Abstract
In probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), two main methods exist for quantifying fault trees: theoretical and empirical (sampling). The efficiency of PRA quantification varies depending on the sampling method used. This study evaluated the feasibility of using quasi-Monte Carlo simulation (Quasi-MCS) and progressive Latin hypercube sampling (P-LHS) for PRA quantification. Eight risk outcomes were derived through PRA for internal and external events in four cases. The PRA convergence, variability, and error rates of each sampling method were compared and analyzed. The comparison analysis revealed that all sampling methods had an error rate of approximately 2% with 9,000 total samples. P-LHS exhibited the best convergence and variability among the methods, followed by Quasi-MCS and LHS. Although Quasi-MCS showed more significant variability than LHS as the number of events increased, its error rate remained within 2% with 9,000 samples. Therefore, both P-LHS and Quasi-MCS are feasible for PRA quantification.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.