22-Mec-B3 Energy Conversion and Power Generation · May 2013
Question 4 of 6: PWR Heat Generation — fuel inventory, fission heat release and core power densities
Nivaar worked solution (AI-drafted; not reviewed by a licensed engineer)
Notes on this paper
Paper format. National Examinations, May 2013 — 07-Mec-B3 Energy Conversion and Power Generation. Three hours, closed book. Section A (calculative) carries Questions 1 to 4 and Section B (descriptive) carries Questions 5 and 6; a candidate answers three from Section A and one from Section B, so four questions constitute a complete paper of 60 marks and every question is worth 15 marks. Reference data for particular questions are supplied on pages 9 to 12 of the paper (Matla Power Station data sheet, the natural-draught cooling-tower evaporative-loss chart, the combined-cycle system diagram and the Belledune heat balance diagram), reference formulae and constants on pages 13 to 16, and steam tables from Granet and Bluestein are provided. All six questions are solved here.
Reference texts.
I. Granet and M. Bluestein, Thermodynamics and Heat Power, 6th ed. — the steam tables supplied with this paper; Tables A.1 and A.2 (saturation) and A.3 (superheat).
Y. A. Çengel and M. A. Boles, Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach, 9th ed. — Chapter 9 (gas power cycles, Brayton), Chapter 10 (vapour power cycles, reheat and regeneration) and §10-9 (combined gas-vapour cycles).
M. M. El-Wakil, Powerplant Technology — Chapters 2 to 4 (steam cycles and feedwater heating), Chapter 6 (cooling towers and circulating water) and Chapters 9 to 11 (nuclear steam supply systems).
J. R. Lamarsh and A. J. Baratta, Introduction to Nuclear Engineering, 4th ed. — Chapter 3 (fission and the energy released), Chapter 4 (nuclear reactors and reactor physics) and Chapter 8 (heat removal from nuclear reactors).
V. Ganapathy, Steam Generators and Waste Heat Boilers, and A. K. Rayaprolu, Boilers for Power and Process — pulverised-fuel preparation, mill and burner air balances, heat-recovery steam generators.
Canadian context for Question 6: Natural Resources Canada and the Canada Energy Regulator generation statistics, the federal Impact Assessment Act (2019), the coal-fired generation CO2 regulations SOR/2018-263, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (CNSC) and the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NWMO adaptive phased management).
Question 4: PWR Heat Generation — fuel inventory, fission heat release and core power densities (15 marks)
Given. A 157-assembly pressurised water reactor core with 264 rods per 17 × 17 assembly and the geometry, material and neutronic data below; Avogadro’s number is taken from page 16 of the paper as $N_{A}=0.602\times10^{24}$ atoms per mole.
$286\,{}^{\circ}\text{C}$ / $325\,{}^{\circ}\text{C}$ at 15.5 MPa
Coolant flow
$\dot{m}_{c}$
$12\,600\ \text{kg}\cdot\text{s}^{-1}$
Find. The uranium dioxide inventory, the fission heat release rate, the fuel and core power densities, the average rod surface heat flux, and the thermal power obtained independently from the coolant enthalpy rise.
Fuel geometry. Panel (a) is the unit cell of the square lattice: the pellet sits inside the clad bore with a small diametral gap, and the coolant occupies the remainder of the cell. Panel (b) is the core envelope on which the average core power density is defined.
Approach. The fuel inventory is pure geometry, the pellet volume times the rod count times the density. The heat release follows the three reference equations on page 16 of the paper: nuclei per unit volume from the density and molecular mass, fissile nuclei from the enrichment, and volumetric heat release from the fission rate times the energy per fission. The power densities and heat flux are then that power divided by the appropriate mass, volume or area, and the coolant enthalpy rise gives a wholly independent check on the answer.
Part (a) — mass of uranium dioxide. Each rod holds a stack of pellets of diameter $D_{p}$ over the effective length $L$: $$V_{rod}=\frac{\pi}{4}D_{p}^{2}L=\frac{\pi}{4}(8.19\times10^{-3})^{2}\times3.658=1.9271\times10^{-4}\ \text{m}^{3}$$ Over $n=41\,448$ rods the fuel volume is $V=41\,448\times1.9271\times10^{-4}=7.987\ \text{m}^{3}$, so $$m_{UO_{2}}=\rho V=10\,400\times7.987=\boxed{83\,069\ \text{kg}}$$ Of this, the uranium fraction $238/270$ accounts for 73 224 kg of uranium metal, of which 2.8 % or about 2050 kg is U-235. As a geometric check, the clad bore is $9.5-2\times0.57=8.36\ \text{mm}$ against a pellet of 8.19 mm, leaving a radial gap of 0.085 mm for fission-gas release and pellet swelling.
Part (b) — nuclei per unit volume. Taking the dominant isotopes as the question directs, the molecular mass of uranium dioxide is $M=238+2\times16=270\ \text{g}\cdot\text{mol}^{-1}$. The reference equation for the number of nuclei per cubic centimetre is $$N=\frac{N_{A}\rho}{M}=\frac{0.602\times10^{24}\times10.400}{270}=2.3188\times10^{22}\ \text{molecules}\cdot\text{cm}^{-3}$$ where the density has been expressed in g/cm3 to match the units of $N_{A}$ and $M$. Each molecule contains one uranium atom.
Part (b) continued — fissile nuclei and heat release. The enrichment gives the fissile fraction, $$N_{f}=\gamma N=0.028\times2.3188\times10^{22}=6.493\times10^{20}\ \text{U-235 nuclei}\cdot\text{cm}^{-3}$$ and the volumetric heat release is the fission rate per unit volume multiplied by the energy released per fission: $$q^{*}=N_{f}\sigma_{f}\phi E_{f}=6.493\times10^{20}\times380\times10^{-24}\times4.5\times10^{13}\times32\times10^{-12}=355.3\ \text{W}\cdot\text{cm}^{-3}$$
Part (b) continued — total power. Multiplying by the fuel volume, and noting that $1\ \text{m}^{3}=10^{6}\ \text{cm}^{3}$, $$\dot{Q}=q^{*}V=355.3\times7.987\times10^{6}=2.838\times10^{9}\ \text{W}=\boxed{2838\ \text{MW}}$$ which is a thoroughly typical thermal rating for a four-loop pressurised water reactor of this size.
Part (c) — average fuel power density. Referred to the mass of uranium dioxide, $$\frac{\dot{Q}}{m_{UO_{2}}}=\frac{2.838\times10^{6}\ \text{kW}}{83\,069\ \text{kg}}=\boxed{34.16\ \text{kW}\cdot\text{kg}^{-1}}$$ This is the figure that governs fuel burnup and, with the thermal conductivity of uranium dioxide, the centreline temperature of the pellet.
Part (d) — average core power density. The core power density is defined on the whole core envelope, not on the fuel alone, so it uses the equivalent core cylinder: $$V_{core}=\frac{\pi}{4}D_{c}^{2}L=\frac{\pi}{4}(3.040)^{2}\times3.658=26.55\ \text{m}^{3}$$ and therefore $$\frac{\dot{Q}}{V_{core}}=\frac{2838}{26.55}=\boxed{106.9\ \text{MW}\cdot\text{m}^{-3}}$$ The fuel occupies only $7.987/26.55=30$ % of the core volume, the balance being clad, coolant, guide tubes and structure, which is why the core figure is so much lower than the volumetric heat release inside the pellets.
Part (e) — average rod heat flux. All of the fission heat must cross the outside surface of the cladding, whose total area is $$A=\pi D_{r}Ln=\pi\times9.5\times10^{-3}\times3.658\times41\,448=4525\ \text{m}^{2}$$ so the average surface heat flux is $$q^{\prime\prime}=\frac{\dot{Q}}{A}=\frac{2.838\times10^{6}}{4525}=\boxed{627\ \text{kW}\cdot\text{m}^{-2}}$$ Equivalently the average linear heat rate is $2.838\times10^{6}/(41\,448\times3.658)=18.7\ \text{kW}\cdot\text{m}^{-1}$. Since the real axial and radial flux distributions peak well above the average, the hot channel sees roughly twice these figures, and it is the peak rather than the average that must be kept clear of the critical heat flux.
Part (f) — thermal power from the coolant flow. The coolant is single-phase liquid throughout, so an energy balance on the primary side gives the core power directly from the enthalpy rise. At 15.5 MPa the steam tables give $h_{in}=h(15.5\ \text{MPa},286\,{}^{\circ}\text{C})=1263.6\ \text{kJ}\cdot\text{kg}^{-1}$ and $h_{out}=h(15.5\ \text{MPa},325\,{}^{\circ}\text{C})=1484.4\ \text{kJ}\cdot\text{kg}^{-1}$, a rise of $220.8\ \text{kJ}\cdot\text{kg}^{-1}$. Hence $$\dot{Q}_{c}=\dot{m}_{c}(h_{out}-h_{in})=12\,600\times220.8=2.782\times10^{6}\ \text{kW}=\boxed{2783\ \text{MW}}$$
Part (f) continued — reconciling the two routes. The neutronic route gave 2838 MW and the coolant route 2783 MW, a difference of 2.0 %. The two need not agree exactly: a few per cent of the fission energy is deposited outside the fuel, in the moderator and structure by gamma and neutron heating, and the coolant figure is also sensitive to the assumed uniform flux. The agreement to 2 % is the real confirmation that the neutronic data are self-consistent. Note also that the saturation temperature at 15.5 MPa is $344.8\,{}^{\circ}\text{C}$, so the core outlet at $325\,{}^{\circ}\text{C}$ retains 19.8 K of subcooling — the whole reason the primary circuit is pressurised to 15.5 MPa in the first place.
Final Results — Question 4
Part
Quantity
Result
(a)
Mass of uranium dioxide in the core
$83\,069\ \text{kg}$ (73 224 kg U, about 2050 kg U-235)
$2783\ \text{MW}$ (2.0 % below the neutronic value)
Check: the enrichment is applied to the uranium dioxide molecule count, which is what the page-16 reference equation $N_{f}=\gamma N$ intends since each molecule carries one uranium atom; the effective cross section of 380 barns is given as already averaged over the flux spectrum, so no separate spectrum correction is applied. The 2.0 % gap between the neutronic and coolant routes is physical rather than an arithmetic error: it is the fraction of fission energy deposited outside the pellets plus the effect of assuming a uniform flux.