Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Human-machine system optimization in nuclear facility systems

  • Corrado, Jonathan K.
  • Received : 2021.03.31
  • Accepted : 2021.04.22
  • Published : 2021.10.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Present computing power and enhanced technology is progressing at a dramatic rate. These systems can unravel complex issues, assess and control processes, learn, and-in many cases-fully automate production. There is no doubt that technological advancement is improving many aspects of life, changing the landscape of virtually all industries and enhancing production beyond what was thought possible. However, the human is still a part of these systems. Consequently, as the advancement of systems transpires, the role of humans within those systems will unavoidably continue to adapt as well. Due to the human tendency for error, this technological advancement should compel a persistent emphasis on human error reduction as part of maximizing system efficiency and safety-especially in the context of the nuclear industry. Within this context, as new systems are designed and the role of the human is transformed, human error should be targeted for a significant decrease relative to predecessor systems and an equivalent increase in system stability and safety. This article contends that optimizing the roles of humans and machines in the design and implementation of new types of automation in nuclear facility systems should involve human error reduction without ignoring the essential importance of human interaction within those systems.

Keywords

References

  1. J. Corrado, R. Sega, Impact of advancing technology on nuclear facility operation, J. Risk Uncertain. 6 (1) (2020) 1-6, https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044784, 011002.
  2. J. Corrado, Technological Advances, Human Performance, and the Operation of Nuclear Facilities, Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University, Colorado, 2017.
  3. J. Corrado, The intersection of advancing technology and human performance, J. Nucl. Eng. Radiat. Sci. 7 (1) (2021), https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4047717, 8-1, 010801.
  4. L. Dinehart, Handwriting in early childhood education: current research and future implications, J. Early Child. Literacy 15 (1) (2015) 97-118, https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798414522825.
  5. D. Orellana, A. Madni, Analyzing human machine interaction and interfaces through model based system engineering practices, in: INCOSE International Symposium, Rome, Italy, July 9-12, 2012.
  6. A. Madni, Integrating humans with software and systems: technical challenges and a research agenda, Syst. Eng. 13 (3) (2010) 232-245, https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20145.
  7. S. Chang, S. Choi, J. Park, G. Heo, H. Kim, Development of an advanced humanemachine interface for next generation nuclear power plants, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 64 (1) (1999) 109-126, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00073-8.
  8. J. Richardson, R. Engle, L. Hasher, R. Logie, E. Stoltzfus, R. Zacks, Working Memory and Human Cognition, Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.
  9. F. Bellotti, A. De Gloria, A. Poggi, L. Andreone, S. Damiani, P. Knoll, Designing configurable automotive dashboards on liquid crystal displays, Cognit. Technol. Work 6 (2004) 247-265, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-004-0163-1.
  10. K. Lim, I. Benbasat, P. Todd, An experimental investigation of the interactive effects of interface style, instructions, and task familiarity on user performance, ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 3 (1) (1996) 1-37, https://doi.org/10.1145/226159.226160.
  11. O. Yigitbasioglu, V. Oana, A review of dashboards in performance management: implications for design and research, Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 13 (1) (2012) 41-59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2011.08.002.
  12. H.R. Hartson, Cognitive, physical, sensory, and functional affordances in interaction design, Behav. Inf. Technol. 22 (5) (2003) 315-338, https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001592587.