An exploration of PRA methodology used in spacecraft design

C. Mattenberger, H. Nejad
{"title":"An exploration of PRA methodology used in spacecraft design","authors":"C. Mattenberger, H. Nejad","doi":"10.1109/RAMS.2013.6517726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In order to achieve an optimal design of a complex space system that meets all constraints, the requirements placed upon the performance, mass, cost, and risk of the system must be considered, understood and traded against each other during the conceptual design of the system to avoid costly redesigns or project cancellation later in the development process. A design process that follows this tenet of risk-informed design will need detailed insight into the relative risks facing the system, as well as quantitative estimates that can be produced through probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), in order to evaluate design decisions based upon the impact to all requirements on a co-equal basis. In this study, four types of methodologies used to produce risk estimates for spacecraft and satellites are examined. These include two traditional PRA methodologies, an innovative approach, and a top-down approach, all of which are explored by using the propulsion subsystem of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) as a comparative basis for the methodologies considered. Similarities, differences, benefits, and drawbacks of various bottom-up, component-based PRA approaches and the top-down approach are elucidated in terms of the process of modeling a system, the actionable information produced for the design team, and the overall quantitative risk evaluation of the system as compared to similar heritage space systems. Results of the various PRA methodologies are examined at the level of component failure rates, single-component failure probabilities, single-function failure probabilities where redundancy exists in the design, as well as the subsystem failure probability for the nominal LRO mission. Ultimately, all of the bottom-up, component-based PRA methods capture only the risk of a mature system and miss the risk contribution of design defects, which have been shown to be key drivers of reliability in single-use developmental systems. Therefore, further steps must be taken to incorporate this contribution in future PRA methodologies.","PeriodicalId":189714,"journal":{"name":"2013 Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS)","volume":"146 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2013 Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RAMS.2013.6517726","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

In order to achieve an optimal design of a complex space system that meets all constraints, the requirements placed upon the performance, mass, cost, and risk of the system must be considered, understood and traded against each other during the conceptual design of the system to avoid costly redesigns or project cancellation later in the development process. A design process that follows this tenet of risk-informed design will need detailed insight into the relative risks facing the system, as well as quantitative estimates that can be produced through probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), in order to evaluate design decisions based upon the impact to all requirements on a co-equal basis. In this study, four types of methodologies used to produce risk estimates for spacecraft and satellites are examined. These include two traditional PRA methodologies, an innovative approach, and a top-down approach, all of which are explored by using the propulsion subsystem of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) as a comparative basis for the methodologies considered. Similarities, differences, benefits, and drawbacks of various bottom-up, component-based PRA approaches and the top-down approach are elucidated in terms of the process of modeling a system, the actionable information produced for the design team, and the overall quantitative risk evaluation of the system as compared to similar heritage space systems. Results of the various PRA methodologies are examined at the level of component failure rates, single-component failure probabilities, single-function failure probabilities where redundancy exists in the design, as well as the subsystem failure probability for the nominal LRO mission. Ultimately, all of the bottom-up, component-based PRA methods capture only the risk of a mature system and miss the risk contribution of design defects, which have been shown to be key drivers of reliability in single-use developmental systems. Therefore, further steps must be taken to incorporate this contribution in future PRA methodologies.
PRA方法在航天器设计中的应用探讨
为了实现满足所有约束条件的复杂空间系统的最佳设计,在系统的概念设计期间,必须考虑、理解和权衡对系统的性能、质量、成本和风险的要求,以避免在开发过程后期进行昂贵的重新设计或项目取消。遵循风险知情设计原则的设计过程需要详细了解系统面临的相对风险,以及可以通过概率风险评估(PRA)产生的定量估计,以便在共同平等的基础上基于对所有需求的影响评估设计决策。在本研究中,审查了用于对航天器和卫星进行风险估计的四种方法。这些方法包括两种传统的PRA方法,一种创新方法和一种自上而下的方法,所有这些方法都是通过使用月球侦察轨道器(LRO)的推进子系统作为所考虑方法的比较基础来探索的。从系统建模过程、为设计团队提供的可操作信息、系统与类似遗产空间系统的整体定量风险评估等方面,阐述了自底向上、基于组件的PRA方法与自顶向下的PRA方法的异同、优缺点。各种PRA方法的结果在组件故障率、单组件故障概率、设计中存在冗余的单一功能故障概率以及标称LRO任务的子系统故障概率的水平上进行检查。最终,所有自下而上、基于组件的PRA方法都只捕获了成熟系统的风险,而忽略了设计缺陷的风险贡献,而设计缺陷已被证明是单用途开发系统可靠性的关键驱动因素。因此,必须采取进一步步骤将这一贡献纳入未来的PRA方法。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信