Workshop meeting on Development of Gen IV Advanced

Gas-Cooled Reactors with Hardened/Fast Neutron Spectrum

Idaho Falls, May 11-12, 2004

DHR Safety Approach for 2400MWth GFR Design

P. Hejzlar, W. Williams, M.J. Driscoll

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

CANES
Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems
1
 CANES MIT 4/2003
 Outline
• Objectives
• Analysis tools and core data used
• DHR constraints and overview
• IHX Design for indirect cycle
• DHR options for indirect cycle
• DHR options for direct cycle
• Issues for passive DHR
• Conclusions and recommendations
2  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Objectives

• Propose and evaluate various options of

decay heat removal systems for the
2400MWth core for direct and indirect cycle
• Strive for minimum backup pressure (ideally
5bars) to minimize guard containment cost
• Identify the most promising decay heat
removal scheme for further optimization

3  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Analysis tools
• LOCA-COLA (LOss of Coolant Accident COnvection
Loop Analysis )

– code developed earlier within this project for steady

state analysis of naturally circulating loops

– Large system codes that were available did not have

heat transfer and friction factor correlations covering
transition regimes well

– LOCA-COLA enhanced by adding hot channel

capability

4  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Challenges:Operation in Atypical Flow Regimes

Decay heat removal operation

D/D
0.12
.0001
.001
0.10 .01
Moody friction factor

.03
0.08 .05

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
103 104 105 106 107
Re (-)

Need to cover transition regions well and deal with discontinuities

Mixed convection is an issue
5  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Correlations implemented
Heat transfer coefficient
REGIME Laminar Transitional Turbulent
Forced Direct Weighted average of forced Gnielinski
solution laminar and turbulent
Mixed Churchill Greater value of laminar Churchill
mixed and turbulent mixed
Free Churchill Greater value of laminar free Churchill
and turbulent free
Friction factor
•Moody map per Idelchik
•Buoyancy effects on friction factor not incorporated (inconclusive data,
large uncertainties)
•Indication of significant increase of f under strong buoyancy aided flows

6  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Reference 2400MWt Core

•ANL pin core

•Low dp core (0.5bars)
•Core height – 1.43m
•Bottom and top reflector
heights 1m/1m
•Hydraulic diameter – 1.22cm
•Number of coolant channels -
111,021
•Pin pitch – 1.26cm
•Radial peaking – 1.2
•Axial peaking -1.25 (chopped
cosine)

7  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Constraints and Key Parameters Used in Analysis
Post LOCA conditions
• Core outlet temperature < 850 °C
• Decay power level – 2% = 48MWth
• Peak cladding temperature – 1200 °C
• Final H2O heat sink at constant wall temperature 107°C
Refueling conditions
• Core outlet temperature < 150 °C
• Decay power level – 0.5% = 12MWth
• Backup pressure – 0.1MPa (slightly sub-atmospheric)
• Final H2O heat sink at constant wall temperature 40°C

8  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Key Dimensions Used in Analysis

Number of channels in HX (2 x 50%) 612232

Channel Length 0.5 m
Channel Size (Dia. of semicircle) 5 mm
Inner Duct Diameter 2.0 m
Outer Duct Diameter 2.5 m
Thermal Center Height Difference ~15 m
(10.7 for IC4)
Distance from RPV to Pods ~4 m

9  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Overview of DHR Options

10  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Indirect Cycle – IHX sizing and placement
Can 4x600MWth IHXs fit in the vessel?
• Shielding and core determine vessel diameter – 8m
• Use bottle neck shape of core barrel and try to fit
IHX between the barrel and vessel wall above the
core
• Annular space about 2m is available, assuming 1.5m
radial reach for fueling machine
• Compact HEATRIC HX of the latest multiport
design (fully countercurrent flow) selected
• Evaluated for He/He combination

11  CANES MIT 5/2004

 IHX Option #1 – Long narrow version
Option A Manifold arrangement – Option B
Option B

To PCU

To PCU

5.4m
1.5m gap

23.0m
B

3.0m

To SCS/ECS
A A
3.5m 8.0m

8m
1.2m B
12  CANES MIT 5/2004
 IHX Option #2 – HEATRIC multiport design
Passage to SCS/ECS HX

B-B
B
A-A

A A
2.4m 8.0m

5.4m

1.6m B

2.0m

13  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Advantages and drawbacks of IHX Options
Option #2
• Uses design developed by HEATRIC for VHTR
application
• Symmetrical design, probably better thermal stress
performance
• But, exposes vessel to high T stream
Option #1
• Better flow paths, smaller pressure drop
• Easier to connect headers on secondary side
Option #1 with manifold arrangement B
selected as a reference design
14  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Conclusions of IHX sizing study
• 4 x 600MWth HEATRIC IHXs (5.4m x 3.5m x 1.2m,
D=2mm) can fit into the RPV
• The dimensions could be significantly reduced if wavy
channels are used in place of straight channels
• High power density = 40MW/m3
• Challenge to attach headers to so small IHX
• Only thermal design performed, mechanical design
accounting for thermal stresses during transients needs to be
done
• For He/SCO2 combination mechanical design may be a
problem since 850 °C temperature in combination with a
large pressure differential of 20MPa - 7MPa=13MPa

15  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Indirect cycle – Option IC1 (SCS/ECS in RPV)

• 4 x 50% Internal
Heatric HX Loops
• HX’s above IHX’s
• No ducting required
for primary side
• Taller vessel for
natural circulation
• Refueling reach high

16  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Option IC1 – Analysis Results
Core temperature profiles
1300 1300
Average Channel Coolant Average Channel Coolant
1200 Average Channel Wall 1200 Average Channel Wall
1100 Hot Channel Coolant 1100 Hot Channel Coolant
Hot Channel Wall Hot Channel Wall
1000 1000
900
900
Temperature (C)

Temperature (C)
800
800
o

o
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400 300
300 200
200
P = 5.0 bars P = 13 bars
100
mdot = 78.97 kg/s mdot = 13.87 kg/s
100 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Core Axial Location (m)
CO2 Core Axial Location (m)
Helium

17  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Option IC1 - Analysis Results (2)
Parameter Helium CO2
Values per 50% HX Loop
Backup pressure for natural circulation 13 bars 5 bars
case
Core average channel temperature rise 657.14 C 536.4 C
for natural circulation case
Hot/average channel temperature rise 1.58 1.22
for natural circulation case
Clad temperature limit location for Core Outlet Peak Clad
natural circulation case
Blower power/size for depressurized 125.5 kW; 80.83 kW;
case (1bar); Blower Diameter 2.13m 1.71m
Blower power/size for refueling case 8.21 kW 7.8 kW
18  CANES MIT 5/2004
Indirect cycle – Option IC2 (SCS/ECS in pods; tall RPV)

19  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Indirect cycle – Option IC2 (2)

• 4 x 50% loops
• Each has 4 blower/check
valve assemblies
• Coaxial duct penetrates
above IHX
• Uses effectively available
height in the vessel
5.60
(minimizes external
piping)

20  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Option IC2 - Analysis Results (1)
Core temperature profiles
1300 1300
Average Channel Coolant Average Channel Coolant
1200 Average Channel Wall 1200 Average Channel Wall
Hot Channel Coolant 1100 Hot Channel Coolant
1100
Hot Channel Wall Hot Channel Wall
1000 1000
900
900

Temperature (C)
Temperature (C)

800
800

o
o

700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400 300
300 200
200
P = 5.0 bars P = 12.1 bars
100
mdot = 80.23 kg/s mdot = 13.55 kg/s
100 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Core Axial Location (m) Core Axial Location (m)
CO2 Helium

21  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Option IC2 - Analysis Results (2)
Parameter Helium CO2
Values per 50% HX Loop
Backup pressure for natural circulation 12.1 bars 5 bars
case
Core average channel temperature rise 672.57 C 528.34 C
for natural circulation case
Hot/average channel temperature rise 1.54 1.22
for natural circulation case
Clad temperature limit location for Core Outlet Peak clad
natural circulation case
Blower power/size for depressurized 134 kW; 92.45 kW;
case (1bar); Blower Diameter 2.2 m 1.83 m
Blower power/size for refueling case 8.69 kW 8.28 kW
22  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Indirect cycle – Option IC3 (SCS/ECS in pods; ducts)

Check Valve
Not shown;
Not to scale;
Only 2 of 4
blowers shown
per pod
Penetration Below IHX
23  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Option IC3 - Analysis Results (1)
Core temperature profiles
1300 1300
Average Channel Coolant Average Channel Coolant
1200 Average Channel Wall 1200 Average Channel Wall
1100 Hot Channel Coolant 1100 Hot Channel Coolant
Hot Channel Wall Hot Channel Wall
1000 1000

900 900
Temperature (C)

Temperature (C)
800
800
o

o
700
700
600
600
500
500
400
400 300
300 200
200
P = 6.7 bars P = 12.6 bars
100
mdot = 83.45 kg/s mdot = 14.0 kg/s
100 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Core Axial Location (m) Core Axial Location (m)
CO2 Helium

24  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Option IC3 - Analysis Results (2)
Parameter Helium CO2
Values per 50% HX Loop
Backup pressure for natural circulation 12.6 bars 6.7 bars
case
Core average channel temperature rise 651.27 C 494.82 C
for natural circulation case
Hot/average channel temperature rise 1.58 1.21
for natural circulation case
Clad temperature limit location for Core Outlet Peak Clad
natural circulation case
Blower power/size for depressurized 116.85 kW; 138 kW
case (1bar); Blower Diameter 2.05 m 2.23 m
Blower power/size for refueling case 7.88 kW 13.69 kW
25  CANES MIT 5/2004
Indirect cycle – Option IC4 (DHR via IHX)

Secondary system remains at pressure

during LOCA
26  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Option IC4 - Analysis Results (1)
Core temperature profiles
1300
Average Channel Coolant 1100
Average Channel Coolant
1200 Average Channel Wall
1000 Average Channel Wall
1100 Hot Channel Coolant Hot Channel Coolant
Hot Channel Wall 900 Hot Channel Wall
1000
900 800
Temperature (C)

Temperature (C)
800 700
o

o
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300 300

200 P = 7.9 bars 200

P = 50.0 bars
100 mdot = 78.54 kg/s 100 mdot = 12.58 kg/s
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Core Axial Location (m)
CO2 Helium Core Axial Location (m)

Why so large difference in pressure between helium and CO2?

27  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Option IC4 - Analysis Results (2)
• IHX is designed to transfer full power, hence large
length needed, hence large dp
• Performance fully dominated by friction factor in
IHX (laminar flow)
• Helium has 9 x higher kinematic viscosity,  9x
smaller Re, 9x higher f, ~9x higher pressure
• Natural circulation via IHX not possible with
helium (unless backup pressure almost reaches
operating pressure), but feasible with CO2

28  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Option IC4 - Analysis Results (3)
Parameter Helium CO2
Values per 50% HX Loop
Backup pressure for natural circulation 50 bars 7.9 bars
case
Core average channel temperature rise 724.76 C 546.17 C
for natural circulation case
Hot/average channel temperature rise 1.13 1.21
for natural circulation case
Clad temperature limit location for outlet 0.97 m
natural circulation case
Blower power/size for depressurized n/a 161.2 kW
case (1bar)
Blower power/size for refueling case n/a 8.5 kW
29  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Direct cycle – Option DC1 (ECS/SCS in RPV)

• Similar to IC1 without

the IHX in the flow
path
• Pods and piping
eliminated, but
To PCU
• High refueling reach
• PCU cross duct
elevation needs to be
low

30  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Option DC1 - Analysis Results

• The flow losses created by the IHX in the

flow path were very minimal in IC1 and
thus the results for DC1 are
indistinguishable from those for IC1
• Core and heat exchanger flow losses
dominate the internal SCS/ECS designs

31  CANES MIT 5/2004

Direct cycle – Option DC2 (ECS/SCS in Pods, High RPV)

• Similar to IC2 without the

IHX in the flow path
• The flow losses created by
the IHX in the flow path
were very minimal in IC2
and thus the results for
DC2 are indistinguishable
from those for IC2
• Core, heat exchanger, and
duct flow losses dominate
the internal SCS/ECS
designs

32  CANES MIT 5/2004

Direct cycle – Option DC3 (ECS/SCS in Pods, short RPV)

• Same as IC3 because

ducting enters below
the IHX and therefore
the results are the
same as IC3

33  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Issues to watch for in passive DHR design

Three problems that have to be considered in the

design of DHR system based on gas natural
circulation have been discovered:

• Parallel channel instabilities

• Heat transfer regime driven loop flow
impairment
• Friction factor regime driven loop
flow instabilities
34  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Parallel channel flow instability
Core temperature profiles for block core, helium cooled
1800
Tb.Ave
1600
Twall.ave
1400 Tb.hot
Twall.hot
1200
Temperature (C)

1000

800

600
Radial peaking 1.2
400 Axial peaking 1.25
Concept 2
200
Helium at 1.89MPa
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Distance from inlet (m)

Even though hot channel peaking is only 1.2, the ratio of

hot/average channel temperature rise is 1.9!!
35  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Parallel channel flow instability (2)
This is due to a reduction of flow rate in hot channel
0.0012

1600
0.0011 Tb-outlet

Channel outlet temperature

Hot channel flow rate (kg/s)

1400
0.0010
Mdot-hot channel

0.0009 1200

0.0008
1000

0.0007
800

0.0006
1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20

Radial peaking factor

36  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Parallel channel flow instability (3)
What is happening?
• Helium is in laminar flow, friction dominated regime
L m 2 L m 2 m 2 m 2 m 2 f 
Dp  f  f ; hence f  f and 2 
d 2 A 2
d 2 A 2
  m f 
• since f ~ 1/Re m 

m 
• viscosity is strongly dependent on temperature
• Higher temperature in hot channel → viscosity up → flow rate
in hot channel down → temperature up etc. until flow in hot
channel is totally choked in purely friction dominated regime
• Fortunately gravity head has stabilizing effect, hence there is
solution, but at high T d2Ag
 m  m     
32
37  CANES MIT 5/2004
Parallel channel flow instability (4)
Viscosity/inlet viscosity ratio in hot and average channels
14 Density - hot channel
viscosity ratio-hot channel
12
Density (kg/m3) or viscosity ratio

viscosity ratio-average channel

10

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Distance from inlet (m)

38  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Parallel channel flow instability (5)
Solution – increase density
1. higher backup pressure (helium)
900
Tb-average
800 Tb-hot
Twall-hot
700
Temperature (oC)

600

500

400

300
Peaking 1.2
200 Helium at 2.5MPa

100

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Distance from chanel inlet (m)
39  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Parallel channel flow instability (6)
2. Use heavy gas (CO2)
800 Tb-average
Tb-hot
700 Twall-hot
Temperature (oC)

600

500

400

300
p=1.5MPa
200

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Distance from chanel inlet (m)

CO2 – gravity head dominated (hot/average channel coolant

temperature rise is less than peaking of 1.2)
40  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Parallel channel flow instability (7)
3. Increase pressure drop in the core through form loss
• Move away from friction dominated regime to
mitigate kinematic viscosity effect
• It was found that for helium cooled case, adding
form losses to core so that dp was increased by
50%, backup pressure was decreased by 2bars
• For friction dominated regime – hot channel limit
of 1200C reached (larger core flow rate needed)
• Adding form losses – channel average outlet T
limit reached (smaller core flow rate sufficient)

41  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Friction factor driven loop flow instability

• Up to three
solutions in
transition region
depending on the
Re number
• hence three flow
rates possible

42  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Friction factor driven loop flow instability (2)

• Similar effects as those encountered in the hot

channel
• At high Reynolds number flow, over cooling could
occur thus causing the Reynolds number to
decrease as temperature decreases
• Conversely at low Reynolds number flow, over
heating could occur causing the Reynolds number
to increase with temperature increase

43  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Friction factor driven loop flow instability (3)

• Stability depends on the desired operating

point of the system and how it is
approached
• This could cause problems for system start-
up or coast down depending on the desired
operating point

44  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Friction factor driven loop flow instability (4)

• Loop start up could

become
overwhelmed by
friction drop before
the desired operating
point is reached
• Friction factor maps
in codes need to
cover transition
region

45  CANES MIT 5/2004

Heat transfer regime driven flow impairment

• Small system
pressure
variations can
cause significant
changes in
Nusselt number
and therefore
heat transfer
capability

46  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Heat transfer regime driven flow impairment (2)

• Components can
have dramatic
variation in
Nusselt number
as properties
change with
temperature
change

47  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Heat transfer regime driven flow impairment (3)

• Natural circulation driving force is very sensitive to

heat exchanger exit temperature
• Large variation in heat transfer coefficient with
system pressure and temperature variations affects
HX outlet temperature, thus downcomer density,
thus flow rate
• In transition and mixed convection regimes – large
slope of Nu vs Re - lower HX HTC  reduced flow
rate  further reduction of HX HTC etc.
• There is also the possibility to have multiple steady
state solutions in different flow regimes
48  CANES MIT 5/2004
Heat transfer regime driven flow impairment (4)

• LOCA-COLA has the

capability to calculate
the multiple steady
state operating points
depending on the
selected initial
condition (i.e.
temperature profile)

49  CANES MIT 5/2004

Comparison of DHR removal options (1)

Natural Circulation System Pressure

System Helium CO2
IC1 13 bars 5 bars
IC2 12.1 bars 5 bars
IC3 12.6 bars 6.7 bars
IC4 50 bars 7.9 bars
DC1 13 bars 5 bars
DC2 12.1 bars 5 bars
DC3 12.6 bars 6.7 bars

50  CANES MIT 5/2004

Comparison of DHR removal options (2)

Active Blower Power per 50% loop

System Helium CO2
IC1 125.5 kW 80.83 kW
IC2 134 kW 92.45 kW
IC3 116.85 kW 138 kW
IC4 n/a 161.2 kW
DC1 125.5 kW 80.83 kW
DC2 134 kW 92.45 kW
DC3 116.85 kW 138 kW

51  CANES MIT 5/2004

Comparison of DHR removal options (3)

Refuel Blower Power per 50% loop

System Helium CO2
IC1 8.21 kW 7.8 kW
IC2 8.69 kW 8.28 kW
IC3 7.88 kW 13.69 kW
IC4 n/a 8.5 kW
DC1 8.21 kW 7.8 kW
DC2 8.69 kW 8.28 kW
DC3 7.88 kW 13.69 kW

52  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Conclusions
Natural circulation cooling
• IC1 and IC2 (DC1 and DC2) are the best options using CO2
• IC2 (DC2) is the optimum design using helium
• Performance difference between IC1 and IC2 (DC1 and DC2) is small, if
piping diameter is large
• Option 1 requires taller vessel, so Option 2 may be economically preferable

Active depressurized cooling

• IC1 (DC1) is the best option using CO2
• IC2 (DC2) is the optimum design using helium

Active refueling cooling

• All are the same using CO2 (IC3 is roughly double the others)
• All are the same using helium (IC3 is slightly better)

53  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Conclusions (continued)
• The heat exchanger and core flow losses are usually driving
factors in the natural circulation cooling and therefore other
design criteria can be used for system selection (i.e. shorter
RPV or more integral design)
• The possibility of various flow instabilities pose problems for
fully passive system operation or initialization
• 5 bar operating pressure allowing containment can be achieved
only with CO2, but
– how to assure injection of CO2
– CO2 not compatible with nitride or carbide fuel
• 4x50% loops vs 3x100% loop
– 4x50% fits better for the 4x600MWth system
– 4x50% requires smaller ducts
– system failure probability not affected by choice

54  CANES MIT 5/2004

 Conclusions (continued)
1.0E-01

1.0E-02
System Failure Probability

1.0E-03 3x50% capable loops

4x50% capable loops
4x33% capable loops
1.0E-04 2x100% capable loops
1x100% capable loop
3x100% capable loops
1.0E-05

1.0E-06

1.0E-07
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00
Single Loop Failure Probability

System failure probability is driven by common mode failure

55  CANES MIT 5/2004
 Recommendations
• For indirect cycle, IC2 should be selected for
further analysis (shorter vessel, easier refueling)
• For direct cycle, DC2 is preferable for the same
reasons
• Direct cycle is preferable to indirect
• Transient performance should be investigated
• Possible flow instabilities should be analyzed in
depth

56  CANES MIT 5/2004