Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Statistical learning model for fuel-cladding heat exchange coefficient

evaluation in SFR
Marlène Jeannin a ,∗, Victor Blanc b , Vincent Dupont b , Vincent Pascal a ,∗, Laurent Buiron c ,
Pablo Rubiolo d
a
DES,IRESNE,DER,SESI,LCOS, Cea Cadarache, F-13108, Saint-Paul-lès-Durance, France
b DES,IRESNE,DEC,SESC,LECIM, Cea Cadarache, F-13108, Saint-Paul-lès-Durance, France
c DES,IRESNE,DER,SPRC,LEPH, Cea Cadarache, F-13108, Saint-Paul-lès-Durance, France
d LPSC, 38000, Grenoble, France

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Multiphysics modeling has become a central point in nuclear reactor simulation as it takes into account
Sodium fast reactor interactions between physical fields involved. Nuclear reactors are highly multi-physics systems as neutronics,
Nuclear fuel thermal transfer, mechanics and hydraulics are interacting to produce and maintain the power. In this system,
Heat exchange coefficient
numerous issues come from material behavior. In the case of Control Rod Withdrawal (CRW) accident the main
Machine learning
issues come with fuel behavior as the major risk to prevent is the fuel melting and spread in the core, leading
Multiphysics
to its partial or complete meltdown. In these situations, specialized codes are often used to predict properties
and the state of the fuel by aggregating isolated models, each one corresponding to a single phenomenon. This
type of approach is very efficient for understanding global sequence of the accident and predicting numerous
physical variables of the problem. However it is often very expensive in calculation time. In this paper we
focus on developing a fast tool based on machine learning models in order to speed up the calculation of
specific variable of interest. We propose here a brief physical context of the study, a description of the method
used to chose and to train models and finally an evaluation of models. Using this tool in a multiphysics scheme
will add negligible penalty on calculation time. The model is focused on modeling fuel cladding heat exchange
coefficient ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 based on data extracted from GERMINAL-V2 fuel performance code developed at CEA for SFR.
Considering the strong non-linearity of the variation of the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 , it appears that Random Forest models and
AdaBoost present the smallest deviation, lower than 1% and the faster response, less than 10μ𝑠. However, the
sensitivity of the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 for highest burnups does not allow to get a metamodel with a deviation smaller than
20% for the application case.

0. Introduction provided by physics based codes i.e. by scheme based on a multi-

This study falls within a multi-physics and multi-scale approach of
modeling Control Rod Withdrawal transients (CRW). This transient con-
sists in the slow withdrawal of a neutron absorbing rod from the core.
Its estimated frequency of occurring in a SFR (≈ 10−2 ∕𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 for ASTRID)
and the potential consequences for the core justifies its importance in
safety study. In order to simulate properly this accident, multi-physics
aspects have to be modeled as in Jeannin et al. (2021) where the
coupled scheme MORPHEE is presented. This type of method requires
the use of fast tools to allow its intensive use in a reasonable time
scale, since the aim is to make fast studies as for sensitivity estimation
purposes. In order to improve the MORPHEE scheme, a model to
predict heat transfer coefficient (ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 ) in the pellet to cladding gap
needs to be included in the scheme. The ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 is a variable that is usually
models approach. In the case of this study, the reference code used
is GERMINAL-V2 (GV-2) (Lainet et al., 2019) which is predicting SFR
fuel behavior under irradiation in nominal and in transient conditions.
However, using such code in MORPHEE would heavily penalize calcu-
lation time. Then, several other approaches can provide an evaluation
of the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . In Bajard et al. (2022) a law depending on time is used
to compute ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 during an ULOF transient, knowing the initial value
of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 and based on an evaluation of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 variation in ‘‘penalizing
conditions’’. This implies that ‘‘penalizing conditions’’ are well known
which is not obvious in CRW. It also limits the generalization of the
model as only one parameter is considered. In this paper we chose
to take into account the impact of multiple factors such as burnup

∗ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: marlene.jeannin@cea.fr (M. Jeannin), vincent.pascal@cea.fr (V. Pascal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2022.112027
Received 14 April 2022; Received in revised form 14 August 2022; Accepted 15 October 2022
Available online 7 November 2022
0029-5493/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Notations Acronyms

AdaBoost Adaptive Boosting

Variables
ASTRID Advanced Sodium Technological Reactor for
𝐱 A vector of 𝑥1 ...𝑥𝑑 real parameters Industrial Demonstration
𝑦 A variable of interest defined by a function of 𝐱 CRW Control Rod Withdrawal
unknown or expansive to estimate DOE Design of experiment
𝑦̂ An estimation of 𝑦 using approached function EFPD Equivalent Fuel Power Day
(here machinelearning) GV-2 Germinal-V2
𝐱𝑖 , 𝑦𝑖 and 𝑦̂𝑖 Respectively samples of variables 𝐱, 𝑦 and 𝑦̂ JOG Fuel-Cladding precipitate (french ‘‘Joint Oxyde-
𝑁 Number of samples available in data sets Gaine’’)
ML Machine Learning
Indices
RF Random Forest
𝐴𝑣𝑔 Indicates a mean value over z axis RMSE Root-Mean-Square-Error
𝑐 Parameters related to cladding SFR Sodium Fast Reactor
𝑓 Parameters related to fuel
𝑖 Identify an sample of any variable it indexes
𝑚𝑎𝑥 Indicates maximal value on z axis
𝑁𝑎 Parameter related to sodium some applications especially for optimization purposes (Ammar, 2014;
Andersen et al., 2021; Gérardin et al., 2022) or uncertainty and margin
𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 Variables related to test data set
analyses (Iooss and Marrel, 2019; Blanc et al., 2017). Hereafter we
𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 Variables related to training data set
test some of these ML processes to determine the most appropriate to
Physical variables predict ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 behavior, and we present results of selected models. The
whole study is made on pins of ASTRID design, see Venard et al. (2015)
𝐵𝑈 Burnup (𝐺𝑊 𝑑∕𝑡ℎ𝑀)
for more details on the reactor core design.
𝐶𝑝 Specific heat capacity (J/kg/K)
𝑒 Thickness of the gap (m)
1. Exchange coefficient calculation with GERMINAL-V2 code
h Heat exchange coefficient in fuel clad gap
(W∕m2 ∕K)
In this section we briefly resume definition of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 and the objectives
ℎ𝑁𝑎 Heat exchange coefficient between cladding and
of modeling its physics. The CEA reference fuel performance code for
sodium (W∕m2 ∕K)
SFR, GERMINAL-V2 is also introduced with its input parameters.
𝜆 Thermal conductivity (W/m/K)
m Mass of heavy metal (kg)
1.1. Definition of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝
𝑃 Linear Heat flux (W/cm)
𝛷 Heat flux (W∕m2 )
The heat exchange coefficient is defined as the proportionality coef-
𝜌 Density (kg∕m3 )
ficient between heat flux and temperature variation through a surface.
𝑄 Mass flow rate (kg∕s∕m3 )
This paper focuses on the heat exchange coefficient in the gap between
𝑟 or 𝑅 Radius (m), resp. variable or design parameter
fuel pellet and cladding in a SFR, hereafter called ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 and defined as
𝑅𝑖𝑛
𝑓
/𝑅𝑖𝑛
𝑐 Inner fuel/cladding radius (m) (1).
𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑅𝑓 /𝑅𝑜𝑢𝑡 Outer fuel/cladding radius (m)
𝑐
𝑆 Surface (m) 𝛷𝑔𝑎𝑝 = ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 𝛥𝑇𝑓 𝑢𝑒𝑙∕𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑑 (1)
𝑇 Temperature (K) Then, ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 model includes every heat transfer mechanisms at the
𝑡 Time (s) interface of fuel and clad. This includes radiative transfer, convection
𝑧 Axial position (m) effects in gas and conduction through gas or solid contact if the gap
is closed. It is then theoretically possible to evaluate ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 precisely
knowing geometry, compositions and temperature. However, these
parameters are known precisely for fresh fuel only. For irradiated fuel
or power, then a statistical approach was more adapted. In Lavarenne lots of phenomena must be taken into account. They will be described
et al. (2021), a correlation is built based on benchmark calculations of later in Sections 2.1 and 3.2. ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 evaluation is a major issue for fuel
multiple codes, this correlation then represents an ‘‘averaged’’ model temperature modeling. As it can be seen on Fig. 2 for an ASTRID
of the whole codes available and depends on burnup and power. The
type fuel pin composed of annular shape pellet clad with steel (see
main issue for the use of this correlation is that it does not take into
Fig. 1), the fluctuation of the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 value typically in the realistic range
account JOG formation (cf. 2.1 for more details about JOG). Similarly,
of [4000, 25000] W∕m2 K (obtained with GERMINAL-V2) produces a
we chose to build a simplified model but based only on GERMINAL-
temperature variation of hundreds of Kelvins in the fuel. Due to the
V2 code. This approach is justified by a different aim of our model,
behavior of material under irradiation and high temperature, the gap
which is developed to replace the call to GV-2 considered here as a
reference. To get a fast, simple and accurate way of computing ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 between fuel and cladding evolves in composition and in geometry
we chose to use a statistical learning process. This type of model, causing the evolution of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . This evolution occurs in normal condi-
also called machine learning, requires data to be trained on and can tions of operation and during transient, this is investigated respectively
then approximate the behavior of the initial process, here GV-2 for in 2.1 and 3.1. Taking into account these fluctuations is important
ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 evaluation. The use of these models tends to spread as they are both for fuel melting assessment and for thermal feedback effects on
both efficient and cheap on computational time. As example we can neutronics. This is especially true in the case of a CRW power transient
cite neural networks, random forests or simply linear regressions. In where the Doppler effect is the main feedback effect that stabilize the
nuclear field, these approaches are still unusual even if we can highlight core power.

2
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

(e.g. fission product release, swelling, thermal expansion, melting,

evolution in compositions) can be performed in stationary state and
transient conditions. It can be used to evaluate the fuel temperature, as
in Blanc et al. (2017) where a statistical approach is presented based
on margin to melting in nominal operations. In the present study it
has been used to predict the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 during irradiation and during power
transients conditions corresponding to a CRW accident. Regarding these
transient situations, GERMINAL-V2 has been validated on fuel tempera-
ture with data from transients over power on CABRI tests such as those
presented in Fukano et al. (2009).

1.4. Geometry and parameters

A GV2 simulation requires the following parameters (parameters

and range of values considered in this study are summarized in Table 1):
Fig. 1. Radial view of an ASTRID type fuel pin.
1.2. Objectives of modeling ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝
MORPHEE is a simplified tool developed to simulate SFR cores
under CRW transient conditions with a multi-physics approach. It
includes simplified neutronic models, core thermo-hydraulics and pins
thermal modeling. The scheme is presented in Jeannin et al. (2021).
In this scope, ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 has been identified as an important parameter to
determine if fuel melting could occur. Two main issues motivated the
research of a simplified model for this coefficient. First, it is both
highly variable and crucial for fuel temperature estimation. Then in
standard thermo-hydraulics simulation it is often estimated at initial
state of transient or provided for very few irradiation times and fuel
zones (e.g. in Droin, 2016 at the beginning and at the end of each
fuel cycles that makes a total of 8 values for ASTRID core). In both
cases its evolution is neglected. These approximations suppose that
ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 does not vary quickly with burnup, level of power during irra-
diation, transient over power or with any state parameter. The second
issue is that ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 variations are hard to predict and require complex
fuel behavior models (see 2.1 and 3.1 for more detail about physics)
which are often expensive in computational resources. As an example,
simulation of irradiation of one pin during 1440 EFPD with GERMINAL
fuel performance code takes about 20 min on a personal scientific
computer (with standard parameters for meshing and time steps, not
parallelized on Intel Xeon® CPU E5-2667 v4 3.20 GHz) and the current
version of the code does not allow simple coupling with other codes.
In Blanc et al. (2017) the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 issues in fuel melting modeling are
overcome by estimating directly fuel melting margin with a neural
network based on GERMINAL simulations. However, in MORPHEE and
in many other codes dedicated to core calculations such as CATHARE,
the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 is required to perform physics simulation and assess fuel
temperature. This is why the approach taken in this paper is to provide
a model for ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 that should not be computationally expansive and
representative of physical phenomena. One way to achieve this is to use
statistical learning models trained on reliable data, from experimental
measurements or in our case from GERMINAL-V2 fuel performance
code.
1.3. GERMINAL-V2
GERMINAL-V2 (Lainet et al., 2019) is the CEA reference fuel per-
formance code qualified for SFR studies. The code has been developed
within the PLEIADES platform (Michel et al., 2021). It is used to
determine the state of a fuel pin in normal or transient conditions
given geometry, composition and power history of the pin. The fuel pin
is represented in GV-2 with a 1.5D axisymmetric geometry, including
central hole, fuel pellet, fuel/clad gap, cladding and sodium. The finite
element resolution of heat equation together with fuel behavior models
• Geometry of the fuel pin, materials and isotopic composition at
initial state of the fuel. It has been chosen to focus on physical
phenomena rather than design of the fuel, though geometry and
materials are considered to be constants of the problem. We have
chosen to work on ASTRID-V3 type pins, with homogeneous fuel
column. The simplified design of a core external’s pin is illustrated
on Fig. 3, it is composed of a continuous column of fissile fuel
pellets of mixed oxide fuel (𝑈 , 𝑃 𝑢)𝑂2 on top of a fertile blanket.
For more details about ASTRID core, assemblies and pins design
the reader can refer to Venard et al. (2015) and Beck et al. (2017).
• Mesh description in space and time. Radial mesh number is
fixed and the same for every simulation and time step are deter-
mined depending on power evolution as recommended by GV2
specifications (not published internal specifications).
• Mass flow rate 𝑄 of sodium is fixed by design to ensure an
increase of temperature of 150 K of the coolant in the assembly
during operating conditions. It is given by Eq. (2) with 𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦
the total power of assembly.
𝑃𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦
𝑄= (2)
𝐶𝑝 𝛥𝑧 𝑇
• Inlet Sodium temperature is kept constant at the nominal temper-
ature of 668 K. In reality this temperature can fluctuate especially
during transients, however the CRW is a slow transient leading
to a limited power increase. Then we can reasonably assume
that primary heat exchangers are able to extract the excess of
power from the core, maintaining the inlet temperature near to
the nominal value.
• Cladding damages (𝐷𝑑𝑝𝑎 ) are assumed to be proportional to ir-
radiation time only and we suppose that 100 dpa are obtained
for 1440 EFPD (Equivalent Full Power Day). Then dpa is ap-
proximated as increasing linearly over time during the irradiation
and thus it is calculated via (3) with time in seconds and with
𝜏 = 124416000 s (1440 days). This model is very simplified
as damages depends on neutron fluence. However, 100 DPA at
1440 EFPD is an approximation of maximal dpa for cladding
admitted in ASTRID design (between 100 and 110 dpa depending
on calculation methods). Then Eq. (3) estimates damages for the
area with highest fluence in the core. Using this equation for any
pin lead to an overestimation of cladding damages. This model
could be improved in further studies.
𝑇 𝑖𝑚𝑒
𝐷𝑑𝑝𝑎 = 100 (3)
𝜏
• The last parameter of importance here is time dependent power
profile, or power history. It comes as a succession of power pro-
files associated with their occurring time. GV2 performs a linear
interpolation between these ‘‘power step’’ to evaluate power at
each calculation time step. In order to simplify the problem and
to limit the number of variables, this entry of GV2 is considered
to be determined as follow:

3
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 2. Analytic solution of thermal equation in a fuel pin.

Table 1
Tables of parameters given in Germinal-V2 data-set generation versus parameters used in meta-modeling. Equations are given for conversion
between GV-2 data-sets and meta-model data-sets.

Germinal-V2

Symbol Description

𝑃𝐴𝑣𝑔 ∈ [250, 500][W∕cm] Average heat rate on fissile area

𝐹 𝑒𝑟𝑡
𝑃𝐴𝑣𝑔 ∈ [4, 40][W∕cm] Average heat rate for fertile area
𝛿𝑃𝑀𝑎𝑥 ∈ [10, 100][W∕cm] Difference between maximal heat rate and
averaged heat rate
𝑍𝑚𝑎𝑥 ∈ [0.4, 0.6][1] Axial position of maximal heat rate (normalized)
𝑄 [kg∕s m3 ] Mass flow rate
𝑖𝑛
𝑇𝑁𝑎 = 668.0 [𝐾] Inlet Sodium temperature
𝑡𝐶𝑅𝑊 [𝑠] irradiation time before CRW
%
𝛥𝑃𝐶𝑅𝑊 ∈ [10, 50]% increase of power during CRW
𝜏𝐶𝑅𝑊 = 80𝑠 CRW duration

Statistical model

Symbol Equation Description

0
𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑛 (𝑧) [W∕cm] 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑛 (𝑧) = 𝑎.𝑧2 + 𝑏.𝑧 + 𝑐 Heat rate in nominal state (irradiation process) (𝑎, 𝑏, 𝑐)
determined by 𝑃𝐴𝑣𝑔 , 𝛿𝑃𝑀𝑎𝑥 and 𝑍𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑧+𝛿𝑧 𝑃 (𝑧′ ) 10−6
𝐵𝑈 [GWd∕thM] 𝐵𝑈 (𝑧, 𝑡) = ∫𝑡 ∫𝑧 𝑚
𝑑𝑧′ .𝑑𝑡′ × 24×3600 Local Burnup (GWd∕thM)
𝑖𝑛 𝑧 1
𝑇𝑁𝑎 (𝑧, 𝑡)[𝐾] 𝑇𝑁𝑎 (𝑧, 𝑡) = 𝑇𝑁𝑎 + ∫0 𝑄.𝐶𝑝 ∫ 𝜙𝑑𝑆.𝑑𝑧 Local sodium temperature provided by GV-2 for learning
𝑁𝑎 𝑆
and test sets
𝑃𝐴𝑣𝑔 [W∕cm] Provided by data-set Average heat rate on fissile area
%
𝛿𝑃𝐶𝑅𝑊
𝑠[%∕𝑠] 𝑠= 𝜏𝐶𝑅𝑊
Slope of the power increase during CRW
0
𝛥𝑃 (𝑧, 𝑡) [W∕m] 𝛥𝑃 (𝑧, 𝑡) = 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑛 (𝑧, 𝑡) − 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑛 (𝑧) Increase of heat rate due to CRW at time t

– Nuclear power is considered constant on radial axis in the
fuel pin, this hypothesis is acceptable given that in SFR the
neutron flux is relatively unaffected by spatial effects of
neutron self-shielding in the pin. Then flux and power are
considered homogeneous radially in the pellet.
– Power axial profiles is represented by a 2nd order polynom
which is determined by three variables (𝑃𝐴𝑣𝑔 , 𝛿𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑍𝑚𝑎𝑥 )
respectively the averaged linear power, the difference be-
tween maximal and averaged linear power and the axial
position of maximum in proportion of total height of fissile
zone as illustrated on Fig. 3.
– Power in fertile fuel zone is considered to be uniform axially
and radially and a single axial mesh is considered in this
area.
– In our case of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 study, we consider that the power in-
crease during CRW transient is uniform in the pin i.e. the
percentage of increase is the same in each axial mesh. This
hypothesis does not represent reality, however we consider
it is valid because in GV2 axial cells of the mesh are inde-
pendent (axial heat exchange is neglected). Then the only
effect of deformation of axial profile is through pin pressure
which is more affected by average power increase than
by the power profile deformation. This hypothesis is made
based on the analysis of numerical simulations performed
with GV-2 that do not demonstrate significant influence of
power shape over ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . The principle of the analysis was
to perform CRW over one external core pin from ASTRID,
comparing ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 at the end of transient between a case
with a deformation of the linear power profile and a case
where the linear power profile is homothetic. Power profiles
are provided on Fig. 4. For power deformation case, local
power increase is provided by neutronic calculations for
the assembly with the highest shape deformation. Total
power increase is of 18.9%, identical in both cases. The
mesh identified with a green square undergoes an identical

4
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

the models, and it also helps understanding their performances and

discrepancies depending on physics.

2. Nominal operations

We present here a model for estimation of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 in nominal operation

based on statistical learning model.

2.1. Physical concerns for ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 evolution under irradiation

In nominal operations of the reactor, the gap conductivity evolves

in function of multiple phenomena taking place in the gap. The Fig. 5
illustrates this evolution for a simplified case when power is kept
constant during irradiation, for various levels of power from 250 W/cm
up to 500 W/cm, we can also link it with the gap width on Fig. 6. These
results are obtained with the GERMINAL-V2 (Lainet et al., 2019) code.
We can split ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 evolution into 5 main phases:
Fig. 3. Fuel pin geometry and building of a power profile.
• Phase 1 : Gap Closure at beginning of life
First ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 increases quickly due to the partial closure of the gap.
This phenomenon is partly due to radial pellet thermal expansion
as the power is increased from zero to nominal level. At the same
time the fuel structure is also changing, phenomena of columnar
grains and atomic diffusion lead to migration of atoms from the
center to the middle radius of the pellet, and fuel fragments move
towards the cladding, closing the gap. It participates in increasing
heat transfer via the gap. This step is observed before the burnup
reaches 5 GWd/tM. Fuel-to-cladding gap closure and fuel restruc-
turing has been described in Temmar (2019) and Barani et al.
(2022).
• Phase 2 : Gas pollution
Phase two starts when ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 begins to decrease. It is due to the
change of the composition of fuel pin filling gas in the gap by
the release of gas Fission Products (FPs). These are produced by
fission reaction inside fuel pellets and are partly released in the
free spaces in the gap or central hole by phenomena of diffusion
or through cracks of the ceramic. In GERMINAL, even if the gap is
Fig. 4. Pin power in nominal state (black) and at the end of a CRW with and without closed, the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 model considers a residual gap equal to rugosity
power deformation (resp. red and yellow). (For interpretation of the references to color of the surface (≈ 5 μm). This residual gap is considered as a thin
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) gas layer. The gaseous term of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 can be expressed by Eq. (4).
𝜆𝑔𝑎𝑠
ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑠 = (4)
power increase in both cases, then, ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 are compared at 𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑝
this specific point. Four irradiation times were tested (50, with 𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑝 the thickness of the gap and 𝜆𝑔𝑎𝑠 the conductivity of gas
700, 1000, 1400 EFPD). On each test, the error made over mixture. When composition of the gas is approaching composition
ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 with neglecting power shape deformation is lower than of fission products and 𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑝 reaches its limit value (≈ 5 μm
1%. residual gap in GERMINAL) we can expect a ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 tending to an
– Power history consists in a linear increase to reach nominal asymptotic value. This behavior is observed until burnup reaches
power in 12 h, then the power remain constant until a CRW 65 GWd/thM.
occur. This last assumption could have a high impact on ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 • Phase 3 : Gap Closure delayed
and should be regarded as a limitation of the present model. In some cases, typically for heat rates below 400 W/cm two peaks
It could especially be significant if the reactor is doing load- are observed for the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . First peak is due to gap decrease due
following but also for full power conditions (cycling of the to fuel and clad thermal expansion during initial power increase.
core, power variation in pins during cycle, rod movements). The second one is due to the competition between gap closure
However this has been neglected here, the method used and pollution of the gap because the power is not high enough to
in this paper could be applied for non-constant power his- quickly close the gap.
tory, possibly by using adapted normalization of the power • Phase 4 : JOG formation
history, this will be discussed in the perspectives of this Around 65 GWd/t a peak appears. It is due to the formation of a
paper. metallic composite of fission products, mainly Molybdenum (Mo)
and Caesium (Ce), that fills cracks of the fuel and also rugosity
Given these parameters one could launch GERMINAL-V2 simula- between fuel and clad called the JOG (‘‘Joint Oxyde-Gaine’’). As
tions and obtain predictions for ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . This base has been used to build a this product has a high thermal conductivity, the heat transfer
database of results to train machine learning (ML) models as presented of the gap suddenly increases when it is filled. This threshold in
in the following sections. We chose to separate the problem into two the JOG production is coherent with experimental observations,
distinct models, one for nominal conditions and one for transient over which never shows JOG for BU lower than 65 GWd/thM (Inoue
power conditions. This split allows us to use different parameters for et al., 2004).

5
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 5. General evolution of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 obtained with GV2 for different power and burnups.

Fig. 6. General evolution of gap width obtained with GV2 for different power and burnups.

• Phase 5 : JOG growth
Finally at the end of irradiation, conduction through gap is de-
creasing quickly due to the increase of the JOG thickness (Eq. (4)).
This phenomenology especially highlights the importance of burnup
as a parameter of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . Power level also plays an important role,
one can see on Fig. 5 difference of evolution of pins depending on
their linear power (the test has been made using a uniform power
on axial direction, then effects of total pin power and local pellet
power are not separable). For lower power, the higher the power is,
the higher the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 at the first peak. Indeed, the more power there
is, the higher the temperature in the fuel, then effects of expansion
and fuel restructuring are enhanced. Over a threshold of approximately
450 W∕cm, a higher power leads to a lower ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . It is explained by
gas production that increases with power (more precisely with fission
rate) and that competes with the closure of the gap. Note that this
phenomenology will be affected by power history, especially due to gas
inventory in the pellet.
2.2. Proposed model for nominal evolution of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝
In this section we present a model trained for fuel under nominal
conditions.
In particular, the process of selection and training of a model will
be detailed for the stationary case. These steps are performed using
Orange data mining library from Python 3 (Demšar et al., 2013). First

6
M. Jeannin et al.
a database is built using URANIE (Blanchard et al., 2019) and a Design
Of Experiment (DOE) is generated via the use of a quasi-random Sobol
sequence. This type of DOE generation has a good space-filling property
on input parameters with minimizing the number of ‘‘experiments’’ in
the DOE compared to a regular grid. Fuel pin calculations are generated
via following parameters described in Section 1.4 and summarized in
Table 1:
• Irradiation time uniformly.1 distributed in [11,440] EFPD. Note
that this parameter is not part of the DOE generation as we
simply use GV-2 time discretization as a ‘‘sampling’’ of irradiation
time. The time step is set over GV-2 minimum recommended to
maximize convergence.
• Power profile determined using (𝑃𝐴𝑣𝑔 , 𝛿𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑍𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) random vari-
ables following a uniform1 distribution law respectively in inter-
vals [250,500] W/cm, [10,100] W/cm, [0.4,0.6].
• Power in fertile area is constant, uniform1 and randomly set 2 in
[4,40] W/cm.
Uncertainties over other input parameters are considered to be neg-
ligible and are not taken into account in the generation of the DOE.
These parameters are not considered as random. Gathering simulation
results we can build the training and testing sets. Each entry of these
sets consist of a GV-2 result for one cell in the mesh at one calculation
time taken in one of the simulation performed. In other words, for each
GV2 calculation that computes 𝑁𝑡 time step and 𝑁𝑚 meshes we obtain
𝑁 = 𝑁𝑡 .𝑁𝑚 ≈ 1, 300, 000 (𝑁𝑚 = 20 cell in mesh and 𝑁𝑡 depends on the
irradiation time) entries for the database for each GV-2 simulation. The
whole group of entries are split between the training set (70% of data)
and the testing set (the left 30% of data) by a random process to form
two representatives sets in terms of statistical analysis. Regarding GV-2
input parameters, physics concerns and sensitivity of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 , following
parameters are kept as entries of the model:
• Local heat rate
• Averaged linear power of the entire fuel pin
• Burnup
• Temperature of sodium at axial level considered (𝑇𝑁𝑎 )
Burnup is not explicitly an entry parameter of GV2 however it is
directly obtained by (5) where 𝑃 (𝑧) is the heat rate, t is irradiation time
and m the mass of heavy metal. In the same way sodium temperature is
not an input of GV-2 however ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 depends on temperature and sodium
temperature is usually available in codes that will use the meta-model
(eventually iteration between the code and the meta-model should be
necessary). Both GV2 data-sets parameters and Meta-model parameters
are summarized in Table 1.
𝑃 (𝑧) 10−6
𝐵𝑈 = 𝑑𝑧.𝑑𝑡 × (𝐺𝑊 𝑑∕𝑡ℎ𝑀) (5)
∫𝑡 ∫𝑧 𝑚 24 × 3600
The low number of parameters allows to chose various types of
models. Linear regression, kNN, Neuron Network, Random Forest (RF)
and Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost) have been tested here in order to
select the most accurate and fast surrogate model. For more details
about these models the reader can refer to Friedman et al. (2008).
Considering the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 behavior during irradiation time we can expect
the linear regression model to provide poorly accurate results however
it has been tested for comparison. The selection of a model is made on
two steps, the whole process is made using two separated subsets of
1 First the ones that cannot be learned automatically and have to be set by the
A uniform distribution of parameters is taken not to make any assumption
on the area of interest (i.e. we do not presuppose over which subspace of input
parameter the metamodel should focus on).
2
This power should be correlated with irradiation time as fertile power
increases due to 239 Pu generation. Even if the impact of fertile layer over
ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 of fissile part is negligible in a first approximation, this could be further
quantified.
7
Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027
the initial data set, one for training and one for testing. First we made
an optimization of hyper-parameters3 of each category of models, then
one model per category is trained. The second step is to compare the
optimized models in terms of performance, speed and then to select
the best compromise. Ranking parameters for models are usual criteria
in machine learning (ML), we mainly use RMSE (Root-Mean-Square-
Error), coefficient of determination 𝑄2 (respectively defined by general
Eqs. (6) and (7)) and also time efficiency of the model (expressed in
terms of testing time of the model, measured on identical test sets).
RMSE evaluates the mean error of the model given in the unit of the
target parameter, regarding the best model is the one that has the RMSE
closest to 0. 𝑄2 was used to determine whether the model provides
matching results with GV-2, the more 𝑄2 is close to 1 the more a model
is a good predictor.
√
√
√1 ∑ 𝑁
𝑅𝑀𝑆𝐸 = √ (𝑦̂𝑖 − 𝑦𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 )2 (6)
𝑁 𝑖=1 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡
∑𝑁 𝑖 𝑖 2
𝑖=1 (𝑦𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 − 𝑦̂𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 )
𝑄2 = 1 − ∑𝑁 (7)
𝑖 2
𝑖=1 (𝑦𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 − 𝑦̄𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 )
In these equations:
• 𝑦 is the target variable, 𝑦̄ is the mean value of 𝑦
• 𝑦̂𝑖 is an estimated value of this variable, in this study it means a
result of ML model
• 𝑁 is the number of elements in the test data set
• 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 identify a variable related to the test data set on which 𝑄2 or
RMSE is estimated
• 𝑖 identify an element of the data set.
Performances of each type of model are displayed on Table 2. Re-
garding these criteria, nor linear regression neither kNN seem adapted
to our problem. Neural Network provides satisfying results but it is
a bit slower and less efficient than Random Forests and Adaptive
Boosting. Concerning Random Forest and AdaBoost both give similar
results, we prefer Random Forest (RF) as it is slightly faster and also
because AdaBoost is a more complex model (in terms of resources
used for training, number of hyper-parameters to optimize but also,
in terms of training method it leads to potential overfitting while RF
is more resilient from this point of view). Models predictions versus
GV-2 ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 are plotted on Fig. 7 and confirms these conclusions as RF
results shows less dispersion and less bias. A brief remind of RF building
can help explaining such results. RF models are based on aggregation
of simpler models, the regression trees. A regression tree is basically
modeling data by partitioning feature space recursively into rectangles
and modeling the response as a constant in the rectangle. Building of
the tree is made via optimization processes that allow to select a pair
(feature, value) at each recursive step. The structure of output constant
on rectangles is also a problem on modeling regular data however it
is especially adapted to modeling threshold effects which is interesting
in the case of estimating ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 during JOG formation. Also, tree models
are unstable which means that they are sensitive to sample fluctuations,
this is due to the hierarchical structure of the splitting. A RF model is
built to overcome these drawbacks, the principle is to build 𝑁𝑇 𝑟𝑒𝑒 de-
correlated unbiased but noisy trees and average their responses. This
reduces variance compared to tree alone and also smooths the output.
Full characteristics of the model are given in Table 3 and the reader
can refer to Friedman et al. (2008) for more details about RF.
3
For most statistical learning models, we identify two kinds of parameters.
user. Typically the order of a polynomial for a polynomial regression model,
the number and architecture of a neural networks, the number and depth of
trees in a random forest etc. These parameters are called ‘‘hyper-parameters’’.
The second type of parameters are the one learned by model itself during the
training process. Typically, coefficients of the polynomial for a polynomial
regression.
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 7. Predictions VS GV-2 results for tested models. 𝑦-axis and 𝑥-axis are values of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 given in W∕cm2 ∕K. Colorscale indicates Burnup in GWd/thM.

Table 2
Results of different models. Total test time is measured on the whole test set 386.103 test cases, Time per
call gives the approximate time for one value estimated by the model.
Model RMSE 𝑄2 Total test time (s) Time per call (s)
Random Forest 0.072 0.988 2.8 7.10−6
kNN 0.152 0.945 14.3 4.10−5
Linear regression 0.6 0.1 0.05 1.10−7
Neural Network 0.13 0.957 7.2 2.10−5
AdaBoost 0.083 0.984 4.2 1.10−5

Table 3 2.3. Analyses and discussion of results

Parameters of Random Forest model.
Parameter
2.3.1. Specifications on statistical analysis and graphics
Number of trees 16
In this section we will discuss results of the Random Forest model
Number of attribute considered at each split 2
Min split size 6 previously selected, optimized and trained. For this we introduce the
Pruning of trees No error on estimated value for any sample 𝑖 given by Eq. (8) in percent.
We especially study usual statistical indicators of the error over the
test set such as mean, median and quantiles. Especially quantile 𝑄𝑝

8
M. Jeannin et al.
Fig. 8. Results of RF-nominal model on test set. (See 2.3.1 for general reading method for box-plot figures).
Table 4
Table of statistical parameters on error of the RF-nominal model in % - JF stands for
JOG formation set, this set is composed of pellets with 𝐵𝑈 ∈ [65, 70] GWd∕tm while
𝐽 𝐹 is the rest of the full test set.
Case Mean Median 𝑄75
Full test set 1 0.4 1 950
𝐽 𝐹 set 5.8 1.8 4.9
𝐽 𝐹 set 0.82 0.38 0.9
indicates maximal value of error for which 𝑝% of the data-set value
are below. Note that median is defined as the 𝑄50 we prefer its use
than the mean because it is less sensitive to outliers. In the following
sections we use box-plots like in Fig. 8(a) to display the median (orange
line in the box), 𝑄25 and 𝑄75 respectively the lower and upper limits of
box, 𝑄5 and 𝑄95 respectively the lower and upper whiskers. Each box
represents a sub-set of the test-set, e.g. on Fig. 8(a) each box represent
data split in intervals of burnup. Maximal values are not represented
on the box-plots for better clarity.
| 𝑦̂ | given cell of the data set, if the RF-nominal predict a ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 with JOG
∀𝑖, 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟(𝑖) = || 𝑖 − 1|| ∗ 100
| 𝑦𝑖 |
2.3.2. Evaluation of model efficiency
The test set of data is now used to evaluate more precisely per-
formances of the chosen model, which will be called ‘‘RF-nominal’’ in
the following. Fig. 7(a) shows results in function of expectations, it is
clearly visible that points are centered on the 𝑦̂ = 𝑥 line which highlight
the good agreement of RF-nominal with GV-2. To analyze these results
more in detail, statistics on error made by RF-nominal are given in
Table 4 and displayed on Fig. 8. Considering global indicators on the
whole test-set, the errors seem to reach very high values, about few
times the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 expected, however mean error is about 1% while median
error is about 0.4% and 𝑄75 is below 1% error. This means that in 75%
of the time the model makes less than 1% error, then high values of
errors are exceptions in the statistics.
Now results can be analyzed in terms of state of the fuel regarding
key physical steps defined in 2.1. For this purpose Fig. 8(a) shows error
function of burnup. Comparing burnup values to Fig. 5 we can first
remark that error is low at the beginning of irradiation, during the first
peak of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 while gap closing occurs, is typically data represented by
the two left boxes. Then error, is regularly decreasing until BU reaches
65 GWd/tM, in this range of BU the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 is decreasing slowly then the
RF-nominal model easily fit data. For the whole beginning of irradiation
𝑄95 never reaches 2% of error then the RF-nominal model is very
predictive. At a BU of 65 GWd/tM the JOG forms and the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 increases
almost instantly. Despite the properties of RF for representing irregular
Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027
data we see error overcoming 9%. This area corresponds to dispersed
points on Fig. 7(a). This plot has been split into two groups of samples
on Fig. 9 with, on the left 9(a) samples with BU between 65 and 70
Max
GWd/tM (appearing of JOG) and on the right 9(b) the rest of the test
set.
950
Together with numeric indicators these graphs confirms that out-
43 liers produced by the RF-nominal are mostly restricted to the JOG
formation step. This is expected as the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 can varies of more than
a factor two in a very short time, then despite good properties of
RF, the large dispersion of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 values for a very restricted range of
input parameter values harden the process of learning. The result is an
ensemble of values (mostly in blue on Fig. 9(a)) grouped in two main
vertical ‘‘peaks’’, or groups of points, out of the main diagonal. It is
hard to demonstrate exactly the nature of the error, we can assume
that it comes mainly from a bad estimation of the exact moment of
JOG formation or from a bad estimation of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 maximal value due to
this JOG. However seeing ‘‘peaked’’ shape of groups of data diverging
from main diagonal, it is probable that this huge error comes from a
bad estimation of the exact moment of JOG formation. Indeed, at a
(8) and GV-2 does not, then we would observe a deviation of RF values
from what GV-2 predict, this would produce a peak above the main
diagonal on Fig. 9(a) for values of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from GV-2 (x-axis) around 0.7
W∕cm2 ∕K (value of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 before JOG formation, see Fig. 5). We observe
a single ‘‘peak’’ out of the diagonal because the value of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 before JOG
formation tends to the same value for any cell in any GV-2 calculation
in the data set. In the same way, if RF-nominal predict a ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 without
JOG while GV-2 predict a JOG, we expect vertical peaks below the
main diagonal for high values of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from GV-2 (x-axis). There is no
single peak here because the 𝑥-axis value corresponds, in this case, to
the maximal value of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 estimated by GV-2 at JOG formation and
this value depends on input parameters. In case the error could be
interpreted as a bad prediction over the value of the maximal ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 at
JOG formation, we would probably expect the outlier points to be more
uniformly spread around the main diagonal. In any case, this high level
of discrepancy occur for a very short duration in the fuel cycle then it
is not a major issue for using RF-nominal to estimate ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 in a model
such as MORPHEE.
In order to provide an idea of the number of samples necessary to
build a RF model for an fuel pin using the previously described method,
several models have been trained on different training sets. Basically
these training sets are subsets of the whole training set previously used.
They are obtained by random sampling over the initial training set.
Each new model is then evaluated on its predicting ability on the whole
test set. Characteristics and results are given on Fig. 10. For the rest of
this study and for the use in MORPHEE, we chose the most accurate
9
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 9. Results of RF-nominal separately for fuel cladding join forming area and the rest of the data-set. 𝑦-axis and 𝑥-axis are values of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 given in W∕cm2 ∕K.

Table 5
Main results for k-fold validation of nominal models. 10 fold were used. (1) probabilities
given for each models represent the probability that its score 𝑆 > 𝑆𝑅𝐹 , S being RMSE
or 𝑄2 depending on the column.
RMSE 𝑄2
RF scores 0.078 0.986
Score/Probabilities(1)
Linear regression 0.61/1.0 0.138/0.0
kNN 0.16/1.0 0.942/0.0
Neural Network 0.14/1.0 0.954/0.0
Adaptive Boosting 0.084/0.96 0.984/0.036

temperature obtained with ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from GERMINAL-V2. We solve station-

ary heat equation in cylindrical coordinates over a fuel pin (9), for
which the solution is (10), with boundary conditions defined as (11),
geometry is represented on Fig. 1.
( ) 𝑃
Fig. 10. Sensitivity of RF model for nominal ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 evaluation function of the volume 1 𝜕 𝜕𝑇
of training set. (Error is still estimated on independent test set. See 2.3.1 for general
∀𝑖 ∈ [1, 𝑁𝑇 𝑒𝑠𝑡 ], −𝜆𝑟 = 𝑖 (9)
𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝑆
reading method for box-plot figures).
{
𝑃 𝑟2
in fuel 𝑇𝑓 (𝑟) = − 4𝑆𝑖 𝜆 + 𝐴𝑖 .𝑙𝑛(𝑟) + 𝐵𝑖
∀𝑖 ∈ [1, 𝑁𝑇 𝑒𝑠𝑡 ], 𝑓 𝑓 (10)
in cladding 𝑇𝑐 (𝑟) = 𝐶𝑖 .𝑙𝑛(𝑟) + 𝐷𝑖
model represented on the graph with 900,000 training samples, which
with 𝐴𝑖 , 𝐵𝑖 , 𝐶𝑖 and 𝐷𝑖 constants given by the following boundary con-
corresponds to RF-nominal.
ditions:
Results have been presented for a validation method with a simple
𝜕𝑇
split of database between training and test sets. It shows performances ⎧ at 𝑟 = 𝑅𝑖𝑛 , =0
⎪
𝑓 𝜕𝑟 ( )
of one particular RF model, the one that has been kept for further at 𝑟 = 𝑅𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝜕𝑇
= ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝,𝑖 𝑇𝑐 (𝑅𝑖𝑛 𝑜𝑢𝑡
⎪ , 𝜆𝑓 𝑐 ) − 𝑇𝑓 (𝑅𝑓 )
studies with MORPHEE. However a k-fold cross validation has also been ⎨
𝑓 𝜕𝑟 ( ) (11)
𝜕𝑇 𝑜𝑢𝑡
performed to compare averaged performances of RF with other types of ⎪ at 𝑟 = 𝑅𝑐 , 𝜆𝑐 𝜕𝑟 = −ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝,𝑖 𝑇𝑐 (𝑅𝑓 ) − 𝑇𝑐 (𝑅𝑖𝑛
𝑖𝑛
𝑐 )
⎪ 𝜕𝑇 ( )
models. It confirms that random forests are a good choice in our case as ⎩ at 𝑟 = 𝑅𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑐 , 𝜆𝑐 𝜕𝑟 = −ℎ𝑁𝑎 𝑇𝑁𝑎,𝑖 − 𝑇𝑐 (𝑅𝑐 )
𝑜𝑢𝑡

it shows the best scores for each criteria i.e. its RMSE is lower and its
𝑄2 closer to one than for other models. Orange also provides results
in term of probability according to the method described in Corani
and Benavoli (2015). In terms of 𝑄2 and in RMSE, RF proved better
performances in any cases compared to kNN, Neural Network or Linear
regression. RF also performs better than Adaptive Boosting 96% of
time, however, its scores are not significantly different from RF. Results
are resumed in Table 5.
These boundary conditions depends on ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 values, the system is com-
puted for all 𝑖, once with ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from RF-Nominal and once with ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from
GERMINAL-V2. Materials properties, 𝜆 and ℎ𝑁𝑎 , are fixed independent
of temperature. Radii (𝑅) and sections (𝑆) are set to the design values.
𝑃𝑖 and 𝑇𝑁𝑎,𝑖 are given by the data set used for the test.
Figs. 11(a) and 11(b) show statistics over the deviation in terms
of inner fuel temperature between the two cases.4 RF-nominal model
causes a deviation included between −6.56 K and 5.48 K in 98% of

2.3.3. Results in term of inner fuel temperature

Still using the test data, we performed an evaluation of inner fuel 4
Note that temperatures are not provided by GERMINAL-V2. In both cases,
temperature associated to ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 obtained with RF-Nominal compared to temperatures are calculated using ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 , coming from RF-Nominal or from GV-2.

10
M. Jeannin et al.
Fig. 11. Temperature deviation obtained with stationary heat equation with ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from RF-Nominal compared to temperature with ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from GV-2.
test cases (it corresponds respectively to −0.35% and +0.29% deviation
on inner fuel temperature). Extreme deviations are rare, they reaches
−147 K and +148 K, respectively −8.0% and +8.3% of inner fuel
temperature. As expected, Fig. 11(b) shows that biggest error are
observed at JOG formation.
As conclusion, the model of random forest trained on ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 data
from GV-2 provide results in good agreement with this reference code.
Despite an increase of the error of prediction during JOG formation
we consider that the precision is good enough to include the model in
MORPHEE. It will also be tested on another case in Section 4.
3. Transient of CRW
3.1. Physical concerns
During an unprotected Control Rod Withdrawal (CRW) the fuel
undergoes a power increase around +20% for an ASTRID core, possibly
with peaks around +50%. The temperature of the fuel is affected espe-
cially for pellets located near the withdrawn rod as an more important
increase of power occurs in these area. Generally, we observe a gap
conductivity increase during transient. This is due to fuel temperature
increase that causes a pellet expansion reducing the gap thickness. If
the gap is closed ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 can still increase due to conductivity raise in
residual gas at the interface (𝜆 increases with temperature, in GV-2 𝜆
is of the form 𝜆𝑔𝑎𝑠 = 𝜆0 .𝑇 𝑘 with 𝑘 > 0. For He, measures can be found
in Blais and Mann (1960) or due to thermal conductivity increase of
solids at the interface and due to radiative transfer enhancement. These
effect are illustrated on Fig. 12 for a fuel irradiated at 100 EFPD, it
corresponds to a burnup between 4 and 8 GWd/tM depending on local
power, at this moment the gap is not yet closed and there is no JOG
(see Figs. 5 and 6). The thinning of the gap during transient and the
increase of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 are clearly visible especially for high heat rates. For the
highest heat rate (above 400 W∕cm2 ) the increase of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 is important
enough to cause a decrease of the surface temperature of the fuel at
the end of the transient (after around 40 s on Fig. 12(b)). Fig. 12(a)
also demonstrate the high correlation between ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 evolution during
transient and initial power of the cell, the more power there is, the
more ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 increase during transient.
3.2. Machine learning model
A specific model has been trained for transient situations. As we
already selected a model for stationary state, we are now interested in
the variation of the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 during the power transient. The prediction has
to be used in transient calculation so 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 must depend on time, then
11
Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027
it is defined by Eq. (12) where 𝑡0 indicates initial state before transient
and t the time since the beginning of CRW.
𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 (𝑡) = ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 (𝑡) − ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 (𝑡0 ) (12)
The process of selection and training of a model is the same as
detailed in Section 2.2. First the database is built using a DOE obtained
with URANIE (Blanchard et al., 2019) with following parameters:
• Irradiation time before CRW uniformly1 distributed in [1,1440]
EFPD.
• Power profile at nominal state parabolic (determined using (𝑃𝐴𝑣𝑔 ,
𝛿𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) random variables following a uniform1 distribution law
respectively in intervals [250,500] W/cm, [10,100] W/cm)
• Power in fertile area at nominal state set uniformly1 in [4,40]
W/cm.
• Power increase during CRW (𝛥𝑃% ) uniformly1 distributed in
[10,50] %. The power is increased of the same factor axially in
the whole pin as power profile distortion was not identified as a
first order parameter in ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 variation. Power increase is linear
with time.
• CRW length is set to 𝜏𝑐𝑟𝑤 = 80 𝑠 for all simulations. Time step is
set to 1 s during transient.
Calculations are performed using GV-2 and results are gathered
to build a database. Only transient part of GV-2 output is included.
Each time step of the transient calculated by GERMINAL-V2 is seen
as a new point for the data-set, the total size of transient data-set
is approximately 438.000 points. After pre-processing data, following
inputs are selected for machine learning:
• Local power increase 𝛥𝑃 (𝑡) = 𝑃 (𝑡) − 𝑃0 at any time t of transient
𝛥𝑃
• Speed of power increase 𝜏 % (the slope of linear increase of
𝑐𝑟𝑤
power)
• Burnup at transient time
• Averaged linear power of the fuel pin
• Initial local linear power
• Sodium temperature
In some cases from this data set, the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 slightly decreases during
the CRW. Most of these cases are occurring at burnups around 76
GWd/t (see Fig. 13(b)) which corresponds to the moment in fuel cycle
when ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 is decreasing after the JOG has formed. Then we can assume
that the decrease in ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 is the result of balance between the effects of
gas FPs release to the gap and heat transfer increase due to temperature
increase. However these cases are rare, they represent around 3% of
data, and complex to characterize. Moreover, some of these data could
come from instability of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 in calculation models.
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 12. Results of GV-2 for different axial cells of an ASTRID pin under slow power transient conditions after an irradiation of 100 EFPD. Transient begins at 0 of 𝑥-axis and
local power is multiplied by 1.2 over 50 s. Heat rate in legend is given at initial state.

Fig. 13. 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 (defined by Eq. (12)) characteristics for CRW transient extracted from GV2 transient calculations (see 3.2 for details about simulations).

12
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 14. Predictions VS GV-2 results for tested models for 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 estimation during CRW. Color-scale indicates burnup in GWd/thM. 𝑦-axis and 𝑥-axis are values of 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 given in
W∕cm2 ∕K.

Table 6 Table 7
Results of different models for transient application. Total test time is measured on the Main results for k-fold validation of transient models. 10 fold were used. (1) probabil-
whole test set 175.103 test cases, Time per call gives the approximate time for one ities given for each models represent the probability that its score 𝑆 > 𝑆𝑅𝐹 , S being
value estimated by the model. RMSE or 𝑄2 depending on the column.
Model RMSE 𝑄2 Test time (s) Time per call RMSE 𝑄2
Random Forest 0.032 0.990 0.86 5.10−6 RF results 0.025 0.994
Adaptive boosting 0.033 0.989 1.1 6.10−6
Score/Probabilities(1)
kNN 0.030 0.991 1.7 1.10−5
Linear regression 0.31 0.06 0.03 2.10−7 Linear regression 0.30/1.0 0.07/0.0
Neural Network 0.21 0.6 1.0 6.10−6 kNN 0.020/1.0 0.996/1.0
Neural Network 0.174/1.0 0.683/0.0
Adaptive Boosting 0.025/0.47 0.994/0.550

Selection and training process results are given in Table 6 and pre-
dictions versus expectations for relevant models are given on Fig. 14. Adaptive boosting obtain similar results (except for response time). In
Once again RF seems to be a good choice as it has a low RMSE, a 𝑄2 of the case of predicting 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 , the value to estimate has smoother vari-
0.99 and a response time lower than other models. However, kNN and ations with respects to input parameters than in the case of predicting

13
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 15. Results of RF-transient model for 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 modeling during CRW transient. (See 2.3.1 for general reading method for box-plot figures).

ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 in nominal state. Then models based on data interpolations, such

as kNN, are not penalized. We chose to keep RF model as differences
are not significant and computing speed is a bit better.

3.3. Analyses and discussions

3.3.1. Evaluation of model efficiency

Performances of RF on test set are detailed on Fig. 15 and its hyper-
parameters are similar to Table 3. It is called ‘‘RF-transient’’ in the
following of this article. The model is tested over points at any moment
of the CRW (𝑡 ∈ [0, 80] s) This is why we observe a great number of low
values of 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . To have an idea of 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 values obtained at the end of
a full CRW, one can see Fig. 13(a) where distribution of 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 (t = 80 s)
are displayed. Fig. 14(a) shows a good agreement between the Random
Forest surrogate model and GV-2 results, median error compared to
GV2 is typically below 5%.
In terms of physical analysis we can observe on Fig. 15(b) that
CRW at the beginning of irradiation are well predicted probably due to Fig. 16. Sensitivity of the error obtained by the RF-transient model regarding training
the smooth physics in this area. Indeed, in this area the gap is slowly set size. (See 2.3.1 for general reading method for box-plot figures).
closing and fuel rod filling gas contain few FPs, then CRW produces a
smooth increase of the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 by increasing conductivity of gas and/or
gradually closing the gap. These phenomena are continuous, smooth 1 however, as difference in scores is not significant we prefer RF as it
and lead to transients easy to predict. Then around 65 GWd/thM, as is quicker.
for nominal model, we observe that the JOG formation perturbs results
as 𝑄95 reaches 34%. As shown on Figs. 13(a) and 13(b) it is in this 3.3.2. Results in term of inner fuel temperature
range of BU that 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 values are the most spread and that we observe An evaluation in terms of inner fuel temperature is also relevant to
decreases of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 in some cases. estimate the impact of RF-Transient in a calculation of CRW transient.
As for nominal model, a sensitivity on training sample number
In the end it should be done via a transient calculation with a tool
has been performed. The error and its dispersion parameters for each
such as MORPHEE. However, as a first step, results are given using
test is displayed on Fig. 16, the model trained over 263,000 elements
a stationary heat equation resolution (previously given in Eqs. (10)
being the ‘‘RF-transient’’ model (trained on full training set). Extrap-
and (11)). Temperature are compared during CRW, between a solution
olating median error evolution with sample number we could expect
using 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from GV-2 and a solution using 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from RF-Transient.
an improvement of few percents by increasing the number of training
To measure discrepancy due only to RF-Transient, the ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 used to
points. Also, for the transient model we cannot decrease the training
solve heat equation in the second case is defined by Eq. (13), 𝑡0 is the
set volume without impacting precision. Nota bene: the data-base is
beginning of CRW.
smaller for the model of transient because we chose to make 100 GV-
2 simulation in each cases. For one calculation in nominal conditions ℎ𝑅𝐹 −𝑇 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
(𝑡) = ℎ𝐺𝑉 2 𝑅𝐹 −𝑇 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡
(13)
𝑔𝑎𝑝 𝑔𝑎𝑝 (𝑡0 ) + 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 (𝑡)
we get an averaged of 200 time steps for 20 axial meshes then 4000
points to include in data-set. For transient simulation we only get 80 Results are reported on Fig. 17. On test set, distributions of discrep-
time-steps for 20 axial meshes then 1580 points to include in data-set. ancy on inner fuel temperature remain of few Kelvins. For example,
Cross validation with 10 folds provides additional information about Fig. 17(a) reveal that 98% of temperatures discrepancies are between
performances of models. Results are resumed in Table 7. Random Forest −4.13 K and 3.22 K (which corresponds respectively to −0.20% and
AdaBoost and kNN still demonstrate similar results in terms of 𝑄2 and +0.15% on inner fuel temperature). Extreme values of deviation ob-
in terms of RMSE. Probabilities that kNN gives better results is close to tained are −94.0 K and +19.0 K, in terms of relative deviations extreme

14
M. Jeannin et al.
Fig. 17. Temperature deviation obtained with stationary heat equation at the end of a CRW with 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from RF-Transient compared to temperature with 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 from GV-2.
Fig. 18. Linear heat rate profile in ASTRID external core pin test case at nominal (blue)
and post-CRW(orange) state. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
values are −4.8% and +0.95% of inner fuel temperature. It does not
seem to depend much on burnup, except for highest burnups where
discrepancy is higher, as Fig. 17(b) highlights. It is probably due to the
lower number of training data in this area.
4. Test case on ASTRID power profile
We present here a use case of models with comparison to GV-2
results.
4.1. Definition of cases and link with training set
The model has previously been tested on pins artificially built by a
DOE. In this part we aim to test it on a real profile on ASTRID-V3 pin
to estimate the reliability of the model on data out of the scope of its
usual training cases. Fig. 18 shows power profile of the pin at nominal
state in blue. One transient over power is performed at each selected
irradiation time. Every transient is 50 s long and the power increase is
of 20%, power profile before and after the CRW are given on Fig. 18
respectively in blue and orange.
We also ensure that data of the test case are coherent with input
parameters used in training set of meta-model, Fig. 19 in the case of
ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 under irradiation and Fig. 20 for 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 during CRW transient.
15
Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027
Figs. 19 and 20 represent input parameters distributions on diagonal
graphs. Other plots of the figure show relative distribution of param-
eters to identify the domain of use permitted by construction of the
model e.g. the second plot of first line shows 𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑛 function of 𝑇𝑁𝑎
and highlights that the model was not trained for very low power
combined with higher sodium temperature. Parameters are normalized
and only a part of data are displayed to improve clarity. ASTRID test
case is represented by red data and corresponds to the range of meta-
model training. For both nominal and transient test cases, parameters
are in the domain in which models are trained. The only remarkable
exception is for transient cases where some elements have a couple
of parameter (𝑃𝑙𝑖𝑛0 ,𝑇
𝑁𝑎 ) slightly out of the training distribution. The
pin used in the test cases has the same design than presented in
previous sections. Difference is made on power profile which is derived
from neutronic calculation for ASTRID external core pins. Provided the
heating rate profile the averaged heat rate of fissile and fertile zones is
given by Eq. (14):
∑
𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒
𝑃𝐴𝑣𝑔 = 𝑃𝑧 .𝑑𝑧 (14)
𝑧∈𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒
𝑃𝑧 being the local heat rate at z axial mesh and dz the axial size of
mesh. It is to be noticed that axial mesh is more refined in this test case
than in training base (this is only a GV-2 parameter as the meta-model
has no spatial description of the problem). Comparisons and tests are
made over the fissile fuel zone only i.e. for meshes located between
0.3 m to 1.2 m in the fuel pin (see Fig. 18).
4.2. Results of meta-models on the test case, comparison with GV-2
Results of the RF-nominal model on ASTRID test case are provided
on Figs. 21. The 𝑄2 evaluated on this test is 0.943 which confirm the
good agreement between expected and predicted data. Moreover the
median error is below 3% and 75% of testing points have an error
below 6%. More detailed statistics are provided on box-plot Fig. 21(a).
As expected the relative error of prediction increases around the JOG
formation however the 𝑄95 does not exceed 50% and 𝑄75 is below
15%. Then the RF-nominal model can be used with relatively good
performances.
Transients tests are performed using a pool of 15 GV-2 simulations
of one pin for different irradiation times. Results of RF-transient are
given for each simulation in Table 8 and Fig. 23(a). We chose here
to present results in term of EFPD (equivalent full power day i.e. ir-
radiation time) because, in MORPHEE, RF models will be used over
multiple pins in a core. All pins in a core does not have the same
BU and pins themselves have non-uniform burnups along z axis (BU
depends on local power in the fuel see Eq. (5), irradiation time is t
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 19. Distribution of input parameters for training set (blue) and for ASTRID test case (red) for RF-nominal model. Diagonal graphs (histograms) represents probability density
of every input parameter. Other graphs display points from data-sets for every couple of parameters. Parameters are normalized to [0,1]. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Table 8
Median error and correlation coefficient of RF-transient results depending on irradiation time of pins. Corresponding boxplot is given on Fig. 23(a).
EFPD 10 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 [10, 800]b
Median/ 𝑄75 error (%) 10/18 7/11 6/11 7/14 12/47 7/13 5/11 5/14 5/10 7/14
𝑄2 0.937 0.992 0.971 0.963 0.612 0.558 0.804 0.702 0.515 0.883
Size of test seta 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 1488 14480
EFPD 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 [900, 1400]c
Median/ 𝑄75 error (%) 6/17 19/58 23/55 37/103 52/183 36/95 28/73
𝑄2 0.032 0.935 0.681 0.790 −1.76 0.349 0.611
Size of test seta 1344 1440 1344 1392 1296 1392 8208
a
NB: in GV-2 calculations, some results were not converged. As GV-2 is taken as a reference for error evaluation, the not-converged cells of the mesh are not included in the test
set as they are not relevant for evaluation of RF model. Width of each test set is given to quantify the proportion of GV-2 points effectively used knowing that GV-2 provides
1488 points.
b Averaged estimators of RF-transient results for pins irradiated from 10 to 800 EFPD.

c Averaged estimators of RF-transient results for pins irradiated from 900 to 1400 EFPD.

in this equation) but assemblies can be seen as groups of pins with
homogeneous irradiation time. However, for comparison with previous
results, Fig. 22 provide errors depending on burnups of cells over the
whole bunch of tests.
It is noticeable that the RF-transient model has an acceptable be-
havior for irradiation times below 800 EFPD, burnups remain below 60
GWd/tM. In this range of burnups, the global evaluation of the model
(last column of Table 8) shows a good agreement between expected
and predicted results with a median error of 7%. As an example,
the predicted versus expectation plot of 200 EFPD test case is given
on Fig. 23(b). After the limit of 900 EFPD, some cells of the mesh
begin to be poorly estimated and the model is not reliable anymore.
This is due to the JOG appearing at these times as burnup increases,
indeed once again the box-plot 22 highlights that the model has worse
performances at burnups over 65 GWd/tM, Fig. 23(c) also confirms that
pellets at burnups around [65,70] GWd/tM are the cause of the poor
performances of statistical model. At highest irradiation times most of
the points are far from GV-2 results even if they are of the same order,
as an example Fig. 23(d) indicates results at 1400 EFPD the maximum
of irradiation time tested in this study. Globally in these simulations the
model can provide an order of magnitude of 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 but the risk of error
is important as the 𝑄95 easily exceed 200% as indicated by box-plots.
Several explanations are possible for these inconsistencies. First, some
GV-2 calculations are not converged and still included in the training
data, this could lead the model to reproduce inconsistent instabilities
in its responses. Tests have been made with reduced GV-2 time step
for training data-set. Unstable ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 during transients are less frequent
however RF model performances are not improved significantly. Fur-
ther investigations about axial mesh or GV-2 models could provide a
better understanding of the problem, these are still under investigation.

16
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

Fig. 20. Distribution of input parameters for training set (blue) and for ASTRID test case (red) for RF_transient model. Diagonal graphs (histograms) represents probability density
of every parameter. Other graphs display points from data-sets for every couple of parameters.Parameters are normalized to [0,1]. (For interpretation of the references to color in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 21. Predictions performances of RF-nominal for the ASTRID profile test in nominal conditions.

In conclusion of this test we can notice that RF-nominal and RF- a constant ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 when calculating transients with MORPHEE. One can
transient model perform better at lower burnups. The RF-transient also notice that the use of RF model cost is negligible (< 10−5 s per
model seems especially not reliable over 65 GWd/thM. For these bur- point) while a GV-2 call would be around 10 min in best cases. Then the
nups it would probably be more acceptable to replace RF-transient by balance between precision and computational time goes to RF model in

17
M. Jeannin et al. Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027

the case of MORPHEE tool which aim is to perform simplified and quick
calculations.

Conclusion and future perspectives

In this paper we presented the use of machine learning model for

Fig. 22. Error of prediction of RF-transient model for 𝛥ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 function of BU.
fuel cladding heat exchange coefficient prediction based on
GERMINAL-V2 fuel performance code. The aim was to provide ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝
evaluation for nominal and transient situations, then, two models were
trained as transient models needed more input parameters to allow ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝
evaluation with transient time. Several types of models were tested
and Random Forests demonstrated their efficiency for nominal state as
well as for transient situations. Given basic parameters such as power,
burnup and sodium temperature the model is able to reproduce results
of the fuel performance code GERMINAL-V2 in terms of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 with
limited error. This error is very dependent on burnup and is especially
higher when the JOG is formed. The test of nominal and transient
model on a fuel pin with realistic ASTRID profile shows that one
should be careful in the use and interpretation of transient modeling
for highest burnups when JOG is formed. Indeed, high deviations can

Fig. 23. Example of results of RF-transient for transient over power on ASTRID power profile. On (b,c,d) plots colors indicates Burnups in 𝐺𝑊 𝑑∕𝑡ℎ𝑀.

18
M. Jeannin et al.
be observed from GV-2 especially concerning variations of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 during
transient.
However, in order to use these in transients evaluation on reactors
some assumptions should be investigated. The effect of power history
seems to have a significant impact on ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 then it should be represented
in input parameters in a more precise way than using burnup only. The
use of a proper normalization of power profile could show good results
with adding only one parameter to the model, preserving training
feasibility. Another key point in this study is that design parameters are
assumed to be known and their value are set. It could be interesting to
include some sensitivities to uncertain parameters such as dimensions
of pins to estimate their impact on the model accuracy. Finally, we
could improve the response of RF model for highest burnups. This high
error is partly due to GV-2 model of JOG formation which implies a
near-immediate raise of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 . This implies that, for a very small interval
of input parameters, values of ℎ𝑔𝑎𝑝 are very spread. This contributes
to harden the learning process. This could be solved by using new
methods of learning or by smoothing GV-2 models itself (this work is
currently in progress). Two other sources of error that could lead to
discrepancies highlighted in Section 4 are, the power profile in training
set and the axial mesh used in GV-2. Indeed, if the JOG model is
sensitive to size of the cells in the mesh then the ML model will be
too. This point is currently under investigations. Finally, the difference
in median error between RF-nominal and RF-transient could also come
from the size of the training dataset. Indeed, for the same number
of GV-2 simulations we get much more training data for nominal
models than for transient models. Furthermore, RF-transient seems to
converge slower with training set size than RF-nominal do (e.g. with
104 training elements median error of RF-nominal is below 5% while
for RF-transient median error is still superior to 10%).
Still, in term of cost/precision ratio, the random forest model re-
mains a good compromise especially to be included in fast computa-
tional schemes. As this model has been developed to be included in
MORPHEE, whose aim is to provide quick calculations for sensitivity
studies, the level of accuracy is sufficient for the applications planned
in our safety analysis at least for lower burnups.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Marlène Jeannin: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Victor Blanc:
Conceptualization, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing,
Supervision. Vincent Dupont: Writing – review & editing. Vincent
Pascal: Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Laurent Buiron:
Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Pablo
Rubiolo: Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank CEA’s Generation IV program and SFR
project, which support this study. This work has been prepared using
19
Nuclear Engineering and Design 399 (2022) 112027
URANIE and GERMINAL-V2 with the help of both support
teams.
References
Ammar, K., 2014. Conception Multi-Physique Et Multi-Objectif Des cœurs de RNR-
Na Hétérogènes: Développement D’une Méthode D’optimisation sous incertitudes
(Ph.D. thesis). Université Paris Sud-Paris XI.
Andersen, B., Godfrey, A., Hou, J., Kropaczek, D.J., 2021. Application OF DEEP
LEARNING networks TO SURROGATE modelling OF crud deposition. In: ANS M
& C 2021 International Conference on Mathematical and Computational Method
Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering. ANS, Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL),
Oak Ridge, TN (United States).
Bajard, S., Degezelle, T., Li, S., Conti, A., 2022. Influence of the fuel pellet-clad gap
heat exchange coefficient on a loss of flow without scram transient simulated with
CATHARE3 in sodium fast reactor. In: Proc. of NURETH-19.
Barani, T., Ramière, I., Michel, B., 2022. Analysis of fabrication and crack-induced
porosity migration in mixed oxide fuels for sodium fast reactors by the finite
element method. J. Nucl. Mater. 558, 153341.
Beck, T., Blanc, V., Escleine, J.-M., Haubensack, D., Pelletier, M., Phelip, M., Perrin, B.,
Venard, C., 2017. Conceptual design of ASTRID fuel sub-assemblies. Nucl. Eng. Des.
315, 51–60.
Blais, N.C., Mann, J.B., 1960. Thermal conductivity of helium and hydrogen at high
temperatures. J. Chem. Phys. 32 (5), 1459–1465.
Blanc, V., Dupont, V., Beck, T., Lambert, T., Thebaud, E., Charollais, F., Pelletier, M.,
Bouloré, A., Dumas, J., Michel, B., et al., 2017. Fuel melting margin assessment
of fast reactor oxide fuel pin using a statistical approach. In: AIEA International
Conference on Fast Reactors and Related Fuel Cycles Next Generation Nuclear
Systems for Sustainable Development. FR17.
Blanchard, J.-B., Damblin, G., Martinez, J.-M., Arnaud, G., Gaudier, F., 2019. The
uranie platform: An open-source software for optimisation, meta-modelling and
uncertainty analysis. EPJ Nucl. Sci. Technol. 5, 4.
Corani, G., Benavoli, A., 2015. A Bayesian approach for comparing cross-validated
algorithms on multiple data sets. Mach. Learn. 100 (2), 285–304.
Demšar, J., Curk, T., Erjavec, A., Črt Gorup, Hočevar, T., Milutinovič, M., Možina, M.,
Polajnar, M., Toplak, M., Starič, A., Štajdohar, M., Umek, L., Žagar, L., Žbontar, J.,
Žitnik, M., Zupan, B., 2013. Orange: Data mining toolbox in Python. J. Mach.
Learn. Res. 14, 2349–2353.
Droin, J.-B., 2016. Modélisation d’un Transitoire De Perte De Débit Primaire
Non-Protégé Dans un RNR-Na (Ph.D. thesis). CEA-Université Grenoble Alpes.
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., et al., 2008. The eLements of Statistical
Learning, second ed. Springer series in statistics.
Fukano, Y., Onoda, Y., Sato, I., Charpenel, J., 2009. Fuel pin behavior under slow-
ramp-type transient-overpower conditions in the CABRI-FAST experiments. J. Nucl.
Sci. Technol. 46 (11), 1049–1058.
Gérardin, D., Poumerouly, S., Andriolo, L., 2022. Evaluation of an increase of the power
density for the French commercial sodium fast reactor and optimization study at
1100 MWe with the SDDS tool. In: International Conference on Fast Reactors and
Related Fuel Cycles: Sustainable Energy for the Future, Vol. 19. p. 22.
Inoue, M., Maeda, K., Katsuyama, K., Tanaka, K., Mondo, K., Hisada, M., 2004. Fuel-to-
cladding gap evolution and its impact on thermal performance of high burnup fast
reactor type uranium–plutonium oxide fuel pins. J. Nucl. Mater. 326 (1), 59–73.
Iooss, B., Marrel, A., 2019. Advanced methodology for uncertainty propagation in
computer experiments with large number of inputs. Nucl. Technol..
Jeannin, M., Pascal, V., Blanc, V., Droin, J.-B., Buiron, L., Rubiolo, P., 2021. First
approach to analyse control rod withdrawal transient in SFR with a multi-physics
methodology. Proc. of M&C 2021 2241–2250.
Lainet, M., Michel, B., Dumas, J.-C., Pelletier, M., Ramière, I., 2019. GERMINAL, a fuel
performance code of the PLEIADES platform to simulate the in-pile behaviour of
mixed oxide fuel pins for sodium-cooled fast reactors. J. Nucl. Mater. 516, 30–53.
Lavarenne, J., KIT, E.B., Davies, U., KIT, S.G., EdF, S.G., Lindley, B., Murphy, C.,
Perrin, B., KIT, W.P., JRC, A.S., et al., 2021. A2-D correlation to evaluate fuel-
cladding gap thermal conductance in mixed oxide fuel elements for sodium-cooled
fast reactors. Nucl. Sci. Eng..
Michel, B., Ramière, I., Viallard, I., Introini, C., Lainet, M., Chauvin, N., Marelle, V.,
Boulore, A., Helfer, T., Masson, R., et al., 2021. Two fuel performance codes of
the PLEIADES platform: ALCYONE and GERMINAL. In: Nuclear Power Plant Design
and Analysis Codes. Elsevier, pp. 207–233.
Temmar, M., 2019. Simulation Multiphysique Du Phénomène De Rattrapage Du Jeu
Pastille-Gaine Dans Les Aiguilles Combustibles Des Réacteurs À Neutrons Rapides
(Ph.D. thesis). Aix-Marseille.
Venard, C., Beck, T., Bernardin, B., Conti, A., Gentet, D., Lamagnere, P., Sciora, P.,
Lorenzo, D., Tosello, A., Vanier, M., et al., 2015. The ASTRID core at the midterm
of the conceptual design phase (AVP2). In: Proc. of ICAPP, Vol. 15.