Module layout optimization using a genetic algorithm in light water modular nuclear reactor power plants

Abstract The Small Modular Reactor (SMR) concept is designed such that it will solve some of the construction problems of large reactors. SMRs are designed to be “shop fabricated and then transported as modules to the sites for installation” (IAEA, 2018). As a consequence they theoretically have shorter build schedules and require less capital investment (Locatelli et al., 2014). Factory built modules can also increase safety and productivity, due to higher quality tools and inspection available. A literature review has highlighted substantial work has been undertaken in the research, development and construction of different types of reactors and reactor modules but the design of balance of plant modules has not been extensively researched (Wrigley et al., 2018). The focus of this paper is a case study for balance of plant modules in a light water reactor which also could have applications to other reactor types. Modules that are designed for factory build and transport may be built in a standardized module approach. By maximizing module size for transport, this maximizes work offsite, to achieve the cost and schedule savings associated. A design method needs to be developed to help support this approach. To enable this, a three step method is proposed: group components into modules, layout the modules and arrange components inside the modules. The Shearon Harris nuclear power plant was chosen for its publically available data. A previous study on this plant used matrix reordering techniques to group components and heuristically assign them to large modules, built for construction in an assembly area on site, highlighting a potential capital cost savings of 15%. This paper utilizes the same allocation of components to modules as the previous study but aims to undertake the challenge of how balance of plant modules should be arranged. The literature review highlighted that although the facility and plant layout problem has been extensively researched, mathematical layout optimization has not been applied to nuclear power plants. Many techniques for layout optimization have been developed for facilities and process plants however. The work in this paper develops an optimization model using a genetic algorithm for module layout and allocation within a nuclear power plant. This paper analysed two configurations of modules, where balance of plant modules are located on either one or two sides of the nuclear island. The objective function was to minimise pipe length. In the original research, where the plant was configured for assembly on site, the balance of plant modules are located around three sides of the nuclear island. The objective function was calculated at 14,914. As the distances are calculated rectilinearly, this number would be higher in reality as pipework has to be routed around containment. The optimization reduced the objective function by 33.9% and 37.8% for the three and four floor layouts respectively when balance of plant modules are located on two sides of the nuclear island. Furthermore, when modules are located on one side of the nuclear island, the objective function was reduced by 45.4% and 46.1% for three and four floor layouts respectively. This will reduce materials used, reduce build time and hence reduce the cost of a nuclear power plant. This method will also save design time when developing the layout of modules around the plant.

[1]  Myung-Il Roh,et al.  Arrangement Method of Offshore Topside Based on an Expert System and Optimization Technique , 2017 .

[2]  Karuna Jain,et al.  Modularity in nuclear power plants: a review , 2016 .

[3]  Kikuo Fujita,et al.  Hybrid Approach to Plant Layout Design Using Constraint-Directed Search and an Optimization Technique , 1994 .

[4]  Xiao Feng,et al.  An area-wide layout design method considering piecewise steam piping and energy loss , 2017, Chemical Engineering Research and Design.

[5]  Lazaros G. Papageorgiou,et al.  Efficient solution approaches for the multifloor process plant layout problem , 2003 .

[6]  Klaus D. Timmerhaus,et al.  Plant design and economics for chemical engineers , 1958 .

[7]  D. T. Ingersoll,et al.  NuScale small modular reactor for Co-generation of electricity and water , 2014 .

[8]  Chun Hung Cheng,et al.  A hybrid genetic algorithm for the dynamic plant layout problem , 2003 .

[9]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  We Never Built Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), but What Do We Know About Modularization in Construction? , 2018 .

[10]  Yavuz A. Bozer,et al.  An improvement-type layout algorithm for single and multiple-floor facilities , 1994 .

[11]  Mohamed Al-Hussein,et al.  Near optimum selection of module configuration for efficient modular construction , 2017 .

[12]  Chelsea C. White,et al.  EVAL: A methodological approach to identify NPP total capital investment cost drivers and sensitivities , 2017 .

[13]  Richard Hall,et al.  Design for Plant Modularisation: Nuclear and SMR , 2018 .

[14]  Lazaros G. Papageorgiou,et al.  Optimal multi-floor process plant layout , 2002 .

[15]  M. R. Hayns,et al.  Design of the Safe Integral Reactor , 1992 .

[16]  Christopher Warren Lapp A methodology for modular nuclear power plant design and construction , 1989 .

[17]  Dongil Shin,et al.  Optimal multi-floor plant layout with consideration of safety distance based on mathematical programming and modified consequence analysis , 2011 .

[18]  Ana Paula Barbosa-Póvoa,et al.  Detailed design of multipurpose batch plants , 1994 .

[19]  En Sup Yoon,et al.  Optimal Layout of a Chemical Process Plant to Minimize the Risk to Humans , 2013, KES.

[20]  Michael C. Georgiadis,et al.  A general mathematical programming approach for process plant layout , 1999 .

[21]  Moran Sean Process Plant Layout-Becoming a Lost Art? , 2016 .

[22]  A. R. Ciric,et al.  An MINLP Approach for Safe Process Plant Layout , 1996 .

[23]  Xiao Feng,et al.  An industrial area layout optimization method based on dow s fire explosion index method , 2017 .

[24]  R. Cowan Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in , 1990, The Journal of Economic History.

[25]  G. Reklaitis,et al.  Chemical plant layout via graph partitioning-1. Single level , 1994 .

[26]  D. J. Gunn,et al.  Computer-aided layout of chemical plant: a computational method and a case study , 1987 .

[27]  Marc Berte,et al.  Advanced modularity design for the MIT pebble bed reactor , 2006 .

[28]  Yan Wu,et al.  A chemical industry area-wide layout design methodology for piping implementation , 2017 .

[29]  Michael C. Georgiadis,et al.  Layout of process plants: A novel approach , 1997 .

[30]  Lazaros G. Papageorgiou,et al.  An MILP Approach to Safe Process Plant Layout , 2004 .

[31]  C. H. Lee,et al.  A review of applications of genetic algorithms in operations management , 2018, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[32]  David Elliott Nuclear Power: Past, Present and Future , 2017 .

[33]  Zhenyu Wang,et al.  An Improved Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for Chemical Plant Layout Optimization with Novel Non-overlapping and Toxic Gas Dispersion Constraints , 2013 .

[34]  Lazaros G. Papageorgiou,et al.  Safe Process Plant Layout using Mathematical Programming , 2002 .

[35]  Giorgio Locatelli,et al.  Small modular reactors: A comprehensive overview of their economics and strategic aspects , 2014 .

[36]  Myung-Il Roh,et al.  A submarine arrangement design program based on the expert system and the multistage optimization , 2016, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[37]  Myung-Il Roh,et al.  Arrangement method of a naval surface ship considering stability, operability, and survivability , 2018 .

[38]  Yufei Wang,et al.  An industrial facility layout design method considering energy saving based on surplus rectangle fill algorithm , 2018, Energy.

[39]  Kikuo Fujita,et al.  Hierarchical Optimization-Based Approach for Two-Dimensional Rectangular Layout Design Problems , 2014, J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[40]  Clara A. Lloyd,et al.  A Methodology to Determine SMR Build Schedule and the Impact of Modularisation , 2018 .

[41]  Vincenzo Cena,et al.  A heuristic for the compact location of process components , 1977 .

[42]  Lorenzo Salas-Morera,et al.  An island model genetic algorithm for unequal area facility layout problems , 2017, Expert Syst. Appl..

[43]  Benjamin K. Sovacool,et al.  Cost overruns and financial risk in the construction of nuclear power reactors: A critical appraisal , 2017, Energy Policy.

[44]  Atsushi Suzuki,et al.  An evolutionary method of arranging the plot plan for process plant layout. , 1991 .

[45]  Lazaros G. Papageorgiou,et al.  Continuous-Domain Mathematical Models for Optimal Process Plant Layout , 1998 .

[46]  Nima Khakzad,et al.  Process plant layout optimization with uncertainty and considering risk , 2017, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[47]  Ross E. Swaney,et al.  Optimization of process plant layout with pipe routing , 2005, Comput. Chem. Eng..

[48]  Mahmoud M. El-Halwagi,et al.  Optimization of facility location and reallocation in an industrial plant through a multi-annual framework accounting for economic and safety issues , 2015 .

[49]  Meir J. Rosenblatt,et al.  The facilities layout problem: a multi-goal approach , 1979 .

[50]  Yan Wu,et al.  An industrial area layout design methodology considering piping and safety using genetic algorithm , 2017 .

[51]  José Luiz de Medeiros,et al.  Optimal determination of chemical plant layout via minimization of risk to general public using Monte Carlo and Simulated Annealing techniques , 2016 .

[52]  Miguel F. Anjos,et al.  Mathematical optimization approaches for facility layout problems: The state-of-the-art and future research directions , 2017, Eur. J. Oper. Res..