Uncertainty quantification for severe-accident reactor modelling: Results and conclusions of the MUSA reactor applications work package
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Challenges of BEPU method in Severe Accident modelling are explored. • Uncertainty analysis broadens the understanding of Severe Accident sequences • Applications demonstrate the level of readiness for BEPU in Severe Accident modelling. • A large data base of BEPU reactor applications is created in MUSA. The recently completed Horizon-2020 project “Management and Uncertainties of Severe Accidents (MUSA)” has reviewed uncertainty sources and Uncertainty Quantification methodology for assessing Severe Accidents (SA), and has made a substantial effort at stimulating uncertainty applications in predicting the radiological Source Term of reactor and Spent Fuel Pool accident scenarios. The key motivation of the project has been to bring the advantages of the Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty approach to the field of Severe Accident modelling. With respect to deterministic analyses, expected gains are avoiding adopting conservative assumptions, identifying uncertainty bands of estimates, and gaining insights into dominating uncertain parameters. Also, the benefits for understanding and improving Accident Management were to be explored. The reactor applications brought together a large group of participants that set out to apply uncertainty analysis (UA) within their field of SA modelling expertise – in particular reactor types, but also SA code used (ASTEC, MELCOR, MAAP, RELAP/SCDAPSIM), uncertainty quantification tools used (DAKOTA, SUSA, URANIE, self-developed tools based on Python code), detailed accident scenarios, and in some cases SAM actions. The setting up of the analyses, challenges faced during that phase, and solutions explored, are described in Brumm et al. ANE 191 (2023). This paper synthesizes the reactor-application work at the end of the project. Analyses of 23 partners are presented in different categories, depending on whether their main goal is/are (i) uncertainty bands of simulation results; (ii) the understanding of dominating uncertainties in specific sub-models of the SA code; (iii) improving the understanding of specific accident scenarios, with or without the application of SAM actions; or, (iv) a demonstration of the tools used and developed, and of the capability to carry out an uncertainty analysis in the presence of the challenges faced. A cross-section of the partners’ results is presented and briefly discussed, to provide an overview of the work done, and to encourage accessing and studying the project deliverables that are open to the public. Furthermore, the partners’ experiences made during the project have been evaluated and are presented as good practice recommendations. The paper ends with conclusions on the level of readiness of UA in SA modelling, on the determination of governing uncertainties, and on the analysis of SAM actions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".