Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Probability subtraction method for accurate quantification of seismic multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment

  • Received : 2020.05.21
  • Accepted : 2020.09.20
  • Published : 2021.04.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Single-unit probabilistic safety assessment (SUPSA) has complex Boolean logic equations for accident sequences. Multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment (MUPSA) model is developed by revising and combining SUPSA models in order to reflect plant state combinations (PSCs). These PSCs represent combinations of core damage and non-core damage states of nuclear power plants (NPPs). Since all these Boolean logic equations have complemented gates (not gates), it is not easy to generate exact Boolean solutions. Delete-term approximation method (DTAM) has been widely applied for generating approximate minimal cut sets (MCSs) from the complex Boolean logic equations with complemented gates. By applying DTAM, approximate conditional core damage probability (CCDP) has been calculated in SUPSA and MUPSA. It was found that CCDP calculated by DTAM was overestimated when complemented gates have non-rare events. Especially, the CCDP overestimation drastically increases if seismic SUPSA or MUPSA has complemented gates with many non-rare events. The objective of this study is to suggest a new quantification method named probability subtraction method (PSM) that replaces DTAM. The PSM calculates accurate CCDP even when SUPSA or MUPSA has complemented gates with many non-rare events. In this paper, the PSM is explained, and the accuracy of the PSM is validated by its applications to a few MUPSAs.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Korea Foundation Of Nuclear Safety (KOFONS) grant funded by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC), Republic of Korea (No. 1075001044 and 1075001021).

References

  1. U.S. NRC, Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400, November, 1975.
  2. PLG Inc, Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Section 13.3 Risk of Two Unit Station, Prepared for Public Service Company of New Hampshire, 1983. PLG-0300.
  3. W.S. Jung, J. Yang, J. Ha, A new method to evaluate alternate AC power source effects in multi-unit nuclear power plants, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 82 (2) (2003) 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00140-6
  4. T. Hakata, Seismic PRA method for multiple nuclear power plants in a site, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92 (2007) 883-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2006.04.022
  5. K.N. Fleming, "On the Issue of Integrated Risk - a PRA Practitioner's Perspective, in: Proceedings of the ANS International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Analysis, 2015. San Francisco, CA.
  6. IAEA, The Fukushima Daiichi Accident Report by the Director General, 2015. Vienna, Austria.
  7. CNSC, Summary Report of the International Workshop on Multi-Unit Probabilistic Safety Assessment, 2014. November 17-20, Ottawa, Canada.
  8. 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. vol. 117 (2013) 40-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.03.005
  9. M. Modarres, T. Zhou, M. Massoud, Advances in multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 157 (2017) 87-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.08.005
  10. K. Ebisawa, T. Teragaki, S. Nomura, H. Abe, M. Shimemori, 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
  11. K. Ebisawa, M. Fujita, Y. Iwabuchi, H. Sugino, Current issues on PRA regarding seismic and tsunami events at multi units and sites based on lessons learned from Tohoku earthquake/tsunami, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 44 (5) (2012) 437-452. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.03.2012.704
  12. T. Zhou, M. Modarres, E.L. Droguertt, An improved multi-unit nuclear plant seismic probabilistic risk assessment approach, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 171 (2018) 34-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.11.015
  13. 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, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 50 (2018) 1217-1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.01.006
  14. 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, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 50 (2018) 1234-1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.04.005
  15. H.G. Lim, D.S. Kim, S.H. Han, J.E. Yang, Development of logical structure for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 50 (2018) 1210-1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.10.012
  16. S.H. Han, K. Oh, H.G. Lim, J.E. Yang, AIMS-MUPSA software package for multiunit PSA, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 50 (2018) 1255-1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.06.012
  17. W.S. Jung, K. Hwang, S.K. Park, A new methodology for modeling explicit seismic common cause failures for seismic multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 52 (2020) 2238-2249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.03.023
  18. 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, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 49 (2017) 710-720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.12.009
  19. IAEA, Technical approach to probabilistic safety assessment for multiple reactor units, Safety Reports Series No 96 (2019).
  20. S.K. Park, W.S. Jung, A new quantification method for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment, J. Korean Surg. Soc. 35 (1) (2020) 97-106.
  21. J.A. Abraham, An improved algorithm for network reliability, IEEE Trans. Reliab. R-28 (1) (1979) 58-61. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.1979.5220476
  22. M.O. Locks, A minimizing algorithm for sum of disjoint products, IEEE Trans. Reliab. R-36 (4) (1987) 445-453. https://doi.org/10.1109/TR.1987.5222436
  23. C.E. Shannon, The synthesis of two-terminal switching circuits, Bell System Technical Journal 28 (1948) 59-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1949.tb03624.x
  24. C.H. Roth Jr., L.L. Kinney, Fundamentals of Logic Design, seventh ed., 2014. -13: 978-1-133-62847-7.
  25. A. Rauzy, New algorithms for fault tree analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 40 (1993) 203-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(93)90060-C
  26. S. Epstein, A. Rauzy, Can we trust PRA? Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 88 (2005) 195-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.07.013
  27. W.S. Jung, A fast BDD algorithm for large coherent fault trees analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 83 (2004) 369-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2003.10.009
  28. W.S. Jung, S.H. Han, J.E. Yang, Fast BDD truncation method for efficient top event probability calculation, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 40 (2008) 571-580. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.2008.40.7.571
  29. EPRI, Direct Probability Calculator (DPC) Version 4.0, Product ID # 1019191, 2009.
  30. A. Rauzy, Y. Dutuit, Exact and truncated computations of prime implicants of coherent and non-coherent fault trees within Aralia, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 58 (2) (1997) 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00034-3
  31. EPRI, FTREX 1.9 Software Manual, Product ID # 3002012968, 2018.
  32. W.S. Jung, A method to improve cutset probability calculation in probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 134 (2015) 134-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2014.10.019
  33. EPRI, Advanced Cutset Upper Bound Estimator(TM) (ACUBE), Version 1.0, Test Report, 2012. Product ID #1024896.
  34. Y. Dutuit, A. Rauzy, Efficient algorithms to assess component and gate importance in fault tree analysis, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 72 (2001) 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00004-7