IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v90y2005i2p123-130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two-stage Bayesian models—application to ZEDB project

Author

Listed:
  • Bunea, C.
  • Charitos, T.
  • Cooke, R.M.
  • Becker, G.

Abstract

A well-known mathematical tool to analyze plant specific reliability data for nuclear power facilities is the two-stage Bayesian model. Such two-stage Bayesian models are standard practice nowadays, for example in the German ZEDB project or in the Swedish T-Book, although they may differ in their mathematical models and software implementation. In this paper, we review the mathematical model, its underlying assumptions and supporting arguments. Reasonable conditional assumptions are made to yield tractable and mathematically valid form for the failure rate at plant of interest, given failures and operational times at other plants in the population. The posterior probability of failure rate at plant of interest is sensitive to the choice of hyperprior parameters since the effect of hyperprior distribution will never be dominated by the effect of observation. The methods of Pörn and Jeffrey for choosing distributions over hyperparameters are discussed. Furthermore, we will perform verification tasks associated with the theoretical model presented in this paper. The present software implementation produces good agreement with ZEDB results for various prior distributions. The difference between our results and those of ZEDB reflect differences that may arise from numerical implementation, as that would use different step size and truncation bounds.

Suggested Citation

  • Bunea, C. & Charitos, T. & Cooke, R.M. & Becker, G., 2005. "Two-stage Bayesian models—application to ZEDB project," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 123-130.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:90:y:2005:i:2:p:123-130
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832004002698
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2004.10.016?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. Eduard Hofer & Stephen C. Hora & Ronald L. Iman & Jörg Peschke, 1997. "On the Solution Approach for Bayesian Modeling of Initiating Event Frequencies and Failure Rates," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 249-252, April.
    2. Stephen C. Hora & Ronald L. Iman, 1990. "Bayesian Modeling of Initiating Event Frequencies at Nuclear Power Plants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 103-109, March.
    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. Strigini, Lorenzo & Wright, David, 2014. "Bounds on survival probability given mean probability of failure per demand; and the paradoxical advantages of uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 66-83.
    2. Zhao, Xingyu & Littlewood, Bev & Povyakalo, Andrey & Strigini, Lorenzo & Wright, David, 2018. "Conservative claims for the probability of perfection of a software-based system using operational experience of previous similar systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 265-282.
    3. Littlewood, Bev & Salako, Kizito & Strigini, Lorenzo & Zhao, Xingyu, 2020. "On reliability assessment when a software-based system is replaced by a thought-to-be-better one," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    4. Quigley, John & Hardman, Gavin & Bedford, Tim & Walls, Lesley, 2011. "Merging expert and empirical data for rare event frequency estimation: Pool homogenisation for empirical Bayes models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(6), pages 687-695.

    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. Vaurio, Jussi K. & Jänkälä, Kalle E., 2006. "Evaluation and comparison of estimation methods for failure rates and probabilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 209-221.
    2. John Quigley & Kevin J. Wilson & Lesley Walls & Tim Bedford, 2013. "A Bayes Linear Bayes Method for Estimation of Correlated Event Rates," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(12), pages 2209-2224, December.
    3. Eduard Hofer & Stephen C. Hora & Ronald L. Iman & Jörg Peschke, 1997. "On the Solution Approach for Bayesian Modeling of Initiating Event Frequencies and Failure Rates," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 249-252, April.
    4. das Chagas Moura, Márcio & Azevedo, Rafael Valença & Droguett, Enrique López & Chaves, Leandro Rego & Lins, Isis Didier & Vilela, Romulo Fernando & Filho, Romero Sales, 2016. "Estimation of expected number of accidents and workforce unavailability through Bayesian population variability analysis and Markov-based model," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 136-146.
    5. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Gilberto Montibeller, 2015. "Probability Elicitation Under Severe Time Pressure: A Rank‐Based Method," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1317-1335, July.
    6. Forell, Burkhard & Peschke, Jörg & Einarsson, Svante & Röwekamp, Marina, 2016. "Technical reliability of active fire protection features – generic database derived from German nuclear power plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 277-286.
    7. Ronald L. Iman & Jon C. Helton, 1991. "The Repeatability of Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses for Complex Probabilistic Risk Assessments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 591-606, December.

    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:90:y:2005:i:2:p:123-130. 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.