Analysis of natural convection capability

in NuScale primary cooling systems with

mixture of uranium and plutonium (mixed
oxide) fuel using RELAP5-3D
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 2223, 030002 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000840
Published Online: 06 April 2020

Silvia Phungky, Alexander Agung and Sihana

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Analysis on inadvertent operation of decay heat removal system in NuScale reactor

AIP Conference Proceedings 2180, 020014 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5135523

Thermal hydraulics analysis of KLT-40S floating nuclear power plant in rolling – Heaving and
pitching – Heaving motion at various sea state condition with RELAP5 – 3D code
AIP Conference Proceedings 2223, 030001 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000828

Temperature coefficient and conversion ratio analysis on proposed modified core model
traveling wave reactor prototype
AIP Conference Proceedings 2223, 030003 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000841

AIP Conference Proceedings 2223, 030002 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000840 2223, 030002

© 2020 Author(s).
 Analysis of Natural Convection Capability in NuScale
Primary Cooling Systems with Mixture of Uranium and
Plutonium (Mixed Oxide) Fuel Using RELAP5-3D
Silvia Phungky1, a), Alexander Agung1, b), Sihana1, c)
1
Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
a)
silvia.phungky@mail.ugm.ac.id
b)
Corresponding Author: a_agung@ugm.ac.id
c)
sihana@ugm.ac.id

Abstract. NuScale is an integral UO2 fueled PWR that operates with natural circulation. In this study thermal-hydraulic
analysis was carried out on the NuScale primary system to observe the natural convection phenomenon when the fuel was
changed to mixed oxide (MOX). The use of MOX could increase the neutron advantage, but it was offset by enlargement
of the core diameter. This modification may cause the thermal properties of the fuel and the flow distribution in the core
changes. It is thus necessary to analyze the effect of such changes to ensure that NuScale's natural convection capability is
maintained and the reactor remains safe. This research was carried out using the RELAP5-3D thermal-hydraulics code.
Four thermal-hydraulics models were analyzed, based on the properties of high burn-up fuel. Each type of fuel was
simulated under end-of-cycle (EOC) and beginning-of-cycle (BOC) conditions. BOC simulations were used to test reactor
safety when operating with a large power peaking factor (PPF), while the fuel properties were maintained in high burn-up
conditions. The results showed that the ability of natural circulation in each model remained able to be maintained based
on differences in cooling density. There were no significant differences in the coolant temperature, cooling flow rate, and
void fraction of each model. The enlargement of the core diameter, however, causes an increase in the fuel channel void
fraction due to the reduction of cooling flow within. A significant impact occurred at the pellet temperature, where the
highest pellet temperature occurred at MOX because MOX conductivity was lower than UO 2, but the pellet peak
temperature was below the melting temperature of MOX. There are no operating parameters that exceed the safety limit,
so the reactor can still maintain its natural convection capability, and MOX is suitable for use at the NuScale reactor.

INTRODUCTION
Small Modular Reactor (SMR) is one of the effective advanced reactors to be developed in the current era. This
nuclear power plant consists of several modules that produce power in a relatively small order, and each module is
independent. The power generated by each module can be accumulated. Through this principle, the construction of
SMRs becomes simpler, so that the construction time is relatively shorter compared to large-scale nuclear reactors.
Integral Pressurized Water Reactor (iPWR) is one type of SMR. iPWR generally uses UO 2 fuel, but along with
technological developments, there has been some researches and analyses from the neutronic aspects about the use of
MOX (Mixed Oxide) as a fuel to be operated on iPWR. MOX is a mixture of uranium and plutonium, thus contributing
to reducing radioactive waste by extracting plutonium contained in the waste.
Based on the analysis that has been done, the use of MOX fuels on the NuScale iPWR with enlargement geometry
size changes can increase the criticality of the reactor. In addition, the safety of the reactor is also maintained. SRAC
neutronic code simulation results show the reactor has a negative reactivity coefficient of fuel and moderator [1]. The
use of MOX shows an increase in the quality of the neutronic side, so it has the opportunity to be applied to the
development of the NuScale concept.

International Energy Conference ASTECHNOVA 2019

AIP Conf. Proc. 2223, 030002-1–030002-10; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000840
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1982-7/$30.00

030002-1
 NuScale is an iPWR that has a natural primary circulation system, so there is no pump in the primary cooling
system. The absence of such a pump will increase the efficiency of this reactor [2]. Without a pump, the heat generated
in the fuel is transferred to the coolant by means of natural convection. Natural convection is an excellent phenomenon
to maintain because it shows an increase in reactor safety because the reactor is able to operate without external factors
to cool the core, thereby reducing the probability of reactor accidents due to the shutdown of the coolant pump, valve
damage, and pipe damage, as well as other components that play a role in supporting circulation process.
Changes in the type of fuel material used in a reactor indirectly change the thermal properties of the fuel, especially
in the conductivity coefficient and the specific heat constant of the material which also determines the heat transfer
process that occurs in the fuel. Changes in the size of the reactor core also affect the circulation process that occurs in
it. On this basis, it is essential to analyze the natural circulation and natural convection capabilities of NuScale when
changes in fuel type and reactor core geometry size have been carried out in studies using MOX as NuScale fuel. This
result can validate the feasibility of using MOX in NuScale from the thermal-hydraulics side because it is closely
related to the safety of the reactor.

METHODOLOGY

In this study, simulation was conducted using RELAP5-3D to assess the ability of natural convection in NuScale
which has been optimized for neutronic design based on existing research [1] by replacing UO 2 fuel into MOX
consisting of PuO2 (12%) - UO2 and PuO2 (12%) - Gd2O3 (0.79%) - UO2 and changing the core diameter size 150.57
cm to 165 cm. An overview of the benchmark core [3] and the modification core [1] are presented in Fig. 1.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 1. Benchmark Core and Modification Core

Nodalization was carried out on the model with the information in red, indicating the heat structure of the
component, as presented in Fig. 2.

030002-2
 Details
100 : lower plenum
200 : core inlet
300 : core bypass flow
311 : average power bypass channel without Gd
312 : average power channel with Gd
321 : average power bypass channel with Gd
322 : average power channel with Gd
331 : peak power bypass channel
332 : peak power channel
400 : core outlet
501 : lower and transition riser
502 : upper riser
600 : upper plenum
700 : pressurizer
801 : primary steam generator
811 : secondary steam generator
1 : feedwater tank
901 and : feedwater pipe
902
911 and : steam pipe
912
2 : heat sink
FIGURE 2. NuScale Nodalization

The benchmark geometry was obtained through the NuScale FSAR document [2,4,5] with some assumptions to
detail the modeling due to incomplete information in the document, while the modified model refers to the previous
research [1]. The primary coolant system in the reactor was modeled as a closed-loop, while the secondary coolant
system was modeled as an open loop. In the primary system, the coolant flows up from the lower plenum to the core
inlet then it is diverted into seven streamlines. The flow in the reactor core was diverted into seven to observe the
power peaking in each flow channel. In general, the seven channels represented average power channels, peak power
channels, and bypass flow channels. The average power channels were distinguished into two types, i.e. 22 fuel
assembly (FA) without gadolinia and 14 FAs with gadolinia. The peak power channel was set on one FA without
gadolinia because the FA with gadolinia would produce less power than FA without gadolinia. The bypass flow
channel represented the flow through the 24 guide tube channels and one instrumentation tube in each FA. In addition,
there was also a bypass flow which was between the FA and the reflector in the benchmark model) or the flow between
the FA and the reflector (in the modified model). The flow from the seven channels then went upward to the core
outlets and would be remixed.
Steam generator was modeled as two channels, namely the primary side and the secondary side of the steam
generator. Both channels were connected through the heat structure model, representing the heat transfer process
between the two channels. Steam flow in the secondary side was divided into two channels according to the existing
design, whereby feedwater and steam were produced through two different channels.
The data obtained from the simulation of such a modified model were then analyzed and compared with the
benchmark model to observe NuScale's natural convection abilities from reactor thermal-hydraulic parameters, such
as power, temperature, voids, DNBR, and mass flow rates.
In modeling there were seven heat structures found in:
1. Average power channel with gadolinia, average power channel without gadolinia, peak power channel. The
material of fuel was divided into three types of material, namely:
a. The pellet on the benchmark used UO2 fuel on all power channel, while the modified models used MOX.
There was power generation set on the general table.
b. Gap used helium material and no power generation
c. The cladding used ZrC4 material and no power generation.
Axially, power was divided based on the desired power peaking, namely PPF EOC and PPF BOC.

030002-3
 2. All fuel bypass channels. This heat structure connects the bypass flow in each channel with the fuel device
power channel. There is only one type of material used in the power bypass channel, namely ZrC4 and without
power generation.
3. The core bypass in the benchmark model is the flow between the fuel assembly and the barrel which is limited
by the reflector, the material used is SA-182 grade 304, whereas in the core bypass modified model the flow
is between the fuel assembly and the reflector which is limited by the coolant, the material used is water. This
heat structure connects the core bypass flow with the average channel flow without gadolinia because this
flow area is the largest, so it is considered the most representative of core fuel. There is no power generation.
4. The primary steam generator, the material used is alloy 690 (USN N06690). This heat structure connects the
flow to the primary system and the secondary system and no power generation.
The conductivity and specific heat capacity of UO2 and MOX were calculated through D.D. Lanning’s equation
[6], [7]. Gap and cladding properties were calculated using a built-in RELAP5-3D routine based on the FRAPCON
model [8] and the reflector and steam generator tube properties were taken from datasheet [9,10].

Figure 3 shows the RELAP5-3D nodalization, developed and visualized using SNAP model editor.

(a) (b)
FIGURE 3. (a) Primary Loop Model, (b) Secondary Loop Model

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Benchmark Validation
Figure 4 and Fig. 5 shows the temperature of the inlet and outlet temperature, also the flow rate the coolant in the
core. All of these parameters are higher than the reference values as described in the FSAR document.

030002-4
 FIGURE 4. Core Inlet and Core Outlet Temperature

FIGURE 5. Core Mass Flow Rate

Reducing core temperature and coolant flow rate can be done by enlarging the flow loss coefficient in RELAP5-
3D and distribute it to the components in order to approach the practice. As a larger flow loss coefficient is given, the
energy carried by the coolant will decrease, and hence the mass flow rate and temperature also decrease. On
consideration of the errors generated at the core temperature and the core flow rate already small (under 10%), hence
the flow loss coefficient is close to the practical condition.
The void is produced on all core power channels, with its fraction ranges from 1% - 2%. Void fractions of that
magnitude are still within reasonable operational limits of the PWR. The value of departure from nucleate boiling
ratio (DNBR) which is 9.24, while the minimum limit DNB based on the FSAR document is 2.3, hence it does not
have a significant impact on the structure of the fuel. Bubbles are only generated in the fuel channel, even though the
temperature of the fuel channel has not yet reached saturation temperature, but coolants that pass through the channel
undergo subcooled boiling due to the outer surface of the cladding has reached saturation temperature. The void
formation will disappear when reaching the upper riser due to the absence of heating in the riser part that produces
bubbles and the presence of pressure loss.

030002-5
 As shown in Fig. 6, the core power generated from simulation almost the same with the reference, 160 MW(th).
The power is fluctuating, but the maximum power range is still under the safety limits. The power limit is 112% in
transient condition, in case the power exceeds the limit, the reactor will trip.

FIGURE 6. Core Power

From the simulation of the benchmark, the error details shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Errors of Benchmark Simulation to The Reference
Parameter Simulation Benchmark Error (%)
Core
Mass flow rate (kg/s) 593.6766 587 1.1374
Core inlet temperature (K) 553.1837 531.2610 4.1187
Core outlet temperature (K) 598.2797 587.7060 1.7991
Power (W) 159.9999 106 22.9900 160 106 6.2500 10-7
Primary Steam Generator
Power (W) - 159.9897 106 - 160 106 6.4375 10-5
8687.4200
Secondary Steam Generator
Steam flow rate (kg/s) 67.1700 67.0700 0.1500
Steam temperature (K) 584.2445 579.8170 0.7600
Power (W) 159.9900 106 160 106 6.2500 10-5
20262.2400

Errors generated from the simulations on each parameter are acceptable as they are below 10%, the largest being
4.1187%. The accuracy also depends on the level of detail of nodalization, which is conducted. Considering the
magnitude of the error, the modeled benchmarks confirm the existing design and can be modified for subsequent uses.

Safety Analysis of UO2 and MOX in Beginning-of-Cycle and End-of-Cycle

For further analysis, simulations were performed on two power peaking factor (PPF) conditions, namely:
1. End-of-cycle (EOC) with radial PPF of 1.105 and axial PPF of 1.15 [2]. The simulation on the EOC was
adjusted to the condition of the fuel material at high burn-up.
2. Beginning-of-cycle (BOC) with radial PPF of 1.137 and axial PPF of 1.30 [2]. This simulation is carried out
to conduct further safety analysis in the event of an accident, namely an increase in PPF. The fuel is simulated

030002-6
 in a high burn-up condition which means the material properties in high burn-up and is supposed to operate
with the EOC PPF, but the PPF is increased to BOC PPF to simulate the accident to be observed. In theory,
heat transfer in high burn-up conditions will decrease. If fuel at high burn-up conditions can operate safely
despite an undesirable increase in PPF, then the fuel can be said to be able to operate safely at normal PPF.
The results obtained are presented in Table 2.
TABLE 2. Simulation Result of UO2 and MOX in EOC and BOC
Analysis Normal (EOC) Further Safety (BOC)
Parameter UO2 (Benchmark) MOX UO2 MOX
Core
Mass flow rate (kg/s) 593.6766 594.0879 593.1548 593.4869
Core inlet temperature 553.1837 553.2010 553.1637 553.1776
(K)
Core outlet temperature 598.2797 598.2577 598.6098 598.5925
(K)
Core inlet pressure (Pa) 128.439 106 128.439 106 128.439 106 128.439 106
Core outlet pressure (Pa) 128.277 106 128.277 106 128.277 106 128.277 106
Fuel center temperature 1188.044 1212.478 1279.735 1305.037
(K) 1113.012 1205.247 1192.832 1296.692
1172.836 1273.822 1284.704 1401.256
Pelet surface 897.825 897.843 934.792 934.804
temperature (K) 897.825 897.845 934.792 934.805
925.727 925.744 975.010 975.019
Inner cladding 615.795 615.819 617.908 617.924
temperature (K) 615.795 615.821 617.908 617.925
617.429 617.451 620.195 620.208
Outer cladding 606.251 606.276 607.000 607.017
temperature (K) 606.251 606.277 607.000 607.018
606.860 606.883 607.759 607.772
Inlet density (kg/m3) 760.692 760.661 760.728 760.704
Outlet density (kg/m3) 656.555 656.624 655.507 655.563
Void fraction at the 0.0221 0.0228 0.0294 0.0301
peak-power channel
Void fraction at the 0.0140 0.0145 0.0158 0.0162
average-power-without-
Gd channel
Void fraction at the 0.00140 0.0147 0.0159 0.0165
average-power-with-Gd
channel
DNBR 9.24 9.24 7.73 7.73
Power (W) 159.9999 106 159.9999 106 159.9999 106 159.9999 106
22.99 14.57 23.79 14.11
Primary Steam Generator
Power (W) - 159.9897 106 - 159.9900 - 159.9917 - 159.9919
8687.42 106 9578.63 106 7988.09 106 7698.72
Secondary Steam Generator
Steam flow rate (kg/s) 67.17 67.17 67.17 67.17
Steam temperature (K) 584.245 584.232 584.256 584.251
Power (W) 159.9900 106 159.9911 106 159.9906 106 159.9919 106
20262.24 22975.95 20536.93 20555.26
Details:
Average power channel with Gd Average power channel without Peak power channel
Gd

030002-7
 In general, the results show no significant differences arise, implying a circulation may happen without the need
for external force. This can be observed in the fluid density parameter entering the core and exiting from the core. For
all variations, the difference in fluid density is observed, in which the density in the core outlet is lower than the core
inlet. Because of the density difference, buoyancy occurs which makes the fluid with lower density moves upward.
This difference in density is caused by the heating that occurs in the reactor core. Meanwhile, to return to the lower
plenum, the movement of fluid occurs because of the gravitational force.
Maintained natural circulation shows that convection also continues naturally. Convection on benchmarks
produces parameters as listed in Table 1. Refers to benchmark parameter values; it can be seen that the parameters of
the simulation results are on the other three models are not significantly different from each other or by value
benchmark. With such conditions, natural convection in all three other models can be said to work well and are not
affected by different types of fuel material.
The most affected parameters due to changes in material type fuel are the radial temperature distribution of the
pellet. Use of MOX causing the fuel temperature to be higher, especially in the central part. That is because the MOX
conductivity coefficient is smaller compared to UO2. The example at room temperature 298 K, the conductivity of
UO2, UO2-Gd, MOX, MOX-Gd respectively are 8.4343 W/m-K, 4.7318 W/m-K, 4.293 W/m-K, and 4.130 W/m-K.
Larger gradient temperature indicates the poor heat transfer happens. Figure 7 presents temperature distribution in the
fuel.

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 7. (a) Fuel Temperature Distribution Peak Channel, (b) Fuel Temperature Distribution Average Channel w/o
Gadolinia, (c) Fuel Temperature Distribution Average Channel with Gadolinia

030002-8
 (c)
FIGURE 7. (a) Fuel Temperature Distribution Peak Channel, (b) Fuel Temperature Distribution Average Channel w/o
Gadolinia, (c) Fuel Temperature Distribution Average Channel with Gadolinia (continued)

From Fig. 7, it can be seen that there is a difference in the temperature distribution of the radial direction, which
is significant when the type of fuel is replaced. The highest is generated at the peak power channel fueled by MOX
when BOC because when BOC the radial PPF becomes greater compared to EOC. While the radial temperature
distribution in the material gap and the cladding on all models show the same relative value due to the material used
the same so that it has a similar thermal resistance. Pellet temperature in all variation models is still below the MOX
melting point, where the MOX melting point with 12% plutonium is 3057.08 K.

FIGURE 8. Core Bypass Flow Rate

The expansion geometry size of the core causes the void fraction in the modified model to be larger compared to
the benchmark. With the same core mass flow rate and the same amount of FA, the distribution of flow in each core
channel changes. Enlargement of the core causes mass flow rate in the bypass channel to become larger, while the
fuel channel mass flow rate is reduced, as shown in Fig. 8. Reduction in the coolant flow rate in the fuel channel causes
the heat transfer decreases. This increases the value of the void fraction in the modified model. However, based on
Table 2, all models are in a safe state because it has MDNBR upper than FSAR MDNBR, which is 2.3.

030002-9
 CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis of thermal-hydraulic parameters, especially on mass coolant flow rate, coolant temperature,
fuel temperature, pressure, and void fraction on the core, it is shown that the use of MOX on NuScale does not affect
NuScale's natural convection capabilities. The significant impact that occurred only on the radial temperature
distribution of fuel pellets, where the central temperature of the MOX fuel is higher than the temperature of UO2 on
all power channels. MOX fuel center temperature when BOC on peak power channel, average power without gadolinia
channel, and average power with gadolinia channel, respectively are 1401.256 K, 1296.692 K, and 1305.037 K, while
the central temperature of UO2 when BOC on peak power channel, average power without gadolinia channel, and
average power with gadolinia channel, respectively are 1284.704 K, 1192.832 K, and 1279.735 K. MOX fuel center
temperature when EOC on peak power channel, average power without gadolinia channel, and average power with
gadolinia channel, respectively are 1273.822 K, 1205.247 K, and 1212.478, while the central temperature of UO 2
when EOC at peak power channel, average power without gadolinia channel, and average power with gadolinia
channel, respectively are 1172.836 K, 1113.012 K, and 1188.044 K. Enlarged geometries of the cores produce larger
void fractions due to changes in coolant flow distribution on the core channel, where the void fraction of modifeid
model at BOC on peak power channel, average power without gadolinia channel, and average power with gadolinia
channel are 0.0301, 0.0162, and 0.0165, while the void fraction of benchmark model when BOC on peak power
channel, average power channel without gadolinia, and average power with gadolinia channel are 0.0294, 0.0158, and
0.0159. Modified void fraction when EOC on peak power channel, average power without gadolinia channel, and
average power channel with gadolinia channel are 0.028, 0.0145, and 0.0147, while the benchmark void fraction when
EOC on the peak power channel, average power without gadolinia channel, and average power with gadolinia are
0.0221, 0.0140, and 0.0140.
Overall parameters generated due to the replacement of the fuel material type and the size of the reactor core
geometry is still within the safety limit. This is tested when the power peaking is increased to the beginning-of-cycle
condition from radial PPF of 1.105 to 1.137, and axial PPF of 1.15 to 1.30 with fuel properties that are maintained in
high burn-up condition, the mass coolant flow rate can be maintained and fuel temperature still far from the melting
point. Through various comparisons of RELAP5-3D simulation results, it can be said that MOX fuel is suitable for
use in NuScale.

REFERENCES

1. H. Ardiansyah, Bachelor thesis, Universitas Gadjah Mada, 2018.

2. NuScale Power, Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter Four (2018).
3. B. Haugh and A. Mohamed, “Comparison of a NuScale SMR conceptual core design using
CASMO5/simulate5 and MCNP5,” in PHYSOR 2012– Advances in Reactor Physics – Linking Research,
Industry, and Education (American Nuclear Society, Knoxville, 2012).
4. NuScale Power, Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter Five (2018).
5. NuScale Power, Final Safety Analysis Report Chapter Ten (2018).
6. D. D. Lanning and C. E. B. K. J. Geelhood, FRAPCON-3 Updates, Including Mixed Oxide Properties
(USNRC, Washington, 2005).
7. The RELAP5 Development Team. RELAP5-3D Code Manual Volume I-V. (Idaho National Laboratory,
Idaho Falls, 2015).
8. W. G. Luscher and K. J. Geelhood, Material property Correlations: Comparisons between
FRAPCON-3.5, FRAPTRAN-1.5, and MATPRO (USNRC, Washington, DC, 2014).
9. Atlas Steels Australia, Stainless Steel – Grade 304, (2019), Available at
https://www.dmconsultancy.com/TR/dosya/1-59/h/aisi-340-info.pdf
10 Special Metals Corporation, Inconel® Alloy 690, (2019), Available at www.specialmetals.com
.

030002-10