Small-Scale Spray Releases: Additional Aerosol Test Results

Schonewill, Philip P.; Gauglitz, Phillip A.; Kimura, Marcia L.; Brown, G.N.; Mahoney, Lenna A.; Tran, Diana; Burns, Carolyn A.; Kurath, Dean E.

doi:10.2172/1090975

Cited by 2 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that for many test cases, this coincides with detection limits associated with resolving the fraction contribution aerosols with diameters that fall below cumulative concentrations of 0.5 × 10 -2 (see Section 5.3.2.2 in Schonewill et al (2012)). These statements should be approached with caution, as the presence of fine (1 m and below) aerosol can increase the apparent concentration measured by the Malvern Insitec-S system (Schonewill et al 2013). It is therefore difficult to fully rationalize the lower-than-actual concentration observed in measurements of the 3 to 30 m system with respect to the expected behavior of fine solids.…”

Section: Impact Of Irregular Particle Shapementioning

confidence: 98%

“…The purpose of the study described in this report is to provide experimental data and analyses to supplement the results obtained during Phase I testing and reduce uncertainty in the remaining technical areas by performing large-scale tests with a range of orifice sizes and orientations representative of the WTP typical conditions. The companion study describing the Phase II small-scale testing is available in Schonewill et al (2013). Table S.1 provides a summary of each Phase II specific large-scale aerosol test objective, whether the objective was met, and discussions of the test results.…”

Section: Testing Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other objectives identified in Test Plan TP-WTPSP-031, Rev. 1.0, are not discussed in this report as they apply either to Phase I test objectives completed in previous testing and discussed in Mahoney et al (2012Mahoney et al ( , 2013 and Schonewill et al (2012) or to objectives addressed by Phase II small-scale testing and discussed in Schonewill et al (2013). …”

Section: Testing Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The cumulative and differential approaches differ in only the format of the concentration size distribution (i.e., the set of data that describes the cumulative or differential concentration of aerosol in ppmv as a function of aerosol diameter) used during analysis. The approach 5.19 outlined below shows the cumulative approach; the reader is referred to Schonewill et al (2013) for a description of the differential approach. If we denote F k as the cumulative volume fraction that falls below a particle diameter, d k , the concentration distribution by size is given by:…”

Section: Determination Of In-chamber Generation Rate and Release Fracmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When comparing the performance of 100 and 500 mm lenses, small-scale studies found that "… the 500-mm lens gave higher release fractions in the size range between 10 and 100 m, with release fractions obtained with the 500-mm lens being two to three times the values obtained with the 100-mm lens" (Schonewill et al 2013). It is important to note that the factor of two to three identified in small-scale testing is an overall (i.e., typical) difference in 100 and 500 mm lens results observed across multiple tests involving several different orifices and simulants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Large-Scale Spray Releases: Additional Aerosol Test Results

Daniel¹,

Gauglitz²,

Burns³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the events postulated in the hazard analysis for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities is a breach in process piping that produces aerosols with droplet sizes in the respirable range. The current approach for predicting the size and concentration of aerosols produced in a spray leak event involves extrapolating from correlations reported in the literature. These correlations are based on results obtained from small engineered spray nozzles using pure liquids that behave as a Newtonian fluid. The narrow ranges of physical properties on which the correlations are based do not cover the wide range of slurries and viscous materials that will be processed in the WTP and in processing facilities across the DOE complex.To expand the data set upon which the WTP accident and safety analyses were based, an aerosol spray leak testing program was conducted by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). PNNL's test program addressed two key technical areas to improve the WTP methodology (Larson and Allen 2010). The first technical area was to quantify the role of slurry particles in small breaches where slurry particles may plug the hole and prevent high-pressure sprays. The results from an effort to address this first technical area can be found in Mahoney et al. (2012). The second technical area was to determine aerosol droplet size distribution and total droplet volume from prototypic breaches and fluids, including sprays from larger breaches and sprays of slurries for which literature data are mostly absent. To address the second technical area, the testing program collected aerosol generation data at two scales, commonly referred to as small-scale and large-scale testing. The small-scale testing and resultant data are described in Mahoney et al. (2013), and the large-scale testing and resultant data are presented in Schonewill et al. (2012). In tests at both scales, simulants were used to mimic the relevant physical properties projected for actual WTP process streams.Examination of the results from the initial (subsequently referred to as Phase I) aerosol spray leak testing described in the preceding paragraph highlighted some uncertainties in evaluating aerosol generation that remained after the original scope of work was completed. Specifically, there was uncertainty with respect to aerosol behavior (namely aerosol release fraction and generation rates) for:  simulant(s) near the WTP rheological boundaries of (6 Pa/6 mPa·s and 30 Pa/30 mPa·s)  simulant(s) with solids loadings greater than 20 wt%  simulant(s) with a small solids fraction of particles that have a relatively high density  lower spray pressures (i.e., specifically 100 and 200 psig in the small-scale tests)  in-spray measurements.The need for additional (subsequently referred to as Phase II) aerosol spray leak testing was identified. The purpose of the study described in this report is to provide experimental data and analyses to supplement the results obtained during P...

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Irregular Particle Shapementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Testing Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Testing Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Determination Of In-chamber Generation Rate and Release Fracmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Large-Scale Spray Releases: Additional Aerosol Test Results

Daniel¹,

Gauglitz²,

Burns³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Hydrogen Gas Retention and Release from WTP Vessels: Summary of Preliminary Studies

Gauglitz

Bontha

Daniel

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 What is an appropriate mixing metric/requirement that corresponds to adequate gas release and can this requirement be used as an alternative to conducting gas release testing? Do the simulants used in previous gas release testing adequately represent actual waste at plant conditions and what is the most suitable simulant for any planned gas release testing? What is the quantity of hydrogen that could be retained and released during normal, abnormal, and post-design-basis event operations for a range of imperfect mixing conditions (i.e., how much margin is allowed in targeting complete bottom clearing and complete vessel motion)? What is the quantity of hydrogen that can be retained and released in low-solids vessels? What is the margin in the current hydrogen generation rate estimates?Specific test and analysis objectives were identified for each of these questions and subsequently documented in a test plan; however, no technical activities were completed under the test plan for addressing these technical questions. iv S.2 Results and Performance Against Success CriteriaSuccess criteria were developed for each testing and analysis objective and documented in the project test plan; however, no technical activities were completed on the objectives under the test plan. Accordingly, no results are available to compare against the success criteria.

show abstract

Small-Scale Spray Releases: Additional Aerosol Test Results

Cited by 2 publications

References 8 publications

Large-Scale Spray Releases: Additional Aerosol Test Results

Large-Scale Spray Releases: Additional Aerosol Test Results

Hydrogen Gas Retention and Release from WTP Vessels: Summary of Preliminary Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About