MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027396885 · doi:10.1115/pvp2002-1609

Evaluation of Postulated Spent Fuel Container Handling Accidents Using Numerical Simulations

2002· article· en· W2027396885 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. Morandin, David J. Ribbans

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Power GenerationKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlangeClampingEnvironmental scienceNuclear engineeringStructural engineeringContainer (type theory)Materials scienceClampComposite materialMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is transferring irradiated fuel from its CANDU nuclear generating stations in Ontario Canada, that has been cooled for a minimum of 10 years in the Irradiated Fuel Bay (IFB), into Dry Storage Containers (DSC). The Picketing Used Fuel Dry Storage Facility has been in operation for 6 years and over 200 DSC’s have been loaded to date. During the loading operation a DSC is lifted out of the IFB and craned over a wall into a decontamination pit (DP). This operation requires that the lid of the DSC be in place before the container is removed from the IFB. A lid clamp is used, which sits around the perimeter of the lid and maintains the boundary between the mating lid and container flange plates, to ensure that the lid is retained under normal and abnormal conditions. In the event of a crane failure, there is a potential for the DSC to impact the intermediate wall between the IFB and the DP. This may result in the DSC toppling over the wall and either falling into the DP or toppling back into the IFB. Both the IFB and the DP have floor impact pads to prevent structural damage. The lid clamp must demonstrate the ability to maintain the containment boundary under these postulated accident scenarios. A finite element model of the Dry Storage Container and the proposed lid clamp has been developed to assess the structural integrity of the lid clamp design. The postulated accident scenarios consider are a 9.9 meter drop in a centre of gravity over top edge orientation, in a top down flat end orientation and a near side drop orientation onto an impact pad representative of the IFB pad. Only the centre of gravity and near side orientations are presented in this paper. The simulations were carried out on a DEC ALPHA workstation using an in-house three dimensional non-linear multi-purpose finite element code entitled H3DMAP version 6.

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 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207