Investigating the Effect of Prior Distributions on Posterior Estimates of Common Cause Failure Parameters Using Bayesian Method

Abstract

Quantification of common cause failure (CCF) parameters and their application in multi-unit PSA are important to the safety and operation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) on the same site. CCF quantification mainly involves the estimation of potential failure of redundant components of systems in a NPP. The components considered in quantification of CCF parameters include motor operated valves, pumps, safety relief valves, air-operated valves, solenoid-operated valves, check valves, diesel generators, batteries, inverters, battery chargers, and circuit breakers. This work presents the results of the CCF parameter quantification using check valves and pumps. The systems considered as case studies for the demonstration of the proposed methodology are auxiliary feedwater system (AFWS) and high-pressure safety injection (HPSI) systems of a pressurized water reactor (PWR). The posterior estimates of alpha factors assuming two different prior distributions (Uniform Dirichlet prior and Jeffreys prior) using the Bayesian method were investigated. This analysis is important due to the fact that prior distributions assumed for alpha factors may affect the shape of posterior distribution and the uncertainty of the mean posterior estimates. For the two different priors investigated in this study, the shape of the posterior distribution is not influenced by the type of prior selected for the analysis. The mean of the posterior distributions was also analyzed at 90% confidence level. These results show that the type of prior selected for Bayesian analysis could have effects on the uncertainty interval (or the confidence interval) of the mean of the posterior estimates. The longer the confidence interval, the better the type of prior selected at a particular confidence level for Bayesian analysis. These results also show that Jeffreys prior is preferred over Uniform Dirichlet prior for Bayesian analysis because it yields longer confidence intervals (or shorter uncertainty interval) at 90% confidence level discussed in this work.