Development and Deployment of Hybrid ML Models for Critical Heat Flux Prediction in Annulus Geometries
This work addresses a critical safety issue in nuclear reactors by improving prediction accuracy for annular geometries, representing an incremental advance over existing methods focused on tube geometries.
This study tackled the problem of accurately predicting critical heat flux in annular geometries for nuclear reactor safety by developing hybrid ML models, achieving mean relative errors below 3.5% compared to over 26% for traditional empirical correlations.
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.