1982
DOI: 10.2172/5330309
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Credible accident analyses for TRIGA and TRIGA-fueled reactors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The same conclusions were found for the same type of reactor operated elsewhere by Hawley and Kathren. 2,5,[24][25][26] For the more stable atmospheric conditions, the maximum TED value decreases to a lower value due to less plume depletion (Fig. 4).…”
Section: Doses Calculationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The same conclusions were found for the same type of reactor operated elsewhere by Hawley and Kathren. 2,5,[24][25][26] For the more stable atmospheric conditions, the maximum TED value decreases to a lower value due to less plume depletion (Fig. 4).…”
Section: Doses Calculationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For a sense of scale, testing in the 1960s included a pulse test in which a reactivity insertion of $5.50 caused the TRIGA Mark F reactor to reach a power level of 6.4 GW, while the fuel reached a maximum temperature of about 660 °C [2]. According to NUREG-2387, 304 stainless steel cladding failure or melting of the U-ZrH 1.6 fuel cannot occur in a TRIGA reactor, and the only credible accident scenario that could result in fuel failure would have to be produced by some large external force during fuel handling [11]. The safety limits and performance of U-ZrH 1.6 fuel are independent of uranium content up to 45 wt% uranium, and the behavior of 8.5-30 wt% uranium fuel is indistinguishable [5].…”
Section: U-zrhx Fuel In Triga Reactorsmentioning
confidence: 99%