| dc.description.abstract | In nuclear engineering, modeling and simulations (M&Ss) are widely applied to support risk-informed safety analysis. Since nuclear safety analysis has important implications, a convincing validation process is needed to assess simulation adequacy, i.e., the degree to which M&S tools can adequately represent the system quantities of interest. However, due to data gaps, validation becomes a decision-making process under uncertainties. Expert knowledge and judgments are required to collect, choose, characterize, and integrate evidence toward the final adequacy decision. However, in validation frameworks, CSAU: code scaling, applicability, and uncertainty (NUREG/CR-5249) and EMDAP: evaluation model development and assessment process regulatory guide (RG 1.203), such a decision-making process is largely implicit and obscure. When scenarios are complex, knowledge biases and unreliable judgments can be overlooked, which could increase uncertainty in the simulation adequacy result and the corresponding risks. Therefore, a framework is required to formalize the decision-making process for simulation adequacy in a practical, transparent, and consistent manner. This paper suggests a framework—“Predictive capability maturity quantification using Bayesian network (PCMQBN)”—as a quantified framework for assessing simulation adequacy based on information collected from validation activities. A case study is prepared for evaluating the adequacy of a Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamic simulation in predicting the hydrodynamic forces onto static structures during an external flooding scenario. Comparing to the qualitative and implicit adequacy assessment, PCMQBN is able to improve confidence in the simulation adequacy result and to reduce expected loss in the risk-informed safety analysis. | |
