A survey of dynamic methodologies for probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants

Abstract Dynamic methodologies for probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) are defined as those which use a time-dependent phenomenological model of system evolution along with its stochastic behavior to account for possible dependencies between failure events. Over the past 30 years, numerous concerns have been raised in the literature regarding the capability of the traditional static modeling approaches such as the event-tree/fault-tree methodology to adequately account for the impact of process/hardware/software/firmware/human interactions on the stochastic system behavior. A survey of the types of dynamic PSA methodologies proposed to date is presented, as well as a brief summary of an example application for the PSA modeling of a digital feedwater control system of an operating pressurized water reactor. The use of dynamic methodologies for PSA modeling of passive components and phenomenological uncertainties are also discussed.

[1]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  A methodology for generating dynamic accident progression event trees for level-2 PRA. , 2006 .

[2]  P. K. Andow,et al.  Failures in control systems , 1984 .

[3]  Diego Mandelli,et al.  Probabilistic Clustering for Scenario Analysis , 2010 .

[4]  Pierre-Etienne Labeau,et al.  Probabilistic dynamics: Estimation of generalized unreliability through efficient Monte Carlo simulation , 1996 .

[5]  Juozas Augutis,et al.  Dynamic reliability and risk assessment of the accident localization system of the Ignalina NPP RBMK-1500 reactor , 2005, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[6]  G. Reina,et al.  DYLAM-1 : a software package for event sequence and consequence spectrum methodology , 1984 .

[7]  T. Aldemir,et al.  CONTINUOUS CELL-TO-CELL MAPPING , 1997 .

[8]  Michael Yau,et al.  Development of tools for safety analysis of control software in advanced reactors , 1996 .

[9]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  A Methodology for Probabilistic Accident Management , 2003 .

[10]  Pavel Kudinov,et al.  Development and Application of a Genetic Algorithm Based Dynamic PRA Methodology to Plant Vulnerability Search , 2011 .

[11]  Carol-Sophie Smidts,et al.  Probabilistic reactor dynamics. II: A Monte Carlo study of a fast reactor transient , 1992 .

[12]  Pierre-Etienne Labeau,et al.  Modeling PSA Problems—I: The Stimulus-Driven Theory of Probabilistic Dynamics , 2005 .

[13]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  Some Measure Theoretic Issues in Probabilistic Dynamics , 2007 .

[14]  Karen Vierow,et al.  MELCOR Analysis of Steam Generator Tube Creep Rupture in Station Blackout Severe Accident , 2005 .

[15]  Enrico Tronci,et al.  Fluid Petri Nets and hybrid model-checking: a comparative case study , 2003, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[16]  C. R. Hyman,et al.  MELCOR computer code manuals , 2015 .

[17]  Qi Cai,et al.  Layered Modeling of Event Sequence Diagram for Dynamic Reliability Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant , 2010, 2010 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference.

[18]  E. Zio,et al.  Identification of nuclear transients via optimized fuzzy clustering , 2005 .

[19]  Enrique Meléndez,et al.  Automatic Generation of Dynamic Event Trees: A Tool for Integrated Safety Assessment (ISA) , 1994 .

[20]  O. Boudouard,et al.  On the flammable limits of gas mixtures , 2005 .

[21]  Gary J. Powers,et al.  Computer-aided Synthesis of Fault-trees , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[22]  Pierre-Etienne Labeau,et al.  A survey on Monte Carlo estimation of small failure risks in dynamic reliability , 1998 .

[23]  Hiromitsu Kumamoto,et al.  Top-down Algorithm for Obtaining Prime Implicant Sets of Non-Coherent Fault Trees , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[24]  Yves Dutuit,et al.  Dependability modelling and evaluation by using stochastic Petri nets: application to two test cases , 1997 .

[25]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  On the need for dynamic methodologies in risk and reliability studies , 1992 .

[26]  Carol-Sophie Smidts,et al.  Probabilistic reactor dynamics. III: A framework for time-dependent interaction between operator and reactor during a transient involving human error , 1992 .

[27]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants , 1996 .

[28]  Saurin Majumdar.  Prediction of structural integrity of steam generator tubes under severe accident conditions , 1999 .

[29]  Hiromitsu Kumamoto,et al.  Safety and reliability synthesis of systems with control loops , 1979 .

[30]  Tunc Aldemir.  Quantifying setpoint drift effects in the failure analysis of process control systems , 1989 .

[31]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  Treatment of uncertainties in modeling hydrogen burning in the containment during severe accidents , 2006 .

[32]  Carol-Sophie Smidts.  Probabilistic reactor dynamics. IV. An example of man/machine interaction , 1992 .

[33]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  Computer-Assisted Markov Failure Modeling of Process Control Systems , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[34]  Diego Mandelli,et al.  A Benchmark System for Comparing Reliability Modeling Approaches for Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems , 2009 .

[35]  Hiromitsu Kumamoto,et al.  Signal-Flow-Based Graphs for Failure-Mode Analysis of Systems with Control Loops , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[36]  P. C. Cacciabue,et al.  Dynamic logical analytical methodology versus fault tree: the case study of the auxiliary feedwater system of a nuclear power plant , 1986 .

[37]  Michiyuki Kobayashi,et al.  GO-FLOW: A New Reliability Analysis Methodology , 1988 .

[38]  L Podofillini,et al.  Identification and classification of dynamic event tree scenarios via possibilistic clustering: application to a steam generator tube rupture event. , 2009, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[39]  Pierre-Etienne Labeau,et al.  DDET and Monte Carlo simulation to solve some dynamic reliability problems , 1998 .

[40]  Alessandro Petruzzi,et al.  Comparison between Best-Estimate–Plus–Uncertainty Methods and Conservative Tools for Nuclear Power Plant Licensing , 2010 .

[41]  Ümit V. Çatalyürek,et al.  Dynamic generation of accident progression event trees , 2008 .

[42]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  Reliability and Safety Assessment of Dynamic Process Systems , 2010 .

[43]  J. Devooght,et al.  Probabilistic Reactor Dynamics —I: The Theory of Continuous Event Trees , 1992 .

[44]  Eduard Hofer,et al.  An approximate epistemic uncertainty analysis approach in the presence of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties , 2002, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[45]  N. O. Siu,et al.  A simulation model for dynamic system availability analysis , 1989 .

[46]  Giacomo Cojazzi,et al.  The DYLAM approach for the dynamic reliability analysis of systems , 1996 .

[47]  Don W. Miller,et al.  Methodologies for the Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Digital Reactor Protection and Control Systems , 2007 .

[48]  Enrico Zio,et al.  Monte Carlo approach to PSA for dynamic process systems , 1996 .

[49]  Enrique Meléndez,et al.  Relationship between probabilistic dynamics and event trees , 1996 .

[50]  M. O. Locks.  Synthesis of Fault Trees: An Example of Noncoherence , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Reliability.

[51]  Ümit V. Çatalyürek,et al.  Development of a code-agnostic computational infrastructure for the dynamic generation of accident progression event trees , 2010, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[52]  S. Swaminathan,et al.  The mathematical formulation for the event sequence diagram framework , 1999 .

[53]  Diego Mandelli,et al.  Probabilistic risk assessment modeling of digital instrumentation and control systems using two dynamic methodologies , 2010, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[54]  Tunc Aldemir,et al.  A data base oriented dynamic methodology for the failure analysis of closed loop control systems in process plant , 1990 .

[55]  Borut Mavko,et al.  A dynamic fault tree , 2002, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[56]  N. Siu,et al.  Dynamic event trees in accident sequence analysis: application to steam generator tube rupture , 1993 .