4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

THE DEFOR-S EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF DEBRIS FORMATION WITH CORIUM SIMULANT MATERIALS

期刊

NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
卷 170, 期 1, 页码 219-230

出版社

AMER NUCLEAR SOC
DOI: 10.13182/NT10-A9460

关键词

severe accident; debris bed; debris morphology

资金

  1. APRI
  2. Swiss HSK
  3. SARNET
  4. Nordic Nuclear Safety Program (NKS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characteristics of corium debris beds formed in a severe core melt accident are studied in the Debris Bed Formation-Snapshot (DEFOR-S) test campaign, in which superheated binary-oxidic melts (both eutectic and non-eutectic compositions) as the corium simulants are discharged into a water pool. Water subcooling and pool depth are found to significantly influence the debris fragments' morphology and agglomeration. When particle agglomeration is absent, the tests produced debris beds with porosity of similar to 60 to 70%. This porosity is significantly higher than the similar to 40% porosity broadly used in contemporary analysis of corium debris coolability in light water reactor severe accidents. The impact of debris formation on corium coolability is further complicated by debris fragments' sharp edges, roughened surfaces, and cavities that are partially or fully encapsulated within the debris fragments. These observations are made consistently in both the DEFOR-S experiments and other tests with prototypic and simulant corium melts. Synthesis of the debris fragments from the DEFOR-S tests conducted under different melt and coolant conditions reveal trends in particle size, particle sphericity, surface roughness, sharp edges, and internal porosity as functions of water subcooling and melt composition. Qualitative analysis and discussion reaffirm the complex interplay between contributing processes (droplet interfacial instability and breakup, droplet cooling and solidification, cavity formation and solid fracture) on particle morphology and, consequently, on the characteristics of the debris beds.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据