Journal of the Korean Society of Safety (한국안전학회지)

The Korean Society of Safety (한국안전학회)
권호 표지

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
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

본 논문은 사고관리방안 수행에 있어서 발생되는 인적오류의 정량적 평가방법을 개발하여 공동범람 사고관리방안의 예제문제에 적용한 연구결과를 기술하고있다. PSA에서 사용되었던 기존의 인간오류평가 방법론인 THERP, HCR, SLIM-MAUD 방법의 특징을 검토하여 장단점을 기술하였다. 본 연구에서 제시하는 인간오류평가 방법론은 신뢰도물리모델을 이용하는 새로운 HRA 분석방법이다. 불확실성 분석을 위하여 MAAP 코드와 LHS 코드가 사용되었다. 본 연구를 통하여 제안하는 방법은 매우 유연하여 중대사고관리방안과 관련한 다양한 인간오류행위에 대한 평가에 사용될 수 있음을 보여주었다.

Keywords

References

  1. A. D. Swain, and H. E. Guttmann, Handbook of human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications, NUREG/CR-1278, 1990
  2. A. J. Hannaman, et. al., Human Cognitive Reli-ability Model for PRA Analysis, NUS-4531 (EPRI), 1994
  3. 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
  4. J. Rasmussen, Information Processing and Human Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engineering, North-Holland, N. Y., 1996
  5. Dimsmotr, Stephen, Operator Time Reliability Curves : A simulator DATA Based Model, STUDSVIL/NR-84/435, 1984
  6. 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
  7. A. E. Greenm, and A. J. Bourne, Reliability Technology-Wiely-Interscience, London, 1972
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Korea Electric Power Corporation, Final Safety Analysis Report for Yonggwang Units 3&4, 2000
  11. Gabor, Kenton & Associates, INC., Recommended Sensidvity Analysis for an IPE using MAAP3.0B Illinois, USA, 1999
  12. EPRI, MAAP 3.0B Users Manual-Modular Acci-dent Analysis Program for LWR Power Plants. NP-7071-CCML, 1990
  13. 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
  14. S. E. Cooper, A. M. Ramey-Smith, J. Wreathall, et al., A technique for human error analysis (ATHEANA), NUREG/CR-6350, USNRC, 1998
  15. I. S. Kim, Human reliability analysis in the man -machine interface design review, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2000
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. D. D. Woods, Em. Roth and H. Pople, Cognitive Environmental Simulation: System for Human Performance Assessment, NUREG/CR-486 2, USNRC, 1997
  19. 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