RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      다수기 PSA 수행을 위한 새로운 정량화 방법 = A New Quantification Method for Multi-Unit Probabilistic Safety Assessment

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A106610139

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      The objective of this paper is to suggest a new quantification method for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) that removes the overestimation error caused by the existing delete-term approximation (DTA) based quantification method. So far, for the actual plant PSA model quantification, a fault tree with negates have been solved by the DTA method. It is well known that the DTA method induces overestimated core damage frequency (CDF) of nuclear power plant (NPP). If a PSA fault tree has negates and non-rare events, the overestimation in CDF drastically increases. Since multi-unit seismic PSA model has plant level negates and many non-rare events in the fault tree, it should be very carefully quantified in order to avoid CDF overestimation. Multi-unit PSA fault tree has normal gates and negates that represent each NPP status. The NPP status means core damage or non-core damage state of individual NPPs. The non-core damage state of a NPP is modeled in the fault tree by using a negate (a NOT gate). Authors reviewed and compared (1) quantification methods that generate exact or approximate Boolean solutions from a fault tree, (2) DTA method generating approximate Boolean solution by solving negates in a fault tree, and (3) probability calculation methods from the Boolean solutions generated by exact quantification methods or DTA method. Based on the review and comparison, a new intersection removal by probability (IRBP) method is suggested in this study for the multi-unit PSA. If the IRBP method is adopted, multi-unit PSA fault tree can be quantified without the overestimation error that is caused by the direct application of DTA method. That is, the extremely overestimated CDF can be avoided and accurate CDF can be calculated by using the IRBP method. The accuracy of the IRBP method was validated by simple multi-unit PSA models. The necessity of the IRBP method was demonstrated by the actual plant multi-unit seismic PSA models.
      번역하기

      The objective of this paper is to suggest a new quantification method for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) that removes the overestimation error caused by the existing delete-term approximation (DTA) based quantification method. So far...

      The objective of this paper is to suggest a new quantification method for multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) that removes the overestimation error caused by the existing delete-term approximation (DTA) based quantification method. So far, for the actual plant PSA model quantification, a fault tree with negates have been solved by the DTA method. It is well known that the DTA method induces overestimated core damage frequency (CDF) of nuclear power plant (NPP). If a PSA fault tree has negates and non-rare events, the overestimation in CDF drastically increases. Since multi-unit seismic PSA model has plant level negates and many non-rare events in the fault tree, it should be very carefully quantified in order to avoid CDF overestimation. Multi-unit PSA fault tree has normal gates and negates that represent each NPP status. The NPP status means core damage or non-core damage state of individual NPPs. The non-core damage state of a NPP is modeled in the fault tree by using a negate (a NOT gate). Authors reviewed and compared (1) quantification methods that generate exact or approximate Boolean solutions from a fault tree, (2) DTA method generating approximate Boolean solution by solving negates in a fault tree, and (3) probability calculation methods from the Boolean solutions generated by exact quantification methods or DTA method. Based on the review and comparison, a new intersection removal by probability (IRBP) method is suggested in this study for the multi-unit PSA. If the IRBP method is adopted, multi-unit PSA fault tree can be quantified without the overestimation error that is caused by the direct application of DTA method. That is, the extremely overestimated CDF can be avoided and accurate CDF can be calculated by using the IRBP method. The accuracy of the IRBP method was validated by simple multi-unit PSA models. The necessity of the IRBP method was demonstrated by the actual plant multi-unit seismic PSA models.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 C. E. Shannon, "The Synthesis of Two-terminal Switching Ccircuits" 28 : 59-98, 1948

      2 A. Rauzy, "New Algorithms for Fault Tree Analysis" 40 : 203-211, 1993

      3 C.H. Roth Jr., "Fundamentals of Logic Design" 2014

      4 EPRI, "FTREX 1.9 Software Manual" 2018

      5 WOO SIK JUNG, "FAST BDD TRUNCATION METHOD FOR EFFICIENT TOP EVENT PROBABILITY CALCULATION" 한국원자력학회 40 (40): 571-580, 2008

      6 EPRI, "Direct Probability Calculator (DPC) Version 4.0" 2009

      7 S. Epstein, "Can We Trust PRA?" 88 : 195-205, 2005

      8 W.S. Jung, "BeEAST 1.1 User Manual" 2015

      9 EPRI, "Advanced Cutset Upper Bound Estimator(TM)(ACUBE), Version 1.0, Test Report" 2012

      10 W. S. Jung, "A Method to Improve Cutset Probability Calculation in Probabilistic Safety Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants" 134 : 134-142, 2015

      1 C. E. Shannon, "The Synthesis of Two-terminal Switching Ccircuits" 28 : 59-98, 1948

      2 A. Rauzy, "New Algorithms for Fault Tree Analysis" 40 : 203-211, 1993

      3 C.H. Roth Jr., "Fundamentals of Logic Design" 2014

      4 EPRI, "FTREX 1.9 Software Manual" 2018

      5 WOO SIK JUNG, "FAST BDD TRUNCATION METHOD FOR EFFICIENT TOP EVENT PROBABILITY CALCULATION" 한국원자력학회 40 (40): 571-580, 2008

      6 EPRI, "Direct Probability Calculator (DPC) Version 4.0" 2009

      7 S. Epstein, "Can We Trust PRA?" 88 : 195-205, 2005

      8 W.S. Jung, "BeEAST 1.1 User Manual" 2015

      9 EPRI, "Advanced Cutset Upper Bound Estimator(TM)(ACUBE), Version 1.0, Test Report" 2012

      10 W. S. Jung, "A Method to Improve Cutset Probability Calculation in Probabilistic Safety Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants" 134 : 134-142, 2015

      11 W. S. Jung, "A Fast BDD Algorithm for Large Coherent Fault Trees Analysis" 83 : 369-374, 2004

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2027 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2021-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2018-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2015-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2011-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2007-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2005-10-26 학술지명변경 한글명 : 산업안전학회지 -> 한국안전학회지 KCI등재
      2005-02-28 학회명변경 한글명 : 한국산업안전학회 -> 한국안전학회
      영문명 : The Korean Institute Of Industrial Safety -> The Korean Society of Safety
      KCI등재
      2004-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2003-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2001-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.3 0.3 0.31
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.28 0.27 0.519 0.12
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼