# Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912 www.elsevier.

com/locate/anucene

**Neutronic calculation to the TRIGA Ipr-R1 reactor using the WIMSD4 and CITATION codes
**

Hugo M. Dallea,b, Claubia Pereirab,*, Rosemary G.P. Souzaa

a

Centro de Desenvolvimento de Tecnologia Nuclear—CDTN, Rua Prof. Mario Werneck, s/n, Cidade ´ria UFMG, Pampulha, CP 941, CEP: 30123-970, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Universita b Departamento de Engenharia Nuclear, EE—UFMG, Av. Contorno 842, 9o. Andar, Centro, 30110-060 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Received 5 July 2001; accepted 14 August 2001

Abstract The WIMSD4 and CITATION codes are used to calculate neutronic parameters of a TRIGA reactor. The results are compared with experimental values. Five conﬁgurations are analysed and the excess reactivity worth, the fuel temperature reactivity coeﬃcient, the control reactivity worth, safety and regulation rod of the TRIGA IPR–R1 reactor are calculated. The idea is to obtain the systematic error for k1 for this methodology comparing the calculated and the experimental results. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The IPR–R1 is a TRIGA Mark I reactor produced by the General Atomic (USA). It began to operate in November 1960. Since then it has been used for research in many ﬁelds such as radiochemistry, reactor physics, material science, environmental studies, medical and industrial radioisotopes production and staﬀ training in the ‘‘Angra dos Reis’’ nuclear power plant. This reactor is operated by the ‘‘Centro de Desenvolvimento da Tecnologia Nuclear’’ (CDTN), in Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, that intends to increase its maximum thermal power from 100 to 250 kW. This methodology was developed to give a theoretical support to obtain the new power.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55-31-3238-1007; fax: +55-31-3238-1760. E-mail address: claubia@nuclear.ufmg.br (C. Pereira). 0306-4549/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0306-4549(01)00093-7

comparing the calculated and the experimental results. the temperature reactivity coeﬃcient. The fuel elements of the IPR–R1 are composed by samarium-uranium (8 w/o) disks with the uranium enriched to 20 w/o. with a hydrogento-zirconium ratio equal to 1. the clad is aluminium. The results obtained from WIMSD4 (Ahnert. Core I. Dalle et al. 1980) and CITATION (Fowler et al. 1999a) (see Figs. by subtracting the systematic error. 1969) are compared with experimental values for ﬁve core conﬁgurations of the IPR–R1 (Dalle. 1999a) and it is completed with the results presented here. 1998a.M. 1999b. Then the excess reactivity for other core conﬁgurations can be obtained from the calculated keﬀ.
.. Souza. 1–5). / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
Part of the validation process is available in the references (Dalle et al. the reactivity worth of the control. The reactor is operating with 1704 MWh.902
H. The excess reactivity. safety and regulation rods and the integral curves of the control and safety rods are calculated for the ﬁve conﬁgurations. The idea is to obtain the systematic error for k1 for this methodology. The ﬁve core conﬁgurations are presented in the next ﬁgures.b Dalle.. 1.
2. Excess reactivity The excess reactivity is calculated by the following expression:
Fig.

002697 1.005698
Core I Core II Core III Core IV Core V
.006004 0.006999 1.012571 1.008348 1. Core II.012266 1.007080 1.012301 KCÀKE Calculated reactivity (pcm) 1096 660 272 690 664 Obsd
CITCOF1B CITCOF2B CITCOF3B CITCOF4B CITCOF5B
0. and k is the average systematic deviation from the calculated keﬀ for the measured keﬀ.H.M. the average temperature of the fuel was considered equal to 140 C. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
903
Fig.
Table 1 Excess reactivity Case Experimental reactivity (pcm) [2] 1059 695 269 703 656 Experimental keﬀ (KE) 1.005491 0. For the calculations.005651 0.010703 1.
¼
k À 1 ðkeff À kÞ À 1 ¼ k ðkeff À kÞ
ð1Þ
where is the reactivity. Dalle et al.016707 1. The excess reactivity is presented in the Table 1 for the ﬁve conﬁgurations. 2.005267 0. in the ﬁve tested core conﬁgurations. keﬀ the calculated eﬀective multiplication factor.006603 Calculated keﬀ (KC) 1.

the variation coeﬃcient becomes: CV ¼ 4:8 % 5% Observing Table 1. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
Fig.000272. III. was deﬁned by the following expression:
.904
H. Therefore. Reactivity worth of the control rods To calculate the control rods reactivity worth.
3.
From the diﬀerences between experimental keﬀ (KE) and the calculated (KC) for the core conﬁgurations I. i. 5%.M. Dalle et al. 3.e. II. the average systematic error is calculated: k ¼ ð0:006004 þ 0:005267 þ 0:005651 þ 0:005491 þ 0005698Þ=5 ) k ¼ 0:005622 being its standard deviation (square root of the variance) Sx=0. Core III. IV and V. the error for all the conﬁgurations is inside the range of the CV.

2%. The experimental values are used to determine the error of the reactivity worth calculation of the control rods. measured only by the rod drop method (the very low excess reactivity of this core conﬁguration did not permit the measure by positive period method) (Souza. this disagreement remains within the range of the error margin of the calculation. which is considered to be more precise. if the variation coeﬃcient were equal to 5. The calculation of the core conﬁguration V presents the reactivity worth of the safety rod slightly superior to the control rod. the experimental values of the core conﬁguration III.
¼
1 1 À ðkeff 1 À kÞ ðkeff 2 À kÞ
ð2Þ
where keﬀ1 and keﬀ2. ﬁve calculated values are out of the range. are the eﬀective multiplication factor calculated with the rod in positions 1 and 2. Core IV. The experimental values were measured by the positive period method.H. Dalle et al. Nevertheless. This way. the CV for other calculations will be considered as 7. Nevertheless. To be conservative. respectively. in opposition to the experimental results.5. where the control rod is always more reactive. only the value of the SECOF2B case would be out. If considering the variation coeﬃcient.
. The reactivity of the control rods is presented in Table 2. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
905
Fig. 4. 1999) were not considered.M.

997213 1.75 1.994631 0. Dalle et al.81 7.20 À2. This way the theoretical curves of the
.009008 0.008055 0.80 Obsd
COCOF1B SECOF1B RECOF1B COCOF2B SECOF2B RECOF2B COCOF4B SECOF4B RECOF4B COCOF5B SECOF5B RECOF5B
a
Control rod in core I Safety rod in core I Regulation rod in core I Control rod in core II Safety rod in core II Regulation rod in core II Control rod in core IV Safety rod in core IV Regulation rod in core IV Control rod in core V Safety rod in core V Regulation rod in core V
Average of the two values measured in this core conﬁguration (Souza.
4.26 3. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
Fig. 5.008510 Calculated reactivity (pcm) 1744 1697 408 1771 1737 417 1586 1538 353 1590 1599 376 Error (%) À0.996352 1.41 À0.994971 1.13 5.12 5. Core V.996741 0.906
H. 1999).996447 0. Integral curves of the control and safety rods The three-dimensional neutronic calculation permits to simulate the partial insertion of the control rods in the reactor core.54 2.999187 0.999652 1.15 5.012551 0.57 À0.22 5. Table 2 Reactivity worth of the control rods
Case Experimental reactivity (pcm) 1746a 1608a 399a 1706 1620 395 1588 1462 363 1572 1517 379 Calculated keﬀ 0.M.

6 cm and it is
Fig. IV and V. This result is consistent. 7. They are obtained using the results of the calculations presented in Table 3. 6 and 7 show the theoretical integral curves of the control and safety rods for the core conﬁgurations I.H. since the active core considered in calculation is 35. II.
Fig.
. In all core conﬁgurations tested the largest diﬀerential reactivity worth of the control and safety rods occurred between 15 and 20 cm of rod insertion. Figs. 6. Integral curve of the control rod. It is interesting to determine the reactivity insertion rate by rods through the analyses of the curves.M. Dalle et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
907
reactivity of the rods can be determined. Integral curve of the safety rod.

V is the rod velocity. II.8 cm. IV and V Position (cm) COCOF1BI I Control rod (pcm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35.
5.M. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
Table 3 Reactivity worth of the control rod and safety rod versus the position of core conﬁgurations I. Dalle et al.908
H. The maximum reactivity insertion rate by rods occurs within this region. Taking the interval close to the middle point that appears in the curves like a straight line and in which the maximum inclination occurs. the curves are straight and with the maximum inclination. The control rods have the maximum diﬀerential reactivity worth close to the middle point. which is 17. the maximum reactivity insertion rate can be estimated by MAXÁ ¼ ðÁ=ÁxÞ V ð3Þ
where Á and Áx are the reactivity change and the position change of the rods in the considered interval. Determination of the maximum reactivity insertion rate by control and safety rods The maximum reactivity insertion rate by control rods can be estimated by the integral curves of the rods. From the curves it can be observed that within the range close to the middle point. respectively. having the following values: Vsafety ¼ 0:47 cm=s Vcontrol ¼ 0:48 cm=s Vregulation ¼ 0:47 cm=s:
.6 126 369 700 1069 1407 1648 1744 Safety rod (pcm) 120 355 679 1040 1367 1603 1697 COCOF2BI II Control rod (pcm) 130 379 719 1098 1434 1675 1771 Safety rod (pcm) 127 362 699 1065 1402 1645 1737 COCOF4BI IV Control rod (pcm) 114 343 646 975 1284 1495 1586 Safety rod (pcm) 112 328 622 942 1240 1450 1538 COCOF5BI V Control rod (pcm) 124 348 653 981 1293 1503 1590 Safety rod (pcm) 122 344 643 982 1293 1508 1599
expected that the maximum diﬀerential reactivity occurs close to the middle point.

The calculated values are always bigger than the experimental values indicating a conservative behaviour.4
I II IV V
. satisfying a neutronic criterion.47 0.48 0. respectively. Temperature reactivity coeﬃcients and void inﬂuence The temperature reactivity coeﬃcient. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
909
Tables 4 and 5 present these values for the core conﬁgurations I. II.
6.48 MaxÁ calculated (pcm/s) 35.9 MaxÁ measured (pcm/s) 32.48 0.4 36. the eﬀective multiplication factor. Dalle et al. 8 shows the temperature reactivity coeﬃcient by the average temperature of the TRIGA fuel. III.47 MaxÁ calculated (pcm/s) 33. The calculated maximum reactivity insertion rate values present good agreement with the experimental values. is obtained by 1 1 5 À T ¼ Â 10 =ðT2 À T1 Þðpcm= CÞ keff 1 keff 2
ð4Þ
where keﬀ1 and keﬀ2.47 0. T. For convenience the reactivity is also presented.5 28. Iv and V Conﬁg X1 (cm) 15 15 15 15 X2 (cm) 20 20 20 20 1 (pcm) 700 719 646 653 2 (pcm) 1069 1098 975 981 V (cm/s) 0.H.4 31.47 0.M. IV and V Conﬁg X1 (cm) 15 15 15 15 X2 (cm) 20 20 20 20 1 (pcm) 679 699 622 643 2 (pcm) 1040 1065 942 982 V (cm/s) 0.5 32. Fig. The results are presented in Tables 6–10. the values are negatives. II.4 30.48 0. IV and V was calculated considering four average fuel temperatures.1 31. II.5
I II IV V
Table 5 Maximum reactivity insertion rate by safety rod to the core conﬁgurations I. The temperature reactivity coeﬃcient for the core conﬁgurations I.9 34. calculated with the fuel in the temperature T1 and T2.9 30.5 28.6 31.8 28.5 MaxÁ measured (pcm/s) 33.5 30. IV and V. for the two types of fuel elements
Table 4 Maximum reactivity insertion rate by control rod to the core conﬁgurations I. In all cases. supplied by the General Atomic. II.

012266 1.011107 1.015112 1.20 À7.23 À7.012571 1.011677 1.007208 1.019521 1.77 À8.003287 (T2ÀT1) ( C) 40 60 50 T (pcm/ C) À6.82 À8.76 Obs Fuel to 100 C Fuel to 140 C Fuel to 200 C Fuel to 250 C
Table 8 Temperature reactivity coeﬃcient of core conﬁguration III Case CITCOF3A CITCOF3B CITCOF3C CITCOF3D Calculated keﬀ 1.008348 1.81 Obsd Fuel to 100 C Fuel to 140 C Fuel to 200 C Fuel to 250 C
.84 À8.003321 (T2ÀT1) C 40 60 50 T (pcm/ C) À6. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
Table 6 Temperature reactivity coeﬃcient of core conﬁguration I Case CITCOF1A CITCOF1B CITCOF1C CITCOF1D Calculated keﬀ 1.910
H.27 À7.016707 1.003270 0.003632 (T2ÀT1) ( C) 40 60 50 T (pcm/ C) À6.007268 1.012301 1.37 À7.007553 1.15 À7.83 Obsd Fuel to 100 C Fuel to 140 C Fuel to 200 C Fuel to 250 C
Table 9 Temperature reactivity coeﬃcient of core conﬁguration IV Case CITCOF4A CITCOF4B CITCOF4C CITCOF4D Calculated keﬀ 1.015374 1.71 Obsd Fuel to 100 C Fuel to 140 C Fuel to 200 C Fuel to 250 C
Table 7 Temperature reactivity coeﬃcient of core conﬁguration II Case CITCOF2A CITCOF2B CITCOF2C CITCOF2D Calculated keﬀ 1.007745 (T2ÀT1) ( C) 40 60 50 T (pcm/ C) À6.76 Obsd Fuel to 100 C Fuel to 140 C Fuel to 200 C Fuel to 250 C
Table 10 Temperature reactivity coeﬃcient of core conﬁguration V Case CITCOF5A CITCOF5B CITCOF5C CITCOF5D Calculated keﬀ 1.015069 1.M.79 À8.999345 (T2ÀT1) ( C) 40 60 50 T (pcm/ C) À6.82 À8. Dalle et al.

8.014562 1.025368 Excess reactivity (pcm) 1096 886 660 444 1936 Reactivity diﬀerence (pcm) À210 À216 Obsd Water in the CT Void in the CT Water in the CT Void in the CT Void in the CT
. Prompt negative temperature reactivity coeﬃcient in function of the mean temperature of the TRIGA fuel (source: General Atomics). / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
911
Fig. It can be observed that the insertion of void in the central thimble reduces the excess reactivity for all conﬁgurations.016707 1.M. In all core conﬁgurations. the calculated values are near to those shown in the ﬁgure. In order to check the eﬀect of the insertion of voids in the core eﬀect.
evaluated.012266 1.H. The results are presented in Table 11.010082 1. it was simulated an insertion of a void cell in the central thimble in the core conﬁgurations I and II. I II Case CITCOF1B CICOF1BV CITCOF2B CICOF2BV CI95MBZV Calculated keﬀ 1.
Table 11 Reactivity insertion by the introduction of void in the central thimble in the core conﬁgurations I and II Conﬁgur. Dalle et al.

Validac ¸ o da Metodologia de ´ lculo Neutro Ca ˜ nico do Reator TRIGA IPR–R1 (NI-CT4-008/98). / Annals of Nuclear Energy 29 (2002) 901–912
7. Fowler et al. ´ lculo de Excesso de Reatividade e Valor de Dalle. Considering the results obtained in the reactivity worth of the control rods.P.. CDTN/CNEN. R. 1999. Nevertheless the calculated maximum reactivity insertion rate values present good agreement with the experimental values. Junta de Energia Nuclear. J. ´ rias para Validac ´ lculo NeuDalle. the systematic error for this parameter was determined and the variation coeﬃcient was obtained.M. Medidas Adicionais Necessa ¸a ˜ o da Metodologia de Ca tro ˆ nico do Reator IPR–R1 (NI-CT4-01/99).A. Belo Horizonte. H. 1998. D. Ca Barras para Determinaca ¸a ˜ o de uma Conﬁgurac ˜ o de Teste para o IPR-R1 a 250 kW (NI–CT4-10/98).. H. 1980. Dalle. Resultados Experimentais da Calibrac ¸a ˜ o das Barras de Controle e do Excesso de Reatividade em Cinco Conﬁgurac ¸o ´ cleo do Reator IPR-R1 (NI-AT4-001/99). Nuclear Reactor Core Analysis Code: CITATION. 1999a. H. Departamento de Engenharia Nuclear da Escola de Engenharia da UFMG. Dalle. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ´ lculo Neutronico do Reator TRIGA IPR–R1 Utilizando WIMSD4 e CITATION. CDTN/CNEN. I.
. Belo Horizonte. Souza.M.L. Belo Horizonte.
References
Ahnert. CDTN/CNEN. Barros Filho.N. to be more conservative..A. Belo Horizonte. this value in the future will be considered equal 7. the results of the methodology using the codes WIMSD4 and CITATION to simulate the TRIGA IPR-R1 reactor are very close to the experimental values.. MG-Brasil. F.M. . ˜ es do Nu CDTN/CNEN. Manual de Usuario y Datos de Entrada. Ca Dissertac ¸ ao de Mestrado. 1969.M. Conclusion The neutronic parameters calculated for the TRIGA IPR-R1 using the WIMSD4 and CITATION were compared to the experimental values.. Aldama.912
H. J.M. H.. 1999. Programa WIMS-TRACA para el Calculo de Elementos Combustibles. In general. Belo Horizonte..A. The calculated values are always bigger than the experimental values indicating a conservative behaviour. Madrid.G. Dalle et al.. Carneiro. F.M...A.. Carneiro..2%.N. 1998. Comparing the keﬀ.. Barros Filho.