Comparison of Ruska and Rosemont pressure gages
Abstract
A 150,000 gallon tank was calibrated during the months of May and July of 1990. Six calibration runs were completed. Three runs were made by adding measured volumes of water to the tank and three runs were made by removing measured volumes of water from the tank. The calibration fluid was demineralized water. Ruska and Rosemont pressure gages were installed to make in-tank liquid level measurements during the calibration process. A flow meter was used to measure the incremental volumes of water added to or removed from the tank. The Ruska and Rosemont gages were compared to determine the gage best suited for tank operation. One comparison criteria was the tolerance limits of error (LOE) for the predicted standardized in-tank volumes. For accountability purposes, the effects of the two gages on the LOE for the predicted inventory of U-235 were evaluated. This LOE is dependent on several measurement methods. The pressure gage is only one measurement component contributing to this limit. The measurement components must be evaluated collectively to derive each component's contribution to the inventory LOE. The most important comparison criteria was the gage's contribution to the U-235 inventory LOE. The choice of which gage to use depends onmore »
- Authors:
- Publication Date:
- Research Org.:
- Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)
- Sponsoring Org.:
- USDOE; USDOE, Washington, DC (United States)
- OSTI Identifier:
- 5566314
- Report Number(s):
- WSRC-MS-91-056; CONF-910774-90
ON: DE92008847
- DOE Contract Number:
- AC09-89SR18035
- Resource Type:
- Conference
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: 32. Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM) annual meeting, New Orleans, LA (United States), 28-31 Jul 1991
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
- Subject:
- 12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; 47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION; SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT; TANKS; CALIBRATION; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; INVENTORIES; LEVELS; PRESSURE GAGES; PRESSURE MEASUREMENT; RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE; URANIUM 235; VOLUME; ACTINIDE ISO; ACTINIDE NUCLEI; ALPHA DECAY RADIOISOTOPES; CONTAINERS; EVALUATION; EVEN-ODD NUCLEI; HEAVY NUCLEI; INTERNAL CONVERSION RADIOISOTOPES; ISOMERIC TRANSITION ISOTOPES; ISOTOPES; MANAGEMENT; MEASURING INSTRUMENTS; MINUTES LIVING RADIOISOTOPES; NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS; NUCLEI; RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT; RADIOISOTOPES; SPONTANEOUS FISSION RADIOISOTOPES; STORAGE; URANIUM ISOTOPES; US AEC; US DOE; US ERDA; US ORGANIZATIONS; WASTE MANAGEMENT; WASTE STORAGE; 052002* - Nuclear Fuels- Waste Disposal & Storage; 440800 - Miscellaneous Instrumentation- (1990-)
Citation Formats
Harvel, C D. Comparison of Ruska and Rosemont pressure gages. United States: N. p., 1991.
Web.
Harvel, C D. Comparison of Ruska and Rosemont pressure gages. United States.
Harvel, C D. 1991.
"Comparison of Ruska and Rosemont pressure gages". United States. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5566314.
@article{osti_5566314,
title = {Comparison of Ruska and Rosemont pressure gages},
author = {Harvel, C D},
abstractNote = {A 150,000 gallon tank was calibrated during the months of May and July of 1990. Six calibration runs were completed. Three runs were made by adding measured volumes of water to the tank and three runs were made by removing measured volumes of water from the tank. The calibration fluid was demineralized water. Ruska and Rosemont pressure gages were installed to make in-tank liquid level measurements during the calibration process. A flow meter was used to measure the incremental volumes of water added to or removed from the tank. The Ruska and Rosemont gages were compared to determine the gage best suited for tank operation. One comparison criteria was the tolerance limits of error (LOE) for the predicted standardized in-tank volumes. For accountability purposes, the effects of the two gages on the LOE for the predicted inventory of U-235 were evaluated. This LOE is dependent on several measurement methods. The pressure gage is only one measurement component contributing to this limit. The measurement components must be evaluated collectively to derive each component's contribution to the inventory LOE. The most important comparison criteria was the gage's contribution to the U-235 inventory LOE. The choice of which gage to use depends on the other measurement methods used for material accountability. The contributions to the inventory LOE were evaluated for two in-tank liquid level measurement methods, two concentration measurement methods, and one isotopic measurement method. The results indicate the Ruska pressure gage is best suited for tank operation only if the best concentration measurement method is used. When Davies-Grey titration is used for concentration measurements, the Rosemont gage results in a 53% increase in the inventory LOE over the Ruska gage.},
doi = {},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5566314},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 1991},
month = {Tue Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 1991}
}