FMEDA and FIT-Based Safety Assessment of NPP I&C Systems Considering Expert Uncertainty

A. Yasko, E. Babeshko, V. Kharchenko
{"title":"FMEDA and FIT-Based Safety Assessment of NPP I&C Systems Considering Expert Uncertainty","authors":"A. Yasko, E. Babeshko, V. Kharchenko","doi":"10.1115/ICONE26-82048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The complexity of modern safety critical systems is becoming higher with technology level growth. Nowadays the most important and vital systems of automotive, aerospace, nuclear industries count millions of lines of software code and tens of thousands of hardware components and sensors. All of these constituents operate in integrated environment interacting with each other — this leads to enormous calculation task when testing and safety assessment are performed. There are several formal methods that are used to assess reliability and safety of NPP I&C (Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation and Control) systems. Most of them require significant involvement of experts and confidence in their experience which vastly affects trustworthiness of assessment results. The goal of our research is to improve the quality of safety and reliability assessment as result of experts involvement mitigation by process automation. We propose usage of automated FMEDA (Failure Modes, Effects and Diagnostic Analysis) and FIT (Fault Insertion Testing) combination extended whith multiple faults approach as well as special methods for quantitative assessment of experts involvement level and their decisions uncertainty. These methods allow to perform safety and reliability assessment without specifying the degree of confidence in experts. Traditional FMEDA approach has several bottlenecks like the need of manual processing of huge number of technical documents (system specification, datasheets etc.), manual assignment of failure modes and effects based on personal experience. Human factor is another source of uncertainty. Such things like tiredness, emotional disorders, distraction or lack of experience could be the reasons of under- and over-estimation. Basing on our research in field of expert-related errors we propose expert involvement degree (EID) metric that indicates the level of technique automation and expert uncertainty degree (EUD) metric which is complex measure of experts decisions uncertainty within assessment. We propose usage of total expert trustworthiness degree (ETD) indicator as function of EID and EUD. Expert uncertainty assessment and Multi-FIT as FMEDA verification are implemented in AXMEA (Automated X-Modes and Effects Analysis) software tool. Proposed Multi-FIT technique in combination with FMEDA was used during internal activities of SIL3 certification of FPGA-based (Field Programmable Gate Array) RadICS platform for NPP I&C systems. The proposed expert trustworthiness degree calculation is going to be used during production activities of RPC Radiy (Research and Production Corporation). Our future work is related to research in expert uncertainty field and extension of AXMEA tool with new failure data sources as well as software optimization and further automation.","PeriodicalId":65607,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Plant Engineering and Management","volume":"133 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Plant Engineering and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1089","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/ICONE26-82048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The complexity of modern safety critical systems is becoming higher with technology level growth. Nowadays the most important and vital systems of automotive, aerospace, nuclear industries count millions of lines of software code and tens of thousands of hardware components and sensors. All of these constituents operate in integrated environment interacting with each other — this leads to enormous calculation task when testing and safety assessment are performed. There are several formal methods that are used to assess reliability and safety of NPP I&C (Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation and Control) systems. Most of them require significant involvement of experts and confidence in their experience which vastly affects trustworthiness of assessment results. The goal of our research is to improve the quality of safety and reliability assessment as result of experts involvement mitigation by process automation. We propose usage of automated FMEDA (Failure Modes, Effects and Diagnostic Analysis) and FIT (Fault Insertion Testing) combination extended whith multiple faults approach as well as special methods for quantitative assessment of experts involvement level and their decisions uncertainty. These methods allow to perform safety and reliability assessment without specifying the degree of confidence in experts. Traditional FMEDA approach has several bottlenecks like the need of manual processing of huge number of technical documents (system specification, datasheets etc.), manual assignment of failure modes and effects based on personal experience. Human factor is another source of uncertainty. Such things like tiredness, emotional disorders, distraction or lack of experience could be the reasons of under- and over-estimation. Basing on our research in field of expert-related errors we propose expert involvement degree (EID) metric that indicates the level of technique automation and expert uncertainty degree (EUD) metric which is complex measure of experts decisions uncertainty within assessment. We propose usage of total expert trustworthiness degree (ETD) indicator as function of EID and EUD. Expert uncertainty assessment and Multi-FIT as FMEDA verification are implemented in AXMEA (Automated X-Modes and Effects Analysis) software tool. Proposed Multi-FIT technique in combination with FMEDA was used during internal activities of SIL3 certification of FPGA-based (Field Programmable Gate Array) RadICS platform for NPP I&C systems. The proposed expert trustworthiness degree calculation is going to be used during production activities of RPC Radiy (Research and Production Corporation). Our future work is related to research in expert uncertainty field and extension of AXMEA tool with new failure data sources as well as software optimization and further automation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考虑专家不确定性的核电厂I&C系统FMEDA和fit安全评估
随着技术水平的提高,现代安全关键系统的复杂性也越来越高。如今,汽车、航空航天、核工业中最重要、最关键的系统都有数百万行软件代码和数以万计的硬件组件和传感器。所有这些组件都在集成环境中相互作用,这导致在进行测试和安全评估时需要进行大量的计算任务。有几种正式的方法用于评估NPP I&C(核电站仪表和控制)系统的可靠性和安全性。其中大多数需要专家的大量参与和对其经验的信心,这极大地影响了评估结果的可信度。我们的研究目标是通过过程自动化来减少专家参与,从而提高安全性和可靠性评估的质量。本文提出了采用自动化故障模式、影响和诊断分析(FMEDA)和故障插入测试(FIT)相结合的多故障分析方法,以及专家参与程度和决策不确定性的定量评估方法。这些方法允许在不指定专家信任程度的情况下进行安全性和可靠性评估。传统的FMEDA方法有几个瓶颈,如需要手工处理大量的技术文件(系统规格书、数据表等),根据个人经验手动分配故障模式和影响。人为因素是不确定性的另一个来源。疲劳、情绪障碍、注意力分散或缺乏经验等都可能是低估或高估的原因。在对专家相关误差研究的基础上,提出了反映技术自动化程度的专家介入度(EID)度量和评估中专家决策不确定性的复杂度量专家不确定度(EUD)度量。我们提出使用专家总信誉度(ETD)指标作为EID和EUD的函数。专家不确定度评估和Multi-FIT作为FMEDA验证在AXMEA(自动化x模式和效果分析)软件工具中实现。将提出的Multi-FIT技术与FMEDA相结合,用于核电厂I&C系统基于fpga(现场可编程门阵列)RadICS平台SIL3认证的内部活动。提出的专家信誉度计算方法将应用于RPC Radiy公司的生产活动中。我们未来的工作将涉及到专家不确定性领域的研究和扩展AXMEA工具与新的故障数据源,以及软件优化和进一步自动化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
768
期刊最新文献
Preliminary LOCA Analysis of Heating-Reactor of Advanced Low-Pressurized and Passive Safety System (HAPPY) Estimation of Mitigation Effects of Sodium Nanofluid for SGTR Accidents in SFR Prediction and Sensibility Analysis for Nuclear Safety-Critical Software Reliability of DCS Numerical Study on the Two-Phase Flow for a Gas/Liquid Metal Magnetohydrodynamic Generator Simulated Training Instrument of Nuclear Radiation Reconnaissance Based on an Improved Ellipse Numerical Model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1