Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FINAL REPORT
Gator Lake PWR - Cycle 15 Core Reload Design
For the period of
January 2014 through May, 2014
Submitted to
Dr. Kostadin Ivanov
Dr. Maria Avramova
Adam Miller
As a part of
NucE431W, Section 2, Group 11
by
Asset Makhambetov
Bakhtiyar Shokobayev
Ricky Vivanco
The Pennsylvania State University
Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
University Park, PA 16802
May 5, 2014
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. 4
NOMENCLATURE ........................................................................................................................................... 5
SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................................................... 5
ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... 5
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Advanced Nodal Code (ANC) .............................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Loading Pattern Generation ........................................................................................................................ 10
2.1 Cycle Length Criterion ....................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Unrodded Peaking Factor (FdH) Criterion......................................................................................... 14
2.3 Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) ..................................................................................... 15
2.4 Fuel Inventory Criterion .................................................................................................................... 17
2.5 Loading Pattern Summary................................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
Safety Calculations ...................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1 Rodded FdH ....................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Rod Ejection ...................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) ..................................................................................... 25
3.4 Shutdown Margin (SDM) .................................................................................................................. 25
Chapter 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
Operational Calculations ............................................................................................................................. 28
4.1 Control Rod Bank Worth ................................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Xenon Reactivity ............................................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Differential Boron Worth .................................................................................................................. 33
3
4.4 Isothermal Temperature Coefficient ................................................................................................ 34
4.5 HZP Critical Boron ............................................................................................................................. 35
Chapter 5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
Thermal hydraulics analysis ........................................................................................................................ 36
5.1 Safety Margins Evaluation with CDSC ............................................................................................... 36
5.2 Steady State Analysis Steps ............................................................................................................... 39
5.3 Steady State Analysis Results ............................................................................................................ 40
5.4 Steady State Analysis Summary ........................................................................................................ 47
Chapter 6 ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 48
6.1 Terminal Objective ............................................................................................................................ 48
6.2 Enabling Objective ............................................................................................................................ 48
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 49
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: E-SUM data of Final Core Loading Pattern .................................................................................... 12
Table 2: Moderator Temperature vs Burnup .............................................................................................. 16
Table 3: Sample Values for Manual MTC Calculation ................................................................................. 17
Table 4: Summary of Core Parameters and Requirements ........................................................................ 18
Table 5: Uncertainties Applied for Rod Ejection Accident Analysis ............................................................ 24
Table 6: Rod Ejection Accident Analysis Summary ..................................................................................... 24
Table 7: Partial E-SUM Output of SDM Calculation at BOC ........................................................................ 26
Table 8: Summary of SDM Analysis ............................................................................................................. 27
Table 9: Rod Worth Summary ..................................................................................................................... 28
Table 10: Gator Lake Specifications ............................................................................................................ 37
Table 11: Nominal and Overpower with Uncertainties Calculations .......................................................... 40
5
NOMENCLATURE
SYMBOLS
- Density
T-Temperature
Mass of Fuel
- Burnup
( )
The CDSCs input deck includes geometry of the problem (rod/guide tube dimensions; pitch,
heated length, spacers dimensions and locations), boundary conditions (inlet flow rate; system
pressure; 3D power distribution) and coefficient required for the constitutive relationships
(mixing coefficient, friction coefficient)
The CDSCs output deck contains 3D enthalpy and flow distribution; evaluations of thermal
safety limits. In this part of the design project Safety Margins Evaluation the subchannel
calculations for the hottest fuel assembly (FA) in the loading pattern of Gator Lake Unit 1 Cycle
15: Westinghouse 4-loop PWR were performed.
37
Table 10: Gator Lake Specifications
Fuel Assembly Layout
Parameter Value Units SI Units
FA dimension 1717 -
Number of fuel rods 264 -
Number of guide tubes 24 -
Number of instrumentation
tubes
1 -
Fuel rod pitch 0.496 in 0.012598 m
Fuel rod outside diameter 0.374 in 0.0095 m
Fuel pellet outside diameter 0.3225 in 0.008192 m
Cladding thickness 0.0225 in 0.000572 m
Guide tube outside diameter 0.482 in 0.012243 m
Instrumentation tube
outside diameter
0.482 in
0.012243 m
Fuel active (heated) length 168 in 4.2672 m
Full length 177.6 in 4.51104 m
Core Layout
Number of FA in the core 193 -
FA pitch 8.466 in 0.215036 m
Gap between FAs 0.05 in 0.00127 m
Rated Conditions
Nominal core power 3800 MWt
System pressure and core
pressure drop
2250
psia
Inlet enthalpy 560.9 BTU/lbm
Inlet mass flux
2.7064 mlbm/hr-
ft2
Heat generated in the fuel 0.974 fraction
38
Figure 22: 1/8th symmetry of the Gator Lake Unit 1: CDSC Nodalization for the Hot FA
The CDSC code allows to modulate the entire reactor based on 1/8
th
symmetry and to perform all
following safety analysis based on this.
The large tubes at the Figure 22 represents guide tubes at the core, while smaller tubes are feed
assemblies. As it also is seen from the figure of the 1/8
th
symmetry there were four repeatedly
different subchannels areas. This fact let us to calculate only four subchannels areas:
39
The last two area subchannels are calculated based on gap sizes between the rods and the
subtraction of areas of the feed rods out of the total
5.2 Steady State Analysis Steps
The objective was to perform realistic and conservative calculations to determine the maximum
cladding temperature at 100% power and to find the maximum allowable power (no critical heat
flux, CHF).
The realistic method implies using the set of data, correlations and methods designed to represent
the phenomena, using the best available techniques in which for the thermo-hydraulics Large
Break LOCA analysis the best-estimate methodologies supplemented with uncertainty analysis.
The analysis was performed according to the following steps:
Step 1: The hottest spot was find in the core.
The calculations are performed at nominal conditions: 100% power, 100% flow rate, the rated
inlet temperature and 100% system pressure. Also, the core radial and power distribution as
predicted in ANC were used.
The initial calculation determines the hottest subchannel in the core.
The step 1 is considered to be our base case.
Step 2: Estimation of overpower condition for the loading pattern.
The core average heat flux was increased until the CHF conditions are approached such as rapid
increase of cladding temperature of the hottest rod/subchannel.
Step 3: Account for the uncertainties.
The analysis was performed in a conservative case in order to:
Bound all core loading patterns (power distribution)
Account for manufacturing uncertainties
Account for uncertainties in initial boundary conditions.
Bound all core loading patterns (power distribution)
Account for fuel manufacturing uncertainties (enrichment, density, pellet deformation)
Also, to account for uncertainties in plant conditions/states and uncertainties in initial boundary
conditions, the pressure was reduced by 50psia, the coolant inlet temperature was increased by 4
(~7
o
C) and the inlet mass flux was reduced by 5%.
Additionally, to account for uncertainties in manufacturing tolerances by applying a pitch
reduction of 0.006 in to the hot subchannel. Thus, the subchannel flow area for the hottest
subchannel was recalculated, the gap between the rods was reduced and the spacer grid loss
coefficient of this subchannel was increased by 10%.
40
After running the steady state case of the nominal power in the CDSC code, it was obtained that
the hottest subchannel is the subchannel 1. After implying the modifications mentioned in the
Step 3, the new subchannel areas were calculated and were implemented in the input of the
overpower with uncertainties case. Alongside with the subchannel 1, the nearest subchannel to
the hottest one, subchannel had been recalculated also. The modified subchannel areas were
calculated:
5.3 Steady State Analysis Results
The following hottest temperatures, rod numbers and subchannels are given in the table 11.
Table 11: Nominal and Overpower with Uncertainties Calculations
Nominal Overpower with uncertainties
Maximum clad temperature [
o
C]
Cladding outer temperature
349.15
347.83
The rod number:
1 1
The subchannel number:
1 3
Based on the obtained results from the output, the plots are below:
1. The mass flux
Figure 23: The mass flux for the hottest subchannels at 100% power case and overpower case
with uncertainties
3450.00
3500.00
3550.00
3600.00
3650.00
3700.00
3750.00
3800.00
3850.00
3900.00
3950.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
M
a
s
s
F
l
u
x
[
(
k
g
/
s
/
m
2
]
Distance [m]
100% Power, ch.1 Overpower+uncer., ch.3
41
As it is seen from the Figure 23 above, the max flux at 3891.5 kg/s/m
2
in two starts decreasing in
a zigzag-shaped path along the distance. The reason of this behavior lies under the fact that
spacer grids have effect on mass flux. The rapid jump down of the path at 2.347m for Overpower
with uncertainties case and the comparably delayed jump down of the nominal 100% Power case
path at 2.667m occurred due to an offset of departure from nucleate boiling.
2. The cladding temperature and the coolant temperature; identify the regions of forced
convection, sub-cooled nucleate boiling and saturated boiling on these figures
Figure 24: 100% Power: Temperature at Channel 1
The figure 24 above shows the cladding and coolant temperature at rated conditions 100%
Power case. This graph is a visual representations of temperature changes in a flow regimes
along the distance. The coolant temperature starts from the inlet temperature at 295 and keeps
increasing linearly till it reaches the saturated temperature. The single phase convection regime
occurs at the region when the cladding temperature (in the plot it is represented by the cladding
outer) exponentially increases till it reaches and crosses the saturated temperature line. As the
cladding temperature stays higher than the saturated temperature, bubbles are nucleating and it
creates the subcooled nucleate boiling regime. As the coolant temperature reaches the saturation
temperature level, all three equalized temperatures creates the saturated boiling regime.
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
[
o
C
]
Distance [m]
Coolant Saturated Cladding, outer
Single phase
convection
Subcooled
nucleate
boiling
Saturated
boiling
42
3. The hottest subchannel quality and void fraction
Figure 25: 100% Power, channel 1: Void Fraction and Equilibrium Quality
Figure 26: Over Power + uncertainties, channel 3: Void Fraction and Equilibrium Quality
As it seen from the Figure 25: 100% Power at channel 1, the void fraction occurs after distance
3m, this is where onset of departure of nucleate boiling starts and generation (nucleation) of
bubbles occurs. However, at the Figure 26 over power case with uncertainties the offset of
departure nucleate boiling shifts to the left, the local heat flux increased due to increasing the
cladding temperature, and the DNBR starts earlier at overpower case. The equilibrium quality
shifts from -0.35 ratio value at the 100% power to -0.3 ratio at overpower. The reasons for this
effect could be the weighted gaseous flow is enlarging in size and leads in increasing the quality,
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0 1 2 3 4 5
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
V
o
i
d
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
[
-
]
Distance [m]
void fraction X_equil
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0 1 2 3 4 5
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
V
o
i
d
F
r
c
t
i
o
n
[
-
]
Distance [m]
void fraction X_equil
43
since the quality is the ratio of weighted gaseous flow over the total mixture flow. This is the
representation of the bubbles nucleation and bubbles expansion in sizes.
4. The fuel centerline temperature of the hottest rod
Figure 27: 100% Power Rod 1: Temperature
Figure 28: Over Power + uncertainties Rod 1: Temperature
The set limit temperature for the steady state operation is around 399
(799). For safety
operations and preventing the melting the core, the cladding and coolant temperatures must be
below the limit temperature that is shown as a red line.
250
270
290
310
330
350
370
390
410
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
[
o
C
]
Axial Zone [m]
Coolant Cladding Cladding Temperature limit
250
270
290
310
330
350
370
390
410
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
[
o
C
]
Axial Zone [m]
Coolant Cladding Cladding Temperature Limit
44
These two plots (Figures 27 and 28) represent the temperature behavior. The cladding
temperature has sharper increase in overpower case than at 100% Power case, this effect also
leads to faster boiling from the inlet coolant to saturated temperature. This effect can be seen
based on the sharp slope of coolant temperature function till it reaches the of the saturated
temperature 343.33
5. The departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR)
Figure 29: 100% power Rod 1: DNBR
Figure 30: Over Power + uncertainties Rod 1: DNBR
The minimum DNBR at 100% Power case is 1.965, while MDNBR is 1.337
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
D
N
B
R
[
-
]
Axial Zone [m]
MNDBR: 1.9652E+00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
D
N
B
R
[
-
]
Axial Zone [m]
MDNBR: 1.3374E+00
45
6. Fuel centerline temperature
Figure 31: Combined plot of the fuel center line temperature and hottest rods of two cases.
The fuel centerline temperature must be below the fuel melting temperature limit ~2593. Both
the Overpower with uncertainties case and the 100% Power fuel temperatures are below the
centerline line temperature. That supports the fact that the loading pattern is capable safely
operate and not exceeding the melting temperature points of the fuel rods.
250
750
1250
1750
2250
2750
0 1 2 3 4 5
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
[
o
C
]
Axial Zone [m]
Overpower + uncertanties, fuel average, rod 3
Fuel Centerline Temp
100%Power, fuel average, rod 1
46
7. Heat transfer coefficient
Figure 32: 100% Power Rod 1: Heat transfer coefficient
Figure 33: Over Power + uncertainties Rod 1: Heat transfer coefficient
Heat transfer coefficient represents how heat transfers from the fuel assembly to the coolant.
During the bubble nucleation regime, the heat transfer coefficient increases exponentially in both
cases. However, the path varies at the Figures 32 and 33, after the heat transfer reaches its
maximum , it decreases slowly in comparison to the 100% Power cases heat transfer at the point
where the coolant reaches the saturated temperature. The reason probably is that the high amount
of gaseous phase in the 2-phase flow coolant reduces the heat transfer capabilities.
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
0 1 2 3 4 5
H
_
s
u
r
f
[
w
/
m
2
/
k
]
Axial Zone [m]
H_surf
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
0 1 2 3 4 5
H
_
s
u
r
f
[
w
/
m
2
/
k
]
Axial Zone [m]
47
5.4 Steady State Analysis Summary
As it was observed, the location of the hottest subchannel are different for the overpower case.
The subchannel 1 was the hottest for the Nominal Power case, while the hottest subchannel at
Overpower + Uncertainties was 3.
48
Chapter 6
Conclusion
6.1 Terminal Objective
The primary objective of this design project was to familiarize students with the codes and
methods used in nuclear core development. With the design of Gator Lake Unit 1, Cycle 15, this
objective has been met through the successful completion of a new core, which meets and
exceeds all of the expectations put before it. The satisfaction of all core requirements itself
exemplifies the achievement of this terminal goal, as does this technical report and its associated
presentation.
6.2 Enabling Objective
Developing an acceptable reload core lading pattern with appropriate safety and operational
analysis verifications was the primary objective of the course. Firstly, the core loading pattern
criteria met the limits. Maximum enthalpy rise for unrodded case was 1.428, when the limit was
1.432. Cycle length was exceeded by 1.34 EFPD, which could result in additional $5 million
revenue. MTC value is negative throughout the whole cycle, when the limit is 0 pcm / deg F. No
additional fuel assemblies were used.
Secondly, through safety evaluations, it was shown that the reactor is safe to be operated in
neutronics perspective. The major safety analysis were performed: rod ejection accident,
shutdown margin, and rodded F
H
. All the safety criteria were passed with a margin in the
analysis, except the rodded F
H
calculation. Thirdly, the operational calculations were performed
to aid reactor operators in safe operation of the reactor.
Finally, thermal hydraulics analysis showed that the reactor is safe to be operated in thermal-
hydraulic perspective. The MDNBR of the overpower case is 1.34 which is above the required
MDNBR limit of 1.3. The operating temperatures of cladding and coolant are below the steady
state operation limit around 399. The operational fuel temperature were below the fuel
centerline limit. Based on the thermal hydraulics steady state analysis the loading pattern for the
Gator Lake is safe to be used.
49
REFERENCES
1. Dr. Avramova, Maria . "Safety Margins Evaluation with CDSC." TH Lecture 6.
NucE431W Nuclear Reactor Core design Synthesis, Pennsylvania State University. 1 Jan.
2014. Lecture.
4. Dr. Avramova, Maria . "Safety Margins Evaluation with a Subchannel Code-Examples."
TH Lecture 9. NucE431W Nuclear Reactor Core design Synthesis, Pennsylvania State
University. 1 Jan. 2014. Lecture.
5. Westingouse, "Core Deisgn Training Course", Presented to Penn State University, NucE
431W, Spring 2014 Westinghouse Electric Companty, LLC.