SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Presentation to support a Summit/TIM with various Stakeholders (Ground and Flight) to perform a GAP analysis associated with ground and spacecraft maintenance, maintainability, and availability activities in order to identify missing Agency planning and guidance materials.
No abstract available
No abstract available
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
NASA is using Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as one of the tools in its Safety & Mission Assurance (S&MA) tool belt to identify and quantify risks associated with human spaceflight. This paper discusses some of the challenges and benefits associated with developing and using PRA for NASA human space programs. Some programs have entered operation prior to developing a PRA, while some have implemented PRA from the start of the program. It has been observed that the earlier a design change is made in the concept or design phase, the less impact it has on cost and schedule. Not finding risks until the operation phase yields much costlier design changes and major delays, which can result in discussions of just accepting the risk. Risk contributors identified by PRA are not just associated with hardware failures. They include but are not limited to crew fatality due to medical causes, the environment the vehicle and crew are exposed to, the software being used, and the reliability of the crew performing required actions. Some programs have entered operation prior to developing a PRA, and while PRA can still provide a benefit for operations and future design trades, the benefit of implementing PRA from the start of the program provides the added benefit of informing design and reducing risk early in program development. Currently, NASA’s International Space Station (ISS) program is in its 20th year of on-orbit operations around the Earth and has several new programs in the design phase preparing to enter the operation phase all of which have active (or living) PRAs. These programs incorporate PRA as part of their Risk-Informed, Decision-Making (RIDM) process. For new NASA human spaceflight programs discussion begins with mission concept, establishing requirements, forming the PRA team, and continues through the design cycles into the operational phase. Several examples of PRA related applications and observed lessons are included.
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a quantitative engineering process that provides the analytic structure and decision-making framework for total programmatic risk management. Ideally, it is initiated in the conceptual design phase and used throughout the program life cycle. Although PRA was developed for assessment of safety, reliability, and availability risk, it has far greater application. Throughout the design phase, PRA can guide trade-off studies among system performance, safety, reliability, cost, and schedule. These studies are based on the assessment of the risk of meeting each parameter goal, with full consideration of the uncertainties. Quantitative trade-off studies are essential, but without full identification, propagation, and display of uncertainties, poor decisions may result. PRA also can focus attention on risk drivers in situations where risk is too high. For example, if safety risk is unacceptable, the PRA prioritizes the risk contributors to guide the use of resources for risk mitigation. PRA is used in the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) Program. To meet the stringent requirements of the SEI mission, within strict budgetary constraints, the PRA structure supports informed and traceable decision-making. This paper briefly describes the SEI PRA process.
PRA methodology is one of the probabilistic analysis methods that NASA brought from the nuclear industry to assess the risk of LOM, LOV and LOC for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability and statistical data to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: What can go wrong? How likely is it? What is the severity of the degradation? Since 1986, NASA, along with industry partners, has conducted a number of PRA studies to predict the overall launch vehicles risks. Planning Research Corporation conducted the first of these studies in 1988. In 1995, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) conducted a comprehensive PRA study. In July 1996, NASA conducted a two-year study (October 1996 - September 1998) to develop a model that provided the overall Space Shuttle risk and estimates of risk changes due to proposed Space Shuttle upgrades. After the Columbia accident, NASA conducted a PRA on the Shuttle External Tank (ET) foam. This study was the most focused and extensive risk assessment that NASA has conducted in recent years. It used a dynamic, physics-based, integrated system analysis approach to understand the integrated system risk due to ET foam loss in flight. Most recently, a PRA for Ares I launch vehicle has been performed in support of the Constellation program. Reliability, on the other hand, addresses the loss of functions. In a broader sense, reliability engineering is a discipline that involves the application of engineering principles to the design and processing of products, both hardware and software, for meeting product reliability requirements or goals. It is a very broad design-support discipline. It has important interfaces with many other engineering disciplines. Reliability as a figure of merit (i.e. the metric) is the probability that an item will perform its intended function(s) for a specified mission profile. In general, the reliability metric can be calculated through the analyses using reliability demonstration and reliability prediction methodologies. Reliability analysis is very critical for understanding component failure mechanisms and in identifying reliability critical design and process drivers. The following sections discuss the PRA process and reliability engineering in detail and provide an application where reliability analysis and PRA were jointly used in a complementary manner to support a Space Shuttle flight risk assessment.
NASA has a world-class capability for quantitatively assessing the risk of highly-complex, isolated engineering structures operated in extremely hostile environments. In particular, the International Space Station (ISS) represents a reasonable risk analog for High Pressure, High Temperature drilling and production operations on deepwater rigs. Through a long-term U.S. Government Interagency Agreement, BSEE has partnered with NASA to modify NASA's Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) capabilities for application to deepwater drilling and production operations. The immediate focus of the activity will be to modify NASA PRA Procedure Guides and Methodology Documents to make them applicable to the Oil &Gas Industry. The next step will be for NASA to produce a PRA for a critical drilling system component, such as a Blowout Preventer (BOP). Subsequent activities will be for NASA and industry partners to jointly develop increasingly complex PRA's that analyze other critical drilling and production system components, including both hardware and human reliability. In the presentation, NASA will provide the objectives, schedule, and current status of its PRA activities for BSEE. Additionally, NASA has a Space Act Agreement with Anadarko Petroleum Corporation to develop a PRA for a generic 20K BOP. NASA will summarize some of the preliminary insights gained to date from that 20K BOP PRA as an example of the distinction between quantitative versus qualitative risk assessment.
This project will demonstrate a multi-hazard time-dependent probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) approach for nuclear facilities considering aging-related deterioration of structures. A generic pressurized water reactor (PWR) reactor subjected to seismic mainshock-aftershock sequences considering the aging of the containment structure will be used as a case study to demonstrate the multi-hazard PRA approach. Using advanced modeling and simulation, seismic mainshock-aftershock fragility functions will be simulated for the containment structure considering aging effects. A multi-hazard PRA model for a generic PWR reactor will be built to quantify the multi-hazard core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) with explicit time-dependent modeling of event sequences. To date, the cascading impacts of multi-hazards are not adequately accounted for in the PRA models for nuclear facilities. In addition, for both initial and periodic evaluation of facilities to withstand natural phenomena hazards (NPH), deterioration of the SSCs due to aging and other effects is not adequately considered. By advancing multi-hazard considerations accounting for aging effects, this project will contribute to improved understanding of the safety of aging nuclear facilities. Project outcomes such as the multi-hazard CDF and LERF will also allow facility owners to optimize upgrade and retrofit protocols. This project is divided into two components: (1) advanced modeling and simulations; and (2) multi-hazard PRA. For the first component, Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Multi-hazard Analysis for STOchastic time-DOmaiN phenomena (MASTODON) and BlackBear codes will be used to simulate the seismic response and damage of a containment structure under cascading mainshock-aftershock sequences with aging effects. Uncertainties related to the seismic inputs, material parameters, and environmental factors such as temperature and humidity will be identified and propagated to the fragility functions. These fragility functions, which consider aging effects, will be time dependent. The second component will take the fragility information from the first component to build a multi-hazard time-dependent PRA model starting from a generic PWR model to evaluate the multi-hazard CDF and LERF and characterize the associated consequences. For this component, OpenPRA Web Application and SAPHIRE code will be used. Events such as the Fukushima Daiichi accident have highlighted the importance of considering the cascading impacts of multi-hazards for PRA. Moreover, many of the reactors in the current nuclear fleet in the United States (US) are already operating well beyond their initially planned design life, and applications for further extensions to operating licenses are being considered. Therefore, considering multi-hazard effects and aging deterioration in the NPH risk assessment process will contribute to the safety of both existing and future nuclear facilities. Outcomes of this project will thus directly benefit the standards DOE-STD-1020-16 and DOE-HDBK-1224-18.
Since the Space Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, NASA has extensively used probabilistic analysis methods to assess, understand, and communicate the risk of space launch vehicles. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), used in the nuclear industry, is one of the probabilistic analysis methods NASA utilizes to assess Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) risk for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability distributions to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: 1) what can go wrong that would lead to loss or degraded performance (i.e., scenarios involving undesired consequences of interest), 2) how likely is it (probabilities), and 3) what is the severity of the degradation (consequences). Since the Challenger accident, PRA has been used in supporting decisions regarding safety upgrades for launch vehicles. Another area that was given a lot of emphasis at NASA after the Challenger accident is reliability engineering. Reliability engineering has been a critical design function at NASA since the early Apollo days. However, after the Challenger accident, quantitative reliability analysis and reliability predictions were given more scrutiny because of their importance in understanding failure mechanism and quantifying the probability of failure, which are key elements in resolving technical issues, performing design trades, and implementing design improvements. Although PRA and reliability are both probabilistic in nature and, in some cases, use the same tools, they are two different activities. Specifically, reliability engineering is a broad design discipline that deals with loss of function and helps understand failure mechanism and improve component and system design. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment process intended to assess the risk scenarios that could lead to a major/top undesirable system event, and to identify those scenarios that are high-risk drivers. PRA output is critical to support risk informed decisions concerning system design. This paper describes the PRA process and the reliability engineering discipline in detail. It discusses their differences and similarities and how they work together as complementary analyses to support the design and risk assessment processes. Lessons learned, applications, and case studies in both areas are also discussed in the paper to demonstrate and explain these differences and similarities.
In the nuclear power domain, Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is used to inform decision-making for Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs). Recently, there has been an increase in the utilization of modeling and simulation (M&S) to support the estimation of PRA inputs. Risk analysts should carefully select the PRA items that require M&S and their degree of realism (DoR) with consideration of the required resources. To support this selection, this article formulates a systematic decision-making approach for the DoR selection. The DoR selection is made based on two predictive decision-making attributes: the predicted differences in safety risk estimate (ΔSaRi) and the cost of analysis (ΔCAN). This research also develops and quantifies causal models to estimate ΔSaRi and ΔCAN. The causal model-based prediction of ΔSaRi and ΔCAN helps reduce the trial-and-error nature of the DoR selection in the PRA screening analysis and provides insights for DoR selection and the gradual refinements of PRA realism. This approach is demonstrated for a case study on fire PRA of NPPs, where an adequate DoR is selected from two fire models: an engineering correlation and a zone model.
Previous studies of normal men after 5 d of bedrest showed that circulatory instability on head-up tilt or standing is preceded by increased plasma renin activity (PRA) at bedrest. In the present study, the circadian rhythms of PRA, aldosterone, and cortisol have been observed in five normal men on a constant diet. In ambulatory controls, PRA and aldosterone increased normally after standing. On the third morning of bedrest, PRA was higher than before, and at noon, PRA was higher than in standing controls. The nocturnal peaks of PRA resulting from episodic renin secretion during sleep were higher after bedrest. Plasma aldosterone was also increased by bedrest. The findings are compatible with the theory that intermittent beta-adrenergic nerve activity during sleep is increased after bedrest, but other factors, such as loss of body sodium and a lower plasma volume, may also be involved.
If plasma vasopressin (PVP), plasma renin (PRA), and plasma aldosterone (PA) responses to change in posture are mediated only by alterations in intrathoracic baroreceptor activity hydration status should have minimal influence on these responses. To test this hypothesis, six male subjects underwent 45 min of 70 deg head-up tilt (HUT) following 26 h dehydration, and again, 105 min later, following rehydration. Compared with preceding supine hydrated control values, PVP, PRA, and PA increased (p less than 0.001) during dehydrated HUT, but only PVP and PRA increased during rehydrated HUT (p less than 0.001). The dissociation during rehydrated HUT of PRA and PA may have been related more to the reduction (p less than 0.001) in plasma potassium concentration than to the accompanying decrease (p less than 0.001) in plasma osmolality and sodium concentration. Although increases in PVP and PRA during HUT were attenuated (p less than 0.01) following rehydration, this attenuation was associated with the absence of symptoms of overt hypotension following rehydration. However, since rehydration did not abolish the increases in PVP and PRA induced by HUT, it is concluded that the present observations support the concept of intrathoracic baroreceptor involvement in the regulation of vasopressin secretion and renin release.
The Planetary Radio Astronomy (PRA) instrument detected large numbers of dust particles during the Voyager 2 encounter with Neptune. The signatures of these impacts are analyzed in some detail. The major conclusions are described. PRA detects impacts from all over the spacecraft body, not just the PRA antennas. The signatures of individual impacts last substantially longer than was expected from complementary Plasma Wave Subsystem (PWS) data acquired by another Voyager experiment. The signatures of individual impacts demonstrate very rapid fluctuations in signal strength, so fast that the data are limited by the speed of response of the instrument. The PRA detects events at a rate consistently lower than does the Plasma Wave subsystem. Even so, the impact rate is so great near the inbound crossing of the ring plane that no reliable estimate of impact rate can be made for this period. The data are consistent with the presence of electrons accelerated by ions within an expanding plasma cloud from the point of impact. An ancillary conclusion is that the anomalous appearance of data acquired at 900 kHz appears to be due to an error in processing the PRA data prior to their delivery rather than due to overload of the PRA instrument.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) International Space Station (ISS) Program uses Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as part of its Continuous Risk Management Process. It is used as a decision and management support tool to not only quantify risk for specific conditions, but more importantly comparing different operational and management options to determine the lowest risk option and provide rationale for management decisions. This paper presents the derivation of the probability distributions used to quantify the failure rates and the probability of failures of the basic events employed in the PRA model of the ISS. The paper will show how a Bayesian approach was used with different sources of data including the actual ISS on orbit failures to enhance the confidence in results of the PRA. As time progresses and more meaningful data is gathered from on orbit failures, an increasingly accurate failure rate probability distribution for the basic events of the ISS PRA model can be obtained. The ISS PRA has been developed by mapping the ISS critical systems such as propulsion, thermal control, or power generation into event sequences diagrams and fault trees. The lowest level of indenture of the fault trees was the orbital replacement units (ORU). The ORU level was chosen consistently with the level of statistically meaningful data that could be obtained from the aerospace industry and from the experts in the field. For example, data was gathered for the solenoid valves present in the propulsion system of the ISS. However valves themselves are composed of parts and the individual failure of these parts was not accounted for in the PRA model. In other words the failure of a spring within a valve was considered a failure of the valve itself.