Human error probabilities from operational experience of German nuclear power plants

Preischl, W.; Hellmich, Mario

doi:10.1016/j.ress.2012.08.004

Cited by 53 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More than half of all the predicted HEPs were within a factor of 10 of the corresponding true HEPs. Preischl and Hellmich also reported that 13 HEPs in the THERP database agreed within the uncertainty bounds with the HEPs obtained from operational practice for German NPPs.…”

Section: Comparison and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Human Error Data Collection and Comparison with Predictions by SPAR‐H

Liu

2014

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a scarcity of empirical data on human error for human reliability analysis (HRA). This situation can increase the variability and impair the validity of HRA outcomes in risk analysis. In this work, a microworld study was used to investigate the effects of performance shaping factors (PSFs) and their interrelationships and combined effects on the human error probability (HEP). The PSFs involved were task complexity, time availability, experience, and time pressure. The empirical data obtained were compared with predictions by the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk-Human Reliability Method (SPAR-H) and data from other sources. The comparison included three aspects: (1) HEP, (2) relative effects of the PSFs, and (3) error types. Results showed that the HEP decreased with experience and time availability levels. The significant relationship between task complexity and the HEP depended on time availability and experience, and time availability affected the HEP through time pressure. The empirical HEPs were higher than the HEPs predicted by SPAR-H under different PSF combinations, showing the tendency of SPAR-H to produce relatively optimistic results in our study. The relative effects of two PSFs (i.e., experience/training and stress/stressors) in SPAR-H agreed to some extent with those in our study. Several error types agreed well with those from operational experience and a database for nuclear power plants (NPPs).

show abstract

Section: Comparison and Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Human Error Data Collection and Comparison with Predictions by SPAR‐H

Liu

2014

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…m i is the number of times the task i performed. The parameters a 0 and b 0 are chosen as 1/2 respectively (Preischl and Hellmich, 2013). The Eq.…”

Section: Experiments Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then the conditional density of given m i leads the Eq. (1), which generates log-normal distribution good fit to human performance data (Preischl and Hellmich, 2013).…”

Section: Experiments Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human error and the associated recovery probabilities for soft control being used in the advanced MCRs of NPPs

Jang

Jung

Seong

2016

Annals of Nuclear Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since several decades past after starting commercial operation of NPP, empirical studies on human factor have appeared recently [13][14][15]. For example, human error probabilities (HEPs) have been evaluated from the operation experience of German NPPs [13]. Empirical investigation was conducted to compare operators' workloads in AMCR with those of conventional control room using cognitivecommunicative-operative activity (COCOA) framework [14].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%