A data-driven framework for error estimation and mesh-model optimization in system-level thermal-hydraulic simulation

Abstract Over the past decades, several computer codes have been developed for simulation and analysis of thermal-hydraulics and system response in nuclear reactors under operating, abnormal transient, and accident conditions. However, simulation errors and uncertainties still inevitably exist even while these codes have been extensively assessed and used. In this work, a data-driven framework (Optimal Mesh/Model Information System, OMIS) is formulated and demonstrated to estimate simulation error and suggest optimal selection of computational mesh size (i.e., nodalization) and constitutive correlations (e.g., wall functions and turbulence models) for low-fidelity, coarse-mesh thermal-hydraulic simulation, in order to achieve accuracy comparable to that of high-fidelity simulation. Using results from high-fidelity simulations and experimental data with many fast-running low-fidelity simulations, an error database is built and used to train a machine learning model that can determine the relationship between local simulation error and local physical features. This machine learning model is then used to generate insight and help correct low-fidelity simulations for similar physical conditions. The OMIS framework is designed as a modularized six-step procedure and accomplished with state-of-the-art methods and algorithms. A mixed-convection case study was performed to illustrate the entire framework.

[1]  Emilio Baglietto,et al.  STRUCTure-based URANS simulations of thermal mixing in T-junctions , 2018, Nuclear Engineering and Design.

[2]  Richard Sandberg,et al.  A novel evolutionary algorithm applied to algebraic modifications of the RANS stress-strain relationship , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[3]  D. W. Scott,et al.  Multivariate Density Estimation, Theory, Practice and Visualization , 1992 .

[4]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  A new uncertainty importance measure , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[5]  Brendan D. Tracey,et al.  A Machine Learning Strategy to Assist Turbulence Model Development , 2015 .

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

[7]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Visualizing non-metric similarities in multiple maps , 2011, Machine Learning.

[8]  Jinlong Wu,et al.  A Physics-Informed Machine Learning Approach of Improving RANS Predicted Reynolds Stresses , 2017 .

[9]  Curtis Smith,et al.  Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program Risk Informed Safety Margin Characterization (RISMC) Advanced Test Reactor Demonstration Case Study , 2012 .

[10]  P. Mahalanobis On the generalized distance in statistics , 1936 .

[11]  N. Dinh,et al.  Classification of machine learning frameworks for data-driven thermal fluid models , 2018, International Journal of Thermal Sciences.

[12]  Karthikeyan Duraisamy,et al.  Machine Learning Methods for Data-Driven Turbulence Modeling , 2015 .

[13]  I. Sobol Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates , 2001 .

[14]  Nam Dinh,et al.  A Validation and Uncertainty Quantification Framework for Eulerian-Eulerian Two-Fluid Model based Multiphase-CFD Solver. Part I: Methodology , 2018, 1806.03373.

[15]  Yng-Ruey Yuann,et al.  Negative pressure difference evaluation of Lungmen ABWR containment by using GOTHIC , 2015 .

[16]  Karthik Duraisamy,et al.  A paradigm for data-driven predictive modeling using field inversion and machine learning , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[17]  Max D. Morris,et al.  Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments , 1991 .

[18]  Igor A. Bolotnov,et al.  Evaluation of bubble-induced turbulence using direct numerical simulation , 2017 .

[19]  Nam Dinh,et al.  Data-driven modeling for boiling heat transfer: Using deep neural networks and high-fidelity simulation results , 2018, Applied Thermal Engineering.

[20]  Julia Ling,et al.  Analysis of Turbulent Scalar Flux Models for a Discrete Hole Film Cooling Flow , 2015 .

[21]  Haihua Zhao,et al.  Safe reactor depressurization windows for BWR Mark I Station Blackout accident management strategy , 2018 .

[22]  Botros N. Hanna,et al.  Coarse-Grid Computational Fluid Dynamics (CG-CFD) Error Prediction using Machine Learning. , 2017, 1710.09105.

[23]  Zhenzhou Lu,et al.  Variable importance analysis: A comprehensive review , 2015, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[24]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[25]  Liang-Che Dai,et al.  Pressure and temperature analyses using GOTHIC for Mark I containment of the Chinshan Nuclear Power Plant , 2011 .

[26]  Nam Dinh,et al.  A Data-driven Approach for Turbulence Modeling , 2020, 2005.00426.

[27]  Jon C. Helton,et al.  Sampling-based methods for uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. , 2000 .

[28]  J. Birchley,et al.  Integral Codes for Severe Accident Analyses , 2012 .

[29]  Julia Ling,et al.  Machine learning strategies for systems with invariance properties , 2016, J. Comput. Phys..

[30]  Haihua Zhao,et al.  A Study of BWR Mark I Station Blackout Accident with GOTHIC Modeling , 2016 .

[31]  Haihua Zhao,et al.  Simulation of BWR Mark I Station Black-Out Accident Using GOTHIC: An Initial Demonstration , 2015 .

[32]  J. Templeton,et al.  Reynolds averaged turbulence modelling using deep neural networks with embedded invariance , 2016, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[33]  Michele Milano,et al.  Neural network modeling for near wall turbulent flow , 2002 .

[34]  Mark Beale,et al.  Neural Network Toolbox™ User's Guide , 2015 .