Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Development of logical structure for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment

  • Received : 2018.06.28
  • Accepted : 2018.10.12
  • Published : 2018.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Site or multi-unit (MU) risk assessment has been a major issue in the field of nuclear safety study since the Fukushima accident in 2011. There have been few methods or experiences for MU risk assessment because the Fukushima accident was the first real MU accident and before the accident, there was little expectation of the possibility that an MU accident will occur. In addition to the lack of experience of MU risk assessment, since an MU nuclear power plant site is usually very complex to analyze as a whole, it was considered that a systematic method such as probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) is difficult to apply to MU risk assessment. This paper proposes a new MU risk assessment methodology by using the conventional PSA methodology which is widely used in nuclear power plant risk assessment. The logical failure structure of a site with multiple units is suggested from the definition of site risk, and a decomposition method is applied to identify specific MU failure scenarios.

Keywords

References

  1. IAEA, The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015.
  2. Pickard Lowe, Garrick, Inc., Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment - Section 13.3 Risk of Two Unit Station, Prepared for Public Service Company of New Hampshire, PLG-0300, 1983.
  3. K.N. Fleming, On the issues of integrated riskda PRA practitioners perspective, in: Proceedings of the ANS International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Analysis, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005.
  4. S. Samaddar, K. Hibino, O. Coman, Technical approach for safety assessment of MU NPP sites subject to external events, in: Proceedings of Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 12), Honolulu, Hawaii, 2014.
  5. K.N. Fleming, On the risk significance of seismically induced MU accidents, in: Proceedings of the ANS International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis, ID, USA, 2015.
  6. K. Ebisawa, T. Teragaki, S. Nomura, H. Abe, M. Shigemori, M. Shimomoto, Concept and methodology for evaluating core damage frequency considering failure correlation at multi units and sites and its application, Nucl. Eng. Des. 288 (2015) 82-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.01.002
  7. C.S. Kumar, V. Hassija, K. Velusamy, V. Balasubramaniyan, Integrated risk assessment for MU NPP sites - a comparison, Nucl. Eng. Des. 293 (2015) 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.06.025
  8. T.D. Le Duy, D. Vasseur, E. Serdet, Probabilistic safety assessment of twin-unit nuclear sites: methodological elements, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 (2016) 250-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.014
  9. S. Zhang, J. Tong, J. Zhao, An integrated modeling approach for event sequence development in MU probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 155 (2016) 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.07.008
  10. M. Modarres, T. Zhou, M. Massoud, Advances in MU nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 157 (2017) 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.005
  11. IAEA, Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, Reference Data Series No. 2, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2017, 2017.
  12. D.-S. Kim, S.H. Han, J.H. Park, H.-G. Lim, J.H. Kim, Multi-unit Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1217-1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.01.006
  13. J. Cho, S.H. Han, D.-S. Kim, H.-G. Lim, Multi-unit Level 2 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1234-1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.04.005
  14. S.-Y. Kim, Y.H. Jung, S.H. Han, S.-J. Han, H.-G. Lim, Multi-unit Level 3 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1246-1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.09.019
  15. S.H. Han, K. Oh, H.-G. Lim, J.-E. Yang, AIMS-MUPSA software package for multi-unit PSA, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (2018) 1255-1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.06.012
  16. S.H. Han, H.G. Lim, Top event probability evaluation of a fault tree having circular logics by using Monte Carlo method, Nucl. Eng. Des. 243 (2012) 336-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.11.029
  17. K. Oh, S.H. Han, J.H. Park, H.G. Lim, J.E. Yang, G. Heo, Study on quantification method based on Monte Carlo sampling for multiunit probabilistic safety assessment models, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 49 (2017) 710-720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.12.009
  18. W. Vesely, J. Dugan, J. Fragola, J. Minarick, J. Railsback, Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2002.
  19. E. Ruijters, M. Stoelinga, Fault tree analysis: a survey of the state-of-the-art in modeling, analysis and tools, Comp. Sci. Rev. 15-16 (2015) 29-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2015.03.001
  20. J. Kahn, N. Linial, A. Samorodnitsky, Inclusion-exclusion: exact and approximate, Combinatorica 16 (4) (1996) 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01271266
  21. KHNP, LPSD Internal Events Level 1 PSA Report for Hanul Units 3&4, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, Co. Ltd., 2015.
  22. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Guidelines on Modeling Common-cause Failures in Probabilistic Safety Assessment (NUREG/CR-5485), Washington, D.C, 1998.
  23. W.S. Jung, J.E. Yang, J.J. Ha, A new method to evaluate alternate AC power source effects in multi unit nuclear power plants, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 82 (2003) 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00140-6
  24. S. Epstein, A. Rauzy, Can we trust PSA? Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 88 (2005) 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.07.013
  25. S. Schroer, M. Modarres, An event classification schema for evaluating site risk in a multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 117 (2013) 45-51.

Cited by

  1. Multi-unit Level 1 probabilistic safety assessment: Approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site vol.50, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.01.006
  2. AIMS-MUPSA software package for multi-unit PSA vol.50, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.06.012
  3. Multi-unit risk assessment of nuclear power plants: Current status and issues vol.50, pp.8, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.09.010
  4. A Method to Avoid Underestimated Risks in Seismic SUPSA and MUPSA for Nuclear Power Plants Caused by Partitioning Events vol.14, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082150
  5. Probability subtraction method for accurate quantification of seismic multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment vol.53, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.09.022
  6. A preliminary site risk assessment vol.58, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2021.1879687
  7. Multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment: A comprehensive survey vol.213, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107782