MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ICONE19-43803 HEAT-TRANSFER CALCULATIONS OF A RE-ENTRANT CHANNEL FOR PRESSURE-TUBE SCWRS

2011· article· en· W2111833090 on OpenAlexaff
Eugene Saltanov, Wargha Peiman, Adam Caly, Igor Pioro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoolantSupercritical fluidHeat transferSuperheatingAnnulus (botany)Heat fluxNuclear engineeringCritical heat fluxTube (container)Heat transfer coefficientMechanicsNuclear reactorMaterials scienceThermodynamicsPhysicsEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of SuperCritical-Water-cooled Reactors (SCWRs) as one of the Generation-IV nuclear-reactor concepts is underway. Concepts of nuclear reactors cooled with water at supercritical pressures were studied as early as the 1950s and 1960s in the USA and Russia. However, only recent development of constructional materials made the concept of a nuclear reactor cooled with SuperCritical Water (SCW) feasible. One of the ways of increasing thermal efficiency of the SCWR is to introduce nuclear steam-reheat. The paper focuses on heat-transfer analyses of a Re-Entrant Channel (REC) as an alternative to a direct-flow channel for a Pressure-Tube (PT) thermal SCWR. The coolant is assumed to be SuperHeated Steam (SHS) at subcritical pressures (P=5.7-6.1 MPa, T=400-625℃). RECs were constructed and used at subcritical conditions in an industrial NPP at Beloyarsk (Russia) in 1960s-1970s. Such a channel consists of a PT and an inner tube. Thus, two flow schemes (coolant first enters an annulus or coolant first enters the inner tube) are possible. Both schemes are analyzed. The first scheme is more favorable from the thermal point of view, while the second is more favorable from the mechanical point of view. Heat-transfer coefficient (HTC) profile, as well as bulk-fluid, sheath, and fuel centerline temperature profiles were calculated for a cosine and downstream-skewed Axial Heat Flux Profiles (AHFP). MOX and UO2 fuels were considered. Mokry et al. (2009) correlation was used in the calculations.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.179 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE)Same topicAdvanced Power Generation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207