4.7 Article

A framework to estimate task opportunities from the operational experience of domestic nuclear power plants

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 146-154

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.05.001

关键词

Nuclear power plant; Probabilistic safety assessment; Human reliability analysis; Operational experience; Estimation of task opportunity; Human error probability

资金

  1. Nuclear Research & Development Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant
  2. Korean Government, Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning [2012M2A8A4025991]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Since one of the most important issues in operating socio-technical systems is to enhance their safety through reducing the likelihood of human errors, it is prerequisite to secure reliable human performance data clarifying when and why human operators make an error. In this regard, many researchers tried to calculate an HEP (Human Error Probability) from operational experience data based on its traditional definition (i.e., HEP = number of errors observed/number of task opportunities for error). Accordingly, most of existing HEPs mainly based on the number of task opportunities being estimated from routine or periodic tasks that are usually performed in a full power condition with fixed time intervals. In contrast, calculating an HEP for a task being conducted in an off-normal condition is relatively seldom because it does not happen with a fixed time interval. For this reason, in this study, a novel framework is proposed, which can be used to estimate the number of task opportunities in terms of off-normal tasks from the operational experience of domestic NPPs. Although the proposed framework still has a couple of limitations, it could be a good starting point not only to enrich. the ability of HEP calculation from the operational experience data but also to provide a reference information for HEPs obtained from other sources of information (e.g., full-scope simulators). (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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