Consistency and Stability of Risk Indicators: the Case of Road Infrastructures

Consistency and Stability of Risk Indicators: the Case of Road Infrastructures

Giuliano Rossi Mara Lombardi Paola Di Mascio

Department of Civil, Constructional and Environmental Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Department of Chemical Materials Environmental Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

Page: 
39-47
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SAFE-V8-N1-39-47
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
1 January 2018
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Over the last decade, the World Road Association – PIARC and several European research projects, among which Ecoroads, have encouraged a promising reflection on risk analysis methods, acceptance criteria and safety practices applied to the road system. The goal of this research activity is the definition of best practice for safety analysis and management to be applied to network TERN (Trans European Road Network).

Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) provides much information on safety management. Nevertheless, the potential fragility of the method, stochastic uncertainties (both parameters and models), and ethical aspect of criteria must be adequately analyzed. This paper focuses on all these aspects, assessing the reliability of QRA due to modeling errors and statistical errors, and assessing the statistical consistency of Risk Indicators of QRA.

Keywords: 

acceptability criteria, Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA), risk indicators, societal risk

1. Introduction
2. Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA)
3. Review of SR and F-N Function
4. Reliability of QRA
5. Conclusion
  References

[1] Directive 2004/54/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 29 April 2004 on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the trans-European road network.

[2] Italian Legislative Decree 264:2006.

[3] Directive 2008/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety management.

[4] Italian Legislative Decree 35:2011.

[5] PIARC Technical Committee 3.3 Road tunnel operation.

[6] PIARC Technical Committee 3.2 design and operation of Safer Road Infrastructure.

[7] Italian Legislative Decree 264:2006 Annex 3, §1.

[8] IEC 61508 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety- related Systems.

[9] Italian Legislative Decree 264:2006 Section 4, Annex 3

[10] Italian Legislative Decree 264:2006 Section 4, Annex 2

[11] Faber, M.H., & Stewart, M.G., Risk assessment for civil engineering facilities: critical overview and discussion. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 80(2), pp. 173–184, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0951-8320(03)00027-9

[12] IEC 61508 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related Systems

[13] Ball, D.J., & Floyd, P.J., Societal risks. London: HSE, 1998.

[14] Farmer, W.R., The synoptic problem: A critical analysis. Mercer University Press, Macon, GA, 1976.

[15] Lees, F.P., Loss Prevention in the Process of Industries (Vols. 1–3, 2nd ed.). Butterworth Publication, London, 1996.

[16] Jonkman, S., van Gelder, P. & Vrijling, J., An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 99(1), pp. 1–30, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3894(02)00283-2

[17] Trbojevic, V., Risk criteria in e.u. Presented at Conference on European Safety and Reliability (ESREL’05), Tri-city, Poland, 2005.

[18] Jonkman, S., Loss of life estimation in flood risk assessment theory and application. Doctoral Thesis, Technical University of Delft, Netherlands, 2007.

[19] Proske, D., Catalogue of Risks Natural, Technical, Social and Health Risks. Springer, Berlin, 2008.

[20] Evans, A.W. & Verlander, N.Q., What is wrong with criterion FN-lines for judging the tolerability of risk? Risk Analysis, 17(2), pp. 157–168, 1997.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00855.x

[21] Abrahamsen, E.B. & Aven, T., On the consistency of risk acceptance criteria with normative theories for decision-making. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 93(12), pp. 1906–1910, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2008.03.021

[22] Guarascio, M., Lombardi, M. S., Rossi, G. & Sciarra, G., Risk Analysis and Acceptability Criteria. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 2007.

[23] Hartford, D.N.D., Legal framework considerations in the development of risk acceptance criteria. Structural Safety, 31(2), pp. 118–123, 2009.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2008.06.011

[24] Guarascio, M., Lombardi, M. S., Rossi, G. & Sciarra, G. Road Tunnel Safety Rules in Italy: The Tunnel Country. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 2007.

[25] Vapnik, V. & Chapelle, O., Bounds on error expectation for support vector machines. Neural Computation, 12(9), pp. 2013–2036, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1162/089976600300015042

[26] Mona, K.R., Global Risk Assessment of Natural Disasters: New Perspectives, Thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2014.

[27] Vanem, E., Ethics and fundamental principles of risk acceptance criteria. Safety Science, 50(4), pp. 958–967, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.12.030