多堆PSA机组间共因失效分析研究

杨春菊; 王明; 林模俤; 张冰; 王金凯

doi:10.13832/j.jnpe.2024.02.0171

多堆PSA机组间共因失效分析研究

doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2024.02.0171

核电安全技术与装备全国重点实验室，中广核工程有限公司，广东深圳，518172

详细信息

作者简介:
杨春菊（1979—），女，高级工程师，硕士研究生，现主要从事核电厂概率安全分析相关的研究，E-mail: szyangzi0202@126.com

通讯作者:
王　明，E-mail: wangming25436@163.com

中图分类号: TL334
计量
- 文章访问数: 17
- HTML全文浏览量: 2
- PDF下载量: 8
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-05-23
- 修回日期: 2024-01-15
- 刊出日期: 2024-04-12

Research on Inter-unit Common Cause Failure of Multi-unit PSA

State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Power Safety Technology and Equipment, China Nuclear Power Engineering Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518172, China

摘要

摘要: 合理评估同一厂址内不同机组间共因失效（CCF）对电厂安全风险的贡献是多堆概率安全分析（PSA）建模中需要解决的重要技术问题。本研究对设备机组间CCF组的选取、CCF建模和参数估计的方法进行梳理，并以具有4台机组的某压水堆核电厂丧失厂外电（LOOP）事件为分析案例，定量评估在考虑设备机组间CCF前后的多堆PSA模型堆芯损坏频率（CDF）变化情况。研究结果表明，在考虑设备机组间CCF后，多堆PSA结果中仅有一台机组发生堆芯损坏（CD）的频率和多台机组同时发生CD的频率均会有所增加。由此可见，机组间CCF对多堆PSA结果有一定影响。
- 多堆 /
- 概率安全分析（PSA） /
- 共因失效（CCF）分析 /
- 堆芯损坏频率（CDF）
Abstract: How to reasonably estimate the contribution of inter-unit common cause failure (CCF) to the safety risk of power plant is an important technical problem that needs to be solved in multi-unit probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) modeling. In this study, analysis methods of inter-unit CCF group selection, modeling and parameter estimation are presented, and the loss of offsite power (LOOP) event of a four-unit pressurized water reactor (PWR) nuclear power plant is taken as an analysis case to quantitatively evaluate the change of core damage frequency (CDF) of multi-unit PSA model before and after considering CCF. The results show that after considering the inter-unit CCF, the frequency of core damage (CD) occurrence in only single unit and the frequency of CD occurrence in multiple units will increase. It can be seen that inter-unit CCF has a certain effect on multi-unit PSA results.
- Multi-unit /
- Probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) /
- Common cause failure (CCF) analysis /
- Core damage frequency (CDF)

HTML全文

图 1 设备机组间CCF相关性决策事件树

Figure 1. Decision Event Tree of Component Inter-unit CCF Correlation

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 LOOP多堆PSA 模型

Figure 2. Multi-unit PSA LOOP Model

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 1号机组EDG启动失效机组间CCF故障树

Figure 3. EDG Start-up Failure Inter-unit CCF Fault Tree of Unit 1

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 EDG的CCF因子

Table 1. CCF Factors for EDG

CCF参数	启动失效	运行失效
二阶CCF β因子	8.33×10⁻³	1.41×10⁻²
三阶CCF β因子	6.48×10⁻³	1.25×10⁻²
三阶CCF γ因子	3.98×10⁻¹	3.17×10⁻¹

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 EDG的机组间CCF参数计算过程

Table 2. Parameters Calculation of Inter-unit CCF for EDG

共因组编号	描述	k值	r值	R_x	共因启动失效概率	共因运行失效概率
U12_EDG	1、2号机组间EDG的CCF	2.50×10⁻¹	1.00×10⁰	2.35×10⁻¹	5.84×10⁻⁵	2.76×10⁻⁵
U13_EDG	1、 3号机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	4.79×10⁻²	1.19×10⁻⁵	1.77×10⁻⁵
U14_EDG	1、4号机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	4.79×10⁻²	1.19×10⁻⁵	1.77×10⁻⁵
U23_EDG	2、3号机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	4.79×10⁻²	1.19×10⁻⁵	1.77×10⁻⁵
U24_EDG	2、4号机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	4.79×10⁻²	1.19×10⁻⁵	1.77×10⁻⁵
U34_EDG	3、4号机组间EDG的CCF	2.50×10⁻¹	1.00×10⁰	2.35×10⁻¹	5.84×10⁻⁵	8.69×10⁻⁵
U123_EDG	1、2、3号机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	6.84×10⁻³	5.25×10⁻⁷	7.09×10⁻⁸
U124_EDG	1、2、4号机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	6.84×10⁻³	5.25×10⁻⁷	7.09×10⁻⁸
U134_EDG	1、3、4号机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	6.84×10⁻³	5.25×10⁻⁷	7.09×10⁻⁸
U234_EDG	2、3、4号机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	6.84×10⁻³	5.25×10⁻⁷	7.09×10⁻⁸
U1234_EDG	4台机组间EDG的CCF	1.25×10⁻¹	5.00×10⁻¹	9.77×10⁻⁴	7.51×10⁻⁸	1.01×10⁻⁸

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 多堆CDF对比

Table 3. Comparison of Multi-unit CDF

同时发生CD的机组数量/台	CDF/（堆·年）⁻¹
同时发生CD的机组数量/台	考虑设备机组间CCF	不考虑设备机组间CCF
4	5.80×10⁻¹⁵	1.00×10⁻¹⁶
3	6.10×10⁻¹⁰	4.36×10⁻¹⁴
2	2.61×10⁻⁶	7.84×10⁻⁸
1	7.52×10⁻⁵	7.32×10⁻⁵
合计 CDF值	7.78×10⁻⁵	7.33×10⁻⁵

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(14)

[1]	Pickard-Lowe and Garrick, Inc. Seabrook station probabilistic safety assessment: PLG-0300[R]. Irvine: Pickard-Lowe and Garrick, Inc., 1983.
[2]	LE DUY T D, VASSEUR D. A practical methodology for modeling and estimation of common cause failure parameters in multi-unit nuclear PSA model[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2018, 170: 159-174.
[3]	KIM D S, HAN S H, PARK J H, et al. Multi-unit level 1 probabilistic safety assessment: approaches and their application to a six-unit nuclear power plant site[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 2018, 50(8): 1217-1233. doi: 10.1016/j.net.2018.01.006
[4]	International Atomic Energy Agency. Multi-unit probabilistic safety assessment: Safety Reports Series No. 110[R]. IAEA: Vienna, 2023.
[5]	KIM D S, JIN H P, LIM H G. A pragmatic approach to modeling common cause failures in multi-unit PSA for nuclear power plant sites with a large number of units[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2020, 195: 106739.
[6]	ZHANG S, TONG J J, ZHAO J. An integrated modeling approach for event sequence development in multi-unit probabilistic risk assessment[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2016, 155: 147-159.
[7]	ZHANG S, TONG J J. Treating common-cause failures in multi-unit PRAs[C]//The 2017 International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis (PSA 2017). Pittsburgh: ANS, 2017.
[8]	何劼,刘涛,张忞隽,等. 多机组核电厂总体风险的一级PSA方法研究[J]. 原子能科学技术,2014, 48(5): 867-871.
[9]	MOSLEH A, FLEMING K N, PARRY G W, et al. Procedures for treating common cause failures in safety and reliability studies: NUREG/CR-4780, EPRI-NP-5613[R]. Washington: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1989.
[10]	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-Sb-2013[S]. New York, U.S.: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers & American Nuclear Society, 2013: 19.
[11]	Nuclear Energy Institute. 10 CFR 50.69 SSC categorization guideline: NEI 00-04[R]. Nuclear Energy Institute: Washington, D.C., 2005.
[12]	US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Common-cause failure database and analysis systems: event data collection, classification, and coding: NUREG/CR-6268[R]. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Washington, D.C., 2007.
[13]	US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. CCF parameter estimations (2015 Update): NUREG/CR-5497[R]. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington: D.C., 2016.
[14]	国家核安全局. 中国核电厂设备可靠性数据报告[R]. 北京: 国家核安全局,2016.