Assessment of Candidate Fuel Cladding Alloys for the Canadian Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor Concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selecting and qualifying a fuel cladding material for the Canadian supercritical water-cooled reactor (SCWR) concept remains the most significant materials challenge to be overcome. The peak cladding temperature in the Canadian SCWR concept is predicted to be as high as 800°C. While advanced materials show promise for future deployment, currently, the best options available are austenitic stainless steels and nickel-based alloys. Many of these alloys were extensively studied for use as fuel cladding materials in the 1960s, as part of programs to develop nuclear superheated steam reactors. After extensive out-of-pile testing and consideration of the existing data, five alloys (347 SS, 310 SS, Alloy 800H, Alloy 625, and Alloy 214) were selected for more detailed assessment using a combination of literature surveys and targeted testing to fill in major knowledge gaps. Wherever possible, performance criteria were developed for key materials properties. This paper summarizes the methodology used for the assessment and presents the key results, which show that 310 SS, Alloy 800H, and Alloy 625 would all be expected to give acceptable performance in the Canadian SCWR concept.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".