Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anucene

Simultaneous multiple reactivity insertions in a typical MTR-type

research reactor having U3Si2Al fuel
Rubina Nasir a, Muhammad Kamran Butt b, Sikander M. Mirza c, Nasir M. Mirza c,
a
Department of Physics, Air University, PAF Complex, E-9, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
b
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS), Nilore, Islamabad 45650, Pakistan
c
Department of Physics and Applied Mathematics, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS), Nilore, Islamabad 45650, Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Safety assessment for simultaneous multiple reactivity insertions in a typical research reactor having low
Received 5 January 2015 enriched, high density (U3Si2Al) fuel has been done using modied PARET code. As a rst step, the effect
Received in revised form 11 June 2015 of single reactivity ramps on power and temperatures during transients showed good agreement with
Accepted 2 July 2015
already published data. Then simulation of transients for multiple reactivity insertions were carried
Available online 15 July 2015
out and the effects on reactor power, net reactivity of the system, and temperatures (fuel, clad and
coolant) were studied. The simultaneous reactivity insertions included ramp reactivity (large and small)
Keywords:
and beam tube ooding, a ramp reactivity and a core movement and a ramp reactivity and a sample
Low Enriched Uranium core
Research reactors
ejection accident respectively. When simultaneously two different reactivity insertion transients are
U3Si2Al fuel coupled in the reactor under uncontrolled conditions, the self-control of the reactor decreases. The power
Multiple ramp reactivity transient and temperatures show several peaks and it oscillates along with the net reactivity of the system within
the rst second of the accident.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the RA-2 critical facility in Argentina a super-prompt critical

One of the major safety concerns in research reactors is the clad
meltdown which can release the ssion product activity to the
environment. Large reactivity insertions can originate such
accidents. Initial efforts were made to determine reactivity inser-
tion limits for various research reactors both experimentally and
theoretically for single reactivity accidents. Also, the transient
response of various types of cores was carried out by series of tests
under the Special Power Excursion Reactor Test (SPERT) program,
which consisted of experiments conducted at the national reactor
testing station Idaho, USA (Cardell et al., 1967). The PARET program
was also developed as a part of the SPERT program to study reactor
transients theoretically (Obenchain, 1969). The code validation
was performed by comparing its predictions with the actual exper-
iments in various SPERT cores. The computed values of the reactor
power at the peak burst using the PARET code showed a good
agreement with the corresponding experimental data. The
transient responses of the B-12/64 and D-12/25 SPERT cores were
estimated using the PARET code and good agreements was found
between the computed and the experimentally measured results
(Cullen et al., 1986).
Corresponding author. Tel.: +92 51 924 8701; fax: +92 51 924 8600.
E-mail addresses: nasirmm@yahoo.com, nmm@pieas.edu.pk (N.M. Mirza).
excursion occurred in September 1983. This accident took place
while the reactor core was being recongured through a series of
fuel shufing all assumed to be in the sub-critical state
(Waldman and Vertullo, 1987). This accident emphasized the
signicance of the assessment of safety limits for the reactivity
insertion in research reactors.
The Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactor (RERTR)
program was started to covert Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
cores to new Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) cores. Then several
studies were carried out to nd effects of single reactivity, power
and ow rate induced reactor accidents (Housiadas, 2000; Iqbal
et al., 1997; Metos et al., 1992; Mirza et al., 1998; Mirza, 1997;
Nasir et al., 1999; Salama and El-Morshedy, 2012). Metos et al.,
studied the transient response of the High Enriched Uranium
(HEU) fueled core, Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fueled core and
mixed cores for ramp insertions of reactivity. In their studies, they
used generic 10 MW MTR cores along with theoretically calculated
estimates of the reactivity feedback coefcients. Similarly, a series
of benchmark transients for IAEA 10 MW research reactor have
been analyzed using a simulation model. They studied single ramp
reactivity transients with initial power set at one Watt and scram
level at 12 MW (Gaheen et al., 2007). Their computed values for
peak reactor power, and clad peak temperatures by using RELAP5
and RETRAC-PC showed good agreements. Moreover, the analysis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.07.003
0306-4549/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
870 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878
of the reactivity insertion for the IAEA 10 MW reactor and the
Egypts second Research Reactor (ETRR-2) was carried out under
super prompt-critical transients (Khater et al., 2007). They con-
cluded that ETRR-2 core can withstand the uncontrolled with-
drawal of a control rod.
Recently, single reactivity insertion accidents at startup for the
IAEA 10 MW MTR system were studied using the MERSAT
computer code (Hainoun et al., 2010). For the range of inserted
ramp reactivity values, for only $1.5/0.5 s value the peak power
reached the highest value of 133.66 MW in 0.625 s and subse-
quently sub-cooled boiling and void formation occurred.
Comparison of peak values showed good agreement with results
from the RELAP5/Mod 3.2 and the PARET codes.
Similarly, the transient behavior of an MTR fueled with high
density dispersion fuels was reported by many researchers
(Mirza et al., 1998; Muhammad and Majid, 2009a,b; Nasir et al.,
1999). Muhammad and Majid reported detailed neutronics and
thermal hydraulic analysis for research reactor cores
(Muhammad and Majid, 2009b). In their work many scenarios
were simulated for the transient behavior of an MTR e.g. controlled
large and small reactivity induced accidents (Muhammad and
Majid, 2009a), controlled fast and slow loss of ow accidents and
uncontrolled large and small reactivity induced accidents
(Muhammad and Majid, 2009b), uncontrolled fast and slow loss
of ow accidents (Muhammad and Majid, 2010). Controlled
scenarios are the one in which safety system trip is enabled where
uncontrolled are the one in which safety system trip is disabled.
In order to assess the point neutron kinetic model of the
RELAP5/Mod3 code, single reactivity transients in the IAEA
MTR system have been studied recently (Hamidouche and
Bousbia-Salah, 2010). They inserted $1.5/0.5 s super prompt
positive reactivity in an initially critical reactor at one watt power
level with scram set at 12 MW. The predicted power transient
modeled by using RELAP5/Mod3 was compared with the corre-
sponding values by the RETRAC-PC (Hamidouche et al., 2002)
and the PARET code (Woodruff, 1982). They concluded that the
RELAP5 point kinetics model yields unphysical power evolution
for some values of time step.
The Pakistan Research Reactor-I (PARR-I) was also upgraded
from 5 MW HEU to 9 MW LEU core under the international
RERTR program. Extensive experimental measurements of various
parameters of the upgraded Pakistan Research Reactor-1 (PARR-I)
core were carried out including the measurement of various coef-
cients of reactivity (Iqbal et al., 1997). These measurements show
that for the PARR-I upgraded core, the fuel temperature coefcient
of reactivity is about 21% lower as compared to HEU type.
Similarly, the void coefcient of reactivity is about 31% higher
and the moderator temperature coefcient of reactivity is about
24% lower as compared with the corresponding previous estimates
for HEU core. Also, the rod drop times and both the differential and
the integral worth of the PARR-I control rods have also been mea-
sured experimentally (Iqbal et al., 1997; Mirza et al., 1998).
Simulations showed that the LEU core is more sensitive to pertur-
bations at low power as compared to transients at full power
(Mirza et al., 1998).
Many postulated accidents are rejected on probabilistic grounds
that their probability is extremely low and safety system will take
care of such situations. All MTR type reactors have safety systems
and operating procedures to safeguard against single and
successive accidents. The safety systems include overpower trip
and low ow trip along with engineered safety features. The over-
power trip level will occur at 115% of the normal power level and
ow trip will happen at low ow near 90% of the normal coolant
ow rate. Also, accidents which can result from a combination of
independent simultaneous events are ignored due to their low fre-
quency of happening. In this work, we have considered very low
frequency reactivity induced accidents by assuming that all safety
features have failed during initial phase of accident.
This work aims at the analysis of simultaneously two different
reactivity insertions that are coupled in the reactor under
uncontrolled conditions, for a typical MTR type reactor having high
density U3Si2Al fuel. Using parameters of IAEA benchmark 10 MW
MTR type systems with LEU core, the modied PARET code was
employed to simulate such transients. In rst part single ramp
reactivity insertions (from $0.2/0.5 s to $1.4/0.5 s) were studied
and results were compared with the published data. Then
Simulations were carried out for multiple failures in the same
system (IAEA Benchmark 10 MW (IAEA, 1980, 1992)). Multiple-
and simultaneous-reactivity insertion scenarios included a ramp
reactivity (large and small) plus a beam tube ooding, a ramp reac-
tivity plus a core movement, and a ramp reactivity plus a sample
ejection accident respectively. When simultaneously two different
reactivity insertions are coupled in the reactor under uncontrolled
conditions, the self-control of the reactor system goes down. It was
hypothetically assumed that the control rod derive mechanism
malfunctioned and control rods ejected from the core (partially
or fully out position) and got stuck there which posed a ramp type
positive reactivity insertion into the core or a fuel element got
inserted into the water holes. Then at the same time another com-
ponent failure occurred and it led to another reactivity insertion
simultaneously. These credible accidents due to multiple compo-
nent failures at same time were simulated for various ramp inser-
tions and their effects on power, net reactivity of the system, fuel
and clad temperatures were studied.
2. Reactor description
The IAEA have devised a benchmark MTR type reactor design
and many theoretical analysis have been reported in its core con-
version guide books (IAEA, 1980, 1992). This system is a pool type
reactor with high density low enriched uranium (U3Si2Al) fuel. All
the other design parameters are the same as that of HEU fueled
research reactors. A summary of the design and thermal hydraulic
parameters for the LEU core is given in Table 1.
Reactor has nominal power of 10 MW. It has 5  6 matrix (as
shown in Fig. 1) in which 21 fuel element and 4 control fuel ele-
ment can t in. Reactor core is reected by Graphite on two oppo-
site sides with a thickness of one fuel element. Pool water is light
water. Core has ve ux traps. One ux trap is at the center of the
core where the other four water boxes are at each corner of the
core. The central ux trap has aluminum box of dimensions of
7.7 cm  8.1 cm. This box has a square water hole of dimensions
5.0 cm  5.0 cm. The central ux trap is surrounded by two half
Standard Fuel Assemblies which serve as single Assembly taken
together for thermal hydraulics point of view.
Table 1
Comparison of design parameters for IAEA benchmark cores.
Parameter IAEA benchmark
LEU core HEU core
Rated power (MW) 10 10
Fuel type U3Si2 UAlx
Clad type Al Al
Plates per standard element 23 23
Plates per control element 17 17
Number of standard fuel elements 23 21
Number of control fuel elements 5 5
Fuel meat thickness (mm) 0.51 0.51
Clad thickness (mm) 0.38 0.38
Water channel width (mm) 2.19 2.19
U-235 (g) per plate 17.0 12.2
Coolant ow rate (m3/h) 1000 1000
 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878 871

Fig. 1. The core conguration of a typical 10 MW MTR-type system (a) assembly-wise power values (MW), cross sectional view of (b) standard fuel assembly and (c) control
fuel assembly with all dimensions given in cm.

Table 2 with thermal and hydrodynamic equations (Obenchain, 1969).

Thermal conductivity and heat capacities for the fuel and clad materials used in One-dimensional conductive heat transfer from the fuel to clad
various systems. and the convective heat transfer from the clad surface to the cool-
Fuel meat/clad Thermal conductivity Heat capacity ant are solved by this code for all of the specied number of node.
material (W/m K) (J/cm3 K)* The PARET code does allow both the natural convection as well as
LEU (U3Si2Al) 50 1.929 + 0.0007 T the force ow of the coolant in the hydrodynamic calculations;
HEU (UAlxAl) 158 2.072 + 0.0011 T however, we have selected the forced ow option for the present
LOX (U3O8Al) 11 2.072 + 0.0011 T study. The code automatically switches from the normal convec-
Clad (Al-6061) 180 2.069 + 0.0012 T
tive heat transfer model to the nucleate, transition or stable lm
*
Cp = a + bT, where, T is in K degree. boiling models depending on the local values of the coolant
temperature.
For the low enriched uranium core, the two-channel model was
Standard Fuel Element (SFE) of IAEA Benchmark 10 MW MTR used to analyze the core; one channel representing the hottest
uses UAlxAl fuel with uranium density of 4.40 g/cm3. Total plate and ow channel while the other average channel represent-
amount of ssile material is 390 g since enrichment is 20%. It has ing the remaining fuel plates in volume weighted sense. Each ow
23 identical fuel plates. Each fuel plate has thickness of 1.27 mm channel with the entrance effects was selected to contain 21 axial
and coolant channel width of 2.19 mm. Control Fuel Element and 7 radial nodes for all transients. The axial source distribution
(CFE) is similar to the SFE with a small difference. It has 17 fuels was represented by 21 axial regions and a chopped cosine shape
plates rather than 23 as in SFE. It has four plates of aluminum at which has an axial power peaking factor of 1.5 for both the average
positions of 1st, 3rd, 21st, and 23rd. Each plate has a thickness of channel and the hot channel. For the hot channel, this axial distri-
1.27 mm. CFE has 288.3 g of ssile content. A summary of the bution was multiplied by the other specied hot channel factors
design and thermal hydraulic parameters for the LEU core is given i.e. 1.4 nuclear and 1.2 engineering. For the moderator heat source
in Table 1. Similar details for the HEU and LEU cores also shown in description, the assumption was made that 4.5% of the total energy
Table 1. Thermal conductivities and heat capacities for various was being deposited directly in the moderator. A linear approxima-
fuel/clad systems are compared in Table 2. For LEU fuel the thermal tion was used for all of the reactivity feedback coefcients. The
conductivity is low as compared to the HEU fuel; however the heat reactivity coefcients are shown as Table 3. Also, for the transients
capacity remains comparable as shown in Table 2. studied in this work, the reactor was assumed initially (i) at full
power of ten MW or (ii) at one W, for startup scenario.
3. Theoretical model For the current study, the correlations used in the PARET code
were SeiderTate correlation for single phase ow, JensLottes cor-
The PARET code has been used for the simulation of reactivity relation for two phase ow, original PARET model for transient two
transients, which employs the coupled point kinetic model along phase ow, and original PARET model for DNB calculations. The
872 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878

Table 3 domain of interest at each time step. The MIM model uses channel
Reactivity coefcients and other parameters for the IAEA benchmark cores. averaged mass ow rate in the momentum equation (Woodruff,
Parameter IAEA benchmark core 1982). Also, the coolant properties once evaluated at some refer-
LEU HEU ence pressure are assumed temperature dependent only for the
rst step and the same values are used throughout the rest of cal-
Coolant temperature ($/C) 7.311  105 1.046  103
Void/density ($/% void) 0.27 0.21
culations. The pressure drop across the core is a complex function
Doppler ($/C) 2.47  105 6.0  107 of the channel geometry, ow rate and coolant phase. The PARET
beff (%) 0.731 0.758 code uses a detailed model for these evaluations and incorporates
K (l s) 42.4 54.6 the results of these calculations throughout the transient. Time
step control was varied to achieve the optimum CPU time and
small error.
departure from nucleate boiling and ow instabilities have been The PARET code is generally not applicable to situations where
modeled by using original Departure from Nucleate Boiling there is a strong spacetime coupling of neutron ux. The code also
(DNB) correlation and for obtaining a single phase ow, the revised uses steady-state heat transfer correlation and it is limited in its
model for the laminar ow with the entrance effects has been prediction of thermal crisis by the fact that it employs the
selected (Obenchain, 1969; Woodruff et al., 1996). As described steady-state DNB correlation (Woodruff, 1982, 1984). Also it uses
earlier that the neutronics parameters were taken from already an incompressible hydrodynamic model and a simplied void vol-
published work (Muhammad, 2009). ume generation equation. Therefore, hydrodynamic outputs of
PARET code should be interpreted as qualitative indicators.
3.1. Thermal and hydrodynamic model However, comparison of PARET/ANL and RELAP/Mod3.3 codes for
the several reactivity transients have shown that the predictions
The MTR core was discretized into 21 axial and 7 radial nodes of PARET code are fairly close to the RELAP/Mod3.3 (Woodruff
per channel and the calculations for the heat conduction through et al., 1996).
the fuel meat and clad were performed using the modied PARET
code. For the heat transfer across the clad-coolant interface, the 3.2. Reactor physics model
local ow and temperature dependent correlation were employed.
The values of the thermal conductivity and heat capacity used in The reactor dynamics is based on point kinetic model equations
calculations are shown in Table 2, respectively and design/thermal with continuous reactivity feedback from the thermal and hydro-
hydraulic data is given as Table 4. The coolant ow and the convec- dynamic model in the PARET code. The point reactivity assump-
tive heat transfer problem was solved by employing the modied tions have been found to be true for small cores. The governing
momentum integral method (MIM) in the PARET code which equations for the reactor power, P, and the number of precursors
solves the governing mass, momentum and energy conservation in the reactor, C i , are following:
equations along with the pressure balance equation for the entire
dPt qt  b X6
Pt ki C i t 1
dt K i1
Table 4
Design and thermal hydraulic parameters of LEU core of IAEA 10 MW benchmark MTR
Muhammad, 2009. dC i t bi
Pt ki C i t; i 1; 2; 3; . . . ; 6 2
Parameter Value
dt K
Active core height 60.0 cm where, b and bi are the total and ith group delayed neutron frac-
Space at the grid plate per fuel 7.7 cm  8.1 cm tions, respectively. The neutron generation time is K and the ki is
element the decay constant for ith group precursors. For the super-prompt
Fuel element cross-section 7.6 cm  8.05 cm including support
critical transients, the delayed neutrons play only a minor role
plate
Meat dimensions 6.3 cm  0.051 cm  60.0 cm and under the prompt critical approximation, the above equations
Thickness of support plate 0.475 cm reduce to (Ott and Neuho1d, 1985):
Number of fuel plates per fuel 23 identical plates, each 0.127 cm thick
element dPt qt  b
Pt 3
Number of fuel plates per control 17 identical plates, each 0.127 cm thick dt K
element
Identication of the remaining 4 plates of aluminum, each 0.127 cm
The time dependent reactivity q(t) appearing in both Eqs. (1)
plate positions of the control thick in the position of the rst, the and (3) is composed of two parts: the externally controlled reactiv-
element third, the twenty-rst, and the twenty- ity and the reactivity feedbacks coming from the Doppler broaden-
third standard plate position; water gaps ing of resonances in the fuel, effects of moderator temperature and
between the two sets of aluminum
the void temperature effects. For the neutronic model, six groups of
plates.
Specications of the LEU fuel Enrichment 20 w/o U-235; 390 g U-235 delayed neutrons have been used in this study. The respective val-
(qu = 4.40 g/cm3) per fuel element (23 ues of the reactivity coefcients, b, and K for HEU and LEU cores
plates) are shown in Table 3 (Iqbal et al., 1997; Nasir et al., 1999). In these
Mass of U in core (kg) 46.7372
calculations a single ramp reactivity insertions were modeled by
Total power 10 MWth
the following function:
Thermal hydraulic data: 8
Volumetric ow rate (m3/h) 1000
<0
> for t 6 0
Mass ow rate (kg/s) 275.97
Core ow area (m2)
qt ct for 0 6 t 6 Dt 4
0.0788 >
:
Core inlet temperature (C) 38 qm for t P Dt
Core outlet temperature (C) 47.6
Pressure at core mid-plane (kPa) 170 where, c is the ramp rate, Dt is the time duration for which the
Saturation temperature (C) 115.1 ramp is applied and qm is the nal inserted reactivity. Similarly,
Heat transfer area (m2) 39.91
multiple simultaneous ramp reactivity insertions were modeled
Average heat ux (W/cm2) 25.06
by the following function:
 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878 873

8
<0
> for t 6 0
qt ct bt for 0 6 t 6 t1 5
>
:
qm for t P t 1
where, c is the ramp rate between time t = 0 and t1 due to rst ramp
and b is the rate due to second simultaneous accident type. Then
second ramp is applied without any delay time and qm is the nal
inserted reactivity.

4. Results and discussion

First, the effects of a single ramp reactivity insertion in the core

have been analyzed by using the PARET code and effects on total
system reactivity, power and clad temperature were studied.
Then simulation for multiple reactivity insertion transients were
carried out for U3Si2Al fueled system and effects on power, net
reactivity, DNBR and temperatures were studied. In this work,
the proposed accidental scenarios which may occur as simultane-
ous accidents in a MTR are the following:

Senario 1: Large and small ramp reactivity insertion plus beam

tube ooding;
Senario 2: Ramp reactivity insertion plus a core movement star-
tup accident;
Senario 3: Ramp reactivity insertion plus a sample ejection
accident.

4.1. Single reactivity transient

In this part, a single ramp reactivity insertion was studied for

the MTR type (LEU, U3Si2Al Fueled) system. The reactor was oper-
ating at full power (10 MW) and scram was disabled. Using PARET
code, insertion of a single ramp reactivity was carried out and tran-
sient was analyzed. The PARET code performed coupled point
kinetics and thermal hydraulics calculations including ow rate,
pressure drop, heat conduction and convection calculations. The
coolant was taken at 170 kPa at inlet and PARET code computed
value of pressure drop across the core was 30.39 kPa. The ramp
reactivity can come from two sources: the control rods derive
mechanism malfunctioned and control rods ejected from the core
and got stuck there which posed a ramp type positive reactivity
insertion into the core or a fuel element got inserted into the water
holes. Iqbal et al. have done extensive studies for a typical MTR for
single reactivity insertions and have shown that BOC core has inte-
gral worth of control rods is nearly 10,760 pcm. The excess reactiv-
ity in such cores is about 5000 pcm for cold clean core and
3000 pcm is needed for Xe and Sm while 2000 pcm is to compen-
sate for experimental loads and fuel burnup. The fuel drop time is
about 0.5 s in the core (Iqbal et al., 2001). We have used similar
drop time and reactivities in this work.
In this work, the single ramp reactivity was changed from
$0.8/0.5 s to $1.4/0.5 s in steps and for each case the effect on
power, net reactivity and temperatures was studied. Net reactivity
and power as a function of transient time are shown as
Fig. 2a and b, respectively. The increase in the net reactivity of
the system (Fig. 2a) causes the rise in power as shown in Fig. 2b
and it in turn increases the fuel, clad and coolant temperatures,
respectively. Then rise in temperature produces negative feedback
in reactivity and decreases the power and temperatures. This com-
petition in reactivity affects the power and produces the primary
peak and further oscillations (Fig. 2b).
The rise in power translates into an accumulation of energy and
it leads to corresponding rise in the values of fuel, clad and moder-
ator temperatures. The clad temperature shown in Fig. 3a rst rises
to a peak and then exhibit a secondary peak as well. The rst peak
shifts to lower time values when magnitude of ramp is increased.
Fig. 2. (a) Net reactivity and (b) power (MW) as a function of time during for
various single ramp reactivity insertions in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial
power = 10 MW; scram was disabled).
The oscillations after rst peak subside after about 0.8 s and power
rises monotonically in the absence of any scram. The fuel and clad
temperatures remain close to each other and follow nearly same
pattern in these transients. The time taken to reach the rst peak
power remains less than 0.5 s for ramp reactivity insertion of
$1.4/0.5 s. Maximum clad temperatures at rst and second peak
are 148.8 C and 147.4 C, respectively. These results are in good
agreement with already published data. The results for peak values
are summarized in Table 5.
It was also observed that the initial power for single reactivity
transients affects the transient behavior. We have compared effect
of initial power at 10 MW and 1 W, respectively, for a single ramp
reactivity insertion of $1.2/0.5 s and resulting power as a function
of time is shown as Fig. 3b. When initial power is high (10 MW),
the rst peak in power occurs much earlier (at about 0.51 s) as
compared to 0.95 s for the peak when initial power is 1 W.
However simulations showed that the rst peak value (49.6 MW)
remain nearly the same for both transients.
4.2. Scenario 1: ramp reactivity insertion and beam tube ooding
These MTR type systems can have ve to six radial beam tubes.
These beam tubes are generally plugged with shielding blocks and
lled with demineralized water. However, when an experiment is
to be setup, water is drained and plugs are removed. The transition
from the air lled to water lled state adds a positive reactivity
into the core. In general, it is impossible to visualize an event in
which more than one beam tubes is ooded simultaneously within
a very short duration. However, we have assumed that a crack
874 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878

In rst part we have studied two different transients initiated

by ramp reactivity insertion coupled with the beam tube ooding.
The rst one is small ramp reactivity insertion ($0.25/0.5 s) and the
beam tube ooding transient, and the second one is a large ramp
reactivity insertion ($1.0/0.5 s) and the beam tube ooding tran-
sient. Then in second part we have simulated the effect of change
of the ramp reactivity from $0.2/0.5 s to $1.0/0.5 s in scenario 1.

4.2.1. Small ramp + beam tube ooding

A small ramp reactivity ($0.25/0.5 s) was inserted and simulta-
neously the beam tube ooding transient was initiated. In the tube
ooding the water starts owing into the beam tube due to a hypo-
thetical crack or an accidental switching of motorized operated
valve that can ood the beam tube. This ooding can cause a pos-
itive reactivity insertion in the core. Several experiments have
shown that the beam tube can insert a positive reactivity of about
$0.5 within 0.25 s. Therefore we have assumed ooding with the
insertion rate equal to $0.5/0.25 s (Iqbal et al., 2001).
Transient response of the core to such a coupled accident under
uncontrolled conditions, have been investigated using the PARET
code for initial power level of 10 MW. The cumulative effect of
both the small ramp and beam tube ooding (0.5$/0.25 s) on
power and temperatures as a function of time are shown as
Fig. 4a and b, respectively. The reactivity rises to a peak value
and then starts decreasing slowly (Fig. 4a). The power rises to a
peak value (22.4 MW) within 0.52 s and then keeps on rising
monotonically in the absence of reactor scram. For next 100 s the
reactivity keeps on decreasing and power rises slowly to 46 MW
value. The fuel and clad temperature values (156.3 C and
146.5 C, respectively) remained far below the clad melting tem-
peratures. The coolant temperatures remained less than 110 C in

Fig. 3. (a) Clad temperatures as a function of time as a function of time during for
various single ramp reactivity insertions in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial
power = 10 MW; scram was disabled); (b) comparison of power as a function of
time during transient in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core for single ramp ($1.2/0.5 s) at
initial power of 10 MW and 1 W, respectively (scram was not enabled).

Table 5
Peak power and temperatures for various single ramp reactivity transients in IAEA
benchmarked MTR type reactor having U3Si2Al fuel.a

Single ramp Power (MW) Clad temperature (C)

First peak Second peak First peak Second peak
(Time) (Time) (Time) (Time)
$1.4/0.5 s 60.9 MW 51.5 MW 148.8 C 147.4 C
(0.50 s) (0.74 s) (0.50 s) (0.74 s)
$1.2/0.5 s 49.4 MW 41.7 MW 147.1 C 145.8 C
(0.51 s) (0.77 s) (0.51 s) (0.78 s)
$1.0/0.5 s 37.5 MW 32.9 MW 143.9 C 144.1 C
(0.52 s) (0.79 s) (0.58 s) (0.87 s)
$0.8/0.5 s 27.4 MW 121.3 C
(0.51 s) (0.60 s)
a
Initial power = 10 MW; reactor scram disabled.

develops in one of the air lled beam tube having maximum reac-
tivity effects. Then it is ooding and transition from air lled to
water lled state adds a reactivity of 0.363% Dk/k. It has been
assumed that this reactivity is added within 0.25 s (Iqbal et al.,
2001). These data for Pakistan Research Reactor-I (PARR-I) is
assumed valid for the IAEA 10 MW benchmark core since PARR-I
has somewhat similar core conguration with central ux trap
and operates at 9 MW power level. In this scenario both single
ramp reactivity plus beam tube ooding occur together and the
Fig. 4. (a) Net reactivity and power (MW), (b) fuel, clad and coolant temperature as
coupled effects are analyzed. We have assumed that the reactor a function of time (during scenario 1: small ramp ($0.2/0.5 s) and beam tube
with U3Si2Al (4.10 g/cm3) fuel was operating at steady state ooding) in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 10 MW; scram was not
power of 10 MW and the reactor trip system was disabled. enabled).
 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878 875

rst 100 s of transient. No nucleate boiling was observed in the

core thus there were no damaged states. The integrity of the core
remains intact as the clad surface temperature remains far below
the melting point of the clad.

4.2.2. Large ramp + beam tube ooding

Then we initiated simultaneously a large ramp reactivity of
$1.0/0.5 s along with beam tube ooding (a ramp of $0.5/0.25 s).
Again the transient response of the core to such a situation, was
investigated at power level of 10 MW without reactor scram. The
effects on power and temperatures as a function of transient time
are shown as Fig. 5a and b, respectively. During rst 0.25 s, the net
reactivity rst rises to the value of $0.8 and another peak ($0.7) is
observed before it starts decreasing. The power rises from 10 MW
to 50 MW in rst 0.3 s and then forms another peak (of 63 MW)
near 0.52 s. The fuel, clad and coolant temperature as a function
are shown as Fig. 5b, respectively. The fuel and clad peak
temperatures (157 C and 147 C, respectively) remain well below
the melting points. In this transient, the integrity of the core
remains intact as the clad surface temperature remains far below
the melting point. However the coolant started reaching at
saturation point within 0.5 s after the start of this accident and
causes nucleate boiling.

4.2.3. Effect of ramp reactivity in the scenario 1

For scenario 1, the effects of ramp reactivity were studied with
different ramps (from $0.2/0.5 s to 1.0/0.5 s) along with beam tube
ooding ($0.5/0.25 s). The effect on net reactivity and power as a
function of transient time are shown as Fig. 6a and b, respectively.
Within 0.5 s, two peaks are observed for net reactivity and power.

Fig. 5. (a) Net reactivity and power (MW), (b) fuel, clad and coolant temperature as Fig. 6. (a) Power (MW), (b) net reactivity, (c) fuel temperature and (d) clad
a function of time (during scenario 1: a large ramp ($1.0/0.5 s) and beam tube temperature as a function of time (during scenario 1: ramp and beam tube ooding)
ooding) in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 10 MW; scram was not for various values of ramp reactivity in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial
enabled). power = 10 MW; scram was not enabled).
876 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878

The reactivity rises to a peak value and then starts decreasing
slowly; however when the ramp is large the peak values also
become high (Fig. 6a). The power also exhibits two peaks where
the second peak remains higher as compared to the rst peak in
all cases. The power rises to a peak value in less than a second
and then keeps on rising monotonically in the absence of reactor
scram for all cases. The fuel, clad and coolant temperature as a
function of time for different ramps are shown as Fig. 6b, respec-
tively. The fuel and clad temperatures (Fig. 6c and d, respectively)
remained far below the melting temperatures. Results are
summarized in Table 6. With the increase in ramp values the peak
values increased. Fuel temperatures remain below 165 C and clad
temperature remained below 145 C because of good thermal con-
ductivity of fuel. In these multiple transients, the coolant reached
at onset of nucleate boiling and attained the saturation tempera-
ture. The highest peak (53.5 MW) in power is observed for ramp
of $1.0/0.5 s is applied along 148.8 C 148.8 C with the beam tube
ooding.
4.3. Scenario 2: ramp + core movement towards thermal column
When the reactor core is moved from a position, in which it is
completely surrounded by water, to another position, in which a
portion of its water reector is replaced by graphite thermal col-
umn into the stall end operating position. This can add reactivity
to the core. In order to prevent the initiation of excursions through
the rapid movement of the core in the vicinity of the thermal col-
umn, a micro-switch is generally installed in the bridge drive
assembly, which scram the reactor when the crank controlling
bridge movement is engaged. If the bridge scram interlock fails,
the severity of the transient will depend upon the rate with which
the reactivity is added. The maximum speed at which the reactor
bridge can be moved by an average person is about 513 cm/s.
The effect of thermal column on the core reactivity can occurs only
in the last 10 cm of the motion. Hence, we have assumed that such
a movement will add a reactivity of about 0.728% Dk/k into the
core in about 0.615 s. This is a startup accidental scenario. In this
transient it is assumed that reactor is initially at very low power
of 1 W (natural convection mode) and the reactor trip system is
disabled. The rapid movement of core under forced cooling
condition with ow rates of 9501000 m3/h can create huge trust
on core and its supporting bridge and can dislodge many
components from system.
Then a ramp reactivity of $0.25/0.5 s is inserted and at the same
time the reactor core is moved towards the thermal column. The
neutrons that were leaking out from the core are now reecting
back from the thermal column and cause a positive reactivity
insertion. It is assumed that reactivity inserted because of
movement of core towards thermal column is about $1 with the
insertion rate of $1 per 0.615 s (Iqbal et al., 2001).
The transient response of this scenario for a specic ramp of
$0.3/0.5 s plus the core movement towards thermal column is
simulated. Both transients occur simultaneously at low power of
1 W when system scram is disabled. The results for net reactivity
and power are shown as Fig. 7a and b, respectively. The reactivity
increases linearly to $1.3 within rst 0.25 s and becomes constant
there for a short duration. It then decreases and forms a second
peak ($0.8) near 1.2 s. The power rises from 1 W to 103 MW within
0.9 s and the second power peak of 34 MW occurs near 1.2 s.
In next part, the ramp reactivity was varied from $0.1/0.5 s to
$0.5/0.5 s in steps along with the core movement transient and
the response was studied. Results of the analysis for power and
clad temperature are shown as Fig. 8a and b, respectively. Peak
power reaches to 280 MW when ramp inserted is $0.5/0.5 s plus
the core movement. First power peak in scenario 2 varies from
18 MW to 276.8 MW when the ramp value is changed from
$0.1/0.5 s to $0.5/0.5 s. Similarly the clad temperatures vary from
87.2 C to 260 C for the range of ramps mentioned above. The peak
values (as shown in Table 7) reach earlier in time when ramp value
is increased and peak value becomes high and peak clad tempera-
tures remain below the melting point during these coupled
transients.
4.4. Senario3: a ramp + experimental sample ejection
The experiments which are placed inside the reactor represent a
potential means of imparting a sudden increase in reactivity which
can be inserted by removal of an experiment while the core is crit-
ical. In this accident, the reactivity gets inserted from the removal

Table 6
Peak power and peak clad temperatures for various ramp plus beam tube ooding
transients in IAEA benchmarked MTR type reactor having U3Si2Al fuel.a

Single ramp Power (MW) Clad temperature (C)

First peak Second peak First peak Second peak
(Time) (Time) (Time) (Time)
$1.0/0.5 s 49.3 MW 53.5 MW 144.4 C 145.6 C
(0.30 s) (0.45 s) (0.31 s) (0.45 s)
$0.8/0.5 s 39.6 MW 50.3 MW 141.4 C 145.5 C
(0.30 s) (0.51 s) (0.36 s) (0.51 s)
$0.6/0.5 s 31.7 MW 39.2 MW 141.8 C
(0.31 s) (0.51 s) (0.53 s)
$0.4/0.5 s 25.6 MW 29.3 MW 131.2 C
(0.30 s) (0.52 s) (0.57 s)
$0.2/0.5 s 21.1 MW 22.4 MW 111.9 C Fig. 7. (a) Net reactivity and power (MW), (b) fuel, clad and coolant temperature as
(0.29 s) (0.52 s) (0.56 s) a function of time (during scenario 2: a ramp ($0.3/0.5 s) and core movement
towards thermal column transient) in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial
a
Initial power = 10 MW; reactor scram disabled. power = 1.0 W; scram was not enabled).
 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878 877

Fig. 9. (a) Net reactivity and power (MW), (b) fuel, clad and coolant temperature as
a function of time (during scenario 3: a ramp ($0.3/0.5 s) and sample ejection
accident) in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 10 MW; scram was not
Fig. 8. (a) Power (MW), (b) clad temperature as a function of time (during scenario enabled).
2: a ramp and core movement towards thermal column transient) for various values
of ramp reactivity in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 1.0 W; scram was not
enabled). simultaneously and the system scram is disabled. The results for
net reactivity and power are shown as Fig. 9a and b, respectively.
The reactivity increases very sharply within rst 0.1 s and It then
Table 7 decreases and forms a second peak. The power follows the net
Peak power and peak clad temperatures for various ramp plus core movement
reactivity and it rises to 82.4 MW within 0.1 s; the second power
transients in IAEA benchmarked MTR type reactor having U3Si2Al fuel.a
peak of 48 MW occurs near 0.31 s and afterwards it remains less
Ramp Power (MW) Clad temperature than 50 MW. The peak fuel, clad and coolant temperatures are
First peak Second peak First peak Second peak observed with 165.0 C, 151.0 C and 110 C, respectively. The val-
(Time) (Time) (Time) (Time) ues of clad temperatures remained far below the clad melting
$0.5/0.5 s 276.8 MW 56.4 MW 260.2 C 148.1 C temperatures.
(0.73 s) (1.0 s) (0.75 s) (1.0 s) In this scenario, the ramp reactivity was varied from $0.1/0.5 s
$0.4/0.5 s 179.6 MW 43.6 MW 219.2 C 145.7 C to $0.5/0.5 s along with in-pile experimental sample ejection acci-
(0.80 s) (1.09 s) (0.83 s) (1.11 s)
dent and the transient response was studied for each case. Results
$0.3/0.5 s 103.0 MW 33.6 MW 152.7 C 131.4 C
(0.90 s) (1.20 s) (0.91 s) (1.27 s) of the analysis for power and clad temperature are shown as
$0.2/0.5 s 49.2 MW 23.5 MW 131.1 C 111.3 C Fig. 10a and b, respectively. Peak values for scenario 3 are summa-
(1.05 s) (1.39 s) (1.11 s) (1.47 s) rized in Table 8. Peak power reaches to 96.4 MW when ramp
$0.1/0.5 s 18.1 MW 87.2 C 89.9 C
inserted is $0.5/0.5 s along with the sample ejection accident.
(1.39 s) (1.48 s) (1.79 s)
The peak clad temperature rises from 77 C to 153 C within 0.1 s
a
Initial power = 1 W; reactor scram disabled. in this case. The peak values increase when ramp value is raised.
Peak clad temperature remains below the melting point. In Ramp
plus in-pile experimental sample ejection accident the maximum
of single in-pile experiment and the sample worth is taken to be $1
power and Maximum clad temperature remained less than
and time taken for the sample ejection is 0.025 s but it mainly
96 MW and 155 C.
depends upon the samples weight. This is the upper limit of reac-
tivity due to a sample which is to be irradiated in a core. Therefore,
the reactivity insertion rate due to sample ejection is considered to 5. Conclusions
be $1.0 per 0.025 s (Iqbal et al., 2001).
In scenario 3, the reactor is assumed to be operating at steady When simultaneously two different reactivity insertion tran-
state power level of 10 MW and reactor trip is disabled. A specic sients are coupled in the LEU fueled MTR type reactor under
ramp of $0.3/0.5 s is coupled with an accident in which an in-pile uncontrolled conditions, the self-control of the reactor decreases.
experimental sample gets ejected and introduces a positive The power shows multiple peaks and oscillates along with the
reactivity ($1.0/0.025 s) into the system. Both transients occur net reactivity of the system within rst second of the coupled
878 R. Nasir et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 85 (2015) 869878

10 MW, when the ramp is changed from $0.1/0.5 s to $0.5/0.5 s,

the power peak remained less than 97 MW and clad temperature
was less than 153 C in rst second. Hence the uncontrolled MTR
system under these coupled scenarios does lead to nucleate boiling
in some cases but does not show clad melting temperatures.

References

Cardell, R.K., Herborn, D.H., Houghtaling, J.E., 1967. Reactivity Accident Test Results
and Analysis for the SPERT IIIE Core, IDO-17281.
Cullen, D.E., Muranaka, R., Schmidt, J., 1986. Applications in Nuclear Data and
Reactor Physics. World Scientic, Vienna, Austria.
Gaheen, M.A., Elaraby, S., Naguib Aly, M., Nagy, M.S., 2007. Simulation and analysis
of IAEA benchmark transients. Prog. Nucl. Energy 49, 217229.
Hainoun, A., Ghazi, N., Abdul-Moaiz, B.M., 2010. Safety analysis of the IAEA
reference research reactor during loss of ow accident using the code MERSAT.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 240, 11321138.
Hamidouche, T., Bousbia-Salah, A., 2010. Assessment of RELAP5 point kinetic model
against reactivity insertion transient in the IAEA 10 MW MTR research reactor.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 240, 672677.
Hamidouche, T., Mazrou, H., Ibrahim, K., Bousbia-Salah, A., 2002. RETRAC-PC: a
computer code for research reactor calculation under transient conditions. In:
Proceedings of ANS Reactor Physics Topical Meeting, PHYSOR 2002, Seoul,
Korea, October 710.
Housiadas, C., 2000. Simulation of loss-of-ow transients in research reactors. Ann.
Nucl. Energy 27, 16831693.
IAEA, 1980. Research Reactor Core Conversion from Use of High Enriched Uranium
to Use Low Enriched Uranium Fuel Handbook. IAEA-TECDOC-233, Vienna,
Austria.
IAEA, 1992. Research Reactor Core Conversion Guidebook, Vol. 3. IAEA TECDOC-643.
Iqbal, M., Mirza, N.M., Mirza, S.M., Ayazuddin, S.K., 1997. Study of the void
coefcients of reactivity in a typical pool type research reactor. Ann. Nucl.
Energy 24, 177186.
Iqbal, M., Hayat, T., Pervez, S., 2001. Safety Analysis Report of Pakistan Research
Reactor-1. Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology, P.O. Nilore,
Islamabad.
Fig. 10. (a) Reactor power (MW), (b) clad temperature as a function of time (during Khater, H., Abu-El-Maty, T., El-Morshdy, S.E.-D., 2007. Thermalhydraulic modeling
scenario 3: a ramp and sample ejection accident) for various values of ramp of reactivity accident in MTR reactors. Ann. Nucl. Energy 34, 732742.
reactivity in U3Si2Al fueled LEU core (initial power = 10 MW; scram was not Metos, J.E., Pennington, E.M., Freese, K.E., Woodruff, W.L., 1992. Safety-Related
enabled). Benchmark Calculations for MTR Type Reactors with HEU, MEU and LEU fuels.
Research Reactor Core Conversion Guidebook, Vol. 3. IAEA, Vienna.
Mirza, S.M., 1997. Simulation of over-power transients in tank-in-pool type
research reactors. Ann. Nucl. Energy 24, 871881.
Table 8 Mirza, A.M., Khanam, S., Mirza, N.M., 1998. Simulation of reactivity transients in
current MTRs. Ann. Nucl. Energy 25, 14651484.
Peak power and peak clad temperatures for various ramp plus sample ejection
Muhammad, F., 2009. Analysis of inherent safety of an MTR (Ph.D. thesis). Dept. of
transients in IAEA benchmarked MTR type reactor having U3Si2Al fuel.a
Nuclear Engineering, Pakistan Institute of Engineering and Applied Sciences
Ramp Power (MW) Clad temperature (C) (PIEAS), Nilore, Islamabad 45650, Pakistan.
Muhammad, F., Majid, A., 2009a. Effects of high density dispersion fuel loading on
First peak Second peak First peak Second peak the dynamics of a low enriched uranium fueled material test research reactor.
(Time) (Time) (Time) (Time) Prog. Nucl. Energy 51, 339346.
Muhammad, F., Majid, A., 2009b. Effects of high density dispersion fuel loading on
$0.5/0.5 s 96.4 MW 63.5 MW 152.8 C 149.2 C
the uncontrolled reactivity insertion transients of a low enriched uranium
(0.08 s) (0.29 s) (0.10 s) (0.30 s) fueled material test research reactor. Ann. Nucl. Energy 36, 10211031.
$0.4/0.5 s 88.9 MW 55.1 MW 151.8 C 148.1 C Muhammad, F., Majid, A., 2010. Prospects of using different clad materials in a
(0.08 s) (0.30 s) (0.10 s) (0.31 s) material test research reactor Part 4 The uncontrolled reactivity insertion
$0.3/0.5 s 82.4 MW 48.0 MW 150.9 C 146.9 C transients. Prog. Nucl. Energy 52, 332338.
(0.08 s) (0.31 s) (0.10 s) (0.31 s) Nasir, R., Mirza, N.M., Mirza, S.M., 1999. Sensitivity of reactivity insertion limits
$0.2/0.5 s 76.5 MW 42.1 MW 150.0 C 145.9 C with respect to safety parameters in a typical MTR. Ann. Nucl. Energy 26, 1517
(0.08 s) (0.32 s) (0.10 s) (0.32 s) 1535.
$0.1/0.5 s 71.3 MW 37.3 MW 149.2 C 144.9 C Obenchain, C.F., 1969. PARET A Program for the Analysis of Reactor Transients,
(0.08 s) (0.36 s) (0.10 s) (0.34 s) AEC Research and Development Report, IDO-17282, USAEC, Idaho.
Ott, K.O., Neuho1d, R.J., 1985. Introductory Nuclear Reactor Dynamics. American
a
Initial power = 1 W; reactor scram disabled. Nuclear Society, Illinois.
Salama, A., El-Morshedy, S.E.-D., 2012. CFD analysis of ow blockage in MTR coolant
channel under loss-of-ow transient: Hot channel scenario. Prog. Nucl. Energy
55, 7892.
accident. In scenario 1 (ramp and beam tube ooding) when ramp Waldman, R., Vertullo, A., 1987. Reactivity accident analysis in MTR cores. In:
is changed from $0.2/0.5 s to $1.0/0.5 s, the power peak remains Proceedings of the 10th International Meeting on Reduced Enrichment Research
less than 55 MW and clad temperature remains less than 146 C and Test Reactors, Buenos Aires, Argentina, CNEA, Sep 28 Oct 1.
Woodruff, W.L., 1982. The PARET Code and the Analysis of the SPERT-I Transients,
during rst second. For scenario 2 (ramp and core movement tran- ANL/RERTR/TM 4.
sient) under uncontrolled conditions and initial power of one Watt, Woodruff, W.L., 1984. A kinetic and thermalhydraulic capability for the analysis of
when the ramp is changed from $0.1/0.5 s to $0.5/0.5 s, the power research reactors. Nucl. Technol. 64, 196206.
Woodruff, W.L., Hanan, N.A., Smith, R.S., Matos, J.E., 1996. A comparison of the
peak is near 277 MW and clad temperature remains less than PARET/ANL and RELAP5/MOD3 codes for the analysis of IAEA benchmark
260 C in rst second. Also, for scenario 3 (ramp and sample ejec- transients. In: Proc. of 1996 Int. Mtg. on Reduced Enrichment for Research and
tion accident) under uncontrolled conditions and initial power of Test Reactors, Seoul, Korea, pp. 260269, October 710.