Development of good practice guidance for quantification of thermal-hydraulic code model input uncertainty

Abstract Taking into account uncertainties is a key issue in nuclear power plant safety analysis using best estimate plus uncertainty methodologies. It involves two main types of treatment depending on the variables of interest: input parameters or system response quantity. The OECD/NEA PREMIUM project devoted to the first type of variables has shown that inverse methods for input uncertainty quantification can exhibit strong user-effect. One of the main reasons was the lack of a clear guidance to perform a reliable analysis. This work is precisely devoted to the development of a first good practice guidance document for quantification of thermal-hydraulic code model input uncertainty. The developments have been done in the framework of the OECD/NEA SAPIUM project (January 2017–September 2019). This paper provides a summary of the main project outcome. Recommendations and open issues for future developments are also given.

[1]  S. S. Wilks.  Determination of Sample Sizes for Setting Tolerance Limits , 1941 .

[2]  F. Mascari,et al.  Scaling issues for the experimental characterization of reactor coolant system in integral test facilities and role of system code as extrapolation tool , 2015 .

[3]  Joseph P. Yurko,et al.  Quantitative Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (QPIRT) for Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification , 2012 .

[4]  Timothy G. Trucano,et al.  Verification and validation benchmarks , 2008 .

[5]  T. Modis,et al.  Experts in uncertainty , 1993 .

[6]  F. D’Auria,et al.  Standardized Consolidated Calculated and Reference Experimental Database (SCCRED): A Supporting Tool for V&V and Uncertainty Evaluation of Best-Estimate System Codes for Licensing Applications , 2016 .

[7]  Francesc Reventos,et al.  SAPIUM a systematic approach for input uncertainty quantification , 2018 .

[8]  Wei Chen,et al.  Toward a Better Understanding of Model Validation Metrics , 2011 .

[9]  Dan G. Cacuci.  BERRU Predictive Modeling: Best Estimate Results with Reduced Uncertainties , 2018 .

[10]  Francesco Saverio D'Auria,et al.  Development and assessment of a method for evaluating uncertainty of input parameters , 2017 .

[11]  Francesco Saverio D'Auria,et al.  Thermal-Hydraulic System Codes in Nulcear Reactor Safety and Qualification Procedures , 2008 .

[12]  Tomasz Skorek.  Determination of Input Uncertainties of Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses , 2004 .

[13]  Matthew F. Barone,et al.  Measures of agreement between computation and experiment: Validation metrics , 2004, J. Comput. Phys..

[14]  T. Skorek.  Input uncertainties in uncertainty analyses of system codes: Quantification of physical model uncertainties on the basis of CET (combined effect tests) , 2017 .

[15]  Robert P. Martin.  Quantifying Phenomenological Importance in Best-Estimate Plus Uncertainty Analyses , 2011 .

[16]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World , 1982 .

[17]  Ralph C. Smith,et al.  An information theoretic approach to use high-fidelity codes to calibrate low-fidelity codes , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[18]  N. Aksan,et al.  Thermal-hydraulic phenomena for water cooled nuclear reactors , 2018 .

[19]  Francesc Reventos,et al.  Testing methodologies for quantifying physical models uncertainties. A comparative exercise using CIRCE and IPREM (FFTBM) , 2016 .

[20]  David J. Diamond.  Experience Using Phenomena Identification and Ranking Technique (PIRT) for Nuclear Analysis , 2006 .

[21]  François M. Hemez,et al.  Improved best estimate plus uncertainty methodology, including advanced validation concepts, to license evolving nuclear reactors , 2011 .

[22]  Christopher J. Roy,et al.  A comprehensive framework for verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification in scientific computing , 2011 .

[23]  A. Raftery,et al.  Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness , 2007 .

[24]  Rafael Mendizábal,et al.  Bayesian perspective in BEPU licensing analysis , 2019, Nuclear Engineering and Design.

[25]  J. Ghosh,et al.  An Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Theory and Methods , 2006 .

[26]  W. Oberkampf,et al.  Model validation and predictive capability for the thermal challenge problem , 2008 .

[27]  Timothy G. Trucano,et al.  Predictive Capability Maturity Model for computational modeling and simulation. , 2007 .

[28]  Milorad B. Dzodzo.  Scaling analysis and relation to EMDAP and BEPU , 2019 .

[29]  Ilya M. Sobol,et al.  Sensitivity Estimates for Nonlinear Mathematical Models , 1993 .

[30]  Sébastien Destercke,et al.  Methods for the evaluation and synthesis of multiple sources of information applied to nuclear computer codes , 2008 .

[31]  G. E. Wilson,et al.  The role of the PIRT process in experiments, code development and code applications associated with Reactor Safety analysis , 1998 .

[32]  Weiru Liu,et al.  The basic principles of uncertain information fusion. An organised review of merging rules in different representation frameworks , 2016, Inf. Fusion.

[33]  François M. Hemez,et al.  Defining predictive maturity for validated numerical simulations , 2010 .

[34]  F. D'auria,et al.  Outline of the uncertainty methodology based on accuracy extrapolation , 1995 .