A Study of Superhomogenization Applied to PHWR Lattices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To reduce computational expenses, full-core production-type neutronics calculations are customarily performed using a simplified core-model whereby large regions of the core, called nodes, are assumed to be homogeneous. The process of generating the few-group homogenized-node macroscopic cross sections is called lattice homogenization. The simplest homogenization method is standard homogenization (SH) and full-core models based on it do not usually reproduce heterogeneous-core calculations too closely. To improve agreement between node-homogenized core results and heterogeneous-core results, advanced homogenization techniques are used. Such techniques tend to use additional parameters besides homogenized macroscopic cross sections. Superhomogenization (SPH) is an advanced lattice homogenization method, which has been developed initially for light-water-reactor (LWR) lattices whereby fuel elements are arranged in a rectangular array. It has the advantage of not requiring any modification to the full-core diffusion code for its implementation. For LWRs, SPH establishes neutronic equivalence between detailed-geometry heterogeneous fuel-pin cells and homogenized fuel-pin cells by adjusting homogenized multigroup macroscopic cross sections and diffusion coefficients. This work investigates the possible use of the SPH methodology for pressurized heavy-water reactor (PHWR) lattices whose fuel pins are arranged in concentric rings rather than in a rectangular array. Results for single-node (SN) as well as multinode (MN) lattice-calculation models are presented. Results show that, with proper region definition, the SPH methodology can be used for PHWR lattices but that improvement in homogenization accuracy is only marginal compared with SH when comparing results for the same type of lattice model (SN or MN).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".