Problem 1:

For this project, I analyzed the discharge burnup of 3.5, 4, 4.5, and 5 wt% enriched fuel. Leakage was
analyzed at a rate of 5, 3, and 0%. Calculations were performed using the Polaris lattice physics code.
The initial input file was given which defined the UO2 at a 5% enrichment values by number density. The
lattice that was analyzed is shown in the following figure.

Figure 1 - Lattice Input to Polaris

This lattice represents of a 17x17 Westinghouse LWR fuel assembly. The edges are assigned with
symmetry and zero net incoming current to for the full assembly.

In order to run the code for 3.5, 4, and 4.5% enrichment, the input file was partially modified. The syntax
used to change the enrichment is located on pg 458 of reference 1. Syntax is shown below.

Where the reference density is 96.5% of theoretical (10.97 g/cc) IAW reference 3.

After running the code, the output file was analyzed. For each burnup step, noted in the input file, a
transport k-eff was calculated. This value corresponds to a reactivity that was obtained using the linear
reactivity model (LRM). The following equation, from reference 2 was used.
1
=

This simple equation, and the fact that burnup occurs linearly over core life, allows for a very simple
calculation of cycle burnups. The following plot show the reactivity trend for the previously mentioned
enrichments over the analyzed burnup.

Figure 2 - Reactivity as a Function of Burnup (Full Trend)

The provided input file calculated the transport k-eff to a value of 92 GWd/MTHM. This is far past the
point current materials and regulations allow. The code also breaks down at such unrealistic values of
burnup. This can be seen in the deviation from linear past approximately 70 GWd/MTHM.The beginning
of each trend (x=0) also deviates from linear. This sharp negative reactivity trend is due to the buildup of
xenon-135 early in core life.

The following plot excludes the previously mentioned deviation from linear.

Figure 3 - Reactivity as a Function of Burnup (No Leakage, Cropped)

Figure 3 allows for the application of the LRM.

Problem 2:

Linear curve fitting was done using the MATLAB figure editor. All trend lines were fit to the data in figure
3. The following table shows the coefficients determined from the linear fit.
Table 1 - Linear Fit Coefficients (No Leakage)

Enrichment (%) Slope (/) Constant ( )

3.5 -7.237E-3 1.9323E1

4 -6.963E-3 2.1635E1

4.5 -6.608E-3 2.3343E1

5 -6.297E-3 2.4952E1

Utilizing reference 2, the discharge burnup of single and 3 batch fuel cycles can be determined. The
single batch end of cycle burnup is the burnup corresponding to =0 on figure 3. Beyond that point, the
reactivity of the core cannot be made zero, or positive, without introducing fresh fuel. The following
equation shows how to solve for this point.

: () = ()
Where: = ( )

= ( )

Setting the reactivity equal to zero results in:

() = 0 = ()

Therefore: 1 =

In order to get the further batch burnups, the single batch burnup is multiplied by the values listed in
the table on pg 9 of reference 2 (two batch: 1.33, three batch: 1.5). the following figure shows the max
EOL burnup for 5% enriched fuel with no leakage for 1, 2, and 3 batches.

Figure 4 - Batch Burnup 5% Fuel (No Leakage)

The maximum amount of burnup that can be obtained reaches a limit as the number of batches
approaches infinity. This limit is the point where the amount of excess reactivity is exactly compensated
for with negative reactivity, or 2 1 . Increasing the number of batches also has diminishing returns.
Figure 4 shows the amount of additional burnup gained per batch decreases as more batches are
introduced. Weighing the diminishing returns, and the amount of down time to switch out fuel, has led
to the 3-cycle system that is implemented in nearly every commercial reactor plant.

The following bar chart shown the max burnup for all enrichments analyzed with no leakage.

Figure 5 - Discharge Burnup for Various Enrichments (No Leakage)

Figure 5 makes it easier to see a relatively linear trend in burnup as enrichment is increased, and the
diminishing gain with each additional batch. The following table shows the values used to create figure
5.
Table 2 - Burnup Values (No Leakage)

No Leakage
Enrichment (%) 3.5 4 4.5 5
Single Cycle BU 26.7 31.1 35.3 39.6
Two Cycle BU 35.5 41.3 47 52.7
Three Cycle BU 40.1 46.6 53 59.4
Problem 3

Neutron leakage was analyzed by factoring in a constant reactivity loss. The reactivity loss was
proportional to the percent of neutrons leaking from the core.

5% : 0.05


3% : 0.3

The following plots show the effect of leakage on the discharge burnup for all enrichments analyzed.

Figure 6 - Single Batch Burnup with Leakage

Figure 7 - Three Batch Burnup with Leakage

Figure 6 and 7 shows that small amounts of leakage can have detrimental effects on core fuel economy.
The constant reactivity penalty has a direct effect on , which has a direct effect on the discharge
burnup. Leakage essentially shifts all trends in figure 3 down by a constant amount. The constant
reactivity penalty affects all trends equally, the differing slope causes the varying change in burnup.

Achieving low neutron leakage is one of the best ways to increase fuel economy. Large LWRs suffer
approximately 4% neutron leakage (reference 2). This seems low, but for 3 batch 5% enriched fuel with
5% leakage, the maximum burnup is reduced by 25%. Leakage is reduced by adding a reflector, or
utilizing leaked neutrons to create more fissile material.
Problem 4:

Natural uranium resources needed to sustain a specific burnup is calculated using the following
equation from reference 4.

() 365

( )=( )

( ) ()

=
Where:
1

= = 0.33

=

(

)= ( )( )

( ) =
Where:

=
= = 0.2%
= = 0.711%
The following calculation is for a three cycle, 5% enriched fuel, with no leakage.

1 1 365

( )= = 18.6
0.33 59.43 ()

5 0.2
(
) = 18.6 ( ) = .
0.711 0.2
The following table shows values for all enrichments and leakages.
Table 3 - Natural Uranium Resources Required

No Leakage 3% Leakage 5% Leakage

Enrichment 3.5 4 4.5 5 3.5 4 4.5 5 3.5 4 4.5 5
NU Resource (1) 275.6 264.7 263.5 262.2 275.6 277.9 288.1 298 314 311.4 319.5 327.9
NU Resource (3) 178.3 176.5 175.7 174.8 183.7 185.3 192.1 198.6 209.4 207.6 213 218.6

All values are in tons.

One simple observation of table 3 is that it is much more economical, from a natural resource
perspective, to use 3 batches as opposed to 1. Multiple cycles allow for higher burnups to be achieved,
which dramatically affects the amount of fuel that needs to be charged.

Another important quantity that can be calculated is the fuel residence time and cycle length. Fuel
residence time describes the amount of time that a fuel assembly will be in the core before it is
removed. The cycle length describes the amount of time required between each fuel load/unload. For a
single cycle core, the fuel residence time is equal to the cycle length. In a multiple cycle core, the cycle
time is equal to the fuel residence time divided by the number of batches.

( )
() =
365
( )

Where: ( ) = = 0.0385 ( )

= = 0.9

()
() =

The following calculation is for three cycle fuel, 5% enriched, no leakage.

( ) 12
() = 59.43 = 56.35
365
0.0385 ( ) 0.9

56.35
() = = .
3
This result is close to the ideal values of 18 months that most commercial reactors use. The following
table shows the FRT and cycle lengths for all enrichments and leakages analyzed.
Table 4 - FRT and Cycle Length (months)

Enrichment (%) Leakage(%) FRT(1) FRT(3) Cycle Length(3)

3.5 0 25.3 38 12.7
4 0 24.9 44.2 14.7
4.5 0 33.5 50 16.7
5 0 37.6 56 18.8
3.5 3 24.6 36.9 12.3
4 3 28.1 42.1 14
4.5 3 30.6 45.9 15.3
5 3 33.1 49.6 16.5
3.5 5 21.6 32.3 10.8
4 5 25 37.6 12.5
4.5 5 27.6 41.4 13.8
5 5 30 45.1 15

As expected, with increasing leakage, the amount of time the fuel can be used in the core is reduced.
References:

1. Oak Ridge National Lab. SCALE Code System Manual, version 6.2.1. August 2016
2. Driscoll, Downar, Pilat. Linear Reactivity Model, Chapter 1.
3. Meyer R. O. The Analysis of Fuel Densification. July 1976.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0811/ML081150280.pdf Accessed on November 2, 2017.
4. NucE 302 Course Notes. Nuclear Fuel Cycle.