You are on page 1of 7
 

Nuclear

Process

Theory

 

Sri

Hartati

 

Bradford

G. Nickerson

 
 

Faculty

of Computer

 

Science

Faculty

of Computer

Science

 

University

of

New

Brunswick

 

University

of New

Brunswick

 

P.O.

Box

4400

 

P.O.

Box

4400

 

Fredericton,

N.B.,

Canada

E3B

5A3

Fredericton,

N.B.,

Canada

E3B

5A3

 
 

Abstract

 

ponents of physical systems. Second is knowledge about physical interactions that follow the underlying physical

 

Nuclear

Process

Theory

(NPT)

models

nuclear

 

laws. All of the methods have been developed to reason

physics processes using a formal grammar.

This,

in

about different types of physical systems. None of these

 

turn,

allows one to write

computer

programs

which sim-

 

approaches has been developed to reason about nuclear

ulate nuclear process inderactions.

Knowledge

of the

nu-

physics processes [4].

clear

physics

processes is expressed in

terms

of

a basic

 

This

paper

introduces

a method,

called Nuclear

Pro-

nuclear physics

model

and

an

aggregate eflects

model.

 

cess Theory,

for

reasoning

about

nuclear

physics

pro-

The basic nuclear physics

model has the capability

ojex-

cesses. NPT formalizes how to structure parts of the

pressing knowledge

of nuclear

physics

processes for

dij-

available

knowledge

on nuclear

physics

processes to en-

jerent

types of reactions.

The products

of reactions

can

able

a computer

program,

taking

a description

 

of

the

be expressed in terms of either deterministic

or proba-

 

topology

of

 

a nuclear

physics

process

as

its

input,

to

bilistic values. The aggregate effects model is used to

derive

conceivable

dynamic

interactions

in

the system.

simulate nuclear physics processes.

 

Both

a quantitative

state space model

and a probabilis-

 

tic space model

of

the system

are incorporated.

 

NPT

integrates

a symbolic,

qualitative

description

of struc-

1

Background

 

and

Motivation

 

tural

aspects

of

the

process

with

a quantitative

state

space and probabilistic

space model.

Part

of NPT ’s

for-

       

mal description

is contained

in a context

free grammar.

Several attempts

enable

symbolic

and approaches

have been made

to

computer

representation

of physical

systems [l,

2,

3,

6,

[3,8,9,

lo] incorporate

7,

8,

9,

lo].

the notions

Forbus and Woods

of physical

processes

for describing

provide

a way

the behavior

of specifying

of a physical

system.

processes and their

They

effects

in

a way

that

allows

both

deduction

on what processes

 

Knowledge

descriptions

of nuclear

physics

processes is expressed in

of basic

nuclear

physics

and

aggregate

ef-

fects models.

NPT

uses a novel

approach

to formalize

the relationships

between

mathematical

and probabilis-

tic models of nuclear physics processes. NPT can be

used to reason about

fission reactions

with

nuclear physics processes such as

different

types of nuclides.

occur

and

how

they

might

change.

Forbus ’ approach

   

is

still

a purely

qualitative

approach.

By

choosing

a

purely qualitative

 

approach, many researchers have dis-

 

qualified

their

methods

from

a vast number

of applica-

 

2

Modeling

Assumptions

 

tion

areas in engineering

and

science.

Woods

[lo]

intro-

 

duced a combined

qualitative

and quantitative

approach

 

NPT extends the Hybrid Phenomena Theory (HPT),

 

that

can

have

a quantitative

interpretation.

His

ap-

a framework

for formalizing

dynamic

state

space mod-

proach introduces

parametric

 

state space models

which

 

els

for

physical

systems

[lo].

Besides

allowing

us

to

can represent

parameters

that

physicists

and engineers

formalize the subset

of the assumptions underlying

a

normally

use. Physical

system reasoners usually

require

mathematical

 

model,

it also allows

us to formalize

non-

a representational

apparatus

that deals with

the

vast

deterministic

actions

which

can possibly

occur

in

a pro

amount

of physical

knowledge

that

is used in reasoning

cess being

modeled,

especially

for nuclear

physics

reac-

tasks.

There

are two kinds

of knowledge

required.

First

tions.

NPT

allows

the explicit

representation

of knowl-

is knowledge

about

properties

of different

types of com-

edge of nuclear

physics interactions,

and formalizes

how

 

340

1043-0989/95$4.0001995

IEEE

Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications (CAIA '95) 1043-0989/95 $10.00 © 1995 IEEE

 

Knowledge

Level

 

Reaction

components,

and

 

nuclear

interactions.

Symbolic

Level

 

Description

of objects,

and

instances

of Basic Nuclear

 

Physics

Model

(BNPM)

and

 

Aggregates

Effect

Model

(AEM).

 

Figure

1: Model

Hierarchy

in

NPT

these affect

the structure

and parameters

of the model.

The

effects

on

the

model

are encoded

in

a symbolic

structure.

NPT

has three

different

levels.

These

are

shown

in

Fig.

1. Each

of them

is described separately.

2.1

Knowledge

level

General descriptions of reaction components, materials and nuclear interactions are incorporated in the knowl-

edge level.

Knowledge

describing

the properties

of var-

ious types

of

material

substances

is encoded

in

class

descriptions. Knowledge on nuclear interactions is ex-

pressed by definitions

in the basic nuclear physics model

and the aggregate effects model.

 

2.1.1

Basic nuclear

physics

model

A basic nuclear physics model consists of descriptions

of

the underlying

nuclear

process being

modelled.

It

con-

tains

conditions for when a process will occur, interme-

diate

states in which

a process will

participate,

 

and the

products

of a process.

It

is characterized

by five fields:

reactants,

activity

conditions,

parametric-equation,

in-

termediate&ate,

and products.

Examples

of such defi-

nitions

are shown

in

Fig.

2.

l

Reactants

describe

what

reagents

are being

used

in

the

reaction

being

modelled,

and

relations

be-

tween

reagents

which

are necessary

for

the

reac-

tion

to occur.

 

In

our

example,

01

and

02

are

the

basicnuclearphysicsmodel bj is fission (01, 02) { reactants { 01 is NUCLIDE 02 is PARTICLE COLLIDE(o1,
basicnuclearphysicsmodel
bj is fission
(01,
02)
{
reactants
{
01
is NUCLIDE
02
is PARTICLE
COLLIDE(o1,
02)
}
parametricreaction
{
def-par
nu(v&e:
!S!.#)
defdbj
Fir&e
NUCLIDE
(value:
01)
defdonst
threshold
(value:
3.15elO)
}
intermediatestate
{
neutronabsorption
camp-nut
(01)
}
activityconditions
{
Fiasile.4
>
0
}
products
{
Neutron.amoant
is PROBABILISTIC
(Poisson(2./S,
2.43,
0
to
7),
def,vector
pdj-neutr[7]
(index
neutronproduced,
value:
decomposition(Poiason(2.@,2.~S,0,7))))
Fl.Al
ia PROBABILISTIC
(
mass,gieldl(Firsile),
def-vector
pdj-41
[a]
(index
Al,
value:
l&p-table(mas.qieldusyieldl(Fissile))))
F2.A)
is PROBABILISTIC
(
mass,yield2(Fissik),
def-vector
pdjJ2
[&]
(index
AI,
value:
looLup~able(massyield2(Fissile))))
deltaZ
is PROBABILISTIC
(
Gaussian(0,
7,-42
to
J2),
def,vector
pdjdellaZ
[84]
(index
d&Z,
value:
decomposition(Gausrian(O,l,-42J2))
)
EnergyBeutron.amount
is PROBABILISTIC
(
prompt-neutrqx&um(Fissik),
def-vector
pdjl3-neut[7](indes:fieutr,

value:lo&+table(neutro~gmztrum(Fiwik))))

Energy-G-.

amount

is PROBABILISTIC

(

gammaspectrum(Fisrile),

 

defmxtor

pdjJLgamma[7](indclrEgomma,

value:lookup~abIe(gammaspeettarm(Fissile))))

EnergyJ ’l.amount

is PROBABILISTIC

(

energydistributionsl(Fisaile),

 

def-vector

pdjX-Fl[&j

(index

Al,

value:

loo~uptable(energydistributionsl(Fissik))))

EnergyJ ’2.amount

ir

PROBABILISTIC

(

(energydirtributionr2(Fihle),

def,vector

pdjJLF2[44]

(indes:

A%, u&e:

looLup~table(ene~isgydistn ’butions2(Fi&k))))

1

1

Figure

2: Basic nuclear

physics model

for fission.

341

aggregate-effects-model

 

fission

(bj, RC, H W, Hw){

 

material

{

01

}

equipment

{

RC is REACTOR,

 

HW

is MODERATOR,

 

Hw

is CLADDING

)

 

preconditions

 

{

RC.power

is

ON

1

activityconditions{

RC.juelamount

>

0

or Rc>O

}

parametric-reaction

{

def-const

 

NA

(uolue:6.02217eQ3,unit: ”

“)

 

defxonst

o6T_deltoZ (value:-20,unit: ”

“)

defsonst

o&Al

(value:

72,

unit: ”

“)

def_const

o&.42

(volue:

117, unit: ”

“)

defxonat

ei (value:

1, unit: “MeV

“)

defpar f

(volue:

ol.sf

 

* ol.N/

 

(ol.sj

* o1.N

+

 

HW.s,o

 

* Hw.N

+

 

HW.s-a

 

* Hw.N)

defpar

 

k (value:

RC.eta

* RC.epsilon

*

 

RC.p

* j

 

* RC.PNLj

 

* RC.PNLth

)

def-var

 

Rc

 

(

unit:

“fissions

 

“)

def-var

C (unit:

“gr

/

set ”)

 

def-var

pn

 

(value:

of.omount)

 

def,vector

 

distr-neutr[9]

 
 

(index:neutronssroduced)

def-vector

 

distr-Ai[&](index:Af)

 

defarray

 

distr,Fl[169,109](xindex:N,yindex:Z)

 

def,vector

 

distr

A2[45]

 

(index:

 

A2)

defarray

 

distr-F2[169,109](xhdex:N,

yindex:Z)

def,vector

 

distr,E,neutr[9](index:energyneut)

 

def,vector

distr-Ewgomma[9](index:energy~amma)

def-vector

diatr-E-Fl[89](index:energyJl)

def-vector

distr-E-F2[89](index:energy-F2)

defarray

 

nuclidesJi[l69,109](~‘ndex:

 
 

neutrons

 

per

nuclide,yindex:Z)

}

defarray

 

nuclidesJ2[169,109](~ ‘ndex:

 

neutrons

 

per

nuclide, yindex:Z)

}

relations

(

alginfl

 

((Rc)

(k,

nu,

pn)

(k

/

nu

*

pn)}

alginfl

((B)(Rc,

Fissile. A)(Rc

* Fissile. A/NA))

 

alginfl

{ (C)(Fissile.s

 

j,

Fissile.s-g, B)

 

(((Fisai1e.s.f

+ Fissile.s-g)

 

/ol.s

j)

*

B)J

aggrinfl

 

{

(distr-neutr)(Rc)

 
 

((Rc

* pdj-neutr[i])

 

i

=

0

8

)

)

aggrinfl

 

{

(dish-4

l)(Rc)

 
 

((Rc

* pdj-Al

[i])

 

i

=

0

44

)

)

aggrinfl

 

{

(distr-A2)(Rc)

 
 

((Rc

* pdj-A2[i])

i

=

0

44

)

}

aggrinfl

 

{ (distr-E,neutr)(pn,pdj&neutr)

 
 

((pn

* pdj-&neut

[i])

i

=

0

8)

}

cuminfl

 

{

(pn)(distrneutr)

 
 

( (sum(i

 

* distr-neutr[i]))

 

i

=

0

8)

)

aggrinfl

 

{ (distr-l-gamma)

(Rc)

 

(

(Rc

* pdj-E-gamma

[i/l

i

=

0

8

)

}

distrinfl{

 

(nuclides-Fl)(distr-A

i,pdj-deltoZ,

 
 

comp,nuc,f,nu)(isotopesdistribution (distr-41,

pdj-delta-Z,

camp-nuc.Z,

 

camp-nuc.A))

 

distrinfl { (nuclides_FZ)(distr42,pdj deltoZ, ..

 

camp,nut

j,nu)(isotopesdistribution

 

(distrJd,pdjdelta-Z,

 

comp,nuc.Z,

 

camp-nuc.A)}

 

aggrinfl

 

{

(distr-E-Fl)(Rc)

 
 

((Rc

* pdj-E-M

[i])

i

=

0

90)

)

aggrinfl { (distr_GF2)(Rc)

 
 

((Rc

* pdj-E-F2

[i])

i

=

0

90)

}

products

{

defabj

Neutron

PARTICLE

 

{

 

(value

(amount)

: cuminfl

 

{

(Neutron.amount)

 

(pn)

(pn)

})}

defobj

Energy-Neutron

 

ENERGY

{

 

(volue(amount):

cuminfl{

 

(Energy-Neutron.omount)(distrJbeutr)

 

((sum((i

+

ei/2)

* distrLneutr[i])

 

i

=

0

8)

})}

defabj

Energy-Gamma

 

ENERGY

{

 

(volue

(omount):

cuminfl{

 

(Energy~Gomma.omount)(distr-E,gommo)

 

((sum((i

+

ei/2)

* distr,E-gammo[i])

 

i

=

0

8)

})}

def_obj

Fl

PRODUCT-NUCLIDES

 

(

(value:

 
 

cuminfl

{

(Fl)

(nuclidesJ1)

 

((nuclidesJl[i,j])

 

i

=

O

..

169,j

=

0

..

108)

})}

defnbj

F2 PRODUCT-NUCLIDES

 

(

(value:

 
 

cuminfl

 

(

(F2)

(nuclidesJ1)

 

((nuclides-F2[i,j])

 

i

=

O

..

iSS,j

=

0

..

108)

})}

def-obj

 

Energy-F1

ENERGY

{ (volue(amount):

 
 

cuminfl

 

{

(Energy-Fl.amount)

 

(distr-GFl)

((sum((i

+

ei/2)

* distrLFl[i]))

 

i

=

0

..

90)}

 

defabj

Energy-F2

ENERGY

((volue(omount):

 
 

cuminfl

{

(Energy-F2.omount)

(distr_E_F2)

 

((sum((i

+

ei/2)

* disk-E-F2[i]))

 

i

=

0

90))

Figure

3: Aggregate

effects

 

model

for fission.

 

reagents, and their

types are NUCLIDE

and

PAR-

TICLE. These types are encoded in classes NU-

CLIDE and PARTICLE. 01 and 02 collide.

 

The reaction

 

occurs when

  • l Activityconditions

 

describe conditions

which

are

necessary for processes to be active.

Whenever

the

conditions

 

are violated,

 

the

 

model

is

no

longer

an

adequate description

of the process.

These condi-

tions

depend on the state

on the system.

This

field

limits

the values of variables.

 

It specifies either

ab-

solute limits

on one variable,

or limits

relative

to

two variables.

 
  • l Parametric-reactions

 

field describes

a set

of

pa-

342

 

rameters

which

are necessary for

a system

being

modelled.

 

l

Intermediatestate

 

field describes actions which

occur before the reaction generates a set of prod-

 

ucts. For example, the intermediatestate

of

a fis-

is a state where the projectile

particle

 

sion reaction and the target

nucleus perform

neutron

absorption

to create a compound nucleus.

 

l

Products

describes

a

set

of

products

generated

as a consequence

of

an active

reaction.

The

do

scriptions

of

products

are characterized

by

types

of particles

or nuclidea

being

produced

along with

 

the descriptions

 

of the quantities

which

character-

ize them.

 

The values of the quantities

may be probabilistic

or

de

terministic

depending

 

on

the

type

of reaction

itself.

If

the value of quantity is PROBABILISTIC,

the

distri-

bution

along

with

its parameters

must

be defined

in

the

model.

 

2.1.2

Aggregate

effects

model

An

aggregate

effects model

is used to simulate

nuclear

physics processes.

It

consists

of conditions

for when

a simulation occurs, and the effects of this

on

both

a

state

space and

a probabilistic

space model describing

the process.

In addition,

can ag-

gregate a set of products

the aggregate model as a consequence of

an

ac-

tive process. The

aggregate effects model

describes nu-

clear process interactions

which incorporate dynamics,

including

any descriptions

of influences

which

affect pa-

rameters of the system over time (e.g once per second).

It is characterized

by fields

material, equipments, pre-

conditions,

activityconditions,

relations, and products

such as shown in Fig.3.

 
 

l

Material

field describes material

being

used in

a

 

reaction

being modelled;

it

may

be the

same as one

of the reactants

 

in

the basic model.

 

l

Equipment

field specifies a place where a reaction

 

is to be considered,

along with

its components.

 
 

l

Preconditions

 

describe conditions

which

may de-

 

pend

on external

 

actions.

Turning

a power

switch

on

or

off

is an example.

No reaction

occurs unless

the power

is turned

on,

but,

once on, the power

is

toggled

depending

the state

on the system.

 
 

l

Relations field specifies relationships to be associ- ated with each instance of the definitions. The re- lationships are expressed as many influences, such aa aggregate influences, cumulative influences, dis- tribution influences, and parametric influences.

l

Products

 

field

specifies

the

creation

of

objects

which

come into

being

as

a

consequence of an ac-

tive

aggregate

effects

model.

The

aggregate

ef-

fects

model

becomes

active

if

the

associated ba-

sic nuclear

physics

model

is active.

 

This

causes a

set

of

new

objects

to

be created

as

a

set

of

prod-

ucts.

are products

which

are

stated

These created objects in the basic nuclear

physica model.

 

The products

field in the basic nuclear physics model

gives the amount

specifications

of products

being gener-

ated

in a reaction.

 

If

the

basic nuclear

physics model of

a specified

reaction

is active,

the

basic nuclear

physics

model

generates

a

set

of

products

symbolically,

 

and

their amounts are either PROBABILISTIC or DETER- MINISTIC values. The PROBABILISTIC values are

represented

in

a vector,

while the deterministic

values

are represented by either integer or real values.

A

statement

in

the

products

field

in the aggregate

effects model

 

does creation

of objects

which

come into

being as a consequence of the instance

becoming

active

over period

of

time.

Each

attribute

of

the

object

is

obtained by any influence specified in the field.

 

2.2

The

Symbolic

level

 

The

symbolic

level

consists

of

objects,

 

relations

and

properties

for these objects

which

are defined

in

the

in-

put description such as shown in Fig. 6. The symbolic

level

also consists

 

of objects

representing

instances

of

basic nuclear

 

physics

definitions

 

and

aggregate

effects

definitions.

 

The system identifies

every set of objects

which when

assigned to reactants

of the basic nuclear

physics model,

satisfy

the reactant

conditions.

The

system

also iden-

tifies every basic nuclear physics model which, when

assigned to the aggregate effects model,

satisfies the ag-

gregate effects model

conditions.

 

For each set of objects

which is bound to the reactants of the basic nuclear

physics model,

instances

of

the

basic

nuclear

physics

model are created. Some of these instance are then

bound to the aggregate effects model which in turn in-

stantiates the aggregate effects model.

For example,

consider

a set

of objects

defined in

the

input descriptions

which

are shown

in

Fig.

6.

These ob-

jects are considered

to

be active.

The

subset

of instan-

tiations of these objects, U2.95 and Nedron are bound

to reactants

of the

basic nuclear

physics

model

of

fis-

sion and radioactive-capture. The relation COLLIDE

(U235,

Neutron)

matches the reactant ’s

condition

apec-

ified

at

the

reactant

fields

of

the

basic nuclear

physics

model

fission

and

radioactive

caplure.

This

causes in-

stances of the basic nuclear

physics model,

bnpm fission

(3235, Neutron)

and bnpm radioactive

caplure (U235,

343

Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications (CAIA '95) 1043-0989/95 $10.00 © 1995 IEEE

11295

Neutron

RC

HW

HW

BNPM

fission

(U235,Neutmn)

 

BNPM mdioactive,capture

(UZSS,

Neutron)

AEM

(BNPMjission

(lJ23S,Neutron),RC,HW,Hw)

AEM

(BNPM

mdioactive-capture(U235,

Neutron),RC,

 

HW,Hw)

Figure 4: Symbolic gregate effects model.

instances

of basic

nuclear

and ag-

Neutron),

to

be

created.

These

instantiations

along

with

some instantiations

of basic objects

RC, H W, Hw,

are

bound

to

the

aggregate

effects models

of fission

and

radioaciiue

caplure.

This

causes the instanstiation

of

the

aggregate

effects

models,AEM

(BNPM

fission

(17.995, Neuiron),RC,HW,Hw)

and

AEM

(

BNPM

ra-

dioadiue,capiure(lS,

Neutron),

RC, H W, Hw).

 

Fig.4

shows a subset of objects

which

are bound

to

the reactants of the basic nuclear physics model which

causes them

to be bound to the aggregate effects models

for a set of reactions.

This

figure

also shows a subset of

instances of the basic nuclear physics model and aggre- gate effects model.

2.3

Quantitative

level

An

instance

of the basic nuclear

physics

model

and ag-

gregate

effects

model

does not cause any analysis

of

the system.

Only

active instances

can cause the analy-

 

sis. The

active

instances

are obtained

when the objects

are bound

to

the

reactants,

the basic nuclear

model

is

bound

to the aggregate

effects model,

and objects

sat-

isfy the preconditions

and quantity

conditions

for both

basic nuclear

physics and aggregate effects models.

Af-

ter

instantiation

models,

the next

of basic nuclear

and aggregate

effects

step of reasoning

is

to

identify

the ac-

tive

instances.

The

basic objects

are always

considered

active, e.g. U2.95, Neutron, RC, H W,Hw.

The

set

of

active

basic nuclear

physics

and aggregate effects mod-

els

are set

to

follow

phenomena

reaction

in

the

current

state.

For example,

we have specified the fuel amount

of

reactor (RCJuelamount)

is greater

than

0

and

U235

cro8s section

fission

(ol.sf)

is greater

 

than

0.

This

causes only BNPM fission and AEM fission to be ac-

tive.

Since the aggregate effects model

describes nuclear

interactions

every

neutron

cycle, then

by combining

all

the influences defined by these instances, the system

generates objects describing

the system state model

ev-

ery period

of time.

Fig.

5 shows

a state

space model

and

probabilistic

space model which are generated as a consequence of

the basic nuclear physics and aggregate effects models being active.

The state space model consists of equations

which are

considered to consist of terms.

Each instantiation

of the

basic nuclear

physics

model

and the aggregate effects

model comprises a set of equations which describes how

a nuclear

process relates

to the underlying

 

equations.

 

The probabilistic

space

model

consists

of

different

types of distributions which govern the process. Each

instantiation

of the basic nuclear

physics

model and the

aggregate effects model comprises

a

set

of

parameters

which is considered to have non-deterministic values,

along with

their

probabilistic

distributions.

 

These

dis-

tributions

 

constitute

a sufficient

conceptual

basis for ob-

taining non-deterministic modeled.

values from

the process being

For example, the number of neutrons produced for

each fission

is non-deterministic;

it ranges between

0 to

8. The probability

of producing

0 -

8 neutrons

for each

fission

is controlled

by

the

Poisson

distribution.

This

distribution

is represented as pa ”,neutr

(see Fig.

5).

The distribution

 

of neutrons

produced

for fissions

is de-

pendent

on

the

rate

of reaction

Rc and the pdf,neutr.

 

The

distribution

 

of neutron

products

is represented

by

distraeutr.

If

the

state

of

the

system

changes

Rc,

the distribution change as well.

of product

neutrons,

dish-neutr,

will

The

state

space model

described

 

above

are formal-

ized

by

all

influences

of

all

instantiated

of

the

active

processes.

In general,

influences

express

how

one or

a

set of variables influence another

variable

or

another

set of variables.

There

are several types

of influences

in

NPT.

Two

of them,

dynamic

and algebraic

influences,

are similar

to

HPT

influences.

Their

syntax specifica-

tions are described in [8,9,

lo].

Other

 

influences,

unique

to NPT, are described in [5].

 

3

Example

 

This

section

illustrates

how NPT works.

Nuclear

re-

actions

under

consideration

are fission

reactions.

The

basic nuclear

physics

model

and

the

aggregate

effects

model definitions

are given

in

Fig.

2

and

Fig.

3.

The

input

descriptions

for NPT

program

are shown in

Fig.6.

Assuming

that

all relevant

basic nuclear

physics

and

aggregate effects models

are

included

in

the

system,

NPT

will

identify

all possible instantiations

of the

basic

nuclear

physics and aggregate effects models.

This

task

is accomplished when a set of existing objects match

344

Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications (CAIA '95) 1043-0989/95 $10.00 © 1995 IEEE

Neutron.amount is PROBABILISTIC pdj-neutr Fl.Al is PROBABILISTIC pdjJ1 delta.2 is PROBABILISTIC pdf,deltaZ Energy-Gamma.amount is PROBABILISTIC pdjJLgamm0
Neutron.amount
is PROBABILISTIC
pdj-neutr
Fl.Al
is PROBABILISTIC
pdjJ1
delta.2
is PROBABILISTIC
pdf,deltaZ
Energy-Gamma.amount
is PROBABILISTIC
pdjJLgamm0
Energyneutr.omount
is PROBABILISTIC
p&!Lneut
EnergQl
is PROBABILISTIC
pdj-Fl
Energy-F2
is PROBABILISTIC
pdjJ2
01
is
U235
Fissile
is
01
02 is Neutron
k
=
RC.eta
* RC.epsilon
*
RC.p
* f
*
RC.PNLj
*
RC
* PNLth
Rc
=
(k /nu)
*
pn
B
=
(Rc /NA
)
* Fissi1e.A
C
= (Fissile.8 j
+
Fissi1e.s-g)
/
Fissi1e.s j)
*
B
RC.jueLomount
= RC.jueLomount
-
C
disk,neutr
distr-gommo
dish-A 1
dish-F1
distrA2
dish-F2
distr-E,neutr
distr&gommo
d&r-E-F1
d&--E-F2
products
PARTICLE
Neutron
Neutron.omount
=
(sum(i
* distr,neutrfij ’))i
=
0
..
8
PRODUCT,NUCLIDES
Fl
Fl.omount
=
isotopesdistribution
(distr-AI,
pdj-deltoZ,
camp,nut.
Z, comp,nuc.A)

PRODUCT,NUCLIDES F2

Fl.omount = isotopesdistribution (distr42,

pdj-deltoZ, comp,nuc.Z, wmp,nuc.A)

ENERGY

EnergyNeutron

 

EnerggJeutron.omount

=

(sum((i+ei/2)

* dirtr-E,neutr[i]))i=0 8

..

 

ENERGY

Energy,Gommo

 

EnergkGommo.omount

=

(sum((i+ei/2)

* diskE-gammo[i]))i=0 8

..

 

ENERGY

Energy&

EnergrQi.omount

=

(aum((i+ei/2)

* disk-E-Fl[i]))i=0 90

..

 

ENERGY

Energy-F2

 

EnergQ’2,omount

=

(sum((i+ei/2)

* distr-GF2[i])i=0 90

..

 

Figure

5:

State

space

model

and

probabilistic

space

model

of

NPT.

345

U235 NUCLIDE

 

(

 

Z

92

A

295

 

N

lOe21/*

 

otdms

per

cm3

*/

omount

 

100 /*

gr

*/

*J

585 /*

born

*/

*-9

99

/*

km

*/

1

Neutron

PARTICLE

{

 

Z

0

A

1

omount

 

Se20

 

1

HW

MODERATOR

 

(

s-0

0.883 /*

barn

*/

N

3.679e22

/*

atoms per

cm3

*/

1

Hw

CLADDING

 

(

LO

0.66 /*

 

ban

*/

Ncl

2.013e23

/*

atoms

per

cm3

*/

1

RC REACTOR

(

 

corn

homogeneous

 

epsilon

 

2.22 /*

thermal

jkion

factor

*/

eta

1.115 /*fast

fission factor

*/

 

0.667 /*

nsononce

erwpe

probability

 

*/

 

Fuel

U235

 

PNLth

 

0.833

PNLf

0.865

1

COLLIDE

(U235,

Neutron)

 

Figure

6:

An

example

of input

descriptions

for

NPT.

the requirements

 

for

the

reactants

and the material

as

stated

in the basic nuclear

physics and aggregate

effects

models.

 
 

The

instantiation

of a number

of reaction

definitions

are considered as conceivable nuclear reactions.

These

may cause the generation of a set of products described

symbolically.

 

The

instances

of

objects,

 

basic nuclear

physics and aggregate

effects models of a fission reaction

are shown symbolically

similar

to

Fig.

4.

 

When

all possible nuclear

reactions

have

been cre-

ated,

the

program

proceeds to test

the

validity

of

the

activity

conditions

for each instance.

This

 

requires

that

the initial

values for at

least

a subset

of parameters

 

and

variables

have been specified.

The

result

of

this

pro-

cess is

a set of

active

processes, which

is a subset

of

the

conceivable nuclear

reactions.

The

instantiations

of

ac-

tive

processes will

generate

a

set

of

products

which

is

expressed either

in deterministic

values or probabilistic

values. The state space and probabilistic

models always fol-

low directly

from

the

set of active

processes. These are

the consequences of a number

of influences

defined by

these instances.

If

the

complete

initial

state is known,

then both state space and probabilistic models can be

used to determine the behavior of the system. An ex-

ample with

input shown in Fig. 6, along with the results

of running

a simulation

after

10 seconds

is discussed in

[5]. These results include

distribution

of neutron

prod-

ucts, distribution

of energy of neutron

products,

energy

of gamma

products,

distribution

of mass number

of

fis-

sion fragments

for

light

nuclei

(Al),

and heavy

nuclei

(A2),

the distribution

of fission fragments

for light

nu-

clei

(Fl),

and heavy

nuclei

(F2)

along with

the distri-

bution

of isotopes,

the energy of fission fragments,

and

total energy produced by fissions.

 

4

Concluding

remarks

This

paper

describes

a formal

knowledge represen-

tation

for

nuclear

physics

processes, called

NPT

(Nu-

clear Processs Theory).

A simple

nuclear

process simu-

lator based on NPT has been developed. The introduc-

tion of cummulative,

aggregate and parametric

influ-

ences should be useful in other domains where reason-

ing about

complex

physical

processes is required.

Prob-

abilistic

representation

of

processes is also unique

to

NPT, and may prove useful in reasoning about other

processes requiring

non-deterministic

models (e.g qual-

ity control).

It

remains

to implement

a complete

set

of

computer-based tools which can perform a simulation based on NPT models. The real challenges ahead lies

in developing a set of basic nuclear physics and aggre-

gate effects models which

are as universal

as possible.

Acknowledgements

 
 

The authors

would

like to thank

Dr.

George DeMille

of

the

UNB

Department

of Physics for his suggestions.

This

research is partly

funded

by the Higher

Education

Development

Project

of the Republic

of Indonesia,

and

by

the

UNB

Faculty

of Computer

Science.

References

 

[l]

Bhaskar,

R.

and

Nigam,

A.

“Qualitative

Physics

Using Dimensional Analysis ”,

Artificial

Intelli-

gence vol.45,

1990, pp.73-111.

 

deKleer,

J.D

and

Brown,

J.S.

“A

qualitative

physics

based

 

on

confluences ”,

Artificial

Intelli-

gence,

~01.24, 1984, pp.7-83.

 

Forbus, Kenneth

 

D.

The

Qualitative

Process

The-

ory, Ph.D Thesis, Department of Computer Sci-

ence, Massachusetts Institute

of Technology,

1984.

Hartati,

S.

“Reasoning

about

Physical Systems

in Artificial

Intelligence ”,

Technical

Report

TR93-

080,

Faculty

of

Computer

Science,

University

of

New Brunswick,

1993.

 

Hartati,

S.

“Nuclear

Process

Theory:

A

Sym-

bolic

Model

for Representing

Nuclear

Physics Pro-

ceases ”,

Technical

Report

TR94-087,

Faculty

of

Computer

Science, University

of

New

Brunswick,

October,

1994.

 

Kuipers,

B.

“Commonsense

reasoning

about

causality:

deriving

behavior

structure ”,

Arlificial

Intelligence,

~01.24, 1984, pp.169-203.

 

Kuipers, B. “Qualitative Simulation ”, Artificial

In-

telligence,

vol.29,

pp.289-388,

1986.

Woods, E.

“The

Hybrid

Phenomena

Theory ”,

Pro-

ceedings

of

the

Twelfth

International

Conference

on

Artificial

Intelligence,

Sydney,

Australia,

Aug

24-

30, 1991, pp.1138-1142.

 

Woods,

E. and Balchen,

J.G.

“Structural

Estima-

tion

with

the hybrid

phenomena

theory ”,

Proceed-

ings of

the

3rd

IFAC

Workshop,

California,

USA,

September

23-25,

1991, pp.127-132.

 

Woods,

E.The

 

Hybrid

Phenomena

Theory

A

Framework

Integrating

Structural

Descriptions

with

State

Space

Modeling

and

Simulation,

Ph.D

Thesis, Division

of Engineering

Cybernetics,

Nor-

wegian

Institute

of Technology,

Trondheim,

Nor-

way, 1993.

 

PI

[31

PI

PI

El

171

PI

PI

[lo]

346

Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Artificial Intelligence for Applications (CAIA '95) 1043-0989/95 $10.00 © 1995 IEEE