Pilot Study for Uncertainty Analysis in Probabilistic Fitness-for-Service Evaluations of Zr-2.5Nb Pressure Tubes: Uncertainty Characterization
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Canadian Nuclear Standard CSA N285.8, “Technical requirements for in-service evaluation of zirconium alloy pressure tubes in CANDU® reactors”(1), permits the use of probabilistic methods when assessments of the reactor core are performed. A non-mandatory annex has been proposed for inclusion in the CSA Standard N285.8 to provide guidelines for performing uncertainty analysis in probabilistic fitness-for-service evaluations within the scope of this Standard, such as the probabilistic evaluation of leak-before-break. The proposed annex outlines the general approach to uncertainty analysis as being comprised of the following major activities: identification of influential variables, characterization of uncertainties in influential variables, and subsequent propagation of these uncertainties through the evaluation framework or code. The proposed methodology distinguishes between two types of non-deterministic variables by the method used to obtain their best estimate. Uncertainties are classified by their source, and different uncertainty components are considered when the best estimates for the variables of interest are obtained using calibrated parametric models or analyses and when these estimates are obtained using statistical models or analyses. The application of the proposed guidelines for uncertainty analysis was exercised by performing a pilot study for one of the evaluations within the scope of the CSA Standard N285.8, the probabilistic evaluation of leak-before-break based on a postulated through-wall crack. The pilot study was performed for a representative CANDU reactor unit using the recently developed software code P-LBB that complies with the requirements of Canadian Nuclear Standard CSA N286.7 for quality assurance of analytical, scientific, and design computer programs for nuclear power plants. This paper discusses the approaches used and the results obtained in the second stage of this pilot study, the uncertainty characterization of influential variables identified as discussed in the companion paper presented at the PVP 2018 Conference (PVP2018-85010). In the proposed methodology, statistical assessment and expert judgment are recognized as two complementary approaches to uncertainty characterization. In this pilot study, the uncertainty characterization was limited to cases where statistical assessment could be used as the primary approach. Parametric uncertainty and uncertainty due to numerical solutions were considered as the uncertainty components for variables represented by parametric models. Residual uncertainty and uncertainty due to imbalances in the model-basis data set were considered as the uncertainty components for variables represented by statistical models. In general, the uncertainty due to numerical solutions was found to be substantially smaller than the parametric uncertainty for variables represented by parametric models, and the uncertainty due to imbalances in the model basis data set was found to be substantially smaller than the residual uncertainty for variables represented by statistical models.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».