0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Pellet-Cladding Interaction Probability Assessment Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Dmitry V. Paramonov

 Westinghouse Electric Company, Cranberry, PA 16066

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 134(1), 011401 (Dec 01, 2011) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4004624 History: Received January 21, 2011; Revised May 04, 2011; Published December 01, 2011; Online December 01, 2011

The main objective of the reported study was developing a method for predicting pellet-cladding interaction (PCI) failure probability in pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel in transient conditions that would strike a balance between simplicity and accuracy, allows for straightforward implementation within a transient analysis methodology or core monitoring system, and include treatment of the most important PCI factors. The developed best estimate method relies on readily calculated/available quantities, such as nodal burn-up, local power, average cladding temperature, and pressure differential across cladding at zero burnup, uses a power increase past gap closure as a failure criterion. The method allows for calculating failure probability for a given rate of power change or establishing a rate of power change corresponding to a certain failure probability. It also provides for accuracy comparable to a fuel performance code when calculating PCI failure probability in ramp tests and offers a way to infer a safe PCI threshold from ramp test data.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Holding time of the analyzed ramp tests

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Performance of the criterion given by Eq. 5

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Adjusted power increase versus burnup. Triangles are failures, circles are survivors. Symbol size proportional to Q0 .

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Fitting CDF given by Eq. 7 with LSQ method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Fitting using life analogy and MLE method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Fitting CDF given by Eq. 8 with LSQ method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Fitting of CDFs for STAV and the simple model under assumption that the safe threshold does not exist

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Fitting of CDFs for STAV and the simple model assuming existence of a safe threshold

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In