MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling of Tests of Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking of Alloy 182 of Pressurized Water Reactor According to EPRI and USNRC Recommendations

2014· article· en· W2122752765 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omar Fernandes Aly, Miguel Mattar Neto, Mônica Maria De Abreu Mendonça Schvartzman, Luciana Iglésias Lourenço Lima

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Technology Innovations in Renewable Energy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersComissão Nacional de Energia NuclearUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisCentro de Desenvolvimento da Tecnologia NuclearCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsStress corrosion crackingAlloyPressurized water reactorCrackingMetallurgyCorrosionMaterials scienceStress (linguistics)Nuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main degradation mechanisms which cause risks to safety and reliability of pressurized water nuclear reactors is the primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) in nickel alloys, such as Alloy 600 (75Ni-15Cr-9Fe), and its weld metal Alloy 182 (67 Ni-15Cr-8Fe). It can appear at several reactor nozzles dissimilarly welded with Alloys 182/82 between steel ASTM A-508 G3 and stainless steel AISI316L, among others. The hydrogen which is dissolved to primary water to prevent radiolysis, can also have influence on the stress corrosion cracking behavior. In this article one departs from a study of Lima based in experimental data obtained from CDTN-Brazilian Nuclear Technology Development Center, in slow strain rate test (SSRT). It was prepared and used for tests a weld in laboratory, similar to dissimilar weld in pressurizer relief nozzles, operating at Brazilian NPP Angra 1. It was simulated for tests, primary water at 325oC and 12.5 MPa containing levels of dissolved hydrogen: 2, 10, 25, and 50 cm3 STP H2/kgH2O. The objective of this article is to propose an adequate modeling based on these experimental results, for PWSCC crack growth rate according to the levels of dissolved hydrogen, based on EPRI-MRP-263 NP. Furthermore, it has been estimated the stress intensity factor applied for these tests: according with these, some another models described on EPRI-MRP-115, and an USNRC Technical Report, have been tested. According to this study, CDTN tests are adequate for modeling comparisons within EPRI and USNRC models.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Technology Innovations in Renewable EnergySame topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207