A.Borovoi, S.Bogatov, V.Chudanov, V.Strizhov

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Generic Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR): Safety Systems Overview
Advertisements

OVERVIEW - RELAP/SCDAPSIM
CSNI/WG-RISK – LEVEL 2 PSA AND ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP – MARCH ADVANCED MODELING AND RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY FOR PHYSICAL MODELS OF LEVEL.
GE’s ESBWR by T. G. Theofanous.
INRNE-BAS MELCOR Pre -Test Calculation of Boil-off test at Quench facility 11th International QUENCH Workshop Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (FZK), October.
Safety Implications of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Sheldon L. Trubatch, Ph.D., J.D. Vice-Chairman Arizona Section American Nuclear Society.
GENERATION III AND III+ NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DESIGNS ACR-1000 (Advanced CANDU Reactor) Dr. Şule Ergün Hacettepe University Department of Nuclear Engineering.
Issues Associated with the Development of Severe Accident Management Guidelines for CANDU Reactors Keith Dinnie Director, Risk Management Nuclear Safety.
Thermal-Hydraulic Transient Analysis of the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) TRTR Annual Meeting September 17-20, 2007 Dr. Robert C. Nelson1,
EUROTRANS – DM1 RELAP5 Model Evaluation with SIMMER-III Code and Preliminary Transient Analysis for EFIT Reactor WP5.1 Progress Meeting KTH / Stockholm,
Characterization of the Engineering Test Reactor at the INL for Final Disposition TRTR 2007 J. R. Parry Irradiation Test Programs INL.
HTTF Analyses Using RELAP5-3D Paul D. Bayless RELAP5 International Users Seminar September 2010.
Prior investigation of absorber rod Dy 2 O 3  TiO 2 behavior after severe accident test FSUE SRI SIA “LUCH” ICP MAE Presented by Dmitry N. Ignatiev Forschungszentrum,
Accidents Happen But Nuclear Accidents Require Special Skill!
ARIES Meeting General Atomics, February 25 th, 2005 Brad Merrill, Richard Moore Fusion Safety Program Pressurization Accidents in ARIES-CS.
Nuclear Plant Systems ACADs (08-006) Covered Keywords
STEAM HEATING.
Nuclear Reactors Chapter 4
Nuclear Fundamentals Part II Harnessing the Power of the Atom.
Argonne National Laboratory 2007 RELAP5 International User’s Seminar
Thermal hydraulic analysis of ALFRED by RELAP5 code & by SIMMER code G. Barone, N. Forgione, A. Pesetti, R. Lo Frano CIRTEN Consorzio Interuniversitario.
Thermal Hydraulic Simulation of a SuperCritical-Water-Cooled Reactor Core Using Flownex F.A.Mngomezulu, P.G.Rousseau, V.Naicker School of Mechanical and.
RIC 2009 Thermal Hydraulics & Severe Accident Code Development & Application Ghani Zigh USNRC 3/12/2009.
Advanced Test Reactor.
THERMAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR THE OREGON STATE REACTOR USING RELAP5-3D Wade R. Marcum Brian G. Woods 2007 TRTR Conference September 19, 2007.
Safety of Nuclear Reactors
KIT – University of the State of Baden-Württemberg and National Large-scale Research Center of the Helmholtz Association Institute for Nuclear and Energy.
Kevin Burgee Janiqua Melton Alexander Basterash
ALFRED System Configuration Luigi Mansani
Nuclear Power Generation In The United States. 103 Nuclear Power Reactors.
Nuclear Thermal Hydraulic System Experiment
Feasibility Study of Supercritical Light Water Cooled Fast Reactors for Actinide Burning and Electric Power Production NERI program funded by the U.S.
EUROTRANS – DM1 ENEA Activities on EFIT Safety Analysis ENEA – FIS/NUC Bologna - Italy WP5.1 Progress Meeting Tractebel / Brussels, March 17, 2006 G. Bandini,
NEEP 541 – Material Properties Fall 2003 Jake Blanchard.
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, The Experimental Results of LIVE-L8B: Debris Melting Process in a Simulated PWR Lower Head X. Gaus-Liu, A. Miassoedov,
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 ESTIMATION OF THERMAL-HYDRAULIC LOADING FOR VVER-1000 UNDER SEVERE ACCIDENT SCENARIO Barun Chatterjee 1, Deb Mukhopadhyay.
LEADER Project Analysis of Representative DBC Events of the ETDR with RELAP5 and CATHARE Giacomino Bandini - ENEA/Bologna Genevieve Geffraye – CEA/Grenoble.
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 MELCOR Severe Accident Simulation for a “CAREM-like” Integral Reactor M. Caputo, J. M. García, M. Giménez, S.
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 Analysis of Corium Behavior in the Lower Plenum of the Reactor Vessel during a Severe Accident Rae-Joon Park,
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 Pretest Calculations of QUENCH-DEBRIS-0 Test Using SOCRAT/V3 Code V ASILIEV A.D. N UCLEAR S AFETY I NSTITUTE OF.
Nuclear Power Plants  There are over 500 worldwide that produce 1/6 of the world’s power.  In the U.S. there are over 100 and they produce about 20%
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne, March 21 – 23, 2012 Hydrogen Stratification in Experimental Facilities and PWR Containments – Results and Conclusions of Selected.
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 In-vessel retention as retrofitting measure for existing nuclear power plants M. Bauer, Westinghouse Electric.
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 Experimental and computational studies of the coolability of heap-like and cylindrical debris beds E. Takasuo,
Results of First Stage of VVER Rod Simulator Quench Tests 11th International QUENCH Workshop Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe October 25-27, 2005 Presented.
Nuclear Power Plant How A Nuclear Reactor Works.
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 Post-test calculations of CERES experiments using ASTEC code Lajos Tarczal 1, Gabor Lajtha 2 1 Paks Nuclear Power.
1 A Self-Cooled Lithium Blanket Concept for HAPL I. N. Sviatoslavsky Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI With contributions.
AQA A2 Physics A Nuclear Physics Section 15 Fission.
Nuclear Power Plant How A Nuclear Reactor Works. Pressurized Water Reactor - Nuclear Power Plant.
ARIES Meeting University of Wisconsin, April 27 th, 2006 Brad Merrill, Richard Moore Fusion Safety Program Update of Pressurization Accidents in ARIES-CS.
LOW PRESSURE REACTORS. Muhammad Umair Bukhari
Date of download: 10/13/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.
Thermodynamics Thermal Hydraulics.
DCLL TBM Reference Design
Phase III Indo-UK Collaboration
Based on Actual Events K-19 Submarine The “Widowmaker”
Nuclear Power Plant.
THERMAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR THE OREGON STATE REACTOR USING RELAP5-3D Wade R. Marcum Brian G. Woods 2007 TRTR Conference September 19, 2007.
Date of download: 12/30/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved.
Analysis of Reactivity Insertion Accidents for the NIST Research Reactor Before and After Fuel Conversion J.S. Baek, A. Cuadra, L-Y. Cheng, A.L. Hanson,
Fission and Fusion of Atomic Nuclei
Phoebus 2A, Nuclear Thermal Element
Session Name: Lessons Learned from Mega Projects
Chemistry 25.3.
NUMERICAL STUDY OF IN-VESSEL CORIUM RETENTION IN A BWR REACTOR M
Chemistry 25.3.
Chemistry 25.3.
State Scientific Center– Research Institute of Atomic Reactors
Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority (EAEA), Egypt
Presentation transcript:

A.Borovoi, S.Bogatov, V.Chudanov, V.Strizhov RRC “KI” The Chernobyl corium: generation, interaction with concrete and progression A.Borovoi, S.Bogatov, V.Chudanov, V.Strizhov

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Presentation outline What do we know about melt behavior during late phase of Chernobyl accident? Accident initiation Formation of Lava-like Fuel Containing Masses (LFCM) Spreading of LFCM and cooling ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Events before accident Low level of operation (below 200 MW) High coolant flow rate through the core (56-58)·103 m3/hr instead of 42∙103 m3/hr Low subcooling (5oC instead of 21oC) Low cavitations margin (0.5 MPa instead of 2.15 MPa) Low level of operational reactivity margin (7.2 control rods) while allowed minimal reactivity margin was 15 control rods Some safety systems were turned off Design features: Large positive void reactivity Positive reactivity induced by emergency protection rods Start of experiment on slow down of turbogenerator ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

RBMK reactor main structures Core Reactor vessel (shroud) Lower support structure (scheme “OR”) Upper reactor vessel head (scheme “E”) Annual water tank (scheme “L”) Steel graphite base plate Channel shield plugs Sand filling Concrete reactor cavity walls ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Materials of the RBMK reactor Graphite 2000 t Fuel (U) 190 t (2% enrichment) Zr-1%Nb cladding 43 t Zr-2.5%Nb central pipe 6 t Zr-2.5%Nb channel pipes 126 t Supporting scheme “OR” 1422 t Serpentine 489 t Black steel 233 t X18H10 202 t X10H1M 498 t ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) 1 - Serpentinite of the “ОR” component and the inter-compensatory gap 2 - Crushed “С” component (“Cross”) 3 - Fuel, fuel assemblies, fuel elements, process channels, graphite blocks, fragmented concrete 4 - ¾ ОR 5 - BWC tubes 6 - Additional support 7 - Reflector (channels and graphite blocks) 8 - Reinforced-concrete plate (fragments of wall of separator box) 9 - “L” tank 10 - Heat shielding lining of separator box’s wall 11 - “D” tank 12 - ¼ ОR 13 - Damaged wall 14 - Vault’s filling-up-origin sand 15 - Debris of reinforced-concrete constructions 16 - Fragment of reinforced-concrete construction LAVA GENERATION MODEL LAYOUT OF CONSTRUCTIONS Time: 30 minutes after the explosion ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Melt progression Upper part of core was thrown out by explosion. South-Eastern upper part of the reactor basement plate (“OR”) was damaged by explosion; Fuel-cladding-channel tubes interactions, graphite burning out, formation of liquids; Compaction of molten materials, start of interaction with the OR plate; Formation of LFCM as a result of interactions, OR melting, start of interactions with concrete. ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Computational model (Pancake model) Basemate concrete Under reactor structures (Steel, sand) “OR” Scheme (steel, serpentine) Fuel containing masses (zirconium, steel, graphite, etc.) Materials from upper structures (concrete, materials dropped into the reactor wreck) ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Conditions: 10 days after accident The conclusion was that graphite burning and melting through of OR may last between 7 to 10 days ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Location of LFCM in the room 305/2 ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Core and structural materials in the LFCM ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Molten core concrete interaction (1) Bore holes data obtained in 1988 – 1992 level of about 9m: 25 holes level of about 10 m: 10 holes level of about 11 m: 8 holes ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Section K-3000 ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Section K ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Section K+2400 ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Concrete erosion depth (Room 305/2) ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Melt progression Initial melt was formed in the south-eastern part of the reactor after interaction with the serpentine filling of the “OR” scheme Spreading of the melt was in horizontal (through the breach through the wall between rooms 305/2 and 304/3) Spreading in the vertical directions (through the steam outlet valves of the accident localization system) Interaction with the concrete ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) VERTICAL LAVA FLOW ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) HORIZONTAL LAVA FLOW ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Simulation of LFCM progression Initial data: 3D geometry of rooms Varied temperature (Base case 1400 K) Assume two layers: black ceramics atop Models included Advection of the melt Radiation from melt top surface Heat conductivity Temperature dependence of viscosity Melt source in the room 305/2 ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Heat generation (W/kg U) 24 hours: 89 W/kg 72 hours: 68 W/kg 120 hours: 59 W/kg 240 hours:46 W/kg ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Model of long term behavior of LFCM The objective is to analyze the following processes: Concrete erosion depth Concrete decomposition depth LFCM cooling rates to assess characteristic times Length of spreading Criteria of success Correspondence to observations Assessment of spreading ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Melt progression Competitive processes: Spreading of molten materials Cooling of the melt Parametric studies were performed to assess Characteristic cooling time Characteristic spreading time ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Results of calculations (4%) Characteristic upper boundary cooling time about 5 hr Characteristic LFCM cooling time about 20 hr ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Spreading model: Parametric study ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Results of analysis Spreading time is much shorter then cooling time if temperature exceeds 1100oC Most probable temperature at the start of spreading was between 1000 and 1100oC ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Initial data and results of MCCI simulation ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

Example of LFCM spreading Through wall break between 305 and 304 rooms (0.5 m) Melt flow rate through the wall break Total volume of LFCM: 170 – 200 m3 (Mass of 460 – 540 tons) Mass source varied: 25 – 80 kg/s Duration varied: 6000 – 20000 s Temperature: 1400 K 305/2 302/3 303/3 304/3 318/3 301/5 301/6 ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)

ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria) Summary Models developed allowed assessments of significant phenomena during late phase of accident and timing of events Significant MCCI was observed in the room 305/2 (up to 1.4 m or about 2/3 of the thickness) No significant interactions with concrete were predicted in the rooms 304/3, 301/5 and 303/3 Thickness of LFCM is about 0.5 m, sustainable temperature about 1300 – 1400 K. ERMSAR 2008 September 23 –25, Nesseber (Bulgaria)