Human Error Probabilities
Contents |
the purposes of evaluating the probability of a human error occurring throughout the completion of a specific task. From such analyses average human error rate measures can then be taken to reduce the likelihood of
Human Error Rate In Data Entry
errors occurring within a system and therefore lead to an improvement in the overall levels of
Human Error Probability Table
safety. There exist three primary reasons for conducting an HRA; error identification, error quantification and error reduction. As there exist a number of techniques used for such
Technique For Human Error Rate Prediction
purposes, they can be split into one of two classifications; first generation techniques and second generation techniques. First generation techniques work on the basis of the simple dichotomy of ‘fits/doesn’t fit’ in the matching of the error situation in context with related error identification and quantification and second generation techniques are more theory based how to calculate human error percent in their assessment and quantification of errors. ‘HRA techniques have been utilised in a range of industries including healthcare, engineering, nuclear, transportation and business sector; each technique has varying uses within different disciplines. THERP models human error probabilities (HEPs) using a fault-tree approach, in a similar way to an engineering risk assessment, but also accounts for performance shaping factors (PSFs) that may influence these probabilities. The probabilities for the human reliability analysis event tree (HRAET), which is the primary tool for assessment, are nominally calculated from the database developed by the authors Swain and Guttman; local data e.g. from simulators or accident reports may however be used instead. The resultant tree portrays a step by step account of the stages involved in a task, in a logical order. The technique is known as a total methodology [1] as it simultaneously manages a number of different activities including task analysis, error identification, representation in form of HRAET and HEP quan
institution loginHelpJournalsBooksRegisterJournalsBooksRegisterSign inHelpcloseSign in using your ScienceDirect credentialsUsernamePasswordRemember meForgotten username or password?Sign in via your institutionOpenAthens loginOther institution login Purchase Loading... Export You have selected 1 error tolerant systems citation for export. Help Direct export Save to Mendeley Save to human error probability calculation RefWorks Export file Format RIS (for EndNote, ReferenceManager, ProCite) BibTeX Text Content Citation Only Citation and human error probability data Abstract Export Advanced search Close This document does not have an outline. JavaScript is disabled on your browser. Please enable JavaScript to use all the features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technique_for_human_error-rate_prediction on this page. Reliability Engineering & System Safety Volume 35, Issue 2, 1992, Pages 127-136 INTENT: a method for estimating human error probabilities for decisionbased errors Author links open the overlay panel. Numbers correspond to the affiliation list which can be exposed by using the show more link. Opens overlay David I. Gertman, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/095183209290032G Opens overlay Harold S. Blackman, Opens overlay Lon N. Haney, Opens overlay Karen S. Seidler, Opens overlay Heidi A. Hahn Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415, USA Received 22 August 1990, Accepted 5 November 1990, Available online 3 March 2003 Show more Choose an option to locate/access this article: Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution. Check access Purchase Sign in using your ScienceDirect credentials Username: Password: Remember me Not Registered? Forgotten username or password? OpenAthens login Login via your institution Other institution login doi:10.1016/0951-8320(92)90032-G Get rights and content AbstractThe development of a method, INTENT, for estimating probabilities associated with decisionbased errors is presented. These errors are not ordinarily incorporated into probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) due to both the difficulty in postulating such errors and to the lack of a method for estimating their probabilities from existing data. By failing to include decisionbased errors in their analyses, most PRA practitioners serio
291–296Method of estimating human error probabilities in construction for structural reliability analysis based http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12204-010-1005-3 on analytic hierarchy process and failure likelihood index methodAuthorsAuthors and affiliationsChong Zhou周 冲Email authorXin-jian Kou寇新建ArticleFirst Online: 28 May 2010Received: 22 April 2009DOI: 10.1007/s12204-010-1005-3Cite this article as: Zhou, C. & Kou, X. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.) (2010) 15: 291. doi:10.1007/s12204-010-1005-3 2 Citations 154 Views AbstractHuman error (HE) human error is the most important factor influencing on structural safety because its effect often exceeds the random deviation. Large numbers of facts have shown that structural failures may be caused by the gross error due to HE. So it is essential to analyze HE in construction. The human error rate crucial work of human error analysis (HEA) is the estimation of human error probability (HEP) in construction. The method for estimating HEP, analytic hierarchy process and failure likelihood index method (AHP-FLIM), is introduced in this paper. The method also uses the process of expert judgment within the failure likelihood index method (FLIM). A numerical example shows the effectiveness of the methods proposed.Key wordsanalytic hierarchy process (AHP)failure likelihood index method (FLIM)human error (HE)structural reliabilityCLC numberTU 714References[1]Agarwal J, Blockley D, Woodman N. Vulnerability of structure systems[J]. Structural Safety, 2003, 25(3): 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar[2]Smith D W. Bridge failures [J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 1976, 60(1): 367–382.Google Scholar[3]Brown C B. A fuzzy safety measure [J]. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, 1979, 105(1): 855–872.Google Scholar[4]Ellingwood B. Design and construction error effect on structural reliability [J]. Structural E
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Tue, 18 Oct 2016 03:13:53 GMT by s_wx1131 (squid/3.5.20)