Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting
Taebaek, Korea, May 26-27, 2011
Core Thermal-Hydraulic Design of a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor for the U/TRU Fuel
Modification
Sun Rock Choi , Chungho Cho, Young-Gyun Kim, Hoon Song, Wonseok Park, Sang-Ji Kim
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 1045 Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-503, Republic of Korea
*
Corresponding author: choisr@kaeri.re.kr
1. Introduction
The Korea Atomic energy Research Institute
(KAERI) has been developing an advanced SFR design
technology with the final goal of constructing a
demonstration plant by 2028. The main objective of the
SFR demonstration plant is to verify TRU metal fuel
performance, large-scale reactor operation, and
transmutation ability of high-level wastes. However, in
the early stage, the SFR will run on low enriched
uranium fuel due to a lack of TRU fuel qualification.
After sequential evaluations of the fuel performance,
the fissile fuel material will transform from uranium to
LTRU (LWR-TRU), and then finally to MTRU (Mixed
TRU of LTRU and recycled TRU) [1]. At the same
time, the core configurations will be modified to meet
the nuclear design requirements. Therefore, there is also
a strong need to ensure a proper cooling capability
during modifications of the entire core.
In this work, the core thermal-hydraulic design for
U/TRU fuel modification is performed using the
SLTHEN (Steady-State LMR Thermal-Hydraulic
Analysis Code Based on ENERGY Model) code [2]. As
the power distribution in a reactor core is not uniform,
it requires a suitable flow allocation to each assembly.
There are two ways of allocating the flow rates
depending on the orifice positions. The inner orificing
scheme locates orifice plates in the lower part of the
fuel assembly. Therefore, it is possible that the flow
distribution is redesigned according to the core
configurations. On the other hand, the outer orificing
scheme fixes orifice plates within the receptacle body
throughout the entire plant lifetime. This has the
advantage lower of fabrication costs and operating
errors but included insufficient design flexibility. This
paper provides comparative studies of orifice position
for the core thermal-hydraulic design.
2. Core Configurations
Figure 1 shows the operating strategy of the SFR
demonstration plant. As the reactor undergoes fuel type
changes, core layouts are also required to be modified
to ensure several design criteria. However, it is difficult
to deal with changes in hardware specifications and
BOP (balance-of-plant) conditions during its operation.
Therefore, the core layout modifications such as
geometric dimension need to be minimized in order to
satisfy the nuclear design guidelines.
-5-
The representative core layouts are displayed in Fig.
2. It completely eliminates the blanket assemblies to
enhance the proliferation resistance. The fuel region
reveals identical structure specifications, but consists of
two different enrichment zones to create a more flatted
power distribution over the core. The MTRU core
contains reflector assemblies in the central part to
decrease the sodium void reactivity.
Reactor operation during 40 years
U core LTRU core L+MTRU MTRU core
(10 years) (10 years) (5 years) (15 years)
Core modification
Fig. 1. Operating strategy for the SFR demonstration plant
Inner Core Primary CR B4 C Shield
Middle Core Secondary CR IVS
Reflector Radial Shield
(a) U/LTRU core configuration (b) MTRU core configuration
Fig. 2. SFR demonstration plant core layouts
3. Thermal-Hydraulic Design
In carrying out the core thermal-hydraulic design,
several design criteria need to to be met to assure
proper performance and safety for the core and upper
structure where design limits are highly related to
temperature distribution in fuel, cladding, and sodium
under various operating conditions. The present
analysis is conducted based on the following design
criteria [3].
1. The maximum power during the equilibrium cycle
must be utilized to calculate the temperature
distribution of each assembly.
2. For the uranium fuel type, the maximum cladding
mid-wall temperature must be lower than the creep limit
temperature (620 oC) including uncertainties.
3. For the TRU fuel type, the maximum inner wall
temperature must be lower than the eutectic limit
temperature (650 oC) including uncertainties.
 Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting
Taebaek, Korea, May 26-27, 2011

required to endure simultaneously the creep failure and

eutectic melting. Considering the two thermal criteria,
the resulting flow allocation using the outer orificing
scheme was conducted as shown in Fig. 3. For the core
interior, since the U core revealed more thermal power,
the limiting design factor was the cladding mid-wall
creep. In the outer region, the eutectic melting in the
cladding inner wall was the dominant failure criteria.
The remaining flow rates for the non-fuel assemblies
were about 11.06-16.29 % and 5.6 % for the inner and
outer orificing schemes, respectively. This means that
the inner orifice offers a greater thermal margin
compared to the outer scheme. The maximum
Fig. 3. Core configuration of flow allocation and limiting temperature variation within each assembly considering
factor for the outer orificing scheme 2 uncertainty was estimated as shown in Fig. 4. The
entire core region was kept below the limiting
670 temperatures. The maximum temperature differences
660 Eutectic limit
exiting in adjacent assemblies for the inner and outer
schemes were 17.1 oC and 24.6 oC, respectively, which
650
640
630 Creep limit demonstrate the superior structural integrity of the inner
Temperature [ C]

orificing scheme. This is highly related to the thermal

o

620
610
600
striping failure of the upper internal structure. The
590 outlet temperature distribution of the MTRU core is
Uranium
580
LTRU displayed in Fig. 5, and indicates the neighboring
570
560
MTRU
assemblies having the most temperature difference.
550 It is obvious that the inner orificing scheme is
5 10 15 20 25 30
Assembly number
35 40 45 50
superior in performance efficiency and safety margin
compared to the outer orificing scheme. However, the
Fig. 4. Maximum temperature variation with 2 uncertainty as inner orifice should be fabricated for every assembly
a function of each assembly number during the entire plant operation. Moreover, a single
mismatch of fuel assemblies on the inlet plenum may
5 60.90 lead to severe accidents over the entire core.
555.50 558.50
4. Conclusions
54 0.4 0 5 43.30 556.80 555.0 0

24.6 549 .0 0 547.70 552.00 548 .40 56 0.2 0 This paper focuses on an SFR core thermal-hydraulic
design for U/TRU fuel modification by comparing the
537.10 55 1.5 0 5 51.20 553.10 560.20
inner and outer orificing schemes. The results
528.90 536 .6 0 540.40 551.20 553 .00 54 8.4 0 5 54.90 demonstrate that the inner orifice provides superior
504.30 515.70 5 40.40 551.20 552.0 0 556.80
performance over the outer orifice. However,
considering the orifice fabrication cost for each
assembly and the operating errors arisen for the
4 90.90 501.00 515 .7 0 536.60 551.50 547 .70 54 3.3 0 5 58.60

490.80 504.30 52 8.7 0 5 37.20 549.10 540.5 0 555.20 560.50 refueling process, a profound investigation should be
510 .3 0 533.20 549.50 54 6.7 0 5 47.90
preceded before determining the orifice scheme.

Fig. 5. Outlet temperature distribution for the MTRU core REFERENCES

4. The maximum difference of outlet temperatures [1] Wonseok Park et al., SFR-CD110-DG-01-2010Rev.00,
between neighboring assemblies within the same flow KAERI, 2010.
group must be minimized (generally 7-8%). [2] W. S. Yang, An LMR Core Thermal-Hydraulics Code
Based on the ENERGY Model, Journal of the Korean Nuclear
5. The number of flow zones must be minimized for
Society, Vol. 29, pp. 406-416, 1997.
practical reasons. [3] D. H. Hahn et al., KALIMER-600 Conceptual Design
Report, KAERI/TR-3391/2007.
Based on the above design criteria, the coolant flow
allocation to the assemblies and temperature
distributions were calculated using the orificing and
heat transfer codes, respectively. In particular, as the
outer orificing scheme should operate with both
uranium and TRU fuel, the detailed flow grouping is

-6-