4.5 Article

Numerical simulation of the SURC-2 and SURC-4 MCCI experiments by MPS method

期刊

ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 46-52

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2014.06.011

关键词

MCCI; MPS method; Basaltic concrete ablation

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molten corium-concrete interaction (MCCI) phenomenon was analyzed based on the Moving Particle Semi-implicit (MPS) method. The developed code was applied to one-dimensional SURC-2 and SURC-4 experiments, in which a mixture composed of UO2-ZrO2-Zr and Steel-Zr was used as the melt materials. The phase transition of the melt and the concrete was modeled based on a phase transition model for mixture. The effect of Zr oxidation on the concrete ablation was taken into consideration by introducing the reaction heat of Zr/SiO2 obtained from the condensed phase chemical equations into the melt pool. The calculated concrete ablation rate was compared with the experimental measurements and the simulation results of the CORCON code. The simulation results by MPS agreed well with the experimental measurements. The experimental and MPS results both indicated that for both experiments Zr oxidation could significantly increase the ablation rate. On the other hand, crust formation and remelting was observed to occur on the interface between the melt and the concrete in the MPS simulation. During the period before crust remelted, the concrete ablation rate calculated by MPS decreased significantly. It was indicated by the MPS results that the crust formation could play an important part in MCCI since it could slow down the concrete ablation rate by preventing the melt from interacting with the concrete. Although the experiments did not clarify this observation, the proof for this phenomenon could be deduced from the decreased concrete ablation rate during the same period of interaction presented by the experimental results. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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