Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:46:21.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Cladding Creep during Dry Storage and Repository Emplacement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2011

Eric Siegmann  and
Pierre Macheret
Eric Siegmann
Affiliation:
Duke Engineering & Services
Pierre Macheret
Affiliation:
Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC, (both) 1180 Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89144.
Get access

Abstract

Creep strain has been identified as the dominant failure mode for commercial spent nuclear fuel cladding during dry storage, including the vacuum drying phase. It could also be important during the early period of repository closure. A statistical analysis of creep failure during these three phases was performed. Statistical analysis is an important tool for predicting fuel behavior and the distributions can be modified for specific applications. A burnup distribution (rod average = 44 MWd/kgU, range = 2 to 75 MWd/kgU) was assumed and a distribution of rod properties, including stress was developed. The Murty creep correlation was selected after comparing six different correlations with results from five different experiments. It was then modified to better predict irradiated cladding creep data. Creep failure criteria is a Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function (CCDF) based on 52 failure tests. The fuel rods are exposed to three consecutive temperature histories that are typical of what is to be expected: 24 hours of vacuum drying, 20 years dry storage, and 1000 years of repository thermal history. Each phase has a peak temperature, treated as an independent variable, and temperature history taken from the literature. Uncertainties in the temperatures and strain rate are included. The radial temperature distribution across the waste package is also modeled. For the first phase, vacuum drying, rod failures start to occur at about 550°C and exceed 1% failure at 600°C. With a peak vacuum drying temperature of 430°C, rods begin to fail during dry storage when the peak temperature reaches 400°C and approached a 1% failure level at 450°C. With representative peak temperatures of 430°C for drying and 350°C for dry storage, rod failures start to occur during repository closure at a peak cladding temperature of 390°C. They reached 1% at about 430°C. In the current repository design, the cladding temperatures are below 210°C and rod failures from creep are not expected

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 713: Symposium JJ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXV , 2002 , JJ14.6
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Pescatore, C. and Cowgill, M. 1994. EPRI TR-103949. Palo Alto, California: Electric Power Research Institute.Google Scholar
2. Siegmann, E. R. (2000) ANL-WIS-MD-000007 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. Google Scholar
3. Siegmann, E. R. (2000) ANL-EBS-MD-000048 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada:Google Scholar
4. Spilker, H. and Fleisch, J. 1986. Proceedings, Third International Spent Fuel Storage Technology Symposium/Workshop, April 8-10, 1986, Seattle, Washington, USA. 1, S-1 to S-19. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.Google Scholar
5. Peehs, M. (1998) Research Program (RP) on Spent Fuel PerformanceAssessment and Research (SPAR), First RCM held in Washington BD, April 20 through 24, 1998.Google Scholar
6. Nuclear Assurance Corporation. 1999. NAC-MPC Safety Analysis Report for the NAC Multi-Purpose Canister System. Docket No. 72–1025, Rev. 2. Norcross, Georgia: Nuclear Assurance Corporation.Google Scholar
7. Macheret, P. (2000), CAL-EBS-MD-000009 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. Google Scholar
8. Henningson, P.J. 1998. 51-1267509-00. Lynchburg, Virginia: Framatome Technologies.Google Scholar
9. Macheret, P. (2000) CAL-EBS-MD-000015 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. Google Scholar
10. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1997. NUREG-1536. Washington D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
11. Einziger, R.E.; Atkin, S.D.; Stellrecht, D.E.; and Pasupathi, V. 1982. Nuclear Technology, 57, (1), 65–80. Hinsdale, Illinois: American Nuclear Society.Google Scholar
12. McKinnon, M.A. and Doherty, A.L. 1997. PNNL-11576. Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest Laboratory.Google Scholar
13. Sarma, D. S., Al-Otaibi, K.M. and Murty, K.L., Metals Materials and Processes, 4, pp. 217–228 (1992).Google Scholar
14. Mayuzumi, M., Onchi, T., J. Nu. Mat., 175, pp. 135–142 (1990).Google Scholar