SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
This engineering calculations and analysis report (ECAR) documents the release-to-birth ratios of the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) experiment, AGR-5/6/7, which was irradiated in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) Northeast Flux Trap from February 16, 2018 to July 22, 2020.
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.
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.
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.
AGR-5/6/7 goals and test train configuration, status of AGR-5/6/7 mass balance work, preliminary results of Ag-110m, Cs-134, and Eu-154.
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.
This document presents the as-run analysis of the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR)-5/6/7 irradiation experiment. AGR-5/6/7 is the last of a series of experiments conducted in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory in support of the development and qualification of tri-structural isotropic low-enriched fuel for use in high-temperature gas-cooled reactors. The test train contained five separate capsules that were independently controlled and monitored. Each capsule contained multiple 24.91-mm-long and 12.25-mm-dimeter compacts filled with low-enriched uranium carbide/oxide tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. The objectives of the AGR-5/6/7 experiment were to: • Irradiate reference-design fuel particles to support fuel qualification. • Establish operating margins for the fuel, beyond normal operating conditions. • Provide irradiated-fuel performance data and irradiated-fuel samples for post-irradiation examination and safety testing. The primary objective of the AGR-5/6 test (Capsules 1, 2, 4, and 5) was to verify the successful performance of the reference-design fuel under normal operating conditions. The AGR-7 test (Capsule 3) was designed to explore fuel performance at higher temperatures. Its primary objective was to demonstrate the capability of the fuel to withstand conditions beyond normal operating conditions, in support of plant design and licensing. AGR-5/6/7 will also provide irradiated-fuel performance data based on the fission gas release from particles during irradiation. To achieve the test objectives, the AGR-5/6/7 experiment was irradiated in the northeast flux trap of the ATR with a planned duration of 500 effective full-power days. The northeast flux trap was selected because its larger diameter provided greater flexibility for test-train design compared to the Large B positions used for the AGR-1 and AGR-2 irradiations, significantly enhancing test capabilities for the combined irradiation campaigns. Due to delays in the ATR schedule, the AGR-5/6/7 irradiation was significantly shorter than the originally planned 13-cycle schedule. Irradiation began on February 16, 2018 and ended on July 22, 2020, spanning nine ATR cycles (162B–168A) over two and a half years. Thus, the AGR-5/6/7 fuel compacts were irradiated for a total of approximately 360.9 effective full-power days. Final burnup values, on a per-compact basis, ranged from 5.66 to 15.26% fissions per initial heavy metal atom, while fast fluence values ranged from 1.62 to 5.55 × 1025 n/m2 (E >0.18 MeV). Time-averaged volume-averaged fuel temperatures on a capsule basis at the end of irradiation ranged from 756°C in Capsule 5 to 1313°C in Capsule 3 excluding days with significantly lower temperature during the two short powered axial locator mechanism cycles, 163A and 167A. By the end of irradiation, 48 out of 54 installed thermocouples had failed (the bottom three capsules lost all thermocouples). During the first five cycles (162B – 165A), the fission-gas isotope release-rate-to-birthrate (R/B) ratios were stable in the 10-8–10-6 range, and no in-pile particle failures were observed based on the gross gamma counts. During this time, the high exposed kernel fraction and high fuel particle temperatures in Capsule 1 led to a maximum R/B value of around 2 ? 10-6 for Kr-85m. The fission gas release in all capsules started to increase from the second half of Cycle 166A, when a large number of in-pile particle failures occurred in Capsule 1 and a gas line problem in this capsule caused fission gas leakage at various degrees into the other four capsules. This gas line problem also prevented a fission gas release measurement for Capsule 1 during the last three cycles due to gas flow isolation. By the end of irradiation, it is estimated that approximately 15 particles failed in Capsule 3, which was considered possible because the experiment was designed to operate beyond the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor normal operating temperature range. A few hundred in-pile particle failures were estimated for Capsule 1 by the end of Cycle 166A, but the total number of failures is unknown due to the lack of fission gas release data in the later cycles. Additionally, four potential in-pile failures were identified for Capsule 2 during the last cycle, Cycle 168A. 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-3/4 R/B per exposed kernel model.
Not Available
This document provides the process for qualification of the AGR-5/6/7 Test Train Disassembly equipment for remote operation in the HFEF Main Cell. The test train is composed of five welded stainless steel capsules that are expected to be transported in two sections. The first section will be Capsules 1 and 2. The second section will include Capsules 3, 4 and 5. The capsules range in length from about 9 inches to about 12 inches. Inside the capsules is a graphite holder that contains multiple fueled AGR compacts.
Major Objectives in FY22 for AGR-5/6/7 PIE, and AGR 3/4