A Complementary Analysis for the Structural Safety Evaluation of the Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal Canister for the Canadian Deuterium and Uranium Reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a complementary analysis for the structural safety evaluation of the spent nuclear fuel disposal canister developed for the Canadian Deuterium and Uranium(CANDU) reactor for about 10,000 years long term deposition at a 500m deep granitic bedrock repository has been performed. However this developed structural model of the spent nuclear fuel disposal canister which has 33 spent nuclear fuel baskets and whose diameter is 122cm is too heavy to handle without any structural safety problem. Hence a lighter structural model of the spent nuclear fuel disposal canister which is easy to handle has been required to develop very much. There are two methods to reduce the weight of the CANDU canister model. The one is to alleviate severe design conditions such as external loads and safety factor. The other is to optimize the cross section shape of the canister by reducing the spent nuclear fuel basket number. Hence, in this paper a complementary analysis to alleviate such severe design conditions is carried out and simultaneously structural analyses to optimize the cross section shape of the canister by reducing the spent nuclear fuel basket number below 33 are carried out by varying the external load and the canister diameter for the reduction of the canister weight. The complementary analysis results show that the diameter of canister can be shortened below 122cm to reduce the weight of the spent nuclear fuel disposal canister.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".