Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human Reliability”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Human reliability analysis studies from simulator experiments using Bayesian inference

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.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

The HUNTER Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis Tool: Development of a Module for Performance Shaping Factors

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.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation for Representative Human Reliability Analysis Methods

The Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) is the regulatory expert organization established by the Korean government to strengthen the nation’s technical capabilities relating to nuclear safety regulation. KINS oversees the technical aspects of nuclear safety regulation, including safety reviews, inspections, education, and safety research—all conducted based on technical knowledge and accumulated regulatory experience. In 2023, KINS requested that Idaho National Laboratory (INL) validates representative human reliability analysis (HRA) methods used throughout the world, thus affording KINS with a basis for determining an HRA method adequate for its domestic regulatory purposes. The present paper mainly examines INL’s efforts in this regard. The resulting INL study covered four representative HRA methods widely used by nuclear utilities and regulatory institutes. These methods were qualitatively evaluated by applying specific evaluation criteria and determining how well each method reflected critical HRA issues. For this assessment, INL benchmarked the Halden International HRA Empirical Study. Using the Halden empirical data, along with information on human failure events (HFEs), the present study employed the selected HRA methods to estimate human error probabilities (HEPs) for the HFEs. It also performed statistical analyses to compare the HEPs predicted via the HRA methods against those from the Halden empirical data.

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↗
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 NTRS2014

Human Reliability and the Cost of Doing Business

Human error cannot be defined unambiguously in advance of it happening, it often becomes an error after the fact. The same action can result in a tragic accident for one situation or a heroic action given a more favorable outcome. People often forget that we employ humans in business and industry for the flexibility and capability to change when needed. In complex systems, operations are driven by their specifications of the system and the system structure. People provide the flexibility to make it work. Human error has been reported as being responsible for 60%‐80% of failures, accidents and incidents in high‐risk industries. We don't have to accept that all human errors are inevitable. Through the use of some basic techniques, many potential human error events can be addressed. There are actions that can be taken to reduce the risk of human error.

DeMott, D. L.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Briefing Human Reliability Analysis Tasks in the KINS-INL Project

Under the SPP with Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (KINS) (SPP No. 24SP91), INL research team has a plan to visit KINS on December 3, 2024 and have a project meeting with KINS in-person. INL researchers will give this presentation about what we have done on Task 2 under the contract as below. Task 2: Support KINS in the treatment of human actions. INL efforts consist of: Provide technical expertise on recovery analysis based on INL’s methods or recent research Provide technical expertise on dependency analysis based on INL’s methods or recent research Provide technical expertise on analyzing the effects of HSI degradation on operator actions

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
NASA NTRS1999

Human Reliability Analysis: An Overview

Human/process error is potentially a large contributor to failures of aerospace systems. For some systems, such as the space shuttle main engine, large amounts of data are available, and accurate failure rates can be determined empirically. For such systems, the human error is implicit in the empirical failure rate and does not need to be quantified separately. However, for other systems, such as the solid rocket boosters, large amounts of data are not available and the failure rates must be determined by more theoretical means. When empirical data is lacking, structural models and engineering judgment must be employed. In this case, the human/process error must be modeled explicitly. An extensive literature review was performed to determine what methods already exist for modeling human error for aerospace systems. No methods that apply directly were found, although there are a number of methods that have been developed specifically for the nuclear power industry that could probably be modified for space applications. The results of the literature review are presented, as well as recommendations for future research.

Navard, Sharon E.↗