Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T00:34:38.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling the Oxidative Dissolution of UO2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Fraser King ,
Miroslav Kolar  and
David W. Shoesmith
Fraser King
Affiliation:
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories, Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada
Miroslav Kolar
Affiliation:
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories, Pinawa, Manitoba, Canada
David W. Shoesmith
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Get access

Abstract

An electrochemically based model for predicting the effects of α-radiolysis, the precipitation of U(VI) corrosion products and redox processes with Fe and Fe(II) on the dissolution of UO2 is described. Various aspects of the model are presented, including: the underlying mechanism, the reaction-diffusion equations used to describe the mass transport and homogeneous reactions of the various species considered in the model, the geometrical grid used to simulate both experimental and used fuel/container geometries and the electrochemical boundary conditions used for the numerical solution of the reaction-diffusion equations. The results of preliminary simulations are also discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 556: Symposium QQ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXII , 1999 , 463
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Shoesmith, D.W. and Johnson, L.H., Ontario Hydro Report No. 06819-REP-01200-0012 ROO (1997).Google Scholar
2. Sunder, S., Nucl. Tech. 122, p. 211–221 (1998).Google Scholar
3. Shoesmith, D.W. and King, F., Ontario Hydro Report No. 06819-REP-01200-0038 R00 (1998).Google Scholar
4. King, F. and Betteridge, J.S., Ontario Hydro Report No. 06819-REP-01200-0059 R00 (1998).Google Scholar
5. Bruno, J., Cera, E., Duro, L., Eriksen, T.E. and Werme, L.O., J. Nucl. Mats. 238, p. 110–120 (1996).Google Scholar
6. Christensen, H. and Sunder, S., J. Nucl. Mats. 238, p. 70–77 (1996).Google Scholar
7. Sunder, S., Shoesmith, D.W., Kolar, M. and LeNeveu, D.M., J. Nucl. Mats. 250, p. 118–130 (1997).Google Scholar
8. Neretnieks, I., Mats. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 465, Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh PA, p. 574–580 (1997).Google Scholar
9. Christensen, H. and Sunder, S., Studsvik Material Report, STUDSVIK/M-98/71 (1998).Google Scholar
10. King, F. and Kolar, M., Mats. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 412, Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh PA, p. 555–562 (1996).Google Scholar
11. Shoesmith, D.W. and Sunder, S., Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, AECL-10488 (1991).Google Scholar
12. Johnson, L.H., LeNeveu, D.M., King, F., Shoesmith, D.W., Kolar, M., Oscarson, D.W., Sunder, S., Onofrei, C. and Crosthwaite, J.L., Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, AECL-l 1494-2, COG-95-552-2.Google Scholar
13. Christensen, H., Nucl. Tech. 124, p. 1–10 (1998).Google Scholar