Security Investigations in Nuclear Materials Using Analytic Pair Values

  • Taeho Woo
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)


The security for nuclear power plants (NPPs) is studied against nuclear material diversion to nuclear bomb. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method is used for the quantification. The results are the maximum comparison as the maximum pair values with weightings and the reactor number for maximum pair values. Using the life cycle of 60 years, the range of the secure operation is between 0.728695 in 9th year and 0.373538 in 15th year. This means the highest value in the range of secure power operation is about 1.95 times higher than that of the lowest value in this study. The highest and lowest values are seen as the values of Rx #1. Using this study, result quantities are found for secure operation. Once a problem is in security, nuclear safeguard assessment (NSA) is constructed using AHP method. Using this result, each country is compared and it is possible to prepare after examining the weakness in operation. It is needed to analyze a systemic international preparation and it suggests a regulation. By this study, a cooperation work with Korea and other countries is possible.


Nuclear power plants (NPPs) Random number Nuclear safeguard assessment (NSA) Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) 


  1. 1.
    Linkov I, Ramadan A (2004) Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making. NATO sciences series, vol 38. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forman EH, Saul IG (2001) The analytical hierarchy process—an exposition. Op Res 49(4):469–487 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dey PK (2003) Analytic hierarchy process analyzes risk of operating cross-country petroleum pipelines in India. Nat Hazards Rev 4(4):213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Steiguer JE, Duberstein J, Lopes V (2003) The analytic hierarchy process as a means for integrated watershed management. Decision making. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berrittella M, Certa A, Enea M, Zito P (2007) An analytic hierarchy process for the evaluation of transport policies to reduce climate change impacts. Milan, Italy Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atthirawong W, McCarthy B, (2002) An application of the analytical hierarchy process to international location decision-making. In: Proceedings of the 7th annual cambridge international manufacturing symposium: restructuring global manufacturing. University of Cambridge, cambridge, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCaffrey J (2005) Test run: the analytic hierarchy process. MSDN magazine. Process: measuring human perception. Intl Trans Op Res 27(4):77–86Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grandzol JR (2005) Improving the faculty selection process in higher education: a case for the analytic hierarchy process. IR applications 6. Hierarchy process (AHP). Appl Geol 4(3):205–222Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF, Zhang XT, Shi GH (2008) Integrated water cooled nuclear power plants. Technical Reports Series No. 392Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cagno E, Caron F, Perego A (2001) Multi-criteria assessment of the probability of winning in the competitive bidding process. Intl J Proj Manag 19:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill International, New York MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IAEA (1980) IAEA safeguards: guidelines for states’ systems of accounting for and control of nuclear materials, IAEA Safeguards Information Series No. 2Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IAEA (1981) IAEA safeguards: an introduction, IAEA Safeguards Information Series No. 3Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woo T, Lee U (2011) Safeguard management for operation security in nuclear power plants (NPPs). Ann Nucl Energy 38(2–3):167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schoner B, Wedley WC (1989) Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences and solutions. Dec Sci 20:462–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dan XM, Bin L, Yi DF (2010) Study on unascertained comprehensive evaluation model basing on modified entropy, 2nd international conference on advanced computer control (ICACC), pp 482–485Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Entani T (2009) Interval AHP for a group of decision makers, IFSA/EUSFLAT conference, pp 155–160Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matkan AA, Nassery HR, Ostafhashemi Z (2008) Improvement in GIS-based DRASTIC model using statistical methods and analytical hierarchy process, case study: Hamedan–Bahar plain, west of Iran. Appl Geo 4(30):205–222Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saadon NAM, Dom RM, Mohamad D (2010) Comparative analysis of criteria weight determination in AHP models. 2010 International conference on science and social research (CSSR 2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sato J (2004) Comparison between multiple-choice and analytic hierarchy process: measuring human perception. Intl Trans Op Res 11:77–86MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drake PR (1998) Using the analytic hierarchy process in engineering education. Intl J Eng Edu 14:191–196Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holder RD (1990) Some comment on the analytic hierarchy process. J Oper Res Soc 41:1073–1076Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vensim (2009) Vensim simulation software. Ventana Systems, Inc Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taeho Woo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nuclear EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations