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.

71 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

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.↗
NASA NTRS2016

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↗
NASA NTRS2017

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.↗
NASA NTRS2017

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↗
NASA NTRS2018

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.↗
DOE OSTI2023

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↗
DOE OSTI2021

Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Simulator Complexity on Human Performance

Human Reliability Analysis predicts accidents caused by human errors and is an important factor in Probabilistic Safety Assessment that comprehensively evaluates the safety of nuclear power plants. This study compares and analyzes the human performance of nuclear power plant operators according to the simulator complexity as part of the HRA data collection support method development project conducted by Idaho National Laboratory. This experiment was conducted by setting two types of simulators and scenarios as independent variables. The data collected by conducting the experiments in two different simulators were analyzed using an analysis of variance test and a correlation analysis, and four human performance charts were derived.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Rancor-HUNTER: Using a Simulator Engine for Realistic Human Performance Modeling of Nuclear Power Operations

The Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) is a software system to simulate human performance in support of human reliability analysis (HRA) in nuclear power plants. This paper summarizes recent work to integrate HUNTER with a plant simulator, namely the Rancor Microworld Simulator. Rancor is an offshoot of earlier work at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to support plant modernization. The graphical software tools used to mimic digital human-system interface upgrades at INL’s Human Systems Simulation Laboratory were linked to the Rancor Microworld Simulator, an INL-developed simplified plant model. HUNTER becomes a “virtual operator” coupled to the Rancor simulator, thereby allowing a tight coupling between a digital human twin and a digital twin of the plant. Rancor-HUNTER may be run through Monte Carlo iterations across a dynamic range of performance shaping factors, thereby producing distributions of human performance in terms of procedure paths, errors instantiations, and task durations. This paper overviews the various unique features of Rancor-HUNTER and presents an example run of Rancor-HUNTER for a startup scenario.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2021

EHS Health Assessment & Health Action Plan Report (CY 2020)

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) Employee Health Services (EHS) program believes that good health is essential to getting the most out of life, which is why we offer a variety of worksite wellness programs that put employees in control of their own health. These programs are based on current research and strategies that are proven to minimize risk and decrease the impact of illness through early detection and treatment. Services includes Health Assessments, the Virgin Pulse (VP) online wellness platform, and Health Action Plans (HAP) which include one-on-one education, organizational health initiatives, a video library, an events calendar, onsite fitness facilities, and group fitness classes. Participation in these programs help employees and their spouses earn funding for their Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs). The EHS Health Action Plan (HAP) initiative targets the key health risks identified through the 8-15-80 model by engaging employees to change their own healthcare story. EHS identified the most prevalent of the health risks amongst our population through Health Risk Assessment (HRA) and used that data to build Health Action Plans (HAPs). The 2020 Health Action Plans addressed improving upon inadequate sleep, lack of energy, stress, weight, physical inactivity, cardiometabolic issues (hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes), low back pain, allergies, asthma, digestive health, tobacco use, and living well to maintaining low risk for those individuals who do not have a chronic condition to manage. These plans connect employees with our onsite registered dietitians, fitness professionals, health coaches, physical therapists, and physicians as appropriate. In addition to addressing the physical aspects of health, the plans also emphasized pre/post-assessments to encourage building behavioral and emotional skills that promote health and facilitate lifestyle changes over a minimum of three months. Just one risk reduction or behavior change can make an impact on the health of the participant’s Division as well as Sandia’s overall risk levels and ultimately its healthcare costs. Sandia employees achieved an Overall Wellness Score of 69 based on the WellSource Health Assessment (the same as last year). A score of 70-100 is considered “Doing Well”, and a score of 40-69 is in the “Caution” category. Overall in CY 2019, Sandia saw a 34% participation rate in Health Action Plan (HAP) programs (up from 33% in CY 2019) with an 89% completion rate (4% lower than CY 2019). Overall, 5,039 (347 more than CY 2019) individuals participated in 8,329 HAPs, which is 1,005 more than the last calendar year (7,324).

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2014

Human Reliability and the Cost of Doing Business

Most businesses recognize that people will make mistakes and assume errors are just part of the cost of doing business, but does it need to be? Companies with high risk, or major consequences, should consider the effect of human error. In a variety of industries, Human Errors have caused costly failures and workplace injuries. These have included: airline mishaps, medical malpractice, administration of medication and major oil spills have all been blamed on human error. A technique to mitigate or even eliminate some of these costly human errors is the use of Human Reliability Analysis (HRA). Various methodologies are available to perform Human Reliability Assessments that range from identifying the most likely areas for concern to detailed assessments with human error failure probabilities calculated. Which methodology to use would be based on a variety of factors that would include: 1) how people react and act in different industries, and differing expectations based on industries standards, 2) factors that influence how the human errors could occur such as tasks, tools, environment, workplace, support, training and procedure, 3) type and availability of data and 4) how the industry views risk & reliability influences ( types of emergencies, contingencies and routine tasks versus cost based concerns). The Human Reliability Assessments should be the first step to reduce, mitigate or eliminate the costly mistakes or catastrophic failures. Using Human Reliability techniques to identify and classify human error risks allows a company more opportunities to mitigate or eliminate these risks and prevent costly failures.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2017

And the Humans Save the Day or Maybe They Ruin It: The Importance of Humans in the Loop

Flying a mission in space requires a massive commitment of resources, and without the talent and commitment of the people involved in this effort we would never leave the atmosphere of Earth. When we use the phrase "humans in the loop", it could apply to almost any endeavor since everything starts with humans developing a concept, completing the design process, building or implementing a product and using the product to achieve a goal or purpose. Narrowing the focus to spaceflights, there are a variety of individuals involved throughout the preparations for flight and the flight itself. All of the humans involved add value and support for program success. The purpose of this paper focuses on how a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) accounts for the human in the loop for potential missions using a technique called Human Reliability Analysis (HRA). Human actions can increase or decrease the overall risk via initiating events or mitigating them, thus removing the human from the loop doesn't always lower the risk.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2017

And the Human Saves the Day or Maybe They Ruin It, The Importance of Humans in the Loop

Flying a mission in space requires a massive commitment of resources, and without the talent and commitment of the people involved in this effort we would never leave the atmosphere of Earth as safely as we have. When we use the phrase "humans in the loop", it could apply to almost any endeavor since everything starts with humans developing a concept, completing the design process, building or implementing a product and using the product to achieve a goal or purpose. Narrowing the focus to spaceflight, there are a variety of individuals involved throughout the preparations for flight and the flight itself. All of the humans involved add value and support for program success. The paper discusses the concepts of human involvement in technological programs, how a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) accounts for the human in the loop for potential missions using a technique called Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) and the tradeoffs between having a human in the loop or not. Human actions can increase or decrease the overall risk via initiating events or mitigating them, thus removing the human from the loop doesn't always lowers the risk.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Comparison of Human Error Probabilities Collected from HuREX and SHEEP Frameworks

This paper discusses how different are the HEPs collected from HuREX and SHEEP frameworks. This study is a preceding research to infer full-scope HRA data based on the data collected from the SHEEP framework. For the comparison, we used HEPs in the HuREX database published in KAERI-TR-6649 [6]. The HEPs have been collected from actual licensed operators when manipulating MCR simulators of Westinghouse type and Optimized Power Reactor (OPR1000) type in South Korea. For the HEPs based on the SHEEP framework, these have been collected from actual licensed operators and students when using a simplified simulator, i.e., Rancor Microworld.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Risk-Informed Analysis for Enhanced Resilient Nuclear Power Plant with Initiatives including ATF, FLEX, and Advanced Battery Technology

This report documents the activities performed by the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) during fiscal year (FY) 2021 for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, Risk-Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway, Enhanced Resilient Plant (ERP) Systems research. The purpose of the RISA Pathway research and development is to support plant owner-operator decisions with the aim to improve the economics, reliability, and maintain the high levels of safety of current nuclear power plants over periods of extended plant operations. The concept of ERP refers to the combinations of accident-tolerant fuel (ATF), optimal use of diverse and flexible coping strategy (FLEX), enhancements to plant components and systems, the incorporation of augmented or new passive cooling systems, the advanced battery technology with extended capacity, as well as improved fuel cycle efficiency. The objective of the ERP research effort is to use the RISA methods and toolkit in industry applications, including methods development and early demonstration of technologies, in order to enhance existing reactors? safety features and to substantially reduce operating costs through risk-informed approaches to plant design modifications to the plant and their characterization. The ERP R&D efforts in FY 2021 are focused on three industry initiatives, including accident-tolerant fuel (ATF), optimal use of diverse and flexible coping strategy (FLEX), and advanced battery technology with extended capacity.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Solutions for Enhanced Legacy Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tools and Methodologies: Improving Efficiency of Model Development and Processing via Innovative Human Reliability Dependency Analysis

Probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) are integral to nuclear power plant (NPP) operations, having tremendously benefitted the safety of the U.S. reactor fleet for decades. Insights obtained from the models have provided perspectives on a variety of applications, both at the plant and for the regulator. While these models are very useful, they are now being asked to represent and analyze aspects of the plant that were never envisioned by the initial PRA practitioners. Furthermore, heightened demands on the PRA models have led to increased computing power requirements. Additionally, as the complexity of the PRA models increased, the difficulty experienced by non-PRA experts in trying to understand these models, grasp the insights they provide, and effectively use that information has become problematic. The need for research to address key issues regarding PRA tools and methods has never been greater. Although the nuclear power industry has largely been well-served by these tools and methods, the underlying science is dated, remaining mostly unchanged for over two decades. Three areas were identified as most beneficial to address to maintain and improve the usefulness of the current practice legacy PRA tools: improved quantification speed, increased ability to efficiently model multi-hazard models, and improved modeling human action dependency in PRA. This report is focused on the third critical area, improvements in dependency analysis of human actions conducted as part of a typical human reliability assessment.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗