Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “fault tree”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

AUTOMATIC GENERATION OF EVENT TREES AND FAULT TREES: A MODEL-BASED APPROACH

In the past few decades, increasing complexity in modern engineering systems has been driven by the integration of a large number of components and by the fact that the system operations involve many disciplines (e.g., thermal-hydraulics, plant operations, cyber-security). Current safety/reliability modeling approaches to such systems are labor intensive, difficult to learn, and rely heavily on simplistic Boolean logic to depict failure propagation and accident progression. While these methods serve well for simple systems (i.e., linear causal systems with limited small inter- and intra-system interactions), their results are difficult to verify when modeling complex systems (typically performed through the extensive use of modeling assumptions). The development of new methods is addressed to meet these challenges through a model-based system engineering (MBSE) lens. Under MBSE philosophy, every aspect of the system (form or function) is represented by a model that completely characterizes its architecture or behavior. MBSE approach greatly improves the management of design, analysis and verification of complex systems. An integration of Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (DPRA) methods with MBSE models is proposed to perform safety/reliability analyses of engineering systems. In particular, MBSE representation of the system (performed using Systems Modeling Language [SysML]) is coupled with DPRA methods to automatically generate event trees and fault trees.

97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Automatic Generation of Event Trees and Fault Trees: A Model-Based Approach

In the past few decades, the increasing complexity of modern engineering systems has been driven by the integration of a large number of components whose operations may involve many disciplines (e.g., thermal hydraulics, plant operations, cybersecurity). Most computational tools used by industry and regulators for system safety and reliability assessments are still based on the traditional fault tree (FT) and event tree (ET) approach, which may not be able to capture complex interactions among system constituents. The use of simulation tools has widely increased in the past few decades to improve the fidelity of the reliability and safety analyses. However, the direct use of simulation tools as part of dynamic probabilistic risk assessment (DPRA) methods is not getting traction since (1) modeling the whole system under consideration with DPRA methods may be computationally expensive and unnecessary, and (2) the manual integration of DPRA models into existing state-of-practice probabilistic risk assessment models (i.e., based on FTs and ETs) can be time consuming and prone to errors. Here, in this paper we propose a procedure to overcome this limitation by presenting several algorithms designed to automatically construct subsystem ETs and FTs from DPRA methods for integration into an existing ET/FT system model.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Eucalyptus – An Analysis Suite for Fault Trees with Uncertainty Quantification

Eucalyptus is a novel code developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to incorporate uncertainty quantification into Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). This tool addresses the challenge of imperfect knowledge in “grey-box” systems by allowing analysts to incorporate and propagate uncertainty from component-level assessments to system-level effects. Eucalyptus facilitates a consistent evaluation of the impact of subject matter expert judgment and knowledge gaps on overall system response by Monte Carlo generation of possible system fault trees, sampling probabilities of the existence of subsystems and components. Here, the code supports the specification of fault trees through text and allows export to various formats, including auto-generated images, easing analysis and reducing errors. It has undergone extensive verification testing, demonstrating its reliability and readiness for deployment, and leverages on-node parallelism for rapid analysis. Example analyses are shown that include the identification of system failure paths and quantification of the value of further information about system components.

Fault Tree Analysis↗
DOE OSTI2015

TU-AB-BRD-03: Fault Tree Analysis

Current quality assurance and quality management guidelines provided by various professional organizations are prescriptive in nature, focusing principally on performance characteristics of planning and delivery devices. However, published analyses of events in radiation therapy show that most events are often caused by flaws in clinical processes rather than by device failures. This suggests the need for the development of a quality management program that is based on integrated approaches to process and equipment quality assurance. Industrial engineers have developed various risk assessment tools that are used to identify and eliminate potential failures from a system or a process before a failure impacts a customer. These tools include, but are not limited to, process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis, fault tree analysis. Task Group 100 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has developed these tools and used them to formulate an example risk-based quality management program for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. This is a prospective risk assessment approach that analyzes potential error pathways inherent in a clinical process and then ranks them according to relative risk, typically before implementation, followed by the design of a new process or modification of the existing process. Appropriate controls are then put in place to ensure that failures are less likely to occur and, if they do, they will more likely be detected before they propagate through the process, compromising treatment outcome and causing harm to the patient. Such a prospective approach forms the basis of the work of Task Group 100 that has recently been approved by the AAPM. This session will be devoted to a discussion of these tools and practical examples of how these tools can be used in a given radiotherapy clinic to develop a risk based quality management program. Learning Objectives: Learn how to design a process map for a radiotherapy process Learn how to perform failure modes and effects analysis analysis for a given process Learn what fault trees are all about Learn how to design a quality management program based upon the information obtained from process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis and fault tree analysis. Dunscombe: Director, TreatSafely, LLC and Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences; Consultant to IAEA and Varian Thomadsen: President, Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences Palta: Vice President of the Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

TH-EF-BRC-03: Fault Tree Analysis

This Hands-on Workshop will be focused on providing participants with experience with the principal tools of TG 100 and hence start to build both competence and confidence in the use of risk-based quality management techniques. The three principal tools forming the basis of TG 100’s risk analysis: Process mapping, Failure-Modes and Effects Analysis and fault-tree analysis will be introduced with a 5 minute refresher presentation and each presentation will be followed by a 30 minute small group exercise. An exercise on developing QM from the risk analysis follows. During the exercise periods, participants will apply the principles in 2 different clinical scenarios. At the conclusion of each exercise there will be ample time for participants to discuss with each other and the faculty their experience and any challenges encountered. Learning Objectives: To review the principles of Process Mapping, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and Fault Tree Analysis. To gain familiarity with these three techniques in a small group setting. To share and discuss experiences with the three techniques with faculty and participants. Director, TreatSafely, LLC. Director, Center for the Assessment of Radiological Sciences. Occasional Consultant to the IAEA and Varian.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Identification of potential CO 2 leakage pathways and mechanisms in oil reservoirs using fault tree analysis

Geological storage of CO 2 technologies has become an important and effective way to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, especially when it is combined with CO 2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which can not only trap CO 2 but also enhance oil recovery. However, the risk of CO 2 leakage has always been a prominent issue. In this paper, the mechanisms and pathways of CO 2 leakage during geological storage in oil reservoirs were analyzed using fault tree analysis (FTR). Besides, monitoring technologies were discussed and deployed in a CO 2 EOR demonstration project. The analysis results showed that the sealing failures of oil producer and CO2 injector wells, like well cement failure and casing failure, are the main reasons for the CO 2 leakage, which has been observed in the oil field monitoring project. The monitoring results indicated that there is no large-scale CO 2 leakage, while relatively high and abnormal CO 2 concentration in soil gas near some wellbores are observed, which indicates there is some leakage of CO 2 through incomplete cement ring and well casing string. FTR results provide guidelines for monitoring and preventing of CO 2 leakage during geological storage in oil reservoirs. Finally, the near-surface monitoring methods, especially the soil gas monitoring technologies, can effectively detect the leakage of CO 2 , and are a proper method for CO 2 leakage monitoring.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

TU-C-BRE-01: KEYNOTE PRESENTATION - Emerging Frontiers in IMRT QA

As IMRT treatment processes advance and mature, so must the quality assurance processes being used to validate their delivery. In some respects, treatment delivery advancements (e.g. VMAT) have out-paced QA advancements. The purpose of this session is to describe new processes that are being implemented to bring IMRT QA up-to-date with the treatment delivery advances. It would explore emerging IMRT QA paradigms, including requirements-based IMRT QA which necessitates definition of delivery errors (e.g. patient dose error, leaf positioning error) and development of processes to ensure reliable error detection. Engineeringbased QA approaches, including use of IMRT treatment delivery process trees, fault tree analysis and failure modes effects analysis would be described. Approaches to detect errors such as (1) during treatment delivery validation using exit fluence detectors (e.g. EPIDs); (2) analysis of treatment delivery via use of machine parameter log files; (3) dose recalculation using (3a) treatment planning system; (3b) record-and-verify; or (3c) entrance and exit fluence measurement parameters would be explained. The relative advantages and disadvantages of each method would be discussed. Schemes for error classification and root cause analysis would be described – steps which are essential for future error prevention. For each QA method, testing procedures and results would be presented indicating the types of errors that can be detected, those that cannot be detected, and the reliability of the error detection method (for example determined via ROC analysis). For speakers, we are seeking to engage non-commercially biased experts. Those listed below are a sub-sample of possible qualified individuals.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Characterizing the Benefits of Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Structures in Terms of Reduced Risk and Cost

Seismic isolation is a mature technology that has been implemented in many civil structures, including buildings, bridges, liquid natural gas tanks, and off shore oil platforms, both in the United States and other countries, to mitigate the damaging effects of earthquakes. Seismic isolation has also been used in nuclear structures in France and South Africa, but not yet in the United States: neither in the Department of Energy facilities nor in commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs). This is primarily due to a lack of guidelines, codes and standards for the analysis, design and construction specific to seismically isolated nuclear structures. However, seismic isolation of nuclear structures has seen increased research interest in the recent years and the recently published national consensus standard, America Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 4-16 'Seismic analysis of safety related nuclear structures', now incorporates language and commentary (Chapter 12) for seismically isolating surface or near-surface-mounted nuclear facilities, including NPPs. Seismic isolation substantially reduces horizontal seismic loads (demands) on structures, systems, and components. Reduction in demand results in four potential benefits: (1) economic: reduction in capital cost, (2) increased safety: reduction in the mean annual frequency of unacceptable performance, (3) insurance: protection against increases in the known seismic hazard after construction by minimizing the effort to re-qualify and re-certify structures, systems and components, and (4) recertification: the opportunity to certify an existing NPP design for a region of higher seismic hazard. Item (2) above, an increase in safety (reduction of seismic risk), was explored in Huang et al., wherein it was demonstrated that the implementation of seismic isolation reduced seismic risk in nuclear power plant structures. Studies that assess item (1) have not been performed although the use of isolation may lead to large reductions in the capital cost of safety-related nuclear facilities. Funding provided by Nuclear Safety Research and Development in the Department of Energy (DOE) allowed the authors to develop a framework for assessing the economic benefits and reductions in seismic risk afforded by the use of seismic (base) isolation. The framework includes probabilistic risk assessment and estimation of overnight capital costs (OCC's) of a sample generic DOE nuclear facility (GDNF). The project is documented in detail in Bolisetti et al. and Yu et al., and key results are presented here. The GDNF considered in this study is based on a facility constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory. The GDNF is a two-story reinforced concrete building with an embedded basemat and is founded on soft rock at the boundary of Site Class B and Site Class C (B/C boundary) as characterized by ASCE/SEI Standard 7. The GDNF is assumed to handle radiological materials, and its structure, systems and components (SSC's) are designed to effectively confine these materials in the event of an internal failure. The GDNF is populated with components that are generic to safety-related nuclear structures. A single system, which is intended to confine a loss of materials-at-risk (MAR) to the interior of the structure, is chosen for this study. Accordingly, a hypothetical event tree and fault tree are assumed for risk assessment. The isolation system for the GDNF is designed per Chapter 12 of ASCE/SEI 4-16 but is not optimized. The isolation system consists of 38 lead rubber bearings installed in one horizontal plane below the basemat. Details of the GDNF, including the SSC's, event tree and fault tree, and isolation system, are presented in the project report and Yu et al.. This study includes seismic risk assessment and cost estimation for four cases: (1) the GDNF is located at a site of low to moderate seismic hazard and is constructed on a conventional (non-isolated) foundation; (2) the GDNF is located at the same site as case 1, but is seismically isolated; (3) the GDNF is located at a site of high seismic hazard and is constructed on a conventional foundation; and (4) the GDNF is located at the same site of high seismic hazard as case 3, but is seismically isolated. In this study, the DOE site at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is chosen as the low to moderate seismic hazard site for cases 1 and 2, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is chosen as the high seismic hazard site for cases 3 and 4.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Limitations of traditional tools for beyond design basis external hazard PRA

Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) is being used increasingly by the nuclear industry for safety during normal operations as well as for the protection against external hazards. Computation of total risk in an external hazard PRA is dependent on hazard assessment, fragility assessment, and systems analysis. A systems analysis for propagation of component fragilities is conducted using event and fault trees. The event and fault trees for an actual power plant can be fairly large in size, which imposes computational challenges. Hence, certain assumptions are employed for computational efficiency. These assumptions typically represent the conditions imposed during the design basis (DB) scenario. The traditional PRA tools based on these assumptions are also widely applied to perform risk assessment in the context of beyond design basis (BDB) scenarios. However, some of these assumptions may not be valid for certain BDB scenarios. In addition, the probability of dependent failures also increases in BDB scenarios due to common cause failures (CCF) which usually results from design modifications, human errors, etc. In this manuscript, a simple and a relatively more complex illustrative examples are used to show the limitation of these assumptions in the numerical quantification of risk for the case of BDB conditions. Case studies with CCF events across multiple fault trees are also presented to illustrate the effect of these assumptions when traditional approach is used in BDB risk assessment. It is shown that the assumptions are valid for the case of DB conditions but may lead to excessively conservative risk estimates in the case of BDB conditions. Finally, a Bayesian network based top-down algorithm is proposed as an alternative tool for accurate numerical quantification of total risk in systems analysis.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Risk informed cyber security for nuclear power plants - 342

Nuclear power plants are increasingly adding digital components for plant operation, safety, and security. These digital components fill a gap with legacy equipment where replacement components no longer exist. They also benefit operation of the plant by increasing efficiency in power generation, monitoring of equipment and plant parameters, as well as aiding operator control. However, the addition of digital components and systems also adds cyber risks with previously unanalyzed failure modes and attack vectors are introduced with these new systems. These risks are difficult to identify, analyze, and mitigate due to the increasingly complex nature of the digital components and the integration of these components with additional plant processes and communication networks. The research presented in this paper develops a new method that addresses the cyber risk to inform appropriate levels of protection. EPRI and Sandia are working under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement to develop an effective method of evaluating the cyber risk in production nuclear power facilities. The Cyber Hazards Analysis Risk Methodology (CHARM) focuses on ensuring adequate controls are in place for appropriate cyber protection of the plant from radiological release or generation risk. Existing plant hazards analyses (e.g., PRA, FTA) do not account for software deficiencies or adversarial intent. This method leverages existing plant analyses and MIT's Systems Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) to create cyber informed fault trees. These new fault trees will provide the basis for comprehensive cyber risk analysis and help ensure potential gaps in cyber security controls are identified and corrected. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2016

System Modeling Techniques for PRA P-200

Course Objectives: Build PRA modeling and analysis skills – Event tree and fault tree model development – Dependent failures and common cause modeling – Component failure mechanisms, Improve understanding of quantification process, Improve ability to extract key results from a PRA, Greater familiarity with PRA goals and process, and Aleatory (stochastic) versus Epistemic (state of knowledge) uncertainty

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2017

Operational performance risk assessment in support of a supervisory control system - 251

A supervisory control system is being developed for multiunit advanced small modular reactors to minimize human interventions during normal and abnormal operations. In the supervisory control system, control action decisions are made based on a probabilistic risk assessment that employs event trees and fault trees. Although traditional probabilistic risk assessment tools are implemented, their scope is extended to normal operations, and the application is reversed to assess the success of non-safety related systems and to enable continued operation of the plant. This extended probabilistic risk assessment approach is called operational performance risk assessment (OPRA). OPRA helps to identify available paths, combine control actions for maintaining plant conditions within operational limits, and to quantify the likelihood of success of these operational trajectories to optimize the selection of alternative actions without activating reactor protection system. In this paper, a case study of OPRA in a supervisory control system is demonstrated for the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR) Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module (PRISM) design, specifically the power conversion system. The scenario investigated involved a condition in which the feedwater control valve that was observed to be drifting to the closed position. Alternative plant configurations that would allow the plant to continue to operate at full or reduced power were identified using OPRA. Dynamic analyses were performed with a thermal-hydraulic model of the ALMR PRISM system using Modelica to evaluate the magnitude of safety margins. Successful recovery paths for the selected scenario were identified and quantified using the supervisory control system. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Advanced SAPHIRE 8 Modeling Methods for Probabilistic Risk Assessment via the Systems Analysis Program for Hands-On Integrated Reliability Evaluations (SAPHIRE) Software P-202

1.1. Overview of the Advanced SAPHIRE Material The Advanced SAPHIRE course material is intended to both (1) provide guidance for learning advanced SAPHIRE features during the class and (2) become a stand-alone reference document after finishing the class. Thus, the format for the class material is a combination of the traditional “overhead-type” of presentation information with a structured, reference-type document. Major topics that are covered in the Advanced SAPHIRE class include: Advanced data base concepts such as Model Type (e.g., random, seismic, fire, flood). Definition of house events and how they are used on a sequence-by-sequence basis to manipulate individual fault tree logic using sequence flag sets or fault tree flag sets. ? Basic event templates, compound basic event equation editors, and human error worksheets. A rule-based event tree top event substitution feature (called the Link Event Tree Rule Editor) which allows for top event substitutions. A rule-based cut set post-processing feature (called the Recovery Rules) which allows cut set manipulation. Cut set analysis based upon rule-based end state categories (called End State Analysis). Cut set generation options for both fault trees and event tree sequences. The large event tree methodology and how SAPHIRE can be used to generate sequence cut sets for this method. The transfer of data between SAPHIRE data bases and between other PRA codes (MAR-D).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗