MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602725130 · doi:10.1299/mej.15-00532

Co-simulation for real time safety verification of nuclear power plants

2017· article· en· W2602725130 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel Boafo, Elnara Nasimi, Luping Zhang, Hossam A. Gabbar

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability engineeringComputer scienceSystem safetyFault (geology)Process (computing)Nuclear power plantReduction (mathematics)HazardProbabilistic logicSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small and major accidents and near misses are still occurring in nuclear power plants (NPPs). Risk level has increased with the degradation of NPP equipment and instrumentation. In order to achieve NPP safety, it is important to continuously evaluate risk for all potential hazard and fault propagation scenarios and map protection layers to fault / failure / hazard propagation scenarios to be able to evaluate and verify safety level during NPP operation. There are major limitations in current real time safety verification tools, as it is mainly offline and with no integration to NPP simulation tools. The main goal of this research is to develop real time safety verification with co-simulation tool to be integrated with plant operation support systems. This includes the development of static and dynamic fault semantic network (FSN) to model possible fault propagation scenarios and the interrelationships among associated process variables. The detailed methodology involves the integration of process models, construction of static FSN with fault propagation scenarios, and evaluation and tuning of dynamic FSN with probabilistic and process variable interaction values. The focus however of the present study is to highlight the need to incorporate error reduction in performing safety verification of NPPs. Two selected case studies were used to demonstrate the proposed methodology; one on a turbine trip and the other on steam generator tube rupture. In the former case, the error reduction concept was shown while the safety verification method was demonstrated in the latter case. The results confirmed the importance of error reduction as well as the need to constantly undertake safety verification of safety critical systems such as a NPP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical Engineering JournalSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207