4.7 Article

Development of a quantitative Bayesian network mapping objective factors to subjective performance shaping factor evaluations: An example using student operators in a digital nuclear power plant simulator

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.03.023

关键词

Nuclear power; Human reliability analysis; Performance shaping factors; Bayesian analysis; Simulator experiment

资金

  1. DOE Office of Nuclear Energy's Nuclear Energy University Programs
  2. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Graduate Fellowship Program [NRC-HR-13-G-38-0047]
  3. NRC educational grant [NRC-38-10-962]
  4. DOE [DENE0000450]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditional human reliability analysis methods consist of two main steps: assigning values for performance shaping factors (PSFs), and assessing human error probability (HEP) based on PSF values. Both steps rely on expert judgment. Considerable advances have been made in reducing reliance on expert judgment for HEP assessment by incorporating human performance data from various sources (e.g., simulator experiments); however, little has been done to reduce reliance on expert judgment for PSF assignment. This paper introduces a data-driven approach for assessing PSFs in Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) based on contextual information. The research illustrates how to develop a Bayesian PSF network using data collected from student operators in a NPP simulator. The approach starts with a baseline PSF model that calculates PSF values from context information during an accident scenario. Then, a Bayesian model is developed to link the baseline model to the Subjective PSFs. Two additional factors are included: simulator bias and context information. Results and analysis include variation between the results of the proposed model and the training dataset, and the significance of each element in the model. The proposed approach reduces the reliance of PSF assignment on expert judgment and is particularly suitable for dynamic human reliability analysis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据