MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766375192 · doi:10.1115/icone25-67371

Assessment of Choking Flow Models in RELAP5 for Subcooled Choking Flow Through a Small Axial Crack of a Steam Generator Tube

2017· article· en· W2766375192 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
FundersCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
KeywordsThermal hydraulicsSubcoolingChokingPressurized water reactorCoolantMechanicsMaterials scienceLeakTube (container)Volumetric flow rateHydraulicsFlow (mathematics)Boiler (water heating)PressurizerNuclear engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringThermodynamicsHeat transferComposite materialWaste managementPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choking flow plays an integral part not only in the engineered safeguards of a nuclear power plant (NPP), but also to everyday operation. Current NPP steam generators operate on the leak-before-break approach. The ability to predict and estimate a leak rate through a steam generator tube crack is an important safety parameter. Knowledge of the maximum flow rate through a crack in the steam generator tube allows the coolant inventory to be designed accordingly while limiting losses during loss of coolant accidents. Here an assessment of the choking flow models in thermal-hydraulics code RELAP5/MOD3.3 is performed and its suitability to predict choking flow rates through small axial cracks of the steam generator tubes is evaluated based on previously collected experimental data. Three sets of the data were studied in this work which corresponds to steam generator tube crack sample 1, 2, and 3. Each sample has a wall thickness, channel length (L), of 1.285 mm to 1.3 mm. Exit areas of these samples are 5.22 mm2, 9.05 mm2, and 1.72 mm2 respectively. Samples 1 and 2 have the same flow channel length to hydraulics diameter ratio (L/D) of 2.9 whereas sample 3 has a L/D of 6.5. A pressure differential of 6.8 MPa was applied across the samples with a range of subcooling from 5 °C to 60 °C. Flow rates through these samples were modeled using the thermal-hydraulic system code RELAP5/MOD3.3. Simulation’s results are compared to experimental values and modeling techniques are discussed. It is found that both the Henry-Fauske (H-F) and Ransom-Trapp (R-T) models better predict choking mass flux for longer channels. As the channel length decreases both models’ predictions diverge from each other. While RELAP5/MOD3.3 has been shown to predict choking flow in large scale geometries, further investigation of data sets need to be done to determine if it is suited well for small channel lengths.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Engineering Thermal-HydraulicsFrench-language works237,207