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

Reliability Engineering and System Safety

Volumn 95, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1011-1039

  Aldemir, T ^a   Guarro, S ^b   Mandelli, D ^a   Kirschenbaum, J ^c   Mangan, L A ^a   Bucci, P ^c   Yau, M ^b   Ekici, E ^c   Miller, D W ^a   Sun, X ^a   Arndt, S A ^d  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ASCA Inc   (United States)

^c Ohio State University   (United States)

^d U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   (United States)

Author keywords

Cell to cell mapping technique; Digital systems; Dynamic flowgraph methodology; Dynamic methodologies; Markov; PRA

Indexed keywords

ANALOG-TO-DIGITAL; BASIC SYSTEMS; C-SYSTEMS; CELL MAPPING; COMPONENT FAILURES; CONTROL RANGE; DIGITAL INSTRUMENTATION; DIGITAL SYSTEM; DIGITAL SYSTEMS; DISCRETE STATE; DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTICS; DYNAMIC TRANSIENTS; EVENT SEQUENCE; FAULT INJECTION; FEEDWATER CONTROL SYSTEM; FLOW GRAPH; GENERIC DATA; INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM; INTRINSIC FEATURES; LOGIC MODELING; MAPPING TECHNIQUES; MODEL FOLLOWING; MODELING PARADIGMS; MULTIVALUED LOGIC; OPERATING EXPERIENCE; OPERATION RULES; PREDICTIVE VALUES; PRIME IMPLICANTS; PROBABILISTIC DATA; PROBABILISTIC QUANTIFICATION; PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT; PROCESS DYNAMICS; QUALITATIVE INFORMATION; QUANTITATIVE RISK; RISK SCENARIOS; SAFETY EQUIPMENTS; SOFTWARE FAILURE; SYSTEM BEHAVIORS; SYSTEM COMPONENTS; SYSTEM MODELING;

CONTROL THEORY; FAILURE MODES; INSTRUMENTS; MAPPING; NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; PNEUMATIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT; PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; RISK PERCEPTION;

MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

EID: 77953915233     PISSN: 09518320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.04.011     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Final Policy Statement. Federal Register 60 (1995) 43622
2. Guideline for performing defense-in-depth and diversity assessments for digital I&C upgrades-applying risk-informed and deterministic methods. 1002835. Palo Alto, CA: EPRI; 2004.
3. Aldemir T, Miller DW, Stovsky M, Kirschenbaum J, Bucci P, Fentiman AW, et al. Current state of reliability modeling methodologies for digital systems and their acceptance criteria for nuclear power plant assessments. Nureg/Cr-6901. Washington, DC: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2006.
4. Shields EJ, Apostolakis G, Guarro SB. Determining the prime implicants for multi-state embedded systems. In: Apostolakis G, Wu JS, editors. Proceedings of PSAM-II. San Diego, CA: International Association for Probabilistic Assessment and Management; 1994. p. 7-12.
5. Guarro S., Yau M., and Motamed M. Development of tools for safety analysis of control software in advanced reactors. Nureg/Cr-6465 (1996), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
6. Yau M., Motamed M., and Guarro S. Nuclear power plant digital system PRA pilot study with the dynamic flowgraph methodology. Npic&Hmit 2006 (2006), American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL
7. C.L. Smith, J. Knudsen, M. Calley, S. Beck, K. Kvarfordt, S.T. Wood, SAPHIRE Basics: an introduction to probability risk assessment via the systems analysis program for hands-on integrated reliability evaluations (SAPHIRE) software, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID (2005).
8. CAFTA For Windows, Version 3.0c. Los Altos, CA: SAIC; 1995.
9. Riskman 7.1 For Windows. Irvine, CA: ABS Consulting; 2003.
10. S. Dixon, M. Yau, Modeling of dynamic and time-dependent nuclear power plant risk scenarios. EPRI Risk And Reliability User Group Meeting, West Palm Beach, January 12, 2010.
11. Instruction guide for integration of the context-based software risk model (CSRM) with a Cx probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). ASCA Report AR 09-03. Prepared for NASA Johnson Space Center, July 2009.
12. Aldemir T. Computer-assisted Markov failure modeling of process control systems. IEEE Transactions on Reliability R-36 (1987) 133-144
13. Belhadj M., and Aldemir T. Some computational improvements in process system reliability and safety analysis using dynamic methodologies. Reliab Eng System Saf 52 (1996) 339-347
14. P. Bucci, J. Kirschenbaum, T. Aldemir, C.L. Smith R.T. Wood, Constructing dynamic event trees from Markov models. In: Stamataletos M, Blackman HS, editors. PSAM8: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on probabilistic safety assessment and management, CD-ROM version, Paper #369. ASME Press, Inc.; 2006.
15. Bucci P., Kirschenbaum J., Aldemir T., Smith C.L., and Wood R.T. Generating dynamic fault trees from Markov models. Trans Am Nucl Soc 95 (2006)
16. Bucci P., Mangan L.A., Kirschenbaum J., Mandelli D., Aldemir T., and Arndt S.A. Incorporation of Markov reliability models for digital instrumentation and control systems into existing PRAs. Proceedings of NPIC&HMIT 2006 (2006), American Nuclear Society, La Grange, IL
17. Aldemir T., Stovsky M.P., Kirschenbaum J., Mandelli D., Bucci P., Mangan L.A., et al. Dynamic reliability modeling of digital instrumentation and control systems for nuclear reactor probabilistic risk assessments. Nureg/Cr-6942 (2007), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
18. Kirschenbaum J., Bucci P., Stovsky M., Mandelli D., Aldemir T., Yau M., et al. A benchmark system for comparing reliability modeling approaches for digital instrumentation and control systems. Nucl Technol 165 (2009) 53-95
19. Aldemir T., Guarro S., Kirschenbaum J., Mandelli D., Mangan L.A., Bucci P., et al. A benchmark implementation of two dynamic methodologies for the reliability modeling of digital instrumentation and control systems. Nureg/Cr-6985 (2009), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20. Bucci P., Kirschenbaum J., Mangan L.A., Aldemir T., Smith C.L., and Wood R.T. Construction of event-tree/fault-tree models from a Markov approach to dynamic system reliability. Reliab Eng System Saf 93 (2008) 1616-1627