JP7059168B2 - Human reliability evaluation system, human reliability evaluation method, and human reliability evaluation program - Google Patents

Description

The present invention relates to a human reliability evaluation system, a human reliability evaluation method, and a human reliability evaluation program for overhaul of equipment.

Conventionally, as described in Non-Patent Document 1, a human reliability assessment system is used when acquiring the probability of equipment breakage in probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of a nuclear power plant or the like.

FIG. 12 is a diagram showing the operation of the conventional human reliability evaluation system as a flowchart.

As shown in FIG. 12, first, the human reliability evaluation system collects information on tasks necessary for human reliability evaluation for the equipment to be evaluated in the overhaul and displays it on the display unit (step ST101). Next, when the human reliability evaluation system displays the subtask setting screen on the display unit (step ST102), the user of the human reliability evaluation system refers to the information displayed by step ST101, and contacts, commands, and operates. , And specify a predetermined subtask on the subtask setting screen in consideration of subtasks such as operations. The human reliability evaluation system sets a subtask designated by the user and displays it on the display unit (step ST103).

Next, when the human reliability evaluation system displays the tree setting screen on the display unit (step ST104), the user refers to the human error of the subtask displayed by step ST103, and the human reliability is displayed on the tree setting screen. Build a Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) event tree. The human reliability evaluation system sets an HRA event tree constructed by the user and displays it on the display unit (step ST105).

Next, when the human reliability evaluation system displays the rate setting screen on the display unit (step ST106), the user uses the predetermined reference error rate from the data of the reference error rate according to the error mode stored in the storage unit. Select data on the rate setting screen. The human reliability evaluation system sets a reference error rate selected by the user and displays it on the display unit (step ST107).

Next, when the human reliability evaluation system displays a factor setting screen including the error rate set by step ST107 on the display unit (step ST108), the user can use the behavior forming factor data stored in the storage unit. Select the predetermined factor data from the above on the factor setting screen. The human reliability evaluation system sets behavior-forming factors selected by the user and displays them on the display unit (step ST109).

Next, when the human reliability evaluation system displays the dependency setting screen including the error rate and the behavior forming factor set by steps ST107 and ST109 on the display unit (step ST110), the user stores the data in the storage unit. Select the predetermined dependency data from the dependency data between the subtasks that have been performed on the dependency setting screen. The human reliability evaluation system sets the dependency between the subtasks selected by the user and displays it on the display unit (step ST111).

Next, the human reliability evaluation system is set by the HRA event tree set by step ST105, the reference error rate by the error mode set by step ST107, the behavior forming factor set by step ST109, and the behavior forming factor set by step ST111. The human error probability of the task is calculated and displayed on the display unit by using the dependency between the subtasks (step ST112).

Atomic Energy Society of Japan, Atomic Energy Society of Japan Standard "Implementation Standards for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Output Status of Nuclear Power Plants (Level 1 PRA Edition): 1013"

When the cause of equipment failure due to human error is introduced during the overhaul of the equipment, the equipment failure rate after the overhaul of the equipment increases, so-called "tampering" occurs. In order to reduce the equipment failure rate due to tampering, it is necessary to evaluate the human error probability related to tampering in the overhaul of equipment. However, there is a problem that the conventional human reliability evaluation has not established a method for evaluating the human error probability regarding tampering.

The embodiment of the present invention has been made in consideration of such circumstances, and is a human reliability evaluation system and a human reliability evaluation method that can support the evaluation of human error probability related to tampering in the overhaul of equipment. , And human reliability assessment programs.

The human reliability evaluation system that evaluates the task for overhauling the device according to the embodiment includes an association means, a setting means, and a calculation means. The associating means extracts specific human errors that lead to the cause of device failure from a plurality of human errors, and associates the specific human errors with the subtasks that compose the task. The setting means sets the human reliability analysis event tree based on the specific human error, and sets the reference error rate according to the error mode to the subtask having the specific human error in the human reliability analysis event tree. The calculation means calculates the human error probability of the subtask having a specific human error as an evaluation value based on the reference error rate.

The embodiment can support the evaluation of the human error probability regarding the tampering in the overhaul of the device.

The schematic diagram which shows the structure of the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows the operation of the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment as a flowchart. The figure which shows the operation of the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment as a flowchart. The figure which shows an example of the display screen of the 1st association data in the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the display screen of the 2nd association data in the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the tree setting screen in the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the rate setting screen in the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows the other display example in the specific person error probability of each subtask in the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the display screen of the 2nd association data after the change in the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the tree setting screen after the change in the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows an example of the rate setting screen after the change in the human reliability evaluation system which concerns on embodiment. The figure which shows the operation of the conventional human reliability evaluation system as a flowchart.

Hereinafter, embodiments of a human reliability evaluation system, a human reliability evaluation method, and a human reliability evaluation program will be described in detail with reference to the drawings.

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram showing a configuration of a human reliability evaluation system according to an embodiment.

FIG. 1 shows a human reliability evaluation system 1 according to an embodiment. The human reliability evaluation system 1 supports the evaluation of the human error probability of tampering in the overhaul of equipment.

The human reliability evaluation system 1 includes a configuration as a computer. The human reliability evaluation system 1 includes an information processing unit 11, a program storage unit 12, an evaluation data storage unit 13, a past data storage unit 14, an input unit 15, a communication unit 16, a display unit 17, and a printer 18.

The information processing unit 11 controls the overall operation of the human reliability evaluation system 1. The information processing unit 11 means a processor such as a dedicated or general-purpose CPU (Central Processing Unit), MPU (Micro Processor Unit), or GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), as well as an ASIC, a programmable logic device, and the like. Examples of the programmable logic device include a simple programmable logic device (SPLD: Simple Programmable Logic Device), a compound programmable logic device (CPLD: Complex Programmable Logic Device), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA: Field Programmable Gate Array). Can be mentioned.

Further, the information processing unit 11 may be configured by a single circuit or may be configured by a combination of a plurality of independent processing circuit elements. In the latter case, the program storage unit 12 may be provided individually for each processing circuit element, or even if a single program storage unit 12 stores programs corresponding to the functions of a plurality of processing circuit elements. good.

The program storage unit 12 is composed of, for example, a semiconductor memory element such as a RAM (Random Access Memory) and a flash memory (Flash Memory), a hard disk, an optical disk, and the like. The program storage unit 12 may be configured by a portable medium such as a USB (Universal Serial Bus) memory and a DVD (Digital Video Disk). The program storage unit 12 stores various processing programs (including an OS (Operating System) and the like in addition to the application program) used in the information processing unit 11 and data necessary for executing the program. Further, the OS may include a GUI (Graphic User Interface) that makes extensive use of graphics for displaying information on the display unit 17 to the user and allows the input unit 15 to perform basic operations.

The evaluation data storage unit 13 has the same configuration as the program storage unit 12. The evaluation data storage unit 13 stores data used for human reliability evaluation, for example, data related to a reference error rate, behavior forming factors, dependence between subtasks, and the like, which will be described later.

The past data storage unit 14 has the same configuration as the program storage unit 12. The past data storage unit 14 stores various data that have been evaluated in the past.

The input unit 15 includes an input device that can be operated by the user and an input circuit that inputs a signal from the input device. Input devices include mouse, keyboard, trackball, switch, button, joystick, touch pad that performs input operation by touching the operation surface, touch screen that integrates display screen and touch pad, and non-optical sensor. It is realized by a contact input circuit, a voice input circuit, and the like. When the input device receives an input operation from the user, the input circuit generates an electric signal corresponding to the input operation and outputs it to the information processing unit 11. Further, the input unit 15 may be configured by a tablet terminal or the like capable of wireless communication with the human reliability evaluation system 1 main body. The user inputs various input data to the human reliability evaluation system 1 via the input unit 15.

The communication unit 16 implements various information communication protocols according to the form of the network N. The communication unit 16 connects the human reliability evaluation system 1 and the external device according to the various protocols. An electrical connection or the like via an electronic network can be applied to this connection. Here, the electronic network means a general information communication network using telecommunications technology, and in addition to a wireless / wired hospital backbone LAN (Local Area Network) and an Internet network, a telephone communication network and an optical fiber communication network. , Cable communication networks, satellite communication networks, etc.

The display unit 17 is, for example, a liquid crystal display, a CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) display, an OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) display, or the like. Further, the display unit 17 may be a desktop type or may be configured by a tablet terminal or the like capable of wireless communication with the human reliability evaluation system 1 main body. The display unit 17 displays a display screen, a setting screen, or the like, which will be described later.

The printer 18 prints out a display screen, a setting screen, and the like, which will be described later.

The various input data to the information processing unit 11 may be input from another computer via the communication unit 16. Further, when the input data is input, it is stored in the evaluation data storage unit 13. Then, the output data calculated based on the input data is also stored in the evaluation data storage unit 13. Further, when a series of evaluation processes are completed, input data and output data are stored in the past data storage unit 14 in association with the date and time when these processes are performed. In addition, various data may be stored in the past data storage unit 14 in association with a user name that can identify each user.

Here, the information processing unit 11 reads and executes a program stored in the program storage unit 12 or directly incorporated in the information processing unit 11, thereby acquiring, associating means 22, and setting means 23. , Setting means 23, calculation means 24, output means 25, and changing means 26 are realized. Hereinafter, the case where the means 21 to 26 function as software will be described as an example, but all or a part of the functions of the means 21 to 26 will be used as functions of a circuit or the like such as an ASIC in the human reliability evaluation system 1. It may be provided.

That is, the human reliability evaluation system 1 has hardware resources such as an information processing unit 11 and various storage units 12 to 14, and when the information processing unit 11 executes various programs, information processing by software is hardware. It consists of computers realized using resources.

The acquisition means 21 has a function of acquiring input data regarding a reference error rate, a behavior forming factor, a dependency between subtasks, and the like, which will be described later, via the input unit 15 and the communication unit 16.

The associating means 22 extracts a human error (hereinafter referred to as “specific human error”) that leads to (expected) a cause of failure of the device from a plurality of human errors, and assigns a specific person to a subtask constituting the task. It has a function to associate errors with each other.

The setting means 23 has a function of setting a human reliability analysis (HRA) event tree based on a specific human error by the associating means 22. HRA means human reliability evaluation, and is a risk assessment method that evaluates the behavior of the entire plant while observing the relationship with humans. It is difficult to evaluate a proper PRA without a proper HRA.

Further, the setting means 23 has a function of setting a reference error rate according to the error mode for a subtask having a specific human error in the set HRA event tree.

The calculation means 24 has a function of calculating the human error probability of a subtask having a specific human error as an evaluation value based on the reference error rate set by the setting means 23. Further, the calculation means 24 can also calculate the human error probability of the task by summing the human error probabilities of a plurality of subtasks having a specific human error as an evaluation value. This evaluation value is the probability of human error regarding tampering in the overhaul of the equipment.

The output means 25 has a function of outputting the evaluation value calculated by the calculation means 24 from the display unit 17 or the printer 18. Further, the output means 25 can output the sum of the human error probabilities of the plurality of subtasks as an evaluation value from the display unit 17 or the printer 18.

The changing means 26 has a function of changing the HRA event tree set by the setting means 23 when the human error probability of the task calculated by the calculation means 24 is equal to or higher than the threshold value (target value). In that case, the setting means 23 resets the reference error rate according to the error mode for each subtask having a specific human error in the changed HRA event tree.

The details of the means 21 to 26 shown in FIG. 1 will be described with reference to FIGS. 2 to 11.

2 and 3 are diagrams showing the operation of the human reliability evaluation system 1 as a flowchart. In FIGS. 2 and 3, each step of the code flow chart in which “ST” is numbered is shown.

First, as shown in FIG. 2, the acquisition means 21 obtains information on tasks (work and operations) necessary for human reliability evaluation of a predetermined device M to be evaluated in overhaul from the input unit 15 or the communication unit 16. Collected and display the information on the display unit 17 (step ST1). Necessary tasks may be registered in advance for each device of various devices. The associating means 22 generates the first associating data in which the failure phenomenon (for example, the type of the failure) and the cause of the failure are related to the predetermined device M, and the output means 25 displays the first associating data. It is displayed on 17 (step ST2). The output means 25 may print out the first association data (for example, the display screen of the first association data shown in FIG. 4) generated in step ST2 by using the printer 18.

FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen of the first association data.

The display screen shown in FIG. 4 shows a first association data in which a failure phenomenon and a failure cause are associated with each other. Further, a plurality of failure causes may be associated with one failure phenomenon.

Returning to the description of FIG. 2, the associating means 22 extracts from a plurality of human errors a specific human error that leads to a failure cause of a subtask constituting the task. Here, the associating means 22 extracts a specific human error according to the input data from the input unit 15.

Alternatively, a look-up table (LUT) in which the subtask is associated with the presence / absence or type of specific human error may be used for this extraction process. In addition, machine learning may be used for this process. In that case, deep learning using a multi-layered neural network such as a CNN (convolutional neural network) or a convolutional deep belief network (CDBN) may be used.

Further, the associating means 22 generates a second associating data relating the subtask and the specific human error, and the output means 25 causes the display unit 17 to display the generated second associating data (step ST3). ). The user of the human reliability evaluation system 1 refers to the information displayed by step ST1 and the first association data displayed by step ST2, and considers subtasks such as communication, command, operation, and operation. And specify a given subtask and a specific person's error.

The output means 25 may print out the second association data (for example, the display screen of the second association data shown in FIG. 5) generated in step ST3 by using the printer 18.

FIG. 5 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen of the second association data.

The display screen shown in FIG. 5 shows a second association data in which a plurality of subtasks constituting the task 1 and a specific human error are associated with each other. In the example shown in FIG. 5, the second, fifth, seventh, and eighth subtasks have a specific human error. The second subtask corresponds to the specific person error 1, the fifth subtask corresponds to the specific person error 2, the seventh subtask corresponds to the specific person error 3, and the eighth subtask corresponds to the specific person error 3. , Corresponds to specific human error 4.

On the other hand, a subtask that does not have a specific person error is associated with "none" of the specific person error. In the example shown in FIG. 5, the first, third, fourth, sixth, and ninth subtasks have no specific human error. With this display screen, the user can distinguish between a specific human error and other human errors for a plurality of subtasks constituting a task related to the device.

Returning to the description of FIG. 2, the setting means 23 generates a tree setting screen for setting the HRA event tree and displays it on the display unit 17 (step ST4). The user refers to the specific human error displayed by step ST3 and constructs the HRA event tree on the tree setting screen. The setting means 23 sets the HRA event tree constructed by the user, and the output means 25 causes the display unit 17 to display the set HRA event tree (step ST5). The output means 25 may print out the HRA event tree (for example, the tree setting screen shown in FIG. 6) set in step ST5 by using the printer 18.

FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of a tree setting screen.

On the tree setting screen shown in FIG. 6, the HRA event tree is constructed by the user based on the specific human error displayed by step ST3. The construction of the HRA event tree correlates the structure of the HRA event tree with specific human error.

Returning to the description of FIG. 2, the setting means 23 generates a rate setting screen for setting a reference error rate according to the error mode for each extracted specific human error and displays it on the display unit 17 (step ST6). ). The user selects predetermined reference error rate data from the reference error rate data stored in the evaluation data storage unit 13 according to the error mode on the rate setting screen. That is, the user selects the reference error rate for each subtask on the rate setting screen including only the specific human error rate among the plurality of human errors. The setting means 23 sets the reference error rate selected by the user, and the output means 25 causes the display unit 17 to display the set reference error rate (step ST7). The output means 25 may print out the reference error rate (for example, the rate setting screen shown in FIG. 7) set in step ST7 by using the printer 18.

FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of a rate setting screen.

On the rate setting screen shown in FIG. 7, the reference error rate is selected by the user based on the HRA event tree displayed by step ST5. FIG. 7 shows a screen in which a reference error rate is assigned to each specific human error that leads to the cause of failure.

Returning to the description of FIG. 2, the setting means 23 generates a factor setting screen for setting the behavior forming factor for each extracted specific human error and displays it on the display unit 17 (step ST8). The factor setting screen includes the contents of the rate setting screen shown in FIG. 7. The user selects predetermined factor data from the behavior-forming factor data stored in the evaluation data storage unit 13 on the factor setting screen. That is, the user selects a behavior forming factor for each subtask on the factor setting screen including only the specific human error rate among a plurality of human errors. The setting means 23 sets the behavior forming factor selected by the user, and the output means 25 causes the display unit 17 to display the set behavior forming factor (step ST9). The output means 25 may print out the behavior forming factor (for example, the factor setting screen shown in FIG. 7) set in step ST9 by using the printer 18.

The factor setting screen displayed on the display unit 17 is shown in FIG. 7. On the factor constant screen, the behavior forming factor is selected by the user based on the HRA event tree displayed by step ST5. As shown in FIG. 7, the behavior-forming factor is set to a value of 0 or more and 1 or less.

Returning to the description of FIG. 2, the setting means 23 generates a dependency setting screen for setting the dependency between the subtasks for each extracted specific human error and displays it on the display unit 17 (step ST10). ). The dependency setting screen includes the contents of the factor setting screen shown in FIG. The user selects a predetermined dependency data from the dependency data between the subtasks stored in the evaluation data storage unit 13 on the factor setting screen.

That is, the user selects the dependency between the subtasks for each subtask on the dependency setting screen including only the specific human error rate among the plurality of human errors. The setting means 23 sets the dependency selected by the user, and the output means 25 causes the display unit 17 to display the set dependency (step ST11). The output means 25 may print out the dependency between the subtasks set by step ST11 (for example, the dependency setting screen shown in FIG. 7) using the printer 18.

The dependency setting screen displayed on the display unit 17 is shown in FIG. 7. Dependencies between subtasks are assigned to each specific personal error that leads to the cause of the failure. In addition, in FIG. 7, the display position of the dependency between subtasks is ZD (Zero Dependence), LD (Low Dependence), MD (Moderate Dependence), HD (High Dependence), or CD ( Complete Dependence) is assigned.

Proceeding to the description of FIG. 3, the calculation means 24 is based on the reference error rate set by step ST7, the behavioral forming factor set by step ST9, and the dependency between the subtasks set by step ST11. The probability of each subtask having a specific person error (hereinafter referred to as "specific person error probability") is calculated, and the output means 25 displays the calculated specific person error probability of each subtask as an evaluation value on the display unit 17. Display (step ST12). The probability of human error is also called the probability of failure. This evaluation value is one of the human error probabilities regarding tampering in the overhaul of equipment. The output means 25 may print out the specific human error probability of each subtask calculated in step ST12 by using the printer 18.

The specific human error probability of each subtask displayed on the display unit 17 is shown in FIG.

FIG. 8 is a diagram showing another display example in the specific human error probability of each subtask.

FIG. 8 is a graph showing the magnitude of the probability of a specific person error for each subtask having a specific person error. By displaying this graph, the user can grasp the difference in the magnitude of the specific human error probability of each subtask at a glance.

Returning to the description of FIG. 3, the calculation means 24 calculates the specific person error probability of the task by summing the specific person error probabilities of each subtask calculated in step ST12, and the output means 25 calculates. The display unit 17 displays the probability of specific human error of the task as an evaluation value (step ST13). The output means 25 may print out the specific human error probability of the task calculated in step ST13 by using the printer 18. This evaluation value is one of the human error probabilities regarding tampering in the overhaul of equipment.

The specific human error probability of the task displayed on the display unit 17 is shown in FIG. 7.

Returning to the description of FIG. 3, the changing means 26 determines whether or not the specific human error probability of the task calculated by step ST13 is equal to or less than the threshold value (step ST14). If YES in the determination of step ST14, that is, if it is determined that the specific human error probability of the task calculated by step ST13 is less than or equal to the threshold value, the human reliability evaluation system 1 ends the evaluation process. do.

On the other hand, if NO in the determination of step ST14, that is, if it is determined that the specific human error probability of the task calculated by step ST13 exceeds (or is equal to or greater than) the threshold value, the changing means 26 is determined by step ST12. Extract the specific human error of the subtask corresponding to the subtask having the highest probability among the calculated specific human error probabilities of each subtask. Then, the changing means 26 changes the second association data (shown in FIG. 5) generated by step ST3 based on the specific human error of the extracted subtask, and the output means 25 changes the second association data after the change. The association data of 2 is displayed on the display unit 17 (step ST15).

The user of the human reliability evaluation system 1 refers to the information displayed by step ST1 and the first association data displayed by step ST2, and considers subtasks such as communication, command, operation, and operation. Specify the changed subtask and the specific human error. For example, in FIG. 8, since the specific person error probability of the subtask corresponding to the specific person error 4 is the largest, the changing means 26 changes the eighth subtask shown in FIG. 5 to the eleventh subtask (shown in FIG. 9). Change (correct).

The output means 25 may print out the second association data (for example, the display screen of the second association data shown in FIG. 9) changed by step ST15 using the printer 18.

FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of a display screen of the second association data after the change.

FIG. 9 shows a second association data in which each subtask is associated with a specific person's error, similar to FIG. Specifically, for example, the eighth subtask includes confirmation of the gap size of each part, and the eleventh subtask includes confirmation of the gap size of each part by the work supervisor. Further, the specific person error 4 corresponding to the eighth subtask includes forgetting to confirm the gap dimension and the error confirming the gap dimension, and the specific person error 5 corresponding to the eleventh subtask includes the gap dimension. Forgetting to confirm the confirmation can be mentioned.

Returning to the description of FIG. 3, the changing means 26 modifies the HRA event tree set by step ST5 based on the modified second association data displayed by step ST15, and the output means 25 modifies. The subsequent HRA event tree is displayed on the display unit 17 (step ST16). The output means 25 may print out the HRA event tree (for example, the tree setting screen shown in FIG. 10) changed by step ST16 by using the printer 18. Then, the human reliability evaluation system 1 returns to the operation of step ST6 in FIG. 2 regarding the specific human error after the change.

FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of the changed tree setting screen.

On the tree screen shown in FIG. 10, the HRA event tree is reconstructed by the user based on the specific human error displayed by step ST15. Specifically, the specific person error 4 corresponding to the eighth subtask of the HRA event tree (shown in FIG. 6) based on the specific person error in step ST3 is the specific person corresponding to the eleventh subtask. It is changed to the error 5.

FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of the rate setting screen after the change.

On the rate setting screen shown in FIG. 11, the reference error rate is selected by the user based on the HRA event tree displayed by step ST14. Since the specific person error 4 corresponding to the eighth subtask has been changed to the specific person error 5 corresponding to the eleventh subtask, the value of the specific person error probability of the task is set in FIG. It is smaller than that shown in FIG.

As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, in step ST14, the human reliability evaluation system 1 repeats steps ST15 to ST16 and steps ST6 to ST14 until the task specific human error probability becomes equal to or less than the threshold value.

The equipment to be evaluated is assumed to be installed in a nuclear power plant including a nuclear power plant, but it can also be applied to a thermal power plant including a thermal power plant, a chemical plant, and other equipment. ..

According to at least one embodiment described above, it is possible to support the evaluation of the human error probability (human error probability related to a specific human error) related to tampering in the overhaul of the device.

Although some embodiments of the present invention have been described, these embodiments are presented as examples and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. These embodiments can be implemented in various other embodiments, and various omissions, replacements, and changes can be made without departing from the gist of the invention. These embodiments and variations thereof are included in the scope of the invention described in the claims and the equivalent scope thereof, as are included in the scope and gist of the invention.

1 ... Human reliability evaluation system, 11 ... Information processing unit, 21 ... Acquisition means, 22 ... Association means, 23 ... Setting means, 24 ... Calculation means, 25 ... Output means, 26 ... Changing means.

Claims (12)

A human reliability evaluation system that evaluates tasks for overhauling equipment.
A means of associating the specific human error with the subtasks constituting the task by extracting the specific human error leading to the cause of the failure of the device from a plurality of human errors.
A setting means for setting a human reliability analysis event tree based on the specific human error and setting a reference error rate according to an error mode for a subtask having the specific human error in the human reliability analysis event tree.
Based on the reference error rate, a calculation means for calculating the human error probability of the subtask having the specific human error as an evaluation value, and
A human reliability evaluation system characterized by having. The calculation means calculates the human error probability of the task as the evaluation value by summing the human error probabilities of a plurality of subtasks having the specific human error.
The human reliability evaluation system according to claim 1. Further having a modification means for modifying the human reliability analysis event tree when the human error probability of the task is equal to or greater than the threshold value.
The setting means resets the reference error rate according to the error mode to the subtask having the specific human error in the changed human reliability analysis event tree.
The human reliability evaluation system according to claim 2, wherein the human reliability evaluation system is characterized in that. The setting means further sets a behavior forming factor in the subtask having the specific human error, and further sets the behavior forming factor.
The calculation means calculates the human error probability of the subtask having the specific human error as the evaluation value based on the behavior formation factor in addition to the reference error rate.
The human reliability evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the human reliability evaluation system is characterized. The setting means further sets the dependency between the subtasks in the subtask having the specific human error, and further sets the dependency between the subtasks.
The calculation means calculates the human error probability of the subtask having the specific human error as the evaluation value based on the dependency between the subtasks in addition to the reference error rate.
The human reliability evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the human reliability evaluation system is characterized. An output means for outputting the evaluation value from a display unit or a printer.
The human reliability evaluation system according to any one of claims 1 to 5, further comprising. It is a human reliability evaluation method that evaluates tasks for overhaul of equipment.
A computer extracts a specific human error leading to a failure cause of the device from a plurality of human errors, and associates the specific human error with a subtask constituting the task, and an association step.
The computer sets a human reliability analysis event tree based on the specific human error, and sets a reference error rate according to an error mode for the subtask having the specific human error in the human reliability analysis event tree. Setting steps and
A calculation step in which the computer calculates the human error probability of the subtask having the specific human error as an evaluation value based on the reference error rate.
A human reliability evaluation method characterized by having. In the calculation step performed by the computer , the human error probability of the task is calculated as the evaluation value by summing up the human error probabilities of the plurality of subtasks having the specific human error.
The human reliability evaluation method according to claim 7, wherein the method is characterized by the above. The computer further has a modification step that modifies the human reliability analysis event tree when the human error probability of the task is greater than or equal to the threshold.
In the setting step performed by the computer , the reference error rate according to the error mode is set again in the subtask having the specific human error in the changed human reliability analysis event tree.
The human reliability evaluation method according to claim 8, wherein the method is characterized by the above. On the computer
An association function that extracts specific human errors that lead to the cause of equipment failure from multiple human errors and associates the specific human errors with subtasks that make up the task for overhauling the equipment.
A setting function that sets a human reliability analysis event tree based on the specific human error and sets a reference error rate according to the error mode for the subtask having the specific human error in the human reliability analysis event tree.
Based on the reference error rate, a calculation function that calculates the human error probability of the subtask with the specific human error as an evaluation value, and
A human reliability evaluation program characterized by the realization of. The calculation function sums up the human error probabilities of a plurality of subtasks having the specific human error, and calculates the human error probability of the task as the evaluation value.
The human reliability evaluation program according to claim 10. Further, the computer is provided with a change function for changing the human reliability analysis event tree when the human error probability of the task is equal to or higher than the threshold value.
The setting function resets the reference error rate according to the error mode to the subtask having the specific human error in the changed human reliability analysis event tree.
The human reliability evaluation program according to claim 11.

Images