Upload
others
View
15
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Nuclear SafetyNEA/CSNI/R(2014)3May 2014www.oecd-nea.org
containment Code Validation Matrix
Unclassified NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 23-May-2014 ___________________________________________________________________________________________
English text only NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS
Containment Code Validation Matrix
This document only exists in PDF format.
JT03357882
Complete document available on OLIS in its original format This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
NEA
/CSN
I/R(2014)3
Unclassified
English text only
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
2
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, social and
environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The
Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good
practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and
environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.
This work is published on the responsibility of the OECD Secretary-General. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membership consists of 31 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:
– to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes, as well as
– to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development.
Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management,
radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public
information.
The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as
well as with other international organisations in the nuclear field.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of
international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2014
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of
the OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to
[email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the
Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) [email protected].
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
3
THE COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS
“The Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI) shall be responsible for the
activities of the Agency that support maintaining and advancing the scientific and technical knowledge
base of the safety of nuclear installations, with the aim of implementing the NEA Strategic Plan for 2011-
2016 and the Joint CSNI/CNRA Strategic Plan and Mandates for 2011-2016 in its field of competence.
The Committee shall constitute a forum for the exchange of technical information and for
collaboration between organisations, which can contribute, from their respective backgrounds in research,
development and engineering, to its activities. It shall have regard to the exchange of information between
member countries and safety R&D programmes of various sizes in order to keep all member countries
involved in and abreast of developments in technical safety matters.
The Committee shall review the state of knowledge on important topics of nuclear safety science
and techniques and of safety assessments, and ensure that operating experience is appropriately accounted
for in its activities. It shall initiate and conduct programmes identified by these reviews and assessments in
order to overcome discrepancies, develop improvements and reach consensus on technical issues of
common interest. It shall promote the co-ordination of work in different member countries that serve to
maintain and enhance competence in nuclear safety matters, including the establishment of joint
undertakings, and shall assist in the feedback of the results to participating organisations. The Committee
shall ensure that valuable end-products of the technical reviews and analyses are produced and available to
members in a timely manner.
The Committee shall focus primarily on the safety aspects of existing power reactors, other
nuclear installations and the construction of new power reactors; it shall also consider the safety
implications of scientific and technical developments of future reactor designs.
The Committee shall organise its own activities. Furthermore, it shall examine any other matters
referred to it by the Steering Committee. It may sponsor specialist meetings and technical working groups
to further its objectives. In implementing its programme the Committee shall establish co-operative
mechanisms with the Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities in order to work with that Committee
on matters of common interest, avoiding unnecessary duplications.
The Committee shall also co-operate with the Committee on Radiation Protection and Public
Health, the Radioactive Waste Management Committee, the Committee for Technical and Economic
Studies on Nuclear Energy Development and the Fuel Cycle and the Nuclear Science Committee on
matters of common interest.”
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
4
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................ 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 15
LIST OF THE CCVM WRITING GROUP MEMBERS (2010 – 2013) ...................................................... 16
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ 21
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 25
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 25 1.2 Objectives and Scope ...................................................................................................................... 25 1.3 Structure of the Report .................................................................................................................... 25 1.4 References ....................................................................................................................................... 26
2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTAINMENT AND ACCIDENT PROGRESSION ........................ 27
2.1 Plant Types ...................................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.1 Light Water Reactors ................................................................................................................. 27 2.1.2 Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (CANDU) .......................................................................... 34
2.2 Accident Progression ...................................................................................................................... 37 2.2.1 LWR Accident Progression ....................................................................................................... 37 2.2.2 CANDU Accident Progression .................................................................................................. 39
2.3 References ....................................................................................................................................... 41
3 PHENOMENA ....................................................................................................................................... 42
3.1 Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena ................................................................................. 67 3.1.1 P1-1 - Stratification ................................................................................................................... 67 3.1.2 P1-2 - Flashing (Flashing Discharge) ........................................................................................ 69 3.1.3 P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer ..................................................................................... 70 3.1.4 P1-4 - Critical Heat Flux (CHF) ................................................................................................ 71 3.1.5 P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids .............................................................................................. 72 3.1.6 P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and Forced) ............................................................ 73 3.1.7 P1-7 - Thermal Diffusion in Fluids (No Experiments) .............................................................. 74 3.1.8 P1-8 - Radiation Heat Transfer (No Experiments) .................................................................... 75 3.1.9 P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces ............................................................................................... 77 3.1.10 P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation ............................................................ 78 3.1.11 P1-11 - Heat Removal by Dousing ........................................................................................ 79 3.1.12 P1-12 - Liquid Re-Entrainment (Resuspension) .................................................................... 80 3.1.13 P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation .................................................................................... 81 3.1.14 P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases ...................................................................... 82 3.1.15 P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases ......................................................................... 84 3.1.16 P1-16 - Pressure Wave Propagation in Water ....................................................................... 85 3.1.17 P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools .............................................................................................. 86 3.1.18 P1-18 - Mass Diffusion in Vapour ........................................................................................ 88 3.1.19 P1-19 - Laminar Flow (No Experiments) .............................................................................. 89 3.1.20 P1-20 - Turbulent Flow ......................................................................................................... 90
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
6
3.1.21 P1-21 - Critical Flow (Choked Flow) .................................................................................... 91 3.1.22 P1-22 - Laminar/Turbulent Leakage Flow ............................................................................ 93 3.1.23 P1-23 - Vent Clearing ............................................................................................................ 94 3.1.24 P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection ......................................................................................... 96 3.1.25 P1-25 - Interfacial Drag (No Experiments) ........................................................................... 98 3.1.26 P1-26 - Liquid Film Flow .................................................................................................... 100 3.1.27 P1-27 - Gas Dissolved in Water (No Experiments) ............................................................. 101 3.1.28 P1-28 - Gas Entrainment by Spray Droplets (Dousing) ...................................................... 102 3.1.29 P1-29 - Heat and Mass Transfer of Spray Droplets (Dousing) ............................................ 103 3.1.30 P1-30 - Droplet Interaction (Dousing) ................................................................................. 104 3.1.31 P1-31 - Mixing by Sprays .................................................................................................... 105 3.1.32 P1-32 - Turbulence Induced by Sprays ............................................................................... 106
3.2 Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Phenomena .............................. 107 3.2.1 P2-1 - Deflagration .................................................................................................................. 107 3.2.2 P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA) ............................................................................. 109 3.2.3 P2-3 - Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition (DDT) ............................................................. 110 3.2.4 P2-4 - Hydrogen Detonation.................................................................................................... 111 3.2.5 P2-5 - Quenching of Detonations by Geometrical Constrains ................................................ 112 3.2.6 P2-6 - Quenching ..................................................................................................................... 113 3.2.7 P2-7 - Hydrogen Diffusion Flame (Standing Flame) .............................................................. 114 3.2.8 P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation - Passive Autocatalytic Recombiners ......................................... 115 3.2.9 P2-9 - Hydrogen Ignition by PARs (Weak Ignition) ............................................................... 116 3.2.10 P2-10 - Hydrogen Mitigation by Hydrogen Ignitors (Mild Ignition) .................................. 117 3.2.11 P2-11 - Strong Ignition of Hydrogen ................................................................................... 118 3.2.12 P2-12 - Jet Ignition of Hydrogen ......................................................................................... 119 3.2.13 P2-13 - Radiolysis (Hydrogen Production by Water Radiolysis) ........................................ 120 3.2.14 P2-14 - Effect of Droplets on Hydrogen Combustion ......................................................... 121
3.3 Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena .................................................................... 122 3.3.1 P3-1 - Aerosol Formation in a Flashing Jet ............................................................................. 122 3.3.2 P3-2 - Aerosol Formation in a Steam Jet ................................................................................. 123 3.3.3 P3-3 - Aerosol Impaction (Jet Impingement) .......................................................................... 124 3.3.4 P3-4 - Thermophoresis ............................................................................................................ 125 3.3.5 P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis ............................................................................................................ 126 3.3.6 P3-6 - Liquid Aerosol Evaporation ......................................................................................... 127 3.3.7 P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols ............................................................................................ 128 3.3.8 P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration ........................................................................................ 129 3.3.9 P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration ........................................................................................... 130 3.3.10 P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols .................................................................... 131 3.3.11 P3-11 - Drop Breakup.......................................................................................................... 132 3.3.12 P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)..................................................................... 133 3.3.13 P3-13 - Diffusional Deposition ............................................................................................ 134 3.3.14 P3-14 - Inertial Deposition of Aerosols (Also called Impaction) ........................................ 135 3.3.15 P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols........................................................................... 136 3.3.16 P3-16 - Re-volatilisation ...................................................................................................... 137 3.3.17 P3-17 - Aerosol Removal in Leakage Paths ........................................................................ 138 3.3.18 P3-18 - Pool Scrubbing of Aerosols .................................................................................... 139 3.3.19 P3-19 - Radionuclide Transport .......................................................................................... 140 3.3.20 P3-20 - Radionuclide Decay Heat (No Experiments) .......................................................... 141 3.3.21 P3-21 - Release Rate Change Due to Oxidizing Environment ............................................ 142 3.3.22 P3-22 - Containment Chemistry Impact on Source Term ................................................... 143 3.3.23 P3-23 - Ruthenium Volatility and Behaviour in Containment ............................................ 144
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
7
3.3.24 P3-24 - Aerosol Removal by Sprays (Dousing) .................................................................. 145 3.3.25 P3-25 - Re-suspension (Dry) ............................................................................................... 146 3.3.26 P3-26 - Re-entrainment (Wet) ............................................................................................. 147 3.3.27 P3-27 - Aerosol De-agglomeration ...................................................................................... 148
3.4 Iodine Chemistry Phenomena ....................................................................................................... 149 3.4.1 P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of Iodine Species ........................................ 149 3.4.2 P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis ......................................................................................... 150 3.4.3 P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase ................................................................. 151 3.4.4 P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water Phase........................................................ 152 3.4.5 P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water Phase...................................................... 153 3.4.6 P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase ............................................................ 154 3.4.7 P4-7 - Silver Iodine Reactions in the Water Phase .................................................................. 155 3.4.8 P4-8 - Gas Phase Radiolytic Oxidation of Molecular Iodine (I2) (Iodine/Ozone Reaction) ... 156 3.4.9 P4-9 - Homogeneous Organic Iodine Reactions in Gas Phase ................................................ 157 3.4.10 P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction ........................................................... 158 3.4.11 P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer ........................................................................................ 159 3.4.12 P4-12 - Decomposition of Iodides (CsI) by Heat-up in PARs ............................................ 160 3.4.13 P4-13 - Iodine Filtration ...................................................................................................... 161 3.4.14 P4-14 - Volatile Iodine Trapping by Airborne Droplets ..................................................... 162 3.4.15 P4-15 - Iodine Retention in Leakage Paths ......................................................................... 163 3.4.16 P4-16 - I2 Interaction with Aerosols .................................................................................... 164 3.4.17 P4-17 - Iodine Wash-down .................................................................................................. 165 3.4.18 P4-18 - Pool Scrubbing of Iodine ........................................................................................ 166 3.4.19 P4-19 - Iodine Release from Flashing Pool or Flashing Jet ................................................ 167
3.5 Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena ............................................ 168 3.5.1 P5-1 - Corium Release from Failed Dry Reactor Pressure Vessel .......................................... 168 3.5.2 P5-2 - Corium Entrainment Out of the Reactor Primary Vessel with Lateral Breaches ......... 170 3.5.3 P5-3 - Corium Particles Generation from the Corium Pool..................................................... 171 3.5.4 P5-4 - Corium Particles Generation from the Two Phase Jet .................................................. 172 3.5.5 P5-5 - Corium Particles Entrainment ....................................................................................... 173 3.5.6 P5-6 - Corium Particles Trapping ............................................................................................ 174 3.5.7 P5-7 - Direct Containment Heating ......................................................................................... 175 3.5.8 P5-8 - Corium Jet Break-up in Water Pool .............................................................................. 176 3.5.9 P5-9 - FCI and Steam Explosion - Melt into Water Ex-Vessel (Melt Quenching) ................. 177 3.5.10 P5-10 - Pressure Load on Corium Retention Devices ......................................................... 178 3.5.11 P5-11 - Particulate Debris Bed Formation .......................................................................... 179 3.5.12 P5-12 - Corium Debris (Solid) Heat Transfer ..................................................................... 180 3.5.13 P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction .......................................................................... 181 3.5.14 P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification ...................................................................................... 182 3.5.15 P5-15 - Corium Spreading ................................................................................................... 183 3.5.16 P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer ................................................................................ 184 3.5.17 P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization .......................................................................... 185 3.5.18 P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation .................................................................. 186 3.5.19 P5-19 - Cracking (Crust) ..................................................................................................... 187 3.5.20 P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability, Top Flooding ........................................................ 188 3.5.21 P5-21 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Coolability and Water Bottom Injection .................. 189 3.5.22 P5-22 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Corium-Ceramics Interaction and Properties ........... 190 3.5.23 P5-23 - Effect of Non Homogeneous Ablation on Gate Ablation ....................................... 191 3.5.24 P5-24 - Crust Anchorage ..................................................................................................... 192 3.5.25 P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core Catchers ........................................... 193 3.5.26 P5-26 - Core Catchers with External Cooling ..................................................................... 194
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
8
3.5.27 P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium ............................................................................................... 195 3.5.28 P5-28 - Corium Attack of Metallic Liner ............................................................................ 196 3.5.29 P5-29 - Corium Release from Failed Flooded Reactor Pressure Vessel ............................. 197
3.6 Systems Phenomena ...................................................................................................................... 198 3.6.1 P6-1 - Ventilation Systems ...................................................................................................... 198 3.6.2 P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst Membranes, Rupture Discs etc. ......................................... 199 3.6.3 P6-3 - Air Cooler (Fan Cooler) Heat Transfer......................................................................... 200 3.6.4 P6-4 - Pump Performance including Sump Clogging (No Experiments) ................................ 201 3.6.5 P6-5 - Passive Cooling by Internal and External Condensers ................................................. 202 3.6.6 P6-6 - Aerosol Removal in EFADS ........................................................................................ 204
4 EXPERIMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 205
4.1 Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments .............................................................................. 256 4.1.1 E1-1 - Flow through Interconnected Vessels........................................................................... 256 4.1.2 E1-2 - Bruce LAC Test in Air, Test No. 50............................................................................. 259 4.1.3 E1-3 - LSGMF GMBT001 ...................................................................................................... 260 4.1.4 E1-4 - LSGMF GMUS001 ...................................................................................................... 262 4.1.5 E1-5 - AECL-SP Dousing Test No. 1 ...................................................................................... 263 4.1.6 E1-6 - FIPLOC F2 ................................................................................................................... 265 4.1.7 E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37) .................................................................................................. 267 4.1.8 E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1 ............................................................................................... 268 4.1.9 E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5 ............................................................................................... 271 4.1.10 E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7 .............................................................................................. 273 4.1.11 E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9 ............................................................................................... 275 4.1.12 E1-12 - EREC SLB G02 ...................................................................................................... 277 4.1.13 E1-13 - HDR V44 (ISP-16) ................................................................................................. 279 4.1.14 E1-14 - HDR T31.5 (ISP-23) .............................................................................................. 280 4.1.15 E1-15 - HDR E11.2 (ISP-29) .............................................................................................. 281 4.1.16 E1-16 - HDR E11.4 ............................................................................................................. 283 4.1.17 E1-17 - GKSS M1 ............................................................................................................... 284 4.1.18 E1-18 - MISTRA ISP-47 ..................................................................................................... 287 4.1.19 E1-19 - MISTRA M7 .......................................................................................................... 290 4.1.20 E1-20 - MISTRA-M8 .......................................................................................................... 293 4.1.21 E1-21 - MISTRA-MASP ..................................................................................................... 295 4.1.22 E1-22 - NUPEC M-7-1 (ISP-35) ......................................................................................... 297 4.1.23 E1-23 - NUPEC M-8-2 ........................................................................................................ 298 4.1.24 E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A ....................................................................................... 300 4.1.25 E1-25 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase C ....................................................................................... 302 4.1.26 E1-26 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase E ....................................................................................... 303 4.1.27 E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F ........................................................................................ 304 4.1.28 E1-28 - PANDA BC4 .......................................................................................................... 305 4.1.29 E1-29 - SVUSS G02 ............................................................................................................ 307 4.1.30 E1-30 - THAI TH1 .............................................................................................................. 309 4.1.31 E1-31 - THAI TH2 .............................................................................................................. 311 4.1.32 E1-32 - THAI TH7 .............................................................................................................. 312 4.1.33 E1-33 - THAI TH10 ............................................................................................................ 313 4.1.34 E1-34 - THAI TH13 (ISP-47) ............................................................................................. 314 4.1.35 E1-35 - THAI HM2 ............................................................................................................. 315 4.1.36 E1-36 - TOSQAN ISP-47 .................................................................................................... 316 4.1.37 E1-37 - TOSQAN Condensation Tests ............................................................................... 318 4.1.38 E1-38 - TOSQAN Test 113 ................................................................................................. 320
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
9
4.1.39 E1-39 - TOSQAN Spray Tests ............................................................................................ 322 4.1.40 E1-40 - University of Wisconsin Flat Plate Condensation Tests......................................... 324 4.1.41 E1-41 - CONAN SARNET Benchmark No. 1 .................................................................... 325 4.1.42 E1-42 - CONAN SARNET2 Benchmark No. 2 .................................................................. 327 4.1.43 E1-43 - CSTF Tests ............................................................................................................. 328 4.1.44 E1-44 - Marviken Test 18 .................................................................................................... 329 4.1.45 E1-45 - CARAIDAS EVAP and COND tests ..................................................................... 331 4.1.46 E1-46 - TOSQAN sump tests .............................................................................................. 333 4.1.47 E1-47 - CALIST PWR spray test ........................................................................................ 335 4.1.48 E1-48 - MISTRA LOWMA ................................................................................................ 337 4.1.49 E1-49 - PANDA OECD/SETH tests ................................................................................... 339 4.1.50 E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2 ........................................................................................ 342 4.1.51 E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests ............................................................................................... 345 4.1.52 E1-52 - ULPU CHF Tests ................................................................................................... 347 4.1.53 E1-53 - SULTAN CHF Tests .............................................................................................. 349 4.1.54 E1-54 - SBLB Boiling Tests ................................................................................................ 351 4.1.55 E1-55 – Small Scale Burst Test Experiments ...................................................................... 353
4.2 Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments ............................ 355 4.2.1 E2-1 - LSVCTF S01 ................................................................................................................ 355 4.2.2 E2-2 - LSVCTF S03 ................................................................................................................ 357 4.2.3 E2-3 - BMC Hx series ............................................................................................................. 358 4.2.4 E2-4 - BMC Ix series ............................................................................................................... 363 4.2.5 E2-5 - BMC Gx Series............................................................................................................. 366 4.2.6 E2-6 - BMC Kx Series............................................................................................................. 369 4.2.7 E2-7 - BMC Ex Series ............................................................................................................. 374 4.2.8 E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2 Tests ........................................................................................ 376 4.2.9 E2-9 - ENACEFF SARNET Test (Run 703) ........................................................................... 378 4.2.10 E2-10 - ENACEFF SARNET Test (Run 717) ..................................................................... 379 4.2.11 E2-11 - ENACEFF Run 765 (ISP-49) ................................................................................. 380 4.2.12 E2-12 - ENACEFF Run 736 (ISP-49) ................................................................................. 381 4.2.13 E2-13 - ENACEFF Run 733 (ISP-49) ................................................................................. 382 4.2.14 E2-14 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 003 ................................................................................... 383 4.2.15 E2-15 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 012 ................................................................................... 384 4.2.16 E2-16 - FZK R 0498_09 ...................................................................................................... 385 4.2.17 E2-17 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 043 ................................................................................... 386 4.2.18 E2-18 - DRIVER HYCOM HC 020 .................................................................................... 387 4.2.19 E2-19 - DRIVER HYCOM-HC027 .................................................................................... 388 4.2.20 E2-20 - RUT HYC01 ........................................................................................................... 389 4.2.21 E2-21 - RUT HYC12 ........................................................................................................... 390 4.2.22 E2-22 - RUT HYC14 ........................................................................................................... 391 4.2.23 E2-23 - VGES Tests ............................................................................................................ 392 4.2.24 E2-24 - NTS Tests ............................................................................................................... 394 4.2.25 E2-25 - PET Tubes .............................................................................................................. 395 4.2.26 E2-26 - THAI HD Series (Combustion Tests) .................................................................... 399 4.2.27 E2-27 - THAI HR Series (PAR Tests) ................................................................................ 402 4.2.28 E2-28 - THAI Hydrogen Combustion During Spray Operation.......................................... 405 4.2.29 E2-29 - DFF SFSER01 ........................................................................................................ 408 4.2.30 E2-30 - LSVCTF S02 .......................................................................................................... 410 4.2.31 E2-31 - LSVCTF DC ........................................................................................................... 411 4.2.32 E2-32 - LSVCTF 3C ........................................................................................................... 412 4.2.33 E2-33 - LSVCTF CIC.......................................................................................................... 413
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
10
4.2.34 E2-34 - Gammacell Radiolysis Tests .................................................................................. 414 4.2.35 E2-35 - LACOMECO UFPE2 ............................................................................................. 416 4.2.36 E2-36 - LACOMECO HYGRADE10 ................................................................................. 418 4.2.37 E2-37 - LACOMECO HYGRADE09 ................................................................................. 420 4.2.38 E2-38 - LACOMECO HYGRADE03 ................................................................................. 421 4.2.39 E2-39 - LACOMECO HYDET06 ....................................................................................... 422 4.2.40 E2-40 - LACOMECO HYDET07 ....................................................................................... 424 4.2.41 E2-41 - H2PAR E 12 ........................................................................................................... 425 4.2.42 E2-42 - H2PAR E 13 ........................................................................................................... 426 4.2.43 E2-43 - H2PAR E 3 ............................................................................................................. 427 4.2.44 E2-44 – KIT DDT Tests in CHANNEL Facility ................................................................. 428 4.2.45 E2-45 – KIT Jet Ignition Tests in HPHR Facility ............................................................... 430 4.2.46 E2-46 – KIT Geometric Quenching of Detonation Tests in the HYKA-A1 Facility .......... 432 4.2.47 E2-47 – Cheikhravat Experiments on Effect of Spray on Hydrogen Combustion .............. 434 4.2.48 E2-48 – Bjerketvedt Experiments on Effect of Spray on Hydrogen Combustion ............... 436
4.3 Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments................................................................... 437 4.3.1 E3-1 - AHMED OECD benchmark ......................................................................................... 437 4.3.2 E3-2 - KAEVER CsI series ..................................................................................................... 439 4.3.3 E3-3 - KAEVER K187 (ISP-44) ............................................................................................. 440 4.3.4 E3-4 - KAEVER K148 (ISP-44) ............................................................................................. 441 4.3.5 E3-5 - KAEVER K188 (ISP-44) ............................................................................................. 442 4.3.6 E3-6 - LACE LA2 ................................................................................................................... 443 4.3.7 E3-7 - LACE LA4 ................................................................................................................... 445 4.3.8 E3-8 – LACE LA5 and LA6.................................................................................................... 446 4.3.9 E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46) ................................................................................................. 448 4.3.10 E3-10 - POSEIDON PA10 .................................................................................................. 450 4.3.11 E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2................................................................................................. 451 4.3.12 E3-12 - VICTORIA test 58 ................................................................................................. 452 4.3.13 E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests ............................................................................................ 454 4.3.14 E3-14 - CSTF ACE ............................................................................................................. 456 4.3.15 E3-15 - CARAIDAS Aerosol washout by single droplet tests ............................................ 457 4.3.16 E3-16 - Whiteshell Flashing Jet Tests ................................................................................. 459 4.3.17 E3-17 - Clarkson College Brownian Agglomeration .......................................................... 461 4.3.18 E3-18 - JAERI Thermophoresis Tests ................................................................................. 462 4.3.19 E3-19 - PITEAS Diffusiophoresis Tests (PDI 08, PDI 09, PDI 11 and PDI 12)................. 463 4.3.20 E3-20 - PITEAS Aerosol Condensation Tests (PCON 01 to PCON 05) ............................. 464 4.3.21 E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Sehmel) ............................... 465 4.3.22 E3-22 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Forney) ................................ 466 4.3.23 E3-23 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Friedlander) ......................... 467 4.3.24 E3-24 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Liu) ...................................... 468 4.3.25 E3-25 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Wells) .................................. 469 4.3.26 E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport Tests ..................................................................... 470 4.3.27 E3-27 - CSE Aerosol Removal Tests .................................................................................. 472 4.3.28 E3-28 - LASS-SGTR ........................................................................................................... 474 4.3.29 E3-29 - MCE, UCE and HCE Tests .................................................................................... 476 4.3.30 E3-30 - GBI Tests ................................................................................................................ 479 4.3.31 E3-31 - Aerosol Trapping Effects in Containment Penetration (A. Watanabe) ................. 481 4.3.32 E3-32 - Aerosol transfer through cracked concrete walls.................................................... 483 4.3.33 E3-33 - Whiteshell Steam Jet Experiments ......................................................................... 485 4.3.34 E3-34 - WALE .................................................................................................................... 487 4.3.35 E3-35 – AEREST (Aerosol resuspension shock tube) ........................................................ 490
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
11
4.3.36 E3-36 – VANAM-M4 ......................................................................................................... 492 4.3.37 E3-37 – THAI Aer-1, Aer-3 and Aer-4 tests ....................................................................... 493 4.3.38 E3-38 – Phebus FPT4 Revaporization ................................................................................. 494 4.3.39 E3-39 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation Studies at VTT .......................................................... 495 4.3.40 E3-40 – Ruthenium Transport and Revolatilisation Studies at KFKI ................................. 496 4.3.41 E3-41 – Ruthenium deposition studies at Chalmers University .......................................... 497 4.3.42 E3-42 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation Studies at IRSN ......................................................... 498
4.4 Iodine Chemistry Experiments ...................................................................................................... 499 4.4.1 E4-1 - CFTF Charcoal Filter Test ............................................................................................ 499 4.4.2 E4-2 - RTF P9T3 ..................................................................................................................... 501 4.4.3 E4-3 - RTF P9T1 ..................................................................................................................... 502 4.4.4 E4-4 - RTF P9T2 ..................................................................................................................... 503 4.4.5 E4-5 - RTF P10T2 ................................................................................................................... 504 4.4.6 E4-6 - RTF P10T3 ................................................................................................................... 505 4.4.7 E4-7 - RTF P11T1 ................................................................................................................... 506 4.4.8 E4-8 - RTF P0T2 ..................................................................................................................... 507 4.4.9 E4-9 - RTF P10T1 ................................................................................................................... 508 4.4.10 E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1 .............................................................................................. 509 4.4.11 E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2 and S3 ........................................................................ 510 4.4.12 E4-12 - THAI Iod-09 ........................................................................................................... 511 4.4.13 E4-13 - THAI Iod-11 ........................................................................................................... 512 4.4.14 E4-14 - THAI Iod-12 ........................................................................................................... 513 4.4.15 E4-15 - THAI Iod-13 ........................................................................................................... 515 4.4.16 E4-16 - THAI Iod-14 ........................................................................................................... 516 4.4.17 E4-17 - THAI Iod-25 ........................................................................................................... 517 4.4.18 E4-18 - THAI Iod-26 ........................................................................................................... 518 4.4.19 E4-19 - THAI AW ............................................................................................................... 519 4.4.20 E4-20 - THAI HR31 ............................................................................................................ 521 4.4.21 E4-21 - THAI HR32 ............................................................................................................ 522 4.4.22 E4-22 - LASS-GIRS DABASCO ........................................................................................ 523 4.4.23 E4-23 - OECD-THAI2 Gaseous Iodine Release from Flashing Jet Test ............................ 524 4.4.24 E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test ............................................................................................... 526 4.4.25 E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test .......................................................................................... 528 4.4.26 E4-26 – Iodine Clean-Up in a Steam Suppression System .................................................. 529
4.5 Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments ........................................... 531 4.5.1 E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry ............................................................................... 531 4.5.2 E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry.............................................................................. 534 4.5.3 E5-3 - FARO Tests .................................................................................................................. 541 4.5.4 E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests ............................................................................................................. 544 4.5.5 E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests ............................................................................................................ 546 4.5.6 E5-6 - DISCO-A2 .................................................................................................................... 548 4.5.7 E5-7 - KROTOS JRC Tests ..................................................................................................... 550 4.5.8 E5-8 - SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI Commissioning Tests.............................................. 557 4.5.9 E5-9: SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI Tests ......................................................................... 562 4.5.10 E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3; SSWICS tests 1-7 ................................................... 564 4.5.11 E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6; SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1 .................................. 566 4.5.12 E5-12 - ECO Tests ............................................................................................................... 569 4.5.13 E5-13 - BALI Ex-Vessel Tests ............................................................................................ 570 4.5.14 E5-14 - BALISE Tests ......................................................................................................... 571 4.5.15 E5-15 - VULCANO VB-U7 (EPR concrete) ...................................................................... 572 4.5.16 E5-16 - VULCANO VW-U1 (COMET bottom flooding) .................................................. 573
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
12
4.5.17 E5-17 - VULCANO VE-U7 ................................................................................................ 575 4.5.18 E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2 ............................................................................................ 576 4.5.19 E5-19 - SURC-3 .................................................................................................................. 579 4.5.20 E5-20 - SURC-3A ............................................................................................................... 580 4.5.21 E5-21 - SURC-4 .................................................................................................................. 581 4.5.22 E5-22 - BETA V5.1 ............................................................................................................. 583 4.5.23 E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4, L5, L6, and L7 .................................................... 584 4.5.24 E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4, and MSET-1 ................................................... 585 4.5.25 E5-25 - COLIMA CA-U4.................................................................................................... 588 4.5.26 E5-26 - BURN-1 .................................................................................................................. 589 4.5.27 E5-27 – SWISS-1 and SWISS-2 ......................................................................................... 590 4.5.28 E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3 .................................................................................................. 591 4.5.29 E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS ........................................................................................ 593 4.5.30 E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3 .............................................................................................. 594 4.5.31 E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3 ................................................................................................................ 595 4.5.32 E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3 ............................................................................................................... 596 4.5.33 E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3 ....................................................................................................... 597 4.5.34 E5-34 - COIL-1 ................................................................................................................... 598 4.5.35 E5-35 - WETCOR-1 ............................................................................................................ 599 4.5.36 E5-36 - FRAG ..................................................................................................................... 600 4.5.37 E5-37 - 1DHtFlx .................................................................................................................. 602 4.5.38 E5-38 – MC Tests ................................................................................................................ 603 4.5.39 E5-39 – Plate Tests .............................................................................................................. 604
4.6 Systems Experiments .................................................................................................................... 605 4.6.1 E6-1 - CSE EFADS Tests ........................................................................................................ 605 4.6.2 E6-2 - ACE-CSTF EFADS Tests ............................................................................................ 607 4.6.3 E6-3 - ACE-LSFF EFADS Tests............................................................................................. 609
5 PHENOMENA VS. EXPERIMENTS CROSS MATRIX ................................................................... 611
6 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 614
Tables
Table 3-1 Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena ............................................................................ 43 Table 3-2 Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Phenomena .......................... 49 Table 3-3 Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena ................................................................. 52 Table 3-4 Iodine Chemistry Phenomena .................................................................................................... 57 Table 3-5 Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena ......................................... 60 Table 3-6 Systems Phenomena .................................................................................................................. 66 Table 4-1 List of Information Provided for Each Experiment ................................................................. 205 Table 4-2 Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments ........................................................................ 207 Table 4-3 Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments ....................... 221 Table 4-4 Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments ............................................................. 227 Table 4-5 Iodine Chemistry Experiments ................................................................................................ 235 Table 4-6 Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments ..................................... 243 Table 4-7 Systems Experiments ............................................................................................................... 255 Table 4.1.1-1 Test Matrix for AECL Interconnected Vessels Tests ........................................................ 257 Table 4.1.51-1 CYBL Boiling Test Matrix .............................................................................................. 346 Table 4.2.3-1 H2-Deflagration Tests Performed (“Hx Tests”) ................................................................ 361 Table 4.2.4-1 H2 Igniter Tests Performed (Utilities’ Program, “Ix Tests”)............................................. 364
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
13
Table 4.2.5-1 H2-Mitigation Tests Performed (“Gx Tests” and VGB Test Ix11) ................................... 367 Table 4.2.6-1 Test Matrix for BMC Kx Series Tests ............................................................................... 370 Table 4.2.6-2 Initial Conditions for BMC Kx Series Tests ..................................................................... 371 Table 4.2.6-3 Initial Conditions for BMC Kx Series Tests (continued) .................................................. 372 Table 4.2.7-1 Test Matrix for BMC Ex Series Tests ............................................................................... 375 Table 4.5.1-1 IET Experiments in Zion Geometry .................................................................................. 531 Table 4.5.2-1 IET Experiments in Surry Geometry ................................................................................. 534 Table 4.5.9-1 Test Matrix for SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI Experiments ........................................ 562 Table 5-1 List of Phenomenon without Identified Experiments for CFD Validation .............................. 611
Figures
Figure 2.1.1-1 German Four Loop PWR Type Konvoi NPP .................................................................... 29 Figure 2.1.1-2 Typically VVER1000/V320 NPP [2.3] ............................................................................. 30 Figure 2.1.1-3 German BWR Type 72 NPP ............................................................................................. 32 Figure 2.1.2-1 CANDU 6 Containment .................................................................................................... 34 Figure 2.1.2-2 CANDU 6 Reactor Assembly ........................................................................................... 36 Figure 2.1.2-3 CANDU 6 Fuel Channel ................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4.1.1-1 Layout of AECL Interconnected Vessels ........................................................................ 256 Figure 4.1.1-2 Elbows used in AECL Interconnected Vessels ............................................................... 257 Figure 4.1.3-1 AECL Large Scale Gas Mixing Facility ......................................................................... 260 Figure 4.1.8-1 EREC BC-V-213 Facility................................................................................................ 269 Figure 4.1.17-1 Schema of the GKSS Test Facility ................................................................................ 284 Figure 4.1.18-1 MISTRA Facility for ISP-47 Test ................................................................................. 287 Figure 4.1.19-1 MISTRA Facility for M7 Test ...................................................................................... 290 Figure 4.1.20-1 MISTRA Facility for M8 Test ...................................................................................... 293 Figure 4.1.23-1 NUPEC Facility ............................................................................................................ 298 Figure 4.1.24-1 Comparison Between ESBWR and PANDA Facility ................................................... 301 Figure 4.1.28-1 Layout of the PANDA Facility ..................................................................................... 306 Figure 4.1.29-1 SVUSS Vertical vessel (~11 m³) with Bubble Condenser ............................................ 308 Figure 4.1.30-1 THAI Facility - General Layout with Removable Internals. ......................................... 310 Figure 4.1.41-1 Layout of CONAN SARNET Benchmark No. 1 .......................................................... 325 Figure 4.1.48-1 MISTRA Facility for LOWMA Test ............................................................................ 337 Figure 4.1.49-1 PANDA Facility for OECD/SETH Tests ...................................................................... 339 Figure 4.1.50-1 PANDA Facility for OECD/SETH-2 Tests................................................................... 342 Figure 4.1.55-1 Schematic of the Small Scale Burst Test Facility ......................................................... 353 Figure 4.2.3-1 Hx-, Ix- and Gx-Test Geometries A to E ........................................................................ 359 Figure 4.2.3-2 Hx-, Ix- and Gx-Test Geometries G to K ........................................................................ 360 Figure 4.2.25-1 Schematic Illustration of the 3 Cases to be Investigated in the PET-tube ..................... 396 Figure 4.2.25-2 Schematic of PET Facility in Configuration 1 .............................................................. 396 Figure 4.2.25-3 Schematic of PET Facility in Configuration 2 .............................................................. 397 Figure 4.2.26-1 THAI HD-tests Instrumentation .................................................................................... 400 Figure 4.2.27-1 THAI HR-tests: General Experimental Set-up .............................................................. 403 Figure 4.2.28-1 THAI Hydrogen Combustion During Spray Operation ................................................ 406 Figure 4.2.35-1 HYKA-A2 Facility ........................................................................................................ 416 Figure 4.2.36-1 HYKA-A3 Facility ........................................................................................................ 419 Figure 4.2.39-1 Test Section for LACOMECO HYDET06 Test ............................................................ 422 Figure 4.2.44-1 Schematic of CHANNEL Test Facility ......................................................................... 428 Figure 4.2.45-1 HPHR Test Section ....................................................................................................... 430 Figure 4.2.46-1 Schematic of HYKA-A1 Facility .................................................................................. 432
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
14
Figure 4.3.34-1 Schematic of the WALE Test Facility .......................................................................... 487 Figure 4.4.23-1 THAI Facility for Gaseous Iodine Release from Flashing Jet Test ............................... 524 Figure 4.4.24-1 Layout of the CAIMAN Test Facility ........................................................................... 526 Figure 4.5.1-1 Surtsey Vessel ................................................................................................................. 532 Figure 4.5.2-1 Models of Surry Structures in the Containment Technology Test Facility ..................... 535 Figure 4.5.2-2 Side-View of the Experiment Setup used in the IET/CTTF Tests (IET-9, 10 and 11) ... 536 Figure 4.5.2-3 Model of the Surry Bottom Head Used in the IED Experiments .................................... 537 Figure 4.5.2-4 Models of Surry Structures in the Surtsey Test Facility ................................................. 538 Figure 4.5.2-5 Side-View of the Experiment Setup used in the IET/Surtsey Test (IET-12) .................. 539 Figure 4.5.7-1 Schematic of the KROTOS JRC Facility ........................................................................ 551 Figure 4.5.8-1 Schematic of the KROTOS CEA Facility ....................................................................... 558 Figure 4.5.8-2 X-Ray Radioscopy for the KROTOS CEA Facility ........................................................ 559 Figure 4.5.8-3 Schematic of the TROI Facility ...................................................................................... 560 Figure 4.5.18-1 Schematic of SURC Test Facility ................................................................................. 577 Figure 4.5.24-1 Schematic of MACE Test ............................................................................................. 586
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI) formed the CCVM (Containment Code
Validation Matrix) task group in 2002. The objective of this group was to define a basic set of available
experiments for code validation, covering the range of containment (ex-vessel) phenomena expected in the
course of light and heavy water reactor design basis accidents and beyond design basis accidents/severe
accidents. It was to consider phenomena relevant to pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR), pressurised
water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) designs of Western origin as well as of Eastern
European VVER types. This work would complement the two existing CSNI validation matrices for
thermal hydraulic code validation (NEA/CSNI/R(1993)14) and In-vessel core degradation
(NEA/CSNI/R(2001)21).
The report initially provides a brief overview of the main features of a PWR, BWR, CANDU and
VVER reactors. It also provides an overview of the ex-vessel corium retention (core catcher). It then
provides a general overview of the accident progression for light water and heavy water reactors. The
main focus is to capture most of the phenomena and safety systems employed in these reactor types and to
highlight the differences.
This CCVM contains a description of 127 phenomena, broken down into 6 categories:
Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Phenomena
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena
Iodine Chemistry Phenomena
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
Systems Phenomena
A synopsis is provided for each phenomenon, including a description, references for further
information, significance for DBA and SA/BDBA and a list of experiments that may be used for code
validation.
The report identified 213 experiments, broken down into the same six categories (as done for the
phenomena). An experiment synopsis is provided for each test. Along with a test description and
references, the synopsis also identifies the availability of the report and data, phenomena covered by the
test, type of test (separate effect, combined effect or integral test), covers DBA and/or SA/BDBA
conditions, range of key experimental parameters and past code validation/ benchmarks.
This CCVM has identified experiments for 93% of the phenomena requiring validation. However, if
only experiments suitable for CFD validation are considered, then only about half of the phenomena are
covered by this CCVM.
It is recommended that this work be reviewed in 5 years time to include new experiments and to
attempt to close the identified experiment gaps (phenomena lacking suitable experiments for validation).
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
16
List of the CCVM Writing Group Members (2010 – 2013)
CANADA
CHIN, Yu-Shan (Sammy) Tel: +1 (613) 584-3311 ext. 46405
Fuel and Fuel Channel Safety Branch Email: [email protected]
AECL-Chalk River Laboratories
Station 88
Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ1J0
MATHEW, P.M. (Mani) (retired)
Fuel and Fuel Channel Safety Branch
AECL-Chalk River Laboratories
Station 88
Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ1J0
GLOWA, Glenn Tel: +1 (613) 584-3311 ext. 46052
Reactor Chemistry & Corrosion Branch Email: [email protected]
AECL-Chalk River Laboratories
Station 86
Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ1J0
DICKSON, Ray Tel: +1 (613) 584-3311 ext. 43381
Fuel and Fuel Channel Safety Branch Email: [email protected]
AECL-Chalk River Laboratories
Station 88
Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ1J0
LIANG, Zhe (Rita) Tel: +1 (613) 584-3311 ext. 44484
Fuel and Fuel Channel Safety Branch Email: [email protected]
AECL-Chalk River Laboratories
Station 88
Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ1J0
LEITCH, Brian Tel: +1 (613) 584-3311 ext. 43962
Fuel and Fuel Channel Safety Branch Email: [email protected]
AECL-Chalk River Laboratories
Station 88
Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ1J0
BARBER, Duncan Tel: +1 (613) 584-3311 ext. 44851
Fuel and Fuel Channel Safety Branch Email: [email protected]
AECL-Chalk River Laboratories
Station Keys
Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ1J0
VASIC, Aleks Tel: +1 (613) 584-3311 ext. 46111
Thermalhydraulics Branch Email: [email protected]
AECL-Chalk River Laboratories
Station Keys
Chalk River, Ontario, KOJ1J0
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
17
FRANCE
BENTAIB, Ahmed Tel: +33 1 58 35 98 54
IRSN/PSN/SAG/BPhAG Email: [email protected]
31 av. de la Division LECLERC
B.P. 17, F92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses CEDEX
JOURNEAU, Christophe Tel: +33 (0)4 42 25 41 21
CEA Cadarache Email: [email protected]
DTN/STRI/LMA
F-13108 St Paul les Durance
MALET, Jeanne Tel: + (33-1) 69 08 87 40
Research Engineer Email: [email protected]
PSN-RES/SCA
DSU/SERAC
Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté
Centre d'Etudes de Saclay, Bâtiment 450
B.P. 63, F-91192 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX
STUDER, Etienne Tel: +33 1 69 08 83 92
MISTRA Project Manager Email: [email protected]
DEN/DM2S/STMF/LATF
Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (CEA)
Centre d'Etudes Nucléaires de Saclay
F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex
MEYNET, Nicolas Tel: +33 1 58 35 72 04
IRSN/PSN/SAG/BPhAG Email: [email protected]
77-83 Avenue du Général de Gaulle
B.P. 17, F92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses CEDEX
PILUSO, Pascal Tel: +33 (0)4 42 25 25 09
CEA Cadarache-DEN/DTN/dir Email: [email protected]
Bâtiment 710
13108 Saint Paul lez Durance Cédex-FRANCE
GÉLAIN, Thomas Tel: +33 1 69 08 50 61
CEA Saclay Email: [email protected]
B.P. 63
F-91192 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX
MICHIELSEN, Nathalie Tel: +33 1 69 08 62 37
CEA Saclay Email: [email protected]
B.P. 63
F-91192 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
18
PEILLON, Samuel Tel: +33 1 69 08 62 47
CEA Saclay Email: [email protected]
B.P. 63
F-91192 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX
PORCHERON, Emmanuel Tel: +33 1 69 08 62 47
CEA Saclay Email: [email protected]
B.P. 63
F-91192 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX
ALBIOL, Thierry Tel: 04 42 19 97 94
IRSN/PSN-RES/SEREX - Bât 327 Email: [email protected]
BP 3
13115 St Paul Lez Durance Cedex
CLÉMENT, Bernard Tel: 04 42 19 94 70
IRSN/PSN-RES/SAG Email: [email protected]
Bât. 702
BP 3
13115 St Paul Lez Durance Cedex
GERMANY
SONNENKALB, Martin Tel: +49 221 2068-770
Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit Email: [email protected]
(GRS) MbH
Leiter der Abteilung Barrierenwirksamkeit
Schwertnergasse 1
D-50667 Köln
WEBER, Gunter Tel: +49 89 32004 506
Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit Email: [email protected]
(GRS) mbH
Forschungszentrum
D-85748 Garching
KLEIN-HESSLING, Walter Tel: +49 221 2068 670
Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit Email: [email protected]
(GRS) mbH
Schwertnergasse 1
D-50667 Köln
ARNDT, Siegfried Tel: +49 30 88589 129
Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit Email: [email protected]
(GRS) mbH
Schwertnergasse 1
D-50667 Köln
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
19
YANEZ, Jorge Tel: +49 (0) 721 6082 6502
Institute for Nuclear and Energy Technologies Email: [email protected]
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Kaiserstrasse 12, 76131
Karlsruhe, Germany
KOTCHOURKO, Alexei Tel: +49 (0) 721 6082 4028
Institute for Nuclear and Energy Technologies Email: [email protected]
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Kaiserstrasse 12, 76131
Karlsruhe, Germany
KUZNETSOV, Mike Tel: +49 (0) 721 6082 4716
Institute for Nuclear and Energy Technologies Email: [email protected]
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Kaiserstrasse 12, 76131
Karlsruhe, Germany
ITALY
SANGIORGI, Marco Tel: +39 0516098901
Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie Email: [email protected]
l'Energia e l'Ambiente (ENEA)
Via Martiri di Monte Sole, 4
I-40129 Bologna
SPAIN
FONTANET, Joan Tel: +34 91 346 6577
Unit of Nuclear Safety Research Email: [email protected]
Divison of Nuclear Fission
CIEMAT (Edif. 12)
Avda. Complutense, 40
28040 Madrid
HERRANZ, Luis E. Tel: +34 91 346 6219
Unit of Nuclear Safety Research Email: [email protected]
CIEMAT (Edif. 12)
Avda. Complutense, 40
28040 Madrid
GARCIA DE LA RUA, Carmen Tel: +34 91 346 0226
Engineering Department Email: [email protected]
Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN)
Calle Justo Dorado Dellmans, 11
28040 Madrid
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
20
SANTIAGO, Aleza Enciso Tel: +34 91 346 0218
Engineering Department Email: [email protected]
Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN)
Calle Justo Dorado Dellmans, 11
28040 Madrid
SWITZERLAND
ANDREANI , Michele Tel: +41 56 310 2687
Laboratory for Thermal-Hydraulics Email: [email protected]
Paul Scherrer Institut
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
DREIER, Jörg Tel: +41 56 310 2681
Scientific Programs Email: [email protected]
Nuclear Energy and Safety
Paul Scherrer Institut
OHSA/E04
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
PALADINO, Domenico Tel: +41 56 310 4373
Laboratory for Thermal-Hydraulics Email: [email protected]
Paul Scherrer Institut
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
LEE, Richard Y. Tel: +1 301 251 7526
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Email: [email protected]
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
M.S. CSB-A07M
Washington, DC 20555-0001
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Issy-les-Moulineaux, FRANCE
AMRI, Abdallah Tel: +33 1 45 24 10 54
OECD-NEA / Nuclear Safety Division Fax: +33 1 45 24 11 29
Le Seine St-Germain Email: [email protected]
12 bd des Iles
F-92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
21
Acronyms
ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
AEC Atomic Energy Commission
AECL Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
AICC Adiabatic Isochoric Complete Combustion
ANL Argonne National Laboratory
AP1000 Advanced Pressurized Reactor (design by Westinghouse)
ARVI Assessment of Reactor Vessel Integrity
BC Bubble Condenser
BCC Bubble Condenser Containment
BDBA Beyond Design Basis Accident
BMWi Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie
BNWL Battelle NorthWest Laboratory
BR Blockage Ratio
BWR Boiling Water Reactor
CANDU CANada Deuterium Uranium
CCVM Containment Code Validation Matrix
CEA Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CHF Critical Heat Flux
CIEMAT Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y
Tecnológicas
C-J Chapman-Jouguet equilibrium detonation model
CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
COM COMbined Effects test
CRDM Control Rod Drive Mechanisms
CSN Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear
CSNI Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations
DBA Design Basis Accident
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
22
DCH Direct Containment Heating
DDT Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition
DF Decontamination Factor
DGRS Drywell Gas Recirculation System
DW Dry Well
EC European Commission
ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System
EDF Électricité de France
EFADS Emergency Filtered Air Discharge System
ENEA Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Economic Development
EPR European Pressurised Reactor
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
ERMSAR European Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research
ESBWR Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor
EURATOM European Atomic Energy Community
FA Flame Acceleration
FCI Fuel Coolant Interaction
FP Fission Product
GDCS Gravity Driven Cooling System
GRS Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit
HEDL Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory
HPME High Pressure Melt Ejection
INT INTegral tests (entire system)
IRSN Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté
IRWST In-Containment Refueling Water Storage Tank
ISP International Standard Problem
IVR In-Vessel Retention
JRC-Ispra Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
23
KAERI Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
KIT Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
LAC Local Air Cooler
LB-LOCA Large Break Loss Of Coolant Accident
LDA Laser Doppler Anemometry
LOCA Loss Of Coolant Accident
LP Lumped Parameter
LWR Light Water Reactor
MCCI Molten Core Concrete Interaction
MV Main Vent
NEA Nuclear Energy Agency
NPP Nuclear Power Plant
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAR Passive Autocatalytic Recombiner
PCC Passive Containment Cooling
PCCS Passive Containment Cooling System
PDI Phase-Doppler Interferometry
PHTS Primary Heat Transport System
PIRT Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table
PIV Particle Image Velocimetry
PSI Paul Scherrer Institut
PSS Pressure Suppression System
PWR Pressurized Water Reactor
RCS Reactor Coolant System
RI Radiolytic Iodine
RPV Reactor Pressure Vessel
SA Severe Accident
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
24
SAMG Severe Accident Management Guideline
SARNET Severe Accident Research NETwork of Excellence
SARNET2 Severe Accident Research NETwork of Excellence 2
SBO Station Black Out
SE Separate Effects test
SG Steam Generator
SGTR Steam Generator Tube Rupture
SNL Sandia National Laboratories
SOAR State Of the Art Report
SRV Safety Relief Valve
TEDA Triethylene Di-Amine
US DOE United States Department Of Energy
VB Vacuum Breakers
VTT VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
VVER Vodo-Vodyanoi Energetichesky Reactor
WW Wet Well
WWER Wasser-Wasser-Energie-Reaktor
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
25
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Safety analysis for nuclear power plants require validated codes, and these in turn require
suitable experimental datasets. In early 2000, there existed two NEA/CSNI documents that provided
a matrix of experiments that can be used for code validation of in-vessel phenomena [1.1] and for
thermal-hydraulics in the heat transport system [1.2]. However, it was recognized at the time that
there was a lack of a similar validation matrix document for containment (ex-vessel) phenomena, and
the CSNI CCVM (Containment Code Validation Matrix) task group was formed in 2002 as a result.
The CCVM task group was asked to document a basic set of experimental data that can be applied to
validate containment phenomena. This report would be a compliment to the work that has been done
in the State-of-the-Art Report on Containment Thermal Hydraulics and Hydrogen Distribution [1.3],
in which the most important phenomena for simulating containment thermal hydraulics and hydrogen
distribution during the core damaged phase of a PWR severe accident are cross-referenced to
internationally available experiments, mostly integrated ones. Thus, the CCVM work would extend
from thermal hydraulics and hydrogen distribution to include combustion processes, aerosol [1.4] and
fission product behaviour including iodine chemistry, and core melt behaviour.
1.2 Objectives and Scope
The objective and scope of the containment code validation matrix report is to define a basic set
of available experiments for comparison of measured and calculated parameters covering the full
range of containment phenomena expected in the course of light and heavy water reactor design basis
accidents and beyond design basis/severe accidents. It will consider phenomena and processes
relevant to pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR), pressurised water reactor (PWR) and boiling
water reactor (BWR) designs of Western origin as well as of Eastern European VVER types.
1.3 Structure of the Report
The report is broken down into 6 sections. The present section provides an introduction. The
second section provides a general overview of the various reactor types and accident scenarios.
Section 3 provides a detailed description for the 127 containment phenomena. It also shows the
significance of each phenomenon for DBA and SA/BDBA accidents. More than 200 experiments
were identified by this project and they are described in Section 4. A phenomena vs. experiments
cross-matrix is discussed in Section 5 (Appendix A contains the actual cross-matrix). The cross-
matrix can be used to identify which experiment can be used to validate a particular phenomenon. As
well, this Section 5 identifies the gaps in this validation matrix (phenomena for which no experiments
are available in this validation matrix document). The final section provides a summary and a
recommendation to revisit this work in 5 years time to address the gaps.
To make navigating this document easier, all of the phenomena and experiments titles are
hyperlinked to their respective section of the report.
Some of the text is highlighted in red to denote that information was not available (or there was
some uncertainity) at the time this document was written.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
26
1.4 References
[1.1] OECD, “In-Vessel Core Degradation Code Validation Matrix”, NEA/CSNI/R(2001)21,
2001 February
[1.2] OECD, “Separate Effects Test Matrix for Thermal-Hydraulic Code Validation”,
NEA/CSNI/R(93)14, 1993 September
[1.3] OECD, “State-of-the-Art Report on Containment Thermal Hydraulics and Hydrogen
Distribution”, NEA/CSNI/R(99)16, 1999 June
[1.4] Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz,
Akihide Hidaka , Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-
the-Art Report on Nuclear Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, 2009 December
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
27
2 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF CONTAINMENT AND ACCIDENT PROGRESSION
2.1 Plant Types
The objective of this chapter is to provide a general overview of the various nuclear power plants
considered in the preparation of this containment (ex-vessel) code validation matrix. The plant types
are limited to:
Light Water moderated Reactors (LWRs)
o Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)
o Eastern European PWRs of type VVER
o Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)
Heavy water moderated reactors
o Canadian Deuterium-Uranium (CANDU) pressurized water reactors
2.1.1 Light Water Reactors
This section provides an overview of the design (mainly focused on containment) of western
PWRs and BWRs and Eastern European VVER-1000 types. As well, there is a section on ex-vessel
corium retention (or core catchers) which is a new concept for Gen III+ reactors (and also VVER
1000 91/99).
The size of western PWRs range from single loop 510 MW(t) to large four loop 4270 MW(t)
units. Despite such differences, which are mainly reflected in the fission product and core material
inventories; there are no substantial differences in the basic nuclear and thermal-hydraulic parameters
of the reactor circuit [2.1]. The design of the containment however, can be significantly different, and
two types – steel containments within a concrete reactor building and prestressed concrete
containment with inner steel liner – exist. In Framatome and Westinghouse PWRs, typically spray
systems are installed to limit the containment pressure in design basis accidents (DBA) while the
German PWR containments are full pressure containments where no spray systems are needed nor
installed. The long term heat removal from the containment is provided by different systems,
sometimes including air ventilation systems. Typically measures to prevent hydrogen combustions
during DBA and severe accidents are installed, like thermal recombiners, ignitors or passive
autocatalytic recombiners (PAR). To prevent a long term containment over-pressure failure, many
plants are back fitted with containment venting systems (some of them connected with filter devices),
as part of their accident management concepts. The systems are connected to the peripheral part of
the containment and have a separate off-gas pipe towards the stack or the environment.
The size of BWRs and the construction of the containments vary significantly. The earlier
designs had less reactor power, in the order of several 100 MW(t), while the latest ones have power
output similar to that of the large PWRs. Likewise, the containment design and size varies
significantly, with both types – steel containments within a concrete reactor building and prestressed
concrete containment with inner steel liner – present. Well known BWR containments are of the type
Mark I, II or III. In Germany two different designs exists, the so called BWR type 69 (steel
containment) and the BWR type 72 (prestressed concrete containment with inner steel liner). In most
BWR containments, spray systems are installed in the drywell (though spray systems are not
necessarily safety relevant in all installations). Most of the BWR containments are inerted by
nitrogen during normal operation. If not, typically ignitors or passive autocatalytic recombiners
(PAR) are installed to prevent hydrogen combustions during DBA and severe accidents. To prevent a
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
28
long term containment over-pressure failure in case of an accident, filtered or unfiltered containment
venting systems may be backfitted as part of accident management concepts. The systems are
connected typically to the gas phase of the condensation pool of the containment and have a separate
off-gas pipe towards the stack or the environment.
2.1.1.1 PWR
The description of a PWR is focused on the German four loop PWR Konvoi type1
(Figure 2.1.1-1) with additional text provided to cover additional features found in other PWR
containments.
The containment system of the Konvoi-units consists of the containment and the reactor building
surrounding it (see Figure 2.1.1-1). The containment provides a barrier against the release of
radioactive substances. It consists of a spherical steel vessel with a diameter of 56 m and a (nominal)
wall thickness of 38 mm that is designed to withstand the pressures and temperatures that could occur
during DBAs. The lower spherical part rests on a concrete foundation, and apart from that, the
containment is self-supported. The containment contains the entire reactor coolant system which is
under operating pressure, the spent fuel pool and parts of the directly connecting safety systems and
reactor auxiliary systems. The containment is the third barrier for compliance with the protection
objective “limitation of activity release”. During operation, the containment is continuously
ventilated and the rooms not containing the main components are accessible so that inspections,
preparatory work for inspections or fuel handling in the spent fuel pool may take place during plant
operation.
The reactor systems are located in the containment, while the emergency core cooling systems
(ECCS) are located in the reactor building annulus and reactor auxiliary building. The main reactor
systems, particularly those important to safety, are volume control system, extra borating system, and
coolant treatment. The containment related systems are hydrogen mixing system with thermal
recombiners, exhaust system, and nuclear ventilation system. Four independent trains of safety
systems exist (high pressure and low pressure injection system, accumulators). There is no
containment spray system in this design, though containment sprays exists for other PWRs, like the
Framatome and Westinghouse designs.
The reactor building, which consists of a hemispherical dome and a cylindrical base, surrounds
the containment. The reactor building has a wall thickness of approximately 1.8 m and rests on a
foundation. It is designed to protect the containment against external hazards, e.g., impacts by aircraft
or explosive detonations. The area between the lower cylindrical part of the reactor building and the
containment forms an annulus where parts of the safety systems are designed redundantly, and where
parts of the reactor systems are located. In case of an accident involving an increase in either pressure
or temperature in the containment, the containment isolation and with some time delay the annulus
isolation is triggered and the emergency sub-atmospheric pressure system in the annulus is started.
This system has the task to retain the sub-atmospheric pressure in the reactor building annulus and to
filter potential leakages from the containment vessel before discharge.
1 Provided by Martin Sonnekalb, GRS Cologne
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
29
Figure 2.1.1-1 German Four Loop PWR Type Konvoi NPP
2.1.1.2 VVER-1000
During the design phases of the Russian VVER-1000 NPP2, great scientific efforts were made to
meet the optimal core configuration based on the small series of V-187, V-302 and V-338 models,
and large series of V-320 reactors [2.3], [2.4]. These reactor series show design differences in the
number of the control and protection system cluster rods (drives and bundles). The containment
design was similar (Figure 2.1.1-2). Although a limited number of the smaller reactors (V-187, V-
302, V-338) were built, it was primarily the type V-320 that was deployed commercially. The
VVER-1000/V-320 reactor types are light water moderated and light water-cooled PWR designs with
an electrical power output capacity of 1000 MW (thermal power output of 3000 MW(t)). The primary
system consists of four main coolant loops with one horizontal steam generator and one main coolant
pump each.
2 Provided by Martin Sonnekalb, GRS Cologne
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
30
Figure 2.1.1-2 Typically VVER1000/V320 NPP [2.3]
The containment encloses a confinement system consisting of 63 compartments in which the
pressurized components of the primary system are located. Its net volume is about 61,000 m3. It is a
pre-stressed reinforced concrete containment with an 8 mm internal steel liner. The containment
design overpressure is 0.41 MPa, covering the pressure peak after a double-ended rupture of the main
primary loop of 0.85 m diameter. A negative pressure of a maximum of 200 Pa is maintained in the
containment during normal operation.
The typical feature of the containment is that its shell is a part of the reactor building, with a
square ground plan and a side length of 66 m. It is separated from the non-leak-tight lower parts of
the building by a 3 m reinforced concrete plate, but connected to one rectangular leak-tight room in
the lower part of the building that houses the main emergency core cooling recirculation sump.
The emergency core cooling pumps, along with other support equipment, are located in the lower
part of the reactor building. The square building extends above the containment shell base plate, up to
about 40 m above ground, and protects a large part of the containment shell against external impact
and also improving the shielding of the primary system. There is a narrow gap between the
cylindrical shell and the cylindrical inner shaft in the square building.
The containment-spray system is needed to control the effects of leakage accidents associated
with the primary and secondary system within the containment, and is a three-train system resistant to
external impacts. The three trains are physically separated and emergency power supplied. They use
the common boric acid storage tank (sump) of the emergency cooling system as a water source.
During a potential accident, it functions to:
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
31
Depressurize containment
Wash out airborne fission products
Discharge a part of the residual heat
Ensure emergency filling of the spent-fuel pool via a connecting line to the pool cooling system.
2.1.1.3 BWR
This section provides a description of a BWR, focused on the German BWR type 723
(Figure 2.1.1-3). Additional information regarding other types of BWR are provided as needed.
The containment-concept of BWR type 72 consists of the internally located separate containment
vessel (primary containment made of prestressed concrete with inner steel liner) and the outside
reactor building or secondary containment. Both buildings are based on a common foundation plate
with a diameter of 52 m and thickness of 3 m.
The containment vessel consists of pre-stressed concrete cylinder with an outer diameter of 29 m
and a height of about 40 m. The inner surface is covered with a gas proof steel shell of approximately
8 mm thickness. Inside the containment, there are the reactor pressure vessel and the pressure
suppression system, which consists of the drywell and wetwell (suppression pool). The wetwell has a
water pool with approx. 3,000 m3 deionised water, to condense the escaping steam during the loss-of-
coolant accident considered in the design (double-ended rupture of the main coolant line, the so called
2A break), thus limiting the pressure within the containment and the load to the building. During
events which lead to increased activity release into the containment, a direct sealing is ensured
because pipes penetrating the containment are equipped at least with two isolation valves, where one
of these is arranged inside and the other outside the containment, unless it is not conflicting with
safety related reasons (e.g., reactor scram). Thus the containment serves as an activity barrier for safe
enclosure of radioactive material, which is also efficient during events with leakages from the reactor
coolant pressure boundary.
The pressure suppression system has the task to condense the escaping steam in case of loss-of-
coolant accidents, thus suppressing the pressure. Furthermore, it is considered as a passive part of the
emergency cooling. The pressure suppression system consists of the wetwell, the condensate pipes
from the drywell into the wetwell, and the check valves between the wetwell and the drywell. The
water pool in the wetwell serves as the water supply for feeding the reactor pressure vessel for the
emergency cooling and residual heat removal systems and as a substitute heat sink in case of any loss-
of-coolant accidents where the main heat sink is not available.
3 Provided by Martin Sonnekalb, GRS Cologne
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
32
Figure 2.1.1-3 German BWR Type 72 NPP
The secondary containment (containment building) consists of ferroconcrete with an outside
diameter of 50 m and a thickness of 1.8 m. It encloses the containment and serves first of all as an
additional shielding of the surrounding area against ionising radiation, furthermore it protects against
external events caused by natural events like, e.g., earthquakes and flood, as well as aircraft crash,
fire, explosion blast wave and acts of sabotage. Additionally, the secondary containment serves for
retention of potential leakages from the containment so that these are controlled via the sub-
atmospheric pressure holding system and released through suspended solids filter and activated
carbon filter to the vent stack.
The spent fuel pool is located in the secondary containment above the containment. The
containment head has to be removed for fuel loading.
In case of an accident with pressure or temperature increase in the containment, the containment
isolation is triggered and the emergency sub-atmospheric pressure system is started. This system has
the task to retain the sub-atmospheric pressure in the reactor building and to filter potential leaking
from the containment vessel before discharge to the atmosphere.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
33
2.1.1.4 Corium Retention
There are two concepts for corium retention, in-vessel and ex-vessel, though only ex-vessel
corium retention is discussed below.
Some generation III+ reactors (and the VVER 1000-91/99) employ an ex-vessel core retention
concept, commonly called a core catcher. A brief summary of the core catchers described in [2.2] is
provided in this section.
In the EPR design, the corium is first accumulated on top of a sacrificial concrete layer located in
the lower pit. After the sacrificial layer is ablated and the melt plug (located under the sacrificial
concrete layer) has been thermally destroyed, a path opens that leads the melt down a lateral pathway
to be spread across a 170 m2 metallic structure, core catcher. As the melt spreads in the core catcher,
gravity-drive water fills the space below and around the core catcher, and eventually over the sides of
the core catcher to cover the top of the melt. The bottom and sides of the core catcher have
integrated, open cooling channels to transfer heat from the melt to the coolant.
The VVER 1000-91-99 (have been built in Tianwan nuclear power plant in China) core catcher
concept is based on a crucible that is located under the reactor pressure vessel. The crucible is a large
vessel (filled with a sacrificial material that is capable of fully oxidizing the metallic melt and prevent
any focussing effects) which would catch the core melt if the reactor pressure vessel were to fail. The
wall and floor of the core catcher is a ring heat exchanger, with re-circulating cooling water. The
sacrificial material would invert the oxidic and steel layers in the molten pool, and once inverted,
water could be poured on top of the melt (oxidic melt surface) without danger of steam explosions or
hydrogen production by steam-metal reactions.
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (FZK) developed another core catcher concept, called COMET,
based on the fragmentation of corium and porosity formation. The basemat would be protected by a
water cooled layer of sacrificial concrete. The bottom of the sacrificial concrete would be supplied by
water through channels or a porous concrete layer, and the water would then be forced upwards
through the melt, with the resulting water evaporation breaking up the melt and creating a porous
solidified mass from which heat could easily be removed. The corium would be expected to solidify
within 1 hour with this design, and any further release of fission products from the corium would
cease as a result.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
34
2.1.2 Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (CANDU)
There are basically two types of CANDU reactors, single unit CANDU 6 (~600 MWe) and
multi-unit CANDU stations (each station has four to eight units, each station has a total generating
capacity ranging from 2,160 to 3,520 MWe). The biggest difference in the containment between the
single and multi-unit CANDU is the use of a vacuum building by the multi-unit stations. In a multi-
unit station, all units are connected by a fuelling machine duct to a common vacuum building. This
vacuum building is kept at a very low absolute pressure and is designed to contain any steam release
and to quickly return the containment internal volume to a negative gauge pressure. As well, the
vacuum buildings are equipped with a filtered discharge (Emergency Filtered Atmospheric Discharge
System) to keep the vacuum building sub-atmospheric during an accident.
The containments for a CANDU are generally larger than a PWR or BWR of a similar
generation capacity. Unless otherwise stated, the remaining discussion on CANDU will be for a
CANDU 6, see Figure 2.1.2-1.
Figure 2.1.2-1 CANDU 6 Containment
A CANDU 6’s containment has a free volume of 50,300 m3. The containment consists of a
cylindrical pre-stressed concrete shell, 0.9 m thick, with an internal height of 51.9 m and diameter of
41.5 m. The floor of the reactor compartment is 2.45 m thick concrete. This includes the floor of the
reactor vault, which is lined with 5/8” thick steel.
The common safety systems (related to containment) for CANDU are:
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
35
Thick concrete containment building to withstand high pressures. The inner concrete surface is
either lined with steel (stainless steel or carbon steel coated with a coal-tar-epoxy layer for
corrosion protection), or a polyurethane liner
Dousing system (supplied by a large tank of water located in the dome of the containment) with
nozzles spraying water upwards.
Local Air Coolers
Passive Autocatalytic Recombiners (PARs) to recombine hydrogen
Ignitors to ignite hydrogen at concentrations near the lean flammability limit (Note: not all
CANDUs are equipped with ignitors)
The CANDU pressure tubes act like the reactor pressure vessel for a LWR. They are located
inside a calandria vessel (for a CANDU 6, radius of 3.8 m and length of 5.9 m with an internal
free volume of about 220 m3) that is filled with heavy water at about 70ºC and near atmospheric
pressure (~123 kPa(a)). The calandria vessel is then located inside a reactor vault (or calandria
vault), see Figure 2.1.2-2. The reactor vault has a total free volume of about 534 m3 and is filled
with light water at ~38ºC.
Emergency core cooling (emergency coolant injection system) – maintains a flow of coolant
through the primary heat transport system through all channels after the primary heat transport
system de-pressurizes.
Filtered air discharge system (CANDU 6, used during normal operation to ventilate containment
atmosphere) and emergency filtered air discharge system (multi-unit stations, maintain sub-
atmospheric pressure in vacuum building during an accident).
One of the key differences between the CANDU and PWR/BWR is the use of pressure tubes in
lieu of a large single reactor pressure vessel. For a PWR/BWR, ex-vessel terminology is meant
outside of the reactor pressure vessel. For a CANDU, ex-vessel is meant to be outside of the
calandria vessel.
Another unique feature of a CANDU is its online refuelling capability. This is possible by the
use of a fuelling machine that attaches to the end fitting of each fuel channel (Figure 2.1.2-3). The
end fitting can be involved in a special case of a small LOCA described in Section 2.2.2.2.2.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
36
Figure 2.1.2-2 CANDU 6 Reactor Assembly
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
37
Figure 2.1.2-3 CANDU 6 Fuel Channel
2.2 Accident Progression
Nuclear power plants are designed with safety systems to deal with Design Basis Accidents
(DBA). As well, the bulk of containment phenomena occurring during a DBA are encompassed by a
Beyond Design Basis Accidents (BDBA) or Severe Accidents (SA). As such, a general overview of a
severe accident progression is provided in this section. In addition, for a CANDU, a few additional
DBA accident scenarios are discussed which involve limited fuel damage. These overviews will
mainly be focused on containment behaviour.
2.2.1 LWR Accident Progression
This section provides a brief description of the important aspects of a LWR accident progression.
A much more detailed description can be found in [2.2].
2.2.1.1 PWR Accident Progression
Severe accidents are characterised by several phases and initiated by the same events like the
ones considered in DBA analyses. In contrary, additional safety system failures lead to the loss of
core cooling and the transition into a severe accident. First the in-vessel phase until global RPV
failure at high or at low pressure (depending on the success of the accident management measure to
depressurize the reactor coolant system before its failure). Second, an ex-vessel phase, starting with
melt discharge from the RPV follows. The melt is discharged into the reactor cavity and dependent
on the plant design a dry or wet molten core concrete interaction (MCCI) follows. Phenomena like
direct containment heating or steam explosion may become relevant as well. The long term phase is
characterised by pressure increase due to non-condensable gas release from MCCI and water
evaporation being in contact with the melt in the cavity. Different accident management measure are
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
38
implemented often to mitigate the consequences, like the use of PARs or igniters, the activation of
spray systems and of the filtered containment venting to prevent containment over pressure failure.
Analyses showed that the total amount of hydrogen gas generated during the in-vessel phase of a
severe accident is equivalent to an oxidation fraction of 35-60% of the total quantity of zirconium in
the reactor. The higher amounts of H2 have been calculated for scenarios with late start and longer
duration of the core melt process and for high pressure core melt scenarios.
As a result of the MCCI reaction under dry or wet conditions in the cavity, there is an ongoing
release of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and steam. The rates are dependent on the
concrete composition. The released hydrogen (in- and ex-vessel) and carbon monoxide (ex-vessel)
can be recombined by a passive autocatalytic recombiner until the oxygen has been completely
consumed in the containment, so that large combustions in the containment challenging its integrity
are prevented.
The amount of energy released from the primary circuit into the containment before RPV failure,
as well as the size and location of the break, has a great influence on the pressure, convection flows,
local gas concentration, and long term behaviour of the containment and especially on the operation
of the PARs and the filtered containment venting. Light water reactors equipped with a core catcher
will sequester the corium (when it melts though the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel) and prevent
it from reaching the basemat and progressing the accident to a MCCI phase.
2.2.1.2 BWR Accident Progression
Ex-vessel severe accident scenarios that could possibly occur in a BWR would involve local
reactor pressure vessel failure, though these would likely be at lower pressure due to the automatic
depressurisation of the vessel. The initiating events to be considered and the assumed system failures
are similar to those that could occur with PWRs. The total amount of hydrogen that could be
generated prior to a breach in the reactor pressure vessel may be equivalent to that produced from the
oxidation of 15-70% of the total quantity of zirconium in the reactor. The lower values of hydrogen
production are typical for some low pressure core melt scenarios with steam starved conditions. Due
to the automatic depressurization of the RPV, the probability of high pressure cases with high
generation of hydrogen (melt release under high pressure and DCH phenomena) is much less
compared to other cases. Different accident management measures are generally employed to prevent
uncontrolled combustion of hydrogen, and include in most cases making the containment atmosphere
inert by filling it with nitrogen gas, but also by employing passive autocatalytic recombiners and
igniters.
In general, the ex-vessel phase of a BWR severe accident involves melt that is released from a
local failure in the reactor pressure vessel into the reactor cavity (typically called the control rod
driving room) , which is part of the lower containment. It is likely that there would already water in
the cavity before RPV failure, so steam explosions could be expected. A phase of the accident
involving either dry or wet MCCI could follow, and the melt could go on to penetrate into the
basemat.
Leakages to the surrounding reactor building cannot be excluded in all cases.
The filtered containment venting connected to the wetwell gas space could be used one or more
times to prevent an over pressure containment failure, and could be done before or after the failure of
the reactor pressure vessel. Venting would be initiated at the containment design pressure, and would
be the ultimate heat sink in the case where the wetwell heat removal fails.
A spray system located typically in the upper drywell may be used as well to limit the pressure
increase or to decrease the airborne content of aerosols inside the containment.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
39
Core-catcher concepts also exist for Gen III+ BWRs (ESBWR and ABWR) and will also prevent
MCCI.
2.2.2 CANDU Accident Progression
2.2.2.1 CANDU Station Blackout (Severe Accident)
This accident scenario description is for a single unit CANDU 6. The accident progression is
similar for a multi-unit station, but with the use of the vacuum building to maintain containment sub-
atmospheric as discussed for the large loss of coolant accident case in Section 2.2.2.2.1. The
postulated station blackout accident sequence starts with a loss of Class IV and Class III power,
causing the loss of pumps used in systems such as the PHTS, moderator cooling, shield cooling, steam
generator feedwater, and re-circulating cooling water. The accident progresses to core damage and
disassembly (i.e., a severe accident), because of the loss of:
i) the primary heat transport system inventory,
ii) long-term emergency core cooling,
iii) moderator cooling, and
iv) shield and calandria vault cooling.
In general terms, the basic sequence of events, postulated to occur during a station blackout severe
accident, are as follows:
a. Loss of Class IV and III power results in immediate shutdown of reactor and run down of pumps
(i.e., end of active heat sinks).
b. Steam generator (SG) secondary side water boils off, removing core decay heat in the short term.
c. Depletion of steam generator water, and subsequent primary coolant heat up and pressurization.
d. Primary heat transport system liquid relief valves open and close, venting primary coolant into the
degasser condenser. Degasser condenser pressurizes and vents primary coolant to containment.
Containment pressurization triggers dousing.
e. Fuel is uncovered and heats up as the PHTS inventory decreases.
f. Dry fuel channels overheat and rupture, depressurizing the PHTS as primary coolant discharges
into the calandria vessel.
g. Moderator is partially expelled out of the calandria vessel when the fuel channel rupture
pressurizes calandria vessel, bursting the rupture disks in the calandria vessel relief ducts. Fuel
channel bellows may also fail from channel rupture, in some scenarios, allowing moderator to
drain. Remaining moderator boils off as the fuel channels dry out on the inside, increasing heat to
moderator.
h. Fuel channel sections (that are uncovered on outside of calandria tube) overheat, disassemble and
drop onto lower intact channels still cooled by remaining moderator. Some debris relocates to
bottom of calandria vessel, where remaining moderator quenches it.
i. Majority of core drops to bottom of calandria vessel, perhaps in a sudden core collapse.
Moderator is boiled off by debris at the bottom of the calandria vessel.
j. Calandria vault water cools calandria vessel and thus core debris.
k. Calandria vault water boils off. Calandria vessel assumed to fail due to debris heat-up after the
vault water level decreases below the elevation of the top of the debris in the calandria vessel.
l. Core debris relocates onto calandria vault floor. Remaining vault water boiled off.
m. Molten core concrete interaction and melt through of calandria vault floor.
n. Molten corium relocates to reactor building basement, quenched by remaining water.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
40
The containment (airlock seal blow out) may fail during several of the events listed above, in
particular during periods of rapid steam generation that produce pressure peaks.
During many of the accident stages, the core debris can release radionuclides (fission products
and actinides) to the containment. The release rates can be significant during the initial fuel heat up
(via sheath failures), the suspension and heat up of core debris in the calandria vessel, and the
core-concrete interaction.
Combustible gases can also form due to Zr-steam reactions in the early part of the accident.
Later, MCCI could result in hydrogen and carbon monoxide production. Likewise, radiolysis may
produce appreciable amounts of hydrogen over the long term of a severe accident.
2.2.2.2 CANDU DBA with Limited Fuel Damage
2.2.2.2.1 CANDU Large LOCA
A Large LOCA in a CANDU involves a break in the heat transport system pressure boundary of
sufficient magnitude (break in larger diameter piping than a fuel channel) that significant voids occur
in the core. Because of the positive coolant-void-reactivity, a reactor power excursion occurs and the
reactor regulating system is not capable of maintaining reactivity balance.
A more severe case of a LB-LOCA involves impairment of the emergency coolant injection
system and is described in this section.
The initial LOCA results in a short term pressurization of containment due to the coolant
discharge out of the rupture in the heat transport system boundary. The dominant behaviour during
this period is coolant flashing, leading to containment pressurization, aerosol formation and activation
of the dousing system.
For a CANDU 6 station (single unit), the pressure peaks at the end of the short term
pressurization period (break discharge begins to decrease and dousing acts to remove heat from the
containment). Continued decrease in the break discharge and continued heat removal by local air
coolers and containment structures leads to a slow decrease in containment pressure, eventually
reaching atmospheric pressure after several days.
For a multi-unit station with a negative pressure containment system, the containment is vented
to the vacuum building. This allows the containment to remain sub-atmospheric for several days. As
the vacuum building pressure rises, the emergency filtered air discharge systems (EFADS) are
employed by the operator to dry, filter and vent the vacuum building atmosphere, to maintain it sub-
atmospheric.
The impairment of the emergency coolant injection system results in degraded cooling in a large
number of fuel channels. The fuel overheats and large quantities of fission products and hydrogen are
generated and released into containment. Once in containment, the hydrogen may be removed by
operating ignitors and passive autocatalytic recombiners. The hydrogen concentration for this type of
accident is expected to be about 4% (uniform distribution). There is a possibility that higher hydrogen
concentration pockets may develop and combustion may occur. Because of the large water
inventories in a CANDU, the containment is expected to be wet. Any fission-products (with the
exception of noble gases) are expected to be in aerosol-form in containment (condense or be
nucleation sites for steam condensation).
The pressure tubes in the broken loops can strain, ballooning outwards into contact with the
calandria tube, thereby increasing the heat transfer to the moderator. For a loss of emergency core
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
41
coolant injection, long-term heat removal from the broken loop is provided by the moderator (which
is actively cooled). Cooling of the pressure/calandria tubes by the moderator maintains channel
integrity and accident progression is eventually halted.
2.2.2.2.2 End Fitting Failure (Small LOCA)
A unique accident relevant to CANDU is a small LOCA due to an end fitting failure. The
containment behaviour is similar to a LB-LOCA, but at much slower rate. The unique feature of this
accident is that it can result in ejection of fuel (from a single channel, CANDU 6 contains 12 fuel
bundles per channel) into the containment. The ejected fuel is cooled only by air-steam-water mixture
and the maximum fuel temperature is expected to be less than the melting temperature. However, the
temperature may be close to that at which the fuel oxidation rate is at a maximum. Fission products
will be released directly into containment, but only for a short period following the ejection, the fuel
will then cool down and releases become minimal.
2.3 References
[2.1] OECD, “In-Vessel Core Degradation Code Validation Matrix”, NEA/CSNI/R(2001)21,
2001 February
[2.2] B.R. Sehgal (editor), “Nuclear Safety in Light Water Reactors Severe Accident
Phenomenology”, Elsevier Inc., 2012
[2.3] GRS, “Quick Look Reports of the Russian Nuclear Power Plants”, GRS-V-2.2.4/1-98, 1998
January
[2.4] J. Dienstbier, “VVER-1000 Specific Design Features”, Nuclear Research Institute Řež plc,
Report prepared for Severe Accident Research Network (SARNET) Network of Excellence,
Contract FISO-CT-2004-509065, ÚJV Z-1368-T, 2005 January
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
42
3 PHENOMENA
The containment phenomena of relevance for DBA and SA/BDBA are indentified in this
chapter. The phenomena are broken down into 6 categories and the information is provided in a
combination of the following tables and a separate section for each phenomenon (Sections 3.1 to 3.6):
Table 3-1 - Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
Table 3-2 - Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Phenomena
Table 3-3 - Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena
Table 3-4 - Iodine Chemistry Phenomena
Table 3-5 - Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
Table 3-6 - Systems Phenomena
The tables show the significance of the phenomena to DBA and SA/BDBA accidents and also
the experiments which exhibit this phenomenon. It should be noted that the significance level were
arrived by a general consensus of the members and did not undergo any structured ranking method
(i.e., PIRT). Details of each phenomenon are provided in Sections 3.1 to 3.6.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
43
Table 3-1
Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P1-1 - Stratification Major Major E1-3 - LSGMF GMBT001
E1-4 - LSGMF GMUS001
E1-6 - FIPLOC F2
E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
E1-15 - HDR E11.2 (ISP-29)
E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A
E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F
E1-28 - PANDA BC4
E1-31 - THAI TH2
E1-32 - THAI TH7
E1-33 - THAI TH10
E1-34 - THAI TH13 (ISP-47)
E1-35 - THAI HM2
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2
P1-2 - Flashing (Flashing
Discharge)
Major Minor E1-13 - HDR V44 (ISP-16)
E1-14 - HDR T31.5 (ISP-23)
E1-44 - Marviken Test 18
E1-49 - PANDA OECD/SETH tests
E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests
E1-52 - ULPU CHF Tests
P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass
Transfer
Minor Major E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A
E1-25 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase C
E1-26 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase E
E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F
E1-46 - TOSQAN sump tests
E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests
E1-52 - ULPU CHF Tests
E1-53 - SULTAN CHF Tests
E1-54 - SBLB Boiling Tests
P1-4 - Critical Heat Flux (CHF) Minor Major E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests
E1-52 - ULPU CHF Tests
E1-53 - SULTAN CHF Tests
E1-54 - SBLB Boiling Tests
P1-5 - Heat Conduction in
Solids
Major Major E1-6 - FIPLOC F2
E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
E1-17 - GKSS M1
E1-22 - NUPEC M-7-1 (ISP-35)
E1-29 - SVUSS G02
E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
44
Table 3-1
Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P1-6 - Convection Heat
Transfer (Natural and Forced)
Major Major E1-6 - FIPLOC F2
E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
E1-13 - HDR V44 (ISP-16)
E1-14 - HDR T31.5 (ISP-23)
E1-15 - HDR E11.2 (ISP-29)
E1-16 - HDR E11.4
E1-17 - GKSS M1
E1-18 - MISTRA ISP-47
E1-19 - MISTRA M7
E1-20 - MISTRA-M8
E1-22 - NUPEC M-7-1 (ISP-35)
E1-29 - SVUSS G02
E1-30 - THAI TH1
E1-31 - THAI TH2
E1-32 - THAI TH7
E1-33 - THAI TH10
E1-34 - THAI TH13 (ISP-47)
E1-35 - THAI HM2
E1-36 - TOSQAN ISP-47
E1-37 - TOSQAN Condensation Tests
E1-49 - PANDA OECD/SETH tests
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests
E1-52 - ULPU CHF Tests
E1-54 - SBLB Boiling Tests
E3-2 - KAEVER CsI series
E3-3 - KAEVER K187 (ISP-44)
E3-4 - KAEVER K148 (ISP-44)
E3-5 - KAEVER K188 (ISP-44)
E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2
P1-7 - Thermal Diffusion in
Fluids (No Experiments)
Minor Minor (No Experiments)
P1-8 - Radiation Heat Transfer
(No Experiments)
Minor Major/Minor (No Experiments)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
45
Table 3-1
Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P1-9 - Condensation on
Surfaces
Major Major E1-6 - FIPLOC F2
E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
E1-13 - HDR V44 (ISP-16)
E1-15 - HDR E11.2 (ISP-29)
E1-16 - HDR E11.4
E1-17 - GKSS M1
E1-18 - MISTRA ISP-47
E1-19 - MISTRA M7
E1-20 - MISTRA-M8
E1-22 - NUPEC M-7-1 (ISP-35)
E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A
E1-25 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase C
E1-26 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase E
E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F
E1-29 - SVUSS G02
E1-30 - THAI TH1
E1-31 - THAI TH2
E1-32 - THAI TH7
E1-33 - THAI TH10
E1-34 - THAI TH13 (ISP-47)
E1-35 - THAI HM2
E1-36 - TOSQAN ISP-47
E1-37 - TOSQAN Condensation Tests
E1-40 - University of Wisconsin Flat Plate
Condensation Tests
E1-41 - CONAN SARNET Benchmark
No. 1
E1-42 - CONAN SARNET2 Benchmark
No. 2
E1-46 - TOSQAN sump tests
E1-49 - PANDA OECD/SETH tests
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
E3-2 - KAEVER CsI series
E3-3 - KAEVER K187 (ISP-44)
E3-4 - KAEVER K148 (ISP-44)
E3-5 - KAEVER K188 (ISP-44)
E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
46
Table 3-1
Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P1-10 - Pool Surface
Evaporation and Condensation
Major Major E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
E1-17 - GKSS M1
E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A
E1-26 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase E
E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F
E1-29 - SVUSS G02
E1-31 - THAI TH2
E1-44 - Marviken Test 18
E1-46 - TOSQAN sump tests
P1-11 - Heat Removal by
Dousing
Major Major E1-5 - AECL-SP Dousing Test No. 1
P1-12 - Liquid Re-Entrainment
(Resuspension)
Minor Minor E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests
P1-13 - Direct Contact
Condensation
Major Major E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
E1-17 - GKSS M1
E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A
E1-25 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase C
E1-26 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase E
E1-28 - PANDA BC4
E1-29 - SVUSS G02
E1-44 - Marviken Test 18
E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests
E1-52 - ULPU CHF Tests
P1-14 - Momentum Induced
Mixing in Gases
Major Major E1-3 - LSGMF GMBT001
E1-4 - LSGMF GMUS001
E1-18 - MISTRA ISP-47
E1-19 - MISTRA M7
E1-20 - MISTRA-M8
E1-23 - NUPEC M-8-2
E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F
E1-28 - PANDA BC4
E1-48 - MISTRA LOWMA
E1-49 - PANDA OECD/SETH tests
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
47
Table 3-1
Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced
Mixing in Gases
Major Major E1-3 - LSGMF GMBT001
E1-4 - LSGMF GMUS001
E1-6 - FIPLOC F2
E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
E1-15 - HDR E11.2 (ISP-29)
E1-16 - HDR E11.4
E1-22 - NUPEC M-7-1 (ISP-35)
E1-23 - NUPEC M-8-2
E1-34 - THAI TH13 (ISP-47)
E1-35 - THAI HM2
E1-36 - TOSQAN ISP-47
E1-37 - TOSQAN Condensation Tests
E1-46 - TOSQAN sump tests
E1-48 - MISTRA LOWMA
E1-49 - PANDA OECD/SETH tests
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2
E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
P1-16 - Pressure Wave
Propagation
Minor Major E1-55 – Small Scale Burst Test
Experiments
E5-12 - ECO Tests
P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools Major Major E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-44 - Marviken Test 18
E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests
E1-54 - SBLB Boiling Tests
P1-18 - Mass Diffusion in
Vapour
Major Major E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
P1-19 - Laminar Flow (No
Experiments)
Minor Minor (No Experiments)
P1-20 - Turbulent Flow Major Major E1-1 - Flow through Interconnected
Vessels
E1-18 - MISTRA ISP-47
E1-19 - MISTRA M7
E1-20 - MISTRA-M8
E3-22 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Forney)
E3-23 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Friedlander)
E3-24 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Liu)
E3-25 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Wells)
P1-21 - Critical Flow (Choked
Flow)
Major Major E1-1 - Flow through Interconnected
Vessels
E1-44 - Marviken Test 18
P1-22 - Laminar/Turbulent
Leakage Flow
Major Major
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
48
Table 3-1
Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P1-23 - Vent Clearing Major Minor E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
E1-17 - GKSS M1
E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A
E1-25 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase C
E1-26 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase E
E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F
E1-28 - PANDA BC4
E1-29 - SVUSS G02
E1-44 - Marviken Test 18
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air
Injection
Major Minor E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
E1-17 - GKSS M1
E1-29 - SVUSS G02
E1-44 - Marviken Test 18
E5-12 - ECO Tests
P1-25 - Interfacial Drag (No
Experiments)
Minor Minor
P1-26 - Liquid Film Flow Major Major E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
P1-27 - Gas Dissolved in Water
(No Experiments)
Minor Minor
P1-28 - Gas Entrainment by
Spray Droplets (Dousing)
Major Major E1-38 - TOSQAN Test 113
E1-39 - TOSQAN Spray Tests
E1-47 - CALIST PWR spray test
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
P1-29 - Heat and Mass Transfer
of Spray Droplets (Dousing)
Major Major E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-21 - MISTRA-MASP
E1-45 - CARAIDAS EVAP and COND
tests
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
P1-30 - Droplet Interaction
(Dousing)
Minor Minor
P1-31 - Mixing by Sprays Major Major E1-38 - TOSQAN Test 113
E1-39 - TOSQAN Spray Tests
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
P1-32 - Turbulence Induced by
Sprays
Minor Minor
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
49
Table 3-2
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Phenomena
Phenomena Number and
Title
Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P2-1 - Deflagration Major Major E2-1 - LSVCTF S01
E2-2 - LSVCTF S03
E2-3 - BMC Hx series
E2-4 - BMC Ix series
E2-5 - BMC Gx Series
E2-6 - BMC Kx Series
E2-7 - BMC Ex Series
E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2 Tests
E2-9 - ENACEFF SARNET Test (Run
703)
E2-10 - ENACEFF SARNET Test (Run
717)
E2-11 - ENACEFF Run 765 (ISP-49)
E2-12 - ENACEFF Run 736 (ISP-49)
E2-13 - ENACEFF Run 733 (ISP-49)
E2-14 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 003
E2-15 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 012
E2-16 - FZK R 0498_09
E2-17 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 043
E2-18 - DRIVER HYCOM HC 020
E2-19 - DRIVER HYCOM-HC027
E2-20 - RUT HYC01
E2-21 - RUT HYC12
E2-22 - RUT HYC14
E2-23 - VGES Tests
E2-24 - NTS Tests
E2-25 - PET Tubes
E2-26 - THAI HD Series (Combustion
Tests)
E2-27 - THAI HR Series (PAR Tests)
E2-30 - LSVCTF S02
E2-31 - LSVCTF DC
E2-32 - LSVCTF 3C
E2-35 - LACOMECO UFPE2
E2-36 - LACOMECO HYGRADE10
E2-37 - LACOMECO HYGRADE09
E2-38 - LACOMECO HYGRADE03
E2-39 - LACOMECO HYDET06
E2-40 - LACOMECO HYDET07
E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
E5-6 - DISCO-A2
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
50
Table 3-2
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Phenomena
Phenomena Number and
Title
Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame
Acceleration (FA)
N/A Major E2-3 - BMC Hx series
E2-6 - BMC Kx Series
E2-7 - BMC Ex Series
E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2 Tests
E2-9 - ENACEFF SARNET Test (Run
703)
E2-10 - ENACEFF SARNET Test (Run
717)
E2-11 - ENACEFF Run 765 (ISP-49)
E2-12 - ENACEFF Run 736 (ISP-49)
E2-13 - ENACEFF Run 733 (ISP-49)
E2-14 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 003
E2-15 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 012
E2-16 - FZK R 0498_09
E2-17 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 043
E2-18 - DRIVER HYCOM HC 020
E2-19 - DRIVER HYCOM-HC027
E2-20 - RUT HYC01
E2-21 - RUT HYC12
E2-22 - RUT HYC14
E2-23 - VGES Tests
E2-24 - NTS Tests
E2-25 - PET Tubes
E2-35 - LACOMECO UFPE2
E2-36 - LACOMECO HYGRADE10
E2-37 - LACOMECO HYGRADE09
E2-38 - LACOMECO HYGRADE03
E2-39 - LACOMECO HYDET06
E2-40 - LACOMECO HYDET07
E5-6 - DISCO-A2
P2-3 - Deflagration-to-
Detonation Transition (DDT)
N/A Major
P2-4 - Hydrogen Detonation N/A Major E2-16 - FZK R 0498_09
E2-39 - LACOMECO HYDET06
E2-40 - LACOMECO HYDET07
P2-5 - Quenching of
Detonations by Geometrical
Constrains
Minor Major/Minor
P2-6 - Quenching Major Major E2-12 - ENACEFF Run 736 (ISP-49)
E2-14 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 003
P2-7 - Hydrogen Diffusion
Flame (Standing Flame)
Minor Major/Minor E2-29 - DFF SFSER01
E2-33 - LSVCTF CIC
E5-6 - DISCO-A2
P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation -
Passive Autocatalytic
Recombiners
Major Major E2-5 - BMC Gx Series
E2-27 - THAI HR Series (PAR Tests)
E2-41 - H2PAR E 12
E2-42 - H2PAR E 13
E2-43 - H2PAR E 3
E4-21 - THAI HR32
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
51
Table 3-2
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Phenomena
Phenomena Number and
Title
Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P2-9 - Hydrogen Ignition by
PARs (Weak Ignition)
Major Major E2-27 - THAI HR Series (PAR Tests)
E2-41 - H2PAR E 12
P2-10 - Hydrogen Mitigation
by Hydrogen Ignitors (Mild
Ignition)
Major Major E2-3 - BMC Hx series
E2-4 - BMC Ix series
E2-5 - BMC Gx Series
P2-11 - Strong Ignition of
Hydrogen
Major Major
P2-12 - Jet Ignition of
Hydrogen
Major Major E2-31 - LSVCTF DC
E2-32 - LSVCTF 3C
E2-33 - LSVCTF CIC
P2-13 - Radiolysis (Hydrogen
Production by Water
Radiolysis)
Minor Major E2-34 - Gammacell Radiolysis Tests
P2-14 - Effect of Droplets on
Hydrogen Combustion
N/A Major E2-24 - NTS Tests
E2-28 - THAI Hydrogen Combustion
During Spray Operation
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
52
Table 3-3
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P3-1 - Aerosol Formation in a
Flashing Jet
Major Minor E3-16 - Whiteshell Flashing Jet Tests
E3-34 - WALE
P3-2 - Aerosol Formation in a
Steam Jet
Major Minor E3-33 - Whiteshell Steam Jet Experiments
P3-3 - Aerosol Impaction (Jet
Impingement)
Major Minor E3-34 - WALE
P3-4 - Thermophoresis Minor Major E1-43 - CSTF Tests
E3-14 - CSTF ACE
E3-18 - JAERI Thermophoresis Tests
E3-19 - PITEAS Diffusiophoresis Tests
(PDI 08, PDI 09, PDI 11 and PDI 12)
E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Sehmel)
E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport
Tests
E3-34 - WALE
P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis Minor Major E1-43 - CSTF Tests
E3-6 - LACE LA2
E3-7 - LACE LA4
E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests
E3-14 - CSTF ACE
E3-19 - PITEAS Diffusiophoresis Tests
(PDI 08, PDI 09, PDI 11 and PDI 12)
E3-20 - PITEAS Aerosol Condensation
Tests (PCON 01 to PCON 05)
E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Sehmel)
E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport
Tests
P3-6 - Liquid Aerosol
Evaporation
Minor Major E3-14 - CSTF ACE
E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport
Tests
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
53
Table 3-3
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P3-7 - Condensation on
Aerosols
Minor Major E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
E1-43 - CSTF Tests
E3-1 - AHMED OECD benchmark
E3-2 - KAEVER CsI series
E3-3 - KAEVER K187 (ISP-44)
E3-4 - KAEVER K148 (ISP-44)
E3-5 - KAEVER K188 (ISP-44)
E3-6 - LACE LA2
E3-7 - LACE LA4
E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2
E3-12 - VICTORIA test 58
E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests
E3-14 - CSTF ACE
E3-16 - Whiteshell Flashing Jet Tests
E3-19 - PITEAS Diffusiophoresis Tests
(PDI 08, PDI 09, PDI 11 and PDI 12)
E3-20 - PITEAS Aerosol Condensation
Tests (PCON 01 to PCON 05)
E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport
Tests
P3-8 - Gravitational
Agglomeration
Major Major E1-43 - CSTF Tests
E3-1 - AHMED OECD benchmark
E3-6 - LACE LA2
E3-7 - LACE LA4
E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests
E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Sehmel)
P3-9 - Diffusional
Agglomeration
Minor Major E1-43 - CSTF Tests
E3-6 - LACE LA2
E3-7 - LACE LA4
E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests
E3-14 - CSTF ACE
E3-17 - Clarkson College Brownian
Agglomeration
E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport
Tests
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
54
Table 3-3
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P3-10 - Turbulent
Agglomeration of Aerosols
Major Major E3-6 - LACE LA2
E3-7 - LACE LA4
E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests
E3-16 - Whiteshell Flashing Jet Tests
E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Sehmel)
E3-22 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Forney)
E3-23 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Friedlander)
E3-24 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Liu)
E3-25 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Wells)
P3-11 - Drop Breakup Minor Major/Minor
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling
(Drop Settling)
Major Major E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
E3-2 - KAEVER CsI series
E3-3 - KAEVER K187 (ISP-44)
E3-4 - KAEVER K148 (ISP-44)
E3-5 - KAEVER K188 (ISP-44)
E3-6 - LACE LA2
E3-7 - LACE LA4
E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2
E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests
E3-14 - CSTF ACE
E3-16 - Whiteshell Flashing Jet Tests
E3-18 - JAERI Thermophoresis Tests
E3-19 - PITEAS Diffusiophoresis Tests
(PDI 08, PDI 09, PDI 11 and PDI 12)
E3-20 - PITEAS Aerosol Condensation
Tests (PCON 01 to PCON 05)
E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport
Tests
E3-34 - WALE
E3-36 – VANAM-M4
P3-13 - Diffusional Deposition Minor Major E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
E3-18 - JAERI Thermophoresis Tests
E3-25 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Wells)
P3-14 - Inertial Deposition of
Aerosols (Also called
Impaction)
Minor Major E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Sehmel)
E3-28 - LASS-SGTR
E3-34 - WALE
E5-25 - COLIMA CA-U4
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
55
Table 3-3
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of
Aerosols
Major Major E3-14 - CSTF ACE
E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Sehmel)
E3-22 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Forney)
E3-23 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Friedlander)
E3-24 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Liu)
E3-25 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent
Vertical Conduits (Wells)
E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport
Tests
E3-28 - LASS-SGTR
E3-34 - WALE
P3-16 - Re-volatilisation Major Major E3-38 – Phebus FPT4 Revaporization
E3-39 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation
Studies at VTT
E3-40 – Ruthenium Transport and
Revolatilisation Studies at KFKI
E3-41 – Ruthenium deposition studies at
Chalmers University
E3-42 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation
Studies at IRSN
P3-17 - Aerosol Removal in
Leakage Paths
Major Major E3-27 - CSE Aerosol Removal Tests
E3-31 - Aerosol Trapping Effects in
Containment Penetration (A. Watanabe)
E3-32 - Aerosol transfer through cracked
concrete walls
E5-25 - COLIMA CA-U4
P3-18 - Pool Scrubbing of
Aerosols
Major Major E3-10 - POSEIDON PA10
E5-25 - COLIMA CA-U4
P3-19 - Radionuclide Transport Major Major E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2
E4-13 - THAI Iod-11
E4-14 - THAI Iod-12
P3-20 - Radionuclide Decay
Heat (No Experiments)
Minor Major
P3-21 - Release Rate Change
Due to Oxidizing Environment
Major Major E3-29 - MCE, UCE and HCE Tests
E3-30 - GBI Tests
E3-39 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation
Studies at VTT
E3-40 – Ruthenium Transport and
Revolatilisation Studies at KFKI
P3-22 - Containment Chemistry
Impact on Source Term
Major Major E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
56
Table 3-3
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P3-23 - Ruthenium Volatility
and Behaviour in Containment
Major Major E3-39 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation
Studies at VTT
E3-40 – Ruthenium Transport and
Revolatilisation Studies at KFKI
E3-41 – Ruthenium deposition studies at
Chalmers University
E3-42 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation
Studies at IRSN
P3-24 - Aerosol Removal by
Sprays (Dousing)
Major Major E3-15 - CARAIDAS Aerosol washout by
single droplet tests
P3-25 - Re-suspension (Dry) N/A Major E3-35 – AEREST (Aerosol resuspension
shock tube)
E3-36 – VANAM-M4
E3-37 – THAI Aer-1, Aer-3 and Aer-4
tests
P3-26 - Re-entrainment (Wet) Minor Major E3-8 – LACE LA5 and LA6
P3-27 - Aerosol De-
agglomeration
N/A Minor E3-28 - LASS-SGTR
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
57
Table 3-4
Iodine Chemistry Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P4-1 - Aqueous Phase
Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
Major Major E4-2 - RTF P9T3
E4-3 - RTF P9T1
E4-4 - RTF P9T2
E4-5 - RTF P10T2
E4-6 - RTF P10T3
E4-7 - RTF P11T1
E4-8 - RTF P0T2
E4-9 - RTF P10T1
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
E4-22 - LASS-GIRS DABASCO
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine
Hydrolysis
Major Major E4-2 - RTF P9T3
E4-3 - RTF P9T1
E4-4 - RTF P9T2
E4-5 - RTF P10T2
E4-6 - RTF P10T3
E4-7 - RTF P11T1
E4-8 - RTF P0T2
E4-9 - RTF P10T1
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine
Radiolysis in Water Phase
Major Major E4-2 - RTF P9T3
E4-3 - RTF P9T1
E4-4 - RTF P9T2
E4-5 - RTF P10T2
E4-6 - RTF P10T3
E4-7 - RTF P11T1
E4-8 - RTF P0T2
E4-9 - RTF P10T1
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2 and
S3
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
58
Table 3-4
Iodine Chemistry Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic
Reactions in Water Phase
Major Major E4-2 - RTF P9T3
E4-3 - RTF P9T1
E4-4 - RTF P9T2
E4-5 - RTF P10T2
E4-6 - RTF P10T3
E4-7 - RTF P11T1
E4-8 - RTF P0T2
E4-9 - RTF P10T1
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2 and
S3
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with
Surfaces in the Water Phase
Major Major E4-2 - RTF P9T3
E4-3 - RTF P9T1
E4-4 - RTF P9T2
E4-5 - RTF P10T2
E4-6 - RTF P10T3
E4-7 - RTF P11T1
E4-8 - RTF P0T2
E4-9 - RTF P10T1
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2 and
S3
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with
surfaces in the gas phase
Major Major E4-2 - RTF P9T3
E4-3 - RTF P9T1
E4-4 - RTF P9T2
E4-5 - RTF P10T2
E4-6 - RTF P10T3
E4-7 - RTF P11T1
E4-8 - RTF P0T2
E4-9 - RTF P10T1
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2 and
S3
E4-12 - THAI Iod-09
E4-13 - THAI Iod-11
E4-14 - THAI Iod-12
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
P4-7 - Silver Iodine Reactions
in the Water Phase
Minor Major E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
P4-8 - Gas Phase Radiolytic
Oxidation of Molecular Iodine
(I2) (Iodine/Ozone Reaction)
Major Major E4-15 - THAI Iod-13
E4-16 - THAI Iod-14
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
59
Table 3-4
Iodine Chemistry Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P4-9 - Homogeneous Organic
Iodine Reactions in Gas Phase
Major Major E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2 and
S3
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine)
Radiolytic Destruction
Major Major E4-2 - RTF P9T3
E4-3 - RTF P9T1
E4-4 - RTF P9T2
E4-5 - RTF P10T2
E4-6 - RTF P10T3
E4-7 - RTF P11T1
E4-8 - RTF P0T2
E4-9 - RTF P10T1
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass
Transfer
Major Major E4-2 - RTF P9T3
E4-3 - RTF P9T1
E4-4 - RTF P9T2
E4-5 - RTF P10T2
E4-6 - RTF P10T3
E4-7 - RTF P11T1
E4-8 - RTF P0T2
E4-9 - RTF P10T1
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2 and
S3
E4-12 - THAI Iod-09
E4-22 - LASS-GIRS DABASCO
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
P4-12 - Decomposition of
Iodides (CsI) by Heat-up in
PARs
Minor Major E2-27 - THAI HR Series (PAR Tests)
E4-20 - THAI HR31
P4-13 - Iodine Filtration Major Major E4-1 - CFTF Charcoal Filter Test
P4-14 - Volatile Iodine
Trapping by Airborne Droplets
Major Major E4-22 - LASS-GIRS DABASCO
P4-15 - Iodine Retention in
Leakage Paths
Major Major E3-27 - CSE Aerosol Removal Tests
E3-31 - Aerosol Trapping Effects in
Containment Penetration (A. Watanabe)
P4-16 - I2 Interaction with
Aerosols
Minor Major E4-17 - THAI Iod-25
E4-18 - THAI Iod-26
P4-17 - Iodine Wash-down Major Major E4-19 - THAI AW
P4-18 - Pool Scrubbing of
Iodine
Major Major
P4-19 - Iodine Release from
Flashing Pool or Flashing Jet
Major Major E4-23 - OECD-THAI2 Gaseous Iodine
Release from Flashing Jet Test
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
60
Table 3-5
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P5-1 - Corium Release from
Failed Dry Reactor Pressure
Vessel
N/A Major E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests
E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests
P5-2 - Corium Entrainment Out
of the Reactor Primary Vessel
with Lateral Breaches
N/A Major E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests
E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests
P5-3 - Corium Particles
Generation from the Corium
Pool
N/A Major E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests
E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests
P5-4 - Corium Particles
Generation from the Two Phase
Jet
N/A Major E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests
E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests
P5-5 - Corium Particles
Entrainment
N/A Major E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests
E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests
P5-6 - Corium Particles
Trapping
N/A Major E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests
P5-7 - Direct Containment
Heating
N/A Major E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests
E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests
E5-6 - DISCO-A2
P5-8 - Corium Jet Break-up in
Water Pool
N/A Major E5-3 - FARO Tests
E5-7 - KROTOS JRC Tests
E5-8 - SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Commissioning Tests
E5-9: SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Tests
P5-9 - FCI and Steam
Explosion - Melt into Water Ex-
Vessel (Melt Quenching)
N/A Major E5-3 - FARO Tests
E5-7 - KROTOS JRC Tests
E5-8 - SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Commissioning Tests
E5-9: SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Tests
E5-12 - ECO Tests
P5-10 - Pressure Load on
Corium Retention Devices
N/A Major E5-3 - FARO Tests
E5-7 - KROTOS JRC Tests
E5-8 - SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Commissioning Tests
E5-9: SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Tests
P5-11 - Particulate Debris Bed
Formation
N/A Major E5-3 - FARO Tests
E5-7 - KROTOS JRC Tests
E5-8 - SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Commissioning Tests
E5-9: SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Tests
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
61
Table 3-5
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P5-12 - Corium Debris (Solid)
Heat Transfer
N/A Major E5-8 - SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Commissioning Tests
E5-9: SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI
Tests
E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3
E5-36 - FRAG
P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete
Interaction
N/A Major E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-13 - BALI Ex-Vessel Tests
E5-15 - VULCANO VB-U7 (EPR
concrete)
E5-16 - VULCANO VW-U1 (COMET
bottom flooding)
E5-17 - VULCANO VE-U7
E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2
E5-19 - SURC-3
E5-20 - SURC-3A
E5-21 - SURC-4
E5-22 - BETA V5.1
E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4,
L5, L6, and L7
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
E5-26 - BURN-1
E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS
E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3
E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3
E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3
E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3
E5-34 - COIL-1
P5-14 - Corium Melt
Stratification
N/A Major E5-14 - BALISE Tests
E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2
E5-19 - SURC-3
E5-20 - SURC-3A
E5-21 - SURC-4
E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3
E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS
E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3
E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3
E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3
E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3
E5-34 - COIL-1
E5-35 - WETCOR-1
P5-15 - Corium Spreading N/A Major E5-3 - FARO Tests
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
62
Table 3-5
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat
Transfer
N/A Major E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-13 - BALI Ex-Vessel Tests
E5-15 - VULCANO VB-U7 (EPR
concrete)
E5-16 - VULCANO VW-U1 (COMET
bottom flooding)
E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2
E5-19 - SURC-3
E5-20 - SURC-3A
E5-21 - SURC-4
E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4,
L5, L6, and L7
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
E5-26 - BURN-1
E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS
E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3
E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3
E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3
E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3
E5-34 - COIL-1
E5-37 - 1DHtFlx
P5-17 - Corium
Evaporation/Vaporization
N/A Minor E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2
E5-19 - SURC-3
E5-20 - SURC-3A
E5-21 - SURC-4
E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4,
L5, L6, and L7
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3
E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS
E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3
E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3
E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3
E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3
E5-34 - COIL-1
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
63
Table 3-5
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P5-18 - Corium
Solidification/Crust Formation
N/A Major E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-15 - VULCANO VB-U7 (EPR
concrete)
E5-16 - VULCANO VW-U1 (COMET
bottom flooding)
E5-17 - VULCANO VE-U7
E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2
E5-19 - SURC-3
E5-20 - SURC-3A
E5-21 - SURC-4
E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4,
L5, L6, and L7
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
E5-26 - BURN-1
E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3
E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS
E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3
E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3
E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3
E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3
E5-34 - COIL-1
E5-36 - FRAG
P5-19 - Cracking (Crust) N/A Major E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4,
L5, L6, and L7
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium
Coolability, Top Flooding
N/A Major E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
E5-27 – SWISS-1 and SWISS-2
E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3
E5-35 - WETCOR-1
P5-21 - Ex-Vessel Corium
Catcher - Coolability and Water
Bottom Injection
N/A Major E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-16 - VULCANO VW-U1 (COMET
bottom flooding)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
64
Table 3-5
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P5-22 - Ex-Vessel Corium
Catcher - Corium-Ceramics
Interaction and Properties
N/A Major
P5-23 - Effect of Non
Homogeneous Ablation on Gate
Ablation
N/A Minor E5-15 - VULCANO VB-U7 (EPR
concrete)
E5-16 - VULCANO VW-U1 (COMET
bottom flooding)
E5-17 - VULCANO VE-U7
P5-24 - Crust Anchorage N/A Major/
Minor
E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3
E5-35 - WETCOR-1
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release
from MCCI and Core Catchers
N/A Minor E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2
E5-19 - SURC-3
E5-20 - SURC-3A
E5-21 - SURC-4
E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4,
L5, L6, and L7
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
E5-25 - COLIMA CA-U4
E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3
E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS
E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3
E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3
E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3
E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3
E5-34 - COIL-1
E5-35 - WETCOR-1
E5-36 - FRAG
P5-26 - Core Catchers with
External Cooling
N/A Major E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
65
Table 3-5
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium N/A Major E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3;
SSWICS tests 1-7
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6;
SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2
E5-19 - SURC-3
E5-20 - SURC-3A
E5-21 - SURC-4
E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4,
L5, L6, and L7
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4,
and MSET-1
E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS
E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3
E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3
E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3
E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3
E5-34 - COIL-1
P5-28 - Corium Attack of
Metallic Liner
N/A Major
(for BWRs)
E5-38 – MC Tests
E5-39 – Plate Tests
P5-29 - Corium Release from
Failed Flooded Reactor
Pressure Vessel
N/A Major
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
66
Table 3-6
Systems Phenomena
Phenomena Number and Title Significance Experiments Exhibiting this
Phenomenon DBA SA/BDBA
P6-1 - Ventilation Systems Major* Major*
P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst
Membranes, Rupture Discs etc.
Major* Major* E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
P6-3 - Air Cooler (Fan Cooler)
Heat Transfer
Major Major E1-2 - Bruce LAC Test in Air, Test No.
50
P6-4 - Pump Performance
including Sump Clogging
Major Major
P6-5 - Passive Cooling by
Internal and External Condensers
Major Major E1-28 - PANDA BC4
P6-6 - Aerosol Removal in
EFADS
Major Major E6-1 - CSE EFADS Tests
E6-2 - ACE-CSTF EFADS Tests
E6-3 - ACE-LSFF EFADS Tests
* – especially for containments with multiple rooms
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
67
3.1 Containment Thermalhydraulics Phenomena
3.1.1 P1-1 - Stratification
Description:
Fluid density differences can lead to stratification into layers. Density variation may be due to
temperature difference or composition. Therefore, vertical distributions of temperature and gas
species concentrations are in general non-similar.
Most accident scenarios involve the transport of fluids between vessels. Depending on the
density differences between the fluids in the vessels, as well as a variety of other parameters (flow
rate, geometry of the fluid release and of the receiving vessel, interaction between various
mass/momentum/heat sources, etc.), the fluid in the receiving vessel can either remain well mixed or
become vertically stratified. Moreover, stratification can be produced by differential heating within a
fluid body, differences in the temperature of the structures, and by condensation/evaporation. In
partially divided enclosures (such as containment buildings), fluid trapping in partitions can lead to
stable stratified conditions, which in turn can shut down large-loop natural circulation, and as such
hinder global mixing throughout the building.. Stratification can be stable or unstable, steady or
transient. In the transient case, the motion of the density interface (stratification front) is of
paramount importance. Although the phenomena are often 3-D, stratification is more often described
as a 1-D phenomenon governed by density differences in the vertical direction. This phenomenon is
strongly connected to forced mixing because stratification occurs when the driving forces to cause
forced mixing are weaker than natural buoyancy. In this chapter, the conditions leading to mixing and
stratification are discussed. Erosion/break-up of stratification is discussed in the chapters related to
phenomena:
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools
Stratification occurs in gas spaces (e.g., dry containments, Drywell of BWRs, etc.) as well as in
water bodies (e.g., ECCS water storage pools, BWR Wetwell, etc.). The first issue is covered here,
the second being addressed in phenomenon P1-17.
One of the most investigated issues in relation to gas stratification in large volumes is the
development of criteria for the establishment of stratified conditions and of computational methods
for predicting gas distribution. The development of stratification depends, among other things, on the
stability of the horizontal currents at the density interface and the overturning of the flow due to the
interaction with vertical wall (as would occur in enclosures with large aspect ratio). Stratification also
affects the inter-compartment transport, which is often controlled by small density differences
between adjacent compartments. In the case of hydrogen release, the main concern is the formation
of explosive mixtures in some regions of the containment. Accurate prediction of stratification is also
important for the evaluation of the effect and performance of accident mitigation measures and
performance of equipment for long-term cooling (see phenomenon P6-3 - Air Cooler (Fan Cooler)
Heat Transfer). In BWRs and other designs with small free volume, stratification affects the amount
of gas transported to the suppression chamber and therefore the system pressure.
References:
B. Gebhart, Y. Yaluria, R. Mahajan, B. Sammakia, “Buoyancy-Induced Flows and Transport”,
Hemisphere Publishing Corp., p. 334, 1988
A. Bejan, “Convective Heat Transfer”, John Wiley & Sons, 2nd
Edition, pp. 247-251, 1995
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
68
P.F. Peterson, “Scaling and Analysis of Mixing in Large Stratified Volumes”, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, Vol. 37, Supplement 1, pp. 97-106, 1994 March
H. Zhao and P.F. Peterson, “An Overview of Modeling Methods for Thermal Mixing and
Stratification in Large Enclosures for Reactor Safety Analysis”, The 8th Int. Topical Meeting on
Nuclear Thermal-Hydraulics, Operation and Safety (NUTHOS-8), N8P0079, Shanghai, China, 2010
October 10-14
N.B. Kaye and G.R. Hunt, “Overturning in a filling box”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 576, pp. 297-323, 2007
M. Andreani, F. Putz, T.V. Dury, C. Gjerloev and B.L. Smith, “On the Application of Field Codes to
the Analysis of Gas Mixing in Large Volumes: Case studies using CFX and GOTHIC”, Annals of
Nuclear Energy, Vol. 30, pp. 685-714, 2003
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
69
3.1.2 P1-2 - Flashing (Flashing Discharge)
Description:
The discharge from a reservoir or vessel at a high pressure to either a vessel at a lower pressure,
or to atmosphere, is governed by factors like flow area, pressure difference, wall friction, exit losses,
state of the fluid (liquid, gas, or two phase mixture), and upstream flow regime. As the fluid flows to
the break, there may be a physical point in the system at which a critical pressure differential is
reached. Any subsequent changes in the downstream pressure no longer influence the fluid velocity
or mass flow. When this happens, the fluid velocity is at sonic velocity and the flow is said to be
critical. The actual point at which the flow becomes critical may be internally within the reservoir or
it may be at the break plane.
During the process of discharge or blowdown, the acceleration of the fluid and the subsequent
flashing of the discharge are important in determining the conditions of the discharge in the
downstream volume. This flashing phenomenon involves depressurization of the fluid from the break
plane to the asymptotic plane at which point the overall pressure is considered to be at the ambient
level. As the two-phase fluid is being depressurized, rapid vaporization and expansion of the fluid
occurs. Formation of very fine droplets may result. The end state of the fluid depends on the fluid
conditions at the break plane (fluid temperature, pressure and quality), fluid velocity and the pressure
differences between the break plane and the ambient.
In the case of primary or secondary pipe breaks, coolant is vented through a break opening from
an upstream reservoir to the containment volume. As the fluid accelerates through the break opening,
the local static pressure decreases while kinetic energy increases. Two-phase conditions occur at the
break plane if upstream conditions are that of saturated or slightly subcooled liquid. For the majority
of breaks considered in safety analyses, the pressure at the break plane is many times that of the
ambient pressure inside containment and choking occurs. Subsequently, the fluid expands rapidly
(within one to three equivalent break diameter) to the “asymptotic plane” where the local static
pressure is the same as the ambient containment pressure. Local jet velocity is also very high. Other
important phenomena include such factors as jet expansion and impingement on structures.
References:
J.C. Leung and M.A. Grolmes, “The discharge of two-phase flashing flow in a horizontal duct”,
AIChE Journal, Vol. 33, Issue 3, pp. 524-527, 1987 April
F.P. Incropera and D.P. Dewitt, “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer”, 5th Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, pp. 230-240, 2000
Prepared by: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
70
3.1.3 P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
Description:
In the literature, boiling is often defined as a phase change process in which vapour bubbles are
formed either on a heated surface or in a superheated liquid layer adjacent to the heated surface. It
differs from evaporation at predetermined vapour/gas-liquid interfaces because it also involves
creation of these interfaces at discrete sites on the heated surface. In general, however, it is the liquid-
to-vapour phase change that occurs when the temperature of the liquid is higher than the saturation
temperature at the corresponding to the liquid pressure. Boiling of a water body can occur by
deposition of heat, which can be supplied by a hot surface, by a hot fluid or by thermal radiation.
Boiling will also occur when the pressure is reduced below the saturation pressure corresponding to
the temperature of the bulk of the liquid. In this case, one refers to this phenomenon as to “flashing”.
Boiling heat transfer plays a role in steam explosions as well.
Different heat transfer regimes have been identified. Sub-cooled boiling involves formation of
bubbles at the surface when the bulk fluid temperature is below the boiling temperature. Saturated
boiling occurs when the bulk fluid is at the boiling temperature. In film boiling, the liquid is no
longer in direct contact with the heating surface, and the vapour blankets all or an appreciable portion
of the heating surface. For systems where the temperature is controlled (such as heat exchangers),
transition boiling occurs, which is characterised by rapid alternating of periods of film boiling and
periods when the surface is wet.
Boiling heat transfer is relevant for external cooling of the reactor vessel under severe accident
conditions. Boiling could also occur in the suppression pool of a BWR if the water is not adequately
cooled during a design base accident, or following depressurisation to prevent the pressure to increase
above design limits under severe accident scenario. In a PWR containment, evaporation of the sump
is considered in many realistic accident scenarios. Boiling can also occur, due to either volume
heating generated by deposited radionuclides, or to extreme decay heat release, or to controlled
depressurisation caused by venting or fast depressurisation caused by containment leakages. Boiling
of the sump prevents the use of pumps feeding safety equipment.
References:
V.K. Dhir, “Boiling Heat Transfer”, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., Vol. 30, pp. 1, 1998
N.I. Kolev, “Uniqueness of the Elementary Physics Driving Heterogeneous Nucleate Boiling and
Flashing”, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Vol. 38, No. 2, Special Issue on ICAPP ’05, pp.
175-184, 2006
R.E. Henry and H.K. Fauske, “External Cooling of a Reactor Vessel under Severe Accident
Conditions”, Nucl. Eng. and Design, Vol. 139, pp. 31-43, 1993
J. Malet, M. Bessiron and C. Perrotin, “Modelling of Water Sump Evaporation in a CFD Code for
Nuclear Containment Studies”, Nucl. Eng. and Design, Vol. 214, pp. 1726-1735
J. Malet, O. Degrees du Lou and T. Gélain, Water evaporation over sump surface in nuclear
containment studies: CFD and LP codes validation on TOSQAN tests, submitted to Nucl. Eng. and
Design, 2012-2013
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, p. 93, 2009 December
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
71
3.1.4 P1-4 - Critical Heat Flux (CHF)
Description:
The maximum or critical heat flux represents the upper limit of nucleate boiling and marks the
termination of efficient cooling conditions on the surface. It is also known as dryout, departure from
nucleate boiling (DNB), burnout or boiling crisis. The mechanisms of dryout and DNB are different.
Dryout occurs under high quality (annular) flow conditions, when the thickness of the liquid film falls
below a critical limit and the surface of the heated structure remains in contact with steam. DNB
occurs for subcooled or low quality conditions, when the heat flux is so large that the resulting vapour
production hinders the liquid from wetting the surface. The mechanism of DNB is still a subject of
fundamental research, and various theories have been proposed. Burnout usually refers to the
negative effect of DNB on a surface. Boiling crisis is a general term for the DNB and dryout
mechanisms.
CHF is a phenomenon of interest for two aspects of containment related safety issues: in-vessel
retention under severe accident conditions and performance of condensers designed for the long term
decay heat removal.
In the case of a severe accident, a management strategy is to flood the reactor cavity, submerging
the reactor vessel. The concept is based on the idea that the external cooling will be able to prevent
the failure of the RPV and to arrest the downward relocation of the molten core. In general, it is
assumed that the primary system will be depressurized and the lower head will be fully submerged
before the core debris deposit on the inside of the lower head. With the lower head fully submerged,
the concept is based on the assumption that the outside surface will remain in nucleate boiling (at
100°C). This requires that the geometry of the vessel and reactor cavity provides a flow path for the
cooling water sufficiently wide to permit to the vapor to escape. Under these conditions, the lower
head failure can be avoided if CHF is not reached at any point on its surface. The mechanisms
leading to CHF are different at the various positions, and result in an angular dependence of the
limiting heat flux. Important parameters that affect CHF are surface wettability, wall thickness and
the strength of the convective flow (which depends on the geometry). Since wettability of the
material is important, coating of the lower head with porous material has been considered for
increasing the limiting heat flux.
References:
V.K. Dhir, “Boiling Heat Transfer”, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., Vol. 30, p. 380, 1998
T.G. Theofanous and T.N. Dinh, “High Heat Flux Boiling and Burnout as Microphysical Phenomena:
Mounting Evidence and Opportunities”, Multiphase Science and Technology, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-
26, 2006
A.E. Bergles, “What is the Real Mechanism of CHF in Pool Boiling?”, Proc. of Int. Conf. on Pool and
External Flow Boiling, 165-170, Santa-Barbara, USA, 2002
S.G. Kandlikar, “Insight into Mechanisms and Review of available Models for Critical Heat Flux
(CHF) in Pool Boiling”, 1st Int. Conf. on Heat Transfer, Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics
(HFFAT2002), Kruger National Park, South Africa, 2002 April 8-10
T.G. Theofanous, J.P. Tu, A.T. Dinh and T.N. Dinh, “The Boiling Crisis Phenomenon. Part I:
Nucleation and Nucleate Boiling Heat Transfer”, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, Vol. 26,
pp. 775–792, 2002
T.G. Theofanous, C. Liu, S. Additon, S. Angelini, O. Kymäläinen and T. Salmassi, “In-Vessel
Coolability and Retention of a Core Melt”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 169, pp. 1-48, 1997
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
72
3.1.5 P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
Description:
Solid heat conduction is the process by which heat flows from a region of higher temperature to a
region of lower temperature within a solid medium or between different solid mediums in direct
physical contact. In conduction heat flow, the energy is transmitted by direct molecular
communication without appreciable displacement of the molecules. The conduction heat transfer
depends on the material geometry, conductivity and temperature gradient.
Conduction is the only mechanism by which heat can flow in opaque solids.
In a composite material, the temperature drop across an interface between materials may be
appreciable and this temperature drop is attributed to the thermal contact resistance at the interface.
This resistance is due principally to surface roughness effects.
Note: It includes both steady-state and transient conduction heat transfer.
References:
F.P. Incropera and D.P. DeWitt, “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer”, 2nd
Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, 1985
Prepared by: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
73
3.1.6 P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and Forced)
Description:
Convection heat transfer is the energy transfer between a surface and a fluid moving over the
surface. The fluid motion can be due to “free” or “natural” convection whereby the fluid motion
results from density differences within the fluid arising from the temperature differences or fluid
components (i.e., lighter gases). The fluid motion can also be forced convection, whereby the fluid
motion is driven by an external force. Diffusion can also result in fluid motion, but is dominated by
natural or forced convection flows.
Convection heat transfer can also occur between a vapour and a liquid (film or droplets).
Note: Includes convection heat transfer from superheated steam to a surface.
References:
F.P. Incropera and D.P. DeWitt, “Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer”, 2nd
Edition, John Wiley
& Sons, 1985
Prepared by: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
74
3.1.7 P1-7 - Thermal Diffusion in Fluids (No Experiments)
Description:
The thermal diffusivity of a fluid is given by the thermal conductivity (k) divided by the
volumetric heat capacity (ρCp). It relates to the rate of heat transfer due to a temperature gradient in
the fluid. Heat transfer coefficients are usually computed using correlations which require thermal
conductivity data. The thermal conductivities of gases generally increase with increasing
temperature, whereas the thermal conductivities of most liquids decrease with increasing temperature.
For mixtures, thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity can be estimated by the Wilke's
approximate method, which is analogous to methods applied for estimating the dynamic viscosity, µ,
of a fluid.
Experiments to measure the thermal diffusivity in gases or liquids are described in the referenced
MLM reports. These are fluid properties and additional experiments will not be requested. The
theory of thermal diffusion in fluids is well established and documented in the open literature. Thus,
no experimental results are needed.
Generally, CFD tools are validated on academic problems of heat transfer: natural convection in
a differentially heated square cavity with low Rayleigh number (De Vahl Davis, 1983) or laminar
fully developed heated channel flow in which self-similar solutions are available (Cebeci, 2002).
References:
R.B. Bird, W.E. Stewart and E.N. Lightfoot, “Transport phenomena”, Wiley, 1965
T. Cebeci, “Convective heat transfer”, 2nd
revised Edition, Springer, 2002
G. De Vahl Davis, “Natural convection of air in a square cavity: A bench mark numerical solution”,
Int. Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, pp. 249–264, 1983 May/June
J.I. Lin, “Thermodynamics of thermal diffusion - Thermal diffusion in Liquids”, Report MLM-36144,
1988
W.L. Taylor, “Thermodynamics of thermal diffusion - Thermal diffusion in Gases”, Report MLM-
3614, 1988
C.R. Wilke, “A viscosity equation for gas mixtures”, The Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 18, 4,
1950 April
Prepared by: E. Studer (CEA)
4 The publication, MLM-3614, contains two parts, one on diffusion in liquids and the other on diffusion in
gases, is publically available from the DOE/OSTI website (http://www.osti.gov/bridge)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
75
3.1.8 P1-8 - Radiation Heat Transfer (No Experiments)
Description:
Thermal radiation is a form of electromagnetic radiation, which is detected as heat or light, and is
generally composed of infrared and/or visible radiation. The intensity of thermal radiation heat
transfer between two bodies is proportional to the difference between the fourth powers of the
absolute temperatures. Therefore, the importance of radiation increases with the temperature levels.
In addition, no medium needs to be present between the two bodies for radiant exchange to
occur. If a medium exists between radiating surfaces, it can interact with radiative heat transfer, and
is called “participating” medium. In general a medium absorbs, scatters and emits energy. Its
capability to attenuate the radiation depends on the sum of the absorption and scattering coefficients,
which is called extinction coefficient. The optical thickness is defined as the integrated value of the
extinction coefficient over the thickness of the medium. If the optical thickness is much less than
unity, the medium is practically transparent to radiation, otherwise is considered opaque and must be
considered when calculating radiative heat transfer between two bodies. In general, scattering in
gaseous media is negligible, but can become important when dense clouds of particles (aerosols,
drops, etc.) are involved. Gases with symmetric diatomic molecules (such as hydrogen, oxygen and
nitrogen) are transparent to infrared radiation and do not need to be considered. Heat transfer is
mostly affected by water vapour, because of its strong emission bands. Additionally, CO and CO2
(and other gaseous products produced by core-concrete interaction during a severe accident) must be
considered in the analyses.
Finally, aerosols and dispersed core debris during a direct containment heating event may also
contribute to radiative heat transfer. Due to the large dimensions of the containment, the optical
thickness is always large, and the fluid is always a participating medium. Condensate liquid films
deposited on the walls have also to be considered, because a thin layer increases the emissivity of
concrete and steel structures. In principle, radiative heat transfer interacts with droplets (e.g., during
spray injection) as well, but this is usually not considered.
Overall, the heat transfer depends on the temperature of the surfaces and of the fluid, the
geometric arrangement of the surfaces, the surface emissivity and the properties of the intervening
media. Since radiative heat transfer occurs simultaneously with conduction and convection, it must
be considered whenever it cannot be proved to be negligible. For instance, radiant emission and
absorption can affect the heat transfer in a convection boundary layer.
In containment analysis, two forms of radiative heat transfer are considered:
Radiation between structures and media (vapour/gas/aerosols/debris). For most cases, radiation
represents a correction to convective heat transfer, and it can be added to it. In the case of direct
containment heating, radiation plays a major role where the core debris produced by the high
pressure melt ejection transfers heat to the air-steam atmosphere, and could cause a strong
pressurisation of the containment, and possibly even its failure. Also for evaluating the
performance of catalytic foils for hydrogen recombination, radiative heat transfer has to be
considered.
Radiation between the surfaces of the structures. The radiative heat exchange between the various
surfaces depends on the matrix of the view factors
Radiation between a liquid film and surrounding structures has also been considered for
evaluating the external cooling of the steel shell of the AP1000.
For the conditions relevant for containment thermal-hydraulics (range of pressures, gas mixtures
of steam, air and other gases, presence of liquid droplets and other dispersed phases), radiation heat
transfer is practically always associated with convective heat transfer from the structures and
interfacial heat and mass transfer between gas and particles/droplets. Moreover, the emissivity of the
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
76
metallic surfaces is often difficult to characterise, as it varies with the age of the structure (oxidation,
wear, etc.). The experimental validation of the models implemented in the codes would therefore be
questionable, because the heat transfer modes are tightly coupled. On the other hand, radiation heat
transfer is governed by a nearly exact transport equation, where only the optical properties of the
steam, gas mixtures, and aerosols employ empirical or semi-empirical models. These considerations
suggest that the validation of the models could be better based on the comparison with benchmark
solutions, obtained by exact, although computationally very expensive methods (e.g., Montecarlo
simulations). Reference solutions could be obtained using hybrid methods, which combine the
performance of the two more practical (and popular) Discrete Ordinates (S-N) and Spherical
Armonics (P-N) methods, which cannot be used alone for the entire range of optical thicknesses and
properties of the medium (Maathangi (2011)).
References:
R. Siegel and J.R. Howell, “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer”, 2nd
Edition, Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation, pp. 1-2, pp. 424-427, p. 619, p. 697, 1981
D.W. Condiff, D.H. Cho and S.H. Chan, “Heat Radiation Through Steam In Direct Containment
Heating”, American Nuclear Society and Atomic Industrial Forum joint meeting, Paper 32,
Washington, DC, USA, OSTI ID: 6889970, 1986 November
P. Royl, G. Necker and J.R. Travis, “GASFLOW Simulation of Hydrogen Recombination with
Radiation Transport from Catalytic Foils in the Recombiner Foil Test HDR E11.8.1”, Jahrestagung
Kerntechnik, Dresden, Germany, 2001 May 15-17
J. Woodcock et al., “WGOTHIC Application to AP600 and AP1000”, WCAP-15862, pp. 3-16 to 3-
18, 2004 March
Maathangi Sankar, “A Hybrid Discrete Ordinates - Spherical Harmonics Method for Solution of the
Radiative Transfer Equation in Multi-Dimensional Participating Media”, Master Thesis, Ohio State
University, 2011
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
77
3.1.9 P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
Description:
Film and dropwise condensation occurs when a vapor contacts a cool surface. This type of
phenomenon is a very efficient means of heat transfer, and represents an important heat sink. The
vapor is cooled to its saturation temperature, releasing both sensible and latent heat to the surface.
The condensate forms on the surface as either a liquid “film” that covers the entire condensing surface
or as individual “droplets”.
Analytical work on condensation was pioneered by Nüsselt, and first reported in 1918, with the
formulation of the problem of pure vapor condensation. Experimentally, the effect of small amounts
of noncondensable species was identified during the 1920s. Sparrow in the 1960s analyzed the
phenomenon and demonstrated that the presence of noncondensable species is the dominating
contribution in the degradation of heat transfer coefficients. The analogy between the heat and mass
transfer phenomena concerning a chemical species emitted or absorbed at a surface was proposed by
Chilton and Colburn in 1934. This analogy is still widely used to model steam condensation on
surfaces in containment codes.
Empirical correlations like those of Uchida and Tagami have been extensively applied for large
scale containment analysis. Since the 1990s, various databases have been produced on condensation
phenomena in presence of noncondensable species like those of Anderson, Debhi, Huhtiniemi, and
recently, separate effect test facilities (CONAN and COPAIN) have provided valuable experimental
results to validate CFD codes.
References:
W. Nüsselt, “Die oberflachenkondensation des wasserdampfes”, Z. Ver. Deutsch. Ing., Vol. 60, pp.
541–569, 1916
T.H. Chilton and A.P. Colburn, “Evaporation of water into a laminar stream of air and superheated
steam”, Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol. 26, pp. 373–380, 1934
R. Leontiev, “Théorie des échanges de chaleur et de masse”, MIR editors, Moscow, 1979
H. Uchida, A. Oyama and Y. Togo, “Evaluation of post-incident cooling system of LWR’s”, In Proc.
Int. Conf. Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Vol. 13, pp. 93–102, 1965
A.A. Dehbi, M. Golay and M.S. Kazimi, “Condensation experiments in steam-air and steam-air-
helium mixtures under turbulent natural convection”, In Proceeding of National Heat Transfer
Conference , pp. 19–28, Minneapolis, USA, 1991
I.K. Huhtiniemi and M.L. Corradini, “Condensation in the presence of noncondensable gases”,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 141, pp. 429–446, 1993
M.H. Anderson, L.E. Herranz and M.L. Corradini, “Experimental analysis of heat transfer within the
AP600 containment under postulated accident conditions”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.
185, pp. 153–172, 1998
X. Cheng, “Experimental data base for containment thermalhydraulic analysis”, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Vol. 204, 1-3, pp. 267-284, 2001 February
W. Ambrosini, N. Forgione and F. Oriolo, “Experimental and CFD analysis on condensation heat
transfer in a square cross section channel”, Int. Proceeding of the NURETH 11 Conference, Avignon,
France, 2005 October 2-6
M. Bucci, “Experimental and computational analysis of condensation phenomena for the Thermal-
hydraulic analysis of LWRs containments”, PhD thesis, University of Pisa, 2009.
Prepared by: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
78
3.1.10 P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
Description:
Evaporation and condensation, and the associated transfers of latent heat at the liquid pool
surface, represent two opposite phase change phenomena. The free surface of a liquid pool is under a
total pressure, which is the sum of the partial pressures of the noncondensable air and water vapor in
the atmosphere.
The meaning of evaporation is limited to liquid evaporation only at the free surface of a pool that
is, without vapor bubble formation in and release from the liquid pool. Similarly, only condensation
at the free surface of a pool is considered here, without distributed precipitation or fog formation
within the bulk atmosphere, or condensation on other surfaces.
When evaporation occurs at a free surface of a liquid, it is usually called free surface
evaporation. The driving force is the density difference of water vapor between the gas mixture just
above the water surface and the ambient surroundings. The conditions, under which water
evaporation occurs, may be categorized according to the flow regime of the system (laminar/turbulent
conditions in free or forced convection), and correlations that describe evaporation can be either
empirical or based on heat and mass transfer analogy. The latter are more general and not restricted
by the experimental conditions. However, there are two possible source of errors related to the fact
that the mass transfer coefficient is directly proportional to Sherwood number and diffusion
coefficients. These correlations are also based on stagnant water pool with uniform temperature.
Convection motion due to temperature gradient will probably affect the surface temperature.
Condensation of steam/noncondensable gas mixture on a free water surface operates if the water
pool surface temperature is below the saturation temperature. The phenomenon is in a certain sense
equivalent to wall condensation as long as convection is not occurring in the water pool.
References:
M.T. Pauken, “An experimental investigation of combined turbulent free and forced evaporation”,
Experimental thermal and fluid science, Vol. 18, pp. 334-340, 1999
J. Malet et al., “Modeling of water sump evaporation in a CFD code for nuclear containment studies”,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 241, 5, pp. 1736-1745, 2011
J. Malet, O. Degrees du Lou and T. Gélain, “Water evaporation over sump surface in nuclear
containment studies: CFD and LP codes validation on TOSQAN tests”, submitted to Nucl. Eng. and
Design, 2012-2013
Prepared by: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
79
3.1.11 P1-11 - Heat Removal by Dousing
Description:
Heat can be removed from a hot air steam mixture, in a completely or partially closed room, by a
cooler dousing water spray. During the flight in the air steam atmosphere, sensible heat transfer and
condensation heats up the water droplets. Mass transfer by steam condensation on a droplet results in
some increase of the droplet size. If a droplet traverses a hot and dry atmosphere some water may
evaporate from the droplet surface, therby transferring heat to the droplet through its latent heat. The
net effect of dousing is to reduce the containment pressure and temperature.
References:
J. Malet, F. Dumay, E. Porcheron, P. Lemaitre and J. Vendel, TOSQAN spray benchmark –
TOSQAN test 101: Spray activation in air-steam mixture - Code-experiment comparison report,
Rapport IRSN/DSU/SERAC/LEMAC/05-07, 2005
J. Malet, E. Porcheron, J. Vendel, L. Blumenfeld and I. Tkatschenko, SARNET spray benchmark:
TOSQAN and MISTRA Specification report Rev. 1, Rapport IRSN/DSU/SERAC/LEMAC/06-11,
2006
J. Malet and P. Métier, SARNET spray benchmark: thermalhydraulic part, TOSQAN 101, Code-
experiment comparison report, IRSN Technical Report DSU/SERAC/LEMAC/07-03, 2007
E. Porcheron, P. Lemaitre, A. Nuboer, V. Rochas and J. Vendel, Experimental investigation in the
TOSQAN facility of heat and mass transfers in a spray for containment application, Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 237, pp. 1862-1871, 2007
P. Lemaitre and E. Porcheron, Analysis of heat and mass transfers in two-phase flow by coupling
optical diagnostic techniques, Exp. Fluids, Vol. 45, pp. 187–201, 2008
P. Lemaitre, E. Porcheron and A. Nuboer, “Study of Heat Transfer and Mass Transfer in a Spray for
Containment Application: Analysis of the Influence of Spray Temperature at the Injection Point”,
Nuclear Technology, Vol. 175, pp. 553-571, 2011
P. Lemaitre and E. Porcheron, “Study of Heat and Mass Transfers in a Spray for Containment
Application: Analysis of the Influence of the Spray Mass Flow Rate”, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Vol. 239, pp. 541–550, 2009
J. Malet, L. Blumenfeld, S. Arndt, M. Babic, A. Bentaib, F. Dabbene, P. Kostka, S. Mimouni, M.
Movahed, S. Paci, Z. Parduba, J. Travis and E. Urbonavicius, “Sprays in Containment: Final Results
of the SARNET Spray Benchmark”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 241, pp. 2162-2171, 2011
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
80
3.1.12 P1-12 - Liquid Re-Entrainment (Resuspension)
Description:
Liquid re-entrainment (resuspension) refers to the mechanism whereby the tops of surface waves
in a liquid phase are stripped away by the flowing air/vapour mixture and then dispersed in a droplet
phase. This phenomenon is highly dependent on the velocity of the gas passing over the water
film/surface and the depth of the water pool.
Note: This phenomenon is primary of interest only for multi-unit CANDU stations. The reason is as
follows:
Re entrainment may occur in the early stages of a LOCA accident. A portion of the pooled liquid
discharge may be re entrained as it falls through the fuelling machine hatchway by the high
velocity flows present early in the accident. A multi unit station has the geometry for such a
situation. The fuelling machine hatch is the large opening in the floor of a Bruce/Darlington type
containment reactor vault and connects to the fuelling machine duct, which provides the long
flowpath to the vacuum building via the pressure relief duct.
It is this geometry in combination with the vacuum induced high velocities and the collection of
water on the floor of this pathway, which makes this phenomenon possible for multi unit stations.
The velocities in the fuelling machine vault could reach velocities much greater than 20 m/s if the
primary heat transport system break occurred in this room. At these velocities it is possible to lift
water droplets from a pool or strip a water film from a wall surface and entrain them in the flow.
To date, no suitable experimental data has been identified that can validate this phenomenon
under conditions of interest for CANDU LOCA analysis.
References:
M. Ishii and K. Mishima, “Droplet Entrainment Correlation in Annular Two Phase Flow”, Int. Journal
of Mass Heat Transfer, Vol. 32, No. 10, 1835 1846, 1989
S. Sugawara, “Droplet Deposition and Entrainment Modelling Based on the Three Fluid Model”,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 122, 67 84, 1990
S. Sugawara and Y. Miyamoto, “FIDAS: Detailed Subchannel Analysis Code Based on the Three
Fluid and Three Field Model”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 120, 147 161, 1990
Prepared by: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
81
3.1.13 P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
Description:
In some nuclear reactor designs (BWR, EPR, etc.), safety systems can lead to the discharge of
steam from the reactor cooling systems to large reservoir of sub-cooled water. This steam makes
direct contact with the sub-cooled water and is condensed. Pressure oscillations may also be induced.
This phenomenon can be affected by the presence of noncondensable gas like hydrogen and is also
linked to pool scrubbing of fission products.
Youn et al. (2003) have reported a condensation regime map for low steam mass flux function of
steam mass flux and pool temperature. Six different regimes have been identified including chugging
(bubble forms and collapse), oscillating condensation and stable condensation. Norman et al. (2010)
have also conducted experiments on this phenomenon with a particular care of scaled-down strategy
and experiments show that air addition can lead in certain conditions to thermal stratification of the
water pool.
References:
D.H. Youn et al., “The direct contact condensation of steam in a pool at low mass flux”, Journal of
Nuclear Science and Technology, Vol. 40, 10, pp. 881-885, 2003 October
T.L. Norman et al., “Jet-plume condensation of steam-air mixtures in sub-cooled water, Part 1:
Experiments”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 240, pp. 524-532, 2010
Prepared by: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
82
3.1.14 P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
Description:
Gas/vapour can be mixed by momentum induced motion caused by a vapour/gas jet. Two types
of mixing are be considered: mixing of the injected fluid into an ambient atmosphere, and mixing of a
stratified ambient atmosphere through some sort of forced convection.
Injection of fluid: A jet is formed by fluid injection into a quiescent or relatively quiescent
atmosphere. The relatively high velocity gradients present at the jet boundary, relative to a
plume, result in enhanced gas mixing by convective eddies and entrainment of the ambient
atmosphere into the expanding jet. Moreover, depending on the aspect ratio of the enclosure
and the strength of the jet, the wall jet resulting from the impact with the structures can
produce very large recirculation patterns, with cells that in an open geometry can extend over
the entire fluid domain. In the case of inclined or downwards oriented injections, intense flow
circulation zones can exist below the injection elevation as well.
In the case of a buoyant jet (which is nearly always the case in containment applications), the
momentum dominated zone will extend to a certain distance from the source. At large
distance, buoyancy effect will control the flow, and at intermediate distances both momentum
and buoyancy will be important. Various criteria have been proposed for defining the
boundaries between the three jet zones for vertical, upward jets. For large containments (such
as for PWR), various studies arrived at the conclusion that due to the large apertures, tall free
spaces, and interaction of the break flow with the structures, the flow originating from the
break becomes buoyancy dominated before reaching the top of the dome soon after the start
of the blow-down. Under these conditions, stratification is likely to build up (see Issue 1.01).
For more compact containments, the scenario is less clear. For other jet orientations, and
especially for negatively buoyant jets, the region of momentum controlled flow is more
difficult to identify, and the penetration depth (fountain region) depends on the competing
effects of inertia and buoyancy.
Another effect of large-motions produced by jets is the enhancement of heat and mass transfer
between the fluid and the wall.
Mixing in a stratified volume: an important aspect of containment thermal-hydraulics is the
stability of stratification under the effect of jets and plumes. For instance, the layering of
hydrogen produced in a phase of the accident could be destroyed by the injection of pure
steam from the break in a later phase of the accident. Depending on the strength of the jet and
of the density differences between the fluid layers, mixing will occur as a fast process
controlled by the penetration of the jet through the hydrogen-rich region and dilution, or as a
slow erosion process controlled by buoyancy-dominate mixing at the density interface.
The mixing can also be driven by the local acceleration of fluid, e.g., from a higher pressure
source or from a fan. High momentum jets can be produced by leakages and internal venting
between compartments (e.g., due to opening of vacuum breakers in BWRs or rupture foils in
the EPR). In certain advanced BWR designs (e.g., ESBWR), fans are provided to return the
non-condensable gases to the Drywell, with the aim to reduce the pressure increase in the
Wetwell, which controls the pressure of the system.
A special case of momentum induced mixing is that produced by the activation of the spray
(see Issue 1.28).
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
83
References:
Gebhart, B., Yaluria, Y., Mahajan, R., Sammakia, B.,” Buoyancy-Induced Flows and Transport”,
Hemisphere Publishing Corp., p. 677, 1988.
Papanicolau, P.N. and List, E.J., “Investigations of round vertical turbulent buoyant jets”, J. Fluid
Mech., Vol. 195, pp. 341-391
Peterson, P.F., “Scaling and Analysis of Mixing in Large Stratified Volumes”, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer, Vol. 37, Supplement 1, pp. 97-106, 1994 March
Kuhn, S-Z., Kang, H.K., and Peterson, P.F., “Study of Mixing and Augmentation of Natural
Convection Heat Transfer by a Forced Jet in a Large Enclosure”, Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 124,
pp. 660-666, 2002.
Friedman, P.D. and Katz, J. “Rise Height for Negatively Buoyant Fountains and Depth of Penetration
for Negatively Buoyant Jets Impinging an Interface”, J. Fluids Engineering, Vol. 122, 779-782, 2000
Deri, E., Cariteau, B., Abdo, D., “Air fountains in the erosion of gaseous stratifications”, Int. J. Heat
Fluid Flow, Vol. 31, pp.935-941, 2010.
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
84
3.1.15 P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
Description:
Gas/vapour can be mixed by buoyancy induced motion due to pressure gradients created by local
gas density differences in a gravitational field. These density differences are due to composition
differences and/or temperature differences, induced by local mass and/or heat transport processes
(e.g., gas injection, convection and condensation heat removal at surfaces). As for the momentum
controlled mixing, two cases can be considered: mixing of the buoyant fluid within an ambient
atmosphere, and mixing of a stratified ambient atmosphere due to buoyancy sources.
Buoyant fluid injection: At some distance from a positively buoyant injection, the flow is
buoyancy controlled, and the entrainment of the fluid from the ambient dilutes the injected
fluid. For fully developed plumes, the gas distribution within the enclosure can be
conceptualized by imagining the lighter fluid floating toward the ceiling and forming a layer
that becomes thicker over time, though instead of a distinct interface, there would be
progressive gradient in the concentration where the lighter components are more concentrated
at the top. This process can also be described by top-down propagation of a stratification
“front” (defined at a specific concentration). For long durations of the injection eventually
the front will reach the bottom of the enclosure. For a negatively buoyant injection, a bottom-
up propagation of the stratification front will occur.
Mixing can be accelerated by re-evaporation of liquid films running down the structures. An
important phenomenon affecting the relocation of hydrogen is the variation of the effect of
condensation on the buoyancy of a steam/air/hydrogen mixture with its composition. If the
concentration of air is small, condensation will produce a lighter mixture than tends to rise.
However, if both steam and air are in large concentrations, condensation will produce a
mixture heavier than the ambient, and air will provoke the hydrogen to propagate towards the
bottom of the vessel. This phenomenon can thus result in higher hydrogen concentrations in
the lower part of certain compartments.
Mixing in an ambient atmosphere with pre-existing stratification: The stratification can
be destroyed by the injection of buoyant fluid due to the acceleration of the fluid, which
produces perturbation and deformation of the density interface. Depending on the relative
differences between the densities of the injection and densities of the ambient layers, as well
as the density gradients in the ambient, various modes of interaction of the plume with the
density interface will occur. These all result in a slow erosion of the stratified environment.
Stratification can also be destroyed by thermal plumes originated by heat sources, such as hot
surfaces, or descending, negatively buoyant plumes produced by condensation
References:
Gebhart, B., Yaluria, Y., Mahajan, R. and Sammakia, B.,” Buoyancy-Induced Flows and Transport”,
Hemisphere Publishing Corp., p. 786-788, 1988
Mott, R.W. and Woods, A.W., “On the mixing of a confined stratified fluid by a turbulent buoyant
plume”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 623, pp. 149-165, 2009
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
85
3.1.16 P1-16 - Pressure Wave Propagation in Water
Description:
Rupture of a CANDU fuel channel at operating conditions (10 MPa, 300C) will generate a
pressure pulse in the surrounding heavy water moderator (0 MPa, 80C). Due to the relatively
incompressibility of the heavy water moderator, the shock and the pressure wave are co-incident. The
high pressure/temperature escaping fluid would generate a high velocity pressure wave in the
moderator that would interact with the surrounding fuel channels. The wave could cause the colder,
thin-walled calandria tube to collapse onto the concentric, hot pressurised pressure tube. The pressure
tube would then experience impact forces and asymmetrical thermal conditions from the calandria
tube. This could induce failure in that pressure tube which, in turn, amplify the original pressure
pulse. A single rupturing fuel channel would generate a pressure pulse that could interact with
approximately 20 of its nearest fuel channels which could then induce a cascading fuel channel
rupture sequence. Depending on the physical location of the bursting channel, i.e., in the center
location or near the containment vessel component, the containment vessel could experience high
impact forces.
Blowdown of a BWR, steam-gas mixture from its reactor pressure vessel or drywell, into its
pressure suppression pool, involve large pressure differences between the two volumes along with
rapid steam condensation and mixing of the water in the suppression pool. This can generate large
pressure waves that will impact against the pipes and walls of the suppression pool.
References:
Leitch, B.W., Shewfelt, R.S.W. and Godin, D.P., “Two-phase Fluid/structure interactions in a
bursting tube”, AECL Report AECL RC-1711, COG Report COG-96-486, 1997
Shewfelt, R.S.W., Leitch, B.W. and Godin, D.P., “Guillotine failure of fixed-end pipes, pressurised
with hot water”, AECL Report AECL-10948, 1994
Shewfelt, R.S.W. and Godin, D.P, “Small-scale burst tests in air and water”, AECL Report RC-1454,
COG Report COG-95-356, 1995
Group of Experts of the NEA/CSNI, “Pressure Suppression System Containments – A State-of-the-
Art Report”, CSNI Report 126, 1986 October
Prepared by: B.W. Leitch (AECL) and Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
86
3.1.17 P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools
Description:
The temperature distribution in a body of water where energy is deposited depends on the mixing
induced by the flow produced by mass, momentum and energy sources. Three main issues are
associated with thermal mixing include the formation of hot fluid layers at the pool free surface, the
uptake of warm water for emergency cooling with reduced heat removal capability, and the local
subcooling of the fluid adjacent to a heated surface:
Thermal stratification in the suppression pool of a BWR leads to high temperatures at the pool
surface, which in turn leads to increased partial pressure of steam in the gas space and thus to
higher containment pressure. Immediately after the first seconds of a LOCA, the vent flow is
composed essentially of steam, which condenses within a certain length. The steam jet
consists of the vapour core and the two-phase mixing region. Depending on the mass flux
(which decreases with time), the liquid flow originating from the condensation of the steam
jet produces a liquid jet or a plume. For high water temperatures, a two-phase plume will rise
to the surface and partial steam bypass can occur. The mixing produced by these flow
structures depends on the initial momentum, the geometry of the vent, the penetration length
of the steam jet, the entrainment of liquid into the plume/jet, and the interaction of the flow
with the pool structures. For horizontal injections, the initially horizontal jet will rise to the
surface as a wall jet after impinging on the side walls. Pressure oscillations will also affect
the prevailing flows. Similar phenomena are also relevant for the discharge of steam through
SRV in the suppression pool and in the IRWST of advanced reactors trough vent or
depressurisation lines. For low steam mass fluxes, the capability of the plume to steer the
water pool is strongly affected by the presence of non-condensable gases. Due to the large
entrainment produced by the two-phase plume, less than 1% non-condensable mass fraction
produces efficient mixing above the vent elevation. The hydrodynamics of the two-phase
plume is extremely complex, including various forces acting on the bubbles (drag, lift, virtual
mass, dispersion, etc.), bubble break-up and calescence, two-way coupling between bubbles
and liquid, two-phase turbulence, 3-D oscillations of the plume, etc.
In some designs, where water from pools is used for emergency cooling of the containment,
stratification is beneficial to ensure that the water taken from the bottom of the pool remains
cold and thus permits efficient cooling. In the case of internal condenser fed by water
extracted from the bottom of a pool, the flow returning to the pool is in single phase for a long
time. During this period, the mixing is controlled by the circulation produced by a liquid
jet/plume. With increasing time, the flow in the return line becomes two-phase (for some
time because of flashing) and similar phenomena as at point 1 prevail. During the single-
phase period, turbulence plays a very important role in the propagation of the thermal front.
Boiling heat transfer and CHF are generally affected by the subcooling of the fluid in the
vicinity of the heated wall. In open pools (inside or outside the containment) where energy is
deposited by heat transfer from a thermal structure, the bulk subcooling is mostly determined
by the gravitational head. Convective mixing induced by the boiling process, however, tends
to homogenize the temperature of the pool, and, consequently to reduce the local subcooling.
This mixing affects boiling heat transfer on the secondary side of immerged condensers, and
should be considered in the evaluation of the effectiveness of ex-vessel cooling because the
reduction of subcooling reduces the local value of the CHF.
In the case of spent fuel tank, the circulation in the water pool can also be produced by a pump.
References:
Gamble, R.E., Nguyen Thuy T., Shiralkar, B.S., Peterson P.F., Greif, R. and Tabata, H., “Pressure
Suppression Pool Mixing in Passive Advanced BWR Plants”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.
204, pp. 321–336, 2001
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
87
Li, H., Kudinov, P. and Villanueva, W., “Modeling of Condensation, Stratification, and Mixing
Phenomena in a Pool of Water”, Nordic Nuclear Safety Research, Report NKS-225, ISBN976-87-
7893-295-2, 2010 December
Bestion, D., Anglart, H., Mahaffy, J., Lucas, D., Song, C.H., Scheuerer, M., Zigh, G., Andreani, M.,
Kasahara, F., Heitsch, M., Komen, E., Moretti, F., Morii, T., Mühlbauer, P., Smith, B.L. and
Watanabe, T., “Extension of CFD Codes Application to Two-Phase Flow Safety Problems - Phase 2”,
Report NEA/CSNI/R(2010)2, pp. 74-87, 2010 July
Andreani, M. and Coddington, P., “SBWR PCCS Vent Phenomena and Suppression Pool Mixing”, in
Proc. 7th Int. Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-7), Sept. 10-15,
Saratoga Springs, NY, USA, NUREG/CP-0142, American Nuclear Society, Vol. 2, pp. 1249-1271,
1995
T.L. Norman et al., “Jet-plume condensation of steam-air mixtures in sub-cooled water, Part 1:
Experiments”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 240, pp. 524-532, 2010
Simiano, M., Zboray, R., de Cachard, F., Lakehal, D. and Yadigaroglu, G., “Comprehensive
Experimental Investigation of the Hydrodynamics of Large-scale, 3D, Oscillating Bubble Plumes”,
Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol. 32, pp. 1160-1181, 2006
Zoran V., Stosic, Z.V., Brettschuh, W., Stoll, “Boiling Water Reactor with Innovative Safety Concept:
the Generation III+ SWR-1000”, Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008), 1863–1901, 2008
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
88
3.1.18 P1-18 - Mass Diffusion in Vapour
Description:
It is the relative motion of species in a vapor/gas mixture due to the presence of concentration
gradients. The concentration gradient in the vapor/gas mixture provides the driving potential for
transport of that species. Mass diffusion will tend to reduce the concentration gradients to result in
uniform concentrations (well mixed) conditions. The diffusion mass transfer rate depends on the gas
component diffusion coefficients for the multi-component mixture.
The common way of estimating diffusion mass fluxes (J) in binary mixture is adopting the Fick's
law. In a binary mixture, the diffusion mass flux is proportional to the gradient of the selected species
(Y mass fraction) via a diffusion coefficient D between the two chemical species involved. In a
mixture of species i and j, the diffusion mass flux of i species is therefore given by:
Ji = -ρ Dij grad(Yi)
In multi-component mixtures, the simple solution based on effective binary diffusion (Dim)
approximation is usually adopted instead of a full multi-component diffusion model based on kinetic
theory of gases:
where X is the molar fraction.
The kinetic theory of gases can be used to derive formulas for the binary diffusion coefficients
Dij. Marrero et al. (1972) have also provided simple empirical relations taking into account pressure
and temperature effects.
The mass diffusion coefficients are used to compute the diffusion mass fluxes of gaseous species
in CFD codes. Generally, turbulent diffusion is dominant. Steam diffusion coefficient in gaseous
mixture is also usually used in the calculation of mass transfer coefficient in wall condensation
models based on heat and mass transfer analogy.
References:
Bird R.B., Stewart W.E. and Lightfoot E.N., “Transport phenomena”, Wiley, 1965
Marrero T.R. and Mason E.A., “Gaseous diffusion coefficients”, Journal Physical Chemistry
Reference Data, 1:3–118, 1972
Prepared by: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
89
3.1.19 P1-19 - Laminar Flow (No Experiments)
Description:
Laminar flow occurs when a fluid flows in parallel layers without disruption of these layers. In
containment thermal-hydraulics there are only few situations where laminar flow occurs. Close to a
wall, there is a thin layer (called viscous sublayer) where the flow is laminar. In CFD computer code
models, this zone is usually not computed but modeled by the use of wall functions. Low Reynolds
turbulence models address also this zone but they are presently not used at reactor scale. Experiments
usually do not address this zone.
Another situation where laminar flow exists corresponds to the transition between convection
dominant zone and stratified zone (i.e., zone without velocity where temperature and/or gas
concentration gradients can exist). So, there is a buffer layer where the flow is laminar before the
flow stops. This transition from turbulent to laminar flow is usually a challenging modeling issue.
Large scale experiments performed in the PANDA and MISTRA facilities have addressed this
complicated situation with simplified boundary conditions. Also, in some dead-end zones of large
scale experiments, this transition has certainly occurred.
The theory of laminar flow is well established and documented in the open literature. Thus, no
experimental results are needed. CFD codes are generally checked against Hagen-Poiseuille law and
laminar round jet self similar solutions, given in Schlichting (2000). In the containment thermal
hydraulics, these two experiments PANDA ST7_1 and MISTRA LOWMA3 tests may have zones
where laminar flow occurs.
References:
G.K. Batchelor, “An introduction to fluid dynamics”, Cambridge University Press, 2000
P.S. Sutera et al., “The history of Poiseuille's law”, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 25, pp.
1-19, 1993
H. Schlichting and K. Gersten, “Boundary layer theory”, 8th Edition, Springer, 2000
Prepared by: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
90
3.1.20 P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
Description:
A turbulent flow is a fluid flow that includes rapid variations in the velocity and pressure in time
and space, and generally has stoichastic components. Turbulence involves eddy formation at many
different length scales, with the largest related to geometry and the smallest to viscosity. It influences
effective diffusion of heat, mass and momentum and the deposition and agglomeration of drops.
In containment thermal hydraulics, turbulence is important in many different phenomena like gas
mixing, wall condensation, droplet behavior, etc.
In LP codes, turbulence is inherently part of the correlations used to model the different
phenomena. In CFD models, turbulence is generally modeled via two transport equations for the
turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation (k-e models). These two scales are required to compute
the turbulent viscosity. Fully turbulent flows can reasonably be predicted by this type of models.
Weakly turbulent or transition from turbulent to laminar flow, that can for example occur in gas
mixing with stratification, are more challenging and predictive capabilities have not yet been
confirmed. Another area of concern is the wall treatment, where wall boundary layers are modeled
with universal log-law profiles that are mainly valid for forced convection flows. Extensions to other
flow conditions with heat and mass transfer need careful investigations. Recently, low Reynolds
turbulence models have been used for benchmarking in wall condensation phenomena but these
models are presently not relevant to reactor scale analysis due to the requirement to have very fine
mesh close to the walls.
References:
Batchelor G.K., “An introduction to fluid dynamics”, Cambridge University Press, 2000
Wilcox, D.C., “Turbulence modeling for CFD”, DCW industries, 1998
Allelein, H.J. et al., “International Standard Problem ISP47 on containment thermalhydraulics - Final
report”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)10
Prepared by: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
91
3.1.21 P1-21 - Critical Flow (Choked Flow)
Description:
The discharge rate from a higher pressure reservoir or vessel to a lower pressure vessel or
reservoir is governed by such factors as flow area, pressure difference, wall friction, exit losses, state
of the fluid and upstream flow regime.
As the fluid flows to the break, there may be a physical point in the system at which a critical
pressure ratio - upstream to downstream, is reached. Any subsequent reduction to the downstream
pressure will not lead to an increase in the fluid velocity. When this happens, the flow is said to be
“critical”. The point where the flow becomes critical may be internal - at valves, orifices or other
obstructions to the flow, or it may be at the break plane itself. Pressure ratios below that required to
cause critical flow are called “sub-critical”.
Mass discharge rates are significantly affected by the state of the fluid (single phase liquid, a
two-phase mixture or single-phase steam). This occurs partly because of the large density differences
between the phases and partly because of the large difference in sonic velocities between the phases.
For the case of single-phase flow, an area change or some other obstruction in the flow path may
cause the fluid velocity to become equal to the local sound speed. At this point, information cannot
be transmitted upstream and the flow is said to be choked. When two phases are present, the picture
is not as clear. The discharged fluid can be single phase liquid, a two-phase mixture or single-phase
gas, and this has a larger effect on the mass discharge rates. This strong dependence on the state of
the fluid occurs partly because of the large density differences between the phases and partly because
of the large difference in sonic velocities between the phases.
The structure of the fluid flow near the break plane can also impact on the discharge rate as in the
case of stratified flow. In this case, the location of the break relative to the steam water interface will
determine whether liquid, vapour or both phases are discharged.
References:
I. Brittain et al., “Critical Flow Modelling in Nuclear Safety, A State of the Art Report”, NEA-OECD,
1982
E. Elias and G.S. Lellouche, “Two-Phase Critical Flow”, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol. 20, Suppl. pp.
91-168, 1994
R.E. Henry and H.K Fauske, “The Two-Phase Critical Flow of One Component Mixtures in Nozzles,
Orifices, and Short Tubes”, J. Heat Transfer, 93, 179-187, 1971
R.E. Henry, “The Two-Phase Critical Discharge of Initially Saturated or Subcooled Water”, Nucl. Sci.
Engng., 41, p. 336, 1970
F.J. Moody, “Maximum Two-Phase Vessel Blowdown from Pipes”, Trans. ASME, J. Heat Transfer,
Vol. 87, pp. 285-295, 1966
F.J. Moody, “Maximum Flow Rate of a Single Component, Two Phase Mixture”, Journal of Heat
Transfer, Trans ASME, 87, No. 1, 1965 February
K.H. Ardron and R.A. Furness, “A Study of the Critical Flow Models Used in Reactor Blowdown
Analysis”, Nuclear Design and Engineering, Vol. 39, pp. 257-266, 1976
K.H. Ardron, “A Two-Fluid Model for Critical Vapour-Liquid Flow”, Int. Journal of Multiphase
Flow, Vol. 4, pp. 323-327, 1978
H.J. Richter, “Separated Two-Phase Flow Model: Application to Critical Two-Phase Flow”, Int.
Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vol. 9, pp. 511-530, 1983
F. Dobran, “Nonequilibrium Modelling of Two-Phase Critical Flows in Tubes”, Journal of Heat
Transfer, 109, pp. 731-738, 1987
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
92
“The Marviken Full Scale Jet Impingement Tests”, Fourth Series, Test 10 Results, MXD-210, 1982
March
A.R. Edwards and T.P. O’Brian, “Studies of Phenomena Connected With the Depressurization of
Water Reactors”, J. of British Nuclear Society, 9, 1970 No. 2
P.J. Ingham, G.R. McGee and V.S. Krishnan, “LOCA Assessment Experiments in a Full-Elevation,
CANDU-Typical Test Facility”, Proc. of the 3rd
Int. Topical Meeting on Nuclear Power Plant Thermal
Hydraulics and Operations, Seoul, Korea, 1988 November. Also, published in Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Vol. 122, pp. 401-412, 1990
Prepared by: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
93
3.1.22 P1-22 - Laminar/Turbulent Leakage Flow
Description:
Gas, vapour and aerosols can leak through the containment concrete walls. The leak paths can
be cracks through the wall thickness or gaps around constructed wall penetrations. Noble gases leak
more readily than molecular gases. The gaps may also be plugged by condensate or aerosol
deposition. The flow can creep through the smallest flow passages, even if there are only very low
pressure differences. The flow is laminar for very low Reynolds numbers (<100), it is transitional up
to a Reynolds number of 1000 and it is turbulent above.
Nuclear reactor containment concrete walls are generally a prestressed concrete structure, which
is reinforced with prestressed tendons and surface reinforcements. When the containment internal
pressure exceeds the sum of the pre-stress and the tensile stress of the concrete, cracking will occur.
In the initial phase of an accident, the containment pressurization is mainly due to steam build-up.
However, as the accident progress, other processes (hydrogen combustion, direct containment heating
and MCCI) can occur which can significantly increase the containment pressure. This will increase
cracking of the concrete containment and lead to increased leakage flows.
References:
Blejwas, T.E., “Containment Integrity Program Recent Results and Plans,” Proc. Int. Meeting on
LWR Severe Accident Evaluation, Vol. 2, Paper TS-10.7, Cambridge, MA, 1983 August 28 to
September 01
Rizkalla, S.H., S.H. Simmonds and J.G. MacGregor, “Prestressed Concrete Containment Model,”
Structural Engineering, 110:(4) 730-743, 1984 April
Baker, P.H., S. Sharples and I.C. Ward, “Air Flow Through Cracks,” Building and Environment,
22:(4) 293-304, 1987
Suzuki, T., K. Takiguchi and H. Hotta, “Leakage of Gas through Concrete Cracks,” Nuclear
Engineering and Design, 133:(1) 121-130, 1992 February
Lau, B.L., “Leakage of Pressurized Gases through Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Structures,” M.Sc.
Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, 1982
Rizkalla, S.H., S.H. Simmonds and J.G. MacGregor, “Leakage Tests of Wall Segments of Reactor
Containments,” Structural Engineering Report No. 80, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, 1979 October
Hindy, A. and A. Danay, “Assessing Leakage through Cracked Pressurized Reinforced Concrete
Containment Structures,” Trans. 11th SMIRT, Vol. H, Paper H08/4, Tokyo, 1991 August 18-23
Mivelaz P., Thèse no 1539, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; 1996
Riva P., L. Brusa, P. Contri and L. Imperato, “Prediction of air and steam leak rate through cracked
reinforced concrete panels”, Nuc. Eng. Des., 192 (1999), pp. 13–30
Gelain T., J. Vendel, “Research works on contamination transfers through cracked concrete walls,”
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 238(4), pp. 1159–1165, 2008
Gelain T., An original method to assess leakage through cracked reinforced concrete walls,
Engineering Structures, Vol. 38, 2012, pp. 11–20
Granger L. and P. Labbe et al., “A mock-up near Civaux nuclear power plant for containment
evaluation under severe accident—the CESA Project”, Proceedings of the FISA-97 Symposium on
EU Research on Severe Accidents, Luxembourg (1997), pp. 293-302, 1997
Greiner U. and W. Ramm, Air leakage characteristics in cracked concrete, Nucl Eng Des, 156 (1995)
Prepared by: Y.S. Chin (AECL) and T. Gelain (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
94
3.1.23 P1-23 - Vent Clearing
Description:
During the blow-down associated with a LOCA in a BWR the drywell pressure increases, and
the water in the main vents is accelerated and flows into the suppression pool. Within seconds, the
vents would clear of liquid and air (or nitrogen in inerted containments), followed by a two-phase
mixture of gas, steam, and suspended water would flow into the suppression pool. This flow would
initially create a gas bubble at the downstream end of the vent, which would then cause level swell
(phenomenon P1-24) before eventually breaking through to the pool surface.
The bubble dynamics that would be involved include the initial acceleration of the liquid
surrounding the bubble, the level swell in the suppression pool, the steam condensation within the
bubbles, and finally the release of the gas and steam to the wetwell atmosphere after bubbles break
through the suppression pool surface. This sequence of events is referred to as the vent-clearing
transient.
The short-term peak drywell pressure (and drywell-wetwell pressure difference), is to a large
extent, controlled by the vent clearing time, i.e., the time required for the gas to penetrate to the far
end of the vents on the wetwell side. The vent clearing is influenced by the inertia of the liquid in the
vent path, vent hydraulic resistance and choking. Moreover, the drywell pressure is also controlled by
the pressure rise in the wetwell and the hydrostatic head of the water above the bubble (phenomenon
P1-24). Large dynamical loads in the suppression pool are associated with vent clearing
(phenomenon P1-24). The basic phenomena are the same for all designs, though the geometry,
submergence and orientation of the vents (vertical or horizontal), all play significant roles.
Additionally, for the MARK III containment, the three rows of vents at different elevation clear at
different times.
During the initial phase of the blow-down large vent flow rates produce high-velocity jets and
large condensation rates at the vent exit. In the period following the first seconds, the flow decreases,
and the steam jet breaks in bubbly-flow. When the flow is further reduced, chugging regime occurs
(see phenomenon P1-13). These processes are mostly oscillatory, and, especially in the case of
chugging large mechanical loads on the structure are produced. Several flow regime maps have been
proposed for characterising the various steam discharge modes. The main parameters are pool
temperature and steam mass flux. For small holes (such as one of a sparger), also the diameter of the
jet has to be considered.
Vent clearing is also relevant for depressurisation transients following the opening of SRVs.
Mechanical loads associated with chugging can be reduced by appropriate design of the sparger.
Vent clearing is also to be considered in the analysis of the long-term cooling of passive BWR
containments, where additional, low-submergence vent paths exist between the drywell and the
suppression pool.
Steam discharge in a pool is also of interest for the design of emergency core cooling system in
advanced designs (e.g., the IRWST of the AP1000) and evaluation of their behaviour under accident
conditions. Also for these cases, two issues are considered: mechanical loads and thermal mixing. To
some extent mechanical loads are coupled to fluid mixing, because the oscillatory behaviour of the jet
is affected by the presence of hot fluid spots. The effect of multiple discharging has also to be
considered, because the regime map is slightly different from that of the single nozzle case.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
95
References:
Karwat, H., Lewis, M.J., Mazzini, M. and Sandervaag, O., “Pressure suppression systems
Containments”, A State-of-the-Art Report by a Group of Experts of the NEA CSNI, CSNI Report
126, p. 10, 1986 October
Gamble, R.E., Nguyen, T.T., Shiralkar, B.S., Peterson, P.F., Greif, R. and Tabata, H., “Pressure
suppression pool mixing in passive advanced BWR plants”, Nucl. Eng. Design, Vol. 204, pp. 321-
336, 2001
Petrovic de With A., Calay, R.K. and de With. G., “Three-dimensional Condensation Regime
Diagram for Direct Contact Condensation of Steam Injected into Water”, Int. Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, Vol. 50, pp. 1762–1770, 2007
Bestion, D., Anglart, H., Mahaffy, J., Lucas, D., Song, C.H., Scheuerer, M., Zigh, G., Andreani, M.,
Kasahara, F., M. Heitsch, M., Komen, E., Moretti, F., T. Morii, T., Mühlbauer, P., Smith, B.L. and
Watanabe, T., “Extension of CFD Codes Application to Two-Phase Flow Safety Problems - Phase 2”,
Report NEA/CSNI/R(2010)2, pp. 74-87, 2010 July
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
96
3.1.24 P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
Description:
During this early phase of a LOCA (vent clearing period, see phenomenon P1-23) a gas bubble
or bubbles form in the wetwell and raise to the pool surface. The pressure in the bubble depends on
the pressures in the drywell and gas space above the pool, the hydrostatic head of water above the
bubble and the inertia of the water that must be accelerated to make room for the bubble. As the
drywell pressure continues to rise, more gas is forced into the wetwell and the bubble continues to
grow, forcing the pool surface higher. The bubble starts to rise relative to the rising water above the
bubble due to buoyancy forces.
The liquid slug above the bubble thins as some of the water above the bubble moves laterally and
returns to the lower part of the pool. As the liquid slug rises, the gas space volume is reduced and the
gas space pressure increase opposes the lifting force and eventually decelerates the rising slug. As the
slug slows the bubble continues to rise and breaks through the slug, forming a froth region that rises
above the breakthrough level.
Equipment that is located between the initial pool surface and the maximum slug height will be
subjected to impact loads, followed by drag loads from the rising slug. In addition to the normal drag
load from a steady velocity field, there will be an additional load due to the accelerating fluid moving
past the equipment. Equipment in the froth region will experience impact and drag loads although
they will be lower than those in the slug regions because the mixture density of the froth is
substantially lower.
After the bubbles have cleared the pool surface and the vent flow becomes predominately steam,
the equipment in the slug and froth regions will be subjected to reverse drag loads as the water falls
back to the pool. These loads will typically be substantially smaller than those due to the rising water
because the fall back velocities are lower. Inertia, momentum transport, drag effects and gas
compression are the controlling physical effects in pool swell. During the pool swell period, the pool
walls, floor and ceiling will be subjected to increased loads due to the high bubble pressure, gas space
pressure and the hydrostatic pressure.
Four parameters are important for characterising hydrodynamics loads: maximum swell height,
maximum velocity of the rising water slug, maximum bubble pressure during the pool swell phase,
and maximum gas space pressure. The main phenomena are well understood and have been
addressed experimentally in the ISP17.
The continuous release of steam-gas mixtures from a low submergence vent produces a two-
phase plume in the pool, with the formation of a “spout” on the surface of the pool, which can reach a
height of the order of 10 cm. The hydrodynamic conditions in the surface breaking plume lead to
high void fractions in the spout with the formation of a dispersed droplet flow. The large interfacial
area results in very efficient condensation of the steam which could not be condensed in the pool due
to the short travel time.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
97
References:
Toshiba Corporation “Post LOCA Suppression Pool Swell Analysis for ABWR Containment
Design”, U7-C-STP-NRC-090142, Attachment 4, UTLR-0005-NP Rev.0, p. 3, September 2009
(available on the Web)
Notafrancesco, A., Esmaili, H., Lee, B. and Tills, J.L., “Application of the MELCOR Code to Design
Basis BWR Containment Analysis”, USNRC Report RES/FSTB 2011-01, p. 2, 2011 May
Widener, S. K., “Analytical simulation of Boiling Water Reactor Pressure Suppression Pool Swell”,
Nuclear Technology, Vol. 72, pp. 34-38, 1986
Marklund, J.E., “Preliminary Data Comparison Report For ISP17 - An international containment
standard problem based on the Marviken full scale experiment Blowdown No 18”, Studsvik Report
SD-84/43, NR-84/423, 1984 June
Andreani M. and Tokuhiro, A “Condensation in the Spout Region of a Gas-Vapour Plume Rising in a
Subcooled Water Pool”, in Proc. of the 2nd
Int. Conf. on Multiphase Flow `95 Kyoto, April 3-7,
Kyoto, Japan Society of Multiphase Flow, Vol. 2, pp. PC2-17 to PC2-24, 1995
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
98
3.1.25 P1-25 - Interfacial Drag (No Experiments)
Description:
Interfacial drag occurs on the fluid interface between two fluid phases. It depends on relative
velocity between the two phases, density of the continuous phase, the volume fraction of the dispersed
phase, the characteristic (equivalent) diameter of the dispersed phase and the interfacial drag
coefficient (i.e., friction factor). The friction factor depends on the shape of the interface, and
therefore on the flow regime. Three main flow regimes are of interest for containment thermal-
hydraulics: bubbly flow (dispersed bubbles in liquid); dispersed droplet flow (droplets in gas), and
separated flow regime. Other complex flow regimes originate from the interaction of the corium melt
jet with the water in the reactor pressure vessel cavity, which are not considered here.
Bubbly flow is mostly of interest for the venting of gas-steam mixtures in liquid pools, where the
interfacial drag controls the residence time of the gas and consequently affects the interfacial heat and
mass transfer. For sufficiently low flow rate conditions, the bubbles are produced by the
fragmentation of the primary bubble. During blow-down, however, the primary bubble expands and
produces pool swelling before any fragmentation occurs. Under these conditions, the bubbles produce
a separated flow. In principle, a comprehensive theory of bubbly flow and interfacial drag should
include these two regimes and transitions, and therefore address separately small and large bubbles.
In this section, however, only interfacial drag for small bubbles is considered, whereas the dynamics
of large bubble is described in the section addressing vent clearing. Bubbly flow is also of interest for
boiling processes (relevant, e.g., for pool condensers and ex-vessel cooling), where the interfacial
drag controls phase velocities and void fractions, and consequently the natural circulation flow
associated with boiling.
Dispersed droplet flow is produced by the operation of spray systems or by entrainment from
liquid films. Although the interfacial drag for dense sprays should account for the liquid fraction
effect (collective effects), at some distance from the source droplets can be assumed to behave as
isolated particles.
Separated flow is mostly associated with the interaction of gas flows with thin liquid films.
Interfacial drag on thin film is responsible, for instance, for slowing down the downward motion of
liquid along structures (e.g., condensate along walls, external water film cooling the metallic
containment of the AP1000, etc.) and droplet entrainment.
The theory for isolated particles (bubble and droplets) is well known and documented in the
literature. As for separated flow, most information is related to annular flow in tubes and horizontal
stratified flow, but the main results as concerns interfacial shear are applicable to any continuous,
deformable gas-liquid interface. The friction factor correlations for each of the flow regimes are also
available in literature. Thus no experiments are needed for validation.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
99
References:
Dispersed bubble regime:
R. Clift, and W.H. Gauvin, Motion of Entrained Particles in a Gas Stream, Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 49, pp. 439–448, 1971
Slag regime:
There is no specific reference for this regime. Most of the computer codes assume some smooth
transition between the two dispersed flow regimes.
Dispersed droplet regime:
R. Clift and W.H. Gauvin, Motion of Entrained Particles in a Gas Stream, Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 49, pp. 439–448, 1971
Separated flow regime:
N.K. Popov and U.S. Rohatgi, Effect of Interfacial Shear and Entrainment Models on Flooding
Predictions, AIChE Symposium Series, Heat Transfer – Seattle, Vol. 79, No. 225, pp. 190-203, 1983
T. Fukano and T. Furukawa, Prediction of the Effects of Liquid Viscosity on Interfacial Shear Stress
and Frictional Pressure Drop in Vertical Upward Gas-Liquid Annular Flow, Int. J. Multiphase Flow,
Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 587-603, 1998
J.E. Kowalski, Wall and Interfacial Shear Stress in Stratified Flow in a Horizontal Pipe, AIChE
Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 274–281, 1987
Prepared by: A. Vasić (AECL) and M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
100
3.1.26 P1-26 - Liquid Film Flow
Description:
During the course of loss of coolant accident, steam and water flow into the containment through
the break. The steam is partially condensed along the cold steel and concrete walls, while the water
pools, generally at the bottom of the containment, where it can be pumped away through a safety
system.
Given enough fluid, the liquid condensate from the walls or overflow from a pool can run
downwards along the walls, and this can affect the heat transfer processes. Lumped parameter
containment codes have specific models for such situations (e.g., drain wall model in COCOSYS).
Interestingly, in some PANDA tests, it was found that condensation produced a liquid film on the
walls in the region above the injection and CFD simulations have shown that the key phenomenon
was the re-vaporization of the condensate film.
References:
Andreani M., Paladino D. and George T., “On the unexpectedly large effect of the re-vaporization of
the condensate liquid film in two tests in the PANDA facility revealed by simulations with the
GOTHIC code”, XCFD4NRS conference, Grenoble, France, 2008 September 10-12
Klein-Hessling W., “COCOSYS short description”, GRS report, 2008 May
Prepared by: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
101
3.1.27 P1-27 - Gas Dissolved in Water (No Experiments)
Description:
Gaseous products can be dissolved in water, and for dilute solutions, the amount of gas that can
be dissolved is governed by the Henry’s Law, which states that the (equilibrium) solubility of a gas in
a liquid at a particular temperature is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas above the liquid.
The proportionality constant (Henry’s constant) varies with temperature. Therefore, the amount of
gas that can stay in solution depends on temperature and pressure. At low temperatures, gas solubility
decreases with temperature. However, at higher temperatures (above 100°C for nitrogen, oxygen, and
hydrogen), the solubility starts to increase. Water temperature increases and boiling cause the release
of gases to the gas space.
Under normal operating conditions, two main sources of gases dissolved in the primary water
exist. Radiolysis of the water in the reactor core is always producing some elemental hydrogen and
oxygen. In order to limit corrosion, in PWR it is common practice to operate with an excess of
dissolved hydrogen in the primary coolant, which has the effect of scavenging the oxygen produced
by radiolysis. Moreover, a small fraction of the gaseous fission products (I, Xe, Kr) is released to the
coolant, due to diffusion through the fuel matrix and microscopic cracks in the fuel cladding.
Additionally, short half-life nitrogen is produced by transmutation of oxygen.
During a LOCA, the release of dissolved gases (from the sump water) has a minimal effect on
containment thermal-hydraulics. In case of severe accidents, a variety of sources exist for production
of gases. The gases dissolved in the corium melt are likely to play a role in the behavior of the melt
stream during the high pressure melt ejection scenario. If the melt is highly gas supersaturated,
vigorous gas effervescence - when the melt is ejected into low-pressure environment - could
significantly contribute to melt disintegration and possibly production of aerosols. In consideration of
the events in the power station of Fukushima, the release of hydrogen produced by radiolysis in the
spent fuel could lead to increased interest for the effect of gases dissolved in water.
The effect of gases on the performance of internal or external condensers in passive
containments is discussed in phenomenon P6-5. For this safety equipment, the continuous
accumulation of small amount of non-condensable gases inside or around the tubes impairs
condensation and therefore the long-term cooling of the containment. For these new designs, sources,
transport and distribution of gases within the containment have to be evaluated more carefully than for
current light water reactors.
Values of the Henry’s Law coefficient can be determined through laboratory experiments under
generic conditions. No specific experiments are therefore required for the conditions relevant for
containment simulation. The quality of simulation performed with the codes thus only depends on the
accuracy of the Henry's constant for the range of temperatures of interest.
References:
Atkins, P. and de Paula, J., Atkin’s Physical Chemistry, pp. 143-147, 8th Edition, Oxford University
Press, 2006
Pray, H.A., Schweickert, C.E. and Minnich, B.H., “Solubility of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and
Helium in Water at Elevated Temperatures”, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Vol. 44, No. 5, pp.
1146-1151, 1952
Frid, W., “Containment Severe Accident Thermalhydraulic Phenomena”, Report Rama III 89-04,
RAMA III Final Report, Studsvik Stockholm, 1991 August
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
102
3.1.28 P1-28 - Gas Entrainment by Spray Droplets (Dousing)
Description:
Entrainment of the gaseous mixture in the containment due to spray activation – concern mainly
the local characterisation of the gas entrainment.
References:
J. Malet, Gas entrainment by one single PWR spray, SARNET-2 Elementary benchmark - Results
report, IRSN/ PSN-RES/SCA/LEMAC/2012-11, 2012
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
103
3.1.29 P1-29 - Heat and Mass Transfer of Spray Droplets (Dousing)
Description:
Heat and mass transfer (condensation, evaporation) of droplets due to spray activation.
References:
Malet J., SARNET-2 Droplet heat and mass transfer elementary benchmark, comparison report, IRSN
Technical Report DSU/SERAC/LEMAC/11-04, 2011
K.V. Beard and H.R. Pruppacher, “A wind tunnel investigation of the rate of evaporation of small
water drops falling at terminal velocity in air”, J. Atmos. Sci, Vol. 28, pp. 1455-1465, 1971
B. Abramzon and W. Sirignano, “Droplet vaporization model for spray combustion calculations”, Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer, 32, 1605–1618. 16, 19, 20, 21, 1989
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
104
3.1.30 P1-30 - Droplet Interaction (Dousing)
Description:
Droplet interaction (coalescence, bouncing, splashing) due to spray activation.
References:
Rabe C., Malet J. and Feuillebois F., “Experimental investigation of water droplet binary collisions
and description of outcomes with a symmetric Weber number”, Physics of fluids, Vol. 22, 2010
Foissac A., “Modélisation des interactions entre gouttes en environnement hostile”, Thèse de Doctorat
de l’Université Paris VI, 2011
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
105
3.1.31 P1-31 - Mixing by Sprays
Description:
This phenomenon deals with mixing of a gas (and or vapour) by the activation of spray system.
This includes light gas (i.e., hydrogen), which concerns mainly a global gas mixing by the activation
of spray.
References:
Malet J. and Vizet J., SARNET spray benchmark, dynamic part: TOSQAN test 113, code-experiment
comparison, IRSN Technical Report DSU/SERAC/LEMAC/08-04, 2008
Erkan N., Kapulla R., Mignot G., Zboray R. and Paladino D., Experimental investigation of spray
induced gas stratification break-up and mixing in two interconnected vessels, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241,
2011
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
106
3.1.32 P1-32 - Turbulence Induced by Sprays
Description:
Turbulence is induced when sprays are activated. Fine or large dispersed droplets in the flow
attenuate or enhance the gas phase turbulence. This result depends on different parameters, droplets
size, flow characteristic size, etc.
References:
This field is very large in the literature, mainly for engine sprays. Only one reference is given here.
A. Sadiki, M. Chrigui, J. Janicka and M.R. Maneshkarim, Modeling and Simulation of Effects of
Turbulence on Vaporization, Mixing and Combustion of Liquid-Fuel Sprays; Flow, Turbulence and
Combustion 2005 75: 105–130 C 2005
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
107
3.2 Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Phenomena
3.2.1 P2-1 - Deflagration
Description:
Deflagration deals with combustion with flame speeds on the order of several meters per second
to several hundred meters per second. The burning rate can be affected by initial conditions (mixture
compositions, pressure, and temperature), geometry of the confinement, location of ignition, and
turbulence level. For slow flames, the maximum deflagration pressure is bounded by the adiabatic
isochoric complete combustion (AICC) pressure.
In an accident involving a deflagration of a pre-mixed cloud of hydrogen, the general process is
as follows. A weak source, like a spark, produces the ignition of the reactive mixture. The flame
starts out as a slow flame with a velocity between several centimeters to several meters per second. In
the absence of turbulence and confinement, the flame will not suffer strong accelerations, and the
overpressure generated will be small. Under those circumstances, the main reasons for flame
acceleration are the flame instabilities, turbulence generated by the flame itself, as well as interactions
with surfaces.
In real buildings, industrial facilities, etc., however, there would likely be some internal structure
that would provide some sort of obstruction and confinement to the flame. Rooms, closed spaces,
equipment, and pipes are all examples of obstructions that could provide this. The expansion of the
gas generates a turbulent flow field, and feedback from this in turn increases the effective burning
rate, as well as the rate of expansion in turn. This mechanism results in flame acceleration, and under
certain circumstances can even lead to a transition to detonation. The strength of an explosion
depends on many different factors, but generally, the effects of mixture composition, mixture non-
uniformities can, at least, be characterized by its influence on the laminar flame speed.
In general, the main causes of a pressure build-up would be the degree of confinement, and the
propagation speed of the flame mainly driven by the turbulence field. In a situation where there are
numerous obstructions, the flame would be very likely to accelerate to velocities on the order of
several hundreds of meters per second. This increased burning rate is caused by the wrinkling of the
flame front by large eddies in the turbulent flow. Additionally, increased heat and mass transfer rates
occur at the reaction front, resulting in even higher rates of combustion.
In a realistic environment, turbulence is generated by the obstacles existing in the structure. As
the flame consumes the unburnt gas, the products expand, pushing the flame ahead and generating
turbulence. When the flame propagates past obstacles, which increase the intensity of the turbulent
flow field, the burning rate increases dramatically, which then increases both the flow velocity and
turbulence ahead of the flame. With an increased burning velocity comes increased pressure in the
flame front, and the acceleration of a flame due to the interaction with repeated obstacles constitutes a
strong positive feed-back loop.
Two competing mechanisms govern the pressure increments in a partially confined explosion.
Flame acceleration appears due to enhanced burning rate. This increased rate is created by the
turbulence generated when the flow overcomes the obstacles. The acceleration of the flame produces
a very significant increment of the pressure. On the other hand, venting provides some pressure relief
reducing the feedback mechanism described in the previous paragraph. The interaction between both
mechanisms is complex, and fluid dynamics calculations (CFD) are generally required to resolve
them. The ultimate effects of the explosion would be dependent on the balance between these two
mechanisms.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
108
References:
Ya.B. Zeldovich et al., The mathematical theory of combustion and explosions. Consultants bureau,
New York, London
David A. Frank-Kamenetskii, “Diffusion and Heat Transfer in Chemical Kinetics”, Russian editions:
Moscow-Leningrad: USSR Academy of Science Press, 1947; 1967; NAUKA Press (updated and
extended edition), 1987
Prepared by: J. Yanez (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
109
3.2.2 P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
Description:
The process immediately following a weak ignition in a combustible gas mixture is characterized
as deflagration, where the combustion propagates at subsonic speed into the unburned mixture (see
phenomenon P2-1). The initially smooth flame surface can be wrinkled due to the Landau-Darrieus
instability, which can be stabilized or destabilized by the thermal-diffusion effects. This can result in
the formation of a cellular flame leading to an increase of the flame surface and the acceleration of the
flow generated by the expansion of the combustion products. In addition, turbulence and the
obstacles located along of the flame path can cause further increase of the flow velocity, the flame
speed relative to a fixed observer and the flame surface. Depending on the mixture properties and
boundary conditions, the interaction of the flame with turbulence in the unburned gas can lead to
either weak flame acceleration within relatively slow, unstable, turbulent flame regimes, or to strong
flame acceleration resulting in fast flames that propagate at supersonic speeds. The distinction
between weak and strong flame acceleration regimes had been investigated by several authors (listed
in the references below). An important conclusion from this research was that as the mixture
expansion ratio is the key parameter that defines the border between weak and strong flame
acceleration. A sufficiently large expansion ratio was found necessary for the development of fast
flames. Within a sufficiently large round-up distance, supersonic combustion regimes can be
developed.
References:
S. Dorofeev, “Flame acceleration and explosion safety applications”, Proceeding of the combustion
institute 33, 2161-2175, 2011
S.B. Dorofeev, Kuznetsov M.S., Alekseev V.I., Efimenko A.A. and Breitung W., Evaluation of limits
for effective flame acceleration in hydrogen mixtures, J. Loss Prevent., Vol. 14, pp. 583-589, 2001
N. Chaumeix et al., H2 Gradient Effect on Premixed Flame Propagation in a Vertical Facility:
ENACCEF, Proceedings of the 20th Int. Colloquium on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive
Systems, Montréal, Canada, 2005
H. Cheikhravat et al., Influence of Hydrogen Distribution on Flame Acceleration, ECM 2007
Prepared by: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
110
3.2.3 P2-3 - Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition (DDT)
Description:
Within a sufficiently large round-up distance, supersonic combustion regimes can be developed.
In this case, the initiation of detonation could only occur if the physical size of mixture volume were
to be sufficiently large compared to the detonation cell size, which represents the reactivity length
scale.
References:
S. Dorofeev, “Flame acceleration and explosion safety applications”, Proceeding of the combustion
institute 33 (2011) 2161-2175
S.B. Dorofeev, Kuznetsov M.S., Alekseev V.I., Efimenko A.A. and Breitung W., Evaluation of limits
for effective flame acceleration in hydrogen mixtures, J. Loss Prevent., Vol. 14, pp. 583-589, 2001
N. Chaumeix et al., H2 Gradient Effect on Premixed Flame Propagation in a Vertical Facility:
ENACCEF, Proceedings of the 20th Int’l Colloquium on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive
Systems, Montréal, Canada, 2005
H. Cheikhravat et al., Influence of Hydrogen Distribution on Flame Acceleration, ECM 2007
G. Ciccarelli and Dorofeev, S., Flame acceleration and transition to detonation in ducts. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science 34, pp. 499-550, 2008
Prepared by: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
111
3.2.4 P2-4 - Hydrogen Detonation
Description:
Detonation is an extremely fast and energetic combustion process with a leading shock wave
having a typical velocity on the order of a few kilometers per second. The bounding detonation
pressure can be evaluated using calculations based on the Chapman-Jouguet (C-J) equilibrium
detonation model. A detonation wave can pose a threat to equipment and the integrity of structures.
In an accident situation, direct initiation of detonation is very unlikely, as it would have to be
initiated from a strong shock source (e.g., high explosive detonation). However, transition from
deflagration to detonation (DDT) may still occur if a certain set of conditions are present. Whether
DDT occurs, however, depends on both the initial conditions (such as mixture composition, pressure,
temperature) and the boundary conditions (such as size of the enclosure, obstacle configuration and
obstacle spacing etc.).
References:
J.H.S. Lee, The detonation phenomenon, Cambridge University press, 2008
W. Fickett & W.C. Davis, Detonation, University of California press, 1979
H.I. Lee and D.S. Stewart, “Calculation of linear detonation instability”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 216, pp.
103-132, 1990
Prepared by: J. Yanez (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
112
3.2.5 P2-5 - Quenching of Detonations by Geometrical Constrains
Description:
The detonability limits of a reactive mixture are the critical conditions for the propagation of
self-sustained detonation. The critical conditions denote both the initial and boundary conditions of
the explosive mixture. If self-sustained detonation propagation is not possible, then the deflagration
to detonation transition could not be achieved.
The limiting tube diameter for stable detonation propagation in a cylindrical smooth-walled tube
can be estimated as λ/π, where λ is the size of the detonation cell. For wide planar channels with
height much less than width, the channel width must be at least as large as one detonation cell size for
the stable propagation of detonation to be achieved.
References:
Chapter 3, “OECD-SOAR: Flame Acceleration and DDT”, 1999
Prepared by: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
113
3.2.6 P2-6 - Quenching
Description:
Flame quenching can occur for a wide spectrum of flame propagation regimes including laminar,
wrinkled and turbulent flames. Beyond a certain range of mixture composition, continued
propagation of the reaction front would no longer possible due to heat losses to walls and low burned
gas temperature. This composition limit is commonly known as the flammability limit and this
process can be defined as quenching of laminar flames.
Turbulent mixing processes that produce flame acceleration can also result in local or global
quenching. Local quenching is important to the flame acceleration process since it can lead to violent
secondary explosions and DDT.
References:
Chapter 2, “OECD-SOAR: Flame Acceleration and DDT”, 1999
Bradley, D., Gaskell, P.H., Gu, X.J. and Sedaghat, A., Premixed flamelet modeling: Factors
influencing the turbulent heat release rate source term and the turbulent burning velocity. Combustion
and flame 143,227, 2005
Bradley, D., Lau, A.K. and Lawes, M., Flame stretch rate as a determinant of turbulent burning
velocity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 338, 359-387, 1992
Bradley, D., Lawes, M., Kexin Liu and Woolley, R., The quenching of pre-mixed turbulent flames of
iso-octane, methane and hydrogen at high pressures, Proceedings of the combustion institute 31,
1393-1400, 2007
Prepared by: A. Bentaib (IRSN) and J. Yanez (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
114
3.2.7 P2-7 - Hydrogen Diffusion Flame (Standing Flame)
Description:
A standing flame occurs when a jet or plume of fuel emerging into an enclosure filled with air
ignites, and then continues to burn. Ignition does not always result in a stable standing flame unless
the hot combustion products can continuously ignite the fuel jet. The stability of a standing flame
depends on the balance between the heat generated by chemical reaction and the quenching due either
to flame stretching in a non uniform flow field, or rapid mixing of the unburned mixture with the
surrounding air.
References:
Shepherd, J.E., “Hydrogen-Steam Jet Flame Facility and Experiments”, NUREG/CR-3638/SAND84-
0060, 1984 October
Shepherd, J.E., “Analysis of Diffusion Flame Tests”, NUREG/CR-4534/SAND86-0419, 1987 August
Prepared by: Z. Liang (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
115
3.2.8 P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation - Passive Autocatalytic Recombiners
Description:
Passive Auto-catalytic Recombiners (PARs) are used to avoid an excessive hydrogen
accumulation inside the reactor containment in case of severe accident. Most of them are constructed
using catalytic materials (bed of beads or row of vertical plates with platinum and palladium on
ceramic washcoat) and housed in a metallic structure. Their behaviour is based on the exothermic
recombination of hydrogen into steam in presence of oxygen. The reaction rate is diffusion limited
(i.e., slower than any active ignition system) and its total recombination rate is nominally 0.3 g/s for a
medium-sized recombiner in an atmosphere containing 4% hydrogen (no O2 restriction). This surface
mechanism leads to an overheating of the catalytic plates and activates natural convection driven
circulation of gases in contact with the catalyst. PARs efficiency has been investigated in several
experiments performed both by manufacturer (such as AREVA, AECL/EACL, etc.) or research
institutes (such as FZJ, IRSN, CEA, etc.)
Recently, dedicated experiments had been performed in frame of the OECD/THAI project to
investigate the possible ignition by PARs and to study the effect of oxygen starvation of PARs
efficiency. Nevertheless, efforts are needed to investigate topics as:
the effect of carbon monoxide on hydrogen recombination,
PARs interaction with external convection flows,
PARs efficiency at reduced oxygen concentrations,
PARs interaction with CsI aerosols, and
unsteady PARs efficiency.
References:
D. Leteinturier et al., “Essais H2PAR: période mi-98 à fin-2000, Synthèse des essais, Conclusions du
programme”, Technical Report, IRSN, DPEA/DIR/02/01, (2002).
P. Rongier et al., “Studies of catalytic recombiner performances in H2PAR facility”, Proc. CSARP,
Bethesda, USA, 1997 May 5-8
O. Braillard, “Test of passive catalytic recombiners (PARs) for combustible gas control in nuclear
power plants”, Proc. 2nd
Int. Topical Meeting on Advanced Reactor Safety ARS, Vol. 97, pp. 541-
548, 1997
M. Sonnenkalb and G. Poss, “The International Test Programme in the THAI Facility and its Use for
Code Validation”, Proc. EUROSAFE, Brussels, Belgium, 2009 November 2-3
N. Meynet and A. Bentaib, “Numerical Study of Hydrogen Ignition by Passive Auto-catalytic
Recombiners”, Proc. 2nd
Int. Meeting of the Safety and Technology of Nuclear Hydrogen Production,
Control and Management, American Nuclear Society, San Diego, USA, 2010 June 13-16
E.A. Reinecke et al., “Open issues in the applicability of recombiner experiments and modelling to
reactor simulations”, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 52, pp. 136-147, 2010
Prepared by: N. Meynet and A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
116
3.2.9 P2-9 - Hydrogen Ignition by PARs (Weak Ignition)
Description:
A passive autocatalytic recombiner (PAR) is employed in nuclear reactors as a hydrogen
mitigation device (see Section P2-8) to prevent accumulation of high hydrogen concentrations. The
recombination of hydrogen is an exothermic reaction and as the hydrogen concentration increases, the
catalyst plate temperatures and exhaust gas temperatures also increase. Thus, PARs have a potential
to act as an unintended ignition source for hydrogen. Tests performed with various commercial PARs
have shown that the minimum hydrogen concentration needed for PAR ignition is dependent on the
PAR design.
References:
OECD, “Implementation of hydrogen mitigation techniques during severe accidents in nuclear power
plants”, NEA/CSNI/R(96)/27, OECD/GD(96)195, 1996
OECD, “SOAR on containment thermal-hydraulics and hydrogen distribution”, NEA/CSNI/R(99)16,
pp. 22-29, 1999 June
Kanzleiter, T., Multiple hydrogen-recombiner experiments performed in the BMC. Battelle
Ingenieurtechnik, Eschborn, Report BF-V68.405-02, European Commission, Draft Report CONT-
VOASM(97)-D005, 1997
Blanchat, T.K. and Malliakos, A., Performance testing of passive autocatalytic recombiners. In: Proc.
of the Int. Cooperative Exchange Meeting on Hydrogen in Reactor Safety, Paper 4.2, 1997
Bachellerie, E., Arnould, F., Auglaire, M., de Boeck, B., Braillard, O., Eckardt, B., Ferroni, F. and
Moffett, R., Generic approach for designing and implementing a passive autocatalytic recombiner
PAR-system in nuclear power plant containments. Nucl. Eng. Des. 221, 151–165, 2003
Reinecke, E.A., I.M. Tragsdorf and K. Gierling, Studies on innovative hydrogen recombiners as
safety devices in the containments of light water reactors. Nucl. Eng. Des. 230, 49-59, 2004
Fineschi, F., M. Bazzichi and M. Carcassi, A study on the hydrogen recombination rates of catalytic
recombiners and deliberate ignition. Nucl. Eng. Des. 166, 481–494, 1996
Prepared by: A. Bentaib (IRSN), J. Fontanet(CIEMAT), L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT) and J. Yanez
(KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
117
3.2.10 P2-10 - Hydrogen Mitigation by Hydrogen Ignitors (Mild Ignition)
Description:
The deliberate hydrogen combustion is used for mitigating of hydrogen deflagration or
explosions effects. Igniters initiate combustion in containment volumes in mixtures near the
flammability limit by diffusion flames and/or slow deflagrations. Thus, the use of ignitors prevents
the accumulation of hydrogen and the formation of dangerously rich mixtures that would be able to
produce energetic modes of combustion. Several types of ignitors (spark plugs, glow plugs) should be
optimally placed in the containment so that the flame would not propagate to regions of higher
concentration and produce damaging effects. Other important problems related with the effectiveness
of the igniters is that the atmosphere surrounding igniters remains poor in hydrogen and in the
absence of fast local mixing mechanism the igniter may fail in generating a flame while hydrogen
continues to accumulate elsewhere in the compartment. Effects of gas composition, as well as the
thermodynamic conditions can be characterized by the laminar flame velocity for which numerous
data is available, e.g., Szabo et al. (2012).
References:
OECD, “Implementation of hydrogen mitigation techniques during severe accidents in nuclear power
plants”, NEA/CSNI/R(96)/27, OECD/GD(96)195, 1996
OECD, “SOAR on containment thermal-hydraulics and hydrogen distribution”, NEA/CSNI/R(99)16,
pp. 22-29, 1999 June
Szabo, Yanez, Kotchourko, Kuznetsov, Jordan, Parameterization of laminar flame speed dependence
on pressure and temperature in hydrogen-air-steam mixtures, Combustion science and technology,
posted online, 2012 June 29
Prepared by: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT), L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT) and J. Yanez (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
118
3.2.11 P2-11 - Strong Ignition of Hydrogen
Description:
Strong ignition of hydrogen can occur through a strong spark, electric arc, high explosive
detonation, and/or ignition in shock reflections. This initiation mechanism provides an enhanced
overpressure, and under certain circumstances, these ignition sources can trigger a detonation.
References:
Dorofeev S.B., Sidorov V.P., Velmakin S.M. et al., Large Scale Hydrogen-Air Detonation
Experiments. The effect of Ignition Location and Hydrogen Concentration on Load. Laboratory of
induced Chemical Reactions. Russian Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”. Report number RRCKI-
80-05/59 1993
Prepared by: J. Yanez (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
119
3.2.12 P2-12 - Jet Ignition of Hydrogen
Description:
In a situation where a burnable mixture (uniform, or non uniform) is divided in two
interconnected chambers. Ignition in the first chamber will result in a pressure rise that will force a jet
of fresh combustible mixture, followed by hot combustion products into the second chamber.
Depending on the nature of the situation, such as the diameter of the connecting duct, it would be
possible that the mixture in the second chamber could be ignited as well. Ignition can occur due to
transmission of turbulent flame through the duct (if it is of sufficiently large diameter), or due to
combustion revival (with time delay) between flame quenching in the duct and flame re-ignition in the
turbulent jet of combustion products.
There is a complex relationship that exists between chemical kinetics, gas dynamics, and mass,
momentum, and energy transfer processes in jet ignition. An initial analysis of the phenomenon can
be performed based on the approximation of the induction time (Zeldovich et al. (1985).
References:
Ya.B. Zeldovich et al., “The mathematical theory of combustion and explosions”, Plenum Publishing
Corporation, 1985 January
S.B. Dorofeev, V.P. Sidorov, S.M. Velmakin et al., Large Scale Hydrogen-Air Detonation
Experiments. The effect of Ignition Location and Hydrogen Concentration on Load. Laboratory of
induced Chemical Reactions. Russian Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, Report number RRCKI-
80-05/59, 1993
Carnasciali, J.H. Lee, R. Knytautas and F. Fineschi, Turbulent Jet Initiation of Detonation”,
Combustion and Flame, Vol. 84, 170, 1991
D.J. MacKay, S.B. Murray, I.O. Moen and P.A. Thibault, Flame-Jet Ignition of Large Fuel-Air
Clouds, 22nd
Symposium (Int.) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, 1339-1353, 1988
R. Knystautas, J.H. Lee, I. Moen and H.G. Wagner, Direct Initiation of Spherical Detonation by a Hot
Turbulent Gas Jet, 17th Symposium (Int.) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1235-
1245, 1979
F. Mayinger, Jordan M., Eder A., Zaslonko I.S., Karpov V. P. and Frolov S. M. Flame-Jet Ignition of
Fuel-Air Mixtures. Experimental Findings and Modeling. Proc. 11th ONR Propulsion Meeting. FSU,
Tallahassee, 1998
Prepared by: J. Yanez (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
120
3.2.13 P2-13 - Radiolysis (Hydrogen Production by Water Radiolysis)
Description:
When water absorbs ionizing radiation (e.g., alpha, beta, gamma and neutron), chemical
reactions occur and a set of free radical (e.g., hydrated electrons, hydrogen atom, hydroxyl radicals)
and molecular species (e.g., hydrogen, hydrogen peroxide, oxygen) can be created. With continuous
radiation, steady state concentrations of these species are established.
References:
J.W.T. Spinks and R.J. Woods. “An Introduction to Radiation Chemistry”, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Toronto, 1990.
Allen, A.O., Hochanadel, C.J., Ghormley, J.A., and Davis, T.W., 1952. Decomposition of Water and
Aqueous Solutions under Mixed Fast Neutron and Gamma Radiation. Phys. Chem., 56, 575- 586.
Hochanadel, C.J., 1952. Effects of Cobalt γ-Radiation on Water and Aqueous Solutions. J. Phys.
Chem., 56, 587- 593.
Hochanadel, C.J., 1955. Réaction de H2 et O2 Dans L’Eau Sous Irradiation; In Proceedings of the Int.
Conf. on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, United Nations. 7, 739.
Kabakchi, S.A., Shubin, V.N., Dolin, P.I., 1965. Steady States in the Radiolysis of Neutral Solutions
of Oxygen. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 165, 601-603.
Kabakchi, S.A., Shubin, V.N., Dolin, P.I., 1967. Influence of pH on Stationary Concentrations of the
Radiolysis Products of Aqueous Oxygen Solutions. High Energy Chemistry, 1, 127-131.
Schwarz, H.A., 1962. A Determination of Some Rate Constants for the Radical Processes in the
Radiation Chemistry of Water. J. Phys. Chem., 66, 255-266.
Prepared by: G.A. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
121
3.2.14 P2-14 - Effect of Droplets on Hydrogen Combustion
Description:
Hydrogen flame propagates initially in subsonic regime and accelerates under turbulence effect
to reach supersonic regime. Most of the available literature concerns hydrogen flame propagation in
gaseous mixture within air, hydrogen and water steam. However, the analysis of severe accident
scenarios shows that the reactor containment atmosphere could enclose water droplets issued either
form bulk condensation or from spray system activation.
Recently, the effect of those water droplets had been investigated experimentally by Cheikhravat
(2010). These results show that the ignition of initial inert gas mixture is possible when water spray is
activated. Moreover, and according to the hydrogen concentration and to the water droplet size,
different behaviours have been identified:
For large droplets (d>250 µm) and regarding to the ratio, s, between flame and droplet velocities,
two situations have been distinguished:
i) For high values of s (s>>1) no significant effects have been observed.
ii) For small values of s (s~1), the evaporation of water droplets occur and the wrinkling of the
flame front is observed.
For small droplets, the flame front becomes wrinkled due to the turbulence induced by water
droplet, especially at low hydrogen concentrations.
Even if the use of spray enhances the turbulence, the spray-premixed flame interactions lead to
low pressure values. On the other hand, due to the induced turbulence, it has been observed that
sprays increase the pressure slope for lean hydrogen-air mixtures.
References:
Cheikhravat H., “Etude expérimentale de la combustion de l’hydrogène dans une atmosphère
inflammable en présence de gouttes d’eau”, PhD thesis Orléans University, 2010.
H. Cheikhravat et al., “Evaluation of the Water Spray Impact on Premixed Hydrogen-Air-Steam
Flames Propagation”, Proceeding American Nuclear Society conference, San Diego, 2010.
Bjerketvedt D. and Bjørkhaug M., “Experimental investigation: Effect of waterspray on gas
explosions”, Report prepared by the Christian Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway, for the UK
Department of Energy, OTH 90 316, HMSO, 1991.
Prepared by: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
122
3.3 Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Phenomena
3.3.1 P3-1 - Aerosol Formation in a Flashing Jet
Description:
The discharge of a water jet from high pressure, high temperature reservoir conditions to
conditions that are near atmospheric results in a rapid production of steam throughout the bulk water.
This causes an energetic fragmentation of the liquid water into small droplets over a short time scale.
The associated acceleration of the jet provides a second fragmentation mechanism, since any water
droplets experiencing conditions under which they exceed a critical Weber number (ratio of inertial
over viscous forces acting on the droplet) will undergo further breakup.
References:
E. Hervieu T. Veneau Experimental determination of the droplet size and velocity distributions at the
exit of the bottom discharge pipe of a liquefied propane storage tank during a sudden blowdown J.
Loss Prev. Ind. Ç, 6, 423-455, 1996
S. Vandroux-Koenig, G. Berthoud Modelling of a two-phase flow Momentum jet close to a breach in
the containment vessel of a liquefied gas, J. Loss Prev. Ind., 10, 1, 17-29, 1997
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 127, 2009 December
G. Polancoa, A. E. Holdøb, G. Mundayc, General review of flashing jet studies, Journal of Hazardous
Materials, Vol. 173, Issues 1–3, pp. 2–18, 2010 January 15
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
123
3.3.2 P3-2 - Aerosol Formation in a Steam Jet
Description:
Release of high temperature steam into a lower temperature environment can result in the
formation of large numbers of water droplets due to steam condensation. The presence of seed
particles (e.g., dust, fission product aerosols) in the steam jet prior to this condensation can alter the
result of the condensation process, producing an aerosol population having different characteristics
than would have resulted from steam condensation alone.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 127, 2009 December
Polancoa, G., A.E. Holdøb and G. Mundayc, General review of flashing jet studies, Journal of
Hazardous Materials, Vol. 173, Issues 1–3, pp. 2–18, 2010 January 15
Thomas K. Lesniewski and Sheldon K. Friedlander, Particle nucleation and growth in a free turbulent
jet, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1998 September
Girshick, S.L., Chiu, C.P., Time dependent aerosol models and homogeneous, nucleation rates.
Aerosol Science and Technology 13, 465, 1990
Martin, F., La nucléation homogène: étude des intéractions vapeurs-aérosols, dans le circuit primaire
d’un réacteur nucléaire lors d’un accident grave. Ph.D., Thesis, Universite´ de Provence/Aix-
Marseille I., 1997
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
124
3.3.3 P3-3 - Aerosol Impaction (Jet Impingement)
Description:
A two-phase flashing jet impinging vigorously onto one or more vessel surfaces results in very
complex flow patterns (large velocity gradients, very sharp changes in flow direction and large rates
of energy dissipation through turbulence). As well, it is likely that virtually all aerosol formation and
removal process are occurring. Therefore the term “jet impingement”, used in the sense of an aerosol
removal mechanism, is a convenient catch all term, encompassing a number of very complex aerosol
removal mechanisms that are recognized separately, such as turbulent deposition, impaction, inertial,
diffusional, phoretic deposition, and others.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 25, 69, 79, 2009 December
Giralt, F., Chia, C.J. and Trass, O., Characterization of the impingement region in an axisymmetric
turbulent jet. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 16, 21-28, 1977
Martin, H., Heat and mass transfer between impinging gas jets and solids surfaces. In Advances in
Heat Transfer, Vol. 13, (Edited by Hartnett, J. P. and Irvine, T. F. Jr.,) Academic Press, New York,
pp. 1-60, 1977
Mercer, T.T. and Stafford, R.G., Impaction from round jets. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 12, 41-48, 1969
Kastner, W. and R. Rippel, Jet impingement forces on structures — Experiments and empirical
calculation methods, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 105, Issue 3, pp. 269–284, 1988 January 2
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
125
3.3.4 P3-4 - Thermophoresis
Description:
Aerosol droplets or particles are subject to continuous agitation by the thermal motion of
molecules in the gas that contains these droplets or particles. The presence of a temperature gradient
in the gas will also result in a gradient in the measure of this thermal agitation. Any particles or
droplets present in such a gradient will see a net force tending to move them down the gradient.
Under these conditions, there will be a flux of particles or droplets towards lower temperature.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 35, 45-46, 68, December 2009
L. Talbot et al., Thermophoresis of particles in a heated boundary layer, Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
101, pp. 737_758 (1980)
A. Zoulalian, T. Albiol, Evaluation of aerosol deposition by thermo and diffusiophoresis during flow
in a circular duct - application to the experimental programme 'Tuba diffusiophoresis', Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 76, Issue 4, August 1998, pp. 799-805
V. Saldo, E. Verloo, A. Zoulalian, Study on aerosol deposition in the PITEAS vessel by settling,
thermophoresis and diffusiophoresis phenomena, J. Aerosol Science, vol 29, suppl.1, pp. S1173-
S1174 (1998)
Romay, F. J., Takagaki, S. S., Pui, D. H. Y., and Liu, B. H. Y. (1998). Thermophoretic deposition of
aerosol particles in turbulent pipe flow. J. Aerosol Sci. 29: 943-959.
Tsai, C. J., Lin, J. S., Aggarwal, G., and Chen, D.R. (2004). Thermophoretic deposition of particles in
laminar and turbulent tube flows. Aerosol Science of Technology 38: 131-139
Sagot, B., Antonini, G., and Buron, F. (2009). Annular flow configuration with high deposition
efficiency for the experimental determination of thermophoretic diffusion coefficients. Journal of
Aerosol Science 40: 1030-1049
Healy, D. P., and Young, J. B. (2010). An experimental and theoretical study of particle deposition
due to thermophoresis and turbulence in an annular flow, Int. Journal of Multiphase Flow 36: 870-
881
Prepared by: J. Malet, N. Michielsen, E. Brugiere, B. Clement (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
126
3.3.5 P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
Description:
The transfer of particles due to a concentration gradient.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 32, 68, December 2009
M. Missirlian, Modélisation des dépôts d'aérosols par diffusiophorèse dans un écoulement.
Application aux réacteurs à eau sous pression en situation accidentelle, Thèse Université de Provence
/ Aix-Marseille 1 (1999)
A. Zoulalian, T. Albiol, Evaluation of aerosol deposition by thermo and diffusiophoresis during flow
in a circular duct - application to the experimental programme 'Tuba diffusiophoresis', Canadian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. 76, Issue 4, August 1998, pp. 799-805
V. Saldo, E. Verloo, A. Zoulalian, Study on aerosol deposition in the PITEAS vessel by settling,
thermophoresis and diffusiophoresis phenomena, J. Aerosol Science, Vol. 29, Suppl.1, pp. S1173-
S1174 (1998)
Prepared by: J. Malet, B. Clement (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
127
3.3.6 P3-6 - Liquid Aerosol Evaporation
Description:
The evaporation of water vapour from airborne aerosol particles decreases the sizes of these
particles. The evaporation rate depends on the drop diameter, relative velocity of the drops in the
vapor phase, drop and vapor temperature, vapor phase viscosity and density, steam diffusivity in the
vapor phase and the steam concentration in the vapor phase. This also includes mist depletion (Small
drop depletion rate due to super heat in the vapor phase or high mist concentration.)
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 28, 29, 66, December 2009
Chang, R., and E. J. Davis, 1976: Knudsen aerosol evaporation. J. Colloid Interface Sci., 54, 352–
363.Fuchs, N. A., 1959: Evaporation and Droplet Growth in Gaseous Media. Pergamon, 72 pp.
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
128
3.3.7 P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
Description:
This includes the condensation of steam on water droplets and the formation of water droplets in
a super saturated atmosphere. The condensation of water vapour onto airborne aerosol particles
increases the sizes of these particles. The condensation rate depends on the drop diameter, relative
velocity of the drops in the vapor phase, drop and vapor temperature, vapor phase viscosity and
density, steam diffusivity in the vapor phase and the steam concentration in the vapor phase. This
also includes mist generation (small drop formation due to super saturation in the vapour phase), as
well as hygroscopic effects.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 28, 29, 66, 2009 December
Gelbard F., Modeling multicomponent aerosol particle growth by vapour condensation, Aerosol
Science and Technology, 12:399-412, 1990
Michael Mozurkewich, “Aerosol Growth and the Condensation Coefficient for Water: A Review”,
Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol. 5, Issue 2, 1986, pp. 223-236
Nadykto, A. B., E. R. Shchukin, M. Kulmala, K. E. J. Lehtinen, and A. Laaksonen, 2003: Evaporation
and condensational growth of liquid droplets in nonisothermal gas mixtures. Aerosol Sci. Technol.,
37, 315–324
Qu, X., and E. J. Davis, 2001: Droplet evaporation and condensation, in the near-continuum regime. J.
Aerosol Sci., 32, 861– 875
Qu, X., and E. J. Davis and B. D. Swanson, 2001: Non-isothermal droplet evaporation and
condensation in the near-continuum regime. J. Aerosol Sci., 32, 1315–1339.
Vesala, T., M. Kulmala, R. Rudolf, A. Vrtala, and P. E. Wagner, 1997: Models for condensational
growth of binary aerosol particles. J. Aerosol Sci., 28, 565–598
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
129
3.3.8 P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
Description:
When aerosol particles settle under the action of gravity, they quickly acquire a constant settling
velocity due to a balance between the gravitational force acting on the particle and the drag force
exerted by the surrounding fluid on the particle. Particles of different sizes will have different settling
velocities. Thus when particles settle, the faster ones have the possibility of colliding with slower
ones, causing agglomeration.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 25, 66, December 2009
Clement et al., 1995, “Charge Distributions and Coagulation of Radioactive Aerosols”, J. Aerosol Sci.
26 1207 – 1225.
Tuttle R F and Loyalka S K, “Gravitational Collision Efficiency of Non-spherical LMFBR Aerosols”,
Trans. American Nucl. Soc, Vol. 32, No. 40, 1981.
Tuttle R F and Loyalka S K, “Gravitational Collision Efficiency of Nonspherical Aerosols I:
Definitions of Shape Factors”, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 69, p. 319, 1985.
Tuttle R F and Loyalka S K, “Gravitational Collision Efficiency of Nonspherical Aerosols II: Motion
of an Oblate Spheroid in a viscous Fluid”, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 69, p. 327, 1985.
Tuttle R F and Loyalka S K, “Gravitational Collision Efficiency of Nonspherical Aerosols III:
Computer Program NGCEFF and Calculation of Shape Factors”, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 69, p.
337, 1985.
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
130
3.3.9 P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
Description:
The small particles suspended in a gas can move randomly because of the thermal motion, this
phenomenon is called Brownian diffusion. The simultaneous random walk of a large number of
particles can cause inevitably collisions and agglomerations. This phenomenon is called (Brownian)
diffusional agglomeration.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 25, 66, December 2009
Clement et al., 1995, “Charge Distributions and Coagulation of Radioactive Aerosols”, J. Aerosol Sci.
26 1207 – 1225.
Loyalka SA, 1976, “Brownian Coagulation of Aerosols”, J. Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 57,
No. 578, 1976.
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
131
3.3.10 P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
Description:
Turbulent agglomeration can be further divided into two phenomena, turbulent inertial
agglomeration and turbulent shear agglomeration. In turbulent flow, the fluid is in a state of random
motion containing eddies of varying sizes. When there is a large difference in the densities of the
particles and the fluid, the particles are not fully entrained by the turbulent eddies, and an inertial
effect forces particles out of one eddy into another. These particles can have large velocities relative
to those of other particles encountered, which can lead to agglomeration. The magnitude of this
process depends mainly on the particle sizes involved, turbulent energy dissipation rate, and particle
Reynolds number (based on the relative settling velocities of the particles).
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 25, 66, December 2009
Clement et al., “Charge Distributions and Coagulation of Radioactive Aerosols”, J. Aerosol Sci. 26
1207 – 1225, 1995
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
132
3.3.11 P3-11 - Drop Breakup
Description:
Drops can be broken up into smaller drops due to hydrodynamic forces exceeding surface
tension forces in a high speed water jet. Drops are also generated by the flashing of a high
temperature water jet. Drops can also be broken up into smaller drops due to drops interactions at
higher Weber numbers.
Experiments exist with drops constituted of various fluids, but very few experiments have been
conducted on the collision of water droplets at high Weber numbers. First experiments were
performed by Roth et al. (2008), where the splashing regime of water drops was observed. This field
is completely open to research.
References:
Roth, N., Rabe, C., Weigand, B., Feuillebois, F., Malet, J., 2007, Droplet Collision at High Weber
Number, ILASS-Europe, Mugla, Turkey
Rabe, C., 2009. Etude de la coalescence dans les rampes de spray: application au système d'aspersion
des Réacteurs à Eau Pressurisée, PhD Thesis, University Paris VI, France
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
133
3.3.12 P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
Description:
All solid particles or liquid droplets suspended in a gas are subject to settling because of gravity.
Gravitational settling rates are determined by particle or droplet size, material density, temperature,
pressure, gas viscosity and mixing assumptions.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 32, 69, December 2009
James G. Crump, John H. Seinfeld, Turbulent deposition and gravitational sedimentation of an aerosol
in a vessel of arbitrary shape, Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol. 12, Issue 5, pp. 405–415, 1981
Nian-Sheng Cheng, “Comparison of formulas for drag coefficient and settling velocity of spherical
particles”, Powder Technology, Vol. 189, Issue 3, pp. 395-398, 2009 February 13
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
134
3.3.13 P3-13 - Diffusional Deposition
Description:
When aerosol particles with a carrier gas enter a system of a given geometry, the Brownian
motion of the particles can cause the deposition of the particles to the wall surfaces. Such a process is
usually important for particles with size smaller than 1 micrometer.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 32, 45, 69, December 2009
J.F. van der Vate, Investigations into the dynamics of Aerosols in Enclosures Used for air pollution
studies, ECN-86, Netherlands Energy Research Foundation, Petten, The Netherlands, July 1980
Lai, A. C. K. (2002), “Particle deposition indoors: a review”, Indoor air 12, 211-214.
Chen, F., Tu, S. et Lai, A. C. K. (2006) Modeling particle distribution and deposition in indoor,
environments with a new drift-flux model. Atmospheric Environment 40, 357-367
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
135
3.3.14 P3-14 - Inertial Deposition of Aerosols (Also called Impaction)
Description:
When aerosol particles in a carrier gas enter a system of a given geometry, the movement of the
particles will be affected by the flow field of carrier gas in the geometry. If the fluid streamlines are
curvilinear, the path of the particles may deviate from the fluid streamlines of the carrier gas because
of the particle inertia (or momentum). The deviation of the particles from fluid streamlines can cause
the deposition of the particles onto the wall surfaces. Such a process is called inertial deposition and
is usually important for particles with size larger than 1 micrometer.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 33, 69, 76-79, December 2009
B.Y.H. Liu and J.K. Agarwal, J. Aerosol Science, 5 (1974) 145
L.A. Hahn, J.J. Stukel, K.H. Leong and P.K. Hopke, “Turbulent Deposition of Submicron Particles on
Rough Walls”, J. Aerosol Science, 16 (1985) 81.
Shimada, M., Okuyama, K. and Kousaka, Y. (1989) Influence of particle inertia on aerosol deposition
in a stirred turbulent flow field, J. Aerosol Sci. 20,419-429.
Lai, A. C. K. (2002) “Particle deposition indoors: a review”, Indoor air 12, 211-214.
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
136
3.3.15 P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
Description:
When aerosol particles are transported by the carrier gas flowing inside a conduit or over a plate,
the particles can acquire transverse (radial) velocities caused by turbulent eddy diffusion. Such
transverse (radial) velocities can cause the particles to cross the viscous sublayer and deposit on the
wall surface.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5. December 2009
Friedlander, S. K. et Johnstone, H. F. (1957) Deposition of suspended particles from turbulent gas
streams. Ind. Eng. Chem. 49, 1151-1156.
Brooke, J. W., Kontomaris, K., Hanratty, T. J. et McLaughlin, J. B. (1992) Turbulent deposition and
trapping aerosols at a wall. Phys. Fluids 4, 825-834.
Guha, A. (1997) A unified eulerian theory of turbulent deposition to smooth and rough surfaces. J.
Aerosol Sci. 28, 1517-1537.
Liu, B. Y. H. et Agarwal J. K. (1974) Experimental observation of aerosol deposition in turbulent,
flow. Aerosol Science 5, 145-155.
Liu, B. Y. H. et Hori, T. A. (1974) Aerosol deposition in turbulent pipe flow. Environmental Science,
and Technology 8, 351-356.
Sehmel, G. A. (1970) Particle deposition from turbulent air flow. J. Geophys. Res. 75, 1766, 1781.
Sippola, M. R. and Nazaroff, W. W. (2002) Particle deposition from turbulent flow: review of
published research and its applicability to ventilation ducts in commercial buildings. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory Report.
Lai, A. C. K. (2002), “Particle deposition indoors: a review”, Indoor air 12, 211-214.
Nerisson P., Modélisation des transferts des aerosols dans un local ventilé, Thèse IRSN-2009/112,
2009
Prepared by: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
137
3.3.16 P3-16 - Re-volatilisation
Description:
Revolatilisation of a fission-product compound on a structure surface occurs when its
equilibrium vapour pressure at the surface exceeds the partial pressure of the compound in the bulk
gas phase. Incongruent revaporisation (i.e., a chemical reaction with the surface, a deposited material,
or an atmospheric constituent, giving the vaporisation of a different chemical compound) can also
occur. The equilibrium concentrations that are associated with these reactions can be described using
thermodynamic data for the appropriate compounds. An unusual case of re-volatilisation may occur
when a deposited fission product nuclide decays from a lower-volatility chemical element to a higher
volatility element; the main decay of interest in this context is the decay of Te-132 to I-132.
The equilibrium vapour pressure is affected by the surface temperature, as well as the chemical
speciation and physical form (e.g., solution or segregated phases) of the deposit. Chemical speciation
probably has the strongest effect on the volatilities of fission products. The physical form will also
affect the equilibrium vapour pressure; dissolved compounds have lower equilibrium vapour pressures
than when they are present as segregated material. The pressure and chemical composition of the gas
will affect the chemical speciation and mass-transfer rates of the gas phase and deposited material.
The transport of vapour to and from the surface will also be affected by mass-transfer considerations
such as fluid temperature, pressure and composition, and flow regime (turbulent or laminar). The
surface temperature may be affected by decay heating from the deposited fission products, as well as
by thermalhydraulic conditions.
The fission product elements that are most likely to undergo revolatilisation are iodine, cesium,
tellurium and ruthenium. Revolatilisation of iodine has not been extensively studied, because it is
soluble in water and the condensing environment is generally considered to wash it into pools.
Cesium deposits undergo some re-volatilisation at high temperatures (about 600°C), but this is limited
in some cases by trapping by small silicate inclusions in surface oxides. The deposition and re-
volatilisation chemistry of ruthenium is very complex.
References:
D. Bottomley, R.S. Dickson, T. Routamo, J. Dienstbier, A. Auvinen, N Girault, “Revaporisation
Issues: An Overview”, Conference ERMSAR-07, FZ Karlsruhe, Germany, 12-14 June 2007,
SARNET-ST-C23, 2007 June
C. Mun, L. Cantrel and C. Madic, “Review of Literature on Ruthenium Behaviour in Nuclear Power
Plant Severe Accidents”, Nucl. Tech. 156, 332, 2006
Prepared by: R. Dickson (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
138
3.3.17 P3-17 - Aerosol Removal in Leakage Paths
Description:
Aerosol and gas can leak from a post-accident pressurized containment through a variety of
paths. Gas flow hydraulics affects drastically the aerosol transport so that leak pathways have been
classified accordingly: short pathways with sudden changes in flow cross-section area (i.e., valves and
seals); tortuous and relatively long pathways (i.e., concrete joints, cracks and penetration gaps); and
small diameter, long channels with high flow resistance (i.e., pores in intact concrete).
There are experimental and theoretical evidences of strong retention of particles in leak paths.
The main working aerosol removal mechanisms are Brownian diffusion, gravitational sedimentation
and, occasionally, inertial impaction as deposition mechanisms. If particle deposition is large enough,
pathway plugging may occur. Nonetheless, under turbulent flows deposition may not be permanent
and particles can bounce off surfaces they impact and/or resuspend from deposits due to changes in
gas flow over deposits, to particle impact and/or to substrate vibration. A key condition for aerosol
transport through leakage paths is steam content of gas.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 130-136, December 2009
Gelain T., J. Vendel, “Research works on contamination transfers through cracked concrete walls”,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 238(4), 2008, pp. 1159–1165
D. Mitrakosa, S. Chatzidakisa, E.P. Hinis, L.E. Herranz, F. Parozzi, C. Housiadas, “A simple
mechanistic model for particle penetration and plugging in tubes and cracks”, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Vol. 238 (12) December 2008, pp. 3370–3378
Williams M.M.R., “Particle deposition and plugging in tubes and cracks (with special reference to
fission product retention” Prog. Nuclear Energy, 28 (1994), pp. 1–60
M.M.R. Williams, “A model for the transport of vapour, gas and aerosol droplets through tubes and
cracks” Progress in Nuclear Energy, Volume 30, Issue 4, 1996, pp. 333–416, 1995
Parozzi F., Chatzidakis, S., Gelain, T., Nahas, G., Plumecocq, W., Vendel, J., Herranz, L.E., Hinis, E.,
Housiadas, C., Journeau, C., Piluso, P., Malgarida, E., “Investigations on aerosol transport in
containment cracks”, Int. Conf. on Nuclear Energy for New Europe, 2005.
Parozzi, F., Caracciolo, E., Herranz, L.E., Housiadas, C., Mitrakos, D., Journeau, C. and Piluso, P.
(2008), “Investigation on aerosol leaks through containment cracks in nuclear severe accidents using
prototypic materials”. 2008 European Aerosol Science Conference (EAC2008), Thessaloniki, 2008
August 24-29.
T. Gelain, F. Gensdarmes, J. Vendel “Experimental study on aerosol penetration through cracked,
concrete wall”, Congress EAC 2004 Budapest, 2004 September 6-10
Prepared by: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT), L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT) and T. Gelain (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
139
3.3.18 P3-18 - Pool Scrubbing of Aerosols
Description:
Pool scrubbing, or wet scrubbing, removes aerosol particles in gas bubbles rising in a water pool.
Several severe accident scenarios involve the transport paths of aerosols which include passages
through stagnant pools of water: BWR suppression pools, safety injection piping directly into a water
tank, steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) accidents concurrent with the stuck-open safety relief
valve, and molten core concrete interaction phenomena with corium covered by water. Additionally,
some containment venting systems employ water pools to clean the gas coming from the containment.
Several fundamental processes take place during aerosol pool scrubbing: diffusiophoresis,
thermophoresis, inertial impaction at the nearby of gas injection, gravity settling, centrifugal
deposition and diffusion during bubbles rise, Brownian diffusion, etc. Aerosol characteristics (i.e.,
size, hygroscopicity, etc.) are key factors for the effectiveness of these removal processes. Gas
hydrodynamics plays an essential role determining key variables for pool scrubbing such as bubbles
size and surface/volume ratio. In addition, other parameters like pool depth water sub-cooling, carrier
gas composition and temperature and velocity, injection mode, water composition, etc., heavily
influence individual pool scrubbing processes. Particular attention should be given to removal of
aerosols during formation and subsequent disintegration and coalescence of bubbles, and also to the
effects of submerged structures and contaminants (surfactants).
The retention of aerosols in the pool shows an inverted Gaussian type of trend as a function of
particle diameter with a minimum at about 0.1 μm. The effect of the pool scrubbing on the particle
size distribution is narrowing it towards the particle size yielding the minimum efficiency.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 87-92, December 2009
A. Dehbi, , D. Suckow, S. Guentay, Aerosol retention in low-subcooling pools under realistic accident
conditions, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 203, Issues 2–3, 2001 January 2, pp. 229–241
Prepared by: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
140
3.3.19 P3-19 - Radionuclide Transport
Description:
Transport of radionuclide (in the form of aerosols as well as in the form of gases) by the flowing
vapor phase. This also includes aerosol transport (The transport of small solid or liquid particles
carried by the gas).
References:
Allelein, H.J., Auvinen, A., Ball, J., Güntay, S., Herranz, L.E., Hidaka, A, Jones, A., Kissane, M.,
Powers, D., Weber, G., State-of-the Art Report on Nuclear Aerosols, OECD Report,
NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, 2009.
Prepared by: G.A. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
141
3.3.20 P3-20 - Radionuclide Decay Heat (No Experiments)
Description:
Radioactive decay is a process in which an unstable radionuclide transforms into a more stable
state, losing energy by emitting ionizing radiation in the process. When the radiation is absorbed by
matter, much of the energy is eventually converted into heat. This energy is normally contained
within the reactor core (or in the irradiated fuel bays) where the energy is utilized to make electricity
or removed as waste heat. However, after an accident, the radionuclides could be dispersed outside of
the core and may reach containment where they could contribute to the containment heat load.
A suite of codes would be required to calculate the decay heat load in containment. The total
recoverable decay heat would be estimated using physics codes that calculate the inventory and power
of fuel. Releases of activation products in the coolant may be a significant fraction of the releases for
events with few, if any, fuel failures. The oxidation of the fuel cladding and subsequent release of
various elements from the fuel and transport to the break location are the next phase of the
calculation. The location and quantity of heat adsorption will depend upon the type of radiation
released (alpha, beta, gamma etc.), its physical and chemical form within containment (gas phase,
aqueous phase or adsorbed on surfaces), particle size and state of aerosols, material densities,
shielding, distances etc. It is not likely that anything more than very simple heat adsorption
calculations are being used at this time. There are numerous sources of decay data, including ICRP-
107, and ENDF-VII.1.
References:
Int. Committee on Radiation Protection, “Nuclear Decay Data for Dosimetric Calculations”, ICRP-
107, Ann. ICRP 38 (3), 2008
M.B. Chadwick, M. Herman, P. Obložinský, M.E. Dunn, Y. Danon, A.C. Kahler, D.L. Smith, B.
Pritychenko, G. Arbanas, R. Arcilla, R. Brewer, D.A. Brown, R. Capote, A.D. Carlson, Y.S. Cho, H.
Derrien, K. Guber, G.M. Hale, S. Hoblit, S. Holloway et al., “ENDF/B-VII.1 Nuclear Data for
Science and Technology: Cross Sections, Covariances, Fission product Yields and Decay Data”,
Nuclear Data Sheets, 112 (12), pp. 2887-2996, 2008
Prepared by: G.A. Glowa (AECL) and D.H. Barber (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
142
3.3.21 P3-21 - Release Rate Change Due to Oxidizing Environment
Description:
Releases of many fission products from fuel or corium will increase in an oxidizing environment
(such as in containment or during air ingress into a vessel). For example, release rates of volatile
fission products from otherwise intact fuel increase during oxidation because of increases in diffusion
coefficients due to oxidation. Oxidation increases the volatility of some other fission products
(notably ruthenium and molybdenum) because their oxides are much more volatile than the parent
metal. Air oxidation particularly increases the release rate of ruthenium due to the formation of
ruthenium tetraoxide (RuO4), a highly volatile oxide. Some of the chemical reactions occurring
during P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction will also increase the oxidation state of the corium
and thereby increase the release rates of some fission products.
References:
J. McFarlane, J.C. Wren and Lemire, R.J., “Chemical Speciation of Iodine Source Term to
Containment” Nucl. Tech.., 138,162, 2002
C. Mun, L. Cantrel and C. Madic, “Review of Literature on Ruthenium Behaviour in Nuclear Power
Plant Severe Accidents” Nucl. Tech., 156, 332, 2006.
L.W. Dickson and R.S. Dickson, “Fission-Product Releases from CANDU Fuel at 1650°C: The
HCE4 Experiment”, 7th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Kingston, Ontario, 2001 September 23-27.
Lewis, B.J., Dickson R., Iglesias, F.C., Ducros, G., and Kudo, T.. Overview of Experimental
Programs on Core Melt Progression and Fission Product Behaviour. J. Nucl. Mat., 380, 126 (2008).
Kärkelä, T., Backman, U., Auvinen, A., Zilliacus, R., Lipponen, M., Kekki, T., Tapper, U. and
Jokiniemi, J., 2007. Experiments on the behaviour of ruthenium in air ingress accidents – Final
Report. Severe Accident Network of Excellence Document, SARNET-ST-P58,
VTT-R-01252-07.
Matus, L., Prokopiev, O., Alföldy, B., Pintér, A. and Hózer, Z., 2002. Oxidation and Release of
Ruthenium in High Temperature Air. KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute Report, PHEBUS PF:
HU-02-1.
Matus, L., Nagy, I., Windberg, P., Vér, N., Kunstár, M., Alföldy, B., Pintér, A. and Hózer, Z., 2004.
Oxidation and Release of Ruthenium from Short Fuel Rods in High Temperature Air. KFKI Atomic
Energy Research Institute Report, AEKI-FRL-2004-111-01/01.
Prepared by: G.A. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
143
3.3.22 P3-22 - Containment Chemistry Impact on Source Term
Description:
This comprises all of the chemical reactions that affect the iodine and ruthenium chemistry in the
containment without reacting directly with iodine or ruthenium (see Aqueous Phase Oxidation and
Reduction of Iodine Species (phenomenon P4-1) and Ruthenium Volatility and Behaviour in
Containment (phenomenon P3-23)). These reactions include: aqueous phase radiolytic oxidation of
organic materials to produce acids, which affect pH; air radiolysis, which produces nitric acid (affects
pH), as well as ozone and other air radiolysis products (increase volatility of deposited ruthenium);
dissolution of CO2 produced by core-concrete interaction in the water pool (affects pH).
References:
J.W.T. Spinks and R.J. Woods. An Introduction to Radiation Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Toronto, 1990.
J.C. Wren, J.M Ball and G.A. Glowa, “The Interaction of Iodine with Organic Material in
Containment”, Nucl. Tech, 125, 337, (1999).
J.C. Wren, J.M Ball and G.A Glowa, “The Chemistry of Iodine in Containment”, Nucl. Tech., 129,
297 (2000).
Prepared by: G.A. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
144
3.3.23 P3-23 - Ruthenium Volatility and Behaviour in Containment
Description:
After release from the fuel, ruthenium in some chemical forms in the containment may become
volatile in the form of ruthenium tetraoxide (RuO4) (boiling point 40°C). If RuO4 is in the
containment, it is volatile and slightly soluble in water pools. The RuO4- and RuO4
2- chemical forms
may become volatile in the radiation field. The volatilities of these species are higher in acidic
solutions, and lower in basic solutions. RuO2·nH2O does not become volatile in solution, even under
irradiation. Deposited RuO2 may become volatile by reacting with air radiolysis products from the
gas phase (see phenomenon P3-16 - Re-volatilisation). These are the phenomena that have been
studied to date, and models based on these mechanisms will produce conservative results. However,
RuO4 and some of the other forms may become less volatile by reacting with organic and inorganic
materials present in the reactor sump, which would tend to reduce the impact of ruthenium volatility.
References:
Mun, C., Cantrel, L. and Madic, C., “Review of Literature on Ruthenium Behaviour in Nuclear Power
Plant Severe Accidents”, Nuclear Technology, 156, 332 (2006).
Mun, C., Cantrel, L. and Madic, C., “Study of RuO4 Decomposition in Dry and Moist Air”,
Radiochimica Acta. 95(11), pp. 643-656 (2007).
Mun, C., Cantrel, L. and Madic, C., “Oxidation of Ruthenium Oxide Deposits by Ozone”,
Radiochimica Acta. 96, pp. 375-384 (2008).
Mun, C., Cantrel, L. and Madic, C., “Radiolytic Oxidation of Ruthenium Oxide Deposits”, Nuclear
Technology 164(2), pp. 245-254 (2008).
Prepared by: G.A. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
145
3.3.24 P3-24 - Aerosol Removal by Sprays (Dousing)
Description:
Aerosol (and fission-product) wash-out by spray droplets during spray activation.
References:
Porcheron, E., Lemaitre, P., Marchand, D., Plumecocq, W., Nuboer, A. and Vendel, J. Experimental
and numerical approaches of aerosol removal in spray conditions for containment application. Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 240, pp. 336-343, 2010.
Porcheron, E., Lemaitre, P., Nuboer, A., Vendel, J. Heat, mass and aerosol transfers in spray
conditions for containment application. Journal of Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 2, N°2, pp. 633-
647, 2008.
Porcheron E., Lemaitre P., Marchand D., Aerosol Removal by Emergency Spray in PWR
Containment, Journal of Energy and Power Engineering 5 (2011).
Firnhaber, M., Kanzleiter, T.F., Schwarz, S., Weber, G., “International Standard Problem ISP-37.
VANAM M3 – A, multi compartment aerosol depletion test with hygroscopic; aerosol material”,
Comparison Report, OCDE/GD(97)16, ; December 1996.
Prepared by: J. Malet, E. Porcheron, P. Lemaitre (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
146
3.3.25 P3-25 - Re-suspension (Dry)
Description:
Dry aerosols deposited in the containment could be resuspended because of hydrogen
deflagration, steam explosion or fast depressurization due to containment failure or venting. Both
experimental and theoretical studies have been carried out in the past, so that several resuspension
models for it are already available in the literature.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5
A.H. Ibrahim, P.F. Dunn: Microparticle detachment from surfaces expose to turbulent air flow:
Effects of flow and particle deposition characteristics, J. Aerosol Science, vol 35, 2004, 805-821.
M.W. Reeks, D. Hall: Kinetic models for particle resuspension in turbulent flows: theory and
measurement, J. Aerosol Science, vol 31, 2001, 1-31.
Prepared by: J. Malet, S. Peillon (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
147
3.3.26 P3-26 - Re-entrainment (Wet)
Description:
Re-entrainment of aerosols from boiling water pools (see OECD SOAR on Aerosols, 2009)
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
148
3.3.27 P3-27 - Aerosol De-agglomeration
Description:
Particle agglomerates can break-up for different reasons: large shear stresses caused by the
particle-gas relative motion at particle surface, collisions with structural surfaces and/or other
particles, etc. Large shear forces in actual reactor conditions can be generated by very high (up to
sonic) velocity in the steam generator tubes or in a sonic front when the aerosol laden gas is
discharged from a break into the secondary side from the primary (which pressure could be at least 2
times higher than in the secondary side). Collisions against structural components could occur in a
cross-flow configuration in which gas throws particles at high velocity against obstacles; an example
might be, also, the particle ejection into a dry secondary side of the steam generator during a
meltdown SGTR sequence.
The physics of de-agglomeration is not currently well understood. The relevance of de-
agglomeration to the SGTR accident is that it can shift the aerosol size distribution towards smaller
sizes significantly as the aerosols enter into the secondary side from the break. As an example,
ARTIST experiments show that de-agglomeration has caused a reduction of the aerodynamic mass
median diameter from an initial value of 3-4 μm to about 2 μm.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 258-264, December 2009
Prepared by: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
149
3.4 Iodine Chemistry Phenomena
3.4.1 P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of Iodine Species
Description:
Various oxidation and reduction reactions exist that interconvert iodine between many iodine
species (e.g., I-, I2 and IO3
-). Iodine speciation is a function of oxidation or reduction of iodine
species, and depends on the presence of radiolysis products of water, dose rate, solution pH,
impurities, etc. The chemical and physical nature of the species is quite different. The species I- and
IO3- are non-volatile whereas the dissolved I2 gas is volatile and reactive.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
150
3.4.2 P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
Description:
Iodine hydrolysis is one of the key reactions that govern the conversion of volatile I2 into non-
volatile iodine species (I-, HOI) in the water phase. In general, equilibrium between the I2 and the
non-volatile species is achieved rapidly by hydrolysis. This equilibrium depends strongly on the pH
of the sump. At a high pH the equilibrium shifts towards the non-volatile species and the I2
concentration becomes small.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
151
3.4.3 P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
Description:
Radiolysis in the water phase is the most important conversion of non-volatile iodine into
volatile I2. In the presence of radioactive radiation (dose rate) water radiolysis forms reactive radicals,
which react with the iodine species in a complex way. I2 is formed radiolytically mainly from iodide
(I-) and iodate (IO3
-). Both reactions depend on the dose rate and the pH of the sump.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
152
3.4.4 P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water Phase
Description:
In sumps volatile organic iodides are formed from reactions of dissolved iodine with various
organic materials like oil, solvents, and destruction products leached from painted surfaces. Organic
iodides (e.g., methyl iodide, CH3I, or higher molecular weight organic iodides, HMWI) are mainly
produced by reactions of I2 and HOI with organic material. A part of the organic iodides is
decomposed radiolytically.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
153
3.4.5 P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water Phase
Description:
Adsorption is the deposition of dissolved volatile iodine (I2) onto a submerged surface. The
surface can be bare material (steel, concrete) or material coated with paint or other protective
covering. Desorption is the release of adsorbed iodine from a surface back to the aqueous phase.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
154
3.4.6 P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
Description:
Adsorption is the deposition of gaseous iodine (I2) onto a surface. The surface can be bare
material (steel, concrete) or material coated with paint or other protective covering. The freshly
deposited iodine is loosely bound to the surface and can be easily desorbed, e.g. by a temperature
increase. This physisorbed iodine may react with the surface material to form iodine compounds,
which are more strongly bound to the surface (chemisorbed). In the gas phase I2 adsorption on
painted surfaces is a major sink for I2. The iodine deposited on paint may serve as a source for
organic iodides. Desorption is the release of physisorbed iodine from a surface back to the gas phase
or to the aqueous phase. Adsorption and desorption affect the I2 gas phase concentration.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
155
3.4.7 P4-7 - Silver Iodine Reactions in the Water Phase
Description:
In the sump silver reacts with dissolved I2 and I- to the insoluble AgI, which accumulates on the
sump bottom. The silver originates from molten control rods and would be released into the
containment in aerosol form. It would be deposited mainly on the containment floors and washed
down into the sump. The total silver mass in the containment is much higher than the iodine mass and
therefore silver has the potential to bind large amounts of iodine. Elemental silver reacts with I2 and
oxidized (AgOx) silver reacts with I-. The reactions occur on the surface of the Ag or AgOx particles
in the sump. As a consequence of the iodine trapping in the sump the I2 concentration in the gas
phase is also reduced significantly.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
156
3.4.8 P4-8 - Gas Phase Radiolytic Oxidation of Molecular Iodine (I2) (Iodine/Ozone Reaction)
Description:
Molecular iodine (I2) is oxidized by air radiolysis products (e.g., ozone) to form an aerosol (IOx)
by a gas-to-particle conversion. These particles are generally submicron and have the potential to stay
airborne in the atmosphere for long periods of time. In the presence of a nuclear aerosol the IOx
aerosol particles agglomerate with these bigger particles. The IOx aerosol is an important contributor
to the iodine source term.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
157
3.4.9 P4-9 - Homogeneous Organic Iodine Reactions in Gas Phase
Description:
Organic iodine generation refers to the process by which organic iodides are created. This
process occurs on painted surfaces (dry or submerged) that have been in contact with I2. Organic
iodides are carbon based molecules that contain iodine. These compounds have a range of volatilities.
The most common example is methyl iodide (CH3I). Organic iodides are harder to trap on filters than
molecular iodine (I2).
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
158
3.4.10 P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
Description:
Radiolytic iodine (RI) destruction is the decomposition of organic iodides (e.g., methyl iodide)
due to radiation in the gas phase. The reaction is the most important destruction mechanism for
organic iodide in the gas phase. Parts of the formed I2 react rapidly with air radiolysis products to
generate IOx aerosol.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
159
3.4.11 P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
Description:
Mass transfer describes the exchange of volatile species between gas and water phases by
transport processes (diffusion, convection) through the interfacial surface areas, e.g., sump surface.
These processes are important for I2 and organic iodides, which are produced in the water phase
(sump) and transported from there into the gas phase. On the contrary, if the gas phase concentration
is higher, the volatile iodine species are transferred from the gas phase into the water. The partition
coefficient is the ratio of the concentration in the water phase over the concentration in the gas phase
at equilibrium. It is different for individual iodine species (e.g., I2 or CH3I). It mainly depends on the
temperature.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
160
3.4.12 P4-12 - Decomposition of Iodides (CsI) by Heat-up in PARs
Description:
Metal iodide aerosols like CsI and CdI2 passing through a passive autocatalytic recombiner
(PAR) are exposed to high temperature, and may decompose thermally, leading to an additional
source of volatile I2 in the containment. Since in general several dozens of PARs are located in
containment, this additional I2 source may be significant.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
161
3.4.13 P4-13 - Iodine Filtration
Description:
According to the different physical and chemical nature of the iodine species, different sorption
materials are used for iodine filtration. Particulate iodine (CsI, IOx) would be trapped efficiently in
common aerosol filters, like fibrous filters, venturi scrubbers, or gravel bed filters. Filtration of
gaseous iodine (I2 and organic iodides) needs special sorption materials, like carbon impregnated with
TEDA (triethylene di-amine), or special additives in the washing solution of scrubbers, e.g., NaOH,
Na2S2O3. In general the filtration efficiency is significantly lower for gaseous iodine than for iodine
aerosols.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
162
3.4.14 P4-14 - Volatile Iodine Trapping by Airborne Droplets
Description:
Gaseous iodine (I2, RI) is transferred to droplets until equilibrium is reached. The droplets may
originate from volume condensation (for formation) or from a spray system. Iodine will equilibrate
with the iodine transferred into the water. Because of the large surface/volume ration of the droplet
iodine trapping is relatively fast. Operational filters are designed for long residence times and
relatively low material concentrations to be filtered while in venting filters the expected
concentrations are high.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
163
3.4.15 P4-15 - Iodine Retention in Leakage Paths
Description:
When gaseous (I2) and particulate iodine (CsI, IOx) are transported by a gas flow through a
narrow leak they partially deposit on the surfaces of the path. I2 is adsorbed and the particles are
deposited by different processes (impaction, diffusion, sedimentation and diffusiophoresis). The
retention of organic iodides will be negligible in most cases. No experiments have been performed to
examine retention of the different forms of iodine in leakage paths.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
164
3.4.16 P4-16 - I2 Interaction with Aerosols
Description:
Gaseous I2 is adsorbed on the surface of aerosol particles. Freshly deposited I2 is loosely bound
to the particle surface (physisorbed) and may be desorbed with changing conditions (increasing
temperature or decreasing I2 concentration in the gas phase). This physisorbed I2 will partly react
with the aerosol material to form chemisorbed iodine, which is strongly bound to the particles. I2
deposited on an aerosol is transported like an aerosol, and is subject to other effects like
agglomeration and deposition.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
165
3.4.17 P4-17 - Iodine Wash-down
Description:
I2, particulate iodine (CsI, IOx), silver particles, and other aerosol materials deposited on walls
and floors of containment can be transported with the draining condensate (wash-down) into elevated
flat pools, and from there finally into the sump. In general soluble materials (e.g., CsI, CsOH) are
washed down more completely than insoluble materials (e.g., Ag). Deposited iodine and other fission
products can react with the surface material (mostly paint) to form species, which are attached to the
surface and can hardly be washed off. Soluble and insoluble fission products are also retained
partially in elevated pools by an incomplete dissolution respectively by the settling of insoluble
particles.
Wash-down processes determine the fraction of iodine and Ag reaching the sump. Many of the
iodine reactions depend essentially on these concentrations. Moreover wash-down governs the
distribution of decay heat of iodine and other fission products (FP) in the containment. A high
amount of iodine and other fission products in the sump may cause sump boiling.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
166
3.4.18 P4-18 - Pool Scrubbing of Iodine
Description:
If an iodine loaded (I2, CsI-aerosol) gas is discharged through an orifice or nozzles into a water
pool, the iodine in the rising bubbles will be partly trapped in the water. Different deposition and
transfer mechanisms and the bubble size influence the efficiency of this trapping process. Pool
scrubbing may occur in connection with a steam generator tube rupture.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
167
3.4.19 P4-19 - Iodine Release from Flashing Pool or Flashing Jet
Description:
If an iodine loaded (I2, I-, etc.), thermally saturated water pool undergoes a sudden
depressurization, the pool water would partly evaporate, perhaps violently and become dispersed into
small droplets. This flashing pool can release iodine. By transfer mechanisms, some of the dissolved
I2 would be released directly into the gas phase. The remaining portion would become part of the
airborne droplets, or would stay in the coolant. The water in the droplets would possibly evaporate
away, and species (I-, HOI, IO3-) dissolved inside the droplet would form much smaller, dry aerosol
particles. A flashing pool could occur, for instance, if there were a sudden leak in containment.
If an iodine loaded (I2, I-, etc.) coolant, under high pressure were to be discharged into a volume
with low pressure, the supersaturated jet would evaporate and disperse into small droplets. The iodine
release mechanisms into the gas phase are principally the same as for the flashing pool. A flashing jet
may occur with a steam generator tube rupture.
References:
Clement, B., Cantrel, L., Ducros, G., Funke, F., Herranz, L., Rydl, A., Weber, G., and Wren, C.,
“State of the ART Report on Iodine Chemistry”, NEA/CSNI/R(2007)1
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
168
3.5 Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Phenomena
3.5.1 P5-1 - Corium Release from Failed Dry Reactor Pressure Vessel
Description:
For a light water reactor (with a dry cavity on the outside of the RPV), there are two possible
failure modes for the RPV. The first failure mode is with the RPV at high pressure. This high
pressure can be due solely due to core heat-up, or because of dynamic failure caused by in-vessel fuel
coolant interaction. This can result in single phase ejection of corium melt or two phase steam-corium
melt ejection.
The second failure mode involves a RPV at low pressure (depressurized primary system) with
the corium melting through the vessel walls or failure of a penetration nozzle. This will result in a
“pouring” of the corium melt into the reactor cavity/pit (which may be dry concrete, water pool on top
of the concrete floor or a core catcher). There can be one or several opening(s) and pour(s).
The mass flow of the melt would depend on the breach location, the amount and composition of
the poured corium, the pool configuration in the lower head/plenum and the timing of the release
episode(s). For rapid ejection sequences, flowrate is also of major importance.
Depending on break location relative to the melt in the RPV and the break pressure, the release
of corium can be either an:
ejection of single phase corium liquid, or
ejection of a corium/steam two phase jet.
For a LWR with a wet cavity (VVER 440 Loviisa, AP1000) the vessel could fail if in-vessel
retention fails. A low pressure scenario is expected, since SAMG are designed to depressurize the
vessel for the IVR phase. The phenomena should be close to that of the dry low pressure failure
except that the pour will occur into a water filled cavity.
For a CANDU, ex-vessel represents the case when the corium leaves the calandria vessel. The
calandria vessel atmosphere is connected to the containment by rupture disks, so the calandria vessel
is always at containment pressure, meaning there would be no energetic ejection of the melt out of the
calandria vessel. As well, the calandria vessel is located in a water filled shield tank. So, in order for
the calandria vessel to fail, the water in the shield tank should be low enough (below the level of the
corium pool inside the calandria vessel) so that the calandria vessel wall heats up and fails at low
water level.
Chemical thermodynamic data are needed to predict the corium physical state and the nature of
its phases. Thermophysical properties such as density, viscosity, surface tension, thermal
conductivity are of high importance for modelling of corium behaviour. Typically corium release is
simplified for LP and Integral codes.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
169
References:
H.G. Willschutz, E. Altstadt, B.R. Sehgal, F.P. Weiss, Simulation of creep tests with French or
German RPV-steel and investigation of a RPV- support against failure, Annals of Nuclear Energy,
Volume 30, 2003, pp. 1033-1063.
V. Koundy, F. Fichot, H.G. Willschuetz, E. Altstadt, L. Nicolas, J.S. Lamy, L. Flandi, Progress on
PWR lower head failure predictive models, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 238, 2008, pp.
2420-2429.
B.R. Sehgal, A. Theerthan, A. Giri, A. Karbojian, H.G. Willschutz, O. Kymalainen, S. Vandroux, J.
M. Bonnet, J. M. Seiler, K. Ikkonen, R. Sairanen, S. Bhandari, M. Burger, M. Buck, W. Widmann, J.
Dienstbier, Z. Techy, P. Kostka, R. Taubner, T. Theofanous, T.N. Dinh, Assessment of reactor vessel
integrity (ARVI), Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 221, 2003, pp. 23-53.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
170
3.5.2 P5-2 - Corium Entrainment Out of the Reactor Primary Vessel with Lateral Breaches
Description:
The melt is ejected at high or intermediate pressures, and consists of a multi-phase steam/corium
mixture, depending on the relative position of the hole to the corium level. Most SAMGs tend to
decrease the primary circuit pressure to prevent high pressure ejection. As discussed under
phenomenon P5-1, melt ejections at high pressure is not anticipated for CANDUs.
References:
M.M. Pilch, H. Yan, T.G. Theophanous, The probability of containment failure by direct containment
heating at Zion, Nucl. Eng. Des., 164 (1996) 1-36.
H. Yan, T.G. Theophanous, The prediction of direct containment heating, Nucl. Eng. Des. (1996) 95-
116.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, C. Caroli, I. Ivanov, Direct containment heating integral effect experiments in
geometries of European nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (2009) 2070-2084.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
171
3.5.3 P5-3 - Corium Particles Generation from the Corium Pool
Description:
Corium particles can be generated from the corium pool by interaction between the corium pool
and the high speed surrounding gas. This interaction can lead to further oxidation and hydrogen
generation. This phenomenon is only modelled in specialized codes.
References:
Q. Wu, G. Zhang, M. Ishii, R. Lee, Modelling of corium dispersion in DCH accidents, Nucl. Eng.
Des., 164 (1996) 211-235.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
172
3.5.4 P5-4 - Corium Particles Generation from the Two Phase Jet
Description:
The corium may be fragmented inside the corium/steam two-phase jet.
References:
L Meyer, C. Caroli, Direct Containment Heating in Nuclear Safety in Light Water Reactors: Severe
Accident Phenomenology, B.R. Sehgal, ed., Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 2012.
L. Meyer, M. G. Gargallo, Low pressure corium dispersion experiments with simulant fluids in a
scaled annular cavity, Nucl. Technol., 141, 257-274, 2003.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
173
3.5.5 P5-5 - Corium Particles Entrainment
Description:
Entrainment of the corium particles along the reactor pit can occur, and depends on the cavity
geometry (rather horizontal or vertical entrainment in case of an annular space around the vessel).
References:
S.B. Kim, M-K Chung, H-Y Lee, M-H Kim, A parametric study of geometric effect on the debris
dispersal from a reactor cavity during high pressure melt ejection, Int. Comm. Heat Mass transfer, 22
(1995) 25-34.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, C. Caroli, I. Ivanov, Direct containment heating integral effect experiments in
geometries of European nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (2009) 2070-2084.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
174
3.5.6 P5-6 - Corium Particles Trapping
Description:
Deposition of corium particles due to flow and geometrical aspects.
References:
R. Meignien, S. Mikasser, C. Spengler, A. Bretault, Synthesis of analytical activities for Direct
Containment heating, ERMSAR07, Karlsruhe, 2007.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, C. Caroli, I. Ivanov, Direct containment heating integral effect experiments in
geometries of European nuclear power plants, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239 (2009) 2070-2084.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
175
3.5.7 P5-7 - Direct Containment Heating
Description:
High pressure ejection of molten core material into the containment atmosphere would lead to
direct containment heating by the release of thermal and chemical energy of the debris.
References:
OECD/NEA/CSNI, High Pressure Melt Ejection (HPME) and Direct Containment Heating (DCH),
State of the Art Report, OCDE/GD(96)194, 1996.
L Meyer, C. Caroli, Direct Containment Heating in Nuclear Safety in Light Water Reactors: Severe
Accident Phenomenology, B.R. Sehgal, ed., Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 2012.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
176
3.5.8 P5-8 - Corium Jet Break-up in Water Pool
Description:
Complete fragmentation could occur for deep water pools (> 4 m deep) depending on melt
jet/stream conditions. This is similar to in-vessel situation, but under sub cooling, deeper water pools
and low pressure. Likewise, incomplete fragmentation would occur for shallow pools (< 4 m deep),
leaving a coherent jet.
References:
D. Magallon, I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, Lessons learnt from FARO/TERMOS corium melt
quenching experiments, Nucl. Eng. Des., 189 (1999) 223-238.
T.N. Dinh, V.A. Bui, R.R. Nourgaliev, J.A. Green, B.R. Sehgal, Experimental and analytical studies
of melt jet coolant interactions: a synthesis, Nucl. Eng. Des.189 (1999) 299-327
M. Bürger, Particulate debris formation by breakup of melt jets: Main objectives and solution
perspectives, Nucl. Eng. Des. 236 (2006) 1991-1997.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
177
3.5.9 P5-9 - FCI and Steam Explosion - Melt into Water Ex-Vessel (Melt Quenching)
Description:
In many BWRs (and some PWRs), a water pool is located under the reactor pressure vessel
(likewise the CANDU has a shield tank/reactor vault filled with water on the outside of the calandria
vessel), either by design or as a means to manage a severe accident. The release of molten corium
from the reactor pressure vessel into this external body of water could result in fuel coolant interaction
(FCI) including possible ex-vessel steam explosion.
FCI is rapid coolant vaporization due to molten fuel coolant contact, and generates fragmented
droplets. An FCI-induced steam explosion is a phenomenon in which molten fuel rapidly fragments
and transfers its energy to the coolant, resulting in steam generation, shock waves and possible
structural (including containment failure) damage. Steam explosions would also have a dramatic
effect on the debris bed granulometry, and thus coolability, even if it may not lead to structural
damages.
References:
Theofanous, T.G., “The Study of Steam Explosions in Nuclear Systems”, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Vol. 155, Issue 1-2, pp. 1-26, April 1995.
Prepared by: P.M Mathew (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
178
3.5.10 P5-10 - Pressure Load on Corium Retention Devices
Description:
This phenomenon is a consequence of the pressure load due to FCI or steam explosion on the
core catcher. Consequences would be minor if the core catcher is well designed. This is only
modelled by specialized codes.
References:
I. Szabo, P. Richard, Y. bergamaschi, J.M. Seiler, A multi-crucible core-catcher concept: Design
considerations and basic results, Nucl. Eng. Des., 157, 417-435, 1995.
V.N. Mineev, F.A. Akopov, A.S. Vlasov, Yu. A. Zeigarnik, O.M Traktuev, Optimization of the
materials composition of the external core catchers for nuclear reactors, Atom. Ener. 93, 872-879,
2002.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
179
3.5.11 P5-11 - Particulate Debris Bed Formation
Description:
Once the melt has been cooled/solidified by the water pool, it will fall down through the water
pool and form a particulate debris bed on the floor of the water pool. This phenomena is similar to an
in-vessel case, but pools are deeper and at lower pressures for the ex-vessel case.
References:
Burger, M., Cho, S.H., Berg, E.v., and Schatz, A., “Breakup of melt jets as pre-condition for
premixing: Modeling and experimental verification”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 155,
Issue 1-2, pp. 215-251, April 1995.
Prepared by: P.M. Mathew (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
180
3.5.12 P5-12 - Corium Debris (Solid) Heat Transfer
Description:
Heat transfer within the solid corium and also heat transfer at the solid boundary to vapour,
liquid or solid.
References:
V. Dauvois, S. Goldstein, C. Gueneau, K. Froment and J.M. Seiler, “Boundary Conditions for Liquid
Corium in Thermalhydraulic Steady State and Experimental Validation”, Proc. of ICONE 8 April 2–
6, 2000, Baltimore, USA (2000).
Prepared by: P.M. Mathew (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
181
3.5.13 P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
Description:
Molten Core Concrete Interaction (MCCI) is the chemical interaction between concrete and the
molten core. It includes compound reactions, heat of reaction, concrete ablation and gas generation.
The molten core will interact with the concrete, breaking up the concrete into gases (i.e., hydrogen,
carbon monoxide), liquids and solid components. MCCI generates combustible gases, and also
attacks the containment basemat.
The gases that are produced move upwards through the melt (as a sparging gas). This sparging
gas can affect:
the melt stratification,
induce convective currents in the melt,
heat transfer at the liquid-liquid interface of miscibility gaps,
entrainment of melt as the gas flows through openings in upper crust,
an attack of the cavity walls could also lead to mechanical damages that may threaten
containment.
oxidation of metallic melt and generation of flammable gases
References:
H. Alsmeyer et al., Molten corium/concrete interaction and corium coolability – A state of the art
report, Report EUR 16649, European Commission, 1995.
MT Farmer, S Lomperski, S. Basu, Results of Reactor Materials Experiments Investigating 2-D Core-
Concrete Interaction and Debris Coolability, ICAPP04, Pittsburgh, 2004.
C. Journeau, P. Piluso, JF Haquet, E Boccaccio, V Saldo, JM Bonnet, S Malaval, L. Carénini, L.
Brissonneau, Two-dimensional interaction of prototypic corium with concretes: The VULCANO VB
Test series, Ann. Nucl. Energy, 36(2009) 1597-1613.
M. Cranga, B. Spindler, E. Dufour, D. Dimov, K. Atkhen, J. Foit, M. Garcia-Martin, T. Sevon, W.
Schmidt, C. Spengler, Simulation of corium concrete interaction in 2D geometry, Progr. Nucl.
Energy, 52 (2010) 76-83.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
182
3.5.14 P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
Description:
The phenomenon deals with separation of corium into an oxidic and metallic layer, resulting in
stratification of melt layers. This may result from corium, containing iron, interacting with concrete
and separating under gravity.
References:
G.A. Greene, J.C. Chen, M.T. Colin, Onset of entrainment between immiscible liquid layers due to
rising gas bubbles, Int J Heat mass transfer, 31 (1988) 1309-1317.
J.C. Casas, M.L. Corradini, Study of void fraction and mixing of immiscible liquids in a pool
configuration by an upward gas flow, Nucl. Technol., 99 (1992) 104-119
B. Tourniaire, J. M. Seiler, J. M. Bonnet: Study of the Mixing of Immiscible Liquids: Results of the
BALISE Experiments, NURETH-10, Seoul, Korea, 2003.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
183
3.5.15 P5-15 - Corium Spreading
Description:
Spreading of corium (ex-vessel) into nearby compartments, which are possibly filled with water.
Note that for BWRs, within the cavity there are numerous structures (e.g., CRDMs, structural beams,
etc.) that could impede corium transport after the lower RPV heads fails.
Additional information and experiments on corium spreading can be found in Sehgal (2012).
References:
J.J. Sienicki, M.T. Farmer, B.W. Spencer, Spreading of molten corium in Mk1 geometry following
vessel melt through, Joint meeting of the European Nuclear Society and the American Nuclear
Society, Washington, DC, USA, 1988.
G. Cognet et al., Corium Spreading and Coolability: the CSC project, Nucl. Eng. Des. 209 (2001)
127-138.
C. Journeau et al., Ex-vessel corium spreading: results from the VULCANO spreading tests, Nucl.
Eng. Des. 223 (2003) 75-102.
B.R. Sehgal (Editor), “Nuclear Safety in Light Water Reactors”, Elsevier, Chapter 4.2, 2012
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
184
3.5.16 P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
Description:
Heat transfer within the melt and also heat transfer from the melt to the boundaries (includes the
gas phase above the melt pool, and potentially a second liquid layer).
References:
Kutateladze and I.G. Malenkov, Hydrodynamic analogy between heat transfer and nucleate boiling
crisis in boiling and bubbling—experimental data, Heat Transfer Soviet Res. 16 (1984), pp. 1–46.
G.A. Greene and T.F. Irvine, “Heat transfer between stratified immiscible liquid layers driven by gas
bubbling across the interface”, ANS Proceedings of the National Heat Transfer Conference, Houston,
TX, July 24-27 1988.
J.M. Seiler, Phase segregation model and molten pool thermal-hydraulics during molten core-concrete
interaction, Nucl. Eng. Des. 166 (1996), pp. 259–267.
J.M. Bonnet, Thermal hydraulic phenomena in corium pools for ex-vessel situations: the Bali
experiment, ICONE 8 Baltimore (2000).
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
185
3.5.17 P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
Description:
In a large corium pool, heat-up due to decay heat could lead to significant vaporization of metals
and/or fuels. This could have an impact on the fission product source term.
References:
B.W. Spencer, WH Gunther, DR Armstrong, DH Thompson, MG Chasanov, BR Sehgal, EPRI/ANL
Investigations of MCCI Phenomena and aerosol release, OECD Spec Mtg Core debris Concrete
Interaction Phenomena, Palo Alto 1986.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
186
3.5.18 P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
Description:
This effect involved the formation of a solid layer of corium resulting from cooling processes.
References:
M.T. Farmer et al., “Corium Coolability Under Ex-Vessel Accident Conditions for LWRs”, Nuclear
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 41, No. 5, June 2009.
Prepared by: P.M. Mathew (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
187
3.5.19 P5-19 - Cracking (Crust)
Description:
Crack formation could occur in the upper crust due to the thermal constraints applied. Water
may penetrate the cracks and improve the heat transfer.
References:
M.T. Farmer et al., “Corium Coolability Under Ex-Vessel Accident Conditions for LWRs”, Nuclear
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 41, No. 5, June 2009.
Prepared by: P.M. Mathew (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
188
3.5.20 P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability, Top Flooding
Description:
This issue concerns the ex-vessel corium coolability in the cavity by top water flooding and all
the encountered phenomena dealing with heat transfer, crust formation, sparging gas and cracking of
the crust.
Top flooding is not expected to arrest MCCI, except in some particular cases (thin corium layer
and early flooding), even if a recent MCCI2 test suggests it may be more efficient than previously
expected.
References:
H. Alsmeyer et al., Molten corium/concrete interaction and corium coolability – A state of the art
report, Report EUR 16649, European Commission, 1995.
S. Lomperski, MT Farmer, Experimental evaluation of the water ingression mechanism for corium
cooling, Nucl. Eng. Des., 237(2007)905-917.
KR Robb, ML Corradini, Towards understanding Melt Eruption Phenomena during Molten Corium
Concrete Interaction, ICONE18, Xi’an, 2010.
M.T. Farmer, R. Aeschlimann, DJ Kilsdonk, S Lomperski, The CCI-6 large scale Core-Concrete
Interaction experiment Examining Debris Coolability under Early Cavity Flooding Conditions,
OECD/NEA MCCI Seminar, Cadarache, 2010.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
189
3.5.21 P5-21 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Coolability and Water Bottom Injection
Description:
This phenomenon deals with water bottom injection to cool corium pool and its impact on
containment pressurization. The issue concerns the corium coolability by bottom water injection in
the corium catcher. Both items might affect the containment integrity.
Water bottom injection would result in:
fragmentation and mixing between melt and water
rapid quenching and solidification
strong steam production
References:
W. Widmann, M Bürger, W. Tromm, H Alsmeyer, Experimental and theoretical investigation on the
COMET concept for ex-vessel core melt retention, Nucl. Eng. Des., 236 (2006) 2304-2327.
D Paladino, SA Theerthan, BR Sehgal, DECOBI: Investigation of melt coolability with bottom
coolant injection, Progr. Nucl. Ener. 40 (2002) 161-206.
D.H. Cho, R.J. Page, S.H. Abdulla, M.H. Anderson, H.B. Klockow, M.L. Corradini, Melt quenching
and coolability by water injection from below: Co-injection of water and non-condensable gases, Nucl
Eng Des 236 (2006) 2296-2303.
S. Lomperski, R Aeschlimann, MT Farmer, D Kilsdonk, SSWICS Bottom Water Injection Systems to
Enhance Melt Cooling Rate, OECD/NEA MCCI Seminar, Cadarache, 2010
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
190
3.5.22 P5-22 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Corium-Ceramics Interaction and Properties
Description:
Corium interactions occur with the corium catcher materials. For light water reactors, the corium
oxidic layer sinks to the bottom and interacts with the ceramic core catcher. The phenomenon is
related to stratified pool configuration, where the density ratio between metallic and oxidic phases
depends on previous phase, and includes effect of oxygen potential on the dissolution mechanism.
References:
J.M Seiler, K Froment, Material effects on multiphase phenomena in late phases of severe accidents
of nuclear reactors, Multiphase Sci. technol. 12 (2000) 117-257.
V.G. Asmolov et al., Choice of Buffer Material for the Containment Trap for VVER-1000 Core Melt,
Atom. Ener. 92 (2002) 5-14.
C. Journeau, C. Jégou, J. Monerris, P. Piluso, K. Frolov, Y.B. Petrov, R. Rybka, Phase
Macrosegregation during the slow solidification of prototypic corium, NURETH-10, Seoul, 2003.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
191
3.5.23 P5-23 - Effect of Non Homogeneous Ablation on Gate Ablation
Description:
Crust instability may introduce heterogeneity in concrete ablation above the gate. Concept EPR,
depends also on gate material. The EPR concrete has been tested. The last remaining issue is the
ablation of the bottom concrete when side refractory material is reached if ablation is faster sidewards.
References:
Christophe Journeau, Lionel Ferry, Pascal Piluso, José Monerris, Michel Breton, Gérald Fritz, Tuomo
Sevon, Two EU-funded tests in VULCANO to assess the effects of concrete nature on its ablation by
molten corium, 4th European Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2010),
Bologna-Italy, 11-12 May 2010.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
192
3.5.24 P5-24 - Crust Anchorage
Description:
The melt ejection mechanism is different if the upper crust is floating or if it is anchored to the
reactor pit wall. In the latter case, the presence of a cavity between the pool and the crust may prevent
any ejection and limit upwards heat transfer.
References:
B.W. Spencer, M.T. Farmer, D.R. Armstrong, D.J. Kilsdonk, R.W. Aeschlimann, M. Fischer, Results
of MACE Tests M0 and M1, OECD/CSNI Spec Mtg Core debris Concrete Interaction, Karlsruhe,
1992.
H. Alsmeyer, T. Cron, G. Messemer, W. Haefner, ECOKATS-2: A Large Scale Experiment on Melt
Spreading and Subsequent Cooling by Top Flooding, ICAPP 04, Pittsburgh, 2004.
S. Lomperski, M.T. Farmer, Corium crust strength measurements, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239, (2009) 2551-
2561.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
193
3.5.25 P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core Catchers
Description:
During its interaction with concrete or core catcher materials, corium composition varies. So
there may be some new volatile species that could transport the fission products out of the pool. The
presence of an oxidizing atmosphere can also modify the releases. This affects not only the
radiological source term but also the pool decay heat.
References:
M. Mignanelli, MCCI Chemistry and Properties, ACEX-TR-C22, EPRI 1998
S.V. Bechta et al., Influence of corium oxidation on fission product release from molten pool, Nucl
Eng Des 240, 1229-1241, 2010
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
194
3.5.26 P5-26 - Core Catchers with External Cooling
Description:
In this case, the corium is collected in a core-catcher that is cooled at its boundaries, through a
vessel, and possibly by top-flooding. The major issue with this method is to guarantee that critical
heat fluxes will not be attained, which requires both an optimization of the external heat transfer and a
knowledge of the heat fluxes from the melt pool.
References:
M. Fischer, O. Herbst and H. Schmidt, Demonstration of the heat removing capabilities of the EPR
core catcher, Nucl Eng Des, 235 (2005) 1189-1200.
M. Farmer, R. Aeschlimann, D.J. Kilsdonk and S. Lomperski, Water Cooled Basemat (WCB-1) test
Investigating Core Melt Stabilization using a Water Cooled Surface, OECD/NEA MCCI Seminar,
Cadarache 2010
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
195
3.5.27 P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
Description:
During melt relocation (ejection from the vessel), the oxidation for both zirconium and iron (and
likely other metals) can be very strong and nearly complete depending on the melt ejection conditions
(with or without water in the pit). Once frozen, only zirconium oxidation should lead to a possible re-
escalation in case of refolding.
References:
Tsurikov, D., “MASCA2 Project Major Studies and Results, MASCA2 Seminar 2007 Proceedings,
Cadarache, France, 11-12 Oct 2007.
D. H. Cho, D. R Armstrong, W. H. Gunther, “Experiments on Interactions Between Zirconium-
Containing Melt and Water”, October 1998, NUREG/CR-5372
Prepared by: R. Meignen (IRSN) and P.M. Mathew (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
196
3.5.28 P5-28 - Corium Attack of Metallic Liner
Description:
In BWRs, there is a metallic liner at the bottom of the dry well (usually covered by some
concrete). In the case of vessel melt through, the core melt could spread until reaching the vertical
liner and interact with it.
References:
W.H. Amarasooriya, H. Yan, U. Ratnam, T.G. Theophanous, The probability of liner failure in a
Mark-1 containment, Part III: corium/concrete interactions and liner attack phenomena, Nucl.
Technol, 101 (1993) 354-384
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
197
3.5.29 P5-29 - Corium Release from Failed Flooded Reactor Pressure Vessel
Description:
In case of an external vessel cooling strategy, low probability scenarios exist in which the in-
vessel core retention fails and corium pours out of the vessel into a flooded cavity.
FCI experiments done to date have not taken this configuration into account (no jet in air before
arrival in water), especially in the case of a vessel rupture near the lower head equator (small space
between leak and pit walls, presence of thermal shields), or at a tubing joint (presence of a bundle of
tubes).
References:
H. Esmaili, M. Khatib-Rahbar, Analysis of likelihood of lower head failure and ex-vessel fuel coolant
interaction energetics for AP1000, Nucl. Eng. Des., 235, 1583-1605, 2005.
Prepared by: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
198
3.6 Systems Phenomena
3.6.1 P6-1 - Ventilation Systems
Description:
Simulation of flow through air ventilation systems is an important topic. A detailed modelling of
ventilation systems installed between different rooms is needed for detailed containment analyses and
analyses predicting the source term. Often the systems contain filters for aerosol or iodine retention.
Active components (fans) are typically installed in air ventilation systems of the containment or
the annulus. The fan start-up or coast-down and imparted momentum (head) to the gas/atmosphere
may be important. It is important to look at the relative humidity and temperature in the ventilation
system as this may lead to a failure of the fan or the filters. The interest is on experiments related to:
Behaviour of active ventilation systems
Flow through (fan off) passive systems including buoyant flow through the stack
Failure of ventilation ducts and leakage from ventilation system
Behaviour including failure criteria for fans, back flaps and filters
Fission product transport through ventilation systems
References:
German PSA guidelines published by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS):
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS), Methoden zur probabilistischen Sicherheitsanalyse für
Kernkraftwerke, Facharbeitskreis Probabilistische Sicherheitsanalyse für Kernkraftwerke, BfS-
SCHR-37/05, August 2005
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
199
3.6.2 P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst Membranes, Rupture Discs etc.
Description:
Component behaviour is important for containment scenario calculation. A detailed modelling
of the behaviour of doors, burst membranes and rupture discs (for instance, installed between different
rooms) is needed for detailed containment analyses and analyses predicting the source term. The
expected information from experiments is mainly the failure pressure and time to fully open (if
possible) the flow path area in case of a failure of the components mentioned.
References:
German PSA guidelines published by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS):
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS), Methoden zur probabilistischen Sicherheitsanalyse für
Kernkraftwerke, Facharbeitskreis Probabilistische Sicherheitsanalyse für Kernkraftwerke, BfS-
SCHR-37/05, August 2005
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
200
3.6.3 P6-3 - Air Cooler (Fan Cooler) Heat Transfer
Description:
A local air cooler (LAC, sometimes referred to as air cooler unit or fan cooler) is a gas / vapour
mixture to liquid water heat exchanger. An air/steam mixture is drawn through the heat exchanger by
a fan. The air/steam mixture may enter and leave the LAC either through a duct, or without a duct.
Heat and mass (steam) removal from the air/steam mixture by a LAC is governed by several factors,
namely heat exchanger design, cooling water supply temperature and flow rate, steam concentration,
temperature, pressure and flow conditions of the air steam mixture, and fouling on the heat exchanger.
References:
Not required
Prepared by: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
201
3.6.4 P6-4 - Pump Performance including Sump Clogging (No Experiments)
Description:
Pumps are typically installed in emergency core cooling systems of the reactor system. Such
pumps typically take the water out of storage tanks or pools which are part of the containment (for
instance, PWR containment sump or BWR wetwell). The pump start-up or coast-down and imparted
momentum (head) to the fluid is of importance for the RCS. Pump performance is influenced by
vapour and temperature in the flow. Conditions stronger than the pump design my cause cavitation of
pumps.
Fibres from insulation material solved in the water may cause pump failure as well by sump
clogging phenomena. The phenomena includes the blockage of filters in the sump upstream the pump
system so that the pressure difference across the filters increase.
For the pool inside the containment drawing of water from a water pool will create a vortex
(whirlpool). If the pool is not deep enough, pump can draw in gases. As well often pump bypass
flows (in BWR) are going back by a spray flow into the pool. Information related to phenomena
described may result from various experiments.
This issue is being addressed by a separate CSNI task group activity on preparation of a “State-
of-the-Art Report on the Knowledge Base for Emergency Core Cooling System Recirculation
Reliability”. This work will provide a more detailed description of the problem and the research that
has been carried out. Thus, this CSNI-CCVM report does not include any experiments suitable for
validation of this phenomenon.
References:
Not required
Prepared by: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
202
3.6.5 P6-5 - Passive Cooling by Internal and External Condensers
Description:
Certain reactors are equipped with internal condensers. New passive reactor designs are also
equipped with internal or external condensers. External condensers are immerged in water pools.
The heat removal capability of these units during the long-term containment response is controlled by
phenomena that are less relevant for the containment thermal-hydraulics of conventional reactors:
External (immerged) condensers: Performance is affected by small amounts of non-
condensable gases flowing into the tubes. In fact, due to the small volumes of the pipes, a
very small concentration of gases in the drywell could lead in principle to a large gas fraction
in a section of the tubes, with the reduction of the active heat transfer area. In extreme cases,
the gases could even block the flow in the tubes with complete loss of the heat removal
capability.
Although tests in large-scale facilities suggest that this cannot occur in the more advanced
ESBWR design, in general these phenomena should always be considered. Return of gases
from the wetwell (in the case of vacuum breaker opening) and release of gas trapped in other
compartments has therefore to be carefully evaluated. A special feature of these units is that
the heat transfer rate is auto-regulating in the presence of air, in the sense that the active heat
transfer area adjusts itself to the decay heat. The function of the condensers is also affected
by the process of vent clearing of additional low-submergence vent paths between the drywell
and the suppression pool, which must clear for smaller pressure differences than those forcing
the flow through the main vents, to avoid steam bypass. In the ESBWR, for instance, the
venting of the non-condensable gases through the vent pipe of the passive condensers plays
an important role in the performance of this system.
During the long-term cooling period, depending on various conditions, gas is vented
continuously or intermittently to the suppression pool whenever the pressure difference
between drywell and suppression pool is higher than the hydrostatic head between the vent
exit and the water pool surface. By design, the vented fluid is a steam-lean mixture. Under
certain conditions (condenser overload or in presence of hydrogen during a BDBA), however,
also large amounts of steam could be vented to the pool (steam bypass).
Condensation rates and pool mixing are affected by the composition of the vented mixture.
Stratification builds-up only when the amount of non-condensables in the vented mixture is
small. Moreover, in presence of a light gas (hydrogen in a BDBA scenario), a complex
internal circulation of gases between the tubes could lead to severe deterioration of the global
heat removal capability, and dumping of steam to the wetwell (condenser bypass). This
circulation (with reverse gas flow in some tubes) is driven by small density differences and
accumulation of light gas due to condensation.
Heat transfer modes usually not considered for containment thermal-hydraulics exist on both
sides of the tubes. On the primary side, condensation in pipes with non-condensables is
somewhat different from condensation on structures in large volumes and requires specific
models. On the secondary side, boiling heat transfer under natural circulation conditions
controls the performance of the condenser. CHF (phenomenon P1-4) is a limiting mechanism
for heat transfer. In the case of prolonged heat removal from the containment, bulk boiling
occurs in the water reservoirs and post-dryout heat transfer has to be considered on the dry
portion of the pipes during the boil-off transient.
Internal condensers: In this case, water is flowing inside the pipes. However, if during the
accident pressure (and temperature) inside the drywell becomes sufficiently high, boiling
occurs inside tubes, and CHF is the limiting mechanism of heat transfer. Large instabilities
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
203
can develop in the circuits coupled to water reservoirs and strong condensation loads can
develop. For intermediate thermal loads, flashing occurs in the upper section of the return
line, which triggers an unstable behaviour. If the tubes are inclined, additional effects
influence heat transfer. On the secondary side (drywell), condensation processes on the outer
wall of the pipes is very complex. In fact, the flow field inside and around the tube bundle is
strongly coupled with temperature and concentration fields, and the global condensation rate
depends on the local gas concentration. Under these conditions, for horizontal or inclined
condensers, a sharp stratification front can develop at some elevation between tube rows,
producing inactive heat transfer areas. In the case of BDBA, the operation of the condenser is
aided (and further complicated) by the venting of hydrogen to the suppression pool.
Additionally, the condensate liquid is in the form of droplets, films and bridges (water
curtains) between adjacent tube rows. Finally, in some designs the use of finned tubes further
complicates the phenomena controlling heat transfer.
References:
Bestion, D., Anglart, H., Mahaffy, J., Lucas, D., Song, C.H., Scheuerer, M., Zigh, G., Andreani, M.,
Kasahara, F., M. Heitsch, M., Komen, E., Moretti, F., T. Morii, T., Mühlbauer, P., Smith, B.L., .
Watanabe, T. “Extension of CFD Codes Application to Two-Phase Flow Safety Problems - Phase 2”,
Report NEA/CSNI/R(2010)2, pp. 65-73, July 2010.
Alamgir, MD, Marquino, W. Jesus Diaz-Quiroz, J..and Tucker, L “ESBWR Long Term Containment
Response to Loss of Coolant Accidents”, Paper 10370, Proceedings of ICAPP ’10, San Diego, CA,
USA, 2010 June 13-17.
J. Hart, J., W.J.M. Slegers, W.J.M., de Boer, S.L., Huggenberger, M., Lopez Jimenez, J. Munoz-Cobo
Gonzalez, J.M., Reventos Puigjaner, F. “TEPSS - Technology Enhancement for Passive Safety
Systems”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 209, pp. 243–252, 2001.
Bandurski, T., Huggenberger, M., Dreier, J., Aubert, C., Putz, F., Gamble, R.E., Yadigaroglu, G.,
“Influence of the distribution of noncondensibles on passive containment condenser performance in
PANDA”, Nucl. Eng. Design, Vol. 204, pp. 285-294, 2001.
Dreier, J., Paladino, D. Huggenberger, M., Andreani, M., Yadigaroglu, G., “PANDA: a Large Scale
Multi-Purpose Test Facility for LWR Safety Research”, 8th Int. Conf. on the Physics of Reactors
(PHYSOR’08), Paper 517, Interlaken, Switzerland, 2008 September 14-19.
Paladino, D., Auban, O., Huggenberger, M., Dreier, J. “A PANDA Integral Test On The Effect Of
Light Gas On A Passive Containment Cooling System (PCCS)”, Nuclear Engineering and Design ,
Volume 241, Issue 11, November 2011, pp. 4551-4561.
Leyer, S., Maisberger, F., Herbst, V., Doll, M., Wich, M., Wagner, T., “Status of the full scale
component testing of the KERENA Emergency Condenser and Containment Cooling Condenser”
Paper 10257, Proceedings of ICAPP ’10, San Diego, CA, USA, June 13-17, 2010.
D. Paladino and J. Dreier, “PCCS response with DGRS activated during a postulated LOCA”,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 241, Issue 9, September 2011, pp. 3925-3934.
D. Paladino and J. Dreier, “Passive Containment Cooling System (PCCS) response with Drywell Gas
Recirculation System (DGRS) activated during a severe accident scenario with release of non-
condensable gas”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 247, June 2012, pp. 212-220.
Prepared by: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
204
3.6.6 P6-6 - Aerosol Removal in EFADS
Description:
A final protection against radioactive material released from reactors under accident conditions is
to filter the gas stream. Three types of filters are commonly used: fibre filters, venturi scrubbers, and
gravel bed filters.
Fibre filters remove particles by trapping them and the overall collection efficiency depends
strongly on the particle size. The characteristics of the filter, like collection efficiency and pressure
drop, change as mass is collected and reduces the porosity of the filter. Venturi scrubbers
precondition the aerosol by injecting water (about a liter of water per cubic meter of gas) along with
gas through a constricting throat (gas velocity reaching velocities as high as 120 m/s). The liquid
water is “atomised” into small droplets at the high velocities. Water droplets can coagulate with the
aerosol or otherwise capture the aerosol particles. Gravel beds remove particles by deposition onto
the large surface area provided by the gravel. Submerged gravel beds use water to wash away
deposited materials from the gravel.
References:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka
, Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5, pp. 41-42, December 2009
Prepared by: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
205
4 EXPERIMENTS
A basic set of experiments were identified by the CSNI-CCVM participants to cover most of the
containment phenomena. No qualification regarding the suitability of the experiments for validation
is given. It is the responsibility of the validator to assess the suitability of the experiment for
validation purposes.
An experimental synopsis was written for each test. The information in the synopsis is described
in Table 4-1. The information is provided in a combination of the following tables and a separate
section for each test (Sections 4.1 to 4.6):
Table 4-2 - Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Table 4-3 - Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments
Table 4-4 - Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Table 4-5 - Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Table 4-6 - Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Table 4-7 - Systems Experiments
Table 4-1
List of Information Provided for Each Experiment
Test Number and
Name
Test Number and Name (used as an identifier in this CNSI-CCVM
report)
Availability Availability of the experimental data:
Open: Available in open literature
OECD: Available to OECD members
Closed: Available by bi-lateral agreement
N/A: Not available
OTHER: Comments are provided to define availability of
experiments.
Phenomena covered in
Experiment
Phenomena that occur within the test.
Type of test The type of tests:
SE: Separate effect test
COM: combined effects test (more than one phenomena)
INT: integral test (entire system)
DBA Does this test cover DBA conditions? (Yes or No)
SA Does this test cover SA/BDBA conditions? (Yes or No)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
206
Test Number and
Name
Test Number and Name (used as an identifier in this CNSI-CCVM
report)
3D Identify if the code is suitable for validation of:
CFD
Lumped
Codes.
The main criterion for an experiment to be suitable for CFD validation is
if there is sufficient instrumentation to capture the spatial variation of the
important parameters.
Test Facility Name of the Test Facility
Owner Organization Identify the organization that owns the experimental data
Experimental
Description
A brief concise description of the experiment. This is limited to a single
test (each test on a separate line).
References for
Experiment
References to documents that will provide more detailed information
regarding the experiment (include both internal and/or open reports).
Range of Key
Experimental Parameters
List of key parameters and the ranges covered in the test.
Year Tests Performed Year the test was performed
Repeatability Check Was the repeatability of the experiment demonstrated?
Yes,
No, or
N/A (not applicable)
Past Code Validation/
Benchmarks
Identify any past code validation or benchmarks performed with this test.
Where possible, references to validation/benchmark reports are also
provided.
Prepared by Name of the person (and their organization) that prepared this
experimental synopsis.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
207
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-1 - Flow through Interconnected
Vessels
OECD English /
Electronic
P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
P1-21 - Critical Flow (Choked Flow)
COM No No Lump
E1-2 - Bruce LAC Test in Air, Test
No. 50
OECD English /
Electronic
P6-3 - Air Cooler (Fan Cooler) Heat Transfer
SE Yes No Lump
E1-3 - LSGMF GMBT001 OECD English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
COM No No CFD
E1-4 - LSGMF GMUS001 OECD English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
COM No No CFD
E1-5 - AECL-SP Dousing Test No.
1
OECD English P1-11 - Heat Removal by Dousing
SE Yes No CFD
E1-6 - FIPLOC F2 Closed
(available on
bilateral
agreement)
English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
INT Yes Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
208
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37) OECD English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
P3-13 - Diffusional Deposition
P3-19 - Radionuclide Transport
INT Yes Yes Lump
E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1 EU, EREC English P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
P1-26 - Liquid Film Flow
P1-29 - Heat and Mass Transfer of Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst Membranes,
Rupture Discs etc.
INT Yes No Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
209
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5 EU, EREC English P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
P1-26 - Liquid Film Flow
P1-29 - Heat and Mass Transfer of Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst Membranes,
Rupture Discs etc.
INT Yes No Lump
E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7 EU, EREC English P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst Membranes,
Rupture Discs etc.
INT Yes No Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
210
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9 EU, EREC English P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst Membranes,
Rupture Discs etc.
INT Yes No Lump
E1-12 - EREC SLB G02 EREC & GRS English P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst Membranes,
Rupture Discs etc.
INT Yes No Lump
E1-13 - HDR V44 (ISP-16) Open
(ISP-16)
English P1-2 - Flashing (Flashing Discharge)
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
INT Yes No Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
211
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-14 - HDR T31.5 (ISP-23) Open
(ISP-23)
English P1-2 - Flashing (Flashing Discharge)
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
INT Yes Yes Lump
E1-15 - HDR E11.2 (ISP-29) Open
(ISP-29)
English /
German
P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
INT Yes Yes CFD
E1-16 - HDR E11.4 OPEN English /
German
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
INT Yes Yes CFD
E1-17 - GKSS M1 Closed German P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
INT Yes No Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
212
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-18 - MISTRA ISP-47 OECD English P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
COM Yes Yes CFD
E1-19 - MISTRA M7 Closed
(Avail to
SARNET
participants)
English P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
COM Yes Yes CFD
E1-20 - MISTRA-M8 Closed
(Avail to
SARNET
participants)
English P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
COM Yes Yes CFD
E1-21 - MISTRA-MASP Closed English P1-29 - Heat and Mass Transfer of Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
COM Yes Yes CFD
E1-22 - NUPEC M-7-1 (ISP-35) Open
(ISP-35)
English P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
INT No Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
213
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-23 - NUPEC M-8-2 Open English P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
INT No Yes Lump
E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A OECD English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
INT Yes No CFD
E1-25 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase C OECD English P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
INT Yes No CFD
E1-26 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase E OECD English P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
INT N/A Yes CFD
E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F OECD English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
INT N/A Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
214
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-28 - PANDA BC4 OECD English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P6-5 - Passive Cooling by Internal and External
Condensers
INT N/A Major CFD
E1-29 - SVUSS G02 Closed English P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
INT Yes NO Lump
E1-30 - THAI TH1 Closed English P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
SE /
COM
Yes Yes CFD
E1-31 - THAI TH2 Closed English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
INT Yes Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
215
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-32 - THAI TH7 Closed English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
INT Yes Yes CFD
E1-33 - THAI TH10 Closed English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
INT Yes Yes CFD
E1-34 - THAI TH13 (ISP-47) Open
(ISP-47)
English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
INT Yes Yes CFD
E1-35 - THAI HM2 OECD English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
INT Yes Yes CFD
E1-36 - TOSQAN ISP-47 OECD: All data
Open: some
data published
in NED
English P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
COM Yes Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
216
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-37 - TOSQAN Condensation
Tests
Closed French P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
COM Yes Yes CFD
E1-38 - TOSQAN Test 113 Closed
(Available to
SARNET
participants)
English and
French
P1-28 - Gas Entrainment by Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
P1-31 - Mixing by Sprays
SE Yes Yes CFD
E1-39 - TOSQAN Spray Tests Closed
(Available by
bilateral
agreement)
Test TOSQAN-
101 is available
to SARNET
members
French and
some in
English
P1-28 - Gas Entrainment by Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
P1-31 - Mixing by Sprays
SE Yes Yes CFD
E1-40 - University of Wisconsin
Flat Plate Condensation Tests
OPEN English P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
SE Yes Yes CFD
E1-41 - CONAN SARNET
Benchmark No. 1
Open to
SARNET
members
English P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
SE Yes Yes CFD
E1-42 - CONAN SARNET2
Benchmark No. 2
Open to
SARNET2
members
English P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
SE Yes Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
217
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-43 - CSTF Tests OTHER
(signatories to
the LACE
consortium)
English P3-4 - Thermophoresis
P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
INT Yes Yes Lump
E1-44 - Marviken Test 18 OECD
(ISP-17)
English P1-2 - Flashing (Flashing Discharge)
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools
P1-21 - Critical Flow (Choked Flow)
P1-23 - Vent Clearing
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
COM Yes Yes Lump
E1-45 - CARAIDAS EVAP and
COND tests
9 tests (from 36)
made available
within
SARNET-2 and
are available in
open literature
English for
the 9 tests,
French for
the others
P1-29 - Heat and Mass Transfer of Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
SE Yes Yes CFD
E1-46 - TOSQAN sump tests Closed
Some tests
published
partially
French for
the test
reports.
Several
publications
in English
P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-10 - Pool Surface Evaporation and Condensation
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
COM Yes Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
218
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-47 - CALIST PWR spray test Closed
(1 test could be
made available
within
SARNET-2)
French for a
PhD thesis,
English for
SARNET-2
reports
P1-28 - Gas Entrainment by Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
SE Yes Yes CFD
E1-48 - MISTRA LOWMA OECD English P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
SE No
Yes CFD
E1-49 - PANDA OECD/SETH
tests
OECD English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
COM Yes Yes CFD
E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2 Closed
(Open to SETH-
2 participants)
English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-18 - Mass Diffusion in Vapour
P1-28 - Gas Entrainment by Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
P1-29 - Heat and Mass Transfer of Spray Droplets
(Dousing)
P1-31 - Mixing by Sprays
COM Yes Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
219
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests Papers: open
Report:
Unknown
Data: Unknown
English /
Papers and
Reports
P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-4 - Critical Heat Flux (CHF)
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-2 - Flashing (Flashing Discharge)5
P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools
COM No Yes Not
Assessed
E1-52 - ULPU CHF Tests Papers: open
Test Reports
and Data:
Other6
English
P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-4 - Critical Heat Flux (CHF)
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-13 - Direct Contact Condensation
P1-2 - Flashing (Flashing Discharge)
COM /
INT
No Yes CFD
E1-53 - SULTAN CHF Tests Closed
English/
papers
P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-4 - Critical Heat Flux (CHF)
SE No Yes CFD
5 This phenomenon may not be covered in this experiment.
6 ULPU CHF test reports and data can be obtained by contacting T. G. Theofanous, Professor of Chemical Engireering, Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
University of California Santa Barbara, Director, Center for Risk Studies and Safety.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
220
Table 4-2
Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E1-54 - SBLB Boiling Tests Papers: open
Reports: some
difficult to
obtain
Information
looks scattered,
incomplete and
confusing. Test
matrix not
available
English/
papers and
one report
P1-3 - Boiling Heat and Mass Transfer
P1-4 - Critical Heat Flux (CHF)
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools
COM No Yes Lump
E1-55 – Small Scale Burst Test
Experiments
Closed English P1-16 - Pressure Wave Propagation in Water
COM /
INT
No Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
221
Table 4-3
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E2-1 - LSVCTF S01 OECD English P2-1 - Deflagration
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-2 - LSVCTF S03 OECD English P2-1 - Deflagration
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-3 - BMC Hx series Closed English /
German
P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
P2-10 - Hydrogen Mitigation by Hydrogen Ignitors
COM Yes Yes Lump
E2-4 - BMC Ix series Closed English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-10 - Hydrogen Mitigation by Hydrogen Ignitors
COM Yes Yes Lump
E2-5 - BMC Gx Series Closed
(available on
bilateral
agreement)
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation - Passive Autocatalytic
Recombiners
P2-10 - Hydrogen Mitigation by Hydrogen Ignitors
COM Yes Yes Lump
E2-6 - BMC Kx Series Closed
(available on
bilateral
agreement)
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM Yes Yes CFD
E2-7 - BMC Ex Series Closed
(available on
bilateral
agreement)
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM Yes Yes CFD
E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2
Tests
OECD
(SARNET2)
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE No Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
222
Table 4-3
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E2-9 - ENACEFF SARNET Test
(Run 703)
OECD
(SARNET)
French P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE No Yes CFD
E2-10 - ENACEFF SARNET Test
(Run 717)
OECD
(SARNET)
French P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE No Yes CFD
E2-11 - ENACEFF Run 765 (ISP-
49)
OECD (ISP-49) English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE No Yes CFD
E2-12 - ENACEFF Run 736 (ISP-
49)
OECD (ISP-49) English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
P2-6 - Quenching
SE No Yes CFD
E2-13 - ENACEFF Run 733 (ISP-
49)
OECD (ISP-49) English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE No Yes CFD
E2-14 - DRIVER HYCOM MC
003
Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
P2-6 - Quenching
COM No Yes CFD
E2-15 - DRIVER HYCOM MC
012
Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM No Yes CFD
E2-16 - FZK R 0498_09 Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
P2-4 - Hydrogen Detonation
COM No Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
223
Table 4-3
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E2-17 - DRIVER HYCOM MC
043
Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM No Yes CFD
E2-18 - DRIVER HYCOM HC
020
Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM No Yes CFD
E2-19 - DRIVER HYCOM-
HC027
Close English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM No Yes CFD
E2-20 - RUT HYC01 Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM No Yes CFD
E2-21 - RUT HYC12 Close English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM No Yes CFD
E2-22 - RUT HYC14 Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
COM No Yes CFD
E2-23 - VGES Tests Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
Yes Yes Lump
E2-24 - NTS Tests Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
P2-14 - Effect of Droplets on Hydrogen
Combustion
Yes Yes Lump
E2-25 - PET Tubes Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE Yes Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
224
Table 4-3
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E2-26 - THAI HD Series
(Combustion Tests)
OECD English P2-1 - Deflagration SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-27 - THAI HR Series (PAR
Tests)
OECD English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation - Passive Autocatalytic
Recombiners
P2-9 - Hydrogen Ignition by PARs
P4-12 - Decomposition of Iodides (CsI) by Heat-up
in PARs
COM Yes Yes CFD
E2-28 - THAI Hydrogen
Combustion During Spray
Operation
BMWi / OECD English P2-14 - Effect of Droplets on Hydrogen
Combustion
SE No Yes CFD
E2-29 - DFF SFSER01 Closed English P2-7 - Hydrogen Diffusion Flame (Standing Flame)
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-30 - LSVCTF S02 Closed English P2-1 - Deflagration
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-31 - LSVCTF DC Closed
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-12 - Jet Ignition of Hydrogen
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-32 - LSVCTF 3C Closed
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-12 - Jet Ignition of Hydrogen
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-33 - LSVCTF CIC Closed
English P2-7 - Hydrogen Diffusion Flame (Standing Flame)
P2-12 - Jet Ignition of Hydrogen
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-34 - Gammacell Radiolysis
Tests
Closed English P2-13 - Radiolysis (Hydrogen Production by Water
Radiolysis)
SE Yes Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
225
Table 4-3
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E2-35 - LACOMECO UFPE2 Open for
SARNET2
community
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE No Yes CFD
E2-36 - LACOMECO
HYGRADE10
Open for
SARNET
community
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-37 - LACOMECO
HYGRADE09
Open for
SARNET
community
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-38 - LACOMECO
HYGRADE03
Open for
SARNET
community
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
SE Yes Yes CFD
E2-39 - LACOMECO HYDET06 Open for
SARNET
community
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
P2-4 - Hydrogen Detonation
SE No Yes CFD
E2-40 - LACOMECO HYDET07 Open for
SARNET
community
English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
P2-4 - Hydrogen Detonation
SE No Yes CFD
E2-41 - H2PAR E 12 OECD English P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation - Passive Autocatalytic
Recombiners
P2-9 - Hydrogen Ignition by PARs
SE No Yes CFD
E2-42 - H2PAR E 13 OECD French P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation - Passive Autocatalytic
Recombiners
SE No Yes CFD
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
226
Table 4-3
Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E2-43 - H2PAR E 3 Closed French P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation - Passive Autocatalytic
Recombiners
SE No Yes CFD
E2-44 – KIT DDT Tests in
CHANNEL Facility
Open English P2-3 - Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition (DDT) SE No No CFD
E2-45 – KIT Jet Ignition Tests in
HPHR Facility
Open English P2-12 - Jet Ignition of Hydrogen SE No Yes CFD
E2-46 – KIT Geometric
Quenching of Detonation Tests in
the HYKA-A1 Facility
Open English P2-5 - Quenching of Detonations by Geometrical
Constrains
SE No Yes CFD
E2-47 – Cheikhravat Experiments
on Effect of Spray on Hydrogen
Combustion
Open French
(PhD
Thesis)
and
English
(conf
paper
P2-14 - Effect of Droplets on Hydrogen
Combustion
COM No Yes CFD
E2-48 – Bjerketvedt Experiments
on Effect of Spray on Hydrogen
Combustion
Unknown Unknown P2-14 - Effect of Droplets on Hydrogen
Combustion
Not
Assessed
Not
Assessed
Not
Assessed
Not
Assessed
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
227
Table 4-4
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E3-1 - AHMED OECD
benchmark
Rough data can be
extracted from the
Report
NEA/CSNI/R(95)23
More precise data
can be obtained
through a bilateral
agreement
English P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
COM No Yes Lump /
CFD (?)
E3-2 - KAEVER CsI series Closed (available on
bilateral agreement)
Test K123 was used
in ISP-44
German P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
SE /
COM
No Yes Lump
E3-3 - KAEVER K187 (ISP-44) OECD
(ISP-44)
English P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
SE /
COM
No Yes Lump
E3-4 - KAEVER K148 (ISP-44) OECD
(ISP-44)
English P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
SE /
COM
No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
228
Table 4-4
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E3-5 - KAEVER K188 (ISP-44) OECD
(ISP-44)
English P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
SE /
COM
No Yes Lump
E3-6 - LACE LA2 OTHER
SAND94-2166
(available)
LACE (TR-004,
007, 009, 010) –
needs to ask EPRI
English P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
INT No Yes Lump
E3-7 - LACE LA4 OTHER
LACE TR-025 can
be obtained from
EPRI
English P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
INT No Yes Lump
E3-8 – LACE LA5 and LA6 Unknown English P3-26 - Re-entrainment (Wet)
SE No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
229
Table 4-4
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46) OECD (ISP-46) English P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
P3-22 - Containment Chemistry Impact on Source
Term
P4-7 - Silver Iodine Reactions in the Water Phase
INT No Yes Lump
E3-10 - POSEIDON PA10 Closed English P3-18 - Pool Scrubbing
COM No Yes Lump
E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2 Closed English P1-1 - Stratification
P1-5 - Heat Conduction in Solids
P1-6 - Convection Heat Transfer (Natural and
Forced)
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
P3-19 - Radionuclide Transport
INT No Yes CFD
E3-12 - VICTORIA test 58 Reports including
data reports have
been requested by
NEA from VTT, EC
being informed.
English P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
COM No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
230
Table 4-4
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests Open English P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
INT No Yes Lump
E3-14 - CSTF ACE Other
(signatories to the
ACE Consortium)
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
P3-4 - Thermophoresis
P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
P3-6 - Liquid Aerosol Evaporation
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
INT No Yes Lump
E3-15 - CARAIDAS Aerosol
washout by single droplet tests
several tests could
be made available
French P3-24 - Aerosol Removal by Sprays (Dousing) SE No Yes Lump
E3-16 - Whiteshell Flashing Jet
Tests
Closed English P3-1 - Aerosol Formation in a Flashing Jet
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
COM Yes No Lump
E3-17 - Clarkson College
Brownian Agglomeration
Open
English P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
SE Yes No Lump
E3-18 - JAERI Thermophoresis
Tests
Open English P3-4 - Thermophoresis
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
P3-13 - Diffusional Deposition
SE Yes Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
231
Table 4-4
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E3-19 - PITEAS Diffusiophoresis
Tests (PDI 08, PDI 09, PDI 11 and
PDI 12)
Closed English P3-4 - Thermophoresis
P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
COM Yes Yes Not
Assessed
E3-20 - PITEAS Aerosol
Condensation Tests (PCON 01 to
PCON 05)
Closed English P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
COM Yes Yes Not
Assessed
E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in
Turbulent Vertical Conduits
(Sehmel)
Open English P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
P3-4 - Thermophoresis
P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
P3-14 - Inertial Deposition of Aerosols (Also
called Impaction)
SE Yes ? Lump
E3-22 - Aerosol Deposition in
Turbulent Vertical Conduits
(Forney)
Open English P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
COM No Yes
(but
some
test
variables
are out
of
typical
ranges)
Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
232
Table 4-4
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E3-23 - Aerosol Deposition in
Turbulent Vertical Conduits
(Friedlander)
Open English P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
COM No Yes Lump
E3-24 - Aerosol Deposition in
Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Liu)
Open English P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
COM No Yes Lump
E3-25 - Aerosol Deposition in
Turbulent Vertical Conduits
(Wells)
Open English P1-20 - Turbulent Flow
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-13 - Diffusional Deposition
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
COM No Yes Lump
E3-26 - CSE Fission Product
Transport Tests
Open English P3-4 - Thermophoresis
P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
P3-6 - Liquid Aerosol Evaporation
P3-7 - Condensation on Aerosols
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
COM No Yes Lump
E3-27 - CSE Aerosol Removal
Tests
Open English P3-17 - Aerosol Removal in Leakage Paths
P4-15 - Iodine Retention in Leakage Paths
SE NO YES Lump
E3-28 - LASS-SGTR Closed English /
electron
files
P3-14 - Inertial Deposition of Aerosols (Also
called Impaction)
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
P3-27 - Aerosol De-agglomeration
COM No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
233
Table 4-4
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E3-29 - MCE, UCE and HCE
Tests
Closed
(limited data
available in open
literature)
English P3-21 - Release Rate Change Due to Oxidizing
Environment
SE Yes Yes Lump
E3-30 - GBI Tests Closed
(limited data
available in open
literature)
English P3-21 - Release Rate Change Due to Oxidizing
Environment
SE Yes Yes Lump
E3-31 - Aerosol Trapping Effects
in Containment Penetration (A.
Watanabe)
OECD English P3-17 - Aerosol Removal in Leakage Paths
P4-15 - Iodine Retention in Leakage Paths
SE NO YES Lump
E3-32 - Aerosol transfer through
cracked concrete walls
Open English P3-17 - Aerosol Removal in Leakage Paths SE No Yes Lump
E3-33 - Whiteshell Steam Jet
Experiments
Closed English P3-2 - Aerosol Formation in a Steam Jet SE Yes Yes Lump
E3-34 - WALE Closed English P3-3 - Aerosol Impaction
P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
P3-4 - Thermophoresis
P3-1 - Aerosol Formation in a Flashing Jet
P3-14 - Inertial Deposition of Aerosols (Also
called Impaction)
COM Yes Yes Lump
E3-35 – AEREST (Aerosol
resuspension shock tube)
Unknown English P3-25 - Re-suspension (Dry) SE No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
234
Table 4-4
Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E3-36 – VANAM-M4 Closed German P3-12 - Gravitational Settling (Drop Settling)
P3-25 - Re-suspension (Dry)
COM No Yes Lump
E3-37 – THAI Aer-1, Aer-3 and
Aer-4 tests
Closed English P3-25 - Re-suspension (Dry) SE No Yes Lump
E3-38 – Phebus FPT4
Revaporization
Closed
(available to Phebus
FP participants)
English P3-16 - Re-volatilisation
INT No Yes Lump
E3-39 – Ruthenium
Revolatilisation Studies at VTT
Open English P3-16 - Re-volatilisation
P3-21 - Release Rate Change Due to Oxidizing
Environment
P3-23 - Ruthenium Volatility and Behaviour in
Containment
SE No Yes Lump
E3-40 – Ruthenium Transport and
Revolatilisation Studies at KFKI
Open English P3-16 - Re-volatilisation
P3-21 - Release Rate Change Due to Oxidizing
Environment
P3-23 - Ruthenium Volatility and Behaviour in
Containment
SE No Yes Lump
E3-41 – Ruthenium deposition
studies at Chalmers University
Open English P3-16 - Re-volatilisation
P3-23 - Ruthenium Volatility and Behaviour in
Containment
SE No Yes Lump
E3-42 – Ruthenium
Revolatilisation Studies at IRSN
Open English P3-16 - Re-volatilisation
P3-23 - Ruthenium Volatility and Behaviour in
Containment
SE No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
235
Table 4-5
Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E4-1 - CFTF Charcoal Filter Test Open English P4-13 - Iodine Filtration
SE Yes Yes Lump
E4-2 - RTF P9T3 Open to
SARNET
members
English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
E4-3 - RTF P9T1 OECD (BIP)
Available to
OECD
members March
2014
English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
236
Table 4-5
Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E4-4 - RTF P9T2 OECD (BIP)
Available to
OECD
members March
2014
English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
E4-5 - RTF P10T2 OECD (BIP)
Available to
OECD
members March
2014
English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
237
Table 4-5
Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E4-6 - RTF P10T3 OECD (BIP)
Available to
OECD
members March
2014
P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
E4-7 - RTF P11T1 OECD (BIP)
Available to
OECD
members March
2014
P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
238
Table 4-5
Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E4-8 - RTF P0T2 OECD
(ISP-41)
English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
E4-9 - RTF P10T1 OECD
(ISP-41)
English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
239
Table 4-5
Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1 Open to
PHEBUS FP
members,
OECD
(ISP-41)
English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM Yes Yes Lump
E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2
and S3
Closed
(available to
ISTP partners)
(data could be
opened to
others under
conditions)
English P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-9 - Homogeneous Organic Iodine Reactions in
Gas Phase
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
SE No Yes Lump
E4-12 - THAI Iod-09 Open for
SARNET
members
English P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
COM No Yes Lump
E4-13 - THAI Iod-11 Open for
SARNET2
members
English P3-19 - Radionuclide Transport
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
INT No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
240
Table 4-5
Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E4-14 - THAI Iod-12 Open for
SARNET2
members
English P3-19 - Radionuclide Transport
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
INT No Yes Lump
E4-15 - THAI Iod-13 Open for
SARNET2
members
English P4-8 - Gas Phase Radiolytic Oxidation of Molecular
Iodine (I2) (Iodine/Ozone Reaction)
COM No Yes Lump
E4-16 - THAI Iod-14 Open for
SARNET2
members
English P4-8 - Gas Phase Radiolytic Oxidation of Molecular
Iodine (I2) (Iodine/Ozone Reaction)
COM No Yes Lump
E4-17 - THAI Iod-25 OECD
(THAI Project)
English P4-16 - I2 Interaction with Aerosols
COM No Yes Lump
E4-18 - THAI Iod-26 OECD
(THAI Project)
English P4-16 - I2 Interaction with Aerosols
COM No Yes Lump
E4-19 - THAI AW OECD
(THAI Project)
English P4-17 - Iodine Wash-down
SET No Yes CFD
E4-20 - THAI HR31 OECD
(THAI Project)
English P4-12 - Decomposition of Iodides (CsI) by Heat-up
in PARs
SET No Yes CFD
E4-21 - THAI HR32 OECD
(THAI Project)
English P2-8 - Hydrogen Mitigation - Passive Autocatalytic
Recombiners
SET No Yes CFD
E4-22 - LASS-GIRS DABASCO Closed English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
P4-14 - Volatile Iodine Trapping by Airborne
Droplets
COM No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
241
Table 4-5
Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E4-23 - OECD-THAI2 Gaseous
Iodine Release from Flashing Jet
Test
OECD
(THAI2
Project)
English P4-19 - Iodine Release from Flashing Pool or
Flashing Jet
INT Yes Yes CFD
E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test OECD English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-9 - Homogeneous Organic Iodine Reactions in
Gas Phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
INT No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
242
Table 4-5
Iodine Chemistry Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test OECD English P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of
Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water
Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water
Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-9 - Homogeneous Organic Iodine Reactions in
Gas Phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
INT No Yes Lump
E4-26 – Iodine Clean-Up in a
Steam Suppression System
Open English P4-18 - Pool Scrubbing of Iodine INT No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
243
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion
Geometry
Open English P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
P2-1 - Deflagration
P5-4 - Corium Particles Generation from the Two
Phase Jet
P5-7 - Direct Containment Heating
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
COM No Yes Lump
E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry
Geometry
Open English P1-9 - Condensation on Surfaces
P1-14 - Momentum Induced Mixing in Gases
P1-15 - Buoyancy Induced Mixing in Gases
P2-1 - Deflagration
P5-4 - Corium Particles Generation from the Two
Phase Jet
P5-7 - Direct Containment Heating
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT
No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
244
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-3 - FARO Tests Other
(FARO-Test
L-14 is ISP-
39 and
therefore
OPEN.
Other
experiments
are available
to countries
within
European
Union;
other
countries
need
agreements)
English P5-8 - Corium Jet Break-up in Water Pool
P5-9 - FCI and Steam Explosion - Melt into Water
Ex-Vessel (Melt Quenching)
P5-10 - Pressure Load on Corium Retention
Devices
P5-11 - Particulate Debris Bed Formation
P5-15 - Corium Spreading
COM No Yes Lump
E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests Closed English P1-12 - Liquid Re-Entrainment (Resuspension)
P5-1 - Corium Release from Failed Dry Reactor
Pressure Vessel
P5-2 - Corium Entrainment Out of the Reactor
Primary Vessel with Lateral Breaches
P5-3 - Corium Particles Generation from the
Corium Pool
P5-4 - Corium Particles Generation from the Two
Phase Jet
P5-5 - Corium Particles Entrainment
P5-7 - Direct Containment Heating
COM No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
245
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests Closed English P5-1 - Corium Release from Failed Dry Reactor
Pressure Vessel
P5-2 - Corium Entrainment Out of the Reactor
Primary Vessel with Lateral Breaches
P5-3 - Corium Particles Generation from the
Corium Pool
P5-4 - Corium Particles Generation from the Two
Phase Jet
P5-5 - Corium Particles Entrainment
P5-6 - Corium Particles Trapping
P5-7 - Direct Containment Heating
COM No Yes Lump
E5-6 - DISCO-A2 Open English P2-1 - Deflagration
P2-2 - Hydrogen Flame Acceleration (FA)
P2-7 - Hydrogen Diffusion Flame (Standing Flame)
P5-7 - Direct Containment Heating
COM No Yes CFD
E5-7 - KROTOS JRC Tests Other
(experiments
are available
to countries
within
European
Union; other
countries
need
agreements)
English P5-8 - Corium Jet Break-up in Water Pool
P5-9 - FCI and Steam Explosion - Melt into Water
Ex-Vessel (Melt Quenching)
P5-10 - Pressure Load on Corium Retention
Devices
P5-11 - Particulate Debris Bed Formation
COM No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
246
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-8 - SERENA-2 KROTOS and
TROI Commissioning Tests
Open English P5-8 - Corium Jet Break-up in Water Pool
P5-9 - FCI and Steam Explosion - Melt into Water
Ex-Vessel (Melt Quenching)
P5-10 - Pressure Load on Corium Retention
Devices
P5-11 - Particulate Debris Bed Formation
P5-12 - Corium Debris (Solid) Heat Transfer
COM No Yes Lump
E5-9: SERENA-2 KROTOS and
TROI Tests
SERENA
OECD
partners
English P5-8 - Corium Jet Break-up in Water Pool
P5-9 - FCI and Steam Explosion - Melt into Water
Ex-Vessel (Melt Quenching)
P5-10 - Pressure Load on Corium Retention
Devices
P5-11 - Particulate Debris Bed Formation
P5-12 - Corium Debris (Solid) Heat Transfer
COM No Yes Lump
E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests
1-3; SSWICS tests 1-7
Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-19 - Cracking (Crust)
P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability, Top
Flooding
P5-21 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Coolability
and Water Bottom Injection
P5-24 - Crust Anchorage
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT / SE No Yes CFD/Lump
(CCI tests were
2-D)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
247
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests
4-6; SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
Closed
(Data can be
released 12-
2014)
English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-19 - Cracking (Crust)
P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability, Top
Flooding
P5-21 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Coolability
and Water Bottom Injection
P5-24 - Crust Anchorage
P5-26 - Core Catchers with External Cooling
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT / SE No Yes CFD/Lump
(CCI tests were
2-D)
E5-12 - ECO Tests Open English P5-9 - FCI and Steam Explosion - Melt into Water
Ex-Vessel (Melt Quenching)
P1-16 - Pressure Wave Propagation in Water
P1-24 - Pool Swell / Air Injection
SE No Yes CFD
E5-13 - BALI Ex-Vessel Tests Closed English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
SE No Yes Lump
E5-14 - BALISE Tests Closed English P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
SE No Yes Lump
E5-15 - VULCANO VB-U7 (EPR
concrete)
Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-23 - Effect of Non Homogeneous Ablation on
Gate Ablation
COM No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
248
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-16 - VULCANO VW-U1
(COMET bottom flooding)
Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-23 - Effect of Non Homogeneous Ablation on
Gate Ablation
P5-21 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Coolability
and Water Bottom Injection
COM No Yes Lump
E5-17 - VULCANO VE-U7 Other
(Published
More details
subject to
discussion)
English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-23 - Effect of Non Homogeneous Ablation on
Gate Ablation
COM No Yes Lump
E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2 Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
COM No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
249
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-19 - SURC-3 Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
SE No Yes CFD (1D)
E5-20 - SURC-3A Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
SE No Yes CFD
(axisymmetric)
E5-21 - SURC-4 Closed
(Data not
available at
the NEA
Database.
Availability
to the NEA
Database to
be discussed.
(ISP-24))
English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
COM No Yes CFD (?)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
250
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-22 - BETA V5.1 Open
ISP-30
English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
SE No Yes Lump
E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1,
L2, L4, L5, L6, and L7
Closed
(ACE Phase
C program
participants)
English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-19 - Cracking (Crust)
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT No Yes Lump
E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b,
M3b, M4, and MSET-1
Closed
(MACE
program
participants)
English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-19 - Cracking (Crust)
P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability, Top
Flooding
P5-24 - Crust Anchorage
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT/SE No Yes CFD (1 test)
E5-25 - COLIMA CA-U4 Open English P3-14 - Inertial Deposition of Aerosols (Also called
Impaction)
P3-17 - Aerosol Removal in Leakage Paths
P3-18 - Pool Scrubbing
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
INT No Yes Lump
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
251
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-26 - BURN-1 Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
SE No Yes CFD
(axisymmetric)
E5-27 – SWISS-1 and SWISS-2 Open English P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability, Top
Flooding
SE No Yes CFD (1D)
E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3 Open English P5-12 - Corium Debris (Solid) Heat Transfer
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability, Top
Flooding
P5-24 - Crust Anchorage
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
SE No Yes CFD (1D)
E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
SE No Yes CFD (1D)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
252
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3 Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT No Yes CFD (1D)
E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3 Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT No Yes CFD (3D)
E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3 Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT No Yes CFD (3D)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
253
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3 Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT No Yes CFD (3D)
E5-34 - COIL-1 Open English P5-13 - Molten Core Concrete Interaction
P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
P5-17 - Corium Evaporation/Vaporization
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
P5-27 - Oxidation of Corium
INT No Yes CFD
(axisymmetric)
E5-35 - WETCOR-1 Open English P5-14 - Corium Melt Stratification
P5-20 - Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability, Top
Flooding
P5-24 - Crust Anchorage
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
SE No Yes CFD (1D)
E5-36 - FRAG Open English P5-12 - Corium Debris (Solid) Heat Transfer
P5-18 - Corium Solidification/Crust Formation
P5-25 - Radionuclide Release from MCCI and Core
Catchers
SE No Yes CFD
(axisymmetric)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
254
Table 4-6
Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E5-37 - 1DHtFlx Open English P5-16 - Molten Corium Heat Transfer
SE No Yes CFD (1D)
E5-38 – MC Tests Open English P5-28 - Corium Attack of Metallic Liner
SE No Yes CFD (1D)
E5-39 – Plate Tests Open English P5-28 - Corium Attack of Metallic Liner
SE No Yes CFD (1D)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
255
Table 4-7
Systems Experiments
Test Number and Name Availability Language Phenomena Covered in Experiment Type of
Test DBA
SA/
BDBA 3D
E6-1 - CSE EFADS Tests Open7 English P6-6 - Aerosol Removal in EFADS
SE No Yes Lump
E6-2 - ACE-CSTF EFADS Tests Closed (obtain
from EPRI)
English P6-6 - Aerosol Removal in EFADS
SE No Yes Lump
E6-3 - ACE-LSFF EFADS Tests Closed (obtain
from EPRI)
English P6-6 - Aerosol Removal in EFADS
SE No Yes Lump
7 Reference (BNWL-1587) available at http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4746863
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
256
4.1 Containment Thermalhydraulics Experiments
4.1.1 E1-1 - Flow through Interconnected Vessels
Test Facility: AECL-Interconnected Vessels
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
Investigation of transient compressible flows in systems of long ducts and interconnected volumes.
The system consists of a 7.9 m3 reservoir of 791 kPa dry air, blowing down into two 1.6 m
3 pressure
vessels (connected in series) and 15-cm smooth ABS piping (up to 91 m long) with tees, elbows and
branch ducts of 10 and 15 cm diameters.
Figure 4.1.1-1 Layout of AECL Interconnected Vessels
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
257
Figure 4.1.1-2 Elbows used in AECL Interconnected Vessels
Table 4.1.1-1
Test Matrix for AECL Interconnected Vessels Tests
Test No.
Reservoir
Nozzle Dia.
(mm)
Main Duct (0.15 m dia) Branch Duct**
90° Elbow Throat Dia
(m)
Duct
Length (m) Tee*
1 96.39 None 0.15 43
2 96.39 None 0.15 89
3 96.39 None 0.102 89
4a 60.73 None 0.102 89
4b 38.1 None 0.102 89
5a 96.39 Standard 0.15(?) 89
5b 96.39 Mitre 0.15(?) 89
6 60.73 Mitre 0.15(?) 89
7a 60.73 None 0.15 89 transition
7b 96.39 None 0.15 89 transition
7c 96.39 None 0.15 89 standard
11a 96.39
11b 60.73
*Transition tee - convert from round to square duct cross-section
** 25.9 m branch duct (0.15 m dia) located at 45.7 m along main duct
Only Test 11a and 11b used two1.6 m3 pressure vessels
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
258
References for Experiment:
Brimley, W.J.G., “An experimental investigation of transient compressible flows in systems of long
ducts and interconnected volumes, AECL Report TDVI-354, January 1979.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial reservoir pressure = 274 kPa to 791 kPa of dry air
Initial Temperature: ≈ 25°C
Pressure Vessel pressure: up to 450 kPa (a)
Temperatures in Pressure vessel and duct: up to 60°C
Wall temperature: 43 to -27°C
duct exit velocity: max of 275 m/s
Year Tests Performed: 1979
Repeatability Check: Yes (for case 2)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
259
4.1.2 E1-2 - Bruce LAC Test in Air, Test No. 50
Test Facility: None
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
An experiment was performed on a full sized Bruce Nuclear Generation Station local air cooler to
determine its heat removal/cooling capability.
References for Experiment:
Conrath, J.J., “Steam Condensation Heat Transfer Rates in the Presence of Air”, AECL Report, TDVI-314,
November 1973
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Air mass fraction: 0.874
Mixture Velocity: 0.85 m/s
Inlet Mixture Temperature: 60.84°C
Water Flow: 7.67 kg/s
Inlet Cooling Water T: 16.4°C
Outlet Cooling Water T: 38.33°C
Heat Removal: 704 kW
Year Tests Performed: 1973
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
AECL used this experiment in its GOTHIC validation exercise.
M. Krause et al., “Validation of GOTHIC-IST 6.1a for Modeling Air Cooler Heat Transfer in
CANDU Containment Analysis”, AECL Report RC-2575, Rev. 0, 2001.
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
260
4.1.3 E1-3 - LSGMF GMBT001
Test Facility: AECL-LSGMF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
Vertical injection of helium from the bottom centre of a 1000 m3 room (8.2 by 10.3 by 10.95 m high).
Tests were performed at essentially isothermal conditions.
Figure 4.1.3-1 AECL Large Scale Gas Mixing Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
261
References for Experiment:
Jones, S.C., and Chan, C.K., “Buoyancy Induced Gas Mixing in a Large Enclosure Data Report:
Experiments Performed in the Large Scale Gas Mixing Facility, Series GMSR01”, AECL Technical Note,
CAB-TN-085, January 1997.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Helium injection: 2.97 g/s for 600 s
Jet Diameter: 5.1 cm
Jet Velocity: 8.6 m/s
He injection T: 16.5C
Pressure: 100 kPa
Initial air T: 18C
Max helium concentration near ceiling: 2%
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: Yes (GMBT007 is a repeat and shows similar hydrogen concentrations)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
PSI tested the standard k- ε turbulence model in GOTHIC using this experiment.
Andreani, M., and Smith, B., “On the Use of the Standard k-ε Turbulence Model in GOTHIC to Simulate
Buoyant Flows with Light Gases”, The 10th Int. Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics
(NURETH-10), Seoul, Korea, 2003 October 5-9
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
262
4.1.4 E1-4 - LSGMF GMUS001
Test Facility: AECL-LSGMF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
Sideways injection of helium at a height of 8.22 m into a 1000 m3 room (8.2 by 10.33 by 10.95 m
high). Tests were performed at essentially isothermal conditions.
Figure of LSGMF shown in description of test E1-3 - LSGMF GMBT001.
References for Experiment:
Jones, S.C., and Chan, C.K., “Buoyancy Induced Gas Mixing in a Large Enclosure Data Report:
Experiments Performed in the Large Scale Gas Mixing Facility, Series GMSR01”, AECL Technical Note,
CAB-TN-085, January 1997.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Helium injection: 2.97 g/s for 600 s
Jet Diameter: 5.1 cm
Jet Velocity: 8.6 m/s
He injection T: 16.5C
Pressure: 100 kPa
Initial air T: 18C
Max helium concentration near ceiling: 6%
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: Yes (GMUS002 is a repeat and shows similar hydrogen concentrations, with a
maximum absolute difference of 1% hydrogen)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
263
4.1.5 E1-5 - AECL-SP Dousing Test No. 1
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
A series of 30 experiments to determine the thermal utilization of dousing sprays as a function of
spray droplet size and the air steam ratio in the containing vessel. In particular the experiments were
performed to assess the degree of heat transfer associated with droplet characteristics and containment
conditions for a dousing process under steady state conditions. Test conditions are at steady-state. Droplet
temperatures measured at three elevations within the 3.35 m vessel height. A photographic method was
employed to determine the droplet size of the dispersed spray pattern.
Thermal utilization is defined as the ratio of the actual heat absorbed by a droplet, falling through an
atmosphere maintained at uniform temperature and pressure, to the maximum heat that could be absorbed
under the specified conditions.
References for Experiment:
Koroyannakis D., Salij S., Hendrie: G., “An Experimental Study of the Thermal Utilization of Dousing
Sprays” AECL Report IR-452, Sept 1983.
Aivaliotis, S.K., “Thermal Utilization of Dousing Spray Droplets in 600 MW CANDU Reactors”, AECL
Report TTR-24, May 1982.
Krause, M., et. al., “Validation of GOTHIC-IST 6.1b for Modeling Heat Removal by Dousing Water in
CANDU Containment Analysis”, AECL Report RC-2576, Rev. 0, 2001.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Drop Diameter: 2.362 mm (sauter mean)
Dousing flow: 0.114 L/s
Vessel pressure: 172.4 kPa
Initial Drop Temperature: 6.1°C
Average Environment Temperature: 70.6°C
Steam/air mass ratio: 12%
Year Tests Performed: 1982
Repeatability Check: No
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
264
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
GOTHIC 6.1b validation performed by AECL.
Krause, M., Ramachandran, S., Collins, W.M. and Nguyen, T., “Validation of GOTHIC-IST 6.1b for
Modeling Heat Removal by Dousing Water in CANDU Containment Analysis”, AECL Report No. RC-
2576, Rev. 0, 2001.
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
265
4.1.6 E1-6 - FIPLOC F2
Test Facility: BMC
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The experiment has been performed in the multi-compartment Battelle Model Containment (BMC).
BMC was built from reinforced concrete, had a free volume of 640 m³. It was designed to be a 1/64
representation of the Biblis B containment. In Phase 1 of the experiment (50 h) the containment was
heated up by steam injection, then special emphasis was placed on the study of natural convection
phenomena in the multi-compartment geometry affected by variations of steam -, air- and heat injections
into various compartments.
There is an uncertainty remaining related to the leakage from the vessel.
References for Experiment:
Fischer et al., “CEC Thermal-Hydraulic Benchmark Exercise on FIPLOC Verification Experiment F2 in
BMC, Specification for Phase 1” Battelle Institute e.V. Frankfurt, Germany, September 1989
Fischer et al., “CEC Thermal-Hydraulic Benchmark Exercise on FIPLOC Verification Experiment F2 in
BMC, Specification for Phases 2,3 and 4” Battelle Institute e.V. Frankfurt, Germany, July 1990
Fischer et al., “CEC Thermal-Hydraulic Benchmark Exercise on FIPLOC Verification Experiment F2 in
BMC, Long-Term Heat Up Phase, Results for Phase 1” Battelle Institute e.V. Frankfurt, Germany, Report
BF-R-67.249-1, September 1990
Fischer et al., “CEC Thermal-Hydraulic Benchmark Exercise on FIPLOC Verification Experiment F2 in
BMC, Experimental Phases 2, 3 and 4, Results of comparisons” Commission of the European
Communities, ISBN 92-826-6454-6, Luxembourg
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure 1 to 3.2 bar
Atmospheric temperature 20 to 135°C
Atmospheric velocity 0 to 2 m/s
Year Tests Performed: 1986
Repeatability Check: N/A
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
266
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Fischer et al., “CEC Thermal-Hydraulic Benchmark Exercise on FIPLOC Verification Experiment F2 in
BMC, Experimental Phases 2, 3 and 4, Results of comparisons” Commission of the European
Communities, ISBN 92-826-6454-6, Luxembourg
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
267
4.1.7 E1-7 - VANAM M3 (ISP-37)
Test Facility: BMC
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The experiment has been performed in the multi-compartment Battelle Model Containment (BMC).
BMC was built from reinforced concrete, had a free volume of 640 m³. It was designed to be a 1/64
representation of the Biblis B containment. In Phase 1 of the experiment (15 h) the containment was
heated up by steam injection into the upper internal compartment R5. Then the hygroscopic NaOH aerosol
was injected at the same position using air as carrier gas. The aerosol depletion under superheated “dry”
conditions was studied. After a phase without any injection, a second aerosol injection was performed
followed by the steam injection. The position was changed temporarily to the lower room R3 and then
switched back to R5. The aerosol depletion under (super-) saturated “wet” conditions was studied.
There was an inhomogeneous aerosol distribution in the containment with regard to the dead end
room connected to R9 only. The other rooms have been well mixed.
References for Experiment:
Firnhaber et al., “Specification of the ISP37, VANAM M3 - A Multicompartment Aerosol Depletion Test
with Hygroscopic Aerosol Material”, GRS, Köln, 1995
Firnhaber et al.,” ISP37, VANAM M3 - A Multicompartment Aerosol Depletion Test with Hygroscopic
Aerosol Material, Comparison Report”, NEA/CSNI/R(96)26 December 1996
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol concentration up to 10 g/m³
Relative humidity 80 to 100%
Temporarily high fog concentrations
Pressure 1 to 2 bar
Atmospheric temperature 20 to 120°C
Atmospheric velocity 0 to 0.75 m/s
Year Tests Performed: 1992
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Firnhaber et al., “ISP37, VANAM M3 - A Multicompartment Aerosol Depletion Test with Hygroscopic
Aerosol Material, Comparison Report”, NEA/CSNI/R(96)26 December 1996
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
268
4.1.8 E1-8 - EREC LB LOCA Test 1
Test Facility: EREC BC-V-213
Owner Organization: EU
Experiment Description:
The test facility BC V-213 had been constructed in 1998-1999 at the Electrogorsk Research and
Engineering Centre in the framework of the PH 2.13/95 “Bubble Condenser Experimental Qualification”
Project according to the PHARE and TACIS programs under contract with the European Commission. It
is a large scale integral facility designed to carry out thermal hydraulic experimental studies on the
behaviour of the bubble condenser (BC) in NPPs with WWER-440/V-213 under design basis accident
conditions. The test facility consists of reinforced concrete boxes which model the hermetic compartments
of Paks NPP Bubble Condenser Containment (BCC) 1:100 scaled according to the volume. It includes an
original fragment of the BC with 18 full-scale gap/cap systems. A schematic view of the BC V-213 can be
found at http://base.erec.ru/Specific/BC/BC.htm.
The BC V-213 is designed for a maximum pressure of 300 kPa and a minimum pressure of 80 kPa. A
high pressure system consisting of 5 vessels is designed for preparing the mass and energy release into the
steam generator box at one of three possible break locations. The BC V-213 consists of 5 hermetic
compartments: dead end volume, two steam generator boxes, BC shaft with a full-scale BC fragment and
air trap. The total volume of the BCC model including the BC water is about 510 m3. The BC section is
located in the BC shaft at a concrete pedestal. The BC shaft volume is diminished by volume displacers to
meet the volume scale ratio. The BC gas room is connected with the air trap via one check valve with a
diameter of 173 mm and with the BC shaft by one relief valve with upstream orifice of 122 mm diameter.
The thickness of the hermetic compartments walls is 0.8 m. The internal surfaces of all boxes are lined
with 6 mm thick carbon steel plates. Main elements of the BC model are made of stainless steel with a
thickness of 3 mm. To make the ratio of the inner surface area of compartment walls to their volumes in
the test facility equal to that of Paks NPP, some walls of the hermetic compartments are insulated with
wooden plates of 12 mm thickness. There are about 250 gages for pressure, pressure differences and
temperatures as well as water level, humidity, flow velocity, air concentration, check valve displacement
and steel wall displacement.
The LB-LOCA Test 1 simulates a large break LOCA 2F DN500. It is considered to be representative
for the maximum pressure and temperature loads in the BCC.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
269
1 - air trap; 2 - water treatment installation vessels; 3 - steam generator box No.2;
4 - bubble condenser; 5 - BC shaft; 6 - steam generator box No.1; 7 - dead
volume
Figure 4.1.8-1 EREC BC-V-213 Facility
References for Experiment:
“Detailed Description of the Thermal-hydraulic Test Facility”, Project PH 2.13/95: Bubble Condenser
Experimental Qualification, BC-D-ER-SI-0002, Revision 2, Deliverable 2.1, Part 1, July 1998
“Detailed Description of the Data Acquisition and the Control Systems of the Thermal-hydraulic Test
Facility”, Project PH 2.13/95: Bubble Condenser Experimental Qualification, BC-D-ER-SI-0004, Revision
2, Deliverable 2.1, Part 3, November 1998
“EREC Test Facility Instrumentation”, Project PH 2.13/95: Bubble Condenser Experimental Qualification,
BC-D-ER-SI-0007, Revision 2, Deliverable 2.1, Part 4, April 1999
“Test procedure for test facility BC V-213”, Project PH 2.13/95: Bubble Condenser Experimental
Qualification, BC-D-ER-SI-0015, Revision 0, Deliverable 2.1, Part 2, July 1999
“Quick Look Report. Test No.: 1”, Project PH 2.13/95: Bubble Condenser Experimental Qualification,
BC-D-ER-SI-0025, 1999
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
270
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial conditions:
o p: 0.99 bar
o Tatm: 47 - 55°C
o TBC water: 29 - 31°C
o humidity: 60 - 100%
o water level in BC trays: 0.49 m
Water/steam injection (LB LOCA) at middle break location to SG box 1
Experiment range:
o p: up to 2.1 bar
o Δp BC walls: up to 12 kPa
o Tatm: up to 122°C
o TBC water: up to 63°C
Year Tests Performed: 1999
Repeatability Check: Yes, (re-mobilisation test in 2003)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Phare PH 2.13/95 – DRASYS code
“Final thermal-hydraulic test report”, Project PH 2.13/95: Bubble Condenser Experimental Qualification,
BC-D-SI-EC-0028, November 1999
Phare PR/TS/17 – COCOSYS
“Performance of independent post-test calculations”, Phare Contract N° 02-0025, RISKAUDIT Report N°
576, Rev. 4, December 2003
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb and S. Arndt (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
271
4.1.9 E1-9 - EREC LB LOCA Test 5
Test Facility: EREC BC-V-213
Owner Organization: EU
Experiment Description:
Test facility description and basic documentation see LB LOCA Test 1 (Test E1-8).
The LB LOCA Test 5 represents loads characteristic for the short term of an LB LOCA in the Bubble
Condenser Containment of NPP with WWER-440/V-213, i.e., maximum pressure difference across the BC
walls.
References for Experiment:
“Quick Look Report. Test No.: 5”, Project PH 2.13/95: Bubble Condenser Experimental Qualification,
BC-D-ER-SI-0024, 1999
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial conditions:
o p: 0.98 bar
o Tatm: 17 - 45°C
o TBC water: 44 - 47°C
o humidity: 40 - 100%
o water level in BC trays: 0.494 m
Water/steam injection (LB LOCA) to SG box 1 at break location far from BC
Experiment range:
o p: up to 2.75 bar
o Δp BC walls: up to 20 kPa
o Tatm: up to 130°C
o TBC water: up to 82°C
Year Tests Performed: 1999
Repeatability Check: Yes (with slightly different conditions for Kola-3 in 2003)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
272
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Phare PH 2.13/95 – DRASYS code
“Final thermal-hydraulic test report”, Project PH 2.13/95: Bubble Condenser Experimental Qualification,
BC-D-SI-EC-0028, November 1999
Phare PR/TS/17 – COCOSYS
“Performance of independent post-test calculations”, Phare Contract N° 02-0025, RISKAUDIT Report N°
576, Rev. 4, December 2003
other projects – CONTAIN, TRACO
“Answers to Remaining Questions on Bubbler-Condenser”, Activity report of the OECD NEA Bubbler-
Condenser Steering Group, OECD report NEA/CSNI/R(2003)12, January 2003
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb and S. Arndt (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
273
4.1.10 E1-10 – EREC MSLB Test 7
Test Facility: EREC BC-V-213
Owner Organization: EU
Experiment Description:
Test facility description and basic documentation see LB LOCA Test 1 (Test E1-8).
The MSLB tests represents loads characteristic for a main steam line break scenario in the Bubble
Condenser Containment of NPP with WWER-440/V-213. The reference plant is the NPP Kola, unit 3.
References for Experiment:
Osokin G., Melikhov, V., “Results of MSLB Test 7”, Experimental Studies on: A. Bubble Condenser Test
Facility (R2.01/99). B. TKR Test Facility (R2.02/99) at EREC-Electrogorsk. Final Report, BC-TR-11E,
January 2004
Osokin G., “Results of MSLB Test 7”, Experimental Studies on: A. Bubble Condenser Test Facility
(R2.01/99). B. TKR Test Facility (R2.02/99) at EREC-Electrogorsk. Technical Report BC-TR-07E,
October 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial conditions:
o p: 0.98 bar
o Tatm: 22 - 52°C
o TBC water: 32 - 38°C
o humidity: 32 - 73%
o water level in BC trays: 0.482 - 0.489 m
Steam injection (MSLB) to SG box 1 at break location far from BC
Experiment range:
o p: up to 1.84 bar
o Δp BC walls: up to 7.8 kPa
o Tatm: up to 118°C
o TBC water: up to 63°C
Year Tests Performed: 2003
Repeatability Check: not done
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
274
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: TACIS project R2.01/99 – COCOSYS
Osokin G., V. Melikhov, “Results of MSLB Test 7”, Experimental Studies on: A. Bubble Condenser Test
Facility (R2.01/99). B. TKR Test Facility (R2.02/99) at EREC-Electrogorsk. Final Report, BC-TR-11E,
January 2004
Osokin G., “Results of MSLB Test 7”, Experimental Studies on: A. Bubble Condenser Test Facility
(R2.01/99). B. TKR Test Facility (R2.02/99) at EREC-Electrogorsk. Technical Report BC-TR-07E,
October 2003
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb and S. Arndt (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
275
4.1.11 E1-11 - EREC MSLB Test 9
Test Facility: EREC BC-V-213
Owner Organization: EU
Experiment Description:
Test facility description and basic documentation see LB-LOCA Test 1 (Test E1-8).
The MSLB tests represents loads characteristic for a main steam line break scenario in the Bubble
Condenser Containment of NPP with WWER-440/V-213. The reference plant is the NPP Kola, unit 3.
Notes:
Detailed descriptions of facility, measuring system, experimental procedure and results
Experimental data electronically available, video records available
Weak points:
o wooden wall surface insulation causes uncertainties in heat transfer to walls,
o volume displacers (polyurethane plates in BC shaft)
References for Experiment:
Osokin G., “Results of MSLB Test 9”, Experimental Studies on: A. Bubble Condenser Test Facility
(R2.01/99). B. TKR Test Facility (R2.02/99) at EREC-Electrogorsk, Technical Report BC-TR-08E,
October 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial conditions:
o p: 0.98 bar
o Tatm: 22-52°C
o TBC water: 32-38°C
o humidity: 32-73%
o water level in BC trays: 0.482-0.489 m
Steam injection (MSLB) to SG box 1 at break location near BC
Experiment range:
o p: up to 1.84 bar
o Δp BC walls: up to 7.8 kPa
o Tatm: up to 118°C
o TBC water: up to 63°C
Year Tests Performed: 2003
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
276
Repeatability Check: not done
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: TACIS project R2.01/99 – COCOSYS
Osokin G., “Results of MSLB Test 9”, Experimental Studies on: A. Bubble Condenser Test Facility
(R2.01/99). B. TKR Test Facility (R2.02/99) at EREC-Electrogorsk, Technical Report BC-TR-08E,
October 2003
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb and S. Arndt (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
277
4.1.12 E1-12 - EREC SLB G02
Test Facility: EREC BC-V-213
Owner Organization: EREC & GRS
Experiment Description:
Test facility description and basic documentation see LB LOCA Test 1 (Test E1-8).
The SLB test G02 represents loads characteristic for a steam line break scenario in the Bubble
Condenser Containment of NPP with WWER-440/V-213 (first 30 min). A special boundary condition is
the “cold” initial test facility state (without pre-heating by steam to reduce uncertainties from initial wall
temperatures and atmosphere humidity) as well as failure of active spray system.
References for Experiment:
Melikhov O.I., Osokin, G.V., Melikhov, V.I., Sokolin, A.V., “Two SLB tests at BC V-213 test facility”,
Quick Look Report, Bilateral Russian-German Project INT 9142, EREC, Electrogorsk, 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial conditions:
o p: 0.98 bar
o Tatm: 15 - 34°C
o TBC water: 18°C
o humidity: 70 - 100%
o water level in BC trays: 0.494 m
Steam injection to SG box 1 at break location far from BC
Experiment range:
o p: up to 1.8 bar
o Δp BC walls: up to 7.5 kPa
o Tatm: up to 122°C
o TBC water: up to 47°C
Year Tests Performed: 2002
Repeatability Check: Yes - with pre-heating in test SLB G01
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
278
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Phare PR/TS/17 – COCOSYS
o “Performance of independent post-test calculations”, Phare Contract N° 02-0025,
RISKAUDIT Report N° 576, Rev. 4, December 2003
Bilateral Russian-German Project INT 9142 – CCOSYS
o Wolff, H., Arndt, S. and Steinborn, J., “Pre- and post-test calculations of the EREC
experiment SLB G02”, Report GRS-V-INT 9142 - 6/2003, GRS Berlin, May 2004
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb and S. Arndt (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
279
4.1.13 E1-13 - HDR V44 (ISP-16)
Test Facility: HDR
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
Test V44 was a full scale experiment conducted in the containment of the HDR – nuclear power plant
in Karlstein, Germany. The containment had a height of 60 m and a diameter of 20 m. It was separated
into 60 compartments with a dome on top. A rupture of a steam line leading to an early two-phase flow
was investigated. The blowdown lasted about 50 s.
The objectives of the experiment were to determine the loads upon the containment, particularly with
regard to the buildup of pressures and temperatures in the containment compartments during a LOCA in
three different time phases. The mass flow through the vent flow openings and the heat transfer to the
structures has also been of importance.
Due to some problems with the measurement techniques, uncertainty exists related to the time history
of the break energy flow.
References for Experiment:
Schall: “Design report for the HDR-Containment experiments V21.1, V42, V44”, PHDR-Report No.
3.280/82, January 1982
M. Firnhaber, International standard problem ISP 16: rupture of a steam line within the HDR-containment
leading to an early two-phase-flow: results of post-test analyses: final comparison report, 1985, NEA-
CSNI-112, Vol. 1
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure up to 2.5 bars (at 25 s)
Pressure differences up to 0.75 bars
Year Tests Performed: 1982
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
International standard problem ISP 16: rupture of a steam line within the HDR-containment leading to an
early two-phase-flow: results of post-test analyses: final comparison report, 1985, NEA-CSNI-112, Vol. 1
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
280
4.1.14 E1-14 - HDR T31.5 (ISP-23)
Test Facility: HDR
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
Test T31.5 was full scale experiments conducted in the containment of the HDR – nuclear power
plant in Karlstein, Germany. The containment had a height of 60 m and a diameter of 20 m. It was
separated into 60 compartments with a dome on top. Test T31.5 investigated a large break Blowdown
which lasted about 50 s. Data were also analysed in the so called long term period (up to 1200 s).
References for Experiment:
Wenzel: “Versuchsprotokoll, Blowdown und Wasserstoffverteilungsversuchsgruppe CON Versuch
T31.5”, PHDR-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 3.520/88 (7.12.87)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure up to 2.5 bars
Pressure differences up to 0.75 bars
Temperatures up to 130°C
Year Tests Performed: 1987
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Karwat: “International Standard Problem ISP-23, Rupture of a Large-Diameter Pipe within the HDR-
Containment”, Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit, GRS-A-1622, Oktober 1989
International standard problem: ISP 23: “Rupture of a large diameter pipe within the HDR-containment”:
final comparison report, 1989. Vol. 1, NEA/CSNI-160
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
281
4.1.15 E1-15 - HDR E11.2 (ISP-29)
Test Facility: HDR
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The E11 tests are full scale experiments conducted in the containment of the HDR – nuclear power
plant in Karlstein, Germany. The containment had a height of 60 m and a diameter of 20 m. It was
separated into 60 compartments with a dome on top.
During the first 12 hours of test E11.2, steam was released into the upper compartment 1805,
afterwards a mixture of hydrogen and helium was released at the same position. This established an
atmospheric stratification consisting of a mixture of steam, air, hydrogen, and helium in the upper part of
the containment while the lower part remained filled with air. A steam injection into the lower
compartment 1405 could not dissolve the stratification. An outside spraying of the steel shell of the dome
resulted in a partial dissolution of the stratification.
There are uncertainties on:
heat losses and leakages from the steel containment into the surrounding compartments
heat removal by external spraying of the steel shell
References for Experiment:
Karwat: OECD Standard Problem OECD-CSNI-ISP29: Distribution of Hydrogen within the HDR-
Containment under Severe Accident Conditions” Final Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(93) 4, February
1993
Datenzusammenstellung, HDR-Containment, PHDR-Arbeitsbericht Nr.3.143/79, Januar 1982
HDR Sicherheitsprogramm, Untersuchungen zur Wasserstoffverteilung in einem Reaktorcontainment,
Quick Look Report Versuchsgruppe E11, Techn. Fachbericht PHDR 111-92, März 1993
HDR Sicherheitsprogramm, Auswertung der experimentellen und analytischen Ergebnisse der HDR-
Wasserstoffverteilungsversuche, Auswertbericht Versuchsgruppe E11, Versuche E11.0-6, Techn.
Fachbericht PHDR 117-94, Februar 1994
GRS has a documentation of the year 1989 about the flow paths between the compartments and the
concrete and steel structures.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
282
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Maximum values:
Pressure 2 bar
Atmospheric temperature 125°C
Light gas concentration (H2 + He) 30 vol.%
Year Tests Performed: 1989
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Karwat: OECD Standard Problem OECD-CSNI-ISP-29: Distribution of Hydrogen within the HDR-
Containment under Severe Accident Conditions” Final Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(93) 4, February
1993
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
283
4.1.16 E1-16 - HDR E11.4
Test Facility: HDR
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The E11 tests are full scale experiments conducted in the containment of the HDR – nuclear power
plant in Karlstein, Germany. The containment had a height of 60 m and a diameter of 20 m. It was
separated into 60 compartments with a dome on top. In test E11.4 steam was released for 34 h into the
lower compartment 1405, then a mixture of hydrogen and helium gas was released into this room. The
containment atmosphere was well mixed, except for the rooms in the level below room 1405. Later on the
steel shell of the dome was sprayed from the outside.
References for Experiment:
References, see test E1-15 - HDR E11.2 (ISP-29).
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Maximum values:
Pressure 2 bar
Atmospheric temperature 100°C
Light gas concentration (H2 + He) 10 vol.%
Year Tests Performed: 1989
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
284
4.1.17 E1-17 - GKSS M1
Test Facility: GKSS
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The GKSS test facility was originally constructed as a height and volume scaled quarterly section of a
pressure suppression system (PSS) intended to be used for nuclear-powered ships. Later on the facility
was modified for the performance of fundamental investigations for PSS of BWR type nuclear power
plants with one or three real sized vent pipes (condensation pipes).
Figure 4.1.17-1 Schema of the GKSS Test Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
285
The principal facility construction is characterised by serial connected vessels: pressure vessel,
drywell vessel, wetwell vessel and expansion room. The total volume is 240 m³ and the maximum design
pressure is 6 bars. The pressure vessel simulates the reactor circuit and provides the mass and energy flow
rates for the simulation of LOCAs. The drywell vessel, which simulates the containment space upstream
the PSS, is linked with the wetwell by 3 vent pipes with real diameter of 610 mm and typical pipe
submergence depth of 2.8 m in the PSS water pool. The wetwell is connected with the expansion vessel to
receive the non-condensable gases escaping from the pool. The vessels walls consist of carbon or stainless
steel with different wall thicknesses. There is no outer heat insulation. The measuring technique was
designed mainly for recording of the fast running pressure changes in the PSS. About 230 gauges were
installed. The sampling frequency of the gauges was 10 ms and for selected measurements 0.15 ms. High
speed cameras were used for visual recording of processes in the wetwell.
The main objective of the GKSS M1 experiment is the simulation of a LB LOCA in a German BWR,
and covers the short-term high dynamic loading of the PSS - the vent clearing and pool swell phases - and
the late phase consisting of air lean and air free steam condensation phase (condensation oscillations and
chugging after about 120 s in this experiment).
References for Experiment:
Aust E., Bültemann, A., Niemann, H.R., Sattler, P., Schwan, H. and Vollbrandt, J., “DAS-Experimente der
GKSS – Bericht über den Hauptversuch M1”, Versuchsbericht Nr. 23 11 AR E 04, GKSS-
Forschungszentrum Geesthacht GmbH, 1981
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial conditions:
o p: 1.02 bar
o Tatm: 25 - 31°C
o TPSS water: 26.5°C
o humidity: 100%
o water level in PSS pool: 3.8 m
Water/steam mixture injection
Exp. range:
o p: up to 2.45 bar
o Δpdrywell-wetwell: up to 95 kPa
o Tatm: up to 145°C
o TPSS water: up to 59°C
Year Tests Performed: 1979
Repeatability Check: N/A
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
286
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
GRS – DRASYS code:
Schwinges B., “Theoretische Untersuchungen zum Verhalten eines Druckabbausystems bei
Störfällen”, GRS-A-969, GRS, Juni 1984
GRS – COCOSYS, ASTEC/CPA:
Nowack H. and Arndt, S., “Post-calculation of the GKSS M1 test with COCOSYS”, GRS-A-3390,
Oktober 2007
Arndt S., “Implementation of a fast running model for the simulation of vent pipes into ASTEC”,
BMWi Project RS 1159, TN-ARN-1/2007 rev. 1, GRS Berlin, December 2007
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
287
4.1.18 E1-18 - MISTRA ISP-47
Test Facility: MISTRA
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
The MISTRA facility (~100 m3 free volume) was in the empty configuration with a bottom centered
vertical injection device. This test series corresponds to two steady-states between superheated steam
injection and wall condensation (Phase A: air-steam mixture and Phase B: Air-steam-helium mixture).
Between the two steady-states, helium was added to the main steam injection and transient flows during
helium injection phase were observed.
Figure 4.1.18-1 MISTRA Facility for ISP-47 Test
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
288
Steam injection:
location: lower center
o R = 0 mm
o height = 1285 mm)
nozzle diameter: 200 mm
superheated steam at: 130 g/s, - 200°C
Helium Injection:
flow: 10.6 g/s during 1850 s
Condensers:
3 condensers temperature at 115°C during both phases A and B
References for Experiment:
D. Abdo et al., “ISP47 – Phase A – MISTRA experimental results”, CEA Internal Report
SFME/LTMF/RT/03-011/A, 2003.
D. Abdo et al., “ISP47 – Phase B – MISTRA experimental results”, CEA Internal Report
SFME/LTMF/RT/05-010/A, 2005.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Conditions: Pressure and temperature at room conditions (around 20°C and 1.01 bar) before
preheating phase
Superheated steam injection:
o Qsteam=130 g/s at 200°C during all the test
Helium injection:
o 10.6 g/s during 1850 seconds between the two phases A and B
Steady-state results (mean values)
o Phase A
Tmeam=124°C
Pmean=3.3 bar
o Phase B
Tmeam=128°C
Pmean=5.4 bar
Vertical profiles of gas temperature and gas concentration have been recorded
One radial profile of velocity has been recorded with LDA technique
Condensation distribution along the three condensers is also an interesting result and especially the
behavior during the transient helium injection
Year Tests Performed: 2002-2004
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
289
Repeatability Check: Yes (these tests have been successfully repeated several times in order to get all the
profiles)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
These tests are part of the ISP47 exercise.
E. Studer et al., “International standard problem on containment thermal-hydraulics ISP47: Step 1 - Results
from the MISTRA exercise “, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 237, pp. 536-551, 2007.
H.J. Allelein et al., “International Standard Problem ISP47 on containment thermalhydraulics- Final
report”, NEA/CSNI/R(200)710
Prepared By: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
290
4.1.19 E1-19 - MISTRA M7
Test Facility: MISTRA
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
The MISTRA facility was in the compartmented configuration for these test series. The objective is
to assess the effect of compartments and injection location (upper off-centered) on the steady-state results.
The other boundary conditions were exactly the same as for the MISTRA M series.
Figure 4.1.19-1 MISTRA Facility for M7 Test
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
291
The test was divided into two phases with steady-state in air-steam mixture and air-steam-helium
mixture. Between the two steady-states, helium was added to the main steam mass flow and transient
flows were recorded during the helium injection phase.
Free volume ~100 m3 (with compartment)
Steam injection:
o location: high off centred injection (chimney)
o radius = 1352 mm
o height = 3660 mm)
o nozzle diameter: 72 mm
o superheated steam at: 140 g/s, -200°C during all the phases
Helium Injection:
o flow: 2.4 g/s during 5430 s
Condensers:
o 3 condensers temperature at 100°C during all the phases
References for Experiment:
D. Abdo et al., “M7 – MISTRA Experimental results”, CEA Internal Report SFME/LTMF/RT/07-009/A,
2007.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Conditions: T and P at room conditions (around 20°C and 1.01 bar)
Steam injection
o Di=72 mm
o Ri=1352 mm
o Hi=3660 mm
o Qsteam=140 g/s at 200°C
Helium injection
o Di=72 mm
o Ri=1352 mm
o Hi=3660 mm
o QHe=2.4 g/s at 200°C
o duration 5430 s
3 Condensers at T = 100°C
Phase A: Pmean=2.6 bar
Phase B: Pmean=3.84 bar
Year Tests Performed: 2006
Repeatability Check: Yes (test has been performed two times)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
292
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
M7 has been used by a PhD student of JSI Slovenia to validate the CFD part of TONUS code. This has
been done within the framework of the SARNET project
M. Babic, “Simulation of the MISTRA M7 experiment with the TONUS CFD code”, CEA internal report,
SFME/LTMF/RT/07-052/A, 2007.
Prepared By: E. Studer and I. Tkatschenko (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
293
4.1.20 E1-20 - MISTRA-M8
Test Facility: MISTRA
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
The MISTRA facility was in the compartmented configuration for these test series. The objective is
to assess the effect of compartments and injection location (lower off-centered) on the steady-state results.
The other boundary conditions were exactly the same as for the MISTRA M series.
Figure 4.1.20-1 MISTRA Facility for M8 Test
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
294
The test was only a steady-state in air-steam mixture. LDA radial velocity profiles were recorded
during the steady state.
Free volume ~100 m3 (with compartment)
Steam injection:
o location: lower off centred injection
o radius = 1352 mm
o height = 3660 mm)
o nozzle diameter: 72 mm
o superheated steam at: 140 g/s, - 200°C during all the phases
3 condensers temperature at 100°C during all the phases
References for Experiment:
D. Abdo et al., “M8 – MISTRA Experimental results”, CEA Internal Report SFME/LTMF/RT/06-050/A,
2006.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Conditions: T and P at room conditions (around 20°C and 1.01 bar)
Steam injection:
o Di=72 mm
o Ri=1352 mm
o Hi=1279 mm
o Qsteam=140 g/s at 200°C
Phase A:
o Tmeam=124°C
o Pmean=2.64 bar
Year Tests Performed: 2005 – 2006
Repeatability Check: Yes (the test was run three times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
M8 has been used by a PhD student of University of Pisa to validate the CFD part of TONUS code. This
has been done within the framework of the SARNET project
M. Bucci, “Analysis of the M8 MISTRA test with the TONUS code”, CEA internal report,
SFME/LTMF/RT/07-047/A, 2007.
Prepared By: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
295
4.1.21 E1-21 - MISTRA-MASP
Test Facility: MISTRA
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
MASP test corresponds to spray tests in the MISTRA facility without compartments after a steady-
state condition in air/steam mixtures. Different spray temperatures have been tested and the natural decay
without any spray injection except heat losses has also been recorded for comparison. The initial
conditions are complicated due to the different temperatures of each condenser.
Air-steam steady state at initial conditions
Free volume = 100 m3 (no compartment)
Steam injection:
o location: lower centre
o radius = 0 mm
o height = 1265 mm)
o nozzle diameter: 200 mm
o superheated steam at: 140 g/s, -200°C
3 condensers at different temperature
o 140°C (top and medium condenser) and
o 80°C (lower condenser)
References for Experiment:
D. Abdo et al., “M5-MASP MISTRA experimental results”, CEA internal report, SFME/LTMF/RT/06-
006/A, 2006
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Spray angle: 30°, full cone
Nozzle location: top centered
MASP0: natural decay with only heat losses (injection was stopped prior to the test)
MASP1: 0.87 kg/s of spray at 40°C
MASP2: 0.87 kg/s of spray at 60°C
Year Tests Performed: 2004
Repeatability Check: No
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
296
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
MASP tests have been used in a Spray benchmark organised in the SARNET project
L. Blumenfeld et al., “SARNET spray benchmarks: MISTRA thermalhydraulic part, comparison report”,
CEA internal report, SFME/LTMF/RT07-015/A, 2007
Prepared By: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
297
4.1.22 E1-22 - NUPEC M-7-1 (ISP-35)
Test Facility: NUPEC
Owner Organization: JNES
Experiment Description:
The NUPEC test facility represents a ¼ scaled Japanese PWR with a volume size of 1312 m3 and 25
compartments. The test studied the distribution of hydrogen (simulated by helium) under the influence of a
spray system.
References for Experiment:
OECD/NEA/CSNI, “Final Comparison Report on ISP-35: NUPEC Hydrogen Mixing and Distribution
Test (Test M-7-1)”, NEA/CSNI/R(94)29, 1994.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
He injection: 0 to 0.03 kg/s
Steam injection: 0.08 to 0.03 kg/s
Sprays: 19.4 kg/s
Initial (= max)T: 70°C
Initial (= max) pressure: 140 kPa
Injection Location: Low
Max He-concentration (16 Vol.%)
Year Tests Performed:
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
OECD/NEA/CSNI, “Final Comparison Report on ISP-35: NUPEC Hydrogen Mixing and Distribution
Test (Test M-7-1)”, NEA/CSNI/R(94)29, 1994.
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
298
4.1.23 E1-23 - NUPEC M-8-2
Test Facility: NUPEC
Owner Organization: NUPEC
Experiment Description:
The NUPEC facility is a domed cylinder approximately 10.8 m in diameter, 17.4 m high, and 1310 m3
in volume. The facility contains 28 compartments, of which only 25 are interconnected. The dome
volume constitutes approximately 71% of the total containment volume. The containment is constructed
entirely of carbon steel. The containment shell and floors are 12 mm thick except for the first floor, which
is 16 mm thick. The compartment walls are 4.5 mm thick. The outside of the containment is covered with
a layer of insulation, which is covered by a thin metal sheet to protect from weather damage.
Figure 4.1.23-1 NUPEC Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
299
The NUPEC mixing tests were conducted in a large, 1/4-scale simulated containment. The tests
explored the containment response to steam injection and containment spray actuation. Helium gas was
introduced into the containment as a surrogate for hydrogen. Test M-8-2 included steam injection, which
was injected into the lower steam generator foundation compartment along with the helium. The
containment sprays also operated for the duration of the test. The spray water was cooler than the initial
gas and structure temperatures, and despite the addition of hot steam, was the primary cause of the
temperature changes in the test. This particular test was identified as testing three broad areas: (1)
hydrogen mixing; (2) the temperature distribution and stratification; and (3) the containment spray
performance.
References for Experiment:
Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC), System Safety Department, “Specification of ISP-35 -
NUPEC's Hydrogen Mixing and Distribution Test, Test M-5-5”, ISP35-027, Revision 1, NUPEC,
November 3-4, 1993.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
He (used as surrogate for hydrogen): 0 to 0.3 kg/s
Steam: 0.03 to 0.33 kg/s
Steam temperature: 90 K to 115 K
Containment spray: 0 to 19.4 m3/s
Year Tests Performed: 1993
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: MELCOR code benchmark (part of MELCOR set of benchmark
experiments)
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
300
4.1.24 E1-24 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase A
Test Facility: PANDA
Owner Organization: PSI
Experiment Description:
PANDA is a large-scale thermal-hydraulics facility which was originally scaled to the Simplified
Boiling Water Reactor (SBWR) design that is 1:1 in height and 1:25 for volume and power. The total
height of PANDA facility is 25 m and the maximum operating conditions are 10 bars and 200°C. With
respect to the ESBWR, PANDA has scaling factor of approximately 1:1 in height and about 1:40 for
volume and power. A schematic of the ESBWR design including passive safety systems and the
corresponding PANDA facility configuration is shown in the figure below.
PANDA has a modular structure with six cylindrical pressure vessels representing the relevant
volumes: RPV, DW, WW and GDCS. The total volume of PANDA vessels is 460 m3. A system of lines
and valves allows for interconnecting or isolating the vessels individually for specific test requirements.
The two DW vessels are linked by one large diameter interconnecting pipe (IP) and allow studying gas
distribution in multi-compartment geometries. The two WW vessels are also interconnected but with two
large pipes, one in the gas space region and one in the suppression pool region. Four rectangular pools,
open to the atmosphere, contain four condensers: the Isolation Condenser (IC) is directly connected to the
RPV, while one PCC can be connected to DW1 and two PCCs can be connected to DW2. The large
ESBWR Main Vent (MV) lines are represented in PANDA by two pipes, one from each DW vessel to the
suppression pool of the corresponding WW vessel.
Each MV line is submerged to a depth equivalent to the top of the uppermost ESBWR main LOCA
vent. The MV lines allow flow from the DW to the WW when the corresponding pressure difference
(between DW and WW) exceeds the hydrostatic head corresponding to the main LOCA vent submersion
depth.
Also each of the three PCC condensers has a vent line to the suppression pool. The submersion depth
of the PCC vent lines is lower compared to the MV lines. Two Vacuum Breakers (VB1 and VB2) are
available between the WW and the DW vessels. The vacuum breakers allow a gas flow from the WW gas
space to the DW if the DW pressure becomes lower by a prescribed amount than the WW pressure (for
example in case the PCC units have a condensation rate higher than the steam production rate in the RPV).
A total number of 115 electrical heater elements, with a total power of 1.5 MW, are installed in the lower
part of the RPV. The electrical power can be programmed to follow the specification of the test.
Phase A of the ISP-42 investigated the PCC start-up. The objective of this test was to investigate the
start up of a passive cooling system when steam is injected into a cold vessel filled with air and to observe
the resulting gas mixing and system behaviour. The PANDA facility configuration in this test was
representing the main containment features of the Generation III+ SBWR/ESBWR.
References for Experiment:
ISP-42 (PANDA tests) Blind Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)6, May 2003
ISP42 (PANDA Tests) Open Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)7, May 2003
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
301
Figure 4.1.24-1 Comparison Between ESBWR and PANDA Facility
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Containment pressure up to ~3.2 bar
Test duration: ~5400 s,
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
ISP-42 (PANDA tests) Blind Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)6, May 2003
ISP42 (PANDA Tests) Open Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)7, May 2003
Prepared By: D. Paladino (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
302
4.1.25 E1-25 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase C
Test Facility: PANDA
Owner Organization: PSI
Experiment Description:
The Phase C of the ISP-42 addressed the normal PCCs operation in case of LOCA. The test simulates
the long-term decay heat removal from the containment with three PCCs operating. PCC operation and
self-adjustment are functions of decay heat curve decrease.
The PANDA facility configuration in this test was representing the main containment features of the
Generation III+ SBWR/ESBWR
References for Experiment:
ISP-42 (PANDA tests) Blind Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)6, May 2003
ISP42 (PANDA Tests) Open Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)7, May 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Drywell (containment) pressure up to ~2.9 bar
Test duration ~2 hours
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
ISP-42 (PANDA tests) Blind Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)6, May 2003
ISP42 (PANDA Tests) Open Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)7, May 2003
Prepared By: D. Paladino (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
303
4.1.26 E1-26 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase E
Test Facility: PANDA
Owner Organization: PSI
Experiment Description:
The Phase E of the ISP-42 addressed the release of trapped air. The test objective is to investigate the
effect of release of hidden air into a dead-end drywell compartment (DW1).
The PANDA facility configuration in this test was representing the main containment features of the
Generation III+ SBWR/ESBWR
References for Experiment:
ISP-42 (PANDA tests) Blind Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)6, May 2003
ISP42 (PANDA Tests) Open Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)7, May 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Drywell pressure up to ~3.3 bar
Time duration: ~5000 s
Year Tests Performed: 1988
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
ISP-42 (PANDA tests) Blind Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)6, May 2003
ISP42 (PANDA Tests) Open Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)7, May 2003
Prepared By: D. Paladino (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
304
4.1.27 E1-27 - PANDA ISP-42, Phase F
Test Facility: PANDA
Owner Organization: PSI
Experiment Description:
The Phase F of the ISP-42 was performed with the objective is to investigate the release of helium
into the RPV and to observe the stratification in the drywell and the resulting effect on the system pressure.
The PANDA facility configuration in this test was representing the main containment features of the
Generation III+ SBWR/ESBWR
References for Experiment:
ISP-42 (PANDA tests) Blind Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)6, May 2003
ISP42 (PANDA Tests) Open Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)7, May 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Drywell pressure up to ~5 bar
Time duration: ~5000 s
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
ISP-42 (PANDA tests) Blind Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)6, May 2003
ISP42 (PANDA Tests) Open Phase Comparison Report, NEA/CSNI/R(2003)7, May 2003
Prepared By: D. Paladino (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
305
4.1.28 E1-28 - PANDA BC4
Test Facility: PANDA
Owner Organization: PSI
Experiment Description:
The SWR-1000 BWR (the actual acronym is KERENA) design passively transfers decay heat from
the reactor pressure vessel to core flooding pools, which are located in the upper part of the DW and
gradually start heating the DW with steam. Containment cooling condensers installed above the core
flooding pools condense steam from the gaseous mixture present within the DW. Schematically how the
SWR-1000 building condenser is represented in PANDA is shown in the figure. These condensers consist
of inclined finned tube. The low and high ends of their secondary sides are connected to the bottom and to
the higher level of the dryer/separator storage pool, which is situated on top of the containment. The
containment cooling condenser system of the KERENA reactor is represented in PANDA at about 1:26
scale, except for the dryer/separator storage pool, which is much smaller, leading to a time compression
factor of about 8 for the transient system tests. Different type of tests were performed, based on different
small, medium and large-break LOCAs with and without core degradation, in the former case with helium
injected to simulate the release of hydrogen. The test series as a whole identified important containment
phenomena and successfully demonstrated the robustness of the KERENA containment cooling system.
The PANDA BC4 test has been performed to investigate small break loss of coolant accident with
core overheat. The system pressurization under the mitigation effects of the building condenser, as well as
venting to the wetwell through the hydrogen overflow pipe, are addressed in this test. The test is directly
related to the Generation III+ KERENA (formerly identified as SWR1000).
References for Experiment:
J. Dreier et al., “The PANDA tests for the SWR1000 passive containment cooling system”, ICONE-7316,
Tokyo, Japan, 1999
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Containment pressure: Start/end: ~1.9 - 4.5 bar
Drywell temperature: ~110°C - 150°C
Test duration: ~23 hours
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: N/A
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
306
Figure 4.1.28-1 Layout of the PANDA Facility
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: D. Paladino (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
307
4.1.29 E1-29 - SVUSS G02
Test Facility: SVUSS
Owner Organization: SVUSS & GRS
Experiment Description:
The facility at SVUSS Bechovice (Czech Republic) was designed to conduct experiments with
regards to the thermal-hydraulic loads applied to a bubble condenser containment, of a VVER-440/V-213
reactor, during design basis accidents. There were two test facility configurations; here only the vertical
vessel configuration (valid for the G0) test is described. The facility is a small-scaled, integral test facility
with a total containment model volume of ~21 m³, i.e., 1:2200 scaled to NPP (average volume scale).
A reactor pressure vessel model serves as source of hot pressurised water with parameters (pressure
and temperature) corresponding to real nuclear power plant coolant parameters. The containment model
comprises the following parts:
discharge tube from the reactor pressure vessel with quick opening starting device;
horizontal vessel modelling the hermetic compartments;
the vertical vessel containing a Bubble Condenser (BC) model, the gas shaft and a part of the air
trap model including a model of the DN500 check valve connecting the BC and the air trap;
pressure vessel located outside the laboratory which complements the air trap volume.
The BC model contains one gap/cap system, a little shorter in length, but with original height
parameters. Its scaling was determined according to water volumes in the model and in the real BC. The
facility walls are made from steel with a thickness between 3 and 12 mm. A part of the horizontal vessel
inner surface is covered by rubber insulation.
References for Experiment:
Wolff H., Arndt S. (GRS Berlin), Suchanek M. (SVUSS Prag-Bechovice), “DRASYS Post-test Analysis
for the SVUSS Experiment G02”, BMBF-contract RS 1045, Bilateral German-Czech
cooperation, Technical Note TN-WFF-1/97, Berlin/Prague, September 1997
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial conditions:
o P: 1.0 bar
o Tatm: 6 - 28°C
o TBC water: 28°C
Water/steam mixture injection
Experiment range:
o p: up to 2.3 bar
o Δp BC walls: up to 18.5 kPa
o Tatm: up to 120°C
o TBC water: up to 35°C
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
308
Figure 4.1.29-1 SVUSS Vertical vessel (~11 m³) with Bubble Condenser
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Bilateral German-Czech cooperation – DRASYS code:
Wolff H., Arndt S. (GRS Berlin), Suchanek M. (SVUSS Prag-Bechovice), “DRASYS Post-test Analysis
for the SVUSS Experiment G02”, BMBF-contract RS 1045, Technical Note TN-WFF-1/97, Berlin/Prague,
September 1997
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
309
4.1.30 E1-30 - THAI TH1
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. It is well insulated by 0.12 m rockwool. TH1 was a commissioning test with
homogeneously mixed atmosphere. In the first phase the vessel was heated up by steam injection. There
were also phases where pressure and temperatures were held constant, without and with operating cooler
mantels and a phase of natural cool-down. Especially the first phase is suited to check the mass and energy
balance of computer codes.
References for Experiment:
Kanzleiter et al., “Experimental Facility and Program for the Investigation of Open Questions on Fission
Product Behaviour in the Containment (THAI) Part 1”, Becker Technologies GmbH, Report No. 1501218
– S1, October 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure up to 3.5 bar
Atmospheric temperatures up to 125°C
Year Tests Performed: 2001
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
310
Figure 4.1.30-1 THAI Facility - General Layout with Removable Internals.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
311
4.1.31 E1-31 - THAI TH2
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. It is well insulated by 0.12 m rockwool. TH2 was a commissioning test. It started with
a 2.5 h steam injection at an elevated position establishing an atmospheric stratification with high steam
content in the upper part of the vessel and pure air in the lower part. The stratification was dissolved from
its bottom, first by producing steam by sump heating, then by steam injection near the bottom. This
process lasted 10 h and was well predicted by 3 independent COCOSYS calculations, which were
performed one year before the commissioning of THAI.
References for Experiment:
Same as for test E1-30 - THAI TH1.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure up to 3.2 bar
Atmospheric temperatures up to 120°C
Year Tests Performed: 2001
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Schwarz et al., “Blind COCOSYS calculations for the Containment Experiment ThAI TH2”, Annual
Meeting on Nuclear Technology 2002, Proceedings page 95
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
312
4.1.32 E1-32 - THAI TH7
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. It is well insulated by 0.12 m rockwool. During the first 2000 s of test TH7 steam was
injected at an elevated position establishing an atmospheric stratification. Then steam was injected near
the bottom against an impingement plate, rapidly dissolving the stratification. This was followed by a
phase without injection, and a phase with wall heating.
References for Experiment:
Same as for test E1-30 - THAI TH1.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure up to 1.3 bar
Atmospheric temperatures up to 100°C
Year Tests Performed: 2002
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Fischer, Rastogi: “Containment Code Benchmark Abschlussbericht zum Vorhaben 1501232”, Becker
Technologies GmbH Eschborn (August 2003)
Fischer et al., “Containment Code Comparison Exercise on Experiment ThAI TH7”, NURETH 10, Seoul,
Korea, October 5-9 2003
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
313
4.1.33 E1-33 - THAI TH10
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. It is well insulated by 0.12 m rockwool. TH10 was a repetition of the HDR E11.2 test in
a small scale. It started with a steam release at an elevated position, followed by a helium release at the
same position. Then the steam injection was switched towards the bottom of the facility. The outside
spraying of test E11.2 was simulated in TH10 by cooling with the upper cooling mantle. Similar
atmospheric conditions and the same phenomena as in E11.2 where achieved in TH10. First an
atmospheric stratification with steam, air and helium in the upper part of the vessel and almost pure air in
the lower part was established. The stratification was not dissolved by the steam injection near the bottom,
but it was partially dissolved by the outside cooling at the upper part of the facility.
References for Experiment:
Same as for test E1-30 - THAI TH1.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure up to 1.9 bar
Atmospheric temperatures up to 110°C
Helium concentration up to 22 Vol.%
Year Tests Performed: 2003
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
314
4.1.34 E1-34 - THAI TH13 (ISP-47)
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. It is well insulated by 0.12 m rockwool. TH13 was the base of Step 2 of the ISP-47.
The test consisted of four subsequent phases. First helium, then steam were injected at an elevated
position, establishing a steam-air-helium cloud in the upper part of the facility, while there was almost pure
air in the lower part. In the 3rd
phase a horizontal steam jet was injected near the bottom of the vessel.
Because of its low velocity, after a short distance, the jet changed into a buoyant plume, rising in upward
direction. Up to the end of the 3rd
phase the plume had partially dissolved the steam-air-helium cloud from
its bottom. During the 4th phase, the remaining stratification was conserved. Observations made over the
course of TH13 were difficult to predict through the use of computer codes, because differences between
the simulation and the experiment in preceding phases had an impact in later phases, and because it was
especially difficult to simulate the transition of the horizontal jet into a buoyant plume, which then rose,
partially into the inner cylinder, and partially into the annulus of the facility, where it could be partially
blocked by the horizontal condensate trays.
References for Experiment:
Kanzleiter et al., “Experimental Facility and Program for the Investigation of Open Questions on Fission
Product Behaviour in the Containment (ThAI Phase II) Part 1”, Becker Technologies GmbH, Report No.
1501272 – S1, March 2007
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure up to 1.5 bar
Atmospheric temperatures up to 70°C
Helium concentration up to 30 Vol.%
Year Tests Performed: 2002
Repeatability Check: Test TH12 confirmed the results of TH13
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
“International Standard Problem ISP-47 on Containment Thermalhydraulics,” Final Report,
NEA/CSNI/R(2007) 10, (Sept. 2007)
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
315
4.1.35 E1-35 - THAI HM2
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. HM2 was the base of an international code benchmark. It was designed to investigate
open questions of the ISP-47. Compared to THAI - TH13, it had a simplified test arrangement and test
procedure, along with more gas concentration measurements (especially in the upper part of the vessel). It
consisted of two phases, with the first involving hydrogen injection, and the establishment of a hydrogen–
air cloud in the upper part of the containment, and second, a vertically directed steam injection near the
bottom of the chamber. Since the injection velocity was low, as it was in test TH13, a buoyant plume rose
upward and gradually dissolved the hydrogen-air cloud from its bottom. The test was conducted until
complete dissolution of the cloud was achieved.
References for Experiment:
Kanzleiter, Fischer: “Quick Look Report, Helium/Hydrogen Material Scaling Test HM-2”, Becker
Technologies GmbH, Eschborn, Germany, Report No. 150 1326 – HM-2 QLR Rev. 3, March 2008
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure up to 1.45 bar
Atmospheric temperatures up to 70°C
Helium concentration up to 37 Vol.%
Year Tests Performed: 2007
Repeatability Check: Yes with Helium instead of H2
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Schwarz et al., “Benchmark on Hydrogen Distribution in a Containment Based on the OECD-NEA THAI
HM-2 Experiment”, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 175, September 2011
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
316
4.1.36 E1-36 - TOSQAN ISP-47
Test Facility: TOSQAN
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
Steam, air, and helium injections in a closed vessel with controlled wall condensation.
The TOSQAN facility is a closed cylindrical vessel (7 m3 volume, 4.8 m height, 1.5 m internal
diameter), having walls that are thermostatically controlled through the use of heated oil circulation in a
double stainless steel shell. The envelope is divided into two zones, in order to fix two different values of
the wall temperature. The top and bottom parts of the vessel, called the ‘hot wall’ or ‘non condensing
wall’, have the same temperature. On the middle zone, called the ‘cold wall’ or the ‘condensing wall’,
which constitutes the condensation zone, different, colder temperatures are imposed.
The TOSQAN ISP-47 test sequence is composed of a succession of different steady-states obtained
by varying the injection conditions in the test vessel, leading to three steady-states of the air-steam mixture
at two different pressure levels, and one steady-state of the air-steam-helium mixture. Each steady-state is
reached naturally by keeping a constant steam injection flow rate, as well as a constant wall condensation
mass flow-rate.
The available instrumentation in the TOSQAN condensation tests includes injection mass flow-rates
(steam and/or non condensable gas), gas temperature (over 90 thermocouples in the bulk and 20 located on
the walls), steam and/or helium/non condensable gas volume fraction measured by mass spectrometry (54
points), vessel total pressure and wall condensation mass flow-rate. The facility provides a number of
different optical diagnostics at 4 different levels with 14 viewing windows, as well, allowing steam
concentration (through spontaneous Raman spectrometry), velocities, and turbulence measurements to be
made.
References for Experiment:
J. Malet, E. Porcherona and J. Vendel, “OECD International Standard Problem ISP-47 on containment
thermal-hydraulics—Conclusions of the TOSQAN part”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 240,
Issue 10, October 2010, pp. 3209-3220
Cornet P., Malet J., Porcheron E., Vendel J., Studer E., Caron-Charles M. - ISP 47 – International Standard
Problem on Containment Thermal-Hydraulics – Step 1:TOSQAN – MISTRA – Specification of the
calculations – IRSN/DPEA/SERAC Technical Report 02-44 June 2002.
Malet J., Porcheron E., Cornet P., Brun P., Norvez O. and Menet B., Thause L., ISP 47 – International
Standard Problem on Containment Thermal-Hydraulics – Step 1: TOSQAN – MISTRA - Phase A: air -
steam mixtures, TOSQAN experimental results of air-steam phases Technical report,
IRSN/DPEA/SERAC/LPMAC/02-45, 2002.
Porcheron E., Nuboer A., Brun P., Cornet P., Malet J., Menet B., Thause L., Vendel J., ISP 47 –
International Standard Problem on Containment Thermal-Hydraulics – Step 1: TOSQAN – MISTRA –
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
317
Phase B: air-helium steam mixtures – TOSQAN experimental results of the air-helium-steam phase, Rev.
0, 2003.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Steam injection 1 to 12 g/s
Helium injection: 1 g/s
Gas temperature: around 115° C
Wall temperature: 107 and 123°C
Pressure: from 1 to 3 bar
Year Tests Performed: 2002-2003
Repeatability Check: Yes (more than 20 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
J. Malet, E. Porcherona, J. Vendel, “OECD International Standard Problem ISP-47 on containment
thermal-hydraulics—Conclusions of the TOSQAN part”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 240,
Issue 10, October 2010, pp. 3209-3220
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
318
4.1.37 E1-37 - TOSQAN Condensation Tests
Test Facility: TOSQAN
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
A series of 7 TOSQAN condensation tests performed on the same basis as the TOSQAN ISP-47 test
(E1-36), but with different steam mass-flow-rate, and condensing and non-condensing wall temperatures.
The available instrumentation in the TOSQAN condensation tests includes measurements of the
injection mass flow-rates (steam and/or non condensable gas), the gas temperature (over 90 thermocouples
in the bulk and 20 located on the walls), the steam and/or helium/non condensable gas volume fraction,
measured by mass spectrometry (54 points), the total pressure in the vessel, and the wall condensation
mass flow-rate. The facility also provides a number of locations at which to perform optical diagnostics at
4 different levels with 14 viewing windows, which allows steam concentration (through spontaneous
Raman spectrometry), velocity, and turbulence measurements to be made.
References for Experiment:
J. Malet, E. Porcheron, F. Dumay and J. Vendel, Code-experiment comparison on wall condensation tests
in the presence of non-condensable gases – numerical calculations for containment studies, under
submission in Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2012
Internal reports
Porcheron E., Malet J., Expérience TOSQAN: essai d’injection de vapeur dans de l’air en présence de
condensation en paroi - Rapport d’essai Ref. 1, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC n°03-18, 2003.
Malet J., Projet TOSQAN: essai d’injection de vapeur dans de l’air en présence de condensation en paroi -
Rapport d’essai n°2, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC n°03-02, 2003.
Malet J., Porcheron E., Projet TOSQAN: essai d’injection de vapeur dans de l’air en présence de
condensation en paroi - Rapport d’essai n°3, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC n°03-03, 2003.
Malet J., Porcheron E., Projet TOSQAN: essai d’injection de vapeur dans de l’air en présence de
condensation en paroi - Rapport d’essai n°6, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC n°03-04, 2003.
Malet J., Porcheron E., Projet TOSQAN: essai d’injection de vapeur dans de l’air en présence de
condensation en paroi - Rapport d’essai n°7, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC n°03-05, 2003.
Malet J., Porcheron E., Projet TOSQAN: essai d’injection de vapeur dans de l’air en présence de
condensation en paroi - Rapport d’essai n°8, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC n°03-06, 2003.
Malet J., Porcheron E., Projet TOSQAN: essai d’injection de vapeur dans de l’air en présence de
condensation en paroi - Rapport d’essai n°9b, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC n°03-07, 2003.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
319
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Steam injection 1 to 12 g/s
Helium injection: 1 g/s
Gas temperature: around 115°C
Wall temperature: 107 and 123°C
Pressure: from 1 to 3 bar
Year Tests Performed: 2002-2003
Repeatability Check: Yes (more than 20 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
320
4.1.38 E1-38 - TOSQAN Test 113
Test Facility: TOSQAN
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
This experiment involved cold spray injection in a stratified layer of helium and dry air. The
TOSQAN facility is a closed cylindrical vessel (7 m3 volume, 4 m high, 1.5 m internal diameter). The
vessel walls are thermostatically controlled by heated oil circulation. The inner spray system is located 65
cm from the top of the enclosure on the vertical axis. It is composed of a single nozzle producing a full-
cone water spray. This nozzle can be moved along the vertical axis in order to perform measurements at
different distances from the spray nozzles under steady-state conditions. In the lower part of the vessel, the
water impacting the sump is removed to avoid water accumulation and to limit evaporation.
The TOSQAN 113 spray test sequence consists on upper radial injections of helium at a given flow-
rate (around 1 g/s) in a dry air closed vessel at ambient pressure. When the vessel relative pressure reaches
1 bar, helium injection is stopped. A delay of 400 s is applied before spray activation. During this time,
mass spectrometry measurements are performed in order to characterize initial stratification of helium and
to check the repeatability of this stratification. For this test, the walls are not thermostatically controlled
and no laser diagnostics are performed.
The available instrumentation on TOSQAN spray tests includes measurements of the mass flow-rate,
temperature, and pressure of the water spray injected, the mass flow-rate and temperature of the water
removed (or drained) to the sump, the mass flow-rate of injected steam and helium, the gas composition
measurements, temperature measured by protected thermocouples, volume fraction measured by mass
spectrometry and Raman spectroscopy, and vessel total pressure. Gas temperature and volume fraction are
also measured in the spray zone. For droplet measurements, available techniques are droplet velocity
measured by PIV, droplet size, as measured by out-of-focus visualization, and droplet temperature.
References for Experiment:
Malet et al., Spray in containment: final results of the SARNET spray benchmark, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Volume 241, 2011, pp. 2162-2171
Internal report
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Poulizac A., Rochas V. TOSQAN Experimental programme.
Spray test N°113. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 05-22, 2005.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
321
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Helium volume fraction around 40%
Ambient pressure and temperature
Droplet between 100 and 200 µm
Year Tests Performed: 2005
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Malet et al., Spray in containment: final results of the SARNET spray benchmark, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Volume 241, 2011, pp. 2162-2171
Malet J., Vizet J., SARNET spray benchmark, dynamic part: TOSQAN test 113, code-experiment
comparison, IRSN Technical Report DSU/SERAC/LEMAC/08-04, 2008.
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
322
4.1.39 E1-39 - TOSQAN Spray Tests
Test Facility: TOSQAN
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
The TOSQAN facility is a closed cylindrical vessel (7 m3 volume, 4 m high, 1.5 m internal diameter).
The vessel walls are thermostatically controlled by heated oil circulation. The inner spray system is
located 65 cm from the top of the enclosure on the vertical axis. It is composed of a single nozzle
producing a full-cone water spray. This nozzle can be moved along the vertical axis in order to perform
measurements at different distances from the spray nozzles under steady-state conditions. In the lower part
of the vessel, the water impacting the sump is removed to avoid water accumulation and to limit
evaporation.
These 12 TOSQAN spray tests are based on the following sequence. An initial pressurization (under
dry air initial conditions) is performed in the vessel with superheated steam up to around 2.5 bars. Then,
steam injection is stopped and spraying starts simultaneously at a given water temperature (around 25°C to
60°C) and water mass flow-rate (around 10 to 50 g/s). The transient state of depressurization starts and
continues until an equilibrium phase. Some of the tests include helium injection as well.
The available instrumentation on TOSQAN spray tests includes measurements of the mass flow-rate,
temperature and pressure of the water spray injected, the mass flow-rate and temperature of the water
removed (or drained) to the sump, the mass flow-rate of injected steam and helium, gas composition
measurements, temperature measured by protected thermocouples, volume fraction measured by mass
spectrometry and Raman spectroscopy, and vessel total pressure. Gas temperature and volume fraction are
also measured in the spray zone. For droplet measurements, available techniques are droplet velocity
measured by PIV, droplet size, as measured by out-of-focus visualization, and droplet temperature.
References for Experiment:
Malet et al., Spray in containment: final results of the SARNET spray benchmark, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Volume 241, 2011, pp. 2162-2171
Internal reports
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E. TOSQAN Experimental Programme. Spray test N°101. Rapport
DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 05-11 anglais, 2005.
Lemaitre P., Narbonne G., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN.
Essais Aspersion N°103 et 104. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 05-35, 2005.
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essai Aspersion
N°102 à buse centrée. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 06-21, 2006.
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essais Aspersion
N°105 et 106 à buse centrée. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 06-28, 2006.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
323
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essais Aspersion
N°107 et 108 à buse centrée. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 06-29, 2006.
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essais Aspersion
N°109 et 110 à buse centrée. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 06-30, 2006.
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essai Aspersion
N°111 à buse centrée. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 06-31, 2006.
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essai Aspersion
N°101H à buse centrée. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 06-39, 2006.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Helium volume fraction around 40%
Ambient pressure and temperature
Droplet between 100 and 200 µm
Year Tests Performed: 2005
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Malet et al., Spray in containment: final results of the SARNET spray benchmark, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Volume 241, 2011, pp. 2162-2171
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
324
4.1.40 E1-40 - University of Wisconsin Flat Plate Condensation Tests
Test Facility: University of Wisconsin Flat Plate
Owner Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison
Experiment Description:
Forced convection steam condensation tests on a ~2 m long flat plate (vertical, horizontal upward
facing, inclined downward facing surface).
References for Experiment:
Barry, J.J., “Effects of Interfacial Structure on Film Condensation”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-
Madison, 1987
Huhtiniemi, I.K., “Condensation in the Presence of Noncondensable Gas: Effect of Surface Orientation”,
Ph.D. Thesis, Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1991.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vapour Temperature: 50 to 99.2°C
Pressure: ~101 kPa
Vapour Velocity: 0.6 to 7 m/s
steam concentration: 13 - 100% (saturated)
Wall Temperature: 25 - 40°C
Average Heat Transfer Coefficient: 89 to 6,208 W/m2-K
Year Tests Performed: 1987 & 1991
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Chin, Y.S., and M. Krause, “Validation of GOTHIC-IST 6.1 and 6.1b for Modeling Condensation
Heat/Mass Transfer in CANDU Containment Analysis”, AECL Report No. RC-2574, Rev. 0, 2001
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
325
4.1.41 E1-41 - CONAN SARNET Benchmark No. 1
Test Facility: CONAN
Owner Organization: University of Pisa
Experiment Description:
The CONAN facility (CONdensation with Aerosols and Noncondensable gases) is installed at the
Scalbatraio Laboratory of the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Nucleare e della Produzione of the
University of Pisa.
The test section of the CONAN facility is a vertical square cross-section channel, with a height of 2.0
m and sides of 0.34 m (see figure below). The mixture of steam and air enters the channel in downward
flow at the channel top at atmospheric pressure. The walls of the channel, except of the cooling plate, are
nearly adiabatic; so, negligible heat and mass transfer occurs on them. A secondary water flow, nearly at
atmospheric pressure, cools the back side of the 0.045 m thick 5083 aluminium cooling plate, flowing in
upward motion through a 0.005 m deep, 0.35 m wide channel.
Secondary Coolant in
Patm, Wsec, Tsec,in
Secondary Coolant out
Tsec,out
Primary Steam + Air in Patm, Vmixt, RH=100%,
Tavg,chann,
Primary Steam + Air out Condensate Flow
?
Surface Temperature and Heat Flux
along the plate centreline ?
z
y
PRIMARY TEST CHANNEL GEOMETRY Square cross-section
Length = 2 m
Sides = 0.34 m
SECONDARY COOLANT CHANNEL GEOMETRY
Rectangular cross-section Length = 2 m
Width = 0.35 m
Depth = 0.005 m
PRIMARY TEST CHANNEL
OUTER SURFACE
COOLED PLATE
SECONDARY
COOLANT CHANNEL
Proposed 2D domain
Figure 4.1.41-1 Layout of CONAN SARNET Benchmark No. 1
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
326
This test facility was used to perform 5 tests (used in the SARNET Condensation Benchmark 1
exercise) on forced convection condensation. The test conditions are listed below in the “Range of Key
Experimental Parameters”.
References for Experiment:
Ambrosini, W., Bucci, M., Forgione, N., Oriolo, F. and Paci, S., “Data for a Numerical Benchmark on
Condensation Modelling in the frame of SARnet CAM Working Package”, University of Pisa, 2007
December 20.
Ambrosini, W., Bucci, M., Forgione, N., Oriolo, F., and Paci, S., “Quick Look on SARnet Condensation
Benchmark-1 Results, Step 1 – 10 kW Heating Power Exercise”, University of Pisa, 2008 February 22.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Inlet Velocity: 1.5 to 3.6 m/s
Inlet Relative Humidity: 87% to 100%
Inlet Gas Temperature: 75 to 82.7C
Pressure: atmospheric
Cooling Water Temperature (at inlet): 31C
Cooling Water Flowrate: 1.2 kg/s
Year Tests Performed: 2000s
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: SARNET Benchmark (see references above)
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL) and W. Ambrosini (University of Pisa)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
327
4.1.42 E1-42 - CONAN SARNET2 Benchmark No. 2
Test Facility: CONAN
Owner Organization: University of Pisa
Experiment Description:
A description of the test facility is provided in test E1-41 - CONAN SARNET Benchmark No. 1.
This benchmark involved 10 tests and the conditions of those tests are provided in the “range of key
experimental parameters” below.
References for Experiment:
Ambrosini, W., Bucci, M., Forgione, N., Oriolo, F. and Paci, S., “SARnet-2 Condensation Benchmark No.
2, Data for a Numerical Benchmark on Condensation Modelling Proposed in the Frame of the SARnet-2
NoE”, University of Pisa, DIMNP RL1225(2009) - Rev. 1, 2009 November 16.
Ambrosini, W., Bucci, M., Forgione, N., Oriolo, F. and Paci, S., “Quick Look Report on SARnet-2
Condensation Benchmark-2 Results”, University of Pisa, DIMNP RL 1252(2010), 2010 June 15.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Inlet Velocity: 2.6 m/s
Inlet Relative Humidity: 100%
Inlet Gas Temperature: 75.6 – 97.1C
Pressure: atmospheric
Cooling Water Temperature (at inlet): 30.4 – 42.3C
Cooling Water Flowrate: 1.3 – 1.8 kg/s
Year Tests Performed: 2000s
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: SARNET2 Benchmark No. 2 exercise (see references above)
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL) and W. Ambrosini (University of Pisa)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
328
4.1.43 E1-43 - CSTF Tests
Test Facility: CSTF
Owner Organization: Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL)
Experiment Description:
The Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL) Containment Systems Test Facility
(CSTF) was used to investigate hydrogen concentration and mixing for ice condenser containment
configurations. These experiments investigated the degree of mixing and the potential for either
“pocketing” of hydrogen or stratification of hydrogen-rich mixtures. Hydrogen-steam and helium-steam
mixtures were investigated on a scaled basis for releases from a small pipe break in the reactor coolant
system (RCS), or from the pressurizer relief tank through a failed rupture disk. For all but one of these
experiments, helium was used as a simulant for hydrogen. In the other test, hydrogen was used with a
nitrogen atmosphere in the CSTF vessel. Experiments were performed with and without forced circulation
flow to investigate the potential for hydrogen accumulation for different accident scenarios.
References for Experiment: Not provided
Range of Key Experimental Parameters: Not provided
Year Tests Performed: 1982 - 1984
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: MELCOR 1.8.2
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
329
4.1.44 E1-44 - Marviken Test 18
Test Facility: Marviken
Owner Organization: Studsvik
Experiment Description:
The MARVIKEN station was originally built to operate as a boiling heavy-water direct-cycle reactor
with natural circulation. The station had been completed up to acceptance testing including preoperational
light water tests. The main parts of the facility are the pressure vessel and the containment. Discharge
flow from the pressure vessel was fed into the containment through a discharge pipe. The containment
(commercial containment) involves multi-compartment drywell part (1,970 m3) connected to:
i) the wet well (2,149 m3, 556 m3 water pool) by channel-type vent system and header;
ii) 58 vent pipes 5.5 m long, 0.3 m diameter, and 30 vent pipes blocked during the experiment No. 18;
iii) as well as a total vent flow area, activated during the experiment (1.95 m2), and with the initial
submergence of vent pipes of 2.8 m.
Pressure vessel was filled with 278 tons of water, which was heated and pressurized to approximately
4.6 MPa. In all the blow-down tests from No. 18 and beyond, a temperature stratification was established
with about 25° sub-cooling in the lower region, and with saturation temperature in the upper region in
order to prolong the period of sub-cooled single-phase liquid flow into the containment and facilitate the
measurements of the discharge flow rate in the early phase of the blow-down.
Measured parameters:
Pressure and differential pressure in the vessel
Temperature
Mass flow rates, including in the main discharge pipe to measure discharge flow rate in periods of
sub-cooled liquid flow
Liquid level and phase boundary
Impact load
Data accuracy:
Discharge flow rate error: between ±7% and ±20% (for rapid transients)
Specific enthalpy: between -1% and +3%
Flow rate of the air into the wet well: 5-6% (although larger errors exist for short periods)
Steam flow rate into the wet well: 10-15% for stable flow rates and 30-40% for strong flow
variations.
Water flow rate into the wet well: no reasonable accuracy can be claimed
Gas velocity in downcomers: ±5%
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
330
References for Experiment:
The following MXB reports are available at the OECD/NEA:
The Marviken full scale Containment Experiments. Description of the test facility, MXB-101
The Marviken full scale Containment Experiments. Measurement system, MXB-102
The Marviken full scale Containment Experiments. Data accuracy, MXB-105
The Marviken full scale Containment Experiments. Blowdown 18 results, MXB-218
The Marviken full scale Containment Experiments. Appendix to Blowdown 18 results, MXB-218 App
The Marviken full scale Containment Experiments. Summary report, MXB-301
The Marviken full scale Containment Experiments. Report abstracts, MXB-401
J-E Marklund, Summary Report for ISP-17, International Standard Problem for Containment Codes on
Blowdown No. 18 in the Marviken Full Scale Experiments, STUDSVIK/NR-84/464 (1984)
Jan-Erik Marklund, Preliminary Data Comparison Report for ISP-17 - An international containment
standard problem based on the Marviken full scale experiment Blowdown No 18,
STUDSVIK/NR-84/423 (84-06-04), referenced also as CSNI Report No 103.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Conditions:
o Vessel, see experiment description
o Containment:
dry well (P= 0.105 MPa, T= 37.5°C)
wet well (P= 0.105 MPa, T= 16°C)
Final conditions
o Dry well pressure ~0.175 MPa
Year Tests Performed: 1976
Repeatability Check: Yes (tests of the same type have been performed)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
The Experiment No. 18 has been used for the CSNI ISP-17 where participants utilized 5 computer codes
(ARIANN-1 and CONTEMPT-LT/26 for Italy, CONTEMPT-LT/28 for Finland, COPTA-7 for Sweden
and ZOCO-V for the Netherlands); see the CSNI Report No 103 mentioned above.
Prepared By: A. Amri (OECD)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
331
4.1.45 E1-45 - CARAIDAS EVAP and COND tests
Test Facility: CARAIDAS
Owner Organization: IRSN (with EDF partial finding)
Experiment Description:
This experiment investigated single droplets falling down in a pressurized homogeneous air-steam
mixture, looking at the diameter droplet evolution at two levels. The IRSN CARAIDAS experimental set-
up was used to study drop evolution under representative conditions of post-accident atmosphere. The
cylindrical enclosure is of 5 m high and 0.6 m inner diameter. Homogeneous conditions are obtained, and
gas temperatures set from 20 to 160°C, absolute pressures set from 1 to 8 bar, and relative humidities set
from 3% up to 95%. The drop generator is located at the top of the vessel in order to keep it at the same
temperature as the surrounding vessel. It produces monodisperse water droplets at sizes that can be set
from 200 to 700 µm in diameter. Drop injection temperature is set between 20 and 80°C by an electric
heater. Initial droplet size, velocity, and temperature are determined experimentally for each test. So-
called ‘evaporation’ and ‘condensation’ tests are performed.
Drop diameter optical measurements are performed at 3 elevations.
Evaporation tests EVAP3, EVAP13, EVAP18, EVAP21 and EVAP24
Condensation tests: COND1, COND2, COND7 and COND10
References for Experiment:
J. Malet, SARNET-2: Droplet heat and mass transfer elementary benchmark: comparison report, IRSN
report IRSN/DSU/SERAC/LEMAC/11-04, February 2011
Internal reports
J.B. Coreau, D. Ducret, D. Roblot, J. Vendel, Programme Aspersion Rapport D’Essais de la Campagne
Evaporation Sur Caraidas Technical report, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC/LPMC/97-07
D. Ducret, D. Roblot, J. Vendel, Programme Aspersion Campagne D’Essais Condensation Sur Caraidas
Technical report, IRSN/DPEA/SERAC/LPMC/98-15
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas temperature: 20 to 140°C
Pressure: 1 to 5 bar
Droplet size: 200 to 600 µm
Year Tests Performed: 1998-1999
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
332
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Internal IRSN validation of ACACIA, CASPER and ASTEC
SARNET-2: Droplet heat and mass transfer elementary benchmark: comparison report
J. MALET, IRSN report IRSN/DSU/SERAC/LEMAC/11-04, February 2011
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
333
4.1.46 E1-46 - TOSQAN sump tests
Test Facility: TOSQAN
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
These tests examined evaporation of water over a water sump surface in atmospheres of pressurized
air-steam, air-steam-helium, air-steam-CO2, and air-steam-SF6 mixtures. There were 6 tests under steady-
states evaporative conditions, 2 transient depressurisation tests with sump. In these experiments, wall
condensation also occurs.
The TOSQAN facility is a closed cylindrical vessel (7 m3 volume, 4.8 m height, 1.5 m internal
diameter), having thermostatically controlled walls by heated oil circulation in a double stainless steel
shell. The TOSQAN sump is a small vessel of 350 litres, with an internal diameter of 684 mm, connected
on the basement of the main vessel.
The TOSQAN sump tests are mainly based on the following test sequence: the vessel is initially
closed with dry air at rest at a given thermal equilibrium obtained from the imposed wall temperatures:
‘condensing wall’: middle wall, of 2 m height, at 2.6 m from the bottom of the vessel
‘non-condensing wall’: the remaining walls, including the upper, the lower and the sump walls
At a given time, steam is injected in the vessel, and an equilibrium state is obtained. The total
pressure is constant, and the steam injection mass flow-rate is equal to the wall condensation mass flow-
rate. Following this equilibrium, steam injection is stopped, vessel depressurization occurs and a second
thermal equilibrium state is reached. The water is then injected into the sump. After a given time, the
sump water is heated with a power supply, so that a third steady-state is reached where the sump
evaporation mass flow-rate reaches the value of the middle wall condensation mass flow-rate.
The available instrumentation in the TOSQAN main volume concerns injection mass flow-rates
(steam and/or non condensable gas), gas temperature (over 150 thermocouples), steam and/or helium/non
condensable gas volume fraction measured by mass spectrometry (54 points) and vessel total pressure.
The facility provides also numerous possibilities of optical diagnostics at 4 different levels with 14 viewing
windows.
In the TOSQAN sump, a sampling manifold for mass spectrometry is available above the sump
interface, for gas concentration measurements, as well as three dense bundles of 32 thermocouples
allowing the recording of two horizontal and one vertical temperature profiles.
This is a series of 8 tests (TOSQAN sump tests 201, 202, 203, 204a, 204b, 205, 206 and 207)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
334
References for Experiment:
J. Malet, , M. Bessiron, and C. Perrotina, “Modelling of water sump evaporation in a CFD code for
nuclear containment studies”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 241, Issue 5, May 2011, pp. 1726-
1735
Internal reports
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essais Puisard
N°201, 206 et 207. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 08-20, 2008.
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essais Puisard
N°202 et 203. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 08-14, 2008.
Lemaitre P., Nuboer A., Porcheron E., Rochas V. Programme expérimental TOSQAN. Essais Puisard
N°204A, 204B et 205. Rapport DSU / SERAC / LECEV / 08-19, 2008.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas temperature: around 110°C
Pressure: 2-3 bar
Year Tests Performed: 2008
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Internal IRSN ASTEC/CPA and TONUS-CFD validation
Validation published: J. Malet, M. Bessiron and C. Perrotina, “Modelling of water sump evaporation in a
CFD code for nuclear containment studies”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 241, Issue 5, May
2011, pp. 1726-1735
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
335
4.1.47 E1-47 - CALIST PWR spray test
Test Facility: CALIST
Owner Organization: IRSN (with EDF partial finding)
Experiment Description:
This experiment studied entrainment effects with a real PWR spray nozzle. Exact design and
reference of the nozzles used in many French PWRs (and in some US NPPs). The hollow cone spray had a
flow rate of 1 kg/s at 3.5 bar nozzle pressure.
The CALIST facility (Characterization and Application of Large and Industrial Spray Transfer)
allows global and local spray characterization. The set-up is composed of a hydraulic circuit supplying, for
those experiments, a single spray nozzle with a flow-rate of 1 L/s at a relative pressure of 3.5 bars. The
pulverized water is collected in a 5 m3 pool. The axial position of the spray nozzle can be changed using a
monitored carriage.
For the PWR spray nozzle gas entrainment tests, all measurements were performed in air under
atmospheric conditions. Experimental measurements were performed on a single spray nozzle which is
routinely set up in many Pressurized Water Reactors. This nozzle is generally used with water at a relative
pressure supply of 3.5 bars, producing a mass flow rate of approximately 1 kg/s. Measurements of the
velocities of the fog droplet give some information on the important entrainment of the gas occurring
around this high momentum spray.
Radial profiles of droplet sizes and 3D velocities can be measured at all positions in the spray using
Phase-Doppler Interferometry (PDI) with large focal length lenses. The CALIST facility allows the
estimation of the gas velocity using fog sprays of tiny droplets entrained by the gas.
Experimental results are obtained at several different heights, in terms f radial profiles in four
different directions.
References for Experiment:
Foissac A., Modélisation des interactions entre gouttes en environnement hostile, Thèse de Doctorat de
l’Université Paris VI, 2011.
Malet J., Gas entrainment by one single PWR spray, SARNET-2 Elementary benchmark - Results report,
IRSN/ PSN-RES/SCA/LEMAC/2012-11, 2012.
Foissac A., Malet J., Vetrano M.R., Buchlin J.M., Mimouni S., Feuillebois F., Simonin O., Droplet size
and velocity measurements at the outlet of a hollow-cone spray nozzle, Atomisation and Sprays, Vol. 21,
pp. 893-905, 2011.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
336
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas temperature: ambient
Pressure: ambient
Droplet size: 40 to 800 µm
Year Tests Performed: 2010
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
IRSN-EDF NEPTUNE-CFD and ANSYS validations
Foissac A., Malet J., Mimouni S., Ruyer P., Feuillebois F., Simonin O., Eulerian simulation of interacting
PWR sprays including droplet collisions, accepted for publication in Nuclear technology, 2012.
Prepared By: J. Malet
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
337
4.1.48 E1-48 - MISTRA LOWMA
Test Facility: MISTRA
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
A helium rich layer is formed at the top of the MISTRA facility. Then, upper off-centered injection
of air is performed in order to erode the light gas stratified layer. These tests are part of the OECD SETH
II project and a counterpart experiments with almost the same conditions has been performed in the
PANDA facility for scaling issues. The evolution of the helium stratified layer without any air injection
has also been recorded for comparison.
Figure 4.1.48-1 MISTRA Facility for LOWMA Test
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
338
Free volume = 100 m3 (with compartment)
Air injection:
location: high off centred injection (chimney)
o radius = 1352 mm
o height = 3660 mm
nozzle diameter: 72 mm
different air mass flow-rate at room temperature
References for Experiment:
J. Brinster et al., “OECD-SETHII project: Synthesis report for MISTRA INITIALA/LOWMA tests”, CEA
internal report SFME/LEEF/RT/09-007/A, 2009
E. Studer et al., “Interaction of a light gas stratified layer with an air jet coming from below: large scale
experiments and scaling issues”, CFD for Nuclear Reactor Safety Applications (CFD4NRS-3) Workshop,
Bethesda, 2010 September 14-16
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
MISTRA is initially at room pressure and temperature
A rich Helium layer at the top is created by the use of the four upper radial injector (about 40 vol%
of helium in air)
INITIALA test: evolution of the Helium stratified layer is recorded without air injection
LOWMA4: air injection of 50 g/s
LOWMA3: air injection of 15 g/s
LOWMA2: air injection of 4.5 g/s
LOWMA1: air injection of 1.5 g/s
Year Tests Performed: 2008
Repeatability Check: Yes (LOWMA3 has been repeated six times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
These tests have been submitted to a benchmark exercise organised within the SETH-II project
Prepared By: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
339
4.1.49 E1-49 - PANDA OECD/SETH tests
Test Facility: PANDA
Owner Organization: PSI
Experiment Description:
Two PANDA vessels have been used in the SETH project to represent nuclear containment
compartments. These two vessels, having each a diameter of about 4 m and height of 8 m (the total
volume of the two vessels being about 183 m3), are interconnected by a pipe (IP) of about 1 m diameter.
For the SETH tests, it was necessary to upgrade the auxiliary systems. This included the implementation
of components for reaching the specified vessel wall temperature, and the fluid temperature and
composition. Also, additional components have been included for obtaining the specified injection fluid
flow rate, temperature and composition and components to control the fluid pressure by regulating the
venting flow rate.
Figure 4.1.49-1 PANDA Facility for OECD/SETH Tests
The PANDA instrumentation allows for the measurement of fluid and wall temperatures, absolute and
differential pressures, flow rates, heater power, gas concentrations and flow velocities. The sensors are
implemented in all the compartments of the facility, in the system lines, and in the auxiliary systems. For
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
340
the SETH tests, the measurement grids in the two main vessels have been refined in consideration of the
spatial resolution required in each test, in order to obtain experimental data with a spatial resolution
suitable for advanced code validation.
These are three main series of tests (with a total of 25 tests) addressing with CFD-grade
instrumentation, for a broad range of thermal hydraulic and geometrical conditions basic flow structure,
e.g., wall plume, free plume (the figure shows one of the configuration for free plume with injection line
located in the center of one of the two vessels), horizontal jet. Main phenomena are captured at a large-
scale and in a multi-compartment facility. The main phenomena addressed in the tests, allowed identifying
main parameters leading to gas stratification build-up into the containment. Gas stratification build-up has
high safety relevance for LWR containment because, during a severe accident, it can lead to elevated
hydrogen concentrations, and possibly even to a detonation or explosions.
References for Experiment:
D. Paladino, M. Andreani, R. Zboray and J. Dreier, “Toward a CFD quality database addressing LWR
containment phenomena”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.08.064
O. Auban, R. Zboray and D. Paladino, “Investigation of Large-Scale Gas Mixing and Stratification
Phenomena related to LWR Containment Studies in the PANDA Facility”, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Volume 237, Issue 4, pp. 409-419, February 2007.
D. Paladino, M. Andreani, R. Zboray and J. Dreier, “Flow transport and mixing induced by Horizontal jet
impinging on a vertical wall of the multi-compartment PANDA facility”, Nuclear Engineering and Design,
240 (2010) 2054-2065
D. Paladino, R. Zboray and O. Auban, “The PANDA Tests 9 and 9bis investigating gas mixing and
stratification triggered by low momentum plumes”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 240, Issue 5,
May 2010, pp. 1262-1270
D. Paladino, R. Zboray, P. Benz and M. Andreani, “Three-gas-mixture plume inducing mixing and
stratification in a multi-compartment containment”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 240, Issue 2, pp.
210-220 (2010).
R. Zboray and D. Paladino, “Experiments on basic thermalhydraulic phenomena relevant for LWR-
Containments: gas mixing and transport induced by buoyant jets in a multi-compartment geometry”,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 240, Issue 10, October 2010, pp. 3158-3169
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Two (air-steam, helium-steam) and three gases (helium, steam, air)
Pressures: 1.3 up to 3 bar
Temperature: 76-150°C
Year Tests Performed: 2003-2006
Repeatability Check: Yes
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
341
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
OECD/NEA SETH Seminar 2007 at IRSN.
Two PANDA tests were used within the EU 5TH
FWP ECORA project for code benchmark
Prepared By: D. Paladino (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
342
4.1.50 E1-50 - PANDA OECD/SETH-2
Test Facility: PANDA
Owner Organization: PSI
Experiment Description:
Two PANDA vessels have been used in the SETH-2 project to represent nuclear containment
compartments. These two vessels, having each a diameter of about 4 m and height of 8 m (the total
volume of the two vessels being about 183 m3), are interconnected by a pipe (IP) of about 1 m diameter.
Figure 4.1.50-1 PANDA Facility for OECD/SETH-2 Tests
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
343
Within the SETH-2 project, six series of PANDA tests (with a total of 24 tests) were performed. The
tests addressed at large scale with CFD-grade instrumentation, hydrogen (simulated using helium)
stratification break-up in a containment induced by:
Basic phenomena such as negatively buoyant vertical (series ST1) or horizontal (series ST2)
jet/plume.
Operation of safety components such as containment spray (series ST3), containment cooler
(series ST4), heat source simulating thermal effect of the recombiner (series ST5). The figure
shows the two PANDA vessels in one of the ST5 tests with the heat source located in the lower
region of Vessel 1. At the beginning of the test, a helium-rich layer existed in the upper part of
Vessel 1. Then, due to the effects of the flow induced by the heat source, the helium-rich layer
mixed with the containment atmosphere beneath it.
In a dedicated test series (ST6) the effect on gas stratification build-up/break-up after opening of
hatches in containment (series ST6) has been investigated.
The experimental results provide a unique experimental database for the assessment and validation of
the most advanced computational tools used in nuclear safety. This is crucial to increase reliability and
confidence in safety analysis. Moreover with these tests has been possible to analyze the beneficial effect
of mass and energy sources in mixing the containment atmosphere. Component tests allow any possible
undesired effects taking place during the activation of safety systems during postulated severe accident to
be identified. This encourages further analysis which could lead to a refining/improvement of severe
accident management procedures.
References for Experiment:
“OECD/SETH-2 project, PANDA AND MISTRA experiments: investigations of key issues for the
simulation of thermal-hydraulic conditions in water reactor containment”, Final Summary Report
submitted to CSNI/PRG 19 October 2011
OECD/NEA SETH-2 Horizontal Fluid Release Tests, Test Series Report, R. Zboray, D. Paladino, G.
Mignot, N. Erkan, R. Kapulla, M. Ritterath, M. Fehlmann, C. Wellauer, TM-42-10-05, September 2010.
OECD/NEA SETH-2 Containment spray test report, R. Zboray, N. Erkan, G. Mignot, R. Kapulla, M.
Fehlmann, C. Wellauer, M. Ritterath, D. Paladino, TM-42-10-33, December 2010.
N. Erkan, G. Mignot, R. Kapulla, R. Zboray, D. Paladino, “Experimental investigations of spray induced
gas stratification break-up and mixing in two interconnected PANDA vessels”, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Volume 241, Issue 9, September 2011, pp. 3935-3944
R. Kapulla, G. Mignot, D. Paladino, “Large-Scale Containment Cooler Performance Experiments under
Accident Conditions”, Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, Volume 2012 (2012)
G. Mignot, R. Kapulla, D. Paladino, R. Zboray, “Experiments on Large Scale Plume Interaction with a
Stratified Gas Environment Resembling the Thermal Activity of Autocatalytic Recombiner”, 2012
International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP 2012), 2012 June 24-28, Chicago,
USA.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Two (helium-steam, air-steam, helium-air) and three gases (helium, steam, air)
Pressures: 1 up to 3 bar
Temperature: 76-150°C
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
344
Year Tests Performed: 2007-2010
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
OECD/NEA SETH-2 Seminar 2011
Prepared By: D. Paladino (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
345
4.1.51 E1-51 - CYBL Boiling Tests
Test Facility: CYBL (precursor experimental rig)
Owner Organization: SNL (Sandia National Laboratories)
Experiment Description:
CYBL is a reactor-scale ex-vessel boiling experimental facility designed for assessing the flooded
cavity design of the new production heavy water reactor. Results were also used for demonstrating that the
heat dissipation requirement for in-vessel core retention, for the central region of the lower head of an AP-
600 advanced light water reactor, can be met with the flooded cavity design. The CYBL facility has a
tank-within-a-tank design, where the inner tank simulates the reactor pressure vessel and the outer tank
simulates the reactor cavity. The inner tank is 3.7 m in diameter and 6.8 m high. The outer tank is 5.1 m
in diameter and 8.4 m high. The inner test tank has a torispherical head. The energy deposition on the
bottom head is accomplished with an array of 20 radiant lamp panels.
For all the experiments performed, the water level is 5 m above the bottom center of the test vessel.
Because of the 5 m of gravity head, the bulk condition near the bottom head area was subcooled and
therefore boiling outside the reactor vessel was subcooled nucleate boiling. The boiling process exhibits a
cyclic pattern with four distinct phases: direct liquid-solid contact, bubble nucleation and growth,
coalescence, and vapor mass dispersion. By adjusting the power input to each zone, the density of lamps
of each heating panel and the three-dimensional configuration of the panel array, the heat flux distribution
can be customized.
Nearly 300 data channels are used to monitor vessel and surface temperatures, as well as water
temperatures. Temperature gradients from in-depth and surface temperature measurements are used to
calculate local heat fluxes. Results are presented for distribution of wall temperature excess (Tw-Tsat)
along the wall surface and associated heat transfer coefficients. The CYBL facility experiments
demonstrated that the ex-vessel boiling process is dominated by spatial structures on a scale of meters.
There is general agreement between the heat transfer results of the quenching experiments (see below) and
the CYBL experiments.
Boling curves were obtained in quenching experiments, where an initially hot aluminium mass was
plunged in water. Two 61 cm diameter specimens were used, the first with flat bottom and the second with
curved bottom. The CHF was found to be essentially the same, with an average value of approximately
500 kW/m2.
Ten downward-facing boiling tests (CHF during 2 quenching experiments)
References for Experiment:
T.Y. Chu, J.H. Bentz, and R.B. Simpson “Observations of the Boiling Process from a Downward-Facing
Torispherical Surface: Confirmatory Testing of the Heavy Water New Production Reactor Flooded Cavity
Design”, 30th National Heat Transfer Conference, Portland, Oregon, August 5-9, 1995
T. Y. Chu, et al., “Ex-vessel boiling experiments: laboratory- and reactor-scale testing of the flooded cavity
concept for in-vessel core retention Part II: Reactor-scale boiling experiments of the flooded cavity concept
for in-vessel core retention”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 169, pp. 89-99, 1997.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
346
T. Y. Chu, et al., “Ex-vessel boiling experiments: laboratory- and reactor-scale testing of the flooded cavity
concept for in-vessel core retention Part I: Observation of quenching of downward-facing surfaces”,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 169, pp. 77-88, 1997.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure (free surface): 1 bar:
Subcooling (nominal maximum): 12 K
Table 4.1.51-1
CYBL Boiling Test Matrix
Test Heat Flux (W/cm2) Flux Distribution
NPR-A 16 Uniform
NPR-B 16 Edge-peaked
NE1-UA 16 Uniform
NE1-UB 18
NE1-UC 20
NE2-A 8 Edge-peaked
NE2-B 16
NE2-C 17
NE2-D 18
NE2-E 20 Uniform
Year Tests Performed: 1995
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
347
4.1.52 E1-52 - ULPU CHF Tests
Test Facility: ULPU
Owner Organization: UCSB (University of California Santa Barbara)
Experiment Description:
ULPU is a facility for prototypic simulation of boiling heat transfer and CHF under external reactor
vessel flooding conditions for the Loviisa reactor (Finland), the AP-600 (Configurations I to III) and the
AP-1000 (configurations IV and V). The facility consists of a full-scale, full-length, 2D slice (15-cm slice
of the rector) simulating one half of the curved portion of the hemispherical lower head at full scale. The
curved portion contains heaters supplying specified power to the slice test section, whose outer surface is
cooled by water. The water flows in a natural circulation circuit with appropriate flow resistances to
represent the actual situation. The heaters in the facility shape the power to match the expected thermal
load distribution from melt configuration in the RPV and were designed to provide heat fluxes of up to
2000 kW/m2 for Configuration I to IV, and 2400 kW/m
2 for configuration V.
The more recent configurations of the facility included a baffle to channel the external coolant. It was
therefore possible to examine the potential of achieving higher values of CHF with an “organised” flow of
the coolant, and thus optimize the effect of the geometry on the coolability limits. Special attention has
also been given to the flow regimes with and without full simulation of the natural circulation. For the last
series of tests, extensive information is available on the hydrodynamics of the natural circulation loop
(mass flow rates, pressure drops, and flashing-induced instability). Using configuration V, also the effect
of water chemistry on CHF was investigated.
Large number of tests on CHF under natural circulation conditions in a 2-D geometry and with 5
configurations.
References for Experiment:
T.G. Theofanous, S. Syri, T. Salmassi, O. Kymäläinen, H. Tuomisto “Critical heat flux through curved,
downward facing, thick walls”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 151, pp. 247-258, 1994.
T.G. Theofanous, S. Syri “The coolability limits of a reactor pressure vessel lower head”, Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 169, pp. 59-76, 1997.
T.G. Theofanous, C. Liu, S. Additon, S. Angelini, O. Kymäläinen and T. Salmassi “In-vessel coolability
and retention of a core”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 169, pp. 1-48, 1997
T.G. Theofanous, J.P. Tu, T. Salmassi and T.N. Dinh, “Quantification of Limits to Coolability in ULPU-
2000 Configuration IV”, CRSS Technical Report 02.05.3, 2002 May
T-N. Dinh, J.P. Tu, T. Salmassi, T.G. Theofanous “Limits of Coolability in the AP 1000-Related ULPU-
2400 Configuration V Facility”, Center for Risk Studies and Safety University of California, Santa
Barbara, Report CRSS-03/06, June 2003.
T-N. Dinh, J.P. Tu, T. Salmassi, T.G. Theofanous “Limits of Coolability in the AP 1000-Related ULPU-
2400 Configuration V Facility”, Center for Risk Studies and Safety University of California, Santa
Barbara, Report CRSS-03/06, June 2003.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
348
T. N. Dinh, et al., “Limits of coolability in the AP1000-related ULPU-2400 configuration V facility,” in
The 10th Int. Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-10), Seoul, Korea, 2003.
T. N. Dinh, et al., “ Two-Phase Natural Circulation Flow in AP-1000 In-Vessel Retention-Related ULPU-
V Facility Experiments”, in Proceedings of ICAPP ’04, Paper 4242, Pittsburgh, PA USA, June 13-17,
2004,
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Heated section: 30 and 90°
Boiling: pool and natural flow loop conditions
Baffle position:
o Configuration I to III: not streamlined
o Configuration IV: streamlined, distance form vessel wall: 2.5, 5, 7 and 9 inches
o Configuration V: streamlined, distance from vessel wall: 3 and 6 inches and variable gap
size from 3 to 6 inches. In this series, the riser exit zone is modified to reflect the AP1000
geometry
Heat flux: various shapes with peak inlet fluxes up to 2,400 kW/m2
Pressure (free surface): 1 bar at the top and prototypic gravity head at the bottom.
Subcooling (maximum, nominal): 13 K (due to gravity head).
Flow rate: 0.5 to 0.7 m3/min
Year Tests Performed: 1993-2002
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: N/A
Prepared By: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
349
4.1.53 E1-53 - SULTAN CHF Tests
Test Facility: SULTAN
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
The SULTAN facility was designed to study the main characteristics of two-dimensional, two-phase
flow along a heated plate, and the limits of the critical heat flux for a wide range of thermohydraulic and
geometric parameters, including gap size and inclination angle. It was designed to provide data for code
development and validation. Therefore, the system effect (natural circulation controlling the flow) is not
represented, and forced convection is used. The representative range of mass flow rate is determined by
pre-calculations. Experimental data include: pressure drop differential pressure, CHF limits, local profiles
of temperature and void fraction in the gap, and visualizations.
References for Experiment:
S. Rougé, “SULTAN test facility for large-scale vessel coolability in natural convection at low pressure”,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 169, pp. 185-195, 1997
S. Rouge, I. Dor and G. Geffray, “Reactor vessel external cooling for corium retention SULTAN
experimental program and modeling with CATHARE code,” Workshop on In-Vessel Core Debris
Retention and Coolability, Garching, Germany, 1998 March 3-6
S. Rougé, A. Liégeois and A. Giacomelli, “Descriptif de la boucle SULTAN”, STR/LETC/94-224, 1994
Décembre
S. Rough and A. Carenza, “SULTAN TEST REPORT, Fourth Campaign, Inclination: 45 - Fluid depth:
15 cm”, SETEX/LTEMI98-97, 1998 September
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Inclination: vertical (90°) and 10°
Gap size: 0.03 and 0.15 m
Outlet absolute pressure: 0.1 to 1 MPa;
Inlet temperature: 50 to 180°C;
Mass flux: 5 to 5000 kg/s-m2;
Heat flux: uniform, 0.1 to 1 MW/m2.
Year Tests Performed: 1995
Repeatability Check: N/A
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
350
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Data intended to be used for the validation of the CATHARE code
Prepared By: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
351
4.1.54 E1-54 - SBLB Boiling Tests
Test Facility: SBLB
Owner Organization: PSU (Penn State University)
Experiment Description:
Boiling experiments using test vessels with and without coatings were conducted in the PSU Subscale
Boundary Layer Boiling (SBLB) facility for the cases with and without an enhanced thermal insulation to
investigate the separate effect as well as the integral effect of the enhanced insulation design and vessel
coatings. The SBLB test facility consists of a water tank (with a diameter of 1.22 m and a height of 1.14
m) with a condenser assembly, a heated hemispherical test vessel with or without an insulation simulator, a
data acquisition system, a photographic system, and a power control system. For the steady-state tests, the
test vessel was comprised of two main parts made of aluminum: a segmented, heated lower hemispherical
vessel and a non-heated upper cylindrical portion. Cartridge heaters, 31.75 mm long and 9.52 mm thick,
were employed to provide independent heating of the segments. Heat flux levels of up to 1.2 MW/m2
could be achieved in a first phase of the work (Cheung, Haddad and Liu, 1997). Later, the range of heat
flux was increased (Cheng and Liu, 1998). The upper cylindrical portion had an outside diameter of 0.3 m
and a wall thickness of 12.7 mm. The tank was equipped with three immersion heaters with a total power
of 36 kW for preheating the water in the tank.
Various quenching and steady-state tests with a 3-D geometry were employed, and with various
subcoolings, and different geometries.
References for Experiment:
Cheung, F.B., Haddad, K. and Liu, Y.C., 1997, Critical Heat Flux (CHF) Phenomena on a Downward
Facing Curved Surface, NUREG/CR-6507, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
Cheung, F. B. and Liu, Y. C., 1998, Critical Heat Flux (CHF) Phenomenon on a Downward Facing Curved
Surface: Effects of Thermal Insulation, NUREG/CR-5534, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C.
Cheung, F. B. and Liu, Y. C., 2001, Critical Heat Flux Experiments to Support In-Vessel Retention
Feasibility Study for an Evolutionary Advanced Light Water Reactor Design, EPRI Technical Report-
1003101
F. B. Cheung, “Limiting Factors for External Reactor Vessel Cooling”, Nuclear Technology, Vol. 152, pp.
145-161, 2005
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
352
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Geometries:
o 1) without insulation,
o 2) insulation based on the AP600 design, and
o 3) insulation based on the APR1400 design.
Pressure (free surface): 1 bar:
Water temperature: 90 to 100°C
Heat Fluxes: up to 1.2 MW/m2 (first phase, for which accessible documentation exists)
Heat flux distribution: not provided
Year Tests Performed: 1994-2006
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Andreani (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
353
4.1.55 E1-55 – Small Scale Burst Test Experiments
Test Facility: SSBT
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
Small Scale Tube Burst Facility (SSBT) has been constructed to measure the effect of the pressure
wave initiated by an internally pressurised tube containing saturated fluid rupturing into cooler surrounding
water. The escaping fluid will flash to a two-phase steam-vapour mixture generating a high velocity
pressure wave that will interact with the surrounding structures and the containment vessel. The pressure
wave will produce severe damage in the immediate fuel channels and possibly initiate subsequent
pressurised tube ruptures. Three dimensional data collection of the pressure wave propagation is recorded
with strain measurements on the containment vessel and end plates. The small tube diameter experimental
data is used to provide validation of computer models which in turn can then be used to analyse the full
sized components.
Figure 4.1.55-1 Schematic of the Small Scale Burst Test Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
354
References for Experiment:
Leitch, B.W., Shewfelt, R.S.W. and Godin, D.P., “Two-phase Fluid/structure interactions in a bursting
tube”, AECL Report AECL RC-1711, COG Report COG-96-486, 1997.
Shewfelt, R.S.W., Leitch, B.W., and Godin, D.P., “Guillotine failure of fixed-end pipes, pressurised with
hot water”, AECL Conference AECL-10948, Int. Journal of Pressure Vessel and Piping, Vol. 57, pp. 211-
221, 1994
Shewfelt, R.S.W. and Godin, D.P., “Small-scale burst tests in air and water”, AECL Report RC-1454,
COG Report COG-95-356, 1995.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure – 18 MPa maximum
Temperature – maximum tube 340ºC
Temperature – maximum moderator 90ºC
Year Tests Performed: 2004 to 2012
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: B.W. Leitch (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
355
4.2 Hydrogen Behaviour (Combustion, Mitigation and Generation) Experiments
4.2.1 E2-1 - LSVCTF S01
Test Facility: AECL-LSVCTF
Owner Organization: AECL / COG
Experiment Description:
A series of experiments were performed in AECL’s Large Scale Vented Combustion Test Facility
(LSVCTF). The LSVCTF is a 10 m long, 4 m wide and 3 m high rectangular enclosure with an internal
volume of 120 m3. Eight hydraulic fans are installed on the side walls to provide well-mixed gas mixtures
or produce initial turbulence.
The purpose of the test series S01 was to investigate the vented combustion behavior of dry hydrogen-
air mixtures. In this test series, the facility was configured with a single chamber. A TAYCO glow plug
was mounted in the centre of the vessel. Rectangular steel panels were removed from the front wall (wall
surface of 4 m by 3 m) to form the desired vent opening. The vents were covered with aluminum foil
during gas addition but they were easy to rupture (~1 kPa overpressure).
The initial hydrogen concentration was analyzed with a process Mass Spectrometer. Six dynamic
pressure transducers were used to record the combustion pressure. Thirty S-type fast response
thermocouples were mounted along three directions (toward/away the front cent, sideways, and
upward/downward) to detect the flame front. A total of 17 tests were performed under quiescent (mixing
fans turned off prior to ignition) conditions with hydrogen-air mixtures at room temperatures and
pressures.
References for Experiment:
Kumar, R.K., Loesel Sitar, J., Dewit, W.A., Bowles, E.M. and Thomas, B., “Experiments in the Large-
Scale Vented Combustion Test Facility: Series S01 – Quiescent Vented Combustion Tests with Central
Ignition in Hydrogen-Air Mixtures in the Full-Volume Geometry”, COG Report COG-96-578, 1997.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
356
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vent Area: 0.55, 1.1 2.2 m2
Initial Conditions:
o Hydrogen: 8 to 12%
o Temperature: 23-29°C
o Pressure: ~100 kPa
o Quiescent (mixing fans off)
Combustion overpressure: 1 to 40 kPa(g)
Year Tests Performed: 1996
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
AECL performed GOTHIC validation using some of the tests:
Chan, C.K. and Chin, Y.S., “Validation of GOTHIC 7.2a for Modeling Combustion of Near-Flammability-
Limit Hydrogen-Air Mixtures in Closed and Vented Vessels”, COG Report ISTR-07-5036, 2008.
Prepared By: Z. Liang (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
357
4.2.2 E2-2 - LSVCTF S03
Test Facility: AECL-LSVCTF
Owner Organization: AECL / COG
Experiment Description:
The purpose of the test series S03 was to investigate the vented combustion behavior of hydrogen-air-
steam mixtures. In this test series, the facility was also configured with a single chamber. One TAYCO
glow plug mounted in the centre of the chamber, or four spark ignitors mounted symmetrically about the
centre, were used. The vents configuration was the same as S01.
Gas composition and dynamic pressure measurements were the same as the S01 series. Eighty S-type
fast response thermocouples were mounted in the chamber. A total of 29 tests were performed under
quiescent or turbulent (mixing fans remained on during ignition) conditions with hydrogen-air-steam
mixtures at elevated temperatures and room pressures
References for Experiment:
Loesel Sitar, J.V., Dewit, W.A., Bowles, E.M., and Thomas, B., “Experiments in the Large-Scale Vented
Combustion Test Facility: Series S03-Vented Combustion Tests at 100C in Hydrogen-Air-Steam
Mixtures in the Full Volume Geometry”, COG Report COG-99-135, 2003.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vent Area: 0.55 and 2.2 m2
Initial Conditions:
o Hydrogen: 8 to 14%
o Steam: 0, 10, 20, 30%
o Temperature: 75 to 100°C
o Pressure: atmospheric
o Quiescent and turbulent
Overpressure: 1.5 to 90 kPa(g)
Year Tests Performed: 1999
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: Z. Liang (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
358
4.2.3 E2-3 - BMC Hx series
Test Facility: BMC
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The experiment has been performed in the multicompartment Battelle Model Containment (BMC).
BMC was built from reinforced concrete, had a free volume of 640 m³, a height of 10 m and a diameter of
12 m. It was designed to be a 1/64 representation of the Biblis B containment.
42 hydrogen deflagration experiments have been performed in the Hx series. In these experiments,
the effects that compartment and vent opening geometry, initial hydrogen concentrations, and local steam
contents have on the combustion process were investigated. Different positions of ignitors have been
defined for the tests.
References for Experiment:
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BIeV-R66.985-0, BMWi Germany, Nov. 1992
T. Kanzleiter et. all, “Wasserstoff-Deflagrationsversuche im Modellcontainment”, Fachberichte: BIeV-
R66.985-301 to -305
Kanzleiter, T.F. and Fisher, K.O., 1994, Multi-compartment hydrogen deflagration experiments and model
development, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 146, 417-426
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Opening Area: 0.3 to 1.8 m2
Initial Conditions differs between ignition compartment and others:
o Hydrogen: 7.4 to 14%
o Steam: mostly 0%, some up to ~25%
o Temperature: atmospheric
o Pressure: atmospheric
Pressure peak: 200 – 300 kPa
Year Tests Performed: 1988 - 1991
Repeatability Check: N/A
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
359
Figure 4.2.3-1 Hx-, Ix- and Gx-Test Geometries A to E
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
360
Figure 4.2.3-2 Hx-, Ix- and Gx-Test Geometries G to K
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
361
Table 4.2.3-1
H2-Deflagration Tests Performed (“Hx Tests”)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
362
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: These experiments have been analyzed (pre- and post-test) using the
CONTAIN and BASSIM code. The later one was used to support the combustion model in CONTAIN.
RALOC was used in addition by others.
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BIeV-R66.985-0, BMWi Germany, November 1992
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
363
4.2.4 E2-4 - BMC Ix series
Test Facility: BMC
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The experiment has been performed in the multicompartment Battelle Model Containment (BMC).
BMC was built from reinforced concrete, had a free volume of 640 m³, a height of 10 m and a diameter of
12 m. It was designed to be a 1/64 representation of the Biblis B containment.
25 ignitor tests have been performed in the Ix series for the German nuclear industry. In these
experiments the following effects have been studied: different positions of ignitors, influence of steam
content on ignition and flame propagation, stratified atmosphere conditions in ignition compartment, and
completeness of combustion. Experiments have been performed to check ignitor performance for
controlled ignition at about 10 vol.% hydrogen.
Information on room configuration can be found in Section 4.2.3 (E2-3 - BMC Hx series).
References for Experiment:
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BIeV-R66.985-0, BMWi Germany, November 1992
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Opening Area: 0.3 to 1.8 m2
Initial Conditions differs between ignition compartment and others:
o Hydrogen: 9.7 to 13.8%
o Steam: mostly 0%, some up to ~40%
o Temperature: atmospheric
o Pressure: atmospheric
Pressure peak: up to 320 kPa
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
364
Table 4.2.4-1
H2 Igniter Tests Performed (Utilities’ Program, “Ix Tests”)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
365
Year Tests Performed: 1990 - 1991
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: These experiments have been analyzed (pre- and post-test) using the
CONTAIN and BASSIM code. The later one was used to support the combustion model in CONTAIN.
RALOC was used in addition by others.
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BIeV-R66.985-0, BMWi Germany, November 1992
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
366
4.2.5 E2-5 - BMC Gx Series
Test Facility: BMC
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The experiment has been performed in the multicompartment Battelle Model Containment (BMC).
BMC was built from reinforced concrete, had a free volume of 640 m³, a height of 10 m and a diameter of
12 m. It was designed to be a 1/64 representation of the Biblis B containment.
8 different sub-series have been performed where a combination of PARs and ignitors under different
conditions have been tested. In these experiments the following effects have been studied: different
positions of PARs and ignitors, effect of early ignition at low hydrogen and efficiency of “dual concept”,
using PARs and ignitors together. The sub-series are structured as follows:
Gx2: 2 tests with one ignitor in each room
Gx3: 6 tests with different ignitor numbers
Ix11: 4 tests with different number of ignitors
Gx4: 2 tests with one PAR
Gx5: 2 tests with one PAR
Gx6: 1 test with one PAR
Gx7: 4 tests with one PAR and one ignitor
Gx8: 3 tests with one PAR and one ignitor
Information on room configuration can be found in Section 4.2.3 (E2-3 - BMC Hx series).
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
367
Table 4.2.5-1
H2-Mitigation Tests Performed (“Gx Tests” and VGB Test Ix11)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
368
References for Experiment:
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BIeV-R66.985-0, BMWi Germany, Nov. 1992
T. Kanzleiter et. all, “Versuche zur Wirksamkeit von Wasserstoff-Gegenmaßnahmen in einer Mehrraum-
Containment-Geometrie”, Abschlussbericht: BIeV-R67.036-01 to -02, Nov. 1991
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
One room combination with 5 rooms was used for all tests
Initial Conditions differs between ignition compartment and others:
o Hydrogen injection rate up to 0.48 g/s
o Steam: up to 60%, but different in each room
o Temperature: atmospheric
o Pressure: atmospheric
Year Tests Performed: 1991
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: BASSIM code was used for analyses.
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BF-R68.145, BMWi Germany, 1994
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
369
4.2.6 E2-6 - BMC Kx Series
Test Facility: BMC
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
Two experimental series have been performed in parallel, Kx series in an 8 m long deflagration tube
of 400 mm diameter and Ex series in a 10 m long BMC compartment of 4 m² area. In both test facilities
different obstacles have been placed to study its influence on the combustion processes. The same
experimental procedure and identically instrumentation and evaluation methods have been applied for
many experiments that were carried out. In addition, the Kx series aimed to study the effects prior to other
experiments in BMC facility, and therefore, more data are available from the Kx experiments than are
available from the Ex experiments.
Surprisingly, different results were obtained in the smaller scale Kx trials compared to the larger scale
Ex trials. The strength of the deflagration increases with the size and the three-dimensional character of
the combustion, but it is possible that there is a scaling effect that can be partially attributed to the different
heat losses to the structures, the differences in the turbulences of the unburned gas, and to the enlarged
reaction zone. Jet ignition behind obstacles and openings was studied as well in other tests in BMC.
Kx tests: about 50 different test have been performed. Tests have been performed without obstacles,
and with 5 different obstacles (grid, multiple rods, Blende, etc.)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
370
Table 4.2.6-1
Test Matrix for BMC Kx Series Tests
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
371
Table 4.2.6-2
Initial Conditions for BMC Kx Series Tests
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
372
Table 4.2.6-3
Initial Conditions for BMC Kx Series Tests (continued)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
373
References for Experiment:
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BF-R68.145, BMWi Germany, 1994
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Conditions:
Hydrogen/steam concentration: 9% - 14% without steam; up to ~17% with steam of ~40%
Temperature: atmospheric or saturation
Pressure: atmospheric
Year Tests Performed: 1991
Repeatability Check: Yes partially
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: BASSIM code was used for analyses.
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BF-R68.145, BMWi Germany, 1994
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
374
4.2.7 E2-7 - BMC Ex Series
Test Facility: BMC
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
Two experimental series have been performed in parallel, Kx series in an 8 m long deflagration tube
of 400 mm diameter, and Ex series in a 10 m long BMC compartment of 4 m² area. In both test facilities,
different obstacles have been placed to study its influence on the combustion processes. The same
experimental procedure and identically instrumentation and evaluation methods have been applied for
many experiments.
Surprisingly, different results were obtained in the smaller scale Kx trials compared to the larger scale
Ex trials. The strength of the deflagration increases with the size and the three-dimensional character of
the combustion, but it is possible that there is a scaling effect that can be partially attributed to the different
heat losses to the structures, the differences in the turbulences of the unburned gas, and to the enlarged
reaction zone. Jet ignition behind obstacles and openings was studied as well in other tests in BMC.
Ex tests: about 29 different test have been performed. Tests have been performed without obstacles,
and with different obstacles (grid, multiple rods, vertical or horizontal cylinder, etc.)
References for Experiment:
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BF-R68.145, BMWi Germany, 1994
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Conditions:
Hydrogen/steam concentration: 9% - 11% without steam;
Temperature: atmospheric
Pressure: atmospheric
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
375
Table 4.2.7-1
Test Matrix for BMC Ex Series Tests
Year Tests Performed: 1991
Repeatability Check: Yes partially
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: BASSIM code was used for analyses.
T. Kanzleiter, “Hydrogen Deflagration Experiments in a Multi-compartment Containment Geometry”,
Final Report, BF-R68.145, BMWi Germany, 1994
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
376
4.2.8 E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2 Tests
Test Facility: ENACCEF
Owner Organization: IRSN and CNRS
Experiment Description:
ENACCEF is a 5 m high, vertical facility, divided into 2 parts, and can be equipped with repeated
obstacles in the bottom portion. It is divided in 2 parts:
The acceleration tube (3.2 m long and 154 mm i.d.), is equipped at its bottom-end with 2 tungsten
electrodes as a low energy ignition device. At a distance of 1.9 m from the ignition point, 3
rectangular quartz windows (40 mm x 300 mm optical path) are mounted flush with the inner
surface, 2 of them are opposed to each other the third one being perpendicular to the others. These
windows allow the recording of the flame front during its propagation along the tube using either a
shadowgraph or a tomography system. The tube is also equipped with 11 small quartz windows
(optical diameter: 8 mm, thickness: 3 mm) distributed along its length,
The dome (1.7 m long, 738 mm i.d.) is connected to the upper part of the acceleration tube via a
flange. This part of the facility is also equipped with 3 silica windows (optical path: 170 mm,
thickness: 40 mm), perpendicular to each other, 2 by 2. Through these windows, the arrival of the
flame can be recorded via a Schlieren or a tomography system.
The ENACEFF tests provided to SARNET2 are test RUN 153; RUN 158 and RUN 160.
References for Experiment:
N. Chaumeix, A. Bentaib, SARNET2 project- hydrogen deflagration benchmark, specification report,
IRSN/DSR 102, 2010.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
The initial conditions are:
o Temperature = 23°C
o Pressure = 1 bar
o Initial hydrogen concentration = 13%
o Initial air concentration = 87%
Blockage ratio:
o RUN 153 : BR =0.63
o RUN 158 : BR =0.33
o RUN 160 : BR =0
Year Tests Performed: 2010
Repeatability Check: Yes
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
377
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
A. Bentaib, SARNET2 project- hydrogen deflagration benchmark, final report, IRSN/DSR
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
378
4.2.9 E2-9 - ENACEFF SARNET Test (Run 703)
Test Facility: ENACCEF
Owner Organization: IRSN and CNRS
Experiment Description:
A description of the experimental facility is provided in Section 4.2.8 (E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2
Tests). The test conditions are described below in the “Range of Key Experimental Parameters”.
References for Experiment:
N. Chaumeix et al., “Mesures des Vitesses Spatiales de Propagation de Flamme dans une ENceinte
d'ACCElération de Flamme. Influence des inhomogénéités de concentration d'hydrogène sur la
propagation d'une flamme en présence d'obstacles”, rapport IRSN-CNRS
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
The initial conditions are:
o Temperature = 23°C
o Pressure = 1 bar
o Initial hydrogen concentration = linear gradient from 13% to 10.5%
o Initial air concentration = from 87% to 89.5%
Blockage ratio: BR =0.63
Year Tests Performed: 2007
Repeatability Check: Yes (at least 3 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
A. Bentaib et al., Hydrogen combustion with concentration gradients in experiments and simulations:
preliminary results of ENACCEF Benchmark, ERMSAR-2007
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
379
4.2.10 E2-10 - ENACEFF SARNET Test (Run 717)
Test Facility: ENACCEF
Owner Organization: IRSN and CNRS
Experiment Description:
A description of the experimental facility is provided in Section 4.2.8 (E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2
Tests). The test conditions are described below in the “Range of Key Experimental Parameters”.
References for Experiment:
N. Chaumeix et al., Mesures des Vitesses Spatiales de Propagation de Flamme dans une ENceinte
d'ACCElération de Flamme. Influence des inhomogénéités de concentration d'hydrogène sur la
propagation d'une flamme en présence d'obstacles, rapport IRSN-CNRS
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
The initial conditions are:
o Temperature = 23°C
o Pressure = 1 bar
o Initial hydrogen concentration = linear gradient from 10.45% to 13.03%
Blockage ratio: BR = 0.63
Year Tests Performed: 2007
Repeatability Check: Yes (at least 3 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
A. Bentaib et al., Hydrogen combustion with concentration gradients in experiments and simulations:
preliminary results of ENACCEF Benchmark, ERMSAR-2007
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
380
4.2.11 E2-11 - ENACEFF Run 765 (ISP-49)
Test Facility: ENACCEF
Owner Organization: IRSN and CNRS
Experiment Description:
A description of the experimental facility is provided in Section 4.2.8 (E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2
Tests). The test conditions are described below in the “Range of Key Experimental Parameters”.
References for Experiment:
N. Chaumeix and A. Bentaib, ISP 49 – Specification of ENACCEF test Flame Propagation in a Hydrogen
Gradient, rapport IRSN/DSR 40
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
The initial conditions are:
o Temperature = 23°C
o Pressure = 1 bar
o Initial hydrogen concentration = linear gradient from 11.6% to 8.1%
Blockage ratio: BR = 0.63
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check: Yes (at least 3 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Kotchourko et al., “ISP-49 on Hydrogen Deflagration”, Final Report, NEA/CSNI/R/(2011)9, 2011.
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
381
4.2.12 E2-12 - ENACEFF Run 736 (ISP-49)
Test Facility: ENACCEF
Owner Organization: IRSN and CNRS
Experiment Description:
A description of the experimental facility is provided in Section 4.2.8 (E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2
Tests). The test conditions are described below in the “Range of Key Experimental Parameters”.
References for Experiment:
N. Chaumeix and A. Bentaib, ISP 49 – Specification of ENACCEF test Flame Propagation in a Hydrogen
Gradient, rapport IRSN/DSR 40
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
The initial conditions are:
o Temperature = 23°C,
o Pressure = 1 bar
o Initial hydrogen concentration = linear gradient from 11.4% to 5.8%
Blockage ratio: BR =0.63
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check: Yes (at least 3 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Kotchourko et al., “ISP-49 on Hydrogen Deflagration”, Final Report, NEA/CSNI/R/(2011)9, 2011
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
382
4.2.13 E2-13 - ENACEFF Run 733 (ISP-49)
Test Facility: ENACCEF
Owner Organization: IRSN and CNRS
Experiment Description:
A description of the experimental facility is provided in Section 4.2.8 (E2-8 - ENACEFF SARNET2
Tests). The test conditions are described below in the “Range of Key Experimental Parameters”.
References for Experiment:
N. Chaumeix and A. Bentaib, ISP 49 – Specification of ENACCEF test Flame Propagation in a Hydrogen
Gradient, rapport IRSN/DSR 40
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
The initial conditions are:
o Temperature = 23°C
o Pressure = 1 bar
o Initial hydrogen concentration = linear gradient from 5.7% to 12%
Blockage ratio: BR = 0.63
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check: Yes (at least 3 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Kotchourko et al., “ISP-49 on Hydrogen Deflagration”, Final Report, NEA/CSNI/R/(2011)9, 2011.
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
383
4.2.14 E2-14 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 003
Test Facility: DRIVER facility
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in an obstructed tube with 174 mm internal diameter and
12.2 m length (DRIVER facility). Repeatable obstacles with blockage ratio (BR) of 0.6, and at distances
equal to the internal diameter. Hydrogen/air mixture with concentration of 10% hydrogen was tested.
References for Experiment:
Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 235, Issues 2-4, February 2005, pp. 253-270
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 23°C
Initial %H2 = 10%
BR=0.6
Year Tests Performed: 2001
Repeatability Check: Yes (each 2 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
384
4.2.15 E2-15 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 012
Test Facility: DRIVER facility
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in an obstructed tube with 174 mm internal diameter and
12.2 m length (DRIVER facility). Repeatable obstacles with blockage ratio (BR) of 0.6, and at distances
equal to the internal diameter. Hydrogen/air mixture with concentration of 13% hydrogen was tested.
References for Experiment:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation-HYCOM,
Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 235, Issues 2-4, February 2005, pp. 253-270
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 23°C
Initial %H2 = 13%
BR = 0.6
Year Tests Performed: 2000
Repeatability Check: Yes (each 2 times)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
385
4.2.16 E2-16 - FZK R 0498_09
Test Facility: FZK 12 m tube
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in an obstructed tube with 350 mm internal diameter and 12
m length (FZK Tube). Repeatable obstacles with blockage ratio (BR) of 0.3, and at distances equal to the
internal diameter. Hydrogen/air mixture with concentration of 15% hydrogen.
Data available by request from KIT representative
References for Experiment:
A. Kotchourko, W. Breitung, A. Veser, S.B. Dorofeev Tube Experiments and Numerical Simulation on
Turbulent Hydrogen-Air Combustion 21st Int. Symposium on Shock Waves, Great Keppel Island,
Australia, July 20-25, 1997, p. 82
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 23°C
Initial %H2 = 15%
BR = 0.3
Year Tests Performed: 1996
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Similar experiment: A. Kotchourko et al., Tube Experiments and Numerical Simulation on Turbulent
Hydrogen-Air Combustion. 21st Int. Symp. on Shock Waves, Great Keppel Island, Australia, July 20-25,
1997
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
386
4.2.17 E2-17 - DRIVER HYCOM MC 043
Test Facility: DRIVER facility
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in an obstructed tube with 174 mm internal diameter and
12.2 m length (DRIVER facility). Repeatable obstacles were present at distances equal to the internal
diameter. The experimental tube was divided in two equal parts by thin polyethylene membrane (1 μm)
with different blockage ratios and different hydrogen concentrations. Critical pressure for membrane
breaking was found to be about 5 Torr. Hydrogen concentration/(BR) for Part 1 was 13% / 0.6, and for
Part 2 was 10% / 0.3. Ignition was carried out at the tube end in part 1.
Flame acceleration was observed in the presence of non-uniform initial conditions, accounting for:
Effect of concentration gradients (transient of accelerated flame from rich to lean mixture)
Effect of blockage ratio changes (transient of accelerated flame to the area with lower degree of
obstruction)
References for Experiment:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation-HYCOM,
Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 235, Issues 2-4, February 2005, pp. 253-270
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 20°C
Initial %H2 = 13% - 15%
BR = 0.3 - 0.6
Year Tests Performed: 2000
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
387
4.2.18 E2-18 - DRIVER HYCOM HC 020
Test Facility: DRIVER facility
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in non-uniformly obstructed tube with a 12.4 m total
length, and constructed of two parts with internal diameters of 174 and 520 mm respectively. Obstacles
were spaced at the tube diameter, with the diameter / (BR) for Part 1 being 174 mm / 0.6, and for Part 2
being 520 mm / 0.3. The combustion of a uniform test mixture with 10% hydrogen in air was investigated,
and the ignition point was in I2 (part 2).
Hydrogen deflagration was observed in this case, accounting for:
Effect of tube diameter change (flame propagating from higher to less tube size)
Effect of blockage ratio changes (flame propagating to the area with more degree of obstruction)
Effect of pre-compression in non-uniform geometry
References for Experiment:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation-HYCOM,
Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 235, Issues 2-4, February 2005, pp. 253-270
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 20°C
Initial %H2 = 10%
BR = 0.3 - 0.6
Year Tests Performed: 2000
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
388
4.2.19 E2-19 - DRIVER HYCOM-HC027
Test Facility: DRIVER facility
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in non-uniformly obstructed tube with a 12.4 m total
length, and constructed of two parts with internal diameters of 174 and 520 mm respectively. Obstacles
were spaced at the tube diameter, with the diameter / BR for Part 1 being 174 mm / 0.3, and for Part 2
being 520 mm / 0.6. The sonic combustion of a uniform test mixture with 13% of hydrogen in air was
investigated, and the ignition point was in I1 (Part 1)
Hydrogen deflagration was observed in this case, accounting for:
Effect of tube diameter change (flame propagating from less to higher tube size)
Effect of blockage ratio changes (flame propagating to the area with lower degree of obstruction)
Flame propagation in the presence of non-uniform geometry
References for Experiment:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation, EU Project
HYCOM, Final report, 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 20°C
Initial %H2 = 13%
BR = 0.3 - 0.6
Year Tests Performed: 2001
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
389
4.2.20 E2-20 - RUT HYC01
Test Facility: RUT
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in a large scale multi-compartment geometry, consisting of
a curved channel (2.3x2.5 m cross-section and 15.5 m length) and a canyon (6.3x2.5x16.4 m). Four
repeatable obstacles with blockage ratio BR = 0.3 were installed in the channel, and two obstacles were
installed in the bottom part of canyon. Uniform hydrogen/air mixture with a concentration of 10%
hydrogen was tested, and the ignition was in the channel (I1).
References for Experiment:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation-HYCOM,
Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 235, Issues 2-4, February 2005, pp. 253-270
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 18°C
Initial %H2 = 10%
BR = 0.3
Year Tests Performed: 1999
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation-HYCOM,
Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 235, Issues 2-4, February 2005, pp. 253-270
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
390
4.2.21 E2-21 - RUT HYC12
Test Facility: RUT
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in a large scale multi-compartment geometry, consisting of
a curved channel (2.3x2.5 m cross-section and 15.5 m length) and a canyon (6.3x2.5x16.4 m). Four
repeatable obstacles with blockage ratios BR = 0.3 were installed in the channel. The canyon has been
divided into four separate rooms, and connected with orifices. A uniform hydrogen/air mixture with a
concentration of 11.5% hydrogen was tested, and ignition was in the channel (I1).
References for Experiment:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation, EU Project
HYCOM, Final report, 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 18°C
Initial %H2 = 11.5%
BR = 0.3
Year Tests Performed: 1999
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
391
4.2.22 E2-22 - RUT HYC14
Test Facility: RUT
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Combustion experiments were carried out in a large scale multi-compartment geometry, consisting of
a curved channel (2.3x2.5 m cross-section and 15.5 m length) and a canyon (6.3x2.5x16.4 m). Four
repeatable obstacles with blockage ratios BR = 0.3 were installed in the channel. The canyon has been
divided into four separate rooms, and connected with orifices. A uniform hydrogen/air mixture with a
concentration of 11.5% hydrogen was tested, and ignition was in the channel (I1).
References for Experiment:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation-HYCOM,
Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 235, Issues 2-4, February 2005, pp. 253-270
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 18°C
Initial %H2 = 11.5%
BR = 0.3
Year Tests Performed: 2000
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Integral large scale experiments on hydrogen combustion for severe accident code validation-HYCOM,
Nuclear Engineering and Design Volume 235, Issues 2-4, February 2005, pp. 253-270
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
392
4.2.23 E2-23 - VGES Tests
Test Facility: VGES
Owner Organization: Sandia National Laboratories
Experiment Description:
The Variable Geometry Experimental System (VGES), located at Sandia National Laboratories, was
used to conduct research into the behaviour and control of hydrogen during accidents at nuclear power
plants. Eleven test series, consisting of over 100 experiments, were performed in the 5 m3 Burn Tank
(cylindrical pressure vessel). The overall objectives were to evaluate:
Combustion of low and high hydrogen concentrations,
Effect of raising glowplug ignitor location,
Effect of ignitor type,
Effect of initial pressure on the combustion overpressure,
Effect of nitrogen concentration and steam (simulated with carbon dioxide),
Equipment survivability, and
Hydrogen burns in aqueous foam environment.
The experimental procedure for each test was as follows:
After the tank was sealed, the fans were turned on for about 10 min to eliminate any thermal
stratification of the air.
Nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or hydrogen was admitted to the tank until a predetermined pressure was
reached. For the tests with nitrogen and CO2, these gases were admitted to the tank before the
hydrogen.
The fans were left on for another 10 min to ensure complete mixing of the tank atmosphere. Then
the pre-burn gas sample was taken.
For the quiescent burns, the fans were turned off about 10 min prior to ignition. Although the fan
blades were constructed of black plastic, very little melting or deformation was observed after the
quiescent burns. The same fans were used for all those quiescent tests.
The turbulent or “fans on” burns were ignited while the fans were still running. Unlike the
quiescent burn tests, the heat transfer was so greatly enhanced during the turbulent burns that the
fan blades were melted after a single shot and the fans had to be replaced after nearly every burn.
For the foam tests, the hydrogen and air concentrations were obtained using the procedure
previously discussed. With the fan still running, the surfactant-water mixture contained in a small
pressurized tank was added to the foam generator. Foam was generated until a visual inspection of
the tank, through the top flanged Lexan window, indicated the tank was full of foam. The fan and
foam generator were then turned off prior to ignition.
References for Experiment:
Bendick, W.B., Cummings, J.C. and Prassinos, P.G., “Combustion of Hydrogen: Air Mixtures in the
VGES Cylindrical Tank”, NUREG/CR-3273, 1984.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
393
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Parameters and Variables (total min-max from experiments):
Burn Tank Vol: 5 m3
Hydrogen conc.: 3.8-23.4%
Nitrogen conc.: 27.4-82.7%
CO2 conc: 0-56%
Igniter type: 300-W photoflood lamp, 14-V glow plug (GM7G) and raised spark-gap
Igniter location: Figure 4 of NUREG/CR-3273
Pre-combustion gas motion
Pre-combustion gas pressure
Presence of aqueous foam
Year Tests Performed: ~1980s
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
394
4.2.24 E2-24 - NTS Tests
Test Facility: NTS
Owner Organization: US DOE
Experiment Description:
A series of premixed combustion experiments were performed at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The
tests were performed in a 2048 m3 vessel with hydrogen concentrations ranging from 5 to 13% (by
volume) and steam ranging from 4 to 40%. The objective was to study the combustion process in a large-
scale vessel and to evaluate associated safety-related equipment response to the resulting thermal
environments. (24 tests conducted)
References for Experiment:
A.C. Ratzel, “Data Analyses for Nevada Test Site (NTS) Premixed Combustion Tests,” NUREG/CR-4138,
May 1985.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Hydrogen concentration: 5 to 13 vol.%
Steam concentration: 4 to 40 vol.%
Spray or/and fan (2.4 m3/s or 5000 cfm)
Year Tests Performed:
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
A.C. Ratzel, “Data Analyses for Nevada Test Site (NTS) Premixed Combustion Tests,” NUREG/CR-4138,
May 1985.
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
395
4.2.25 E2-25 - PET Tubes
Test Facility: PET Tube
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description:
Studies of gaseous explosions in vented tubes with large vent ratios can be considered as a bridge
between cases of explosions in closed tubes and cases of unconfined explosions in congested areas. The
critical conditions for flame acceleration and DDT in the latter situation are much less understood
compared to those in closed systems.
The PET-Tube (see Figure 4.2.25-1) allows experiments on the deflagration of different homogeneous
hydrogen-air or hydrocarbon-air mixtures (CH4, C3H8) in a tube with adjustable transverse venting varying
from 0% to 40%, which enables a comparison of terminal flame speed and flame acceleration conditions
for such mixtures. It is designed for studying flame propagation and transition to detonation in:
1. closed tubes,
2. vented tubes surrounded by air, and
3. vented tubes surrounded by combustible mixture.
The data generated in such experiments can be used for the validation of computer codes for
simulation of gaseous explosions in semi-confined geometries.
The facility consists of an explosion tube with movable brackets to adjust vent ratio, a support
construction, a control system, and a measurement system. A schematic of the facility in Configuration 1
(vented tube with combustible gas surrounded by air) is shown in Figure 4.2.25-2.
The main part of the facility is a steel explosion tube of 100 mm i.d., which has a length of 7 m. It
consists of three main sections, each 2.1 m long (see Figure 4.2.25-2) and two additional sections, 0.22 m
length, at each end. Each main section of the tube has 16 rectangular openings of variable size. The two
end sections represent pieces of closed tubes. Circular orifice plate obstacles are installed along the entire
length of the tube. The distance between the obstacles is equal to one tube diameter. Different sets of the
orifice plates are available with blockage ratios (BR) equal to 0.3, 0.45, and 0.6.
A schematic of the facility in Configuration 2 (vented tube inside the combustible gas) is shown in
Figure 4.2.25-3. In this configuration, the vented explosion tube with fixed vent ratio is placed into a
cylindrical plastic bag. The diameter of the bag is about 400 mm. The supports of the tube are provided
with two discs at the ends, which are used to fix the plastic bag hermetically. The discs are equipped with
hermetic penetrations for the measuring cables.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
396
2) Explosions in vented tubes
1) Confined explosions in tubes
3) Explosions vented into combustible gas
Figure 4.2.25-1 Schematic Illustration of the 3 Cases to be Investigated in the PET-tube
Figure 4.2.25-2 Schematic of PET Facility in Configuration 1
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
397
Figure 4.2.25-3 Schematic of PET Facility in Configuration 2
The measurement system consists of a subsystem for mixture composition measurements and a
subsystem for measurements of explosion parameters. To measure the uniformity of the mixture
composition, a Rosemount-Fischer MLT4-gas-analyzer is used. Relative accuracy for differential
measurements is about 1% of the mean value. Measurements of explosion parameters include 16
collimated time-of-arrival photodiodes and 16 pressure transducers located in the closed parts of the tube.
In Configuration 2, additional pressure transducers are installed outside of the tube at distances from 1 m to
15 m (Figure 4.2.25-3). They are located at the same height (1 m above the ground level) as the axis of the
main tube. These pressure transducers are used to record parameters of the air blast wave generated by
semi-confined explosions.
References for Experiment:
Sergey Dorofeev, Anke Veser, Ulrich Bielert, Wolfgang Breitung, Alexei Kotchourko, Report on partially
vented explosion tube (PET) European Integrated Hydrogen Project –Phase II; CONTRACT N°: ENK6-
CT2000-00442
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Fuel concentration: 0 to 100%
BR: 0.3, 0.45 and 0.6
vent ratio: 0% to 40%
Year Tests Performed: 2004
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
398
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: A. Veser (Pro-Science)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
399
4.2.26 E2-26 - THAI HD Series (Combustion Tests)
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. For the hydrogen deflagration test the vessel had a free volume (one without internal
structures). The upward and downward propagation of flames in premixed and in stratified air-steam-
hydrogen atmospheres was investigated. The test matrix provides a systematic variation of initial pressure,
initial temperature, steam content, and spatial gas distribution. The influence on pressure built up,
temperature development, flame front propagation and completeness of combustions was quantified.
The test results provide additional data for an improved understanding of hydrogen combustion
phenomena (since hydrogen deflagrations cannot be ruled out completely even by use of PAR) and for the
further development and validation of containment system codes. They have enlarged the existing
database because the test conditions are typical for severe accidents and the facility is relatively large,
which allows combustion in upward and downward direction, since experimental data have existed mainly
for horizontal flame propagation and/or small geometries, which provide non-conservative data. In large
geometries, deflagrations occur faster than in small geometries due to things like increased turbulence
generation, and therefore produce higher loads for the vessel and its internals.
The experimental results of some selected tests have been used for open and blind post-test
calculations by various institutions of the member countries.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
400
Figure 4.2.26-1 THAI HD-tests Instrumentation
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
401
References for Experiment:
Kanzleiter, Langer: “Hydrogen Deflagration Tests in the THAI Test Facility”, Becker Technologies
GmbH, Germany, Report No. 150 1326-HD-2, January 2010
“OECD/NEA THAI Project Hydrogen and Fission Product Issues Relevant for Containment Safety
Assessment under Severe Accident Conditions” Final Report, June 2010, NEA/CSNI/R(2010)3
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Hydrogen concentration 6 – 12 Vol.%
Initial pressure 1 – 1.5 bar
Initial Temperature 25 – 140°C
Steam concentration 0 – 50 Vol.%
Mixed and stratified atmosphere
Upward and downward Flame propagation
Year Tests Performed: 2008 - 2009
Repeatability Check: Some test repeated
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Kotchourko et al., “ISP-49 on Hydrogen Deflagration”, Final Report, NEA/CSNI/R/(2011)9, 2011.
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
402
4.2.27 E2-27 - THAI HR Series (PAR Tests)
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. For the PAR (passive autocatalytic recombiner) – tests it contained only the lower part
of the inner cylinder. On the outside of the inner cylinder the PAR was attached, with its inlet at about 2 m
elevation. At 1.26 m hydrogen was injected through a ring feed line. With increasing hydrogen
concentration the onset of recombination was reached. By continuing the injection the hydrogen
concentrations increased further. After stopping the injection the PAR performance could be studied under
decreasing hydrogen and oxygen concentrations. In several tests deflagrations occurred.
The tests have provided additional data about the PAR behaviour under accident typical conditions.
Since the experimental data of past investigations have been partially proprietary, i.e., not publically
available, experiments to fill this gap have been agreed upon. Commercial PAR types (provided by the
companies AREVA, AECL, NIS) have been tested with focus on:
conditions for the start of catalytic reaction (onset of recombination),
recombination rate, depending on hydrogen concentration, pressure, steam content,
PAR operation under lack of oxygen (oxygen starvation),
conditions for ignition by PAR, resulting in hydrogen deflagration in the vessel volume.
The obtained data improved the understanding of PAR behaviour in general and also of the
characteristics of the different PAR types. Furthermore, the data were used as a basis for modelling the
PAR behaviour and PAR-initiated deflagrations.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
403
Figure 4.2.27-1 THAI HR-tests: General Experimental Set-up
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
404
References for Experiment:
“OECD/NEA THAI Project Hydrogen and Fission Product Issues Relevant for Containment Safety
Assessment under Severe Accident Conditions” Final Report, June 2010, NEA/CSNI/R(2010)3
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
H2 concentration 0 – 9 Vol.%
Initial Pressure 1 – 3 bar
Steam concentration 0 – 60 Vol.%
Initial Temperature 25 - 117°C
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check: Some test were repeated
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Used at GRS for COCOSYS and CFX PAR model validation
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
405
4.2.28 E2-28 - THAI Hydrogen Combustion During Spray Operation
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi / OECD
Experiment Description:
Several test runs are planned within the current OECD THAI2 program to investigate the effect of
containment spray operation on vertical hydrogen burns, by comparing the results to corresponding
deflagration tests without spray available from the first OECD-THAI program. The experimental data will
support model development and validation in the areas “containment spray” and “hydrogen combustion”.
The THAI test vessel (V = 60 m3, H = 9.2 m, D = 3.2 m, Pmax = 15 bar) is equipped with spray
nozzle(s) at its top, spark igniters at its bottom and its top, and with supply systems for air, steam,
hydrogen and spray water, including flow and temperature measurements. A fan is available to provide
homogeneous gas and steam distribution in the preconditioning phase. Droplet size spectrum is provided
by the spray nozzle manufacturer.
Initial local hydrogen concentration is measured by a total of 15 sampling systems with heat-
conductivity and hydrogen sensors operating in parallel. Flame front development is detected by a matrix
of 43 “fast” thermocouples at 12 elevations. Six more thermocouples installed in small drain pans monitor
spray water temperature at different elevations. Two “slow” and three “fast” pressure transducers measure
initial pressure, pressure transient and possible pressure wave effects.
A test matrix consisting of three test runs is proposed in the table below.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
406
Figure 4.2.28-1 THAI Hydrogen Combustion During Spray Operation
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
407
References for Experiment:
Tests are part of ongoing OECD THAI 2 project. Report not yet provided.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Test ID Pressure Temperature Steam
content
H2 content Spray characteristics
Water flow
rate
Water
temperature
HD 30 1.5 bar 20C 0 vol.% 10 vol.% 1 kg/s 20C
HD 31 1.5 bar 90C 25 vol.% 10 vol.% 1 kg/s 20C
HD 32 1.5 bar 90C 25 vol.% 10 vol.% 1 kg/s 90C
Year Tests Performed: 2012
Repeatability Check: preparatory tests done
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
408
4.2.29 E2-29 - DFF SFSER01
Test Facility: AECL-Diffusion Flame Facility
Owner Organization: AECL/COG
Experiment Description:
A series of experiments were performed in AECL’s Diffusion Flame Facility (DFF) to examine the
structure of horizontal hydrogen-steam diffusion flames. Five orifice break configurations were used to
create flames of different sizes and shapes. Three were circular in shape, with diameters of 6.35, 12.7 and
19.0 mm respectively. The other configurations were a slit (3 mm x 51 mm) and a cat-eye-shaped opening
(1.8 mm x 61 mm). Experiments were conducted both in ambient air (dry) and in steam-air (wet)
atmospheric conditions. The steam composition in the jet mixture was varied from 0% to 90% by volume,
with jet velocities ranging from 100 to 500 m/s. Stability regimes, penetration depth (flame lengths),
transverse and longitudinal temperature profiles and peak time-average flame temperatures were
determined for various jet compositions and jet velocities.
Measurements include jet velocity/diameter and gas composition, flame temperature along the centre
line of the flame axis and along the transverse line perpendicular to the axis, and flame length by camera.
References for Experiment:
Liang, Z., “A Consolidation Report on the Hydrogen-Steam Diffusion Flame Experimental Program at the
Whiteshell Laboratories”, COG Report COG-00-245-R1, AECL Report 153-126510-COG-011, October
2009.
Guerrero, A.M., and Chan, C.K., “The Structure of Horizontal Hydrogen-Steam Diffusion Flame Data
Report for Experiment Series DFSER01”, COG Report COG-97-030, 2000 (draft).
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Hydrogen: 8 to 12%
Ambient temperature: ~25°C
Ambient pressure: ~100 kPa
Steam concentration of the jet: 0-90 vol.%
H2 concentration of the jet: 10-100%
Jet speed: 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 m/s
Jet diameter: 6.35, 12.7 and 19.0 mm
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: Yes
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
409
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: Z. Liang (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
410
4.2.30 E2-30 - LSVCTF S02
Test Facility: AECL-LSVCTF
Owner Organization: AECL / COG
Experiment Description:
Experiments were performed in AECL’s Large Scale vented Combustion Test Facility (LSVCTF) in
the 120 m3 volume. The purpose of the test series S02 was to investigate the effect of ignitor location
relative to the vent (near- and far-vent) on vented combustion behavior of dry hydrogen- air mixtures.
Measurements included dynamic pressure and flame front location (with “fast” temperature sensors). A
total of 19 tests were performed under quiescent conditions with hydrogen-air mixtures at room
temperatures and pressures.
References for Experiment:
Kumar, R.K., “Experiments in the Large-Scale Vented Combustion Test Facility: Effects of Igniter
Location on the Combustion Behaviour in Quiescent Hydrogen-Air Mixtures” COG Report COG-97-226,
2007.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vent Area: 0.55, 1.1 2.2 m2
Initial Conditions:
o Hydrogen: 9 to 12%
o Temperature: 25-30°C
o Pressure: ~100 kPa
o Quiescent (mixing fans off)
Combustion overpressure: 1 to 60 kPa(g)
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: Z. Liang (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
411
4.2.31 E2-31 - LSVCTF DC
Test Facility: AECL-LSVCTF
Owner Organization: AECL / COG
Experiment Description:
Experiments were performed in AECL’s Large Scale vented Combustion Test Facility (LSVCTF) in a
two-volume configuration (~60 m3 each). The purpose of the test series DC was to investigate the vented
combustion behavior in two interconnected volumes. Measurements included dynamic pressure and flame
front location (with “fast” temperature sensors). Over 46 tests were performed under quiescent/turbulent
conditions with hydrogen-air steam mixtures at room (or elevated) temperatures and pressures.
References for Experiment:
Loesel Sitar, J.V., and Chan, C.K., “Hydrogen-Air-Steam Large-Scale Vented Combustion Tests in the
Double-Chamber Geometry”, COG Report COG-00-244, 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vent Area: 0.38 m2 (internal), 0.55/1.1 m
2 (external)
Initial Conditions:
o Hydrogen: 6-10% (downstream), 0-10% (upstream)
o Steam: 0-30%
o Temperature: 25-100°C
o Pressure: ~100 kPa
o Quiescent/turbulent
Combustion overpressure: up to 130 kPa(g)
Year Tests Performed: 2000
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: AECL performed GOTHIC validation with some tests:
Liang, Z., “GOTHIC 7.2a Guidelines for Multi-Volume Vented Combustion of Near-Flammability Limit
H2-Air Mixture”, COG Report ISTR-09-5007, 2010.
Prepared By: Z. Liang (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
412
4.2.32 E2-32 - LSVCTF 3C
Test Facility: AECL-LSVCTF
Owner Organization: AECL / COG
Experiment Description:
Experiments were performed in AECL’s Large Scale vented Combustion Test Facility (LSVCTF) in a
three-volume configuration (~25, 28, 60 m3 each). The purpose of the test series DC was to investigate the
vented combustion behavior in three interconnected volumes. Measurements included dynamic pressure
and flame front location (with “fast” temperature sensors). A total of 24 tests were performed under
quiescent conditions with hydrogen-air mixtures at room temperatures and pressures by placing the ignitor
in different rooms.
References for Experiment:
McIlwain, H., and Loesel Sitar, J.V., “Experiments in the Large-scale Vented Combustion Test Facility:
Data Report for Quiescent Hydrogen-Air Mixtures in Three-Chamber Geometry”, COG Report COG-02-
2028, 2003.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vent Area: 0.38-0.4 m2 (internal), 1.1 m
2 (external)
Initial Conditions:
o Hydrogen: 7, 8 9%
o Temperature: 23-30°C
o Pressure: ~100 kPa
o Quiescent
Combustion overpressure: up to 130 kPa(g)
Year Tests Performed: 2002
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: AECL performed GOTHIC validation using some tests:
Liang, Z., “GOTHIC 7.2a Guidelines for Multi-Volume Vented Combustion of Near-Flammability Limit
H2-Air Mixture”, COG Report ISTR-09-5007, 2010.
Prepared By: Z. Liang (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
413
4.2.33 E2-33 - LSVCTF CIC
Test Facility: AECL-LSVCTF
Owner Organization: AECL / COG
Experiment Description:
Experiments were performed in AECL’s Large Scale vented Combustion Test Facility (LSVCTF) in
the 60 m3 volume (front half of the total chamber) with an operating ignitor and continuous hydrogen gas
injection. The parameters that were varied during testing include injection rate/location, ignitor location,
and turbulence level. Measurements included dynamic pressure and flame front location (with “fast”
temperature sensors). A total of 24 tests were performed under quiescent conditions with hydrogen-air
mixtures at room temperatures and pressures by placing the ignitor in different rooms.
References for Experiment:
Loesel Sitar, J.V., “Continuous Injection of Hydrogen into a Test Chamber with Operating Ignitors”, COG
Report COG-01-206, 2003.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vent Area:2.2 m2
Initial Conditions:
o Injection rate: 10-23 g/min
o Injection location: bottom, top. Mid
o Ignitor location: top/mid
o Temperature: 50°C
o Pressure: ~100 kPa
o Quiescent/turbulent
o Max. H2 in the chamber: 6-17%
Year Tests Performed: 2001
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: Z. Liang (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
414
4.2.34 E2-34 - Gammacell Radiolysis Tests
Test Facility: AECL Gamamcell
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The purpose of the tests was to measure the accumulation of hydrogen in the airspace of an irradiated
glass cell containing room temperature air and water. The radiation source was a Co-60 Gammacell that
provided 4-5 kGy/h. Tests had durations ranging from about 20 to 300 hours. Gas samples were
periodically removed using a gas-tight syringe and the hydrogen concentration was determined by gas
chromatography. The results show that nitric acid formation in the airspace affects the accumulation of
hydrogen. The tests explore the effect of dose rate, geometry, pH, and various other additives on hydrogen
production. The results can be used to develop and verify a radiolytic hydrogen formation model.
References for Experiment:
Glowa, G.A., Wren, J.C., and Mitchell, J.R.D., 2004. Modelling Radiolytic Hydrogen Formation: Analysis
of Bench Scale Data. CANDU Owners Group Inc. Report, COG-03-2067.
G.A. Glowa, J.C. Wren and J.D. Mitchell, 2003. Experimental Studies on Radiolytic Hydrogen Production,
CANDU Owners Group Report, COG-02-2134.
Glowa, G.A., Wren, J.C., and Mitchell, J.R.D., 2004. Modelling Radiolytic Hydrogen Formation: Analysis
of Bench Scale Data. CANDU Owners Group Inc. Report, COG-03-2067.
McCracken, D.R., Stuart, C.R., Ouellette, D.C., Shultz, C.M., 1998. The Radiolysis of Oxygenated Water:
Benchmark Experiments 1. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, RC-2145.
McCracken, D.R., Shultz, C.M., 1998. The Radiolysis of Water Dosed with Hydrogen and Oxygen:
Benchmark Experiments 2. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, RC-2152.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
415
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Room Temperature
Dose Rate: ~4 kGy/h
Pure water, and water with various additives (CsI, nitrate, metal ions, LiOH, organic impurities,
O2)
Year Tests Performed: 2001-2004
Repeatability Check: Some
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: G.A. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
416
4.2.35 E2-35 - LACOMECO UFPE2
Test Facility: HYKA-A2
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Large scale combustion experiment was performed in a vertical cylindrical volume of 220 m3 with
aspect ratio of H/D =1.5 (H = 9 m, D = 6 m). A uniform hydrogen-air-steam mixture with 10% hydrogen
was axially ignited from the bottom (hign = 1.5 m above the floor). Flame propagation regime and effects
of instabilities on flame development in an unobstructed volume were investigated using high speed
imaging, thermocouples and pressure sensors. Scaling-down of hydrogen combustion phenomena in a
containment of nuclear reactor for numerical code validations was the main goal of the test.
Figure 4.2.35-1 HYKA-A2 Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
417
References for Experiment:
A. Miassoedov, M. Kuznetsov, M. Steinbrück, S. Kudriakov, Z. Hózer, I. Kljenak, R. Meignen, J.M.
Seiler, A. Teodorczyk, “Experiments of the LACOMECO Project at KIT”, Proc. of the 5th European
Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2012), Cologne (Germany), March 21-23, 2012
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1.5 bar
Temperature = 90°C
Hydrogen concentration: 10 vol.%
Steam concentration: 25 vol.%
Year Tests Performed: 2012
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
418
4.2.36 E2-36 - LACOMECO HYGRADE10
Test Facility: HYKA-A3
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
A large scale combustion experiment with hydrogen concentration gradient in a vertical cylindrical
volume of 33 m3 with aspect ratio of H/D =3.4 (H = 8 m, D = 2.35 m) was performed. A non-uniform
hydrogen-air mixture with a linear vertical hydrogen concentration gradient, ranging from 5% (at the
bottom) to 13% hydrogen (at the top), in air was axially ignited from the top (hign = 7 m). An obstacle
array with a blockage ratio BR of 0.5 was installed inside the volume.
References for Experiment:
A. Miassoedov, M. Kuznetsov, M. Steinbrück, S. Kudriakov, Z. Hózer, I. Kljenak, R. Meignen, J.M.
Seiler, A. Teodorczyk, “Experiments of the LACOMECO Project at KIT”, Proc. of the 5th European
Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2012), Cologne (Germany), March 21-23, 2012
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 17°C
Hydrogen concentration gradient: 5-13 vol.% H2Ignition at the top (hign = 7 m)
Year Tests Performed: 2012
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
419
Figure 4.2.36-1 HYKA-A3 Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
420
4.2.37 E2-37 - LACOMECO HYGRADE09
Test Facility: HYKA-A3
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
A large scale combustion experiment with hydrogen concentration gradient in a vertical cylindrical
volume of 33 m3 with aspect ratio of H/D =3.4 (H = 8 m, D = 2.35 m) was performed. A non-uniform
hydrogen-air mixture with a linear vertical hydrogen concentration gradient from 5% (at the bottom) to
13% hydrogen (at the top) in air was axially ignited from the bottom (ignition height of 1.2 m). An
obstacle array with blockage ratio BR of 0.5 was installed in the volume. The same test facility used as for
the test E2-36 - LACOMECO HYGRADE10.
References for Experiment:
A. Miassoedov, M. Kuznetsov, M. Steinbrück, S. Kudriakov, Z. Hózer, I. Kljenak, R. Meignen, J.M.
Seiler, A. Teodorczyk, “Experiments of the LACOMECO Project at KIT”, Proc. of the 5th European
Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2012), Cologne (Germany), March 21-23, 2012
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 13°C
Hydrogen concentration gradient: 5-13 vol.% H2
Ignition at the bottom (hign = 1.2 m)
Year Tests Performed: 2012
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
421
4.2.38 E2-38 - LACOMECO HYGRADE03
Test Facility: HYKA-A3
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
A large scale combustion experiment with uniform hydrogen-air mixture in a vertical cylindrical
volume of 33 m3, with aspect ratio of H/D =3.4 (H = 8 m, D = 2.35m), was performed. A uniform
hydrogen-air mixture was axially ignited from the bottom (hign = 1.2 m). An obstacle array with blockage
ratio BR = 0.5 was installed in the volume. The same test facility used as for the test E2-36 -
LACOMECO HYGRADE10.
References for Experiment:
A. Miassoedov, M. Kuznetsov, M. Steinbrück, S. Kudriakov, Z. Hózer, I. Kljenak, R. Meignen, J.M.
Seiler, A. Teodorczyk, “Experiments of the LACOMECO Project at KIT”, Proc. of the 5th European
Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2012), Cologne (Germany), March 21-23, 2012
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 5°C
Hydrogen concentration 9 vol.% H2Ignition at the bottom (hign = 1.2 m)
Year Tests Performed: 2012
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
422
4.2.39 E2-39 - LACOMECO HYDET06
Test Facility: HYKA-A1
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Detonation propagation experiments in a stratified semi-confined layer of hydrogen-air mixture were
performed. A horizontal rectangular box of 9x3x0.6 m for hydrogen-air mixture was installed inside of
safety volume A1 (V=100 m3). A non-uniform hydrogen-air mixture, with a vertical concentration
gradient of 1.1% H2/cm, and 26% hydrogen in air at the top boundary, was used in the test. A driver
section was used in order to initiate the detonation in the non-uniform mixture. The main goal was to
experimentally find the critical layer thickness and maximum hydrogen concentration for detonation
propagation in partially confined layer of stratified hydrogen-air mixture.
This work is to be published at the 34th Int. Combustion Symposium, Warsaw, Poland, 2012
Figure 4.2.39-1 Test Section for LACOMECO HYDET06 Test
References for Experiment:
J. Grune, M. Kuznetsov, R. Porowski, W. Rudy,, K. Sempert, A. Teodorczyk, Critical conditions of
hydrogen-air detonation in partially confined geometry”, to be published at the 34th Int. Combustion
Symposium, Warsaw, Poland, 2012
A. Miassoedov, M. Kuznetsov, M. Steinbrück, S. Kudriakov, Z. Hózer, I. Kljenak, R. Meignen, J.M.
Seiler, A. Teodorczyk, “Experiments of the LACOMECO Project at KIT”, Proc. of the 5th European
Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2012), Cologne (Germany), March 21-23, 2012
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 20°C
Layer geometry: horizontal 9x3x0.3 m open at the bottom
Hydrogen concentration profile: CH2 = -1.1·h[cm] + 25.9[%H2]
Test layer 30 cm
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
423
Year Tests Performed: 2010
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
424
4.2.40 E2-40 - LACOMECO HYDET07
Test Facility: HYKA-A1
Owner Organization: EC
Experiment Description:
Detonation propagation experiments in a stratified semi-confined layer of hydrogen-air mixture were
performed. A horizontal rectangular box of 9x3x0.6 m containing the hydrogen-air mixture was installed
inside of safety volume A1 (V=100 m3). A non-uniform hydrogen-air mixture, with a vertical
concentration gradient 1.1%H2/cm, and 25% hydrogen in air at the top boundary, was used in the test. A
driver section was used in order to initiate the detonation in the non-uniform mixture. The main goal was
to experimentally find the critical layer thickness and maximum hydrogen concentration for detonation
propagation in partially confined layer of stratified hydrogen-air mixture. The same test facility used as for
the test E2-39 - LACOMECO HYDET06.
References for Experiment:
J. Grune, M. Kuznetsov, R. Porowski, W. Rudy, K. Sempert, A. Teodorczyk, Critical conditions of
hydrogen-air detonation in partially confined geometry”, to be published at the 34th Int. Combustion
Symposium, Warsaw, Poland, 2012
A. Miassoedov, M. Kuznetsov, M. Steinbrück, S. Kudriakov, Z. Hózer, I. Kljenak, R. Meignen, J.M.
Seiler, A. Teodorczyk, “Experiments of the LACOMECO Project at KIT”, Proc. of the 5th European
Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2012), Cologne (Germany), March 21-23, 2012
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 20°C
Layer geometry: horizontal 9x3x0.3 m open at the bottom
Hydrogen concentration profile: CH2 = -1.1·h[cm] + 24.75[%H2]
Year Tests Performed: 2010
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
425
4.2.41 E2-41 - H2PAR E 12
Test Facility: H2PAR
Owner Organization: IRSN and EdF
Experiment Description:
The internal volume of H2PAR facility is equal to 7.6 m3 with a diameter of 2 m. The inner
containment confines the gaseous mixture and the aerosols, whereas the outer containment ensures the
thermal insulation of the system. A heated 50 litres water volume inside the inner containment allows
control of the atmospheric steam content.
References for Experiment:
P. Rongier et al., M., Rapport d’expérience – H2PAR essais E12 et E12BIS, internal report SERE 98/017
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas and catalytic sheets temperature, hydrogen concentration and pressure are measured. For this
experiment, SIEMENS recombiner FR90/1-150 had been used. The initial conditions are:
Temperature = 85°C
Pressure = 1 bar
Steam concentration = 0%
Injection of hydrogen in dry air during 100 s within flow rate of 0.48 g/s
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
W. Plumecocq, V. D. Layly, A. Bentaib, “Modelling of the containment mitigation measures in the
ASTEC code, focusing on Spray and Hydrogen”, Nureth 11, Avignon, October 2-6, 2005.
Reinecke, E.A. Bentaib, A., Kelm, S., Jahn, W., Meynet, N., Caroli, C., “Open issues in the applicability of
recombiner experiments and modelling to reactor simulations”, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Volume 52,
Issue 1, pp. 136-147, 2010 January
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
426
4.2.42 E2-42 - H2PAR E 13
Test Facility: H2PAR
Owner Organization: IRSN and EdF
Experiment Description:
The internal volume of H2PAR facility is equal to 7.6 m3 with a diameter of 2 m. The inner
containment confines the gaseous mixture and the aerosols, whereas the outer containment ensures the
thermal insulation of the system. A heated 50 litres water volume inside the inner containment allows
control of the atmospheric steam content.
References for Experiment:
P. Rongier et al., M., Rapport d’expérience – H2PAR essais E13 et E19, internal report SERE 98/021
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas and catalytic sheets temperature, hydrogen concentration and pressure are measured. For this
experiment, SIEMENS recombiner FR90/1-150 had been used. The initial conditions are:
Temperature = 85°C
Pressure = 1 bar
Steam concentration = 57.7%
Injection of hydrogen in dry air during 100 s within flow rate of 0.48 g/s
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
W. Plumecocq, V. D. Layly, A. Bentaib, “Modelling of the containment mitigation measures in the
ASTEC code, focusing on Spray and Hydrogen”, Nureth 11, Avignon, October 2-6, 2005
Reinecke, E.-A. Bentaib, A. , Kelm, S., Jahn, W. , Meynet, N , Caroli, C., “Open issues in the applicability
of recombiner experiments and modelling to reactor simulations, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Volume 52,
Issue 1, January 2010, pp. 136-147
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
427
4.2.43 E2-43 - H2PAR E 3
Test Facility: H2PAR
Owner Organization: IRSN and EDF
Experiment Description:
The internal volume of H2PAR facility is equal to 7.6 m3 with a diameter of 2 m. The inner
containment confines the gaseous mixture and the aerosols, whereas the outer containment ensures the
thermal insulation of the system. A heated 50 litres water volume inside the inner containment allows
control of the atmospheric steam content.
References for Experiment:
S. Grandgeorge-Poulain et. al., Rapport d’expérience – H2PAR essais E3, E3S et E3S6, internal report
SERE 97/034
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas and catalytic sheets temperature, hydrogen concentration and pressure are measured. For this
experiment, SIEMENS recombiner FR90/1-150 had been used. The initial conditions are:
Temperature = 85°C,
Pressure = 1 bar
Saturated atmosphere with aerosols (steam concentration 58 vol.%)
Hydrogen concentration 10 vol.% in dry air
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
428
4.2.44 E2-44 – KIT DDT Tests in CHANNEL Facility
Test Facility: CHANNEL
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description:
Flame acceleration and detonation transition experiments in a smooth channel filled with
stoichiometric hydrogen-oxygen mixture were performed. A horizontal rectangular channel of (3000-
6000) x 50 x 50 mm with transparent quartz window for optical observations was used. The deflagration-
to-detonation mechanism as well as the effect of boundary layer and different mixture reactivity (by
changing the initial pressure) on run-up-distance for detonation onset were experimentally investigated by
using a high speed camera combined with a Schlieren system.
1
3 4 44 4 4
2
Figure 4.2.44-1 Schematic of CHANNEL Test Facility
References for Experiment:
Kuznetsov M., Alekseev V., Matsukov I., Dorofeev S. DDT in a Smooth Tube filled with Hydrogen-
Oxygen Mixtures. Shock Waves, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 205 - 215 (2005)
Kuznetsov, M., Liberman, M., Matsukov, I. Experimental Study of the Preheat Zone Formation and
Deflagration to Detonation Transition. Combustion Science and Technology, 182, 11, pp. 1628- 1644
(2010)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
429
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 0.1-1 bar
Temperature = 20°C
Channel geometry: horizontal (3000-6000)x50x50 mm closed
Stoichiometric hydrogen – oxygen mixture
Year Tests Performed: 2003 - 2003
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
430
4.2.45 E2-45 – KIT Jet Ignition Tests in HPHR Facility
Test Facility: HPHR
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description:
Spontaneous ignition processes due to the high-pressure hydrogen releases into the air are
investigated. High-pressure hydrogen releases in the range of initial pressures from 20 to 275 bar and with
nozzle diameters of 0.5 – 4 mm have been investigated. Glass tubes of different length were used for
experimental study of self-ignition process using a high-speed CCD camera. The minimum initial pressure
of 25 bar leading to the self-ignition of hydrogen with air was measured in the tests. A probability of the
ignition of hydrogen-air cloud depending on the bulk pressure of high pressure tank, nozzle diameter and
release tube length was also investigated in the tests.
Figure 4.2.45-1 HPHR Test Section
References for Experiment:
Grune, J., Sempert, K., Kuznetsov, M., Jordan, T., Experimental Study of Ignited Unsteady Hydrogen
Releases From a High Pressure Reservoir. Proc. of the 4th Int. Conf. on Hydrogen Safety (ICHS2011),
2011 September 12-14, San Francisco, USA, Paper #133, pp. 1-11.
Grune J., Kuznetsov M., Lelyakin A., Jordan T. Spontaneous Ignition Processes due to High-Pressure
Hydrogen Release in Air. Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Hydrogen Safety (ICHS2011), 2011
September 12-14, San Francisco, USA, Paper #132, pp. 1-11.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
431
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 25 - 250 bar
Temperature = 20°C
High pressure volume = 370 cm3
Hydrogen released in air or into hydrogen-air mixture
Year Tests Performed: 2011
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
432
4.2.46 E2-46 – KIT Geometric Quenching of Detonation Tests in the HYKA-A1 Facility
Test Facility: HYKA-A1
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description:
An experimental investigation of the deflagration and deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) in
an obstructed semi-confined flat layer filled with uniform hydrogen-air mixtures was performed. Effects
of mixture reactivity and flat layer thickness on the flame propagation regimes in order to evaluate critical
conditions for sonic flame propagation and detonation onset were investigated. The experiments were
performed in a large rectangular box with dimensions 9 x 3 x 0.6 m opened from below and filled with
obstacles with a blockage ratio of BR=0.5. The hydrogen concentration in its mixtures with air was varied
in the range of 13-28 %vol. The detonation onset in a semi-confined mixture layer occurred if the layer
thickness, h, was 13-14 times the detonation cell width. It also was found that the detonation cannot
propagate or fails just beyond an obstacle if the orifice size, b, in obstructions is less than 3 times the
detonation cell width. In those cases with the critical orifice size, we could visualise a zone of failed
detonation on sooted plates installed just after the obstacle then a detonation re-initiation zone with refined
cellular structure, followed by re-establishment to normal detonation cell size.
Figure 4.2.46-1 Schematic of HYKA-A1 Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
433
References for Experiment:
M. Kuznetsov, J. Grune, A. Friedrich, K. Sempert, W. Breitung and T. Jordan, Hydrogen-Air Deflagrations
and Detonations in a Semi-Confined Flat Layer, In: Fire and Explosion Hazards, Proceedings of the 6th Int.
Seminar (Edited by D. Bradley, G. Makhviladze and V. Molkov), 2011, pp. 125-136, ISBN: 978-981-08-
7724-8, doi:10.3850/978-981-08-7724-8_02-05.
J. Grune, K. Sempert, H. Haberstroh, M. Kuznetsov, T. Jordan, Experimental Investigation of Hydrogen-
Air Deflagrations and Detonations in Semi-Confined Flat Layers, Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, Available online 8 October 2011, ISSN 0950-4230, 10.1016/j.jlp.2011.09.008.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial Pressure = 1 bar
Temperature = 20°C
Total volume = 100 m3
Hydrogen-air cloud volume = 9 x 3 x (0.15-0.6) m
Hydrogen-air mixture = 15 – 28 %H2
Year Tests Performed: 2008 - 2009
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Kuznetsov (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
434
4.2.47 E2-47 – Cheikhravat Experiments on Effect of Spray on Hydrogen Combustion
Test Facility: ENACCEF
Owner Organization: IRSN and CNRS/ICARE
Experiment Description:
ENACCEF is a vertical facility of 5 m high and can be equipped with repeated obstacles in the bottom
part. It is divided in 2 parts:
The acceleration tube (3.2 m long and 154 mm i.d.), is equipped at its bottom-end with 2 tungsten
electrodes as a low energy ignition device. At a distance of 1.9 m from the ignition point, 3
rectangular quartz windows (40 mmx300 mm optical path) are mounted flush with the inner
surface, 2 of them are opposed to each other the third one being perpendicular to the others. These
windows allow the recording of the flame front during its propagation along the tube using either a
shadowgraph or a tomography system. The tube is also equipped with 11 small quartz windows
(optical diameter: 8 mm, thickness: 3 mm) distributed along it,
The dome (1.7 m long, 738 i.d.) is connected to the upper part of the acceleration tube via a flange.
This part of the facility is also equipped with 3 silica windows (optical path: 170 mm, thickness:
40 mm), perpendicular to each other 2 by 2 (see figure1, left). Through these windows, the arrival
of the flame can be recorded via a Schlieren or a tomography system.
Before each test, the chamber was vacuumed and the residual pressure was lower than 3 Pa. The gases
were introduced using the partial pressure method. The synthetic air consisted of 21 vol. % O2 + 79 vol. %
N2. The initial conditions are:
Temperature: between 20C and 25C,
Pressure: 1 bar
Hydrogen concentration: from 10.5% to 13.06%
Blockage ratio: BR =0.63
Spray: hollow cone with rate of 8.6 l/min.
Water temperature: between 13C and 17C
After ignition (ignition point is located in the lower part of ENACCEF), spray is activated
simultaneously or within a time delay (sensitive parameter).
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
435
References for Experiment:
Cheikhravat H., “Etude expérimentale de la combustion de l’hydrogène dans une atmosphère inflammable
en présence de gouttes d’eau”, PhD thesis Orléans University, 2010.
Cheikhravat H. et al., “Evaluation of the Water Spray Impact on Premixed Hydrogen-Air-Steam Flames
Propagation”, Proceeding American Nuclear Society conference, San Diego, 2010.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas Temperature between 20C and 25C,
hydrogen concentration from 10.5% to 13.06%
Water temperature between 13C and 17C
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
436
4.2.48 E2-48 – Bjerketvedt Experiments on Effect of Spray on Hydrogen Combustion
Test Facility: Not available
Owner Organization: Not available
Experiment Description: Not available
References for Experiment:
Bjerketvedt D. ; Bjørkhaug M., “Experimental investigation: Effect of waterspray on gas explosions”,
Report prepared by the Christian Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway, for the UK Department of Energy,
OTH 90 316, HMSO, 1991.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters: Not available
Year Tests Performed: Not available
Repeatability Check: Not available
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Not available
Prepared By: A. Bentaib (IRSN) provided reference
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
437
4.3 Aerosol and Fission Product Behaviour Experiments
4.3.1 E3-1 - AHMED OECD benchmark
Test Facility: AHMED
Owner Organization: VTT (Finland)
Experiment Description:
The AHMED (Aerosol and Heat Transfer Measurement Device) was constructed by VTT to study the
effect of thermalhydraulics on hygroscopic and inert aerosol behaviour in containment during a
hypothetical severe accident. Hygroscopic NaOH, CsOH and CsI and inert Ag aerosol behaviour at
different temperatures and relative humidities (RH) was studied in the instrumented and controlled
AHMED vessel, where homogeneous thermal-hydraulic conditions for aerosol measurement were
achieved. The vessel and input line pressures and steam and air flows were also continuously monitored.
Input air flow was filtered and dried. The vessel surface temperature was controlled using computer
controlled heating cables. The input gas temperature was regulated using a heat exchanger. The aerosol
number and mass concentration were measured continuously during the experiments using a condensation
nucleus counter and a tapered element oscillating microbalance. The particle size distribution and
chemical composition in the test conditions were measured by Berner low pressure impactors.
At first the behaviour of the aerosols of different chemical species was studied separately in the
AHMED facility. In a second step, both Ag and CsOH aerosol particles were generated and injected in the
vessel simultaneously to study the behaviour of multi-component aerosol. The temperature in the
experiments was varied between 17°C and 51°C, and the RH between 7.3% and 97%. The experiments
have shown that in the case of NaOH, the ratio of aerosol mass concentration half lives at low to high RH
experiments was about 4 while for CsI and CsOH this ratio was about 2. This difference is due to the
density effect: CsOH and CsI have higher density than NaOH and thus during condensation their
aerodynamic sizes do not increase as much as the AMMD (equilibrium diameter of the particles).
The AHMED system has a 1.81 m3 total free volume, 63.5 cm vessel radius, 142.5 cm vessel height,
12,700 cm2 sedimentation area, operated at atmospheric pressure, and had a 2.6 L/min sampling rate.
References for Experiment:
Jokiniemi, J. The effect of airborne hygroscopic matter on aerosol behaviour in severe nuclear power plant
accident, technical Research Centre of Finland, publications 59 (Dissertation)
AHMED Code Comparison Exercise – Comparison report, NEA/CSNI/R(95)23
J.M. Mäkynen et al., AHMED experiments on hygroscopic and inert aerosol behaviour in LWR
containment conditions: experimental results, Nuclear Engineering and Design, 178 (1997) 45-59.
Some information may also be found in NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
438
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Temperature from 17 to 51°C.
RH from 7.3 to 97%
AMMD 2.1 to 2.7 μm
Mass concentration: 60 to 638 mg/cm3
Number concentration: 48,000 to 137,000 cm-3
Year Tests Performed: ~1995
Repeatability Check: Yes (several tests have been performed with the same aerosol in different
conditions)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
A series of AHMED experiments was used for computer code benchmark at the NEA. Benchmark
included MELCOR 1.8.3, MELCOR 1.8.2, IDRA 4.1, CONTAIN 1.12 FIPLOC-MI 2.0, MACRES and
NAUAHYGROS 1.1 and involved 7 organisations from 5 countries.
Prepared By: A. Amri (OECD)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
439
4.3.2 E3-2 - KAEVER CsI series
Test Facility: KAEVER
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The KAEVER experiments investigated the aerosol depletion in a 10 m³ steel vessel under
homogeneously mixed atmospheric conditions. In the CsI-series the following conditions were
established:
Test K100A had a relative humidity (RH) of 0%,
Test K102A had a RH of 0% ,
Test K106A had a RH of 85 – 90%,
Test K108A had a RH of 95%,
Test K110A had a RH of 95%,
Test K123A had a RH of 100% and weak fog formation,
Test K159A had strong fog formation.
References for Experiment:
Poss, Weber: “Versuche zum Verhalten von Kernschmelzaerosolen im LWR-Containment -KAEVER
Abschlussbericht Teil I” Battelle-Ingenieurtechnik GmbH, BF-R-67863, Mai 1997
Poss, Weber: “Versuche zum Verhalten von Kernschmelzaerosolen im LWR-Containment,
Datensammlung” Battelle-Ingenieurtechnik GmbH, BF-R-67863, Mai 1997
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Maximum concentration of aerosol material ~4 g/m³
Year Tests Performed: 1993- 1995
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Firnhaber et al., “ISP-44-KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-melt Aerosols in a LWR
Containment” NEA/CSNI/R(2003)5 August 2002
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
440
4.3.3 E3-3 - KAEVER K187 (ISP-44)
Test Facility: KAEVER
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The KAEVER experiments investigated the aerosol depletion in a 10 m³ steel vessel under
homogeneously mixed atmospheric conditions. In test K187 the aerosol mixture of Ag, CsOH and CsI was
injected. The relative humidity was 100% and there was a slight fog concentration.
References for Experiment:
Firnhaber et al., “Draft Specification of the ISP No. 44; KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-
melt Aerosols in a LWR Containment”, GRS July 1999
Firnhaber et al., “ISP-44-KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-melt Aerosols in a LWR
Containment” NEA/CSNI/R(2003)5 August 2002
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Maximum concentration of aerosol material < 1g/m³
Maximum concentration of aerosol material plus condensed water (wet concentration) = 10 g/m³)
Year Tests Performed: 1996
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Firnhaber et al., “ISP-44-KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-melt Aerosols in a LWR
Containment” NEA/CSNI/R(2003)5 August 2002
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
441
4.3.4 E3-4 - KAEVER K148 (ISP-44)
Test Facility: KAEVER
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The KAEVER experiments investigated the aerosol depletion in a 10 m³ steel vessel under
homogeneously mixed atmospheric conditions. In test K148 Ag aerosol was injected. The relative
humidity was 100% and there was a slight fog concentration.
References for Experiment:
Firnhaber et al., “Draft Specification of the ISP No. 44; KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-
melt Aerosols in a LWR Containment”, GRS July 1999
Firnhaber et al., “ISP-44-KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-melt Aerosols in a LWR
Containment” NEA/CSNI/R(2003)5 August 2002
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Maximum concentration of aerosol material = 1 g/m³
Maximum concentration of aerosol material plus condensed water (wet concentration) ~10 g/m³
Year Tests Performed: 1995
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Firnhaber et al., “ISP-44-KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-melt Aerosols in a LWR
Containment” NEA/CSNI/R(2003)5 August 2002
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
442
4.3.5 E3-5 - KAEVER K188 (ISP-44)
Test Facility: KAEVER
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The KAEVER experiments investigated the aerosol depletion in a 10 m³ steel vessel under
homogeneously mixed atmospheric conditions. In test K188 CsOH aerosol was injected. The relative
humidity was 100% and there was a slight fog concentration.
References for Experiment:
Firnhaber et al., “Draft Specification of the ISP No. 44; KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-
melt Aerosols in a LWR Containment”, GRS July 1999
Firnhaber et al., “ISP-44-KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-melt Aerosols in a LWR
Containment” NEA/CSNI/R(2003)5 August 2002
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Maximum concentration of aerosol material ~0.2 g/m³
Maximum concentration of aerosol material plus condensed water (wet concentration ~20 g/m³
Year Tests Performed: 1996
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Firnhaber et al., “ISP-44-KAEVER Experiments of the Behaviour of Core-melt Aerosols in a LWR
Containment” NEA/CSNI/R(2003)5 August 2002
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
443
4.3.6 E3-6 - LACE LA2
Test Facility: LACE
Owner Organization: Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL)
Experiment Description:
Objective of this test was to determine retention and behaviour of aerosols in a containment system
with two pre-existing leak paths. This is used to represent a failure to isolate the containment building.
Results will be used to benchmark computer codes used to predict T/H and aerosol transport behaviour in
containment. The test used a modified CSTF from experiments AB5, AB6, AB7 tests.
The test was performed in four consecutive thermalhydraulics stages:
1. A rapid heat up phase in which steam was injected upward along the vessel centerline from a
point in the lower part of the CSTF. Heated nitrogen was added through the aerosols delivery line
at a low rate.
2. Aerosol release phase where aerosols, steam, and non condensable gases were added to the
containment system through the aerosol delivery line. Steam was also added at a reduced rate
through the vertical steam pipe in the lower part of the CSFT.
3. A slow cooldown phase in which steam and nitrogen ware added to the containment at a reduced
rate through the vertical steam pipe and aerosol delivery pipe respectively,
4. A cooldown period in which nitrogen addition continued at a low rate through the aerosol delivery
line but steam injection was discontinued.
References for Experiment:
Souto, F.J., Haskin, F. E and Kmetyk, L. N.,”MELCOR 1.8.2 Assessment: Aerosol Experiments ABCOVE
AB5, AB6, AB7 and LACE LA2”, SAND94-2166, Oct. 1994.
Hilliard R.K., Muhlestein L. D., Albiol T. J., “Final report of experimental results of LACE test LA2 –
Failure to isolate containment”, LACE TR-007, June 1987
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
444
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Experiment Parameters (LA2 Test):
Rep. nonradioactive aerosol:
o CsOH, rep. water soluble species
o MnO, rep. insoluble species
Suspended mass concentration (max; p8):
o CsOH, 1.69 g/m3
o MnO, 2.06 g/m3
Note: See Table 7 (Pg. 15 of SAND94-2166) for more details
Year Tests Performed: 1980s
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Souto, F.J., Haskin, F. E and Kmetyk, L. N., “MELCOR 1.8.2 Assessment: Aerosol Experiments
ABCOVE AB5, AB6, AB7 and LACE LA2,” SAND94-2166, Oct. 1994.
LACE (TR-004 & TR-009) ORNL post test report (Owned by EPRI)
LACE (TR-010) Intermountain Technologies, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID (Owned by EPRI)
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
445
4.3.7 E3-7 - LACE LA4
Test Facility: LACE
Owner Organization: Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL)
Experiment Description:
This is a large vessel test with mixed aerosol (CsOH and MnO). Aerosol injected into humid vessel
with measurement of airborne concentrations and depletion rate. Testing was performed in multi
thermalhydraulic and aerosols injection stages into the CSTF vessel, and the behaviour of aerosols were
measured.
References for Experiment:
McCormack & Hilliard, R.K. (WHC) and Salgado, J.M. (TECHATOM), “Final Report of Experimental
Results of LACE Test LA4 – Late containment Failure with Overlapping Aerosol Injection Periods,”
LACE-TR-025, 1987
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
CSTF steel containment vessel: 852 m3
pre-existing vent path: sharp edge orifice plate of 34mm ID in a 6m length of duct
Seven consecutive T/H periods (steam, CsOH, CsOH+MnO, MnO, low steam, vent, cool down)
Average mass flow rate of CsOH=0.929g/s; MnO=0.757g/s
Year Tests Performed: 1986
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Wilson, J.H., and Arwood, P.C., “Comparison of (Posttest) Predictions of Aerosol Codes with
Measurements in LWR Aerosol Containment Experiment (LACE) LA4”, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
LACE TR-084, ORNL/M-991, 1990.
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
446
4.3.8 E3-8 – LACE LA5 and LA6
Test Facility: CSTF (Containment Systems Test Facility)
Owner Organization: Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL)
Experiment Description:
The LA5 and LA6 experiments were devoted on aerosol behaviour during rapid containment
depressurization transient and on aerosol re-entrainment from a flashing pool.
The experiments were performed in the CSTF (Containment Systems Test Facility) of the Handford
Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL). This facility mainly consists of the containment steel
vessel (a 852 m3 vessel) in which bottom an internal pool was filled with up to 3 m of water. In order to
maximize pool flashing, the water was heated to its boiling point before depressurization. To achieve a
rapid depressurization to generate a sufficient re-entrainment of aerosols from the flashing pool, a
discharge pipe (444-mm diameter) was installed at the middle level of the vessel and a full-port butterfly
valve was opened by a fast-acting pneumatic actuator.
The LA5 and LA6 experiments consisted of the following periods:
Rapid vessel heating by injecting hot steam at high flow rate (70 min for LA5 and 150 min for
LA6).
Slow heating by injecting intermediate steam and nitrogen flows. (50 min).
Pressurization al low steam and nitrogen flows up to a final pressure of 4.4 bar at 124ºC (370 min
for LA5 and 400 min for LA6).
Rapid depressurization to atmospheric pressure with pool flashing (1 min.).
Cooling of the vented vessel (1600 min).
CsOH and MnO aerosols were added in the LA6 experiment during the slow heating phase whereas in
LA5 no aerosols were injected. Both aerosol materials were generated by vaporization/condensation
processes and mixed in the Aerosol Mixing Vessel (AMV) to provide some agglomeration before being
carried to the containment vessel.
The amount of liquid entrained from the flashing was successfully measured using Li2SO4 previously
dissolved into the water pool. Significant differences in Li2SO4 concentration were found depending on
the location: 5 to 20 mg/m3 (1.2 m above the top of the internal tank) and 1 to 2 mg/m
3 at locations away
from the pool. Size distribution was around 4 μm. CsOH and MnO concentration were reduced by a
factor from 4 to 7 at the time of the depressurization. This reduction can be explained by fog formation,
condensation on particles and by the subsequent rain-out of large drops.
References for Experiment:
D.R. Dickinson, D.C. Mecham and D.C. Slaughterbeck, 1988. “Final Report of Experimental Results of
LACE Tests LA5 and LA6 – Rapid Containment Depressurization” U.S. Department of Energy, LACE
TR-026, September 1988
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
447
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure: 4.5·105 Pa to 1.0·10
5 Pa.
Aerosol size:
o inlet: AMMD = ~2.5 μm, GSD = ~1.8
o vessel: AMMD = 1.7 – 6.0 μm, GSD = 1.4 – 2.1
o Li2SO4: AMMD: ~4 μm
Aerosol concentration (before the depressurization):
o CsOH: 2·10-3
g/m3
o MnO: 7·10-3
g/m3
o Li2SO4: 2·10-2
g/m3
Year Tests Performed: 1988
Repeatability Check: Yes. Two similar tests performed.
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
448
4.3.9 E3-9 - Phebus FPT-1 (ISP-46)
Test Facility: Phébus
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
Phébus FPT-1 is an integral experiment that involved the degradation of a bundle made of twenty 1-m
long irradiated fuel rods including an Ag-In-Cd control rod, the release of fission product and structural
material in a model reactor cooling system , their behaviour in a model containment and iodine chemistry
in the containment. FPT61 was used for the International Standard Problem 46 (ISP-46). ISP-46 was
divided into 4 phases:
1. fuel degradation and material release from the bundle,
2. fission product and structural material transport in the reactor cooling system,
3. thermal-hydraulics and aerosol behaviour in the containment, and,
4. iodine chemistry in the containment.
Phases 3 and 4 are relevant to the CCVM.
References for Experiment:
Haste, T, “Specification of International Standard Problem ISP-46 (Phebus FPT1) Revision2”, IRSN Note
technique SEMAR 03/05
Jacquemain, D. Bourdon, S. De Breamecker, A. Barrachin, M., “PHEBUS FPT1 Final Report”, IPSN
Report SEA 1/00, December 2000
Clément, B., Haste, T, “ISP-46 – PHEBUS FPT1, Integral Expeiment on Reactor Severe Accident –
Comparison Report”, Report NEA/CSNI/R(2004)18, August 2004
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
The test was performed in a 10 m3 vessel, including gas phase, water phase and cooled surfaces, in
which steam, hydrogen and a mixture of fission product and structural material was injected during few
hours. The relative humidity was moderate and the pressure was about 2 bars. After having stopped the
injection, the containment was isolated and aerosol depletion measured. Finally, iodine chemistry was
studied during several days with a radiation field coming from injected radioactive material.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
449
Year Tests Performed: 1996
Repeatability Check: No repeats, but other tests from the Phebus FP series (mainly FPT-2 and FPT-3)
can be used for comparison
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Clément, B., Haste, T, “ISP-46 – PHEBUS FPT1, Integral Expeiment on Reactor Severe Accident –
Comparison Report”, Report NEA/CSNI/R(2004)18, August 2004
Prepared By: B. Clément (IRSN) and A. Bentaib (IRNS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
450
4.3.10 E3-10 - POSEIDON PA10
Test Facility: POSEIDON
Owner Organization: PSI
Experiment Description:
The experiments are meant to provide a thorough investigation of the pool scrubbing phenomena.
The experiment aimed at determining the dependence of hot pool Decontamination Factor (DF) on water
height at different carrier gas steam mass fractions with a relatively constant inlet aerosol diameter. The
DF increases exponentially with height. It also increases with carries gas steam mass fraction as
condensation at the injection point is an efficient aerosol removal mechanism.
References for Experiment:
A. Dehbi, D. Suckow, S. Guentay, The Effect of Liquid Temperature on Pool Scrubbing of Aerosols, J.
Aerosol Sci. Vol. 28, 1997
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Injection Flow rate: 125 kg/hours
Gas temperature: 250°C
Pool temperature: 85°C
Pool height: 4 m
Test duration: ~1 hour
Year Tests Performed: 1996
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: D. Paladino (PSI)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
451
4.3.11 E3-11 - BMC VANAM M2
Test Facility: BMC
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The experiment has been performed in the multi-compartment Battelle Model Containment (BMC).
BMC was built from reinforced concrete, had a free volume of 640 m³, and was designed to be a 1/64
representation of the Biblis B containment. The test-procedure of M2 was similar as the procedure of test
M3 (ISP-37), but insoluble instead of soluble aerosol was used. In Phase 1 of the experiment (17 h) the
containment was heated up by steam injection into the upper internal compartment R5. Then the insoluble
SnO2 aerosol was injected at the same position using air as carrier gas. After a phase without any injection,
a second aerosol injection was performed. The steam injection position was changed temporarily to the
lower room R3 and then switched back to R5.
References for Experiment:
Kanzleiter: “VANAM Multi-compartment Aerosol Depletion Test M2* with Insoluble Aerosol Material”,
Battelle-Institut e.V. Frankfurt, Technical Report BleV-R67.098-303, July 1993
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol concentration up to 10 g/m³
Relative humidity 80 to 100%
Temporarily high fog concentrations
Pressure 1 to 2 bar
Atmospheric temperature 20 to 120°C
Atmospheric velocity 0 to 0.75 m/s
Year Tests Performed: 1992
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
452
4.3.12 E3-12 - VICTORIA test 58
Test Facility: VICTORIA
Owner Organization: VTT (Finland), EC
Experiment Description:
The VICTORIA facility is a scale model of the ice condenser containment of Loviisa NPP with linear
scale of 1:15 and volume scale of 1:3375. The facility experiments were aimed at validating the
containment aerosol models used in the computer codes, in particular models related to radioactive
hygroscopic and non-hygroscopic aerosol behaviour in non-homogeneous multi-compartment
containments. Two research programmes have been carried out. In the earlier research programme (1990-
1995) focus was put on the T-H behaviour and hydrogen distribution in severe accident conditions. During
1996-1997 period, the VICTORIA facility was used in a modified geometry for aerosol experiments in a
CEC 4th Framework programme project.
The aerosols were generated by two aerosol generators. Water-soluble aerosol, either NaOH or
CsOH, was generated with two opposite jet atomisers. The dry particle AMMD was ~2.3 μm and the feed
rate was approximately 3 mg/s. A high temperature entrainment flow reactor was used for the generation
of silver particles. The piping from the aerosol generators (diameter 20 mm) was connected into one
injection line which was directed into the upper or lower compartment of the containment. The injection
pipe was made out of acid-resistant stainless steel. The temperature of the injection line was kept at
slightly over 100°C and it was adjusted by a separate controller.
In both 58 and 59 experiments, aerosol was injected into the lower compartment of the facility, while
the main difference was that in experiment 58, the aerosol material was CsOH, whereas in experiment 59,
CsOH was mixed with silver. In experiments 61 and 62 the particles were injected in the upper part of the
facility. In experiment 61, CsOH was used as aerosol material, while in experiment 62, the material was
silver.
The following were the measured parameters:
Aerosol number and concentration (condensation nucleus counter and tapered element oscillating
microbalance)
Particle mass and chemical composition distributions (11-stage multi-jet type low pressure
impactors)
Dry number size distribution (Electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI) and a differential mobility
analyser (DMA))
Temperature
Humidity
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
453
Estimated data accuracy is as follows:
Measurement size range of the impactors: 0;03 – 15 μm
Size range of the ELPI: 0.01 – 5 μm
Size range of the DMA: 0.02 – 0.8 μm
Temperature range: -40 to +180°C
Relative humidity in range of 0 to 100%
References for Experiment:
E. Heikkilä, Technical description of VICTORIA Facility, E.C. Report ST-APC(96)-P07 (1996)
J.M. Mäkynen, J.K. Jokiniemi, E.I. Kauppinen, H. Tuomisto, T. Routamo, LWR Containment Aerosol
Experiments at Victoria Facility – Data Report 1/96 – E.C. Report ST-APC(96) –P08 (1996)
J.M. Mäkynen, J.K. Jokiniemi, E.I. Kauppinen, H. Tuomisto, T. Routamo, LWR Containment Aerosol
Experiments at Victoria Facility – Final Report – E.C. Report ST-APC(98) –P19 (1998)
J.M. Mäkynen, J.K. Jokiniemi, E.I. Kauppinen, A. Slide, S. Outa, T. Routamo, H. Tuomisto, Experimental
and Modelling Studies on Containment Aerosol Behaviour in the Victoria Facility (1998)
J.M. Mäkynen, T. Routamo, LWR Containment Aerosol Experiments with the Victoria Facility – Data
Report Experiment 62 (1999).
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dry particle AMMD ~2.3 μm
Particle feed rate: 3 mg/s
Pressure: 1 bar
Maximum capacity of the steam generator: 25g/s
Year Tests Performed: 1996 – 1997
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Results of experiment 61 were compared with calculations using FIPLOC and CONTAIN computer codes.
Prepared By: A. Amri (OECD)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
454
4.3.13 E3-13 - CSTF ABCOVE Tests
Test Facility: CSTF
Owner Organization: Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL)
Experiment Description:
The Containment System Test Facility (CSTF) vessel, located at the Hanford Engineering
Development Laboratories, USA, was used to perform the ABCOVE tests. The tests covered a series of
dry aerosol experiments under hypothetical severe accident conditions in a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder
Reactor (LMFBR). Tests AB5, AB6 and AB7 studied behaviour of sodium or sodium iodide aerosols
before, during and after a sodium fire.
The objectives of these tests were to:
provide experimental data on behaviour of aerosols generated by a sodium spray fire, and
demonstrate co-agglomeration behaviour of two aerosol species.
References for Experiment:
Souto, F.J., Haskin, F. E and Kmetyk, L. N.,”MELCOR 1.8.2 Assessment: Aerosol Experiments ABCOVE
AB5, AB6, AB7 and LACE LA2,” SAND94-2166, Oct. 1994.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Experiment Parameters (AB5 Test):
CSTF containment vessel: 852m3
Interior surfaces: modified phenolic paint
Exterior surface: 25.4mm fibre glass insulation
Spray:
o nozzle loc.: 5.15m elevation
o 223 kg of sodium over a period of 872 s, with
o all the sodium converted to a 60% Na2O2 and 40% NaOH aerosol
Containment seal time: 5.136x105 s
Containment pressure (max): 214 kPa
Mean atmospheric temp:553.15K (local temp max at 843.15K)
Suspended mass conc.
o Max, 170 g/m3 @ 383 s
o SS, 110±17 g/m3
Note: More details available in Tables 1 thru 7 (p9-16 of SAND94-2166) for AB5, AB6, AB7 and LA2
tests
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
455
Year Tests Performed: 1983
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Souto, F.J., Haskin, F. E and Kmetyk, L. N., “MELCOR 1.8.2 Assessment: Aerosol Experiments
ABCOVE AB5, AB6, AB7 and LACE LA2,” SAND94-2166, Oct. 1994.
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
456
4.3.14 E3-14 - CSTF ACE
Test Facility: CSTF
Owner Organization: Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL)
Experiment Description:
The Advanced Containment Experiment (ACE) facility in the Containment System Test Facility was
used to investigate iodine behaviour in the presence of aerosols. The aerosols consisted of iodine (non-
radioactive), manganese and cesium.
References for Experiment Description:
Wall, I. And Merilo, M., 1992, “Advanced Containment Experiments (ACE) Project: Summary Report,”
EPRI TR-100346s
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure: 242 and 250 kPa
Temperature: ~100°C
Steam fraction: ~43%
Steam injection: 28 g/s
Aerosol sizes:
Cs: 2.77 and 3.42 µm
Mn: 3.93 and 3.39 µm
Year Tests Performed: 1980s
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: MAAP code
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
457
4.3.15 E3-15 - CARAIDAS Aerosol washout by single droplet tests
Test Facility: CARAIDAS
Owner Organization: IRSN (with EDF partial funding)
Experiment Description:
The IRSN CARAIDAS experimental set-up was used to study drop evolution under representative
conditions of post-accident atmosphere. The cylindrical enclosure is of 5 m high and 0.6 m inner diameter.
Homogeneous conditions are obtained with gas temperatures from 20 to 160°C, absolute pressures from 1
to 8 bar and relative humidities from a 3 up to 95%. The drop generator is located at the top of the vessel
in order to keep it at a constant temperature, independent of the vessel temperature. It can produce
monodisperse water droplets from 200 to 700 µm in diameter. Drop injection temperature is set between
20°C and 80°C by an electric heater. Initial droplet size, velocity, and temperature are determined
experimentally for each test. Drop diameter optical measurements are performed at 3 elevations. So-
called ‘evaporation’ and ‘condensation’ tests are performed.
Aerosol generation is based on mechanical spraying, by a rotating disk, of caesium iodide solution
tagged by soda fluorescein. With this specific generator, aerosols can be produced at specified
temperatures (20 to 160°C) and pressure levels (1 to 7 bar) in the vessel. The aerosol diameter ranges
between 0.5 and 5 µm, with a geometric standard deviation lower than 2. The aerosol mass concentration
is 0.1 g/L. Homogeneity of concentration and particles size distribution is checked. Aerosols
concentrations are measured by sampling on 25 mm diameter fibreglass filters during one or two minutes
with a 1 l/min flow rate. The particle size distribution measurements are given by inertial impactors at
vessel pressure and temperature conditions. The CARAIDAS facility allows to measure and the mass of
aerosols collected by falling drops as a function of different experimental conditions representative of
severe accident scenarios.
References for Experiment Description:
D. Ducret, Y. Billarand, D. Roblot, J. Vendel Study on collection efficiency of fission products by spray:
experimental device and modelling 24th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference,
Portland, USA, 15-18 July 1996, NUREG/CP-0153.2, 1996
D. Ducret et al., Etude expérimentale et modélisation du rabattement des aérosols par des systèmes
d’aspersion 14e Congrès Français sur les Aérosols, Dec. 1998, Paris, France, 1998
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka ,
Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
458
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas temperature: 20 to 160°C
Pressure: 1 to 8 bar
Relative humidity: 3 to 95%
Droplet size: 200 to 700 µm
Droplet Injection T: 20 to 80°C
Aerosol size: 0.5 to 5 µm
Aerosol mass concentration: 0.1 g/l
Year Tests Performed: Early 2000's
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
459
4.3.16 E3-16 - Whiteshell Flashing Jet Tests
Test Facility: Whiteshell Flashing Jet Facility
Owner Organization: AECL/COG
Experiment Description:
Flashing jets experiments were performed at AECL’s Whiteshell laboratories using high-temperature
(166 to 285°C), high-pressure (1 to 10 MPa) subcooled water discharged through various nozzles. The
nozzle assemblies consisted of simple round-hole nozzles, conical nozzles and nozzles fitted with
extension pipes. Nozzle diameters varied from 0.061 to 0.24 cm, and the L/D ratios varied from 0.5 to 200,
depending on the nozzle type. At any point in the flow field of the flashing jet, the aerosol size distribution
and velocity were simultaneously and non-intrusively measured with a Phase Doppler Anemometer.
References for Experiment:
Mulpuru, S.R., R. Balachandar and M. Hogeveen Ungurian, “Phase Doppler Anemometer -
Commissioning tests for Measurement of Water Aerosol Sizes and Velocities in Flashing Jets”, The 3rd
Int.
Conf. on Containment Design and Operation, Conference Proc., Vol. 2, 1994 October 19-21, Toronto,
1994.
S.R. Mulpuru, R. Balachandar and M.H. Ungurian, “Phase-Doppler Anemometer- Commissioning tests for
Measurement of water Aerosol Sizes and Velocities in Flashing Jets”, COG-93-395 , 1994
R. Balachandar, S.R. Mulpuru, and M.H. Ungurian, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing
Water Jets Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle (Diameter = 0.061 cm and Throat Length = 0.122
cm)”, COG-94-543 , 1995
R. Balachandar, S.R. Mulpuru and M.H. Ungurian, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing
Water Jets Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle Fitted with Pipe Extension (Diameter = 0.061 cm
and L/D = 200)”, COG-94-557 , 1995
R. Balachandar, S.R. Mulpuru and M.H. Ungurian, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing
Water Jets Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle (Diameter = 0.061 cm and Throat Length = 0.61
cm)”, COG-95-008, 1995
R. Balachandar, S.R. Mulpuru and M.H. Ungurian, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing
Water Jets Generated by a WALE Nozzle (Diameter = 0.061 cm)”, COG-95-86, 1995
R. Balachandar, S.R. Mulpuru and M.H. Ungurian, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing
Water Jets Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle (Diameter = 0.122 cm and Throat Length = 0.122
cm)”, COG-95-195, 1995
S.R. Mulpuru and M.H. Ungurian, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing Water Jets
Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle (Diameter = 0.061 cm and Throat Length = 0.61 cm)”, COG-
96-29, 1996
S.R. Mulpuru and M.H. Ungurian, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing Water Jets
Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle (Diameter = 0.24 cm and Throat Length = 12 cm)”, COG-96-
108, 1996
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
460
S.R. Mulpuru and M.H. Ungurian, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing Water Jets
Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle (Diameter = 0.122 cm and Throat Length = 0.61 cm)”, COG-
96-164, 1996
S.R. Mulpuru, M.H. Ungurian and M.D. Pellow, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing
Water Jets Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle (Diameter = 0.24 cm and Throat Length = 2.4 cm)”,
COG-96-167, 1996
S.R. Mulpuru, M.H. Ungurian and M.D. Pellow, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing
Water Jets Generated by a WALE Nozzle (Diameter = 0.122 cm)”, COG-96-166, 1997
S.R. Mulpuru, M.H. Ungurian and M.D. Pellow, “Droplet Size and Velocity Measurements in Flashing
Water Jets Generated by using a Custom Made Nozzle (Diameter = 0.24 cm and Throat Length = 0.12
cm)”, COG-96-247, 1997
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Upstream Water Temperature: 166 to 285°C
Upstream Water Pressure: 1 to 10 MPa
Downstream Conditions: Normal room pressure and temperatures
Nozzle Diameter: 0.061 to 0.24 cm
L/D Ratio: 0.5 to 200
Year Tests Performed: 1994-95
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
461
4.3.17 E3-17 - Clarkson College Brownian Agglomeration
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: Clarkson College
Experiment Description:
Aerosol particles were generated by condensing dibutyl phthalate (DBP) vapour onto NaCl nuclei
(condensed from NaCl vapours). The DBP aerosol particles were passed through a cylindrical tube used as
an agglomeration chamber. A light-scattering photometer was used to measure the size distribution of
aerosols at both entrance and exit of the agglomeration chamber.
References for Experiment:
Huang, C.M., M. Kerker, E. Matijevic and D.D. Cooke, “Aerosol Studies by Light Scattering, VII
Preparation and Particle Size Distribution of Linolenic Acid Aerosols”, J. Colloid and Interface Science,
33, 244, 1970.
Nicolaon, G., D.D. Cooke, M. Kerker and E. Matijevic, “A New Liquid Aerosol Generator”, J. Colloid and
Interface Science, 34, 534, 1970.
Nicolaon, G., D.D. Cooke, E.J. Davis, M. Kerker and E. Matijevic, “A New Liquid Aerosol Generator, II
The Effect of Reheating and Studies on the Condensation Zone”, J. Colloid and Interface Science, 35, 490,
1971.
Nicolaon, G., M. Kerker, D.D. Cooke and E. Matijevic, “Brownian Coagulation in a Submicron Aerosol:
Comparison of Experiment with Theory”, J. Colloid and Interface Science, 38, 460, 1972.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial aerosol size:
o mean = 0.237 µm
o std dev = 0.10
Agglomeration time: 41 and 110 s
Year Tests Performed: 1972
Repeatability Check: Unknown
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
462
4.3.18 E3-18 - JAERI Thermophoresis Tests
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: JAERI
Experiment Description:
Experiments studied thermophoretic deposition of aerosols on the pipe walls of a heat exchanger in a
temperature gradient along its length. Aerosol was sodium oxide particles. The deposited sodium atoms
were measured by atomic adsorption spectrometry. The amount of aerosol deposition due to
thermophoresis was obtained by taking the difference between tests performed with and without a
temperature gradient.
References for Experiment:
Nishio, G., S. Kitani and K. Takahashi, “Thermophoretic Deposition of Aerosol Particles in a
Heat-Exchanger Pipe”, Ind. Eng. Chem., Process Des. Develop., 13, 408, 1974.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Inlet conditions:
o Gas flow: 1.45 to 41.5 L/min
o Aerosol concentration: 0.00685 to 1.39 mg/l
o Gas temperature: 75 to 21ºC
Outlet conditions:
o Gas temperature: 22 to 51ºC
Year Tests Performed: 1974
Repeatability Check: Unknown
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Not provided
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
463
4.3.19 E3-19 - PITEAS Diffusiophoresis Tests (PDI 08, PDI 09, PDI 11 and PDI 12)
Test Facility: PITEAS
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
Examination of diffusiophoresis (of CsI aerosols) to the vessel walls where steam condensation is
occurring.
References for Experiment:
Albiol, T. and C. Lefol, “Piteas Programme, Diffusiophoresis of Aerosol Particles during Steam
Condensation PDI Experiments”, Note Technique SREAS/LEA 93/134, 1993.
V. Saldo, E. Verloo, A. Zoulalian: Study on aerosol deposition in the PITEAS vessel by settling,
thermophoresis and diffusiophoresis phenomena, J. Aerosol Science, vol 29, suppl.1, pp. S1173-S1174
(1998)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol size: 1 to 5
Vessel pressure: 3.4 to 4.5 bar
Vessel temperature: 121°C
Relative humidity: ~95%
Year Tests Performed: 1993
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
464
4.3.20 E3-20 - PITEAS Aerosol Condensation Tests (PCON 01 to PCON 05)
Test Facility: PITEAS
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
Starting from ambient conditions, the Piteas vessel containing 50 litres of water is heated up to 120C
and the containment pressure reaches ~3.3 bar. When the pressure is stabilized, the vessel is vented to
atmospheric pressure and closed. After several hours, when the pressure has reached a new equilibrium
value (~2.1 bar), the bottom vessel water is extracted. The CsI aerosol injection can start and is stopped for
a vessel pressure of ~4 bar. Some minutes later, the thermofluid temperature setpoint is decreased to
~100C in order to obtain condensation and diffusiophoresis.
References for Experiment:
Sabathier, F., “Piteas Programme, the Growth of Aerosol Particles by Steam Condensation PCON
Experiments”, Note Technique SREAS/LEA 92/093, 1992.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vessel pressure: 4 bar
Vessel temperature: ~120°C
Relative humidity: 52, 90, 95 and 100%
Year Tests Performed: 1992
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: J. Malet (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
465
4.3.21 E3-21 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Sehmel)
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: Pacific Northwest Laboratory
Experiment Description:
Tests to measure turbulent deposition of aerosols (uranine/uranine-methylene blue particles) in a
vertical aluminium tube (3.65 to 15.24 m in length and inside diameters of 0.53, 1.57, 2.93 and 7.14 cm).
References for Experiment:
Sehmel, A., “Aerosol Deposition from Turbulent Airstreams in Vertical Conduits”, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory Report BNWL-578, 1968.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol size: 1 to 28 µm
Reynold’s number: 100 to 60,000
Deposition velocity: below 10 cm/s
Year Tests Performed: 1986
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
466
4.3.22 E3-22 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Forney)
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: Harvard University
Experiment Description:
The experiments deal with the aerosol deposition on the inner walls of vertical circular tubes under
fully developed turbulent flow. Deposition occurs in a removable test section consisting of a glass tube
(150 cm in length) having inside diameters ranging from 1.3 to 4.4 cm. Perfect sticking was achieved by
coating internal surfaces with a mixture of paraffin (75%) and petroleum jelly (25%). Fully developed
turbulent flow was assured for all test conditions using an entrance tube section that was large enough.
The aerosols that were used (Lycopodium spores, Ragweed and Pecan pollen and Polystyrene spheres)
were dispersed into the air flow by an aspirator. The deposition time was typically 4 min and afterwards
the test section was removed and the collected particles were examined in 30 different locations using an
optical microscope.
References for Experiment:
Forney, L.J. and Spielman L.A., “Deposition of coarse aerosols from turbulent flow”. Aerosol science,
Vol. 5. pp. 257-271 (1974)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol size: 19.5 – 48.5 μm
Reynolds number: 4×103 – 6×10
4
Air velocity: 7 – 30.2 m/s
Tube diameter: 1.3×10-2
– 4.4×10-2
m.
Normalized stopping distance: 22.5 -715
Year Tests Performed: 1974
Repeatability Check: Detailed information about repeatability is not available, but it was reported that
“measurements reproducibility is about 25-50 per cent” (Forney and Spielman, 1974).
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
467
4.3.23 E3-23 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Friedlander)
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: University of Illinois
Experiment Description:
The experiment studies the deposition rate of dust particles on the walls tubes in a turbulent stream.
Three types of particles were used in the experiment: iron powder, aluminium powder and lycopodium
spores. The aerosols were dispersed using an atomizing nozzle and then the aerosol stream was mixed
with a secondary air stream to adjust the desirable flow. The observation tubes have a diameter ranging
from 0.54 to 2.5 cm and were made of either glass or brass. To avoid re-entrainment the test tubes were
coated with “pressure-sensitive” Scotch tape or glycerol jelly. In general the duration of the tests was
between 5 and 30 minutes and the deposition was measured by counting particles in a microscope.
References for Experiment:
Friedlander, S.K. and Johnstone, H.F., “Deposition of suspended particles from turbulent gas streams”.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 49, No. 7, pp. 1151-1156 (1957)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol size: 3, 5 and 30 μm
Reynolds number: 7×103 – 5×10
4
Tube diameter: 0.54×10-2
– 2.5×10-2
m
Year Tests Performed: 1957
Repeatability Check: Yes, “Experiment with the same conditions but using different tube and adhesive
materials gave similar results” (Friedlander and Johnstone, 1957)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
468
4.3.24 E3-24 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Liu)
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: University of Minnesota
Experiment Description:
The experiment measured the deposition of aerosols inside a vertical tube with turbulent flow. A
vibrating-orifice monodisperse aerosol generator was used as source of the test aerosols. The aerosols
were transported by an air flow towards the tube test section: a 103 cm long glass pipe of 1.27 cm of
diameter. Downstream the test section was a fibreglass filter. The aerosol particles that were used were
uniform, spherical droplets of olive oil containing less than 10 per cent of uranine (used as fluorescent
tracer). Electrical charge was neutralized with a 85
Kr source before entering the test section. Since liquid
aerosols were used, adhesion of particles to the wall pipe was not considered a problem and no adhesive
coating was used.
The tests run for a period ranging from 15 to 60 minutes, and at the end of the test, the material
deposited inside the glass pipe was washed, and the concentration of uranine in the wash liquid was
determined by a fluorometer. Similarly the amount of uranine collected in the filter was also measured.
References for Experiment:
Liu, B.Y.H. and Agarwal J.K., “Experimental observation of aerosol deposition in turbulent flow”. Aerosol
Science Vol. 5, pp. 145-155 (1974)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol size: 1.4 – 21 μm (monodisperse particles) Reynolds number: 1×10
4 – 5×10
4
Dimensionless particle relaxation time: 0.21 – 774
Tube diameter: 1.27×10-2
m
Year Tests Performed: 1974
Repeatability Check: Reproducibility of the experiments was checked in several tests. The results
showed that the maximum difference between duplicate tests was only 3 per cent (Liu and Agarwal, 1974).
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
469
4.3.25 E3-25 - Aerosol Deposition in Turbulent Vertical Conduits (Wells)
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: Atomic Energy Research Establishment
Experiment Description:
Radioactive particles were used to study deposition from airstreams on vertical surfaces. Three
different types of particles were used as an aerosol source: monodisperse droplets of tri-cresyl-phosphate
(tagged with 32
P), polystyrene spheres (tagged with 51
Cr), and Aitken nuclei (containing 212
Pb). The size
range of the particles that were used allowed Brownian deposition and impaction depletion mechanisms to
be investigated. Aerosols were transported by an air flow to the test section (0.5 m long), which consisted
of a 1.27 cm brass rod placed axially in a copper tube of 3.81 cm diameter.
The quantity of deposited particles on the central rod was measured at the end of the test from the
activity on the surface, measured by a scintillation counter. For this purpose a demountable, 2.54 cm long,
section was inserted in the test section.
References for Experiment:
Wells, A.C. and Chamberlain A.C., “Transport of small particles to vertical surfaces”. Brit. J. Appl. Phys.,
Vol. 18, pp. 1793-1799 (1967)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol size: 0.17 – 5 μm (monodisperse and polydisperse particles) Reynolds number: 1×10
3 – 5×10
4
Prandtl number: 105 - 10
6
Stopping distance: 1.8 – 80 μm
Tube diameter: 3.81×10-2
m
Rod diameter: 1.27×10-2
m
Year Tests Performed: 1974
Repeatability Check: No information available
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
470
4.3.26 E3-26 - CSE Fission Product Transport Tests
Test Facility: CSE
Owner Organization: Battelle Northwest
Experiment Description:
Six Containment Systems Experiment (CSE) tests (D-1, D-2, A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-11) were
performed to study fission product transport (using a simulant) within containment. In those experiments,
no engineered safety systems (i.e., spray systems) were provided and all fission product transport occurred
solely by natural, passive processes. The experiments were performed in two different sizes of
containment vessels (2,286 and 26,500 ft3). The largest vessel was about 1/5 linear scale of a large PWR
containment building. This large vessel had a total surface area to volume ratio (most important parameter
for iodine deposition) of approximately twice that of a typical large PWR.
After representative post accident conditions were established in the vessel, fission product stimulants
were injected in essentially an instantaneous manner. The initial iodine concentration exceeded 100 mg/m3
in three of the tests and was about 1 mg/m3 in the other three. Initial particle concentrations ranged from
0.1 to 10 mg/m3 for three types of particles – cesium, uranium (oxide) and particulate iodine. Time-
dependent measurements were made for mass concentrations in the vapour space at many locations, in the
condensate film on the vessel walls, and in the liquid pools which accumulated due to steam condensation.
After 1 to 2 days aging, the vessel was decontaminated to determine the final distribution of stimulant
materials between gas, liquid and paint.
A major parameter was changed in each experiment. Two vessel sizes were used (2,286 and 26,500
ft3). Temperatures of 180 and 250
ºF were investigated. Two initial iodine concentrations were used (1 and
100 mg/m3). The effect of heat transfer rate was measured by performing tests with both uninsulated and
insulated walls. Finally, the effect of unsteady temperature and pressure was determined by one test in
which temperature and pressure decayed with time.
References for Experiment:
Hilliard, R.K., and Coleman, L.F., “Natural Transport Effects of Fission Product Behaviour in the
Containment Systems Experiments”, Battelle Northwest Report BNWL-1457, Dec 1970.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
471
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Parameters Varied between tests:
Vessel size: 2,286 and 26,500 ft 3
Temperature range: 180°F and 250°F
Atmosphere pressure varied
Paint age: 1-2 days
Iodine conc.: 3 tests >100 mg/m3, 3 tests ~1mg/m
3
Particle conc. for Cs, U oxide and particulate Iodine range from 0.1-10 mg/m3
Release period restricted to 10 min
The time dependence of iodine, methyl iodide, cesium, ruthenium and uranium concentrations was
measured at various locations in the vapour space and in the steam condensate.
Year Tests Performed: 1969-1970
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: MELCOR 1.8.3
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
472
4.3.27 E3-27 - CSE Aerosol Removal Tests
Test Facility: CSE
Owner Organization: BNWL & AEC
Experiment Description:
The CSE facility was sized to represent one-fifth linear model of a typical 1000 MWe PWR. The
vessel has an 870 m3 volume (7.6 m diameter and 20.4 m height) and it is divided into three compartments:
main room, middle room and lower room. Its nominal pressure was 0.52 MPa and its nominal leak rate
0.1%/day at the design pressure. Steam and fission product simulants were injected into the lower part of
the main room where convective flow was created. Stable isotopes of four classes of fission product
elements were used with radiochemical tracing isotopes. Iodine, caesium and UO2 were used in all the
tests, whereas tellurium, barium, ruthenium and xenon were used in selected tests. Initial airborne iodine
concentrations were varied, but averaged at ~150 mg/m3. Particle aerosol concentration (caesium and
UO2) were significantly lower (~10 mg/m3). Atmosphere in the vessel was sampled and the fission
products were characterized by maypacks as particulate (caesium, UO2 and iodine, etc.) and gas (elemental
iodine, methyl iodine and xenon).
Three tests series were performed. One of them was devoted to investigate natural aerosol transport
inside the vessel, with several tests aimed to determine the effect of atmosphere composition and
temperature on leakage rate (a variety of penetration and deliberate leak pathways existed in the vessel.
Three different types of atmosphere were studied: ambient temperature air, hot air, and steam-air mixtures.
The other test series were conducted to assess airborne fission product removal by sprays and filtration
systems from containment atmospheres.
References for Experiment:
Hilliard, R.K., Postma, A.K. 1981. “Large-Scale Fission Product Containment Tests” Nuclear Technology,
Vol. 53, n. 2, pp. 163-175, 1981
Postma, A.K. and Johnson, B.M., 1971. “Containment system experiment. Final program summary”,
BNWL-1592. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (July 1971)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Pressure: 0.52 MPa
Temperature: 83 - 121°C
Atmospheres: ambient air, hot air and steam-air mixture
Aerosol concentration: ~150 mg/m3 (iodine), ~10 mg/m
3 (Cs, U)
Year Tests Performed: 1964 - 1970
Repeatability Check: No information available
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
473
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
474
4.3.28 E3-28 - LASS-SGTR
Test Facility: LASS-SGTR
Owner Organization: CIEMAT
Experiment Description:
The experiments were focused on aerosol deposition within the break stage of a failed and dry (i.e., no
water present) vertical steam generator, under conditions expected in SGTR severe accident sequences.
The facility consists of three main sections: the aerosol generator (based on the fluidization principle), the
injection line (through which particles reach the tube breach) and the tube bundle (a tube matrix of 11 x 11
tube which geometry is the real one in a steam generator). Suitable instrumentation is used at the inlet and
outlet of the bundle to characterize incoming and outgoing particles (TiO2). A mass balance was intended
by measuring the aerosol mass deposited in the bundle.
The variables studied were: the inlet gas mass flow rate (75 – 250 kg/h), the breach type (either
guillotine or fish mouth), and the gas flow orientation in the fish mouth tests (facing tube or diagonal). The
results were reported in terms of collection efficiency and showed low and moderate values (ranging from
5 to 30%, approximately) under all the conditions explored. Measurements of the aerosol size distribution
in the outlet (of the break) and inlet (of the pipe) gas are also available.
Note: LASS stands for Laboratory for Analysis of Safety Systems and is used to house several
experimental facilities (GIRS was one of them).
References for Experiment:
Herranz, L.E., Velasco, F.J.S. and del Prá C.L. “Aerosol retention near the tube breach during steam
generator tube rupture sequences”. Nuclear Technology, Vol. 154 (2006)
Peyres, V., Polo, J. and Herranz L.E. “SGTR project: Separate effect studies for vertical steam generators”
Informes Técnicos CIEMAT 1016 (march, 2003)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
475
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Inlet gas flow: 70 – 250 kg/h (1.9×10-2
– 6.9×10-2
kg/s)
Particle size:
o AMMD: 3.4 – 7.4 μm
o GSD 1.5
Break type:
o guillotine
o fish-mouth 0.5D
o fish-mouth 1D
Year Tests Performed: 2002
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
476
4.3.29 E3-29 - MCE, UCE and HCE Tests
Test Facility: AECL Chalk River Hot Cells
Owner Organization: AECL/COG
Experiment Description:
The experiments were focused on fission-product release from fuel samples that were irradiated under
CANDU heavy water reactor conditions. The samples were inserted in horizontal or vertical tube furnaces,
heated to test temperature and subjected to air environment. Other fuel samples were also tested in the
same experimental apparatus, but in steam and inert gas test environments.
Twenty-one tests were performed on samples of unsheathed UO2 fuel at test temperatures ranging
from 1200°C to 2080°C [1-13, 17]. Releases of Kr, Xe, I, Cs, Ru, Ba, La, Nb, Zr and Ce isotopes were
measured using direct-viewing and gas-measurement gamma spectrometry techniques. The releases of La,
Nb, Zr and Ce were less than the fraction of the sample that was vaporized [10, 13]. Releases in oxidizing
environments (including air) were usually significantly more rapid than releases in inert environments.
Thirteen tests were performed on clad fuel samples at test temperatures ranging from 1350°C to
1890°C [12, 14-16, 18-22]. In most of the tests, the sample was a segment of a fuel element, with Zircaloy
end-caps press-fitted onto the ends of the segment; four tests were done on fuel samples that were only
fitted with one end-cap. Releases of Kr, Xe, I, Cs, Te, Ru and Ba isotopes were measured using direct-
viewing, gas-measurement and post-test scanning gamma spectrometry techniques. Release rates
(particularly at low temperatures) increased significantly after the cladding wall had been oxidized. There
was a notable delay (~3000 s) between release of volatile fission products (Kr, Xe, I and Cs) and release of
ruthenium for samples that had two end-caps.
Two tests were done on clad segments of PWR fuel with press-fitted end-caps at test temperatures of
1350°C and 1650°C [14, 20]. These samples were subjected to a long decay period before testing, so that
only Kr and Cs releases could be measured.
References for Experiment:
Open References
[1] Dickson, R.S., Peplinskie, R.T. and Gauthier, M.D., “Release of Fission Products From CANDU
Fuel in Air Environment”, 10th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, 2008 October 5-8, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada, AECL Report CW-126320-CONF-003, and references therein.
[2] Hunt, C.E.L., Iglesias, F.C., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., Mitchell, J.R. and O'Connor,
R.F., “The release and transport of fission products during oxidation of UO2 in air,” Proc.
Symposium on Chemical Phenomena associated with Radioactivity Releases during Severe
Nuclear Plan Accidents, Anaheim, California, 1986 September 9-12, pp. 2-51 – 2-63
[3] Hunt, C.E.L., Iglesias, F.C., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., Mitchell, J.R. and O’Connor,
R.F., “Fission product release during UO2 oxidation”, Proc. Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Chalk
River, Ontario, 1986 October 6-8, pp. 508-526
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
477
[4] Iglesias, F.C., Hunt, C.E.L., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., O'Connor, R.F. and
Mitchell, J.R., “UO2 oxidation and fission product release,” Proc. Chemical Reactivity of Oxide
Fuel and Fission Product Release, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, England, 1987 April 7-9
[5] Cox, D.S., Iglesias, F.C., Hunt, C.E.L., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., O'Connor, R.F. and
Mitchell, J.R., “Fission product release from UO2 in air during temperature ramps,” Proc. 8th
Annual Conference of Canadian Nuclear Society, St. John, New Brunswick, 1987 June 14-17,
pp. 58-64
[6] Hunt, C.E.L., Iglesias, F.C., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., Mitchell, J.R. and O'Connor,
R.F., “UO2 oxidation in air or steam-release or retention of the fission products Ru, Ba, Ce, Eu,
Sb and Nb”, Proc. 8th Annual Conf. of Canadian Nuclear Society, St. John, New Brunswick,
1987 June 14-17, pp. 49-57
[7] Iglesias, F.C., Hunt, C.E.L., Garisto, F., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., Mitchell, J.R.
and O'Connor, R.F., “Measured release kinetics of ruthenium from uranium oxides in air and
steam”, Proc. Int. Conf. on Thermal Reactor Safety, Avignon, France, 1988 October 2-7, paper
143
[8] Iglesias, F.C., Hunt, C.E.L., Garisto, F. and Cox, D.S., “Ruthenium release kinetics from uranium
oxides,” Proc. Fission Product Transport Processes in Reactor Accidents, Dubrovnik,
Yugoslavia, 1989 May 22-26
[9] Hunt, C.E.L., Cox, D.S., Liu, Z., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., O'Connor, R.F. and Iglesias, F.C.,
“Ruthenium release in air,” Proc. 12th Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 1991 June 9-12, pp. 290-295
[10] Cox, D.S., Hunt, C.E.L., Liu, Z., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., O'Connor, R.F. and Iglesias, F.C.,
“Fission-product releases from UO2 in air and inert conditions at 1700 2350 K: analysis of the
MCE-1 experiment,” Proc. Safety of Thermal Reactors Conference, American Nuclear Society,
Portland, Oregon, U.S., 1991 July 21-25, AECL Report AECL-10438, 1991 July
[11] Hunt, C.E.L., Cox, D.S., Liu, Z., Keller, N.A., Barrand, R.D., O'Connor, R.F. and Iglesias, F.C.,
“Xenon and ruthenium release from UO2 in air,” Proc. Safety of Thermal Reactors Conference,
Portland, Oregon, U.S., 1991 July 21-25
[12] Dickson, R.S., Liu, Z., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., O'Connor, R.F. and Barrand, R.D., “Cesium
release from CANDU fuel in argon, steam and air: the UCE12 experiment,” Proc. 15th Annual
Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society, Montreal, Quebec, 1994 June 5-8, Session 3C,
AECL report AECL-CONF-00085
[13] Liu, Z., Cox, D.S., Dickson, R.S. and Elder, P.H., “Release of semi- and low-volatile fission
products from bare UO2 samples during post-irradiation annealing,” Proc. 15th Annual
Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1994 June 5-8, Session
5A, AECL report AECL-CONF-00087
[14] Cox, D.S., Liu, Z., Dickson, R.S. and Elder, P.H., “Fission-product releases during post-
irradiation annealing of high-burnup CANDU fuel”, Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Chalk
River, Ontario, 1992 October 4-8, pp. 4-61 to 4-73
[15] Barrand, R.D., Dickson, R.S., Liu, Z. and Semeniuk, D.D., “Release of fission products from
CANDU fuel in air, steam and argon atmospheres at 1500 1900°C: the HCE3 experiment”, Proc.
6th International Conference on CANDU Fuel, Niagara Falls, Ontario, 1999 September 26-30,
pp. 271-280
[16] Dickson, L.W. and Dickson, R.S., “Fission-product releases from CANDU fuel at 1650°C: the
HCE4 experiment”, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 2001
September 23-27, pp. 3B-21 – 3B-30
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
478
Closed References
[17] Liu, Z., Cox, D.S., Dickson, R.S. and Elder, P.H., “A Summary of CRL Fission Product Release
Measurements from UO2 Samples During Post Irradiation Annealing (1983-1992),” CANDU
Owners Group R&D report COG-92-377, 1994 May and references therein.
[18] Dickson, R.S., Lee, C.Y., Liu, Z., Hunt, C.E.L., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., O'Connor, R.F. and
Barrand, R.D., “Krypton, Cesium, Ruthenium and Antimony Release from UO2 Fragment
Specimens in Air, Steam and Argon Atmospheres at 1100°C-1625°C: UCE12 Data and Analysis
Report”, COG R&D report COG-92-330, 1994 February.
[19] Liu, Z., Hunt, C.E.L., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., O’Connor, R.F., Barrand, R.D., “Cesium and
Ruthenium Release from UO2 Mini-Element Specimens in Air, Steam and Argon (2% H2) at
1500 and 1600°C: HCE1 Data Report”, COG R&D Report COG-91-82, 1991 December
[20] Liu, Z., Hunt, C.E.L., Cox, D.S., Keller, N.A., Elder, P., O’Connor R.F., Barrand, R.D., Wood,
G., “Cesium Release from Irradiated CANDU and LWR Fuels in Steam and Air at 1350-1650°C:
HCE2 Quick-Look Report”, COG R&D Report COG-92-28, 1992 January
[21] R.S. Dickson, Z. Liu, R.D. Barrand, D.D. Semeniuk, D.S. Cox and P.H. Elder, “Release of
Xenon, Krypton, Iodine, Cesium, Tellurium and Ruthenium from Segments of CANDU Fuel in
Air, Steam, and Argon Atmospheres at 1500 1900°C: HCE3 Data Report Part I,” COG R&D
Report COG 95 357, 1998 June.
[22] L.W. Dickson, R.S. Dickson, Z. Liu, R.D. Barrand and D.D. Semeniuk, “Effect of Atmosphere
and Heating Rate on Fission Product Release from CANDU Fuel Heated to 1650°C: HCE4 Data
Report Part III,” COG R&D report COG-99-216, 2000 March
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
1200°C to 2080°C
Year Tests Performed: 1986-1999
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Barber, D.H., Dickson, L.W., Dickson, R.S. and Audette-Stuart, M., “SOURCE IST 2.0 Validation
Approach”, 7th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Honey Harbour, Kingston, Ontario, 2001 September 23-27.
Barber, D.H., Parlatan, Y., Dickson, L.W., Corse, B., Kaye, M.H., Lewis, B.J., Thompson, W., Colins, K.,
Dickson, R.S., Hoang, Y., Lemire, R.J., McLean, C.G., Muir, W.C., Popescu, A., Szpunar, B. and Yatabe,
S., “SOURCE IST 2.0: Fission Product Release Code”, 9th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Belleville, Ontario,
2005 September 18-21.
Plumecocq, W.; Kissane, M.P.; Manenc, H.; Giordano, P., “Fission-product release modelling in the
ASTEC integral code: the status of the ELSA module”, 8th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Honey Harbour,
Ontario, 2003 September 21-24, pp. 540-550
Prepared By: R. Dickson (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
479
4.3.30 E3-30 - GBI Tests
Test Facility: AECL Chalk River Hot Cells
Owner Organization: AECL/COG
Experiment Description:
The experiments were focused on fission-product release from unsheathed irradiated UO2 fuel
samples in air at temperatures up to 1100°C. In addition to measuring the grain-boundary inventory (GBI)
[1-8], these conditions are relevant to the CANDU reactor end-fitting failure accident scenario, in which
fuel is ejected into containment. The samples were inserted in vertical tube furnaces, oxidized to powder
in air at 500°C, and then heated to the final test temperature. Releases of Kr, Xe, I, Cs, Te, Ru, Mo and Tc
isotopes were measured in 23 tests on fuel samples from well-characterized radial locations using direct-
viewing and gas-measurement gamma spectrometry techniques. The samples from were from four fuel
elements with burnups between 115 MWh/kgU and 540 MWh/kgU and peak linear powers between 26
kW/m and 58 kW/m. Many other tests were performed in which only Kr and Xe releases were measured
[5].
References for Experiment:
Open References
[1] Dickson, R.S., Peplinskie, R.T., and Gauthier, M.D., “Release of Fission Products From CANDU
Fuel in Air Environment”, 10th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, 2008 October 5-8, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada, AECL Report CW-126320-CONF-003.
[2] Hunt C.E.L., Iglesias F.C., Cox D.S., Keller N.A., Barrand R.D., O'Connor R.F., Mitchell J.R.,
Wood G.W. and Mikuch R., “Fission product grain-boundary inventory”, Proc. 10th Annual
Conf. of the Canadian Nuclear Society, Ottawa, ON, 1989 June, AECL Report AECL-10036.
[3] Elder P.H., Cox D.S., Dickson L.W. and Murphy R.V., “New post-irradiation examination
techniques at Chalk River Laboratories: gamma tomography and grain-boundary-inventory
measurements on irradiated fuel”, Proc Recent Developments on Post-Irradiation Examination
Techniques for Water Reactor Fuel, Cadarache, France, 1994 October 17-21
[4] Elder P.H., Cox D.S., Liu Z., Dickson R.S. and Bilanovic Z., “Measurement of krypton grain-
boundary inventories in CANDU fuel”, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Pembroke, Ontario,
1995 October 1-4, pp. 6B-48 – 6B-57
[5] Dickson R.S., O’Connor R.F. and Semeniuk D.D., “Grain-boundary inventories of krypton in
CANDU fuel,” Proc. Fission Gas Behaviour in Water Reactor Fuels, Cadarache, France, 2000
September, pp. 337-346, AECL Report AECL-CONF-00145
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
480
Closed references
[6] Liu, Z., Cox, D.S., Dickson, R.S. and Elder, P.H., “A Summary of CRL Fission Product Release
Measurements from UO2 Samples During Post Irradiation Annealing (1983-1992),” CANDU
Owners Group R&D report COG 92 377, 1994 May.
[7] Elder, P.H., O'Connor, R.F., Semeniuk, D.D., Liu, Z., Dickson, R.S., Keller, N.A.. Kunkel, T.J.,
Barrand, R.D., Shields, D.F., Wood, G.W. and Cox, D.S., “Measurement of the Krypton Grain
Boundary Inventory in Irradiated CANDU Fuel: The GBI2 Experiment Analysis Report Part I,”
COG R&D report COG-93-186, 1997 March.
[8]. Elder, P.H., O'Connor, R.F., Cox, D.S. and Dickson, R.S., “Krypton Grain-Boundary Inventories
in Irradiated CANDU Fuel: The GBI3 Experiment Data Report,” COG R&D report COG-95-
188, 1997 March.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
500°C to 1100°C
Year Tests Performed: 1989 to 1992
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Barber, D.H., Dickson, L.W., Dickson, R.S. and Audette-Stuart, M., “SOURCE IST 2.0 Validation
Approach”, 7th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Honey Harbour, Kingston, Ontario, 2001 September 23-27.
Barber, D.H., Parlatan, Y., Dickson, L.W., Corse, B., Kaye, M.H., Lewis, B.J., Thompson, W., Colins, K.,
Dickson, R.S., Hoang, Y., Lemire, R.J., McLean, C.G., Muir, W.C., Popescu, A., Szpunar, B. and Yatabe,
S., “SOURCE IST 2.0: Fission Product Release Code”, 9th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Belleville, Ontario,
2005 September 18-21.
Plumecocq, W.; Kissane, M.P.; Manenc, H.; Giordano, P., “Fission-product release modelling in the
ASTEC integral code: the status of the ELSA module”, 8th Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel, Honey Harbour,
Ontario, 2003 September 21-24, pp. 540-550
Prepared By: R. Dickson (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
481
4.3.31 E3-31 - Aerosol Trapping Effects in Containment Penetration (A. Watanabe)
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: NUPEC
Experiment Description:
These tests investigated containment penetrations behavior under accident conditions. Two aspects
were addressed: failure temperature and fission product trapping along the leakage paths. Tests were
conducted using actual containment penetrations of a BWR plant (electrical penetration assemblies and
hatch flanges). Most of test pieces were heated up to 400 ºC and pressure was increased up to a maximum
value of 1 MPa. Test pieces were also irradiated to 800 kGy simulating the maximum accumulated dose in
containment.
Caesium iodide (CsI) was injected as a representative fission product aerosol. An atomizing type of
aerosol generator was used and a constant aerosol concentration could be maintained over 10 hours. The
maximum aerosol concentration generated by this method is more than 1 g/m3. Real time aerosol
concentrations in the inlet and outlet test pieces as well as the particle size distribution were obtained with
an optical particle counter. Detectable range of aerosol particle size was from 0.5 to 15 μm aerodynamic
mass median diameter. Representative aerosol concentrations and their diameters were selected to be
around 100 mg/m3 and 1 μm respectively. An electrical steam boiler and a gas compressor were used to
supply superheated steam-air mixture. A mixing chamber was used to mix supplied CsI aerosol and the
superheated steam-air uniformly. Online measurements were: inlet and outlet gas temperature, piece
surface temperatures, inlet and outlet pressures and gas flow rate through the leakage path.
Three types of tests were carried out: integrity tests, failure criteria and aerosol trapping tests. For the
integrity test two types of heating modes were used: steady heating at ~200ºC for 20h and cyclic one, with
temperature varying between 200 ºC and 120 ºC and pressure between 0.8 MPa and 0.1 MPa during 30 to
50 hours. For the failure test conditions the heating of the test section was kept until leakage occurrence.
References for Experiment:
A. Watanabe, T. Hashimoto and M. Osaki. 1998. “Fission Product Aerosol Trapping Effects in the
Leakage Path of Containment Penetration under Severe Accident Conditions” in Proc. 3rd OECD
Specialist Meeting on Nuclear Aerosols in Reactor Safety, Cologne, Germany, 1998
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
482
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol concentration: ~100 mg/m3
Particle size: ~1 μm
Temperature: <200ºC
Pressure: 1.1×105 – 5.5×10
5 Pa
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: No information available
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
483
4.3.32 E3-32 - Aerosol transfer through cracked concrete walls
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
The objectives of this experiment are to determine the contamination (gas and aerosol) transfer
models through cracked concrete walls. The experiments are performed on concrete walls (128 cm in
width, 75 cm in height and 10 cm in thickness) cracked by shear stresses.
The experimental device is divided into three parts. In the centre is the wall with the crack network
isolated by two boxes. The upstream part contains an aerosol generator that produces a soda fluorescent
aerosol with a controlled diameter and a known mass concentration. The downstream part enables
controlling the mass flow rate and the pressure drop between upstream and downstream sides. A High-
Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filter collects the penetrating aerosols in order to calculate the
downstream aerosol mass concentration
The first part of the experiment consists of measuring the gas flow through three cracked concrete
walls with and without shear stresses. The measurements are performed on three walls subjected to a
vertical stress that is representative of the building weight (150 kN) and to different horizontal shear
stresses of alternate directions up to 645 kN that are representative of a seismic activity. The second part
consists of studying the behaviour of aerosols in a crack network. For this, some experiments are
performed with different aerosol sizes to reach different kinds of deposition (diffusion, sedimentation and
impaction at the crack entrance). Four different aerosol sizes were used: 0.06, 0.8, 1.1 and 4.1 μm in
aerodynamic mass median diameter.
Finally, an additional experiment was performed to determine the crack network volume, depending
on the crack characteristics. Helium was injected as a tracer gas into the upstream part of the cracked wall
and to measure its transfer time to the downstream part.
References for Experiment:
T. Gelain and J. Vendel. 2008. “Research work on contamination transfers through cracked concrete
walls”. Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008), pp. 1159-1165
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
484
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
AMMD: 0.06, 0.8, 1.1 and 4.1 μm.
Gas flow rate: ~5×10-5
– 6×10-4
m3/s
Year Tests Performed: 2008
Repeatability Check: No information available
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
485
4.3.33 E3-33 - Whiteshell Steam Jet Experiments
Test Facility: Whiteshell Flashing Jet Facility
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The boiler used in the flashing jet study at WL (E3-16 - Whiteshell Flashing Jet Tests) was modified
for aerosol characterization in steam jets. The boiler vessel could be heated to 311C at a pressure of 10
MPa.
In the steam-jet test, the water was heated to about 130C to remove any undesirable gases, mostly
air. As boiling occurred, the steam was allowed to escape for 15 minutes. The temperature and pressure
were set to the desired operating conditions. Once the water reached saturation temperature and pressure, a
steam blow-down was initiated from the head-space inside the boiler. The steam was discharged through a
0.305-cm diameter nozzle fitted at the downstream end of the steam-discharge pipe connected to the boiler
head.
A DANTEC phase doppler anemometer was used to measure the aerosol size distribution and velocity
(60 cm away from the nozzle). The jet temperature profiles were measured using thermocouples
positioned in the jet as it expanded from the nozzle.
References for Experiment:
M.H. Ungurian and J. McFarlane, “A Facility to Measure Droplet Characteristics in a High-Temperature
High-Pressure Steam Jet”, RC-2187, AECL report, 2000
J. McFarlane and M.H. Ungurian, “Characterization of Droplet Formation in a Condensing Steam Jet. Part
I: Measurements along the Jet Axis”, RC-2485, AECL Report, 2000
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
486
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Nozzle Diameter: 0.305 cm
o Upstream Pressure: 1 to 10 MPa
o Upstream Steam Temperature: 1 to 6oC superheat
Nozzle Diameters: 0.089and 0.48 cm
o Upstream Pressure: 0.1 to 1.3 MPa
o Upstream Steam Temperature: 113 to 207oC
Year Tests Performed: 2000
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
487
4.3.34 E3-34 - WALE
Test Facility: WALE
Owner Organization: AECL/COG
Experiment Description:
The WALE (Water Aerosol Leakage Experiment) test facility consists of a 19 m3 cylindrical pressure
vessel, 2.24 m outside diameter, and 5.23 m high, with dished heads and a steam heating jacket. A vent
line, nozzle extends 500 mm into the vessel, discharges de-ionized water at high pressure and temperature
into the vessel. A chemical tracer (CsNO3) solution is added upstream of the nozzle. The flashing water
jet is directed either horizontally towards an impingement plate, or vertically upwards. The distance
between the nozzle and the impingement plate is varied.
Figure 4.3.34-1 Schematic of the WALE Test Facility
Steam and liquid aerosol exit from the containment vessel via a vent line. The entrance to the vent
line is sized such that the steam exit velocity is about 10 m/s. This flow is selected to permit the orifice to
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
488
be large enough to pass the larger aerosols, yet small enough to keep the flow rate sufficient to reduce
steam condensation.
Multiple troughs located throughout the facility are used to collect the falling liquid and permit
aerosol mass measurements to be made for different aerosol removal conditions. A forward scattering
spectrometer probe (FSSP) is used to measure particle size distributions at various locations in the vessel
and the vent line. The FSSP uses laser light scattering to count and size particles between 1 and 95m
in diameter.
A drop sampler probe was used to measure droplet size distributions in some of the tests. This device,
located inside the WALE vessel, delivers a pneumatically fired “bullet” at a controlled velocity across the
sample field and intercepts any droplets in its path. The leading face of the “bullet” is glass with a coating
which maintains an imprint of drops impinging the surface. The imprinted information on the bullet is
characterized to determine number density and droplet sizes using correlation factors relating the imprint to
the size of the intercepted droplet.
References for Experiment:
Koziak, W.W., C.F. Forrest and R.J. Fluke, “Water Aerosol Leakage Experiments: Objectives, Test
Matrix, Facility Description”, OH-DD-88463, COG-88-158, 1988.
R.J. Fluke, K.R. Weaver, G.L. Ogram, L.N. Rogers and C.F. Forrest, “The Water Aerosol Leakage
Experiments: Programme Description and Preliminary Results”, 2nd
Int. Conf. on Containment Design and
Operation, Toronto, 1990 October
Forrest, C.F., “Water Aerosol Leakage Experiments – Results of High Flow Tests”, Stern Laboratories
Report SL-037, COG Report, COG-91-123, 1992
C.F. Forrest, “Water Aerosol Leakage Experiments – December 1989 Test Results”, Stern Laboratories
Inc., SL-021, COG-91-122, 1993 January
R.J. Fluke, G.L. Ogram, L.N. Rogers and K.R. Weaver, “Aerosol Behaviour in the Water Aerosol Leakage
Experiments”, 2nd
Int. Conf. on Containment Design and Operation, Toronto, 1990 October
C.F. Forrest, “Water Aerosol Leakage Experiments – Decommissioning Report”, Stern Laboratories
Report SL-098, COG Report, COG-97-339, 1998
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
489
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Discharge Line Pressure: 3, 4.8, 10 MPa
Discharge Line Temperature: Saturation to 65oC subcooled
Discharge Flowrate: 0.03 - 0.8 kg/s
Containment Pressure: 102 kPa
Containment Temperature: 100oC
Nozzle Diameter: 0.025, 0.1, 0.907, 1.45, 2.11, 3.07 mm
Plate Separation: 0.037 m to 1.38 m
Year Tests Performed: 1988 - 1990
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
SMART validation: Carlson, P.A., “Validation Exercises for SMART-IST VER-0.300 – Jet
Impingement”, COG Report COG-01-035, Nov 2011.
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
490
4.3.35 E3-35 – AEREST (Aerosol resuspension shock tube)
Test Facility: AEREST
Owner Organization: Technical University of Munich (TU München)
Experiment Description:
The aerosol test section is located in a 7 m long pipe with a pressure vessel in an end (up to 160 bar).
Viscosity and density of the fluid are controlled by the initial temperature of the vessel which is equipped
with an electric heater. The experiment is started by an abrupt expansion of the vessel content by means of
a high speed ball valve and/or a rupture disk. The initial pressure, initial temperature and ball valve end
position determine the duration and intensity of the released flow wave. Within a flow conditioning
section the leading shock wave is broken by means of built-ins and the flow is parallelised by honeycombs.
Behind the conditioning section the expansion wave is transmitted to the optically accessible test section
with the aerosol deposition plate (prepared in an extra sedimentation vessel) located at the bottom. The
different geometric configurations of the aerosol deposition plate allow different angles of attack to the
deposits layer.
An aerosol layer ranging from 0.1 to 5 mg was deposited on the plate in a separated vessel. The
aerosol materials used are silver particles of different shapes and tin oxide (TiO2).
To detect the total mass of deposit during resuspension, a light scattering method has been developed.
The aerosol layer, deposited on a transparent glass plate, is illuminated by a constant-light source. By
means of an avalanche photo diode and an amplifier, the scattered light originating from the deposed
particles is detected. The amount of resuspended particles has been detected locally by means of a laser-
extinction method which takes advantage of the increasing absorption coefficient with an increasing
particle density. The particle movement has also been recorded by high speed particle tracking (high speed
CCD camera).
References for Experiment:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka ,
Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5
N. Ardey and F. Mayinger. 1998. Aerosol Resuspension by Highly Transient Flow – Insights by means of
a Laser Optical Methods. Kerntechnik (1998) 68-75.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
491
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Aerosol deposits layer: 0.1 – 5 mg
Year Tests Performed:
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
492
4.3.36 E3-36 – VANAM-M4
Test Facility: Battelle Model Containment (BMC)
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The experiment was performed in the multi-compartment Battelle Model Containment (BMC). The
BMC was built from reinforced concrete, had a free volume of 640 m³ (an inner diameter of 11.2 m and an
internal height of 9.8 m). It was designed to be a 1/64 representation of the Biblis B containment.
The VANAM M4 experiment investigated the influence of hydrogen deflagration on the aerosol
airborne concentration. In a first step of the experiment, hygroscopic sodium hydroxide (NaOH) aerosols
and insoluble tin dioxide (SnO2) aerosols were injected into the inner compartments of the BMC and were
left to settle. In the second step hydrogen was injected into the same compartment as the aerosols. The
hydrogen was ignited in the inner rooms and the expanding atmosphere spread out into the outer
containment rooms, separated from the inner rooms by rupture foils. Although the deflagration ran very
mildly, the generated air currents were capable of resuspending around 1% of the initially injected aerosol
mass.
References for Experiment:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka ,
Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5
M. Bendiab. 2007. Erweiterung des Containment Codes COCOSYS zur Quelltermbewertung der
trockenen Resuspension infolge transienter Strömungen. PhD Thesis. Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Hygroscopic (NaOH) and insoluble (SnO2) aerosols.
Year Tests Performed:
Repeatability Check: Unknown
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
493
4.3.37 E3-37 – THAI Aer-1, Aer-3 and Aer-4 tests
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical steel vessel with a volume of 60 m3 (9.2 m height and 3.2 m
diameter). Three tests were carried out to investigate the aerosol resuspension: Aer-1, Aer-3 and Aer-4.
For this purpose, a vertical deflagration tube was installed inside the facility. In the first phase of the
experiment, CsI aerosol was injected into the vessel (dry atmosphere) and was left to settle for a period of
25 h on the surfaces inside the vessel. In a second phase the deflagration tube was filled with hydrogen
and the resulting hydrogen-air mixture was ignited at a lower point of the tube. The expanding hot
atmosphere was released through a 2x50 cm2 large nozzle. The air flow ran over a deposition plate. This
yielded resuspension of aerosol material into the atmosphere. The hydrogen load inside the deflagration
tube was varied in the experiments. Thus different airflow velocities in the range of 17 m/s up to 67 m/s
over the deposition plate could be adjusted. This experimental setup was chosen to gain an air flow with
relatively well defined velocities in front of the nozzle.
The CsI aerosol was characterized by means of low pressure impactors, filters, sedimentation coupons
and others during the CsI settling and resuspension phases. The surface loading was measured before each
deflagration.
References for Experiment:
Hans-Josef Allelein, Ari Auvinen, Joanne Ball , Salih Güntay, Luis Enrique Herranz, Akihide Hidaka ,
Alain V. Jones, Martin Kissane, Dana Powers , Gunter Weber , “State-of-the-Art Report on Nuclear
Aerosols”, NEA/CSNI/R(2009)5
H. Nowack and H.J. Allelein. 2007. Dry aerosol resuspension after a hydrogen deflagration in the
containment. Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2007. September 10-13. Portoroz (Slovenia)
M. Sonnenkalb and G. Poss. The international test programme in the THAI facility and its use for code
validation. EURSAFE document.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas velocity: 17 – 67 m/s
Maximum aerosol concentration: ~10-3 kg/m3
Year Tests Performed: 2006
Repeatability Check: Three tests were done with similar conditions
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
494
4.3.38 E3-38 – Phebus FPT4 Revaporization
Test Facility: Phebus FP
Owner Organization: IRSN (Phebus FP Project)
Experiment Description:
The samples were from the in-reactor experiment Phebus FPT4, in which fission products and
actinides were released from a fuel debris bed (near full oxidation) without control rod material, to look at
late phase core degradation and the releases of low volatile fission products and actinides. The substrate of
the samples was thoria (usually chemically passive) about 1 m above the fuel debris bed. The re-
volatilisation studies were performed at temperatures up to 1000°C, in steam and reducing environments.
The re-volatilised materials included Cs, Ag, Cd, Sn, and U.
References for Experiment:
P.D.W. Bottomley, P. Carbol , J-P. Glatz, D. Knoche, D. Papaioannou, D .Solatie, S. Van Winckel, A-C.
Gregoire, G. Gregoire, D. Jacquemain, “Fission product and actinide release from the debris bed test
Phebus FPT4: Synthesis of the post test analyses and of the revaporisation testing of the plenum samples”,
Nuclear Engineering and Technology 38 (2006) 163-174.
P.D.W. Bottomley, T. Gouder, F. Huber, D. Papaioannou, D. Pellottiero, Mikrochimica Acta 145 (2004) 3-
12.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Maximum temperature 1000°C
Re-volatilisation environments were steam, steam-H2 and H2-N2 mixtures
Year Tests Performed: 1999
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: FPT4 releases have been used for validation, but the re-
volatilization data are not known to be used for validation
Prepared By: R.S. Dickson (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
495
4.3.39 E3-39 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation Studies at VTT
Test Facility:
Owner Organization: VTT
Experiment Description:
The formation and transport of volatile ruthenium oxides was studied by exposing RuO2 powder to
diverse oxidising atmospheres at a relatively high temperature. Transport of gaseous RuO4 was further
investigated by injecting it into the facility in similar conditions. The sample environments were slightly
moist air and air-steam mixtures. Upon cooling of the gas flow, RuO2 aerosol particles were formed in the
system. Higher sample temperatures favoured the formation of RuO2 aerosol particles.
References for Experiment:
T. Kärkelä, U. Backman, A. Auvinen, R. Zilliacus, M. Lipponen, T. Kekki, U. Tapper and J. Jokiniemi,
“Experiments on the behaviour of ruthenium in air ingress accidents,” Nordic Nuclear Safety Research
Report NKS-151, VTT report VTT-R-01252-07, 2007 March
A. Auvinen, U. Backman, J. Jokiniemi, M. Lipponen, R. Zilliacus; M. Kissane; I. Nagy, M. Kunstár, N.
Vér, “Investigation on Ruthenium Transport in Highly Oxidising Conditions,” Conference paper/ PU,
SARNET-ST-P39
P. Giordano, A. Auvinen, G. Brillant, J. Colombani, N. Davidovich, R. Dickson, T. Haste, T. Kärkelä, J.S.
Lamy, C. Mun, D. Ohai, Y. Pontillon, M. Steinbrück, and N. Vér, “Ruthenium behaviour under air ingress
conditions: main achievements in the SARNET project,” Proceedings of ERMSAR 2008 Meeting,
Nesseber, Bulgaria, 23-25 September 2008
A. Auvinen, G. Brillant, N. Davidovich, R. Dickson, G. Ducros, Y. Dutheillet, P Giordano, M. Kunstar, T.
Kärkelä, M. Mladin, Y. Pontillon, C. Séropian and N. Vér, Progress on Ruthenium Release and Transport
under Air Ingress Conditions”, Nucl. Eng. and Design, Volume 238, Issue 12, December 2008, pp. 3418-
3428
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Vaporization temperatures between 730°C and 1430°C
Sample environments: slightly moist air and air-steam mixtures
Year Tests Performed: 2006
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: R.S. Dickson (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
496
4.3.40 E3-40 – Ruthenium Transport and Revolatilisation Studies at KFKI
Test Facility: RUSET
Owner Organization: AEKI and KFKI (Hungary)
Experiment Description:
In separate effect tests at 1000-1200°C, the oxidation rate of Ru and the amount of Ru in outlet air
flow were studied in the presence of other fission product elements to determine the effect of these other
elements on Ru oxidation and transport. In a decreasing temperature section (1100-600C) most of the
RuO3 and RuO4 (~95%) decomposed and formed RuO2 crystals; the partial pressure of RuO4 in the outlet
air was in the range of 10-6
bar. The re-evaporation of deposited RuO2 resulted in about 10-6
bar partial
pressure in the outlet gas as well. Measurements demonstrated the importance of surface quality in the
decreasing temperature area on the heterogeneous phase decomposition of ruthenium oxides to RuO2.
Steam or molybdenum oxide vapour in air decreased the surface catalyzed decomposition of RuOx to RuO2
and increased RuO4 concentration in the outlet air. High temperature reaction with caesium changed the
form of the released ruthenium and caused a time delay in appearance of maximum concentration of
ruthenium oxides in the ambient temperature outlet gas, while reaction with Ba and Nd/Ce oxides
increased Ru escape from the high temperature area as Ba and rare earth ruthenates.
References for Experiment:
N. Vér, L. Matus, M. Kunstár, J. Osán, Z. Hózer, and A. Pintér, “Influence of fission products on
ruthenium oxidation and transport in air ingress nuclear accidents”, J. Nucl. Mater. 396 (2010) 208-217
A. Auvinen, G. Brillant, N. Davidovich, R. Dickson, G. Ducros, Y. Dutheillet, P Giordano, M. Kunstar, T.
Kärkelä, M. Mladin, Y. Pontillon, C. Séropian and N. Vér, Progress on Ruthenium Release and Transport
under Air Ingress Conditions”, Nucl. Eng. and Design, Volume 238, Issue 12, December 2008, pp. 3418-
3428
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Sample temperatures: 1000°C to 1200°C
Sample environment: air and air-steam mixtures
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check: Limited
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: R.S. Dickson (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
497
4.3.41 E3-41 – Ruthenium deposition studies at Chalmers University
Test Facility:
Owner Organization: Chalmers University (Goteborg, Sweden)
Experiment Description:
RuO4(g) interactions with metal substrates were studied at 20°C to 50°C in glass apparatus in air and
nitrogen environments (the deposition did not change for these environments). Deposits of RuO2·nH2O(s)
were found on glass surfaces (and to a much greater extent on zinc surfaces) and copper had both
Cu(RuO2(OH)4) and RuO2 deposits. Significantly less deposition occurred on aluminium surfaces.
References for Experiment:
J. Holm, H. Glänneskog and C. Ekberg “Interactions of RuO4(g) with different surfaces in nuclear reactor
containments,” Nordic Nuclear Safety Research Report NKS-166, 2008 July
J. Holm, H. Glänneskog and C. Ekberg “Deposition of RuO4(g) on various surfaces in a nuclear reactor
containment,” J. Nucl. Mater. 392 (2009) 55-62
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Sample temperatures: 20°C to 50°C
Sample environments: air and nitrogen (saturated with water vapour)
Year Tests Performed: 2007
Repeatability Check: Limited
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: R.S. Dickson (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
498
4.3.42 E3-42 – Ruthenium Revolatilisation Studies at IRSN
Test Facility: EPICUR
Owner Organization: IRSN
Experiment Description:
The decomposition of RuO4 in air on stainless steel and paint substrates was found to depend on
temperature and the presence of steam. The deposited ruthenium (in the form of RuO2·nH2O) did not
interact with the substrate. Oxidation of the deposited ruthenium by ozone or air radiolysis products
yielded RuO4 again. Air radiolysis products were more effective than ozone in re-volatilising the Ru
deposits. In studies in the EPICUR facility, a large fraction of RuO4 was thermally volatilised from the
water, RuO4- was significantly less volatile and required irradiation to be volatilised, and RuO2·nH2O was
not volatile.
References for Experiment:
Mun, C., Cantrel, L. and Madic, C., “Study of RuO4 Decomposition in Dry and Moist Air”, Radiochimica
Acta. 95(11), pp. 643-656 (2007).
C. Mun, J.J. Ehrhardt, J. Lambert; and C. Madic, “XPS Investigations of Ruthenium Deposited onto
Representative Inner Surfaces of Nuclear Reactor Containment Buildings”, Applied Surface Science
253(2007) 7613-7621
C. Mun, L. Cantrel; and C. Madic, “Oxidation of Ruthenium Oxide Deposits by Ozone”, Radiochimica
Acta 96 (2008) 375-384
C. Mun, L. Cantrel; and C. Madic, “Radiolytic Oxidation of Ruthenium Oxide Deposits”, Nucl.
Technology 164 (2008) 245-254
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Test temperatures: 40°C to 90°C
Sample environments: dry air, moist air, and air-steam mixtures
Some tests in radiation environment
Year Tests Performed: 2007
Repeatability Check: Limited
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Used in model development in ASTEC 2.0
Prepared By: R.S. Dickson (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
499
4.4 Iodine Chemistry Experiments
4.4.1 E4-1 - CFTF Charcoal Filter Test
Test Facility: CFTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Charcoal Filter Test Facility (CFTF) is designed to determine the efficiency of TEDA
(triethylenediamine) impregnated charcoal for trapping CH3I under postulated accident conditions.
References for Experiment:
A.C. Vikis, J.C. Wren, C.J. Moore and R.J. Fluke, “Long-Term Desorption of 131
I from KI-Impregnated
Charcoals Loaded with CH3I Under Simulated Post-LOCA Conditions”, Proc. of the 18th DOE Nuclear
Airborne Waste Management and Air Cleaning Conf., Baltimore, Maryland, August 12-16, 1984, CONF-
840806, p. 65, U.S. Department of Energy (1985).
J.C. Wren and C.J. Moore, “Long-Term Desorption of CH3I From a TEDA-Impregnated Charcoal Bed
Under Post-LOCA Conditions”, Proc. of the 20th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning Conf., Boston,
Massachusetts, August 22-25, 1988, p. 1117, U.S. Department of Energy (1989).
J.C. Wren, C.J. Moore, A.C. Vikis and R.J. Fluke, “A Study of the Performance of Charcoals Filters Under
Post-LOCA Conditions”, Proc. of the 20th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning Conf., Boston, Massachusetts,
August 22-25, 1988, p. 786, U.S. Department of Energy (1988).
J.C. Wren and C.J. Moore, “The Effect of Weathering on Charcoal Filter Performance.
I: The Adsorption and Desorption Behaviour of Contaminants”, Nucl. Technol. 94, 242 (1991).
J.C. Wren and C.J. Moore, “The Effect of Weathering on Charcoal Filter Performance.
II: The Effect of Contaminants on the CH3I Removal Efficiency of TEDA Charcoal”, Nucl. Technol., 94,
252 (1991).
J.C. Wren, W. Long, C.J. Moore and K.R. Weaver, “Modelling the Removal and Retention of Radioiodine
by TEDA-Impregnated Charcoal Under Reactor Accident Conditions”, Nucl. Technol., 125, 13 (1999).
J.C. Wren, C.J. Moore, M.T. Rasmussen and K.R. Weaver, “Methyl Iodide Trapping Efficiency of Aged
Charcoal Samples from Bruce A EFADS”, Nucl. Technol., 125, 28 (1999).
J.C. Wren, C.J. Moore, and Z. Qin, “Dynamic Adsorption of CH3I from Flowing Airstreams on Activated
TEDA Charcoal”, Int. J. of Materials Eng. and Tech. 3:1-32 (2010).
Z. Qin, J.C. Wren, and C.J. Moore, “A Temperature Model for an EFADS Charcoal Filter Exposed to a
Dry Airflow”, 55th Canadian Chem. Eng. Conf., Toronto, ON, Oct. 15-18, 2005.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
500
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Temperature: 20 to 110°C.
Charcoal bed depth: 2.5 to 20 cm
Charcoal bed diameter: 5 cm
Relative humidity: 0 to 95% RH
CH3I challenge concentration: 5e-6 to 1 g/l
Measured Parameters
Decontamination Factor
Dynamic Adsorption capacity
Bed Distribution
Temperature Transient
Year Tests Performed: 1982-2010
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
J.C. Wren, W. Long, C.J. Moore and K.R. Weaver, “Modelling the Removal and Retention of Radioiodine
by TEDA-Impregnated Charcoal Under Reactor Accident Conditions”, Nucl. Technol., 125, 13 (1999).
Z. Qin, J. C. Wren and C. J. Moore, “Modeling the Iodine Removal Efficiency and Temperature Behaviour
for an FADS Charcoal Filter by FEMLAB”, Proc. of FEMLAB – COMSOL Multiphysics Conference,
Oct. 23-25, 2005, Boston, MA, edited by J. Hiller, 119-123 (2005).
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
501
4.4.2 E4-2 - RTF P9T3
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment.
References for Experiment:
Glowa, G.A. and Ball, J.M., 2007. The Radioiodine Test Facility Program. Severe Accident Research
Network Report, SARNET-ST-P60.
Glowa, G.A. and Ball, J.M., 2007. Radioiodine Test Facility P9T3 Data. Severe Accident Research
Network Report, SARNET-ST-P61.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90C)
pH (4-10)
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
502
4.4.3 E4-3 - RTF P9T1
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment
References for Experiment:
Glowa, G.A. and Ball, J.M., 2010. Radioiodine Test Facility P9T1 Test Report. Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited Report, 153-126530-440-008, Rev. 0.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90C)
pH (4-10)
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1996
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
503
4.4.4 E4-4 - RTF P9T2
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment
References for Experiment:
Glowa, G.A., 2010. Radioiodine Test Facility P9T2 Test Report. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Report, 153-126530-440-012, Rev. 0.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90C)
pH (4-10)
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1996
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
504
4.4.5 E4-5 - RTF P10T2
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment
References for Experiment:
Glowa, G.A. and Ball, J.M., 2009. Radioiodine Test Facility P10T2 Test Report. Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited Report, 153-126530-440-004, Rev. 0.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90C)
pH (4-10)
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
505
4.4.6 E4-6 - RTF P10T3
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment
References for Experiment:
Glowa, G.A. and Ball, J.M., 2009. Radioiodine Test Facility P10T3 Test Report. Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited Report, 153-126530-440-005, Rev. 1.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90C)
pH (4-10)
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
506
4.4.7 E4-7 - RTF P11T1
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment
References for Experiment:
Glowa, G.A., 2007. Radioiodine Test Facility P11T1 Test Report. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Report, 153-126530-440-002.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90C)
pH (4-10)
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1998
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
507
4.4.8 E4-8 - RTF P0T2
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL/COG
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment
References for Experiment:
Ball, J.M., Hnatiw, J.B., Palson, A., Portman, R., and Sanipelli, G.G., 1993. Radioiodine Test Facility
Phase 0 – Test 2 (Stainless Steel, 60
Co Source) Data Report. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report,
COG-93-49.
Ball J.M., 2000. ISP 41 Containment Iodine Computer Code Exercise Based on a Radioiodine Test Facility
(RTF) Experiment. NEA/CSNI Report, R(2000)6/ Volumes 1 and 2.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90C)
pH (4-10)
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1992
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: ISP-41
Ball J.M., 2000. ISP 41 Containment Iodine Computer Code Exercise Based on a Radioiodine Test Facility
(RTF) Experiment. NEA/CSNI Report, R(2000)6/ Volumes 1 and 2.
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
508
4.4.9 E4-9 - RTF P10T1
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment
References for Experiment:
G.A. Glowa, J.M. Ball, J. Merritt, R. Portman and G.G. Sanipelli “Radioiodine Test Facility Phase 10 Test
1 Data Report”, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, RC-2050, (2000).
ISP-41 Follow-up Exercise Phase 2 (RTF and CAIMAN Experiments) - Final Comparison and
Interpretation Report NEA/CSNI/R(2004)16
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90 C)
pH 4-10
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: ISP-41
ISP-41 Follow-up Exercise Phase 2 (RTF and CAIMAN Experiments) - Final Comparison and
Interpretation Report NEA/CSNI/R(2004)16
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
509
4.4.10 E4-10 - RTF PHEBUS RTF1
Test Facility: RTF
Owner Organization: AECL
Experiment Description:
The Radioiodine Test Facility (RTF) studied iodine behaviour in containment
References for Experiment:
Ball, J.M., Chuaqui, C.A, Merritt, J.A., Portman, R, Sanipelli, G.G., and Wren, J.C., 1996. Results from
PHEBUS RTF1 Test: Final Report. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, COG-95-53, COG-
PHEBUS-FP-04.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate (1-2 kGy/h)
Temperature (25-90 C)
pH 4-10
Surfaces (steel and paint)
Total gas phase iodine (<1e-8 M)
Total aqueous iodine (<1e-5 M )
Year Tests Performed: 1994
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: ISP-41
ISP-41 Follow-up Exercise Phase 2 (RTF and CAIMAN Experiments) - Final Comparison and
Interpretation Report NEA/CSNI/R(2004)16
Prepared By: G. Glowa (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
510
4.4.11 E4-11 - EPICUR Test Series S1, S2 and S3
Test Facility: EPICUR
Owner Organization: IRSN, CEA, EDF + ISTP partners
Experiment Description:
The EPICUR (Experimental Programme of Iodine Chemistry Under Radiation) tests address the
iodine chemistry under severe accident conditions. The test data will help reduce the uncertainties on the
release of radioactive iodine during a severe accident. The tests are part of the International Source Term
Programme (ISTP) with the partnership of European Commission, AECL, PSI, KINS, and USNRC.
All the experiments are performed under radiation and use labeled iodine. 19 tests in 3 series S1, S2
and S3, were performed.
References for Experiment:
Guilbert, S. t al;, “Radiolytic oxidation of iodine in the containment at high dose rate”, Nuclear Energy for
New Europe 200, Portoroz, Slovenia, September 1-13, 2007
S. Guilbert et al., “Formation of organic iodide in the containment in case of a severe accident”, American
Nuclear society Meeting 2008, June 8-13, Anaheim (CA)
J. Colombani et al., “Experimental Study of organic iodide formation on painted surfaces in the
containment during a severe accident”, Proceedings of ICAPP 2011, May 2-6, 2011, Nice (France)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
The tests are performed in an irradiation tank with a volume of a few liters at temperatures ranging
from 80 to 120°C, including or not including a liquid phase, and in most cases with painted coupons. The
volatile gaseous iodine species are continuously swept towards as selective iodine filter separating
aerosols, inorganic and organic iodides, with on-line measurements by gamma spectrometry.
Year Tests Performed: 2005 to 2010
Repeatability Check: Yes for some tests
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: B. Clement (IRSN) and A. Bentaib (IRSN)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
511
4.4.12 E4-12 - THAI Iod-09
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. For Test Iod-09 the facility had two sumps, the main sump at the bottom and the
condensate pans, which were filled with water. At the beginning the main sump was stratified, after four
hours it was homogenized by a pump. For the first 25 h, the atmosphere was dry, and then steam was
injected. Iod-09 investigated the mass-transfer of iodine between atmosphere and sumps, along with the
deposition of gaseous iodine on steel surfaces under dry and condensing atmospheric conditions. The dry
surfaces acted as iodine storage.
References for Experiment:
Funke, Kanzleiter: “Test facility and program to investigate open questions on fission product behaviour in
the containment – THAI phase II”, AREVA NP and Becker Technologies, Germany, August 2006, NTR-
G/2007/de/0233A
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Iodine concentrations in
-gas phase 10-7
to 10-5
g/l
-main sump (max) 7x10-5
g/l
-condensate pans (max) 3x10-4
g/l
-wall condensate (max) 10-2
g/l
Year Tests Performed: 2003
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
512
4.4.13 E4-13 - THAI Iod-11
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. For Test Iod-11 the facility was subdivided into 5 compartments (by placing an inner
cylinder and some horizontal plates/trays). At the beginning the atmosphere was stratified with 80°C near
the top and 25°C near the bottom. The humidity was about 80% and the walls were dry. The iodine was
injected at the top and stayed at elevations at and above 7 m. At 4 h an atmosphere mixing was started,
first by heating the lower vessel walls, then by helium injection and finally by steam injection. Although
the atmosphere was homogenized by these measures, at 25 h the gaseous iodine concentrations in the upper
part of the facility were still a factor of 10 higher than those ones in the lower part. At the end of the test
steam was injected to wash the iodine from the walls in to the sump.
References for Experiment:
Funke, Kanzleiter: “Test facility and program to investigate open questions on fission product behaviour in
the containment – THAI phase II”, AREVA NP and Becker Technologies, Germany, August 2006, NTR-
G/2007/de/0233A
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Iodine concentrations
gas phase 10-7
to 3x10-5
g/l
Year Tests Performed: 2004
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Weber: “Specification of the Sarnet-2 WP8 THAI Benchmark, Part 1: Multicompartment Iodine Test Iod-
11”, GRS, July 8th, 2010
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
513
4.4.14 E4-14 - THAI Iod-12
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The THAI facility is a cylindrical containment with a height of 9.2 m, a diameter of 3.2 m and a
volume of 60 m3. For Test Iod-12 the facility had the same configuration as for Iod-11, it was subdivided
into 5 compartments (by placing an inner cylinder and some horizontal plates/trays). Also the first phase
of Iod-12 was similar as Iod-11; the atmosphere was stratified with high temperatures at the top and low
temperatures near the bottom; the iodine was injected at the top and stayed at elevations at and above 7 m.
At 3 h steam was injected into the inner cylinder which was closed at its top. After heating its walls the
steam left the inner cylinder through its bottom, starting to mix the atmosphere of the facility. At 7 h the
atmosphere was mixed, however the iodine concentrations near the top stayed a factor of 5 higher than
near the bottom. In parallel to the steam injection the middle and the lower vessel walls were cooled, in
order to achieve wet iodine deposition (in Iod-11 there was only dry deposition). The facility was left over
night without any action; the differences in the iodine concentrations did not change. Then iodine was
resuspended by heating the upper vessel walls. At the end of the test steam was injected to wash the iodine
from the walls in to the sump.
References for Experiment:
Funke, Kanzleiter: “Test facility and program to investigate open questions on fission product behaviour in
the containment – THAI phase II”, AREVA NP and Becker Technologies, Germany, August 2006, NTR-
G/2007/de/0233A
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
General data
1.4 bar
Air, steam, helium atmosphere
Temperature 95C / 30C
Iodine concentrations
gas phase 10-7
to 10-4
g/l
Year Tests Performed: 2004
Repeatability Check:
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
514
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Weber: “Specification of the Sarnet-2 WP8 THAI Benchmark, Part 2: Multicompartment Iodine Test Iod-
12”, GRS, May 30th, 2010
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
515
4.4.15 E4-15 - THAI Iod-13
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
Iod-13 was carried out in the homogeneously mixed THAI vessel (60m³) at about 100°C (fluid and
wall temperatures) and at a relative humidity in the range of 50 to 60%. There were no sumps and the
walls were dry.
After the initial injection of 0.68 g I2 in the upper dome area, the atmospheric I2 fall exponentially
from a theoretical initial concentration of 1.1×10-5
g/l during an initial 3-hour testing phase. After the first
relatively low O3 injection of 0.53 g oxidation of the I2 to iodine oxide (IOx) took place. The finely
dispersed IOx aerosol that was produced had a particle diameter of 0.1 to 0.2 µm. Then a second, high O3
injection (4.3 g) was made oxidizing parts of the remaining I2. The IOx aerosol concentration decreased
slowly after this, mainly by diffusive deposition onto the vessel walls.
References for Experiment:
F. Funke, G. Langrock, T. Kanzleiter, G. Poß, K. Fischer, G. Langrock,,G. Weber, H.-J. Allelein: Test
facility and program to investigate open questions on fission product behaviour in the containment - THAI
phase II- Part 2 Iodine Tests (August 2006), Becker Technologies, AREVA NP, GRS, (Excerpt of report
released to SARNET2)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
General data
1.5 bar
Air, Steam atmosphere
Temperature 100C superheated
Iodine concentrations
gas phase max 1.1×10-5
g/l
Year Tests Performed: 2004
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Validation work in SARNET2 is ongoing
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
516
4.4.16 E4-16 - THAI Iod-14
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
Iod-14 was carried out in the THAI vessel (60m³) without any internal structures under stationary
thermalhydraulic conditions (100°C) with 60 – 65% relative humidity. At the beginning a high ozone
amount was injected, exceeding the stoichiometric ratio to I2 largely. The total of 1.6 g I2 reacted quickly
to an IOx aerosol. The mean particle size of the IOx aerosol grow due to agglomeration and the
concentration depleted slowly mainly by diffusive deposition onto the vessel walls.
References for Experiment:
F. Funke, G. Langrock, T. Kanzleiter, G. Poß, K. Fischer, G. Langrock,,G. Weber, H.-J. Allelein: Test
facility and program to investigate open questions on fission product behaviour in the containment - THAI
phase II- Part 2 Iodine Tests (August 2006), Becker Technologies, AREVA NP, GRS, (Excerpt of report
released to SARNET2)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
General data
1.5 bar
Air, steam atmosphere
Temperature 100C superheated
Year Tests Performed: 2005
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Validation work in SARNET2 is ongoing
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
517
4.4.17 E4-17 - THAI Iod-25
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
For the Iod-25 test, standard internal structures (inner cylinder and four lateral condensate trays) had
been removed to allow free unobstructed environment for aerosol interaction with the molecular iodine in
the gas phase. The interaction of gaseous I2 with a non-reactive aerosol was measured. First about 1g of I2
was injected into the vessel (60 m³), which was at 70°C. Afterwards a non-reactive SnO2 aerosol (max. 2
g/ m³) was injected. A part of the gaseous aerosol was adsorbed by the aerosol particles. This aerosol-
bound iodine settled with the SnO2 particles on the floor of the vessel.
References for Experiment:
F. Funke, S. Gupta, B. Balewski, OECD-NEA THAI2 Project, Final Report, Deposition of molecular
iodine on aerosol particles Iod-25 (Test using non-reactive aerosol SnO2) Report No. 150 1420–Iod-25-
FR, April 2012
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
General data
1.3 bar
Air atmosphere
Temperature 70C
Year Tests Performed: 2011
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
518
4.4.18 E4-18 - THAI Iod-26
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
Same test vessel configuration and test procedure as in Iod-25 (E4-17 - THAI Iod-25), but with an
aerosol that is reactive toward iodine (Ag). The amount of aerosol adsorbed on the Ag particles was much
higher because of chemisorption reactions than on the non-reactive SnO2 particles.
References for Experiment:
Planned in OECD THAI2 project in September 2012
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
General data
1.3 bar
Air atmosphere
Temperature 70C
Year Tests Performed: 2012 (planned)
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
519
4.4.19 E4-19 - THAI AW
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
In the lower part of the THAI vessel, a stainless steel deposition surface for aerosol was installed that
had a downward gradient of about 2°. Part of the surface could form a puddle, while the other part (plate
section) had no condensate retention. In addition, laboratory tests were performed with the plate sections.
In THAI, first of the soluble CsI aerosol was injected, and after it had become deposited, steam was
injected that went on to condense on the vertical walls and drain over the surfaces with the deposited
aerosols. The puddle acted as an intermediate storage of the aerosol material, and delayed considerably the
wash down transport. The laboratory tests showed that in case of “high” deposition loads and “weak”
water flows, the aerosol material was washed down only in the area of rivulets, while it was washed down
more completely in case of “low” loads and “strong” flows.
References for Experiment:
Gupta. Langer: “Technical Report (Quick Look Report) Aerosol Wash-down Test (AW), Becker
Technologies GmbH, Germany, December 2009, Report No. 1501326-AW-QLR
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Horizontal surface area
THAI plate section: 6 m2
THAI puddle: 1.5 m2
laboratory tests: 0.75 m2
Aerosol load of horizontal surface
THAI-test: 80 g/m2
laboratory test 1: 180 g/m2
laboratory test 2: 91 g/m2
Water flow-rate
THAI plate section: 2.5 g/s
THAI puddle: 1.8 g/s
laboratory test 1: 0.75 g/s
laboratory test 2: 1.5 g/s
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
520
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
521
4.4.20 E4-20 - THAI HR31
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
These tests are part of the THAI HR series described above. Two tests (HR31.2, HR31.3) were
performed with AREVA PARs to investigate the conversion of CsI aerosol particles to gaseous iodine
while passing through an operating PAR under realistic accident boundary conditions. The conversion
rates were evaluated from the CsI aerosol concentration at the PAR inlet and the gaseous iodine
concentration at the PAR outlet; they were in the range of 1% to 3%.
References for Experiment:
“OECD/NEA THAI Project Hydrogen and Fission Product Issues Relevant for Containment Safety
Assessment under Severe Accident Conditions” Final Report, June 2010, NEA/CSNI/R(2010)3
Gupta et al., “OECD/NEA THAI Project, Quick Look Report, Hydrogen Recombiner Test HR-31, CsI-
PAR interaction Test”, Becker Technologies GmbH, Germany, September 2009, Report No. 1501326-HR-
QLR5
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Hydrogen concentration 8 – 9 Vol.%
Steam concentration 60 Vol.%
Catalytic surface temperature 800°C
CsI particle size 0.5 to 0.7 µm
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check: HR31.2 and HR31.3
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
522
4.4.21 E4-21 - THAI HR32
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
This test is part of the THAI HR series described above. Test HR32 considers an early phase of a
reactor accident where PARs are exposed to saturated steam favouring formation of a condensate layer and
deposition of aerosols on catalyst foils, along with exposing of the foils to gaseous iodine. Tests performed
with AREVA PARs. After preconditioning, hydrogen was injected from 0 to 1000 s. From 1000 to 2600 s
hydrogen, aerosols, and iodine were injected. The onset of recombination was at1500 s at the same
hydrogen inlet conditions as for comparable HR tests. The recombination efficiency remained in the range
of 50 to 60%, which is comparable to other tests of the HR series, with the same thermalhydraulic
conditions, but without aerosols and iodine. This has shown that even under these challenging conditions,
the effect of aerosol and iodine on the PAR performance is not significant.
References for Experiment:
“OECD/NEA THAI Project Hydrogen and Fission Product Issues Relevant for Containment Safety
Assessment under Severe Accident Conditions” Final Report, June 2010, NEA/CSNI/R(2010)3
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Hydrogen concentrations
o onset of recombination 3.7 Vol.%
o maximum 4.8 Vol.%
o end of test close to zero
Steam concentration 40 Vol.%
Aerosol concentrations 1.5 – 2.5g/m3
SnO2 (insoluble)and LiO3 (soluble)
Gaseous iodine 0.5 10-3
g/m3
Year Tests Performed: 2009
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: M. Sonnenkalb (GRS)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
523
4.4.22 E4-22 - LASS-GIRS DABASCO
Test Facility: LASS-GIRS
Owner Organization: CIEMAT
Experiment Description:
The objective of the experiments was to quantify the effect of pH, temperature and droplets size on
the removal efficiency of inorganic gaseous iodine by spray systems. The experiments were performed in
the GIRS facility. A prismatic transparent vessel of 0.5x0.5 m base, containing I2 at specific temperature,
pressure and humidity conditions, was sprayed with water through nozzles. By sampling the vessel
atmosphere and the water collected at the bottom of the vessel, the iodine concentration evolution was
recorded. Water and gas were at the same temperature, and relative humidity was set between 50 and 90%,
depending on the experiment.
References for Experiment:
Herrero B., Artigao, A., Álvarez, M.T. and Jimenez J.L., “Final report: GIRS project” DFN technical note
DFN/SN-02/IF-00 (March 2000)
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Spray temperature:
o Low temp.: 15 – 30°C
o High temp.: 80 -100°C
Droplet diameter: 0.25 and 0.8 mm
pH: 4 , 7 and 9
Water flowrate:
o Large nozzle tests: 2.5×10-3
– 3.0×10-3
L/s
o Small nozzle tests: 0.8×10-3
– 1.6×10-3
L/s
Year Tests Performed: 1999
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
524
4.4.23 E4-23 - OECD-THAI2 Gaseous Iodine Release from Flashing Jet Test
Test Facility: THAI
Owner Organization: BMWi
Experiment Description:
The OECD-NEA THAI-2 Project includes plans to perform experiments on volatile iodine formation
during flashing of water. A high pressure vessel (about 1 m3 volume) will be used as the break source,
containing water at high pressure (~40 bars) and temperature (~250°C, saturation conditions). Its water
will contain dissolved molecular iodine. A radioactive iodine tracer may be added in order to support
iodine concentration measurements. The high pressure vessel will be connected to the THAI facility (as
shown in the figure below), which will be at about 1 bar, 100°C superheated air-steam environment. The
walls of the THAI vessel are heated to minimize iodine deposition and steam condensation.
Figure 4.4.23-1 THAI Facility for Gaseous Iodine Release from Flashing Jet Test
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
525
The jet from the pipe end is directed to a droplet separator to remove the droplets (simulate the jet
droplet entrainment on internal structures). The gaseous part of the flashing jet is released to the rest of the
THAI vessel atmosphere. The iodine concentrations in the atmosphere are measured by a gas scrubber
technique. The thermalhydraulic state of the THAI vessel is measured by standard instrumentation
(thermocouples and pressure transducers).
References for Experiment:
Not available yet
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Break Source:
o Saturated water
o Pressure: 40 bars
o Temperature: 250oC (saturation)
Containment (THAI) atmosphere
o superheated steam-air
o Pressure: 1 bar
o Temperature: 100oC
Break Discharge Flowrate: ~2.5 kg/s
Year Tests Performed: ~2012
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Experiment will be used by the OECD THAI-2 participants in a benchmark exercise.
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
526
4.4.24 E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test
Test Facility: CAIMAN
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
The CAIMAN Facility studied iodine behaviour in containment. The 97/02 test is representative of
selected severe accidents conditions with pH=5, 90°C in the sump, dose rate of 1 kGy/h and presence of
painted surfaces in both the gas and aqueous phases.
Figure 4.4.24-1 Layout of the CAIMAN Test Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
527
References for Experiment:
J. Ball , C. Marchand , H. Allelein , L. Cantrel , R. Cripps, G. Glowa, L. Herranz, A. Rincon, J. Royen, A.
Rydl, P. Schindler, G. Weber and J. Wren, 2006. International Standard Problem ISP-41, Follow-up
exercise (Phase II): Iodine Code Comparison Exercise against CAIMAN and RTF Experiments Results
from PHEBUS RTF1 Test: Final Report. CSNI/R(2004)16
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rate: 1 kGy/h in aqueous phase
Temperature: 90-110C
pH: 5 (starting)
Surfaces: steel and painted coupons in both gas and aqueous phases
Starting concentration of iodide: 10-5
mol/dm3
Year Tests Performed: 1997
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: ISP-41
ISP-41 Follow-up Exercise Phase 2 (RTF and CAIMAN Experiments) - Final Comparison and
Interpretation Report NEA/CSNI/R(2004)16
Prepared By: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
528
4.4.25 E4-25 - CAIMAN 2001/01 Test
Test Facility: CAIMAN
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
The CAIMAN Facility studied iodine behaviour in containment. The 2001/01 test is representative of
selected severe accidents conditions and is suitable to validate organic iodine formation sub-models.
See E4-24 - CAIMAN 97/02 test for drawing of the test facility.
References for Experiment:
J. Ball , C. Marchand , H. Allelein , L. Cantrel , R. Cripps, G. Glowa, L. Herranz, A. Rincon, J. Royen, A.
Rydl, P. Schindler, G. Weber and J. Wren, 2006. International Standard Problem ISP-41, Follow-up
exercise (Phase II): Iodine Code Comparison Exercise against CAIMAN and RTF Experiments Results
from PHEBUS RTF1 Test: Final Report. CSNI/R(2004)16
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Dose Rates: 3.2 kGy/h in aqueous phase and 2.0 kGy/h in gas phase
Temperatures: 80-110C
pH: 5.2 (starting)
Surfaces: steel and epoxy polyamide paint in aqueous and gas phases
Starting concentration of iodide: 4×10-5
mol/dm3
Year Tests Performed: 2001
Repeatability Check: N/A
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: ISP-41
ISP-41 Follow-up Exercise Phase 2 (RTF and CAIMAN Experiments) - Final Comparison and
Interpretation Report NEA/CSNI/R(2004)16
Prepared By: E. Studer (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
529
4.4.26 E4-26 – Iodine Clean-Up in a Steam Suppression System
Test Facility: N/A
Owner Organization: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, England.
Experiment Description: (taken from Diffey et al. (1965))
These experiments studied the removal of fission products by a suppression pool. Simulated fission
products carried in an air-steam flow at 34 m/s have been fed through lutes (a lute is a liquid-sealed tube)
of 3 mm and 50 mm diameter into ponds of cold water under steady state conditions. The depth of
immersion was 20 and 10 lute diameters, respectively. Measurements have been made of the
decontamination factors and of the proportion of the trapped activity released when air is subsequently
bubbled through the water.
Elemental iodine, methyl iodide and hydrogen iodide, labelled with radioactive Iodine 131 or Iodine
132, were used in the experiments to simulate the behaviour of gaseous forms of iodine likely to be present
in a release of fission products from nuclear fuel. To simulate the behaviour of iodine attached to
particulate material, an aerosol with a mean size of about 0.06 microns was used. This aerosol was
labelled with ThB (212
Pb).
References for Experiment:
H.R. Diffey et al., “Iodine Clean-up in a Steam Suppression System”, International Symposium on Fission
Product Release and Transport Under Accident Conditions, CONF-650407, Vol. 2, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, 1965
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Small lute:
o 90% dry saturated steam
o Steam flow: about 10 g/min
o Vapour velocity in the flute: 34 m/s
o Pool temperature: about 28C
Large lute:
o Steam flow: up to 4.5 kg/min
o Water flow: up to 9 kg/min
o Air flow: up to 1.4 m3/min
o Vapour velocity in the flute: 34 m/s
o Pool temperature: 50C
Year Tests Performed: ~1960s
Repeatability Check: N/A
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
530
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: Y.S. Chin (AECL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
531
4.5 Core Melt Distribution and Behaviour in Containment Experiments
4.5.1 E5-1 - IET Experiments - Zion Geometry
Test Facility: Surtsey Vessel
Owner Organization: Sandia National Laboratories
Experiment Description:
The IET tests were designed to investigate the phenomena associated with Direct Containment
Heating (DCH). Figure 4.5.1-1 shows the Surtsey vessel, the high-pressure melt ejection system, and the
subcompartment structures used in the IET experiments. The figure also shows instrumentation location
by channel number. In these tests, high-temperature, chemically reactive melt was ejected from a melt
generator by high-pressure steam into a scale model of a reactor cavity, geometrically typical of the Zion
and Surry nuclear power plants. Debris was entrained by the steam blowdown into a large test vessel
simulating a reactor containment building.
High-pressure ejection of molten core material into the containment atmosphere would lead to direct
containment heating by the release of thermal and chemical energy of the debris. Direct containment
heating is applicable mainly to large dry PWR containments. BWRs have automatic depressurization
systems, which depressurize the primary system following a loss of emergency cooling and prior to severe
fuel damage.
Table 4.5.1-1
IET Experiments in Zion Geometry
IET Test No. Date Description (geometry, key variations)
1, 1R 9/91, 2/92 Zion, N2 inert atmosphere
3 12/91 Zion, reactive atmosphere
4 3/92 Zion, reactive atmos. + wet basement
5 5/92 Zion, CO2 inerted, reactive atmos. + wet basement
6 7/92 Zion, reactive + pre-existing H2
7 7/92 Zion, reactive + pre-existing H2 + wet basement
8A, 8B 8/92 Zion, cavity half filled with H2O
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
532
Figure 4.5.1-1 Surtsey Vessel
References for Experiment:
Allen, M.D., Pilch, M.M., Blanchat, T.K., Griffith, R.O. and Nichols, R.T., “Experiments to Investigate
Direct Containment Heating Phenomena with Scaled Models of the Zion Nuclear Power Plant in the
SURTSEY Test Facility”, Sandia National Laboratory, NUREG/CR-6044, SAND93-1049, 1994 May
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
High pressure (~12 MPa)
Steam containment atmosphere
Iron-alumina thermite
Year Tests Performed: 1991-1992
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
533
Repeatability Check: two tests repeated
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: MELCOR 1.8.5, 2.1 and CONTAIN
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
534
4.5.2 E5-2 - IET Experiments - Surry Geometry
Test Facility: CTTF and Surtsey
Owner Organization: Sandia National Laboratories
Experiment Description:
The IET tests were designed to investigate the phenomena associated with Direct Containment
Heating (DCH). In these tests, high-temperature, chemically reactive melt was ejected from a melt
generator by high-pressure steam into a scale model of a reactor cavity, geometrically typical of the Zion
and Surry nuclear power plants. Debris was entrained by the steam blowdown into a large test vessel
simulating a reactor containment building.
High-pressure ejection of molten core material into the containment atmosphere would lead to direct
containment heating by the release of thermal and chemical energy of the debris. Direct containment
heating is applicable mainly to large dry PWR containments. BWRs have automatic depressurization
systems, which depressurize the primary system following a loss of emergency cooling and prior to severe
fuel damage.
The CTTF (Containment Technology Test Facility), is operated by Sandia National Labs. Three tests
were conducted in the CCTF and 1 test in Surtsey.
Table 4.5.2-1
IET Experiments in Surry Geometry
IET Date Description (geometry, key variations)
9 11/92 Surry (CTTF), w/- annular gap, air/steam/H2 atmos.
10 11/92 Surry (Surtsey), w/-annular gap, air/steam/H2 atmos.
11 12/92 Surry (CTTF), w/o-annular gap, air/steam/H2 atmos.
12 12/92 Surry(Surtsey), w/o-annular gap, air/steam/H2 atmos.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
535
Figure 4.5.2-1 Models of Surry Structures in the Containment Technology Test Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
536
Figure 4.5.2-2 Side-View of the Experiment Setup used in the IET/CTTF Tests (IET-9, 10 and 11)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
537
Figure 4.5.2-3 Model of the Surry Bottom Head Used in the IED Experiments
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
538
Figure 4.5.2-4 Models of Surry Structures in the Surtsey Test Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
539
Figure 4.5.2-5 Side-View of the Experiment Setup used in the IET/Surtsey Test (IET-12)
References for Experiment:
Blanchat, T.K., Allen, M.D., Pilch, M.M. and Nichols, R.T., “Quick-Look Report on the Tenth Integral
Effects Test (IET-10) in the Containment Technology Test Facility”, Sandia National Laboratories, 1993
August
Blanchat, T.K., et. al., 1994 “Experiments to Investigate Direct Containment Heating Phenomena with
Scaled Models of the Surry Nuclear Power Plant,” SAND93-2519, NUREG/CR-6152
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
540
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
CCTF (1/5.75 linear scale)
RPV hole size – ablated from 7.0cm to (7.0 cm-9.8 cm) [in CCTF]
RPV steam pressure at plug failure: 12.1 MPa to 13.2 MPa [in CCTF]
Containment initial gas composition: inert (steam/CO2) to reactive
Wet basement (condensate) none to 700 kg
Initial melt simulant: 158 kg
Initial Containment Pressure: 0.14 MPa to 0.2 MPa
Initial Containment Temperature: 400 K
Containment pre-existing hydrogen:
2 mol%
Surtsey (1/10 linear scale)
RPV hole size – ablated from 5.6 cm to (5.6 cm)
RPV steam pressure at plug failure: 11.2 MPa
Containment initial gas composition: inert/steam
Wet basement (condensate) none
Initial melt simulant: 30kg
Initial Containment Pressure: 0.16MPa
Initial Containment Temperature: 407K
Containment pre-existing hydrogen: 6 mol%
Year Tests Performed: 1993
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: MELCOR codes and CONTAIN
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Salay (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
541
4.5.3 E5-3 - FARO Tests
Test Facility: FARO
Owner Organization: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra, Italy (JRC-Ispra)
Experiment Description:
The JRC-Ispra FARO (Fuel Melt and Release Oven) plant is a large multi-purpose test facility in
which reactor severe accidents could be simulated by out-of-pile experiments. A quantity in the order of
up to 200 kg of oxide fuel type melts (up to 3000°C) could be produced in the FARO furnace, possibly
mixed with metallic components, and delivered to a test section containing a water pool at an initial
pressure up to 5.0 MPa. The reference scenario of the current test series is relevant to a postulated in-
vessel core melt down accident when jets of molten corium penetrate into the lower plenum water pool,
fragment and settle on the lower head. The release vessel is designed for a pressure of 10 MPa at 570 K
combined with a debris catcher on the lower part of the vessel. FARO test L-14 (it became ISP 39) run
with 125 kg of 80% UO2 and 20% of ZrO2 released by gravity in 2 m deep pool of saturated water at 5.1
MPa.
The objectives were to investigate basic phenomenologies relevant to the progression of severe
accidents in water cooled reactors with particular emphasis on the interaction of molten fuel with coolant
and/or structures under both in-vessel and ex-vessel postulated severe accident conditions.
References for Experiment:
Information website: http://stresa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sarnet/DataBase/index.asp
L-06: Discharge of 18 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in saturated water at 50 bar
D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Scoping Test L-06 Data Report' - I.92.135 - 1/1/1992
H.U. Wider, A. Benuzzi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, A. Yerkess - 'The FARO/LWR Experimental
Programme Quick Look Report on the Scoping Test L-06' - I.92.139 - 1/1/1992
L-08: Discharge of 44 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in saturated water at 50 bar
Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Quenching Test-2 Data Report' - I.93.154 - 1/1/1993
H.U. Wider - 'Test Analysis Report on FARO Test L-08' - I.96.40 - 1/1/1996
L-11: Discharge of 151 kg of UO2/ZrO2/Zr in saturated water at 50 bar
M. Dehn, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Base Case Test L-11 Data Report' - I.94.147 -
1/1/1994
A. Benuzzi, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Base Case Test L-11 Quick Look Report' -
I.94.55 - 1/1/1994
L-14: Discharge of 125 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in saturated water at 50 bar (OECD/CSNI ISP-39)
D. Magallon, G. Leva - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-14 Data Report' - I.96.25 - 1/1/1996
A. Benuzzi, D. Magallon - 'FARO Test L-14 Quick Look Report' - I.94.171 - 1/1/1994
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
542
A. Annunziato, C. Addabbo, A. Yerkess, R. Silverii, W. Brewka, G. Leva - 'OECD/CSNI
International Standard Problem 39 on FARO Test L-14 on Fuel Coolant Interaction and Quenching -
Comparison Report, Volume I: Analysis of the Results' - NEA/CSNI/R(97)31 - 2/4/2000
A. Annunziato, C. Addabbo, A. Yerkess, R. Silverii, W. Brewka, G. Leva - 'OECD/CSNI
International Standard Problem 39 on FARO Test L-14 on Fuel Coolant Interaction and Quenching -
Comparison Report, Volume II: Participants Appendices' - NEA/CSNI/R(97)31 - 2/4/2000
L-19: Discharge of 157 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in saturated water at 50 bar
R. Silverii, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-19 Data Report' - - 9/15/2000
D. Magallon, A. Annunziato - 'FARO Test L-19 Quick Look Report' - I.96.27 - 1/1/1996
L-20: Discharge of 96 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in saturated water at 20 bar
R. Silverii, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-20 Data Report' - I.00.94 - 1/1/1994
A. Annunziato, C. Addabbo, D. Magallon - 'FARO Test L-20 Quick Look Report' - I.96.163 -
1/1/1996
L-24: Discharge of 177 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in saturated water at 5 bar
R. Silverii, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-24 Data Report' - I.00.93 - 1/1/1993
C. Addabbo, A. Annunziato, D. Magallon - 'FARO Test L-24 Quick Look Report' - I.97.185 -
1/1/1997
L-27: Discharge of 129 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in saturated water at 5 bar
R. Silverii, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-27 Data Report' - I.99.194 - 1/1/1999
A. Annunziato, C. Addabbo, D. Magallon - 'FARO Test L-24 Quick Look Report' - I.98.252 -
1/1/1998
L-28: Discharge of 175 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in saturated water at 5 bar
R. Silverii, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-28 Data Report' - I.99.76 - 1/1/1999
A. Romor, A. Annunziato, D. Magallon - 'Addendum to QLR on FARO Test L-28' - - 5/22/2001
A. Annunziato, C. Addabbo, D. Magallon - 'FARO Test L-28 Quick Look Report' - I.99.74 -
1/1/1999
L-29: Discharge of 39 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in subcooled water at 2 bar
R. Silverii, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-29 Data Report' - I.99.186 - 1/1/1999
'FARO Test L-29 Quick Look Test'
L-31: Discharge of 92 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in subcooled water at 2 bar
R. Silverii, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-31 Data Report' - I.99.100 - 1/1/1999
A. Annunziato, C. Addabbo, D. Magallon - 'FARO Test L-31 Quick Look Report' - I.99.193 -
1/1/1999
L-33: Discharge of 101 kg of UO2/ZrO2 in subcooled water at 4 bar
R. Silverii, D. Magallon - 'FARO LWR Programme Test L-33 Data Report' - TN I.00.124 -
1/1/2000
A. Romor, A. Annunziato, D. Magallon - 'Addendum to QLR on FARO Test L-33' - - 5/22/2001
A. Annunziato, C. Addabbo, D. Magallon - 'Test L-33 Quick Look Report' - I.00.111 - 1/1/2000
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
543
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
QUENCHING
o 5-50 bar
o 18-175 kg of UO2 melt at T > 3000°C
SPREADING
o Dry and 1 cm water core catcher
Year Tests Performed: 1991-1998
Repeatability Check: Yes, 12 available experiments
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
FARO Test L-14 is ISP-39 (8 different codes or code versions participated in the validation: COMETA,
IFCI, IVA, JASMINE, MC3d, TEXAS, THIRMAL, VAPEX)
A. Annunziato, C. Addabbo, A. Yerkess, R. Silverii, W. Brewka, G. Leva, “OECD/CSNI International
Standard Problem 39 on FARO Test L-14 on Fuel Coolant Interaction and Quenching”,
NEA/CSNI/R(97)31, 1996
A. Annunziato, A. Yerkess and C. Addabbo, “FARO and KROTOS code simulation and analysis at JRC
Ispra”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 189, No. 1-3, 1999.
Prepared By: M. Sangiorgi (ENEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
544
4.5.4 E5-4 - DISCO-C Tests
Test Facility: DISCO-C
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description:
In a LWR, a failure of the reactor pressure vessel, followed by melt expulsion and blowdown of the
reactor cooling system might disperse molten core debris out of the reactor pit. The mechanisms of
efficient debris-to-gas heat transfer, exothermic metal/oxygen reactions and hydrogen combustion may
cause a rapid increase in the pressure and temperature in the reactor containment. The test facility DISCO-
C (DIspersion of Simulant COrium – Cold) models the annular reactor cavity and the sub-compartments of
a large European reactor in a scale 1:18. The fluid dynamics of the dispersion process was studied using
model fluids, water, gallium-indium-tin or bismuth alloy instead of corium, and nitrogen or helium instead
of steam. The objective of the tests was to study the effect of different breach sizes and locations and
different failure pressures on the dispersion, specifically by testing central holes, lateral holes, horizontal
rips, and complete ripping of the bottom head.
References for Experiment:
C. Caroli, Proposition of supplementary DCH tests to be carried out using the DISCO facility of FZK and
representative of the French reactor pit geometry, Note Technique IRSN DPEA/SEAC/2002-040.
L. Meyer, D. Plassart, DCH test campaign in the modified DISCO-C facility using water as corium
simulant, Note Technique IRSN DSR/SAGR/2005-59.
L. Meyer, D. Plassart, DCH test campaign in the modified DISCO-C facility using a gallium-indium-tin
alloy as corium simulant, Note Technique IRSN DSR/SAGR/NT/2006-107.
L. Meyer, M. Gargallo et al., Low Pressure Corium Dispersion Experiments in the DISCO-C Tests Facility
with Cold Simulant Fluids, Report FZKA 6591, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 2006.
Low pressure corium dispersion experiments in the DISCO test facility with cold simulant fluids / L.
Meyer, Karlsruhe: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 2006. Report-Nr.: FZKA 6591.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Breach diameter: 0.011 - 0.1 m
Position and shape of the breach: angle of 45, horizontal slot, and unzipping and tilting of the
lower head
Initial pressure in the RPV: 0.25 - 2 MPa
Fluids used: water, woods-metal, gallium-indium-tin alloy
RPV/Pit geometries: Konvoi, French P’4
Year Tests Performed: 1999 - 2010
Repeatability Check: Yes, about 40 available experiments
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
545
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
WILHELM, D, “Transient Code Models for Low Pressure Corium Dispersion”, OECD Workshop on Ex-
Vessel Debris Coolability, Karlsruhe, Germany, 15-18 November 1999.
PLASSART D., RUPUICUV calculations for DISCO-L1, Contribution of IRSN to the Code Benchmark
with SARNET, SARNET-CONT-P08, 2005.
BRETAULT A., MAAP calculations for DISCO-L1, Contribution of EDF to the Code Benchmark with
SARNET, SARNET-CONT-P06, 2005.
SPENGLER C., CONTAIN calculations for DISCO-L1, Contribution of GRS to the Code Benchmark with
SARNET, SARNET-CONT-P07, 2005.
MIKASSER S., MEIGNEN R., Computation and analysis of the Direct Containment Heating dispersion
process with the multiphase flow software MC3D, proceedings of ICAPP-2007, Nice, France, May 13-18,
2007.
Prepared By: G. Albrecht (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
546
4.5.5 E5-5 - DISCO-H Tests
Test Facility: DISCO-H
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description:
The test facility DISCO-H (DIspersion of Simulant COrium – Hot) was set up to perform scaled
experiments that simulate core melt ejection scenarios under low system pressure in severe accidents in
Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR). The main components of the facility are scaled about 1:18 linearly to
large European PWR. The experiments are designed to investigate the fluid-dynamic, thermal, and
chemical processes during melt ejection out of a breach in the lower head of a PWR pressure vessel at
pressures below 2 MPa with an iron-alumina melt and steam. Also some experiments with water in the
reactor pit were performed to investigate the ex-vessel fuel coolant interaction and debris formation.
References for Experiment:
Melt dispersion and direct containment heating (DCH) experiments in the DISCO-H test facility / L.
Meyer. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 2004. Report-Nr.: FZKA 6988.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, M. Kirstahler, M. Schwall, E. Wachter, G. Wörner, Melt Dispersion and Direct
Containment Heating (DCH) experiments in the DISCO-H test facility”, Report FZKA 6988,
Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 2004.
L. Meyer, A. Kotchourko, “Separate Effects Tests on Hydrogen Combustion during Direct Containment
Heating Events in European Reactors”, Proceedings of SMiRT-19, Toronto, Canada, 2007 August 12-17.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, M. Kirstahler, M. Schwall, E. Wachter, “Separate Effects Tests on Hydrogen
Combustion during Direct Containment Heating Events”, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Report FZKA
7379, 2008.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, C. Caroli, I. Ivanov, “Direct containment heating integral effects tests in geometries
of European nuclear power plants”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 239, 2009, pp. 2070-2084.
Melt dispersion and direct containment heating (DCH) experiments for KONVOI reactors by L. Meyer.
Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing, 2011. ISBN: 978-3-86644-579-6, Report-Nr.: KIT-SR 7567.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Breach diameter: 0.028 - 0.06 m
H2 concentrations: 0 - 8%
Containment atmosphere: air (1 bar abs.), air/steam (2 bar abs.)
Initial pressure in the RPV: 0.5 - 2.2 MPa
Melts used: iron-alumina
Amount of melt: 10.6 - 16 kg
RPV/Pit geometries: Konvoi, French P’4, VVER1000
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
547
Year Tests Performed: 1998 – present
Repeatability Check:
A large number of tests with different geometries of the cavity (EPR, KONVOI, French P’4, VVER-1000)
and parameters were done in the DISCO-H facility.
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
WILHELM, D., “Chemical Reaction Models in a Code of the SIMMER-Family”, Joint IAEA/NEA
Technical Meeting on the Use of Computational Fluid Dynamic Codes for Safety Analysis of Reactor
Systems, Including Containment, Pisa, Italy, 11-13 November, 2002
D. WILHELM, “Recalculation of Corium Dispersion Experiments at Low System Pressure,” NURETH-
10, Seoul, Korea, October 5-9 (2003)
R. MEIGNEN, D. PLASSART, C. CAROLI, L. MEYER, D. WILHELM, “Direct Containment Heating at
Low Primary Pressure: Experimental Investigation and Multi-dimensional Modeling”, NURETH-11, paper
164, Avignon, France, (2005).
D.WILHELM, The Challenge of Simplifying DCH Modeling, The first European Review Meeting on
Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2005), Aix-en-Provence, France, 14-16 November 2005.
L. MEYER, A. KOTCHOURKO, “Separate Effects Tests on Hydrogen Combustion during Direct
Containment Heating Events in European Reactors”, SMiRT 19, Toronto, Canada, August 12-17, (2007)
R. MEIGNEN, S. MIKASSER, C. SPENGLER, A. BRETAULT, Synthesis of Analytical Activities for
Direct Containment Heating, The second European Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research
(ERMSAR-2007), Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH (FZK), Germany, 12-14 June 2007.
SPENGLER, C.; MEYER, L.; MEIGNEN, R., Investigations of direct containment heating (DCH) in
European reactors: database of integral tests and progress in modeling. 3rd European Review Meeting on
Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2008), Nesseber, BG, September 23-25, 2008.
Prepared By: G. Albrecht (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
548
4.5.6 E5-6 - DISCO-A2
Test Facility: DISCO-A2
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description:
Hydrogen combustion tests were performed in two different size facilities, DISCO-H (linear scale
1:18) and DISCO-A2 (linear scale 1:7) to reproduce hydrogen effects during a severe accident with high
pressure melt ejection and direct containment heating. The hydrogen was blown out of a pressure vessel
into a constrained compartment, modeling the reactor pressure vessel and the reactor pit, respectively, and
from there into a large vessel, modeling the containment. A number of distributed igniters simulated hot
melt particles. Tests with and without steam and with concentrations of pre-existing hydrogen in the
containment atmosphere between 0 and 8% were conducted.
References for Experiment:
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, C. Caroli, I. Ivanov, “Direct containment heating integral effects tests in geometries
of European nuclear power plants”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 239, 2009, pp. 2070-2084.
L. Meyer, A. Kotchourko, “Separate Effects Tests on Hydrogen Combustion during Direct Containment
Heating Events in European Reactors”, Proceedings of SMiRT-19, Toronto, Canada, 2007 August 12-17.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, M. Kirstahler, M. Schwall, E. Wachter, “Separate Effects Tests on Hydrogen
Combustion during Direct Containment Heating Events”, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Report FZKA
7379, 2008.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, M. Kirstahler, M. Schwall, E. Wachter, “Large Scale Separate Effects Tests on
Hydrogen Combustion during Direct Containment Heating Events”, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology,
KIT-Report to be published.
L. Meyer, G. Albrecht, “Experimental Study of Hydrogen Combustion during DCH Events in two different
Scales”. Proceedings of NURETH 14, Toronto, Canada, September 25-30, 2011.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
549
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Small facility
- Containment volume: 14 m3
- Breach diameter: 0.025 m
- Initial pressure in the RPV: 1.9-2.7 MPa
- Steam concentration (Containment): 0-38.6 mol%
- Initial H2 in Containment: 0-64 mol (Concentration: 0-7 mol%)
- RPV blow down H2: 24-53 mol
Large facility
- Containment volume: 227 m3
- Breach diameter: 0.0625 m
- Initial pressure in the RPV: 0 and 1.8 MPa
- Steam concentration (Containment): 0-48.3 mol%
- Initial H2 in Containment: 0-1198 mol (Concentration: 0-7.8 mol%)
- RPV blow down H2: 327-671 mol
Year Tests Performed: 2008 - 2010
Repeatability Check: Yes, 8 (small scale) respectively 9 (large scale) available experiments
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
R. Meignen, D. Plassart, C. Caroli, L. Meyer, D. Wilhelm, “Direct Containment Heating at Low Primary
Pressure: Experimental Investigation and Multi-dimensional Modeling”, NURETH-11, Avignon, France,
2005.
Prepared By: G. Albrecht (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
550
4.5.7 E5-7 - KROTOS JRC Tests
Test Facility: KROTOS JRC
Owner Organization:
Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety (ISIS) of the Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission, Ispra site, Italy (JRC-Ispra) with participation from US-NRC.
Experiment Description:
The KROTOS test facility is a relatively small scale experimental installation dedicated to the study
of: (a) molten fuel–coolant pre-mixing either with prototypic reactor melts or simulants such as alumina up
to 5 kg; (b) progression and energetics of spontaneous and triggered fuel–coolant interactions (vapor
explosions).
The main components of the facility are: the radiation furnace, the test section and pressure vessel.
The furnace, maximum electric power 130 kW, consists of a cylindrical tungsten heater, which encloses
the tungsten or molybdenum crucible containing the melt material. Depending on the crucible design and
material, melt masses from 1 to 10 kg can be heated up to 3270 K. The furnace is covered with a bell-
shaped, water-cooled lid designed to withstand a 0.25 MPa over-pressure of cover gas (Ar, He) or vacuum.
Having reached the desired stable melt temperature the crucible is released from the furnace and falls by
gravity through a 4 m long release tube. Half-way down this tube, a rapid-acting slide valve closes
immediately after the crucible has passed in order to isolate and protect the furnace from any energetic
events experienced in the test section below.
During its fall, the crucible breaks a copper wire that generates the zero time signal for the data
acquisition system. Finally, the crucible impacts onto a retainer ring at the bottom of the release tube
where a conical shaped metal puncher breaks the bottom of the crucible and allows the melt to pour into
the test section. The initial diameter of the melt-pour (jet) is defined by guiding the melt through a funnel
of high refractory material with an exit diameter of 30 mm.
The lower part of the KROTOS facility consists of a stainless steel test section bolted to lugs welded
on the inner side walls of a stainless steel pressure vessel. The cylindrical pressure vessel, inner diameter
0.4 m, height, 2.21 m, has a thick flat bottom and a flanged flat upper head and is designed to withstand a
static pressure of 2.5 MPa at 493 K. The cylindrical test section, inner diameter 200 mm, outer diameter
240 mm, closed at the bottom by either a flat plate or with a gas trigger device, can contain water up to a
height of about 1.27 m (about 40 L).
The gas trigger, chamber volume 15 cm3, can be charged to a pressure of up to 20 MPa (Ar) and is
closed by a 0.1–0.25 mm thick steel membrane. After melt penetration down to the lower region of the test
section, the mechanical destruction of the membrane causes a pressure pulse to propagate vertically
upwards through the water column that contains varying concentrations of melt and steam. The gas trigger
device is activated either by a specific thermocouple signal or by a backup time delay circuit.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
551
Figure 4.5.7-1 Schematic of the KROTOS JRC Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
552
References for Experiment:
Information website: http://stresa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sarnet/DataBase/index.asp
K1-TT4 11/19/1991 Trigger test in pure water, Test section 10 cm
'Digital Data 0 - 3 ms' - - 2/3/2000
K-26 6/5/1991 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.4kg - Temp. 2573 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 40C
H. Hohmann, M. Field, K. Klein, H. Schins, A. Yerkess - 'KROTOS 26 to KROTOS 30: Experimental
Data Collection' - I.92.115 - 2/9/2000
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range 0.0 0.05 s' - - 3/25/1997
K-27 10/2/1991 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.4kg - Temp. 2623 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 12C
H. Hohmann, M. Field, K. Klein, H. Schins, A. Yerkess - 'KROTOS 26 to KROTOS 30: Experimental
Data Collection' - I.92.115 - 2/9/2000
Digital Data - 'Digital data (digitized from EDR)' - - 1/17/2000
K-28 11/28/1991 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.4kg - Temp. 2673 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 13C
H. Hohmann, M. Field, K. Klein, H. Schins, A. Yerkess - 'KROTOS 26 to KROTOS 30: Experimental
Data Collection' - I.92.115 - 2/9/2000
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range 0.0 0.04 s' - - 3/25/1997
K-29 6/3/1992 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.5kg - Temp. 2573 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 80C
H. Hohmann, M. Field, K. Klein, H. Schins, A. Yerkess - 'KROTOS 26 to KROTOS 30: Experimental
Data Collection' - I.92.115 - 2/9/2000
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range 0.0 0.1 s' - - 3/25/1997
K2-TT4 7/14/1994 Trigger test in pure water, Test section 20 cm
K2-TT5 7/21/1994 Trigger test in pure water, Test section 20 cm
Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 38 to KROTOS
44: Data Report' - I.96.37 - 1/25/2000
'Digital Data 0 - 30 ms' - - 6/7/1999
'Digital Data 0 - 5.2 ms' - - 6/13/1996
K2-TT6 1/26/1998 Trigger test in pure water, Test section with plastic windows
I. Huhtiniemi, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Data Report: KROTOS 58 (
KT-2 )' - I.98.186 - 1/19/2000
'Digital Data -1 - 10 ms' - - 2/3/2000
K2-TT7-1/26/1998 Trigger test in pure water, Test section with metal plates
I. Huhtiniemi, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Data Report: KROTOS 58 (
KT-2 )' - I.98.186 - 1/19/2000
Digital Data -1 - 10 ms - - 2/3/2000
K2-TT8 8/11/1999 Trigger test in pure water, 20 cm test section with plastic charge
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
553
I. Huhtiniemi, A. Romor, R. Gambaretti, G. Nicol - 'KROTOS KT-3 Data Report (K-63)' - I.99.198 -
1/28/2000
'Digital Data 0 - 3 ms' - - 2/4/2000
K-30 7/2/1992 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.5kg - Temp. 2573 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 80C
H. Hohmann, M. Field, K. Klein, H. Schins, A. Yerkess - 'KROTOS 26 to KROTOS 30: Experimental
Data Collection' - I.92.115 - 2/9/2000
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range 0.0 0.1 s' - - 3/25/1997
K-32 9/1/1993 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 3kg - Temp. 3063 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 22C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 32 to KROTOS
36 Data Report' - I.95.128 - 1/26/2000
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range -0.7 4.3 s' - - 8/20/1996
KROTOS digital data - 'Range time base -5.2 45. S' - - 8/20/1996
K-33 10/21/1993 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 3.2kg - Temp. 3063 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 75C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 32 to KROTOS
36 Data Report' - I.95.128 - 1/26/2000
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range -0.7 4.3 s' - - 8/20/1996
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range -5.2 45.0 s' - - 8/20/1996
K-35 4/21/1994 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 3.1kg - Temp. 3023 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 10C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 32 to KROTOS
36 Data Report' - I.95.128 - 1/26/2000
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range -0.7 4.3 s' - - 8/20/1996
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range 2.39 2.41 s' - - 8/20/1996
K-36 6/2/1994 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 3kg - Temp. 3025 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 79C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 32 to KROTOS
36 Data Report' - I.95.128 - 1/26/2000
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range -0.7 4.3 s' - - 8/20/1996
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range 1.35 1.38 s' - - 8/20/1996
KROTOS digital data - 'Base time range -5.2 45.0 s' - - 8/20/1996
K-37 8/2/1994 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 3.2kg - Temp. 3018 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 77C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Corium Tests
37, 45-48, 52-54' - I.97.177 - 2/7/2000
K-38 10/3/1994 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.5kg - Temp. 2665 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 79C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 38 to KROTOS
44: Data Report' - I.96.37 - 1/25/2000
K-40 2/26/1995 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.5kg - Temp. 3073 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 83C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 38 to KROTOS
44: Data Report' - I.96.37 - 1/25/2000
K-41 4/13/1995 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.4kg - Temp. 3073 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 5C
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
554
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 38 to KROTOS
44: Data Report' - I.96.37 - 1/25/2000
K-42 5/24/1995 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.5kg - Temp. 2465 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 80C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 38 to KROTOS
44: Data Report' - I.96.37 - 1/25/2000
K-43 7/7/1995 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.5kg - Temp. 2625 K Pressure 2.1 bar, sub-cooling 100C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 38 to KROTOS
44: Data Report' - I.96.37 - 1/25/2000
K-44 10/12/1995 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.5kg - Temp. 2673 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 10C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, R. Faraoni, M. Field, G. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS 38 to KROTOS
44: Data Report' - I.96.37 - 1/25/2000
K-45 12/12/1995 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 3.1kg - Temp. 3106 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 4C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Corium Tests
37, 45-48, 52-54' - I.97.177 - 2/7/2000
K-46 2/15/1996 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 5.4kg - Temp. 3086 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 83C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Corium Tests
37, 45-48, 52-54' - I.97.177 - 2/7/2000
K-47 3/28/1996 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 5.4kg - Temp. 3023 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 82C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Corium Tests
37, 45-48, 52-54' - I.97.177 - 2/7/2000
K-48 6/11/1996 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 5.kg - melting test
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Corium Tests
37, 45-48, 52-54' - I.97.177 - 2/7/2000
K-49 7/12/1996 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.5kg - Temp. 2688 K Pressure 3.7 bar, sub-cooling 120C
I. Huhtiniemi, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Alumina Tests: K-49, K-
50, K-51, K-57' - I.00.21 - 3/10/2011
K-50 8/29/1996 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.7kg - Temp. 2473 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 13C
I. Huhtiniemi, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Alumina Tests: K-49, K-
50, K-51, K-57' - I.00.21 - 3/10/2011
K-51 11/10/1996 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.8kg - Temp. 2748 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 5C
I. Huhtiniemi, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Alumina Tests: K-49, K-
50, K-51, K-57' - I.00.21 - 3/10/2011
K-52 12/13/1996 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 2.6kg - Temp. 3133 K Pressure 2 bar, sub-cooling 102C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Corium Tests
37, 45-48, 52-54' - I.97.177 - 2/7/2000
K-53 3/25/1997 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 3.6kg - Temp. 3129 K Pressure 3.6 bar, sub-cooling 122C
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Corium Tests
37, 45-48, 52-54' - I.97.177 - 2/7/2000
K-54 5/15/1997 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 5.5kg - melting test
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
555
I. Huhtiniemi, H. Hohmann, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Corium Tests
37, 45-48, 52-54' - I.97.177 - 2/7/2000
K-56 11/13/1997 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 4.5kg - Temp. 3033 K Pressure 3.7 bar, sub-cooling 123C
I. Huhtiniemi, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Data Report: Test KT-1
(KROTOS 56)' - I.98.97 - 1/19/2000
'EKTAPRO camera of the jet in the water. Film rotated 90 degrees
I. Huhtiniemi - 'Film of the test section at the entrance in the water (7 Mbytes)' - - 11/14/1997
I. Huhtiniemi - 'Film of the test section from two viewing angles at the same axial position in the water
(2 Mbytes)' - - 11/14/1997
I. Huhtiniemi - 'Film with NAC camera of the jet entrance into the water (5 Mbytes)' - - 2/17/2000
K-57 12/12/1997 Melt Al2O3, Mass 1.4kg - Temp. 2670 K Pressure 1 bar, sub-cooling 83C
I. Huhtiniemi, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Alumina Tests: K-49, K-
50, K-51, K-57' - I.00.21 - 3/10/2011
I. Huhtiniemi - 'EKTAPRO camera of the jet in the water. The left side is rotate 180 degrees (6.3
Mbytes)' - - 2/17/2000
I. Huhtiniemi - 'Film from Canon camera located xx m below/above the water (0.4 Mbytes)' - -
12/17/1997
I. Huhtiniemi - 'SONY camera in the water (2 Mbytes)' - - 2/17/2000
K-58 3/3/1998 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 4.5kg - Temp. 3077 K Pressure 3.7 bar, sub-cooling 125C
I. Huhtiniemi, D. Magallon, M. Field, R. Gambaretti, K. Klein - 'KROTOS Data Report: KROTOS 58 (
KT-2 )' - I.98.186 - 1/19/2000
K-63 7/27/1999 Melt UO2/ZrO2, Mass 4.5kg - Temp. n.a., Pressure 2.1 bar, sub-cooling 99C
I. Huhtiniemi, A. Romor, R. Gambaretti, G. Nicol - 'KROTOS KT-3 Data Report (K-63)' - I.99.198 -
1/28/2000
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
556
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
MELT
o Al2O3 or UO2/ZrO2 1.4-5.4 kg
o 2473-3077 K
WATER
o 1-3.7 bar
o 12-125°C
Year Tests Performed: 1991-1999
Repeatability Check: Yes (many repeats were attempted)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
A. Annunziato, A. Yerkess and C. Addabbo, “FARO and KROTOS code simulation and analysis at JRC
Ispra”, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 189, No. 1-3, 1999.
Prepared By: M. Sangiorgi (ENEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
557
4.5.8 E5-8 - SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI Commissioning Tests
Test Facility: KROTOS (CEA) and TROI (KAERI)
Owner Organization: CEA and KAERI
Experiment Description:
The objective of the experimental programme SERENA-2 is threefold:
1. Provide experimental data to clarify the explosion behaviour of prototypic corium melts,
2. Provide innovative experimental data for validation of explosion models for prototypic materials,
including spatial distribution of fuel and void during the premixing and at the time of explosion,
and explosion dynamics,
3. Provide experimental data for the steam explosion in more reactor-like situations to verify the
geometrical extrapolation capabilities of the codes.
The KROTOS facility features rather one-dimensional behaviour of mixing and explosion
propagation. This allows a clear characterisation of mixing behaviour (melt and void distribution) and
escalation and propagation behaviour (given path starting from bottom triggering), with the respective
possibilities of direct checking of code results. Six complementary tests in each facility are planned.
The effect of the fuel material properties will be investigated with the use of 4 different compositions.
The basic oxidic corium will be 70%UO2-30%ZrO2, as it revealed to induce spontaneous explosions more
energetic than with 80%UO2-20%ZrO2 in TROI conditions. Tests will be performed with standard ex-
vessel conditions, i.e., a pressure of 0.2 MPa and a subcooling of 50 K.
KROTOS tests have been performed with the following common conditions:
Corium melt mass ~5 kg
Pool depth ~1.1 m
Pool diameter 200 mm
Free fall 50 cm
New release mechanism (produce circular jet) and X-Ray radioscopy were added (to the KROTOS
JRC facility)
A specific device has been used and developed to characterize the fragmentation/premixing phase of
the corium in the water (Linatron: high X-ray energy). This device is able to distinguish the water, the
void and the corium. Despite the wide pool of knowledge gained during the last three decades of research
and development on fuel-coolant interaction, the simulation of the premixing still remains to be a
challenging task, whereas the conditions of the premixing impose directly the conditions of the explosion.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
558
KROTOS Facility
Figure 4.5.8-1 Schematic of the KROTOS CEA Facility
The gap in the understanding of the premixing mechanisms is coming from the experimental
limitations. Having no direct way to observe the spatial distribution of phases, experimentalists and code
developers are limited to indirect methods such as tracing the signals of sacrificial thermocouples, global
void fraction measurements, void front detection, fast video recording of the jet propagation within the
coolant and post test debris analysis.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
559
Following these analyses, Experts involved in SERENA Phase-1 have identified the following
remaining uncertainties:
void fraction and its distribution in the interaction zone
the effect of corium properties on initial conditions of premixing breakup
limiting effect of the crust formation on the corium fragments
fine fragmentation of melt drops by pressure waves.
The absence up to now of the fine characterization of the premixing phases, i.e., corium, so-called
“void”, and water, is one key parameter to answer to the steam explosion fine quantification, needed for
reactor case calculation.
In the frame of OECD/SERENA-Phase 2 project, it has been planned to use a unique tool, a high
energy X-Ray beam, to characterize the premixing phases with prototypical corium on KROTOS test
facility at CEA-Cadarache. Contrary to the traditionally applied methods of video recording, X-Ray
radioscopy is not affected by vapor formation or melts radiation and distinguishes phases according to their
X-Ray attenuation properties and density.
TROI tests have been performed with the following common conditions
Corium melt mass ~20 kg
Pool depth 0.7 – 1.3m
Pool diameter 600 mm
Free fall 50 cm – 100 cm with an intermediate catcher.
O
392 878
248
200
368
14°
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 - X-Ray source; 2 - Lead collimator; 3 - Test section: Fortal (Al -90.1%, Zn – 5.6%); 4 - Scinscillator:
Ta (0.5mm) Gadox (1.4 mm); 5 – Mirror; 6 - Opaque box; 7 - Lead screen; 8 - High sensitivity CCD
Camera; Camera acquisition/control block
Figure 4.5.8-2 X-Ray Radioscopy for the KROTOS CEA Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
560
Figure 4.5.8-3 Schematic of the TROI Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
561
In the frame of the SERENA-2 programme, the same conditions for the two facilities have been taken
for the corium melt composition and water of the test section.
References for Experiment:
P. Piluso, S.W. Hong, “OECD SERENA: A Fuel Coolant Interaction Programme (FCI) devoted to reactor
case”, ISAMM-2009 Paul Scherrer Institute Villigen, Switzerland, October 26-28, 2009.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
materials effect (thermodynamic and thermophysical properties)
composition of corium (solidification interval, sub-stoichiometric)
overmelting (+150°C)
Year Tests Performed: 2007
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: P. Piluso (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
562
4.5.9 E5-9: SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI Tests
Test Facility: KROTOS (CEA) and TROI (KAERI)
Owner Organization: CEA and KAERI
Experiment Description:
The KROTOS and TROI tests used the configuration defined in the commissioning tests (E5-8 -
SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI Commissioning Tests). Each test was duplicated in the KROTOS and
TROI facility, to provide information on the effect of scaling on this phenomenon. There were 5 tests with
the conditions shown in the test matrix below.
Table 4.5.9-1
Test Matrix for SERENA-2 KROTOS and TROI Experiments
Test P (MPa) T (K) Material Trigger (s)
KROTOS KS-1 /
TROI TS-1
0.4 301 70% UO2 – 30% ZrO2 ~0.85
KROTOS KS-2 /
TROI TS-2
0.2 334 70% UO2 – 30% ZrO2 ~0.85
KROTOS KS-3 /
TROI TS-3
0.2 331 70% UO2 – 30% ZrO2 ~0.85
KROTOS KS-4 /
TROI TS-4
0.2 333 80% UO2 – 20% ZrO2 ~1.05
KROTOS KS-5 /
TROI TS-5
0.2 337 70% UO2 – 15% ZrO2 + 15% Zr ~1.05
Other specifics about the five tests are as follows:
KROTOS KS-1/TROI TS-1: The conditions have been selected because of their bounding trends
for ex-vessel situation, expect for the temperature that has been limited by heater capacity but
nevertheless at a realistic 160 K of overheating. For the first time, the visualization of the corium
jet structure when it enters in water and starts its fragmentation has been possible with specific
high energy X-ray imaging system. The pictures give also information of steam distribution
around corium jet or fragments.
KROTOS KS-2/TROI TS-2: Comparing to KS-1 test conditions the following has been modified
in the present test: (1) the tin membrane location (below the release cone), (2) the position of the
X-ray radioscopy system (695 mm level), (3) the installation of the video record system for the
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
563
visualization of the melt release conditions, (4) the initial mass of the corium (4.9 kg), and (5) the
overheating of the corium melt (about +180°C for a calculated liquidus temperature of 2560°C).
KROTOS KS-3/TROI TS-3: For test KS-3, the explosion has not been triggered in this test due
to the unsuccessful crucible release, as well as no coherent corium jet had been obtained.
KROTOS KS-4/TROI TS-4: 3.2 kg of corium at 2690°C has been released into 40.5 kg water
heated at 60°C. The triggered steam explosion provided maximum pressure pick of 447 Bar.
KROTOS KS-5/TROI TS-5: 2.4 kg of prototypic corium (80.1wt.% UO2 – 11.4wt.% ZrO2 –
8.5wt.% Zr) at 2587°C have been released into 34.5 kg of water at 53°C. The mixture has been
successfully triggered. Nevertheless, no global steam explosion occurred.
References for Experiment Description: Not provided
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
materials effect (thermodynamic and thermophysical properties)
composition of corium (solidification interval, sub-stoichiometric)
overmelting (+150°C)
Year Tests Performed: 2008
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Performed with MC3D
Prepared By: P. Piluso (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
564
4.5.10 E5-10 - MCCI-1 Tests CCI Tests 1-3; SSWICS tests 1-7
Test Facility: MCCI
Owner Organization: ANL
Experiment Description:
This program consisted of both separate effect and integral reactor material experiments that
investigated multi-dimensional core-concrete interaction under dry cavity conditions, as well as the extent
that core debris interacting with concrete can be cooled by top water injection. The integral effect CCI
tests investigated core-concrete interaction and debris coolability in 2-D notch-type concrete cavity
configurations. Decay heat was simulated at prototypic levels using direct electrical heating. Melt
temperatures, concrete erosion depth, non-condensable gases from concrete erosion, and core debris
cooling rate were measured as core-concrete interaction progressed. Data analysis focused on evaluating
the extent that core debris could be rendered permanently coolable by melt eruption and water ingression
cooling mechanisms. Tests parameterized on concrete type. In all experiments, the cavity was flooded
after significant concrete erosion (> 20 cm) had occurred.
The SSWICS tests investigated the extent that water is able to ingress into solidifying core material to
augment what would otherwise be a conduction-limited cooling process. These were transient quench
tests; thus, the water ingression rate was evaluated by comparing the actual debris cooling rate to the
conduction-limited solution. Tests parameterized on concrete type, the amount of concrete present in the
melt, as well as the system pressure during quench.
References for Experiment:
M. T. Farmer, S. Lomperski, D. Kilsdonk, R. W. Aeschlimann, and S. Basu, “A Summary of Findings
from the Melt Coolability and Concrete Interaction (MCCI) Program,” Paper 7544, Proceedings ICAPP
’07, Nice, France, May 13-18, 2007.
M. T. Farmer, D. J. Kilsdonk, and R. W. Aeschlimann, “Corium Coolability under Ex-Vessel Accident
Conditions for LWRs,” Nuclear Eng. Technology, Vol. 41, pp. 575-602, June 2009.
S. Lomperski and M. T. Farmer, “Corium Crust Strength Measurements,” Nuclear Eng. Design, Vol. 239,
pp. 2551-2561, March 2009.
S. Lomperski and M. T. Farmer, “Experimental Evaluation of the Water Ingression Mechanism for Corium
Cooling,” Nuclear Eng. Design, Vol. 237, pp. 905-917, August 2006.
S. Lomperski, M. T. Farmer, and S. Basu, “Experimental Investigation of Corium Quenching at Elevated
Pressure,” Nuclear Eng. Design, Vol. 236, pp. 2271-2280, 2006.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
565
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
CCI Tests:
Initial melt mass: 400 kg
Initial Melt temperature: 2000-2100C
Decay Heat Level: 300 W/kg Fuel
Melt Compositions: BWR (UO2, ZrO2, and concrete oxides)
Cladding oxidation: 100%
Cavity: 2-D rectilinear: 50 cm x 50 cm initial basemat size
Concrete types: limestone/common sand and siliceous
SSWICS Tests:
Initial melt mass: 68-75 kg
Initial Melt temperature: 2000-2100C
Transient cooling (no fuel heating)
Melt Compositions: BWR with 8 to 23 wt.% concrete
Cladding oxidation: 100%
Cavity: 1-D circular test section 30 cm ID
Concrete types: limestone/common sand and siliceous
Test section Pressure: 1 or 4 bar
Year Tests Performed: 2001-2005
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
CCI-2 test was conducted as a blind pretest/postest code validation exercise among program participants
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Farmer (ANL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
566
4.5.11 E5-11 - MCCI-2 Tests CCI Tests 4-6; SSWICS tests 8-13; WCB-1
Test Facility: MCCI
Owner Organization: ANL
Experiment Description:
This program was a continuation of the OECD/MCCI-1 and consisted of both separate effect and
integral reactor material experiments that investigated multi-dimensional core-concrete interaction under
dry cavity conditions, as well as the extent that core debris interacting with concrete can be cooled by top
water injection. The program scope was also expanded to examine effectiveness of engineered core
catcher systems. The integral effect CCI (core-concrete interaction) tests investigated core-concrete
interaction and debris coolability in 2-D notch-type concrete cavity configurations. Decay heat was
simulated at prototypic levels using direct electrical heating. Melt temperatures, concrete erosion depth,
non-condensable gases from concrete erosion, and core debris cooling rate were measured as core-concrete
interaction progressed. Data analysis focused on evaluating the extent that core debris could be rendered
permanently coolable by melt eruption and water ingression cooling mechanisms. Tests parameterized on
concrete type. In two tests (CCI-4 and CCI-5), the cavity was flooded after significant concrete erosion (>
20 cm) had occurred, while in CCI-6 the cavity was flooded within a few minutes of melt contact with the
basemat.
The additional SSWICS tests expanded the parameter space for evaluating the extent that water is able
to ingress into solidifying core material to augment what would otherwise be a conduction-limited cooling
process. These were transient quench tests; thus, the water ingression rate was evaluated by comparing the
actual debris cooling rate to the conduction-limited solution. The additional tests looked at crust strength
issues, as well as the effect of non-condensable gas injection on the debris cooling rate.
In terms of core catcher tests, two separate effect tests were conducted in the SSWICS apparatus to
look at transient cooling and quench of core debris by bottom water injection; one test through concrete
nozzles cast in the basemat, while the second was with stainless steel nozzles that could also inject
concurrent noncondensable gas. In addition, a large scale test was conducted with a water cooled stainless
steel basemat plate covered with concrete to investigate transient erosion and core melt stabilization on a
water cooled surface.
References for Experiment:
S. Lomperski and M. T. Farmer, “Performance Testing of Engineered Corium Cooling Systems,” Nuclear
Eng. Design, Vol. 243, pp. 311-320, January 2012.
M. T. Farmer, S. Lomperski, D. J. Kilsdonk, and R. W. Aeschlimann, “OECD MCCI-2 Project Final
Report,” OECD/MCCI-2010-TR07, November 2010
S. Lomperski and M. T. Farmer, “Corium Crust Strength Measurements,” Nuclear Eng. Design, Vol. 239,
pp. 2551-2561, March 2009.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
567
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
CCI Tests:
Initial melt mass: 400 -900 kg
Initial Melt temperature: 2000-2100C
Decay Heat Level: 300 W/kg Fuel
Melt Compositions: BWR (UO2, ZrO2, Zr, stainless, and concrete oxides)
Cladding oxidation: 70-100%
Cavity: 2-D rectilinear: 50 cm x 50 cm and 70 cm x 70 cm initial basemat sizes
Concrete types: limestone/common sand and siliceous
SSWICS Tests:
Initial melt mass: 34-40 kg
Initial Melt temperature: 2000-2100C
Transient cooling (no fuel heating)
Melt Compositions: BWR with 8 to 23 wt.% concrete
Cladding oxidation: 100%
Cavity: 1-D circular test section 30 cm ID
Concrete types: limestone/common sand and siliceous
Test section Pressure: 1 or 4 bar
Core Catcher Tests: SSWICS Bottom Water Injection
Initial melt mass: 135 kg
Initial Melt temperature: 2000-2100C
Transient cooling (no fuel heating)
Melt Compositions: BWR with 23 wt.% silicoue concrete
Cladding oxidation: 100%
Cavity: 1-D circular test section 30 cm ID
Bottom water injection through concrete nozzles, and stainless steel nozzles with concurrent
noncondensable gas injection
Core Catcher Test WCB-1
Initial melt mass: 400 kg
Initial Melt temperature: 2000C
Decay Heat Level: 300 W/kg Fuel
Melt Compositions: BWR (UO2, ZrO2, and concrete oxides)
Cavity: 1-D rectilinear: 50 cm x 50 cm, water-cooled steel plate with 15 cm overlying siliceous
concrete
Year Tests Performed: 2006-2010
Repeatability Check: No
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
568
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
CORQUENCH Code was further developed and released as part of this program
M.T. Farmer, “Modeling of Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability with the CORQUENCH Code,” Proc. 9th Int.
Conf. On Nucl. Eng., ICONE-9696, April 2001. [Note: CORQUENCH is a stand-alone model]
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Farmer (ANL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
569
4.5.12 E5-12 - ECO Tests
Test Facility: ECO
Owner Organization: FZK
Experiment Description:
The Energy Conversion (ECO) tests were conducted in Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe (FzK),
Germany to measure steam explosion pressures and the energy conversion ratio with Al2O3 melt masses
more than 10 kg. Nine tests were conducted in total, although other tests have shown that U-Zr-O melts
have lower tendency to steam explosion than the Al2O3 melts used in these tests.
The objective of the ECO tests was to obtain an experimental upper limit for the pressure and energy
conversion ratio and their dependence on initial and boundary conditions. The second objective of the tests
was to provide data for the validation of models.
References for Experiment Description:
Cherdron, W., Huber, F., Kaiser, A., and Schütz, W., “ECO Steam Explosion Experiments –
Documentation and Evaluation of Experimental Data”, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, FZKA 7011,
2005.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Release mass of Al2O3: 0.9 to 18 kg
Average Release Rate: 2.4 to 60 kg/s
Height of fall to water surface: 0.275 to 0.325 m
Pool water temperature: 293 to 369C (some with 30 to 40C temperature stratification)
Initial system pressure: 0.1 to 0.25 MPa
Year Tests Performed: 2000-2005
Repeatability Check: ECO-06 was a repeat of ECO-05
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko (KIT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
570
4.5.13 E5-13 - BALI Ex-Vessel Tests
Test Facility: BALI
Owner Organization: CEA (with EDF funding)
Experiment Description:
The BALI tests investigated thermalhydraulic phenomena in corium pools for in-vessel and ex-vessel
conditions. The tests were performed at CEA Grenoble with Frammatome and EDF funding. The tests
were designed in 1993 to generate a database on heat transfer distribution at boundaries of corium pools for
in-vessel and ex-vessel geometric configurations. A rectangular slice test section was used to study the ex-
vessel thermalhydraulic phenomena.
The objective of the tests was to develop a good understanding of the heat flux distribution at corium
pool boundaries and to quantify heat transfer coefficients at pool boundaries as a result of natural
convection. The BALI tests used simulant materials and used dimensionless parameters to categorize the
various flow regimes so that results can be applied to reactor conditions
References for Experiment:
JM Bonnet, JM Seiler, Thermalhydraulic phenomena in corium pools, The BALI experiment, ICONE-7,
Tokyo, 1999.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Prandtl: 4-1000
Height: 0.4-0.5m
Thickness: 0.1 m
Length: 2.4-2.9 m
superficial gas velocity: 1-20 cm/s
Viscosity: 1-350 mPa-s
Internal Rayleigh number: 108-10
11
heat transfer coefficient: 300-5000 W/m2-K
Year Tests Performed: 1990s
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: None
Prepared By: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
571
4.5.14 E5-14 - BALISE Tests
Test Facility: BALISE
Owner Organization: CEA (with EDF funding)
Experiment Description:
The BALISE tests investigated the mixing of immiscible liquids by a sparging gas. The tests were
performed at CEA Grenoble with EDF funding. One of the issues in severe accident progression in a PWR
is molten corium relocation into the reactor pit and corium concrete interaction. The concrete ablation
velocity depends on layout of the metallic and oxide layers of the corium pool and the gas evolution during
the corium-concrete interaction. From a phenomena perspective, the mixing or stratification phenomena of
immiscible liquids by a sparging gas was examined in these tests.
References for Experiment:
Tourniaire, B., Seiler, J-M., Bonnet J-M., “Study of the mixing of immiscible liquids by sparging gas;
results of the BALISE experiments”, Proceeding of NURETH-10, Seoul, Korea, Oct. 5-9, 2003
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
ratio of layer heights: 0.5-10
density difference: 5-70%
viscosities: 0.9-100 mPa-s
surface tensions: 10-70 mN/m
Void fraction: 0-15%
superficial gas velocities: 0-4 cm/s
Stratified/emulsioned configurations
Year Tests Performed: 2000
Repeatability Check:
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
572
4.5.15 E5-15 - VULCANO VB-U7 (EPR concrete)
Test Facility: VULCANO
Owner Organization: CEA (performed with EURATOM funding)
Experiment Description:
The VULCANO facility at CEA Cadarache is devoted to the study of ex-vessel corium behaviour
with 30-60 kg of prototypic (depleted UO2 containing) corium. In the MCCI configuration, a hemi
cylindrical concrete cavity is filled by 30-50 kg of corium and decay heat is simulated by induction. In the
VB-U7 test, a feroosiliceous concrete (representing EPR reactor pit sacrificial concrete) has been ablated.
Ablation was largely anisotropic.
References for Experiment:
C. Journeau, L. Ferry, P. Piluso, J. Monerris, M. Breton, G. Fritz, T. Sevon, Two EU-funded tests in
VULCANO to assess the effects of concrete nature on its ablation by molten corium, 4th European Review
Meeting on Severe Accident Research (ERMSAR-2010), Bologna-Italy, 11-12 May 2010.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Inputs:
initial mass: 30-60 kg
temperature: 2000-2400 K
decay heat power: ~10-20 kW
Outputs:
concrete temperature: 20-1400C
ablation front position: 0-20 cm
pool temperature: 1500-2400C
surface temperature: 1000-2500C
For the COMET test:
water inlet flow (~75 g/s)
steam out flowrate (0-50 g/s)
Year Tests Performed: 2007
Repeatability Check: Partial
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
573
4.5.16 E5-16 - VULCANO VW-U1 (COMET bottom flooding)
Test Facility: VULCANO
Owner Organization: CEA (performed with EURATOM funding)
Experiment Description:
The VULCANO facility at CEA Cadarache is devoted to the study of ex-vessel corium behaviour
with 30-60 kg of prototypic (depleted UO2 containing) corium. In the MCCI configuration, a hemi
cylindrical concrete cavity is filled by 30-50 kg of corium and decay heat is simulated by induction. In the
VW-U1 test, a unit cell of the COMET core catcher concept (porous concrete tubes enabling bottom water
injection after melting through a thin leak tight concrete layer) has been tested with prototypical oxidic
corium and decay heat simulation.
References for Experiment:
C. Journeau, H. Alsmeyer, Validation of the COMET Bottom-Flooding Core-Catcher with Prototypic
corium, Int. Congr. Advances nuclear Power plants (ICAPP06), Reno, NV, June 4-6, 2006.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Inputs:
initial mass: 30-60 kg
temperature: 2000-2400 K
decay heat power: ~10-20 kW
Outputs:
concrete temperature: 20-1400C
ablation front position: 0-20 cm
pool temperature: 1500-2400C
surface temperature: 1000-2500C
For the COMET test,
water inlet flow (~75 g/s)
steam out flowrate (0-50 g/s)
Year Tests Performed: 2005
Repeatability Check: No
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
574
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
WABE code (University of Stuttgart/Institute for Nuclear and Energy techniques – IKE )
W. Widmann, M. Bürger, G. Lohnert, H. Alsmeyer, W. Tromm, Experimental and theoretical
investigations on the COMET concept for ex-vessel core retention, Nucl Eng. Des., 236, 2304-2327, 2006.
M. Bürger, B.R. Sehgal, Debris Formation and Coolability, In: Nuclezar Safety in Light Water Reactors,
Severe Accident Phenomenology, B.R. Sehgal, ed., Academic press, Waltham, MA, 2012.
Prepared By: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
575
4.5.17 E5-17 - VULCANO VE-U7
Test Facility: VULCANO
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
VULCANO spreading tests
The VULCANO facility at CEA Cadarache is devoted to the study of ex-vessel corium behaviour
with 30-60 kg of prototypic (depleted UO2 containing) corium. In the spreading configuration, corium is
spread over a flat surface at low pouring rates (to favour immobilization processes). In the VE-U7 test,
two parallel spreading sections were considered, one in concrete, the other with an inert ceramic.
References for Experiment:
C. Journeau, J.F. Haquet, B. Spindler, C. Spengler, J. Foit, “The Vulcano VEU7 Corium Spreading
Benchmark”, Progr. Nucl. Ener., 48, 215-234 (2006).
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Inputs:
corium mass: 40 kg
temperature: 2450 80 K
decay heat power: 0
Outputs:
concrete temperature: 20-1400C
spreading front position: 0-50 cm
corium temperature: 1500-2400C
surface temperature: 1000-2500C
Year Tests Performed: 2000
Repeatability Check: Partial
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: RFLOW, LAVA, THEMA
Prepared By: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
576
4.5.18 E5-18 – SURC-1 and SURC-2
Test Facility: SURC
Owner Organization: SNL
Experiment Description:
The major components of the experimental apparatus for these tests include a sealed, water-cooled
containment vessel; interaction crucible; and induction coil. A containment vessel was used in the tests to
ensure that nearly all of the reaction products would pass through the instrumented exit flow piping. The
interaction crucible used in the experiments is of cylindrical geometry and is shown in the following figure.
The crucible consists of three major components: the lower crucible, upper crucible, and cover. The
annulus of the upper and lower crucible and the cover are cast using a magnesium oxide (MgO) castable
refractory material. The overall dimensions of the crucible are 60 cm diameter 100.0 cm high with a
40cm-diameter cavity 60.0 cm deep. Cast into the bottom of the lower crucible was an instrumented
limestone concrete cylinder 40.0 cm diameter 40.0 cm thick for SURC-1 experiment and a basaltic
concrete cylinder 40.0 cm diameter 40.0 cm thick for SURC-2 experiment. The two crucible sections
were assembled and sealed with Saureisen Cement No. 31
The SURC-1 test was run at local atmospheric pressure (0.83 atm) and at an ambient temperature of
25°C. Power to the apparatus was gradually increased to a level of 99 kW (gross) at 48 minutes, to a level
of 154 kW at 126 minutes, and to a level of 200 kW at 222 minutes. The charge became molten at times
after 120 minutes and concrete attack began at 135 minutes when the zirconia insulator board at the bottom
of the charge was dissolved into the melt. Aerosol samples were taken at 153 minutes as the optical
pyrometer started to indicate large amounts of aerosol production. Gas composition grab samples were
also taken at this time.
The SURC-2 experiment was a molten material/concrete interaction test designed to sustain a melt of
203.9 kg of depleted uranium oxide, zirconium metal and zirconium oxide in an MgO crucible with a
basaltic concrete bottom. The goals of the experiment were to measure in detail the gas evolution, aerosol
generation, and erosion characteristics associated with molten oxide-concrete interactions. The charge
material in SURC-2 was a mixture of 69 wt.% UO2 – 22 w/o ZrO2 – 9 wt.% Zr. Additionally, 3.4 kg of
fission product stimulants were added to the melt to study fission product release. The SURC-2 test was
run at local atmospheric pressure (0.83 atm) and at an ambient temperature of 25°C. The SURC-2 test ran
for a total of 280 minutes. A total of 35 cm of basaltic concrete was eroded during the final 150 minutes of
the experiment. This was increased to a net power of 84 kW for the final portion (between 220–280
minutes) of the test.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
577
Figure 4.5.18-1 Schematic of SURC Test Facility
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
578
References for Experiment:
E. R. Copus, R. E. Blose, J. E. Brockmann, R. B. Simpson, and D. A. Lucero, Core-Concrete Interactions
Using Molten Urania With Zirconium on a Limestone Concrete Basemat, The SURC-1 Experiment,
NUREG/CR-5443, SAND90-0087. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, September 1992.
E. R. Copus, R. E. Blose, J. E. Brockmann, R. B. Simpson, and D. A. Lucero. Core-Concrete Interactions
Using Molten UO2 With Zirconium on a Basaltic Basemat, The SURC-2 Experiment, NUREG/CR-5564,
SAND90-1022. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, August 1992
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
SURC1 SURC2
Pressure (atm.) 0.83 0.83
Temperature (°C) 25 25
Power supply (kW) 50→154 50→150
Concrete use limestone basaltic
Year Tests Performed: 1992
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Part of suite of experiments used for MELCOR code assessment
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
579
4.5.19 E5-19 - SURC-3
Test Facility: SURC
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description (from abstract in SAND86-2638):
Four inductively sustained experiments, QT-D, QT-E, SURC-3, and SURC-3A, were performed in
order to investigate the additional effects of zirconium metal oxidation on core debris-concrete interactions
using molten stainless steel as the core debris simulant. The SURC-3 experiment had a 45 kg charge of
stainless steel to which 1.1 kg of zirconium was subsequently added. SURC-3 axially eroded 33 cm of
limestone concrete during two hours of interaction. The experiment showed in a large increase in erosion
rate, gas production, and aerosol release following the addition of Zr metal to the melt. In the SURC-3A
test the measured erosion rates increased from 14 cm/hr to 27 cm/hr, gas release increased from 50 to 100
slpm (standard litres per minute), and aerosol release increased from 0.02 g/sec to 0.04 g/sec. The effluent
gas was composed of 80% CO, 10% CO2, and 2% H2 before Zr addition and 92% CO, 4% CO2, 4% H2
during the Zr interactions which lasted 10-20 minutes. Additional measurements indicated that the melt
pool temperature ranged from 1600C-1800C and that the aerosols produced were comprised primarily of
Te and Fe oxides.
References for Experiment:
E.R. Copus et al., “Experimental Results of Core-Concrete Interactions Using Molten Steel with
Zirconium”, NUREG/CR-4794; SAND86-2638, July 1990
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
45 kg stainless steel melt prepared in contact with limestone concrete. 1.1 kg of metallic zirconium
added once concrete ablation had begun.
Year Tests Performed: 1990
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Used to validate model predictions of the effects of metallic
zirconium on interactions
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
580
4.5.20 E5-20 - SURC-3A
Test Facility: SURC
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description (from abstract in SAND86-2638):
Four inductively sustained experiments, QT-D, QT-E, SURC-3, and SURC-3A, were performed in
order to investigate the additional effects of zirconium metal oxidation on core debris-concrete interactions
using molten stainless steel as the core debris simulant. The experiment, SURC-3A, eroded 25 cm of
limestone concrete axially and 9 cm radially during 90 minutes of sustained interaction. It utilized 40 kg of
stainless steel and 2.2 kg of added zirconium as the charge material. The experiment showed in a large
increase in erosion rate, gas production, and aerosol release following the addition of Zr metal to the melt.
In the SURC-3A test the measured erosion rates increased from 14 cm/hr to 27 cm/hr, gas release
increased from 50 to 100 slpm (standard litres per minute), and aerosol release increased from 0.02 g/sec to
0.04 g/sec. The effluent gas was composed of 80% CO, 10% CO2, and 2% H2 before Zr addition and 92%
CO, 4% CO2, 4% H2 during the Zr interactions which lasted 10-20 minutes. Additional measurements
indicated that the melt pool temperature ranged from 1600C-1800C and that the aerosols produced were
comprised primarily of Te and Fe oxides.
References for Experiment:
E.R. Copus et al., “Experimental Results of Core-Concrete Interactions Using Molten Steel with
Zirconium”, NUREG/CR-4794; SAND86-2638, July 1990
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
50 kg of melt interacted with limestone concrete. 5 kg of metallic zirconium was added in the
course of the interaction
Year Tests Performed: 1990
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Used to validate model predictions of the effects of metallic
zirconium on interactions
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
581
4.5.21 E5-21 - SURC-4
Test Facility: SURC
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
The SURC (Sustained Urania-Concrete) test series was designed to extend the existing database for
core-concrete interactions and associated aerosol source term production. The SURC experiments are
intended to provide information needed to validate three aspects of core-concrete interactions models,
including heat transfer mechanisms, gas release chemistry, and vaporization release of aerosols. SURC 1,
2, 5 and 6 are integral tests involving UO2-ZrO2, and SURC 3, 4, 7 and 8 are separate effect tests using
stainless steel.
The SURC-4 experiment was conducted at the Sandia National Laboratories in a 600 mm interaction
crucible constructed with a 400 mm diameter basaltic concrete cylinder in the base of a magnesium oxide
(MgO) annulus. A 10 mm thick, circular cover of MgO was placed on the top of the crucible. The SURC-
4 experiment used 200 kg of stainless steel, 20 kg Zr metal, 6 kg fission product stimulants, and basaltic
concrete. Duration of SURC-4 test was 162 minutes with specified periods of heating between 98 kW and
245 kW. Nothing mentioned about accuracy in the final comparison report of the ISP-24. However,
reliability and accuracy of experimental data were confirmed during post-test analyses workshop.
References for Experiment:
E.R. Copus et al., “Core-Concrete Interactions Using Molten Steel with Zirconium on a Basaltic Basemat:
The SURC-4 Experiment”, NUREG/CR-4994; SAND87-2008, April 1989
M; Lee, R.A. Bari, International Standard problem ISP-24 – SURC-4 Experiment on Core-Concrete
Interactions
Final Comparison Report – CSNI Report No. 155, Vol. 1, September 1988
Final Workshop Summary Report – CSNI Report No. 155, Vol. 2, December 1989
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
200 kg of stainless steel melt interacted with a one dimensional basaltic concrete plug in a
magnesia melt facility. During the interaction 20 kg of zirconium was added to the melt.
Atmospheric pressure
Heating by induction coils up to 280 kW
AMMD 2.1 to 2.7 μm
Mass concentration: 60 to 638 mg/cm3
Number concentration: 48,000 to 137,000 cm-3
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
582
Year Tests Performed: 1989
Repeatability Check: Yes (several tests have been performed with the same aerosol in different
conditions)
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
SURC-4 experiment was the basis for the CSNI ISP-24 where 8 organisations from 7 countries participated
with 3 Thermal-hydraulic codes (CORCON/2.02 and 2.04, WECHSL, DECOMP-DOE) and 2 aerosol
codes (VANESA, METOXA-DOE).
Prepared By: A. Amri (OECD) and R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
583
4.5.22 E5-22 - BETA V5.1
Test Facility: BETA
Owner Organization: KIT
Experiment Description: (taken from NEA/CSNI/R(92)9)
This experiment studied the ex-vessel phase of a core-melt accident, mainly in the high temperature
phase of the concrete (siliceous concrete crucible) erosion with high zirconium content of the melt. The
experiment measured the temperature of the melt, oxidation behaviour of the zirconium, erosion of the
concrete, release and composition of the gases and release of aerosols.
The melt is kept in a cylindrical, axisymmetric concrete crucible fabricated from siliceous concrete. The
internal cavity of the crucible is partly filled by the melt with a metallic melt at the bottom and an oxidic
melt on top. During the experiment the metallic part of the melt is heated electrically by the induction coil
enclosing the concrete crucible. Most of the melt is produced by a thermite reaction and poured into the
crucible under controlled conditions at the start of the experiment. In this experiment, the addition of
metallic Zircaloy to the melt was accomplished by dropping 80 kg of solid Zircaly rubble at room
temperature into the lower crucible and pouring the thermite melt onto the Zircaloy.
References for Experiment:
ISP 30 – BETA V5.1 Experiment on Melt-Concrete Interaction – Comparison Report, OECD/NEA
NEA/CSNI/R(92)9
Alsmeyer, H., and Firnhaber, M., “Specification of the International Standard Problem ISP 30: BETA
V5.1 Experiment on Melt Concrete Interaction, September 1990.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Siliceous concrete
Thermite melt had 300 kg of metal and 50 kg of oxide with a temperature of 2170 K
The thermite melt was poured onto 80 kg of Zircalloy-4
Time average downward ablation rate through the concrete crucible is 1.0 m/h
Year Tests Performed: 1990
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: ISP-30
ISP 30 – BETA V5.1 Experiment on Melt-Concrete Interaction – Comparison Report, OECD/NEA
NEA/CSNI/R(92)9
Prepared By: A. Kotchourko
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
584
4.5.23 E5-23 - ACE Phase C Tests L1, L2, L4, L5, L6, and L7
Test Facility: ACE/MCCI
Owner Organization: ANL
Experiment Description:
This program consisted of a series of six large scale reactor material experiments that investigated
concrete erosion with concurrent fission product release under dry cavity conditions. Decay heat was
simulated at prototypic levels using direct electrical heating. Melt temperatures, concrete erosion depth,
non-condensable gases from concrete erosion, and fission product release rates were measured as core-
concrete interaction progressed. Peak cavity erosion depths ranged up to 15 cm.
References for Experiment:
J. K. Fink, D. H. Thompson, D. R. Armstrong, B. W. Spencer, and B. R. Sehgal, “Aerosol and Melt
Chemistry in the ACE Molten Core-Concrete Interaction Experiments,” High Temperature and Materials
Science, 33, pp. 51, 1995
B. R. Sehgal, B. W. Spencer, D. H. Thompson, J. K. Fink and M. T. Farmer, “ACE Project Phases C&D:
ACE/MCCI and MACE Tests”, Int. Topical Meeting on the Safety of Thermal Reactors, Portland, OR,
1991 July 21-25
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial melt mass: 250-300 kg
Initial Melt temperature 1650-2200C
Decay Heat Level: 350-400 W/kg Fuel
Melt Compositions: BWR and PWR melt (UO2, ZrO2, Zr, and concrete oxides)
Cladding oxidation: 30-100%
Cavity: 1-d rectilinear; 50 cm x 50 cm cross-section
Concrete types: limestone/common sand, limestone-limestone, siliceous, and serpentine
Year Tests Performed: 1988-1990
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Farmer (ANL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
585
4.5.24 E5-24 - MACE Tests M0, M1b, M3b, M4, and MSET-1
Test Facility: MACE
Owner Organization: ANL
Experiment Description:
The CCI test facility consisted of a test apparatus, a power supply for direct electrical heating of the
corium, a water supply system, steam condensation (quench) tanks, a ventilation system to complete
filtration and exhaust the off-gases, and a data acquisition system. A schematic illustration of the overall
setup is provided in the figure below. The apparatus consisted of three rectilinear sidewall sections and a
lid. The overall structure was 3.4 m tall. The two upper sidewall sections had a square internal cross-
sectional area of 50 cm x 50 cm. The internal dimensions of the lower test section, where the core-
concrete interaction took place, was varied from 30 cm x 30 cm to 120 cm x 120 cm; resultant core melt
masses varied from 100 kg to 2000 kg. The sidewalls of the cavity also varied; in MO, all four sidewalls
were concrete (resulting in 3-D cavity erosion behavior), whereas for all other tests (M1b, M3b, and M4)
the sidewalls were made from refractory MgO (resulting in 1-D cavity erosion).
Operationally, the tests were carried out as follows. The first step was to produce the core melt in-situ
over the concrete basemat. For early tests MO and M1b, this was carried out by direct electrical heating of
the core debris, resulting in several hours of preheat time. In the subsequent tests, an exothermic chemical
reaction was used in which the melt was produced in a timeframe of 30-60 seconds (the latter approach
significantly increased the reliability of producing the melt, as well as minimizing preheating of the test
cavity through heat losses during the extended preheat phase). Once the melt was produced, heating
continued to be applied to simulate decay heat at ~2 hours in the accident sequence (equivalent to ~300
W/kg fuel). Heating was maintained until the test was terminated. Soon after the melt was produced,
cavity erosion would commence. At a predefined time (or ablation depth), the cavity was flooded using
the water supply system and the subsequent core debris cooling behavior was observed. Steam from the
interaction was vented to the quench system which provided data on the debris cooling rate. Water was
periodically added to maintain a 40-60 cm pool depth over the debris. Melt temperature and concrete
ablation rates were measured simultaneously to provide data for code validation. The tests were
terminated on the basis of two criteria:
i) maximum permissible cavity erosion depth reached, or
ii) debris was quenched and core-concrete interaction was terminated.
Following the experiment, the apparatus was disassembled and the material examined to provide
information on morphology (i.e., coherent crust material vs. fragmented debris in the form of porous crust
structure and/or particle beds formed by melt eruptions). Selected samples were analyzed to provide
information on the debris composition and phase structure.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
586
Figure 4.5.24-1 Schematic of MACE Test
References for Experiment:
M. T. Farmer, B. W. Spencer, J. L. Binder, and D. J. Hill, “Status and Future Direction of the Melt Attack
and Coolability Experiments (MACE) Program at Argonne National Laboratory,” Proceedings 9th Int.
Conf. on Nucl. Eng., ICONE-9697, April 8-12, 2001
M. T. Farmer, D. J. Kilsdonk, and R. W. Aeschlimann, “Corium Coolability under Ex-Vessel Accident
Conditions for LWRs,” Nuclear Eng. Technology, Vol. 41, pp. 575-602, June 2009
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Initial melt mass: 100-2000 kg
Initial Melt temperature: 1650-2100C
Decay Heat Level: 300-1000 W/kg Fuel
Melt Compositions: BWR and PWR melt (UO2, ZrO2,Zr,stainless, and concrete oxides)
Cladding oxidation: 70-100%
Cavity: 1-d rectilinear: 50 cm x 50 cm to 120 cm x 120 cm cross-section; 3-D rectilinear: initially
30 cm x 30 cm
Concrete types: limestone/common sand and siliceous
Year Tests Performed: 1989-2000
Repeatability Check: No
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
587
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
M.T. Farmer, “Modeling of Ex-Vessel Corium Coolability with the CORQUENCH Code”, Proc. 9th Int.
Conf. On Nucl. Eng., ICONE-9696, April 2001.
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC) and M. Farmer (ANL)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
588
4.5.25 E5-25 - COLIMA CA-U4
Test Facility: COLIMA
Owner Organization: CEA
Experiment Description:
Prototypic aerosols (having the right chemistry, but natural isotopic composition) can be generated
from corium pools in the COLIMA facility. In this test, the aerosol cloud was directed to a representative
crack in a concrete test section. The crack had been realized to mimic containment stresses and the
pressure gradient was representative of reactor case. Impactors upstream and downstream measured the
nature size and concentration of aerosols, providing insight on decontamination.
References for Experiment:
F. Parrozzi, DJ Caracciolo, C. Journeau, P. Piluso, The COLIMA Experiment on Aerosol retention in
Containment Leak paths under Severe Nuclear Accidents, Nucl. Energy New Europe, Bovec, Slovenia,
2011
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Internal pressure: 0.3 MPa
External pressure: 0.1 MPa
Crack dimensions: 300 x 130 x 0.5 mm
Aerosol concentration: ~0.05 – 0.15 g/m3
Aerosol mean mass diameter = 1.1 m
Year Tests Performed: 2008
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
Validation with the code ECART:
S. Morandi, F. Parozzi, E. Salina, C. Journeau, P. Piluso, Aerosol retention in containment leak paths:
indications for a code model in the light of COLIMA experimental results, Eur. Rev. Mtg., Severe Acc.
Res., ERMSAR 2012, Cologne, Germany, March 2012.
Prepared By: C. Journeau (CEA)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
589
4.5.26 E5-26 - BURN-1
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
Thermitically generated melt of iron (~1.1 kg) and aluminum oxide (~0.9 kg) was formed in an 8.9
cm diameter, 14.9 cm deep cylindrical cavity within a limestone/common sand concrete crucible. The
interaction was monitored using a Linatron Model 1500 pulsed x-ray source to obtain images (melt
imaging rate of 24/s) of the melt interface with concrete and data on the periodicity of melt contact with
gas-evolving and ablating concrete. The x-ray voltage was 7.5 MeV. The dose rate was about 500
rad/minute.
References for Experiment:
D.A. Powers and F.E. Arellano, “Direct Observation of Melt Behavior During High Temperature
Melt/Concrete Interactions”, NUREG/CR-2283, SAND81-1754, January 1982
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Melt of iron (~1.1 kg) and aluminum oxide (~0.9 kg)
Year Tests Performed: 1981
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Test results were used to develop the model of melt-concrete heat
transfer used in the CORCON computer code which has been incorporated into the MELCOR accident
analysis computer code.
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
590
4.5.27 E5-27 – SWISS-1 and SWISS-2
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description (taken from abstract in SAND85-1546):
These tests examined the effects of an overlying water pool on high temperature melt interactions
with concrete. In both tests, a melt of about 46 kg of type 304 stainless steel was formed and deposited
onto a 21.6 cm diameter disk of limestone/common sand concrete. The concrete disk was retained within a
cast MgO annulus. The molten steel was sustained at a power input of 1.3 to 1.7 Watts/gram by induction
heating. In test SWISS-1 a water pool was formed over the melt after about 12 cm of concrete had eroded.
In test SWISS-2, the water pool was formed about one minute after melt contacted the concrete and before
any significant erosion of concrete could take place. In both tests the water pool was kept below the
boiling point. Interactions were sustained for about 40 minutes in the two tests. Concrete erosion rates,
concrete temperatures, heat fluxes to the overlying water pool, gas generation rates, and evolved gas
compositions during tests SWISS-1 and SWISS-2 are reported. Aerosol generation rates are reported for
test SWISS-2.
References for Experiment:
R.E. Blose et al., SWISS: Sustained Heated Metallic Melt/Concrete Interactions with Overlying Water
Pools, SAND85-1546, 1987
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Concrete type: limestone coarse aggregate and silicon dioxide fine aggregate
Melt: 46 kg type 304 stainless steel and ablated concrete
Water addition timing: delayed in test SWISS-1 to accumulate an ablated concrete melt mass;
prompt in test SWISS-2.
Year Tests Performed: 1986
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
D.R. Bradley and J.E. Brockmann, “Analysis of Molten Fuel-Concrete interactions and Fission-Product
Release from Ex-vessel Core Debris”, 13th Water Reactor Safety Research Information Meeting, October,
1985
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
591
4.5.28 E5-28 – HSS-1 and HSS-3
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description (taken from abstract in SAND85-1739):
The Hot Solid program is intended to measure, model, and assess the thermal, gas evolution, and
fission product source terms produced as a consequence of hot, solid, core debris-concrete interactions.
Two preliminary experiments, HSS-1 and HSS-3, were performed in order to compare hot solid UO2-
concrete and hot solid steel-concrete interactions. The HSS-1 experiment ablated 6 cm of limestone-
common sand concrete in a little more than three hours using a 9 kg slug of 304 stainless steel at an
average debris temperature of 1350C. The HSS-3 experiment ablated 6.5 cm of limestone-common sand
concrete in four hours using a 10 kg slug of 80% UO2-20% ZrO2 at an average debris temperature of
1650C. Both experiments were inductively heated and contained in a 22 cm alumina sleeve to simulate
one-dimensional axial erosion.
References for Experiment:
E.R. Copus and D.R. Bradley, “Interaction of Hot Solid Core Debris with Concrete”, NUREG/CR-4558;
SAND85-1739, June 1986
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
HSS-1: 304 stainless steel slug sustained at 1350C by induction heating in contact with
limestone/common sand concrete
HSS-3: 10 kg of 80% UO2 – 20% ZrO2 sustained by induction heating in contact with
limestone/common sand concrete at 1650C.
Year Tests Performed: 1986
Repeatability Check: No
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
592
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks:
The HOTROX computer code model was evaluated using the results from the HSS tests. HOTROX is a 1-
D concrete ablation model that calculates transient conduction and gas release in the concrete as well as
heatup of the hot solid slug. Using the HSS-1 power input history and geometry, HOTROX calculates 6.2
cm of concrete erosion in 200 minutes. Using the HSS-3 input conditions, HOTROX predicts 6.8 cm of
erosion in 190 minutes. These results compare favorably with the experimental erosion rates. The
calculated thermal response of the concrete is also close to experimentally measured values. The
information from the Hot Solid Program will be used both to expand the post-accident phenomena data
base and to extend the range of applicability of current accident analysis computer models such as
CORCON and CONTAIN.
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
593
4.5.29 E5-29 - TURC1T and TURC1SS
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description (taken from abstract in SAND85-0707):
Two large scale molten debris-concrete experiments, TURC1T, a thermite-concrete interaction
experiment, and TURC1SS, a stainless steel-concrete experiment, are reported here. The experiments
consisted of teeming molten debris (>100 kg) onto limestone/common sand concrete. The molten debris
was allowed to cool naturally. The concrete ablation rate, composition of evolved gases, and aerosol data
are presented. The experimental results have been compared to CORCON calculations in order to validate
the code. This comparison showed that, while some parts of the code performed well (chemical
equilibrium model), other sections required further model development (melt-concrete heat transfer
model). An analysis of the two experiments was performed using a new analysis model. The results of the
analysis seem to suggest that the heat transfer mechanism of concrete ablation is similar to nucleate boiling
heat transfer, rather than gas film heat transfer.
References for Experiment:
J.E. Gronager et al., TURC1: Large Scale Metallic Melt-Concrete Interaction Experiments and Analysis,
NUREG/CR-4420; SAND85-0707, 1986.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
TURC1T: 200 kg thermitically generated melt onto a disk of limestone / common sand concrete
TURC1SS: 200 kg type 304 stainless steel at 2350 K teemed into a magnesia crucible with a
limestone common sand concrete disk
Year Tests Performed: 1985
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Used for CORCON validation
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
594
4.5.30 E5-30 – TURC2 and TURC3
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
Two large scale UO2/ZrO2/Zr debris-concrete experiments TURC2 and TURC3 are reported here.
The experiments consisted of pouring a large quantity of molten UO2/ZrO2/Zr mixtures onto limestone-
common sand concrete. The molten material was allowed to cool naturally - no internal heating was
present. Data for concrete ablation, gas evolution including composition and flow rate, and aerosol
generation are presented. The experimental results indicate very rapid crusting with no detectable concrete
ablation. Gas reduction of H2O and CO2 to H2 and CO was found to occur even with a purely oxidic
(UO2/ZrO2) melt. Aerosol concentrations varied from 62 g/m3 to less than 1 g/m
3 in the experiments. A
thermal analysis of the experiments was performed. The analysis is consistent with the result that rapid
crusting with minimal concrete ablation occurs in both experiments.
References for Experiment:
J.E. Gronager, A.J. Suo-Anttila, and J.E. Brockmann, “TURC2 and 3: Large Scale UO2/ZrO2/Zr Melt-
Concrete Interaction Experiments and Analysis”, NUREG/CR-4521; SAND86-0318, June 1986.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
TURC2: A melt of 140 kg UO2 and 60 kg of ZrO2 was prepared in the IRIS generator and poured
into a magnesia crucible with a 46.1 cm diameter bottom slug of limestone/common sand concrete.
The melt cooled naturally.
TURC3: A melt of 123.4 kg UO2 , 27.3 kg of ZrO2, and 9 kg Zr was prepared in the IRIS
generator and poured into a magnesia crucible with a 46.1 cm diameter bottom slug of
limestone/common sand concrete. The melt cooled naturally.
Year Tests Performed: 1985
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Used for CORCON validation
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
595
4.5.31 E5-31 - LSL-1,2,3
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
Tests involved the formation of 220 kg of molten stainless steel heated to 1700C and teemed into
large concrete crucibles with 61 cm diameter hemispherical cavities. Solidified melt was extracted,
erosion profiles measured and the test was repeated twice to obtain two-dimensional erosion profiles.
Concrete used in the experiments was made using limestone coarse aggregate and common sand (SiO2)
fine aggregate.
References for Experiment:
D.A. Powers and F.E. Arellano, “Large-Scale, Transient Tests of the Interaction of Molten Steel with
Concrete”, NUREG/CR-2282; SAND81-1753, 1982
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Melt mass and temperature: 200 kg stainless steel initially at 1700C and allowed to cool naturally
Angle of concrete surface exposed to melt: varied between 0 and 90
Hydration of concrete: varied between “as-placed” to substantially dehydrated.
Year Tests Performed: 1981
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Results used to validate and refute elements of the model of
melt/concrete interactions used in the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400).
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
596
4.5.32 E5-32 - LBL-1,2,3
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
Tests involved the formation of 220 kg of molten stainless steel heated to 1700C and teemed into
large concrete crucibles with 61 cm diameter hemispherical cavities. Solidified melt was extracted,
erosion profiles measured and the test was repeated twice to obtain two-dimensional erosion profiles.
Concrete used in the experiments was made using a siliceous (basalt) coarse aggregate and common sand
(SiO2) fine aggregate.
References for Experiment:
D.A. Powers and F.E. Arellano, “Large-Scale, Transient Tests of the Interaction of Molten Steel with
Concrete”, NUREG/CR-2282; SAND81-1753, 1982
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Melt mass and temperature: 220 kg stainless steel initially at 1700C and allowed to cool naturally
Angle of concrete surface exposed to melt: varied between 0 and 90
Hydration of concrete: varied between “as-placed” to substantially dehydrated.
Year Tests Performed: 1981
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Results used to validate and refute elements of the model of
melt/concrete interactions used in the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400).
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
597
4.5.33 E5-33 - LSCRBR-1,2,3
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
Tests involved the formation of 220 kg of molten stainless steel heated to 1700C and teemed into
large concrete crucibles with 61 cm diameter hemispherical cavities. Solidified melt was extracted,
erosion profiles measured and the test was repeated twice to obtain two-dimensional erosion profiles.
Concrete used in the experiments was made using limestone coarse aggregate and crushed limestone fine
aggregate.
References for Experiment:
D.A. Powers and F.E. Arellano, “Large-Scale, Transient Tests of the Interaction of Molten Steel with
Concrete”, NUREG/CR-2282; SAND81-1753, 1982
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Melt mass and temperature: 200 kg stainless steel initially at 1700C and allowe
Angle of concrete surface exposed to melt: varied between 0 and 90
Hydration of concrete: varied between “as-placed” to substantially dehydrated.
Year Tests Performed: 1981
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
598
4.5.34 E5-34 - COIL-1
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
205 kg type 304 stainless steel was melted and heated to 1973K. The melt was teemed into a
limestone concrete crucible cavity 38.1 cm in diameter and 38.1 cm deep. The melt was sustained by an
embedded induction heating coil.
References for Experiment:
D.A. Powers, “Sustained Molten Steel/Concrete Interactions Tests”, NUREG/CR-0166; SAND77-1423,
June 1978
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Concrete type: limestone coarse and fine aggregate
Melt type: 205 kg stainless steel heated initially to 1973 K and sustained by induction heating
Melt-concrete orientation: two –dimensional so both axial and radial ablation monitored.
Year Tests Performed: 1978
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Used for CORCON validation
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
599
4.5.35 E5-35 - WETCOR-1
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description (from abstract in SAND92-1563):
The WETCOR-1 test of simultaneous interactions of a high-temperature melt with water and a
limestone/common-sand concrete is described. The test used a 34.1-kg melt of 76.8 wt.% A12O3, 16.9
wt.% CaO, and 4.0 wt.% SiO2 heated by induction using tungsten susceptors. Once quasi-steady attack on
concrete by the melt was established, an attempt was made to quench the melt at 1850 K with 295 K water
flowing at 57 liters per minute. Net power into the melt at the time of water addition was 0.61 0.19
W/cm3. The test configuration used in the WETCOR-1 test was designed to delay melt freezing to the
walls of the test fixture. This was done to test hypotheses concerning the inherent stability of crust
formation when high temperature melts are exposed to water. No instability in crust formation was
observed. The flux of heat through the crust to the water pool maintained over the melt in the test was
found to be 0.52 0.13 MW/m2. Solidified crusts were found to attenuate aerosol emissions during the
melt concrete interactions by factors of 1.3 to 3.5. The combination of a solidified crust and a 30-cm deep
subcooled water pool was found to attenuate aerosol emissions by factors of 3 to 15.
References for Experiment:
R.E. Blose et al., “Core Concrete Interactions with Overlying Water Pools – The WETCOR-1 Test”
NUREG/CR-5907; SAND92-1563, November 1993
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
34.1 kg of a melt composed of 76.8% alumina, 16.9% calcia, and 4% silica were sustained by
induction heating in contact with limestone common sand. Water was added at 57 L/min. The test
configuration attempted to delay crust freezing to walls of the crucible. Heat flux to the water pool
was 0.52 MW/m2.
Year Tests Performed: 1993
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Used for CORCON validation
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
600
4.5.36 E5-36 - FRAG
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Core Melt Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description (from abstract in SAND82-2476):
Four experiments were performed to study the interactions between low-temperature core debris and
concretes typical of reactor structures. The tests addressed accident situations where the core debris is at
elevated temperature, but not molten. Concrete crucibles were formed in right-circular cylinders with 45
kg of steel spheres (approx.3-mm diameter) as the debris simulant. The debris was heated by an inductive
power supply to nominal temperatures of 1473 K to 1673 K. Two tests were performed on each of two
concrete types using either basalt or limestone aggregate. For each concrete, one test was performed with
water atop the debris while the second had no water added. The results show that low-temperature core
debris will erode either basalt or limestone-common sand concretes. Downward erosion rates of 3 to 4
cm/h were recorded for both concrete types. The limestone concrete produced a crust layer within the
debris bed that was effective in preventing the downward intrusion of water. The basalt concrete crust was
formed above the debris and consisted of numerous, convoluted, thin layers. Carbon dioxide and water
release from the decomposition of concrete were partially reduced by the metallic debris to yield carbon
monoxide and hydrogen, respectively. The overlying water pool did not effect the reduction reactions.
References for Experiment:
W.W. Tarbell et al., “Sustained Concrete Attack by Low-Temperature, Fragmented Core Debris”,
NUREG/CR-3024; SAND82-2476, July 1987
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Test Name Test Conditions
FRAG-1 44.5 kg mild steel spheres inductively heated in contact with basaltic concrete
FRAG-2A 45 kg mild steel spheres inductively heated in contact with limestone/common sand
concrete
FRAG 3 45 kg mild steel spheres inductively heated in contact with limestone/common sand
concrete. A water pool was formed over the debris during the attack on concrete
FRAG 4 45.5 kg mild steel spheres inductively heated in contact with basaltic concrete. A
water pool was formed over the debris during the attack on concrete
Year Tests Performed: 1987
Repeatability Check: No
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
601
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
602
4.5.37 E5-37 - 1DHtFlx
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories High Heat Flux Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description (from abstract in SAND77-0922):
Experiments were carried out to investigate the erosion of concrete under high surface heat flux in
connection with the core-melt/concrete interaction studies. The dominate erosion mechanism was found to
be melting at the surface accompanied by chemical decomposition of the concrete beneath the melt-solid
interface. The erosion process reaches a steady state after an initial transient. The steady state is
characterized by an essentially constant erosion rate at the surface and a non-varying (with respect to the
moving melt interface) temperature distribution within the concrete. For the range of incident heat flux 64
W/cm2 to 118 W/cm
2, the corresponding steady state erosion rate varies from approximately 8 cm/h to 23
cm/h. A simple ablation/melting model is proposed for the erosion process. The model was found to be
able to correlate all temperature responses at various depths from all tests at large times and for
temperatures above approximately 250C.
References for Experiment:
T.Y. Chu, “Radiant Heat Evaluation of Concrete – A Study of the Erosion of Concrete due to Surface
Heating”, SAND77-0922, January 1978
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
15 cm diameter slugs of concrete exposed to heat fluxes of 64 to 118 W/cm2
Year Tests Performed: 1977
Repeatability Check: No
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
603
4.5.38 E5-38 – MC Tests
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Melt Interactions Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
Molten stainless steel (~200 kg at 1700C) was teemed into mild steel hemispheres and onto plates 0.95 to
7.62 cm thick. Times to melt penetration were monitored.
References for Experiment:
D.A. Powers, “Erosion of Steel Structures by High-Temperature Melts”, Nuclear Science and Engineering,
88 (1984) 337-368.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Melt mass: 207-220 kg
Melt composition: stainless steel
Melt temperature: 1705 to 1730C
Melt pour duration: 22.9 to 26.4 s
Structure thickness: 0.95 to 7.62 cm
Year Tests Performed: 1984
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
604
4.5.39 E5-39 – Plate Tests
Test Facility: Sandia National Laboratories Melt Interactions Test Facility
Owner Organization: NRC
Experiment Description:
Melts of 3-5 kg were generated thermitically and drained onto steel plates. Ten tests were done with
molten iron and aluminum oxide. One test was done with a melt of uranium dioxide, zirconium dioxide
and stainless steel. Steel plates were 0.95 to 1.27 cm thick. In two tests the plates were coated with a layer
of uranium dioxide to simulate a crust. Times to melt penetration were monitored.
References for Experiment:
D.A. Powers, “Erosion of Steel Structures by High-Temperature Melts”, Nuclear Science and Engineering,
88 (1984) 337-368.
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Melt Mass: 3 to 5 kg
Melt Composition: Fe/Al2O3 and UO2/ZrO2/Fe/Cr/Ni
Melt Temperature: 2400 to 2780C
Melt pour duration: 3.38 to 5.44 s
Structure thickness; 0.95 to 1.27 cm. Two tests with plates coated with 1-2 mm uranium oxide.
Year Tests Performed: 1984
Repeatability Check: Yes
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: No
Prepared By: R. Lee (NRC)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
605
4.6 Systems Experiments
4.6.1 E6-1 - CSE EFADS Tests
Test Facility: CSE
Owner Organization: BNWL and AEC
Experiment Description:
The CSE facility was sized to represent one-fifth linear model of a typical 1000 MWe PWR. The
vessel has an 870 m3 volume with 7.6 m diameter and 20.4 m height. Four compartments were arranged
inside the vessel (main room, dry well, middle room and lower room) with a total free volume of 750 m3.
The called wetwell compartment (120 m3) was sealed out and not exposed to steam and fission product
simulants in this experiment, which were injected into the lower part of the dry well compartment.
A modular filter loop was located in the main room, over the dry well. The loop components (heat
exchangers, moisture separators, prefilter, HEPA filter, activated charcoal beds) were selected to be typical
of those used in containment systems. The loop was instrumented to provide data of air flow rate,
temperature, pressure differences and fission products removal efficiency.
Four materials were released in these tests: elemental iodine, methyl iodide, caesium and UO2
particles. Iodine and caesium were traced with 131
I and 137
Cs, respectively. The bottle containing the
iodine or caesium is heated when release is desired and air is used as carrier gas to sweep the iodine and
caesium away. This air stream passes through a UO2 furnace and then injected into the vessel. Two types
of aerosol releases were used: a short term “puff” release, and a continuous, or “linear” release. The puff
release simplifies the fission product generation equipment whereas the longer release provides higher
aerosol concentration of caesium and uranium.
Twelve individual maypacks samplers were clustered together and placed at a selected position in the
containment vessel. Other samples were obtained by inserting individual maypacks into the vessel through
an airlock. Maypacks samplers were designed to characterize airborne iodine according to its chemical
identity. To measure aerosol size distribution, a cascade impactor, inserted into the vessel atmosphere,
collected airborne particles.
References for Experiment:
J.D. McCormack, R.K. Hilliard and A.K. Postma, 1971. “Removal of airborne fission products by
recirculating filter systems in the containment system experiment”. Battelle Memorial Institute Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, BNWL-1587
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
606
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Iodine concentration: 160 mg/m3
Caesium and uranium concentration: 100 mg/m3
AMMD: 0.5- 1.0 μm
Year Tests Performed: 1971
Repeatability Check: No information available
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
607
4.6.2 E6-2 - ACE-CSTF EFADS Tests
Test Facility: CSTF (Containment Systems Test Facility)
Owner Organization: BNWL, HEDL, (Sponsored by EPRI)
Experiment Description:
The objective of the Advanced Containment Experiment (ACE) program was to measure the
efficiency of different aerosol retention devices that are used in nuclear power plants: pool scrubbers, dry
sand/gravel beds, submerged gravel beds, multiventuri scrubber submerged, combined venturi scrubbers,
fibrous metallic filters and soviet filter systems.
The experiments were performed in the CSTF of the Handford Engineering Development Laboratory
(HEDL). This facility mainly consists of the containment vessel (a 852 m3 vessel) in which interior is
located the filter test vessel with the filter system to be tested. Outside the containment vessel and
upstream of the filter test vessel, there is the aerosol mixing vessel and the aerosol generators. Three
different aerosols are used in the experiment: CsOH, CsI and MnO, with aerodynamic mass median
diameters between 1 and 2 μm and geometric standard deviations around 1.8. Elemental caesium is heated
in a furnace and sweep by a low flow rate nitrogen stream into the aerosol mixing vessel. The steam
containing the aerosol mixing vessel reacts with Cs to form CsOH. Additionally, a controlled flow of HI
(hydrogen iodide) is injected into the AMV to produce CsI. The overall ratio of Cs to I in the aerosols is
about 10:1. Manganese powder is volatilized in a plasma torch and carried by nitrogen into the aerosol
mixing vessel where it reacts with steam to produce MnO. Aerosols are carried from the aerosol mixing
vessel to the filter test vessel by a mixture of nitrogen and steam (at about 0.25 m3/s). There were three
sampling stations, one upstream and two downstream of the filter test vessel in order to measure the
concentration and size distribution before and after the gas pass through the filter system.
The same thermal-hydraulics conditions were used to test the different filtration systems. For each
one, two to six 30 minute tests were performed.
References for Experiment:
M. Merilo, I.B. Wall, 1992. “Containment Filtration Systems Tests, Summary Report” Electric Power
Research Institute, ACE Phase A, TR-A22, February 1992
J.D. McCormack, D.R. Dickinson and R.T. Allemann. 1989. “Experimental results of ACE vent filtration,
pool scrubber tests”. ACE Phase A, TR-A1, January 1989
J.D. McCormack, D.R. Dickinson and R.T. Allemann. 1989. “Experimental results of ACE vent filtration,
submerged graver scrubber tests”. ACE Phase A, TR-A2, July 1989
J.D. McCormack, D.R. Dickinson and R.T. Allemann. 1989. “Experimental results of ACE vent filtration,
submerged multi-venturi scrubber tests”. ACE Phase A, TR-A3, September 1989
R.K. Hilliard, J.D. McCormack and A.K. Postma. 1981. “Submerged gravel scrubber. Demonstration as a
passive air cleaner for containment venting and purging with sodium aerosols. CSTF Tests AC7 – AC10”.
ACE Phase A, TR-A8, HEDL-TME 81-30. November 1981
J.D. McCormack, R.K. Hilliard and A.K. Postma. 1984. “Submerged gravel scrubber. Demonstration tests;
Performance of a large-scale unit”. ACE Phase A, TR-A9, HEDL-TME 83-120. December 1984
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
608
J.D. McCormack, D.R. Dickinson and R.T. Allemann. 1990. “Experimental results of ACE vent filtration
tests. Heat sink gravel bed”. ACE Phase A, TR-A10, April 1990
R.T. Allemann and J.A. Bamberger. 1990. “Comparison of code results with ACE pool scrubbing tests”.
ACE Phase A, TR-A13, June 1990
D.R. Dickinson, J.D. McCormack, and R.T. Allemann. 1991. “Experimental results of ACE vent filtration:
soviet filter tests”. ACE Phase A, TR-A15, June 1991
G.L. Ogram and A. Lemyk. 1990. “Water aerosol leakage experiments, volume I: droplet size distributions
measured by FSSP”. ACE Phase A, TR-A17, February 1990
C.F. Forrest. 1990. “Water aerosol leakage experiments, volume IV: test results”. ACE Phase A, TR-A20,
February 1990
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Gas flow:
nitrogen: 0.2 m3/s ;
air: 0.05 m3/s.
Aerosol size:
CsOH: AMMD=1.8 μm, GSD=1.8
CsI: AMMD=1.0 μm, GSD=1.6
MnO: AMMD=1.5 μm, GSD=1.8
Aerosol concentration (in carrier gas):
Cs: 5 – 25 g/m3
Mn: 5 – 24 g/m3
I: 0.5 – 1.7 g/m3
Year Tests Performed: 1987-1993
Repeatability Check: No information available
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
609
4.6.3 E6-3 - ACE-LSFF EFADS Tests
Test Facility: LSFF
Owner Organization: HEDL, (Sponsored by EPRI)
Experiment Description:
A large-scale submerged gravel scrubber (SGS) was installed in the Large Sodium Fire Facility
(LSFF) at the Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory (HEDL). The large test cell is a 107 m3 (5.5
m high) rectangular vessel made on steel. The objective of the test program was to demonstrate the
effectiveness of this type of passive scrubber on a size scale of commercial interest. The test piece
consisted of a submerged gravel bed 0.61 m in depth, 3.66 m in width and either 2.1 and 3.1 m in length.
Two purposes could be served: first, test aerosols could be generated to challenge the submerged gravel
scrubber, and second, the submerged gravel scrubber could be used to clean up smoke produced during the
experiment. Hydraulic characteristics and aerosol retention efficiencies were measured in a series of 12
tests.
Test aerosols were introduced into the submerged gravel scrubber in two ways. In the first one,
sodium and lithium metal was burned in test cells inside the LSFF, and the aerosols that were produced
(which were soluble oxides) were transported to the scrubber through the normal exhaust ducts (existing
filter bank was bypassed). The second test method involved the injection of insoluble particles (hydrous
aluminium oxide and fly ash) into the scrubber inlet duct some 12 m upstream from the scrubber.
Upstream and downstream samples were withdrawn using filters and cascade impactors to determine
inlet and outlet aerosol concentration and size distribution. Typically in the order 0.5 – 1.0 g/m3 in
concentration and of 2-3 μm in AMMD (with GSD value around 2). Air flow through the test scrubber
was provided by a radial blade blower and water level inside the scrubber was controlled by two float
switches.
References for Experiment:
J.D. McCormack, R.K. Hilliard and A.K. Postma, 1984. “Submerged gravel scrubber demonstration test;
performance of a large-scale unit”. Hanford engineering Development Laboratory HEDL-TME-83-12.
ACE Phase A, TR-A9.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
610
Range of Key Experimental Parameters:
Metal burned aerosol experiments:
Aerosol concentration: 0.34 -0.97 g/m3
Particle size: 2.1 – 3.2 μm (GSD 1.6 -2.4)
Gas flow rate: 4.0 – 5.5 m3/s
Insoluble aerosol experiments:
Aerosol concentration: 0.26 - 0.41 g/m3
Particle size: 1.3 – 22 μm
Gas flow rate: 4.0 – 5.6 m3/s
Year Tests Performed: 1984
Repeatability Check: No information available
Past Code Validation/Benchmarks: Unknown
Prepared By: J. Fontanet (CIEMAT) and L.E. Herranz (CIEMAT)
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
611
5 PHENOMENA VS. EXPERIMENTS CROSS MATRIX
A phenomena vs. experiments cross matrix (not shown in this report) was generated using the
information in Table 4-2 to Table 4-7. The cross-matrix showed the experiments that can be used to
validate each phenomenon. Please note that it is still the User’s responsibility to assess the suitability of
the experiment for their code validation. The results of the cross matrix was used to generate a list of
experiments that may be used to validate each phenomenon (see Table 3-1 to Table 3-6)8. The cross-
matrix shows that the following phenomena do not have any experiments identified for validation:
P1-22 - Laminar/Turbulent Leakage Flow
P1-30 - Droplet Interaction (Dousing)
P1-32 - Turbulence Induced by Sprays
P2-11 - Strong Ignition of Hydrogen
P3-11 - Drop Breakup
P5-22 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Corium-Ceramics Interaction and Properties
P5-29 - Corium Release from Failed Flooded Reactor Pressure Vessel
P6-1 - Ventilation Systems
P6-4 - Pump Performance including Sump Clogging (No Experiments)
Thus, this containment code validation matrix is only missing experiments for 9 phenomena.
Although this CCVM appears to contain experiments to cover about 93% of the containment
phenomenon, it is a little misleading because only about half of the experiments can be used for validation
of CFD codes. The 67 phenomena lacking experiments for validation of CFD codes are shown in Table
5-1. An examination of this list of phenomena shows that the bulk of them cannot (or are not) presently
being modelled by CFD codes.
Table 5-1
List of Phenomenon without Identified Experiments for CFD Validation
P1-12 - Liquid Re-Entrainment (Resuspension)
P1-17 - Mixing in Water Pools
P1-21 - Critical Flow (Choked Flow)
P1-22 - Laminar/Turbulent Leakage Flow
P1-26 - Liquid Film Flow
P1-30 - Droplet Interaction (Dousing)
P1-32 - Turbulence Induced by Sprays
P2-10 - Hydrogen Mitigation by Hydrogen Ignitors (Mild Ignition)
P2-11 - Strong Ignition of Hydrogen
P2-13 - Radiolysis (Hydrogen Production by Water Radiolysis)
P3-1 - Aerosol Formation in a Flashing Jet
8 There are 6 phenomena that do not require validation (phenomenon title include the word “No Experiments”). The
reasons are given in the phenomenon descriptions.
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
612
Table 5-1
List of Phenomenon without Identified Experiments for CFD Validation
P3-2 - Aerosol Formation in a Steam Jet
P3-3 - Aerosol Impaction (Jet Impingement)
P3-4 - Thermophoresis
P3-5 - Diffusiophoresis
P3-6 - Liquid Aerosol Evaporation
P3-8 - Gravitational Agglomeration
P3-9 - Diffusional Agglomeration
P3-10 - Turbulent Agglomeration of Aerosols
P3-11 - Drop Breakup
P3-13 - Diffusional Deposition
P3-14 - Inertial Deposition of Aerosols (Also called Impaction)
P3-15 - Turbulent Deposition of Aerosols
P3-16 - Re-volatilisation
P3-17 - Aerosol Removal in Leakage Paths
P3-18 - Pool Scrubbing of Aerosols
P3-21 - Release Rate Change Due to Oxidizing Environment
P3-22 - Containment Chemistry Impact on Source Term
P3-23 - Ruthenium Volatility and Behaviour in Containment
P3-24 - Aerosol Removal by Sprays (Dousing)
P3-25 - Re-suspension (Dry)
P3-26 - Re-entrainment (Wet)
P3-27 - Aerosol De-agglomeration
P4-1 - Aqueous Phase Oxidation and Reduction of Iodine Species
P4-2 - Inorganic Iodine Hydrolysis
P4-3 - Inorganic Iodine Radiolysis in Water Phase
P4-4 - Homogeneous Organic Reactions in Water Phase
P4-5 - Iodine Reactions with Surfaces in the Water Phase
P4-6 - Iodine reactions with surfaces in the gas phase
P4-7 - Silver Iodine Reactions in the Water Phase
P4-8 - Gas Phase Radiolytic Oxidation of Molecular Iodine (I2) (Iodine/Ozone Reaction)
P4-9 - Homogeneous Organic Iodine Reactions in Gas Phase
P4-10 - RI (Organic Iodine) Radiolytic Destruction
P4-11 - Interfacial Mass Transfer
P4-13 - Iodine Filtration
P4-14 - Volatile Iodine Trapping by Airborne Droplets
P4-15 - Iodine Retention in Leakage Paths
P4-16 - I2 Interaction with Aerosols
P4-18 - Pool Scrubbing of Iodine
P5-1 - Corium Release from Failed Dry Reactor Pressure Vessel
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
613
Table 5-1
List of Phenomenon without Identified Experiments for CFD Validation
P5-2 - Corium Entrainment Out of the Reactor Primary Vessel with Lateral Breaches
P5-3 - Corium Particles Generation from the Corium Pool
P5-4 - Corium Particles Generation from the Two Phase Jet
P5-5 - Corium Particles Entrainment
P5-6 - Corium Particles Trapping
P5-8 - Corium Jet Break-up in Water Pool
P5-10 - Pressure Load on Corium Retention Devices
P5-11 - Particulate Debris Bed Formation
P5-15 - Corium Spreading
P5-22 - Ex-Vessel Corium Catcher - Corium-Ceramics Interaction and Properties
P5-23 - Effect of Non Homogeneous Ablation on Gate Ablation
P5-29 - Corium Release from Failed Flooded Reactor Pressure Vessel
P6-1 - Ventilation Systems
P6-2 - Behaviour of Doors, Burst Membranes, Rupture Discs etc.
P6-3 - Air Cooler (Fan Cooler) Heat Transfer
P6-4 - Pump Performance including Sump Clogging (No Experiments)
P6-6 - Aerosol Removal in EFADS
NEA/CSNI/R(2014)3
614
6 SUMMARY
This containment code validation matrix has identified 127 phenomena related to both DBA and
SA/BDBA accident scenarios in western pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR), pressurised water
reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR), as well as Eastern European VVER reactors. It contains
a description of 213 experiments that may be suitable for validation of the 1129 of the identified
containment phenomena.
If only experiments suitable for CFD validation are considered, then only 54 containment phenomena
are covered by this CCVM. However, most of the uncovered phenomena are not presently modelled with
CFD codes.
The authors of this report do not make any claims to the suitability of the experiments for code
validation. It is the responsibility of the User to assess the suitability of the experiment for their code
validation.
It is recommended that this work be reviewed in 5 years time to include new experiments and to
attempt to close the identified experiment gaps (phenomena lacking suitable experiments for validation).
9 Of the 127 phenomena, only 121 require experiments for validation. Of the 121, only 9 phenomena do not have
experiments identified for validation.