2 WCLL “IN BOX” LOCA PHENOMENA
2.1 Safety functions of breeding blankets
The DEMO blanket has currently no safety function, i.e. like in ITER, DEMO blanket is not a safety important component, being the Vacuum Vessel and its extensions the first containment barrier. Therefore, the blanket is not credited for confinement of radioactivity or limitation of exposure. However, the blanket is a safety relevant component, i.e. its failure could impact the operation of other safety components, most notably the Vacuum Vessel.
The blanket is credited for some interlock functions (e.g. neutron shielding to the magnets) that may affect the dose to the workers during maintenance operations, and hence its design could impact the overall safety of the machine.
Hereafter, blanket functions relevant for safety are listed [1]-[2]: • Confinement of radioactivity;
• Confinement of pressure;
• Confinement of chemical energy/reactivity; • Structural Integrity;
• Management of long term heat removal; • Fusion power termination signal.
The use of double wall cooling tubes in WCLL breeding blanket is considered as reference design. This solution was proposed to decrease the probability of water leakage into the PbLi breeder. Nevertheless, considering the number of cooling tubes in the blanket, the probability of water leakage or pipe break is still not negligible. Therefore, the contact between water and lithium lead alloy is a major safety concern in the design. Safety evaluations of the WCLL blanket design must be carried out to ensure that the blanket module and its ancillary systems comply with the safety design limits and operating conditions. The main parameters affecting the safety in the case of a single tube rupture are:
• the pressure transient, governed by mixing and pressurization, which might exceed the design limits;
• the chemical reaction contributing to pressure and temperature increases, which might generate a more serious system condition;
• the H2 production, which might represent a potential source of energy;
• the release of radioactivity products.
2.2
WCLL in-box LOCA key phenomena for safety2.2.1 Thermodynamic phenomena
In case of WCLL tube rupture, water at pressure of 155 bar becomes in contact with the lead lithium alloy and a Liquid Metal Coolant Interaction occurs. In a typical scenario of liquid metal coolant interaction, vapor is produced when a hot liquid comes into contact
with a colder and volatile one and an internal energy transfer occurs. The heat transfer rate is correlated to the liquids fragmentation, which drastically influences the interfacial area between fluids; the temperature and pressure of colder fluid increases and it expands, affecting the surroundings medium.
Two are the contact modes identified and studied in the past (Tab. 2.1): “Fuel-Coolant Interaction” (FCI) and “Coolant-Coolant Interactions” (CCI). The former is typical of severe accident conditions of LWR and LMFR. The slumping of melted fuel into the lower plenum might imply a meaningful probability of having so called “vapor explosion”, which may seriously damage the nearby structures [5]. The latter “Coolant-Coolant Interactions” (CCI) may occur in LMFR in case of the rupture of one or more tubes of the steam generator. This is also the contact mode relevant for WCLL BB in-box LOCA.
A peculiarity of CCI is constituted by depressurization wave propagated in the tube upstream the rupture, causing the violent water flashing and consequent two-phase flow discharge in liquid metal. Beznosov et al. [4] experimentally investigated the two-phase flow distribution injected into molten lead, highlighting a disperse phase of small-diameter steam bubbles, which may contain fine evaporating droplets. The liquid drops were found to exist for long time, and eventually liquid fraction was ejected into the cover gas region. The system is in thermal non-equilibrium, containing superheated steam and liquid droplet.
FCI CCI
Jet of molten metal into a pool of more volatile coolant Coolant jet injected into a pool of less volatile molten metal
Presence of high temperature liquid metal drops,
separated from coolant by a continuous vapor film Presence of coolant droplets separated from the liquid metal by a vapor layer Available energy dependent on the amount of heat
given by molten liquid metal Available energy limited by the amount of coolant
Main mechanism of heat exchange due to radiation Main mechanism of heat exchange due to film boiling
Tab. 2.1 – Main phenomena related to vapor explosions (Ref.[3]).
The multiphase thermodynamic phenomena expected in case of a postulated water tube rupture in WCLL breeding blanket can be divided into four main phases:
• 1st Ph. starts from the tube break and the consequent injection of water in the BB
module. The flow rate (choked) of water injected from the tube is relevant, and drives the depressurization of the water loop and the formation of pressure waves inside the module.
• 2nd Ph. is characterized by the formation of a region of steam, in correspondence of
the area in which the rupture is localized. The subsequent formation of steam and its expansion cause the mixing of the liquid metal. During the injection of the mixture of
by a layer of steam. The evaporation of the drops leads to the development and growth of a large vapor bubble in correspondence of the break.
• 3rd Ph. involves the triggering of a CCI phenomenon, by means of contact between the
two fluids, with the possible occurrence of steam explosion. Indeed, due to the expansion of the vapor bubble, and in correspondence of its critical dimension, the interface instability may cause its rupture with subsequent liquid-liquid contact. The following fragmentation into smaller droplets increases the surface area and therefore the heat exchange and the rate of evaporation. This progression of the phenomenology is not frequent in case of water jet mode (the water tube rupture into a liquid metal pool). Indeed, the water/steam undergoes to an effective fragmentation because the different pressure between two systems. Bubbles are relatively stable, and the coalescence with the other causes the formation of a relatively large bubble. During the formation of these larger bubbles, the liquid drops evaporate almost completely. Therefore, when the critical size is reached and the liquid metal penetrates through the steam only a slight amount of water is available for the interaction.
• 4th Ph. consists in the entrainment of the vapor bubbles finely dispersed into liquid
metal and in the drug of these bubbles into the system. Besides the possible occurrence of steam explosion, the postulated water tube rupture leads to formation of pressure waves and system pressurization, which may impact the surrounding structures. Thus, a comprehensive study of the thermodynamic phenomena, besides the chemical reaction, is needed in order to evaluate the safety issues connected with the WCLL BB.
2.2.2 Chemical phenomena
Experiments with lithium-lead alloy breeder material were performed in US in the ’70 and ‘80, i.e. Westinghouse Hanford Company [6]-[8], to characterize the potential safety hazards, especially concerning the interaction between the alloy and various gas atmospheres, concrete and possible reactor coolants, and University of Wisconsin [9], focused on the chemical kinetics. The performed tests evidenced that in case of eutectic lithium-lead alloy a hydrogen production could occur from the metal-water interaction, even if the reaction may be benign in energetic release. More recently separate effect tests (SET) were carried out in Europe at JRC Ispra [10]-[11], in the so called BLAST campaign and ENEA CR Brasimone [12],[20] with LIFUS5 experimental campaigns. The main numerical models that described these phenomena instead, were developed and applied in US at MIT [14] and at the University of Wisconsin [15]-[17], while first validation activities of numerical model and computer codes were carried out at CEA [18]-[19], and Università di Pisa/ENEA [20]-[22].
According with Jeppson and Mulhstein [8] and with Kuhlborsch [24], two chemical reactions shall be considered:
𝐿𝑖 + 𝐻2𝑂 → 𝐿𝑖𝑂𝐻 +1 2𝐻2+ 204 𝑘𝐽 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐿𝑖 2𝐿𝑖 + 𝐻2𝑂 → 𝐿𝑖2𝑂 + 𝐻2+ 186 𝑘𝐽 𝑚𝑜𝑙 𝐿𝑖 (2.1) depending on the excess of reactant and on the temperature of the reaction zone.
At the end of ’80 years, Herzog [9] and Lomperski [25] investigated the metal alloy/coolant interaction under stratified small-scale conditions in order to measure the amount of hydrogen produced and metal reacted per unit area. For a given contact area, the rate of hydrogen production is dependent upon the chemical kinetics of the reaction. Therefore, measurements of the rate of hydrogen production of the lithium-lead/water reaction for a known contact area could be used in conjunction with suitable dynamic mixing models to estimate the extent of hydrogen production for postulated accident scenarios. The analysis of the data from the experiment showed that the extent of reaction was not a function of the water temperature, and varies over the range of initial liquid lithium-lead temperatures investigated (Fig. 2.1).
Fig. 2.1 – Lithium-lead alloy/water interaction (Refs. [9],[25]).
Large scale lithium-lead experiments carried out at Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory by Jeppson and his staff [26] indicated that in the presence of excess lithium, the water and lithium would react as the second equation of (2.1).
The experiments performed by Kottowski [27] considering Pb83Li17 show a low reaction
rate for low melt temperatures, which increases with higher melt temperatures (Fig. 2.2). At metal temperatures up to 400°C, no measurable change in the reaction rate was observed. However, for metal temperatures of 450°C and 500°C, the initial reaction rate is about 2-3 times higher than that measured at lower temperatures, approaching asymptotically to the values measured for lower metal temperatures.
Fig. 2.2 – H2 production rate for H2O-Pb83Li17 reaction (Ref.[27]).
The more recently small-scale experiments performed by Kranert and Kottowski [10] were aimed at evaluating qualitatively the difference of the chemical and thermo-hydraulic behavior of the PbLi/water interaction. The evolution of the reaction pressure and the temperature at injection pressure of 0.1 MPa is reported in Fig. 2.3.
Fig. 2.3 – Pressure trend at 0.1 MPa injection (Ref.[10])
At low injection pressure, lithium-lead alloy shows a considerably lower pressure peak. This difference is due to the chemical reaction. If only a thermo-hydraulic alloy-coolant interaction occurs, heat transfer from the alloy to the coolant is reduced because of the vapour film at the interface between the alloy and the coolant. In contrast to this, lithium can chemically react either with coolant or with vapour. On the one hand, the produced hydrogen leads to a pressure increase, on the other hand, the hydrogen attenuates significantly the impact energy of the coolant. Fragmentation remains poor which results in a smaller heat and mass transfer contact surface. The pressure in the reaction tube remains low and no further pressure peak exist. The evolution of the reaction pressure and the temperature of the same alloys at higher injection pressure is shown in Fig. 2.4
Fig. 2.4 – Pressure trend at 2 MPa injection (Ref.[10])
The fragmentation has an important influence on the alloy-coolant interaction because it increases the contact surface between the alloy and the coolant. A meaningful parameter to evaluate the fragmentation is the release of mechanical energy due to the interaction
(Fig. 2.5). For a low injection pressure, lead and Pb83Li17 show identical performances. In
contrast, the picture in the right side characterizes the behaviour for a high injection pressure. Due to improved fragmentation and mixing, the lithium alloys show higher values of the specific mechanical energy. Lead does not show such an increase because of the missing chemical reaction. At low values of subcooling, the specific mechanical energy of Pb83Li17 is higher than the other lithium alloy. Indeed, for the latter, the higher
hydrogen production shields the interface between the fluids, while for lithium-lead, the hydrogen is not enough, causing the opposite effect. The analyses of lithium-lead eutectic alloy show that the chemical reaction mainly attenuates a violent thermo-hydraulic reaction, only at high injection pressures and low values of coolant subcooling, the chemical reaction intensifies the interaction.
Fig. 2.5 – Specific mechanical energy as a function of the subcooling (Ref.[10]).
More recently, JRC Ispra [11] and ENEA CR Brasimone [12]-[13] performed a series of SET experimental campaigns aimed at evaluating the phenomena involved in large breaks of water tubes in the liquid metals. A summary of experiments is reported in the following.
2.2.3 SET experimental campaigns
BLAST experimental campaign [11], carried out at JRC Ispra in ’80, consisted of nine tests. The description of the facility, of the tests procedure and of the test matrix is fully reported in reference. A schematic draw of the facility is reported in Fig. 2.6.
Fig. 2.6 – Overview of BLAST facility (Ref.[11]).
Notwithstanding the PbLi-water interaction depends by many factors, pressure evolutions of BLAST tests evidenced similar trends: geometry and initial conditions mainly determine the behavior of the system. The reaction vessel pressurization can be divided in three phenomenological windows as described hereafter (see Fig. 2.7):
• 1st PhW [from 0 to few ms]: the water injection leads to a pressurization, which is
mainly a function of the system compressibility and the geometry of the reaction vessel.
• 2nd PhW [from few to 450 ms]: the water jet expansion causes pressure rising in the
reaction vessel. This is function of the water evaporation, hydrogen production and the geometry of the reaction vessel and expansion tube.
• 3rd PhW [> 450 ms]: the flow of gases into the expansion vessel causes the start of
depressurization. It proceeds down to almost the saturation pressure value at the water injected temperature, equal to Psat(225°C) = 25.4 bar.
Fig. 2.7 – BLAST Test#5: identification of the different phenomenological windows in the reaction vessel pressurization (Ref.[11])
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 P re ss ur e [ ba r] Time [ms]
Rea ction Vessel
phase 2
phase 1
LIFUS5 experimental facility [12]-[13] was designed to investigate the consequence of LOCA accidents in liquid metals pools and to operate in a wide range of conditions. The experimental campaign was carried out in the ’00, and consisted in eight tests. Hereafter, a brief description of the results and of the phenomenological analysis is reported, based on Refs. [20]-[21]. Reaction vessel S1 contained a mock-up of U shaped cooling tubes, as foreseen in previous design of WCLL BB for DEMO. The water injection device was placed in the bottom of S1 below the tube bank sector and had an orifice diameter of 4 mm. Several pressure transducers and thermocouples were placed both in S1 and S5 to follow the pressure and temperature evolution during the interaction. P&ID of the facility is presented in Fig. 2.8.
Fig. 2.8 – P&ID of LIFUS5 facility
In the following, a brief analysis of the main phenomena is reported for two series of tests:
Tests #3-4-5 (Fig. 2.9a).
• The three characteristic phases of the interaction were identified, as in BLAST experiments. However, these are connected, with the geometrical features of the facility (compressibility and connections between reaction and expansion vessels) and to the boundary and initial conditions of the tests.
• The free volume in the expansion vessel is more relevant than the water enthalpy in determining the pressurization of the system. However, lower enthalpy means lower first pressure peak and slower pressure increase rate.
Tests #6-7-8.
• (Fig. 2.9b). The second series of experiments, carried out at higher gas free volume, evidenced a remarkably different behavior of the pressure trends, with respect to BLAST and LIFUS5 T#3-4-5: the pressure rises slower and the first pressure peak disappeared
• (Fig. 2.9c and d). The effect of the melt temperature on the pressure evolution appears not of primarily importance.
• (Fig. 2.9c and d). The content of Li in the PbLi alloy determines the effect exothermic reaction, thus the temperature of the melt. However, the influence of the chemical reaction, in this configuration (free level surface on the reaction vessel), is negligible notwithstanding the temperature trends differ of about 100°C in the expansion vessel.
(a) Tests #3-4-5: pressure trends in S1 (b) Tests #5-6: pressure trend in S1 and S5
(c) Tests #6-8: pressure trends in S1 (d) Tests #6-7-8: S5 temperature trends
Fig. 2.9 – LIFUS5 experimental campaign: experimental trends (Refs.[20]-[21]).
PARAMETER UNIT TEST#3 TEST#4 TEST#5 TEST#6 TEST#7 TEST#8
PbLi Temperature [°C] 330 330 330 330 330 430 H2O injection pressure [bar] 155 155 150 160 160 160 H2O Temperature [°C] 295 325 265 320 320 320 Sub-cooling [°C] 50 20 77 27 27 27 Free volume in S5 (+S1) [l] 5 5 4 10(+7.5) 10(+7.5) 10(+7.5) Time of injection [s] 6 6 12 12 12 12
Tab. 2.2 – LIFUS5 experimental test relevant parameters 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Time [ms] P re s s u re [b a r] n.5 n.4 n.3 Rupture disk failed 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Time [ms] P re s s ure [ ba r] PT1 (6) PT2 (6) PT1 (5) PT2 (5) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Time [ms] Pr es su re [b ar ] N.6 N.8 Test N.6 p = 160 bar T = 330 °C Test N.8 p = 160 bar T = 430 °C 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Time [ms] T e m p e ra tu re [° C ] N. 6 N. 7 N. 8
2.2.4 Numerical simulation of PbLi water interaction
The main numerical models which describe the PbLi/water chemical reaction, and the first development of computer programs were carried out at MIT [14] and University of Wisconsin [15]-[17].
Yachimiak and Kazimi [14] developed the FULIB-2 program, while Corradini and Herzog [15] developed a lumped parametric model (MARSBURN). Both the models were slightly improved [16], following the experimental results of Jeppson [26]. Main assumptions of these models are listed in the following:
• The reaction zone is assumed to be a spherically shaped region, containing a homogeneous mixture of reactants and products in thermal equilibrium;
• The flow rate of water into the reaction zone is modeled by the one-dimensional homogeneous equilibrium model (HEM) for critical flow;
• The reaction between the breeder and water is instantaneous, and is limited by the water injection rate;
• Pressurization of the system occurs only due to the generation of hydrogen gas, the behavior of which is ideal.
Herzog [9] developed two separate models, which predict the mass of hydrogen generated by the reaction as a function of time, implementing the kinetic of the reaction. One model is controlled by the kinetic rate of reaction at the interaction surface, while the second model is controlled by the rate of diffusion of reactants to the interaction surface and products in the liquid metal pool. Lomperski [17] extended these numerical models adding a set of experimental data to calculate the amount of hydrogen produced as a function of time at different initial liquid metal temperatures and liquid metal mass. Details on assumptions and correlations used to develop the numerical models are reported in [9], [14]-[17], [28]. However, it is worth underling that all these numerical models were focused on the chemical reaction, neglecting the thermodynamic effects characterizing the short-term interaction.
The availability of references about code simulations of BLAST experiments is limited. P. Sardain et al. [18] reported the simulation of three BLAST experiments using SIMMER-III code. The simulations were focused on the first pressure peak of the tests (i.e. few tenths of seconds) because, during this phase, the effects of the chemical aspects, not modeled by the code, affected less the pressure trend. SIMMER-III results of Test#5 and Test#9 are reported in Fig. 2.10. The first pressure peak of Test#5 was governed by the thermal interaction and it was properly calculated. On the contrary, discrepancies were observed in the simulation of Test#9. The phenomenon inducing the fast high pressure peaks (i.e. phase 1) was not reproduced by the “standard” FCI model of SIMMER-III code. In this case, the experimental data trend seem driven by vapor explosion phenomenon. Indeed, the water jet impacting the tube bank is fragmented and instantaneously
(a) Simulation of T5 (b) Simulation of T9
Fig. 2.10 – SIMMER-III code simulations of first peak of BLAST tests (Ref.[18]).
BLAST Test#5 was chosen to be post-analyzed by SIMMER code [31]. Several issues were identified in the published description of the test execution, initial condition of the PbLi filling level and the geometrical configuration of the injection line. Moreover, no correlation is available in SIMMER-III to simulate the exothermic effect and hydrogen production due to chemical reaction between water and lithium. Therefore, an engineering approach was applied, based on 1) an iterative procedure, which required the execution of forty single calculations for each run, and 2) the experience acquired in the simulations of LIFUS5 experiments [20]. The assumption is that maximum 20% of the injected water reacts with lithium and, thus, the energy released during the test and affecting the pressure trends is bounded by this value. Then, the two steps approach consisted with two calculations, without and with a heat source, imposed as function of the injected water and accounting for the water flow paths.
(a) without heat source (b) with heat source
Fig. 2.11 – SIMMER-III code results vs BLAST Test#5 experimental data: pressure trends in reaction and expansion vessels (Ref.[21]).
Finally, LIFUS5 tests were post-test analyzed [20],[22], by means of the same engineering approach to simulate the chemical reaction. Description of the set up nodalization and of the detailed results are available in references. The code simulations were performed considering an energy source in S1, due to the reaction with water, in the range of 5-20% of the maximum energy that can be generated if the overall water mass injected reacts with the lithium.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 P re ss ur e [ ba r] Time [s]
EXP Rea ction Vessel EXP Expa nsion Vessel SIMMERIII Rea ction Vessel SIMMER III Expa nsion Vessel
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 P re ss ur e [ ba r] Time [s]
EXP Rea ction Vessel EXP Expa nsion Vessel SIMMERIII Rea ction Vessel SIMMER III Expa nsion Vessel
From the qualitative point of view, the standard version of SIMMER-III reasonably predicts the experimental pressure trends. However, it is worth underlining that the simulations could have been performed a posteriori, since the engineering approach is based on the knowledge of the pressure inside the reaction vessel. Therefore, the code in the current version has not predictive capabilities and it is not applicable to deterministic safety analysis of the WCLL BB in-box LOCA.
(a) Test#3 (b) Test#5
(c) Test# 6 (d) Test#8
Fig. 2.12 – SIMMER-III code results vs LIFUS5 experimental data: pressure trends in reaction and expansion vessels (Ref.[20]).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 P re ss ur e [ M P a] Time [s] SIMMER S1 SIMMER S5 Exp S1 Exp S5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 P re ss ur e [ M P a] Time [s] SIMMER S1 SIMMER S5 Exp S1 Exp S5
2.3 References
[1] D. Carloni, Blanket Safety Relevant Aspects. Project Deliverable DMI01, (2HDE32 v1.3), Decembre 2014.
[2] A. Del Nevo et al, Safety relevant aspects identified for WCLL BB, WPBB Internal Deliverable D-311-02, (2MKBW6 v1.0), August 2014.
[3] T.N. Dinh, Multiphase flow phenomena of steam generator tube rupture in a
lead-cooled reactor system: a scoping analysis, Proc. Of ICAPP 2007 paper 7497.
[4] A.V. Beznosov, et al., Experimental studies of the characteristics of contac heat
exchange between lead coolant and the working body, Atomic Energy, Vol. 98, N. 3,
170-176, 2005.
[5] M.L. Corradini, B.J. Kim, M.D. Oh, Vapor explosion in light water reactors: a review of
theory and modeling, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 22, pp 1 – 117, 1988.
[6] M.L. Corradini, D.W. Jeppson, Lithium alloy chemical reactivity with reactor
materials: current state of knowledge, Fusion Eng. Des. 14 (1991) 273-288.
[7] D.W. Jeppson, Summary of lithium-lead alloy safety compatibility tests, Westinghouse Hanford Company, WHC-EP-0202, January 1989.
[8] D.W. Jeppson, L. D. Muhlestein, Safety considerations of lithium-lead alloy as a fusion
reactor breeding material, Fusion Technol. 8 (1985) 1385-1391.
[9] J.P. Herzog, Lithium-lead/water interactions: Experiments and Analysis, University of Wisconsin, UWFDM-791, March 1989.
[10] O. Kranert, H. Kottowski, Small scale lithium-lead/water interaction studies, Fusion Eng. Des. 15 (1991) 137-154.
[11] C. Savatteri, A. Gemelli, Lithium-lead/water interaction. Large break experiments, Fusion Eng. Des. 17 (1991) 343-349.
[12] A. Ciampichetti et al., Water large leaks into liquid Pb-17Li: first experimental results
on LIFUS 5 facility, Fusion Eng. Des. 69 (2003) 563-567.
[13] A. Ciampichetti, et. al., Final report on TW2-TTBA-005-D1. Water large leaks into
liquid Pb-16Li: tests n. 6-7-8 on LIFUS5, LB-A-R-019, September 2003.
[14] E. Yachimiak Jr, M.S. Kazimi, Safety analysis of liquid lithium-lead breeders in fusion
reactor geometries, PFC/RR-84-10, June 1984.
[15] M.L. Corradini, J.P. Herzog, Modelling of lithium lead / water interactions in a fusion
reactor design, University of Wisconsin UWFDM-559, revised August 1984.
[16] M.L. Corradini, J.P. Herzog, Modelling of lithium lead / water interactions in a fusion
reactor design: Part II modeling improvements, University of Wisconsin
UWFDM-649, September 1985.
[17] S. Lomperski et al., A mass transport model for hydrogen generation during
lithium-lead/water interactios, Proc. 13th Symposium on Fusion Engineering, Knoxville,
October 1989.
[18] P. Sardain, et al., Modelling of the Pb17Li/water interaction within a blanket module, Fusion Eng. Des. 51-52 (2000) 611-616.
[19] P. Sardain, Consequences of Pb-17Li/water Interaction within a Blanket Module, CEA Draft report H0-5010-230-3012.
[20] A. Ciampichetti, N. Forgione, A. Pesetti, I. Angelo, DEMO safety study of the water –
PbLi reaction, EFDA report, TA WP12-DAS-02-T03, 31 December 2012.
[21] A. Del Nevo, et al., Water-LiPb reaction study, EFDA report, TA WP13-SYS-04-T06, November 2013.
[22] A. Ciampichetti, et al., Pb-16Li/water interaction: experimental results and
preliminary modelling activities, Fusion Eng. Des. 88 (2013) 2392–2395.
[23] S.J. Piet, D. W. Jeppson, L. D. Muhlestein, M. S. Kazimi, M. L. Corradini, Liquid metal
chemical reaction safety in fusion facilities, Fusion Eng. Des. 5 (1987) 273-298.
[24] G. Kuhlbörsch, D. Droste, Theoretical study of the reaction between Li17Pb83 at 500
°C and water vapour, Commission of the European Communities, JRC Ispra, Italy,
T.N. I.06.C1.84.107, August 1984.
[25] S. Lomperski et al., Presentation at Liquid Metal Coordination Meeting, October 1989.
[26] D. Jeppson et al., Fusion safety support studies progress report, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Feb-May 1984.
[27] H. Kottowski et al., Studies with respect to the estimation of liquid metal blanket
safety, Fusion Eng. Des., 14 (1991) 445-458.
[28] M. Eboli, N. Forgione, A. Del Nevo, PbLi water chemical interaction model–
implementation in SIMMER-III Ver. 3F code, DM-N-R-197, February 2016.
[29] H.S. Park, R. Chapman, M.L. Corradini, Vapor explosion in a one-dimensional large
scale geometry with simulant melts, NUREG/CR-6623, October 1999.
[30] M. Eboli, Safety Investigation of in-box LOCA for DEMO Reactor: Experiments and
Analyses, Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca in Ingegneria Nucleare e Sicurezza
Industriale, Giugno 2017.
[31] AA.VV., SIMMER-III (Version 3.F) Input Manual, O-arai Engineering Center, Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute, May 2012.
