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 m 3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 ,insuffi-ciency 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 m 3 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 ,RASCAL4 .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 .
展开▼
