Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of the number of subintervals upon the quantification of the seismic probabilistic safety assessment of a nuclear power plant

  • Ji Suk Kim (Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Man Cheol Kim (Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Chung-Ang University)
  • Received : 2022.09.23
  • Accepted : 2022.12.25
  • Published : 2023.04.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Seismic risk has received increased attention since the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan. The seismic risk of a nuclear power plant is evaluated via seismic probabilistic safety assessment (PSA), for which several methods are available. Recently, the discrete approach has become widely used. This approximates the seismic risk by discretizing the ground motion level interval into a small number of subintervals with the expectation of providing a conservative result. The present study examines the effect of the number of subintervals upon the results of seismic risk quantification. It is demonstrated that a small number of subintervals may lead to either an underestimation or overestimation of the seismic risk depending on the ground motion level. The present paper also provides a method for finding the boundaries between overestimation and underestimation regions, and illustrates the effect of the number of subintervals upon the seismic risk evaluation with an example. By providing a method for determining the effect of a small number of subintervals upon the results of seismic risk quantification, the present study will assist seismic PSA analysts to determine the appropriate number of subintervals and to better understand seismic risk quantification.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Nuclear Safety Research Program of the Korea Foundation of Nuclear Safety funded by the Korean government's Nuclear Safety and Security Commission [grant number 2203027-0122-CG100, 2104028-0222-SB120].

References

  1. J. Han, A.S. Nur, M. Syifa, M. Ha, C.W. Lee, K.Y. Lee, Improvement of earthquake risk awareness and seismic literacy of Korean citizens through earthquake vulnerability map from the 2017 Pohang earthquake, South Korea, Rem. Sens. 13 (7) (2021) 1365. 
  2. J. Han, J. Kim, S. Park, S. Son, M. Ryu, Seismic vulnerability assessment and mapping of Gyeongju, South Korea using frequency ratio, decision tree, and random forest, Sustainability 12 (18) (2020) 7787. 
  3. I.K. Choi, D. Hahm, M.K. Kim, Current status and issues of external event PSA for extreme natural hazards after Fukushima accident, in: NEA/CSNI/R(2014), vol. 9, 2014. 
  4. C. Seong, G. Heo, S. Baek, J.W. Yoon, M.C. Kim, Analysis of the technical status of multiunit risk assessment in nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (3) (2018) 319-326.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.12.015
  5. R.C. Kennedy, S.A. Short, Basis for Seismic Provisions of DOE-STD-1020. 1994, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Brookhaven National Lab, 1994. 
  6. Electric Power Research Institute, Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Implementation Guide, 3002000709, 2013. 
  7. B. Dasgupta, Evaluation of methods used to calculate seismic fragility curves, in: Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, 2017. 
  8. T. Zhou, M. Modarres, E.L. Droguett, 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
  9. Y. Watanabe, T. Oikawa, K. Muramatsu, Development of the DQFM method to consider the effect of correlation of component failures in seismic PSA of nuclear power plant, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 79 (3) (2003) 265-279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00053-4
  10. S. Kwag, J. Park, I.K. Choi, Development of efficient complete-sampling-based seismic PSA method for nuclear power plant, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 197 (2020), 106824. 
  11. S. Kwag, E. Choi, S. Eem, J.G. Ha, D. Hahm, Toward improvement of sampling-based seismic probabilistic safety assessment method for nuclear facilities using composite distribution and adaptive discretization, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 215 (2021), 107809. 
  12. United State Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Risk Assessment of Operational Events Handbook (Volume 2-external Events), 2017. 
  13. J.S. Kim, M.C. Kim, Development of a software tool for seismic probabilistic safety assessment quantification with a sufficiently large number of bins for enhanced accuracy, Energies 14 (6) (2021) 1677. 
  14. Electric Power Research Institute, 1020756, in: Surry Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Pilot Plant Review, 2010. 
  15. R.P. Kennedy, Overview of methods for seismic PRA and margin analysis including recent innovations, in: Proceedings of the OECD-NEA Workshop on Seismic Risk, 1999. 
  16. G. Strang, Calc.. Vol. 1. 1991: (Wellesley Cambridge Press). 
  17. C. Scawthorn, Earthquake Engineering, CRC Press LLC, 1999. 
  18. R.P. Kennedy, M.K. Ravindra, Seismic fragilities for nuclear power plant risk studies, Nucl. Eng. Des. 79 (1) (1984) 47-68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(84)90188-2
  19. W.F. Donoghue, Distributions and Fourier Transforms, Academic Press, 1969. 
  20. K.E. Atkinson, An Introduction to Numerical Analysis, John Wiley & Sons Book Company, 1990.