2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2016.12.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determination of prime implicants by differential evolution for the dynamic reliability analysis of non-coherent nuclear systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The most evident difference between DETs and static ETs is that while ETs are constructed by expert analysts that draw their branches based on success/failure criteria set by the analysts, in DETs, these are spooned by a software that embeds the (deterministic) models simulating the plant dynamics and the (stochastic) models of components failure. Naturally, the DET generates a number of scenarios much larger than that of the classical static FT/ET approaches, so that the a posteriori retrieval of information can become quite burdensome and complex [125][126][127]. Another challenge is related to the relevant effort in terms of computational time required for generating a large number of time-dependent accident scenarios by means of Monte Carlo techniques that are typically employed to deeply and thoroughly explore the entire system state-space, and to cover in principle all the possible combinations of events over long periods of time.…”
Section: Integration Of Passive Systems Into Dynamic Psamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The most evident difference between DETs and static ETs is that while ETs are constructed by expert analysts that draw their branches based on success/failure criteria set by the analysts, in DETs, these are spooned by a software that embeds the (deterministic) models simulating the plant dynamics and the (stochastic) models of components failure. Naturally, the DET generates a number of scenarios much larger than that of the classical static FT/ET approaches, so that the a posteriori retrieval of information can become quite burdensome and complex [125][126][127]. Another challenge is related to the relevant effort in terms of computational time required for generating a large number of time-dependent accident scenarios by means of Monte Carlo techniques that are typically employed to deeply and thoroughly explore the entire system state-space, and to cover in principle all the possible combinations of events over long periods of time.…”
Section: Integration Of Passive Systems Into Dynamic Psamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, the "a posteriori" retrieval of information can be quite burdensome and difficult. In this view, artificial intelligence techniques could be embraced to address the problem [125][126][127]; iii.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A Multiple Value Logic (MVL) scheme presented in (Bellaera et al, 2018) has been adopted to describe the N = 100 accidental scenarios generated by random sampling the stochastic (discrete) time (t) of occurrence of component failures, their (discrete) magnitude (m). The random components failures of a generated scenario are represented in an MVL sequence vector that contains the discretized time and magnitudes values and the order (ord) of occurrence in the sequence: [mCP,tCP,ordCP,mCV1,tCV1,ordCV1,mCV2,tCV2,ordCV2,mBV,tBB,ordBV,mSV1,tSV1,ordSV1,mSV2,tSV2,ordSV2] (Di Maio et al, 2017), where, for all components CP, CV1, CV2; BV, SV1, SV2, the discretization of the time (t) and magnitude (m) are as follows:…”
Section: Accidental Scenarios Generationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In such circumstances, traditional methods, for example, based on minimal cut sets analysis, cannot be applied, whereas Figure 7: Example of dynamic system behavior at 80% . dynamic reliability methods need to be applied for the identification of the PIs [33,34].…”
Section: Prime Implicants Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among these 18 available features, we search for those that are optimal for clustering the 64381 scenarios in Near Misses and safe scenarios. We resort to a wrapper framework [37,38], whereby a modified binary differential evolution (MBDE) search engine [33,39] searches candidate groups of features sets that are fed to a -means clustering algorithm [40]; eventually, the wrapper evolves so that among these candidate groups, the group retained is that which makes the -means clustering algorithm perform best (most compact and separate clusters). The idea behind the wrapper approach is shown in Figure 12.…”
Section: Features Selection the Identification Of The Near Missesmentioning
confidence: 99%