Advertisement

The Use of Simulators in Human Factors Studies Within the Nuclear Industry

  • Ronald Laurids Boring
Conference paper

Abstract

As novel nuclear power plant control rooms and hybrid control room upgrades are proposed in the nuclear industry, there is an increasing need for quality simulator data on operator performance in the nuclear industry, both to understand and to document current performance and to prepare for novel plant control rooms and hybrid control room upgrades. This chapter explores simulator types and the research questions appropriate for control room simulators. It contrasts the roles for training and research simulators and suggests key ways in which these simulators can contribute to human factors research in the nuclear industry.

Keywords

Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Training Simulator Machine Interface Research Simulator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson JR (2007) How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Beare AN, Dorris RE, Bovell CR, Crowe DS, Kozinsky EJ (1984) A simulator-based study of human errors in nuclear power plant control room tasks, NUREG/CR-3309. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Boring R, Whaley A, Hallbert B, Laumann K, Braarud PØ, Bye A, Lois E, Chang YHJ (2007) Capturing control room simulator data with the HERA system. In: Official proceedings of the Joint 8th IEEE conference on human factors and power plants and the 13th annual workshop on human performance/root cause/trending/operating experience/self assessment, Monterey, pp 210–217Google Scholar
  4. Boring RL, Gertman DI, Tran TQ, Gore BF (2008) Framework and application for modeling control room crew performance at nuclear power plants. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 52nd annual meeting, pp 930–934Google Scholar
  5. Boring RL, O’Hara JM, Hugo J, Jamieson GA, Oxstrand J, Ma R, Hildebrandt M (2008) Human factors and the nuclear renaissance. In: Proceedings of the 52nd annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society, pp 763–767Google Scholar
  6. Drøivoldsmo A (2000) Study of errors by means of simulation and training. In: Elzer PF, Sträter O, Boussoffara B (eds) Human error and system design and management. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–206Google Scholar
  7. Gardner H (1997) The mind’s new science: a history of the cognitive revolution. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gore BR, Dukelow JS Jr, Mitts TM, Nicholson WL (1995) A limited assessment of the ASEP Human reliability analysis procedure using simulator examination results, NUREG/CR-6355. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Groth K, Mosleh A (2008) Data-driven modeling of dependencies among influencing factors in human-machine interactions. In: Proceedings of ANS PSA 2008 topical meeting on CD-ROM. American Nuclear Society, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
  10. Hallbert BP (1997) Situation awareness and operator performance: results for simulator-based studies. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE sixth conference on human factors and power plants, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, New York, pp 18.1–18.6Google Scholar
  11. Hallbert B, Boring R, Gertman D, Dudenhoeffer D, Whaley A, Marble J, Joe J (2006) Human event repository and analysis (HERA) system, overview, NUREG/CR-6903, vol 1. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. Heimdal J (2007) Extended summary of HWR-901: operational culture literature review. OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  13. Hutchins E (1996) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Institute of Nuclear Power Operators (1992) Survey of nuclear training activity in US Electric Plants, INPO-92–007. Institute of Nuclear Power Operators, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  15. International Atomic Energy Agency (1980) Protection system and related features in nuclear power plants, safety Series No. 50-SG-D3. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  16. International Atomic Energy Agency (2003) Means of evaluating and improving the effectiveness of training of nuclear power plant personnel, IAEA-TECDOC-1358. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  17. International Atomic Energy Agency (2004) Use of control room simulators for training of nuclear power plant personnel, IAEA-TECDOC-1411. International Atomic Energy Agency, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  18. Lois E, Dang VN, Forester J, Broberg H, Massaiu S, Hildebrandt M, Braarud PØ, Parry G, Julius J, Boring R, Männistö I, Bye A (2008) International HRA empirical study—pilot phase report. Description of overall approach and first pilot results from comparing HRA methods to simulator data (HWR-844). OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  19. Männistö I, Boring R (2008) Application of HERA in Empirical HRA Study (HWR-893). OECD Halden Reactor Project, HaldenGoogle Scholar
  20. Rizzo M, Robinson S, Neale V (2008) The brain in the wild. In: Parasuraman R, Rizzo M (eds) Tracking human behavior in natural and naturalistic settings. Neuroergonomics, The Brain at Work. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 113–128Google Scholar
  21. Robertson Museum and Science Center (2000) The link flight trainer. A historic mechanical engineering landmark. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Roth EM, Mumaw RJ, Lewis PM (1994) An empirical investigation of operator performance in cognitively demanding simulated emergencies, NUREG/CR-6208. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Spurgin AJ, Moieni P, Gaddy CD, Parry G, Orvis DD, Spurgin JP, Joksimovitch V, Gaver DP, Hannaman GW (1989) Operator reliability experiments using power plant simulators, EPRI NP-6937, vols 1–3. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  24. Stanton N (1996) Simulators: a review of research and practice. In: Stanton N (ed) Human factors in nuclear safety. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 117–140Google Scholar
  25. Swain AD, Guttman HE (1983) Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications, NUREG/CR-1278. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. Tran TQ, Boring RL, Dudenhoeffer DD, Hallbert BP, Keller MD, Anderson TM (2007) Advantages and disadvantages of physiological assessment for next generation control room design. In: Official proceedings of the joint 8th IEEE conference on human factors and power plants and the 13th annual workshop on human performance/root cause/trending/operating experience/self assessment, Monterey, pp 259–263Google Scholar
  27. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (2001) Regulatory guide 1.149—nuclear power plant simulation facilities for use in operator training and license examinations, revision 3. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Øwre F (2008) The history of HAMMLAB—25 years of simulator-based studies. Enlarged Halden Programme Group Meeting, LoenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited  2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Idaho National LaboratoryIdaho FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations