Estimation of Radiolytic Gas Generation Rate for Cylindrical Radioactive Waste Packages - Application to Spent Ion Exchange Resin Containers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radioactive waste packages containing water and/or organic substances have the potential to radiolytically generate hydrogen and other combustible gases. Typically, the radiolytic gas generation rate is estimated from the energy deposition rate and the radiolytic gas yield. Estimation of the energy deposition rate must take into account the contributions from all radionuclides. While the contributions from non-gamma emitting radionuclides are relatively easy to estimate, an average geometry factor must be computed to determine the contribution from gamma emitters. Hitherto, no satisfactory method existed for estimating the geometry factors for a cylindrical package. In the present study, a formulation was developed taking into account the effect of photon buildup. A prototype code, called PC-CAGE, was developed to numerically solve the integrals involved. Based on the selected dimensions for a cylinder, the specified waste material, the photon energy of interest and a value for either the absorption or attenuation coefficient, the code outputs values for point and average geometry factors. These can then be used to estimate the internal dose rate to the material in the cylinder and hence to calculate the radiolytic gas generation rate. Besides the ability to estimate the rates of radiolytic gas generation, PC-CAGE can also estimate the dose received by the container material. This is based on values for the point geometry factors at the surface of the cylinder. PC-CAGE was used to calculate geometry factors for a number of cylindrical geometries. Estimates for the absorbed dose rate in container material were also obtained. The results for Ontario Power Generation's 3 m3 resin containers indicate that about 80% of the source gamma energy is deposited internally. In general, the fraction of gamma energy deposited internally depends on the dimensions of the cylinder, the material within it and the photon energy; the fraction deposited increases with increasing dimensions of the cylinder and decreases with increasing photon energy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".