Engineering topics

T Pham, Cam Binh

Publications and source records attributed to T Pham, Cam Binh.

8 records

DOE OSTI2024

AGR-5/6/7 CAPSULE 1 THERMAL MODEL WITH OFFSET GAS GAPS

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a 3 D finite-element thermal model that was subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty caused by the graphite holder nub-to-capsule clearance. This thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for Capsule 1 for four different days during the irradiation. In the analysis, the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder were varied. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error (RMSE) of the residuals (measured minus calculated thermocouple [TC] temperatures) for the operational TCs in Capsule 1. Near the end of the irradiation, when the graphite had shrunk and the gas gaps had grown, a peak temperature was found with maximum offset along the TC lines, with nickel introducing a potential mechanism for fuel particle failures.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance caused by a design error of AGR-5/6/7 capsules. The thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for six different days during the irradiation for Capsules 1 and 2. The analysis varied the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of the residuals (measured minus calculated) for the operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: (1) The holder offsets led to slightly lower average temperatures but wider temperature variations (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures) for both Capsule 1 and Capsule 2. (2) During earlier cycles (162A–164B), when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied over a specific range for both the top and bottom ([0.002–0.0035 in.] for Capsule 1 and [0.003-0.004 in] for Capsule 2). In contrast, the offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the offset at the bottom of the Capsule 1 holder. This is because holder movement was somewhat constrained at the top of Capsule 1 by the TC leads running through the capsule head and into the holder and by the through tubes in Capsule 2, but the Capsule 1 bottom did not have this type of constraint. (3) During later cycles, when all TCs failed, applying the maximum possible offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1557? in Capsule 1 (i.e., a 135? increase from 1422? with zero offset on September 20, 2019 (166A)); the maximum offset of 0.0068 in. to the south for both top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1110°C in Capsule 2 on April 20, 2020 (i.e., a 116? increase from 994? with zero offset (168A)). High peak fuel temperatures in Capsule 1 during Cycle 166A could be the cause of massive particle failure near the end of this cycle. (4) Even though the highest temperature at the tip of Type-N TCs, such as TC-1-7, slightly exceeded 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming an offset of 0.006 in. in the northwest of Capsule 1 holder near the end of Cycle 166A. This temperature significantly exceeds the temperature threshold at which TC degradation is expected to occur, ultimately contributing to considerable particle failures in Capsule 1. For eight Type-N TCs in Capsule 2, the peak TC line temperature was much lower (i.e., 1029°C for TC-2-5), assuming maximum offset of 00068 in. to the south during cycle 168A.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

AGR-1, AGR-2, AGR-3/4, and AGR-5/6/7 DimensionalChange Analysis

A series of fuel irradiation experiments have been planned in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to support the licensing and operation of the Advanced Reactor Technologies high temperature gas-cooled reactor. The advanced gas reactor (AGR) experiments are comprised of multiple independent capsules containing multiple cylindrical fuel compacts, placed inside of a graphite cylinder in ATR. The purpose of the AGR experiments is to provide data on fuel performance under irradiation, support fuel process development, qualify the fuel for normal operating conditions, provide irradiated fuel for accident testing, and support the development of fuel performance and fission product transport models. The advanced graphite creep (AGC) experiments provide irradiation creep data for design and licensing. To date, six irradiation campaigns have been completed: AGR-1 (December, 2006 – November, 2009); AGR-2 (June, 2010 – October, 2013); AGR-3/4 (December, 2011 – April, 2014); AGC-1 (September, 2009 – January, 2011); AGC-2 (April, 2011 – May, 2012); and AGC-3 (November, 2012 – April, 2014).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing irradiation performance of the Tristructural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in uncertainty of calculated fuel temperature is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance because of fabrication error. A revision to the thermal model was made to examine the most probable offset position for four different dates of interest. The offset position options varied in magnitude and azimuthal direction of offset of the holder top and bottom position. The best-fit offset of the holder is estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of residuals for all operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: 1) During earlier cycles (162A – 164A) when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied in range [0.002 – 0.0035 in.] for both the top and bottom holder while offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the holder bottom. 2) Holder offset led to slightly lower Capsule 1 average temperature, but wider temperature variation (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures). 3) The maximum offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom holder yielded a much higher temperature than the original peak fuel temperature, which increased from 1422 to 1557 ? (or 135 ? increase). This could be one of the reasons for massive particle failure near the end of Cycle 165A. 4) Even though, the highest temperature at the TC-1-7 tip reached slightly higher than 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming a holder offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest. Consequently, at this temperature nickel from this TC wire could cause particle failures in Capsule 1.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Development of a Data Platform for High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP) Thermal-Fluid Experiments

Since the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) initiated the Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP) in 2009, a total of 30 NEUP projects focused on High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) thermal-fluid experiments were funded up to fiscal year (FY) 2021. This represents a total DOE investment of approximately $23M over the 12-year period, covering thermal fluid phenomena important to both pebble bed and prismatic HTGR designs. The NEUP projects have produced a large amount of high-quality experimental and computational data that were published in final project reports, journal articles, dissertations, and conference proceedings, but in most cases the actual data sets and supporting information such as facility and instrumentation descriptions were not publicly disseminated to the HTGR community. To the authors’ best knowledge, a data platform that organizes and summarizes these NEUP-funded projects for HTGR research does not currently exist. To improve access to this HTGR validation data and optimize the return on the significant investment made by DOE, the Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR) program started a survey of completed and ongoing HTGR NEUP projects with the aim of developing a public-access data platform that can be used to retrieve computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and system code validation data and guide future NEUP investments. This paper summarizes the status of the current ART-GCR database, provides an overview of the NEUP-funded HTGR-related research projects from FY2009 to FY2021 and identify validation knowledge gaps still existing in HTGR thermal-fluid research.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2022

AGR-5/6/7 Final Release-to-Birth Ratio Data Analysis

AGR-5/6/7 is the last of a series of Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) experiments conducted in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in support of development and qualification of tristructural isotropic (TRISO) low-enriched fuel for use in the high-temperature gas cooled reactor (HTGR). AGR configuration and irradiation conditions are based on prismatic HTGR technology that is distinguished primarily through the use of helium coolant, a low-power-density ceramic core capable of withstanding very high temperatures, and TRISO-coated particle fuel. The AGR tests provide valuable irradiation-performance data to support fuel process development, qualify fuel for normal operation and accident conditions, and support development and validation of fuel performance and fission-product (FP) transport models and codes. Each AGR test consists of multiple independently controlled and monitored capsules containing fuel compacts placed in a graphite cylinder shrouded by a steel shell. Release-to-birth ratios (R/B) for fission-gas isotopes released from each capsule are calculated from release rates, measured by germanium detectors in the Fission Product Monitoring System (FPMS) installed downstream from each capsule, and birth rates calculated using numerical models of FG generation. The R/Bs are a critical measure of the ability of the fuel kernel, the particle coating layers, and the compact matrix to retain fission-gas atoms, preventing their release into the sweep-gas flow, and the impact of initially defective particles and/or particle-coating failures that occur during irradiation. For fission-gas isotopes, particle failure is defined as failure of all coating layers, allowing gaseous fission atoms to escape from a particle. During the first five cycles (162B ? 165A), R/Bs were stable in the 10-8?10-6 range, and no in-pile particle failures were observed, based on the gross gamma counts. The maximum R/B value of around 2 ? 10-6 for Kr-85m resulted from the presence of as-fabricated exposed kernels (based on the high exposed kernel fraction), the dispersed uranium, and high fuel particle temperatures in Capsule 1. Comparison of capsule-measured R/Bs from these early cycles to predictions using the previously developed AGR R/B model demonstrated FG release from the AGR-5/6/7 TRISO fuel was comparable to that of previous experiments. In addition, the Kr-85m R/B per-exposed-kernel values are comparable to R/B values obtained in AGR-3/4 irradiation experiment and four irradiation experiments performed during 1980s: (1) HRB-17/18, (2) COMEDIE-BD1, (3) HFR B1, and (4) HRB-21. In contrast, all measured R/B values are lower than predictions by the commonly used Richards and German models, which are intentionally conservative. A large number of in-pile particle failures occurred in Capsule 1 by the end of Cycle 166A. During the final four cycles (166A ? 168A), apparent damage to the Capsule 1 gas line appeared to cause FG leakage from that capsule into the other four capsules, resulting in an increase in fission gas (FG) detected in the effluent for all capsules. Isolation of the Capsule 1 gas line during the last three cycles also prevented measurement of its FG release. Thus, R/Bs in all capsules after Cycle 166A are highly uncertain because of undefined amount of leakage from Capsule 1, especially for long-lived isotopes. A few hundred in-pile particle failures were estimated for Capsule 1 before the end of Cycle 166A, but the total number of failures is unknown due to the lack of FG release data in the later cycles. Based primarily on evidence from the gross gamma counts during Cycle 168A, approximately 15 particles failed in Capsule 3 and four particles failed in Capsule 2. In-pile failures in Capsule 3 were anticipated because this capsule was designed to operate beyond the HTGR normal operating temperature range. In contrast, no in-pile failures were identified in the top two capsules (4 and 5) based on the absence of the typical spikes in gross gamma counts and low failure estimates using the AGR model, developed in INL/EXT-14-32970, for R/B of the short-lived isotopes (Kr-89 and Xe-137) with minimal leakage from Capsule 1.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Uncertainty Quantification of Calculated Temperatures for the AGR 5/6/7 Experiment

This report documents the quantification of uncertainty of the calculated temperature data for the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) 5/6/7 fuel irradiation experiment conducted in the Advanced Test Reactor at Idaho National Laboratory in support of the Advanced Reactor Technologies? research and development program. Recognizing uncertainties inherent in physics and thermal simulations of the AGR 5/6/7 capsules, the results of the numerical simulations are used in combination with statistical analysis methods to improve qualification of measured data. The calculated fuel temperatures for AGR tests are also used for validation of the fission product transport and fuel performance simulation models. These crucial roles of the calculated fuel temperatures in ensuring achievement of the AGR experimental program objectives require accurate determination of the model temperature uncertainties. This report covers temperature uncertainty results for each of the five AGR 5/6/7 capsules. To quantify the uncertainty of calculated temperatures determined using the ABAQUS finite element heat transfer code, this study identifies and analyzes model parameters of potential importance to the calculated temperatures of fuel compacts and thermocouples. The selection of input parameters for uncertainty quantification is based on the ranking of their influences upon temperature predictions. Thus, selected input parameters include those with high sensitivity and those with the largest uncertainty. Propagation of model parameter uncertainty and sensitivity is then used to quantify the overall uncertainty of calculated temperatures. Measurement uncertainty, analysis of modeling assumptions, and expert judgment are used as the basis to quantify the uncertainty range for selected input parameters. The input uncertainties are dynamic, accounting for the effect of unplanned events and changes in thermal properties of capsule components over extended exposure to high temperatures and fast neutron irradiation. The sensitivity analysis performed in this work went beyond the traditional local sensitivity. Using experimental design, analysis of pairwise interactions of model parameters was performed to establish sufficiency of the time dependent first order (linear) expansion terms in constructing the temperature response surface. To achieve completeness, uncertainty propagation made use of pairwise noise correlations of model parameters. Furthermore, using an interpolation scheme over the input parameter domain, the analysis obtains time dependent sensitivity over the test campaign duration. This allows computation of uncertainty for the calculated fuel temperatures and the calculated graphite temperatures at thermocouple locations during the entire irradiation period.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Initial Observations from AGR 5/6/7 Capsule 1

The fourth and final irradiation experiment in the Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) fuel development and qualification program is designated as AGR-5/6/7. Data collected from the fabrication, irradiation, and post-irradiation examination (PIE) of this tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel are intended to serve as the primary data set for the qualification of this fuel for use in high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (INL 2021, Collin 2018b). However, data collected from the three preceding irradiations (i.e., AGR-1, AGR-2, and AGR-3/4) may also be used to supplement data collected from AGR-5/6/7. All components of the AGR-5/6/7 fuel (i.e., UCO kernels, TRISO coatings, and fuel compacts) were produced on an engineering scale at BWXT (Lynchburg, Virginia USA) according to the fuel specification (Marshall 2017). This fuel was irradiated in the northeast flux trap (NEFT) at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho national Laboratory (INL) from February 16, 2018 to July 22, 2020 (Pham et al. 2021). Measurements in the fission product monitoring system (FPMS) indicated unexpected and significant numbers of failures of TRISO particles in Capsule 1 near the end of the sixth irradiation cycle (ATR Cycle 166A). In the fourth cycle (ATR Cycle 164B) and beyond, the sweep gas flow became very low (presumably from degradation of the capsule gas outlet line via an unidentified mechanism), and the program deliberately isolated Capsule 1 from gas flow periodically. In later cycles, attempts to reestablish any kind of flow in Capsule 1 were unsuccessful. With little or no flow through Capsule 1, FPMS measurements and enumerations of failed particles in Capsule 1 were difficult or impossible as was the ability to control the helium/neon gas mixture used for temperature control. Gas flows and fission gas activity in the effluent gas from the other AGR-5/6/7 capsules were also impacted by the Capsule 1 gas flow issues and the large increase in fission gas released from the Capsule 1.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗