Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anucene

Effect of power variations across a fuel bundle and within a fuel element
on fuel centerline temperature in PHWR bundles in uncrept and crept
pressure tubes
E.N. Onder a,⇑, D. Roubtsov a, Y.F. Rao a, B. Wilhelm b
a
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario K0J 1J0, Canada
b
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The neutron flux and fission power profiles through a fuel bundle and across a fuel element are important
Received 9 November 2016 aspects of nuclear fuel analysis in multi-scale/multi-physics modelling of Pressurized Heavy Water
Accepted 15 December 2016 Reactors (PHWRs) with advanced fuel bundles. Fuel channels in many existing PHWRs are horizontal.
Available online 5 January 2017
With ageing, pressure tubes creep and fuel bundles in these pressure tubes are eccentrically located,
which results in an asymmetric coolant flow distribution between the top and bottom of the fuel bundles.
The diametral change of the pressure tube due to creep is not constant along the fuel channel; it reaches a
maximum in the vicinity of the maximum neutron flux location. The cross-sectional asymmetric posi-
tioning of fuel bundles in a crept pressure tube contributes to an asymmetric power distribution within
a ring of fuel elements. Modern reactor physics lattice codes (such as WIMS-AECL1) are capable of predict-
ing the details of power distribution from basic principles. Thermalhydraulics subchannel codes (such as
ASSERT-PV) use models to describe inhomogeneous power distribution within and across fuel elements
(e.g., flux tilt model, different powers in different ring elements, or radial power profiles). In this work, phy-
sics and thermalhydraulics codes are applied to quantify the effect of eccentricity of a fuel bundle on power
variations across it and within a fuel element, and ultimately on the fuel temperature distribution and fuel
centerline temperature, which is one of the indicators of fuel performance under normal operating condi-
tions (NOC). Due to fissioning, Xe and Kr gases are produced, which contribute to the internal gas pressure
within an element. The increase in gas pressure may jeopardize the fuel element integrity (sheath rupture).
On the other hand, fission gas is produced as a function of neutron flux/power and diffuses to the grain
boundaries and fuel-pellet interface as a function of fuel temperature. Therefore, it is important to know
the fuel temperatures and distributions within the fuel.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction eccentrically located, which results in asymmetric flow distribu-

Knowledge of fuel temperature and fuel temperature distribu-
tion is essential for accurately predicting fuel performance charac-
teristics. Besides thermal conductivity, the power distribution
within an element and power distribution across the fuel bundle
can affect the fuel temperature distribution within an element. In
Canadian PHWRs, pressure tubes deform through creep mecha-
nisms with ageing (Holt, 2008). The creep deformation is dis-
tributed non-uniformly along the fuel channel, i.e., it reaches a
maximum in the vicinity of the maximum neutron flux location.
As a result, in aged horizontal pressure tubes, fuel bundles are
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Nihan.Onder@cnl.ca (E.N. Onder), Dan.Roubtsov@cnl.ca
(D. Roubtsov), Yanfei.Rao@cnl.ca (Y.F. Rao), wilhelmb@mail.uoguelph.ca (B. Wilhelm).
1
AECL stands for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
tion between the top and bottom of fuel bundles in the channel.
The crosssectionally asymmetric positioning of fuel bundles in a
crept pressure tube contributes to an asymmetric power distribu-
tion within a ring of fuel elements.
For this study, the reactor physics lattice cell code WIMS-AECL
3.1 (Altiparmakov, 2008) was used to calculate the power distribu-
tion within an element and across the bundle. Using the calculated
powers, the thermalhydraulics subchannel code ASSERT-PV 3.2
(Rao et al., 2014; Rao and Hammouda, 2003) was applied to model
the flow and heat transfer in the bundle with non-uniform power
distribution within and across fuel elements (i.e., flux tilt and dif-
ferent powers in different ring elements) with relevant thermalhy-
draulic conditions. ASSERT-PV computes fuel and sheath
temperatures and crosssection averaged fluid temperatures along
the fuel channel. The 43-element bundle (Groeneveld et al.,
2015) was chosen for the analysis because it is one of the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.12.016
0306-4549/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
246 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254
candidates for advanced fuels that can be employed in an
advanced PHWR due to lower linear element ratings in outer ring
elements at comparable bundle power to a 37-element bundle,
resulting in lower fuel temperatures and lower Fission Gas
Releases (FGR).
In all previous analyses (Bae and Park, 2011), fuel temperatures
and temperature distributions within a fuel element in the same
ring are assumed to be identical. However, with the changes in ele-
ment power in the same ring (e.g., top and bottom elements in the
outer ring) due ageing of nuclear reactors (i.e., channels in PHWR),
this assumption does not hold true. Consequently, the aim of this
study is to quantify the element power differences in the same
ring, which are always assumed to be same, and fuel (centerline)
temperatures and temperature distributions in the same ring in
an aged reactor (such as fuel channel type reactor). Given that fis-
sion gas diffusion and hence FGR is a function of temperature,
some differences in FGR can be expected in elements exposed to
different powers in the same ring.
The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of non-
uniform power distributions across a fuel bundle and within a fuel
element on fuel centerline temperatures in uncrept and crept pres-
sure tubes. Ultimately, the novelty of this study is the quantifica-
tion of important parameters, such as variations of element
powers and fuel centerline temperatures in the same ring; rather
than qualitatively indicating that power and fuel temperature vari-
ations in the same ring due to ageing are not expected to be
significant.
2. Background
The existing fleet of Canadian PHWRs are pressure tube type
reactors, where pressure tubes are located horizontally in calandria
tubes (see Fig. 1(a)). Fig. 1(b) shows the cross sectional geometry of
a 43-element bundle with appendages: end-plates, bearing pads,
Critical Heat Flux (CHF) enhancement buttons and spacers. The
43-element bundle consists of two types of fuel elements: the
diameter of center element and inner ring elements is slightly lar-
ger than the diameter of middle and outer ring elements.
Fig. 2(a) shows the reference (uncrept) pressure tube whereas
Fig. 2(b) shows an axially non-uniformly crept pressure tube where
fuel bundles are eccentrically located. This eccentricity results in
an asymmetric flow distribution between the top and bottom of
the fuel bundles (see the flow by-pass region in Fig. 2(b)), which
in turn can result in power differences within the same ring
between the top and bottom of a bundle depending on the creep
ratio, which is defined as:
CR ¼ ðDcreep  Dref Þ=Dref
where Dcreep is the local inner diameter (ID) in a crept pressure tube
and Dref is the ID of the reference (uncrept) pressure tube.
From foil activation experiments in nuclear reactors (Serdula
and Green, 1967) and from reactor physics simulations
(Altiparmakov et al., 2010), the thermal neutron flux inside the
bundle in a pressure tube decreases toward the bundle center. As
a result, there is a neutron flux gradient in the fuel elements and
a similar fission power distribution in the fuel pellets (see Fig. 3).
This effect is known as ‘‘flux tilt” (Tong and Weisman, 1979) and
can be modelled as follows:
powðr; hÞ ¼ q000  ð1 þ e  ðr=Rf Þ  cos hÞ
where q000 is the power density, Rf is the fuel pellet radius, r and h are
local cylindrical coordinates associated with the fuel element, and
e > 0 is the tilt parameter. The element power (per unit length) is
given by
q0 ¼ q000  pR2f
3. Neutron physics and thermalhydraulics codes
3.1. WIMSAECL physics code
WIMS-AECL (Altiparmakov, 2008) is a two-dimensional lattice
physics code that uses multi-group integral transport theory and
collision probability methods to solve for the neutron flux distribu-
tion and reaction rates within a given lattice cell design. The code is
used with its 89-group nuclear data library based on ENDF/B-VII.0
evaluation. WIMS-AECL is capable of performing fuel depletion/
burn-up calculations in the reactor lattice and it calculates the
power density in the fuel pins at each burn-up step. The current
release version of WIMS-AECL is WIMS-AECL 3.1 (Altiparmakov,
2008). The WIMS-AECL neutron transport code has become a stan-
dard tool for analyzing the lattice physics characteristics of Cana-
dian PHWR-type fuel bundles (Altiparmakov et al., 2010) and is
used in this study to calculate the element power distribution in
the rings of a 43-element fuel bundle.
3.2. ASSERTPV thermalhydraulics subchannel code
The ASSERT-PV code has been developed at CNL/AECL for sub-
channel (SC) thermalhydraulics analysis of Canadian fuel bundles
(Rao et al., 2014), (Rao and Hammouda, 2003). The current release
version of ASSERTPV is ASSERT-PV 3.2 (Rao et al., 2014; Rao and
Hammouda, 2003) which was used to predict fuel temperatures
in the present analysis. ASSERT-PV meets the specific requirements
for subchannel thermalhydraulic analysis of single- and two-phase
flows in horizontally oriented Canadian PHWR fuel bundles. The
code is generally used as a design assist tool for new designs of
Canadian fuel bundles to predict sheath temperatures at the
post-dryout conditions, pressure drop and dryout power in Cana-
dian PHWR fuel channels (Rao and Leung, 2007) and provides sup-
port for safety and licensing codes. It has been validated/assessed
against experimental data for the 37-element and 43-element bun-
dles. It provides detailed flow and phase distributions in subchan-
nels of a fuel bundle, and predicts channel pressure drop, dryout
power and CHF location, post-dryout fuel-sheath temperatures,
fuel temperatures at different radial locations of the fuel pellet.
ASSERT-PV (Rao et al., 2014; Rao and Hammouda, 2003; Carlucci
et al. (2004)) is based on ASSERT-IV (Carver et al., 1990), which
in turn originated from the COBRA-IV computer program. The
two-phase flow model used in ASSERT-PV is based on an advanced
drift-flux model: a five-equation model that can consider thermal
non-equilibrium and the relative velocity of the liquid and vapour
phases. Thermal non-equilibrium is dealt with by two-fluid energy
ð1Þ
equations for the liquid and vapour while relative velocity is
obtained from semi-empirical correlations. While retaining the
major features in ASSERT-IV, ASSERT-PV employs a more compre-
hensive and robust numerical solution based on the PressureVeloc-
ity numerical method to enhance the modelling capability under
relatively low flows, in addition to other improvements. The major
subchannel thermalhydraulics models in ASSERT-PV are described
in Rao et al. (2014), including the single- and two-phase inter-
subchannel turbulent mixing, void drift and diffusion, buoyancy
drift, CHF, post-dryout heat transfer, and the effects of bundle
appendages.
The fuel temperature was calculated at different specified radial
ð2Þ
locations. The material properties of fuel and sheath are user-
defined values, and for this analysis, the material properties were
obtained from IAEA-TECDOC-1496 (IAEA, 2006). In this study, cal-
culations were performed for CANDU fuel at the middle of burnup
(~90 MWh/kgU). Provided that the CANDU fuel mid-burnup is low,
an assumption was made to use the fresh fuel thermal
ð3Þ conductivity.
 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254 247

Fig. 1. Canadian Pressurized Water Reactor with a Fuel Channel and a Fuel Bundle.

Fig. 2. Pressure Tubes (a) Reference (Uncrept) and (b) Crept.

Fig. 3. Thermal neutron flux in a reactor lattice cell for 43-element bundle (WIMS-AECL 3.1).
248 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254

4. Simulations Variation of element power within a ring is insignificant (ele-

ment power being almost constant, as shown by the open symbols
The WIMS-AECL 3.1 (Altiparmakov, 2008) lattice physics code in Fig. 6) for bundles with uniform EPD regardless of the channel
was applied to calculate element powers in a 43-element fuel bun- creep (CC). However, once the bundles are placed in fuel channels
dle located concentrically and eccentrically in uncrept and 5.1%2 asymmetrically (i.e., eccentricity is imposed), element powers vary
crept pressure tubes of a Canadian PHWR. The concentric arrange- in a given ring; highest powers are obtained at the bottom of the
ment of bundles in a pressure tube provides a uniform distribution bundle (elements 33 and 34 in the outer ring; elements 15 and
of powers among fuel elements in a given ring, while the eccentric 16 in the middle ring; elements 5 and 6 in the inner ring) and low-
arrangement leads to element power variations within the same est powers are obtained at the top of the bundle (element 23 in the
ring. Despite an uncrept channel providing symmetry, there is still outer ring; elements 9 and 22 in the middle ring; element 2 in the
a small eccentricity due to gravity; i.e., heavy fuel bundles sit on inner ring). Element power variation within a ring is largest in the
the horizontal pressure tube while maintaining a gap between the 5.1% crept channel as compared to that in the uncrept channel and
pressure tube and fuel bundles at the bottom with bearing pads. in the outer ring as compared to the inner ring.
The gaps between the bundle and the pressure tube are not exactly In the case of asymmetric position of a fuel bundle in a pressure
the same at the top and bottom part of the channel, causing an tube channel (gravity effect), the power distribution in the fuel ele-
insignificant eccentricity. Consequently, the WIMS-AECL 3.1 code ments can be approximated as follows:
was applied to the bundles eccentrically located in uncrept and
pði; jÞ  p0;i þ Dpi  cosðai  ð2p=Ni Þ  jÞ ð4Þ
5.1% crept pressure tubes to calculate the non-uniform distribution
of element powers in the rings, and to the bundles concentrically
where, i is the index of fuel ring (inner, middle, outer), and j runs
located to calculate the uniform distribution of element powers in
over the number of elements in the ring i (e.g., from 23 to 43 for
the rings.
the outer ring with Nouter = 21), and p0,i and Dpi are parameters to
The power tilt in an element is a result of non-uniform distribu-
be defined using the least square method. The function ai  (2p/
tion of thermal neutron flux: relatively high powers in segments
Ni)  j is basically a conversion of the element counter j into the ele-
facing outer subchannels and relatively low powers in segments
ment angular coordinate uj that is well-defined in the uncrept pres-
facing inner subchannels. In this study, the effect of power tilt in
sure tube channels and symmetric position of the bundles with
an element was taken into account using the results from Onder
respect to the channel center and ai is the angular offset in the ring
et al. (2013) as shown in Fig. 4. The values indicated in Fig. 4(b)
i. For example, uj = p can be assigned to the elements at the top of
were used in the ASSERT-PV calculations. It is expected that slight
the bundle (such as, for j = 2 and j = 23 in Fig. 6) and uj = 0 to the
changes in flow conditions will not affect the distribution of power
elements at the bottom (then u5 = (2p/Ninner)/2, u33 = (2p/Nouter)/2).
within an element. This effect was included to simulate more real-
The importance of this simple approximation of the power profile p
istic conditions within the fuel element.
(i, j) is based on the following observation: for the uncrept pressure
Once uniform and non-uniform element power distributions
tubes, p(i, j)  p0,i is a good approximation because the deviation of
(EPD) within rings were obtained by WIMS-AECL 3.1 from concen-
p(i, j) from a constant (p0,i) is  ±0.1% for a given ring if the 43-
tric and eccentric cases, ASSERTPV 3.2 (Rao et al., 2014) was
element bundle is placed asymmetrically (gravity effect at
employed with a cosine axial power profile (see Fig. 9) to calculate
CR = 0%) and this is comparable for the uncertainties from modeling
fuel and sheath temperatures in the uncrept and 5.1% non-uniform
assumption, approximations made in WIMS-AECL, etc. For the crept
crept channels. The predicted fuel and sheath temperatures
pressure tubes, the deviation from a constant power in a fuel ring, p
obtained with element power variations were then compared with
(i, j)  p0,i, can become an important effect to be taken into account
the predictions without considering these effects (uniform element
in modeling because Dpi (CR) / CR in Eq. (4), i.e. Dpi scales linearly
powers in a given ring). Simulations were performed at the normal
with the dimensionless pressure tube creep. The changes of p0,i
operating condition of interest to Canadian PHWR: outlet pressure
with CR are found to be not significant. For example, for CR = 5.1%
of 9.9 MPa, inlet temperature of 265 °C, mass flow rate of 23 kgs1,
and non-uniform EPD, we have
and fuel channel power of 5.5 MW.
The radial power profiles (or ring powers) obtained using Dpinner =p0;inner  1:3%; Dpmiddle =p0;middle
WIMS-AECL 3.1 (Altiparmakov, 2008) were compared with the
 2:2%; and Dpouter =p0;outer  3:1% ð5Þ
previous profiles (Onder et al., 2013) and similar results were
obtained (see Fig. 5). Similar power profiles were observed by
i.e., roughly, Dpi/p0,i  1%; see Fig. 6.
other researchers (Bae and Jeong, 2015). With the confidence
Similar to the radial power profiles (Fig. 5), the relative power
gained by this power comparison, flux tilts (relative power distri-
profiles (p(i,j)/pbundle, as shown Fig. 6) are not changing signifi-
butions) within elements obtained from previous WIMS-AECL sim-
cantly with the bundle burnup (provided CR is fixed). However,
ulations (Onder et al., 2013) were used (see Fig. 4).
the detailed analysis of p(i, j; Tfuel, Tclad, Tcool; CR)/pbundle with full
The radial power profiles (or relative powers per element in a
thermal-hydraulic feedback is left for future studies.
given ring) obtained using WIMS-AECL 3.1 (Altiparmakov, 2008)
were compared with the profiles obtained in earlier studies
(Onder et al., 2013), and similar results were obtained (see 5. Results
Fig. 5). Similar power profiles were also observed by other
researchers (Bae and Jeong, 2015). It is important to emphasize For the conditions given above (i.e., the channel power and the
that the radial power profiles are not changing significantly with element power distribution), at the high power region (i.e., close to
the bundle burn-up and they are basically the same if thermal- the middle of the fuel channel for a cosine axial power distribu-
hydraulic feed-back is taken account in the reactor physics models tion), the linear element power (LEP) at any ring element (cen-
used of 43-element bundle and the reactor lattice cell. tral/inner/middle/outer) varies between 28 and 35 kW/m. Since
the power decreases toward the center of the bundle (see Fig. 3),
2
as expected, the highest LEPs (i.e., 34–35 kW/m) were observed
This is the creep ratio that has been tested at the Stern Laboratories, Canada for
different Canadian fuel bundle simulators for safety and licensing applications. This
in the outer ring elements. At the low power region (i.e., near the
value is conservative as the calculated and observed creep ratios are below this value inlet), LEP at any ring elements varies between 4 and 5 kW/m, with
(i.e., 5.1%). the highest LEP (5 kW/m) in the outer ring elements.
 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254 249

Fig. 4. (a) Direction of Flux Tilt, (b) Degree of Flux Tilt in Elements of Different Rings.

Fig. 7 shows the critical element (i.e., elements with the

Fig. 5. Comparison of Radial Power Profiles Between Previous and Recent WIMS-
AECL 3.1 Calculations.
highest centreline temperatures) locations for a 43 element
bundle with uniform and non-uniform element power distribu-
tions (EPD) in the uncrept and 5.1% crept channels. In all cases,
critical elements are in the outer ring at the bottom of the bundle
at the peak axial power location. The critical elements are 32 and
35 in the case of uniform and nonuniform EPD in the uncrept
channel and uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel, and 33 and
34 in the case of non-uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel.
Due to the element flux (tilt) that is imposed, the temperature
in the segment of the fuel pellet facing the outer subchannels
(see Fig. 7, orange segment in the critical elements) is slightly
higher (up to 6 °C) than that facing the inner subchannels. On
the other hand, the sheath (surface) and coolant temperatures
in the inner subchannels (see Fig. 7, subchannels highlighted in
amber) are higher by 3 °C and 6 °C than those in the outer
subchannels, respectively. It should be noted that the calculation
of sheath temperatures for a given segment of an element
involves the heat transferred to that segment and the
thermalhydraulic conditions in the subchannel that the segment

Fig. 6. Relative Power Distribution in Different Rings for Uncrept and 5.1% Crept Channels with Bundle Geometry Showing Locations of Elements in a Fuel Channel.
250 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254

Fig. 7. Critical (Hot) Element and Maximum Sheath Temperature Locations in a 43-Element Bundle with: (a) Uniform and Non-Uniform EPD in the Uncrept Channel and
Uniform EPD in the 5.1% Crept Channel, (b) Non-Uniform EPD in the 5.1% Crept Channel. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 8. Coolant Temperatures in ubchannels Surrounding Critical Elements at the Axial Location where Fuel Centerline Temperatures Reach a Maximum.

is facing. The solution requires an iteration to achieve a consis-
tency between the heat generation and transfer to the cladding
and the convective heat transfer to the coolant, which is
expressed using the Newton’s cooling law as
~
q00 ¼ hðT w  T co Þ~
n ð6Þ
where ~q00 is the heat flux, T co is the coolant temperature, h is the heat
transfer coefficient, (predicted using a Dittus–Boelter3 type equa-
tion) and ~n is the unit vector perpendicular to the surface. The sheath
outer surface temperature, Tw, is estimated and later used to calcu-
late fuel pellet surface temperature, which in turn is used (as one
3
Nu = f(Re, Pr) = hD=kc ; where Nu is the Nusselt number, Re is the Reynolds
number, Pr is the Prandtl number, h is the heat transfer coefficient, D is the tube (in
this case subchannel) diameter, kc is the thermal conductivity of fluid.
of the boundary conditions) to calculate the temperature
distribution in the (cylindrical) fuel pellet by solving the (steady
state) heat conduction equation
rðkrTÞ þ q000 ¼ 0 ð7Þ
Despite that higher power (or heat flux) is imposed to the fuel
segments facing the outer subchannels (to account correctly for
the effect of flux tilt that follows the neutron flux in heavy water
pressure tube type reactors), slightly higher sheath temperatures
are observed in the segments facing the inner subchannels. This
is due to higher coolant temperatures in the inner smaller sub-
channels (as indicated in Fig. 7, relatively hotter coolants and
sheath temperatures are in subchannels 32/33/34 and 36/37/38
but not in the subchannel 35 in comparison with larger outer sub-
channels 58/59 and 61/62).
 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254
Fig. 9. Variation of Critical Element Sheath and Cross Section Average Coolant Temperatures along the fuel channel in Uncrept and 5.1% Crept Channels (CC).
Fig. 8 shows coolant temperatures in subchannels surrounding
the critical elements at the axial location where the maximum fuel
center temperatures are reached. Coolant temperatures are higher
in the inner subchannels than in the outer subchannels and are
higher for the 5.1% crept channel (uniform and non-uniform EPD)
than for the uncrept channel (uniform and nonuniform EPD).
The fuel pellet periphery temperatures at the segments facing
outer subchannels (i.e., facing subchannels 59, 60 and 61 in
Fig. 7) are slightly higher (up to 6 °C) than those at the segments
facing inner subchannels. However, coolant temperatures in the
inner subchannels are higher (up to 6 °C) than that in the outer
subchannels, which in turn results in slightly higher (up to 3 °C)
cladding surface temperatures at the outer-ring element segments
facing inner subchannels as compared to those at the segments
facing outer subchannels.
Fig. 9 shows the variation of cross section average coolant and
critical sheath temperatures along the fuel channel for uncrept
and 5.1% crept channels (CC) together with the axial power distri-
bution and pressure tube creep. It should also be noted that there is
no difference in coolant temperature variations along the fuel
channel between uniform and non-uniform EPD cases. The differ-
ence in sheath temperatures between uniform and non-uniform
EPD in the uncrept channel is insignificant. Coolant temperatures
increase gradually in both fuel channels. However, the average
coolant temperature at the channel outlet is lower in the 5.1% crept
channel than in the uncrept channel. This is due to the higher
enthalpy imbalance in the crept channel downstream of the critical
location (i.e., beyond the peak in the axial power distribution and
downstream of the maximum pressure tube diametral creep).
Coolant temperatures in the subchannels of a bundle in the
uncrept pressure tube are more homogenously distributed: e.g.,
251
for the uniform EPD, coolant temperatures in the subchannels at
the outlet vary between 305.0 °C and 312.7 °C in the uncrept chan-
nel, and between 295.3 °C and 310.3 °C in the 5.1% crept channel.
Maximum sheath temperatures occur in critical elements facing
inner subchannels (as identified/coloured in amber in Fig. 7 with
subchannels 32, 33, 34, 36, 27 and 38) and reach a peak value
downstream of the peak power location. Maximum sheath temper-
ature is reached in the 5.1% crept channel earlier as compared to
that in the uncrept channel (i.e., at an axial location of 408 cm in
the 5.1% channel compared to 448.5 cm in the uncrept channel).
This is due to a higher enthalpy imbalance in the 5.1% crept chan-
nel. The maximum sheath temperature in the 5.1% crept channel
(328 °C) is slightly higher than that in the uncrept channel
(323 °C). At the outlet, the sheath temperature for the uncrept
channel (314 °C) is slightly higher as compared to that in the
5.1% crept channel (311 °C), similar to the coolant temperatures.
Fig. 10 shows the axial distribution of fuel centerline tempera-
tures in the critical elements4 for elements with linear powers of 4–
5 kW/m at the low power region (i.e., at the inlet) and 2835 kW/m at
the high power region. Fuel centerline temperatures reach a maxi-
mum at the peak power location (323 cm). A fuel centerline tem-
perature of 1248 °C for the uniform EPD in the uncrept channel, of
1255 °C for the nonuniform EPD in the uncrept channel, of 1260 °C
for the uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel and of 1302 °C for
the nonuniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel is reached in the crit-
ical elements that are located in the outer ring with linear element
powers of 35 kW/m at the high power region.
4
It should be noted that critical elements refer to the elements with peak
centerline temperatures, and these elements are located in the outer ring.
252 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254
Fig. 10. Variation of Fuel Centerline Temperatures along the fuel channel in Uncrept and 5.1% Crept Channels (CC).
There is no significant difference among uniform EPD (taken as
the reference case) and non-uniform EPD in the uncrept channel
and uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel. An increase of 7.3 °C
(or 0.59%), as compared to the reference case, is observed for the
non-uniform EPD in the uncrept channel, and of 11.4 °C (or
0.91%) for the uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel. In the case
of non-uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel, however, the tem-
perature increase is 54.1 °C (or 4.33%) as compared to the reference
case, and 42.7 °C (or 3.39%) as compared to the case of uniform EPD
in the 5.1% crept channel
It had been expected that the temperature distribution could
show angular dependency because the flux tilt is imposed to fuel
elements and nonuniform subchannel coolant temperatures occur
due to enthalpy imbalance and flow (re)distributions between sub-
channels due to turbulence. Therefore, Fig. 11(a) is plotted for the
variation of fuel temperatures in the fuel pellet at the mid-channel
location (axial location where the highest fuel centerline tempera-
tures are observed) as a function of distance from the fuel center in
the segment facing outer subchannels and in the segments facing
inner subchannels. It should be noted that the temperatures of ele-
ment 35 in Fig. 11(a) are averaged to be representative of two
effective segments, the inner and the outer. The inner segment
neighbours the three inner subchannels 36, 37 and 38, whereas
the outer segment neighbours the two outer subchannels 61 and
62 (see Fig. 11(b)). In segments facing outer subchannels, slightly
higher temperatures are observed as compared to the segments
facing inner subchannels. Table 1 summarizes temperature distri-
butions in different segments (facing different subchannels) in
the critical elements.
Fuel temperature variations within each fuel ring are expected
to follow local power variations (see Fig. 6), with the most pro-
nounced effect in a crept channel. Fig. 12 shows the variation of
fuel centerline temperatures with locations (i.e., top and bottom
and different rings). The largest temperature difference of 112 °C
is observed between top and bottom in the outer ring elements
with non-uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel. The temperature
difference between top and bottom elements in the middle ring is
50 °C and in the inner ring is 36 °C. The temperature variations
between top and bottom elements in the other configurations
(i.e., 43-element bundle in the uncrept channel with uniform and
non-uniform EPD and in the 5.1% crept channel with uniform
EPD) are lower than 30 °C at any given ring.
As shown in Fig. 12, large variations in the fuel centerline tem-
perature are observed for the 5.1% crept channel, in particular for
the outer ring elements: centerline temperatures in outer ring (ele-
ments #23 through #43) vary around the average centerline tem-
perature of 1246 °C within ± 56 °C (i.e., 1302 °C at the bottom and
1190 °C at the top). Consequently, no significant differences in FGR
are expected between top and bottom elements for such differ-
ences in fuel temperature.
Similar to the bundle power profile p(i, j) (see Fig. 6), the center-
line temperature maps shown in Fig. 12 allow a simple approxi-
mate description:
T c ði; jÞ  T c;i þ DT c;i  cosðai  ð2p=Ni Þ  jÞ: ð8Þ
where Tc,i and DTc,i are the parameters to be defined from the least
square method. For the uncrept pressure tubes (CR = 0), Tc(i, j)  Tc,i
is a good approximation because, for a given fuel ring, the deviation
of Tc(i, j) from a constant (Tc,i) is  ±0.1% in the 43-element fuel
bundles (e.g., a few °C for Tc  1000 °C). In the case of crept pressure
tubes, the differences in Tc(i, j) in a given fuel ring can became more
noticeable as DTc,i is expected to be increased with CR. For example,
for CR = 5.1% and non-uniform EPD, we have
DT c;inner =T c;inner  1:5%; DT c;middle =T c;middle
 2:5%; andDT c;outer =T c;outer  4:6%;
i.e., roughly, DTc,i /Tc,i  1%; see Fig. 12.
However, detailed analyses of the dependence of Tc,i and DTc,i
on the dimensionless creep CR are left for future studies. On the
other hand, approximating p(i, j) and Tfuel(i, j) in the fuel bundles
in crept PT with the formula given by
yði; jÞ  yi ðCRÞ þ Dyi ðCRÞ  cosðai  ð2p=Ni Þ  jÞ; Dyi ðCRÞ  yi ;
ð9Þ
and with the linear scaling of Dyi / CR can be used for practical
applications, such as PHWR analysis (rule of thumb) linear scaling
of Dyi / CR can be useful in practical applications, such as PHWR
analysis (rule of thumb); y(i, j) = (p,Tfuel).
The explicit results as obtained here for p(i, j)/pbundle and Tc(i, j)
at CR = 5.1% can be used as a reference point for the estimates
based on engineering judgment for creep ratio CR  1% as applied
in nuclear engineering.
 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254 253

Fig. 11. Variation of Fuel Temperatures with Normalized Radial Distance in Uncrept and 5.1% Crept Channels (CC) (a), and Segmentation of Fuel Element 35 (b).

Table 1
Summary of Temperature Distribution in the Critical Segment of Fuel Pellets for Uniform and Non-Uniform EPD in Uncrept and 5.1% Crept Channels.

Channel Creep (%) Element Power Distribution Critical Element SC # Inner or Outer SC Temperatures (°C)
Fuel Centre Mid-Radius Pellet Surface Sheath Surface
0 Uniform 35 36 Inner 1247.6 948.2 376.3 316.3
37 Inner 1247.4 934.4 373.7 315.5
38 Inner 1247.6 947.4 375.4 315.3
61 Outer 1248.1 989.1 379.9 314.1
62 Outer 1248.1 988.4 379.1 313.3
0 Non-uniform 32 32 Inner 1254.9 952.6 376.5 316.3
33 Inner 1254.7 938.9 374.1 315.7
34 Inner 1254.9 952.3 376 315.7
58 Outer 1255.4 993.7 379.9 313.7
59 Outer 1255.4 993.8 380.2 314.1
5.1 Uniform 35 36 Inner 1259.0 958.2 383.1 323.4
37 Inner 1258.8 944.8 381.4 323.6
38 Inner 1259.0 957.6 382.5 322.7
61 Outer 1259.5 999.3 387.1 321.7
62 Outer 1259.5 998.6 385.9 320.4
5.1 Non-uniform 34 35 Inner 1301.5 976.4 382.9 322.2
36 Inner 1301.6 982.4 385.1 324.0
60 Outer 1302.2 1028.6 389.5 322.1
61 Outer 1302.2 1029.3 390 322.5

Fig. 12. Centerline Temperature Variations between Top and Bottom Elements.
254 E.N. Onder et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 102 (2017) 245–254
6. Conclusion
With ageing, pressure tubes deform by creep non-uniformly
along the fuel channel resulting in fuel bundles being located
eccentrically in the horizontal pressure tubes of a Canadian PHWR.
This results in asymmetric flow and enthalpy distributions
between the top and bottom of the fuel bundles in a crept pressure
tube, which in turn can contribute to an asymmetric power distri-
bution within a ring of fuel elements. This study quantified the
effect of eccentricity on the fuel centerline temperatures for a
43-element bundle in uncrept and 5.1% crept channels. The
WIMS-AECL physics lattice cell code was used to predict power
distributions within an element and across the bundle. The
ASSERT-PV thermalhydraulics subchannel code was used to
describe inhomogeneous power distributions within and across
fuel elements, which was then applied to calculate the tempera-
tures of fuel, sheath and coolant.
The findings are summarized as follows:
 The effect of bundle eccentricity on element power variations in
a given ring is insignificant in an uncrept channel of a Canadian
PHWR, but is noticeable in a 5.1% crept channel. The element
power variation within a ring is larger in the 5.1% crept channel
than in the uncrept channel, and it is the highest in the outer
ring and the lowest in the inner ring.
 High element powers and hence high fuel centerline tempera-
tures at critical elements are observed in the outer ring at the
bottom (or close to the bottom) of the bundles for all cases. Crit-
ical segments in critical elements (i.e., fuel pellets) were found
to be facing outer subchannels.
 There is no difference in cross-section averaged coolant temper-
atures between uniform and non-uniform EPD cases. Cross-
section averaged coolant temperatures increase gradually in
both fuel channels
 Due to higher enthalpy imbalance for the 5.1% crept channel as
compared to the uncrept channel, the cross-section averaged
coolant temperature is lower in the 5.1% crept channel than in
the uncrept channel downstream of the axial location where
the channel power reaches a maximum.
 The maximum sheath temperature is reached at an upstream
location in the 5.1% crept channel as compared to the uncrept
channel. This is due to higher enthalpy imbalance in the 5.1%
crept channel. The maximum sheath temperature in the 5.1%
crept channel (328 °C) is slightly higher than that in the
uncrept channel (323 °C); however, approaching the channel
outlet, the maximum sheath temperature for the uncrept chan-
nel (314 °C) is slightly higher than that (311 °C) for the 5.1%
crept channel, similar to the coolant temperatures.
 Fuel centerline temperatures reach a maximum at the peak
power location (323 cm from the inlet). A fuel centerline tem-
perature of 1248 °C for the uniform EPD in the uncrept channel,
of 1255 °C for the non-uniform EPD in the uncrept channel, of
1260 °C for the uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel and of
1302 °C for the non-uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel is
reached in the critical elements that are located in the outer
ring with linear element powers of 35 kW/m at the high power
region.
 A centerline temperature difference of 112 °C is observed
between top and bottom elements in a bundle with non-
uniform EPD in the 5.1% crept channel. In the other rings, the
temperature difference is equal or less than 50 °C. For the other
configurations (i.e., 43-element bundle hosted in the uncrept
channel with uniform and non-uniform EPD and in the 5.1%
crept channel with uniform EPD), the centerline temperature
difference between top and bottom elements is lower than
30 °C at any given ring.
 With the highest fuel centerline temperature difference at the
order of 112 °C between top and bottom elements in the outer
ring for a bundle in a 5.1% crept channel, it is not expected that
there is a significant difference in FGR in different elements
within the same ring.
 Two-dimensional power variation (power map) of the (43-
element) fuel bundle as well as the corresponding centerline
fuel temperature map can be approximated by simple regres-
sion formulas for any pressure tube creep CR that is expected
in ageing PHWR reactors.
This study quantified the effect of reactor ageing in a fuel chan-
nel type reactor on the element power and fuel temperature vari-
ations in the same ring under normal operating conditions. It
concludes that element power and temperature variations are
not significant even in fuel channels having relatively high creeps
and gives an qualitative estimate of variation of these parameters
obtained using realistic models and codes used in practice. There-
fore, it is not expected to obtain large deviations in FGR in different
fuel elements within the same ring upon core ageing.
Acknowlegment
Authors would like to thank Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to
fund the summer student (B. Wilhelm) and the project.
References
Altiparmakov, D., New capabilities of the lattice code WIMS-AECL. In: Proceedings
of PHYSOR 2008. Interlaken, Switzerland, 2008 September 14–19.
Altiparmakov, D., Shen, W., Marleau, G., Rouben, B., Evolution of computer codes for
CANDU analysis. In: Proceedings of PHYSOR 2010. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
USA, 2010 May 914.
Bae, J.H., Jeong, J.Y., 2015. Thermalhydraulic characteristics for CANFLEX fuel
channel using burnable poison in CANDU reactor. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 47, 559–
566.
Bae, J.H., Park, J.H., 2011. The effect of a CANDU fuel bundle geometry variation on
thermalhydraulic performance. Ann. Nucl. Energy 38, 1891–1899.
Carlucci, L.N., Hammouda, N., Rowe, D.S., 2004. Twophase turbulent mixing and
buoyancy drift in rod bundles. Nucl. Eng. Des. 227, 65–84.
Carver, M.B., Kiteley, J.C., Tahir, A., Banas, A.O., Rowe, D.S., 1990. Simulation of flow
and phase distribution in vertical and horizontal bundles using the ASSERT
subchannel code. Nucl. Eng. Des. 122, 413–424.
Groeneveld, D.C., Leung, L.H.H., Park, J.H., 2015. Overview of methods to increase
dryout power in CANDU fuel bundles. Nucl. Eng. Des. 287, 131–138.
Holt, R.A., 2008. Inreactor deformation of cold-worked Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes. J.
Nucl. Mater. 372, 182–214.
IAEA, Thermophysical properties database of materials for light water reactors and
heavy water reactors. IAEA-TECDOC-1496. 2006.
Onder, E.N., Roubtsov, D., Rao, Y.F., The effect of burn-up on CHF for a CANFLEX
bundle in uncrept and crept flow tubes. In: Proceedings of the 15th
International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal – Hydraulics,
NURETH-15. 2013 May 12–17, Pisa, Italy.
Rao, Y.F., Hammouda, N., Recent development in ASSERTPV code for subchannel
thermalhydraulics. In: Proceeding of the 8th CNS Int. Conf. on CANDU Fuel,
2003 September 2124, Honey Harbor, Ontario.
Rao, Y., Leung, L.K.H., 2007. Thermalhydraulics performance optimization of CANDU
fuel using ASSERT subchannel code. In: Proceeding of the 2007 International
Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants. Nice Acropolis, France.
Rao, Y.F., Cheng, Z., Waddington, G.M., Nava-Dominguez, A., 2014. ASSERT-PV 3.2:
Advanced subchannel thermalhydraulics code for CANDU fuel bundles. Nucl.
Eng. Des. 275, 69–79.
Serdula, K.J., Green, R.E., Lattice measurements with 28element natural UO2 fuel
assemblies, Part II: relative total neutron densities and hyperfine activation
distribution in a lattice cell. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report AECL2772,
1967 August.
Tong, L.S., Weisman, J., 1979. Thermal Analysis of Pressurized Water Reactors.
American Nuclear Society, LaGrange Park, IL.