Current Human Reliability Analysis models express error probabilities as a function of task types and operational context, without explicitly modelling the influence of different crew behavioral characteristics on the error probability. The influence of such variability is treated only implicitly, by variability and uncertainty distributions with bounds primarily obtained by expert judgment. This paper presents a methodology to empirically incorporate crew performance variability in error probability quantification, from simulator data. Crew behaviors are represented by a set of “behavioral patterns” that emerge in the observation of operating crews (e.g. in information sharing or in adhering to procedural guidance). The paper demonstrates the use of a Bayesian hierarchical model to explicitly capture the performance variability emerging from data. The methodology is applied to a case study from literature. Numerical demonstrations are performed in order to compare the proposed approach to the existing quantification models used in HRA for treating simulator data.
KirwanB.A guide to practical human reliability assessment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1994.
2.
PodofilliniL.Human reliability analysis. In: MollerNHanssonSOHolmbergJE, et al. (eds) Handbook of safety principles. New York: Wiley, 2017, pp.565–592.
3.
SpurginAJ.Human reliability assessment – theory and practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2010.
4.
SwainADGuttmanHE.Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. NUREG/CR-1278. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983.
5.
WilliamsJC.HEART – a proposed method for assessing and reducing human error. In: 9th advance in reliability technology symposium. West Yorkshire: University of Bradford, 1986.
6.
WilliamsJC.A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance. In: Proceedings of the IEEE fourth conference on human factors and power plants, Monterey, CA, 5–9 June, 1988, pp.436–450. New York: IEEE.
GertmanDIBlackmanHSMarbleJL, et al. The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method. NUREG/CR-6883. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2005.
9.
WhaleyAMKellyDLBoringRL, et al. SPAR-H step-by-step guidance. INL/EXT-10-18533. Idaho Falls, Idaho: Idaho National Labs, 2011.
10.
MoslehASmithC.The feasibility of employing Bayesian techniques and other mathematical formalisms in human reliability analysis, in the employment of empirical data and Bayesian methods in human reliability analysis: a feasibility study, NUREG/CR-6949, pp.5–15. INL/EXT-06-11670. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2007.
11.
ForesterJDangVNByeA, et al. The international HRA empirical study lessons learned from comparing HRA methods predictions to HAMMLAB simulator data. NUREG-2127. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2014.
12.
ForesterJLiaoHDangVN, et al. The US HRA empirical study – assessment of HRA method predictions against operating crew performance on a US nuclear power plant simulator. NUREG-2156. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2016.
13.
MassaiuSHolmgrenL.Diagnosis and decision-making with emergency operating procedures in non-typical conditions: a HAMMLAB study with U.S. operators. HWR-1121. Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project, 2014.
14.
MassaiuSHolmgrenL.The 2013 resilient procedure use study with Swedish operators: final results. HWR-1216. Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project, 2017.
15.
XingJParryGPresleyM, et al. An integrated human event analysis system (IDHEAS) for nuclear power plant internal events at-power application. NUREG-2199, vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute, 2017.
16.
EkanemNJMoslehAShenSH.Phoenix – a model-based human reliability analysis methodology: qualitative analysis procedure. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2015; 145: 301–315.
17.
MoslehAChangYH.Model-based human reliability analysis: prospects and requirements. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2004; 83: 241–253.
18.
HallbertBKolaczkowskiA.The employment of empirical data and Bayesian methods in human reliability analysis: a feasibility study. NUREG/CR-6949, pp.1–4, INL/EXT-06-11670. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2007.
19.
LiaoHForesterJDangVN, et al. Assessment of HRA method predictions against operating crew performance: part III: conclusions and achievements. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2019; 191: 106511.
20.
ChangJYBleyDCriscioneL, et al. The SACADA database for human reliability and human performance. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2014; 125: 117–133.
21.
ParkJJungWKimS, et al. A guideline to collect HRA data in the simulator of nuclear power plants. KAERI/TR-5206. Daejeon: Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2013.
22.
GrothKMSmithCLSwilerLP.A Bayesian method for using simulator data to enhance human error probabilities assigned by existing HRA methods. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2014; 128(Suppl. C): 32–40.
23.
JungWParkJKimY, et al. HuREX – a framework of HRA data collection from simulators in nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2020; 194: 106235.
24.
AzarmMAKimISMarksC, et al. Analyses methods and pilot applications of SACADA database. In: 14th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 14), Los Angeles, CA, 16–21 September 2018. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Meyer & Renee Luskin Conference Center.
25.
GrecoSFPodofilliniLDangVN.A Bayesian model to treat within-category and crew-to-crew variability in simulator data for human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 206: 107309.
26.
GrecoSFPodofilliniLDangVN.Crew performance variability in simulator data for human reliability analysis: investigation of modelling options. In: Proceedings of the 29th European safety and reliability conference (ESREL 2019), Hannover, Germany, 22–26 September 2019. ISBN: 981-973-0000-00-0.
27.
WoodsDDRothEM.Cognitive environment simulation: an artificial intelligence system for human performance assessment. NUREG/CR-4862-vol. 3. Technical report, May1986–June1987. Pittsburgh, PA: Westinghouse Research and Development Center.
28.
Mosneron-DupinFReerBHeslingaG, et al. Human-centered modeling in human reliability analysis: some trends based on case studies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf1997; 58(3): 249–274.
29.
ApostolakisGKaplanSGarrickBJ, et al. Data specialization for plant specific risk studies. Nucl Eng Des1980; 56(2): 321–329.
30.
KaplanS.On a two-stage Bayesian procedure for determining failure rates. IEEE Trans Power Apparatus Syst1983; 102(1): 195–262.
31.
MoslehA.Bayesian modeling of expert-to-expert variability and dependence in estimating rare event frequencies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf1992; 38(1): 47–57.
32.
SiuNOKellyDL.Bayesian parameter estimation in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf1998; 62(1): 89–116.
33.
DroguettELGroenFMoslehA.Bayesian assessment of the variability of reliability measures. Pesq Oper2006; 26: 109–127.
34.
YueMChuTL.Estimation of failure rates of digital components using a hierarchical Bayesian method. In: 8th International conference on probabilistic safety assessment and. management (PSAM8), New Orleans, LA, 14–19 May, 2006. ISBN-10: 0791802442.
35.
KellyDLSmithCL.Bayesian inference for probabilistic risk assessment: a practitioner’s guidebook. London: Springer-Verlag, 2011.
36.
PodofilliniLDangVN.A Bayesian approach to treat expert-elicited probabilities in human reliability analysis model construction. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2013; 117: 52–64.
37.
LeeMD.How cognitive modeling can benefit from hierarchical Bayesian models. J Math Psychol2011; 55(1): 1–7.
38.
BartlemaALeeMWetzelsR, et al. A Bayesian hierarchical mixture approach to individual differences: case studies in selective attention and representation in category learning. J Math Psychol2014; 59: 132–150.
39.
KraussMTappeKSchuppertA, et al. Bayesian population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) approach for a physiologically realistic characterization of interindividual variability in clinically relevant populations. PLoS ONE2015; 10(10): e0139423.
40.
MouraMCAzevedoRVDroguettEL, et al. Estimation of expected number of accidents and workforce unavailability through Bayesian population variability analysis and Markov-based model. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2016; 150: 136–146.
41.
ChiuWWrightFRusynI.A tiered, Bayesian approach to estimating population variability for regulatory decision-making. ALTEX2017; 34(3), 377–388.
42.
ShaoKAllenBCWheelerMW.Bayesian hierarchical structure for quantifying population variability to inform probabilistic health risk assessments. Risk Anal2017; 37(10): 1865–1878.
43.
LoisEDangVForesterJ, et al. International HRA empirical study – phase 1 report: description of overall approach and pilot phase results from comparing HRA methods to simulator performance data. NUREG/IA-0216, vol. 1. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2009.
44.
SkjerveABHolmgrenL.An investigation of teamwork competence requirements in nuclear power plant control-room crews across operational states – a field study. HWR-1107. Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project, 2016.
WilliamsJC.HEART – a proposed method for achieving high reliability in process operation by means of human factors engineering technology. Saf Reliab2015; 35(3): 26–76.
47.
ByeALoisEDangVN, et al. International HRA empirical study – phase 2 report: results from comparing HRA method predictions to simulator data from SGTR scenarios. NUREG/IA-0216, vol. 2. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2011.
48.
CrichtonMFlinR.Identifying and training non-technical skills of nuclear emergency response teams. Ann Nucl Energy2004; 31: 1317–1330.
49.
O’ConnorPO’DeaAFlinR, et al. Identifying the team skills required by nuclear power plant operations personnel. Int J Ind Ergon2008; 28: 1028–1037.
GelmanACarlinJSternH, et al. Bayesian data analysis. 2nd ed.Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2003.
52.
KruschkeJK.Doing Bayesian data analysis. 2nd ed.Academic Press, 2015.
53.
PlummerM.JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: HornikKLeischFZeileisA (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on distributed statistical computing (DSC 2003). Vienna, Austria: Technische Universität Wien, 2003.
54.
DenwoodMJ.Runjags: an R package providing interface utilities, model templates, parallel computing methods and additional distributions for MCMC models in JAGS. J Stat Softw2016; 71(9): 1–25.
55.
GrothKMMoslehA.Deriving causal Bayesian networks from human reliability analysis data: a methodology and example mode. Proc Inst Mech Eng O J Risk Reliab2012; 226(4): 361–379.
56.
GrothKM.A framework for using SACADA to enhance the qualitative and quantitative basis of HRA. In: 14th reliability safety assessment and management (PSAM 14), Los Angeles, CA, 16–21 September 2018. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Meyer & Renee Luskin Conference Center.
57.
MkrtchyanLPodofilliniLDangVN.Methods for building Conditional Probability Tables of Bayesian Belief Networks from limited judgment: an evaluation for human reliability application. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2016; 151: 93–112.
