Progress in Nuclear Energy 124 (2020) 103368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene

Estimation of activity concentrations of radioactive gases inside containment

building of fast breeder reactor FBTR: Leakage of active cover gas
Arya Mitra a,b ,∗, R. Sarangapani a,b , S. Chandrasekaran a , M.T. Jose a,c
a
Safety, Quality and Resource Management Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam 603 102, India
b
Reactor Facilities Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam 603 102, India
c
HBNI, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam 603 102, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Leakage of active reactor vessel cover gas through liquid metal seal or various injection and rejection points
Gas source localization of the reactor vessel cover gas system, increases radiation levels in the reactor containment building (RCB) of
Gas distribution modeling a liquid metal cooled fast reactor (LMFR). Detection of the leakage passage is often difficult. In this article,
Dispersion modeling
dispersion of fission product noble gases (FPNGs) and 𝐴𝑟41 , inside the RCB of fast breeder test reactor (FBTR)
Cover gas leakage
at Kalpakkam, has been studied using turbulent diffusion equation for the case of release of active cover
Fast reactors
gas from a location inside RCB. The resulting estimate of the time-evolution of the gross gamma activity
concentration at a detector location, after a controlled release of active cover gas in small quantities from a
known point, has been compared against the recorded detector signal. This showed substantial match, with
coefficient of determination, 𝑅2 at 0.84. If there is a steep increase in the activity release rate driven by either
an increase in the activity concentration of reactor vessel cover gas (RVCG) due to a clad failure incident
or by an increase in the leakage rate of the RVCG due to minor loss of effective isolation of the cover gas
region, there will be well discriminated response to it over the prevailing background, in the time series data
of gross gamma activity concentration recorded by the gas activity monitors in RCB. This response will be
different for different locations of release of active cover gas, making detection of the release site possible,
if we know possible release locations, and if the increase in activity release rate is steep enough to allow
significant discrimination in response, for different release locations.

1. Introduction
Fast breeder test reactor (FBTR) is a sodium cooled fast breeder
reactor located at Kalpakkam, India. Its a 40 𝑀𝑊𝑡 capacity research
reactor that uses (Pu,U)C as fuel and has a loop type design with
two primary and two secondary sodium loops. Above the surface of
primary sodium in reactor vessel, there is a layer of cover gas kept at 30
mbar above atmospheric pressure, to inhibit air contact with sodium.
To detect a fuel clad failure, this reactor vessel cover gas (RVCG) is
continuously monitored with gas flow ionization chambers along with
DND (delayed neutron detection) system to monitor delayed neutron
precursors in coolant (see Appendix for a discussion on the transport
of fission gases to RVCG space in case of a fuel clad failure and the fuel
clad failure detection systems present in FBTR). A mix of Argon and
Helium is used as reactor vessel cover gas. During reactor operation,
by neutron absorption, argon produces radioactive 𝐴𝑟41 . 𝐴𝑟41 can also
be produced from 𝐾 41 (𝑛, 𝑝)𝐴𝑟41 reaction, with potassium present as an
impurity in sodium. Even without a fuel clad failure, FBTR reactor
vessel cover gas contains some amount of fission product noble gases
(FPNGs) and particulates (daughters of the FPNGs). They are produced
from tramp fuel (due to a fuel pin clad failure incident in 2011), fuel pin
fixed contamination and natural uranium impurity present in sodium
coolant. RVCG of other liquid metal cooled fast reactors (LMFRs) will
also typically contain 𝐴𝑟41 (if Argon is used as cover gas), FPNGs (in
case of a clad failure incident or from the fission of tramp fuel in case of
a previous wet rupture of fuel clad), and particulates (daughters of the
FPNGs). Leakage of RVCG through liquid metal seal or the injection and
rejection points of the RVCG system or possible leakage points in the
clad rupture detection system, causes release of active cover gas into
reactor containment building (RCB) atmosphere. It increases radiation
levels and can put restrictions on operation in the event of a clad failure
incident depending on the nature of failure and the leakage rate. In
FBTR, Liquid Metal Seal (LMS), used to maintain leak tightness between
reactor vessel and rotating plugs, is an eutectic mixture of 42% tin
and 58% bismuth (Mohanty et al., 2016). Partial replacement of liquid

∗ Corresponding author at: Safety, Quality and Resource Management Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam 603 102, India.
E-mail address: arya@igcar.gov.in (A. Mitra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2020.103368
Received 22 December 2019; Received in revised form 10 March 2020; Accepted 16 April 2020
0149-1970/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Mitra et al.
metal seal at FBTR, lowered the leakage rate, thereby confirming a leak
in the liquid metal seal. A metallic cocoon with a suction pump has
been installed to remove the leaked gas through LMS.
However in general, it is difficult to detect the leakage passage as
there are numerous possible locations to be considered and most of
them are not accessible. Localization of a gas leakage source using
mobile gas sensors, is an active research area. Several algorithms to
design intelligent mobile robots to locate a gas plume source has been
reported in the literature. Most of the strategies employ localization
by following the concentration gradient (chemotaxis), and air-flow
direction (anemotaxis) (Russell et al., 2013; Li et al., 2011; Ishida
et al., 1996, 1998; Marques et al., 2002; Balkovsky and Shraiman,
2002). A detailed review on the strategies employed to localize a gas
source and experimental works in this field can be found in Lilien-
thal et al. (2006) and Monroy and Gonzalez-Jimenez (2018). Most
of these tracking methods may work when the concentration field is
smooth, and air-flow is not turbulent (Balkovsky and Shraiman, 2002).
In Balkovsky and Shraiman (2002), authors proposed an efficient al-
gorithm based on maximum likelihood inference for tracking, that
can work well in turbulent plumes. However when the gas source
is not accessible, these methods may not give good result. In Ishida
et al. (1998) and Sánchez-Sosa et al. (2018), authors have proposed
methods to localize the gas source remotely by fitting a suitable gas
distribution model to the observation made by a mobile gas sensor
at each successive step, but relies on strong assumptions like uniform
and unidirectional air-flow and steady time-invariant plume. In indoor
environment in absence of strong air-flow, gas dispersion is dominated
by turbulent diffusion as molecular diffusion is slower by several or-
ders of magnitude (Ferri et al., 2009; Nakamoto et al., 1999; Wandel
et al., 2003). Without strong air-flow, air-turbulence creates parcels
of gas that follow in chaotic trajectories (Shraiman and Siggia, 2000)
and resulting fluctuating concentration field makes tracking difficult,
remote tracking even more so. On the other hand, statistical gas dis-
tribution modeling (GDM) aims at deriving a truthful representation of
the concentration field from a set of spatially and temporally sparse
measurements (Lilienthal et al., 2009; Asadi et al., 2007) and relies
on obtaining a gas distribution map with sufficient details, to finally
estimate the gas plume source position (Sánchez-Sosa et al., 2018).
As opposed to assuming strong unidirectional air-flow, statistical GDM
approaches consider time-averaged concentration distribution to filter
out fluctuations due to turbulence. Most of these approaches are time-
invariant, and assumes gas distribution to be time-constant thus cannot
model well evolving gas plumes (Asadi et al., 2007). In Asadi et al.
(2007), authors discussed approaches to improve gas distribution mod-
eling in dynamic scenarios where environmental conditions such as gas
source emission rate tend to change over time. In computational fluid
dynamics (CFD), Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) turbulence
models are used to model complex dispersion scenario arising in indoor
environment with turbulent gas mixing. These approaches allow to
set arbitrary obstacle arrangement and are very promising if validated
against reliable experimental data (Dong et al., 2017; Tauseef et al.,
2011). In Dong et al. (2017), authors have reviewed four commonly
used RANS turbulence models and evaluated their performance in pre-
dicting gas dispersion in an indoor environment. In Kassomenos et al.
(2008), authors have used CFD code PHOENICS to study dispersion
of carcinogenic vinyl chloride monomer in a geometrically complex
indoor area. In Ricciardi et al. (2008), authors considered dispersion of
sulfur hexafluoride in an indoor environment and reported that, CFD
simulation results improved with increase in air flow rate.
In this article, a treatment of the problem of gas dispersion in an
indoor environment with turbulent gas mixing, is presented. While
most of the works in this field focus on steady state gas distribu-
tions, we consider localization based on observed time-evolution of
gas concentration level at stationary gas sensor locations. The treat-
ment is applicable in localizing a gas leak source remotely, only if,
possible leakage locations are known a priori and there is an increase
2
Progress in Nuclear Energy 124 (2020) 103368
in the release rate, steep enough to allow significant discrimination
in response of the gas sensors, for two different release locations.
This method is particularly relevant in an industrial setting where
some knowledge about leak prone points is already present but due
to physical inaccessibility, conventional methods of leak detection are
not applicable. Though this work considers release of radioactive cover
gas in RCB atmosphere of a LMFR, it can be applied to release of
other toxic gases as well. In this work, we used turbulent diffusion
equation to model release of radioactive cover gas inside RCB of
FBTR. We assumed isotropic and homogeneous turbulence leading to
a scalar and constant eddy diffusion coefficient. We considered a steep
increase in the activity release rate driven by either increase in RVCG
activity concentration or increase in the leakage rate of RVCG. Often
in case of a clad failure incident, the increase is steep enough to result
clear responses above the prevailing background, in the time series
data of gross gamma activity concentration recorded by gas activity
monitors, and the responses are unambiguously different for different
leakage locations. The total release rate can be computed from the
rate of injection of fresh Argon and Helium into the RVCG system
to keep the pressure of RVCG constant. After solving the governing
transport equation, we can generate computational estimates of the
time evolution of gross gamma activity concentration at the locations
where gas activity monitors are kept, assuming release from a suspected
release point releasing at the measured total release rate. Then by
comparing these estimates to observed response from the gas activity
monitors we can decide on whether that particular suspected release
point may be responsible. Thus one by one we can repeat this process
for all the suspected release points to arrive at a set of decisions to
finally make a prediction. If multiple release points are present, the
analysis is expected to be much more complicated and confidence on
the prediction will depend on the locations of the gas activity monitors
with respect to the suspected release points. Due to simplifying assump-
tions involved in the computation of the estimates, like assumption
of homogeneous and isotropic turbulence, and neglecting structures
inside RCB presenting obstacles, there is some amount of uncertainty
involved. Also, the estimated result at a gas activity monitor location
may not differ significantly for two suspected release locations situated
close to each other. Thus it will not be possible to discriminate between
them for their individual contribution to the release. Thus if multiple
suspected release points are situated close enough, they should be
grouped together into one release location.
In November 2018, an increase in RVCG activity concentration
was observed at FBTR during reactor operation at 32 𝑀𝑊𝑡 due to
release of FPNGs from the reactor core. The clad failure was classified
as a dry rupture where the failure involves emission of FPNGs only
(no discharge of solid fission products). The gas leaker FSA (Fuel
Sub-Assembly) was identified (Sarangapani et al., 2019). However,
operation with the gas leaker sub assembly resulted in considerable
increase in RVCG activity concentration and measurable increase in
radiation levels in RCB due to minor leakage of active cover gas. To
get a sense of the uncertainties involved in our treatment, a controlled
experiment was designed at that time. A controlled release of active
cover gas was initiated through the grab gas sampling point of the
RVCG system. The released activity of several constituent radioactive
gases were measured with the knowledge of their respective activity
concentrations in RVCG from gamma spectrometric measurements.
The computational estimate of time-evolution of gross gamma activity
concentration at a gas activity monitor location were compared against
the background subtracted response of the gas activity monitor. This
showed substantial match with coefficient of determination, 𝑅2 at 0.84
(Fig. 1(a)).
2. Dispersion of RVCG in RCB of FBTR
In this section, we will attempt a series solution to the governing
transport equation for dispersion of a radioactive gas from a point
A. Mitra et al. Progress in Nuclear Energy 124 (2020) 103368

Table 1 time (1 min) is very small compared to the observed peak widths and
Constituent radioactive gases in RVCG and their respective activity concentrations.
peak arrival times at the gas activity monitor locations.
Radio nuclide Activity concentration (KBq/cc)
Let us write the time averaged activity concentration (time average
Xe-133 26.42
taken over the time scale of turbulent fluctuations) of the 𝑖th radioac-
Xe-135 90.45
Ar-41 20.34 tive gas at point (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) and time t, due to an instantaneous release from
Kr-85m 3.54 a location at (𝑆𝑥 , 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑆𝑧 ) and time t=0, as 𝐶𝑖 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑆𝑥 , 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑆𝑧 , 𝑡). If 𝑆𝑥 =
Kr-88 2.20 𝑆𝑦 = 𝑆𝑧 = 0, the solution to the governing equation (Equation.1) can
be given for the time averaged activity concentration 𝐶𝑖 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 0, 0, 0, 𝑡)
as the following.
source inside RCB. We will consider that the assumption of homoge- ∑
∞
2𝜋𝑚𝑦
2𝜋𝑛𝑥 2𝜋𝑙𝑧
neous and isotropic turbulence holds, leading to a scalar and constant 𝐶𝑖 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 0, 0, 0, 𝑡) = 𝐴𝑖,𝑙,𝑚,𝑛 (𝑡) cos( ) cos( ) cos( ) (2)
𝑙,𝑚,𝑛=0
𝐿𝑥 𝐿𝑦 𝐿𝑧
eddy diffusion coefficient. At FBTR, the typical air exchange rate of the
containment building is low at 1 to 2 air exchanges per day. Air-flow where,-
inside is very weak and air flow influences on the dispersion of released
1 2𝜋𝑛 2 2𝜋𝑚 2 2𝜋𝑙 2
RVCG gas can be neglected, except for turbulent diffusion which dom- 𝐴𝑖,𝑛,𝑚,𝑙 (𝑡) = 𝑓𝑛,𝑚,𝑙 𝐴𝑖 exp(−𝐾[( ) +( ) +( ) ]𝑡) exp(−𝜆𝑖 𝑡) (3)
𝑉 𝐿𝑥 𝐿𝑦 𝐿𝑧
inates over molecular diffusion, which is several orders of magnitude
slower. But removal rate of the radioactive gas due to ventilation have With,
to be considered. For this, it will be sufficient to assume uniform air 𝜆𝑖 = 𝜆𝑟 (𝑖) + 𝜆𝑣 , with 𝜆𝑟 (𝑖) being the radioactive decay constant of i’th
exchange rate throughout RCB. We will solve for the time averaged radioactive gas and 𝜆𝑣 being air-change rate inside RCB
activity concentration of the radioactive gas inside RCB as a function of 𝐴𝑖 → The activity release for i’th radioactive gas
the coordinates and time. The time average is taken over the time scale 𝑉 → The volume of RCB
of turbulent fluctuations in the activity concentration. The governing 𝐾 → The isotropic eddy diffusion coefficient
equation for the time averaged activity concentration is given by the
𝐿𝑧 → The height of RCB
turbulent diffusion equation with additional decay terms. √
𝐿𝑥 = 𝐿𝑦 = 𝑎, with 𝑎 being the horizontal cross sectional area of
𝜕𝐶 RCB
= 𝐾∇2 𝐶 − 𝜆𝑟 𝐶 − 𝜆𝑣 𝐶 (1)
𝜕𝑡 The origin of the coordinate system is at the center of the cuboid
𝐶(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑡) is the time averaged activity concentration at a point, aver- with dimensions 𝐿𝑥 × 𝐿𝑦 × 𝐿𝑧 .
aged over the time scale of turbulent fluctuations. 𝐾 is the isotropic The coefficients 𝑓𝑛,𝑚,𝑙 are defined as,
eddy diffusion coefficient which is constant due to assumption of
homogeneous and isotropic turbulence. ∇2 is the Laplacian. 𝜆𝑟 is the 𝑓𝑛,𝑚,𝑙 = 1 if 𝑛 = 𝑚 = 𝑙 = 0
radioactive decay constant. 𝜆𝑣 is the air exchange rate. = 2 if only one of (n,m,l) is non-zero
The structures inside RCB acting as obstacles, will be neglected.
Typically containment buildings are cylindrical as the RCB of FBTR. In = 4 if only two of (n,m,l) are non-zero
a simplistic treatment we will consider a cuboid with equal horizontal = 8 if all of (n,m,l) are non-zero
cross sectional area as that of the RCB and equal height. We will
also choose the horizontal cross section of the cuboid to be square to The solution obeys boundary condition ∇𝐶𝑖 ⋅ 𝑛̂ = 0 at the boundary
come as close as possible to a circle of equal area. Error due to this surface of the cuboid of dimension 𝐿𝑥 × 𝐿𝑦 × 𝐿𝑧 , with its center
simplification in the estimate of the time evolution of the time averaged at origin, where 𝑛̂ is the unit vector perpendicular to the boundary
activity concentration at a test point, is expected to be low. In this surface. Thus there is no flow across the boundary surface. And as
regard, one can also solve in a cylindrical geometry if one can suitably 𝑡 → 0, 𝐶𝑖 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 0, 0, 0, 𝑡) becomes more and more concentrated around
express the source term of release in terms of the eigenfunctions of (0, 0, 0), the point of release. To be more precise, inside the domain
the laplacian in cylindrical coordinate, which happen to be Bessel given by {(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) ∶ 𝑥 ∈ [−𝐿𝑥 , 𝐿𝑥 ], 𝑦 ∈ [−𝐿𝑦 , 𝐿𝑦 ], 𝑧 ∈ [−𝐿𝑧 , 𝐿𝑧 ]},
functions coupled to harmonics. However, we want to see that, with 𝐶𝑖 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 0, 0, 0, 𝑡 → 0) = 𝐴𝑖 𝛿(𝑥)𝛿(𝑦)𝛿(𝑧), where 𝛿(𝑥), 𝛿(𝑦), 𝛿(𝑧) are Dirac
these simplifying assumptions, how well the estimates stand against the delta functions. Thus the solution obeys the initial condition.
observed values. For this, an experiment was designed. An useful approximation arises with the assumption that the time
averaged activity concentration at a point (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) at time 𝑡, due to an
2.1. Controlled release of RVCG in RCB: An experiment instantaneous release from a point (𝑆𝑥 , 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑆𝑧 ) at 𝑡 = 0, is a function of
the separation vector (𝑥 − 𝑆𝑥 , 𝑦 − 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑧 − 𝑆𝑧 ), time and released activity
A controlled and very short time (1 min) release of RVCG through (treating other parameters like dimension of the cuboid, air exchange
the grab gas sampling point of RVCG system was initiated. A vapor trap rate etc. as constant). Thus we can write,
in the flow path ensured filtering of sodium aerosols. The composition
𝐶𝑖 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑆𝑥 , 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑆𝑧 , 𝑡) = 𝐶𝑖 (𝑥 − 𝑆𝑥 , 𝑦 − 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑧 − 𝑆𝑧 , 0, 0, 0, 𝑡)
of the RVCG at the time of release was revealed by gamma spectrometry
with a HPGe (P-type) coaxial detector coupled to 𝐴𝑃 𝑇 𝐸𝐶 @ make This is a very good approximation particularly if the release location
high voltage unit and spectroscopic amplifier, with 𝐹 𝐴𝑆𝑇 𝐶𝑂𝑀 @ make (𝑆𝑥 , 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑆𝑧 ) is far from the boundary surface. In case of FBTR, all the
MCA card. The energy efficiency values for different energies used suspected leakage locations of the RVCG system are situated in central
in this context, are as reported in Sarangapani et al. (2017). The locations inside RCB, thus such an approximation will never lead to
composition of RVCG at the time of release is given in Table 1. significant error. Thus we write,

2.2. Estimated result vs observed response at a gas activity monitor location 𝐶𝑖 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑆𝑥 , 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑆𝑧 , 𝑡) = 𝐶𝑖 (𝑥 − 𝑆𝑥 , 𝑦 − 𝑆𝑦 , 𝑧 − 𝑆𝑧 , 0, 0, 0, 𝑡)
∑
∞
2𝜋𝑛(𝑥 − 𝑆𝑥 )
The controlled release had a clear response in the time series data of = 𝐴𝑖,𝑙,𝑚,𝑛 (𝑡) cos( )
𝑙,𝑚,𝑛=0
𝐿𝑥
gross gamma activity concentration recorded by gas activity monitors,
2𝜋𝑚(𝑦 − 𝑆𝑦 ) 2𝜋𝑙(𝑧 − 𝑆𝑧 )
which could be isolated from the background unambiguously. The × cos( ) cos( ) (4)
release can be thought of as an instantaneous release as the release 𝐿𝑦 𝐿𝑧

3
A. Mitra et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Time evolution of gross gamma activity concentration at the RGZ400 detector location: Computational estimate vs background-subtracted RGZ400 signal, (b) Estimated
time evolution of gross gamma activity concentration at the RGZ400 detector location: Top of pile vs grab gas sampling point.
The coefficients 𝐴𝑖,𝑙,𝑚,𝑛 (𝑡) are given by Eq. (3) for instantaneous release,
and for continuous release the generalization is intuitive. If release rate
is given by 𝑆𝑖 (𝑡) then these coefficients can be given by,
𝑡 subtraction. As we expected, if there is a steep increase in the activity
1 2𝜋𝑛 2 2𝜋𝑚 2 2𝜋𝑙 2
𝐴𝑖,𝑛,𝑚,𝑙 (𝑡) = 𝑓𝑛,𝑚,𝑙 𝑆 (𝑡′ ) exp(−𝐾[( ) +( ) +( ) ](𝑡 − 𝑡′ ))
𝑉 ∫0 𝑖 𝐿𝑥 𝐿𝑦 𝐿𝑧
× exp(−𝜆𝑖 (𝑡 − 𝑡′ ))𝑑𝑡′
The time-evolution of the time averaged activity concentrations of
all the component radioactive gases in the released RVCG (Table 1),
at the location of a gas activity monitor can now be evaluated. From
this, gross gamma activity concentration at the gas activity monitor
location can be evaluated as a function of time, after accounting for
all the gamma lines and their respective abundance fractions for all
the constituent radioactive gases. Empirical estimate of the isotropic
eddy diffusion coefficient 𝐾 can be obtained from a regression analysis
reported in Cheng et al. (2011), where the dependence of the isotropic
eddy diffusion coefficient 𝐾 on the dimensions of the room and the air
exchange rate has been studied empirically. To sum the triple sum on
indices (𝑙, 𝑚, 𝑛) appearing in the series solution for time 𝑡 ≥ 1 min (for
very small value of time the summation is computationally expensive),
we used the truncation condition that, the summation of leftover terms
should be bound by 0.01% of the sum of the summed up terms, which
has been checked iteratively. In Fig. 1(a), we have given the computed
estimate of gross gamma activity concentration at a gas activity mon-
itor (RGZ400) location as a function of time after the experimental
Progress in Nuclear Energy 124 (2020) 103368
release at 𝑡 = 0. For the ease of comparison, we have also given the
RGZ400 response, namely the time-series data of gross gamma activity
concentration registered by RGZ400 online monitor, after background
release rate, the time evolution of gross gamma activity concentration
at a gas activity monitor site, for different release locations, will indeed
(5) be distinguishable. To demonstrate this, we considered an identical
instantaneous release (identical in constituents and their respective re-
lease amounts to the release considered for our controlled experiment)
from top of pile of reactor vessel, which is a proven release location
in FBTR due to leakage through liquid metal seal, and computed the
resulting RGZ400 response. In Fig. 1(b), we compared the estimates of
time-evolution of gross gamma activity concentration at RGZ400 gas
activity monitor site, for identical release from two different release
locations (top of pile and grab gas sampling point).
We see in Fig. 1(a), that the observed peak in the gas activity
monitor response comes a little late than estimated. This may be due
to the presence of obstacles. The fluctuations recorded in the response
is caused by the inherent nature of turbulent transport which creates
fluctuations in the concentration field and also by the electronic noise
of the instrument. The turbulent diffusion equation only encapsulates
the evolution of the time averaged concentration field (time average
taken over the time scale of such fluctuations). Thus we see a smooth
curve in the computational estimates. Apart from these two differences,
we see substantial match between the observed time-evolution of gross
4
A. Mitra et al.
Fig. 2. Fuel clad failure detection systems in FBTR: Schematic diagram of CRD, DND and FFLS system.
gamma activity concentration at RGZ400 detector location and the
computational estimate for the same. The coefficient of determination
𝑅2 between the two sets of time series data in Fig. 1(a) has been
measured to be 0.84 . In Fig. 1(b), we see that the computational
estimates of gross gamma activity concentration at RGZ400 monitor
location, for identical release from two different possible release lo-
cations are distinguishable from each other especially at the low time
region. As top of pile of reactor vessel is closer to RGZ400 monitor, the
peak arrives early and we get a higher and sharper peak. But as time
progresses eventually the concentration field becomes uniform and the
time evolution depends on radioactive decay and air change rate. Thus
we see that after a certain amount of time (∼50 min) two curves are
indistinguishable from each other (Fig. 1(b)).
3. Conclusion
As we saw in the last section, if the increase in the activity release
rate is steep, as the instantaneous release considered in this article,
the resultant responses of a gas activity monitor for different release
locations will be distinguishable from one another. The difference will
be clearly visible in the low time region of the time series data of gross
gamma activity concentration recorded at gas activity monitor sites,
making identification of the release location possible. In our controlled
experiment, we saw substantial match between the observed time-
evolution of gross gamma activity concentration and the computational
estimate of the same (𝑅2 = 0.84). In case, there is a sharp increase
in the activity release rate, due to a fuel clad failure incident or due
to an increase in the leakage rate from RVCG system, there may be
practical application of such computational estimates in locating the
release location of leakage. In such circumstances, the response to an
increase in activity release rate will be visible in the time series data
of gross gamma activity concentration at the gas activity monitor sites
which can be isolated from the background level prevailing earlier and
responses for different release locations will be clearly distinguishable
from one another. With the additional information of the constituents
of the cover gas from gamma spectrometry and the total leakage
rate from the flow rate of fresh Argon and Helium to keep pressure
5
Progress in Nuclear Energy 124 (2020) 103368
of RVCG unchanged, the release location can be identified based on
match between estimated and observed result of gross gamma activity
concentration time-evolution, assuming different possible release loca-
tions one by one from a list of suspected release locations. If multiple
release points are present, the analysis is expected to be much more
complicated and confidence on the prediction will depend on the loca-
tions of the gas activity monitors with respect to the suspected release
points. The relevance of the treatment lies in the fact that, most of
the suspected leakage locations are inaccessible and conventional leak
detection tests are not possible. Radiological survey and measurements
around the suspected leakage locations will not usually be helpful,
as manual survey will usually be performed after the concentration
field becomes homogeneous. On the other hand, the computational
estimates are expected to offer approximate results due to the simpli-
fications involved. While we expect some error in such computational
estimates, limits on such deviations can be established by comparing
such estimates with observational data in similar experiments, as the
one reported in this article.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Arya Mitra: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writ-
ing - original draft. R. Sarangapani: Validation, Writing - review &
editing. S. Chandrasekaran: Writing - review & editing. M.T. Jose:
Supervision.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. B. Venkatra-
man, Director, Safety, Quality and Resource Management Group, for
his support and encouragement.
A. Mitra et al.
Appendix. Fuel clad failure detection systems in FBTR
Fission product noble gases (FPNGs) come out of fuel pellets by
transport through fuel cracks, diffusion through the fuel pellet and to
a lesser extent by direct recoil and knockout mechanism (Piro et al.,
2017). They accumulate in the fuel clad gap and the gas plenum region
of the fuel pin. In case of a clad failure, FPNGs will rapidly get released
due to high pressure inside the pin and will subsequently accumulate
in the reactor vessel cover gas (RVCG) space. In case of a wet rupture,
solid fission products also come in contact with the coolant. Some of
them, like isotopes of Bromine and Iodine decay to isotopes of Krypton
and Xenon, which subsequently accumulate in the cover gas space.
Thus in case of a fuel clad failure the activity concentrations of FPNGs
in the cover gas will increase significantly. And in case the clad rupture
also involves discharge of solid fission products in the coolant, there
will be delayed neutron precursors in the coolant, like 𝐵𝑟87 and 𝐼 137 .
To detect these delayed neutron precursors in coolant delayed neutron
detection (DND) system is present in FBTR. DND system is composed
of 3 channels for each of the primary coolant loops. Each channel
is equipped with two boron coated proportional counters to detect
delayed neutrons. Along with this, RVCG is continuously monitored
with gas flow ionization chambers to detect an increase in the gross
gamma activity concentration. This system is called clad rupture detec-
tion (CRD) system. In addition to DND and CRD system, FFLS (failed
fuel localization system) is present to determine ratios of different
isotopes of Krypton and Xenon in RVCG to arrive at an estimate of the
burnup of the fuel sub-assembly, where the clad failure have occurred.
FFLS system is equipped with an activated charcoal absorber to absorb
fission gases in RVCG. The absorbed gas can be eluted later and be
subjected to gamma spectrometry to establish important isotopic ratios.
FFLS system also helps in confirming the occurrence of a fuel clad
rupture. Fig. 2 gives a schematic diagram of CRD, DND and the FFLS
system.
References
Asadi, S., Fan, H., Hernandez Bennetts, V., Lilienthal, A.J., 2007. Time-dependent gas
distribution modelling. Robot. Auton. Syst. 96, 157–170.
Balkovsky, E., Shraiman, B.I., 2002. Olfactory search at high Reynolds number. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 99 (20), 12589–12593.
Cheng, K.C., Bolton, A.V., Jiang, R.T., Klepeis, N.E., Ott, W.R., Fringer, O.B., Hilde-
mann, L.M., 2011. Modeling exposure close to air pollution sources in naturally
ventilated residences: association of turbulent diffusion coefficient with air change
rate. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 4016–4022.
Dong, L., Zuo, H., Hu, L., Yang, B., Li, L., Wu, L., 2017. Simulation of heavy gas
dispersion in a large indoor space using CFD model. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 46,
1–12.
Progress in Nuclear Energy 124 (2020) 103368
Ferri, G., Caselli, E., Mattoli, V., Mondini, A., Mazzolai, B., Dario, P., 2009. SPIRAL: A
novel biologically-inspired algorithm for gas/odor source localization in an indoor
environment with no strong airflow. Robot. Auton. Syst. 57 (4), 393–402.
Ishida, H., Kagawa, Y., Nakamoto, T., Moriizumi, T., 1996. Odor-source localization in
the clean room by an autonomous mobile sensing system. Sensors Actuators B 33,
115–121.
Ishida, H., Nakamoto, T., Moriizumi, T., 1998. Remote sensing of gas/odor source
location and concentration distribution using mobile system. Sensors Actuators B
49, 52–57.
Kassomenos, P., Karayannis, A., Panagopoulos, I., Karakitsios, S., Petrakis, M., 2008.
Modelling the dispersion of a toxic substance at a workplace. Environ. Model.
Softw. 23, 82–89.
Li, J.G., Meng, Q.H., Wang, Y., Zeng, M., 2011. Odor source localization using a mobile
robot in outdoor airflow environments with a particle filter algorithm. Auton.
Robots 30, 281–292.
Lilienthal, A.J., Loutfi, A., Duckett, T., 2006. Airborne chemical sensing with mobile
robots. Sensors 6, 1616–1678.
Lilienthal, A.J., Reggente, M., Trincavelli, M., Blanco, J.L., Gonzalez, J., 2009. A
statistical approach to gas distribution modelling with mobile robots—The kernel
DM+V algorithm. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems. St. Louis, MO, USA.
Marques, L., Nunes, U., de Almeida, A.T., 2002. Olfaction-based mobile robot
navigation. Thin Solid Films 418, 51–58.
Mohanty, B.N., Sivasubramanian, K., Venkatraman, B., Suriyanarayanan, A., 2016.
Liquid Metal Seal (LMS) - Challenges for Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR). Indian
Thermal Analysis Society, India.
Monroy, J., Gonzalez-Jimenez, J., 2018. Towards odor—Sensitive mobile robots. In:
Electronic Nose Technologies and Advances in Machine Olfaction. IGI Global,
Hershey, PA, USA, pp. 244–263.
Nakamoto, T., Ishida, H., Moriizumi, T., 1999. A sensing system for odor plumes. Anal.
Chem. News Features 1, 531–537.
Piro, M.H.A., Sunderland, D., Livingstone, S., Sercombe, J., Revie, W., Quastel, A.,
Terrani, K., Judge, C., 2017. A review of Pellet–Clad interaction behavior in
zirconium alloy fuel cladding. In: Reference Module in Materials Science and
Materials Engineering.
Ricciardi, L., Prévost, C., Bouilloux, L., Sestier-Carlin, R., 2008. Experimental and
numerical study of heavy gas dispersion in a ventilated room. J. Hazard. Mater.
152 (2), 493–505.
Russell, R.A., Bab-Hadiashar, A., Shepherd, R.L., Wallace, G.G., 2013. A comparison of
reactive robot chemotaxis algorithms. Robot. Auton. Syst. 45, 83–97.
Sánchez-Sosa, J.E., Castillo-Mixcóatl, J., Beltrán-Pérez, G., Muñoz Aguirre, S., 2018. An
application of the Gaussian plume model to localization of an indoor gas source
with a mobile robot. Sensors 18, 4375.
Sarangapani, R., Jaffar, I., Srinivsan, T.K., Mitra, A., Sultan, K.B., Ganesh, K.D.,
Annadurai, P.M., Umesh, A.M., Jose, M.T., Kumar, K.V.S., Venkatraman, B., 2019.
A new method for the localisation of gas leaker fuel subassemblies in fast breeder
reactors. Ann. Nucl. Energy.
Sarangapani, R., Jose, M.T., Srinivasan, T.K., Venkatraman, B., 2017. Determination
of efficiency of an aged HPGe detector for gaseous sources by self absorption
correction and point source methods. J. Instrum. 12 (7).
Shraiman, B., Siggia, E., 2000. Scalar turbulence. Nature 405, 639–646, Review Article.
Tauseef, S.M., Rashtchain, D., Abbasi, S.A., 2011. CFD-Based simulation of dense gas
dispersion in presence of obstacles. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 24 (4), 371–376.
Wandel, M., Lilienthal, A.J., Duckett, T., Weimar, U., Zell, A., 2003. Gas distribution
in unventilated indoor environments inspected by a mobile robot. In: Proceedings
of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics, pp. 507–512.