10.08.2013 Views

Code Manual for CONTAIN 2.0 - Federation of American Scientists

Code Manual for CONTAIN 2.0 - Federation of American Scientists

Code Manual for CONTAIN 2.0 - Federation of American Scientists

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Table C-7 Validation Matrix <strong>for</strong> Aerosol Modeling<br />

Validation Facility Reference <strong>Code</strong> Models Comments<br />

Type/Basis Version<br />

ABCOVE (dry) ---- Ber85 1.0 Aerosol <strong>CONTAIN</strong> results compared well with the test results <strong>for</strong> the AB5 and<br />

aerosol tests/ AB5, Mur83a agglomeration and AB7 tests. The AB7 comparison was not as good later in the test, but it<br />

AB6, AB7 Mur83b deposition was believed that the test conditions deviated from the conditions<br />

originally planned.<br />

Sodium fire ---- Jon88a 1.04 Aerosol <strong>CONTAIN</strong> results were compared with a) measurements <strong>for</strong> tests<br />

(closed vessel) test Jon88b deposition and involving sodium-fire aerosols and metallic sodium drops in closed<br />

dataand code-to- coagulation vesselsand b) calculatedresultsfrom other codes, particularlythe<br />

codecomparison, PARDISEKOcode. <strong>CONTAIN</strong>was found to provide a realistic<br />

PARDISEKO simulation<strong>of</strong> aerosolbehaviorwith the modification,implementedby the<br />

code authors,in the procedure<strong>for</strong> accounting<strong>for</strong> turbulentdeposition. Note<br />

that these referencessupersedeJon87 and, in particular,correcta<br />

conclusionmade in this earlier reference that the <strong>CONTAIN</strong> aerosol<br />

calculations were grossly in error.<br />

Sodium fire tests ---- Lhi90 1.10 General aerosol The <strong>CONTAIN</strong> aerosol modeling was validated by the test measurements<br />

and code-to-codel behavior, and the comparisons with other codes with the exception that the wall<br />

PARDISEKO, including deposition calculated by <strong>CONTAIN</strong> was lower than measured.<br />

AEROSIM, and agglomeration and<br />

AEROSOUB2 deposition<br />

codes<br />

ABCOVE (dry) ---- Lei87 1.10 Aerosol <strong>CONTAIN</strong> results were compared with test data and MELCOR-code<br />

aerosol tests/ deposition results. They compared a) within approximately 10% <strong>of</strong> the test results <strong>for</strong><br />

AB5, AB6, and the gravitational and diffusional deposition, b) poorly with the test results<br />

AB7 <strong>for</strong> deposition caused by turbulence, and c) very well with the MELCOR<br />

results.<br />

ABCOVE ---- Lei87 1.0 Aerosol Participation in the ABCOVE program included comparisons <strong>of</strong><br />

experimental Ber85 agglomeration, <strong>CONTAIN</strong> results with a) calculated results from other codes and b) test<br />

program Mur83a co-agglomeration results. In addition to the models mentioned, the <strong>CONTAIN</strong> discrete<br />

and deposition modeling approach was compared to the lognormal approach. The<br />

comparisons provided strong confirmation <strong>of</strong> <strong>CONTAIN</strong>’s ability to<br />

model one- and two-component aerosol behavior in dry conditions.<br />

Rev. O C-36 6/30/97<br />

(i (

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!