Code Benchmark of Depressurized Conduction Cooldown Transient in the High Temperature Test Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents results from modeling of a depressurized conduction cooldown (DCC) transient at the High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) as part of the OECD-NEA Thermal Hydraulics Code Validation Benchmark for High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors using HTTF Data . This paper briefly describes the benchmark and the models being used. It then presents a comparison of steady state and transient results based on the Problem 2 Exercise 1A and 1B definitions. We compare block and helium temperature distributions, mass flow distribution, and energy balance in steady state. All models show comparable mass flow distributions and energy balances. The temperatures within the core and outer regions are comparable in all models too, but inner reflector temperatures can vary significantly. Despite that, we find that the models are in good agreement for the full-power steady state. In the DCC, we look at block temperature at the core midplane and RCCS water exit temperature. The INL and ANL models are found to be in excellent agreement with one another on block temperature over time, while the agreement when the KAERI and NRG models are added into consideration is good. Differences in the transient heat removal from the RCCS cause the differences in block temperature over time in these models. The CNL models show similar trends to the INL, ANL, KAERI, and NRG models, but the temperatures are high because the volumes used in calculating the average temperature include the heater rods in the CNL models only. The HUN-REN model shows results that suggest significantly lower heat removal in the RCCS which merit further investigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".