IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v139y2015icp113-119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An application of the value tree analysis methodology within the integrated risk informed decision making for the nuclear facilities

Author

Listed:
  • Borysiewicz, MieczysÅ‚aw
  • Kowal, Karol
  • Potempski, SÅ‚awomir

Abstract

A new framework of integrated risk informed decision making (IRIDM) has been recently developed in order to improve the risk management of the nuclear facilities. IRIDM is a process in which qualitatively different inputs, corresponding to different types of risk, are jointly taken into account. However, the relative importance of the IRIDM inputs and their influence on the decision to be made is difficult to be determined quantitatively. An improvement of this situation can be achieved by application of the Value Tree Analysis (VTA) methods. The aim of this article is to present the VTA methodology in the context of its potential usage in the decision making on nuclear facilities. The benefits of the VTA application within the IRIDM process were identified while making the decision on fuel conversion of the research reactor MARIA.

Suggested Citation

  • Borysiewicz, MieczysÅ‚aw & Kowal, Karol & Potempski, SÅ‚awomir, 2015. "An application of the value tree analysis methodology within the integrated risk informed decision making for the nuclear facilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 113-119.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:139:y:2015:i:c:p:113-119
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.02.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832015000587
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2015.02.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    2. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    3. Martorell, S. & Villamizar, M. & Martón, I. & Villanueva, J.F. & Carlos, S. & Sánchez, A.I., 2014. "Evaluation of risk impact of changes to surveillance requirements addressing model and parameter uncertainties," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 153-165.
    4. Martorell, S. & Martón, I. & Villamizar, M. & Sánchez, A.I. & Carlos, S., 2014. "Evaluation of risk impact of changes to Completion Times addressing model and parameter uncertainties," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 190-201.
    5. Martorell, S. & Carlos, S. & Villanueva, J.F. & Sanchez, A.I & Galvan, B. & Salazar, D. & Cepin, M., 2006. "Use of multiple objective evolutionary algorithms in optimizing surveillance requirements," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(9), pages 1027-1038.
    6. Ahti A. Salo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 1992. "Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1053-1061, December.
    7. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ferenc Bognár & Petra Benedek, 2022. "A Novel AHP-PRISM Risk Assessment Method—An Empirical Case Study in a Nuclear Power Plant," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Martorell, P. & Martón, I. & Sánchez, A.I. & Martorell, S. & Sanchez-Saez, F. & Saiz, M., 2018. "Evaluation of risk impact of completion time changes combining PSA and DSA model insight and human reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 97-107.
    3. Manjengwa, Evelyn Ruvimbo & Dorfling, Christie & Tadie, Margreth, 2023. "Development of a conceptual framework to evaluate factors that affect drivers for stakeholder engagement in mine waste management," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    4. Mazgaj, Piotr & Darnowski, Piotr & Kaszko, Aleksej & Hortal, Javier & Dusic, Milorad & Mendizábal, Rafael & Pelayo, Fernando, 2022. "Demonstration of the E-BEPU methodology for SL-LOCA in a Gen-III PWR reactor," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    5. Ming Sun & Taosheng Li & Jie Yu & Daochuan Ge & Ying Bai & Longlong Tao, 2022. "A New Reliability Allocation Method Based on PSA and AHP for Fusion Reactors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-10, July.
    6. Kowal, Karol, 2022. "Lifetime reliability and availability simulation for the electrical system of HTTR coupled to the electricity-hydrogen cogeneration plant," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    2. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    3. Adiel T. Almeida-Filho & Adiel T. Almeida & Ana Paula C. S. Costa, 2017. "A flexible elicitation procedure for additive model scale constants," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 259(1), pages 65-83, December.
    4. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    5. P P Sutton & R H Green, 2007. "Choice is a value statement. On inferring optimal multiple attribute portfolios from non-optimal nominations," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(11), pages 1526-1533, November.
    6. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    7. Parreiras, R.O. & Kokshenev, I. & Carvalho, M.O.M. & Willer, A.C.M. & Dellezzopolles, C.F. & Nacif, D.B. & Santana, J.A., 2019. "A flexible multicriteria decision-making methodology to support the strategic management of Science, Technology and Innovation research funding programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(2), pages 725-739.
    8. Liesio, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2007. "Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1488-1505, September.
    9. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    10. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    11. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Danielle Costa Morais & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, 2022. "Negotiation Support Through Interactive Dominance Relationship Specification," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 591-620, June.
    12. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    13. Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Milazzo, Maria Francesca & Selvik, Jon T. & Asche, Frank & Abrahamsen, HÃ¥kon Bjorheim, 2020. "Prioritising investments in safety measures in the chemical industry by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    14. Phillips, Jason, 2013. "Determining the sustainability of large-scale photovoltaic solar power plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 435-444.
    15. Guo, Min & Yang, Jian-Bo & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Wang, Hongwei, 2007. "Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1294-1312, November.
    16. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    17. Lucas Miguel Alencar Correia & Jonhatan Magno Norte Silva & Wilza Karla Leite & Ruan Eduardo Carneiro Lucas & Geraldo Alves Colaço, 2022. "A multicriteria decision model to rank workstations in a footwear industry based on a FITradeoff-ranking method for ergonomics interventions," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3335-3371, September.
    18. Elena Carrara & Rebecca Ciavarella & Stefania Boglietti & Martina Carra & Giulio Maternini & Benedetto Barabino, 2021. "Identifying and Selecting Key Sustainable Parameters for the Monitoring of e-Powered Micro Personal Mobility Vehicles. Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-22, August.
    19. Dorota Górecka & Ewa Roszkowska & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2016. "The MARS Approach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1097-1136, November.
    20. Pedro Linares & Sara Lumbreras & Alberto Santamaría & Andrea Veiga, 2016. "How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 227-244, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:139:y:2015:i:c:p:113-119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.