MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013014109 · doi:10.1115/pvp2013-97948

The Role of Computational Weld Mechanics in the Weld Repair of Canada’s NRU Nuclear Reactor

2013· article· en· W2013014109 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Goldak, M. Yetisir, Rob Pistor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeldingNuclear engineeringShieldNuclear transmutationEngineeringMechanical engineeringForensic engineeringGeologyNuclear physicsNeutron

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NRU reactor at Chalk River Laboratories is one of the largest and oldest research reactors in the world. It has been the world’s largest producer of medical isotopes, which are used in cancer treatments, nuclear medicine and other diagnostic procedures. The NRU reactor was shut down in May 2009 when a heavy water leak was detected in the reactor building. Subsequent inspections indicated that the reactors aluminum vessel corroded at various locations resulting in heavy water seeping through the reactor vessel. The extent of the damage required a complex pattern of internally applied weld overlays in numerous areas. Weld repair was further complicated by concerns over the effect of radiation hardening of the aluminum and compositional changes (irradiation induced transmutation of aluminum to silicon). Considering the deformation and stress associated with welding aluminum plate (Figure 1) and the aggressive return to service schedule, Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) commissioned an extensive Computational Weld Mechanics (CWM) campaign to guide the repair design and optimize structural integrity. This paper describes the technical issues encountered in the design of the weld repair processes and how CWM was used in selecting welding strategies. Traditionally, welding pattern, progression and sequence are determined through a combination of trial and error on mock ups along with welders experience and analyzed by computer after the fact. To the authors knowledge, this is the first weld repair that used CWM to assess proposed designs of welds.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207