1990
DOI: 10.1016/0029-5493(90)90227-o
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Safety evaluations of accident scenarios in high temperature gas-cooled reactors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results presented here are qualitatively in line with those of Kroeger [30], who performed air ingress calculations for an HTR with prismatic fuel elements assuming air ingress rates dropping within 2 days from 0.2 to 0.06 kg/s.…”
Section: Examples On Accident Estimations For Massive Air Ingresssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The results presented here are qualitatively in line with those of Kroeger [30], who performed air ingress calculations for an HTR with prismatic fuel elements assuming air ingress rates dropping within 2 days from 0.2 to 0.06 kg/s.…”
Section: Examples On Accident Estimations For Massive Air Ingresssupporting
confidence: 89%
“…The SiC layer in TRISO has been demonstrated to be largely resistant to chemical attack and maintains its capability to retain fission products up to 1600°C [21][22][23][24][25]. In analyses of various HTGR accident scenarios, including pressurized loss of forced Ccrculation (equivalent to a loss-of-flow accident in a water-cooled plant), Depressurized loss of forced circulation (D-LOFC, equivalent to a loss-of-coolant accident in a watercooled plant), and reactivity-initiated accidents (including failure to scram), peak fuel temperatures are below this 1600°C limit [18,19,[26][27][28]. The limiting case for peak core temperature is a combination of D-LOFC with failure to scram, but for small HTGR cores the heat transfer to the ground surrounding the reactor cavity is sufficient to keep peak temperatures below 1600°C, even if the RCCS is not functional [27,28].…”
Section: Hypothetical Accident Progressionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The postulated sequence of events considered in this PIRT exercise, based upon information available in literature [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35], is thus as follows:…”
Section: Hypothetical Accident Progressionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the initial review of the Preliminary Safety Information Document (PSID) of this reactor, various potential accident transients were evaluated (Kroeger, 1989 and1990), primarily using the THATCH computer code and its various sub modules (Kroeger, et al, 1991). The primary focus of these investigations was transients without forced cooling, i.e., with ultimate heat removal by the RCCS.…”
Section: Executive Summarymentioning
confidence: 99%