Results for “Common-Cause Failure”

NASA NTRS2010

Common Cause Failure Modeling: Aerospace Versus Nuclear

Aggregate nuclear plant failure data is used to produce generic common-cause factors that are specifically for use in the common-cause failure models of NUREG/CR-5485. Furthermore, the models presented in NUREG/CR-5485 are specifically designed to incorporate two significantly distinct assumptions about the methods of surveillance testing from whence this aggregate failure data came. What are the implications of using these NUREG generic factors to model the common-cause failures of aerospace systems? Herein, the implications of using the NUREG generic factors in the modeling of aerospace systems are investigated in detail and strong recommendations for modeling the common-cause failures of aerospace systems are given.

Stott, James E.↗

NASA NTRS2006

An Efficient Approach for the Reliability Analysis of Phased-Mission Systems with Dependent Failures

We consider the reliability analysis of phased-mission systems with common-cause failures in this paper. Phased-mission systems (PMS) are systems supporting missions characterized by multiple, consecutive, and nonoverlapping phases of operation. System components may be subject to different stresses as well as different reliability requirements throughout the course of the mission. As a result, component behavior and relationships may need to be modeled differently from phase to phase when performing a system-level reliability analysis. This consideration poses unique challenges to existing analysis methods. The challenges increase when common-cause failures (CCF) are incorporated in the model. CCF are multiple dependent component failures within a system that are a direct result of a shared root cause, such as sabotage, flood, earthquake, power outage, or human errors. It has been shown by many reliability studies that CCF tend to increase a system's joint failure probabilities and thus contribute significantly to the overall unreliability of systems subject to CCF.We propose a separable phase-modular approach to the reliability analysis of phased-mission systems with dependent common-cause failures as one way to meet the above challenges in an efficient and elegant manner. Our methodology is twofold: first, we separate the effects of CCF from the PMS analysis using the total probability theorem and the common-cause event space developed based on the elementary common-causes; next, we apply an efficient phase-modular approach to analyze the reliability of the PMS. The phase-modular approach employs both combinatorial binary decision diagram and Markov-chain solution methods as appropriate. We provide an example of a reliability analysis of a PMS with both static and dynamic phases as well as CCF as an illustration of our proposed approach. The example is based on information extracted from a Mars orbiter project. The reliability model for this orbiter considers the various phases of Launch, Cruise, Mars Orbit Insertion, and Orbit. Some of the CCF for the orbiter in this mission include environmental effects, such as micrometeoroids, human operator errors, and software errors.

reliability analysis↗

DOE OSTI2026

Operating Experience Data Analysis for Digital Instrumentation and Control System Reliability and Risk Assessment in Nuclear Power Plants

The implementation of advanced digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) systems in U.S. nuclear power plants (NPPs) can bring significant advancements in reliability, monitoring, and control capabilities. However, these systems also introduce new challenges, particularly in assessing risks such as common-cause failures (CCFs) and establishing robust reliability estimates for DI&C components. Addressing these challenges is critical for ensuring the safe and efficient operation of NPPs. Recently, Idaho National Laboratory was tasked by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct a DI&C reliability study using operating experience data from the nuclear industry. The two operating experience data sources for the study are the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations’ Industry Reporting and Information System (IRIS) and the NRC’s Licensee Event Report database which is hosted at Idaho National Laboratory at https://lersearch.inl.gov/LERSearchCriteria.aspx. This report provides a comprehensive examination of DI&C systems, including their architecture, operational advantages, and associated challenges. It reviews existing industry DI&C studies and failure mode taxonomies, along with reliability data from various industries. Through a detailed analysis of these databases, the study provides insights into DI&C system performance. Considerations should be given to incorporate DI&C failure data into the NRC's Integrated Data Collection and Coding System and updating the Reliability and Availability Data System to support ongoing DI&C reliability studies. Recommendations are also provided for modeling DI&C reliability and CCF in probabilistic risk assessment, thereby supporting risk-informed decision-making and enhancing the reliability and safety of NPPs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

NASA NTRS1990

VIPER project

The VIPER project has so far produced a formal specification of a 32 bit RISC microprocessor, an implementation of that chip in radiation-hard SOS technology, a partial proof of correctness of the implementation which is still being extended, and a large body of supporting software. The time has now come to consider what has been achieved and what directions should be pursued in the future. The most obvious lesson from the VIPER project was the time and effort needed to use formal methods properly. Most of the problems arose in the interfaces between different formalisms, e.g., between the (informal) English description and the HOL spec, between the block-level spec in HOL and the equivalent in ELLA needed by the low-level CAD tools. These interfaces need to be made rigorous or (better) eliminated. VIPER 1A (the latest chip) is designed to operate in pairs, to give protection against breakdowns in service as well as design faults. We have come to regard redundancy and formal design methods as complementary, the one to guard against normal component failures and the other to provide insurance against the risk of the common-cause failures which bedevil reliability predictions. Any future VIPER chips will certainly need improved performance to keep up with increasingly demanding applications. We have a prototype design (not yet specified formally) which includes 32 and 64 bit multiply, instruction pre-fetch, more efficient interface timing, and a new instruction to allow a quick response to peripheral requests. Work is under way to specify this device in MIRANDA, and then to refine the spec into a block-level design by top-down transformations. When the refinement is complete, a relatively simple proof checker should be able to demonstrate its correctness. This paper is presented in viewgraph form.

Kershaw, John↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety Expertise and the Perils of Novelty

Emerging aviation markets such as urban air mobility are giving rise to new technologies and means of operation. However, novelty may hide ‘unknown unknowns,’ raising new hazards. This paper examines how expertise and safety techniques enable transformative technologies such as reduced crew operations, hybrid wing-borne and rotor-born flight, federated air traffic services, and urban operations. We explore how analysts use expertise to address common-cause failures, collect and interpret safety data, and perform exacting tradeoffs between dissimilarity, redundancy, independence, and diversity (human, process lifecycle, or otherwise) to ensure safety. When novelty is present, analysts might not possess the expertise needed to fully understand the implications of design decisions and tradeoffs being made, especially in early lifecycle phases, on emergent properties such as safety. Safety expertise must be carefully cultivated. The conflicting views of safety experts must be unpacked to identify the divergence in fundamental assumptions, models, means, and methods that may be causing them. Once systems venture beyond the basis of what safety expertise can reliably guarantee, projects take on risk that must be managed. The paper contains key takeaways and actionable recommendations for novel OEMs and regulators touching on topics such as robust monitoring; clear and transparent reporting; incremental approaches to fielding novel systems in hazard-rich, risk-tolerant environments; the cultivation of safety culture and expertise in an organization; and the use of scientific study to reduce epistemic uncertainty in novel operations with new technologies. Since excessive novelty in aviation can undermine the current foundation of safety, humility and incrementalism are necessary to enable emerging aviation markets safely.

safety expertise↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Safety Expertise and the Perils of Novelty

Emerging aviation markets such as urban air mobility are giving rise to new technologies and means of operation. However, novelty may hide ‘unknown unknowns,’ raising new hazards. This paper examines how expertise and safety techniques enable transformative technologies such as reduced crew operations, hybrid wing-borne and rotor-born flight, federated air traffic services, and urban operations. We explore how analysts use expertise to address common-cause failures, collect and interpret safety data, and perform exacting tradeoffs between dissimilarity, redundancy, independence, and diversity (human, process lifecycle, or otherwise) to ensure safety. When novelty is present, analysts might not possess the expertise needed to fully understand the implications of design decisions and tradeoffs being made, especially in early lifecycle phases, on emergent properties such as safety. Safety expertise must be carefully cultivated. The conflicting views of safety experts must be unpacked to identify the divergence in fundamental assumptions, models, means, and methods that may be causing them. Once systems venture beyond the basis of what safety expertise can reliably guarantee, projects take on risk that must be managed. The paper contains key takeaways and actionable recommendations for novel OEMs and regulators touching on topics such as robust monitoring; clear and transparent reporting; incremental approaches to fielding novel systems in hazard-rich, risk-tolerant environments; the cultivation of safety culture and expertise in an organization; and the use of scientific study to reduce epistemic uncertainty in novel operations with new technologies. Since excessive novelty in aviation can undermine the current foundation of safety, humility and incrementalism are necessary to enable emerging aviation markets safely.

safety expertise↗

DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 1, January-June 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 1 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part II: The State of the Nuclear Fuel Located Within the Chornobyl Sarcophagus, A A. Borovoi and A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 33 Nuclear Power Safety in Central and Eastern Europe, R. Wilson; 46 Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors in the Former Eastern European Countries, S. Chakraborty; 53 Technical Note: On the Definition of Common-Cause Failures, H. Paula; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 58 Modeling and Analysis of Core-Debris Recriticality During Hypothetical Severe Accidents in the Advanced Neutron Source Reactor, S.-H. Kim, V. Georgevich, D. B. Simpson, C. O. Slater, and R. P. Taleyarkhan; 68 Ignitability of Hydrogen/Oxygen/Diluent Mixtures in the Presence of Hot Surfaces, R. K. Kumar and G. W. Koroll; 94 Coupled RELAP5 and CONTAIN Accident Analysis Using PVM, K. A. Smith, A. J. Baratta, and G. E. Robinson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 109 Application of Fuzzy Logic in Nuclear Reactor Control Part I: An Assessment of State-of-the-Art, A. S. Heger, N. K. Alang-Rashid, and M. Jamshidi; DESIGN FEATURES: 122 Twenty-Third DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, J. J. Hayes, and M. W. First; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 135 Atmospheric Dispersion and the Radiological Consequences of Normal Airborne Effluents from a Nuclear Power Plant, D. Fang, C. Z. Sun, and L. Yang; 142 Calculation of Distribution Coefficients for Radionuclides in Soils and Sediments, I. Puigdomenech and U. Bergstrom: OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 155 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 158 Operating Experience Feedback Report—Reliability of Safety-Related Steam Turbine-Driven Standby Pumps Used in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, J. R. Boardman; 166 Turbine Building Hazards, H. L Ornstein; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 169 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 175 Proposed Rule Changes as of Dec. 31,1994; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 32 Harvard School of Public Health In-Place Filter Testing Workshop; 134 International Conference on Advances in the Operational Safety of Nuclear Power Plants; 193 30th Tennessee Industries Week; 193 DOE Technical Standards Program 1995 Workshop; 194 Multiphase Flow Experiments and Instrumentation; 180 The Authors; 185 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volumes 34 and 35.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

NASA NTRS1990

Multiversion software reliability through fault-avoidance and fault-tolerance

In this project we have proposed to investigate a number of experimental and theoretical issues associated with the practical use of multi-version software in providing dependable software through fault-avoidance and fault-elimination, as well as run-time tolerance of software faults. In the period reported here we have working on the following: We have continued collection of data on the relationships between software faults and reliability, and the coverage provided by the testing process as measured by different metrics (including data flow metrics). We continued work on software reliability estimation methods based on non-random sampling, and the relationship between software reliability and code coverage provided through testing. We have continued studying back-to-back testing as an efficient mechanism for removal of uncorrelated faults, and common-cause faults of variable span. We have also been studying back-to-back testing as a tool for improvement of the software change process, including regression testing. We continued investigating existing, and worked on formulation of new fault-tolerance models. In particular, we have partly finished evaluation of Consensus Voting in the presence of correlated failures, and are in the process of finishing evaluation of Consensus Recovery Block (CRB) under failure correlation. We find both approaches far superior to commonly employed fixed agreement number voting (usually majority voting). We have also finished a cost analysis of the CRB approach.

Vouk, Mladen A.↗