89 lines
5.5 KiB
TeX
89 lines
5.5 KiB
TeX
\section{Metrics for Success}
|
|
|
|
This research will be measured by advancement through Technology Readiness
|
|
Levels, progressing from fundamental concepts to validated prototype
|
|
demonstration. This work begins at TRL 2--3 and aims to reach TRL 5, where
|
|
system components operate successfully in a relevant laboratory environment.
|
|
This section explains why TRL advancement provides the most appropriate success
|
|
metric and defines the specific criteria required to achieve TRL 5.
|
|
|
|
Technology Readiness Levels provide the ideal success metric because they
|
|
explicitly measure the gap between academic proof-of-concept and practical
|
|
deployment---precisely what this work aims to bridge. Academic metrics like
|
|
papers published or theorems proved cannot capture practical feasibility.
|
|
Empirical metrics like simulation accuracy or computational speed cannot
|
|
demonstrate theoretical rigor. TRLs measure both dimensions simultaneously.
|
|
Advancing from TRL 3 to TRL 5 requires maintaining theoretical rigor while
|
|
progressively demonstrating practical feasibility. Formal verification must
|
|
remain valid as the system moves from individual components to integrated
|
|
hardware testing.
|
|
|
|
The nuclear industry requires extremely high assurance before deploying new
|
|
control technologies. Demonstrating theoretical correctness alone is
|
|
insufficient for adoption; conversely, showing empirical performance without
|
|
formal guarantees fails to meet regulatory requirements. TRLs capture this dual
|
|
requirement naturally. Each level represents both increased practical maturity
|
|
and sustained theoretical validity. Furthermore, TRL assessment forces explicit
|
|
identification of remaining barriers to deployment. The nuclear industry already
|
|
uses TRLs for technology assessment, making this metric directly relevant to
|
|
potential adopters. Reaching TRL 5 provides a clear answer to industry questions
|
|
about feasibility and maturity that academic publications alone cannot.
|
|
|
|
Moving from current state to target requires achieving three intermediate
|
|
levels, each representing a distinct validation milestone:
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{TRL 3 \textit{Critical Function and Proof of Concept}}
|
|
|
|
For this research, TRL 3 means demonstrating that each component of the
|
|
methodology works in isolation. Startup procedures must be translated into
|
|
temporal logic specifications that pass realizability analysis. A discrete
|
|
automaton must be synthesized with interpretable structure. At least one
|
|
continuous controller must be designed with reachability analysis proving
|
|
transition requirements are satisfied. Independent review must confirm that
|
|
specifications match intended procedural behavior. This proves the fundamental
|
|
approach on a simplified startup sequence.
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{TRL 4 \textit{Laboratory Testing of Integrated Components}}
|
|
|
|
For this research, TRL 4 means demonstrating a complete integrated hybrid
|
|
controller in simulation. All startup procedures must be formalized with a
|
|
synthesized automaton covering all operational modes. Continuous controllers
|
|
must exist for all discrete modes. Verification must be complete for all mode
|
|
transitions using reachability analysis, barrier certificates, and
|
|
assume-guarantee contracts. The integrated controller must execute complete
|
|
startup sequences in software simulation with zero safety violations across
|
|
multiple consecutive runs. This proves that formal correctness guarantees can be
|
|
maintained throughout system integration.
|
|
|
|
\paragraph{TRL 5 \textit{Laboratory Testing in Relevant Environment}}
|
|
|
|
For this research, TRL 5 means demonstrating the verified controller on
|
|
industrial control hardware through hardware-in-the-loop testing. The discrete
|
|
automaton must be implemented on the Emerson Ovation control system and verified
|
|
to match synthesized specifications exactly. Continuous controllers must execute
|
|
at required rates. The ARCADE interface must establish stable real-time
|
|
communication between the Emerson Ovation hardware and SmAHTR simulation.
|
|
Complete autonomous startup sequences must execute via hardware-in-the-loop
|
|
across the full operational envelope. The controller must handle off-nominal
|
|
scenarios to validate that expulsory modes function correctly. For example,
|
|
simulated sensor failures must trigger appropriate fault detection and mode
|
|
transitions, and loss-of-cooling scenarios must activate SCRAM procedures as
|
|
specified. Graded responses to minor disturbances are outside this work's scope.
|
|
Formal verification results must remain valid, with discrete behavior matching
|
|
specifications and continuous trajectories remaining within verified bounds.
|
|
This proves that the methodology produces verified controllers implementable on
|
|
industrial hardware.
|
|
|
|
Progress will be assessed quarterly through collection of specific data
|
|
comparing actual results against TRL advancement criteria. Specification
|
|
development status indicates progress toward TRL 3. Synthesis results and
|
|
verification coverage indicate progress toward TRL 4. Simulation performance
|
|
metrics and hardware integration milestones indicate progress toward TRL 5. The
|
|
research plan will be revised only when new data invalidates fundamental
|
|
assumptions. This research succeeds if it achieves TRL 5 by demonstrating a
|
|
complete autonomous hybrid controller with formal correctness guarantees
|
|
operating on industrial control hardware through hardware-in-the-loop testing in
|
|
a relevant laboratory environment. This establishes both theoretical validity
|
|
and practical feasibility, proving that the methodology produces verified
|
|
controllers and that implementation is achievable with current technology.
|