Inverse uncertainty quantification using the modular Bayesian approach based on Gaussian Process, Part 2: Application to TRACE

Abstract Inverse Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) is a process to quantify the uncertainties in random input parameters while achieving consistency between code simulations and physical observations. In this paper, we performed inverse UQ using an improved modular Bayesian approach based on Gaussian Process (GP) for TRACE physical model parameters using the BWR Full-size Fine-Mesh Bundle Tests (BFBT) benchmark steady-state void fraction data. The model discrepancy is described with a GP emulator. Numerical tests have demonstrated that such treatment of model discrepancy can avoid over-fitting. Furthermore, we constructed a fast-running and accurate GP emulator to replace TRACE full model during Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling. The computational cost was demonstrated to be reduced by several orders of magnitude. A sequential approach was also developed for efficient test source allocation (TSA) for inverse UQ and validation. This sequential TSA methodology first selects experimental tests for validation that has a full coverage of the test domain to avoid extrapolation of model discrepancy term when evaluated at input setting of tests for inverse UQ. Then it selects tests that tend to reside in the unfilled zones of the test domain for inverse UQ, so that one can extract the most information for posterior probability distributions of calibration parameters using only a relatively small number of tests. This research addresses the “lack of input uncertainty information” issue for TRACE physical input parameters, which was usually ignored or described using expert opinion or user self-assessment in previous work. The resulting posterior probability distributions of TRACE parameters can be used in future uncertainty, sensitivity and validation studies of TRACE code for nuclear reactor system design and safety analysis.

[1]  Tomasz Kozlowski,et al.  Kriging-based inverse uncertainty quantification of nuclear fuel performance code BISON fission gas release model using time series measurement data , 2018, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[2]  Dan G. Cacuci,et al.  Reducing Uncertainties via Predictive Modeling: FLICA4 Calibration Using BFBT Benchmarks , 2014 .

[3]  Tomasz Kozlowski,et al.  Inverse uncertainty quantification of TRACE physical model parameters using sparse gird stochastic collocation surrogate model , 2017 .

[4]  Robert Youngblood,et al.  Demonstration of Emulator-Based Bayesian Calibration of Safety Analysis Codes: Theory and Formulation , 2015 .

[5]  Francesco Saverio D'Auria,et al.  The Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty (BEPU) approach in licensing of current nuclear reactors , 2012 .

[6]  Gabriel Terejanu,et al.  Data partition methodology for validation of predictive models , 2013, Comput. Math. Appl..

[7]  Gary E. Wilson,et al.  Historical insights in the development of Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty safety analysis , 2013 .

[8]  Tomasz Kozlowski,et al.  Inverse uncertainty quantification of input model parameters for thermal-hydraulics simulations using expectation–maximization under Bayesian framework , 2015 .

[9]  Peter Z. G. Qian,et al.  Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling for Integrating Low-Accuracy and High-Accuracy Experiments , 2008, Technometrics.

[10]  Sankaran Mahadevan,et al.  Optimal Test Selection for Prediction Uncertainty Reduction , 2016 .

[11]  Tomasz Kozlowski,et al.  Inverse uncertainty quantification of trace physical model parameters using BFBT benchmark data , 2016 .

[12]  François M. Hemez,et al.  Improved best estimate plus uncertainty methodology, including advanced validation concepts, to license evolving nuclear reactors , 2011 .

[13]  Bertrand Iooss,et al.  Numerical studies of the metamodel fitting and validation processes , 2010, 1001.1049.

[14]  H. Meidani,et al.  Inverse uncertainty quantification using the modular Bayesian approach based on Gaussian process, Part 1: Theory , 2018, Nuclear Engineering and Design.

[15]  M. Glück,et al.  Validation of the sub-channel code F-COBRA-TF: Part II. Recalculation of void measurements , 2008 .

[16]  Erica M. Rutter,et al.  A calibration and data assimilation method using the Bayesian MARS emulator , 2013 .

[17]  T. Kozlowski,et al.  Inverse uncertainty quantification of reactor simulations under the Bayesian framework using surrogate models constructed by polynomial chaos expansion , 2017 .

[18]  Franccois Bachoc,et al.  Calibration and Improved Prediction of Computer Models by Universal Kriging , 2013, 1301.4114.

[19]  Thomas J. Downar,et al.  Surrogate-based multi-experiment calibration of the BISON fission gas behavior model , 2017 .

[20]  Christophe Andrieu,et al.  A tutorial on adaptive MCMC , 2008, Stat. Comput..

[21]  Alessandro Petruzzi,et al.  Best-Estimate Model Calibration and Prediction through Experimental Data Assimilation—II: Application to a Blowdown Benchmark Experiment , 2010 .

[22]  Dave Higdon,et al.  Calibration of tuning parameters in the FRAPCON model , 2013 .

[23]  Lawrence E. Hochreiter,et al.  NEA NUCLEAR SCIENCE COMMITTEE NEA COMMITTEE ON SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS NUPEC BWR FULL-SIZE FINE-MESH BUNDLE TEST (BFBT) BENCHMARK Volume I: Specifications , 2005 .