English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The objective of this investigation was to appeal to the available ComPro{trademark} database of glass compositions and measured PCTs that have been generated in the study of High Level Waste (HLW)/Low Activity Waste (LAW) glasses to define an Acceptable Glass Composition Region (AGCR). The term AGCR refers to a glass composition region in which the durability response (as defined by the Product Consistency Test (PCT)) is less than some pre-defined, acceptable value that satisfies the Waste Acceptance Product Specifications (WAPS)--a value of 10 g/L was selected for this study. To assess the effectiveness of a specific classification or index system to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable glasses, two types of errors (Type I and Type II errors) were monitored. A Type I error reflects that a glass with an acceptable durability response (i.e., a measured NL [B] &lt; 10 g/L) is classified as unacceptable by the system of composition-based constraints. A Type II error occurs when a glass with an unacceptable durability response is classified as acceptable by the system of constraints. Over the course of the efforts to meet this objective, two approaches were assessed. The first (referred to as the ''Index System'') was based on the use of an evolving system of compositional constraints which were used to explore the possibility of defining an AGCR. This approach was primarily based on ''glass science'' insight to establish the compositional constraints. Assessments of the Brewer and Taylor Index Systems did not result in the definition of an AGCR. Although the Taylor Index System minimized Type I errors which allowed access to composition regions of interest to improve melt rate or increase waste loadings for DWPF as compared to the current durability model, Type II errors were also committed. In the context of the application of a particular classification system in the process control system, Type II errors are much more serious than Type I errors. A Type I error only reflects that the particular constraint system being used is overly conservative (i.e., its application restricts access to glasses that have an acceptable measured durability response). A Type II error results in a more serious misclassification that could result in allowing the transfer of a Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) batch to the melter, which is predicted to produce a durable product based on the specific system applied but in reality does not meet the defined ''acceptability'' criteria. More specifically, a nondurable product could be produced in DWPF. Given the presence of Type II errors, the Index System approach was deemed inadequate for further implementation consideration at the DWPF. The second approach (the JMP partitioning process) was purely data driven and empirically derived--glass science was not a factor. In this approach, the collection of composition--durability data in ComPro was sequentially partitioned or split based on the best available specific criteria and variables. More specifically, the JMP software chose the oxide (Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} for this dataset) that most effectively partitions the PCT responses (NL [B]'s)--perhaps not 100% effective based on a single oxide. Based on this initial split, a second request was made to split a particular set of the ''Y'' values (good or bad PCTs based on the 10 g/L limit) based on the next most critical ''X'' variable. This ''splitting'' or ''partitioning'' process was repeated until an AGCR was defined based on the use of only 3 oxides (Al{sub 2}O{sub 3}, CaO, and MgO) and critical values of &gt; 3.75 wt% Al{sub 2}O{sub 3}, {ge} 0.616 wt% CaO, and &lt; 3.521 wt% MgO. Using this set of criteria, the ComPro database was partitioned in which no Type II errors were committed. The automated partitioning function screened or removed 978 of the 2406 ComPro glasses which did cause some initial concerns regarding excessive conservatism regardless of its ability to identify an AGCR. However, a preliminary review of glasses within the 1428 ''acceptable'' glasses defining the ACGR includes glass systems of interest to support the accelerated mission

Definition of an Acceptable Glass composition Region (AGCR) via an Index System and a Partitioning Function