MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7045227889

Analytical Forward and Inverse Modelling of Bobbin Steam Generator Inspection Probes

2022· dissertation· en· W7045227889 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBobbinEddy-current testingElectromagnetic coilEddy currentElectrical impedanceFinite element methodElectrical conductorCoaxialNondestructive testing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Steam Generators (SGs) of CANadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU®) nuclear reactors require consistent inspections to ensure their safe operation. Eddy Current Testing (ECT) is the primary method by which the SG tubes are inspected. Many conditions in the SG tubes affect the Eddy Current (EC) response, such as fretting, pitting, cracking, as well as tube expansion, the tubesheet and support structures. When two or more of these parameters overlap, the EC signal from a flaw may become difficult to distinguish from background signal variations. Multifrequency mixing can be used to separate certain features. However, this technique cannot completely filter out unwanted signals. In this work, analytical models that described the impedance of a bobbin coil 1) in a tube, 2) coaxial with a hole in a plate, and 3) with a plate encircling an arbitrary number of cylindrical conductors was developed. These models were validated against Finite Element Method (FEM) modelling and experiment. Models one and three, which are most relevant to SG inspection, were then used in a Gauss-Newton (GN) inversion algorithm to estimate physical parameters for given impedance values. The inversion of the first model, bobbin coil in a tube, performed well when experimental impedance values were used as inputs. In the inversion of the third model, impedances calculated by FEM with circumferential grooves, representing flaws, were used as inputs. When the algorithm encountered a groove on the tube’s inner diameter, the error output of the algorithm tended to increase, since these features had not been incorporated into the analytical model. When the groove was on the tube’s outer diameter, the estimates of the parameters tended to change. In both cases, the effect tended to be independent of the groove’s position with respect to the plate’s edge, indicating that the algorithm can separate multiparameter signals, and characterize flaws to a limited extent. Results demonstrate the potential of the GN algorithm to detect flaws under

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207