MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972951685 · doi:10.1115/1.4044747

Sensitivity Analysis of Unsteady Corium Solidification in an Initially Emptied Horizontal Turbulent Pipe Flow

2019· article· en· W2972951685 on OpenAlexafffund
Shawn Somers‐Neal, Vien Nguyen, Edgar Matida, Vinh Tang, Tarik Kaya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
KeywordsCoriumMaterials scienceTurbulenceMechanicsHeat transferReynolds numberPenetration (warfare)Heat sinkThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a reactor core meltdown under postulated severe accidents, the molten material called corium could be ejected or relocated through existing vessel penetrations. There exists, however, a potential for plugging of melt flow due to its complete solidification providing the availability of an adequate heat sink. Simulations of the melt flow in a horizontal tube were carried out to conduct a sensitivity study on the effect of key parameters on the melt penetration distance and bulk temperature distribution of the corium. The Reynolds number was varied from 10,000 to 20,000, inlet temperature was varied from 2600 K to 3000 K, the corium thermal conductivity was varied from 10 W/m·K to 20 W/m·K, and the pipe diameter was varied from 0.0095 m to 0.019 m. In addition, a comparison was made with an analytical model based on a modified Epstein's model and a previous numerical model. The study provided insight into the lower bound, which was found to be 98 mm, and the upper bound was 258 mm when predicting the potential penetration length of corium in horizontal pipes.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207