ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Jan 2026
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2026
Nuclear Technology
January 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
Jeff Place on INPO’s strategy for industry growth
As executive vice president for industry strategy at the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Jeff Place leads INPO’s industry-facing work, engaging directly with chief nuclear officers.
Philip E. MacDonald, James M. Broughton, Jay W. Spore
Nuclear Technology | Volume 44 | Number 3 | August 1979 | Pages 401-410
Technical Paper | Reactor Siting | doi.org/10.13182/NT79-A32275
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A preliminary evaluation was made of the results from the LOC-11 nuclear blowdown tests conducted in the Power Burst Facility. The objective of the LOC-11 tests was to measure the thermal and mechanical deformation behavior of pressurized and unpressurized fuel rods exposed to a blowdown (coolant depressurization) similar to that expected in a pressurized water reactor (PWR) during a hypothesized double-ended cold-leg break. Incipient fuel rod cladding collapse and swelling occurred during Test LOC-11C, when the two unpressurized and two pressurized PWR-type rods were exposed to a system blowdown with measured cladding temperatures increasing to 1030 K. To better understand the test results and to evaluate prediction capability, RELAP4-calculated coolant thermal-hydraulic and fuel rod thermal behavior and FRAP-T4-calculated fuel rod mechanical deformation behavior were compared with the test LOC-11C data. The RELAP4 posttest calculations of coolant behavior generally agreed well with the measured coolant behavior; however, the calculated cladding surface temperatures were ∼50 K greater than measured. The FRAP-T4 calculations of cladding deformation using “best-estimate” models slightly overpredicted the observed ballooning of the pressurized rods and underpredicted the collapse of the unpressurized rods.