## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Prognostic Outcome** & **Failure: Fuel Relocation** & **Failure: Clad Melting** \\ \hline Will Occur & 0.0001 & 0.0001 \\ Will Not Occur & 0.9999 & 0.9999 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Prognostics outcome for reactor with high power-to-flow reading. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**CV1** & & & & & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dynamic CPT**} \\
**Pressure** & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Scram/ & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Scram,Trip Success} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Scram, Trip Failure} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Scram Success,} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Scram Failure,} \\ Trip State & & & & & & Trip Failure & & & Trip Success \\ (Sell) \(|t-1|\) & Low & Middle & High & Low & Middle & High & Low & Middle & High \\ Low & 0.9 & 0.05 & 0 & 1 & 0.6667 & \(5.11\times 10^{-5}\) & 0.9 & 0.05 & 0 & 1 & 0.05 & \(4.83\times 10^{-5}\) \\ Middle & 0.1 & 0.9 & 0 & 0 & 0.3333 & \(1.36\times 10^{-6}\) & 0.1 & 0.9 & 0 & 0 & 0.9 & 0 \\ High & 0 & 0.05 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0.9999 & 0 & 0.05 & 1 & 0 & 0.05 & 0.9999 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Dynamic conditional probability table (CPT) for CV1 Pressure Measurements. Note the columns with the round estimates (expert-based opinions) interspersed with the more precise estimates based on the available data. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Model Parameter** & **Prior** & **Evidence** & **Posterior** \\ \hline Scram and Trip Success & \(1-\Sigma P(failure)\approx 1\) & Power-to-Flow (1) = High & \(1-\Sigma P(failure)\approx 1\) \\ Scram Success and Trip Failure & \(1.4\times 10^{-9}\) & Outlet Temperature (1) = Medium & \(1.39\times 10^{-9}\) \\ Scram Failure and Trip Success & \(1.4\times 10^{-9}\) & Inlet Temperature(1) = Medium & \(6.26\times 10^{-11}\) \\ Scram and Trip Failure & \(2.9\times 10^{-7}\) & Pressure (1) = Medium & \(8.24\times 10^{-9}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Prior and posterior probabilities of scram, prognostics, and system diagnostics with evidence of high power-to-flow ratio. The addition of new data also changed the current prognostics outlook of the system, as seen in Table 6. The previous prognostics seen in Table 4 showed a negligible reactor failure from clad melting, and a nonexistent risk from fuel relocation; however, that assessment was based on the assumption that the scram and trip mechanism were successful. Since the new evidence introduced into the model changed the posterior estimate of the scram state to have failed in some manner, there is a greater likelihood that the reactor will fail by one of those failure modes. The updated prognostics now suggest that given the current data received from the system sensors, there is a 0.31% chance that the system, if conditions remain the same, would result in a failure by fuel relocation. Interestingly, the probability that the system would fail from clad melting has been reduced. These two facts are the result of the specific conditional probability tables used to project sensor measurement values. This assessment does match expected results, as both clad melting and fuel relocation occur when outlet temperatures are hotter than operation levels; however, fuel relocation can occur faster at higher reactor temperatures. In addition to changing the assessment of the reactor's prognostics, the influx of new system data and sensor information should impact the estimate of the reactor's health. Table 7 provides point estimates on the reactor system's diagnostics. At the beginning of the experiment (Time 0), there is no indication that the system would be faulty as the initial state distribution is consistent with that of the operating baseline; as a result, it is deemed a fully healthy system. When the high power-to-flow measurement comes in at Time 1, there is now a possibility that one of the failure outcomes could occur; as a result, the reactor's health is marginally diminished.