ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 A SARNET Benchmark on two VULCANO Molten Core Concrete Interaction Tests C. Journeau 1 , J.F Haquet 1 , B. Letexier 1 , A. Greco 1 , B. Spindler 2 , R. Gencheva 3 , P. Groudev 3 , D. Dimov 4 , A. Fargette 5 , J. Foit 6 , B. Michel 7 , C. Mun 7 , T. Sevon 8 , C. Spengler 9 , F. Polidoro 10 1 CEA, Cadarache (FR) 2 CEA, Grenoble (FR) 3 INRNE, Sofia (BG) 4 Energy Inst., Sofia (BG) 5 AREVA NP, Erlangen (DE) 6 KIT, Karlsruhe (DE) 7 IRSN, Cadarache (FR) 8 VTT, Espoo (FI) 9 GRS, Cologne (DE) 10 RSE, Milan (IT)
14
Embed
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012 A SARNET Benchmark on two VULCANO Molten Core Concrete Interaction Tests C. Journeau 1, J.F Haquet 1, B. Letexier.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
A SARNET Benchmark on two VULCANO Molten Core Concrete Interaction Tests
C. Journeau1, J.F Haquet1, B. Letexier1, A. Greco1, B. Spindler2, R. Gencheva3, P. Groudev3, D. Dimov4, A. Fargette5, J. Foit6, B. Michel7, C. Mun7, T. Sevon8, C. Spengler9, F. Polidoro10
1 CEA, Cadarache (FR) 2 CEA, Grenoble (FR)3 INRNE, Sofia (BG) 4 Energy Inst., Sofia (BG) 5 AREVA NP, Erlangen (DE) 6 KIT, Karlsruhe (DE)7 IRSN, Cadarache (FR) 8 VTT, Espoo (FI)9 GRS, Cologne (DE) 10 RSE, Milan (IT)
In this benchmark nine organisations from 5 different EU countries have been involved. They simulate main MCCI phenomena in VB-U5 and VB-U6 tests using different codes as it is pointed bellow:
– MEDICIS (ASTECv2) code used by IRSN, France, GRS, Germany, EI, Bulgaria and INRNE, Bulgaria;
– TOLBIAC-ICB v3.2 code used by CEA-Cadarache, France and CEA-Grenoble, France;
– CORQUENCH 3.03 code used by VTT, Finland;
– COSACO code used by AREVA, Germany;
– WECHSL code used by KIT (FZK), Germany;
– CORIUM2D code used by RSE, Italy
The purpose of these analyses is to compare code results with the results obtained by the tests, to compare the best-estimated assumptions and to synthesize conclusions
– CEA_gre: Macrosegregation: crusts enriched in UO2-ZrO2
– CEA_cad: crust at pool composition at the time of deposit
Even if there are crusts, they must be remelted when ablation progresses and be at a composition close to the final melt pool composition.
UO2 final mass fractions for VB-U6
EI; 47,29% KIT;
48,57%
CEA_cad_9kW;
23,88%
CEA_cad_9kW-Pcond;
23,18%CEA_gre_case3; 17,35%
CEA_gre_case2; 19,89%
CEA_gre_base_case;
19,45%
INRNE; 46,04%
IRSN; 45,57%
AREVA; 42,28%VTT;
44,60%
GRS; 44,94%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%M
ass
frac
tio
n (
%) Exp. value
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Synthesis
10 partners – 6 code benchmark was a key point in EU networking on MCCI.
Cavity volume and shape are roughly well predicted
– VB-U5 needs to take into account anisotropy, either explicitly or implicitly (CORQUENCH).
– Axial ablation is generally overestimated
Assuming an interface temperature around liquidus provides better estimates of the pool temperature
Crusts, if they exist, shall have a composition close to the current pool composition.
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Conclusions
Up to now, it is still not possible to propose a comprehensive modelling of MCCI that could predict the observed anisotropy and all the parameters of the experiment.
No single calculation has been able to compute all the parameters of the experiments.
But we are using multi 0D quasi-steady state modelling to model an intermittent ablation process
– complex geometry both at the interface
– complex convection pattern in the pool because of combined effects of gas bubbling and solutal convection.
Nevertheless, reasonably good estimates of ablation volume and profile.
ERMSAR 2012, Cologne March 21 – 23, 2012
Conclusions - Perspectives
VB-U5 and VB-U6 were within the first VULCANO MCCI experiments
They used typical Gen 2 plant concretes and prototypical corium
Latest VULCANO tests have better measurements
– Better estimation of radiated and ablated powers