1. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 1 Analysis and Comparison of Experimental Data of QUENCH-07 to QUENCH-09 Review and Progress Ch. Homann, W. Hering Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe P.O. Box 3640 D-76021 Karlsruhe, Germany 11th International QUENCH Workshop Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe 25-27 October 2005

2. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 2 Introduction QUENCH-07 – QUENCH-09 –devoted to B 4 C control rod behaviour –cover wide range of accident conditions (LOOP / LOCA) Several aspects presented at previous QWSs –CR behaviour –General findings Time for an state of the art overview –Totally based on experimental on-line data –Demonstrates their value as “stand alone” information –Further work possible and appreciated Report FZKA 7101 in work

3. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 3 Control Rod Damage and Degradation Main Results (QWS10) CR fails –near upper end of heated zone –near end of first transient –in two steps  Clad (Q-7/-9: Δt = 33 s)  Guide tube (Δt = 196 s) Subsequent test conduct/ development different Steam starvation significant test parameter Sequence diagram established, necessary for model development CR degradation is embedded in general bundle damage and degradation B 4 C Contribution to Oxidation (1) Analysis based on MS data  Analysis is global assessment Basis B 4 C + 7 H 2 O  2 B 2 O 3 + CO + 7 H 2 – 760 B 4 C + 8 H 2 O  2 B 2 O 3 + CO 2 + 8 H 2 – 792 B 4 C + 6 H 2 O  2 B 2 O 3 + CH 4 + 4 H 2 – 987 Zr + 2 H 2 O  ZrO 2 + 2 H 2 – 595 Restrictions Analysis uncertain in late phase (further chem / phys phenomena) MS based on mass numbers  Deduction of chemical compounds ambiguous B 4 C oxidation probably in smaller bundle region than Zr oxidation

4. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 4 B 4 C Contribution to Oxidation (2)

5. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 5 Material Relocation Basis MR normally detected in PTE Guide tube failure Q-7/-9: 2136 / 2590 s (1896 / 2125 s into first transient) Absorber melt at low temperature  TCs may indicate MR Results Wide axial & radial spreading Effects confirmed by PTE Number of detected events not representative for total number Additional phenomena in later test phases  interpretation difficult Similar results in QUENCH-09 in spite of different test conduct

6. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 6 First Transient (1) Experimental findings Heat-up rates quite close together But: CR degradation different Closer look at tests helpful? Differences between tests Test conduct –Steam: 3.0, 3.15, 3.4 g/s –Initial bundle temperatures –Radial heat losses Further differences –Geometry tolerances –Assembly tolerances –Other items

7. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 7 First Transient (2) Results More than one reason for differences Effects –may be localized –may compensate one another Consequences Heat-up time within ±5 % Margin measure for bandwidth (facility, test conduct) Much more tests needed for proper statistics…

8. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 8 Second Transient in Q-07/-08 Experimental findings Differences in test conduct sum up with time, but Bundle conditions similar at start of second transient (T2) Test conducts of T2 similar Problem H 2 production very different Solution See figure Consequences Direct comparison of test results impossible Pay special attention on duration of hot phase of T2, if good agreement of tests required

9. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 9 Cool-Down Phase Experimental findings in Q-07 Shroud failure at 3486 s TCI 15/0 always below T sat Fast final decrease of TSH/TCI Pressure signals not helpful Results Condensation in annulus Steam mass flow rate decreases in upper part of bundle  measured rate valid for bundle exit Radial heat flux reversed during c/d Large azimuthal asymmetry even in cooling jacket Maximum temperature in c/j later at lower elevations Similar results for QUENCH-09 Premature end of data acquisition in QUENCH-08

10. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 10 Delay of H 2 Production in Cool-Down Phase of QUENCH-07 Problems Time synchronization of PCs diverged Condensation in steam feed pipe Solution difficult (MS sampling freq small) Common Recommendations Synchronization based on P 411 (rod pressure) Time shift MS 15 … 21 s Delay H 2 rate 5 … 7 s Recommendations Distributed by E-mail Included in this presentation

11. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 11 MS Measurement Q-07 Problem Consumed steam exceeds provided steam by up to ~50% Even higher peak measured with PRISMA Steam supply credible Strong evaporation or entrainment of condensate in steam feed pipe unlikely No physical explanation found  Transient MS tests in bundle necessary

12. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft FZK, H & HQWS11, KA, 25.-27.10.2005 12 Summary & Conclusions CR behaviour Analysis of on-line data alone yields much insight Sequence of CR degradation understood CR failure in first transient Large scatter for guide tube failure CR contribution to oxidation assessed roughly Relocation of absorber melt identified from TC readings General outcome Understanding of tests widely extended Work gives basis to model CR degradation Bundle behaviour Heat-up to ~ 1700 K: Δt/t = ±5 %; several reasons compete Reason for different hydrogen release in T2 of Q-7/Q-8 understood Thermal-hydraulic consequences of shroud failure investigated Q-7 data synchronisation corrected Interpretation of MS signals in c/d phase needs further work General outcome Direct comparison of test results impossible due to differences in test conduct Only thorough and detailed work can give insight