用混合机器学习模型大幅提升环形通道临界热流密度预测精度
Development and Deployment of Hybrid ML Models for Critical Heat Flux Prediction in Annulus Geometries
- 用经验公式作基线,机器学习修正残差,提升预测可靠性
- 平均相对误差低于3.5%,90%以上数据点误差在10%以内
- 首次在热工水力代码中部署环形结构专用混合模型,适合核电安全分析
准确预测临界热流密度(CHF)是压水堆和沸水堆安全分析的关键。过去几十年通过物理实验建立了多个经验关联式和查表法。随着机器学习框架的普及,研究者尝试用数据驱动方法实现更高精度预测,但纯数据驱动模型存在可解释性差、数据稀缺时不稳定,且多基于管状结构数据。为此,近年来兴起了一种混合方法:以确定性基模型输出低保真度估计值,再由机器学习模型预测残差进行修正。然而,针对环形几何结构的混合模型尚未在热工水力代码中应用。本研究开发、部署并验证了四种用于环形通道的混合机器学习模型,使用CTF子通道代码进行评估。选取Biasi、Bowring、Katto三个经验关联式作为基线模型。模型训练与测试基于四个数据集(Becker、Beus、Janssen、Mortimore)共577个实验数据点。基线模型平均相对误差超过26%。混合模型平均相对误差低于3.5%,且仅有不超过一个数据点超出10%误差范围。所有情况下,混合模型均显著优于传统经验模型。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Accurate prediction of critical heat flux (CHF) is an essential component of safety analysis in pressurized and boiling water reactors. To support reliable prediction of this quantity, several empirical correlations and lookup tables have been constructed from physical experiments over the past several decades. With the onset of accessible machine learning (ML) frameworks, multiple initiatives have been established with the goal of predicting CHF more accurately than these traditional methods. While purely data-driven surrogate modeling has been extensively investigated, these approaches lack interpretability, lack resilience to data scarcity, and have been developed mostly using data from tube experiments. As a result, bias-correction hybrid approaches have become increasingly popular, which correct initial "low-fidelity" estimates provided by deterministic base models by using ML-predicted residuals. This body of work has mostly considered round tube geometries; annular geometry-specific ML models have not yet been deployed in thermal hydraulic codes. This study developed, deployed, and validated four ML models to predict CHF in annular geometries using the CTF subchannel code. Three empirical correlation models, Biasi, Bowring, and Katto, were used as base models for comparison. The ML models were trained and tested using 577 experimental annulus data points from four datasets: Becker, Beus, Janssen, and Mortimore. Baseline CHF predictions were obtained from the empirical correlations, with mean relative errors above 26%. The ML-driven models achieved mean relative errors below 3.5%, with no more than one point exceeding the 10% error envelope. In all cases, the hybrid ML models significantly outperformed their empirical counterparts.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。