MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412174742 · doi:10.3390/jne6030026

Two-Dimensional Fuel Assembly Study for a Supercritical Water-Cooled Small Modular Reactor

2025· article· en· W4412174742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valerio Giusti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupercritical fluidModular designNuclear engineeringProcess engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burnable poisoning and fuel enrichment zoning are two techniques often combined in order to optimize the fuel assembly behavior during the burnup cycle. In the present work, these two techniques will be applied to the 2D optimization of the fuel assembly conceptual design for the supercritical water-cooled reactor developed in the framework of the Joint European Canadian Chinese development of Small Modular Reactor Technology project, funded within the Euratom Research and Training programme 2019–2020. The initial configuration of the fuel assembly does not include any burnable absorbers and uses a homogeneous fuel enrichment of 7.5% in 235U. The infinite multiplication factor, k∞, starts from approximately 1.32 and drops, almost linearly, to 1.0 after a burnup of 40.0 MWd·kg−1. The uniform enrichment is, however, responsible for a pin-power peaking factor that with fresh fuel starts from 1.32 and reduces to 1.08 at the end of the burnup cycle. A simplified analytical model is developed to assess the effect of different lumped burnable absorbers on the time dependence of the assembly k∞. It is shown that using an adequate number of B4C rods, positioned in the outer wall of the fuel assembly, together with a suitable distribution of six different 235U enrichments, it allows for obtaining an assembly k∞ factor that starts from 1.11 at the beginning of the cycle and remains quite constant over a large fraction of the burnup cycle. Moreover, the pin-power peaking factor is reduced to 1.03 at the beginning of the cycle and remains almost unchanged until the end of the burnup cycle.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear EngineeringSame topicNuclear reactor physics and engineeringFrench-language works237,207