Small Mobile Reactor Analysis for Underdeveloped Countries and Remote Locations

April 11, 2007

Team 1:
Brittany Smith
Carlos Juarez
Peter McKinnis
Jamie Anderson
Derek Mann
James Henkel
NE 472 Nuclear System Design
Dr. M. Grossbeck
Abstract
The concept of a small modular reactor represents the next frontier in reactor
evolution. Currently, nuclear reactors are constructed on a high output industrial scale,
typically about 1000 MWe. Many smaller and less industrial developed countries are not
able to handle such massive electricity generators nor do they have the technical
knowledge to safely operate such a massive reactor. Small reactors should offer a safe
tool to train developing countries in reactor operation.
The goal of this project was to design a long-life core (at least 10 years without
refueling) that produced about 100 MWe and most importantly could be transported by
truck. Of the previously mention three design criteria, the ability to be transported by
truck was considered the most important. The entire reactor system did not have to be
transported by truck, but the major components (core, heat exchanger, turbines) needed to
fit on a truck.
A liquid metal cooled reactor was designed to meet these goals. Initially, this
reactor type was chosen because of its high linear power density and fuel longevity.
However, a liquid metal cooled reactor has its own unique set of problems. For example,
most liquid metal fuels are chemically active in air; the neutron spectrum is much faster,
leading to much quicker transients; and the coolants are generally not solid at room
temperature. Regardless, at the end of the design sessions, the reactor had a 20 year core
life (10 years proved to be easier transported by truck), produced 100 MWe, and the
major components could be fitted onto a truck. A detail list of the final core parameters
are provided in Appendix D of the attached paper.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Reactor Types ............................................................................................................ 1
2 Material Selection ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Fuel Selection ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Oxide Fuels ......................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Uranium Metal Fuel ............................................................................................ 4
2.1.3 Other Fuels .......................................................................................................... 4
2.1.4 Fuel Summary ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Coolant Selection ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Liquid Metal Coolants ........................................................................................ 6
2.3 Cladding Selection ..................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Control Rod Selection .............................................................................................. 10
3 Neutron Transport ........................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Fuel Assembly selection .......................................................................................... 11
3.2 Developing a Core Model ........................................................................................ 13
3.3 Results ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.4 Reactivity Coefficients ............................................................................................. 20
4 Heat Transfer .................................................................................................................. 21
4.1 Coolant Temperature Profile .................................................................................... 22
4.2 Cladding Temperature Profile .................................................................................. 23
4.3 Fuel Temperature Profile ......................................................................................... 25
4.4 Results ...................................................................................................................... 26
4.5 Pumping Power ........................................................................................................ 28
5 Shielding ......................................................................................................................... 30
6 Secondary System ........................................................................................................... 33
6.1 Steam Generators ..................................................................................................... 34
6.1.1 Steam Generator Design ................................................................................... 34
6.1.2 Steam Generator Sizing .................................................................................... 35
6.1.3 Steam Generator Weight ................................................................................... 39
6.1.4 Steam Generator Weight ................................................................................... 40
7 Safety Considerations ..................................................................................................... 40
8 General Plant Design ...................................................................................................... 41
9 Conclusions and Further Research .................................................................................. 43
References.........................................................................................................................45
Appendix A Sample SCALE input for core neutronics .............................. 1
Appendix B Matlab files for Heat Transfer Correlations ........................... 1
Appendix C Sample Scale input for shield calculations ............................. 1
Appendix D Summary of Core Parameters: ............................................... 1
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Boron Neutron Cross Section versus neutron energy. [10]...............................10
Figure 2 - Diagram of a square pitch and a triangular pitch..............................................12
Figure 3 - Cross section view of Core (not to scale)..........................................................14
Figure 4 - Core size and End of Life k-eff.........................................................................17
Figure 5 - k-eff versus core life..........................................................................................19
Figure 6 - Temperature profiles for a linear power of 2500 W/m and a coolant velocity of
2.34 m/s..............................................................................................................................28
Figure 7 - Dose rate as a function of distance from cap shield..........................................32
Figure 8 - General Core Layout.........................................................................................43
List of Tables
Table 1 - Summary of Reactor Characteristics [1]..............................................................2
Table 2 - Summary of Fuel Properties.................................................................................5
Table 3 - Summary of Coolant Parameters..........................................................................9
Table 4 - Core size for triangular and square pitches........................................................13
Table 5 - Linear Power Ratings and k-eff..........................................................................16
Table 6 - Core Parameters..................................................................................................18
Table 7 - Bi-yearly k-eff....................................................................................................18
Table 8 - Void coefficient of Reactivity and Doppler Coefficient....................................20
Table 9 Thermophysical Properties of Coolant at Inlet [3]............................................23
Table 10 - Cladding Properties..........................................................................................24
Table 11 - Summary of Fuel parameters............................................................................26
Table 12 - Temperature Limits for Core............................................................................26
Table 13 - Maximum Component temperatures for an average core linear power of 2500
W/m ...................................................................................................................................27
Table 14 - Pumping Power Calculations...........................................................................30
Table 15 - Thermophysical Properties Sodium 500 C.....................................................35
Table 16 - Thermopysical Properties Water 100 C..........................................................35
List of Equations
Equation 1 - Pumping Power Parameter..............................................................................6
Equation 2 - Temperature Range Ratio...............................................................................7
Equation 3 - Specific Activity..............................................................................................8
Equation 4 - Core diameter for a square pitch...................................................................12
Equation 5 - Length of Fuel Pin equation [2]....................................................................14
Equation 6 - Total fuel length equation.............................................................................14
Equation 7 - Number of fuel pin equation.........................................................................15
Equation 8 - hoop stress equation......................................................................................15
Equation 9 - Conversion Ratio...........................................................................................18
Equation 10 - Void Coefficient of Reactivity....................................................................21
Equation 11 - Doppler Coefficient.....................................................................................21
Equation 12 -Coolant Temperature Profile as Function of Vertical Position....................22
Equation 13 - Outer Cladding Temperature.......................................................................23
Equation 14 Westinghouse Nusselt Number for 1.1P/D1.4 and 10Pe5000 [3].....24
Equation 15 - One Dimensional Steady State Conduction................................................25
Equation 16 - Fuel Centerline Temperature.......................................................................25
Equation 17 - Pressure drop across a single channel [1]...................................................29
Equation 18 - Friction factor formula [1]..........................................................................29
Equation 19 - Pumping power formula [1]........................................................................29
Equation 20 - Thermal Resistance Equation......................................................................35
Equation 21 - Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient Equation...............................................36
Equation 22 - Reynolds Number formula..........................................................................36
Equation 23 - Nusselt Number formula.............................................................................36
Equation 24 - Average heat transfer coefficient between water and pipe.........................36
Equation 25 - Governing Energy Balance Equations........................................................37
Equation 26 - Mass flow rate of sodium............................................................................38
Equation 27 - Mass flow rate of water...............................................................................38
Equation 28 - C parameter calculation...............................................................................38
Equation 29 - Effectiveness of steam generator calculation..............................................38
Equation 30 - NTU calculation..........................................................................................39
Equation 31 - Heat transfer area calculation......................................................................39
Equation 32 - Weight of Stainless Steel pipes in Steam Generator...................................39
Equation 33 - Weight of sodium in steam generator.........................................................40
Equation 34 - Weight of Steam Generator housing...........................................................40
Equation 35 - Natural Circulation equation [4].................................................................41
1 Introduction
The purpose of this project was to examine the preliminary design steps
associated with reactor design. The goal was to design a small reactor that could be
transported by truck to a remote location. Initial requirements were that the reactor
should produce about 100 MWe, fit on a standard tractor trailer, have a core that would
last at least 10 years, and not be a major proliferation risk. In order to fulfill the last
requirement, the enrichment of the uranium fuel was held below 20%.
The major focus was developing a core with the previously listed characteristics.
Therefore, only limited attention was given to the secondary system. Without careful
attention to the secondary system, it is impossible to determine the true efficiency of the
plant. The efficiency of the plant was assumed to be approximately the same as standard
industrial power reactors of the same type. Furthermore, given the wide scope and
relatively limited amount, an in-depth economical evaluation was not feasible. When
possible, general assumptions about standard materials were compared in an effort to
minimize cost.
1.1 Reactor Types
To meet the previously listed requirements, a high power density and long fuel
cycle were the considered to be the most important characteristics. Also, a low system
operating pressure was desired to limit the thickness of a pressure vessel.
1
Table 1 - Summary of Reactor Characteristics [1]
Pressurized
Water
Reactor
Boiling
Water
Reactor
Gas Cooled
Fast Reactor
Liquid Metal
Fast Breeder
Reactor
Candu
Reactor
Thermal
Output (MW)
3411 3579 2530 2410 1612
Efficiency (%) 33.7 33.5 39.5 39.0 31.0
Fuel
Enrichment
(%)
2.9 2.7 10-15 10-15
Natural
Uranium
Average Core
Power Density
(kW/l)
104 56.0 297 380 12.4
Operating
Pressure (bar)
155 72 86 14 89
Some of the important characteristics for various reactor designs are summarized
in Table 1. From this information the reactor type was narrowed to a Liquid Metal Fast
Breeder Reactor (LMFBR). A Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) and Candu reactor were
eliminated because of their low power densities. A Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)
had many favorable characteristics, but the high operating pressure would require an
extremely thick and heavy pressure vessel. Both a Gas Cooled Fast Reactor (GCFR) and
a LMFBR both have very high efficiencies and power densities. However, a GCFRs
operating pressure would again require a thicker pressure vessel, therefore limiting the
amount a fuel weight available for a given core size. The LMFBR also tend to have
higher conversion ratios, favoring core longevity. The purpose of this reactor is power
production, not plutonium breeding. When designing a LMFBR an effort was made to
limit the breeding ratio and therefore the amount of plutonium available in the core.
2
2 Material Selection
When designing the core, four main components were identified: the fuel, the
coolant, the cladding, and the control rods. The materials selection process for these
components initially focused on thermal properties. Then efforts were made to maximize
compatibility and favorable nuclear properties.
2.1 Fuel Selection
Nuclear fuels come in a variety of compositions. Three basic types were
considered: oxide fuels, metal fuels, and other fuels. Each fuel type has various
advantages and disadvantages for a given design. For instance, while oxide fuels have an
extremely high melting point, the amount of fissile atoms in 1 gram atom of UO
2
is
significantly less then in a similar amount of pure uranium metal, meaning that a core
consisting of UO
2
would have to be much larger than a core utilizing pure uranium metal.
The following sections outline the different fuel types examined and the parameters used
in selecting the fuel composition
2.1.1 Oxide Fuels
Oxide fuels are commonly used in two basic forms: mixed oxide (MOX) fuels or
UO
2
. MOX fuels consist of a blend of plutonium with natural or depleted uranium.
These fuels have a high melting point but a low thermal conductivity. The thermal
conductivity is affected by the burn-up and porosity of the pellet. The low thermal
conductivity can result in overheating in the fuel centerline. Fuel swelling is limited at
high temperatures because fission gas products migrate to the center of the pellets,
3
forming central voids. At temperatures above about 1600 degrees Celsius, most volatile
fission gases will migrate to the previously described central voids.
MOX fuels have been discussed as an alternative to low enriched fuel in Light
Water Reactors (LWRs). MOX fuels provide a way to effectively utilize left over
plutonium and therefore serve as a means of proliferation control. UO
2
is the standard
fuel used in most commercial power reactors and has been researched much more in
depth than MOX fuel.
2.1.2 Uranium Metal Fuel
Uranium metal fuel has the advantage of a much higher thermal conductivity. A
higher thermal conductivity will decrease the fuel centerline temperatures and therefore
allow for higher power densities. Also, uranium metal fuel has a higher fissile atom
density than any other fuel, again allowing for a higher power density. However uranium
metal undergoes a structural phase change at 668 degrees Celsius. Because the structural
properties of a metal are unstable during a structural phase change, this temperature limits
the acceptable operating temperature of uranium metal rather than the melting
temperature.
2.1.3 Other Fuels
Other fuel forms are uranium carbide (UC) and uranium nitride (UN). These
fuels have the advantage of higher melting points than uranium metal fuel and higher
thermal conductivities than oxide fuels. However, these fuels are more prone to swelling
and have not been as extensively studied as oxide and metal fuels.
4
UC fuels were originally studied for LMFBR reactors in the mid 1960s, but
failed to gain widespread acceptance due to the success with UO
2
fuel. The major
downfall for UC fuel stems from the lack of research done on this fuel type and the lack
of facilities equipped to produce this fuel.
UN fuels have found a niche in NASA reactor designs. They have a melting point
on par with UO
2
and a thermal conductivity nearly an order of magnitude better than
UO
2
. Also, they have a higher fissile mass density than UO
2
. However, the nitrogen in
UN fuels can cause an excess of C-14 buildup as N-14 undergoes a proton-neutron
reaction. This reaction can be limited by using N-15 instead of the much more common
N-14. Due to the high cost of N-15 enrichment, it is unlikely that this fuel could
economically competitive with UO
2
.
2.1.4 Fuel Summary
While each fuel type has clear advantages and disadvantages, UO
2
has emerged as
the industry standard. Table 2 provides a summary of various fuel materials
Table 2 - Summary of Fuel Properties
Material
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m*C)
Melting Point
(C)
U 0.27 1135
UO
2
0.036 2800
UC 0.23 2390
UN 0.20 2800 (decom.)
UO
2
was chosen as the fuel because of its favorable thermal properties and its continued
successful use in commercial power generation.
5
2.2 Coolant Selection
The coolant choices were limited to four categories: gases, organic liquids, water,
and liquid metals. As described in section 1, a liquid metal cooled reactor seemed most
in line with our guidelines. Therefore all subsequent analysis focuses on liquid metal
coolants.
2.2.1 Liquid Metal Coolants
Liquid metals are generally chosen as the coolants for breeder reactors. Liquid
metals offer high heat transfer coefficients with low neutron moderating power.
However, liquid metals have their own unique problems as coolants. Most liquid metals
used in reactors are alkali metals which react explosively with air and water, meaning
that an inert cover gas is needed in all reactor operations that expose the coolant. Also
most liquid metals are not liquid at room temperatures, therefore during reactor start-up
the coolant must be heated significantly before it can actually be pumped.
When choosing a liquid metal coolant three different parameters are generally
examined. The first is the Pumping Power Parameter and is defined by the following
equation.
Equation 1 - Pumping Power Parameter
Heat Specific C
Density
ity Vis
Parameter Power Pumping P
C
P
p
p

cos
8 . 2 2
2 . 0
This equation examines the scales the amount of pump work necessary to remove a
certain amount of heat. The Pumping Parameter carries units; therefore the units of each
6
analyzed coolant must be the same when evaluating this parameter. Lower Pumping
Power Parameters are desired.
The second parameter is the Temperature Range Ratio and is defined by the
following equation.
Equation 2 - Temperature Range Ratio
e Temperatur Outlet actor T
Po Melting Coolant T
Po Boiling Coolant T
Ratio Range e Temperatur TR
T
T T
TR
w
m
b
w
m b
Re
int
int
) (

The Temperature Range Ratio relates the temperature span over which the coolant
remains liquid to the outlet temperature of the reactor. Higher Temperature Range Ratios
are desired.
Because the coolant passes through a high neutron flux, it is susceptible to
induced activity. This induced activity also contributes to the need for an intermediate
loop. Even without a fuel cladding rupture the coolant becomes contaminated due to the
neutron flux and must be shielded as it passes through piping. The Specific Activity
quantifies the amount of induced activity within the coolant. The following equation is
used to calculate the Specific Activity.
7
Equation 3 - Specific Activity
s C
dis
K
isotope th i of life half
time n irradiatio
coolant for time cycle
cycle one during flux neutron in time residence coolant
coolant of weight atomic A
level energy th j the and isotope th i the for tion cross c microscopi
level energy th j in flux neutron
Number s Avogadro N
coolant in isotope th i of fraction atomic F
Activity Specific S
A
N F
K
S
i
i
o
r
w
ij
j
o
i
i
r ij
o w
j o i

1
]
1

,
_

10
10 7 . 3
'
' ' sec
'
'
'
693 . 0
exp 1
1

Because breeding requires higher-energy neutrons, the coolant moderating power

is also an important parameter. While some of the atomically lighter elements have very
favorable characteristics, their moderating power renders them ineffective as a coolant
because lower energy neutrons do not breed as well as higher energy neutrons. Table 3
summarizes the before mentioned parameters for several liquid metal coolants. The
properties for the coolants were taken at about 550 degrees Celsius. Lithium has the most
favorable Pumping Power Parameter and the lowest Induced Activity of all the coolants,
however because its moderating power is relatively high it is ineffective as a breeding
reactor coolant. When accounting for moderating power, sodium has one of the lowest
pumping powers and highest temperature range ratio.
8
Table 3 - Summary of Coolant Parameters
Coolant Pumping Power
Temperature
Ratio
Moderating
Power
Specific
Activity (C/s)
Sodium .0097 .97 .00568 .20
Potassium .050 .86 .00124 .11
NaK .0316 .98 .00205 .11
Lithium .0011 1.40 .01729 .03
Lead .039 1.74 .00179 .09
Mercury .0261 .94 .00178 .28
Also, most of the research associated with liquid metal coolants has focused on
sodium. For the previously described reasons and the amount of available technical data,
sodium was selected as the coolant. Lead may have also been a favorable choice, but its
high melting point (~330 degrees Celsius) would have required a more complex startup
and shutdown system.
2.3 Cladding Selection
Having selected the coolant and fuel materials, the available cladding materials
were examined. When choosing a cladding material, the two main considerations are the
temperature limits and the reactivity of the cladding with the coolant. The standard
cladding material in PWRs is Zircaloy. Zircaloy offers a very low neutron cross section,
however at it undergoes a structural phase change at higher operating temperatures.
Austenitic stainless steels offer superior structural properties at high temperatures and are
also highly compatible with sodium. The drawbacks of these steels are their low thermal
conductivity and higher neutron absorption cross sections. However the high heat
transfer coefficient of sodium more than compensates for the low thermal conductivity
and the higher fuel enrichment minimizes the effect of the higher neutron cross sections.
Furthermore the radiation damage of these steels is very well documented and studied.
9
Stainless Steel Type 316 was chosen as cladding material because of its favorable
thermophysical properties and because it is the standard cladding used in LMFBRs.
2.4 Control Rod Selection
The final structural material examined was for the control rods. The material
selection process for the control rods was not as dependent on thermophysical properties
as the previously described structures. For the control rods the only thermodynamic
requirement was that the material remains solid at the maximum examined coolant
temperature. Much more important than the thermophysical properties were the nuclear
properties. The effectiveness of a neutron poison for fast neutrons is generally much
lower than for thermal neutrons. Figure 1 displays the Boron neutron absorption cross
section as a function of incident neutron energy.
Figure 1 - Boron Neutron Cross Section versus neutron energy. [10]
10
The previous figure clearly shows that control rod materials lose their effectiveness as
neutron speed increases. However, this does not eliminate boron completely as a control
rod material but instead required that more boron be present to provide a large enough
negative reactivity insertion to ensure k-eff drops below 1.0. Boron carbide was chosen
as the control material because the industry has considerable experience with control rods
and because boron carbide has a melting point of approximately 2400 degrees Celsius,
well above any temperature expected in the core.
3 Neutron Transport
Once the materials had been selected, a working core model using the neutronics
code SCALE was developed. When determining the working core model, the changing
parameter was the linear power density. Fuel enrichment, thermal output, fuel element
size, and pitch to diameter ratio were all held constant. The fuel enrichment and thermal
output were held constant at 15% and 273 MW respectively. The thermal output was
calculated assuming a reasonable efficiency of 33%. The fuel element parameters were
based on the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) design. These were used as starting
points and then adjusted as necessary based on the fluid dynamic calculations.
3.1 Fuel Assembly selection
To further reduce core size, the effect of a square pitch versus a hexagonal pitch
was also analyzed. Hexagonal, also known as triangular, pitches fit more fuel in a given
core area. Using a triangular pitch minimized the volume of the core while maximizing
the amount of fuel. The sodium blanket surrounding the core provided sufficient
11
reflection to minimize the neutron leakage associated with a more compact core. Figure
2 provides a visual of a square and triangular pitch.
Figure 2 - Diagram of a square pitch and a triangular pitch
The length of the pitch remains the same in both the square pitch and the triangle
pitch; however, the size of the core is smaller when using the triangle pitch. The fuel pin
length was calculated using Equation 5 in section 3.2. The diameter of the core for a
square pitch was then calculated using Equation 4. The diameter calculation for a
triangular pitch is described in section 3.2.
Equation 4 - Core diameter for a square pitch
cm pin fuel of Length L
cm pitch P
cm MW density power Linear P
MW output thermal actor R
cm core of Diameter D
L P
P R
cm pitch square D
fp
dot
th tot
core
fp dot
Tot
core
,
,
/ ,
, Re
,
4
) , (
2

12
All the other parameters, such as the fuel pin length, number of fuel pins and the linear
power, remained constant for the comparison of the triangle pitch and the square pitch.
Table 4 summarizes the results for a triangular versus square pitch. Using a triangular
pitch reduced the volume of the core by approximately 16% in comparison to a similar
core with a square pitch.
Table 4 - Core size for triangular and square pitches
Triangle Pitch Square Pitch
Linear Power
(W/m)
Active Core Radius (cm) Active Core Radius (cm)
2500 97.99 105.30
4000 83.78 90.03
5500 75.34 80.96
7000 69.52 74.71
3.2 Developing a Core Model
As previously stated, the initial core dimensions were either assumed constant
from the CRBR design or calculated based on an assumed linear power density. The
initial core layout consisted of an active core surrounded by a blanket of sodium, then
surrounded by the core vessel, and finally a depth of concrete. The purpose of the
sodium blanket was to limit the neutron leakage and hopefully create a negative void
coefficient during a loss of coolant accident. Figure 3 shows a cross sectional view of
the modeled core, excluding the gap and concrete shell surrounding the core vessel.
13
Figure 3 - Cross section view of Core (not to scale)
The size of the core, including the sodium blanket, core vessel, void and concrete,
the number of fuel pins, and the fuel pin length each were each affected by changing the
linear power density. Higher power densities decreased the core size, but often the core
would not last the specified amount of time, nor could it be adequately cooled.
The equations used to determine each of the parameters are as follows:
Equation 5 - Length of Fuel Pin equation [2]
( ) 3
2 2
) 924 . 0 ( 60 sin 4
) (
dot
Tot
fp
P
P R
cm L Pin Fuel of Length

Where:
Tot
R
= Reactor Power (MW) = 273 MW
th
P = Pitch (cm) = 0.76cm
dot
P
= Linear Power Density (MW/cm)
The Number of Fuel Pins could then be calculated using Equation 6 and Equation 7.
Equation 6 - Total fuel length equation
dot
Tot
P
R
cm Length Fuel Total ) (
14
Equation 7 - Number of fuel pin equation
fp
L
ength TotalFuelL
Pins Fuel of Number
The height to diameter ratio of the core was assumed to be 0.924. This ratio minimizes
the leakage for any cylindrical geometry. The height of the core was taken as the length
of the fuel pins.
The thickness of the sodium blanket was kept constant at 30.48 cm and the
stainless steel that surrounds the sodium would be 1.27 cm. A thickness of 1.27 was used
to ensure the maximum tensile strength of the steel (515 MPa) would not be exceeded.
The following equation was used to calculate the hoop stress:
Equation 8 - hoop stress equation
thickness vessel t
radius outer r
MPa pressure P
MPa stress hoop
t
r P

,
,

There is a void that is in between the stainless steel reactor vessel and the concrete
containment, which was arbitrarily assumed to be 15.24 cm thick. The concrete
containment was also assumed 30.48 cm thick. These values could be arbitrarily chosen
because their purpose was to minimize leakage and overcome some of the assumptions in
the SCALE sequence. The SCALE sequence used assumed a perfect reflector boundary
when the outermost geometric shell was reached. The calculated k-eff would be
overestimated if there was not enough material between the outer radius of the active core
and the outer radius of the outermost geometric shell. The thickness of concrete and void
used in this analysis was not representative of the actual thickness determined from
15
shielding analysis, but rather was used simply to negate the effect of a perfect reflection
boundary.
Table 5 provides an outline of the different core models in SCALE showing the
different linear power densities and their effect on the End-of-Life (EOL) k-eff. The
criterion for acceptable EOL k-eff was determined to be an EOL k-eff over 1.01. The
EOL k-eff represents the k-eff at the end of 20 years. Originally, the core life was
designed for 10 years of operation. However, a 100 MWe, 10 year core could easily be
transported on a truck. Therefore, the core lifetime was increased to 20 years.
Table 5 - Linear Power Ratings and k-eff
Linear Power
(W/m)
Core Size-
Radius
(cm)
Number of
Fuel Pins
k-eff
BOL
k-eff
EOL
2500 97.99 60304 1.1037 1.0198
4000 83.78 44083 1.1036 0.9238
5500 75.34 35651 1.0750 0.8778
7000 69.52 30356 1.0508 0.8372
These results indicate the maximum allowable linear power would be 2500 W/m.
This criterion ensures enough excess reactivity for the reactor to remain critical even with
the depleted fuel. The chosen linear power was checked against the heat transfer codes
described in section 4 to ensure that none of the structural materials exceeded their
maximum allowable temperature. Figure 4 shows how decreasing the linear power, and
therefore increasing the core size, affected the EOL k-eff.
16
End-of-Life k-eff verses Core Size
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
1.05
60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 85.00 90.00 95.00 100.00 105.00 110.00
Core Size (cm)
E
O
L

k
-
e
f
f
Figure 4 - Core size and End of Life k-eff
The total thermal power remained constant. Decreasing the linear power
increases the total amount of fuel needed, therefore increasing the total size of the core.
The core size influences leakage. A larger core decreases leakage, which increases k-eff,
as represented in Figure 4.
3.3 Results
As stated earlier, the linear power is the limiting parameter for determining a core
that will operate for 20 years with out refueling and using an enrichment of fuel at 15%
U-235. The fuel material used in the core is Uranium Oxide (UO
2
). The linear power
determined for this fast reactor core design is 2500W/m. The complete SCALE input file
for the normal operating core can be found in Appendix A. Table 6 provides a list of
core parameters compiled for the design of the reactor core.
17
Table 6 - Core Parameters
Linear Power Density 2500 (W/m)
Core Volume 5.46 m
3
Core Height 1.81 m
Core Radius 0.9799 m
Core Power 273 MWth
Height/diameter 0.924
Assumed Efficiency 33%
Net Power 100 MWe
Number of Fuel Pins 60304
Coolant Sodium
Conversion Ratio .506
Weight (including
vessel) 36 tons
The conversion ratio was calculated using the following equation:
Equation 9 - Conversion Ratio
n Consumptio Atom Fissile of Rate Average
oduction Atom Fissle of Rate Average
CR
Pr

Once all the parameters were set for the core a detailed model was created in
SCALE to track k-eff during the core life. The SCALE sequence used calculated the k-
eff at different times during the operation of the reactor. Fuel burn-up and production is
accounted for in these calculations. Table 7 contains the k-eff for every other year of
operation of the reactor.
Table 7 - Bi-yearly k-eff
Year k-eff
0 1.1037
2 1.0993
4 1.0905
6 1.0817
8 1.0729
10 1.064
12 1.0552
14 1.0463
16 1.0374
18 1.0286
20 1.0198
18
Figure 5 graphs the decrease in k-eff as a function of core life.
k-eff verses Age of Core
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.1
1.11
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (years)
k
-
e
f
f
Figure 5 - k-eff versus core life
19
As mention in section 2.4, boron carbide was selected as the control rod material.
The control rods were assumed to be cylindrical sleeves that split the active core area into
two separate regions. Each cylindrical sleeve is radially divided into approximately 4 cm
section that can be manipulated individually. Figure 3 shows the geometry for the core
with the control rod fully inserted. Various cases were ran to ensure that the control rod
would provide a large enough negative reactivity insertion to shut down the reactor no
matter what the core age was. Two 1.5 cm thick control rods kept k-eff below 0.95
through the core life span.
3.4 Reactivity Coefficients
There are two inherent reactivity controls for nuclear reactor. One is the void
coefficient of reactivity, and the second is the Doppler coefficient. These inherent
reactivity controls are important for any reactor because they serve as passive safety
systems. The void coefficient relates the change in reactivity of a system to a decrease in
the effective density of the coolant, either due to temperature increase or coolant leakage.
The Doppler coefficient is also known as the fuel temperature coefficient and measures
the change of reactivity due to an increase in fuel temperature. Both of these inherent
control systems of reactivity need to be a negative value so that any increase in power
creates a negative feedback in the core.
Table 8 provides the values for the void coefficient and the Doppler coefficient
for the previously described reactor design.
Table 8 - Void coefficient of Reactivity and Doppler Coefficient
Parameter Results
Void Coefficient of Reactivity -18 pcm/%Na Reduction
Doppler Coefficient -0.8 pcm/K
20
The void coefficient and the Doppler coefficient were calculated using the
following equations:
Equation 10 - Void Coefficient of Reactivity
5
10
Re %
1 2

duction Na
k k
reactivity of t Coefficien Void
eff eff
Where:
1
eff
k
= k-eff at the Beginning-of-Life (BOL) for the normal operating core
2
eff
k
= k-eff at the BOL for the core with a % reduction of Na
Equation 11 - Doppler Coefficient
5 1 2
10
) ( ) (

T
T k T k
t Coefficien Doppler
eff eff
Where,
) (
1
T k
eff = k-eff at BOL for normal operating core
) (
2
T k
eff = k-eff at BOL for core with increased fuel temperature
T = increase in temperature of the fuel
Both the void coefficient and the Doppler coefficient are negative; therefore both
provide negative feedback in the event of a power increase. When modeling the void
coefficient, the sodium density was decreased by 10%. When modeling the Doppler
coefficient the fuel temperature was increased by 100K and the coolant density was held
constant.
4 Heat Transfer
The heat transfer calculations are closely related to the core neutronics calculations.
The thermodynamic calculations ensure that the heat generated by the assumed linear
power can be safely carried away quickly enough to ensure that the limiting temperatures
21
of the fuel, cladding, and coolant are not exceeded. An adequately fast coolant velocity
will provide cooling at just about any power. However, increasing the coolant velocity
increases the required pumping power, resulting in a decrease of overall plant efficiency.
The goal is to strike a balance between thermodynamic demands and neutronic demands.
The majority of the design work involved testing and retesting neutron calculations
against thermodynamic calculations until a favorable combination was achieved.
4.1 Coolant Temperature Profile
The coolant temperature is only a function of the average linear power, the specific
coolant thermodynamic properties, and velocity of the coolant. When analyzing the
coolant temperature profile, the thermodynamic properties of sodium were assumed
constant over the entire heated length. Equation 12 from Todreas [3] was used to
calculate the coolant temperature as a function of axial position.
Equation 12 -Coolant Temperature Profile as Function of Vertical Position
( )

,
_

+
e e
e
p
o
in coolant
L
L
L
z L
c m
q
T z T
2
sin sin


Where:
q
o
= average linear power density
L
e
= extrapolated fuel length (taken as actual fuel length)
T
in
= coolant inlet temperature
22
L = fuel rod axial position
Because the fuel pin is long, the extrapolated length (L
e
) was taken as the actual fuel pin
length. The following thermophysical properties were used:
Table 9 Thermophysical Properties of Coolant at Inlet [3]
T
in
Inlet Temperature
400 C

Density
832.96

kg
m
3

Viscosity
2.11E-4

N s
m
2

c
p
Specific Heat
1276.12

J
kg K

k
c
Thermal Conductivity
66.57

W
m K
These properties were evaluated at the average moderator temperature, approximately
530 C.
4.2 Cladding Temperature Profile
The outer cladding temperature is dependent on the coolant temperature, the coolant
heat transfer coefficient, and the average fuel rod heat flux. Again, the cladding profile
was calculated based on varying the coolant velocity and holding all other parameters
constant over the entire length of the fuel element. Equation 13 from Todreas was used
to model the outer cladding temperature.
Equation 13 - Outer Cladding Temperature

T
co
z
()
T
m
z
()
+
q
o
2R
co
h
cos
z
L
e



_
,

Where:
T
co
= cladding outer temperature
23
T
m
(z) = axial coolant temperature
R
co
= Cladding outer radius
h = heat transfer coefficient of coolant
The other parameters were described in Equation 12. The heat transfer coefficient was
again calculated from the following correlation:
Equation 14 Westinghouse Nusselt Number for 1.1P/D1.4 and 10Pe5000 [3]

Nu4.0+0.33PD ( )
3.8
Pe100 ( )
0.86
+0.16PD ( )
5.0
Where the Pe is the Peclet number, equal to the product of the Reynolds number and
Prandtl number, and P/D is the pitch to diameter ratio. For the previously described core,
the P/D ratio and Pe number fell well within the acceptable range of this correlation.
Table 10 summarizes the various parameters used to calculate the outer cladding
temperature.
Table 10 - Cladding Properties
Fuel Pin Length
L
e
1.81 m
Pitch to Diameter Ratio
(P/D)
1.3
Cladding Inner Diameter
R
ic
0.254 cm
Cladding Outer Diameter
R
oc
0.2921 cm
Cladding Thermal
Conductivity
k
c,clad
21.5

W
m K



_
,

The inner cladding temperature was calculated assuming radial heat conduction.
24
Equation 15 - One Dimensional Steady State Conduction
dx
dT
k q
Where:
q = heat flux
k = thermal conductivity
4.3 Fuel Temperature Profile
The final temperature profile considered was that of the fuel centerline. The fuel
centerline temperature was calculated with the same assumptions described in the
previous two sections. Equation 16 [3] models the fuel centerline temperature.
Equation 16 - Fuel Centerline Temperature
( )
e f g g ci
co
c co
o
e e p
e
o in CL
L
z
k h R R
R
k h R
q
L
L
L
z
c m
L
q T z T

1
1
]
1

+

+

+

+

,
_

cos
4
1
2
1
ln
2
1
2
1
2
sin
2
sin

Where:
R
g
= radius of the gap
h
g
= heat transfer coefficient of the gap
R
co
= cladding outer radius
R
ci
= cladding inner radius
k
c
= thermal conductivity of the cladding
k
f
= thermal conductivity of the fuel
T
cl
= fuel centerline temperature
25
The other parameters have been previously described early in the section. Table 11
summarizes the input parameters used for the fuel centerline temperature profile.
Table 11 - Summary of Fuel parameters
Fuel Outer Diameter
F
oc
0.254 in
Fuel Thermal Conductivity
k
c,fuel
2.163

W
m K



_
,

Because there was gap modeled during the code implementation, the outer diameter of
the fuel pellet was taken as the inner diameter of the cladding. This assumption proved to
be conservative because the cladding temperature, not the fuel centerline temperature,
was the limiting parameter.
4.4 Results
With the MATLAB code provided in Appendix B, the temperature profiles for the
coolant, cladding and fuel centerline were determined. Table 12 summarizes the limiting
temperatures for each component. The coolant temperature is limited by its boiling point,
while the cladding and centerline temperatures are limited by structural phase changes
and strength associated with their respective materials. The temperature rise was
arbitrarily limited to lessen the thermal stress associated with a high temperature gradient.
Table 12 - Temperature Limits for Core
Temperature
Rise
260 C
Cladding 660 C
26
Fuel Centerline 2200 C
Coolant 881 C
The neutronics calculations described in section 3 indicate that a linear power of
2500 W/m will result in a core with a 20 year life span. By using the previously
mentioned linear power and varying the coolant flow rate, the maximum temperature of
each element and the temperature rise across the core can be calculated. The following
table outlines the maximum temperatures of each component as a function of coolant
velocity. Figure 6 shows a graph of the temperature profile for each component for a
coolant velocity of 2.34 m/s and a linear power of 2500 W/m. The outer and inner
cladding temperatures are nearly indistinguishable due to the small cladding thickness
(0.0381 cm). Higher power densities could still be adequately cooled, but the core
lifetime associated with higher power densities did not adequately meet the goals
previously outlined.
Table 13 - Maximum Component temperatures for an average core linear power of 2500 W/m
Coolant Velocity (m/s) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.34 2.5
T(C) 468.4 312.2 234.2 200.2 187.2
T
max, coolant
(C) 868.4 712.2 634.2 600.2 587.3
T
max, cladding
(C) 868.4 712.3 634.2 600.2 587.4
T
max, fuel centerline
(C) 937.6 804.2 742.5 717.0 707.7
Heat Transfer Coefficient

W
m
2
K



_
,

70421.9 74510.1 78408.1 80979.2 82170.6
27
Figure 6 - Temperature profiles for a linear power of 2500 W/m and a coolant velocity of 2.34 m/s
4.5 Pumping Power
Because the coolant medium is a liquid metal, an electromagnetic pump can be
used rather than standard centrifugal pumps. Electromagnetic pumps operate on the
principle that a force is exerted on a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field. The
high electrical conductivity of liquid metals allows a pumping force to be developed
within the metals when they are confined in a duct or channel and subjected to a magnetic
field and to an electric current. These pumps were designed principally for use in liquid-
metal-cooled reactor plants where liquid lithium, sodium, potassium, or sodium-
potassium alloys are pumped. The absence of moving parts within the pumped liquid
eliminates the need for seals and bearings that are found in conventional mechanical
pumps, thus minimizing leaks, maintenance, and repairs, and improving reliability.
28
Electromagnetic pumps with a capacity of up to several thousand gallons per minute have
operated without maintenance for decades.
The pumping power required to cool the core is related to the pressure drop across
a single channel. The pressure drop across a channel can be calculated by the following
equation:
Equation 17 - Pressure drop across a single channel [1]
) 5 . 1 ( 5 . 0
2
_
H
D
L
f v P +
Where,
_

= average coolant density

v = coolant velocity through the core
f = friction factor for a bare rod bundle
L = length of the single channel
D
H
= hydraulic diameter of the channel
The value 1.5 in the previous equation corresponds to the maximum form losses for the
entrance and exit of the core. The friction factor for a bare rod bundle is given by the
equation:
Equation 18 - Friction factor formula [1]
2168 . 0
Re
243 . 0
f
With the pressure drop across the core evaluated, the required pumping power is given by
the following equation:
Equation 19 - Pumping power formula [1]
core xs pump
PA v W
_

This equation is the theoretical pump work for a given velocity. Given the uncertainties
in this analysis and the lack of data on electromagnetic pumps, the theoretical pump work
29
was increased by 20% to act as a margin of safety. Table 14 shows the pumping power
variables and calculations.
Table 14 - Pumping Power Calculations
Average Coolant Density (kg/m^3) 832
Flow Velocity (m/s) 2.5
Fiction Factor 0.023
Pressure Drop (kPa) 21.840
Calculated Pump Work (MW) 0.171
120% Calculated Pump Work (MW) 0.206
Ratio of Pump Work to Electrical Output 0.21%
Even with a high factor of safety, the required pump work is less than half a percent of
the total electrical output.
5 Shielding
The reactor will be placed in the ground in order to minimize shield requirements.
The hole will be concrete lined for mechanical purposes, but the surrounding soil will be
the primary radial shielding. Because the reactor is assumed to be in a remote location
the dose to the surrounding ground and the activation of the soil can be addressed at a
later time, but the possibility of ground water contamination must be addressed for each
specific reactor site.
The only shielding requirements come from the top of the reactor. A concrete lid
with a diameter of 185 cm will be cast on site and placed on top of the hole. The lid is
bigger than the hole housing the core to ensure that there will be no leakage under any
edges. The thickness of the lid was adjusted as necessary to create a suitably low dose to
a person standing directly on the center of the lid. The required thickness was calculated
using sas1x code in SCALE. A sample input deck is provided in Appendix C. This code
conservatively treats the reactor as a sphere. The code outputs the dose normalized to the
30
number of fission neutrons, therefore to get the actual dose the output must first be
multiplied by the number of fission neutrons. The sphere radius was adjusted to conserve
the volume of the actual core.
The cap shield, with a thickness of 114 cm resulted in a dose rate of 4 rems/year directly
on top of the cap shield. This is well below the yearly occupational dose limit of 5
rems/year. The thickness of the cap shield can be adjusted to further suppress the dose
rate. The thickness of the cap shield could be reduced if a no-walk zone was constructed
around the reactor. This no-walk zone could be as simple as a chain link fence deterring
people from approaching closer. However, from a safety stand point, using the full
concrete cap shield provides the surest way to reduce does. But if economics and
licensing allows it, constructing a no-walk zone would be a cheaper way of reducing the
dose workers are expected to receive. These doses reflect the dose from both gammas
and neutrons. The following figure shows expected dose rate as a function of distance
from the cap shield:
31
Dose Rate as a function of Distance
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Distance from Cap Shield (cm)
D
o
s
e

R
a
t
e

(
r
e
m
/
y
e
a
r
)
Figure 7 - Dose rate as a function of distance from cap shield.
As shown by the graph, the dose rate exponentially as a person moves further away.
Therefore limiting the amount of time spent near the reactor or creating a no-walk zone
around the reactor could be substituted instead of increasing the amount of concrete. The
other shield concern results from the induced activity of the coolant. However, Table 3
has the specific activity of sodium, and this activity is much lower than radiation from
fission (e.g. prompt gammas). Since the coolant activity contributes little to the core
radioactivity, no additional shielding is required. Also, because of the negligible
radioactivity of the coolant, an intermediate loop was deemed unnecessary. However,
because the steam generator will be located above ground, there will be additional
shielding necessary to reduce the dose associated with being in close proximity to the
steam generator.
32
6 Secondary System
The overall efficiency and effectiveness of the reactor is directly proportional to
the secondary systems ability to convert the thermal output of the plant into electrical
output. As previously stated, the main focus of this project was to design a core, not a
secondary system. Therefore, little in depth analysis was done to optimize the secondary
system.
There were two options for a secondary system: a gas cycle, and a steam cycle.
Gas cycles offer many advantages, the greatest being that helium gas is chemically inert
while water reacts vigorously with sodium. Also, gas cycles are simpler to model and
evaluate because there is no phase change across the heat exchanger. However, while gas
cycles offer the promise of efficiencies, actually engineering such a system is very
difficult due to the problems associated with trying to pump gases at a high mass flow
rate. Also, there is little research information available on the performance of closed
cycle gas turbines. For these reasons, a steam secondary system was chosen for this
reactor. Steam cycles have their own inherent difficulties, the most notable being that
water and sodium undergo a highly exothermic reaction when brought into contact.
Nevertheless, previous liquid metal plants have successfully used steam secondary
systems, and the performance of steam generators and turbines is well understood. The
main concern with a steam secondary system is the weight of the steam generator. The
following sections address this concern.
33
6.1 Steam Generators
LMFBRs generally employ a three loop system. In the three loop system there is
an intermediate loop between the primary loop and the steam loop. The purpose of the
intermediate loop is to isolate the radiation associated with the induced activity of the
coolant on the primary side. However, because this is a small reactor with a relatively
small amount of coolant, the dose from the induced activity of the coolant does not
provide a significant radiation risk. Also, because the reactor will be in a remote
location, there should be very limited access to the radiation field of the reactor.
Therefore the intermediate loop was deemed unnecessary and removed to reduce capital
cost and weight.
There are three main types of steam generators: once-through, u-tube, and helical.
Once-through steam generators are generally cheaper and lighter, but are not very space
efficient. U-tube and helical steam generators are more space efficient and have better
heat transfer performance, but are much more complex. To minimize maintenance and
cost, a once-through steam generator was chosen.
6.1.1 Steam Generator Design
One of the most important design constraints is weight. Therefore it is necessary
to estimate the size of the steam generator to characterize its weight. The overall
construction of the steam generator will be a counter current flow in which sodium will
flow down through small circular pipes, and water will flow up across the pipes.
The core is designed such that the sodium coolant will enter the core at 400 C and exit at
600 C. Therefore the steam generator must cool the sodium by 200 C requiring a total
power of 290 MWt. The steam generator will be designed such that 10% of the water
34
will vaporize per pass. Because heat transfer to vapor is much smaller than that to the
water the exit quality is kept low to increase overall heat transfer characteristics and
decrease the steam generators size. The excess water will be recirculated through the
steam generator while the steam will pass to the turbine.
6.1.2 Steam Generator Sizing
Many of the thermo physical properties of water and sodium are used in the
following calculations. The properties are outlined in the following tables.
Table 15 - Thermophysical Properties Sodium 500 C
Parameter Symbol Units Value
Density Kg/m^3 897
Specific Heat Cp kJ/kgC 1.334
Prandtl Pr dimensionless 6.8957E-06
Thermal Conductivity K W/mC 80.09
Kinimatic Viscosity m^2/s 2.945E-07
Dynamic Viscosity Kg/ms 0.000414
Table 16 - Thermopysical Properties Water 100 C
Parameter Symbol Units Value
Density Kg/m^3 985.1
Specific Heat Cp kJ/KgC 4.215
Prandtl Pr dimensionless 1.76
Thermal Conductivity k W/mC 0.6775
Dynamic Viscosity Kg/ms 0.2822
The overall heat transfer can be calculated using a thermal resistance model. In
this model one calculates the resistance to heat transfer as thermal energy travels from the
hot fluid to the cold fluid. The total heat transfer coefficient is then:
Equation 20 - Thermal Resistance Equation
2 2 1 1
1 1
R R R R R R
UA
f w f
+ + + +

Where:
U = total heat transfer coefficient
35
A = total heat transfer area
R
1
= thermal resistance from the sodium to the pipe
R
2
= thermal resistance from the pipe to the water
R
w
= thermal resistance across the pipe
R
f1
= thermal resistance due to fouling on the inside of the pipe
R
f2
= thermal resistance due to fouling on the outside of the pipe
Substituting various expressions for R (and dividing through by the total heat transfer
area on can derive the following expression for the total heat transfer coefficient in a
pipe:
Equation 21 - Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient Equation
C m
kW
h d
d
F
d
d
k
d d d
F
h
U
od
id
od
id
w
id od id

,
_

+ + + +

2
1
2
2 1
1
256
2
) / ln( 1
where h
1
and h
2
are the heat transfer coefficients from the fluid to the pipe, F
1
and F
2
are
the fouling factors, d
id
and d
od
are the inner and outer diameters of the pipe, and k
w
is the
thermal conductivity of the pipe.
The heat transfer coefficient from the water to the pipe (h
1
) may be calculated
from the following equations as suggested by Schmidt [6]: The definition of parameters
is given in Table 16.
Equation 22 - Reynolds Number formula

pdV
Re
4990
Equation 23 - Nusselt Number formula
1
1
]
1

,
_

+
3
2
4 . 0 87 . 0
1 Pr ) 280 (Re 012 .
L
d
Nu
h
=10.2
Equation 24 - Average heat transfer coefficient between water and pipe
C m
kW
d
k Nu
h

2
1
230
36
Where:
h
d
= hydraulic diameter of the flow channel
L = length of the flow channel
Since heat transfer to liquid metals is excellent, the heat transfer coefficient for sodium
brings a negligible thermal resistance. i.e.: 1/h
2
0.
The fouling is a major source of error in this calculation. Schmidt [6]
recommends a value of 0.0002 for F
1
(flow of hot feed water fouling factor, m
2

o
C/W).
However the way the fouling factor builds over the lifetime of the plant is unknown.
Further work is planned to achieve a better estimate of the total buildup over 20 years of
operation. Additionally, there are no recommendations for F
2
. F
2
was assumed to be the
same value as F
1
in the following calculations.
The thermal resistance may then be used to calculate the total heat transfer area
necessary to achieve the desired power using the number of transfer units (NTU) model
[6]. This method uses empirical relationships to calculate the effectiveness of a steam
generator. The effectiveness ( ) is a factor by which one can multiply the maximum
efficiency of the steam generator by to realize the actual efficiency. Efficiency is a
function of the number of transfer units, the heat capacities of the primary and secondary
streams, and the geometry of the steam generator.
Equation 25 - Governing Energy Balance Equations
) (
) (
min
min max
ci hi c
ci hi
T T C Q
T T C Q

Where:
max
Q

= maximum rate of heat transfer of the system

min
C = minimum specific heat (between the two fluid mediums)
37
hi
T
= maximum temperature of the two fluid medium
ci
T
= minimum temperature of the two fluid medium
c
Q

= Rate of heat transfer from the hot fluid

An energy balance can be used to calculate the mass flow rates of both water and sodium.
The mass flow rate for sodium is calculated below.
Equation 26 - Mass flow rate of sodium
( )
s
Kg
C C
C kg
kW
T T c
Q
m
ho hi ph
h
1068
400 600
kJ
1.334
000 , 273
) (

In this analysis the energy from the thermal energy of the sodium was assumed to only
cause a phase change of the water, not increase the waters temperature:
Equation 27 - Mass flow rate of water
s
kg
kg
kJ
kW
x h
Q
m
fg
c
1209
) 1 . 0 ( 2257
000 , 273

Where h
fg
is the enthalpy of vaporization and x is the exit quality. The stream heat
capacities can then be calculated.
Equation 28 - C parameter calculation
p
c m C
max
5098 215 . 4 1209 C
Cs
kJ
C Kg
kJ
s
kg
c m C
ph h h

min
1364 334 . 1 1068 C
Cs
kJ
C Kg
kJ
s
kg
c m C
pc c c

Since C
min
is known as well at the total power delivered to the cold stream the
effectiveness of the steam generator can be calculated using Equation 29.
Equation 29 - Effectiveness of steam generator calculation
65 . 0
) 100 600 ( 1364
000 , 273
) (
min

C C
C
kW
kW
T T C
Q
ci hi
c

38
The NTU is a function of and C
min
/C
mzx
, however since there is a change of phase in
C
max
is considered to be infinite and C
min
is set equal to 0 [6]. The following equation
calculates NTU as a function of and C
min
/C
mzx
.
Equation 30 - NTU calculation
NTU
C C NTU
C C NTU
e
e C C
e

1
) / ( 1
1
) / 1 (
max min
) / 1 (
max min
max min

0367 . 1 ) 45 ln(. ) 1 ln( NTU

By definition the number of transfer units is:
Equation 31 - Heat transfer area calculation
min
C
UA
NTU
2 min
44 . 5 m
U
C NTU
A

The previous equation describes the total area required for heat transfer to remove the
thermal energy from the reactor into the secondary system, which is directly related to the
number of pipes required.
6.1.3 Steam Generator Weight
The total weight of the steam generator includes the weight of the water, sodium,
the copper piping, the housing material, and the steam dryer. Additionally there must be
piping to and from the turbine and core. This analysis ignores the weight of the steam
dryers and is simply shows that the total weight of the steam generator is much less than
the 50 ton limit.
The Weight of the Stainless Steel Type 316 to be used in the piping is:
Equation 32 - Weight of Stainless Steel pipes in Steam Generator
kg L r r tubes V m
i o
36383 ) ( #
2 2

39
The weight of the Sodium is:
Equation 33 - Weight of sodium in steam generator
kg L r tubes V m
i
1131 #
2

The total weight of the housing material using 4 in steel casing is:
Equation 34 - Weight of Steam Generator housing
[ ]
kg
thickness L tubes pitch tubes pitch Vp m
1639
# 4 ) # ( 2
2

+
A four-inch steel housing was chosen to keep the hoop stress of the steam generator
below the maximum tensile strength of Stainless Steel Type 316, using Equation 8. The
water may be added to the exchanger on site and therefore was not included in the
weight.
6.1.4 Steam Generator Weight
The total weight of the steam generator is on the order of 43 tons. The steam
generator is expected to be the heaviest part of the secondary system and based on this
analysis should be transportable on a truck. A steam generator and condenser will have
to be transported on a separate truck.
7 Safety Considerations
Because the reactor will be placed in a remote location, safety and reliability are
essential for successful operation. Basic safety strategies were implemented wherever
possible. For instance, the reactivity coefficients for the reactor were engineered to be
negative and there is a large factor of safety for temperature and pressure limitations.
One specific safety case examined was a loss of forced flow accident. The goal was to
create a system in which the natural circulation of the sodium would suffice in cooling
40
the reactor. It was assumed that during a loss of forced flow accident that the reactor
would immediately scram, and the only heat would be from the decay heat of the reactor.
The decay heat is greatest right after the reactor is first scrammed and amounts to about
6.0% of the original reactor thermal power. Using the same heat transfer codes described
in section 4, a conservative coolant velocity of 0.3 m/s would remove the decay heat. To
achieve natural circulation the heat sink and heat source must have some vertical offset.
The equation relating the height difference of the heat source and sink to the velocity of
the coolant is given by the following equation:
Equation 35 - Natural Circulation equation [4]
( ) ) / * ( * * * 5 . 0 * *
2
h average h c
d L f v h g
A height difference of approximately one meter provided the necessary coolant velocity.
In fact, with a little more tweaking it seemed possible to run the reactor completely on
natural circulation and remove the pumps all together.
8 General Plant Design
Originally, the reactor was designed using the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR)
as a model. However, the purpose of the CRBR and the purpose of this reactor differed
in one main aspect: the CRBR was designed to breed fuel; this reactor was designed to
produce power. Therefore many of the features from the CRBR were deemed
unnecessary. For instance, the CRBR core consists of three concentric fuel zones: an
enriched uranium zone, meant to keep the required neutron multiplicity, an outer depleted
zone, optimized for breeding, and then a third outer depleted zone, designed for shielding
purposes. Aside from the fuel enrichment varying from zone to zone, other parameters
such as the pitch, fuel pin diameter, and cladding diameter also varied accordingly.
41
However, while the CRBR was unsuitable for direct scale down, many of its
characteristics were useable in this design. Most notably, the core materials (fuel,
cladding, and coolant), the fuel pin diameter, cladding thickness, and the temperature rise
across the core from the CRBRs enriched zone were used as guidelines and/or starting
points in this design. In general, the core and subsequent systems were designed as
simply as possible, relying on proven technologies to provide a more robust estimate of
the reliability and feasibility of the reactor. Also, relying on simple, proven technologies
should help reduce the capital cost of the reactor.
As mentioned in the opening sections, weight was one of the most important issues.
Each component has been designed so that it could fit on a standard lowboy tractor trailer
(approximately 50 ton weight limit). The reactor and subsequent systems would
probably require about six trucks to transport all the required material. The core and heat
exchanger could be transported with the sodium already inside, however the connecting
piping would have to be pieced together, vacuum sealed, and then filled with liquid
sodium from an external tank. Also, external heaters will be required throughout the
connection pipes because sodium is not a liquid until about 100 degrees Celsius. The
following figure provides a general layout of the reactor system:
42
Figure 8 - General Core Layout
As mentioned previous, the core will reside below ground level, the hole will be
lined with concrete, and there will be a large concrete lid. The core hole should be
backfilled with an inert gas, such as helium. No inert gas is required in the steam
generator concrete structure because the steam generator was designed with water
flowing on the outside with the hot sodium flowing on the inside, which should minimize
the probability of the sodium coming in direct contact with the air. Also, a second
concrete hole can be dug onsite to provide a radioactively safe storage area for a spent
core. All major components will be crane lifted into place. The final heat sink will be
site specific. Ideally, a river or lake could serve as the final heat sink, but in the event
that a suitable large body of water is not present, small cooling towers will have to be
transported to the site. These cooling tours will require extra trucks to transport. A list of
the final core parameters are provided in Appendix D.
9 Conclusions and Further Research
While preliminary efforts seem promising, there is still much more work to be
done. A list of final core parameters is provided in Appendix D. The core neutronics
43
were modeled assuming a homogeneous core and the heat transfer correlations only
measure the single channel profile. Furthermore the shielding calculations only roughly
estimate the doses. The most amount of research still lies in the secondary system. For
the steam generator analysis only general heat exchanger correlations were used rather
than steam generator specific correlations. Also, no analysis was spent on the steam
turbine. Also, very little attention was given to the logistics of this reactor. For instance,
the specific plant layout and the construction time were only remotely considered.
Licensing and economic requirements were only briefly touched.
Some of the initial reasons for choosing a liquid metal cooled reactor did not turn
out to be as important as previously thought. Most notable, a liquid metal coolant was
chosen for breeding purpose, but in fact the breeding ration for this reactor was only
about 0.5, less than that of commercial LWRs. Also, contrary to initial thoughts, the high
power density seemed to be more a result of the fuel enrichment instead of the liquid
metal coolant. With these considerations, it seems feasible that a PWR type reactor could
also be built to meet these specifications. For example, waters high specific heat can help
offset its lower thermal conductivity than sodium. Also, because LWRs operate at lower
temperatures, it may be possible to substitute UO2 fuel for straight Uranium fuel.
Switching to straight uranium fuel, in addition to using 15% enriched fuel may even
increase the linear power density of an PWR to greater than that of an LMFBR and still
result in a similar life span. Before this reactor design is built, more analysis should go
into the advantages and disadvantages of different reactor types to verify that LMFBRs
have a distinct advantage over the other reactor types.
44
References
[1] Tang, Y.S., Coffield, R.D., and Markley, R.A. Thermal
Analysis of Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors.
American Nuclear Society, 1978
[2] Todreas, Neil E., Kazimi, Mujid S. Nuclear Systems I:
Thermal Hydraulic Fundamentals. Hemisphere
Publishing Company, 1990
[3] Todreas, Neil E., Kazimi, Mujid S. Nuclear Systems
II: Elements of Thermal Hydraulic Design. Hemisphere
Publishing Company, 1990
[4] Kutateladze, S.S., Borishanskii, V.M., Novikov, I.I.,
and Fedynskii, O.S. Liquid-Metal Heat Transfer
Media. Atomic Press, Moscow, 1958
[5] Schmidt, Frank W., Henderson E. Robert, Wolgemuth,
Carl H. Introduction to Thermal Sciences. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1984
[6] Yevick, John G., Amorsi A. Faster Reactor Technology:
Plant Design. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1966
[7] Foust, O.J. Sodium-NaK Engineering Handbook Volume
II: Sodium Flow, Heat Transfer, Intermediate Heat
Exchangers, and Steam Generators. Gordon and Breach,
Science Publishers, Inc., 1976
[8] Cochran, Thomas B. The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder
Reactor: An Environmental and Economic Critique.
Resources for the Future, Inc., 1974
[9] Division of Reactor Development and Technology, United
States Atomic Energy Commission Technical Problems
of Fast Reactors. Atomic Energy Publishing House,
1969
[10] National Nuclear Data Center. Brookhaven National
Laboratory, http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/
45
46
Appendix A Sample SCALE input for core neutronics
=sas2h parm='skipshipdata
'*************************************************
' LMFBR from Duderstadt & Hamilton App. H.
' Case run using a square pitch
' changed power to 273 MWth reactor
' Pdot is currently 2500(W/m)
'*************************************************
LMFBR
44groupndf5 Latticecell
uo2 1 1.0 1316 92235 15 92238 85 end
ag-109 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ag-111 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ba-138 1 1.e-20 1316 end
br-81 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ce-140 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ce-141 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ce-142 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ce-143 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ce-144 1 1.e-20 1316 end
cs-133 1 1.e-20 1316 end
cs-135 1 1.e-20 1316 end
cs-136 1 1.e-20 1316 end
cs-137 1 1.e-20 1316 end
eu-153 1 1.e-20 1316 end
eu-155 1 1.e-20 1316 end
eu-156 1 1.e-20 1316 end
i-127 1 1.e-20 1316 end
i-129 1 1.e-20 1316 end
i-131 1 1.e-20 1316 end
kr-83 1 1.e-20 1316 end
kr-84 1 1.e-20 1316 end
kr-85 1 1.e-20 1316 end
kr-86 1 1.e-20 1316 end
la-139 1 1.e-20 1316 end
la-140 1 1.e-20 1316 end
mo-95 1 1.e-20 1316 end
mo-97 1 1.e-20 1316 end
mo-98 1 1.e-20 1316 end
mo-99 1 1.e-20 1316 end
mo-100 1 1.e-20 1316 end
nb-95 1 1.e-20 1316 end
nd-143 1 1.e-20 1316 end
nd-144 1 1.e-20 1316 end
1
nd-145 1 1.e-20 1316 end
nd-146 1 1.e-20 1316 end
nd-147 1 1.e-20 1316 end
nd-148 1 1.e-20 1316 end
nd-150 1 1.e-20 1316 end
pd-105 1 1.e-20 1316 end
pd-107 1 1.e-20 1316 end
pd-108 1 1.e-20 1316 end
pm-147 1 1.e-20 1316 end
pm-148 1 1.e-20 1316 end
pr-141 1 1.e-20 1316 end
pr-143 1 1.e-20 1316 end
rb-85 1 1.e-20 1316 end
rh-103 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ru-101 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ru-102 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ru-103 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ru-104 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ru-106 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sb-125 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sb-126 1 1.e-20 1316 end
se-80 1 1.e-20 1316 end
se-82 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sm-149 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sm-151 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sm-152 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sm-154 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sn-125 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sn-126 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sr-88 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sr-89 1 1.e-20 1316 end
sr-90 1 1.e-20 1316 end
tc-99 1 1.e-20 1316 end
te-128 1 1.e-20 1316 end
te-130 1 1.e-20 1316 end
te-132 1 1.e-20 1316 end
xe-131 1 1.e-20 1316 end
xe-132 1 1.e-20 1316 end
xe-133 1 1.e-20 1316 end
xe-134 1 1.e-20 1316 end
xe-135 1 1.e-20 1316 end
xe-136 1 1.e-20 1316 end
y-89 1 1.e-20 1316 end
y-91 1 1.e-20 1316 end
zr-91 1 1.e-20 1316 end
zr-92 1 1.e-20 1316 end
2
zr-93 1 1.e-20 1316 end
zr-94 1 1.e-20 1316 end
zr-95 1 1.e-20 1316 end
zr-96 1 1.e-20 1316 end
ss316 2 1.0 865 end
na 3 den=.832 1.0 769 end
ORCONCRETE 4 1.0 293 end
end comp
squarepitch .76 .560 1 3 .660 2 .584 0 end
NPIN/ASSM=75978 FUELNGTH=143.73 NCYCLES=1 NLIB/CYC=7
PRINTLEVEL=4 INPLEVEL=3 NUMZTOTAL=6 end
3 0.001 500 118.19 3 148.67 2 149.94 0 165.18 4 195.66
BON end
NIT end
XSD
Weighted cross sections
I4= -1 3 0 9
X5= .0001 .00001 1. 0. 0. 1.42 128.7 end
POWER=273.0 BURN=3650 DOWN=15 end
end
3
Appendix B Matlab files for Heat Transfer Correlations
clc;
clear;
l_fp = 1.81; %m
pd_ratio = 1.3;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%cladding properties
clad_id = .2*.0254; %m
clad_od = .23*.0254; %m
kclad = 21.5; %W/m*K
pitch = pd_ratio * clad_od; %m
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%coolant properties
%taken at about 1000F or 540 C
%assumed constant
v = 2.34; %m/s NEED TO VARY THIS PARAMETER
tin = 400; %celsius
row = 832.960095; % kg/m^3
mu = 0.000210823225; %N*s/m^2
cp = 1276.12; %J/(kg*K)
kc = 66.56744; % W/(m*K)
z = -l_fp/2:.01:l_fp/2;
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% calculate q' - qz
qavg=2500;
qmax = 2*qavg; %W/m %NEED TO CHANGE THIS PARAMETER
qz = qmax*cos(pi().*z./l_fp);
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Fluid Temperature
1
%dh = 4*Af/Pw - Af = Flow Area, Pw = Wetted Perimeter
Af = (sqrt(3)*pitch^2/4) - (pi()*clad_od^2/8);
Pw = pi()*clad_od / 2;
dh = 4 * Af / Pw;
%Reynolds Number calc
Re = v * dh * row/mu;
mdot = row * v * Af ;
%Prandtl Number calc
Pr = cp * mu / kc;
%Peclet number
Pe = Re*Pr;
%Nu number from pg 451 of todreas
Nu = 4.0+0.33*pd_ratio^3.8 * (Pe/100)^0.86 + 0.16*pd_ratio ^ 5;
%h = Nu*k/dh
h = Nu*kc/dh;
%coolant temperature
tmz = tin + (qmax*l_fp/ (mdot*cp* pi()) * (sin(pi().*z./l_fp) + sin(pi().*l_fp ./ (2.*
l_fp))));
%cladding outer temperature
Rco = clad_od / 2;
tcoz = tmz + qmax / (2*pi()*Rco*h) * cos(pi().*z./l_fp);
%cladding inner temperature
Rci = clad_id / 2;
tciz = tcoz + qz/l_fp * (Rco - Rci)/ kclad;
%Centerline Temperature
kfuel = 2.163; %w/m*K
Rg = Rci;
tclz = tmz + qz*(1/(4*pi()*kfuel) + 1/(2*pi()*kclad)*log(Rco/Rci) + 1/(2*pi()*Rco*h));
figure(1);
plot([tmz;tcoz;tciz;tclz],z);legend('Coolant','Outer','Inner','Fuel')
title(['Sodium Speed = ',num2str(v),' m/s'])
xlabel('Temperature - Celsius');
ylabel('Verical Position');
grid;
[m1 n1] = max(tmz);
fprintf('Max Coolant Temp is %f at position %f \n', m1, z(n1))
fprintf('Temperature Rise Across Core is %f \n', m1 - tin)
2
[m2 n2] = max(tcoz);
fprintf('Max Cladding Outer Temp is %f at position %f \n', m2, z(n2))
[m3 n3] = max(tciz);
fprintf('Max Cladding Inner Temp is %f at position %f \n', m3, z(n3))
[m4 n4] = max(tclz);
fprintf('Max Fuel Centerline Temp is %f at position %f \n', m4, z(n4))
fprintf('\nThis configuration is with a coolant velocity of %f (m/s)\nand a heat tranfer
coefficient of %f (W/(m^2*K))\n',v,h);
if (m1-tin<263)&(m2<660)&(m3<660)&(m4<2200)
fprintf('\nThis configuration meets the requirements.\n');
else
fprintf('\nThis configuration does not meet the requirements.\n');
end
3
Appendix C Sample Scale input for shield calculations
#sas1x parm='size=900000'
sphereical reactor with concrete shielding
27n-18couple multiregion
'
' multiregion must be specified to run combined criticality/shielding problem.
'
uo2 1 0.76 1316 92235 15 92238 85 end
na 1 den=0.8320 0.24 769 end
ss316 2 1.0 865 end
orconcrete 3 1.0 293 end
activities 3 0 1.e-24 end
end comp
'
' the criticality calculation input
spherical vacuum end
1 282
end zone
' isn=16 is specified to match the angular quadrature in the shielding calc.
more data isn=16 end more data
end
last
reactor shielding
'
' the shielding calculation input
'
spherical
' first mixture must be void of 1 interval with outer dimension that matches
' outer dimension of shielding calculation.
' flags indicate boundary source will be input from xsdrnpm criticality calc.
0 282 1 1 0 0 0
2 283.27 20 0
3 397.57 100 0
end zone
read xsdose
end

1
Appendix D Summary of Core Parameters:
Core Parameters
Linear Power Density 2500 (W/m)
Core Volume 5.46 m
3
Core Height 1.81 m
Core Radius 0.9799 m
Core Power 273 MW
th
Height/diameter 0.924
Assumed Efficiency 33%
Net Power 100 MW
e
Number of Fuel Pins 60304
Conversion Ratio .506
Fuel Pin Length 1.81 m
Cladding Inner Diameter 0.254 cm
Cladding Outer Diameter 0.2921 cm
Fuel Pin Diameter 0.254 in
Pressure Drop 21.840 kPa
Pump Work .206 MW
Inlet Temperature 400 C
Temperature Rise 200.2 C
Cladding Max Temperature 600.2 C
Fuel Centerline Max Temperature 717.0 C
Coolant Max Temperature 600.2 C
Core Weight (including vessel) 36 tons
Materials Chosen
Fuel (Enrichment) Uranium Dioxide (15%)
Cladding Stainless Steel Type 316
Coolant Sodium
Vessel Stainless Steel Type 316
Secondary Water
Steam Generator
Material Stainless Steel Type 316
Tube thickness 1.0 cm
Number of Passes 5000
Height 3.46 m
Thickness of Housing 10 cm
Water Inlet Temperature 290 C
Steam Exit Quality 10%
Weight 43 tons
1
2