Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Passive Safety Systems for LOCA Analysis Using EMRALD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (DPRA) using EMRALD to evaluate the reliability and safety of passive safety systems in nuclear reactors, with a focus on mitigating Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCAs). The BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor (SMR) is used as an example to illustrate the proposed DPRA methodology, which is broadly applicable for enhancing traditional Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA). Unlike static PSA, DPRA incorporates time-dependent interactions and system dynamics, allowing for a more realistic assessment of accident progression. EMRALD enables the modelling of system failures and interactions in real time using dynamic event trees and Monte Carlo simulations. This study identifies critical vulnerabilities in passive safety systems and quantifies the Core Damage Frequency (CDF) under LOCA scenarios. The findings demonstrate the advantages of DPRA over traditional PSA in capturing complex failure mechanisms and providing a more comprehensive and accurate risk assessment. The insights gained from this research contribute to improving passive safety system designs and enhancing nuclear reactor safety strategies for next-generation reactors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".