MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078271570 · doi:10.1115/fedsm-icnmm2010-31027

Application of Uncertainty Analysis in the Comparison of Void Fraction Calculations With Experiment

2010· article· en· W2078271570 on OpenAlex
Jason Pascoe, Y. Parlatan, Brenda McLaughlin, Sophia Fung

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsOntario Power Generation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUncertainty analysisLoss-of-coolant accidentComputer sciencePropagation of uncertaintyUncertainty quantificationSource codeSensitivity analysisRange (aeronautics)AlgorithmData miningSimulationEngineeringMachine learningCoolant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Safety analysis computer codes are designed to simulate phenomena relevant to the assessment of normal and transient behaviour in nuclear power plants. In order to do so, models of relevant phenomena are developed and a set of such models constitutes a computer code. In accident or transient analysis the values of certain output parameters (margin parameters) are used to characterize the severity of the event. The accuracy of the computer code in calculating these margin parameters is usually obtained through validation and variation in the margin parameter is estimated through the propagation of variation in the code input. A method for estimating code uncertainty respect to a specific output parameter has been developed. The methodology has the following basic elements: (1) specification and ranking of phenomena that govern the behaviour of the output parameter for which an uncertainty range is required; (2) identification of models within the code that represent the relevant phenomena; (3) determination of the governing parameters for the phenomenological models and Identification of uncertainty ranges for the governing model parameters from validation or scientific basis, if available; (4) decomposition of the governing model parameters into related parameters; (5) identification of uncertainty ranges for the modelling parameters for use in Best Estimate Analysis; (6) design and execution of a case matrix; and (7) estimation of the code uncertainty through quantification of the variability in output parameters arising from uncertainty in modelling parameters. This methodology has been employed using simulations of Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) tests in the RD-14M test facility to calculate the uncertainty in the TUF thermal hydraulics code calculation of the coolant void fraction. The uncertainty has been estimated with and without plant parameters (parameters specific to the RD-14M test loop). The TUF coolant void fraction uncertainty without plant parameters was determined to be 0.08 while the uncertainty with plant parameters included was determined to be 0.11. The uncertainty value without plant parameters included is comparable to the uncertainty in the measurements (0.09). The uncertainty value with plant parameters included is larger than the variation in the bias (0.10) of the TUF calculation of void fraction. From these findings, it can be concluded that the estimated accuracy of the TUF code calculation of void fraction is consistent with the available experimental data.

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 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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Engineering Thermal-HydraulicsFrench-language works237,207