Probabilistic Assessment of CANDU Reactor Core for Risk of Pressure Tube Failure due to Presence of In-Service Flaws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technical requirements for analytical evaluation of in-service Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes in CANDU(1) reactors are provided in the Canadian Standards Associate (CSA) N285.8. The evaluation must address all in-service degradation mechanisms including the presence of in-service flaws. Flaws found during in-service inspection of CANDU Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes, including fuel bundle scratches, debris fretting flaws, fuel bundle bearing pad fretting flaws, dummy bundle bearing pad fretting flaws, erosion-shot flaws and crevice corrosion flaws, are volumetric and blunt in nature. These in-service flaws can become crack initiation sites during pressure tube operation and potentially lead to pressure tube failure. Any detected flaws that do not satisfy the criteria of acceptance as per CSA N285.4 must be analytically evaluated to justify continued operation of the pressure tube. Moreover, the risk of pressure tube failure due to presence of in-service flaws in the entire reactor core must be assessed. A review of assessment of the risk of pressure tube failure due to presence of in-service flaws in CANDU reactor core is provided in this paper. The review covers the technical requirements in the CSA N285.8 for evaluating degradation mechanisms related to flaws in the reactor core. Current Canadian industry practice of probabilistic assessment of reactor core for pressure tube failure due to presence of in-service flaws is described, including evaluation of flaws for crack initiation, subsequent crack growth to through-wall penetration, and pressure tube rupture due to unstable crack growth prior to safe shutdown of the reactor. Operating experience with the application of probabilistic assessment of reactor core for the risk of pressure tube failure due to presence of in-service flaws is also provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".