ML20207A279
| ML20207A279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/09/1985 |
| From: | Telford J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Richard Anderson, Cho D, Ginsberg T ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207A169 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-678 NUDOCS 8611100167 | |
| Download: ML20207A279 (70) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -_ - - - - t
#p*
- tog'c UNITED STATES l' ., ,) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y 5* j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%..... AUG sM Tc Distribution
Subject:
Research Review Group Meeting Gentlemen: You are invited to participate in a Research Review Group Meeting on Molten Core-Coolant Interactions (MCCI). The meeting will be in Madison, Wisconsin en August 28 & 29, 1985. Our host is Professor Corradini. The meeting will be held in the Engineering Research Building at 1500 Johnson Drive, a 14 story building in the middle of campus. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday to allow for traffic congestion and parking delays associated with student registration. Please arrive at the Engineering Building by 8:20 am so that you can pick up a required parking sticker from the department secretary (enter building and turn left). But Thursday will begin at 8:00 am. Plan on two full days, as indicated by the enclosed agenda. A premiere feature of the meeting will be on Thursday when the invited speakers will address the "MCCI Questions." Since we now have the reconnendations of the Steam Explosion Review Group from the Harpers Ferry Meeting; e.g., continue research on coarse mixing, conversion ratio, scale up to 100kg, water onto rrelt contcct mode, etc., and improve experimental measurements; we will improve upon those recommendations with this meeting. Before stating the "MCCI Questiens," let's define a problem. The problem begins with separated molten core and water. Let the amount of available molten core be 20 to 50 tonnes siting on a
. crust in the core region. The water level is up to about the botton of the core. The structure, e.g., four plates and incore instrument guide tubes, below the core is not damaged and is in as build condition. We know the molten core will run down into the water. The problem is, what happens, why, what are the primary physical mechanisms, and what are the necessary conditions. The problem ends with the explosion (or non explosion) phase. You may include the water onto melt contact mode if that is part of your mental scenario. This definition attempts to provide a common basis for meaningful discussions and uses only a subset of the alpha failure scenario. The problem is " solved" when we can prove what happens quantitatively and why.
Given the above problem definition and the Steam Explosion Review Group recommendations, the questions are:
- 1. What work, i.e., ar.alytical, theoretical, or experimental, needs to be done to solve the problem? Please be as specific as you are able, to define what needs to be done and how to do it.
TG-8(.-ws
/? 7 e611100167 861030 hRt. 4 -678 PDR af78 _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _. ._. _
1 l lf k Distribution 2
- 2. What part of the total work would you recommend for FY 1986? Please be specific for what and how to do the work and include a discussion of required measurements.
- 3. Independent of all this, what MCCI type work are you planning for FY 1986?
Motel suggestions and directions to the Engineering Research Building are enclosed. See you in Madison. Sincerely, ok ohnL.Telford Containment Systems Research Branch
Enclosures:
As stated
~t Distribution
'ANL Dr. Richard Anderson Argonne. National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL .60439 Dr. Dae Cho Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenec Argonne, IL 60439 BNL Dr. T. Ginsberg Brookhaven National Laborarory Associated Universities, Incorporated Bldg. 220 Upton, NY 11973 Dr. George Greene Brookhaver. National Laboratory Associated Universities, Incorporated Bldg. 820 Upton, NY 11973 DOE Dr!LW.'Bix'by P.O. Box 88 Middletowr, PA 17057 Dr. Don McPherson .
Department of Energy MS E471 Washington, DC 20545 Dr. Willis Young Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office Idaho Falls, ID 83415 6 i i L_
9~ -Distributien' EG8G Ur! Jim Broughton
-TMI-2-Programs' EG&G Idaho P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 Dr. Harold Burton TMI-2-Programs EG8G Idaho P.O. Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 EPRI Dr. M. Merilo
- Electric Power Research Institute P.O. Box 10412 Palo Alto, CA 94203 Dr. Raj Seghal Electric Power Research Institute
'P.O.. Box 10412 Falo Alto, CA 94203 FAI
.Dr. Hans Fauske Fauske ard Associates, Inc.
16W 070W 83rd St. Eurr Ridge, IL 60521 LANL Dr. Charles Bell Los Alamos National Laboratory Energy Division, 0-6 Los Alamos, NM 87545 i Dr. William Bohl 112 Paseo Penasco Los Alamos, NM 87544
m
~9 Distribution LANL~
Dr. R. G.-McQueen Los Alamos National Laboratory M6, MS-J970
-Los Alamos, NM 87545 Dr. K. H. Wohletz Los Alamos National Laboratory Earth and Space Divisior.
Los Alanios, NM 87545 Northwestern Univ. Dr. George Bankoff Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60201 Purdue Univ. Dr. Theo Theofanous 132 Pathway Lane W. Lafayette, IN 47905 SNL Dr. Marshall Bern.an Sandia National Laboratories - Division 6427 P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque,.NM 87115 Dr. Bill Marshall Sandia National Laboratories Division 6427 P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 87115 f 1
, , _ _ _ . __-_____._,.r--,_..___-w.___._-._,-..,.,,,.-~r..-_ .-.__ _ _ _ , _ .._ ..y.u . _ . - - - --. -_ . - .-. - - _- . - - -- - _ _ ., - -___ __
~
Y L Distribution SNL' IRC'Lloyd Nelson Sandia National Laboratories Division 6427 P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 87115
-Dr. Marty Pilch Sandia National Laboratories Division 6425 P.O.-Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 87115' Dr. Mike Young Sandia National Laboratories Division 6425 P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 67115 Univ. of Wisconsin Dr. Mike Corradini University of Wisconsin 1500 Johnson Dr.ive Madison, WI 53706
f 5 AGENDA Molten Core Coolant Interactions Research Review Group Meeting Madison, Wisconsin August 28 & 29, 1985 Wednesday - August 28, 1985 8:30 cm Welcome and Discussion of Agenda................. Telford 8:40 am Welcome and Introduction of Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . Corradini 8:45 am S i n g l e D ro p l e t Mo de l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ki m 9:15 an Questions and Discussion of Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All Participants 9:45 am Coarse Fragmentation Model....................... Cho 10:15 am Cuestions and Discussion of Model................ All Participants 10:45 am Vapor Explosion Model............................ Oh 11:15 am Questions and Discussion of Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All Participants 11:45 am Effects of Viscosity on Liquid-Liquid Inter-actions........................................ Nelson 12:15 pm Lunch 1:15 pm Latest Information on TMI-2 Core Conditions and Accident Scenario.......................... Broughton 3:15 pm Coffee Break 3:30 pm Progress on Pressure Measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marshall and Young 4: 15 pm Discussion of Pressure Measurements. ....... .. .. .. All Participants 4:30 pm Results of Recent MCCI Calculations.............. Young 5:00 pm Improvement in Experimental Facilities 4. . . . . . . . . . Marshall 5:15 pm Adjourn for Dinner to Continue MCCI Discussions J
2 -5 Thursday - August 29, 1985 8:00 am Summary of US-UX Meeting......................... Berman 8:30 am SIMMER-II Analyses of MCCIs...................... Bohl 9:00 am Discussion.of SIMMER-II Analyses................. All Participants 9:30 am Estimating the Probability of Alpha Mode of Failure - A New Study.......................... Allen 10:00 am Questions and Discussion of "New Study".......... All Participants 10:30 am Response to "MCCI Questions"..................... Greene 11:00 am Ouestions and Discussion on Greene's " Response".. All Participants 11:20 am ~ Response to "MCCI Questions"..................... Anderson 11:50 am Lunch 12:45 pm Questions and Discussion on Anderson's
" Response"....................................... All Participants 1:05 pm Response to "MCCI Questions"..................... Berman 1:35 pm Ouestions and Discussion on Berman's " Response".. All Participants 1:55 pm Response to "MCCI Questions"..................... Ginsberg 2:25 pm Questions and Discussion on Ginsberg's
" Res po nse" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al l Pa rti ci pa n ts 2:45 pm Response to "MCCI Questions". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corradini 3:15 pm Coffee Break 3:20 pm Questions and Discussion on Corradini's
" Response".................................... All Participants 3:40 pm Response to "MCCI Questions".................... Fauske 4:10 pm Questions and Discussion on Fauske's " Response". All Participants 4:30 pm Response to "MCCI Questions".................... Merilo 5:00 pm Questions and Discussion on Merilo's " Response". All Participants 5:20 pn. Summary Discussion.............................. All Participar.ts 5:45 pm Adjourn 3
t Note: Arrows indicate one-way or two-way streets
-,6 University e- *-
Johnson
-+
Dayton a ,- Randal Motels:
- 1. Howard Johnson's East Johnson Street (608)251-5511
- 2. Best Western Inn Towner -
University Avenue (608) 233-8778 Directions: From Howard Johnsons:
- 1. Go West on Dayton, about 6 blocks
- 2. Turn right on Randal, go 1 block
- 3. Turn left on Johnson, to Engineering Building'(14 stories)
NOTE: Johnson Street west of Randal has the appearance of a " campus street" and not a regular street. From Inn Towner:
- 1. Go East on University, about 7 blocks
- 2. Turn right on Randal, go 1 block
- 3. Turn right on Johnson, to Engineering Building (14 stories)
NOTE: University Avenue east of Randal is one-way going west.
Distribution: USNRC J. L. Telford ANL R. P. Anderson University of Wisconsin, M. L. Corradini UKAEA M. Bird UKAEA A. Briggs 6422 H. W. Tarbell 6425 H. J. Camp 6425 M. Pilch 6425 K. Schoenefeld 6425 M. F. Young 6427 M. Berman , 6427 J. W. Fisk ' 6427 K. P. Guay 6427 B. H. Marshall, Jr. 6427 L. S. Nelson 6427 O. P. Seebold FITS Site Staff m
-%%18 71
---- ~__ __ ,
~
.g a-- Sandh Nadonal Labomtones .
I date ^*""""**"c e71es August 7, 1985 to Steam Explosion Staff . 1 l l from: Otto P. Seebold, Jr. subject Preliminary Data Report on FITS 5D The enclosed document is a preliminary data report on the FITS 5D experiment. The document was written to aid in preparation of the final data report on the FITS-D series. This report provides a preliminary record of the test results until the final data report is completed on the FITS-D series. The report should also aid the experimental staff in preparation for future tests. I would like to acknowledge the help of B. W. Marshall, Jr. and the other members the steam explosion staff for their help in preparation of this memo. Enclosure
ilj pW a .- spx 2%L Qrd' v 4
---==-==-----.................,,,,,,,,,,,
=
= - Preliminary Data Report on the FITS 5D .
Steam Explosion Experiment .
, ~
- by Otto P. Seebold Jr. .
--#8EEBB 3SWW.aeagggggg, 9
OA Q-NOTICE THIS MEMO WAS PREPARED AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED BY AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. NEITHER THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NOR AhT AGENCY THEREOF, OR AhT OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, OR AhT OR THEIR CONTRACTORS, MAKES AhT WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, OR ASSUMES AhT LEGAL LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR AhT THIRD PARTY'S USE, OR THE RESULTS OF SUCH USE, OF AhT INFORMATION, APPARATUS PRODUCT OR PROCESS DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, OR REPRESENTS THAT ITS USE BY SUCH THIRD PARTY WOULD NOT INFRINGE PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS. W
p-as , J. l Executive Summary The FITS 5D experiment was the first in-chamber experiment for which a double explosion has been observed since the FITS-B series. The FITS 5D double explosion differs from the FITS-B l series' double explosions (FITS 1B, FITS 4B, and FITS 8B) in the time elapsed between explosions. In the FITS-B test series, all the double explosions were separated by approximately 125 ms. In l the FITS 5D experiment, the two explosions were separated by approximately 3 ms. In the FITS-B series, the double explosion was detected and characterized by a double steam explosion spike on the gas-phase pressure records. (1) However, due to the small , elapsed time between explosions in the FITS 5D experiment, the i gas-phase pressure record does not show the distinctive double ! steam explosion spike as seen in the FITS-B test series. In t contrast, the double explosion of the FITS 5D experiment was detected on the high-speed films and not on the gas-phase
~
pressure record as in the FITS-B series. The peak gas-phase pressure recorded during the FITS 5D experiment was 0.63 MPa with a delta peak gas-phase pressure rise of 0.54 MPa over ambient pressure. This was the largest delta gas-phase pressure rise recorded for a 20-kg FITS experiment. The previous maximum delta pressure rises for the FITS-B and FITS-C series were 0.50 MPa for FITS-4B (double explosion) and 0.46 MPa for FITS-1C (single explosion), respectively. Consult Table 5 for further results and observations.
T'~ 1 6 Test Series Objective The objective of the FITS-D test series is to investigate the influence of initial conditions on those characteristics of an FCI (Fuel Coolant Interaction) which can affect the risk from severe accidents. These characteristics include steam generation, hydrogen generation, and direct containment heating for explosive as well as nonexplosive FCI. Also of interest was the~ nature of the resultant debris. Test Date: April 12, 1984. , Control Sequence All control timing for the FITS 5D experiment was triggered off the I3 burn probe. The following table shows the estimated timing and actual timing sequences. TIME .Real Time EVENT (estimated (melt / water pretest, drop contact ref. time frame) time frame)
-5.34 see Il detected.
-3.74 see 12 detected.
-1.5 sec -2.06 sec 13 detected.
-1.4 sec -2.00 see All three cameras start.
-0.1 see -0.55 sec Synchronizer start.
0.0 sec -0.52 see Cylinder drop. 0.57sec O.00 see Melt / water contact. Thermite Data The thermite used in the FITS 5D experiment was prepared using a new baking and preparation method that had been developed at the FITS test site. The thermite components used in the FITS 5D experiment were baked at 800*C for six hours and blended in 5 kg batches for 1 hour each. In the previous FITSOD experiment and the CM test series, the thermite components were baked at 600'C for 6 hours. The iron oxide used in the FITS 5D experiment was taken from the shipment with purchase requisition number 47-7379.
r O D The thermite was reacted in a cylindrical graphite crucible with an inside diameter of 0.18 meters and an inside height of 0.34 meters. The crucible was filled with thermite powder to a depth of 0.27 meters for a thermite powder density of 3010 kg per cubic meter. The II, I2, and I3 burn probes were located 11.4, 6.35, and 1.27 cm above the base of the burn crucible, respectively. The burn rate of the thermite between the Il and 12 burn probes was 3.18 cm/sec and between the 12 and I3 burn probes was 3.02 cm/see with an average burn rate between the Il and 13 burn probes of approximately 3.10 cm/sec. Consult Reference (2) for further details on the iron oxide. Also, a comprehensive report on the thermite studies conducted at the FITS site is currently being prepared by B. W. Marshall, Jr. Water Chamber Description The square lucite water chamber had an open top with a side dimension of 0.76 meters. The side walls of the chamber were constructed of lucite sheets with a nominal thickness of 0.63 cm. The base of the water chamber was also constructed of a lucite sheet with a nominal thickness of 0.95 cm. The corners of the chamber were reinforced with 0.63 cm thick aluminum angle iron which had a 5.08 cm by 5.08 cm webb. A reinforcing band of 5.08 cm by 0.63 cm thick aluminum was placed around the water chamber approximately 15 cm below the top. Rigid foam blocks with nominal dimensions of 7.6 cm by 7.6 cm by 15 cm were attached to the sides of the water chamber approximately 15 cm above the base on the southwest and northeast walls to protect the P1,P2 and P7,P8 pressure transducers, respectively. The water chamber was filled with tap water to a depth of 0.66 meters. See Figure 1 for a schematic of the water chamber. Initial Conditions Twenty kilograms of iron-alumina thermite were loaded into the burn crucibic. The crucible lid was allowed to fall with the melt. Approximately 19.2 kg of the iron-alumina thermite were delivered to the water chamber which contained 383 kg of water for a nominal mass of coolant to mass of fuel ratio of 19.9. The melt was dropped from a height of 1.64 meters which resulted in a calculated velocity (calculated from gravitational free fall) at melt / water contact of 5.7 m/s. The water was initially at 284 K which corresponds to a subcooling of 83 K. The FITS tank was purged twice with nitrogen to the ambient pressure of 0.083 MPa. See Table 1 for the initial conditions of this experiment.
F P t'. Instrumentation The water chamber was instrumented with six Kulite and two PCB pressure transducers to measure the water-phase pressure and a Type K thermocouple to measure the water-phase temperature. The FITS tank.was instrumented with tuo Kulite pressure transducers to measure debris / water impact pressure on the the tank head (located in Ports B-1 and B-2), two Kulite semiconductor pressure transducers and a Wallace Bourdon gage to measure the initial ambient pressure (located in Ports F-3, E-3, and F-2) , five Precise Sensor pressure transducers to measure the transient gas-phase pressure (located in B-2, C-2, E-2, E-2, and F-8), two Type K thermocouples to measure gas-phase temperature (located in Ports B-1 and E-2), and three Type K thermocouples located on the outside wall of the FITS chamber to measure the wall temperature (located high, middle, and low). See Table 2 for a listing of the instrumentation types, manufacturers, serial numbers, and locations. Three high speed cameras were used to film the FCI. They were located in Ports C-1, D-1, and D-2. See Figure 1 for the relative position of the cameras in respect to the water chamber. The camera located in Port C-1 had a 10-mm lens and was approximately 66 cm from the southwest wall of the water chamber. The camera' located in Port D-1 had a 13-mm lens and was approximately 66 cm from the northwest wall of the water chamber. The camera located in Port D-2 had a 24-mm lens and was approximately 51 cm from the north corner of the water chamber. Optical Observations The Port C-1 camera was positioned to film the melt near the water surface. Observation of the melt prior to water contact was obscured for some unknown reason. The melt was first < observed in the water. The time of the first appearance of the main melt mas's in the water was assumed to be the melt / water contact zero time. The melt expanded coherently in the water and two explosions were observed to occur. The first explosion occurred 52.6 ms after melt / water contact and was followed by the second explosion approximately 3 ms later. After the second explosion, all measurable film detail was lost. The Port D-1 camera was positioned to film the melt in the water at the approximate horizontal center of the water chamber. Welt / water contact was not observable from this view. Two explosions were observed to occur. The timing of the first explosion in relation to melt / water contact was not obtainable from this view. The first explosion was triggered from above the field of view of the camera and the propagation front moved
7 9 D-
\
downward through the melt at an average propagation velocity of 318 m/s with a peak measured frame-to-frame propagation velocity of 387 m/s. The melt was seen to darken considerably as a result of the first explosion. However, the remaining unquenched melt could still be observed. The downward velocity of the unquenched melt was measured prior to'the second explosion to be approximately 124 m/s. The second explosion occurred approximately 3 ms after the first explosion. The approximate 3 ms separation time as measured from the Port D-1 camera was 25 frames of film at a film speed of 8993 frames /second. After the second explosion, all measurable film detail was lost. The Port D-2 camera was positioned to film the melt in the water at the approximate horizontal center of the water chamber. The 24-mm lens on the Port D-2 camera had a very limited depth of field and the main melt mass was not observable. However, an array of melt particles preceding the main melt mass was visible. As the pressure waves from the two explosions traversed this array of particles, the particles were observed to oscillate, expand, contract, and explode as seen in previous single-drop experiments. This may be a very useful film to illustrate the steam explosion process with a spontaneously generated trigger wave. The time between the two explosions in the FITS 5D experiment was considerably shorter than the times between double explosions observed in the FITS-B series (approximately 125 ms). As in the FITS-B series, the first explosion was surface oriented and appeared to force the unquenched melt that was located below the first explosion downward into the water at an increased velocity. No direct pressure measurement of the relative strengths of the two explosions was obtained in the FITS 5D experiment, but a general qualitative impression from the films would indicate the second explosion to be more energetic than the first. However, it should be noted that film observations are always susceptible to misinterpretation due to optical illusions created by filming a 3-dimensional phenomenon in only 2-dimensions. Also, the close proximity of the cameras to the actual event in the FITS experiments can cause problems in interpretation due to magnification effects along the film's field of view. Hydrogen Generation Data and Percent Metal Oxidized Two pre-drop gas samples were taken prior to the experiment to establish the composition of the cover gas in the FITS chamber. The pre-drop gas samples contained an average of 99.46 volume percent nitrogen and 0.54 volume percent argon / oxygen. Post-drop gas samples were taken at approximately 0, 60, 105, 165, 240, and 305 seconds after drop (+/- 15 seconds). The sample taken at 165 seconds was inadvertently lost. The sample
o taken at 240 seconds is considered bad because the sample's gas composition is not chemically compat ible with the gas composition of the samples taken at 105 and 305 seconds. The sample at near drop (0 seconds) was taken during the hydrogen generation ramp and contained 13.74 volume percent hydrogen. The sample taken at 60 seconds after drop may have been taken during the end of the hydrogen generation ramp and contained 18.6 volume percent hydrogen. The two samples taken at 105 and 305 seconds after drop contained 19.4 and 19.5 volume percent hydrogen respectively. Using the results from these two samples to calculate the percent metal oxidized, an average percent metal oxidized for the Fe +HO2 --+ Fe0 + H2 reaction was 24 percent and for the 2 Fe +3HO2 Fe2O3 + 3H2 reaction was 16 percent. The gas samples were analyzed using a TRACOR Mt150g GC and were analyzed dry which indicates that the gas composition results shown do no include any water vapor contained in the sample. Table 3 presents the samples' gas compositions and the calculated percent metal oxidized for this experiment. Figure 2 contains a plot of percent metal oxidized versus time. Post-test Debris Data The debris from the experiment was collected and as much as possible of the non-melt debris (lucite fragments, wire, etc.) was removed. 20846 grams of debris were recovered. The recovered mass exceeded the delivered mass of 19241 grams by 1605 grams. Of the 1605 grams of excess mass, 735 grams of the excess mass can be accounted for due to the oxidization of iron. That leaves an unaccounted gain in mass of 870 grams over the delivered mass. The exact explanation for this 870 gram gain in mass is not known. This post-test melt debris was sieved using the following sieve sizes: 1/2", 1/4", #5, #10, #18 #30, #40,
#50, #70, #100, #140, #270, #400, and a final paper, filter with opening size of 24 to 28 pm. The mass contained in each sieve size is shown in Table 4.
diameter for this experiment The wasparticle 484 m mass mean average was 248 pm. Included as Figures 3, 4, 5 and the Sauter diameter and 6 are plots of sieve size versus mass, mass percent, cumulative mass, and mass percent per micrometer of sieve width, respectively.
o 6 Reference Time for the Pressure and Temperature Data The melt / water contact zero time had to be established for use on the computer recorded pressure and temperature data. To facilitate the common referencing of time between the film data and the computer recorded data, synchronous marks were recorded
- on the film and by the computer. The original recorded ecmputer time was referenced to the drop signal. However, all data are normally reported with the zero time indicating the melt / water contact. Therefore, a time shift constant had to be added to the original computer time to convert the data into the melt / water contact reference time frame. The Port C-1 film was the only view that synchronous marks were recorded on. Counting the 12 ms synchronous marks, the film's one ms timing dots, and some odd number of frames on film until melt / water contact was observed, it was established that the original computer time needed to have 544 ms subtracted in order to get the pressure and temperature data in melt / water contact reference time. Note, the synchronous marks used on this experiment were square waves with a 10 ms down voltage and a 2 ms up voltage. On film, this was represented by the synchronous light being lit when the voltage was up and being off when the voltage was down. The synchronous light was originally lit at the beginning of the film and was first turned off at drop. This is the common reference mark for all time connections between the film and the computer data.
Water-Phase Temperature Data One Type K thermocouple was located in the water chamber to measure the water-phase temperature. It was located at the approximate middle of the southeast wall of the water chamber, approximately 15 cm above the base. The water temperature prior to melt / water contact was approximately 284 K. At the time of the steam explosion, the temperature recorded by the water-phase thermocouple dropped to approximately 50 K in a few milliseconds. Since, this was an unrealistic situation, it was assumed that any further data from this thermocouple was unreliabic. Gas-Phase Temperature Data Two Type K thermocouples were located in Ports E-2 (TC # 1) and B-1 (TC # 2) to m'easure the gas-phase temperature. Within a few milliseconds of the steam explosion, the temperature recorded by the thermocouple TC # 2 dropped to approximately 75 K and then rose. Since, this was an unrealistic situation, it was assumed that further data from this thermocouple (TC # 2) were unreliable.
f O 6 The peak gas-phase temperature was recorded by the thermocouple located in Port E-2. The peak gas-phase temperature was 328 K and was obtained at 0.22 seconds after melt / water contact. This peak temperature represents an increase in temperature of 43 K over the ambient pre-drop temperature of 285 K. Plots of gas-phase temperature versus time with varying time scales are presented in Figures 7 a-d. (Data on plots was five-point averaged to smooth the 60 cycle noise.) FITS Tank Outside Wall Temperature Three Type K thermocouples were located on the outside wall of the FITS tank at positions designated as top (TC # 4), middle (TC # 5), and bottom (TC # 6). The thermocouple TC # 5, located in the middle, appears to have been faulty and its record will not be discussed beyond noting that its temperature record was bad. Both the thermocouple TC # 4, located at the top, and the thermocouple TC # 6, located at the bottom, recorded an initial outside tank temperature of approximately 285 K prior to the melt / water contact. The signal from TC # 6 was digitized from approximately -5 to 2 seconds after melt / water contact and did not show any significant temperature rises during that time period. The signal from TC # 4 was digitized from approximately
-10 to 53 seconds after melt / water contact. The temperature recorded by TC # 4 began to deviate from the initial temperature level at approximately 6 seconds after meJt/ water contact (see Figure 8 a-b) and rose to a final level of approximately 292 K at 53 seconds after melt / water contact. The top outside wall temperature record can be divided into four zones; 1) initial temperature (-10 to 6 seconds); 2) early temperature rise (6 to 15 seconds); 3) middle temperature rise (15 to 35 seconds); and
- 4) end temperature rise (35 to 53 seconds). Doing linear regression least square fits to zones 2 through 4, we get the following line fits:
zone 2:T=(0.1614 - S) + 284.2 correlation coeff: r=0.983 zone 3:T=(0.1802 - S) + 284.2 correlation coeff: r=0.997 uone 4:T=(0.08454 - S) + 287.4 correlation coeff: r=0.955 where T is the temperature and has units of kelvin and S is time and has' units of seconds after melt / water contact. See Figure 9 for a comparison of the line fits to the experimental data. See Figure lo for a comparison of the gas-phase temperature to the outside top wall temperature.
0; i Gas-Phase Pressure Data Two Kulite (C2-37 and C2-46) semiconductor pressure transducers and one Wallace bourdon gage were use to record the initial ambient gas-phase pressure. The average ambient pressure prior to drop as recorded by the two transducers and the one bourdon gage was 0.083 WPa. The Precise Sensors 20901, 20902, 20903, 20904, and 20211 were used to record the transient gas-phase pressure before, during, and after the steam explosion. The transducers 20901, 20902, 20903, and 20211 were thermally protected by placement of small pieces of felt metal in front of the transducer face. This procedure had worked well in protecting pressure transducers from the extreme thermal environment during hydrogen burn experiments. However, it was discovered after the FITS 5D experiment that the felt metal transducer protection appears to delay the pressure peak, to decrease the peak amplitude of the sharp steam explosion l pressure spike, and to resonate in response to the sharp steam ! explosion pressure ramp. Calculations done by M. Sherman(3) ) indicate that "For pressure rises of the order of 0.01 seconds or slower, the use of moderately permeable felt metal shields in front of a , pressure tranducer will not significantly degrade transient response of a pressure tranducer." l Therefore, during the first 50 ms after the strong steam explosions of the FITS 5D experiment, these four transducers did not appear to follow the pressure spike accurately. All four felt-metal-protected transducers recorded peak pressures which occurred later and with less amplitude than the PS-20904 pressure transducer. After, the initial pressure spike had decayed, the readings of the four transducers with the felt-metal-protection converged on the reading recorded by the PS-20904 transducer. Therefore, in the post steam explosion regime, the readings from l these four transducers can probably be accepted as accurate. ! However, in the steam explosion regime, these felt-metal-protected transducers are not considered accurate. See Figures lla-e for individual plots of the signals from all i five transducers during the steam explosion regime and Figures l lif&g for composite plots of the signals from all five gas-phase pressure transducers. All further discussion in this text of the gas-phase pressure will be limited to the pressure record of the , PS-20904 transducer. l l The peak gas-phase pressure recorded by PS-2OOO4 was 0.625 MPa i and occurred 55.5 ms after melt / water contact. This pressure spike represents a pressure rise of 0.542 MPa over ambient 1 l
o 4 pressure and had a rise time of approximately 3 ms. The steam explosion spike decayed in 395 ms to a quasi-static pressure plateau of approximately 0.192 MPa at O.45 seconds after melt / water contact. The pressure again rose to a late time steam generation peak of 0.198 MPa at 1.08 seconds after melt / water contact and then decayed. Plots of the gas-phase pressure as recorded by PS-20904 are included as Figures 12a-e. Comparison of Experimental Gas-Phase Pressure to Hicks-Menzies Final State Pressure In Figure 12a-e, plots of gas-phase pressure as recorded by the PS-20904 transducer are shown. Note, that the quasi-static pressure plateau sis shown on these plots. The quasi-static pressure was approximately 0.192 MPa at 0.45 seconds after melt / water contact. This pressure may be representative of the expansion pressurization of the FITS tank as a result of the steam explosion. This pressurization of the chamber is assumed to be comprised of three distinct components; 1) the partial pressure of the nitrogen ambient cover gas; 2) the partial pressure of the steam generated during the interaction; and
- 3) partial pressure of the hydrogen produced during the steam explosion. That is, P(quasi-static) = p(N )2 + P(8 team) + p(H2) -
Solving the equation for the partial pressure of steam, the equation becomes: p(steam) = P(quasi-static) - p(N2 ) - p(H2) - The quasi-static pressure was an experimentally measured quantity. Therefore, to calculate the partial pressure of the steam, it is only necessary to calculate the partial pressures of the nitrogen and the hydrogen. First, consider the partial pressure of the nitrogen. It will be assumed that the nitrogen behaves as an ideal gas (same assumption as used in the Hicks-Menzies process). the initial ambient atmosphere of the FITS chamberKnowing that is nitrogen, it is possible to calculate the partial pressure of the nitrogen at the quasi-static pressure plateau. Therefore, using the volume of the FITS chamber of 5.6 cubic meters, the experimentally measured initial temperature of 287 K and pressure of 0.083 MPa, and the ideal gas law of PV = nRT, there were initially 195 moles of nitrogen in the FITS chamber. Since, nitrogen is not lost, added, or produced during the steam explosion process, there should be the same number of moles of I i nitrogen in the FITS chamber after the explosion. Using the l l l
o t temperature recorded at the quasi-static pressure plateau of 369 K and the ideal gas law, the partial pressure of the nitrogen at the quasi-static pressure plateau was 0.107 MPa. Now, cons [Theder process. the hydrogen current produced experimental duringdid methods thenot steam explosion allow for the determination of the exact amount of hydrogen present at the quasi-static pressure plateau. Initially, there was no hydrogen present in the system. From grab samples of the chamber atmosphere taken during the FITS 5D experiment, the post-test analysis of these gas samples indicate 46 moles of hydrogen were produced during the experiment. Not knowing the time-dependent-production of hydrogen during the interaction, it is possible to bound the amount of hydrogen present by assuming 0 or 46 moles of hydrogen were present at the quasi-static pressure plateau. Using the ideal gas law and the experimentally recorded temperature, the partial pressure of the hydrogen fc the two cases was 0.000 and 0.025 MPa, respectively. Therefore, using the equation listed above for the partial pressure of steam, we find the partial pressure of the steam to be 0.085 and 0.060 MPa, respectively. Now consider the origin of the hydrogen. Consult the section above on hydrogen production for the postulated chemical reaction equations. From either of the two postulated paths, one H O2 molecule is consumed for each H2 created. If we assume that the hydrogen was created in a steam / metal reaction, we are eliminating one steam molecule for each hydrogen molecule that we create. Therefore, if we subtract the partial pressure of the hydrogen, we must add a partial pressure of steam to compensate for the corresponding loss of steam. Finally, we derive the higher of the two partial pressures of 0.085 MPa and eliminate the uncertainty in the partial pressure of the steam. However, if we assume that the hydrogen was created in a water / metal reaction, we retain the uncertainty shown in the paragraph above. Finally, plotting these two values of the partial pressure of the steam on a plot of the Hicks-Menzies(4) final state pressure versus the mass ratio (see Figure 13), the mass ratio in the mixture zone is limited to the area where the calculated partial pressure of the steam lies below the H-M final state pressure. Therefore, the maximum possible mass ration in the mixture zone are 8.2 and 9.55, respectively. This is an effective reduction of 2 in the uncertainty of the mass ratio in the mixture zone from the nominal mass ratio of 19.9 if all the water and the melt were to have mixed. To conclude, Figure 14 is a plot of the Hicks-Menzies efficiency versus mass ratio for the FITS-5D experiment with the mass ratio range limitations indicated.
o t Water-Phase Pressure Data Eight pressure transducers were located in the water chamber to measure the water-phase pressure. Four of these transducers were located in the side walls of the chamber. Kulite 1266-9-220 and 1266-9-208 P (the P designation indicates that the transducer front was coated with a layer of pyro-paint) were located in the middle of the southwest wall of the water chamber, approximately 15 cm above the base. Kulite 1266-2-878 and 1266-2-880 P were located in the middle of the northeast wall of the water chamber, approximately 15 cm above the base. The other four water-phase pressure transducers were located in the base of the water chamber. Kulite 1266-9-207 and 1266-9-221 P were located in the approximate center of the base of the water chamber. PCB 11202-2556 and 11202-2059 P were located approximately half way between the center base transducers and the east and north corners of the water chamber, respectively. After careful examination of the pressure records from all eight of the water-phase pressure transducers, it is my opinion that none of the transducers reflects the actual experimental pressures that occurred. Therefore, I believe that none of the pressure records should be published as the actual water-phase pressure records for the FITS 5D experiment. I have included as Figures 15-22, plots of the pressure data from these eight transducers in the O to 0.1 second after melt / water contact time range. The basis upon which I disqualify most of'the pressure records is that the timing of the positive pressure pulse did not agreed with the timings of the steam explosion as measured from the film and recorded by the gas-phase pressure transducers. The pressure transducers that did have pressure pulses at the correct time were disqualified for one of the following two reasons:
- 1) the pressure transducers were recording a negative absolute pressure level at the initiation of the event; or 2) the recorded pressure was so insignificant that it could not have been the cause of the destruction seen on the films.
Head Impact Pressure Data Two pressure transducers were located in the FITS tank head to measure local impact pressure on the head at Ports B-1 and B-2. Kulite 1266-2-879 P and 1266-2-282 were located in Ports B-1 and B-2, respectively. The Kulite 1266-2-879 P pressure transducer had a layer of felt metal placed in front of the transducer face. Examination of the signal from Kulite 1266-2-879 P would indicate that it was bad. It contained throughout its recorded range a periodic signal that
o i cycled from approximately 25 to -25 MPa with a frequency of 5 cycle / seconds. No further discussion of the signal from this transducer will be included in this report. The pressure signal from the Kulite 1266-2-282 began to deviate from the original base line pressure at approximately 30 ms after melt / water contact. No event was observed to occur at that time from the film data. However, as noted above, it appears that area above the water surface was obscured from sight. Therefore, I any surface event which might have occurred could not have been observed. l Let's consider the possibility that an event did occur in this time frame. Therefore, let us examine the recorded readings from the other types of pressure transducers and thermocouples. First note that signals from the water-phase pressure transducers began to deviate from their base line readings at approximately the same time. See Figures 15-22 for details. Although I do not
- believe the responses of the water-phase transducers were
! indicative of the real pressure event, the water-phase transducers and the head impact transducer both deviate from their baseline readings at the approximate same time. l If a surface event were to have occurred during the FITS 5D l experiment that was oriented above the surface of the water, l then, the event must have been an eruption. Therefore, consider ! the FITSOD experiment which we know was an eruption and compare the gas-phase temperature and pressure records to those of the FITS 5D experiment. If you refer to the gas-phase temperature plots from the FITSOD experiment, (see data anal written by O. Seebold(4)) ysis it memo onnoted will be the FITSOD experiment that the temperature recorded by the thermocouple located in Port E-2 did not rise until 10-20 ms after initiation of the eruption. Examining Figure 7d which is a plot of the gas-phase temperature for the FITS 5D experiment as recorded by the thermocouple in Port E-2, l the same general trend is seen. 1 Now consider the gas-phase pressure records for the FITSOD and FITS 5D experiments. In the FITS 5D experiment, there was a slight pressure rise of approximately 0.02 MPa in the 30 to 50 ms after i melt / water contact time range. Again referring to the FITSOD l experiment, a similar rise was recorded for the eruption that occurred during that experiment. Therefore, after examining the water-phase pressure, the head
- impact pressure, the gas-phase pressure, and the gas-phase
O t a temperature records, it is still possible that a small eruption did occur during the FITS 5D experiment at 0.030 seconds after melt / water contact. However, without more evidence, I do not believe that an eruption event should be quoted for this experiment without a caveat noting the lack of film data to confirm this fact. Conclusions I would recommend that felt metal not be pisced over the gas-phase pressure transducers because it appears to affect the pressure wave. I would also recommend that pyro-paint coating of the water-phase pressure transducers be tested at least once more before it is disqualified. Finally, it should be noted that the peak delta gas-phase pressure rise of 0.542 MPa recorded during the FITS 5D experiment was the largest rise recorded for a twenty kilogram steam explosion experiment in the FITS tank. See Table 5 for a summary of the results for the FITS 5D experiment.
o i
~
REFERENCES:
(1) M. Berman , Light Water Reactor Safety Research Program Semiannual Report, October 1981 - March 1982, SAND 82-1572, NUREG/CR-2841, December 1982. (2) Memo from G. B. StClair of Ktech Corp. to M. Berman of Sandia Corp., Review of Magnetite Powder Used at 9940., dated August 2, 1984. (3) Internal memo by M. Sherman, The Effects of a Porous Metal Flame Protection Shield on the Transient Response of a Pressure Tranducer, dated December 22,1982. (4) K. McFarlane, HM: A precompiled subroutine library based upon the thermodynamic model of Hicks and Menzies and designed to facilitate the numerical and graphical solution of FCI work capacity and efficiency' problems, UKAEA SRD R 211, January 1982. (5) Memo from O. P. Seebold of Technadyne to Steam Explosion Staff, Preliminary Data Report on the FITSOD Steam Explosion Experiment., dated July 24, 1985. Y
'o t' .
e Table 1 Initial Conditions for the FITS 5D Experiment Melt Mass Delivered: 19.2 kg Melt Composition: iron-alumina Water Mass: 383 kg Mass Coolant / Mass Melt: 19.9 Water Temperature: 284 K Water Subcooling: 83 K Ambient Pressure: 0.083 MPa Water Side Dimension: 0.76 m Water Depth: 0.66 m Melt Drop Height: 1.64 m Melt Entry Velocity:(1) 5.7 m/s Melt Hold Time: 1.5 s a Lid Status: IN s (1) - Melt entry velocity calculated using gravitational free fall y = (2 x g x h)l/2
o s Table 2 Instrumentation type, Manufacturer, Serial Number and Location Type Gage Manufacturer / Serial # Location Head Impact Kulite 1266-2-879 Port B-1 Pressure Kulite 1266-9-282 Port B-2 Gas Phase Kulite C2-37 Port F-3 Pressure Kulite C2-46 Port E-3 (Initial) Wallace Bourdon Gage Port F-2 Water Phase. Kulite 1266-9-220 Water Chamber Pressure Kulite 1266-9-208 Water Chamber Kulite 1266-2-878 Water Chamber Kulite 1266-2-880 Water Chamber Kulite 1266-9-207 Water Chamber Kulite 1266-9-221 Water Chamber PCB 11202-2556 Water Chamber PCB 11202-2059 Water Chamber Water Phase TW (Type K) Water Chamber Temperature Gas Phase Precise Sensor 20901 Port C-2 Pressure Precise Sensor 20902 Port B-2 Precise Sensor 20903 Port F-8 Precise Sensor 20904 Port E-2 Precise Sensor 20211 Port E-2 Gas Phase TC # 1 (Type K) Port E-2 Temperature TC # 2 (Type K) Port B-1 Outside Wall TC # 4 (Type K) Top Temperature TC # 5 (Type K) Middle TC # 6 (Type K) Bottom
o Table 3 Gas Sample Composition and Percent Metal Oxidized Data , Sample b2 (2 r) h2 2 (1)
. Time Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole (sec.) % % % % % %
PRE-1 n.d.(2) 0.60 99.40 n.d. n.d. n.d. PRE-2 n.d. O.49 99.51 n.d. n.d. n.d. O 13.74 0.35 85.72 0.15 0.05 n.d. 60 18.63 0.11 80.96 0.24 0.06 n.d. 105 19.41 0.38 79.87 0.26 0.08 n.d. 305 19.46 0.38 79.84 0.25 0.08 n.d. (1) - Complex mixture of hydrocarbons quantified as " methane" (2) - none detected Time Vol. Init. Final H2 Moles of Moles Percent Percent After Mole Sample Partial Hydrogen of- Metal Metal Drop % of Temp. Pressure Produced Iron Oxidized Oxidized (sec) H2 (K) MPa if Fe0 if Fe2 O3 O 13.74 293 0.013 30.8 189.5 16.3 10.8 60' 18.63 293 0.019 43.7 189.5 23.0 15.4 105 19.41 293 0.020 45.9 189.5 24.2 16.2 305 19.46 293 0.020 46.1 189.5 24.3 16.2 Y
.3
o s Table 4 Post-Test Debris Sieve Data ' for the FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Low End High End Average Sieved Mass % Cumulative Sieve Size Sieve Size Sieve Size Mass Of Total Mass % (pm) (pm) (pm) (grams) Sieved Of Total 24 38 31 159 0.76 0.76 38 53 45.5 439 2.11 2.87 53 74 63.5 815 3.91 6.78 74 105 89.5 894 4.29 11.07 105 149 127 1444 6.93 18.00 149 212 180.5 2013 9.66 27.66 212 300 256 2207 10.59 38.25 300 425 362.5 1799 8.63 46.88 425 600 512.5 1915 9.19 56.07 600 1000 800 3071 14.73 70.80 1000 2000 1500 2971 14.25 85.05 2000 4000 3000 1846 8.86 93.91 4000 6350 5175 682 3.27 97.18 6350 12700 9525 416 2.00 99.18 12700 22700 17700 175 0.84 100.02 The sum of the mass in all the sieve bins is 20846 grams. The Sauter mean diameter is 248 pm. The particle mass mean diameter is 484 pm.
Table 5 Results and Observations for the FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Welt Mass Delivered: 19.2 kg Debris Mass Recovered: 20.8 kg Particle Mass Mean Diameter: 484 pm Sauter Mean Diameter: 248 m
% Metal Oxidized for the Fe + H2 O > Fe0 + H2 reaction: 24 Fe 43H2 O > Fe2O 3 + 3H2 reaction: 16 Peak Gas Phase Pressure: 0.625 MPa Peak Delta Gas Phase Pressure: 0.542 MPa Peak Gas Phase Temperature: 328 K Peak Delta Gas Phase Temperature: 43 K Event Type: Double Explosion Event Times: 52.6, 55.6 ms after melt / water contact Propagation Velocity: 318 m/s downward
l l FIGURE 1. Water Chamber Dimensions, instrumentation and Camera Orientation Side View A A 0.76m
, 0.66m I
l Y Y I 1
/
M 0.76m Top View P7 d T1
,P3 Camera Port C-1 0.76m ,P6 ,
f1 g _ ,, P6
'p4 P1 - Kuste 1266-6-676 Y P2 - KuHte 1266-6-660P PS - PCB 1120'2-2656 P4 - PCB 11202-2059P P6 - KuNte 1266-6-207 . PS - Kunto 1266-6-221P P7 - KuBte 1266-6-206P Camera Port D-2 P6 - Kutte 1266-6-220 T1 - Type K Thermocouple Camera Port D-1
- FIGURE 2. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Percent Metal Oxidized Versus Time 26 , , , , , 24 ---
.3 22-- - - ._
V
._N .V 20 --- .-
K O G3
- 18 - .-
2 ! C S 16 6 ,
*'-""-"-'"-"--"-""._P o
u e-
@ :/
CL / a' 14 -- / s' 12 /-
/
o Fe + H2O > FeO + H2 c; .P_ _2_ _Fe + 3 H2O > Fe2O3 + 3 H2 _ 10 ; ; j 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 l Time After Drop (seconds)
. FIGURE 3.
FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Post-Test Debris Distribution, Mass vs. Sleve Size 10000 j i . .iiui . .,,iii, , i i i i ii n i iiiiiig 1000:: __ _ Wuuum eum _um _ _M _ _.ap _ N E -- - as u 3 100 g __ _ g __ E - _ 10 : : __ h num_ _ l __ _ f 4 _ 6 t 1 5:::lll(j l !! !!! l ll:!ll : i:.: l
- 10 100 ~1000 10000 100000 Sieve Size (micrometers) .
. m-@C3m 4-g qmoc CD em3 m5 8_os- mxve 3e3-nO " e. . o* ,GD*,E".5 E.=ii.=~ .c.g . g.
aOo - _ _:_: _ __ 5- _:_: __:ni H l i i l e l i l , l , s ! i s a M 'o! l l l l j
,i_
d ! l i e 4 i v l l i l e ! [ S
! i l
l l 3 t a o T a lH l i i f o
! i
! i t
n ! , e ! , c r ! , e P s ?ai+ i _ s H a I i i M l e i l i l e
- _:: E := _ _ _:
o'Oa - _ E _:=
- _ _ _ 7_
,o aoo ooo aoooo ooOoo O- O.
C G<@ C_NG nB o O3G*@,mv
FIGURE Sa. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Post-Test Debris Distribution, Cumulative Mass % vs. Steve Size 100 . . . . ...., . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . r.......
, 90 -
e m
. 2 80- -- - -
e G
@ 70- --
m - 60- - O F-O 50- - e m 40- -- m 2 W 30- -- m l 3 20- -- -- E
- s O 10 - --
e Cum. Mass % -
- P.M.M. Diameter i a Sauter Diameter o : : . :::::,' : : : :::::: : : .
10 100 1000 10000 100000 t Sieve Size (micrometers)
,-*,--,-rw----r-mww-- n-,- - - --- - ------m--myr-y-,----------w-w - -- ' -- = - - --
. FIGURE Sb.
FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Post-Test Debris Distribution, Cumulative Mass % vs. Sleve Size 100_.
! . .' J. ' ! ' !! '....' ' j ' !! '
i 1
' . < .. :.;.. ;; . : : ' .' t ' ' ' L
_ _- . :; . . . . , , :i _ _. .i ..;. ;.: . . , s m
' ' ~ '
g .- -
- . a . . .: , + 1- :. .
t0 . _. . y _ _ ,,,
@ i
- i (O 10_ _ .. .. . .. .. .... .-
cc - - y . .. O _ _ .. . . . 1
;: :a O _ _
m .t e to 2 1 . . . . . . e 3, y _ _. . _ _ . . . . .a :. :; g _ _. 1. .. . . .: . . . . :. . 'j:
.{. ;
'} *h.
E _ _ . . . .: . .. . .
- s O _ _ .,
a Cum. Mass % .
- P.M.M. Diameter A Sauter Diameter t . ; , ;.;;; ; . ;,, .., , , . , ,,,.. , . . , . ,
0.1 . . . . . . . . , . . . ....., . . . . ...., . . . . . . . . 10 100 1000 10000 100000 i Sieve Size (micrometers) i
,- , ,w, _ _ . . _ . _ , . . - - , , .,
, . _ . . ..,,.m_- -
FIGURE 6. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Post-Test Debris Dist., Mass % per Micrometer vs. Ave. Sleve Size
.L. 1 I J.L i l .L. l.J..I J.!il .L. i . .i . i J . L i l L. i . .l. i J L I L
. . . . ;a s .s. -
g --
- - ) i- -
. . =.
O . u 0.1_ . , . . ,. O
.,.?
- e
_-. . ... . . ' .: ,i ... . .8,.. - E _--. . .- .. .
~
w _- . . . . . . . . :. g, _-. . , . , .. . . :. ; :.. . . , .a e m 0.01_-._- . t 2
- e
--. . ... . . . n;
'O _-.
. s (t) 0.001_ _-. . .
o .
=0-8 - . . .
O g _- . . . . \ . . O
- 0.0001__.
o _ . s .. . .
. . ...... ... . .k . . .. _ _
_-. . . . u. g -
.:. .i.
. n. r e _-.
s
- e CO _-. . , . ._
.. 2. . .
a
;;;,ui ; ; , u;;
0.00001 i
. ii,iiii i iiiiiii i
; , ; ; ui i i i i .4
; i ,;,;,
i i iiiii 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Average Sieve Size (micrometers)
- . _ , - - - - . , , . _ . , .,, ,,,,,._ --,..-- _. - , - ~ - - . , _ - - - . - - - _ , , ,
FIGURE 7a. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment l Gas Phase Temp., TC # 1(5 point averaged data) ! 330 i i i i i i i 1 325 -- - 1 - - - - - - 320 -- - - M
, 315 - - -
u s. 8 310 - - p - e o. 305 -' -- e
.c g 300- WI - -
Q. m 295 - ' - e 0 . 290--- , 285 - - 4 - ' 280 l ! ! l l l l 10 o 10 20 30 40 50 so Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds) L.____.______.___..____..___.__...-_____.___ __
FIGURE 7b. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment i Gas Phase Temp.,TC # 1(5 point averaged data) 330 ,
, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, l 1
l 325 - =- - - --- -- - 320 - - - ' n M w
, 315 --- -
u 3 w
@ S10 -- - - - -
O. M E m 305 _ . a3 300 '
.c 1 .
m 295 - - - - - - . cts O 290 - -- ( 285 - - -
- 280
- l' l : l : l i l :
l : l l l l l : 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds) , s
~
FIGURE 7c. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Temp., TC # 1(5 point averaged data) 330 ii,,,,,i,,,,,,,,,,, t 325 -- - - '- -- 320 - - - - - -
+ ~-
g .
, 315 -- -
u s
@ 310 - - --
e o. E 305 - - y - - - - - l-- e
# 300 -
e
.c O
m 295 --- ' - ' - - e *
- O 1 290 - .
l l 285 - - - - > -
~
280 : l : l l l : l l l: l : l i l i ! o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 o.5 0.s o.7 o.8 o.9 1 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds) s- ---e*- - _--.-- - - , _..,-,.,_.,.,m, .,,,..-__-.,_._,.-..--._,__-,,,,vw,c. .-r.- -__-.m-------.___,__v- - . - - , . , - - - _ - - , , - -
FIGURE 7d. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment ! Gas Phase Temp.,TC e 1(5 point averaged data) ) 330 .3 . ,
,i,,,,,,,,,,,
325--- - - - - -- - - l 320-- - - ~ ' - - - - x
, 315 -- -
u a
.e *
@ 31o--- - - -
o. E, 305 -- - - - 1- -- W '
- 300-- ' -
e
.c CL M 295 -- - - -
e 0 290--- . 285- -: - - - ! 280 : : : l : i l l : !: : il i i o.co o.02 0.04 o.oe o.os o.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds
~
FIGURE 8a. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Top Outside Wall Temperature, TC e 4 (5 point averaged data) 294 i i i i i i i
, 292 --- - - - - - - -
M , e u i s. W 290 - . a E
- 288 --- -
W 3 S 32
$o 286- - / - - -
O WM } a O l-284 --- - - - i 282 l l l l l l l l
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds' l l
. FIGURE 8b. l FITSSD Steam Explosion Experiment l Top Outside Wall Temperature, TC s 4 (5 point averaged data) 294 i i i i i i i i i gg2-- . . :. . . :. .-
M v w 3. G 290 e Q. E e l - 288- - - :- - CO i
;l 2(0 286- - - - -
o. O
> 284 - - :- - -
1 282 l l l l l l l l l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ' Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds'
. FIGURE 9. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Comparison of Line Fits to Top Outside Wall Temperature 294 i i i i i i i i i i 292 ---- - - - - - - - - - - M u 3 4
$ 290- - - - - - - -
O. E H : 288 -- - - - - 3 / W 2
$= 286- - - - - -
O O. O
> 284 - -
TC # 4 Experimental Data _ ?_ _ _T=0,1614_*S _284,2_______
- T=0.1802*S + 284.2 _ __
a T=0.0845*S + 287.4 ._ 282 l l l l l i j l l l 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds;
FIGURE 10. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Comparison of Gas Phase Temp. to Top Outside Wall Temp. 330 i i i I Gas Pha'se Temp.
' ' ~
_ _ _T_o p_ W a ll T_e_m_p._ _ _ _ . 320 -- - - - - - ' - 315 --- - n . M 310 - -- e w 3 g . W w 305--- - - -- 3 0 0 -- - - - Q - -- 295 --- -- 290---
.... .t ~ C i ,__,,,,......-
285--- - i l 280 l ! ! ! l l l
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds:
FIGURE 11a. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment , Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20901 with Felt Metal Protection o.6 , i i i i i i : i o.5 - - co O. { o.4 - - - e w
- s a
w . b o.3 - - - - - -- n. e a s e
.c G.
o.2 _ . . . . . . .- e ! i (0 l l 0 l o.1 - l l l o.o : ! ! ! : l : l i ! 0.04 0.os o.oe 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds)
._-. . _. ._ __. - _ _ _ _ _ __- -- -. -- - J
FIGURE 11b. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20902 with Felt Metal Protection 0.50 . i e i i
, i i
0.45 --- ,
' +-
0.40 -- - - - - - n (O E d 0.35 - - -- u 3
# 0.30 -
m e w Q. e 0.25 - - - - - - - - m CO
.C L 0,20 --. . .$. . . . . .-
m CO . O l l 0.15 --- , 1 . 0.10 -- - - - - - 1 O.05 : l i l l l l l i l : l , 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 l Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds'; l l
FIGURE 11c. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment i Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20903 with Felt Metal Protection 0.300 , i i i i i 0.275 - e 0.250 --- ' - -- n (O Q. k O.225 -- - --
@ 5 u
- s g 0.200 - -
w Q. W 0.175 -- - - - - - - - en -) CU
.c D- 0,150 . . . . .-
.gn .
CU 0 0.125 --- : - 0.100 - ~ " - - - -- s i 0.075 i l : l : l l l i ! l 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds)
FIGURE 11d. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20211 with Felt Metal Protection 0.45 , i i
, i , ,
0.40--- '
- i- --
^ 0.35--- - - - -
ce Q. 2 e u 0.30-- - o e e u 0.25 - - Q. O m ce
.c 0.20- -
O e ce 0 0,15 - - 0.10 - ~ - - 0.05 i l l l l l i l : 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds' , L _ - _ _ - _ - _ - __ ._ ._ . _ _ _ _
FIGURE 110. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20904 0.7 . , . 9 0.6 . . m n, 0.5 - 2
- e u \
- o.4 - -
6 -- e u n. o.3 -
.c l h
- n.
i e ! CO o.2 - -- -- \ 0 l o.1 - - 0.0 , : l : l l l , 0.04 0.05 o.os o.07 0.08 0.09 0.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds' ., l
FIGURE 11f. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure Gauges i 1 0.7 . , . x PS-20904
= PS-20901
-{
0.6 ,
!, , -.--pT-g090h -
v PS-20903
. .
- PS-20211 n . .
m ' a 0.5 -- + i-
+++ + i-
+ .
+-
2 v w l $ 0.4 - m W u Q
$ 0.3 ' -
i .c g . m a o,g - - .' L. W W_. 0 . .- =
- . a o.3 . . ... . . . . . . . ... ._
0.0 i !l lil: ll ll lil: : l: l:
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds'
FIGURE 11g. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure Gauges 0.7 i , i x PS-20904 _ _=_ _ PS:2090_1 0.6 --- - - -
. PS-20902 -
v PS-20903 i PS-20211. J
$ 0.5 --- i '- --
2 e w
$ 0.4 -- -
m . e w o.
$ 0.3 --- --
! e
.c .
a l e ' e 0.2 I 0 [ l ) . 1 0.1 - - -
- _y-
=
0.0 l l l l l l
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds:
l
. . FIGURE 12a.
FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20904 0.7 i i PS-20904 Exp. Data 1 m Quasi-static Pressure 0.6 -- - n : a ' gL 0.5 - - - 2 l u 5 0.4 .- m w 0- :
$ 0.3 - -
e
.c o.
m
@ 0.2 - ,
0 0.1 - - - - - ; - l , l - . 0.0 l I l l l l l
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds'
. FIGURE 12b. i FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20904 0.7 . i i PS-20904 Exp. Data m Quasi-static Pressure 0.6 -- n as e 0.5 - - i- v - - <- .- 2 v
~
G - u
$ 0.4 - ~
u Q.
$ 0.3 ' ' -
- -th i ' - -
a3 ,
.C -
L: . m' jf a3 0.2 G , ,
/ - u :-
,j . .'f . ... .
l
~
s 1 10, 2 i 'll l'll l! l- F ll '
- l ll li
-1 0 1 2 3 ~4 ' 5 8 7 8 9 10 l
. j Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds} l l
e
,____..___.._.,,,.._m, , . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _
FIGURE 12c. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure, Ps-20904 0.7 , PS-20904 Exp. Data ! u Quasi-static Pressure 0.6 - - - - -
- - ~ - -
a 0.5 - n, -- - 2 6 5 0.4 - -- g e e u CL ,
+
$ 0.3 ' ' -
m
.c O.
m , m 0.2 =- - g . - . 0.1 ; y - - - -- i 0.0 - l l . l .
-1 -0.s o 0.s 1 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds;
.\
FIGURE 12d. FITS.5D Steam Explosion Experiment Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20904 0.7 , O.6 - -
' '. I
\
A e 0.5 --- a -> -- 2 ,
,e
.. u 5 1 0.4 --
m ' e u CL .
$ 0.3 - -: - - -
g e . CL ~ m m 0.2 , m _ _ - . , 0 0.1 - J. 4 PS-20904 Exp. Data e Quasi-static Pressure
> 0.0 : l : l: l : : : : : : :
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds) r J,
-- - - me---e-y,-e, -w-=ef mw,e.,,fy-& -. .,y- g--- -w--,mm,m,,w-*< g--- -------w- --q-- ,
4 - FIGURE 120. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment ; Gas Phase Pressure, PS-20904 0.7 . . . i i i . .. . i . . .
)
l 0.6 --. - e 0.5 ---
- n. + -> -
I w
,e g o,4 __. ._
e w 0
- 0.3
~
+ -
t , Q. m a o.g _ . . . . . . .- 0 0.1 -- = PS-20904 Exp. Data a Quasi-static Pressure ~ 0.0 : : i l : : : : : : : : : : : :
. 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds'
FIGURE 13. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Comparison of H-M Final State Pressure to Gas Phase Pressure 0.6 , i i H-M with Heat Transfer
. . . . . .H. .M. . .w. /. o. . H. .e.a. t. .T. r.a. n.s.f.e.r. .
P(s)_=P(exp)-P_(N2) 0.5 - - - : _ _ P(s)=P(exp)-P(N2)-P(H2) e Mc/Mf = 8.2
- Mc/Mf = 9.55
, s; v Maximum Mc/Mf = 19.9 0.4 - :, l e l ',
- o. ,
3 v l-
?',
0.3 - ',' f l s i 3 , m l > m , ?,
@ l u ,
O., ; , 0.2 - - - - 3 , -: l l 0.1 -t l l . ' .~m.. l . 0.0 ' l il! l l l i!: !l l' li!l l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Mass Ratio (mass coolant / mass fuel)
r. FIGURE 14. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Hicks-Menzies Efficiency with Mass Ratio Limitations 0.40 . , . , , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,, i H-M with Heat Transfer 0.35 - - i. _ _ _ _ H_:M_ _w/p_ Heat _ Trap _s_f_e_r_ _ a Mc/Mf = 8.2
- Mc/Mf = 9.55 0.30 - - - '- - -
X , o c ,:
$ l ',!
,o 0.25-? ,: - -
% t
% 'I LLI l
,f, .
m 2N 0.20 - y' i i,i 'i - - - - - i ', C ' i
@ l ',
2 0.15 l ', . i
- 4 1 -
m , N '
?
~
~
.O l'i I : ',
0.10 ; ,c - - - - .- s: . l . . 0.05 r - 1- - s 0.00 i l i i : l : W :;.;,lIl , 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Mass Ratio (mass coolant / mass fuel)
FIGURE 15. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Data Record for Kullte 1266-9-220 100 .
,...i...
75- -- g 50- - . . . CL 2
? 25- -- -
m - m e e u CL o - I e m a (u w e a g - -
-100 l .
'l l .
l o.co o.02 o.04 o.os o.os o.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds
. . _ = _ _
1 FIGURE 16. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Data Record for Kullte 1266-9-208 P 100 . i 75- - n - i l
- 1 W 50- -- - " -
l Q. I w b 25- -- 3 ' W M w rL 0 = . - tn W ( u t l 5
- g - -
1 i -100 l ! l . : ; . i 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
- Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds;'
;il toc 3m4= -
m S#mOni~e"3 mx1oce O3 mxVe2 e3 O".e a o.Sa
, xE.,* Aee4&ne m -
~~- .
aI ! . .' A - I a . . .I
)
a P M mI i .i ( e r w u aI i - i s s e r A P o - i e s a , aI i . - i h P _ r t e . mI i . i a W _
. i
.a I i a . - i _
_ ~ _- - m- _ poo o.Oto o'o* 9*m om oo _ H b > M 8 , 5 @ N I m e , C O 3 +c W O 4 m @ o O 3 E m
, . !;:1l .
I) i ;; i; ' Il!' 1I
- - - - - -- - - - . - - = -
FIGURE 18. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Data Record for Kullte 1266-9-880 P 0.095 . i i 0.090- -- - -
- - l 2
0.085- - o - . ;w WAM N d W#TV 3
$ 0.080 -
w CL
- j 0.075 - -
.c CL l
w y 0.070 - - N 0.065 - ' - 0.060 l : l l l 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds?
FIGURE 19. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Data Record for Kullte 1266-9-207 100 , ,, . . 1 75- -- t - g 50- -. . .. . .- CL. 2 e u 25- -- s !
= '
e e
$ o -
G -- m m
.c a -25 -
- u w
e p -50 - - 1 i - l l ! -100 - l l . 0.00 0.02 0.04 o.os o.08 0.10 l l Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds'
* ~
FIGURE 20. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Data Record for Kullte 1266-9-221 P 100 . . 75 - -- g 50- .
. a ..
4 .- F Q. 2 2 25- -- m e e e E o 1 av ' e e m (u
-y -
e. i e g - - !, -75 - t
~
-100 , l l l . : l .
o.00 0.02 0.04 o.oe 0.08 0.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds: 1
FIGURE 21. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment ! Data Record for PCB 11202-2556 (no calibration available) 6 . . i i...,... f- -. . . .. f . ...
'l l
. 1 2 -
n to - 2' . O l v l e 0 .
- ~ <
-{
l D ; c6 l _ l O
> l
.g - - . . . . :. .-
l l 1 l e
-6 '
l : l : l .l: ;: , 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 l i t Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds;' I I
- -- - - - ~ - --- - - - - -
e -
. ., y -
FIGURE 22. FITS 5D Steam Explosion Experiment Data Record for PCB 11202-2059 P (no calibration available) 6 ....... ...,...i.. i 4- -. . . : . . . .: . .- 2 - - - - p . o -
\
W
> } '
e 0- - l : A . O f a ' z o .
.g - -.
t of - -. . . . ..J. .- l l . > l
-e -
l.: l: ! . l : : : l ! o.co o.02 0.04 o.oe o.os o.10 Time After Melt / Water Contact (seconds' ,}}