Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.05.003

Artificial neural network for predicting nuclear power plant dynamic behaviors  

El-Sefy, M. (Department of Civil Engineering, NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risk, McMaster University)
Yosri, A. (Department of Civil Engineering, Institute for Multi-hazard Systemic Risk Studies (INTERFACE), McMaster University)
El-Dakhakhni, W. (Department of Civil Engineering, and Director, NSERC-CaNRisk-CREATE Program and teh INTERFACE Institute, McMaster University)
Nagasaki, S. (Department of Engineering Physics, McMaster University)
Wiebe, L. (Department of Civil Engineering, NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risk, McMaster University)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.53, no.10, 2021 , pp. 3275-3285 More about this Journal
Abstract
A Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) is a complex dynamic system-of-systems with highly nonlinear behaviors. In order to control the plant operation under both normal and abnormal conditions, the different systems in NPPs (e.g., the reactor core components, primary and secondary coolant systems) are usually monitored continuously, resulting in very large amounts of data. This situation makes it possible to integrate relevant qualitative and quantitative knowledge with artificial intelligence techniques to provide faster and more accurate behavior predictions, leading to more rapid decisions, based on actual NPP operation data. Data-driven models (DDM) rely on artificial intelligence to learn autonomously based on patterns in data, and they represent alternatives to physics-based models that typically require significant computational resources and might not fully represent the actual operation conditions of an NPP. In this study, a feed-forward backpropagation artificial neural network (ANN) model was trained to simulate the interaction between the reactor core and the primary and secondary coolant systems in a pressurized water reactor. The transients used for model training included perturbations in reactivity, steam valve coefficient, reactor core inlet temperature, and steam generator inlet temperature. Uncertainties of the plant physical parameters and operating conditions were also incorporated in these transients. Eight training functions were adopted during the training stage to develop the most efficient network. The developed ANN model predictions were subsequently tested successfully considering different new transients. Overall, through prompt prediction of NPP behavior under different transients, the study aims at demonstrating the potential of artificial intelligence to empower rapid emergency response planning and risk mitigation strategies.
Keywords
Data-driven models; Artificial intelligence; Artificial neural network; Nuclear power plant; Back-propagation algorithm;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 S.R. Patra, R. Jehadeesan, S. Rajeswari, S.A. Satyamurthy, Artificial neural network model for intermediate heat exchanger of nuclear reactor, Int. J. Comput. Appl. 1 (2010).
2 T.M. Mitchell, Machine Learning, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
3 F.J. Montans, F. Chinesta, R. Gomez-Bombarelli, J.N. Kutz, Data-driven modeling and learning in science and engineering, Compt. Rendus Mec. 347 (2019) 845-855, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crme.2019.11.009.   DOI
4 K.R. Holdaway, Harness Oil and Gas Big Data with Analytics: Optimize Exploration and Production with Data-Driven Models, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey., 2014.
5 A. Burchard-levine, S. Liu, F. Vince, M. Li, A. Ostfeld, A hybrid evolutionary data driven model for river water quality early warning, J. Environ. Manag. 143 (2014) 8-16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.04.017.   DOI
6 D. Solomatine, A. Ostfeld, Data-driven modelling: some past experiences and new approaches approaches, J. Hydroinf. 10 (2008), https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2008.015.   DOI
7 R.E. Uhrig, Use of neural networks in nuclear power plants, ISA Trans. 32(1993) 139-145.   DOI
8 J.G. Thakkar, Correlation of Theory and Experiment for the Dynamics of a Pressurized Water Reactor, University of Tennessee, 1975. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2696%0A%0A.
9 H. Mustafidah, S. Hartati, R. Wardoyo, A. Harjoko, Selection of most appropriate backpropagation training algorithm in data pattern recognition, Int. J. Comput. Trends Technol. 14 (2014) 92-95.   DOI
10 B. Sharma, P.K. Venugopalan, Comparison of neural network training functions for hematoma classification in brain CT images, IOSR J. Comput. Eng. 16 (2014) 31-35.
11 M. Moller, Efficient Training of Feed-Forward Neural Networks, Aarhus University, Computer Science Department, Ph.D. Thesis, 1997.
12 G. Cybenkot, Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function, Math. Control. Signals, Syst. 2 (1989) 303-314.   DOI
13 S. Arda, K.E. Holbert, J. Undrill, Development of a linearized model of a pressurized water reactor generating station for power system dynamic simulations, in: 45th North Am. Power Symp, NAPS, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1109/NAPS.2013.6666832, 2013.   DOI
14 A.I. Sanchez, J.F. Villanueva, S. Carlos, S. Martorell, Uncertainty analysis of a large break loss of coolant accident in a pressurized water reactor using nonparametric methods, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 174 (2018) 19-28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2018.02.005.   DOI
15 M.I. Radaideh, W.A. Wieselquist, O. Ridge, T. Kozlowski, A new framework for sampling-based uncertainty quantification of the six-group reactor kinetic parameters, Ann. Nucl. Energy (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.11.043.   DOI
16 C.S. Brown, H. Zhang, Uncertainty quantification and sensitivity analysis with CASL Core Simulator VERA-CS, Ann. Nucl. Energy J. 95 (2016) 188-201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.05.016.   DOI
17 H.H. Kang, M. Kaya, S. Hajimirza, A data driven artificial neural network model for predicting radiative properties of metallic packed beds, Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. (2019) 66-72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.01.013.   DOI
18 J. Li, J. Cheng, J. Shi, F. Huang, Brief introduction of back propagation (BP) neural network algorithm and its improvement, Adv. Comput. Sci. Inf. Eng. 169 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30223-7_87.   DOI
19 T. Mikolov, M. Karafiat, L. Burget, J. Cernock, S. Khudanpur, Recurrent neural network based language model, in: Interspeech, 2010.
20 M.F. Moller, A scaled conjugate gradient algorithm for fast supervised learning, Neural Network. 6 (1993) 525-533.   DOI
21 M.T. Hagan, M.B. Menhaj, Training feedforward networks with the marquardt algorithm, IEEE Trans. Neural Network. 5 (1994) 2-6.
22 H. Sug, The effect of training set size for the performance of neural networks of classification, WSEAS Trans. Comput. 9 (2010) 1297-1306.
23 D. Maljovec, S. Liu, B. Wang, D. Mandelli, P. Bremer, V. Pascucci, C. Smith, Analyzing simulation-based PRA data through traditional and topological clustering : a BWR station blackout case study, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 145 (2016) 262-276, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.07.001.   DOI
24 Y. Singh, A.S. Chauhan, Neural networks in data mining, J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 5 (2009) 36-42.
25 H. Bao, N.T. Dinh, J.W. Lane, R.W. Youngblood, A data-driven framework for error estimation and mesh-model optimization in system-level thermal-hydraulic simulation, Nucl. Eng. Des. 349 (2019) 27-45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.04.023.   DOI
26 M. Ali, Lumped Parameter, State Variable Dynamic Models for U-Tube Recirculation Type Nuclear Steam Generators, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tennessee, 1976, https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2548%0A%0A.
27 MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release 2018a, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United States, 2018.
28 S. Arda, Implementing a Nuclear Power Plant Model for Evaluating Load-Following Capability on a Small Grid, MASc Thesis, Arizona State University, 2013.
29 B. Puchalski, T.A. Rutkowski, K. Duzinkiewicz, Nodal models of Pressurized Water Reactor core for control purposes - a comparison study, Nucl. Eng. Des. 322 (2017) 444-463, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.07.005.   DOI
30 Y. Perin, J. Jimenez, Application of the best-estimate plus uncertainty approach on a BWR ATWS transient using the NURESIM European code platform, Nucl. Eng. Des. 321 (2017) 48-56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.05.018.   DOI
31 R. Rallo, A. Arenas, F. Giralt, Neural virtual sensor for the inferential prediction of product quality from process variables, Comput. Chem. Eng. 26 (2002) 1735-1754, 26.   DOI
32 S.G. Zimmerman, J.C. Brittingham, M.L. Reed, R.P. Bandera, P.F. Crawley, PWR Reactor Physics Methodology Using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3, Arizona Public Service Company, 1999.
33 M. El-Sefy, M. Ezzeldin, W. El-Dakhakhni, S. Nagasaki, L. Wiebe, Dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of core damage under different transients using system dynamics simulation approach, Chapter 4, Ph.D. Thesis, 2021, http://hdl.handle.net/11375/26246.
34 E. Arce-Medina, J.I. Paz-Paredes, Artificial neural network modeling techniques applied to the hydrodesulfurization process, Math. Comput. Model. 49 (2009) 207-214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.05.010.   DOI
35 Z. Guo, R.E. Uhrig, Use of artificial neural networks to analyze nuclear power plant performance, Nucl. Technol. 5450 (2017), https://doi.org/10.13182/NT92-A34701.   DOI
36 C. Demaziere, I. P azsit, Evaluation of the boron dilution method for moderator temperature coefficient measurements, Nucl. Technol. 140 (2002) 147-163.   DOI
37 A. Varuttamaseni, Bayesian Network Representing System Dynamics in Risk Analysis of Nuclear Systems, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 2011.
38 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors, 2017. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0046.html.
39 T.W. Kerlin, E.M. Katz, J.G. Thakkar, J.E. Strange, Theoretical and experimental dynamic analysis of the HB Robinson nuclear plant, Nucl. Technol. 30 (1976) 299-316, https://doi.org/10.13182/NT76-A31645.   DOI
40 S. Lawrence, C.L. Giles, A.C. Tsoi, Lessons in neural network training: overfitting may be harder than expected, in: Proc. Fourteenth Natl. Conf. Artif. Intell. AAAI-97, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, 1997, pp. 540-545.
41 E.M. Johansson, F.U. Dowla, D.M. Goodman, Backpropagation learning for multilayer feed-forward neural networks using the conjugate gradient method, Int. J. Neural Syst. 2 (1992) 291-301.   DOI
42 P. Romojaro, F. Alvarez-Velarde, N. Garcia-Herranz, Sensitivity methods for effective delayed neutron fraction and neutron generation time with summon, Ann. Nucl. Energy 126 (2019) 410-418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.11.042.   DOI
43 M. El-Sefy, M. Ezzeldin, W. El-Dakhakhni, L. Wiebe, S. Nagasaki, System dynamics simulation of the thermal dynamic processes in nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (2019) 1540-1553, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.04.017.   DOI
44 M. Knochenhauer, J.E. Holmberg, Guidance for the Definition and Application of Probabilistic Safety Criteria, Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, 2011.
45 S. Haykin, Neural Networks, second ed., A Comprehensive Foundation, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, United States, 1999.
46 A.H. Gandomi, D.A. Roke, Advances in Engineering Software Assessment of artificial neural network and genetic programming as predictive tools, Adv. Eng. Software 88 (2015) 63-72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.05.007.   DOI
47 S. Xu, L. Chen, A novel approach for determining the optimal number of hidden layer neurons for FNN's and its application in data mining, in: 5th Int. Conf. Inf. Technol. Appl, 2008, pp. 683-686.
48 R. Hecht-Nielsen, Kolmogorov's mapping neural network existence theorem, in: IEEE First Int. Conf, Neural Networks, San Diego, CA, 1987.
49 R. Setiono, L.C.K. Hui, Use of a quasi-Newton method in a feedforward neural network construction algorithm, IEEE Trans. Neural Network. 6 (1995), 0-4.   DOI
50 C. Perez, Neural Networks Using Matlab. Cluster Analysis and Classification, Lulu Press, Inc, 2019.
51 A.Y. Krylatov, A.P. Hirokolobova, Projection approach versus gradient descent for network' s flows assignment problem, Learn. Intell. Optim. (2017) 7-69404, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69404-7_29.   DOI
52 F.G. Filip, Decision support and control for large-scale complex systems, Annu. Rev. Contr. 32 (2008) 61-70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2008.03.002.   DOI
53 G. Phillips-Wren, Intelligent Decision Support Systems, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118522516.ch2.   DOI
54 J. Zhang, F. Wang, K. Wang, W. Lin, X. Xu, C. Chen, Data-driven intelligent transportation Systems : a survey, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 12 (2011) 1624-1639, https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2011.2158001.   DOI
55 N.M. Nawi, R.S. Ransing, M.R. Ransing, An improved conjugate gradient based learning algorithm for back propagation neural networks, Int. J. Comput. Intell. (2008) 46-55.
56 I.S. Korovin, I.A. Kalyaev, Modern decision support systems in oil industry: types, approaches and applications, in: Int. Conf. Test, Meas. Comput. Method, 2015, pp. 141-144.
57 N. Tamimi, S. Samani, M. Minaei, F. Harirchi, An Artificial Intelligence Decision Support System for Unconventional Field Development Design, 2019, https://doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2019-249.   DOI
58 M. Ratz, A.P. Javadi, M. Baranski, K. Finkbeiner, D. Muller, Automated data-driven modeling of building energy systems via machine learning algorithms, Energy Build. 202 (2019), 109384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109384.   DOI
59 IAEA, Accident Monitoring Systems for Nuclear Power Plants, vol. 16, IAEA Nuclear Energy series NP-T-3, 2015.
60 J.H. Min, D. Kim, C. Park, Demonstration of the validity of the early warning in online monitoring system for nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Des. 349 (2019) 56-62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.04.028.   DOI
61 S. Ahmad, S.P. Simonovic, An intelligent decision support system for management of floods, Water Resour. Manag. (2006) 391-410, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-0326-3.   DOI
62 L. Fahrmeir, T. Kneib, S. Lang, B. Marx, Regression Models, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34333-9_2.   DOI
63 N.P. Oxtoby, A.L. Young, D.M. Cash, T.L.S. Benzinger, A.M. Fagan, J.C. Morris, R.J. Bateman, N.C. Fox, J.M. Schott, D.C. Alexander, Data-driven models of dominantly-inherited Alzheimer's disease progression, Brain (2018) 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awy050.   DOI
64 M. Gomez, A. Tokuhiro, K. Welter, Q. Wu, Nuclear energy system's behavior and decision making using machine learning, Nucl. Eng. Des. 324 (2017) 27-34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.08.020.   DOI
65 T. Foshch, F. Portela, J. Machado, M. Maksimov, Regression models of the nuclear power unit VVER-1000 using data mining techniques, Procedia Comput. Sci. 100 (2016) 253-262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.151.   DOI
66 O.I. Abiodun, A. Jantan, A.E. Omolara, K.V. Dada, N.A. Mohamed, H. Arshad, State-of-the-art in artificial neural network applications: a survey, Heliyon (2018), e00938, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.   DOI
67 K. O'Shea, R. Nash, An introduction to convolutional neural networks, 2015. https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08458.
68 R. Battiti, First- and second-order methods for learning: between steepest descent and Newton's method, Neural Comput. 4 (1992) 141-166.   DOI