Two types of a passive safety containment for a near future BWR with active and passive safety systems

Satō, Takashi; Akinaga, Makoto; Kojima, Yoshiyuki

doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2009.03.004

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the internal S/G were removed it would be a perfect BWR. If the ESBWR uses Mark S, Mark S+ or Mark D containment to moderate hydrogen overpressurization, it can be categorized in this safety category 7 (Sato et al, 2009b) (Sato et al, 2010).…”

Section: Safety Categorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

ICONE19-43342 International Nuclear Safety Categories (INSC) for LWRs

Sato¹,

Hashimoto²,

Kojima³

et al. 2011

ICONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents safety categories for international light water reactors (LWRs) including Gen II, Gen III, Gen III.5, SMR, and SMP. They can be categorized up to 9 safety categories. Reactors in the same generation do not necessarily fall on the same safety category. For example, Gen III.5 reactors fall on safety categories 4, 5, 6 and 7 depending on their safety design characteristics. There is no single standard safety level for Gen III.5 reactors that is often called such as "Gen III.5 safety". Their safety levels differ from reactor to reactor. Moreover, there can be safety levels that excel existing Gen III.5 reactors. Gen IV excludes LWRs by the definition of GIF. Therefore, it is impossible to use "Gen IV safety" to express safety level of LWRs. It is also unknown whether Gen IV reactors are truly safer than Gen III.5 reactors, yet. Therefore, generations are not precise enough to rank safety levels of different reactors correctly. It is necessary to discuss safety levels of different reactors with much higher resolution than generation. Safety categories 0 to 9 are developed mainly based on PSA insights and safety design characteristics. Some examples of reactors that fall on each safety category are provided. The paper also presents a new plant concept that applies to mid to 1600 MWe ABWR and is rated as safety category 5.

show abstract

Section: Safety Categorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 shows the Mark W containment and its build-in passive safety systems (BIPSS). It has an isolation condenser (IC), a passive containment cooling system (PCCS) and a radial cooling channel core catcher (Sato et al, 2009b). All the BIPSS are safety systems for beyond the design basis.…”

Section: Containment and Built-in Passive Safety Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICONE19-43342 International Nuclear Safety Categories (INSC) for LWRs

Sato¹,

Hashimoto²,

Kojima³

et al. 2011

ICONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Actually the IVR was designed for the advanced PWRs firstly, then this kind of method was also considered designing of advanced BWRs (Sato et al 2009). However, one of the biggest differences between the PWR and BWR is the use of Control Rod Guide Tube (CRGT) in the lower head of RPV.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%