Energies (May 2022)

Projecting the Thermal Response in a HTGR-Type System during Conduction Cooldown Using Graph-Laplacian Based Machine Learning

  • Molly Ross,
  • T-Ying Lin,
  • Daniel Gould,
  • Sanjoy Das,
  • Hitesh Bindra

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15113895
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 15, no. 11
p. 3895

Abstract

Read online

Accurate prediction of an off-normal event in a nuclear reactor is dependent upon the availability of sensory data, reactor core physical condition, and understanding of the underlying phenomenon. This work presents a method to project the data from some discrete sensory locations to the overall reactor domain during conduction cooldown scenarios similar to High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactors (HTGRs). The existing models for conductive cooldown in a heterogeneous multi-body system, such as an assembly of prismatic blocks or pebble beds relies on knowledge of the thermal contact conductance, requiring significant knowledge of local thermal contacts and heat transport possibilities across those contacts. With a priori knowledge of bulk geometry features and some discrete sensors, a machine learning approach was devised. The presented work uses an experimental facility to mimic conduction cooldown with an assembly of 68 cylindrical rods initially heated to 1200 K. High-fidelity temperature data were collected using an infrared (IR) camera to provide training data to the model and validate the predicted temperature data. The machine learning approach used here first converts the macroscopic bulk geometry information into Graph-Laplacian, and then uses the eigenvectors of the Graph-Laplacian to develop Kernel functions. Support vector regression (SVR) was implemented on the obtained Kernels and used to predict the thermal response in a packed rod assembly during a conduction cooldown experiment. The usage of SVR modeling differs from most models today because of its representation of thermal coupling between rods in the core. When trained with thermographic data, the average normalized error is less than 2% over 400 s, during which temperatures of the assembly have dropped by more than 500 K. The rod temperature prediction performance was significantly better for rods in the interior of the assembly compared to those near the exterior, likely due to the model simplification of the surroundings.

Keywords