【24h】

Can we trust PRA?

机译:我们可以信任PRA吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The Fault-Tree/Event-Tree method is widely used in industry as the underlying formalism of probabilistic risk assessment. Almost all of the tools available to assess Event-Tree models implement the 'classical' assessment technique based on minimal cutsets and the rare event approximation. Binary decision diagrams (BDDs) are an alternative approach, but they were up to now limited to medium size models because of the exponential blow up of the memory requirements. We have designed a set of heuristics, which make it possible to quantify, by means of BDD, all of the sequences of a large Event-Tree model coming from the nuclear industry. For the first time, it was possible to compare results of the classical approach with those of the BDD approach, i.e. with exact results. This article reports this comparison and shows that the minimal cutsets technique gives overestimated results in a significant proportion of cases and underestimated results in some cases as well. Hence, the (indeed provocative) question in the title of this article.
机译:故障树/事件树方法作为概率风险评估的基本形式形式在工业中被广泛使用。几乎所有可用于评估事件树模型的工具都基于最小割集和稀有事件近似值来实施“经典”评估技术。二进制决策图(BDD)是一种替代方法,但是由于内存需求呈指数级增长,它们到目前为止仅限于中型模型。我们设计了一套试探法,使通过BDD量化核工业中大型事件树模型的所有序列成为可能。首次有可能将经典方法的结果与BDD方法的结果进行比较,即精确结果。本文报告了这种比较,并表明最小割集技术在相当多的情况下给出了高估的结果,在某些情况下也给出了低估的结果。因此,本文标题中的(确实是挑衅)问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号