Nuclear Chain Reaction Conditions

In summary, the student group chose to apply a scaling approach to nuclear reactors. They read extensively about the topic and have many questions for which they are looking for good sources. The most important question is the effect of the heat generated in the slowing of neutrons on the heat produced in the rods. Another important question is the control of the reactor.
  • #1
jugren
2
1
TL;DR Summary
A project to apply a chemical engineering scaling approach to nuclear reactors
Hi all,

For my studies I chose a course on scaling up and down of industrial processes (mostly focussed on the chemical industry), but for our project we (a group of students who knew almost nothing about nuclear reactors) chose to look if the approach (dimensional analysis) can be applied to nuclear reactors as well. Through thorough reading we all have most of the basics down already we think.

I have a few questions right now (although if this proves usefull I might ask some more :) ). I am mostly looking for good sources to read since I'm having difficulty finding good sources for very specific questions, but direct answers are always welcome as well of course.

The questions:

- For the neutron mediation (so the slowing down of the neutrons to have them become thermal neutrons as far as I understand): is the volume of mediating fluid (like water) very important?

I've read that only about 16 collisions are needed to halve the energetic value of the neutron, so doing some calculations using the same formula's you would need about 420 collisions with ordinary water in order to reduce the energy from 2 MeV to 0.025 eV (the general energy of a thermal neutron). This amount seems quite low so I would guess the amount of fluid is not very important for this to happen.

- Is the heat generated in this process, slowing of neutrons, relevant compared to the heat produced in the rods?

With kind regards,
Jurgen
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
jugren said:
Summary:: A project to apply a chemical engineering scaling approach to nuclear reactors

I've read that only about 16 collisions are needed to halve the energetic value of the neutron, so doing some calculations using the same formula's you would need about 420 collisions with ordinary water in order to reduce the energy from 2 MeV to 0.025 eV (the general energy of a thermal neutron). This amount seems quite low so I would guess the amount of fluid is not very important for this to happen.
It's important to slow down the neutrons before the fast neutrons get captured by U238.
The moderator/fuel ration will be important.
- Is the heat generated in this process, slowing of neutrons, relevant compared to the heat produced in the rods?
Almost all of the energy of fission will go into the fission fragments. The energy of the neutrons will go mostly into the water, where you want it anyway.
The heat produced in the fuel rods is the most important, because the center of the rods can't be too hot, or the rods can get damaged. This is the reason the rods have to be rather thin.

One problem with big reactors is that they are hard to control. It will be possible for a part of the reactor to go critical, you'd need separate control rod systems for parts of the reactor.
Another thing is that you can't shut down a part of the reactor. You still need to do maintenance and refueling.
You might have to invest a lot in the power grid to be able to shut down your big reactor and get energy from somewhere else. If you had 2 reactors of half the size this would be much easier. Other kinds of reactors also do not get bigger than about 1Gb.
 
  • Informative
Likes hutchphd
  • #3
willem2 said:
One problem with big reactors is that they are hard to control.
Large reactors are relatively easy to control.
jugren said:
- For the neutron mediation (so the slowing down of the neutrons to have them become thermal neutrons as far as I understand): is the volume of mediating fluid (like water) very important?
If one wishes to design a 'thermal' reactor, in which the neutrons are slowed from fast (fission) energies to thermal equilibrium in the reactor, the fuel-to-moderator (fuel to hydrogen) ratio is important. One can design a compact fast reactor, but the enrichment must be increased, and one would normally use mixed oxide ((U,Pu)O2) fuel, or more likely, mixed nitride (U,Pu)N or even metal fuel (U,Pu)Zr or (U,Pu)Mo fuel.

Small reactors leak more neutrons than large reactors, so one might add a reflector around the core.

Reactors can be over or under moderated depending on the volume (mass) of the moderator to fuel. Typical large PWR (17x17 lattice) uses UO2 pellets of 8.19 mm diameter clad in Zr-alloy tubing of 9.5 mm OD and 0.57 mm wall thickness (under moderated), although some use cladding (tubing) with 9.14 mm OD and 0.57 mm wall thickness with pellets of 7.84 mm OD. The pitch of a square lattice is 12.6-12.7 mm. Some of the small modular PWRs have been designed around the 17x17 lattice fuel, but with shorter fuel columns (core height).

One could use a triangular or hexagonal lattice like that used in VVER or fast reactor fuel, which would be better for a small reactor.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes berkeman
  • #4
Thank you both for your answers this has already given me a lot of information!

Astronuc said:
If one wishes to design a 'thermal' reactor, in which the neutrons are slowed from fast (fission) energies to thermal equilibrium in the reactor, the fuel-to-moderator (fuel to hydrogen) ratio is important. One can design a compact fast reactor, but the enrichment must be increased, and one would normally use mixed oxide ((U,Pu)O2) fuel, or more likely, mixed nitride (U,Pu)N or even metal fuel (U,Pu)Zr or (U,Pu)Mo fuel.

Just for my understanding: I thought the fast neutrons can induce fission in U-238 instead of only in U-235 and therefore this might be an advantage right? Even if you need to enhance the fuel in other ways?
From your answers can I conclude that cooling the fuel tubes is more important than the heat dissipating from the neutrons slowing down? I would also still like to know if there is some relation to determine the average length that neutrons travel.
 
  • #5
jugren said:
Just for my understanding: I thought the fast neutrons can induce fission in U-238 instead of only in U-235 and therefore this might be an advantage right? Even if you need to enhance the fuel in other ways?
The probability of fission of U-235 by fast neutrons is much lower than for thermal neutrons. Fast reactor fuel usually contains Pu-239 (and some Pu-240,-241) as fissile material.

From your answers can I conclude that cooling the fuel tubes is more important than the heat dissipating from the neutrons slowing down? I would also still like to know if there is some relation to determine the average length that neutrons travel.
Most of the thermal energy in a thermal spectrum reactor is deposited in the fuel, with a small fraction deposited directly into the coolant. In a thermal reactor, about 7% of fissions occur in U-238 by fast fission. U-238 capture resonance and fast neutrons and is transformed into Pu-239, -240, -241, and they contributed to both thermal and fast fissions.

The most efficient core geometry (from a nuclear/neutronic standpoint) is a sphere, which is rather impractical for a power reactor (heat transfer). The next most efficient geometry is a right circular cylinder, which is difficult to achieve with square arrays of assemblies, more the larger the array. A triangular/hexagonal lattice is a better geometry for core.

The other consideration is the enrichment and batch size. The batch is the set of assemblies manufactured and irradiated as a group. One may have subgroups of different enrichments in a so-called split batch.

For large power reactors, a fraction of the used fuel is normally discharged and 'fresh' fuel added. In the past, a fresh core would be loaded with three batches of fuel, with each batch approximately 1/3 of the core. One batch would be discharged annually, so the whole initial core would be replaced after 3 years. One could use 1/4 reloads, but that requires a greater enrichment. Over time, utilities decided that it was more economical to have longer cycles of 1.5 to 2 years (18 to 24 months), and batch sizes are more like 37-50% of the core depending on a number of factors.

In order to produce a given amount of energy in a reactor, one must have excess reactivity, which means enrichment above that which is needed to achieve and maintain criticality. Excess reactivity must be balanced by burnable absorbers which compete with the fuel in absorbing neutrons. Burnable/consumable poisons include boron, and gadolinium or erbium. Boron may be dissolved as boric acid (buffered by LiOH or KOH) in the water (in PWRs), or integrated into the fuel (coated on the surface of fuel pellets as ZrB2) or mixed into the UO2 as gadolinia or erbia). If the fuel is metal, then gadolinium or erbium could be alloyed with the U-alloy. In the case of boiling water reactors (BWRs), soluble boron is not used in the water, because of the boiling, so BWRs must use control rods (control blades) actively in the core; BWR control blades sit between assemblies. Scaling a PWR design would be easier than scaling a BWR design.

One could develop a compact through away core, i.e., but that requires greater enrichment and judicious use of burnable poisons, or use of active control rods to control power and reactivity distribution in the core.

Another challenge in fuel design is the accommodation of fission products in the fuel, which leads to fuel swelling and internal pressurization. Each fission produces two atoms, and a substantial fraction of fission products are isotopes of Xe and Kr, noble gases, or volatiles such as I, Br, which decay to Xe, Kr, respectively. Some of the Xe, Kr isotopes decay to Cs and Rb, respectively, and some of those to La and Y, respectively. It is the isotopes of Xe and Kr that contribute to pressurization of the fuel and enhanced swelling in the UO2 fuel matrix. Fission products, particularly the noble gases have poor thermal conductivity, so as fission products accumulate, they degrade the thermal conductivity of the fuel, and that causes fuel temperature to increase for a given heat load.
 
  • Informative
Likes difalcojr
  • #6
I think it might be easier if you describe exactly what equations you are trying to scale. Are you looking at the diffusion equations? 6-factor formulas? transport equations? something else?

You ask about the number of scattering collisions to slow down a neutron, but this is never used as an input to an equation (that I know of). It is more a value that is edited to help understand the moderating properties of a material. In reality, the number of scattering collisions is a distribution.

All of the physical quantities should scale very easily, with the exception of the neutron leakage. The leakage term is going to cause you the most problems because there is not a linear relationship between the leakage and the dimensions. In your research you might have come across terms like "buckling".
 
  • #7
@jugren, Isn't the real purpose of your course of study to learn what limits scaling? Scaling up or down. That's the question you should be asking. Others have already hinted that neutron leakage may be the key.

What have you read about the conditions necessary to maintain a nuclear chain reaction?
 

Related to Nuclear Chain Reaction Conditions

1. What is a nuclear chain reaction?

A nuclear chain reaction is a process in which a nuclear reaction causes additional reactions, resulting in a self-sustaining chain of reactions. In nuclear power plants, this chain reaction is controlled to produce energy, while in nuclear weapons, it is uncontrolled and results in an explosion.

2. What are the conditions required for a nuclear chain reaction to occur?

The three main conditions required for a nuclear chain reaction are a sufficient amount of fissionable material, a neutron source, and a moderator. The fissionable material, such as uranium or plutonium, must be present in a large enough quantity to sustain the chain reaction. The neutron source, usually a radioactive material, provides the initial neutrons needed to start the reaction. The moderator slows down the neutrons to increase the chance of fission occurring.

3. How is a nuclear chain reaction controlled?

In a nuclear power plant, the chain reaction is controlled by using control rods to absorb excess neutrons and regulate the rate of the reaction. These control rods can be inserted or withdrawn from the reactor core to adjust the amount of fission occurring. In a nuclear weapon, the chain reaction is uncontrolled and allowed to continue until the desired level of destruction is reached.

4. What happens if a nuclear chain reaction is not properly controlled?

If a nuclear chain reaction is not properly controlled, it can lead to a nuclear meltdown or explosion. In a nuclear power plant, a meltdown can occur if the reactor core becomes too hot and the fuel rods melt, releasing radioactive material into the environment. In a nuclear weapon, an uncontrolled chain reaction can result in a nuclear explosion, causing massive destruction and radiation exposure.

5. How is the energy released in a nuclear chain reaction harnessed for practical use?

In a nuclear power plant, the heat generated by the nuclear chain reaction is used to produce steam, which then turns turbines to generate electricity. This electricity is then distributed to power homes and businesses. In nuclear weapons, the energy released is used to create a massive explosion, which can be harnessed for destructive purposes.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
11
Views
782
Back
Top