Acceptance Criteria for Probabilistic Fracture Protection Evaluations of CANDU Zr-Nb Pressure Tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".