Estimating the Probability of Nuclear Power Plant Damage from Rare Tsunamis

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the probability of damage to a nuclear power plant from a rare tsunami, estimated at 1 in 200 years. The probability of no damage is expressed using the exponential function, leading to a calculated probability of damage of approximately 0.259. Participants debate the correct application of failure rates and the relevance of the provided rate in the problem statement. The consensus indicates that the exponential function is necessary for accurate calculations. Ultimately, the correct probability of damage is confirmed to be around 0.259.
hworth
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The frequency of a tsunami large enough to threaten the safety of a nuclear power plant has been estimated to be 1 in 200 years. If the plant’s life is 65 years what is the probability it will be damaged by such a tsunami? What is this probability more commonly termed?
[2 Marks]

Homework Equations



How do you get a base event failure rate for components with no recorded failures in an operating time T? Let λ = k/T. A Pessimistic Failure Rate λ = 1/T is known as ‘one tomorrow’. A PSA could use k = 0.5525 (For the estimation of failure rates for low probability events see Progress in Nuclear Energy 4 374-476 1997).

The Attempt at a Solution



Probability of no damage = e-λT

λ = 0.5525/200

Probability of damage = 1-e-(0.5525/200)(60) = 0.153

A pessimistic failure rate λ=1/T is known as 'one tomorrow'.

Is this correct or completely wrong? Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hworth said:
How do you get a base event failure rate for components with no recorded failures in an operating time T? Let λ = k/T. A Pessimistic Failure Rate λ = 1/T is known as ‘one tomorrow’. A PSA could use k = 0.5525 (For the estimation of failure rates for low probability events see Progress in Nuclear Energy 4 374-476 1997).
You are overthinking this. The problem statement gives you the rate. Where this number comes from is a different question not relevant here.
 
mfb said:
You are overthinking this. The problem statement gives you the rate. Where this number comes from is a different question not relevant here.

Are you sure? So would you say 0.325? Seems too simple.
 
You'll still need the exponential function.
 
mfb said:
You'll still need the exponential function.

Do you get 0.259?

λ = 1/200
Probability of damage = 1-e-(1/200)(60) = 0.259
 
That's how I would answer the problem.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top