Creep-Fatigue Behavior and Damage Accumulation of a Candidate Structural Material for Concentrating Solar Power Thermal Receiver Quarter 6 Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creep-fatigue deformation is an important consideration for a thermal receiver in Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems due to the constant static stress or pressure, diurnal cycling, and elevated service temperatures required for efficient operation. An accurate description of the creep-fatigue behavior, not available for five of the six candidate materials, is important for assessment of preliminary designs. This project will provide a detailed analysis of the creep-fatigue behavior and damage accumulation of a candidate structural material for a CSP solar thermal receiver to address a critical knowledge barrier for receiver designs identified in the CSP Gen3 Demonstration Roadmap. This effort includes the development of rules for the design of solar receiver components against high temperature creep-fatigue and ratcheting failure modes. The ASME Code rules for high temperature nuclear components will form the basis of the method but adjustments will be made to reflect the generally shorter, diurnal operating cycles of thermal receivers and the relative consequences of failure, comparing nuclear to solar components.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".