Hydrogen flux through the heat transfer tube wall in the steam generator of Monju

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic diagram for analysis system.

Figure 2. Schematic illustration of calculation approach.

Table 1. Correction factors used in this study.

Correction factor	Tag	Value
The cold trap efficiency	ϵ^H	0.7
Permeation reduction factor for IHX	f3	1.0
Permeation reduction factor for SG	f4	1.0

Figure 3. Reactor operation history and hydrogen flux fluctuation.

Figure 4. Time dependence of hydrogen flux.

Table 2. Transient conditions of hydrogen flux in 50MWSGTF.

Operating days	Hydrogen flux (g-H cm^−2 s^−1)
Initial	–10×10^−11
–50 days	4×10^−11
–130 days	(1–2)×10^−11
130 days –	1×10^−11

Table 3. Comparison of hydrogen flux in other FBRs and facilities.

	Hydrogen flux	Steam temperature
	(g-H cm^−2 s^−1)	(K) inlet/outlet
Phenix prototype	2.5×10^−11	522/653
(CGVS)
Phenix	2.1×10^−11	522/653
Monju prototype	1.8×10^−11	513/639
(50MWSGTF)
PFR	(2.2–4.4)×10^−11	583/603

Figure 5. Steam temperature dependence of hydrogen flux.

Table 4. Comparison of activation energies in each process.

	Activation energy
	ΔG (kJ mol^−1)	Ref.
Hydrogen flux (Figure 5) (g-H cm^−2 s^−1)	25.8	–
Parabolic rate constant kp (μm^2 h^−1)	326	[15]
Permeation coefficient κ^H (Ncc cm s^−1 cm^−2 atm^−0.5)	42.7	[16]

Paterson SR, Moser R, Rettig TR. The oxidation of boiler tubes. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interaction of Iron-Based Materials with Water and Steam; 1992 June 3–5; Heidelberg, Germany.

 Google Scholar

Chang PL, Bennett WDG. Diffusion of hydrogen in iron and iron alloys at elevated temperatures. J Iron Steel Inst. 1952;179:205–213.

 Google Scholar