26 research outputs found

    An Approach to Autonomous Control for Space Nuclear Power Systems

    Get PDF

    A Review of Prognostics and Health Management Applications in Nuclear Power Plants

    Get PDF
    The US operating fleet of light water reactors (LWRs) is currently undergoing life extensions from the original 40- year license to 60 years of operation. In the US, 74 reactors have been approved for the first round license extension, and 19 additional applications are currently under review. Safe and economic operation of these plants beyond 60 years is now being considered in anticipation of a second round of license extensions to 80 years of operation. Greater situational awareness of key systems, structures, and components (SSCs) can provide the technical basis for extending the life of SSCs beyond the original design life and supports improvements in both safety and economics by supporting optimized maintenance planning and power uprates. These issues are not specific to the aging LWRs; future reactors (including Generation III+ LWRs, advanced reactors, small modular reactors, and fast reactors) can benefit from the same situational awareness. In fact, many small modular reactor (SMR) and advanced reactor designs have increased operating cycles (typically four years up to forty years), which reduce the opportunities for inspection and maintenance at frequent, scheduled outages. Understanding of the current condition of key equipment and the expected evolution of degradation during the next operating cycle allows for targeted inspection and maintenance activities. This article reviews the state of the art and the state of practice of prognostics and health management (PHM) for nuclear power systems. Key research needs and technical gaps are highlighted that must be addressed in order to fully realize the benefits of PHM in nuclear facilities

    Improved Heat Exchanger Lifecycle Prognostic Methods for Enhanced Light Water Reactor Sustainability

    Get PDF
    As the licenses of many nuclear power plants in the US and abroad are being extended, accurate knowledge of system and component condition is becoming increasingly important. The US Department of Energy (DOE) has funded a project with the primary goal of developing lifecycle prognostic methods to generate accurate and continuous Remaining Useful Life (RUL) estimates as components transition through unique stages of the component lifecycle. Specific emphasis has been placed on creating and transitioning between three distinct stages of operational availability. These stages correspond to Beginning Of Life (BOL) where little or no operational information is available, early onset operations at various expected and observed stress levels where there is the onset of detectable degradation, and degradation towards the eventual End Of Life (EOL). This paper provides an application overview of a developed lifecycle prognostic approach and applies it to a heat exchanger fouling test bed under accelerated degradation conditions resulting in an increased understanding of system degradation. Bayesian and Bootstrap Aggregation methods are applied to show improvements in RUL predictions over traditional methods that do not utilize these methods, thereby improving the lifecycle prognostic model for the component. The analyses of results from applying these lifecycle prognostic algorithms to a heat exchanger fouling experiment are detailed

    Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11‐item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all‐cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all‐cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta‐analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver‐operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full‐text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta‐analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta‐analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study. The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14‐30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17‐26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta‐analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient‐relevant outcomes

    Dynamics and control of nuclear reactors

    No full text

    A Modular Approach for the Diagnostic Analysis of Dynamic Systems Using Stochastic Time-Series Models

    No full text

    Maintenance-based prognostics of nuclear plant equipment for long-term operation

    No full text
    While industry understands the importance of keeping equipment operational and well maintained, the importance of tracking maintenance information in reliability models is often overlooked. Prognostic models can be used to predict the failure times of critical equipment, but more often than not, these models assume that all maintenance actions are the same or do not consider maintenance at all. This study investigates the influence of integrating maintenance information on prognostic model prediction accuracy. By incorporating maintenance information to develop maintenance-dependent prognostic models, prediction accuracy was improved by more than 40% compared with traditional maintenance-independent models. This study acts as a proof of concept, showing the importance of utilizing maintenance information in modern prognostics for industrial equipment

    Integration of Time Series Modeling and Wavelet Transform for Monitoring Nuclear Plant Sensors

    No full text
    corecore