Nuclear Plant Control Room Operator Modeling Within the ADS-IDAC, Version 2, Dynamic PRA Environment: Part 1 - General Description and Cognitive Foundations

Dynamic simulation-based approaches for probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) offer several key advantages over traditional “static” techniques such as traditional event tree-fault tree based methods. For example, dynamic simulation approaches can more realistically represent event sequence and timing, provide a better representation of thermal hydraulic success criteria, and permit more detailed modeling of operator response. Version 2.0 of the Accident Dynamics Simulator paired with the Information, Decision, and Action cognitive model in a Crew context (ADS-IDAC) is one such dynamic method that shows promise for supporting nuclear power plant PRAs and other risk-informed applications. By linking a realistic nuclear plant thermal-hydraulic model with a crew behavior model, ADS-IDAC creates a rich simulation environment. The crew behavior model describes the operators’ preferences and tendencies, knowledge, and situation-response rules. ADS-IDAC generates a discrete dynamic event tree (DDET) by applying simple branching rules that reflect variations in crew responses to plant events and system status changes. Branches can be generated to simulate a variety of operator behaviors, including procedure execution speed and adherence, evolving situational assessments, and variations in plant control preferences. This of the first of two papers in this volume and provides an overview of the ADS-IDAC Version 2.0 simulation platform and a description the cognitive foundations underpinning the operator human performance model.

[1]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 1: Overview of the IDAC Model , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[2]  N. Siu,et al.  Risk assessment for dynamic systems: An overview , 1994 .

[3]  Carol Smidts,et al.  A taxonomy and root-cause analysis of human cognitive behavior based on a cognitive model , 1995, Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium 1995 Proceedings.

[4]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Model-based human reliability analysis: prospects and requirements , 2004, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[5]  Y. Maruyama,et al.  Practical expression for exception and its utilization to leakage identification of power plant , 1990 .

[6]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants , 1996 .

[7]  Carol Smidts,et al.  The IDA cognitive model for the analysis of nuclear power plant operator response under accident conditions. Part I: problem solving and decision making model , 1997 .

[8]  A. Mosleh,et al.  Modeling cognition dynamics and its application to human reliability analysis , 1996 .

[9]  D. J. Wells,et al.  Applications possibilities for fuzzy failure analysis, and diagnosis of reactor plant components and areas , 1980 .

[10]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  A methodology for collection and analysis of human error data based on a cognitive model: IDA , 1997 .

[11]  Emilie M. Roth,et al.  An empirical investigation of operator performance in cognitively demanding simulated emergencies , 1994 .

[12]  Karol G. Ross,et al.  The Recognition-Primed Decision Model , 2004 .

[13]  Gary Klein,et al.  Naturalistic Decision Making , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[14]  Morten Lind,et al.  Plant modelling for human supervisory control , 1999 .

[15]  I.E. Schoenfeld,et al.  Training cognitive skills for severe accident management , 1992, Conference Record for 1992 Fifth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.

[16]  Mal-rey Lee.  Expert system for nuclear power plant accident diagnosis using a fuzzy inference method , 2002, Expert Syst. J. Knowl. Eng..

[17]  N. Siu.  Dynamic accident sequence analysis in PRA: A comment on ‘Human reliability analysis—Where shoudst thou turn?’ , 1990 .

[18]  Kevin Coyne,et al.  A Predictive Model of Nuclear Power Plant Crew Decision-Making and Performance in a Dynamic Simulation Environment , 2009 .

[19]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  SEAMLESS LEVEL 2/LEVEL 3 DYNAMIC PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT CLUSTERING , 2014 .