychophysiological approaches to human information processing. Elsevier, North HollandGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Swain AD, Guttmann HE (1983) Handbook of reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear plant applications. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1278, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vanderhaegen F (1999) Multilevel allocation modes—allocator control policies to share tasks between human and computer. Syst Anal Modell Simul 35:191–213Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vanderhaegen F (2001) A non-probabilistic prospective and retrospective human reliability analysis method–application to railway system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiner EL, Curry RE, Faustina ML (1984) Vigilance and task load: in search of the inverted U. Hum Factors 26(2):215–222Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zieba S, Jouglet D, Polet P, Vanderhaegen F (2007) Resilience and affordances: perspectives for human-robot cooperation? EAM 2007, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia Srl 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Enjalbert
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Frédéric Vanderhaegen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marianne Pichon
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kiswendsida Abel Ouedraogo
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Patrick Millot
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Univ Lille Nord de FranceLilleFrance
  2. 2.UVHC, LAMIHValenciennesFrance
  3. 3.CNRS, FRE 3304ValenciennesFrance

Personalised recommendations