Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Guy PILOT IRSN...
-
Upload
dennis-nephew -
Category
Documents
-
view
234 -
download
4
Transcript of Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditions Guy PILOT IRSN...
Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental
conditions
Guy PILOT
IRSN(Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire)
G. PILOT, IRSN, chapter 6.4
• Assessment of resuspension coefficients due to the use of dismantling cutting tools
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• General term :
Resuspension coefficient
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Resuspension factor
• Resuspension fraction
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
( )1MES Lionconcentratsurfacicionconcentratvolumic
=F
( )quantityinitial
suspensioninputquantity=KMES
• Resuspension rate
• Resuspension flux
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
( )1MES Tquantityinitialflowrateemission
=T
( )12MES TML
surfaceatedmincontaflowrateemission
=Flux
• Radioactive cutting
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
( )workpiececutthebymasslosttheofityradioactiv
nventilatioexhausttheindrawnityradioactiv=Aacav
( )workpiececuttheofzoneaffectedtheofityradioactiv
nventilatioexhausttheindrawnityradioactiv=Aacav
• Non radioactive cutting
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
( )workpiececuttheoflossmass
)me(nventilatioexhausttheinmassaerosol=A inv
( )workpiececuttheoflossmass
wallscelltheonmassdeposit+me=A int
( )1-MLlengthcutme
=A invl
• Innovative prefiltration devices Acoustic declogging of an
electrostatic filter
Cartridge filter with pleated metallic media
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Acoustic horn characteristics (Manufacturer’s specifications)
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
Frequency: 250 Hz
Sound pressure level (1 m): 145 dB
Air pressure during signal: 0.3 – 0.4 Mpa
Air consumption during signal: 20 – 30 l.s-1
Weight: 20 kg
• Levels of protection and expected consequences
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
Capture at source associated with secondary cleaning network
LEVEL
A
Protection techniques considered
Prefiltration upstreamof the general ventilationExhaust network
LEVEL
B
PrefiltrationImmediatelyUpstream of theHEPA filters
LEVEL
C
Expected consequences
. Increased visibility
. Reduced deposits on tool on the walls of cell
. Reduction of deposits in general ventilation exhaust network
. Increase lifetime of HEPA filters
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
Blowernetwork
CELL
Cuttingtool
1
2
34
Exhaust
network
HEPAFilter
• Electrostatic filter efficiency during comparative tests of cutting tools for dismantling (1/2)
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
Cutting cool Specimen materialCutting
Thickness(mm)
Electrostatic filterEfficiency
(%)
Disk grinderStainless steelStainless steel
Mild steel
103010
98.498.395.6
Reciprocating saw Stainless steel 10 > 81
Plasma torch
Stainless steelStainless steelStainless steel
Mild steelMild steelMild steel
103050103050
93.192.494.091.484.186.7
• Electrostatic filter efficiency during comparative tests of cutting tools for dismantling (2/2)
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
Cutting cool Specimen materialCutting
Thickness(mm)
Electrostatic filterEfficiency
(%)
Arc-air cutter
Stainless steelStainless steel
Mild steelMild steel
10301030
96.397.696.691.7
Arc sawStainless steel
Mild steel1010
97.097.2
LSI
Stainless steelStainless steelStainless steel
Mild steelMild steelMild steel
103050103050
85.989.891.989.395.692.2
• Filter cleaning test results
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
Cutting toolSpecimen material
Membrane material
Thickness (mm)
Recoverablemass*(g)
Cleaning(%)
PlasmaTorch
Stainless steelMild steel
PVCPVC
3050
13**30**
9283
Arc-air Mild steel PVC 10 51** 81
Arc sawMild steelMild steel
Stainless steel
PVCPVCPVC
101010
9.6**11.1**4.8**
879083
LSIMS/SSMS/SSMS/SS
PVCSSSS
1030
50/100
149.4**113.6***141.2***
49.164.868.8
* Efficiency for recoverable particle mass (i.e particles deposited on ionizer and collector only)** Calculated value*** Measured value
DECOMMISSIONING
DISMANTLING
WASTES CONTAINERS
DIMENSIONS
CUTTING
SECONDARY EMISSIONS
PROTECTION DEVICES ex. PREFILTRATION
CHARACTERIZATION
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Identical working conditions (same cell at scale 1)
• Same steel and thickness
• Same measuring devices
• Same cutting parameters (except
cutting speed and power)
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• ToolsReciprocating saw (5 – 10 – 30 – 50 mm)Grinder (5 – 10 – 30 mm)Plasma torch 50 A (5 – 10 mm)Plasma torch 200 A (10 – 30 – 50 mm)Arc-air (5 – 10 – 30 – 50 mm)Arc saw (5 – 10 – 30 – 50 mm)Nd-YAG Laser ( 2 – 5 – 10 mm)LSI (10 – 30 – 50 – 100 – 150* - 200* mm)(LSI: Lichtbogen Sauerstoff Impulsschneiden – Lost wire pulsed oxycutting tool)
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
*mild steel
• The cutting performances of the tools : Maximal thickness to be cut Cutting speed Wear of the tool
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• The secondary emissions Distribution:
Sedimented dross Attached slag Deposits on the cell walls Aerosols in the exhaust duct
Measurments: Mass concentration Size distribution
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Grinder- trademark: bosch- energy: electric- wheel trademark: barcut- wheel diameter: 300 mm- wheel thickness: 4 mm- rotation speed: 5000 r.p.m.- equivalent input: 2200 W- equivalent output: 1550 W- weight: 6 kg- cutting position: gravity position
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Plasma torch
- trademark: saf- type: nertajet 200- working voltage: 120 V- working intensity: 200 A- plasma gas: Argon- flow rate of gas: 60 l.min-1
- nozzle diameter: 2 mm- working standd-off: 7 mm- working position: gravity position
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Arc air
- working voltage: 40 V
- working intensity: 450 A
- electrode nature: carbon
- electrode diameter: 6.35 mm
- working standd-off: 1 mm
- working position: gravity position
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Alternating saw- trademark: fein
- blade length: 400 mm- teeth number per cm: 6- tooth height: 1 mm- blade nature: stainless steel- rate: 2.5 blows/s- working counterweight: 5 kg- working angle with the piece: 45°
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Arc saw- origin: prototype
- working voltage: 44 – 60 V- working intensity: 200 – 1200 A- wheel nature: fluginox 130- wheel diameter: 320 mm- wheel thickness: 5 mm- rotation speed: 250 – 300 r.p.m.
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Nd-YAG LASER- power on plate: 1 kw
- frequency: 10 Hz- pulse energy: 100 J- focal point position: on the plate- assistant gas: without- stand-off: 1 m- optical fiber: 1=50m
d=1mm
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• LSI- electrode : steel
d=1.6 mm or 2.4 mm- working voltage: 28-35 V- working intensity: 250-500 A- stand-off: 5 to 40 mm- oxygen pressure: 10 bar- oxygen consumption: 70 m3/h- wire consumption: 4-17 m/min
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Three tools : Plasma torch
Consumable electrode
Contact arc metal cutting
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Non radioactive experiments:
PLASMA TORCH
STAINLESS STEEL CONSUMABLE
ELECTRODE
e=80 mm C A M C
• Radioactive experiments:
MILD STEEL PLASMA TORCH
e=16*2 mm C A M C
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Radioactive plates (e=16 mm)
60Co 61 +/- 13 Bq/g
137Cs 1.5 +/- 1 Bq/g
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Objectives Balance of solid emissions
sedimented dross
suspended particlesaerosols
Gaseous emissions:
NO, NOx, O3, CO2, H2
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• CharacterizationSEDIMENTED DROSS
(size distribution)
SUSPENDED PARTICLES(size distribution, chemical analysis,
suspension/solution)
AEROSOLS(size distribution, chemical analysis)
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Plasma torch
- nozzle diameter: 6 mm- stand-off: 18 mm- pilot gas: argon, 60 l/min, 7 bar- cutting gas: argon, 150 l/min, 7 bar- voltage: 190 V- current: 950 – 1100 A
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Contact arc metal cutting
- electrode dimensions: L=150 – 170 mml=100 mme=8 mm
- voltage: 52 V average
- current: 1800 A average
- water pressure jet: 15 bar
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Consumable electrode
- wire diameter: 3 mm
- nozzle diameter: 3.2 mm
- voltage: 63 V average
- current: 2000 A average
- water pressure jet: 17.5 bar
• Main Features of the Experiments (1/2)
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
N° of experi-ment
Tool Place MaterialMaterial
thickness (mm)
Radio-activity
Water deph (m)
Cutting speed (mm/min)
1Consumable
electrodeUnderwater
Stainless steel
80 NO 0.6 – 0.85 110
2Consumable
electrodeUnderwater
Stainless steel
80 NO 1.65 – 1.90 110
3 CAMC UnderwaterStainless
steel80 NO 0.4 – 0.9 45
4 CAMC UnderwaterStainless
steel80 NO 1.4 – 1.8 45
5Plasma torch
UnderwaterStainless
steel80 NO 0.47 150
• Main Features of the Experiments (2/2)
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
N° of experi-ment
Tool Place MaterialMaterial
thickness (mm)
Radio-activity
Water deph (m)
Cutting speed (mm/min)
5 bisPlasma torch
UnderwaterStainless
steel80 NO 0.56 150
6Plasma torch
UnderwaerStainless
steel80 NO 1.93 150
7 CAMC Underwater Mild steel 32 YES 1.5 – 2.17 50-100
8 CAMC Underwater Mild steel 32 YES 1.03 - 1.93 50-100
9Plasma torch
Underwater Mild steel 32 YES 2.05 300
CONS.ELECT. CAMCPLASMA
Sedimenteddross 99.5% 93.4% 99%
Suspendedparticles 0.5% 6.6% 1%
Aerosols 0.0005% 0.04% 0.006%
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
• Aerosol size distribution
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
ExperimentN°
ToolMass mean aerodynamic
diameter(10-6 m)
Geometric standard deviation
1
2
Consumable
electrode 0.3 (Fe)
3
4CAMC
0.37 (Fe)
0.57 (Fe)
2.65
2.06
5 bis
5Plasma torch
0.12 (mass)0.12 (Fe)Bimodal
1.933.59
• Distribution of the 60Co and 137Cs in experiments n° 7, 8 and 9
Comparison of different Comparison of different dismantling cutting tools in the dismantling cutting tools in the same experimental conditionssame experimental conditions
Distribution at the activity (%)
Sedimented dross Suspended particles Aerosols
60Co 137Cs 60Co 137Cs 60Co 137Cs
Experiments n° 7 and 8 CAMC
96.8 < 21 3.2 > 79 1.4.10-3 > 0.1
Experiment n° 9PLASMA
99.83 < 33 0.17 > 67 2.6.10-4 > 0.5