Datasets:

ClarusC64
/

fission-fuel-cladding-thermal-expansion-coherence-baseline-mapping-v0.1

id string	reactor_type string	burnup_gwdt int64	linear_heat_kw_m int64	pellet_temp_c int64	cladding_temp_c int64	pellet_expansion_um float64	cladding_strain_pct float64	fgr_pct float64	expected_coupling_score float64	decoupling_flag int64	notes string
FCB-001	PWR	5	18	900	330	8.1	0.12	0.4	0.94	0	Early cycle stable coupling
FCB-002	PWR	12	20	980	350	9.3	0.15	0.7	0.91	0	Normal expansion-strain relation
FCB-003	PWR	25	22	1,040	370	10.4	0.19	1.1	0.88	0	Mid burnup coherent
FCB-004	PWR	38	24	1,120	390	11.6	0.23	1.6	0.86	0	Expected creep growth
FCB-005	PWR	45	26	1,200	410	13.2	0.31	2.4	0.72	1	Strain rising faster than expansion
FCB-006	BWR	30	19	980	360	9.7	0.18	1.5	0.87	0	BWR stable relation
FCB-007	BWR	42	22	1,090	385	11.8	0.27	2.1	0.74	1	Gas release spike vs strain
FCB-008	SMR	15	17	910	325	8.5	0.13	0.5	0.92	0	SMR baseline
FCB-009	SMR	35	23	1,110	395	12.1	0.29	2	0.75	1	Expansion-cladding mismatch
FCB-010	PWR	50	28	1,250	430	14	0.36	3.2	0.68	1	Late burnup drift

What this dataset tests

Whether a model can map the baseline coherent relationship between:

fuel pellet thermal expansion

cladding creep/strain

fission gas release

before failure risk emerges.

The goal is to learn the normal coupling surface across burnup cycles and identify early decoherence.

Required model outputs

coupling_score

decoupling_flag

Why it matters

Fuel rod failure rarely begins with a single threshold breach. It begins when pellet expansion stops predicting cladding strain. Or when gas release stops tracking mechanical stress.

This dataset establishes the baseline coupling manifold used by later drift and failure-horizon datasets.

Use case

reactor digital twins

predictive maintenance

burnup cycle risk modeling

SMR and PWR fuel monitoring systems

Downloads last month: 30

Number of rows:

Total file size:

6.01 kB