MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173213923 · doi:10.1115/icone17-75990

Thermal Aspects for Uranium Carbide and Uranium Dicarbide Fuels in Supercritical Water-Cooled Nuclear Reactors

2009· article· en· W2173213923 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bryan Villamere, Leyland Allison, Lisa Grande, Sally Mikhael, Adrianexy Rodriguez-Prado, Igor Pioro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSubcritical and Supercritical Water Processes
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNuclear engineeringSupercritical fluidCoolantNuclear fuelMaterials scienceHeat transferEnriched uraniumEnvironmental scienceUraniumWaste managementChemistryThermodynamicsMechanical engineeringMetallurgyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SuperCritical Water-cooled Reactors (SCWRs) are a Generation IV nuclear reactor concept. Two main SCWR design concepts are Pressure-Vessel (PV) type and Pressure-Tube (PT) type reactors. SCWRs would use light-water coolant at operating parameters set above the critical point of water (22.1 MPa and 374°C). A reason for moving from current Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) designs to SCW NPP designs is that a SCW NPP will have a thermal efficiency of 45 to 50%, a remarkable improvement from the current 30–35%. SCWRs have another added benefits such as a simplified flow circuit in which steam generators, steam dryers, steam separators, etc. can be eliminated. Canada is in the process of conceptualizing an SCW CANDU reactor. This concept refers to a 1200-MWel horizontal pressure-tube type reactor with the following operating parameters: a pressure of 25 MPa, an inlet temperature of 350°C and an outlet temperature of 625°C. Materials and nuclear fuel must be able to withstand these extreme conditions. In general, the primary choice for a fuel is an enriched Uranium Dioxide (UO2). The industry accepted limit for fuel centreline temperature is 1850°C, and previous studies have shown that the fuel centreline temperature of UO2 pellet might exceed this value at certain conditions. Therefore, a thermal conductivity of the fuel must be sufficiently high to transfer large heat flux within a fuel pellet. Also, a sheath material must withstand supercritical pressures and temperatures inside aggressive medium such as supercritical water, so it should be corrosion-resistant, high-temperature and high-yield strength alloy. In general, sheath materials in various SCWR concepts have a temperature design limit up to 850°C. Uranium Carbide and Uranium Dicarbide are excellent fuel choices as they both have higher thermal conductivities compared to conventional nuclear fuels such as uranium oxide, MOX and Thoria. UC and UC2 are high-temperature ceramics. The sheath material being considered is Inconel 600. This Ni-based alloy has high-yield strength and maintains its integrity beyond the design limit of 850°C. To model a generic SCWR fuel channel, a 43-element bundle string was used. In this paper, bulk-fluid, sheath and fuel centreline temperature profiles together with heat transfer coefficient (HTC) profile were calculated along the heated length of a fuel channel. Also, selected thermophysical properties of various nuclear fuels are listed in the present paper.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSubcritical and Supercritical Water ProcessesFrench-language works237,207