Human Reliability Analysis Using Reliability Physics Models

신뢰도 물리모델을 이용한 인간신뢰도분석 연구

  • Moo-sung Jae (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Hanyang University)
  • Published : 2002.09.01

Abstract

This paper presents a new dynamic human reliability analysis method and its application for quantifying the human error probabilities in implementing accident management actions. The action associated with implementation of the cavity flooding during a station blackout sequence is considered for its application. This method is based on the concept of the quantified correlation between the performance requirement and performance achievement. For comparisons of current HRA methods with the new method, the characteristics of THERP, HCR, and SLIM-MAUD, which m most frequency used method in PSAs, are discussed. The MAAP code and Latin Hypercube sampling technique are used to determine the uncertainty of the performance achievement parameter. Meanwhile, the value of the performance requirement parameter is obtained from interviews. Based on these stochastic obtained, human error probabilities are calculated with respect to the various means and variances of the things. It is shown that this method is very flexible in that it can be applied to any kind of the operator actions, including the actions associated with the implementation of accident management strategies.

Keywords

severe accidents;human reliability;safety management;risk assesment

References

  1. D. E. Embrey, et. al,. SLIM-MAUD: An Approach to Assessing a computer-based Tech-nique for Human Error Probabilities Using Struc-tured Expert Judgment, NUREG/CR-3518, US NRC, Washington, DC, 1994
  2. G. E. Apostolakis, M. Kazarians, and D. C. Bley, Methodology for Assessing the Risk from cable Fires, Joumal. Nuclear Safety, Vol. 23, pp. 391-407, 1992
  3. Korea Electric Power Corporation, Final Safety Analysis Report for Yonggwang Units 3&4, 2000
  4. I. S. Kim, Human reliability analysis in the man -machine interface design review, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2000
  5. J. Reason, Generic Error Modeling System (GEMS) : A Cognitive Framework for Locating Common Human Error Forms in New Technology and Human Error, John Wely & Sons, Inc., NY, 1997
  6. R. L. Iman, and M. J. Shortencarier, A FORTRAM 77 Program and User Guide for the Generation of latin Hypercube and Random Samples for Use with Computer Models, SNL, NUREG/CR-624, USA, 1994
  7. A. D. Swain, and H. E. Guttmann, Handbook of human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, NUREG/CR-1278, 1990
  8. A. J. Hannaman, et. al., Human Cognitive Reli-ability Model for PRA Analysis, NUS-4531 (EPRI), 1994
  9. J. Rasmussen, Information Processing and Human Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engineering, North-Holland, N. Y., 1996
  10. S. E. Cooper, A. M. Ramey-Smith, J. Wreathall, et al., A technique for human error analysis (ATHEANA), NUREG/CR-6350, USNRC, 1998
  11. G. Apostolakis, V. M. Bier, and A. Mosleh, A Critique of Recent Models for Human Error Rate Assessment, Joumal, Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 22, pp. 201-217, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(88)90074-9
  12. M. Jae, and G. E. Apostolalds, The Use of InfIu-ence Diagrams for Evaluating Severe Accident Management Strategies, Journal. Nuclear Techno-logy, Vol. 99, pp. 142-157, 1992
  13. Dimsmotr, Stephen, Operator Time Reliability Curves : A simulator DATA Based Model, STUDSVIL/NR-84/435, 1984
  14. D. D. Woods, Em. Roth and H. Pople, Cognitive Environmental Simulation: System for Human Performance Assessment, NUREG/CR-486 2, USNRC, 1997
  15. U. Bersini, P. C. Cacciabuu and G. Mancini, A Model of Operator Behavior for Man-Machine System Simulation, Joumal. Automatica, Vol. 26 (6), pp. 1025-1034, 1990 https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-1098(90)90086-W
  16. Gabor, Kenton & Associates, INC., Recommended Sensidvity Analysis for an IPE using MAAP3.0B Illinois, USA, 1999
  17. EPRI, MAAP 3.0B Users Manual-Modular Acci-dent Analysis Program for LWR Power Plants. NP-7071-CCML, 1990
  18. A. E. Greenm, and A. J. Bourne, Reliability Technology-Wiely-Interscience, London, 1972
  19. D. D. Woods, E. M. Roth, and H. Pople, Modeling Human Intention Formation for Human Reliability Assessment, Journal. Reliability Engi-neering and System Safety, Vol. 22, pp. 169-220, 1998