Modeling method and device for reliability model of nuclear power unit

Abstract

The invention relates to a modeling method and device for a reliability model of a nuclear power unit. The method comprises the following steps: acquiring a system data label from a reliability modeling database, and establishing a fault logic relationship between a system and a nuclear power unit based on the system data label to obtain a unit level reliability model; associating an equipment graph in a system flow chart corresponding to the system with an equipment data label in a reliability modeling database, and establishing a fault relationship of the equipment based on the equipment data label to obtain a system level reliability model; and integrating the unit level reliability model and the system level reliability model to obtain a reliability model of the nuclear power unit. By adopting the method, the modeling efficiency can be improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of nuclear power technology, and in particular to a modeling method and apparatus for a reliability model of a nuclear power unit. Background Technology

[0002] Nuclear power unit reliability generally refers to the ability of a nuclear power unit to continuously and stably generate electricity and meet relevant performance indicators under specified operating conditions and within a specified operating time. Its core lies in measuring the unit's ability to resist faults, avoid unplanned shutdowns and outages, and maintain stable operation under normal operation and anticipated transient conditions. To assess the reliability level of a nuclear power unit, a reliability model needs to be established. Based on this model, the probability of a shutdown or outage due to random equipment failures during power operation can be calculated, identifying key equipment affecting the reliability of the nuclear power unit. Therefore, by developing reliability improvement measures for key equipment, the number of shutdowns and outages caused by random equipment failures can be reduced, and the downtime can be decreased, thereby improving the reliability of the nuclear power unit.

[0003] In traditional techniques, an undesirable failure event is usually taken as the object of analysis. Through a strict top-down hierarchical failure causal logic analysis, the necessary and sufficient direct causes of the failure event are identified layer by layer, and a fault tree or reliability block diagram is drawn to obtain a reliability model.

[0004] For systems / equipment with relatively simple structures, this reliability modeling method can directly identify all possible causes leading to the top event. However, nuclear power units contain tens of thousands of devices, and using traditional reliability modeling methods requires extensive manual failure mode and effects analysis, resulting in low modeling efficiency. Summary of the Invention

[0005] Therefore, it is necessary to provide a modeling method and apparatus for the reliability model of nuclear power units that can improve modeling efficiency in response to the above-mentioned technical problems.

[0006] Firstly, this application provides a modeling method for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit. The method includes: obtaining system data tags from a reliability modeling database; establishing a fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit based on the system data tags to obtain a unit-level reliability model; associating the equipment diagrams in the system flowchart corresponding to the system with the equipment data tags in the reliability modeling database, and establishing a fault relationship between the equipment based on the equipment data tags to obtain a system-level reliability model; and integrating the unit-level reliability model and the system-level reliability model to obtain a reliability model of the nuclear power unit.

[0007] In one embodiment, the system data tag includes a system definition item; establishing a fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit based on the system data tag includes: if the system definition item indicates that the system is a reliability-related system, then establishing a fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit.

[0008] In one embodiment, the device data tag includes a device definition item; establishing a fault relationship of the device based on the device data tag includes: if the device definition item indicates that the device is a reliability-related device, then establishing a fault relationship of the device.

[0009] In one embodiment, the device failure relationship includes at least one of the following;

[0010] Fault logic relationships between equipment and systems;

[0011] The common-cause failure relationship between the equipment and the common-cause equipment;

[0012] Fault logic relationships between equipment, support systems, and boundary devices.

[0013] In one embodiment, the device data tag further includes a device fault logic relationship definition item; establishing the device fault relationship includes: if the device fault logic relationship definition item is serial, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as an OR gate; serial means that a device fault leads to a system fault; if the device fault logic relationship definition item is parallel, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as an AND gate; parallel means that both the device and its backup device fail, leading to a system fault; if the device fault logic relationship definition item is voting, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as a voting gate; voting means that a voting method is used to determine whether the device will cause a system fault.

[0014] In one embodiment, the device data tag includes a device common cause failure relationship definition item; establishing the device failure relationship includes: if the device common cause failure relationship definition item indicates that the device is a common cause failure device, then the common cause device of the device is obtained, and a common cause failure relationship between the device and the common cause device is established.

[0015] In one embodiment, the device data tag includes a device support system definition item; establishing the device fault relationship includes: if the device support system definition item indicates that the device has a support system, then obtaining the support system and the boundary devices in the support system used to support the device, and establishing the fault logic relationship between the device and the support system and the boundary devices.

[0016] In one embodiment, the method further includes: periodically scanning the reliability modeling database to obtain update information of the reliability modeling database; and updating the reliability model based on the update information to obtain an updated reliability model.

[0017] In one embodiment, the method further includes: determining, based on the system's design information, whether a system failure affects the reliability of the nuclear power unit; if so, setting the system definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system in the reliability modeling database as a reliability-related system; if not, setting the system definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system in the reliability modeling database as a non-reliability-related system.

[0018] In one embodiment, the method further includes: determining, based on the equipment's design information, whether a failure of the equipment affects the reliability of the nuclear power unit; if so, setting the equipment definition item in the equipment data tag corresponding to the equipment as a reliability-related device; if not, setting the equipment definition item in the equipment data tag corresponding to the equipment as a non-reliability-related device.

[0019] In one embodiment, the method further includes: when the device is a reliability-related device, setting at least one definition item in the device data tag corresponding to the device according to the device's configuration in the system, wherein the at least one definition item includes at least one of a device fault logic relationship definition item, a device common cause fault relationship definition item, and a device support system definition item.

[0020] Secondly, this application also provides a modeling apparatus for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit, the apparatus comprising:

[0021] The first construction module is used to obtain system data tags from the reliability modeling database, and establish the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit based on the system data tags in order to obtain the unit-level reliability model.

[0022] The second construction module is used to associate the device diagram in the system flowchart with the device data tags in the reliability modeling database, and to establish the fault relationship of the device based on the device data tags in order to obtain the system-level reliability model.

[0023] The integration module is used to integrate the unit-level reliability model and the system-level reliability model to obtain the reliability model of the nuclear power unit.

[0024] Thirdly, this application also provides a computer device, including a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the steps of the method described in any one of the first aspects above.

[0025] Fourthly, this application also provides a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the method described in any one of the first aspects above.

[0026] Fifthly, this application also provides a computer program product, including a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the method described in any one of the first aspects above.

[0027] The aforementioned modeling method and apparatus for the reliability model of nuclear power units obtains system data tags from a reliability modeling database, establishes fault logic relationships between the system and the nuclear power unit based on the system data tags to obtain a unit-level reliability model, then associates the equipment diagrams in the corresponding system flowchart with the equipment data tags in the reliability modeling database, and establishes fault relationships between the equipment based on the equipment data tags to obtain a system-level reliability model. Finally, the unit-level reliability model and the system-level reliability model are integrated to obtain the reliability model of the nuclear power unit. In this way, through system flowcharts, system data tags, and equipment data tags, automated modeling of the reliability model of nuclear power units is achieved, which improves modeling efficiency and accuracy compared to traditional reliability modeling methods. Attached Figure Description

[0028] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of this application or related technologies, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments of this application or related technologies will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of this application. For those skilled in the art, other related drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0029] Figure 1 This is an application environment diagram of the modeling method for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit in one embodiment;

[0030] Figure 2 This is a flowchart illustrating a modeling method for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit in one embodiment.

[0031] Figure 3 This is a flowchart illustrating the modeling method for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit in another embodiment;

[0032] Figure 4 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for defining system data tags in one embodiment;

[0033] Figure 5 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for creating device data tags in one embodiment;

[0034] Figure 6 This is a structural block diagram of a modeling device for a reliability model of a nuclear power unit in one embodiment;

[0035] Figure 7 This is an internal structural diagram of a computer device in one embodiment. Detailed Implementation

[0036] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of this application clearer, the following detailed description is provided in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and embodiments. It should be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative and not intended to limit the scope of this application.

[0037] It should be noted that the terms "first," "second," etc., used in this application can be used to describe various elements, but these elements are not limited by these terms. These terms are only used to distinguish the first element from the second element. The terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, used in this application, are intended to cover non-exclusive inclusion. The term "multiple" used in this application refers to two or more. The term "and / or" used in this application refers to one of the embodiments, or any combination of multiple embodiments.

[0038] The modeling method for the reliability model of nuclear power units provided in this application embodiment can be applied to, for example... Figure 1 In the application environment shown, terminal 102 communicates with server 104 via a network. A data storage system can store the data that server 104 needs to process. The data storage system can be integrated onto server 104, or it can be located in the cloud or on other network servers. Terminal 102 can be, but is not limited to, various personal computers, laptops, smartphones, and tablets. Server 104 can be a standalone physical server, a server cluster or distributed system consisting of multiple physical servers, or a cloud server providing cloud computing services.

[0039] In one exemplary embodiment, such as Figure 2 As shown, a modeling method for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit is provided, and this method is applied to... Figure 1 Taking the terminal in the example, the explanation includes the following steps 201 to 203. Wherein:

[0040] Step 201: Obtain system data tags from the reliability modeling database, and establish the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit based on the system data tags to obtain the unit-level reliability model.

[0041] A nuclear power unit comprises multiple systems, each containing multiple devices. The reliability modeling database stores system data tags for each system, pre-determined based on the system's design information. As shown in Table 1, the system data tags include system definition items and system fault logic relationship definition items. It is also understood that the system data tags may include a system identifier, with each system corresponding to a unique system identifier.

[0042] Table 1 System Data Tags

[0043]

[0044] The system definition field is a label used to indicate whether a system is reliability-related or non-reliability-related. If a system's system data label indicates that the system is reliability-related, it means that a failure in this system during the nuclear power unit's operation at full power will affect the reliability of the nuclear power unit. If a system's system data label indicates that the system is non-reliability-related, it means that a failure in this system during the nuclear power unit's operation at full power will not affect the reliability of the nuclear power unit.

[0045] The system fault logic relationship definition field is a label used to indicate whether the fault relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit is series, parallel, or voting. If the system fault logic relationship definition field in a system's system data label is series, it means that a fault in that system will directly lead to a nuclear power unit fault. If the system fault logic relationship definition field in a system's system data label is parallel, it means that if a fault in that system occurs, other backup systems can still perform the same function, and a nuclear power unit fault will only occur if both that system and its backup systems fail. If the system fault logic relationship definition field in a system's system data label is voting, it means that there is a voting relationship between that system and the nuclear power unit, and a voting process is required to determine whether a fault in that system will lead to a nuclear power unit fault.

[0046] It should be noted that if the system fault logic relationship definition item in the system data label of a system is parallel, then the system fault logic relationship definition item also includes the system identifier of the backup system; if the system fault logic relationship definition item in the system data label of a system is voting, then the system fault logic relationship definition item also includes the system identifier of the voting system participating in the voting.

[0047] In one possible implementation, if the system definition item indicates that the system is a reliability-related system, then a fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit is established; if the system definition item indicates that the system is a non-reliability-related system, then it is not necessary to establish a fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit. Establishing the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit includes: if the system fault logic relationship definition item is in series, then the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit is set as an OR gate; if the system fault logic relationship definition item is in parallel, then the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit is set as an AND gate; if the system fault logic relationship definition item is voting, then the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit is set as a voting gate.

[0048] It is understandable that a nuclear power unit comprises multiple systems, requiring the above operations to be performed on the system data tags corresponding to each system within the unit. In one example, refer to... Figure 3As shown, the process retrieves the i-th system data tag from the reliability modeling database for identification. Based on the system definition item in the i-th system data tag, it identifies whether the system is a reliability-related system. If not, it executes i=i+1 and returns to the step of retrieving the i-th system data tag from the reliability modeling database for identification. If yes, it establishes the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit. It then determines whether i is greater than or equal to N. If i is greater than or equal to N, it means that all system data tags have been identified, and the fault logic relationship between each system and the nuclear power unit is obtained, which is the unit-level reliability model. If i is less than N, it means that there are still unidentified system data tags. Therefore, it executes i=i+1 and returns to the step of retrieving the i-th system data tag from the reliability modeling database for identification. Here, i is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to N; N is a positive integer, equal to the number of systems in the nuclear power unit.

[0049] Step 202: Associate the device diagram in the system flowchart with the device data tags in the reliability modeling database, and establish the fault relationships of the devices based on the device data tags to obtain the system-level reliability model.

[0050] The reliability modeling database also stores system flowcharts for each system of the nuclear power unit, as well as equipment data tags for each device, pre-determined based on their configuration within the system. The system flowcharts consist of multiple device diagrams arranged in the order they were drawn, each diagram corresponding to a unique device identifier. The equipment data tags include at least one of the following definitions: device definition, device fault logic relationship definition, device common cause fault relationship definition, and device support system definition.

[0051] As shown in Table 2, the equipment data tag includes equipment definition items, equipment fault logic relationship definition items, equipment common cause fault relationship definition items, and equipment supporting system definition items. Of course, it can be understood that the equipment data tag may also include the system identifier of the system to which the equipment belongs and the equipment identifier.

[0052] Table 2 Equipment Data Labels

[0053]

[0054] The equipment definition field is a label used to indicate whether a device is reliability-related or non-reliability-related. If a device's equipment data label indicates that it is reliability-related, it means that a failure of this device during the operation of the nuclear power unit at full power will affect the reliability of the nuclear power unit. If a device's equipment data label indicates that it is non-reliability-related, it means that a failure of this device during the operation of the nuclear power unit at full power will not affect the reliability of the nuclear power unit.

[0055] The equipment failure logic relationship definition field is a label used to indicate whether the failure relationship between the equipment and the system is series, parallel, or voting. If the equipment failure logic relationship definition field in a device's equipment data label is series, it means that a failure of this device will directly lead to a system failure. If the equipment failure logic relationship definition field in a device's equipment data label is parallel, it means that if other backup equipment performs the same function, a system failure will only occur if both the device and its backup equipment fail. If the equipment failure logic relationship definition field in a device's equipment data label is voting, it means that the device and the system meet a certain voting relationship, and a voting process is required to determine whether a failure of this device will lead to another failure.

[0056] It should be noted that if the equipment fault logic relationship definition item in the equipment data tag of a device is parallel, then the equipment fault logic relationship definition item also includes the system identifier of the backup device; if the equipment fault logic relationship definition item in the equipment data tag of a device is voting, then the equipment fault logic relationship definition item also includes the device identifier of the device participating in the voting.

[0057] The Equipment Common Cause Failure Relationship Definition is a label used to indicate whether an equipment is a common cause failure device or a non-common cause failure device. If the Equipment Common Cause Failure Relationship Definition in the Equipment Data Label indicates that the equipment is a common cause failure device, it means that the equipment may cause the nuclear power unit to fail due to the same reason. For example, if both Equipment B1 and Equipment B2 use a batch of material D with quality problems produced by a certain manufacturer, and the quality problems of material D will cause the nuclear power unit to fail, then both Equipment B1 and Equipment B2 are common cause failure devices.

[0058] It should be noted that if the equipment common cause failure relationship definition item indicates that the equipment is a common cause failure device, then the equipment common cause failure relationship definition item also includes the common cause failure order and the equipment identifier of the common cause device that has a common cause failure relationship with this equipment.

[0059] The Device Support System Definition item is a tag used to indicate whether a device has a support system or not. If the Device Support System Definition item in a device's device data tag indicates that the device has a support system, it means that the device needs other support systems to complete the specified functions. Conversely, if the Device Support System Definition item indicates that the device does not have a support system, it means that the device does not need other support systems to complete the specified functions.

[0060] It should be noted that if a device's device data tag indicates that the device has a supporting system definition, then the device supporting system definition also includes the system identifier of the supporting system and the device identifier of the boundary device. The boundary device refers to the device in the supporting system used to support the device in performing its specified functions.

[0061] In one possible implementation, if the device definition indicates that the device is a reliability-related device, then a fault relationship is established for the device; if the device definition indicates that the device is a non-reliability-related device, then no fault relationship needs to be established for the device. The fault relationship of the device includes at least one of the following: a fault logic relationship between the device and the system, a common-cause fault relationship between the device and common-cause devices, and a fault logic relationship between the device and support systems and boundary devices.

[0062] In one example, establishing device fault relationships includes: if the device fault logic relationship definition is serial, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as an OR gate; serial means that a device fault leads to a system fault; if the device fault logic relationship definition is parallel, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as an AND gate; parallel means that both the device and its backup device fail, leading to a system fault; if the device fault logic relationship definition is voting, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as a voting gate; voting means that a voting method is used to determine whether a device will cause a system fault; if the device common-cause fault relationship definition indicates that the device is a common-cause fault device, then the common-cause devices of the device are obtained, and a common-cause fault relationship between the device and the common-cause devices is established; if the device support system definition indicates that the device has a support system, then the support system and the boundary devices in the support system used to support the device are obtained, and a fault logic relationship between the device and the support system and the boundary devices is established.

[0063] It should be noted that for devices whose fault logic relationship definition is parallel and voting, in order to avoid redundant modeling, when establishing the fault logic relationship between devices and the system, related devices (standby devices, devices participating in voting) should be grouped together under the same logic gate.

[0064] It is understandable that a nuclear power unit comprises multiple systems, and each system contains multiple devices. After obtaining the system-level reliability model, the above operations need to be performed on each device within each system. In one example, refer to [reference needed]. Figure 3As shown, the k-th system is selected for modeling. The system flowchart corresponding to the k-th system is retrieved from the reliability modeling database. The system flowchart is scanned according to the drawing order of multiple device diagrams in the flowchart, associating multiple device identifiers in the flowchart with multiple device data tags in the reliability modeling database to achieve a one-to-one correspondence between device diagrams and device data tags. The j-th device data tag is selected from the system flowchart corresponding to the k-th system. Based on the j-th device data tag, it is identified whether the device is a reliability-related device. If not, j = j + 1 is executed, and the process returns to the step of selecting the j-th device data tag from the system flowchart corresponding to the k-th system. If yes, the fault logic relationship between the device and the system, the common-cause fault relationship between the device and common-cause devices, and the fault logic relationship between the device and support systems and boundary devices are established. It is determined whether j is greater than or equal to M. If j is less than M, it indicates that there are still unidentified device data tags. Therefore... Execute `j = j + 1` and return to the step of selecting the data tag of the j-th device from the system flowchart corresponding to the k-th system. If `j` is greater than or equal to `M`, it means that the device data tags of all devices corresponding to the k-th system have been identified. At this point, check if `k` is greater than or equal to `N`. If `k` is less than `N`, it means that there are still unmodeled systems. Therefore, execute `k + 1` and return to the step of selecting the k-th system for modeling. If `k` is greater than or equal to `N`, it means that all systems have been modeled. At this point, the fault relationships of each device in each system are obtained, which is the system-level reliability model. Here, `k` is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to `N`; `N` is a positive integer equal to the number of systems in the nuclear power unit. `j` is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to `M`; `M` is a positive integer equal to the number of devices in the k-th system.

[0065] Step 203: Integrate the unit-level reliability model and the system-level reliability model to obtain the reliability model of the nuclear power unit.

[0066] Among them, the reliability model of nuclear power units can reflect the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit, the fault relationship between equipment, and the fault relationship between equipment and the system.

[0067] For example, by binding the fault logic relationship between the i-th system and the nuclear power unit in the unit-level reliability model and the fault logic relationship of each device in the i-th system in the system-level reliability model with the system flowchart of the i-th system, the resulting nuclear power unit reliability model can achieve the following function: by clicking the relevant icons on the system flowchart of the i-th system, the relevant fault logic relationship can be directly displayed on the system flowchart.

[0068] The aforementioned modeling method for the reliability model of nuclear power units obtains system data tags from a reliability modeling database, establishes fault logic relationships between the system and the nuclear power unit based on these system data tags, and obtains a unit-level reliability model. Then, it associates the equipment diagrams in the corresponding system flowchart with the equipment data tags in the reliability modeling database, and establishes fault relationships between the equipment based on these tags, thus obtaining a system-level reliability model. Finally, it integrates the unit-level reliability model and the system-level reliability model to obtain the overall reliability model of the nuclear power unit. In this way, through system flowcharts, system data tags, and equipment data tags, automated modeling of the nuclear power unit's reliability model is achieved, improving modeling efficiency and accuracy compared to traditional reliability modeling methods.

[0069] In one exemplary embodiment, the reliability modeling database is periodically scanned to obtain updated information about the reliability modeling database; based on the updated information, the reliability model is updated to obtain the updated reliability model.

[0070] In one possible implementation, the system data tags and device data tags in the reliability modeling database are periodically scanned to obtain updated information, such as newly added system data tags and newly added device data tags. Based on this updated information, the reliability model is updated; the specific steps can be found in steps 201-203 above.

[0071] In this embodiment, by periodically scanning the reliability modeling database and updating the reliability model based on the update information in the reliability modeling database, dynamic updating of the reliability model of the nuclear power unit is realized.

[0072] The above describes the modeling process of the reliability model for nuclear power units. The following section will explain the sources of the data used in the reliability modeling process.

[0073] In an exemplary embodiment, the method further includes: determining, based on the system's design information, whether a system failure affects the reliability of the nuclear power unit; if so, setting the system definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system as a reliability-related system; if not, setting the system definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system as a non-reliability-related system.

[0074] like Figure 4As shown, select a system in a nuclear power unit. Based on the system's design information, determine whether a fault in this system during the nuclear power unit's power operation will affect the reliability of the nuclear power unit. If yes, set the system definition item in the system data label of the corresponding system in the reliability modeling database to a reliability-related system. If no, set the system definition item in the system data label of the corresponding system in the reliability modeling database to a non-reliability-related system. Determine if there are any other systems that need to be defined. If no, it means that the system data labeling has been completed. If yes, return to the step of selecting a system in a nuclear power unit.

[0075] When the system is a reliability-related system, it is also necessary to set the system fault logic relationship definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system based on the system design information. Specifically, according to the system design information, if a system fault directly leads to a nuclear power unit fault, the system fault logic relationship definition item is set to series; if a system fault still has other backup systems performing the same function, and the nuclear power unit fault is only caused by the simultaneous failure of this system and all its backup systems, the system fault logic relationship definition item is set to parallel; if a system fault and a nuclear power unit fault conform to a certain voting relationship, the system fault logic relationship definition item is set to voting.

[0076] It should be noted that when the system fault logic relationship definition item is parallel and voting, the relevant systems should also be associated. That is, the system identifier of the standby system and the system identifier of the voting system participating in the voting should be recorded in the system fault logic relationship definition item. Please refer to Table 1 above.

[0077] In an exemplary embodiment, the method further includes: determining, based on the equipment's design information, whether a equipment failure affects the reliability of the nuclear power unit; if so, setting the equipment definition item in the equipment data tag corresponding to the equipment as a reliability-related device; if not, setting the equipment definition item in the equipment data tag corresponding to the equipment as a non-reliability-related device. When the equipment is a reliability-related device, at least one definition item in the equipment data tag corresponding to the equipment is set according to the equipment's configuration in the system. The at least one definition item includes at least one of an equipment failure logic relationship definition item, an equipment common cause failure relationship definition item, and an equipment support system definition item.

[0078] like Figure 5As shown, a system is selected, and a device is selected from this system. Based on the design information of the device, it is determined whether a failure of this device during the operation of the nuclear power unit will affect the reliability of the nuclear power unit. If yes, the device definition item in the device data tag corresponding to the device in the reliability modeling database is set to a reliability-related device. If no, the device definition item in the device data tag corresponding to the device in the reliability modeling database is set to a non-reliability-related device. It is then determined whether there are other devices in the selected system that need to be defined. If there are other devices that need to be defined, the process returns to the step of selecting a device from the selected system. If there are no other devices that need to be defined, it is determined whether there are other systems in the nuclear power unit that need to be defined. If yes, the process returns to the step of selecting a system. If no, it indicates that the device data tag setting is complete.

[0079] When the device is a reliability-related device, the device fault logic relationship definition item, device common cause fault relationship definition item, and device support system definition item in the device data tag corresponding to the device are set according to the device's configuration in the system.

[0080] Specifically, based on the equipment's configuration within the system, the logical relationship between equipment failures and system failures is identified. If a equipment failure directly leads to a system failure, the equipment failure logical relationship definition item is set to series. If a equipment failure occurs, but other backup equipment still performs the same function, and a system failure only occurs when the equipment and all backup equipment fail simultaneously, the equipment failure logical relationship definition item is set to parallel. If a device failure and a system failure conform to a voting relationship, the equipment failure logical relationship definition item is set to voting. It should be noted that when the equipment failure logical relationship definition item is parallel or voting, related equipment must also be associated. That is, the equipment identifier of the backup equipment and the equipment identifier of the voting equipment participating in the voting are recorded in the failure logical relationship definition item, as shown in Table 2.

[0081] Based on the device's configuration in the system, identify whether the device shares a common cause fault with other devices. If the device shares a common cause fault with other devices, set the device common cause fault relationship definition item to "common cause fault device," and determine the common cause fault order and the related devices (i.e., the common cause devices mentioned above). Record the common cause fault order and the device identifier of the common cause device in the device common cause fault relationship definition item. If the device does not share a common cause fault with other devices, set the device common cause fault relationship definition item to "non-common cause fault device," as shown in Table 2.

[0082] Determine whether the device requires other support systems to complete the specified functions; if yes, set the device support system definition item to "has support system" and record the system identifier of the support system and the device identifier of the boundary device in the device support system definition item; if no, set the device support system definition item to "no support system", as shown in Table 2.

[0083] In addition, failure mode and effects analysis can be carried out for each system / equipment of the nuclear power unit. Based on the results of the failure mode and effects analysis, a comprehensive analysis can be conducted in conjunction with the design of the nuclear power unit system / equipment. The reliability model of the nuclear power unit can be established from top to bottom and level by level using the traditional fault tree modeling method.

[0084] It should be understood that although the steps in the flowcharts of the embodiments described above are shown sequentially according to the arrows, these steps are not necessarily executed in the order indicated by the arrows. Unless explicitly stated herein, there is no strict order restriction on the execution of these steps, and they can be executed in other orders. Moreover, at least some steps in the flowcharts of the embodiments described above may include multiple steps or multiple stages. These steps or stages are not necessarily completed at the same time, but can be executed at different times. The execution order of these steps or stages is not necessarily sequential, but can be performed alternately or in turn with other steps or at least some of the steps or stages in other steps. It is understood that the steps in different embodiments can be freely combined as needed, and all non-contradictory solutions formed by such combinations are within the scope of protection of this application.

[0085] Based on the same inventive concept, this application also provides a modeling apparatus for a nuclear power unit reliability model, which is used to implement the modeling method for the reliability model of the nuclear power unit involved above. The solution provided by this apparatus is similar to the solution described in the above method. Therefore, the specific limitations of the modeling apparatus embodiments for the reliability model of one or more nuclear power units provided below can be found in the limitations of the modeling method for the reliability model of nuclear power units above, and will not be repeated here.

[0086] In one exemplary embodiment, such as Figure 6 As shown, a modeling apparatus for a reliability model of a nuclear power unit is provided. The modeling apparatus 600 for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit includes: a first building module 601, a second building module 602, and an integration module 603, wherein:

[0087] The first construction module 601 is used to obtain system data tags from the reliability modeling database, establish the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit based on the system data tags, and obtain the unit-level reliability model.

[0088] The second construction module 602 is used to associate the device diagram in the system flowchart corresponding to the system with the device data tags in the reliability modeling database, and to establish the fault relationship of the device based on the device data tags in order to obtain the system-level reliability model.

[0089] Integration module 603 is used to integrate the unit-level reliability model and the system-level reliability model to obtain the reliability model of the nuclear power unit.

[0090] In one embodiment, the system data tag includes a system definition item; the first construction module 601 is specifically used to establish a fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit if the system definition item indicates that the system is a reliability-related system.

[0091] In one embodiment, the device data tag includes a device definition item; the second construction module 602 is specifically used to establish a fault relationship of the device if the device definition item indicates that the device is a reliability-related device.

[0092] In one embodiment, the device failure relationship includes at least one of the following;

[0093] Fault logic relationships between equipment and systems;

[0094] The common-cause failure relationship between the equipment and the common-cause equipment;

[0095] Fault logic relationships between equipment, support systems, and boundary devices.

[0096] In one embodiment, the device data tag further includes a device fault logic relationship definition item; the second construction module 602 is specifically used to set the fault logic relationship between the device and the system as an OR gate if the device fault logic relationship definition item is serial; serial means that a device fault leads to a system fault; if the device fault logic relationship definition item is parallel, the device fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as an AND gate; parallel means that both the device and its backup device are faulty, leading to a system fault; if the device fault logic relationship definition item is voting, the device fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as a voting gate; voting means that a voting method is used to determine whether the device will cause a system fault.

[0097] In one embodiment, the device data tag includes a device common cause failure relationship definition item; the second construction module 602 is specifically used to obtain the common cause device of the device and establish a common cause failure relationship between the device and the common cause device if the device common cause failure relationship definition item indicates that the device is a common cause failure device.

[0098] In one embodiment, the device data tag includes a device support system definition item; the second construction module 602 is specifically used to obtain the support system and the boundary devices in the support system that support the device if the device support system definition item indicates that the device has a support system, and to establish a fault logic relationship between the device and the support system and the boundary devices.

[0099] In one embodiment, the apparatus further includes an update module for periodically scanning the reliability modeling database to obtain update information of the reliability modeling database; and updating the reliability model based on the update information to obtain an updated reliability model.

[0100] In one embodiment, the device further includes a third construction module, used to determine, based on the system's design information, whether a system failure affects the reliability of the nuclear power unit; if so, to set the system definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system in the reliability modeling database as a reliability-related system; if not, to set the system definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system in the reliability modeling database as a non-reliability-related system.

[0101] In one embodiment, the third construction module is further configured to determine, based on the equipment's design information, whether a failure of the equipment affects the reliability of the nuclear power unit; if so, to set the equipment definition item in the equipment data tag corresponding to the equipment as a reliability-related device; if not, to set the equipment definition item in the equipment data tag corresponding to the equipment as a non-reliability-related device.

[0102] In one embodiment, the third construction module is further configured to, when the device is a reliability-related device, set at least one definition item in the device data tag corresponding to the device according to the device's configuration in the system. The at least one definition item includes at least one of the device fault logic relationship definition item, the device common cause fault relationship definition item, and the device support system definition item.

[0103] The modules in the modeling device for the reliability model of the aforementioned nuclear power unit can be implemented entirely or partially through software, hardware, or a combination thereof. These modules can be embedded in or independent of the processor in a computer device, or stored in the memory of a computer device as software, so that the processor can call and execute the operations corresponding to each module.

[0104] In one exemplary embodiment, a computer device is provided, which may be a terminal, and its internal structure diagram may be as follows: Figure 7As shown, the computer device includes a processor, memory, input / output interface, communication interface, display unit, and input device. The processor, memory, and input / output interface are connected via a system bus, and the communication interface, display unit, and input device are also connected to the system bus via the input / output interface. The processor provides computing and control capabilities. The memory includes non-volatile storage media and internal memory. The non-volatile storage media stores the operating system and computer programs. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and computer programs in the non-volatile storage media. The input / output interface is used for exchanging information between the processor and external devices. The communication interface is used for wired or wireless communication with external terminals; wireless communication can be achieved through Wi-Fi, mobile cellular networks, Near Field Communication (NFC), or other technologies. When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements a modeling method for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit. The display unit is used to form a visually visible image and can be a display screen, projection device, or virtual reality imaging device. The display screen can be an LCD screen or an e-ink screen. The input device of the computer device can be a touch layer covering the display screen, or buttons, trackballs, or touchpads set on the casing of the computer device, or external keyboards, touchpads, or mice, etc.

[0105] Those skilled in the art will understand that Figure 7 The structure shown is merely a block diagram of a portion of the structure related to the present application and does not constitute a limitation on the computer device to which the present application is applied. Specific computer devices may include more or fewer components than those shown in the figure, or combine certain components, or have different component arrangements.

[0106] In one exemplary embodiment, a computer device is provided, including a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the steps of any one of the above method embodiments.

[0107] In one embodiment, a computer-readable storage medium is provided having a computer program stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the method described in any of the above method embodiments.

[0108] In one embodiment, a computer program product is provided, including a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the steps of the method described in any one of the above method embodiments.

[0109] Those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. The computer program can be stored in a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium, and when executed, it can include the processes of the embodiments of the above methods. Any references to memory, databases, or other media used in the embodiments provided in this application can include at least one of non-volatile memory and volatile memory. Non-volatile memory can include read-only memory (ROM), magnetic tape, floppy disk, flash memory, optical memory, high-density embedded non-volatile memory, resistive random access memory (ReRAM), magnetic random access memory (MRAM), ferroelectric random access memory (FRAM), phase change memory (PCM), graphene memory, etc. Volatile memory can include random access memory (RAM) or external cache memory, etc. By way of illustration and not limitation, RAM can take many forms, such as Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) or Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM). The databases involved in the embodiments provided in this application may include at least one type of relational database and non-relational database. Non-relational databases may include, but are not limited to, blockchain-based distributed databases. The processors involved in the embodiments provided in this application may be general-purpose processors, central processing units, graphics processing units, digital signal processors, programmable logic devices, quantum computing-based data processing logic devices, artificial intelligence (AI) processors, etc., and are not limited to these.

[0110] The technical features of the above embodiments can be combined in any way. For the sake of brevity, not all possible combinations of the technical features in the above embodiments are described. However, as long as there is no contradiction in the combination of these technical features, they should be considered to be within the scope of this application.

[0111] The embodiments described above are merely illustrative of several implementation methods of this application, and while the descriptions are specific and detailed, they should not be construed as limiting the scope of this patent application. It should be noted that those skilled in the art can make various modifications and improvements without departing from the concept of this application, and these all fall within the protection scope of this application. Therefore, the protection scope of this application should be determined by the appended claims.

Claims

1. A modeling method for the reliability model of a nuclear power unit, characterized in that, The method includes: System data tags are obtained from the reliability modeling database, and the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit is established based on the system data tags to obtain the unit-level reliability model. The device diagram in the system flowchart corresponding to the system is associated with the device data tags in the reliability modeling database, and the fault relationship of the device is established based on the device data tags to obtain the system-level reliability model. The reliability model of the nuclear power unit is obtained by integrating the unit-level reliability model and the system-level reliability model.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The system data tag includes system definition items; the establishment of the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit based on the system data tag includes: If the system definition item indicates that the system is a reliability-related system, then a fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit is established.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The device data tag includes device definition items; establishing the fault relationship of the device based on the device data tag includes: If the device definition item indicates that the device is a reliability-related device, then the fault relationship of the device is established.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The fault relationships of the equipment include at least one of the following: The fault logic relationship between the device and the system; The common-cause fault relationship between the device and the common-cause device; The fault logic relationship between the device and the support system and boundary devices.

5. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The device data tag also includes a device fault logic relationship definition item; establishing the fault relationship of the device includes: If the device fault logic relationship definition item is a series connection, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set to an OR gate; the series connection indicates that the device fault leads to the system fault. If the device fault logic relationship definition item is parallel, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as an AND gate; the parallel connection means that the system fault is caused by the failure of both the device and its backup device. If the device fault logic relationship definition item is voting, then the fault logic relationship between the device and the system is set as a voting gate; the voting means determining whether the device will cause the system to fail through a voting method.

6. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The device data tag includes a definition of common cause failure relationships; establishing the failure relationships of the device includes: If the device common cause failure relationship definition item indicates that the device is a common cause failure device, then the common cause device of the device is obtained, and the common cause failure relationship between the device and the common cause device is established.

7. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, The device data tag includes device support system definition items; establishing the fault relationship of the device includes: If the device support system definition item indicates that the device has a support system, then the support system and the boundary devices in the support system used to support the device are obtained, and the fault logic relationship between the device, the support system, and the boundary devices is established.

8. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: The reliability modeling database is periodically scanned to obtain its update information. Based on the updated information, the reliability model is updated to obtain the updated reliability model.

9. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Based on the system's design information, determine whether a system malfunction affects the reliability of the nuclear power unit; If so, set the system definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system to a reliability-related system; If not, set the system definition item in the system data tag corresponding to the system to a non-reliability-related system.

10. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: Based on the design information of the equipment, determine whether a failure of the equipment affects the reliability of the nuclear power unit; If so, set the device definition item in the device data tag corresponding to the device to a reliability-related device; If not, set the device definition item in the device data tag corresponding to the device to a non-reliability-related device.

11. The method according to claim 10, characterized in that, The method further includes: When the device is a reliability-related device, at least one definition item in the device data tag corresponding to the device is set according to the configuration of the device in the system. The at least one definition item includes at least one of the device fault logic relationship definition item, the device common cause fault relationship definition item, and the device support system definition item.

12. A modeling apparatus for a reliability model of a nuclear power unit, characterized in that, The device includes: The first construction module is used to obtain system data tags from the reliability modeling database, and establish the fault logic relationship between the system and the nuclear power unit based on the system data tags in order to obtain the unit-level reliability model. The second construction module is used to associate the device diagram in the system flowchart corresponding to the system with the device data tags in the reliability modeling database, and to establish the fault relationship of the device based on the device data tags in order to obtain the system-level reliability model. An integration module is used to integrate the unit-level reliability model and the system-level reliability model to obtain the reliability model of the nuclear power unit.

Images