Considerations of uncertainties in evaluating dynamic reliability by GO-FLOW methodology – example study of reliability monitor for PWR safety system in the risk-monitor system

The uncertainty analyses have been considered as a relevant topic since WASH-1400 and analysis was performed for identifying the risk measure, e.g. plant- and core-damage frequency or the frequency of a large early release of radioactivity in the probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) or probabilistic risk assessment. There are two main sources of uncertainty such as aleatory uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty (parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty and completeness uncertainty) for risk analysis in PSA or risk-monitor system. A sensitivity analysis is related field to uncertainty, which can provide information of the most effective on those inputs of PSA, which are mostly contributed to the uncertainty. In this paper, uncertainty analysis (epistemic) has been conducted in the evaluation of dynamic reliability of safety-related subsystem for risk analysis. GO-FLOW methodology has been employed for the procedure of uncertainty analysis alternatively to Fault Tree Analysis and Even Tree because it is success-oriented system-analysis technique and comparatively easy to conduct the reliability analysis of the complex system. The method used sample data from Monte Carlo simulation to quantify uncertainty in terms of appropriate estimates for analysis results. Pressurized water reactor containment spray system has been taken as an example of safety-related subsystem. The results of this paper show that the uncertainty analysis is an important part for the practical evaluation of the system dynamic reliability and makes the reliability prediction more accurate compared with the result without the uncertainty analysis. The GO-FLOW methodology can be employed easily for uncertainty analysis with its advance functions.

[1]  Lincoln E. Moses,et al.  Elementary Decision Theory , 1959 .

[2]  Ian Hacking,et al.  The Emergence of Probability: Duality , 2006 .

[3]  Ensign Johnson,et al.  certainly helpful, theimprovement realized byproper(5) Reactor Safety Study, "Appendix III -Failure data," USNuclear weighting isstill evident evenwhenthes-bias parameters Regulatory Commission Report WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014, , 1984 .

[4]  Clifton A. Ericson,et al.  Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety , 2005 .

[5]  R. I. Freeman,et al.  What is living PSA , 1993 .

[6]  Yeou-Koung Tung.  Uncertainty and Reliability Analysis in Water Resources Engineering , 1996 .

[7]  Yang Ming,et al.  Development of reliability monitor by GO-FLOW methodology for the safety related sub-systems in PWR , 2014 .

[8]  Ming Yang,et al.  Design of Risk Monitor for Nuclear Reactor Plants , 2014 .

[9]  M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell,et al.  Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment , 1996 .

[10]  Matsuoka Takeshi.  GO-FLOW methodology -Basic concept and integrated analysis framework for its applications- , 2010 .

[11]  Timothy A. Wheeler,et al.  Guidance on the Treatment of Uncertainties Associated with PRAs in Risk-Informed Decision Making , 2009 .

[12]  Takeshi Matsuoka,et al.  The GO-FLOW reliability analysis methodology—analysis of common cause failures with uncertainty , 1997 .

[13]  H. Chernoff,et al.  Elementary Decision Theory , 1959 .

[14]  Clifton A. Ericson,et al.  Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety: Ericson/Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety , 2005 .

[15]  Yang Ming,et al.  Configuration of risk monitor system by plant defense-in-depth risk monitor and reliability monitor , 2012 .

[16]  Yang Ming,et al.  Development of a reliability monitor for the safety related subsystem of a PWR considering the redundancy and maintenance of components by fault tree and GO-FLOW methodologies , 2012 .