IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v162y2017icp91-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety assessment: Tradeoff between accuracy and accident simulations

Author

Listed:
  • Karanki, D.R.
  • Rahman, S.
  • Dang, V.N.
  • Zerkak, O.

Abstract

The coupling of plant simulation models and stochastic models representing failure events in Dynamic Event Trees (DET) is a framework used to model the dynamic interactions among physical processes, equipment failures, and operator responses. The integration of physical and stochastic models may additionally enhance the treatment of uncertainties. Probabilistic Safety Assessments as currently implemented propagate the (epistemic) uncertainties in failure probabilities, rates, and frequencies; while the uncertainties in the physical model (parameters) are not propagated. The coupling of deterministic (physical) and probabilistic models in integrated simulations such as DET allows both types of uncertainties to be considered. However, integrated accident simulations with epistemic uncertainties will challenge even today's high performance computing infrastructure, especially for simulations of inherently complex nuclear or chemical plants. Conversely, intentionally limiting computations for practical reasons would compromise accuracy of results. This work investigates how to tradeoff accuracy and computations to quantify risk in light of both uncertainties and accident dynamics. A simple depleting tank problem that can be solved analytically is considered to examine the adequacy of a discrete DET approach. The results show that optimal allocation of computational resources between epistemic and aleatory calculations by means of convergence studies ensures accuracy within a limited budget.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:162:y:2017:i:c:p:91-102
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.01.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832016300862
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2017.01.015?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. Karanki, Durga Rao & Dang, Vinh N., 2016. "Quantification of Dynamic Event Trees – A comparison with event trees for MLOCA scenario," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 19-31.
    3. 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.
    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. Karanki, Durga Rao & Kim, Tae-Wan & Dang, Vinh N., 2015. "A dynamic event tree informed approach to probabilistic accident sequence modeling: Dynamics and variabilities in medium LOCA," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 78-91.
    6. Chang, Y.H.J. & Mosleh, A., 2007. "Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 4: IDAC causal model of operator problem-solving response," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(8), pages 1061-1075.
    7. Di Maio, Francesco & Rai, Ajit & Zio, Enrico, 2016. "A dynamic probabilistic safety margin characterization approach in support of Integrated Deterministic and Probabilistic Safety Analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 9-18.
    8. 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. Zheng, Xiaoyu & Tamaki, Hitoshi & Sugiyama, Tomoyuki & Maruyama, Yu, 2022. "Dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants using multi-fidelity simulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    2. Xu, Yingchun & Yao, Wen & Zheng, Xiaohu & Chen, Xiaoqian, 2020. "An iterative information integration method for multi-level system reliability analysis based on Bayesian Melding Method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Rahman, S. & Karanki, D.R. & Epiney, A. & Wicaksono, D. & Zerkak, O. & Dang, V.N., 2018. "Deterministic sampling for propagating epistemic and aleatory uncertainty in dynamic event tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 62-78.
    6. Bellaera, R. & Bonifetto, R. & Di Maio, F. & Pedroni, N. & Savoldi, L. & Zanino, R. & Zio, E., 2020. "Integrated deterministic and probabilistic safety assessment of a superconducting magnet cryogenic cooling circuit for nuclear fusion applications," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    7. Yoo, Yeongmin & Jung, Ui-Jin & Han, Yong Ha & Lee, Jongsoo, 2021. "Data Augmentation-Based Prediction of System Level Performance under Model and Parameter Uncertainties: Role of Designable Generative Adversarial Networks (DGAN)," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    8. Robinson, Allen C. & Drake, Richard R. & Swan, M. Scot & Bennett, Nichelle L. & Smith, Thomas M. & Hooper, Russell & Laity, George R., 2021. "A software environment for effective reliability management for pulsed power design," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    9. Xie, Qimiao & Zhou, Tianyi & Wang, Changjian & Zhu, Xu & Ma, Chao & Zhang, Aifeng, 2024. "An integrated uncertainty analysis method for the risk assessment of hydrogen refueling stations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    10. Guo, Zehua & Dailey, Ryan & Feng, Tangtao & Zhou, Yukun & Sun, Zhongning & Corradini, Michael L & Wang, Jun, 2021. "Uncertainty analysis of ATF Cr-coated-Zircaloy on BWR in-vessel accident progression during a station blackout," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    11. Vincenzo Destino & Nicola Pedroni & Roberto Bonifetto & Francesco Di Maio & Laura Savoldi & Enrico Zio, 2021. "Metamodeling and On-Line Clustering for Loss-of-Flow Accident Precursors Identification in a Superconducting Magnet Cryogenic Cooling Circuit," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-37, September.
    12. Raoni, Rafael & Secchi, Argimiro R., 2019. "Procedures to model and solve probabilistic dynamic system problems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Chemweno, Peter & Pintelon, Liliane & Muchiri, Peter Nganga & Van Horenbeek, Adriaan, 2018. "Risk assessment methodologies in maintenance decision making: A review of dependability modelling approaches," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 64-77.
    14. Zarghami, Seyed Ashkan & Dumrak, Jantanee, 2021. "Aleatory uncertainty quantification of project resources and its application to project scheduling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(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. 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. 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.
    3. Park, Jong Woo & Lee, Seung Jun, 2022. "Simulation optimization framework for dynamic probabilistic safety assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    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. 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).
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. 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).
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Parhizkar, Tarannom & Utne, Ingrid Bouwer & Vinnem, Jan Erik & Mosleh, Ali, 2021. "Supervised dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of complex systems, part 2: Application to risk-informed decision making, practice and results," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    18. Zhang, Xiaoge & Mahadevan, Sankaran & Lau, Nathan & Weinger, Matthew B., 2020. "Multi-source information fusion to assess control room operator performance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    19. Hogenboom, Sandra & Parhizkar, Tarannom & Vinnem, Jan Erik, 2021. "Temporal decision-making factors in risk analyses of dynamic positioning operations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    20. Groth, Katrina M. & Mosleh, Ali, 2012. "A data-informed PIF hierarchy for model-based Human Reliability Analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 154-174.

    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:162:y:2017:i:c:p:91-102. 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.