Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Risk Assessment”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

An Evaluation of The Dynamic Physical Security Risk Assessment Methodology for Fleet-Wide Applications

The requirements for U.S. nuclear power plants to maintain a large onsite physical security force contribute to their high operational costs. The cost of maintaining the current physical security posture is approximately 10% of the overall operation and maintenance budget for commercial nuclear power plants. The goal of the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program’s physical security pathway is to develop tools, methods, and technologies and provide the technical basis for an optimized physical security posture. The conservatisms built into current security postures may be analyzed and minimized to reduce security costs while still ensuring adequate security and operational safety. The research performed at Idaho National Laboratory within LWRS program’s physical security pathway has successfully developed a dynamic force-on-force modeling framework using various computer simulation tools and integrating them with the dynamic assessment Event Modeling Risk Assessment using Linked Diagrams (EMRALD) tool. This integrated process for physical security analysis is named Modeling and Analysis for Safety Security using Dynamic EMRALD Framework (MASS-DEF). This document provides an update on the progress in applying the MASS-DEF process to an operating commercial nuclear power plant as well as additional industry feedback regarding use of the tool for other physical security risk-informed topics. This report is only a summary of the progress and does not contain specific modeling results as those contain sensitive security information. Previous reports described how a user could integrate their plant-specific force-on-force models with the dynamic simulation tool EMRALD, model operator actions, and integrate with probabilistic risk assessment tools, such as CAFTA (Computer Aided Fault Tree Analysis System) or SAPHIRE (Systems Analysis Programs for Hands-on Integrated Reliability Evaluations), and with thermal-hydraulic tools, such as RELAP-5 or MAAP. Previous reports applied various combinations of available simulations codes with EMRALD using generic plant models to demonstrate how to perform the analysis. This report is an update the progress of applying the dynamic computational framework to an actual nuclear facility using their security scenarios and timelines. This report also provides an update to the procedural guidance for the MASS-DEF process and an overview of the generic models available for use by utilities. This report does not contain any plant’s sensitive information and/or safeguards information. This study’s purpose was to verify that the results achieved using generic models are similar to actual plant results and refine our guidance on the use of the framework. This assessment enables further analysis, such as what-if scenarios and staff-reduction evaluation, thereby optimizing physical security at plants.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utility of Terrestrial Cardiovascular Disease Data in Astronaut Radiation Risk Assessment – A Case Study Showing Increased Risk with Clonal Hematopoiesis of Indeterminate Potential

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is associated with high doses of radiation and is are cognized health risk for astronauts on multiple or long duration exploration missions to the Moon or Mars. Currently, radiation risk assessment is based on background population disease rates and does not consider individual risk factors that may modify analysis, especially at lower radiation doses.

Zarana S Patel↗
NASA NTRS1975

Design definition study of a life/cruise fan technology V/STOL aircraft. Volume 2, addendum 2: Program risk assessment

The results are presented of a risk assessment study conducted on two technology aircraft. The aircraft system components were reviewed and assessed for risk based on: (1) complexity relative to state-of-the-art, (2) manufacturing and qualification testing, (3) availability and delays, and (4) cost/schedule impact. These assessments were based on five risk nomenclatures: low, minor, moderate, high, and extreme. Each aircraft system was assigned an overall risk rating depending upon its contribution to the capability of the aircraft to achieve the performance goals. The slightly lower Sabreliner performance margin is due to the restricted flight envelope, the fixed landing gear, and internal fuel capacity. The Sabreliner with retractable gear and allowed to fly at its best speed and altitude would reflect performance margins similar to the New Airframe. These significant margins, inherent with the MCAIR three gas generator/three fan propulsion system, are major modifiers to risk assessment of both aircraft. The estimated risk and the associated key system and performance areas are tabulated.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2019

Satellite Conjunction “Probability,” “Plausibility,” and “Possibility”: A Categorization of Competing Satellite Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis Paradigms

A number of different conjunction assessment (CA) risk analysis methods and metrics have been proposed in the critical literature, and they vary widely in purport and form. However, they tend to be proposed individually and episodically, so that it is difficult for a CA practitioner to take stock of the possibilities, under- stand their fundamental differences, and make informed choices for their particular CA risk assessment enterprise. The present study seeks to collect the major proposals for risk assessment methods and parameters and organize them categorically, under the proposed divisions of “probability,” “plausibility,” and “possibility,” as well as formulate what appears for each to be its fundamental question and, where applicable, null hypothesis. This activity can, through a bottom-up approach, provide some of the building blocks for an overarching CA philosophy, as well as establish concepts and terminology potentially useful to the broader discussion of these topics.

Hejduk, M. D.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hazards and Probabilistic Risk Assessments of Advanced Nuclear Reactors Coupled with Industrial Facilities

This report provides a roadmap and tool kit for site specific risk assessments across a broad range of industrial customers co-located with advanced nuclear power plants (ANPP) that are not currently built and operating in the U.S. This report builds upon the body of work sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Integrated Energy Systems Pathway that has produced industrial requirements studies and techno-economic assessments on the topics of feasibility of ANPP supported industrial processes. This report also leverages the DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program that has presented hazards assessment and generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to light-water reactors (LWRs) co-located with hydrogen production facilities. Many of the hazard assessments and risk assessments performed for the LWRS report are agnostic to whether the nuclear reactor is an ANPP or were adapted to the ANPP focus. The report performs hazards assessments to include industrial facilities: an oil refinery, a methanol plant, a synthetic fuel (synfuel) plant, the production of synthetic gas (syngas) as part of the methanol and synfuel plants, wood pulp and paper mills, and hydrogen production. Hydrogen production facilities are assessed in depth through prior reports in the LWRS program and the results are leveraged in this report. All these facilities are specified through industrial process and requirements research performed by national laboratories, universities, and interaction with industry. Many of the processes used in this report are pre-conceptual designs to use for decarbonization of the current technology facilities. A process of failure modes and effects analysis (what can go wrong) and accidentology (what has historically gone wrong) was used to determine the hazards presented to the nuclear power plant by the addition of the HES and the industrial customer. Chemical properties of feedstocks and products are summarized as part of the hazards assessment. Example analysis procedures are provided for each of the hazard types identified. These deterministic analyses can be used to assess adherence to licensing criteria. They can also be used to meet other safety goals like protection of the public, workers, or industrial facility equipment. A modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) PRA only existing on paper was modeled and verified in modern PRA software. This will provide a tool for representative ANPP probabilistic analyses for future research.

10 SYNTHETIC FUELS↗
NASA NTRS2005

Taking the Risk Out of Risk Assessment

The ability to understand risks and have the right strategies in place when risky events occur is essential in the workplace. More and more organizations are being confronted with concerns over how to measure their risks or what kind of risks they can take when certain events transpire that could have a negative impact. NASA is one organization that faces these challenges on a daily basis, as effective risk management is critical to the success of its missions especially the Space Shuttle missions. On July 29, 1996, former NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin charged NASA s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance with developing a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) tool to support decisions on the funding of Space Shuttle upgrades. When issuing the directive, Goldin said, "Since I came to NASA [in 1992], we've spent billions of dollars on Shuttle upgrades without knowing how much they improve safety. I want a tool to help base upgrade decisions on risk." Work on the PRA tool began immediately. The resulting prototype, the Quantitative Risk Assessment System (QRAS) Version 1.0, was jointly developed by NASA s Marshall Space Flight Center, its Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, and researchers at the University of Maryland. QRAS software automatically expands the reliability logic models of systems to evaluate the probability of highly detrimental outcomes occurring in complex systems that are subject to potential accident scenarios. Even in its earliest forms, QRAS was used to begin PRA modeling of the Space Shuttle. In parallel, the development of QRAS continued, with the goal of making it a world-class tool, one that was especially suited to NASA s unique needs. From the beginning, an important conceptual goal in the development of QRAS was for it to help bridge the gap between the professional risk analyst and the design engineer. In the past, only the professional risk analyst could perform, modify, use, and perhaps even adequately understand PRA. NASA wanted to change this by developing a PRA tool that would be friendlier, more understandable, and more useful to the broader engineering community. This concept ultimately led to the look, feel, and functionality that QRAS has today.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2018

Towards a Rigorous Basis for Specific Operations Risk Assessment of UAS

The Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) guidance represents the consensus of various national aviation authorities on a common process to identify, qualitatively assess, and manage the safety risk posed by unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), when preparing the safety case required for regulatory approval to conduct certain types of operations. As such, it can be considered a de facto standard, being increasingly adopted by various relevant stakeholders. This paper first gives an overview of the SORA process and associated methods, identifying a number of inconsistencies in risk identification and assessment, also discussing plausible strategies to close the associated gaps. Then, we give a well-founded basis for the applicable concepts, such as barrier integrity, assurance, and robustness, following which we present a preliminary and simple probabilistic formalization of the underpinning barrier-based safety model. We illustrate our overall approach through a worked example, also discussing how a Bayesian framework can facilitate extending and enhancing our initial formalization. We conclude with a discussion of the opportunities afforded by our approach, such as a well-founded basis for barrier selection, whilst addressing the associated challenges. The main objective of this work is to complement the current SORA guidance through a principled, mathematicallybased approach to risk assessment, particularly when it is applied to higher-risk operational concepts that warrant greater rigor in safety assessment and assurance.

Safety Cases↗
NASA NTRS2019

Nasa Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis Updated Requirements Architecture

The NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) program has been performing routine on-orbit satellite conjunction risk analysis for unmanned NASA spacecraft since 2005, and has developed a robust operations procedure and set of recommended best practices for operational conjunction assessment. However, a number of recent developments in Space Situational Awareness and commercial space operations conduct, such as the immanent deployment of much more sensitive space sensing systems and the launching of much larger satellite constellations, have begun to challenge these standard collision risk parameters and calculations. In response CARA has pursued a multi-year evaluation initiative to re-examine risk assessment algorithms and techniques, to develop needed improvements, and to assemble analysis-based operational requirements. This paper gives an overview of the principal parts of the Conjunction Assessment (CA) risk assessment process used at CARA, outlines the technical challenges that each part presents, surveys the possible solutions, and then indicates which particular solution is being recommended for NASA.

Newman, Lauri K.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Risk Assessment Considerations for Underground Hydrogen Storage in Depleted Gas Reservoirs

Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) in depleted reservoirs presents a promising solution for large-scale energy storage as hydrogen demand grows. As the UHS industry emerges, robust risk assessments are critical to ensuring safe operation of the storage facilities and minimizing the risk of accidents. This work explores risk assessment protocols for underground natural gas storage (UGS) in depleted reservoirs and identifies key considerations for repurposing these facilities for UHS. By examining the differences in physical and chemical properties between hydrogen and natural gas, this work highlights new and modified hazards that merits a reevaluation of traditional natural gas risk assessment practices. This investigation synthesizes insights from previous literature reviews and interviews with UGS industry experts and operators to identify key areas for adapting risk assessment methodologies for hydrogen. The insights gleaned from expert interviews indicate that existing risk assessment standards are non-prescriptive, leading to diverse company-specific risk assessment methodologies requiring substantial additions to become practical. Due to a lack of concrete risk assessment requirements, experience, and relevant data, this uncertainty is expected to be magnified considerably when considering hydrogen. This study identifies several areas for potential modification of existing risk assessment practices that could be considered by those developing standards or performing risk assessments for UHS. Specifically, risk assessments may be improved by including risks unique to hydrogen in existing standards, changing the magnitude of different risk factors in existing risk assessment protocols, and improving methods of data collection and communication across the industry to address large areas of uncertainty.

08 HYDROGEN↗
NASA NTRS2001

Quantitative risk assessment system (QRAS)

A quantitative risk assessment system (QRAS) builds a risk model of a system for which risk of failure is being assessed, then analyzes the risk of the system corresponding to the risk model. The QRAS performs sensitivity analysis of the risk model by altering fundamental components and quantifications built into the risk model, then re-analyzes the risk of the system using the modifications. More particularly, the risk model is built by building a hierarchy, creating a mission timeline, quantifying failure modes, and building/editing event sequence diagrams. Multiplicities, dependencies, and redundancies of the system are included in the risk model. For analysis runs, a fixed baseline is first constructed and stored. This baseline contains the lowest level scenarios, preserved in event tree structure. The analysis runs, at any level of the hierarchy and below, access this baseline for risk quantitative computation as well as ranking of particular risks. A standalone Tool Box capability exists, allowing the user to store application programs within QRAS.

Weinstock, Robert M↗
NASA NTRS2019

NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) Updated Requirements Architecture

The NASA Conjunction Assessment Risk Analysis (CARA) program has been performing routine on-orbit satellite conjunction risk analysis for unmanned NASA spacecraft since 2005, and has developed a robust operations procedure and set of recommended best practices for operational conjunction assessment. However, a number of recent developments in Space Situational Awareness and commercial space operations conduct, such as the immanent deployment of much more sensitive space sensing systems and the launching of much larger satellite constellations, have begun to challenge these standard collision risk parameters and calculations. In response CARA has pursued a multi-year evaluation initiative to re-examine risk assessment algorithms and techniques, to develop needed improvements, and to assemble analysis-based operational requirements. This paper gives an overview of the principal parts of the Conjunction Assessment (CA) risk assessment process used at CARA, outlines the technical challenges that each part presents, surveys the possible solutions, and then indicates which particular solution is being recommended for NASA.

Newman, L. K.↗
NASA NTRS2025

Single Integrated Flux Files to Account for Spacecraft Attitude Motion in Meteoroid Risk Assessments Using the NASA MEM3 and Bumper Codes

Spacecraft meteoroid risk assessments can be performed using NASA’s Meteoroid Engineering Model 3 (MEM3) and the Bumper risk assessment code. The MEM3 meteoroid flux is highly directional in heliocentric space. To represent the directionality, MEM3 outputs the flux in commonly used coordinate frames. For example, if a spacecraft attitude is fixed in the orbital tangential frame, a single Bumper run using the MEM3 flux file in the body-fixed frame can be performed. Cases exist in which the spacecraft does not remain fixed in one of these frames during a mission. This could be handled by performing a series of Bumper runs at points along the trajectory. For each trajectory point, the spacecraft has to be rotated into the frame in which the MEM3 flux file is defined. Another option presented here is to generate a single integrated flux (SIF) file. A SIF file is an average over a trajectory of the time varying MEM3 flux files rotated from their native frame into the spacecraft bus frame. A SIF file enables accounting for spacecraft rotation (coupled with flux variation over the trajectory) in a single Bumper run. An example of an application of SIF files is the meteoroid risk assessment for the Mars Sample Return (MSR) campaign Capture Containment and Return System (CCRS). This report discusses how SIF files were generated for the CCRS risk assessment and presents metrics on the accuracy of the impinging fluence that is generated when using the files. The results show a maximum difference per element in a finite element model within 1 percent for seven of the eight examined cases, with the outlier being less than 2 percent. The results also show that the maximum standard deviation of differences across all elements is within 0.275 percent. The maximum difference in the total fluence across all the elements is 0.0463 percent. The maximum difference in the mean fluence across all the elements is 0.0407 percent.

Meteoroids↗
NASA NTRS2016

NASA Human System Risk Assessment Process

NASA utilizes an evidence based system to perform risk assessments for the human system for spaceflight missions. The center of this process is the multi-disciplinary Human System Risk Board (HSRB). The HSRB is chartered from the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) at NASA Headquarters. The HSRB reviews all human system risks via an established comprehensive risk and configuration management plan based on a project management approach. The HSRB facilitates the integration of human research (terrestrial and spaceflight), medical operations, occupational surveillance, systems engineering and many other disciplines in a comprehensive review of human system risks. The HSRB considers all factors that influence human risk. These factors include pre-mission considerations such as screening criteria, training, age, sex, and physiological condition. In mission factors such as available countermeasures, mission duration and location and post mission factors such as time to return to baseline (reconditioning), post mission health screening, and available treatments. All of the factors influence the total risk assessment for each human risk. The HSRB performed a comprehensive review of all potential inflight medical conditions and events and over the course of several reviews consolidated the number of human system risks to 30, where the greatest emphasis is placed for investing program dollars for risk mitigation. The HSRB considers all available evidence from human research and, medical operations and occupational surveillance in assessing the risks for appropriate mitigation and future work. All applicable DRMs (low earth orbit for 6 and 12 months, deep space for 30 days and 1 year, a lunar mission for 1 year, and a planetary mission for 3 years) are considered as human system risks are modified by the hazards associated with space flight such as microgravity, exposure to radiation, distance from the earth, isolation and a closed environment. Each risk has a summary two-page assessment representing the state of knowledge/evidence of that risk, available risk mitigations, traceability to the Space Flight Human System Standards (SFHSS) and program requirements, and future work required. These data then can drive coordinated budgets across the Human Research Program, the International Space Station, Crew Health and Safety and Advanced Exploration System budgets to provide the most economical and timely mitigations. The risk assessments were completed for the 6 DRMs and serve as the baseline for which subsequent research and technology development and crew health care portfolios can be assessed. The HSRB reviews each risk at least annually or when new evidence/information is available that adds to the body of evidence. The current status of each risk can be reported to program management for operations, budget reviews and general oversight of the human system risk management program.

Francisco, D.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Probabilistic risk assessment of the Space Shuttle. Phase 3: A study of the potential of losing the vehicle during nominal operation. Volume 5: Auxiliary shuttle risk analyses

Volume 5 is Appendix C, Auxiliary Shuttle Risk Analyses, and contains the following reports: Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Space Shuttle Phase 1 - Space Shuttle Catastrophic Failure Frequency Final Report; Risk Analysis Applied to the Space Shuttle Main Engine - Demonstration Project for the Main Combustion Chamber Risk Assessment; An Investigation of the Risk Implications of Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Chamber Pressure Excursions; Safety of the Thermal Protection System of the Space Shuttle Orbiter - Quantitative Analysis and Organizational Factors; Space Shuttle Main Propulsion Pressurization System Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Final Report; and Space Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment Proof-of-Concept Study - Auxiliary Power Unit and Hydraulic Power Unit Analysis Report.

Fragola, Joseph R.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Risk Assessment Metrics for NASA Fission Reactor Applications

Risk assessment is an important part of many NASA activities. In August 2019, the White House issued NSPM-20, which defines acceptable levels of risk for nuclear launches, but does not prescribe the particular methodologies or metrics that are to be used for comparison to the defined acceptance criteria. There are a variety of metrics that are possible and can be readily generated by a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). This paper will explore alternative metrics that can be provided, along with some discussion of their characteristics and important factors to consider during a space fission reactor risk analysis.

Probabilistic Risk Assessment↗
NASA NTRS2000

Probabilistic Risk Assessment: A Bibliography

Probabilistic risk analysis is an integration of failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis and other techniques to assess the potential for failure and to find ways to reduce risk. This bibliography references 160 documents in the NASA STI Database that contain the major concepts, probabilistic risk assessment, risk and probability theory, in the basic index or major subject terms, An abstract is included with most citations, followed by the applicable subject terms.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2013

PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessments) Participation versus Validation

Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) are performed for projects or programs where the consequences of failure are highly undesirable. PRAs primarily address the level of risk those projects or programs posed during operations. PRAs are often developed after the design has been completed. Design and operational details used to develop models include approved and accepted design information regarding equipment, components, systems and failure data. This methodology basically validates the risk parameters of the project or system design. For high risk or high dollar projects, using PRA methodologies during the design process provides new opportunities to influence the design early in the project life cycle to identify, eliminate or mitigate potential risks. Identifying risk drivers before the design has been set allows the design engineers to understand the inherent risk of their current design and consider potential risk mitigation changes. This can become an iterative process where the PRA model can be used to determine if the mitigation technique is effective in reducing risk. This can result in more efficient and cost effective design changes. PRA methodology can be used to assess the risk of design alternatives and can demonstrate how major design changes or program modifications impact the overall program or project risk. PRA has been used for the last two decades to validate risk predictions and acceptability. Providing risk information which can positively influence final system and equipment design the PRA tool can also participate in design development, providing a safe and cost effective product.

DeMott, Diana↗