91 lines
6.9 KiB
TeX
91 lines
6.9 KiB
TeX
\section{Metrics for Success}
|
|
|
|
\textbf{Heilmeier Question: How do we measure success?}
|
|
|
|
Section 3 established the technical approach, answering what is new (compositional verification bridging discrete synthesis with continuous control) and why it will succeed (existing procedural structure, bounded complexity, industrial validation). This section addresses the next Heilmeier question: how to measure success.
|
|
|
|
The answer: Technology Readiness Level advancement from fundamental concepts (TRL 2--3) to validated prototype demonstration (TRL 5).
|
|
|
|
My work begins at TRL 2--3 and aims to reach TRL 5, where system components operate successfully in a relevant laboratory environment. TRL advancement provides the most appropriate success metric because it explicitly measures the gap between academic proof-of-concept and practical deployment. This section explains why TRLs are the right metric, then defines specific criteria for each level from TRL 3 through TRL 5.
|
|
|
|
Technology Readiness Levels provide the ideal success metric. They explicitly measure the gap between academic proof-of-concept and practical deployment. This is precisely what my work bridges.
|
|
|
|
Academic metrics like papers published or theorems proved fail to capture practical feasibility. Empirical metrics like simulation accuracy or computational speed fail to demonstrate theoretical rigor. TRLs measure both.
|
|
|
|
Advancing from TRL 3 to TRL 5 requires maintaining theoretical rigor while progressively demonstrating practical feasibility. The system moves from individual components to integrated hardware testing. Two requirements constrain this progression. First: formal verification must remain valid throughout. Second: the proofs must compose as the system scales.
|
|
|
|
The nuclear industry requires extremely high assurance before deploying new
|
|
control technologies. Demonstrating theoretical correctness alone proves
|
|
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, while 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 by achieving TRL 5: 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 the methodology produces verified
|
|
controllers implementable with current technology.
|
|
|
|
This section answered the Heilmeier question: How do we measure success?
|
|
|
|
\textbf{Answer:} Technology Readiness Level advancement from 2--3 to 5 demonstrates both theoretical correctness and practical feasibility through progressively integrated validation. TRL 3 proves component-level correctness: each part works independently. TRL 4 demonstrates system-level integration in simulation: the parts compose correctly. TRL 5 validates hardware implementation in a relevant environment: the complete system works on real control hardware. Achieving TRL 5 proves the methodology produces verified controllers implementable with current technology.
|
|
|
|
Success, however, depends on several critical assumptions. If these assumptions prove false, research could stall at lower readiness levels despite sound methodology. Section 5 addresses the complementary question: What could prevent success?
|