MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159295625 · doi:10.1520/jai101985

Comparison of CANDU Fuel Bundle Finite Element Model with Unirradiated Mechanical Load Experiments

2009· article· en· W2159295625 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timothy J. Lampman, Adrian Popescu, Jose Freire-Canosa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ASTM International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsNuclear Waste Management Organization
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodBundleMaterials scienceNuclear engineeringStructural engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A requirement of spent nuclear fuel is to maintain its structural integrity at all times to enable its safe and efficient handling during storage, transportation, and placement in a deep geological repository. In Canada, commercial spent fuel is currently stored in light water pools for about ten years before being transferred to dry storage where storage may extend up to 100 years. Investigations on the fuel structural integrity evolution during dry storage are being performed for spent CANDU fuel bundles. A CANDU nuclear fuel bundle is a cylindrical assembly approximately 0.1 m in diameter and 0.5 m in length made of 28 or 37 fuel elements held together by welding two endplates at both ends. The welds have a circular notch of less than 10 μm diameter. Significant hydraulic, mechanical, and thermal loads during bundle irradiation in the reactor may lead to bundle deformation, which when coupled with the sharp weld notch can result in significant stress enhancement at the notch tip and possibly activate delayed hydride cracking (DHC) during dry storage. To better understand the stress levels in CANDU fuel during dry storage, a finite element model of CANDU fuel bundles is under development. The stress distribution in the bundle and the stress intensity factor at each weld notch can be evaluated by the model for the spent fuel geometry and dry storage conditions. This paper discusses the agreement between the finite element model and validation experiments using unirradiated 28-element CANDU fuel bundles tested in the elastic and plastic regime.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ASTM InternationalSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207