MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051134282 · doi:10.1115/icone22-30919

Kalman Filter Based Predictive Trip Detection for Nuclear Power Plant Safety Systems

2014· article· en· W2051134282 on OpenAlexafffund
Drew J. Rankin, Jin Jiang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
KeywordsKalman filterOffset (computer science)Computer scienceNuclear power plantCovarianceExtended Kalman filterControl theory (sociology)Covariance matrixAlgorithmStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary aim of this work is to utilize a Kalman filter (KF) to predict reaching the trip set-point for a trip parameter in a nuclear power plant (NPP). To address uncertainty in the predicted measurements, prediction bounds are calculated by propagating the state error covariance. These predicted bounds enable the calculation of levels of confidence in making trip decisions. Further, to address uncertainty in the estimation model, the observed prediction error is used to offset the predicted measurements. The predictive trip detection routines are evaluated through simulations of a single NPP sub-system. More specifically, the water level parameter in a steam generator of a NPP is considered. The model of this sub-system is represented by the Irving linear parameter varying (LPV) model with inverse response characteristics. The simulations include a level low postulated initiating event (PIE) made to occur during two different common power transients for various estimation models. The results of this paper are a proof of concept for KF-based predictive trip detection which is demonstrated to achieve reduced time-to-trip when applied to a single sub-system.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207