MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372287267 · doi:10.1115/1.4062500

System Thermal-Hydraulics Model for Fluoride Salt-Cooled Reactor Based on Small Modular Advanced High Temperature Reactor (SmAHTR) Design Concept

2023· article· en· W4372287267 on OpenAlexafffund
Shujun Wang, Xianmin Huang, Blair P. Bromley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsPlenum spaceNuclear engineeringCoolantThermal hydraulicsNuclear reactor coreMaterials scienceMolten salt reactorLight-water reactorMechanicsHeat transferThermodynamicsMolten saltEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A system thermal-hydraulics model for a fluoride-salt-cooled high-temperature reactor (FHR) based on the small modular advanced high-temperature reactor (SmAHTR) design concept is developed, using RELAP5-3D. The SmAHTR components modeled in the simulations include the reactor core, lower plenum, upper plenum, top plenum, three primary heat exchangers (PHXs) equipped with three primary pumps, and three director reactor auxiliary cooling system (DRACS) equipped with three fluid diodes. Flows through the reactor core are represented by 19 individual fuel channels, one reflector-hole channel, and one downcomer channel. In each of the 19 SmAHTR fuel block channels, the fuel elements are modeled in five groups using five heat structures, each with their corresponding power level. The total reactor power is 125 MWth. Using representative core power distributions for the SmAHTR at beginning-of-cycle (BOC) and at end-of-cycle (EOC), two steady-state system thermal-hydraulic model simulations with RELAP5-3D were performed using a nominal pressure drop loss factor of 1.5 for all nine junctions in each of the 19 fuel channels modeled. Exit coolant temperatures ranged from 688 °C to 739 °C (BOC) and from 696 °C to 721 °C (EOC), while peak fuel centerline temperatures in the highest power block were 1249 °C (BOC) and 1029 °C (EOC). By adjusting the loss factors to modify coolant flow rates in each channel, a more uniform exit coolant temperature was possible, ranging from 701 °C to 709 °C (BOC) and 698 °C to 714 °C (EOC), while peak fuel centerline temperatures were reduced to 1204 °C (BOC) and 988 °C (EOC), giving results more consistent with earlier studies of the SmAHTR.

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 score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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