Integrative decision support for accident emergency response by combining MFM and Go-Flow

Abstract

Emergency response planning associated with written procedures play a key role in the process safety to ensure that accident can be properly managed. Although the extensive use of digital techniques have significantly reduced the accident risk by early warnings and operation guidance, the Fukushima nuclear disaster reminds us that the unexpected events may still exceed existing system capability to indicate appropriate responding measures. A novel digitalized approach is hence required for planning decision support. This article presents a joint utilizing of two modeling and analysis methodologies, which are complementary to each other to provide comprehensive insights for decision-making in the accident emergency response. Multilevel Flow Modeling (MFM) is applied to develop an intelligent reasoning system, which can harness plant’s qualitative functional knowledge to search available equipments and corresponding action sequences potentially being able to manage the accident. Go-Flow is a success-oriented reliability analysis method specially suitable for quantitative risk assessment in the situations involving configuration changes. The underlying configuration of each MFM-driven emergency response measure will update the understanding of goal achievement and modify the Go-Flow chart, by which plan’s effectiveness of risk reduction can be evaluated. Moreover, Go-Flow is also used to conduct the risk matrix assessment for identifying critical components, which can provide a reference for effective assignment of resources in the long-term accident management. This work is expected to strengthen operator’s ability of emergency response planning from perspective of both measure development and optimization. An accident scenario similar to what occurred in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been used to demonstrate the application of the propose approach.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.