Identification of Correlation among Performance Shaping Factors of SPAR-H Method

Liu Jianqiao; Zhang Li; Zou Yanhua; Sun Qianlin; Liu Xueyang; Chen Shuai

doi:10.13832/j.jnpe.2021.04.0144

Volume 42 Issue 4

Aug. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Nuclear Power Engineering > 2021 > 42(4): 144-150

Liu Jianqiao, Zhang Li, Zou Yanhua, Sun Qianlin, Liu Xueyang, Chen Shuai. Identification of Correlation among Performance Shaping Factors of SPAR-H Method[J]. Nuclear Power Engineering, 2021, 42(4): 144-150. doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2021.04.0144

Citation:

Liu Jianqiao, Zhang Li, Zou Yanhua, Sun Qianlin, Liu Xueyang, Chen Shuai. Identification of Correlation among Performance Shaping Factors of SPAR-H Method[J]. Nuclear Power Engineering, 2021, 42(4): 144-150. doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2021.04.0144

Citation:

PDF( 2340 KB)

Identification of Correlation among Performance Shaping Factors of SPAR-H Method

doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2021.04.0144

1.
School of Nuclear Science and Technology, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, 421001, China
2.
Institute of Human Factors & Safety Engineering, Hunan Institute of Technology, Hengyang, Hunan, 421002, China

Received Date: 2020-06-18
Rev Recd Date: 2020-08-03
Publish Date: 2021-08-15

Abstract

Abstract

Standardized Plant Analysis of Risk-Human reliability analysis (SPAR-H) is an internationally known and accepted human reliability analysis (HRA) method in nuclear power plants (NPPs). However, the eight performance shaping factors (PSFs) overlap, resulting in the double count or over estimation of the human error probabilities (HEPs). To improve its PSFs system, 89 human error event reports related to the operation of operators in the main control room were collected from 219 operating event reports of Chinese NPPs from 2007 to 2017. The correlation among the PSFs was then studied. Therein, three kinds of data mining methods, i.e., association rule analysis, exploratory factor analysis and Pearson correlation analysis, were used. Results show that: a. there is a significant correlation among complexity, stress/stressor, fitness for duty and available time, in which the c the complexity correlates with stress/stressor and fitness for duty, the fitness for duty correlates with stress/stressor, and the stress/stressor correlates with available time; (2) there also exists correlation among work process, procedure, ergonomics/HMI and experience/training. In the event involving the procedure, ergonomics/HMI or experience/training, work process is involved with a high probability. These findings can be used as the reference in the improvement of the PSFs system of SPAR-H and as the basis in the quantitative study of the cause-and–effect dependences among the PSFs.
- Performance shaping factors,
- Correlation,
- Standardized plant analysis of risk-human reliability analysis,
- Data mining

FullText(HTML)

References(28)

References

[1]	PARK J, JUNG W, KIM J. Inter-relationships between performance shaping factors for human reliability analysis of nuclear power plants[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 2020, 52(1): 87-100. doi: 10.1016/j.net.2019.07.004
[2]	KANG S, SEONG P H. Performance shaping factor taxonomy for human reliability analysis on mitigating nuclear power plant accidents caused by extreme external hazards[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2020(145): 107533. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107533
[3]	GROTH K M, MOSLEH A. A data-informed PIF hierarchy for model-based human reliability analysis[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2012(108): 154-174.
[4]	FORESTER J, DANG V N, BYE A, et al. The international HRA empirical study: lessons learned from comparing HRA methods predictions to HAMMLAB simulator data: NUREG-2127[R]. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2014.
[5]	LIU P, LYU X, QIU Y P, et al. Identifying key performance shaping factors in digital main control rooms of nuclear power plants: a risk-based approach[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2017(167): 264-275.
[6]	FORESTER J, LIAO H F, DANG V N, et al. The U.S. HRA empirical study-assessment of HRA method predictions against operating crew performance on a U.S. nuclear power plant simulator: NUREG-2156[R]. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2016.
[7]	GERTMAN D I, BLACKMAN H S, MARBLE J L, et al. The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method: NUREG/CR-6883[R]. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2005.
[8]	GROTH K M, SWILER L P. Bridging the gap between HRA research and HRA practice: a Bayesian network version of SPAR-H[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2013(115): 33-42.
[9]	何旭洪, 黄祥瑞. 工业系统中人的可靠性分析: 原理、方法与应用[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2007: 159-164.
[10]	张力,邹衍华,黄卫刚. 核电站运行事件人误因素交互作用分析[J]. 核动力工程,2010, 31(6): 41-46.
[11]	王国平, 郭伟宸, 汪若君. IBM SPSS Modeler数据与文本挖掘实战[M]. 北京: 清华大学出版社, 2014: 182-193.
[12]	DOELL C, HELD P, MOURA R, et al. Analysis of a major-accident dataset by Association Rule Mining to minimise unsafe interfaces[C]//Proceedings of the 13th International Probabilistic Workshop. Liverpool, UK: Research Publishing, 2015.
[13]	ZOU Y H, XIAO Z, ZHANG L, et al. A data mining framework within the Chinese NPPs operating experience feedback system for identifying intrinsic correlations among human factors[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2018(116): 163-170. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2018.02.038
[14]	薛薇. SPSS统计分析方法及应用[M]. 北京: 电子工业出版社, 2004: 327-338.
[15]	郭志刚. 社会统计分析方法: SPSS软件应用[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 1999: 87-114.
[16]	吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务[M]. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010: 476-477.
[17]	CRAMÉR H. Mathematical methods of statistics (PMS-9)[M]. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946: 500.
[18]	GUILFORD J P. Psychometric methods[J]. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1956(51): 413-414. doi: 10.2307/2281384
[19]	CHANG Y H J, MOSLEH A. Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 2: IDAC performance influencing factors model[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2007, 92(8): 1014-1040.
[20]	GROTH K M. A data-informed model of performance shaping factors for use in human reliability analysis[D]. Washington Metropolitan: University of Maryland, College Park, 2009.
[21]	HOLLNAGEL E. Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM)[M]. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1998: 107-117
[22]	MOHAGHEGH-AHMADABADI Z. On the theoretical foundations and principles of organizational safety risk analysis[D]. Washington Metropolitan: University of Maryland, College Park, 2007.
[23]	ANGELOPOULOU A, MYKONIATIS K, BOYAPATI N R. Industry 4.0: the use of simulation for human reliability assessment[J]. Procedia Manufacturing, 2020(42): 296-301. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.094
[24]	LAUMANN K, RASMUSSEN M. Suggested improvements to the definitions of Standardized Plant Analysis of Risk-Human Reliability Analysis (SPAR-H) performance shaping factors, their levels and multipliers and the nominal tasks[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2016(145): 287-300.
[25]	WANG W, DI MAIO F, ZIO E. Considering the human operator cognitive process for the interpretation of diagnostic outcomes related to component failures and cyber security attacks[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020(202): 107007.
[26]	FORESTER J, KOLACZKOWSKI A, LOIS E, et al. Evaluation of human reliability analysis methods against good practices: NUREG-1842[R]. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2006.
[27]	WHALEY A M, KELLY D L, BORING R L, et al. SPAR-H step-by-step guidance: INL/CON-12-24693[R]. Washington, DC: Idaho National Laboratory, 2012
[28]	张力,刘建桥,邹衍华,等. 核电厂数字化主控室操纵员界面管理任务特征的研究[J]. 核动力工程,2019, 40(4): 91-95.