Probabilistic risk assessment modeling of digital instrumentation and control systems using two dynamic methodologies

被引:48
|
作者
Aldemir, T. [1 ]
Guarro, S. [2 ]
Mandelli, D. [1 ]
Kirschenbaum, J. [3 ]
Mangan, L. A. [1 ]
Bucci, P. [3 ]
Yau, M. [2 ]
Ekici, E. [4 ]
Miller, D. W. [1 ]
Sun, X. [1 ]
Arndt, S. A. [5 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Nucl Engn Program, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[2] ASCA Inc, Redondo Beach, CA 90277 USA
[3] Ohio State Univ, Dept Comp Sci & Engn, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[4] Ohio State Univ, Dept Elect & Comp Engn, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[5] US Nucl Regulatory Commiss, Washington, DC 20555 USA
关键词
PRA; Digital systems; Dynamic methodologies; Markov; Cell-to-cell-mapping technique; Dynamic flowgraph methodology; RELIABILITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ress.2010.04.011
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
The Markov/cell-to-cell mapping technique (CCMT) and the dynamic flowgraph methodology (DFM) are two system logic modeling methodologies that have been proposed to address the dynamic characteristics of digital instrumentation and control (I&C) systems and provide risk-analytical capabilities that supplement those provided by traditional probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) techniques for nuclear power plants. Both methodologies utilize a discrete state, multi-valued logic representation of the digital I&C system. For probabilistic quantification purposes, both techniques require the estimation of the probabilities of basic system failure modes, including digital I&C software failure modes, that appear in the prime implicants identified as contributors to a given system event of interest. As in any other system modeling process, the accuracy and predictive value of the models produced by the two techniques, depend not only on the intrinsic features of the modeling paradigm, but also and to a considerable extent on information and knowledge available to the analyst, concerning the system behavior and operation rules under normal and off-nominal conditions, and the associated controlled/monitored process dynamics. The application of the two methodologies is illustrated using a digital feedwater control system (DFWCS) similar to that of an operating pressurized water reactor. This application was carried out to demonstrate how the use of either technique, or both, can facilitate the updating of an existing nuclear power plant PRA model following an upgrade of the instrumentation and control system from analog to digital. Because of scope limitations, the focus of the demonstration of the methodologies was intentionally limited to aspects of digital I&C system behavior for which probabilistic data was on hand or could be generated within the existing project bounds of time and resources. The data used in the probabilistic quantification portion of the process were gathered partially from fault injection experiments with the DFWCS, separately conducted under conservative assumptions, partially from operating experience, and partially from generic data bases. The purpose of the quantification portion of the process was, purely to demonstrate the PRA-updating use and application of the methodologies, without making any particular claim regarding the specific validity and predictive value of the data utilized to illustrate the quantitative risk calculations produced from the qualitative information analytically generated by the models. A comparison of the results obtained from the Markov/CCMT and DFM regarding the event sequences leading to DFWCS failure modes show qualitative and quantitative consistency for the risk scenarios and sequences under consideration. The study also shows that: (a) the risk significance of the timing of system component failures may depend on factors that include the actual variability of initiating conditions of a dynamic transient, even within the nominal control range and (b) the range of dynamic outcomes may also be dependent on the choice of the assumed basic system-component failure modes included in the models, regardless of whether some of these would or would not be considered to have direct safety implications according to the traditional safety/non-safety equipment classifications. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1011 / 1039
页数:29
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Methodologies for pollution risk assessment of water resources systems
    Diamantino, Catarina
    Henriques, Maria José
    Oliveira, Manuel M.
    Ferreira, João Paulo Lobo
    [J]. IAHS-AISH Publication, 2007, (310): : 298 - 306
  • [32] Instrumentation of Robotic Grippers for Dynamic Control of Robotic Systems
    Bi, Zhuming
    Liu, Yanfei
    Krider, Jeremiah
    Buckland, Joshua
    Whiteman, Andrew
    Beachy, Daniel
    Smith, Joseph
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2018 13TH IEEE CONFERENCE ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS AND APPLICATIONS (ICIEA 2018), 2018, : 1314 - 1319
  • [33] TEACHING DIGITAL SYSTEMS VERIFICATION METHODOLOGIES USING SYSTEMVERILOG
    Rafla, Nader
    [J]. 2011 ASEE ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXPOSITION, 2011,
  • [34] Reliability of safety systems and probabilistic risk assessment
    Martorell, Sebastian
    Marton, Isabel
    Villamizar, Maryory
    [J]. CISAP4: 4TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SAFETY & ENVIRONMENT IN PROCESS INDUSTRY, 2010, 19 : 321 - 326
  • [35] A review of security assessment methodologies in industrial control systems
    Qassim, Qais Saif
    Jamil, Norziana
    Daud, Maslina
    Patel, Ahmed
    Ja'affar, Norhamadi
    [J]. INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SECURITY, 2019, 27 (01) : 47 - 61
  • [36] Operational Risk Assessment and Control: a probabilistic approach
    Ciapessoni, E.
    Cirio, D.
    Grillo, S.
    Massucco, S.
    Pitto, A.
    Silvestro, F.
    [J]. 2010 IEEE PES CONFERENCE ON INNOVATIVE SMART GRID TECHNOLOGIES EUROPE (ISGT EUROPE), 2010,
  • [37] Probabilistic interactions of vehicles with surroundings: Modeling for dynamic control
    Vantsevich, Vladimir V.
    Stuart, Charles
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASME INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINERING CONGRESS AND EXPOSITION 2007, VOL 9, PTS A-C: MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND CONTROL, 2008, : 1649 - 1658
  • [38] A framework for verifying Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment models
    Picoco, Claudia
    Rychkov, Valentin
    Aldemir, Tunc
    [J]. RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2020, 203
  • [39] Comparative Analysis of Static and Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment
    Mattenberger, Christopher J.
    Mathias, Donovan L.
    Go, Susie
    [J]. 2015 61ST ANNUAL RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY SYMPOSIUM (RAMS 2015), 2015,
  • [40] Dynamic probabilistic risk assessment for electric grid cybersecurity
    Diao, Xiaoxu
    Zhao, Yunfei
    Smidts, Carol
    Vaddi, Pavan Kumar
    Li, Ruixuan
    Lei, Hangtian
    Chakhchoukh, Yacine
    Johnson, Brian
    Le Blanc, Katya
    [J]. RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2024, 241