IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/risrel/v234y2020i1p183-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The extended living probabilistic safety assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Marko ÄŒepin

Abstract

The term living probabilistic safety assessment was defined soon after the initial probabilistic safety assessments were implemented. The objective of this article is to present the extended living probabilistic safety assessment and its applications considering realistic nuclear power plant models, including the low power and shutdown plant operating states. One of the key objectives is to compare the suitability of conventional and additional risk measures, core damage frequency and conditional core damage frequency, respectively. The methods are presented considering all states of the plant from the full power operation to the low power and shutdown states. The example models of the nuclear power plants and the results of the living probabilistic safety assessment of the plant operating states are discussed. The results show that the risk of low power and shutdown states is generally smaller than the risk of full power operation, but the low power and shutdown plant operating states differ significantly among each other regarding the risk level. The deficiency of living probabilistic safety assessment applied to the plant shutdown states is connected with significantly increased human effort for the analyses, with a significantly greater amount of results and with increased uncertainty of some parameters due to the larger dynamics of actions in the plant shutdown versus the full power operation states. The benefit of the living probabilistic safety assessment applied to the plant low power and shutdown states lays in consideration of all states and potential identification of risk significant states and directions for possible safety improvements.

Suggested Citation

  • Marko ÄŒepin, 2020. "The extended living probabilistic safety assessment," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(1), pages 183-192, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:risrel:v:234:y:2020:i:1:p:183-192
    DOI: 10.1177/1748006X19861199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1748006X19861199
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1748006X19861199?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. KanÄ ev, DuÅ¡ko & ÄŒepin, Marko, 2012. "A new method for explicit modelling of single failure event within different common cause failure groups," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 84-93.
    2. 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.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.
    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. Min Zhang & Zhijian Zhang & Ali Mosleh & Sijuan Chen, 2017. "Common cause failure model updating for risk monitoring in nuclear power plants based on alpha factor model," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 209-220, June.
    2. Kaya, Gulsum Kubra & Hocaoglu, Mehmet Fatih, 2020. "Semi-quantitative application to the Functional Resonance Analysis Method for supporting safety management in a complex health-care process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    3. Mi, Jinhua & Li, Yan-Feng & Peng, Weiwen & Huang, Hong-Zhong, 2018. "Reliability analysis of complex multi-state system with common cause failure based on evidential networks," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 71-81.
    4. Liu, Xiang-dong & Pan, Fei & Cai, Wen-li & Peng, Rui, 2020. "Correlation and risk measurement modeling: A Markov-switching mixed Clayton copula approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    5. Alessandro Capocchi & Paola Orlandini & Stefano Amelio, 2021. "Hospital risk management at the time of Covid-19: An analysis of the Lombardy Region," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(118), pages 97-116.
    6. Zhou, Taotao & Droguett, Enrique López & Modarres, Mohammad, 2020. "A common cause failure model for components under age-related degradation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Dmitry A. Radushinsky & Egor O. Zamyatin & Alexandra I. Radushinskaya & Ivan I. Sytko & Ekaterina E. Smirnova, 2024. "The Performance and Qualitative Evaluation of Scientific Work at Research Universities: A Focus on the Types of University and Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-26, September.
    8. Wang, Yang & Ye, Ting & Zio, Enrico & Wang, Tengfei & Wu, Bing, 2024. "A blockchain-based credibility evaluation scheme for navigational event dissemination in the internet of ships," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    9. Soga, Shota & Higo, Eishiro & Miura, Hiromichi, 2021. "A systematic approach to estimate an inter-unit common-cause failure probability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    10. Cheng, Chen & Yang, Jun & Li, Lei, 2021. "Reliability evaluation of a k-out-of-n(G)-subsystem based multi-state phased mission system with common bus performance sharing subjected to common cause failures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    11. Sang Cheol Park & Munkh-Erdene Tserendulam & Sung Yul Ryoo, 2021. "The Two Minds of Non-Work-Related Computing in the Workplace," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, September.
    12. Gulsum Kubra Kaya & James Ward & John Clarkson, 2019. "A Review of Risk Matrices Used in Acute Hospitals in England," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1060-1070, May.

    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:234:y:2020:i:1:p:183-192. 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.