Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: 2018-06-30
Abstract Views: 156
Views PDF: 244
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53747/jnst.v8i2.90
Issue
Vol. 8 No. 2 (2018)
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Nguyen, T. H., Nguyen, V. T., Nguyen, T. T., & Cao, D. M. (2018). Predicting behavior of AP-1000 nuclear reactor fuel rod under steady state operating condition by using FRAPCON-4.0 software. Nuclear Science and Technology, 8(2), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.53747/jnst.v8i2.90

Predicting behavior of AP-1000 nuclear reactor fuel rod under steady state operating condition by using FRAPCON-4.0 software

Nguyen Trong Hung1, Nguyen Van Tung1, Nguyen Thanh Thuy1, Cao Duy Minh1
1 Nuclear Fuel Technology Centre, Institute for Technology of Radioactive and Rare Elements (ITRRE). 48 Lang Ha, Dong Da, Hanoi

Main Article Content

Abstract

This paper reports the results on the predictions of behavior of AP-1000 nuclear reactor fuel rod under steady state operating condition by using FRAPCON-4.0 software. The predictive items were the temperature distribution in the fuel rod, including fuel centerline temperature, fuel pellet surface temperature, gas temperature, cladding inside and outside temperature, oxide surface and bulk coolant temperature; and gap conductance and thickness.The predictive items also include deformation of fuel pellets, fission gas release and rod internal pressure, cladding oxidation and hydration. The predictive data were suggested the fuel rod behavior image in nuclear reactor.

Article Details

Keywords

Predicting, AP-1000 reactor, nuclear fuel, FRAPCON and FRAPTRAN codes

References

[1] D. Olander, “Nuclear fuels – Present and future”, J. Nucl. Mater, 389, pp. 1–22, 2009.
[2] Nuclear Fuel Cycle Information System, “A Directory of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities”, IAEA-TECDOC-1613, 2009.
[3] KJ Geelhood, WG Luscher, PA Raynaud, IE Porter, “FRAPCON-4.0: A Computer Code for the Calculation of Steady-State, Thermal-Mechanical Behavior of Oxide Fuel Rods for High Burn-up”, PNNL-19418, Vol. 1 Rev. 2, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 2015.
[4] KJ Geelhood and WG Luscher,“FRAPCON-4.0 Integral Assessment”,PNNL-19418 Vol. 2 Rev. 2, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 2015.
[5] KJ Geelhood and WG Luscher, “Material PropertyCorrelations: Comparisons between FRAPCON-4.0, FRAPTRAN-2.0, and MATPRO”,PNNL-19418 Rev. 2, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 2015.
[6] N.T. Hung, L.B. Thuan, T.C. Thanh, H. Nhuan, D.V. Khoai, N.V. Tung, J.Y. Lee, J.R. Kumar, “Modeling the UO2 ex-AUC pellet process and predicting the fuel rod temperature distribution under steady-state operating condition”, Journal of Nuclear Material, 504, pp.191-197, 2018.
[7] Westinghouse AP-1000 Design Control Document Rev. 19 – Tier 2: Material, Chapter 4; Reactor, 2011.
[8] Final Safety EvaluationReport, Related to Certification of the AP-1000 Standard Plant Design, Volume 2 Supplement 2 Docket No. 52-006, NUREG-1793, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2004.
[9] I Arana, C Munoz-Reja and F Culbebras, “Post-Irradiation Examination of High Burnup Fuel Rods from Vandellos II”, Presented in Transactions of the Top Fuel 2012 Reactor Fuel PerformanceConference, September 2-6, Manchester, UK, European Nuclear Society, 2012.
[10] Aaron M. Phillippe, Larry Ott, Kevin Clarno, Jim Banfield, “Analysis of the IFA-432, IFA-597 and IFA-597mox Fuel Performance Experiments by FRAPCON-3.4”, ORNL/TM-2012/195, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2012.