Atomic Energy

, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 94–99 | Cite as

Safety prediction in nuclear power

  • A. N. Rumyantsev
Article
Received:

Abstract

The practical operational safety of nuclear objects is of fundamental importance for assessing the future prospects under discussion and selecting a strategy for the development of nuclear power. It is shown that the methods currently being used for making safety predictions do not contain an analysis of the unavoidable errors and uncertainties of the models used or the initial and boundary conditions under which the physical processes that develop into serious accidents arise and develop. It is proposed that the method of quantile estimates of the uncertainties, which is free of the drawbacks of the Monte Carlo method and which increases the reliability of safety predictions in nuclear power, be used.

Keywords

Fuel Element Mathematical Expectation Critical Heat Flux Pseudorandom Number Generator Nonstationary Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    “Strategy for the development of nuclear power in Russia in the first half of the 21st century,” Byull. Tsentra Obshch. Inf. At. Énerg., No. 6, 4–17 (2000).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. N. Rumyantsev and Yu. A. Ostroumov, “Method of quantile estimates of the uncertainties in the analysis of frequencies, development, and consequences of rare and improbable accidents,” Report No. 210.06-04/01 (1993), I. V. Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. N. Rumyantsev and Yu. A. Ostroumov, “Method of quantile estimates of the uncertainties in the analysis of frequencies, development, and consequences of rare and improbable accidents,” Preprint IAÉ-6295/15 (2003).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. N. Rumyantsev, “Prediction of the development of nuclear power and analysis of the uncertainties in predictive estimates,” Preprint IAÉ-6296/15 (2003).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. B. Glebov, G. G. Kulikov, V. V. Khromov, et al., “Calculation of the sensitivity of reactor characteristics to the constants taking account of the change in the nuclide compostion of the reactor during a run,” Vopr. At. Nauk. Tekh., Ser. Fiz. Yad. Reakt., No. 1, 11–17 (1991).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Yu. Gagarinskii and L. S. Tsygankov, “On the influence of the uncertainty in the nuclear data on the results of an analysis of kinetic measurements in reactors with 235U operating on thermal neutrons,” ibid., No. 9(46), 65–69 (1984).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. G. Markitan, V. M. Panin, and L. N. Podlazov, “Verification of complex program systems for calculating the dynamics of power reactors based on experimental data,” ibid., No. 5, 22–25 (1991).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. Brillouin, Scientific Uncertainty and Information [Russian Translation], Mir, Moscow (1966).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. I. Dostov and A. Ya. Kramerov, “Investigation of the safety of RBMK reactors during accidents initiated by partial ruptures of the circulation loop,” At. Énerg., 92, No. 1, 23–30 (2002).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. A. Afremov, Yu. V. Zhuravleva, Yu. V. Mironov, and V. E. Radkevich, “Method for performing a statistical analysis of the uncertainties of thermohydraulic calculations,” At. Énerg., 93, No. 2, 101–109 (2002).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Glaeser, E. Hofer, M. Kloss, and T. Skorek, “Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of post-experiment calculation in thermal hydraulics,” Reliability Eng. System Safety, No. 45, 19–33 (1994).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    RELAP5/MOD3 Code Manual, NUREG/CR-5535 (1995).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Wilks, Mathematical Statistics [Russian translation], Izd. Inostr. Lit., Moscow (1967).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. D. Frank-Kamenetskii, Simulation of Neutron Trajectories in the Monte Carlo Calculation of Reactors, Atomizdat, Moscow (1978).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. I. Ageev, L. S. Krivonos, and Yu. I. Markov, Algorithms (101–150), Vychislit. Tsentr Akad. Nauk SSSR, Moscow (1966).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. V. Maiorov, “Estimate of the bias in the results of Monte Carlo calculations of reactors and storage sites for nuclear fuel,” At. Énerg., 97, No. 4, 243–256 (2004).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. E. Deich and G. A. Filippov, Gas Dynamics of Two-Phase Media, Énergiya, Moscow (1968).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. A. Afremov, Yu. V. Zhuravleva, Yu. V. Mironov, et al., “Analysis of the uncertainties of calculations of loss-of-coolant accidents for the No. 1 unit of the Kursk nuclear power plant,” At. Énerg., 98, No. 6, 422–428 (2005).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. N. Rumyantsev
    • 1
  1. 1.Russian Science Center Kurchatov InstituteRussia

Personalised recommendations