Probabilistic risk assessment framework for structural systems under multiple hazards using Bayesian statistics

Nuclear Engineering and Design

Volumn 315, Issue , 2017, Pages 20-34

  Kwag, Shinyoung ^a,b   Gupta, Abhinav ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Bayesian inference; Bayesian networks; Multi hazard risk assessment; Vulnerability beyond design basis

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; FLOODS; HAZARDS; INDUCED SEISMICITY; INFERENCE ENGINES; RISK PERCEPTION;

BAYESIAN INFERENCE; BAYESIAN STATISTICS; CURRENT PRACTICES; DESIGN BASIS; MULTI-HAZARDS; PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL DEPENDENCIES; STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 85013659078     PISSN: 00295493     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Aoki, M., Rothwell, G., A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: lessons and policy implications. Energy Policy 53 (2013), 240–247.
2. ASCE, Seismic Analysis of Safety-related Nuclear Structures and Commentary: ASCE/SEI 4-16. 2016.
3. ASME/ANS, Addenda to ASME/ANS RA-S-2008 – Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications: ASME/ANS RA-Sa-2009. 2009.
4. Ayyub, B.M., McGill, W.L., Kaminskiy, M., Critical assest and portfolio risk analysis: an all-hazards framework. Risk Anal. 27:4 (2007), 789–801.
5. Batts, M.E., Cordes, M.R., Russell, L.R., Shaver, J.R., Simiu, E., Hurricane Wind Speeds in the United States. Rep. No. BSS-124, 1980, National Bureau of Standards, US Department of Commerce, Washington (DC).
6. Beavers, J.E., Multihazard issues in the central united states: understanding the hazards and reducing the losses. ASCE Council on Disaster Risk Management Monograph No. 3, Reston, VA, 2009.
7. Bobbio, A., Portinale, L., Minichino, M., Ciancamerla, E., Improving the analysis of dependable systems by mapping fault trees into Bayesian networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 71:3 (2001), 249–260.
8. Ebisawa, K., Teragaki, T., Nomura, S., Abe, H., Shigemori, M., Shimomoto, M., Concept and methodology for evaluating core damage frequency considering failure correlation at multi units and sites and its application. Nucl. Eng. Des. 288 (2015), 82–97.
9. Ellingwood, B.R., Acceptable risk bases for design of structures. Prog. Struct. Mat. Eng. 3:2 (2001), 170–179.
10. EPRI, Methodology for Developing Seismic Fragilities: TR-103959. 1994, Electric Power Research Institute.
11. EPRI, ALWR PRA Key Assumptions and Ground Rules. Rev. 7, 1997.
12. Fleming, K.N., Mikschl, T.J., Technical issues in the treatment of dependence in seismic risk analysis. Proceedings of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Workshop on Seismic Risk, Tokyo, August 10–12, 1999.
13. Fullwood, R.R., Probabilistic Safety Assessment in the Chemical and Nuclear Industries. 2000, Butterworth-Heinemann.
14. Fussell, J., How to hand calculate system reliability and safety characteristics. IEEE Trans. Reliab., 24(3), 1975.
15. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., Rubin, D.B., Bayesian Data Analysis. 2014, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
16. Georgiou, P.N., Design Wind Speeds in Tropical Cyclone-prone Regions. (PhD thesis), 1985, Faculty of Engineering Science, University of Western Ontario, Canada.
17. Hamada, M., Martz, H.F., Reese, C.S., Graves, T., Johnson, V., Wilson, A.G., A fully Bayesian approach for combining multilevel failure information in fault tree quantification and optimal follow-on resource allocation. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 86:3 (2004), 297–305.
18. IAEA, Procedures for Conducting Probabilistic Safety Assessments of Nuclear Power Plants (Level 1): Safety Series No. 50-P-4. 1992, International Atomic Energy Agency.
19. IAEA, Generic Component Reliability Data for Research Reactor PSA. IAEA-TECDOC-930, 1997.
20. IAEA, Meteorological and Hydrological Hazards in Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations. Specific Safety Guide SSG-18, 2011, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
21. IAEA, Assessment of External Flooding (Excluding Tsunami) and High Wind Hazards in Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations. 2015, IAEA Safety Report, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.
22. INEL, Nuclear Computerized Library for Assessing Reactor Reliability (NUCLARR). NUREG/CR-4639, 1994.
23. Ju, B.S., Gupta, A., Seismic fragility of threaded Tee-joint connections in piping systems. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 132 (2015), 106–118.
24. Kameshwar, S., Padgett, J.E., Multi-hazard risk assessment of highway bridges subjected to earthquake and hurricane hazards. Eng. Struct. 78:1 (2014), 154–166.
25. Kelly, D.L., Smith, C.L., Bayesian inference in probabilistic risk assessment-The current state of the art. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 94:2 (2009), 628–643.
26. Kwag, S., Probabilistic Approaches for Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment of Structures and Systems. (PhD dissertation), 2016, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
27. Li, Y., Ellingwood, B.R., Hurricane damage to residential construction in the US: importance of uncertainty modeling in risk assessment. Eng. Struct. 28:7 (2006), 1009–1018.
28. Li, Y., Ellingwood, B., Framework for multihazard risk assessment and mitigation for wood-frame residential construction. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 135:2 (2009), 159–168.
29. McGuire, R.K., Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis and design earthquakes: closing the loop. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 85:5 (1995), 1275–1284.
30. Modarres, M., Kaminskiy, M.P., Krivtsov, V., Reliability Engineering and Risk Analysis: A Practical Guide. 1999, CRC Press.
31. Mohaghegh, Z., Kazemi, R., Mosleh, A., Incorporating organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of complex socio-technical systems: a hybrid technique formalization. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 94:5 (2009), 1000–1018.
32. Peterka, J.A., Shahid, S., Design gust wind speed in the United States. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 124:2 (1998), 207–214.
33. Plummer, M., JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing, 124, 2003, Technische Universit at Wien.
34. Rasmussen, N.C., Reactor Safety Study: WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014, Appendix II. 1975, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.
35. Singer, D., A fuzzy set approach to fault tree and reliability analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 34:2 (1990), 145–155.
36. Tanaka, H., Fan, L.T., Lai, F.S., Toguchi, K., Fault-tree analysis by fuzzy probability. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 32:5 (1983), 453–457.
37. Tatalovich, J., Comparison of Failure Modes From Risk Assessment and Historical Data for Bureau of Reclamation Dams: Report DSO-98-01. 1998, Dam Safety Office, US Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.
38. US NRC, PRA Procedure Guide – A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Power Plants: NUREG/CR-2300. 1983, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
39. USNRC, Analysis of Core Damage Frequency from Internal Events: Methodology Guidelines, vol. 1, 1987 NUREG/CR-4550.
40. Vickery, P.J., Skerlj, P.F., Steckley, A.C., Twisdale, L.A., Simulation of hurricane risk in the United States using empirical track modeling technique. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 126:10 (2000), 1222–1237.
41. Wilson, A.G., Huzurbazar, A.V., Bayesian networks for multilevel system reliability. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 92:10 (2007), 1413–1420.
42. Zhang, Q., A general method dealing with correlations in uncertainty propagation in fault trees. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 26:3 (1989), 231–247.