Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Probabilistic Failure”

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.

458 records · Page 26
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Quantifying Risk to Improve Medical System Design for Long Duration Artemis Missions: A Demonstration of NASA's IMPACT Tradespace Analysis Tool

BACKGROUND NASA’s human exploration spaceflight missions to the Moon and Mars present unprecedented challenges for in-mission medical care. A greater distance from Earth will mean increased mission durations, communication delays, limited to no resupply opportunities, and constraints on the evacuation of ill or injured crew. Mass, volume, and power will be limited while higher demands will be placed on the crews to manage medical events. NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration strategy outlines increasingly complex Artemis missions both in terms of duration and operations. In these more challenging deep space missions, it is important to quantitatively estimate the human system risk attributable to medical conditions and use these estimates to advance medical system design. METHODS IMPACT (Informing Mission Planning via Analysis of Complex Tradespaces) is a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and tradespace analysis tool developed by NASA to advance exploration mission medical system design. IMPACT v1.0 includes a novel evidence library baselined to exploration environments; an expanded list of 119 medical conditions; a large increase in the number of medical resources and the flexibility of their use; and the ability for rapid and iterative analysis. Medical system risk estimates include loss of crew life, consideration of the need for return to definitive care (medical evacuation), and an estimate of crew time affected due to medical conditions. A notional long duration lunar orbit and lunar surface design reference mission (DRM) was chosen with a 4-astronaut crew to mimic a foundational exploration Artemis mission. The DRM profile includes outbound transit on Orion, Gateway space station rendezvous in lunar orbit, 6 months on the Lunar surface with extravehicular activity (EVA), return rendezvous with Gateway, and transit back to Earth. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Overall, IMPACT successfully quantified medical risk and derived an optimal medical system to support crew on a long duration lunar mission. In this DRM, the calculated loss of crew life from a medical event was 0.008 events per mission, risk of potential need for evacuation was 0.30 events per mission, and cumulative crew time affected by medical conditions was 103 days. The medical conditions that most contributed to medical risk were decompression sickness, trauma, and respiratory failure. The conditions that had the largest effects on crew performance included musculoskeletal injuries and lunar dust exposure. The IMPACT-generated medical system included resources that target the most common and highest risk conditions and performed as expected. This demonstrates the value of the IMPACT tool in medical system design for human exploration spaceflight missions.

Arian Anderson↗
DOE OSTI2021

Analysis of Loss-of-Offsite-Power Events: Update

Loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) can have a negative impact on a nuclear power plant’s ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions. LOOP event frequencies and times required for subsequent restoration of offsite power are important inputs to plant probabilistic risk assessments. This report presents a statistical and engineering analysis of LOOP frequencies and durations at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The data used in this study were based on the operating experience during calendar years 1987–2020, while the most recent 15-year data (i.e., from 2006–2020) were used for most analyses in this report. LOOP events during critical operation that did not result in a reactor trip are not included. Frequencies and durations were determined for four LOOP event categories: plant-centered, switchyard-centered, grid-related, and weather related. Highly significant decreasing trends in the LOOP occurrence rates were identified for All-LOOPs during critical operation (p-value = 0.001) and switchyard-centered LOOPs during critical operation (p-value = 0.002) for the most recent 10-year period (2011–2020). Adverse trends in LOOP durations continue for switchyard-centered LOOPs (p-value = 0.005), All-LOOPs (p-value = 0.019), as well as All-LOOPs during shutdown operation (p-value = 0.003). Statistical tests show the LOOP counts are not uniformly distributed across the 12 months, and variation among the months exists for plant-centered LOOPs (p-value = 0.028), grid-related LOOPs (p-value = 0.021), All-LOOPs (p-value = 0.003), and All-LOOPs during critical operation (p-value = 0.008). The engineering analysis of LOOP data showed for the period of 2006–2020, the equipment failure events were dominated by failures of circuits and relay; human errors have been less frequent and occurred primarily in maintenance; and weather events were dominated by tornadoes and lightning.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2013

Practical Application of PRA as an Integrated Design Tool for Space Systems

This paper presents the application of the first comprehensive Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) during the design phase of a joint NASA/NOAA weather satellite program, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Series R (GOES-R). GOES-R is the next generation weather satellite primarily to help understand the weather and help save human lives. PRA has been used at NASA for Human Space Flight for many years. PRA was initially adopted and implemented in the operational phase of manned space flight programs and more recently for the next generation human space systems. Since its first use at NASA, PRA has become recognized throughout the Agency as a method of assessing complex mission risks as part of an overall approach to assuring safety and mission success throughout project lifecycles. PRA is now included as a requirement during the design phase of both NASA next generation manned space vehicles as well as for high priority robotic missions. The influence of PRA on GOES-R design and operation concepts are discussed in detail. The GOES-R PRA is unique at NASA for its early implementation. It also represents a pioneering effort to integrate risks from both Spacecraft (SC) and Ground Segment (GS) to fully assess the probability of achieving mission objectives. PRA analysts were actively involved in system engineering and design engineering to ensure that a comprehensive set of technical risks were correctly identified and properly understood from a design and operations perspective. The analysis included an assessment of SC hardware and software, SC fault management system, GS hardware and software, common cause failures, human error, natural hazards, solar weather and infrastructure (such as network and telecommunications failures, fire). PRA findings directly resulted in design changes to reduce SC risk from micro-meteoroids. PRA results also led to design changes in several SC subsystems, e.g. propulsion, guidance, navigation and control (GNC), communications, mechanisms, and command and data handling (C&DH). The fault tree approach assisted in the development of the fault management system design. Human error analysis, which examined human response to failure, indicated areas where automation could reduce the overall probability of gaps in operation by half. In addition, the PRA brought to light many potential root causes of system disruptions, including earthquakes, inclement weather, solar storms, blackouts and other extreme conditions not considered in the typical reliability and availability analyses. Ultimately the PRA served to identify potential failures that, when mitigated, resulted in a more robust design, as well as to influence the program's concept of operations. The early and active integration of PRA with system and design engineering provided a well-managed approach for risk assessment that increased reliability and availability, optimized lifecyc1e costs, and unified the SC and GS developments.

Kalia, Prince↗
DOE OSTI2022

Analysis of Loss-of-Offsite-Power Events: 2021 Update

Loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) can have a negative impact on a nuclear power plant’s ability to achieve and maintain safe shutdown conditions. LOOP event frequencies and times required for subsequent restoration of offsite power are important inputs to plant probabilistic risk assessments. This report presents a statistical and engineering analysis of LOOP frequencies and durations at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The data used in this study were based on the operating experience during calendar years 1987–2021, while the most recent 15-year data (i.e., from 2007–2021) were used for most analyses in this report. LOOP events during critical operation that did not result in a reactor trip are not included. Frequencies and durations were determined for four LOOP event categories: plant-centered, switchyard-centered, grid-related, and weather-related. These categories (and the All-LOOPs group which contains all LOOPs without regarding of the four categories) could be further grouped by whether a LOOP event occurred during critical operation, during shutdown operation, or during all operations. The following decreasing trends in the LOOP occurrence rates were identified for the most recent 10-year period (2012–2021): All-LOOPs during critical operation, switchyard-centered LOOPs during critical operation, and grid-related LOOPs during critical operation. Adverse trends in LOOP durations continue for switchyard-centered LOOPs during all operations, All-LOOPs during all operations, and All-LOOPs during shutdown operation for the 1997–2021 period. Statistical tests show the LOOP counts for the period of 2007–2021 are not uniformly distributed across the 12 months, and variation among the months exists for grid-related LOOPs during all operations, All-LOOPs during all operations, and All-LOOPs during critical operation. The engineering analysis of LOOP data showed for the period of 2007–2021, the equipment failure events were dominated by failures of relay and other; human errors have been less frequent and occurred primarily in maintenance and switching; and weather were dominated by tornadoes then by lightning and hurricane. Weather was the cause for 45% of LOOPs for the last fifteen years (2007– 2021) but only for 20% of LOOPs for the previous 20 years (1987–2006) .

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2016

Tailoring a Human Reliability Analysis to Your Industry Needs

Companies at risk of accidents caused by human error that result in catastrophic consequences include: airline industry mishaps, medical malpractice, medication mistakes, aerospace failures, major oil spills, transportation mishaps, power production failures and manufacturing facility incidents. Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) is used to analyze the inherent risk of human behavior or actions introducing errors into the operation of a system or process. These assessments can be used to identify where errors are most likely to arise and the potential risks involved if they do occur. Using the basic concepts of HRA, an evolving group of methodologies are used to meet various industry needs. Determining which methodology or combination of techniques will provide a quality human reliability assessment is a key element to developing effective strategies for understanding and dealing with risks caused by human errors. There are a number of concerns and difficulties in "tailoring" a Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) for different industries. Although a variety of HRA methodologies are available to analyze human error events, determining the most appropriate tools to provide the most useful results can depend on industry specific cultures and requirements. Methodology selection may be based on a variety of factors that include: 1) how people act and react in different industries, 2) expectations based on industry standards, 3) factors that influence how the human errors could occur such as tasks, tools, environment, workplace, support, training and procedure, 4) type and availability of data, 5) how the industry views risk & reliability, and 6) types of emergencies, contingencies and routine tasks. Other considerations for methodology selection should be based on what information is needed from the assessment. If the principal concern is determination of the primary risk factors contributing to the potential human error, a more detailed analysis method may be employed versus a requirement to provide a numerical value as part of a probabilistic risk assessment. Industries involved with humans operating large equipment or transport systems (ex. railroads or airlines) would have more need to address the man machine interface than medical workers administering medications. Human error occurs in every industry; in most cases the consequences are relatively benign and occasionally beneficial. In cases where the results can have disastrous consequences, the use of Human Reliability techniques to identify and classify the risk of human errors allows a company more opportunities to mitigate or eliminate these types of risks and prevent costly tragedies.

DeMott, D. L.↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Hybrid AI/ML and Computational Mechanics Based Approach for Time-Series State and Fatigue Life Estimation of Nuclear Reactor Components

Environmental fatigue modeling is a complex problem due to multiple failure modes and their intermixing. The failure modes are function of various underlying causes in addition to the corrosive effect of reactor coolant environment. Some of the major causes are time-dependence of material associated with cyclic loading, load sequence effect associated with random/variable amplitude loading, effect of strain amplitude and rates, effect of varying temperature (along both temporal and spatial directions) and the effect of mean strain and stress. The nonlinear intermixing of failure modes associated with above mentioned causing parameters makes the environmental fatigue modeling is a challenging task. Because of this challenge, fatigue is traditionally being modeled based on experimental data. However, test based empirical approach often requires hundreds of fatigue tests to model the above-mentioned intermixing failure causes even for a single material system. The problem is further exaggerated for reactor component made from multi-material systems such as made from both carbon and stainless-steel base metals and their similar and dissimilar metal welds. With the difficulty of conducting hundreds of fatigue tests to capture the above-mentioned intermixing failure causes, fatigue modeling approaches often depends on empirical models based on limited available test data such as available through ASME code and NUREG 6909. However, these limited test-data-based models may not be enough to accurately predict the life of reactor components. Accurate prediction of life of reactor component would become a necessity, particularly when the license of the reactors to be extended for long-term-operation (LTO) that is for well beyond its original design life of 40 years. The requirement of extending the license of reactor under LTO requires hundreds of fatigue tests to be conducted to understand the mechanism associated with the above-mentioned interdependent failure causes. However, conducting large number of fatigue tests is not a feasibility due to the cost involved. To address this issues Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) with the sponsorship of DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program trying to develop a hybrid predictive modeling approach. This is based on limited experiment-data, Artificial-intelligence (AI) – Machine-Learning (ML) - Deep-Learning (DL) based techniques and Multiphysics-computational-mechanics based modeling tools. The hybrid approach not-only can improve the accuracy of the existing stress analysis and fatigue modeling approach but also can reduce the over-dependency on test-based approach. Towards this goal following are some of the major contributions based on ANL’s FY-20 environmental fatigue modeling activities: 1) A cyclic plasticity material model database for 82/182 dissimilar metal weld, which can be readily shared with US nuclear industry and regulatory agency on request. 2) A well validated analytical modeling methodology to perform cycle-by-cycle stress prediction under both constant amplitude fatigue loading and variable amplitude fatigue loading (with load-sequence effect). 3) An AI/ML/DL based methodology to predict unmeasurable cyclic strain based on other available sensor signals. This type of approach can be used for estimating strain in real reactor components from other sensor readings. 4) An AI/ML based approach to improve the US capability on environmental fatigue testing. This is by improving ANL’s existing environmental fatigue testing capacity to conduct ASME required strain-controlled tests (by controlling strain amplitudes and its rate), while not measuring the strain (due to the difficulty of placing an extensometer in a narrow autoclave in a PWR-water-test system). 5) A simulation and experiment based probabilistic modeling methodology for time-series fatigue state and life estimation of reactor metal such as dissimilar metal weld.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Reassessing Double-Ended Guillotine Break Requirements: Evidence-Based Analysis of Regulatory Assumptions After Five Decades of Nuclear Operation

After five decades of nuclear power operation encompassing more than 20,000 reactor-years across 35 countries and 647 reactors, zero double-ended guillotine breaks (DEGBs) have been documented in commercial reactor coolant systems—despite DEGB being the fundamental design-basis assumption driving Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) sizing, structural protection requirements, and containment design specifications. This report examines the basis for DEGB requirements in nuclear power plant design. The DEGB postulate assumes the instantaneous, complete circumferential severance of the largest diameter pipes in reactor coolant systems, driving major design requirements under 10 Code of Federal Regulations 50.46, General Design Criterion 4 and containment design specifications. The United States (4,880 reactor-years) and France (2,505 reactor-years) contribute the largest operational datasets. Probabilistic assessments estimate direct DEGB occurrence probabilities with extremely low event frequencies, far below the 10-5/reactor-year thresholds typically used to define non-credible events in nuclear-safety analyses; i.e., events with probability this low fall into beyond-design-basis events. Current material-science knowledge demonstrates that the ductile steel materials used in nuclear piping systems exhibit stable crack-growth behavior fundamentally incompatible with instantaneous severance. International regulatory experience, particularly Germany’s comprehensive break-preclusion implementation, and successful leak-before-break (LBB) applications in almost all of U.S. pressurized water reactor units validate that alternatives can maintain safety performance while reducing economic burden. Current DEGB protection systems impose estimated lifetime costs of hundreds of millions of dollars per unit, over the life of a plant across the nuclear industry (including ongoing costs), representing substantial resource allocation toward scenarios with extremely low probability. Although this report acknowledges uncertainties regarding long-term aging effects, potential synergistic degradation mechanisms, and site-specific seismic considerations that warrant continued evaluation as regulatory policy evolves, there remains no documented evidence that a DEGB has occurred as a consequence of the conditions or mechanisms described in this report. This report acknowledges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) recent efforts—outlined in the draft Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) NRC-DSS-ISG-2025-XX (“Treatment of Certain Loss-of-Coolant Accident Locations as Beyond-Design-Basis Accidents Draft Interim Staff Guidance”)—to reduce overly conservative requirements for large-break loss of coolant accidents through technical justifications and exemptions. However, extensive operating experience and validated methodologies—such as LBB and in-service inspection programs—demonstrate that the probability of a DEGB in reactor coolant-loop piping is extremely low, even under seismic conditions. The authors and reviewers of this report recommend that DEGB be removed as a design-basis event through formal rulemaking, rather than case-by-case exemptions, to better reflect credible failure modes, align with current data, and align with modern, risk-informed safety analysis.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment - How They Play Together

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.

Safie, Fayssal M.↗