Climate change affects technical systems, structures and infrastructures, changing the environmental context for which systems, structures and infrastructure were originally designed. In order to prevent any risk growth beyond acceptable levels, the climate change effects must be accounted for into risk assessment models. Climate models can provide future climate data, such as air temperature and pressure. However, the reliability of climate models is a major concern due to the uncertainty in the temperature and pressure future projections. In this work, we consider five climate change models (individually unable to accurately provide historical recorded temperatures and, thus, also future projections) and ensemble their projections for integration in a probabilistic safety assessment, conditional on climate projections. As case study, we consider the passive containment cooling system of two AP1000 nuclear power plants. Results provided by the different ensembles are compared. Finally, a risk-based classification approach is performed to identify critical future temperatures, which may lead to passive containment cooling system risks beyond acceptable levels.
AndersonBBorgonovoEGaleottiMet al. Uncertainty in climate change modeling: can global sensitivity analysis be of help?Risk Anal2014; 34(2): 271–293.
2.
RummukainenM. Climate change: changing means and changing extremes. Climatic Change2013; 121: 3–13.
3.
WebsterMDSokolovAP. A methodology for quantifying uncertainty in climate projections. Climatic Change2000; 46(4): 417–446.
4.
SinghRP. Causes and consequences of the greenhouse gases. Bullet Pure Appl Sci F: Geologic Sci2006; 25(1–2): 13–17.
5.
Carlsson-KanyamaAGonzálezAD. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. Am J Clin Nutr2009; 89(5): 1704S–1709S.
6.
SpiegelhalterDJRieschH. Don’t know, can’t know: embracing deeper uncertainties when analysing risks. Philos T R Soc A2011; 369: 4730–4750.
7.
ZioEDi MaioFTongJ. Safety margins confidence estimation for a passive residual heat removal system. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2010; 95: 828–836.
8.
Asian Development Bank. Climate risk and adaptation in the electric power sector. Mandaluyong, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2012.
9.
DroguettELMoslehA. Integrated treatment of model and parameter uncertainties through a Bayesian approach. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2013; 227(1): 41–54.
10.
López DroguettEMoslehA. Bayesian treatment of model uncertainty for partially applicable models. Risk Anal2014; 34(2): 252–270.
11.
BaraldiPZioE. A comparison between probabilistic and Dempster-Shafer theory approaches to model uncertainty analysis in the performance assessment of radioactive waste repositories. Risk Anal2010; 30: 1139–1156.
12.
Pourgol-MohamadMMoslehAModarresM. Methodology for the use of experimental data to enhance model output uncertainty assessment in thermal hydraulics codes. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2010; 95: 77–86.
MartinGMBellouinNCollinsWJet al. The HadGEM2 family of Met Office Unified Model climate configurations. Geosci Model Dev2011; 4(3): 723–757.
15.
PolikarR. Ensemble based systems in decision making. IEEE Circ Syst Mag2006; 6(3): 21–45.
16.
Di MaioFHuJTsePet al. Ensemble-approaches for clustering health status of oil sand pumps. Expert Syst Appl2012; 39(5): 4847–4859.
17.
TebaldiCKnuttiR. The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Philos T R Soc A2007; 365(1857): 2053–2075.
18.
Al-DahidiSDi MaioFBaraldiPet al. A novel ensemble approach for clustering operational transients of a NPP turbine (Special Issue Nuclear Energy PHM). Int J Prog Health Manage2015; 6: 1–21.
19.
HoseyniMDi MaioFVagnoliMet al. A Bayesian ensemble of sensitivity measures for severe accident modeling. Nucl Eng Des2015; 295: 182–191.
20.
Di MaioFBandiniAZioEet al. Bootstrapped-ensemble-based sensitivity analysis of a TRACE thermal-hydraulic model based on a limited number of PWR large break LOCA simulations. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2016; 153: 122–134.
21.
Al-DahidiSDi MaioFBaraldiPet al. A locally adaptive ensemble approach for data-driven prognostics of heterogeneous fleets (Special issue of ESREL). Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2017; 231: 350–363.
22.
Di MaioFNicolaGZioEet al. Ensemble-based sensitivity analysis of a Best Estimate Thermal Hydraulics model: application to a Passive Containment Cooling System of an AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant. Ann Nucl Energy2014; 73: 200–210.
23.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Climate change and nuclear power 2015. Vienna: IAEA, 2015.
24.
WanPKCarsonACChanDW. Climate change considerations in sustainable development of nuclear power plants in the United States. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on nuclear engineering (ICONE), Xi’an, China, 17–21 May 2010, vol. 6, pp.403–407. New York: ASME.
25.
RubbelkeDVogeleS. Impacts of climate change on European critical infrastructures: the case of the power sector. Environ Sci Policy2011; 14: 53–63.
26.
LinnerudKMideksaTKEskelandGS. The impact of climate change on nuclear power supply. Energ J2011; 32: 149–168.
27.
KopytkoNPerkinsJ. Climate change, nuclear power, and the adaptation–mitigation dilemma. Energ Policy2011; 39: 318–333.
28.
SahlinUDi MaioFVagnoliMet al. Evaluating the impact of climate change on the risk assessment of Nuclear Power Plants. In: Safety and reliability of complex engineered systems – proceedings of the 25th European safety and reliability conference (ESREL), Zurich, 7–10 September 2015, pp.2613–2621. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
29.
YuYWangSNiuF. Thermal–hydraulic performance analysis for AP1000 passive containment cooling system. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on nuclear engineering (ICONE’21), Chengdu, China, 29 July–2 August 2013. New York: ASME.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Defining initiating events for purposes of probabilistic safety assessment (IAEA-TECDOC-719). Vienna: IAEA, 1993.
32.
RahimFCRahgoshayMMousavianSK. A study of large break LOCA in the AP1000 reactor containment. Prog Nucl Energ2012; 54(1): 132–137.
33.
YuYMaGHaoZet al. Correlation analysis for screening key parameters for passive system reliability analysis. Ann Nucl Energy2015; 77: 23–29.
34.
BurgazziL. Evaluation of uncertainties related to passive systems performance. Nucl Eng Des2004; 230: 93–106.
35.
TaylorKEStoufferRJMeehlGA. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. B Am Meteorol Soc2012; 93: 485–498.
36.
NgBCaiWWalshK. Nonlinear feedbacks associated with the Indian Ocean dipole and their response to global warming in the GFDL-ESM2M coupled climate model. J Climate2014; 27(11): 3904–3919.
37.
DufresneJ-LFoujolsM-ADenvilSet al. Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim Dynam2013; 40(9–10): 2123–2165.
38.
WatanabeSYokohataT. Future increase in the all-sky UV-B radiation over Asia projected by an earth system model. J Meteorol Soc Jpn2012; 90: 295–305.
Van VuurenDPEdmondsJKainumaMet al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change2011; 109(1): 5–31.
41.
BaraldiPCammiAMangiliFet al. Local fusion of an ensemble of models for the reconstruction of faulty signals. IEEE T Nucl Sci2010; 57(2): 793–806.
42.
RafteryAEGneitingTBalabdaouiFet al. Using Bayesian model averaging to calibrate forecast ensembles. Mon Weather Rev2005; 133(5): 1155–1174.
43.
GISTEMP Team. GISS surface temperature analysis (GISTEMP). NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2016, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (accessed 13 June 2016).
44.
HansenJRuedyRSatoMet al. Global surface temperature change. Rev Geophys2010; 48: RG4004.
Pourgol-MohammadM. Thermal–hydraulics system codes uncertainty assessment: a review of the methodologies. Ann Nucl Energy2009; 36(11–12): 1774–1786.
47.
BaraldiPZioE. A combined Monte Carlo and possibilistic approach to uncertainty propagation in event tree analysis. Risk Anal2008; 28(5): 1309–1325.
48.
AvenTBaraldiPFlageRet al. Uncertainty in risk assessment: the representation and treatment of uncertainties by probabilistic and non-probabilistic methods. Chichester: Wiley, 2014, pp.1–186.
49.
McLachlanGPeelD. Finite mixture models. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000.
