MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898259413 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2018-83405

Void Fraction Measurements for Air-Water Pipe Flows Using Quick-Closing Valves and Wire-Mesh Sensors

2018· article· en· W2898259413 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeaderMaterials scienceMechanicsPorosityCoolantTwo-phase flowClosing (real estate)Flow measurementFlow (mathematics)Water flowEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialGeologyEngineeringPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In support of a header/feeder phenomena study, an adiabatic, near-atmospheric, air-water flow loop was commissioned simulating a single feeder of a Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor’s primary heat transport system under a postulated Loss of Coolant Accident scenario. An extensive database in representative two-phase flow conditions was collected, 750 tests in total, in order to create a two-phase flow map to be used in the more complex geometries such as header/feeder systems. The flow loop consists of two vertical test sections, for upwards and downwards flow, and one horizontal test section, each with an inner diameter of 32 mm and at least 120 diameters in length. Superficial velocities extended up to 6 m/s for the water and 10 m/s for the air. Void fraction was measured by means of quick-closing valves and a pair of wire-mesh sensors (WMS) in each test section. Two-phase repeatability tests showed that the liquid and gas superficial velocities varied by 1.1% and 0.6% at reference conditions of 2.0 and 2.8 m/s, respectively. The corresponding void fraction measurements varied for the quick-closing valves by at most 6.8%, which indicates a low sensitivity to the closure time of the valves and an appropriate axial distance between them, and 2.3% for the WMS. For both measurement techniques, the largest variations occurred in the vertical downwards test section. For the formal two-phase tests, over 600 distinct flow conditions were performed. The results showed that the two measurement techniques agreed within 5% at high void fractions and low liquid flow rates in vertical flow. For all other cases corresponding to the transitional or dispersed bubbly flow regime, the WMS over-estimated the void fraction by a consistent bias. An empirical correction is proposed, with a root-mean-square error of 6.6% across all tests. The void fraction map resulting from this database provides validation for the WMS measurements, a quantitative assessment of its uncertainty and range of applicability, and will be used as a reference in future tests under similar scale and flow conditions.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear Engineering Thermal-HydraulicsFrench-language works237,207