Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Criticality Analysis of the GBC-32 Dry Storage Cask with Hanbit Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Fuel Assemblies from the Viewpoint of Burnup Credit

  • Yun, Hyungju (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kim, Do-Yeon (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Park, Kwangheon (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Hong, Ser Gi (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2015.10.02
  • Accepted : 2016.01.15
  • Published : 2016.06.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Nuclear criticality safety analyses (NCSAs) considering burnup credit were performed for the GBC-32 cask. The used nuclear fuel assemblies (UNFAs) discharged from Hanbit Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3 Cycle 6 were loaded into the cask. Their axial burnup distributions and average discharge burnups were evaluated using the DeCART and Multi-purpose Analyzer for Static and Transient Effects of Reactors (MASTER) codes, and NCSAs were performed using SCALE 6.1/STandardized Analysis of Reactivity for Burnup Credit using SCALE (STARBUCS) and Monte Carlo N-Particle transport code, version 6 (MCNP 6). The axial burnup distributions were determined for 20 UNFAs with various initial enrichments and burnups, which were applied to the criticality analysis for the cask system. The UNFAs for 20- and 30-year cooling times were assumed to be stored in the cask. The criticality analyses indicated that $k_{eff}$ values for UNFAs with nonuniform axial burnup distributions were larger than those with a uniform distribution, that is, the end effects were positive but much smaller than those with the reference distribution. The axial burnup distributions for 20 UNFAs had shapes that were more symmetrical with a less steep gradient in the upper region than the reference ones of the United States Department of Energy. These differences in the axial burnup distributions resulted in a significant reduction in end effects compared with the reference.

Keywords

References

  1. J.C. Wagner, M.D. DeHart, C.V. Parks, Recommendations for Addressing Axial Burnup in PWR Burnup Credit Analyses, NUREG/CR-6801, ORNL/TM-2001/273, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge (TN), 2003.
  2. J.M. Scaglione, D.E. Mueller, J.C. Wagner, W.J. Marchall, An Approach for Validating Actinide and Fission Product Burnup Credit Criticality Safety AnalysesdCriticality (keff) Predictions, NUREG/CR-7109, ORNL/TM-2011/514, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge (TN), 2012.
  3. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, DeCART 2D v1.0 User's Manual, KAERI/TR-5116/2013, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon (Korea), 2013.
  4. Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, MASTER 3.0 User's Manual, KAERI/UM-8/2004, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon (Korea), 2004.
  5. G. Radulescu, I.C. Gauld, STARBUCS: a Scale Control Module for Automated Criticality Safety Analyses Using Burnup Credit, ORNL/TM-2005/39 Version 6.1, Section C10, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge (TN), 2011.
  6. J.C. Wagner, M.D. DeHart, Review of Axial Burnup Distribution Considerations for Burnup Credit Calculations, ORNL/TM-1999/246, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge (TN), 2000.
  7. J.C. Wagner, Computational Benchmark for Estimation of Reactivity Margin from Fission Products and Minor Actinides in PWR Burnup Credit, NUREG/CR-6747, ORNL/TM-2000/306, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge (TN), 2001.
  8. Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Burnup Credit in the Criticality Safety Analyses of PWR Spent Fuel in Transportation and Storage Casks, Interim Staff Guidance (ISG)-8 Revision 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. (WA), 2012.

Cited by

  1. Validation of UNIST Monte Carlo code MCS for criticality safety calculations with burnup credit through MOX criticality benchmark problems vol.53, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2020.06.016
  2. Thermal analyses of TN-24P dry storage cask with heterogeneous fuel assembly modeling vol.137, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.103771