Publications

Abstract not provided.

This report summarizes the result of a NEAMS project focused on the use of reliability methods within the RAVEN and RELAP-7 software framework for assessing failure probabilities as part of probabilistic risk assessment for nuclear power plants. RAVEN is a software tool under development at the Idaho National Laboratory that acts as the control logic driver and post-processing tool for the newly developed Thermal-Hydraulic code RELAP-7. Dakota is a software tool developed at Sandia National Laboratories containing optimization, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty quantification algorithms. Reliability methods are algorithms which transform the uncertainty problem to an optimization problem to solve for the failure probability, given uncertainty on problem inputs and a failure threshold on an output response. The goal of this work is to demonstrate the use of reliability methods in Dakota with RAVEN/RELAP-7. These capabilities are demonstrated on a demonstration of a Station Blackout analysis of a simplified Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR).

Abstract not provided.

This report summarizes the result of a NEAMS project focused on sensitivity analysis of a new model for the fission gas behavior (release and swelling) in the BISON fuel performance code of Idaho National Laboratory. Using the new model in BISON, the sensitivity of the calculated fission gas release and swelling to the involved parameters and the associated uncertainties is investigated. The study results in a quantitative assessment of the role of intrinsic uncertainties in the analysis of fission gas behavior in nuclear fuel.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) is a fundamental part of safety/quality assurance for nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Traditional PRA very effectively models complex hardware system risks using binary probabilistic models. However, traditional PRA models are not flexible enough to accommodate non-binary soft-causal factors, such as digital instrumentation&control, passive components, aging, common cause failure, and human errors. Bayesian Networks offer the opportunity to incorporate these risks into the PRA framework. This report describes the results of an early career LDRD project titled %E2%80%9CUse of Limited Data to Construct Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Risk Assessment%E2%80%9D. The goal of the work was to establish the capability to develop Bayesian Networks from sparse data, and to demonstrate this capability by producing a data-informed Bayesian Network for use in Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) as part of nuclear power plant Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA). This report summarizes the research goal and major products of the research.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Many of the Performance Shaping Factors (PSFs) used in Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) methods are not directly measurable or observable. Methods like SPAR-H require the analyst to assign values for all of the PSFs, regardless of the PSF observability; this introduces subjectivity into the human error probability (HEP) calculation. One method to reduce the subjectivity of HRA estimates is to formally incorporate information about the probability of the PSFs into the methodology for calculating the HEP. This can be accomplished by encoding prior information in a Bayesian Network (BN) and updating the network using available observations. We translated an existing HRA methodology, SPAR-H, into a Bayesian Network to demonstrate the usefulness of the BN framework. We focus on the ability to incorporate prior information about PSF probabilities into the HRA process. This paper discusses how we produced the model by combining information from two sources, and how the BN model can be used to estimate HEPs despite missing observations. Use of the prior information allows HRA analysts to use partial information to estimate HEPs, and to rely on the prior information (from data or cognitive literature) when they are unable to gather information about the state of a particular PSF. The SPAR-H BN model is a starting point for future research activities to create a more robust HRA BN model using data from multiple sources.

Sensitivity analysis is comprised of techniques to quantify the effects of the input variables on a set of outputs. In particular, sensitivity indices can be used to infer which input parameters most significantly affect the results of a computational model. With continually increasing computing power, sensitivity analysis has become an important technique by which to understand the behavior of large-scale computer simulations. Many sensitivity analysis methods rely on sampling from distributions of the inputs. Such sampling-based methods can be computationally expensive, requiring many evaluations of the simulation; in this case, the Sobol method provides an easy and accurate way to compute variance-based measures, provided a sufficient number of model evaluations are available. As an alternative, meta-modeling approaches have been devised to approximate the response surface and estimate various measures of sensitivity. In this work, we consider a variety of sensitivity analysis methods, including different sampling strategies, different meta-models, and different ways of evaluating variance-based sensitivity indices. The problem we consider is the 1-D Riemann problem. By a careful choice of inputs, discontinuous solutions are obtained, leading to discontinuous response surfaces; such surfaces can be particularly problematic for meta-modeling approaches. The goal of this study is to compare the estimated sensitivity indices with exact values and to evaluate the convergence of these estimates with increasing samples sizes and under an increasing number of meta-model evaluations. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.