SIMULATED HUMAN ERROR PROBABILITY AND ITS APPLICATION TO DYNAMIC HUMAN FAILURE EVENTS
Abstract Objectives: Human reliability analysis (HRA) methods typically analyze human failure events (HFEs) at the overall task level. For dynamic HRA, it is important to model human activities at the subtask level. There exists a disconnect between dynamic subtask level and static task level that presents issues when modeling dynamic scenarios. For example, the SPAR-H method is typically used to calculate the human error probability (HEP) at the task level. As demonstrated in this paper, quantification in SPAR-H does not translate to the subtask level. Methods: Two different discrete distributions were generated for each SPAR-H Performance Shaping Factor (PSF) to define the frequency of PSF levels. The first distribution was a uniform, or uninformed distribution that assumed the frequency of each PSF level was equally likely. The second non-continuous distribution took the frequency of PSF level as identified from an assessment of the HERA database. These two different approaches were created to identify the resulting distribution of the HEP. The resulting HEP that appears closer to the known distribution, a log-normal centered on 1E-3, is the more desirable. Each approach then has median, average and maximum HFE calculations applied. To calculate these three values, three events, A, B and C are generated from the PSF level frequencies comprised of subtasks. The median HFE selects the median PSF level from each PSF and calculates HEP. The average HFE takes the mean PSF level, and the maximum takes the maximum PSF level. The same data set of subtask HEPs yields starkly different HEPs when aggregated to the HFE level in SPAR-H. Results: Assuming that each PSF level in each HFE is equally likely creates an unrealistic distribution of the HEP that is centered at 1. Next the observed frequency of PSF levels was applied with the resulting HEP behaving log-normally with a majority of the values under 2.5% HEP. The median, average and maximum HFE calculations did yield different answers for the HFE. The HFE maximum grossly over estimates the HFE, while the HFE distribution occurs less than HFE median, and greater than HFE average. Conclusions: Dynamic task modeling can be perused through the framework of SPAR-H. Identification of distributions associated with each PSF needs to be defined, and may change depending upon the scenario. However it is very unlikely that each PSF level is equally likely as the resulting HEP distribution is strongly centered at 100%, which is unrealistic. Other distributions may need to be identified for PSFs, to facilitate the transition to dynamic task modeling. Additionally discrete distributions need to be exchanged for continuous so that simulations for the HFE can further advance. This paper provides a method to explore dynamic subtask to task translation and provides examples of the process using the SPAR-H method.
- Research Organization:
- Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)
- DOE Contract Number:
- DE-AC07-05ID14517
- OSTI ID:
- 1358240
- Report Number(s):
- INL/CON-16-38029
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: Probabilistic Safety Assesment and Management (PSAM 13), Seoul, Korea, October 2–7, 2016
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Determination of a Generic Human Error Probability Distribution, Part 2: A Dynamic SPAR-H Example Application
The HUNTER Dynamic Human Reliability Analysis Tool: Development of a Module for Performance Shaping Factors