BWR RIA during nuclear heating

  • Thread starter rmattila
  • Start date
  • #1
244
1

Main Question or Discussion Point

It seems that the recent developments in BWR fuels (increased enrichment, added uranium mass at the bottom, part-length fuel rods especially in the corners) have changed the control rod reactivity values in such a way that the potential reactivity insertion caused by the postulated rod drop accident is potentially quite high at certain points during nuclear heating. More specifically, at the stage when CR:s adjacent tho those already withdrawn are being taken out of the core. This may result into quite large reactivity insertions and it is not trivial that the RIA limits of fuel are fulfilled at every point (up until the spectral effect finally cuts the CR reactivity values), if the situation has not been considered thoroughly at some stage during the gradual fuel development.

I was wondering if someone else has come up with this issue, and if there are some findings that might be of interest? Especially the behaviour of Doppler and other feedback mechanisms during the heating phase would be interesting. I am planning to do some generic calculations on my own, but it would be nice to know if someone has already done something in this direction.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,824
2,052
  • #3
244
1
Yes, that is a very good report concerning the consequences of the postulated CR drop. However, even there on page 143 it is suggested that analyses are performed either at CZP (where the enthalpy rise has traditionally been limiting) or at HZP (which has traditionally been close to the maximum reactivity insertion point). What I'm mainly concerned is the validity of using only these two points, as it seems that the most limiting point might actually lie somewhere in between, or perhaps at a few % power, depending on the reloading pattern and the withdrawal sequence.

There are two competing effects: the CR worth, which tends to be the largest at a certain point rather late in the in the withdrawal sequence, and the negative feedbacks, which are more effective at increased temperature. Using just the CZP and HZP points in the analyses might fail to catch the most limiting transient.
 

Related Threads on BWR RIA during nuclear heating

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
5K
Top