MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403811943 · doi:10.1080/00295639.2024.2411175

Derivation of Uncertainty Distributions for Channel Flow Rate and Fuel Critical Heat Flux Predictions for Best-Estimate Plus Uncertainty Analysis of Slow Loss-of–Reactor Power Regulation Accidents in CANDU Stations

2024· article· en· W4403811943 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

VenueNuclear Science and Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)Ontario Power Generation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceFlux (metallurgy)Channel (broadcasting)Uncertainty analysisCritical heat fluxFlow (mathematics)MechanicsPower (physics)Heat fluxThermodynamicsPhysicsHeat transferMaterials scienceComputer scienceEngineeringSimulationElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncertainty in the figure of merit (FOM) parameters is a central feature of the best-estimate plus uncertainty (BEPU) method, which provides insight into the analysis margins not available from other analysis methods. The FOM uncertainty distributions are formed from propagation of the variations and uncertainty distributions in the operational and modeling parameters used in simulations of a design-basis accident (DBA) scenario for a nuclear power plant.To compute an accurate FOM uncertainty distribution, it is critical to accurately quantify and account for the input parameter prediction uncertainties. The coolant flow rate through fuel channels, or more precisely, the hydraulic resistance, including the impact of two-phase flow and its distribution in the primary heat transport system and the critical heat flux (CHF) of the fuel, are two key parameters for the limiting postulated accident scenarios in a CANDU reactor for various DBAs.Prediction uncertainty distributions for these parameters can be derived by directly validating code predictions against in-reactor measurements of flow rate and experimental measurements of CHF, respectively. Such code validation circumvents the convoluted and complex approach of decomposing computer models of physical phenomena into microscopic parameters, such as interfacial mass, momentum, and heat transfer correlations, and propagation of their uncertainty distributions to obtain an overall parameter uncertainty distribution of interest. Uncertainties associated with predictions of the coolant flow rate and CHF arise due to temporal and spatial variations and uncertainties in reactor conditions, limitations of physical models and their implementation in the codes, and in the case of CHF, measurement uncertainties associated with full-scale experiments.Careful assessment of key uncertainties, specifically their magnitudes, is important for ensuring uncertainty magnitudes are not unnecessarily over- or underestimated. These uncertainties also need to be characterized properly, e.g., whether uncertainties are common to a group of reactor fuel channels or vary independently for each fuel channel. Inadequate identification or incorrect classification or characterization of uncertainties would result in an inaccurate FOM uncertainty distribution.One important focus area for this study is the distinction between apparent prediction uncertainty (the difference between code prediction and measurement) and actual prediction uncertainty (the difference between code prediction and the true value). The actual code prediction uncertainty can be calculated from the apparent code uncertainty, provided there is adequate knowledge about the measurement uncertainty. The uncertainty models developed using this approach will be used as part of the BEPU analysis for slow loss-of–reactor power regulation accidents.

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)0.000
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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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