Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic PSA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reliability and Safety Engineering

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Reliability Engineering ((RELIABILITY))

Abstract

This chapter first introduces dynamic Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) emphasizingits need and gives a brief overview of the dynamic methods in the literature. Dynamic event tree method, one of main dynamic PSA approaches, is primarily focused in the chapter. The elements involved in dynamic event tree and a comparison among its implementations are presented. Application to a simple depleting tank problem explores the quantitative aspects of the method. Finally, to quantify risk in the light of uncertainties and dynamics, the practical issues and possible solutions are briefly discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Siu N (1994) Risk assessment for dynamic systems: an overview. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 43:43–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hsueh K-S, Mosleh A (1996) The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 52:297–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aldemir T (1989) Quantifying set point drift effects in the failure analysis of process control systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 24:33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Labeau PE, Smidts C, Swaminathan S (2000) Dynamic reliability: towards an integrated platform for probabilistic risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 68:219–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Karanki DR, Kim TW, Dang VN (2015) The impact of dynamics and variabilities in the development of accident sequence models of NPP: a dynamic event tree informed approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 142:78–91

    Google Scholar 

  6. Karanki DR, Dang VN Quantification of dynamic event trees: a comparison with event trees for MLOCA scenario. In: Communication with reliability engineering and system safety

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kloos M, Peschke J (2006) MCDET: a probabilistic dynamics method combining Monte Carlo simulation with the discrete dynamic event tree approach. Nucl Sci Engg 153:137–156

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hakobyan A et al (2008) Dynamic generation of accident progression event trees. Nucl Engg Des 238:3457–3467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aldemir T et al (2007) Dynamic reliability modeling of digital instrumentation and control systems for nuclear reactor probabilistic risk assessments. NUREG/CR-6942, USNRC

    Google Scholar 

  10. Devooght J, Smidts C (1992) Probabilistic reactor dynamics. I. The theoryof continuous event trees. Nucl Sci Eng 111:229–240

    Google Scholar 

  11. Devooght J, Smidts C (1992) Probabilistic reactor dynamics—III: a framework for time dependent interaction between operator and reactor during a transientinvolving human error. Nucl Sci Eng 112:101–113

    Google Scholar 

  12. Smidts C (1992) Probabilistic reactor dynamics IV: an example of man machineinteraction. Nucl Sci Eng 112:114–126

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aldemir T (2013) A survey of dynamic methodologies for probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants. Ann Nucl Energy 52:113–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Smidts C, Devooght J (1992) Probabilistic reactor dynamics II: a Monte Carlo studyof a fast reactor transient. Nucl Sci Eng 111:241–256

    Google Scholar 

  15. Marseguerra M, Zio E, Devooght J, Labeau PE (1998) A concept paper on dynamic reliability via Monte Carlo simulation. Math Comput Simul 47:371–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Marseguerra M, Zio E (1993) Towards dynamic PSA via Monte Carlo methods. In: Proceedings of Esrel’93, pp 415–27

    Google Scholar 

  17. Marseguerra M, Zio E (1993) Nonlinear Monte Carlo reliability analysis with biasing towards top event. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 40:31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Marseguerra M, Zio E (1995) The cell-to-boundary method in Monte Carlo-based dynamic PSA. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 48:199–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guarro S, Yau M, Motamed M (1996) Development of tools for safety analysis of control software in advanced reactors. NUREG/CR-6465, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  20. Guarro S, Milici A, Mulvehill R (2001) Extending the dynamic flowgraph methodology (DFM) to model human performance and team effects. NUREGCR/6710, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dugan JB, Bavuso SJ, Boyd MA (1992) Dynamic fault-tree for fault-tolerant computer systems. IEEE Trans Reliab 41(3):363–376

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Bobbio A, Portinale L, Minichino M, Ciancamerla E (2001) Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71:249–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cepin M, Mavko B (2002) A dynamic fault tree. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 75:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Durga Rao K, Sanyasi Rao VVS, Gopika V, Kushwaha HS, Verma AK, Srividya A (2009) Dynamic fault tree analysis using Monte Carlo simulation in probabilistic safety assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(4):872–883 (ISSN: 0951-8320)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hsueh KS, Mosleh A (1993) Dynamic accident sequence simulator for probabilistic safety assessment. In: PSA international topical meeting, conference proceedings, Florida, 26–29 Jan 1993

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chang YHJ, Mosleh A (2007) Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents part 1–5: dynamic probabilistic simulation of the IDAC model. RESS 92:997–1075

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zhu D, Mosleh A, Smidts C (2007) A framework to integrate software behavior into dynamic probabilistic risk assessment. RESS 92(12):1733–1755

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mercurio D (2011) Discrete Dynamic Event Tree modeling and analysis of NPP crews for safety assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Diss. ETH No. 19321

    Google Scholar 

  29. Amendola A, Reina G (1984) DYLAM-1, a software package for event sequence and consequence spectrum methodology. EUR-924, CEC-JRC ISPRA, Commission of the European Communities, Ispra, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cacciabue PC, Amendola A, Cojazzi G (1986) Dynamic logical analytical methodology versus fault tree: the case of auxiliary feedwater system of anuclear power plant. Nucl Technol 74:195–208

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cojazzi G (1996) The DYLAM approach to the dynamic reliability analysis of systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 52:279–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Acosta C, Siu N (1993) Dynamic Event Trees in accident sequence analysis: application to steam generator tube rupture. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 41:135–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Durga R, Karanki, Vinh N. Dang, Tae-Wan Kim (2011) Discrete Dynamic Event Tree analysis of MLOCA using ADS-TRACE. In: ANS PSA 2011 international topical meeting on probabilistic safety assessment and analysis, Wilmington, NC, 13–17 March 2011. On CD-ROM, American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park

    Google Scholar 

  34. Karanki DR, Dang VN, Kim TW (2012) The impact of dynamics on the MLOCA accident model—an application of Dynamic Event Trees. In: Proceedings of 11th probabilistic safety assessment and management/European safety and reliability 2012 (PSAM11/ESREL2012), Helsinki, Finland, 25–29 June 2012, CD-ROM

    Google Scholar 

  35. Karanki DR, Dang VN (2013) Quantified Dynamic Event Trees Vs PSA—a comparison for MLOCA risk. In: ANS PSA 2013 international topical meeting on probabilistic safety assessment and analysis, Columbia, SC, USA, 22–26 Sept 2013. American Nuclear Society, CD-ROM

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mercurio D, Podofillini L, Zio E, Dang VN (2008) Identification and classification of Dynamic Event Tree scenarios via possibilistic clustering: application to a steam generator tube rupture event, Accident Analysis and Prevention

    Google Scholar 

  37. Podofillini L, Zio E, Mercurio D, Dang VN (2010) Dynamic safety assessment: scenario identification via a possibilistic clustering approach. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:534–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Karanki DR, Dang VN, MacMillan MT (2014) Uncertainty progagation in Dynamic Event Trees—Initial results for a modified tank problem, PSAM 12, Hawaii, USA, 22–27 June 2014. CD-ROM

    Google Scholar 

  39. R. Munoz, Minguez E, Melendez E, Izquierdo JM, Sanchez-Perea M (1999) DENDROS: a second generation scheduler for Dynamic Event Trees. In: Mathematics and computation, reactor physics and environmental analysis in nuclear applications, conference proceedings, Madrid, Spain, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  40. Izquierdo JM et al (2009) SCAIS (Simulation Code System for Integrated Safety Assessment): current status and applications. In: Martorell et al (eds) Safety, reliability and risk analysis—ESREL 2008. Taylor & Francis Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gil J et al (2011) a code for simulation of human failure events in nuclear power plants: SIMPROC. Nucl Eng Des 241:1097–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hakobyan A, Denning R, Aldemir T, Dunagan S, Kunsman D (2006) A methodology for generating dynamic accident progression event trees for level-2 PRA. In: Proceedings of PHYSOR-2006 meeting, Vancouver, CA, 10–14 Sept 2006

    Google Scholar 

  43. Catalyurek U et al (2010) Development of a code-agnostic computational infrastructure for the dynamic generation of accident progression event trees. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 95:278–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kloos M, Peschke J (2007) Consideration of human actions in combination with the probabilistic dynamics method MCDET, ESREL 1069–1077

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kloos M, Peschke J (2008) Consideration of human actions in combination with the probabilistic dynamics code MCDET. Journal of Risk and Reliability

    Google Scholar 

  46. Peschke J, Kloos M (2008) Impact of epistemic uncertainties on the probabilistic assessment of the emergency operating procedure secondary side bleed and feed, PSAM9

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hofer E, Kloos M, Krzykacz-Hausman B, Peschke J, Woltereck M (2002) An approximate epistemic uncertainty analysis approach in the resence of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 77:229–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Voroyev Y, Kudinov P (2011) Development and application of a genetic algorithm based dynamic PRA methodology to plant vulnerability search. PSA 2011. American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park

    Google Scholar 

  49. Alfonsi A et al (2013) Dynamic Event Tree analysis through RAVEN, ANS PSA 2013 international topical meeting on probabilistic safety assessment and analysis, Columbia, SC, USA, 22–26 Sept 2013, American Nuclear Society, 2013, CD-ROM

    Google Scholar 

  50. Aldemir T (1987) Computer-assisted Markov failure modeling of process control systems, IEEE Trans Reliab R-36:133–144

    Google Scholar 

  51. http://www.LMNOeng.com, LMNO Engineering, Research, and Software, Ltd. 7860 Angel Ridge Rd. Athens, Ohio 45701 USA

  52. Daugherty RL, Franzini JB, Finnemore EJ (1985) Fluid mechanics with engineering applications, 8 edn. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rao SS (1992) Reliability-based design. McGraw-Hill Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  54. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ671/hallam/documents/Transformations.pdf

  55. Ferson S, Ginzburg LR (1996) Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54(2–3):133–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. IAEA (1992) Procedure for conducting probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants (level 1). Safety series no. 50-P-4. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  57. Durag Rao K et al (2007) Quantification of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties in level-1 probabilistic safety assessment studies. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 92:947–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ATØM, Stord/Haugesund University College, Bjornsons Gate 45, 5528, Haugesund, Norway

    Ajit Kumar Verma & Srividya Ajit

  2. Paul Scherrer Institute, 5232, Villigen PSI, Switzerland

    Durga Rao Karanki

Authors
  1. Ajit Kumar Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Srividya Ajit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Durga Rao Karanki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ajit Kumar Verma .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Verma, A.K., Ajit, S., Karanki, D.R. (2016). Dynamic PSA. In: Reliability and Safety Engineering. Springer Series in Reliability Engineering. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6269-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6269-8_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-6268-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-6269-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation