James A. Fort
Battelle Memorial Institute
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by James A. Fort.
Archive | 2009
Phillip A. Gauglitz; Beric E. Wells; James A. Fort; Perry A. Meyer
The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) is being designed and built to pretreat and vitrify a large portion of the waste in Hanford’s 177 underground waste storage tanks. Numerous process vessels will hold waste at various stages in the WTP. Some of these vessels have mixing-system requirements to maintain conditions where the accumulation of hydrogen gas stays below acceptable limits, and the mixing within the vessels is sufficient to release hydrogen gas under normal conditions and during off-normal events. Some of the WTP process streams are slurries of solid particles suspended in Newtonian fluids that behave as non-Newtonian slurries, such as Bingham yield-stress fluids. When these slurries are contained in the process vessels, the particles can settle and become progressively more concentrated toward the bottom of the vessels, depending on the effectiveness of the mixing system. One limiting behavior is a settled layer beneath a particle-free liquid layer. The settled layer, or any region with sufficiently high solids concentration, will exhibit non-Newtonian rheology where it is possible for the settled slurry to behave as a soft solid with a yield stress. In this report, these slurries are described as settling cohesive slurries.
Archive | 2013
Beric E. Wells; James A. Fort; Phillip A. Gauglitz; David R. Rector; Philip P. Schonewill
The Hanford Site double-shell tank (DST) system provides the staging location for waste that will be transferred to the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). Specific WTP acceptance criteria for waste feed delivery describe the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste that must be met before the waste is transferred from the DSTs to the WTP. One of the more challenging requirements relates to the sampling and characterization of the undissolved solids (UDS) in a waste feed DST because the waste contains solid particles that settle and their concentration and relative proportion can change during the transfer of the waste in individual batches. A key uncertainty in the waste feed delivery system is the potential variation in UDS transferred in individual batches in comparison to an initial sample used for evaluating the acceptance criteria. To address this uncertainty, a number of small-scale mixing tests have been conducted as part of Washington River Protection Solutions’ Small Scale Mixing Demonstration (SSMD) project to determine the performance of the DST mixing and sampling systems.
Archive | 2013
Loni M. Peurrung; James A. Fort; David R. Rector
Hanford tank wastes are chemically complex slurries of liquids and solids that can exhibit changes in rheological behavior during retrieval and processing. The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) recently abandoned its planned approach to use computational fluid dynamics (CFD) supported by testing at less than full scale to verify the design of vessels that process these wastes within the plant. The commercial CFD tool selected was deemed too difficult to validate to the degree necessary for use in the design of a nuclear facility. Alternative, but somewhat immature, CFD tools are available that can simulate multiphase flow of non-Newtonian fluids. Yet both CFD and scaled testing can play an important role in advancing the Hanford tank waste mission—in supporting the new verification approach, which is to conduct testing in actual plant vessels; in supporting waste feed delivery, where scaled testing is ongoing; as a fallback approach to design verification if the Full Scale Vessel Testing Program is deemed too costly and time-consuming; to troubleshoot problems during commissioning and operation of the plant; and to evaluate the effects of any proposed changes in operating conditions in the future to optimize plant performance.
Archive | 2008
David M. Pfund; Jagannadha R. Bontha; Thomas E. Michener; Franz Nigl; Satoru T. Yokuda; Richard J. Leigh; Elizabeth C. Golovich; Aaron W. Baumann; Dean E. Kurath; Mark Hoza; William H. Combs; James A. Fort; Ofelia P. Bredt
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of River Protection’s Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) is being designed and built to pretreat and then vitrify a large portion of the wastes in Hanford’s 177 underground waste storage tanks. The WTP consists of three primary facilities: pretreatment, low-activity waste (LAW) vitrification, and high-level waste (HLW) vitrification. The pretreatment facility will receive waste feed from the Hanford tank farms and separate it into 1) a high-volume, low-activity liquid stream stripped of most solids and radionuclides and 2) a much smaller volume of HLW slurry containing most of the solids and most of the radioactivity. Many of the vessels in the pretreatment facility will contain pulse jet mixers (PJMs) that will provide some or all of the mixing in the vessels. This technology was selected for use in so-called “black cell” regions of the WTP, where maintenance capability will not be available for the operating life of the WTP. PJM technology was selected for use in these regions because it has no moving mechanical parts that require maintenance. The vessels with the most concentrated slurries will also be mixed with air spargers and/or steady jets in addition to the mixing provided by the PJMs. This report contains the results of single and multiple PJM overblow tests conducted in a large, ~13 ft-diameter × 15-ft-tall tank located in the high bay of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 336 Building test facility. These single and multiple PJM overblow tests were conducted using water and a clay simulant to bound the lower and upper rheological properties of the waste streams anticipated to be processed in the WTP. Hydrodynamic pressures were measured at a number of locations in the test vessel using an array of nine pressure sensors and four hydrophones. These measurements were made under normal and limiting vessel operating conditions (i.e., maximum PJM fluid emptying velocity, maximum and minimum vessel contents for PJM operation, and maximum and minimum rheological properties). Test data collected from the PJM overblow tests were provided to Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI) for assessing hydrostatic, dynamic, and acoustic pressure loadings on in-tank structures during 1) single overblows; 2) multiple overlapping overblows of two to four PJMs; 3) simultaneous overblows of pairs of PJMs.
ASME 2007 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition | 2007
Judith A. Bamberger; Perry A. Meyer; Jagan R. Bontha; James A. Fort; Franz Nigl; James M. Bates; Carl W. Enderlin; Sato T. Yokuda; Dean E. Kurath; Adam P. Poloski; Harry D. Smith; Gary L. Smith; Mark A. Gerber
Pulse jet mixer technology has been selected for implementation in the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. However, processing non-Newtonian fluids using this technology is not mature. Experiments were conducted at several scales to develop an understanding of the scaling mechanisms that govern this type of mixer performance.Copyright
Archive | 2009
Perry A. Meyer; Judith Ann Bamberger; Carl W. Enderlin; James A. Fort; Beric E. Wells; S. K. Sundaram; Paul A. Scott; Michael J. Minette; Gary L. Smith; Carolyn A. Burns; Margaret S. Greenwood; Gerald P. Morgen; Ellen Bk Baer; Sandra F. Snyder; M. White; Gregory F. Piepel; Brett G. Amidan; Alejandro Heredia-Langner; Sharon A. Bailey; John C. Bower; Kayte M. Denslow; David E. Eakin; Monte R. Elmore; Phillip A. Gauglitz; Anthony D. Guzman; Brian K. Hatchell; Derek F. Hopkins; David E. Hurley; Michael D. Johnson; Leslie J. Kirihara
Archive | 2010
Phillip A. Gauglitz; Beric E. Wells; Judith Ann Bamberger; James A. Fort; Jaehun Chun; Jeromy Wj Jenks
Archive | 2010
Perry A. Meyer; Ellen Bk Baer; Judith Ann Bamberger; James A. Fort; Michael J. Minette
Archive | 2007
James A. Fort; Judith Ann Bamberger; Perry A. Meyer; Charles W. Stewart
Archive | 1981
James M. Bates; James A. Fort; E. U. Khan