摘要
根据IAEA、ISO、美国、中国等机构和国家对UF6运输货包的要求,分析我国相关标准的不足。从设计角度对美国30B、48X和我国740 L、3 m3容器进行了对比。介绍了几种早期采用的UF6后果评价模型及HGSYSTEM/UF6、RASCAL4模型并基于实验数据进行了对比,结果如下:1200 m以内,HGSYSTEM/UF6模型较精;500 m内模拟值稍大于实测值,误差较小。2对于RASCAL4,20 m以内,模拟值误差较大;100 m以外,模拟值均小于实测值。
On the basis of IAEA, ISO, U.S. and China＇ s requirements for UF6 transport package, insufficiency of related standards in China is analyzed. From the perspective of design, comparisons of U.S. cylinder 30B, 48X and China cylinder 740 L, 3 m3 are conducted. An introduction to several models for UF6 release accident consequence assessment is given, which include those used in early year, and more advanced HG- SYSTEM/UF6, RASCAIA. On account of experimental data, a comparison of the latter two models is carried through. It turns out that, for HGSYSTEM/UF6, the predictions are accurate within 200 m, and smaller than measured values within 500 m. For RASCAL4, errors are obvious within 20 m, and the predictions are smaller than measured values exceed 100 m.
出处
《辐射防护通讯》
2015年第6期13-16,28,共5页
Radiation Protection Bulletin
