TACTICAL (sentence-level): - Applied Gopen principles: topic-stress positioning, verb choice - Removed wordiness and redundant phrases - Tightened prose for clarity and directness - Fixed inconsistent punctuation OPERATIONAL (paragraph-level): - Improved transitions between subsections - Enhanced paragraph coherence - Added strategic paragraph breaks for better flow STRATEGIC (document-level): - Verified Heilmeier question alignment - Strengthened section transitions - Ensured consistent voice across sections
70 lines
3.9 KiB
TeX
70 lines
3.9 KiB
TeX
% GOAL PARAGRAPH
|
|
This research develops autonomous control systems with mathematical guarantees of safe and correct behavior.
|
|
|
|
% INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH Hook
|
|
Extensively trained operators manage nuclear reactors by following detailed written procedures. When operators switch between control objectives, plant conditions guide their decisions.
|
|
% Gap
|
|
Small modular reactors face a fundamental economic challenge: their per-megawatt staffing costs significantly exceed those of conventional plants, threatening viability. Autonomous control systems must manage complex operational sequences safely—without constant supervision—while providing assurance equal to or exceeding that of human-operated systems.
|
|
|
|
% APPROACH PARAGRAPH Solution
|
|
We combine formal methods from computer science with control theory to
|
|
build hybrid control systems that are correct by construction.
|
|
% Rationale
|
|
Hybrid systems mirror how operators work: discrete
|
|
logic switches between continuous control modes. Existing formal methods
|
|
generate provably correct switching logic but cannot handle continuous dynamics
|
|
during transitions. Control theory verifies continuous behavior but
|
|
cannot prove the correctness of discrete switching decisions.
|
|
% Hypothesis and Technical Approach
|
|
Our methodology bridges this gap through three stages. First, we translate written
|
|
operating procedures into temporal logic specifications using NASA's Formal
|
|
Requirements Elicitation Tool (FRET). FRET structures requirements into scope,
|
|
condition, component, timing, and response elements. Realizability
|
|
checking identifies conflicts and ambiguities before implementation.
|
|
Second, reactive synthesis generates deterministic automata that are provably
|
|
correct by construction.
|
|
Third, we design continuous controllers for each discrete mode using standard
|
|
control theory and verify them using reachability analysis. Continuous modes are classified by their transition objectives. Assume-guarantee contracts and barrier certificates prove that mode transitions occur safely. This approach enables local verification of continuous modes
|
|
without requiring global trajectory analysis across the entire hybrid system. An
|
|
Emerson Ovation control system demonstrates this methodology.
|
|
% Pay-off
|
|
Autonomous control manages complex nuclear
|
|
power operations while maintaining safety guarantees, directly addressing the economic constraints threatening small modular reactor viability.
|
|
|
|
% OUTCOMES PARAGRAPHS
|
|
If this research is successful, we will be able to do the following:
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
% OUTCOME 1 Title
|
|
\item \textit{Synthesize written procedures into verified control logic.}
|
|
% Strategy
|
|
We will develop a methodology for converting written operating procedures
|
|
into formal specifications. Reactive synthesis tools generate
|
|
discrete control logic from these specifications.
|
|
% Outcome
|
|
Control engineers generate mode-switching controllers from regulatory
|
|
procedures with minimal formal methods expertise, reducing barriers to
|
|
high-assurance control systems.
|
|
|
|
% OUTCOME 2 Title
|
|
\item \textit{Verify continuous control behavior across mode transitions.}
|
|
% Strategy
|
|
Reachability analysis verifies that continuous control modes satisfy discrete
|
|
transition requirements.
|
|
% Outcome
|
|
Engineers design continuous controllers using standard practices while
|
|
maintaining formal correctness guarantees. Mode transitions provably occur safely and at
|
|
the correct times.
|
|
|
|
% OUTCOME 3 Title
|
|
\item \textit{Demonstrate autonomous reactor startup control with safety
|
|
guarantees.}
|
|
% Strategy
|
|
A small modular reactor simulation using industry-standard control hardware
|
|
implements this methodology.
|
|
% Outcome
|
|
Control engineers implement high-assurance autonomous controls on
|
|
industrial platforms they already use, enabling autonomy without retraining
|
|
costs or new equipment development.
|
|
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|