MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405746808 · doi:10.1016/j.net.2024.103408

An optimal procedure for fragility analysis of nuclear containment structures under internal pressure

2024· article· en· W4405746808 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 Engineering and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersKorea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and PlanningMinistry of Trade, Industry and EnergyNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Education
KeywordsFragilityInternal pressureContainment (computer programming)Nuclear engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceEngineeringMedicinePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to develop a novel efficient procedure for determining the fragility function of nuclear containment structures under internal pressure. This procedure can substantially reduce the computational cost by optimizing the required number of nonlinear structural analyses, which is initially unclear in the pressure fragility analysis. The core principle of the proposed procedure is to monitor the changes of the mean ( P m ) and standard deviation ( β S ) of ultimate pressure at failure while gradually increasing the number of structural analyses. The process is terminated when the changes in P m and β S between two consecutive steps drop below a prescribed threshold. The proposed procedure was applied to the pressure fragility analysis of an existing type of containment structure. Since the proposed procedure involves the random selection of additional value sets of the uncertainty parameters at each step, it was repeated 10 times to ensure a fair evaluation. The fragility curve obtained from as small as 40 analyses was nearly identical to that from 100 analyses. On average, over the 10 repeated cases, the computation time was reduced by approximately 47 % compared to the case of 100 analyses. The results confirm that the proposed procedure not only significantly reduced the computational demand but also ensured the reliable generation of the pressure fragility function.

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 score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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