MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Probabilistic Assessment of Flow-Accelerated Corrosion Rate in Pipe Bends With Unknown Initial Thickness

2012· article· en· W2072108450 on OpenAlexaff
Mahesh D. Pandey, Detang Lu, Jovica Riznic

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 5: Fusion Engineering; Student Paper Competition; Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Events; Simple and Combined Cycles · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSizingCoolantVolumetric flow rateStructural engineeringCanalisationProbabilistic logicMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringPipingMechanicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In CANDU reactors, the feeder pipe system supplies the primary coolant from the reactor core to steam generator. The flow-accelerated corrosion (FAC) of the extrados of the first bend of the outlet feeder is a life limiting factor. Therefore, accurate prediction of FAC rate is needed to determine the scope of inspection and replacement of feeder pipes during an outage. To estimate the FAC rate, the initial wall thickness of the extrados of the bend is required. However, initial wall thickness is not known precisely, because the bending of pipe during installation causes the thinning of extrados section. Another difficult is the sizing error or noise in the wall thickness measurements introduced by the inspection probes. The objective of this paper is to develop a sound probabilistic method for the FAC rate estimation considering uncertainties in the initial wall thickness of bend and the sizing error (or noise). A Bayesian model is developed and applied to predict the end of life of the outlet bend on a risk-informed basis. A practical case study is presented to illustrate the use of the proposed method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 5: Fusion Engineering; Student Paper Competition; Design Basis and Beyond Design Basis Events; Simple and Combined CyclesSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207