Quasi-Monte Carlo sampling method for simulation-based dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants

References

• Nuclear Regulation Authority, Japan. Convention on nuclear safety national report of Japan for 8th review meeting; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Rabiti C, Alfonsi A, Cogliati J, et al. RAVEN, a new software for dynamic risk analysis. Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM12); 2014 Jun 22- 27; Hawaii, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Maljovec D, Wang B, Pascucci V, et al. Adaptive sampling algorithms for probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear simulations. Proceedings of ANS PSA 2013 International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis; 2013 Sept 22-26; Columbia, SC.
   Google Scholar
• Coyne K, Mosleh A. Nuclear plant control room operator modeling within the ADS-IDAC, version 2, dynamic PRA environment: part 1 – general description and cognitive foundations. Int J Performability Eng. 2014;10:691–703.
   Google Scholar
• Catalyurek U, Rutt B, Metzroth K, et al. Development of a code-agnostic computational infrastructure for the dynamic generation of accident progression event trees. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2010;95:278–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kloos M, Pescheke J. MCDET: a probabilistic dynamics method combining Monte Carlo simulation with the discrete dynamic event tree approach. Nucl Sci Eng. 2006;153:137–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsushita M, Endo T, Yamamoto A. Development of a reduced order model for severe accident analysis codes by singular value decomposition aiming probabilistic safety margin analysis. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2019;57:573–589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang S, Yamaguchi A. Dynamic scenario quantification for level 2 PRA of sodium-cooled fast reactor based on continuous Markov chain and Monte Carlo method coupled with meta-model of thermal-hydraulic analysis. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2018;55:850–858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamura K, Jang S, Yamaguchi A. The development of the advanced method for the source term evaluation applicable to the dynamic PRA. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE26); 2018 July 22-26; London, England.
   Google Scholar
• Otsuki S, Endo T, Yamamoto A. Development of a simplified estimation method on severe accident progression in PWR for education. Trans Am Nucl Soc. 2015;113:855–858.
   Google Scholar
• Kubo K, Zheng X, Ishikawa J, et al. Case study on sampling techniques using machine learning and simplified physical model for simulation-based dynamic probabilistic risk assessment. Proceedings of Asian Symposium on Risk Assessment and Management 2020 (ASRAM2020); 2020 Nov 30- Dec 2; online.
   Google Scholar
• Mckay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics. 2000;42:55–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsberg K, He N, Massih AR. Probabilistic analysis of nuclear fuel rod behavior using a quasi-Monte Carlo method. Nucl Sci Eng. 1996;122:142–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diaconeasa M, Mosleh A. Discrete dynamic event tree uncertainty quantification in the ADS-IDAC dynamic PSA software platform. Proceeding of 14th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 14); 2018 Sept 16-21; Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Kajimoto M, Muramatsu K, Watanabe N, et al. Development of THALES-2: a computer code for coupled thermal-hydraulics and fission product transport analyses for severe accident at LWRs and its application to analysis of fission product revaporization phenomena. Proceedings of International Topical Meeting on Safety of Thermal Reactors; 1991 July 21-25; Portland, Oregon.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng X, Tamaki H, Ishikawa J, et al. Severe accident scenario uncertainty analysis using the dynamic event tree method. Proceedings of 14th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 14); 2018 Sept 16-21; Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Herranz LE, Pellegrini M, Lind T, et al. Overview and outcomes of the OECD/NEA benchmark study of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (BSAF) phase 2 — results of severe accident analyses for unit 1. Nucl Eng Des. 2020;369:110849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonnenkalb M, Pellegrini M, Herranz LE, et al. Overview and outcomes of the OECD/NEA benchmark study of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (BSAF), phase 2 — results of severe accident analyses for unit 2. Nucl Eng Des. 2020;369:110840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind T, Pellegrini M, Herranz LE, et al. Overview and outcomes of the OECD/NEA benchmark study of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi NPS (BSAF), phase 2 — results of severe accident analyses for unit 3. Nucl Eng Des. 2021;376:111138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishikawa J, Kawaguchi K, Maruyama Y. Analysis for iodine release from unit 3 of Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant with consideration of water phase iodine chemistry. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2015;52:308–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka Y, Tamaki H, Zheng X, et al. Enhancement of the treatment of system interactions in a dynamic PRA tool. Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and Reliability Conference and the 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (ESREL2020 PSAM15); 2020 Nov 1- 5; online.
   Google Scholar
• Gauntt RO, Cole RK, Erickson CM, et al. MELCOR computer code manuals: vol.1 & vol.2, rev.2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2000. (NUREG/CR-6119, SAND2000-2417/1).
   Google Scholar
• Porkholm K, Honkoila K, Nurmilaukas P, et al. APROS multifunctional simulator for thermal and nuclear power plants. Proceedings of the 1st World Congress on System Simulation (WCSS 97); 1997 Sept 1-4; Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Oikawa T, Kondo M, Mizuno Y, et al. Development of system reliability analysis code SECOM-2 for seismic PSA. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 1998;62:251–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kubo K, Zheng X, Tanaka Y, et al. Dynamic PRA of flooding-initiated accident scenarios using THALES2-RAPID. Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and Reliability Conference and the 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (ESREL2020 PSAM15); 2020 Nov 1- 5; online.
   Google Scholar
• Kubo K, Zheng X, Tanaka Y, et al. A comparative study of sampling techniques of dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants. Proceedings of Joint International Conference on Supercomputing in Nuclear Applications + Monte Carlo 2020 (SNA+MC2020); 2020 May 18-22; Chiba, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Sobol’ IM. On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals. USSR Comput Math Math Phys. 1967;7:86–112.
   Google Scholar
• Halton JH. On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Numerische Math. 1960;2:84–90.
   Google Scholar
• Faure H. Discrepance de suites associees a un systeme de numeration (en dimension s). Acta Arithmetica. 1982;41:337–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammersley J. Monte Carlo methods for solving multivariable problems. Proc N Y Acad Sci. 1960;86:844–874.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Box G, Muller M. A note on the generation of random normal deviates. Ann Math Stat. 1958;29:610–611.
   Google Scholar
• Garrick BJ. Lessons learned from 21 nuclear plant probabilistic risk assessments. Nucl Technol. 1989;84:319–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertucio RC, Julius JA. Analysis of core damage frequency: surry, unit 1 internal events appendices, vol. 3, rev. 1, part 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1990. (NUREG/CR-4550, SAND86-2084).
   Google Scholar
• Bertucio RC, Brown SR. Analysis of core damage frequency: sequoyah, unit 1 internal events appendices, vol.5, rev. 1, part 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1990. (NUREG/CR-4550, SAND86-2084).
   Google Scholar
• Shaukat SK, Jackson JE, Thatcher DF. Regulatory analysis for generic issue 23: reactor coolant pump seal failure. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1991. (NUREG-1401).
   Google Scholar
• Sancaktar S. WOG 2000 reactor coolant pump seal leakage model for Westinghouse PWRs. Westinghouse Electric Company LLC; 2002. (WCAP-15603).
   Google Scholar
• Lutz RJ, Hodgson J, Howard B. PRA model for the Westinghouse shut down seal, revision 0. Westinghouse Electric Company LLC; 2009. (WCAP-17100-NP).
   Google Scholar
• Queral C, Rosell LM, Jimenez G, et al. Verification of SAMGs in SBO sequences with seal LOCA. Multiple damage domains. Ann Nucl Energy. 2016;98:90–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jung G, Lee YS, Park K, et al. Insight from the comparison of recent internal event PSA results for Westinghouse PWRs in Korea. Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM13); 2016 Oct 2-7; Seoul, Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Maio FD, Picoco C, Zio E, et al. Safety margin sensitivity analysis for model selection in nuclear power plant probabilistic safety assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2017;162:122–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosell LM, Queral C, Zapatero MR, et al. Analysis of PWR SBO sequences with RCP passive thermal shutdown seals. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2018;55:649–662.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wo T, Cheng D. Risk management for seal leakage modeling of station blackout core damage frequency. Nucl Technol. 2019;205:867–880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder J, Henry D, Ma Z. SPAR model structural efficiencies. Idaho National Laboratory; 2013. (INL/EXT-13-28528).
   Google Scholar
• Ruger CJ, Higgins JC. Reactor coolant pump seal issues and their applicability to new reactor designs. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 1993. (BNL-NUREG-49115).
   Google Scholar
• Mandelli D, Smith C, Riley T, et al. Risk informed safety margin characterization (RISMC) BWR station blackout demonstration case study, revision 0. Idaho National Laboratory; 2013. (INL/EXT-13-30203).
   Google Scholar
• Sevon T. A MELCOR model of Fukushima Daiichi unit 1 accident. Ann Nucl Energy. 2015;85:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC). New framework for Japanese electric industry to enhance reactor safety; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings. Primary measures for Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPS units 6/7 to comply with the new regulatory requirements; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Smith CL, Wood ST. Systems analysis programs for hands-on integrated reliability evaluations (SAPHIRE) version 8, vol.2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2011. (NUREG/CR-7039).
   Google Scholar
• WOG/ Westinghouse Electric Company, B&WOG/ Framatome Technologies, Inc. Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) peer review process guidance, rev. A3. Nuclear Energy Institute; 2000. (NEI00-02).
   Google Scholar