Fault Diagnosis with Multi-State Alarms in a Nuclear Power Control Simulator

Abstract

This research addresses how alarm systems can increase operator performance within nuclear power plant operations. The experiment examined the effect of two types of alarm systems (two-state and three-state alarms) on alarm compliance and diagnosis for two types of faults differing in complexity. We hypothesized three-state alarms would improve performance in alarm recognition and fault diagnoses over that of two-state alarms. We used sensitivity and criterion based on Signal Detection Theory to measure performance. We further hypothesized that operator trust would be highest when using three-state alarms. The findings from this research showed participants performed better and had more trust in three-state alarms compared to two-state alarms. Furthermore, these findings have significant theoretical implications and practical applications as they apply to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of nuclear power plant operations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bliss

J. P.

Gilson

R. D.

Deaton

J. E.

(1995). Human probability matching behavior in response to alarms of varying reliability. Ergonomics, 38(11), 2300-2312.

Boring

R. L.

(2009). Using nuclear power plant training simulators for operator performance and human reliability research. Sixth American Nuclear International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Plant Instrumentation, Cotrol, and Human-Machine Interface Technologies, Knoxville, Tennessee, April 5-9.

Bustamante

E. A.

(2007). Using Likelihood alert technology in cockpit displays of traffic information to support free flight. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 100-102). Dayton, OH.

Bustamante

E. A.

(2008). Implementing likelihood alarm technology in integrated aviation displays for enhancing decision-making: A two stage signal detection modeling approach. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 8, 241-261.

Bustamante

E. A.

Bliss

J. P.

Anderson

B. L.

(2007). Effects of varying the threshold of alarm systems and workload on human performance. Ergonomics 50(7), 1127-1147.

Clark

R. M.

Ingebritsen

Bustamante

E. A.

(2010). Differential effects of likelihood alarm technology and false-alarm vs. miss-prone automation on decision-making sensitivity and bias. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp.1508-1512). San Francisco, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Edworthy

Loxely

(1991). Improving auditory warning design: Relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Human Factors, 33(2), 205-231.

Klein

(1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lew

(2011). NPC (computer software). University of Idaho.

10.

Smith

W. D.

(1995). Clarification of Sensitivity Measure A’. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 82-89.

11.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Paul Scherrer Institute, Sandia National Laboratories, Scientech, and OECD Halden Reactor Project. (2009). Description of overall approach and pilot phase results from comparing HRA methods to simulator performance data. (NUREG/IA-0216, Vol. 1). Retrieved from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/agreement/ia0216/ia0216.pdf .

12.

Vicente

K. J.

(2007). Monitoring a nuclear power plant. Attention; From Theory to Practice.

13.

Vicente

K. J.

Pawlak

W. S.

(1994). Cognitive work analysis of the DURESS system. Unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.

14.

Woods

D. D.

(1995). The alarm problem and direct attention in dynamic fault management. Ergonomics, 38(11), 2371-2393.

15.

Wayne

(1992). Measuring recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 121(3), 275-277.