A Benchmark System for Comparing Reliability Modeling Approaches for Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems

Abstract There is an accelerating trend to upgrade and replace nuclear power plant analog instrumentation and control systems with digital systems. While various methodologies are available for the reliability modeling of these systems for plant probabilistic risk assessments, there is no benchmark system that can be used as the basis for methodology comparison. A system representative of the steam generator feedwater control systems in pressurized water reactors is proposed for such a comparison. Dynamic reliability modeling of the benchmark system for an example initiating event is illustrated using the Markov/cell-to-cell mapping technique and dynamic flowgraph methodologies.

[1]  P. C. Cacciabue,et al.  Dynamic logical analytical methodology versus fault tree: the case study of the auxiliary feedwater system of a nuclear power plant , 1986 .

[2]  Yu-Shu Hu.  Evaluating system behavior through dynamic master logic diagram modeling , 1995 .

[3]  Sergio B. Guarro,et al.  The use of prime implicants in dependability analysis of software controlled systems , 1998 .

[4]  Tunc Aldemir.  Quantifying setpoint drift effects in the failure analysis of process control systems , 1989 .

[5]  Curtis Smith,et al.  Construction of event-tree/fault-tree models from a Markov approach to dynamic system reliability , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[6]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  Parameter estimation toward fault diagnosis in nonlinear systems using a Markov model of system dynamics , 1997 .

[7]  Michael Yau,et al.  Development of tools for safety analysis of control software in advanced reactors , 1996 .

[8]  Carol Smidts,et al.  Integrating Software into PRA: A Test‐Based Approach , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[9]  Diego Mandelli,et al.  A benchmark system for the assessment of reliability modeling methods for digital instrumentation and control systems in nuclear plants , 2006 .

[10]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  The Byzantine Generals Problem , 1982, TOPL.

[11]  J. Devooght,et al.  Probabilistic Reactor Dynamics —I: The Theory of Continuous Event Trees , 1992 .

[12]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[13]  Alessandro Giua,et al.  Guest Editorial , 2001, Discrete event dynamic systems.

[14]  Hiromitsu Kumamoto,et al.  Top-down Algorithm for Obtaining Prime Implicant Sets of Non-Coherent Fault Trees , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[15]  Sang Joon Kim,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Communication , 2006 .

[16]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Monte Carlo approach to PSA for dynamic process systems , 1996 .

[17]  Yi Zhang,et al.  Development of a Method for Quantifying the Reliability of Nuclear Safety-Related Software , 2003 .

[18]  Norman F. Schneidewind,et al.  Applying reliability models to the space shuttle , 1992, IEEE Software.

[19]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  A data base oriented dynamic methodology for the failure analysis of closed loop control systems in process plant , 1990 .

[20]  N. Siu,et al.  Dynamic event trees in accident sequence analysis: application to steam generator tube rupture , 1993 .

[21]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  Process reliability and safety under uncertainties , 1996 .

[22]  Hyun Gook Kang,et al.  An analysis of safety-critical digital systems for risk-informed design , 2002, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[23]  Mukesh Singhal,et al.  Advanced Concepts In Operating Systems , 1994 .

[24]  Mohammad Modarres,et al.  Function-centered modeling of engineering systems using the goal tree–success tree technique and functional primitives , 1999 .

[25]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  Computer-Assisted Markov Failure Modeling of Process Control Systems , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[26]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[27]  Antoine Rauzy,et al.  New algorithms for fault trees analysis , 1993 .