The effect of fuel thermal conductivity on the behavior of LWR cores during loss-of-coolant accidents
Source abstract
Abstract
The effect of variation in thermal conductivity of light water reactor fuel elements on core response during loss-of-coolant accident scenarios is examined. Initially, a simplified numerical analysis is utilized to determine the time scales associated with dissipation of stored energy from the fuel into the coolant once the fission reaction is stopped. The analysis is then followed by full reactor system thermal–hydraulics analysis of a typical boiling and pressurized water reactor subjected to a large break loss-of-coolant accident scenario using the TRACE code. Accordingly, sensitivity analyses to examine the effect of an increase in fuel thermal conductivity, up to 500%, on fuel temperature evolution during these transients are performed. Given the major differences in thermal–hydraulics design aspects of boiling and pressurized water reactors, different fuel and temperature responses during the simulated loss-of-coolant transients are observed.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nuclear Materials and Properties · Nuclear reactor physics and engineering · Nuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Olander · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2009 · 389 · 110.1016/j.jnucmat.2009.01.297 ↗
2. Zinkle · Acta Materialia · 2013 · 61 · 73510.1016/j.actamat.2012.11.004 ↗
3. Todreas · 1993
4. Shuffler · Nuclear Engineering and Design · 2009 · 239 · 144210.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.12.028 ↗
5. Ferroni · Nuclear Engineering and Design · 2009 · 239 · 154410.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.12.029 ↗
6. Nuclear Fuel Safety Criteria Technical Review, NEA Report No. 7072, third ed., Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD, Paris 2012.
7. Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition, NUREG-0800, Section 4.2 Fuel System Design, Rev. 3, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, March 2007.
8. 10 Code of Federal Regulation 50.46.
9. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1263, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 2012.
10. J. Alvis, W. Liu, R. Montgomery, Fuel Reliability Program: Proposed RIA Acceptance Criteria, Report No. 1021036, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, 2010.
11. Olander · 1976
12. Lucuta · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 1996 · 232 · 16610.1016/S0022-3115(96)00404-7 ↗
13. Boyack · Nuclear Engineering and Design · 1990 · 119 · 110.1016/0029-5493(90)90071-5 ↗
14. Wilson · Nuclear Engineering and Design · 1990 · 119 · 1710.1016/0029-5493(90)90072-6 ↗
15. TRACE: The TRAC/RELAP Advanced Computational Engine, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2012.
16. D. Staicu, 2.17 – Thermal Properties of Irradiated UO2 and MOX, in: Comprehensive Nuclear Materials, J.M.K. Editor-in-Chief: Rudy, Ed., ed Oxford, Elsevier, 2012, pp. 439–464.
17. S. Yagnik, Thermal conductivity recovery phenomenon in Irradiated UO2 and (U, Gd)O2, presented at the ANS Topical Meeting on LWR Fuel Performance, Park City, Utah, 2000.
18. Amaya · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2002 · 300 · 5710.1016/S0022-3115(01)00704-8 ↗
19. Ronchi · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2004 · 327 · 5810.1016/j.jnucmat.2004.01.018 ↗
20. Walker · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2006 · 350 · 1910.1016/j.jnucmat.2005.11.007 ↗
21. Cohen · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 1961 · 3 · 33110.1016/0022-3115(61)90202-1 ↗
22. Betten · Transactions of the American Nuclear Society · 1985 · 50 · 239
23. W. Wiesenack, M. Vankeerberghen, R. Thankappan, Assessment of UO2 conductivity degradation based on in-pile temperature data, HWR-469, lnstitutt for energiteknikk, OECD Halden Reactor Project, 1996.
24. Y. Rashid, R. Dunham, R. Montgomery, Fuel Analysis and Licensing Code: FALCON MOD01: Volume 1: Theoretical and Numerical Bases, EPRI 1011307, Electric Power Research Institute, 2004.
25. Rondinella · Materials Today · 2010 · 13 · 2410.1016/S1369-7021(10)70221-2 ↗
26. SCDAP team, SCDAP/RELAP5/MOD 3.2 Code Manual, Volume IV: MATPRO – A Library of Materials Properties for Light-Water-Reactor Accident Analysis, NUREG/CR-6150, vol. 4, October 1997.
27. El-Wakil · 1971
28. Fuel Cladding Failure Criteria, EUR 19256 EN, European Nuclear Commission, 1999.
29. Fuel design data, Nuclear Engineering International, vol. 49, September, pp. 26–35, 2004.
30. J. Crank, P. Nicolson, A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type, in: Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 1947, pp. 50–67.10.1017/S0305004100023197 ↗
31. Terrani · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2009 · 392 · 19210.1016/j.jnucmat.2009.03.010 ↗
32. L.J. Ott, K.R. Robb, D. Wang, Preliminary assessment of ATFs on LWR during normal operation and under DB and BDB accident conditions, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 448 (2014) 520–533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.09.052.10.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.09.052 ↗
33. Wulff · Nuclear Engineering and Design · 1990 · 119 · 3310.1016/0029-5493(90)90073-7 ↗
34. Powers · 1980
35. R. Gauntt, D. Kalinich, J. Cardoni, J. Phillips, A. Goldmann, S. Pickering, et al., Fukushima Daiichi Accident Study (Status as of April 2012), SAND2012-6173, Sandia National Laboratorym, July 2012.10.2172/1055601 ↗
36. Terrani · Journal of Nuclear Materials · 2014 · 448 · 42010.1016/j.jnucmat.2013.06.041 ↗