Introducing Human Performance Modeling in Digital Nuclear Power Industry

  • Xiang Jiang
  • Qin Gao
  • Zhizhong Li
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8024)

Abstract

Human performance modeling (HPM) can be used to explain and predict human behaviors under certain situations, helping designers in the design stage through evaluating the interface, procedure, staffing, etc. This study discusses the feasibility of introducing HPM methods into digital nuclear power industry through 1) the new characteristics of human- system interaction/human performance in digital main control rooms (MCRs) of nuclear power plants (NPPs), 2) the simulating abilities of available HPMs on their latest progress. Based on the review of the two issues, we conclude that: 1) digitalization of NPPs changes operators’ performance through the system, task, environment and human himself. 2) HPM is classified as human reliability modeling and cognitive modeling. The lack of performance data could be an obstacle for applying human reliability modeling in digital MCRs. The unclear underlying mechanism of human-system interaction in digital MCRs constrains the introducing of cognitive modeling.

Keywords

Digitalization Nuclear power plants Performance influence factors Human performance modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M.D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., Qin, Y.: An integrated theory of the mind. An Integrated Theory of the Mind. Psychological Review 111(4), 1036 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, J.R., Schunn, C.D.: Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets. Advances in Instructional Psychology 5, 1–34 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andresen, G.: Information Display Design: Three Attempts at Superseding the Traditional Process Mimic Display. Simulator-based Human Factors Studies Across 25 Years, 169–180 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bach, J., Dörner, D., Vuine, V.: PSI and MicroPSI. A Novel Approach to Modeling Emotion and Cognition in a Cognitive Architecture, Tutorial at ICCM (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burns, C.M., Skraaning Jr., G., Jamieson, G.A., Lau, N., Kwok, J., Welch, R., et al.: Evaluation of ecological interface design for nuclear process control: situation awareness effects. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50(4), 663–679 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byrne, M.D., Pew, R.W.: A history and primer of human performance modeling. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 5(1), 225–263 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, Y.H.J., Mosleh, A.: Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 1: Overview of the IDAC Model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 92(8), 997–1013 (2007a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang, Y., Mosleh, A.: Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 2: IDAC performance influencing factors model. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 92(8), 1014–1040 (2007b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chung, Y.H., Yoon, W.C., Min, D.: A model-based framework for the analysis of team communication in nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 94(6), 1030–1040 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cou, N.R.: Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: safety and reliability issues (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crichton, M.T., Flin, R.: Identifying and training non-technical skills of nuclear emergency response teams. Annals of Nuclear Energy 31(12), 1317–1330 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dong, X., Li, Z.: A study on the effect of training interval on the use of computerized emergency operatingprocedures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 96(2), 250–256 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Endsley, M.R.: Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42(3), 462–492 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gore, B.F., Corker, K.M.: Increasing aviation safety using human performance modeling tools: an Air Man-machine Integration Design and Analysis System application. Simulation Series 34(3), 183–188 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hallbert, B., Boring, R., Gertman, D., Dudenhoeffer, D., Whaley, A., Marble, J., et al.: Human Event Repository and Analysis (HERA) System, Overview (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ham, D.H., Yoon, W.C., Han, B.T.: Experimental study on the effects of visualized functionally abstracted information on process control tasks. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 93(2), 254–270 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harris, R., Kaplan, J.D., Bare, C., Iavecchia, H., Ross, L., Scolaro, D., et al.: Human Operator Simulator (HOS) IV User’s Guide (1989)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Huang, F.H., Hwang, S.L.: Experimental studies of computerized procedures and team size in nuclear power plant operations. Nuclear Engineering and Design 239(2), 373–380 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang, F.H., Hwang, S.L., Yenn, T.C., Yu, Y.C., Hsu, C.C., Huang, H.W.: Evaluation and comparison of alarm reset modes in advanced control room of nuclear power plants. Safety Science 44(10), 935–946 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang, F.-H., Lee, Y.-L., Hwang, S.-L., Yenn, T.-C., Yu, Y.-C., Hsu, C.-C., et al.: Experimental evaluation of human–system interaction on alarm design. Nuclear Engineering and Design 237(3), 308–315 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hwang, S.-L., Lin, J.-T., Liang, G.-F., Yau, Y.-J., Yenn, T.-C., Hsu, C.-C.: Application control chart concepts of designing a pre-alarm system in the nuclear power plant control room. Nuclear Engineering and Design 238(12), 3522–3527 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jou, Y.T., Yenn, T.C., Lin, C.J., Yang, C.W., Lin, S.F.: Evaluation of mental workload in automation design for a main control room task (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kieras, D.E., Meyer, D.E.: An Overview of the EPIC Architecture for Cognition and Performance With Application to Human-Computer Interaction. Human–Computer Interaction 12(4), 391–438 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim, J.H., Seong, P.H.: Human Factors Engineering in Large-scale Digital Control Systems. Reliability and Risk Issues in Large Scale Safety-Critical Digital Control Systems, 163–195 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, J.W., Jung, W.: A taxonomy of performance influencing factors for human reliability analysis of emergency tasks. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16(6), 479–495 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, S.K., Byun, S.N.: Effects of Crew Resource Management Training on the Team Performance of Operators in an Advanced Nuclear Power Plant. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 48(9), 1256–1264 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim, Y., Kim, J., Jang, S.-C., Jung, W.: Empirical investigation of communication characteristics under a computer-based procedure in an advanced control room. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 49(10), 988–998 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lau, N., Jamieson, G.A., Skraaning, G., Burns, C.M.: Ecological interface design in the nuclear domain: An empirical evaluation of ecological displays for the secondary subsystems of a boiling water reactor plant simulator. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 55(6), 3597–3610 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    LaugheryJr, K., Corker, K.: Computer modeling and simulation of human/system performance. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 1375–1408 (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee, S.J., Seong, P.H.: Development of automated operating procedure system using fuzzy colored petri nets for nuclear power plants. Annals of Nuclear Energy 31(8), 849–869 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin, C.J., Yenn, T.-C., Yang, C.-W.: Automation design in advanced control rooms of the modernized nuclear power plants. Safety Science 48(1), 63–71 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu, P., Li, Z.: Toward understanding the relationship between task complexity and task performance. Internationalization, Design and Global Development, 192–200 (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Min, D.H., Chung, Y.H., Yoon, W.C.: Comparative analysis of communication at main control rooms of nuclear power plants. Paper presented at the Proceedings of IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium, Atlanta, GA (September 2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mitchell, D.K.: Advanced improved performance research integration tool (IMPRINT) vetronics technology test bed model development: DTIC Documento. Document Number (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    O’Hara, J.M.: Human-system interface design review guidelines: Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    O’Hara, J.M., Brown, W.S., Lewis, P.M., Persensky, J.J.: The Effects of Interface Management Tasks on Crew Performance and Safety in Complex, Computer-Based Systems: Overview and Main Findings (NUREG/CR-6690), vol. 1. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton (2002)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Hara, J.M., Hall, R.E.: Advanced control rooms and crew performance issues: implications for human reliability. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 39(4), 919–923 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    O’Hara, J.M., Higgins, J.C., Stibler, W.F., Kramer, J.: Computer-based procedure systems: Technical basis and human factors review guidance (No. J-6012). Brookhaven National Lab., Upton (2000)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Hara, J.M., Higgins, J.C., Persensky, J.J., Lewis, P.M., Bongarra, J.P.: Human factors engineering program review model: DTIC Documento. Document Number (2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parasuraman, R., Riley, V.: Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39(2), 230–253 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans 30(3), 286–297 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pawlak, W.S., Vicente, K.J.: Inducing effective operator control through ecological interface design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 44(5), 653–688 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pew, R.W.: More than 50 years of history and accomplishments in human performance model development. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50(3), 489–496 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pew, R.W., Mavor, A.S.: Modeling human and organizational behavior: Application to military simulations. National Academies Press (1998)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pritsker, A.B.: SAINT: Systems Analysis of Integrated Network of Tasks: DTIC Documento. Document Number, vol. I (1974)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rasmussen, J.: The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision making and system management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (2), 234–243 (1985)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Roth, E.M., O’Hara, J.M.: Exploring the impact of advanced alarms, displays, and computerized procedures on teams. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (1999)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ryder, J.M., Weiland, M.Z., Szczepkowski, M.A., Zachary, W.W.: Cognitive engineering of a new telephone operator workstation using COGNET. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 22(6), 417–429 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schmitt, K.: Automations influence on nuclear power plants: a look at three accidents and how automation played a role. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 41, 4545–4551 (2012)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sheridan, T.B.: Supervisory control. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors, pp. 1295–1327. John Wiley & Sons, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Woods, D.D., Roth, E.M.: Cognitive environment simulation: An artificial intelligence system for human performance assessment: Cognitive reliability analysis technique: (Technical report, May 1986-June 1987) (No. NUREG/CR-4862-Vol. 3). Westinghouse Research and Development Center, Pittsburgh, PA (USA) (1987) Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Xu, S., Song, F., Li, Z., Zhao, Q., Luo, W., He, X., et al.: An ergonomics study of computerized emergency operating procedures: Presentation style, task complexity, and training level. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 93(10), 1500–1511 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zacharias, G.L., Miao, A.X., Illgen, C., Yara, J.M., Siouris, G.: SAMPLE: Situation awareness model for pilot-in-the-loop evaluation (1996)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zhou, Y., Mu, H., Jiang, J., Zhang, L.: Investigation of the impact of main control room digitalization on operators cognitive reliability in nuclear power plants. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation 41, 714–721 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiang Jiang
    • 1
  • Qin Gao
    • 1
  • Zhizhong Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingP.R. China

Personalised recommendations