Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Research on rapid source term estimation in nuclear accident emergency decision for pressurized water reactor based on Bayesian network

  • Wu, Guohua (Harbin Institute of Technology) ;
  • Tong, Jiejuan (Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology, Tsinghua University) ;
  • Zhang, Liguo (Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology, Tsinghua University) ;
  • Yuan, Diping (Shenzhen Urban Public Safety and Technology Institute) ;
  • Xiao, Yiqing (Harbin Institute of Technology)
  • Received : 2020.08.03
  • Accepted : 2021.02.27
  • Published : 2021.08.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Nuclear emergency preparedness and response is an essential part to ensure the safety of nuclear power plant (NPP). Key support technologies of nuclear emergency decision-making usually consist of accident diagnosis, source term estimation, accident consequence assessment, and protective action recommendation. Source term estimation is almost the most difficult part among them. For example, bad communication, incomplete information, as well as complicated accident scenario make it hard to determine the reactor status and estimate the source term timely in the Fukushima accident. Subsequently, it leads to the hard decision on how to take appropriate emergency response actions. Hence, this paper aims to develop a method for rapid source term estimation to support nuclear emergency decision making in pressurized water reactor NPP. The method aims to make our knowledge on NPP provide better support nuclear emergency. Firstly, this paper studies how to build a Bayesian network model for the NPP based on professional knowledge and engineering knowledge. This paper presents a method transforming the PRA model (event trees and fault trees) into a corresponding Bayesian network model. To solve the problem that some physical phenomena which are modeled as pivotal events in level 2 PRA, cannot find sensors associated directly with their occurrence, a weighted assignment approach based on expert assessment is proposed in this paper. Secondly, the monitoring data of NPP are provided to the Bayesian network model, the real-time status of pivotal events and initiating events can be determined based on the junction tree algorithm. Thirdly, since PRA knowledge can link the accident sequences to the possible release categories, the proposed method is capable to find the most likely release category for the candidate accidents scenarios, namely the source term. The probabilities of possible accident sequences and the source term are calculated. Finally, the prototype software is checked against several sets of accident scenario data which are generated by the simulator of AP1000-NPP, including large loss of coolant accident, loss of main feedwater, main steam line break, and steam generator tube rupture. The results show that the proposed method for rapid source term estimation under nuclear emergency decision making is promising.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by the National key research and development program (2018ZX06902015).

References

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency, Generic Assessment Procedures for Determining Protective Actions during a Reactor Accident, IAEA, Vienna, 1997.
  2. Y.-H. Cheng, C. Shih, S.-C. Jiang, et al., Development of accident dose consequences simulation software for nuclear emergency response applications, Ann. Nucl. Energy 35 (2008) 917-926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2007.09.001
  3. P. Tricard, S. Fang, J. Wang, et al., Fast on-line source term estimation of nonconstant releases in nuclear accident scenario using extended kalman filter, in: 2013 21st International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2013. V003T006A004-V003T006A004.
  4. G. Wu, J. Tong, Y. Gao, et al., Uncertainty analysis of containment dose rate for core damage assessment in nuclear power plants, Nuclear Engineering & Technology (50) (2018) 673-682.
  5. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Possibilities T. Consequences of Major Accidents in Large Nuclear Power Plants, WASH 740, Atomic Energy Commission, U.S., 1957.
  6. H.W. Lewis, R.J. Budnitz, W.D. Rowe, et al., Reactor Safety Study: an Assessment Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1400 (NUREG 57/014), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975.
  7. D. Ross, J. Murphy, M. Cunningham, et al., Severe Accident Risks: an Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1990.
  8. T.J. McKenna, J.G. Glitter, Source Term Estimation during Incident Response to Severe Nuclear Power Plant Accidents, United States: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1988.
  9. L. Soffer, S.B. Burson, C.M. Ferrell, et al., Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, United States, 1995.
  10. M. Vela-Garcia, K. Simola, Evaluation of JRC source term methodology using MAAP5 as a fast-running crisis tool for a BWR4 Mark I reactor, Ann. Nucl. Energy 96 (2016) 446-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.06.040
  11. R. Gauntt, R. Cole, C. Erickson, et al., MELCOR Computer Code Manuals, Sandia National Laboratories, NUREG/CR, 2005, p. 6119.
  12. O. Murat, V.H.S. Espinoza, S. Wang, et al., Preliminary validation of ASTEC V2.2.b with the QUENCH-20 BWR bundle experiment[J], Nucl. Eng. Des. 370 (2020) 110931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2020.110931
  13. Shiotsu H, Ishikawa J, Sugiyama T, et al. Influence of chemical speciation in reactor cooling system on pH of suppression pool during BWR severe accident. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol..55, 4. 2018. PP 363-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2017.1403381
  14. F.E.N.G. dun-yi, T.O.N.G. Jie-jua, Q.U. Jing-yuan, Research and application of SESAME system, Sci. Technol. Rev. 24 (2006) 61-64 (in Chinese).
  15. T. McKenna, J. Trefethen, K. Gant, et al., Response Technical Manual, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, United States, 1996.
  16. J. Ramsdell, G. Athey, J. Rishel, RASCAL 4: Description of Models and Methods: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, 2012.
  17. M. Hutchinson, H. Oh, W.-H. Chen, A review of source term estimation methods for atmospheric dispersion events using static or mobile sensors, Inf. Fusion 36 (2017) 130-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2016.11.010
  18. P.E. Bieringer, L.M. Rodriguez, F. Vandenberghe, et al., Automated source term and wind parameter estimation for atmospheric transport and dispersion applications, Atmos. Environ. 122 (2015) 206-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.09.016
  19. Ke Zhao, An Integrated Approach to Performance Monitoring and Fault Diagnosis of Nuclear Power Systems [Doctor of Philosophy Degree], The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2005.
  20. W. Li, M. Peng, Y.K. Liu, et al., Fault detection, identification and reconstruction of sensors in nuclear power plant with optimized PCA method, Ann. Nucl. Energy 113 (2018) 107-117.
  21. M.J. Peng, H. Wang, S.S. Chen, et al., An intelligent hybrid methodology of online system-level fault diagnosis for nuclear power plant, Nuclear Engineering and Technology 50 (2018) 396-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.11.014
  22. H. Vedam, V. Venkatasubramanian, PCA-SDG based process monitoring and fault diagnosis, Contr. Eng. Pract. 7 (7) (1999) 903-917. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0661(99)00040-4
  23. J.L. Foret, AP1000 Probabilistic Safety Assessment, Chapter 14, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, Pittsburgh, PA, United States, 2003.
  24. P. Webern, G. Medina-Oliva, C. Simon, et al., Overview on Bayesian networks applications for dependability, risk analysis and maintenance areas, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 25 (2012) 671-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2010.06.002
  25. N. Cruz-Ramirez, H.G. Acosta-Mesa, H. Carrillo-Calvet, et al., Diagnosis of breast cancer using Bayesian networks: a case study, Comput. Biol. Med. 37 (11) (2007) 1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2007.02.003
  26. Nima Khakzad, Faisal Khan, Amyotte Paul, Safety analysis in process facilities: comparison of fault tree and Bayesian network approaches, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96 (2011) 925-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2011.03.012
  27. Xiaowei Lu, Research on Evaluation Criterion and Method of Nuclear Power Plant Test [D], Harbin Engineering University, 2016 (in Chinese).
  28. C. Li, S. Mahadevan, Efficient approximate inference in Bayesian networks with continuous variables, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 169 (2018) 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.08.017
  29. K. Verbert, R. Babuska, B.D. Schutter, Bayesian and DempstereShafer reasoning for knowledge-based fault diagnosiseA comparative study, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 60 (2017) 136-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2017.01.011
  30. J.S. Friedman, J. Droulez, P. Bessiere, et al., Approximation enhancement for stochastic Bayesian inference, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 85 (2017) 139-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2017.03.007
  31. C. Huang, A. Darwiche, Inference in belief networks: a procedural guide, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 15 (3) (1996) 225-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0888-613X(96)00069-2
  32. G. Wu, J. Tong, L.G. Zhang, et al., Framework for fault diagnosis with multisource sensor nodes in nuclear power plants based on a bayesian inference network, Ann. Nucl. Energy (122) (2018) 297-308.
  33. S. Garcia-Herrero, M.A. Mariscal, J.M. Gutierrez, A. Toca-Otero, Bayesian network analysis of safety culture and organizational culture in a nuclear power plant, Saf. Sci. 53 (2013) 82-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.09.004
  34. S. Kwag, A. Gupta, N. Dinh, Probabilistic risk assessment based model validation method using Bayesian network, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 169 (2018) 380-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.09.013
  35. J. Zhu, Z. Ge, Z. Song, et al., Large-scale plant-wide process modeling and hierarchical monitoring: a distributed Bayesian network approach, J. Process Contr. 65 (2018) 91-106. S0959152417301634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2017.08.011