Quantitative dynamic reliability evaluation of AP1000 passive safety systems by using FMEA and GO-FLOW methodology

The passive safety systems utilized in advanced pressurized water reactor (PWR) design such as AP1000 should be more reliable than that of active safety systems of conventional PWR by less possible opportunities of hardware failures and human errors (less human intervention). The objectives of present study are to evaluate the dynamic reliability of AP1000 plant in order to check the effectiveness of passive safety systems by comparing the reliability-related issues with that of active safety systems in the event of the big accidents. How should the dynamic reliability of passive safety systems properly evaluated? And then what will be the comparison of reliability results of AP1000 passive safety systems with the active safety systems of conventional PWR. For this purpose, a single loop model of AP1000 passive core cooling system (PXS) and passive containment cooling system (PCCS) are assumed separately for quantitative reliability evaluation. The transient behaviors of these passive safety systems are taken under the large break loss-of-coolant accident in the cold leg. The analysis is made by utilizing the qualitative method failure mode and effect analysis in order to identify the potential failure mode and success-oriented reliability analysis tool called GO-FLOW for quantitative reliability evaluation. The GO-FLOW analysis has been conducted separately for PXS and PCCS systems under the same accident. The analysis results show that reliability of AP1000 passive safety systems (PXS and PCCS) is increased due to redundancies and diversity of passive safety subsystems and components, and four stages automatic depressurization system is the key subsystem for successful actuation of PXS and PCCS system. The reliability results of PCCS system of AP1000 are more reliable than that of the containment spray system of conventional PWR. And also GO-FLOW method can be utilized for reliability evaluation of passive safety systems.

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

[2]  Paolo Gaio.  AP1000: The PWR Revisited , 2006 .

[3]  Dana Crowe,et al.  Failure Modes and Effects Analysis , 2001 .

[4]  Wei Wang,et al.  Simulation and analysis on 10-in. cold leg small break LOCA for AP1000 , 2012 .

[5]  Jaroslav Menčík,et al.  Failure Modes and Effects Analysis , 2016 .

[6]  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 .

[7]  Luciano Burgazzi,et al.  EVALUATION OF UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO PASSIVE SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE , 2004 .

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

[9]  Yang Ming,et al.  Addressing the fundamental issues in reliability evaluation of passive safety of AP1000 for a comparison with active safety of PWR , 2013 .

[10]  Jiyong Oh.  Methods for comparative assessment of active and passive safety systems with respect to reliability, uncertainty, economy, and flexibility , 2008 .

[11]  R. F. Wright.  SIMULATED AP1000 RESPONSE TO DESIGN BASIS SMALL-BREAK LOCA EVENTS IN APEX-1000 TEST FACILITY , 2007 .

[12]  Parag A. Pathak,et al.  Massachusetts Institute of Technology , 1964, Nature.

[13]  J. P. Cunningham,et al.  The LOCA performance of the AP600 passive safety systems , 1992 .

[14]  Luciano Burgazzi,et al.  Passive System Reliability Analysis: A Study on the Isolation Condenser , 2002 .

[15]  George E. Apostolakis,et al.  The Impact of Uncertainties on the Performance of Passive Systems , 2005 .

[16]  T. L. Schulz,et al.  Westinghouse AP1000 advanced passive plant , 2006 .