Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제51권2호
  • /
  • Pages.463-478
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Architectural model driven dependability analysis of computer based safety system in nuclear power plant

  • 투고 : 2018.01.19
  • 심사 : 2018.10.19
  • 발행 : 2019.04.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The most important non-functional requirements for dependability of any Embedded Real-Time Safety Systems are safety, availability and reliability requirements. System architecture plays the primary role in achieving these requirements. Compliance with these non-functional requirements should be ensured early in the development cycle with appropriate considerations during architectural design. In this paper, we present an application of system architecture modeling for quantitative assessment of system dependability. We use probabilistic model checker (PRISM), for dependability analysis of the DTMC model derived from system architecture model. In general, the model checking techniques do not scale well for analyzing large systems, because of prohibitively large state space. It limits the use of model checking techniques in analyzing the systems of practical interest. We propose abstraction based compositional analysis methodology to circumvent this limitation. The effectiveness of the proposed methodology has been demonstrated using the case study involving the dependability analysis of safety system of a large Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR).

키워드

참고문헌

  1. AERB, AERB/NPP-PHWR/SG/D-10, AERB Safety Guide: Safety Systems for Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors, 2005.
  2. AERB, AERB/NPP-PHWR/SG/D-25, AERB Safety Guide: Computer Based Systems of Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors, 2010.
  3. A. Biere, A. Cimatti, E. Clarke, Y. Zhu, Symbolic model checking without bdds, in: W.R. Cleaveland (Ed.), Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999, pp. 193-207.
  4. E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, S. Jha, Y. Lu, H. Veith, Progress on the State Explosion Problem in Model Checking, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001, pp. 176-194.
  5. E.M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, D. Peled, Model Checking, MIT press, 1999.
  6. P. Feiler, Open Source AADL Tool Environment (OSATE), AADL Workshop, Paris, 2004.
  7. P.H. Feiler, D.P. Gluch, Model-based Engineering with AADL: an Introduction to the SAE Architecture Analysis & Design Language, first ed., Addison-Wesley Professional, 2012.
  8. M. Huth, M. Ryan, Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning about Systems, Cambridge university press, 2004.
  9. IAEA, Dependability Assessment of Software for Safety Instrumentation and Control Systems at Nuclear Power Plants. Number NP-T-3.27 in IAEA Nuclear Energy Series, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2018.
  10. IEC, IEC Std-61508: Functional Safety of Electrical/electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety Related Systems, 2010.
  11. IEEE, Std-603: IEEE Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, Nov 2009.
  12. IEEE, Ieee Standard Criteria for Programmable Digital Devices in Safety Systems of Nuclear Power Generating Stations. IEEE Std 7-4.3.2-2016 (Revision of IEEE Std 7-4.3.2-2010), Aug 2016, pp. 1-86.
  13. A. Kabra, G. Karmakar, M. Kumar, P. Marathe, Sensitivity analysis of safety system architectures, in: Industrial Instrumentation and Control (ICIC), 2015 International Conference on, IEEE, 2015, pp. 846-851.
  14. M. Kumar, A.K. Verma, A. Srividya, Analyzing effect of demand rate on safety of systems with periodic proof-tests, Int. J. Autom. Comput. 4 (4) (2007) 335-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-007-0335-6
  15. M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, D. Parker, PRISM: probabilistic symbolic model checker, in: International Conference on Modelling Techniques and Tools for Computer Performance Evaluation, Springer, 2002, pp. 200-204.
  16. M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, D. Parker, PRISM 4.0: verification of probabilistic real-time systems, in: G. Gopalakrishnan, S. Qadeer (Eds.), Proc. 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV'11), Volume 6806 of LNCS, Springer, 2011, pp. 585-591.
  17. L. Meshkat, J.B. Dugan, J.D. Andrews, Dependability analysis of systems with on-demand and active failure modes, using dynamic fault trees, IEEE Trans. Reliab. 51 (2) (Jun 2002) 240-251. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.2002.1011531
  18. V.P. NELSON, Fault-tolerant computing: fundamental concepts, IEEE Trans. Comput. 23 (1994) 86-98.
  19. J. Rouvroye, A. Brombacher, New quantitative safety standards: different techniques, different results? Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 66 (2) (1999) 121-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(99)00028-9
  20. A. SAE, SAE Architecture Analysis and Design Language (AADL) Annex Volume 1: Annex a: Graphical AADL Notation. Annex C: AADL Meta-model and Interchange Formats, Annex D: Language Compliance and Application Program Interface Annex E: Error Model Annex, 2011. AS5506/1.