MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922715720 · doi:10.1109/tns.2019.2906604

Fault Detection and Identification for Sensor Channels in Steam Generator Level Control Loops

2019· article· en· W2922715720 on OpenAlexafffund
Sungwhan Cho, Jin Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Fault detection and isolationTransient (computer programming)EngineeringProcess (computing)Control systemBoiler (water heating)Fault (geology)Computer scienceControl engineeringReliability engineeringControl theory (sociology)Control (management)ActuatorElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faults in sensor channels as a result of calibration errors or a bias in transmitters can lead to various safety and operational issues in nuclear power plants, such as reduced trip margins, jeopardized performance, or creating a false sense of security regarding the health of the plant operation. Unfortunately, such faults are difficult to detect, specifically when the sensors are part of a closed-loop system, which has a tendency to reduce or to mask the effects of the fault through feedback control actions during a dynamic transient process. Detecting these types of faults within a steam generator (SG) level control system is investigated in this paper. It is shown that the tools based on analytical redundancy can be very effective in this case. Using a typical SG level control system as a reference plant, specific analytical redundancy formulations are derived. Three sensor fault scenarios have been considered in detail. It has been shown, by simulation and analysis, that the proposed technique can effectively detect the sensor faults that are otherwise difficult to detect.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear ScienceSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207