IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v227y2013i5p471-490.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An alternative comprehensive framework using belief functions for parameter and model uncertainty analysis in nuclear probabilistic risk assessment applications

Author

Listed:
  • Tu Duong Le Duy
  • Laurence Dieulle
  • Dominique Vasseur
  • Christophe Bérenguer
  • Mathieu Couplet

Abstract

In nuclear power plants, probabilistic risk assessment insights contribute to achieve a safe design and operation. In this context, the decision-making process must be robust and uncertainties must be taken into account and controlled. In general, the uncertainties in a nuclear probabilistic risk assessment context can be categorized as either aleatory or epistemic. The epistemic uncertainty, which can be subdivided into parameter and model uncertainties, is recognized to have an important impact on actual results of probabilistic risk assessment. Traditionally, the approach of an epistemic uncertainty analysis in nuclear probabilistic risk assessment often relies on the probabilistic approach in which parameter uncertainty is treated by using an assigned probability distribution, e.g. the log-normal one, and model uncertainty can be taken into account through sensitivity studies. Such an approach has been recognized in several recent researchs to present limitations regarding the impacts of assigning probability distribution in case of rare operating feedback data. In order to overcome such a limitation, in this article we propose a comprehensive approach for uncertainty analysis from the parameter and model uncertainties modeling to the final step of the decision-making process using the Dempster-Shafer theory, which is recognized to be more general than the probabilistic approach. We also show that the traditional probabilistic approach, currently used in probabilistic risk assessment practice, can be totally integrated in this framework. Finally, the proposed framework is illustrated and compared with the traditional approach through a practical example from EDF Nuclear Power Plants probabilistic risk assessment application. Some discussions and conclusions for industrial probabilistic risk assessment contexts will be given.

Suggested Citation

  • Tu Duong Le Duy & Laurence Dieulle & Dominique Vasseur & Christophe Bérenguer & Mathieu Couplet, 2013. "An alternative comprehensive framework using belief functions for parameter and model uncertainty analysis in nuclear probabilistic risk assessment applications," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(5), pages 471-490, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:5:p:471-490
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X12474154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X12474154
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X12474154?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, Jim W., 2006. "Uncertainty-based sensitivity indices for imprecise probability distributions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1443-1451.
    2. Durga Rao, K. & Kushwaha, H.S. & Verma, A.K. & Srividya, A., 2007. "Quantification of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in level-1 probabilistic safety assessment studies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(7), pages 947-956.
    3. Refaul Ferdous & Faisal Khan & Rehan Sadiq & Paul Amyotte & Brian Veitch, 2011. "Fault and Event Tree Analyses for Process Systems Risk Analysis: Uncertainty Handling Formulations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(1), pages 86-107, January.
    4. Didier Dubois, 2010. "Representation, Propagation, and Decision Issues in Risk Analysis Under Incomplete Probabilistic Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 361-368, March.
    5. Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio, 2010. "A Comparison Between Probabilistic and Dempster‐Shafer Theory Approaches to Model Uncertainty Analysis in the Performance Assessment of Radioactive Waste Repositories," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1139-1156, July.
    6. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    7. Baudrit, C. & Dubois, D., 2006. "Practical representations of incomplete probabilistic knowledge," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 86-108, November.
    8. Durga Rao Karanki & Hari Shankar Kushwaha & Ajit Kumar Verma & Srividya Ajit, 2009. "Uncertainty Analysis Based on Probability Bounds (P‐Box) Approach in Probabilistic Safety Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 662-675, May.
    9. Ferson, Scott & Troy Tucker, W., 2006. "Sensitivity analysis using probability bounding," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1435-1442.
    10. Limbourg, Philipp & de Rocquigny, Etienne, 2010. "Uncertainty analysis using evidence theory – confronting level-1 and level-2 approaches with data availability and computational constraints," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(5), pages 550-564.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    2. Hu, Lunhu & Kang, Rui & Pan, Xing & Zuo, Dujun, 2020. "Risk assessment of uncertain random system—Level-1 and level-2 joint propagation of uncertainty and probability in fault tree analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.
    4. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2013. "Uncertainty Analysis in Fault Tree Models with Dependent Basic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1146-1173, June.
    5. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    6. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2018. "How the integration of System 1-System 2 thinking and recent risk perspectives can improve risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 237-244.
    8. Sarat Sivaprasad & Cameron A. MacKenzie, 2018. "The Hurwicz Decision Rule’s Relationship to Decision Making with the Triangle and Beta Distributions and Exponential Utility," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 139-153, September.
    9. Tzu Yang Loh & Mario P. Brito & Neil Bose & Jingjing Xu & Kiril Tenekedjiev, 2019. "A Fuzzy‐Based Risk Assessment Framework for Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Under‐Ice Missions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2744-2765, December.
    10. Konstantinos Kazaras & Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, 2014. "Challenges for current quantitative risk assessment (QRA) models to describe explicitly the road tunnel safety level," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(8), pages 953-968, September.
    11. Rocchetta, Roberto & Patelli, Edoardo, 2020. "A post-contingency power flow emulator for generalized probabilistic risks assessment of power grids," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    12. Ning-Cong Xiao & Hong-Zhong Huang & Yan-Feng Li & Zhonglai Wang & Xiao-Ling Zhang, 2013. "Non-probabilistic reliability sensitivity analysis of the model of structural systems with interval variables whose state of dependence is determined by constraints," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 227(5), pages 491-498, October.
    13. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    14. Jeremy Rohmer & Eric Chojnacki, 2021. "Forecast of environment systems using expert judgements: performance comparison between the possibilistic and the classical model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 131-146, March.
    15. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    16. Fan, Cunlong & Montewka, Jakub & Zhang, Di, 2022. "A risk comparison framework for autonomous ships navigation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    17. Wróbel, Krzysztof & Montewka, Jakub & Kujala, Pentti, 2018. "Towards the development of a system-theoretic model for safety assessment of autonomous merchant vessels," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 209-224.
    18. Montes, Ignacio & Miranda, Enrique & Montes, Susana, 2014. "Stochastic dominance with imprecise information," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 868-886.
    19. Terje Aven, 2013. "On Funtowicz and Ravetz's “Decision Stake—System Uncertainties” Structure and Recently Developed Risk Perspectives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 270-280, February.
    20. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.

    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:sae:risrel:v:227:y:2013:i:5:p:471-490. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.