4.7 Article

First high temperature safety tests of AGR-1 TRISO fuel with the Fuel Accident Condition Simulator (FACS) furnace

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MATERIALS
卷 464, 期 -, 页码 320-330

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnucmat.2015.05.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Three TRISO fuel compacts from the AGR-1 irradiation experiment were subjected to safety tests at 1600 and 1800 degrees C for approximately 300 h to evaluate the fission product retention characteristics. Silver behavior was dominated by rapid release of an appreciable fraction of the compact inventory (3-34%) at the beginning of the tests, believed to be from inventory residing in the compact matrix and outer pyrocarbon (OPyC) prior to the safety test. Measurable release of silver from intact particles appears to become apparent only after similar to 60 h at 1800 degrees C. The release rate for europium and strontium was nearly constant for 300 h at 1600 degrees C (reaching maximum values of approximately 2 x 10(-3) and 8 x 10(-4) respectively), and at this temperature the release may be mostly limited to inventory in the compact matrix and OPyC prior to the safety test. The release rate for both elements increased after approximately 120 h at 1800 degrees C, possibly indicating additional measurable release through the intact particle coatings. Cesium fractional release from particles with intact coatings was <10(-6) after 300 h at 1600 degrees C or 100 h at 1800 degrees C, but release from the rare particles that experienced SiC failure during the test could be significant. However, Kr release was still very low for 300 h 1600 degrees C (<2 x 10(-6)). At 1800 degrees C, krypton release increased noticeably after SiC failure, reflecting transport through the intact outer pyrocarbon layer. Nonetheless, the krypton and cesium release fractions remained less than approximately 10(-3) after 277 h at 1800 degrees C. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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