MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059022895 · doi:10.1115/pvp2014-28942

A Statistical-Based Fatigue Crack Initiation Model for Axial Flaws in Zr-Nb Pressure Tubes

2014· article· en· W2059022895 on OpenAlexaff
Cheng Liu, Douglas A. Scarth, A. Douchant

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)Kinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrettingMaterials sciencePressure vesselBundleStructural engineeringParis' lawComposite materialFracture mechanicsMetallurgyNuclear engineeringEngineeringCrack closure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flaws found during in-service inspection of CANDU Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes include fuel bundle scratches, debris fretting flaws, fuel bundle bearing pad fretting flaws, mechanical damage flaws and crevice corrosion marks. The CSA Standard N285.8 contains procedures and acceptance criteria for evaluation of the structural integrity of CANDU Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes containing flaws. One of the requirements is to evaluate the flaws for fatigue crack initiation. There was a need to develop a statistical-based model of fatigue crack initiation at flaws for use in deterministic and probabilistic assessments of Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes. A number of fatigue crack initiation experiments have been performed on notched specimens from irradiated and unirradiated Zr-2.5Nb pressure tube material with a range of hydrogen equivalent concentrations. These experiments were performed in an air environment and included temperature and load rise time as test parameters. The test data has been used to develop a statistical-based model of fatigue crack initiation at flaws that covers the effects of flaw root radius, load rise time and irradiation. This paper describes the development of the statistical-based model.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207