Reactivity feedback and control margins in natural uranium fueled and heavy water moderated nuclear research reactors

Abstract Three-dimensional neutronics analyses were performed to find the reactivity feedback coefficients and control margins under normal and presumed accidental conditions for the novel proliferation resistant, safer and economical natural uranium fueled and heavy water moderated nuclear research reactor cores [Annals of Nuclear Energy 31 (2004) 1331–1356 & 32 (2005) 612–620, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2006a,b) in press]. The results were compared with the reference core similar in design to National Experimental Reactor (NRX) and Canadian Indian Reactor (CIR). Standard reactor physics simulation codes WIMS-D/4 and CITATION were employed for this study. It was found that as opposed to the reference design, the new proposed cores are inherently stable as far as temperature reactivity feedback is concerned. Voids formation (loss of coolant) adds positive reactivity in all the cores. However, in the case of proposed cores, the reactivity added would be about 10% of that added in the reference core for loss of a given fraction of coolant. Moreover, as opposed to the NRX/CIR core, the shut-off rods, under the one stuck rod criterion, can shutdown and maintain the proposed cores subcritical in the accidental conditions.

[1]  Proliferation resistance potential and burnup characteristics of an equilibrium core of novel natural uranium fueled nuclear research reactor , 2005 .

[3]  Jacques Percebois.  The peaceful uses of nuclear energy: technologies of the front and back-ends of the fuel cycle , 2003 .

[4]  Ehud Greenspan.  The encapsulated nuclear heat source reactor for low-waste proliferation-resistant nuclear energy , 2002 .

[5]  Aslam,et al.  Core performance and proliferation resistance prospective of a novel natural uranium fueled, heavy water moderated nuclear research reactor , 2006 .

[6]  Dean Wang,et al.  Optimization of a seed and blanket thorium-uranium fuel cycle for pressurized water reactors , 2003 .

[7]  H. Ninokata,et al.  Potential to approach the long-life core in a light water reactor with uranium oxide fuel , 2002 .

[8]  Yoshihiro Yamane,et al.  A conceptual design study of proliferation-resistant PWR fuel using reprocessed uranium , 2005 .

[9]  Robert Hill,et al.  An advanced modular HLMC reactor concept featuring economy, safety, and proliferation resistance. , 2000 .

[10]  Won Il Ko,et al.  Analysis of Nuclear Proliferation Resistance of DUPIC Fuel Cycle , 2001 .

[11]  Aslam,et al.  Neutronics analyses of natural uranium fueled, light water cooled, heavy water moderated and graphite reflected nuclear reactors , 2004 .

[12]  J. Duderstadt,et al.  Nuclear reactor analysis , 1976 .

[13]  Alex Galperin,et al.  Thorium fuel for light water reactors—reducing proliferation potential of nuclear power fuel cycle , 1997 .

[14]  Kevan D. Weaver,et al.  Low cost, proliferation resistant, uranium–thorium dioxide fuels for light water reactors , 2001 .

[15]  Tae Joon Lee.  Technological change of nuclear fuel cycle in Korea: the case of dupic , 2004 .

[16]  Jong Kyung Kim,et al.  Composition Heterogeneity Analysis for Direct Use of Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in CANDU Reactors (DUPIC)ȔI: Deterministic Analysis , 2001 .

[17]  D. R. Vondy,et al.  DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE ANALYSIS CODE CITATION. , 1971 .

[18]  A. Travelli.  Status and progress of the RERTR program in the year 2003. , 2003 .

[19]  D. R. Vondy,et al.  NUCLEAR REACTOR CORE ANALYSIS CODE: CITATION. , 1970 .