Final Report

NucE 431 W:
Senior Design Project

Core Design for Budvar Bow Cycle #4

Group 9
Members:
Ryan Buratti
Stephen Castellino
Justin Thomas
Westinghouse Mentor:
Larry Mayhue
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s | i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
a. The Reactor Core Design Process 1
b. Project Objectives 2
c. Computer Code Description 5
II. Reference Core Model 7
a. Plant Description 7
b. Fuel and Burnable Absorbers Inventory 7
c. Control Rod Information 7
d. Cycle Four Requirements 10
III. Cycle Four Loading Pattern 12
a. Loading Pattern Definition 12
b. Cycle Length Requirement 13
c. Peaking Factor Limit Confirmation 14
d. MTC Limit Confirmation 17
e. Loading Pattern Summary 20
IV. Safety Calculations 21
a. Introduction 21
b. Enthalpy Rise Peaking Factor Limit Confirmation 21
i. Analysis Description 21
ii. Limit Confirmation Under ARO Conditions 21
iii. Limit Confirmation with Lead Control Bank at RIL 22
c. Control Rod Ejection Accident 25
ii. Rod Ejection at HFP 25
iii. Rod Ejection at HZP 27
d. Shutdown Margin 29
ii. BOC and EOC Shutdown Margin Confirmation 30
e. Summary 32
V. Operational Data 33
a. Introduction 33
b. BOC HZP Rodworth 33
ii. Rodworth Measurement Using Boron Dilution Method 34
c. Xenon Reactivity After Startup and Trip 35
ii. Xenon Worth Calculation After Startup 35
iii. Xenon Worth Calculation After Trip 39
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s | ii

d. Differential Boron Worth 42
ii. HFP and HZP DBW 42
e. Isothermal Temperature Coefficient 45
ii. BOC HZP ITC Calculation 45
f. Critical Boron Concentration 46
ii. BOC HZP CBC Calculation 46
VI. Thermal‐Hydraulic Considerations 48
a. Introduction 48
b. Code Description 48
c. Thermal‐Hydraulic Analysis 49
VII. Conclusions 58
a. Terminal Objective 58
b. Enabling Objectives 58
VIII. References 60

Appendix A: List of Computer Files 61
Appendix B: Thermal‐Hydraulic Schematic 63

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 1

INTRODUCTION
The NUCE 431W design project at Penn State involves the design and subsequent analysis of a
nuclear reactor core for an existing plant. Working closely with representatives from Westinghouse,
each project team is assigned a specific plant and given a specific list of criteria which the reactor core
must either meet or exceed.
The project begins with a thorough education on the core design process, loading pattern
methodology, important core characteristics, and use of Westinghouse computer design codes. After
these preliminary lessons, the specific reactor unit which the core is to be designed for is described and
analyzed. Important reference information for the design process is provided at this point. This
includes information about the desired cycle length, peaking factor limits, the loading pattern from the
previous cycle, and core control rod locations.
The Reactor Core Design Process

The core design process involves a strict design schedule with rigorous design criteria. The
process usually begins with a design initialization, where the desired cycle length and reactor specific
limits are determined based on both the customer needs and regulatory requirements. Typically this
phase begins in excess of one year before the actual fuel reload. Once the specific core requirements
have been determined, the necessary feed fuel requirements for the core must be estimated and
explored. This involves extensive estimation, especially regarding fuel that is to be re‐used from
previous the previous cycle which still has nearly a year of cycle length remaining.
Over the course of the next seven to ten months, the specific loading pattern is developed using
different combinations of feed assemblies, enrichments, burnable absorber configurations, and
assembly placements within the core. Besides the design criteria developed in the previous phase,
decisions on the final loading pattern for the core are also motivated by conservatism in both the safety
and economics of the core. For example, if it is possible to produce a safe core that requires less feed
assemblies or a safer core with additional feed assemblies, this is more desirable than a loading pattern
which meets only the outlined core criteria.
Once the loading pattern has been developed, several safety calculations must be made to
verify the stability of the core under several transient and accident scenarios. In order to standardize
this process, Westinghouse has developed what is known as the Reactor Safety Analysis Checklist
(RSAC). This checklist consists of a number of scenarios, and their respective peaking factor limits, for
which the core must be able to endure. With successful completion of the RSAC, the core is almost
certainly able to meet regulatory safety requirements.
Final considerations for core design include the operational data generation of the core and
design verification. This final phase of the design process is conducted only once the core has met all
safety requirements and must be conducted before the core is brought to power. The operational data
generated provides the reactor operator with important control information for the reactor. This phase

also entails the verification of the core design by taking several measurements at the actual reactor after
the fuel has been loaded and comparing these measurements to those calculated by the design code.
Only once these measurements have been verified may the reactor be brought to power. Overall, the
design and loading process typically takes 11‐15 months for all phases to be completed.
Project Objectives
The NUCE 431W Design project is given a considerably shorter time frame. Some of the
pressures associated with this are relieved by the absence of interaction with official regulatory
agencies; the remaining pressures are relieved by a thorough project description and a reduced list of
available core resources. While there are several practical outcomes to the project, the primary goal is
to familiarize all students with the codes and methods used to generate core loading patterns, as well as
to perform core reload designs. This primary outcome is achieved through both classroom lecture and
hands‐on development, a process which is outlined in the following paragraphs.
Each design team is provided with a summary sheet describing the specific reactor, core
requirements, and condensed resource list for their particular project. Along with this sheet, is a copy of
the computer input necessary to perform loading pattern calculations. Most of the core information
that is necessary for the input has already been developed at this point, and thus the first outcome of
the project is for each team to develop an acceptable loading pattern. Teams are initially required to
develop loading patterns which meet three basic requirements, including the target cycle length,
maximum enthalpy rise peaking factor (FΔH), and maximum moderator temperature coefficient (MTC)
that are specified for the particular core. The satisfaction of these basic criteria for the loading pattern
development ensures a higher probability of success for the later phases of the design process.
Similar to professional core design processes, the next phase of the project involves safety
calculations outlined in a provided Reactor Safety Analysis Checklist (RSAC). The RSAC provided for each
core provides limitations on several reactor core aspects. The calculations for the safety analysis phase
of the project include shutdown margin calculation, rod ejection simulation, and an FΔH calculation with
the lead control bank inserted. In order to maintain conservatism in these safety calculations, the RSAC
also provides uncertainty factors which each team is expected to apply to their calculations
appropriately.
The final phase of the project involves the generation of important operational data for each
team’s loading pattern. This operational data provides important information necessary for safe reactor
operation and includes Xenon worth curves, integral control bank worth, and differential boron worth.
This phase also includes design verification calculations that are required for reactor startup. These
calculations include isothermal temperature coefficient measurement and critical boron concentration
(CBC) measurement at hot zero power (HZP).
In order to ensure project completion by the presentation deadline, several short‐term project
requirements and deadlines were outlined. Each phase of the project was broken into individual
assignments and allotted a specific amount of time. This work was conducted in parallel to classroom

lectures and hands‐on classroom practicals. The scheduling of the project is best described in the
timeline shown in Figure 1.


Computer Code Description
The nuclear core design code system used by Westinghouse consists of three individual codes
which together are known as the APA code system. The initials A‐P‐A literally stand for the three
component codes of the system: ALPHA, PHOENIX‐P, and ANC. The APA code system integrates both
transport and diffusion neutronics theories, which enables accurate results in a timely manner.
The primary purpose of the ALPHA code is to generate input for the two remaining codes,
PHOENIX‐P and ANC. ALPHA is also the primary interface between these two codes and provides the
critical junction between transport and diffusion theories. ALPHA prepares and executes PHOENIX‐P
calculations for both feed and burned assemblies based upon the axial and radial assembly descriptions
(geometry, materials, etc.). It then prepares input for ANC based on the results generated in the
PHOENIX‐P databanks, including feedback‐free macroscopic cross sections, microscopic cross sections
for fission products, water, and Boron, and also the assembly discontinuity factors (ADFs) which describe
abrupt changes in the flux at assembly interfaces. ALPHA also creates the pin factors used by ANC to
reconstruct integral fuel pin powers within each assembly. These are necessary because ANC is a nodal
code which uses a homogenized description of each assembly.
PHOENIX‐P is a two‐dimensional transport code which is capable of modeling pin cells, single
assemblies, and four assemblies for each lattice node. A flux solution is obtained through the
superposition of four “step” solutions with varying levels of both spatial and energy detail. PHOENIX‐P
uses transport theory to develop many of the “hard” physics calculations which are required for an
accurate model using diffusion theory. Some of the important outcomes from PHOENIX‐P are the
homogeneous two‐group cross sections required for ANC, assembly spectrum factors, rod‐wise power
distributions for later pin power reconstruction, isotopic fuel composition, and Doppler feedback data.
Cross‐sections are generated for each node at a wide‐range of depletions and control rod insertions by
PHOENIX‐P and then passed to ANC under a specific pseudo‐burnup (PBU) designation. PBU is simply a
way to describe each node under a wide variety of conditions that can be modeled in ANC.
After successful execution of PHOENIX‐P, ALPHA prepares three separate input files for ANC.
These include an inp141 file which is the primary input for ANC, a pin factor file which contains the two‐
group pin‐wise flux information, and a pin map file which contains descriptions of all assemblies in the
model. Aside from the input generated by ALPHA, additional input is provided by the design engineer in
order to model the core as desired. This input is separated into two separate segments. First is the job
loader, which is a brief Unix shell script that provides the location of read and write databanks and links
to the pin and pinmap files generated by ALPHA. The second section contains case information specified
by the engineer which specifies the desired core conditions for ANC. These inputs are passed to ANC,
which calculates the core reactivity, assembly powers and burnups, rodwise powers and burnups,
reactivity coefficients, core depletion, control rod and fission product worths, and other other core data
important to the design engineer. ANC, which stands for Advanced Nodal Code, performs these
calculations by solving the flux using the two‐group nodal expansion method. These calculations may be
conducted in 1‐D, 2‐D, or 3‐D and for either fractional or full‐core models. Both reflective and cyclic
boundary conditions are applied to the model and both axial and radial reflectors are represented by

nodes in ANC. The macroscopic cross sections provided to ANC are feedback‐free since the precise core
conditions are not known until they are specified in the ANC input. The microscopic cross sections
provided by ALPHA are instead used by ANC to determine feedback at the current core conditions.
The core design for Budvar Bow, as is the case here, requires nuclear design codes which are
capable of hexagonal assembly and core modeling. The standard APA code system does not provide for
this case, so the adaptation APA‐H is used as the nuclear design code. APA‐H is in most regards identical
in procedure to APA with only a few exceptions. Primarily, the version of ANC used (ANC‐H) in APA‐H
provides for only one node per assembly as opposed to the standard four nodes per assembly.

R e f e r e n c e C o r e M o d e l | 7

REFERENCE CORE MODEL

Plant Description
The project assignment for Group 9 is the core design for the fourth cycle of Budvar Bow Unit 1.
Budvar Bow Unit 1 is a VVER 1000 model four‐loop pressurized water reactor (PWR). The rated thermal
power (RTP) of the reactor is 3000 MWt. The core inlet temperature is set to vary from 533.5 °F to
553.1 °F from hot zero power (HZP) to hot full power (HFP). The allowable full power axial offset band is
±5%.
Fuel and Burnable Absorbers Inventory

The feed fuel inventory is projected to have 42 fresh assemblies at an enrichment of 3.601
weight percent Uranium‐235. The burnable absorber type available is the Westinghouse ZrB2 integral
fuel burnable absorber (IFBA). This burnable absorber is available in several different patterns including
0, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, and 60 IFBA rods per assembly. The total core loading for cycle four is 81.563
metric tons of Uranium (MTU).
Control Rod Information

Budvar Bow has four control banks and six shutdown banks at various locations throughout the
core. Each bank is set to vary from 0 to 175 steps withdrawn. The specific reactor core control assembly
(RCCA) locations corresponding to each bank are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: RCCA locations for each control rod bank
Each of the control banks has a rod insertion limit (RIL) that is a function of power. Rod
insertion limits exist so that the power profile within the core is not significantly offered such that it
either causes damage to the reactor or unsafe operating conditions. A plot of the RILs for each control
bank is shown in Figure 4. As can be seen in the figure, control bank 10 is the lead control bank and has
a 125 steps withdrawn limit at 100% power.

Figure 4: Plot of control bank RILs
Specific behavioral details of the RIL curves for Budvar Bow are detailed in Table 1.


Table 1: RIL behavioral details for Budvar Bow
Cycle Four Requirements

The nuclear core for Budvar Bow Cycle 4 must meet several specific criteria to ensure safe,
economic operation and customer satisfaction. First, the fuel inventory may have a maximum of only 42
feed assemblies and may use only the available IFBA patterns. Loading pattern designs which require
additional feed assemblies will be penalized due to the extra costs associated, for the design project this
translates into a reduction in grade points. Also, it is always desirable to develop a loading patter which
uses fewer feed assemblies, and loading patterns which do so for this project are awarded additional
points.
The target cycle length for cycle four is 308 effective full‐power days (EFPD). This limit must be
met when the core is at a minimum full power critical Boron concentration (CBC) of 10 parts per million
(ppm). For every two EFPD the cycle length falls short of the target, one grade point will be subtracted.
Similarly, for every two additional EFPD gained in the cycle length, one bonus point will be added onto
the final score.
A figure of primary concern in loading pattern development is the enthalpy rise peaking factor
within a particular subchannel over the length of the core, FΔH. Since ANC is a nodal code this factor is
represented as the ratio of maximum to average integral rod power in the physics code output. This
figure gives a detailed picture of the radial power distribution within the core and should be kept as
close to one as possible to maintain a uniform core power profile. The maximum allowable FΔH for cycle
four is 1.532 under hot full power (HFP) all rods out (ARO) conditions. Since this limit is such a vital
factor for core safety, the penalty for every 0.005 over the limit the maximum FΔH is four points will be

subtracted from the final score, while only one bonus point will be awarded for every 0.005 under the
limit the maximum FΔH is.
The final point of quantitative concern in the project is the moderator temperature coefficient
(MTC). The MTC is measured at the most limiting conditions of the core, which occurs under hot zero
power (HZP) ARO conditions, where the soluble Boron concentration in the core is at its highest. The
MTC limit at all depletions within the cycle under these conditions is 0.0 percent mille (pcm) per degree
Fahrenheit (°F). For every 0.2 pcm/°F by which the MTC is greater than the upper limit, one penalty
point will be assessed. Likewise, for every 0.2 pcm/°F by which the MTC is less than the upper limit, one
bonus point will be awarded.
Cycle four of Budvar Bow was also constrained by several limits of various scenarios and
operational aspects pertaining to core safety calculations. These scenarios/aspects included maximum
FΔH under rodded core conditions at HFP, rod ejection scenarios at the beginning of cycle (BOC) and end
of cycle (EOC) under both HFP and HZP conditions, and the available shutdown margin. All of these
calculations are conducted under the most limiting conditions of the core and together make up the
RSAC. While none of the safety calculations carried any specific grade penalties, it is important to make
sure that the proposed core design could meet these safety requirements. The requirements are listed
in Table 2. The total peaking factor FQ is of primary concern during the rod ejection analysis, along with
the total rod worth represented in % Δρ.
Table 2: Budvar Bow RSAC summary
Safety Check Core Conditions Limit

HFP, Bank 10 at 125 Steps
Rodded FΔH FΔH ≤ 1.532
Withdrawn (HFP RIL)
Δρ ≤ 0.860%
Rod Ejection HZP BOC
FQ ≤ 13.0
Δρ ≤ 0.200%
Rod Ejection HFP BOC
FQ ≤ 5.8
Δρ ≤ 0.900%
Rod Ejection HZP EOC
FQ ≤ 21.0
Δρ ≤ 0.200%
Rod Ejection HFP EOC
FQ ≤ 6.5
Shutdown Margin BOC HZP Δρ ≥ 1.300%
Shutdown Margin EOC HZP Δρ ≥ 1.300%

C y c l e F o u r L o a d i n g P a t t e r n | 12

CYCLE
E FOUR LOADIN
NG PATT
TERN
Loadinng Pattern Definition n

Th he loading paattern for Bud
dvar Bow Unitt 1 Cycle 4 inccludes 42 new w feed assem mblies at a fixeed
enrichment of 3.601 w w/o, with an inncluded axial blanket enricchment of 0.7 74 w/o of Uraanium‐235. TThe
suggestedd loading patttern utilizes several Westin nghouse signature Integraal Fuel Burnab ble Absorber
(IFBA) pattterns, including 18, 24, 30
0, and 36. Thee loading patttern our grou up created is sshown below in
Figure 5. TThe different fuel regions are distinguisshed by differrent colors ass labeled in th
he legend.
Figure 5: Core
F e Loading Patttern for Budvvar Bow Unit 1 Cycle 4
Determination n of this loading pattern included enhan ncement of seeveral generic loading patttern

concepts: the low‐leakkage loading p pattern design and the ring of fire conccept. Through
hout the loadding
pattern deevelopment p process two vvital aspects o
of the reactorr core were m
monitored. Thhese aspects
included tthe cycle lenggth requiremeent of 308 Efffective Full Po
ower Days (EFFPD) and the All Rods Out
(ARO) entthalpy rise peeaking factor ((FΔH) of 1.532
2. To ensure the loading p
pattern met thhese

requirements several burnup steps up to the end of cycle were made using Westinghouse’s Hexagonal
Advanced Nodal Code (ANC –H) using a one‐sixth core model.
Leakage reduction is achieved by placing the highest burnup assemblies along the core
periphery and rotating these assemblies such that the highest burnup sides faced away from the core
centerline. This approach improved the neutron economy throughout the cycle length and made
optimum use of interior assembly reactivity. This approach is vital to meeting cycle length
requirements.
Of the seven feed assemblies in the one‐sixth core model, five assemblies were placed in the
secondary ring from the core periphery, as per the ring of fire concept. This approach allowed for more
uniform radial power distribution, allowed for higher burnup of assemblies from previous cycles, and
reduced the need for extensive IFBA patterns. The remaining two feed assemblies were placed as close
to the core center as possible to follow the concepts of the theoretical most efficient loading pattern.
The theoretical loading pattern of highest efficiency involves placement of the highest reactivity fuel in
the core center and decreasing reactivity fuel with increasing radial distance from the core center.
However, reactor safety constrictions and economic feasibility prohibit this simple idealized loading
configuration from being achieved.
After this leakage reduction technique and feed assembly placement had been achieved,
remaining fuel assemblies were shuffled and IFBA patterns were added to feed assemblies to achieve a
uniform radial power distribution within the prescribed FΔH limit.
Improvements upon this loading pattern design would include new feed arrangements which
more closely mimic the theoretical most efficient design. The ultimate goal of this would be to extend
cycle length while still abiding to enthalpy rise peaking factor limitations.
Cycle Length Requirement

The cycle length requirement of 308 EFPD is converted to a core average burnup through the
calculation shown in Equation 1, which utilizes the reactor thermal power and the total mass of the core
loading.
3000 308
11328. 6
81.563
·
11329
Equation 1: Determination of target burnup based upon desired cycle length.
In order to determine the satisfaction of the cycle length requirement, burnup steps were taken
at regular intervals until the target end of cycle burnup was reached. For all burnup steps, ANC is
instructed to search for the core average critical eigenvalue (K=1) under full power, ARO conditions by
adjusting the Boron concentration within the core. In order for the loading pattern to meet the cycle
length requirement, a critical Boron concentration of at least ten parts per million must be present in

the core at the target burnup (as per the scenario description). ANC displays the results of each burnup
step, including the critical Boron concentration, in the output edit “E‐SUM”. The E‐SUM output edit from
the output file “03_anch_B1C4_depl.0949.out” for the designed loading pattern is shown below in
Figure 6. This output is generated using the input file “03_anch_B1C4_depl.job”, which may be found in
Appendix A of this report. This output edit is also helpful for evaluating parameters such as FΔH, the
most limiting case of this peaking factor is shown here inside the red box.
Figure 6: E‐SUM output edit for designed loading pattern
Peaking Factor Limit Confirmation

Peaking factor limit confirmation is conducted for the enthalpy rise peaking factor limit of 1.532
by use of the ANC output edit “E‐SUM”. “E‐SUM” lists the value of the highest FΔH within the core for
each burnup step as is shown in Figure 2 above. While ANC output commonly lists the FΔH as an
assembly value, this value represents the highest FΔH value within the assembly since this peaking factor
actually represents the maximum to average integral rod power in ANC. The average integral rod
powers are assembly averaged integral rod powers. While using the “E‐SUM” edit provides for a quick
check of peaking factor limit compliance, the individual assembly FΔH values and their corresponding
locations are readily provided in the “C‐FDH” output cartoon. This ANC output makes for simple
adjustments to the loading pattern for cases which are non‐compliant to the peaking factor limitation.
It is also important to note that the initial depletion step in ANC runs, where core averaged
burnup is zero, is not included in the FΔH limit confirmation. This step is not included because by the
time the core reaches full power xenon has built up. The state point of full power with no xenon is not
achievable in the core. Conclusively, this loading pattern meets the peaking factor requirement because
its highest FΔH value is below the prescribed limit throughout the cycle life under hot full power (HFP)
ARO conditions.
Figure 7 shows the maximum FΔH value throughout the length of the cycle. The cycle maximum
FΔH occurs at the 4000 MWd/MTU depletion step due to the burnout of the IFBA coating on the feed
assemblies. Here the enthalpy rise peaking factor is 1.514, which is 0.018 below the maximum
allowable limit. It then gradually decreases from this point up until the end of cycle. Throughout the

cycle the peak FΔH location was at the interior feed assembly closest to the core center (6, 4) and did not
change position.
1.540
1.530
1.520
1.510
F∆H
1.500
Actual
1.490 Limit
1.480
1.470
1.460
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Burnup [MWD/MTU]

Figure 7: Maximum FΔH throughout cycle
A cartoon of the core loading pattern showing assembly average power and FΔH at the initial
burnup step of 150 MWD/MTU is shown in Figure 8. This figure is produced in the “C‐FDH” output edit
in the “03_anch_B1C4_depl.0949.out” output file produced by the input file “03_anch_B1C4_depl.job”.
This shows that the FΔH meets the requirement for every assembly at the beginning of the fuel cycle.


Figure 8: Assembly FΔH at 150 MWD/MTU
At around 4000 MWD/MTU, the IFBA coating on the feed assemblies is fully burned off causing
a mid‐cycle peak in FΔH. Figure 9 shows the assembly average powers and FΔH values at this burnup step.
This figure is also a “C‐FDH” output edit from the “03_anch_B1C4_depl.0949.out” output file, generated
by the “03_anch_B1C4_depl.job” input file. The FΔH for every assembly is below the requirement of
1.532. It should be noted that assembly (6, 4) is still the assembly with the highest FΔH.
Figure 9: Assembly FΔH at 4000 MWD/MTU when IFBA’s burn off


The feed assembly at (6, 4) has the highest FΔH in the LP up until a burnup of 10000 MWD/MTU.
At this burnup, the maximum FΔH shifts to the feed assembly at (8, 4). This shift is illustrated below in
Figure 10, which is a “C‐FDH” output edit from the “03_anch_B1C4_depl.0949.out” output file
generated by the “03_anch_B1C4_depl.job” input file.
Figure 10: Assembly FΔH at 10000 MWD/MTU
MTC Limit Confirmation

In order to determine whether this recommended loading pattern was within the MTC limit of
0 pcm per degree Fahrenheit, additional ANC runs are needed. MTC cases are run for each burnup step
throughout the cycle length using the existing depletion steps that had been written to the local ANC
database file and the “TMODCOEF” variable. “TMODCOEF” is an FREAD variable that assigns a
temperature range over which to determine the MTC value at each depletion step that is read for each
case in which “TMODCOEF” is assigned a value. Along with the “TMODCOEF” variable the operational
state and characteristics of the core are also defined. For MTC limit confirmation, the core is at hot zero
power (HZP), ARO conditions with all Xenon feedback removed and MTC values are calculated over a
temperature range of ±5 °F.
The MTC calculation in ANC literally is the change in core average reactivity divided by the
change in core average temperature, as specified in the “TMODCOEF” variable. The ANC MTC sequence
varies the moderator temperature by +5 degrees and ‐5 degrees, computes the two core eigenvalues at
these two new moderator temperatures while holding fuel temperature constant. The code then
calculates the MTC as described using the Westinghouse logarithmic definition of core reactivity and
converting to pcm. A sample calculation for the first depletion step is shown in Equation 2.

10 0.999972
10
1.000078 1.06
538.5 528.5
Equation 2: Calculation procedure for MTC determination.
As can be seen in Figure 11, MTC becomes more negative with increasing burnup and never exceeds
the limit at 0. This is the expected behavior of the MTC throughout the cycle length. This behavior is due
largely to the decrease in Boron concentration necessary to keep the reactor critical. As temperature
increases, the moderator density decreases and the Boron concentration per unit volume decreases. This
process has a positive reactivity contribution since there is less soluble Boron in the core at any given moment
since it is more dispersed throughout the primary coolant loop.
‐2
MTC [pcm/°F]
‐4
‐6
MTC
‐8 Limit
‐10
‐12
‐14
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Burnup [MWD/MTU]

Figure 11: Moderator Temperature Coefficient throughout cycle
Figure 12 shows the relative behavior of MTC and critical Boron concentration over the cycle length.
The close relationship of the two curves further exemplifies the heavy dependence of MTC on the Boron
concentration within the core. The Boron concentration is actually the principle reason for MTC changes
throughout the cycle, and not the core burnup.


0 1700
‐2 1500
Boron Concentration [ppm]
1300
‐4
1100
MTC [pcm/°F]
‐6
900 MTC
‐8
700 MTC Limit
‐10 Boron Concentration
500
‐12
300
‐14 100
‐16 ‐100
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Burnup [MWD/MTU]

Figure 12: Behavior of MTC and Boron Concentration over cycle length
The Boron concentration and MTC at Hot Zero Power (HZP) for each burnup step are displayed by ANC
in the “E‐SEQ” output edit of the “03_anch_B1C4_depl.0949.out” output file generated by the
“03_anch_B1C4_depl.job” input file. According to design limitations, the MTC must be less than zero at every
burnup step throughout the cycle. Figure 13, shown below, shows the E‐SEQ output edit and confirms that the
designed loading pattern meets limitations. The most limiting case occurs at the 150 MWd/MTU burnup step
which is enclosed by the red box. The MTC value here is ‐1.056 pcm/°F which is 1.506 pcm/°F below the 0.0
pcm/°F limit.
Figure 13: E‐SEQ output edit illustrating MTC throughout cycle


Loading Pattern Summary
The final loading pattern designed is a conservative pattern. The feed placement is not as aggressive as
it could have been. While a more aggressive pattern would have resulted in longer cycle length, it would have
caused an increase in FΔH. The designed loading pattern was well under the FΔH limit of 1.532 with the actual
maximum FΔH being 1.514. The MTC was also well under the limit of 0 pcm/°F with the highest value being ‐
1.06 pcm/°F. It can be concluded that even though this loading pattern is not the most aggressive in terms of
cycle length and feed placement, it leaves large margins between actual values and limitations for peaking
factors and MTC. This is particularly important with the introduction of transients and accidents such as rod
ejection.

S a f e t y C a l c u l a t i o n s | 21

SAFETY CALCULATIONS
Introduction
In any reactor core design, safety is of the utmost consideration. Several scenarios are applied
to the core as part of the design process in order to ensure safe operation even under the most extreme
of circumstances. For Budvar Bow Cycle #4, the Westinghouse Reactor Safety Analysis Checklist (RSAC)
involves the confirmation of enthalpy rise peaking factor limit under both unrodded and rodded
conditions, rod ejection accident simulation, moderator temperature coefficient confirmation, and
available shutdown margin verification. For many of these safety analyses uncertainty accountability is
applied to keep the calculated values conservative and increase the certainty in the calculated safety
margins.
Enthalpy Rise Peaking Factor Limit Confirmation
Analysis Description
It is mandatory that the new core loading for Budvar Bow Unit 1 Cycle 4 not exceed the
maximum enthalpy rise peaking factor limit of 1.532 at any time throughout the length of the cycle. As
part of the design of the core loading pattern, this peaking factor limit was monitored under hot full
power, all rods out (ARO) conditions for the entire cycle length. Once this limit has been met under ARO
conditions it must also be tested under conditions which drastically affect the power profile of the core,
specifically, cases where control rods have been inserted into the core.
At hot full power, most reactors are allowed to operate with some control rods inserted into the
core, the limit and bank of which are defined by the rod insertion limits (RILs). RILs are defined for each
control bank at every power level and are meant to ensure that there is enough rodworth available at all
times to shutdown the reactor. Control rod insertion into reactor core control assemblies (RCCAs)
during operation causes a shift in power into the assemblies neighboring an RCCA. This can have a
significant effect on the enthalpy rise peaking factor in these areas and may violate the limit. In order to
ensure safety and that the limit is met during rodded conditions, the core is put into the most limiting
case that would be encountered under normal operations. This includes having the lead control bank at
its rod insertion limit and shifting the axial offset upwards to its upper limit by redistributing the Xenon
to the bottom of the core. This axial offset shift upwards is most limiting since it will cause the
redistribution of power to be more affected by the control rod insertion, since control rods enter the
core from the top down.
Limit Confirmation Under ARO Conditions

The unrodded case for peaking factor limit confirmation is conducted with the core at ARO and
HFP. Also, equilibrium Xenon concentration is used and the calculation is performed over the entire
length of the cycle. Since these conditions are the same as those used to determine the cycle length,
and ANC conveniently provides the FDH as part of the “E‐SUM” output edit, the depletion steps are

used to confirm the unrodded peaking factor limit is met. Figure 14 shows the input for an unrodded
FDH case. This input is repeated for each burnup step until the end of the cycle is reached at a critical
boron concentration of ten parts per million.
Figure 14: Unrodded FDH input
Using the input provided in Figure 14 produces the following “E‐SUM” output edit in the output
file cyc4_depl.0949.out. This edit is shown in Figure 15, where it can be seen that the core abides by the
limit throughout the cycle. The most limiting peaking factor occurs at the 4000 MWd/MTU burnup step
with a value of 1.514. This value is 0.018 below the FDH limit at hot full power.
Figure 15: E‐SUM edit for FDH Confirmation
Limit Confirmation with Lead Bank at RIL

Since reactors are able to operate with control rods inserted, the peaking factor must also be
confirmed under these conditions. In order to simulate the most limiting case for the rodded FDH

calculation the lead control bank is inserted to its HFP RIL, the Xenon distribution within the core is
shifted to the bottom in order to shift the axial offset to at least the top of the operating band (+5% for
Budvar Bow Cycle #4). Typically this is done using the “AOSURCH” input card in ANC, however this
automated axial offset search does not exist in the hexagonal version of ANC and the calculation must
be done manually by adjusting the “DELXE” card. To simplify this, “DELXE” was adjusted until an axial
offset of at least +5% from the base case was obtained for each burnup step, conveniently a Xenon
redistribution of ‐20 provided this for every case. The input for this rodded FDH case is shown in Figure
16, this input segment is repeated for each burnup step from the original depletion, up until the end of
cycle.
Figure 16: Rodded FDH Input
Using this input generates the “E‐SUM” output edit in the roddedFDH.0960.out file. This edit is
shown in Figure 17, where it can be seen that the core meets this peaking factor limit throughout the
entire length of the cycle. The most limiting peaking factor occurs at the 2000 MWd/MTU burnup step
where a maximum FDH of 1.518 occurs. This value is 0.014 below the HFP limit of 1.532.
Figure 17: E‐SUM edit for Rodded FDH
Since the axial offset manipulation must be done manually in ANC‐H and the axial offsets used
where not exactly at the upper limit of the operating band, the actual axial offset change is listed in

Table 1. Here delta A/O is the change in axial offset from the HFP base case that was generated by the
manual Xenon redistribution.
Table 3: Rodded FDH Characteristics
Burnup Δ Axial Rodded

[MWD/MTU] Offset FΔH
150 5.61 1.499
500 5.30 1.496
1000 5.19 1.507
2000 5.16 1.518
3000 5.32 1.514
4000 5.39 1.510
5000 5.49 1.508
6000 5.66 1.504
7000 5.79 1.500
8000 5.86 1.494
9000 6.04 1.485
10000 6.22 1.477
11000 6.43 1.470
11329 6.49 1.467
11360 6.50 1.467

A comparison of unrodded and rodded FDH versus burnup is shown below in Figure 18. It should
be noted that in both cases the FDH never exceeds the limit of 1.532.

1.540
1.530
1.520
1.510
Fdh
1.500 Fdh
1.490 Rodded Fdh
Fdh Limit
1.480
1.470
1.460
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Burnup [MWD/MTU]

Figure 18: Rodded FDH and Unrodded FDH
Rod Ejection Accident
The purpose of this analysis is to simulate the unlikely event of a single control being ejected
from the core. This may occur in reactors due to a failure in a control rod pressure housing, which could
rapidly force a control rod out of the core. This accident is simulated as part of the RSAC for four
possible conditions BOC‐HFP, BOC‐HZP, EOC‐HFP, and EOC‐HZP for all control rods one at a time.
Throughout these cases the total peaking factor, FQ, must be maintained below the prescribed limit for
the particular core conditions. It is important to note that the rod ejection is a fast transient and as such
feedback effects must be frozen under an adiabatic assumption.
Rod Ejection at Hot Full Power

For this core condition a base case is run with ARO after which the lead control bank is inserted
to its RIL of 125 steps withdrawn at full power. A new boron concentration and equilibrium Xenon is
found with the rods at their RIL and then with feedback frozen, each rod that is inserted is ejected from
the full core model. This entire procedure is conducted for both the BOC and EOC using the 150
MWd/MTU burnup step and 11360 MWd/MTU burnup step respectively. This is simulated by the input
provided in Figure 19. Since the lead control bank has only one rod in each sixth of the core, only one
rod need be ejected for each of the HFP cases.


Figure 19: Rod Ejection at HFP input
This input generates the “E‐SUM” and “E‐SRW” output edit in the rodejectionHFP.0963.out file,
which is shown here as Figures 20 and 21.
Figure 20: E‐SUM edit for Rod Ejection at HFP
Figure 21: E‐SRW Edit for Rod Ejection at HFP

In order to maintain conservatism in this safety analysis, a 10% uncertainty in rodworth and a
13% uncertainty in peaking factor are applied to the calculated terms. An example of the calculation for
rodworth with the uncertainty is shown below for the HFP EOC case.
ln 100%
. 999377
ln 100% 1.1 0.0200
. 999200
0.0200%∆
A table of the rod worths and total peaking factors with uncertainties applied for HFP is
displayed below in Table 4.
Table 4: HFP Rod Ejection Worth and Total Peaking Factor
%Δρ (10 % FQ (13%
Eigenvalue dk/k %Δρ FQ
uncertainty) uncertainty)
BOC Full
1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Core
BOC Bank 10 1.000128 0.000128 0.012799 0.014079 1.949 2.20237
EOC Full
0.9992 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Core
EOC Bank 10 0.999377 0.000177 0.017713 0.019484 1.811 2.04643

Rod Ejection at HZP

The same approach for the HFP cases is applied to the HZP cases. The key difference between
HFP and HZP is that there are now 4 control rod locations being ejected individually than the one for
HFP. The uncertainties are also greater than those used in the HFP case. The rod worth now must be
calculated using a 12% uncertainty while the total peaking factor has a 23% uncertainty. The rods for
banks 10, 9, and 8 are set to their RILs and ejected one at a time to obtain worths and peaking factors.
An example of the input for the HZP case is shown below in Figure 22. Table 5, shown below, lists the
rod ejection values for BOC while Table 6 shows EOC.

Figure 22: Input for Rod Ejection Case at HZP
Table 5: HZP BOC Rod Ejection Worth and Total Peaking Factor
%Δρ (12 % FQ (23%
Full Core 1.000001 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Bank 10 1.001415 0.001413 0.1413 0.158256 2.929 3.60267
Bank 9 1.002729 0.002724 0.272428 0.30512 4.922 6.05406
Bank 9
1.002328 0.002324 0.232429 0.260321 3.137 3.85851
(center)
Bank 8 1.000479 0.000478 0.047789 0.053523 2.75 3.3825

Table 6: HZP EOC Rod Ejection Worth and Total Peaking Factor
%Δρ (12 % FQ (23%
Full Core 1.037299 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Bank 10 1.039348 0.001973 0.197337 0.221018 3.923 4.82529
Bank 9 1.040963 0.003526 0.352603 0.394915 6.408 7.88184
Bank 9
1.03974 0.00235 0.235046 0.263252 3.909 4.80807
(center)
Bank 8 1.038825 0.00147 0.147005 0.164645 5.159 6.34557


There are specific design limitations given for these values of rod worth and peaking factor. The
tabulated values for rod worth and peaking are compared to these limits in Table 7 below. The control
bank is given in parenthesis next to the core condition.
Table 7: Rod Ejection Worth and Total Peaking Factor Limit Confirmation
Calculated Calculated
Limit Limit
% Δρ FQ
BOC HFP 0.014079 0.200 2.20237 5.8
EOC HFP 0.019484 0.200 2.04643 6.5
BOC HZP (10) 0.158256 0.860 3.60267 13.0
BOC HZP (9) 0.305120 0.860 6.05406 13.0
BOC HZP (9) 0.260321 0.860 3.85851 13.0
BOC HZP (8) 0.053523 0.860 3.38250 13.0
EOC HZP (10) 0.221018 0.900 4.82529 21.0
EOC HZP (9) 0.394915 0.900 7.88184 21.0
EOC HZP (9) 0.263252 0.900 4.80807 21.0
EOC HZP (8) 0.164645 0.900 6.34557 21.0

Based upon these results, it is apparent that the core is capable of enduring a rod ejection
accident under all conditions specified by the RSAC. Not only are the reactivity and peaking factor limits
not reached, but there is a significant safety margin for these values under all specified core conditions.
Shutdown Margin
When designing a core, it is important to ensure that the characteristics of the core give the
operators the ability to shut down the reactor at any time if necessary. Shutdown margin (SDM) is
defined as the amount by which the core would be subcritical at hot shutdown conditions following a
reactor trip, assuming that the control rod with the highest worth is stuck out of the core. It is also
assumed that there are no changes in the boron concentration or xenon conditions. For certain times
throughout the core life, there is a minimum amount of shutdown margin required for certain accident
analyses including steamline break and boron dilution. The challenge that engineers face when ensuring
that the core meets the shutdown margin requirements is dealing with the total power defect. The total
power defect (TPD) is the amount the core will increase in reactivity due to the trip to HZP. This increase
in reactivity comes from the fact that when going to HZP, the moderator temperature decreases rapidly.
Since the MTC is a negative value throughout core life, a rapid decrease in moderator temperature leads
to an increase in reactivity. This is most apparent at the end of the cycle when MTC is at its most
negative value. The other positive reactivity effect incorporated with SDM is from void effects. Local or
statistical boiling in the moderator can cause small voids to form leading to a small reactivity increase.
The TPD is compared to the control rod worth which increases negative reactivity into the core. It

cannot be assumed that the full worth of the control rod banks are available for the SDM calculation
because it is possible for some of the rods to be partially inserted in the core during operation at the
time of the trip. The limits to which these control rods can be inserted are called the Rod Insertion Limits
(RIL) and are specific for each plant. For a conservative estimate, the control rod worth is calculated by
taking the worth of all the rods being inserted at HZP except for the worst stuck rod and then 10% is
subtracted off. There are a standard set of cases in ANC for SDM that reflect different core conditions.
These cases are:
 K1 – Base Case at Burnup of Interest (BOC or EOC)
 K2 – Rods are Inserted to RILs
 K3 – Over‐Power/ Over‐Temperature, Skew Power to Top of Core (worst conditions for trip)
 K4 – Trip to Zero Power
 K5 – Full Core at All Rods In (ARI)
 K6 – Worst Stuck Rod Out
BOC and EOC Shutdown Margin Calculation

Each of these cases is run for both BOC and EOC conditions. Case K6 is performed for each
control rod bank within our 1/6 core loading pattern. The rod that has the highest worth is then
considered to be the worst stuck rod. Two job files were created to run the BOC and EOC SDM
calculations, “sdownemBOC.job” and “sdownemEOC.job”, respectively. The “E‐SUM” edit for BOC from
“sdownemBOC.0978.out” is shown below in Figure 23. The output for EOC is found in the “E‐SUM” edit
from “sdownemEOC.0979.out” and is shown below in Figure 24.
Figure 23: E‐SUM edit for BOC SDM Calculation


Figure 24: E‐SUM edit for EOC SDM calculation
The most limiting conditions are when the rods are inserted to their RILs at HFP conditions, the
core is then placed into an overpower state with the power skewed to the top of the core, and lastly
when all of the rods are inserted, the rod with the highest worth is stuck out of the core. The SDM is the
lowest at EOC due to the TPD. Since the value of MTC is the most negative at this state, the rapid
decrease in moderator temperature will cause the largest reactivity increase.
The reactivity worth of any portion of the shutdown events can be found simply by the change in
eigenvalues. The calculation of the SDM for our core reload design is shown below. Table 6 shows the
calculated SDM versus the required SDM at BOC and EOC.
1
4
2 10% 0.9 105
6
4
2 105 50
3
For SDM at BOC:
1.019627
1 105 50 1993.7
1.000000
1.019627
2 0.9 105 6180.3
0.951957
2 1 6180.3 1993.7 4186.8
For SDM at EOC:
1.030650
1 10 50 3202.6
0.998665
1.030650
2 0.9 10 6909.6
0.9544845

2 1 6909.6 3202.6 3707
The results of the BOC and EOC shutdown margin (SDM) calculations are shown in Table 8 in
what is known as the SDM Rackup. Also, listed are the shutdown margin requirements at both points in
the cycle in units of pcm. Both of these calculated shutdown margins exceed the requirements, with
BOC SDM exceeding by 2886.8 pcm and EOC SDM exceeding the requirement by 2407 pcm.
Table 8: Calculated and Required Shutdown Margin for BOC and EOC
Requirement BOC Worth (pcm) EOC Worth (pcm)

Control Banks
Power Defect 1943.7 3152.6
Void Effects 50 50
(1) Total Control Bank Requirement 1993.7 3202.6
Control Rod Worth (HZP)
All rods inserted less most 6867 7677.3
reactive rod stuck out
(2) Less 10% 6180.3 6909.6
Shutdown Margin
Calculated Margin (2) – (1) 4186.6 3707
Required Shutdown Margin 1300 1300

Summary
The core reload pattern that our group designed for Budvar Bow Unit 1 Cycle 4 passed all of the
safety checks with a generous margin of safety. Our peak rodded FDH value at 2000 MWD/MTU was
1.518 which is comfortably below the limit of 1.532. The largest MTC value was at the 150 MWD/MTU
burnup step where the boron concentration was the greatest and was found to be ‐1.056 pcm/degF,
well under the limit of 0.00 pcm/degF. For the rod ejection accident, all values of rod worth were well
under the limits at both HZP and HFP at BOC and EOC. The same was found to be true for the total
peaking factor, which also never neared the given limits. The calculated shutdown margin for the core
was greater than the required shutdown margin of 1300 pcm. At the EOC where the TPD is the largest,
the SDM was calculated to be 2723.6 pcm, well over the limit of 1300 pcm.
O p e r a t i o n a l D a t a | 33

OPERATIONAL DATA
Introduction
Before a reactor goes back online after a refueling outage, several important aspects of the
reactor core must be measured. The main purpose of this is to verify the calculations made in the
design of the new core, and to ensure safe operation of the reactor. Also, some additional information
must be provided to the reactor operator so that they may better predict and control the behavior of
the reactor at various points in the cycle, most importantly at initial startup. Specifically, physical
measurements of the core isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC), startup hot zero power (HZP)
critical boron concentration (CBC), and integral rod worth must be taken. The agreement of these
measurements with core design calculations signifies the validity of the calculations.
In addition to the data that must be generated for comparison with the measurements taken
before startup (ITC, HZP CBC, and rodworth), additional calculations must be made to provide important
core behavior characteristics to the reactor operator. These calculations include the determination of
the differential boron worth throughout the length of the cycle and startup and shutdown Xenon worth
curves at various points in the cycle. Both the design verification and characteristic curves are vital parts
of any core design, and the startup of any new cycle must be precluded by these procedures.
BOC HZP Rodworths
The integral reactivity worth of each control bank in the core is calculated as part of the core
design and then measured by the reactor personnel just prior to startup. Both the calculation and
measurement are conducted under HZP conditions at the beginning of the cycle. In order to help verify
the design calculations, the calculated and measured rodworths must agree within 10% for the overall
worth and within 15% for each bank. A 10% or less agreement for the rodworth helps ensure that the
shutdown margin calculation will be accurate as well, since the calculation involved a 10% uncertainty in
rodworth. This confidence provides confidence in the calculated shutdown margin, without the need
for direct measurement. In addition, the bank‐wise rodworth confirmation also inherently provides
confirmation of the calculated core power distribution, since the relative worth of the banks is directly
proportional to the power at each bank location.
Many methods exist to measure rodworth. In 3D ANC it is very simple to measure rodworth
using the boron dilution method. For this method, each bank is inserted sequentially and held there
while the remaining banks are inserted. After each bank insertion, the new CBC of the core is found,
and the difference between the CBC before and after the insertion is the total worth of the control bank,
in units of boron concentration. This method can also be used at the actual reactor plant to measure
rodworth but it is very time consuming since the CBC must be adjusted after each bank insertion, a
process which takes a considerably long time. Instead, faster methods of measuring rodworth have

been developed which have shortened the required time of the measurement from a few days down to
a few hours.
Rodworth Measurement Using Boron Dilution Method

The measurement of rodworth using the boron dilution method in ANC is conducted at the
beginning of the cycle under HZP conditions with Xenon removed and all other fission product effects
held constant. This provides for an accurate measurement of strictly the rodworths and properly
simulates the conditions of the actual reactor core prior to startup. In ANC the process begins with the
reading of the databank file for the initial depletion step, and core power being brought to zero using
the “RELPOW” input card. As per the boron dilution method, each control bank is inserted sequentially
and left in its position using the “RODSTEP” input card in ANC. The “FREAD” input for these ANC cases is
shown in Figure 25, as part of the file rodworth.job. The control banks for Budvar Bow are banks 10, 9,
and 8. Bank 7 is technically not a control bank since its zero‐power insertion limit is fully withdrawn, its
worth measurement is calculated here however since it is listed as a control bank.
Figure 25: ANC input for rodworth measurement using Boron dilution method.
This input produces the “E‐SUM” output edit in the rodworth.0981.out file that is shown in
Figure 2. By finding the difference in boron concentration after each bank insertion, the rodworth of
each control bank can be directly determined in units of Boron concentration. These results are shown
in Table 9.
Figure 26: ANC generated output for rodworth determination using Boron dilution method.


Table 9: Control bank worth using boron dilution method
Control Banks Inserted CBC [ppm] Bank No. Bank Worth [ppm]

ARO 1872 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐
10 1796 10 76
10+9 1656 9 140
10+9+8 1563 8 93
10+9+8+7 1480 7 83

Xenon Reactivity After Startup and Trip
The reactivity worth of Xenon is an important consideration in nuclear plant operation. During
most of the cycle while the reactor is at steady‐state, the Xenon concentration is at equilibrium as are its
reactivity effects. During reactor startup and after a trip however, the Xenon reactivity worth has a
heavy dependence on time and must be taken into consideration by the plant operator. The Xenon
worth with respect to time under these conditions is usually included in a Nuclear Design Report (NDR)
in the form of Xenon worth curves. These curves are plotted for various points within the cycle and at
different power levels for both the post‐startup and post‐trip scenarios.
The calculations necessary for Xenon worth curves are made in 2D ANC, where particular steps
are taken to isolate the reactivity worth of the Xenon as the sole contributor to the change in core
eigenvalue. The reduction to a 2‐Dimensional core model is made to reduce the total calculation time,
since many ANC runs are made to develop an accurate and detailed worth curve. Curves are generated
at BOC, MOC, and EOC at 50% and 100% powers for both the post‐startup and post‐trip scenarios.
Xenon Worth Calculation After Startup

For the post‐startup case, the base case is read from the depletion databank at BOC, MOC, or
EOC and power is set to zero. In order to mimic actual startup conditions, all Xenon must be removed
from the core, in ANC this is simulated by setting the “DEPLETE” card to equilibrium Xenon while at zero
power. Also, the default behavior for ANC to search for the critical eigenvalue must be turned‐off and
the “DELTABU” card should be set to zero so that there is no additional burnup. Once the zero Xenon
conditions are established, an instant startup is simulated by setting the core to the desired power level,
and the core model is collapsed to 2‐D using the “COLAP2” input card. It is this case which is used as the
base case for calculating the reactivity worth of the Xenon at all subsequent times. Additional ANC runs
are conducted at one hour intervals up to 20 hours after startup and 5 hour intervals up to 100 hours
after startup. Each time step utilizes the “DELTIME” input card to increment time and the “DEPLETE”

card is set to “XE” in order to allow the normal production and depletion of Xenon within the core. A
sample of the ANC input used to generate the post‐startup curve at BOC HFP is shown in Figure 26.
Figure 26: Input deck sample for BOC HFP Xenon worth determination
The full input based on this sample generates the “E‐SUM” output edit in the output file
su_boc_fp.0983.out shown in Figure 27. In order to determine the Xenon worth for each time step, the
eigenvalue for each time step is compared to the base case eigenvalue determined in the third ANC run.
This eigenvalue change is measured using the standard Westinghouse logarithmic definition of reactivity
and is then converted to pcm.


Figure 27: BOC HFP post‐startup Xenon worth ”E‐SUM” output edit
Using this input method and subsequent reactivity worth calculations for BOC, MOC, and EOC at
both 50% and 100% power, leads to the three post‐startup Xenon worth curves shown in Figures 28, 29,
and 30.
‐500
‐1000
Reactivity [pcm]
‐1500
BOC Full Power
BOC Half Power
‐2000
‐2500
‐3000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [hr]

Figure 28: Post‐startup at BOC Xenon worth as a function of time

‐500
‐1000
Reactivity [pcm]
‐1500
MOC Full Power
MOC Half Power
‐2000
‐2500
‐3000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [hr]
Figure 29: Post‐startup at MOC Xenon worth as a function of time
‐500
‐1000
Reactivity [pcm]
‐1500
‐2000 EOC Full Power
EOC Half Power
‐2500
‐3000
‐3500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [hr]

Figure 30: Post‐startup at EOC Xenon worth as a function of time

The Xenon worth as a function of time after startup follows the expected trend of a slow
transition to equilibrium, very similar to an inverse proportionality to Xenon concentration. This trend is
exhibited throughout the cycle and at both half and full powers. The difference in worth between half
and full power is explained by the competitive nature of Xenon worth and soluble Boron worth. At half
power there is a higher Boron concentration within the core and thus it helps to reduce the absolute
reactivity worth of the Xenon. This also explains the increase in absolute reactivity worth as cycle length
progresses, since the CBC continually reduces.
Xenon Worth Calculation After Trip

In order to determine the Xenon worth after a reactor trip, the databank file at the point in the
cycle of interest must be read and the core must be brought to the desired power level using the typical
ANC input cards. ANC is then set to find the equilibrium Xenon concentration at this power level and
then to hold constant at this concentration while the critical eigenvalue search is disabled, the power set
to zero, and the core model is collapsed to 2‐D. In order to determine a base case eigenvalue for
reactivity measurements, the reactivity effects of the Xenon are removed from the ANC calculation by
setting the “DEPLETE” card to “NAXE”. This simulates a reactor at these conditions with no Xenon
present. After this step, Xenon is allowed to deplete and the time after trip is incremented in the same
way as the time after startup. A partial sample of the input used to calculate the post‐trip Xenon worth
is shown in Figure 31, as part of the trip_boc_fp.job file, which is used to determine the worth at BOC
HFP conditions.
Figure 31: ANC input sample for BOC HFP post‐trip Xenon worth determination

Completing this input deck over a 100 hour time‐frame after trip using the specified intervals,
generates the “E‐SUM” output edit in the trip_boc_fp.0989.out output file shown in Figure 32.
Figure 32: ANC output for BOC HFP post‐trip Xenon worth determination
Using this input method and subsequent reactivity worth calculations for BOC, MOC, and EOC at
both 50% and 100% power, leads to the three post‐trip Xenon worth curves shown in Figures 33, 34, and
35.

‐500
‐1000
‐1500
Reactivity [pcm]
‐2000
‐2500 BOC Full Power
BOC Half Power
‐3000
‐3500
‐4000
‐4500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [hr]

Figure 33: Post‐trip Xenon worth at BOC
‐500
‐1000
‐1500
Reactivity [pcm]
‐2000
‐2500 MOC Full Power
MOC Half Power
‐3000
‐3500
‐4000
‐4500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [hr]

Figure 34: Post‐trip Xenon worth at MOC

‐500
‐1000
‐1500
Reactivity [pcm]
‐2000
‐2500
EOC Full Power
‐3000
EOC Half Power
‐3500
‐4000
‐4500
‐5000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time [hr]

Figure 35: Post‐trip Xenon worth at EOC
The behavior of these curves can be explained by the increase in Xenon in the core after a
reactor trip. This is due to the absence of one of the primary loss mechanisms of Xenon within the
reactor core, neutron absorption. This causes a buildup of Xenon as it decays from its Iodine‐135 parent
at a faster rate than its natural removal via the subsequent decay of Xenon‐135. Over time this buildup
asymptotically approaches the zero power equilibrium. The relative worth as a function of power and
time in cycle is once again explained by the Boron concentration at these states.
Differential Boron Worth
Soluble Boron is an important reactor control tool used in modern commercial pressurized
water reactors (PWRs). In order to fully understand the reactivity effects of Boron in the core under
various reactor conditions, it is desirable to find the differential Boron worth. Differential Boron worth
is defined as the reactivity worth per unit concentration of soluble Boron, typically in units of pcm per
ppm. This data is provided to the operator in order to aide in the proper control of the nuclear reaction.
HFP and HZP Differential Boron Worth

Differential Boron worth (DBW) is easily calculated in 3D ANC using the automated DBW
sequence, “BCOEF”. This input card varies the Boron concentration in the core by a specified amount
and computes the resulting eigenvalue to make for a simple calculation of DBW. Using each of the
nominal depletion steps stored in the databank file, DBW is calculated for the entire cycle length under

both HFP and HZP conditions. A sample input for the DBW calculation under HFP conditions is shown in
Figure 36. The “BCOEF” input card is initially set at 25 ppm, but is reduced later in the cycle to keep the
Boron concentration from reaching a physically impossible negative value.
Figure 36: Sample ANC input for HFP DBW calculation
Following this input structure for each depletion step produces the “E‐SUM” output edit in the
dbw_HFP.0998.out output file shown in Figure 37. Using the eigenvalues at each burnup step to find the
reactivity change and dividing by the change in Boron concentration provides the DBW at each burnup
in the cycle.

Figure 37: ANC output for HFP DBW calculation
Plotting the resulting DBW calculations as a function of burnup under both HFP and HZP
conditions, produces the graphs shown in Figure 38.

‐6.5
‐7
Differential Worth [pcm/ppm]
‐7.5
HZP
‐8
HFP
‐8.5
‐9
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Burnup [MWd/MTU]

Figure 38: HFP DBW as a function of burnup

Isothermal Temperature Coefficient
While the core technical specifications only entail the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC),
it is difficult to physically measure this quantity in the actual reactor. Instead the isothermal
temperature coefficient (ITC) is measured in order to confirm the validity of the MTC prediction. The ITC
is simply the total reactivity contribution due to both the MTC and the Doppler temperature coefficient
(DTC). It is more readily measured since it does not require isolation of the effects from either the fuel
or moderator and can be measured under HZP conditions when the fuel and moderator are
approximately at the same temperature. The MTC cannot be directly measured because a change in
moderator temperature will result in a change in fuel temperature so instead the MTC is inferred by the
plant operator based upon the DTC calculation by the nuclear designer. The most limiting case of the
MTC, and thus the ITC, occurs at BOC HZP when the CBC is at its highest, thus making the MTC more
positive. A negative MTC is desired at power since it provides better control of the reactor by removing
reactivity with increases in power as opposed to adding reactivity which may cause an undesirable and
uncontrollable surge in power.
BOC HZP ITC Calculation

The ITC is calculated in 3D ANC at BOC HZP where the conditions will be identical to the actual
ITC measurement at the plant. Agreement between calculated and measured values confirms the
accurate prediction of the MTC. In order to calculate this ITC, the zero burnup step file is read from the
databank and the “THZP” input card is varied by five degrees in either direction from the nominal hot
zero power temperature and the reactivity change is calculated from the corresponding eigenvalues in
the usual manner. The ANC input for this calculation is shown in Figure 39.
Figure 39: ANC input for BOC HZP ITC

Using the ANC input in Figure 17 produces the “E‐SUM” output edit in the itc.0997.out output
file shown in Figure 40.

Figure 40: ANC output for BOC HZP ITC
Using this output data, the ITC is calculated as shown in Figure 19.
ln 10 0.999881
ln 10
1.000194 3.130
∆ 10
Figure 41: Determination of BOC HZP ITC
Critical Boron Concentration
The final procedure for design confirmation is the measurement of the CBC at BOC under HZP
ARO conditions. This measurement is taken at HZP for several reasons but most importantly it is
because this confirmation must be made before the reactor is brought to power and provides a
confirmation to a wide variety of design parameters since the CBC has a heavy effect on important
aspects such as the MTC and Xenon worth. The review criterion for HZP CBC was set at 50 ppm. The
NRC requires that the difference between predicted and measured values be no greater than 1%.
According to our differential Boron worth calculations of ‐7.8 pcm/ppm at BOC HZP , this 50 ppm
constraint translates to a reactivity worth of 390 pcm. Making the constraint significantly lower than the
NRC regulation provides added conservatism and further ensures that the regulatory criteria will be met.
BOC HZP CBC Calculation

The BOC HZP ARO CBC is easily determined in 3D ANC by reading the nominal BOC databank file
at zero burnup, setting the “RELPOW” input card to zero, and allowing ANC to find the CBC using the
automated eigenvalue search card “KSURCH” which is set to one. The input for this calculation is shown
in Figure 42.


Figure 42: ANC input for BOC HZP ARO CBC
This input produces the “E‐SUM” output edit in the hzp_cbc.1000.out output file shown in
Figure 43. Here the critical Boron concentration is enclosed in a red box, where the value is determined
to be 1872 ppm.
Figure 43: ANC output for BOC HZP ARO CBC
T h e r m a l ‐ H y d r a u l i c C o n s i d e r a t i o n s | 48

THERMAL-HYDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
Aside from the neutronic considerations for the core loading of Budvar Bow Unit 1 Cycle Four,
there are many thermal‐hydraulic considerations which must be taken into account. In order to
determine the core’s thermal‐hydraulic stability under normal operating conditions, the core is given a
subchannel analysis using the COBRA‐IV thermal‐hydraulic analysis. In order to preserve conservatism,
the point in cycle length with the most constraining power distribution is chosen for the nominal
conditions analysis. For this project, this point is the depletion step with the most limiting enthalpy rise
peaking factor (FΔH). In order to couple the ANC results with the COBRA thermal‐hydraulic analysis, both
the axial and radial core power distributions were transferred to the COBRA input. Also, using the pin
power reconstruction abilities of ANC, a detailed model of the hottest fuel assembly was able to be
transferred to the COBRA analysis as well. In order to ease the computational load on COBRA, identical
and symmetrical core and assembly regions were homogenized to the specific nodalization described in
Appendix B of this report.
Once core thermal‐hydraulic stability was verified for the normal operating conditions, several
cases in COBRA were run to push the core outside of its calculated operating realm and beyond the
brink of boiling crisis. These cases included the consideration of several uncertainties which may be
encountered during plant operation. Specifically, these included uncertainties and variations in the core
power profile and variations in the core geometry due to material strains and failures.
Code Description
The specific code used for the thermal‐hydraulic analysis is the personal computer version of
COBRA‐IV. COBRA‐IV applies numerical solutions to determine the thermal‐hydraulic parameters within
rod bundles via the subchannel analysis method. Once a channel geometry is prescribed through user
input, the code is able to determine the flow and enthalpy distribution at various axial and radial
locations throughout the computer model. From this information, COBRA is able to produce important
information such as fuel, clad, and coolant temperature distributions, flow quality and void fraction
distributions, pressure drop, and inter‐channel crossflow. COBRA‐IV is capable of producing these
outputs under both steady‐state and transient conditions.
COBRA‐IV uses the Homogeneous Equilibrium Model (HEM) for its calculations. For the HEM
model, the continuity, energy, and momentum equations are tailored to describe a homogeneous
mixture of liquid and vapor phases. This approach results in a perfect mass balance between inlet and
outlet under all circumstances and also treatment of two‐phase flow regions as a single homogeneous
mixture. The solution methodology used to solve these equations involves the use of computational
cells. Computational cells are divisions of the core for which the continuity, energy, and momentum
equations are written. By applying the effects of materials in each cell to these equations individual cell
information may be obtained, as well as a macroscopic picture of the thermal‐hydraulics of the core
being modeled.

An area of important concern in PWR thermal‐hydraulic design, is the critical heat flux (CHF), the
point of maximum heat transfer between fuel and cladding prior to bulk fluid boiling. COBRA‐IV offers
several correlations to determine the CHF, including the Babcock and Wilcox correlation, the
Westinghouse W‐3 correlation, and the General Electric CHF limit lines. COBRA uses these models to
determine what is known as the departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR), which compares the
actual heat flux to the calculated value of the CHF. The applicable ranges for each of these correlations
varies widely and thus careful consideration must be made when deciding upon one. For this project,
the W‐3 correlation was chosen, since its range of applicability matches most closely with the
characteristics of the VVER‐1000.
Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis
The objective of core thermal hydraulic calculations is to perform realistic and conservative
calculations to determine the DNBR at full power and at what power level will a boiling crisis occur. A
DNBR of 1.17 is the safety limit for the onset of departure from nucleate boiling.
The given COBRA input deck was modified according to the parameters of this group’s loading
pattern. A reference calculation was performed at nominal conditions at full power. The loading pattern
was modified in accordance with COBRA’s nodding.
Using the nominal input, the hot rod and channel were identified. Reactor power was increased
until the MDNBR reached 1.17. This identified a hot rod and hot channel that will reach DNB during an
overpower.
Table 10: CHF analysis results summary
Power MDNBR Rod Channel Elevation (in.) Type

100% 3.37 2 2 107.2 Thimble
153% 1.174 11 31 135.8 Typical

The second part of the thermal hydraulic analysis is to perform calculations under overpower
conditions. In addition, the calculation will be penalized according to uncertainties in plant operating
characteristics and machining of components. For this case, pressure is reduced by 50 psia and
temperature is increased by 4 °F. Also, the peak pin power is increased to 1.550. The assemblies
surrounding the hot assembly are increased to match the power output of the hot assembly. The rest of
the core’s power output is reduced by a factor until the sixth‐core power output is returned to unity.
Due to uncertainties in machining components, this calculation will reduce the fuel rod pitch of the hot
channel by 0.006 inches. This will reduce flow area as well as tighten the gaps between the hot channel
and adjacent channels. The spacer grid loss coefficients are also increased by 10%. Input cards
incorporating these changes were made for the hot typical and hot thimble cells separately.
Figure 43 shows the mass flux for the hot typical channel as a function of axial location under
both nominal and overpower conditions. Figure 44 shows this same information for the hot thimble
channel.

3.05
3
2.95
Mass Flux (Mlb/hr/ft^2)
2.9
2.85
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
Nominal Case
2.6
Overpower Case
2.55
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Axial Location (in)
Figure 43: Hot Typical Channel Mass Flux
2.5
Mass Flux (Mlb/hr/ft^2)
1.5
0.5
Nominal Case
Overpower Case
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Axial Location (in)

Figure 44: Hot Thimble Channel Mass Flux

Plotting the coolant and cladding temperatures will illustrate the different regions of the core
that may undergo forced convection, nucleate boiling, or saturated boiling. The reactor is cooled by
forced convection, a condition where heat flux is proportional to the temperature difference. In regions
of strong heat flux, subcooled nucleate boiling may occur, greatly enhancing heat transfer. In nucleate
boiling, the rate of change of heat transfer per unit temperature difference is much greater. Thus, the
difference in temperature between the coolant and cladding will remain close to constant in this region
even if the heat flux rises. When the coolant reaches saturation temperature, bulk boiling will occur.
During bulk boiling, coolant temperature will remain constant as the liquid is converted to vapor.
Figure 45 shows the coolant and cladding temperatures of the typical cell under nominal
conditions. From zero to approximately 15 inches, cladding temperature rises faster than coolant
temperature. This rising temperature difference is caused by the heat flux increasing according to the
sinusoidal axial power distribution of the core. Above about 15 inches, the difference in temperature is
roughly constant. This corresponds to subcooled nucleate boiling. The creation and convection of vapor
bubbles allows a much larger heat transfer without a great increase in temperature. Near the top of the
fuel rod, coolant temperature seems to approach a constant value. This corresponds to saturated bulk
boiling, where the temperature is thermodynamically capped and increased heat transfer will only
convert water to steam faster.
750
700
Temperature (F)
650
600
Coolant Temperature
Cladding Temperature
550
0 50 100 150
Axial Location (in)

Figure 45: Hot Typical Cell Nominal Temperatures
Figure 46 shows the coolant and cladding temperatures of the hot typical cell during a 46%
overpower. Nucleate boiling occurs above 15 inches. Saturated boiling occurs above 100 inches,
indicated by the constant fluid temperature.

750
700
Temperature (F)
650
600
Coolant Temperature
550
0 50 100 150
Axial Location (in)

Figure 46: Hot Typical Cell Overpower Temperatures
This same information was plotted for the hot thimble cell. Figure 47 shows the coolant and
cladding temperatures of the hot thimble cell as a function of axial location during normal full power
operations. Again, nucleate boiling occurs above 15 inches and there may be some saturated boiling at
the top end of the rod.
750
700
Temperature (F)
650
600
Coolant Temperature
550
0 50 100 150
Axial Location (in)

Figure 47: Hot Thimble Cell Nominal Temperatures
Figure 48 shows the coolant and cladding temperatures of the hot thimble cell during a 48%
overpower. Note that the thimble cell reaches saturated bulk boiling sooner than the typical cell.

750
700
Temperature (F)
650
600
Coolant Temperature
550
0 50 100 150
Axial Location (in)

Figure 48: Hot Thimble Cell Overpower Temperatures
The onset of nucleate boiling can be problematic for reactor kinetics due to the chaotic
production of small vapor bubbles, which act as voids in the moderator. There are two values that can
be used to evaluate the fraction of coolant that is in vapor form. Quality is the thermodynamic property
stating the percentage of a fluid that is in gas phase as a function of the enthalpy of the fluid. As heat is
added to a boiling fluid, the enthalpy rises as liquid is converted into gas. In reactor kinetics, the average
enthalpy of the coolant is not as important as the aggregate of voids created during boiling. Void
fraction is the percentage of volume in a channel occupied by vapor. Void fraction is a major concern in
neutronics, as fluid volume occupied by vapor reduces the moderating capability of the fluid.
As a fuel rod encounters saturated boiling, quality will begin to rise as liquid is boiled away. The
quality of the hot typical channel as a function of axial location is shown in Figure 49. During nominal,
full‐power operations, quality remains zero; bulk boiling is avoided. During the overpower case, quality
begins to rise at 100 inches, which corresponds to Figure 48 shown above.

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
Quality
0.08
0.06
0.04
Nominal Quality
0.02
Overpower Quality
0
0 50 100 150
Axial Location (in)

Figure 49: Hot Typical Cell Quality
As a fuel rod undergoes nucleate boiling, the voids created are shown by the void fraction of the
channel. Figure 50 shows the void fraction of the hot typical cell under both nominal and overpower
conditions. For the nominal case there is no void fraction; any voids created are small and short‐lived
enough to have no effect on the apparent volume of the coolant. For the overpower case, void fraction
is significant.
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Void Fraction
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Nominal Void Fraction
0.05
Overpower Void Fraction
0
0 50 100 150
Axial Location (in)

Figure 50: Hot Typical Cell Void Fraction
Figures 51 and 52 show the quality and void fraction for the hot thimble cell. Note that the
onset of quality increase corresponds to the onset of saturation boiling in the thimble cell, as shown by
Figure _ above.

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
Quality
0.08
0.06
0.04
Nominal Quality
0.02
Overpower Quality
0
0 50 100 150
Axial Location (in)

Figure 51: Hot Thimble Cell Quality
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
Void Fraction
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
Nominal Void Fraction
0.05
Overpower Void Fraction
0
0 50 100 150
Axial Location (in)

Figure 52: Hot Thimble Cell Void Fraction
Nucleate boiling greatly enhances heat transfer. However, with a great enough heat flux, water
is boiled away faster than it can be replaced. A blanket of steam forms around the fuel rod, insulating it
from the water and preventing heat transfer. Without coolant in physical contact, the fuel rod begins to
rely on blackbody radiation to transfer heat. Heat transfer is greatly reduced and temperature rises
greatly, which can lead to fuel melt or cladding burst. This situation is known as departure from nucleate
boiling (DNB) or boiling crisis. The ratio of the critical heat flux required to depart from nucleate boiling
and the heat flux of a given rod is defined as the departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR). A DNBR
of 1 corresponds to departure from nucleate boiling. However, for safety calculations a DNBR of 1.17 is
used as a safety limit. This bounds the calculations and protects against uncertainties.

Figure 53 shows the DNBR of the hot typical cell. Under nominal conditions, the minimum DNBR
is 3.79; the heat flux is under a third of the safety limit. For the overpower case, reactor power was
iterated until the limiting channel reached a DNBR of 1.17. Under the prescribed unfavorable conditions,
DNB will occur in the limiting typical cell at 146% of full power.
25
20
15
DNBR
10
0
0 50 100 150
Nominal Case
Axial Location (in)
Overpower Case
Boiling Crisis

Figure 53: Typical Cell DNBR
Figure 54 shows the DNBR of the hot thimble cell under both nominal and overpower
conditions. Under nominal conditions, the DNBR reaches a minimum of 3.37; the heat flux is little under
a third of the critical heat flux. Under the prescribed overpower conditions, the thimble cell will reach
DNB at 148% of full power.
25
20
15
DNBR
10
0
0 50 100 150
Nominal Case
Axial Location (in)
Overpower Case
Boiling Crisis

Figure 54: Thimble Cell DNBR

A thermal hydraulic analysis ensures that the reactor will avoid a boiling crisis under normal
conditions and predicts when the onset of departure from nucleate boiling may occur under extreme
circumstances. Even with increased power peaking, reduced flow area, increased temperature,
decreased pressure, and increased pressure loss, a boiling crisis will not occur until 146% of full power.
These calculations should bound any uncertainties in core loading, power peaking, machining of
components, rod spacing, and plant operating characteristics.
C o n c l u s i o n s | 58

CONCLUSIONS
Terminal Objective
The primary objective of this design project was to familiarize students with the codes and
methods used in nuclear core development. With the design of Budvar Bow Unit 1 Cycle 4, this
objective has been met through the successful completion of a new core which meets and exceeds all of
the expectations put before it. The satisfaction of all core requirements itself exemplifies the
achievement of this terminal goal, as does this technical report and its associated presentation.
Enabling Objectives
As the project completion signifies the satisfaction of the terminal objective, the project’s
individual components signify the completion of the enabling objectives. The quantitative analysis of
cycle four gives some specific merit to this presumption. First, the requirement of a maximum of 42
fresh feed assemblies was met and its primary associate the cycle length requirement of 308 EFPD was
exceeded by 0.8 additional EFPD. Next, the enthalpy rise peaking factor limit of 1.532 was met with a
most limiting FΔH of 1.514, a total of 0.018 below the allowable limit. Finally, the MTC requirement of
0.0 pcm/°F was met for the duration of the cycle, with a most limiting MTC of ‐1.056 pcm/°F.
Beyond the core aspects of grading interest, additional safety requirements were made for cycle
four. The core either met or exceeded all of these requirements as well, a feat of utmost importance for
any reactor core. The rodded FDH scenario required that the peaking factor also meet the 1.532 upper
limit, with the lead bank at RIL and under HFP conditions, the cycle four core had a most limiting peaking
factor of 1.518. Although not required, this check was made over the duration of the cycle as an
additional safety precaution. Control rod ejection is a possible scenario for pressurized water reactors
and was taken into consideration during the safety calculation phase of the project during a variety of
operating conditions. The limits of interest for this check were the ejected rod worth and the total
peaking factor, each with specific limits for each operating condition. This important safety verification
was also successful for the cycle four core. Finally, the available shutdown margin requirement was also
met, with additional reactivity available for shutdown at all points in the cycle.
Along with successful design, the nuclear engineer is also required to provide pertinent
operational data to a reactor operator. This is done to enable safe and desirable operation of the core
throughout its lifespan. The data generated during these calculations was neatly and properly compiled
so as to provide an appropriate segue for engineer‐operator communication of this important
information.
According to calculations using COBRA‐IV, under nominal conditions the reactor’s MDNBR will
be 3.37. In an overpower condition, a boiling crisis would not occur until the reactor reaches a power
level of 153% of full power. Additional bounding calculations were done assuming unfavorable
C o n c l u s i o n s | 59

conditions that would account for uncertainties in fabrication and operational characteristics. Even in
the extreme case, a boiling crisis will not occur until 146% of full power. Conservative thermal‐hydraulic
calculations show the core to be safe under any normal conditions that would be experienced during
reactor operation.

R e f e r e n c e s | 60

REFERENCES

1.) B. Webb. COBRA‐IV PC: A Personal Computer Version of COBRA‐IV‐I for Thermal‐Hydraulic
Analysis of Rod Bundle Nuclear Fuel Elements and Cores. US Department of Energy: January
1988.

2.) Core Design Training Course. Westinghouse Electric Company, presented to Penn State
University: Spring 2010.

3.) L.E. Hochreiter, S. Ergun, and G. E. Robinson. Nuclear Engineering 430: Elements of Nuclear
Reactor Design. Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, The Pennsylvania State
University: Fall 2008.

A p p e n d i x A : L i s t o f C o m p u t e r F i l e s | 61

Filename Filetype Description
03_anch_B1C4_depl.0949.out Output Depletion results and MTC calculations
03_anch_B1C4_depl.job Input Depletion step and MTC file specifications, writes to reference databank
anch_B1C4_depl.db Databank Reference databank for cycle 4
B1C4_anch.depl1 Input Initial set of depletion step specifications
B1C4_anch.depl2 Input Secondary set of depletion steps and MTC calculation parameters
B1C4_anch.lp Input Loading pattern specification
data/B1C4_anch.map Pin map ANC pinmap file for cycle 4
data/B1C4_anch.pin Pin ANC pin factor file for cycle 4
DB/anch_B1C2_eoc.db Databank Reference databank from cycle 2
DB/anch_B1C3_eoc.db Databank Reference databank from cycle 3
dbw_HFP.0998.out Output Results for differential boron worth at HFP
dbw_HFP.job Input HFP differential boron worth calculation parameters
dbw_HZP.0999.out Output Results for differential boron worth at HZP
dbw_HZP.job Input HZP differential boron worth calculation parameters
hzp_cbc.1000.out Output Results for critical boron concentration at HZP BOC
hzp_cbc.job Input Calculational parameters for critical boron at HZP BOC
itc.0997.out Output Results for isothermal temperature coefficient
itc.job Input Calculation parameters for isothermal temperature coefficient
roddedFDH.1001.out Output Results for rodded FDH case
roddedFDH.job Input Rodded FDH check parameters
rodejectHFP.0963.out Output Results for rod ejection simulation at HFP
rodejectHFP.job Input Parameters for rod ejection simulation at HFP
rodejectHZP.0964.out Output Results for rod ejection simulation at HZP
rodejectHZP.job Input Parameters for rod ejection simulation at HzP
rodworth.0981.out Output Results for rodworth measurement
rodworth.job Input Input parameters for rodworth measurement
sdownemBOC.0978.out Output BOC shutdown margin output
sdownemBOC.job Input BOC shutdown margin input
sdownemEOC.1004.out Output EOC shutdown margin output
sdownemEOC.job Input EOC shutdown margin input
su_boc_fp.0983.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 100% power at BOC after startup
su_boc_fp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 100% at BOC power after startup
su_boc_hp.0984.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 50% power at BOC after startup
su_boc_hp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 50%power at BOC after startup
su_eoc_fp.0987 Output Results for Xenon worth at 100% power at EOC after startup
su_eoc_fp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 100% at EOC power after startup
su_eoc_hp.0988.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 50% power at EOC after startup
su_eoc_hp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 50%power at EOC after startup
su_moc_fp.0985.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 100% power at MOC after startup
Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 100% at MOC power after
su_moc_fp.job Input startup
A p p e n d i x A : L i s t o f C o m p u t e r F i l e s | 62

su_moc_hp.0986.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 50% power at MOC after startup

su_moc_hp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 50%power at MOC after startup
trip_boc_fp.0989.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 100% power at BOC after trip
trip_boc_fp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 100% power at BOC after trip
trip_boc_hp.0990.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 50% power at BOC after trip
trip_boc_hp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 50% power at BOC after trip
trip_eoc_fp.0993.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 100% power at EOC after trip
trip_eoc_fp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 100% power at EOC after trip
trip_eoc_hp.0994.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 50% power at EOC after trip
trip_eoc_hp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 50% power at EOC after trip
trip_moc_fp.0991.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 100% power at EOC after trip
trip_moc_fp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 100% power at EOC after trip
trip_moc_hp.0992.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 50% power at MOC after trip
trip_moc_hp.job Input Calculation parameters for Xenon worth at 50% power at MOC after trip
A p p e n d i x B : T h e r m a l ‐ H y d r a u l i c S c h e m a t i c | 63

Schematic of core nodes for Budvar Bow thermal‐hydraulic Analysis
A p p e n d i x B : T h e r m a l ‐ H y d r a u l i c S c h e m a t i c | 64

Schematic of hot assembly nodes for Budvar Bow thermal‐hydraulic analysis

Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NucE 431 W:

The Reactor Core Design Process

REFERENCE CORE MODEL

Fuel and Burnable Absorbers Inventory

Control Rod Information

Cycle Four Requirements

Safety Check Core Conditions Limit

Shutdown Margin EOC HZP Δρ ≥ 1.300%

Loadinng Pattern Definition n

Determination n of this loading pattern included enhan ncement of seeveral generic loading patttern

Cycle Length Requirement

Peaking Factor Limit Confirmation

MTC Limit Confirmation

Enthalpy Rise Peaking Factor Limit Confirmation

Limit Confirmation Under ARO Conditions

Limit Confirmation with Lead Bank at RIL

Burnup Δ Axial Rodded

Rod Ejection Accident

Rod Ejection at Hot Full Power

Rod Ejection at HZP

BOC and EOC Shutdown Margin Calculation

2 1 6180.3 1993.7 4186.8

Requirement BOC Worth (pcm) EOC Worth (pcm)

BOC HZP Rodworths

Rodworth Measurement Using Boron Dilution Method

Control Banks Inserted CBC [ppm] Bank No. Bank Worth [ppm]

Xenon Reactivity After Startup and Trip

Xenon Worth Calculation After Startup

Xenon Worth Calculation After Trip

Differential Boron Worth

HFP and HZP Differential Boron Worth

Isothermal Temperature Coefficient

BOC HZP ITC Calculation

Critical Boron Concentration

BOC HZP CBC Calculation

Power MDNBR Rod Channel Elevation (in.) Type

su_moc_hp.0986.out Output Results for Xenon worth at 50% power at MOC after startup

You might also like