MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898455548 · doi:10.1115/pvp2018-85086

Acceptance Criteria for Probabilistic Fracture Protection Evaluations of CANDU Zr-Nb Pressure Tubes

2018· article· en· W2898455548 on OpenAlexaffabout
Douglas A. Scarth, Leonid Gutkin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFracture toughnessProbabilistic logicPressure vesselMaterials scienceAcceptance testingFracture (geology)EmbrittlementNuclear engineeringBounding overwatchTube (container)Structural engineeringReliability engineeringComputer scienceComposite materialEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Requirements for pressure-temperature limits to protect against rupture of CANDU nuclear reactor Zr-Nb pressure tubes are provided in the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Standard N285.8. The requirements are based on a stability evaluation of a postulated axial through-wall flaw for all ASME Service Level A, B, C and D loadings. The flaw stability evaluation is strongly dependent on the fracture toughness of the Zr-Nb pressure tube material. The fracture toughness of Zr-Nb pressure tubes is decreasing with operating hours. The decrease in fracture toughness as well as compounding conservatisms based on using bounding values make deterministic evaluations more challenging. The CSA Standard N285.8 permits probabilistic evaluations of fracture protection, but does not provide acceptance criteria. Proposed acceptance criteria that meet the intent of the design basis for Zr-Nb pressure tubes have been developed. The proposed acceptance criteria consist of a proposed maximum allowable conditional probability of pressure tube rupture for the entire reactor core, as well as a proposed maximum allowable conditional probability of rupture of a single pressure tube. The paper provides a description of the technical basis for the proposed acceptance criteria for probabilistic evaluations of fracture protection.

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 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 score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207