Publications

The purpose of this report is to document updates on the apparatus to simulate commercial vacuum drying procedures at the Nuclear Energy Work Complex at Sandia National Laboratories. Validation of the extent of water removal in a dry spent nuclear fuel storage system based on drying procedures used at nuclear power plants is needed to close existing technical gaps. Operational conditions leading to incomplete drying may have potential impacts on the fuel, cladding, and other components in the system during subsequent storage and disposal. A general lack of data suitable for model validation of commercial nuclear canister drying processes necessitates well-designed investigations of drying process efficacy and water retention. Scaled tests that incorporate relevant physics and well-controlled boundary conditions are essential to provide insight and guidance to the simulation of prototypic systems undergoing drying processes. This report documents a new test apparatus, the Advanced Drying Cycle Simulator (ADCS). This apparatus was built to simulate commercial drying procedures and quantify the amount of residual water remaining in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel assembly after drying. The ADCS was constructed with a prototypic 17×17 PWR fuel skeleton and waterproof heater rods to simulate decay heat. These waterproof heaters are the next generation design to heater rods developed and tested at Sandia National Laboratories in FY20. This report describes the ADCS vessel build that was completed late in FY22, including the receipt of the prototypic length waterproof heater rods and construction of the fuel basket and the pressure vessel components. In addition, installations of thermocouples, emissivity coupons, pressure and vacuum lines, pressure transducers, and electrical connections were completed. Preliminary power functionality testing was conducted to demonstrate the capabilities of the ADCS. In FY23, a test plan for the ADCS will be developed to implement a drying procedure based on measurements from the process used for the High Burnup Demonstration Project. While applying power to the simulated fuel rods, this procedure is expected to consist of filling the ADCS vessel with water, draining the water with applied pressure and multiple helium blowdowns, evacuating additional water with a vacuum drying sequence at successively lower pressures, and backfilling the vessel with helium. Additional investigations are expected to feature failed fuel rod simulators with engineered cladding defects and guide tubes with obstructed dashpots to challenge the drying system with multiple water retention sites.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established a need to understand the thermal-hydraulic properties of dry storage systems for commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in response to a shift towards the storage of high-burnup (HBU) fuel (> 45 gigawatt days per metric ton of uranium, or GWd/MTU). This shift raises concerns regarding cladding integrity, which faces increased risk at the higher temperatures within spent fuel assemblies present within HBU fuel compared to low-burnup fuel (≤ 45 GWd/MTU). A dry cask simulator (DCS) was built at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in Albuquerque, New Mexico to produce validation-quality data that can be used to test the accuracy of the modeling used to predict cladding temperatures. These temperatures are critical to evaluating cladding integrity throughout the storage cycle of commercial spent nuclear fuel. A model validation exercise was previously carried out for the DCS in a vertical configuration. Lessons learned during the previous validation exercise have been applied to a new, blind study using a horizontal dry cask simulator (HDCS). Three modeling institutions – the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and Empresa Nacional del Uranio, S.A., S.M.E. (ENUSA) – were granted access to the input parameters from the DCS Handbook, SAND2017-13058R, and results from a limited data set from the horizontal BWR dry cask simulator tests reported in the HDCS update report, SAND2019-11688R. With this information, each institution was tasked to calculate peak cladding temperatures and air mass flow rates for ten HDCS test cases. Axial as well as vertical and horizontal transverse temperature profiles were also calculated. These calculations were done using modeling codes (ANSYS/Fluent, STAR-CCM+, or COBRA-SFS), each with their own unique combination of modeling assumptions and boundary conditions. For this validation study, the ten test cases of the horizontal dry cask simulator were defined by three independent variables – fuel assembly decay heat (0.5 kW, 1 kW, 2.5 W, and 5 kW), internal backfill pressure (100 kPa and 800 kPa), and backfill gas (helium and air). The plots provided in Chapter 3 of this report show the axial, vertical, and horizontal temperature profiles obtained from the dry cask simulator experiments in the horizontal configuration and the corresponding models used to describe the thermal-hydraulic behavior of this system. The tables provided in Chapter 3 illustrate the closeness of fit of the model data to the experiment data through root mean square (RMS) calculations of the error in peak cladding temperatures (PCTs), PCT axial locations, axial temperature profiles, vertical and horizontal temperature profiles at two different axial locations, and air mass flow rates for the ten test cases, normalized by the experimental results. The model results are assigned arbitrary model numbers to retain anonymity. Due to the relatively flat axial temperature profiles, small temperature gradients resulted in large deviations of all models’ PCT axial location from the experimental PCT axial location. When the PCT axial location error is excluded in the calculation of the combined RMS of the normalized errors that considers PCT, the temperature profiles, and the air mass flow rates, the model data fits the experimental data to within 5%. When the vault information is excluded, the model data fits the experimental data to within 2.5%. An error analysis was developed further for one model, using the model and experimental uncertainties in each validation parameter to calculate validation uncertainties. The uncertainties for each parameter were used to define quantifiable validation criteria. For this analysis, the model was considered validated for a given comparison metric if the normalized error in that metric divided by the validation uncertainty was less than or equal to 1. When considering the combined RMS of the normalized errors of all metrics divided by their validation uncertainties, the model was found to have satisfied the criterion for model validation.