Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Reactor Support”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the polynomial order used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis (Rev. 3)

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS2013

A Potential NASA Research Reactor to Support NTR Development

In support of efforts for research into the design and development of a man rated Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) engine, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), is evaluating the potential for building a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed research reactor. The proposed reactor would be licensed by NASA and operated jointly by NASA and university partners. The purpose of this reactor would be to perform further research into the technologies and systems needed for a successful NTR project and promote nuclear training and education.

Eades, Michael↗
DOE OSTI2022

Estimated HALEU Requirements for Advanced Reactors to Support a Net-Zero Emissions Economy by 2050

The primary purpose of this report is to provide a documented estimate of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) needs that may be used in Department of Energy discussions with stakeholders as part of preparations to establish the HALEU Availability Program authorized by the Energy Act of 2020. This report employed a two-step process to estimate HALEU needs for commercial advanced reactors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Dynamic responses of submerged components in advanced reactors: experimental and numerical studies

The seismic design of an advanced nuclear reactor must consider the interaction of vessel internal components with the surrounding coolant: fluid–structure interaction (FSI). Available analytical solutions for FSI of submerged components do not accommodate multiple-component, intense seismic inputs and complex reactor and internal geometries. Physical testing of reactor vessels and internals to inform seismic design is impractical and cost-prohibitive, leaving the use of verified and validated, robust numerical models as the only plausible option for analysis and design. Physical data that could be used for validating such numerical models for multi-component shaking are not available. This article describes an experimental program performed on a 6-degree-of-freedom earthquake simulator to generate data that could support validation of seismic FSI numerical models for submerged components in commercial finite element codes. A scaled model of a base-supported reactor vessel with simplified representations of submerged internals was tested to generate submerged-component response histories for a range of seismic inputs. The generated data were used to validate numerical models in the finite element code LS-DYNA. Numerical models were validated for calculation of hydrodynamic pressure responses on internals, in-water frequencies of internals, and acceleration responses of internals. The generated data and the analysis recommendations could aid engineering analysts designing submerged components and systems for seismic effects.

Engineering↗
NASA NTRS1966

Nuclear Rocket Technology Conference

The Lewis Research Center has a strong interest in nuclear rocket propulsion and provides active support of the graphite reactor program in such nonnuclear areas as cryogenics, two-phase flow, propellant heating, fluid systems, heat transfer, nozzle cooling, nozzle design, pumps, turbines, and startup and control problems. A parallel effort has also been expended to evaluate the engineering feasibility of a nuclear rocket reactor using tungsten-matrix fuel elements and water as the moderator. Both of these efforts have resulted in significant contributions to nuclear rocket technology. Many successful static firings of nuclear rockets have been made with graphite-core reactors. Sufficient information has also been accumulated to permit a reasonable Judgment as to the feasibility of the tungsten water-moderated reactor concept. We therefore consider that this technoIogy conference on the nuclear rocket work that has been sponsored by the Lewis Research Center is timely. The conference has been prepared by NASA personnel, but the information presented includes substantial contributions from both NASA and AEC contractors. The conference excludes from consideration the many possible mission requirements for nuclear rockets. Also excluded is the direct comparison of nuclear rocket types with each other or with other modes of propulsion. The graphite reactor support work presented on the first day of the conference was partly inspired through a close cooperative effort between the Cleveland extension of the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (headed by Robert W. Schroeder) and the Lewis Research Center. Much of this effort was supervised by Mr. John C. Sanders, chairman for the first day of the conference, and by Mr. Hugh M. Henneberry. The tungsten water-moderated reactor concept was initiated at Lewis by Mr. Frank E. Rom and his coworkers. The supervision of the recent engineering studies has been shared by Mr. Samuel J. Kaufman, chairman for the second day of the conference, and Mr. Roy V. Humble. Dr. John C. Eward served as general chairman for the conference.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2021

Uranium Bed Design Parameters for Tritium Plants Supporting Fusion Reactors

Uranium hydride is commonly used to store hydrogen or its isotopes in a solid state. The Self-Assaying Tritium Accountancy and Containment Unit for ITER (STACI) is a 5.2-kg bed of depleted uranium (dU) capable of holding up to 33 mol of hydrogen or its isotopes. Here we summarize the data analysis of past experimental campaigns with STACI, with the aim of describing the kinetics and thermodynamics of the hydriding process. Computed tomography imaging was performed on STACI both before and after its experimental campaign, and a high degree of swelling was observed in the dU. Literature on studies in regard to the swelling of large (multikilogram) quantities of uranium hydride for storage applications was not identified during this study. Data from the experimental campaign, as well as data on the formation reaction, are presented. The authors hope to create an analytical model of STACI based on these data.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Validation with EBR-II Tests Performed During the SHRT Testing Program

The EBR-II sodium-cooled fast reactor supported a wide range of fast reactor research activities. The final fifteen years of operations at EBR-II were used for experiments and tests to demonstrate the importance of passive safety in liquid metal reactors and the capability of such systems to provide strong passive responses during off-normal conditions. The Shutdown Heat Removal Test program at EBR-II provided test data supporting the validation of computer codes for design, licensing, and operation of LMRs, among other objectives. The program included nearly sixty tests, most of which were protected and unprotected loss of flow and loss of heat sink tests run at various initial powers and flow rates. This report documents the results of modeling and simulation of tests from the Shutdown Heat Removal Test program to support validation of Argonne’s SAS4A/SASSYS-1 fast reactor safety analysis code. SHRT-17 was a protected loss of flow test where a loss of electrical power to all sodium coolant pumps was simulated to demonstrate the effectiveness of natural circulation cooling characteristics. SHRT-45R was an unprotected loss of flow test where the control rod scram function of the plant protection system was disabled to demonstrate the effectiveness of EBR-II’s passive reactivity feedbacks. BOP-301 and BOP-302R were unprotected loss of heat sink tests that demonstrated how reactivity feedback effects driven by changes to the core inlet temperature can shut down the fission process. This validation activity leverages modeling and simulation efforts that originated under an International Atomic Energy Agency Coordinated Research Project for benchmark analysis of the EBR-II Shutdown Heat Removal Tests. The SAS4A/SASSYS-1 models originally developed for the CRP have been modernized to utilize new code features and modeling practices. Differences between the predicted and measured test data were explored and the causes of these differences were identified as being due to modeling approximations, uncertainty in transient component behavior, and instrumentation uncertainties. Overall, it was concluded that for SHRT-17, SHRT-45R, BOP-301, and BOP-302R there was good agreement between the flow, power, and temperature predictions and the measured data.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Validation with EBR-II Tests Performed During the SHRT Testing Program (Rev. 2)

The EBR-II sodium-cooled fast reactor supported a wide range of fast reactor research activities. The final fifteen years of operations at EBR-II were used for experiments and tests to demonstrate the importance of passive safety in liquid metal reactors and the capability of such systems to provide strong passive responses during off-normal conditions. The Shutdown Heat Removal Test program at EBR-II provided test data supporting the validation of computer codes for design, licensing, and operation of LMRs, among other objectives. The program included nearly sixty tests, most of which were protected and unprotected loss of flow and loss of heat sink tests run at various initial powers and flow rates. This report documents the results of modeling and simulation of tests from the Shutdown Heat Removal Test program to support validation of Argonne’s SAS4A/SASSYS-1 fast reactor safety analysis code. SHRT-17 and SHRT-6 were protected loss of flow tests where a loss of electrical power to all sodium coolant pumps was simulated to demonstrate the effectiveness of natural circulation cooling characteristics. SHRT-45R, SHRT-39, and SHRT-43R were unprotected loss of flow tests where the control rod scram function of the plant protection system was disabled to demonstrate the effectiveness of EBR-II’s passive reactivity feedbacks. BOP-301 and BOP-302R were unprotected loss of heat sink tests that demonstrated how reactivity feedback effects driven by changes to the core inlet temperature can shut down the fission process. PICT-5/6 demonstrated how core power could be increased and decreased via changes in the intermediate sodium and feedwater flow rates. This validation activity leverages modeling and simulation efforts that originated under an International Atomic Energy Agency Coordinated Research Project for benchmark analysis of the EBR-II Shutdown Heat Removal Tests. The SAS4A/SASSYS-1 models originally developed for the CRP have been modernized to utilize new code features and modeling practices. Differences between the predicted and measured test data were explored and the causes of these differences were identified as being due to modeling approximations, uncertainty in transient component behavior, and instrumentation uncertainties. Overall, it was concluded that for all tests simulated there was good agreement between the flow, power, and temperature predictions and the measured data.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Validation with the EBR-II Tests SHRT-17 and SHRT-45R

The EBR-II sodium-cooled fast reactor supported a wide range of fast reactor research activities. The final fifteen years of operations at EBR-II were used for experiments and tests to demonstrate the importance of passive safety in liquid metal reactors and the capability of such systems to provide strong passive responses during off-normal conditions. The Shutdown Heat Removal Test program at EBR-II provided test data supporting the validation of computer codes for design, licensing, and operation of LMRs, among other objectives. The program included nearly sixty tests, most of which were protected and unprotected loss of flow and loss of heat sink tests run at various initial powers and flow rates.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Critical Experiments in Support of Current Reactors and Advanced Reactor Deployment [Slides]

Limited, specific needs exist to support current reactor fleet and fuel cycle. Primarily, MOX experiments representative of low burnup LWR fuel are needed. LEU+ power distribution measurements may also be useful. Advanced reactors present many challenges and opportunities. New fuel forms and associated processes lack validation. Initial core criticality calculations can be validated with appropriate, highly similar experiments. Transportation of LEU+/HALEU material will be essential, and will rely on new experiments to support validation

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

ECAR-8823 Rev 0 Structural Evaluation of the MARVEL Support Frame in Dry Critical Configuration

The purpose of this ECAR is to structurally evaluate the MARVEL reactor support frame during the dry critical (DryCrit) start-up testing. The ECAR includes evaluation of the DryCrit configuration for tip-over of the frame during a seismic event, floor loading of the frame on the MFC-720 (TREAT) operating floor, stress analysis of the adapter ring, and stress analysis of the frame itself for gravity and seismic loads.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Editorial: Benchmark experiments, development and needs in support of advanced reactor design

Advanced nuclear reactor designs will for the most part be a departure from low enrichment light water reactor (LWR) designs currently operated around the world. Such advanced designs include but are not limited to new TRISO-fueled high temperature gas reactors, heat-pipe cooled micro-reactors, fluoride salt cooled high-temperature reactors, molten salt reactors, lead cooled fast reactors, nuclear thermal propulsion concepts, and include LWR designs with advanced fuel and clad types. Modeling and simulation methods for advanced reactors is necessary for regulators to approve license requests. However, regulators also require that modeling approaches be validated against experimental measurements. Hence, there is a crucial need for data for advanced reactor systems that will support validation of analysis methods. To this end, this Research Topic includes eleven papers organized into topical seven categories relevant for advanced reactor design.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Multicomponent gas mixture parametric CFD study of condensation heat transfer in small modular reactor system safety

Safety is always the primary concern for designing and analyzing nuclear reactor systems. The requirements for the safety margin for advanced small modular reactor (SMR) systems are targeted even higher than the conventional commercial large-scale nuclear reactors incorporating the passive and inherent safety systems. The SMR systems are designed with the condensation passive containment cooling system (PCCS), which plays a critical role in removing reactor heat during a steam release accident case. However, the presence of non-condensable gas (NCG), like air, reduces the heat transfer performance. This physics phenomenon becomes multifactorial for nuclear reactor containment during a fuel failure accident case that releases hydrogen gas. Besides, the mixture component of steam-air-hydrogen varies in reactor accident cases, which need simulation and validation keeping parameters of importance. Reviews showed that previous studies for SMR’s PCCCS did not cover the condensation heat transfer (CHT) in the presence of multicomponent NCG mixture parametric computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation and validation, making a research gap in the SMR design safety. A comprehensive CHT parametric CFD study was performed for SMR PCCS to fill this research gap. This study used experimental data as simulation 3D physics domain inlet and outlet boundary conditions. However, the wall boundary conditions were constant temperature, curve-fit, and annular coolant for verifying the turbulence models. Parametric simulations were performed, verified, and optimized for steam-NCGs mixtures. The multicomponent gases, multiphase mixtures, and fluid film condensation models were applied with associated turbulence models. The results of the parametric study were evaluated for realistic reactor conditions. Results showed that parametric study provided critical insight about the dependency of multicomponent gas mixture parameters that supports reactor safety design, analysis, and licensing.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗