A Quantitative Assessment on Limiting Conditions for Operations Using a Concept of System Dynamics

  • Kyungmin Kang
  • Moosung Jae
Conference paper


Limiting conditions for operations (LCOs) define the allowed outage times (AOTs) and the actions to be taken if the repair cannot be completed within the AOT. In this study the changing operation modes are evaluated quantitatively and dynamically using a tool of system dynamics. The system dynamics has been applied to the LCOs assessment for an example system, an auxiliary feed water system of a reference plant. Analysis results of both full power operation and shutdown operation have been compared for the measure of core damage frequency. It is shown that the time dependent framework developed in this study is very flexible in that it can be applied to assess LCOs quantitatively under any operational context of the technical specifications.


Full Power Reference Plant Shutdown Operation Power Operation Accident Scenario 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kim, I. S., “Improving technical specifications from a risk perspective”, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 1996Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sung, C. K., Technical Bases for the Standard Operational Modes of CANDU, KEPRI, 2001Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Standard Technical Specifications Westinghouse Plants USNRC, NUREG-1431, USNRC, 1995Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    WS 2/3/4 Final Safety Assessment Report, (Rev.O), KEPCO, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Georges Loiselle, Gentilly 2 Operating Policies and Principles, (Rev.6), 1997Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruce B Operational Safety Requirements, Ontario Power Generation, 1999Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432, USNRC, 1995Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/4, NUREG-1433, USNRC, 1995.8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Standard Technical Specifications General Electric Plants, BWR/6, NUREG-1434, USNRC, 1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Son, T. W., and Chung H. K., “System Dynamics Approach for Analyzing Dynamic Motivation Model Using VENSIM”, Korean System Dynamics Society, 1999Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Samanta, P. K., Kim, I. S., Mankamo, T. and Vesely, W. E., Handbook of methods for risk-based analyses of technical specifications. NUREG/CR-6141, Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang, D. I., The Determination of Allowed Outage Time Using the Evaluation of Transition Risk, KAERI/TR-1669/2000, KAERI, 2000Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim, T. U., The Quantitative Method of Accident Sequence Using a KIRAP, KEARI/TR-848/97, KAERI, 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alan D. Swain, Accident Sequence Evaluation Program Human Reliability Analysis Procedure, NUREG/CR-4772, Sandra National Laboratory, USA, 199615. Standard Technical Specifications Combustion Engineering Plants, NUREG-1432, USNRC, 1995Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. R. Andre et al, Risk-Based Technical Specification Program, EPRI TR-101894, EPRI, 1993Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kyungmin Kang
    • 1
  • Moosung Jae
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear EngineeringHanyang UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations