MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236014801 · doi:10.3327/jnst.46.31

Evaluation Methods for Corrosion Damage of Components in Cooling Systems of Nuclear Power Plants by Coupling Analysis of Corrosion and Flow Dynamics (III)

2009· article· en· W4236014801 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Science and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrosionCathodic protectionVolumetric flow rateBoundary layerMaterials scienceChemistryMass transferOxideAnodeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ThermodynamicsMetallurgyPhysical chemistryElectrodePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flow accelerated corrosion (FAC) is divided into two processes: a corrosion (chemical) process and a flow dynamics (physical) process. The former is the essential process to cause FAC and the latter is the accelerating process to enhance FAC occurrence. The chemical process in the surface boundary layer is analyzed to evaluate FAC rate. Contributions of flow dynamics on wall thinning rate due to FAC are expressed as a function of mass transfer coefficient but not that of flow velocity. FAC evaluation procedures were divided into 5 steps as follows. (1) Flow pattern and temperature in each elemental volume along the flow path were obtained with 1D computational flow dynamics (CFD) codes, (2) corrosive conditions, e.g., oxygen concentration and electrochemical corrosion potential (ECP) along the flow path were calculated with a hydrazine oxygen reaction code, (3) precise flow patterns and mass transfer coefficients at the structure surface were calculated with 3D CFD codes, (4) danger zones were evaluated by coupling major FAC parameters, and then, (5) wall thinning rates were calculated with the coupled model of static electrochemical analysis and dynamic double oxide layer analysis at the identified danger zone. Anodic and cathodic current densities and ECPs were calculated with the static electrochemistry model and ferrous ion release rate determined by the anodic current density was used as input for the dynamic double oxide layer model. Thickness of the oxide film and its characteristics determined by the dynamic double oxide layer model were used for the electrochemistry model to determine the resistances of cathodic current from the bulk to the surface and anodic current from the surface to the bulk. Two models were coupled to determine local corrosion rate and ECP for various corrosive conditions. The calculated results of the coupled models had good agreement with the measured ones.

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.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.293 · 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