4.6 Review

Hydrogen Isotopes Permeation in Clean or Unoxidized FeCrAl Alloys: A Review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The US Department of Energy is working on developing accident tolerant fuels (ATF) for light water reactors. Iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) alloys are being considered as a potential fuel cladding material. However, there is concern that using ferritic FeCrAl could result in an increase in tritium concentration in the coolant.
The US Department of Energy is working with fuel vendors to develop accident tolerant fuels (ATF) for the current fleet of light water reactors (LWRs). The ATF should be more resilient to loss of coolant accident scenarios and help extending the life of the operating LWRs. One of the proposed ATF concepts is to use iron-chromium-aluminum (FeCrAl) alloys for the cladding of the fuel. A concern in using ferritic FeCrAl is that this type of cladding may result in an increase in the concentration of tritium in the coolant. The objective of the current critical review is to collect and assess information from the literature regarding diffusion or permeation of hydrogen (H) and its isotopes deuterium (D) and Tritium (T) across industrial alloys (including FeCrAl) used or intended for the nuclear industry. Over a hundred years of data reviewed shows that the solubility of hydrogen in ferritic alloys is lower than in austenitic alloys but hydrogen permeates faster through a ferritic material than through austenitic materials. The tritium permeation rates in FeCrAl alloys are between those in austenitic stainless steels and in ferritic FeCr steels. The activation energy for hydrogen permeation is approximately 30 pct higher in the austenitic alloys compared with the ferritic (typically similar to 50 kJ/mol in ferritic vs. similar to 65 kJ/mol in the austenitic). None of the major elements in FeCrAl alloys react with hydrogen to form detrimental hydride phases. The effect of surface oxides on FeCrAl delaying hydrogen entrance into FeCrAl alloy is not part of this review.

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

4.6
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