MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403596067 · doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad893b

Model-predictive kinetic control with data-driven models on EAST

2024· article· en· W4403596067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Moreau, Shiang‐Yu Wang, J.P. Qian, Qiping Yuan, Yao Huang, Ying Li, S. Ding, Hua Du, Xianmin Gong, Miaohui Li, Haiqing Liu, Zhengping Luo, Lanting Zeng, Erik Olofsson, B. Sammuli, J.F. Artaud, A. Ekedahl, Emmanuel Witrant

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Fusion · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuratom Research and Training ProgrammeChina Scholarship CouncilEuropean CommissionEUROfusion
KeywordsKinetic energyModel predictive controlStatistical physicsComputer scienceControl (management)PhysicsClassical mechanicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this work, model-predictive control (MPC) was combined for the first time with singular perturbation theory, and an original plasma kinetic control method based on extremely simple data-driven models and a two-time-scale MPC algorithm has been developed. A comprehensive review is presented in this paper. Slow and fast semi-empirical models are identified from data, by considering the fast kinetic plasma dynamics as a singular perturbation of a quasi-static equilibrium, which itself is governed, on the slow time scale, by the flux diffusion equation. This control technique takes advantage of the large ratio between the time scales involved in magnetic and kinetic plasma transport. It is applied here to the simultaneous control of the safety factor profile, q(𝑥), and of several kinetic variables, such as the poloidal beta parameter, βp , and the internal inductance parameter, li , on the EAST tokamak. In the experiments, the available control actuators were lower hybrid current drive (LHCD) and co-current neutral beam injection (NBI) from different sources. Ion cyclotron resonant heating (ICRH) and electron cyclotron resonant heating (ECRH) are used as additional actuators in control simulations. In the controller design, an observer provides, in real time, an estimate of the system states and of the mismatch between measured and predicted outputs, which ensures robustness to model errors and offset-free control. Based on the observer information, the controller predicts the behavior of the system over a given time horizon and computes the optimal actuation by solving a quadratic programming optimization problem that takes the actuator constraints into account. A number of control applications are described in the paper, either in nonlinear simulations with EAST-like parameters or in real experiments on EAST. The simulations were performed with a fast plasma simulator (METIS) using either two control actuators (LHCD and ICRH) in a low density scenario, or up to four actuators at higher density: LHCD, ECRH, and two NBI systems driven in a on/off pulse-width-modulation (PWM) mode, with different injection angles. The control models are identified with the prediction-error method, using datasets obtained from open loop simulations in which the actuators are modulated with pseudo-random binary sequences. The simulations with two actuators show that various q(𝑥) profiles and βp waveforms can be tracked without offset, within times that are consistent with the resistive and thermal diffusion time scales, respectively. In simulations with four actuators, simultaneous tracking of time-dependent targets is shown for q(𝑥) at two normalized radii, 𝑥 = 0 and 𝑥 = 0.4, and for βp . Due to the inherent mismatch between the optimal NBI power request and the delivered PWM power, the kinetic controller performs with reduced accuracy compared with simulations that do not use the NBI/PWM actuators. The first experimental tests using this new control algorithm were performed on EAST when the only available actuator was the LHCD system at 4.6 GHz. The algorithm was thus used in its simplest single-input-single-output version to track time-dependent targets for the central safety factor, q0 , or for βp . In the closed loop control experiments, the q0 targets were tracked in about one second, consistently with the plasma resistive time constant. Excellent tracking of a piecewise linear βp target waveform was also achieved. When the NBI system became controllable in real time by the EAST plasma control system, new experiments were dedicated to multiple-input-multiple-output MPC control with three actuators: LHCD and two NBI actuators using the PWM algorithm. Given that the minimum time allowed between NBI on/off switching was 0.1 s, i.e. larger than the characteristic time of the fast plasma dynamics, a reduced version of the MPC controller based only on the slow model was used. Various controller configurations were tested during a single experimental session, with up to three controlled variables chosen among q 0 = q(𝑥= 0), q 1 = q(𝑥= 0.5), βp and li . The main difficulty encountered during this session was the unavailability of the full baseline ICRH and ECRH powers that were used in the reference scenario, and from which the plasma model was identified. This often led to the saturation of one or several actuators, which prevented some targets selected in advance from being accessible. Nevertheless, in cases that were free from actuator saturation, q 0 and q 1 targets were successfully reached, in a time that is consistent with the resistive diffusion time of the model and with small oscillations that are characteristic of the PWM operation of the neutral beams. During the simultaneous control of q 0 and βp , the ICRH power was too low and, in addition, the plasma density was much larger than the reference one. The q 0 targets were not accessible in this high-density/low-power case, but βp control was successful. Finally, the simultaneous control of q 0 and li was satisfactory and, during the simultaneous control of, q 0, βp and li , the tracking of βp and li was satisfactory but q0 was too large due to the lack of ICRH power and to NBI saturation. In conclusion, the extensive nonlinear simulations described in this paper have demonstrated the relevance of combining MPC, data-driven models and singular perturbation methods for plasma kinetic control. This technique was also assessed experimentally on EAST, although some tests were perturbed by undesired parameter changes with respect to the reference scenario.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.176 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear FusionSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207