mathematics
Article
Research on the Application of Fuzzy Bayesian Network in Risk
Assessment of Catenary Construction
Yongjun Chen 1 , Xiaojian Li 1 , Jin Wang 2,3,4, * , Mei Liu 1 , Chaoxun Cai 5,6 and Yuefeng Shi 5,6
Citation: Chen, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, J.;
Liu, M.; Cai, C.; Shi, Y. Research on
the Application of Fuzzy Bayesian
Network in Risk Assessment of
Catenary Construction. Mathematics
2023, 11, 1719. https://doi.org/
10.3390/math11071719
Academic Editor: Manuel Alberto
M. Ferreira
Received: 13 March 2023
Revised: 28 March 2023
Accepted: 31 March 2023
Published: 3 April 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11071719
1 School of Urban Economics and Management, Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Beijing 102616, China
2 School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
3 MOE Key Laboratory of Engineering Structures of Heavy-Haul Railway, Central South University,
Changsha 410075, China
4 Center for Railway Infrastructure Smart Monitoring and Management, Central South University,
Changsha 410075, China
5 State Key Laboratory for Track Technology of High-Speed Railway, China Academy of Railway Sciences
Corporation Limited, Beijing 100081, China
6 Railway Engineering Research Institute, China Academy of Railway Sciences Corporation Limited,
Beijing 100081, China
* Correspondence: 22020163@csu.edu.cn
Abstract: The research on risk control during the construction stage of catenary is relatively limited.
Based on a comprehensive analysis of the risk factors during catenary construction, this study
determined the causal relationships between the risk factors and established a risk assessment
model for catenary construction that analyzed the risks from a causal logic perspective. During the
evaluation process, we identified six exogenous variables and twenty-one endogenous variables
for risk factors in the construction of catenary based on a literature review in the field of catenary
construction and expert opinions, described the cause-and-effect relationships between variables
using structural equations and causal diagrams, and established a multi-level catenary construction
risks structural causal model. Based on expert fuzzy evaluation and expert experience, the occurrence
probability of exogenous variables and the conditional probability of endogenous variables were
determined, respectively. Then, the risk assessment model of catenary construction stage based on
fuzzy Bayesian Network was constructed to analyze the risk of catenary construction process. The
results showed that the personal quality of the construction personnel and the sense of responsibility
of the supervision unit had a great impact on the risk level of catenary construction. The findings
can help construction personnel fully consider various weak points in catenary construction, thereby
ensuring efficient and high-quality catenary construction.
Keywords: catenary; fuzzy number; Bayesian Network; structural causal model; risk assessment
MSC: 62F15; 03B52
1. Introduction
Catenary is the main framework of the railway electrification projects, and it is a
special form of transmission line erected along the railway line to supply power to electric
locomotives [1,2]. Investigations showed that most faults of the traction power supply
system originate from catenary [3]. However, as the core of the traction power supply
system, catenary poses many challenges during its construction phase, including complex
business processes and numerous factors that can impact its quality and safety. Therefore,
comprehensively assess the risk of catenary construction, build a scientific, systematic
and normative risk assessment model for these factors, and then, identify the weak links
and key nodes that affect the construction phase of catenary, and formulating feasible eco-
nomic and technological risk prevention and response plans. This can prevent and reduce
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 2 of 19

the occurrence of accidents and incidents and avoid additional costs and delays caused
by risks.
As the power source of electrified railways, scholars in relevant fields conducted multi-
level research on the risks associated with catenary system. Firstly, as a linear power supply
project exposed to the natural environment, Wang et al. [4], Xie et al. [5], Dour et al. [6],
Wu et al. [7], Panteli et al. [8], Guo et al. [9], Ma et al. [10], Yum et al. [11], and Chen et al. [12]
established risk assessment models or developed fault detection methods, respectively,
to study the operation and maintenance reliability of catenary and power supply system
during natural disasters (such as earthquake, lightning strikes, and pollution) and harsh
environments (such as typhoon, heavy rain, ice and snow, and thick fog). For the risk
analysis of individual components or single fault level of catenary, Chen et al. [13] applied
the deep-learning method to fault detection of the current-carrying ring of catenary system.
They proposed a fault diagnosis method based on the improved CenterNet model. Through
example verification, the proposed method improved the accuracy of fault diagnosis for the
current-carrying ring, with higher accuracy and recall values. This provides useful help to
improve the efficiency and stability of railway transportation. Ding et al. [14] analyzed the
characteristics and causes of trip risks in the operation and maintenance process of catenary
systems, and proposed a high-speed railway catenary risk index system that considers
the characteristics of time-space difference. Based on the travel data of catenary system,
an example verification revealed relevant information about the time–space difference
of trip risks in catenary system, reflecting the impact of external environmental factors,
and highlighting the disaster prevention and resilience of catenary system. This study is
useful for comprehensively studying the operation and maintenance of catenary systems.
Ding et al. [15] proposed a risk assessment method for catenary operation and maintenance
under complex geographical and meteorological conditions. They evaluated the cumulative
risk of catenary failure quantitatively and visualized the risk using geographic information
system (GIS) technology. Chen et al. [16] and Song et al. [17] established a finite element
model for the pantograph and catenary, and evaluated the interaction system’s reliability
considering material wear and local suspender defects. Therefore, experts in catenary risk
assessment focused on the reliability analysis of the operation and maintenance process
and measures to respond to operation and maintenance risks and disasters. However,
research on risks and causal relationships during catenary construction phase is relatively
limited. However, construction plays a crucial role in ensuring quality throughout the
entire life cycle of catenary [3]. By studying the causal logic relationship between risk
factors that affect the construction of catenary, and quantifying risk characteristics, it can
provide decision-making and theoretical support to catenary construction project managers.
This can promote standardized and streamlined project management, improve project
quality and efficiency, and ultimately enhance the project’s competitiveness.
Since the 20th century, the research on causality rapidly developed. Statisticians dis-
cussed various issues related to causality in statistical analysis, and research in this area
became more profound, showing diversified development in various disciplines. In terms
of the theoretical research level of risk and reliability assessment, Yule [18] first emphasized
the difference between correlation and causality in 1900. Later, in 1961, Bell Labs [19]
proposed the fault tree analysis (FTA) method to predict the failure probability of event
operation, and Pearl [20] proposed the Bayesian Network (BN) theory to quantify the risk
characteristics in 1985. With the deepening of theoretical research, Pearl [21] developed a
formal theory of causal inference based on causal directed acyclic graph, providing a new
direction for the research and application of causal inference. The fundamental theoretical
research became increasingly rich, and researchers in various disciplines expanded and
applied the above theoretical methods to the risk assessment of system operation. For
example, Gao et al. [22] proposed a catenary operation and maintenance risk assessment
model based on a multi-layer Bayesian Network to study the transmission law of catenary
risk and comprehensively analyzing the weather accumulation risk of catenary from the
time and space perspective; Chen et al. [23] obtained the fault rate function of catenary
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 3 of 19

components and substation equipment through field fault records. They developed the
fault tree models of catenary system and traction substation to analyze the weak links
of the system and guide maintenance decisions. Wang et al. [24] proposed a data-driven
integrated risk analysis framework based on dynamic Bayesian networks to identify im-
portant risk factors in the dynamic risk propagation network of catenary and analyze
their failure modes over time. This approach achieved dynamic modeling and analysis
of operational risks in catenary. However, the above research methods were relatively
weak in describing the causal reasoning logic between factors and could not directly infer a
causal relationship from the structure, because the network nodes in Bayesian networks
were related, but no causal relationship was found [25]. Therefore, Pearl [26,27] proposed a
structural causal model (SCM) to explore the causal relationship between risk factors, which
clearly described the logical implication between risk factors with structural equations and
causal diagrams.
Although current research provided systematic assessments of the operation and
maintenance risks of catenary system and outlined the development and application of
causal reasoning in system reliability and risk assessment, there remain issues that require
further refinement and in-depth study.
• The existing risk assessment for catenary system is mainly focused on the operational
and maintenance stage, neglecting the risk evaluation during the construction phase.
However, the quality of the construction of catenary can have a significant impact on
the normal operation and maintenance during the operational stage.
• The current methods or models for assessing system risk have limited abilities in
reasoning about the causal relationships between risk factors and the expression of
these causal relationships is relatively simplistic.
• Currently, there is a lack of emphasis on developing targeted control measures for the
construction risks of catenary, which results in ineffective and imprecise risk control.
Considering the lack of risk assessment in catenary construction, it is necessary to
review and enhance the safety measures of this process. Therefore, this paper comprehen-
sively evaluates the risks of catenary construction from the perspective of causal reasoning.
In Section 2, we mainly introduce information about the sources, types, names, and expla-
nations of risk factors related to the construction of catenary. Based on the literature and
expert consultation in the field of catenary construction, this study summarizes the risk
factors in catenary construction process from three dimensions, including: construction
stage, participating departments, and construction elements. In Section 3, we provide a
detailed introduction of our research methodology, which includes the establishment of a
structural causal model and the construction and analytical applications of a fuzzy Bayesian
network model. In Section 4, we conduct a detailed analysis of the risk factors related to
the construction of catenary discussed in Section 2, based on the methodology presented in
Section 3. Section 4 establishes a structural causal model of catenary construction risks, and
the causal logic relationship between risk factors is analyzed and described using structural
equations and causal diagrams. To quantify the risk of catenary construction, we utilized a
combination of expert evaluations and fuzzy logic to calculate the probability of exogenous
variables and determine the conditional probability of endogenous variables based on
expert knowledge. A catenary fuzzy Bayesian network model was constructed to analyze
the risk level and key risk factors in the construction process. Finally, we formulate risk
prevention and control measures to address the weak links in catenary construction process,
thereby reducing the probability and impact of risks and ensuring the timely delivery of
catenary projects and efficient operation and maintenance. The discussion and conclusions
are given in Section 5.

2. Analysis on Risk Factors of Catenary Failures

As the key carrier for transmitting the required electrical energy to trains, catenary is
mainly composed of contact suspension, support devices, positioning devices, pillars, and
foundations [28]. The construction process of catenary involves three stages: construction
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 4 of 19

preparation, construction, and completion and acceptance [29]. Each construction stage has
strict rules and regulations, as well as specific engineering procedures. In this study, the
construction phase of catenary was divided into the pre-assembly stage and the installation
stage. The pre-assembly stage includes assembling and alignment of the pillars, as well as
pre-assembly of catenary arm structure and the installation stage includes installation of
compensation devices, erection of supporting cable racks, and installation of hangers [30].
The risk factors in the construction process of catenary can be divided into two types:
exogenous variables and endogenous variables. Exogenous variables are independent of
other variables in the system and remain unaffected by any changes in other variables [31].
In contrast, endogenous variables can be determined or influenced by other variables in
the system [32]. The entire process of catenary construction is affected by both internal
and external factors. Ignoring the influence of these risk factors will seriously affect the
construction quality and delivery schedule of catenary projects, which will create hidden
dangers for the safe operation of railroad projects and increase the project maintenance
costs. Based on the relevant domestic and foreign literature, this study investigated the risk
factors of catenary construction process from the perspectives of construction phase, partic-
ipating departments and construction elements. By summing up the expert experience, we
systematically analyzed the organizations, processes, and methods involved in quality and
safety management in the railroad catenary construction process, and established catenary
construction process risk research model, which serves as the basis for risk identification,
assessment, and control.
During the construction process of catenary, natural environmental factors such as
weather and geology, as well as behavioral factors such as design, construction, supervi-
sion, and regulation, will have an impact. After consulting with experts and reviewing
the literature [33–40], risk factors in the construction process of catenary were summa-
rized, including six external variables and twenty-one internal variables. According to
the time of risk occurrence, catenary construction risks were divided into four stages. The
specific variable names, symbols, variable definitions, and risk stage divisions are shown
in Tables 1–3.

Table 1. Exogenous variables of catenary construction risks.

Symbols Variable Name Variable Definition

Lack of timely communication on The construction unit and the design unit did not exchange drawings in time
C1
drawing issues and the drawings were not qualified
In the complex construction scenario, due to the influence of human, tools,
C2 Catenary measurement error
weather and other factors, the on-site measurement is wrong
The quality of civil construction Low technical level of civil construction personnel and substandard
C3
personnel is low operation process caused unqualified quality of catenary pillar foundation
Supervision unit supervision is Regulators are not strict in supervising the construction of catenary and do
C4
not in place not find problems or do not strictly enforce the law after problems are found
The reputation of the material bid Poor reputation of the unit providing materials, poor quality of production
C5
winner is low materials or low product qualification rate
C6 Indicator detection device failure The static position error of the contact line exceeds the standard error range

Table 2. Endogenous variables of catenary construction risks.

Symbols Variable Name Variable Definition

B1 Drawings are unqualified The design drawings do not conform to the construction standards
The location and size of the pillar foundation do not meet the design
The pillar foundation construction
B2 standards, the pillar foundation has position offset, size deviation, pillar
is unqualified
surface is not level and other related problems
The installation position and inclination rate of the pillar exceed the
Unqualified assembly and alignment
B3 allowable deviation value, and the apparent defect of the pillar is
of catenary pole
relatively serious
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719
Table 2. Cont.
Symbols Variable Name
The civil engineering unit did not
B4
rectify the interface problem
B5 Civil construction interface failure
B6 Inaccurate measurement data
B7 Data processing error
B8 Cantilever cutting error
Unqualified pre-assembly of
B9
catenary system
B10 Substandard quality of materials
The material and machinery
B11
department is derelict
B12 The project department is derelict
The technical disclosure of the
B13 technical director of the operation
team was not implemented
Inadequate training of catenary
B14
installation engineering
The quality of catenary installation
B15
personnel is low
Safety and Quality Department
B16
is derelict
Installation quality inspection
B17
is not standard
The static acceptance index of
B18
catenary is unqualified
Dynamic acceptance index of
B19
catenary is unqualified
B20 Static acceptance failed
B21 Dynamic detection failed
5 of 19
Variable Definition
The civil construction unit did not rectify the interface problems inspected on
site in a timely manner
The size and position of the interface are not constructed according to the
design drawings, the interface size does not meet the design requirements,
and there is construction waste blocking at the interface or
inside the interface
The calculation parameters such as side clearance, column slope, pull-out
value, contact line height, structural height, upper cantilever base height,
upper and lower base spacing, span length, etc. are measured incorrectly or
have a large measurement error
The computer calculates based on the wrong data, resulting in errors in the
calculated cantilever length, positioning ring position, bearing cable seat
position and other data
Large error in cutting length of diagonal cantilever and horizontal cantilever
The pre-assembled catenary components cannot meet the normal use
requirements, and the length of the cantilever or the position of the parts
such as the positioner, locating ring and pull chord do not meet
the design requirements
The quality of on-site materials does not meet the corresponding stress or
size specification standards
The material and machinery department did not strictly inspect the quality
of incoming materials in accordance with the material management
regulations or the inspection process was relatively random, and did not
fulfill the corresponding responsibilities
The project department did not assign technical personnel to carry out
construction technical disclosure according to the requirements of rules
and regulations
The technical director did not carry out construction training as required, or
arbitrarily shortened the training time and content, and lowered the
technical assessment standard of construction personnel
The technical person in charge conducts special training for catenary
construction personnel in accordance with the content of the technical
delivery, or does not follow the standard training process
The technical level of catenary installation personnel is low, the parts are not
installed according to the standard process, the construction operation is not
standardized, and the quality of catenary is incomplete
The Safety and Quality Department failed to detect the quality of catenary
installation project on time and to a high standard according to the
requirements of the rules and regulations
The quality inspection method for the installed catenary is not standard or
the quality requirements for the installation project are low
The static position and lifting amount of contact wire have large errors
The dynamic contact pressure of pantograph and catenary is unqualified,
and the arcing rate is unqualified
The static position (lead height and pull out value) and static lifting amount
(used to judge the elasticity and elastic difference coefficient of contact
suspension) of contact wire do not meet the opening standard
The indicators such as contact wire lifting, pantograph/catenary dynamic
contact pressure or arcing rate during dynamic detection do not meet the
opening standard
 Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 6 of 19

Table 3. Risk stage division of catenary construction.

Symbols Variable Name Variable Definition

Inadequate preparation for the pre-construction phase of catenary project,
Risks in construction
A1 resulting in problems affecting the construction, acceptance and
preparation stage
commissioning of catenary at a later stage.
In the process of catenary pre-assembly, there are some problems that affect
A2 Risk in pre-assembly stage the quality and normal construction of catenary pre-assembly due to data
measurement and unqualified pillar set-up rectification.
During the installation of catenary, the quality of catenary is unqualified due
to the lack of experience of the installers or the lack of timely inspection by
A3 Risks during installation
the quality inspection department, which affects the acceptance
of catenary project.
In the whole process of static and dynamic acceptance of catenary project,
A4 Acceptance stage risk some key acceptance indicators cannot be met, resulting in catenary not
being put into trial operation.

3. Materials and Methods

In this paper, we developed a risk assessment model for catenary construction by
combining the structural causal model and fuzzy Bayesian network (FBN), which can pro-
vide quantitative assessment for catenary construction risk based on expert experience and
basic theoretical knowledge. Firstly, we identified the risk factors in catenary construction
process by means of expert consultation and literature analysis, described the causal logic
relationship between the risk factors of catenary construction in the form of structural
equation and causal diagram, and mapped it to Bayesian network model. Then, the proba-
bility of occurrence of exogenous variables for catenary construction risks was calculated
using expert fuzzy evaluation, and the conditional probability of endogenous variables
was determined by referring to the experience of previous engineering and professional
personnel. Finally, the solution for the fuzzy Bayesian network of catenary construction
risks was completed. Next, we calculated the level of risk in the catenary construction
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
process and further analyzed the critical influencing factors. A flow chart of risk assessment 7 of 21
of catenary construction is established in Figure 1.

Figure1.1.AAflow
Figure flowchart
chart
of of risk
risk assessment
assessment during
during catenary
catenary construction.
construction.

3.1. Overview of the Structural Causal Model

The structural causal model is a conceptual model that describes the causal mecha-
nism of a system. It uses precise rules to determine the variables that need to be considered
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 7 of 19

3.1. Overview of the Structural Causal Model

The structural causal model is a conceptual model that describes the causal mechanism
of a system. It uses precise rules to determine the variables that need to be considered
or controlled, and provides detailed descriptions of the roles of these variables as well as
the internal causal relationships between them [41]. The structural causal model is com-
posed of structural equation and causal diagram [42], so we can define a structural causal
model M, its structural equation is an ordered triplet hU, V, F i, which can be expressed
by Equation (1):
F = { f i : X → Y |YeV, X ⊆ (U ∪ V )}, (1)
where U can be defined as a set of external variables; V is a set of internal variables, that is,
the variables that can be determined by external variables; F represents the set of structural
equations of the relationship between the above variables.
To clearly illustrate the causal logic relationship between factor variables in the system
operation process, we can describe it by drawing the causal diagram [43]. In the theoretical
system of the structural causal model, the inference of causal relationship depends on
the three basic path structures of the directed acyclic graph (DAG): the chain structure,
the fork structure, and the collision structure [44]. These three structures have different
mathematical information transmission methods, and the causal diagram can be composed
of these basic structures. By comprehensively analyzing the structural equation, we can
extract all causal paths between factor variables and deduce the causal relationship between
the factor variables during system operation. Then, we can draw a causal diagram to
describe the causal relationship between factor variables. The causal network diagram
connects risk nodes that have a causal relationship with directed edges, and the logical
accuracy of the causal diagram is ensured by graphic drawing rules. These rules are
as follows [45]:
• Each endogenous variable in the figure is the offspring of at least one exogenous variable;
• Exogenous variables are represented as root nodes in the diagram. They have no
parent nodes and cannot be the child nodes of endogenous variables.

3.2. Construct a Fuzzy Bayesian Network Risk Assessment Model

3.2.1. Overview of Bayesian Network
Bayesian networks, also known as belief networks, are directed acyclic graphs that
represent causal relationships between variables [46]. A Bayesian network is composed
of a graph structure and conditional probability tables (CPT) [47]. The graph structure
is a directed acyclic graph composed of nodes and directed edges. The nodes represent
random variables, and the directed edges represent the causal relationships between the
nodes [48]. The conditional probability table reflects the strength of causality between
exogenous variables and endogenous variables, and the probability of occurrence of the
variables, which is called the prior probability [49,50]. The Bayesian network structure is
established by nodes and directed edges, and the mathematical meaning of the Bayesian
network is given by the conditional probability table. This allows the Bayesian network
model to qualitatively and quantitatively solve practical problems. Equation (2) expresses
this relationship.
R BN = h Xi , Pi, (2)
where R BN denotes the Bayesian network structure, P is the set of directed edges, Xi is the
set of all nodes in the network.
The Bayesian network structure is known to contain the assumption of conditional
independence, i.e., each node is independent of the nodes that are not its descendants
under the condition that the parent node is known, and the expression of the conditional
independence assumption is Equation (3):
 
P ( Xi  X j , X n ) = P ( Xi  X j ) , (3)
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 2

Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 8 of 19

Table 4. The corresponding relationship between natural language variables of grade 7 and trian
gular fuzzy numbers.

where X j denotes the parent node of Xi , P X j represents the probability of occurrence of
Natural Language Variables
parent node events, XnTriangular Fuzzy
represents the set ofNumber Corresponding 𝝀 cut set
non-Xi set of child nodes.
Very low (VL) (0, 0, 0.1) [0, −0.1λ + 0.1]
3.2.2. Solution for the Occurrence Probability of the Exogenous Variables
Low (L) (0, 0.1, 0.3) [0.1λ, −0.2 + 0.3]
In fuzzy set theory [51,52], give a universe U, for whatever x ∈ U, there is a corre-
Few low (FL) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5) [0.2λ + 0.1, −0.2λ + 0.5]
sponding F ( x ) ∈ [0, 1], where F ( x ) is the membership for x to U, F is the membership
Medium (M)function of x. In this paper, triangular
(0.3, 0.5, 0.7)numbers are used to[0.2λ
fuzzy + the
express 0.3,probability
−0.2λ + of0.7]
Few high (FH)occurrence of the bottom event,(0.5, 0.7, 0.9) [0.2λ
which is represented by F = ( a, b, c). + 0.5, −0.2λ + 0.9]
], Fλ1)= { x | x ∈ R, F ≥ λ} [0.2λ
= a ,+c 0.7, , Fλ−0.1λ +cut
1.0]

High (H) At the same time, if any λ ∈ [0, 10.9,
(0.7, λ λ is the λ
set
Very low (VH) of F, so, trigonometric ambiguity function
(0.9, 1, 1) can be expressed by [0.1λ + 0.9, 1.0]
Formula (4):
h i
Fλ = aλ , cλ = [(b − a)λ + a, (b − c)λ + c], (4)
Since the qualification level, work experience, and education experience of the in
vitedTheexperts have an
introduction impact
of fuzzy on the
theory can consistency and accuracy
reduce the subjectivity of the of the evaluation
expert evaluation result
[55], it is
process, necessary
improve to calculate
the reliability the
of the calculation results, 𝐾
weight vector andofavoid
each the
expert. Referring
judgment to the rele
of impor-
vantrisk
tant literature [45,56],
nodes due to thethe qualification
small scores
difference in of the
the risk expertsresults
evaluation were determined
[53]. We can as
useshown in
Table 5. fuzzy numbers and λ cut set to synthesize the risk state grade evaluation given
triangular
by different experts, calculate the fuzzy number of the risk, and determine the prior proba-
bility
Tableof5.the root node of of
Demographics thethe
Bayesian network. The seven-level natural language variables
respondents.
were introduced to make a fuzzy evaluation, including: very Low (VL), low (L), few low
Symbol
(FL), medium (M), few high Item(FH), high (H), and very Classification Score
high (V H) [54]. The corresponding
triangular fuzzy numbers and λ cut sets are shown in Top-level experts
Table 4. The membership functions5
of natural language variables and triangular fuzzy numbers
Senior experts in Figure 2.
are shown 4
𝐿 Qualification level Intermediate experts 3
Table 4. The corresponding relationship between natural language variables of grade 7 and triangular
fuzzy numbers. Technical foreman 2
General operators 1
Natural Language Variables Triangular Fuzzy Number Corresponding λ cut set
30 years or above 4
Very low (VL) (0, 0, 0.1) [0, −0.1λ + 0.1]
15~29 years[0.1λ, −0.2 + 0.3] 3
𝑊 Low (L) Work experience (0, 0.1, 0.3)
Few low (FL) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5) 5~14 years
[0.2λ + 0.1, −0.2λ + 0.5] 2
Medium (M) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) [0.2λ + 0.3, −0.2λ + 0.7]
0~4 years 1
Few high (FH) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) [0.2λ + 0.5, −0.2λ + 0.9]
(0.7, 0.9,Railway construction field
[0.2λ + 0.7, −0.1λ + 1.0] 3
𝐸 High (H)
Education experience 1)
Very low (VH) (0.9,Non-railway
1, 1) [0.1λ +field
construction 0.9, 1.0] 2

Figure2.2.Membership
Figure Membership functions
functions of natural
of natural language
language variables
variables of grade of grade
7 and 7 and triangular
triangular fuzzy num
fuzzy number.
ber.

The calculation steps of expert weight and evaluation results were as follows:
1. Add the scores of the three items of expert’s qualification level, work experience and
education experience, and the evaluation weight of expert 𝑖 is:
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 9 of 19

Since the qualification level, work experience, and education experience of the invited
experts have an impact on the consistency and accuracy of the evaluation results [55],
it is necessary to calculate the weight vector K of each expert. Referring to the rele-
vant literature [45,56], the qualification scores of the experts were determined as shown
in Table 5.

Table 5. Demographics of the respondents.

Symbol Item Classification Score

Top-level experts 5
Senior experts 4
Lq Qualification level Intermediate experts 3
Technical foreman 2
General operators 1
30 years or above 4
15~29 years 3
We Work experience
5~14 years 2
0~4 years 1
Railway construction field 3
Ee Education experience
Non-railway construction field 2

The calculation steps of expert weight and evaluation results were as follows:
1. Add the scores of the three items of expert’s qualification level, work experience and
education experience, and the evaluation weight of expert i is:

q
Li + Wie + Eie
mi =   , i = 1, 2, · · · , n, (5)
q
∑nj=1 Li + Wie + Eie
q
where Li indicates the score of experts’ qualification level; Wie indicates the expert’s work
experience score; Eie indicates the score of experts’ education experience.
2. The expert’s weight vector is:

K = [ m1 , m2 , · · · , m n ], (6)
where mn represents the weight of the nth experts.
3. Let the triangular fuzzy evaluation of the occurrence probability of exogenous vari-
ables by experts be:

A i = ( a i , bi , c i ) , (7)
4. The triangle fuzzy number of the probability of risk event weighted by the expert
weight is:

∑ n mi Ai  
A i = i =1
f = aei , bei , cei , (8)
n
5. The probability value of calculating the fuzzy set is:

aei + 2bei + cei

Pi = , (9)
4
6. Normalize the probability values of nodes in different states, obtain the probability of
occurrence of node:
 Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719
matics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER
10 of 19
Pi
ei =
P h
, (10)
∑ i =1 Pi
where h represents the number of risk node states;
3.2.3. Solution for the Bayesian Network Model
The Bayesian network parameter learning refers to the process of determining the
conditional probability table and specific parameters of different nodes in the model using
actual data and professional experience [57,58]. The two common methods of parameter
learning are maximum likelihood estimation and Bayesian statistical method. Maximum
likelihood estimation method identifies parameters as fixed variables, and its solution is not
influenced by prior knowledge and experience [59]. On the other hand, Bayesian statistical
method treats the parameters to be solved as random variables, which allows incorporating
previous experience and theoretical knowledge [60]. Since analyzing the system risk in-
volves drawing heavily from previous engineering experience and professional knowledge,
the Bayesian network adopts the Bayesian statistical method for parameter learning. The
process of solving the Bayesian statistical model can be described as follows.
A typical example of a Bayesian network is shown in Figure 3. Specifically, we can
focus on analyzing one of the fork nodes. Let us assume that X1 and X2 are the two main
REVIEW
risk factors that affect the quality and safety of the system operation. According to the
logical relationships shown in Figure 3, X1 and X2 are the parent nodes of Z, which is the
child node that represents the occurrence of system risk.
Figure 3. Description diagram of node relationship.
Figure 3. Description diagram of node relationship.
In order to simulate the calculation process of the probability of child node Z occur-
rence clearly, we assumed that the probability of risk factors X1 and X2 occurring in the
In order to simulate the calculation process of the proba
system was determined to be 0.12 and 0.10, respectively. However, if we only rely on the
rence clearly, we assumed that the probability of risk factor
occurrence probability of two risk factors, we are unable to perform the calculation, because
the quality and safety risks of system are usually caused by many factors; therefore, it is
system was determined to be 0.12 and 0.10, respectively. Ho
necessary to determine the joint probability of risk factors X1 and X2 , that is, determine
the conditional probability table of node Z. This step generally uses the actual survey
occurrence probability of two risk factors, we are unable to
data for parameter learning and was improved through expert discussion. The conditional
cause the quality and safety risks of system are usually cause
probability of node Z is shown in Table 6.
it is necessary to determine the joint probability of risk fact
mine the conditional probability table of node 𝑍. This step
vey data for parameter learning and was improved through
tional probability of node 𝑍 is shown in Table 6.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 11 of 19

Table 6. Conditional probability of node Z.

A = “Y” A = “N”
Node State
B = “Y” B = “N” B = “Y” B = “N”
Z = “Y” 0.4 0.25 0.18 0.1
Z = “N” 0.6 0.75 0.82 0.9

On the basis of determining the conditional probability table in Table 6, the occurrence
probability of node Z can be calculated by using Bayesian theorem, that is:

P( Z = Y ) = P( Z = Y | A = Y, B = Y ) ∗ P( A = Y ) ∗ P( B = Y ) + P( Z = Y | A = Y, B = N )
∗ P( A = Y ) ∗ P( B = N ) + P( Z = Y | A = N, B = Y ) ∗ P( A = N ) ∗ P( B = Y )+ (11)
P( Z = Y | A = N, B = N ) ∗ P( A = N ) ∗ P( B = N ) 0.126
Since Z is a binary event, the occurrence probability of node Z does not occur is:

P( Z = N ) = 1 − P( Z = Y ) = 0.874 (12)

3.3. Risk Assessment of Catenary Construction

3.3.1. Forward Reasoning
The forward reasoning of the risk network is based on the information of the cause
node, and the reasoning calculation is carried out on the network node relationship to
obtain the conditional probability table of the risk index node. Assume the variable to be
solved be X, each state is k, and the forward reasoning formula of variable aggregation
[ X1 , · · · , X j−1 , X j+1 , · · · , Xn ] is as follows:
  n
P X j = x kj = ∑ ∑ P(xi | π (xi )), (13)
xi − x kj i =1

3.3.2. Importance Analysis

Bayesian network analysis is to calculate the occurrence probability of the top event
from the prior probability of the root node as the occurrence probability of the bottom
event. Posteriori probability refers to the probability of re-correction after the occurrence of
the assumed top event “system operation risk”. The calculation of the posterior probability
of the bottom event is based on the prior probability, and so, it is not completely reliable
to take the posterior probability of the root node as a single quantitative standard for
analysis. This paper comprehensively compares the probability importance degree and the
critical importance degree to reflect the importance degree of accidents caused by the root
node, and verifies the reliability of the posterior probability. Among them, the probability
importance refers to the change value of the top event occurrence probability caused by the
unit change of the bottom event occurrence probability. Critical importance refers to the
ratio of the change rate of the occurrence probability of the top event to the change rate
of the occurrence probability of the bottom event. The posterior probability was obtained
from the prior probability and likelihood function according to the Bayesian formula. The
Bayesian formula is:

P ( T = Y | Xi = Y ) P ( Xi )
P ( Xi = Y | T = Y ) = , (14)
∑in=1 [ P( T
= Y| Xi = Y) P( Xi )]

where Xi is bottom event and is binary event, when Xi occurs, Xi = Y, or Xi = N; T is Top

Event; P( Xi ) is the priori probability of the Bottom Event Xi ; P( T = Y|) is the conditional
probability of the Top Event.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 12 of 19

The equation for calculating the probability importance of Bayesian network is:
 
pi
Ii = P( T = YXi = Y) − P( T = YXi = N), (15)
 

The calculation equation of critical importance is:

P( Xi = Y)[ P( T = Y| Xi = Y) − P( T = Y| Xi = N)]
Iici = . (16)
P ( T = Y)

4. Results
4.1. Establish Structural Causal Model of Catenary Construction Risks
In this paper, we analyzed the risks associated with catenary construction process in
Section 2 and identified six exogenous variables and twenty-one endogenous variables. By
incorporating this analysis with a discussion on the application of the structural causal
model in causal logic reasoning (as discussed in Section 3.1), we can establish the struc-
tural causal model for the risk factors of catenary construction, and describe the causal
relationship between the risk factors of catenary construction in structural equation and
causal diagram.
Based on the causal logic relationship between the exogenous and endogenous vari-
ables expressed in Equation (1), we assumed that U = {C1 , C2 , . . . , Cn } wasthe exogenous
variables of the risk factors in catenary construction process, while V = B1 , B2 , . . . , Bj
was the endogenous variables of risk factors. Thus, there exists a functional formula f i
that can describe the causal logic relationship between the exogenous and endogenous
variables of the risk factors in the catenary construction, and the set of the functional
formula was F = { f 1 , f 2 , , . . . , f i }. Based on the above setting of the variable set of risk
factors in the catenary construction process, we can establish the structural equation of
causal relationship among risk factors through causal reasoning.
On the basis of fully understanding the business process of catenary construction, we
consulted experts in the field of railway construction, and analyzed the causal relationship
between the six exogenous variables and twenty-one endogenous variables in this study
based on causal theory [56]. Specifically, the behavior X leads to the result G, which can be
represented using the structural equation G = f ( X ).
For example, according to the description of variables in Tables 1–3, we can derive the
functional equation mapping relationship between exogenous and endogenous variables
of risk factors in the catenary construction process. Specifically, since C1 (the drawings
are not communicated in time) can lead to B1 (the drawings are not qualified) used in
construction. The causal relationship between the risk factors can be expressed by structural
equation, namely:
B1 = f 1 (C1 ), (17)
Similarly, it can be reasoned that due to C5 (poor reputation of the unit that won the
tender for the materials) and the B11 (failure of the physical and mechanical department
that performs the quality inspection of incoming materials) can lead to B10 (failure of the
quality of the material) used in construction. So, the causal relationship between the risk
factors is expressed in a structural equation, namely:

B10 = f 7 (C5 , B11 ), (18)

Based on the analysis of the above examples and a thorough examination of the causal
relationships between risk factors in catenary construction process, we ] deduced the causal
equation that connects these variables. Consequently, we can obtain the complete structural
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 13 of 19

equation that describes the causal relationships within catenary construction process, as
shown in Equation (19): 

 B1 = f 1 (C1 )
B4 = f 4 (C4 )





 ..
.





 B10 = f 7 (C5 , B11 )





 B6 = f 2 (C2 , B3 )
..

. (19)

B19 = f 9 (C6 , B10 , B15 )







 B 18 = f 10 (C6 , B10 , B15 )
..






 .
A = f ( B15 , B17 )

3 24



A4 = f 25 ( B20 , B21 ),


where f 1...25 denotes the mapping of the logical relationship from cause to effect among the
risk factors of catenary construction process, C1...6 denotes the exogenous variables of the
risk factors of catenary construction process, and B1...21 denotes the endogenous variables
of the risk factors of catenary construction process. A1...4 denotes the four stages of catenary
construction risks divided by project type.
According to the settings and interpretations of exogenous and endogenous variables
in Section 2, and with reference to the structural equation expression (19) of the causal
relationships between risk factors in the catenary construction process, the three basic path
structures of the directed acyclic diagram can be used to establish a multi-level (including
exogenous variable layer, endogenous variable layer, stage risk layer) causal diagram of
risk factors in the construction of catenary, as shown in Figure 4, which can emphasize
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW the
14 of 21
hierarchical logical relationship between risk factors.

Figure 4. Causal diagram of risk factors for catenary construction.

Figure 4. Causal diagram of risk factors for catenary construction.

4.2. Calculate the Occurrence Probability of Exogenous Variables for Catenary Construction
Risks
In order to verify the effectiveness of catenary construction risks assessment frame-
work proposed in this paper, five experts in the field of high-speed railway construction
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 14 of 19

4.2. Calculate the Occurrence Probability of Exogenous Variables for Catenary Construction Risks
In order to verify the effectiveness of catenary construction risks assessment framework
proposed in this paper, five experts in the field of high-speed railway construction were
invited to make assessment and judgment. The specific process was as follows:
The personal information distribution of the five experts invited are shown in Table 7.
Referring to the scores of the experts’ qualifications in Table 5 and based on Formula (5),
the weights of the experts were calculated.

Table 7. Expert personal information and weight.

Expert Qualification Level Work Experience Education Experience Weight

Expert 1 Top experts 15~29 years Railway construction field 0.28
Expert 2 Intermediate experts 5~14 years Non-railway construction field 0.16
Expert 3 Senior experts 5~14 years Railway construction field 0.23
Expert 4 General operators 0~4 years Railway construction field 0.14
Expert 5 Technical foreman 5~14 years Non-railway construction field 0.19

The expert fuzzy evaluations of exogenous variables for catenary construction risks
are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Expert fuzzy evaluation table of exogenous variables for catenary construction risks.

Y N
Node
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5
C1 L L FL FL L H FH FH H H
C2 FL FL FL FL FL H VH H H FH
C3 L L L L L H H H H FH
C4 FL FL FL FL FL FH H H VH VH
C5 L L L L L FH H H FH H
C6 L L L L L H FH FH FH H

According to the expert fuzzy evaluation results in Table 8, combined with Equations (8)–(10),
the probability of occurrence for exogenous variables in catenary construction risks was
calculated and is presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Priori probability of exogenous variables.

Node code C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Probability of occurrence 0.13 0.11 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.05

4.3. Establish a Fuzzy Bayesian Network Model for Catenary Construction Risks
In this paper, the structural causal model of catenary construction risks was con-
structed in Section 4.1 to determine the causal logical relationship between risk factors. The
probability of occurrence for risk endogenous variables was calculated according to the
results of expert fuzzy evaluation in Section 4.2, and based on the overview in Section 3.2.2,
the conditional probability of risk endogenous variables was determined by consulting
the experienced personnel in catenary construction engineering for many times. Then,
we can construct a Bayesian network model of catenary construction risks, as shown in
Figure 5. According to the calculation results in Figure 5, the comprehensive probability
of occurrence for catenary construction risks was 0.60. Thus, it can be seen that under the
background of the traditional management mode, risks were likely to occur in the process
of catenary construction. Therefore, it was necessary to formulate risk control measures for
the weak points and strictly abide by various engineering rules and regulations during the
construction process to improve project efficiency and enhance project quality.
Mathematics 2023,
Mathematics 11,11,
2023, 1719
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of1521of 19

Figure5.5.Analysis
Figure Analysis diagram
diagram of
of catenary
catenaryconstruction
constructionrisks
risksBayesian
Bayesiannetwork forward
network inference.
forward inference.

Based on Equation (14), the probability of catenary construction risk occurring was
assumed to be 100%. The posterior probability of endogenous and exogenous variables for
catenary construction risks was then obtained through reverse reasoning, as presented in
Table 10 and Figure 6.

Table 10. Posterior probability of risk factors.

Node Probability Node Probability Node Probability

C1 0.13 B4 0.16 B13 0.26
C2 0.11 B5 0.21 B14 0.28
C3 0.23 B6 0.46 B15 0.36
C4 0.19 B7 0.45 B16 0.20
C5 0.20 B8 0.65 B17 0.26
C6 0.05 B9 0.73 B18 0.23
B1 0.16 B10 0.32 B19 0.18
B2 0.27 B11 0.20 B20 0.15
B3 0.48 B12 0.24 B21 0.19

4.4. Importance Analysis of Exogenous Variables of Catenary Construction Risks

The probability importance and critical importance of the exogenous variables are
calculated according to Equations (15) and (16), and the results are shown in Table 11.
The ranking result of probability importance is:
pi pi pi pi pi pi
IC > IC3 > IC6 > IC5 > IC2 > IC
4 1

The critical importance ranking result is:

Figure 6. Analysis diagram of catenary construction risks Bayesian network reverse inference.

ICci4 > ICci3 > ICci6 > ICci5 > ICci2 > ICci1
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 16 of 19

Figure 5. Analysis diagram of catenary construction risks Bayesian network forward inference.

Figure6.6.Analysis
Figure Analysis diagram catenaryconstruction
diagram of catenary constructionrisks
risksBayesian
Bayesian network
network reverse
reverse inference.
inference.

Table 11. Critical importance calculation results of probability importance.

Node Probability Importance Critical Importance

C1 90.34% 20.71%
C2 90.56% 43.35%
C3 91.65% 153.36%
C4 92.34% 225.68%
C5 90.76% 65.78%
C6 90.95% 93.46%

The higher the probability importance and critical importance, the more likely the
exogenous variables are to cause the occurrence of catenary construction risks. By compar-
ing and analyzing the importance of exogenous variables of catenary construction risks,
the probability importance and critical importance of exogenous variables C3 , C4 were
relatively large, which indicates that improve the basic quality level of workers and the
sense of responsibility of the supervision unit can effectively reduce the risk of catenary
construction process.

4.5. Corresponding Measures

Based on the results of importance analysis and reverse reasoning of risk factors
during the construction of catenary, the following measures for catenary construction risk
management and control are proposed.
Strictly implement the engineering technical disclosure and regularly assess the skill
level of construction personnel. The quality level of construction personnel is critical to
the risk control of the whole process of catenary construction. The on-site construction
personnel shall be strictly trained and the technical level of the construction personnel who
completed the training shall be assessed to ensure that the technical level of construction
personnel meets the requirements of project quality assurance.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 17 of 19

Standardize the daily quality inspection standard of the project. The supervision unit
and the Safety and Quality Department shall carefully and responsibly carry out daily
quality inspection in strict accordance with the standards and specifications of catenary
engineering. The owner unit can establish a daily inspection process assessment system
for the inspection unit and the inspected unit, respectively, commend and reward the
inspection units and personnel who pass the assessment or rank high, and punish the units
who neglect their duties or rank low. In addition, the owner should establish a complete
set of quality inspection—rectification—review process to realize the closed-loop treatment
of daily quality inspection.
Formulate the work assessment system for supervisors. The supervisor is responsible
for supervising the work of all departments at the construction site, and so, the performance
appraisal system of the supervisor’s personnel is established to improve the working
attitude and enthusiasm of the supervision engineer and control the quality of catenary
project from the root.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper constructed a fuzzy Bayesian network model for catenary construction
risks that allows for the incorporation of expert knowledge and subjective assessments. We
can obtain the data for the model simulation inference through the subjective evaluation
of the experts, which cannot be obtained directly from the available materials. Firstly, a
structural causal model was used to analyze and describe the causal logic relationship
between risk factors in the catenary construction. Through expert fuzzy evaluation and
consultation, the basic data required for risk quantification evaluation were obtained, and
subsequently, a fuzzy Bayesian network model for risk assessment for catenary construction
was constructed. The comprehensive risk level of catenary construction process was
inferred to be 0.6 through forward reasoning analysis of the fuzzy Bayesian network,
confirming that there were certain shortcomings in the current risk control of catenary
construction. Therefore, this study conducted backward reasoning and importance analysis,
and inferred the risk factors that had a greater influence on catenary construction risk
level are “low quality of construction personnel” and “inadequate supervision by the
construction unit”. Based on this conclusion, this study proposed four risk control measures,
which provide theoretical support for project managers, standardize catenary construction
process, improve construction efficiency and quality, and ensure catenary construction
safety. This research provides good guidance and reference for future catenary construction
risk control and related management.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.C.; methodology, Y.C.; software, X.L.; formal analysis,
J.W. and M.L.; investigation, C.C. and J.W.; resources, Y.C.; data curation, X.L.; writing—original
draft, Y.C. and J.W.; writing—review and editing, M.L. and Y.S.; supervision, Y.C. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This paper was supported by Research Project of China Academy of Railway Sciences
Group Co., LTD [grant number 2022YJ130-1].
Data Availability Statement: All the relevant data are already included in the main manuscript.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their constructive com-
ments on the earlier versions of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wu, G.; Wei, W.; Gao, G.; Wu, J.; Zhou, Y. Evolution of the electrical contact of dynamic pantograph–catenary system. J. Mod.
Transp. 2016, 24, 132–138. [CrossRef]
2. Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X. Improved Study on the Fluctuation Velocity of High-Speed Railway Catenary Considering
the Influence of Accessory Parts. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 138710–138718. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, Z.; Song, Y.; Han, Y.; Wang, H.; Zhang, J.; Han, Z. Advances of research on high-speed railway catenary. J. Mod. Transp. 2018,
26, 1–23. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 18 of 19

4. Wang, C.; Feng, K.; Zhang, H.; Li, Q. Seismic performance assessment of electric power systems subjected to spatially correlated
earthquake excitations. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 15, 351–361. [CrossRef]
5. Xie, C.; Bai, J.; Wang, H.; Luan, L.; Zhu, W.; Wang, J.; Liu, Z. Lightning Risk Assessment of Transmission Lines Based on
Multidimensional Related Information Fusion. Zhongguo Dianji Gongcheng Xuebao Proc. Chin. Soc. Electr. Eng. 2018, 38, 6233–6244.
[CrossRef]
6. Douar, A.; Beroual, A.; Souche, X. Degradation of Various Polymeric Materials in Clean and Salt Fog Conditions: Measurements
of AC Flashover Voltage and Assessment of Surface Damages. IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul. 2015, 22, 391–399. [CrossRef]
7. Wu, Y.; Xue, Y.; Xie, Y.; Wang, H.; Duan, R.; Huang, W. Space-time impact of typhoon and rainstorm on power grid fault
probability. Autom. Electr. Power Syst. 2016, 40, 20–29, 83. [CrossRef]
8. Panteli, M.; Mancarella, P. Modeling and Evaluating the Resilience of Critical Electrical Power Infrastructure to Extreme Weather
Events. IEEE Syst. J. 2015, 11, 1–10. [CrossRef]
9. Guo, C.; Ye, C.; Ding, Y.; Wang, P. A Multi-State Model for Transmission System Resilience Enhancement Against Short-Circuit
Faults Caused by Extreme Weather Events. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2020, 36, 2374–2385. [CrossRef]
10. Ma, S.; Chen, B.; Wang, Z. Resilience Enhancement Strategy for Distribution Systems Under Extreme Weather Events. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 2016, 9, 1442–1451. [CrossRef]
11. Yum, S.; Son, K.; Son, S.; Kim, J.-M. Identifying Risk Indicators for Natural Hazard-Related Power Outages as a Component of
Risk Assessment: An Analysis Using Power Outage Data from Hurricane Irma. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7702. [CrossRef]
12. Chen, Y.; Song, B.; Du, X.; Guizani, N. The enhancement of catenary image with low visibility based on multi-feature fusion
network in railway industry. Comput. Commun. 2020, 152, 200–205. [CrossRef]
13. Chen, Y.; Song, B.; Zeng, Y.; Du, X.; Guizani, M. A deep learning-based approach for fault diagnosis of current-carrying ring in
catenary system. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 33, 1–13. [CrossRef]
14. Feng, D.; He, Z.; Lin, S.; Wang, Z.; Sun, X. Risk Index System for Catenary Lines of High-Speed Railway Considering the
Characteristics of Time–Space Differences. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2017, 3, 739–749. [CrossRef]
15. Feng, D.; Yu, Q.; Sun, X.; Hengkai, Z.; Lin, S.; Liang, J. Risk Assessment for Electrified Railway Catenary System Under
Comprehensive Influence of Geographical and Meteorological Factors. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2021, 7, 3137–3148. [CrossRef]
16. Chen, Z.; Sun, G.; Shi, G.; Hui, L. Study on Friction and Wear of Sliding Electrical Contact of Pantograph-catenary System under
Fluctuating Compressive Load. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Holm Conference on Electrical Contacts, Albuquerque, NM,
USA, 14–18 October 2018; pp. 399–405.
17. Song, Y.; Liu, Z.; Lu, X. Dynamic Performance of High-Speed Railway catenary Interacting With Pantograph Considering Local
Dropper Defect. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2020, 69, 5958–5967. [CrossRef]
18. Yule, G.U. On the Association of Attributes in Statistics: With Illustrations from the Material of the Childhood Society, &c. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. A 1900, 194, 257–319.
19. Schroder, R.J. Fault Trees for Reliability Analysis; BNWL-SA-2522; U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical
Information: Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 2000; p. 1969. [CrossRef]
20. Pearl, J. Bayesian Networks A Model of Self-Activated Memory for Evidential Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference of
the Cognitive Science Society, Irvine, CA, USA, 15–17 August 1985; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 1985; pp. 329–334.
21. Pearl, J. Statistics and causal inference: A review. Test 2003, 12, 281–345. [CrossRef]
22. Gao, S.; Wang, J.; Yu, L.; Zhang, D.; Zhan, R.; Kou, L.; Chen, K. A Multilayer Bayesian Network Approach-Based Predictive
Probabilistic Risk Assessment for catenary Under External Weather Conditions. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2022, 9, 236–253.
[CrossRef]
23. Chen, S.K.; Ho, T.K.; Mao, B. Reliability evaluations of railway power supplies by fault-tree analysis. Electr. Power Appl. IET 2007,
1, 161–172. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, J.; Gao, S.; Yu, L.; Ma, C.; Zhang, D.; Kou, L. A Data-Driven Integrated Framework for Predictive Probabilistic Risk
Analytics of catenary Based on Dynamic Bayesian Network. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2023, 235, 109266. [CrossRef]
25. Kalisch, M.; Bühlmann, P. Estimating high-dimensional directed acyclic graphs with the PC-algorithm. J. Mach. Learn. Res 2005,
8, 613–636.
26. Dechter, R.; Geffner, H.; Halpern, J. Heuristics, Probability and Causality. A Tribute to Judea Pearl; College Publications: Rick-
mansworth, UK, 2010.
27. Goldberger, A.S. Structural Equation Methods in the Social Sciences. Econometrica 1972, 40, 979–1001. [CrossRef]
28. Rauter, F.; Pombo, J.; Ambrósio, J.; Chalansonnet, J.; Bobillot, A.; Pereira, M. Contact Model for The Pantograph-Catenary
Interaction. J. Syst. Des. Dyn. 2007, 1, 447–457. [CrossRef]
29. Ambrósio, J.; Pombo, J.; Pereira, M.; Antunes, P.; Mósca, A. Recent Developments in Pantograph-Catenary Interaction Modelling
and Analysis. Int. J. Railw. Technol. 2012, 1, 249–278. [CrossRef]
30. Jiménez-Octavio, J.R.; Carnicero, A.; Sanchez-Rebollo, C.; Such, M. A moving mesh method to deal with cable structures subjected
to moving loads and its application to catenary–pantograph dynamic interaction. J. Sound Vib. 2015, 349, 216–229. [CrossRef]
31. Pearl, J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; p. xvi, 384.
32. Pearl, J. Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika 1995, 82, 669–688. [CrossRef]
33. Zhang, J.; Liu, Z.; Lu, X.; Song, Y. Study on aerodynamics development of high-speed pantograph and catenary. Tiedao Xuebao/J.
China Railw. Soc. 2015, 37, 7–15. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2023, 11, 1719 19 of 19

34. Ma, M.; Dong, W.; Sun, X.; Ji, X. A Dynamic Risk Analysis Method for High-speed Railway Catenary Based on Bayesian Network.
In Proceedings of the 2019 CAA Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety for Technical Processes (SAFEPROCESS),
Xiamen, China, 5–7 July 2019; pp. 547–554.
35. Song, Y.; Duan, F.; Wu, F.; Liu, Z.; Gao, S. Assessment of the Current Collection Quality of Pantograph–Catenary With Contact
Line Height Variability in Electric Railways. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2021, 8, 788–798. [CrossRef]
36. Kim, J. An experimental study of the dynamic characteristics of catenary-pantograph interface in high speed trains. J. Mech. Sci.
Technol. 2007, 21, 2108–2116. [CrossRef]
37. Kusumi, S.; Fukutani, T.; Nezu, K. Diagnosis of catenary based on Contact Force. Q. Rep. Rtri 2006, 47, 39–45. [CrossRef]
38. Pombo, J.; Ambrósio, J. Environmental and track perturbations on multiple pantograph interaction with catenaries in high-speed
trains. Comput. Struct. 2013, 124, 88–101. [CrossRef]
39. Vo Van, O.; Massat, J.-P.; Laurent, C.; Balmes, E. Introduction of variability into pantograph-catenary dynamic simulations. Veh.
Syst. Dyn. 2013, 52, 1254–1269. [CrossRef]
40. Andersson, E.; Fröidh, O.; Stichel, S.; Bustad, T.; Tengstrand, H. Green Train: Concept and technology overview. Int. J. Rail Transp.
2014, 2, 2–16. [CrossRef]
41. Lauritzen, S.L.; Spiegelhalter, D.J. Local Computations with Probabilities on Graphical Structures and Their Application to Expert
Systems. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1988, 50, 157–194. [CrossRef]
42. Rohrer, J.M. Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical Causal Models for Observational Data. Adv. Methods
Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 1, 27–42. [CrossRef]
43. Lu, Y.; Zheng, Q.; Quinn, D. Introducing Causal Inference Using Bayesian Networks and do-Calculus. J. Stat. Data Sci. Educ. 2022,
31, 3–17. [CrossRef]
44. Zheng, Y.; Zhao, N.; He, Y. Causality in objective world: Directed Acyclic Graphs-based structural parsing. Zhonghua Liu Xing
Bing Xue Za Zhi Zhonghua Liuxingbingxue Zazhi 2018, 39, 90–93. [CrossRef]
45. Zhou, Y.; Song, P.; Wen, X. Structural factor equation models for causal network construction via directed acyclic mixed graphs.
Biometrics 2020, 77, 573–586. [CrossRef]
46. Wang, Y.; Su, J.; Zhang, S.; Guo, S.; Zhang, P.; Du, M. A Dynamic Risk Assessment Method for Deep-Buried Tunnels Based on a
Bayesian Network. Geofluids 2020, 2020, 8848860. [CrossRef]
47. Yazdi, M.; Kabir, S. A fuzzy Bayesian Network approach for risk analysis in process industries. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017,
111, 507–519. [CrossRef]
48. Liu, T.; Zhang, L.; Jin, G.; Pan, Z. Reliability Assessment of Heavily Censored Data Based on E-Bayesian Estimation. Mathematics
2022, 10, 4216. [CrossRef]
49. Cooper, G.F.; Herskovits, E. A Bayesian method for the induction of probabilistic networks from data. Mach. Learn. 1992,
9, 309–347. [CrossRef]
50. Tsamardinos, I.; Brown, L.E.; Aliferis, C.F. The max-min hill-climbing Bayesian Network structure learning algorithm. Mach.
Learn. 2006, 65, 31–78. [CrossRef]
51. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control. 1965, 8, 338–353. [CrossRef]
52. Lv, H.; Wang, G. Approximations of Fuzzy Numbers by Using r-s Piecewise Linear Fuzzy Numbers Based on Weighted Metric.
Mathematics 2022, 10, 145. [CrossRef]
53. Ilbahar, E.; Karaşan, A.; Cebi, S.; Kahraman, C. A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using
Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Saf. Sci. 2018, 103, 124–136. [CrossRef]
54. Wickens, C.D.; Hollands, J.G.; Banbury, S.; Parasuraman, R. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance; Psychology Press:
London, UK, 2021.
55. Li, W.; Liang, W.; Zhang, L.; Tang, Q. Performance assessment system of health, safety and environment based on experts’ weights
and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2015, 35, 95–103. [CrossRef]
56. Qiu, D.; Qu, C.; Xue, Y.; Zhou, B.; Li, X.; Ma, X.; Cui, J. A Comprehensive Assessment Method for Safety Risk of Gas Tunnel
Construction Based on Fuzzy Bayesian Network. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2020, 29, 4269–4289. [CrossRef]
57. Yu, L.; Gao, S.; Zhang, D.; Kang, G.; Zhan, D.; Roberts, C. A Survey on Automatic Inspections of catenary by Computer Vision.
IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 23, 10104–10125. [CrossRef]
58. Yue, M.; Fairless, T.; Jensen, M.; Giangrande, S.; Lofaro, R. A Bayesian Approach Based Outage Prediction in Electric Utility
Systems Using Radar Measurement Data. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2017, 9, 6149–6159. [CrossRef]
59. Nielsen, T.D.; Jensen, F.V. Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009.
60. Pérez-Bernabé, I.; Fernández, A.; Rumí, R.; Salmerón, A. Parameter learning in hybrid Bayesian Networks using prior knowledge.
Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2015, 30, 576–604. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.