Experience using individually supplied heater rods in critical power testing of advanced BWR fuel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ABB Atom FRIGG loop located in Vasteras Sweden has during the last six years given a large experience of critical power measurements for BWR fuel designs using indirectly heated rods with individual power supply. The loop was built in the sixties and designed for maximum 100 bar pressure. Testing up to the mid eighties was performed with directly heated rods using a 9 MW, 80 kA power supply. Providing test data to develop critical power correlations for BWR fuel assemblies requires testing with many radial power distributions over the full range of hydraulic conditions. Indirectly heated rods give large advantages for the testing procedure, particularly convenient for variation of individual rod power. A test method being used at Stern Laboratories (formerly Westinghouse Canada) since the early sixties, allows one fuel assembly to simulate all required radial power distributions. This technique requires reliable indirectly heated rods with independently controlled power supplies and uses insulated electric fuel rod simulators with built-in instrumentation. The FRIGG loop was adapted to this system in 1987. A 4MW power supply with 10 individual units was then installed, and has since been used for testing 24 and 25 rod bundles simulating one subbundle of SVEA-96/100 type fuel assemblies. The experience with the system is very good, as being presented, and it is selected also for a planned upgrading of the facility to 15 MW.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".