Feasibility and Scaling Analysis for Simulation of STAR-LM using MASLWR Test Facility

J. Groome, T. Becker, T. Wagnon, A. Aldrich, Q. Wu, and J.N. Reyes, Jr.

Department of Nuclear Engineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331

J.J. Sienicki
Nuclear Engineering Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60493

ABSTRACT – Few large-scale integral system test facilities exist that are capable of conducting a single
loop natural circulation fluid analysis for Liquid Metal Fast Reactors. Oregon State University currently
has a Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR) test facility that is capable of performing
steady-state and transient natural circulation analysis. A scaling and feasibility analysis has been
performed to determine the suitability of using MASLWR to model the Secure Transportable Autonomous
Reactor Liquid Metal (STAR-LM) concept developed by Argonne National Laboratory. Based on cost,
availability of property data, and material compatibility, lead was selected for the liquid metal system
option while a water system was also analyzed for scaling. The natural circulation scaling analysis
revealed that MASLWR facility could be used to scale steady state natural circulation in STAR-LM with
either Pb-Bi eutectic or water as the working fluid.

I. INTRODUCTION In order to fully understand the operation mechanism

of a fast reactor cooled by liquid metal natural circulation,
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) generation IV certain thermal hydraulics characteristics need to be
nuclear energy system initiative has selected six advanced examined, and the relevant experimental investigations
nuclear reactor systems for future research and carried out in properly scaled test facility. In particular,
development. One is the Lead Fast Reactor (LFR). The the following thermal hydraulic areas have been identified
LFR systems employ either a Pb or a Pb-Bi eutectic as of significant importance:
(LBE) alloy liquid metal coolant and a fast-neutron • Heat transfer in core and heat exchanger;
spectrum. The Secure Transportable Autonomous • Liquid metal natural circulation startup, steady-state
Reactor – Liquid Metal (STAR-LM) underdevelopment operation, and shutdown;
by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) is a 400 MWt • Coupling of reactivity feedback and natural circulation;
LFR that uses a lead or Pb-Bi eutectic (LBE) coolant and • Thermal stratification in lower/upper plenum regions.
advanced power conversion system. The power
conversion incorporates a gas turbine Brayton cycle
utilizing supercritical carbon dioxide to achieve higher
plant efficiency. In this study, feasibility and scaling
analysis is presented for the simulation of the STAR-LM
thermal hydraulic system using the existing MASLWR
test facility at Oregon State University, which is a U.S.
DOE sponsored integral test facility for natural circulation
cooled light water reactors.
The STAR-LM is a 400 MWt natural circulation
reactor concept (Figure 1). It employs several design
features that provide autonomous load following, passive
safety, and proliferation resistance. The design utilizes
lead as the primary coolant, which allows it to forgo
intermediate heat transport medium requirements. STAR-
LM achieves autonomous load following whereby the
core power adjusts itself according to the heat removed
without user intervention. This design feature makes it
passively safe, in that it provides an inherent core Figure 1 STAR-LM concept
shutdown in the event of a loss of heat sink accident.

Global 2003 New Orleans, LA November 16-20, 2003 1555

 These phenomena could be simulated using the
integral test facility of OSU scaled to the Multi-
Application Small Light Water Reactor (MASLWR,
Figure 2) designed by INEEL, Bechtel, and Oregon State
University, if the test system is properly modified and the
relevant scaling analysis is performed. MASLWR was
designed to be a small modular natural circulation light
water reactor with enhanced safety and economics. The
design uses an integrated reactor and steam generator,
both housed in the primary pressure vessel. The
MASLWR design employs a high-pressure containment
vessel that sits in a pool of water as the ultimate heat sink.
A one-third height scale model of the MASLWR
power reactor was built to assess the steady-state and
transient operating characteristics. This model is capable
of simulating full power operations at prototypic
pressures and temperatures. Its pressure vessel is
constructed from SS 304 with a shell side design pressure
of 11.38 MPa (1650 psi) at 316°C (600°F) and a Core
Simulator consisting of a 56-rod heater bundle capable of
producing 670KW of thermal power. A 14-Tube Helical
Coil Steam Generator (boiling inside the tubes) has been
incorporated into the reactor vessel. The tube side design
pressure and temperature are 2.07 MPa (300 psia) and
288°C (550°F) respectively. The test facility also includes
a containment tank capable of 2.76 MPa (400 psia)
pressurization during ADS and steam vent valve
operation and an external pool that acts as the ultimate
heat sink for the containment.
Water Vent valve
Containment
Reactor pressure vessel
Steam
Turbine generator
Steam
Depressurization
valve Feedwater
Core
Sump
makeup
valve Condenser
Steam generator
tube bundle
Water
Feedwater
pump
Figure 2 MASLWR concept
For the conversion of the MASLWR model into a
STAR-LM thermal hydraulics integral test facility, this
investigation focuses on the facility modification needs
and the relevant scaling analysis, with the following
specific tasks:
• Identifying a suitable fusible alloy, preferably of low
or no lead content, to use as the liquid metal for this
system. The selection of the liquid metal will be
based on cost, availability of property data, material
compatibility, and regulatory concerns.
Global 2003 New Orleans, LA November 16-20, 2003
• Plant modifications to support work including an
external liquid metal fill and drain system, an
external heat trace system, piping and valve
replacement, and liquid metal compatible
instrumentation for diagnostics.
• A natural circulation analysis of MASLWR and
STAR-LM including a heat transfer analysis for
MASLWR’s helical coil steam generator. Using the
results to carry out a scaling analysis for the liquid
metal and water systems.
II. FACILITY MODIFICATIONS
There are several major modifications that must be
done to the existing MASLWR system. These include the
working fluid, possible structure enhancement, an
external fill and drain system, a heat trace system, piping
and valve replacements, and instrumentation.
II.A. MATERIALS
STAR-LM is a liquid metal reactor concept utilizing
either Pb or LBE as the working fluid. As is well
documented, the regulatory concerns dealing with lead
and most notably with the melting of lead, tend to
discourage the consideration of Pb or LBE in the modeled
facility. MASLWR utilizes water as the working fluid
and being able to accurately scale STAR-LM while
maintaining the water environment was considered
optimal. However, an appropriate liquid metal option was
also researched to not only ensure scalability to STAR-
LM, but also due to the attraction of a liquid metal test
facility with the ability to test phenomena that otherwise
could not be accomplished with a water test facility.
Liquid metals considered included Sn-Bi eutectic, Woods
metal, Fields metal, and LBE. Of particular interest
Gen
during the research was an examination of the cost of the
metal, availability of property data relevant to the
scalability of the metal to the properties of LBE, material
compatibility, and any regulatory compliance issues.
The cost of metals varies rather dramatically per
kilogram depending upon the material. LBE is a
relatively inexpensive material and it would be
undesirable to replace it with a very expensive material
for the purposes of a test facility. Fields metal is a
mixture of bismuth, tin and indium of which 51% is
indium. Indium is an extremely expensive metal with a
cost nearly twice that of silver. Woods metal contains
50% bismuth, 25% lead, 12.5% tin and 12.5% cadmium,
none of which are prohibitively expensive; however,
cadmium is toxic (as is lead) and is thought to be a cancer
risk. The cost of tin is more expensive than lead but not
by an appreciable amount.
In order to analyze a theoretical model there must be
sufficient data to perform the analysis. It was quickly
established that there was a considerable lack of property
1556
data for every liquid metal option except LBE.
Specifically temperature-dependent data on density,
viscosity, thermal conductivity, and the coefficient of
thermal expansion were unavailable in the liquid metal
literature for all metals except LBE. Argonne National
Laboratory has provided temperature-dependent
correlations for the following LBE properties: density,
viscosity, thermal conductivity, heat capacity and the
coefficient of thermal expansion. If another liquid metal is
to be analyzed then fundamental research must be
conducted to remedy the lack of available property data.
The existing MASLWR facility is made of Type 304
SS. While this is acceptable for water applications, when
dealing with liquid metals, significant difficulties are
encountered. Dissolution corrosion, the dissolving of the
various components of the alloy steel into the liquid
metal, is the main type of corrosion encountered.
Operating temperatures will range from 300-500°C,
which from Table 1 [1] seems to indicate that LBE will
corrode the steel the least. As shown in the table, good is
defined as a corrosive rate of attack of less than 2.54
cm/yr, limited as 2.54-25.4 cm/yr, and poor as greater
than 25.4 cm/yr. It is clear from the table that at high
temperatures, the addition of tin results in higher rates of
steel corrosion. Wood’s metal, Field’s metal and Sn-Bi all
contain tin to some extent.
Table 1 Corrosion Properties for various metals
with Austenitic Stainless Steels
Sn Pb Bi-Pb Bi-Pb-Sn
800 °C Unknown Poor Poor Poor
Poor Poor Limited Poor
600 °C
300 °C Limited Good Limited Limited
Dissolution of the steel metals can be countered by
creation of an oxidation layer on the steel. This effect has
been studied [2] for use in LBE environments. The
oxidation layer serves two purposes depending on oxygen
potential: oxides are insoluble in LBE and thus the outer
oxidation layer of the steel will remain intact, and the
oxide layer impedes diffusion of the metal components
toward the steel/LBE boundary, thus reducing dissolution
of these metals in the LBE. Another possibility is that
given the fill and drain tank system, which will be
discussed later, the liquid metal will not spend significant
amounts of time inside the vessel and therefore will not
have the opportunity to significantly degrade the SS-304
components of MASLWR.
Based on the preceding information - cost,
availability of property data and material compatibility—
it was elected to proceed with LBE as the liquid metal
option in the test facility. From a regulatory perspective
lead has been well documented. The two main references
used here are 29CFR1910.1025 and 29CFR1926.62. The
regulations therein are well documented and detailed, and
Global 2003 New Orleans, LA November 16-20, 2003
would require multiple facility modifications to the
MASLWR building at OSU. It would require a training
program be established for all individuals who work
around or might feasibly come into contact with the lead.
Adequate ventilation systems must be established and
maintained, and respirators must be worn if any airborne
concentration of lead is present. To this effect air
monitoring must be established throughout the facility to
monitor an employee’s exposure to lead in the
atmosphere. Coveralls to protect an individual from
physical contact with the lead must be worn at all times in
the facility and OSU would be required to provide
services to clean said clothing.
Many of these requirements while cumbersome
would not be extraordinarily difficult given the nature of
OSU’s facility and its attachment to the Radiation Center.
The radiation center already is required to have many
similar systems in place for dealing with radioactive
material. In addition the local fire department is already
provided additional training in dealing with accidents
involving the Radiation Center and would require more
training for dealing with lead-related accidents.
II.B. Fill and Drain System
Some of the features of an external fill and drain
system are as follows: a storage tank for holding the entire
system volume of liquid metal, a storage tank design that
allows for liquid metal expansion upon cooling, and a
method of filling and draining volume into and out of the
MASLWR system.
The external fill and drain tank is designed to hold
the entire primary system volume (0.265 m3 ,70 gal.) and
utilizes inclined sides to allow for the expansion of the
liquid metal upon cooling. Pressurized argon gas is
utilized to provide the necessary motive force to fill and
drain liquid metal from MASLWR while providing an
inert atmosphere to minimize corrosion. To calculate the
pressure needed to pump the volume of liquid metal into
the system, the pressure drops across the system need to
be found. As illustrated in Table 2, the main pressure drop
is due to pumping the LBE to the height of the MASLWR
vessel (4.27m). Calculations were based on filling the
MASLWR pressure vessel (0.265 m3) in a half-hour.
Table 2 Pressure drop calculations for pumping
LBE into MASLWR system
Pressure Drop kPa (psi)
Vessel fluid height: 4.57m (15') 475.3 (68.93)
Piping: 6.1m (20') of 2.54cm (1") piping 1.9 (0.28)
8 elbows & 3 globe valves 12.5 (1.81)
TOTAL 489.7 (71.0)
The design utilizes 15.6-MPa (2265-psi) tanks of
argon reduced to 0.79 MPa (115 psi) to pump the LBE.
The argon is preheated with an inline heater such that it
1557
will not cause solidification of the LBE. For filling the
MASLWR system, LBE will be forced from the storage
tank and up into the MASLWR vessel from the bottom.
For draining, the argon will enter the vessel from the top,
forcing the liquid metal out the bottom of the vessel and
into the storage tank.
When the system is shut down and drained of the
liquid metal, argon will be utilized to keep the system
pressurized slightly above atmospheric pressure to
minimize corrosion.
II.C. Heat Trace System.
The heat trace system is designed to heat both the
steel and LBE to above the liquid metal melting
temperature for both the test facility and all external
piping systems of the fill and drain system. The heat
tracing is designed to be used during both shut down and
non-operational conditions and to maintain system
boundary conditions during testing. Heat tracing will be
installed around all liquid metal external piping, the
pressure vessel, and the storage tank. Calcium silicate
insulation will be utilized to minimize heat loss on all
heat-traced systems. The heat tracing system is designed
such that the heat transfer at the wall of the piping, vessel,
and storage tank is negligible (i.e. the liquid metal is not
losing heat to the surroundings). The heat-tracing
requirement for each of the cylindrical components can be
calculated using the following equation or the integral
form of the equation for the fill tank:
T H − TC
QD = (1)
ln(r2 r1 ) ln (r3 r2 )
+ Most of the current MASLWR system is composed
2πk ss L 2πk cs L
where TH is the temperature of the liquid metal taken to
be 175 °C (approximately 50°C above the melting
temperature of LBE), TC is ambient temperature (20°C),
r1 is the inner radius of the cylindrical component, r2 is
the outer radius of the cylindrical component, r3 is the
radius of the cylindrical component including the calcium
silicate insulation, L is the length of the component, kss is
the coefficient of thermal conductivity for the steel (20
W/m-K), and kcs is the coefficient of thermal conductivity
for the calcium silicate (0.047 W/m-K).
An estimate of the heat loss rate through the fill tank
caps was made by treating the pipe caps as slabs of steel
with 10.2cm (4”) of insulation. The following equation is
relevant to the fill tank caps.
∆T TH − TC
QD = = (2)
RT L L
ss
+ cs
k ss AT k cs AT
where TH, TC, kss, and kcs are defined as above; Lss is the
thickness of the steel pipe caps, Lcs is the thickness of the
calcium silicate insulation, and AT is the total surface area
of both pipe caps.
Finally, the power required to heat the MASLWR
system and fill tank, 1896kg (4180 lbm) steel, from
ambient temperature (20°C) to 175 °C as well as melt the
LBE, 2700kg (5952 lbm), and heat it to 175 °C were
calculated based on a four hour heating period with the
following general equation:
D =  Cp ⋅ m⋅ ∆T +
Q
Cp ⋅ m⋅ ∆T
  +
∆h⋅ m
(3)
 t   t  t
 solid  liquid
where Cp is the heat capacity, m is the mass, t is the
heating time, ∆T is the change in temperature and ∆h is
the latent heat of melting (38.8kJ/kg for LBE). Note that
for the MASLWR system and the fill tank only the first
term of the equation is applicable since the system does
not melt. See Table 3 for heat trace requirements.
Table 3 Heat Trace Requirements
Heat input to component kW
9.59
MASLWR & fill tank heat up to 175°C
LBE melt and heat up to 175°C 11.17
Maintaining LBE at 175°C ~
MASLWR vessel 0.83
Piping 0.75
Fill Tank Side 3.72
Fill Tank Caps 0.19
II.D. Piping and valve replacement
of Type 304 stainless steel (SS-304). Because this type of
stainless steel (austenitic) is corroded fairly easily in an
LBE environment, pre-treating the SS-304 with an
oxidation layer is required to minimize corrosion. For
external piping systems that are easily replaced Type 405
Stainless Steel (SS-405), a ferritic-martensitic stainless
steel that is more corrosive-resistant in a LBE
environment would be installed. In addition to corrosion,
the expansion of the LBE as it cools must be dealt with.
Many of the valves that are currently in the MASLWR
system trap liquid when closed. If these valves were left
in the system when the plant is cooled down, the liquid
metal will be trapped in the valves possibly causing the
valves to rupture upon expansion. These valves would be
replaced with valves that will not trap liquid metal.
II.E. Instrumentation
The pressure, temperature, and flow detectors that are
currently in the MASLWR primary loop will have to be
replaced with instruments that are compatible with the
high temperature liquid metal environment. The current

Global 2003 New Orleans, LA November 16-20, 2003 1558

temperature thermocouples are easily replaced with balance equations of mass, momentum and energy of the
thermocouples that are made for non-ferrous metals. closed loop are given by:
High temperature pressure transducers are rarely
made anymore. Thus, there would need to be a separation mD = ρ iui ai = ρ c uc ac (4)
between the transducer and the liquid metal. A bellows
type system can be used for this separation. The sensing du c N  ac 
line will contain the liquid metal, and a bellow will ρ ∑ li   = β g ρ (TH − TC )H th
dt i =1
 ai 
separate that from another material, such as NaK, that will (5)
2
be in direct contact with the transducer. The sensing line, 1 N 
fl  a 
however, cannot be allowed to cool down; thus, insulation − ρuc2 ∑  + K   c 
2 i =1
 dh  i  ai 
and heat trace will need to be applied to the sensing lines.
In order to measure primary system loop flow, a V-
Cone® differential pressure element system will be d Tsys
employed using the same pressure measurement process Cv M sys = mD C P (TH − TC ) − (ua∆T )HEX − QD loss (6)
dt
described above.
The nomenclature for these equations is provided at
III. SCALING ANALYSIS the end of this paper. For the purpose of scaling study,
the following assumptions were made:
The scaling analysis is to examine the similarity 1. The flow is one-dimensional along the loop axis.
between the primary loop natural circulations in STAR- 2. Negligible axial heat conduction.
LM and the MASLWR model for single-phase fluid flow 3. The fluid is incompressible.
condition. The results of this analysis will be employed 4. Boussinesq approximation is applicable, i.e.,
for the selection of the core power and loop resistance To obtain the dimensionless form of those balance
values in MASLWR model that would best simulate the equations, the following nominal parameters are used as
primary loop natural circulation phenomena in STAR- the scaling references:
LM. For the natural circulation cooling of STAR-LM, Mass flow rate: mD 0
Figure 3 provides a diagram that describes the scaling Temperature: (T H
− TC )0
analysis process.
Fluid velocity through heat exchanger: u HEX , 0
Loop heat loss rate: Qloss , 0
Single-Phase Loop Natural
Circulation Phenomena Substituting those parameters into the control volume
momentum and energy balance equations, we have:
Top-Down Scaling
• Volumetric Flow Rate
Bottom-Up Scaling
• Loop Resistance
τ loop
duc+  (u + )2 
= ε ne (TH − TC ) Π Ri − c Π F 
+
(7)
• Core/Heat Exchanger • Core Power
Energy exchange • HEX Heat Transfer dt  2 

N/C Similarity Criteria d Tsys+

= mD + (TH − TC ) − Π HEX (u + ∆T + )HEX − Π loss QD loss
+
τ loop +
(8)
dt
Evaluate Scaling N
l τ
Distortion τ loop = ∑   , ε ne = N
i =1  u 
∑ (l u )i (ac ai )
2
i
i =1

β g(TH − TC )0 Lth
2
Specify Necessary N  fl  a 
Modifications Π Ri = , Π F = ∑  + K   c 
u c2, 0 i =1 D
 h  i  ai 
Figure 3 Scaling analysis flow diagram (ua∆T ) Q
Π HEX = HEX , 0
, Π loss = loss , 0
Qcore , 0 Qcore , 0
III.A. Scaling Criteria
It is necessary to obtain an expression for the loop
The loop being considered consists of core that natural circulation flow rate (or velocity) for the closure
serves as a heat source, an in-vessel heat exchanger that of the dimensionless groups. This can be done by
functions as the heat sink, and the riser and down-comer. assuming the momentum transient in the control volume
The fluid in the loop is simply divided into a hot fluid side is small comparing to the buoyancy and frictional/form
having an average temperature TH, and a cold fluid side pressure loss terms. Thereafter, the fluid velocity in the
having an average temperature TC. The control volume core section can be expressed as

Global 2003 New Orleans, LA November 16-20, 2003 1559

 1 results matches reasonably well to the calculated STAR-
 2 βQD core Lth g  3
uc =   (9)
 a C ρΠ 
 c p F 
In terms of the simple one-dimensional analysis, for
perfect simulation with identical time scale, a model
system should have the same non-dimensional groups as
in the prototypic system. Such kind of scaling is
extremely difficult for complicated systems. Certain
scaling distortion is inevitable. Therefore, a rational
scaling approach should preserve the phenomena of high
priority in the bottom-up scaling analysis. Πloss and ΠHEX
are adjustable and thus may not be crucial for the system
scaling. Also, εne, the ratio of the loop transport time to
an area averaged loop transport time may be of low
priority for relatively slow transient.
In this investigation, the MASLWR integral test
facility already exists. The following geometric scaling
ratios are fixed:
(A ) = 1 322 , (l ) = 1 3.35 , (L ) = 1 3.62 ,
c R c R th R
(D )
h, c R
= 1 2.38 , (l ) HEX R
= 1 4.09 , (∀)R = 1 51.7 .
The subscripted “R” denotes a MASLWR to STAR-LM
ratio. In the following sections, scaling criteria for both
LBE and water to simulate the prototypic LBE fluid will
be discussed.
III.B. Scaling Ratios for MASLWR LBE Loop
Using LBE in the MASLWR model at roughly the
same system temperature, the properties are the same as
the prototypic system. With a power ratio QD c R = 1/530, ( )
the ratio of the fluid velocity in the core is 1/1.81, which
makes the scaling ratios of friction number (ΠF) and
Richardson number (ΠRi) close to unity as presented in
Table 4.
The fluid transport time (τloop) ratio is only ½, which
suggests that the fluid particle in the MASLWR model
takes only half of the prototypic time to travel through the
entire loop. When comparing the transient data,
stretching the time axis of the model test data by a factor
of 2 will produce excellent match to the prototypic
transient.
Using the results from the scaling analysis a
comparison was made to determine how well the scaling
factors match the data. That is, the scaling factors can be
used along with the MASLWR data to predict STAR-LM
operating conditions. In Figure 4, the STAR-LM coolant
velocity in the core is compared with the MASLWR
scaled results with the velocity and power being up-scaled
by appropriate factors. Figure 5 provides the similar
comparison for coolant temperature change through the
core. These plots indicate that the scaled MASLWR
Global 2003 New Orleans, LA November 16-20, 2003
LM results.
However, when consider the bottom-up scaling,
certain local processes may not be properly scaled. One
of such processes is the heat transfer in the heat exchanger
section. Perhaps the helical coil heat exchanger in the
MASLWR test facility needs to be replaced with U-tube
type heat exchanger in order to preserve the prototypic
process.
III.C. Scaling Ratios for MASLWR Water Loop
Using water to simulate LBE present a greater
challenge for the scaling analysis, due to the significant
differences in fluid property. Through trivial iterations, it
was found that a power ratio of 1/1148 would result in a
very close to unity ratios of friction number (ΠF) and
Richardson number (ΠRi). All the relevant ratios are also
summarized in Table 4.
Because of the high thermal expansion coefficient of
water comparing to LBE ( β R =19.14), much less core
power is needed to simulate the STAR-LM. The scaling
ratio of the core coolant velocity is about 1/1.21, and the
corresponding loop time scale is roughly 1/3. In other
words, the fluid transport time through the entire
MASLWR loop is only one third of the prototypic value.
The major distortion may come from the heat transfer
process in core and heat exchanger section, because of the
fluid property difference. This is inevitable due to the
selection of water as the working fluid. Nevertheless, the
transient phenomena of the natural circulation in the
prototypic STAR-LM system can be simulated. The
comparisons of in-core fluid velocity and temperature
change through core are presented in Figure 4 and 5. a
close match is achieved when the MASLWR parameters
are scaled up to the prototypic conditions.
0.7
0.6
Core Velocity (m/s)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 STAR-LM
LBE: MASLWR Scaled STAR-LM
0.1 WATER: MASLWR Scaled STAR-LM
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Core Power (MW)
Figure 4 STAR-LM and MASLWR-scaled core
coolant velocity versus power
1560
 200 MASLWR system. Heat tracing can be used to maintain
180 the liquid metal temperature, as well as warm up the
160 system although more extensive heating units may be
desired for melting the LBE. Piping that will carry the
Delta T--Core (°° C)

140

120 LBE liquid metal should be replaced with a ferritic-

100 martensitic stainless steel for better corrosion resistance.
80 Diagnostic instrumentation that is compatible with LBE
60
STAR-LM
LBE: MASLWR Scaled to
can replace the existing instrumentation.
40 STAR LMMASLWR Scaled to
WATER:
20
STAR LM
NOMENCLATURE
0
2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 A Area [m ]
Core Power
(MW) a flow area [m2]
Figure 5 STAR-LM and MASLWR-scaled Cp heat capacity [J/kg Co]
temperature change in core velocity power Dh hydraulic diameter [m]
f Darcy friction factor
Table 4: Scaling ratios (model : prototype) g local gravitational constant [m/s2]
Scaling Ratios LBE Water h convective heat transfer coefficient [J/m2 Co]
Time (τloop)R 1:2 1:3 K minor pressure loss coefficient
Velocity (uc)R 1 : 1.81 1 : 1.21 l, L length [m]
Lth Thermal center height [m]
Power ( QD )R c
1 : 530 1 : 1148
m LBE density [kg/m3]
Core Reynolds number (Rec)R 1 : 4.31 1 : 2.38 Msys Total mass of the system [J/m2 Co]
Richard Number (ΠRi)R 1 : 1.00 1 : 1.01 QD heat transfer rate (J/s)
Core Length (lc)R 1 : 3.35 1 : 3.35 t time [s]
Core Hydraulic Diameter(Dh,c)R 1 : 2.38 1 : 2.38 T temperature [Co]
Core Area (ac)R 1 : 322 1 : 322 u coolant average velocity [m/s]
Thermal Length (Lth)R 1 : 3.62 1 : 3.62 β coefficient of thermal expansion
Volume (∀)R 1 : 51.7 1 : 51.7 µ fluid dynamic viscosity [kg m/s]
Friction coefficient, (ΠF)R 1 : 1.00 1 : 1.01 Π dimensionless group
Thermal Expansion Coefficient βR 1:1 19.4 : 1 ρ fluid density [kg/m3]
Density ρR 1:1 1 : 13.7
REFERENCES
Dynamic Viscosity µR 1:1 1 : 16.6
Heat Capacity (Cp)R 1:1 36.3 : 1 1. Liquid Metals Handbook (2d ed. revised), Atomic
Energy Commission, Department of the Navy,
V. CONCLUSION Washington, D.C., 1954, pp. 184 – 212.
2. D. KOURY, “Investigation of the Corrosion of Steel
The MASLWR facility, with a few changes, can be by Lead-Bismuth Eutectic (LBE) Using Scanning
used to model STAR-LM’s natural circulation behavior. Electron Microscopy and X-Ray Photoelectron
The preliminary scaling analysis suggests that the test Spectroscopy.” Thesis for Graduate College,
facility with LBE or water can be scaled with proper University of Nevada, Las Vegas, December, 2002.
power selection. For a MASLWR LBE system, a ½ time 3. C.F. COLEBROOK, “Turbulent Flow in Pipes with
scale is necessary, whereas a 1/3 time scale for MASLWR Particular Reference to the Transition Region
water system. Certain local distortions may be inevitable, between the Smooth and Rough Pipe Laws.” Proc.
especially for water system where local heat transfer Inst. Civil Eng. 11, 133 (1939)
mechanism could be affected by the fluid property 4. I.E. IDELCHIK, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance
differences. The facility structure itself is adequate as (2nd ed.). New York: Hemisphere, 1986.
built. For use of LBE, more research into using active 5. F.P. INCROPERA and D.P. DEWITT, Fundamentals
oxygen control to maintain an oxidation layer that of Heat and Mass Transfer. (5th ed.), New York: John
protects the structure from corrosion should be pursued in Wiley & Sons, 2002, p. 419
addition to determining what substantive corrosive 6. S. KALISH and O.E. DWYER, “Heat Transfer to
damage could occur in the MASLWR system during the NaK Flowing through Unbaffled Rod Bundles”, Int.
limited LBE exposure allowed by the external fill and J. Heat Mass Transfer, 10, 1533-1558 (1967)
drain system. The fill and drain system meets the
requirements for moving the LBE into and out of the

Global 2003 New Orleans, LA November 16-20, 2003 1561