MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Model to Predict Critical Heat Flux (CHF) in a CANDU Fuel Element Simulation (FES) with Various Nonuniform Axial Heat Flux Shapes and Flow Liner Creep Profiles

2024· article· en· W4405126079 on OpenAlexaff
Farzin Abbasian, G.I. Hadaller, R. A. Fortman, J.F.C. Snell

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Engineering and Design · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHeat transfer and supercritical fluids
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooJoseph Brant Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepCritical heat fluxHeat fluxArtificial neural networkNuclear engineeringMaterials scienceFlux (metallurgy)Finite element methodHeat generationEngineeringMechanicsStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringHeat transferThermodynamicsComputer scienceComposite materialPhysicsMetallurgyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Conventional ANNs used in CHF prediction can potentially face overfitting issues. • Overfitting is more pronounced in the problems involving various training features. • The introduced ANN model reduced overfitting over a wide mass flux range. • Benchmark against a TensorFlow model reveals the new model’s superior robustness. • The cases with nonuniform heat flux/annulus particularly benefit from this model. A classification ANN model was developed to predict critical power in a CANDU Fuel Element Simulation (FES) with various Axial Heat Flux Distributions (AFDs) and flow liner creep profiles. The ANN model employs 29 input features to model the AFDs and liner creep profiles and was trained by 433 test data. The classification ANN model was benchmarked against a standard regression ANN model developed with TensorFlow and the results are presented in this paper. The two models delivered roughly the same level of accuracy with a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of ∼ 2.5 %; however, the methodology used in the classification model seems to be able to alleviate overfitting and create a more tangible robustness in comparison with the regression model, albeit at the cost of a longer solution time. It is therefore recommended that the presented classification model be used in conjunction with typical regression models to attain more reliability, especially in problems including many features and small training datasets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Engineering and DesignSame topicHeat transfer and supercritical fluidsFrench-language works237,207