Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Steam explosion

A steam explosion is a violent physical process in which a or other rapidly vaporizes into upon contact with a hot material, such as molten metal or superheated , generating an abrupt surge that can fragment the interacting materials and propagate as a detonation-like event. The mechanism hinges on the instability and collapse of the initial vapor film separating the phases, leading to intimate mixing, fine-scale fragmentation, and accelerated rates far exceeding conductive limits. This phenomenon manifests in diverse settings, including severe accidents where molten core material interacts with , metallurgical processes involving molten alloys and water ingress, and steam boiler failures due to overpressurization or dry-firing. Significant incidents underscore its destructive potential, such as the 1995 firebox explosion of a on the Railroad, which ejected flames and superheated fragments, severely injuring crew members, and various industrial boiler ruptures that have demolished facilities and caused fatalities. In nuclear contexts, steam explosions have been implicated in accident progression, though empirical data from experiments indicate that full-scale escalation remains challenging due to hydrodynamic instabilities and effects, informing safety analyses that prioritize integrity over worst-case energetics. strategies emphasize design barriers to prevent initial contacts, rapid , and systems, grounded in empirical scaling studies rather than overly conservative assumptions.

Fundamentals of Steam Explosions

Definition and Basic Characteristics

A steam explosion is a physical explosion arising from the , violent vaporization of a superheated liquid, most commonly , into upon triggering, which induces a sudden volumetric —typically by a factor of over 1,000—and generates intense pressure waves and shock fronts capable of causing structural damage or fragmentation. This process differs from chemical explosions, as it relies solely on thermodynamic phase change rather than exothermic reactions, with energy release stemming from the latent heat of converted into kinetic and pressure work. The event requires a precondition of metastable superheating, where the liquid exceeds its saturation temperature without nucleate boiling, often due to lack of nucleation sites or suppression by pressure. Key characteristics include a multi-stage progression: initial premixing of a hot "" (e.g., molten material or superheated fluid) with the liquid, triggering via hydrodynamic or jolt that collapses vapor films and enables fine-scale fragmentation for enhanced , rapid propagation of the front through the mixture, and final expansion that converts to expulsion of materials. Efficiencies of this thermal-to-mechanical conversion are low, typically below 1-5% in experimental observations, limiting total destructiveness relative to the available heat content but still yielding pressures exceeding 100 locally and velocities of ejected fragments up to hundreds of m/s. Steam explosions are probabilistic, dependent on mixture conditions like void fraction and droplet size (often 1 cm or smaller for effective triggering), and can occur in diverse settings from boilers to molten metal handling, though they pose heightened risks in accidents involving corium-water interactions.

Thermodynamic and Physical Mechanisms

A steam explosion arises from the rapid, unstable of a superheated to vapor, driven by the release of stored in a metastable state. occurs when a , such as , is heated above its without due to clean surfaces or absence of impurities, storing excess energy as beyond the saturation . This metastable condition persists until a trigger disrupts the energy barrier for bubble formation, typically via mechanical disturbance, pressure drop, or particulate introduction. Upon initiation, the involves near-instantaneous of superheat into of , generating high-velocity bubbles that expand against the surrounding . For at and 100°C, the of saturated vapor is approximately 1.67 m³/kg compared to 0.001 m³/kg for , yielding a expansion ratio of about 1600:1. This expansion, occurring on timescales, produces a pressure surge as the vapor displaces the incompressible , with peak pressures potentially reaching tens of in confined geometries depending on the degree of superheat and confinement. The efficiency of thermal-to-mechanical is limited, often below 1% in models, due to non-ideal mixing and heat losses, but sufficient to drive destructive shock waves. Physically, the explosion's dynamics are governed by inertial forces and interfacial phenomena, where the accelerating vapor front induces cavitation and fragmentation of the liquid phase. In fuel-coolant interactions, such as molten metal contacting water, the initial vapor film collapse triggers hydrodynamic instabilities, notably Rayleigh-Taylor instability at the melt-coolant interface accelerated by buoyancy differences. This instability promotes rapid breakup of the denser hot phase into fine particles, exponentially increasing the heat transfer surface area and fueling propagating vapor explosions. Propagation relies on pressure pulses fragmenting adjacent premixed material, with the overall energetics modeled via two-phase flow equations balancing momentum, mass, and energy conservation. Empirical scaling laws from experiments indicate that explosion yield correlates with the cube root of the interacting mass and superheat level, underscoring the role of geometric and material properties in confining inertial effects.

Preconditions and Initiation Triggers

Superheated Liquids and Metastable Conditions

A superheated exists in a state where its exceeds the normal at the given without undergoing to vapor, rendering it metastable and susceptible to rapid destabilization. This condition arises when nucleation sites—such as impurities, container walls, or mechanical disturbances—are insufficient to initiate , allowing the liquid to store excess . The superheat limit (SLT), typically around 0.9 times the critical of the liquid, marks the kinetic boundary beyond which homogeneous spontaneously occurs, forming vapor bubbles that expand explosively. In the context of steam explosions, superheated liquids serve as a critical , particularly during fuel-coolant interactions (FCI) where a hot melt, such as molten corium in reactors, contacts a cooler like . rapidly elevates the coolant temperature above its saturation point, creating a metastable superheated layer separated by a vapor during the premixing phase, which can persist for 0.1 to 1 second. Disruption of this —via hydrodynamic instabilities like Rayleigh-Taylor effects or external triggers such as pressure pulses—induces direct contact, triggering heterogeneous or homogeneous and ultrafast vapor generation. The released energy, equivalent to the of multiplied by the superheat degree, drives the explosive expansion, with conversion efficiencies determining the explosion yield. Metastable conditions amplify risks in industrial scenarios, including boiler failures where superheated water flashes to upon rupture, or in metallurgical processes involving molten metal-water contact. Predictive frameworks, such as those based on modified Redlich-Kwong equations of , estimate SLT with deviations under 1% for numerous chemicals, aiding by quantifying the thermodynamic . Empirical models for premixing, incorporating droplet breakup correlations like D(T^+) = D(0) \exp(-C \mathrm{We}^{0.246} (T^+)^{1/2}), highlight how void fractions and melt fragmentation sustain metastability until initiation. These principles underscore that steam explosions hinge on the precise balance of superheat accumulation and perturbation thresholds, rather than solely hydrodynamic mixing.

Fuel-Coolant Interactions and External Triggers

Fuel-coolant interactions (FCI) occur when a hot or molten fuel material, such as corium in accidents or molten metal in , contacts a like , potentially leading to steam explosions if rapid and hydrodynamic instabilities align. The process begins with premixing, where the denser melt disperses into the lighter via jet breakup or pour modes, forming droplets or fragments stabilized by a vapor film from initial boiling. This film prevents direct contact, but instabilities like Rayleigh-Taylor can fragment the melt, exponentially increasing interfacial area and , with rates exceeding 10^7 W/m² in microseconds-scale interactions. Non-energetic FCIs dissipate heat gradually without explosion, whereas energetic ones require subsequent triggering for vapor film collapse, enabling microsecond-scale and explosive . Empirical data from corium-water tests indicate conversion efficiencies of 1-5% of melt to mechanical work in triggered cases, far below theoretical maxima due to incomplete propagation. External triggers are critical for initiating the dynamic phase of steam explosions in FCIs, as spontaneous collapses are rare without favorable conditions like entrapment of by melt. These triggers the vapor film, allowing direct fuel- contact and rapid buildup; common methods in experiments include mechanical shocks from pistons or rods, propagating pulses up to 10 , or electrical discharges via exploding wires immersed in the mixture. In simulant tests, such as those using alumina or corium melts, external triggers consistently produced explosions absent in untriggered pours, with peak pressures reaching 20-50 and energy yields scaling with melt superheat (e.g., >200°C above Leidenfrost point). For instance, TROI experiments with 70 wt% UO₂ corium at 2400°C yielded triggered explosions upon impact triggering, converting ~2% of melt to blast energy, while untriggered interactions remained subcritical. Industrial analogs, like accidental molten metal-water contacts in foundries, similarly depend on external perturbations such as falling debris or shocks to escalate beyond local . Propagation following triggering amplifies the if fresh melt-coolant interfaces sustain the , but effects limit this; OECD-NEA reviews note that higher system pressures (>1 MPa) suppress explosions by stabilizing films, reducing trigger efficacy. Credible modeling from U.S. analyses emphasizes that while lab-scale triggers reliably induce explosions, prototypic reactor geometries (e.g., debris beds) often mitigate risks via or voiding, with probabilistic assessments estimating FCI contributions to vessel failure at <1% in severe accident sequences. These insights derive from peer-reviewed experiments avoiding overreliance on biased simulations, prioritizing direct measurements of pressure traces and high-speed imaging to validate causal chains from trigger to expansion.

Historical and Notable Examples

Early Industrial Boiler Incidents

During the early industrial era of the 19th century, steam boiler explosions were a frequent hazard in Britain and the United States, driven by rapid adoption of high-pressure in factories, mills, and early commercial steamboats without standardized safety practices. In Britain, recorded explosions rose sharply with industrialization: from 2 incidents causing 3 fatalities between 1800 and 1809, to 104 explosions and 209 deaths in the 1840s, escalating to 483 explosions and 710 fatalities in the 1860s. In the U.S., explosions occurred roughly every four days during the 1850s, with 159 documented in 1880 alone amid expanding factory use. Primary causes included poor boiler construction, such as weak lap-riveted joints prone to corrosion and leakage; operational errors like insufficient water levels leading to overheating of fireboxes; and misuse, including blocking safety valves with debris or overloading pressure beyond design limits (often 30-50 psi in early systems). These failures typically resulted in rapid superheating of boiler components, structural rupture, and explosive release of steam and fragments, amplifying damage in densely packed industrial sites. The following table summarizes reported steam boiler explosions in Britain, highlighting the correlation with growing steam engine horsepower in fixed industrial applications:
DecadeExplosionsFatalitiesInjuries
1800-1809235
1840-1849104209338
1850-1859248486588
1860-1869483710926
Notable early incidents underscored these risks. On December 15, 1845, at Rothwell & Kitts' Newtown Mill in Bolton, England, a wagon-type boiler exploded due to a leaking lap-riveted joint, destroying a six-story structure, killing 10 workers instantly (with one more death shortly after), severely scalding 8 others, and scattering debris that damaged nearby buildings and a railway line. In the U.S., steamboat boilers—integral to early industrial transport—frequently failed; the exploded in 1830, killing over 50 passengers and crew from excessive pressure and sediment buildup, while the on April 25, 1838, claimed around 250 lives due to multiple boiler ruptures from low water and negligence. Another stationary example occurred on February 4, 1850, in New York's Hague Street, where a vertical boiler at a printing press manufacturer burst, causing significant structural damage and injuries amid urban industrial density. These events, often investigated post-facto by local authorities or parliamentary committees, revealed systemic issues like operator ignorance and absent regulations, as early laws (e.g., ) ignored boilers despite mounting evidence of preventable failures from basic thermodynamic mismanagement. Fatalities stemmed directly from blast forces, scalding steam, and projectiles, with industrial proximity exacerbating casualties; for instance, the in Britain killed 10 and injured 20 in a textile facility. While immediate responses were limited to ad-hoc inquiries, cumulative pressure from such incidents contributed to later reforms, though early industrial reliance on trial-and-error persisted due to economic incentives for higher pressures without corresponding safety engineering.

Nuclear Reactor-Associated Events

The SL-1 (Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One) accident occurred on January 3, 1961, at the National Reactor Testing Station (now Idaho National Laboratory) in Idaho, United States, marking the first fatal nuclear reactor incident involving a steam explosion. During a routine maintenance procedure to reconnect the control rod drive mechanism, a technician withdrew the central control rod by approximately 20 inches (51 cm) beyond its designed limit, initiating a prompt-critical power excursion. This caused the reactor's thermal power to surge to an estimated 20 gigawatts in about 4 milliseconds, rapidly vaporizing the coolant water and generating a destructive steam explosion that severed the main steam line and lifted the 9-ton reactor vessel approximately 9 feet (2.7 meters) into the air. The blast killed all three operators instantly: one was impaled on the control rod, another pinned by the vessel lid, and the third suffered fatal injuries from the pressure wave and flying debris; no significant off-site radiation release occurred due to the reactor's small fuel inventory of about 32 kilograms of uranium-235. Investigations attributed the event to inadequate safety margins in the reactor design, which lacked sufficient control rods and relied on a single primary rod for shutdown, compounded by procedural errors and possible human factors such as fatigue or interpersonal tensions among the crew. The Chernobyl disaster on April 26, 1986, at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Pripyat, Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine), involved the most severe steam explosion in nuclear reactor history, rated Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale. During a low-power safety test simulating an emergency cooling scenario, operators disabled key safety systems and violated protocols, leading to a sudden reactivity insertion from xenon poisoning burnout and steam void formation in the RBMK-1000 graphite-moderated reactor core. At 1:23:40 a.m., the power surged uncontrollably to over 100 times nominal levels, causing fuel cladding failures and massive steam generation; this triggered a primary steam explosion that ruptured the reactor vessel and destroyed the core structure, followed seconds later by a secondary explosion likely from hydrogen-oxygen recombination or steam pressure, which demolished the reactor building roof and ignited graphite fires. The initial steam explosion ejected approximately 1,000 metric tons of concrete and metal debris, releasing an estimated 5-10% of the core's 190 metric tons of uranium fuel directly into the atmosphere, along with volatile fission products like iodine-131 and cesium-137, resulting in immediate deaths of two plant workers from the blast and acute radiation syndrome claiming 28 more lives among emergency responders within weeks. Long-term consequences included widespread radioactive contamination across Europe, with over 100,000 evacuations and attributions of thousands of excess cancer cases, though precise figures remain debated due to epidemiological challenges; the event exposed inherent RBMK design flaws, such as positive void coefficients and inadequate containment, which amplified the steam-driven destructiveness. Other nuclear incidents have featured steam explosions on a lesser scale, such as experimental transients in reactors like (1954) and (1962), where rapid power excursions led to core damage and steam-driven ejections during deliberate safety tests, informing subsequent design improvements but without fatalities or public releases. These events underscore steam explosions' rarity in commercial power reactors post-1960s due to enhanced safety features like multiple independent shutdown systems and negative reactivity coefficients, though they highlight vulnerabilities in early or experimental designs where superheated coolant interactions with fuel can propagate catastrophic failures.

Natural and Geological Occurrences

Steam explosions in natural and geological contexts arise from the rapid vaporization of water due to intense heat from magmatic or geothermal sources, generating high-pressure steam that fragments surrounding rock and propels ejecta. These events, distinct from magmatic eruptions, involve no significant release of fresh magma and are driven by the thermodynamic instability of superheated liquids transitioning to vapor. Phreatic and hydrothermal variants predominate, with phreatic eruptions occurring when subsurface magma flashes groundwater to steam, while hydrothermal explosions stem from pressurized geothermal systems. Phreatic eruptions exemplify steam-driven geological violence, where heat from intruding magma or hot volcanic rocks superheats confined groundwater, causing instantaneous boiling and explosive decompression that ejects pulverized country rock. At in Hawaii, a series of phreatic explosions in 1924 enlarged Halemaʻumaʻu crater from 1,400 feet to 3,000 feet in diameter over 18 days of intermittent steam blasts. These eruptions produce ash clouds and ballistic fragments but lack juvenile magmatic components, relying solely on the energy from steam expansion. Hydrothermal explosions occur in active geothermal fields, such as , where percolating water accumulates heat and minerals, building pressure until seals rupture and superheated fluids flash to steam, hurling debris skyward. On July 23, 2024, an explosion at Biscuit Basin's Black Diamond Pool ejected rocks and muddy water hundreds of feet high, closing the area due to instability; such events recur every decade to several decades in Yellowstone, with ancient craters like —formed around 13,000 years ago—reaching diameters over 1 mile. These blasts result from clogs in subsurface plumbing that trap escalating steam pressure, independent of magmatic input. Littoral explosions manifest where molten lava contacts seawater, triggering localized steam bursts from fine-scale fuel-coolant interactions at the interface. During Kīlauea's 1993-1994 episode at Waikupanaha, four explosion types—tephra jets, lithic blasts, bubble bursts, and rootless ejections—propelled fragments up to 30 meters, forming temporary littoral cones of hyaloclastic debris. These differ from phreatic events by involving direct thermal exchange without deep groundwater, often producing steam plumes and minor tephra but limited by the confined interaction zone.

Post-2000 Industrial and Accidental Cases

On July 18, 2007, a 24-inch diameter steam pipe installed in 1924 ruptured in Midtown Manhattan near Grand Central Terminal, releasing superheated steam at approximately 100 pounds per square inch and temperatures exceeding 200°C, propelling debris over 200 feet into the air and creating a geyser-like plume visible for blocks. The incident occurred during evening rush hour, leading to the evacuation of thousands and temporary disruption of subway services, with 45 people injured primarily from falls or thermal exposure, and one fatality attributed to a pedestrian falling into the resulting crater. Investigations by the New York Public Service Commission determined the primary cause as the failure of a defective check valve allowing condensate accumulation and subsequent water hammer upon steam reintroduction, exacerbated by corrosion in the aging cast-iron infrastructure. In November 2007, a boiler explosion at the Salem Harbor Station power plant in Salem, Massachusetts, killed three workers and injured others when a tube failure in the unit's furnace released high-pressure steam and hot gases. The incident involved a 1950s-era boiler where inadequate maintenance and inspection allowed corrosion and cracking in the water wall tubes to propagate undetected, leading to a sudden rupture during operation at 1,000 psi. Post-accident analysis highlighted deficiencies in operator training and pressure vessel integrity checks, contributing to the uncontrolled release of steam that demolished sections of the boiler house. On April 3, 2017, a semi-closed steam receiver vessel at the Loy-Lange Box Company in St. Louis, Missouri, catastrophically failed during startup, ejecting the 3,000-pound bottom head over 300 feet and killing one employee on-site and three bystanders off-site from blast fragments and structural collapse. The vessel, operating at 125 psig steam pressure, experienced rapid pressurization after cold water was introduced into the hot, partially filled drum as per routine procedure, inducing thermal stress and brittle fracture due to inadequate design for such thermal transients. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board report emphasized that the startup method violated basic pressure relief principles and lacked safeguards against water hammer, underscoring systemic issues in small industrial steam systems. Electric arc furnace operations in steel production have seen multiple steam explosions post-2000 from water ingress into molten metal, such as incidents documented in industry analyses where undetected leaks caused violent fuel-coolant interactions, resulting in fatalities and mill damage; for instance, a 2010 event at a U.S. facility injured several workers due to steam generation from scrap contamination. These cases illustrate ongoing risks from metastable superheated conditions in high-temperature industrial processes, often mitigated insufficiently despite known triggers like roof leaks or wet charge materials.

Scientific Modeling and Experimental Insights

Theoretical Frameworks and Simulations

The theoretical understanding of steam explosions centers on fuel-coolant interactions (FCI), where superheated melt contacts a cooler fluid, leading to rapid vaporization if certain preconditions are met. Key frameworks distinguish premixing, triggering, and propagation phases: during premixing, the melt fragments into fine droplets primarily through hydrodynamic instabilities such as and mechanisms, enhancing surface area for heat transfer. Triggering involves an external perturbation, like a pressure shock or void collapse, that destabilizes the vapor film around melt fragments, initiating explosive vapor generation. Propagation then escalates via pressure wave-induced further fragmentation and void expansion, converting thermal energy into mechanical work with efficiencies typically below 10% in most scenarios, though higher in optimized conditions. These models draw analogies to detonation waves in combustion, emphasizing interfacial instabilities and kinetic limits on evaporation-condensation rates derived from kinetic theory. Early theoretical models, such as those proposed in the 1980s, focused on one-dimensional approximations of droplet interactions but evolved to incorporate multidimensional effects by the 1990s, addressing limitations in predicting large-scale coherence of the explosion. Probabilistic frameworks integrate these phases to assess risks, quantifying uncertainties in melt characteristics, coolant void fraction, and trigger thresholds, as seen in analyses of where steam explosion likelihood is tied to coherent debris masses exceeding critical fragmentation sizes. In non-nuclear contexts, such as molten metal-water interactions, similar causal chains apply, with emphasis on metastable superheat and rapid phase change kinetics, though without the radiological constraints. Numerical simulations employ multiphase computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes to model these dynamics, often in Eulerian-Eulerian frameworks resolving melt, liquid coolant, and vapor phases. The , for instance, couples premixing with explosion propagation using interphase transfer models for heat, mass, and momentum, validated against integral experiments like those from the involving corium drops in water pools. Such simulations predict pressure peaks and cavity loading by incorporating turbulence models and interfacial area concentrations, revealing sensitivities to initial melt temperature (e.g., 2000–2500°C for corium) and subcooling levels below 20 K as suppressors of explosivity. Advanced approaches integrate smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) with finite element methods (FEM) for capturing shock propagation and structural response, as in ex-vessel scenarios where simulations forecast cavity overpressures up to 10 MPa from 100 kg melt releases. Three-dimensional models of single-droplet interactions highlight microscale void dynamics, with explosion energies scaling as the cube of droplet radius under ideal triggering. Probabilistic Monte Carlo variants, embedded in codes like ESPROSE.m, evaluate ensemble outcomes for reactor geometries, confirming low unconditional probabilities (e.g., <10^{-3} per event) due to premixing inefficiencies. These tools underscore that while simulations reproduce experimental pressure traces within 20–30% accuracy, discrepancies persist in fine-fragment production, necessitating ongoing refinement via high-speed imaging and inverse modeling.

Laboratory and Scaled Experiments

Laboratory experiments on steam explosions focus on small-scale interactions between molten simulants and coolants to elucidate mechanisms like rapid heat transfer, fragmentation, and pressure generation. Over 300 tests conducted between the late 1970s and early 1980s utilized 10-37 g samples of core material simulants, such as mixtures of aluminum oxide and stainless steel, arc-melted and released into subcooled water to study triggering thresholds and explosion efficiency. These experiments demonstrated that spontaneous explosions require sufficient melt superheat (typically above 300°C for tin simulants) and interfacial instability, with conversion efficiencies—defined as the fraction of thermal energy converted to mechanical work—ranging from 0.1% to 5% in successful triggers. More recent laboratory setups, such as the MISTEE facility at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Sweden, have investigated multi-droplet interactions using molten tin (up to 1 g per droplet) released into water or seawater pools. In tests performed around 2024, peak explosion pressures increased nonlinearly with total melt mass, reaching up to 10 MPa for 5-10 droplets, while explosion initiation depths were shallower in seawater due to higher density and altered void dynamics. Similarly, the VULCAN apparatus, designed for jet fragmentation studies, involved dropping small molten jets (e.g., 0.5-2 g) of low-melting alloys into 20-50 cm deep water pools, observing repeated expansion-contraction cycles with average intervals of 5-10 ms and explosion counts scaling with jet mass. These findings highlight the role of coherent void collapse in amplifying pressures, though multi-droplet scenarios introduce variability from droplet coalescence and uneven mixing. Scaled experiments bridge laboratory insights to reactor-scale applications, employing kilogram quantities of corium simulants (e.g., mixtures of , , and steel) in facilities simulating ex-vessel fuel-coolant interactions (). The at the in 2015 tested prototypic melts totaling 60-80 kg poured from a reactor pressure vessel () surrogate into a 1-2 m deep water pool, resulting in melt dispersal over 60% of the initial mass but no spontaneous steam explosion, attributed to insufficient fine fragmentation during premixing. Intermediate-scale tests, such as those in the 1980s-1990s using 1-10 kg melts, confirmed rapid mixing in the lower plenum but low propagation efficiency, with pressures rarely exceeding 1-5 MPa due to steam blanketing and coarse debris beds. International compilations like the STEX-II database, maintained by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and updated through 2010, aggregate over 1,000 records from global FCI experiments, enabling probabilistic assessments of explosion yields. Analyses from these datasets indicate that while local explosions occur reliably under high superheat (ΔT > 200°C), global coherent detonations—potentially threatening —are precluded in most scaled geometries by limited interfacial area and hydrodynamic stabilization, with overall risk probabilities below 0.01 in LWR severe models. Such experiments underscore that steam explosion severity depends causally on premix void fraction (optimal 20-40%) and trigger timing, informing conservative safety margins without overreliance on rare high-efficiency events.

Risks, Consequences, and Impact Assessment

Blast Dynamics and Structural Damage

Steam explosions produce blast dynamics characterized by rapid conversion of into mechanical work through violent phase change, generating high-pressure shock waves and expansion pulses. The process unfolds in distinct phases: premixing of hot material with , triggering via film collapse or , propagation of the interaction through hydrodynamic instabilities like Rayleigh-Taylor mechanisms, and final expansion of vapor bubbles. Peak pressures from these events are typically lower than those of high chemical explosives, with energy conversion efficiencies bounded conservatively at up to 15% of the available in large-scale fuel- interactions. Pressure wave propagation in steam explosions involves shock-like compressions that can condense surrounding or vapor, amplifying changes and leading to sustained fluctuations. In confined geometries, such as cavities or rooms, these waves reflect and amplify, creating dynamic loads with incident pressures measured via embedded tracers in simulations, often on the order of those from equivalent detonations for scaling purposes. The expansion phase disperses fragmented material as missiles, with the determined by the exploded mass and confinement, potentially extending damage over tens of meters in industrial settings. Structural damage from steam explosion blasts primarily arises from direct loading, fragmentation, and secondary impacts from or slugs of material. In incidents, the unleashed propels dirt, piping, and ceiling fragments, causing widespread rupture of enclosures and potential collapse of adjacent structures. For nuclear fuel-coolant interactions, while internal components like vessels experience severe blast-induced deformation, structures often sustain negligible damage due to design margins exceeding typical pressures. In the 2007 steam pipe rupture, equivalent to a steam explosion, the blast excavated a 40-meter , collapsed a building facade, and scattered , illustrating how subsurface confinement can intensify localized structural failure. Probabilistic assessments indicate that while explosions can challenge integrity through pulses and strikes, failure modes are mitigated by material and geometric dispersion.

Human Casualties, Environmental Effects, and Probabilistic Risks

Steam explosions have caused fatalities and injuries primarily through blast forces, thermal exposure, and projection in industrial, maritime, and nuclear settings. In the 2003 SS Norway incident, a killed eight crew members and injured 19 others due to release and structural failure. The 2007 pipe rupture resulted in one death from during evacuation and injuries to 45 individuals from , , and . Similarly, a 2020 pipe explosion at a VA killed two maintenance workers and injured three via direct blast impact. In nuclear contexts, the 1961 reactor explosion impaled and killed three operators instantly from rapid pressure buildup. At in 1986, the initial explosion contributed to two immediate operator deaths amid broader reactor destruction. Environmental effects of steam explosions are typically localized and short-term, involving thermal disruption, water vapor dispersal, and potential contaminant release rather than widespread ecological damage. The 2007 NYC event dispersed asbestos from aging insulation, contaminating streets and necessitating extensive cleanup to mitigate inhalation and deposition risks. In non-urban industrial cases, explosions may eject hot condensate and fragments, scalding vegetation or soil but without persistent chemical legacies absent specific pollutants like fuels or metals. Nuclear-associated steam explosions risk aerosolizing fission products if fuel is fragmented, though primary environmental concern stems from subsequent fires or melts rather than the explosion mechanism itself. Overall, absent radiological or toxic inventories, recovery occurs rapidly post-event due to steam's transient nature. Probabilistic risk assessments quantify explosion likelihood as low in engineered systems, informed by failure mode analysis and historical data. In plant Level 2 , ex-vessel explosions from molten -concrete interactions carry conditional probabilities of 0.001 to 0.1 given damage, with variability from triggering criteria like melt pour dynamics; some analyses deem them negligible for integrity. For industrial pipelines, quantitative risk models estimate individual fatality risks below 10^{-5} per year near high-pressure lines, factoring rupture frequencies around 10^{-4} to 10^{-5} per km-year and radii. systems exhibit explosion rates under 10^{-7} per operating hour in regulated environments, mitigated by pressure relief and inspections, though aging elevates conditional hazards. These assessments emphasize deterministic safeguards over probabilistic extremes, as empirical incident rates remain sparse post-safety evolutions.

Prevention Strategies and Safety Engineering

Design and Material Safeguards

Design principles for preventing steam explosions emphasize isolating incompatible fluids, managing phase change rates, and incorporating redundant pressure relief mechanisms to dissipate energy before critical thresholds are reached. In nuclear reactors, core catcher systems in advanced light water reactors, such as those in VVER-1000 designs, utilize dry reactor pits and specialized spreading geometries to relocate molten corium without inducing fuel-coolant interactions (FCI), thereby avoiding energetic explosions during ex-vessel melt retention. These catchers employ thermally resistant ceramic-concrete composites to distribute heat loads and facilitate controlled cooling via flooding only after stabilization, reducing fragmentation and vaporization risks. structures, featuring walls at least 1 meter thick and lined with , are engineered to withstand hypothetical steam explosion pressures up to design limits derived from probabilistic assessments, confining potential releases. Material selections prioritize resistance and minimal reactivity to suppress explosive fragmentation. Zirconium alloy fuel cladding in pressurized reactors encases pellets, maintaining integrity under high temperatures to prevent premature dispersal that could trigger FCI, with stability up to approximately 2,200°C before significant degradation. In core catchers, refractory materials like high-alumina ceramics or sacrificial metallic layers absorb and redistribute corium heat, inhibiting rapid coolant ingress and steam generation. For industrial boilers governed by ASME Boiler and Code (BPVC) Section I, vessels are fabricated from carbon or alloy steels with specified minimum tensile strengths (e.g., SA-516 Grade 70 at 70 ), designed for operating pressures with safety factors of 4 or higher against bursting, complemented by rupture disks. In molten metal processing, such as aluminum casting, safeguards include injecting non-condensable gases like at controlled rates (e.g., 0.1-1 L/min per kg of melt) into water-melt interfaces to disrupt bubble collapse and inhibit pocket formation, as demonstrated in experiments preventing explosions in direct-chill pits. linings, typically alumina-silicate or magnesia-based with densities exceeding 2.5 g/cm³, provide barriers against penetration in furnaces, while preheating to remove reduces ignition sources. -cooled molds incorporate insulated coatings or geometric baffles to limit convective rates below explosive thresholds (e.g., <10^6 W/m²). These measures, validated through scaled testing, ensure that material properties like low wettability and high in melts (e.g., aluminum at ~1 mPa·s) minimize fine fragmentation essential for efficient energy transfer in explosions.

Operational and Regulatory Measures

Operational measures to mitigate steam explosions emphasize personnel , , and procedural safeguards during and operations. Operators must undergo certified in control, startup sequences, and shutdowns to avoid fuel-rich conditions or rapid buildup that could trigger explosive vaporization. interlocks automatically halt supply if parameters like water levels or furnace deviate, preventing overfiring or dry-firing scenarios common in steam-generating systems. Routine blowdown procedures remove accumulated solids from bottoms under controlled low-load conditions to maintain and avert localized . In industrial settings involving molten materials, operational protocols include segregating water sources from high-temperature zones via robust and cooling systems, with immediate valves activated upon to curb generation. For facilities, procedures mandate maintaining inventories and employing core catchers or deflector geometries to fragment molten corium, reducing the coherence needed for energetic fuel-coolant interactions. Regulatory frameworks enforce these measures through mandatory compliance with codes like ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section I, which requires power to feature multiple safety valves calibrated to relieve pressure at no more than 105% of maximum allowable working pressure, alongside hydrostatic testing at 1.5 times design pressure. NFPA 85 standard governs single- and multiple-burner exceeding 12.5 million Btu/hr, stipulating prevention via cycles, ignition safeguards, and monitoring to eliminate unburned fuel accumulation. OSHA regulations under 29 CFR 1910.119 for apply to facilities handling hazardous chemicals in systems, mandating hazard analyses, operating procedures, and mechanical inspections to address risks. In contexts, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSR-2/1 require provisions such as dry cavities to preclude high-energy during ex-vessel accidents, with probabilistic assessments quantifying low occurrence probabilities based on empirical scaling . Jurisdictional inspections by bodies like the National Board of Boiler and verify adherence, with certificates renewed biennially for high-pressure units to ensure ongoing against precursors like or . Non-compliance has historically correlated with incidents, underscoring the causal link between lapsed oversight and modes.

Controlled Applications and Beneficial Uses

Biomass Pretreatment and Resource Processing

Steam explosion pretreatment involves subjecting lignocellulosic biomass to saturated steam at temperatures of 160–260°C and pressures of 7–50 bar for several minutes, followed by rapid decompression that induces mechanical shear forces to disrupt the rigid structure of lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose. This process, often divided into a steam impregnation phase and an explosive decompression phase, hydrolyzes hemicellulose into sugars while increasing the porosity and surface area of the biomass, thereby enhancing enzymatic accessibility for downstream conversion into biofuels or biochemicals. Unlike chemical pretreatments, basic steam explosion requires no added catalysts, minimizing waste generation and operational costs, though acid-catalyzed variants (e.g., with SO₂) can further improve hemicellulose solubilization at milder conditions. In applications, steam explosion facilitates the production of second-generation bioethanol by pretreating agricultural residues, wastes, and energy crops such as wheat straw or , where it can achieve removal rates of up to 90% and boost subsequent glucose yields from enzymatic by 2–4 times compared to untreated . For instance, two-stage steam explosion at 200–220°C has been shown to reduce particle size and content in , enabling titers of over 70 g/L in processes. implementations, such as ANDRITZ's SteamEx system, integrate this pretreatment into biorefineries to process up to 500 tons of dry per day, converting it into fermentable sugars for or while recovering byproducts like from degradation. The severity of the , quantified by the combined severity factor (CSF = log(R₀·t^φ), where R₀ = exp((T-100)/14.75), t is in minutes, and φ ≈ 0.8), must be optimized to balance sugar release against inhibitor formation like , which can inhibit microbial if CSF exceeds 2.5. Beyond biofuels, steam explosion aids resource processing by enabling efficient extraction of value-added compounds from wastes. In food and feed applications, it disrupts cell walls in crop byproducts like rice husks or , increasing yields of xylooligosaccharides (up to 20–30 g/) via or enhancing protein for , with extraction efficiencies rising 27–95% post-treatment. For nutraceuticals, mild steam explosion (e.g., 1.5 , 10–20 minutes) hydrolyzes glycosidic bonds in plant materials to yield antioxidants like from rutin-rich sources or improves in grains, converting insoluble forms to water-soluble ones at rates exceeding 50%. Additionally, post-explosion densification of pretreated fibers produces high-density pellets from low-grade residues, expanding feedstock options for or pellet fuels with energy densities comparable to wood chips but improved grindability. These applications underscore steam explosion's role in circular bioeconomies, though energy inputs (typically 1–2 / ) and equipment durability under cyclic pressures remain challenges for scalability.

Other Engineered Implementations

Steam explosion technology has been engineered for applications in , particularly for valorizing by-products through structural modification and enhanced of bioactive compounds. In animal-derived waste, it facilitates from bovine hides with yields up to three times higher than conventional methods, employing conditions of 110–130°C for 60–600 seconds, by rupturing matrices via . Similarly, it improves peptide recovery from bones to 60.5% and accelerates from shells compared to acid , minimizing chemical use while preserving bioactivity. For plant-based by-products, steam explosion disrupts cell walls to boost yields from peels and from leaves by 55.9%, under pressures of 0.2–2.5 for 30–480 seconds, enhancing properties without toxic residues. It also converts insoluble into soluble forms, as in apple yielding 29.85% soluble , improving water-holding capacity and digestibility for ingredients. In powder processing, treatment at optimized severities increases protein solubility and reduces anti-nutritional factors like , elevating overall nutritional value. Beyond extraction, steam explosion modifies functionality in sources like wheat bran and peels, enhancing rheological properties for dough applications and capacity via degradation and surface area increase. These implementations leverage the process's eco-friendly profile—using saturated at 160–260°C and 0.69–4.83 followed by rapid depressurization—to achieve mechanical disruption akin to autohydrolysis, promoting applications in functional foods and nutraceuticals.

References

  1. [1]
    Physics of steam explosion - Archive ouverte HAL
    Apr 2, 2014 · Steam explosions result from the flash of liquid water into steam. The leading parameters that drive those physical explosions are phase ...<|separator|>
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Steam Explosion Studies Review - INIS-IAEA
    A steam explosion occurs when cold liquid contacts molten material above its boiling point, causing rapid fragmentation and evaporation. This can cause serious ...
  3. [3]
    Preventing Catastrophe: Understanding Steam Explosions in Molten ...
    Jun 21, 2024 · A steam explosion is caused by a sudden vaporization of water into water vapour (steam) without providing a path for the water vapour to escape ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Steam Locomotive Firebox Explosion on the Gettysburg Railroad ...
    Jun 16, 1995 · On June 16, 1995, a steam locomotive's firebox failed, causing an explosion that seriously burned the engineer and two firemen.
  5. [5]
    Fire tube steam boiler explosions | Minnesota Department of Labor ...
    In the early afternoon of June 18, 2007 one of two boilers at the at the Dana Corporation plant in Paris, Tennessee exploded causing extensive damage to the ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
  6. [6]
    Analysis and sensitivity study of steam explosion loads - ScienceDirect
    Dec 15, 2023 · Steam Explosion is a destructive event that may arise from the mixing of the molten fuel (corium) with the liquid coolant (water, ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Experiments on Melt-Coolant Interaction Processes, including ...
    Steam explosions occur when a large amount of heat is transferred to a vaporizable liquid at a temperature far above its boiling point and at such a rate that ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  8. [8]
    [PDF] VAPOR EXPLOSIONS IN LIGHT WATER REACTORS - Ju Li Group
    The vapor explosion is commonly divided into four phases of heat transfer: (1) quiescent mixing of fuel and coolant, (2) triggering of the explosion, (3) ...
  9. [9]
    [PDF] "Steam Explosion in Perspective." - NRC
    thermal to vertical mechanism conversion effi- ciency is less than 14 and probably less than 0.56, . The remaining (%256) expansion work would exert an.
  10. [10]
    [PDF] ScoHoM - INIS-IAEA
    A steam explosion can be viewed as consisting of four phases of energy transfer between the fuel and coolant: a) Coarse Intermixing* The molten fuel and ...
  11. [11]
    Accidental risk of superheated liquids and a framework for predicting ...
    A superheated liquid is in a metastable state which on certain kinds of perturbation has the potential to cause severe thermo-hydraulic explosions (Khan ...
  12. [12]
    Water Expanding the Most | Physics Van | Illinois
    Oct 22, 2007 · Water expands by a factor of 1600 when it turns into steam at atmospheric pressure. It expands because the bonds holding water molecules to each other are ...
  13. [13]
  14. [14]
    The Role of Rayleigh-Taylor Instabilities in Fuel-Coolant Interactions
    May 12, 2017 · We investigate the growth of Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities following the deceleration of fuel by a less dense coolant using the method of ...
  15. [15]
    Status of steam explosion understanding and modelling
    A steam explosion can occur in the course of the (pre)mixing of a hot liquid (molten fuel in a nuclear power plant (NPP) accident) within a cold volatile fluid ...
  16. [16]
    Superheated Liquid - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Superheated liquids, supercooled liquids and the liquids at negative pressures are all situated in metastable states. The liquids under a supercooled state ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Toshiba Design Control Document Rev. 1 - Tier 2 - Chapter 19 ...
    The main difference between energetic fuel coolant interactions (steam explosions) and non- energetic interactions is the time in which the energy stored in ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Steam explosions and reactor safety, 1982. - Nuclear Energy Agency
    In November 1981, CSNI decided to set up a small. Group of Experts to explore the possible significance of fuel-coolant interactions (FCIs) to reactor safety.
  19. [19]
    [PDF] COOLANT INTERACTIONS R - INIS-IAEA
    One well known physically identified mechanism which may achieve this conversion rapidly is the steam explosion or molten fuel-coolant interaction (MFCI).
  20. [20]
    Results of the Triggered Steam Explosions from the TROI Experiment
    Apr 10, 2017 · The external trigger led to triggered steam explosions in all the experiments. In the experiments with 70:30 corium, the maximum recorded ...Missing: industrial | Show results with:industrial
  21. [21]
    Externally triggered steam explosion experiments - ScienceDirect.com
    This paper discusses the difference between amplification of a trigger pulse due to the release of stored energy and propagation of the explosion within the pre ...
  22. [22]
    Experimental Investigation on Fuel Coolant Interaction Using ...
    The present study discusses the importance of conversion efficiency in deciding steam explosion and also gives a new perspective to look at steam explosion ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] nureg-1116
    Fundamental mechanisms involved in steam explosion accident sequences were discussed at a meeting of the SERG. Initial conditions, melt-water mixing,.
  24. [24]
  25. [25]
    The True Harnessing of Steam - ASME
    Jan 1, 2005 · Boiler explosions occurred with alarming frequency in the 19th century, with 159 occurring in 1880 alone, the year that a small group of men ...
  26. [26]
    Dreadful, Devastating Boiler Explosions
    Boiler explosions were common in North West England due to lack of knowledge, causing many deaths and damage. Examples include Rothwell & Kitts and Atlas Forge.Missing: incidents | Show results with:incidents
  27. [27]
    Boiler explosion fatalities in the Western world 1800s-1920s
    Apr 6, 2024 · From 1898 to 1905 in the United States the recorded number of boiler explosions was 3612. This averaged more than one explosion every day. The ...
  28. [28]
    A Brief History of Nuclear Accidents Worldwide
    Oct 1, 2013 · The withdrawal of a single control rod caused a catastrophic power surge and steam explosion at the SL-1 boiling water reactor that killed all ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Understanding the Reactor Excursion and Safety Problems at SL-1
    The SL-1 accident was caused by poor reactor design, radiation damage, and over-lifting of the control rod, leading to a steam explosion.<|separator|>
  30. [30]
    [PDF] Supercritical: SL-1 Nuclear Reactor Explosion
    The SL-1 reactor exploded after a technician rapidly lifted a control rod, causing a supercritical power surge, vaporizing water and lifting the reactor.
  31. [31]
    [PDF] final report of sl-1 recovery operation - INL Digital Library
    back into the reactor through the sheared steam line and blown head ... SL-1 Reactor Accident Autopsy Procedures and Results, LAMS-2550. 111-101. Page ...
  32. [32]
    Idaho Falls: The First Nuclear Meltdown in America's History
    The explosion at SL-1 US Army research facility near Idaho Falls in 1961 during the early years of nuclear power development was a grim and tragic reminder
  33. [33]
    Chernobyl Accident 1986 - World Nuclear Association
    The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the environment, with the deposition of radioactive materials ...
  34. [34]
    Chernobyl Accident and Its Consequences - Nuclear Energy Institute
    May 1, 2019 · The hot fuel particles reacted with water and caused a steam explosion, which lifted the 1,000-metric-ton cover off the top of the reactor, ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Sequence of Events – Chernobyl Accident Appendix 1
    Two explosions were reported, the first being the initial steam explosion, followed two or three seconds later by a second explosion, possibly from the build-up ...
  36. [36]
    Chernobyl: Chapter I. The site and accident sequence
    The sudden increase in heat production ruptured part of the fuel and small hot fuel particles, reacting with water, caused a steam explosion, which destroyed ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] An Explanation of BORAX-1, SPERT-1 and the SL-1 Accident
    BORAX-1, SPERT-1, and SL-1 all had reactor core melting and damaging explosions. Rapid fuel melting and hydrogen generation contributed to the explosions.
  38. [38]
    Volcano Hazards Program Glossary | U.S. Geological Survey
    Phreatic eruption. An eruption that primarily involves steam explosions, usually ground water flashed into steam by the heat of subsurface magma.
  39. [39]
    Hydrothermal explosions—a worldwide phenomena - USGS.gov
    Aug 26, 2024 · Events the size of the July 23, 2024, Biscuit Basin explosion probably occur every decade to a few decades in Yellowstone. Hydrothermal ...
  40. [40]
    Volcano Watch — The phreatic eruption of 1924 - USGS
    The steam explosions continued for 18 days. By the end of the explosive period, Halema'uma'u had doubled in diameter, from 1,400 feet to 3,000 feet, and the ...Missing: littoral | Show results with:littoral
  41. [41]
    Update on the July 23 Biscuit Basin hydrothermal explosion
    Jul 24, 2024 · The July 23, 2024, hydrothermal explosion at Biscuit Basin resulted from water suddenly transitioning to steam in the shallow hydrothermal system beneath Black ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
  42. [42]
    The First Instrumentally Detected Hydrothermal Explosion in ...
    Jun 6, 2025 · The largest known hydrothermal explosion craters on Earth are found within Yellowstone National Park—for example, Mary Bay, which formed about ...Abstract · Pre-Explosion Hydrothermal... · Explosion and Subsequent... · Discussion
  43. [43]
    Glossary of Volcanic Terms - Volcanoes, Craters & Lava Flows (U.S. ...
    May 22, 2024 · A mound of hyaloclastic debris constructed by steam explosions at the point where lava enters the sea or other body of water. Littoral cones ...
  44. [44]
    Steam Pipe Explosion Jolts Midtown; One Person Is Confirmed Dead
    Jul 18, 2007 · A steam pipe installed in 1924 ruptured in a thunderous explosion shortly before 6 pm today, sending steam, water and debris shooting outward.
  45. [45]
    [PDF] In the Matter of the Investigation of a Rupture at Fifth Avenue and ...
    Because the steam main was insulated with asbestos, the rupture caused a release of asbestos-contaminated debris into the air and onto surrounding buildings.
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Salem Harbor Boiler Failure
    Jul 31, 2008 · On November 6, 2007 at approximately 0800 hours, two (2) operations employees (Mathew. Indeglia, and Philip Robinson) and one maintenance ...
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Pressure Vessel Explosion at Loy-Lange Box Company
    Jul 29, 2022 · The incident occurred when the bottom head of a pressure vessel called a Semi-Closed Receiver, which was used in Loy-Lange's steam system, ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) Explosions: A Deadly but Preventable ...
    Jan 11, 2017 · Table 1 in- cludes a sample listing of serious EAF accidents caused by steam explosions during the past two decades. To cite a few examples of ...
  49. [49]
    The challenge of modeling fuel–coolant interaction: Part II – Steam ...
    We present the status modeling of steam explosion in the computer code MC3D (a first paper is devoted to premixing stage of FCI).Missing: models interactions
  50. [50]
    Steam explosion triggering and propagation: Hypotheses and ... - OSTI
    Aug 29, 1989 · Various models of steam explosion triggering and propagation are reviewed. An analogy is drawn between steam explosions and chemical combustion, ...
  51. [51]
    [PDF] SKI Report 02:16 A Review of Steam Explosions with Special ... - OSTI
    The collapse of the vapor film allows the water to come in near contact or in contact with the molten fuel which enhances the heat transfer between the molten ...
  52. [52]
    Some aspects of modelling steam explosions - ScienceDirect
    Several theoretical models have been proposed to explain the formation of rapid phase transitions, though none have addressed the large-scale behavior observed ...
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Independent Assessment of In-Vessel Retention and Steam ...
    The objective of the independent confirmatory analysis was to confirm that the likelihood of containment upper head failure due to in-vessel steam explosion is ...
  54. [54]
    Simulation of Ex-Vessel Steam Explosion | IntechOpen
    In general, the steam explosion simulation with MC3D is being carried out in two steps. In the first step, the distributions of the melt, water and vapour ...
  55. [55]
    [PDF] analysis of ex-vessel steam explosions for the combustion ...
    Mar 9, 1994 · plant calculations were based on the simulations of a few KROTOS experiments. Prediction of the ex-vessel fuel-coolant interaction energetics ...
  56. [56]
    Fracture of Cylindrical Shells Subjected to Internal Explosion
    In this paper, a coupled Finite Element Method-Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (FEM-SPH) method was proposed to simulate the fracture of cylindrical shell ...
  57. [57]
    [PDF] "Propagation of Steam Explosions: ESPROSE.m Verification Studies."
    in reactor geometries and conditions. Our specific interest is in obtaining reasonably conservative results on explosion energetics and damage potential, ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] modelling of fuel-coolant interaction - IRSN
    A typical steam explosion involves a pressurization of some tens of MPa in a time scale of some micro-seconds. An example of computation is given in Fig. 5 with ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] STEAM EXPLOSION TRIGGERING AMD EFFICIENCY n ,'UDIES*+ ...
    More than 300 laboratory experiments were conducted over the last three years in which 10-37 g samples of various LWR core material simulants were arc-melted in ...
  60. [60]
    [PDF] "Analysis & Modeling of Large-Scale Steam Explosion Experiments."
    the tests resulted in spontaneous explosions with of these experiments suggested that the experimental conversion ratios in the lower end of the observed.
  61. [61]
    An Experimental study on steam explosion of multiple droplets in ...
    A series of tests were carried out in the MISTEE facility at KTH to investigate steam explosion characteristics as multiple molten droplets of tin were falling ...
  62. [62]
    An experimental study on steam explosion of a small melt jet falling ...
    The VULCAN apparatus is designed and built to investigate the characteristics of a steam explosion when molten material falls into a water pool.
  63. [63]
    [PDF] Experimental Study on Steam Explosions in Chemical Solutions and ...
    Steam explosions may be encountered in severe accidents of light water reactors (LWRs), which are thermal detonations caused by rapid and intense ...
  64. [64]
    Ex-vessel fuel-coolant interaction experiment in the DISCO facility in ...
    No spontaneous steam explosion was observed. About 16% of the initial melt (11.62 kg) remained in the RPV vessel, 60% remained in the cavity mainly as a compact ...
  65. [65]
    [PDF] steam explosion
    INTERIM CONCLUSIONS. INTERMEDIATE SCALE EXPERIMENTS INDICATE RAPID FUEL. COOLANT MIXING. " WATER WILL PROBABLY BE PRESENT IN THE LOWER PLENUM.
  66. [66]
    STEX-II, International Steam Explosion Experimental Data Base
    May 4, 2010 · A steam explosion is therefore a class of fuel-coolant interactions in which the timescale for heat transfer between the liquids is smaller than ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Experimental Technical Bases for Evaluating Vapor/Steam ...
    Chapter 2 Basic Considerations of Large-Scale Vapor Explosions and Their. Application to Nuclear Fast and Thermal Reactor Safety.
  68. [68]
    Numerical Simulation of Pressure Wave Propagation and Its Effect ...
    Steam explosions can initiate pressure waves and threaten the structural integrity of the reactor cavity. To investigate the propagation characteristics of the ...Missing: peer- | Show results with:peer-
  69. [69]
    [PDF] "Steam Explosion Efficiency Studies."
    Those experiments are the topic of this report. Specifically, this report will present the results from a preliminary series of field-scale experiments designed ...
  70. [70]
    [PDF] Propagation of Pressure Waves in a Mixture of Water and Stream
    These show that a shock-like compression in very wet steam or boiling water will con- dense all the steam, giving rise to a large change in volume with very ...
  71. [71]
    [PDF] Predicting the Pressures of Shock Waves Caused by A Steam ...
    Using the ALE method, pressure tracers were embedded to measure the incident pressures of the steam explosion shock waves in the free field [1]. As illustrated.
  72. [72]
    (PDF) Numerical Simulation of Pressure Wave Propagation and Its ...
    Aug 11, 2023 · Steam explosions can initiate pressure waves and threaten the structural integrity of the reactor cavity.
  73. [73]
    Simulation of shockwave propagation characteristics in nuclear ...
    When the molten corium interacts with coolant water, the intense and rapid heat transfer can lead to a steam explosion, resulting in high-pressure shock waves ...
  74. [74]
    [PDF] PROBABILITY OF CONTAINMENT FAILURE DUE TO STEAM ...
    In view of the different loading mechanisms and steam explosion energies, the following calculations were performed: (i). 300 MJ, coherent hemispherical slug ...
  75. [75]
    A Boiler: The Explosive Potential of a Bomb
    Another type of explosion is caused by superheated liquid. Here the resulting vapor explosion occurs when a liquid transforms quickly into a gas, causing a ...
  76. [76]
    [PDF] Effect of steam boiler explosion on boiler room and adjacent ... - IJESI
    Feb 19, 2019 · A Steam Boiler explosion within or immediately nearby a building can cause catastrophic damage on the building's external and internal ...
  77. [77]
    Evaluation of the structural integrity of the CPR1000 PWR ...
    Although the internal facilities and the structures are damaged severely by the blast loadings, the damage to the containment is negligible and the structural ...
  78. [78]
    Steam Explosions…Spectacular Expansions, Spectacular Losses
    May 18, 2023 · The release of energy during a steam explosion can cause structural failures, ruptures, and the dispersal of debris over a wide area.
  79. [79]
    Structural Integrity Evaluation of a Reactor Cavity during a Steam ...
    The reactor vessel may be damaged due to the pressure generated by the explosion, and the resulting debris may impact the structural integrity of the reactor.
  80. [80]
    Eight crew killed by steam-boiler explosion aboard Norway
    Feb 28, 2007 · A steam-boiler explosion aboard the 1,035-foot SS Norway claimed eight lives and injured 19 on May 25. The incident occurred while the ship ...
  81. [81]
    Two People Killed in Explosion at Connecticut V.A. Hospital
    Nov 13, 2020 · Two people killed in explosion at Connecticut VA hospital. Three other people were injured in the incident, which was caused by a steam pipe, officials said.
  82. [82]
    Steam pipe blast spews asbestos and creates bus-size ... - ABC News
    Jul 19, 2018 · The steam pipe rupture July 18, 2007, on Lexington Avenue at 41st Street, near Grand Central Terminal, killing a woman, injuring 20 people and ...
  83. [83]
    [PDF] steam explosions and their relevance for probabilistic risk
    There is some disagreement about the role of steam explosions in probabilistic risk assessment. Former risk studies /1,2/ assume and impute with a certain ...
  84. [84]
    [PDF] Risk Assessment of Steam Pipelines in Industrial Areas - Aidic
    A framework is presented to evaluate external risk from steam pipelines. Though water is not labeled as such, it can be a dangerous substance.
  85. [85]
    [PDF] MDEP Technical Report TR-VVERWG-04 - Nuclear Energy Agency
    - prevention of ex-vessel steam explosions. The core catcher design provides for special technical measures protecting inner space of the vessel from water ...
  86. [86]
    Assessment of the core-catcher in the VVER-1000 reactor ...
    The core catcher is used as a passive safety system in new generation nuclear power plants to create a space in the containment for the placing and cooling ...
  87. [87]
    Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors
    Feb 11, 2025 · With nuclear power, safety depends on much the same factors as in any comparable industry: intelligent planning, proper design with conservative margins and ...
  88. [88]
    [PDF] Steam explosion resistance of an internal core catcher of a nuclear ...
    This paper deals with a feasibility design of a core catcher structure that could mitigate the consequences of the core meltdown in a commercial light water.
  89. [89]
    Pressure Vessels Ensure Safety - ASME
    Aug 16, 2012 · Pressure vessels are designed to operate safely at a specific pressure and temperature, technically referred to as the "design pressure" and "design ...
  90. [90]
    ORNL devises way to prevent steam explosions
    Aug 8, 1997 · ORNL's research has led to the discovery that injecting air or other "noncondensible" gases at the right places and rates should prevent steam ...
  91. [91]
    [PDF] on Molten-Aluminum Water Explosion Onset During Direct ... - OSTI
    Injection of NCGs prevented explosions, thereby clearly demonstrating that suitable gas injection into the melt-water system can reliably prevent explosions. ...
  92. [92]
    Risk Logic Molten Metals Loss Prevention
    Refractory is very important and key in providing protection against molten metal breakouts. Refractory provides protection for molten metal in a way that ...<|separator|>
  93. [93]
    Preventing melt-water explosions | JOM
    The study includes experimentation and mathematical modeling of the interactions between molten metals and water on various coated and uncoated surfaces.
  94. [94]
    Top Ten Boiler and Combustion Safety Issues to Avoid
    Most facilities do not have personnel properly trained in combustion equipment maintenance, start-up and shut-down procedures, or equipment operations. Most ...
  95. [95]
    Boiler Explosion Accident Phenomenon and Preventive Measures
    Aug 27, 2021 · Measures to Prevent External Explosion Accidents in the Boiler Furnace: ... (1) Maintain stable combustion in the furnace and maintain a higher ...
  96. [96]
    [PPT] Boiler Safety - OSHA
    During a bottom blowdown, the boiler should be under light load and the water level should be at the NOWL. Steam valves are opened slowly and gloves are worn ...
  97. [97]
    [PDF] iaea-tecdoc-1020
    pressure core melt sequences, a "dry" reactor cavity to avoid ex-vessel steam explosion, layout to eliminate direct connection between the reactor cavity and ...
  98. [98]
    [PDF] NB-132.pdf
    Oct 25, 2004 · In order to protect the public from boiler and pressure vessel explosions, guidelines must be in place to ensure proper construction, ...
  99. [99]
    NFPA 85 Code Development
    NFPA 85 contributes to operating safety and prevents explosions and implosions in boilers with greater than 12.5 million Btu/hr, pulverized fuel systems, ...
  100. [100]
    [PDF] Process Safety Management for Explosives and Pyrotechnics ...
    This document focuses on Process Safety Management (PSM) for explosives and pyrotechnics, including PSI, PHA, operating procedures, training, and mechanical ...
  101. [101]
    [PDF] IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS SERIES
    The IAEA Safety Standards Series covers nuclear, radiation, transport, and waste safety, including Safety Fundamentals, Requirements, and Guides.
  102. [102]
    Steam Explosion - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Steam explosion is defined as a physicochemical method that employs high-pressure steam to disrupt the bonding of polymeric components in lignocellulose, ...
  103. [103]
    Steam Explosion Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass - NIH
    Nov 11, 2021 · Steam explosion (SE) uses high-pressure steam, has two steps: steam boiling and explosive decompression, and is a promising pretreatment for ...
  104. [104]
    Steam Explosion Pretreatment of Lignocellulosic Biomass - Frontiers
    Nov 10, 2021 · Steam Explosion (SE) is one of the most efficient and environmentally friendly processes for the pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass.
  105. [105]
    Two-stage steam explosion pretreatment of softwood with 2 ...
    Feb 21, 2019 · Steam explosion is a well known pretreatment method working without additional chemicals and allowing for efficient particle size reduction.<|separator|>
  106. [106]
    Pretreatment technology for biomass - ANDRITZ GROUP
    ANDRITZ's Steam-Ex process equipment uses steam explosion to transform lignocellulosic biomass into various biofuels and biochemicals.
  107. [107]
    Effects of steam explosion pretreatment on the extraction of ...
    Steam explosion (SE) is an effective method in destroying the lignin structure to enhance the release of hemicellulose and cellulose.
  108. [108]
    Extraction and improvement of protein functionality using steam ...
    Aug 23, 2023 · In general, steam explosion favored yields in subsequent extraction processes, ranging from 27 to 95%, in addition to enhancing solubility and ...
  109. [109]
    The Principle of Steam Explosion Technology and Its Application in ...
    Sep 2, 2023 · Steam explosion technology is an emerging pretreatment method that has shown great promise for food processing due to its ability to efficiently destroy the ...
  110. [110]
    Case study 4: The steam explosion process technology – Bioenergy
    This case study is concerned with the upgrade of low-grade biomass feedstocks through steam explosion followed by densification to produce a fuel pellet.
  111. [111]
    Steam explosion as sustainable biomass pretreatment technique for ...
    This review paper critically presents the steam explosion's reaction mechanism and technological characteristics for lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment.
  112. [112]
    Effect of steam explosion on nutritional components ... - Frontiers
    The present study investigated the potential of steam explosion on the improvement of nutritional and physicochemical characteristic in brown rice powder<|separator|>