MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490535776 · doi:10.1080/18811248.2007.9711504

Evaluation Methods for Corrosion Damage of Components in Cooling Systems of Nuclear Power Plants by Coupling Analysis of Corrosion and Flow Dynamics (III)

2009· article· en· W1490535776 on OpenAlexaff
Shunsuke Uchida, Masanori Naitoh, Yasushi Uehara, Hidetoshi Okada, Naoki HIRANUMA, Wataru Sugino, Seiichi Koshizuka, D. H. Lister

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Science and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionCathodic protectionVolumetric flow rateChemistryBoundary layerMass transferMaterials scienceOxideAnodeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsMetallurgyPhysical chemistryElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) is divided into two processes: a corrosion (chemical) process and a flow dynamics (physical) process. The former is the essential process to cause FAC and the latter is the accelerating process to enhance FAC occurrence. The chemical process in the surface boundary layer is analyzed to evaluate FAC rate. Contributions of flow dynamics on wall thinning rate due to FAC are expressed as a function of mass transfer coefficient but not that of flow velocity. FAC evaluation procedures were divided into 5 steps as follows. (1) Flow pattern and temperature in each elemental volume along the flow path were obtained with 1D computational flow dynamics (CFD) codes, (2) corrosive conditions, e.g., oxygen concentration and electrochemical corrosion potential (ECP) along the flow path were calculated with a hydrazine oxygen reaction code, (3) precise flow patterns and mass transfer coefficients at the structure surface were calculated with 3D CFD codes, (4) danger zones were evaluated by coupling major FAC parameters, and then, (5) wall thinning rates were calculated with the coupled model of static electrochemical analysis and dynamic double oxide layer analysis at the identified danger zone. Anodic and cathodic current densities and ECPs were calculated with the static electrochemistry model and ferrous ion release rate determined by the anodic current density was used as input for the dynamic double oxide layer model. Thickness of the oxide film and its characteristics determined by the dynamic double oxide layer model were used for the electrochemistry model to determine the resistances of cathodic current from the bulk to the surface and anodic current from the surface to the bulk. Two models were coupled to determine local corrosion rate and ECP for various corrosive conditions. The calculated results of the coupled models had good agreement with the measured ones.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Science and TechnologySame topicErosion and Abrasive MachiningFrench-language works237,207