MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313820975 · doi:10.1115/pvp2013-97947

Effect of Flaw Orientation on Delayed Hydride Crack Initiation in Zr-2.5Nb Pressure Tubes

2013· article· en· W2313820975 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gordon K. Shek, Jun Cui, Douglas A. Scarth, Steven X. Xu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCrackingTube (container)Stress (linguistics)Composite materialStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes of CANDU reactor are susceptible to a cracking mechanism known as Delayed Hydride Cracking (DHC), which is a repetitive process that involves hydrogen diffusion, hydride precipitation and fracture at a stress concentrator such as a flaw or a crack. Service-induced flaws are present in some pressure tubes and they need to be assessed for susceptibility to DHC initiation. An engineering procedure based on the process-zone methodology has been developed and incorporated into the Canadian standard to determine the susceptibility of flaws in pressure tubes to DHC initiation. The engineering procedure was validated against experiments on flaws which were oriented in the axial direction of the pressure tube. However, many of the service-induced flaws are oriented at some oblique angle with respect to the axial direction of the tube and they may have higher threshold stresses for DHC initiation than those of the axial flaws. It would be advantageous to apply the process-zone evaluation procedure to such angled blunt flaws. For this purpose, an experimental study was carried out to measure the threshold stresses for DHC initiation from machined V-notches with different orientations (0°, 15°, 30° and 45°) with respect to the axial direction of an unirradiated pressure tube. The experimental results were used to support the development of the evaluation procedure for angled blunt flaws. The experimental program and the validation of the engineering procedure for angled blunt flaws are described in this 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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207