IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v263y2023ipas0360544222025269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of inverse uncertainty quantification methods for critical flow test

Author

Listed:
  • Domitr, Paweł
  • Włostowski, Mateusz
  • Laskowski, Rafał
  • Jurkowski, Romuald

Abstract

A problem of epistemic uncertainties introduced by code input parameters that cannot be estimated other than by user expertise has existed in nuclear reactor systems analyses since first uncertainty analyses were conducted. Inverse Uncertainty Quantification (IUQ) methods aim at providing an estimation of the distributions of such parameters. This paper compares and assesses two approaches to quantify the uncertainty of critical flow model parameters available in the TRACE code. First novel approach is based on a machine-learning algorithm, using a Random Forest classifier to assign the results of calculations to one of the defined classes of prediction accuracy with respect to experimental data. The second approach is based on Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling and Bayesian inference. Both methods allows to assign probability distribution functions to TRACE internal variables, which is a goal for IUQ methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Domitr, Paweł & Włostowski, Mateusz & Laskowski, Rafał & Jurkowski, Romuald, 2023. "Comparison of inverse uncertainty quantification methods for critical flow test," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PA).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:263:y:2023:i:pa:s0360544222025269
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.125640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544222025269
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2022.125640?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Jiangkuan & Lin, Meng & Li, Yankai & Wang, Xu, 2022. "Transfer learning network for nuclear power plant fault diagnosis with unlabeled data under varying operating conditions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(PB).
    2. Guarino, Antonio & Trinchero, Riccardo & Canavero, Flavio & Spagnuolo, Giovanni, 2022. "A fast fuel cell parametric identification approach based on machine learning inverse models," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    3. Marc C. Kennedy & Anthony O'Hagan, 2001. "Bayesian calibration of computer models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(3), pages 425-464.
    4. Zhou, Yuekuan & Zheng, Siqian, 2020. "Uncertainty study on thermal and energy performances of a deterministic parameters based optimal aerogel glazing system using machine-learning method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Wang, Yanji & Li, Hangyu & Xu, Jianchun & Liu, Shuyang & Wang, Xiaopu, 2022. "Machine learning assisted relative permeability upscaling for uncertainty quantification," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthias Katzfuss & Joseph Guinness & Wenlong Gong & Daniel Zilber, 2020. "Vecchia Approximations of Gaussian-Process Predictions," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 25(3), pages 383-414, September.
    2. Hao Wu & Michael Browne, 2015. "Random Model Discrepancy: Interpretations and Technicalities (A Rejoinder)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 619-624, September.
    3. Xiaoyu Xiong & Benjamin D. Youngman & Theodoros Economou, 2021. "Data fusion with Gaussian processes for estimation of environmental hazard events," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), May.
    4. Petropoulos, G. & Wooster, M.J. & Carlson, T.N. & Kennedy, M.C. & Scholze, M., 2009. "A global Bayesian sensitivity analysis of the 1d SimSphere soil–vegetation–atmospheric transfer (SVAT) model using Gaussian model emulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(19), pages 2427-2440.
    5. Drignei, Dorin, 2011. "A general statistical model for computer experiments with time series output," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(4), pages 460-467.
    6. Yuan, Jun & Ng, Szu Hui, 2013. "A sequential approach for stochastic computer model calibration and prediction," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 273-286.
    7. Edward Boone & Jan Hannig & Ryad Ghanam & Sujit Ghosh & Fabrizio Ruggeri & Serge Prudhomme, 2022. "Model Validation of a Single Degree-of-Freedom Oscillator: A Case Study," Stats, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Abokersh, Mohamed Hany & Vallès, Manel & Cabeza, Luisa F. & Boer, Dieter, 2020. "A framework for the optimal integration of solar assisted district heating in different urban sized communities: A robust machine learning approach incorporating global sensitivity analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    9. Campbell, Katherine, 2006. "Statistical calibration of computer simulations," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1358-1363.
    10. Perrin, G., 2016. "Active learning surrogate models for the conception of systems with multiple failure modes," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 130-136.
    11. Antony M. Overstall & David C. Woods, 2016. "Multivariate emulation of computer simulators: model selection and diagnostics with application to a humanitarian relief model," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 65(4), pages 483-505, August.
    12. Yang, Kuang & Liao, Haifan & Xu, Bo & Chen, Qiuxiang & Hou, Zhenghui & Wang, Haijun, 2024. "Data-driven dryout prediction in helical-coiled once-through steam generator: A physics-informed approach leveraging the Buckingham Pi theorem," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    13. Na, Wei & Wang, Mingming, 2022. "A Bayesian approach with urban-scale energy model to calibrate building energy consumption for space heating: A case study of application in Beijing," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    14. Andrew White & Malachi Tolman & Howard D Thames & Hubert Rodney Withers & Kathy A Mason & Mark K Transtrum, 2016. "The Limitations of Model-Based Experimental Design and Parameter Estimation in Sloppy Systems," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-26, December.
    15. MacKenzie, Cameron A. & Hu, Chao, 2019. "Decision making under uncertainty for design of resilient engineered systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    16. Huang, Xucong & Peng, Zhaoqin & Tang, Diyin & Chen, Juan & Zio, Enrico & Zheng, Zaiping, 2024. "A physics-informed autoencoder for system health state assessment based on energy-oriented system performance," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    17. Pasanisi, Alberto & Keller, Merlin & Parent, Eric, 2012. "Estimation of a quantity of interest in uncertainty analysis: Some help from Bayesian decision theory," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 93-101.
    18. White, Staci A. & Herbei, Radu, 2015. "A Monte Carlo approach to quantifying model error in Bayesian parameter estimation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 168-181.
    19. Jun Yuan & Haowei Wang & Szu Hui Ng & Victor Nian, 2020. "Ship Emission Mitigation Strategies Choice Under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
    20. Merle, X. & Cinnella, P., 2019. "Robust prediction of dense gas flows under uncertain thermodynamic models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 400-421.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:263:y:2023:i:pa:s0360544222025269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.