IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v147y2016icp32-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the offsite dose contribution to the global risk in a Steam Generator Tube Rupture scenario

Author

Listed:
  • Rebollo, M.J.
  • Queral, C.
  • Jimenez, G.
  • Gomez-Magan, J.
  • Meléndez, E.
  • Sanchez-Perea, M.

Abstract

The current main figure of merit for risk based decision making process based on Probabilistic Safety Assessment level 1 is usually related with the fuel failure (i.e., Peak Cladding Temperature (PCT)>1477.15K). In this approach, the core damage is the first and necessary step in a potential radiological release, being the containment failure the second one. Nevertheless, SGTR sequences in PWR plants are able to release large quantities of radioactive products without previous core damage or containment failure. For that reason, it seems necessary to analyze which sequences exceed the allowed offsite dose criteria prior to the core damage criterion.

Suggested Citation

  • Rebollo, M.J. & Queral, C. & Jimenez, G. & Gomez-Magan, J. & Meléndez, E. & Sanchez-Perea, M., 2016. "Evaluation of the offsite dose contribution to the global risk in a Steam Generator Tube Rupture scenario," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 32-48.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:147:y:2016:i:c:p:32-48
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.10.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832015003099
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2015.10.016?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. Catalyurek, Umit & Rutt, Benjamin & Metzroth, Kyle & Hakobyan, Aram & Aldemir, Tunc & Denning, Richard & Dunagan, Sean & Kunsman, David, 2010. "Development of a code-agnostic computational infrastructure for the dynamic generation of accident progression event trees," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 278-294.
    2. Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 1041-1060.
    3. M Kloos & J Peschke, 2008. "Consideration of human actions in combination with the probabilistic dynamics method Monte Carlo dynamic event tree," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 222(3), pages 303-313, September.
    4. Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 1076-1101.
    5. Mandelli, Diego & Yilmaz, Alper & Aldemir, Tunc & Metzroth, Kyle & Denning, Richard, 2013. "Scenario clustering and dynamic probabilistic risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 146-160.
    6. Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 997-1013.
    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. París, C. & Queral, C. & Mula, J. & Gómez-Magán, J. & Sánchez-Perea, M. & Meléndez, E. & Gil, J., 2019. "Quantitative risk reduction by means of recovery strategies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 13-32.
    2. Francesco, Di Maio & Matteo, Fumagalli & Carlo, Guerini & Federico, Perotti & Enrico, Zio, 2021. "Time-dependent reliability analysis of the reactor building of a nuclear power plant for accounting of its aging and degradation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    3. Park, Jinkyun & Jung, Jae-Yoon & Heo, Gyunyoung & Kim, Yochan & Kim, Jaewhan & Cho, Jaehyun, 2018. "Application of a process mining technique to identifying information navigation characteristics of human operators working in a digital main control room – feasibility study," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 38-50.
    4. Maidana, Renan G. & Parhizkar, Tarannom & Gomola, Alojz & Utne, Ingrid B. & Mosleh, Ali, 2023. "Supervised dynamic probabilistic risk assessment: Review and comparison of methods," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    5. Kotaro Kubo & Xiaoyu Zheng & Yoichi Tanaka & Hitoshi Tamaki & Tomoyuki Sugiyama & Sunghyon Jang & Takashi Takata & Akira Yamaguchi, 2023. "Simulation-based dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of an internal flooding-initiated accident in nuclear power plant using THALES2 and RAPID," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 237(5), pages 947-957, October.
    6. Cho, Jaehyun & Lee, Sang Hun & Bang, Young Suk & Lee, Suwon & Park, Soo Yong, 2022. "Exhaustive simulation approach for severe accident risk in nuclear power plants: OPR-1000 full-power internal events," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 225(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. Park, Jong Woo & Lee, Seung Jun, 2022. "Simulation optimization framework for dynamic probabilistic safety assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    2. Karanki, D.R. & Rahman, S. & Dang, V.N. & Zerkak, O., 2017. "Epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety assessment: Tradeoff between accuracy and accident simulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 91-102.
    3. París, C. & Queral, C. & Mula, J. & Gómez-Magán, J. & Sánchez-Perea, M. & Meléndez, E. & Gil, J., 2019. "Quantitative risk reduction by means of recovery strategies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 13-32.
    4. Su Han & Tengfei Wang & Jiaqi Chen & Ying Wang & Bo Zhu & Yiqi Zhou, 2021. "Towards the Human–Machine Interaction: Strategies, Design, and Human Reliability Assessment of Crews’ Response to Daily Cargo Ship Navigation Tasks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    5. Ibánez, L. & Hortal, J. & Queral, C. & Gómez-Magán, J. & Sánchez-Perea, M. & Fernández, I. & Meléndez, E. & Expósito, A. & Izquierdo, J.M. & Gil, J. & Marrao, H. & Villalba-Jabonero, E., 2016. "Application of the Integrated Safety Assessment methodology to safety margins. Dynamic Event Trees, Damage Domains and Risk Assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 170-193.
    6. Karanki, D.R. & Dang, V.N. & MacMillan, M.T. & Podofillini, L., 2018. "A comparison of dynamic event tree methods – Case study on a chemical batch reactor," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 542-553.
    7. Zarei, Esmaeil & Khan, Faisal & Abbassi, Rouzbeh, 2021. "Importance of human reliability in process operation: A critical analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    8. Jung, Wondea & Park, Jinkyun & Kim, Yochan & Choi, Sun Yeong & Kim, Seunghwan, 2020. "HuREX – A framework of HRA data collection from simulators in nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    9. Peng Liu & Zhizhong Li, 2014. "Human Error Data Collection and Comparison with Predictions by SPAR‐H," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(9), pages 1706-1719, September.
    10. Di Pasquale, Valentina & Miranda, Salvatore & Iannone, Raffaele & Riemma, Stefano, 2015. "A Simulator for Human Error Probability Analysis (SHERPA)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 17-32.
    11. Groth, Katrina M. & Smith, Reuel & Moradi, Ramin, 2019. "A hybrid algorithm for developing third generation HRA methods using simulator data, causal models, and cognitive science," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Bandeira, Michelle Carvalho Galvão Silva Pinto & Correia, Anderson Ribeiro & Martins, Marcelo Ramos, 2018. "General model analysis of aeronautical accidents involving human and organizational factors," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 137-146.
    13. Maturana, Marcos Coelho & Martins, Marcelo Ramos & Frutuoso e Melo, Paulo Fernando Ferreira, 2021. "Application of a quantitative human performance model to the operational procedure design of a fuel storage pool cooling system," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    14. Lee, Hyun-Chul & Seong, Poong-Hyun, 2009. "A computational model for evaluating the effects of attention, memory, and mental models on situation assessment of nuclear power plant operators," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(11), pages 1796-1805.
    15. Zhao, Yunfei & Smidts, Carol, 2021. "CMS-BN: A cognitive modeling and simulation environment for human performance assessment, part 1 — methodology," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    16. Luca Podofillini & Vinh Dang & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi & Massimo Librizzi, 2010. "Using Expert Models in Human Reliability Analysis—A Dependence Assessment Method Based on Fuzzy Logic," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1277-1297, August.
    17. Abreu, Danilo T.M.P. & Maturana, Marcos C. & Droguett, Enrique Lopez & Martins, Marcelo R., 2022. "Human reliability analysis of conventional maritime pilotage operations supported by a prospective model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    18. Cheng, Tingting & Utne, Ingrid Bouwer & Wu, Bing & Wu, Qing, 2023. "A novel system-theoretic approach for human-system collaboration safety: Case studies on two degrees of autonomy for autonomous ships," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    19. Schroer, Suzanne & Modarres, Mohammad, 2013. "An event classification schema for evaluating site risk in a multi-unit nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 40-51.
    20. Su, Xiaoyan & Mahadevan, Sankaran & Xu, Peida & Deng, Yong, 2014. "Inclusion of task dependence in human reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 41-55.

    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:147:y:2016:i:c:p:32-48. 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.