IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v137y2015icp112-119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Achieving reasonable conservatism in nuclear safety analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Jamali, Kamiar

Abstract

In the absence of methods that explicitly account for uncertainties, seeking reasonable conservatism in nuclear safety analyses can quickly lead to extreme conservatism. The rate of divergence to extreme conservatism is often beyond the expert analysts’ intuitive feeling, but can be demonstrated mathematically. Too much conservatism in addressing the safety of nuclear facilities is not beneficial to society. Using certain properties of lognormal distributions for representation of input parameter uncertainties, example calculations for the risk and consequence of a fictitious facility accident scenario are presented. Results show that there are large differences between the calculated 95th percentiles and the extreme bounding values derived from using all input variables at their upper-bound estimates. Showing the relationship of the mean values to the key parameters of the output distributions, the paper concludes that the mean is the ideal candidate for representation of the value of an uncertain parameter. The mean value is proposed as the metric that is consistent with the concept of reasonable conservatism in nuclear safety analysis, because its value increases towards higher percentiles of the underlying positively skewed distribution with increasing levels of uncertainty. Insensitivity of the results to the actual underlying distributions is briefly demonstrated.

Suggested Citation

  • Jamali, Kamiar, 2015. "Achieving reasonable conservatism in nuclear safety analyses," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 112-119.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:137:y:2015:i:c:p:112-119
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.01.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832015000186
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2015.01.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:137:y:2015:i:c:p:112-119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.