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
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Dec 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
January 2026
Nuclear Technology
December 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
Christmas Light
’Twas the night before Christmas when all through the house
No electrons were flowing through even my mouse.
All devices were plugged by the chimney with care
With the hope that St. Nikola Tesla would share.
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.