A methodology for the quantitative evaluation of NPP fault diagnostic systems dynamic aspects

Abstract A fault diagnostic system (FDS) is an operator decision support system which is implemented both to increase NPP efficiency as well as to reduce human error and cognitive workload that may cause nuclear power plant (NPP) accidents. Evaluation is an indispensable activity in constructing a reliable FDS. We first define the dynamic aspects of fault diagnostic systems (FDSs) for evaluation in this work. The dynamic aspect is concerned with the way a FDS responds to input. Next, we present a hierarchical structure in the evaluation for the dynamic aspects of FDSs. Dynamic aspects include both what a FDS provides and how a FDS operates. We define the former as content and the latter as behavior. Content and behavior contain two elements and six elements in the lower hierarchies, respectively. Content is a criterion for evaluating the integrity of a FDS, the problem types which a FDS deals with, along with the level of information. Behavior contains robustness, understandability, timeliness, transparency, effectiveness, and communicativeness of FDSs. On the other hand, the static aspects are concerned with the hardware and the software of the system. For quantitative evaluation, the method used to gain and aggregate the priorities of the criteria in this work is the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The criteria at the lowest level are quantified through simple numerical expressions and questionnaires developed in this work. these well describe the characteristics of the criteria and appropriately use subjective, empirical, and technical methods. Finally, in order to demonstrate the feasibility of our evaluation method, we have performed one case study for the fault diagnosis module of OASYS™ (On-Line Operator Aid SYStem for Nuclear Power Plant), which is an operator support system developed at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST).

[1]  Carlos Ferregut,et al.  Toward an expert system for damage assessment of structural concrete elements , 1995, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[2]  Norio Naito,et al.  A real-time expert system for nuclear power plant failure diagnosis and operational guide , 1987 .

[3]  Leonard Adelman,et al.  Evaluating decision support and expert systems , 1991 .

[4]  Paul E. Lehner,et al.  User and R&D specialist evaluation of decision-support systems , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[5]  Jay Liebowitz,et al.  Useful approach for evaluating expert systems , 1986 .

[6]  Leonard Adelman,et al.  Experiments, quasi-experiments, and case studies: A review of empirical methods for evaluating decision support systems , 1991, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[7]  J. Naser,et al.  Alarm Processing System , 1989 .

[8]  P. Legaud Processing of alarms by means of an expert system , 1988 .

[9]  Ananth Srinivasan,et al.  Alternative Measures of Systems Effectiveness: Associations and Implications , 1985, MIS Q..

[10]  William J. Doll,et al.  The Measurement of End-User Computing Satisfaction , 1988, MIS Q..

[11]  M. R. Herbert,et al.  An initial evaluation of the detection and diagnosis of power plant faults using a deep knowledge representation of physical behaviour , 1987 .

[12]  William R. Nelson,et al.  REACTOR: An Expert System for Diagnosis and Treatment of Nuclear Reactor Accidents , 1982, AAAI.

[13]  Souriar Sebastian Erratum: fuzzy subgroups and anti fuzzy subgroups: Fuzzy Sets and Systems 35 (1990) 121–124 , 1994 .

[14]  Keith Levi,et al.  Expert systems should be more accurate than human experts: evaluation procedures from human judgement and decision making , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[15]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[16]  Denis Borenstein,et al.  Towards a practical method to validate decision support systems , 1998, Decis. Support Syst..

[17]  Kazuo Yoshida,et al.  Development of reactor accident diagnostic system DISKET using knowledge engineering technique. , 1986 .

[18]  Ching-Hsue Cheng,et al.  Evaluating weapon system using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on entropy weight , 1994, Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems..

[19]  P.Eon Duval,et al.  SODEXPERT: A control room expert system for PWR secondary system chemical contamination diagnosis , 1991 .

[20]  Fatemeh Zahedi,et al.  A method for quantitative evaluation of expert systems , 1990 .

[21]  Giancarlo Mauri,et al.  Evaluating Performance and Quality of Knowledge-Based Systems: Foundation and Methodology , 1993, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[22]  R. P. Martin,et al.  A best-estimate paradigm for diagnosis of multiple failure transients in nuclear power plants using artificial intelligence , 1990 .

[23]  S. P. Dutta,et al.  Use of the analytic hierarchy process in ergonomic analysis , 1992 .

[24]  G. Fliedner,et al.  Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with analytic hierarchy process , 1995 .

[25]  Rolf Isermann,et al.  Process fault detection based on modeling and estimation methods - A survey , 1984, Autom..

[26]  Gary Klein,et al.  User evaluation of information systems: by system typology , 1999, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[27]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  A Qualitative Physics Based on Confluences , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[28]  Bill K.-H. Sun,et al.  An expert system approach for safety diagnosis , 1988 .

[29]  Sergio B. Guarro A logic flowgraph based concept for decision support and management of nuclear plant operation , 1987 .

[30]  John A. Bernard,et al.  Expert Systems Applications Within the Nuclear Industry , 1989 .