Optimization of the core configuration design using a hybrid artificial intelligence algorithm for research reactors

To successfully carry out material irradiation experiments and radioisotope productions, a high thermal neutron flux at irradiation box over a desired life time of a core configuration is needed. On the other hand, reactor safety and operational constraints must be preserved during core configuration selection. Two main objectives and two safety and operational constraints are suggested to optimize reactor core configuration design. Suggested parameters and conditions are considered as two separate fitness functions composed of two main objectives and two penalty functions. This is a constrained and combinatorial type of a multi-objective optimization problem. In this paper, a fast and effective hybrid artificial intelligence algorithm is introduced and developed to reach a Pareto optimal set. The hybrid algorithm is composed of a fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) and a fast fitness function evaluating system based on the cascade feed forward artificial neural networks (ANNs). A specific GA representation of core configuration and also special GA operators are introduced and used to overcome the combinatorial constraints of this optimization problem. A software package (Core Pattern Calculator 1) is developed to prepare and reform required data for ANNs training and also to revise the optimization results. Some practical test parameters and conditions are suggested to adjust main parameters of the hybrid algorithm. Results show that introduced ANNs can be trained and estimate selected core parameters of a research reactor very quickly. It improves effectively optimization process. Final optimization results show that a uniform and dense diversity of Pareto fronts are gained over a wide range of fitness function values. To take a more careful selection of Pareto optimal solutions, a revision system is introduced and used. The revision of gained Pareto optimal set is performed by using developed software package. Also some secondary operational and safety terms are suggested to help for final trade-off. Results show that the selected benchmark case study is dominated by gained Pareto fronts according to the main objectives while safety and operational constraints are preserved.

[1]  David W. Coit,et al.  Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[2]  Y. Censor.  Pareto optimality in multiobjective problems , 1977 .

[3]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  A niched Pareto genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization , 1994, Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence.

[4]  D. R. Vondy,et al.  NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE ANALYSIS CODE: CITATION. , 1970 .

[5]  Y. P. Mahlers.  Core loading pattern optimization for research reactors , 1997 .

[6]  Anis Bousbia-Salah,et al.  Dynamic calculations of the IAEA safety MTR research reactor Benchmark problem using RELAP5/3.2 code , 2004 .

[7]  Hakim Mazrou,et al.  Application of artificial neural network for safety core parameters prediction in LWRRS , 2004 .

[8]  David Corne,et al.  The Pareto archived evolution strategy: a new baseline algorithm for Pareto multiobjective optimisation , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406).

[9]  Kamran Sepanloo,et al.  Estimation of research reactor core parameters using cascade feed forward artificial neural networks , 2009 .

[10]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Comparison of Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Empirical Results , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  Soon Heung Chang,et al.  PRESSURIZED WATER-REACTOR CORE PARAMETER PREDICTION USING AN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK , 1993 .

[12]  Jalil Jafari,et al.  Loss of coolant accident analyses on Tehran research reactor by RELAP5/MOD3.2 code , 2007 .

[13]  Mitsuo Gen,et al.  A survey of penalty techniques in genetic algorithms , 1996, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation.

[14]  Hakim Mazrou,et al.  Development of a supporting tool for optimal fuel management in research reactors using artificial neural networks , 2006 .

[15]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Messy Genetic Algorithms: Motivation, Analysis, and First Results , 1989, Complex Syst..

[16]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning representations by back-propagating errors , 1986, Nature.

[17]  Tae-Soon Kwon,et al.  Three-dimensional analysis of flow characteristics on the reactor vessel downcomer during the late reflood phase of a postulated LBLOCA , 2003 .

[18]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[19]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning internal representations by error propagation , 1986 .

[20]  Mehrdad Tamiz,et al.  Multi-objective meta-heuristics: An overview of the current state-of-the-art , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  E. Polak,et al.  Constrained minimization under vector-valued criteria in finite dimensional spaces☆ , 1967 .

[22]  Eckart Zitzler,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications , 1999 .

[23]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II , 2002, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..