ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

Failing to acknowledge the importance of the analysis assumptions and limitations... 

When used judiciously, the advantages of QRA can outweigh the associated problems and costs. Companies that prudently commission QRAs and conscientiously act on the resulting recommendations are better off for two reasons (1) they have a better base of information to make decisions and (2) their judicious use of QRA technology represents another demonstration of responsible concern for the health and safety of workers and the public. However, companies should resist the indiscriminate use of QRA as a means to solve all problems since this strategy could waste safety improvement resources, diverting attention from other essential safety activities. Once executives are able to interpret and use QRA results, they will appreciate that the quality of their decisions rests largely on their ability to understand the salient analysis assumptions and the limitations of the results. 

The influence of the vi.scosity ratio 8 on the flow behavior in a capillary was discussed by Rumscheidt and Mason [lOj. They pointed out that when the viscosity ratio is small, the dispersed droplets are drawn out to great lengths but do not burst, and when the viscosity ratio is of the order of unity, the extended droplets break up into smaller droplets. At very high viscosity ratios, the droplets undergo only very limited deformations. This mechanism can explain our observations and supports our theoretical analysis assumptions, summarized previously as points 2, 3, and 4. 

One disadvantage of ANCOVA is that the modelling does involve a number of assumptions and if those assumptions are not valid then the approach could mislead. For example, it is assumed (usually) that the covariates affect outcome in a linear way there is invariably too little information in the data to be able to assess this assumption in any effective way. In contrast, with an adjusted analysis, assumptions about the way in which covariates affect outcome are not made and in that sense it can be seen as a more robust approach. In some regulatory circles adjusted analyses are preferred to ANCOVA for these reasons. 

Risk analysis assumptions and imeertainties Risk evaluation criteria Stakeholder involvement... 

The SCBs, and the floor, walls, and ceiling of the Zone 2A canyon and Room 109 constitute the structures designed to serve a radioactive material confinement function under all normal, abnormal, and accident conditions (refer to Appendix 3E, Section 3E.7 for design basis earthquake accident analysis assumptions). By reducing the likelihood of a radioactive material release these structures provide both defense in depth and worker safety functions. 

Following paragraphs summarize main assumptions about the structure of safety management of investigated processes. We attempt to build a picture that corresponds with the root cause analysis. Assumptions are illustrated with Fig. 2. 

IAEA Technical Report Series No. 384, 1999). The success rate of those tests is very important and could vary dependently on software complexity. Generally, the success rate of the V V tests of systems with definite number of states should converge up to 100% and any latent software faults could be treated as hypothetical and thus screened out according to analysis assumptions. 

Vn.66. The understanding of modelling and parameter uncertainties, together with proper incorporation of these uncertainties in the analysis assumptions, is necessary so that a bounding value of is calculated for a packaging SAR that apphes bumup credit Many of these uncertainties should be examined as part of the validation process. For example, DeHart [V11.24] discusses a procedure to incorporate the variability in the analysis of measured isotopic data and the number of data points to provide a correction factor that adjusts the INF isotopics such that a conservative estimate of k can be calculated. 

A program should be implemented to ensure that all human-error analysis assumptions are maintained or improved. 

This subsection provides a summary of the analysis results for the fault schedule fault categories defined in subsection 5.2. Also included is a discussion of any significant analysis assumptions that differ from, or are supplemental to, the generic assumptions described in subsection 5.3.3. 

The results of this exercise for the 1.0 and 1.5 nm were very far from correct as expected. Table 34 contains the results for 0.5 nm model. Several attempts were made with differing starting approximations, which led to a large spread in the calculations for the microporous analysis assumption. Unfortunately, in the microporous analysis the fit looked graphically very good for all the fits obtained, so there does not appear to be a way to discern that between the numbers. Keeping in mind that this is with perfect data then for experimental data the problem must surely be worse. The mesoporous analyses works very well with the values rebounding nicely to about the same value. 

The most common approach to perform seismic design of structures is the traditional one based on a linear elastic analysis assumption. On the other... 

Effects of analysis assumptions and pmp operability under cavitation... 

---