MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587324419 · doi:10.1115/imece2016-66311

Identification of Non-Linear Damping of Nuclear Reactor Components in Case of One-to-One Internal Resonance

2016· article· en· W2587324419 on OpenAlexaff
Joachim Delannoy, Marco Amabili, Brett Matthews, Brian Painter, Kostas Karazis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrationExcitationDisplacement (psychology)Resonance (particle physics)HarmonicStructural engineeringNuclear reactor coreNuclear reactorFluid–structure interactionMechanicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringAcousticsNuclear engineeringPhysicsFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) assemblies are exposed to challenging thermal, mechanical, and irradiation loads during operation. Global core and local fuel assembly flow fields coupled with seismic excitation result in fuel assembly and fuel rod vibrations. The fact that vibrations may become excessive in certain conditions has consequences on operational safety margins in fuel assemblies designs. In order to understand how the fuel assembly responds dynamically to an external excitation, it is important to identify the main characteristics of the structures. Among them, the fuel assembly system damping is a fundamental parameter that is usually identified by a number of experiments involving fluid-structure interaction. Recent studies have shown that the damping ratio increases with the excitation force when the structure is entering large-amplitude vibrations, in which case the geometric non-linearities have to be taken into account. The present paper presents an advanced identification procedure developed to identify the system characteristics from experimental non-linear response curves obtained from forced vibration tests, accounting for fluid-structure interaction, at different excitation levels. Furthermore, the numerical tool developed in this analysis is capable of working with systems presenting one-to-one internal resonance, i.e. systems with symmetry such as circular tubes and circular cylindrical shells. The method relies on a harmonic decomposition of the displacement to cope with the data usually available by vibration measurements.

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 score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207