MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982806374 · doi:10.1115/pvp2013-97290

Mechanical Property Database Development and Creep Prediction of Candidate Generation IV SCWR Alloys

2013· article· en· W1982806374 on OpenAlexaffabout
Su Xu, Shanxia Jin, P. Le Dreff-Kerwin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepMaterials scienceAusteniteCladding (metalworking)MetallurgyAustenitic stainless steelSupercritical fluidMartensiteCorrosionMicrostructureThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To contribute to the design and materials selection of the Generation IV SuperCritical Water Reactors (Gen IV SCWR), a high-temperature mechanical property database of candidate alloys has been developed and creep models have been applied to predict long-term creep strength. The alloys in the database include representative ferritic/martensitic (F/M) steels, stainless steels, iron-nickel–base alloys, Ni-base alloys, and oxide dispersion strengthened (ODS) alloys with an emphasis on candidate austenitic and super-austenitic stainless steels. The mechanical properties were evaluated and examined with reference to ASME Section III Subsection NH code and the preliminary fuel cladding requirements in Canadian and Japanese conceptual SCWR designs. Traditional creep prediction models (i.e., Monkman-Grant model and Larson-Miller parameter) and the recent Wilshire-Scharning model were assessed and the constants of creep models were obtained. The predicted average maximum allowable stresses at temperatures and lifetimes of interest to Gen IV SCWR fuel cladding applications are presented.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207