Advertisement

The Virtual Human Reliability Analyst

  • Martin RasmussenEmail author
  • Ronald Boring
  • Thomas Ulrich
  • Sarah Ewing
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 589)

Abstract

This paper introduces the virtual human reliability analyst model (VHRAM). The VHRAM is an approach that automates the HRA process to enable HRA elements to be included in simulations in general and simulation based risk analysis in particular. Inspirations from clinical AI and game development are discussed as well as the possibilities for a VHRAM to be used outside of a simulated virtual twin of a nuclear power plant.

Keywords

Human reliability analysis Computation-Based human reliability analysis Dynamic human reliability analysis Virtual analyst Virtual human reliability analysis model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was written as part of the Risk Informed Safety Margin Characterization (RISMC) research pathway within the U.S. Department of Energy’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program that aims to extend the life of the currently operating fleet of commercial nuclear power plants. The research presented in this paper aims to feed into the current work on the CoBHRA approach (previously abbreviated CBHRA) called Human Unimodel for Nuclear Technology to Enhance Reliability (HUNTER; [16, 34, 35]).

References

  1. 1.
    Boring, R.L.: Fifty years of THERP and human reliability analysis. In: Proceedings of the PSAM 11 and ESREL, Helsinki (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swain, A.D., Guttmann, H.E.: Handbook of Human Reliability Analysis with Emphasis on Nuclear Power Plant Applications. Final report. U.S. NRC, Washington, DC (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gertman, D.I., Blackman, H.S., Marble, J.L., Byers, J.C., Smith, C.: The SPAR-H Human Reliability Analysis Method. U.S. NRC, Washington, DC (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams, J.C.: A data-based method for assessing and reducing human error to improve operational performance. In: Conference Record for 1988 IEEE Fourth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants, pp. 436–450. IEEE (1988)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spurgin, A.J.: Human Reliability Assessment: Theory and Practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rasmussen, M.: The development of performance shaping factors for the PetroHRA method: a human reliability method for the petroleum industry. Doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Report to the President National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Spill and Offshore Drilling: Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling. Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bye, A., Laumann, K., Taylor, C., Rasmussen, M., Øie, S., van de Merwe, K., Øien, K., Boring, R.L., Paltrinieri, N., Wærø, I., Massaiu, S., Gould, K.: The Petro-HRA Guideline (IFE/HR/F-2017/001). Institute for Energy Technology, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, J.W., Jung, W., Jang, S.C., Wang, J.B.: A case study for the selection of a railway human reliability analysis method. In: International Railway Safety Conference, 22–27 October 2006, Belfast (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kirwan, B., Gibson, H.: CARA: a human reliability assessment tool for air traffic safety management — technical basis and preliminary architecture. In: Proceedings of the 15th Safety-Critical Systems Symposium, Bristol, 13–15 February 2007, Bristol (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glaessgen, E.H., Stargel, D.S.: The digital twin paradigm for future NASA and U.S. air force vehicles. In: 53rd Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference: Special Session on the Digital Twin, pp. 1–14, Honolulu (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rabiti, C., Alfonsi, A., Mandelli, D., Cogliati, J., Martineau, R., Smith, C.L.: Deployment and Overview of RAVEN Capabilities for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment Demo for a PWR Station Blackout Deployment and Overview of RAVEN Capabilities for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment Demo for a PWR Station Blackout (INL/EXT-13-29510). Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anders, D., Berry, R., Gaston, D., Martineau, R., Peterson, J., Zhang, H., Zhao, H., Zou, L.: RELAP-7 Level 2 Milestone Report: Demonstration of a Steady State Single Phase PWR Simulation with RELAP-7 (INL/EXT-12-25924 RELAP-7). Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rasmussen, M., Boring, R.L.: The implementation of complexity in computation-based human reliability analysis. In: Walls, L., Revie, M., Bedford, T. (eds.) Risk, Reliability and Safety: Innovating Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the 26th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2016, Glasgow, Scotland, 25–29 September 2016. CRC Press, Croydon (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rasmussen, M., Boring, R.L.: Auto-Calculation of Complexity in Computation-Based Human Reliability Analysis (in review)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boring, R.L., Mandelli, D., Rasmussen, M., Herberger, S., Ulrich, T., Groth, K., Smith, C.: Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program Integration of Human Reliability Analysis Models into the Simulation- Based Framework for the Risk- Informed Safety Margin Characterization Toolkit (INL/EXT-16-39015). Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boring, R.L., Joe, J.C., Mandelli, D.: Human performance modeling for dynamic human reliability analysis. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 9184, 223–234 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind. 59, 433–460 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall International, London (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Millington, I., Funge, J.: Artificial Intelligence for Games. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bennett, C.C., Hauser, K.: Artificial intelligence framework for simulating clinical decision-making: a markov decision process approach. Artif. Intell. Med. 57, 9–19 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bennett, C.C., Doub, T.W.: Temporal modeling in clinical artificial intelligence, decision-making, and cognitive computing: empirical exploration of practical challenges. In: Proceedings of the 3rd SIAM Workshop of DMMH, Philadelphia (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bellazzi, R., Zupan, B.: Predictive data mining in clinical medicine: Current issues and guidelines. Int. J. Med. Inform. 77, 81–97 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laumann, K., Rasmussen, M., Boring, R.L.: A literature study to explore empirically: what is the scientific discipline of human factors and what makes it distinct from other related fields. In: Boring, R.L. (ed.) Advances in Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance. AISC, vol. 589, pp. 63–73. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rasmussen, M., Laumann, K.: The impact of decomposition level in human reliability analysis quantification. In: Walls, L., Revie, M., Bedford, T. (eds.) Risk, Reliability and Safety: Innovating Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the 26th ESREL 2016, Glasgow, Scotland, 25–29 September 2016. CRC Press (2017)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boring, R.L., Rasmussen, M.: GOMS-HRA: a method for treating subtasks in dynamic human reliability analysis. In: Walls, L., Revie, M., Bedford, T. (eds.) Risk, Reliability and Safety: Innovating Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the 26th European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2016, Glasgow, 25–29 September 2016. CRC Press (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Boring, R., Rasmussen, M., Ulrich, T., Ewing, S., Mandelli, D.: Task and procedure level primitives for modeling human error. In: Boring, R.L. (ed.) Advances in Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance. AISC, vol. 589, pp. 30–40. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ulrich, T., Boring, R., Ewing, S., Rasmussen, M.: Operator timing of task level primitives for use in computation-based human reliability analysis. In: Boring, R.L. (ed.) Advances in Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance. AISC, vol. 589, pp. 41–49. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ewing, S.M., Boring, R.L., Rasmussen, M., Ulrich, T.: Text mining for procedure-level primitives in human reliability analysis. In: Boring, R.L. (ed.) Advances in Human Error, Reliability, Resilience, and Performance. AISC, vol. 589, pp. 239–249. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reason, J.: A Life in Error: from Little Slips to Big Disasters. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Surrey (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Whittingham, R.B.: The Blame Machine: Why Human Error Causes Accidents. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    French, S., Bedford, T., Pollard, S.J.T., Soane, E.: Human reliability analysis: a critique and review for managers. Saf. Sci. 49, 753–763 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rasmussen, M., Standal, M.I., Laumann, K.: Task complexity as a performance shaping factor: a review and recommendations in standardized plant analysis risk-human reliability analysis (SPAR-H) adaption. Saf. Sci. 76, 228–238 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boring, R.L., Mandelli, D., Rasmussen, M., Herberger, S., Ulrich, T., Groth, K., Smith, C.: Human unimodel for nuclear technology to enhance reliability (HUNTER): a framework for computational-based human reliability analysis. In: Proceeding of PSAM 13, 2–7 October 2016, Seoul (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Boring, R.L., Mandelli, D., Joe, J., Smith, C., Groth, K.: Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program: A Research Roadmap for Computation-Based Human Reliability Analysis (INL/EXT-15-36051). Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Rasmussen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ronald Boring
    • 2
  • Thomas Ulrich
    • 3
  • Sarah Ewing
    • 2
  1. 1.NTNU Social Research, Studio AperturaTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Idaho National LaboratoryIdaho FallsUSA
  3. 3.Universitity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations