Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.10.012

Development of logical structure for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment  

Lim, Ho-Gon (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
Kim, Dong-San (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
Han, Sang Hoon (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
Yang, Joon Eon (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.50, no.8, 2018 , pp. 1210-1216 More about this Journal
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
Multi-unit PSA; Multi-unit risk; Site risk; Site CDF; Multi-unit CDF;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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.   DOI
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.   DOI
5 IAEA, Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, Reference Data Series No. 2, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2017, 2017.
6 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.   DOI
7 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.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 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.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 IAEA, The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2015.
12 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.
13 M. Modarres, T. Zhou, M. Massoud, Advances in MU nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 157 (2017) 87-100.   DOI
14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Guidelines on Modeling Common-cause Failures in Probabilistic Safety Assessment (NUREG/CR-5485), Washington, D.C, 1998.
15 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.
16 W. Vesely, J. Dugan, J. Fragola, J. Minarick, J. Railsback, Fault Tree Handbook with Aerospace Applications, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2002.
17 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.   DOI
18 J. Kahn, N. Linial, A. Samorodnitsky, Inclusion-exclusion: exact and approximate, Combinatorica 16 (4) (1996) 465-477.   DOI
19 KHNP, LPSD Internal Events Level 1 PSA Report for Hanul Units 3&4, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, Co. Ltd., 2015.
20 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.   DOI
21 S. Epstein, A. Rauzy, Can we trust PSA? Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 88 (2005) 195-205.   DOI
22 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.
23 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.   DOI
24 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.   DOI
25 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.   DOI