Geometry of Fast Reactor: Calculating Critical Dimensions & Masses

  • Thread starter Thread starter thanphongvt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the critical dimensions, volumes, and masses of a fast reactor composed of U-235, specifically in the form of a cube. Participants explore the implications of different geometries, including spherical and cylindrical cores, and consider the conditions at the center of the cubic configuration. The conversation includes aspects of reactor physics, diffusion theory, and the impact of source strength on critical parameters.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the reactor is assumed to be pure U-235 or if it includes structural materials and coolant, noting that this affects leakage rates and fast flux.
  • There is mention of using 1D diffusion theory and geometric buckling to derive basic results for the cube configuration.
  • One participant suggests that setting material buckling equal to geometrical buckling can help solve for the cube's side length, volume, and mass, but notes that this does not account for the point source.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the point source is given as an initial condition and expresses uncertainty about how it factors into the calculations.
  • Some participants discuss the relevance of the point source, with one suggesting it may only be significant when considering a uniformly distributed source versus a point source at the center.
  • There is a debate about the impact of a fixed source on the multiplication factor and the definition of buckling, with some arguing that the geometric buckling remains unchanged regardless of the source.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of assuming a reactor made of pure U-235, with one participant questioning if this scenario aligns with typical reactor design principles.
  • Participants note that for a given volume, the cube has the highest leakage, followed by the cylinder, and the sphere has the lowest leakage.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumptions regarding the reactor's composition and the role of the point source in calculations. There is no consensus on how these factors influence the critical parameters, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the problem's assumptions, particularly regarding the reactor's composition and the implications of using a point source. There are unresolved mathematical steps related to the diffusion equation and the conditions at the center of the cube.

thanphongvt
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
a fast reactor composed of U-235 in form of a cube(point source,strength So) .
calculate the :
critical dimensions,
critical volumes,
critical masses.
discuss more in cases of spherical , cylindrical and cubical cores.can i solve this practice by separating in 3 dimensions?
and what is the condition at the center of the cubic.?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
thanphongvt said:
a fast reactor composed of U-235 in form of a cube(point source,strength So) .
calculate the :
critical dimensions,
critical volumes,
critical masses.
discuss more in cases of spherical , cylindrical and cubical cores.


can i solve this practice by separating in 3 dimensions?
and what is the condition at the center of the cubic.?
The problem is a bit vague. Is one assuming that the fast reactor is simply pure U-235 (100% enrichment)? Or are there structural materials and coolant?

The different geometries will give different leakage rates depending on the fast flux at the boundaries and the total surface area.

What should the net current be at the center?
 
You could get basic results with 1D diffusion theory with "fast" cross sections. There is a simple formula for geometric buckling in a cube.
 
Classic problem.

You just need to set the material buckling to the geometrical buckling for an homogeneous reactor. I would assume it's all 235. By setting these equal, just solve for the length of the cube's side...then you can get volume and mass.

Though this doesn't handle the point source.
 
Uranium said:
Though this doesn't handle the point source.

It's given in the problem statement as an initial condition, phi(r=0)=So
 
I was indicating that my solution doesn't involve the given So...so I'm not sure how correct it would be.

I'm pretty sure my previous solution is correct. That's how it's usually done in practice problems like that.

I guess you could solve a 1-D diffusion equation to get a flux profile using So, but that wouldn't really answer any of the questions.

I'm not completely sure what is meant by "what is the condition at the center...".
 
Uranium said:
Classic problem.

You just need to set the material buckling to the geometrical buckling for an homogeneous reactor. I would assume it's all 235. By setting these equal, just solve for the length of the cube's side...then you can get volume and mass.

Though this doesn't handle the point source.

That sounds about right to me. Cube and sphere geometry are the easiest to solve (the flux shapes in the cube reactor are simple cosines in each direction). I'm not sure how important the point source is in the determination of the parameters of a critical system.
 
Kind of what I was thinking.

I think the point source only comes into play in solving the condition considering a uniformly distribution source (from the 235) and the point source at the center.
 
If I remember my reactor physics correctly (I'll have to break out my D&H tonight), you can only use the geometric/material buckling equivalence if there is no source. Otherwise, you have a time-dependent problem for which you must solve the diffusion equation directly.

edit- forget that, he's not trying to solve for flux, he just wants the critical dimensions, which only depend on geometry and materials. The source is irrelevant unless you want to solve for the flux itself.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
That's quite likely.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Uranium said:
That's quite possible, and would definitely make sense since the buckling would be thrown off...

Well the geometric buckling would not change, it is not dependent on a source. It is the fundamental mode, the shape the flux takes after infinite time purely based on the geometry of the core. What would change would be the flux distribution as a function of power. But this is irrelevant when you just want the critical parameters.
 
  • #12
The buckling should change at least a little since you can accept greater leakage for criticality. The shape would still be a cosine, just one with greater curvature, right?

Or perhaps it would be more like a hump...not cosine.
 
  • #13
Uranium said:
The buckling should change at least a little since you can accept greater leakage for criticality. The shape would still be a cosine, just one with greater curvature, right?

Or perhaps it would be more like a hump...not cosine.

It doesn't work that way. A fixed source has no impact on the multiplication factor or the probability of non-leakage. The flux distribution would change but the definition of buckling is a solution of the diffusion equation that assumes S=0.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
I was struggling with a fast reactor made of pure U-235! As the question is posed, there is no other structural material or coolant. That's not so much a reactor as a recipe for a nuclear explosive. And by critical, is one referring to prompt critical? Normally we don't take reactors there. I was hoping the OP would elaborate.

For a given volume, the cube has the highest leakage, followed by cylinder, then the sphere which has the lowest leakage.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
16K