Advertisement

Efficiency calibration of an on-line detection device for fuel rod failure in a PWR

  • Guoxiu Qin
  • Yujuan Liu
  • Youning Xu
  • Weizhe Li
  • Fan Li
  • Hexi Wu
Article
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes a method of calibrating the efficiency of an on-line detection device for fuel rod failure in a pressurized water reactor. 214Am, 137Cs, 60Co and 24Na were selected to produce 4 sets of liquid calibration sources, and a calibration system that could simulate the on-site measurement of the on-line detection device was established. Efficiency calibration was performed against γ-ray lines, which could be identified by a LaBr3(Ce) detector. After a true coincidence summing correction, an efficiency curve of the on-line detection device for fuel rod failure was obtained, with a calibration uncertainty of 3.5%.

Keywords

Efficiency calibration On-line detection device Calibration system True coincidence summing correction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Nature Science Foundation of China Program (No. 41804114) and Engineering Research Center of Nuclear Technology Application (Ministry of Education No. 1410600030). The authors would like to express thanks to the China Institute of Atomic Energy for its support of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Kim KT (2012) Relation between a fuel rod failure cause and a reactor coolant radioactivity variation. Nucl Eng Des 248:156–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewis BJ, Chan PK, EI-Jaby A, lglesias FC, Fitchett A (2017) Fission product release modelling for application of fuel-failure monitoring and detection-An overview. J Nucl Mater 489:64–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arkoma A, Hnninen M, Rantamki K, Kurki J, Hmlinen A (2015) Statistical analysis of fuel failures in large break loss-of-coolant accident (LBLOCA) in EPR type nuclear power plant. Nucl Eng Des 285:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Selim HK, Amin EH, Roushdy HE (2017) Rod ejection accident analysis for AP1000 with MOX/UOX mixed core loading. Ann Nucl Energy 109:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen WZ, Yang L, Xiao HG, Chen ZY (2015) Thermal-hydraulics analysis during fuel element failure in an operating PWR. Prog Nucl Energy 85:694–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee YH, Kim HK (2013) Fretting wear behavior of a nuclear fuel rod under a simulated primary coolant condition. Wear 301:569–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Krapivtsev VG, Markov PV, Soloni VI (2015) Flow and heat transfer in fuel rod bundles of water-cooled reactors with modified cell-type spacer grids. Nucl Energy Technol 1:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gong X, Jiang YJ, Ding SR, Huo YZ, Wang CL, Yang L (2014) Simulation of the in-pile behaviors evolution in nuclear fuel rods with the irradiation damage effects. Acta Mech Solida Sin 27:551–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pelykh SN, Maksimov MV, Ryabchikov SD (2016) The prediction problems of VVER fuel element cladding failure theory. Nucl Eng Des 302:46–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang J, Li N, Zhang Y, Guo Q, Zhang J (2017) The safety analysis of a small pressurized water reactor utilizing fully ceramic microencapsulated fuel. Nucl Eng Des 320:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sugiyama T, Umeda M, Fuketa T, Sasajima H, Udagawa Y, Nagase F (2009) Failure of high burnup fuels under reactivity-initiated accident conditions. Ann Nucl Energy 36:380–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim KT (2010) The study on a statistical methodology for PWR fuel rod internal pressure evaluation. Nucl Eng Des 240:1397–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Qin GX, Chen XL, Liu YJ, Guo XQ (2016) Design of an on-line detection system for fuel rod failure in a pressurized water reactor. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 307:471–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar GA, Mazumdar I, Gothe DA (2009) Efficiency calibration and simulation of a LaBr 3(Ce) detector in close-geometry. Nucl Instrum Methods A 609:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jutier C, Gross P, LePetit G (2007) A new synthetic formalism for true coincidence summing calculations. Nucl Instrum Methods A 580:1344–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsuyoshi K, Satoru E, Nguyen TT, Kiyoshi S (2015) Calculation of coincidence summing in gamma-ray spectrometry with the EGS5 code. Appl Radiat Isot 95:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qin GX, Liu YJ, Wu HW, Zhang HQ (2016) Efficiency calibration of a HPGe detector for the measurement of the primary coolant. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 310:1033–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shenyang Institute of EngineeringShenyangChina
  2. 2.East China University of TechnologyNanchangChina

Personalised recommendations