Advertisement

A Study on the Development of a Systematic Framework to Construct Diagnosis Procedures

  • Jinkyun Park
  • Wondea Jung
  • Jaewhan Kim
  • Jaejoo Ha
Conference paper

Abstract

A diagnosis procedure that allows operators to identify the nature of an on-going event is very important for complex systems such as the nuclear and chemical industry, because appropriate countermeasures or remedial actions can be initiated by it. Unfortunately, a systematic framework that can suggest a unified and consistent process for constructing diagnosis procedures seems to be scant. In this paper, the systematic framework that can provide a sound way in constructing a diagnosis procedure is suggested. To demonstrate the appropriateness of suggested framework, in addition, the diagnosis procedure of the reference nuclear power plant (NPP) is reformed based on it. Subjective ratings are conducted to compare reformed procedure with the original one, and results support that operators’ performance in an event diagnosis could be improved. Thus, it is expected that suggested framework could be applied to provide a consistent process in constructing useful diagnosis procedures.

Keywords

Fault Diagnosis Systematic Framework Diagnosis Procedure Compensatory Approach Consistent Process 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    T. Kontogiannis. Stress and operator decision making in coping with emergencies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 1996;45: 75–104.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    U.S. NRC. Onsite Assessments of the Effectiveness and Impacts of Upgraded Emergency Operating Procedures. NUREG/CR-4617, Washington DC, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Parr. Fault diagnosis — A user’s view. IEE Colloquium on Fault Diagnosis in Process Systems. Digest 1997: 174: 1–10.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Y. Su, T. Govindaraj. Fault diagnosis in a large dynamic system: experiments on a training simulator. IEEE Transactions on SMC 1986; SMC-16(1): 129–141.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.W. Payne, J.R. Bettman and E.J. Johnson. Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1988;14(3): 534–552.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Tversky. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review 1972;79: 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Zuzek, A. Biasizzo and F. Novak. Sequential diagnosis tool. Microprocessors and Microsystems 2000;24: 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    H. Zhou, L. Qu and A. Li. Test sequencing and diagnosis in electronic systems with decision table. Microelectronics and Reliability 1996;36(9): 1167–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Park and W. Jung. The requisite characteristics for diagnosis procedures based on the empirical findings of the operators’ behavior under emergency situations. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2003; 81, 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jinkyun Park
    • 1
  • Wondea Jung
    • 1
  • Jaewhan Kim
    • 1
  • Jaejoo Ha
    • 1
  1. 1.Integrated Safety Assessment DivisionKorea Atomic Energy Research InstituteDaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations