ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Cavitation Damage Prediction in Mercury Target for Pulsed Spallation Neutron Source Using Monte Carlo Simulation.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cavitation Damage Prediction in Mercury Target for Pulsed Spallation Neutron Source Using Monte Carlo Simulation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cavitation damage on a mercury target vessel for a pulsed spallation neutron source is induced by a proton beam injection in mercury. Cavitation damage is one of factors affecting the allowable beam power and the life time of a mercury target vessel. The prediction method of the cavitation damage using Monte Carlo simulations was proposed taking into account the uncertainties of the core position of cavitation bubbles and impact pressure distributions. The distribution of impact pressure attributed to individual cavitation bubble collapsing was assumed to be Gaussian distribution and the probability distribution of the maximum value of impact pressures was assumed to be three kinds of distributions: the delta function and Gaussian and Weibull distributions. Two parameters in equations describing the distribution of impact pressure were estimated using Bayesian optimization by comparing the distribution of the cavitation damage obtained from the experiment with the distribution of the accumulated plastic strain obtained from the simulation. Regardless of the distribution type, the estimated maximum impact pressure was 1.2-2.9 GPa and existed in the range of values predicted by the ratio of the diameter and depth of the pit. The estimated dispersion of the impact pressure distribution was 1.0-1.7 μm and corresponded to the diameter of major pits. In the distribution of the pits described by the accumulated plastic strain, which was assumed in three cases, the delta function and Gaussian and Weibull distributions, the Weibull distribution agreed well with the experimental results, particularly including relatively large pit size. Furthermore, the Weibull distribution reproduced the depth profile, i.e., pit shape, better than that using the delta function or Gaussian distribution. It can be said that the cavitation erosion phenomenon is predictable by adopting the Weibull distribution. This prediction method is expected to be applied to predict the cavitation damage in fluid equipment such as pumps and fluid parts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.