Optimization of material distributions in fast breeder reactors

"MIT-4105-6."Based on a Sc. D. thesis submitted by C.P. Tzanos to the Dept. of Nuclear Engineering, 1971Includes bibliographical references (pages 188-190)AT(30-1)-410

Computational fluid dynamics analyses of lateral heat conduction, coolant azimuthal mixing and heat transfer predictions in a BR2 fuel assembly geometry.

To support the analyses related to the conversion of the BR2 core from highly-enriched (HEU) to low-enriched (LEU) fuel, the thermal-hydraulics codes PLTEMP and RELAP-3D are used to evaluate the safety margins during steady-state operation (PLTEMP), as well as after a loss-of-flow, loss-of-pressure, or a loss of coolant event (RELAP). In the 1-D PLTEMP and RELAP simulations, conduction in the azimuthal and axial directions is not accounted. The very good thermal conductivity of the cladding and the fuel meat and significant temperature gradients in the lateral directions (axial and azimuthal directions) could lead to a heat flux distribution that is significantly different than the power distribution. To evaluate the significance of the lateral heat conduction, 3-D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, using the CFD code STAR-CD, were performed. Safety margin calculations are typically performed for a hot stripe, i.e., an azimuthal region of the fuel plates/coolant channel containing the power peak. In a RELAP model, for example, a channel between two plates could be divided into a number of RELAP channels (stripes) in the azimuthal direction. In a PLTEMP model, the effect of azimuthal power peaking could be taken into account by using engineering factors. However, if the thermal mixing in the azimuthal direction of a coolant channel is significant, a stripping approach could be overly conservative by not taking into account this mixing. STAR-CD simulations were also performed to study the thermal mixing in the coolant. Section II of this document presents the results of the analyses of the lateral heat conduction and azimuthal thermal mixing in a coolant channel. Finally, PLTEMP and RELAP simulations rely on the use of correlations to determine heat transfer coefficients. Previous analyses showed that the Dittus-Boelter correlation gives significantly more conservative (lower) predictions than the correlations of Sieder-Tate and Petukhov. STAR-CD 3-D simulations were performed to compare heat transfer predictions from CFD and the correlations. Section III of this document presents the results of this analysis

Feasibility study for use of the natural convection shutdown heat removal test facility (NSTF) for VHTR water-cooled RCCS shutdown.

In summary, a scaling analysis of a water-cooled Reactor Cavity Cooling System (RCCS) system was performed based on generic information on the RCCS design of PBMR. The analysis demonstrates that the water-cooled RCCS can be simulated at the ANL NSTF facility at a prototypic scale in the lateral direction and about half scale in the vertical direction. Because, by necessity, the scaling is based on a number of approximations, and because no analytical information is available on the performance of a reference water-cooled RCCS, the scaling analysis presented here needs to be 'validated' by analysis of the steady state and transient performance of a reference water-cooled RCCS design. The analysis of the RCCS performance by CFD and system codes presents a number of challenges including: strong 3-D effects in the cavity and the RCCS tubes; simulation of turbulence in flows characterized by natural circulation, high Rayleigh numbers and low Reynolds numbers; validity of heat transfer correlations for system codes for heat transfer in the cavity and the annulus of the RCCS tubes; the potential of nucleate boiling in the tubes; water flashing in the upper section of the RCCS return line (during limiting transient); and two-phase flow phenomena in the water tanks. The limited simulation of heat transfer in cavities presented in Section 4.0, strongly underscores the need of experimental work to validate CFD codes, and heat transfer correlations for system codes, and to support the analysis and design of the RCCS. Based on the conclusions of the scaling analysis, a schematic that illustrates key attributes of the experiment system is shown in Fig. 4. This system contains the same physical elements as the PBMR RCCS, plus additional equipment to facilitate data gathering to support code validation. In particular, the prototype consists of a series of oval standpipes surrounding the reactor vessel to provide cooling of the reactor cavity during both normal and off-normal operating conditions. The standpipes are headered (in groups of four in the prototype) to water supply (header) tanks that are situated well above the reactor vessel to facilitate natural convection cooling during a loss of forced flow event. During normal operations, the water is pumped from a heat sink located outside the containment to the headered inlets to the standpipes. The water is then delivered to each standpipe through a centrally located downcomer that passes the coolant to the bottom of each pipe. The water then turns 180{sup o} and rises up through the annular gap while extracting heat from the reactor cavity due to a combination of natural convection and radiation across the gap between the reactor vessel and standpipes. The water exits the standpipes at the top where it is headered (again in groups of four) into a return line that passes the coolant to the top of the header tank. Coolant is drawn from each tank through a fitting located near the top of the tank where it flows to the heat rejection system located outside the containment. This completes the flow circuit for normal operations. During off-normal conditions, forced convection water cooling in the RCCS is presumed to be lost, as well as the ultimate heat sink outside the containment. In this case, water is passively drawn from an open line located at the bottom of the header tank. This line is orificed so that flow bypass during normal operations is small, yet the line is large enough to provide adequate flow during passive operations to remove decay heat while maintaining acceptable fuel temperatures. In the passive operating mode, water flows by natural convection from the bottom of the supply tank to the standpipes, and returns through the normal pathway to the top of the tanks. After the water reaches saturation and boiling commences, steam will pass through the top of the tanks and be vented to atmosphere. In the experiment system shown in Fig. 4, a steam condensation and collection system is included to quantify the boiling rate, thereby providing additional validation data. This system does not exist in the prototype. The first part of the report presents the non-dimensional conservation equations describing the response of the water-based RCCS during steady-state and transient operations. These equations are used to develop similarity relationships that define a scaling of the NSTF that minimizes distortions between scaled experiments and prototype operation. Then, some limited simulations of heat transfer in cavities are presented that strongly underscore the need of experimental work to validate CFD codes, and heat transfer correlations for system codes, and to support the analysis and design of the RCCS. Finally, a summary is provided of the NSTF modifications needed to conduct scaled simulations of the RCCS

Interim Status Report on Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (Lfr) Research and Development.

This report discusses the status of Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR) research and development carried out during the first half of FY 2008 under the U.S. Department of Energy Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative. Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor research and development has recently been transferred from Generation IV to the Reactor Campaign of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Another status report shall be issued at the end of FY 2008 covering all of the LFR activities carried out in FY 2008 for both Generation IV and GNEP. The focus of research and development in FY 2008 is an initial investigation of a concept for a LFR Advanced Recycling Reactor (ARR) Technology Pilot Plant (TPP)/demonstration test reactor (demo) incorporating features and operating conditions of the European Lead-cooled SYstem (ELSY) {approx} 600 MWe lead (Pb)-cooled LFR preconceptual design for the transmutation of waste and central station power generation, and which would enable irradiation testing of advanced fuels and structural materials. Initial scoping core concept development analyses have been carried out for a 100 MWt core composed of sixteen open-lattice 20 by 20 fuel assemblies largely similar to those of the ELSY preconceptual fuel assembly design incorporating fuel pins with mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, central control rods in each fuel assembly, and cooled with Pb coolant. For a cycle length of three years, the core is calculated to have a conversion ratio of 0.79, an average discharge burnup of 108 MWd/kg of heavy metal, and a burnup reactivity swing of about 13 dollars. With a control rod in each fuel assembly, the reactivity worth of an individual rod would need to be significantly greater than one dollar which is undesirable for postulated rod withdrawal reactivity insertion events. A peak neutron fast flux of 2.0 x 10{sup 15} (n/cm{sup 2}-s) is calculated. For comparison, the 400 MWt Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) achieved a peak neutron fast flux of 7.2 x 10{sup 15} (n/cm{sup 2}-s) and the initially 563 MWt PHENIX reactor attained 2.0 x 10{sup 15} (n/cm{sup 2}-s) before one of three intermediate cooling loops was shut down due to concerns about potential steam generator tube failures. The calculations do not assume a test assembly location for advanced fuels and materials irradiation in place of a fuel assembly (e.g., at the center of the core); the calculations have not examined whether it would be feasible to replace the central assembly by a test assembly location. However, having only fifteen driver assemblies implies a significant effect due to perturbations introduced by the test assembly. The peak neutron fast flux is low compared with the fast fluxes previously achieved in FFTF and PHENIX. Furthermore, the peak neutron fluence is only about half of the limiting value (4 x 10{sup 23} n/cm{sup 2}) typically used for ferritic steels. The results thus suggest that a larger power level (e.g., 400 MWt) and a larger core would be better for a TPP based upon the ELSY fuel assembly design and which can also perform irradiation testing of advanced fuels and materials. In particular, a core having a higher power level and larger dimensions would achieve a suitable average discharge burnup, peak fast flux, peak fluence, and would support the inclusion of one or more test assembly locations. Participation in the Generation IV International Forum Provisional System Steering Committee for the LFR is being maintained throughout FY 2008. Results from the analysis of samples previously exposed to flowing lead-bismuth eutectic (LBE) in the DELTA loop are summarized and a model for the oxidation/corrosion kinetics of steels in heavy liquid metal coolants was applied to systematically compare the calculated long-term (i.e., following several years of growth) oxide layer thicknesses of several steels

Progress report no. 2

Statement of responsibility on title-page reads: Editors: I.A. Forbes, M.J. Driscoll, N.C. Rasmussen, D.D. Lanning and I. Kaplan; Contributors: S.T. Brewer, G.J. Brown, P.DeLaquil, III, M.J. Driscoll, I.A. Forbes, C.W. Forsberg, E.P. Gyftopoulos, P.L. Hendrick, C.S. Kang, I. Kaplan, J.L. Klucar, D.D. Lanning, T.C. Leung, E.A. Mason, N.R. Ortiz, N.A. Passman, N.C. Rasmussen, I.C. Rickard, V.C. Rogers, G.E. Sullivan, A.T. Supple, and C. P. TzanosIncludes bibliographical referencesProgress report; June 30, 1971U.S. Atomic Energy Commission contract AT(11-1)306

Progress report no. 4

Statement of responsibility on title-page reads: editors: M.J. Driscoll, D.D. Lanning, I. Kaplan, A.T. Supple ; contributors: A. Alvim, G.J. Brown, J.K. Chan, T.P. Choong, M.J. Driscoll, G. A. Ducat, I.A. Forbes, M.V. Gregory, S.Y. Ho, C.M. Hove, O. K. Kadiroglu, R.J. Kennerley, D.D. Lanning, J.L. Lazewatsky, L. Lederman, A.S. Leveckis, V.A. Miethe, P. A. Scheinert, A.M. Thompson, N.E. Todreas, C.P. Tzanos, and P.J. WoodIncludes bibliographical referencesProgress report; June 30, 1973U.S. Atomic Energy Commission contract: AT(11-1)225

Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) FY05 Annual Report

The gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR) was chosen as one of the Generation IV nuclear reactor systems to be developed based on its excellent potential for sustainability through reduction of the volume and radio toxicity of both its own fuel and other spent nuclear fuel, and for extending/utilizing uranium resources orders of magnitude beyond what the current open fuel cycle can realize. In addition, energy conversion at high thermal efficiency is possible with the current designs being considered, thus increasing the economic benefit of the GFR. However, research and development challenges include the ability to use passive decay heat removal systems during accident conditions, survivability of fuels and in-core materials under extreme temperatures and radiation, and economical and efficient fuel cycle processes. Nevertheless, the GFR was chosen as one of only six Generation IV systems to be pursued based on its ability to meet the Generation IV goals in sustainability, economics, safety and reliability, proliferation resistance and physical protection. Current research and development on the Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR) has focused on the design of safety systems that will remove the decay heat during accident conditions, ion irradiations of candidate ceramic materials, joining studies of oxide dispersion strengthened alloys; and within the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) the fabrication of carbide fuels and ceramic fuel matrix materials, development of non-halide precursor low density and high density ceramic coatings, and neutron irradiation of candidate ceramic fuel matrix and metallic materials. The vast majority of this work has focused on the reference design for the GFR: a helium-cooled, direct power conversion system that will operate with on outlet temperature of 850 C at 7 MPa. In addition to the work being performed in the United States, seven international partners under the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) have identified their interest in participating in research related to the development of the GFR. These are Euratom (European Commission), France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Of these, Euratom (including the United Kingdom and Switzerland), France, and Japan have active research activities with respect to the GFR. The research includes GFR design and safety, and fuels/in-core materials/fuel cycle projects. This report outlines the current design status of the GFR, and includes work done in the areas mentioned above for this fiscal year. In addition, this report fulfills the Level 2 milestones, ''Complete annual status report on GFR reactor design'', and ''Complete annual status report on pre-conceptual GFR reactor designs'' in work package GI0401K01. GFR funding for FY05 included FY04 carryover funds, and was comprised of multiple tasks. These tasks involved a consortium of national laboratories and universities, including the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Auburn University (AU), Idaho State University (ISU), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-M). The total funding for FY05 was $1000K, with FY04 carryover of$174K. The cost breakdown can be seen in Table 1