Transcript 230 kB - eundetraf

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
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Assessment of resuspension
coefficients due to the use of
dismantling cutting tools
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• General term :
Resuspension coefficient
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Resuspension factor
FMES =
volumic concentrat ion 1
(L )
surfacic concentrat ion
• Resuspension fraction
K MES =
quantity put in suspension
(
initial quantity
)
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Resuspension rate
TMES =
emission flowrate
(T
initial quantity
1
)
• Resuspension flux
Flux MES =
emission flowrate
(ML 2T
conta min ated surface
1
)
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Radioactive cutting
A acav =
A acav =
radioactivity drawn in the exhaust ventilatio n
( )
radioactivity of the lost mass by the cut workpiece
radioactivity drawn in the exhaust ventilatio n
( )
radioactivity of the affected zone of the cut workpiece
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Non radioactive cutting
A inv =
aerosol mass in the exhaust ventilatio n (me )
( )
mass loss of the cut workpiece
A int =
me + deposit mass on the cell walls
( )
mass loss of the cut workpiece
A invl =
me
(ML-1 )
cut length
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Innovative prefiltration devices
 Acoustic declogging of an
electrostatic filter
 Cartridge filter with pleated metallic
media
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Acoustic horn characteristics
(Manufacturer’s specifications)
Frequency:
Sound pressure level (1 m):
250 Hz
145 dB
Air pressure during signal:
0.3 – 0.4 Mpa
Air consumption during signal:
20 – 30 l.s-1
Weight:
20 kg
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Levels of protection and expected consequences
Protection techniques considered
LEVEL
A
LEVEL
B
LEVEL
C
Capture at source
associated with
secondary cleaning
network
Prefiltration
upstream
of the general
ventilation
Exhaust network
Prefiltration
Immediately
Upstream of the
HEPA filters
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
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
Blower
network
CELL
2
1
Cutting
tool
4
3
Exhaust
network
HEPA
Filter
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Electrostatic filter efficiency during comparative tests of
cutting tools for dismantling (1/2)
Cutting cool
Specimen material
Cutting
Thickness
(mm)
Electrostatic filter
Efficiency
(%)
Disk grinder
Stainless steel
Stainless steel
Mild steel
10
30
10
98.4
98.3
95.6
Reciprocating saw
Stainless steel
10
> 81
Plasma torch
Stainless steel
Stainless steel
Stainless steel
Mild steel
Mild steel
Mild steel
10
30
50
10
30
50
93.1
92.4
94.0
91.4
84.1
86.7
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Electrostatic filter efficiency during comparative tests of
cutting tools for dismantling (2/2)
Cutting cool
Specimen material
Cutting
Thickness
(mm)
Electrostatic filter
Efficiency
(%)
Arc-air cutter
Stainless steel
Stainless steel
Mild steel
Mild steel
10
30
10
30
96.3
97.6
96.6
91.7
Arc saw
Stainless steel
Mild steel
10
10
97.0
97.2
LSI
Stainless steel
Stainless steel
Stainless steel
Mild steel
Mild steel
Mild steel
10
30
50
10
30
50
85.9
89.8
91.9
89.3
95.6
92.2
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Filter cleaning test results
Cutting tool
Specimen
material
Membrane
material
Thickness
(mm)
Recoverable
mass*(g)
Cleaning
(%)
Plasma
Torch
Stainless steel
Mild steel
PVC
PVC
30
50
13**
30**
92
83
Arc-air
Mild steel
PVC
10
51**
81
Arc saw
Mild steel
Mild steel
Stainless steel
PVC
PVC
PVC
10
10
10
9.6**
11.1**
4.8**
87
90
83
LSI
MS/SS
MS/SS
MS/SS
PVC
SS
SS
10
30
50/100
149.4**
113.6***
141.2***
49.1
64.8
68.8
*
Efficiency for recoverable particle mass (i.e particles deposited on ionizer and collector
only)
** Calculated value
*** Measured value
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
DECOMMISSIONING
DISMANTLING
WASTES
CONTAINERS
DIMENSIONS
CUTTING
SECONDARY EMISSIONS
PROTECTION DEVICES
ex. PREFILTRATION
CHARACTERIZATION
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same 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
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Tools
Reciprocating 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)
*mild steel
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• The cutting performances of the tools :
 Maximal thickness to be cut
 Cutting speed
 Wear of the tool
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same 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
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Grinder
-
trademark:
energy:
wheel trademark:
wheel diameter:
wheel thickness:
rotation speed:
equivalent input:
equivalent output:
weight:
cutting position:
bosch
electric
barcut
300 mm
4 mm
5000 r.p.m.
2200 W
1550 W
6 kg
gravity position
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Plasma torch
- trademark:
saf
-
nertajet 200
120 V
200 A
Argon
60 l.min-1
2 mm
7 mm
gravity position
type:
working voltage:
working intensity:
plasma gas:
flow rate of gas:
nozzle diameter:
working standd-off:
working position:
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same 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
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Alternating saw
- trademark:
fein
-
400 mm
6
1 mm
stainless steel
2.5 blows/s
5 kg
45°
blade length:
teeth number per cm:
tooth height:
blade nature:
rate:
working counterweight:
working angle with the piece:
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Arc saw
- origin:
prototype
-
44 – 60 V
200 – 1200 A
fluginox 130
320 mm
5 mm
250 – 300 r.p.m.
working voltage:
working intensity:
wheel nature:
wheel diameter:
wheel thickness:
rotation speed:
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Nd-YAG LASER
- power on plate:
1 kw
-
10 Hz
100 J
on the plate
without
1m
1=50m
d=1mm
frequency:
pulse energy:
focal point position:
assistant gas:
stand-off:
optical fiber:
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• LSI
- electrode
-
:
working voltage:
working intensity:
stand-off:
oxygen pressure:
oxygen consumption:
wire consumption:
steel
d=1.6 mm or 2.4 mm
28-35 V
250-500 A
5 to 40 mm
10 bar
70 m3/h
4-17 m/min
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Three tools :
 Plasma torch
 Consumable electrode
 Contact arc metal cutting
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Non radioactive experiments:
PLASMA TORCH
STAINLESS STEEL
CONSUMABLE ELECTRODE
e=80 mm
CAMC
• Radioactive experiments:
MILD STEEL
PLASMA TORCH
e=16*2 mm
CAMC
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Radioactive plates (e=16 mm)
60Co
61 +/- 13 Bq/g
137Cs
1.5 +/- 1 Bq/g
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Objectives
 Balance of solid emissions
sedimented dross
suspended particles
aerosols
 Gaseous emissions:
NO, NOx, O3, CO2, H2
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Characterization
SEDIMENTED DROSS
(size distribution)
SUSPENDED PARTICLES
(size distribution, chemical analysis,
suspension/solution)
AEROSOLS
(size distribution, chemical analysis)
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Plasma torch
- nozzle diameter:
6 mm
-
18 mm
argon, 60 l/min, 7 bar
argon, 150 l/min, 7 bar
190 V
950 – 1100 A
stand-off:
pilot gas:
cutting gas:
voltage:
current:
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Contact arc metal cutting
- electrode dimensions:
L=150 – 170 mm
- voltage:
l=100 mm
e=8 mm
52 V average
- current:
1800 A average
- water pressure jet:
15 bar
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same 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
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Main Features of the Experiments (1/2)
Material
Material
thickness
(mm)
Radioactivity
Water deph
(m)
Cutting
speed
(mm/
min)
Underwater
Stainless
steel
80
NO
0.6 – 0.85
110
Consumable
electrode
Underwater
Stainless
steel
80
NO
1.65 – 1.90
110
3
CAMC
Underwater
Stainless
steel
80
NO
0.4 – 0.9
45
4
CAMC
Underwater
Stainless
steel
80
NO
1.4 – 1.8
45
5
Plasma
torch
Underwater
Stainless
steel
80
NO
0.47
150
N° of
experiment
Tool
Place
1
Consumable
electrode
2
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Main Features of the Experiments (2/2)
Material
Material
thickness
(mm)
Radioactivity
Water deph
(m)
Cutting
speed
(mm/
min)
Underwater
Stainless
steel
80
NO
0.56
150
Plasma
torch
Underwaer
Stainless
steel
80
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
9
Plasma
torch
Underwater
Mild steel
32
YES
2.05
300
N° of
experiment
Tool
Place
5 bis
Plasma
torch
6
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
CONS.ELECT.
CAMC
PLASMA
Sedimented
dross
99.5%
93.4%
99%
Suspended
particles
0.5%
6.6%
1%
0.0005%
0.04%
0.006%
Aerosols
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Aerosol size distribution
Experiment
N°
Tool
1
Consumable
2
electrode
3
4
CAMC
5 bis
5
Plasma torch
Mass mean aerodynamic
diameter
(10-6 m)
Geometric standard
deviation
 0.3 (Fe)
0.37 (Fe)
2.65
0.57 (Fe)
2.06
0.12 (mass)
0.12 (Fe)
Bimodal
1.93
3.59
Comparison of different
dismantling cutting tools in the
same experimental conditions
• Distribution of the
60Co
and
137Cs
in experiments n° 7, 8 and 9
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° 9
PLASMA
99.83
< 33
0.17
> 67
2.6.10-4
> 0.5