No abstract

No abstract

The passive safety systems utilized in advanced pressurized water reactor (PWR) design such as AP1000 should be more reliable than that of active safety systems of conventional PWR by less possible opportunities of hardware failures and human errors (less human intervention). The objectives of present study are to evaluate the dynamic reliability of AP1000 plant in order to check the effectiveness of passive safety systems by comparing the reliability-related issues with that of active safety systems in the event of the big accidents. How should the dynamic reliability of passive safety systems properly evaluated? And then what will be the comparison of reliability results of AP1000 passive safety systems with the active safety systems of conventional PWR.For this purpose, a single loop model of AP1000 passive core cooling system (PXS) and passive containment cooling system (PCCS) are assumed separately for quantitative reliability evaluation. The transient behaviors of these passive safety systems are taken under the large break loss-of-coolant accident in the cold leg. The analysis is made by utilizing the qualitative method failure mode and effect analysis in order to identify the potential failure mode and success-oriented reliability analysis tool called GO-FLOW for quantitative reliability evaluation. The GO-FLOW analysis has been conducted separately for PXS and PCCS systems under the same accident. The analysis results show that reliability of AP1000 passive safety systems (PXS and PCCS) is increased due to redundancies and diversity of passive safety subsystems and components, and four stages automatic depressurization system is the key subsystem for successful actuation of PXS and PCCS system. The reliability results of PCCS system of AP1000 are more reliable than that of the containment spray system of conventional PWR. And also GO-FLOW method can be utilized for reliability evaluation of passive safety systems.Keywords: dynamic reliability analysis; passive core cooling system; passive containment cooling system; AP1000; large break LOCA; active safety system; passive safety system; failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA); GO-FLOW methodology

The uncertainty analyses have been considered as a relevant topic since WASH-1400 and analysis was performed for identifying the risk measure, e.g. plant-and core-damage frequency or the frequency of a large early release of radioactivity in the probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) or probabilistic risk assessment. There are two main sources of uncertainty such as aleatory uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty (parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty and completeness uncertainty) for risk analysis in PSA or risk-monitor system. A sensitivity analysis is related field to uncertainty, which can provide information of the most effective on those inputs of PSA, which are mostly contributed to the uncertainty. In this paper, uncertainty analysis (epistemic) has been conducted in the evaluation of dynamic reliability of safety-related subsystem for risk analysis. GO-FLOW methodology has been employed for the procedure of uncertainty analysis alternatively to Fault Tree Analysis and Even Tree because it is successoriented system-analysis technique and comparatively easy to conduct the reliability analysis of the complex system. The method used sample data from Monte Carlo simulation to quantify uncertainty in terms of appropriate estimates for analysis results. Pressurized water reactor containment spray system has been taken as an example of safety-related subsystem. The results of this paper show that the uncertainty analysis is an important part for the practical evaluation of the system dynamic reliability and makes the reliability prediction more accurate compared with the result without the uncertainty analysis. The GO-FLOW methodology can be employed easily for uncertainty analysis with its advance functions.

No abstract