Screening, sensitivity, and uncertainty for the CREAM method of Human Reliability Analysis

This paper reports a sensitivity analysis of the Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method for Human Reliability Analysis. We consider three different aspects: the difference between the outputs of the Basic and Extended methods, on the same HRA scenario; the variability in outputs through the choices made for common performance conditions (CPCs); and the variability in outputs through the assignment of choices for cognitive function failures (CFFs). We discuss the problem of interpreting categories when applying the method, compare its quantitative structure to that of first generation methods and discuss also how dependence is modelled with the approach. We show that the control mode intervals used in the Basic method are too narrow to be consistent with the Extended method. This motivates a new screening method that gives improved accuracy with respect to the Basic method, in the sense that (on average) halves the uncertainty associated with the Basic method. We make some observations on the design of a screening method that are generally applicable in Risk Analysis. Finally, we propose a new method of combining CPC weights with nominal probabilities so that the calculated probabilities are always in range (i.e. between 0 and 1), while satisfying sensible properties that are consistent with the overall CREAM method.

[1]  J. Wreathall,et al.  Knowledge-base for the new human reliability analysis method, A Technique for Human Error Analysis (ATHEANA) , 1996 .

[2]  A. D. Swain,et al.  Handbook of human-reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications. Final report , 1983 .

[3]  M. Marseguerra,et al.  Quantitative developments in the cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM) for the assessment of human performance , 2006 .

[4]  A. J. Spurgin,et al.  Critique of current human reliability analysis methods , 2002, Proceedings of the IEEE 7th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.

[5]  J Williams A method for quantifying ultrasonic inspection effectiveness , 1992 .

[6]  A. D. Swain Accident Sequence Evaluation Program: Human reliability analysis procedure , 1987 .

[7]  Yao Wang,et al.  A simplified CREAM prospective quantification process and its application , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[8]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Failures without errors: quantification of context in HRA , 2004, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[9]  Chris T. Kiranoudis,et al.  A fuzzy modeling application of CREAM methodology for human reliability analysis , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[10]  L. K. Ainsworth,et al.  Simulation to predict operator workload in a command system , 1992 .

[11]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive reliability and error analysis method : CREAM , 1998 .

[12]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Human reliability analysis by fuzzy "CREAM". , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.