MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404370000 · doi:10.1115/pvp2024-122598

Transport of Large Nuclear Power Plant Components – New SCO-III Regulations and Mechanical Design Assessment

2024· article· en· W4404370000 on OpenAlexaff
Steffen Komann, Frank Wille, Konrad Linnemann, I. Reiche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNuclear power plantNuclear engineeringEnvironmental scienceNuclear powerEngineeringNuclear physicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The decommissioning or refurbishment of nuclear facilities necessitates either the storage or disposal of large radioactive components such as steam generators, pressurizers, reactor pressure vessels and heads, and coolant pumps, to list the major contributors. These components or objects are large in size and mass, measuring up to approximately 6 meters in diameter, up to 20 meters in length, and weighing over 400 000 kg. In many situations, the components are transported off-site to a storage, disposal or recycling/treatment facility. Previously, many large objects had to be transported under special arrangement. The latest 2018 edition of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, No. SSR-6, incorporates regulations for the shipment of contaminated, but not activated large objects as a new category of surface contaminated object, SCO-III, based on the IAEA “performance package” concept. This paper provides background and practical guidance on these regulations. Additionally, first experiences with SCO-III in the approval process are presented. For SCO-III components a mechanical assessment regarding the tests specified in the transport regulations SSR-6 for demonstrating ability to withstand normal conditions of transport is required — a free drop of the package onto an unyielding target and a penetration test have to be investigated. Large components are unique objects; therefore, it is not possible to choose experimental testing as assessment method. The application of a complex numerical analysis for mechanical proof is necessary. The assessment of the loads takes place based on local stress distributions. The large nuclear components have typically been transported in an unpackaged manner, so that the external shell of the component provides the containment wall. The paper will represent the methods, which are used for the evaluation of the mechanical integrity of the object for transport approval.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studiesFrench-language works237,207