Revision as of 02:31, 2 December 2019

Text

NUREG/CR-7250, Thermal-Hydraulic Experiments Using a Dry Cask Simulator
	ML18310A140
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/31/2018
From:	Durbin S, Lindgren E, Marshall S; Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Sandia
To:	;
	Meyd, Donald
References
	NUREG/CR-7250
	Download: ML18310A140 (125)
	v • d • e

NUREG/CR-7250 Thermal-Hydraulic Experiments Using A Dry Cask Simulator Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as books, NRCs Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports.

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.

and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers Copies of industry codes and standards used in a and their attachments. substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, The NRC Technical Library and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of Federal Regulations Two White Flint North may also be purchased from one of these two sources. 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738

1. The Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Publishing Office These standards are available in the library for reference Washington, DC 20402-0001 use by the public. Codes and standards are usually Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating Telephone: (202) 512-1800 organization or, if they are American National Standards, Fax: (202) 512-2104 from American National Standards Institute

2. The National Technical Information Service 11 West 42nd Street 5301 Shawnee Road New York, NY 10036-8002 Alexandria, VA 22312-0002 www.ansi.org www.ntis.gov (212) 642-4900 1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000 Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical speci-available free, to the extent of supply, upon written fications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications. The request as follows: views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily those of the NRC.

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and adminis-Office of Administration trative reports and books prepared by the staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2)

Multimedia, Graphics, and Storage &

proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports Distribution Branch resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX),

Washington, DC 20555-0001 (4) brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of E-mail: distribution.resource@nrc.gov legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic Facsimile: (301) 415-2289 and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors decisions under Section 2.206 of NRCs regulations (NUREG-0750).

Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account at NRCs Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government.

doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor differ from the last printed version. Although references to any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third material found on a Web site bear the date the material partys use, or the results of such use, of any information, was accessed, the material available on the date cited apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, may subsequently be removed from the site. or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.

NUREG/CR-7250 Thermal-Hydraulic Experiments Using A Dry Cask Simulator Manuscript Completed: October 2018 Date Published: October 2018 Prepared by:

S. G. Durbin E. R. Lindgren Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 Shawn Marshall, NRC Project Manager Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

ABSTRACT A series of well-controlled tests were conducted using a single, prototypic-geometry boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel assembly inside of a pressure vessel and enclosure to mimic the thermal-hydraulic responses of both aboveground and belowground dry storage casks. This simplified test assembly was shown to have similarity with prototypic systems through dimensional analysis.

The data were collected over a broad parameter set including simulated decay power and internal helium pressure. These data were collected and documented with the intent to be used for validation exercises with thermal-hydraulic codes and computational fluid dynamics simulations.

The primary values of interest, air mass flow rate and peak cladding temperature, and their uncertainties are highlighted in this report.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. xi EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

.................................................................................................................... xiii ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ xv 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Objective .................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Previous Studies ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Small Scale, Single Assembly ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Full-Scale, Multi-Assembly............................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.3 Uniqueness of Dry Cask Simulator ............................................................................... 1-4 2 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 General Construction ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Design of the Heated Fuel Bundle ..........................................................................................2-4 2.3 Instrumentation ........................................................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.1 Thermocouples (TCs) ................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.2 Pressure Vessel ..........................................................................................................2-15 2.3.3 Power Control .............................................................................................................2-16 2.3.4 Hot Wire Anemometers...............................................................................................2-18 2.4 Air Mass Flow Rate................................................................................................................2-18 2.4.1 Flow Straightening ......................................................................................................2-19 2.4.2 Aboveground Air Flow Measurement .........................................................................2-19 2.4.3 Belowground Air Flow Measurement..........................................................................2-22 2.5 Cross-Wind Testing ...............................................................................................................2-24 3 ABOVEGROUND RESULTS .........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Steady State Analyses ............................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Peak Cladding Temperature and Air Mass Flow Rate ................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Two-Dimensional Temperature Contours .................................................................... 3-3 3.1.3 Transverse Temperature Profiles including the TC Lance........................................... 3-5 3.1.4 Summary Data Tables .................................................................................................. 3-6 3.2 Transient Analyses .................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.2.1 Transient Response of TC Lance and Corresponding Cladding ...............................3-10 4 BELOWGROUND RESULTS .........................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Steady State Analyses ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Peak Cladding Temperature and Air Mass Flow Rate ................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Two-Dimensional Velocity Contours............................................................................. 4-3 4.1.3 Transverse Temperature Profiles Including the TC Lance .......................................... 4-4 4.1.4 Summary Data Tables .................................................................................................. 4-5 4.2 Transient Analyses .................................................................................................................. 4-8 4.2.1 Transient Response of TC Lance and Corresponding Cladding ................................. 4-9 4.3 Cross-Wind Analyses ............................................................................................................4-11 v

5

SUMMARY

...................................................................................................................................... 5-1 6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 6-1 APPENDIX A ERROR ANALYSIS................................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B CHANNEL LIST FROM ABOVEGROUND TESTING ............................................. B-1 APPENDIX C DIMENSIONAL ANALYSES..................................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D VERIFICATION OF HOT WIRE ANEMOMETERS .................................................. D-1 APPENDIX E THERMOCOUPLE LANCE ANOMALY ................................................................... E-1 vi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Typical vertical aboveground storage cask system. ................................................. 1-1 Figure 1-2 Typical vertical belowground storage cask system. ................................................. 1-1 Figure 2-1 General design showing the plan view (upper left), the internal helium flow (lower left), and the external air flow for the aboveground (middle) and belowground configurations (right)............................................................................ 2-2 Figure 2-2 Carbon steel pressure vessel. .................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2-3 CYBL facility housing the aboveground version of the BWR cask simulator. .......... 2-4 Figure 2-4 Typical 99 BWR components used to construct the test assembly including top tie plate (upper left), bottom tie plate (bottom left) and channel box and spacers assembled onto the water rods (right). ....................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5 Typical TC attachment to heater rod. ....................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2-6 Experimental BWR assembly showing as-built a) axial and b) lateral thermocouple locations. ............................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-7 Definition of coordinate references in test apparatus. .............................................. 2-8 Figure 2-8 BWR channel box showing thermocouple locations. ............................................... 2-9 Figure 2-9 Storage basket showing thermocouple locations. .................................................. 2-10 Figure 2-10 Pressure vessel showing thermocouple locations.................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-11 Ducting for aboveground configuration showing thermocouple locations.............. 2-12 Figure 2-12 Ducting for belowground configuration showing thermocouple locations. ............. 2-13 Figure 2-13 Location of thermocouples for gas temperature measurements at elevations of 1.219, 2.438, 3.658 m (48, 96, and 144 in.). ...................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-14 TC elevations for the TC lance. .............................................................................. 2-15 Figure 2-15 Power control system and test circuits. .................................................................. 2-17 Figure 2-16 Schematic of the instrumentation panel for voltage, current and power measurements......................................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-17 Photographs of the two types of hot wire anemometer tips. .................................. 2-18 Figure 2-18 Photograph of the honeycomb element used for flow straightening. ..................... 2-19 Figure 2-19 Aboveground configuration showing the location of the hot wire anemometer. .... 2-20 Figure 2-20 Mass flow rate as a function of hot wire output for forced flow. ............................. 2-20 Figure 2-21 Schematic showing the location of the inlet duct profiles for aboveground testing. ..................................................................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-22 Diagram showing the integration scheme for the calculation of air mass flow rate for the aboveground configuration. .................................................................. 2-21 Figure 2-23 Natural-to-forced flow correlation. ........................................................................... 2-22 Figure 2-24 Location of air flow measurement instrumentation for the belowground configuration. ........................................................................................................... 2-23 Figure 2-25 Radial positioning of the hot wire anemometers for belowground testing. ............ 2-23 Figure 2-26 Diagram showing the integration scheme for the calculation of air mass flow rate for the belowground configuration. .................................................................. 2-24 Figure 2-27 Layout of the cask simulator and wind machine for cross-wind testing. ................ 2-25 Figure 2-28 Schematic showing the local coordinates of the wind machine. ............................ 2-25 Figure 2-29 Velocity contours of the wind machine for maximum cross-wind........................... 2-26 Figure 2-30 Correlation of the two-dimensional, integrated average velocity (W2D, avg) to the average of the three fixed hot wire anemometers (W3-Pt, avg). ........................... 2-26 Figure 3-1 Steady state peak cladding temperature as a function of power. ............................ 3-1 Figure 3-2 Steady state air flow rate as a function of power. ..................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-3 Steady state peak cladding temperature as a function of absolute internal vessel pressure. ........................................................................................................ 3-2 vii

Figure 3-4 Steady state air mass flow rate as a function of absolute internal vessel pressure. .................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-5 Steady state temperature contours for 5.0 kW at different internal helium pressures. .................................................................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-6 Steady state temperature contours for 0.5 kW at different internal vessel pressures. .................................................................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3-7 Steady state transverse temperature profile at z = 3.023 m (119 in.) for the test conducted at 5.0 kW and 800 kPa helium. ........................................................ 3-5 Figure 3-8 Steady state transverse temperature profile at z = 3.023 m (119 in.) for the test conducted at 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa air. ................................................................ 3-6 Figure 3-9 Peak cladding temperature as a function of time for tests conducted at 800 kPa helium. ................................................................................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-10 Total air mass flow rate as a function of time for tests conducted at 800 kPa helium. ....................................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3-11 Time to reach steady state as a function of power for the various vessel pressures tested. ..................................................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-12 Comparison of TC lance and cladding temperatures at z = 3.023 m (119 in.)

as a function of time for the test conducted at 5.0 kW and 800 kPa helium. ......... 3-11 Figure 3-13 Comparison of TC lance and cladding temperatures at z = 3.023 m (119 in.)

as a function of time for the test conducted at 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa air. ................. 3-11 Figure 4-1 Steady state peak cladding temperature as a function of power. ............................ 4-1 Figure 4-2 Steady state air mass flow rate in the inlet annulus as a function of power. ........... 4-2 Figure 4-3 Steady state peak cladding temperature as a function of absolute internal vessel pressure. ........................................................................................................ 4-2 Figure 4-4 Steady state air mass flow rate in the inlet annulus as a function of absolute internal vessel pressure. ........................................................................................... 4-3 Figure 4-5 Steady state velocity contours for 5.0 kW at different internal helium pressures. .................................................................................................................. 4-3 Figure 4-6 Steady state velocity contours for 0.5 kW at different internal vessel pressures. .................................................................................................................. 4-4 Figure 4-7 Steady state transverse temperature profile at z = 3.023 m (119 in.) for the test conducted at 5.0 kW and 800 kPa helium. ........................................................ 4-5 Figure 4-8 Steady state transverse temperature profile at z = 3.023 m (119 in.) for the test conducted at 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa air. ................................................................ 4-5 Figure 4-9 Peak cladding temperature as a function of time for tests conducted at 800 kPa helium. ................................................................................................................ 4-8 Figure 4-10 Total air mass flow rate as a function of time for tests conducted at 800 kPa helium. ....................................................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-11 Time to reach steady state as a function of power for the various vessel pressures tested. ....................................................................................................... 4-9 Figure 4-12 Comparison of TC lance and cladding temperatures at z = 3.023 m (119 in.)

as a function of time for the test conducted at 5.0 kW and 800 kPa helium. ......... 4-10 Figure 4-13 Comparison of TC lance and cladding temperatures at z = 3.023 m (119 in.)

as a function of time for the test conducted at 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa air. ................. 4-11 Figure 4-14 Normalized air mass flow rates as a function of cross-wind speed for 1.0 kW tests. ........................................................................................................................ 4-12 Figure 4-15 Normalized air mass flow rates as a function of cross-wind speed for 2.5 kW tests. ........................................................................................................................ 4-13 Figure 4-16 Normalized air mass flow rates as a function of cross-wind speed for 5.0 kW tests. ........................................................................................................................ 4-13 viii

Figure 4-17 Normalized air mass flow rates as a function of cross-wind speed for 100 kPa tests. ................................................................................................................. 4-14 Figure 4-18 Normalized air mass flow rates as a function of cross-wind speed for 800 kPa tests. ................................................................................................................. 4-14 Figure 4-19 Orientation of the wind machine and test assembly. .............................................. 4-15 Figure 4-20 Velocity contours for 5.0 kW and 100 kPa at different cross-wind speeds. ........... 4-15 ix

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Dimensions of assembly components in the 99 BWR. .......................................... 2-5 Table 2-2 List of proposed equipment for power control. ....................................................... 2-18 Table 3-1 Steady state results for the primary assembly measurements at 0.3 kPa air. ......... 3-6 Table 3-2 Steady state results for the primary assembly measurements at 100 kPa helium. ....................................................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-3 Steady state results for the primary assembly measurements at 450 kPa helium. ....................................................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3-4 Steady state results for the primary assembly measurements at 800 kPa helium. ....................................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 4-1 Steady state results for the primary assembly measurements at 0.3 kPa air. ......... 4-6 Table 4-2 Steady state results for the primary assembly measurements at 100 kPa helium. ....................................................................................................................... 4-6 Table 4-3 Steady state results for the primary assembly measurements at 450 kPa helium. ....................................................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-4 Steady state results for the primary assembly measurements at 800 kPa helium. ....................................................................................................................... 4-7 Table 4-5 Rise in peak cladding temperature attributed to cross-wind conditions. ................ 4-11 xi

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The thermal performance of commercial nuclear spent fuel dry storage casks is evaluated through detailed numerical analysis. These modeling efforts are completed by the vendor to demonstrate performance and regulatory compliance. The calculations are then independently verified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Carefully measured data sets generated from testing of full sized casks or smaller cask analogs are widely recognized as vital for validating these models.

Recent advances in dry storage cask designs have significantly increased the maximum thermal load allowed in a cask in part by increasing the efficiency of internal conduction pathways and by increasing the internal convection through greater canister helium pressure. These same canistered cask systems rely on ventilation between the canister and the overpack to convect heat away from the canister to the environment for both aboveground and belowground configurations. While several testing programs have been previously conducted, these earlier validation attempts did not capture the effects of elevated helium pressures or accurately portray the external convection of aboveground and belowground canistered dry cask systems.

The purpose of this investigation was to produce validation-quality data that can be used to test the validity of the modeling presently used to determine cladding temperatures in modern vertical dry casks. These cladding temperatures are critical to evaluate cladding integrity throughout the storage cycle. To produce these data sets under well-controlled boundary conditions, the dry cask simulator (DCS) was built to study the thermal-hydraulic response of fuel under a variety of heat loads, internal vessel pressures, and external configurations.

An existing electrically heated but otherwise prototypic BWR Incoloy-clad test assembly was deployed inside of a representative storage basket and cylindrical pressure vessel that represents a vertical canister system. The symmetric single assembly geometry with well-controlled boundary conditions simplified interpretation of results. Two different arrangements of ducting were used to mimic conditions for aboveground and belowground storage configurations for vertical, dry cask systems with canisters. Transverse and axial temperature profiles were measured throughout the test assembly. The induced air mass flow rate was measured for both the aboveground and belowground configurations. In addition, the impact of cross-wind conditions on the belowground configuration was quantified.

Over 40 unique data sets were collected and analyzed for these efforts. Fourteen data sets for the aboveground configuration were recorded for powers and internal pressures ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 kW and 0.3 to 800 kPa absolute, respectively. Similarly, fourteen data sets were logged for the belowground configuration starting at ambient conditions and concluding with thermal-hydraulic steady state. Over thirteen tests were conducted using a custom-built wind machine.

The results documented in this report highlight a small, but representative, subset of the available data from this test series. This addition to the dry cask experimental database signifies a substantial addition of first-of-a-kind, high-fidelity transient and steady-state thermal-hydraulic data sets suitable for CFD model validation.

xiii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ANSI American National Standards Institute BWR boiling water reactor DAQ data acquisition DCS Dry Cask Simulator DOE Department of Energy EPRI Electric Power Research Institute FCRD Fuel Cycle Research and Development MSB multi-assembly sealed basket NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission PCT peak cladding temperature PID proportional-integral-differential controller PWR pressurized water reactor SCR silicon controlled rectifier SNF spent nuclear fuel SNL Sandia National Laboratories TC thermocouple VCC ventilated concrete cask xv

1 INTRODUCTION The thermal performance of commercial nuclear spent fuel dry storage casks is evaluated through detailed analytical modeling. These modeling efforts are performed by the vendor to demonstrate the performance and regulatory compliance and are independently verified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Most commercial dry casks in use today store the fuel in an aboveground configuration, although belowground storage has grown in recent years. Both horizontally and vertically oriented aboveground dry cask systems are currently in use. Figure 1-1 shows a diagram for a typical vertical aboveground system. Cooling of the assemblies located inside the sealed canister is enhanced by the induced flow of air drawn in the bottom of the cask and exiting out the top of the cask.

Source: www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doccollections/factsheets/storagespentfuel fs.html Figure 1-1 Typical Vertical Aboveground Storage Cask System Figure 1-2 shows a diagram for a typical, vertical belowground system. For belowground configurations air is drawn in from the top periphery and channeled to the bottom where it then flows upward along the wall of the canister and exits out the top center of the cask.

Source: www.holtecinternational.com/productsandservices/wasteandfuelmanagement/historm/

Figure 1-2 Typical Vertical Belowground Storage Cask System 1-1

Carefully measured data sets generated from testing of full sized casks or smaller cask analogs are widely recognized as vital for validating design and performance models. Numerous studies have been previously conducted [Bates, 1986; Dziadosz and Moore, 1986; Irino et al., 1987; McKinnon et al.,1986]. Recent advances in dry storage cask designs have significantly increased the maximum thermal load allowed in a cask in part by increasing the efficiency of internal conduction pathways and by increasing the internal convection through greater canister helium pressure. These vertical, canistered cask systems rely on ventilation between the canister and the overpack to convect heat away from the canister to the environment for both above and belowground configurations. While several testing programs have been previously conducted, these earlier validation attempts did not capture the effects of elevated helium pressures or accurately portray the external convection of aboveground and belowground canistered dry cask systems. Thus, the enhanced performance of modern dry storage casks cannot be fully validated using previous studies.

1.1 Objective The purpose of this investigation was to produce a data set with a detailed error analysis (see Appendix A) that can be used to test the validity of the modeling presently used to determine cladding temperatures in modern vertical dry casks, which are used to evaluate cladding integrity throughout the storage cycle. To produce these data sets under well-controlled boundary conditions, the dry cask simulator (DCS) was built to study the thermal-hydraulic response of fuel under a variety of heat loads, internal vessel pressures, and external configurations. The results documented in this report highlight a small, but representative, subset of the available data from this test series. To illustrate the breadth of the data sets collected for each test, an example channel list for the data acquisition system (DAQ) can be found in Appendix B.

In addition, the results generated in this test series supplement thermal data collected as part of the High Burnup Dry Storage Cask Project [EPRI, 2014]. A shortened version of the thermal lance design deployed in the Cask Project was installed in the DCS. The installation of this lance in the DCS assembly allowed the measurement of temperatures inside of a guide tube structure and direct comparisons with fuel cladding.

1.2 Previous Studies 1.2.1 Small Scale, Single Assembly Two single assembly investigations were documented in the mid-1980s [Bates, 1986; Irino et al.,

1987]. Both included electrically heated 1515 pressurized water reactor (PWR) assemblies with thermocouples installed to directly measure the surface temperature of the cladding. In Bates (1986) the electrically heated assembly was instrumented with 57 TCs distributed over 7 axial levels. In Irino et al. (1987) the electrically heated assembly was instrumented with 92 TCs distributed over 4 axial levels. In Bates (1986) a single irradiated 1515 PWR assembly was also studied using 105 thermocouples distributed equally into each of the fifteen guide tubes at seven axial levels. All experiments were limited to one atmosphere helium or air, and all imposed a constant temperature boundary condition on the outer cask wall in an attempt to achieve prototypic storage temperatures in the fuel assembly bundle.

1.2.2 Full-Scale, Multi-Assembly Several full-scale multi-assembly cask studies were also documented in the mid-1980s to early 1990s, one for a BWR cask with unconsolidated fuel assemblies [McKinnon et al., 1986] and the 1-2

others for PWR casks with both consolidated and unconsolidated fuel [Dziadosz et al., 1986; McKinnon et al., 1987; Creer et al., 1987; McKinnon et al.,1989; McKinnon et al., 1992]. Only in the most recent study was a ventilated cask design tested. In all studies the cask were studied with internal atmospheres ranging from vacuum up to 150 kPa (21.8 psia) using air, nitrogen, or helium.

In the first study [McKinnon et al., 1986], 28 or 52 BWR assemblies with a total heat load of 9 or 15 kW, respectively, were contained in REA 2023 prototype steel-lead-steel cask with a water-glycol neutron shield. Thirty-eight TCs were installed on the cask interior. Twenty-four of those were installed in direct contact with the center rod in 7 assemblies at up to 7 different elevations.

Twelve were installed on the basket at 3 different elevations. Two TCs were installed in direct contact with a fuel rod located on the center outer face of an assembly. The cask was tested in a vertical and horizontal orientation with atmospheres of vacuum or nitrogen at 145 kPa (21 psia) average or helium at 152 kPa (22 psia) average.

In the earliest full scale PWR cask study [Dziadosz et al., 1986], twenty-one PWR assemblies with a total heat load of 28 kW were contained in a Castor-V/21 cast iron/graphite cask with polyethylene rod neutron shielding. The interior of the cask was instrumented with sixty thermocouples deployed on ten lances located in eight guide tubes and two basket void spaces.

Two of the assembly lances were installed into the center assembly. Note, with the use of TC lances inside of the assembly guide tubes; no direct fuel-cladding temperatures were measured.

The cask was tested in a vertical and horizontal orientation with atmospheres of vacuum or nitrogen at 57 kPa (8.3 psia) or helium at 52 kPa (7.5 psia).

A relatively low total heat load of 12.6 kW was tested in a Westinghouse MC-10 cask with 24 PWR assemblies [McKinnon et al., 1987]. The MC-10 has a forged steel body and distinctive vertical carbon steel heat transfer fins around the outer circumference. The outer surface of the cask was instrumented with 34 thermocouples. The interior of the cask was instrumented with 54 thermocouples deployed on 9 TC lances in 7 fuel assembly guide tubes and 2 basket void spaces. The cask was tested in a vertical and horizontal orientation and interior atmosphere was either a vacuum or 150 kPa (21.8 psia) helium or air.

A pair of studies using the same TN-24 cask was tested with 24 PWR assemblies with 20.5 kW total output [Creer et al., 1987] or 24 consolidated fuel canisters with 23 kW total output

[McKinnon et al.,1989]. The TN-24P has a forged steel body surrounded by a resin layer for neutron shielding. The resin layer is covered by a smooth steel outer shell. The TN-24P is a prototype version of the standard TN-24 cask with differences in the cask body thickness, basket material and neutron shield structure. The TN-24P also incorporates 14 thermocouples into the basket structure. In both studies the fuel was instrumented with 9 TC lances with 6 TCs per lance, 7 in fuel guide tubes and 2 in simulated guide tubes in basket void spaces. The outside surface was instrumented with 35 TCs in the unconsolidated fuel study [Creer et al., 1987] and 27 TCs in the consolidated fuel study [McKinnon et al., 1989]. In both studies the cask was tested in a vertical and horizontal orientation with the interior atmosphere as either a vacuum or 150 kPa (21.8 psia) helium or air. A seventh test was conducted in the consolidated fuel study [McKinnon et al.,1989] for a horizontal orientation under vacuum, with insulated ends to simulate impact limiters.

None of the previous studies discussed so far included or accounted for internal ventilation of the cask. Both of the single assembly investigations imposed constant temperature boundary conditions [Bates, 1986; Irino et al., 1987], and four full-scale cask studies discussed so far 1-3

[Dziadosz et al., 1986; McKinnon et al., 1987; Creer et al., 1987; McKinnon et al.,1989]

considered externally cooled cask designs.

In only one previous study was a ventilated cask design considered, and this cask was the VSC-17 [McKinnon et al., 1992]. The VSC-17 cask system consists of a ventilated concrete cask (VCC) and a removable multi-assembly sealed basket (MSB). The VCC is steel lined and incorporates four inlet vents to the outside neat the bottom and four outlet vents near the top.

When the MSB is placed inside the VCC, an annular gap is formed and the vents allow air to be drawn in from the bottom through the annular gap and out the top vents. The lid on the MSB is a specially designed bolted closure that seals the basket interior and closes off the top of the cask above the top vents. The VSC-17 is a specially designed test version (holding 17 PWR assemblies) of the commercial VSC-24 cask (holding 24 PWR assemblies). The VSC-17 is smaller and lighter and incorporates the bolted lid to facilitate testing. The VSC-24 is larger and utilizes a welded lid canister for containing the spent fuel assemblies.

In the investigation of the VSC-17 cask, 17 consolidated PWR fuel canisters with a total heat load of 14.9 kW were utilized. The cask system was instrumented with 98 thermocouples. Forty-two of these were deployed on 7 TC lances with 6 TCs each. Six lances were installed in the fuel canisters and one was installed in a basket void space. Nine TCs were located on the outer MSB wall and 9 TCs were located on the inner VCC liner. Ten TCs were embedded in the VCC concrete wall. One TC was located at each vent inlet and outlet. Thirteen TCs were located on the outer cask surface and weather cover. Testing consisted of six runs, all in a vertical orientation. In four of the tests the MSB was filled with helium at an average pressure of 95 kPa (13.8 psia). The vents were either all unblocked, or the inlets were half blocked, or the inlets were fully blocked, or both the inlets and outlets were fully blocked. The other two runs were with unblocked vents and 84 kPa (12.2 psia) nitrogen or vacuum.

1.2.3 Uniqueness of Dry Cask Simulator This investigation differed from previous studies in several significant ways. Principle among these was that the canister pressure vessel was tested with helium pressures up to 800 kPa and assembly powers up to 5.0 kW until a steady state temperature profile was established. During the apparatus heating, the helium pressure was controlled to be constant to within +/-0.3 kPa (0.044 psi). Additionally, ventilated design boundary conditions for aboveground and belowground configurations were explicitly simulated.

The present study also differs from previous studies in terms of experimental approach. Rather than striving to achieve prototypic peak clad temperatures by artificially imposing a temperature boundary condition on the canister wall, this study represented the physics of near-prototypic boundary conditions.

1-4

2 APPARATUS AND PROCEDURES This chapter describes the various subsystems, construction, and methods used for this testing. The test apparatus design was guided by an attempt to match critical dimensionless groups with prototypic systems as reasonably as possible, namely Reynolds, Rayleigh, and Nusselt numbers. The dimensional analyses revealed that a scaling distortion in simulated assembly power would be necessary to more closely match the thermal-hydraulic response of a full-sized spent fuel storage cask. This need for additional decay heat is reasonable given the higher external surface-area-to-volume ratio of a single-assembly arrangement as in the DCS compared to a modern canister with up to 89 assemblies. A more rigorous treatment of the test apparatus design was recorded and is available for further details [Durbin, et al., 2016], and a summary of the dimensional analyses is provided in Appendix C.

Each phase of experimental apparatus design and implementation was also guided by extensive, meticulous computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling that is not explicitly detailed in this report. A brief description and example of modeling results may be found in Zigh, et al., 2017.

As an example, these models provided information on the flow profile development and thermal gradients that were critical to the optimization of flow straightening and hot wire anemometer placements.

2.1 General Construction The general design details are shown in Figure 2-1. An existing electrically heated but otherwise prototypic BWR Incoloy-clad test assembly was deployed inside of a representative storage basket and cylindrical pressure vessel that represents the canister. The symmetric single-assembly geometry with well-controlled boundary conditions simplified interpretation of results.

Various configurations of outer concentric ducting were used to mimic conditions for aboveground and belowground storage configurations of vertical, dry-cask systems with canisters. Radial and axial temperature profiles were measured for a wide range of decay power and canister pressures. Of particular interest was the evaluation of the effect of increased helium pressure on heat load for both the aboveground and belowground configurations. The effect of wind speed was also measured for the belowground configuration. Externally, air-mass flow rates were calculated from measurements of the induced air velocities in the external ducting.

2-1

10 in. Sch. 40 pipe ID = 10.02 in. Hot electrical MAWP = 24 bar at 400 C lead Channel Box Basket Cell Canister Outside of shells insulated Induced Internal Helium Flow Patterns air flows Top of Assembly Bottom of Assembly Neutral lead Instrumentation Aboveground Belowground Figure 2-1 General Design Showing the Plan View (upper left), the Internal Helium Flow (lower left), and the External Air Flow for the Aboveground (middle) and Belowground Configurations (right)

Figure 2-2 shows the major carbon steel components used to fabricate the pressure vessel.

The 4.572 m (180 in.) long vertical test section was made from 0.254 m (10 in.) Schedule 40 pipe welded to Class 300 flanges. The 0.356 x 0.254 m (14 x 10 in.) Schedule 40 reducing tee was needed to facilitate the routing of over 150 thermocouples (TCs) through the pressure vessel.

Blind flanges with threaded access ports for TC and power lead pass-throughs were bolted to the top of the vertical test stand section and the sides of the reducing tee. The maximum allowable working pressure was 2,400 kPa at 400 °C. Bar stock tabs were welded inside the 0.254 m (10 in.) flange on the tee to support the test assembly and on the top of the test section to allow an insulated top boundary condition.

2-2

4.572 m (Test Section)

Reducing Tee (Instrument Well)

Figure 2-2 Carbon Steel Pressure Vessel The test configurations were assembled and operated inside of the Cylindrical Boiling (CYBL) test facility, which is the same facility used for earlier fuel assembly studies [Lindgren and Durbin, 2007]. CYBL is a large stainless steel containment vessel repurposed from earlier flooded-containment/core-retention studies sponsored by DOE. Since then, CYBL has served as an excellent general-use engineered barrier for the isolation of high-energy tests. The outer vessel is 5.1 m in diameter and 8.4 m tall (16.7 ft. in diameter and 27.6 feet tall) and constructed with 9.5 mm (0.375 in.) thick stainless steel walls. Figure 2-3 shows a scaled diagram of the CYBL facility with the aboveground version of the test DCS inside.

2-3

Figure 2-3 CYBL Facility Housing the Aboveground Version of the BWR Cask Simulator 2.2 Design of the Heated Fuel Bundle The highly prototypic fuel assembly was modeled after a 9x9 BWR fuel assembly. Commercial components were purchased to create the assembly, including the top and bottom tie plates, spacers, water rods, channel box, and all related assembly hardware (see Figure 2-4). Incoloy heater rods were substituted for the fuel rod pins for heated testing. Due to fabrication constraints, the diameter of the Incoloy heaters was slightly smaller than prototypic pins, 10.9 mm versus 11.2 mm. The slightly simplified Incoloy mock fuel pins were fabricated based on drawings and physical examples from the nuclear component supplier. The dimensions of the assembly components are listed below in Table 2-1.

2-4

Table 2-1 Dimensions of Assembly Components in the 99 BWR Description Lower (Full) Section Upper (Partial) Section Number of pins 74 66 Pin diameter (mm) 10.9 10.9 Pin pitch (mm) 14.4 14.4 Pin separation (mm) 3.48 3.48 Water rod OD (main section) (mm) 24.9 24.9 Water rod ID (mm) 23.4 23.4 Nominal channel box ID (mm) 134 134 Nominal channel box OD (mm) 139 139 Figure 2-4 Typical 99 BWR Components Used to Construct the Test Assembly Including Top Tie Plate (upper left), Bottom Tie Plate (bottom left) and Channel Box and Spacers Assembled Onto the Water Rods (right)

The thermocouples used are ungrounded-junction, Type K, with an Incoloy-sheath diameter of 0.762 mm (0.030 in.) held in intimate contact with the cladding by a thin Nichrome shim. This shim is spot welded to the cladding as shown in Figure 2-5. The TC attachment method allows the direct measurement of the cladding temperature.

2-5

Figure 2-5 Typical TC Attachment to Heater Rod 2.3 Instrumentation The test apparatus was instrumented with thermocouples (TCs) for temperature measurements, pressure transducers to monitor the internal vessel pressure, and hot wire anemometers for flow velocity measurement in the exterior ducting. Volumetric flow controllers were used to calibrate the hot wire probes. Voltage, amperage, and electrical power transducers were used for monitoring the electrical energy input to the test assembly.

Ninety-seven thermocouples were previously installed on the BWR test assembly. Details of the BWR test assembly and TC locations are described elsewhere [Lindgren and Durbin, 2007].

Additional thermocouples were installed on the other major components of the test apparatus, such as the channel box, storage basket, canister wall, and exterior air ducting. TC placement on these components is designed to correspond with the existing TC placement in the BWR assembly.

Hot wire anemometers were chosen to measure the inlet flow rate because this type of instrument is sensitive and robust while introducing almost no unrecoverable flow losses. Due to the nature of the hot wire measurements, best results are achieved when the probe is placed in an isothermal, unheated gas flow.

2.3.1 Thermocouples (TCs) 2.3.1.1 BWR Assembly TC locations The existing electrically-heated, prototypic BWR Incoloy-clad test assembly was previously instrumented with thermocouples in a layout shown in Figure 2-6. The assembly TCs are arranged in axial and radial arrays. The axial cross-section is depicted in Figure 2-6a, and radial cross-sections are shown in Figure 2-6b. The axial array A1 has TCs nominally spaced every 0.152 m (6 in.), starting from the top of the bottom tie plate (zo = 0 reference plane). Axial array A2 has TCs nominally spaced every 0.305 m (12 in.), and the radial arrays are nominally spaced every 0.610 m (24 in.). The spacings are referred to as nominal due to a deviation at the 3.023 m 2-6

(119 in.) elevation, resulting from interference by a spacer. Note that the TCs in the axial array intersect with the radial arrays.

Cross section Key for radial cross sections above partial rods Axial array A1, 6 in. spacing Axial array A2, 12 in. spacing Radial array on rods, 24 in. spacing Radial array on water rods Internal Thermocouples 144 Partial rod locations TC lance location (Ends at 106 in. level)

Radial Array 24 in. spacing Quadrant 2 a b c d e f g h i 9 TC each level 54 TC total q r

Axial array A1 119 s 6 in. spacing t 26 TCs 1 u 3 y v Axial array A2 x x

12 in. spacing 96 y 13 TCs z 72 & 144 Water rods inlet and exit 4

4 TCs a b c d e f g h i Total of 97 TCs 72 q TC lance locations r s

t in. m u 144 3.658 v 119 3.023 48 x y

96 2.438 z

72 1.829 48 1.219 48 & 119 24 0.610 all dimensions are in inches unless otherwise noted 24 a b c d e f g h i q

r zo = 0 s t

Top of bottom u tie plate v x

Bypass y holes - 2 z 24 & 96 W (a) (b) S N E

Figure 2-6 Experimental BWR Assembly Showing As-Built a) Axial and b) Lateral Thermocouple Locations 2-7

Based on the need to optimally balance the TC routing through the assembly, the axial and radial array TCs were distributed among three separate quadrants, relying on the assumption of axial symmetry.

Also shown in Figure 2-6 is the location of the TC lance (for more details see Section 2.3.1.8).

The quadrant for the lance deployment was chosen to minimize the possibility of damaging any of the previously installed TCs. The TC spacing on the lance matched the elevation of the TCs in the upper portion of the A1 and A2 axial arrays and the radial array at 3.023 m (119 in.) and 3.658 m (144 in.) elevations.

Figure 2-7 shows the definition of the reference coordinate system. The reference origin is defined as being in the center of the top of the bottom tie plate. The x-axis is positive in the direction of Quadrant 4 and negative in the direction of Quadrant 2. The y-axis is positive in the direction of Quadrant 3 and negative in the direction of Quadrant 1.

z Bottom tie plate S W x y E N Figure 2-7 Definition of Coordinate References in Test Apparatus 2.3.1.2 BWR Channel Box TC Locations The BWR channel box was instrumented with 25 TCs as depicted in Figure 2-8. Twenty-one of the TCs were on the channel faces, three were on the corners and one was on the pedestal. The TCs on the faces of the channel box were nominally located at lxl, lyl = 0.069, 0 m (2.704, 0 in.) or lxl, lyl = 0, 0.069 m (0, 2.704 in.), depending on the quadrant in which they were placed. TCs on the corners were located at lxl, lyl = 0.065, 0.065 m (2.564, 2.564 in.). The reference plane, zo, was measured from the top of the bottom tie plate, the same as the BWR assembly. Multiple TCs on different faces at a given elevation were available to check the axial symmetry assumption at 0.610 m (24 in.) intervals, starting at the z = 0.610 m (24 in.) elevation.

2-8

N E S W Figure 2-8 BWR Channel Box Showing Thermocouple Locations 2.3.1.3 Storage Basket TC Locations The storage basket was instrumented with 26 TCs as depicted in Figure 2-9. Twenty-two of the TCs were on the basket faces at the same positions as on the channel box, four were on the corners (the corner TC at the 4.191 m (165 in.) level did not correspond to a channel box TC) and one was on the basket face at the elevation of the pedestal. TCs located on the basket faces were located at lxl, lyl = 0, 0.089 m (0, 3.5 in.) and lxl, lyl = 0.089, 0 m (3.5, 0 in.). TCs on the corners were located at lxl, lyl = 0.083, 0.083 m (3.281, 3.281 in.). The reference plane, zo, was measured from the top of the bottom tie plate.

2-9

N E S W Figure 2-9 Storage Basket Showing Thermocouple Locations 2.3.1.4 Pressure Vessel TC Locations The pressure vessel was instrumented with 27 TCs as depicted in Figure 2-10. Twenty-four of the TCs were aligned with the TCs on the storage basket faces and three were aligned with the TCs on the storage basket corners. TCs aligned with the storage basket faces were located at lxl, lyl =

0, 0.137 m (0, 5.375 in.) and lxl, lyl = 0.137, 0 m (5.375, 0 in.). TCs aligned with the storage basket corners were located at lxl, lyl = 0.097, 0.097 m (3.801, 3.801 in.). The reference plane, zo, was measured from the top of the bottom tie plate.

2-10

N E S W Figure 2-10 Pressure Vessel Showing Thermocouple Locations 2.3.1.5 Aboveground Configuration Ducting TC Locations The concentric air-flow duct for the aboveground configuration was instrumented with 27 thermocouples depicted in Figure 2-11. Twenty-four of the TCs were aligned with the TCs on the channel box and storage basket faces; three were aligned with the corners. The face-aligned TCs were located at lxl, lyl = 0, 0.233 m (0, 9.164 in.) and lxl, lyl = 0.233, 0 m (9.164, 0 in.). The corner-aligned TCs were located at lxl, lyl = 0.165, 0.165 m (6.480, 6.480 in.). The reference plane, zo, was measured from the top of the bottom tie plate.

2-11

N E S W

Figure 2-11 Ducting for Aboveground Configuration Showing Thermocouple Locations 2.3.1.6 Belowground Configuration Ducting TC Locations The concentric air-flow duct for the belowground configuration was instrumented with 24 thermocouples depicted in Figure 2-12. Twenty-one of the TCs were aligned with the TCs on the channel box and storage basket faces; three were aligned with the corners. The face-aligned TCs were nominally located at lxl, lyl = 0, 0.316 m (0, 12.427 in.) and lxl, lyl = 0.316, 0 m (12.427, 0 in.). The corner-aligned TCs were nominally located at lxl, lyl = 0.223, 0.223 m (8.787, 8.787 in.).

The reference plane, zo, was measured from the top of the bottom tie plate.

2-12

N E S W Figure 2-12 Ducting for Belowground Configuration Showing Thermocouple Locations 2.3.1.7 Gas Temperature TC Locations Up to 37 TCs were used to measure the temperature of the gas flowing in the various regions of the test apparatus at three different elevations, as depicted in Figure 2-13. For the aboveground configuration testing, the outer most gas TCs were installed but the outer shell (shell 2) was not in place. The center region shown in red denotes helium flowing upward while it was heated inside the assembly and storage basket. Moving outward, the region shown in orange depicts helium flowing downward as it cooled along the inner pressure vessel wall. A total of 17 TCs were used for gas temperature measurements inside the pressure vessel. More TCs were used at the upper two elevations where higher temperature and temperature gradients were measured.

Moving further outward the region shown in green is air moving upward as it heated along the outer pressure vessel wall. The outer most region, shown in blue, is cool air flowing downward in the belowground configuration. For the aboveground configuration, the outer blue region was open to ambient. The narrow yellow region on the outside of each of the concentric air ducts represents a 6 mm (0.25 in.) thick layer of high temperature insulation.

2-13

W S N E

Figure 2-13 Location of Thermocouples for Gas Temperature Measurements at Elevations of 1.219, 2.438, 3.658 m (48, 96, and 144 in.)

2.3.1.8 Thermocouple Lance A custom TC lance was deployed in the upper portion of the test assembly above a partial length rod, as illustrated previously in Figure 2-6. Design details of the lance are shown in Figure 2-14.

The design provided for a pressure boundary along the outer surface of the lance, with a pressure seal at a penetration in the top flange using standard tube fittings. The lance was made by the same fabricator using the same process and materials as the TC lances that were used in the full-scale High Burnup Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project [EPRI, 2014]. The TC spacing was designed to correspond with TCs installed on the test assembly heater-rod cladding to provide a direct comparison between the two measurements. Direct comparisons between TC lance and corresponding clad-temperature measurements will aid in the interpretation of the TC lance data generated during the High Burnup Cask Project.

2-14

All dimensions in inches Figure 2-14 TC Elevations for the TC Lance 2.3.2 Pressure Vessel Two high-accuracy, 0 to 3447 kPa (0 to 500 psia), absolute-pressure transducers (OMEGA PX409-500A5V-XL) were installed in the lower reducing tee for redundancy. The experimental uncertainty associated with these gauges is +/-0.03% of full scale, or +/-1.0 kPa (0.15 psi). At least one of these transducers was operational for each heated test. For testing below atmospheric pressure, a dedicated vacuum transducer 0 to 100 kPa (0 to 14.5 psia) absolute (OMEGA PXM409-001BV10V) was used in place of the higher-range absolute-pressure transducers.

All penetrations and fittings were selected for the apparatus to have helium leak rates of 1E-6 std.

cm3/s or better at 100 kPa. In addition, spiral-wound gaskets capable of leak rates of better than 1E-7 std. cm3/s were used to form the seals at each flange. The ANSI N14.5 leak rate of 1E-4 std. cm3/s [ANSI, 2014] would result in an observable pressure drop of 0.03 kPa (4E-3 psi) after a one week period, which is far below the experimental uncertainty of 1.0 kPa (0.15 psi). Leaks in the as-built apparatus were identified and repaired as best as possible. Ultimately, a small leak 2-15

path of undetermined origin remained, and a positive pressure control system was implemented to maintain pressure as described next. Under subatmospheric (0.3 kPa) conditions, the system leak path resulted in air infiltrating the pressure vessel. Therefore, the residual gas composition for 0.3 kPa testing was air, not helium.

2.3.2.1 Pressure Control A helium pressure control system was implemented using the high-accuracy, absolute-pressure transducers, three low-flow needle valves, and three positive-shutoff actuator valves under control of the LabView DAC system. Two actuator valves (vent) controlled helium flow out of the vessel, and the third valve (fill) controlled helium flow into the vessel. As the vessel heated up, the expanding helium was vented out the first actuator and needle valve to maintain a constant pressure. A second vent valve (overflow) activated if the vessel continued to pressurize. As steady state was reached, the small helium leak slowly reduced the helium pressure, at which point the control system opened the third actuator valve (fill) to allow a small helium flow through the third needle valve. Overall, the pressure control system maintained the helium pressure constant to +/-0.3 kPa (0.044 psi).

For the subatmospheric tests, the pressure control system was not utilized. A vacuum pump was used to evacuate the vessel, and the ultimate vacuum achieved was a balance between the vacuum pump and the small amount of air leaking into the vessel.

2.3.2.2 Pressure Vessel Internal Volume Measurement The pressure vessel was pressurized with air in a manner that allowed the measurement of the as-built total internal volume. The pressure vessel was first pressurized to 100 kPa (14.5 psia).

The pressure vessel was then slowly pressurized to 200 kPa (29.0 psia) with a high-accuracy 0 to 5 liters-per-minute flow controller (OMEGA FMA 2606A-TOT-HIGH ACCURACY). A high-accuracy, 0 to 3447 kPa (500 psia), absolute-pressure transducer (OMEGA PX409-500A5V-XL) was used to monitor the transient fill progression. The transient mass flow and pressure data were used to determine the total internal volume to be 252.0 liters, with an uncertainty of +/-2.6 liters.

2.3.3 Power Control A diagram of the test assembly power control system is shown in Figure 2-15, and the details inside the instrument panel are shown in Figure 2-16. The electrical voltage and current delivered to the test assembly heaters was controlled by a silicon controlled rectifier (SCR) to maintain a constant power. The data acquisition (DAQ) system provided a power setpoint to a PID controller that sent a control signal to the SCR based on the power measurement. The power, voltage, and current measurements were collected by the DAQ. The details of the instrumentation used to control and measure the electrical power are provided in Table 2-2.

2-16

~5.0 kW @ 60 VAC Figure 2-15 Power Control System and Test Circuits Current Power Signal Feedback Signal Signals Voltage to DAQ Current Signal Transducer Neutral Watt Voltage Transducer Transducer Figure 2-16 Schematic of the Instrumentation Panel for Voltage, Current and Power Measurements 2-17

Table 2-2 List of Proposed Equipment for Power Control Description Manufacturer Model AC Watt Transducer Ohio Semitronics PC5-001DY230 AC Voltage Transducer Ohio Semitronics AVTR-001D AC Current Transducer Ohio Semitronics ACTR-005DY06 PID Controller Watlow Electric Manufacturing PM6C1FJ1RAAAA SCR Power Controller Watlow Electric Manufacturing PC91-F25A-1000 2.3.4 Hot Wire Anemometers The hot wire anemometers used for this testing were TSI models 8475 and 8455. The sensor tip details are shown in Figure 2-17. For scale, the largest shaft diameter shown was 6.4 mm (0.25 in.). The sensing element of the model 8455 is protected inside of an open cage and is sensitive to flows down to 0.13 m/s (25 ft/min), with a fast response time of 0.2 seconds. The sensing element of the model 8475 is the ball at the tip, which results in sensitivity to flows down to 0.05 m/s (10 ft/min) but with a much larger response time of 5 seconds.

Hot wire anemometers were chosen to measure the inlet flow rate because this type of instrument is sensitive and robust, while introducing almost no unrecoverable pressure loss. Due to the nature of the hot wire measurement, for best results the probes were placed in the gas flow at the flow inlets where temperature and thermal gradients were minimal.

Figure 2-17 Photographs of the Two Types of Hot Wire Anemometer Tips 2.4 Air Mass Flow Rate The methods for determining the induced air flow in the aboveground and belowground configurations were similar but have some distinct differences. Both methods used hot wire anemometers to measure inlet air velocity and subsequently calculate an overall air-mass flow rate.

For the aboveground configuration, the hot wires were fixed in the center of the inlet ducts and subjected to known mass flow rates of air using mass-flow controllers during a series of pre-test measurements. The output of the hot wires was then correlated to the forced mass flow rate input. Additionally, a velocity profile was measured along the short dimension of the center of the inlet during steady state operation of each heated, buoyancy-driven (natural) test. A mass flow rate was calculated from these velocity profiles and provided a correction correlation between the natural-to-forced flow data.

2-18

For the belowground configuration, forced flow calibration in the annulus between Shell 1 and Shell 2 was not possible. The mass flow was determined by integrating the velocity profiles of multiple hot wire anemometers positioned around the annulus. For belowground testing, eight hotwires were mounted on motorized stages (Velmex Stage XN10-0040-M02-71, Motor PK245-01AA) at equidistant positions. The data acquisition computer communicated with the stage controller (Velmex Controller VXM-4) to identify and verify hot wire positioning. An additional four hot wires were added to one half of the Shell 1 and Shell 2 annulus for belowground, cross-wind testing to more accurately measure the effect of larger velocity gradients.

2.4.1 Flow Straightening To obtain the most stable and repeatable measurements possible, a honeycomb element was inserted into the inlets of both the aboveground and belowground configurations. This honeycomb served to align the flow in the desired direction and reduce any flow disturbances on the hot wire measurements. As shown in Figure 2-18, a plastic honeycomb element was chosen with a cell diameter, wall thickness, and flow length of 3.8, 0.1, and 51.6 mm (0.150, 0.004, and 2.030 in.), respectively. This type of flow straightening element was found to provide the greatest reduction in hot wire fluctuations while introducing the smallest pressure drop to the system. The effective, frictional coefficient for this honeycomb material was found to be D = 2.7E6 m-2 for porous media in CFD simulations.

51.6 Circular Cells 3.8 twall = 0.1 All dimensions in mm Figure 2-18 Photograph of the Honeycomb Element Used for Flow Straightening 2.4.2 Aboveground Air Flow Measurement The inlet and hot wire arrangement for the aboveground configuration is shown in Figure 2-19.

Four rectangular ducts with as-built cross sectional dimensions of 0.229 m (9.03 in.) by 0.100 m (3.94 in.) conveyed the inlet flow into the simulated cask. One TSI Model 8475 and three TSI Model 8455 hot wire anemometers were used for these tests. Hot wire anemometers were located 0.229 m (9.00 in.) downstream from the inlet of each duct along the centerline of flow.

2-19

Hot wire anemometer Honeycomb flow straightener 0.229 m Figure 2-19 Aboveground Configuration Showing the Location of the Hot Wire Anemometer 2.4.2.1 Forced Flow Correlation The outputs of the hot wire anemometers were correlated using metered, forced flow. Air flow was metered into each of the inlet ducts individually, and the response of each anemometer in the center of the inlet recorded for a range of flow rates as shown in Figure 2-20. A least-squares regression was used to define the linear coefficients to convert the hot wire anemometer output to mass flow rate during heated testing.

.

Figure 2-20 Mass Flow Rate as a Function of Hot Wire Output for Forced Flow 2-20

2.4.2.2 Inlet Duct Flow Profiles Velocity profiles were collected across the short dimension (0.100 m) at the end of each powered test. The profiles were measured with the hot wire anemometer along the x-axis of the duct at 0.229 m (9.00 in.) from the duct entrance as shown in Figure 2-21.

x z

Profiles along y dashed line Figure 2-21 Schematic Showing the Location of the Inlet Duct Profiles for Aboveground Testing These velocity profiles were integrated to determine the relationship of the air-mass flow rate during heated, buoyancy-driven testing to that measured during the forced flow testing. The integrated, natural air-mass flow rate is given in Equation 2.1. Here, the reference density is defined by the standard conditions for the TSI hot wires, or ref = 1.2 kg/m3 at 21.1 °C and 101.4 kPa. The area for each measurement is given by the product of the profile step size, x, and the width of the inlet duct (W = 0.229 m). Figure 2-22 gives a visual representation of the integration scheme.

2.1 w1 x

x y

wN W

Figure 2-22 Diagram Showing the Integration Scheme for the Calculation of Air Mass Flow Rate for the Aboveground Configuration 2-21

2.4.2.3 Natural-to-Forced Flow Correlation Air-mass flow rates from the natural (integrated profiles) and forced (mass flow controller) methods were compared after testing. Recall, flow velocity data was collected with the hot wires centrally located in the ducts during general testing and was converted to mass flow rate using the pre-test forced flow correlations. Velocity profiles were recorded only at the end of each heated test when steady state was achieved. This comparison, as shown in Figure 2-23, revealed that the natural air-mass flow rate was less than that indicated from the forced-flow correlation by a factor of 0.9344. Therefore, the two correlations are applied successively to the hot wire voltage to obtain the best estimate of air mass flow rate. Comparisons of velocity profiles revealed that the boundary layer for the natural flow was larger than the forced flow case. This difference corresponded to the lower observed mass flow rate for natural conditions.

. .

Figure 2-23 Natural-To-Forced Flow Correlation 2.4.3 Belowground Air Flow Measurement The inlet and hot wire arrangement for the belowground configuration is shown in Figure 2-24.

Velocity profiles were collected across the annular gap defined by shell 1 and shell 2 during heated testing at z = 0.508 m (20.00 in.) or 3.336 m (131.37 in.) from the bottom of the inlet duct.

The profiles were measured from the inner surface of shell 2 to the outer surface of the insulation attached to shell 1 as shown in Figure 2-24.

2-22

Air outlet Air inlet 0.606 Honeycomb flow straightener Profiles along dashed line 3.238 Hot wires z S 0.508 W All dimensions in E N meters Figure 2-24 Location of Air Flow Measurement Instrumentation for the Belowground Configuration Figure 2-25 shows the radial positioning for the hot wire anemometers for the both phases of the belowground testing. The first arrangement with eight equally-spaced hot wires was used for powered testing without cross-wind. Four additional hot wires were added in the second configuration along one half of the annulus to measure larger velocity gradients than possible with 45° spacing.

Cross-wind Automated 45° N 22.5° traverses in annulus W E S

Hot wire ports Hot wire ports

- 8 plcs. - 12 plcs. (Cross-wind)

Figure 2-25 Radial Positioning of the Hot Wire Anemometers for Belowground Testing 2-23

The velocity profiles from the hot wires were integrated to calculate the air mass flow rate during heated, buoyancy-driven testing. The integrated, natural air-mass flow rate is given in Equation 2.2. Again, the reference density is defined by the standard conditions for the TSI hot wires, or ref

= 1.2 kg/m3 at 21.1 °C and 101.4 kPa. The area for each measurement is given by the product of the radius, r, profile step size, r, and the arc angle in radians, . The arc angle for a given hot wire is assumed to bisect the azimuths formed between the index hot wire and the nearest hot wires. The first index is defined as the hot wire identifier. The second index denotes the radial position. Figure 2-26 gives a visual representation of the integration scheme. Verification tests were conducted to determine the accuracy of determining the air mass flow rate through velocity measurements and integration as discussed in Appendix D.

, 2.2 1

HW1 2 M/2 HW2 3/2 w1,1 w2,1 HWM r HW3 w1,N w2,N wM,1 w3,1 r

wM,N w3,N Figure 2-26 Diagram Showing the Integration Scheme for the Calculation of Air Mass Flow Rate for the Belowground Configuration 2.5 Cross-Wind Testing A wind machine was fabricated and installed in the CYBL vessel to study the effect of a continuous cross-wind on the thermal and hydraulic response of the system. This wind machine consisted of three air-driven blowers connected to a specially fabricated duct with outlet dimensions of 1.295 0.762 m (51.0 30.0 in.). The duct served two purposes. First, it redirected the flow from a vertical orientation to a horizontal direction via a long-sweep elbow.

Second, the duct allowed the insertion of flow straightening elements to make the air velocity at the outlet as uniform as reasonably achievable. The top and bottom of the wind machine duct outlet were installed approximately 0.12 m (4.625 in.) above the DCS air outlet and 0.18 m (7.25 in.) below the DCS air inlet, respectively. The distance between the outer edge of the DCS air inlet and the duct outlet was 0.17 m (6.75 in.). The wind machine was centered side-to-side on the DCS assembly with the duct extending 0.13 m (5.25 in.) on either side of the DCS air inlet.

Figure 2-27 shows the position of the wind machine relative to the assembly. A local coordinate system for the wind machine is defined in Figure 2-28.

2-24

0.12 0.17 0.18 All dimensions in meters Figure 2-27 Layout of the Cask Simulator and Wind Machine for Cross-Wind Testing y

Origin at center z y x W N z of the face of the x duct outlet S E Figure 2-28 Schematic Showing the Local Coordinates of the Wind Machine Hot wire measurements were taken across the wind machine outlet to determine wind speed and uniformity. Prior to heated testing, hot wire measurements were taken for three different wind speeds at 45 regularly spaced locations. Figure 2-29 shows the velocity contours of one such effort near the upper range of achievable wind speeds (W2D, avg = 5.2 m/s {11.6 mph}). For heated cross-wind testing, two-dimensional mapping was not possible. Therefore, hot wire anemometers were fixed at three locations as shown in Figure 2-29. Figure 2-30 gives the correlation between the integrated average velocity (W2D, avg) and the average of the three hot wires (W3-Pt, avg). This correlation was applied to the 3-point average to provide an estimate of the average wind speed at the outlet of the wind machine for heated testing.

2-25

w (m/s)

Locations for 3-Point Averaging (Fixed Hot Wire Positions)

Figure 2-29 Velocity Contours of the Wind Machine for Maximum Cross-Wind Note: The fixed positions of the hot wires used for the 3-point average wind speed are marked in the figure.

Figure 2-30 Correlation of the Two-Dimensional, Integrated Average Velocity (W2D, avg) to the Average of the Three Fixed Hot Wire Anemometers (W3-Pt, avg) 2-26

3 ABOVEGROUND RESULTS 3.1 Steady State Analyses A total of fourteen tests were conducted, where the apparatus achieved steady state for various assembly powers and pressures. The power levels tested were 0.5, 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 kW. The vessel pressures tested were vacuum (0.3 kPa), 100, 450, and 800 kPa absolute. A scaling analysis [Durbin, et al., 2016] showed that elevated powers up to 5.0 kW were warranted to drive the induced air flow to prototypic levels.

The criterion for steady state was considered met when the first derivative with respect to time of any given TC in the test apparatus was 0.3 K/h. The steady state values reported here represent the average of data collected between the start of steady state and the end of the test.

3.1.1 Peak Cladding Temperature and Air Mass Flow Rate Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 present the steady state data as peak cladding temperature (PCT) and total induced air flow rate, respectively, as a function of power for each vessel pressure tested.

Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 present the same PCT and flow data but as a function of vessel pressure for each power tested. Generally, the peak temperatures and induced air flow both increased significantly with power level and decreased slightly with helium pressure. The notable exception was that the peak cladding temperature increased significantly as the vessel pressure was decreased from 100 kPa absolute helium to 0.3 kPa absolute air. Recall that subatmospheric testing resulted in a vessel gas composition of air due to the leak path discussed in Section 2.3.2.

Figure 3-1 Steady State Peak Cladding Temperature as a Function of Power 3-1

Figure 3-2 Steady State Air Flow Rate as a Function of Power Figure 3-3 Steady State Peak Cladding Temperature as a Function of Absolute Internal Vessel Pressure 3-2

Figure 3-4 Steady State Air Mass Flow Rate as a Function of Absolute Internal Vessel Pressure 3.1.2 Two-Dimensional Temperature Contours Figure 3-5 shows 2-D temperature contour plots from the center of the assembly through the basket, pressure vessel, shell 1, and ambient for the high-power tests (5.0 kW) at the three helium pressures tested (100, 450, and 800 kPa absolute). Figure 3-6 shows 2-D temperature contour plots for the low power tests (0.5 kW) at the four vessel pressures tested (0.3, 100, 450 and 800 kPa absolute). For both power levels, the peak temperatures decreased with increasing vessel pressure. The location of the PCT also shifted from ~1/3 of the assembly height to near the top of the assembly for vessel pressures of 0.3 to 800 kPa, respectively.

3-3

P = 100 kPa P = 450 kPa P = 800 kPa Temp. (K)

Figure 3-5 Steady State Temperature Contours for 5.0 kW at Different Internal Helium Pressures P = 0.3 kPa P = 100 kPa P = 450 kPa P = 800 kPa Temp. (K)

Figure 3-6 Steady State Temperature Contours for 0.5 kW at Different Internal Vessel Pressures 3-4

3.1.3 Transverse Temperature Profiles including the TC Lance Figure 3-7 shows the steady state transverse temperature profile at the z = 3.023 m elevation for the 5.0 kW and 800 kPa aboveground case. Figure 3-8 shows a similar steady-state transverse temperature profile at the 3.023 m elevation for the 0.5 kW and 800 kPa case. The TC lance was located at y = -0.042 m. The assembly TCs for comparison with the TC lance were located starting at x = 0 m and continued along the negative x-direction. Assuming symmetry, the lance is plotted on the x-axis. The TC lance was in good agreement with the interpolated temperature of the two closest assembly TCs.

As received and installed, the lance TCs above the 3.023 m (119 in.) elevation exhibited anomalous behavior during some tests as discussed in detail in Appendix E. TC lance data for the 3.023 m (119 in.) elevation is presented because no anomalous behavior was evident. A modification was made to the TC lance that eliminated the anomalous behavior for the affected TCs shortly before cross-wind testing of the belowground configuration, which was the last phase of testing. The behavior of the TCs at the 3.023 m (119 in.) elevation and below was not impacted by the modification.

y x

Figure 3-7 Steady State Transverse Temperature Profile at z = 3.023 m (119 in.) for the test Conducted at 5.0 kW and 800 kPa Helium 3-5

y x

Figure 3-8 Steady State Transverse Temperature Profile at z = 3.023 m (119 in.) for the Test Conducted at 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa Air 3.1.4 Summary Data Tables The steady-state value of the peak temperature for each region of the test apparatus is presented in the following summary tables. Table 3-1 through Table 3-4 present these peak temperatures and corresponding location along with the measured power, ambient temperature, and induced air mass flow rate for each power level tested at a given vessel pressure. The corresponding minimum and maximum values over the steady-state measurement period are also presented.

Table 3-1 Steady State Results for the Primary Assembly Measurements at 0.3 kPa Air Nominal Power Power Cladding Channel Basket Vessel Shell 1 Ambient Air Flow (kW) (kW) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) Rate (kg/s)

Average 0.492 458 404 361 328 312 299 2.53E-02 Max 0.510 459 405 362 330 315 303 2.87E-02 0.5 Min 0.472 456 403 361 328 311 296 2.17E-02 Assembly Location DT_2_48 Channel_4_48 Basket_3_72 PV_2_108 S1_2_119 All Total Average 1.004 549 470 406 351 323 301 3.51E-02 Max 1.041 550 471 407 352 324 303 3.84E-02 1 Min 0.934 549 470 406 351 322 299 3.14E-02 Assembly Location DT_1_24 Channel_4_48 Basket_3_72 PV_1_96 S1_2_119 All Total 3-6

Table 3-2 Steady State Results for the Primary Assembly Measurements at 100 kPa Helium Nominal Power Power Cladding Channel Basket Vessel Shell 1 Ambient Air Flow (kW) (kW) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) Rate (kg/s)

Average 0.504 376 359 344 328 312 298 2.64E-02 Max 0.525 376 359 344 328 312 300 2.88E-02 0.5 Min 0.482 375 359 344 328 311 296 2.44E-02 Assembly Location FV_3_72 Channel_4_72 Basket_4_96 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 All Total Average 1.001 434 405 378 350 321 299 3.53E-02 Max 1.017 435 405 379 350 321 301 3.75E-02 1 Min 0.985 434 404 378 349 321 298 3.21E-02 Assembly Location FV_3_72 Channel_4_72 Basket_3_72 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 All Total Average 2.493 570 511 461 403 348 300 5.31E-02 Max 2.516 570 511 461 403 348 302 5.61E-02 2.5 Min 2.471 570 511 460 402 347 298 5.02E-02 Assembly Location DT_2_48 Channel_3_60 Basket_3_72 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 All Total Average 5.010 715 630 554 467 387 301 6.89E-02 Max 5.039 716 631 555 468 389 305 7.21E-02 5 Min 4.969 714 628 553 466 385 299 6.54E-02 Assembly Location DT_2_48 Channel_4_48 Basket_3_72 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 All Total Table 3-3 Steady State Results for the Primary Assembly Measurements at 450 kPa Helium Nominal Power Power Cladding Channel Basket Vessel Shell 1 Ambient Air Flow (kW) (kW) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) Rate (kg/s)

Average 0.513 367 353 341 326 311 296 2.41E-02 Max 0.529 367 353 341 327 312 299 2.66E-02 0.5 Min 0.489 367 352 340 326 310 293 2.07E-02 Assembly Location FV_3_144 Channel_2_119 Basket_3_132 PV_2-3_119 S1_4_159 All Total Average 1.047 426 399 377 351 323 299 3.28E-02 Max 1.073 427 399 377 351 324 302 3.63E-02 1 Min 1.018 425 397 376 350 322 295 2.82E-02 Assembly Location FV_3_144 Channel_2_119 Basket_3_132 PV_3_144 S1_4_159 All Total Average 2.491 545 494 451 401 346 300 4.76E-02 Max 2.551 546 495 452 402 348 303 5.06E-02 2.5 Min 2.456 543 492 449 399 345 299 4.52E-02 Assembly Location DT_1_96 Channel_2_119 Basket_2_108 PV_2-3_119 S1_3_132 All Total Average 4.972 689 612 547 465 384 299 6.55E-02 Max 5.030 690 613 548 466 386 302 6.87E-02 5 Min 4.910 689 611 547 464 383 297 6.16E-02 Assembly Location DT_1_96 Channel_1_84 Basket_2_108 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 All Total 3-7

Table 3-4 Steady State Results for the Primary Assembly Measurements at 800 kPa Helium Nominal Power Power Cladding Channel Basket Vessel Shell 1 Ambient Air Flow (kW) (kW) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) Rate (kg/s)

Average 0.499 359 347 338 329 312 298 2.21E-02 Max 0.516 359 347 338 329 312 299 2.43E-02 0.5 Min 0.484 358 347 338 329 312 296 1.91E-02 Assembly Location FV_3_144 Channel_3_144 Basket_4_159 PV_1_156 S1_4_159 All Total Average 0.985 410 388 374 356 323 297 3.10E-02 Max 1.058 410 389 374 356 324 300 3.48E-02 1 Min 0.967 410 388 373 355 323 294 2.72E-02 Assembly Location FV_3_144 Channel_3_144 Basket_4_159 PV_4_159 S1_4_159 All Total Average 2.503 521 477 444 408 349 298 4.69E-02 Max 2.547 521 477 444 409 350 303 4.92E-02 2.5 Min 2.444 521 477 443 408 349 296 4.39E-02 Assembly Location FV_3_144 Channel_3_144 Basket_4_159 PV_4_159 S1_4_159 All Total Average 4.997 659 590 533 466 387 300 6.26E-02 Max 5.021 659 590 533 467 387 303 6.60E-02 5 Min 4.956 658 589 532 466 387 299 5.99E-02 Assembly Location FV_3_144 Channel_3_144 Basket_3_144 PV_4_159 S1_4_159 All Total 3.2 Transient Analyses Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 show the peak cladding temperature and total assembly air mass flow rate for each power tested at 800 kPa absolute helium pressure. The air flow rate data was smoothed over a fifteen-minute moving window for clarity of presentation. Ninety-five percent uncertainties are also presented for select data points, 1% of reading for temperature (+/-7 K maximum) and +/-1.5E-3 kg/s for flow rate.

3-8

Figure 3-9 Peak Cladding Temperature as a Function of Time for Tests Conducted at 800 kPa Helium Figure 3-10 Total Air Mass Flow Rate as a Function of Time for Tests Conducted at 800 kPa Helium Steady state conditions were reached in about 15 hours1.736111e-4 days 0.00417 hours 2.480159e-5 weeks 5.7075e-6 months . Figure 3-11 shows the time required to reach steady state as a function of power for the various test pressures. The time to steady state was independent of power and helium pressure for the 450 kPa and 800 kPa cases. For the 100 kPa helium pressure tests there was a slight dependence on power with 13 hours1.50463e-4 days 0.00361 hours 2.149471e-5 weeks 4.9465e-6 months required at 5.0 3-9

kW and 18 hours2.083333e-4 days 0.005 hours 2.97619e-5 weeks 6.849e-6 months required at 0.5 kW. The vacuum tests were the most sensitive to power, with up to 31 hours3.587963e-4 days 0.00861 hours 5.125661e-5 weeks 1.17955e-5 months required to reach steady state in the 0.5 kW case.

Figure 3-11 Time to Reach Steady State as a Function of Power for the Various Vessel Pressures Tested 3.2.1 Transient Response of TC Lance and Corresponding Cladding Figure 3-12 shows the temperature of the TC lance and adjacent cladding TCs (assuming symmetry) as a function of time at the 3.023 m elevation for the 5.0 kW and 800 kPa case. Figure 3-13 shows the temperature of the TC lance and adjacent cladding TCs at the same elevation for the 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa case. Ninety-five percent uncertainties are also presented for select data points as 1% of reading for temperature (+/-7 K maximum). The transient response of the TC lance and the adjacent cladding TCs were similar. The temperature indicated by the lance TC was roughly midway between the adjacent clad TCs. The good agreement provided validation that the TC lance provides an accurate indication of nearby cladding temperatures. Again, TC lance data for the 3.023 m (119 in.) location is presented because no anomalous behavior was evident at this elevation.

3-10

Figure 3-12 Comparison of TC Lance and Cladding Temperatures at z = 3.023 m (119 in.)

as a function of Time for the Test Conducted at 5.0 kW and 800 kPa Helium Figure 3-13 Comparison of TC Lance and Cladding Temperatures at z = 3.023 m (119 in.)

as a Function of Time for the Test Conducted at 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa Air 3-11

4 BELOWGROUND RESULTS 4.1 Steady State Analyses A total of fourteen tests were conducted, where the apparatus achieved steady state for various assembly powers and vessel pressures. The power levels tested were 0.5, 1.0, 2.5 and 5.0 kW. The vessel pressures tested were vacuum (0.3 kPa), 100, 450 and 800 kPa absolute. A scaling analysis [Durbin, et al., 2016] showed that elevated powers up to 5.0 kW were warranted to drive the induced air flow to prototypic levels. Again, a summary of these dimensional analyses is provided in Appendix C.

The criterion for steady state was considered met when the first derivative with respect to time of any given TC in the test apparatus was 0.3 K/h. The steady state values reported here represent the average of data collected between the start of steady state and the end of the test.

4.1.1 Peak Cladding Temperature and Air Mass Flow Rate Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 present the steady-state data as peak cladding temperature (PCT) and integrated air-mass flow rate in the inlet annulus, respectively, as a function of power for each vessel pressure tested. Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 present the same PCT and mass flow rate data but as a function of vessel pressure for each power tested. As in the aboveground configuration, the peak temperatures and induced air mass flow rate for the belowground configuration both increased significantly with power level and decreased slightly with helium pressure. The notable exception was that the peak cladding temperature increased significantly as the vessel pressure was decreased from 100 kPa absolute helium to 0.3 kPa absolute air. Recall that subatmospheric testing resulted in a vessel gas composition of air due to the leak path discussed in Section 2.3.2.

Figure 4-1 Steady State Peak Cladding Temperature as a Function of Power 4-1

Figure 4-2 Steady State Air Mass Flow Rate in the Inlet Annulus as a Function of Power Figure 4-3 Steady State Peak Cladding Temperature as a Function of Absolute Internal Vessel Pressure 4-2

Figure 4-4 Steady State Air Mass Flow Rate in the Inlet Annulus as a Function of Absolute Internal Vessel Pressure 4.1.2 Two-Dimensional Velocity Contours Figure 4-5 shows 2-D velocity contour plots in the inlet annulus of the assembly for the high-power tests (5.0 kW) at the three helium pressures tested (100, 450, and 800 kPa absolute). As shown in Figure 4-5, the honeycomb flow straightening element was installed in two C pieces creating two seams. Because of the installation method, the honeycomb was likely compressed, especially at the seams. A deficit in the flow is observable in the velocity contour plots, particularly at these seams, indicating non-ideal behavior in the flow straightening. Figure 4-6 shows 2-D velocity contour plots for the low power tests (0.5 kW) at the four vessel pressures tested (0.3, 100, 450, and 800 kPa absolute).

P = 100 kPa P = 450 kPa P = 800 kPa Velocity (m/s)

= 6.99E-2 kg/s = 6.51E-2 = 6.11E-2 Honeycomb kg/s kg/s seams Figure 4-5 Steady State Velocity Contours for 5.0 kW at Different Internal Helium Pressures 4-3

P = 0.3 kPa P = 100 kPa P = 450 kPa P = 800 kPa Velocity (m/s)

= 3.63E-2 = 2.64E-2 = 2.24E-2 = 2.18E-2 kg/s kg/s kg/s kg/s Figure 4-6 Steady State Velocity Contours for 0.5 kW at Different Internal Vessel Pressures 4.1.3 Transverse Temperature Profiles Including the TC Lance Figure 4-7 shows the steady state transverse temperature profile at the z = 3.023 m elevation for the 5.0 kW and 800 kPa belowground case. Figure 4-8 shows a similar steady state transverse temperature profile at the 3.023 m elevation for the 0.5 kW and 800 kPa case. The TC lance was located at y = -0.042 m. The assembly TCs for comparison with the TC lance were located starting at x = 0 m and continued along the negative x-direction. Assuming symmetry, the lance is plotted on the x-axis. The TC lance was in good agreement with the interpolated temperature of the two closest assembly TCs.

As received and installed, the lance TCs above the 3.023 m (119 in.) elevation exhibited anomalous behavior during some tests as discussed in detail in Appendix E. TC lance data for the 3.023 m (119 in.) elevation is presented because no anomalous behavior was evident. A modification was made to the TC lance that eliminated the anomalous behavior for the affected TCs shortly before cross-wind testing of the belowground configuration, which was the last phase of testing. The behavior of the TCs at the 3.023 m (119 in.) elevation and below was not impacted by the modification.

4-4

y x

Figure 4-7 Steady State Transverse Temperature Profile at z = 3.023 m (119 in.) for the Test Conducted at 5.0 kW and 800 kPa Helium y

x Figure 4-8 Steady State Transverse Temperature Profile at z = 3.023 m (119 in.) for the Test Conducted at 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa Air 4.1.4 Summary Data Tables The steady-state value of the peak temperature for each region of the test apparatus is presented in the following summary tables. Table 4-1 through Table 4-4 present these peak temperatures and corresponding location along with the measured power, ambient temperature, and induced air 4-5

flow rate for each power level tested at a given vessel pressure. The corresponding minimum and maximum values over the steady-state measurement period are also presented.

Table 4-1 Steady State Results for the Primary Assembly Measurements at 0.3 kPa Air Nominal Power Power Cladding Channel Basket Vessel Shell 1 Shell 2 Ambient Air Flow (kW) (kW) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) Rate (kg/s)

Average 0.498 454 403 362 329 313 301 297 2.59E-02 Max 0.524 455 403 363 330 314 303 299 2.73E-02 0.5 Min 0.468 451 400 360 327 311 300 295 2.46E-02 Integrated Location DT_2_48 Channel_4_48 Basket_3_72 PV_4_72 S1_4_119 S2_4_48 All Total Average 0.996 538 466 406 352 323 304 298 3.63E-02 Max 1.040 539 466 406 352 325 307 300 3.67E-02 1 Min 0.956 537 465 406 351 323 303 296 3.54E-02 Integrated Location DT_1_24 Channel_4_48 Basket_3_72 PV_1_84 S1_2_119 S2_4_48 All Total Table 4-2 Steady State Results for the Primary Assembly Measurements at 100 kPa Helium Nominal Power Power Cladding Channel Basket Vessel Shell 1 Shell 2 Ambient Air Flow (kW) (kW) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) Rate (kg/s)

Average 0.498 374 358 343 327 310 299 295 2.64E-02 Max 0.523 374 358 343 327 311 301 296 2.67E-02 0.5 Min 0.471 373 357 343 327 310 299 294 2.61E-02 Integrated Location FV_3_72 Channel_4_72 Basket_3_72 PV_4_72 S1_4_119 S2_4_48 All Total Average 0.996 433 403 378 349 321 301 295 3.61E-02 Max 1.028 433 404 378 349 321 301 297 3.65E-02 1 Min 0.967 432 403 377 349 321 300 293 3.58E-02 Integrated Location FV_3_72 Channel_3_60 Basket_3_72 PV_4_72 S1_2_119 S2_4_48 All Total Average 2.494 563 508 459 403 349 305 296 5.33E-02 Max 2.545 564 508 460 403 349 306 297 5.35E-02 2.5 Min 2.446 563 507 459 403 349 305 295 5.29E-02 Integrated Location DT_2_48 Channel_3_60 Basket_3_72 PV_3-4_72 S1_2_119 S2_2_48 All Total Average 4.994 704 624 556 473 394 313 296 6.99E-02 Max 5.036 704 625 556 474 395 314 298 7.04E-02 5 Min 4.954 703 624 556 472 393 312 295 6.94E-02 Integrated Location DT_2_48 Channel_3_60 Basket_3_72 PV_3-4_72 S1_2_119 S2_4_96 All Total 4-6

Table 4-3 Steady State Results for the Primary Assembly Measurements at 450 kPa Helium Nominal Power Power Cladding Channel Basket Vessel Shell 1 Shell 2 Ambient Air Flow (kW) (kW) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) Rate (kg/s)

Average 0.498 366 351 339 325 309 298 294 2.24E-02 Max 0.526 366 352 339 325 309 299 297 2.33E-02 0.5 Min 0.469 365 351 338 324 309 298 292 2.14E-02 Integrated Location DT_2_119 Channel_2_119 Basket_4_119 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 S2_4_48 All Total Average 0.999 420 394 372 347 320 300 296 3.21E-02 Max 1.029 420 395 372 348 321 303 297 3.25E-02 1 Min 0.967 420 394 371 347 319 300 294 3.12E-02 Integrated Location DT_2_119 Channel_2_119 Basket_4_119 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 S2_4_96 All Total Average 2.494 546 494 453 402 349 307 298 4.88E-02 Max 2.538 546 495 453 403 351 309 300 4.93E-02 2.5 Min 2.447 545 494 452 401 349 307 296 4.85E-02 Integrated Location DT_1_96 Channel_2_108 Basket_2_108 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 S2_4_96 All Total Average 4.994 689 612 547 466 389 312 296 6.51E-02 Max 5.030 689 612 548 466 390 313 298 6.57E-02 5 Min 4.933 689 612 547 465 389 311 293 6.42E-02 Integrated Location FV_3_72 Channel_4_72 Basket_2_108 PV_2_108 S1_2_119 S2_1_96 All Total Table 4-4 Steady State Results for the Primary Assembly Measurements at 800 kPa Helium Nominal Power Power Cladding Channel Basket Vessel Shell 1 Shell 2 Ambient Air Flow (kW) (kW) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) (K) Rate (kg/s)

Average 0.498 363 351 341 330 314 303 300 2.18E-02 Max 0.523 364 351 341 330 315 305 302 2.26E-02 0.5 Min 0.468 363 350 340 329 313 303 299 2.06E-02 Integrated Location FV_3_144 Channel_3_144 Basket_3_144 PV_1_156 S1_4_119 S2_3_72 All Total Average 0.999 406 384 367 349 320 301 296 3.06E-02 Max 1.038 406 384 367 349 320 303 298 3.11E-02 1 Min 0.964 405 384 367 349 319 300 294 3.01E-02 Integrated Location FV_3_144 Channel_3_144 Basket_3_144 PV_1_156 S1_1_144 S2_4_96 All Total Average 2.494 524 479 443 404 350 310 300 4.57E-02 Max 2.546 525 479 443 404 351 312 302 4.62E-02 2.5 Min 2.430 524 479 443 403 349 309 299 4.51E-02 Integrated Location FV_3_144 Channel_3_144 Basket_3_144 PV_1_156 S1_1_144 S2_4_96 All Total Average 4.994 661 591 531 465 389 313 297 6.11E-02 Max 5.065 662 592 532 466 390 316 300 6.16E-02 5 Min 4.879 661 591 530 464 388 312 296 6.08E-02 Integrated Location DT_2_119 Channel_2_119 Basket_2_108 PV_2-3_119 S1_2_119 S2_4_96 All Total 4-7

4.2 Transient Analyses Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-10 show the peak cladding temperature and total air mass flow rate for each power tested at 800 kPa absolute helium pressure. The integrated results from the air velocity profiles were converted to calculate the total air-mass flow rate in the inlet annulus.

Ninety-five percent uncertainties are also presented for select data points, 1% of reading for temperature (+/-7 K maximum) and +/-1.1E-3 kg/s for mass flow rate.

On average, the pressurized belowground configurations took a few hours longer to reach steady state than the corresponding aboveground configurations requiring about 17 hours1.967593e-4 days 0.00472 hours 2.810847e-5 weeks 6.4685e-6 months . Figure 4-11 shows the time required to reach steady state as a function of power for the various test pressures. The time to steady state was independent of power and helium pressures, except for the vacuum case. For the 100 kPa helium pressure tests, there was a slight dependence on power, with 13 hours1.50463e-4 days 0.00361 hours 2.149471e-5 weeks 4.9465e-6 months required at 5.0 kW and 18 hours2.083333e-4 days 0.005 hours 2.97619e-5 weeks 6.849e-6 months required at 0.5 kW. The vacuum tests were the most sensitive to power, with up to 27 hours3.125e-4 days 0.0075 hours 4.464286e-5 weeks 1.02735e-5 months required to reach steady state in the 0.5 kW case.

Figure 4-9 Peak Cladding Temperature as a Function of Time for Tests Conducted at 800 kPa Helium 4-8

Figure 4-10 Total Air Mass Flow Rate as a Function of Time for Tests Conducted at 800 kPa Helium Figure 4-11 Time to Reach Steady State as a Function of Power for the Various Vessel Pressures Tested 4.2.1 Transient Response of TC Lance and Corresponding Cladding Figure 4-12 shows the temperature of the TC lance and adjacent cladding TCs (assuming symmetry) as a function of time at the 3.023 m elevation for the 5.0 kW and 800 kPa case. Figure 4-9

4-13 shows the temperature of the TC lance and adjacent cladding TCs at the same elevation for the 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa case. Ninety-five percent uncertainties are also presented for select data points as 1% of reading for temperature (+/-7 K maximum). The transient response of the TC lance and the adjacent cladding TCs were similar. The temperature indicated by the lance TC was roughly midway between the adjacent clad TCs. The good agreement provided validation that the TC lance gives an accurate indication of nearby cladding temperatures. Again, TC lance data for the 3.023 m (119 in.) location is presented because no anomalous behavior was evident at this elevation.

Figure 4-12 Comparison of TC Lance and Cladding Temperatures at z = 3.023 m (119 in.)

as a Function of Time for the Test Conducted at 5.0 kW and 800 kPa Helium 4-10

Figure 4-13 Comparison of TC Lance and Cladding Temperatures at z = 3.023 m (119 in.)

as a Function of Time for the Test Conducted at 0.5 kW and 0.3 kPa Air 4.3 Cross-Wind Analyses Two types of cross-wind tests were conducted. In both types of tests, the apparatus was first allowed to reach thermal steady-state for the given test conditions and zero cross-wind. For constant cross-wind testing, the wind machine was then started and wind speed was maintained for 12 to 18 hours2.083333e-4 days 0.005 hours 2.97619e-5 weeks 6.849e-6 months . A limited number of these extended duration tests were conducted. In all cases the rise in PCT attributed to the cross-wind was small and within the experimental error of the temperature measurement. Table 4-5 shows the temperature rise attributed to the cross-wind for each of these cases.

Table 4-5 Rise in Peak Cladding Temperature Attributed to Cross-Wind Conditions Power (kW) Pressure (kPa) Cross-Wind (m/s) PCT (K) (kg/s) / o 1.0 100 1.3 0.2 2.62E-02 0.71 1.0 100 2.7 0.6 2.06E-02 0.56 1.0 100 5.3 1.7 2.38E-02 0.65 5.0 100 1.4 1.7 5.79E-02 0.81 5.0 100 2.7 3.7 4.50E-02 0.63 5.0 100 5.3 5.8 4.02E-02 0.56 At the higher wind speeds, the compressor was not able to run for these extended periods.

During these tests the induced air-mass flow rate obtained 95% or greater of the steady state value almost immediately. For the second type of cross-wind testing, the wind speed was changed at one hour intervals to more efficiently probe the effect of cross-wind speed on the induced air flow rate. Thermal steady-state was not reestablished. The effect of cross-wind velocity (from 0.5 to 5.4 m/s) on the induced air flow rate was measured for three powers (1.0 kW, 2.5 kW, and 5.0 kW) and three helium pressures (100 kPa, 450 kPa and 800 kPa). Figure 4-14 to 4-11

Figure 4-18 present the normalized air-mass flow rate as a function of cross-wind velocity for the various test cases. As the wind speed increased from zero, the normalized air-mass flow rapidly dropped to a minimum of between 0.5 to 0.6 at a cross-wind speed between 2.5 and 5.0 m/s and then slowly increased as the cross-wind speed was increased further.

Error bars are included on every other data point for enhanced clarity. As the applied power increased, the error in the normalized air-mass flow rate decreased noticeably. The error did not change noticeably with helium pressure.

Figure 4-14 Normalized Air-Mass Flow Rates as a Function of Cross-Wind Speed for 1.0 kW Tests 4-12

Figure 4-15 Normalized Air-Mass Flow Rates as a Function of Cross-Wind Speed for 2.5 kW Tests Figure 4-16 Normalized Air-Mass Flow Rates as a Function of Cross-Wind Speed for 5.0 kW Tests 4-13

Figure 4-17 Normalized Air-Mass Flow Rates as a Function of Cross-Wind Speed for 100 kPa Tests Figure 4-18 Normalized Air Mass Flow Rates as a Function of Cross-Wind Speed for 800 kPa Tests Figure 4-20 shows velocity contours for the induced air flow in the annulus between shell 1 and shell 2 for the 5.0 kW and 100 kPa test at various cross-wind speeds. The wind was imposed on the top, or North side, of the image as indicated by the arrows in Figure 4-19. At zero cross-wind, 4-14

the contours were not azimuthally symmetric with higher velocities in the Northeast and Southwest quadrants. The asymmetry was likely due to flow restrictions at the seam of the two halves of the honeycomb flow straightener located at the Northwest and Southeast quadrants.

For a cross-wind speed of 1.3 m/s (3.0 mph), the azimuthal symmetry was improved. At a cross-wind speed of 2.7 m/s (6.0 mph), the induced air-flow velocity was enhanced on the windward side and nearly stagnant on the leeward side. The contrast between the induced air flow velocity on the windward and the leeward sides was diminished at 5.3 m/s (11.8 mph).

N W E y

S x

Figure 4-19 Orientation of the Wind Machine and Test Assembly Cross-Wind = 0 m/s 1.3 m/s (3.0 mph) 2.7 m/s (6.0 mph) 5.3 m/s (11.8 mph)

Velocity (m/s)

= 0.072 = 0.057 = 0.045 = 0.042 kg/s kg/s kg/s kg/s Figure 4-20 Velocity Contours for 5.0 kW and 100 kPa at Different Cross-Wind Speeds 4-15

5

SUMMARY

A test apparatus simulating a modern dry cask was successfully constructed and operated to produce first-of-a-kind, high-fidelity transient and steady-state thermal-hydraulic data sets suitable for CFD model validation. An existing electrically heated but otherwise prototypic BWR Incoloy-clad test assembly was deployed inside of a representative storage basket and cylindrical pressure vessel that represented the canister. Simulated decay power was scaled to mimic the desired range of prototypic dimensionless groups. One unique aspect of the test apparatus was the capability to pressurize the simulated canister to a wide range of pressures, from sub-atmospheric (0.3 kPa) to the upper range of prototypic values (800 kPa). Test configurations for both vertical aboveground and belowground storage cask systems were tested. A wind machine was used to test the effect of wind speed on the peak cladding temperature and induced air mass flow rate in the belowground configuration. Cladding temperatures were measured with 0.762 mm (0.030 in.) diameter Type K thermocouples installed in direct contact with the Incoloy heater cladding. The induced air-mass flow rate was determined by integrating velocity profiles measured with hot wire anemometers that impose negligible pressure drop.

A total of fourteen tests were conducted with the apparatus in the aboveground configuration.

Similarly, fourteen tests were conducted with the apparatus in the belowground configuration. For these twenty-eight tests, the assembly was operated from initial, ambient conditions to thermal-hydraulic steady state for each unique combination of assembly power and vessel pressure. The power levels tested were 0.5, 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0 kW. The vessel pressures tested were vacuum (0.3 kPa), 100, 450, and 800 kPa absolute. A previous scaling analysis showed that elevated powers up to 5.0 kW were warranted to drive the induced air flow to prototypic levels. Over thirteen tests were conducted with the wind machine and the apparatus in the belowground configuration. The effect of cross-wind velocity (from 0.5 to 5.4 m/s) on the induced air mass flow rate was measured for three powers (1.0 kW, 2.5 kW, and 5.0 kW) and three helium pressures (100 kPa, 450 kPa, and 800 kPa).

The performance of the aboveground and belowground storage cask configurations were relatively similar, as expected. All steady state peak temperatures and induced air mass flow rates increased with increasing assembly power. Peak cladding temperatures decreased with increasing internal helium pressure for a given assembly power, indicating increased internal convection. In addition, the location of the PCT moved from near the top of the assembly to ~1/3 the height of the assembly for the highest (800 kPa absolute) to the lowest (0.3 kPa absolute) pressure studied, respectively. This shift in PCT location is consistent with convective heat transfer increasing with internal helium pressure. The highest average steady state PCT achieved was 715 K for 5.0 kW and 100 kPa helium pressure. This temperature was in the range of the NRC limits for allowable PCT of 673 K for normal operation and 843 K for off-normal operation

[US NRC, 2003]. For the cross-wind test series, as the wind speed increased from zero, the normalized air mass flow rate rapidly dropped to a minimum of between 0.5 to 0.6 at a cross-wind speed between 2.5 and 5.0 m/s and then slowly increased as the cross-wind speed increased further.

Over 40 unique data sets were collected and analyzed for these efforts. The results documented in this report highlight a small, but representative, subset of the available data. This addition to the experimental database signifies a substantial addition of first-of-a-kind, high-fidelity transient and steady-state thermal-hydraulic data sets suitable for CFD model validation.

5-1

6 REFERENCES

[1] ANSI, American National Standards Institute, American National Standard for Radioactive Materials - Leakage Tests on Packages for Shipment, ANSI N14.5-2014, June 2014.

[2] Bates, J.M., Single PWR Spent Fuel Assembly Heat Transfer Data for Computer Code Evaluations, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, PNL-5571, January 1986.

[3] Creer, J.M., T.E. Michener, M.A. McKinnon, J.E. Tanner, E.R. Gilbert, R.L. Goodman, The TN-24P PWR Spent Fuel Storage Cask: Testing and Analyses, EPRI NP-5128 Proj. 2406-4, PNL-6054, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, April 1987.

[4] Durbin, S.G., E.R. Lindgren, A. Zigh, and J. Solis, Description of Dry Cask Simulator for Measuring Internal and External Thermal-Hydraulic Performance, SAND2016-0176C, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., New Orleans, LA, June 2016.

[5] Dziadosz, D., E.V. Moore, J.M. Creer, R.A. McCann, M.A. McKinnon, J.E. Tanner, E.R.

Gilbert, R.L. Goodman, D.H. Schoonen, M Jensen, and C. Mullen, The Castor-V/21 PWR Spent-Fuel Storage Cask: Testing and Analyses, Electrical Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-4887, Project 2406-4, PNL-5917, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, November 1986.

[6] EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute, High Burnup Dry Storage Cask Research and Development Project: Final Test Plan, Contract No.: DE-NE-0000593, February 2014.

[7] Irino, M., M. Oohashi, T. Irie, and T. Nishikawa, Study on Surface Temperatures of Fuel Pins in Spent Fuel Dry Shipping/Storage Casks, IAEA-SM-286/139P, in Proceedings of Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials (PATRAM 86),

Volume 2, p. 585, International Atomic Energy Agency Vienna, 1987.

[8] Lindgren, E.R. and S.G. Durbin, Characterization of Thermal-Hydraulic and Ignition Phenomena in Prototypic, Full-Length Boiling Water Reactor Spent Fuel Pool Assemblies after a Complete Loss-of-Coolant Accident, SAND2007-2270, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 2007.

[9] McKinnon, M.A., J.W. Doman, J.E. Tanner, R.J. Guenther, J.M. Creer and C.E. King, BWR Spent Fuel Storage Cask Performance Test, Volume 1, Cask Handling Experience and Decay Heat, Heat Transfer, and Shielding Data, PNL-5777 Vol. 1, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland Washington, February 1986.

[10] McKinnon, M.A., J.M. Creer, C. L. Wheeler , J.E. Tanner, E.R. Gilbert, R.L. Goodman, D.P. Batala, D.A. Dziadosz, E.V. Moore, D.H. Schoonen, M.F. Jensen, and J.H.

Browder, The MC-10 PWR Spent Fuel Storage Cask: Testing and Analysis, EPRI NP-5268, PNL-6139, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, July 1987.

[11] McKinnon, M.A., TE Michener, M.F. Jensen, G.R. Rodman, Testing and Analyses of the TN-24P Spent Fuel Dry Storage Cask Loaded with Consolidated Fuel, EPRI NP-6191 Project 2813-16, PNL-6631, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, February 1989.

[12] McKinnon, M.A., R.E. Dodge, R.C. Schmitt, L.E. Eslinger, & G. Dineen,, Performance Testing and Analyses of the VSC-17 Ventilated Concrete Cask, EPRI-TR-100305, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California, May 1992.

6-1

[13] Nakos, J.T., Uncertainty Analysis of Thermocouple Measurements Used in Normal and Abnormal Thermal Environment Experiments at Sandias Radiant Heat Facility and Lurance Canyon Burn Site, SAND2004-1023, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 2004.

[14] US NRC, Cladding Considerations for the Transportation and Storage of Spent Fuel, Interim Staff Guidance-11 Rev. 3 (2003).

[15] Zigh, A., S. Gonzalez, J. Solis, S.G. Durbin, and E.R. Lindgren, Validation of the Computational Fluid Dynamics Method using the Aboveground Configuration of the Dry Cask Simulator, SAND2017-6104C, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., San Francisco, CA, June 2017.

6-2

APPENDIX A ERROR ANALYSIS The uncertainty and error inherent to an experimental result are critical to the accurate interpretation of the data. Therefore, the uncertainties in the experimental measurements are estimated in this section. Results of this analysis are given, followed by a general description of the method used and a brief explanation of the source of each reported measurement uncertainty.

The overall standard uncertainty of an indirect measurement y, dependent on N indirect measurements xi, is defined in Equation A-1. The standard uncertainty associated with an indirect measurement is analogous to the standard deviation of a statistical population.

2 N

y u

2 u i i 1 x i A-1 Here, u is used to define the standard uncertainty of a measurement.

The expanded uncertainty, U, is reported in this appendix and defines the bounds that include 95% of the possible data. The expanded uncertainty is assumed to be defined as the product of the standard uncertainty and the Students t-value. Unless otherwise stated, all uncertainty measurements are assumed to be based on a Students t-distribution with no fewer than 30 measurements. The associated t-value for 95% intervals is 2.0 for 29 degrees of freedom.

Therefore, Equation A-2 shows the definition of the expanded uncertainty as used in the following sections for a 95% confidence interval.

U = tvalue u A-2 Table A-1 summarizes the expanded uncertainty for each measurement used in this report.

Table A-1 Summary of the Expanded Uncertainty Determined for each Measurement Measurement, x Units Expanded Uncertainty, U x Peak clad temperature K 7.0E+00 Ambient temperature K 3.0E+00 Ambient pressure kPa, abs 1.1E-01 Helium pressure kPa, abs 1.0E+00 Vacuum kPa, abs 3.0E-01 Voltage V 3.8E-01 Current A 3.8E-01 Power kW 7.5E-02 Forced air mass flow rate kg/s 5.9E-04 Induced air mass flow rate (aboveground) kg/s 1.5E-03 Induced air mass flow rate (belowground) kg/s 1.1E-03 Induced air mass flow rate (cross-wind) kg/s 1.3E-03 Normalized air mass flow rate, /o - 5.6E-02 Cross-wind speed m/s 4.9E-02 A-1

A.1 Temperature Measurements A.1.1 Uncertainty in Clad Temperature Measurement Clad temperature was measured with a standard k-type TC. The expanded uncertainty for this type of TC is UT = 1% of the reading in Kelvin [Nakos, 2004]. The maximum peak clad temperature reading was 716 K for the aboveground 5.0 kW, 100 kPa helium test. The maximum expanded uncertainty for the cladding temperature is UPCT = +/-7.0 K.

A.1.2 Uncertainty in Ambient Air Temperature The air temperature was measured with a standard k-type TC. The expanded uncertainty for this type of TC is UT = 1% of the reading in Kelvin [Nakos, 2004]. The maximum ambient temperature reading was 305 K for the aboveground 5.0 kW, 100 kPa helium test. The maximum expanded uncertainty for the ambient temperature is UT-amb = +/-3.0 K.

A.2 Pressure Measurements A.2.1 Uncertainty in Ambient Air Pressure The air pressure was measured with a Setra Systems barometer (Model 276). The uncertainty of the ambient air pressure was taken from the manufacturers calibration sheet, which indicated an expanded uncertainty in the instrument of +/-0.1% of full scale (110 kPa). Therefore, the expanded uncertainty in the pressure reading is UP-atm = +/-0.11 kPa.

A.2.2 Uncertainty in Helium Vessel Pressure The helium pressure was measured using an Omega model PX409-500A5V-XL, 0 to 3447 kPa (500 psia), pressure transducer. The resolution of the transducer allowed the pressure control system described in Section 2.3.2.1 to maintain the pressure constant to +/-0.3 kPa (0.044 psi).

However, with the -XL accuracy identifier the linearity deviates +/-0.03% from the best straight line, which at full scale is +/-1.0 kPa (+/-0.15 psi). Therefore, the expanded uncertainty is UP-He =

+/-1.0 kPa.

A.2.3 Uncertainty in Air Vessel Pressure The residual air pressure was measured using an Omega model PXM409-001BV10V, 0 to 100 kPa absolute (0 to 14.5 psia), pressure transducer. The linearity deviates +/-0.08% from the best straight line, which at full scale is +/-0.08 kPa (+/-0.012 psi). However, the span and zero shift for temperature compensation are each +/-0.5%, which for full scale is +/-0.5 kPa (+/-0.073 psi). The geometric mean of these three expanded uncertainties is +/-0.3%, or +/-0.3 kPa (+/-0.044 psi). This value of 0.3 kPa absolute was assumed to be the smallest determinable pressure under vacuum conditions. Therefore, all vacuum tests are reported as 0.3 kPa, even though the gage typically read less than this value.

A.3 Uncertainty in Electrical Measurements The voltage, current, and power supplied to the internal spent fuel assembly heater rods were measured by Ohio Semitronics, Inc. instrumentation. The voltage was monitored by a model AVTR-001D voltmeter with an expanded uncertainty of UVolt = +/-0.38 V. The current was monitored by a model ACTR-005DY06 current meter with an expanded uncertainty of UAmp =

A-2

+/-0.38 A. The power was monitored with a model PC5-001DY230 Watt meter with an expanded uncertainty of UWatt = +/-0.075 kW.

A.4 Flow Measurements The methodology for determining the induced air flow in the aboveground and belowground configurations was different. As described in detail in Section 2.4.2 for the aboveground configuration, correlation of the hot wires in the inlet ducts was performed by imposing a known mass flow rate of air through the ducting with the hot wires held in a fixed location and then implementing a small correction based on velocity profile measurement and integrating to a total mass flow for the buoyancy driven flows. For the belowground configuration described in detail in Section 2.4.3, a forced flow correlation in the annulus between Shell 1 and Shell 2 was not possible, so the mass flow was determined by integrating eight velocity profiles (twelve for cases with wind).

A.4.1 Aboveground Configuration A.4.1.1 Uncertainty in Air Mass Flow Controllers The air flow was controlled using an OMEGA FMA-2623A, 0 to 3000 slpm (or 5.92E-2 kg/s at the standard conditions of 25 °C and 101.4 kPa), mass flow controller. The maximum expanded uncertainty is +/-1.0% of full scale at full flow or +/-5.9E-4 kg/s.

A.4.1.2 Uncertainty in Hot Wire Anemometer Measurements The parameter values needed to determine the induced air flow from the hot wire measurements are listed in Table A-2 and Table A-3 along with the parameters expanded uncertainty, influence coefficient, and contribution to the error. VTSI is the voltage output of the TSI Model 8455 hot wire anemometer. The expanded uncertainty is given by the manufacturer as +/-0.025 m/s for the ambient temperatures encountered. The full-scale voltage output is 10 V, so the expanded error in the voltage output is +/-0.25 V. Standard conditions for the TSI hotwire are 21.1 °C and 101.4 kPa. The primary calibration of the hot wires was performed by metering a measured flow of air with the hot wire centered in the duct at the position indicated in Figure 2-19. Figure 2-20 shows the forced flow calibration curve for the TSI Model 8455 hot wire located in a fixed position in the center of an inlet duct as shown in Figure 2-21, along with the equation for the best linear through the data. The constant linear fit coefficient, aTSI,0, is -8.0E-04 kg/s, with an expanded error of 9.0E-05 kg/s based on the fit of the linear correlation. The first order linear fit coefficient, aTSI,1, is 2.8E-03 kg/s/V, with an expanded uncertainty of 1.8E-05 kg/s/V. An additional correlation was needed to relate the naturally induced flow to the metered forced flow. After each powered test during steady state, the hot wire was traversed across the narrow dimension of the duct, as shown in Figure 2.21, to generate a velocity profile. The profile was integrated across the area of the duct to calculate the total naturally induce flow. Figure 2-23 shows the correlation between the more direct measurements of the naturally induced flow-based on the velocity profile measurement made only at the end of the test and the less direct measurement based on the forced flow correlation with the hot wire in the fixed location maintained throughout the ~24 hour transient to steady-state. The correlation coefficient, Ccorr, is 0.9344, with an expanded uncertainty of 1.3E-2 based on a t-value of 2.2 for the 12 data points used to define the correlation. The mass flow in each duct is determined with an expanded error of +/-7.4E-04 kg/s. The error in the hot wire air velocity measurement contributed 80% of the error, followed by the natural-flow to forced-flow correlation, which contributed 15% of the error.

A-3

Table A-2 Parameters Values and Uncertainty Analysis for a Single Hotwire Measurement in the Aboveground Configuration Measurement, x i Units Value Expanded uncertainty, U i Influence coefficient (U i*[(/x i)/]) Contribution VTSI V 8.0E+00 2.5E-01 3.2E-02 0.80 aTSI, 0 kg/s -8.0E-04 9.0E-05 4.1E-03 0.01 aTSI, 1 (kg/s)/V 2.8E-03 1.8E-05 6.7E-03 0.03 Ccorr -- 9.3E-01 1.3E-02 1.4E-02 0.15 kg/s 2.0E-02 7.4E-04 3.6E-02 1.00 Table A-3 outlines the calculation of the total mass flow from the four ducts. The expanded error in the total air mass flow of U = +/-1.5e-03 kg/s.

Table A-3 Uncertainty Analysis for Combining Multiple Hotwire Measurements into a Total Induced Flow Rate in the Aboveground Configuration Measurement, x i Units Value Expanded uncertainty, U i Influence coefficient (U i*[(/x i)/]) Contribution 1 kg/s 2.0E-02 7.4E-04 9.0E-03 0.25 2 kg/s 2.0E-02 7.4E-04 9.0E-03 0.25 3 kg/s 2.0E-02 7.4E-04 9.0E-03 0.25 4 kg/s 2.0E-02 7.4E-04 9.0E-03 0.25 kg/s 8.2E-02 1.5E-03 1.8E-02 1.00 A.4.2 Belowground Configuration (Annular Gap)

The details for the determination of the total induced air mass flow rate in the belowground configuration are given in Section 2.4.3. In the belowground configuration, a forced-flow correlation in the annulus between Shell 1 and Shell 2 was not possible, so the mass flow was determined by integrating eight velocity profiles. Separate verification tests were conducted to determine the accuracy of deriving the air mass flow rate from velocity measurements and integration as discussed in Appendix D The temperature of the air flow in the annular gap was up to 41°C, which raises the expanded error of the measurement to +/-0.051 m/s. This value of +/-0.051 m/s includes the standard instrument uncertainty of +/-0.025 m/s (2.5% of full scale) and +/-0.026 m/s (0.2% of full scale per °C above 28 °C). However, the velocity gradient between the different profiles at the same radial location introduces an uncertainty greater than the instrument uncertainty. This uncertainty may be conceptualized as the potential error introduced by using a centrally measured velocity to calculate the mass flow rate across a small but finite area. This gradient-based uncertainty was estimated for all hot wires for three different test conditions (1 kW and 100 kPa; 2.5 kW and 450 kPa; 5 kW and 800 kPa). The root mean square of all gradient-based uncertainties was found to be UV = +/-0.085 m/s, which exceeds the instrument uncertainty. For the purposes of this uncertainty analysis and the cross-wind uncertainty analysis to follow, this value of +/-0.085 m/s is adopted.

Hotwire air-velocity measurements were made at fourteen equidistant locations across the annular gap. The integration process involves calculation of an associated flow area for each velocity measurement. Table A-4 presents the pertinent inputs for the calculation along with the expanded uncertainty, influence coefficient, and contribution. The expanded uncertainty in the A-4

flow area for each air velocity measurement is +/-2.4E-05 m2. Table A-5 presents a representative integration calculation to determine the mass flow and expanded uncertainty for one of the eight hotwires.

Table A-4 Representative Calculation to Estimate the Expanded Error of Flow Area Determination Measurement, x i Units Value Expanded uncertainty, U i Influence coefficient (U i*[(A/x i)/A]) Contribution r m 3.1E-01 6.4E-03 2.0E-02 1.00 r m 4.8E-03 5.0E-06 5.2E-04 0.00

/2 -- 1.3E-01 -- -- --

A m2 1.2E-03 2.4E-05 2.0E-02 1.00 A-5

Table A-5 Representative Integration Calculation to Determine the Mass Flow and Expanded Error for One of the Eight Hotwires Measurement, x i Units Value Expanded uncertainty, U i Influence coefficient (U i*[(i/x i)/i]) Contribution vi,1 m/s 3.1E-01 8.5E-02 1.1E-02 0.06 2

Ai,1 m 7.8E-03 2.4E-05 1.3E-04 0.00 vi,2 m/s 4.8E-01 8.5E-02 1.3E-02 0.09 2

Ai,2 m 9.1E-03 2.4E-05 2.0E-04 0.00 vi,3 m/s 6.1E-01 8.5E-02 1.3E-02 0.09 2

Ai,3 m 9.0E-03 2.4E-05 2.5E-04 0.00 vi,4 m/s 6.0E-01 8.5E-02 1.3E-02 0.08 2

Ai,4 m 8.9E-03 2.4E-05 2.5E-04 0.00 vi,5 m/s 6.4E-01 8.5E-02 1.3E-02 0.08 2

Ai,5 m 8.7E-03 2.4E-05 2.6E-04 0.00 vi,6 m/s 6.1E-01 8.5E-02 1.3E-02 0.08 2

Ai,6 m 8.6E-03 2.4E-05 2.5E-04 0.00 vi,7 m/s 6.0E-01 8.5E-02 1.2E-02 0.08 2

Ai,7 m 8.4E-03 2.4E-05 2.5E-04 0.00 vi,8 m/s 5.7E-01 8.5E-02 1.2E-02 0.07 2

Ai,8 m 8.3E-03 2.4E-05 2.4E-04 0.00 vi,9 m/s 5.5E-01 8.5E-02 1.2E-02 0.07 2

Ai,9 m 8.1E-03 2.4E-05 2.3E-04 0.00 vi,10 m/s 5.2E-01 8.5E-02 1.2E-02 0.07 2

Ai,10 m 8.0E-03 2.4E-05 2.1E-04 0.00 vi,11 m/s 4.8E-01 8.5E-02 1.2E-02 0.07 2

Ai,11 m 7.8E-03 2.4E-05 2.0E-04 0.00 vi,12 m/s 4.0E-01 8.5E-02 1.1E-02 0.06 2

Ai,12 m 7.7E-03 2.4E-05 1.6E-04 0.00 vi,13 m/s 3.6E-01 8.5E-02 1.1E-02 0.06 2

Ai,13 m 7.6E-03 2.4E-05 1.5E-04 0.00 vi,14 m/s 2.5E-01 8.5E-02 8.9E-03 0.04 2

Ai,14 m 6.1E-03 2.4E-05 1.0E-04 0.00 3

Ref kg/m 1.2E+00 -- -- --

i kg/s 8.7E-03 3.9E-04 4.5E-02 1.00 Table A-6 presents the calculation of the total air mass flow and expanded uncertainty based on all eight hotwires. The expanded error for the total air mass flow determination in the belowground configuration is U = +/-1.1E-03 kg/s.

A-6

Table A-6 Calculation of the Total Mass Flow and Expanded Error from the Eight Hotwires used in the Belowground Configuration Measurement, x i Units Value Expanded uncertainty, U i Influence coefficient (U i*[(/x i)/]) Contribution 1 kg/s 8.7E-03 3.9E-04 5.6E-03 0.12 2 kg/s 1.1E-02 5.2E-04 7.4E-03 0.21 3 kg/s 8.8E-03 3.9E-04 5.6E-03 0.12 4 kg/s 7.5E-03 3.4E-04 4.8E-03 0.09 5 kg/s 9.6E-03 4.3E-04 6.1E-03 0.14 6 kg/s 9.6E-03 4.3E-04 6.1E-03 0.14 7 kg/s 9.0E-03 4.1E-04 5.8E-03 0.13 8 kg/s 5.5E-03 2.5E-04 3.5E-03 0.05 kg/s 7.0E-02 1.1E-03 1.6E-02 1.00 A.4.3 Cross-Wind Configuration The determination of the total mass flow of air for the belowground configuration with cross-wind was similar to the belowground configuration except twelve hot wires were used as described in detail in Section 2.5. Table A-4 and Table A-5 are applicable. Table A-7 shows the calculation using twelve hotwires. Using the twelve hotwires the expanded error for the total air mass flow determination in the belowground configuration is U = +/-1.3E-03 kg/s.

Table A-7 Calculation of the Total Mass Flow and Expanded Error from the Twelve Hotwires used in the Cross-Wind Configuration Measurement, x i Units Value Expanded uncertainty, U i Influence coefficient (U i*[(/x i)/]) Contribution 1 kg/s 6.8E-03 3.9E-04 5.4E-03 0.10 2 kg/s 5.6E-03 3.2E-04 4.5E-03 0.07 3 kg/s 5.8E-03 3.4E-04 4.7E-03 0.07 4 kg/s 4.7E-03 2.7E-04 3.8E-03 0.05 5 kg/s 4.4E-03 2.6E-04 3.6E-03 0.04 6 kg/s 4.5E-03 2.6E-04 3.6E-03 0.04 7 kg/s 3.8E-03 2.2E-04 3.1E-03 0.03 8 kg/s 4.2E-03 2.4E-04 3.3E-03 0.04 9 kg/s 7.2E-03 4.1E-04 5.8E-03 0.11 10 kg/s 9.8E-03 5.6E-04 7.8E-03 0.20 11 kg/s 9.3E-03 5.4E-04 7.5E-03 0.19 12 kg/s 5.6E-03 3.2E-04 4.5E-03 0.07 kg/s 7.2E-02 1.3E-03 1.7E-02 1.00 The effect of cross-wind was evaluated using a normalized flow variable, /o, defined as the air mass flow with wind divided by the mass flow without wind under the same conditions. The expanded uncertainties for /o are presented in Table A-8 for various test conditions.

A-7

Table A-8 Expanded Uncertainties in Normalized Mass Flow, /o, for Various Conditions Tested Conditions Expanded uncertainty, U i 5 kW, 100 kPa 2.5E-02 5 kW, 800 kPa 2.8E-02 2.5 kW, 100 kPa 3.3E-02 2.5 kW, 800 kPa 3.8E-02 1.0 kW, 100 kPa 4.8E-02 1.0 kW, 800 kPa 5.6E-02 A.4.3.1 Cross-Wind Velocity The area-weighted average cross-wind velocity was determined using the same type TSI Model 8455 hot wire anemometers fixed at three locations shown in Figure 2-29. As discussed in Section 2.5, the average of the three fixed hotwires was correlated with the area weighted average of 45 regularly spaced points. The standard error about the best straight line was

+/-0.0113 m/s. Using the t-value of 4.3 for the three data-point correlation, the expanded error for the area weighted cross-wind velocity is Uwind = +/-0.049 m/s.

A-8

APPENDIX B CHANNEL LIST FROM ABOVEGROUND TESTING The results presented in the body of the test report describe the most important quantities as determined by the authors. This presentation represents a fraction of the information collected from the test assembly. Table B-1 gives the complete channel list for the aboveground configuration as an example to the reader of the extent of the available data.

Table B-1 Channel List for Aboveground Configuration Testing Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type 1 0 1 WDV IN Type "K" TC 2 0 33 FV72_3 Type "K" TC 1 1 2 WDV OUT Type "K" TC 2 1 34 FV144_3 Type "K" TC 1 2 3 WFT IN Type "K" TC 2 2 35 CS6_1A Type "K" TC 1 3 4 WFT OUT Type "K" TC 2 3 36 CS12_1A Type "K" TC 1 4 5 WEU24 Type "K" TC 2 4 37 CS18_1A Type "K" TC 1 5 6 WEU48 Type "K" TC 2 5 38 CS24_1 Type "K" TC 1 6 7 WEU72 Type "K" TC 2 6 39 CS30_1A Type "K" TC 1 7 8 WEU96 Type "K" TC 2 7 40 CS36_1A Type "K" TC 1 8 9 No_Data Type "K" TC 2 8 41 CS42_2A Type "K" TC 1 9 10 WEU144 Type "K" TC 2 9 42 CS48_2 Type "K" TC 1 10 11 WDV24_1 Type "K" TC 2 10 43 CS54_2A Type "K" TC 1 11 12 WDV96_1 Type "K" TC 2 11 44 CS61_2A Type "K" TC 1 12 13 WFT48_2A Type "K" TC 2 12 45 CS90_1A Type "K" TC 1 13 14 WFT72_3A Type "K" TC 2 13 46 CS96_1 Type "K" TC 1 14 15 WFT119_2A Type "K" TC 2 14 47 CS103_1A Type "K" TC 1 15 16 WFT144_3A Type "K" TC 2 15 48 CS108_1A Type "K" TC 1 16 17 DT24_1 Type "K" TC 2 16 49 CS114_2A Type "K" TC 1 17 18 DT48_2 Type "K" TC 2 17 50 CS119_2 Type "K" TC 1 18 19 DT96_1 Type "K" TC 2 18 51 CS126_2A Type "K" TC 1 19 20 DT119_2 Type "K" TC 2 19 52 CS132_2A Type "K" TC 1 20 21 CU24_1 Type "K" TC 2 20 53 No_Data Type "K" TC 1 21 22 CU96_1 Type "K" TC 2 21 54 GX72_3 Type "K" TC 1 22 23 ES48_2 Type "K" TC 2 22 55 GX78_3A Type "K" TC 1 23 24 ES119_2 Type "K" TC 2 23 56 GX84_3A Type "K" TC 1 24 25 CX24_1 Type "K" TC 2 24 57 GX138_3A Type "K" TC 1 25 26 CX96_1 Type "K" TC 2 25 58 GX144_3 Type "K" TC 1 26 27 GS48_2 Type "K" TC 2 26 59 GX150_3A Type "K" TC 1 27 28 GS72_3 Type "K" TC 2 27 60 GX156_3A Type "K" TC 1 28 29 GS119_2 Type "K" TC 2 28 61 AQ24_1 Type "K" TC 1 29 30 GS144_3 Type "K" TC 2 29 62 AQ48_2 Type "K" TC 1 30 31 GU72_3 Type "K" TC 2 30 63 AQ96_1 Type "K" TC 1 31 32 GU144_3 Type "K" TC 2 31 64 AQ119_2 Type "K" TC B-1

Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type 3 0 65 AS24_1 Type "K" TC 5 0 129 g96_CB_2.9_1 Type "K" TC 3 1 66 AS96_1 Type "K" TC 5 1 130 g96_CB_2.9_1S Type "K" TC 3 2 67 No_Data Type "K" TC 5 2 131 g144_CB_2.9_1 Type "K" TC 3 3 68 No_Data Type "K" TC 5 3 132 g144_CB_2.9_1S Type "K" TC 3 4 69 No_Data Type "K" TC 5 4 133 g144_CB_4.0_34 Type "K" TC 3 5 70 AU96_1 Type "K" TC 5 5 134 g144_CB_2.9_3 Type "K" TC 3 6 71 AU108_1 Type "K" TC 5 6 135 g144_CB_2.9_3S Type "K" TC 3 7 72 No_Data Type "K" TC 5 7 136 Basket_Int_12_1 Type "K" TC 3 8 73 AX96_1 Type "K" TC 5 8 137 Basket_(5.5)_4 Type "K" TC 3 9 74 AZ24_1 Type "K" TC 5 9 138 Basket_0_4 Type "K" TC 3 10 75 AZ96_1 Type "K" TC 5 10 139 Basket_12_1 Type "K" TC 3 11 76 CQ48_2 Type "K" TC 5 11 140 Basket_24_1 Type "K" TC 3 12 77 CQ119_2 Type "K" TC 5 12 141 Basket_24_4 Type "K" TC 3 13 78 EQ48_2 Type "K" TC 5 13 142 Basket_24_41 Type "K" TC 3 14 79 EQ60_2 Type "K" TC 5 14 143 Basket_36_2 Type "K" TC 3 15 80 EQ119_2 Type "K" TC 5 15 144 Basket_48_2 Type "K" TC 3 16 81 EQ132_2 Type "K" TC 5 16 145 Basket_48_4 Type "K" TC 3 17 82 GQ48_2 Type "K" TC 5 17 146 Basket_60_3 Type "K" TC 3 18 83 GQ119_2 Type "K" TC 5 18 147 Basket_72_3 Type "K" TC 3 19 84 IQ48_2 Type "K" TC 5 19 148 Basket_72_4 Type "K" TC 3 20 85 IQ72_3 Type "K" TC 5 20 149 Basket_72_34 Type "K" TC 3 21 86 IQ119_2 Type "K" TC 5 21 150 Basket_84_1 Type "K" TC 3 22 87 IQ144_3 Type "K" TC 5 22 151 Basket_96_1 Type "K" TC 3 23 88 IS72_3 Type "K" TC 5 23 152 Basket_96_4 Type "K" TC 3 24 89 IS144_3 Type "K" TC 5 24 153 Basket_108_2 Type "K" TC 3 25 90 IU72_3 Type "K" TC 5 25 154 Basket_119_2 Type "K" TC 3 26 91 IU84_3 Type "K" TC 5 26 155 Basket_119_4 Type "K" TC 3 27 92 IU144_3 Type "K" TC 5 27 156 Basket_119_23 Type "K" TC 3 28 93 IU156_3 Type "K" TC 5 28 157 Basket_132_3 Type "K" TC 3 29 94 IX72_3 Type "K" TC 5 29 158 Basket_144_3 Type "K" TC 3 30 95 IX144_3 Type "K" TC 5 30 159 Basket_144_4 Type "K" TC 3 31 96 IZ72_3 Type "K" TC 5 31 160 Basket_156_1 Type "K" TC Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type 4 0 97 IZ144_3 Type "K" TC 6 0 161 Basket_159_4 Type "K" TC 4 1 98 Instr_Well_Leads Type "K" TC 6 1 162 Basket_165_41 Type "K" TC 4 2 99 Instr_Well_Int Type "K" TC 6 2 163 Basket_Int_156_1 Type "K" TC 4 3 100 Pedestal_Base Type "K" TC 6 3 164 g(7.6)_BV_3.5_2 Type "K" TC 4 4 101 Pedestal_(5.5)_4 Type "K" TC 6 4 165 g48_BV_4.3_4 Type "K" TC 4 5 102 Channel_0_4 Type "K" TC 6 5 166 g48_BV_4.8_34 Type "K" TC 4 6 103 Channel_12_1 Type "K" TC 6 6 167 g72_BV_4.3_2 Type "K" TC 4 7 104 Channel_24_1 Type "K" TC 6 7 168 g96_BV_4.8_41 Type "K" TC 4 8 105 Channel_24_4 Type "K" TC 6 8 169 g96_BV_3.8_1 Type "K" TC 4 9 106 Channel_24_41 Type "K" TC 6 9 170 g96_BV_4.3_1 Type "K" TC 4 10 107 Channel_36_2 Type "K" TC 6 10 171 g96_BV_4.8_1 Type "K" TC 4 11 108 Channel_48_2 Type "K" TC 6 11 172 g144_BV_4.3_1 Type "K" TC 4 12 109 Channel_48_4 Type "K" TC 6 12 173 g144_BV_4.3_1S Type "K" TC 4 13 110 Channel_60_3 Type "K" TC 6 13 174 g144_BV_4.8_34 Type "K" TC 4 14 111 Channel_72_3 Type "K" TC 6 14 175 g144_BV_3.8_3 Type "K" TC 4 15 112 Channel_72_4 Type "K" TC 6 15 176 g144_BV_4.3_3 Type "K" TC 4 16 113 Channel_72_34 Type "K" TC 6 16 177 g144_BV_4.8_3 Type "K" TC 4 17 114 Channel_84_1 Type "K" TC 6 17 178 g167_BV_3.5_3 Type "K" TC 4 18 115 Channel_96_1 Type "K" TC 6 18 179 g167_BV_3.5_1S Type "K" TC 4 19 116 Channel_96_4 Type "K" TC 6 19 180 PV_Int_12_1 Type "K" TC 4 20 117 Channel_108_2 Type "K" TC 6 20 181 PV_0_4 Type "K" TC 4 21 118 Channel_119_2 Type "K" TC 6 21 182 PV_12_1 Type "K" TC 4 22 119 Channel_119_4 Type "K" TC 6 22 183 PV_24_1 Type "K" TC 4 23 120 Channel_119_23 Type "K" TC 6 23 184 PV_24_4 Type "K" TC 4 24 121 Channel_132_3 Type "K" TC 6 24 185 PV_24_41 Type "K" TC 4 25 122 Channel_144_3 Type "K" TC 6 25 186 PV_36_2 Type "K" TC 4 26 123 Channel_144_4 Type "K" TC 6 26 187 PV_48_2 Type "K" TC 4 27 124 Channel_156_1 Type "K" TC 6 27 188 PV_48_4 Type "K" TC 4 28 125 Channel_159_4 Type "K" TC 6 28 189 PV_60_3 Type "K" TC 4 29 126 g48_CB_2.9_4 Type "K" TC 6 29 190 PV_72_3 Type "K" TC 4 30 127 g72_CB_2.9_2 Type "K" TC 6 30 191 PV_72_4 Type "K" TC 4 31 128 g96_CB_4.0_41 Type "K" TC 6 31 192 PV_72_34 Type "K" TC B-2

Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type 7 0 193 PV_84_1 Type "K" TC 9 0 257 g96_S1S2_10.8_4 Type "K" TC 7 1 194 PV_96_1 Type "K" TC 9 1 258 g144_S1S2_10.8_34S Type "K" TC 7 2 195 PV_96_4 Type "K" TC 9 2 259 g144_S1S2_10.8_3 Type "K" TC 7 3 196 PV_108_2 Type "K" TC 9 3 260 S2_0_4 Type "K" TC 7 4 197 PV_119_2 Type "K" TC 9 4 261 S2_12_1 Type "K" TC 7 5 198 PV_119_3 Type "K" TC 9 5 262 S2_24_14 Type "K" TC 7 6 199 PV_119_4 Type "K" TC 9 6 263 S2_24_1 Type "K" TC 7 7 200 PV_119_23 Type "K" TC 9 7 264 S2_24_4 Type "K" TC 7 8 201 PV_132_3 Type "K" TC 9 8 265 S2_36_2 Type "K" TC 7 9 202 PV_144_1 Type "K" TC 9 9 266 S2_48_2 Type "K" TC 7 10 203 PV_144_3 Type "K" TC 9 10 267 S2_48_4 Type "K" TC 7 11 204 PV_144_4 Type "K" TC 9 11 268 S2_60_3 Type "K" TC 7 12 205 PV_156_1 Type "K" TC 9 12 269 S2_72_34 Type "K" TC 7 13 206 PV_159_4 Type "K" TC 9 13 270 S2_72_3 Type "K" TC 7 14 207 PV_165_4 Type "K" TC 9 14 271 S2_72_4 Type "K" TC 7 15 208 PV_Int_156_1 Type "K" TC 9 15 272 S2_84_1 Type "K" TC 7 16 209 g48_VS1_5.6_4 Type "K" TC 9 16 273 S2_96_1 Type "K" TC 7 17 210 g48_VS1_6.4_4 Type "K" TC 9 17 274 S2_96_4 Type "K" TC 7 18 211 g48_VS1_7.2_4 Type "K" TC 9 18 275 S2_108_2 Type "K" TC 7 19 212 g48_VS1_8.1_4 Type "K" TC 9 19 276 S2_119_23 Type "K" TC 7 20 213 g48_VS1_7.2_34 Type "K" TC 9 20 277 S2_119_2 Type "K" TC 7 21 214 g96_VS1_5.6_1 Type "K" TC 9 21 278 S2_119_3 Type "K" TC 7 22 215 g96_VS1_6.4_1S Type "K" TC 9 22 279 S2_119_4 Type "K" TC 7 23 216 g96_VS1_7.2_1 Type "K" TC 9 23 280 S2_132_3 Type "K" TC 7 24 217 g96_VS1_8.1_1S Type "K" TC 9 24 281 S2_144_1 Type "K" TC 7 25 218 g96_VS1_7.2_41 Type "K" TC 9 25 282 S2_144_3 Type "K" TC 7 26 219 g96_VS1_7.2_4 Type "K" TC 9 26 283 S2_144_4 Type "K" TC 7 27 220 g144_VS1_7.2_34 Type "K" TC 9 27 284 Lance_108 Type "K" TC 7 28 221 g144_VS1_7.2_3 Type "K" TC 9 28 285 Lance_114 Type "K" TC 7 29 222 S1_0_4 Type "K" TC 9 29 286 Lance_119 Type "K" TC 7 30 223 S1_12_1 Type "K" TC 9 30 287 Lance_126 Type "K" TC 7 31 224 S1_24_14 Type "K" TC 9 31 288 Lance_132 Type "K" TC Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type 8 0 225 S1_24_1 Type "K" TC 10 0 289 Lance_138 Type "K" TC 8 1 226 S1_24_4 Type "K" TC 10 1 290 Lance_144 Type "K" TC 8 2 227 S1_36_2 Type "K" TC 10 2 291 Lance_150 Type "K" TC 8 3 228 S1_48_2 Type "K" TC 10 3 292 Lance_156 Type "K" TC 8 4 229 S1_48_4 Type "K" TC 10 4 293 S1_96_1_Ins Type "K" TC 8 5 230 S1_60_3 Type "K" TC 10 5 294 S1_96_4_Ins Type "K" TC 8 6 231 S1_72_34 Type "K" TC 10 6 295 S1_48_4_Ins Type "K" TC 8 7 232 S1_72_3 Type "K" TC 10 7 296 S1_144_3_Ins Type "K" TC 8 8 233 S1_72_4 Type "K" TC 10 8 297 S1_144_34_Ins Type "K" TC 8 9 234 S1_84_1 Type "K" TC 10 9 298 S1_96_14_Ins Type "K" TC 8 10 235 S1_96_1 Type "K" TC 10 10 299 S1_48_34_Ins Type "K" TC 8 11 236 S1_96_4 Type "K" TC 10 11 300 S1_144_3_Xtra Type "K" TC 8 12 237 S1_108_2 Type "K" TC 10 12 301 S1_96_1_Xtra Type "K" TC 8 13 238 S1_119_23 Type "K" TC 10 13 302 S1_48_4_Xtra Type "K" TC 8 14 239 S1_119_2 Type "K" TC 10 14 303 PRV_Temp Type "K" TC 8 15 240 S1_119_3 Type "K" TC 10 15 304 Ext_Well_Mid_Flange Type "K" TC 8 16 241 S1_119_4 Type "K" TC 10 16 305 Ext_Mid_Well Type "K" TC 8 17 242 S1_132_3 Type "K" TC 10 17 306 Elc_Feed_Tube Type "K" TC 8 18 243 S1_144_1 Type "K" TC 10 18 307 Good_No_Data Type "K" TC 8 19 244 S1_144_3 Type "K" TC 10 19 308 Building_Heat Type "K" TC 8 20 245 S1_144_4 Type "K" TC 10 20 309 ForcedAir_Temp Type "K" TC 8 21 246 S1_156_1 Type "K" TC 10 21 310 Ambient_24 Type "K" TC 8 22 247 S1_159_4 Type "K" TC 10 22 311 Ambient_12 Type "K" TC 8 23 248 S1_170_4 Type "K" TC 10 23 312 Ambient_0 Type "K" TC 8 24 249 g48_S1S2_9.7_4 Type "K" TC 10 24 313 Ambient_24 Type "K" TC 8 25 250 g48_S1S2_10.8_4 Type "K" TC 10 25 314 Ambient_48 Type "K" TC 8 26 251 g48_S1S2_12_4 Type "K" TC 10 26 315 Ambient_72 Type "K" TC 8 27 252 g48_S1S2_10.8_34S Type "K" TC 10 27 316 Ambient_96 Type "K" TC 8 28 253 g96_S1S2_9.7_1 Type "K" TC 10 28 317 Ambient_120 Type "K" TC 8 29 254 g96_S1S2_10.8_1 Type "K" TC 10 29 318 Ambient_144 Type "K" TC 8 30 255 g96_S1S2_12_1 Type "K" TC 10 30 319 Ambient_168 Type "K" TC 8 31 256 g96_S1S2_10.8_41S Type "K" TC 10 31 320 Ambient_192 Type "K" TC B-3

Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type 11 0 321 S1_23_171 Type "K" TC 13 0 385 Rake_258.75_85%_20 Type "K" TC 11 1 322 S1_2_171 Type "K" TC 13 1 386 Rake_25875_95%_20 Type "K" TC 11 2 323 PV_Top_1.375 Type "K" TC 13 2 387 Rake_258.75_100%_20 Type "K" TC 11 3 324 Flow_straight_temp Type "K" TC 13 3 388 Rake_348.75_0%_20 Type "K" TC 11 4 325 North_Air_Inlet Type "K" TC 13 4 389 Rake_348.75_.25"_20 Type "K" TC 11 5 326 West_Air_Inlet Type "K" TC 13 5 390 Rake_348.75_5%_20 Type "K" TC 11 6 327 East_Air_Inlet Type "K" TC 13 6 391 Rake_348.75_15%_20 Type "K" TC 11 7 328 South_Air_Inlet Type "K" TC 13 7 392 Rake_348.75_50%_20 Type "K" TC 11 8 329 CYBL_Wall_Amb_0 Type "K" TC 13 8 393 Rake_348.75_85%_20 Type "K" TC 11 9 330 CYBL_Wall_Amb_72 Type "K" TC 13 9 394 Rake_348.75_95%_20 Type "K" TC 11 10 331 CYBL_Wall_Amb_144 Type "K" TC 13 10 395 Rake_348.75_100%_20 Type "K" TC 11 11 332 Inlet_Top_1 Type "K" TC 13 11 396 11 12 333 Inlet_Air_1_1 Type "K" TC 13 12 397 11 13 334 Inlet_Bottom_1 Type "K" TC 13 13 398 11 14 335 Inlet_Top_2 Type "K" TC 13 14 399 11 15 336 Inlet_Air_1_2 Type "K" TC 13 15 400 11 16 337 Inlet_Bottom_2 Type "K" TC 13 16 401 11 17 338 Inlet_Top_3 Type "K" TC 13 17 402 11 18 339 Inlet_Air_1_3 Type "K" TC 13 18 403 11 19 340 Inlet_Bottom_3 Type "K" TC 13 19 404 11 20 341 Inlet_Top_4 Type "K" TC 13 20 405 11 21 342 Inlet_Air_1_4 Type "K" TC 13 21 406 11 22 343 Inlet_Bottom_4 Type "K" TC 13 22 407 11 23 344 Outlet_Top_1 Type "K" TC 13 23 408 11 24 345 Outlet_Air_7_1 Type "K" TC 13 24 409 11 25 346 Outlet_Air_4_1 Type "K" TC 13 25 410 11 26 347 Outlet_Air_1_1 Type "K" TC 13 26 411 11 27 348 Outlet_Bottom_1 Type "K" TC 13 27 412 11 28 349 Outlet_Top_2 Type "K" TC 13 28 413 11 29 350 Outlet_Air_7_2 Type "K" TC 13 29 414 11 30 351 Outlet_Air_4_2 Type "K" TC 13 30 415 11 31 352 Outlet_Air_1_2 Type "K" TC 13 31 416 Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type Slot Channel TC # Instrument Nomenclature Instrument Type 12 0 353 Outlet_Bottom_2 Type "K" TC 27 0 Vessel_Pressure_1 Pressure Transducer 12 1 354 Outlet_Top_3 Type "K" TC 27 1 Vessel_Pressure_2 Pressure Transducer 12 2 355 Outlet_Air_7_3 Type "K" TC 27 2 Atm_Pressure Pressure Transducer 12 3 356 Outlet_Air_4_3 Type "K" TC 27 3 Current_Xducer_1 Current Transducer 12 4 357 Outlet_Air_1_3 Type "K" TC 27 4 Volt_Xducer_1 Volt Transducer 12 5 358 Outlet_Bottom_3 Type "K" TC 27 5 Power_Xducer_1 Power Transducer 12 6 359 Outlet_Top_4 Type "K" TC 27 6 Hot_Wire_South Air Velocity Transducer 12 7 360 Outlet_Air_7_4 Type "K" TC 27 7 Hot_Wire_West Air Velocity Transducer 12 8 361 Outlet_Air_4_4 Type "K" TC 27 8 Hot_Wire_North Air Velocity Transducer 12 9 362 Outlet_Air_1_4 Type "K" TC 27 9 Hot_Wire_East Air Velocity Transducer 12 10 363 Outlet_Bottom_4 Type "K" TC 27 10 Flow_1 Flow controller 12 11 364 Rake_78.75_0%_20 Type "K" TC 27 11 12 12 365 Rake_78.75_.25"_20 Type "K" TC 27 12 12 13 366 Rake_78.75_5%_20 Type "K" TC 27 13 12 14 367 Rake_78.75_15%_20 Type "K" TC 27 14 12 15 368 Rake_78.75_50%_20 Type "K" TC 27 15 12 16 369 Rake_78.75_85%_20 Type "K" TC 27 16 12 17 370 Rake_78.75_95%_20 Type "K" TC 27 17 12 18 371 Rake_78.75_100%_20 Type "K" TC 27 18 12 19 372 Rake_168.75_0%_20 Type "K" TC 27 19 12 20 373 Rake_168.75_.25"_20 Type "K" TC 27 20 12 21 374 Rake_168.75_5%_20 Type "K" TC 27 21 12 22 375 Rake_168.75_15%_20 Type "K" TC 27 22 12 23 376 Rake_168.75_50%_20 Type "K" TC 27 23 12 24 377 Rake_168.75_85%_20 Type "K" TC 27 24 12 25 378 Rake_168.75_95%_20 Type "K" TC 27 25 12 26 379 Rake_168.75_100%_20 Type "K" TC 27 26 12 27 380 Rake_258.75_0%_20 Type "K" TC 27 27 12 28 381 Rake_258.75_.25"_20 Type "K" TC 27 28 12 29 382 Rake_258.75_5%_20 Type "K" TC 27 29 12 30 383 Rake_258.75_15%_20 Type "K" TC 27 30 12 31 384 Rake_258.75_50%_20 Type "K" TC 27 31 B-4

APPENDIX C DIMENSIONAL ANALYSES C.1 Procedure The dimensional analyses were conducted in two parts, one that considers helium flow internal to the pressure vessel and another that considers the external air flow (see Figure 2-1). For the internal analysis, the modified Rayleigh number (Ra*H) based on the channel height (H) is defined in Equation C-1, where g is acceleration due to gravity, is the thermal expansion coefficient, q is the uniform surface heat flux, is the thermal diffusivity, is the kinematic viscosity and k is the thermal conductivity. A simple correlation for the Nusselt number (NuH) in a channel with uniform heating on one side and equivalent, uniform cooling on the other side is given in Equation C-2

[Bejan, 1995]. In these equations, the channel height is given as H and the hydraulic diameter of the helium downcomer is listed as DH, Down. The modified Rayleigh was chosen for these analyses because for these pre-test calculations the heat flux was easily estimable, but the temperature difference between the heated surfaces and the gas was not available.

gq" H 4 Ra*H C-1 k

19 H

NuH 0.34 Ra H

29 D

C-2 H , Down C.2 Results C.2.1 Internal Analysis The results of the internal analysis for the aboveground DCS at low and high power and the aboveground prototypic cask are presented in Table C-1. Again, this internal analysis relates to the helium flow and heat transfer inside the spent fuel and the downcomer in the pressure vessel (i.e. canister). The average helium-mass flow rate and velocity, Reynolds number, modified Rayleigh number, and the Nusselt number for the prototypic cask compare favorably with the DCS operated at low power.

C-1

Table C-1 Comparison of Internal Dimensionless Groups for the DCS and Dry Cask Systems with Helium at 700 kPa Parameter Aboveground DCS DCS Cask Power (W) 500 5,000 36,900 He (kg/s) 1.3E-3 1.8E-3 2.1E-2 DH, Down (m) 0.053 0.053 0.14 Wavg (m/s) 0.061 0.126 0.078 ReDown 170 190 250 Ra*H 3.1E11 5.9E11 4.6E11 Nu H 200 230 200 C.2.2 External Analysis For the external analysis, the hydraulic diameter of the air-flow channel is substituted for the channel height. This substitution yields a channel-based, modified Rayleigh number, as given in Equation C-3. Again, this external analysis relates to the air flow and heat transfer in the annulus formed by the pressure vessel (i.e. canister) and the overpack. A Nusselt number correlation for a channel with uniform heat on one side and insulated on the other side is given in Equation C-4

[Kaminski and Jensen, 2005]. Again, the channel height is listed as H. However, the hydraulic diameter listed in these equations is defined by the annular air channel between the canister and the first shell, or overpack.

g q" DH4 Ra*DH C-3 k

1 2 24 2.51 Nu DH

2 5 C-4

RaDH DH H RaDH DH H

Results of the external analysis are presented in Table C-2. The average air flow velocity, Reynolds number, modified Rayleigh number, and the Nusselt number for the prototypic cask compare favorably with the DSC operated at high power.

C-2

Table C-2 Comparison of External Dimensionless Groups for the DCS and Dry Cask Systems with Helium at 700 kPa Aboveground Parameter DCS DCS Cask Power (W) 500 5,000 36,900 Air (kg/s) 0.039 0.083 0.350 DH (m) 0.184 0.184 0.096 Wavg (m/s) 0.37 0.76 1.26 Re 3,700 7,100 6,100 Ra*DH 2.7E8 2.7E9 2.3E8 Nu DH 16 26 14 C.3 Summary Dimensional analyses indicate that the anticipated ranges of relevant dimensionless groups (Reynolds, Modified Rayleigh, and Nusselt numbers) bracket or closely approach prototypic values for both the aboveground and belowground configurations. While designed to match prototypic values, the expected test matrix will include values that exceed currently acceptable values for decay heat, internal helium pressure, and peak cladding temperatures to gain more insight into the underlying behavior of the system.

C.4 References

[1] A. BEJAN, Convection Heat Transfer, 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, (1995).

[2] D.A. KAMINSKI and M.K. JENSEN, Introduction to Thermal and Fluids Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, (2005).

C-3