Validation of Physics and Thermalhydraulics Computer Codes for Advanced CANDU Reactor Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) is developing an Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR) that is an evolutionary advancement of the currently operating CANDU 6 reactors. The ACR is being designed to produce electrical power for a capital cost and at a unit-energy cost significantly less than that of the current reactor designs. The ACR retains the modular CANDU concept of horizontal fuel channels surrounded by a heavy water moderator. However, ACR uses slightly enriched uranium fuel compared to the natural uranium used in CANDU 6. This achieves the twin goals of improved economics (via large reductions in the heavy water moderator volume and replacement of the heavy water coolant with light water coolant) and improved safety. AECL has developed and implemented a software quality assurance program to ensure that its analytical, scientific and design computer codes meet the required standards for software used in safety analyses. Since the basic design of the ACR is equivalent to that of the CANDU 6, most of the key phenomena associated with the safety analyses of ACR are common, and the CANDU industry standard toolset of safety analysis codes can be applied to the analysis of the ACR. A systematic assessment of computer code applicability addressing the unique features of the ACR design was performed covering the important aspects of the computer code structure, models, constitutive correlations, and validation database. Arising from this assessment, limited additional requirements for code modifications and extensions to the validation databases have been identified. This paper provides an outline of the AECL software quality assurance program process for the validation of computer codes used to perform physics and thermal-hydraulics safety analyses of the ACR. It describes the additional validation work that has been identified for these codes and the planned, and ongoing, experimental programs to extend the code validation as required to address specific ACR design features that have impact on the physics and thermalhydraulics codes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it