Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “HRA”

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.

At least 55 records · Page 3

A framework to collect human reliability analysis data for nuclear power plants using a simplified simulator and student operators

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.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program: Use of Time Distributions to Predict Operator Procedure Performance in Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis

The Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) framework affords software capable of conducting human reliability analysis (HRA) using a dynamic approach built around operating procedures (OPs) from nuclear power plants (NPPs). Previous HUNTER reports document the development of this software tool, the coupling of HUNTER to the simulator code, the collection of operator performance data by using simulators to calibrate HUNTER models, and linking HUNTER to probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) software. The present report largely addresses two topics. The first is a new function in HUNTER called the HUNTER Procedure Performance Predictor (P3). HUNTER P3 uses HUNTER’s built in Monte Carlo tools featuring human performance variability to identify potential error traps in procedures. The second topic is time distribution analysis to generate time inputs for dynamic HRA. The current analysis was performed to investigate time distributions for task primitives, which are the minimum task unit of analysis used in dynamic HRA modeling. Using the time distribution data, the elapsed time for human actions in an extended loss of AC power (ELAP) scenario is then investigated. Time data and prediction are essential for modeling procedure performance.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Characterization of Recovery Human Action Mechanisms in Nuclear Power Plants

Recovery human action is defined as the action that prevents deviant conditions from producing unwanted effects. Analyzing recovery actions has been a critical part in human reliability analysis (HRA). However, there are a couple of limitations to treat recovery actions only depending on the current HRA methods. Representatively, the existing recovery analysis does not specifically consider recovery actions as are occurred in actual nuclear power plants (NPPs). The overall goal of this study aims to develop a novel recovery analysis method to account for human action recoveries in context of scenarios as well as complement the limitations of existing recovery analysis. In this paper, the recovery analysis in current HRA methods and their challenges are introduced. A strategy to achieve the goal is introduced with a modified recovery definition. Then, how we have researched the approach will be introduced in the paper.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Health Risk Appraisal Use at Headquarters

Specific topics which relate to the NASA Health Risk Appraisal (HRA) include: (1) What is a HRA?; (2) Risk factors; (3) Program use at NASA Headquarters; (4) An alternative approach; (5) Group HRA reports; and (6) Future considerations and conclusion.

Borcherding, Donald↗

Modeling FLEX Human Actions Using the EMRALD Dynamic Risk Assessment Tool

Most current efforts have modified and applied existing human reliability analysis (HRA) methods to treat human actions related to beyond-design-basis external events in which diverse and flexible coping strategies (FLEX) equipment would be deployed. However, many questions remain regarding the suitability of legacy HRA methods to address FLEX human actions, sparking the need for a new method of reasonably evaluating them. In this context, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) researched a relatively new approach to treating FLEX human actions via Event Modeling Risk Assessment Using Linked Diagrams (EMRALD) software. EMRALD was developed to support the increasing need for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) models that can respond to evolving plant conditions during simulations. A couple benefits were identified when analyzing FLEX human actions through this software. In general, it is especially useful for evaluating a strategy’s feasibility, including FLEX human actions that require a relatively long time to perform. In this paper, we suggest how FLEX human actions can be modeled using the EMRALD software. Two different HRA modeling approaches using EMRALD are introduced: (1) procedure-based modeling and (2) PRA/HRA-based modeling. The former approach was introduced in the authors’ previous paper, whereas this paper mainly discusses how the latter approach works for an extended loss of AC power (ELAP) scenario with relevant procedures and PRA models. A hybrid method combining the two modeling approaches is introduced at the paper’s conclusion.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

EXTRACTING HUMAN RELIABILITY FINDINGS FROM HUMAN FACTORS STUDIES IN THE HUMAN SYSTEMS SIMULATION LABORATORY

Modernization of U.S. nuclear power plants (NPPs) is widespread, with most plants currently replacing and transitioning equipment, control systems, and human system interfaces (HSI)s from analog to digital displays. This conversion remedies the obsolescence of analog parts along with needs for increased intuitiveness of design, safety, and capabilities. The Human Factors and Reliability team at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) carried out twelve control room modernization studies in the newly designed Human Systems Simulation Laboratory (HSSL) over nine years. The HSSL was constructed as a testbed for evaluating human factors techniques and performance measures, HSI frameworks, and cutting-edge operational concepts in NPPs. Installing a full-scope training simulator enabled direct design and evaluation work on the same instrumentation and control (I&C) and HSIs located at U.S. plants. The subsequent addition of glass top bays afforded crews opportunities to implement operations via the simulator using full-scale representations of their home NPP. Additionally, functional HSI prototypes were created, providing an environment for operator-in-the-loop benchmark studies. The HSSL has assisted in upgrades of six commercial NPP control rooms and served as an invaluable proving ground for new NPP operations technology. Human reliability analysis (HRA) was not originally the focus of the studies; however, data relating to HRA such as type and frequency of human errors can be extracted from the studies. INL is currently extracting data from the HSSL study reports to apprise how information gathered from simulation, HSI, and other related studies can create a broad look across different data sources to help inform HRA methods.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

A mathematical approach to using the forgetting curve to evaluate experience and training factors in human reliability analysis

Traditional human reliability analysis (HRA) methods have difficulty dealing with the dynamic nature of factors such as time and rely on static and expert-judgment-based assessments of performance-shaping factors (PSFs) across limited levels. In this study, we introduce a mathematical approach for dynamically evaluating the experience and training PSF. Our proposed method integrates the psychological concept of the “forgetting curve” to evaluate how PSFs are impacted by the number of trainings and the time elapsed since training. To confirm the validity of the model, we provide experimental data fitted by identifying the quantitative relationship between training and human performance. This research enables dynamic and objective assessments, thus reducing reliance on subjective expert judgment and improving the accuracy of HRA.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Formative vs. Summative Dependence in Human Reliability Analysis

Dependence in human reliability analysis (HRA) is the concept that once an initial human error has occurred, subsequent human errors are more likely. The approach almost universally adopted in HRA was first introduced in the Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP). In THERP, calculated human error probabilities (HEPs) are adjusted for dependence in the final step of quantification. This final adjustment for dependence involves anchoring the HEP to a set of values corresponding to low through complete dependence. The effect is to increase the HEP. In this paper, we propose formative dependence, which occurs at the onset of quantification. We demonstrate that dependence should be considered earlier in the calculation process, because it is not actually necessary to calculate the HEP when it is subsequently overridden by the dependence anchors. By applying dependence first in the calculation, processing steps can be eliminated, making for more efficient analysis.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

SNL Human Reliability Analysis (Capstone Final Report)

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) requested a measure of possible human error for each state verification method for a safety mechanism performed at partnering production agencies. A team of three human factors individuals were tasked with conducting observations during site visits of both production agencies in order to complete a Human Reliability Analysis (HRA). A HRA will be used because it provides both qualitative and quantitative reports of human error. This report is the first phase of that effort, which will describe the methods which occur at one of the production agencies.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Hypersonic wing test structure design, analysis, and fabrication

An investigation to provide the analyses, data, and hardware required to experimentally validate the beaded panel concept and demonstrate its usefulness as a basis for design of a Hypersonic Research Airplane (HRA) wing is reported. Combinations of the beaded panel structure, heat shields, channel caps and corrugated webs for ribs and spars were analyzed for the wing of a specified HRA to operate at Mach 8 with a lifespan of 150 flights. Detailed analyses were conducted in accordance with established design criteria and included aerodynamic heating and load predictions, transient structural thermal calculations, extensive NASTRAN computer modeling, and structural optimization. Optimum beaded panel tests at 922 K (1200 F) were performed to verify panel performance. Close agreement of predicted and actual critical loads permitted use of design procedures and equations for the beaded panel concept without modification.

Plank, P. P.↗

Hypersonic wing test structure design, analysis, and fabrication

An investigation was conducted to provide the analyses, data, and hardware required to experimentally validate the beaded panel concept and demonstrate its usefulness as a basis for design of a hypersonic research airplane (HRA). Combinations of beaded panel structure, heat shields, channel caps, and corrugated webs for ribs and spars were analyzed for the wing of a specified HRA to operate at Mach 8 with a life span of 150 flights. Detailed analyses, conducted in accordance with established design criteria, included aerodynamic heating and load predictions, transient structural thermal calculations, extensive NASTRAN computer modeling, and structural optimization. After geometry was established for the total wing, part of the wing (85 sq ft) was designed, fabricated, and assembled into a test structure to experimentally verify the structural adequacy of the beaded panel design concept.

Plank, P. P.↗

The Importance of Human Reliability Analysis in Human Space Flight: Understanding the Risks

HRA is a method used to describe, qualitatively and quantitatively, the occurrence of human failures in the operation of complex systems that affect availability and reliability. Modeling human actions with their corresponding failure in a PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessment) provides a more complete picture of the risk and risk contributions. A high quality HRA can provide valuable information on potential areas for improvement, including training, procedural, equipment design and need for automation.

Hamlin, Teri L.↗

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (ORION)

NASA uses two HRA assessment methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is still expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a PRA model that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more problematic. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana↗

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗

Lost in Translation: the Case for Integrated Testing

The building of a spacecraft is complex and often involves multiple suppliers and companies that have their own designs and processes. Standards have been developed across the industries to reduce the chances for critical flight errors at the system level, but the spacecraft is still vulnerable to the introduction of critical errors during integration of these systems. Critical errors can occur at any time during the process and in many cases, human reliability analysis (HRA) identifies human error as a risk driver. Most programs have a test plan in place that is intended to catch these errors, but it is not uncommon for schedule and cost stress to result in less testing than initially planned. Therefore, integrated testing, or "testing as you fly," is essential as a final check on the design and assembly to catch any errors prior to the mission. This presentation will outline the unique benefits of integrated testing by catching critical flight errors that can otherwise go undetected, discuss HRA methods that are used to identify opportunities for human error, lessons learned and challenges over ownership of testing will be discussed.

Young, Aaron↗

A Prognostic Launch Vehicle Probability of Failure Assessment Methodology for Conceptual Systems Predicated on Human Causal Factors

Create an improved method to calculate reliability of a conceptual launch vehicle system prior to fabrication by using historic data of actual root causes of failures. While failures have unique "proximate causes", there are typically a finite amount of common "root causes". Heretofore launch vehicle reliability evaluation typically hardware-centric statistical analyses, while most root causes of failures are been shown to be human-centric. A method based on human-centric root causes can be used to quantify reliability assessments and focus proposed actions to mitigate problems. Existing methods have been optimistic in their projections of launch vehicle reliability compared to actuals. Hypothesis: reliability of a conceptual launch vehicle can be more accurately evaluated based on a rational, probabilistic approach using past failure assessment teams' findings predicated on human-centric causes."Human Reliability Analysis Methods Selection Guidance for NASA"Chandler F.T., et al., NASA HQ/OSMA study group, July 2006. Outside HRA experts from academia, other federal labs, and the private sector. 50 system reliability methods considered, fourteen selected for further study, four finally selected as best suited for human spaceflight. Probabilistic Risk Analysis (PRA) + Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) enabled incorporating effects and probabilities of human errors. While four down-selected methods deemed appropriate for failure assessment, it did not appear that these methods could be concisely applied to perform major system-wide assessment of probability of failure of a conceptual design without becoming unwieldy."Engineering a Safer World", Detailed, comprehensive study external to NASA Leveson N. G., MIT, 2011.Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes (STAMP). All-encompassing accident model based on systems theory analyzed accidents after they occurred and created approaches to prevent occurrence in developing systems not focused on failure prevention per se, but rather reducing hazards by influencing human behavior through use of constraints, hierarchical control structures, and process models to improve system safetySystem Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) addresses predictive part of problem (a "hazard analysis"). Includes all causal factors identified in STAMP: "...design errors, software flaws, component interaction accidents, cognitively complex human decision-making errors, and social organizational and management factors contributing to accidents" can guide design process rather than require it to exist before-hand did not appear capable of concise application for system-wide assessment of probability of failure of a conceptual design without becoming unwieldy.

Williams, Craig H.↗

An Experimental Investigation of Students? Learning Effects When Using a Simplified Nuclear Simulator

This study focuses on investigating students' learning effects and performance trends over a certain period using the Rancor Microworld Simulator. Specifically, it aims to determine the training required to collect HRA data from non-experts (i.e., students) using Rancor Microworld and the differences in human performance measures between students and professional operators. A longitudinal experiment is conducted with sixteen undergraduate students, using four Rancor Microworld scenarios in each of the four experiment trials. The study considers four human performance measurements workload, situation awareness, time, and error. Finally, the trend of students' performance is compared with operator data collected from the previous experiment. Overall, this research complements previous studies by providing insights into how much training is required to collect HRA data from non-experts and the differences in human performance measures between students and professional operators.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗