1 / 13

New Directions in Human Reliability Analysis

New Directions in Human Reliability Analysis. Ronald Laurids Boring, PhD Human Factors Scientist , Idaho National Laboratory Visiting Scientist , Halden Reactor Project Vinh Dang, PhD Head, Risk and Human Reliability Group Paul Scherrer Institute. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA).

morton
Télécharger la présentation

New Directions in Human Reliability Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Directions in Human Reliability Analysis Ronald Laurids Boring, PhDHuman Factors Scientist, Idaho National LaboratoryVisiting Scientist, Halden Reactor Project Vinh Dang, PhD Head, Risk and Human Reliability Group Paul Scherrer Institute

  2. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) Reminder: Definition of HRA • The use of systems engineering and human factors methods in order to render a description of the human contribution to risk and to identify ways to reduce that risk • Typically considered to have from two to four phases

  3. What’s New in HRA? • Emphasis on data scrutability • Use of simulation and modeling • Use of dynamic HRA • Emphasis on HRA for design

  4. Data Scrutability • Earlier HRA methods have not always been carefully validated • The PSF multipliers and overall quantification may not have drawn heavily on human performance data sources • A two-pronged problem • Disconnect between human factors and HRA, such that most empirical results from human factors do not readily map to HRA • Both are interested in probabilities: Human factors reports significance levels (p < .05), but not always the size of the performance enhancement or degradation (∆HEP) • Many HRA methods draw heavily on expert estimation to determine either the PSF multipliers or the overall HEP • A normative model of risk should not be based on somebody’s best guess!

  5. Use of Simulation and Modeling • Put the virtual back in reality! • Simulators: real humans + virtual environments • Simulation: virtual humans + virtual environments • Human performance testing/determination of HEPs

  6. Use of Dynamic HRA • Dynamic PRA/PSA has been discussed for years • Attempt to model how risk and safety change over time and contexts • One PRA/PSA model fits all cases fails to account for emerging situations or even unanticipated situations • Dynamic HRA has also been suggested • Need to account for the dynamic progression of human behavior leading up to and following an event, accident, or incident • Need to capture the dynamic decisions that can dramatically change the course of an event

  7. Emphasis on HRA for Design • Increasingly, human reliability needs to go beyond being a diagnostic tool to become a prescriptive tool • US NRC and nuclear industry are looking at new designs for control rooms and want plants designed with human reliability in mind, not simply verified after the design is completed • NASA has issued strict Human-Rating Requirements (NPR 8705.2) that all space systems designed to come in contact with humans must demonstrate that they impose minimal risk, they are safe for humans, and they maximize human reliability in the operation of that system • How do we make reliable human systems? • Design • Test • Model }“classic” human factors }human reliability analysis

  8. Human Reliability Design Triptych

  9. Three Generations of HRA?

  10. Counter Arguments • Do you really mean to argue that cognitive modeling can get us HRA? • Cognitive modeling has clear limitations • But, it is getting to the point where it can realistically model human decision making • Also proving successful at modeling PSFs • E.g., work by INL to map VACP to SPAR-H; MicroSaint modeling of SPAR-H • Important to baseline virtual performance to actual human performance • Marriage of simulators and simulation • Cautious extrapolation to new domains

  11. More Counter Arguments • Does HRA really need to be dynamic? • New directions in HRA like resilience engineering are frustrated with the static nature of HRA/PRA models, which do not account for the full spectrum of human performance • Trying to model human performance in a simulator or simulation reveals that current HRA models do not account for: • Evolving nature of PSFs (e.g., fatigue increases over time) • PSF latency (e.g., stress does not instantly disappear just because a stressful event disappears) • Complex dependencies between concurrent, parallel activities

  12. Final Counter Arguments • Do we need new generations of HRA? • It offers some clear advantages • Better understanding of the data behind human performance • Ability to answer new questions • Predict performance in novel domains • Answer design questions using HRA as a human factors tool • Create richer models for reconstructions of past events

  13. The End, My Friend • New HRA does not render other HRA obsolete • Widely used first generation methods like THERP are still useful tools with a solid data basis • Second generation methods offer good insights on PSFs and quantification • Should continue to be developed • Trickle up effect to third generation HRA • New HRA is a framework that • Improves HRA data quality • Improves predictive ability (and applications) of HRA • Needs facilities like HAMMLAB simulator studies to provide data

More Related