MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ASYST4.1 validation for gas cooled SMR applications using the HTTF experiment

2023· article· en· W4387591817 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nikolai Vododokhov, A.K. Trivedi, D. R. Novog

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Engineering and Design · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering
KeywordsNuclear engineeringCoolantNatural circulationModular designThermal hydraulicsTransient (computer programming)Molten saltNuclear reactorHeat transferScramThermal conductionHeliumEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringThermodynamicsComputer scienceChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) based on High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGR) concepts are being considered for remote communities in Canada (power ∼ 5 MWe or less) and elsewhere. One such design is Micro-Modular Reactor (MMR) from USNC (Ultra-Safe Nuclear Corporation). It uses helium as primary coolant and molten salt as intermediate coolant and for thermal energy storage (TES). The molten salt can then be used to generate steam on-demand to match the local communities’ energy requirements. Reliable computational tools are needed for thermal hydraulic analysis of the integrated nuclear and molten salt systems. ASYST4.1 (Advanced SYStem Thermal system) is one such tool which has been recently validated for Solar Salt (40 % NaNO3 + 60 %KNO3) applications and has capability to simulate the helium coolant and reactor core behaviour. To enable the code to model the primary and intermediate loops of MMR there is a need to validate the code for helium coolants and its capabilities to simulate lateral conduction, natural circulation, and radiative heat transfer. The HTTF (High Temperature Test Facility) experiment PG-26, a Depressurized Conduction Cooldown transient, is used for this validation exercise. The results are compared with those of the experiment and those from RELAP5-3D calculations. The reference case and sensitivity analyses for the important parameters are presented. Mass flow rate and temperatures in the primary loop are compared for the steady-state and for the transient PG-26. For the initial assessment ASYST4.1 predictions are found in good agreement with RELAP5-3D, but these results deviate from the experiment. Significant improvement in simulation results is observed when simulations consider the entire trajectory of the warm-up period and of the experiment, indicating that the experiment was not in a steady-state condition at the time of the depressurization test. This is an important factor to be considered in all HTTF cases going forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Engineering and DesignSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207