MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753367538 · doi:10.1115/1.4037818

Fuel Assembly Concept of the Canadian Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor

2017· article· en· W2753367538 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Yetisir, H. Hamilton, Rui Xu, M. Gaudet, David Rhodes, Mitch King, Kittmer Andrew, Ben Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat transfer and supercritical fluids
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupercritical fluidCladding (metalworking)Nuclear engineeringMaterials scienceHeat transferNuclear fuelNuclear reactor coreComposite materialMechanicsEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian supercritical water-cooled nuclear reactor (SCWR) is a 2540 MWth channel-type SCWR concept that employs 336 fuel channels in the reactor core. Each fuel channel includes a pressure tube that is submerged in a heavy water moderator and contains a removable fuel assembly. The fuel assembly is designed so that all in-core components exposed to high radiation fields (other than the pressure tube) are part of the fuel assembly, which is removed from the reactor core as part of the assembly after three operating cycles. This design feature significantly reduces the likelihood of component failures due to radiation damage. To achieve high (>45%) power conversion efficiency, the Canadian SCWR operates at a supercritical water pressure (25 MPa) and high temperatures (350 °C at the inlet, 625 °C at the outlet). These conditions lead to fuel cladding temperatures close to 800 °C. Because of the reduced material strength at this temperature and higher fission gas production of the fuel, collapsible fuel cladding is selected over internally pressurized cladding. To increase heat transfer and to reduce cladding temperatures, turbulence-inducing wire-wraps are employed on fuel elements. Numerical models have been developed to analyze the thermal-structural behavior of Canadian SCWR fuel at normal and accident conditions. It was found that axial ridging, a possible failure mechanism with collapsed fuel cladding, can be avoided if the cladding thickness is larger than 0.4 mm. Detailed numerical analysis showed that the maximum fuel cladding temperature for the worst-case accident scenario is below the melting point by a small margin. This result was obtained with conservative assumptions, suggesting that the actual margin is greater. Hence, one of the design goals, the exclusion of the possibility of melting of the fuel, which is called the “no-core-melt” concept, seems attainable. However, this needs to be demonstrated more rigorously by removing the conservative assumptions in the analysis and performing supporting experimental work. This paper presents a description of the Canadian SCWR fuel assembly concept, its unique features, the rationale used in the concept development and the results of various numerical analyses demonstrating the performance and characteristics of the Canadian SCWR fuel channel.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicHeat transfer and supercritical fluidsFrench-language works237,207