ermsar 2012, cologne march 21 – 23, 2012 mcci pool temperature and viscosity: a discussion of the...
TRANSCRIPT
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
MCCI pool temperature and viscosity: a discussion of the impact of scale
A. Fargette
AREVA NP GmbH, Paul-Gossen Strasse 100 – 91052 Erlangen - Germany
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Structure of the presentation
Step 1: Identification of the thermo-hydraulic pool properties which have a large influence of the pool temperature
Step 2: Assessment of how these « controlling » thermo-hydraulic pool properties evolve during an MCCI at small and large scale and deduction of trends for both scales
Step 3: Checking of these theoretical predictions on existing MCCI test results
Step 4: Extrapolation of trends to the reactor scale
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 1: identification of the « controlling » hydraulic pool properties (1/2)
Heat flux density to the concrete:
Insertion of the BALI correlation to express h:
Obtained temperature law:
)( intTTh bulkconv
22.0
136.03
Pr67.19
g
jNu GM
int364.0408.0636.022.1
408.0408.022.05.0592.0356.0
67.19T
g
hcT
c
Gdecppool
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 1: identification of the « controlling » hydraulic pool properties (2/2)
We are interested in the hydraulic properties which may vary due to concrete ablation and hence induce a temperature variation
int364.0408.0636.022.1
408.0408.022.05.0592.0356.0
67.19T
g
hcT
c
Gdecppool
int636.0592.0356.0)( TTaT cpoolpool
int592.0356.0 ),()( TxTTaT concpoolpoolpool
T
η
Timmobilization Timmobilization
refractory corium
less refractory corium
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 2: assessment of the evolution of the « controlling » thermo-hydraulic properties at small and large scale (1/3)
Same initial corium composition
Same initial heat flux density to concrete walls
Same initial temperature
t0
t1 = t0 + Δt
t2 = t0 + 2Δt
t3 = t0 + 3Δt
Small-scale 2D MCCI Large-scale 2D MCCI
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 2: assessment of the evolution of the « controlling »thermo-hydraulic properties at small and
large scale (2/3)
t0
t0 + Δt
t0 + 2Δt
t0 + 3Δt
T0T1T2T3
η1
η2
η3
η0
small-scale MCCI
large-scale MCCI
T0*T1*T2*T3*
η1*
η2*
η3*
η0*
timet0 t1 t2 t3
T0
T1T2T3
T1*T2*T3*
Temperature
large-scale MCCI
small-scale MCCI
int592.0356.0 ),()( TxTTaT concpoolpoolpool
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 2: assessment of the evolution of the « controlling »thermo-hydraulic properties at small and
large scale (3/3) Pool can be characterized by an (η, φ, T) triplet
Both MCCIs travel through the same (η, φ, T) states but at different paces
– Reason: Scale-independent relative increase in pool volume (which determines the concrete content and hence the η(T) curve) with surface area (which determines φ)
– Example: doubling of pool volume due to concrete ablation leads to the same relative increase in wetted concrete surface, regardless of scale (if pool aspect ratio kept constant)
Consequences:
– Identical temperature asymptote expected for both curves
– Possibility to make blue and red curves identical by shrinking the time-scale of the blue curve!
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 3: Verification of the predictions on various MCCI test resultsSmall 2D MCCI (1/3)
Small 2D MCCI tests: VBU-7 tests
– Semi-cylinder (radius = 15cm)
– Corium mass ~ a few dozen kg
Temperature drop from 2250°C to 1550°C in 75min ~ 9K/min
Long-term stabilization of temperature: in line with our predictions!
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Large 2D MCCI tests: CCI tests 2 & 3
– Square crucible (50cm*50cm)
– Corium mass ~ several hundred kg
We expect a smaller T drop rate due to higher concrete initial mass
Temperature derease rate during first 75min:
– CCI-2: (1900-1750)/75~2 K/min
– CCI-3: (2000-1750)/75~3.3 K/min
Comparison with VB-U7: in line with our predictions:
– CCI-2: 9 K/min >2 K/min
– CCI-3: 9 K/min > 3.3 K/min
Step 3: Verification of the predictions on various MCCI test resultsLarge 2D MCCI (2/3)
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 3: Verification of the predictions on various MCCI test results (3/3): Large 1D MCCI
Large 1D MCCI tests: MACE tests M-3b and M-4
– Square crucible (up to 120cm*120cm)
– Corium mass ~ up to 2 tons
We expect a smaller T drop rate due to higher concrete initial mass and 1D configuration (constant wetted surface area)
Temperature decrease rate before flooding:
– M-3b: (2200-2100)/75~1.3 K/min
– M4: no significant decrease before flooding (t=24 min)
In line with our predictions
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 4: Extrapolation to reactor scale (1/2)
Reactor-scale MCCI characterized by :
– Very large corium mass (up to >100 tons)
– Large 2D cylindrical pool geometry (R ~ several meters)
Consequences:
– Slow increase of the concrete content (η(T) curve changes slowly)
– Very slow increase of the wetted concrete surface area (φ drops very slowly due to surface effects)
Conclusion:
– Very slow and gradual drop of the temperature expected
MACE results are initially representative
In the long term, temperature plateau as in VBU tests
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Step 4: Extrapolation to reactor scale (2/2)The case of the EPR™
MCCI characterized by:
– Very large corium mass (>150 tons of core oxides)
– Limited amount of sacrificial concrete (50cm): 1.5-3 hrs of MCCI depending on decay power
Expected temperature trend on the basis of previous discussion:
– Slow gradual temperature decline
– MACE results relevant
– Temperature readings of small 2D tests are not appropriate here!
Spreading Compartment
Core Catcher Melt PlugMelt Discharge Channel Protective Layer
IRWST
Sacrificial Material
Protective Layer
Sacrificial Material
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Thank you for your attention!
Questions?