Hexagonal fuel arrays (VVER and fast reactor fuel)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the design of a fast reactor core using hexagonal fuel arrays, emphasizing the selection of lattice geometry and the calculation of fuel rod configurations. A hexagonal array begins with a central fuel rod or assembly, expanding outward in a specific pattern that defines the total number of elements. The total number of fuel rods and assemblies can be calculated using formulas based on the number of rows, ensuring that the product of rods and assemblies matches the required total from neutronics calculations. Key design considerations include the fuel pellet diameter, cladding dimensions, and pitch, which impact criticality, power density, and thermal-hydraulic characteristics. The mathematics of centered hexagonal numbers is highlighted as an interesting aspect of the design problem, though control rod interactions are not addressed.
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
22,352
Reaction score
7,173
I'm working on an interesting task at the moment related to a core and fuel design for a fast reactor system. Given that the system is a fast reactor, we select a sensible lattice, i.e., a triangular or hexagonal lattice. Neutronically, one can solve for the necessary mass of enriched (less than 20% 235U) in the form of a ceramic, UN. By defining a fuel rod geometry (pellet diameter, cladding inner and outer diameter) and fuel rod pitch (typically P/D is ~1.25, but could be as much as 1.3), one will calculate the number of fuel rods in the system.

However, a core is composed of fuel assemblies, each containing a set of fuel rods.

Now, in a hexagonal array, one starts with a central location (row 1) of either an assembly or fuel rod. Immediately, or directly, surrounding the one central are six (6) in row 2, then around the six (6), is twelve (12), and so on. For each successive row, one adds 6 to the number in the previous row.

So, the counting goes as: 1, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48, . . . .
and the cumulative or total number of elements in the array goes as: 1, 7, 19, 37, 61, 91, 127, 169, 217, . . .

See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centered_hexagonal_number

The total number of fuel rods, NR, in an assembly, can be defined by 3(r2-r)+1, where r is the number of rows of fuel rods, and similarly, the number of assemblies, NA, in a core is given by 3(a2-a)+1, where a is the number of rows of assemblies.

Then one is faced with selecting the number of rods per assembly and the number of assemblies. In other words, the product of NR and NA has to equal the total number of fuel rods from the neutronics calculation. For example, one could use NR = 127, NA = 169, or NR = 169, NA = 169, since 127 x 169 = 169 x 127 = 21463.

One the other hand, one could decide NR = NA = 169, and 169 x 169 = 28561.

One also has to decide on the fuel pellet diameter (and density of the ceramic fuel, or metal fuel), the cladding inner and outer diameter, and the pitch (distance between the centers of adjacent fuel rods or assemblies). The fuel pellet diameter affects the criticality and power density, the inner and outer cladding diameters affect the stress in the cladding depending on the differential pressure across the cladding wall, the outer diameter affects the heat flux for a given power density (or linear heat rate, kW/m), and the cladding diameter and fuel rod pitch affects the hydraulic resistance and various thermal-hydraulic characteristics of the lattice.

It's an interesting design problem, but I thought the mathematics of 'centered hexagonal numbers' is interesting. Note that I didn't address control rods and their interaction with the fuel assembly.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes nuclearsneke, berkeman and anorlunda
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top