Advertisement

HUPESS: Human Performance Evaluation Support System

  • Jun Su Ha
  • Poong Hyun Seong
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)

Abstract

Research and development for enhancing reliability and safety in NPPs have been mainly focused on areas such as automation of facilities, securing safety margin of safety systems, and improvement of main process systems. Studies of TMI-2, Chernobyl, and other NPP events have revealed that deficiencies in human factors, such as poor control room design, procedure, and training, are significant contributing factors to NPPs incidents and accidents [1–5]. Greater attention has been focused on the human factors study. Modern computer techniques have been gradually introduced into the design of advanced control rooms (ACRs) of NPPs as processing and information presentation capabilities of modern computers are increased [6, 7]. The design of instrumentation and control (I&C) systems for various plant systems is also rapidly moving toward fully digital I&C [8, 9]. For example, CRT- (or LCD-) based displays, large display panels (LDP), soft controls, a CPS, and an advanced alarm system were applied to APR-1400 (Advanced Power Reactor-1400) [10]. The role of operators in advanced NPPs shifts from a manual controller to a supervisor or a decision-maker [11] and the operator tasks have become more cognitive works. As a result, HFE became more important in designing an ACR. The human factors engineering program review model (HFE PRM) was developed with the support of U.S. NRC in order to support advanced reactor design certification reviews [4]. The Integrated System Validation (ISV) is part of this review activity.

Keywords

Human Factor Human Performance Situation Awareness Mental Workload Blink Rate 
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]
    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1980) Functional criteria for emergency response facilities. NUREG-0696, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1980) Clarification of TMI action plan requirements. NUREG-0737, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    O’Hara JM, Brown WS, Lewis PM, Persensky JJ (2002) Human-system interface design review guidelines. NUREG-0700, Rev.2, US NRCGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    O’Hara JM, Higgins JC, Persensky JJ, Lewis PM, Bongarra JP (2004) Human factors engineering program review model, NUREG-0711, Rev.2, US NRCGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Barriere M, Bley D, Cooper S, Forester J, Kolaczkowski A, Luckas W, Parry G, Ramey-Smith A, Thompson C, Whitehead D, Wreathall J (2000) Technical basis and implementation guidelines for a technique for human event analysis (ATHEANA), Rev.01. NUREG-1624, US NRCGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chang SH, Choi SS, Park JK, Heo G, Kim HG (1999) Development of an advanced human-machine interface for next generation nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 64:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Kim IS (1994) Computerized systems for on-line management of failures: a state-ofthe-art discussion of alarm systems and diagnostic systems applied in the nuclear industry. Reliability Engineering and Safety System 44:279–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Yoahikawa H, Nakagawa T, Nakatani Y, Furuta T, Hasegawa A (1997) Development of an analysis support system for man-machine system design information. Control Eng. Practice, 5-3:417–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Ohi T, Yoshikawa H, Kitamura M, Furuta K, Gofuku A, Itoh K, Wei W, Ozaki Y (2002) Development of an advanced human-machine interface system to enhanced operating availability of nuclear power plants. International Symposium on the Future I&C for NPP (ISOFIC2002), Seoul: 297–300Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Cho SJ et al. (2003) The evaluation of suitability for the design of soft control and safety console for APR1400. KHNP, TR. A02NS04.S2003.EN8, Daejeon, Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Sheridan TB (1992) Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    O’Hara JM, Stubler WF, Higgins JC, Brown WS (1997) Integrated system validation: methodology and review criteria. NUREG/CR-6393, US NRCGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Andresen G, Drøivoldsmo A (2000) Human performance assessment: methods and measures. HPR-353, OECD Halden Reactor ProjectGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Ha JS, Seong PH (2007) Development of human performance measures for human factors validation in the advanced MCR of APR-1400. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 54-6:2687–2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Braarud PØ, Brendryen H (2001) Task demand, task management, and teamwork, HWR-657, OECD Halden Reactor ProjectGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Drøivoldsmo A et al. (1988) Continuous measure of situation awareness and workload. HWR-539, OECD Halden Reactor ProjectGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Moracho M (1998) Plant performance assessment system (PPAS) for crew performance evaluations. Lessons learned from an alarm study conducted in HAMMLAB. HWR-504, OECD Halden Reactor ProjectGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Skraning G jr. (1998) The operator performance assessment system (OPAS). HWR-538, OECD Halden Reactor ProjectGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Sim BS et al. (1996) The development of human factors technologies: the development of human factors experimental evaluation techniques. KAERI/RR-1693, Daejeon, Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    O’Hara JM, Hall RE (1992) Advanced control rooms and crew performance issues: implications for human reliability. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 39-4:919–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Braarud PØ, Skraaning GJ (2006) Insights from a benchmark integrated system validation of a modernized NPP control room: performance measurement and the comparison to the benchmark system. NPIC&HMIT 2006: 12–16, Albuquerque, NM, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Hollnagel E (1998) Cognitive reliability and error analysis method. Amsterdam: ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Kemeny J (1979) The need for change: the legacy of TMI. Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Miles Island, New York: PergamonGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Adams MJ, Tenney YJ, Pew RW (1995) Situation awareness and cognitive management of complex system. Human Factors 37-1:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Durso FT, Gronlund S (1999) Situation awareness. In The handbook of applied cognition, Durso FT, Nickerson R, Schvaneveldt RW, Dumais ST, Lindsay DS, Chi MTH (Eds). Wiley, New York, 284–314Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Endsley MR, Garland DJ (2001) Situation awareness: analysis and measurement. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Gibson CP, Garrett AJ (1990) Toward a future cockpit-the prototyping and pilot integration of the mission management aid (MMA). Paper presented at the Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Taylor RM (1990) Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. Paper presented at the Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Wesler MM, Marshak WP, Glumm MM (1998) Innovative measures of accuracy and situational awareness during landing navigation. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual MeetingGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37-1:32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    Lee DH, Lee HC (2000) A review on measurement and applications of situation awareness for an evaluation of Korea next generation reactor operator performance. IE Interface 13-4:751–758Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1997) Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental process. Psychological Review 84:231–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    Endsley MR, (2000) Direct measurement of situation awareness: validity and use of SAGAT. In Endsley MR, Garland DJ (Eds), Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    Endsley MR, (1996) Situation awareness measurement in test and evaluation. In O’Brien TG, Charlton SG (Eds), Handbook of human factors testing and evaluation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    Sarter NB, Woods DD (1991) Situation awareness: a critical but ill-defined phenomenon. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology 1-1:45-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    Pew RW (2000) The state of situation awareness measurement: heading toward the next century. In Endsley MR, Garland DJ (Eds), Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    Endsley MR (1990) A methodology for the objective measurement of situation awareness. In Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (AGARD-CP-478; pp. 1/1–1/9), Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France: NATO-AGARDGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Endsley MR (1995) The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors 37-2:381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    Collier SG, Folleso K (1995) SACRI: A measure of situation awareness for nuclear power plant control rooms. In Garland DJ, Endsley MR (Eds), Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness. Daytona Beach, FL: Embri-Riddle University Press, 115–122Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    Hogg DN, Follesø K, Volden FS, Torralba B (1995) Development of a situation awareness measure to evaluate advanced alarm systems in nuclear power plant control rooms. Ergonomics 38-11:2394–2413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    Fracker ML, Vidulich MA (1991) Measurement of situation awareness: A brief review. In Queinnec Y, Daniellou F (Eds), Designing for everyone, Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, London, Taylor & Francis 795–797Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    Endsley MR (1995) Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37-1:65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    Wilson GF (2000) Strategies for psychophysiological assessment of situation awareness. In Endsley MR, Garland DJ (Eds), Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    Taylor RM (1990) Situational awareness rating technique (SART): the development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (AGARD-CP-478; pp. 3/1–3/17), Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France: NATO-AGARDGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    Wickens CD, Hollands JG (2000) Engineering psychology and human performance, 3rd Edition. New Jersey, Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    O’Hara JM, Higgins JC, Stubler WF, Kramer J (2002) Computer-based procedure systems: technical basis and human factors review guidance. NUREG/CR-6634, US NRCGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    Kim MC, Seong PH (2006) A computational model for knowledge-driven monitoring of nuclear power plant operators based on information theory. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 91:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Ha JS, Seong PH (2005) An experimental study: EEG analysis with eye fixation data during complex diagnostic tasks in nuclear power plants. Proceedings of International Symposium On the Future I&C for NPPs (ISOFIC), Chungmu, Republic of KoreaGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    Wickens CD (1992) Workload and situation awareness: an analogy of history and implications. Insight 94Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    Moray N (1979) Mental workload: its theory and measurement. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    Hancock P, Meshkati N (1988) Human mental workload. North-Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    O'Donnell RD, Eggemeier FT (1986) Workload assessment methodology. In Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas J (Eds), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. II. Cognitive Processes and Performance, John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    Norman DA, Bobrow DG (1975) On data-limited and resource-limited process. Cognitive Psychology 7:44–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    Williges R, Wierwille WW (1979) Behavioral measures of aircrew mental workload. Human Factors 21:549–574Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    Charlton SG (2002) Measurement of cognitive states in test and evaluation. In Charlton SG, O’Brien TG (Eds), Handbook of human factors testing and evaluation, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    Eggemeier FT, Wilson GF (1991) Subjective and performance-based assessment of workload in multi-task environments. In Damos D (Eds), Multiple task performance. London, Taylor & FrancisGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Rubio S, Diaz E, Martin J, Puente JM (2004) Evaluation of subjective mental workload: a comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile. Applied Psychology 53:61–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Wierwille WW, Rahimi M, Casali JG (1985) Evaluation of 16 measures of mental workload using a simulated flight task emphasizing mediational activity. Human Factors 27:489–502Google Scholar
  60. [60]
    Johannsen G, Moray N, Pew R, Rasmussen J, Sanders A, Wickens CD (1979) Final report of the experimental psychology group. In Moray N (Eds), Mental workload: its theory and measurement. New York: PlenumGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    Moray N (1982) Subjective mental workload. Human Factors 24:25–40Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Hill SG, Iavecchia HP, Byers JC, Bittier AC, Zaklad AL, Christ RE (1992) Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Human Factors 34:429–440Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    Sterman B, Mann C (1995) Concepts and applications of EEG analysis in aviation performance evaluation. Biological Psychology 40:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Kramer AF, Sirevaag EJ, Braune R (1987) A psychophysiological assessment of operator workload during simulated flight missions. Human Factors 29-2:145–160Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    Brookings J, Wilson GF, Swain C (1996) Psycho-physiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control. Biological Psychology 42:361–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    Brookhuis KA, Waard DD (1993) The use of psychophysiology to assess driver status. Ergonomics 36:1099–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    Donchin E, Coles MGH (1988) Is the P300 component a manifestation of cognitive updating? Behavioral and Brain Science 11:357–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    Boer LC, Veltman JA (1997) From workload assessment to system improvement. Paper presented at the NATO Workshop on Technologies in Human Engineering Testing and Evaluation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    Roscoe AH (1975) Heart rate monitoring of pilots during steep gradient approaches. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 46:1410–1415Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    Rau R (1996) Psychophysiological assessment of human reliability in a simulated complex system. Biological Psychology 42:287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. [71]
    Kramer AF, Weber T (2000) Application of psychophysiology to human factors. In Cacioppo JT et al. (Eds), Handbook of psychophysiology, Cambridge University Press 794–814Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Jorna PGAM (1992) Spectral analysis of heart rate and psychological state: a review of its validity as a workload index. Biological Psychology 34:237–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [73]
    Mulder LJM (1992) Measurement and analysis methods of heart rate and respiration for use in applied environments. Biological Psychology 34:205–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    Porges SW, Byrne EA (1992) Research methods for the measurement of heart rate and respiration. Biological Psychology 34:93–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    Wilson GF (1992) Applied use of cardiac and respiration measure: practical considerations and precautions. Biological Psychology 34:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [76]
    Lin Y, Zhang WJ, Watson LG (2003) Using eye movement parameters for evaluating human-machine interface frameworks under normal control operation and fault detection situations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 59:837–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [77]
    Veltman JA, Gaillard AWK (1996) Physiological indices of workload in a simulated flight task. Biological Psychology 42:323–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. [78]
    Bauer LO, Goldstein R, Stern JA (1987) Effects of information-processing demands on physiological response patterns. Human Factors 29:219–234Google Scholar
  79. [79]
    Goldberg JH, Kotval XP (1998) Eye movement-based evaluation of the computer interface. In Kumar SK (Eds), Advances in occupational ergonomics and safety. IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  80. [80]
    Ha CH, Seong PH (2006) Investigation on relationship between information flow rate and mental workload of accident diagnosis tasks in NPPs. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 53-3:1450–1459Google Scholar
  81. [81]
    http://www.seeingmachines.com/Google Scholar
  82. [82]
    http://www.smarteye.se/home.htmlGoogle Scholar
  83. [83]
    Shively R, Battiste V, Matsumoto J, Pepiton D, Bortolussi M, Hart S (1987) In flight evaluation of pilot workload measures for rotorcraft research. Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Aviation Psychology: 637–643, Columbus, OHGoogle Scholar
  84. [84]
    Battiste V, Bortolussi M (1988) Transport pilot workload: a comparison of two subjective techniques. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-Second Annual Meeting: 150–154, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    Nataupsky M, Abbott TS (1987) Comparison of workload measures on computergenerated primary flight displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-First Annual Meeting: 548–552, Santa Monica, CA Google Scholar
  86. [86]
    Tsang PS, Johnson WW (1989) Cognitive demand in automation. Aviation, Space, and Experimental Medicine 60:130–135Google Scholar
  87. [87]
    Bittner AV, Byers JC, Hill SG, Zaklad AL, Christ RE (1989) Generic workload ratings of a mobile air defense system (LOS-F-H). Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-Third Annual Meeting: 1476–1480, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  88. [88]
    Hill SG, Byers JC, Zaklad AL, Christ RE (1988) Workload assessment of a mobile air defense system. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-Second Annual Meeting: 1068–1072, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    Byers JC, Bittner AV, Hill SG, Zaklad AL, Christ RE (1988) Workload assessment of a remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) system. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Thirty-Second Annual Meeting: 1145–1149, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  90. [90]
    Sebok A (2000) Team performance in process control: influences of interface design and staffing. Ergonomics 43-8:1210–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. [91]
    Byun SN, Choi SN (2002) An evaluation of the operator mental workload of advanced control facilities in Korea next generation reactor. Journal of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers 28-2:178–186Google Scholar
  92. [92]
    Plott C, Engh,T, Bames V (2004) Technical basis for regulatory guidance for assessing exemption requests from the nuclear power plant licensed operator staffing requirements specified in 10 CFR 50.54, NUREG/CR-6838, US NRCGoogle Scholar
  93. [93]
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock PA, Meshkati N (Eds), Human mental workload, Amsterdam: North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  94. [94]
    Stern JA, Walrath LC, Golodstein R (1984) The endogenous eyeblink. Psychophysiology 21:22–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. [95]
    Tanaka Y, Yamaoka K (1993) Blink activity and task difficulty. Perceptual Motor Skills 77:55–66Google Scholar
  96. [96]
    Goldberg JH, Kotval XP (1998) Eye movement-based evaluation of the computer interface. In Kumar SK (Eds), Advances in occupational ergonomics and safety, IOS Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  97. [97]
    Bellenkes AH, Wickens CD, Kramer AF (1997) Visual scanning and pilot expertise: the role of attentional flexibility and mental model development. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine 68-7:569–579Google Scholar
  98. [98]
    Roth EM, Mumaw RJ, Stubler WF (1993) Human factors evaluation issues for advanced control rooms: a research agenda. IEEE Conference Proceedings: 254–265Google Scholar
  99. [99]
    Sexton G (1998) Cockpit-crew systems design and integration. In Wiener E, Nagel D (Eds), Human factors in aviation. Academic Press: 495–504Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun Su Ha
    • 1
  • Poong Hyun Seong
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Advanced Reactor ResearchKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyDaejeonKorea, Republic of
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear and Quantum EngineeringKorea Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyDaejeonKorea, Republic of

Personalised recommendations