Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Back to Basics: First Principles of HRA

Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) continues to suffer from a myriad of technical gaps in its foundations. Core issues have been widely discussed but remain largely unaddressed, although the path taken to this point was paved with good intentions. Now, while this characterization may seem dramatic it is not intended to throw doubt onto HRA as a discipline or to diminish the value it has on increasing safety and resilience in nuclear power. Rather, it is intended to communicate that HRA has some serious challenges and is desperately in need of a critical evaluation. To quote Dougherty [1], “the misrepresentations that will undoubtedly arise may serve to provoke the necessary creativity.” What bears noting is that in the last thirty years since Alan Swain declared that “no adequate HRA had ever been done,” there has been little effort to correct the issues he highlighted. Human factors practice is still poorly implemented, many complex systems are fundamentally incompatible with reliable human performance, and there remains poor foundational support for many of the assumptions within HRA. We propose three categories of issues in HRA, philosophical, theoretical, and empirical and potential solutions to these issues.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

EVALUATION OF HRA METHODOLOGIES FOR APPLICATION IN SDP WORK

This study critically evaluates human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies applicable to regulatory probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) model, with a particular focus on their role in supporting the significance determination process (SDP) in nuclear safety assessment. Firstly, three widely utilized HRA methods – IDHEAS-ECA, SPAR-H, and ASEP/THERP – were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Qualitative assessments were conducted using attributes from the NEA/CSNI/R(2015)1 report, while quantitative evaluations employed regression and correlation analyses to compare predicted human error probabilities (HEPs) against empirical data. Results reveal distinct strengths, for example, IDHEAS-ECA’s robust predictive accuracy and K-HRA’s alignment with operational practices. In addition, dependency analysis and recovery analysis were critically evaluated. For dependency analysis, the methods’ handling of inter-task dependencies and their impact on HEPs were examined, while recovery analysis highlighted strategies for mitigating failure events. Furthermore, strategies were proposed to evaluate performance-shaping factors under conditions of reduced human performance, such as stress, fatigue, or cognitive overload, addressing specific challenges faced in SDP evaluations. Human errors from KINS’s operational performance information system event reports were evaluated as a case study. This study identifies gaps and provides actionable insights to ensure their validity and applicability in SDP HRA applications. This paper is a part of research conducted by KINS, and it should be noted that this result does not represent the regulatory position of KINS.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2026

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-HRA Humnoke Farm Rice Field – Field A

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-HRA Humnoke Farm Rice Field – Field A. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-HRA Humnoke Farm Rice Field – Field A produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - Zero grade rice field (25 ha) under continuous rice operation for > 10 years

Runkle, Benjamin R. K. [University of Arkansas]↗
DOE OSTI2025

Bayesian And Human Reliability Analysis (hra)-aided Method For The Reliability Analysis Of Software (bahamas)

The purpose of the BAHAMAS code is to provide a simplified process for performing quantitative evaluations of software reliability. The Bayesian and Human Reliability Analysis (HRA)-Aided method for the Reliability Analysis of software (BAHAMAS) was developed specifically to perform quantification under limited data conditions, i.e., when limited testing or operational data are available, such as during early development stages. BAHAMAS essentially examines the quality of a software development life cycle to determine the probability of specific types of software failure. BAHAMAS will have modules to support user input for detailed and simplified analyses. The user interface will also support software common cause failure analysis.

Wang, Congjian (0000000207789927)↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Approach to Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis and Its Data Collection Framework

Human reliability analysis (HRA) is a method for evaluating human errors in a variety of complex systems such as nuclear power plants, military systems, aircraft, and chemical plants. Most HRA methods currently used by regulatory institutes or utilities are called static HRA and are carried out by simple worksheets or simple calculators. To date, there are many unsolved or intrinsic challenges in static HRA. For example, existing static HRA does not realistically model and evaluate human actions as they would be performed at actual systems. There is no method with HRA to objectively estimate the time required for human actions despite being essential to HRA processes. In addition, many HRA methods still rely on a dataset generated prior to the 1980s, from unrelated industry experience or simply from expert judgment. Accordingly, this study attempted to research how to overcome the challenges of existing HRA via dynamic risk assessment (a.k.a., simulation-based or computation-based risk assessment) techniques. First, this study developed a dynamic HRA method, named as PRocedure-based Investigation Method of EMRALD Risk Assessment – HRA (PRIMERA-HRA). The PRIMERA-HRA mainly concentrates on providing HRA analysts with specific guidelines on how to reasonably model human actions, assign human reliability data and evaluate output of simulation within a dynamic probabilistic risk assessment tool, called as Event Modeling Risk Assessment using Linked Diagrams (EMRALD). Second, this study also developed a module for performance shaping factors (i.e., the key concept in HRA quantification) applicable to dynamic HRA, then implemented it based on PRIMERA-HRA within the EMRALD tool. Third, this study developed an HRA data collection framework to support dynamic HRA, called as Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP). Originally, the SHEEP study aimed to support static HRA and its data collection, but recently extended the scope to the new technologies such as dynamic HRA or HRA for advanced reactors. SHEEP focuses on the use of data collected from simplified simulators to complement—but not replace—data collection studies using full-scope simulators and actual operators. To date, many experiments were conducted under the SHEEP framework. Multiple analyses, such as human performance analysis, human error analysis, task complexity analysis, learning effect analysis and time distribution analysis, were also carried out using the collected data. Then, based on the major insights, an approach to inferring full-scope data based on simplified simulator data was proposed. The PRIMERA-HRA and SHEEP research are expected to evaluate human actions more realistically than existing static HRA, provide an opportunity to collect more HRA data with reasonable cost and labor, then contribute to enhance the quality of HRA.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Approach to Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis and Its Data Collection Framework

Human reliability analysis (HRA) is a method for evaluating human errors in a variety of complex systems such as nuclear power plants, military systems, aircraft, and chemical plants. Most HRA methods currently used by regulatory institutes or utilities are called static HRA and are carried out by simple worksheets or simple calculators. To date, there are many unsolved or intrinsic challenges in static HRA. For example, existing static HRA does not realistically model and evaluate human actions as they would be performed at actual systems. There is no method with HRA to objectively estimate the time required for human actions despite being essential to HRA processes. In addition, many HRA methods still rely on a dataset generated prior to the 1980s, from unrelated industry experience or simply from expert judgment. Accordingly, this study attempted to research how to overcome the challenges of existing HRA via dynamic risk assessment (a.k.a., simulation-based or computation-based risk assessment) techniques. First, this study developed a dynamic HRA method, named as PRocedure-based Investigation Method of EMRALD Risk Assessment – HRA (PRIMERA-HRA). The PRIMERA-HRA mainly concentrates on providing HRA analysts with specific guidelines on how to reasonably model human actions, assign human reliability data and evaluate output of simulation within a dynamic probabilistic risk assessment tool, called as Event Modeling Risk Assessment using Linked Diagrams (EMRALD). Second, this study also developed a module for performance shaping factors (i.e., the key concept in HRA quantification) applicable to dynamic HRA, then implemented it based on PRIMERA-HRA within the EMRALD tool. Third, this study developed an HRA data collection framework to support dynamic HRA, called as Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP). Originally, the SHEEP study aimed to support static HRA and its data collection, but recently extended the scope to the new technologies such as dynamic HRA or HRA for advanced reactors. SHEEP focuses on the use of data collected from simplified simulators to complement—but not replace—data collection studies using full-scope simulators and actual operators. To date, many experiments were conducted under the SHEEP framework. Multiple analyses, such as human performance analysis, human error analysis, task complexity analysis, learning effect analysis and time distribution analysis, were also carried out using the collected data. Then, based on the major insights, an approach to inferring full-scope data based on simplified simulator data was proposed. The PRIMERA-HRA and SHEEP research are expected to evaluate human actions more realistically than existing static HRA, provide an opportunity to collect more HRA data with reasonable cost and labor, then contribute to enhance the quality of HRA.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Time Distribution Analysis for Task Primitives to Support Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis

To support data collection for dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA), this study investigates time distributions for task primitives defined in the Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection rules (GOMS)–Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) method and Human Reliability data EXtraction (HuREX). GOMS-HRA was developed to provide cognition-based time and human error probability (HEP) information for dynamic HRA calculations within the Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) framework, while HuREX is a comprehensive HRA data collection method developed by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI). In this paper, we examine time distributions by using experimental data collected from the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP) study, which proposes an HRA data collection framework to complement full-scope simulator research and gather input data for dynamic HRA by using simplified simulators such as the Rancor Microworld simulator. This paper investigates whether the time required for GOMS-HRA and HuREX task primitives fits 13 statistical distributions. Additionally, we compare and discuss the time distributions obtained from both student operators and professional operators. The result was that this study identified several time distributions for five GOMS-HRA and four HuREX task primitives. In the future, the results of this study are expected to provide objective reference data on the elapsed time for task primitives and aid in realistically simulating scenarios within dynamic HRA.

Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis↗
DOE OSTI2023

Simulation-Based Recovery Action Analysis Using the EMRALD Dynamic Risk Assessment Tool

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 treating recovery actions using only the current HRA methods available. Representatively, the existing recovery analysis does not specifically consider recovery actions as they have occurred in actual nuclear power plants (NPPs). To handle the challenges in the existing recovery analyses, this study suggests a way to analyze recovery actions under a dynamic HRA method, the Procedure-based Risk Investigation MEthod-Human Reliability Analysis (PRIME-HRA) method. The PRIME-HRA method suggests a way on how to develop dynamic simulation models using dynamic risk assessment tools such as the Event Modeling Risk Assessment Using Linked Diagram (EMRALD) [1] and the Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) [2]. EMRALD and HUNTER are the dynamic probabilistic risk assessment and HRA tools developed at Idaho National Laboratory. In this paper, differences on analyzing recovery actions in the Technique for Human Error-Rate Prediction (THERP), the Cause-Based Decision Tree (CBDT) and the Korean Standard HRA (K-HRA) and challenges of these approaches are introduced. How we have developed the PRIME-HRA is also introduced in this paper. Then, the proposed approach to analyzing recovery human actions in dynamic context is partially discussed with an example.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

An Investigation of Time Distributions for Task Primitives to Support the HUNTER Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis

As an effort to support data collection for dynamic human reliability analysis (HRA), this study investigates time distributions for task primitives defined in the Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection rules (GOMS)–Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) method. GOMS-HRA was developed to provide cognition-based time and human error probability information for dynamic HRA calculation in the Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER) framework. HUNTER is a framework to support the dynamic modelling of human error in conjunction with other modelling tools. In this paper, we investigate time distributions using experimental data collected from the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP) study, which suggests an HRA data collection framework to complement full-scope simulator research as well as collect input data for dynamic HRA using simplified simulators such as the Rancor Microworld Simulator. In this study, time required for GOMS-HRA task primitives to satisfy thirteen statistical distributions is investigated. Then, the time distributions from student operators and professional operators are compared and discussed. As a result, this study identified several time distributions on five GOMS-HRA task primitives at a statistically significant level. According to analyses to date, a greater number of significant time distributions was found in abnormal or emergency operating procedures rather than standard operating procedures. In the future, it is expected that the result of this study can provide objective reference on elapsed time data for task primitives as well as help to realistically simulate scenarios within dynamic HRA.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

INVESTIGATION OF HUMAN RELIABILITY ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ANALYZING PRE-INITIATORS

As a type of human actions defined in human reliability analysis (HRA), pre-initiator refers to the human actions that may lead to the unavailability of systems, typically committed during maintenance, test, or calibration. This paper investigates representative HRA methods used for analyzing pre-initiators. The HRA methods are Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP), Korean Standard HRA (K-HRA) and Standard Plant Risk HRA (SPAR-H). In this paper, characteristics of each HRA method are compared for qualitative and quantification aspects. Two pre-initiators, i.e., a calibration task and a valve restoration task, are analyzed using the HRA methods to compare human error probabilities. Then, insights from the analysis and additional research requirements are discussed in this paper.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

INVESTIGATION OF HUMAN RELIABILITY ANALYSIS METHODS FOR ANALYZING PRE-INITIATORS

As a type of human actions defined in human reliability analysis (HRA), pre-initiator refers to the human actions that may lead to the unavailability of systems, typically committed during maintenance, test, or calibration. This paper investigates representative HRA methods used for analyzing pre-initiators. The HRA methods are Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction (THERP), Korean Standard HRA (K-HRA) and Standard Plant Risk HRA (SPAR-H). In this paper, characteristics of each HRA method are compared for qualitative and quantification aspects. Two pre-initiators, i.e., a calibration task and a valve restoration task, are analyzed using the HRA methods to compare human error probabilities. Then, insights from the analysis and additional research requirements are discussed in this paper.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

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

Securing enough data has been a main challenge in human reliability analysis (HRA). Many researchers and institutes have made a lot of efforts for collecting HRA data to produce reasonable human error probabilities (HEPs) as well as reduce the uncertainty of HRA quantification. Representatively, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC), Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have led lots of empirical research regarding the HRA data collection. The U.S. NRC and KAERI have mainly carried out full-scope simulator research collecting HRA data through experiments using full-scope simulators with actual operators. In contrast, INL has experimentally collected the data using simplified simulators and student operators. INL has proposed the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP) framework to complement full-scope data collection efforts by suggesting a way to infer full-scope data based on experimental data collected from students operating simplified simulators, specifically the Rancor Microworld Simulator (Rancor) and the Compact Nuclear Simulator (CNS). The aim of the SHEEP framework is to lower the entry point for collecting useful HRA data by securing large sample sizes at a reasonable amount of cost and labor while also guaranteeing a high degree of freedom when designing experiments. The authors’ previous research investigated whether data collected from the SHEEP framework could support a representative full-scope study. Besides, human performance differences between professional and student operators when using Rancor and CNS have been analyzed to understand the lack of fidelity of the simplified simulators and student operators within the SHEEP study. As a follow up research, this study experimentally investigates students’ learning effects and the performance trends over a certain period when using Rancor. This study aims to find out 1) how much training or education is required to collect HRA data from non-experts (i.e., students) when using Rancor and 2) how much differences there are in human performance measures between students and professional operators. In this study, a longitudinal experiment is developed. The four experiment trials with two weeks interval are carried out for sixteen undergraduate students majoring nuclear engineering at Chosun University. Totally four scenarios randomly selected from ten Rancor scenarios are used in each experiment trial. Four human performance measurements (i.e., workload, situation awareness, time and error) are considered in the experiment. Lastly, the trend of students’ performance is compared with operator data having been collected from the previous experiment.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Simulation-Based Recovery Action Analysis Using the EMRALD Dynamic Risk Assessment Tool

A recovery action is defined as the action that prevents deviant conditions from producing unwanted effects. It generally indicates a kind of countermeasure performed in response to a failure of human action. The recovery actions especially play an important role in complex systems like nuclear power plants (NPPs), which consist of highly sophisticated controllers to ensure that desired performance and safety must be achieved and maintained. This is because a combination of human error and its recovery failure may be able to cause a catastrophic effect on a system. Analyzing recovery actions has been a critical part of HRA, which is a technique to evaluate human errors and provide human error probabilities (HEPs) for application in probabilistic safety assessment (PSA). If recovery actions are not adequately analyzed and applied to PSA models, the PSA results may be under-estimated or be not able to reasonably account for the failure of human actions in the context of PSA. For this reason, some regulatory documents such as ASME/ANS RA-Sb-2013 by the American Society for Mechanical Engineers and the American Nuclear Society and NUREG-1792 by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have emphasized the importance of recovery analysis within the HRA. A couple of existing HRA methods, such as the Technique for Human Error-Rate Prediction (THERP), the Cause-Based Decision Tree (CBDT), and the Korean Standard HRA (K-HRA), have respectively suggested their own approaches to the HRA recovery analysis. However, there are a couple of limitations to treating recovery actions using only the current HRA methods available. The biggest limitation is that the existing recovery analysis does not explicitly consider a variety of recovery action types and recovery sequences as they occur in actual NPPs. To handle the limitations of existing recovery analysis, this study proposes a simulation-based recovery analysis method using the Event Modeling Risk Assessment Using Linked Diagram (EMRALD) software. The EMRALD software is a dynamic simulation tool for PSA. It supports realistic and dynamic modeling of human actions as they would be performed at NPPs. It is also favorable to simultaneously model the specific moment at which an action is performed, the time it takes to perform the action, and the failure probability of that action. In this paper, a detailed methodology for modeling recovery actions in the simulation platform is proposed with a couple of examples. Then, outputs from the simulation are discussed as reviewing if this novel approach can complement the challenges of existing recovery analyses.

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

Identifying human failure events (HFEs) for external hazard probabilistic risk assessment

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.

42 ENGINEERING↗
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 OSTI2024

Simulator Data Analysis to Inform Digitalized Environment Impacts on Human Reliability

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.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗