Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this DOE Vision-21 project work scope was to develop an integrated suite of software tools that could be used to simulate and visualize advanced plant concepts. Existing process simulation software did not meet the DOE's objective of ''virtual simulation'' which was needed to evaluate complex cycles. The overall intent of the DOE was to improve predictive tools for cycle analysis, and to improve the component models that are used in turn to simulate equipment in the cycle. Advanced component models are available; however, a generic coupling capability that would link the advanced component models to the cycle simulation software remained to be developed. In the current project, the coupling of the cycle analysis and cycle component simulation software was based on an existing suite of programs. The challenge was to develop a general-purpose software and communications link between the cycle analysis software Aspen Plus{reg_sign} (marketed by Aspen Technology, Inc.), and specialized component modeling packages, as exemplified by industrial proprietary codes (utilized by ALSTOM Power Inc.) and the FLUENT{reg_sign} computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code (provided by Fluent Inc). A software interface and controller, based on an open CAPE-OPEN standard, has been developed and extensively tested. Various test runs and demonstration cases have been utilized to confirm the viability and reliability of the software. ALSTOM Power was tasked with the responsibility to select and run two demonstration cases to test the software--(1) a conventional steam cycle (designated as Demonstration Case 1), and (2) a combined cycle test case (designated as Demonstration Case 2). Demonstration Case 1 is a 30 MWe coal-fired power plant for municipal electricity generation, while Demonstration Case 2 is a 270 MWe, natural gas-fired, combined cycle power plant. Sufficient data was available from the operation of both power plants to complete the cycle configurations. Three runs were completed for each Demonstration Case--(1) an initial baseline run using the existing component libraries in Aspen Plus{reg_sign}, (2) a second run where one of the library components was replaced with an ALSTOM Power proprietary code, and (3) a third run where a cycle component was replaced with a FLUENT{reg_sign} CFD simulation. Each of the three runs was successfully completed over a range of loads. This report documents the case runs and discusses the viability and capabilities of the linkage/interface software.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".