Physical model test verification method, test verification device and readable medium
By calculating the uncertainty of the test output results and generating conservative output results, the physical model of the nuclear reactor system analysis program is verified, which solves the problem of low verification of conservatism in the prior art and improves the safety and reliability of the model.
Patent Information
- Application Number
- CN202311510179.0
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- Filing Date
- 2023-11-13
- Publication Date
- 2025-01-17
AI Technical Summary
The physical models of existing nuclear reactor system analysis programs lack effective experimental verification methods, resulting in low verification conservatism and inability to ensure the accuracy and safety of the model.
By receiving the test input parameters and output results, calculate the uncertainty of the test output results, and calculate the conservative output results based on the uncertainty. Compare the deviation between the test output results and the conservative output results. If the deviation is less than the acceptable value, verify and pass to ensure that Conservatism and security of the model.
It improves the verification conservatism of physical models, enhances confidence in reactor safety analysis, ensures that the model can envelop what may occur in reality, and improves the reliability of verification.
Smart Images
Figure CN119322730A_ABST
Abstract
Description
Technical Field
[0001] The present invention mainly relates to the technical field of nuclear reactors, and in particular to an experimental verification method, an experimental verification device and a readable medium for a physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program. Background Art
[0002] As the most important software tool for nuclear reactor safety analysis, the system analysis program needs to develop new physical models in the system analysis program according to the new design features of the reactor and carry out program verification on the physical models during the development and design of new nuclear reactors.
[0003] For new nuclear reactors, the physical models in the system analysis program lack program verification experience and the test data required for verification. It is usually necessary to conduct corresponding experiments to obtain test data, and use appropriate methods to use the test data to verify the accuracy and conservatism of the physical model to meet the requirements of nuclear reactor safety analysis. This application aims to provide a test verification method for the physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program, which can verify the physical model with test data that meets the requirements of safety analysis. Summary of the invention
[0004] The technical problem to be solved by the present invention is to provide a test verification method for a physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program, so as to solve the problem that the existing test verification method is not conservative enough.
[0005] To solve the above technical problems, the present invention provides a method for testing and verifying the physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program, comprising: receiving test input parameters and test output results of several groups of test conditions obtained by conducting tests within the application parameter range of the system analysis program, wherein the system analysis program includes multiple physical models; calculating the uncertainty of the test output results; calculating the conservative output results based on the uncertainty of the test output results and the test output results; importing the test input parameters into a program verification system, the program verification system calling the program module code of the corresponding physical model according to the test input parameters to obtain the program output results; comparing the program output results with the conservative output results, and if the output deviation is less than the acceptable value set by the user, the physical model verification is passed.
[0006] Optionally, the conservative output result is calculated by the following formula:
[0007]
[0008] Among them, Y c To output the result conservatively, is the mean of the output results of multiple groups of tests, k t-d is the t-distribution envelope coefficient, u cis the uncertainty of the test output results.
[0009] Optionally, calculating the uncertainty of the test output result includes: calculating the random uncertainty of the test input parameters; calculating the system uncertainty, wherein the system uncertainty is the system error caused by errors of multiple components within the test condition; and calculating the uncertainty of the test output result based on the random uncertainty and the system uncertainty.
[0010] Optionally, the random uncertainty is calculated by the following formula:
[0011]
[0012] Among them, u r is the random uncertainty, S x is the standard deviation of the test input parameters, and N is the number of test input parameters.
[0013] Optionally, calculating the system uncertainty includes: performing square root extraction processing on the square sum of error values of multiple components to obtain the system uncertainty.
[0014] Optionally, the uncertainty of the test output result is calculated by the following formula:
[0015]
[0016] Among them, u c is the uncertainty of the test output result, u r is the random uncertainty, u b is the system uncertainty.
[0017] Optionally, it also includes importing all physical models and corresponding code modules into the program verification system.
[0018] Optionally, the physical model includes an internal component heat conduction model, an adjacent channel heat exchange model, a heat pipe heat transfer model, a heat pipe startup model and a waste heat exchanger model.
[0019] To solve the above technical problems, the present invention provides an experimental verification device for the physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program, comprising: a memory for storing instructions executable by a processor; a processor for executing the instructions to implement the method as described above.
[0020] In order to solve the above technical problem, the present invention provides a computer readable medium storing a computer program code, and the computer program code implements the above method when executed by a processor.
[0021] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following advantages:
[0022] The test verification method of the physical model of the nuclear reactor system analysis program of the present invention starts from the conservative requirement of the system analysis program for safety analysis, and proposes conservative processing of the test output results in the test verification method, that is, calculating the uncertainty of the test output results, superimposing the corresponding uncertainty on the test output results to obtain conservative output results, and using the conservative output results to verify the physical model. The physical model verified by the conservative output results has a higher confidence level and can cover situations that may occur in practice, that is, it is more conservative. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0023] The accompanying drawings are included to provide a further understanding of the present application. They are included and constitute a part of the present application. The accompanying drawings illustrate embodiments of the present application and together with the present specification serve to explain the principles of the present invention. In the accompanying drawings:
[0024] Figure 1 is a list of physical models to be verified according to an embodiment of the present invention;
[0025] Figure 2 is a flow chart of a method for experimental verification of a physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program according to an embodiment of the present invention;
[0026] Figure 3 yes Figure 2 Flow chart of an embodiment of step S22;
[0027] Figure 4 It is a system block diagram of a test verification device for a physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program according to an embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0028] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, the following is a brief introduction to the drawings required for the description of the embodiments. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some examples or embodiments of the present application. For ordinary technicians in this field, the present application can also be applied to other similar scenarios based on these drawings without creative work. Unless it is obvious from the language environment or otherwise explained, the same reference numerals in the figures represent the same structure or operation.
[0029] Flowcharts are used in the present application to illustrate the operations performed by the system according to the embodiments of the present application. It should be understood that the preceding or following operations are not necessarily performed accurately in order. On the contrary, various steps may be processed in reverse order or simultaneously. At the same time, other operations may be added to these processes, or one or more operations may be removed from these processes.
[0030] In some embodiments, before the physical model of the nuclear reactor system analysis program is experimentally verified, the following steps are also included: obtaining the design document of the nuclear reactor system analysis program, and determining the physical model included in the nuclear reactor system analysis program according to the design document. Taking the nuclear reactor as a heat pipe micro-reactor as an example, since the heat pipe micro-reactor has unique design features, its core is a fully solid-state design, the heat transfer path is mainly solid heat conduction, gap heat exchange, and heat pipe heat transfer, and a non-active residual heat removal system is adopted. The reactor part does not require rotating parts such as a main pump. The above features are very different from traditional reactors. Correspondingly, the physical models to be verified included in the heat pipe micro-reactor system analysis program include but are not limited to internal component heat conduction models, adjacent channel heat exchange models, heat pipe heat transfer models, heat pipe startup models, and residual heat exchanger models. Figure 1 is a list of physical models to be verified according to an embodiment of the present invention. Figure 1 As shown, the physical model list 100 includes a point reactor neutron kinetic model, a reactivity feedback model, a decay heat model, a fuel heat conduction model, an internal component heat conduction model, an adjacent channel heat exchange model, an external component heat dissipation model, a core mechanics calculation model, a heat pipe heat transfer model, a heat pipe startup model, a main heat exchanger model, a waste heat exchanger model and a reactor system model.
[0031] Figure 2 FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a method for experimental verification of a physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program according to an embodiment of the present invention. Figure 2 As shown, the experimental verification method 200 of the physical model of the nuclear reactor system analysis program includes:
[0032] Step S21: receiving test input parameters and test output results of several groups of test conditions obtained by conducting tests within the application parameter range of a system analysis program, wherein the system analysis program includes multiple physical models.
[0033] Aiming at the physical problem described by the physical model, experiments are carried out within the application parameter range of the system analysis program to obtain test input parameters and test output results of several groups of test conditions.
[0034] Step S22: Calculate the uncertainty of the test output result.
[0035] In order to conduct conservative verification of the physical model, uncertainty analysis of the output result data should be carried out, and the corresponding uncertainty should be superimposed on the output result from the conservative direction to obtain the conservative output result. The conservative output result is defined as: from the perspective of reactor safety analysis, the conservative output result should ensure that the state caused by the test output result is more unfavorable to the reactor safety at a certain confidence level.
[0036] Figure 3 yes Figure 2 Flow chart of step S22 in an embodiment. Figure 3 As shown, step S22 includes:
[0037] Step S221: Calculate the random uncertainty of the test input parameters.
[0038] Random uncertainty characterizes the fluctuation of test input parameters, which may be caused by factors such as signal noise and test repeatability. Taking the test input parameters that characterize the same variable or the test input parameters of repeatable conditions, assuming that the data obeys the normal distribution, the random uncertainty is calculated by the following formula:
[0039]
[0040] Among them, u r is the random uncertainty, S x is the standard deviation of the test input parameters, and N is the number of test input parameters.
[0041] Step S222: Calculate the system uncertainty, which is the system error caused by the errors of multiple components in the test condition.
[0042] Optionally, the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) is processed for the error values of multiple components to obtain the system uncertainty. Taking the system including two components that may cause errors as an example, the following formula is used to calculate the system uncertainty:
[0043]
[0044] Among them, u b is the system uncertainty, u1 is the error value of the first element, and u2 is the error value of the second element.
[0045] Step S223: Calculate the uncertainty of the test output result based on the random uncertainty and the systematic uncertainty.
[0046] Optionally, the uncertainty of the test output result is calculated by the following formula:
[0047]
[0048] Among them, u c is the uncertainty of the test output result, u r is the random uncertainty, u b is the system uncertainty.
[0049] Step S23: Calculate a conservative output result according to the uncertainty of the test output result and the test output result;
[0050] Optionally, the conservative output result is calculated by the following formula:
[0051]
[0052] Among them, Y c For conservative output, u c is the uncertainty of the test output results.
[0053] It is the mean of multiple test output results. Multiple test output results may come from: 1) measurement values of repeatable test conditions; 2) measurement values of instruments that are theoretically consistent due to symmetry, uniformity, etc.
[0054] k t-d is the envelope coefficient of the t-distribution. From a statistical point of view, it is usually believed that if the test input parameters follow a normal distribution, then the mean of the test output results follows a t-distribution (also known as a Student distribution). Then k t-d The value of can be determined based on the confidence level and sample size required for safety analysis. The confidence level is usually specified by the user, such as 95%.
[0055] The positive and negative signs in the formula for calculating the conservative output result should be selected according to the direction that is not conducive to reactor safety. Taking the test output result as temperature as an example, if the temperature is too high and is not conducive to reactor safety, the above formula takes a positive sign; if the temperature is too low and is not conducive to reactor safety, the above formula takes a negative sign.
[0056] Step S24: import the test input parameters into the program verification system, and the program verification system calls the program module code of the corresponding physical model according to the test input parameters to obtain the program output results.
[0057] Optionally, before step S24, the method further includes importing all physical models and corresponding code modules into a program verification system, and the program verification system can store multiple physical models and corresponding code modules.
[0058] Step S25: Compare the program output result with the conservative output result. If the output deviation is less than the acceptable value set by the user, the physical model verification is passed. Otherwise, the physical model to be verified does not meet the program development requirements and is returned for redevelopment.
[0059] When all physical models have completed verification, the verification ends.
[0060] The test verification method of the physical model of the nuclear reactor system analysis program of the present invention starts from the conservative requirement of the system analysis program for safety analysis, and proposes conservative processing of the test output results in the test verification method, that is, calculating the uncertainty of the test output results, superimposing the corresponding uncertainty on the test output results to obtain conservative output results, and using the conservative output results to verify the physical model. The physical model verified by the conservative output results has a higher confidence level and can cover situations that may occur in practice, that is, it is more conservative.
[0061] Figure 4 1 is a system block diagram of a test verification device for a physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program according to an embodiment of the present application. Figure 4 As shown, the test verification device 400 may include an internal communication bus 401, a processor 402, a read-only memory (ROM) 403, a random access memory (RAM) 404, and a communication port 405. When applied to a personal computer, the test verification device 400 may also include a hard disk 406. The internal communication bus 401 can realize data communication between the components of the test verification device 400. The processor 402 can make judgments and issue prompts. In some embodiments, the processor 402 can be composed of one or more processors. The communication port 405 can realize data communication between the test verification device 400 and the outside. In some embodiments, the test verification device 400 can send and receive information and data from the network through the communication port 405. The test verification device 400 may also include different forms of program storage units and data storage units, such as a hard disk 406, a read-only memory (ROM) 403 and a random access memory (RAM) 404, which can store various data files used for computer processing and / or communication, and possible program instructions executed by the processor 402. The processor executes these instructions to implement the main part of the method. The processing result of the processor is transmitted to the user device through the communication port and displayed on the user interface.
[0062] The above-mentioned operation method can be implemented as a computer program, stored in the hard disk 406, and loaded into the processor 402 for execution, so as to implement the test verification method of the physical model of the nuclear reactor system analysis program of the present application.
[0063] The present application also includes a computer-readable medium storing a computer program code, which, when executed by a processor, implements the above-mentioned method for experimental verification of the physical model of the nuclear reactor system analysis program.
[0064] When the experimental verification method of the physical model of the nuclear reactor system analysis program is implemented as a computer program, it can also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium as a product. For example, a computer-readable storage medium may include, but is not limited to, a magnetic storage device (e.g., a hard disk, a floppy disk, a magnetic strip), an optical disk (e.g., a compact disk (CD), a digital versatile disk (DVD)), a smart card, and a flash memory device (e.g., an electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), a card, a stick, a key drive). In addition, the various storage media described herein can represent one or more devices and / or other machine-readable media for storing information. The term "machine-readable medium" may include, but is not limited to, wireless channels and various other media (and / or storage media) that can store, contain and / or carry code and / or instructions and / or data.
[0065] Some aspects of the present application may be performed entirely by hardware, entirely by software (including firmware, resident software, microcode, etc.), or by a combination of hardware and software. The above hardware or software may be referred to as "data blocks", "modules", "engines", "units", "components" or "systems". The processor may be one or more application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), digital signal processors (DSPs), digital signal processing devices (DAPDs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), processors, controllers, microcontrollers, microprocessors, or combinations thereof. In addition, various aspects of the present application may be expressed as computer products located in one or more computer-readable media, which include computer-readable program codes. For example, computer-readable media may include, but are not limited to, magnetic storage devices (e.g., hard disks, floppy disks, tapes ...), optical disks (e.g., compact disks CDs, digital versatile disks DVDs ...), smart cards, and flash memory devices (e.g., cards, sticks, key drives ...).
[0066] A computer-readable medium may include a propagated data signal containing computer program code, such as in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. The propagated signal may have a variety of manifestations, including electromagnetic, optical, etc., or a suitable combination. A computer-readable medium may be any computer-readable medium other than a computer-readable storage medium, which may be connected to an instruction execution system, device or apparatus to communicate, propagate or transmit a program for use. The program code on the computer-readable medium may be propagated via any suitable medium, including radio, cable, fiber optic cable, radio frequency signal, or similar medium, or any combination of the above mediums.
[0067] The basic concepts have been described above. Obviously, for those skilled in the art, the above invention disclosure is only used as an example and does not constitute a limitation of the present application. Although not explicitly stated herein, those skilled in the art may make various modifications, improvements and amendments to the present application. Such modifications, improvements and amendments are suggested in the present application, so such modifications, improvements and amendments still belong to the spirit and scope of the exemplary embodiments of the present application.
[0068] As shown in this application and claims, unless the context clearly indicates an exception, the words "a", "an", "an" and / or "the" do not refer to the singular and may also include the plural. Generally speaking, the terms "include" and "comprise" only indicate the inclusion of the steps and elements that have been clearly identified, and these steps and elements do not constitute an exclusive list. The method or device may also include other steps or elements.
[0069] Unless otherwise specifically stated, the relative arrangement, numerical expressions and numerical values of the parts and steps set forth in these embodiments do not limit the scope of the present application. At the same time, it should be understood that, for ease of description, the sizes of the various parts shown in the accompanying drawings are not drawn according to the actual proportional relationship. The technology, method and equipment known to those of ordinary skill in the relevant field may not be discussed in detail, but in appropriate cases, the technology, method and equipment should be considered as a part of the authorization specification. In all examples shown and discussed here, any specific value should be interpreted as being merely exemplary, rather than as a limitation. Therefore, other examples of exemplary embodiments may have different values. It should be noted that similar reference numerals and letters represent similar items in the following drawings, so that once a certain item is defined in an accompanying drawing, it does not need to be further discussed in subsequent drawings.
[0070] At the same time, the present application uses specific words to describe the embodiments of the present application. For example, "one embodiment", "an embodiment", and / or "some embodiments" refer to a certain feature, structure or characteristic related to at least one embodiment of the present application. Therefore, it should be emphasized and noted that "one embodiment" or "an embodiment" or "an alternative embodiment" mentioned twice or more in different positions in this specification does not necessarily refer to the same embodiment. In addition, some features, structures or characteristics in one or more embodiments of the present application can be appropriately combined.
[0071] Similarly, it should be noted that in order to simplify the description of the disclosure of this application and thus help understand one or more embodiments of the invention, in the above description of the embodiments of this application, multiple features are sometimes combined into one embodiment, figure or description thereof. However, this disclosure method does not mean that the features required by the object of this application are more than the features mentioned in the claims. In fact, the features of the embodiments are less than all the features of the single embodiment disclosed above.
[0072] Although the present application has been described with reference to the current specific embodiments, ordinary technicians in this technical field should recognize that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the present application, and various equivalent changes or substitutions may be made without departing from the spirit of the present application. Therefore, as long as the changes and modifications to the above embodiments are within the essential spirit of the present application, they will fall within the scope of the claims of the present application.
Claims
1. A method for experimental verification of a physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program, characterized in that: include: receiving test input parameters and test output results of a plurality of test conditions obtained by conducting tests within an application parameter range of a system analysis program, wherein the system analysis program includes a plurality of physical models; Calculating the uncertainty of the test output result; Calculating a conservative output result based on the uncertainty of the test output result and the test output result; The test input parameters are imported into a program verification system, and the program verification system calls the program module code of the corresponding physical model according to the test input parameters to obtain a program output result; The program output result is compared with the conservative output result. If the output deviation is less than the acceptable value set by the user, the physical model verification is passed.
2. The verification method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The conservative output result is calculated by the following formula: Among them, Y c To output the result conservatively, is the mean of the output results of multiple groups of tests, k t-d is the t-distribution envelope coefficient, u c is the uncertainty of the test output results.
3. The verification method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Calculation of the uncertainty of the test output results includes: Calculating the random uncertainty of the test input parameters; Calculating system uncertainty, where the system uncertainty is the system error caused by errors of multiple components within the test condition; The uncertainty of the test output result is calculated based on the random uncertainty and the systematic uncertainty.
4. The verification method according to claim 3, characterized in that: The random uncertainty is calculated by the following formula: Among them, u r is the random uncertainty, S x is the standard deviation of the test input parameters, and N is the number of test input parameters.
5. The verification method according to claim 3, characterized in that: Calculating the system uncertainty includes: performing square root extraction processing on the square sum of error values of multiple components to obtain the system uncertainty.
6. The verification method according to claim 3, characterized in that: The uncertainty of the test output result is calculated by the following formula: Among them, u c is the uncertainty of the test output result, u r is the random uncertainty, u b is the system uncertainty.
7. The verification method according to claim 1, characterized in that: It also includes importing all physical models and corresponding code modules into the program verification system.
8. The verification method according to any one of claims 1 to 7, characterized in that: The physical model includes an internal component heat conduction model, an adjacent channel heat exchange model, a heat pipe heat transfer model, a heat pipe startup model and a residual heat exchanger model.
9. An experimental verification device for a physical model of a nuclear reactor system analysis program, comprising: a memory for storing instructions executable by a processor; A processor, configured to execute the instructions to implement the method according to any one of claims 1 to 8.
10. A computer readable medium storing computer program code, wherein the computer program code implements the method according to any one of claims 1 to 8 when executed by a processor.