Generation IV nuclear energy system initiative. Large GFR core subassemblydesign for the Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor.

Gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR) designs are being developed to meet Gen IV goals of sustainability, economics, safety and reliability, and proliferation resistance and physical protection as part of an International Generation IV Nuclear Energy System Research Initiative effort. Different organizations are involved in the development of a variety of GFR design concepts. The current analysis has focused on the evaluation of low-pressure drop, pin-core designs with favorable passive cooling properties. Initial evaluation of the passive cooling safety case for the GFR during depressurized decay heat removal accidents with concurrent loss of electric power have resulted in requirements for a reduction of core power density to the 100 w/cc level and a low core pressure drop of 0.5 bars. Additional design constraints and the implementation of their constraints are evaluated in this study to enhance and passive cooling properties of the reactor. Passive cooling is made easier by a flat radial distribution of the decay heat. One goal of this study was to evaluate the radial power distribution and determine to what extent it can be flattened, since the decay heat is nearly proportional to the fission power at shutdown. In line with this investigation of the radial power profile, an assessment was also made of the control rod configuration. The layout provided a large number of control rod locations with a fixed area provided for control rods. The number of control rods was consistent with other fast reactor designs. The adequacy of the available control rod locations was evaluated. Future studies will be needed to optimize the control rod designs and evaluate the shutdown system. The case for low pressure drop core can be improved by the minimization of pressure drop sources such as the number of required fuel spacers in the subassembly design and by the details of the fuel pin design. The fuel pin design is determined by a number of neutronic, thermal-hydraulic (gas dynamics) and fuel performance considerations. For the purposes of this study, the starting point is the fuel pin design established by the CEA-ANL/US I-NERI collaboration project for the selected 2400 MWt large rector option. Structural mechanics factors are now included in the design assessment. In particular, thermal bowing establishes a bound on the minimum of fuel pin spacers required in each fuel subassembly to prevent the local flow channel restrictions and pin-to-pin mechanical interaction. There are also fabrication limitations on the maximum length of SiC fuel pin cladding which can be manufactured. This geometric limitation effects the minimum ceramic clad thickness which can be produced. This ties into the fuel pin heat transfer and temperature thresholds. All these additional design factors were included in the current iteration on the subassembly design to produce a lower core pressure drop. A more detailed definition of the fuel pin/subassembly design is proposed here to meet these limitations. This subassembly design was then evaluated under low pressure natural convection conditions to assess its acceptability for the decay heat removal accidents. A number of integrated decay heat removal (DHR) loop plus core calculations were performed to scope the thermal-hydraulic response of the subassembly design to the accidents of interest. It is evident that there is a large sensitivity to the guard containment back pressure for these designs. The implication of this conclusion and possible design modifications to reduce this sensitivity will be explored under the auspices of the International GENIV GFR collaborative R&D plan. Chapter 2 describes the core reference design for the 2,400 MWt GFR being evaluated. The methodology, modeling, and codes used in the analysis of the fuel pin structural behavior are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides the result of the thermal-hydraulic study of the assembly design for the accidents of interest. An evaluation of the performance and control rod reactivity control is also presented in Chapter 2