1992
DOI: 10.13182/nt92-a34650
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improvement of Evaluation Method for Initiating-Phase Energetics Based on CABRI-1 In-Pile Experiments

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Condition (4) rules out instantaneous explosive vaporization upon contact, 6) Condition (5) rules out sodium reentry, 13) and Condition (6) eliminates significant coolant entrapment as the fuel displaces the coolant. 14) These general characteristics are consistent with experimental observations [10][11][12][13] and are especially important in ruling out energetic recriticality events, i.e., eliminating the potential for reaching super prompt critical conditions from fuel compaction mechanisms driven by fuel coolant interactions between dispersed fuel and liquid sodium near the top and bottom of the active core. Condition (7) prevents significant in-core direct fuel coolant contact, i.e., the fuel and the coolant within the core is largely separated by solid cladding.…”
Section: Subassembly Blockage Potentialsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Condition (4) rules out instantaneous explosive vaporization upon contact, 6) Condition (5) rules out sodium reentry, 13) and Condition (6) eliminates significant coolant entrapment as the fuel displaces the coolant. 14) These general characteristics are consistent with experimental observations [10][11][12][13] and are especially important in ruling out energetic recriticality events, i.e., eliminating the potential for reaching super prompt critical conditions from fuel compaction mechanisms driven by fuel coolant interactions between dispersed fuel and liquid sodium near the top and bottom of the active core. Condition (7) prevents significant in-core direct fuel coolant contact, i.e., the fuel and the coolant within the core is largely separated by solid cladding.…”
Section: Subassembly Blockage Potentialsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…9) Posttest examinations of numerous inpile fuel disruption tests for both fresh fuel and pre-irradiated fuel have shown extensive mixing of solidified steel within solidified fuel remains. [10][11][12] The general character of the fuel remains from all the loss-of-flow simulation tests resembles that of a porous mass of fuel with fairly large voids and with considerable entrainment of globules of steel. The resulting vaporization of entrapped steel drove fuel debris to the ends of the fuel region, i.e.…”
Section: The Role and Application Of General Behavior Princeiplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that this difference in the postfailure responses could also be due to the difference in the pressure loss of ejected fuel/fission-gas mixture through the failure rip, and such pressure loss will be sensitive to the failure-rip condition. Figure 5 presents fuel-melting boundaries calculated with PHYSURAC 2) and PAPAS-2S 12,13) codes for the BCF1 and E12 tests at the observed failure time. PHYSURAC and PAPAS-2S codes have been developed independently in IRSN and JAEA, respectively.…”
Section: Bcf1 Test With a High-smear-density Fuelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there was no experimental knowledge of the dispersion velocity of the MN fuel, we have assumed the same velocity as in the early dispersion case of the CABRI experiments BI2 and BI3 conducted for the MOX fuel 18) because of the following considerations:…”
Section: Analytical Model Of the Fuel Disruption (1) Multichannel Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fuel dispersion velocity, in the sodium-voided channel in the ARGO calculation system, was assumed to be À3 m/s based on the CABRI-BI3 experiments where the dominant driving force was fission gas. 18) In the case of MN fuel, however, the fuel dispersion should be driven by both the FP gas and dissociated nitrogen gas released from the molten fuel. This assumption where only the fission gas was available gives a conservative ULOF consequence due to the delayed insertion of the negative reactivity without the nitrogen gas expansion effect.…”
Section: Analytical Model Of the Fuel Disruption (1) Multichannel Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%