Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Guy PILOT IRSN (Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire)

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Guy PILOT IRSN (Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire)"— Presentation transcript:

1 Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Guy PILOT IRSN (Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire) G. PILOT, IRSN, chapter 6.4

2 Assessment of resuspension coefficients due to the use of dismantling cutting tools Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

3 General term : Resuspension coefficient Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

4 Resuspension factor Resuspension fraction Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

5 Resuspension rate Resuspension flux Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

6 Radioactive cutting Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

7 Non radioactive cutting Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

8 Innovative prefiltration devices Acoustic declogging of an electrostatic filter Cartridge filter with pleated metallic media Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

9 Acoustic horn characteristics ( Manufacturers specifications ) Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Frequency: 250 Hz Sound pressure level (1 m): 145 dB Air pressure during signal: 0.3 – 0.4 Mpa Air consumption during signal: 20 – 30 l.s -1 Weight: 20 kg

10 Levels of protection and expected consequences Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Capture at source associated with secondary cleaning network LEVEL A Protection techniques considered Prefiltration upstream of the general ventilation Exhaust network LEVEL B Prefiltration Immediately Upstream of the HEPA filters LEVEL C Expected consequences. Increased visibility. Reduced deposits on tool on the walls of cell. Reduction of deposits in general ventilation exhaust network. Increase lifetime of HEPA filters

11 Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Blower network CELL Cutting tool Exhaust network HEPA Filter

12 Electrostatic filter efficiency during comparative tests of cutting tools for dismantling (1/2) Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Cutting coolSpecimen material Cutting Thickness (mm) Electrostatic filter Efficiency (%) Disk grinder Stainless steel Mild steel Reciprocating saw Stainless steel10> 81 Plasma torch Stainless steel Mild steel

13 Electrostatic filter efficiency during comparative tests of cutting tools for dismantling (2/2) Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Cutting coolSpecimen material Cutting Thickness (mm) Electrostatic filter Efficiency (%) Arc-air cutter Stainless steel Mild steel Arc saw Stainless steel Mild steel LSI Stainless steel Mild steel

14 Filter cleaning test results Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Cutting tool Specimen material Membrane material Thickness (mm) Recoverable mass*(g) Cleaning (%) Plasma Torch Stainless steel Mild steel PVC ** 30** Arc-airMild steelPVC1051**81 Arc saw Mild steel Stainless steel PVC ** 11.1** 4.8** LSI MS/SS PVC SS / ** 113.6*** 141.2*** * Efficiency for recoverable particle mass (i.e particles deposited on ionizer and collector only) ** Calculated value *** Measured value

15 DECOMMISSIONING DISMANTLING WASTES CONTAINERS DIMENSIONS CUTTING SECONDARY EMISSIONS PROTECTION DEVICES ex. PREFILTRATION CHARACTERIZATION Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

16 Identical working conditions (same cell at scale 1) Same steel and thickness Same measuring devices Same cutting parameters (except cutting speed and power) Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

17 Tools Reciprocating saw (5 – 10 – 30 – 50 mm) Grinder (5 – 10 – 30 mm) Plasma torch 50 A (5 – 10 mm) Plasma torch 200 A (10 – 30 – 50 mm) Arc-air (5 – 10 – 30 – 50 mm) Arc saw (5 – 10 – 30 – 50 mm) Nd-YAG Laser ( 2 – 5 – 10 mm) LSI (10 – 30 – 50 – 100 – 150* - 200* mm) (LSI: Lichtbogen Sauerstoff Impulsschneiden – Lost wire pulsed oxycutting tool) Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions *mild steel

18 The cutting performances of the tools : Maximal thickness to be cut Cutting speed Wear of the tool Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

19 The secondary emissions Distribution: Sedimented dross Attached slag Deposits on the cell walls Aerosols in the exhaust duct Measurments: Mass concentration Size distribution Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

20 Grinder - trademark:bosch - energy:electric - wheel trademark:barcut - wheel diameter:300 mm - wheel thickness:4 mm - rotation speed:5000 r.p.m. - equivalent input:2200 W - equivalent output:1550 W - weight:6 kg - cutting position:gravity position Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

21 Plasma torch - trademark:saf - type:nertajet working voltage:120 V - working intensity:200 A - plasma gas:Argon - flow rate of gas:60 l.min -1 - nozzle diameter:2 mm - working standd-off:7 mm - working position:gravity position Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

22 Arc air - working voltage:40 V - working intensity:450 A - electrode nature:carbon - electrode diameter:6.35 mm - working standd-off:1 mm - working position:gravity position Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

23 Alternating saw - trademark:fein - blade length:400 mm - teeth number per cm:6 - tooth height:1 mm - blade nature:stainless steel - rate:2.5 blows/s - working counterweight:5 kg - working angle with the piece:45° Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

24 Arc saw - origin:prototype - working voltage:44 – 60 V - working intensity:200 – 1200 A - wheel nature:fluginox wheel diameter:320 mm - wheel thickness:5 mm - rotation speed:250 – 300 r.p.m. Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

25 Nd-YAG LASER - power on plate:1 kw - frequency:10 Hz - pulse energy:100 J - focal point position:on the plate - assistant gas:without - stand-off:1 m - optical fiber:1=50m d=1mm Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

26 LSI - electrode:steel d=1.6 mm or 2.4 mm - working voltage:28-35 V - working intensity: A - stand-off:5 to 40 mm - oxygen pressure:10 bar - oxygen consumption:70 m 3 /h - wire consumption:4-17 m/min Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

27 Three tools : Plasma torch Consumable electrode Contact arc metal cutting Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

28 Non radioactive experiments: PLASMA TORCH STAINLESS STEELCONSUMABLE ELECTRODE e=80 mmC A M C Radioactive experiments: MILD STEELPLASMA TORCH e=16*2 mmC A M C Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

29 Radioactive plates (e=16 mm) 60 Co61 +/- 13 Bq/g 137 Cs1.5 +/- 1 Bq/g Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

30 Objectives Balance of solid emissions sedimented dross suspended particles aerosols Gaseous emissions: NO, NOx, O 3, CO 2, H 2 Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

31 Characterization SEDIMENTED DROSS (size distribution) SUSPENDED PARTICLES (size distribution, chemical analysis, suspension/solution) AEROSOLS (size distribution, chemical analysis) Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

32 Plasma torch - nozzle diameter:6 mm - stand-off:18 mm - pilot gas:argon, 60 l/min, 7 bar - cutting gas:argon, 150 l/min, 7 bar - voltage:190 V - current:950 – 1100 A

33 Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Contact arc metal cutting - electrode dimensions:L=150 – 170 mm l=100 mm e=8 mm - voltage:52 V average - current:1800 A average - water pressure jet:15 bar

34 Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Consumable electrode - wire diameter:3 mm - nozzle diameter:3.2 mm - voltage:63 V average - current:2000 A average - water pressure jet:17.5 bar

35 Main Features of the Experiments (1/2) Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions N° of experi- ment ToolPlaceMaterial Material thickness (mm) Radio- activity Water deph (m) Cutting speed (mm/ min) 1 Consumable electrode Underwater Stainless steel 80NO0.6 – Consumable electrode Underwater Stainless steel 80NO1.65 – CAMCUnderwater Stainless steel 80NO0.4 – CAMCUnderwater Stainless steel 80NO1.4 – Plasma torch Underwater Stainless steel 80NO

36 Main Features of the Experiments (2/2) Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions N° of experi- ment ToolPlaceMaterial Material thickness (mm) Radio- activity Water deph (m) Cutting speed (mm/ min) 5 bis Plasma torch Underwater Stainless steel 80NO Plasma torch Underwaer Stainless steel 80NO CAMCUnderwaterMild steel32YES1.5 – CAMCUnderwaterMild steel32YES Plasma torch UnderwaterMild steel32YES

37 CONS.ELECT.CAMCPLASMA Sedimented dross 99.5%93.4% 99% Suspended particles 0.5% 6.6% 1% Aerosols % 0.04% 0.006% Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions

38 Aerosol size distribution Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Experiment N° Tool Mass mean aerodynamic diameter (10 -6 m) Geometric standard deviation 1212 Consumable electrode 0.3 (Fe) 3434 CAMC 0.37 (Fe) 0.57 (Fe) bis 5 Plasma torch 0.12 (mass) 0.12 (Fe) Bimodal

39 Distribution of the 60 Co and 137 Cs in experiments n° 7, 8 and 9 Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Distribution at the activity (%) Sedimented drossSuspended particlesAerosols 60 Co 137 Cs 60 Co 137 Cs 60 Co 137 Cs Experiments n° 7 and 8 CAMC 96.8< 213.2> > 0.1 Experiment n° 9 PLASMA 99.83< > > 0.5


Download ppt "Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Guy PILOT IRSN (Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire)"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google