You are on page 1of 44

1

Majelis Nuklir TITech
(MaNuk TIT)

By:
Azizul Khakim
Tokyo, November 12, 2009
2

History
1954 -1958: Panitia Negara untuk Penyelidikan Radioaktivitas
dilatarbelakangi oleh adanya percobaan ledakan nuklir pada tahun 1950-an
oleh beberapa negara terutama Amerika Serikat di beberapa kawasan Pasifik,
sehingga menimbulkan kekhawatiran tentang jatuhnya zat radioaktif di wilayah
Indonesia. Tugas dari panitia ini adlah untuk menyelidiki akibat percobaan
ledakan nuklir, mengawasi penggunaan tenaga nuklir dan memberikan laporan
tahunan kepada pemerintah.
1958 – 1964: Lembaga Tenaga Atom
Tugasnya untuk melaksanakan riset di bidang tenaga nuklir dan mengawasi
penggunaan tenaga nuklir di Indonesia.
1964 – 1997: Badan Tenaga Atom Nasional (BATAN)
Tugas BATAN adalah untuk melaksanakan riset tenaga nuklir dan mengawasi
penggunaan tenaga nuklir di Indonesia. Pengawasan penggunaan energi nuklir
tersebut dilaksanakan oleh unit yang berada di bawah BATAN, yang terakhir
pada Biro Pengawasan Tenaga Atom (BPTA).
1997 – Sekarang: Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional (BATAN) dan Badan
Pengawas Tenaga Nuklir (BAPETEN)
melalui UU No 10/1997 tentang Ketenaganukliran telah memberikan
kewenangan bagi BAPETEN untuk melaksanakan fungsi pengawasan terhadap
penggunaan tenaga nuklir, yang meliputi perizinan, inspeksi dan penegakan
peraturan. UU Ketenaganukliran juga mensyaratkan pemisahan antara badan
pengawas, BAPETEN, dan badan peneliti, BATAN.
3

Tupoksi
Tupoksi
‡ Pembuatan Peraturan
‡ Perizinan
‡ Inspeksi

Kegiatan Penunjang Pengawasan
‡ Penegakan Peraturan
‡ Pengkajian Sistem Pengawasan
‡ Kesiapsiagaan Nuklir

Struktur organisasi BAPETEN
www.bapeten.go.id
4

Inspection

Assessment
/ Analyses

Licensing Regulation
5

Thermal hydraulic Analyses of
MTR Type Research Reactor

By:
Azizul Khakim
6

Description of the MTR type RR:

‡ Fuel plate of U3Si2-Al
‡ 40 Fuel Element (21 plates)
‡ 8 Control element (15 plates + absorber)
‡ Reflector: Beryllium.
‡ 30 MW of Nominal power
‡ Downward forced convection of 800 kg/s.
7

Safety criteria:
‡ Maximum fuel design temp.: 200°C
‡ Maximum clad design temp.: 145°C
‡ Min. Safety Margin against Flow Instability
(S): 1.48
ηC ηE: experimental Bubble Detachment
S= Parameter of 22.1 cm3K/Ws.
ηE

η ( z) =
[Ts ( z ) − Tc ( z )]V ( z )
q" ( z )
where:
q”: Heat flux, w/cm2
V : Coolant velocity, cm/s
z : distance from coolant inlet channel, cm
Ts, Tc: Saturated temp. and coolant bulk temp., K
8

Conditions to be analyzed:
‡ RIA at Power Range of 1 MW
‡ RIA at Natural Circulation of 0.3 MW
‡ LOFA

The code:
PARET/ANL code
9

RIA at Power Range
‡ Initial power: 1 MW
‡ Initiation: inadvertent CRs withdrawalÆ fast
(+) reactivity into the core
‡ Single failureÆ 1st trip signal (Floating Limit
Value) fails to scram
‡ 2nd trip signal (Over Power) scrams the Rx.
‡ Delay time from trip signal to CR Drop: 0.5s
‡ Downward forced normal cooling
‡ Transient starts at t=5 s
10
45 50
40 45
35 40
35
30

POWER, MW
30
25
25

S
20
20
15
15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
TIME, S

Pow er S

200

150
TEMPERATURE,

TFuel
100 TClad
TCoolant

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
TIME, S
11

Result of RIA at Power Range
Steady state condition (the first 5 s): Value

Power, MW 1
Max. fuel temp., °C 50.2
Max. coolant temp. in hot channel, °C 45.9
T (s) Transient condition:

19.3 The 1st trip signal (FLV), % pw chg 7.0
23.4 The 2nd trip signal (over power), % 114
23.9 Peak power, MW 40.26
23.9 Max. fuel temp., °C 185.3
23.9 Max. clad temp., °C 138.0
23.9 Min. S 2.25
23.94 Max. coolant temp. in hot channel, °C 98.95
12

RIA at Natural Convection
‡ Initial power: 0.3 MW
‡ Initiation: inadvertent CRs withdrawalÆ fast
(+) reactivity into the core
‡ Trip signal: period of 5 s.
‡ Natural circulation cooling
‡ Transient starts at t=5 s
13
1.2 30
1.1 25
1 20
0.9 15
0.8 10

Power, MW
0.7 5

Period, S
0.6 0
0.5 -5
0.4 -10
0.3 -15
0.2 -20
0.1 -25
0 -30
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time, S

Pow er Period

1.2 240
1.1
1 200

MFR (Kg/s.m2), Temp. (°C
0.9
0.8 160
Power (MW)

0.7
0.6 120
0.5

0.4 80
0.3
0.2 40
0.1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20
Time, s

Pow er Flow Rate TCoolant TClad TFuel
Result of RIA at Natural Convection
14

Steady state condition (the first 5 s): value
Power, MW 0.3
Max. fuel temp., °C 72.2
Max. coolant temp. in hot channel, °C 59.0
Coolant flow rate, kg/s.m2 126.7
T (s) Transient condition:
17.0 Trip signal (period), s 5
17.5 Peak power, MW 1.136
17.5 Max. fuel temp., °C 113.1
17.5 Max. clad temp., °C 112.8
18.0 Max. coolant temp. in hot channel, °C 69.8
18.2 Max. coolant flow rate, kg/s.m2 212.0
15

LOFA
‡ Initial power: 30 MW
‡ Initiation: all primary pumps simultaneously
off
‡ Trip signal: low flow trip signal
‡ Transient starts at t=5 s
16

100 140
1
90 130
2
80 120
70 110
60 100
Power (%), MFR (%)

Temperature (C)
50 90

40 80
30 70
20 60
10 50
0 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-10 30
Time (s)

Pow er MFR T Fuel TCoolant
Result of LOFA
17

Steady state condition (the first 5 s): Value:
Max. fuel temp., °C 125.8
Max. coolant temp. in hot channel, °C 64.4
Min. S 7.8
T (s) 1st critical point:
7.9 Trip signal (Low Flow), % 85
8.0 Max. fuel Temp., °C 136.4
8.2 Min. S 3.6
8.4 Reactor trip -
8.43 Max. coolant temp. in hot channel, °C 87.0
2nd critical point:
82.1 Flow reversal (stagnant flow) 0
86.1 Max. fuel Temp., °C 115.4
86.3 Max. coolant temp. in hot channel, °C 107.0
18

Conclusion
‡ Thermal hydraulic safety analyses for MTR
type RR have been conducted for major
DBA.
‡ No safety criterion is exceeded for major
DBA.
19

Neutronic Calculation of MTR Type
Research Reactor with MCNP

By:
Azizul Khakim
20

Codes and Background

Codes:
‡ MCNP-4b (Monte Carlo N-Particles): 3-D core
calculation, with ENDF/B-VI & B-V
‡ ORIGEN2: FP inventory & burn up calculation
Background:
‡ To support the decision making during the
licensing process of fuel replacement from
U3O8-Al to U3Si2-Al
21

Features of MCNP
‡ Generalized-geometry
‡ Time-dependent
‡ Couple n/p/e Monte Carlo Transport code
‡ Continuous energy; n:10-11 – 20 MeV; p/e:
10-3 – 1000 MeV
‡ By simulating individual particle instead of
solving transport equation, as deterministic
method does
22

Description of MTR
‡ Pool type Reactor
‡ Fuel plate of U3Si2-Al
‡ 40 Fuel Element (21 plates)
‡ 8 Control element (15 plates + absorber)
‡ Reflector: Beryllium
‡ Moderator: H2O
‡ Enrichment: 19.75%
‡ Cladding material: AlMg2
‡ Absorber: AgInCd
‡ Nominal power: 30 MW
23

Description of MTR (cont’d)
FE CE

core Reactor
24

Verification of MCNP input with exp’tal data

‡ The experimental data of the 1st core and 1st
criticality are used to verify the MCNP input.
‡ The 1st criticality is achieved when the core is
composed of 9 U3O8-Al FEs, 6 CEs when RR
at 475 mm
‡ The 1st core is composed of 12 U3O8-Al FEs
and 6 CEs
25

Verification of MCNP input with exp’tal data
of 1st core and 1st criticality
3-D Diffusion Calculations
Exp’ment MCNP &
Core Configuration Batan-3 Diff Citation-3D ENDF/B-VI
Data
&WIMSD4 &WIMSD4
1.00238
Keff 0.99816 0.99172
First Criticality 1.0 ± 0.002
C/E 0.998 0.992 1.00238
1.09714
Full Core Keff 1.08466 1.08179
1.09242 ± 0.0002
(CRs all up)
C/E 0.993 0.99 1.001
Full Core 0.91875
Keff - 0.92508 0.96987
(CRs all down) ± 0.0013
26

Verification of MCNP input with exp’tal data
of CRs Calibration
Cal’d CR’s post Exp’ment Calculation with
(cal’d CR’s level / other CRs’) Data MCNP
C-8 Keff 1.00291 ± 0.00199
1.00008
(0 mm / 290 mm) C/E 1.0028
E-9 Keff 1.00065 ± 0.00127
1.00008
(0 mm / 284 mm) C/E 1.00057
F-8 Keff 0.9998 ± 0.00148
1.00008
(0 mm / 293 mm) C/E 0.9997
C-5 Keff 1.00329 ± 0.00125
1.00008
(0 mm / 288 mm) C/E 1.0032
F-5 Keff 1.00102 ± 0.00158
1.00008
(0 mm / 290 mm) C/E 1.0009
D-4 Keff 1.00008 1.00169 ± 0.00121
(0 mm / 282 mm) C/E 1.0016
27

Typical working core (TWC) analyses
‡ Burn up distributions at BOC & EOC as
proposed by the Operating Organization are
used in TWC analyses.
‡ Refueling every 615 MWD with 5 FEs/1 CE.
‡ Burn up limit 56%.
‡ Max. radial power peaking factor: 2.6 (OLC)
‡ Max. axial power peaking factor: 1.6 (OLC)
28

Result of TWC calculation
No TWC Condition MCNP, ρ(%) Diff. Code, ρ(%)
1 BOC, equilibrium Xe 6.25
2 BOC, Cold, w/o Xe (Max excess ρ) 9.43 9.7
3 Xe Reactivity -3.18 -3.7
4 EOC, w/o Xe (Fully Up) 6.89
5 Reactivity change in one cycle -2.54 -2.5
6 EOC, cold, w/o Xe (fully down) -5.26
7 Control rods reactivity -12.15 -13.8
8 Shutdown margin -2.72 -4.1

9 Void reactivity coeff., (∆k/k)/%void –1.29×10-3 -1.34×10-3
10 Max. radial power peaking factor 1.26
11 Axial power peaking factor 1.35*;1.61**
*all CEs fully up. **all CEs 50% withdrawn
29

having yet to be calculated:
‡ Fuel temp. coefficientÆ need other code to
generate nuclear data at higher than 300K
(e.g.: NJOY, PREPRO)
‡ OSR (One Stuck Rod) criteria (<-0.5 ÅOLC)
‡ Various axial CEs combinations have yet to
be analyzed to determine max. axial PPF.

Uncertainty
‡ Accuracy of ORIGEN2 code.
‡ Familiarity with data & system (data
available in SAR is somewhat inadequate)
30

Conclusion
‡ Decision making during licensing process of
Rx modification should be supported with
independent analyses by RB.
‡ For comprehensive neutronic calculation,
MCNP should be supported by other codes.
31

9. 液体金属冷却高速増殖炉におけるボイド反応度に関する研究

9. Study on Void Reactivity of Liquid Metal
Fast Breeder Reactor

By:
Azizul Khakim
32

Background & Purpose
‡ Background:
„ The future FBR fuel should include Minor Actinides (MAs)
because they are contained in LWR discharged fuel and burden
the environments.
„ Problem: MA increases the sodium void reactivity (safety
concern)
‡ Purpose: to observe the parameters and design characteristic that
induce both (-) & (+) void reactivity effects to be taken into account
during the reactor core design to achieve reasonably low positive or
even negative void reactivity.
‡ Calculation: 3-D continuous energy Monte Carlo method of MVP Code
with JENDL-3.3. The Reactor core is modeled in heterogeneous 3-D
geometry.
Average energy loss : 33
Σ el ΔE el + Σ inel ΔE inel
Σ ΔE =
E

Phenomena during voiding where

ΔE el = 12 (1 − α ) E n ;
⎛ A−1⎞
α=⎜ ⎟
2

⎝ A+1⎠
and
2
⎛ A ⎞ ⎡ A + 1⎤
ΔE inel = E n − ⎜ ⎟ ⎢ En − Q
⎝ A+1⎠ ⎣ A ⎥⎦
‡ Increase in neutron leakage (-) Q : excited energy level

‡ Spectrum hardeningÆη⇑ Æ(+) Leak = ∫ J .n dS
0.5

Reduction of Na capture (+) 0.4

Normalized Flux
‡ S
0.3
Change in self shielding
‡
J = − D∇φ 0.2

0.1
1
D= 0.0

3Σ s (1 − 2 ) 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08

3A Energy (eV)

Σ s = Σ Cs + Σ fs + Σ ss Flooded Voided

5
Na Capture XS
4.5 η= no. neutron released per neutron absorbed
1.E+01 4 σ f (E)
3.5 η(E) = ν
1.E+00 σ f (E) + σ c (E)
3
1.E-01
σc (barn)

η(E)
2.5
1.E-02
2
1.E-03
1.5
1.E-04
1
1.E-05
0.5
1.E-06
0
1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 1.E+08
Energy (eV)
E (eV)
U-235 U-238 Pu-239 Pu-240 Am-241 Pu-241
34

VOID MODELING

‡ Assumption: generated by
excessive fuel heating under b

accident conditions.
‡ Void Location: a

„ axially active fuels and above
„ inner and outer core
„ Inside channel box
„ does not occur in control
assembly positions
‡ Void fraction: homogeneously c
100%
‡ Liquid fraction above the core
=Total Liquid flow area/total area
35

Base case core configuration Electrical power, MW 1200
Thermal power, MW 3000
Ave./Max linear power, kW/m 28 / 48
CORE PARAMETERS
‡ Homogeneous core configuration In/outer Core height, m 1.0/1.0
Pu Fissile In/out enrichment 9.5%/11.5%
‡ Radial peaking factor: 1.26 Fuel/Sodium/Structure, % 37/34/29
FUEL ASSEMBLY
‡ Sodium void reactivity: 1.600 %∆k/k' In/Out Driver Assembly 150 / 216
Fuel Type (U0.8Pu0.2)O2
Bond material He
Pin diameter, mm 8.5
Clad & Duct material SS
Pin Pitch, mm 9.8
T/B F.G Plenum, m 0.15 / 0.85
No. Pins per Assembly 271
Duct Flat-to-Flat, mm 173
Duct Thickness, mm 3
Duct Pitch, mm 179
BLANKET
Material UO2
Pin Dia., mm 8.5
Top/Bot. length, m 0.3/0.3
No. Rad. blanket Ass. 150
Control Material B4C
No. Control Assembly 31
Shield B4C

Normalized neutron flux distribution
36

Effect of MAs inclusion
‡ MAs build up with burn-up
‡ MAs inclusion: 4.71% of Pu
‡ Pu/Np237/Am241/Am243/Cm244:
95.0/0.5/2.0/1.0/1.0
‡ η of MAs up as spectrum hardens
‡ Sodium void reactivity: 1.689 %∆k/k’
37

Parametric study (1/3)

Case 1: Heterogeneous core config.
‡ by interchanging the
same no. of FAs in the
inner region with the
blanket assemblies
‡ The number FAs &
blanket assemblies are
the same as those in the
homogeneous config.
‡ Radial peaking factor:
1.26 Æ 1.71
38

Parametric study (2/3)
Case 2: Step core
‡ 2 cases of 70 cm & 60 cm inner
core height are calculated
‡ Radial peaking factor: 1.26 Æ 1.34
(70 cm inner height)

Case 3: Elimination of up. gas plenum

‡ 70 cm-inner step core is used
‡ The upper plenum is eliminated
39

Parametric study (3/3)

Case 4: shorter upper blanket (15 cm)
‡ 70 cm-inner step core is used
‡ Upper blanket: 30 cm Æ 15 cm

Case 5: Reduction of radial blanket
‡ 70 cm-inner step core is used
‡ Radial blanket: 2 Æ 1
40

Result summary for parametric study

Flooded Void Effect on Void
Case Condition Voided Condition reactivity Reactivity
Parameter Keff Std. Dev Keff Std. Dev (%∆k/k') (%∆k/k')
Ref Base case core 1.07003 0.0117% 1.08867 0.0122% 1.600 -
MA MAs inclusion of 4.71% of Pu 1.06314 0.0124% 1.08258 0.0122% 1.689 +0.089
1 Heterogeneous configuration 1.02036 0.0127% 1.02907 0.0127% 0.830 -0.771
2.a Step core: a. 70 cm in. core H 1.03549 0.0121% 1.04862 0.0126% 1.209 -0.391
2.b b. 60 cm in. core H 1.02077 0.0135% 1.03221 0.0140% 1.086 -0.514
3 Elimination of up. G. plenum 1.03549 0.0124% 1.04736 0.0134% 1.094 -0.115*
4 Shorter up. blanket (15 cm) 1.03745 0.0129% 1.04865 0.0124% 1.029 -0.180*
5 Radial blanket reduction 1.03349 0.0133% 1.04619 0.0129% 1.175 -0.035*
* Relative to case 2.a

5

Æ Step core is concluded to be the 5
4

4
most effective way to reduce 3
3
Case

2.b
void reactivity without 2.a
2.b

significantly degrading neutron
1
2.a

economy and other safety 1

characteristic -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1
Effect on void reactivity (%∆k/k')
41

Core characteristics (1/3)
70 cm-inner step core is used

1. Voiding in the inner & outer core
‡ Voiding takes place in the inner or outer region only; the rest remains
flooded
‡ Void reactivity: 0.62%∆k/k'(0.0041 %∆k/k'/FA) and 0.63 %∆k/k'
(0.0029 %∆k/k'/FA) in the inner & outer core, respectively.

1.4

2. Void reactivity profile
1.2

1

‡ Æ linear ρ (%∆k/k)
0.8

0.6

‡ Void reactivity coefficient 0.4

=2.18x10-2 %∆k/k/%void. 0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Void Fraction (%)
42
1

0.8

Normalized flux
0.6

0.4

Core characteristics(2/3) 0.2

0

3. The effect of pin pitch 1.E-04 1.E-02 1.E+00 1.E+02 1.E+04 1.E+06 1.E+08

E (eV)

P/D up Æ FA size up Æ core size (W)
P/D=1.05 P/D=1.2
‡
up Æ coolant vol. fraction up Æ softer 1.5
Base
550
540
1.4 W
case
neutron spectrum
530

Keff, ∆ρ Void (%∆k/k')
1.3 520

Core width (cm)
510
1.2 500

‡ P/D up Æ ρex down and ρvoid up 1.1 490
480
1 470
460
0.9
450

4. Void reactivity at EOC 0.8
1 1.05 1.1 1.15
P/D
1.2 1.25 1.3
D
440

Refueling batch 4 Keff Void reactivity Core Witdh (cm) P

Refueling interval, days 366 (1 yr) 4.5E+04

In/out enrichment, wt% Pu Fissile/HM 10. / 12. 4.0E+04

3.5E+04
Breeding ratio 1.33
3.0E+04

Burn up reactivity swing, %∆k/k 1.24
MA Mass (g)
AM241
2.5E+04 NP237
AM243
BOC EOC 2.0E+04
CM242
1.5E+04
Ave. burn up, GWD/T.HM 19.7 32.8 1.0E+04

Reactivity at EOC, % ∆k/k 2.82 1.58 5.0E+03

0.0E+00
Void reactivity, % ∆k/k’ 1.63 1.82 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Year
43

Core characteristics(3/3)
1.06 0.0E+00

5. Effect of voiding on Doppler 1.055 -2.0E-06

1.05 -4.0E-06
reactivity 1.045 -6.0E-06

∆Keff/∆T
1.04 -8.0E-06
Voiding Æ energy shift Æ

Keff
‡ 1.035 -1.0E-05

change in fuel XSÆ η(E) 1.03

1.025
-1.2E-05

-1.4E-05

‡ Keff decreases faster in flooded 1.02 -1.6E-05

1.015 -1.8E-05

core than voided one 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Fuel Temperature (K)
2500 3000 3500

Æ(∆keff/∆T)flood<(∆keff/∆T)void Keff Flooded Keff Voided (∆Keff/∆T)flood (∆Keff/∆T)void

‡ Approximated by K=Ta + b;
where:
„ a=-0.012395; b=0.1151568 (flooded)
„ a=-0.010577; b=0.117029 (voided)
44

Conclusion
‡ The void reactivity increases by 0.19 %∆k/k‘ from BOC to EOC
due to MAs build-up. Therefore, 70 cm-inner step core, providing
-0.39 %∆k/k‘, can be employed to compensate MAs build-up.
‡ Upper blanket slash could be another way to compensate high
void reactivity due to MAs build-up.
‡ Heterogeneous core configuration significantly brings negative
effect on void reactivity, but it also degrades excess reactivity
and exceeds allowable radial peaking factor.
‡ Voiding phenomenon changes the Doppler reactivity pattern. The
Doppler reactivity under voided condition is less than under the
normal condition.