MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024544085 · doi:10.1115/1.4047162

Best-Estimate Plus Uncertainty Analysis of CANDU Fuel Reliability Using Manufacturing and Simulated Core Data

2020· article· en· W3024544085 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason J. Song, Paul K. Chan, Hugues W. Bonin, Mahesh D. Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear engineeringMonte Carlo methodBurnupReliability (semiconductor)ShutdownNuclear fuelResearch reactorMaterials scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPower (physics)MathematicsStatisticsPhysicsNeutronNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A novel method of assessing the reliability of 37-element Canada deuterium uranium (reactor) (CANDU) fuel bundle was explored. The method implements a “best-estimate plus uncertainty” (BEPU) approach where a probabilistic treatment of manufacturing and operating inputs is used to predict fuel performance. The fuel performance was predicted using the Canadian industry standard codes for fuel performance, ELESTRESS and ELOCA, which, respectively, model fuel behaviors during normal and transient conditions. The outputs of the codes were compared against failure criteria from industry norms to determine the probability of failure. A Monte Carlo simulation method was applied to analyze this problem. Probability distributions of manufacturing input variables were estimated from real data, which were then randomly sampled. The inputs for fuel burnup and power were simulated using core-following data generated using a three-dimensional diffusion code, the Reactor Fuelling Simulation Program (RFSP), which were also then randomly sampled. The results of the simulations predict significant improvements in margins to limits for all performance parameters. An average improvement of 500 °C in centerline temperature, 10 °C in sheath temperature, 12 MPa in element internal pressure, and 0.8% in pellet end sheath hoop strain was predicted for the highest-powered region of the core, during normal operations, in comparison with the limit-of-envelope (LOE) benchmark. An 80% reactor overhead break (ROH) transient simulation was also simulated, and an average improvement of 500 °C in centerline temperature, 150 °C in sheath temperature, 6.5 MPa in internal pressure, and 2% in sheath hoop strain was predicted.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation ScienceSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207