Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제53권10호
  • /
  • Pages.3298-3313
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Fuzzy-technique-based expert elicitation on the occurrence probability of severe accident phenomena in nuclear power plants

  • 투고 : 2020.09.24
  • 심사 : 2021.05.09
  • 발행 : 2021.10.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The objective of this study is to estimate the occurrence probabilities of severe accident phenomena based on a fuzzy elicitation technique. Normally, it is difficult to determine these probabilities due to the lack of information on severe accident progression and the highly uncertain values currently in use. In this case, fuzzy set theory (FST) can be best exploited. First, questions were devised for expert elicitation on technical issues of severe accident phenomena. To deal with ambiguities and the imprecision of previously developed (reference) probabilities, fuzzy aggregation methods based on FST were employed to derive the occurrence probabilities of severe accidents via four phases: 1) choosing experts, 2) quantifying weighting factors for the experts, 3) aggregating the experts' opinions, and 4) defuzzifying the fuzzy numbers. In this way, this study obtained expert elicitation results in the form of updated occurrence probabilities of severe accident phenomena in the OPR-1000 plant, after which the differences between the reference probabilities and the newly acquired probabilities using fuzzy aggregation were compared, with the advantages of the fuzzy technique over other approaches explained. Lastly, the impact of applying the updated severe accident probabilities on containment integrity was quantitatively investigated in a Level 2 PSA model.

키워드

과제정보

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT: Ministry of Science and ICT) (No. 2017M2A8A4015287).

참고문헌

  1. M. Van der Borst, H. Schoonakker, An overview of PSA importance measures, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 72 (3) (2001) 241-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00007-2
  2. C.K. Park, J.J. Ha, Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Brainbook Korea, (Korean), 2003.
  3. P.P. Povinec, K. Hirose, M. Aoyama, Fukushima Accident, Elservier, 2013, pp. 55-102. ISBN 9780124081321, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-408132-1.00003-6.
  4. K.I. Ahn, J.E. Yang, D.H. Kim, Methodologies for Uncertainty Analysis in the Level 2 PSA and Their Implementation Procedures (No. KAERI/TR-2151/2002), Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 2002.
  5. Y. Bang, G. Jung, B. Lee, K. Ahn, Estimation of temperature-induced reactor coolant system and steam generator tube creep rupture probability under high-pressure severe accident conditions, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 49 (8) (2012) 857-866. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2012.703945
  6. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Severe Accident Risks: an Assessment of Five US Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG-1150, 1989.
  7. N.R. Ortiz, et al., Use of expert judgment in NUREG-1150, NED V126 (Issue 3) (1991) 313-331.
  8. P. Slottje, J.P. van der Sluijs, A. B Knol, Expert Elicitation: Methodological Suggestions for its Use in Environmental Health Impact Assessments, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Publication RIVM Letter report 630004001/2008, 2008.
  9. D. Walton, Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority, Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania, 1997.
  10. A. Hart, Knowledge Acquisition for Expert Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986.
  11. H.M. Hsu, C.T. Chen, Aggregation of Fuzzy opinions under group decision making, Fuzzy Set Syst. 79 (3) (1996) 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00185-9
  12. T. Onisawa, An application of Fuzzy concepts to modeling of reliability analysis, Fuzzy Set Syst. 37 (1990) 267-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(90)90026-3
  13. C.T. Lin, M.J.J. Wang, Hybrid fault tree analysis using Fuzzy sets, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 58 (1997) 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(97)00072-0
  14. G.O. Ariavie, G.C. Ovuworie, Delphi fuzzy elicitation technique in the determination of third party failure probability of onshore transmission pipeline in the Niger delta region of Nigeria, J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 16 (1) (2012) 95-101.
  15. R.S. Chanda, P.K. Bhattacharjee, A reliability approach to transmission expansion planning using Fuzzy fault tree model, Elec. Power Syst. Res. 45 (1998) 101-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7796(97)01226-1
  16. K.B. Misra, G.G. Weber, Use of Fuzzy set theory for level-I studies in probabilistic risk assessment, Fuzzy Set Syst. 37 (2) (1990) 139-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(90)90038-8
  17. D. Yuhua, Y. Datao, Estimation of failure probability of oil and gas transmission pipelines by Fuzzy fault tree analysis, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 18 (2) (2005) 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2004.12.003
  18. R.T. Clemen, R.L. Winkler, Combing probability distribution from experts in risk analysis, Risk Anal. 19 (2) (1999) 187-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00399.x
  19. A. Bardossy, L. Duckstein, I. Bogardi, Combination of Fuzzy numbers representing expert opinions, Fuzzy Set Syst. 57 (1993) 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(93)90157-D
  20. A. Ishikawa, M. Amagasa, T. Shiga, G. Tomizawa, R. Tatsuta, H. Mieno, The max-min Delphi method and Fuzzy Delphi method via Fuzzy integration, Fuzzy Set Syst. 55 (1993) 241-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(93)90251-C
  21. 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 (8) (2018) 1234-1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.04.005
  22. F. Hasson, S. Keeney, H. McKenna, Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique, J. Adv. Nurs. 32 (4) (2000) 1008-1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x
  23. C. Powell, The delphi technique: myths and realities, J. Adv. Nurs. 41 (4) (2003) 376-382. February 2003. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x
  24. D.A. Wiegmann, "Developing a Methodology for Eliciting Subjective Probability Estimates during Expert Evaluations of Safety Interventions: Application for Bayesian Belief Networks" Final Technical Report (AHFD-05-13/NASA-05-4) Prepared for NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA Contract NASA NNL04AA50G, 2005.
  25. A.H. Chawsheen, I. Subhi Latif, Detection and treatment of outliers in data sets, Iraqi J.Stat. Sci. 6 (9) (2006) 58-74.
  26. M.G. Morgan, M. Henrion, Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
  27. J.N. Miller, Tutorial review?Outliers in experimental data and their treatment, Analyst 118 (5) (1993) 455-461. https://doi.org/10.1039/an9931800455
  28. M.A. Meyer, Guidelines for Eliciting Expert Judgment as Probabilities or Fuzzy Logic. Fuzzy Logic and Probability Applications:bridging the Gap, 2002.
  29. N.R. Pal, On Quantification of Different Facets of Uncertaity. 107, s.L., Elsevier, 1999, pp. 81-91, 1999.
  30. R. Coppi, M. Gil, H. Kiers, The Fuzzy Approach to Statistical Analysis, Computational statistics & data analysis, 2006, pp. 1-14.
  31. Sh J. Chen, Ch L. Hwang, Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, 1990.
  32. G.A. Miller, The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limit on our capacity for processing infor-mation, Psychol. Rev. 63 (1956) 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
  33. J.S. Nicokis, I. Tsuda, Chaotic dy-namics of information processing: the magic number seven plus-minus two, J. Math. Biol. 47 (1985) 343-365.
  34. H.C. Liu, L. Liu, N. Liu, L.X. Mao, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (17) (2012) 12926-12934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.031
  35. R.T. Clemen, R.L. Winkler, Combing probability distribution from experts in risk analysis, Risk Anal. 19 (2) (1999) 187-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00399.x
  36. A. Kaufmann, M.M. Gupta, Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic, Van Nostrand, New York, 1985.
  37. W. Van Leekwijck, E.E. Kerre, Defuzzification: criteria and classification, Fuzzy Set Syst. 108 (2) (1999) 159-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00337-0
  38. Mathworks, Fuzzy Logic Toolbox User's Guide, MATLAB. Mathworks, inc., 2019.
  39. D. Samanta, Defuzzification Techniques (Presentation Materials), 2018.
  40. B. Schwinges, C. Journeau, T. Haste, L. Meyer, W. Tromm, K. Trambauer, Ranking of severe accident research priorities, Prog. Nucl. Energy 52 (1) (2010) 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2009.09.006
  41. W. Klein-Hessling, M. Sonnenkalb, D. Jacquemain, B. Clement, E. Raimond, H. Dimmelmeier, A. Schumm, Conclusions on severe accident research priorities, Ann. Nucl. Energy 74 (2014) 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.015
  42. D. Manara, D. Jacquemain, J.P. Van Dorsselaere, P.D. Bottomley, M. Adorni, C. Journeau, L.E. Herranz, SEVERE ACCIDENT RESEARCH PRIORITY RANKING: A NEW ASSESSMENT EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI ACCIDENT, 2019.
  43. KAERI, "Development of site risk assessment & management technology including extreme external events", Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning, KAERI/RR-4225/2016.