Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Graphite for Advanced Nuclear Reactors”

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.

75 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Multiphysics Modeling of Microreactors with NEAMS codes, and Validation Based on KRUSTY Reactivity Insertion

The NEAMS Multiphysics Applications team continues to assess code usability and functionality for microreactor design and safety analyses, while demonstrating that NEAMS tools capture both steady-state and transient behavior across distinct microreactor concepts. In FY2025, the team advanced full-core, high-fidelity, multiphysics models that solve more complex problems and strengthen verification/validation for several microreactor systems: heat-pipe microreactor (HPMR), gas-cooled microreactor (GCMR), and the KRUSTY experiment. These models employ the MOOSE MultiApp/Transfers architecture with Griffin for neutronics, BISON for heat conduction/thermomechanics, Sockeye for heat pipes, SAM/THM for coolant channels and loops, and SWIFT for hydride behavior, with meshes generated via the MOOSE Reactor Module. The graphite models available in the Grizzly code were also investigated for future analyses. For the HPMR, a Na-HPMR variant was constructed to align with recently validated heat-pipe experiments and Sockeye’s LCVF capability, enabling mechanistic heat-pipe transients and startup modeling. The Na-HPMR will serve as the primary model for HPMR investigations in upcoming tasks. The load-following and single heat-pipe failure scenarios (Griffin/BISON/Sockeye), which were previously modeled for the K-HPMR, were replicated for the Na-HPMR, showing strong negative temperature feedback and highly localized thermal effects, respectively, while the startup case captured vapor-front progression and heat-removal activation. Solid mechanics was added to the previously built K-HPMR full-core model in BISON, showing minimal impact on steady-state reactivity yet enabling stress-field predictions that prepare the path for full-core TRISO performance analyses. For the GCMR, automated steady-state and four transient scenarios were executed using Griffin/BISON/SAM/SWIFT. Results confirm robust inherent safety: power collapses promptly in loss-of-cooling events, the inlet-temperature drop settles to a new equilibrium, and a single-channel blockage yields only a ~30 K local fuel-temperature rise with <0.4% power decrease. SWIFT-predicted hydrogen redistribution affects reactivity during both steady-state and transient conditions, underscoring its importance. A Brayton-cycle balance of plant (BOP) model in SAM/THM demonstrated stable startup behavior, and xenon-driven reactivity during load following was analyzed. To improve TRISO-compact temperature fidelity, a fast multiscale Heat Source Decomposition (HSD) treatment was implemented. Against heterogeneous benchmarks, HSD reduces underprediction of kernel temperatures and lowers predicted peak powers in reactivity-insertion transients compared to previous homogenized models. KRUSTY warm-critical validation progressed from FY2024 baselines: the 15Ȼ insertion shows excellent agreement in peak power (~2% high) and temperature trends, and the 30Ȼ case was automated via a feedback controller that maintained power near 3 kW for ~150 s with close agreement to data. The successful modeling of the warm critical tests has laid a strong foundation for simulating more complex nuclear system tests in the years ahead. Throughout FY2025, developer feedback was provided (e.g., MOOSE batch mesh generation, distributed pre-split meshes, Griffin sweeper on displaced meshes), several new models were contributed to the Virtual Test Bed, and an OECD-NEA WPRS multiphysics benchmark based on the HPMR was initiated to enable broader cross-comparison and best-practice development with the nuclear community at large.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI1989

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 30, No. 3, July-September 1989]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 325 Safety of Framatome Advanced Nuclear Steam Supply Systems Designs by J. A. Charles and D. Lange, 333 Book Review of Nuclear Accidents: Intervention Levels for the Protection of the Public by H. B. Piper; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 335 Living PRA Computer Systems by S. C. Dinsmore and H.-P. Balfanz, 343 Summary of ICAP Assessments of RELAP5/MOD2 by W. E. Driskell and R. G. Hanson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 352 Thermal Performance Monitoring System at Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant by H.-J. Chao, Y.-P. Lin, G.-H. Jou, L.-Y. Liao, and Y.-B. Chen; DESIGN FEATURES: 358 Warning Systems for Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies by J. H. Sorensen and D. S. Mileti; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 371 Activities Related to Waste Management Compiled by E G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 382 Steam Generator Tube Performance: Experience with Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors During 1985 by O. S. Tatone and R. L. Tapping, 400 Systems Interaction Analyses: Concepts and Techniques (Part II) by M. D. Muhlheim and G. A. Murphy, 413 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 416 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 440 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 460 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 466 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 470 Proposed Rule Changes as of Mar. 31, 1989; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 334 Proceedings Published, 351 CEC Seminar on Methods and Codes for Assessing the Off-Site Consequences of Nuclear Accidents, 357 Short Course on Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer: Bases and Applications in A: The Nuclear Power Industry B: The Process Industries, 357 International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, 478 International Topical Meeting on the Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities, 475 The Authors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

AGR-5/6/7 Thermal Model with Non-uniform Gas Gaps

Fuel compact temperatures are a crucial factor in assessing the irradiation performance of tri-structural isotropic fuel particles. In the absence of direct measurement, fuel compact temperatures were calculated using a three-dimensional finite element thermal model, which is subject to simulation uncertainty. The most dominant factor in the uncertainty of calculated fuel temperatures is the gas gap uncertainty due to the nub-to-shell clearance caused by a design error of AGR-5/6/7 capsules. The thermal model was revised to examine the most probable graphite offset position for six different days during the irradiation for Capsules 1 and 2. The analysis varied the offset distance and azimuthal direction at both the top and bottom of the holder. The best-fit offset was estimated based on the minimum root mean square error of the residuals (measured minus calculated) for the operational thermocouples (TCs). From these results, the following conclusions were made: (1) The holder offsets led to slightly lower average temperatures but wider temperature variations (lower minimum and higher peak fuel temperatures) for both Capsule 1 and Capsule 2. (2) During earlier cycles (162A–164B), when numerous TCs were still operational, the best-fit offset distance varied over a specific range for both the top and bottom ([0.002–0.0035 in.] for Capsule 1 and [0.003-0.004 in] for Capsule 2). In contrast, the offset azimuthal direction varied widely, especially for the offset at the bottom of the Capsule 1 holder. This is because holder movement was somewhat constrained at the top of Capsule 1 by the TC leads running through the capsule head and into the holder and by the through tubes in Capsule 2, but the Capsule 1 bottom did not have this type of constraint. (3) During later cycles, when all TCs failed, applying the maximum possible offset of 0.006 in. to the northwest direction for both the top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1557? in Capsule 1 (i.e., a 135? increase from 1422? with zero offset on September 20, 2019 (166A)); the maximum offset of 0.0068 in. to the south for both top and bottom resulted in a calculated peak fuel temperature of 1110°C in Capsule 2 on April 20, 2020 (i.e., a 116? increase from 994? with zero offset (168A)). High peak fuel temperatures in Capsule 1 during Cycle 166A could be the cause of massive particle failure near the end of this cycle. (4) Even though the highest temperature at the tip of Type-N TCs, such as TC-1-7, slightly exceeded 1000?, the temperature along the TC wire reached as high as 1335? assuming an offset of 0.006 in. in the northwest of Capsule 1 holder near the end of Cycle 166A. This temperature significantly exceeds the temperature threshold at which TC degradation is expected to occur, ultimately contributing to considerable particle failures in Capsule 1. For eight Type-N TCs in Capsule 2, the peak TC line temperature was much lower (i.e., 1029°C for TC-2-5), assuming maximum offset of 00068 in. to the south during cycle 168A.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗