Hierarchical planning and multi-level scheduling for simulation-based probabilistic risk assessment

ABSTRACT

Simulation of dynamic complex systems---specifically, those comprised of large numbers of components with stochastic behaviors---for the purpose of probabilistic risk assessment faces challenges in every aspect of the problem. Scenario generation confronts many impediments, one being the problem of handling the large number of scenarios without compromising completeness. Probability estimation and consequence determination processes must also be performed under real world constraints on time and resources. In the approach outlined in this paper, hierarchical planning is utilized to generate a relatively small but complete group of risk scenarios to represent the unsafe behaviors of the system. Multi-level scheduling makes the probability estimation and consequence determination processes more efficient and affordable. The scenario generation and scheduling processes both benefit from an updating process that takes place after a number of simulation runs by fine-tuning the scheduler's level adjustment parameters and refining the planner's high level system model.

REFERENCES

• 1: Birnbaum, Z. W., 1969, On the importance of different components in a multicomponent system: Multivariate Analysis 11, P. R. Krishnaiah, ed., Academic Press.
• 2: Cojazzi, G., 1996, The DYLAM approach for the dynamic reliability analysis of systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 52:279--296.
• 3: Devooght, J., and C. Smidts. 1999, Probabilistic reactor dynamics. The theory of continuous event trees. Nuclear Science and Engineering 111:229--40.
• 4: Hsueh, K. S., and A. Mosleh. 1996. The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 52:297--314.
• 5: Hu, Y., F. Groen, and A. Mosleh. 2004. An Entropy-Based Exploration Strategy in Dynamic PRA. International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM7).
• 6: Hu, Y., H. Nejad, D. Zhu, and A. Mosleh. 2006. Solution of the Phased-Mission Benchmark Problem Using the SimPRA Dynamic PRA Approach. International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM) 2006.
• 7: Labeaua, P. E., C. Smidts, and S. Swaminathan. 2000. Dynamic reliability: towards an integrated platform for probabilistic risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 68:219--254
• 8: Lindley, D. V. 1956. On the Measure of Information Provided by an Experiment. Annals of Statistics 27:986--1005.
• 9: Mosleh, A., F. Groen, Y. Hu, H. Nejad, D. Zhu, and T. Piers. 2004. Simulation-Based Probabilistic Risk Analysis Report, Center for Risk and Reliability, University of Maryland.
• 10: Nejad, H., and A. Mosleh. 2005. Automated Risk Scenario Generation Using System Functional and Structural Knowledge. In Proceedings of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition.
• 11: Shannon, C. E. 1948. Mathematical theory of communication. The Bell Labs Technical Journal 379--457.
• 12: Claude E. Shannon , Warren Weaver, A Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL, 1963
• 13: Smidts, C. 1994. Probabilistic dynamics: a comparison between continuous event trees and a discrete event tree model. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 44:189--206.
• 14: Zhu, D., A. Mosleh, and C. Smidts. 2005. Software Modeling Framework for Dynamic PRA. European Safety & Reliability Conference 2005 2099--2107.
• 15: Zhu, D., A. Mosleh, and C. Smidts. 2006. A Framework to Integrate Software Behavior into Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety (forthcoming).