SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Introducing following HRA topics to visitors from Naval Nuclear Labs. - Dynamic HRA Method and Software (LWRS) - HRA Data Collection (LWRS) - HRA Consultation (KINS) - HRA for Advanced Nuclear Reactors (Hobby) - HRA for Non-Nuclear Industries (BEES)
Dependency analysis in human reliability analysis (HRA) is a method of adjusting the failure probability of a given action by considering the impact of the action preceding it. It plays a role in reasonably accounting for human actions in the context of probabilistic safety assessments (PSAs), preventing PSA results from being estimated too optimistically based on the HRA results. Nevertheless, the existing dependency methods present a couple of challenges in that the quantification approaches rarely explain the adjustment of human error probabilities (HEPs). For this reason, the authors’ previous research has pointed out challenges of the existing dependency approaches and conceptually, theoretically proposed a performance shaping factor (PSF)-based dynamic dependency analysis method for HRA in order to complement the existing dependency methods. The current paper explores the latest version of the method and guidance for applying it to a steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) scenario.
Research for dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA) (a.k.a., simulation-based or computation-based HRA) has been required, as many researchers have emphasized the importance of dynamic approaches to probabilistic safety assessment (PSA). This study proposes the PRocedure-based Investigation Method of EMRALD Risk Assessment – Human Reliability Analysis (PRIMERA-HRA) method, which is an approach to dynamic HRA using the Event Modeling Risk Assessment using Linked Diagram (EMRALD) software developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL). In this study, how to model human actions using the software and evaluate the error probabilities is suggested. The applicability of this approach will be also investigated through an extended loss of AC power (ELAP) scenario. Then, major insights from this dynamic HRA approach against the static one will be discussed in the paper.
Human reliability analysis (HRA) evaluates human errors and provides human error probabilities (HEPs) for application in probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), which is a comprehensive safety assessment method for nuclear power plants (NPPs). Generally, HRA methods estimate HEPs based on human reliability data collected from actual historical measurement, simulator experiments, or expert judgement. Most recent HRA data collection studies focus on collecting data via full-scope main control room (MCR) simulators with actual licensed reactor operators. Contrary to this, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has adopted a different approach, which attempts to collect HRA data based on experiment using simplified simulators and student participants by following the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP). This approach has a couple of advantages compared to full-scope data collection. Representatively, it has relatively low entry point for collecting HRA data, and secures large sample sizes with reasonable cost and labor. In the previous studies, we developed the SHEEP framework, then verified whether the data collected through the framework could support a representative full-scope data collection study, i.e., the Human Reliability Data Extraction (HuREX) study. Also, we analyzed human performance measurements depending on participant type (i.e., student vs. operator). In this paper, we analyze human performance data collected from an experiment comparing operator expertise and simulator complexity when using the more simplified simulator developed by INL, i.e., Rancor Microworld and the less simplified simulator, i.e., Compact Nuclear Simulator (CNS) developed by Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and correlation analysis are used for analyzing the experimental data.
Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) is a framework to support dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA) in communication with a variety of methods and tools. In this paper, how we have developed one of the HUNTER modules, the individual module for evaluating performance shaping factors (PSFs), is introduced. The PSF refers to any factor that influences human performance such as workload or complexity. It has been used for highlighting human errors and adjusting the error probabilities in the existing HRA. We consider the eight PSFs suggested in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-HRA (SPAR-H) method, which is the representative HRA method widely used in the nuclear field. To support our dynamic modeling using the eight SPAR-H PSFs, we reviewed human performance literature and developed data-based mathematical models to rate and quantify PSFs in the context of dynamic HRA. We also design the individual module composed of the two functions: 1) the PSF qualification function that automatically or manually evaluates a PSF level, and 2) the PSF quantification function that dynamically or statically determines the PSF multiplier values and integrate them to adjust human error probabilities (HEPs). How each function works with the SPAR-H PSFs and how the PSFs adjust the HEPs are investigated through literature and discussed in this paper.
The Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) is a framework to support dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA) in communication with a variety of methods and tools. This paper explores how we developed one of the HUNTER modules: namely, the Individual module for evaluating performance shaping factors (PSFs). A PSF is any factor that influences human performance (e.g., workload or complexity). In the existing HRA, they are used to highlight human errors and adjust error probabilities. We consider the eight PSFs suggested in the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-HRA (SPAR-H) method, a representative HRA method widely used in the nuclear field. To support our dynamic modeling using the eight SPAR-H PSFs, we reviewed the human performance literature and developed data-based mathematical models to rate and quantify PSFs in the context of dynamic HRA. We also designed the Individual module to consist of two functions: (1) the PSF qualification function for automatically or manually evaluating PSF levels, and (2) the PSF quantification function for dynamically or statically determining PSF multiplier values and integrating them to adjust human error probabilities (HEPs). How each function works in regard to the SPAR-H PSFs, and how the PSFs serve to adjust the HEPs, were investigated via literature review and are discussed in this paper.
There is a need for research into dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA) (i.e., simulation- or computation-based HRA), as many researchers have emphasized the importance of applying dynamic approaches to probabilistic safety assessments (PSAs). This study proposes the Procedure-based Investigation Method of EMRALD Risk Assessment – Human Reliability Analysis (PRIMERA-HRA), a dynamic HRA approach based on the Event Modeling Risk Assessment Using Linked Diagram (EMRALD) software developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL). This study suggests how this software can be used to model human actions and evaluate error probabilities. The applicability of this approach is also be investigated in light of an extended loss of AC power (ELAP) scenario. This paper then discusses the major insights derived by comparing this dynamic HRA approach against the static one.
In recent years, several advancements in nuclear power plant (NPP) probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) have been driven by increased understanding of external hazards, plant response, and uncertainties. However, major sources of uncertainty associated with external hazard PRA remain. One important source is how risk-significant human actions that are carried out to enable plant response and recovery from natural hazards cause the close coupling of physical impacts on plants and overall plant risk during these hazard events. This makes human reliability and human-plant interactions important elements to consider in resolving PRA gaps in external hazards. One of the challenges in considering human response in external hazard probabilistic risk assessment (XHPRA) is that most existing human reliability analysis (HRA) models were not developed for assessing actions outside the control room (termed ex-control room actions) and hazard response. To support this new scope, HRA models will need to be developed or modified to support identification of human activities, causal factors, and uncertainties inherent in external hazard response, thereby providing insights regarding event timing and physical event conditions as they relate to human performance. In this study, there are two main objectives: (1) evaluate the applicability of an existing cognitive-based HRA method, Phoenix, to ex-control room actions, and (2) identify sources of uncertainty to be characterized or reduced in order to make this method suitable for XHPRA. The first step of such work is performed by assessing the suitability of existing HRA methods to support identifying human failure events (HFEs) for human response to flooding hazards. These HFEs are human actions or inactions that are involved in human responses to flooding hazards and could contribute to the loss of a critical function for the plant in the scenario being examined. Here, in this work, decomposition analyses using the cognitive-based Phoenix HRA model are used to identify HFEs. The Phoenix method was found to be suitable for analyzing ex-control room actions as well as identifying specific HFEs and underlying crew failure modes (CFMs). However, the method's suitability for use in ex-control room actions would benefit from expanding the available CFMs to accommodate a larger variety of physical and communication tasks.
Nuclear power plants require human actions throughout their lifecycle from design, construction, operation, and decommissioning. However, for advanced reactors (e.g., Generation IV), the reliance on human intervention in safety-related actions is expected to be reduced or completely replaced by automated actions. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Standard for Advanced Non-LWR Nuclear Power Plants requires that the impacts of all operator actions are captured and incorporated in the risk of the modeled plant. Moreover, the Modernization of Technical Requirements for Licensing Advanced Reactors requires human reliability analysis (HRA) to be included throughout all design and PRA development stages. However, due to the lack of details during the early design stages, HRA is often postponed until the design is mature enough. Conducting HRA in later design stages, though it may be adequate in capturing pre-, at-, and post-initiators comes short of informing the design itself in the iterative design lifecycle. Hence, this paper presents a framework to include HRA during the design's early stages, pre-conceptual or conceptual. The proposed framework provides a process for the removal of operator actions that do not contribute to the risk and the identification of all key operator actions that are critical to the safety of the design. The results of this framework are then used to inform the design of those safety-related operator actions to update the design further. Then, using information from the updated design, this framework can be reapplied to investigate the impact of the design update on human reliability. The PRA model of the X-energy's pre-conceptual Xe-100 high-temperature gas-cooled pebble-bed reactor (HTGR-PB) design is used to demonstrate the approach. In the pre-conceptual Xe-100 PRA model, also called Phase 0 PRA model, human actions were considered an integral part of analyzing the plant response to different initiating events. Hence, in this paper, all possible human actions in the Xe-100 PRA model are identified, analyzed, and removed to emulate a design relying only on the available automated control systems. The preliminary results of this assessment show how safe the Xe-100 design is even without crediting any human actions. The results also list necessary sequences in which operator actions are critical to the risk profile of the design.
Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) of complex facilities is performed to arrive at the risk posed by them. PSA also accounts for the contribution of the human errors towards the overall risk through Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) in terms of Human Error Probability (HEP). Human operators are part of the system and do not work in isolation. Their performance is influenced by the context in which the actions are performed. As a result, quantification of HEP requires operator performance data under the given context. Some good sources of operator performance data are plant‘s operation data, simulator data and expert judgement. The plant operation data pertaining to HRA is generally sparse. In this situation, a full scope plant simulator provides a good alternative for operator performance data generation. Many of the currently practiced HRA methods have been developed by combining the empirical evidence with expert judgement and contain a lot of uncertainty in their estimates. Bayesian inference is suitable for updating the prior HRA estimates with the simulator evidence to obtain the posterior HEP. Here, posterior HEP has been calculated for postulated accident scenarios in advanced reactor (first of its kind) at design stage, using plant simulator.
The Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team at NASA Glenn Research Center is planning a customized approach to quantify human spaceflight performance changes with respect to changes to the CHP system functions and capabilities. Using the Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) initiated by NASA’s Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB) [1], the team is surveying potential candidate models and novel strategies that generate metrics suitable for supporting decision making related to how the CHP system may influence human system performance risk. One such investigation includes classic Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) models. Traditionally, HRA methods estimate the occurrence of human errors and their impact on the success of an activity when designing and operating a system. While humans perceive, interpret, decide on, and carry out a course of action, the factors affecting performance and error likelihood are commonly referred to as performance shaping factors (PSFs). Originally developed to alleviate safety concerns related to nuclear power plant operations, HRA methods such as THERP [2] and CREAM [3] dismantle an activity into tasks, requiring elemental steps to be executed, and assess their failure due to predefined PSFs. In this study, we compare generic HRA methods and those that incorporate some human spaceflight aspects, such as sleep conditions (SCREAM [4]), with respect to how they may be adopted to capture performance with an intention to mitigate detrimental outcomes elucidated by the HSRB DAGs. We suggest strategies to quantify astronaut performance specific to spaceflight activities and illustrate how such concepts may help in optimizing the CHP system capabilities with respect to Artemis missions.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has developed a human reliability analysis (HRA) method, termed the Integrated Human Event Analysis System for Event and Condition Assessment (IDHEAS-ECA), in order to estimate human error probabilities (HEPs) in risk-informed regulatory applications. To update the quantification part of IDHEAS-ECA, the NRC required human performance and error data from fully digitalized main control rooms (MCRs); therefore, it requested that Idaho National Laboratory (INL) revisit previous data collection studies and investigate how the following three factors impact human reliability: self-checking, peer-checking, and automation. The HRA data collection studies revisited were the Human Reliability Data Extraction (HuREX) project, developed by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), and the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP), developed by INL. HuREX is a representative HRA data collection study that collects human reliability data from full-scope simulators staffed by licensed operators. SHEEP, on the other hand, has been proposed to complement such full-scope studies by collecting data via simplified simulators staffed by non-licensed student operators. In the HuREX study, KAERI collected HRA data from fully digitalized MCRs for the Advanced Power Reactor (APR)–1400. The SHEEP data were obtained from simplified simulators that partially mimicked the features of digitalized MCRs. The present report mainly discusses how the impacts of the aforementioned three factors on human errors were derived from these two data collection studies.
Companies at risk of accidents caused by human error that result in catastrophic consequences include: airline industry mishaps, medical malpractice, medication mistakes, aerospace failures, major oil spills, transportation mishaps, power production failures and manufacturing facility incidents. Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) is used to analyze the inherent risk of human behavior or actions introducing errors into the operation of a system or process. These assessments can be used to identify where errors are most likely to arise and the potential risks involved if they do occur. Using the basic concepts of HRA, an evolving group of methodologies are used to meet various industry needs. Determining which methodology or combination of techniques will provide a quality human reliability assessment is a key element to developing effective strategies for understanding and dealing with risks caused by human errors. There are a number of concerns and difficulties in "tailoring" a Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) for different industries. Although a variety of HRA methodologies are available to analyze human error events, determining the most appropriate tools to provide the most useful results can depend on industry specific cultures and requirements. Methodology selection may be based on a variety of factors that include: 1) how people act and react in different industries, 2) expectations based on industry standards, 3) factors that influence how the human errors could occur such as tasks, tools, environment, workplace, support, training and procedure, 4) type and availability of data, 5) how the industry views risk & reliability, and 6) types of emergencies, contingencies and routine tasks. Other considerations for methodology selection should be based on what information is needed from the assessment. If the principal concern is determination of the primary risk factors contributing to the potential human error, a more detailed analysis method may be employed versus a requirement to provide a numerical value as part of a probabilistic risk assessment. Industries involved with humans operating large equipment or transport systems (ex. railroads or airlines) would have more need to address the man machine interface than medical workers administering medications. Human error occurs in every industry; in most cases the consequences are relatively benign and occasionally beneficial. In cases where the results can have disastrous consequences, the use of Human Reliability techniques to identify and classify the risk of human errors allows a company more opportunities to mitigate or eliminate these types of risks and prevent costly tragedies.
Given both ground-based performance shaping factors (PSFs) collected by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and potential space-based PSFs collected by JSC's HH&P, this year's task is to determine how to combine them for future human reliability analysis (HRA) of space missions. All HRA to date for space missions have been based on ground data (i.e. 1-G environment). There is no space-based HRA approach. The target of this project to produce a "first of its kind" HRA approach for space missions. As humans go beyond Earth orbit and missions become longer, human performance and reliability is expected to degrade. The questions become by how much, when, and what, leading to defining the overall effect on crew risk. Knowing this information earlier rather than later will help us mitigate this risk by vehicle design, crew training, and operational workarounds.
For many decades, PSA (Probabilistic Safety Assessment) or PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) techniques have been used to enhance the operational safety of nuclear power plants (NPPs) based on the consideration of potential hazards that could result in an unexpected consequence. As human error is one of the potential hazards, diverse human reliability analysis (HRA) methods have been proposed to provide a systematic way to estimate the likelihood of human errors (i.e., human error probability, HEP) in specific task contexts. Accordingly, it is evident that the quality of HRA results strongly depends on the credibility of HEP estimations. This implies that, in terms of enhancing this credibility, the collection of raw information (HRA data) that is helpful for understating when and why human errors occur is a crucial issue. In order to address this issue, in this study, the feasibility of a framework to integrate HRA data obtained from different sources is investigated based on the complexity of proceduralized tasks.
Human-system interfaces (HSIs) play an important role in enabling operators to communicate with the nuclear power plant (NPP) side. Getting the information required to understand a NPP’s current status or perform necessary actions for responding to a given operational context are representative operator tasks performed using HSIs. To date, HSIs have been mainly evaluated in the context of human reliability analysis (HRA). However, the current HSI evaluation that occurs during HRA may be challengeable on two fronts: (1) reflecting the unique characteristics of HSI systems and (2) considering situations in which HSIs are poorly operated due to software/hardware malfunctions. Accordingly, this study proposes an approach for specifically evaluating HSIs for digital instrumentation and controls (DI&C) systems, using Redundancy-guided Systems-theoretic Hazard Analysis (RESHA) and HRA. RESHA is a method for analyzing DI&C systems with redundancy features. In this study, we investigate how HSIs are evaluated in existing HRA methods, and what challenges exist in the current approaches. To better evaluate HSIs for DI&C systems, this study modifies the existing HSI evaluation process by additionally modeling the HSI back- and front- ends. In this paper, a HSI fault tree for the APR1400 DI&C system is introduced through a piping and instrumentation diagram. It then touches upon what aspects of the suggested method must be further researched.
The Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) is a framework to support dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA) with the aim to develop standalone software to perform the dynamic HRA calculations. Within the HRA, human actions in nuclear power plants (NPPs) are predicated by plant states, and human actions influence the plant. In other words, plant operations are necessarily recursive, and it becomes challenging to model complex human-plant interactions. Consequently, we have linked two software simulations that complement those shortcomings. RELAP5-3D—the Reactor Excursion and Leak Analysis Program (RELAP; Aumiller, Tomlinson, and Bauer 2001) is the foundational thermal-hydraulic software used to model nuclear systems. Using RELAP5-3D, we have simulated the plant operations proceeding according to procedures developed to address emergent situations in NPPs. Plant operations include various actions such as the operator checking plant parameters, as well as actions that are continuously performed over time until a specific parameter reaches certain criteria. That means that HUNTER and RELAP5-3D exchange information with each other and should be carried out simultaneously over time. To simulate plant operations, which represent the actual operator checks of plant parameters and corresponding manual control actions, changes in plant status are identified through simulation and performed according to the criteria and order of the procedure. Thus, the goal of coupling HUNTER with RELAP5-3D is to facilitate synchronous coupling, where human and plant models provide iterative feedback loops that drive the course of actions. The advantage of coupling with RELAP5-3D to serve as the external environment module in HUNTER is the ability to customize the plant model and streamline for particular model applications. In this paper, we will address the key features of the coupling and the coupling structure built to perform the feedback loops.
Data scarcity in human reliability analysis (HRA) has been a major challenge in the quantification process. Many institutes have collected HRA data through experiments using full-scope simulators with actual operators. Nevertheless, there are still some limitations to relying solely on full-scope studies. This paper aims to propose how full-scope data collection studies can be supported through the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP). The SHEEP framework was developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to collect HRA data through a simplified simulator and student operators. This paper introduces the major tasks in the SHEEP framework, with a particular focus on differences that arise due to participant type (i.e., student vs. actual operator), based on experiments using a simplified simulator (i.e., the Rancor Microworld). This paper also describes whether the data collected via this approach could support a representative full-scope data collection study (i.e., the HuREX study) based on the experimental data.