MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755038497 · doi:10.1115/1.4037898

Overview of Boiling Water Reactor Steam Dryer Alternating Stress Assessment Procedures

2017· article· en· W2755038497 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Hambric, Samir Ziada, Richard Morante

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear engineeringBoilingBoiling water reactorEnvironmental scienceNuclear powerPressurized water reactorStress (linguistics)Materials scienceNuclear reactorStress corrosion crackingWaste managementEngineeringMetallurgyCorrosionNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) has approved several extended power uprates (EPU) for Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs). In some of the BWRs, operating at the higher EPU power levels and flow rates led to high-cycle fatigue damage of Steam Dryers, including the generation of loose parts. Since those failures occurred, all BWR owners proposing EPUs have been required by the USNRC to ensure that the steam dryers would not experience high-cycle fatigue cracking. This paper provides an overview of BWR steam dryer design; the fatigue failures that occurred at the Quad Cities (QC) nuclear power plants and their root causes; a brief history of BWR EPUs; and a discussion of steam dryer modifications/replacements, alternating stress mechanisms on steam dryers, and structural integrity evaluation methods (static and alternating stress).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicNuclear Engineering Thermal-HydraulicsFrench-language works237,207