Calendar

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 29

Boston UXPA Usability and UX Conf. 2013

May 24

“ For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three. ”

-- Alice Kahn

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Lewie E. Booth

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Lewie E. Booth (bibliography)

1995

Edit | Del

Eisler, Leslie R., Smith, M. Gregory and Booth, Lewie E. (1995): System Safety Analysis of the Yucca Mountain Tunnel Boring Machine. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. p. 933.

“The purpose of the analysis was to systematically identify and evaluate potential hazards to personnel related to the design and use of the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project, Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF), Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). The analysis was performed in accordance with MIL-STD-882C, System Safety Program Requirements. The analysis required three steps -- hazard/scenario identification, consequence assessment, and frequency assessment. The result was a "risk evaluation" of events, breakdowns, incidents, or other occurrences that may have a negative effect on personnel safety. Four techniques were used to aid in the identification and analysis of hazards -- Scenario Analysis; Hazards Analysis; Failure Modes, Effects and Criticality Analysis; and Human Factors Engineering Analysis. A Process Evaluation Tree Analysis was also performed to confirmed that there was at least one scenario for each hazard and one mitigation feature for each scenario. Once the hazards were identified they were placed in context by developing scenarios that illustrated how the hazards could harm personnel. Each scenario contained at least one mitigation feature to mitigate the hazard; most scenarios contained more than one mitigation feature. For each scenario a hazard frequency, a consequence, and an overall risk rating was established. Risk was defined as a function of frequency and consequence. Five frequency categories and four consequence categories were used to generate a five by four, or 20 cell, risk matrix. Each cell was assigned a qualitative risk rating -- high, medium, low, extremely low. Since a significant portion of the analysis was performed after the design had been completed hazard mitigation relied heavily on design retrofits and the development of training and procedures.”

Add publication