Professional Documents
Culture Documents
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Safety assessment for simultaneous multiple reactivity insertions in a typical research reactor having low
Received 5 January 2015 enriched, high density (U3Si2Al) fuel has been done using modied PARET code. As a rst step, the effect
Received in revised form 11 June 2015 of single reactivity ramps on power and temperatures during transients showed good agreement with
Accepted 2 July 2015
already published data. Then simulation of transients for multiple reactivity insertions were carried
Available online 15 July 2015
out and the effects on reactor power, net reactivity of the system, and temperatures (fuel, clad and
coolant) were studied. The simultaneous reactivity insertions included ramp reactivity (large and small)
Keywords:
and beam tube ooding, a ramp reactivity and a core movement and a ramp reactivity and a sample
Low Enriched Uranium core
Research reactors
ejection accident respectively. When simultaneously two different reactivity insertion transients are
U3Si2Al fuel coupled in the reactor under uncontrolled conditions, the self-control of the reactor decreases. The power
Multiple ramp reactivity transient and temperatures show several peaks and it oscillates along with the net reactivity of the system within
the rst second of the accident.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.07.003
0306-4549/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
870 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878
of the reactivity insertion for the IAEA 10 MW reactor and the frequency reactivity induced accidents by assuming that all safety
Egypts second Research Reactor (ETRR-2) was carried out under features have failed during initial phase of accident.
super prompt-critical transients (Khater et al., 2007). They con- This work aims at the analysis of simultaneously two different
cluded that ETRR-2 core can withstand the uncontrolled with- reactivity insertions that are coupled in the reactor under
drawal of a control rod. uncontrolled conditions, for a typical MTR type reactor having high
Recently, single reactivity insertion accidents at startup for the density U3Si2Al fuel. Using parameters of IAEA benchmark 10 MW
IAEA 10 MW MTR system were studied using the MERSAT MTR type systems with LEU core, the modied PARET code was
computer code (Hainoun et al., 2010). For the range of inserted employed to simulate such transients. In rst part single ramp
ramp reactivity values, for only $1.5/0.5 s value the peak power reactivity insertions (from $0.2/0.5 s to $1.4/0.5 s) were studied
reached the highest value of 133.66 MW in 0.625 s and subse- and results were compared with the published data. Then
quently sub-cooled boiling and void formation occurred. Simulations were carried out for multiple failures in the same
Comparison of peak values showed good agreement with results system (IAEA Benchmark 10 MW (IAEA, 1980, 1992)). Multiple-
from the RELAP5/Mod 3.2 and the PARET codes. and simultaneous-reactivity insertion scenarios included a ramp
Similarly, the transient behavior of an MTR fueled with high reactivity (large and small) plus a beam tube ooding, a ramp reac-
density dispersion fuels was reported by many researchers tivity plus a core movement, and a ramp reactivity plus a sample
(Mirza et al., 1998; Muhammad and Majid, 2009a,b; Nasir et al., ejection accident respectively. When simultaneously two different
1999). Muhammad and Majid reported detailed neutronics and reactivity insertions are coupled in the reactor under uncontrolled
thermal hydraulic analysis for research reactor cores conditions, the self-control of the reactor system goes down. It was
(Muhammad and Majid, 2009b). In their work many scenarios hypothetically assumed that the control rod derive mechanism
were simulated for the transient behavior of an MTR e.g. controlled malfunctioned and control rods ejected from the core (partially
large and small reactivity induced accidents (Muhammad and or fully out position) and got stuck there which posed a ramp type
Majid, 2009a), controlled fast and slow loss of ow accidents and positive reactivity insertion into the core or a fuel element got
uncontrolled large and small reactivity induced accidents inserted into the water holes. Then at the same time another com-
(Muhammad and Majid, 2009b), uncontrolled fast and slow loss ponent failure occurred and it led to another reactivity insertion
of ow accidents (Muhammad and Majid, 2010). Controlled simultaneously. These credible accidents due to multiple compo-
scenarios are the one in which safety system trip is enabled where nent failures at same time were simulated for various ramp inser-
uncontrolled are the one in which safety system trip is disabled. tions and their effects on power, net reactivity of the system, fuel
In order to assess the point neutron kinetic model of the and clad temperatures were studied.
RELAP5/Mod3 code, single reactivity transients in the IAEA
MTR system have been studied recently (Hamidouche and
2. Reactor description
Bousbia-Salah, 2010). They inserted $1.5/0.5 s super prompt
positive reactivity in an initially critical reactor at one watt power
The IAEA have devised a benchmark MTR type reactor design
level with scram set at 12 MW. The predicted power transient
and many theoretical analysis have been reported in its core con-
modeled by using RELAP5/Mod3 was compared with the corre-
version guide books (IAEA, 1980, 1992). This system is a pool type
sponding values by the RETRAC-PC (Hamidouche et al., 2002)
reactor with high density low enriched uranium (U3Si2Al) fuel. All
and the PARET code (Woodruff, 1982). They concluded that the
the other design parameters are the same as that of HEU fueled
RELAP5 point kinetics model yields unphysical power evolution
research reactors. A summary of the design and thermal hydraulic
for some values of time step.
parameters for the LEU core is given in Table 1.
The Pakistan Research Reactor-I (PARR-I) was also upgraded
Reactor has nominal power of 10 MW. It has 5 6 matrix (as
from 5 MW HEU to 9 MW LEU core under the international
shown in Fig. 1) in which 21 fuel element and 4 control fuel ele-
RERTR program. Extensive experimental measurements of various
ment can t in. Reactor core is reected by Graphite on two oppo-
parameters of the upgraded Pakistan Research Reactor-1 (PARR-I)
site sides with a thickness of one fuel element. Pool water is light
core were carried out including the measurement of various coef-
water. Core has ve ux traps. One ux trap is at the center of the
cients of reactivity (Iqbal et al., 1997). These measurements show
core where the other four water boxes are at each corner of the
that for the PARR-I upgraded core, the fuel temperature coefcient
core. The central ux trap has aluminum box of dimensions of
of reactivity is about 21% lower as compared to HEU type.
7.7 cm 8.1 cm. This box has a square water hole of dimensions
Similarly, the void coefcient of reactivity is about 31% higher
5.0 cm 5.0 cm. The central ux trap is surrounded by two half
and the moderator temperature coefcient of reactivity is about
Standard Fuel Assemblies which serve as single Assembly taken
24% lower as compared with the corresponding previous estimates
together for thermal hydraulics point of view.
for HEU core. Also, the rod drop times and both the differential and
the integral worth of the PARR-I control rods have also been mea-
sured experimentally (Iqbal et al., 1997; Mirza et al., 1998). Table 1
Simulations showed that the LEU core is more sensitive to pertur- Comparison of design parameters for IAEA benchmark cores.
bations at low power as compared to transients at full power Parameter IAEA benchmark
(Mirza et al., 1998).
LEU core HEU core
Many postulated accidents are rejected on probabilistic grounds
Rated power (MW) 10 10
that their probability is extremely low and safety system will take
Fuel type U3Si2 UAlx
care of such situations. All MTR type reactors have safety systems Clad type Al Al
and operating procedures to safeguard against single and Plates per standard element 23 23
successive accidents. The safety systems include overpower trip Plates per control element 17 17
and low ow trip along with engineered safety features. The over- Number of standard fuel elements 23 21
Number of control fuel elements 5 5
power trip level will occur at 115% of the normal power level and Fuel meat thickness (mm) 0.51 0.51
ow trip will happen at low ow near 90% of the normal coolant Clad thickness (mm) 0.38 0.38
ow rate. Also, accidents which can result from a combination of Water channel width (mm) 2.19 2.19
independent simultaneous events are ignored due to their low fre- U-235 (g) per plate 17.0 12.2
Coolant ow rate (m3/h) 1000 1000
quency of happening. In this work, we have considered very low
R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878 871
Fig. 1. The core conguration of a typical 10 MW MTR-type system (a) assembly-wise power values (MW), cross sectional view of (b) standard fuel assembly and (c) control
fuel assembly with all dimensions given in cm.
Table 3 domain of interest at each time step. The MIM model uses channel
Reactivity coefcients and other parameters for the IAEA benchmark cores. averaged mass ow rate in the momentum equation (Woodruff,
Parameter IAEA benchmark core 1982). Also, the coolant properties once evaluated at some refer-
LEU HEU ence pressure are assumed temperature dependent only for the
rst step and the same values are used throughout the rest of cal-
Coolant temperature ($/C) 7.311 105 1.046 103
Void/density ($/% void) 0.27 0.21
culations. The pressure drop across the core is a complex function
Doppler ($/C) 2.47 105 6.0 107 of the channel geometry, ow rate and coolant phase. The PARET
beff (%) 0.731 0.758 code uses a detailed model for these evaluations and incorporates
K (l s) 42.4 54.6 the results of these calculations throughout the transient. Time
step control was varied to achieve the optimum CPU time and
small error.
departure from nucleate boiling and ow instabilities have been The PARET code is generally not applicable to situations where
modeled by using original Departure from Nucleate Boiling there is a strong spacetime coupling of neutron ux. The code also
(DNB) correlation and for obtaining a single phase ow, the revised uses steady-state heat transfer correlation and it is limited in its
model for the laminar ow with the entrance effects has been prediction of thermal crisis by the fact that it employs the
selected (Obenchain, 1969; Woodruff et al., 1996). As described steady-state DNB correlation (Woodruff, 1982, 1984). Also it uses
earlier that the neutronics parameters were taken from already an incompressible hydrodynamic model and a simplied void vol-
published work (Muhammad, 2009). ume generation equation. Therefore, hydrodynamic outputs of
PARET code should be interpreted as qualitative indicators.
3.1. Thermal and hydrodynamic model However, comparison of PARET/ANL and RELAP/Mod3.3 codes for
the several reactivity transients have shown that the predictions
The MTR core was discretized into 21 axial and 7 radial nodes of PARET code are fairly close to the RELAP/Mod3.3 (Woodruff
per channel and the calculations for the heat conduction through et al., 1996).
the fuel meat and clad were performed using the modied PARET
code. For the heat transfer across the clad-coolant interface, the 3.2. Reactor physics model
local ow and temperature dependent correlation were employed.
The values of the thermal conductivity and heat capacity used in The reactor dynamics is based on point kinetic model equations
calculations are shown in Table 2, respectively and design/thermal with continuous reactivity feedback from the thermal and hydro-
hydraulic data is given as Table 4. The coolant ow and the convec- dynamic model in the PARET code. The point reactivity assump-
tive heat transfer problem was solved by employing the modied tions have been found to be true for small cores. The governing
momentum integral method (MIM) in the PARET code which equations for the reactor power, P, and the number of precursors
solves the governing mass, momentum and energy conservation in the reactor, C i , are following:
equations along with the pressure balance equation for the entire
dPt qt b X6
Pt ki C i t 1
dt K i1
Table 4
Design and thermal hydraulic parameters of LEU core of IAEA 10 MW benchmark MTR
Muhammad, 2009. dC i t bi
Pt ki C i t; i 1; 2; 3; . . . ; 6 2
Parameter Value
dt K
Active core height 60.0 cm where, b and bi are the total and ith group delayed neutron frac-
Space at the grid plate per fuel 7.7 cm 8.1 cm tions, respectively. The neutron generation time is K and the ki is
element the decay constant for ith group precursors. For the super-prompt
Fuel element cross-section 7.6 cm 8.05 cm including support
critical transients, the delayed neutrons play only a minor role
plate
Meat dimensions 6.3 cm 0.051 cm 60.0 cm and under the prompt critical approximation, the above equations
Thickness of support plate 0.475 cm reduce to (Ott and Neuho1d, 1985):
Number of fuel plates per fuel 23 identical plates, each 0.127 cm thick
element dPt qt b
Pt 3
Number of fuel plates per control 17 identical plates, each 0.127 cm thick dt K
element
Identication of the remaining 4 plates of aluminum, each 0.127 cm
The time dependent reactivity q(t) appearing in both Eqs. (1)
plate positions of the control thick in the position of the rst, the and (3) is composed of two parts: the externally controlled reactiv-
element third, the twenty-rst, and the twenty- ity and the reactivity feedbacks coming from the Doppler broaden-
third standard plate position; water gaps ing of resonances in the fuel, effects of moderator temperature and
between the two sets of aluminum
the void temperature effects. For the neutronic model, six groups of
plates.
Specications of the LEU fuel Enrichment 20 w/o U-235; 390 g U-235 delayed neutrons have been used in this study. The respective val-
(qu = 4.40 g/cm3) per fuel element (23 ues of the reactivity coefcients, b, and K for HEU and LEU cores
plates) are shown in Table 3 (Iqbal et al., 1997; Nasir et al., 1999). In these
Mass of U in core (kg) 46.7372
calculations a single ramp reactivity insertions were modeled by
Total power 10 MWth
the following function:
Thermal hydraulic data: 8
Volumetric ow rate (m3/h) 1000
<0
> for t 6 0
Mass ow rate (kg/s) 275.97
Core ow area (m2)
qt ct for 0 6 t 6 Dt 4
0.0788 >
:
Core inlet temperature (C) 38 qm for t P Dt
Core outlet temperature (C) 47.6
Pressure at core mid-plane (kPa) 170 where, c is the ramp rate, Dt is the time duration for which the
Saturation temperature (C) 115.1 ramp is applied and qm is the nal inserted reactivity. Similarly,
Heat transfer area (m2) 39.91
multiple simultaneous ramp reactivity insertions were modeled
Average heat ux (W/cm2) 25.06
by the following function:
R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878 873
8
<0
> for t 6 0
qt ct bt for 0 6 t 6 t1 5
>
:
qm for t P t 1
where, c is the ramp rate between time t = 0 and t1 due to rst ramp
and b is the rate due to second simultaneous accident type. Then
second ramp is applied without any delay time and qm is the nal
inserted reactivity.
Fig. 3. (a) Clad temperatures as a function of time as a function of time during for
various single ramp reactivity insertions in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial
power = 10 MW; scram was disabled); (b) comparison of power as a function of
time during transient in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core for single ramp ($1.2/0.5 s) at
initial power of 10 MW and 1 W, respectively (scram was not enabled).
Table 5
Peak power and temperatures for various single ramp reactivity transients in IAEA
benchmarked MTR type reactor having U3Si2Al fuel.a
develops in one of the air lled beam tube having maximum reac-
tivity effects. Then it is ooding and transition from air lled to
water lled state adds a reactivity of 0.363% Dk/k. It has been
assumed that this reactivity is added within 0.25 s (Iqbal et al.,
2001). These data for Pakistan Research Reactor-I (PARR-I) is
assumed valid for the IAEA 10 MW benchmark core since PARR-I
has somewhat similar core conguration with central ux trap
and operates at 9 MW power level. In this scenario both single
ramp reactivity plus beam tube ooding occur together and the
Fig. 4. (a) Net reactivity and power (MW), (b) fuel, clad and coolant temperature as
coupled effects are analyzed. We have assumed that the reactor a function of time (during scenario 1: small ramp ($0.2/0.5 s) and beam tube
with U3Si2Al (4.10 g/cm3) fuel was operating at steady state ooding) in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 10 MW; scram was not
power of 10 MW and the reactor trip system was disabled. enabled).
R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878 875
Fig. 5. (a) Net reactivity and power (MW), (b) fuel, clad and coolant temperature as Fig. 6. (a) Power (MW), (b) net reactivity, (c) fuel temperature and (d) clad
a function of time (during scenario 1: a large ramp ($1.0/0.5 s) and beam tube temperature as a function of time (during scenario 1: ramp and beam tube ooding)
ooding) in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 10 MW; scram was not for various values of ramp reactivity in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial
enabled). power = 10 MW; scram was not enabled).
876 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878
The reactivity rises to a peak value and then starts decreasing movement of core towards thermal column is about $1 with the
slowly; however when the ramp is large the peak values also insertion rate of $1 per 0.615 s (Iqbal et al., 2001).
become high (Fig. 6a). The power also exhibits two peaks where The transient response of this scenario for a specic ramp of
the second peak remains higher as compared to the rst peak in $0.3/0.5 s plus the core movement towards thermal column is
all cases. The power rises to a peak value in less than a second simulated. Both transients occur simultaneously at low power of
and then keeps on rising monotonically in the absence of reactor 1 W when system scram is disabled. The results for net reactivity
scram for all cases. The fuel, clad and coolant temperature as a and power are shown as Fig. 7a and b, respectively. The reactivity
function of time for different ramps are shown as Fig. 6b, respec- increases linearly to $1.3 within rst 0.25 s and becomes constant
tively. The fuel and clad temperatures (Fig. 6c and d, respectively) there for a short duration. It then decreases and forms a second
remained far below the melting temperatures. Results are peak ($0.8) near 1.2 s. The power rises from 1 W to 103 MW within
summarized in Table 6. With the increase in ramp values the peak 0.9 s and the second power peak of 34 MW occurs near 1.2 s.
values increased. Fuel temperatures remain below 165 C and clad In next part, the ramp reactivity was varied from $0.1/0.5 s to
temperature remained below 145 C because of good thermal con- $0.5/0.5 s in steps along with the core movement transient and
ductivity of fuel. In these multiple transients, the coolant reached the response was studied. Results of the analysis for power and
at onset of nucleate boiling and attained the saturation tempera- clad temperature are shown as Fig. 8a and b, respectively. Peak
ture. The highest peak (53.5 MW) in power is observed for ramp power reaches to 280 MW when ramp inserted is $0.5/0.5 s plus
of $1.0/0.5 s is applied along 148.8 C 148.8 C with the beam tube the core movement. First power peak in scenario 2 varies from
ooding. 18 MW to 276.8 MW when the ramp value is changed from
$0.1/0.5 s to $0.5/0.5 s. Similarly the clad temperatures vary from
4.3. Scenario 2: ramp + core movement towards thermal column 87.2 C to 260 C for the range of ramps mentioned above. The peak
values (as shown in Table 7) reach earlier in time when ramp value
When the reactor core is moved from a position, in which it is is increased and peak value becomes high and peak clad tempera-
completely surrounded by water, to another position, in which a tures remain below the melting point during these coupled
portion of its water reector is replaced by graphite thermal col- transients.
umn into the stall end operating position. This can add reactivity
to the core. In order to prevent the initiation of excursions through 4.4. Senario3: a ramp + experimental sample ejection
the rapid movement of the core in the vicinity of the thermal col-
umn, a micro-switch is generally installed in the bridge drive The experiments which are placed inside the reactor represent a
assembly, which scram the reactor when the crank controlling potential means of imparting a sudden increase in reactivity which
bridge movement is engaged. If the bridge scram interlock fails, can be inserted by removal of an experiment while the core is crit-
the severity of the transient will depend upon the rate with which ical. In this accident, the reactivity gets inserted from the removal
the reactivity is added. The maximum speed at which the reactor
bridge can be moved by an average person is about 513 cm/s.
The effect of thermal column on the core reactivity can occurs only
in the last 10 cm of the motion. Hence, we have assumed that such
a movement will add a reactivity of about 0.728% Dk/k into the
core in about 0.615 s. This is a startup accidental scenario. In this
transient it is assumed that reactor is initially at very low power
of 1 W (natural convection mode) and the reactor trip system is
disabled. The rapid movement of core under forced cooling
condition with ow rates of 9501000 m3/h can create huge trust
on core and its supporting bridge and can dislodge many
components from system.
Then a ramp reactivity of $0.25/0.5 s is inserted and at the same
time the reactor core is moved towards the thermal column. The
neutrons that were leaking out from the core are now reecting
back from the thermal column and cause a positive reactivity
insertion. It is assumed that reactivity inserted because of
Table 6
Peak power and peak clad temperatures for various ramp plus beam tube ooding
transients in IAEA benchmarked MTR type reactor having U3Si2Al fuel.a
Fig. 9. (a) Net reactivity and power (MW), (b) fuel, clad and coolant temperature as
a function of time (during scenario 3: a ramp ($0.3/0.5 s) and sample ejection
accident) in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 10 MW; scram was not
Fig. 8. (a) Power (MW), (b) clad temperature as a function of time (during scenario enabled).
2: a ramp and core movement towards thermal column transient) for various values
of ramp reactivity in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 1.0 W; scram was not
enabled). simultaneously and the system scram is disabled. The results for
net reactivity and power are shown as Fig. 9a and b, respectively.
The reactivity increases very sharply within rst 0.1 s and It then
Table 7 decreases and forms a second peak. The power follows the net
Peak power and peak clad temperatures for various ramp plus core movement
reactivity and it rises to 82.4 MW within 0.1 s; the second power
transients in IAEA benchmarked MTR type reactor having U3Si2Al fuel.a
peak of 48 MW occurs near 0.31 s and afterwards it remains less
Ramp Power (MW) Clad temperature than 50 MW. The peak fuel, clad and coolant temperatures are
First peak Second peak First peak Second peak observed with 165.0 C, 151.0 C and 110 C, respectively. The val-
(Time) (Time) (Time) (Time) ues of clad temperatures remained far below the clad melting
$0.5/0.5 s 276.8 MW 56.4 MW 260.2 C 148.1 C temperatures.
(0.73 s) (1.0 s) (0.75 s) (1.0 s) In this scenario, the ramp reactivity was varied from $0.1/0.5 s
$0.4/0.5 s 179.6 MW 43.6 MW 219.2 C 145.7 C to $0.5/0.5 s along with in-pile experimental sample ejection acci-
(0.80 s) (1.09 s) (0.83 s) (1.11 s)
dent and the transient response was studied for each case. Results
$0.3/0.5 s 103.0 MW 33.6 MW 152.7 C 131.4 C
(0.90 s) (1.20 s) (0.91 s) (1.27 s) of the analysis for power and clad temperature are shown as
$0.2/0.5 s 49.2 MW 23.5 MW 131.1 C 111.3 C Fig. 10a and b, respectively. Peak values for scenario 3 are summa-
(1.05 s) (1.39 s) (1.11 s) (1.47 s) rized in Table 8. Peak power reaches to 96.4 MW when ramp
$0.1/0.5 s 18.1 MW 87.2 C 89.9 C
inserted is $0.5/0.5 s along with the sample ejection accident.
(1.39 s) (1.48 s) (1.79 s)
The peak clad temperature rises from 77 C to 153 C within 0.1 s
a
Initial power = 1 W; reactor scram disabled. in this case. The peak values increase when ramp value is raised.
Peak clad temperature remains below the melting point. In Ramp
plus in-pile experimental sample ejection accident the maximum
of single in-pile experiment and the sample worth is taken to be $1
power and Maximum clad temperature remained less than
and time taken for the sample ejection is 0.025 s but it mainly
96 MW and 155 C.
depends upon the samples weight. This is the upper limit of reac-
tivity due to a sample which is to be irradiated in a core. Therefore,
the reactivity insertion rate due to sample ejection is considered to 5. Conclusions
be $1.0 per 0.025 s (Iqbal et al., 2001).
In scenario 3, the reactor is assumed to be operating at steady When simultaneously two different reactivity insertion tran-
state power level of 10 MW and reactor trip is disabled. A specic sients are coupled in the LEU fueled MTR type reactor under
ramp of $0.3/0.5 s is coupled with an accident in which an in-pile uncontrolled conditions, the self-control of the reactor decreases.
experimental sample gets ejected and introduces a positive The power shows multiple peaks and oscillates along with the
reactivity ($1.0/0.025 s) into the system. Both transients occur net reactivity of the system within rst second of the coupled
878 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878
References
Cardell, R.K., Herborn, D.H., Houghtaling, J.E., 1967. Reactivity Accident Test Results
and Analysis for the SPERT IIIE Core, IDO-17281.
Cullen, D.E., Muranaka, R., Schmidt, J., 1986. Applications in Nuclear Data and
Reactor Physics. World Scientic, Vienna, Austria.
Gaheen, M.A., Elaraby, S., Naguib Aly, M., Nagy, M.S., 2007. Simulation and analysis
of IAEA benchmark transients. Prog. Nucl. Energy 49, 217229.
Hainoun, A., Ghazi, N., Abdul-Moaiz, B.M., 2010. Safety analysis of the IAEA
reference research reactor during loss of ow accident using the code MERSAT.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 240, 11321138.
Hamidouche, T., Bousbia-Salah, A., 2010. Assessment of RELAP5 point kinetic model
against reactivity insertion transient in the IAEA 10 MW MTR research reactor.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 240, 672677.
Hamidouche, T., Mazrou, H., Ibrahim, K., Bousbia-Salah, A., 2002. RETRAC-PC: a
computer code for research reactor calculation under transient conditions. In:
Proceedings of ANS Reactor Physics Topical Meeting, PHYSOR 2002, Seoul,
Korea, October 710.
Housiadas, C., 2000. Simulation of loss-of-ow transients in research reactors. Ann.
Nucl. Energy 27, 16831693.
IAEA, 1980. Research Reactor Core Conversion from Use of High Enriched Uranium
to Use Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Handbook. IAEA-TECDOC-233, Vienna,
Austria.
IAEA, 1992. Research Reactor Core Conversion Guidebook, Vol. 3. IAEA TECDOC-643.
Iqbal, M., Mirza, N.M., Mirza, S.M., Ayazuddin, S.K., 1997. Study of the void
coefcients of reactivity in a typical pool type research reactor. Ann. Nucl.
Energy 24, 177186.
Iqbal, M., Hayat, T., Pervez, S., 2001. Safety Analysis Report of Pakistan Research
Reactor-1. Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, P.O. Nilore,
Islamabad.
Fig. 10. (a) Reactor power (MW), (b) clad temperature as a function of time (during Khater, H., Abu-El-Maty, T., El-Morshdy, S.E.-D., 2007. Thermalhydraulic modeling
scenario 3: a ramp and sample ejection accident) for various values of ramp of reactivity accident in MTR reactors. Ann. Nucl. Energy 34, 732742.
reactivity in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 10 MW; scram was not Metos, J.E., Pennington, E.M., Freese, K.E., Woodruff, W.L., 1992. Safety-Related
enabled). Benchmark Calculations for MTR Type Reactors with HEU, MEU and LEU fuels.
Research Reactor Core Conversion Guidebook, Vol. 3. IAEA, Vienna.
Mirza, S.M., 1997. Simulation of over-power transients in tank-in-pool type
research reactors. Ann. Nucl. Energy 24, 871881.
Table 8 Mirza, A.M., Khanam, S., Mirza, N.M., 1998. Simulation of reactivity transients in
current MTRs. Ann. Nucl. Energy 25, 14651484.
Peak power and peak clad temperatures for various ramp plus sample ejection
Muhammad, F., 2009. Analysis of inherent safety of an MTR (Ph.D. thesis). Dept. of
transients in IAEA benchmarked MTR type reactor having U3Si2Al fuel.a
Nuclear Engineering, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences
Ramp Power (MW) Clad temperature (C) (PIEAS), Nilore, Islamabad 45650, Pakistan.
Muhammad, F., Majid, A., 2009a. Effects of high density dispersion fuel loading on
First peak Second peak First peak Second peak the dynamics of a low enriched uranium fueled material test research reactor.
(Time) (Time) (Time) (Time) Prog. Nucl. Energy 51, 339346.
Muhammad, F., Majid, A., 2009b. Effects of high density dispersion fuel loading on
$0.5/0.5 s 96.4 MW 63.5 MW 152.8 C 149.2 C
the uncontrolled reactivity insertion transients of a low enriched uranium
(0.08 s) (0.29 s) (0.10 s) (0.30 s) fueled material test research reactor. Ann. Nucl. Energy 36, 10211031.
$0.4/0.5 s 88.9 MW 55.1 MW 151.8 C 148.1 C Muhammad, F., Majid, A., 2010. Prospects of using different clad materials in a
(0.08 s) (0.30 s) (0.10 s) (0.31 s) material test research reactor Part 4 The uncontrolled reactivity insertion
$0.3/0.5 s 82.4 MW 48.0 MW 150.9 C 146.9 C transients. Prog. Nucl. Energy 52, 332338.
(0.08 s) (0.31 s) (0.10 s) (0.31 s) Nasir, R., Mirza, N.M., Mirza, S.M., 1999. Sensitivity of reactivity insertion limits
$0.2/0.5 s 76.5 MW 42.1 MW 150.0 C 145.9 C with respect to safety parameters in a typical MTR. Ann. Nucl. Energy 26, 1517
(0.08 s) (0.32 s) (0.10 s) (0.32 s) 1535.
$0.1/0.5 s 71.3 MW 37.3 MW 149.2 C 144.9 C Obenchain, C.F., 1969. PARET A Program for the Analysis of Reactor Transients,
(0.08 s) (0.36 s) (0.10 s) (0.34 s) AEC Research and Development Report, IDO-17282, USAEC, Idaho.
Ott, K.O., Neuho1d, R.J., 1985. Introductory Nuclear Reactor Dynamics. American
a
Initial power = 1 W; reactor scram disabled. Nuclear Society, Illinois.
Salama, A., El-Morshedy, S.E.-D., 2012. CFD analysis of ow blockage in MTR coolant
channel under loss-of-ow transient: Hot channel scenario. Prog. Nucl. Energy
55, 7892.
accident. In scenario 1 (ramp and beam tube ooding) when ramp Waldman, R., Vertullo, A., 1987. Reactivity accident analysis in MTR cores. In:
is changed from $0.2/0.5 s to $1.0/0.5 s, the power peak remains Proceedings of the 10th International Meeting on Reduced Enrichment Research
less than 55 MW and clad temperature remains less than 146 C and Test Reactors, Buenos Aires, Argentina, CNEA, Sep 28 Oct 1.
Woodruff, W.L., 1982. The PARET Code and the Analysis of the SPERT-I Transients,
during rst second. For scenario 2 (ramp and core movement tran- ANL/RERTR/TM 4.
sient) under uncontrolled conditions and initial power of one Watt, Woodruff, W.L., 1984. A kinetic and thermalhydraulic capability for the analysis of
when the ramp is changed from $0.1/0.5 s to $0.5/0.5 s, the power research reactors. Nucl. Technol. 64, 196206.
Woodruff, W.L., Hanan, N.A., Smith, R.S., Matos, J.E., 1996. A comparison of the
peak is near 277 MW and clad temperature remains less than PARET/ANL and RELAP5/MOD3 codes for the analysis of IAEA benchmark
260 C in rst second. Also, for scenario 3 (ramp and sample ejec- transients. In: Proc. of 1996 Int. Mtg. on Reduced Enrichment for Research and
tion accident) under uncontrolled conditions and initial power of Test Reactors, Seoul, Korea, pp. 260269, October 710.