does m5™ balloon more than zircaloy-4 under loca conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger...

13
Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -1- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions ? Nicolas WAECKEL (EDF) Jean-Paul MARDON (FRA-ANP) Laurence Portier (CEA) Anne Lesbros (EDF) May 25-27, 2004

Upload: others

Post on 15-Jul-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -1- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions ?

Nicolas WAECKEL (EDF)Jean-Paul MARDON (FRA-ANP)

Laurence Portier (CEA)Anne Lesbros (EDF)

May 25-27, 2004

Page 2: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -2- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

BACKGROUND

• At the PHEBUS-STLOC meetings in Washington DC (Oct 2003) and Madrid (Nov 2003), IRSN asserted M5 cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions– Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ?

• IRSN’s statement is based on isothermal creep testsperformed on Nb based alloys (published by CEA, EDF and FRA-ANP in Toronto and Annecy ASTM Meetings)– At high fluence with a low hydrogen content (150 ppm) M5

exhibits higher ductility than Zy4, with a higher hydrogencontent (600ppm)

Page 3: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -3- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

ISOTHERMAL CREEP tests RESULTS

0

50

100

150

200

550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950

as-receivedhydrided H=600ppmhydrided H=1000ppmas-received upper boundas-received lower boundhydrided H=600ppm upper boundhydrided H=600ppm lower bound

To

tal E

lon

gat

ion

At (

%)

Test Temperature (°C)

EDGAR steady state creep tests

Pre-hydrided low tin Zr4

As-received lowtin Zr4

Page 4: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -4- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

LOCA PENDING ISSUES

Corrosion and hydrogen uptakes are lowered for modern clad alloys : ductility is better kept. Lower the corrosion, lower the associated H uptake, better the ductility, bigger the balloons

Pending Issues :Pending Issues : BUNDLE BLOCKAGE GEOMETRYBUNDLE BLOCKAGE GEOMETRY

§See references 7 to 9

higher blockage ratio will be likely for modern alloys

Page 5: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -5- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

Creep tests not relevant to determine the balloon sizes

• Isothermal creep tests are relevant to determine the cladding creep laws NOT the cladding strains at failure under LOCA conditions

• The international community is using the thermal ramp test results to assess the cladding strains at failure under LOCA conditions

Page 6: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -6- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

LOCA design approach

• To simulate and analyze the clad ballooning behavior during the blowdown phase of a LOCA transient one needs :– To know (at each time of the transient) the metallurgical state

of the cladding (α and β phases distribution),– To identify the creep laws for the 3 temperature domains : α,

α+β et β,– To characterize the cladding strains at failure

• The approach is global : the impact of one parameterhas to be investigated throughout the entire process.

Page 7: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -7- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

Separate effect tests

• Separate effect tests were performed on as received and pre-hydrided conditions to provide the requested data :– Metallurgical tests to determine the transition temperatures and

the phase transformation kinetics» At equilibrium and in heating and cooling conditions

– Isothermal creep tests (rod internal pressure is maintained constant) to determine the mechanical laws» Isothermal conditions

– Thermal Ramp tests to determine the strains at failure» Prototypical of a LOCA thermal transient

Page 8: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -8- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

Creep tests on as-received M5 : Time to failure (tR) vs σ0

(To determine the Norton law coefficients)

Page 9: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -9- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

Creep tests on as-received M5: ductility

Page 10: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -10- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

Temperature ramps on as- received M5 : ductility

Ductility decreases in the ramp test

(Upper bound)

Page 11: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -11- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

M5 (150 ppm) versus Zy-4 (600 ppm)

• Although Zy-4 600 ppm exhibits a lower ductility than M5 150 ppmin the creep tests…..

Prehydrided M5 (150 ppm) -upper bound

Prehydrided Zr-4 (600ppm) - upper bound

Page 12: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -12- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

M5 150 ppm versus Zy-4 600 ppm

……both alloys exhibit similar ductility in the ramp tests

α βα+β M5Zr4 pre-HZr4

Page 13: Does M5™ balloon more than Zircaloy-4 under LOCA conditions · cladding may exhibit bigger balloons than Zy4 under LOCA conditions – Higher risk of flow blockage for M5 ? •

Argonne SEGFSM LOCA Meeting May 27, 2004 -13- EDF-CEA-FRAMATOME ANP

Conclusion

• Creep tests are not relevant to conclude on ballooning under LOCA conditions

• As-received and pre-hydrided M5 and prehydridedZy4 exhibit similar behavior in term of strains at failure (according to the available data : the data base has to be completed)– Similar maximum strains at failure for M5 and Zy4– α and β humps slightly shifted for M5 : same transient may give

different strains for M5 and Zy4, so that no significant change is expected in the design analysis conclusions