Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
Volume 2014, Article ID 206258, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/206258
Research Article

Study on Nuclear Accident Precursors Using AHP and BBN

1Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin Si, Gyeonggi Do 446-701, Republic of Korea
2Industrial Services TUV Rheinland Korea Ltd. 197-28 Guro-dong, Guro-gu, Seoul 152-719, Republic of Korea
3Department of Basic Sciences, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan

Received 5 February 2014; Accepted 19 April 2014; Published 14 May 2014

Academic Editor: Joon-Eon Yang

Copyright © 2014 Sujin Park et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. Q. Wang, X. Chen, and X. Yi-Chong, “Accident like the Fukushima unlikely in a country with effective nuclear regulation: literature review and proposed guidelines,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 17, pp. 126–146, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. T. N. Srinivasan and T. S. Gopi Rethinaraj, “Fukushima and thereafter: reassessment of risks of nuclear power,” Energy Policy, vol. 52, pp. 726–736, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. J. J. Bevelacqua, “Applicability of health physics lessons learned from the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident to the Fukushima Daiichi accident,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, vol. 105, pp. 6–10, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. Zubair, S. Park, and G. Heo, “Prioritization of lesson learned from Fukushima accident using AHP,” in Proceedings of the Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting, Gwangju, Korea, May 2013.
  5. The American Nuclear Society special committee on Fukushima, Fukushima Daiichi ANS Committee Report, The American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima, 2012.
  6. “IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency, atoms for peace,” Fukushima Daiichi Status Report, October 2011.
  7. “IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency, atoms for peace,” Fukushima Daiichi Status Report, August 2012.
  8. “IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency, atoms for peace,” Fukushima Daiichi Status Report, November 2012.
  9. “IAEA international fact finding expert mission of the Fukushima Dai-Ichi NPP accident following the great east Japan earthquake and tsunami,” IAEA Mission Report, Department of Nuclear Safety and Security, Division of Nuclear Installation Safety, 2011.
  10. M. C. Kim and I. S. Kim, “Decision analysis based on AHP and GTST methodologies with application to CCF-defense strategies,” Nuclear Technology, vol. 166, no. 3, pp. 283–294, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, “A hybrid and integrated approach to evaluate and prevent disasters,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, pp. 1–15, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. A. Ahmed, R. Kusumo, S. Savci, B. Kayis, M. Zhou, and Y. B. Khoo, “Application of analytical hierarchy process and Bayesian belief networks for risk analysis,” Complexity International, vol. 12, pp. 1–10, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. I. Chivatá Cárdenas, S. S. H. Al-jibouri, and J. I. M. Halman, “A Bayesian belief networks approach to risk control in construction projects,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Moscow, Russia, June 2012.
  14. D. J. Lee and J. Hwang, “Decision support for selecting exportable nuclear technology using the analytic hierarchy process: a Korean case,” Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 161–167, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. G. Yang, W.-J. Huang, and L.-L. Lei, “Using AHP and TOPSIS approaches in nuclear power plant equipment supplier selection,” Key Engineering Materials, vol. 419-420, pp. 761–764, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. S. Ha and P. H. Seong, “A method for risk-informed safety significance categorization using the analytic hierarchy process and Bayesian belief networks,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. S. Shin, H. S. Son, and G. Heo, “Cyber security risk analysis model composed with activity-quality and architecture model,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer, Networks and Communication Engineering, pp. 609–612, 2013.
  18. J. S. Shin, H. S. Son, and G. Heo, “Application of Bayesian network methodology for evaluating industrial control system,” Advanced Science and Technology Letters, vol. 42, pp. 157–161, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  19. T. L. Saaty, “Risk—its priority and probability: the analytic hierarchy process,” Risk Analysis, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 159–172, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, “Selection of new production facilities with the Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering method,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 7317–7325, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. “IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency,” Safety Standards Series No. NS-R-1, Safety of Nuclear Power Plants Design, Vienna, Austria, 2000.
  22. D. Heckerman, A Tutorial on Learning with Bayesian Networks, 1995.
  23. KNS Committee Report on the Fukushima Accident, Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident Analysis, Korean Nuclear Society, 2013.