Application of the IAEA INPRO method to EU-DEMO Plant ... · • DEMO1 with an extended pulse...

Application of the IAEA INPRO method to

EU-DEMO Plant Concept Selection

R. Brown

First IAEA Technical Meeting (TM) on the Safety, Design and Technology of Fusion Power Plants

4th May 2016

Content

• Programme Background

• EU-DEMO Development Strategy Update

• Definition of Alternative Plant Concepts

• IAEA INPRO Assessment Methodology

• Implementation for EU-DEMO

• Contributions from Industry

• Conclusions

R. Brown | IAEA Technical Meeting | Vienna | 04/05/2016 | Page 2

Emphasis on: • Central role of ITER: assumption in original Roadmap ITER comes in operation in early 2020’s

• Concept design of a DEMOnstration Fusion Power Plant to follow ITER, capable of generating

several 100MW of net electricity and operating with a closed fuel-cycle

• DEMO as a single step to commercial fusion power plants

• Electricity production demonstration around middle of the century

• An ambitious roadmap implemented by a Consortium of Fusion Labs (EUROfusion)

• Support to facilities based on the joint exploitation.

• Focus around 8 Missions

DEMO

IPH

IPH

1. Plasma Operation

2. Heat Exhaust

3. Neutron resistant Materials

4. Tritium-self sufficiency

5. Safety

6. Integrated DEMO Design

7. Competitive Cost of Electricity

8. Stellarator

Background

EU Fusion Roadmap to Fusion Electricity



PPPT PMU

L. ZANI (CEA) WPMAG

L. BOCCACCINI (KIT) WPBB

J. H. YOU (IPP Ga) WPDIV

A. LOVING (CCFE) WPRM

W. BIEL (FZJ) WPDC

M. GRATTAROLA (Ansaldo) WPBOP

C. DAY (KIT) WPTFV

M. Q. TRAN (EFPL) WPHCD

M. RIETH (KIT) WPMAT

A.IBARRA (CIEMAT) WPENS

N. TAYLOR (CCFE) WPSAE

Project control/ coordination

System & Design Integration

Physics Integration

G. FEDERICI WPPMI

Background

EU-DEMO Programme Organisation

EU DEMO Development Strategy Update

A proposed re-examination and re-working of the EU-DEMO Design

Implementation Strategy has been triggered by the following:

• Anticipated ITER delay: In light of the anticipated delays to ITER, DEMO

PPPT PMU has explored possible adaptations of the development strategy

in order to minimise the impacts of the ITER delay on the EUROFusion

2050 Mission to realise Fusion electricity.

• A recommendation from EU-DEMO Stakeholders to investigate &

assess alternative plant concepts: Engagements with Stakeholders have

highlighted the need to investigate the attractiveness of alternative plant

concepts to: • Substantiate that the eventual plant concept represents an optimised decision.

• Provide mitigation to known shortcomings/technical risk in the baseline concept design.

• Ensure that the concept selection is aligned to stakeholder requirements.


Management of Design Variants

DEMO Design Option 2




Pre-Conceptual Design Conceptual Design Engineering Design

DEMO Design Option 2 DEMO Design

Option 2DEMO Design Option 4


2020 2027En

gin

ee

rin

g P

rogr

amm

eR

ese

arch

Pro

gram

me

Focus: Answer critical questions

Critical questions

Focus: De-risk concept

Baseline

Key risks

RisksSolutions /

Opportunities

Solutions / Opportunities

Focus: Mitigate key risks

Solutions / Opportunities

Architecture selected

2024-2025

Management of Design Variants in Programme Phases:

• The programme will maintain a ‘Baseline’ design to keep the design effort focused.

• Design variants must be managed through the design phases, with the number of variants generally

being reduced as the programme matures.

• Concept down-selection should be managed through a traceable decision making framework

(Decision Analysis).


Example Candidate Plant Concepts

DEMO Candidate Plant Concepts earmarked for investigation and assessment:

• DEMO1-SN: Single Null (SN) configuration based heavily on extrapolations from ITER

design/technology (more detailed systems and integration studies to continue e.g Aspect Ratio,

No. Coils, RM etc.). Assessment of Water and He as options for primary coolant.

• DEMO1-DN: A Double Null (DN) diminishes the problems of the plasma position detection and

active control, and de-risks the design of the first wall. Remote Maintenance solution not yet

established.

• DEMO1 with an extended pulse (e.g., > 4 hrs): Maintains similar physics and technology

assumptions to baseline, but with pulse length extended by a factor of 2 to 4 in an inductive

device. Impact on Central Solenoid and BoP design to be assessed.

• DEMO2: Steady State operation with optimistic (but realistic) physics & technology assumptions.

e.g. 1.5 MeV NB technology, >90% radiation fraction.

• DEMO3: Steady State operation with advanced physics & technology assumptions. eg. ODS

Eurofer, HTS, advance divertor configuration.

These must be defined by a common set of artefacts to a level to allow meaningful

comparison and assessment.


Alternative Concepts Definition & Assessment Process

Concept & Motivations

Plant definition

• Cardinal plant/physics parameters

• Operational concept

• Plant architecture

Systems definitions

• System parameters

• System architecture

• System technology assumptions

Synthesis

Informed Decision Making

Plant Assessment Framework

Concept Definition

PROCESS runs

Plant Param. Outputs

CAD & Geometry

Iterate to check motivations are valid

and refine parameters

Evaluation

• Technical Performance

• Safety, Environment & waste Management

• Economics

• Technical Risk

• Schedule & Deployment

Impact Assessments

• Safety analyses

• Plasma Physics aspects

• Maintenance

• TBR analysis

• CS impact

• First Wall/Divertor Loads

• Technology Readiness

• etc…

Technical Impact Assessment Assess impact relative to baseline design on engineering & physics aspects including:


Define criteria upfront to guide analysis and development

Decision Analysis Process

• The assessment of the plant concept are difficult because they include numerous

stakeholders, multiple competing objectives, substantial uncertainty, and

significant consequences.

• Down-selection of Plant and System Concepts is a necessary feature of the EU-

DEMO programme. It must be handled with an objective, robust, traceable

processes.

• Decisions Analysis Process; “…to provide a structured, analytical framework

for objectively identifying, characterizing and evaluating a set of alternatives for a

decision at any point in the life cycle and select the most beneficial course of

action.”(ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288)

• The methodology for making decisions must have the capacity for accepting and

quantifying human subjective inputs;

• Cumulative wisdom provided by experienced personnel is essentional for

integrating technical & non-technical factor to produce sound decisions.


http://sebokwiki.org/wiki/ISO/IEC/IEEE_15288

http://sebokwiki.org/wiki/ISO/IEC/IEEE_15288

IAEA INPRO Methodology

• The process of DEMO plant concept selection should as closely as possible follow

established concept selection processes from Nuclear Fission and other highly

regulated fields.

• IAEA International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO)

was established in 2000.

• INPRO Methodology for nuclear energy system assessment – a comprehensive set

of internationally agreed basic principles, requirements and criteria in important areas

of: Economics, safety, waste management, proliferation resistance, physical

protection, environment and infrastructure.

Image Credit - IAEA

• How can these approach be applied and if

necessary adapted to Fusion?

• Are there other approaches that DEMO should

consider?

• How to define and assess appropriate criteria?

• How to compare a variety of criteria in a single

‘value’ space?


INPRO Methodology Overview

Basic Principlesa

User Requirementsb

Key Indicators

Criteriac

aCorresponds to the term Goal in Generation IV Interational Forum (GIF)

bCorresponds to the term Criterion in GIF

cCorresponds to the term Metrics in GIF

• Statement of a general goal that is to be achieved.

• Basic Principle (BP) is achieved through meeting the related User

Requirements

• User Requirements (UR) define the means of achieving the goal

set out in the basic principles.

• URs are the conditions that should me met to achieve Stakeholder

Acceptance.

• Criterion (CR) enable the assessment to asses how well a

given UR is being met.

• It consists of an Indicator (IN) and Acceptance Limit (AL)

Key Indicators (KI) are a subset of CRs that are the focus of

evaluation and assessment.


The DEMO Context & Implementation

Fission/INPRO Context:

• INPRO methodology as applied in the assessment of Fission INS, addresses a primary

objective to ensure that Fission INS development follows a sustainablea path generically

applicable to multiple programmes.

• INPRO methodology is a generic tool that has been developed to assist Member States in their

assessment of INS options to fulfil their objectives – taking into account their regional

constraints.

• Fission INS represent (relative to Fusion) evolutions of existing technologies/plant designs for

which there is already a strong technical and commercial precedent.

DEMO Programme Context

• DEMO is a demonstration project – not a fully fledge deployable commercial reactor solution.

• The DEMO programme has defined timescales and goals, as defined by the Fusion Roadmap

and is therefore constrained programmatically.

• Fusion Technology Readiness and Integrated Plant Design are substantially less mature

compared to Fission INS.

• Focus during pre-concept on screening and comparison between DEMO concepts.

aSustainable as defined in INPRO manual, is considered along the dimensions of: economic, environmental, social and institutional factors

• There are parallels between Fission/INPRO methodology as applied to the assessment of the

sustainability of Innovative Nuclear Systems (INS) and the assessment of DEMO plant concepts.

• There are also distinctions that necessitate tailoring of the method for application to DEMO architecture

evaluation:


Exploring application of INPRO to DEMO

1. Establish a standard process for definition of plant concepts that generates

the artefacts required for objective evaluation of concepts.

2. Define Basic Principles and User Requirements in a value hierarchy: • Review of INPRO URs for applicability.

• Incorporate the DEMO Stakeholder Requirements.

3. Define Key Indicators that are:

• Measurable

• Discriminatory

• Applicable

4. Rank User Requirements in terms of priorities with DEMO stakeholders.

5. Complete KI scoring assessments, integrating:

• Expert judgement from subject matter experts.

• Measured values (models and simulations).

6. Synthesis and analysis of results.

During an early design phase


Definition of Basic Principles for DEMO

Basic Principle

Themes

Criteria

Applicability

for DEMO

Comments on suitability for DEMO Plant Concept selection

Safety Strong alignment with DEMO safety principles – but could be

made more specific for Fusion.

Economics Must be adapted to reflect that EU-DEMO is a demonstration

device.

Environment Must be adapted to reflect fusion environment & waste

management issues. Waste Management

Proliferation

Resistance

Proliferation risks for fusion are considered to be significantly

reduced for Fusion.

Physical Protection Physical protection strategies not well defined at pre-concept

stage.

Infrastructure Operational concept has high impact on infrastructure

compatibility.

Plant Performance DEMO must demonstrate all the relevant technology for a power

plant.

Deployment

Timescales

EU Fusion Roadmap has defined timescales - this must be

accounted for in concept selection.

Programmatic Risk DEMO integrates many unproven technological elements into a

single device. High programmatic risk must be accounted for.

Overview of INPRO BP themes and initial indicative assessment of applicability to DEMO plant concept evaluation.

IAE

A IN

PR

O B

asic

Prin

cip

les


Which Safety User Requirements can be meaningfully assessed at an early design

stage to enable differentiation between concepts?

• Robustness (Margins & Simplicity of Design)

• Safety Basis (experience and precedent of technology)

• Minimisation of hazards

• Design Basis Accidents (frequency of occurrence)

• Minimisation of dose risk to workers & public

• Prevention of releases into the environment

• Independence of DID

• Detection & Interception

• Human machine interfaces

Early stage

Later stage

DE

MO

Co

nce

pt

Eva

lua

tio

n S

pe

cific

Risk-Informed Decision Analysis

• The decision analysis should not only focus on technical or performance

assessment.

• With DEMO whilst more technically advanced concepts might offer improved

performance, the technology developed and associated technical/cost/schedule risk

may increased substantially.

• There must be integration of decision analysis with risk analysis, to ensure that

programmatic constraints are also taken account in decisions.

Programme Delivery Risk

(technical, schedule, cost)

Technology Readiness

DEMO-C1

DEMO-C2

DEMO-C3

Technology and Physics Performance

Fig 2: Representation of the relationship between technology readiness and programme delivery risks


Demonstrate the Technical Feasibility of Fusion Power in accordance with the

Fusion Roadmap

Technical Performance

Maximise plant availability

Demonstrate net electricity production

Demonstrate close tritium fuel

cycle

Safety, Environment &

Waste Management

Minimise risk to the public &

workers

Minimise radiological

waste

Minimise inherent safety

risk

Minimise radiological

releases

Economics

Development Cost

Facilities Cost

Operations Cost

Decomm. Cost

Deployment timescale

Development schedule

Operations schedule

Programmatic Risk

Tech. Dev. Risk

Cost Risk.

Schedule Risk.

Establishing & value hierarchy

Inputs:

• DEMO Stakeholder Requirements Document

• Fusion Roadmap

• INPRO internationally agreed basic principles

Basic Principles organised in a value hierarchy for EU-DEMO: Risk Informed

Decision

Making

The implementation of the method will likely require an evolution of this hierarchy!


User Requirement Definition

Expanding Technical performance as an example -

immediately it becomes difficult to decompose the

value hierarchy into User Requirements without

overlap.

DEMO Mission

Technical performance

Maximise availability

Plant operational lifetime

Planned

availability

Maintenance times of key components

Inherent reliability

Demonstrate closed tritium cycle

Provide tritium breeding over operational life

Provide T to start another device

Demonstrate net electricity production

Net electricity production

Predictability of supply

Basic

Principles

User Req.

How to agree on the level of decomposition?

• Each User Requirement must be of intrinsic interest to

stakeholders/relevant to INPRO .

• Each user requirement should be interpretable by

stakeholders.


Example criteria definition

Plant performance basic principle BP1 (): The DEMO plant shall demonstrate a closed tritium fuel cycle

User Requirements (UR) Criteria

Indicators (IN) Acceptance Limits (AL)

The DEMO FPP shall breed

sufficient tritium to; (i)

Guarantee its planned

operational life; (ii) Provide

adequate back-up storage in

case of unforeseen losses"

CR 1.5.1: Tritium start-up requirement

IN 1.5.1: Quantity of tritium required for plant

start-up. AL 1.5.1: TBD

CR 1.5.2: Plant tritium breeding ratio

IN 1.5.2: Plant tritium breeding ratio AL1.5.2: 1.1

CR 1.5.3 Maintain Tritium breeding ratio over blanket life

IN 1.5.3: Degradation in tritium breeding

performance over FPY AL 1.5.3: TBD

CR 1.5.4 Minimise foreseen Tritium loses from the fuel inventory

IN 1.5.4 Rate of tritium loss from the fuel cycle AL 1.5.4: TBD

CR 1.5.5: Provide adequate back-up in case of unforeseen loses

IN 1.5.5: Time to accumulate backup AL 1.5.4: TBD

To be reviewed with subject matter experts in 2016.

Considering the UR: ‘The DEMO plant shall demonstrate a closed tritium fuel cycle’ as an example


Key Indicators and Desirable Target Values

No Potential Potential

Acceptance

Limit Desired

Target Value

Key Indicator-1

Key Indicator-2

DEMO-C1

DEMO-C2

A Desired Target Value (DTV)

• Defined for each KI, the DTV represents the ultimate value of a KI that could practically be achieved

through R&D.

• The DTV represents a stretch target for a KI that is judged to be eventually or ultimately achievable by

appropriate R&D.

Range of uncertainty

Acceptance Limit (AL)

• The acceptance limit represent the minimum value for stakeholder or technical acceptance.

• As there is high uncertainty in an early stage assessment, failing to meet the acceptance limit would

not result in default exclusion, but this KI must be closely monitored and tracked.


Acceptance Limits and Desired Target Values

Representation of Acceptance Limits and Desired Target Values for Key Indicators

0102030405060708090

100

KI-1

KI-2

KI-3

KI-4

KI-5

KI-6

KI-7

KI-8

Acceptancce Limit

Desired Target Value

Key Indicator representation for a single Basic Principle


Acceptance Limits and Desired Target Values

Representation of DEMO Concept Evaluations mapped against Acceptance Limits and Desired Target Values for Key

Indicators

0102030405060708090

100

KI-1

KI-2

KI-3

KI-4

KI-5

KI-6

KI-7

KI-8

DEMO-C2

DEMO-C1

Acceptancce Limit

Desired Target Value

Key Indicator representation for a single Basic Principle


Synthesis of multiple KI maps

Safety, Environment &

Waste Management

Technical

Performance

Economic Factors

Technical Risk

Deployment Timescale

Synthesis into an

overall ranking

• In order to obtain an overall ranking, all KI maps must be synthesised through a process of establishing

Stakeholder priorities.

• Not an exact science – important to maintain traceability and visibility in the process.

• Analytical Hierarchy Process can be applied to structure this process.


Mapping KIs to Relative Benefit Index

KI value

A suitable function defined that

maps the perceived ‘benefit’ to

the physical design space.

RBI = 100

RBI = 0

Acceptance

Limit Desired Target

Value

RBI Design Space

Va

lue

Sp

ace

Concept of Relative Benefit Index (RBI) maps the KI value to the ‘benefit’ as perceived by

stakeholders or subject matter experts.

The relative importance of each KI can be compared through assigning weighting factors

(wi) to each RBI – based on importance assessed be stakeholders.

This allows the evaluation and trade-off between multiple criteria in a single ‘value space’


DEMO-C2

DEMO-C1

x2 x1

RBI1

RBI2

KI to RBI value function

1.5.2 KI

RBI = 100

RBI = 0

Acceptance

Limit

1.20

1.5.2 RBI Design Space

Valu

e S

pace

No Solution Suboptimal Design

Space

1.10

Desired Target

Value

1.25

“Unacceptance”

Limit

RBI_DN = 20

RBI_DN = 90

DEMO-DN

DEMO-SN

1.12 1.19


Example of a possible value function for tritium breeding ratio (indicative numbers):

CR 1.5.2: Plant tritium breeding ratio

IN 1.5.2: Plant tritium breeding ratio AL1.5.2: 1.1 DTV 1.5.2 1.2

TBR estimate taken from: G. Federeci et al. “Overview of the design approach and prioritization of R&D activities towards an EU DEMO”, 2015

Not to scale

Concept KI1.5.2 RBI1.5.2

DEMO-SN 1.19 90

DEMO-DN 1.12 20

KI Synthesis - Analytical Hierarchy Process

DEMO

PLANT

OPTIONS

Technical

Performance

Safety,

Environment &

Waste Mang.

Economic

Factors

Technical

Risk

Deployment

Timescales

TBR

Availability

Pass. V stab.

Waste

…

1 RBIn

Decomposition of the decision process

into the decision criteria and sub-criteria

clusters

Comparative Judgements

of all criteria and alternative

combination in the cluster

Ranking and

comparison of

global

performance

Synthesis of the weighted KI to

overall alternative ranking

Technical

Performance

Safety,

Environment &

Waste Mang.

Economic

Factors

Technical

Risk

Deployment

Timescales

• Pairwise Comparisons: Stakeholders asked to judge each KI with respect to all other criteria to

obtain measure of relative importance.

• KIs are aggregated to obtain overall ranking of alternatives.

• Consistency of assessments is assessed.

N/A

FW margin

R0

Differential sub-criteria

Availability

×

× ×

× ×

×

×

×

0.9

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

0.3

0.2

0.5

w

0.8

1

0.2

→ →

→ →

→ →

→

→ +

+

+

+

TBR

Availability

Pass. V stab.

Waste

…

N/A

FW margin

R0

Availability

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn

RBIn


Industry Technology Maturity Assessments

Industry Task

Technology Option

• Technology description

• System performance parameters

Industry Contribution

• Industry can contribute through developing schedule & cost estimates – but

assessment scope and inputs must be well defined.

• TRL assessments are a useful starting point – but should be developed into

quantitative estimates.

• NASA has developed non-linear mapping functions between the TRL level and cost

and schedule uncertainty through historical analysis of project records that might

support this activity1.

TRL

Assessments

Cost: Development Cost Estimates

Schedule: Development Schedule

Estimates

Technical Risk: Technology Development

Risks

1NASA Cost Estimating Handbook Version 4.0


Mapping KI improvement to Time, Cost & Risk

KI Value AL DTV

Co

st

AL DTV

Tim

es

ca

le

KI Value

AL DTV

Te

ch

nic

al R

isk

KI Value

Industry Task Objectives

The industry task aims to map KI improvement to relative cost,

timescale and development risk:

• Relative Cost – Normalised to baseline cost.

• Relative Timescale – Normalised to baseline schedule.

• Relative Risk – Comparative Risk assessments

considering TRL.

Since the same design points are assessed (derived from

DEMO concepts), the time, cost and risk estimates can be

mapped to the associated RBI for each KI.

Design Points Design Points

Design Points


RBI vs. Cost, Time, Risk

• An aggregate RBIagg can be obtained for by combing the RBIs for each KI with the weighting factor wi

obtained from AHP.

• Similarly aggregate values for Cost, Schedule and Risk could be obtained and plotted against RBIagg

to obtain maps for Cost, Time and Risk vs. Benefit.

• Sensitivity analysis can be performed to understand how the design strategy may need to respond to

changes in external factors (stakeholder preferences) and uncertainties in assumptions.

RB

I ag

g

DEMO-C1 DEMO-C2

DEMO-C3

RCIagg

RB

I ag

g

DEMO-C1

DEMO-C2

DEMO-C3

RTIagg

RB

I ag

g

DEMO-C1

DEMO-C2

DEMO-C3

RRIagg

Benefit vs. Cost Benefit vs. Time Benefit vs. Risk

RCI/RBI <1 RTI/RBI <1 RRI/RBI <1

RCI/RBI >1 RTI/RBI >1 RRI/RBI >1


Plan for Implementation

2016 – Framework & Concept Definition

- Define value hierarchy

- Define plant concepts

- Review INPRO criteria

- Establish Key Indicators

- Launch industry task

- Establish mechanics of the framework

2017 – Concept Technical Assessment

- Refine plant concepts

- Perform technical & safety assessments

- Review Key Indicators

- Launch Industry TRL assessments

- Initial scoring assessments

2018 – Concept Evaluation

- Industry cost & schedule estimates

- Plant concept assessment

- Synthesis and evaluation of results


Summary

• Presented is a first proposal for a concept evaluation framework for EU-

DEMO.

• Our aspiration is to ensure that we have a robust and traceable concept

evaluation framework that assesses designs against a diverse range of

requirements & objectives.

• A full INPRO assessment is unlikely to be feasible or warranted at this

stage, but a lighter INPRO based screening approach is more realistic.

• INPRO criteria to be reviewed with experts for applicability to EU-DEMO

concept evaluation.

• Program aspects (time, cost & risk) must be considered in the evaluation.

• We welcome suggestions and look forward to your input.


Appendix Slides


Criteria Definition

Safety

Minimise inherent safety risk

Robustness of design (margins)

Robustness of design (simplicity)

Design basis accident severity

Triggering event frequency

Can a sub-set of safety related criteria for early stage

assessment be derived that are:

(a) Measurable

(b) Discriminatory

(c) Representative

Coolant inventories

Operating pressure

Operating temperature

Resultant pressurisation (in-vessel LOCA)

Resultant pressurisation (ex- vessel LOCA)

Plasma disturbance frequency


Parameter uncertainties

Continuous distributions from expert judgements

• In case where expert elicitation is relied upon, it is more informative to obtain ranges

rather than single discrete values.

• Three point estimation technique is a convenient technique for obtaining continuous

distributions if probability distribution is assumed to approximate a normal distribution.

• best-case estimate (5th percentile) = = xi,5th • best judgement (median) = xi,50 • worst-case estimate (95th percentile) = xi,95th

Expert Elicitation

Continuous distributions from quantitative models

• Monte Carlo analysis can be applied to obtain continuous distributions from

quantitative models.

• Continuous distributions shall provide a clearer picture of the levels of uncertainty

associated with parameter estimates. This is particularly important when values are

near to acceptance limits.


DEMO Stakeholder requirements

• Engagements with a group of EU-DEMO stakeholders have taken place in

2015 and 2016.

• This group includes experts from Industry, the grid, EC and ITER/F4E.

• One of the objectives of the engagement is to capture a set of high level

requirements for the project, referred to as the Stakeholder Requirements.

• DEMO PMU has captured these requirements in the Stakeholder

Requirements Document.

• Stakeholder requirements captured in aspects of: • Plant Performance

• Safety, Environment & Waste Management

• Economic Aspects

• Project Risk

The current SHRD should not be assumed to be complete and exhaustive –

and a thorough review of the INPRO assessment criteria may yield other

relevant requirements.


Dealing with risk & uncertainties

“Uncertainties do need to be considered when performing comparative assessments, in setting RD&D

goals, and in deciding whether or not to initiate or continue a development program” IAEA INPRO

Risk – the chance of an unfavourable event occurring. A risk is characterised by a probability of

an event occurring.

Uncertainty – indefiniteness about an estimate or assumption. Uncertainty is characterised by a

probability distribution and represents our fundamental inability to perfectly predict the outcome of a

future event.

• The Technical Risk term applied here, is taken to mean the risk

that a major objective or requirement can not be met due to the

uncertainty that we have in future performance of technology or

physics that is not yet realised.

• Initially, it is proposed to assessed the Technical Risk through

assessment of the Technology Readiness Levels and Systems

Readiness Levels or of the main constituent systems or physics

assumptions.

• This can be refined to more specific estimates as the method

matures.

Technical Risk & TRL


Date post:	14-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Application of the IAEA INPRO method to EU-DEMO Plant ... · • DEMO1 with an extended pulse...

Documents