Neural Operator-Based Surrogate Model for CFD:Helical Coil Steam Generator in Small Modular Reactor
About
Real-time thermal-hydraulic simulation is essential for digital twin (DT) technology that supports the safe and efficient operation of small modular reactors (SMRs). Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) provides high-fidelity flow analysis, but its computational cost prevents direct use in DT applications. AI-based surrogate modeling has been actively investigated to address this limitation, yet neural operator--based surrogates for CFD-level transient analysis of SMR-specific geometries have not been reported. This study presents an integrated framework that combines a reduced-order model (ROM) with neural operators, applied to the helical coil steam generator (HCSG) of the System-integrated Modular Advanced Reactor (SMART). Two ROM strategies tailored to each CFD data type were compared, an MLP-based autoencoder (AE) for unstructured mesh data and a convolutional autoencoder (CAE) for structured mesh data, and each was coupled with the deep operator network (DeepONet) to construct the latent DeepONet (L-DeepONet). The Fourier neural operator (FNO) was additionally adopted for comparison. A multi-scale technique was incorporated into both frameworks to mitigate spectral bias and improve the prediction of K\'{a}rm\'{a}n vortex streets developing inside the HCSG. The multi-scale L-DeepONet captured the instantaneous periodic vortex dynamics in both velocity and pressure fields, while the FNO and its multi-scale variant predicted the time-averaged mean flow and provided reliable pressure drop estimates. These complementary characteristics provide a practical model-selection guideline that links each architecture to specific DT objectives based on CFD data type and the required level of flow resolution.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flow Field Prediction | HCSG tube bundle 0.4 m/s inlet velocity (test) | Point-wise Metric P14.765 | 4 | |
| Fluid Flow Prediction | HCSG tube bundle inlet velocity 0.7 m/s | Error P15.71 | 4 | |
| Pressure drop prediction | Pressure Drop Prediction Dataset Inlet 0.7 m/s | Mean Relative Error1.92 | 4 | |
| Pressure drop prediction | Pressure Drop Prediction Dataset (Inlet 0.4 m/s) | Mean Relative Error1.24 | 4 | |
| Pressure field prediction | HCSG Inlet 0.7 m/s (test) | Mean Relative L2 Error18.19 | 4 | |
| Pressure field prediction | HCSG Inlet 0.4 m/s (test) | Mean Relative L2 Error14.5 | 4 | |
| Velocity field prediction | HCSG Inlet 0.4 m/s (test) | Mean Relative L2 Error8.31 | 4 | |
| Velocity field prediction | HCSG Inlet 0.7 m/s (test) | Mean Relative L2 Error0.1172 | 4 |