Publications

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

In this analysis, the two material interaction models available in the MELCOR code are benchmarked for a severe accident at a BWR under representative Fukushima Daiichi boundary conditions. This part of the benchmark investigates the impact of each material interaction model on accident progression through a detailed single case analysis. It is found that the eutectics model simulation exhibits more rapid accident progression for the duration of the accident. The slower accident progression exhibited by the interactive materials model simulation, however, allows for a greater degree of core material oxidation and hydrogen generation to occur, as well as elevated core temperatures during the ex-vessel accident phase. The eutectics model simulation exhibits more significant degradation of core components during the late in-vessel accident phase – more debris forms and relocates to the lower plenum before lower head failure. The larger debris bed observed in the eutectics model simulation also reaches higher temperatures, presenting a more significant thermal challenge to the lower head until its failure. At the end of the simulated accident scenario, however, core damage is comparable between both simulations due to significant core degradation that occurs during the ex-vessel phase in the interactive materials model simulation. A key difference between the two models’ performance is the maximum temperatures that can be reached in the core and therefore the maximum ΔT between any two components. When implementing the interactive materials model, users have the option to modify the liquefaction temperature of the ZrO2-interactive and UO2-interactive materials as a way to mimic early fuel rod failure due to material interactions. Through modification of the liquefaction of high melting point materials with significant mass, users may inadvertently limit maximum core temperatures for fuel, cladding, and debris components.

Abstract not provided.

Here in this analysis, the two material interaction models available in the MELCOR code are benchmarked for a severe accident at a BWR under representative Fukushima Daiichi boundary conditions. This part of the benchmark investigates the impact of each material interaction model on accident progression through a detailed single case analysis. It is found that the eutectics model simulation exhibits more rapid accident progression for the duration of the accident. The slower accident progression exhibited by the interactive materials model simulation, however, allows for a greater degree of core material oxidation and hydrogen generation to occur, as well as elevated core temperatures during the ex-vessel accident phase. The eutectics model simulation exhibits more significant degradation of core components during the late in-vessel accident phase – more debris forms and relocates to the lower plenum before lower head failure. The larger debris bed observed in the eutectics model simulation also reaches higher temperatures, presenting a more significant thermal challenge to the lower head until its failure. At the end of the simulated accident scenario, however, core damage is comparable between both simulations due to significant core degradation that occurs during the ex-vessel phase in the interactive materials model simulation. A key difference between the two models’ performance is the maximum temperatures that can be reached in the core and therefore the maximum ΔT between any two components. When implementing the interactive materials model, users have the option to modify the liquefaction temperature of the ZrO₂-interactive and UO₂-interactive materials as a way to mimic early fuel rod failure due to material interactions. Through modification of the liquefaction of high melting point materials with significant mass, users may inadvertently limit maximum core temperatures for fuel, cladding, and debris components.

This report is a functional review of the radionuclide containment strategies of fluoride-salt-cooled high temperature reactor (FHR), molten salt reactor (MSR) and high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) systems. This analysis serves as a starting point for further, more in-depth analyses geared towards identifying phenomenological gaps that still exist, hindering the creation of a mechanistic source term for these reactor types. As background information to this review, an overview of how a mechanistic source term is created and used for consequence assessment necessary for licensing is provided. How a mechanistic source term is used within the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) is also provided. Lastly, the characteristics of non-LWR mechanistic source terms are examined. This report does not assess the viability of any software system for use with advanced reactor designs, but instead covers system function requirements. Future work within the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulations (NEAMS) program will address such gaps. This document is an update of SAND 2020-6730. An additional chapter is included as well as edits to original content.

Abstract not provided.

Numerous MELCOR modeling improvements and analyses have been performed in the time since the severe accidents at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station that occurred in March 2011. This report briefly summarizes the related accident reconstruction and uncertainty analysis efforts. It further discusses a number of potential pursuits to further advance MELCOR modeling and analysis of the severe accidents at Fukushima Daiichi and severe accident modeling in general. Proposed paths forward include further enhancements to identified MELCOR models primarily impacting core degradation calculations, and continued application of uncertainty analysis methods to improve model performance and a develop deeper understanding of severe accident progression.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.