Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “probabilistic Risk Assessment”

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
NASA NTRS2016

Architecture for Integrated Medical Model Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a modeling tool used to predict potential outcomes of a complex system based on a statistical understanding of many initiating events. Utilizing a Monte Carlo method, thousands of instances of the model are considered and outcomes are collected. PRA is considered static, utilizing probabilities alone to calculate outcomes. Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (dPRA) is an advanced concept where modeling predicts the outcomes of a complex system based not only on the probabilities of many initiating events, but also on a progression of dependencies brought about by progressing down a time line. Events are placed in a single time line, adding each event to a queue, as managed by a planner. Progression down the time line is guided by rules, as managed by a scheduler. The recently developed Integrated Medical Model (IMM) summarizes astronaut health as governed by the probabilities of medical events and mitigation strategies. Managing the software architecture process provides a systematic means of creating, documenting, and communicating a software design early in the development process. The software architecture process begins with establishing requirements and the design is then derived from the requirements.

Probability Theory↗
DOE OSTI2014

Modeling and Quantification of Team Performance in Human Reliability Analysis for Probabilistic Risk Assessment

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Human Reliability Assessment (HRA) are important technical contributors to the United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) risk-informed and performance based approach to regulating U.S. commercial nuclear activities. Furthermore, all currently operating commercial NPPs in the U.S. are required by federal regulation to be staffed with crews of operators. Yet, aspects of team performance are underspecified in most HRA methods that are widely used in the nuclear industry. There are a variety of "emergent" team cognition and teamwork errors (e.g., communication errors) that are 1) distinct from individual human errors, and 2) important to understand from a PRA perspective. The lack of robust models or quantification of team performance is an issue that affects the accuracy and validity of HRA methods and models, leading to significant uncertainty in estimating HEPs. This paper describes research that has the objective to model and quantify team dynamics and teamwork within NPP control room crews for risk informed applications, thereby improving the technical basis of HRA, which improves the risk-informed approach the NRC uses to regulate the U.S. commercial nuclear industry.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Dynamical systems probabilistic risk assessment

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is the primary tool used to risk-inform nuclear power regulatory and licensing activities. Risk-informed regulations are intended to reduce inherent conservatism in regulatory metrics (e.g., allowable operating conditions and technical specifications) which are built into the regulatory framework by quantifying both the total risk profile as well as the change in the risk profile caused by an event or action (e.g., in-service inspection procedures or power uprates). Dynamical Systems (DS) analysis has been used to understand unintended time-dependent feedbacks in both industrial and organizational settings. In dynamical systems analysis, feedback loops can be characterized and studied as a function of time to describe the changes to the reliability of plant Structures, Systems and Components (SSCs). While DS has been used in many subject areas, some even within the PRA community, it has not been applied toward creating long-time horizon, dynamic PRAs (with time scales ranging between days and decades depending upon the analysis). Understanding slowly developing dynamic effects, such as wear-out, on SSC reliabilities may be instrumental in ensuring a safely and reliably operating nuclear fleet. Improving the estimation of a plant's continuously changing risk profile will allow for more meaningful risk insights, greater stakeholder confidence in risk insights, and increased operational flexibility.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS2016

Towards a Methodology and Tooling for Model-Based Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA)

A Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) aims to identify and assess potential risks to system technical performance requirements for the purpose of furnishing risk insights into project decisions. PRAs have traditionally been conducted manually using software with an isolated data model. As system complexity rises it becomes difficult to ensure consistency between a PRA, the evolving system design, and other engineering analyses; the techniques for conducting PRAs must evolve to meet this challenge. This work presents progress towards a methodology and tooling for conducting a PRA by leveraging data in the system model, embedded for other purposes and analyses, to conduct a PRA. An approach for identifying the appropriate probabilistic equation for each risk scenario from a standard library is presented, which is a significant step towards the quantification of the likelihood of a risk scenario occurrence. The final calculation of the likelihood of occurrence is left as an item of future work. We also present the development of preliminary tooling to carry out the methodology on a well-formed system model. The information needed to conduct the PRA is embedded in a consistent manner in a system model, so the model-based PRA can be regularly executed as the system model changes. The ability to modify the PRA in concert with lifecycle evolution affords a project the opportunity to track the extent to which system modification impacts compliance with requirements. These aspects of this model-based PRA methodology make it capable of managing risk in increasingly complex technical systems.

Schreiner, Samuel S.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hazards and Probabilistic Risk Assessments of Advanced Nuclear Reactors Coupled with Industrial Facilities

This report provides a roadmap and tool kit for site specific risk assessments across a broad range of industrial customers co-located with advanced nuclear power plants (ANPP) that are not currently built and operating in the U.S. This report builds upon the body of work sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Integrated Energy Systems Pathway that has produced industrial requirements studies and techno-economic assessments on the topics of feasibility of ANPP supported industrial processes. This report also leverages the DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program that has presented hazards assessment and generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to light-water reactors (LWRs) co-located with hydrogen production facilities. Many of the hazard assessments and risk assessments performed for the LWRS report are agnostic to whether the nuclear reactor is an ANPP or were adapted to the ANPP focus. The report performs hazards assessments to include industrial facilities: an oil refinery, a methanol plant, a synthetic fuel (synfuel) plant, the production of synthetic gas (syngas) as part of the methanol and synfuel plants, wood pulp and paper mills, and hydrogen production. Hydrogen production facilities are assessed in depth through prior reports in the LWRS program and the results are leveraged in this report. All these facilities are specified through industrial process and requirements research performed by national laboratories, universities, and interaction with industry. Many of the processes used in this report are pre-conceptual designs to use for decarbonization of the current technology facilities. A process of failure modes and effects analysis (what can go wrong) and accidentology (what has historically gone wrong) was used to determine the hazards presented to the nuclear power plant by the addition of the HES and the industrial customer. Chemical properties of feedstocks and products are summarized as part of the hazards assessment. Example analysis procedures are provided for each of the hazard types identified. These deterministic analyses can be used to assess adherence to licensing criteria. They can also be used to meet other safety goals like protection of the public, workers, or industrial facility equipment. A modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) PRA only existing on paper was modeled and verified in modern PRA software. This will provide a tool for representative ANPP probabilistic analyses for future research.

10 SYNTHETIC FUELS↗
NASA NTRS2000

Probabilistic Risk Assessment: A Bibliography

Probabilistic risk analysis is an integration of failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), fault tree analysis and other techniques to assess the potential for failure and to find ways to reduce risk. This bibliography references 160 documents in the NASA STI Database that contain the major concepts, probabilistic risk assessment, risk and probability theory, in the basic index or major subject terms, An abstract is included with most citations, followed by the applicable subject terms.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2021

Enhancement of Industry Legacy Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods and Tools

Probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) are integral to nuclear power plant (NPP) operations, having tremendously benefitted the safety of the U.S. reactor fleet for decades. Insights obtained from the models have provided perspectives on a variety of applications, both at the plant and for the regulator. While these models are very useful, they are now being asked to represent and analyze aspects of the plant that were never envisioned by the initial PRA practitioners. Furthermore, heightened demands on the PRA models have led to increased computing power requirements. Additionally, as the complexity of the PRA models increased, the difficulty experienced by non-PRA experts in trying to understand these models, grasp the insights they provide, and effectively use that information has become problematic. The need for research to address key issues regarding PRA tools and methods has never been greater. Although the nuclear power industry has largely been well-served by these tools and methods, the underlying science is dated, remaining mostly unchanged for over two decades. Three areas were identified as most beneficial to address to maintain and improve the usefulness of the current practice legacy PRA tools: improvement in quantification speed, increased ability to efficiently model multi-hazard models, and improvement in modeling human action dependency in PRA. This report provides the outcomes from the FY2021 research into these three areas, identifying potential technical gaps and solutions, and charting the next steps forward to address current PRA challenges.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2013

PRA (Probabilistic Risk Assessments) Participation versus Validation

Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) are performed for projects or programs where the consequences of failure are highly undesirable. PRAs primarily address the level of risk those projects or programs posed during operations. PRAs are often developed after the design has been completed. Design and operational details used to develop models include approved and accepted design information regarding equipment, components, systems and failure data. This methodology basically validates the risk parameters of the project or system design. For high risk or high dollar projects, using PRA methodologies during the design process provides new opportunities to influence the design early in the project life cycle to identify, eliminate or mitigate potential risks. Identifying risk drivers before the design has been set allows the design engineers to understand the inherent risk of their current design and consider potential risk mitigation changes. This can become an iterative process where the PRA model can be used to determine if the mitigation technique is effective in reducing risk. This can result in more efficient and cost effective design changes. PRA methodology can be used to assess the risk of design alternatives and can demonstrate how major design changes or program modifications impact the overall program or project risk. PRA has been used for the last two decades to validate risk predictions and acceptability. Providing risk information which can positively influence final system and equipment design the PRA tool can also participate in design development, providing a safe and cost effective product.

DeMott, Diana↗
DOE OSTI2021

Probabilistic Risk Assessment Research Needs and Activities

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.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS2025

Assessment of Model Outcomes Between the Integrated Medical Model (IMM) and the Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT)

The Medical Extensible Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Tool (MEDPRAT) is a computational model that provides human health and medical risk predictions for crewed spaceflight missions. MEDPRAT utilizes discrete event modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation to predict critical mission outcomes (total medical events, crew health index, quality time lost, loss of crew life, removal to definitive care), condition occurrences, and resource consumption. Input parameters for MEDPRAT include crew attributes (e.g., sex), types of mission activities (e.g., whether and where crew members perform an extravehicular activity (EVA)), available resources, treatment information, and probability distributions for medical conditions. As an evolution of the Integrated Medical Model (IMM), MEDPRAT provides enhanced capabilities and higher fidelity, and incorporates more appropriate assumptions for long-duration spaceflight. IMM is the currently accepted standard for quantifying spaceflight mission medical risk in NASA operations that uses a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) approach. MEDPRAT builds on the same logical foundation as IMM but implements the model architecture through highly optimized Monte Carlo sampling methods. An analysis is performed comparing the outputs from IMM with those from MEDPRAT V1.0 and V2.0 for the same reference missions in order to quantify similarities and differences in the model outcomes. The juxtaposition between IMM and MEDPRAT V1.0 and 2.0 shown in this report demonstrates that these two models generate very similar results; where differences in outcomes are shown, these are in accordance with the underlying assumptions and differences in the model architectures. This validation effort further establishes the credibility and reliability of the MEDPRAT software.

Matthew T Prelich↗
NASA NTRS1995

Probabilistic risk assessment of the Space Shuttle. Phase 3: A study of the potential of losing the vehicle during nominal operation. Volume 5: Auxiliary shuttle risk analyses

Volume 5 is Appendix C, Auxiliary Shuttle Risk Analyses, and contains the following reports: Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Space Shuttle Phase 1 - Space Shuttle Catastrophic Failure Frequency Final Report; Risk Analysis Applied to the Space Shuttle Main Engine - Demonstration Project for the Main Combustion Chamber Risk Assessment; An Investigation of the Risk Implications of Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Chamber Pressure Excursions; Safety of the Thermal Protection System of the Space Shuttle Orbiter - Quantitative Analysis and Organizational Factors; Space Shuttle Main Propulsion Pressurization System Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Final Report; and Space Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment Proof-of-Concept Study - Auxiliary Power Unit and Hydraulic Power Unit Analysis Report.

Fragola, Joseph R.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Expansion of Hazards and Probabilistic Risk Assessments of a Light-Water Reactor Coupled with Electrolysis Hydrogen Production Plants

This report builds upon the body of work sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Light-Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Flexible Power Operation and Generation (FPOG) program that presented generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to light-water reactors to support the co-location of a high temperature hydrogen electrolysis facility (HTEF). Probabilistic and deterministic hazards assessments and risk analyses are leveraged throughout this report. Several improvements and new analyses are included in this report. First, higher amounts of detail in the specifications of the generic HTEFs are used to produce scaled results for a 100, 500, and 1000 MW nominal hydrogen production facility. An additional hazard assessment of 1000 kg of hydrogen storage is performed. The facility hazards and footprint are assessed to determine the safe distance required for placement near the nuclear power plant (NPP). Second, specific designs for corresponding HESs for the different levels of support required by the HTEFs are analyzed in the PRA model. Third, a hazards analysis of the specified HTEFs leads not only to effects of the quantified risk assessment for the NPP, but also qualitative hazards assessment for the community. Finally, a seismic analysis and a high winds analysis have each been added to the PRA. The results investigate the applicability of the potential licensing approaches which do not require a full United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing review. The PRAs are generic and include listed assumptions. The HTEF design built for this project has further eliminated many conservative assumptions from the prior PRAs in this series. The PRA results indicate that the 10 CFR 50.59 licensing approach is justified due to the minimal increase in initiating event frequencies for all design basis accidents, with none exceeding 7.7%. The PRA results for core damage frequency and large early release frequency support the use of NRC Regulation Guide 1.174 as further risk information that supports a change without a full licensing amendment review. The hazard analyses and PRA confirm the need for engineered blast barriers of storage tanks and the common production header leaving the HTEF. The hazards analyses and PRA also confirm with high confidence that using the assumptions of design in this report that the safety case for licensing an HES addition and an HTEF sited with its unprotected high-pressure stage components 187 meters from the NPP’s transmission towers (the most fragile structure, system, and component) is strong.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

A systematic decision-making methodology to formalize the selection of degree of realism in screening analysis of probabilistic risk assessment

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.

Alkhatib, Sari [Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and↗
NASA NTRS2019

"Making Safety Happen" Through Probabilistic Risk Assessment at NASA

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.

Applications↗
DOE OSTI2020

Incorporating FLEX Strategies in Multi-Unit Probabilistic Risk Assessment

The catastrophic Fukushima nuclear accident reminded nuclear community about the possibilities of extreme accident scenarios, including those involving multiple reactor units on the same site. As the responses to the Fukushima accident, the nuclear power industry developed and implemented a series of strategies, including the Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX), to enhance the coping capacities of nuclear power plants (NPPs) under extreme accidents. This study intends to examine the impact of FLEX strategies on the risk from all the reactor units on the same NPP site, including risks from accidents involving a single unit and from accidents involving multiple units. The fundamental, methodological element of this study is Multi-Unit Probabilistic Risk Assessment (MUPRA), which requires a shift in Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) from a “one-reactor-at-a-time” mindset to a “considering all reactors sharing a site as a unity” one. An integrated modeling approach for multi-unit event sequence development will be leveraged to develop MUPRA model and address the intra-unit and inter-unit dependencies. Systems Analysis Programs for Hands-on Integrated Reliability Evaluations (SAPHIRE), a PRA software developed and maintained by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), will serve as the platform for MUPRA modeling. This study selects Loss Of Offsite Power (LOOP) as a representative initiating event, which may occur on a generic two-unit NPP site and impacts both reactor units on the site. First, an MUPRA model, including multi-unit event trees, will be developed to obtain single-unit and multi-unit accident scenarios. Next, different FLEX strategies will be assumed, including FLEX equipment for a unit cannot be used for another unit, FLEX equipment for multiple units can be used in a cross-connected manner, etc. Lastly, the effectiveness of each postulated FLEX strategy will be evaluated by incorporating the corresponding FLEX equipment and deployment logic in the MUPRA model.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Use of Flooding Probabilistic Risk Assessment

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

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗