SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
General slide information on using flooding Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) taken from published INL reports or public Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) information. Topics covered are: SDP related to flooding in US Door integrity tests at Idaho State University Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics for external flooding NRC-INL Flood Barrier project
Due to growing interest in non-light water reactor (NLWR) concepts, the predecessor to the American Nuclear Society (ANS)/American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (JCNRM) initiated development of a NLWR probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) standard in 2006. The developed standard, released for trial use in 2013, was the first integral PRA standard created by the JCNRM, containing requirements ranging from the development of initiating events to the analysis of offsite radiological consequence. Based on feedback from pilot applications of the trial standard, a revised version of the standard was developed and balloted in 2020, with unanimous passage by the JCNRM and formal publication as an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard in 2021. The paper provides an overview of the standard and its development process. In addition, the paper reviews the latest status of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission endorsement efforts through Regulatory Guide 1.247.
This is an intern poster presentation. The current reactor authorization process is complex and error prone. The development of a digital Documented Safety Analysis has been proposed to provide an automated and integrated solution to enhance the design and authorization process. The digital DSA will consist of interlinked models, analyses, and reports, all of which will be updated using automated workflows when design changes are made. This poster examines the integration of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) with the transient and dose consequence analyses. A PRA for a generic high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) has been constructed which will drive the input parameters for a transient analysis model currently being constructed. Dose consequence will be determined using the results of the transient analysis and the Radiation Safety Analysis Computer (RSAC) code. Dose consequence data will then be input back into the PRA to drive design parameters.
While probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of nuclear facilities is expected to include internal and external hazards for a risk-informed and performance-based design, the current state of practice treats each hazard independently. However, such an independent treatment of hazards may not account for the correlations between different hazards and their response of and damage to the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) in a plant resulting in underestimating the overall risk. This project proposes to advance the multi-hazard PRA of nuclear facilities to more adequately evaluate concurrent hazards and contribute to an increased safety of nuclear plants. A framework for multi-hazard PRA will be developed by identifying concurrent hazard events (both internal and external) and event sequences that include interdependencies through the response of SSCs. An example application of the multi-hazard PRA framework will be demonstrated by considering a generic pressurized water reactor (PWR) subjected to seismic and internal flooding hazards. Computational models for the response of components will be developed to generated multi-hazard fragility surfaces under seismic and flooding loads. A PRA model consisting of event and fault trees will also be developed to quantify the multi-hazard risk profile and compare it with the independent hazard risk profile. Overall, by advancing the multi-hazard PRA of nuclear facilities, this project enhances nuclear safety and reduces costs by mitigating unforeseen consequences caused by correlations between concurrent hazards.
This research explored potential options to improve nuclear pressurized water reactors’ (PWRs) operational flexibility through integration with thermal energy storage (TES) and water desalination technologies. Benefits and challenges of TES technologies were reviewed, which includes sensible heat storage systems, latent heat storage systems, and thermochemical storage systems. Water desalination technologies were reviewed and compared, which includes multi-stage flash, reverse osmosis, and multi-effect distillation. The multi-effect distillation technology was selected to be coupled with a generic PWR. Risk of this cogeneration was quantified using the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodology. Results suggest that nuclear-desalination cogeneration can be done safely because the additional risk to the PWR is trivial, and even in certain cases the PWR risk is decreased. This cogeneration operation is expected to improve efficiency of thermal utilization and the nuclear plant’s revenues. In summary, this study supports the potential of nuclear-desalination cogeneration systems to address water scarcity while optimizing nuclear energy use and managing safety.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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.
Probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) have benefitted the safe operation of the U.S. reactor fleet over many decades. Risk insights from these PRAs have provided information from many different perspectives, from what is most important to maintain at a facility to a better understanding of how to address new information regarding safety issues. The methods and tools that have supported the creation and enhancement of PRA models were established through multiple decades of research, from the 1970s starting with the WASH-1400 Reactor Safety Study through comprehensive plant-specific models in use today. Because PRA models are being used to support such a diverse array of plant decisions, they are now being applied to analyze an increasing number and diverse set of aspects of the plant, which are well beyond the initial efforts envisioned in the 1970s. These demands on PRA methods and tools have led to challenges in terms of further expansion of the use of PRA and raised the potential for future research into how to address these challenges to ensure continued nuclear safety. In addition to the PRA needs, the domain of computer science has led to advances in computational approaches that may serve to help nuclear power plant PRA applications. These newer technologies have great potential to improve the effectiveness and economics of PRA and are being considered for exploration of potential benefits to the PRA and nuclear-power communities.
The focus of this paper is on the integration of PRA and DDP. The intent is twofold: to extend risk-based decision though more of the lifecycle, and to lead to improved risk modeling (hence better informed decision making) wherever it is applied, most especially in the early phases as designs begin to mature.
In recent years, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have developed methodologies to assess the vulnerabilities of nuclear plants against site specific extreme hazards. In many cases, advanced simulation tools are being considered to simulate multi-physics, multi-scale phenomena and to evaluate vulnerability of nuclear facilities. The credibility of advanced simulation tools is assessed based on a formal verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification procedure. One of the key limitations in validation is the lack of relevant experimental data at system-level. This limitation leads to a decrease in the confidence of system-level risk predictions. Therefore, a robust validation framework is needed to formalize the confidence in predictive capability of advanced simulation results. Additionally, this study enhances the existing risk informed validation methodology, originally proposed by Kwag et al. [1] and Bodda et al. [2], by developing additional attributes and a new set of validation indicies for a complete and wider applicability of the framework. In this manuscript, the methodology to identify the critical path that leads to the system-level failure is illustrated. The overall validation is checked for completeness and consistency by comparing the critical path for both the system-level simulation and experimental models. The applicability of the code for an intended application is represented in terms of various maturity levels and helps in the process of decision making.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) has tasked PNNL to address the regulatory challenges associated with confirming the safe transport of Transportable Nuclear Power Plants (TNPPs) containing irradiated nuclear fuel. A previous report—Proposed Risk-Informed Regulatory Framework for Approval of Microreactor Transportation Packages (PNNL-31867)—determined that the expected radioactive inventory in the irradiated fuel of a TNPP would likely require shipment in an NRC-approved Type B package (or spent nuclear fuel cask) but that a TNPP “package” is unlikely to meet the entire suite of NRC requirements set forth in Part 71 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for a Type B package. It was therefore concluded that shipment of this initial TNPP transportation package, as well as possibly others, under existing regulations would likely require NRC approval using the 10 CFR 71.12 (“Specific exemptions”) process that relies on risk-informed decision making supported by quantitative risk assessment (i.e., Probabilistic Risk Assessment).
Radiation effects on materials and electronic parts constrain the lifetime of flight systems visiting Europa. Understanding mission lifetime limits is critical to the design and planning of such a mission. Therefore, the operational aspects of radiation dose are a mission success issue. To predict and manage mission lifetime in a high radiation environment, system engineers need capable tools to trade radiation design choices against system design and reliability, and science achievements. Conventional tools and approaches provided past missions with conservative designs without the ability to predict their lifetime beyond the baseline mission.This paper describes a more systematic approach to understanding spacecraft design margin, allowing better prediction of spacecraft lifetime. This is possible because of newly available electronic parts radiation effects statistics and an enhanced spacecraft system reliability methodology. This new approach can be used in conjunction with traditional approaches for mission design. This paper describes the fundamentals of the new methodology.
Our current International Space Station Probabilistic Risk Assessment (ISS PRA) model assumes all collisions between a visiting vehicle (VV) and the ISS result in worst case loss of the ISS crew and the vehicle (LOCV). Drawing results from the Mir-Progress collision, we know this assumption is inaccurate because that collision did not lead to LOCV. Therefore the PRA team is conducting a study to determine the likelihood of LOCV when a collision occurs between a VV and the ISS. Kinetic energy is calculated and converted to pounds of TNT for the moving VVs when they collide with the ISS. Different scenarios are evaluated to obtain collision related data such as translational kinetic energy and rotational kinetic energy. These calculated data are integrated into the results from the expert elicitation performed on the Mir- Progress collision. As a result of this study, the PRA model will now calculate the probability of a VV collision with ISS, the probability that collision will result in Loss of Soyuz Crew (LOC) or Loss of ISS Crew and Vehicle (LOCV).
Status slides for probabilistic risk assessment work as part of CNWG collaboration with Japan.
The Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team at NASA Glenn Research Center is planning a customized approach to quantify human spaceflight performance changes with respect to changes to the CHP system functions and capabilities. Using the Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAG) initiated by NASA’s Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB) [1], the team is surveying potential candidate models and novel strategies that generate metrics suitable for supporting decision making related to how the CHP system may influence human system performance risk. One such investigation includes classic Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) models. Traditionally, HRA methods estimate the occurrence of human errors and their impact on the success of an activity when designing and operating a system. While humans perceive, interpret, decide on, and carry out a course of action, the factors affecting performance and error likelihood are commonly referred to as performance shaping factors (PSFs). Originally developed to alleviate safety concerns related to nuclear power plant operations, HRA methods such as THERP [2] and CREAM [3] dismantle an activity into tasks, requiring elemental steps to be executed, and assess their failure due to predefined PSFs. In this study, we compare generic HRA methods and those that incorporate some human spaceflight aspects, such as sleep conditions (SCREAM [4]), with respect to how they may be adopted to capture performance with an intention to mitigate detrimental outcomes elucidated by the HSRB DAGs. We suggest strategies to quantify astronaut performance specific to spaceflight activities and illustrate how such concepts may help in optimizing the CHP system capabilities with respect to Artemis missions.
Risk associated with human systems is challenging to quantify but is critical for the mission planning and decision making required to enable future Lunar and Martian missions. To address this gap, the Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project is developing an integrated computational model for CHP mission risk. Much like how MEDPRAT is designed to allow medical resource trades informed by medical risk, CHP-PRA will enable analogous trades in human system risks across multiple CHP functions and capabilities. Human performance is one component of the risk intended to be captured by CHP-PRA through the Performance Risk Model (PRisM). The sensorimotor risk area provides a good frame of reference for investigating the structure of a performance model because most tasks that astronauts are expected to perform require input from the sensory system and/or movement/motor control. Additionally, sensorimotor countermeasures are an area of particular concern for NASA’s Human Research Program because of the increased sensorimotor risk associated with surface operations in Lunar and Martian missions. Thus, a tool that can quickly compare risk reductions of potential countermeasures would be beneficial in guiding research and development of effective countermeasures. In this proof of concept, we present a systematic way to combine multiple performance data sets for humans subjected to different countermeasures such that we can predict the countermeasure(s) that optimize astronaut performance on relevant tasks. PRisM assumes that both the tests that are used to measure countermeasure effectiveness (input data) and the tasks we use to represent astronaut performance, can be broken down and represented as a function/vector of the human systems required to perform that test/task. Through mathematical combination, test data are used to predict performance on astronaut tasks that use similar systems. We propose that when combining countermeasures evaluated using the same test, that only one value should be used to represent their combined effectiveness. We start our analysis with the assumption that two countermeasures together will perform better than each countermeasure individually. Our initial implementation of this framework compares various space motion sickness countermeasures and the most up to date analysis will be demonstrated at the IWS.
Recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (AI/ML) technologies, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) capable of sophisticated syntax analysis, offer substantial potential in automating complex processes, thereby saving time and human resources. This study explores the development of an LLM-driven model designed to analyze and categorize a diverse set of Mars mission tasks into 18 predefined Human System Task Categories (HSTCs) based on their textual descriptions. As part of developing the Crew Health and Performance – Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA projects Performance Risk Model (PRisM) proof-of-concept, we established a framework to project performance scores from small-scale tests onto a preliminary list of Mars tasks. The foundation of our model was a comprehensive spreadsheet populated by NASA experts and clinicians, which detailed each Mars task alongside binary indicators of HSTC involvement. This dataset enabled the initial application of supervised ML, training and testing on existing HSTC labels. The HSTCs were originally defined from a medical system perspective, focusing on task impairments due to deteriorated human health. To expand our model's scope to include categories impacting performance, we face the challenge of generating binary labels (0 or 1) for new categories without pre-existing data. We address this by employing Generative AI (GenAI) software to determine whether a given task involved a new category by asking, "Does task A involve using category B?" We validate our approach by comparing the GenAI's binary classifications with the expert-provided labels for existing HSTCs. Notably, we utilize Ollama [4], a locally hosted GenAI tool that does not require cloud access, thus safeguarding NASA's proprietary data from unauthorized exposure. This study demonstrates the feasibility of leveraging cutting-edge AI tools to advance research, paving the way for automation and rapid decision-making in space exploration.
The Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) team at NASA Glenn Research Center has developed a range of tools to evaluate astronaut health during spaceflight and to optimize the medical set required for missions. Among these, the Performance Risk Model (PRisM) represents a novel advancement, extending CHP-PRA’s focus beyond medical systems into the domain of human performance. Such tool could be pivotal in optimizing astronaut capabilities during space travel, thereby enhancing overall mission success. PRisM leverages data from well-established performance assessments conducted during previous crewed space missions and Earth analogs to strategically predict outcomes for planned tasks, even when direct performance testing has not been conducted for those specific tasks. To evaluate performance, PRisM references the various metrics outlined in NASA-STD-3001 and employs a methodology to integrate different performance scales. This framework analyzes the contribution of various human system task categories (HSTCs) to task execution and compares these contributions to the HSTCs’ involvement in other known tests. The model further employs a Monte Carlo simulation to sample performance scores from their distribution in operationally relevant tests such as those in Mulavara et al. (2018) and, by leveraging similarities in HSTC involvement, transfers this knowledge to actual mission tasks, such as those outlined in the "Human Exploration of Mars: Preliminary List of Crew Tasks”. The current PRisM proof-of-concept includes analyses of the impact of exercise and specific medications on astronauts’ performance, with provisions to incorporate additional countermeasures as data becomes available. Furthermore, the tool is customizable to include any system necessary to fully encompass the domain of human systems and can be adapted to evaluate performance for any spaceflight activities as requested by operational stakeholders. PRisM has the potential to assist the Human Research Program in exploring the capabilities trade space for optimized crew performance.