MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046934399 · doi:10.1115/pvp2003-2143

Evaluation of CANDU Spent Nuclear Fuel Bundle Structural Integrity During Normal Transport Conditions

2003· article· en· W2046934399 on OpenAlexaff
G. Morandin, Eugênio Pacelli Meireles de Araújo, David J. Ribbans

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Power GenerationAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBundleNuclear fuelSpent nuclear fuelSpent fuel poolNuclear engineeringFinite element methodStructural engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringEnvironmental scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Atomic Energy Agency requires that the transport of spent nuclear fuel in containers be able to handle certain loads in the axial, lateral and vertical direction under normal off-site handling scenarios. During transport, CANDU nuclear fuel bundles may experience axial impact loads due to possible sliding within a transport tube resulting in impact with the container wall. This paper presents a series of postulated fuel bundle impact scenarios in order to determine the enveloping dynamic g load that a bundle can experience before possible plastic deformation to the bundle fuel sheath. The IAEA load factors for envelope design are used as a reference to ramp the impact velocities and are not equivalent to the dynamic loads used in the analysis. Based on the transportation induced g loads outlined in the IAEA regulations for safe transport of spent fuel under normal handling conditions (IAEA 1985), these g loads are used to calculate a terminal velocity for the bundle whose motion impacts a rigid plate. One type of CANDU nuclear fuel bundle consists of 28 Zircaloy-4 fuel pencils loaded with Uranium Dioxide fuel pellets. The ends of the pencils are fitted with end caps and each end cap is spot welded to a Zircaloy-4 end plate at either end. The finite element model of the fuel bundle consists of 4-noded shell elements representing the fuel sheaths and end plates and 8-noded continuum elements representing the Uranium Dioxide pellets. For the purpose of the analysis, the fuel bundle is housed inside a transport tube, which limits the bundle lateral and vertical motion during impact rebound. The impact target is conservatively modelled as an infinitely rigid plate. Contact surfaces are modelled between the fuel bundle and transport tube, between the fuel bundle and impact plate and between each individual fuel pencil. Two bundle scenarios are considered. The first is a single fuel bundle impacting the plate and the second is two fuel bundles in series in a single transport tube impacting the plate. The second scenario considers the interaction between the two bundles during initial impact and rebound. The analysis covers these scenarios under various magnitudes of applied dynamic loading including 2g, 5g, and 8g. The objective is to determine at what applied load the fuel bundle will experience plastic damage to the fuel pencil sheath. This will effectively provide a bounding g load for CANDU spent fuel transport. The results of the analysis show that for a single bundle in a transport tube, a dynamic load of 8g results in plastic deformation of and the target are modeled using 4-noded shell elements. The pencil end caps are attached to the endplates using an area of common nodes (Fig. 3). Although the actual endcap to endplate connection is through a round spot-welded cross section, for modeling ease the interface is several fuel pencil sheaths. For the two-bundle case, a dynamic load of 8g does not result in any plastic deformation in the fuel pencil sheaths. Thus, a limiting dynamic load between 5g and 8g is determined for the fuel handling scenarios. This paper presents the methodology and models used in the analysis as well as the results of the simulations.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207