Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제43권1호
  • /
  • Pages.63-74
  • /
  • 2011
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

INHERENT SAFETY ANALYSIS OF THE KALIMER UNDER A LOFA WITH A REDUCED PRIMARY PUMP HALVING TIME

  • Chang, W.P. (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Kwon, Y.M. (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Jeong, H.Y. (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Suk, S.D. (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute) ;
  • Lee, Y.B. (Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute)
  • 투고 : 2009.09.30
  • 심사 : 2010.11.10
  • 발행 : 2011.02.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The 600 MWe, pool-type, sodium-cooled, metallic fuel loaded KALIMER-600 (Korea Advanced LiquId MEtal Reactor, 600 MWe) has been conceptually designed with an emphasis on safety by self-regulating (inherent/intrinsic) negative reactivity feedback in the core. Its inherent safety under the ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) events was demonstrated in an earlier study. Initiating events of an HCDA (Hypothetical Core Disruptive Accident), however, also need to be analyzed for assessment of the margins in the current design. In this study, a hypothetical triple-fault accident, ULOF (Unprotected Loss Of Flow) with a reduced pump halving time, is investigated as an initiator of a core disruptive accident. A ULOF with insufficient primary pump inertia may cause core sodium boiling due to a power-to-flow mismatch. If the positive sodium reactivity resulting from this boiling is not compensated for by other intrinsic negative reactivity feedbacks, the resulting core power burst would challenge the fuel integrity. The present study focuses on determination of the limit of the pump inertia for assuring inherent reactivity feedback and behavior of the core after sodium boiling as well. Transient analyses are performed with the safety analysis code SSC-K, which now incorporates a new sodium boiling model. The results show that a halving time of more than 6.0 s does not allow sodium boiling even with very conservative assumptions. Boiling takes place for a halving time of 1.8 s, and its behavior can be predicted reasonably by the SSC-K.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Hahn, D. et al., “KALIMER-600 preliminary conceptual design report,” KAERI/TR-2784/2004
  2. Planchon, H.P., Sackett, J.I., Golden, G.H., and Sevy, R.H., “Implications of the EBR-II inherent safety demonstration test,” Nucl. Eng. Des. 101, pp. 75-91
  3. Wade, D.C., Wigeland, R.A., and Hill, D.J., “The safety of the IFR,” Progress in Nuclear Energy 31, pp. 63-82
  4. Royl, P.H. et al., “Performance of metal and oxide fuel cores during accidents in Large Liquid-Metal-Cooled reactors,” Nucl. Technol. 97, pp. 198-210
  5. Yokoo T. and Ohta H., “ULOF and UTOP analyses of a large metal fuel FBR core using a detailed calculation system,” J. Nucl. Science and Technology, 38, pp. 444-452
  6. Kwon, Y.M. et $al.^1$, “Evaluation of inherent safety features of the KALIMER-600 design concept for Anticipated Transient Without Scram events,” KAERI/TR-3163/2006
  7. Kwon, $Y.M.^2$, “KALIMER-600 design data for the plant safety analysis,” KALIMER/SA221-WR-05, Rev.0/2006
  8. Guppy, J.G., “Super System Code (SSC, Rev.0) An advanced thermo-hydraulic simulation code for transient in LMFBRs,” NUREG/CR-3169
  9. Chang, W.P. et al., “Model development for analysis of the Korea Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor,” Nucl. Eng. and Design, 217, pp. 63-80
  10. Kwon, Y.M. et $al.^3$, “Comparative analysis of an unprotected overpower transient in the KALIMER design using the SSC-K and the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 computer codes,” KAERI/TR-2202/2002
  11. Kwon, Y.M. et $al.^4$, “Comparative analysis for evaluating passive safety design features of the KALIMER-150,” Trans. Ame. Nucl. Soc., 92, pp. 440-441
  12. Cahalan, J.E. et al., “Advanced LMR safety analysis capabilities in the SASSYS-1 and SAS4A computer codes,” Proceedings of the Int. Topical Meeting on Advanced Reactor Safety, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, ANS, pp. 17-21, 1994
  13. Derstine, K.L., “DIF3D : A code to solve one-, two-, and three-dimensional finite-difference diffusion theory problems,” ANL-82-64
  14. Kim, T.K. et al., “Development of a perturbation code for hexagonal core,” Proceedings of '98 KNS Autumn Meeting, Korea Nuclear Society, 1998
  15. Kwon, Y.M. et al5, “A plan for the development of the spatial kinetics and the detailed reactivity model for a fast reactor,” KAERI/TR-3071/2005
  16. Dunn, F.E. et al., “The SAS2A LMFBR accident-analysis computer code,” ANL-8183
  17. Chang, W.P. et al., “Sodium voiding analysis in KALIMER,” 9TH International Conference On Nuclear Engineering, Nice, France, April 2001
  18. Khatib-Rahbar, Mohsen et al., “Modeling and analysis of low heat flux natural convection sodium boiling in LMFBRs,” NUREG/CR-2006
  19. Chang, W.P. and Lee Y.B., “Development of a coolant analysis model for the sodium reactivity calculation in the KALIMER core,” KAERI/TR-3212/2006
  20. Wigeland, R.A., “Effect of a detailed radial core expansion reactivity feedback model on ATWS calculations using SASSYS/SAS4A,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 53, pp. 303-305
  21. Wigeland, R.A., “Comparison of the SASSYS/SAS4A radial core expansion reactivity feedback model and the empirical correlation for FFTF,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 55, pp. 423-424
  22. Hill, D.J. and Wigeland, R.A., “Validation of the SASSYS core radial expansion reactivity feedback model,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 56, pp. 380-381
  23. Darrington, T.M., “Non-Site-Specific Safety Report,” EFR Associates, A0-00-0-258-A
  24. Yamada, F., Kitamura, K., “Realistic safety margin analysis of 'MONJU' based on plant performance measurements,” 12TH International Conference On Nuclear Engineering, Arlington, Virginia, USA, April 2004