A dynamic probabilistic risk assessment platform for nuclear power plants under single and concurrent transients

References

• Hassija V, Senthil Kumar C, Velusamy K. Probabilistic safety assessment of multi-unit nuclear power plant sites - an integrated approach. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2014;32:52–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosleh A. PRA: a Perspective on strengths, current limitations, and possible improvements. Nucl Eng Technol. 2014;46(1):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Sefy M, Ezzeldin M, El-Dakhakhni W et al. System Dynamics Simulation of the Thermal Dynamic Processes in Nuclear Power Plants. Nucl Eng Technol. 2019;51(6):1540–1553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldemir T. A survey of dynamic methodologies for probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants, Ann. Nucl Energy. 2013;52:113–124.
   Google Scholar
• Hofer E, Kloos M, Krzykacz-Hausmann B et al. Dynamic event trees for probabilistic safety analysis, in: eUROSAFE Forum 2002 Converg. Nucl. Saf. Pract. Eur. Pap. Ger. 2002. Available from: http://www.eurosafe-forum.org/files/euro2_2_10_trees_probabilistic.pdf
   Google Scholar
• IAEA, Development and Application of Level 1 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants, 2010. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1430_web.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• IAEA, Development and Application of Level 2 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• CNSC, Safety Analysis: probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) for Nuclear Power Plants, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Hsueh KS, Mosleh A. The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 1996;52(3):297–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zio E. Integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety assessment: concepts, challenges, research directions. Nucl Eng Des. 2014;280:413–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercurio D, Podofillini L, Zio E et al. Identification and classification of dynamic event tree scenarios via possibilistic clustering: application to a steam generator tube rupture event. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2009;41(6):1180–1191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siu N. Risk assessment for dynamic systems: an overview, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1994;43(1):43–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swaminathan S, Smidts C. The Event Sequence Diagram framework for dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1999;63(1):73–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jankovsky ZK, Denman MR, Aldemir T. Dynamic event tree analysis with the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 safety analysis code, Ann. Nucl Energy. 2018;115:55–72.
   Google Scholar
• Rabiti C, Alfonsi A, Mandelli D et al. RAVEN as Control Logic and Probabilistic Risk Assessment Driver for RELAP-7. ANS Winter Meet. 2012. DOI:10.1080/15210960.2012.646850
   Google Scholar
• Rabiti C, Alfonsi A, Mandelli D et al. Deployment and Overview of RAVEN Capabilities for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment Demo for a PWR Station Blackout. Idaho Falls, United States: Idaho National Laboratory; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Kunsman DM, Dunagan S, Aldemir T et al. Development and Application of the Dynamic System Doctor to Nuclear Reactor Probabilistic Risk Assessments (No. SAND2008-4746). Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA (United States): Sandia National Laboratories (SNL); 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Jankovsky ZK, Haskin T, Denman M. How to ADAPT (No. SAND2018-6660). Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA (United States): Sandia National Laboratories (SNL); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Hakobyan AP, Severe accident analysis using dynamic accident progression event trees, Ph.D. Thesis, The Ohio State University, 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Weber P, Simon B, Iung C. Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2012;25(4):671–682.
   Google Scholar
• Jones TB, Darling MC, Groth KM et al. A Dynamic Bayesian Network for Diagnosing Nuclear Power Plant Accidents. In: Zdravko Markov, Ingrid Russell, editors. 29th Int. Florida Artif. Intell. Res. Soc. Conf. AAAI press, Palo Alto, California USA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence; 2016. pp. 179–184.
   Google Scholar
• Varuttamaseni A, Bayesian Network Representing System Dynamics in Risk Analysis of Nuclear Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Mandelli D, Parisi C, Alfonsi A et al. Dynamic PRA of a Multi-Unit Plant (INL/CON-17-42037). Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, United States. 2017. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1411714
   Google Scholar
• Mandelli D, Smith C, Rabiti C et al. Dynamic PRA: an Overview of New Algorithms to Generate, Analyze and Visualize Data. Trans Am Nucl Soc. 2013;109:949–953.
   Google Scholar
• Mandelli D, Yilmaz A, Aldemir T et al. Scenario clustering and dynamic probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2013;115:146–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelli D, Maljovec D, Alfonsi A et al. Mining data in a dynamic PRA framework, Prog. Nucl Energy. 2018;108:99–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maljovec D, Wang B, Pascucci V et al. Analyzing Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Data through Topology-Based Clustering, in: aNS PSA 2013. International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis, Columbia, SC, on CD-ROM, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park (IL). 2013;1–16.
   Google Scholar
• U.S.NRC, Probabilistic Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decisionmaking: some Frequently Asked Questions, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Forrester J. Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems. MIT Technol. Rev. 1971;73(3):52–68.
   Google Scholar
• Sterman J. Business Dynamics: systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill; 2000. DOI:10.1108/13673270210417646.
   Google Scholar
• Grigoryev I. AnyLogic 7 in Three Days. 2016. DOI:10.1007/s007690000247.
   Google Scholar
• Jeong CJ, Choi H. Dynamic Modeling and Analysis of Alternative Fuel Cycle Scenarios in Korea. Nucl Eng Technol. 2007;39(1):85–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chia ES, Lim CK, Ng A et al. The System Dynamics of Nuclear Energy in Singapore. Int J Green Energy. 2015;12(1):73–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo X, Guo X. Nuclear power development in China after the restart of new nuclear construction and approval: a system dynamics analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016;57:999–1007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arda S, Implementing a Nuclear Power Plant Model for Evaluating Load-Following Capability on a small Grid, MASc Thesis, Arizona State University, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Chino M, Nakayama H, Nagai H et al. Preliminary Estimation of Release Amounts of 131 I and 137 Cs Accidentally Discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Atmosphere. J Nucl Sci Technol. 2011;48(7):1129–1134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• USNRC, Risk Assessment of Operational Events- Volume 3: SPAR Model Reviews, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Bogazici University Nuclear Engineering Department, PSA Glossary, (2000). http://www.nuce.boun.edu.tr/psa/psaglossary.html.
   Google Scholar
• Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Glossary of terms for nuclear and radiation safety. Technical report., 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Nuclear Energy Agency, Probabilistic Risk Criteria and Safety Goals, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Knochenhauer M, Holmberg JE. Guidance for the Definition and Application of Probabilistic Safety Criteria. In Proceedings of the 10th International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference (PSAM 10); 2010 Jun; Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. 2011. pp. 7–11.
   Google Scholar
• United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors, 2017. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0046.html.
   Google Scholar
• Sánchez AI, Villanueva JF, Carlos S et al. Uncertainty analysis of a large break loss of coolant accident in a pressurized water reactor using non-parametric methods. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2018;174:19–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perin Y, Jimenez J. Application of the best-estimate plus uncertainty approach on a BWR ATWS transient using the NURESIM European code platform. Nucl Eng Des. 2017;321:48–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaideh MI, Wieselquist WA, Ridge O et al. A new framework for sampling-based uncertainty quanti?cation of the six-group reactor kinetic parameters, Ann. Nucl Energy. 2018;127:1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman SG, Brittingham JC, Reed ML et al. PWR Reactor Physics Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3. United States: Arizona Public Service Company; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Brown CS, Zhang H. Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis with CASL Core Simulator VERA-CS, Ann. Nucl. Energy J. 2016;95:188–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demazière C, Pázsit I, Pór G. Evaluation of the Boron Dilution Method for Moderator Temperature Coefficient Measurements. Nucl Technol. 2002;140(2):147–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romojaro P, Álvarez-Velarde F, García-Herranz N. Sensitivity methods for effective delayed neutron fraction and neutron generation time with summon, Ann. Nucl Energy. 2019;126:410–418.
   Google Scholar
• Marcum WR, Brigantic AJ. Applying uncertainty and sensitivity on thermal hydraulic subchannel analysis for the multi-application small light water reactor. Nucl Eng Des. 2015;293:272–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bukaçi E, Korini T, Periku E et al. Number of iterations needed in Monte Carlo Simulation using reliability analysis for tunnel supports. J Eng Res Appl. 2016;6:60–64.
   Google Scholar
• Helton JC, Johnson JD, Sallaberry CJ et al. Survey of sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. 2006;91(10–11):1175–1209.
   Google Scholar
• Ikonen T. Comparison of global sensitivity analysis methods – Application to fuel behavior modeling. Nucl Eng Des. 2016;297:72–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikonen T, Tulkki V. The importance of input interactions in the uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of nuclear fuel behavior. Nucl Eng Des. 2014;275:229–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauke J, Kossowski T. Comparison of Values of Pearson’s and Spearman’s Correlation Coefficients on the Same Sets of Data. Quaest. Geogr. 2011;30(2):87–93.
   Google Scholar
• MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release 2018a, the MathWorks, Inc, Natick, Massachusetts, United States, (2018).
   Google Scholar
• Ghione A, Noel B, Vinai P et al. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for the simulation of a station blackout scenario in the Jules Horowitz Reactor, Ann. Nucl Energy. 2017;104:28–41.
   Google Scholar
• Ghosh D, Vogt A. Outliers: an Evaluation of Methodologies. Proceeding Section on Survey Research Methods. In: Joint Statistical Meetings. Vol 12. San Diego, CA: American Statistical Association; 2012. pp. 3455–3460.
   Google Scholar