Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.04.017

System dynamics simulation of the thermal dynamic processes in nuclear power plants  

El-Sefy, Mohamed (Department of Civil Engineering, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, McMaster University)
Ezzeldin, Mohamed (Department of Civil Engineering, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, McMaster University)
El-Dakhakhni, Wael (Department of Civil Engineering, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, McMaster University)
Wiebe, Lydell (Department of Civil Engineering, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, McMaster University)
Nagasaki, Shinya (Department of Engineering Physics, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, Canada Research Chair in Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Radioactive Waste Management, McMaster University)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.51, no.6, 2019 , pp. 1540-1553 More about this Journal
Abstract
A nuclear power plant (NPP) is a highly complex system-of-systems as manifested through its internal systems interdependence. The negative impact of such interdependence was demonstrated through the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. As such, there is a critical need for new strategies to overcome the limitations of current risk assessment techniques (e.g. the use of static event and fault tree schemes), particularly through simulation of the nonlinear dynamic feedback mechanisms between the different NPP systems/components. As the first and key step towards developing an integrated NPP dynamic probabilistic risk assessment platform that can account for such feedback mechanisms, the current study adopts a system dynamics simulation approach to model the thermal dynamic processes in: the reactor core; the secondary coolant system; and the pressurized water reactor. The reactor core and secondary coolant system parameters used to develop system dynamics models are based on those of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. These three system dynamics models are subsequently validated, using results from published work, under different system perturbations including the change in reactivity, the steam valve coefficient, the primary coolant flow, and others. Moving forward, the developed system dynamics models can be integrated with other interacting processes within a NPP to form the basis of a dynamic system-level (systemic) risk assessment tool.
Keywords
Nuclear power plant; Pressurized water reactor; Dynamic probabilistic risk assessment; System dynamics; Systemic risk; Thermal dynamic processes;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 ASME, Forging a New Nuclear Safety Construct, the ASME Presidential Task Force on Response to Japan Nuclear Power Plant Events, 2012. https://www.ipen.br/biblioteca/slr/cel/0087.
2 IAEA, Deterministic Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1428_web.pdf.
3 K.M. Dawson, Advanced Thermal Hydraulic Simulations for Human Reliability Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants by, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/112392.
4 CNSC, Probabilistic Safety Assessment: A Tool to Estimate Risk and Drive Safety Improvement at Nuclear Power Plants, 2017, pp. 1-3. http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/educational-resources/feature-articles/probabilistic-safety-assessment.cfm.
5 NUREG/CR-2300, PRA ROCEDURES GUIDE "A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Power Plants,", 1983. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0635/ML063560439.pdf.
6 R. Bartel, WASH-1400: the Reactor Safety Study. The Introduction of Risk Assessment to the Regulation of Nuclear Reactors, U.S.NRC, 2016.
7 P. Moieni, A.J. Spurgin, Advances in human reliability analysis methodology. Part I : frameworks, models and data, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 44 (1994) 27-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(94)90105-8.   DOI
8 D. Mandelli, C. Parisi, A. Alfonsi, Dynamic PRA of a Multi-Unit Plant, vol. 1, 2017, pp. 1-5. http://www.diegomandelli.com/papers/2017/multiUnitMandelliPSA17_final2.pdf.
9 T. Aldemir, Advanced Concepts in Nuclear Energy Risk Assessment and Management, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1142/10587.
10 S.H. Nejad-Hosseinian, Automatic Generation of Generalized Event Sequence Diagrams for Guiding Simulation Based Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Complex Systems, PhD thesis, University of Maryland, 2007.
11 D. Manselli, C. Smith, C. Rabiti, A. Alfonsi, R. Youngblood, V. Pascucci, B. Wang, D. Maljovec, P.T. Bremer, T. Aldemir, A. Yilmaz, D. Zamalieva, Dynamic PRA : an overview of new algorithms to generate, analyze and visualize data, in: Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc, 2013.
12 A. Amendola, Accident sequence dynamic simulation versus event trees, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 22 (1988) 3-25, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(88)90065-8.   DOI
13 C. Acosta, N. Siu, Dynamic event trees in accident sequence analysis: application to steam generator tube rupture, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 41 (1993) 135-154, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(93)90027-V.   DOI
14 K.S. Hsueh, A. Mosleh, The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 52 (1996) 297-314, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00140-9.   DOI
15 K. Coyne, A. Mosleh, Nuclear plant control room operator modeling within the ADS-IDAC, Version 2, Dynamic PRA Environment: Part 1 - general description and cognitive foundations, Int. J. Perform. Eng. 10 (2014) 691-703.
16 E. Hofer, M. Kloos, B. Krzykacz-Hausmann, J. Peschke, M. Woltereck, An approximate epistemic uncertainty analysis approach in the presence of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 77 (2002) 229-238, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00056-X.   DOI
17 R.-O. Gauntt, R. Cole, C.M. Erickson, R.G. Gido, R.D. Gasser, S.B. Rodriguez, M.F. Young, MELCOR Computer Code Manuals, 2000.
18 U. Catalyurek, B. Rutt, K. Metzroth, A. Hakobyan, T. Aldemir, R. Denning, S. Dunagan, D. Kunsman, Development of a code-agnostic computational infrastructure for the dynamic generation of accident progression event trees, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95 (2010) 278-294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2009.10.008.   DOI
19 A. Alfonsi, C. Rabiti, D. Mandelli, J.J. Cogliati, R.A. Kinoshita, A. Naviglio, Dynamic event tree analysis through RAVEN, in: Int. Top. Meet. Probabilistic Saf. Assess. Anal. ANS PSA 2013, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1021/ic302386u.
20 N.R.C. Job, W. Code, RELAP5/MOD3 Code Manual, vol. 5, 1995.
21 M. Sonnessa, Modelling and Simulation of Complex Systems, PhD thesis, University of Turin, 2004.
22 J. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Irwin Professional/_McGraweHill, New York, 2000, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210417646.
23 B.K. Bala, F.M. Arshad, K.M. Noh, System Dynamics: Modelling and Simulation, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/SpringerReference_7284.
24 I. Grigoryev, AnyLogic 7 in Three Days, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s007690000247.
25 J. Forrester, Some Basic Concepts in System Dynamics, Sloan School of Management. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009. http://www.systemsmodelbook.org/uploadedfile/238_63f73156-02df-4d87-b0c6-c286a7beec26_SomeBasicConcepts.pdf.
26 A. Borshchev, A. Filippov, From System Dynamics and Discrete Event to Practical Agent Based Modeling: Reasons, Techniques, Tools, Simulation, vol. 66, 2004, pp. 25-29. http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/systemdyndiscreteeventabmcompared.borshchevfilippov04.pdf.
27 X. Guo, X. Guo, Nuclear power development in China after the restart of new nuclear construction and approval: a system dynamics analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57 (2016) 999-1007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.190.   DOI
28 A.M. Yacout, J.J. Jacobson, G.E. Matthern, S.J. Piet, A. Moisseytsev, Modeling the nuclear fuel cycle, in: 23rd Int. Conf. Syst. Dyn. Soc, 2005.
29 C.J. Jeong, H. Choi, Dynamic modeling and analysis of alternative fuel cycle scenarios in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 39 (1) (2007).
30 E.S. Chia, C.K. Lim, A. Ng, N.H.L. Nguyen, The system dynamics of nuclear energy in Singapore, Int. J. Green Energy 12 (2015) 73-86, https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2014.889001.   DOI
31 Thakkar, Correlation of Theory and Experiment for the Dynamics of a Pressurized Water Reactor, University of Tennessee, 1975. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2696%0A%0A.
32 T.W. Kerlin, E.M. Katz, J.G. Thakkar, J.E. Strange, Theoretical and experimental dynamic analysis of the HB Robinson nuclear plant, Nucl. Technol. 30 (1976) 299-316, https://doi.org/10.13182/NT76-A31645.   DOI
33 M. Ali, Lumped Parameter, State Variable Dynamic Models for U-Tube Recirculation Type Nuclear Steam Generators, PhD thesis, University of Tennessee, 1976, https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2548%0A%0A.
34 G. Pescaroli, D. Alexander, A definition of cascading disasters and cascading effects : going beyond the " toppling dominos " metaphor, in: GRF Davos Planet@Risk, the 5th IDRC Davos 2014, 2015, pp. 58-67.
35 S. Arda, K.E. Holbert, J. Undrill, Development of a linearized model of a pressurized water reactor generating station for power system dynamic simulations, in: 45th North Am. Power Symp. NAPS 2013, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1109/NAPS.2013.6666832.
36 S. Arda, Implementing a Nuclear Power Plant Model for Evaluating Load- Following Capability on a Small Grid, MASc Thesis, Arizona State University, 2013.
37 IAEA, Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development, 2016. http://www.aben.com.br/Arquivos/477/477.pdf%5Cnhttp://jia.sipa.columbia.edu.
38 World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in the World Today, 2019. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx.
39 J. Barrett, The Canadian Nuclear FactBook, Canadian Nuclear Association, 2017. https://cna.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-Factbook-EN-WEB-FINAL.pdf.
40 V. Hassija, C. Senthil Kumar, K. Velusamy, Probabilistic safety assessment of multi-unit nuclear power plant sites - an integrated approach, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 32 (2014) 52-62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.07.013.   DOI
41 R.G. Little, Controlling cascading failure: understanding the vulnerabilities of interconnected infrastructures, J. Urban Technol. 9 (2002) 109-123, https://doi.org/10.1080/106307302317379855.   DOI
42 A. Mosleh, PRA: a Perspective on strengths, current limitations, and possible improvements, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 46 (2014) 1-10, https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.03.2014.700.   DOI
43 C. Perrow, Fukushima and the inevitability of accidents, Bull. At. Sci. 67 (2011) 44-52, https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340211426395.   DOI
44 M. Holt, R.J. Campbell, M.B. Nikitin, Fukushima Nuclear Disaster (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416727-8.00009-6.
45 B. Puchalski, T.A. Rutkowski, K. Duzinkiewicz, Nodal models of Pressurized Water Reactor core for control purposes - a comparison study, Nucl. Eng. Des. 322 (2017) 444-463, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.07.005.   DOI
46 J. Duderstadt, L. Hamilton, Nuclear Reactor Analysis, Department of Nuclear Engineering. The University of Michigan, 1976. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7355364.
47 T. Kerlin, Dynamic Analysis and Control of Pressurized Water Reactors, 1978, pp. 103-212.
48 M. Chino, H. Nakayama, H. Nagai, H. Terada, G. Katata, H. Yamazawa, Preliminary estimation of release amounts of 131 I and 137 Cs accidentally discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the atmosphere, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 48 (2011) 1129-1134, https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2011.9711799.   DOI