Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSefcik, Joseph A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorDriscoll, Michael J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLanning, David D.en_US
dc.contributor.otherUnited States. Dept. of Energy. Division of Energy Technology.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-11T05:28:57Z
dc.date.available2011-01-11T05:28:57Z
dc.date.issued1981en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/60470
dc.description.abstractSystematic procedures have been devised and applied to evaluate core design and fuel management strategies for improving uranium utilization in Pressurized Water Reactors operated on a once-through fuel cycle. A principal objective has been the evaluation of suggested improvements on a self-consistent basis, allowing for concurrent changes in dependent variables such as core leakage and batch power histories, which might otherwise obscure the sometimes subtle effects of interest. Two levels of evaluation have been devised: a simple but accurate analytic model based on the observed linear variations in assembly reactivity as a function of burnup; and a numerical approach, embodied in a computer program, which relaxes this assumption and combines it with empirical prescriptions for assembly (or batch) power as a function of reactivity, and core leakage as a function of peripheral assembly power. State-of-the-art physics methods, such as PDQ-7, were used to verify and supplement these techniques.en_US
dc.description.abstractThese methods have been applied to evaluate several suggested improvements: (1) axial blankets of low-enriched or depleted uranium, and of beryllium metal, (2) radial natural uranium blankets, (3) lowleakage radial fuel management, (4) high burnup fuels, (5) optimized H/U atom ratio, (6) annular fuel, and (7) mechanical spectral shift (i.e. variable fuel-to-moderator ratio) concepts such as those involving pin pulling and bundle reconstitution.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe potential savings in uranium requirements compared to current practice were found to be as follows: (1) O0-3%, (2) negative, (3) 2-3%; possibly 5%, (4) "15%, (5) 0-2.5%, (6) no inherent advantage, (7) 10%. Total savings should not be assumed to be additive; and thermal/hydraulic or mechanical design restrictions may preclude full realization of some of the potential improvements.en_US
dc.format.extent241 pen_US
dc.publisherCambridge, Mass. : Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Energy Laboratory, 1981en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEnergy Laboratory report (Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Energy Laboratory) no. MIT-EL 80-032.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesMITNE ; no. 234.en_US
dc.subjectPressurized water reactors.en_US
dc.subjectUranium.en_US
dc.subjectNuclear fuels.en_US
dc.subjectNuclear fuel elements.en_US
dc.titleAnalysis of strategies for improving uranium utilization in pressurized water reactorsen_US
dc.identifier.oclc09531588en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record