Full File PHT

A Pressurized Water Reactor has operating characteristics given below.
For the average channel, compute and plot

the coolant temperature, outer clad surface temperature and fuel centerline temperature as a function of axial
position.
a) For the average channel, determine the maximum clad surface temperature
b) For the average channel, determine the maximum fuel centerline temperature
c) Determine the maximum power peaking factor to prevent boiling in the hot channel (i.e. Tclad < Tsat)
Note: The coolant enthalpy rise should reflect the total thermal output of the reactor, not just that fraction deposited
in the fuel.
You may assume a uniform volumetric heat generation rate and an axial heat flux profile of the form
  (z   ) 
q ( z )  qo sin .
 He 
Problem Data (Westinghous 4 Loop PWR)
Core Thermal Output 3400 Mw

Fuel Height 144 inches
Rod Pitch 0.496 inches
Outer Clad Diameter 0.374 inches
Clad Thickness 0.0225 inches
Clad Thermal Conductivity 9.6 Btu/hr-Ft-F
Gap Conductance 1000 Btu/hr-ft2-F
System Pressure 2250 psia
Coolant Mass Flux 2.60 x 106 lbm/Hr-ft2
Core Inlet Temperature 560 F
Axial Peak to Average Ratio 1.44
Number of Fuel Rods 50,952
Energy Deposited in Fuel 97.4 %
SOLUTION
Rod Surface Heat Flux
Average Channel
 f Q
q    188, 795 Btu/hr-ft 2
n2 Ro H
Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient
From the Weisman Correlation
k
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3
De
where C  0. 042 ( S / D )  0. 024 = 0.032. Assuming a core averaged coolant temperature of 592.5 F, the
corresponding fluid parameters are
C p  1.3825
  0.2032
k  0.3119
Equivalent Diameter
4 Ax 4 S  D / 4
2 2
De    0. 039 ft
D D
Reynolds Number
GDe
Re   494, 253

Prandtl Number
Cp
Pr   0.9007
k
From which the convective heat transfer coefficient can be found to be
hc = 8,876.9 Btu/hr-ft2-F
Extrapolation Distance
The axially averaged heat flux is

1   (z   ) 

qaxial  q0 sin  dz
H  He 
0
He q0       (H  )  
 
qaxial cos   cos 
H    He   He  
such that the axial peak to average ratio is
q0 1
 Fz  .

qaxial He 1       (H  )  
cos   cos 
H    He   He  
For a fuel height of H = 144 inches, and an axial peak to average ratio of Fz = 1.44, the extrapolation distance is
found to be  = 0.616 ft.
Average Channel
The heat flux profile in any channel is given as

  (z   ) 
q ( z )  qo sin 
 He 
where the extrapolation distance has been chosen such that the axial peak to average ratio is 1.44. For the
sinusoidal heat flux given, the maximum heat flux in a given channel is q 0 . For a channel averaged heat flux equal
to 188,795 Btu/hr-ft2, (the core averaged heat flux) the peak heat flux in the channel is
q0  1.44  q   271,865 Btu/hr-ft 2 .
Fluid Temperature
The fluid temperature distribution is given by T ( z )  T (h( z )) , where h( z ) is the enthalpy distribribution

1
h( z )  h(0)  q ( z ) Ddz 
m  f
0
which for the sinusoidal heat flux given above yields
q0DH e       ( z   )  
h( z )  h(0)  cos    cos  
m  f   H e   H e  
The mass flow rate is given by m  GAx  2458 lbm / hr .
Outer Clad Temperature
The outer clad surface temperature (in the absence of boiling) is given by
q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
The position of maximum clad temperature is that position zmax such that
dTco dT 1 q ( z )

  0
dz zmax dz zmax hc dz zmax
q ( zmax ) D 1 q ( z )

 
 p f
mC hc dz zmax
For the heat flux profile given here, zmax is the solution of
q0 D  (z  )  1   (z  ) 
0 sin   max   q0 cos   max 
 p f
mC  He  hc He  He 
Fuel Pellet Surface Temperature
The fuel pellet surface temperature (in the absence of boiling) is related to the fluid temperature and the axial
heat flux through
 R R  R  1 
Ts ( z )  T ( z )  q ( z )  o  o ln o   
 Ri HG k c  Ri  hc 
Fuel Centerline Temperature
The fuel centerline temperature for a uniform radial volumetric heat generation rate is given by solution of the
transcendental equation
 692.61  Ts ( z )  6.02366  10 12

Ts (z)  4604  To (z)  4604    q (4z) R
2
. ln 
39781 
 692.61  T0 ( z )  4
where the volumetric heat generation rate is given in terms of the heat flux by
2Ro q ( z ) 2 Ro q ( z )

q ( z )   .
R 2 R2
For the average channel, the axial fluid temperature, clad temperature, and fuel centerline temperatures are
illustrated below.
660
Fluid Temperature
640 Clad Temperature
620
Temperature (F)
600
580
560
540
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)

2400
2200
2000
1800
Temperature (F)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 Centerline Temperature
600
400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
The maximum clad temperature occurs at zmax  9.519 ft and has a value of Tco ( zmax )  638.218 F. The
maximum clad temperature is below the saturation temperature, and therefore boiling does not occur in the
average channel. The maximum fuel centerline temperature is 2178.92 F and occurs at an axial location of
approximately 6.25 ft.
Hot Channel
The maximum heat flux in the hot channel is q0  Fq  q  . The relationship for the enthalpy and fluid temperature
distributions are unchanged. The magnitude of the heat flux is changed to reflect the hot channel.
q0DH e       ( z   )  
h( z )  h(0)  cos    cos  
m  f   H e   H e  
In the absence of boiling, the clad temperature distribution is also unchanged
q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
as well as the position of maximum clad temperature zmax  9.519 ft . At 2250 psia, the fluid saturation temperature
is Tsat  652.67 F. Solution for Fq such that Tco ( zmax )  Tsat gives Fq  1.728 .
The relative velocity, and therefore the drift velocity correlations are generally flow regime dependent. One
example of these correlations are those utilized in early versions of the TRAC code given below
Bubbly Flow
1.41   gg c (     g ) 
1/ 4
vr   
   2 
Slug Flow
0.345  gDh (     g ) 
1/ 2
vr   
   
Churn-Turbulent
v
vr 
1  C g  g g

C 1 
Where C = 1.1 and  g is limited to a maximum value of 0.8.
Annular Flow
v
vr  1/ 2
  (76  75 g )   g g
 g  
   g  
The corresponding flow regime map is attached, where the dashed lines mark transition regions between flow
regimes. In these regions, the relative velocity is linearly interpolated between the boundary values. An
alternate approach is to use a flow regime independent void/quality relation, such as the Zuber-Findlay
correlation to determine void fraction. The Zuber-Findlay correlation is given as
1
g 
  1  x  g   gVgj 
Co 1   
  x   Gx 
where again Vgj is the Drift Velocity and Co is the Concentration Parameter. Both are correlated parameters.
One such correlation by Dix is
Co   1  (1 /   1)b 
b  (  g /   ) 0.1
x

g
x  (1  x)

  gg c (     g ) 
1
4
Vgj  2.9  
  2 
Given void and quality, the phase velocities can be computed from
G (1- x)
v 
  
Gx
vg 
 g g
A uniformly heated, circular boiling channel has parameters listed below.
a) For the given data, compute and plot the void distribution in the channel with the void-quality relation derived
in problem 1 and the flow regime dependent relative velocities given above. Indicate on your plot the
associated flow regimes computed from the TRAC flow regime map and the Hewitt and Roberts Map included
in the notes.
b) Repeat part a) using the flow regime independent Zuber-Findlay correlation.
For the purposes of this assignment, you can assume the flow quality is equal to the equilibrium quality.
BOILING CHANNEL PARAMETERS
Heat Flux 144,032 Btu/hr-ft2

Pressure 1000 psia
Coolant Mass Flux 1.33 x 106 lbm/hr-ft2
Channel Inlet Temperature 532 F
Channel Height 146 inches
Channel Diameter 0.5 inches
SOLUTION
The mass flux is given as 1.33 x 106 lbm/hr-ft2 = 1,804 kg/m2-sec. According to the TRAC flow regime map, the
possible flow regimes are only a function of void fraction and consist of bubbly, slug and annular. The relative
velocity is then a function of void fraction and for
1.41   gg c (     g ) 
1/ 4
vrB ( )    (Bubbly)
1   2 
0.345  gDh (     g ) 
1/ 2
vrS ( )    (Slug)
1   
v( )
vrA ( )  1/ 2
(Annular)
  g (76  75 )   g
  
     ( )
where the mixture velocity (v ) is determined from
G
v( ) 
(1   )    g

 ( )
the relative velocity as a function of void fraction in the range   [0, 0.9] can be expressed analytically as
 vrB ( )   0.1

 v (0.1)  (  0.1) [v (0.2)  v (0.1)] 0.1    0.2
 rB
0.1
rS rB

vr ( )   vrS ( ) 0.2    0.65

vr (0.65)  (  0.65) [vr (0.85)  vr (0.65)] 0.65    0.85
 S 0.2 A S
 vrA ( ) 0.85    0.9


The void fraction at any location can then be determined iteratively from the quality at that location from the
equation
1 x( z )
 
  1  x( z )  g   gVgj ( )     g   gVgj ( ) 
 1      x( z )  [1  x( z )]   
  x( z )   Gx( z )      G 
where Vgj ( )  (1   )vr ( ) . The quality at any axial location can be obtained from the enthalpy at location by
h( z )  h f
xe ( z ) 
h fg
 xe ( z ) h( z )  h f

x( z )  
 0 h( z )  h f

and
q  Dz
h( z )  h(0)  .
GAx
In the Dix correlation, the Drift Velocity is independent of void fraction so the void fraction can be computed
directly in terms of the local quality according to
x( z )
 ( z) 
   g   gVgj 
Co  x( z )   x( z )  [1  x( z )]   
    G 
The void distributions from the two approaches are shown below. Flow regime boundaries associated with the
TRAC flow regime map are indicated on the graph. Given void and quality, the phase velocities as a function of
position can be computed as
G (1- x( z ))
v ( z ) 
  ( z ) 
Gx ( z )
vg ( z ) 
 g ( z)g
giving the superficial velocities as a function of position
jk ( z )   k ( z )vk ( z )
Which can be used to determine the ordinates of the Hewitt and Roberts flow regime map. A table of the Flow
Regimes predicted by the Hewitt and Roberts Map using the TRAC relative velocity correlations is given below.
The largest significant difference between the void fractions computed by the TRAC relative velocity
correlations and the void quality relation using the Dix model occurs at around z = 7 ft, where the TRAC
correlations give a void fraction of approximately 0.65 and the Dix correlation gives a void fraction of
approximately 0.59. The ordinates at this location using the Dix correlation are  j2  3655 and  g jg2  690.7 ,
still placing the flow regime in the Wispy Annular regime.
0.8
Slug-Annular Transition
0.7
0.6
TRAC
Void Fraction
0.5 Dix
0.4 Slug
0.3
0.2
Bubble-Slug Transition
0.1
Bubbly
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Axial Position (ft)  jl2 (kg s-2m-1)  g jg2 (kg s-2m-1) Flow Regime
0 4387 0 Single Phase Liquid
0.5 4387 0 Single Phase Liquid
2.0 4323 4.9 Bubbles/Slugs
2.5 4254 21.3 Bubbles/Slugs
3.0 4185 49.3 Bubbles/Slugs-Churn
3.5 4117 88.9 Churn
4.0 4049 140.1 Wispy Annular
5.5-7.0 3849-3655 363.3-690.8 Wispy Annular
7.5-12 3591-3042 823-2536 Wispy Annular-Annular
Hewitt and Roberts Flow Regime Predictions (TRAC correlations)

One approach for handling the mixed boiling and fully developed nucleate boiling regimes in flow boiling channels
is to assume a superposition approach where the wall heat flux is the sum of single phase forced convection and
nucleate boiling components from the point at which the wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, i.e.
q( z )  hFC [Tw ( z )  T ( z )]  hNB (z)[Tw ( z )  Tsat ]
where hFC is an appropriate single phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient (e.g. Weisman), and hNB is an
appropriate nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient (e.g. Thom or Jens-Lottes).
The hot channel in a PWR operates under the conditions given below. Compute and plot the outer clad temperature
distributions assuming the Jens-Lottes and Thom correlations in the nucleate boiling region and the Bergles and
Rosenhow correlation in the mixed boiling region. Compare your results to those assuming the superposition
approach given above.
You may assume an axial heat flux profile of the form
  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
Problem Data

Core Mass Flux 2.62 x 106 lbm/hr-ft2
Power Peaking Factor 2.32
SOLUTION
Heat Flux
The heat flux profile is in terms of two unknown parameters, the extrapolation distance  and the amplitude q0 .
The extrapolation distance is determined by the axial peak to average ratio. The amplitude sets the magnitude of the
heat flux.
Rod Surface Heat Fluxes
Average Channel
 f Q
q    189, 400 Btu/hr-ft 2
n2 Ro H
Hot Channel
  Fq q   439, 400 Btu/hr-ft 2

qmax
Boiling Heat Transfer 34 1

The axial peak to average ratio is defined to be
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
where zmax is the position of maximum heat flux in a particular channel, and q is the axially averaged heat flux in
the same channel. Note, that since for any given channel q( zmax ) and q both contain the amplitude q0 , this
parameter cancels and the axial peak to average ratio is only a function of shape. The position of maximum heat
flux is that location such that
d
q 0
dz z max
H
For this heat flux profile, the maximum heat flux occurs at , such that
2
q0  qmax
  439, 400 Btu/hr-ft2
The axially averaged heat flux is defined to be
 z
  q sin
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  dz
H e 
0
H 0 H 0
q0 H e      ( H   ) 
q  cos    cos  
 H   H e   H e 
The axial peaking factor is then

Fz 
He      ( H   ) 
cos    cos  
H   H e   H e 
For H e  H  2 , this expression is transcendental in  and must be solved iteratively. Iterating on  gives
  0.3009 feet.
Coolant Enthalpy and Temperature Distributions
The fluid temperature distribution is given by T ( z )  T (h( z )) , where h( z ) is the enthalpy distribution and is
given by
z
1
h( z )  h(0) 
m  f  q( z ) Ddz 
0
which for the heat flux profile given here yields

q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
Channel Flow Area
Do2
Ax  S 2    9.455  104 ft2
4
Channel Mass Flow Rate
m channel  G  Ax  2477.3 lbm/hr
Channel Exit Conditions
For the given problem parameters, and a channel inlet enthalpy of h(0)  558.48 Btu/lbm, the channel exit enthalpy
is h( H )  701.13 Btu/lbm. The enthalpy of a saturated liquid at 2250 psia is 700.95 Btu/lbm such that the coolant
leaves the channel as a saturated mixture. The fluid properties are evaluated at the average fluid temperature in the
subcooled region of the channel
(Tsat  Tinlet ) (652.74  559)

Tave    605.87
2 2
giving
Cp = 1.4528
 = 0.1960
k = 0.3027
The channel saturation properties are taken at 2250 psia
Tsat = 652.74
hf = 700.95
h fg = 415.01
The coolant enters the channel subcooled, such that the potential exist for single phase forced convection over some
portion of the channel. The outer clad surface temperature (in the absence of boiling) is given by
q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
The clad temperature is then a function of the convective heat transfer coefficient and the magnitude of the heat flux.
k
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3
De

where C  0.042( S / D)  0.024  0.042(0.496 / 0.374)  0.024 = 0.0317.
Equivalent Diameter
De  

4 Ax 4 S 2  D 2 / 4 
 0.0386 ft
D D
Reynolds Number
GDe (2.62  106 )(0.0386)

Re    516,500
 0.1960
Prandtl Number
Cp  1.4528  0.1960
Pr    0.94
k 0.3027
k 0.3027
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3 = (0.0317)(516,500)0.8 (0.94)1/3  9, 052 Btu/hr-ft2-F
De 0.0386
Location where the clad temperature exceeds the saturation temperature
The minimum criteria for boiling is that the wall temperature exceed the saturation temperature. If zsat is the
position at which the wall temperature reaches the saturation temperature, then z sat is the solution of
q( zsat )
Tsat  T ( z sat ) 
hc
given by
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
The solution for zsat is iterative. For the given data, the solution for zsat gives zsat  5.435 feet . This implies that
boiling is possible over the upper half of the channel.
Transition from Single Phase Forced Convection to Nucleate Boiling
Incipient Boiling Point
The transition from single phase forced convection to mixed boiling is assumed to occur where the wall temperature
predicted by the single phase forced convection correlation is equal to that predicted by an incipient boiling
correlation. The wall temperature under single phase forced convection is
q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc

and assuming the incipient boiling correlation
2.3
q( zi )  15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( zi )  Tsat ] P
0.0234
the solution for zi is iterative. For the given data, zi  5.582 ft.
Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling Point
The transition from mixed boiling to fully developed nucleate boiling is assumed to occur where the wall
temperature predicted by the mixed boiling correlation is equal to that predicted by the fully developed nucleate
boiling correlation. Assuming the Bergles and Rohsenow correlation is valid in the mixed boiling region, then the
transition point to fully developed nucleate is the location z B which satisfies
1/ 2
    ( zi )  
2
q ( z B )  qNB
 ( z B ) 1  
q( z B )  qFC 1  
  qFC
 (zB )  q( z B )  
 
where: q(z ) is the operating heat flux profile
qFC
 ( z B )  hc [Tw ( z B )  T ( z B )]
1/ m
 q( z B ) 
Tw ( z B )  Tsat   6
(Wall temperature from the fully developed nucleate boiling correlation)
   10 
qNB
 ( zi )    10 6 [Tw ( zi )  Tsat ]m
q( zi )
Tw ( zi )  T ( zi ) 
hc
T ( z )  T (h( z ))
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
Jens-Lottes Correlation
The Jens-Lottes Correlation gives
 4P 
exp 
  900 
60 4
m4

The solution for z B gives z B  9.238 feet. Nucleate boiling is assumed for all elevations above this point with a
wall temperature given by
 P 
Tco ( z )  Tsat  1.897q( z )0.25 exp  
 900 
Thom Correlation
Similarly, the Thom Correlation gives
 2P 
exp 
  1260 
72 2
m2
 P 
Tco ( z )  Tsat  0.072q( z )0.5 exp  
 1260 
In the mixed boiling region, the wall temperature at any location is obtained from
1/ 2
    ( zi )  
2
 q NB ( z )  qNB
q( z )  qFC
 ( z) 1   1  
  qFC ( z )   ( z )  
qNB
 
qFC
 ( z )  hc [Tw ( z )  T ( z )]
qNB
 ( z )    10 6 [Tw ( z )  Tsat ]m
qNB
 ( zi )    10 6 [Tw ( zi )  Tsat ]m
q( zi )
Tw ( zi )  T ( zi ) 
hc
T ( z )  T (h( z ))
The unknown is Tw (z ) which may be solved for iteratively at any location.
Combined Single Phase Forced Convection and Nucleate Boiling
If the wall temperature is assumed to be given by
where the nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient is given by

hNB ( z )    106 (Tw ( z )  Tsat ) m 1
This is a single nonlinear equation in the wall temperature and may be solved iteratively
Wall Temperature Distributions
The fluid temperature profile and the wall temperatures computed from the different correlations are indicated
below. The maximum wall temperature using the Thom Correlation with the Bergles and Rohensow correlation in
the mixed boiling region is 659.64 F and occurs at approximately 8.0 feet in the channel. For the wall temperature
computed neglecting the mixed boiling region and assuming the combined single phase forced convection and
nucleate boiling correlations, the maximum wall temperature is 657.7 F and occurs at approximately 8.75 feet in the
channel. For the Jens-Lottes correlation, the maximum wall temperature including the mixed boiling correlation is
655.8 F and occurs at approximately 7.39 feet in the channel while ignoring the mixed boiling regions gives a
maximum wall temperature of 655.4 F which occurs at approximately 8.46 feet in the channel.
680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
600 Fluid Temp

Bergles and Rohsenow
Superposition
580
560
540
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Temperature Distributions with the Thom Correlation

680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
600 Fluid Temp

Bergles and Rohsenow
Superposition
580
560
540
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Temperature Distributions with the Jens-Lottes correlation

680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
600 Fluid Temp

Jens-Lottes
Thom
580
560
540
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Comparison of Jens-Lottes and Thom Correlations with Bergles and Rohsenow

For the BWR operating parameters given below, compute and plot:
a) The clad surface temperature assuming the Jens-Lottes Correlation

b) The clad surface temperature assuming the Thom Correlation
c) The clad surface temperature assuming the Chen Correlation
You can neglect the mixed boiling region and assume the same superposition approach for the transition from
single phase forced convection to nucleate boiling. In the Chen correlation, compare the temperature
distributions obtained with the original Dittus-Boelter correlation for ho and that obtained by substituting the
Weisman correlation for ho .
BOILING WATER REACTOR PARAMETERS
Pressure 1040 psia

Core Inlet Enthalpy 527.9 Btu/lbm
Core Average Heat Flux 144,032 Btu/hr-ft2
Rod Diameter 0.493 inches
Fraction of energy deposited in fuel 0.97
Axial Peak to average ratio 1.4
The axial heat flux may be taken to be
  (H   -z )    (H   -z ) 
q (z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 

SOLUTION
Heat Flux
heat flux.
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz zmax
H
For this heat flux profile, the maximum heat flux does not occur at , nor is the function evaluated at the position
2
of maximum heat flux equal to one, such that q0  q( zmax ) . Determination of zmax is further complicated by the
fact that the solution for zmax contains the extrapolation distance which is as of yet unknown. We can avoid this
problem by defining a new variable
H  z
x 
He
such that
q( x)  q0 x sin( x)
and maximizing with respect to x
0
d
q0x sin(x)
dx xmax
0  sin( xmax )  xmax cos( xmax )
which is transcendental in xmax and must be solved iteratively. Note, that since
zmax  [0, H ]  xmax  ( ,0) for   0

Iterating on xmax yields the solution xmax  2.029 .
 H  z  H  z
 
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  q0    sin  
 
dz

H 0 H 0  He   He 
q0      (H   )     He  (H   )  He 
q  cos    cos 
 
( H   )  sin 
 

  sin   
H   H e   He   He    H e   
The axial peaking factor can then be written in terms of xmax and q as
xmax sin( xmax )

Fz 
1      (H   )     He  (H   )  He 
cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
  3.097 feet.
Heat Flux Profile
From the definition of average heat flux, the magnitude of the heat flux profile is given by
qH
q0 
     (H  )     He  (H  )  He 
cos      cos    ( H   )  sin     sin    
  He   He   He    He   
For the data given here
q0  1.10812 105 Btu/hr-ft 2
The fluid properties assumed for this problem are
f = 45.99
g = 2.3426
f = 0.2192
g = 0.0460
kf = 0.3289
C pf = 1.2986
 = 0.00118
Tsat = 549.43
hf = 548.75

h fg = 642.304
q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
where the fluid temperature can be obtained directly from the enthalpy using a state equation of the form
T ( z )  T [h( z ), P ] . The enthalpy is obtained from the simple energy balance

1
h( z )  h(0)  q ( z ) Do dz 
m  f
0
or
q0H e D  ( H    z )  (H    z)  (H   )  (H   )   (H    z)   (H   ) 
h( z )  h(0)   cos     cos     sin     sin   
m f 
 He  He  He  He   He   H e  
The channel mass flow rate is m  GAx , where the cross sectional flow area is given by
Ax  S 2   D 2 / 4  0.642   (0.493)2 / 4  0.2187 in 2  1.519 103 ft 2 . The channel mass flow rate is then
m  1.21106  1.519 103  1838 lbm/hr . The location where the fluid reaches the saturation temperature is
z EQ

1
h f  h(0)  q ( z ) Do dz 
m  f
0
The solution is iterative. For the data given here, the fluid reaches the saturation point at zEQ  1.705 feet.
k
hc  C Re0.8 Pr1/3
De
where C  0.042( S / D)  0.024  0.042(0.64 / 0.493)  0.024 = 0.0305.
If the Dittus-Boelter Correlation is to be used
k
hc   0.023  Re0.8 Pr 0.4
De
Equivalent Diameter

De  

4 Ax 4 S 2  D 2 / 4 
 0.047 ft
D D
Reynolds Number
GDe (1.21106 )(0.047)

Re    259,833
 0.2192
Prandtl Number
Cp  1.2986  0.2192
Pr    0.865
k 0.3289
From which the convective heat transfer coefficient can be found
Weisman Correlation
k 0.3289
hc  C Re0.8 Pr1/3 = (0.0305)(259,833)0.8 (0.865)1/3  4,363 Btu/hr-ft2-F
De 0.047
Dittus-Boelter Correlation
k 0.3289
hc   0.023  Re0.8 Pr 0.4 = (0.023)(259,833)0.8 (0.865)0.4  3, 256 Btu/hr-ft2-F
De 0.047
The minimum criteria for boiling is that the wall temperature exceed the saturation temperature. If z sat is the
q( zsat )
Tsat  T ( zsat ) 
hc
Assuming the Weisman Correlation for the convective heat transfer coefficient, the solution for z sat is iterative. For
the data given here, the solution for z sat gives zsat  1.042 feet. The negative sign implies that boiling is possible
over the entire channel.
hNB ( z )    106 (Tw ( z )  Tsat ) m 1
this is a single nonlinear equation in the wall temperature and may be solved iteratively.

Once the wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, the wall temperature from the Chen correlation is the
solution of
q( z )  hlo [Tco ( z )  T ( z )]  h2 [Tco ( z )  Tsat ]
where
1/ 3
 Cp 
0.8
 S   G(1  x) De   k 
hlo  0.042   0.024       F
     k  D 
D     e 
if the Weisman Correlation is assumed for the Liquid Only portion of the heat transfer coefficient, and
 G (1  x) De   C p    k 
0.8 0.4
hlo  0.023     k   D F
      e
if the Dittus-Boelter Correlation is assumed.

10 1
 010
.  tt
.

F
 0.736
2.35 1  0.213 1
 010
.
   tt   tt
0.9  0.5 0.1

1  x     g 
   f   
 tt  1  x   g   f 
0.75
 k 0f .79C 0pf.45  0f .49 g c0.25  h fg J 
h2  0.00122  0.5 0.29 0.24 0.24 



Tco  Tsat 0.99 S
   f h fg  g  Tsat v fg 
 Re 2 
S  0.9622  0.5822  tan 1  4 
 6.18  10 
 G 1  x De  1.25
Re2    F
  
The single phase liquid component of the Chen correlation is equivalent to that for single phase forced convection
prior to the fluid reaching the saturation point. If the nucleate boiling coefficient ( hnb ) is set to zero prior to the
wall temperature exceeding the saturation temperature, then the Chen correlation can be used over the entire
channel. At any axial location, the heat flux, fluid temperature and enthalpy (quality) can be determined. The Chen
Correlation is then in terms of the single unknown wall temperature Tco . The dependence on wall temperature is
nonlinear and Tco must be solved iteratively at each spatial location. The fluid temperature profile and the wall
temperatures computed from the different correlations are indicated below. The maximum wall temperatures are

561.2 F if the Jens-Lottes correlation is assumed for the nucleate boiling correlation in the superposition approach,
561.6 F if the Thom correlation is assumed and 573.9 F according to the Chen correlation.
580
Fluid Temperature
Chen
570 Jens-Lottes
Thom
Temperature (F)
560
550
540
530
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
A comparison between the wall temperatures computed using the Weisman and Dittus-Boelter Correlations for the
Liquid Only component is illustrated below. The maximum wall temperature using Dittus-Boelter for the Liquid
Only heat transfer coefficient is 576.6 F.

580
Fluid Temperature
Chen (Weisman)
570 Chen (Dittus-Boelter)
Temperature (F)
560
550
540
530
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)

A PWR operates under the conditions given below.
Problem Data

a) For channels having the same heat input, maximum heat flux and peak to average ratio, the position and value
of the Minimum DNB ratio is a function of the heat flux profile. Assuming the W3 correlation is valid,
determine the location and the value of the Minimum DNB ratio in the hot channel. Assume axial heat flux
profiles of the form
i) Nominal chopped cosine
  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
ii) Bottom Peaked
  ( H   - z)    ( H   - z) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
iii) Top Peaked
  (z  )    (z  ) 
q( z ) = q0   sin 
  H


 He   e 
b) Assuming the nominal heat flux profile, determine the change in the magnitude and position of MDNBR for a
20% increase in the maximum heat flux.
c) Determine the maximum heat flux for the Top Peaked profile such that the MDNBR is the same as the
nominal profile for the given operating conditions.
SOLUTION
The DNB ratio is defined to be
qc ( z )
DNBR 
q( z )
Critical Heat Flux 32 1

The minimum DNB ratio is most easily found by computing the DNB ratio over the channel height and searching
for the minimum.
Heat Flux
heat flux.
Average Channel
 f Q
q    189, 406 Btu/hr-ft 2
n2 Ro H
Hot Channel
  Fq q   439, 422 Btu/hr-ft 2

qmax
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz z max
Nominal Heat Flux Profile
H
For this heat flux profile, the maximum heat flux occurs at ,such that
2
q0  q ( zmax )  qmax

  439, 422 Btu/hr-ft2.
.
 z
  q sin
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  dz
H e 
0
H 0 H 0

q0 H e      ( H   ) 
q  cos    cos  
 H   H e   H e 

Fz 
He      ( H   ) 
cos    cos  
H   H e   H e 
  0.301 feet.
Bottom Peaked Profile
H
2
H  z
x 
He
such that
q( x )  q0 x sin( x)
0
d
q0x sin( x)
dx xmax
zmax  [0, H ]  xmax  ( ,0) for   0
 H  z  H  z
 
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  q0    sin  
 
dz

H 0 H 0  He   He 
q0      (H   )     He  (H   )  He 
q  cos    cos 
 
( H   )  sin  
 

  sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   

xmax sin( xmax )

Fz 
1      (H  )     He  (H  )  He 
cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
  1.772 feet.
The maximum heat flux corresponds to
  q( zmax )
qmax
or in terms of the parameter xmax
  q0 xmax sin( xmax )

qmax
such that

qmax
q0 max 
xmax sin xmax 
q0 max  241, 480 Btu/hr-ft 2
Top Peaked Profile
The top peaked profile has the same extrapolation distance and magnitude as the bottom peaked profile, i.e.
  1.772 feet
and
q0 max  241, 480 Btu/hr-ft 2
Critical Heat Flux
The critical heat flux is dependent on the local equilibrium quality, which in turn is a function of the local enthalpy.
The fluid enthalpy distribution is given by
 q( z) Ddz

1
h( z )  h(0) 
m  f
0
For the heat flux profiles given here, the enthalpy distributions are

a) Nominal Profile
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
b) Bottom Peaked Profile
q0H e D  ( H    z )  (H    z)  (H   )  (H   )   (H    z)   (H   ) 
m  f  He  He  He  He   He   H e  
c) Top Peaked Profile
q0H e D   ( z   )     (z  )  (z  )     
h( z )  h(0)  sin     sin     cos    cos   
m f  
 He   He  He  He  He  H e  
The channel mass flow rate is
m  GAx
0.496 2    0.374 2 / 4
Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4   9.455  10 4 ft 2
144
m  2.62  106  9.455 104  2477.3 lbm / hr
The W-3 correlation is given in Equation 1.
qc, EU
  (2.022  0.0004302 P)  (01722
.  0.0000984 P )
106
 exp[(18177
.  0.004129 P ) xc ]
 [(01484
.  1596
. xc  01729
. xc xc )G/106  1037
. ] (1)
 (1157
.  0.869 xc )  [0.2664  0.8357 exp( 3151
. De )]
 [0.8258  0.000794(h f  hin )]
where:
qc,EU = Critical heat flux in a uniformly heat channel (Btu/hr-ft2)

P = Pressure (1000 to 2300 psia)
xc = Quality at the critical location (-0.15 < xc < 0.15)
G = Mass Flux ( 1  106 to 5  106 lbm/hr-ft2)
De = Equivalent diameter (0.2 - 0.7 inches)
h f = Saturated liquid enthalpy (Btu/lbm)
hin = Inlet enthalpy (> 400 Btu/lbm)
The correlation given above is for critical heat flux in uniformly heated channels. To account for non-uniform heat
fluxes, we employ the following correction factor
qc,EU
qc,N  (2)
F

c, N

C
F q ( z ) exp[  C (  c, N  z )]dz (3)
q (  c , N )[1  exp(  C c ,EU )]
0
(1  xc ) 7.9
C  0.44 inches-1 (4)
 
1.72
G/106
where:
qc,N = Critical heat flux in the non-uniformly heated channel (Btu/hr-ft2)

 c ,N = Axial location at which DNB occurs in the non-uniformly heated channel (inches)
 c ,EU = Axial location at which DNB occurs in a uniformly heated channel (inches)
The DNB Ratio (DNBR) is defined to be the critical heat flux at a specific location divided by the operating heat
flux at that location, or
qc,N
DNBR 
q  ( c ,N )
The Minimum DNB Ratio (MDNBR) occurs at the location where the critical heat flux and the operating heat flux
are the closest.
To utilize the W-3 correlation for a given set of operating conditions, i.e. pressure, flow, heat flux, etc.
1) Select a location  c ,N starting in the vicinity of the core midplane at which you wish to compute the critical heat
flux.
2) Compute the local enthalpy and quality at this location. For a single channel model the enthalpy at  c ,N is
 c ,N
 q( z)Ddz
1
hc  hin 
m  f 0
and the quality is then

hc  h f
xc 
h fg
3) Compute qc,EU from the W-3 correlation for a uniformly heated channel. Note, qc,EU is the heat flux in a
uniformly heated channel necessary to produce DNB for the given local fluid conditions.
4) Compute the length (  c ,EU ) that must be heated at qc,EU to give the same local conditions.
 c , EU
 q
1
hc  hin  c , EU Ddz
m f
 0
1
hc  hin  qc, EU D c , EU
m  f

 f m (hc  hin )
 c, EU 
qc, EU D
where hc is the same local enthalpy as calculated in step 2.
5) Compute F (this generally requires numerical integration) and then
qc,EU
qc,N 
F
6) Increase  c ,N and repeat.
This procedure is repeated over the entire channel length, and the minimum DNB ratio computed. For the given
heat flux profiles, the axial location and value of the MDNBR for the three different heat flux profiles are given in
the following table
Heat Flux Profile Position of MDNBR (inches) MDNBR

Bottom Peaked 75 2.688
Nominal 102 2.413
Top Peaked 130 2.120
If the maximum heat flux for the nominal heat flux profile is increased by 20% ( q0  527,306 ), the MDNBR and its
location are MDNBR = 1.553 at z = 114 inches.
  414, 200 the MDNBR in the top peaked profile is 2.413 and occurs at
If the maximum heat flux is reduced to qmax
126 inches in the channel.

A BWR channel has operating characteristics given below. Using the CISE-4 critical boiling length correlation
Dh  aLcrit 
xcrit   
De  Lcrit  b 
where:
 1
1  1.481  10 4 (1  P / P ) 3 G G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 c
a
 1  P / Pc
 G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 (G / 1000)1 / 3
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1) 0.4 GD1.4
G = kg/m2-s
D=m
P = MPa
Pc = Critical Pressure (Mpa)
Lcrit = m
Dh = Heated diameter (m)
De = Equivalent diameter (m)
a) Determine the maximum core thermal output if the minimum CPR is 1.2.
b) Determine the exit quality as well as the critical quality at the exit of the hot channel.
c) Determine the minimum CHF ratio assuming the Hench-Levy limit line correlation
d) Determine the CPR that corresponds to a CHF ratio of 1.9 assuming the Hench-Levy correlation.
Problem Data
Pressure 1040 psia

Total Peaking Factor 2.23
  (H   -z )    (H   -z ) 
q (z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 

SOLUTION
Assuming the hot channel is the limiting channel, the magnitude of the heat flux in the critical channel is related to
the maximum core thermal output by
Q crit  f Fq Q  CPR   f Fq
 crit  q0crit Z ( zmax ) 
qmax 
n Do H n Do H
such that
q0crit Z ( zmax )n Do H

Q 
CPR   f Fq
The solution then reduces to finding the magnitude of the heat flux profile in the critical channel.
Heat Flux
heat flux.
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz zmax
H
2
H  z
x 
He
such that

q( x)  q0 x sin( x)
0
d
dx xmax
zmax  [0, H ]  xmax  ( ,0) for   0
 H  z  H  z
 
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  q0    sin  
 
dz

H 0 H 0  He   He 
q0      (H   )     He  (H  )  He 
q  cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin   
H   H e  
 H e   H  
 e

 H e   
xmax sin( xmax )

Fz 
1      (H   )     He  (H  )  He 
cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
  3.097 feet.
Hot Channel
The hot channel is defined to be that channel having the core wide maximum heat flux, i.e.
qmax
  q( zmax )

qmax
such that

qmax
q0 max 

hin = 527.9
hf = 548.746
h fg = 642.304
Ax  S 2   D 2 / 4  0.642   (0.493) 2 / 4  0.2187 in 2  1.519 103 ft 2 . The channel mass flow rate is then
m  1.21 106  1.519 10 3  1837.8 lbm/hr .
CISE-4 Correlation
For a non-uniformly heated channel, the CISE correlation relates the critical heat flux in a boiling channel to the
critical boiling length by

a ( zcrit  H o )
zcrit
 crit
aL 1
   ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
Lcrit  b zcrit  H o  b mh  fg  f Ho
D
where a~  h a
De
 1
1  1.481  10 4 (1  P / P ) 3 G G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 c
a
 1  P / Pc
 G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 (G / 1000)1 / 3
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1) 0.4 GD1.4
and the non-boiling height is given by

Ho
m  f  h f  hin    ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
  0
hsub
For the heat flux profile given here
a) a ( zcrit  H o )  q0 crit H e D  ( H    zcrit )  ( H    zcrit )  (H    H o )  (H    Ho )   ( H    zcrit )   (H    H o ) 

  cos     cos     sin     sin   
zcrit  H o  b mh fg  f  He  He  He  He   He   He  
and
b) m  f hsub   q0  H e D  ( H    H o ) cos   ( H    H o )    ( H   ) cos   ( H   )   sin   ( H    H o )   sin   ( H   ) 

  
crit
He  He  He  He   He   He
Setting zcrit  H , Equations a) and b) contain the two unknowns qo crit and H o . We can solve Equation b)
directly for the magnitude of the heat flux in terms of the non boiling height, giving

m  f hsub
 q0 crit 
 (H    Ho )  (H    H o )  (H   )  (H   )   (H    Ho )   ( H   ) 
H e D  cos     cos     sin     sin   
 He  He  He  He   He   H e 
and substitute into Equation a) giving a single non linear equation in the non boiling height which can be solve
iteratively
From the steam tables, the critical pressure for water is Pc = 3208.2 psia. For G *  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
G*  3375  (1  P / Pc )3  3375  (1  1040 / 3208.2)3  1041.77 kg/m 2 -s  7.6816  105 lbm/hr-ft 2
Given G  1.21106 lbm/hr-ft 2  1641 kg/m 2 -s
1  P / Pc 1  1040 / 3208.2
a 1/3
  0.573 (unitless)
(G /1000) (1641/1000)1/3
1.4
 0.493 
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1) GD 0.4 1.4
 0.199  (3208.2 / 1040  1)  1641 
0.4
 0.3048   0.9511 m  3.121 ft
 12 
Dh  D  0.493 inches
4[ S 2   D 2 / 4] 4[0.642   (0.493) 2 / 4]
De    0.5648 inches
D   0.493
0.493
a  0.573   0.5001
0.5648
Solution of Equations a) and b) gives
Btu
 q0 crit  235,538 and H o  0.856 ft giving a core thermal output of
hr-ft 2
q0crit Z ( zmax )n Do H

Q   1.193 x 1010 Btu/hr = 3494 Mw
CPR   f Fq
The magnitude of the heat flux in the hot channel is related to the magnitude of the heat flux in the critical channel
by
q0crit 235,538
q0 max    1.9628 105 Btu/hr
CPR 1.2
The channel exit quality is given by
h( H )  h f
x
h fg
where

 q0  H e D      (H  )  (H  )      ( H   ) 
h( H )  hin    cos     cos     sin     sin   
m  f  H e  He  He  He   He   H e  
For the data given here, h( H )  755.72 and
755.72  548.75
x( H )   0.322
642.3
The critical quality at the channel exit is
a ( H  H o ) 0.5001  (12.333  0.856)

xcrit    0.393
H  Ho  b 12.333  0.856  3.121
Minimum CHFR by the Hench-Levy Correlation
The Hench-Levy correlation is
1. xc  ( xc )1
q c

 19
.  3.3x c  0.7 tanh 2 (3G / 10 6 ) ( xc )1  xc  ( xc ) 2 Btu/hr-ft2
10 6 
0.6  0.7 x c  0.09 tanh (2G / 10 ) xc  ( xc ) 2
2 6
where
( xc )1  0.273  0.212 tanh 2 (3G / 106 )

( xc ) 2  0.5  0.269 tanh 2 (3G / 106 )  0.0346 tanh 2 ( 2G / 106 )
The correlations given here are for 1000 psia, to correct for the higher pressure we apply the correction factor
1.25
qc( P )  P  600 
 11
.  0.1 
qc(1000)  400 
To apply the Hench-Levy correlation, a location along the boiling channel is selected at which the critical heat flux
is to be determined. Then similar to the approach taken in applying the W-3 correlation, the local enthalpy and
quality are calculated at this location. The critical heat flux can then be computed from the limit line correlations
and the critical heat flux ratio determined. This process is repeated along the entire length of the boiling channel.
For the data given in the problem statement, the critical heat flux computed from the Hench-Levy Correlation and
the heat flux in the hot channel are plotted below. The minimum CHFR is 1.492 and occurs at approximately 8.42
ft.

1.2x106
Heat Flux
1.0x106 Critical Heat Flux
Heat Flux (Btu/hr-ft2)
800.0x103
600.0x103
400.0x103
200.0x103
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Axial Position (ft)
The CPR that produces a MCHR of 1.9 is found by simply increasing the CPR until the MCHFR criteria is met.
This occurs for a CPR of approximately 1.283 giving a reactor thermal output of 3267 Mw.

The primary side of a U-Tube steam generator is illustrated below.
For the given data:
a) Determine the pressure drop across the steam generator (inlet plenum to outlet plenum) assuming the tube
bundle can be represented by an effective tube length that preserves total heat transfer area.
b) Assuming the pressure drop across the steam generator determined in part a is valid, determine the difference in
the long and short tube velocities relative to the velocity in the “effective” tube.
Problem Data
Primary Side Flow Rate 36.33 x 106 lbm/hr

Hot Leg Temperature 620.2 F
Cold Leg Temperature 557.1 F
Heat Transfer Area (referenced to Outer Diameter) 48,300 ft2
Number of Tubes 4578
Outer Tube Diameter 0.75 inches
Tube Wall Thickness 0.04515 inches
Straight Tube Length (each) 25.3 ft
Maximum Bend Radius 53.25 inches
Minimum Bend Radius 2.25 inches
Tube Plate Thickness 21.2 inches
Flush Inlet Loss Coefficient 0.5
Flush Exit Loss Coefficient 1.0
Single Phase 46
SOLUTION
The pressure drop across the steam generator includes
a) Acceleration of the fluid from the inlet plenum into the tube plate, entrance loss to the tube plate and friction
losses within the tube plate
 fL 
2 2
Gtube Gtube
Pa    K in 
2  hl g c  D  tube plate 2  hl g c
b) Friction and forms losses in the active tube bundle region
L L  Gtube
2
Pb  f   
D D  2  gc
 straight eff 
c) Exit losses as the fluid crosses the tube plate and enters the exit plenum
 fL 
2
Gtube
Pc    K exp 
D  tube plate 2 cl g c
For the given data
 fL 
2 2
Gtube Gtube
a) Pa    K in  
2  hl g c  D  tube plate 2  hl g c
Di  Do  2t  0.75  2  0.045  0.66 inches
m 36.33  106
Gtube    3.343  106
   0.66 
2
n D 2
4578 
4  12 
i
4
Taking the fluid properties at the hot leg temperature gives
GDi 3.343  106  0.66

Re    9.792  105
 0.1877 12
Which for smooth drawn tubing gives a friction factor of f = 0.013.
 
2
 fL  2
Gtube  0.013  21.2  3.343  106
Pa  1  K in     1  0.5    625.97 lbf/ft 2  4.347 psi
 D 2 
 tube plate hl c 
g 0.66  tube plate 2  41.29  4.17  108
L L  Gtube
2
b) Pb  f   
D D  2  gc
 straight eff 
In the active bundle region, the average tube length is taken to be that which conserves heat transfer area, i.e.
Single Phase 46
As 48,300  12
Ltube    53.73 ft
n Do 4,578    0.75
The long tube length is
Llong  2  Lstraight   Rmax  2  25.3    53.25 / 12  64.54 ft
The short tube length is
Llong  2  Lstraight   Rmin  2  25.3    2.25 / 12  51.19 ft
The fluid properties are evaluated at the average fluid temperature, giving
GDi 3.343  106  0.66

Re    8.953  105
 0.2053  12
Which for smooth drawn tubing gives a friction factor of f = 0.013. As the average tube length is similar to the
short radius tube length, an effective L/D for a short bend is assumed.
 
2
L L  Gtube
2
 2  25.3  12  3.343  106 lbf
Pb  f     0.013   90  2  44.106  4.17  108  4128 ft 2  28.66 psi
  2  gc  
D straight D eff  0.66
 fL 
2
Gtube
c) Pc    K exp 
D  tube plate 2 cl g c
Taking the fluid properties at the cold leg temperature gives
GDi 3.343  106  0.66

Re    8.694  105
 0.2114  12
Which for smooth drawn tubing gives a friction factor of f = 0.013.
 
2
 fL 
2
Gtube  0.013  21.2  3.343  106 lbf
Pd    K exp    1  427 2  2.96 psi
 D  tube plate 2 cl g c   tube plate 2  44.99  4.17 10
8
0.66 ft
The total pressure drop across the steam generator is then
PSG  4.347  28.66  2.96  35.97 psi
Given a steam generator pressure drop of PSG  35.97 psi , the long tube solution is obtained by replacing
L L
 90 with  55 in the active bundle region and solving for the mass flow rates through the steam
D eff D eff
generator. The yields a mass flow rate of m long  36.86  106 . Since the short tube and effective tube lengths are
nearly the same, the short tube flow rate is the same as the average flow rate, i.e. m short  36.33  106 .
Single Phase 46
NE 402/502 Final Exam Fall 2009
NuScale is an integral, pressurized light water reactor, where all components (reactor, steam generator and
pressurizer) are contained within the reactor vessel as illustrated below. The primary side operates by single phase
natural circulation. The steam generator is a once through design, composed of helical coil tubes where the primary
side flows on the outside of the tubes and the secondary side flows on the inside of the tubes.
Sat. Vapor
Sat. Liquid
Steam Flow
Helical Coil SG
Feed Flow
Downcomer Downcomer
Chimney
Reactor
1) Show how you would determine the necessary chimney height, give all equations. Terms involving integrals that
do not have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. You may assume the primary side temperature
distribution within the steam generator is known. If the solution requires an iterative solution, it is sufficient to
give the iteration equation, state which variable is to be solved for and state “solve iteratively”. You may assume
state equations of the form ρ = ρ (T , P ) and T = T (h, P ) are available as well as any other necessary fluid
properties. You may neglect friction in the lower (variable area) section of the chimney. (20%)
2) System pressure is maintained by controlling the relative amounts of liquid and vapor in the pressurizer.
Assuming the total pressurizer mass M = ρV prz and energy E = ρuV prz are known, show how you would
determine the system pressure. You may assume an equilibrium model holds in the pressurizer and that the
pressurizer volume V prz is known. (10%)
3) Assuming fully developed subcooled nucleate boiling occurs in the highest powered channel, give a step by step
procedure for determining the maximum clad temperature in the core. (20%)
4) Assuming the Critical Heat Flux Mechanism is DNB, and a Critical Heat Flux correlation of the form
′′ = q crit
q crit ′′ ( x e , G, P, De ) is available, show how you would determine the minimum DNB ratio in the core.
(10%)
5) Feedwater enters the steam generator tubes significantly subcooled and exits superheated. The heat flux from the
tube walls to the secondary side fluid at any location is proportional to the difference between the primary side
temperature and the secondary side wall temperature, i.e.
q′′( z ) = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]
where U is known and constant. Critical heat flux within the tubes can be considered dryout dominated, such that
the dryout point can be determined by a critical boiling length correlation of the form
Dh a(G, P ) Lcrit
xcrit =
De Lcrit + b(G , P)
Assuming the primary side temperature distribution is known, show how you would determine the secondary side
pressure drop. Give all equations. If equations require iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equation,
state the variable to be solved for and state solve iteratively. If the solution requires evaluation of integrals that
do not have closed form solutions, it is sufficient to state the integral can be solved numerically. You may
assume that following dryout, heat transfer to the secondary side steam is single phase forced convection to a
superheated vapor. You may assume any necessary state equations or fluid property tables are available. (40%)
The following information about the system may be assumed known.
REACTOR PARAMETERS
Core Thermal Output Q Rx
Fraction of Energy Deposited in Fuel γf
Power Peaking Factor Fq
Axial Peak to Average Ratio Fz
Number of fuel rods nrods
Fuel Height Hc
Rod Diameter D
Rod Pitch (square lattice) S
Core Averaged Rod Surface Heat Flux profile q′′( z )
Hot Channel Rod Surface Heat Flux Profile ′′ ( z )
qhot
Core Inlet Loss Coefficient K cin
Core Exit Loss Coefficient K cex
Number of grids n grids
Grid Loss Coefficients K grid
Grid locations zj
CHIMNEY PARAMETERS
Chimney Diameter Dch

Length of lower (variable area) chimney section Llch
Chimney loss coefficient (referenced to chimney exit mass flux) Kch
Chimney roughness ε ch
DOWNCOMER PARAMETERS
Vessel diameter Dv
Core Barrel Diameter Dcb
Downcomer Length Ldc
Total Loss Coefficient (referenced to chimney area mass flux) K dc
Downcomer roughness ε dc
STEAM GENERATOR PARAMETERS
Number of tubes ntubes

Tube Inner Diameter Di
Tube Outer Diameter Do
Primary Side Flow Area AxSG
Primary Side Equivalent Diameter DeSG
Tube Pitch S SG
Tube Length LSG
Bundle Length Lhc
Primary Side Equivalent L/D ( L / D) hc
Feed Temperature T fd
Secondary Side Pressure Psg
Secondary Side Mass Flow Rate m sg
You may find all or some of the following relationships useful.
Mixture Mass
∂ρ ∂GAx
Ax + =0
∂t ∂z
Mixture Energy
∂ρu ∂GhAx
Ax + = q ′( z )
∂t ∂z
Mixture Momentum
⎧ ⎫
1 ∂G 1 1 ∂ ⎧⎪ 2 ⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
+ ⎨G ⎢
g c ∂t g c Ax ∂z ⎪ ⎣⎢ α A ρ A
⎩
+
x2
α g ρg
⎥ Ax ⎬ = −
⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
∂P ⎪ f f G 2
−⎨
∂z ⎪ De 2 ρ f g c
⎩
φA2o + ∑
j
K jδ ( z − z j )
G2 ⎪
Ψ⎬ − ρ
2ρ f g c ⎪
⎭
g
gc
sin θ + ΔPpδ ( z − z p )
Zuber-Findlay Correlation
( )
1
⎧ ρA − ρg ⎫ 4
x ⎪ ⎪
α= C0 = 113 . ⎨σggc
. and Vgj = 141 ⎬
⎧⎪ ⎡ ρg ⎤ ρ gVgj ⎫⎪ ⎪ ρA2 ⎪
⎨Co ⎢ x + (1 − x)⎥ + ⎬ ⎩ ⎭
⎪⎩ ⎣ ρA ⎦ G ⎪⎭
Fundamental Void-Quality-Slip Relation
1
α=
(1 − x ) ⎛ υ f ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟S
x ⎜⎝ υ g ⎟⎠
Profile Fit Model
⎛ x ⎞
x = xe − ( xe ) d exp⎜⎜ e − 1⎟⎟
⎝ e d
( x ) ⎠
Saha-Zuber Correlation
⎧ De C p
⎪0.0022 × q ′′(z d )× Pe < 70,000
⎪ k
h f − hAd =⎨
⎪ q ′′( z d )
⎪ 154 × Pe > 70000
⎩ G
Two Phase Multiplier
⎛ 20 1 ⎞
φA2o = ⎜⎜1 + + ⎟(1 − x)1.75
⎝ χ χ 2 ⎟⎠
Martinelli parameter
0.2
⎛ μf ⎞ ⎛ 1− x⎞
1.8 ⎛
ρ ⎞
χ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
2
⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟
⎝ μg ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ ρf ⎠
Homogeneous Multiplier
υ fg
Ψ = 1+ x
υf
Friction Factors
f = f (Re, ε / D) (straight tube)
f hc = f hc (Re, ε / D) (helical coils)
Heat Transfer Correlations
Dittus-Boelter Correlation Nu = 0.023 Re 0.8 Pr 0.4
1
Weisman Correlation Nu = C ( S / D ) Re 0.8 Pr 3
Nucleate Boiling Correlation q′′ = ξ ( P )(Tw − Tsat ) m
Chen Correlation q′′ = hAo (G , x, P)(Tw − T∞ ) + hNB (G , x, P, Tw )(Tw − Tsat )
1/ 2
⎡ ⎡ ′′ ′ ( z n ) ⎫⎤ ⎤⎥
2
⎢ q NB ( z ) ⎧ q′NB
Bergles and Rohsenow q′′( z ) = q′FC
′ ( z) 1 + ⎢ ⎨1 − ⎬⎥
⎢ ⎢⎣ q′FC′ ( z) ⎩ q′NB
′ ( z ) ⎭⎥⎦ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
0.0234
q′′( z n ) = 15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( z n ) − Tsat ]2.30 / P
SOLUTION
1) The core inlet temperature is equal to the steam generator exit temperature. Similarly, the core exit temperature
is equal to the steam generator inlet temperature. Since it is given that the primary side temperature distribution
within the steam generator is known, these temperatures are then known. The required core flow rate is then
Q RX
m c =
(hexit − hin )
The chimney height necessary to provide m c is obtained by integrating the single phase momentum equation
around the flow loop. For simplicity, this will be broken down into integrals across each flow segment.
Core
⎛f H ⎞ G2
∫
Hc
g
ΔPcore = ⎜⎜ core c + K cin + ngrids × K grid + K cex ⎟⎟ core + ρ ( z) dz
⎝ De ⎠ 2 ρg c 0 gc
m core
Gcore =
Acore
⎡ D2 ⎤
Acore = nrods ⎢ S 2 − π o ⎥
⎣⎢ 4 ⎥⎦
4 Ax 4[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
De = =
Pw πDo
Gcore De
Re =
μ
f core = f (Re,0)
ρ ( z ) = ρ (T ( z )) = ρ[T (h( z ))]
∫ q′′( z′)πDdz′
z
1
h( z ) = hin +
Gc Axγ f 0
Since all parameters are known, ΔPcore can be solved for directly.
Chimney
⎛f L ⎞ Gchex
2 2 2
Gch Gch g
ΔPch = ex
− in
+ ⎜⎜ ch ch + K ch ⎟⎟ + ρch Lch
2 ρg c 2 ρg c ⎝ Dch ⎠ 2 ρg c gc
m c πDch
2
Gchex = where Achex =
Achex 4
m c πDcb
2
Gchin = where Achin =
Achin 4
Gchex Dch
Re =
μ
f ch = f (Re, ε ch / Dch )
ρch = ρ (Texit )
Steam Generator
∫
Lhc
Gsg g
ΔPsg = f sg × ( L / D) hc × − ρ ( z) dz
2 ρg c 0 gc
m c
Gsg =
AxSG
Gsg DeSG
Re =
μ
f sg = f (Re,0)
ρ ( z ) = ρ (T ( z ))
where T ( z ) is known.
Downcomer
The downcomer has two different flow areas, that in the area of the chimney, and that in the area of the core.
2
Gdc 2
Gdc ⎛ f dc ( Lch − Lhc ) ⎞ Gdc
2
f dc H c Gdc 2
g
ΔPdc = ex
− in
+ ⎜ in + K dc ⎟ in
+ ex ex
− ρ dc ( Lch + H c − Lhc )
2 ρg c 2 ρg c ⎜⎝ Dedcinlet ⎟ 2 ρg c
⎠ D edcexit 2 ρg c g c
m c π ( Dv2 − Dcb
2
)
Gdcex = where Adcex = and Dedcexit = Dv − Dcb
Adcex 4
m c π ( Dv2 − Dch
2
)
Gdcin = where Adcin = and Dedcin = Dv − Dch
Adcin 4
Gdcex De
Reex = dcexit
μ
f dcex = f (Reex , ε dc / De )
Gdcin De
Rein = dcinlet
ρ dc = ρ (Tinlet )
The pressure drops sum to zero such that
ΔPcore + ΔPch + ΔPsg + ΔPdc = 0
is a single linear equation in the chimney height which may be solved directly.
2) The effective mixture density in the pressurizer is
M
= ρ = (1 − α ) ρ f ( P) + αρ g ( P )
V prz
or
ρ = ρ f ( P) − α [ ρ f ( P) − ρ g ( P)]
Similarly, the effective mixture energy is
E
= ρu = (1 − α ) ρ f ( P )u f ( P ) + αρ g ( P )u g ( P )
V prz
or
ρu = ρ f ( P)u f ( P) + α [ ρ g ( P)u g ( P) − ρ f ( P)u f ( P)]
which are two equations in the unknown variables α and P. The void fraction may be solved for in terms of
density as
ρf − ρ
α=
ρ f − ρg
and substituted into the energy equation to yield
(ρ f − ρ )
ρu = ρ f ( P)u f ( P) + [ ρ g ( P )u g ( P ) − ρ f ( P )u f ( P )]
(ρ f − ρ g )
which is a single nonlinear equation in the system pressure that can be solved iteratively.
3) Boiling Boundaries
Since the fluid enters subcooled, the channel will experience single phase forced convection, mixed boiling and
fully developed nucleate boiling. For a given heat flux profile q′′(z ) , the incipient boiling (nucleation) point zn
is the boundary between the single phase forced convection and mixed boiling regions and is obtained by solution
of
q′′( zn ) = 15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( zn ) − Tsat ]
where
q′′( zn )
Tco ( zn ) = T∞ ( zn ) +
hc
∫ q′′( z)πDdz
zn
1
T∞ ( zn ) = T∞ (0) +
m C p 0
m = GAx
Ax = S 2 − πD 2 / 4
1/ 3
⎧ GD ⎫ ⎧ C p μ ⎫
0.8
k
hc = C ( S / D)⎨ e ⎬ ⎨ ⎬
De ⎩ μ ⎭ ⎩ k ⎭
and
De =
[
4 S 2 − πD 2 / 4 ]
πD
which can be solved iteratively for zn . The fully developed nucleate boiling point z B is the boundary between
mixed boiling and fully developed nucleate boiling and is the solution of
1/ 2
⎡ ⎡ ′′ ′ ( zn ) ⎫⎤ ⎤⎥
2
⎢ q ( z B ) ⎧ q′NB
′
′ ′′
q ( z B ) = qFC ( z B ) 1 + ⎢ ⎨1 − ⎬⎥
⎢ ⎢⎣ q′FC
′ ( zB ) ⎩ q′′( z B ) ⎭⎥⎦ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where
q′FC
′ ( z B ) = hc [Tco ( z B ) − T∞ ( z B )]
1/ m
⎧ q′′( z B ) ⎫
Tco ( z B ) = Tsat +⎨ ⎬
⎩ ξ ⎭
∫ q′′(z)πDdz
zB
1
T∞ ( z B ) = T∞ (0) +
m C p 0
q′NB
′ ( zn ) = ξ [Tco ( zn ) − Tsat ]m
q′′( zn )
Tco ( zn ) = T∞ ( zn ) +
hc
which can be solved iteratively for z B .
Temperature distributions
For zsat satisfying
z sat
1
Tsat = T∞ (0) +
m C p 0
the fluid temperature as a function of position is given by
⎧
∫
z
1
⎪T∞ (0) + q′′( z′)πDdz′ z < z sat
⎪ m C p 0
⎪
T∞ ( z ) = ⎨
⎪ Tsat z ≥ z sat
⎪
⎪⎩
For z ∈ [0, zn ] heat transfer is by single phase forced convection and the wall temperature is given by
q′′( z )
Tco ( z ) = T∞ ( z ) +
hc
For z ∈ [ zn , z B ] mixed boiling is the heat transfer mechanism and the wall temperature is obtained iteratively
from
1/ 2
⎡ ⎡ ′′ ′ ( zn ) ⎫⎤ ⎤⎥
2
q ( z ) ⎧ q′NB
′ ( z ) ⎢1 + ⎢ NB
q′′( z ) = q′FC ⎨1 − ⎬⎥
⎢ ⎣⎢ q′FC
′ ( z) ⎩ ′ ( z ) ⎭⎦⎥ ⎥
q′NB
⎣ ⎦
where
q′NB
′ ( z ) = ξ [Tco ( z ) − Tsat ]m
and
q′FC
′ ( z ) = hc [Tco ( z ) − T∞ ( z )]
the only unknown at any axial position being Tco (z ) .
For z > z B heat transfer is by fully developed nucleate boiling and the wall temperature can be obtained directly
by
1/ m
⎧ q′′( z ) ⎫
Tco ( z ) = Tsat +⎨ ⎬
⎩ ξ ⎭
′′ ( z ) = q′′( z ) , the wall temperature distribution can then be solved along the channel height and
Substituting qhot
searched for it’s maximum value.
4) Minimum DNB Ratio
The enthalpy distribution in the hot channel is given by
∫ q′′ ( z)πDdz
z
1
h( z ) = hin + hot
m 0
such that the quality distribution in the channel is
h( z ) − h f
xe ( z ) =
h fg
Assuming the other parameters are independent of position, critical heat flux as a function of position in the
channel is given by
′′ ( z ) = qcrit
qcrit ′′ (G, P, xe ( z ), De )
The minimum DNB ratio is obtained by computing
′′ ( z )
qcrit
DNBR ( z ) = over the channel height and searching for its minimum value.
′′ ( z )
qhot
5) The pressure drop in any tube is the sum of the acceleration, friction, and elevation losses,
P0 − PH = ΔPacc + ΔPfriction + ΔPelev
Since the fluid enters significantly subcooled, and exits superheated, three regions exist: a) a subcooled liquid
region, b) a two phase mixture region and c) a superheated vapor region.
Acceleration Losses
G 2 ⎛⎜ 1 1 ⎞⎟
ΔPacc = −
g c ⎜⎝ ρ g ( LSG ) ρA (0) ⎟⎠
Friction Pressure Drop
f hc g ( LSG − z g ) G 2
∫
f hc f G 2 zg
f hcA zd G2
ΔPfriction = + φA2o ( z′)dz′ +
De 2 ρA gc De 2 ρ f g c zd De 2 ρ g gc
where zd is the bubble departure point and z g is the dryout point.
Elevation Losses
∫
LSG
g
ΔPelev = ρ ( z) sin(θ )dz
0 gc
The mixture density is defined to be
⎧ ρA ( z ) z < zd
⎪
ρ ( z ) = ⎨(1 − α ( z )) ρA ( z ) + α ( z ) ρ g z ∈ [ zd , z g ]
⎪ ρ g ( z) zg < zg
⎩
where the liquid phase density is given in terms of the liquid phase enthalpy by
⎧ ρ A (hA ) hA < h f
⎪
ρA = ⎨
⎪ ρ hA = h f
⎩ f
the vapor phase density is given by
⎧ ρ g (h) hg < h
⎪
ρg = ⎨
⎪ ρ ( P) h < hg
⎩ g
The liquid phase enthalpy is given by
h ( z ) − x ( z ) hg
hA ( z ) =
1 − x( z )
and the vapor phase properties can be taken to be saturated vapor properties at the system pressure. Solution then
requires expressions for the enthalpy, flow quality and void distributions.
The integrals in the pressure drop equations are evaluated numerically.
Enthalpy Distribution
The enthalpy distribution given by the simple energy balance
z
1
h( z ) = hin +
m 0
where
q′′( z ) = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]
m = m sg / ntubes and the inlet enthalpy is known from the inlet feed temperature.
Since the primary side temperature distribution and U are known, if the wall temperature distribution is known
the heat flux is known. For the moment, assume the wall temperature distribution is known.
Bubble Departure Point
The Bubble Departure Point can be obtained from the Saha-Zuber Correlation
⎧ DeC p
⎪0.0022 × q′′( zd ) × Pe < 70,000
⎪ k
h f − hAd = ⎨
⎪ q′′( zd )
⎪ 154 × Pe > 70,000
⎩ G
GDeC p
where Pe ≡ = Re × Pr is the Peclet Number and the enthalpy at the bubble departure point is given by
k
∫
zd
1
hAd = hin + q′′( z )πDdz .
m 0
where De = Di . For a given heat flux distribution the bubble departure point can be found iteratively.
Quality Distributions
The flow quality as a function of position is given by the Levy profile fit model
⎧
⎪ 0 z < zd
⎪⎪
x=⎨
⎪ ⎛ x ⎞
⎪ xe − ( xe ) d exp⎜⎜ e − 1⎟⎟ z > zd
⎪⎩ ⎝ ( xe ) d ⎠
where xe is the local equilibrium quality and ( xe ) d is the equilibrium quality at the bubble departure point, i.e.
hAd − h f
( xe ) d =
h fg
where the local equilibrium quality is given by
h( z ) − h f
xe ( z ) =
h fg
Void Distribution
The Zuber-Findlay Correlation for void fraction is
x( z )
α g ( z) =
⎡ ρg ⎤ ρ V ( z)
Co ⎢ x( z ) + [1 − x( z )]⎥ + g gj
⎣ ρA ( z ) ⎦ G
( )⎫⎪ 4
1
⎧⎪ ρA ( z ) − ρ g
. and Vgj ( z ) = 1.41⎨σgg c
where C0 = 113 ⎬
⎪⎩ ρ A2 ( z ) ⎪⎭
Note: This form of the Zuber-Findlay correlation automatically gives a vapor volume fraction of zero for quality
equal to zero.
The problem then reduces to determining the secondary side wall temperature distribution. The energy balance
equation can then be integrated numerically.
Wall Temperature Distribution
Since the secondary side enters subcooled and leaves superheated, four different heat transfer mechanisms must be
considered.
1) Single Phase Forced Convection Region, z ∈ [0, z sat ]
Prior to the wall temperature reaching the saturation temperature, heat transfer is by single phase forced
convection and the wall temperature is the solution of
U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )] = hc [Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )]
or
UTp ( z ) + hcT∞ ( z )
Tw ( z ) =
U + hc
The convective heat transfer coefficient can be obtained from the Dittus Boelter Correlation, such that
0.4
⎛ Cpμ ⎞
0.8
k ⎛ GDe ⎞
hc = 0.023⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
De ⎝ μ ⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
where
De = Di
m
G=
Ax
Ax = πDi2 / 4
T fluid temperature is available from T∞ ( z ) = T∞ (h( z ), Psg ) , and the energy balance
∫
z
1
h( z ) = hin + U [T p ( z′) − Tw ( z′)]πDo dz′
m 0
which can be integrated numerically. The location where the wall temperature reaches the saturation temperature
is the solution of
UTp ( z sat ) + hcT∞ ( z sat )

Tw ( zsat ) = Tsat =
U + hc
which can be solved iteratively for zsat.
2) Nucleate Boiling and Forced Convection Vaporization Regions z ∈ [ zsat , zcrit ]
Once the wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, the Chen correlation can be used to calculate the
wall temperature up to the point of dryout. The wall temperature is then the solution of
U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )] = hAo (G, x( z ), P )[Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )] + hNB (G, x( z ), P, Tw ( z ))[Tw ( z ) − Tsat ]
where the liquid only heat transfer coefficient hAo is consistent with the Dittus-Boelter correlation. The fluid
temperature is again available from the enthalpy, as is the quality through
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
Such that at any location, the equation
U [Tp ( z ) − Tw ( z )] = hAo (G, x( z ), Psg )[Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )] + hNB (G, x( z ), Psg , Tw ( z ))[Tw ( z ) − Tsat ]
is a single nonlinear equation in the wall temperature and can be solved iteratively.
The dryout point can be obtained from the critical boiling length correlation as
∫
z crit
Dh aLcrit D a( zcrit − H o ) 1
= h = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]πDo dz
De Lcrit + b De zcrit − H o + b m h fg Ho
where
( ) ∫
Ho
m h f − hin = U [Tp ( z ) − Tw ( z )]πDo dz
0
The wall temperature distribution is known from solution of the Chen Correlation, so the above are two nonlinear
equations in the variables Ho and zcrit and can be solved iteratively. The integrals are preformed numerically.
3) Superheated region z ∈ [ zcrit , LSG ]
In the superheated region, heat transfer is again by single phase forced convection. As in the subcooled region,
the wall temperature is given by
UTp ( z ) + hcT∞ ( z )
Tw ( z ) =
U + hc
Where the Weisman correlation is again used to compute the convective heat transfer coefficient and the fluid
temperature is given from the enthalpy. Fluid properties in the Weisman correlation are those for superheated
steam.
22.313 THERMAL-HYDRAULICS IN NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY
Tuesday, March 29th, 2005, 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
OPEN BOOK MID-TERM QUIZ 1.5 HOURS
Problem 1 (20%) – Calculation of Flow Quality from Void Fraction Measurements

By means of X-ray imaging techniques an MIT graduate student is able to measure the void
fraction in the downcomer of an experimental apparatus designed to study steam carryunder at
7.0 MPa. This student has taken course 22.313, so she is also able to calculate the relative
velocity, vb=vℓ-vv, from a Re-Eo-M diagram for bubbly flow. Does the student miss any
information needed to calculate the flow quality in the dowcomer? (Note: in answering this
question, do not assume that a carryunder correlation is available)
If so, what information is missing?
If not, write a set of equations that would allow the student to calculate the flow quality given
only the void fraction, the relative velocity and, of course, the properties of steam and water
at 7.0 MPa.
Problem 2 (30%) – Pressure Drop in Accelerating Single-Phase Flow

Consider upflow in a vertical section of the PWR primary system piping.
i) Write the time-dependent mass and momentum conservation equations for this system,
assuming that the water coolant can be treated as perfectly incompressible. (15%)
ii) Now consider a transient during which the mass flux within the tube increases linearly with
time, while the inlet pressure is held constant. Using the momentum equation, demonstrate
that the pressure at the outlet decreases during this transient. (15%)
Problem 3 (50%) – Sizing of a Turbulent-Deposition Air/Water Separator

An engineering company is designing an air-conditioning system for a large building. An
important component is the moisture separator that removes small water droplets from the
conditioned air. The separator is of the turbulent-deposition type, and consists of a single
horizontal tube. The deposited liquid is drained at the tube outlet (Figure 1). The separator
processes an air/water mixture with mass flow rate of 0.42 kg/s and flow quality of 95%. The
physical properties of water and air at the temperature and pressure of interest are reported in
Table 1.
z
Drained liquid
Figure 1. Schematic of the air/water separator.
i) For the effective performance of the separator, it is essential to prevent re-entrainment of the
deposited liquid. Using the Ishii-Mishima correlation for the onset of entrainment, calculate
the diameter of the separator that guarantees a 30% margin to re-entrainment. (15%)
ii) Using the McCoy-Hanratty correlation for droplet deposition in turbulent flow, calculate the
length of the separator required to reduce the moisture content of the air by 50%. (30%)
iii) What is the separation efficiency of the separator? (5%)
Assumptions
• The water droplets move homogeneously with the air.
• The liquid film on the wall is thin.
Simplified versions of the Ishii-Mishima and McCoy-Hanratty correlations are given below for
your convenience:
σ ρl μl
j v ,e = ⋅ N μ0.8 with N μ ≡ (Ishii-Mishima)
μl ρv σ
ρlσ
g (ρ l − ρ v )
0.1
⎛ μ ⎞
K = 0.03 ⋅ j ⎜⎜ v ⎟⎟
0.9
v (McCoy-Hanratty)
⎝ ρvD ⎠
Table 1. Properties of water and air at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.
Parameter Value
Water
ρℓ 1,000 kg/m3
μℓ 0.001 Pa⋅s
σ 0.07 N/m
Air
ρv 1.2 kg/m3
μv 1.7×10-5 Pa⋅s
OPEN BOOK MID-TERM QUIZ (solutions) 1.5 HOURS

The information missing is the mass flux (or a superficial velocity) in the downcomer. For example, if
the mass flux were known, then the following set of equations would enable calculation of the flow
quality:
1
α= (fundamental α-x-S equation)
ρ 1− x
1+ v ⋅S⋅
ρl x
vv
S= (definition of slip ratio)
vl
vl − vv = vb (relative velocity; note that in general v l > v v in downflow)
G = ρ v αv v + ρ l (1 − α) v l (mass flux)
The unknowns are x, S, vv and vℓ.

i) For a perfectly incompressible fluid the density ρ is constant, and so the mass and momentum
equations become, respectively:
∂G
=0
∂z
∂G ∂P ∂ ⎡ G 2 ⎤ P ∂G ∂P f G G
= − − ⎢ ⎥ − τ w w − ρg cos θ ⇒ =− − − ρg
∂t ∂z ∂z ⎣ ρ ⎦ A ∂t ∂z D e 2ρ
where Pw, A and De are the channel wetted perimeter, flow area and equivalent diameter, respectively.
ii) Integrating the momentum equation with respect to z, one gets:
L L L
∂G f GG
Pinlet − Poutlet = ∫ dz + ∫ dz + ∫ ρgdz
0
∂t 0
D e 2ρ 0
The pressure at the inlet is constant by assumption. The first term on the right-hand side is also
constant because G increases linearly with time. The third term on the right-hand side is constant
because the fluid is incompressible. The second term on the right-hand side increases roughly as t2.
Therefore, the above equation suggests that the outlet pressure must decrease roughly as t2.

i) The Ishii-Mishima correlation gives the value of the air superficial velocity at the onset of
entrainment, jv=15.7 m/s (calculated with the thermophysical properties of Table 1). Thus the
separator will have to operate at jv=0.7×15.7 m/s ≈ 11 m/s.
Then the diameter of the separator can be calculated from the following equation:
xG xm
& 4 xm &
jv = = ⇒ D= = 0.196 m
ρv π ρ v πjv
ρv ( D2 )
4
where x=0.95 and m

& =0.42 kg/s.
ii) A mass balance for the water droplets in the vapor core (see notes on annular flow) gives:
de
& (1 − x )
m = − πDΓd
dz
where ‘e’ is the entrained liquid fraction (e =1 at the inlet), and Γd is the rate of droplet deposition,
which can be found as:
1− x
Γd = K ρve
x
where K=0.1 m/s is the deposition coefficient given by the McCoy-Hanratty correlation.
Integration of the mass balance equation gives:
πDKρ v
e(L) = e(0) ⋅ exp(− L)
xm
&
where L is the length of the separator. If ‘e’ is to decrease by 50%, then the required length is:
xm
&
L= log(2) ≈ 3.7 m
πDKρ v
iii) The separation efficiency of the separator is 50%, since 50% of the initial moisture content is
removed.
A Once Through Steam Generator has design characteristics listed below. For the given data, show how you would
determine the secondary side pressure drop. Give all equations. Where possible, all solutions should be in closed
form. If a solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equation and state the solution is iterative.
If a solution must be performed numerically it is sufficient to state which parts require numerical solution. You may
assume an equilibrium model is valid, though there is reasonable subcooling at the channel inlet. Thermodynamic
properties can be evaluated at the system pressure and the fluid is two-phase at the exit of the steam generator. You
should assume significant subcooling at the channel inlet. You should state (or show) how you would obtain any
necessary fluid properties. The linear heat rate may be taken to be of the form
q ′( z ) = qo′ exp( −0.693z / H )
and you may assume two phase friction multipliers of the form φ A2o (G, x) and Ψ (G, x) are available for the friction
and forms losses respectively.
Problem Data
Total Heat Transfer Rate 1400 Mw

Number of Tubes 16,000
Tube Length 52 ft
Tube Outer Diameter 0.625 inches
Tube Pitch (square lattice) 1 inch
Secondary Side Mass Flow Rate 8.35 x 106 lbm/hr
Tube support loss coefficient 1.5
Number of tube supports 3
Location of tube supports 13, 26, and 39 ft
Feed Temperature 460 F
SOLUTION
The total pressure drop is the sum of the acceleration, friction, local and elevation losses, where:
G2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x ) 2 x2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υ (0)⎬
gc ⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭
∫φ
H
fH o G 2 f f HB G2
ΔPfriction = + 2
Ao dz
De 2 ρ g c De 2 ρ f g c Ho
ΔPlocal =
∑ j
Kj
G2
2ρ j g c
Ψj
∫
H
g
ΔPelevation = ρ dz
0 gc
a) Linear Heat Rate
The linear heat rate is defined in terms of the total heat input as
∫ ∫
H H
⎛ z ⎞
Q = q ′( z )dz = qo′ exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟dz
0 0 ⎝ H⎠
which sets the magnitude qo′ .
Q = qo′
H
{1 − exp(−0.693)}
0.693
1400 × 3.4138 × 10 6 = qo′

52
{1 − exp(−0.693)}
0.693
Btu
qo′ = 1.274 × 108
hr − ft
Note: This value of qo′ is for all 16,000 tubes.
b) Enthalpy Distribution
z′ ⎞
∫ q′ exp⎜⎝ − 0.693 H ⎟⎠dz′
z
1 ⎛
h( z ) = h(0) + o
m 0
qo′ H ⎧ ⎛ z ⎞⎫
h( z ) = h(0) + ⎨1 − exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟⎬
0.693m ⎩ ⎝ H ⎠⎭
c) Non Boiling Height
The non boiling height is defined such that
h( H o ) = h f
qo′ H ⎧ ⎛ Ho ⎞⎫
h f = h(0) + ⎨1 − exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟⎬
0.693m ⎩ ⎝ H ⎠⎭
Ho = −
H ⎡ 0.693m h f − h(0) ⎤
ln ⎢1 −
( )
⎥
0.693 ⎣ qo′ H ⎦
Btu
h(0) ≅ h f @ 460 F = 441.5
lbm
Btu
h f = 550.1
lbm
52 ⎡ 0.693 × 8.35 × 10 6 (550.1 − 441.5) ⎤

Ho = − ln ⎢1 − ⎥ = 7.48 ft
0.693 ⎣⎢ 127.4 × 10 6 × 52 ⎦⎥
d) Exit Quality
Q
h( H ) = hin +
m
1400 × 3.4138 × 10 6 Btu
h( H ) = 441.5 + = 1013.87
8.35 × 10 6 lbm
Btu
h fg = 640.9
lbm
h( H ) − h f
x( H ) =
h fg
1013.87 − 550.1
x( H ) = = 0.7236
640.9
e) Exit Void Fraction
The void fraction is obtained from the Zuber-Findlay Correlation
1
αg =
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) ρ g ⎤ ρ gV gj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ x ρf ⎥⎦ xG ⎪
⎭
where the drift velocity is given by
1
⎧⎪ ( ρ f − ρ g ) ⎫⎪ 4
V gj = 1.41⎨σgg c ⎬
⎪⎩ ρ 2f ⎪⎭
lbm
ρ f = 45.93
ft 3
lbm
ρ g = 2.368
ft 3
lbf
σ = 0.00125
ft
1
⎧ (45.93 − 2.368) ⎫ 4 ft
V gj = 1.41⎨0.00125 × 32.17 2 ⎬ = 0.57
⎩ 45.932 ⎭ sec
and the mass flux is
m
G=
n × Ax
Ax = S 2 −
πD 2
= 12 − π
(0.625)2 = 0.6932 in 2
4 4
8.35 × 10 6 lbm
G= × 144 = 1.085 × 10 5
16,000 × 0.6932 hr − ft 2
1 1
αg = = = 0.824
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) ρ g ⎤ ρ gV gj ⎫⎪ ⎧ ⎡ (1 − 0.7236) 2.368 ⎤ 2.368 × 0.57 × 3600 ⎫
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎨1.13 × ⎢1 + + ⎬
x ρ f ⎦⎥
⎬
⎩ ⎣ 0.7236 45.93 ⎥⎦ 0.7236 × 1.085 × 10 5 ⎭
⎪⎩ ⎣⎢ xG ⎪
⎭
Acceleration Pressure Drop
G2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x ) 2 x2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υ (0)⎬
gc ⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭
(1.084 × 10 5 ) 2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − 0.7236) 2 0.7236 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪ lbf

ΔPacc = ⎨ ⎢ + ⎥ − 0. 01961 ⎬ = 7.28 2
4.17 × 10 ⎪⎩⎣⎢ 0.176 × 45.9 0.824 × 2.368 ⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
8
ft
∫φ
H
fH o G 2 f f H B G2
ΔPfriction = + 2
Ao dz
−0.2
⎧ GDe ⎫
f = 0.184⎨ ⎬
⎩ μ ⎭
−0.2
⎧⎪ GDe ⎫⎪
f f = 0.184⎨ ⎬
⎪⎩ μ f ⎪⎭
4 Ax 4 A x 4 × 0.6932
De = = = = 1.412 inches = 0.12 ft
Pw πD π × 0.625
μ = 0.257
μ f = 0.23
ρ = 49.10
−0.2
⎧⎪1.084 × 10 5 × 0.12 ⎫⎪
f = 0.184⎨ ⎬ = 0.0212
⎪⎩ 0.257 ⎪⎭
−0.2
⎧⎪1.084 × 10 5 × 0.12 ⎫⎪
f f = 0.184⎨ ⎬ = 0.021
⎪⎩ 0.23 ⎪⎭
Given the quality distribution in the channel, solution for the pressure drop requires numerical integration of the
two-phase multiplier.
Local Pressure Loss

ΔPlocal =
∑j
Kj
G2
2ρ j g c
Ψj
Since the first obstruction lies above the non boiling the height, the local losses can be written as
ΔPlocal =
G2
2ρ f g c ∑K Ψj
j j
where the two phase multiplier is
Ψ j = Ψ (G , x j )
zj hj xj Ψj
13 623.6 0.115 3.12
26 776.8 0.354 7.51
39 905.5 0.554 11.19
(1.084 × 10 5 ) 2
ΔPlocal = {1.5 × (3.12 + 7.51 + 11.19)} = 10.04 lbf
2 × 45.93 × 4.17 × 10 8
ftt 2
Elevation Loss
The elevation loss is given by
∫
H
g
0 gc
where the mixture density is given by
⎧ ρ A ( h) z < Ho
⎪
ρ=⎨
⎪α ( z ) ρ + α ( z ) ρ z > Ho
⎩ A f g g
Given an appropriate equation of state, the enthalpy and void distribution, the elevation pressure drop is determined
numerically.
 ( z ) and mass flux GHOT . A channel on the core
The highest powered channel in a BWR has a heat flux profile qHOT
periphery has a lower heat flux q ( z ) , but as a result of orificing of the inlet flow a lower mass flux G also.
Assuming either of these channels could be the limiting channel, give a step by step procedure, including all
equations, for determining the maximum nominal full power the reactor can operate. Integrals which do not have
closed form solutions can be left in integral form. For solutions involving iteration, it is sufficient to state which
equation(s) are to be solved iteratively and the variable(s) to be iterated on. In addition to the above, you may
assume the following information is known. You may also assume any necessary fluid and/or thermodynamic
properties are available.
Problem Parameters
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
Active Fuel Height H
Total Bundle Length L
System Pressure P
Minimum CPR at Nominal Full Power MCPR
Fraction of Energy Deposited in Fuel f
Fraction of core thermal power from hot channel FH
Fraction of core thermal power from periphery channel FP
Core Inlet Enthalpy hin
SOLUTION
For an arbitrary heat flux profile q ( z )  q0Z ( z ) , the magnitude of the heat flux and the non boiling height in the
critical channel are the iterative solution of the two equations

H
a(G, P )(H - H o ) 1
1)  (q0)crit Z ( z ) Do dz
H  H o  b(G, P ) GAx  f h fg Ho

Ho
2) GAx  f (h f  hin )  (q0)crit Z ( z ) Do dz

0
Do2
where Ax  S 2  
4
Solution of equations 1) and 2) yield H o and (q0)crit . Of interest is (q0)crit .
 ( z )  (q0) HOT Z HOT ( z ) and solution of equations 1) and 2) give (q0HOT )crit
a) For the hot channel, G  GHOT and qHOT
The critical power in the hot channel is then

H
1
(qcrit ) HOT  (q0HOT )crit Z HOT ( z ) Do dz
0 f
For the given MCPR, the maximum operating power for the hot channel is
(qcrit ) HOT
qHOT 
MCPR
which implies the maximum nominal reactor operating power subject to the hot channel limit is
q
Q HOT  HOT
FH
b) Repeating for the periphery channel, given G and q ( z )  (q0) Z P ( z ) , solution of equations 1) and 2) give
(q0P )crit
The critical power in the periphery channel is

H
1
(qcrit ) P  (q0P )crit Z P ( z ) Do dz
0 f
For the given MCPR, the maximum operating power for the periphery channel is
(qcrit ) P
qP 
MCPR
which implies the maximum nominal reactor operating power subject to the periphery channel limit is
q
Q P  P
FP
The nominal reactor operating power which satisfies both limits is then
Q nom  min[Q HOT , Q P ]

1) In vertical Once Through Steam Generators (OTSGs), the secondary side fluid enters subcooled, makes a single
pass along the steam generator tubes, and leaves superheated. The following information is known
Problem Data
Tube Length L
Tube Pitch (Square Lattice) S
Secondary Side Mass Flux G
Secondary Side Pressure P
Feed Temperature Tfeed
Wall Heat Flux Profile qw ( z )
Fraction of Energy Deposited in the Fuel f
a) Assuming a critical boiling length correlation of the form
a(G, P) Lcrit
xcrit 
Lcrit  b(G, P)
where a(G, P) and b(G, P ) are known functions, show how you would determine the dryout point. Since the
steam leaves superheated, the dryout point occurs somewhere along the tube bundle (but not at the exit). Give all
necessary equations. Integrals that do not have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. If your
solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equation(s), state which variable(s) are to be
iterated upon, and state an iterative solution is required. You may assume all necessary fluid properties and state
equations are available. Any parameter not explicitly stated as given, should be assumed unknown and you
should show how to obtain that parameter from the given information.
b) Give a step by step procedure for determining the wall temperature distribution, including all equations. Be sure
to state which heat transfer correlations you are using. You may assume that in the region after dryout, and
before the vapor becomes superheated, heat transfer is correlated in the form
qw ( z )  hPDO (G , P, x )[Tw ( z )  Tsat ]
SOLUTION
a) The quality at the critical point is given by the energy balance

zcrit
1
hcrit  h f  xcrit h fg  h f  qw ( z ) Do dz
GAx 0
where Ax  S 2   Do2 / 4 and may be solved for the critical quality

zcrit
1
xcrit  qw ( z ) Do dz .
GAx h fg 0
For the given critical boiling length correlation


a(G, P )( zcrit  H o )
zcrit
1
i)  qw ( z ) Do dz
zcrit  H o  b(G, P ) GAx h fg 0
Equation (i) is in terms of two unknowns, zcrit and Ho, all other parameters being known. The non boiling
height may be obtained from the additional energy balance

Ho
ii) GAx (h f  hin )  qw ( z ) Do dz .

0
The inlet enthalpy can be obtained directly from the feed temperature and pressure. Equation (ii) is a single
non linear equation in the non boiling height and may be solve iteratively. Given Ho, Equation (i) is a
single non linear equation in the dry out point zcrit and may be solved iteratively.
b) Four heat transfer regimes are to be considered:
i) Single phase forced convection region: z  [0, zsat ]
convection to a subcooled liquid. The wall temperature is given by Newton’s Law of Cooling
qw ( z )
Tw ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
where the heat transfer coefficient is given by the Weisman Correlation
0.8 1/3
hc De  GD   C pf  f 
C e   
kf   f   k f 
4[ S 2   Do2 / 4]
De 
 Do
T ( z )  T [h( z )]

z
1
h( z )  hin  qw ( z ) Do dz 
GAx 0
If desired, the location where the wall temperature reaches the saturation temperature is the iterative
solution of
qw ( z sat )
hc
ii) Boiling Region: z  [ zsat , zcrit ]

Once the wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, heat transfer is by nucleate boiling and
forced convection vaporization up to the point of dry out. The wall temperature is given by the Chen
Correlation
qw ( z )  ho (G, x, P )[Tw ( z )  T ( z )]  hNB (G, x, P, Tw )[Tw ( z )  Tsat ]
where the liquid only component of the correlation ( ho ) is modified to be consistent with the Weisman
correlation in the single phase forced convection region. For
 h( z )  h f
 h( z )  h f
x( z )   h fg
 0 h( z )  h f

 q (z) D dz

z
1
h( z )  hin  w o
GAx 0
the Chen Correlation is a single non linear equation in the wall temperature at any location and can be
solved iteratively.
iii) Post Dry Out Region: xcrit  x  1
Heat transfer in the Post Dry Out Region is given by
qw ( z )  hPDO (G , x, P )[Tw ( z )  Tsat ]
where the heat transfer coefficient is a known function of the mass flux, quality and pressure. The wall
temperature may be obtained directly from
qw ( z )
Tw ( z )  Tsat 
hPDO [G, x( z ), P ]
The quality and enthalpy distributions are given by the expressions in region (ii).
iv) Superheat Region: x  1
Once the vapor becomes superheated, heat transfer is by single phase forced convection to a superheated
vapor and the wall temperature is again given by Newton’s Law of cooling
qw ( z )
Tw ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
where the heat transfer coefficient is given by the Weisman Correlation evaluated using vapor properties
 GD   C pv v 
0.8 1/3
hc De
C e   
kv   v   kv 
T ( z )  T [h( z )]

z
1
h( z )  hin  qw ( z ) Do dz 
GAx 0
A BWR is operating at the nominal full power conditions listed below when a power excursion decreases the
Critical Power Ratio to 0.90.
a) Give a step by step procedure, including all equations, for determining the dryout point. Integrals which do
not have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. For solutions involving iteration, it is sufficient to
state which equation(s) are to be solved iteratively and the variable(s) to be iterated on. You may assume the
following information is known. You may also assume any necessary fluid and/or thermodynamic properties
are available.
b) Describe the progression in heat transfer regimes at the dryout point following the power excursion.
Problem Parameters
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
System Pressure P
Mass Flux in Hot Channel GHOT
Mass Flux in Limiting Channel GLIM
Heat Flux in Hot Channel  ( z )
qHOT
Heat Flux in Limiting Channel  ( z )
qLIM
SOLUTION
a) Dryout is assumed to occur in the limiting channel. The heat flux in the critical channel is then
 ( z )  CPR  qLIM
qcrit  ( z )
The dryout point ( zcrit ) can be expressed in terms of the non boiling height and the heat flux in the critical
channel as
a (GLIM , P )( zcrit  H o ) 1 zcrit


zcrit  H o  b(GLIM , P) GLIM Ax  f h fg  Ho
 ( z ) Do dz
qcrit (1)
where Ax  S 2   Do2 / 4 and the non boiling height ( H o ) is obtained from
Ho
GLIM Ax  f ( h f  hin )    ( z ) Do dz .
qcrit (2)
0
 ( z ) from above, Equation 2 can be solved iteratively for H o , such that Equation 1 is a single non
Given qcrit
linear equation in zcrit which may be solved iteratively.
b) This is a heat flux controlled system. Upon exceeding critical heat flux, dry patches appear on the heated
surface. This leads to an increase in the wall temperature and more of the surface drying out. This continues
until complete evaporation of the liquid film. The wall heat transfer is then single phase forced convection to a
superheated vapor. Wall temperatures can become sufficiently high that radiative heat transfer becomes an
additional contributor to the total wall heat transfer rate. Assuming the wall can sustain the higher temperatures,
the wall temperature will stabilize when the heat transfer rates from single phase forced convection and radiation
match the heat flux.
Figure 2 below illustrates portions of two flow boiling curves.
a) Under what operating conditions would you expect each of the curves?
b) Discuss the heat transfer mechanisms associated with the regions of each curve. Be sure to explain the
difference in the shapes of the curves.
c) Discuss the critical heat flux mechanism associated with each curve.
d) For which critical heat flux mechanism would you expect the resulting temperature excursion to be the
greatest? Justify your answer.
Curve a Curve b
Figure 2: Flow Boiling Curves
SOLUTION
The answer to this question comes directly from the notes.
a) Under what operating conditions would you expect each of the curves?
Curve a corresponds to a boiling curve for low quality, high heat flux systems is illustrated below.
c*
c'
c
d e
ln q"
a b
G1 < G2 < G3
G3
G2
G1
ln (Twall - Tsat)
Figure 4: Flow Boiling Curve for Low Quality, High Heat Flux Systems
Curve b corresponds to high quality, low heat flux systems. The boiling curve under these conditions is
illustrated in Figure 5.
d*
d'
ln q"
f
e
c
a b
G1 < G2 < G3
G3
G2
G1
ln (Twall - Tsat)
Figure 5: Flow Boiling Curve for High Quality, Low Heat Flux Systems
In Figure 4, the heat transfer rate is plotted as a function of the wall superheat (the difference between the wall
temperature and the fluid saturation temperature). The curve is divided into 5 regions (a – e), each of which
corresponds to a different heat transfer mechanism.
b) Discuss the heat transfer mechanisms associated with the regions of each curve. Be sure to explain the difference
in the shapes of the curves.
Region a: The minimum criteria for boiling, is that the temperature of the heated surface exceed the local
saturation temperature, i.e. some degree of wall superheat is required for boiling to occur. In
region a, wall superheat is insufficient to support bubble formation and growth. Heat transfer is
by single-phase forced convection and is a strong function of fluid velocity (mass flux) and
temperature.
Region b: Bubbles begin forming at nucleation sites on the heated surface. These nucleation sites are
generally associated with pits or crevices on the heated surfaces in which non dissolved gases or
vapor can accumulate allowing bubble formation. As the bubbles grow and depart the surface
they carry latent heat, as well as generate increased turbulence and mixing which increases the
heat transfer rate. Boiling under these conditions is referred to as nucleate boiling. In region b,
heat transfer is a complicated mixture of single-phase forced convection and nucleate boiling.
As a result, this region is often called the mixed boiling or partial nucleate boiling region. In
general, as the wall temperature increases, the fraction of the wall surface subject to nucleate
boiling increases, until bubble formation occupies the entire heated surface.
Region c: In region c, bubble density increases rapidly with increasing wall superheat. Heat transfer is
dominated by local conditions in the vicinity of the wall generated by bubble growth and
departure. These bubbles transport large amounts of latent heat from the surface at the fluid
saturation temperature and greatly increase fluid turbulence and mixing in the vicinity of the
wall. As a result, heat transfer becomes independent of bulk fluid conditions such as flow
velocity and temperature. Heat transfer is said to be by fully developed nucleate boiling and is
characterized by substantial increases in heat transfer rate for moderate increases in wall
temperature.
In low heat flux, high quality systems typical of Boiling Water Reactor operation, thermal-hydraulic
conditions within the core allow for the transition to annular flow. Vapor velocities and interfacial
turbulence are sufficiently high to suppress nucleation in the thin liquid film adjacent to the heated surface.
Heat is transferred by conduction and convection through the liquid film with evaporation at the
liquid/vapor interface. This heat transfer mechanism is referred to as forced convection vaporization and is
characterized by extremely high heat transfer coefficients. In fact, heat transfer coefficients can be so high,
that increased heat transfer rates can be achieved with decreasing wall temperatures. The boiling curve
under these conditions is illustrated in Figure 5.
d*
d'
ln q"
f
e
c
a b
G1 < G2 < G3
G3
G2
G1
ln (Twall - Tsat)
Regions a - c are identical to those in Figure 4, with Region d the forced convection vaporization region.
c) Discuss the critical heat flux mechanism associated with each curve.
For curve a), bubble density at the wall can not be increased indefinitely. At point c*, the bubble
density becomes sufficiently high to impede liquid flow back to the surface. Bubbles tend to coalesce,
forming insulating vapor patches that reduce the heat transfer rate. Point c* is called the point of
Critical Heat Flux (CHF), and the critical heat flux mechanism is Departure from Nucleate Boiling or
DNB.
At point d* for curve b, the liquid film becomes so thin that dry patches can appear on the heated surface
lowering the heat transfer rate. The critical heat flux under these conditions is not due to DNB but results
from the complete evaporation or dryout of the liquid film flowing along the heated surface. The critical
heat flux mechanism is then said to be dryout dominated. Further increases in wall temperature beyond the
point of critical heat flux results in dryout of increasingly greater portions of the heated surface and a
corresponding reduction in the heat transfer rate, eventually leading to complete evaporation of the liquid
film.
Steady state operation beyond the point of critical heat flux is only possible for wall temperature controlled
systems, where the heat input to the surface can be adjusted to maintain a given wall temperature.
d) For which critical heat flux mechanism would you expect the resulting temperature excursion to be the greatest?
Justify your answer.
The temperature excursion for DNB is the greatest. DNB occurs in high heat flux systems and leads to
film boiling which is an efficient heat transfer mechanism. Dryout occurs in low heat flux systems, and
surface cooling is still available from forced convection with a superheated vapor, though this is less
efficient than forced convection vaporization.
Two thermal limits imposed on PWRs during normal operation are the maximum fuel centerline temperature
remains below a given value Tmax, and the minimum DNB ratio remains above a given value MDNBR. For the
given information give a step by step procedure, including all equations, for determining the minimum core mass
flux which satisfies these limits. For the purposes of this problem, you can assume the coolant enters the core highly
subcooled, and at the minimum mass flux the equilibrium quality from the highest powered channel is slightly
positive. Integrals which do not have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. For solutions involving
iteration, it is sufficient to state which equation(s) are to be solved iteratively and the variable(s) to be iterated on.
You may assume the following information is known. You may also assume any necessary fluid and/or
thermodynamic properties/relations are available. You may also assume the fuel centerline temperature is a known
 ( z )] .
function of the outer clad surface temperature T0 ( z )  T0 [Tco ( z ), qhot
Problem Parameters
Channel Heat Flux  ( z )

qhot
Pressure P
Fuel Height Hc
Rod Diameter Do
SOLUTION
1) DNB Limit
The DNBR at any location within the channel is
 ( z )
qcrit
DNBR ( z ) 
 ( z )
qhot
where
 ( z )  qcrit
qcrit  ( xe (z), G, P, De , hin )
h( z )  h f
xe ( z ) 
h fg
 q (z) D dz

z
1
h( z )  hin 
GAx  f
hot o
0
Ax  S 2   Do2 / 4
4[ S 2   Do2 / 4]
De 
 Do
The minimum DNBR is then min[DNBR(z)] . To determine the minimum mass flux which satisfies the DNB
limit = (MDNBR)TARGET, the following procedure can be followed.
a) Guess a value of G
b) At specified increments for zcrit  [ H / 2, H ] , compute
 ( zcrit )  DNBR ( zcrit ) and

h( zcrit )  xe ( zcrit )  qcrit
MDNBR = min[DNBR(z)]
c) If MDNBR > (MDNBR)TARGET decrease G
MDNBR < (MDNBR)TARGET increase G
d) Return to b) and repeat until
MDNBR = (MDNBR)TARGET  GDNB
2) Fuel Centerline Limit
If the fuel centerline temperature is a known function of the outer clad surface temperature
 ( z )] , then the problem reduces finding the clad surface temperature distribution Tco ( z ) for a
T0 ( z )  T0 [Tco ( z ), qhot
given mass flux. Since it is given that the fluid enters highly subcooled and exits with a small positive
equilibrium quality, boiling occurs over some portion of the rod surface. The possible heat transfer regimes are
then, single phase force convection, mixed boiling and fully developed nucleate boiling. For a given mass flux,
the first step involves determining the boiling boundaries.
Transition from Single Phase Forced Convection to Mixed Boiling
At the Incipient Boiling Point ( z  zn ),
2.30/ P 0.0234
  ( zn )
qhot 
 ( zn )  15.6 P
qhot 1.156
T ( zn )   Tsat 
 h c 
where hc is the single-phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient and can be obtained from the Weisman
Correlation
 GDe   C p  
0.8 1/3
k
hc  C ( S / D)     .
De     k 
T ( z) is the local fluid temperature and can be obtained from the enthalpy at any location by
T ( z )  T (h( z ), P ) , where

z
1
h( z )  hin   ( z ) Do dz 
qhot
GAx  f 0
For a given mass flux, inlet conditions and heat flux profile, the only unknown is z n , which may be solved for
iteratively.
Transition from Mixed to Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling
At the transition point between mixed and fully developed nucleate boiling ( z  z B )
1/ 2
  q  ( z )  q  ( z )  2 
 ( z B ) 1   hot B 1  NB n  
 ( z B )  qFC
qhot
 ( z B )  qhot
  qFC  ( z B )  
 
where
qNB
 ( z n )    10 6 [Tco ( z n )  Tsat ]m
 ( zn )
qhot
Tco ( zn )  T ( zn ) 
hc
qFC
 ( z B )  hc [Tco ( z B )  T ( z B )]
1  q  ( z ) 
1
m
Tco ( z B )  Tsat    m  hot 6 B 

 10 
T ( z )  T (h( z ), P )
For a given heat flux profile and channel operating conditions, these equation reduce to a single nonlinear
equation in the boiling transition point z B and may be solved iteratively T ( z )  T (h( z ), P ) .
Once the boiling boundaries are known, the clad temperature at any location can be determined.
Clad Temperature Distribution
Given the boiling boundaries, the clad temperature is
1) Single Phase Forced Convection Region z  [0, zn ]
 ( z )
qhot
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
2) Mixed Boiling Region z  [ zn , z B ]
The wall temperature at any location in the mixed boiling region is the solution of
1/ 2
  q  ( z )  q  ( z )  2 
qhot ( z )  qFC ( z ) 1   NB
  1 
NB n
 
 ( z ) 
  qFC  ( z )  
qNB
 
where:
qFC
 ( z )  hc [Tco ( z )  T ( z )]
qNB
 ( z )    10 6 [Tco ( z )  Tsat ]m
and the only unknown at any location is Tco ( z ) which may be solved for iteratively.
3) Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling Region z  z B
In the Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling Region, the clad temperature can be determined directly from
1  q  ( z ) 
1
m
Tco ( z )  Tsat    m  hot 6 

 10 
Procedure for determining the mass flux which satisfies the fuel centerline limit
a) Guess G
b) Compute the boiling boundaries zn and z B
c) At specified increments for z  [0, H ] compute the wall temperature distribution Tco ( z )
 ( z )]
d) Given the wall temperature distribution, compute the fuel centerline distribution T0 ( z )  T0 [Tco ( z ), qhot
e) if max[T0 ( z )] > Tmax increase G
max[T0 ( z )] < Tmax decrease G
f) Return to b) and repeat until
max[T0 ( z )] = Tmax  GTmax
The minimum mass flux which satisfies both limits is G  max[GDNB , GT max ] .
A Once Through Steam Generator has design characteristics listed below. Feedwater enters the bottom of the
secondary side subcooled, flows upward along the steam generator tubes and leaves superheated. The primary side
fluid enters the top of the steam generator within the tubes and flows opposite the secondary side fluid as illustrated
below. The heat flux from the tube walls to the secondary side fluid at any location is proportional to the difference
between the primary side temperature and the secondary side wall temperature, i.e.
q ′′( z ) = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]
where U is known and constant.
Problem Data
Number of Tubes n
Tube Length L
Tube Pitch (square lattice) S
Secondary Side Mass Flow Rate m
Feed Temperature T∞ (0)
Critical heat flux can be considered dryout dominated, such that the dryout point can be determined by a critical
boiling length correlation of the form
Dh a(G, P ) Lcrit
xcrit =
De Lcrit + b(G , P)
Assuming the primary side temperature distribution is known, show how you would determine the steam
temperature at the exit of the steam generator. Give all equations. If equations require iteration, it is sufficient to
give the iteration equation, state the variable to be solved for and state solve iteratively. If the solution requires
evaluation of integrals that do not have closed form solutions, it is sufficient to state the integral can be solved
numerically. You may assume that following dryout, heat transfer to the secondary side steam is single phase forced
convection to a superheated vapor. You may assume any necessary state equations or fluid property tables are
available.
Tp (z)
Superheated Region
zcrit
Boiling Region
Ho
Subcooled Region
T (0)
SOLUTION
The steam generator exit temperature can be obtained from the state equation
T∞ ( L) = T∞ (h( L), Psg )
where the exit enthalpy can be obtained from the energy balance
∫
L
1
h( L) = hin + U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]πDo dz
m 0
The inlet enthalpy is known from the inlet temperature. All other parameters are known with the exception of the
wall temperature distribution. The problem then reduces to determining the secondary side wall temperature
distribution. The energy balance equation can then be integrated numerically.
considered.
U [Tp ( z ) − Tw ( z )] = hc [Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )]
or
UTp ( z ) + hcT∞ ( z )
Tw ( z ) =
U + hc
The convective heat transfer coefficient can be obtained from the Weisman Correlation, such that
1/ 3
⎛ Cpμ ⎞
0.8
k ⎛ GDe ⎞
hc = C⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
De ⎜⎝ μ ⎟⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
Where
4[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
De =
πDo
m
G=
Ax
Ax = n[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
and the fluid temperature is available from T∞ ( z ) = T∞ (h( z ), Psg ) , and the energy balance
∫
z
1
m 0
is the solution of
UTp ( zsat ) + hcT∞ ( zsat )

U + hc
where the liquid only heat transfer coefficient hAo is modified to be consistent with the Weisman correlation. The
fluid temperature is again available from the enthalpy, as is the quality through
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )] = hAo (G, x( z ), Psg )[Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )] + hNB (G, x( z ), Psg , Tw ( z ))[Tw ( z ) − Tsat ]
∫
z crit
= h = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]πDo dz
where
( ) ∫
Ho
0
3) Superheated region z ∈ [ zcrit , L]
UT p ( z ) + hcT∞ ( z )
Tw ( z ) =
U + hc
steam.
Given an arbitrary heat flux profile q ′′( z ) , mass flux G, channel inlet enthalpy hin, channel pressure P and channel
dimensions H, Ax, Pw, S and Do
a) Show how you would determine which boiling curve was applicable
b) Give a step by step procedure for determining the maximum wall temperature if boiling curve (a) were
applicable. Give all equations.
c) Give a step by step procedure for determining the maximum wall temperature if boiling curve (b) were
If your solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equation(s), state which variable(s) are to
be iterated on and state “solve iteratively”.
SOLUTION
a) Show how you would determine which boiling curve was applicable
Curve a would be applicable for relatively high pressure systems where the inlet subcooling was high and the
channel exit quality was small (a few percent). Otherwise, for relatively low pressure, low inlet subcooling
systems where the exit quality was significant (10’s of percent), curve b would be applicable.
b) Give a step by step procedure for determining the maximum wall temperature if boiling curve (a) were
Boiling Boundaries
Since the fluid enters subcooled, the channel will experience single phase forced convection, mixed boiling and
fully developed nucleate boiling. For a given heat flux profile q′′(z ) , the incipient boiling (nucleation) point zn
is the boundary between the single phase forced convection and mixed boiling regions and is obtained by solution
of
q′′( zn ) = 15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( zn ) − Tsat ]
where
q′′( zn )
Tco ( zn ) = T∞ ( zn ) +
hc
zn
1
T∞ ( zn ) = T∞ (0) +
m C p 0
m = GAx
Ax = S 2 − πD 2 / 4
1/ 3
⎧ GD ⎫ ⎧ C p μ ⎫
0.8
k
hc = C ( S / D)⎨ e ⎬ ⎨ ⎬
De ⎩ μ ⎭ ⎩ k ⎭
and
De =
[
4 S 2 − πD 2 / 4 ]
πD
1/ 2
⎡ ⎡ ′′ ′ ( zn ) ⎫⎤ ⎤⎥
2
⎢ q ( z B ) ⎧ q′NB
q′′( z B ) = q′FC
′ ( zB ) 1 + ⎢ ⎨1 − ⎬⎥
⎢ ⎢⎣ q′FC
′ ( zB ) ⎩ q′′( z B ) ⎭⎥⎦ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where
q′FC
′ ( z B ) = hc [Tco ( z B ) − T∞ ( z B )]
1/ m
⎧ q′′( z B ) ⎫
Tco ( z B ) = Tsat + ⎨ ⎬
⎩ ξ ⎭
∫ q′′(z)πDdz
zB
1
T∞ ( z B ) = T∞ (0) +
m C p 0
q′NB
′ ( zn ) = ξ [Tco ( zn ) − Tsat ]m
q′′( zn )
Tco ( zn ) = T∞ ( zn ) +
hc
For zeq satisfying
∫
zeq
1
Tsat = T∞ (0) + q ′′( z )π Ddz
p
mC 0
⎧
∫
z
1
⎪T∞ (0) + q ′′( z ′)π Ddz ′ z < zeq
⎪ p 0
mC
⎪
T∞ ( z ) = ⎨
⎪ Tsat z ≥ zeq
⎪
⎪
⎩
q′′( z )
Tco ( z ) = T∞ ( z ) +
hc
For z ∈ [ zn , z B ] mixed boiling is the heat transfer mechanism and the wall temperature is obtained iteratively
from
1/ 2
⎡ ⎡ ′′ ′ ( zn ) ⎫⎤ ⎤⎥
2
q ( z ) ⎧ q′NB
′ ( z ) ⎢1 + ⎢ NB
q′′( z ) = q′FC ⎨1 − ⎬⎥
⎢ ⎣⎢ q′FC
′ ( z) ⎩ ′ ( z ) ⎭⎦⎥ ⎥
q′NB
⎣ ⎦
where
q′NB
′ ( z ) = ξ [Tco ( z ) − Tsat ]m
and
q′FC
′ ( z ) = hc [Tco ( z ) − T∞ ( z )]
For z > z B heat transfer is by fully developed nucleate boiling and the wall temperature can be obtained directly
by
1/ m
⎧ q′′( z ) ⎫
Tco ( z ) = Tsat +⎨ ⎬
⎩ ξ ⎭
The wall temperature distribution can then be solved along the channel height and searched for it’s maximum
value.
c) Give a step by step procedure for determining the maximum wall temperature if boiling curve (b) were
Since subcooling is generally small, the Chen correlation can be employed over the entire channel height.
Prior to the wall temperature reaching the saturation temperature (zsat), heat transfer is by single phase forced
q ′′( z )
Tco ( z ) = T∞ ( z ) +
hc
where
∫ q′′(z′)π Ddz′
z
1
T∞ ( z ) = T∞ (0) +
p
mC 0
1/ 3
⎛ Cpμ ⎞
0.8
k ⎛ GDe ⎞
hc = C⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
De ⎜⎝ μ ⎟⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
Where
4[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
De =
πDo
m
G=
Ax
Ax = [ S 2 − π Do2 / 4]
2) Nucleate Boiling and Forced Convection Vaporization Regions z ∈ [ zsat , H ]
q ′′( z ) = hAo (G , x( z ), P )[Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )] + hNB (G , x( z ), P, Tw ( z ))[Tw ( z ) − Tsat ]
fluid temperature is again available from
⎧
∫
z
1
⎪T∞ (0) + q ′′( z ′)π Ddz ′ z < zeq
⎪ p 0
mC
⎪
T∞ ( z ) = ⎨
⎪ Tsat z ≥ zeq
⎪
⎪
⎩
and the quality through

h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
where
∫ q′′( z′)π Ddz′

z
1
h( z ) = h(0) +
m 0
q ′′( z ) = hAo (G, x( z ), Psg )[Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )] + hNB (G, x( z ), Psg , Tw ( z ))[Tw ( z ) − Tsat ]
The wall temperature distribution can then be solved along the channel height and searched for it’s maximum
value.
In the highest powered channel of a particular PWR, the fluid enters highly subcooled and exits as a very low quality
saturated mixture. For a given heat flux profile q′′(z ) and the information given below:
a) Give a step by step procedure for determining the wall temperature distribution in the channel
b) Give a step by step procedure for determining the Minimum DNB Ratio in the channel.
You may assume a critical heat flux correlation of the form
′′ = qcrit
qcrit ′′ (G, P, xe , De )
is available. For solutions requiring iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equations and state the variable to be
solved for iteratively.
PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR PARAMETERS
Pressure P
Core Mass Flux G
Fuel Height H
Rod Diameter D
SOLUTION
a) Boiling Boundaries
Since the fluid enters subcooled and leaves saturated, the channel will experience single phase forced convection,
mixed boiling and fully developed nucleate boiling. For a given heat flux profile q′′( z ) , the incipient boiling
(nucleation) point zn is the boundary between the single phase forced convection and mixed boiling regions and is
obtained by solution of
q′′( zn ) = 15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( zn ) − Tsat ]
where
q′′( zn )
Tco ( zn ) = T∞ ( zn ) +
hc
zn
1
T∞ ( zn ) = T∞ (0) +
m C p 0
m = GAx
Ax = S 2 − πD 2 / 4
1/ 3
⎧ GD ⎫ ⎧ C p μ ⎫
0.8
k
hc = C ( S / D)⎨ e ⎬ ⎨ ⎬
De ⎩ μ ⎭ ⎩ k ⎭
and
De =
[
4 S 2 − πD 2 / 4 ]
πD
1/ 2
⎡ ⎡ ′′ ′ ( zn ) ⎫⎤ ⎤⎥
2
⎢ q ( z B ) ⎧ q′NB
q′′( z B ) = q′FC
′ ( zB ) 1 + ⎢ ⎨1 − ⎬⎥
⎢ ⎢⎣ q′FC
′ ( zB ) ⎩ q′′( z B ) ⎭⎥⎦ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where
q′FC
′ ( z B ) = hc [Tco ( z B ) − T∞ ( z B )]
1/ m
⎧ q′′( z B ) ⎫
Tco ( z B ) = Tsat + ⎨ ⎬
⎩ ξ ⎭
∫ q′′(z)πDdz
zB
1
T∞ ( z B ) = T∞ (0) +
m C p 0
q′NB
′ ( zn ) = ξ [Tco ( zn ) − Tsat ]m
q′′( zn )
Tco ( zn ) = T∞ ( zn ) +
hc
For zsat satisfying
z sat
1
Tsat = T∞ (0) +
m C p 0
⎧
∫
z
1
⎪T∞ (0) + q′′( z′)πDdz′ z < z sat
⎪ m C p 0
⎪
T∞ ( z ) = ⎨
⎪ Tsat z ≥ z sat
⎪
⎪⎩
q′′( z )
Tco ( z ) = T∞ ( z ) +
hc
For z ∈ [ zn , z B ] mixed boiling is the heat transfer mechanism and the wall temperature is obtained iteratively from
1/ 2
⎡ ⎡ ′′ ′ ( zn ) ⎫⎤ ⎤⎥
2
⎢ q NB ( z ) ⎧ q′NB
q′′( z ) = q′FC
′ ( z) 1 + ⎢ ⎨1 − ⎬⎥
⎢ ⎢⎣ q′FC′ ( z) ⎩ ′ ( z ) ⎭⎥⎦ ⎥
q′NB
⎣ ⎦
where
q′NB
′ ( z ) = ξ [Tco ( z ) − Tsat ]m
and
q′FC
′ ( z ) = hc [Tco ( z ) − T∞ ( z )]
For z > z B heat transfer is by fully developed nucleate boiling and the wall temperature can be obtained directly by
1/ m
⎧ q′′( z ) ⎫
Tco ( z ) = Tsat + ⎨ ⎬
⎩ ξ ⎭
b) Minimum DNB Ratio
The enthalpy distribution in the channel is given by
∫ q′′(z)πDdz
z
1
h( z ) = hin +
m 0
such that the quality distribution in the channel is
h( z ) − h f
xe ( z ) =
h fg
Assuming the other parameters are independent of position, critical heat flux as a function of position in the channel
is given by
′′ ( z ) = qcrit
qcrit ′′ (G, P, xe ( z ), De )
The minimum DNB ratio is obtained by computing
′′ ( z )
qcrit
DNBR ( z ) = over the channel height and searching for its minimum value.
q′′( z )
1) A PWR operates at an average coolant temperature of 590 F. The reactor coolant system consist of the reactor
vessel, 4 hot legs, 4 steam generators, four cold legs and four reactor coolant pumps. The pressure rise across
each pump is a function of the flow rate through the pump and can be taken to be
2
ΔPp ⎛ m p ⎞
= a − b⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
ΔPpR ⎝ m R ⎠
where a, b, ΔPpR and m R are known values for the pump. For the given information, show how you would
determine the total system mass flow rate. Give all equations. If the solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to
give the iteration equation (s), state which variable (s) is to be solved for and state to solve iteratively.
Problem Data
Reactor Vessel and Core
Rod Pitch S
Rod Diameter Do
Number of rods nrods
Number of Spacer Grids ngrids
Grid Loss Coefficient (referenced to core mass flux) Kgrid
Core Height H
Core Outlet Loss Coefficient (referenced to core mass flux) K c ex
Core Inlet Loss Coefficient (referenced to core mass flux) K c in
Vessel ID Dvi
Core Barrel OD Dbo
Downcomer Loss Coefficient (referenced to downcomer mass flux) Kdc
Relative Roughness ε dc
Hot Leg (each Hot Leg)
Length LHL
Diameter DHL
Hot Leg Equivalent L/D (L/D)HL
Hot Leg Inlet Loss Coefficient (referenced to hot leg mass flux) K HLin
Relative Roughness ε HL
Steam Generator (each steam generator)
Bundle Inlet Loss Coefficient (referenced to tube velocity) K sg in

Average tube length Lsg
Tube Inner Diameter Dsg i
Bend Equivalent L/D (L/D)sg
Number of tubes nsg
Cold Leg (each cold leg)
Length LCL
Diameter DCL
1
Cold Leg Inlet Loss Coefficient (referenced to cold leg mass flux) K CL in
Cold Leg Equivalent L/D (L/D)CL
Relative Roughness ε CL
SOLUTION
Assuming the acceleration and elevation losses can be neglected, the pumps must overcome the friction and local
losses around the loop. Assuming all loops behave identically, the pump ΔP is given by
ΔPp (m p ) = ΔPdc (Gdc ) + ΔPcore (Gcore ) + ΔPHL (GHL ) + ΔPSG (GSG ) + ΔPCL (GCL )
where Gdc , Gcore , GHL , GSG , GCL are the mass fluxes in the downcomer, core, hot legs, steam generators and cold
legs respectively and m p is the flow rate in the pump and equal to the cold leg flow rate. Mass conservation gives,
m system = Gcore Acore = Gdc Adc = 4GHL AHL = 4Gsg Asg = 4GCL ACL = 4m p
such that given the functional forms of the pressure drops, the equation above can be expressed as a single nonlinear
equation in the system mass flow rate that can be solved iteratively.
Downcomer Pressure Drop
⎛ f L ⎞ G2
ΔPdc = ⎜⎜ dc dc + K dc ⎟⎟ dc
⎝ De ⎠ 2 ρg c
m core m core
Gdc = =
Adc π (D v i − D 2b o ) / 4
2
2 2
4 Adc π(D v i − D b o )
De = = = Dvi − Dbo
Pw π(D v i + D b o )
Gdc De
Re =
μ
f dc = f (Re, ε dc / De )
Core Pressure Drop
⎛ f H ⎞ G2
ΔPcore = ⎜⎜ core + K cin + ngrids × K grid + K cex ⎟⎟ core
⎝ De ⎠ 2 ρg c
m core
Gcore =
Acore
⎡ D2 ⎤
Acore = nrods ⎢ S 2 − π o ⎥
⎣⎢ 4 ⎦⎥
2
4 Ax 4[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
De = =
Pw πDo
Gcore De
Re =
μ
f core = f (Re,0)
Hot Leg Pressure Drop
⎛ ⎧L ⎫ ⎞ G2
ΔPHL = ⎜ f HL ⎨ HL + ( L / D) HL ⎬ + K HLin ⎟ HL
⎜ ⎟ 2 ρg
⎝ ⎩ DHL ⎭ ⎠ c
2
m core πDHL
G HL = where AHL =
n HL × AHL 4
GHL DHL
Re =
μ
f HL = f (Re, ε HL / DHL )
Steam Generator Pressure Drop
⎛ ⎧⎪ Lsg ⎫⎪ ⎞ G2
ΔPsg = ⎜ f sg ⎨ + ( L / D) sg ⎬ + K sg in ⎟ SG
⎜ ⎪ Dsg ⎪⎭ ⎟ 2 ρg c
⎝ ⎩ i ⎠
2
m core πDsg i
GSG = where Atube =
4 × ntubes × Atube 4
GSG Dsg i
Re =
μ
f sg = f (Re,0)
Cold Leg Pressure Drop
⎛ ⎧L ⎫ ⎞ G2
ΔPCL = ⎜ fCL ⎨ CL + ( L / D)CL ⎬ + KCLin ⎟ CL
⎜ ⎟ 2 ρg
⎝ ⎩ DCL ⎭ ⎠ c
3
m core πD 2
GCL = where ACL = CL
4 × ACL 4
GCL DCL
Re =
μ
fCL = f (Re, ε CL / DCL )
4
2) For the reactor in problem 1, the coolant exits the highest powered channel as a two phase mixture. Assuming
the coolant enters the channel with a significant degree of subcooling, show how you would determine the
mixture density distribution in the channel. Give all equations. You may assume the system pressure, and core
inlet conditions are known. You may assume a known heat flux profile in the hot channel of the form
⎛ π (z + λ) ⎞
q′′( z ) = q0′′ sin ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎝ He ⎠
You may also assume any necessary fluid state equations are available.
SOLUTION
Mixture Density Distribution
The mixture density is defined to be

ρ = (1 − α g ) ρA + α g ρ g
where the liquid phase density is given in terms of the liquid phase enthalpy by
⎧ ρ A (hA ) hA < h f
⎪
ρA = ⎨
⎪ ρ hA = h f
⎩ f
where the liquid phase enthalpy is given by
h ( z ) − x ( z ) hg
hA ( z ) =
1 − x( z )
and the vapor phase properties can be taken to be saturated vapor properties at the system pressure. Solution then
requires expressions for the enthalpy, flow quality and void distributions.
Enthalpy Distributions
The enthalpy distribution is given by the simple energy balance
∫
z
1
h( z ) = h(0) + q ′′( z ′)πDdz ′
m
0
where the mass flow rate is given by m = GAx and Ax = S 2 − πD 2 / 4 .
⎛ π ( H + z ′) ⎞
∫ q′′ sin⎜⎜⎝
z
1
h( z ) = h(0) + ⎟πDdz′
m
0 ⎟
0 He ⎠
q0′′ DH e ⎧⎪ ⎛ πλ ⎞ ⎛ π ( z + λ ) ⎞⎫⎪
h( z ) = h(0) + ⎨cos⎜⎜ ⎟ − cos⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎬
m ⎪⎩ ⎝ H e ⎟⎠ ⎝ H e ⎠⎪⎭
1
⎧ DeC p
⎪0.0022 × q′′( zd ) × Pe < 70,000
⎪ k
h f − hAd = ⎨
⎪ q′′( zd )
⎪ 154 × Pe > 70,000
⎩ G
GDeC p
where Pe ≡ = Re × Pr is the Peclet Number and the enthalpy at the bubble departure point is given by
k
∫
zd
1
hAd = hin + q′′( z )πDdz .
m 0
4 Ax 4[ S 2
− πDo2
/ 4]
De = =
πDo πDo
The bubble departure point is then the iterative solution of the transcendental equation
⎧ DeC p
⎪0.0022 × q′′( zd ) × Pe < 70,000
⎪ k
h f − hAd = ⎨
⎪ q′′( zd )
⎪ 154 × Pe > 70,000
⎩ G
where
q0′′ DH e ⎪⎧ ⎛ πλ ⎞ ⎛ π ( z d + λ ) ⎞⎫⎪
hAd = h(0) + ⎨cos⎜ ⎟ − cos⎜ ⎟⎬
m ⎪⎩ ⎜⎝ H e ⎟⎠ ⎜
⎝ He ⎟⎪
⎠⎭
⎧
⎪ 0 z < zd
⎪⎪
x=⎨
⎪ ⎛ x ⎞
⎪ xe − ( xe ) d exp⎜⎜ e − 1⎟⎟ z > zd
⎪⎩ ⎝ ( xe ) d ⎠
hAd − h f
( xe ) d =
h fg
2
h( z ) − h f
xe ( z ) =
h fg
Void Distribution
x( z )
α g ( z) =
⎡ ρg ⎤ ρ V ( z)
Co ⎢ x( z ) + [1 − x( z )]⎥ + g gj
⎣ ρA ( z ) ⎦ G
( )
1
⎧⎪ ρA ( z ) − ρ g ⎫⎪ 4
where C0 = 113 . and Vgj ( z ) = 1.41⎨σgg c ⎬
⎪⎩ ρ A2 ( z ) ⎪⎭
Note: This form of the Zuber-Findlay correlation automatically gives a vapor volume fraction of zero for quality
equal to zero.
For a give channel mass flux and pressure the vapor volume fraction is only a function of the quality and the liquid
phase density.
3
On the secondary side of a Once Through Steam Generator, feedwater enters the bottom of the steam generator
subcooled and exits superheated. For the given parameters show how you would determine
a) The friction pressure drop

b) The acceleration pressure drop
You may assume an equilibrium model, a uniform linear heat rate and a two phase friction multiplier of the form
φ A2o (G, x) is available in the two phase region.
Problem Data
Mass Flow Rate 7.7 x 106 lbm/hr

Linear Heat Rate 1.19 x 108 Btu/hr-ft
Pressure 1050 psia
Height 52 ft
Tube Pitch 0.875 inches
Tube Diameter 0.625 inches
Feedwater Temperature 464 F
SOLUTION
Frictional Loss
The frictional loss is the sum of the single phase and two phase losses, i.e.
fg (H − H g ) G2
∫
Hg
fH o G 2 f f G2
ΔPfriction = + ϕA2o dz +
De 2 ρ g c De 2 ρ f g c Ho De 2ρ g gc
where H o is the non boiling height and H g is the single phase vapor height. The non boiling height is given by the
energy balance
∫ q′( z)dz .
Ho
1
h f = hin +
m 0
For q′( z ) = q′ a constant
q′H o
h f = hin +
m
which may be solved directly for the nonboiling height.
m (h f − hin )
Ho =
q′
Single Phase Liquid Loss
m
The mass flux is given by G = where the cross sectional area is
Ax
Ax = ( S 2 − π D 2 / 4) × n
Note: A square lattice has been assumed.
GDe
Re =
μ
where the equivalent diameter is defined to be
4[ S 2 − π D 2 / 4]
De =
πD
The density and viscosity are taken at the average temperature between the inlet and saturation temperature.
Assuming smooth piping, the friction factor is taken from the Moody Chart such that the single phase liquid
component of the frictional loss can be evaluated directly as
fH o G 2
ΔPsingle phase liquid =
De 2 ρ g c
Two Phase Section Loss
The single phase vapor height is given by the energy balance
∫
Hg
1
hg = hin + q ′( z )dz .
m 0
q ′H g
hg = hin +
m
which may be solved directly for the single phase vapor height.
m (hg − hin )
Hg =
q′
GDe
Re f =
μf
Again, assuming smooth piping, the friction factor is taken from the Moody Chart. For an arbitrary functional form
for the two phase multiplier, the two phase component of the frictional pressure drop can be evaluated by
numerically integrating the two phase multiplier over the boiling height as indicated below.
∫
Hg
ff G2
ΔPtwo phase = ϕA2o [G, x( z )]dz
De 2 ρ f g c Ho
where
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
and
∫
q ′( z − H o )
z
1
h( z ) = h f + q ′dz = h f +
m Ho m
Single Phase Vapor Section Loss
The exit enthalpy is given by
q′H
hexit = hin +
m
GDe
Re g =
μg
The average density and viscosity are taken at the average between a saturated vapor and that at the channel exit
enthalpy. Assuming smooth piping, the friction factor is taken from the Moody Chart. The frictional loss in the
single phase vapor section is then
fg (H − H g ) G2
ΔPsingle phase vapor =
De 2ρ g gc
The total frictional loss is then
ΔPf = ΔPsingle phase liquid + ΔPtwo phase + ΔPsingle phase vapor
Acceleration Drop
The acceleration drop is
1 d ⎧⎪ G 2 (1 − x) 2 G 2 x 2 ⎫⎪
∫ ∫ { } { }0H
H H
1 d 1
ΔPacceleration = ⎨ + ⎬dz = α A ρ A vA vA + α g ρ g v g v g dz = α A ρ A vA vA + α g ρ g v g v g
0 g c dz ⎪⎩ α A ρ A α g ρ g ⎪⎭ 0 g c dz gc
Since the fluid is single phase at the inlet and exit of the channel, the integral reduces to
G2
ΔPacceleration = (υ exit − υinlet )
gc
where
υexit = υ g (hexit , P) (superheated)
υinlet = υA (hin , P) (subcooled)

NE 402/502 Homework 1 Fall 2016
1) A four loop Pressurized Water Reactor is to be built around the power conversion cycle illustrated below. For
the given information determine:
a) The cycle efficiency

b) The reactor thermal output if the combined turbine output is 1200 Mw
c) The horsepower rating of each reactor coolant pump. Note, though only one combined loop is shown in the
drawing, the primary side is composed of four identical loops, each containing one hot leg, steam generator,
cold leg and associated reactor coolant pump.
RH 1 8 RH 2
m2
m7
MS
2
10
m8
m3 5 7
6
9
HP Turbine LP Turbine
15
33 m6
11
3 m9
4 m5
m 14
m4 10 m11
12 13
RX m12
m1 FH 1 FH 2 FH 4 FH 5 FH 6
Condenser
29 FH 3 25 23 21
31 1 16
32
FH 7
Condensate Pump
m0 30 24 22
28 27 26 19 17
RCP
18
20
HP Feed Pump
LP Feed Pump
You may assume for the purposes of this assignment, that all pumps have an efficiency of 75%. The high pressure
turbine efficiency is 82% and the low pressure turbine efficiency is 78%. For consistency, use steam properties
from SteamTab Companion downloadable from the Chemlogic link provided on the course web site.
State Point Temperature (F) Quality Pressure (psia)
1 440 1000
2 100 % 978
3 410
4 275
5 175
6
7
8 420
9
10 515
11 70
12 45
13 16
14 6.6
15 0.75
16
17
18
19
20
21 210
22
23 262
24
25 296
26
27
28
29 402
30
31 2130
32 560 2250
33 620
2) A Pressurized Water Reactor has operating characteristics given below. For the average channel, compute and
plot the coolant temperature, outer clad surface temperature and fuel centerline temperature as a function of axial
position.
a) For the average channel, determine the maximum clad surface temperature
b) For the average channel, determine the maximum fuel centerline temperature
c) Determine the maximum power peaking factor to prevent boiling in the hot channel (i.e. Tclad < Tsat)
Note: The coolant enthalpy rise should reflect the total thermal output of the reactor, not just that fraction
deposited in the fuel.
  (z   ) 
q ( z )  qo sin 
 He 
and the fuel thermal conductivity varies with temperature as
3978.1
k (T )   6. 02366  10 12 ( T  460) 3
692. 6  T
where temperature is in degrees F and the thermal conductivity has units of Btu/hr-ft-F.
Problem Data (4 Loop PWR)

Clad Thermal Conductivity 9.6 Btu/hr-Ft-F
Coolant Mass Flux 2.60 x 106 lbm/Hr-ft2
1) It has been shown, that void and quality and be related through the Fundamental Void-Quality-Slip Relation
1

1  x g
1 S
x 
Drift Velocity, defined to be Vgj    vr    (vg  v ) , is more commonly used to correlate relative phase motion
than the slip ratio S  vg / v . Show that void and quality can be related by
1

1  x  g  gVgj
1 
x  Gx
2) The relative velocity, and therefore the drift velocity correlations are generally flow regime dependent. One
example of these correlations are those utilized in early versions of the TRAC code given below
Bubbly Flow
1.41   gg c (     g ) 
1/ 4
vr   
   2 
Slug Flow
0.345  gDh (    g ) 
1/ 2
vr   
   
Churn-Turbulent
v
vr 
1  C g  g g

C 1 
Where C = 1.1 and  g is limited to a maximum value of 0.8.
Annular Flow
v
vr  1/ 2
  g (76  75 g )   g g
  
   g  
The corresponding flow regime map is attached, where the dashed lines mark transition regions between flow
regimes. In these regions, the relative velocity is linearly interpolated between the boundary values. An
alternate approach is to use a flow regime independent void/quality relation, such as the Zuber-Findlay
correlation to determine void fraction. The Zuber-Findlay correlation is given as
1
g 
  1  x  g   gVgj 
Co 1   
  x   Gx 
where again Vgj is the Drift Velocity and Co is the Concentration Parameter. Both are correlated parameters.
One such correlation by Dix is
Co   1  (1 /   1)b 
b  (  g /   ) 0.1
x

g
x  (1  x)

  gg c (    g ) 
1
4
Vgj  2.9  
 2 
Given void and quality, the phase velocities can be computed from
G (1- x)
v 
  
Gx
vg 
 g g
A uniformly heated, circular boiling channel has parameters listed below.
a) For the given data, compute and plot the void distribution in the channel with the void-quality relation derived
in problem 1 and the flow regime dependent relative velocities given above. Indicate on your plot the
associated flow regimes computed from the TRAC flow regime map and the Hewitt and Roberts Map included
in the notes.
b) Repeat part a) using the flow regime independent Zuber-Findlay correlation.
For the purposes of this assignment, you can assume the flow quality is equal to the equilibrium quality.
BOILING CHANNEL PARAMETERS
Heat Flux 144,032 Btu/hr-ft2

Pressure 1000 psia
Channel Inlet Temperature 532 F
Channel Height 146 inches
Channel Diameter 0.5 inches
1) One approach for handling the mixed boiling and fully developed nucleate boiling regimes in flow boiling
channels is to assume a superposition approach where the wall heat flux is the sum of single phase forced
convection and nucleate boiling components from the point at which the wall temperature exceeds the
saturation temperature, i.e.
where hFC is an appropriate single phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient (e.g. Weisman), and hNB
is an appropriate nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient (e.g. Thom or Jens-Lottes).
The hot channel in a PWR operates under the conditions given below. Compute and plot the outer clad
temperature distributions assuming the Jens-Lottes and Thom correlations in the nucleate boiling region and the
Bergles and Rosenhow correlation in the mixed boiling region. Compare your results to those assuming the
superposition approach given above.
  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
Problem Data

2) For the BWR operating parameters given below, compute and plot:
a) The clad surface temperature assuming the Jens-Lottes Correlation

b) The clad surface temperature assuming the Thom Correlation
c) The clad surface temperature assuming the Chen Correlation
You can neglect the mixed boiling region and assume the same superposition approach for the transition from
single phase forced convection to nucleate boiling as in Problem 1. In the Chen correlation, compare the
temperature distributions obtained with the original Dittus-Boelter correlation for ho and that obtained by
substituting the Weisman correlation for ho .
Pressure 1040 psia

  (H   -z )    (H   -z ) 
q (z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
1) A PWR operates under the conditions given below.
Problem Data

a) For channels having the same heat input, maximum heat flux and peak to average ratio, the position and value
of the Minimum DNB ratio is a function of the heat flux profile. Assuming the W3 correlation is valid,
determine the location and the value of the Minimum DNB ratio in the hot channel. Assume axial heat flux
profiles of the form
i) Nominal chopped cosine
  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
ii) Bottom Peaked
  ( H   - z)    ( H   - z) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 H e   He 
iii) Top Peaked
  (z  )    (z  ) 
q( z ) = q0   sin 
  H


 He   e 
b) Assuming the nominal heat flux profile, determine the change in the magnitude and position of MDNBR for a
c) Determine the maximum heat flux for the Top Peaked profile such that the MDNBR is the same as the
nominal profile for the given operating conditions.
2) A BWR channel has operating characteristics given below. Using the CISE-4 critical boiling length correlation
Dh  aLcrit 
xcrit   
where:
 1
1  1.481  10 4 (1  P / P ) 3 G G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 c
a
 1  P / Pc
 G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 ( G / 1000)1 / 3
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1) 0.4 GD1.4
G = kg/m2-s
D=m
P = MPa
Lcrit = m
a) Determine the maximum core thermal output if the minimum CPR is 1.2.
b) Determine the exit quality as well as the critical quality at the exit of the hot channel.
c) Determine the minimum CHF ratio assuming the Hench-Levy limit line correlation
d) Determine the CPR that corresponds to a CHF ratio of 1.9 assuming the Hench-Levy correlation.
Problem Data
Pressure 1040 psia

Total Peaking Factor 2.23
  (H   -z )    (H   -z ) 
q (z ) = q0   sin  
 H e   He 
1) A potential concern in the design of reactor cores, is that the coolant velocity be sufficiently small that the fuel
assembly is not lifted from the fuel support plate. This occurs when the drag forces on the assembly (friction and
forms) exceed the buoyancy (weight) forces acting on the assembly. For the given information, determine the
lifting velocity for a fuel assembly.
Fuel assembly weight 274,350 lbs

Rod pitch 0.568 inches
Rod diameter 0.430 inches
Assembly length 12 ft
Number of spacer grids 8
Grid loss coefficient 0.5
Upper and lower tie plate loss coefficient (each) 2.0
Coolant temperature 70 - 580 F
Number of fuel rods per assembly 225
System pressure 2000 psia
Number of fuel assemblies 193
You may assume the fuel rods can be treated as smooth drawn tubing.
2) The primary side of a U-Tube steam generator is illustrated below.
For the given data:
a) Determine the pressure drop across the steam generator (inlet plenum to outlet plenum) assuming the tube
bundle can be represented by an effective tube length that preserves total heat transfer area.
b) Assuming the pressure drop across the steam generator determined in part a is valid, determine the difference
in the long and short tube velocities relative to the velocity in the “effective” tube.
Problem Data
Primary Side Flow Rate 36.33 x 106 lbm/hr

Hot Leg Temperature 620.2 F
Cold Leg Temperature 557.1 F
Heat Transfer Area (referenced to Outer Diameter) 48,300 ft2
Number of Tubes 4578
Outer Tube Diameter 0.75 inches
Tube Wall Thickness 0.04515 inches
Straight Tube Length (each) 25.3 ft
Maximum Bend Radius 53.25 inches
Minimum Bend Radius 2.25 inches
Tube Plate Thickness 21.2 inches
Flush Inlet Loss Coefficient 0.5
Flush Exit Loss Coefficient 1.0
3) A simplified representation of a four loop, PWR feed line is illustrated below. During low power operation, the
feed control valve is closed such that all flow passes through the feed bypass line. During normal operation, the
feed bypass valve is fully opened, and flow to the steam generators passes through both the feed bypass line and
the line containing the feed control valve. For the given data, determine the flow to each steam generator when
the feed control valve is open. You may assume all flow paths are identical, and that the given loss coefficients
represent both friction and forms losses. You may also assume loss coefficients for the manifolds are included in
the given values, and the loss coefficients (other than that for the feed control valve) are constant for the case of
the feed control valve open and closed.
Kfbv = ?
D = 6 inches
D=18 inches
K 2 = 38.772 Pj2 Pj3 K = 38.772

K fcv =4.372 3
D = 30 inches
Pj1
K 1 = 147.248
Psg
Pc
Problem Data
Feed Pump P 1236 psia

Condenser Pressure 0.71 psia
Steam Generator Pressure 1000 psia
Feed flow with Feed Control Valve Closed 946,596 lbm/hr
4) An empty straight pipe of length L and diameter d is connected to a water source having pressure Po. At time t =
0, a valve is opened allowing water to flow in the pipe. Assuming a horizontal pipe, and the only viscous losses
are those due to friction, develop an equation for the time required for the water to exit the pipe. You may
assume the pipe discharges to atmosphere and the friction factor is independent of time.
Note: Friction only operates over that portion of the pipe containing water.
NE 402/502 Midterm Exam Fall 2016
(40%) 1) A BWR is operating at the nominal full power conditions listed below when a power excursion decreases the
Critical Power Ratio to 0.90.
a) Give a step by step procedure, including all equations, for determining the dryout point. Integrals which do
not have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. For solutions involving iteration, it is sufficient to
state which equation(s) are to be solved iteratively and the variable(s) to be iterated on. You may assume the
following information is known. You may also assume any necessary fluid and/or thermodynamic properties
are available.
b) Describe the progression in heat transfer regimes at the dryout point following the power excursion.
Problem Parameters
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
System Pressure P
Mass Flux in Hot Channel GHOT
Mass Flux in Limiting Channel GLIM
Heat Flux in Hot Channel  ( z )
qHOT
Heat Flux in Limiting Channel  ( z )
qLIM
(40%) 2) Two approaches have been proposed for handling the transition from single phase forced convection to fully
developed nucleate boiling in channels with significant subcooled boiling. The first involves an interpolation
scheme such as that proposed by Bergles and Rohsenow, and the second a superposition approach where the wall
heat flux is expressed as the sum of single phase forced convection and nucleate boiling components from the
point at which the wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, i.e.
where hFC is an appropriate single phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient and hNB is an appropriate
nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient.
a) Assuming the following data is known for a boiling channel, give a step by step procedure, including all
equations, for determining the wall temperature distribution in the mixed boiling region using the Bergles and
Rohsenow correlation. Integrals which do not have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. For
solutions involving iteration, it is sufficient to state which equation(s) are to be solved iteratively and the
variable(s) to be iterated on. You may assume any necessary fluid and/or thermodynamic properties are
available.
b) The Thom correlation is commonly used to describe heat transfer in the fully developed nucleate boiling
region. An advantage of the Thom correlation is that the wall superheat is squared, allowing the wall
temperature to be solved for directly in the superposition approach. Develop this equation for the wall
temperature as a function of position.
Problem Parameters
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
System Pressure P
Coolant Mass Flux G
Channel Heat Flux q ( z )
Core Inlet Temperature T (0)
(20%) A system for pumping water from a reservoir is illustrated below. The system discharges at point (e) to atmosphere.
If Hmax is the maximum height Pump 2 can be placed above the water level at (a) in the absence of Pump 1, develop
an expression for the required Delta P across Pump 1 for any given H > Hmax and flow rate. You may assume the
water temperature is known and the pipe diameter is known and constant. Define all variables.
e d
Pump 2
c
b
Pump 1
Mass
 GAx
Ax  0
t z
Energy
u GhAx
Ax   q ( z )
t z
Momentum
 
1 G 1 1   G 2 
 
g c t g c Ax z  
Ax   

P  f G 2

z  De 2 g c


 j
K j ( z  z j )
G2 
 
2 g c 

g
gc
sin   Pp
Dittus-Boelter Correlation Nu  0.023 Re0.8 Pr 0.4
1
Weisman Correlation Nu  C ( S / D) Re0.8 Pr 3
Nucleate Boiling Correlation q   

( P)  (Tw  Tsat ) m
Known Function
Chen Correlation q  ho (G, x, P) (Tw  T )  hNB (G, x, P, Tw ) (Tw  Tsat )
 
Known Function Known Function
1/ 2
    ( z n )  
2
 q NB ( z )  qNB
Bergles and Rohsenow  
q ( z )  q FC ( z ) 1   1  
  qFC ( z)  qNB
 ( z )  
 
0.0234
q ( z n )  15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( z n )  Tsat ]2.30 / P
Critical Heat Flux Correlations
DNB Correlation   qcrit

qcrit  ( xe , G, P, De , hin )
 
Known Function
a(G, P) Lcrit
Critical Boiling Length xcrit  a(G, P) and b(G, P) are known functions
Lcrit  b(G, P)
J. Buongiorno / Spring 2007
22.313J, 2.59J, 10.536J THERMAL-HYDRAULICS IN POWER TECHNOLOGY

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007, 2:00 – 3:30 p.m.
Problem 1 (50%) – Bubbly flow of air in a vinegar fermentation tank

To cut production time, a vinegar-making company is experimenting with air injection in
an aerobic fermentation tank. The tank consists of a vertical cylindrical pool of 1.2 m
diameter, whose bottom plate has thousands of 0.5-mm holes, through which the air is
injected. The equivalent diameter of the bubbles generated at the holes is 1 mm. The
mass flow rate of air is 0.02 kg/s. The tank contains 1500 kg of vinegar.
i) Calculate the rise velocity of the air bubbles in the tank. Assumption: ignore bubble
coalescence and breakup. (10%)
ii) Calculate the increase of the pool free level due to air injection. Hint: To calculate
the void fraction, use the drift flux model with Co=1 (uniform air injection) and Vvj
equal to the bubble rise velocity calculated in question ‘i’. (30%)
iii) How would the pool free level change, if the air injection holes were larger (for
constant air mass flow rate)? Which hole design would you recommend for this
application? Large holes or small holes? (10%)
Re-Eö-M diagram for bubbly flow
Table 1. Properties of vinegar and air.

Parameter Value
Vinegar
ρℓ 1,000 kg/m3
μℓ 0.001 Pa⋅s
σ 0.07 N/m
Air
ρv 1.2 kg/m3
μv 1.7×10-5 Pa⋅s
Problem 2 (45%) – Droplets generation and removal in a steam turbine

A significant amount of moisture is generated by steam expansion in the steam turbine of
a large power plant. This moisture mostly deposits on the turbine blades forming liquid
rivulets, which creep on the surface of the blade and reach the blade tip, where re-
entrainment by steam occurs (see Figure 1).
i) Steam at 1.2 MPa and 100 m/s flows around a certain blade. Give an upper bound
estimate for the diameter of the droplets that are entrained at the tip of the blades.
Hint: the critical Weber number is 22 for this application. (5%)
To prevent erosion of the turbine internals, it is desired to remove the droplets by means
of a wire separator. The wire diameter, D, is 1 mm and the wire-mesh pitch, L, is 5 mm.
ii) Assuming all entrained droplets are of the size calculated in ‘i’, calculate the
minimum number of wire screens, N, needed to reduce the amount of droplets in
the steam by a factor 4. The maximum allowable steam velocity (to prevent
breakthrough) is 10 m/s for this wire separator. (30%)
iii) Would you recommend this separator design? If yes, list its attractive features. If
not, recommend another type of separator that you expect to perform better in this
application. (10%)
Droplet re-entrainment
at blade tip
Liquid rivulets
Steam
Blade
Figure 1. A steam turbine blade with droplet re-entrainment
Table 2. Useful properties of saturated water at 1.2 MPa (188°C).
Parameter Value
ρf 878 kg/m3
ρg 6.1 kg/m3
μg 1.5×10-5 Pa⋅s
σ 0.04 N/m
Problem 3 (5%) – Effect of droplet entrainment on void fraction and pressure drop
in annular flow
Consider steady-state, adiabatic, vertical flow of a liquid/vapor mixture in a round
channel. The flow regime is annular. At a certain axial location the rate of droplet
entrainment exceeds the rate of droplet deposition.
dα
i) What is the sign of at that location? Explain. (5%)
dz
⎛ dP ⎞
ii) What is the sign of ⎜ ⎟ at that location? (Optional for 5% extra credit)
⎝ dz ⎠ acc
A boiling channel operates subject to a known non uniform heat flux q′′(z ) . Given a critical boiling length
correlation of the form
a(G , P ) Lcrit
xcrit =
Lcrit + b(G, P )
show how you would determine the minimum critical power ratio in the channel. Give all relevant equations. You
may assume the channel geometry, pressure, mass flux and inlet conditions are known. You may also assume the
spatial distribution in the critical channel is the same as that in the operating channel such that
′′ ( z ) ∝ q′′( z )
qcrit
SOLUTION
The power in the operating channel is given by
H
q= (1)
0
Similarly, the power in the critical channel is
∫ q′′
H
qcrit = crit ( z )πDdz (2)
0
Since the heat flux in the critical channel is proportional to that in the operating channel
∫ξ
H
qcrit = crit q ′′( z )πDdz = ξ crit q (3)
0
The critical power ratio is defined to be
qcrit ξ crit q
CPR = = = ξ crit
q q
such that
′′ ( z ) = CPR × q′′( z )
qcrit (4)
The critical boiling length can be expressed in terms of the channel height and non boiling height as
Lcrit = H − H o
such that
a (G, P)( H − H o )
xcrit = (5)
H − H o + b(G, P )
where the critical quality is related to the exit enthalpy in the critical channel by
hcrit − h f
xcrit = (6)
h fg
where
∫ q′′
H
1
hcrit = hin + crit ( z )πDdz
m 0
or
∫ q′′
H
1
hcrit = h f + crit ( z )πDdz (7)
m Ho
since the non boiling height is defined such that
∫ ∫ q′′( z)πDdz
Ho Ho
1 CPR
h f = hin + ′′ ( z )πDdz = hin +
qcrit (8)
m 0 m 0
Combining equations 5, 6 and 7 gives
∫ ∫ q′′(z)πDdz
H H
a(G, P)( H − H o ) 1 CPR
xcrit = = ′′ ( z )πDdz =
qcrit (9)
H − H o + b(G, P) m h fg Ho m h fg Ho
Equations 8 and 9 are two nonlinear equations in H o and CPR which can be solved iteratively. We can reduce the
equations to a single unknown by solving equation 8 for the critical power ratio
m (h f − hin )
CPR = (10)
∫
Ho
q′′( z )πDdz
0
and substituting into 9 to give
∫ q′′(z)πDdz
H
a(G, P)( H − H o ) h f − hin Ho

= (11)
H − H o + b(G, P)
∫ q′′(z)πDdz
Ho
h fg
0
which is a single nonlinear equation in the non boiling height and may be solved iteratively.
Given the non boiling height the critical power ratio may be found directly from equation 10.
The pressure rise across a pump is generally a function of the flow rate (or mass flux) through the pump, i.e.
ΔPp = ΔPp (G )
A simple flow network is illustrated below. Opening or closing the valve in line 2 will alter the overall loss
coefficient in the line, which in turn will alter the mass flux and ΔP across the pump in both lines 1 and 2. Give a
step by step procedure (including all equations) for determining the flow through the network assuming different
loss coefficients in the two pump lines. You may assume the inlet and exit pressures to the network are known.
You may assume the overall loss coefficients for the pump lines and the discharge lines are known and constant
(independent of G). You may also assume the flow areas in all lines are equal. The loss coefficients can be
assumed to reflect any losses associated with flow through the manifold.
K1
Δ Pp (G 1)
G1
P0
K0
Pdis
G0
G2
P0
K2
Δ Pp (G2 )
SOLUTION
The momentum equation across line 1 to the manifold is
G12
P0 + ΔPp (G1 ) = Pm + K1 (1)
2ρ
Similarly, the momentum equation across line 2 to the manifold is
G22
P0 + ΔPp (G2 ) = Pm + K 2 (2)
2ρ
The momentum equation from the manifold to the discharge point is
G02
Pm = Pdis + K 0 (3)
2ρ
Since the flow areas are all equal, mass conservation requires
G1 + G2 = G0 (4)
Subtract equations (1) and (2)
G12 G2
ΔPp (G1 ) − ΔPp (G2 ) = K1 − K2 2 (5)
2ρ 2ρ
and add equations (2) and (3)
G22 G2
P0 + ΔPp (G2 ) = Pdis + K 2 + K0 0 (6)
2ρ 2ρ
or taking advantage of the mass conservation equation
G22 (G + G2 ) 2
P0 + ΔPp (G2 ) = Pdis + K 2 + K0 1 (7)
2ρ 2ρ
Equations 5 and 7 are two nonlinear equations in the unknown mass fluxes G1 and G2 which can be solved
iteratively. The solution may be further simplified by solving equation 7 for G1 in terms of G2
G1 =
( )
2 ρ P0 + ΔPp (G2 ) − Pdis − K 2G22
− G2 (8)
K0
which in combination with equation (5) produces a single nonlinear equation in G2 which may be solved iteratively.
Given G1 and G2 from 5 and 8, G0 may be found directly from equation (4). Given G0 , the mass flow rate
through the network is
m = G0 A0
A tank of area A1 is connected to a second tank of area A2 through a line of area A0. Both tanks are initially empty.
At time t = 0 a source or water is allowed to discharge into tank 1 at a known rate m . The discharge point is above
tank 1 as illustrated in Figure 1 below. Develop an equation for the difference in the water levels in the two tanks as
a function of time. You may assume the line between the two tanks is initially filled with water and the bottoms of
the tanks are at the same elevation. You may also assume all flow losses can be characterized by a known constant
loss coefficient K0, referenced to the velocity in the connecting line. Both tanks are open to atmosphere.
A1 A2
A0
Figure 1: Connected Water Tanks
SOLUTION
A1 A2
A0
Mass Balance on Tank One
dH1
ρ A1 = m − ρ v0 A0
dt
dH1 m A
= − v0 0
dt ρA
N1
A1
v1
Mass Balance on Tank Two
dH 2
ρ A2 = ρ v0 A0
dt
dH 2 A
= v0 0
dt A2
Subtract the two mass balance equations
H

d ( H1 − H 2 ) ⎧A A ⎫
= v1 − v0 ⎨ 0 + 0 ⎬
dt ⎩ A1 A2 ⎭
An equation is needed to express the velocity v0 in terms of the height H.
Apply Bernoulli’s equation between the liquid level in tank 1 and the connection line inlet
ρ v02
Patm + ρ gH1 = P1 +
2
between the tank 1 connection line inlet and the tank 2 connection line outlet
ρ v02
P1 = P2 + K 0
2
and the connection line outlet and the tank 2 water level
P2 = Patm + ρ gH 2
where we have assumed the velocities at the surface are small relative to the velocity in the connection line.
Adding the three momentum equations gives
ρ v02
ρ gH1 = ρ gH 2 + (1 + K 0 )
2
or solving for the velocity
2 g ( H1 − H 2 ) 2 gH
v0 = =
1 + K0 1 + K0
which can be substituted into the mass balance equation
dH 2 g ⎧ A0 A0 ⎫ 1/ 2
= v1 − ⎨ + ⎬H
dt 1 + K 0 ⎩ A1 A2 ⎭

The above equation does not match forms found in most integration tables. This can be resolved by the following
simple change in variables
Let y = H 1/ 2 , then the mass balance equation has the form
dy 2
= v1 − ξ y
dt
or
dy
2y = v1 − ξ y
dt
such that
ydy 1
= dt
v1 − ξ y 2
which is directly integrable.
∫ ∫
t t
ydy 1
= dt
0 v1 − ξ y 0 2
t
⎡ y v1 ⎤ t
⎢ − − 2 log ( v1 − ξ y ) ⎥ =
⎣ ξ ξ ⎦0 2
⎡ H 1/ 2 v1 ⎤ v
⎢− ( )
− 2 log v1 − ξ H 1/ 2 ⎥ + 12 log ( v1 ) =
t
⎣ ξ ξ ⎦ ξ 2
Critical heat flux in a uniformly heated channel has been correlated according to a critical boiling length correlation
of the form
aLcrit
xcrit 
b  Lcrit
where the correlation is based on a best fit of the available data. As a consequence, the critical boiling length
correlation has inherent uncertainty which can be expressed in terms of a relative uncertainty as
aLcrit
xcrit  (1   ) .
b  Lcrit
Assuming the MCPR limit associated with this correlation is given by
(qcrit )0
MCPR 
(qcrit )1
where (qcrit )0 is the predicted critical power assuming no uncertainty, and (qcrit )1 is the critical power predicted at
the limit of the uncertainty band (i.e. one  ), derive the MCPR limit
ah fg  h f  hin
MCPR 
 fg  h f  hin
ah
where a  a  (1   ) .
SOLUTION
The Critical Power for a uniformly heated channel is defined to be
  DH
qcrit  qcrit
where the critical heat flux satisfies the two energy balances

H
1
1) hcrit  h f   ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
m H0

H0
1
2) h f  hin   ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
m 0
Equation 1) can be written in terms of the critical quality and the critical boiling length correlation by
hcrit  h f

a( H  H 0 )
H
aLcrit 1
3)  xcrit     ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
h fg b  Lcrit b  ( H  H 0 ) mh
 fg H0
For a uniform heat flux, Equations 2) and 3) reduce to
a( H  H 0 ) 1
4)    D( H  H 0 )
qcrit
b  ( H  H 0 ) mh fg

  DH 0
qcrit
5) h f  hin 
m
Equation 5) may be solved directly for the non boiling height
m (h f  hin )
6) H 0 
  D
qcrit
The critical heat flux can then be obtained in terms of the critical boiling length correlation from Equations 4) and 6)
as follows
a( H  H 0 ) 1
   D( H  H 0 )
qcrit
b  ( H  H 0 ) mh fg

a 1
 q   D
b  ( H  H 0 ) mh
 fg crit
1 1
 q   D
b  ( H  H 0 ) amh
 fg crit
 fg
amh
b  (H  H0 ) 
  D
qcrit
 fg
amh
bH   H0
  D
qcrit
Substituting H 0 from Equation 6)
 fg
amh m (h f  hin ) m (ah fg  h f  hin )
bH   
  D
qcrit   D
qcrit   D
qcrit
m (ah fg  h f  hin )
  D 
qcrit
bH
  DH 
7) qcrit  qcrit
1 b / H
Equation 7 is valid for any value of a and b. If a and b correspond to the zero uncertainty values, then
8)  qcrit 0 
1 b / H
The critical power any non zero uncertainty is
m (a[1   ]h fg  h f  hin )
9)  qcrit  
1 b / H
It should be obvious from Equation 9, that the minimum value of the critical power occurs at the lower limit of the
uncertainty band, i.e.
m (a[1   ]h fg  h f  hin )  fg  h f  hin )

m (ah
10)  qcrit 1  
1 b / H 1 b / H
Dividing Equation 8 by Equation 10 gives
(qcrit )0 ah fg  h f  hin
MCPR  
 fg  h f  hin
(qcrit )1 ah
a) The maximum heat flux in the critical channel is related to the critical power in the core by
Q crit  f Fq
 crit 
qmax  q0crit Z ( zmax )
n DH
The maximum heat flux in the hot channel is related to the core thermal output by
Q  f Fq
 
qmax  q0hot Z ( zmax )
n DH
giving
 crit
qmax Q crit q0crit
   CPR

qmax Q q0hot
also

H
q0crit Z ( z ) Ddz q0crit
qcrit
CPR   0

q0hot

H
qhot
q0hot Z ( z ) Ddz
0
therefore
qcrit q0 Q
 CPR  crit  crit
qhot q0hot Q
b) The critical quality is related to the heat flux in the critical channel and the core mass flux by
a (G , P )( H  H o )

H
1
i) xcrit   q0crit Z ( z ) Ddz
H  H o  b(G , P ) GAx h fg  f Ho
where H o is the non boiling height and satisfies

Ho
ii) GAx  f (h f  hin )  q0crit Z ( z ) Ddz
0
and Ax  S 2   D 2 / 4
For a given CPR, the magnitude of the heat flux in the critical channel is related to the core thermal output by
 crit 
n DH n DH
where zmax satisfies

dZ
0
dz zmax
giving
 crit
qmax
q0crit 
Z ( zmax )
Equations i) and ii) are then two equations in two unknowns which can be iteratively solved for H o and G .
Alternately, Equation ii) can be solved for the mass flux

Ho
q0crit Z ( z ) Ddz
iii) G ( H o )  0
Ax  f (h f  hin )
which with equation i) is a single non linear equation in H o which can be solved iteratively. Given H o , the
mass flux is given directly by Equation iii). The core mass flow rate is then
m c  G  Ax  nrods
c) For these flow conditions, the wall temperature is obtained from the Chen correlation
q( z )  ho (G, x, P)[Tw ( z )  T ( z )]  hNB (G, x, P, Tw ( z ))[Tw ( z )  Tsat ]
where
m c
i) G
Ac
 h( z )  h f

 h fg h( z )  h f

ii) x( z )  
 0 h( z )  h f


 q( z) Ddz

z
nrods
iii) h( z )  hin 
m c  f 0
iv) T ( z )  T (h( z ), P)
or

 q( z) Ddz
z
nrods
T (0)   T ( z )  Tsat
 mc C p  f 0

T ( z )  
 Tsat T ( z )  Tsat


The Chen correlation is than a single non linear equation in Tw ( z ) which can be solved iteratively at any
location.
An experimental circular test section has a linear heat flux of the form
z
q( z )  q0
H
where H is the channel height. Assuming a critical boiling length correlation of the form
aLcrit
xcrit 
b  Lcrit
develop an expression for the critical power in the channel. Your expression for critical power should include
explicit expressions for the non boiling height and the magnitude of the heat flux profile (q0)crit . Define all
variables.
SOLUTION
For a heated channel diameter of D, the critical power in the channel is
 
H H
z H
qcrit   ( z ) Ddz 
qcrit  q0 crit  Ddz   q0 crit  D
0 0 H 2
The magnitude of the heat flux satisfies the energy balance and critical boiling length correlation

a( H  H 0 )
H
aLcrit 1 z
1) xcrit     q0 crit  Ddz
b  Lcrit b  H  H 0 mh  fg H0 H
and the non boiling height ( H 0 ) satisfies the energy balance

H0
z
2) m (h f  hin )   q0 crit  Ddz
0 H
where m is the channel mass flow rate, h f the saturated liquid enthalpy, hin the channel inlet enthalpy and h fg the
latent heat of vaporization. Equations 1 and 2 are two equations in the two unknowns (q0)crit and H 0 . The
problem may be simplified by solving Equation 2 for (q0)crit
m (h f  hin )
3)  q0 crit 

H0
z
 Ddz
0 H
and substitute into Equation 1

H
zdz
a ( H  H 0 ) h f  hin h f  hin ( H 2  H 02 ) h f  hin ( H  H 0 )( H  H 0 )
  
H0
b  H  H0

H0
h fg h fg H 02 h fg H 02
zdz
0
a h f  hin ( H  H 0 )
4) 
b  H  H0 h fg H 02

 

Equation 4 can be reduced to a quadratic equation in the non boiling height
aH 02  b ( H  H 0 )   ( H  H 0 )( H  H 0 )  b ( H  H 0 )   ( H 2  H 02 )
(a   ) H 02  b H 0   H ( H  b)  0
b  H ( H  b)
5) H 02  H0  0
(a   ) (a   )
which has solution
2
1 b 1  b   H ( H  b)
6) H0     4
2 a  2  a   (a   )
Since we require a positive non boiling height
2
1 b 1  b   H ( H  b)
7) H0     4
2 a  2  a   (a   )
Given the non boiling height, the magnitude of the critical heat flux may be obtained directly from Equation 3
m (h f  hin ) 2m (h f  hin ) H

 q0 crit  
 DH 02

H0
z
 Ddz
0 H
2) For these flow conditions, three heat transfer regimes can be assumed to exist,
a) Single phase forced convection

b) Mixed or partial boiling and
c) Fully developed nucleate boiling.
For all regions, the coolant temperature can be given by


z
1
 
T (0)  q  ( z ) Ddz 
  p  f 0 hot
mC

T ( z )  min 
 Tsat


a) Single Phase Force Convection/Mixed Boiling Boundary ( zn )
The nucleation or incipient boiling point satisfies
 ( zn )  15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( zn )  Tsat ]2.30/ P

0.0234
i) qhot
where
 ( zn )
qhot
ii) Tco ( zn )  T ( zn ) 
hc
k  GDe   C p  
0.8 1/3
hc  C   
De     k 
m  GAx
4 Ax
De 
D
Ax  S 2   D 2 / 4
Equations i) and ii) along with the coolant temperature constitute a single nonlinear equation in zn which may
be solved iteratively.
b) Mixed Boiling/Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling Boundary ( z B )
The Mixed Boiling/Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling Boundary satisfies
1/ 2
  q  ( z )  q  ( z )  2 
 
 ( z B ) 1   hot B 1  NB n  
 ( z B )  qFC
qhot
 ( z B )  qhot
  qFC  ( z B )  
 
where
qNB
 ( z n )    10 6 [Tco ( z n )  Tsat ]m
 ( zn )
qhot
Tco ( zn )  T ( zn ) 
hc
qFC
 ( z B )  hc [Tco ( z B )  T ( z B )]
 ( z B ) 
1
 qhot
m
 1m
Tco ( z B )  Tsat    
 10
6

Which along with the coolant temperature constitute a single non linear equation in z B which can be solved
iteratively.
Wall Temperatures
1) Single phase forced convection region z  [0, zn ]
 ( z )
qhot
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
2) Mixed Boiling Region z  [ zn , zB ]
1/ 2
  q  ( z )  q  ( z )  2 
 n 
qhot  ( z ) 1   NB
 ( z )  qFC 1 
NB
 
 ( z ) 
  qFC  ( z )  
qNB
 
qFC
 (z)  hc [Tco ( z )  T ( z )]
qNB
 (z )    10 6 [Tco ( z )  Tsat ]m
Which at any location is a single non linear equation in Tco ( z ) which may be solved iteratively.
3) Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling Region z  [ zB , H ]
1
 1m  q  ( z )  m
Tco ( z )  Tsat    hot 6 

 10 
2) A circular heated channel has known characteristics given below. Coolant enters the channel highly subcooled
and leaves with an equilibrium quality slightly negative. For the given information, show how you would
determine the heat transfer regimes in the channel. Integrals which do not have closed form solutions can be left
in integral form. For solutions involving iteration, it is sufficient to state which equation(s) are to be solved
iteratively and the variable(s) to be iterated on. You may assume any necessary fluid and/or thermodynamic
properties/relations are available.
Problem Parameters

Pressure P
Channel Height H
Channel Diameter D
Channel Inlet Temperature Tin
Channel Mass Flux G
SOLUTION
For the given conditions, a number of scenarios are possible:
a) The wall temperature never exceeds the saturation temperature, so heat transfer is by single phase forced
convection over the entire channel length
b) The wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, so single phase forced convection and mixed boiling
exist in the channel
c) The wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, but nucleation begins at the channel inlet such that
mixed boiling occurs over the entire channel length
d) The wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature such that single phase forced convection, mixed boiling
and fully developed nucleate boiling exist in the channel
e) Nucleation begins at the channel inlet and transition to fully developed nucleate boiling occurs at some point in
the channel
f) Fully developed nucleate boiling exist over the entire channel length
To determine which scenario exist for a particular channel involves first determining if the maximum wall
temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, and if so, then determining the boiling boundaries.
i) Maximum Clad Temperature
The minimum criteria for boiling is that the clad temperature exceeds the saturation temperature. If the
maximum wall temperature in the channel does not exceed Tsat, boiling is not possible. The wall temperature
distribution under single phase forced convection is given by
q ( z )
Tw ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
where the fluid temperature distribution is the solution of the energy balance equation
dT
 p
mC  q ( z ) D
dz
giving for a circular channel

z
1
T ( z )  Tin  q ( z ) Ddz 
 p
mC 0
m  GAx
D2
Ax  
4
 GD   C p  
0.8 0.4
k
hc  0.023    
D     k 
The position of maximum wall temperature satisfies
dTw dT 1 dq 
0 
dTw q ( z ) D 1 dq 
0 
dz zmax
 p
mC hc dz zmax
zmax
which is a single non linear equation in zmax and may be solved iteratively. Given zmax
Tw ( zmax )  Tsat  Single phase force convection exist over the entire channel length
Tw ( zmax )  Tsat  Boiling is possible over that portion of the channel for which Tw ( z )  Tsat
Assuming Tw ( zmax )  Tsat , we require solution for the incipient boiling point and the fully developed nucleate
boiling point to determine which heat boiling regimes may exist.
ii) Incipient boiling point (zn)
The incipient boiling point is the solution of the non linear equation
q ( zn )  15.6 P1.156 [Tw ( zn )  Tsat ]2.30/ P

0.0234
q ( zn )
Tw ( zn )  T ( zn ) 
hc

zn
1
T ( zn )  Tin  q ( z ) Ddz 
 p
mC 0
where the mass flow rate and convective heat transfer coefficient have been defined previously. If zn < 0, this
implies nucleation begins at the channel inlet. Under these conditions, zn is set to zero and no single phase
region exist. Mixed boiling is assumed from the channel inlet to the transition to fully developed nucleate
boiling point zB.
iii) Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling Point (zB)
The transition to fully developed nucleate boiling is assumed to occur at the point zB which satisfies the non
linear equation
1/ 2
  q ( z )  q  ( z )  2 
  
q ( zB )  qFC ( z B ) 1   B
1 
NB n
 
 ( zB ) 
  qFC q ( z B )  
 
 ( zn )   ( P)[Tw ( zn )  Tsat ]m
qNB
q ( zn )
Tw ( zn )  T ( zn ) 
hc
 ( z B )  hc [Tw ( z B )  T ( z B )]
qFC
 q( z B ) 
1/ m
Tw ( z B )  Tsat   
  

zB
1
T ( z B )  Tin  q ( z ) Ddz 
 p
mC 0
For zn = 0 and zB < 0, fully developed nucleate boiling exists over the entire channel.
For zn  0 and no solution for zB, no transition to fully developed nucleate boiling occurs and single phase forced
convection exist from 0 to zn, and mixed boiling occurs over the remainder of the channel. There is no guarantee
that a solution (though non physical) will exist for zB > H.
For zn  0 and z B  [ zn , H ] , single phase forced convection exist from 0 to zn, mixed boiling from zn to zB, and fully
developed nucleate boiling from zB to H.
Two approaches have been proposed for handling the transition from single phase forced convection to fully
developed nucleate boiling in channels with significant subcooled boiling. The first involves an interpolation
scheme such as that proposed by Bergles and Rohsenow, and the second a superposition approach where the wall
heat flux is expressed as the sum of single phase forced convection and nucleate boiling components from the point
at which the wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, i.e.
where hFC is an appropriate single phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient and hNB is an appropriate
nucleate boiling heat transfer coefficient.
a) Assuming the following data is known for a boiling channel, give a step by step procedure, including all
equations, for determining the wall temperature distribution in the mixed boiling region using the Bergles and
Rohsenow correlation. Integrals which do not have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. For
solutions involving iteration, it is sufficient to state which equation(s) are to be solved iteratively and the
variable(s) to be iterated on. You may assume any necessary fluid and/or thermodynamic properties are
available.
b) The Thom correlation is commonly used to describe heat transfer in the fully developed nucleate boiling
region. An advantage of the Thom correlation is that the wall superheat is squared, allowing the wall
temperature to be solved for directly in the superposition approach. Develop this equation for the wall
temperature as a function of position.
Problem Parameters
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
System Pressure P
Coolant Mass Flux G
Core Inlet Temperature T (0)
SOLUTION
a) For a given mass flux, the first step involves determining the boiling boundaries.
Transition from Single Phase Forced Convection to Mixed Boiling
At the Incipient Boiling Point ( z  zn ),
2.30/ P 0.0234
 q ( zn ) 
q ( zn )  15.6 P
1.156
T ( zn )   Tsat 
 h c 
where hc is the single-phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient and can be obtained from the Weisman
Correlation
 GDe   C p  
0.8 1/3
k
hc  C ( S / D)     .
De     k 
T ( z ) is the local fluid temperature and can be obtained from the enthalpy at any location by
T ( z )  T (h( z ), P ) , where

z
1
h( z )  hin  q ( z ) Do dz 
GAx  f 0
For a given mass flux, inlet conditions and heat flux profile, the only unknown is z n , which may be solved for
iteratively.
Transition from Mixed to Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling
At the transition point between mixed and fully developed nucleate boiling ( z  z B )
1/ 2
  q ( z )  q  ( z )  2 
 ( zB ) 1  
q ( zB )  qFC B
1 
NB n
 
 ( z B ) 
  qFC q ( zB )  
 
where
qNB
 ( z n )    106 [Tco ( z n )  Tsat ]m
q ( zn )
Tco ( zn )  T ( zn ) 
hc
qFC
 ( z B )  hc [Tco ( z B )  T ( z B )]
1  q ( z ) 
1
m
Tco ( z B )  Tsat    m  B

 10 
6
T ( z )  T (h( z ), P )
For a given heat flux profile and channel operating conditions, these equation reduce to a single nonlinear
equation in the boiling transition point z B and may be solved iteratively.
Once the boiling boundaries are known, the clad temperature at any location z  [ zn , z B ] can be determined.
The wall temperature at any location in the mixed boiling region is the solution of
1/ 2
  q  ( z )  q  ( z )  2 
 ( z ) 1   NB
q ( z )  qFC 1 
NB n
 
 ( z )  qNB
  qFC  ( z )  
 
where:
q FC
 (z )  hc [Tco ( z )  T ( z )]
 (z )    106 [Tco ( z )  Tsat ]m

q NB
T ( z )  T (h( z ), P )
and the only unknown at any location is Tco (z ) which may be solved for iteratively.
b) The wall heat flux can be expressed as
q ( z )  hFC [Tw ( z )  T ( z )]  hNB (z)[Tw ( z )  Tsat ]
or substituting the Thom correlation for the boiling heat transfer coefficient
q ( z )  hFC [Tw ( z )  T ( z )]    [Tw ( z )  Tsat ]2
which is a quadratic equation in Tw ( z ) . To solve for Tw ( z ) , define Tsup  Tw  Tsat
q ( z )  hFC [Tw ( z )  T ( z )]    [Tw ( z )  Tsat ]2

 hFC [Tw ( z )  Tsat  Tsat  T ( z )]    Tsup
2
 hFC [Tsup  Tsat  T ( z )]    Tsup

2
hFC hFC q( z )

Tsup
2
 Tsup  [Tsat  T ( z )]  0
  
2
hFC 1  hFC  q ( z ) h
Tsup  Tw ( z )  Tsat      4  4 FC [Tsat  T ( z )]
2 2     
To determine the “sign” in front of the radical, we require Tw ( z )  Tsat for T ( z )  Tsat and q( z )  0  (  )
2
h 1  hFC  q ( z ) h
Tw ( z )  Tsat  FC    4  4 FC [Tsat  T ( z )]
2 2     
For the linear heat flux profile in Problem 2, develop an explicit expression for the MCHFR as a function of the
magnitude of the heat flux profile q0 assuming a limit line type critical heat flux correlation of the form
  a0  b0 xcrit
qcrit
where a0 and b0 are known constants. Define all variables.
SOLUTION
Since quality increases monotonically up the channel, the critical heat flux will decrease monotonically up the
channel. As the heat flux profile is monotonically increasing up the channel, the minimum critical heat flux ratio
must occur at the channel exit, i.e.
 ( H ) a0  b0 x( H )
qcrit
1) MCHFR = 
q ( H ) q0
The quality at the channel exit is
h( H )  h f q  D ( H 2  H 02 )

H
1 z
2) x( H )   q0  Ddz  0
h fg  fg
mh H0 H 2mh fg H
giving for the MCHFR
q0 D ( H 2  H 02 )
a0  b0
2mh fg H
3) MCHFR =
q0
The non boiling height is obtained directly from the energy balance
q  DH 02

H0
z
m (h f  hin )  q0  Ddz  0
0 H 2H
2 Hm (h f  hin )
4) H 02 
q0 D
such that for any value of q0 the MCHFR can be obtained explicitly from Equations 4 and 3.
3) The equilibrium height satisfies
 vB2
 gH eq   gH B   eq
Where H B is the break elevation,  is the overall effective loss coefficient from the pool surface to the break
and vB is the equilibrium fluid velocity at the break. vB is related to the water supply flow rate ( m in ) by
eq eq
m in
vBeq 
 AB
The time to reach this equilibrium height is the solution of
dM
 m in   vB AB
dt
For M   Apool ( H p  H 0 ) where H 0 is the elevation of the top of core
d (H p  H0 )
 Apool  m in   vB AB
dt
where in general
 vB2
 gH p   gH B  
2
such that
2g (H p  H B ) 2 gH
vB  
 
In addition,
d (H p  H0 ) d (H p  H B ) dH
 
dt dt dt
giving
dH 2 g 1/ 2
 Apool  m in   AB H
dt 
dH m in A 2 g 1/ 2
  B H
dt  Apool Apool 
This form is not directly found in the integration tables, however we can make the change of variables
y  H 1/ 2
dy 2 m in A 2g
  B y
2 ydy m in A 2g
  B y
ydy
 dt
1 m in 1 AB 2g
 y
2  Apool 2 Apool 
For
m in
a
2  Apool
1 AB 2g
b
2 Apool 
ydy
 dt
a  by
which is found in the integration tables.
 
yeq teq
ydy
 dt
y0 a  by 0
y
y a 
eq

 b b2 log( a  by )   teq
  y0
y0  H (0)1/ 2  H p (0)  H B
yeq  H (teq )1/ 2  H eq  H B

Flow in reactor systems is commonly determined by measuring the pressure drop across a venturi as illustrated
below
d d2
1
P
Derive an expression for the flow rate through the venturi in terms of the measured pressure drop and the diameters
d1 and d2. You may assume friction and local losses can be characterized by a single constant loss coefficient
referenced to the velocity at d1.
Solution
Apply Bernoulli’s Equation between points located at the two pressure taps
v12 v22 v12

P1   P2  K (1)
2 2 2
The velocities can be related through the mass balance
m 1  m 2
v1 A1  v2 A2
d12
v2  v1 (2)
d 22
such that
v12 v12 d14 v12

P1   P2  K
2 2 d 24 2
v12  d14 
P1  P2   K  1
2  d 24 

or solving for the velocity
2P
v1 
 d14 
  4  K  1
 d2 
1
The mass flow rate is then
2P
m  v1 A1   A1
 d14 
   K  1
 d 24 
2
3) It has been shown, that the loss coefficient for a sudden expansion referenced to the velocity prior to the
expansion can be expressed as
2
 A 
K exp  1  1 
 A2 
Repeat the derivation for the expansion coefficient referenced to the velocity after the expansion (i.e. A2).
SOLUTION
Streamlines
Flow Flow
Separation Point Reattachment Point

1 2
Consider the conservative form of the steady state momentum equation for a horizontal channel
1 1  P  w Pw
gc Ax z
 vvAx   
z

Ax
We assume that between the separation point and the reattachment point, the flow streams do not contact the wall,
such that the frictional terms are zero
The change in fluid pressure is only due to deceleration of the fluid
1 1  P
gc Ax z
 vvAx   
z
or equivalently
1  P
 mv
    Ax
gc z z
Integrate from the separation point (1) to the reattachment point (2).
 
2 2
m  P
 v dz   A2 dz
gc 1
z 1
z
The pressure at (1) and (2) acts uniformly over the area A2 (this is an application of the free jet condition at the
expansion)
m
gc
 v2  v1    A2  P2  P1 
Divide by A2 and rearrange ( m / A2  v2 )
v2
P1  P2 
gc
 v2  v1 
The forms loss coefficient is defined such that the pressure change given above is equal to that given by Bernoulli's
Equation applied between the same points
 v12  v22  v22

P1   P2   K exp
2 2 2
Therefore
 v22  v12  v22  v2
P1  P2    K exp   v2  v1 
2 gc 2 gc 2 gc gc
mass conservation gives
v2 A2  v1 A1
or
A2
v1  v2
A1
Eliminating v1
 v22 A22  v22  v22 A2  v22

   K exp
2 g c A12 2 gc g c A1 2 gc
which can be solved for Kexp .
A22 2A
 1  2  K exp
A12 A1
A22 2 A2
K exp   1
A12 A1
2
 A 
K exp   1  2 
 A1 
A system for pumping water from a reservoir is illustrated below. The system discharges at point (e) to atmosphere.
If Hmax is the maximum height Pump 2 can be placed above the water level at (a) in the absence of Pump 1, develop
an expression for the required Delta P across Pump 1 for any given H > Hmax and flow rate. You may assume the
water temperature is known and the pipe diameter is known and constant. Define all variables.
e d
Pump 2
c
b
Pump 1
SOLUTION
The minimum pressure at the inlet to pump 2 (point d) is the saturation pressure ( Psat ) at the known fluid
temperature. Taking advantage of point a being at atmospheric pressure ( Patm ) and writing Bernoulli’s Equation
from point a to point d gives
 vb2  fL   v2
Patm   gH a  Pp1  Psat    gH d   b  d   K j  b
2 
D j  2

where H a and H d are the elevations at points a and d respectively, vb is the fluid velocity in the pipe, Lb d is the
pipe length from point b to d, D is the pipe diameter, f is the friction factor and is a function of the fluid velocity, 
is the fluid density and K j is a local loss coefficient in the pipe. For a given flow rate m   vb D 2 / 4 , the required
Delta P across pump 1 is
v2
Pp1  Psat  Patm   g ( H d  H a )  (1   ) b
 2
H
Critical heat flux in a uniformly heated channel has been found to be dryout dominated. The critical heat flux can be
correlated with a critical heat flux correlation qc′′ = qc′′( xe , G, P) with an associated minimum critical heat flux ratio
MCFR. Given the channel mass flux G, channel inlet enthalpy hin, channel pressure P and channel dimensions H,
Ax, Pw, and De, show how you would determine the critical power ratio (CPR) for this channel associated with the
MCFR. If your solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equation(s), state which variable(s) are
to be iterated on and state solve iteratively.
SOLUTION
For a uniformly heated channel, the minimum CHFR occurs at the channel exit, i.e. z = H. For a given MCHFR,
then, the maximum heat flux the channel can operate is given by
qc′′( H )
a) MCHFR =
′′
qmax
where
b) qc′′( H ) = qc′′( xe ( H ), G, P)
h( H ) − h f
c) xe ( H ) =
h fg
′′ Pw H
qmax
d) h( H ) = hin +
GAx
′′ which can be solved iteratively. For a uniformly

such that equations a – d are a single nonlinear equation in qmax
heated channel, the channel power corresponding to the critical heat flux is qcrit = qc′′( xe ( H ), G, P ) Pw H . The power
in a uniformly heated channel which corresponds to the given MCHFR = qmax ′′ Pw H , such that the Critical Power
Ratio (CPR) corresponding to the MCHFR is
qcrit q ( x ( H ), G, P ) Pw H qc ( xe ( H ), G, P)
CPR= = c e = = MCHFR
′′ Pw H
qmax ′′ Pw H
qmax ′′
qmax
Assuming the channel in problems 2 and 3 is operated at a power level below the critical power, give the step by
step procedure you would use to determine the maximum wall temperature in the channel, including all equations.
Be sure to state which heat transfer correlations you would use in your solution and define all variables. If your
solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equation(s), state which variable(s) are to be iterated
on and state “solve iteratively”.
SOLUTION
The channel is operating under a dryout dominated boiling curve, such that the wall temperature is given by the
Chen correlation
q  ho (G, x, P )(Tw  T )  hNB (G, x, P, Tw )(Tw  Tsat )
Given q0   q0 crit the enthalpy distribution in the channel is obtained from the energy balance
z q  D
 q H  Ddz  2mH
z
1
1) h( z )  hin  z 2
m 
0
0
The fluid temperature distribution can be obtained directly from the enthalpy distribution via a state equation of the
form
T [h( z )] h( z )  h f

2) T ( z )  
 T h( z )  h f
 sat
The equilibrium quality distribution in the channel is also obtained directly from the enthalpy distribution by
h( z )  h f
3) xe ( z ) 
h fg
If we assume equilibrium conditions apply, then the flow quality is
 0 h( z )  h f

4) x( z )  
 x ( z) h( z )  h f
 e
To determine the position of maximum wall temperature, start at the channel inlet and compute the wall temperature
as function of position along the channel according to the procedure below.
a) Compute
q ( z )
Tw0 ( z )  T ( z ) 
ho [G, x( z ), P ]
b) If Tw0 ( z )  Tsat  Tw ( z )  Tw0 ( z )
If Tw0 ( z )  Tsat  Tw ( z ) is the iterative solution of

q ( z )  ho [G, x( z ), P ]Tw  T ( z )  hNB [G, x( z ), P, Tw ](Tw  Tsat )
c) Since the heat transfer coefficient increases with increasing quality, the maximum wall temperature may not
occur at the position of maximum heat flux (i.e. z = H). Therefore, compute Tw ( z ) for all z  [0, H ] and search
for the maximum.
In Boiling Water Reactors with canned assemblies, differences in void and quality distributions can lead to flow
redistribution such that the mass flux in the individual assemblies is different. This can be compensated for by
orificing the individual assemblies (modifying the inlet loss coefficient).
P
H
G G2 G0 G2 G1
1
P0
Assuming the heat flux profiles are known for the average and hot channels, show how you would determine the
channel inlet loss coefficient for the average channel such that the exit void fraction for the average and hot channels
is equal. You can assume that no modifications are made to the hot channel (i.e. loss coefficients). Give all
equations. Terms involving integrals may be left in integral form. If the solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to
give the iteration equation (s), state which variable (s) is to be solved for and state to solve iteratively. You may
assume an equilibrium model is valid and all necessary thermodynamic and state equations are available. You may
assume the inlet subcooling is sufficiently low that all fluid properties in the subcooled region can be assumed
constant at the saturation properties corresponding to the system pressure. The following information may be
assumed known
System Pressure P
Lower Plenum Pressure P0
Core Exit Pressure PH
Fuel Height H
Rod Diameter D
Can Width Sb
Number of rods per assembly nrods
Number of heated rods per assembly nheated
Number of assemblies ncans
Channel Exit Loss Coefficient Kexit
Grid Loss Coefficients Kj
Grid Locations zj
Hot Channel Inlet Loss Coefficient Kinlet
Core Averaged Axial Heat Flux profile q′′(z )
Hot Channel Heat Flux Profile ′′ (z )
qhot
Fraction of Energy Deposited in the fuel γf
SOLUTION
Hot Channel
The void fraction at the exit of the hot channel can be obtained from the Zuber-Findlay Correlation
xhot
α hot =
⎧⎪ ⎡ ρg ⎤ ρ gVgj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢ xhot + (1 − xhot ) ⎥ + ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎣ ρA ⎦ Ghot ⎭⎪
where the quality at the channel exit is
hhot ( H ) − h f
xhot ( H ) =
h fg
the channel exit enthalpy is given by
∫
H
1
hhot ( H ) = hin + ′′ ( z )π Ddz
qhot
Ghot Ax γ f 0
and
π
Ax = S 2 − D2 .
4
The Drift Velocity
( )⎫⎪ 4
1
⎧⎪ ρ f − ρg
Vgj = 1.41⎨σgg c ⎬
⎪⎩ ρ 2f ⎪⎭
can be obtained directly in terms of known quantities given system pressure, such that the only unknown is the hot
channel mass flux Ghot . The hot channel mass flux may be obtained from the momentum equation applied to the
hot channel.
The steady state momentum equation applied to the hot channel is
Single Phase Region [ z ∈ 0, ( H o ) hot ]
⎧ ⎫
∂ ⎧ G2 ⎫
⎨ ⎬=−
∂z⎩ ρ ⎭
∂ P ⎪ f f G2
−⎨
∂ z ⎪ De 2 ρ f
⎩
+
∑ j
K jδ ( z − z j )
G2 ⎪
⎬− ρg
2ρ f ⎪
⎭
Two Phase Region [ z ∈ ( H o ) hot , H ]
⎧ ⎫
∂ ⎪⎧ 2 ⎡ (1 − x) 2
∑
x2 ⎤ ⎪⎫ ∂ P ⎪ f f G2 2 G2 ⎪
⎨G ⎢ + ⎥⎬ = − −⎨ ϕAo + K jδ ( z − z j ) Ψ⎬ − ρ g
∂ z ⎩⎪ ⎢⎣ α A ρ A α g ρg ⎥⎦ ⎭⎪ ∂ z ⎪ De 2 ρ f 2ρ f ⎪
⎩ j ⎭
where the non boiling height is the iterative solution of
∫
( H o ) hot
1
h f = hin + ′′ ( z )π Ddz
qhot
Ghot Ax γ f 0
Integrating the momentum equation over the channel height gives
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − xhot ) 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪ f f (Ghot ) G 2 ⎡ ⎤
∫
H
x2
P0 − PH = ⎨Ghot ⎢ + hot ⎥ − υin ⎬ + ⎢ ( H o ) hot + ϕA2o ( z )dz ⎥
2 hot
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ α A ρ f α g ρg ⎥⎦ H ⎪⎭ De 2ρ f ⎢⎣ ( H o )hot ⎥⎦
2 ⎡ ⎤
∑ ∑ ∫
H
Ghot ⎢( K ) + ⎥
+ K + K Ψ j + ρ hot ( z ) gdz
2ρ f ⎢ ⎥
inlet hot j j
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
0
z j ∈(0,( H o )hot ] z j ∈(( H o )hot , H ]
where
α g = α hot and α A = 1 − α g
⎡ π ⎤
4 ⎢ Sb2 − nrods D 2 ⎥
f f (Ghot ) = f (Rehot , 0) , Rehot =
Ghot De
, De = ⎣ 4 ⎦
μf 4Sb + nrods × π D
ϕA2o ( z ) = ϕA2o [ xhot ( z )]
where the two phase multiplier is a function of the Martinelli parameter and the Martinelli parameter is a function of
the quality. The quality distribution in the channel is given by
⎧ hhot ( z ) − h f
⎪ z > Ho
⎪ h fg
⎪
xhot ( z ) = ⎨
⎪ 0 z < Ho
⎪
⎪⎩
where the channel enthalpy distribution is
∫q
z
1
hhot ( z ) = hin + ′′ ( z ′)π Ddz ′
Ghot Ax γ f
hot
0
Similarly the two phase multiplier for the local losses is a function of the local quality in the hot channel.
Ψ j = Ψ[ xhot ( z j )]
The density distribution in the channel can be taken to be
⎧ ρf z < ( H o ) hot
⎪
ρ hot ( z ) = ⎨
⎪[1 − α ( z )]ρ + α ( z ) ρ ( H o ) hot < z < H
⎩ hot f hot g
where again the void fraction is given in terms of the quality and mass flux by the Zuber-Findlay correlation. The
pressure drop across the channel is known, such that the momentum equation is in terms of the single unknown Ghot
which may be solved for iteratively. Given Ghot , the void fraction at the exit of the hot channel can be obtained
directly.
Average Channel
Since we require the exit void fraction for the average channel to be equal to the exit void fraction in the hot
channel, we set
xave ( H )
α hot = α ave ( H ) =
⎧⎪ ⎡ ρg ⎤ ρ gVgj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢ xave ( H ) + (1 − xave ( H )) ⎥ + ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎣ ρA ⎦ Gave ⎭⎪
where the quality at the channel exit is
have ( H ) − h f
xave ( H ) =
h fg
and the channel exit enthalpy is given by
∫
H
1
have ( H ) = hin + ′′ ( z )π Ddz
qave
Gave Ax γ f 0
such that the only unknown is the mass flux in the average channel which can be solved for iteratively.
Given the mass flux in the average channel, the enthalpy distribution, quality distribution, void distribution and
density distribution in the average channel can be determined directly
∫
z
1
a) have ( z ) = hin + ′′ ( z ′)π Ddz ′
qave
Gave Ax γ f 0
∫
( H o )ave
1
b) h f = hin + ′′ ( z ′)π Ddz ′ ⇒ Solve iteratively for ( H o ) ave
qave
Gave Ax γ f 0
⎧ have ( z ) − h f
⎪ z > ( H o ) ave
⎪ h fg
⎪
c) xave ( z ) = ⎨
⎪ 0 z < ( H o ) ave
⎪
⎪⎩
xave ( z )
d) α ave ( z ) =
⎧⎪ ⎡ ρg ⎤ ρ gVgj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢ xave ( z ) + (1 − xave ( z )) ⎥ + ⎬
⎩⎪ ⎣ ρA ⎦ Gave ⎭⎪
⎧ ρf z < ( H o ) ave
⎪
e) ρ ave ( z ) = ⎨
⎪[1 − α ( z )]ρ + α ( z ) ρ ( H o ) ave < z < H
⎩ ave f ave g
The pressure drop in the average channel is
⎪⎧ 2 ⎡ (1 − xave ) ⎤ ⎪⎫ f f (Gave ) Gave ⎡ ⎤

∫
2 H
x2 2
P0 − PH = ⎨Gave ⎢ + ave ⎥ − υin ⎬ + ⎢ ( H o ) ave + ϕA2o ( z )dz ⎥
⎩⎪ ⎢⎣ α A ρ f α g ρg ⎥⎦ H ⎭⎪
De 2ρ f ⎢⎣ ( H o )ave ⎥⎦
2 ⎡ ⎤
∑ ∑ ∫
H
Gave ⎢( K ) + ⎥
+ K + K Ψ j + ρ ave ( z ) gdz
2ρ f ⎢ ⎥
inlet ave j j
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
0
z j ∈(0,( H o )ave ] z j ∈(( H o )ave , H ]
where everything is known with the exception of ( K inlet ) ave which can be solved for directly.
3) In Boiling Water Reactors with canned assemblies, differences in void and quality distributions can lead to flow
redistribution such that the mass flux in the individual assemblies is different. This can be compensated for by
orificing the individual assemblies (modifying the inlet loss coefficient).
P
H
G G2 G0 G2 G1
1
P0
Assuming the mass flux and heat flux profile are known for the average channel, and the heat flux profile for the
hot channel is known, show how you would determine the channel inlet loss coefficient for the hot channel such
that the mass flux in the hot channel is equal to the average channel mass flux. Give all equations. Terms
involving integrals may be left in integral form. If the solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to give the
iteration equation (s), state which variable (s) is to be solved for and state to solve iteratively. You may assume
an equilibrium model is valid and all necessary thermodynamic and state equations are available. The following
information may be assumed known
System Pressure P
Core Average Mass Flux Gc
Fuel Height H
Rod Diameter D
Can Width Sb
Number of rods per assembly nrods
Channel Exit Loss Coefficient Kexit
Grid Loss Coefficients Kj
Grid Locations zj
Average Channel Inlet Loss Coefficient Kinlet
Core Averaged Axial Heat Flux profile q′′(z )
Hot Channel Heat Flux Profile ′′ (z )
qhot
1
SOLUTION
The flow will redistribute among the assemblies, such that the pressure drop across each assembly is equal. The
solution then requires finding the bundle inlet loss coefficient such that the pressure drop in the hot channel is equal
to the pressure drop in the average channel at the same mass flux. The pressure drop in any channel is the sum of
the acceleration, friction, local and elevation losses,
P0 − PH = ΔPacc + ΔPfriction + ΔPlocal + ΔPelev
where assuming an equilibrium model is valid
Acceleration Losses
G 2 ⎛⎜ ⎧⎪ (1 − x )2 x 2 ⎫⎪ 1 ⎞⎟
ΔPacc = ⎨ + ⎬ −
⎜
g c ⎪⎩ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎪⎭ ρ A ( 0) ⎟
⎝ H ⎠
∫
H
fH o G 2 f f G2
ΔPfriction = + φA2o ( z′)dz′
Local Losses
G2
∑ρ
Kj
ΔPlocal = Ψ( z j )
2 gc j
z j ∈[ 0, z ]
Elevation Losses
∫
H
g
ΔPelev = ρ ( z′) dz′
0 gc
where the density is given by
⎧ ρA ( z ) z ≤ Ho
⎪
ρ ( z) = ⎨
⎪α ( z ) ρ + α ( z ) ρ Ho < z
⎩ A f g g
and
⎧ ρ A (h) h < hf
⎪
ρA = ⎨
⎪ ρ h > hf
⎩ f
The integrals in the pressure drop equations are evaluated numerically.
2
Average Channel Pressure Drop
Since all parameters are know for the average channel, the core pressure drop can be found directly.
Enthalpy Distribution
The enthalpy distribution in the average channel is given by the simple energy balance
z
1
h( z ) = hin +
m 0
where the mass flow rate is given by m = Gc Ax and Ax = S 2 − πD 2 / 4 .
Non Boiling Height
For the equilibrium model, the non boiling height is defined by
h f = h( H o )
such that the non boiling height is the solution of
Ho
1
h f = hin +
m 0
For a given heat flux profile, the solution is in general iterative.
Quality Distribution
The flow quality is taken to be the same as the local equilibrium quality and is given by
⎧0 z < Ho
⎪
x=⎨
⎪x z ≥ Ho
⎩ e
h( z ) − h f
xe ( z ) =
h fg
Void Distribution
Assuming equilibrium flow, the Zuber-Findlay Correlation for void fraction is
x
α=
⎡ ρg ⎤ ρ gVgj
Co ⎢1 + (1 − x)⎥ +
⎢⎣ ρ f ⎥⎦ G
3
( )⎫⎪ 4
1
⎧⎪ ρ f − ρg
where C0 = 113
. and Vgj = 1.41⎨σgg c ⎬
⎪⎩ ρ 2f ⎪⎭
which for a give channel mass flux and pressure is only a function of the quality.
Pressure Drop
The pressure drop in the channel is the sum of the acceleration, friction, local and elevation losses.
Acceleration Losses
The acceleration loss in the channel is
Gc2 ⎛⎜ ⎧⎪ (1 − x )2 x 2 ⎫⎪ 1 ⎞⎟
ΔPacc = ⎨ + ⎬ −
g c ⎜ ⎪⎩ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎪⎭ ρ A ( 0) ⎟
⎝ H ⎠
Given the enthalpy distribution in the average channel, the quality and void fraction at the channel exit can be found
directly. Since the inlet conditions and mass flux are known, the acceleration pressure drop can be found directly.
The frictional loss is
∫
H
fH o Gc2 f f Gc2
ΔPfriction = + φA2o ( z′)dz′
For smooth drawn tubing, the friction factor is a function of the Reynolds number and equivalent diameter, i.e.
f = f (Re,0)
where
Gc De
Re =
μ
and
4 Ax 4[ Sb2 − nrodsπD 2 / 4]
De = =
Pw 4Sb + nrodsπD
The equivalent diameter includes the contribution from the can walls. The average friction factor f and density ρ
can be evaluated at a temperature midway between the inlet and the saturation point. The friction factor f f is
evaluated using saturated liquid properties. The two phase multiplier is a function of quality. Since the quality
distribution is known, the integral can be evaluated numerically.
Local Losses
We can write the local losses within the channel as
4
ΔPlocal =
Gc2
2 ρ j gc ∑ K j Ψ( z j ) ≅
z j ∈[ 0, H ]
Gc2
2 ρin g c
G2
Kin + c
2 ρgc ∑ Kj +
z j ∈0, H o
Gc2
2 ρ f gc ∑
z j ∈H o , H
K j Ψ( z j ) +
Gc2
2 ρ f gc
K exit Ψ ( H )
Since the quality distribution is again known, the local losses can be computed directly.
Elevation Losses
The elevation losses are obtained by integrating the density distribution over the channel length, i.e.
∫
H
g
ΔPelev = ρ ( z′) dz′
0 gc
⎧ ρA ( z ) z ≤ Ho
⎪
ρ ( z) = ⎨
⎪α ( z ) ρ + α ( z ) ρ Ho < z
⎩ A f g g
Since the void distribution in the channel is known, the elevation pressure drop can be obtained directly by
numerically integrating the density distribution up the channel. The core pressure drop is then obtained by summing
the individual pressure losses
P0 − PH = ΔPacc + ΔPfriction + ΔPlocal + ΔPelev = ΔPcore
Hot Channel
The enthalpy distribution in the hot channel is given by the simple energy balance
∫
z
1
h( z ) = hin + ′′ ( z′)πDdz′
qhot
m 0
where the mass flow rate is the same as in the average channel.
Given the enthalpy distribution, the void and quality distributions in the hot channel can be found in a manner
identical to that in the average channel. Similarly, the acceleration, friction and elevation losses can be found in a
manner identical to the average channel such that
[
ΔPcore = ΔPacc + ΔPfriction + ΔPelev ]Hot + (ΔPlocal )Hot
and
(ΔPlocal )Hot = ΔPcore − [ΔPacc + ΔPfriction + ΔPelev]Hot

is the value of the local losses in the hot channel necessary to give the same core pressure drop.
For
5
⎛ 2 ⎞
∑ ∑
Gc2 ⎜ G Gc2 Gc2 ⎟
(ΔPlocal )Hot = KinHot + ⎜ c Kj + K j Ψ( z j ) + K exit Ψ ( H ) ⎟
2 ρin g c ⎜ 2 ρgc 2 ρ f gc 2 ρ f gc ⎟
⎝ z j ∈0, H o z j ∈H o , H ⎠ Hot
⎛ 2 ⎞
∑ ∑
⎜ G Gc2 Gc2 ⎟
(ΔPlocal )Hot −⎜ c Kj + K j Ψ( z j ) + K exit Ψ ( H ) ⎟
⎜ 2 ρgc 2 ρ f gc 2 ρ f gc ⎟
⎝ z j ∈0, H o z j ∈H o , H ⎠ Hot
KinHot = 2
Gc
2 ρin g c
6
A natural circulation boiling water reactor operates at a pressure of 1000 psia. The average densities in the non
boiling and boiling heights are 47 and 38 lbm/ft3 respectively. The corresponding non boiling and boiling heights
are 2 and 3 feet respectively. Assuming a downcomer temperature of 520 F, a core exit quality of 8 percent and a
core exit slip ratio of 2, show how you would compute the chimney height if the total friction and forms losses
around the loop are 0.527 psi.
SOLUTION
At steady state, the buoyancy forces must equal the total pressure loss around the loop. The buoyancy forces are
obtained by integrating the density distribution around the closed loop such that
∫
g
ΔP = − ρ dH
gc
∫ρ g ∫ρ g ∫ρ g ∫ρ g ∫ρ g
g g g g g
dH = dH + dH + dH + dH
c c c c c
Ldc Ho HB H ch
∫ρ g
g g g g g
dH = − ρ dc H dc + ρ H o Ho + ρHB H B + ρ ch H ch
c gc gc gc gc
Note: H dc = H ch + H o + H B
∫ (H ch + H o + H B ) + ρ H o g H o + ρ H B g H B + ρ ch g H ch
g g
ρ dH = − ρ dc
gc gc gc gc gc
∫ρ g
g
(
dH = ρ H o − ρ dc ) gg (
H o + ρ H B − ρ dc ) gg H B + (ρ ch − ρ dc )
g
gc
H ch
c c c
(
ΔP = − ρ H o − ρ dc ) gg (
H o − ρ H B − ρ dc ) gg H B − (ρ ch − ρ dc )
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
ΔP = ρ dc − ρ H o ) gg (
H o + ρ dc − ρ H B ) gg H B + (ρ dc − ρ ch )
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
ΔP − ρ dc − ρ H o ) gg (
H o − ρ dc − ρ H B ) gg H B = (ρ dc − ρ ch )
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
H o − ρ dc − ρ H B ) gg HB
c c
= H ch
(ρ dc − ρ ch ) g
gc
The total pressure drop around the loop includes the friction, forms and acceleration losses. The friction and forms
losses are given. The acceleration loss is given by
G2 ⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) 2 x2 ⎤ 1 ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − ⎬
αρ α g ρ g ⎦⎥ H ρ dc ⎪
⎩⎪ ⎣⎢ A f
gc
⎭
For the given data:
ρ dc ≅ ρ f @ 520 F = 47.82
ρ H o = 47
ρ H B = 38
Ho = 2
HB = 3
The density in the chimney is given by ρ ch = α A ρ f + α g ρ g where the α k ' s are the phasic volume fractions at the
core exit. The vapor volume fraction can be obtained from the Fundamental Void-Quality-Slip relationship
1
αg =
⎛1− x ⎞ ρg
1+ ⎜ ⎟ S
⎝ x ⎠ ρf
Given the core exit void fraction and quality, the acceleration loss can be determined directly for any given mass
flux such that
ΔP = ΔPfriction + ΔPforms + ΔPacceleration
and the chimney height can be determined directly from
(
c c
= H ch
(ρ dc − ρ ch )
g
gc
Part of a feed train for a Pressurized Water Reactor is illustrated below. Due to differences in the control signals
being sent to the feed control valves, the loss coefficient for feed control valve #2 is 20 percent higher than that for
feed control valve #1. Assuming the steam generator pressures to be equal, develop an explicit expression for the
feed flow rate to each steam generator. You may assume the overall loss coefficients for the individual lines are
constant and include friction. You may also assume the feed pumps behave identically.
Pmanifold 0 Pmanifold 1 Feed Control Valve 1
Psg 1
Feed Pump 1
Psg 2
Feed Pump 2 Feed Control Valve 2
The following data can be considered known:
Problem Data
Feed Pump Inlet Pressure (Pmanifold 0) P0

Steam Generator Pressures Psg1 & Psg2
Feed Temperature Tfeed
Feed Pump ΔP ΔPp
Feed Pump Line Loss Coefficient (referenced to feed line flow) K0
Feed line loss coefficients (excluding feed control valves) Kfd
Feed Control Valve #1 Loss Coefficient Kfcv1
Feed Pump Line Pipe diameter D0
Feed Line Pipe Diameter D1
SOLUTION
Writing a momentum balance from the feed pump inlet manifold to the feed pump outlet manifold gives
G02
a) P0 + ΔPp = P1 + K 0
2ρ
Note: Since the feed pumps are assumed to behave identically, this applies to either line.
Writing a momentum balance from the feed pump outlet manifold to steam generator 1 gives
G12
b) P1 = Psg + ( K fd + K FCV1 )
2ρ
Similarly for steam generator 2
G22
c) P1 = Psg + ( K fd + K FCV2 )
2ρ
Adding a) and b) & a) and c) gives
G02 G2
d) P0 + ΔPp = Psg + K 0 + ( K fd + K FCV1 ) 1
2 ρ
2ρ
Κ1
G02 G2
e) P0 + ΔPp = Psg + K 0 + ( K fd + K FCV2 ) 2
2 ρ
2ρ
Κ2
π π
Given A0 = D02 and A1 = D12
4 4
Equations d) and e) can be written in terms of mass flow rates as
K 0 m 02 Κ 1 m 12
1) P0 + ΔPp = Psg + +
A02 2 ρ A12 2 ρ
K 0 m 02 Κ 2 m 22
2) P0 + ΔPp = Psg + +
A02 2 ρ A12 2 ρ
where
3) 2m 0 = m 1 + m 2
Equating 1) and 2) gives
Κ1
Κ 1m 12 = Κ 2 m 22 ⇒ m 2 = m 1
Κ2
and substituting into 3) gives

1 ⎧⎪ Κ 1 ⎫⎪
m 0 = m 1 ⎨1 + ⎬
2 ⎩⎪ Κ 2 ⎭⎪

ξ1
which may be used to eliminate m 0 from equation 1
K 0 ξ12 m 12 Κ 1 m 12
4) P0 + ΔPp = Psg + + 2
A02 2 ρ A1 2 ρ
Equation 4) may be solved directly for m 1
⎪⎧ K ξ Κ 1 ⎪⎫ 2
2
P0 + ΔPp − Psg = ⎨ 20 1 + 21 ⎬ m 1
⎩⎪ A0 2 ρ A1 2 ρ ⎪⎭
P0 + ΔPp − Psg
m 1 =
K 0 ξ12 Κ 1 1
+
A02 2 ρ A12 2 ρ
Given m 1
Κ1
m 2 = m 1
Κ2
Critical heat flux for the BWR in problem 1) has been correlated according to a critical boiling length correlation of
the form
aLcrit
xcrit =
b + Lcrit
Show how you would determine the critical power ratio for this reactor. Give all equations. Terms involving
integrals may be left in integral form. If the solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equation
(s), state which variable (s) is to be solved for and state to solve iteratively. If needed, the following additional
information can be assumed known
Problem Data
Total Thermal Output Q th

Total Power Peaking Factor Fq
Axial Peaking Factor Fz
SOLUTION
The core wide maximum heat flux is related to the thermal power by
Q th γ f Fq
′′ =
qmax
nπ DH
where n is the total number of heated rods in the core and given by
n = nheated × ncans
The magnitude of the heat flux in the hot channel is related to the core wide maximum heat flux by
′′ = qhot
qmax ′′ ( zmax ) = q0′′hot Z ( zmax )
′′
dqhot
=0
dz zmax
If the critical power ratio is
Q crit
CPR =
Q th
where Q crit is the thermal power at which dryout would occur in any channel in the reactor, then assuming dryout
occurs in the highest powered rod, and the highest powered rod is the same as the rod with the highest heat flux,
then as shown above the critical power in the reactor is proportional to the magnitude of the heat flux in the critical
channel. Similarly, the magnitude of the heat flux in the hot channel is proportional to the magnitude of the heat
flux in the hot channel, where the proportionality constants are the same. Therefore
Q crit q ′′ q0′′ Z ( zmax ) q0′′crit
CPR = ⇒ crit ⇒ crit =

Qth ′′
qmax q0′′hot Z ( zmax ) q0′′hot
i.e. the critical power ratio for the reactor is equal to that of the hot channel. For critical heat flux correlated in terms
of a critical boiling length correlation of the form
aLcrit
xcrit =
b + Lcrit
The magnitude of the critical heat flux then satisfies
∫
a( H − H o ) πD
H
aLcrit
1) xcrit = = = q0′′crit Z ( z )dz
b + Lcrit b + H − H o m γ f h fg Ho
where the non boiling height satisfies
∫
πD
Ho
2) m (h f − hin ) = q0′′crit Z ( z )dz

γf 0
⎡ π ⎤
and m = Ghot Ax = Ghot ⎢ S 2 − D 2 ⎥
⎣ 4 ⎦
Solving Equation 2 for q0′′crit
m (h f − hin )
3) q0′′crit =
∫
πD
Ho
Z ( z )dz
γf 0
and substituting into Equation 1) gives a single non linear equation in the non boiling height
∫
H
Z ( z )dz
a( H − H o ) h f − hin
=
Ho
4)
b + H − Ho
∫
H
h fg
Z ( z )dz
0
Equation 4) can be solved iteratively for H o . Given H o , the magnitude of the critical heat flux can be obtained
directly from Equation 3. The critical power ratio is then
q0′′crit
CPR =
q0′′hot
The canned assemblies found in Boiling Water Reactors allow for orificing of the inlet flow to achieve a more
uniform void distribution throughout the core, where the orificing plates act as additional flow resistance at the
bundle inlet. Give the step by step procedure (including all equations) you would use to determine the orifice loss
coefficient necessary to produce the same exit void fraction in the hot and average channels. In those cases where
an iterative solution is required for certain parameters it is sufficient to give the iteration equation(s) and state that
the solution is found iteratively. You may assume the heat flux distributions in the hot and average channels are
known. You may assume the mass flux in the hot channel is known as well as the core inlet conditions. For the
purposes of this calculation you can assume the pressure drops in the hot and average channels are equal, and only
acceleration, friction and local losses are significant (i.e. elevation losses are negligible). You may also assume
known the functional form of the local loss two phase multiplier Ψ ( x, G ) where x is the local quality and G the
mass flux, and the average two phase friction multiplier φA2o ( xexit , G ) where xexit is the channel exit quality. You
may assume that other than the orifice loss coefficient, the remaining loss coefficients and their locations are known
and the same in the hot and average channels. You may assume low subcooling at the inlets to the average and hot
channels and that an equilibrium model is satisfactory.
SOLUTION
The orifice loss coefficient satisfies the pressure drop equation
⎧⎡ ⎫⎪ f G 2 ⎡ ⎤
2 ⎪ (1 − x ) x2 ⎤
∑
2 2
ΔPave = Gave + − υ +
f ave ⎡
+ φ 2 ⎤
+
Gave ⎢ Ψ + ⎥
⎨ ⎢ ⎥ in ⎬ H
⎢ o
H B Ao ⎥ ⎢ K K orifice ⎥ (1)
⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥ ⎪⎭ De 2 ρ f ⎣ ⎦ 2ρ f j j
H ⎢⎣ z j ∈H ⎥⎦
where H B = H − H o , ΔPave = ΔPhot , and α g ( H ) = α g (H ) .

ave hot
Assuming we can determine ΔPhot and α g ( H ) = α g exit for the hot channel, then the unknowns in the above
hot
equation are Gave , x( H ) ave , H o , Ψ j and K orifice .
The quality at the channel exit is related to the void fraction at the channel exit through a void-quality relationship
such as the Zuber-Findlay relation
α g exit = α g ( x( H ) ave , Gave ) (2)
The quality at the exit of the average channel can be expressed in terms of the channel exit enthalpy as
h( H ) ave − h f
x( H ) ave = (3)
h fg
where the channel exit enthalpy is give by the energy balance
H
1
h( H ) ave = hin + ave (4)
Gave Ax 0
Equations (2), (3) and (4) can be combined to yield a single nonlinear equation in Gave that can be solved
iteratively. Given Gave , Equations (3) and (4) can be solved to give the channel exit quality which provides the
average two phase friction multiplier φA2o ( xexit , G ) . The non boiling height can be obtained by solving
H oave
1
h f = hin + ave (5)
Gave Ax 0
iteratively. Given the enthalpy distribution
∫ q′′ (z′)πDdz′
z
1
h( z ) = hin + ave (6)
Gave Ax 0
the quality distribution and the local form loss two phase multipliers can be determined such that Equation (1) can
be solved directly for K orifice .
The problem then reduces to finding the exit void fraction and pressure drop in the hot channel. Since the heat flux
and mass flux in the hot channel are given, the channel exit enthalpy can be determined by
H
1
h( H ) hot = hin + hot (7)
Ghot Ax 0
which yields the channel exit quality, channel exit void fraction and average two phase friction multiplier
h( H ) hot − h f
x( H ) hot = ⇒ α g exit = α g ( x( H ) hot , Ghot ) (8)
h fg
x( H ) hot ⇒ φA2o ( xexit , Ghot )
The non boiling and boiling heights in the hot channel are found from
∫ q′′ (z)πDdz
H ohot
1
h f = hin + hot (9)
Ghot Ax 0
H B = H − H o hot .
Given the enthalpy distribution
∫ q′′ ( z′)πDdz′
z
1
h( z ) = hin + hot
Ghot Ax 0
the quality distribution and the local form loss two phase multipliers can be determined such that
⎧⎡ ⎫⎪ f G 2 ⎡ ⎤
2 ⎪ (1 − x ) x2 ⎤ G2
∑
2
hot ⎡
H o + H B φA2o ⎤ + hot ⎢ K j Ψ j ⎥⎥
⎥ − υin ⎬ +
f
ΔPhot = Ghot ⎨⎢ + ⎢ (10)
⎢ ⎥⎦ 2 ρ f
⎪⎩⎢⎣ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎥⎦
H ⎪⎭ De 2 ρ f ⎣ ⎢⎣ z j ∈H ⎥⎦
can be solved directly for the pressure drop in the hot channel.
A vessel containing saturated liquid water at 1000 psia discharges to atmosphere through a horizontal line. Show
how you would determine the initial mass flux through the discharge line (i.e. before the vessel has a chance to
depressurize significantly). Give all relevant equations. You may assume the flow is isentropic (i.e. no frictional
losses) such that only acceleration losses are significant.
SOLUTION
The acceleration loss in the pipe is given by
⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x) 2 x2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
G 2 ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υ o ⎬ = ( Po − PT )
⎪⎩⎢⎣ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎥⎦
T ⎪⎭
where the subscript T denotes conditions at the throat or discharge point and o denotes the reservoir or stagnation
conditions. From the chart of critical pressure versus stagnation pressure for saturated liquid water, the critical
pressure at 1000 psia is approximately 550 psia, implying the flow is choked at the discharge point. The mass flux
is then determined by
( Po − PT )
G2 =
⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x) 2 x2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υo ⎬
⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
T ⎪⎭
where the throat conditions are taken at the critical pressure. The stagnation conditions are given as a saturated
liquid at 1000 psia and are therefore known. Since the flow can be assumed isentropic, the quality at the discharge
point is given by
so − s f
xT =
s fg
PT
The void fraction at the discharge point can be obtained from the Fundamental Void-Quality-Slip relation
1
α=
(1 − x ) ⎛ υ f ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟S
x ⎜⎝ υ g ⎟⎠
where the slip ratio is given by the Moody model
υg
S =3
υf
Buongiorno, Spring 2007

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007, 9 a.m. – 12 p.m.
OPEN BOOK FINAL 3 HOURS
Problem 1 (35%) – Steady-state natural circulation in a steam generation system

Saturated steam at 3 MPa (properties in Table 1) is used in a certain factory. The steam is
generated by the system shown in Figure 1, which consists of a natural gas-fired heater, a riser of
height L, a steam separator of form loss K, and a downcomer. The makeup flow can be assumed
to be saturated water at 3 MPa. The riser and the steam separator have the same flow area, A.
Dry saturated steam to the factory
Steam
separator Makeup water
Riser g
L
Downcomer
Q&
Heater
Figure 1. Schematic of the steam generation loop
i) Using the conservation equations and their constitutive relations, find a single equation
from which the mass flow rate in the loop, m& , could be found as a function of the heat
rate, Q& , and the parameters A, L and K, i.e., f( m& , Q& ,A,L,K)=0. (20%)
ii) Find m& for the two limit cases Q& =0 and Q& = m& hfg. Do you think the m& vs Q& curve
(with fixed A, L and K) could have a maximum between these two limits? Explain your
answer qualitatively. (10%)
iii) For a given Q& , how does m& change if K increases or L increases or A increases? (5%)
Assumptions:
- Steady state
- Steam separator efficiency is one
- Use HEM for the void fraction in the riser
- Neglect all acceleration and friction terms in the loop momentum equation
⎛ρ ⎞
- Use the HEM multiplier for the form loss in the separator, φl2o = 1+ x⎜ f −1⎟
⎜ρ ⎟
⎝ g ⎠
Table 1. Properties of saturated water at 3 MPa.
Parameter Value
Tsat 234°C (507 K)
ρf 822 kg/m3
ρg 15 kg/m3
hf 1,008 kJ/kg
hg 2,803 kJ/kg
Cp,f 4.7 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 3.6 kJ/(kg°C)
μf 1.1×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 1.7×10-5 Pa⋅s
kf 0.638 W/(m°C)
kg 0.047 W/(m°C)
σ 0.030 N/m
Problem 2 (55%) – Water boiling during a loss-of-flow transient in a home heating system
A large condo building uses a water forced-convection heating system. The heater consists of
hundreds of round channels of diameter D=2.54 cm and length L=1 m in which water is heated
by an axially uniform heat flux, q″=200 kW/m2 (see Figure 2). The system operates at 1 MPa
and the water temperature at the inlet of the heater channel is Tin=90°C (hin=365.6 kJ/kg). Under
normal operating conditions the mass flux is Go=1000 kg/m2s and no boiling occurs in the
channel. A pump malfunction occurs at t=0, so that the mass flux in the heater channel starts to
decay exponentially, i.e., G(t) = Go e −t / τ , where τ =10 s. Assume that the heat flux, pressure and
inlet temperature remain constant throughout the transient.
q″
D
G
z
Figure 2. A heater channel.
Parameter Value
Tsat 180°C (453 K)
ρf 887 kg/m3
ρg 5.1 kg/m3
hf 763 kJ/kg
hg 2,778 kJ/kg
Cp,f 4.4 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 2.6 kJ/(kg°C)
μf 1.5×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 1.4×10-5 Pa⋅s
kf 0.677 W/(m°C)
kg 0.034 W/(m°C)
σ 0.042 N/m
R* 462 J/kg⋅K
∂h q"Ph
i) Using a simplified version of the energy conservation equation, G = ,
∂z A
calculate the fluid enthalpy and equilibrium quality as functions of z and t. (5%)
ii) At what time does the bulk temperature reach saturation? Assume the specific heat
does not change with temperature. (5%)
iii) At what time does nucleate boiling start? Use the Davis and Anderson model for
ONB and assume that the single-phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient, H,
G(t)
is proportional to the mass flux, i.e., H = H o , where Ho=9.3 kW/m2K. (10%)
Go
iv) At what time does a significant amount of vapor first appear in the channel? (10%)
v) Qualitatively sketch the MDNBR vs. time. (5%)
vi) Qualitatively sketch the bulk and wall temperatures vs. time at the channel outlet.
(10%)
vii) Estimate the time at which two-phase density-wave oscillations appear in the channel.
Use the stability map of Figure 3 below. (10%)
Nsub
Nsub=Npch - 4
Stable Unstable
0 6 12 Npch
Figure 3. Stability map for the heater channel.
Problem 3 (10%) – Short questions on bubble nucleation

i) A steam bubble grows at a cavity with the geometry shown in Figure 4. What can
you say about the steam temperature in this situation? (5%)
Figure 4. Steam bubble growing within a wall cavity.
ii) To obtain bubble nucleation at a cavity of radius 1 μm on a copper surface, a certain

fluid (of contact angle 135° with copper) requires a 2°C superheat. What would the
required superheat be for bubble nucleation at a cavity of radius 3 μm on steel, if the
fluid contact angle with steel were 45°? (5%)

OPEN BOOK FINAL (solutions)

i) The flow in the loop is due to natural circulation, driven by the density difference between the
two-phase riser and the single-phase downcomer. The momentum equation for the loop is:
m& 2
( ρ down − ρ riser )gL = φl2o K (1)
2 ρ f A2
where the friction and acceleration terms have been neglected, as per the problem assumptions.
The fluid in the downcomer is saturated water therefore its density is ρdown=ρf, while the density
in the riser is:
ρ riser = αρ g + (1− α ) ρ f (2)
where α is the void fraction. If HEM is used:
1
α= (3)
ρ 1− x
1+ g ⋅
ρf x
where x is the flow quality in the riser. The two-phase multiplier for the form loss in the steam
separator is:
⎛ ρf ⎞
φlo2 = 1+ x⎜⎜ −1⎟
⎟
(4)
⎝ ρg ⎠
per the problem assumption. The flow quality x can be found from the energy balance for the
heater:
Q& = xh fg m& ⇒ x = Q& /(h fg m& ) (5)
where it was assumed that the equilibrium quality is equal to the flow quality, a very good
assumption since the riser is a saturated mixture of steam and water. Eliminating x in Eqs. (3)
and (4) by means of Eq. (5), and substituting Eqs. (2) and (5) into Eq. (1), one gets the answer:
(ρ f − ρg ) ⎡ ⎛ ρf ⎞⎤ m& 2
&
gL = ⎢1+ Q /(mh fg )
& ⎜ ⎟
−1 ⎥ K (6)
1− Q& /(m& h fg ) ρ g ⎜ρ ⎟ 2 ρ A2
1+ & ⎢
⎣ ⎝ g ⎠⎦⎥ f
Q /(m& h fg ) ρ f
which could be solved to find m& = m& ( Q& ,A,L,K).
ii) If Q& =0 (no steam), one has x=0, α=0, ρriser=ρf, and therefore m& =0.
ρ
For Q& = m& hfg (complete vaporization), one has x=1, α=1, ρriser=ρg, φl2o = f and From Eq. (1):
ρg
2 ρ g A2 ( ρ f − ρ g )gL
m& = (7)
An increase in heat rate, Q& , increases the density difference between the riser and the
downcomer, which would tend to increase the flow. However, an increase in Q& also increases
the quality and thus the two-phase form loss multiplier, which of course would tend to reduce the
flow. Because there are two conflicting effects, a maximum in the m& vs Q& curve is possible.
bThis curve is shown for some representative values of A, K and L in Figure 1, and it does in fact
have a maximum.
Q& /(m& h fg )
Figure 1. m& vs Q& curve

iii) For a given Q& , m& :

- decreases with increasing K because the resistance to the flow is higher
- increases with increasing L because the gravity head driving the flow is higher
- increases with A because a larger flow area reduces the velocity and thus reduces the
form pressure loss in the separator.
i) The energy equation can be readily integrated to give:
q"Ph t / τ
h(z,t) = hin + ze (8)
AGo
where Ph=πD=7.98 cm and A=π/4⋅D2=5.1 cm2. Then the equilibrium quality, xe, is:
h − hf hin − h f q"Ph
xe
(z,t) ≡ = + zet / τ (9)
h fg h fg h fg AGo
ii) Before reaching saturation h-hin can be expressed as Cp,f(Tb-Tin), where it is was assumed that
the specific heat is independent of temperature, as per the hint. Thus, from Eq. (8) one gets:
q"Ph
Tb (z,t) = Tin + zet / τ (10)
C p, f AGo
Obviously, saturation is first reached at the channel outlet, so setting Tb=Tsat and z=L in Eq. (10)
and solving for t, one gets the time at which saturation first occurs in the channel:
⎡ C (T − T ) AGo ⎤
t sat = τ ln ⎢ p, f sat in ⎥ ≈25.3 s (11)
⎣ q"Ph L ⎦
An identical result would have been obtained by setting h=hf in Eq. (8) or xe=0 in Eq. (9).
iii) The Davis and Anderson model for the Onset of Nucleate Boiling (ONB) gives a relation
between the heat flux and the wall superheat, Tw-Tsat, at ONB, as follows:
8R*Tsat2 σ
(Tw − Tsat )ONB = q" ≈2.2°C a ⇒ Tw,ONB=182.2°C (12)
k f h fg P
a
The corresponding cavity radius is r 2R *Tsat2 σk f
c,ONB = ≈ 3.7μm , which is reasonable.
Ph fg q"
where P=1 MPa is the system pressure. To find the time at which the wall temperature reaches
182.2°C, we can use Newton’s law of cooling:
q"= H (Tw − Tb ) (13)
G(t)
where H = H o is the heat transfer coefficient, as per the problem statement. Substituting
Go
Eq. (10) into Eq. (13), setting Tw=Tw,ONB, recognizing that at any given time the maximum wall
temperature is at z=L, and solving for t, one gets the time at which ONB first occurs in the
channel:
⎡ ⎤
⎢ T −T ⎥
tONB = τ ln ⎢ w,ONB in ⎥ ≈11.7 s (14)
⎢ q"Ph L + q" ⎥
⎢ AGoC p, f H o ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Note that tONB<tsat, which justifies the use of Eq. (10) for Tb in Eq. (13).
iv) The Onset of Significant Void (OSV) will first occur at z=L, and can be predicted with the
Saha and Zuber correlation:
⎧ q"D
⎪0.0022 k Pe < 7 ×10 4
⎪ f
(Tsat − Tb )OSV =⎨ (15)
⎪ q" Pe ≥ 7 ×10 4
⎪ 154
GC
⎩ p , f
where Pe≡(GDCp,f)/kf. Since OSV will occur after ONB, and Pe≈5×104 at ONB, we can
conclude that Pe<5×104 and thus, from the first expression in Eq. (15), Tb,OSV≈163.4°C. Setting
Tb=Tb,OSV and z=L in Eq.(10) and solving for t, one gets the time at which OSV first occurs in the
channel:
⎡ C p , f (Tb ,OSV − Tin ) AGo ⎤

t OSV = τ ln ⎢ ⎥ ≈23.3 s (16)
⎣ q"P h L ⎦
v) The DNBR is defined as q′DNB ′ / q′′ at any location in the channel. Since q′DNB
′ decreases with
increasing xe, the minimum DNBR (MDNBR) is at the channel outlet at any given time. The
MDNBR vs time is sketched qualitatively in Figure 2 below. Note that the MDNBR decreases
rapidly with time because of the combined effect of the mass flux exponential decay
( G (t ) = Go e − t / τ ) and xe exponential growth (Eq. 9). Therefore, DNB will occur (MDNBR=1)
soon after ONB. This can be avoided if the normal mass flux is re-established or the heat flux is
significantly reduced.
MDNBR
0 tONB tDNB t (s)

Figure 2. MDNBR vs t curve.
vi) The bulk temperature increases exponentially per Eq. (10) until it reaches Tsat; then it stays at
Tsat until xe=1. The wall temperature is found from Newton’s law of cooling as
Tw = Tb + q"/ H (17)
where H is the heat transfer coefficient at time t. For t<tONB H is the single-phase heat transfer
coefficient, but for t>tONB H increases as the heat transfer regime becomes partial and then fully-
developed subcooled nucleate boiling. However, at t=tDNB H drops dramatically because the
transition to film boiling occurs. Failure (burnout) of the heater channel is expected soon after
this transition. The qualitative time history of the bulk and wall temperatures at the channel
outlet is shown in Figure 3. Note that without a quantitative calculation of q′DNB
′ vs. time, it is not
possible to determine a priori whether tDNB>tsat or vice versa.
Temperature
Tw
Tw,ONB
Tsat
Tb
0 tONB tDNB tsat Time

Figure 3. Time history of the bulk and wall temperatures at the channel outlet (not to scale)
vii) To determine the onset of dynamic instability, one first has to calculate the subcooling
number, Nsub:
ρ f − ρ g h f − hin
N sub = ⋅ (18)
ρg h fg
and the phase change number, Npch:
ρ f − ρ g q"Ph L
N pch = ⋅ (19)
ρg GAh fg
At normal operating conditions the values for the heater channel are Nsub≈34 and Npch≈3, which
identify a stable point on the stability map. However, for t>0 the phase change number increases
because the mass flux decreases, while Nsub remains constant because the inlet enthalpy and
pressure are fixed throughout the transient. Therefore, the channel “trajectory” on the stability
map is a straight horizontal line (see Figure 4 below). The Npch value at which instability occurs
is 38, found by intersecting the trajectory with the stability line, Nsub=Npch - 4. Then, solving Eq.
(19) for G, one gets Gunst≈70.5 kg/m2s. The time at which G=Gunst is:
⎛ G ⎞
tcr = τ ln⎜⎜ o ⎟⎟ ≈26.5 s (20)
⎝ Gunst ⎠
Nsub
(3,34) t
•
Onset of instability
(38,34)
Nsub=Npch - 4
0 6 12 Npch
Figure 4. Trajectory of the channel on the stability map.
Problem 3 (10%) – Miscellaneous short questions

i) Since the steam/liquid interface is flat (i.e., the radius of curvature is infinite), the steam
pressure is equal to the liquid pressure. This can happen only if the steam is at the saturation
temperature corresponding to the liquid pressure, i.e., 100°C assuming the liquid is at 1 atm.
ii) The critical (or maximum) superheat, ΔTsat,cr, is inversely proportional to the minimum radius
of curvature of the bubble, as it grows at the cavity mouth:
K
ΔTsat ,cr = (21)
rmin
where K is the proportionality constant (K=2σTsat2 R*/(hfgPℓ)), which depends on fluid and
pressure, and rmin depends on the cavity radius, rc, and the contact angle, θ, as follows:
⎧ rc
⎪ sin θ θ > 90o
⎪
rmin =⎨ (22)
⎪ r θ ≤ 90 o
⎪ c
⎩
Using Eqs. (21) and (22) for ΔTsat,cr=2°C, rc=1 μm and θ=135°, one finds K≈2.828 μm°C. Thus,
for rc=3 μm and θ=45°, ΔTsat,cr≈0.94°C.

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007, 2:00 – 3:30 p.m.

To cut production time, a vinegar-making company is experimenting with air injection in
an aerobic fermentation tank. The tank consists of a vertical cylindrical pool of 1.2 m
diameter, whose bottom plate has thousands of 0.5-mm holes, through which the air is
injected. The equivalent diameter of the bubbles generated at the holes is 1 mm. The
mass flow rate of air is 0.02 kg/s. The tank contains 1500 kg of vinegar.
i) Calculate the rise velocity of the air bubbles in the tank. Assumption: ignore bubble
coalescence and breakup. (10%)
ii) Calculate the increase of the pool free level due to air injection. Hint: To calculate
the void fraction, use the drift flux model with Co=1 (uniform air injection) and Vvj
equal to the bubble rise velocity calculated in question ‘i’. (30%)
iii) How would the pool free level change, if the air injection holes were larger (for
constant air mass flow rate)? Which hole design would you recommend for this
application? Large holes or small holes? (10%)
Re-Eö-M diagram for bubbly flow
Table 1. Properties of vinegar and air.

Parameter Value
Vinegar
ρℓ 1,000 kg/m3
μℓ 0.001 Pa⋅s
σ 0.07 N/m
Air
ρv 1.2 kg/m3
μv 1.7×10-5 Pa⋅s

A significant amount of moisture is generated by steam expansion in the steam turbine of
a large power plant. This moisture mostly deposits on the turbine blades forming liquid
rivulets, which creep on the surface of the blade and reach the blade tip, where re-
entrainment by steam occurs (see Figure 1).
i) Steam at 1.2 MPa and 100 m/s flows around a certain blade. Give an upper bound
estimate for the diameter of the droplets that are entrained at the tip of the blades.
Hint: the critical Weber number is 22 for this application. (5%)
To prevent erosion of the turbine internals, it is desired to remove the droplets by means
of a wire separator. The wire diameter, D, is 1 mm and the wire-mesh pitch, L, is 5 mm.
ii) Assuming all entrained droplets are of the size calculated in ‘i’, calculate the
minimum number of wire screens, N, needed to reduce the amount of droplets in
the steam by a factor 4. The maximum allowable steam velocity (to prevent
breakthrough) is 10 m/s for this wire separator. (30%)
iii) Would you recommend this separator design? If yes, list its attractive features. If
not, recommend another type of separator that you expect to perform better in this
application. (10%)
Droplet re-entrainment
at blade tip
Liquid rivulets
Steam
Blade
Figure 1. A steam turbine blade with droplet re-entrainment
Table 2. Useful properties of saturated water at 1.2 MPa (188°C).
Parameter Value
ρf 878 kg/m3
ρg 6.1 kg/m3
μg 1.5×10-5 Pa⋅s
σ 0.04 N/m
in annular flow
Consider steady-state, adiabatic, vertical flow of a liquid/vapor mixture in a round
channel. The flow regime is annular. At a certain axial location the rate of droplet
entrainment exceeds the rate of droplet deposition.
dα
i) What is the sign of at that location? Explain. (5%)
dz
⎛ dP ⎞
ii) What is the sign of ⎜ ⎟ at that location? (Optional for 5% extra credit)
⎝ dz ⎠ acc

i) Note that since the vinegar velocity is zero (i.e., the vinegar is stagnant), the air
bubble rise velocity coincides with the bubble-liquid relative velocity, vb. For air
bubbles of 1-mm equivalent diameter in vinegar we have M∼3×10-11, Eö∼0.1 and,
thus, from the Re-Eö-M diagram, Re∼102. Therefore, from the definition of Re, we
get a bubble rise velocity vb∼0.1 m/s.
ii) The volume of vinegar in the tank is Vvin=1.5 m3. The tank cross sectional area is
Atank=π/4⋅D2∼1.13 m2, where D=1.2 m is the tank diameter. Therefore, the vinegar
level prior to air injection is Lo=Vvin/Atank∼1.33 m. Upon air injection the level rises
to accommodate the air volume. The total volume of the air-vinegar mixture is
Vtot=Vair+Vvin. Since Vair=αVtot, one gets Vtot=Vvin/(1-α), and thus the new level, L,
is:
L=Vtot/Atank=Vvin/[(1-α)Atank] (1)
where α is the void fraction. According to the drift flux model, the void fraction can
be calculated as:
jv
α= (2)
Co j + Vvj
where Co=1 and Vvj=vb=0.1 m/s, as per the hint in the problem statement. jv and
j=jv+jℓ are the air and total superficial velocities, respectively. However, in our case
it is j=jv because the vinegar is stagnant and thus its superficial velocity (jℓ) is zero.
The air superficial velocity can be calculated as jv=xG/ρv. Now, x=1 because the
vinegar does not flow; G= m& air /Atank∼0.018 kg/m2s, thus jv∼0.015 m/s. Equation (2)
gives α∼0.13, and finally Eq. (1) gives L∼1.53 m. So the level increase due to air
injection is about 20 cm.
iii) If the injector holes were larger, the size of the bubbles would be higher, thus their
velocity would be higher, which would result in a lower void fraction, and finally a
lower level in the tank. The design with smaller holes is better, because the smaller
bubbles have higher surface-to-volume ratio and longer residence time in the vinegar,
thus delivering oxygen at a higher rate, which increases the rate of fermentation.

i) The maximum stable diameter of the droplets that are entrained at the tip of the blades
can be readily estimated from the critical Weber number.
We cr σ
Dd,max= ∼14.4 μm (3)
ρ g Vg2
where Wecr=22 and Vg=100 m/s is the steam velocity.
ii) The desired separation efficiency is 75% (i.e., reduce the amount of droplets by a
factor 4). Since the efficiency of wire separators increases with the operating steam
velocity, the minimum number of screens will be attained by using the maximum
allowable velocity, Vg=10 m/s. The separation efficiency of a single wire, ηw, is:
η w = 1 − exp( −0.2 ⋅ Stk ) ∼0.933 (4)
ρ f Dd2 Vg
where Stk = ∼13.5 is the Stokes number, Dd=14.4 μm and D=1 mm.
9μ g D
The efficiency of multi-screen wire separators, ηmN, is:
⎡ 8 (1 − ε )η w ⎤
η mN = 1 − exp ⎢ − ⋅ NL ⎥ (5)
⎣ 3 πD ⎦
2
3π ⎛D⎞
where L=5 mm and ε = 1 − ⎜ ⎟ ∼0.906. Solving Eq. (5) for the number of screens
4 ⎝L⎠
N, one finds:
3 πD
N =− ⋅ ln(1 − η mN ) ∼3.7 (6)
8 (1 − ε )η w L
where ηmN was set equal to 0.75. Thus, the minimum number to obtain at least 75%
separation efficiency is 4.
iii) Wire separators are simple and reasonably efficient. However, they are delicate and
susceptible to failure by erosion/corrosion, because the wire is thin and the surface-to-
volume ratio is very high. Chevrons are more expensive, but also more rugged and
generally have higher separation efficiencies, as they can operate at higher velocity
thanks to the scoops, which increase the breakthrough velocity. Since in a large power
plant the capital cost of the moisture separator is usually a small fraction of the total cost,
chevrons should be preferred as they are more reliable and efficient.
in annular flow
i) Droplet entrainment reduces the slip ratio (because more liquid is moving at a speed
1
close to the speed of the vapor) and thus increases the void fraction ( α = ).
ρv 1− x
1+ ⋅S⋅
ρl x
dα
Therefore, the sign of is positive. Note that the flow quality (x) and the mass flux
dz
(G) are constant along this channel.
ii) Physically, the momentum increase due to the acceleration of the liquid is higher than
the momentum decrease due to the de-acceleration of the vapor. Therefore, there is a net
⎛ dP ⎞
acceleration of the mixture ⎜ ⎟ >0.
⎝ dz ⎠ acc
Mathematically,
⎛ dP ⎞ d ⎡G2 ⎤ 2 d ⎡ 1 ⎤ 2 d ⎡ x
2
(1 − x) 2 ⎤
⎜ ⎟ = ⎢ +⎥=G ⎢ ⎥ = G ⎢ + ⎥ (7)
⎝ dz ⎠ acc dz ⎣ ρ m ⎦ dz ⎣ ρ m+ ⎦ dz ⎣αρ v (1 − α ) ρ l ⎦
Since we know from ‘i’ that the void fraction is increasing, the two-phase density, ρ m+ ,
ought to be decreasing. More rigorously,
d ⎡ 1 ⎤ d ⎡ x2 (1 − x) 2 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ + ⎥ (8)
dz ⎣ ρ m+ ⎦ dz ⎣αρ v (1 − α ) ρ l ⎦
x2
At high α (typical of annular flow) the first term of the derivative ( ) is more
αρ v
(1 − x) 2
sensitive than the second term ( ) to a change of α (again note that x is constant
(1 − α ) ρ l
here). Therefore, the derivative is dominated by the second term, suggesting that
⎛ dP ⎞
⎜ ⎟ >0 if α increases, as is the case here.
⎝ dz ⎠ acc
Tuesday, May 17th, 2005, 9 a.m. – 12 p.m.
OPEN BOOK FINAL (solutions) 3 HOURS
Problem 1 (30%) – Hydraulic analysis of the PWR primary system at cold zero-power
conditions
i) The momentum equation for the loop is:
L dm m2
⋅ = ΔPpump − (K core + K sg ) (1)
A dt 2ρ l A 2
where m is the mass flow rate, L=40 m is the total length of the loop, A=1.65 m2 is the flow area,
Kcore=7 and Ksg=4 are the form loss coefficients for the core and steam generator, respectively.
The acceleration and friction terms were neglected in Equation 1, as per the problem statement.
Moreover the gravity term is zero because the fluid is isothermal.
dm
At steady-state = 0 and Equation 1 can be easily solved for the steady-state mass flow rate,
dt
mss:
2ρ l A 2 ΔPpump
m ss = ≈ 9,960 kg/s (2)
(K core + K sg )
ii) Equation 1 can be re-written as follows:
2ρ l A ⋅ L dm
⋅ = m ss2 − m 2 (3)
(K core + K sg ) dt
Equation 3 can be integrated to find m(t) during start-up. Separating the variables, making use of
the hint in the problem statement, and setting the initial condition m(0)=0, one gets:
1 − e−t / τ
m( t ) = m ss (4)
1 + e −t / τ
where the time constant, τ, is defined as follows:
ρl A ⋅ L ρl
τ= =L ≈ 0.6 s (5)
(K core + K sg )m ss 2(K core + K sg )ΔPpump
Equation 4 is plotted in Figure 1. The time it takes to reach 50% of the steady-state value can be
calculated by setting m=0.5⋅mss in Equation 4, and solving for t.
τ 50 = τ ⋅ ln(3) ≈ 0.66 s (6)
Figure 1. PWR primary system mass flow rate during cold zero-power start-up.
iii) Equation 5 indicates that the time constant is proportional to the loop length and inversely
proportional to the square root of the pump head. Thus, it can be concluded that the time
constant for the scaled-down loop will be lower than for the actual PWR primary system by a
factor of √10≈3.16.
Problem 2 (25%) – Surface tension effects in borated water draining from a BWR Standby
Liquid Control Tank.
i) The water pressure at the bottom of the tank, Pℓ, can be calculated as follows:
Pl = Patm + ρ l gL (7)
where Patm is the atmospheric pressure, ρℓ is the borated water density and L is the level in the
tank. Let us now focus on the liquid/air interface at the hole. For a contact angle >90°, the effect
of surface tension is to oppose draining. The condition for static equilibrium (i.e., no draining)
is:
2σ
Pl − Patm = (8)
r
where σ is the surface tension and r is the radius of curvature, which can be derived from simple
geometric considerations:
dH
r= ≈ 0.29 mm (9)
2 sin θ
with dH=0.5 mm. Combining Equations 7 and 8, one gets the maximum level of borated water
that can be held up by the surface tension in the hole, Lmax:
2σ
L max = ≈ 49 cm (10)
ρl g ⋅ r
Since the initial level is higher than Lmax, the borated water will drain until L=Lmax.
ii) If the contact angle is <90°, the tank will drain completely because surface tension no longer
opposes draining.
iii) If the tank top is sealed and there is a cover gas, the borated water will drain until the cover
gas pressure, Pcg, becomes sufficiently low. The condition for static equilibrium is:
2σ
Pcg + ρ l gL = P atm ± (11)
r
where the positive sign on the right-hand side applies to contact angles >90° and the negative
sign to contact angles <90°. Thus, the contact angle will affect the equilibrium pressure of the
cover gas, but at a certain point draining will stop regardless of the value of the contact angle.
Problem 3 (25%) – Flow split between a heated and an adiabatic channel.

i) The mass equation for the system is:
&1+m
m & 2 =m
& tot (12)
where m & 1 and m

& 2 are the mass flow rate in channels 1 and 2, respectively. The energy
equations are:
& =m
Q & 1c p (T1L − To ) (channel 1) (13)
0=m
& 2 c p (T2 L − To ) (channel 2) (14)
where T1L and T2L are the temperature at the outlet of channels 1 and 2, respectively.
The momentum equations are:
m12 ⎡ β ⎤
Po − PL = K + ρ o ⎢1 − (T1L − To )⎥ gL (channel 1) (15)
2ρ o A 2
⎣ 2 ⎦
Po − PL = ρ o gL (channel 2) (16)
where Po is the inlet plenum pressure. Equations 12 through 16 are 5 equations in the 5
unknowns m & 1, m
& 2 , T1L, T2L and Po. Substituting Equation 13 into Equation 15, eliminating Po
from Equations 15 and 16, and solving for m& 1 , one gets:
1/3
& ρ 2 gL ⎤
⎡ βA 2 Q
&1 = ⎢
m o
⎥ (17)
⎢⎣ c p K ⎥⎦
& 2 = 0, m
ii) If m &1 =m & , one gets:
& tot from Equation 12. Solving Equation 17 for Q
& 3tot
c p Km
&
Qo = (18)
βA 2ρ o2gL
& , the flow in channel 2 actually reverses.

iii) If the heat rate in channel 1 is increased beyond Q o
Explanation: in this system the column weight in channel 2 sets the pressure drop for both
channels (see Equation 16). Focus now on channel 1. Because of the heating, the column
weight in channel 1 is lower than the total pressure drop (Equation 15). So in general, channel 1
will have higher flow rate than channel 2. When the heating is so high that the flow rate in
channel 1 is higher than the total flow rate mtot, the flow in channel 2 has to reverse to satisfy
continuity (Equation 12).
Problem 4 (20%) – Quenching experiments to simulate boiling heat transfer during a LB-
LOCA.
i) The main differences are geometry (spherical vs. cylindrical) and materials (copper vs.
zirconium). Geometry differences will have an effect mostly on film boiling and DNB.
Materials differences will have an effect mostly on nucleate boiling. Because of
geometry, size and materials differences, the experiment and reactor situation will also
have different thermal capacities, and thus different time scales.
ii) The energy balance for the sphere is:
dT
ρC P V = −q ′′S = − h (T − Tsat )S (19)
dt
where ρ and Cp are the copper density and specific heat, respectively, T, V and S are the
sphere temperature, volume and surface, respectively, q" is the heat flux at the surface, h
is the heat transfer coefficient, and Tsat is the saturation temperature of water.
iii) The qualitative sketch of the sphere temperature history for an initial temperature of
1,500°C is shown in Figure 2. The sphere goes through all heat transfer regimes,
including transition boiling, because the situation is temperature controlled, not heat-flux
controlled. Note that the film boiling region has the longest duration because of its large
temperature width. The concavity of the T-t curve can be determined by differentiating
Equation 19:
d 2T dq ′′ ⎛ dT ⎞
ρC P V 2
=S ⋅⎜− ⎟ (20)
dt dT ⎝ dt ⎠
⎛ dT ⎞
Since the term ⎜ − ⎟ is obviously positive, the concavity depends only on the
⎝ dt ⎠
derivative of the heat flux with respect to temperature. Thus, the concavity is positive for
film boiling, nucleate boiling and natural convection, but is negative for transition
boiling.
T-Tsat (°C)
Film boiling
1500 Transition
boiling
400 Nucleate
boiling Free
20
convection
1
t
Figure 2. Temperature history during quenching.


quality:
1
ρ 1− x
1+ v ⋅S⋅
ρl x
vv
vl

∂G
=0
∂z
∂G ∂P ∂ ⎡ G 2 ⎤ P ∂G ∂P f G G
= − − ⎢ ⎥ − τ w w − ρg cos θ ⇒ =− − − ρg
∂t ∂z ∂z ⎣ ρ ⎦ A ∂t ∂z D e 2ρ
L L L
∂G f GG
0
∂t 0
D e 2ρ 0

xG xm
& 4 xm &
jv = = ⇒ D= = 0.196 m
ρv π ρ v πjv
ρv ( D2 )
4
where x=0.95 and m

& =0.42 kg/s.
de
& (1 − x )
m = − πDΓd
dz
1− x
Γd = K ρve
x
πDKρ v
e(L) = e(0) ⋅ exp(− L)
xm
&
xm
&
L= log(2) ≈ 3.7 m
πDKρ v
removed.
conditions
A greatly-simplified schematic of the PWR primary system is shown in Figure 1. The core and
steam generators are represented by two form losses of coefficients 7 and 4, respectively. The
loop can be modeled as a series of four identical round tubes of 1.45 m ID and 10 m length. The
flow within the loop is driven by a pump that delivers a constant head, ΔPpump=200 kPa,
regardless of the flow.
10 m
Steam
generator
(K=4)
10 m
Core
(K=7)
Pump
Figure 1. Simplified schematic of the PWR primary system
You are to evaluate the hydraulic behavior of the system at cold zero-power conditions. In this
situation the fluid can be considered isothermal at 20°C and atmospheric pressure. The
properties of water at this temperature and pressure are reported in Table 1.
i) Calculate the steady-state mass flow rate in the system. Clearly state all your
assumptions. (10%)
ii) Now consider flow start-up from stagnant conditions. At t=0 the pump is turned on and
the flow is established. Calculate the time it takes for the mass flow rate to reach 50% of
1
its steady-state value. (15%) (Hint: use the following integral ∫ 2 dx 2 = ln⎛⎜ c + x ⎞⎟ 2c )
c −x ⎝c−x⎠
iii) A nuclear engineer wishes to simulate the PWR primary system by means of an
experimental flow loop with the same form coefficients and geometrically similar, but of
1/10 scale (the pump head is also scaled down to 1/10). Would such loop have the same
time constant of the PWR primary system? (5%)
Assumptions:
- Neglect the acceleration and friction terms (Facc and Ffric, respectively) in the momentum
equation.
Table 1. Water properties at 20°C.
Parameter Value
ρℓ 1,000 kg/m3
Cpℓ 4.2 kJ/(kg⋅K)
kℓ 0.6 W/(m⋅K)
μℓ 1.0×10-3 Pa⋅s
β 2.2×10-4 1/K
BWRs have a Standby Liquid Control Tank (SLCT) containing highly-borated water at room
temperature that can be injected into the core, should the control rods fail to shutdown the reactor
during an accident. Over a long period of time, borated water corrosion has created a small
round hole of 0.5 mm diameter on the bottom of the SLCT (Figure 2a). The contact angle
between borated water and the SLCT material is θ = 120°. The surface tension of borated water
at room temperature is 0.07 N/m, and its density is about 1,000 kg/m3. The initial liquid level in
the SLCT is 1 m.
Borated water Liquid level
Cover gas
Hole
Borated water
θ
0.5 mm Hole
(a) Open top (b) With cover gas

Figure 2. The SLCT.
i) Assuming that the SLCT top is open to the atmosphere, would you expect the borated
water to completely drain from the hole? (10%)
If so, explain why.
If not, calculate the level at which draining would stop.
ii) Now assume that the contact angle is 60°. Does the tank drain completely? Explain.
(5%)
iii) To prevent draining, a fellow MIT nuclear engineering student suggests sealing the
tank top and put a cover gas (Figure 2b). Would this in fact prevent draining? Does
the contact angle affect your answer? (10%)
Consider the two parallel channels shown in Figure 3. They are connected only at the inlet and
outlet plena, and both have flow area A, equivalent diameter De and length L. Channel 1 is
heated ( Q & is the total heat rate), while channel 2 is adiabatic. Channel 1 has an orifice at the
inlet (of form loss coefficient K). The boundary conditions are as follows:
- The inlet plenum temperature is To

- The total mass flow rate is m
& tot
- The outlet plenum pressure is PL
The fluid specific heat and thermal expansion coefficient are cp and β, respectively. The density
of the fluid can be calculated by means of the Boussinesq approximation with To and ρo as the
reference temperature and density, respectively.
m
& tot
Outlet
plenum
2 1
g &
Q
L
Inlet
plenum Form loss
m
& tot
Figure 3. Parallel channels connected at plena.
i) Find an expression for the mass flow rate in channel 1 in terms of the heat rate,
geometry and properties only. (15%) (Hint: assume steady-state upflow in both
channels)
ii) Find an expression for Q & at which the mass flow rate in channel 2 becomes zero.
(5%)
iii) What happens to the flow in channel 2, if the heat rate in channel 1 is increased
beyond the threshold calculated in “ii”? (5%) (Note: provide only a qualitative
answer)
Assumptions:
- Heating in channel 1 is axially uniform.
- Assume single-phase flow in the system.
- Neglect acceleration and friction terms in both channels.
- All thermophysical properties (except density) can be considered independent of
temperature.
LOCA.
To simulate boiling heat transfer on the surface of the fuel pins during a Large-Break Loss Of
Coolant Accident (LB-LOCA) in a PWR, a nuclear engineer has designed a very simple
quenching experiment, in which a small copper sphere (∼1 cm diameter) is heated up to very
high temperatures (∼1,000°C), and then dropped in a large pool of water at atmospheric pressure.
i) What are the differences between the experiment and the actual reactor situation that are
likely to have an effect on boiling heat transfer? (5%)
ii) Write the energy conservation equation describing the temperature history (T vs. t) of the
copper sphere during a quenching experiment? (5%) (Hint: neglect the temperature
gradient within the sphere, describe boiling heat transfer at the surface of the sphere by
means of a heat transfer coefficient, and assume that the water bulk is saturated)
iii) The boiling curve for the experimental conditions is shown in Figure 4. Provide a
qualitative sketch of the sphere temperature history for an initial temperature of 1,500°C.
(10%)
(W/m2)
2 1 °
Figure 4. Boiling curve for a sphere in saturated water at 1 atm.


at 7.0 MPa.


Table 1.
z
Drained liquid
Assumptions
your convenience:
σ ρl μl
μl ρv σ
ρlσ
g (ρ l − ρ v )
0.1
⎛ μ ⎞
K = 0.03 ⋅ j ⎜⎜ v ⎟⎟
0.9
v (McCoy-Hanratty)
⎝ ρvD ⎠
Parameter Value
Water
ρℓ 1,000 kg/m3
μℓ 0.001 Pa⋅s
σ 0.07 N/m
Air
ρv 1.2 kg/m3
μv 1.7×10-5 Pa⋅s
The hot channel in a PWR operates under the conditions given below.
Problem Parameters
Maximum channel heat flux 440,300 Btu/hr-ft2

Channel Mass Flux 2.62 x 106 lbm/hr-ft2
Inlet Temperature 556 F
Channel Pressure 2250 psia
Rod Height 144 inches
Heat Generated in Fuel 97.4 %
For channels having the same heat input, maximum heat flux and peak to average ratio, the position and value of the
Minimum DNB ratio is a function of the heat flux profile. Assuming the W3 correlation is valid for this channel,
determine the location and the value of the Minimum DNB ratio. Assume axial heat flux profiles of the form
a) Nominal chopped cosine
  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
b) Bottom Peaked
  ( H   - z)    ( H   - z) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
c) Top Peaked
  (z  )    (z  ) 
q( z ) = q0   sin 
  H


 H e   e 
Assuming the nominal heat flux profile, determine the change in the magnitude and position of MDNBR for a
SOLUTION
qc ( z )
DNBR 
q( z )
for the minimum.
Heat Flux

heat flux.
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz z max
H
2
q0  q ( zmax )  qmax

  440,300 Btu/hr-ft2.
.
 z
  q sin
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  dz
H e 
0
H 0 H 0
q0 H e      ( H   ) 
q  cos    cos  
 H   H e   H e 

Fz 
He      ( H   ) 
cos    cos  
H   H e   H e 
  0.301 feet.

H
2
H  z
x 
He
such that
q( x )  q0 x sin( x)
0
d
dx xmax
zmax  [0, H ]  xmax  ( ,0) for   0
 H  z  H  z
 
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  q0    sin  
 
dz

H 0 H 0  He   He 
q0      (H   )     He  (H   )  He 
q  cos    cos 
 
( H   )  sin  
 

  sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
xmax sin( xmax )

Fz 
1      (H  )     He  (H  )  He 
cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
  1.772 feet.
  q( zmax )
qmax


qmax
such that
qmax

q0 max 
q0 max  241,962 Btu/hr-ft 2
Top Peaked Profile
  1.772 feet
and
q0 max  241,962 Btu/hr-ft 2
Critical Heat Flux
 q( z) Ddz

1
h( z )  h(0) 
m  f
0
a) Nominal Profile
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
q0H e D  ( H    z )  (H    z)  (H   )  (H   )   (H    z)   (H   ) 
m f 
 He  He  He  He   He   H e  

q0H e D   ( z   )     (z  )  (z  )     
m  f   He   He  He  He  He  H e  
m  GAx
0.496 2    0.374 2 / 4
Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4   9.455  10 4 ft 2
144
m  2.62  106  9.455 104  2477.3 lbm / hr
qc, EU
  (2.022  0.0004302 P)  (01722
.  0.0000984 P )
106
 exp[(18177
.  0.004129 P ) xc ]
 [(01484
.  1596
. xc  01729
. xc xc )G/106  1037
. ] (1)
 (1157
.  0.869 xc )  [0.2664  0.8357 exp( 3151
. De )]
 [0.8258  0.000794(h f  hin )]
where:

qc,EU
qc,N  (2)
F
c, N

C
F q ( z ) exp[  C (  c, N  z )]dz (3)
q (  c , N )[1  exp(  C c ,EU )]
0
(1  xc ) 7.9
C  0.44 inches-1 (4)
 G/10 
6 1.72
where:


qc,N
DNBR 
q  ( c ,N )
are the closest.
flux.
 c ,N
 q( z)Ddz
1
hc  hin 
m f
 0

hc  h f
xc 
h fg
 c , EU
 q
1
m  f 0
1
m  f
 f m (hc  hin )
 c, EU 
qc, EU D
qc,EU
qc,N 
F

the following table

Nominal 102 2.494

Q crit  f Fq
 crit 
n DH
Q  f Fq
 
n DH
giving
 crit
   CPR

also

H
qcrit
CPR   0

q0hot

H
qhot
0
therefore
qcrit q0 Q
a (G , P )( H  H o )

H
1

Ho
0
and Ax  S 2   D 2 / 4
 crit 
n DH n DH

dZ
0
dz zmax
giving
 crit
qmax
q0crit 
Z ( zmax )

Ho
iii) G ( H o )  0
where
m c
i) G
Ac
 h( z )  h f

 h fg h( z )  h f

ii) x( z )  
 0 h( z )  h f


 q( z) Ddz

z
nrods
m c  f 0
iv) T ( z )  T (h( z ), P)
or

 q( z) Ddz
z
nrods
T (0)   T ( z )  Tsat
 mc C p  f 0

T ( z )  


location.
The hot channel in a PWR operates under the conditions given below. Compute the outer clad temperature
Rosenhow correlation in the mixed boiling region. Compare your results to those assuming the wall temperature is
determined by
from the point at which the wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, where hFC is an appropriate single
phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient (e.g. Weisman), and hNB is an appropriate nucleate boiling heat
transfer coefficient (e.g. Thom and Jens-Lottes). You may assume an axial heat flux profile of the form
  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
Problem Data

Core Flow Rate 158.6 x 106 lbm/hr
Number of Fuel Assemblies 205
Assembly Array 17 x 17
Fuel Rods per Assembly 264
Energy Deposited in Fuel 97 %
SOLUTION
Heat Flux
heat flux.
Average Channel
 f Q
q    196, 600 Btu/hr-ft 2
n2 Ro H
Hot Channel
  Fq q   471,800 Btu/hr-ft 2
qmax

q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz z max
H
2
q0  qmax
  471,800 Btu/hr-ft2
 z
  q sin
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  dz
H e 
0
H 0 H 0
q0 H e      ( H   ) 
q  cos    cos  
 H   H e   H e 

Fz 
He      ( H   ) 
cos    cos  
H   H e   H e 
  0.0813 feet.
given by
z
1
h( z )  h(0) 
m  f  q( z ) Ddz 
0

q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
Channel Mass Flux
Channel Flow Area
Do2
Ax  S 2    9.596  104 ft2
4
Core Flow Area
Acore  205  17  17  Ax  56.85 ft2
Core Averaged Mass Flux
m
G  2.79  106 lbm/hr-ft2
Acore
m channel  G  Ax  2677 lbm/hr
(Tsat  Tinlet ) (651.8  569)

Tave    610.4
2 2
giving
Cp = 1.4838
 = 0.1933
k = 0.2993
Tsat = 651.8
hf = 699.19
h fg = 418.09

q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
k
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3
De
where C  0.042( S / D)  0.024  0.042(0.501/ 0.379)  0.024 = 0.0315.
Equivalent Diameter
De  

4 Ax 4 S 2  D 2 / 4 
 0.0386 ft
D D
Reynolds Number
GDe (2.79  106 )(0.0387)

Re    558,300
 0.1933
Prandtl Number
Cp  1.4838  0.1933
Pr    0.958
k 0.2993
k 0.2993
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3 = (0.0315)(558,300)0.8 (0.958)1/3  9516 Btu/hr-ft2-F
De 0.0387
q( zsat )
hc
given by
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  

q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
2.3
q( zi )  15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( zi )  Tsat ] P
0.0234
1/ 2
    ( zi )  
2
 q ( z B )  qNB

 

q ( z B )  q FC ( z B ) 1    1  
 ( z B ) 
  qFC q( z B )  
 
qFC
 ( z B )  hc [Tw ( z B )  T ( z B )]
1/ m
 q( z B ) 
Tw ( z B )  Tsat  6
   10 
qNB
 ( zi )    10 6 [Tw ( zi )  Tsat ]m
q( zi )
Tw ( zi )  T ( zi ) 
hc
T ( z )  T (h( z ))
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m f   H e 
  H e  

 4P 
exp 
  900 
60 4
m4
 P 
Tco ( z )  Tsat  1.897q( z )0.25 exp  
 900 
Thom Correlation
 2P 
exp 
  1260 
72 2
m2
 P 
Tco ( z )  Tsat  0.072q( z )0.5 exp  
 1260 
1/ 2
    ( zi )  
2
q ( z )  qNB
 ( z ) 1   NB
q( z )  qFC 1  
  qFC
 ( z)  qNB
 ( z )  
 
qFC
 ( z )  hc [Tw ( z )  T ( z )]
qNB
 ( z )    10 6 [Tw ( z )  Tsat ]m
qNB
 ( zi )    10 6 [Tw ( zi )  Tsat ]m
q( zi )
Tw ( zi )  T ( zi ) 
hc

T ( z )  T (h( z ))
hNB ( z )    106 (Tw ( z )  Tsat ) m 1
the mixed boiling region is 659.5 1 F and occurs at approximately 7.63 feet in the channel. For the wall temperature
680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
600
Fluid Temperature
Mixed Boiling Correlation
580 Thom and Single Phase Force Convection
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)

680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
600
Fluid Temperature
580 Mixed Boiling Correlation
Jens-Lottes and Single Phase Force Convection
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)

680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
Fluid Temperature
600 Jens-Lottes
Thom
580
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Comparison of Jens-Lottes and Thom Correlations In the Mixed Boiling Region

q ′( z ) = qo′ exp( −0.693z / H )
Problem Data

Tube Length 52 ft
SOLUTION
G2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x ) 2 x2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υ (0)⎬
gc ⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭
∫φ
H
fH o G 2 f f HB G2
ΔPfriction = + 2
Ao dz
ΔPlocal =
∑ j
Kj
G2
2ρ j g c
Ψj
∫
H
g
0 gc
a) Linear Heat Rate
∫ ∫
H H
⎛ z ⎞
Q = q ′( z )dz = qo′ exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟dz
0 0 ⎝ H⎠
Q = qo′
H
{1 − exp(−0.693)}
0.693
1400 × 3.4138 × 10 6 = qo′

52
{1 − exp(−0.693)}
0.693
Btu
qo′ = 1.274 × 108
hr − ft
z′ ⎞
∫ q′ exp⎜⎝ − 0.693 H ⎟⎠dz′
z
1 ⎛
h( z ) = h(0) + o
m 0
qo′ H ⎧ ⎛ z ⎞⎫
h( z ) = h(0) + ⎨1 − exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟⎬
0.693m ⎩ ⎝ H ⎠⎭
h( H o ) = h f
qo′ H ⎧ ⎛ Ho ⎞⎫
h f = h(0) + ⎨1 − exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟⎬
0.693m ⎩ ⎝ H ⎠⎭
Ho = −
H ⎡ 0.693m h f − h(0) ⎤
ln ⎢1 −
( )
⎥
0.693 ⎣ qo′ H ⎦
Btu
h(0) ≅ h f @ 460 F = 441.5
lbm
Btu
h f = 550.1
lbm
52 ⎡ 0.693 × 8.35 × 10 6 (550.1 − 441.5) ⎤

Ho = − ln ⎢1 − ⎥ = 7.48 ft
0.693 ⎣⎢ 127.4 × 10 6 × 52 ⎦⎥
d) Exit Quality
Q
h( H ) = hin +
m
1400 × 3.4138 × 10 6 Btu
h( H ) = 441.5 + = 1013.87
8.35 × 10 6 lbm
Btu
h fg = 640.9
lbm
h( H ) − h f
x( H ) =
h fg
1013.87 − 550.1
x( H ) = = 0.7236
640.9
1
αg =
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) ρ g ⎤ ρ gV gj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ x ρf ⎥⎦ xG ⎪
⎭
1
⎧⎪ ( ρ f − ρ g ) ⎫⎪ 4
V gj = 1.41⎨σgg c ⎬
⎪⎩ ρ 2f ⎪⎭
lbm
ρ f = 45.93
ft 3
lbm
ρ g = 2.368
ft 3
lbf
σ = 0.00125
ft
1
⎧ (45.93 − 2.368) ⎫ 4 ft
V gj = 1.41⎨0.00125 × 32.17 2 ⎬ = 0.57
⎩ 45.932 ⎭ sec
m
G=
n × Ax
Ax = S 2 −
πD 2
= 12 − π
(0.625)2 = 0.6932 in 2
4 4
8.35 × 10 6 lbm
G= × 144 = 1.085 × 10 5
16,000 × 0.6932 hr − ft 2
1 1
αg = = = 0.824
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) ρ g ⎤ ρ gV gj ⎫⎪ ⎧ ⎡ (1 − 0.7236) 2.368 ⎤ 2.368 × 0.57 × 3600 ⎫
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎨1.13 × ⎢1 + + ⎬
x ρ f ⎦⎥
⎬
⎩ ⎣ 0.7236 45.93 ⎥⎦ 0.7236 × 1.085 × 10 5 ⎭
⎪⎩ ⎣⎢ xG ⎪
⎭
G2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x ) 2 x2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υ (0)⎬
gc ⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭
(1.084 × 10 5 ) 2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − 0.7236) 2 0.7236 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪ lbf

ΔPacc = ⎨ ⎢ + ⎥ − 0. 01961 ⎬ = 7.28 2
4.17 × 10 ⎪⎩⎣⎢ 0.176 × 45.9 0.824 × 2.368 ⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
8
ft
∫φ
H
fH o G 2 f f H B G2
ΔPfriction = + 2
Ao dz
−0.2
⎧ GDe ⎫
f = 0.184⎨ ⎬
⎩ μ ⎭
−0.2
⎧⎪ GDe ⎫⎪
f f = 0.184⎨ ⎬
⎪⎩ μ f ⎪⎭
4 Ax 4 A x 4 × 0.6932
De = = = = 1.412 inches = 0.12 ft
Pw πD π × 0.625
μ = 0.257
μ f = 0.23
ρ = 49.10
−0.2
⎧⎪1.084 × 10 5 × 0.12 ⎫⎪
f = 0.184⎨ ⎬ = 0.0212
⎪⎩ 0.257 ⎪⎭
−0.2
⎧⎪1.084 × 10 5 × 0.12 ⎫⎪
f f = 0.184⎨ ⎬ = 0.021
⎪⎩ 0.23 ⎪⎭
Local Pressure Loss

ΔPlocal =
∑j
Kj
G2
2ρ j g c
Ψj
ΔPlocal =
G2
2ρ f g c ∑K Ψj
j j
Ψ j = Ψ (G , x j )
zj hj xj Ψj
13 623.6 0.115 3.12
26 776.8 0.354 7.51
39 905.5 0.554 11.19
(1.084 × 10 5 ) 2
ΔPlocal = {1.5 × (3.12 + 7.51 + 11.19)} = 10.04 lbf
2 × 45.93 × 4.17 × 10 8
ftt 2
Elevation Loss
∫
H
g
0 gc
⎧ ρ A ( h) z < Ho
⎪
ρ=⎨
⎪α ( z ) ρ + α ( z ) ρ z > Ho
⎩ A f g g
numerically.
A 3820 Mwt PWR with Once Through steam generators is to be operated between a core inlet temperature of 569 F
and a core exit temperature of 626 F. The reactor coolant system consist of the reactor vessel, 2 hot legs, 2 steam
generators, four cold legs and four reactor coolant pumps. The vessel, hot leg and cold legs can be considered
commercial steel. The fuel rods and steam generator tubes can be considered smooth drawn tubing.
Problem Data

Rod Array 17 x 17
Number of Spacer Grids 8
Grid Loss Coefficient .5
Core Height 150 inches
Core Inlet Loss Coefficient 0.5
Core Outlet Loss Coefficient 0.5
Vessel ID 182 inches

Core Barrel OD 161 inches
Downcomer Length 21 ft
Downcomer Loss Coefficient 4.5
Length 100 ft
Diameter 3.17 ft
Hot Leg Equivalent L/D 75
Hot Leg Inlet Loss Coefficient 1.5
Bundle Inlet Loss Coefficient (referenced to tube velocity) 0.5

Average tube length 52.1 ft
Tube Inner Diameter 0.557 inches
Number of tubes 16016
RCP Suction Length 9 ft

RCP Suction Diameter 2.67 ft
RCP Suction Inlet Loss Coefficient 0.5
RCP Suction Equivalent L/D 20
Cold Leg Length 30
Cold Leg Diameter 2.33 ft
Cold Leg Equivalent L/D 18
a) Assuming the reactor coolant pumps are 100% efficient, determine the necessary horsepower of each
reactor coolant pump.
b) Assuming the reactor is allowed to operate at reduced power with one pump in each loop running, what
would be the maximum reactor power if the core inlet and exit temperatures were to be kept constant.
SOLUTION
The pump P is given by
Pp  Pvessel  PHL  PSG  PCL
where the vessel pressure drop includes the core and downcomer. The solution requires the total system mass flow
rate. This can be obtained from the core power level and the enthalpy change across the core
hin  h(Tin , P )  hin  571.28 Btu/lbm

hex  h(Tex , P )  hex  652.29 Btu/lbm
Q 3820  3.412  106

m core    160.9  106 lbm/hr
hex  hin 652.29  571.28
Fluid Properties
Fluid properties in the core and steam generator are taken at the core average temperature of 597.5 F. Fluid
properties in the hot leg are taken at the core exit temperature of 626 F. Fluid properties in the cold leg and
downcomer are taken at the core inlet temperature of 559 F.
Core Average Properties
 = 43.43 lbm/ft3
 = 0.2008 lbm/ft-hr
Hot Leg Properties
 HL = 40.68 lbm/ft3
 HL = 0.1842 lbm/ft-hr
Cold Leg Properties
CL = 45.57 lbm/ft3
CL = 0.2157 lbm/ft-hr
Vessel Pressure Drop
Core
 

2
fL Gcore g
Pcore    kj   H
 De  2  gc gc
 j core
 D2   0.501  2 (0.379 / 12)2 

Acore  nrods   S 2   o   (205  289)       56.85 ft
2
 4   12  4 
 D2   0.501  2 (0.379 / 12) 2 
4 S 2   o  4    
 12  4 
De  
4 
  0.039 ft
 Do  (0.379 / 12)
m core 160.9  106

Gcore    2.83  106 lbm/hr ft 2
Acore 56.85
GDe 2.83  106  0.039

Re    545, 200
 0.2008
Assuming smooth drawn tubing for the core friction factor f  0.015 . Taking the coolant properties at the core
averaged temperature of T  597.5 F gives   43.43 lbm / ft 3 . The vessel pressure drop is then
 
  0.015  150 / 12  (2.83 106 ) 2
2
fL Gcore g 150
Pcore    kj   H   0.5  8  0.5  0.5   43.43 
 De  2  gc gc  0.0.039  2  43.43  4.17 10
8
12
 j core
 2692.1 lbf / ft 2  18.69 psi
Downcomer
 
Pdc  
fL
 De


 j
kj 
Gdc2
 2 CL g c
dc
 CL
g
gc
H dc
   182   161  
2 2
Adc 
4
 DVess
2
 DCB
2
       39.29 ft
4  12   12  
2
182 161
De  DVESS  DCB    1.75 ft
12 12
m core 160.9  106

Gdc    4.10  106 lbm/hr ft 2
Adc 39.29
GDe 4.10  106  1.75

Re    3.323  107
 0.2157
Assuming commercial steel for the friction factor,   0.00015  f  0.012 .
 
Pdc  
fL
 De


 j
kj 
Gdc2
 2 CL g c
dc
 CL
g
gc
H dc
 0.012  21  (4.10  106 ) 2

  4.5   45.57  21
 1.75 dc 2  45.57  4.17 10
8
 1090.83 lbf/ft 2  7.58 psi

Vessel
g
PVESS  Pdc  Pcore   HL ( H dc  H )
gc
 1090.8  2692.1  40.68  (21  150 / 12)
 4129 lbf/ft 2  28.67 psi
  G2

 L L 
PHL   f      kj  HL
 D D  2 gc
  e eq 
j  HL
m core  DHL
2
  (3.17)2
GHL  where AHL    7.89 ft 2 , therefore
nHL  AHL 4 4
160.9  106
GHL   10.19  106 lbm/hr ft 2
2  7.89
GDe 10.19  106  3.17

Re    1.754  108
 0.1842
Assuming commercial steel for the core friction factor,   0.00015  f  0.01 . The hot leg pressure drop is then
  G2

 L L 
PHL   f     kj 
 D D 
HL
  eq 
 2 gc
 e
j  HL
  100   (10.19 106 ) 2
  0.01   75   1.5 
 3.17   2  40.68  4.17 10
8

 8004.28 lbf / ft 2  55.58 psi
  G2
PSG  
fL
 De


 j
kj 
 SG
SG
 2 gc
m core  Dtube
2
  (0.557 /12)2
GSG  where Atube    1.692 103 ft 2 , therefore
2  ntubes  Atube 4 4
160.9  106
GSG   2.968  106 lbm/hr ft 2
2  16, 016  1.692  103
GDe 2.968  106  (0.557 / 12)

Re    686, 200
 0.2008
Assuming smooth drawn tubing for the core friction factor f  0.014 . The steam generator pressure drop is then
  G2
PSG  
fL
 De


 j
kj 
 SG
SG
 2 gc
 0.014  52.1  (2.968  106 ) 2

  0.5 
 0.557 / 12  2  43.43  4.17  10
8
 3950.9 lbf / ft 2  27.44 psi
RCP Suction Segment
  G2

 L L 
PRCP   f    1 kj 
 D D 
RCP
  eq 
 2 gc
 e
j CL
m core  DRCP
2
  (2.67) 2
GRCP  where ARCP    5.60 ft 2 , therefore
nRCP  ARCP 4 4
160.9  106
GRCP   7.18 106 lbm/hr ft 2
4  5.60
GDe 7.18  106  2.67

Re    8.892  107
CL 0.2157
Assuming commercial steel for the cold leg friction factor   0.00015  f  0.011 . The cold leg pressure drop is
then
  G2

 L L 
PRCP   f      1  kj  RCP
   2 gc
  De D eq  j CL
  9   (7.184  106 ) 2
  0.011   29   1  0.5 
 2.67   2  45.57  4.17  10
8

 1700.5 lbf / ft 2  11.81 psi
Cold Leg Segment
  L L   GCL 2
PCL   f     
  D D   2 g
  e eq  
CL
c
m core  DCL
2
  (2.33)2
GCL  where ACL    4.264 ft 2 , therefore
nCL  ACL 4 4
160.9 106
GCL   9.43  106 lbm/hr ft 2
4  4.264
GDe 9.43  106  2.33

Re    10.19  107
CL 0.2157
then
  G2

 L L 
PCL   f     kj 
 D D 
CL
  eq 
 2  gc
 e
j CL
  30  (9.43  106 ) 2
  0.011   18  
 2.33   2  45.57  4.17  10
8

 799.23 lbf / ft 2  5.6 psi
The total pressure drop is then
Pp  Pvessel  PHL  PSG  PRCP  PCL  28.67  55.58  27.44  11.81  5.6  129.05 psi
The pump work is then
P 1 160.9  106 129.05 144 1

W p  m CL      2.11107 Btu/hr  8286 hp
 p 4 45.57 778 1
Assuming the loops behave symmetrically, the momentum equations can be reduced to the following equation in the
core mass flux
Pp  P1 (Gcore )  Pvessel (Gcore )
Gcore Acore  Gdc Adc  GHL AHL  nHL  GSG ASG  nSG  GCL ACL  nCL  GRCP ARCP  nCL
2
DHL
AHL  
4
 Dtube
2
ASG  ntubes  Atube  ntubes 
4
D2
ACL   CL
4
D2
ARCP   RCP
4
where
P1  PHL  PSG  PRCP  PCL are from the expressions above evaluated using the appropriate loop mass fluxes.
For a given Pp , this equation can be solved iteratively for the core mass flux. Reducing the number of cold legs
from 4 to 2 yields for the core mass flux Gc  2.386  106 lbm/hr-ft2 and a corresponding system flow rate of
m new  1.357  108 lbm/hr. For the same temperature (enthalpy) rise across the core, the power level corresponding
to the new flow rate is
m
Q new  Q new  3221 Mw.
m
A Boiling Water Reactor is to be designed such that the critical power ratio in the highest powered channel is no less
than a known MCPR. For the given information, show how you would determine the total core thermal output. You
may a assume a known Critical Boiling Length correlation of the form
a(G, P ) Lcrit
xcrit 
Lcrit  b(G, P )
and a heat flux profile of the form
q( z )  q0 Z ( z )
where Z (z ) is a known function of axial position. You may also assume the highest powered channel is the channel
with the highest heat flux.
Core Thermal Output Q

Pressure P
Core Mass Flux Gc
Core Flow Area Ac
Fuel Height Hc
Rod Diameter D
Solution
The core thermal output can be related to the maximum heat flux in core by
Q  f Fq q n DH c
 
qmax  Q  max rods
nrodsDH c  f Fq
The maximum heat flux in the core is related to the heat flux in the highest powered channel by
  qhot
qmax  Z ( z max )
where z max satisfies
dZ
0
dz zmax
and can be found for any given heat flux profile. The power produced in the hot channel is related to the critical power
by
 q Z ( z)Ddz  q
Hc
crit
q
MCPR  crit  0 crit
q

Hc
qhot
q Z ( z )Ddz
hot
hot
0
such that

qcrit
 
qhot
MCPR
 . For a critical boiling length correlation of

Since all other parameters are known, the problem reduces to finding qcrit
the form
a(G , P ) Lcrit
xcrit 
Lcrit  b(G, P )
 is related to the nonboiling height H o by the two energy balances

qcrit
 q Z ( z)Ddz
Hc
a (G, P ) Lcrit a(G , P )( H c  H o ) 1
a) xcrit    crit
Lcrit  b(G, P ) H c  H o  b(G , P ) m h fg Ho

Ho
b) m (h f  hin )   Z ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
0
D 2
where m  Gc Ax and Ax  S 2  .
4
 and H o and can be solved iteratively for these two variables.

Equations a) and b) are in the two unknowns qcrit
Dh  aLcrit 
xcrit   
where:
 1
1  1.481  10 4 (1  P / P ) 3 G G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 c
a
 1  P / Pc
 G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 (G / 1000)1 / 3
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1) 0.4 GD1.4
G = kg/m2-s
D=m
P = MPa
Lcrit = m
a) Determine the critical power ratio in the channel.

b) Determine the channel exit quality as well as the critical quality at the channel exit.
c) Determine the coolant mass flux necessary to achieve a critical power ratio of 1.2
d) For the nominal coolant mass flux, determine the minimum CHF ratio assuming the Hench-Levy limit line
correlation
Problem Data
Pressure 1000 psia

Maximum Core Heat Flux 349,998 Btu/hr-ft2
  (H   -z )    (H   -z ) 
q (z ) = q0   sin  
 H e   He 

SOLUTION
The critical power ratio for the channel is

 H  z  H  z 
H
(q0)crit    sin     Do dz
 He   He   q0 crit
CPR  0 H 
 q0 

 H   z   H  z 
(q0)    sin     Do dz
0  He   He 
which implies the problem reduces to finding the magnitude of the heat flux profile.
Heat Flux
heat flux.
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz zmax
H
2
H  z
x 
He
such that
q( x)  q0 x sin( x)

0
d
dx xmax
zmax  [0, H ]  xmax  ( ,0) for   0
 H  z  H  z
 
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  q0    sin  
 
dz

H 0 H 0  He   He 
q0      (H   )     He  (H  )  He 
q  cos    cos 
 
( H   )  sin  
 

  sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
xmax sin( xmax )

Fz 
1      (H   )     He  (H  )  He 
cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
  3.055 feet.
Hot Channel
  q( zmax )
qmax

qmax
such that

qmax
q0 max 
q0 max  1.92338 105 Btu/hr-ft 2

hin = 526.9
hf = 542.66
h fg = 649.94
Ax  S 2   D 2 / 4  0.642   (0.493) 2 / 4  0.2187 in 2  1.519 10 3 ft 2 . The channel mass flow rate is then
m  1.33  106  1.519  10 3  2020 lbm/hr .
CISE-4 Correlation

zcrit
 crit
aL 1
   ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
D
where a~  h a
De
 1
1  1.481  10 4 (1  P / P ) 3 G G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 c
a
 1  P / Pc
 G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 (G / 1000)1 / 3
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1) 0.4 GD1.4

Ho
m  f  h f  hin    ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
  0
hsub

  cos     cos     sin     sin   
and

  
crit
He  He  He  He   He   He

m  f hsub
 q0 crit 
 (H    Ho )  (H    H o )  (H   )  (H   )   (H    Ho )   ( H   ) 
 He  He  He  He   He   H e 
iteratively
Given G  1.33 106 lbm/hr-ft 2  1803.75 kg/m 2 -s
1  P / Pc 1  1000 / 3208.2
a 1/3
  0.5654 (unitless)
(G / 1000) (1803.75 / 1000)1/3
1.4
 0.493 
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1)0.4 GD1.4  0.199  (3208.2 /1000  1) 0.4 1803.75    0.3048   1.070 m  3.5109 ft
 12 
4[ S 2   D 2 / 4] 4[0.642   (0.493) 2 / 4]
De    0.5648 inches
D   0.493
0.493
a  0.5654   0.4935
0.5648
Btu
 q0 crit  251,193 and H o  0.677 ft giving a critical power ratio of
hr-ft 2
250,983
CPR=  1.305
192,338
The channel exit quality is give by
h( H )  h f
x
h fg
where
 q0  H e D      (H  )  (H  )      ( H   ) 
h( H )  hin   cos     cos     sin     sin   
m  f  H e  He  He  He   He   H e  

727.25  526.9
x( H )   0.284
649.94
a ( H  H o ) 0.4935  (12.167  0.688)

xcrit    0.378
H  Ho  b 12.167  0.688  3.511
The mass flux necessary to achieve a Critical Power Ratio of CHR = 1.2 is the solution of the two equations

a (G, P )( H  H o )
H
1
1)  CPR  q ( z ) Ddz

Ho
2) GAx  f  h f  hin   CPR  q ( z ) Ddz

0
in the two unknowns Ho and G, where q ( z ) is the heat flux profile in the hot channel. For the data given here, the
solution is
Ho = 0.621 feet
G = 1.115 x 106 lbm/hr-ft2
1. xc  ( xc )1
q c 
6
 .  3.3x c  0.7 tanh 2 (3G / 10 6 )
19 ( xc )1  xc  ( xc ) 2 Btu/hr-ft2
10 0.6  0.7 x  0.09 tanh 2 (2G / 10 6 ) xc  ( xc ) 2
 c
where
( xc )1  0.273  0.212 tanh 2 (3G / 106 )

( xc ) 2  0.5  0.269 tanh 2 (3G / 106 )  0.0346 tanh 2 ( 2G / 106 )
The correlations given here are for 1000 psia, so can be applied directly to this problem without a pressure
correction.

For the data given in the problemstatement, the critical heat flux computed from the Hench-Levy Correlation and
ft.
1.2x106

Heat Flux
Heat Flux (Btu/hr-ft )
2
800.0x103
600.0x103
400.0x103
200.0x103
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)

SOLUTION
∫
g
ΔP = − ρ dH
gc
g g g g g
c c c c c
Ldc Ho HB H ch
∫ρ g
g g g g g
c gc gc gc gc
g g
ρ dH = − ρ dc
gc gc gc gc gc
∫ρ g
g
(
g
gc
H ch
c c c
(
ΔP = − ρ H o − ρ dc ) gg (
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
c c
= H ch
gc
G2 ⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) 2 x2 ⎤ 1 ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − ⎬
⎩⎪ ⎣⎢ A f
gc
⎭
For the given data:
ρ dc ≅ ρ f @ 520 F = 47.82
ρ H o = 47
ρ H B = 38
Ho = 2
HB = 3
1
αg =
⎛1− x ⎞ ρg
1+ ⎜ ⎟ S
⎝ x ⎠ ρf
flux such that
(
c c
= H ch
(ρ dc − ρ ch )
g
gc
q ′′( z ) = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]
Problem Data
Number of Tubes n
Tube Length L
Dh a(G, P ) Lcrit
xcrit =
De Lcrit + b(G , P)
available.
Tp (z)
Superheated Region
zcrit
Boiling Region
Ho
Subcooled Region
T (0)
SOLUTION
T∞ ( L) = T∞ (h( L), Psg )
∫
L
1
m 0
considered.
U [Tp ( z ) − Tw ( z )] = hc [Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )]
or
UTp ( z ) + hcT∞ ( z )
Tw ( z ) =
U + hc
1/ 3
⎛ Cpμ ⎞
0.8
k ⎛ GDe ⎞
hc = C⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
De ⎜⎝ μ ⎟⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
Where
4[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
De =
πDo
m
G=
Ax
Ax = n[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
∫
z
1
m 0
is the solution of

U + hc
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
∫
z crit
= h = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]πDo dz
where
( ) ∫
Ho
0
UT p ( z ) + hcT∞ ( z )
Tw ( z ) =
U + hc
steam.

Problem Data

Pressure 1050 psia
Height 52 ft
SOLUTION
Frictional Loss
fg (H − H g ) G2
∫
Hg
fH o G 2 f f G2
energy balance
∫ q′( z)dz .
Ho
1
h f = hin +
m 0
q′H o
h f = hin +
m
m (h f − hin )
Ho =
q′
m
Ax
Ax = ( S 2 − π D 2 / 4) × n
GDe
Re =
μ
4[ S 2 − π D 2 / 4]
De =
πD
fH o G 2
De 2 ρ g c
∫
Hg
1
hg = hin + q ′( z )dz .
m 0
q ′H g
hg = hin +
m
m (hg − hin )
Hg =
q′
GDe
Re f =
μf
∫
Hg
ff G2
De 2 ρ f g c Ho
where
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
and
∫
q ′( z − H o )
z
1
h( z ) = h f + q ′dz = h f +
m Ho m
q′H
hexit = hin +
m
GDe
Re g =
μg
fg (H − H g ) G2
De 2ρ g gc
Acceleration Drop
1 d ⎧⎪ G 2 (1 − x) 2 G 2 x 2 ⎫⎪
∫ ∫ { } { }0H
H H
1 d 1
G2
gc
where

Operating parameters for representative BWR and PWR designs are given below. For the PWR hot channel and the
BWR average channel compute and plot:
1) the void and quality distributions
2) the phase velocity distribution
3) Determine the individual components of and the total pressure drop
Compare the results obtained using both equilibrium and non equilibrium models. You may assume the saturation
properties are constant along the length of the channel and may be evaluated at the inlet pressure. Assume the Dix
correlation for Concentration Parameter and Drift Velocity
Pressure 2250 psia

Core Inlet Temperature 552.5 F
Axial Peaking Factor 1.5
Fraction of Energy Deposited in Fuel 0.974
Number of Spacer grids 10
Spacer loss coefficient 0.5
Core Exit Loss Coefficient 1.5

  (z   ) 
q ( z ) = q0 sin  
 He 
Core Averaged Heat Flux 144,032 Btu/hr-ft2

Pressure 1000 psia
Coolant Flow Rate 77 x 106 lbm/hr
Can Dimensions 5.278 x 5.278 inches
Rod locations per Assembly 64
Upper and Lower Tie Plate Loss Coefficient 1.5
Number of grids 8
Grid Loss Coefficient 0.5
Two Phase 33 1
  (H - z  )    (H - z  ) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
Note: q0 is not the maximum heat flux for this distribution.
You may assume the two-phase friction multiplier is given by the expression
 20 1 
2o  1   2 (1  x)1.75
   
where  is the turbulent Martinelli parameter and given by
0.2
 f   1 x
1.8 
 
   
2
   g 
 g   x   f 
and that the Homogeneous Multiplier derived in class is valid for the local losses.
Two Phase 33 2
SOLUTION
Heat Flux Profiles
PWR
The heat flux profile for the PWR case is given as
  (z   ) 
q ( z ) = q0 sin  
 He 
where for this profile the maximum heat flux occurs at H / 2 and is equal to q0 . For the hot channel, then
q0  qmax
  474,500 Btu/hr - ft 2 . The extrapolation distance associated with this heat flux profile is   0.301 ft.
BWR
The heat flux profile for the BWR case is given as
  (H - z  )    (H - z  ) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 H e   He 
The average channel is defined such that
 q(z)dz
H
1
 
qave
H 0
q0       (H   )  H e    H e   ( H   ) 
 
qave  cos   ( H   ) cos   sin    sin  
H   He   He    He    He 
  144,032 may be solved directly for q0 giving

which for qave
q0  1.108  10 5 Btu/hr-ft2.
The extrapolation distance associated with this profile is   3.055 ft.

z
1
h( z )  h(0)  q ( z ) Ddz 
m  f 0
where the mass flow rate is given by m  GAx and Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4 . The mass flux is determined from
m m 77  106
G    1.266  106 lbm/hr-ft2
Acore nasssemblies  ( Scan
2
 nrods   D 2 / 4) 60.823
Two Phase 33 3
PWR

  ( H  z ) 
z
1
h( z )  h(0)  q0 sin    Ddz 
m  f 0  He 
qDH e       ( z   )  
h( z )  h(0)  0 cos    cos  
m  f   H e   H e  
Where: Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4  0.496 2    0.374 2 / 4  0.1362 in 2  9.46  10 4 ft 2

m  GAx  2.48 106  9.46 104  2344.9 lbm/hr
BWR

  ( H    z )    ( H    z ) 
z
1
h( z )  h(0)  q0   sin    Ddz 
m  f 0  He   He 
q0DH e   ( H    z )    H    z)    (H    z)   (H   )    H  )    ( H   )  
h( z )  h(0)   cos    sin   cos    sin  
m  f  He  He   He  He  He   He  
Where: Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4  0.640 2    0.4932 / 4  0.2187 in 2  15.19  10 4 ft 2

m  GAx  1.266 106 15.19  104  1922.8 lbm/hr
 DeC p
0.0022  q( zd )  Pe  70,000
 k
h f  hd  
 q( zd )
 154  Pe  70,000
 G
GDeC p
where Pe   Re  Pr is the Peclet Number and the enthalpy at the bubble departure point is given by
k

zd
1
hd  hin  q ( z ) Ddz .
m  f 0
For the equilibrium model, the bubble departure point is taken to be the nonboiling height defined by
h f  h( H o )
In either case, solution is iterative.
PWR
Taking the thermodynamic properties at the midpoint between the inlet temperature and the saturation temperature
gives
Two Phase 33 4
C p  1.4336 Btu/lbm-F
k  0.3051 Btu/hr-ft-F
The equivalent diameter is

4 Ax 4  0.1362
De    0.4637 inches  0.0386 ft
D   0.374
giving for the Peclet number
GDe C p 2.48  106  0.0386  1.4336

Pe    4.501 105
k 0.3051
The bubble departure point is then the solution of the transcendental equation
q( z d )
h f  hd  154 
G
where
q0DH e       ( zd   )  
hd  h(0)  cos    cos  
m f   H e 
  He  
and the non boiling height is the solution of
q0DH e       ( H o   )  
h f  h(0)  cos    cos  
m  f   H e   He  
For the PWR hot channel, zd  8.319 ft and H o  10.07 ft .
BWR
The subcooling is sufficiently small, that the thermodynamic properties can be approximated as those at the
saturation point for evaluation of the Peclet number. At 1000 psia, the saturation temperature is Tsat  544.58 F.
C p  1.285 Btu/lbm - F
k  0.3314 Btu/hr - ft - F
4 Ax 4  0.2187
De    0.5648 inches  0.0471 ft
D   0.493
GDe C p 1.266  106  0.04711.285

Pe    2.311 105
k 0.3314
Two Phase 33 5
q( z d )
h f  hd  154 
G
where
q0DH e   ( H    zd )    H    zd )    ( H    zd )   ( H   )   H  )    ( H   )  
hd  h(0)   cos    sin   cos    sin  
m  f  He  He   He  He  He   He  
q0DH e   ( H    H o )    H    Ho )    (H    Ho )   (H   )   H  )    ( H   )  
h f  h(0)   cos    sin   cos    sin  
m  f  He  He   He  He  He   He  
For the BWR average channel, zd  0.118 ft  zd  0 and H o  1.399 ft .

 0 z  zd

x
  x 
 xe  ( xe ) d exp e  1 z  zd
  ( xe ) d 
hd  h f
( xe ) d 
h fg
For the equilibrium model, the flow quality is given by
0 z  Ho

x
x z  Ho
 e
h( z )  h f
xe ( z ) 
h fg
PWR
The quality distributions assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are illustrated below. The channel exit
quality assuming equilibrium flows is xe ( H )  0.029 , and assuming non equilibrium flow is x( H )  0.043 .
Two Phase 33 6
PWR Quality Distributions
0.05
Equilibrium Model
Non Equilibrium Model
0.04
0.03
Quality
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
BWR
quality assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are the same and equal to x( H )  0.162 .
BWR Quality Distributions
0.16
Equilibrium model
0.14 Non equilibrium model
0.12
0.10
Quality
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Two Phase 33 7
Void Distribution
1

 g 1  x  gVgj
Co 1  
  x  Gx
which for a give channel mass flux and pressure is only a function of the quality and the liquid phase density. The
liquid phase density can be fit to a low order polynomial as a function of the liquid phase enthalpy. Assuming an
equilibrium flow model, the liquid phase density is given by
   ( h) z  Ho

  
  z  Ho
 f
For the non equilibrium model, the quality is obtained from the profile fit model and the liquid phase density is
given by
   (h ) h  h f

  
  h  h f
 f
h ( z )  x ( z ) hg
h ( z ) 
1  x( z )
PWR
The Void distributions assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are illustrated below. The channel exit
void assuming equilibrium flows is  eq ( H )  0.179 , and assuming non equilibrium flow is  ( H )  0.235 .
Two Phase 33 8
PWR Void Distributions
0.25
Equilibrium Model
0.20
Void Fraction
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
BWR
The void distributions assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are illustrated below. The channel exit void
fraction assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are the same and equal to  ( H )  0.711 .
BWR Void Distributions
0.7
Equilibrium model
Non equilibrium model
0.6
0.5
Void Fraction
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Two Phase 33 9
Velocity Distributions
The phase velocities are obtained from the definitions
Gx   g  g v g
and
G (1  x )     v
such that
Gx
vg 
 g g
and
G (1  x )
v 
  
If the quality and void fraction are both zero, the vapor velocity can be taken to be equal to the liquid velocity.
PWR
The Velocity distributions assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are illustrated below. The channel exit
liquid and vapor velocities assuming equilibrium flows are v eq ( H )  21.96 and vg eq ( H )  17.61 ft/sec and
assuming non equilibrium flow v ( H )  23.24 and vg ( H )  19.6 ft/sec.
PWR Liquid Velocity Distributions
24
Equilibrium Model
22
LiquidVelocity (ft/sec)
20
18
16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Two Phase 33 10
PWR Vapor Velocity Distributions
22
Equilibrium Model
21 Non Equilibrium Model
VaporVelocity (ft/sec)
20
19
18
17
16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
The vapor velocity displays non physical behavior when using the Dix model at the low qualities associated with
PWR operation.
BWR
liquid and vapor velocities assuming equilibrium flows and non equilibrium flows are equal and are v  ( H )  22.1
and vg ( H )  35.7 ft/sec. As in the PWR case, the vapor velocity displays non physical behavior at very low
qualities when using the Dix model. This behavior quickly disappears once void reaches moderate levels.
Two Phase 33 11
BWR Liquid Velocity Distributions
25
Equilibrium model
20
Liquid Velocity (ft/sec)
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
BWR Vapor Velocity Distributions
40
Equilibrium model
30
Vapor Velocity (ft/sec)
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Pressure Drop
Two Phase 33 12
Acceleration Losses
G 2  1  x( H ) 2 x( H ) 2 1 
Pacc ( z )   
g c    ( H )   g ( H )  g  (0) 

H
fz d G 2 f f G2
Pfriction ( z )   2o ( z)dz
De 2  g c De 2  f g c zd
where again for the equilibrium case, the bubble departure point is taken as the non boiling height H o .
For smooth tubing, the friction factor can be taken to be
f  0.184 Re 0.2
Local Losses
Plocal 
G2
2  j gc  K ( z )
z j [ 0, z ]
j j
where in the two phase multiplier is taken to be one in the single phase region. For the PWR case, the grid locations
(in inches) are
z j  [0, 16, 32, 48, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 144]
In the BWR case, the grids are placed uniformly along the length of the bundle, but not at the bundle inlet and exit
such that the grid locations (in inches) are
z j  [16.22, 32.44, 48.66, 64.88, 81.11, 97.33, 113.56, 129.78]
Elevation Losses

H
g
Pelev   ( z) dz
0 gc
Two Phase 33 13
 ( z ) z  zd

 ( z)  
 ( z )  ( z )   ( z )  zd  z
   g g
Prior to reaching equilibrium, the liquid density is a function of enthalpy and can be obtained by a simple parabolic
fit of density to enthalpy from the steam tables.
The total pressure drop is the sum of the individual drops
P  Pacc  Pfriction  Plocal  Pelev
The integrals in the pressure drop equations are evaluated numerically. The individual pressure drops are
PWR
Equilibrium
Pacc  1.02 psi

Pfriction  6.06 psi
Plocal  10.4 psi
Pelev  3.4 psi
Ptotal  20.87
Non Equilibrium

Ptotal  22.52
BWR
Equilibrium

Ptotal  18.42
Non Equilibrium
Two Phase 33 14
Ptotal  18.54
Two Phase 33 15
NE 402/502 Exam # 2 Fall 2008
The following dimensions and operating conditions are known for a Pressurized water reactor:
Thermal Output Q
Fraction of Energy Produced in Fuel γf
Core Height H
Number of Fuel Rods nrods
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
Bundle Inlet Loss Coefficient Kin
Bundle Exit Loss Coefficient K exit
Grid Loss Coefficient K grid
Number of Grids/assembly ngrids
Where the axial heat flux profile is a known function of position and of the form
q′′( z ) = q0′′Z ( z )
Upon shutdown, the fuel from this reactor is to be placed within the spent fuel storage pool where the fuel is cooled
by natural circulation.
a) Assuming the inlet temperature to the fuel assemblies can be maintained at a known To < Tsat by an external heat
removal system, give the step by step procedure you would use to determine the minimum decay time such that
no boiling occurs on the rod surfaces (i.e. Twall < Tsat ) within the highest powered channel. Give all equations.
You may assume a decay heat correlation of the form Γd (to , ts ) is available and that mass fluxes are sufficiently
high for a single-phase forced convection heat transfer correlation to be valid.
b) A potential accident involves loss of the external heat removal system, such that boiling occurs within the fuel
assemblies. Assuming the pool heats to the point where the bulk pool temperature is at the boiling point
( To = Tsat ) , show how you would determine the minimum decay time such that the MDNBR within the highest
powered channel is greater than some value DNBRcrit . Again, give all equations. You may assume a critical
′′ ( x, G, P, De ) is available.
heat flux correlation of the form qcrit
For both a) and b), you may assume fluid properties as a function of temperature and saturation properties are
available. You may also assume a state equation of the form T∞ = T∞ (hA ) is available. If an iterative solution is
required, it is sufficient to give the iteration equations and state which variable is to be solved for. Integrals which
can not be evaluated analytically or easily approximated can be left in integral form with a statement to evaluate
numerically.
Mixture Mass
∂ρ ∂GAx
Ax + =0
∂t ∂z
Mixture Energy
∂ρu ∂GhAx
Ax + = q ′( z )
∂t ∂z
Mixture Momentum
⎧ ⎫
1 ∂G 1 1 ∂ ⎧⎪ 2 ⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
+ ⎨G ⎢
⎩
+
x2
α g ρg
⎥ Ax ⎬ = −
⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
∂P ⎪ f f G 2
−⎨
⎩
φA2o + ∑
j
K jδ ( z − z j )
G2 ⎪
Ψ⎬ − ρ
2ρ f g c ⎪
⎭
g
gc
x 1
α= =
⎧⎪ ⎡ ρg ⎤ ρgVgj ⎫⎪ ⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x ) υ f ⎤ ρgVgj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢ x + (1 − x ) ⎥ + ⎬ C ⎢1 + ⎥+
⎪⎩ ⎣ ρA ⎦ G ⎪⎭ ⎨⎪ o ⎢ x υg ⎥⎦ Gx ⎪
⎬
⎩ ⎣ ⎭
( ) ⎫⎪⎬
1
⎧ ρA − ρg
4
⎪
C0 = 113 . ⎨σggc
. and Vgj = 141
⎪ ρA2 ⎪
⎩ ⎭
1
α=
(1 − x ) ⎛ υ f ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟S
x ⎜⎝ υ g ⎟⎠
Profile Fit Model
⎛ x ⎞
x = xe − ( xe ) d exp⎜⎜ e − 1⎟⎟
⎝ ( xe ) d ⎠
⎧ De C p
⎪0.0022 × q ′′(z d )× Pe < 70,000
⎪ k
h f − hAd =⎨
⎪ q ′′( z d )
⎪ 154 × Pe > 70000
⎩ G
Bergles and Rohsenow Correlation
q ′′( z n ) = 15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( z n ) − Tsat ]2.30 / P

0.0234
⎛ 20 1 ⎞
φA2o = ⎜⎜1 + + 2 ⎟⎟(1 − x)1.75
⎝ χ χ ⎠
0.2
⎛ μf ⎞ ⎛ 1− x⎞
1.8 ⎛
ρ ⎞
χ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
2
⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟
⎝ μg ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ ρf ⎠
υ fg
Ψ = 1+ x
υf
Friction Factor
f = f (Re, ε / D)

1
⎛ S ⎞
Weisman Correlation Nu = ⎜ 0.042 − 0.024 ⎟ Re 0.8 Pr 3
⎝ D ⎠
Nucleate Boiling Correlation q′′ = ξ ( P)(Tw − Tsat ) m
Chen Correlation q′′( z ) = hAo (G, x)(Tw − T∞ ) + hNB (G, x, Tw )(Tw − Tsat )
SOLUTION
a) The clad temperature is given by
q′′( z )
Tco ( z ) = T∞ ( z ) +
hc
where q′′( z ) is the heat flux profile in the hot channel, hc is the convective heat transfer coefficient and
T∞ ( z ) the fluid temperature profile in the hot channel. The fluid temperature at any location can be obtained
from the enthalpy at that location by the equation of state T∞ = T∞ (hA ) , where the liquid enthalpy is given by the
energy balance
∫ q′′( z′)πD dz′

z
1
hA ( z ) = h(0) + o
GAx 0
where again q′′( z ) is the heat flux profile in the hot channel, G is the channel mass flux and Ax is the channel
cross sectional area, given by
π
Ax = S 2 − Do2
4
The convective heat transfer coefficient is obtained from the Weisman correlation
1
⎛ S ⎞
Nu = ⎜ 0.042 − 0.024 ⎟ Re0.8 Pr 3
⎝ D ⎠
1
⎛ C pμ ⎞ 3
0.8
⎛ S ⎞⎛ GDe ⎞
= ⎜ 0.042 − 0.024 ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ D ⎠⎝ μ ⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
where De is the equivalent diameter and given by
⎛ 2 π 2⎞
⎜ S − Do ⎟
De = 4 ⎝ ⎠
4
πDo
such that given the heat flux profile and the mass flux, the clad temperature at any point can be found. The
maximum clad temperature occurs at the location zmax such that
dTco dT∞ 1 dq′′( z )

= + =0
dz z max dz z max hc dz z max
q′′( z )πDo 1 dq′′( z )

= +
GAxC p hc dz z max
z max
which can be solved for zmax . The maximum heat flux for any operating time and decay time is given by
Q γ f Fq
′′ =
qmax Γd (to , t s )
nrodsπDo H
such that the magnitude of the heat flux profile in the hot channel satisfies
′′ = q0′′Z ( z ′max )
qmax
where z ′max is the solution of

dZ
=0
dz z ′max
The magnitude of the heat flux profile is then known for any given operating and shut down time. The problem
reduces to finding the natural circulation mass flux such that for any given operating and shut down time
Tco ( z max ) < Tsat
The natural circulation mass flux is obtained by integrating the single phase momentum equation along the length
of the channel
G 2 ⎧ fH ⎫
∫ ρ (z)gdz
H
0=− ⎨ + K in + K exit + n grids × K grid ⎬ − [ P( H ) − P(0)] −
2 ρ o ⎩ De ⎭ 0
and applying Bernoulli’s Equation between the top of the channel and the bundle inlet
G2
P ( H ) + ρ 0 gH = P (0) +
2ρ0
such that
G 2 ⎧ fH ⎫
∫ ρ (z)gdz
H
⎨ + K in + K exit + ngrids × K grid + 1⎬ = ρ o gH −
2 ρ o ⎩ De ⎭ 0
where we have neglected the acceleration loss and the Bousinesq approximation has been used to evaluate the
fluid properties at the bulk fluid temperature To . For ρ ( z ) = ρ (h( z )) the density integral can be evaluated
⎛ GDe ε ⎞
numerically for any given mass flux. Since f = f ⎜⎜ , ⎟⎟ the integrated momentum equation is a single
⎝ μ D⎠
nonlinear equation in G that can be solved iteratively for any given heat flux profile. The solution procedure is
then assuming t0 = ∞ ,
1) Guess t s ⇒ q0′′
2) Solve the integrated momentum equation for G
3) Given the mass flux, the convective heat transfer coefficient can be found along with z max
4) Given z max ⇒ Tco ( z max )
5) Adjust t s up or down to find the time that satisfies Tco ( zmax ) ≅ Tsat .
b) Since the coolant enters the channel saturated, boiling begins at the channel inlet and equilibrium conditions exist
over the entire length of the channel. For any given heat flux profile and mass flux, the DNB ratio at any position
in the channel is given by
′′ ( x( z ), G, P, De )
qcrit
DNBR( z ) =
q′′( z )
where
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
and
∫ q′′(z′)πD dz′
z
1
h( z ) = h f + o
GAx 0
As in part a), the magnitude of the heat flux profile is known for any operating and decay time, such that the
problem reduces to finding the two phase natural circulation mass flux. The natural circulation mass flux is
obtained by integrating the two phase momentum equation over the channel height
⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎫⎪
x2 ⎤
∫ ∑ ∫ ρ ( z) gdz
H H
f f H G2 G2
G 2 ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υ f ⎬ = −[ P( H ) − P(0)] − φA2o ( z )dz − K jΨj −
⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭ De 2 ρ f 0 2ρ f
j
0
and applying Bernoulli’s Equation between the channel exit and the bundle inlet
G2
P ( H ) + ρ f gH = P (0) +
2ρ f
such that
⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎫⎪ f H G 2 ⎛ ⎞
x2 ⎤
∫ ∑ ∫ ρ (z)gdz
H H
G2 ⎜ ⎟
⎥ −υ f ⎬ + φA2o ( z )dz + K j Ψ j + 1⎟ = ρ f gH −
f
G 2 ⎨⎢ +
α ρ
⎪⎩⎣⎢ A f α ρ ⎥H
g g ⎦ ⎪⎭ D e 2ρ f 0 2 ρ f ⎜⎜ ⎟ 0
⎝ j ⎠
For
i) ρ ( z ) = α A ( z ) ρ f + α g ( z ) ρ g
1
ii) α g ( z ) = ; α A ( z) = 1 − α g ( z)
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x ( z )) υ f ⎤ ρ gVgj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎣⎢ x( z ) υ g ⎦⎥ Gx( z ) ⎪⎭
0.2
⎛ 20 1 ⎞ ⎛ μf ⎞ ⎛ 1 − x( z ) ⎞
1.8
⎛ ρg ⎞
iii) φA2o ( z ) = ⎜⎜1 + + 2 ⎟⎟(1 − x( z ))1.75 ; χ 2 ( z ) = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
χ ( z) χ ( z) ⎠ ⎜ μg ⎟ ⎝ x( z ) ⎠ ⎜ρf ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
υ fg
iv) Ψ j = 1 + x( z j )
υf
⎛ GDe ε ⎞
v) f f = f ⎜ , ⎟
⎜ μf D⎟
⎝ ⎠
the integrated two-phase momentum equation is a single nonlinear equation in mass flux that can be solved
iteratively for any given heat flux profile.
The solution procedure is then assuming t0 = ∞ ,
3) Given the mass flux, the DNB ratio DNBR (z ) can be computed over the channel height and the MDNBR
determined
4) Adjust t s up or down to find the time that satisfies MDNBR ≅ DNBRcrit .

A Pressurized Water Reactor has operating characteristics given below. For the hot and average channels, compute
and plot the coolant temperature, outer clad surface temperature and fuel centerline temperature as a function of
axial position. As appropriate,
a) Determine the position the clad temperature reaches the saturation temperature
b) Determine the boiling transition point
c) Determine the maximum clad surface temperature
d) Determine the maximum fuel centerline temperature
in the fuel.
  (z   ) 
q ( z )  qo sin .
 He 
For this problem you may assume the boiling transition point is that point where the wall temperature given by the
single phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient is equal to that given by the Thom Nucleate Boiling
Correlation.
Problem Data

Pellet Diameter 0.324 inches
Fuel Thermal Conductivity 2 Btu/hr-ft-F
Clad Thermal Conductivity 9.6 Btu/hr-ft-F
Heat Convection 17
SOLUTION
Average Channel
 f Q
q    196, 600 Btu/hr-ft 2
n2 Ro H
Hot Channel
q0 hot  Fq q   446,300 Btu/hr-ft 2
Channel Mass Flux
Channel Flow Area
Do2
Ax  S 2    9.596  104 ft2
4
Core Flow Area
Acore  205  17  17  Ax  56.85 ft2
m
G  2.79  106 lbm/hr-ft2
Acore
k
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3
De
C p  1.4083
  0.2004
k  0.3083
Heat Convection 17
Equivalent Diameter
 Do2
S2 
De  4  0.039 ft
 Do
Reynolds Number
GDe
Re   538,525

Prandtl Number
Cp
Pr   0.9154
k
hc = 9,379Btu/hr-ft2-F

1   (z   ) 

H  He 
0
He q0       (H  )  
 
H    He   He  
q0 1
 Fz  .

qaxial He 1       (H  )  
cos   cos 
H    He   He  
Average Channel

  (z   ) 
q ( z )  qo sin 
 He 
Heat Convection 17
q0  1.55qave
  304, 721 Btu/hr-ft 2 .
Fluid Temperature

1
h( z )  h(0)  q ( z ) Ddz 
m f

0
q0DH e       ( z   )  
h( z )  h(0)  cos    cos  
m  f   H e   H e  
q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc

  0
q ( zmax ) D 1 q ( z )

 
 p f
mC hc dz zmax
q0 D  (z  )  1   (z  ) 
0 sin   max   q0 cos   max 
 p f
For the data given here, the maximum clad temperature occurs at zmax  8.94 ft and has a value of Tco ( zmax ) 
645.9 F. The maximum clad temperature is below the saturation temperature, and therefore boiling does not
occur in the average channel.
For the average channel, the axial fluid temperature and clad temperature are illustrated below.
Heat Convection 17
660
Fluid Temperature
Temperature (F)
620
600
580
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
The fuel centerline temperature for a uniform radial volumetric heat generation rate is given by
 1 1 1 R  1 
T0 ( z )  T ( z )  q ( z ) Ro    ln  o   
 2k Ri H G kc  Ri  hc Ro 
q ( z ) R 2  2 Ro q ( z ) .
The position of maximum fuel temperature is that position zmax such that
dT0 dT q ( z )  1 1 1 R  1 

  Ro    ln  o   0
dz zmax dz zmax dz zmax  2k Ri H G kc  Ri  hc Ro 
q ( zmax ) D q ( z )  1 1 1 R  1 
  Ro    ln  o   
 p f
mC dz zmax  2k Ri H G kc  Ri  hc Ro 
Heat Convection 17
q0 D  (z  )    ( z   )   1 1 1 R  1 
0 sin   max   q0 cos   max  Ro    ln  o   
 p f
mC  He  He  He   2k Ri H G kc  Ri  hc Ro 
For the data given here, the maximum fuel centerline temperature occurs at zmax  5.96 ft and has a value of
T0 ( zmax )  2252 F. The fuel centerline temperature as a function of axial position is illustrated below.
2400
2200
2000
1800
Temperature (F)
1600
1200
1000
800
600
400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Hot Channel
The maximum heat flux in the hot channel is q0  446,300 Btu/hr-ft 2 . The relationship for the enthalpy distribution
is unchanged. The magnitude of the heat flux is changed to reflect the hot channel.
q0DH e       ( z   )  
h( z )  h(0)  cos    cos  
m  f   H e   H e  
The fluid temperature is given by
T (h( z )) h( z )  h f

T ( z )  
 T h( z )  h f
 sat
Heat Convection 17
Transition to Nucleate Boiling
The transition point from single phase forced convection to nucleate boiling, is taken as that point zb, such that
q ( zb ) 72
T ( zb )   Tsat  3 q ( zb )1/ 2 e  P /1260
hc 10
The axial position at which the clad temperature reaches the saturation temperature is that point zsat , such that
q( z sat )
Tco ( zsat )  Tsat  T ( zsat ) 
hc
For the given data, the point at which the clad temperature reaches the saturation temperature is zsat  5.03 feet.
The transition to nucleate boiling occurs at an axial position of zb 5.64 feet.
The outer clad surface temperature in the presence of boiling is then given by
 q ( z )
 T ( z )  z  zb
hc

Tco ( z )  
 60 1/ 4  P / 900
Tsat  3/ 2 q ( z ) e z  zb
 10
For the hot channel, the axial fluid temperature and clad temperature distributions are given below.
680
660 Fluid Temperature

Clad Temperature
640
Temperature (F)
620
600
580
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Heat Convection 17
Given the outer clad surface temperature, the fuel centerline temperature is given by
 1 1 1  R  
T0 ( z )  Tco ( z )  q ( z ) Ro    ln  o  
 2k Ri H G kc  Ri  
The fuel centerline termperature as a function of axial position is given below.
3500
3000
2500
Temperature (F)
2000
Centerline Temperature
1500
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
The maximum clad temperature is 659.96 F and occurs at the boiling transition point. Since the boiling transition
point occurs prior to the position of maximum heat flux, the maximum fuel centerline temperature occurs
at zmax  5.96 ft and is 3028 F.
Heat Convection 17
BOILING HEAT TRANSFER AND TWO-PHASE FLOW
When a heated surface exceeds the saturation temperature of the surrounding coolant, boiling on the surface
becomes possible. This is true whether the bulk fluid temperature is at or below the local saturation temperature. If
the bulk fluid temperature is below the saturation temperature, boiling is referred to as "local" or "subcooled"
boiling. If the bulk fluid temperature is equal to the saturation temperature, then "bulk" boiling is said to occur.
Bubbles formed on the heated surface depart the surface and are transported by the bulk fluid, such that a condition
of two-phase flow is said to exist. Depending on the degree of subcooling and the length of the heated channel, the
bubbles may or may not condense and collapse prior to exiting the channel. In subcooled boiling this process results
in further heating of the fluid toward the saturation temperature. In saturated or bulk boiling, bubbles can be
transported along the entire length of the heated channel without collapsing.
Fundamental Concepts
In a discussion of two-phase flow, several fundamental quantities need defining:
Phase Velocity
v k = velocity of phase k, where k may represent the liquid ( k   ) or vapor ( k  g ) phase
Volume Fraction
The volume fraction of phase k in a two-phase mixture is
Vk
k  (1)
V
where Vk is the volume occupied by phase k, and V is the total two-phase volume. If the volume in question
consists of the cross sectional area of a flow channel times a length segment z , the volume fraction can be
considered an area fraction
Ak
k  (2)
Ax
where Ax is the total cross section flow area. The vapor volume fraction  g is often referred to as the void fraction
(  ) even though the vapor volume is filled with a low density gas and no true void exist.
Note:     g  1
Volumetric Flux (Superficial Velocity)
The volumetric flux of phase k is defined to be the volumetric flow rate of phase k divided by the total flow area, i.e.
vk Ak
jk    k vk (3)
Ax
Slip Ratio
The slip ratio is defined as the ratio of the vapor and liquid phase velocities.
vg
S (4)
v
143
If the liquid and vapor velocities are equal, then the slip ratio is one and the flow is said to be Homogeneous.
Quality
Three qualities are of particular interest in our analysis of two-phase systems, these include:
Equilibrium Quality ( xe )
h  hf
xe  (5)
h fg
The equilibrium quality corresponds to the flow fraction of vapor only if thermodynamic equilibrium exists
between the phases. Since the equilibrium quality is defined in terms of the fluid enthalpy, it can have
values greater than one and less than zero. Under these conditions the equilibrium quality can be thought
of as a measure of the degree of subcooling or superheat of the fluid, but can not be used to determine the
fluid state.
Flow Quality (x)
The flow quality is the true flow fraction of the vapor phase and is always between zero and one, regardless
of the fluid's state. We define the flow quality as
m g m g
x  (6)
m mg  m 
 
The mass flow rate of the liquid phase is
m    v  A    v Ax (7)
Similarly for the vapor phase,
m g   g v g Ag   g  g v g Ax (8)
such that
m g v  g
x  (9)
m g  m  v  g  v  
Note: The equilibrium quality has physical meaning only when between zero and one, even though
values can be calculated outside of this range. The flow quality represents the true flow fraction of
the vapor phase and can only have values between zero and one. Under saturation conditions, the
equilibrium and flow quality are equivalent.
Static Quality ( xs )
The static quality is the mass fraction of the vapor phase, and like the flow quality is always between zero
and one. We define the static quality as
144
Mg Mg
xs   (10)
M M g  M
The mass of the liquid phase is
M    V     V (11)
Similarly for the vapor phase,
M g   gV g   g  gV (12)
such that
Mg  g
xs   (13)
M g  M  g   
Note: The static quality and the flow quality are equivalent under Homogeneous Flow conditions.
Void-Quality Relationships
Mass flux is defined as the mass flow rate divided by the cross sectional flow area of the channel. In a two-phase
system, the total system mass flow rate is the sum of the liquid and vapor mass flow rates such that
m g  m 
G  v  g  v   (14)
Ax
From the definition of flow quality,
Gx   g  g vg   g vg (15)
and
G (1  x)     v  (1   ) v (16)
Dividing these two equations and rearranging gives for the slip ratio
x 1   
S (17)
1  x  g
or solving for void fraction
1
 (18)
1  x g
1 S
x 
Equation 18 is often referred to as the Fundamental Void-Quality-Slip relation.
In general, the quality and void fraction increase continuously along the channel, which implies the slip ratio also
varies continuously along the channel.
145
The distribution of vapor in a boiling system affects both the heat transfer and the flow properties of the fluid. A
number of flow patterns or “flow regimes” have been observed experimentally by viewing flow of liquid-vapor
mixtures through transparent tubes. While the number and characteristics of specific flow regimes are somewhat
subjective, four principal flow regimes are almost universally accepted. These patterns are illustrated in Figure 1 and
include Bubbly Flow (a & b), Slug Flow (c), Churn or Churn-Turbulent Flow (d), and Annular Flow (e).
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Bubbly Bubbly Slug Churn Annular
Figure 1: Typical Flow Regimes
(From Thermohydraulics of Two-Phase Systems for Industrial Design and Nuclear Engineering, by J. M. Delhaye,
M. Giot and M. L. Riethmuller)
These flow regimes may be generally characterized as
Bubbly Flow: Individual dispersed bubbles transported in a continuous liquid phase.
Slug Flow: Large bullet shaped bubbles separated by liquid plugs.
Churn Flow: The vapor flows in a somewhat chaotic manner through the liquid, with the vapor generally
concentrated in the center of the channel, and the liquid displaced toward the channel walls.
Annular Flow: The vapor forms a continuous core, with a liquid film flowing along the channel walls.
To predict the existence of a particular flow regime, or the transition from one flow regime to another, requires that
the visually observed flow patterns be quantified in terms of measurable (or computed) quantities. This is normally
accomplished through the use of flow regime maps. Two typical flow regime maps are given below. The Hewitt
and Roberts map is valid for both air-water and steam-water systems. The Govier and Aziz map was obtained for
air-water flows in 1 inch diameter tubes.
146
Figure 2: Hewitt and Roberts Flow Regime Map (from Delhaye, Giot and Riethmuller)
Figure 3: Govier and Aziz Flow Regime Map for Air-Water (from Lahey and Moody)
147
Flow Boiling Regimes
A number of different heat transfer mechanisms are possible when a fluid is heated in a boiling channel. These
different heat transfer mechanisms are often represented by use of a boiling curve. A boiling curve for low quality,
high heat flux systems is illustrated below.
c*
c'
c
d e
ln q"
a b
G1 < G2 < G3
G3
G2
G1
ln (Twall - Tsat)
Figure 4: Flow Boiling Curve for Low Quality, High Heat Flux Systems
In Figure 4, the heat transfer rate is plotted as a function of the wall superheat (the difference between the wall
temperature and the fluid saturation temperature). The curve is divided into 5 regions (a – e), each of which
corresponds to a different heat transfer mechanism. These different heat transfer regions are discussed briefly
below.
Region a: The minimum criteria for boiling, is that the temperature of the heated surface exceed the local
saturation temperature, i.e. some degree of wall superheat is required for boiling to occur. In
region a, wall superheat is insufficient to support bubble formation and growth. Heat transfer is
by single-phase forced convection and is a strong function of fluid velocity (mass flux) and
temperature.
Region b: Bubbles begin forming at nucleation sites on the heated surface. These nucleation sites are
generally associated with pits or crevices on the heated surfaces in which non dissolved gases or
vapor can accumulate allowing bubble formation. As the bubbles grow and depart the surface
they carry latent heat, as well as generate increased turbulence and mixing which increases the
heat transfer rate. Boiling under these conditions is referred to as nucleate boiling. In region b,
heat transfer is a complicated mixture of single-phase forced convection and nucleate boiling.
As a result, this region is often called the mixed boiling or partial nucleate boiling region. In
general, as the wall temperature increases, the fraction of the wall surface subject to nucleate
boiling increases, until bubble formation occupies the entire heated surface.
Region c: In region c, bubble density increases rapidly with increasing wall superheat. Heat transfer is
dominated by local conditions in the vicinity of the wall generated by bubble growth and
departure. These bubbles transport large amounts of latent heat from the surface at the fluid
saturation temperature and greatly increase fluid turbulence and mixing in the vicinity of the
wall. As a result, heat transfer becomes independent of bulk fluid conditions such as flow
velocity and temperature. Heat transfer is said to be by fully developed nucleate boiling and is
148
characterized by substantial increases in heat transfer rate for moderate increases in wall
temperature.
The bubble density at the wall however can not be increased indefinitely. At point c*, the
bubble density becomes sufficiently high to impede liquid flow back to the surface. Bubbles
tend to coalesce, forming insulating vapor patches that reduce the heat transfer rate. Point c* is
called the point of Critical Heat Flux (CHF), and the critical heat flux mechanism is Departure
from Nucleate Boiling or DNB.
Region d: Further increases in wall superheat result in increasingly greater portions of the heated surface
covered by insulating vapor patches. The reduction in effective heat transfer area more than
compensates for the increase in wall temperature to reduce the overall heat transfer rate. This
region is referred to as the partial film or transition film boiling region.
Region e: A continuous vapor film completely blankets the heated surface. Heat transfer is by conduction
and convection through the superheated vapor layer with evaporation at the liquid/vapor
interface. Wall temperatures can become sufficiently high, such that radiative heat transfer
becomes important. This region is called the stable film boiling regime.
Steady state operation beyond the point of critical heat flux is only possible for wall temperature controlled
systems, where the heat input to the surface can be adjusted to maintain a given wall temperature. In
reactor systems, it is power and therefore heat flux which is controlled. In a heat flux controlled system, an
increase in the heat flux beyond the critical point results in Departure from Nucleate Boiling with an
associated increase in the wall temperature. This increase in the wall temperature causes more of the
heated surface to be blanketed by vapor, further increasing the wall temperature. The wall temperature
would then follow a transient path, “jumping” from c* to c  where steady state operation at the new heat
flux would be possible, assuming the highly elevated wall temperatures were within the material limits of
the system. In reactors, these elevated wall temperatures can easily lead to fuel failure. Departure from
Nucleate Boiling is the dominant critical heat flux mechanism in Pressurized Water Reactors.
In low heat flux, high quality systems typical of Boiling Water Reactor operation, thermal-hydraulic
conditions within the core allow for the transition to annular flow. Vapor velocities and interfacial
turbulence are sufficiently high to suppress nucleation in the thin liquid film adjacent to the heated surface.
Heat is transferred by conduction and convection through the liquid film with evaporation at the
liquid/vapor interface. This heat transfer mechanism is referred to as forced convection vaporization and is
characterized by extremely high heat transfer coefficients. In fact, heat transfer coefficients can be so high,
that increased heat transfer rates can be achieved with decreasing wall temperatures. The boiling curve
under these conditions is illustrated in Figure 5.
149
d
d*
d'
ln q"
f
e
c
a b
G1 < G2 < G3
G3
G2
G1
ln (Twall - Tsat)
Regions a - c are identical to those in Figure 4, with Region d the forced convection vaporization region.
At point d*, the liquid film becomes so thin that dry patches can appear on the heated surface lowering the
heat transfer rate. The critical heat flux under these conditions is not due to DNB but results from the
complete evaporation or dryout of the liquid film flowing along the heated surface. The critical heat flux
mechanism is then said to be dryout dominated. Further increases in wall temperature beyond the point of
critical heat flux results in dryout of increasingly greater portions of the heated surface and a corresponding
reduction in the heat transfer rate, eventually leading to complete evaporation of the liquid film. As in the
DNB dominated system, steady state operation beyond the point of critical heat flux is only possible in wall
temperature controlled systems.
Heat transfer in region f is due primarily to single-phase forced convection to a super heated vapor,
combined with evaporation of entrained liquid droplets. Radiation can also become important at high wall
temperatures. Temperature excursions following dryout are typically less severe than those following DNB,
as some single-phase forced convection cooling is available from the vapor core. In reactor systems
however, wall temperatures can still reach levels such that fuel failure is likely. Figure 6 illustrates the heat
transfer and flow regimes which might be expected in a dryout controlled channel. The point at which
critical heat flux is reached, regardless of the mechanism, has also been referred to as the boiling crisis.
150
Figure 6: Heat Transfer and Flow Regimes in a Boiling Channel (from Convective Boiling and Condensation, by J.
G. Collier)
151
Heat Transfer in Boiling Channels
As illustrated in Figure 6, a number of different heat transfer regimes can occur simultaneously within a boiling
channel. This is further illustrated in Figure 7 below.
Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling
z = zB
Mixed Boiling
z = zn
Single Phase Forced Convection
z=0
Figure 7: Boiling Regimes in a Heated Channel
The position z n is called the Incipient Boiling Point or the Nucleation Point and is the position where the wall
superheat is sufficient to support bubble growth. The position z B denotes the onset of fully developed nucleate
boiling. Prior to boiling z  [0, z n ] , heat transfer is by single phase forced convection. The heat flux is linear with
wall temperature and given by Newton’s Law of cooling
q( z )  hc (Tco ( z )  T ( z )) (19)
where the convective heat transfer coefficient hc is generally correlated in the form
Nu  C Re 0.8 Pr m . (20)
Correlations of this type include the Dittus-Boelter Correlation for flow in conduits and annuli, and the Weisman
correlation for flow parallel to rod bundles.
At the onset of boiling, the heat flux becomes nonlinear with respect to wall temperature. In the fully developed
nucleate boiling regime ( z  z B ), heat flux is usually correlated in the form
152
q ( z )
  Tco ( z )  Tsat 
m
6
(21)
10
where:
q ( z )  Btu / hr - ft 2
TF
or solving for the clad surface temperature

1
1  q  ( z ) 
m
Tco ( z )  Tsat    m   (22)

 106 
Two popular correlations of this type valid for both local and bulk boiling conditions in water are the Jens-Lottes
correlation
exp( 4 P 900)

604
m4
and the Thom correlation

exp(2 P 1260)

72 2
m2
where P is pressure in psia. Assuming the Jens-Lottes correlation, the outer clad temperature is
Tco ( z )  Tsat  1.897q ( z ) 4 exp(  P 900)

1
(23)
A number of models exist for computing the wall temperature in the mixed boiling region ( z  [z n , z B ] ). One such
model for subcooled boiling is that by Bergles and Rohsenow
1/ 2
    ( z n )  
2
 q NB ( z )  qNB
q( z )  qFC
 ( z) 1   1   (24)
  qFC ( z)  qNB
 ( z )  
 
where:
qFC
 (z )  hc [Tco ( z )  T ( z )] is the heat flux associated with single phase forced convection
qNB
 (z )    10 6 [Tco ( z )  Tsat ]m is the heat flux associated with fully developed nucleate boiling
The Incipient Boiling Point is generally correlated in terms of a critical wall superheat. A commonly used
correlation of this type is
0.0234
q( z n )  15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( z n )  Tsat ]2.30 / P (25)
where q( z n ) is the local heat flux at the Incipient Boiling Point (Btu/hr-ft2) and P is pressure (psia).
In order to apply Equations 19, 22 and 24 to an arbitrarily heated channel where both single-phase forced convection
and nucleate boiling may occur, the transition points from single-phase forced convection to mixed boiling and from
mixed boiling to fully developed nucleate boiling must be determined. These transition points are usually taken to
153
insure the wall temperature is continuous at the transition point. The following procedure can be used to determine
the transition points and compute wall temperature in a boiling channel.
In the single phase forced convection region, the wall temperature at any point is given by
q  ( z)
Tco ( z )  T ( z)  (26)
hc
where hc is the single-phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient and T ( z) is the local fluid temperature. In
a single channel with no mixing, the local fluid temperature can be obtained from the simple energy balance
 q(z)Ddz
z
1
T ( z )  T (0)  (27)
m C p 0
At the Incipient Boiling Point, we require the wall temperature in Equation 25 to satisfy Equation 26. The Incipient
Boiling Point is then the solution of
2.30 / P 0.0234
1.156  q( z n ) 
q( z n )  15.6 P T ( z n )   Tsat  (28)
 hc 
where
 q(z)Ddz
zn
1
T ( z n )  T (0)  (29)
m C p 0
such that for a given mass flow rate, inlet conditions and heat flux profile, the only unknown in Equation 28 is z n .
In general, Equation 28 is transcendental and must be solved iteratively. Once z n is known,
qNB
 ( z n )    10 6 [Tco ( z n )  Tsat ]m (30)
where
q( z n )
Tco ( z n )  T ( z n )  (31)
hc
such that qNB

 ( z n ) is a constant. The wall temperature at any location in the mixed boiling region is the solution of
Equation 24,
1/ 2
    ( z n )  
2
 q NB ( z )  qNB
q( z )  qFC
 ( z) 1   1  
  qFC ( z)  qNB
 ( z )  
 
where the only unknown at any location is Tco (z ) .
154
At the transition point between mixed and fully developed nucleate boiling, the wall temperature satisfies
q ( z B )    10 6 [Tco ( z B )  Tsat ]m  q NB

 (zB )
such that at the transition point, Equation 24 reduces to
1/ 2
    ( z n )  
2
 q ( z B )  qNB
 
q ( z B )  q FC ( z B ) 1   1   (32)
  qFC
 (zB )  q( z B )  
 
where
qFC
 ( z B )  hc [Tco ( z B )  T ( z B )] (33)
1
1  q ( z ) 
m
Tco ( z B )  Tsat    m  B
 (34)
 10  6
and
 q(z)Ddz
zB
1
T ( z B )  T (0)  (35)
m C p 0
For a given heat flux profile and channel operating conditions, Equations 32, 33, 34 and 35 can be reduced to a
single nonlinear equation in the boiling transition point z B .
No adequate criteria has been established to determine the transition from nucleate boiling to forced convection
vaporization. However, a single correlation that is valid for both nucleate boiling and forced convection
vaporization has been developed by Chen for saturated boiling conditions and extended to include subcooled boiling
by others. According to the Chen correlation, the heat flux can be related to the wall (or clad) temperature by
q  ( z)  hlo [Tw ( z )  T ( z)]  h2 [Tw ( z )  Tsat ] (36)
where hlo is a “liquid only” convective heat transfer coefficient and h2 is a nucleate boiling heat transfer
coefficient. The “liquid only” convective heat transfer coefficient is similar to the Dittus-Boelter correlation where
the Reynolds number is computed based on the liquid mass flux
 Cp  
0.8 0.4
 G (1  x ) De   k 
hlo  0.023     F (37)
    k   De 
The Reynolds number factor F is an experimentally determined correction factor and is defined to be the ratio of the
true two-phase Reynolds number to the single-phase, liquid only Reynolds number, i.e.
G1  x De
0.8
 Re 2 
F  : Re lo 
 Re lo  
The Reynolds number factor is illustrated in Figure 8 below and can be expressed analytically in terms of the
turbulent Martinelli Parameter  tt as
155

1.0 1
 0.10
  tt

F (38)
 0.736
2.35 1  0.213 1
 0.10
   tt   tt
where
0.9  0.5 0.1

1  x     g 
   f    (39)
 tt  1  x   g   f 
The nucleate boiling coefficient has the form
 k 0f .79 C pf
0.45 0.49 0.25 
 f gc  h fg J 
0.75
h2  0.00122  0.5 0.29 0.24 0.24 

   f h fg g  Tsat v fg 
 Tw  Tsat  0.99 S (40)
and is in terms of an experimentally determined nucleate boiling suppression factor S. The suppression factor is a
measure of the true super heat in the liquid film and is defined as
0.99
 Tave 
S  . (41)
 Tw  Tsat 
The suppression factor is illustrated in Figure 9 and can be expressed analytically as
 Re 2 
S  0.9622  0.5822  tan 1  4 
(42)
 6.18  10 
156
Figure 8: Reynolds Number Factor Figure 9: Suppression Factor
157
Example:
The hot channel in a PWR operates over a significant fraction of its length under nucleate boiling. Assuming that
boiling occurs at the position of maximum heat flux, determine the clad temperature and the boiling heat transfer
coefficient at this point.
Problem Data
Clad Temperature
Assuming the Jens-Lottes correlation for the boiling heat transfer coefficient, the clad temperature at any point
along the boiling length is
Tco ( z )  Tsat  1.897q ( z ) 4 exp(  P 900 ) .
1
If we denote the maximum heat flux by q0 , then the clad temperature at this point is given by
1
Tco  Tsat  1. 897 q0 4 exp(  P 900)
At a system pressure of 2250 psia, the fluid saturation temperature is 652.67 F. The maximum heat flux in the
channel is obtained from
q 0  q max
  Fq q   ( 2. 5)(189 , 800)  474 , 500 Btu Hr - ft 2
Tco  652. 67  1. 897 ( 474 , 500) 4 exp(  2250 900)
1
 656.8 F
Boiling Heat Transfer Coefficient
Writing the heat flux in terms of Newton's Law of Cooling,
q  ( z )
q  ( z )  hc ( Tco ( z )  Tsat )  hc 
Tco ( z )  Tsat
At the position of maximum heat flux, the boiling heat transfer coefficient is then
474,500
hc   114,891 Btu Hr - ft 2 - F
656.8  652.67
Note the magnitude of the boiling heat transfer coefficient relative to a convective heat transfer coefficient.
158
Boiling crisis occurs when the surface heat flux is increased beyond the critical point on the boiling curve. In
Light Water Reactors the dominant critical heat flux mechanisms are departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) in the
subcooled or low quality regions, or dryout in high quality regions. The behavior of boiling crisis is dependent on
local fluid conditions. In the subcooled or low quality regions, critical heat flux occurs at a relatively high heat flux
and may be associated with the cloud of bubbles at the rod surface inhibiting the liquid return. Under these
conditions, the temperature excursion at the heated surface can be severe. In the high quality regions, critical heat
flux occurs at lower heat fluxes. The flow pattern is usually annular and the heated surface covered by a liquid film.
When the evaporation rate is high enough, a dry patch can occur in the liquid layer. Since the vapor velocity is high,
post critical heat flux heat transfer is better than in the low quality cases and the temperature excursion at the heated
surface less severe.
Though attempts have been made to develop mechanistic or phenomenological models for predicting critical heat
flux, these have generally met with only limited success. As a result, reactor design is traditionally accomplished
through the use of empirical, dimensional correlations that have undergone extensive experimental testing. As the
mechanisms governing critical heat flux are significantly different, the correlations and models used to predict
critical heat flux are significantly different also. The specific correlation employed by an individual reactor vendor
is generally proprietary, however representative critical heat flux correlations are available in the open literature.
Subcooled Flow Boiling
One of the most well known design correlations for predicting departure from nucleate boiling is the W-3
correlation developed at the Westinghouse Atomic Power Division by Tong. The W-3 correlation is a function of
inlet subcooling, pressure and coolant mass flux as indicated in Equation 1.
qc′′, EU
= { (2.022 − 0.0004302 P) + (01722
. − 0.0000984 P )
106
× exp[(18177
. − 0.004129 P ) xc ]}
× [(01484
. − 1596
. xc + 01729
. xc xc )G/106 + 1037
. ] (1)
× (1157
. − 0.869 xc ) × [0.2664 + 0.8357 exp( −3151
. De )]
× [0.8258 + 0.000794(h f − hin )]
where:
qc′′,EU = Critical heat flux in a uniformly heat channel (Btu/hr-ft2)

G = Mass Flux ( 1 × 106 to 5 × 106 lbm/hr-ft2)
fluxes, Tong introduced the following correction factor
qc′′,EU
qc′′,N = (2)
F
159
∫
lc, N
C
F= q ′′( z ) exp[ − C ( l c, N − z )]dz (3)
q ′′( l c , N )[1 − exp( − Cl c ,EU )]
0
(1 − xc ) 7.9
C = 0.44 inches-1 (4)
(G/10 )
6 1.72
where:
qc′′,N = Critical heat flux in the non-uniformly heated channel (Btu/hr-ft2)

l c ,N = Axial location at which DNB occurs in the non-uniformly heated channel (inches)
l c ,EU = Axial location at which DNB occurs in a uniformly heated channel (inches)
We are generally interested in assuring the operating heat flux at any location in the core does not reach the critical
heat flux at that location. One measure of the margin to critical heat flux is the DNB Ratio (DNBR), defined to be
the critical heat flux at a specific location divided by the operating heat flux at that location, or
qc′′,N
DNBR ≡
q ′′ (l c ,N )
As with other critical heat flux correlations, the W-3 correlation gives the heat flux necessary to produce DNB for a
given set of local conditions. For example, at the channel inlet where the coolant subcooling is the highest, we
would expect the heat flux necessary to cause DNB at this location to be extremely high. On the other hand, at the
channel exit where the fluid enthalpy is its highest, the heat flux necessary to cause DNB should be at its lowest.
This is illustrated in the figure below.
q"
c,N
Heat Flux
q"(z)
Figure 7: Local and Critical Heat Flux Versus Axial Position
are the closest. If the critical heat flux correlation were “perfect”, then any location with a DNB ratio less than or
equal to one would indicate departure from nucleate boiling at this point. In reality, all empirical correlations
involving experimental data include some uncertainty due to experimental error in the critical heat flux
measurement, as well as error in the empirical fit. These uncertainty bands or error bounds establish a minimum
160
acceptable value for the DNB Ratio, which may be significantly greater than one as indicated in Figure 7. The
MDNBR for the W-3 correlation is set at 1.3.
1) Select a location l c ,N starting in the vicinity of the core midplane at which you wish to compute the critical heat
flux.
2) Compute the local enthalpy and quality at this location. This is typically performed with computer models that
can account for mixing between subchannels, grid spacers, etc. For the sake of illustration we assume a single
channel model such that the enthalpy at l c ,N is
∫
l c,N
1
hc = hin + q ′′( z )πDdz
m&
0

hc − h f
xc =
h fg
3) Compute qc′′,EU from the W-3 correlation for a uniformly heated channel. Note, qc′′,EU is the heat flux in a
4) Compute the length ( l c ,EU ) that must be heated at qc′′,EU to give the same local conditions.
∫
l c , EU
1
hc = hin + qc′′, EU πDdz
m&
0
1
hc = hin + q ′′ πDl c ,EU
m& c , EU
m& (hc − hin )

l c ,EU =
qc′′, EU πD
qc′′,EU
qc′′,N =
F
Again, the computed value of qc′′, N is the heat flux in a non uniformly heated channel required to produce DNB
for the given local fluid conditions.
6) Increase l c ,N and repeat.
This procedure is repeated over the entire channel length, and the minimum DNB ratio computed.
Note, in order to prevent clad failure, the Minimum DNB Ratio must not only be satisfied during normal operation,
but also during transient (or accident) conditions. The W-3 correlation was used to calculate the change in the
161
Minimum DNB Ratio a result of changing pressure, mass flux and inlet subcooling for a channel having a sinusoidal
heat flux and nominal conditions given in Table 1 below. These results are given in Figures 8-10. Note, changing
the channel pressure while maintaining constant inlet enthalpy also has the effect of changing inlet subcooling.
Maximum Channel Heat Flux 429,100 Btu/hr-ft2

Active Fuel Length 150 inches
Inlet Enthalpy 557.2 Btu/lbm
Table 1: Nominal Channel Conditions for Computing MDNBR
3
MDNBR
1
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
P re s s u re (p s ia )
Figure 8: Minimum DNB Ratio as a Function of Pressure
3
MDNBR
1
1 .6 x 1 0 6 1 .8 x 1 0 6 2 .0 x 1 0 6 2 .2 x 1 0 6 2 .4 x 1 0 6 2 .6 x 1 0 6 2 .8 x 1 0 6 3 .0 x 1 0 6 3 .2 x 1 0 6
M a s s F lu x (lb m /h r -ft 2 )
Figure 9: Minimum DNB Ratio as a Function of Mass Flux
162
4
MDNBR
2
1
80 100 120 140 160 180
h f -h in le t (B tu /lb m )
Figure 10: Minimum DNB Ratio as a Function of Inlet Subcooling
Saturated Flow Boiling (Dryout)
The simplest approach to correlating dryout data, is to develop a conservative lower envelope or limit line to the
critical heat flux data, such that virtually no data points fall below this line. One correlation of this type developed
for multi-rod boiling data is the Hench-Levy correlation. The Hench-Levy lines have the form
⎧1. xc ≤ ( xc )1
q c′′ ⎪
6
= ⎨19
. − 3.3x c − 0.7 tanh 2 (3G / 10 6 ) ( xc )1 ≤ xc ≤ ( xc ) 2 Btu/hr-ft2
10 ⎪0.6 − 0.7 x − 0.09 tanh 2 (2G / 10 6 ) xc ≥ ( xc ) 2
⎩ c
where
( xc )1 = 0.273 − 0.212 tanh 2 (3G / 106 )

( xc ) 2 = 0.5 − 0.269 tanh 2 (3G / 106 ) + 0.0346 tanh 2 ( 2G / 106 )
and are illustrated in Figure 11 below. The range of validity for the Hench-Levy lines are G ∈[0.2 × 106 ,16
. × 106 ]
lbm/hr-ft2, De ∈[0.324,0.485] inches and P ∈[600,1450] psia. The correlations given here are for 1000 psia. At
pressures other than 1000 psia, the correction factor
1.25
qc′′( P ) ⎛ P − 600 ⎞
= 11
. − 01
.⎜ ⎟
qc′′(1000) ⎝ 400 ⎠
can be employed.
The minimum critical heat flux ratio for the Hench-Levy correlation is 1.9.
While the limit line approach is easy to apply and assures safe operation under saturated boiling conditions,
correlations of this type tend not to follow the data trends, and generally do a poor job of predicting the location at
which dryout would occur. As a result, more advanced correlations have been developed to predict dryout, many
having a similar form to the F-Factor approach used to describe DNB.
163
Figure 11: Hench-Levy Limit Lines
164


Steam
Riser g
L
Downcomer
Q&
Heater
Assumptions:
- Steady state
⎛ρ ⎞
⎜ρ ⎟
⎝ g ⎠
Parameter Value
Tsat 234°C (507 K)
ρf 822 kg/m3
ρg 15 kg/m3
hf 1,008 kJ/kg
hg 2,803 kJ/kg
Cp,f 4.7 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 3.6 kJ/(kg°C)
μf 1.1×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 1.7×10-5 Pa⋅s
kf 0.638 W/(m°C)
kg 0.047 W/(m°C)
σ 0.030 N/m
q″
D
G
z
Parameter Value
Tsat 180°C (453 K)
ρf 887 kg/m3
ρg 5.1 kg/m3
hf 763 kJ/kg
hg 2,778 kJ/kg
Cp,f 4.4 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 2.6 kJ/(kg°C)
μf 1.5×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 1.4×10-5 Pa⋅s
kf 0.677 W/(m°C)
kg 0.034 W/(m°C)
σ 0.042 N/m
R* 462 J/kg⋅K
∂h q"Ph
∂z A
G(t)
Go
(10%)
Nsub
Nsub=Npch - 4
Stable Unstable
0 6 12 Npch




m& 2
2 ρ f A2
in the riser is:
ρ riser = αρ g + (1− α ) ρ f (2)
1
α= (3)
ρ 1− x
1+ g ⋅
ρf x
separator is:
⎛ ρf ⎞
φlo2 = 1+ x⎜⎜ −1⎟
⎟
(4)
⎝ ρg ⎠
heater:
Q& = xh fg m& ⇒ x = Q& /(h fg m& ) (5)
(ρ f − ρg ) ⎡ ⎛ ρf ⎞⎤ m& 2
&
gL = ⎢1+ Q /(mh fg )
& ⎜ ⎟
−1 ⎥ K (6)
1− Q& /(m& h fg ) ρ g ⎜ρ ⎟ 2 ρ A2
1+ & ⎢
⎣ ⎝ g ⎠⎦⎥ f
Q /(m& h fg ) ρ f
ρ
ρg
2 ρ g A2 ( ρ f − ρ g )gL
m& = (7)
have a maximum.
Q& /(m& h fg )


q"Ph t / τ
h(z,t) = hin + ze (8)
AGo
xe
(z,t) ≡ = + zet / τ (9)
h fg h fg h fg AGo
q"Ph
Tb (z,t) = Tin + zet / τ (10)
C p, f AGo
⎡ C (T − T ) AGo ⎤
⎣ q"Ph L ⎦
8R*Tsat2 σ
k f h fg P
a
Ph fg q"
q"= H (Tw − Tb ) (13)
G(t)
Go
channel:
⎡ ⎤
⎢ T −T ⎥
tONB = τ ln ⎢ w,ONB in ⎥ ≈11.7 s (14)
⎢ q"Ph L + q" ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎧ q"D
⎪0.0022 k Pe < 7 ×10 4
⎪ f
(Tsat − Tb )OSV =⎨ (15)
⎪ q" Pe ≥ 7 ×10 4
⎪ 154
GC
⎩ p , f
channel:

t OSV = τ ln ⎢ ⎥ ≈23.3 s (16)
⎣ q"P h L ⎦
′ decreases with
MDNBR
0 tONB tDNB t (s)

Tw = Tb + q"/ H (17)
Temperature
Tw
Tw,ONB
Tsat
Tb

number, Nsub:
N sub = ⋅ (18)
ρg h fg
N pch = ⋅ (19)
ρg GAh fg
⎛ G ⎞
tcr = τ ln⎜⎜ o ⎟⎟ ≈26.5 s (20)
⎝ Gunst ⎠
Nsub
(3,34) t
•
(38,34)
Nsub=Npch - 4
0 6 12 Npch

K
ΔTsat ,cr = (21)
rmin
⎧ rc
⎪ sin θ θ > 90o
⎪
rmin =⎨ (22)
⎪ r θ ≤ 90 o
⎪ c
⎩

i) Note that since the vinegar velocity is zero (i.e., the vinegar is stagnant), the air
bubble rise velocity coincides with the bubble-liquid relative velocity, vb. For air
bubbles of 1-mm equivalent diameter in vinegar we have M∼3×10-11, Eö∼0.1 and,
thus, from the Re-Eö-M diagram, Re∼102. Therefore, from the definition of Re, we
get a bubble rise velocity vb∼0.1 m/s.
ii) The volume of vinegar in the tank is Vvin=1.5 m3. The tank cross sectional area is
Atank=π/4⋅D2∼1.13 m2, where D=1.2 m is the tank diameter. Therefore, the vinegar
level prior to air injection is Lo=Vvin/Atank∼1.33 m. Upon air injection the level rises
to accommodate the air volume. The total volume of the air-vinegar mixture is
Vtot=Vair+Vvin. Since Vair=αVtot, one gets Vtot=Vvin/(1-α), and thus the new level, L,
is:
L=Vtot/Atank=Vvin/[(1-α)Atank] (1)
where α is the void fraction. According to the drift flux model, the void fraction can
be calculated as:
jv
α= (2)
Co j + Vvj
where Co=1 and Vvj=vb=0.1 m/s, as per the hint in the problem statement. jv and
j=jv+jℓ are the air and total superficial velocities, respectively. However, in our case
it is j=jv because the vinegar is stagnant and thus its superficial velocity (jℓ) is zero.
The air superficial velocity can be calculated as jv=xG/ρv. Now, x=1 because the
vinegar does not flow; G= m& air /Atank∼0.018 kg/m2s, thus jv∼0.015 m/s. Equation (2)
gives α∼0.13, and finally Eq. (1) gives L∼1.53 m. So the level increase due to air
injection is about 20 cm.
iii) If the injector holes were larger, the size of the bubbles would be higher, thus their
velocity would be higher, which would result in a lower void fraction, and finally a
lower level in the tank. The design with smaller holes is better, because the smaller
bubbles have higher surface-to-volume ratio and longer residence time in the vinegar,
thus delivering oxygen at a higher rate, which increases the rate of fermentation.

i) The maximum stable diameter of the droplets that are entrained at the tip of the blades
can be readily estimated from the critical Weber number.
We cr σ
Dd,max= ∼14.4 μm (3)
ρ g Vg2
where Wecr=22 and Vg=100 m/s is the steam velocity.
ii) The desired separation efficiency is 75% (i.e., reduce the amount of droplets by a
factor 4). Since the efficiency of wire separators increases with the operating steam
velocity, the minimum number of screens will be attained by using the maximum
allowable velocity, Vg=10 m/s. The separation efficiency of a single wire, ηw, is:
η w = 1 − exp( −0.2 ⋅ Stk ) ∼0.933 (4)
ρ f Dd2 Vg
where Stk = ∼13.5 is the Stokes number, Dd=14.4 μm and D=1 mm.
9μ g D
The efficiency of multi-screen wire separators, ηmN, is:
⎡ 8 (1 − ε )η w ⎤
η mN = 1 − exp ⎢ − ⋅ NL ⎥ (5)
⎣ 3 πD ⎦
2
3π ⎛D⎞
where L=5 mm and ε = 1 − ⎜ ⎟ ∼0.906. Solving Eq. (5) for the number of screens
4 ⎝L⎠
N, one finds:
3 πD
N =− ⋅ ln(1 − η mN ) ∼3.7 (6)
8 (1 − ε )η w L
where ηmN was set equal to 0.75. Thus, the minimum number to obtain at least 75%
separation efficiency is 4.
iii) Wire separators are simple and reasonably efficient. However, they are delicate and
susceptible to failure by erosion/corrosion, because the wire is thin and the surface-to-
volume ratio is very high. Chevrons are more expensive, but also more rugged and
generally have higher separation efficiencies, as they can operate at higher velocity
thanks to the scoops, which increase the breakthrough velocity. Since in a large power
plant the capital cost of the moisture separator is usually a small fraction of the total cost,
chevrons should be preferred as they are more reliable and efficient.
in annular flow
i) Droplet entrainment reduces the slip ratio (because more liquid is moving at a speed
1
close to the speed of the vapor) and thus increases the void fraction ( α = ).
ρv 1− x
1+ ⋅S⋅
ρl x
dα
Therefore, the sign of is positive. Note that the flow quality (x) and the mass flux
dz
(G) are constant along this channel.
ii) Physically, the momentum increase due to the acceleration of the liquid is higher than
the momentum decrease due to the de-acceleration of the vapor. Therefore, there is a net
⎛ dP ⎞
acceleration of the mixture ⎜ ⎟ >0.
⎝ dz ⎠ acc
Mathematically,
⎛ dP ⎞ d ⎡G2 ⎤ 2 d ⎡ 1 ⎤ 2 d ⎡ x
2
(1 − x) 2 ⎤
⎜ ⎟ = ⎢ +⎥=G ⎢ ⎥ = G ⎢ + ⎥ (7)
⎝ dz ⎠ acc dz ⎣ ρ m ⎦ dz ⎣ ρ m+ ⎦ dz ⎣αρ v (1 − α ) ρ l ⎦
Since we know from ‘i’ that the void fraction is increasing, the two-phase density, ρ m+ ,
ought to be decreasing. More rigorously,
d ⎡ 1 ⎤ d ⎡ x2 (1 − x) 2 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ + ⎥ (8)
dz ⎣ ρ m+ ⎦ dz ⎣αρ v (1 − α ) ρ l ⎦
x2
At high α (typical of annular flow) the first term of the derivative ( ) is more
αρ v
(1 − x) 2
sensitive than the second term ( ) to a change of α (again note that x is constant
(1 − α ) ρ l
here). Therefore, the derivative is dominated by the second term, suggesting that
⎛ dP ⎞
⎜ ⎟ >0 if α increases, as is the case here.
⎝ dz ⎠ acc
NE 402/502 Exam # 2 Fall 2010
1) A Once Through Steam Generator has design characteristics listed below. For the given data, show how you
would determine the secondary side pressure drop. Give all equations. Where possible, all solutions should be in
closed form. If a solution requires iteration, it is sufficient to give the iteration equation and state the solution is
iterative. If a solution must be performed numerically it is sufficient to state which parts require numerical
solution. You may assume an equilibrium model is valid, though a reasonable amount of subcooling exists at the
channel inlet. Thermodynamic properties can be evaluated at the system pressure and the fluid is two-phase at
the exit of the steam generator. You should state (or show) how you would obtain any necessary fluid properties.
The linear heat rate may be taken to be of the form
q ′( z ) = qo′ exp( −0.693z / H )
and you may assume two phase friction multipliers of the form φ A2o (G, x) and Ψ (G, x) are available for the
friction and forms losses respectively.
Problem Data

Tube Length 52 ft
2) A natural circulation boiling water reactor operates at a pressure of 1000 psia. The average densities in the non
3) On the secondary side of a Once Through Steam Generator, feedwater enters the bottom of the steam generator

Give all equations. You may assume an equilibrium model, a uniform linear heat rate and a two phase friction
multiplier of the form φ A2o (G , x) is available in the two phase region.
Problem Data

Pressure 1050 psia
Height 52 ft
Tube Pitch (square lattice) 0.875 inches
Mixture Mass
∂ρ ∂GAx
Ax + =0
∂t ∂z
Mixture Energy
∂ρu ∂GhAx
Ax + = q ′( z )
∂t ∂z
Mixture Momentum
⎧ ⎫
1 ∂G 1 1 ∂ ⎧⎪ 2 ⎡ (1 − x) 2 x 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
+ ⎨G ⎢
⎩
+
α g ρ g
⎥ Ax ⎬ = −
⎥
⎦ ⎪
⎭
∂P ⎪ f f G 2
∂
−⎨
z ⎪ De 2 ρ f g c
⎩
φA2o + ∑
j
K jδ ( z − z j )
G2 ⎪
Ψ⎬ − ρ
2ρ f g c ⎪
⎭
g
gc
x 1
α= =
⎪⎧ ⎡ ρg ⎤ ρgVgj ⎪⎫ ⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x ) υ f ⎤ ρgVgj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢ x + (1 − x ) ⎥ + ⎬ ⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎣ ρA ⎦ G ⎪⎭ x υg ⎥⎦
⎩⎪ ⎢⎣
Gx ⎪
⎭
( ) ⎫⎪⎬
1
⎧ ρA − ρg
4
⎪
C0 = 113 . ⎨σggc
. and Vgj = 141
⎪ ρA2 ⎪
⎩ ⎭
Friction Factor Correlation
f = f (Re, ε / D)
1
α=
(1 − x ) ⎛ υ f ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟S
x ⎜⎝ υ g ⎟⎠

1
⎛ S ⎞
⎝ D ⎠
NE 402/502 Exam # 2 Fall 2008
Thermal Output Q
Core Height H
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
q′′( z ) = q0′′Z ( z )
numerically.
Mixture Mass
∂ρ ∂GAx
Ax + =0
∂t ∂z
Mixture Energy
∂ρu ∂GhAx
Ax + = q ′( z )
∂t ∂z
Mixture Momentum
⎧ ⎫
1 ∂G 1 1 ∂ ⎧⎪ 2 ⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
+ ⎨G ⎢
⎩
+
x2
α g ρg
⎥ Ax ⎬ = −
⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
∂P ⎪ f f G 2
−⎨
⎩
φA2o + ∑
j
K jδ ( z − z j )
G2 ⎪
Ψ⎬ − ρ
2ρ f g c ⎪
⎭
g
gc
x 1
α= =
⎨Co ⎢ x + (1 − x ) ⎥ + ⎬ C ⎢1 + ⎥+
⎪⎩ ⎣ ρA ⎦ G ⎪⎭ ⎨⎪ o ⎢ x υg ⎥⎦ Gx ⎪
⎬
⎩ ⎣ ⎭
( ) ⎫⎪⎬
1
⎧ ρA − ρg
4
⎪
C0 = 113 . ⎨σggc
. and Vgj = 141
⎪ ρA2 ⎪
⎩ ⎭
1
α=
(1 − x ) ⎛ υ f ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟S
x ⎜⎝ υ g ⎟⎠
Profile Fit Model
⎛ x ⎞
x = xe − ( xe ) d exp⎜⎜ e − 1⎟⎟
⎝ ( xe ) d ⎠
⎧ De C p
⎪0.0022 × q ′′(z d )× Pe < 70,000
⎪ k
h f − hAd =⎨
⎪ q ′′( z d )
⎪ 154 × Pe > 70000
⎩ G
q ′′( z n ) = 15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( z n ) − Tsat ]2.30 / P

0.0234
⎛ 20 1 ⎞
φA2o = ⎜⎜1 + + 2 ⎟⎟(1 − x)1.75
⎝ χ χ ⎠
0.2
⎛ μf ⎞ ⎛ 1− x⎞
1.8 ⎛
ρ ⎞
χ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
2
⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟
⎝ μg ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ ρf ⎠
υ fg
Ψ = 1+ x
υf
Friction Factor
f = f (Re, ε / D)

1
⎛ S ⎞
⎝ D ⎠
NE 402/502 Midterm Exam Fall 2014
40%  ( z ) and mass flux GHOT . A channel on the

1) The highest powered channel in a BWR has a heat flux profile qHOT
core periphery has a lower heat flux q ( z ) , but as a result of orificing of the inlet flow a lower mass flux G also.
Assuming either of these channels could be the limiting channel, give a step by step procedure, including all
equations, for determining the maximum nominal full power the reactor can operate. Integrals which do not
have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. For solutions involving iteration, it is sufficient to state
which equation(s) are to be solved iteratively and the variable(s) to be iterated on. In addition to the above, you
may assume the following information is known. You may also assume any necessary fluid and/or
thermodynamic properties are available.
Problem Parameters
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
System Pressure P
Minimum CPR at Nominal Full Power MCPR
Fraction of core thermal power from hot channel FH
Fraction of core thermal power from periphery channel FP
40% 2) Two thermal limits imposed on PWRs during normal operation are the maximum fuel centerline temperature
remains below a given value Tmax, and the minimum DNB ratio remains below a given value MDNBR. For the
given information give a step by step procedure, including all equations, for determining the minimum core mass
flux which satisfies these limits. For the purposes of this problem, you can assume the coolant enters the core
highly subcooled, and at the minimum mass flux the equilibrium quality from the highest powered channel is
slightly positive. Integrals which do not have closed form solutions can be left in integral form. For solutions
involving iteration, it is sufficient to state which equation(s) are to be solved iteratively and the variable(s) to be
iterated on. You may assume the following information is known. You may also assume any necessary fluid
and/or thermodynamic properties/relations are available. You may also assume the fuel centerline temperature is
 ( z )] .
a known function of the outer clad surface temperature T0 ( z )  T0 [Tco ( z ), qhot
Problem Parameters
Channel Heat Flux  ( z )

qhot
Pressure P
Fuel Height Hc
Rod Diameter Do
20% 3) Flow in reactor systems is commonly determined by measuring the pressure drop across a calibrated venturi as
illustrated below
d d2
1
P
Derive an expression for the flow rate through the venturi in terms of the measured pressure drop and the diameters
d1 and d2. You may assume friction and local losses can be characterized by a single constant loss coefficient K
referenced to the velocity at d1.
Note: For any parameter required in your solutions, if it is not specifically given in the problem statement, you
should show how to obtain it in terms of the given parameters. In the correlations given below, you can assume the
functional relationships for all “known functions” are available.
Mass
 GAx
Ax  0
t z
Energy
u GhAx
Ax   q( z )
t z
Momentum
 
1 G 1 1   G 2 
 
g c t g c Ax z  
Ax   

P  f G 2

z  De 2 g c


 j
K j ( z  z j )
G2 
 
2 g c 

g
gc
sin   Pp
Dittus-Boelter Correlation Nu  0.023 Re0.8 Pr 0.4
1
Weisman Correlation Nu  C ( S / D) Re0.8 Pr 3
Nucleate Boiling Correlation q  

( P)  (Tw  Tsat ) m
Known Function
Chen Correlation q   ho (G, x, P) (Tw  T )  hNB (G, x, P, Tw ) (Tw  Tsat )

 
Known Function Known Function
1/ 2
    ( z n )  
2
 q NB ( z )  qNB
Bergles and Rohsenow  
q ( z )  q FC ( z ) 1   1  
  qFC ( z)  qNB
 ( z )  
 
0.0234
q ( z n )  15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( z n )  Tsat ]2.30 / P
DNB Correlation   qcrit

qcrit  ( xe , G , P, De , hin )
 
Known Function
a(G, P) Lcrit
Critical Boiling Length xcrit  a(G, P) and b(G, P) are known functions
Lcrit  b(G, P)
NE 502 Project Fall 2016
The Chen correlation is often used to calculate the heat transfer coefficient in BWR channels. One potential concern
with the Chen correlation is the relatively large uncertainty bands associated with the F and S factors used to modify
the “liquid only” and “nucleate boiling” components of the heat transfer coefficient. The uncertainty in these factors
ultimately leads to uncertainty in the heat transfer coefficient and correspondingly, uncertainty in the clad
temperature and fuel centerline temperature. One way to assess the impact of the uncertainty, is to assume the data
used to fit the F and S factors is distributed according to some probability distribution, sample these parameters,
compute the heat transfer coefficient, clad temperature and fuel centerline temperature and use these computed
values to determine their mean and standard deviation. In the absence of better information, a uniform distribution
can be assumed for the data spread. For the given data, determine the most probable values for the peak clad
temperature and peak fuel temperature. Compare to the values computed using the best fit lines.
Pressure 1040 psia

Clad Thermal Conductivity 9.6 Btu/-hr-ft-F
  (H   -z )    (H   -z ) 
q (z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
conditions
L dm m2
A dt 2ρ l A 2
dm
dt
mss:
2ρ l A 2 ΔPpump
m ss = ≈ 9,960 kg/s (2)
(K core + K sg )
2ρ l A ⋅ L dm
⋅ = m ss2 − m 2 (3)
(K core + K sg ) dt
1 − e−t / τ
m( t ) = m ss (4)
1 + e −t / τ
ρl A ⋅ L ρl
τ= =L ≈ 0.6 s (5)
τ 50 = τ ⋅ ln(3) ≈ 0.66 s (6)
is:
2σ
Pl − Patm = (8)
r
dH
r= ≈ 0.29 mm (9)
2 sin θ
2σ
L max = ≈ 49 cm (10)
ρl g ⋅ r
opposes draining.
2σ
r

&1+m
m & 2 =m
& tot (12)
where m & 1 and m

equations are:
& =m
Q & 1c p (T1L − To ) (channel 1) (13)
0=m
& 2 c p (T2 L − To ) (channel 2) (14)
m12 ⎡ β ⎤
2ρ o A 2
⎣ 2 ⎦
unknowns m & 1, m
1/3
& ρ 2 gL ⎤
⎡ βA 2 Q
&1 = ⎢
m o
⎥ (17)
⎢⎣ c p K ⎥⎦
& 2 = 0, m
& 3tot
c p Km
&
Qo = (18)
βA 2ρ o2gL

LOCA.
dT
ρC P V = −q ′′S = − h (T − Tsat )S (19)
dt
Equation 19:
d 2T dq ′′ ⎛ dT ⎞
ρC P V 2
=S ⋅⎜− ⎟ (20)
dt dT ⎝ dt ⎠
⎛ dT ⎞
⎝ dt ⎠
boiling.
T-Tsat (°C)
Film boiling
1500 Transition
boiling
400 Nucleate
boiling Free
20
convection
1
t

a(G, P ) Lcrit
xcrit 
Lcrit  b(G, P )
q( z )  q0 Z ( z )

Pressure P
Core Mass Flux Gc
Core Flow Area Ac
Fuel Height Hc
Rod Diameter D
Solution
 
  qhot
dZ
0
dz zmax
by
 q Z ( z)Ddz  q
Hc
crit
q
q

Hc
qhot
hot
hot
0
such that

qcrit
 
qhot
MCPR

the form
a(G , P ) Lcrit
xcrit 
Lcrit  b(G, P )

qcrit
 q Z ( z)Ddz
Hc

Ho
b) m (h f  hin )   Z ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
0
D 2
4

NE 402/502 Project Fall 2016
The Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) uses 10 internal recirculation pumps to provide flow to the reactor
core. A simple diagram of such a reactor is given below.
Steam
Feedwater
Chimney
Rx Core
Liquid
For the given parameters, determine the necessary Pump Pp to satisfy the most limiting of two constraints: a) a
Critical Power Ratio greater than or equal to 1.2, and b) Q melt / Q greater than or equal to 1.2, where Q melt is the core
thermal output corresponding to a maximum fuel centerline temperature of Tmelt = 4980 F. You may assume the
saturation properties are constant and may be evaluated at the system pressure. It is sufficient to consider only non-
homogeneous, equilibrium conditions and that subcooling is small in the single phase region of the core. You may
assume the CISE-4 critical boiling length correlation is valid for this reactor. You should assume a two phase
multiplier of the form
 20 1 
2o  1    (1  x)
1.8
  2 
0.2
 f   1 x
1.8 
 
   
2
   g 
 g   x   f 
You may assume the homogeneous multiplier is valid for local losses.

Pressure 1040 psia
Fuel Height (canned) 176 inches
Outer Rod Diameter 0.4039 inches
Inner Rod Diameter 0.3441 inches
Fuel Pellet Diameter 0.3386 inches
Rod Pitch (square lattice) 0.5098 inches
Number of Assemblies 872
Water Rods per Assembly 8
Core inlet loss coefficient (includes acceleration) 1.5
Core exit loss coefficient 1.0
Downcomer loss coefficient 2
Vessel Diameter 280 inches

Core Barrel/Chimney Diameter 184 inches
Chimney Height 12 ft
  (H - z  )    (H - z  ) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
NE 402/502 Exam # 2 Fall 2008
Thermal Output Q
Core Height H
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
q′′( z ) = q0′′Z ( z )
numerically.
Mixture Mass
∂ρ ∂GAx
Ax + =0
∂t ∂z
Mixture Energy
∂ρu ∂GhAx
Ax + = q ′( z )
∂t ∂z
Mixture Momentum
⎧ ⎫
1 ∂G 1 1 ∂ ⎧⎪ 2 ⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
+ ⎨G ⎢
⎩
+
x2
α g ρg
⎥ Ax ⎬ = −
⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
∂P ⎪ f f G 2
−⎨
⎩
φA2o + ∑
j
K jδ ( z − z j )
G2 ⎪
Ψ⎬ − ρ
2ρ f g c ⎪
⎭
g
gc
x 1
α= =
⎨Co ⎢ x + (1 − x ) ⎥ + ⎬ C ⎢1 + ⎥+
⎪⎩ ⎣ ρA ⎦ G ⎪⎭ ⎨⎪ o ⎢ x υg ⎥⎦ Gx ⎪
⎬
⎩ ⎣ ⎭
( ) ⎫⎪⎬
1
⎧ ρA − ρg
4
⎪
C0 = 113 . ⎨σggc
. and Vgj = 141
⎪ ρA2 ⎪
⎩ ⎭
1
α=
(1 − x ) ⎛ υ f ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟S
x ⎜⎝ υ g ⎟⎠
Profile Fit Model
⎛ x ⎞
x = xe − ( xe ) d exp⎜⎜ e − 1⎟⎟
⎝ ( xe ) d ⎠
⎧ De C p
⎪0.0022 × q ′′(z d )× Pe < 70,000
⎪ k
h f − hAd =⎨
⎪ q ′′( z d )
⎪ 154 × Pe > 70000
⎩ G
q ′′( z n ) = 15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( z n ) − Tsat ]2.30 / P

0.0234
⎛ 20 1 ⎞
φA2o = ⎜⎜1 + + 2 ⎟⎟(1 − x)1.75
⎝ χ χ ⎠
0.2
⎛ μf ⎞ ⎛ 1− x⎞
1.8 ⎛
ρ ⎞
χ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
2
⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟
⎝ μg ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ ρf ⎠
υ fg
Ψ = 1+ x
υf
Friction Factor
f = f (Re, ε / D)

1
⎛ S ⎞
⎝ D ⎠
SOLUTION
q′′( z )
Tco ( z ) = T∞ ( z ) +
hc
energy balance
∫ q′′( z′)πD dz′

z
1
hA ( z ) = h(0) + o
GAx 0
π
Ax = S 2 − Do2
4
1
⎛ S ⎞
Nu = ⎜ 0.042 − 0.024 ⎟ Re0.8 Pr 3
⎝ D ⎠
1
⎛ C pμ ⎞ 3
0.8
⎛ S ⎞⎛ GDe ⎞
= ⎜ 0.042 − 0.024 ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ D ⎠⎝ μ ⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
⎛ 2 π 2⎞
⎜ S − Do ⎟
De = 4 ⎝ ⎠
4
πDo

= + =0
q′′( z )πDo 1 dq′′( z )

= +
GAxC p hc dz z max
z max
Q γ f Fq
′′ =
nrodsπDo H
′′ = q0′′Z ( z ′max )
qmax

dZ
=0
dz z ′max
of the channel
G 2 ⎧ fH ⎫
∫ ρ (z)gdz
H
2 ρ o ⎩ De ⎭ 0
G2
P ( H ) + ρ 0 gH = P (0) +
2ρ0
such that
G 2 ⎧ fH ⎫
∫ ρ (z)gdz
H
2 ρ o ⎩ De ⎭ 0
⎛ GDe ε ⎞
⎝ μ D⎠
′′ ( x( z ), G, P, De )
qcrit
DNBR( z ) =
q′′( z )
where
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
and
z
1
h( z ) = h f + o
GAx 0
⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎫⎪
x2 ⎤
∫ ∑ ∫ ρ ( z) gdz
H H
f f H G2 G2
⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭ De 2 ρ f 0 2ρ f
j
0
G2
P ( H ) + ρ f gH = P (0) +
2ρ f
such that
⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎫⎪ f H G 2 ⎛ ⎞
x2 ⎤
∫ ∑ ∫ ρ (z)gdz
H H
G2 ⎜ ⎟
f
G 2 ⎨⎢ +
α ρ
⎪⎩⎣⎢ A f α ρ ⎥H
g g ⎦ ⎪⎭ D e 2ρ f 0 2 ρ f ⎜⎜ ⎟ 0
⎝ j ⎠
For
i) ρ ( z ) = α A ( z ) ρ f + α g ( z ) ρ g
1
ii) α g ( z ) = ; α A ( z) = 1 − α g ( z)
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x ( z )) υ f ⎤ ρ gVgj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎣⎢ x( z ) υ g ⎦⎥ Gx( z ) ⎪⎭
0.2
⎛ 20 1 ⎞ ⎛ μf ⎞ ⎛ 1 − x( z ) ⎞
1.8
⎛ ρg ⎞
iii) φA2o ( z ) = ⎜⎜1 + + 2 ⎟⎟(1 − x( z ))1.75 ; χ 2 ( z ) = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
χ ( z) χ ( z) ⎠ ⎜ μg ⎟ ⎝ x( z ) ⎠ ⎜ρf ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
υ fg
iv) Ψ j = 1 + x( z j )
υf
⎛ GDe ε ⎞
v) f f = f ⎜ , ⎟
⎜ μf D⎟
⎝ ⎠
determined

Two-Phase Friction
Experimental data indicates that the frictional pressure drop in a boiling channel is substantially higher than that for
a single-phase channel with the same length and mass flow rate. Explanations for this include an apparent increased
surface roughness due to bubble formation on the heated surface and increased flow velocities. The standard
approach to correlating two-phase frictional losses is to assume the total system mass flow rate is due to a saturated
liquid and then multiply by an empirical correction factor Φ 2lo called the two-phase multiplier. The local frictional
loss would then be
∂P f f G2
− = Φ2 (1)
∂z friction De 2 ρ f gc lo
A simple functional form for Φ 2lo can be derived by assuming homogeneous flow. For a constant mass flux,
velocity increases in a boiling channel as density decreases. If we assume the increase in the frictional loss is due
solely to the increase in velocity, then
∂P ff G2
− = (2)
∂z friction De 2 ρ2φ gc
or
∂P ff G2 ⎛ ρf ⎞
− = ⎜ ⎟
∂z De 2 ρ f gc ⎜ρ ⎟ (3)
friction ⎝ 2φ ⎠
such that the two phase multiplier is
ρf
Φ 2lo = (4)
ρ2φ
The two-phase density is defined as
ρ2φ = α l ρ f + α g ρ g (5)
where we have assumed the phases are at equilibrium. The volume fraction under the assumption of homogeneous
flow can be obtained from the Fundamental Void-Quality-Slip Relation
1
αg = (6)
1 − x ρg
1+
x ρf
(1 − x ) ρ g
x ρf
and αl = 1 − α g = (7)
(1 − x ) ρ g
1+
x ρf
The two-phase density is then
227
(1 − x )
ρg ρg ρg / x
ρ2φ = + x = (8)
(1 − x ) ρ g (1 − x ) ρ g (1 − x ) ρ g
1+ 1+ 1+
x ρf x ρf x ρf
ρg
ρ2φ = (9)
ρg
x + (1 − x )
ρf
1 x (1 − x )
= + (10)
ρ2φ ρg ρf
Note, that Equation 10 implies
υ = xυ g + (1 − x )υ f (11)
which is a familiar result. Substituting Equation 10 into Equation 4, gives
ρf ⎛ ρf ⎞
Φ 2lo = 1 − x + x = 1 + x ⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ (12)
ρg ⎝ ρg ⎠
giving for the Homogeneous Multiplier
υ fg
Φ 2lo = 1 + x (13)
υf
This simple model suggests that the two-phase multiplier varies with quality and therefore position along the
channel. As an example, at 1000 psia υ fg υ f = 19.6, which would imply Φ 2lo increases rapidly with flow quality.
Typical flow qualities in steam generators and BWR cores are on the order of 10 to 20 %. The corresponding two-
phase frictional loss would then be 2 - 4 times that in an equivalent single-phase system.
In practice, the two-phase multiplier is given empirically as a function of pressure, flow and quality with a number
of correlations available in the literature. An alternate approach by Martinelli and Nelson correlates an average
value of the two-phase multiplier over the boiling height,
∫
x
1
Φ 2lo = Φ 2lo dx (14)
x 0
in terms of pressure and exit quality. The Martinelli-Nelson two-phase multiplier is given in Figure 1 below. The
total frictional drop in a boiling channel would then be the sum of the single-phase and two-phase components.
Forms or Local Losses
The two-phase pressure loss due to local flow obstructions is treated in a manner similar to the frictional losses. We
define a two-phase, local loss multiplier Ψ such that
G2
∆Plocal = K Ψ (15)
2 ρ f gc
228
For design purposes it has been found that the Homogeneous Multiplier given as Equation 13 does an adequate job
of correlating local two-phase losses.
Figure 1: Martinelli-Nelson Average Two-Phase Friction Multiplier

(Taken from Figure 11-16, Todreas and Kazimi)
229
Pressure Drop in a Two-Phase Channel
Consider a boiling channel of constant cross sectional area. We assume the fluid enters the channel subcooled, with
two phase flow beginning at some point H o up the channel. The point H o is called the non boiling height and is
equivalent to the bubble departure point. The total steady-state pressure drop in the channel can be obtained by
integrating the single and two-phase conservation equations up the channel.
Mixture Mass Equation
∂
∂z
( GAx ) = 0 ⇒ GAx = m& = constant (1)
which for a uniform area channel implies G is constant.
Mixture Energy Equation
∂h
m& = q ′( z ) (2)
∂z
which may be integrated to give for the enthalpy distribution up the channel
∫
z
1
h( z ) = h(0) + q ′( z ′)dz ′ (3)
m& 0
Mixture Momentum Equation
1 ∂ ⎧⎪ G 2 (1 − x ) 2 G 2 x 2 ⎫⎪ ∂P τ w2ϕ Pw g
⎨ + ⎬=− − −ρ (4)
gc ∂z ⎪⎩ αl ρl α g ρg ⎪⎭ ∂z Ax gc
Integrate over the channel height
τ w2ϕ Pw
∫ ∫ ∫ ∫
1 ∂ ⎧⎪ G 2 (1 − x ) 2 G 2 x 2 ⎫⎪
H H H H
∂P g
− dz = ⎨ + ⎬dz + dz + ρ dz (5)
∂z gc ∂z ⎩⎪ αl ρl α g ρg ⎭⎪ Ax gc
0 0 0 0
and examine the integrals one at a time
Channel Pressure Drop
∫
H
∂P
− dz = −[ P ( H ) − P(0)] = ∆Pchannel (6)
0
∂z
∫
H
1 ∂ ⎧⎪ G 2 (1 − x ) 2 G 2 x 2 ⎫⎪
⎨ + ⎬dz ≡ ∆Pacceleration (7)
0
gc ∂z ⎩⎪ α l ρl α g ρ g ⎭⎪
The integral of the acceleration term is broken up into integrals over the boiling and non boiling heights,
such that
230
∫ ∫
H H0
1 ∂ ⎪⎧ G 2 (1 − x ) 2 G 2 x 2 ⎪⎫ 1 ∂ ⎧G2 ⎫
∆Pacceleration = ⎨ + ⎬dz + ⎨ ⎬dz (8)
Ho
gc ∂z ⎪⎩ α l ρl α g ρ g ⎪⎭ 0
gc ∂z ⎩ ρl ⎭
⎧⎪⎛ (1 − x) 2 ⎞ ⎫
G2 x2 ⎟ − υ ld ⎪⎬ + G {υ ld − υ in }
2
∆Pacceleration = ⎨⎜⎜ +
⎟
gc ⎪⎩⎝ α l ρ l α g ρg ⎠ exit ⎪⎭ g c
(9)
⎧⎪⎛ (1 − x) 2 ⎞ ⎫
=
G2
⎨⎜⎜ +
x2 ⎟ − υ in ⎪⎬
⎟
gc ⎪⎩⎝ α l ρ l α g ρg ⎠ exit ⎪⎭
Friction and Forms Losses
The integrals of the friction and forms loss terms are also broken up into integrals over the boiling and non
boiling heights giving
∫ ∫ ∫
H H Ho
τ w Pw τ w Pw τ w Pw
dz ≡ ∆Pfriction = dz + dz (10)
Ax Ax Ax
0 Ho 0
2ϕ 2ϕ 1ϕ
Single Phase Component
⎧ ⎫
∫ ∫ ∑
Ho
τ w Pw Ho
⎪ f ρv 2 ρv 2 ⎪
dz = ⎨ + K j δ (z − z j ) ⎬dz (11)
Ax 0 ⎪ De 2 gc 2 gc ⎪
0
⎩ j ⎭
∫
τ w Pw
∑
Ho
fH o G 2 G2
dz ≅ + Kj (12)
0 Ax De 2 ρ g c 2 ρgc
z j ∈H o
where the average fluid properties are over the non boiling height H o .
Two-Phase Component
⎧ ⎫
∫
τ w Pw
∫
⎪ f ρv 2 2
∑ ρv 2
H H
⎪
dz = ⎨ Φ lo + K j δ (z − z j ) Ψ ⎬dz (13)
Ho Ax H o ⎪ De 2 gc 2 gc ⎪
⎩ j ⎭
Assuming the fluid properties are equal to the saturation properties and constant over the boiling
height and letting H B = H − H o
∫
τ w Pw
∫ ∑
H H
ff G2 G2
dz ≅ Φ l2o dz + Kj Ψj (14)
Ho Ax De 2 ρ f g c Ho 2 ρ f gc
z j ∈H B
231
∫ ∫
H H
ff G2 f f HB G2 1 f f HB G2
Φ 2lo dz = Φ 2lo dz = Φ 2lo (15)
De 2 ρ f gc Ho
De 2 ρ f gc H B Ho
De 2 ρ f gc
Note, the average two-phase multiplier in this development is the average over the boiling height and
as such is not strictly equal to the Martinelli-Nelson Multiplier. However, the Martinelli-Nelson
multiplier can be assumed a reasonable approximation. It can be shown, that if the quality varies
linearly over the boiling height, the Martinelli-Nelson multiplier is equivalent to that obtained by
averaging over the height.
G2
∑ G2 fH o G 2
∑ G2
f f HB
∆Pfriction = Φ l2o + Kj Ψj + + Kj (16)
De 2 ρ f gc 2 ρ f gc De 2 ρ g c 2 ρgc
z j ∈H B z j ∈H o
If the inlet subcooling is small, the friction and forms losses may be approximated as
⎛ ⎞
G2 ⎛ G2 ⎜
∑ ∑ ⎟
ff 2 ⎞
∆Pfriction ≅ ⎜ o + Φ
B lo ⎟ + K j Ψj +
⎠ 2 ρ f g c ⎜⎜
H H Kj⎟ (17)
De 2 ρ f g c ⎝ ⎟
⎝ j∈H B j∈H o ⎠
Elevation Losses
g
∆Pelev = ρ Hcore (18)
gc
The elevation losses require knowledge of the void distribution and typically require numerical integration.
The total channel pressure drop is the sum of the acceleration, friction, local (forms) and the elevation terms, i.e.
∆Pchannel = ∆Pacceleration + ∆Pfricition + ∆Plocal + ∆Pelev (19)
and requires knowledge of the boiling and non boiling heights. In a simple single channel analysis under the
equilibrium model assumptions, the non boiling height is obtained directly from the energy balance
∫
Ho
1
h f = h(0) + q ′( z ′)dz ′ . (20)
m& 0
Otherwise, the non boiling height is taken to be the bubble departure point and determined as described in earlier
sections.
232
Example:
A Boiling Water Reactor has operating characteristics given below. For the given data, determine the total core
pressure drop. Assume the heat flux is uniform axially, and the void fraction varies linearly over the boiling height.
You may also assume an equilibrium model for the flow quality.

Active Fuel Height 150 inches
Bundle Height 176 inches
Mass Flux 1.42 x 106 lbm/hr-ft2
Grid Loss Coefficient 1
Number of Grids 7
Core Entrance and Exit Loss Coefficient 3.5
SOLUTION
The total core pressure drop can be determined from the integrated two-phase momentum equation and is the sum of
the acceleration, friction, local (forms) and the elevation terms, i.e.
∆Pchannel = ∆Pacceleration + ∆Pfricition + ∆Plocal + ∆Pelev .
where:
G 2 ⎧⎪⎛⎜ (1 − x) 2 x2 ⎞ ⎫
⎟ − υin ⎪⎬
∆Pacceleration = ⎨⎜ + (1)
g c ⎪⎝ α l ρl α g ρg ⎟
⎩ ⎠exit ⎪⎭
ff G2 ⎛
∆Pfriction ≅ ⎜ H o + H B Φ lo ⎞⎟
2
(2)
De 2 ρ f g c ⎝ ⎠
⎛ ⎞
∆Plocal ≅
G2 ⎜
2 ρ f g c ⎜⎜
⎝
∑
j∈H B
K j Ψj +
∑
j∈H o
⎟
Kj⎟
⎟
⎠
(3)
g
∆Pelev = ρ Hcore (4)
gc
To determine the acceleration drop, requires the quality and void fraction at the core exit. The inlet specific volume
is given directly in terms of the core inlet temperature, i.e. υ in = υ(532 F ) = 0. 02123 ft /lbm . To determine the
3
fluid conditions at the core exit requires the core exit enthalpy. This is obtained from the energy balance
q ′′πDH
hexit = hin + (5)
GAx
The flow area for an arbitrary flow channel is given by
233
Ax = S − π D 4
2 2
= 0. 640 − ( π )( 0. 493 ) / 4
2 2
(6)
2
= 0. 219 in
For the given data, the core exit enthalpy is
(144, 032 )( π )( 0 . 493 12 )(150 12 )

hexit = 526.8 + 6
(1. 42 × 10 )( 0. 219 / 144 ) (7)
= 634. 4 Btu/lbm
giving for the core exit quality
hexit − h f
x exit =
h fg
634. 4 − 547.85
= (8)
643. 75
= 0.1344
The core exit void fraction can be obtained from the Zuber-Findlay correlation
1
α= . (9)
⎡ ρg 1 − x ⎤ ρgVgj
Co ⎢1 + ⎥+
⎣ ρl x ⎦ Gx
For high pressure steam water flows
Co = 1.13 (10a)
1
⎛ σggc ( ρl − ρg ) ⎞ 4
. ⎜
Vgj = 141 ⎟ (10b)
⎝ ρl2 ⎠
At 1035 psia, the drift velocity is

1
⎛ σggc ( ρl − ρ g ) ⎞ 4
. ⎜
Vgj = 141 ⎟
⎝ ρl2 ⎠
1
⎛ (0.0013)(32.17) 2 (46.05 − 2.329) ⎞ 4
. ⎜
= 141 ⎟ (11)
⎝ (46.05) 2 ⎠
= 0.575 ft /sec
giving for the core exit void fraction
234
1
α=
⎡ ρ g 1 − x ⎤ ρ gVgj
Co ⎢1 + +
⎣ ρl x ⎥⎦ Gx
1
= (12)
⎡ (2.329) 1 − 01344
. ⎤ (2.329)(0.575 × 3600)
. ) ⎢1 +
(113 ⎥+
⎣ ( 46.05) .
01344 . × 106 )(01344
⎦ (142 . )
= 0.656
The acceleration pressure drop is then
G2⎧⎪⎛ (1 − x ) 2 x2 ⎞ ⎫⎪
∆Pacceleration = ⎨⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ − υin ⎬
gc ⎪⎩⎝ α l ρl α g ρg ⎠
exit ⎪⎭
. × 106 ) 2 ⎧ (1 − 01344
(142 . )2 (01344
. )2 ⎫
= 8 ⎨
+ − 0.02123⎬ (13)
(4.17 × 10 ) ⎩ (1 − 0.656)(46.05) (0.656)(2.329) ⎭
= 183.2 lbf / ft 2 = 127
. lbf /in 2
Frictional Pressure Drop
The frictional drop is in terms of the friction factor f which is a function of the Reynolds number, the non boiling
height and the two-phase friction multiplier. A reasonable approximation for the friction factor in rod bundles is the
friction factor in smooth tubes from the Moody Chart. The Reynolds number is
GDe
Re = . (14)
µ

4[S − πD /4]
2 2
4 Ax
De = = (15)
Pw πD
4( 0. 219 )
De = = 0.5656 in (16)
π( 0. 493)
giving for the Reynolds number

6
(1. 42 × 10 )( 0.5656 / 12 )
Re = = 290, 997 . (17)
0. 23
From the Moody Chart, f ≅ 0. 0145 . The non boiling height is given by
Ho =
(
m& h f − h(0) )
q ′′πD
. × 106 )(0.219 / 144)( 547.85 − 526.8)
(142
= (18)
(144,032)(π )(0.493 / 12)
= 2.45 ft
Assuming the Martinelli-Nelson form of the two-phase multiplier, gives Φ 2lo ≅ 35

. , such that the frictional pressure
drop is
235
ff G2 ⎛
∆Pfriction ≅ ⎜ H o + H B Φ lo ⎞⎟
2
De 2 ρ f g c ⎝ ⎠
(1.42 × 106 ) 2
=
(0.0145)
(2.45 + 12.22 × 3.5) (19)
(0.5656 / 12) (2)(46.05)(4.17 × 108 )
= 730.4lbf / ft 2 = 5.07lbf /in 2
Local Losses
The local or forms losses are due to the grid spacers as well as the core inlet and exit losses. To be strictly correct,
we should evaluate the two-phase multiplier at the specific locations of the grids. For this example, assume we can
use an average two-phase multiplier, similar to the approach taken for the frictional losses.
⎛ ⎞
∆Plocal ≅
G2 ⎜
∑
2 ρ f gc ⎜⎜
⎝ j ∈H B
Kj Ψ +
∑
j ∈H o
⎟
Kj ⎟
⎟
⎠
. × 106 ) 2
(1 × 6 × 35. + 35. × 35. + 35. + 1)
(142
= (20)
(2)(45.06)(4.17 × 108 )
= 2,0355
. lbf / ft 2 = 14.1 lbf /in 2
Elevation Pressure Drop
The elevation pressure drop is the sum of the single-phase and two-phase terms. Assuming the void fraction varies
linearly over the boiling height, and the subcooling is sufficiently small, the elevation pressure drop can be written
as
∆Pelev = ρ f
g
(
H + α l ρ f + α g ρg
gc o
g
H
gc B
)
= (45.06)(1)(2.45) + ( 0.672 × 45.06 + 0.328 × 2.329)(1)(12.22) (21)
= 489.7 lbf / ft = 3.4 lbf /in
2 2
∆Pcore = ∆Pacc + ∆Pfriction + ∆Plocal + ∆Pelev

= 127
. + 5.07 + 14.1 + 3.41 (22)
= 2385
. lbf /in 2
It should be noted, that even though the core mass flux is approximately half that in a Pressurized Water Reactor,
the total core pressure drop is similar. This is due primarily to the enhanced friction and local losses in two-phase
systems. In addition, the acceleration drop while not dominant, is still a significant contributor to the total loss.
This is in contrast to the acceleration drop in single phase systems.
236
22.312 ENGINEERING OF NUCLEAR REACTORS
Wednesday, December 17th, 2008, 9:00am-12:00 pm
FINAL EXAM
NAME:
PART A (20%) CLOSED BOOK

i) Define (two sentences max) the following two-phase flow and heat transfer terms, and mark if
the associated phenomena occur at normal operating conditions in the PWR core, BWR core, or
both. (Please write your answers on this sheet)
Flow boiling ………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Subcooled boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Nucleate boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Film boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Pool boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
J. Buongiorno, 2008
1
Transition boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) ………………………………………………………..

………………………………………. …………………………………………………………….
PWR…. BWR….
Dryout………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Critical Flow………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
ii) For a given fluid, and fixed operating pressure and mass flow rate, rank the following heat
transfer modes in descending order of heat transfer coefficient (1 = highest htc, 4 = lowest htc):
Single-phase (liquid) convection: …..
Subcooled nucleate boiling: …..
Saturated nucleate boiling: ……
Film boiling: ……
Please give your Part A answers to the instructor BEFORE starting to work on Part B.
J. Buongiorno, 2008
2
PART B (80%) OPEN BOOK
Problem 1 (40%) – PWR fuel pin with a thin gap and no fill gas
A bright 22.312 student wants to reduce the gap thickness in the fuel pin of a PWR, in the hope
to decrease the thermal resistance of the gap, and thus be able to operate the fuel at lower
temperatures. He also wants to eliminate the helium fill gas, to cut manufacturing costs.
His new fuel pin design has the following as-manufactured dimensions:
- UO2 pellet radius: 4.1 mm

- Gap thickness: 10 μm
- Zircaloy clad thickness: 0.4 mm
i) During normal operation, the fuel pellet radius expands by 0.5% due to irradiation
effects. As a result, the clad and pellet make contact. Assuming a coolant pressure of
15.5 MPa, calculate the value of the force per unit area exerted by the fuel pellet on
the clad, Pi, in this situation. ( Hint: assume that the fuel pellet is perfectly rigid).
(20%)
ii) For the situation described in ‘i’, calculate the principal stresses in the clad and judge
their acceptability using the Tresca criterion. (15%)
iii) What are the merits and shortcomings of the student’s idea? (5%)
Assumptions
Treat the clad as a thin shell.
Properties of Zircaloy at the temperatures of interest

Yield strength: 200 MPa
Density: 6600 kg/m3
Young’s modulus: 80 GPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.35
J. Buongiorno, 2008
3
Problem 2 (40%) – Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of a Boiling Test Facility
The Reactor Heat Transfer team at a national lab is designing a loop to conduct thermal-
hydraulic experiments with water at 5 MPa. The test section of the loop is going to be an annular
channel of 1-m length with an inner wall of 1-cm diameter and an outer wall of 2-cm diameter.
The inner wall is uniformly heated, while the outer wall is adiabatic. In the f irst series of
experiments the team wishes to maintain the test section inlet and outlet temperatures at 200 °C
and 250°C, respectively.
i) Find the mass flow rate and power at which the boiling crisis occurs in this situation.
You may assume that the specific heat is constant in the subcooled region. To predict the
boiling crisis, use either the Tong-68 or the CISE-4 correlation (given below), whichever
is appropriate for the situation of interest. (25%)
Tong -68 correlation

G 0.4 μ 0f .6 h fg ⎡ 52.3 + 80 xe − 50 xe2 ⎤
q′DNB
′ = KTong with K = [1 . 76 − 7 . 433 x + 12 . 222 x 2
] ⋅ ⎢1 − 60.5 + (10 P)1.4 ⎥ ,
De0.6
Tong e e
⎣ ⎦
P in MPa
CISE-4 correlation
P L
xcr = h a b with a = (1 − P / Pcr ) /(G / 1000)1 / 3 and b = 0.199( Pcr / P − 1) 0.4 GDe1.4 ,
Pw Lb + b
G in kg/m2s and De in m.
ii) Now assume that the operating conditions are as follows: power = 50 kW, mass flow rate
= 0.5 kg/s, inlet temperature = 260°C. Estimate the flow quality at the channel outlet.
(10%)
iii) Everything else being the same (i.e., flow rate, pressure, power, inlet temperature), would
you expect the void fraction (at any location) in the test section to be higher or lower or
the same, if the direction of the flow were upward vs downward? (5%)
Table 1. Properties of water at 5 MPa

Parameter Value
Tsat 264°C
ρf 780 kg/m3
ρg 25 kg/m3
hf 1155 kJ/kg
hg 2795 kJ/kg
Cp,f 5.0 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 4.4 kJ/(kg°C)
μf 1×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 2×10-5 Pa⋅s
kf 0.6 W/(m°C)
kg 0.05 W/(m°C)
σ 0.02 N/m
J. Buongiorno, 2008
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.312 Engineering of Nuclear Reactors

Fall 2015
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.
FINAL EXAM
NAME:

i) Define (two sentences max) the following two-phase flow and heat transfer terms, and mark if
the associated phenomena occur at normal operating conditions in the PWR core, BWR core, or
both. (Please write your answers on this sheet)
Flow boiling ………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Subcooled boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Nucleate boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Film boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Pool boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
J. Buongiorno, 2008
1
Transition boiling………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) ………………………………………………………..

………………………………………. …………………………………………………………….
PWR…. BWR….
Dryout………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
Critical Flow………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
PWR…. BWR….
ii) For a given fluid, and fixed operating pressure and mass flow rate, rank the following heat
transfer modes in descending order of heat transfer coefficient (1 = highest htc, 4 = lowest htc):
Single-phase (liquid) convection: …..
Subcooled nucleate boiling: …..
Saturated nucleate boiling: ……
Film boiling: ……
Please give your Part A answers to the instructor BEFORE starting to work on Part B.
J. Buongiorno, 2008
2
PART B (80%) OPEN BOOK
A bright 22.312 student wants to reduce the gap thickness in the fuel pin of a PWR, in the hope
to decrease the thermal resistance of the gap, and thus be able to operate the fuel at lower
temperatures. He also wants to eliminate the helium fill gas, to cut manufacturing costs.
His new fuel pin design has the following as-manufactured dimensions:
- UO2 pellet radius: 4.1 mm

- Gap thickness: 10 μm
- Zircaloy clad thickness: 0.4 mm
i) During normal operation, the fuel pellet radius expands by 0.5% due to irradiation
effects. As a result, the clad and pellet make contact. Assuming a coolant pressure of
15.5 MPa, calculate the value of the force per unit area exerted by the fuel pellet on
the clad, Pi, in this situation. ( Hint: assume that the fuel pellet is perfectly rigid).
(20%)
ii) For the situation described in ‘i’, calculate the principal stresses in the clad and judge
their acceptability using the Tresca criterion. (15%)
iii) What are the merits and shortcomings of the student’s idea? (5%)
Assumptions
Treat the clad as a thin shell.
Properties of Zircaloy at the temperatures of interest

Yield strength: 200 MPa
Density: 6600 kg/m3
Young’s modulus: 80 GPa
Poisson’s ratio: 0.35
J. Buongiorno, 2008
3
Problem 2 (40%) – Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of a Boiling Test Facility
The Reactor Heat Transfer team at a national lab is designing a loop to conduct thermal-
hydraulic experiments with water at 5 MPa. The test section of the loop is going to be an annular
channel of 1-m length with an inner wall of 1-cm diameter and an outer wall of 2-cm diameter.
The inner wall is uniformly heated, while the outer wall is adiabatic. In the f irst series of
experiments the team wishes to maintain the test section inlet and outlet temperatures at 200 °C
and 250°C, respectively.
i) Find the mass flow rate and power at which the boiling crisis occurs in this situation.
You may assume that the specific heat is constant in the subcooled region. To predict the
boiling crisis, use either the Tong-68 or the CISE-4 correlation (given below), whichever
is appropriate for the situation of interest. (25%)
Tong -68 correlation

G 0.4 μ 0f .6 h fg ⎡ 52.3 + 80 xe − 50 xe2 ⎤
q′DNB
′ = KTong with K = [1 . 76 − 7 . 433 x + 12 . 222 x 2
] ⋅ ⎢1 − 60.5 + (10 P)1.4 ⎥ ,
De0.6
Tong e e
⎣ ⎦
P in MPa
CISE-4 correlation
P L
xcr = h a b with a = (1 − P / Pcr ) /(G / 1000)1 / 3 and b = 0.199( Pcr / P − 1) 0.4 GDe1.4 ,
Pw Lb + b
ii) Now assume that the operating conditions are as follows: power = 50 kW, mass flow rate
= 0.5 kg/s, inlet temperature = 260°C. Estimate the flow quality at the channel outlet.
(10%)
iii) Everything else being the same (i.e., flow rate, pressure, power, inlet temperature), would
you expect the void fraction (at any location) in the test section to be higher or lower or
the same, if the direction of the flow were upward vs downward? (5%)

Parameter Value
Tsat 264°C
ρf 780 kg/m3
ρg 25 kg/m3
hf 1155 kJ/kg
hg 2795 kJ/kg
Cp,f 5.0 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 4.4 kJ/(kg°C)
μf 1×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 2×10-5 Pa⋅s
kf 0.6 W/(m°C)
kg 0.05 W/(m°C)
σ 0.02 N/m
J. Buongiorno, 2008
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
FINAL EXAM (SOLUTION)
Flow boiling: boiling in a flow system. It occurs in both the PWR and BWR cores under normal
operating conditions.
Subcooled boiling: boiling of a fluid whose bulk temperature is below the saturation
temperature. It is the only type of boiling that takes place in the PWR core (hot channel) under
normal operating conditions. It also occurs in the lower section of all BWR fuel assemblies.
Nucleate boiling: liquid-vapor phase transition via bubble nucleation, which typically occurs at
microcavities present on the heated surface. It occurs in both PWR and BWR cores.
Film boiling: boiling in the presence of a continuous vapor film in contact with the heated
surface. Does not occur in either PWR or BWR core under normal operating conditions.
Pool boiling: boiling of a fluid that is macroscopically stagnant. Does not occur in either PWR
or BWR core under normal operating conditions.
Transition boiling: on the boiling curve it is the region between the DNB and the Leidenfrost
points. Does not occur in either PWR or BWR core under normal operating conditions.
Departure from nucleate boiling (DNB): transition from the nucleate boiling regime to the film
boiling regime. It results in a large sudden reduction of the heat transfer coefficient. This is the
boiling crisis relevant to the PWR core situation. However, it does not occur in the PWR under
normal operating conditions.
Dryout: disappearance of the liquid film in annular flow. It results in a large sudden reduction
of the heat transfer coefficient. This is the boiling crisis relevant to the BWR core situation.
However, it does not occur in the BWR under normal operating conditions.
Critical Flow: the maximum flow rate (or mass flux) that a (compressible) fluid can attain as it
is discharged from a high-pressure component through a fixed-geometry nozzle. Does not occur
in either PWR or BWR core under normal operating conditions.
J. Buongiorno, 2008
1
ii)
For a given fluid, and fixed operating pressure and mass flow rate, nucleate boiling has the
highest htc. The htc is generally higher at subcooled boiling conditions than saturated boiling
conditions because the temperature difference driving the heat transfer is higher. Forced
convection of a single-phase liquid comes next, and film boiling last, because in film boiling the
surface is in contact with a slow moving vapor film, which has a very poor thermal conductivity.
Therefore the correct htc ranking is:
Subcooled nucleate boiling: 1

Saturated nucleate boiling: 2
Single-phase (liquid) convection: 3
Film boiling: 4
PART B (80%)
i)
The pellet radial displacement is uf=0.005 Rf≈20.5 μm, where Rf=4.1 mm is the as-manufactured
pellet radius. Thus, the clad radial displacement is uc= uf - tgap ≈10.5 μm, where tgap ≈10 μm is
the as-manufactured gap thickness. Using the thin-shell theory, the principal stresses in the clad
are:
σr = -(Pi+Po)/2 (1)
σθ = (Pi-Po)Rc/tc
σz = -PoRc/(2tc)
where tc=0.4 mm and Rc=4.11 mm are the as-manufactured thickness and inner radius of the
clad, respectively, Po=15.5 MPa, and Pi represents the force per unit area exerted by the pellet on
the clad. (Note that there is no fill gas, so no internal pressure shows up in the equations for the
stresses; also note that Pi is a radial force, so it does not show up in the expression for the axial
stress, σz)
Hooke’s law for the tangential strain is:
εθ= 1/E [σθ-ν(σz+σr)] (2)
Substituting Eqs (1) into (2), and recognizing that εθ=uc/Rc≈0.0026, one gets one equation in the
only unknown Pi:
1⎧ Rc ⎡ Rc Pi + Po ⎤ ⎫
εθ = ⎨( Pi − Po ) −ν ⎢− Po − ⎥⎬
E⎩ tc ⎣ 2t c 2 ⎦⎭
Which can be solved for Pi to give:
J. Buongiorno, 2008
2
Eε θ tc + Po [ Rc −ν ( Rc + tc ) / 2]
Pi = ≈31.9 MPa
Rc + νtc / 2
ii)
Using Eqs. (1), one gets σr≈-23.7 MPa, σθ≈168.2 MPa and σz≈-79.6 MPa.
The Tresca criterion is:
max{σ r − σ θ , σ r − σ z , σ z − σ θ }≈247.8 MPa > Sy=200 MPa
Therefore, the criterion is not satisfied and the stresses are not acceptable.
iii)
The idea is unattractive for the following reasons:
- As shown in part ‘ii’, the fuel-clad mechanical interaction is too severe, and will likely result in
rupture of the clad
- It is questionable that the gap thermal resistance would be in fact reduced with this design,
because the elimination of the fill gas means that, prior to clad-fuel contact, heat transfer across
the gap can occur only by radiation, which is a poor heat transfer mechanism.
- Depending on the service lifetime of the fuel pin, a thin clad may not be acceptable from a
corrosion viewpoint
The merits of the idea are:

- Fewer parasitic neutron absorptions in the clad, which is thinner
- Elimination of the fill gas, thus, possibly, a reduction in manufacturing costs
Problem 2 (40%) – Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of a Boiling Channel

i)
The mass flow rate ( m& =GA) and power ( Q& = q ′′πDi L ) are related by the energy balance:
GAC p , f (Tout − Tin ) = q′′πDi L (3)
Where Tin=200°C, Tout=250°C, A=π/4(Do2-Di2)=2.36×10-4 m2 is the flow area, and L=1 m.
Since the heat flux is uniform, the boiling crisis will occur at the channel outlet. As the outlet
temperature is below the saturation temperature, the thermal-hydraulic conditions in the channel
are subcooled, for which the relevant boiling crisis is departure from nucleate boiling (vs dryout).
Therefore, the appropriate correlation for this problem is Tong-68.
J. Buongiorno, 2008
3
G 0.4 μ 0.6
f h fg
q′′DNB = KTong (4)
De0.6
Where De=Do-Di=1 cm, Di=1 cm, Do=2 cm,

⎡ 52.3 + 80xe,out − 50xe,out
2
⎤
K Tong = [1.76 − 7.433xe,out +12.222xe,out 2
]⋅ ⎢1− ⎥ ≈1.758,
⎢⎣ 60.5 + (10P) 1.4
⎥⎦
C p , f (Tout − Tsat )
xe,out = ≈-0.0427 is the equilibrium quality at the exit, and P=5 MPa.
h fg
When the boiling crisis occurs, it is q′′ = q′DNB

′ . Substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (3) and solving for
the mass flux G, we get:
1/ 0.6
⎡ μ 0.6
f h fg πDi L
⎤
G = ⎢ K Tong ⎥ ≈2048 kg/m2s
⎢⎣ C p, f (Tout − Tin ) ADe0.6 ⎥⎦
Therefore, the mass flow rate is m& =GA≈0.482 kg/s. Substituting G into Eq. (4), we get
q ′′DNB ≈3.84 MW/m2. Finally the channel power is Q& = q ′DNB
′ πDi L ≈120.6 kW.
ii)
The energy balance for this situation is:
Q& *
*
− C p, f (Tsat − Tin* )
m& * [ xe*,out h fg + C p , f (Tsat − Tin* )] = Q& * ⇒ *
xe,out = m& ≈0.0488
h fg
where Tin* =260°C, m& * =0.5 kg/s, and Q& * =50 kW. Since the mixture is saturated, thermal
equilibrium can be assumed, and thus the flow quality is equal to the equilibrium quality.
iii)
The void fraction is related to quality and slip ratio by the fundamental relation of two-phase
1
flow, α = . As the flow rate, pressure, power and inlet temperature are fixed (as
ρg 1− x
1+ ⋅S ⋅
ρf x
per the problem statement), the quality is also fixed. However, because of buoyancy it is S>1 in
upward flow and S<1 in downward flow. Thus, the void fraction would be lower in upward flow
than in downward flow.
J. Buongiorno, 2008
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
FINAL EXAM (SOLUTION)
Flow boiling: boiling in a flow system. It occurs in both the PWR and BWR cores under normal
operating conditions.
Subcooled boiling: boiling of a fluid whose bulk temperature is below the saturation
temperature. It is the only type of boiling that takes place in the PWR core (hot channel) under
normal operating conditions. It also occurs in the lower section of all BWR fuel assemblies.
Nucleate boiling: liquid-vapor phase transition via bubble nucleation, which typically occurs at
microcavities present on the heated surface. It occurs in both PWR and BWR cores.
Film boiling: boiling in the presence of a continuous vapor film in contact with the heated
surface. Does not occur in either PWR or BWR core under normal operating conditions.
Pool boiling: boiling of a fluid that is macroscopically stagnant. Does not occur in either PWR
or BWR core under normal operating conditions.
Transition boiling: on the boiling curve it is the region between the DNB and the Leidenfrost
points. Does not occur in either PWR or BWR core under normal operating conditions.
Departure from nucleate boiling (DNB): transition from the nucleate boiling regime to the film
boiling regime. It results in a large sudden reduction of the heat transfer coefficient. This is the
boiling crisis relevant to the PWR core situation. However, it does not occur in the PWR under
normal operating conditions.
Dryout: disappearance of the liquid film in annular flow. It results in a large sudden reduction
of the heat transfer coefficient. This is the boiling crisis relevant to the BWR core situation.
However, it does not occur in the BWR under normal operating conditions.
Critical Flow: the maximum flow rate (or mass flux) that a (compressible) fluid can attain as it
is discharged from a high-pressure component through a fixed-geometry nozzle. Does not occur
in either PWR or BWR core under normal operating conditions.
J. Buongiorno, 2008
1
ii)
For a given fluid, and fixed operating pressure and mass flow rate, nucleate boiling has the
highest htc. The htc is generally higher at subcooled boiling conditions than saturated boiling
conditions because the temperature difference driving the heat transfer is higher. Forced
convection of a single-phase liquid comes next, and film boiling last, because in film boiling the
surface is in contact with a slow moving vapor film, which has a very poor thermal conductivity.
Therefore the correct htc ranking is:
Subcooled nucleate boiling: 1

Saturated nucleate boiling: 2
Single-phase (liquid) convection: 3
Film boiling: 4
PART B (80%)
i)
The pellet radial displacement is uf=0.005 Rf≈20.5 μm, where Rf=4.1 mm is the as-manufactured
pellet radius. Thus, the clad radial displacement is uc= uf - tgap ≈10.5 μm, where tgap ≈10 μm is
the as-manufactured gap thickness. Using the thin-shell theory, the principal stresses in the clad
are:
σr = -(Pi+Po)/2 (1)
σθ = (Pi-Po)Rc/tc
σz = -PoRc/(2tc)
where tc=0.4 mm and Rc=4.11 mm are the as-manufactured thickness and inner radius of the
clad, respectively, Po=15.5 MPa, and Pi represents the force per unit area exerted by the pellet on
the clad. (Note that there is no fill gas, so no internal pressure shows up in the equations for the
stresses; also note that Pi is a radial force, so it does not show up in the expression for the axial
stress, σz)
Hooke’s law for the tangential strain is:
εθ= 1/E [σθ-ν(σz+σr)] (2)
Substituting Eqs (1) into (2), and recognizing that εθ=uc/Rc≈0.0026, one gets one equation in the
only unknown Pi:
1⎧ Rc ⎡ Rc Pi + Po ⎤ ⎫
εθ = ⎨( Pi − Po ) −ν ⎢− Po − ⎥⎬
E⎩ tc ⎣ 2t c 2 ⎦⎭
Which can be solved for Pi to give:
J. Buongiorno, 2008
2
Eε θ tc + Po [ Rc −ν ( Rc + tc ) / 2]
Pi = ≈31.9 MPa
Rc + νtc / 2
ii)
Using Eqs. (1), one gets σr≈-23.7 MPa, σθ≈168.2 MPa and σz≈-79.6 MPa.
The Tresca criterion is:
max{σ r − σ θ , σ r − σ z , σ z − σ θ }≈247.8 MPa > Sy=200 MPa
Therefore, the criterion is not satisfied and the stresses are not acceptable.
iii)
The idea is unattractive for the following reasons:
- As shown in part ‘ii’, the fuel-clad mechanical interaction is too severe, and will likely result in
rupture of the clad
- It is questionable that the gap thermal resistance would be in fact reduced with this design,
because the elimination of the fill gas means that, prior to clad-fuel contact, heat transfer across
the gap can occur only by radiation, which is a poor heat transfer mechanism.
- Depending on the service lifetime of the fuel pin, a thin clad may not be acceptable from a
corrosion viewpoint
The merits of the idea are:

- Fewer parasitic neutron absorptions in the clad, which is thinner
- Elimination of the fill gas, thus, possibly, a reduction in manufacturing costs
Problem 2 (40%) – Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of a Boiling Channel

i)
The mass flow rate ( m& =GA) and power ( Q& = q ′′πDi L ) are related by the energy balance:
GAC p , f (Tout − Tin ) = q′′πDi L (3)
Where Tin=200°C, Tout=250°C, A=π/4(Do2-Di2)=2.36×10-4 m2 is the flow area, and L=1 m.
Since the heat flux is uniform, the boiling crisis will occur at the channel outlet. As the outlet
temperature is below the saturation temperature, the thermal-hydraulic conditions in the channel
are subcooled, for which the relevant boiling crisis is departure from nucleate boiling (vs dryout).
Therefore, the appropriate correlation for this problem is Tong-68.
J. Buongiorno, 2008
3
G 0.4 μ 0.6
f h fg
q′′DNB = KTong (4)
De0.6
Where De=Do-Di=1 cm, Di=1 cm, Do=2 cm,

⎡ 52.3 + 80xe,out − 50xe,out
2
⎤
K Tong = [1.76 − 7.433xe,out +12.222xe,out 2
]⋅ ⎢1− ⎥ ≈1.758,
⎢⎣ 60.5 + (10P) 1.4
⎥⎦
C p , f (Tout − Tsat )
xe,out = ≈-0.0427 is the equilibrium quality at the exit, and P=5 MPa.
h fg
When the boiling crisis occurs, it is q′′ = q′DNB

′ . Substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (3) and solving for
the mass flux G, we get:
1/ 0.6
⎡ μ 0.6
f h fg πDi L
⎤
G = ⎢ K Tong ⎥ ≈2048 kg/m2s
⎢⎣ C p, f (Tout − Tin ) ADe0.6 ⎥⎦
Therefore, the mass flow rate is m& =GA≈0.482 kg/s. Substituting G into Eq. (4), we get
q ′′DNB ≈3.84 MW/m2. Finally the channel power is Q& = q ′DNB
′ πDi L ≈120.6 kW.
ii)
The energy balance for this situation is:
Q& *
*
− C p, f (Tsat − Tin* )
m& * [ xe*,out h fg + C p , f (Tsat − Tin* )] = Q& * ⇒ *
xe,out = m& ≈0.0488
h fg
where Tin* =260°C, m& * =0.5 kg/s, and Q& * =50 kW. Since the mixture is saturated, thermal
equilibrium can be assumed, and thus the flow quality is equal to the equilibrium quality.
iii)
The void fraction is related to quality and slip ratio by the fundamental relation of two-phase
1
flow, α = . As the flow rate, pressure, power and inlet temperature are fixed (as
ρg 1− x
1+ ⋅S ⋅
ρf x
per the problem statement), the quality is also fixed. However, because of buoyancy it is S>1 in
upward flow and S<1 in downward flow. Thus, the void fraction would be lower in upward flow
than in downward flow.
J. Buongiorno, 2008
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Monday, December 14th, 2009, 9:00am-12:00 pm
OPEN BOOK FINAL EXAM 3 HOURS
Problem 1 (15%) – Sizing the shell of a spherical containment

i)
The principal stresses for a thin spherical shell are:
σr = -(pi+po)/2 (1)
σθ = σϕ = (pi-po)Rc/(2 tc)
where pi=1.9 MPa and po=0.1 MPa, Rc=12.5 m and tc is the shell thickness. Hook’s law yields:
εθ=u/Rc=1/E[σθ - ν (σϕ+σr)] (2)
where E = 184 GPa and ν = 0.33. Substituting Eq. (1) in Eq. (2), setting u=1 cm and solving for
tc, one gets:
tc=Rc(1-ν) (pi-po)/[2E u/Rc-ν(pi+po)]≈3.7 cm
Since Rc/tc>10, the thin shell asumption of accurate.
ii)
The primary membrane general stress intensity for this case is:
Pm=(σθ - σr)≈102 MPa
σθ and σr were calculated from Eq. (1) (thin shell assumption still applies), for tc=8 cm. The
ASME limit is Sm=110 MPa. Therefore the margin is Sm/Pm≈1.075, or 7.5%.
Problem 2 (25%) – Reduction of containment pressure after LOCA

Conservation of energy for the containment:
∂ECV
= Q& decay − Q& ss (3)
∂t
where Q& decay = Q& 0 0.066t −0.2 , Q& 0 =1000 MW, and Q& ss =20 MW. Integrating Eq. (3):
J. Buongiorno, 2009
1
0.066 0.8 &
E2 − E1 = Q& 0 t 2 − Qss t 2 (4)
0.8
Expanding the left-hand side, one gets:
0.066 0.8 &

M a cv,a (T2 − T1 ) + M w{[u f (T2 )(1− x2 ) + u g (T2 )x2 ] −[u f (T1 )(1− x1 ) + u g (T1 )x1 ]} = Q& 0 t2 − Qsst2
0.8
(5)
where Ma, cv,a, T1, Mw and x1 are all known from the problem statement. The following equation
holds for the control volume:
Vtot = M w [v f (T2 )(1− x2 ) + vg (T2 ) x2 ] (6)
The containment pressure at t2, P2=0.5 MPa, is the sum of the partial pressures of water and air:
M a RaT2
P2 = Psat (T2 ) + (7)
Vtot − M w (1− x2 )v f (T2 )
Therefore, Eqs. (5), (6) and (7) are 3 equations in the only unknowns t2, T2 and x2. Actually
solving the equations, one finds t2≈14300 s, T2≈140.4 °C and x2≈0.035.
Problem 3 (45%) – Superheated Boiling Water Reactor
i)
T-s diagram:
T 6.0 MPa
•
F
C=D B E
• • •
A
•
ii) Taking the whole system as a control volume, the conservation of energy yields:
0 = Q& + m& FW (hFW − hsup ) ⇒ m& FW = Q& /(hsup − hFW ) (8)
J. Buongiorno, 2009
2
where Q& =1000 MW and hFW and hsup are the specific enthalpy of the feedwater and superheated
steam, respectively. The difference hsup-hFW can be expressed as follows:
hsup − hFW = c p,g (Tsup − Tsat ) + h fg + c p, f (Tsat − TFW ) ≈2936 kJ/kg
where TFW= 230°C and Tsup=510°C. Therefore, Eq. (8) yields m& FW ≈340.6 kg/s.
iii)
The acceleration pressure drop is
1 1
ΔPacc = G 2 [ − ] (9)
ρ +
m ,out ρ m+ ,in
m&
where G = ≈1800 kg/m2s, m& =2270 kg/s, A=1.26 m2 and
A
1
ρ m+ ≡ 2 (10)
x (1 − x) 2
+
αρ g (1 − α ) ρ f
Since at the inlet there is only the liquid phase, it is ρ m+ ,in = ρ f , while at the outlet x=0.15 and the
void fraction can be found from the fundamental relation of two-phase flow:
1
α= ≈0.69
ρg 1− x
1+ ⋅ ⋅S
ρf x
where S=2, per the problem statement. Then it is ρ m,

+ 3
out ≈240.3 kg/m from Eq. (10), and finally
Eq. (9) yields ΔPacc≈ 9,235 Pa
iv)
Since the heat flux is axially constant, dryout would occur at the outlet (Point B). The critical
quality at the outlet is found to be xcr≈0.344 from the CISE-4 correlation with Lb=3 m, and the
coefficients a=0.5987 and b=2.2255, calculated for P=6 MPa, Pc=22.1 MPa, G=1800
kg/m2s>G*=1211 kg/m2s, De=0.02 m.
Then the critical power of the A→B channels is Q& cr , AB = m& [c p , f (Tsat − TA ) + xcr h fg ] ≈1311 MW,
Q&
where TA= 268°C. So, the CPR = &cr , AB ≈2.12, with Q& AB = m& [c p , f (Tsat − TA ) + xB h fg ] ≈618 MW
Q AB
being the operating power of the A→B channels, where xB=0.15.
Problem 4 (15%) – Thermodynamic analysis of a new power cycle
To be thermodynamically feasible, the cycle must not violate the 1st and 2nd law of
thermodynamics.
J. Buongiorno, 2009
3
Taking the whole power cycle as the control volume, the conservation of energy (1st law)
becomes:
0 = Q& −W& + m& sea (hin − hout ) (11)
where steady-state was assumed and Q& =1000 MW, W& =400 MW, m& sea =15000 kg/s,
(hin − hout ) = csea (Tin − Tout ) , csea =4000 J/kg°C and Tin =288 K (15°C) and Tout =298 K (25°C).
Using these numbers, Eq. 11 is identically satisfied. Therefore, the cycle does not violate the 1st
law.
With the same choice of control volume, the 2nd law becomes:
Q& Q&
0= + m& sea ( sin − sout ) + S& gen ⇒ S& gen = m& sea ( sout − sin ) − (12)
Tr Tr
Tout
where Tr=723 K (450°C) and sout − sin = csea ln . Then Eq. 12 yields S& gen = 665 kW/K > 0,
Tin
nd
therefore the cycle does not violate the 2 law either.
J. Buongiorno, 2009
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

i)
The principal stresses for a thin spherical shell are:
σr = -(pi+po)/2 (1)
σθ = σϕ = (pi-po)Rc/(2 tc)
where pi=1.9 MPa and po=0.1 MPa, Rc=12.5 m and tc is the shell thickness. Hook’s law yields:
εθ=u/Rc=1/E[σθ - ν (σϕ+σr)] (2)
where E = 184 GPa and ν = 0.33. Substituting Eq. (1) in Eq. (2), setting u=1 cm and solving for
tc, one gets:
tc=Rc(1-ν) (pi-po)/[2E u/Rc-ν(pi+po)]≈3.7 cm
Since Rc/tc>10, the thin shell asumption of accurate.
ii)
The primary membrane general stress intensity for this case is:
Pm=(σθ - σr)≈102 MPa
σθ and σr were calculated from Eq. (1) (thin shell assumption still applies), for tc=8 cm. The
ASME limit is Sm=110 MPa. Therefore the margin is Sm/Pm≈1.075, or 7.5%.

Conservation of energy for the containment:
∂ECV
= Q& decay − Q& ss (3)
∂t
where Q& decay = Q& 0 0.066t −0.2 , Q& 0 =1000 MW, and Q& ss =20 MW. Integrating Eq. (3):
J. Buongiorno, 2009
1
0.066 0.8 &
E2 − E1 = Q& 0 t 2 − Qss t 2 (4)
0.8
Expanding the left-hand side, one gets:
0.066 0.8 &

M a cv,a (T2 − T1 ) + M w{[u f (T2 )(1− x2 ) + u g (T2 )x2 ] −[u f (T1 )(1− x1 ) + u g (T1 )x1 ]} = Q& 0 t2 − Qsst2
0.8
(5)
where Ma, cv,a, T1, Mw and x1 are all known from the problem statement. The following equation
holds for the control volume:
Vtot = M w [v f (T2 )(1− x2 ) + vg (T2 ) x2 ] (6)
The containment pressure at t2, P2=0.5 MPa, is the sum of the partial pressures of water and air:
M a RaT2
P2 = Psat (T2 ) + (7)
Vtot − M w (1− x2 )v f (T2 )
Therefore, Eqs. (5), (6) and (7) are 3 equations in the only unknowns t2, T2 and x2. Actually
solving the equations, one finds t2≈14300 s, T2≈140.4 °C and x2≈0.035.
i)
T-s diagram:
T 6.0 MPa
•
F
C=D B E
• • •
A
•
ii) Taking the whole system as a control volume, the conservation of energy yields:
0 = Q& + m& FW (hFW − hsup ) ⇒ m& FW = Q& /(hsup − hFW ) (8)
J. Buongiorno, 2009
2
where Q& =1000 MW and hFW and hsup are the specific enthalpy of the feedwater and superheated
steam, respectively. The difference hsup-hFW can be expressed as follows:
hsup − hFW = c p,g (Tsup − Tsat ) + h fg + c p, f (Tsat − TFW ) ≈2936 kJ/kg
where TFW= 230°C and Tsup=510°C. Therefore, Eq. (8) yields m& FW ≈340.6 kg/s.
iii)
The acceleration pressure drop is
1 1
ΔPacc = G 2 [ − ] (9)
ρ +
m ,out ρ m+ ,in
m&
where G = ≈1800 kg/m2s, m& =2270 kg/s, A=1.26 m2 and
A
1
ρ m+ ≡ 2 (10)
x (1 − x) 2
+
αρ g (1 − α ) ρ f
Since at the inlet there is only the liquid phase, it is ρ m+ ,in = ρ f , while at the outlet x=0.15 and the
void fraction can be found from the fundamental relation of two-phase flow:
1
α= ≈0.69
ρg 1− x
1+ ⋅ ⋅S
ρf x
where S=2, per the problem statement. Then it is ρ m,

+ 3
out ≈240.3 kg/m from Eq. (10), and finally
Eq. (9) yields ΔPacc≈ 9,235 Pa
iv)
Since the heat flux is axially constant, dryout would occur at the outlet (Point B). The critical
quality at the outlet is found to be xcr≈0.344 from the CISE-4 correlation with Lb=3 m, and the
coefficients a=0.5987 and b=2.2255, calculated for P=6 MPa, Pc=22.1 MPa, G=1800
kg/m2s>G*=1211 kg/m2s, De=0.02 m.
Then the critical power of the A→B channels is Q& cr , AB = m& [c p , f (Tsat − TA ) + xcr h fg ] ≈1311 MW,
Q&
where TA= 268°C. So, the CPR = &cr , AB ≈2.12, with Q& AB = m& [c p , f (Tsat − TA ) + xB h fg ] ≈618 MW
Q AB
being the operating power of the A→B channels, where xB=0.15.
Problem 4 (15%) – Thermodynamic analysis of a new power cycle
To be thermodynamically feasible, the cycle must not violate the 1st and 2nd law of
thermodynamics.
J. Buongiorno, 2009
3
Taking the whole power cycle as the control volume, the conservation of energy (1st law)
becomes:
0 = Q& −W& + m& sea (hin − hout ) (11)
where steady-state was assumed and Q& =1000 MW, W& =400 MW, m& sea =15000 kg/s,
(hin − hout ) = csea (Tin − Tout ) , csea =4000 J/kg°C and Tin =288 K (15°C) and Tout =298 K (25°C).
Using these numbers, Eq. 11 is identically satisfied. Therefore, the cycle does not violate the 1st
law.
With the same choice of control volume, the 2nd law becomes:
Q& Q&
0= + m& sea ( sin − sout ) + S& gen ⇒ S& gen = m& sea ( sout − sin ) − (12)
Tr Tr
Tout
where Tr=723 K (450°C) and sout − sin = csea ln . Then Eq. 12 yields S& gen = 665 kW/K > 0,
Tin
nd
therefore the cycle does not violate the 2 law either.
J. Buongiorno, 2009
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
22.313 THERMAL HYDRAULICS IN NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY
PROBLEM UU-1 QUESTION
Calculate the vapor temperature and the wall temperature, in a vertical round
tube of 12.6 mm inside diameter, downstream of the dryout point (upto 2 m)
for the following conditions:
Flow direction : Upflow
Fluid : Steam-Water
Pressure : 70 bar
Heat Flux : 852 kW/m2
Mass Flux : 650 kg/s-m2
Equilibrium Quality
at Dryout point : 0.80
Use the following three models for vapor generation:
a) Complete thermal nonequilibrium or “Frozen” model

b) Thermal equilibrium model
c) An actual vapor generation model, say Chen model (Ref. 2)
Repeat the above calculations for the following conditions also:
Flow direction : Upflow
Fluid : Steam-Water
Pressure : 70 bar
Heat Flux : 1700 kW/m2
Mass Flux : 3800 kg/s-m2
Equilibrium Quality
at Dryout point : 0.30
Page 1
PROBLEM 1-1N QUESTION
Worldwide Utilization Of Power Reactor Technology
Thermal Reactor Moderator-Coolant Matrix (attached page 2)

For each position, identify either:
1. The principal Technical reason that this moderator-coolant combination cannot be

exploited, or
2. The name of one (or more) reactor plants that have been built using this combination.
References For Thermal Reactor Types

"List of operational Nuclear Power Plants, " Nuclear News, August 1992.
Dietrich and Zinn, Solid Fuel Reactors, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading MA, 1958.
Directory of Nuclear Reactors, International Atomic Energy Commission, Vienna,

published annually.
Kuljian, Nuclear Power Plant Design, A.S. Barnes & Co., Cranbury NJ, 1968.
Safety Issues at Defense Production Reactors, National Academy Press, 1987.
Zinn, Pittman, Hogerton, Nuclear Power, USA, McGraw-Hill, date? (TK9202.278).
This is only a partial list of the resources available for this assignment. If there are
any sources that you found to be particularly helpful, please give the name of the
reference to the TA for future use.
Rev August 28, 2000
Page 1 of 2 pages
Problem 1-1N Question
WORLDWIDE UTLIZATION OF POWER REACTOR TECHNOLOGY

THERMAL REACTOR TYPES
Coolant Light Water Heavy Water Organic Gas Liquid Metal
Moderators Pressurized Boiling Pressurized Boiling HB-40 Hydrogen,Nitrogen, NaK
↓ Santowax-OM CO2, Helium Na
Light Water
V
E
S
S
Heavy E
L
Water
T
U
B
E
Graphite
Beryllium
Organic
Page 2 of 2 pages
Analysis Of Reactor Types
NOTE: The use of MathCAD is not required for this problem set; however, now would be a good
time to familiarize yourself with MathCAD since it may significantly reduce the work involved with
future problems.
This problem set involves calculations that show some typical differences between reactor types.
1) Compare average heat deposition rates for seven reactor types: (BWR, PWR(W), PHWR,
HTGR, AGR, LMFBR core region (C), and LMFBR axial and radial blanket regions (BA &
BR)). Details are:
a) Use information in Tables 1-2, 1-3, and 2-3 to find core average values of the linear heat
generation rate, q' (kW/m). Do not use the "linear heat rate" row in Table 2-3. Note: 90% of
the LMFBR power is deposited in the C region.
b) After calculating part a), why are the reactor types listed in the order found in 1)?
c) Use your calculate q' to compute the surface heat flux, q" (kW/m2), and the volumetric heat
generation rate, q"' (kW/m3) for the same reactor types.
Rev August 28, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Relationships Between Assemblies Of Different Pin Arrays
A utility wishes to replace the fuel in its existing PWR from 15x15 fuel pin array assemblies to
17x17 fuel pin array assemblies. What is the ratio of the core average linear power, q′, in the new
core to the old core, assuming reactor power length and number of fuel assemblies are maintained
constant, i.e.,
q′17x17
a) = ?
q′15x15
q″17x17
b) = ?
q″15x15
Rev August 28, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
PROBLEM OO-2 QUESTION
In annular flow liquid, droplets are carried in the gaseous core at an average velocity, Vd,
which is close to the average gas velocity, Vg. On the contrary, the average liquid film velocity,
Vf, is significantly lower than the gas velocity.
It is proposed to formulate a separate, three-velocity flow model. Calling Ag, Af, and Ad the cross-
sectional area of the pipe covered by gas, liquid film and liquid droplets, respectively, we define:
Ag Ad
α= and α d =
A Ad + A f
Similarly, calling wg, wf, and wd the gas, liquid film and liquid droplet mass flow rates, we define:
wg wd
x= and x d =
w wd + w f
You are asked to extend the expressions developed for separated flow, steady-state accelerational
and gravitational pressure gradients i.e.:
 dp  2 d
 (1 − x )2 x2 

 = −G  + 
 dz  ac dz  (1 − α )ρf αρ g 
 dp 
(
  = − αρ g + (1 − α )ρf g cosθ )
 dz  gr
to this three-velocity model using the definition of αd and xd given above.
Suggestion: For the gravity term, think, the answer is simple.

For the acceleration term, it may be simplest to derive the expression from first
principles considering the momentum of each component, gas, liquid film and
liquid droplets separately.
Page 1
Energy Sources In A Typical PWR
Compute the energy sources in a typical PWR (Sequoyah - Table 1-2) which the containment
might have to accommodate.
1. Stored Energy in primary coolant. Should enthalpy or internal energy be used: Explain.
2. Stored energy in secondary side of the steam generator (assume 89 m3 of saturated liquid at
secondary system conditions).
3. Decay Heat – integrated release over a one day shutdown period after infinite operation.
4. Chemical Reactions –
a) metal-water reaction of 75% of the zircaloy clad.
b) reaction of 25% of the zircaloy clad with CO2 to produce C which then reacts with CO2
to produce CO. Assume reactions are constrained only by amount of zircaloy available.
5. Combustion of hydrogen and carbon monoxide product in (4) above.
Reaction Heat
Zr + 2H2O → ZrO2 + 2H2 + 6.057x105 J/mol of Zr
Zr + CO2 → ZrO2 + C + 7.05x105 J/mol of CO2
C + H2O → CO + H2 - 1.31x105 J/mol of H2O
C + CO2 → 2CO - 1.74x105 J/mol of CO2
* Please pay attention to Heat Unit
Combustion Reactions
H 2 + 1 O2 → H2O + 2.4x105 J/mol of H2

2
CO2 + 1 O2 → CO2 + 2.85x105 J/mol of CO

2
Rev August 28, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Decay Heat From A PWR Fuel Rod
A decay heat cooling system is capable of removing 1 kW from the surface of a typical PWR
(Sequoyah, Table 1-2; and PWR(W), Table 2-3) fuel rod. Assume the rod has operated for an
essentially infinite period before shutdown.
1. At what time will the decay energy generation rate be matched by the cooling capability?
2. What is the maximum amount of decay heat energy that will be stored in the rod following
shutdown?
Rev August 28, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Decay Power Calculations Of A 3-Batch PWR Core
A PWR core has been operated on a three-batch fuel management scheme on an 18-month
refueling cycle, e.g., at every 18 months, one third the core loading is replaced with fresh fuel. A
new batch is first loaded into the core in a distributed fashion such that it generates 43% of the core
power. After 18 months of operation, it is shuffled to other core locations where it generates 33%
of the core power. After another 18 months, it is moved to other core locations where it generates
24% of the core power.
QUESTION
The plant rating is a 3400 MWth. Assume it is shutdown after an 18-month operating cycle.
What is the decay power of the plant one hour after shutdown if it has operated continuously at
100% power during each of the preceding three 18-month operating cycles and the shutdown
periods for refueling were each of 35 days duration.
Solve this problem in two ways.
a) Consider the explicit operating history of each of the three batches to the core decay power.
b) Assume the whole core had been operating for a infinite period before shutdown.
Rev August 28, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
PROBLEM OO-3 QUESTION
Consider a BWR with the following characteristics:
Lattice Array: 7x7 Square

Rod Pitch: 18.8 mm
Rod Diameter: 14.3 mm
Heated Length: 3.66 m
Wall Heat Flux: 1.0 MW/m2
Heat Flux Axial Distribution: Uniform
System Pressure: 6.89 MPa
Water Inlet Temperature: 271.3 C
Notes:
a. The nominal mass flow rate through an interior sub-channel is 0.34 kg/sec.
b. You may ignore the unheated lengths at both ends of the fuel.
c. You may ignore form losses, entrance effects, and exit effects.
Questions:
1 Calculate the pressure drop across the core using the Thom and Baroczy separated flow
correlations.
2 Calculate the pressure drop components using a HEM model (be sure to specify the
specific formulation you select)
3 Compare the results from parts 1 and 2. Explain any differences that you observe. Which
results are the most reliable?
Page 1
Thermodynamics Of Binary Cycle Involving Sodium And Steam Water
Consider the binary cycle using the sodium and steam/water in the sketch below and operating at
conditions in Table 1. Sodium properties are in the text Appendix E.
1. Draw T-S diagram of the cycle.
2. Compute the cycle thermal efficiency.
1
a Turbine
Heater Turbine
b 5
2
Heat Exchanger
Boiler
Condenser
c 3
d 4
Pump Pump
Schematic Diagram of Binary Cycle
Rev August 29, 2000
Page 1 of 2 pages
Table 1. Operating Conditions
Points Pressure (psia) Condition
a 105.2 Saturated Vapor of Sodium

b 1.317
c 1.317 Saturated Liquid of Sodium
d 105.2
1 600.0 Superheated Steam at T = 680˚F
2 1.0
3 1.0 Saturated Liquid
4 600.0
5 600.0 Saturated Vapor
Turbine Isentropic Efficiency = 90%

Pump Isentropic Efficiency = 85%
Page 2 of 2 pages
Proofs Involving The Brayton Cycle
A. The Brayton Cycle identified in Figure 1 utilizes intercooling. The replacement of the
compressor process (a-b) with a two step compression process (a-c and d-e), an
intermediate cooling phase (c-d) which defines the intercooling process subject to the
constaint Td ≥ Ta and a heating phase (e-b) to return to state b presumably creates a
benefit. This benefit could be either:
(1) reduction in work required for the compression process, or
(2) reduction in the irreversibility of the required compression process.
Provide proofs which demonstrate whether benefits (1) and (2) are true or false. You
may treat the cooling phase c-d and the heating phase e-b as unreversible.
B. You must select the intermediate pressure, Pc (Pc = Pcs = Pd) at which to perform the
intercooling phase.
(1) Which pressure should be selected in order to maximize the reduction in work for
the compression process? Prove your answer.
(2) Which pressure should be selected in order to minimize the irreversibility of the
compression process? Prove your answer.
b
bs
e
es
c g
d Td ≥ Ta
cs
S
Figure 1
Rev August 29, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Replacement Of A Steam Generator In A PWR With A Flash Tank
Consider a "direct" cycle plant with a pressurized water-cooled reactor. This proposed design
consists of using most of the typical PWR plant components except the steam generator. In place
of the steam generator, a large "flash tank" is incorporated with the capability to take the primary
coolant and reduce the pressure to the typical secondary side pressure. The resulting steam is
separated, dried, and taken to the balance of plant, the feedwater from the condenser return to this
flash tank. The primary water from the flash tank is repressurized and circulated back to the core.
Make a schematic drawing of this direct cycle plant, and discuss the benefits and/or problems with
this design. Also, compare a typical PWR plant design with this direct cycle design with respect
to:
• Plant thermal efficiencies (perform a numerical comparison and explain your results), and
• Nuclear plant safety (perform a qualitative comparison).
Rev August 29, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Irreversibility Problems Involving The Rankine Cycle
Consider the Rankine cycles given in the T-S diagram and defined by operating conditions of
Table 1. The cycles differ in the temperature and pressure of the condensation process. What are
the differences in cycle irreversibilities between the two cases for irreversibilities defined as:
1. Irreversibility per unit mass flowrate of working fluid, I/ms, and
2. Irreversibility per unit mass flowrate of working fluid and energy input, i.e., I/Qin ms.
6800 kPa 3
2
2'
1 7.0 kPa
4
6.0 kPa
1' 4'
To
T'o
S
T - S Diagram
Table 1. Operating Conditions
Points Pressure (kPa) Condition

1 7.0 Saturated Liquid
2 6800.0
4 7.0
1' 6.0 Saturated Liquid
2 6800.0
4' 6.0
Rev October 11, 2002

Page 1 of 1 page
Complex Brayton Cycle With Regeneration, Pressure Loss, And
Real Machines
Consider a helium Brayton Cycle with regeneration, pressure losses, and real machines.
These are characterized by the following parameters:
ζ = 0.92
β = 1.025
ηt = ηc = 0.92
The cycle operates at a pressure ratio of rp = 2.2 between limiting temperatures of

303 K and 1083 K. For helium:
γ = 1.66
cp = 5.230 kJ/kg K
For this cycle, find the thermal efficiency, ηth.
Rev January 17, 2001
Page 1 of 1 page
Optimizing The Pressure Ratio Of The Brayton Cycle In A Brayton-
Rankine Combined Cycle
A. A Brayton cycle is presented in Figure 1. The Brayton cycle uses helium as the working
fluid. The constraints for this cycle are that the highest temperature achievable, T4, is 972K
and the atmospheric reservoir is 290K. The temperature of State 1 is 10K above the
atmospheric reservoir temperature, e.g., T1 = 300K Cycle parameters are given in Table 1.
• Draw the T-S diagram for this cycle and the temperature distribution diagram within the
regenerative heat exchanger.
• Demonstrate how to find the compression ratio that will result in the maximum value of
cycle thermal efficiency in terms of only the given temperatures T4 and T1 and other given
constants.
B. The Brayton cycle above has a Rankine bottoming cycle added as shown in Figure 2. The
Rankine cycle uses H2O. The mass flow rates in each cycle are equal. The constraints for
this combined cycle are analogous to those above, e.g., T4, is 972K and T7 is 300K. Cycle
parameters are given in Tables 1 and 2.
• Draw the T-S diagram for this cycle and the temperature distribution diagrams within the
regenerative heat exchangers.
• Demonstrate how to find the compression ratio that will result in the maximum value of
cycle thermal efficiency in terms of only the given temperatures T4 and T7 and other given
constants.
WCB
WTB
2 4
Reactor
1
3
6
5
Atmospheric
Cooling Stream
Figure 1 Brayton Cycle
Rev August 29, 2000

Page 1 of 2 pages
WCB
WTB
2
Reactor 4
1
5
Helium loop 3
6
8 Steam loop 9
WPR WTR
7 10
Atmospheric
Cooling Stream
Figure 2 Combined Brayton-Rankine Cycle
Table 1
γ for Helium = 1.658 cp for Helium = 5,230 J/kg˚K

Efficiency of the regenerative heat exchanger = 0.75
The pump and turbine are ideal, e.g., ηs = 100%
Both heat exchange processes are conducted at constant pressure
Table 2
Efficiency of both regenerative heat exchangers = 0.75

All pumps and turbines are ideal, e.g., ηs = 100%
All heat exchange processes are conducted at constant pressure
The pinch point of the helium-steam heat exchanger = 10 K
State 7 is saturated liquid state State 9 is a saturated vapor state
Page 2 of 2 pages
Cycle Thermal Efficiency Problem Involving A Bottoming Cycle
In Example 6-10 it is shown that the cycle thermal efficiency of the simple Brayton cycle shown in
Figure 6-24 can be increased by utilizing regeneration. Specifically, it was found that, with the
addition of a regenerator of effectiveness 0.75, the cycle thermal efficiency was increased from
42.3% to 48.1%. Another way of improving the efficiency of the simple Brayton cycle is to use a
bottoming cycle. To this end, consider the system shown in Figure 1. It shows the simple
Brayton cycle with a Brayton bottoming cycle. For this system, the following parameters and
information are known:
T1 = 278 K rp for the simple Brayton cycle = 4.0

T3 = 972 K cp for both cycles = 5230 J/kg K
T9 = T1 γ for both cycles = 1.658
(∆Tp)1 = pinch point of heat exchanger #1 Mass Flowrate for the simple Brayton cycle =
twice the mass flowrate for the Brayton
= 15°C bottoming cycle
All turbine and compressors in both cycles No duct pressure losses in either cycle
are ideal
2 3
Reactor
Simple Brayton Cycle

Compressor #1 Turbine #1
Wc1 Wt1
Heat Heat
Exchanger Exchanger
#2 #1
1 4
5
6 7
Bottoming
To Atmosphere Brayton Cycle
Wc2 Wt2
Heat
Exchanger
Compressor #2 #3 Turbine #2
9 8
To Atmosphere
Figure 1
Rev August 29, 2000
Page 1 of 2 pages
QUESTIONS
A . Draw the T-S diagram for the entire system.
B . What must be the pressure ratio of Turbine #2 and Compressor #2 such that the cycle thermal
efficiency of the entire system is maximized?
C . What is the maximum cycle thermal efficiency?
Page 2 of 2 pages
PROBLEM 6-16N Question
Tokamak Power Generation Problem
A problem associated with Tokamak fusion reactors is that power generation is intermittent
and some type of energy storage device is required to maintain a constant electrical generation
rate. One suggested solution to this problem is a combination steam generator/steam storage unit
which expands in volume (at constant pressure) during the reactor "burn," and contracts to its
original volume during the reactor down time. The Tokamak and the power cycle are given in
Figure 1. Relevant physical properties and conversion factors are given in Table 1.
The Tokamak reactor burn cycle is 1000 seconds at 6680 MWt. The down time at zero
power is for 100 seconds after which the power cycle is repeated. This reactor power cycle is
illustrated in Figure 2.
Frictionless
Weight Seal
The water within the
storage device is
always saturated at • • •
Ms MT WT
320˚C and 11.29 MPa Steam
• Turbine
MPH
Tokamak •
Q
•
Q •
Pump, WP
Liquid
Condenser
Coolant is Water Preheater
at 16.5 MPa •
QC
Figure 1 Tokamak and Power Cycle
•
Q
6680 MWt 6680 MWt
t (seconds)
0 1000 1100
Figure 2. Reactor Power Cycle
Rev August 30, 2000

Page 1 of 2 pages
TABLE 1. Property Data for 320˚C, 11.27 MPa

Water To Steam,
Water, f Steam, g fg
v m3/kg 1.5x10-3 0.015 0.0135
h kJ/kg 1462 2700 1238
u kJ/kg 1445 2526 1081
cp kJ/kg˚K 6.604 8.060
σ N/m 9.89x10-3 --
µ Ns/m2 83.5x10-6 20.95x10-6
k W/m˚K 0.503 87.8x10-3
Pr 1.11 1.92
Unit Conversions:
J = Nm = Ws
Pa = N/m2
QUESTION
The liquid mass in the steam generator/storage unit necessary to cover the heat exchanger
tubes is 3.6x106 kg and the quality at the start of a reactor burn is 15%.
a) Sketch a graph of steam mass stored in the steam/generator/storage unit versus time, and
of the liquid mass stored in the steam generator/storage unit versus time. Explain the basis
for your sketches.
b) Calculate the required total volume of the steam generator/storage unit.
Page 2 of 2 pages
Containment Problem Involving a LOCA
Upon a loss of primary coolant accident (LOCA) the primary system flashes as it discharges into
the containment. At the resulting final equilibrium condition, the containment and primary system
are filled with a mixture of steam and liquid. A containment is being designed as shown in
Figure 1 which directs the liquid portion of this mixture to flood into a reactor cavity in which
primary system is located. The condensate which passes back into the core through the break can
satisfactorily cool the core if it can submerge it, i.e., if the condensate level is high enough.
Find the containment volume which will yield a final equilibrium pressure following primary
system rupture sufficient to create the 125 m3 of liquid required to fill the cavity and submerge the
core.
The pressure and volume of the primary system are 15.5 MPa and 354 m3, respectively.
• Neglect the initial relative humidity and the air in the containment.
• Neglect Qc-st and Qc-atm.
125 m3 of liquid
Core
Figure 1
Rev August 30, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Pressurizer Transient Problem
A pressurizer is to be designed in such a way that it can accommodate anticipated pressure

fluctuations. Suppose the pressure range which the pressurizer should control is from 14.0 MPa
to 16.6 MPa with 15.5 MPa as the nominal condition. During depressurization transients, because
of rainout and flashing the water in the pressurizer is assumed at saturation conditions. However,
for the overpressurization transient, the steam and liquid in the pressurizer is assumed at non-
equilibrium conditions, i.e., steam is saturated because of the spray, but the liquid is subcooled
(see Figure 1). Using the single region approach, answer the following questions with the
information given in Table 1.
T (˚C )
p = 16.6 MPa
p = 15.5 MPa
350.4
p = 14.0 MPa
344.9
336.8
Indicates the vapor and
liquid states
Figure 1
a . Determine the pressurizer volume which accommodates the overpressurization transient

assuming the end state of this transient is at p = 16.6 MPa. What is the vapor volume fraction
at the end of this transient?
b . Determine the heater size which accommodates the depressurization transient assuming the end
state of this transient is 14.0 MPa with the pressurizer volume obtained in (a) above. What is
the liquid volume fraction at the end of transient? Is it large enough to cover the heaters, if the
minimum liquid volume to cover the heaters is 13% of the pressurizer volume?
Rev August 31, 2000

Page 1 of 2 pages
TABLE 1
• Vapor and Liquid Conditions in the Pressurizer during Transients:
Pressure vf vg uf ug
(MPa) (10 -3 m 3 /kg) (10 m 3 /kg)
-3 (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg)
14.0 1.61 11.5 1549 2478
15.5 1.68 9.81 1600 2444
16.6 1.68* 8.73 1600* 2416
* Subcooled Condition
• Initial Conditions:
The pressurizer is initially 60% full of liquid water, and at 15.5 MPa.
• Overpressurization Transient:
minsurge = 9200 kg hinsurge = 1442 kJ/kg
mspray
= 0.09 hspray = 1285 kJ/kg
minsurge
During Overpressurization, Heaters are Off
• Depressurization Transient:
moutsurge = 14,166 kg houtsurge = 1600 kJ/kg
During Depressurization, Sprays are Turned Off
• Assumptions:
hinsurge, houtsurge, hspray are constant during transients.
For the depressurization transient, heaters are operating at the full capacity, and the transient is
over after 15 minutes.
Page 2 of 2 pages
Pressurizer Insurge Problem
For insurge case, why isn’t latent heat of vaporization of vapor which is condensed
sufficient to heat insurge mass to saturation?
Rev August 31, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Pressurizer Sizing Analysis
The size of a pressurizer is determined by the criteria that the vapor volume must be
capable of accommodating the largest insurge and the liquid volume must handle the
outsurge. The important limitations of the design are that the pressurizer should not be
totally liquid filled or the immersion heaters should not be uncovered after possible
transients. To size the vapor volume, a maximum insurge is assumed to completely fill the
pressurizer with liquid with some of the insurge being diverted to the spray to condense the
vapor. Treating the entire pressurizer volume, Vt, as the control volume, find the vapor
volume, Vg1, which will accommodate the insurge given below.
DATA:
Initial Pressurizer Conditions

Saturation at 2250 psia and 653˚F
Initial liquid mass = 1827 kg
Maximum Insurge (includes spray)
Mass = 2740 kg.
Enthalpy = 1.2 x 106 J/kg
Final Pressurizer Condition
Assume completely filled with liquid at 2250 psia
Rev August 31, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Containment Pressurization Reactor Thermodynamics
What should the containment volume for a 3000 MWt PWR be to prevent a primary coolant pipe
rupture from resulting in an overpressurization of 45 psi, assuming all heat removal systems fail
and the fuel may add up to 180 Gw-sec. of energy before mitigating procedures begin? What
overpressurization may occur with this design if a steamline ruptures and the steam generator
provides the same amount of energy before any safety system intervention? Assume thermal
equilibrium within the containment and no heat losses to structures.
DATA
Initial Containment Atmosphere
Pressure pao = 14.7 psia
Temperature Tao = 90˚F
Relative humidity φ = 95%
Specific Heat at Constant Volume

Air cva = 0.172 B./lb.F
Steam cvw = 0.379 B./lb.F
PWR – NSSS Operating Conditions and Design Parameters

Primary coolant volume Vp = 12,500 ft3
Secondary coolant volume Vs = 3,145 ft3
Primary system pressure ppo = 2,250 psia
Secondary system pressure pso = 1,000 psia
Primary system temperature Tpo = 650˚F
Secondary system temperature Tso = 550˚F
Rev August 31, 2000

Page 1 of 1 page
Drain Tank Pressurization Problem
A drain tank is used to temporarily store water discharged from the pressurizer through the PORV
(Figure 1). The drain tank has a burst disk on it which ruptures if the pressure inside the drain
tank becomes too large. For this problem, assume that the PORV at the top of the pressurizer is
stuck open, and saturated water at 15.4 MPa leaves the presssurizer at a constant flowrate of
3 kg/sec and enters a perfectly insulated drain tank of total volume 12 m3. In addition, assume
that the initial conditions (before the water due to the stuck open PORV has entered the drain tank)
in the drain tank are:
No air present Initial vapor volume = 10 m3

Initial pressure = 3 MPa Initial liquid volume = 2 m3
Also assume that the liquid and the water vapor are in thermal equilibrium at all times in the drain
tank, and that the burst disk on the drain tank ruptures at 10 MPa.
From Pressurizer Relief Valve (PORV)
Drain Tank is Perfectly Insulated
Burst Disk – Ruptures at 10 MPa
Initial Pressure in Tank = 3 MPa
Water Vapor
Initial Vapor Volume = 10 cubic meters
Liquid Water Initial Liquid Water Volume = 2 cubic meters
Figure 1
Rev August 31, 2000

Page 1 of 2 pages
QUESTIONS
A . Define the control mass or control volume you will use and the equation set you will develop.
B . Solve for the elapsed time to burst disk rupture.
C . Now assume 11.93 kg of air are present in the drain tank along with the liquid water and
water vapor, P1w initial = 3 MPa and that the change in volume of the liquid water from the
initial state to the final state is large. What is the new time to rupture?
Page 2 of 2 pages
Containment Pressurization Following Zircaloy-Hydrogen Reaction
Consider a LOCA in a typical PWR in which the emergency cooling system is insufficient
to prevent metal-water reaction of 75% of the Zircaloy clad and the hydrogen produced
subsequently combusts. Using the results of Problem 3.6, this sequence of events yields the
following material changes and energy releases relevant to the containment pressurization:
Primary coolant released = 2.1 x 105 kg

Zr reacted = 0.75 x 24,000 kg
Energy released from Zr-H2O reaction = 1.195 x 1011 J
H2 produced and reacted = 394.7 kg mol
Energy released from H2 combustion = 9.47 x 1010 J
O2 consumed = you must determine
Net H2O change = you must determine
Take the initial primary coolant and containment vessel geometry and conditions the same
as Table 7-2. Also, assume that nitrogen has the same properties as air.
QUESTION
For the sequence described (e.g., LOCA, 75% Zircaloy clad reaction and subsequent
complete combustion of the hydrogen produced):
(a) Demonstrate that the final equilibrium temperature is 449 K, neglecting containment
heat sinks using the initial conditions of Table 7-2, and
(b) Find the final equilibrium pressure.
HINT: Is the final state likely saturated water or superheated steam in equilibrium with the air?
Consider the energy releases compared to those of Example 7.2.
Rev August 31, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
'Conductivity Integral'
Describe an experiment by which you would obtain the results of Figure 8-2, i.e., the value of the
conductivity integral. Be sure to explicitly state what measurements and observations are to be
made and how the conductivity integral is to be determined from them.
Rev September 1, 2000
Page 1 of 1 page
Thermal Conduction Problem Involving Design Of A BWR Core
A core design is proposed which locates BWR type UO2 pins in holes within graphite
hexagonal blocks (Fig. 1). These blocks then form a core of radius Ro. The achievable
linear heat power of the core (MW/m) is desired as a function of core radius, Ro(m) for
constraints of Table 1. Present the result as a plot. Constants and terms are defined in
Figure 2 and Table 1.
Basically these constraints exist under decay power conditions where the outside of
the core radiates its energy to a passive air chimney. However , the outside of the core
which is in touch with a vessel at the same temperature is limited to 500˚C. The clad
outside temperature, Tco, which radiates to the graphite, Tgi, is also constrained, here to a
temperature 649˚C.
Constants and Constraints for Homogenized Core Power Analysis
Table 1
Constraints Constants
Tco< 649˚C A cell = 7.30 ×10 −4 m 2
Tgo< 500˚C d1 = 12.5 mm
d 2 = 19.8 mm
∈1 = 0.6
∈2 = 0.7
k g = 60 W/m
σ = 5.669 × 10 −8 W / m 2 ⋅ K 4
1 d1  1 
+  − 1 =∈
∈1 d 2  ∈2 
∈ =1.937
Page 1 of 3 pages
Unit Cell Dimensions

Part 1
Graphite
Coolant channel
29.0 Zircaloy clad
10.4
UO 2 fuel
d1 Units = millimeters
d1 = 12.5 mm
d2 d 2 = 19.8 mm
Figure 1
Unit cell using BWR fuel pin in MHTGR prismatic block holding the ratio of fuel to
graphite constant.
Coolant channel size established by taking the area of water normally associated with a
pin in conventional BWR.
Page 2 of 3 pages
Configuration of Solid Core and Variables
Tgi
Homogenized
Core
Tco
Tgo
R0
Enlarged center
fuel pin
Figure 2
Notes:
Tgi is the temperature at the inner surface of the matrix graphite surrounding the fuel pin.
Tgo is the temperature of the matrix graphite at the core outer surface.
Tco is the temperature at the clad outer surface.
d1 and d2 are shown in the Fig. 1.
Page 3 of 3 pages
Important Features Of Fuel Element Temperature Calculation
Note: You may use the MathCAD program to solve this problem set but the use of MathCAD is
not mandatory.
This problem set illustrates some important features of fuel element temperature calculations.
Consider an LMR fuel rod with the dimensions, thermal calculations characteristics, and operating
conditions as follows:
• The clad is an austenitic stainless steel with outside diameter = 8.5 mm; thickness = 0.7 mm;
and thermal conductivity = 23 W/ m ⋅k .
• The fuel is enriched UO2 contained in hollow pellets with outside diameter = 6.9 mm; inside
diameter = 0.8 mm; as-fabricated density = 88% TD (theoretical density); and a thermal
conductivity versus temperature as defined in a section "fuel conductivity" at the end of this
problem statement.
• The gap conductance = 14 kW/ m 2 ⋅K ; and the heat transfer coefficient at the clad outer surface
= 170 kW/ m 2 ⋅K .
• The linear heat deposition rate = 57 kW/m; and the coolant temperature = 540°C.
Treat porosity as spherical using the Biancharia relation of the text Eq. 8-21. Neglect cracking and
relocation effects.
1) Consider first that there is no restructuring.
What are the temperatures at the following locations: clad outer radius Rco ; clad inner radius
Rci ; fuel outer radius Rfo ; and fuel inner radius Rfi ? Prepare a sketch (to scale and similar
to text fig. 8-17 showing temperature versus radius.
2) Consider the same fuel rod and the same operating conditions but consider also that
restructuring has occurred. The sintering temperatures and densities are those of
Westinghouse in text Table 8-5.
What are Tfi , R1 , R2 , and Rfi ? Add a "restructured" temperature distribution to the sketch
of part 1.

Page 1 of 2 pages
FUEL CONDUCTIVITY
This conductivity information applies to 95% TD UO2. It is based on Lyon and is taken from the
B&W polynomial of text Eq. 8-16c. The plot of text Fig. 8-1 is also applicable. SI units are
adopted here (text information is non-SI).
Temperature Thermal Conductivity Conductivity Integral

(˚C) (W/m⋅k) (kW/m)
0 9.32 0
200 6.38 1.54
400 4.78 2.64
600 3.85 3.50
800 3.26 4.20
1000 2.86 4.81
1200 2.58 5.35
1400 2.41 5.85
1600 2.29 6.32
1800 2.29 6.78
2000 2.31 7.24
2200 2.39 7.71
2400 2.53 8.20
2600 2.74 8.73
2800 2.94 9.30
Page 2 of 2 pages
Comparison Of Thermal Energy That Can Be Extracted From A
Spherical Hollow Fuel Pellet Versus A Cylindrical Annular Fuel Pellet
Consider an annular cylindrical annular fuel pellet of length L, inside radius, RV,
and outside radius Rfoc. It is operating at q ′′′
c , such that for a given outside surface
temperature, Tfo, the inside surface temperature, TV, is just at the fuel melting limit Tmelt.
A fellow engineer claims that if the same volume of fuel is arranged as a sphere
with an inside voided region of radius RV and operated between the same two surface
temperature limits, i.e., TV and Tfo, more power can be extracted from the spherical fuel
volume then from a cylindrical fuel pellet. In both cases volumetric generation rate is
radially constant.
Is the claim correct? Prove or disprove it. Please use the nomenclature of Fig. 1.
Assume no sintering occurs.
Given:
The one dimensional heat conduction equation in the radial direction in spherical
coordinates is: 2  kr 2  + q ′′′ = 0
1 d dT
r dr  dr 
4 3
For a sphere: VS = πR and A S = 4 πR 2
3
Cylindrical Annular Fuel Pellet: Spherical Hollow Fuel Pellet:
q ′′′
c q s′′′
R V = 0.25 mm R V = 0.25 mm
R foc = 1 cm L R fos = ?
L = 1 cm (to be determined from
the problem statement)
RV RV
R foc
R fos
Page 1 of 1 page
Transient Fuel Pin Analysis
A PWR fuel pin experiences DNB followed by SCRAM with the resulting reduction of
power. The transient begins with full power steady-state operation at time t = 0.0, followed by
DNB with a decrease in the fluid film heat transfer coefficient at the outside surface of the fuel rod.
The reactor power drops to 10% of initial power with SCRAM at t = 4.0 sec., which reflects both
the decay heat and some delayed fission. This situation is assumed to remain constant during the
time of interest for this calculation (less than 15 seconds).
The data to be used to describe the fuel rod follows:
dimensions (ft.); fuel linear heat rate (B/hr.ft);

rf = 0.016958 45734.0 at t = 0.0 to 4.0 sec.
rci = 0.017708 4573.4 at t = 4.0 to end of calculation
rco = 0.020542
thermal properties;
kf = 1.15 B/hr.ft.F pf = 635.0 lbm/ft3 cf = 0.08 B/lbm.F
= 1.25 (sintered) = 677.4 (sintered) = 0.08 (sintered)
kc = 10.0 pc = 409.0 cc = 0.08
hgap = 1000 B/hr.ft.2F Sintering temperature, Ts = 3,092.0˚F
boundary conditions;
Tb = 536.0 F
hf = 10000 B/hr.ft.2F at t= 0.0
= 100 from t = 0.0 to end of calculation
computational parameters;
number of iterations between plots (NP) = 100
maximum number of iterations (MAX) = 2500
number of fuel nodes (N) = 25
total number of nodes (M) = 29 (4 clad nodes)
time step in hours (DELT) = 0.000001388
node of sintered radius (NS) = 13
Page 1 of 3 pages
a. Provide plots of the following for the first 12.5 sec. of the transient and for sintered and
unsintered fuel:
(i) maximum fuel temperatures
(ii) maximum clad temperatures (do not read from plots)
(iii) heat flux at the outer surface
(iv) stored energy in the fuel
(v) temperature drop across the gap (do not read from plots)
b. Stainless Steel may be used as an alternative to Zircaloy for clad material. Using the solid
(unsintered) fuel model, provide plots for the parameters listed in part a. where the clad has
the following properties:
kc = 15.0 B/hr.ft.F
cc = 0.12 B/lbm.F
pc = 500.0 lbm/ft.3
c. Swelling of the fuel pellet and creep-down of the clad can result in pellet-clad interaction which
can be harmful to the clad integrity. Another result of this phenomenon is the enhancement of
heat transfer between the fuel and clad. Provide plots for the parameters listed in part a. where
the solid fuel has interacted with the Zircaloy clad and the heat transfer coefficient at the gap
has increased to:
hgap = 5000 B/hr.ft.2F
d. Comment on the following:

(i) the effect on the results of including sintering in the model
(ii) the effect of changing the clad material to stainless steel
(iii) the effect of pellet-clad interaction on the thermal results
(iv) discuss the reasons for maximum values in some of the parameters after time t = 0.0
Note: plot the same parameter for the various conditions on one graph to facilitate comparisons
Information for computer usage:
Submit card decks at IPC counter on second floor of building 39 with the following JCL;
//AAAAAAAA JOB BBBBBB, AAAAAAAA is the jobname

// PROFILE = 'LOW, MEMORY = 256', TIME = 1 BBBBBB is the group user identification no.
//*PASSWORD CCCCCC CCCCCC is the group user password
// EXEC FTG1XEQ,PROG = 'SAWDYE.DDDDDDDD(NELIB)'
DDDDDDDD is the program name;
//GO.SYSIN DD * TRANROD for the solid fuel
pellet model
(data cards) TRANRODS for the sintered
fuel model
/*
Page 2 of 3 pages
Output will be placed in BIN no. 422 at the user counter with the group identification printed on the
cover sheet
student groups A B C D
identification NE313A NE313B NE313C NE313D
passwsord A313 B313 C313 D313
data format from listings on the following pages
Page 3 of 3 pages
Fuel Pin Problem
A fuel pin is operating with solid pellets of 88% theoretical density and outside
radius 5 mm such that at the axial location of maximum fuel temperature, the fuel centerline
temperature TCL, is 25000C and the fuel surface temperature, Tfo, is 7000C. It is desired to
raise the pin linear power by 10% by employing one of the following alternative strategies
(in each case all the other conditions except the one cited are held constant):
a) raise the maximum allowable fuel temperature;
b) use an annular pellet with the center void of dimension Rv, or
c) increase the pellet density.
For each strategy find the new value of the cited parameter necessary to achieve the
desired 10% increase of linear pin power. Sintering effects may be neglected.
Page 1 of 1 page
Radially Averaged Fuel Temperature And Stored Energy In Solid And
Annular Pellet
Consider a solid pellet of radius b and an annular pellet of inside radius a, and outside radius b,
each operating at the same linear power rate, q'.
Define ∆T( r ) ≡ T( r ) − Tb
and ∆T( r ) ≡ T( r ) − Tb .
• Find across each pellet, the value of ∆T / ∆T. Use the subscript “s” for solid and the subscript
“a” for annular.
• What is the ratio of the stored energy in the solid to the annular pellet?
Rev October 11, 2002
Page 1 of 1 page
Two-Zone Sintering Of An Annular Fuel Pellet
An initially annular UO2 fuel pellet is put under operation at 600 W/cm with an outside surface
temperature of 700˚C. Assume sintering occurs reconfiguring the pellet with the linear power and
outside surface temperature maintained constant.
QUESTIONS
a) Draw a temperature-radius plot for the pellet before and after sintering (numerical values not
required, but do illustrate relative magnitudes, i.e., a figure analogous to Fig. 8-16 showing
Tmax, Ts, Tfo, Rvi, Rvf, Rsi, Rsf, and Rfo, where state i is at power but before sintering, and
state f is at power but after sintering).
b) What is the maximum pellet temperature achieved after sintering occurs?

You may assume a two-zone sintering model where:
Tsintering ≡ Ts = 1,800˚C ,
ρsintered ≡ ρs = 98% ρTD .
Take the initial annual pellet, ρi = 88% ρTD, and of dimensions:

Dfo (outside fuel diameter) = 9.5 mm ,
Dv (void diameter or inside fuel diameter) = 4.5 mm .
Page 1 of 1 page
Reynolds Analogy And Equivalent Diameter Problem
Consider a uniformly heated tube (constant heat flux) of diameter 0.025 m with fluid flowing at an
average velocity of 0.5 m/s. Find the fully developed heat transfer coefficient for two different
fluids (Fluid A and Fluid B, whose properties are given in Table I) by the following two
procedures:
Procedure #1 – Use only friction factor data. If you find this procedure not valid, state the reason.
Procedure #2 – Select the relevant heat transfer correlation.
In summary, you are asked to provided four answers, i.e.,
FLUID A FLUID B
PROCEDURE #1 h=? h=?
PROCEDURE #2 h=? h=?
TABLE I
FLUID PROPERTIES FLUID A FLUID B

k W/m˚C 0.5 63
ρ kg/m3 700 818
µ kg/ms 8.7x10-5 2.3x10-4
Cp J/kg˚C 6,250 1,250
Page 1 of 1 page
Turbulent Heat Transfer Coefficient Calculations
The friction factor for a flow channel at a velocity of 10 m/s under fully developed turbulent
conditions is 0.014. Find the approximate heat transfer coefficient under these same conditions
assuming the fluid is: (1) water at 315˚C and (2) sodium at 538˚C (see Nuclear Systems, Vol. 1,
p. 455 for properties).
Page 1 of 1 page
Equivalent Diameter And Reynolds Analogy Problem Involving A Fuel
Element
A liquid sodium test reactor fuel element configuration of equivalent diameter = 0.01 m with a
unique spacer is proposed for application in an innovative light water core to be designed for long
fuel cycle. Hence, the tightly packed, uniquely spaced fuel configuration of the sodium reactor is
to be used in this water reactor core.
Friction factor test results in sodium are available at Re = 105 indicate that f = 0.08. It is desired to
find the turbulent heat transfer coefficient for this fuel element configuration at Re = 105 in the
water reactor core. Relevant properties are given in Table I. Is it possible to achieve the desired
prediction? If so, make the prediction. If not, explain why you think it cannot be done with the
information given.
Table I. Fluid Properties at Operating Conditions

Fluid Properties Sodium Water
k W/m˚C 62.6 0.57
ρ kg/m3 818 740
µ kg/ms 2.3x10-4 9.6x10-5
Cp J/kg˚C 1250 5.4x103
Page 1 of 1 page
Fully Developed Laminar Heat Transfer in a Circular Duct
For fully developed laminar flow in a circular duct with constant wall heat flux the Nusselt
number value is 4.364
Identify all the assumptions made in arriving at this result.
Rev December 5, 2002
Page 1 of 1 page
HEM Pressure Loss Problem
Consider a 3 meter long water channel of circular cross-sectional area 1.5x10-4m2 operating at the
following conditions:
m = 0.29 kg/s
p = 7.2 MPa
Compute the pressure loss under homogeneous equilibrium assumptions for the following
additional conditions:
a. Adiabatic channel with inlet flow quality of 0.15.
b. Uniform axial heat flux of sufficient magnitude to heat the entering saturated coolant to an exit
quality of 0.15.
Page 1 of 1 page
Calculating Void Fraction In Adiabatic Steam-Water Flow
Consider an adiabatic tube in steady state steam-water upflow under the following
conditions:
p = 1 atm
d = 0.01 m d
L = 1m
ρl = 1,000 kg/m3
L
ρg = 1,000 kg/m3
hfg = 2,246 kJ/kg
ks = 0.025 W/m⋅K
µg = 12x10-6 N⋅sec/m2
G g = 1.8 kg / m 2 ⋅ sec G1 = 4000 kg / m 2 ⋅ sec
QUESTIONS:
A. Find the void fraction. Use at least two different methods to calculate your answer,
and compare the results.
B. Now calculate the void fraction for the case of liquid downflow and vapor upflow. If
your calculations indicate that the tube is flooding, verify this by applying an
appropriate flooding correlation.
Page 1 of 1 page
Thermal Parameters In A Heated Channel In Two-Phase Flow
Consider a 3 meter long water channel of circular cross-sectional area 1.5x10-4m2 operating at the
following conditions:
m = 0.29 kg/s
p = 7.2 MPa
hin = saturated
q" = axially uniform
xexit = 0.15
Compute and plot as a function of axial position:
1. Fluid temperature,
2. Wall temperature, and
3. CHFR for the axial locations where the Hench-Levy limit lines (page 561) are valid.
Page 1 of 1 page
Computation Of The Axial Distribution Of Thermal And Hydraulic
Characteristics Of A Horizontal Steam Generator
1) Operating conditions: see Table 1
2) Properties: determine using the given operating conditions
3) Material and geometry: see Table 1
4) Questions: compute the axial distribution of the following parameters on the secondary side:
a) Temperature
b) Enthalpy
c) Quality
d) Void fraction
e) Mass flux (liquid, vapor, total)
f) Volume flux (liquid, vapor, total)
5) Assumptions:
• 1 dimension flow
• Thermodynamic equilibrium
• Slip ratio = 1.5
• Once-through steam generator
Table 1
Geometry Thermal Hydrodynamic
Primary: Horizontal Tube O.D. = 0.687 in Inlet temp. = 619.2˚F Flow rate =
U-Tube (Full-Power Tube thickness = Outlet temp. = 555.0˚F 34.1 x 106 lbm/hr
Conditions) 0.050 in Pressure = 2250 psia
Power = 900 MW
Average tube length =
23.78 ft
Number of tubes = h = 950 Btu/hr⋅ft2˚F
13856
Heat transfer area =
59,260 ft2
Secondary Steam temp. = 540.2˚F Steam pressure =
Feedwater temp. = 964.2 psia
440.0˚F Flow rate =
3.96 x 106 lbm/hr
Overall Tube bundle height =
12.25 ft
Tube bundle cross-
sectional area (for axial
secondary flow) =
471.75 ft2
Shell I.D. = 19.5 ft
Shell length = 39.0 ft
Collector I.D. = 48 in.
Rev December 2, 2002
Page 1 of 1 pages
Shell And Tube Horizontal Evaporator
A shell-and-tube horizontal evaporator is to be designed with 30 tubes 1 cm diameter. Inside the

tubes water at 100 psia (690 kN/m2) enters at one end at 130oC and leaves at the other end at
120oC. The water velocity (V) in the tubes is 3 m/sec. In the shell, atmospheric pressure steam is
generated at 100oC.
Calculate:
1. The length of the tubes
2. Rate of evaporation, kg/sec
3. Rate of flow of the water, kg/sec
4. Pressure drop in the tubes on the water side.
(Assume fully developed flow and neglect entrance and exit losses).
For the boiling side take Csf = 0.013 in Eq. 14-22, Boiling Condensation and Gas-Liquid Flow,
P.B. Whalley.
Make your calculations for heat flux at mid-point where the liquid is at 125oC. Neglect thermal
resistance of the thin tube wall.
H2O: P = 1 atm Tsat = 100oC
Liquid Vapor
ρ (kg/m3) 960 0.60
cp (kJ/kg oC) 4.2 1.88
µ (kg/m s) 0.0003 0.000013

K (W/m oC) 0.68 0.025
σ (N/m) 0.06
ilg (kJ/kg) 2280
Pr 1.9 0.97
Assume properties of liquid inside the tubes at 690 kPa in the range 120-130oC are the same as the
above at 1 atm and 100oC.
Page 1 of 1 pages
BWR Heat Transfer Problem
Consider a fuel assembly in a BWR. For simplicity, consider that all coolant channels are identical
and all fuel rods are operating at the same uniform axial heat flux. The exit void fraction for this
assembly is limited by physics considerations to 0.6.
1. What is the maximum assembly power at which the Boiling Crisis occurs? (Note that the term
"Boiling Crisis" reflects that the BWR limit is on critical power, not heat flux)
2. What are the fuel rod outside wall temperature and quality as a function of z, i.e., Tw(z) and
x(z), at an assembly power level 1/3 of the CHF power level? Ignore the subcooled boiling
region because it is a highly non-equilibrium state. Make plots of your results.
DATA
Coolant mass flow rate into the assembly = 13.86 kg/sec

Active fuel length = 3.66 m
Assembly flow area = 1.0 x 10-2 m2
Number of fuel rods = 62
Reactor coolant pressure = 6.89 MPa
Inlet water temperature = 276.7˚C
Density of saturated liquid = 741.65 kg/m3
Density of saturated vapor = 35.93 kg/m3
Slip ratio from Bankoff's correlation*
Enthalpy of saturated liquid = 1260.4 kJ/kg
Enthalpy of saturated vapor = 2770.8 kJ/kg
*Nuclear Systems, Vol. 1, Eq. 11-43 inserted in Eq. 11-48 with Vvj taken as zero.
Page 1 of 1 page
Calculation Of MCHFR And MCPR For A BWR Channel
Consider a BWR channel operating at 100% power at the conditions noted below. Using the
Hench-Levy limit lines (Eqs. 12-69) and assuming the critical condition occurs at all powers at a
position three quarters of the channel length from the inlet, i.e., z = 0.75 L, determine:
• MCHFR at 100% power, and
• MCPR at 100% power.
Operating Conditions Channel Conditions

q′(z) = 8x104 exp (-1.96 z/L) sin πz/L L = 12 feet
where z = 0 is defined at the channel inlet P = 0.638 inches
and q′ is in units of BTU/hr.ft D = 0.483 inches
G = 1x106 lb/hr⋅ft2
p = 1000 psia
hIN = 475 BTU/lb
NOTE: English units have been used because Nuclear Systems, Vol. 1, Eqs. 12-69 are written in
these units.
nL L 1 - exp (- nα) cos nπ - αL exp ( - nα) sin nπ

π
exp - αz sin πz dz = π2 =
1 + α
L L 2
0
π
2.08 ft. for α = 1.96 and nL = 0.25 L
2.42 ft. for α = 1.96 and nL = 0.5 L
3.00 ft. for α = 1.96 and nL = 0.75 L
Rev March 4, 2003
Page 1 of 1 page
Nucleate Boiling And CHF In A PWR Steam Generator
The steam generator for many PWR reactor systems is a U-tube arrangement. Focus on
the hot leg of one tube idealized in Fig. 1. The secondary side coolant is in upflow in an annulus
surrounding the tube in which primary flow is also in upflow. Operating conditions and properties
are given in Tables 1 and 2. In this solution, neglect the subcooled boiling regime and assume fully
developed flow on both the primary and secondary sides and ignore pressure changes and hence
property changes with length.
QUESTIONS
a) Find the axial location, z, at which the equilibrium flowing quality of the secondary side coolant
equals zero.
b) Sketch the outside (i.e., wall in contact with secondary side coolant) tube wall temperature as a
function of axial location. Explain and justify the shape of the profile and particularly consider
whether the flowrate on the secondary side of the tube goes through a boiling crisis.
Dip
L
Ds
z
•
m •
s • ms
mp
Figure 1
Rev March 4, 2003
Page 1 of 2 pages
Table 1
Operating Conditions
Primary Secondary
Pressure (MPa) 15 5.5
Inlet temperature (˚C) 324 225
Flowrate per unit cell (kg/s) 0.895 0.082
h1φ (W/m2⋅K) 38,000 2,230
h2φ (W/m2⋅K) N/A 10,000
Table 2
Properties Geometries
Primary Secondary Tube Wall t = 1.2 mm
ρ (kg/m3) 726 767 -- Dip = 16.6 mm
k (W/m⋅K) 0.56 0.581 26 L = 8m
µ (kg/m⋅s) 92x10-6 1.0x10-4 -- Ds = 3.23 cm
cp (J/kg⋅K) 5,700 4,900 --
Tsat (˚C) 345 270 --
hf (kJ/kg) 1629 1185 --
hg (kJ/kg) 2596 2789 --
hin (kJ/kg) 1490 970 --
Page 2 of 2 pages
Nucleate Boiling On A Tube Wall
A Tokamak is cooled by a single phase water flow which exits at a temperature which you will
determine, and this water enters a steam generator through a large number of tubes in which parallel
flow occurs (only one tube is shown in Fig. 1). Assume each tube has diameter 0.01 m and all
tubes together have an outside surface area of 106 m2. Take the flow in each tube at Re = 107.
a) What outside wall temperature (see Fig. 1) would you desire to achieve on steam generator
tubes for the length portion just entering the storage device? Use the boiling curve provided in
Fig. 2.
b) What bulk coolant temperature, TB, within a tube entering the storage device (see Fig. 1) is
necessary to achieve the wall temperature you specify in Part 2.a?
You may neglect the thermal resistance of the tube wall. In the temperature range of interest, the
relevant water properties are:
Pr = 1.11, k = 0.503 W/m K, µ = 83.5x10-6 Ns/m2, cp = 6.604 kJ/kg K.
E
C
D
106
Heat Flux, φ, (W/m 2 )
TB TW
Liquid
Tokamak
Tpool = 593 K
Steam Generator/ B
Steam Storage Device 105 A
F
1 10 10 2 10 3
∆Tsat (K)
Figure 1 Figure 2. Boiling Curve.
Page 1 of 1 page
Nucleate Boiling Initiation And Termination On A Heat Exchanger Tube
A heat exchanger tube is immersed in a water cooling tank at 290K, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Hot
water (single phase, 550K) enters the tube inlet and is cooled as it flows at 2 kg/s through the 316
grade stainless steel tube (19 mm outside diameter and 15.8 mm inside diameter). Neglect entrance
effects.
a) Compute the length along the horizontal inlet length of the tube where nucleate boiling on the
tube O.D. is initiated.
b) Compute the length where nucleate boiling on the tube O.D. is terminated.
The heat transfer coefficient between the outer tube wall and the water cooling tank is 500 for single
phase conditions and 5000 for nucleate boiling conditions. The wall superheat for incipient
nucleation is 15˚C for this configuration. Estimate and justify any additional information you need to
execute the solution.
Fluid Properties of Inlet Water Atmospheric

(assume they stay constant) Pressure
K ≡ Thermal Conductivity = 0.5 W/m˚C

Inlet 2m
ρ ≡ Density = 704 kg/m3
Inlet Outlet
µ ≡ Viscosity = 8.69x10-5 kg/ms
Heat Cooling Tank
Exchanger
Cp ≡ Heat Capacity = 6270 J/kg˚C Tube
Figure 1

Page 1 of 1 page
Nucleation in Pool and Flow Boiling
A heat surface has conical cavities of uniform size, R, of 10 microns.
A) If the surface is used to heat water at 1 atmosphere in pool boiling, what is the value of the
wall superheat required to initiate nucleation?
B) If the same surface is now used to heat water at 1 atmosphere in forced circulation, what is the
value of the wall superheat required to initiate nuclear boiling? What is the surface heat flux
required to initiate nucleation?
Page 1 of 1 page
Two Phase Flow Pressure Drop Calculation In BWR
Consider a hypothetical BWR fuel assembly with following characteristics: All

coolant channels are identical and all fuel rods are operating at the same uniform axial heat
flux of 0.8 MW/m2.
Calculate the friction pressure drop across the fuel assembly assuming the HEM
condition are valid.
DATA:
Operating Conditions:
Subchannel coolant mass flow rate = 0.199815 kg/sec

Reactor coolant pressure = 6.89 MPa
Inlet water temperature = 276.7oC
Density of saturated liquid = 741.65 kg/m3
Density of saturated vapor = 35.93 kg/m3
Enthalpy of saturated liquid = 1260.4 kJ/kg
Enthalpy of saturated vapor = 2770.8 kJ/kg
Slip ratio from Bankoff’s correlation
Geometry:
Pitch = 16.2 mm
Pin Diameter = 12.27 mm
Active fuel length = 3.6576 m
Number of fuel rods = 54
Page 1 of 1 page
Thermal Hydraulic Analysis Of A Pressure Tube Reactor
Consider the light water cooled and moderated pressure tube reactor shown in Figure 1. The fuel
and coolant in the pressure tube are within a graphite matrix. Each pressure tube consists of a
graphite matrix that has 24 fuel holes and 12 coolant holes. Part of the graphite matrix and a unit
cell are also shown in Figure 1.
An equivalent annuli model for thermal analysis is shown in Figure 2. Consider the fuel (although
composed of fuel particles in each fuel hole) as operating at a uniform volumetric heat generation
rate in the r, Θ plane. Operating conditions and some useful parameters are in Table 1.
Fuel Hole
OD: 12.8mm
Pressure Tube (740) Calandria
Core Length
6.0 m
27.5 mm
Coolant Hole
Unit Cell OD: 14.8 mm
Figure 1 Calandria with Pressure Tubes and Unit Cell in the Pressure Tube
Page 1 of 3 pages
Fuel Graphite
Line of Zero
Shear Stress Coolant
Figure 2 Equivalent Annuli Model (not to scale)
Table 1. Operating Data

Units Data Units Data
Reactor System Fuel Hole
Core thermal power MWth 2000 Fuel hole diameter mm 12.8
Number of pressure tubes 740 Mass of UC kg/hole 2.3
Core radius m 8.5
Core length m 6.0 Coolant Hole
Coolant hole diameter mm 14.8
Primary System Coolant flowrate kg/s 1.4
Pressure MPa 6.89
Inlet coolant temperature ˚C 245 Unit cell pitch mm 27.5
Assumptions:
• HEM (Homogenized Equilibrium Model) for two phase flow analysis is valid.
• Cosine axial heat flux (neglect extrapolation).
Page 2 of 3 pages
Useful Data:
Parameters Fuel Graphite Coolant

Thermal conductivity, k (W/m⋅˚K) 7 23 0.59
Dynamic viscosity, µ (Pa⋅s) 101x10-6
Specific heat, Cp (J/kg⋅˚K) 5.0x103
Coolant inlet enthalpy, hin (kJ/kg) 1062.3
Single phase density, ρ (kg/m3) 776.3
Saturated Coolant Data @ 6.89 MPa
Density: ρf = 742.0 kg/m3, ρg = 35.94 kg/m3

Enthalpy: hf = 1261.6 kJ/kg, hfg = 1511.9 kJ/kg
Saturated temperature @ P = 6.89 MPa, Tsat = 284.86˚C
QUESTIONS
1. What is the radial peaking factor assuming an axial cosine and radial Bessel function flux
shape (neglect extrapolation length)?
For the following questions, assume that the total power of the fuel hole is 260 (kW/fuel hole) in
the hot channel.
2. What is the coolant exit temperature in the hot channel?
3. What is the coolant exit enthalpy in the hot channel?
4. What is the exit void fraction in the hot channel?
5. What is the non-boiling length in the hot channel?
6. What is the fuel centerline temperature at the position where bulk boiling starts in the hot
channel?
7. What is the pressure drop in the hot channel? To simplify your calculation, assume a uniform
heat flux value that provides total power equivalent to the cosine shape heat flux distribution.
Page 3 of 3 pages
Heat Transfer Problems for a BWR Channel
Consider a channel operating at BWR pressure conditions with a cosine heat flux distribution.
Relevant conditions are as follows:
Geometry Operating Conditions

D = 17 mm ρ = 7.5 MPa
L = 3.8 m Tin = 270˚C
Le = L G = 1700 kg/m2s
q″max = 1050 kW/m2
Pr = 1.0
µ = 8.7x10-5 kg/m⋅s
A) Find the axial position where the equilibrium quality, xe, is zero.
B) What is the axial extent of the channel where the actual quality is zero? i.e., this requires
finding the axial location of boiling incipience. (It is sufficient to provide a final equation
with all parameters expressed numerically to determine this answer without solving for the
final result.)
C) Find the axial location of maximum wall temperature assuming the heat transfer coefficient
and given by the Thom, et al., correlation for nuclear boiling heat transfer (Eq. 12-28b).
D) Find the axial location of maximum wall temperature assuming the heat transfer coefficient
is not constant but varies as is calculated by relevant correlations. Here you are not asked
for the exact location, but whether the location is upstream or downstream from the value
from Part C.
Page 1 of 1 page
Two Phase Problem Involving A Nuclear Power Plant
Consider a steam-cooled 170 MWe (electrical power output) power plant as shown in Fig. 1. The
plant is heating the coolant (water) in two stages: the first stage is from waste heat supplied by an
external boiler (located at the same site) through a heat exchanger; the second is through a nuclear
reactor. The plant states are defined as follows:
Position Quality (x) Pressure (p) State

1 • 5.0 MPa saturated liquid
2 • 15.0 MPa h = 1168.86 kJ/kg
2 30% 15.0 MPa •
3 75% 15.0 MPa •
4 • 5.0 MPa Two-phase mixture
Additional Information: Assumptions:

QHX = 1,000 MWt Uniform flat radial power distribution over entire core
Number of fuel pins = 25,000 Cosine power shape axially with zero extrapolation length
Number of channels = 25,000 HEM flow throughout
Square array with P/D = 1.15 For the pressure drop calculation assume:
Diameter of rod = 1.0 cm Entrance and exit losses negligible
Active core length = 2m Liquid and vapor compressibility negligible
Gravitational losses negligible
f 2φ = f lo
QUESTIONS
A . Draw the cycle T-s diagram.
B . Compute reactor power and mass flowrate needed.
C . Compute pacc across the core.
D . Indicate completely how to evaluate pfric (but do not perform the integration).
E . Compute the exit void fraction.
Page 1 of 2 pages
RX
2' 3
η = 0.9 T Gen ~
HX
4
C
η = 0.9
2
1
PUMP
Figure 1
Page 2 of 2 pages
Location Of Maximum Clad And Fuel Temperature For A
Uniform Axial q'''
Consider a fuel rod in a channel (an equivalent annulus) cooled by a single phase flow over its
entire axial length L. In this arrangement the heat transfer coefficient is constant over the axial
length L. Take the fuel rod volumetric energy generation rate, q′′′, as uniform both axially and
radially. Identify the axial locations of the maximum clad outside temperature and the fuel
centerline temperature. See figure for nomenclature to be used. Be sure to present the basis for
your answer.
h g = gap conductance
gap
+L/2
cladding
kf
k c = cladding
conductivity
Fuel h co = heat transfer coefficient
at outside surface of
cladding
-L/2
R fo
Rci
m in h in
Rco
Cp
REA
(EA is equivalent annulus)
Page 1 of 1 page
Thermal Behavior Of A Plate Fuel Element Following A Loss Of Coolant
A reactor fuel assembly of the MIT research reactor is made up of plate elements as shown
in Fig. 1 (only 4 of 13 elements are shown). Suppose the flow channel between plates 2 and 3 is
blocked at the inlet (Fig. 2) What is the axial location of the maximum fuel temperature in plate 3?
Solve this in the following steps: (Steps A and B can be solved independently of each other).
A) Find Tw(z) where Tw is the element 3 surface temperature on the cooled side (RHS).
B) Find TFuel (z) - Tw(z) where TFuel (z) is the element 3 surface temperature on the
LHS LHS
insulated side (LHS).
C) Find the axial location of the maximum TFuel (z).

LHS
In solving this problem you can make the following assumptions:
• All heat transfer through the fuel element is radial, i.e. there is not axial heat transfer within the
fuel element.
• All of the energy generated in plate 3 flow radially to the right to the coolant channel between
elements 3 and 4, i.e., the left side of element 3 has an insulated boundary (see Fig. 3).
• For simplicity, we neglect the clad and take the elements as only composed of fuel - a metallic
fuel.
• Assume the flow is fully developed.
Operating Conditions:
P = 55 psi (0.379 MPa)
Tinlet = 123.8 F (51°C)
m = 0.32 kg
q′′′(z) = 8.54E5cos(πz/L) kW/m3
Geometry:
L = 23 inches (58.42 cm)
s = 0.098 inches (0.249 cm)
t = 0.030 inches (0.0762 cm)
w = 2.082 inches (5.288 cm)
Page 1 of 2 pages
Properties:
Water: cp = 4.181 kJ/kg-K
ρ = 987.2 kg/m3
k = 0.644 W/m-K
µ = 544E-6 kg/m-s
Pr = 3.597
Fuel: k = 41.2 W/m-K
1 2 3 4 5
2 3 4
w
• • • • • •
m m m m m =0 m
Figure 1 Figure 2
L
TFuel (z) z=0
LHS 3 4 5
Tw(z)
s
• • •
m m m
Figure 3
Page 2 of 2 pages
Maximum Clad Temperature For LMFBR Reactor
Derive the relationship between the physical and extrapolated axial lengths for a LMFBR
core such that the maximum clad temperature occurs at the core outlet during steady-state operating
conditions. This relationship describes the truncation of the assumed sinusoidal thermal flux
variation along the core axis.
Ignore the reactor blankets and assume the following remain constant along the axial length
of the core:
(i) heated perimeter of channels
(ii) mass flux of coolant
(iii) coolant specific heat
(iv) film heat transfer coefficient
Page 1 of 1 page
OPEN BOOK QUIZ #1 1.5 HOURS
PROBLEM #1 (50 %)
A direct Brayton cycle fast gas reactor is cooled by helium. The fuel pin clad is
satisfactorily maintained below its failure limit upon a LOCA by natural circulation
cooling. To do so requires maintaining the containment pressure at or above 4
atmospheres so that the resultant air, helium, and water vapor (from the initial relative
humidity in the containment air) mixture can cool the fuel clad. The pressure limit for
the containment is 4.5 atmospheres (.456 MPa).
The initial conditions of the air in the containment and helium in the power cycle
are given in Table 1.
QUESTION
What is the maximum allowable volume of helium in the power cycle?
Make the following assumptions:

1. Treat Air, He, and water vapor as perfect gases
2. Neglect decay heat
3. The outside wall of the containment is perfectly insulated.
This solution requires iteration. As a guide you may assume that the volume of helium is at least
an order of magnitude less than the volume of the containment
Table 1: Initial Conditions for He-cooled GCFR
Air in the containment Helium in the power cycle

Va = 34,830 m3 Vg = to be determined
Pa = 0.1 Mpa Pg = 8.88 Mpa
Ta = 322 oK Tg = 700 oK
na = 1301 kmol ng = to be determined
_a = 80 % (relative humidity) *R = 0.00831 (Mpa m3)/(kmol oK)
cv,air = 20.80 kJ/kmol cv,He = 12.47 kJ/kmol
cv,water vapor = 25.42 kJ/kmol * universal gas constant
Page 1 of 1 v120202
PROBLEM #2 (50 %)
A fuel pin of initially solid pellets having an outside radius of 5mm is placed in
operation and the pellets undergo sintering, such that at the axial location of maximum
fuel temperature, Tmax is 2500 oC and the fuel surface temperature, Tfo is 700 oC.
QUESTION
a) (35%) If linear power were to be increased by 10 %, what would be the new

maximum temperature? Use a 2 zone sintering model with _o = 0.88 TD, _s =
.98 TD, Tsintering = 1800 oC
b) (15%) Using an initial annular pellet, what initial central void dimension Rv
would be required to attain the same linear power as in part a, while
maintaining Tmax = 2500 oC. Do not consider effects of sintering for this
portion of the problem.
Page 2 of 2 v120202
OPEN BOOK QUIZ #1 SOLUTIONS 1.5 HOURS
Problem #1:
Starting from the Control Volume first law for shaft work equal to zero:
U 2 − U1 = Q n − gp − Q c −st (1)
Given the assumptions:

1. Air, He, and water vapor are perfect gases
2. Neglecting decay heat
3. The outside wall of the containment is perfectly insulated
This equation reduces to:
U 2 − U1 = 0 (2)
or, expanding terms:
( U a 2 − U a1 ) +( U g2 − U g1 ) +( U w 2 − U w1 ) = 0 (3)
pg 1 of 7 v12/04/02
Treating all species in equation 3 as perfect gases, and noting that at the end of the transient, all
gases will be at the same temperature, this equation may be re-expressed as:
n g c v,g ( T2 − Tg ) = − n a c v,a ( T2 − Ta ) − n wa c v,wa ( T2 − Tw,a ) (4)
Noting that initially, the air and the water vapor are in thermal-equilibrium:
Tw,a = Ta
Now solve for T2 :

n g c v,g Tg + n a c v,a Ta + n wa c v,wa Ta
T2 = (5)
n g c v,g + n a c v,a + n wa c v,wa
Using the Perfect Gas Law:

( n g + n a + n wa ) RT
P= (6)
Vg + Va
where R is the universal gas constant.
Substituting equation 5 into equation 6 results in:
( n g + n a + n wa ) R  n g c v,g Tg + n a c v,a Ta + n wa c v,wa Ta 

P=   (7)
Vg + Va  n g c v,g + n a c v,a + n wa c v,wa 
This is the expression for the final pressure in the containment. The final pressure limit is 4.5
atmospheres. In MPa, this is:
1 atm
4.5 atm * = 0.456 MPa (8)
1.0133 * 10 5 Pa
All values are given except for n g , n wa , and Vg .
Using equation 7-19 from NS Vol I:

p wa = φp sat (Ta )
φ = 0.8
Ta = 322 K
Using the steam tables:
psat = 0.0117 MPa (9)
Treating water as a perfect gas:

psat Va = n wa RTa (10)
pg 2 of 7 v12/04/02
Solving for n wa , and substituting given and computed values:
p V (0.0118)(34, 830)
n wa = sat a = = 153.6 kmol (11)
RTa (0.00831)(322)
Now the remaining unknowns are n g and Vg . These quantities are related through the Perfect
Gas Law applied to the helium system at its initial state.
Pg Vg (8.88)Vg
ng = = = 1.527Vg (12)
RTg (0.00831)(700)
Substituting this value, and other computed or given values into equation 7 results in:
(1.527Vg + 1301 + 153.6)(0.00831)  (1.527Vg )(12.47)(700) + (1301)(20.80)(322) +(153.6)(25.42)(322)  (13)

0.456 =  
Vg + 34, 830  (1.527Vg )(12.47) +(1301)(20.80) + (153.6)(25.42) 
Simplified Further:
0.1269Vg + 12.088  13, 329Vg + 9.97 * 106 

0.456 =   (14)
Vg + 34, 830  19.04 Vg + 30, 965 
This must be solved iteratively for Vg . The method of Bisection was used in for the
development of this solution. With a pressure tolerance of 0.001 MPa, the final answer is:
Vg = 1614.0 m 3 (15)
If the initial volume of the He is neglected in the final answer, equation 14 becomes:
0.1269Vg + 12.088  13, 329Vg + 9.97 * 106 

0.456 =   (16)
34, 830  19.04 Vg + 30, 965 
Using the same iterative method, to a pressure tolerance of 0.001 MPa, the answer is:
Vg = 1526.2 m 3 (17)
pg 3 of 7 v12/04/02
Problem # 2
A = Initially Solid Pellet at q ′initial

B = Sintered Pellet at q ′initial
C = Sintered Pellet with maximum temperature of 2500 C at q ′res > q ′initial
D = Increase linear power by 10% (i.e., q ′new,res = 1.1q ′res )
The above figure, adapted from Figure 8-16 in NS Vol I, describes the logic of this problem. An
initially solid pellet (A) undergoes sintering (as described by the 2-zone sintering model) (B).
The initial linear power is increased so that the pellet maximum temperature is 2500˚C (line C).
Then, the linear power is further increased 10% (D).
Part a)
The first step is to find the linear power for the initially solid pellet which upon sintering, has its
linear power raised to q ′res so that Tmax = 2500˚C.
Using equation 8-99 and figure 8-2 from NS Vol. I, obtain the relationship between Rs and q ′res .
Ts =1800
q ′res   Rs  
2
W
∫ k 0.88dT = 4π 1 −  R   = 35.5 − 13.5 = 22 cm
 (1)
Tfo = 700  fo 
Using equation 8-100 and figure 8-2 from NS Vol. 1, obtain the relationship between q ′res , R fo ,
Rs , and R v :
Tmax = 2500 2 2 2 
q ′res  ρs   Rs    Rv  R 
1 + ln s  
∫ 0.98
k dT =
4 π  ρo   R fo 
1 −  
 R  
(2)
Ts =1800   Rs  
 v

pg 4 of 7 v12/04/02
q ′res
Now – solve equation 2 for the quantity :
4π
q ′res 21
= (3)
4π   
ρs Rs    R v    Rs   
2 2 2
 
 ρ   R  1 −  R  1 + ln R   
 o   fo    s   v 
  
Substitute this into equation 1 to eliminate q ′res :

  R 2
21 1 − 
22 = s
R   (4)
2 2 2    fo 
 0.98   Rs  1 −  R v  1 + ln Rs     

 0.88   R       
fo   Rs    R v  
  
Performing some algebraic manipulation, one arrives at:

  R 2
1 − s 
 R   2 2       2
  Rs     R 
fo   R 
1.16671 −   
 1 + ln R    = =  −1
v fo (5)
2
  R   
v   R   R s 
s   s
R 
 v
From mass balance equation, 8-98 in NS Vol. 1:
2
ρ − ρo 2 0.98 − 0.88 2 R 
R v2 = s Rs = Rs = 0.102 Rs2 ⇒  s  = 9.8 (6)
ρs 0.98  Rv 
Substitute the above expression relating Rs and R v into equation 5 resulting in:
2
 R fo 
1.1667{1 − 0.102(1 + ln(9.8))} =   −1
 Rs 
2
R 
0.7761 =  fo  − 1
 Rs 
2
 R fo 
 R  = 1.7761 (7)
 s
Inserting this result into equation 1 finds the desired result:

q′
22 = res 1 −
1 
4 π  1.7761 
W
q ′res = 632.68 (8)
cm
pg 5 of 7 v12/04/02
This is the initial linear power. The new linear power will then be:
W
q ′new = 1.1q ′res = 695.95 (9)
cm
Given this, find the new resulting Tmax .
Insert the new linear power into equation 1:

Ts =1800  2
695.95   Rs  
∫ k 0.98dT = 22 = 4π 1 −  R  
Tfo = 700  fo 
2
 R 
⇒ 0.3972 = 1 −  s 
 R fo 
2
 R 
⇒  s  = 0.60276 (10)
 R fo 
The relationship between R v and Rs still holds, substituting these values into equation 2:
Tmax = ?
695.95  0.98 
∫ k 0.98dT = (0.60276){1 − 0.102(1 + ln(9.8))}
4 π  0.88 
Ts =1800
Tmax = ?
⇒ ∫ k 0.98dT = 24.73 (11)
Ts =1800
From NS Vol 1, figure 8-2:

Tmax = 2640 ˚C (12)
Part b)
For annular fuel rods with no restructuring – using the same linear power as arrived at in part a,
and maintaining the temperature limit of 2500˚C, we use equation 8-69 in NS Vol. 1:
Tmax = 2500
q ′   R fo  
∫ k 0.88dT = F ,1 
4 π  v  R v  
(13)
Tfo = 700
Using Fig 8-2:

Tmax = 2500
W
∫ k 0.88dT = 54 − 13.5 = 41 cm (14)
Tfo = 700
pg 6 of 7 v12/04/02
and the linear power from part a:
695.95   R fo   ( 41)( 4 π)
41 = Fv  ,1  ⇒ Fv = = 0.74 (15)
4 π   R v   695.95
From Fig 8-18 for β =1 (uniform generation):

1
= 0.32
α
R fo R
Now: α ≡ , so R v = fo ⇒ R v = 5 mm (0.32) = 1.6 mm (16)
Rv α
pg 7 of 7 v12/04/02
OPEN BOOK QUIZ #2 QUESTIONS 1.5 HOURS
PROBLEM #1 (40%)
Consider two cases of fully developed axial flow of a fluid with Prandlt number of unity
in a triangular subchannel of fuel rods of diameter 9.5mm spaced at a P/D = 1.2 – a turbulent
flow at Reynolds number of 105 and a laminar flow at Reynolds number of 103. In both cases
the thermal boundary condition is constant axial wall heat flux. The above information is
summarized in the following Table:
Fully Developed Flow

in Triangular subchannel of
rods 9.5 mm diameter
of P/D = 1.2 with q ′w′ constant
Case Flow Regime Re Pr
Case 1 Laminar Flow 103 1
Case 2 Turbulent Flow 105 1
Question: Estimate the friction factor for each case by at least 2 different methods. Do not
execute a solution of the momentum equation as one of your methods.
Page 1 of 2 revised 11/26/02

PROBLEM #2 (20%)
A liquid metal (properties in Table below) is flowing at Reynolds number of 106 in a

heated circular channel of diameter 10cm, with a constant wall heat flux boundary condition of
50Kw/m2. The Darcy friction factor for this flow is equal to 0.015. The bulk temperature at the
fully developed position z = 6 meters is 50°C
Parameter Sodium (538°°C)

k 62.6 W/m°C
ρ 817.7 kg/m3
µ 2.28 x 10-4 kg/m s
cp 1254 J/kg°C
Question: What is the corresponding wall temperature at z = 2 meters?
PROBLEM #3 (40%)
Consider four reactor types – liquid metal, pressurized water, boiling water, and helium
cooled reactors all operating at 2000MWth at the same average linear heat rate. For each case take
the fuel rods as metal clad of 10mm outside diameter and 3 meters long and take the the
extrapolated length as 3 meters with a cosine axial linear power distribution. Other parameters of
interest are in the Table below.
Liquid Metal Gas Cooled

Reactor PWR Reactor BWR
Coolant Core Inlet Temp °C 395 286 318 278
Coolant Core Exit Temp °C 545 324 742 288
Heat Transfer Coefficient 105 5 x 104 104 2 x 104

W/m2°°C
Question: For which reactor is the maximum clad temperature closest to the core exit? Prove
your answer.
Page 2 of 2 revised 11/26/02

Problem 1:
Laminar:
C©fiL
1) fiL ≡ (eqn 9-83)
Re iL
Where,
( ) (
C©fiL = a + b1 P D − 1 + b 2 P D − 1
2
) (eqn 9-82)
From Table 9-2
C©fiL = 62.97 + 216.9(0.2) − 190.2(0.2)2

= 62.97 + 43.38 − 7.6
= 98.75
98.75
⇒ fiL = = .098
103
2) Fig 9-22, P/D = 1.2 (fRe’) ≈ 90 for triangular array curve f = 0.090
Turbulent:
C©fiT
1) fiT ≡ (eqn 9-88)
Re 0.18
where,
( ) (
C©fiT = a + b1 P D − 1 + b 2 P D − 1
2
)
= 0.1458 + 0.03632(0.2) − 0.03333(0.2)2
= 0.1458 + 0.007264 − 0.0013332
= 0.1517
0.1517
fiT = 0.18 = 0.0191
( )
10 5
Page 1 of 1 v12/04/02
2) De transformation:
Use the Moody curve directly for Re = 105 and read f as 0.018. This f is valid for a tube
10 5 µ 10 5 µ
velocity of and a subchannel velocity of where De is obtained as follows:
ρD ρD e
 3 2 πD 2 
4 A F 4 4 P − 8
De = = See Table J-3
1
PW 2 πD
8
π  ( )
= D   3 4 P D − π 8 
2



2 3  P  2 
= D − 1
 π  D  
2 3 
= 9.5 ∗ 10 −3  (1.25)2 − 1
 π 
−
= 9.5 ∗ 10 (0.724)
3
=.00622
3) Reynolds analogy (eqn 10-76)
f h
St = =
8 ρc p Vm
Nu hD h
St = = k =
Re Pr ρVD c pµ ρVc p
µ k
Nu f
=
Re Pr 8
Nu = ?
Fig 10-10 Re = 105, Pr = 1 -> Nu = 200

Nu 200
f =8 =8 = 0.01600
Re Pr 10 5
4) Equivalent Annulus: (eqn 9-86)
Re′De = 10 5
f
fct
(
= 1.036 + 0.054 P D − 1 )
f = fct [1.036 + 0.054(.25)] = fct (1.0495)
from part 2, fct = 0.018
f = 0.018(1.0495) = 0.01889
Page 2 of 2 v12/04/02
Problem 2:
(
q ′′ = h TW − TB )
50 ∗ 103
so, Tw = TB + q ′′ h = 50 +
h
need to find h.
The applicable correlation is eqn 10-113

Nu ∞ = 7 + 0.025Pe 0.8
µc p 2.28 × 10 −4 (1254)
Pr = = = 0.00457
k 62.6
Pe = Re Pr = 106 × 0.00457 = 4.57 × 103
Nu ∞ = 7 + 0.025( 4.57 × 103 )
0.8
= 7 + 0.025(847.1)
hD H
= 28.18
k
k 62.6 W
h= (28.18) = (28.18) 2
DH 0.1 m C
W
= 17, 639
m 2C
50000
TW = 50 + = 52.8 ˚C
17, 639
Let us examine the solution by Reynolds analogy for h:

(inapplicable because eddy effects do not dominate core flow as these analogies assume)
 
h f 1
Try Prandtl analogy St = =  
ρc p Vm 8 1 + 5 f ( Pr − 1) 
 8 
c pµ (1254)(2.28 × 10 −4 )
Pr = = = 0.0045
k 62.6
 
f 1 
h = ρc p Vm
8 1 + 5 f ( Pr − 1) 
 8 
ρVD 106 µ 106 (2.28 × 10 −4 )
Re = = 106 ⇒ V = = = 2.7
µ ρD 817.7(0.1)
Page 3 of 3 v12/04/02
 
0.015  1 
h = 817.7(1254)(2.7)
8 1 + 5 0.015 ( −.9955) 
 8 
h = 5,190   = 6, 400
1
 0.8 
Note that this h is much less than that obtained by the correlation. Hence the Prandtl analogy is
not applicable.
Problem 3:
For a cosine linear power axial shape:
Lc  2 πR Lh 
zc = tan −1  co  (eqn. 13-25b)
π  πmc« p 

π
tan −1 ∞ ⇒
2
So, given the conditions in the problem statement, the reactor with the max clad
h
temperature closest to the exit has the largest ratio of « sc is subchannel flow rate.
where m
« scc p
m
For a core:
«=m
Q « core c p ∆T = m
« sc Nscc p ∆T
so,
«
Q
« scc p =
m
Nsc ∆T
Each core has the same number of rods, N, since Q « = NLq ′ , and Q« , L and q ′ are the
same for each core. Since Nsc is directly proportional to Nrods (and also almost numerically
equal) the parameter dictating the location of max clad temp becomes:
h
⇒ h∆T
« scc p
m
Where the max z corresponds to the largest h∆T

LM PWR Gas
h∆T 150(105) 38(5 x 104) 424(104)
The parameter for Liquid Metal is the greatest; hence the maximum channel temperature
is closest to the exit for the Liquid Metal cooled core when these cores are considered.
Page 4 of 4 v12/04/02
For the case of the BWR, the analysis must include the fact that the coolant in the channel
reaches and maintains saturation temperature through the majority of the channel. The relative
bulk and clad temperature profiles are depicted in the diagram below. The shape of these
profiles is compared to that of a PWR:
The dots indicate the approximate location of the maximum clad temperature. As drawn, the
BWR maximum channel temperature is not closest to the exit.
Page 5 of 5 v12/04/02
PROBLEM BB-2 QUESTION
Mechanical equilibrium of a spherical bubble containing pure vapor states that:

2σ
PG - PL =
r
and thermodynamic equilibrium requires that TG = TL. In order to establish a criterion for growth
of a bubble of radius r, or the incipience of boiling from a cavity of radius r, it is necessary to
relate T and P along the saturation line. This can be accomplished by:
(a) Utilization of Clapeyron equation,

(b) A curve fit of the saturation line, or
(c) Use of tabulated property data.
I. Derive expressions for the minimum vapor temperature required for existence of a bubble
of radius r, utilizing method (a) together with the common simplifications described below.
h fg dP
Clapeyron equation: = T
v fg dT
Perfect gas: Pv g = R g T
(1) Assume h fg v fg T is constant, T ~ Tsat.
(2) Assume h fg v fg is constant.
(3) Assume vfg ~ vg, h fg R g is constant, and use the perfect gas assumption.
(4) Same as (3), but assume 2σ p L r << 1.
II. Compute the minimum vapor temperature for water under the following conditions:
R = 0.0005 in.
P2 = 14.7, 1000 psia.
Use (a) the four results derived in part I

(b) an empirical fit of the saturation curve:
where log10p(psia) = A + B/T (°R)
A ≈ 6.72
B ≈ -3720
and (c) the tabular values found in “Steam Tables.”
Use “Steam Tables” for the properties, and the attached data for the surface tension (the
σ-data will be useful throughout the course).
Evaluate all properties at Tsat; Rg = 85.57
ft lb f
lb m o R
Note all tables used in calculations should be in °R.
Page 1
PROBLEM DD-2 QUESTION
Compute the minimum time needed to heat up 100 lb. of water from 100°F to 212°F at
atmospheric pressure. The water is contained in a well-insulated tank that is also well-stirred.
The water is electrically heated with a high-power Calrod unit, in the form of a horizontal
cylinder 0.5 in. in diameter with a heated surface area of 1ft2. The power to the heater can be
varied continuously. The heated element will be destroyed if the burnout flux is exceeded.
Use at least two burnout correlations in order to get a good estimate of the power limit.
Remember that the pool is initially subcooled.
Page 1
1/11/02
NUCLEAR SYSTEMS I:
THERMAL HYDRAULIC FUNDAMENTALS
Neil E. Todreas and Mujid S. Kazimi
ERRATA
• TEXT
PAGE (Line, Fig., Eq., Ex.) ORIGINAL CORRECTED
13, Table 1-3 (LMFBR Cylindrical pellet Annular pellet
column, Line 6)
40 (Line 2) ... appears as kinetic energy of the ... appears as kinetic and decay
fission fragments, ... energy of the fission fragments, ...
40 (Line 3) ... emitted γ-rays. ... ... emitted γ-rays and neutrinos. ...
42 (end of page) ... (neutrino energy). ... (neutrino energy). Accounting
for capture energy, the fraction of
recoverably energy, i.e., core
power, deposited in the fuel
becomes about 95%.
57 (Line 9) thrermal thermal
63 (Line 12) qγ′′′(x) = (1014) ... qγ′′′ = (1014) ...

r
64 (Eq. 3-63) ′′′ (r ) = K
qel ′′′ = K
qel
r
64 (Eq. 3-64) qil′′′(r ) = K qil′′′ = K
r r s r
∴ q ′′′(r ) = qγ′′′(r ) + qe′′′l (r ) + qi′′′l (r ) ∴ q ′′′ = qγ′′′+ qe′′′l + qi′′′l
Dψ ∂ψ Dψ ∂ψ
85 (Eq. 4-22a) = -m + m = -m + m
dt ∂t Dt ∂t
90 (Line 22) hin - hout hin - hout

= uin(T) - uout(T) - (p/ρ)in - (p/ρ)out = uin(T) - uout(T) + (p/ρ)in - (p/ρ)
= pout - pin /ρ = pin - pout /ρ
94 (Line 2) withn within

141 (Line 22) ... Using Eq. 5-30, we can write ρm ... Using Eq. 5-30 and the area
as: averaging analogy to Eq. 5-16,
we can write ρm as:
143 (Line 2) vapor fraction (β) vapor fraction {β}
146 (Eq. 5-65, 1st term) K {K + ρl (1 − α )vvz } K K {K + ρl (1 − α )vlz } K

r
149 (Fig. 5-5, bottom) A 1 ( )
Al
r 1
As Als
2

∂ ∂
167 (Eq. 5-158) first term ρm vm
2 /2 A
z ρm v 2 m/2 A z
∂t ∂t
∂ ∂
second term 2 /2 A
Gm vm z Gm v 2 +m/2 A z
∂z ∂z
172 (Table 6-1, Line 8, U2 - U1 = Q1+2 - W1+2 U2 - U1 = Q1→2 - W1→2
Eq. 6-1)
176 (renumber Eqs.) (6-2) (6-3a)
(6-3) (6-3b)
∂ U - To S ∂ U - To S
188 (Eq. 6-32) W u,max = W u,max = -
∂t ∂t
219 (Eq. 6-97) p p p p
rp = 2 ≡ 3 rp ≡ p2 = p 3
p1 p4 1 4
WT - W CP /m WT - W CP /m
221 (Ex. 6-7, solution) ζ = = ... ζ = = ...
W u,max/m W u,max/m
227 (Ex. 6-10, solution) W Cp = mcp T2 - T1 = mcp T ... W Cp = mcp T2 - T1 = mcp T1 ...
231 (Fig. 6-29) Graph drawn as T1' ≠ T2' and Graph redrawn so that T1' = T2' and
T3' ≠ T4' T3' = T4'
γ-1 γ-1
232 (after 2nd eq.) where T 2' = T1" (rp) γ ... where T 2' = T1" (rp' ) γ
...
241 (Line 1) ... mwc1, mwpd, and mwpr) ... mwc1 and mwp)
241 (Eq. 7-2c) For mwpd: For mwp:

d (mwpduwpd) d (mwpduwpd + mwpruwpr)
= Qwpr - wpd - ... = Qn - wpr - ...
dt dt
d (mwpruwpr)
242 (Eq. 7-2d) = ... delete
dt
243 (Lines 3 & 4) ... 7-2c and 7-2d ... ... and 7-2c ...
245 (last Line) ... coolant in the primary or secondary ... coolant in the primary system, ...
system, ...
246 (Fig. 7-4) Changed to differentiate primary
and secondary coolant in steam
generator.
250 (Ex. 7-1) ... saturated water in equilibrium ... ... saturated water mixture in
equilibrium ...
251 (Table 7-2) Example 7-1: saturated water in ... Example 7-1: saturated water
mixture in ...
Example 7-2: superheated water in ... Example 7-2: superheated steam
in ...
3

254 (Ex. 7-2) ... superheated water in equilibrium ... ... superheated steam in equilibrium ...
254 (Line 20) If the water is superheated ... If the steam is superheated ...
254 (Line 25) ... treats the superheated water ... ... treats the superheated steam ...
263 (Line 2) computer compute
267 (Line 9) discontinuous phases continuous phases
267 (Fig. 7-16B) (m«v )s′U (m«v )s′′U

(m«l )s′L (m«l )s′′L
278 (Fig. 7-20) vapor at hg liquid at h l
liquid at h l vapor at hg
280 (Fig. 7-21) Redrawn with lighter shading so
arrows show.
arrows show.
arrows show.
301 (Eq. 8-16c, last term) - 1797017 - 1.797017
317 (Line 3) Hence: Hence, Eq. 8-57 becomes:
319 (Fig 8-13, y-axis Void Factor, Fv (α/β) Void Factor, Fv (α, β)
label)
338 (Eq. 8-23, top)
T max T max
Tfo Tfo
Tco Tci Tci Tco

Tm Tm
exp 2C ∆p A t - 1
t
2C ∆p A - 1
359 (Solution, 1st Eq.) m (t ) = 1 e l T
m (t ) = 1 lT
C A t
e 2C ∆p l + 1 C exp 2C ∆p A t + 1
T
lT
376 (Eq. 9-62) τzr eff = τzr - ρv' zv' r τrz eff = τrz - ρv' zv' r
Del′ Dei′
384 (Eq. 9-84)
Deb′ Deb′
397 (Line 9) ∴ Cs = 1.75 (by extrapolation ... ∴ Cs = 1.7 (by extrapolation ...
2 (1.7)(8.678 m/s)2 (0.417)
397 (Line 12) ...(1.75)(8.678 m/s) (0.417) = 0.153 MPa ... = 0.149 MPa
2 2
4

399 (Fig. 9-35, top)
Note: The arrows change to –
V 22 V 22
399 (Fig. 9-35, bottom) K eρ K cρ
2 2
406 (Ref. 18) Zerke, J.E. Zerbe, J.E.
437 (Line 9) ... sublayer. ... sublayer.
numerical results for the ... Kays and Leung (1963) used
various refinements for their
approach and obtained numerical
results for the ...
451 (Line 11) ...P/D > 1.1 the equivalent diameter... ...P/D > 1.1 the equivalent
annulus...
467 (Line 4) ... depend on the channel exit ... depend on the design of the
conditions. channel ends.
467 (Line 14) Pushkina Pushkin
2
490 (Eq. 11-82) φlo =
2
φfo = ...
ρ f ρ
φfo = f f TP = ...
2
490 (Eq. 11-83) φl2o = l TP =
ρm flo ρm f fo
pb 2 γ p b 2 γ-1
γ
510 (Eq. 11-126b) = =
po cr γ + 1 γ - 1 po cr γ + 1
q ′′ q ′′
Tw − Tsat = 0.00135 ( Re l ) ( Re l )
1/ 2 1/ 2
535 (Eq. 12-17c) Tsat − Tbulk = 0.00135
kl hlo
559 (Line 5) p = 800 to 2000 psia p = 800 to 2300 psia
559 (Eq. 12-62) [(2.022 - ... exp (18.177 - ...)xe] {(2.022 - ... exp [(18.177 - ...)xe]}
[(0.1484 ... 0.869xe] [(0.1484 ... 0.869xe]
[0.2664 + 0.837 exp...] [0.2664 + 0.8357 exp...]
567 (Line 7) ... needed for x, which ... ... needed for x = xcr, which ...
571 (Line 10) 83:3 83:351
581 (Ex. 13-1) Linear heat ... = 17.8 31.1
582 (Ex. 13-1) Cp = 6.143 5.60
µ = 917 µ = 91.7
585 (Eq. 13-22) sin π Z sin π z

Le Le
5

587-588 (Ex. 13-2) Change every 17.8 (q') to 31.1
Change every 6.143 (cp) to 5.60
Tm(z) = 295.9 + 9.9 sin ... 305.0 + 19.0 sin ...
zc = 0.6 0.65
Tc(zc) = 286 + 17.8(0.83 + 0.858) 286 + 31.1(0.851 + 0.836)
= 316.0˚C = 341.0˚C
zf = 0.014 0.015
T C (zf) = 286 + 17.8 [0.556 286 + 31.1 [0.610
L
π 0.014 π 0.015
sin + 1 + 45.99 sin + 1 + 45.99
3.66 3.66
π 0.014 π 0.015
cos = 1114.7˚C cos = 1735.3˚C
3.66 3.66
2 2
597 (Eq. 13-45b) ... - Gm ... - Gm
+
pm in ρm+ i n
1 2
599 (Eq. 13-53) 1/2 1/2
x ′2
- x ″2 x ′2 - x ″2
1 2
603 (Line 12) 1/2 1/2
x - x ″2
′ x - x ″2
′2
2
603 (Line 17) (0.10362 - 0.08622)-1/2 0.1036 - 0.0862 2 1/2
2
604 (Line 7) -π(0.794) -π(0.793)
604 (Line 8) 1.1362(1.277 - 0.7260) 2.276(1.277 - 0.7265)
604 (Line 9) 12.3 kPa 16.6 kPa

604 (Line 14) q = m hout - hin q = m hout - hin
604 (Table 13-3) ∆pgravity: 6.47 ∆ptotal: 16.90 8.81 19.24
9.07 28.61 12.21 31.71
12.58 49.61 16.63 53.68
15.14 69.43 19.62 73.91
17.20 88.89 21.83 93.52
20.51 128.30 24.85 132.7
23.34 170.10 26.64 173.4
605 (Fig. 13-11) Graph based on original Table 13-3 Change graph according to
values. Table 13-3 changes.
605 (Line 4) hout - 1224.1) (hout - 1224.1)
610 (Eq. 13-70) ρZb ρZB
611 (Eq. 11-104) x xe
∆p ∆p
623 (App. A-4, ∆p+) gL - 1 -1
ρ* ρ *gL
625 (App. A-4) xcr Vol. II P12-557
6
628 (37) FS Fuel pellet ... Delete the entire line
633 (App. B) Electron charge 1.60210 x 10-20 emu 1.60210 x 10-19 Coulomb
637 (App. C, Table C-1)
Col. 5, Row 1 6.214 x 10-4 6.214 x 10-6
Col. 5, Row 2 6.214 x 10-6 6.214 x 10-4
Col. 6, Row 1 2.4711 x 10-3 2.4711 x 10-8
Col. 2, Row 5 1.016 1016
Col. 2, Row 6 1.000 1000
Col. 3, Row 5 1.440 1440
Col. 1, Row 6 1.0133 x 103 1.0133 x 106
641 (App. C, Table C-9) Pascal Pascal
Col. 2, heading kgm-1s-3* kgm-1s-2*
Col. 4, Row 7 1.9500 x 106 1.9800 x 106
Col. 6, Row 4 1.1583 x 103 1.1583 x 105
Col. 1, Row 3 14.618 14.594
Col. 2, Row 3 1.4168 x 104 1.4594 x 104
Col. 3, Row 1 6.841 x 10-2 6.852 x 10-2
Col. 3, Row 2 6.841 x 10-5 6.852 x 10-5
662 (Table E-4, Col. 1 @ (1.052 x 102) (1.5052 x 102)
2700
663 (App. E, Table E-5) All v v
670 (Fig. F-2) He graphed inproperly. He specific heat level corrected.
p ρ
672 (Line 5) kg kg
m3 m3
690 (Index) Cladding Cladding
thermal properties of, 295t ... thermal properties of 296t, ...
7
• PROBLEMS (Answers and Statements)

PAGE (PROB. #) ORIGINAL CORRECTED
37 (2-3, Lines 9, 10 q' (z) = q'max ... q' (z) = q'ref ...
& 12)
where α = 1.96. where α = 1.96. Determine q'ref
such that q''(z)max = 44 kW/m.
Answer: MCPR = 3.43 Answer: MCPR = 1.54
72 (3.3) Assume uniform axial power profile. Assume uniform axial power prof
and the slab approximation.
1. Q = 23.85 MW 1. Q = 23.79 MW
2. Q = 24.37 MW 2. Q = 24.39 MW
123 (4.7) 1. Fx = 1875 N, Fy = 3247.6 N Fx = 5625 N, Fy = -3248 N
2. Fx = 833.3 N, Fy = 1443.4 N Fx = 2500 N, Fy = -1443 N
169 (5.3) 2. 4.89 m/sec 2.83
3. 1.636 m/sec 0.74
233 (6-2, Question 3) ... in the legs 3→4 ... ... in the legs 3'→4 ...
236 (6.5) 36.7% to 37.8% 36.9% to 37.7%
236 (6-6) 1. A perfect gas. 1. A perfect gas of cp = 1.30.
287 (7.2) Heat of fusion for water = 3.33(105) J 3.33(105) J/kg
289 (7.4) p = 93.15 87.9
289 (7.5) 34.7˚C (94.4˚F) 35.3˚C (95.5˚F)

290 (Table 7.8) Specified cool-down rate = 38˚C/hr
(100˚F/hr) (68.4˚F/hr)
sf = 3.1211 3.1211 kJ/kg K
sg = 2.6922 2.6922 kJ/kg K
Suppression pool initial pressure =
0.1 MPa (15 psia) 0.1 MPa (14.5 psia)
293 (7.8) 230.2 seconds 227

22.16 m3 22.14
28.81 m3 28.83
339 (8.2) 0.7 Tci + 0.3 Tco 0.7 Tcl + 0.3 Tf

1.73 1.67
340 (8.4) 2. Tave (˚C) 1395.9 1213.9 1388 1213
409 (9.5) ∆pfriction = 29.29 31.17

∆pT = 92.71
94.59
519 (11.3) Slug to Churn: { jl } + { jv } = 0.5344 0.527

519 (11.4) ... tubes longer than about ... ... tubes with a diameter
largerthan about ...
8
PAGE (PROB. #) ORIGINAL CORRECTED

521 (11.6) D = 3.5 ft 2.4 ft
521 (11.7) Answer: Level = Answer: Level swell =
573 (12.1) (Tv - Tsat)sodium = 25.2 26.1

(Tv - Tsat)water = 3.25 3.15
573 (12.2) ... boiler operates at 3.34 MPa, ... 3.35 MPa
574 (12.2) hfg = 1803 1766

ρv = 17.3 16.8
σ = 0.0204 0.0286
k = 0.606 0.628
Answers: 1. N = 6 N = 6 (based on C1 = 0.18 in
Eq. 12-10)
2. qi" = 3.04 4.19
574 (12.3) H2O at 0.1 MPa: TBM - Tsat = 176 156

THM - Tsat = 406 368
H2O at 7.0 MPa: TBM - Tsat = 194 1907 (too high in physical sense)
THM - Tsat = 374 2629 (too high in physical sense)
Na at 0.1 MPa: TBM - Tsat = 206 87 (too low in physical sense)
THM - Tsat = 1071 771
574 (12.5) qcr" = 1.37 x 106 1.41 x 106
615 (13.1) 1. Q« = 6170 5760

2. Q« = 4070 3960
617 (13.4) ∆pfric = 13.9 14.4

∆pgrav = 16.1 15.8
∆ptotal = 42.7 42.9
Martinelli-Nelson ∆pfric = 18.0 20.4
9
• SUPPLEMENT
PROBLEMS SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWERS REMARKS
9.6 answers for interior channels:

1. flaminar = 0.12
2. fturbulent = 0.02
3. Yes for Turbulent flow (f ≈ 0.018 from
Moody's chart)
4. Cannot compute entrance length for laminar No available equations
flow in this case.
5. Z = 11.7 to 18.6 cm
2/10/02
NUCLEAR SYSTEMS I (2nd Printing):
ERRATA

q q
48 (Eq. 3-20) ... = ... = n
Sn Sn
69 (Fig. 3-11, Caption) ... for irradiation time of 1013 seconds ... for the essentially infinite
[8]. irradiation time of 1013 seconds [8].
r r r r r r
119 (Eq. 4-129b) v ≡ v + +v ′ v ≡ v + v′
137 (Fig. 5-2b) Sensors r4 and r6 indicate vapor. Replace the outputs for sensors
Sensors r3 and r5 indicate liquid only. r4 and r6 with those of r3 and r5.
This contradicts Fig. 5-2a.
Q Q
140 (Eq. 5-43b) { jl } = Alz = K { jl } = Alg = K
145 (Last Line) (shown in Figure 5-4 in the axial (shown in Figure 5-4 in the axial
direction: direction):
146 (Eq. 5-64) ... ρg cos θ dA ... ρg cos θ dA z
Az Az
150 (Last Line) (5-86) (5-86b)

151 (Line 4) change of phase to liquid into vapor: change of phase of liquid into vapor:
2 2
166 (Table 5-3,
Momentum equation,
Gm
{ } {
+ = pv vvzα + plvlz (1 − α )
ρm
2 2
} Gm
ρm+
= ρvvvz
2
{ } {
α + ρlvl2z (1 − α ) }
where)
′′′ ′′
166 (Table 5-3, Energy qwk αwk Pw qwk αwk Pw
equation, Phase)
169 (Prob. 5-3) 1. ... {jv} = 3.25 m/s 1. ... {jv} = 3.31 m/s
191 (Eq. 6-42, middle (Fig. 9B) (Fig. 6-9B)
term)
236 (Prob. 6-6) 1. A perfect gas of Cp = 1.30. 1. A perfect gas of γ = 1.30.
241 (Line 7) For mwpd: For mwp:

242 (Line 2) Heat transfer from mass wpr ... only Delete (a true statement, but not
to mass wpd: relevant since mass wp is
considered as the subsystem)
T T
302 (Fig. 8-2, y-label) k pdT k ρdT

100˚C 100˚C
2

2 2
319 (Fig. 8-13, Eq. 8-68) β α2 - 1 β α2 - 1
327 (Line 3) q′ ρ q′ ρ
... = res s ... ... = res s ...
4π ρ3 4π ρ0
329 (Line 10) Rv = 0.311; R2 = 0.343; Rv = 0.311R2 = 0.343R1 = 0.256Rfo

R1 = 0.256Rfo
350 (Line 14) The values of CD are typically 0.3 to The values of CD are typically 0.7 to
0.7 depending on the nozzle geometry. 0.95 depending on the nozzle geometry
[13].
358 (Table 9-1) 0.5 (1 - β2) 0.5 (1 - β)n
n=1 approximate for Re > 104
n=0.75 more exact
r r r r r r
376 (Eq. 4-129b) v = v + v′ v = v + v′
r r
376 (Eq. 9-59) [ ]
∇ ⋅ ρv = 0 [ ]
∇ ⋅ ρv = 0
r r
∂ρv rr r r r ∂ ′ρv rr r r
376 (Eq. 9-60) ∂t
[ ] [
+ ∇ ⋅ ρv v = −∇p + ∇ ⋅ τ − ρv ′ v ′ + ρg ]∂t
[ ] [ r
+ ∇ ⋅ ρv v = −∇p + ∇ ⋅ τ − ρ v ′ v ′ + ρg ]
τw / ρ τw / ρ
378 (Eq. 9-74) R+=R R+=R
ν ν
382 (Line 6) (discussed in sections II.D.3 and VII). (discussed in sections II.D.2 and
386 (Fig. 9-24) ordinate is: (f Re′)bT ordinate is: (f Re′n)bT
387 (Line 14) regimens regimes

8 8
∑ ∑ i
393 (Eq. 9-98) E θ = a ijθ i Ej θ = a ijθ
i =0 i =0
∆ρ form = + K c ρ V 2 V2
398 (Table 9-5) ∆ρ form = + K c ρ 2
2 2
407 (Line 3) ... geshwin digkeitsverteilung ... ... geschwindigkeitsverteilung ...
408 (Prob. 9-4, Data) Pressure drop across assemblies Pressure drop across each assemb
409 (Fig. 9-40)

Fuel Fuel
Bundle Bundle
360 cm
∆pA ∆pA 400 cm
Orificing
40 cm Block Orificing
40 cm Block
Assembly 2 Assembly 1 Assembly 2 Assembly 1

(within Zone 2) (within Zone 1)
3

426 (Line 20) ... concept of equivalent heated ... concept of equivalent hydraulic
diameter where: diameter where:
4 × flow area 4 × flow area
426 (Eq. 10-34) DH ≡ = 4A f De ≡ = 4A f
heated perimeter Ph wetted perimeter Pw
426 (Lines 22-23) In many cases ... diameters. Table 10- Delete [In many cases ...
4 ... diameters. ] Table 10-4 ...
427 (Table 10-4) a 1.0 3.63 2.98 a 1.0 3.61 2.98

b b
a 1.4 3.78 a 1.43 3.73 3.08
b b
a 2.0 4.11 3.39 a 2.0 4.12 3.39
b b
a 3.0 4.77 a 3.0 4.79 3.96
b b
a 4.0 5.35 4.44 a 4.0 5.33 4.44
b b
a 8.0 6.60 5.95 a 8.0 6.49 5.60
b b
444 (Lines 12-13) for the Reynolds number and DH, for the Reynolds number.
4A
where: DH = f for the Nusselt
Ph
number relation.
449 (Line 2) ... predicted by Eq. 10-107. ... predicted by Eq. 10-108.
449 (Line 3) ... Equation 10-108 ... ... Eq. 10-107 ...
458 (Ref. 22) Kays, W.M. Convective Heat and Kays, W.M. and Crawford, M.E.
Mass Transfer, New York: McGraw- Convective Heat and Mass Transfer,
Hill, 1966. 2nd Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill,
1980.
469 (Eqs. 11-15 & 11-16) K

[ g( ρl − ρv )σ ]
1/ 4
K
[ g( ρl − ρv )σ ]
1/ 4
jv ρl1 / 2 { jv }ρl1 / 2
475 (Fig. 11-11) TRANSITION (TCT) TRANSITION TO CHURN-
TURBULENT
4

484 (Fig. 11-13) As drawn, values in the figure are not 1.0 Homogeneous for G1, G2 and G3
consistent and need to be made so
with those in the table on the same M-N for G1, G2 and G3
page. 0.9
Void Fraction, {α}

Drift Flux G1
0.8
Drift Flux G2
Drift Flux G3
0.7
0.6
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Quality, x
2 2
489 (Line 10) To evaluate the friction multiplier φlo To evaluate the friction multiplier φlo
in the HEM model, ... given by Eq. 11-67a, ...
501 (Fig. 11-21, caption) (φ )

2
lo (φlo2 )
506 (Line 11) αin = 1 ... αin = 1 ...
1 - x ρg 1 - x ρg
1+ x 1+ x
ρg ρf
518 (Ref. 33) RELAP-5 MOD1 Code Manual, Ransom, V.H., el al., RELAP5/MOD1
EGG-270, 1980. Code Manual, Vols 1 & 2, NUREG/CR-
1826, EGG-2070, March 1982.
519 (Line 19) Problem 11-3 Regime map for Problem 11-3 Regime map for
horizontal flow (section II) vertical flow (section II)
519 (Line 21) ... for a horizontal steam generator. ... for the secondary side of a vertical
steam generator.
528 (Last Line) ... flow pattern leads to a forced ... flow pattern leads to a convection
convection heat transfer mechanism ... heat transfer mechanism ...
529 (Fig. 12-4) Forced convection heat transfer Convection heat transfer through liquid
through liquid film film
530 (Line 10) Finally, as the thermodynamic quality In the post-dryout region, even before
reaches unity, ... the thermodynamic equilibrium quality
approaches unity, ...
2σTfv fg 1 2σTsatv fg 1
533 (Fig. 12-9, Eq. 12-8) T = Tf + Tf = Tsat +
hfg r* hfg r*
F( Xtt ) F( Xtt ) kl 0.9
542 (Line 7) qc′′ = kl Re 0l .9 Prl (Tw − Tsat ) qc′′ = Re l Prl (Tw − Tsat )
F2 F2 D
559 (Eq. 12-62) {(2.022 - 0.06238p) + (0.1722 - {(2.022 - 0.06238p) + (0.1722 -
0.001427p)[exp (18.177 - 0.5987p) xe] 0.01427p)exp [(18.177 - 0.5987p) xe]}
etc. etc.
5

560 (Line 1) Because F ≥ 1, ... reduces the critical In a reactor channel the minimum DNB
heat flux. ratio occurs downstream of the peak heat
flux. Hence, the F-factor at the minimum
DNBR location is generally greater than
unity; the axial non-uniformity in the heat
flux reduces the CHF.
560 (Line 2) The parameter C decreases ... for the The parameter C decreases with
heat flux shape. increasing quality; at high quality C will
be small and the effect of the heat flux
shape will be less pronounced.
560 (Eq. 12-67) 2.19 × 106 Dh2 - 0.36 x e - 0.0714 G - 0.22 2.19 D2 - 0.36 x e - 0.0714 G - 0.22
106 106
566 (4 Barnett ... same basic form as MacBeth’s ... same basic form as MacBeth’s
correlation) correlation. The rms error ... correlation. The correlation is capable
of predicting both DNB and dryout
CHF conditions. The rms error ...
566 (Eq. 12-74a) 3.584 Ah fg + 4.3 × 10-4 B h f - h i A + 4.3 × 10-4 B h f - h i

... ...
C + 39.37L C + 39.37L
566 (Eq. 12-74b) A = 230.7 D h0.68 G 0.192 A = 205 D h0.68 G 0.192
× 1 - 0.744 exp -0.3477D eG × 1 - 0.744 exp -0.189D eG
566 (Eq. 12-74c) B = 0.1206 D h1.415 G 0.817 B = 0.0731 D h1.261 G 0.817
566 (Eq. 12-74d) C = 8249 D e1.415 G 0.212 C = 7244 D h1.415 G 0.212
571 (Ref. 17) Collier, J.G. Convective Boiling and Collier, J.G. and Thome, J.R.
Condensation (2nd ed.). New York: Convective Boiling and
McGraw-Hill, 1981. Condensation (3rd ed.), New York:
Oxford, 1994.
574 (Prob. 12-2) Assume that the maximum cavity Assume that the maximum cavity radius is
radius is very large. very large. You may use the Rosenhow
correlation for nucleate pool boiling [52]:
g ρl - ρv 1/2 cp ,l Tw - T sat
qs″ = µlhfg
σ Cs,fhfgPrls
where s = 1 for water and Cs,f = 0.0130,
an empirical constant for water and
mechanically polished steel surfaces.
574 (Line 7) k = 0.628 W/m2 ˚C k = 0.628 W/m ˚C
577 (Eq. 5-142) p = pvα + p1(1 - α) ρ = ρvα + ρ1(1 - α)
∂ρmV m ∂ ρmV m
578 (Eq. 13-7) Term: V m Term: V m
∂t ∂t
6

586 (Line 13) First by combining Eqs. 8-119 and First by combining Eqs. 8-119 and
13-22 we find that the fuel centerline 13-17 we find that the fuel centerline
temperature, T CL corresponding to temperature, T CL (corresponding to
Tmax in Eq. 8-119) and Tm is given Tmax in Eq. 8-119) is given by:
by:
sin π z
q q
sin π z
598 (Eq. 13-47) x = x in + + q q
x = xin + +
2mhfg 2mhfg L 2mhfg 2mhfg L
615 (Prob. 13-1) « = 5760 MW

1. Q « = 5731 MW
1. Q
« = 3960 MW
2. Q « = 3954 MW
2. Q
« = 5390 MW
3. Q « = 5456 MW
3. Q
617 (Prob. 13-4) ∆pfric = 14.4 kPa ∆pfric = 20.26 kPa

649 (Table D-3) J1(2.3) = 0.5305 J1(2.3) = 0.5399
649 (Table D-3) x = 2.5 Jo(x) = 0.0729 x = 2.5 Jo(x) = –0.0729
670 (Fig. F-2) H2O Saturated Vapor and H2O The higher line for H2O Saturated
Liquid are interchanged Vapor should be thicker to indicate
it is really H2O Liquid; and the
lower line indicating H2O Liquid
should be thinner since it is really
H2O Saturated Vapor
12/5/02
NUCLEAR SYSTEMS I (3rd Printing):
ERRATA
383 (Fig. 9-22, caption) ... for parallel flow in a rod bundle. ... for parallel flow in an infinite
triangular array of rods.
389 (Eq. 9-93a) C fT = [0.8063 − 0.9022(log10 (H D)]
+ 0.3256[log10 (H D)] ( P D) (H D)1.78− 2.0( P D) ↓
2 9.7
[
C fT = 0.8063 − 0.9022(log10 (H D)) + 0.3526[log10 (H D)]
2
]
⋅ ( P D)
9.7
(H D)(1.78− 2.0( P D))
400 (3 Viscous...) Kays’ defintions of Ke and Kc need Kays’ definitions for Ke and Kc,
to be added. which apply to Fig. 9-36 and are
consistent with the general definition
of K in Eq. 9-23:
ρυ2ref
∆p form [
= (1 − σ 2 ) − K e ] 2
exp ansion
ρυ2ref
∆p form [
= (1 − σ 2 ) + K c ] 2
contraction
402 (B Assumption...) Same as page 400 above. Same as page 400 above.
409 (Prob. 9-5, Answers) ∆p entrance and ∆Pexit = 11.73 kPa ∆p entrance and ∆p exit = 3.44 kPa
536 (Fig. 12-10) St = q ′′w G c pL ∆TD St = q ′′w G c pL ∆TD

PROBLEM FF-8 QUESTION
For the BWR-6 conditions in Example 13-3 of Text 2, compute and plot the axial distribution of
void fraction for two cases:
1 A homogenous equilibrium flow model
2 A separated flow model of your choice.
Page 1
Fall 2002
December 17, 2002
PROBLEM #1 (30 %)
Consider a BWR fuel assembly square coolant subchannel with geometry and operating
characteristics given in the table below. In particular the axial profile of the linear power
generation rate is:
πz kw
q ′(z) = 77 exp(−3.5 z L) sin
L m
Operating Conditions Geometry

G = 1356 kg/m2-s P/D = 1.326
P = 6.8 MPa Drod= 10.16 mm
Inlet Enthalpy = 1105 kJ/kg L = 3.7 m
Neglect channel pressure loss

Assume interior subchannel and that all rods are fuel rods.
 − αz   πz 
L
[1 − exp(− nα )cos(nπ )] − αL2 [exp(− nα )sin (nπ )]
 sin  dz = π π
nL
∫0
exp
 L  L α 
2
1+  
π 
for n= 0.75, α=3.5, and L = 3.7 the above expression equals: 0.5224
for n = 0.5, a=3.5, and L = 3.7 the expression equals: 0.4238
for n = 0.25, a=3.5, and L = 3.7 the expression equals: 0.1980
1 of 6
QUESTION
a) Find the axial position of the start of the bulk boiling region. (xe = 0)
b) Find the axial position and magnitude of the maximum value of the outside clad
temperature.
Hint: Although you must consider the fact that the magnitude of the heat transfer
coefficient, h, varies with the axial position, you can identify the desired axial
position of Tclad maximum without evaluating h over all the z locations.
c) Critical Condition: Assuming that, at all powers, the critical condition occurs at
a position three quarters of the channel length from the channel inlet, (i.e. z =
0.75L) : Find the value of the minimum CPR using the CISE-4 correlation.
Caution: You cannot use Figure 12-26 to answer this question because numerical values
of the parameters of this figure are held proprietary (for all flux shapes) by General
Electric Company
2 of 6
PROBLEM #2 (20%)
The outside surface of a spherical stainless steel vessel is inadvertently insulated with a
material which shrinks under irradiation which thereby imposes a radial strain on the
vessel. The steel materials properties are given in the Table below. The sphere has an
inside diameter of 6m and a wall thickness of 30cm.
QUESTION
What is the maximum radial strain that the vessel can sustain without fracture
based on consideration of the following three failure theories:
a) Maximum normal stress theory
b) Maximum shear stress theory
c) Maximum distortion energy theory
Table I
Steel Properties
Modulus of elasticity, E 29 x 106 psi
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.3
Density, ρ 0.28 lb/in3
Coefficient of linear expansion, α 9 x 10-6/°F
Yield stress in compression 60 x 103 psi
3 of 6
PROBLEM #3 (20 %)
Consider a PWR core that uses annular fuel pins cooled on both surfaces as shown in
Figure 1. These fuel pins are arranged in a square array. Relevant geometric, material
properties and operating characteristics are given in the table below. Note that q ′ is the
pin averaged linear heat rate and ∆ T is the coolant temperature rise of the total flow
along the pin.
Geometry Material Operating

Properties Conditions
P/D = 1.326 cp =5.3 kJ/kg ºC q ′ = 20 kW/m
L= 4.25m ρ=750.7 kg/m3 ∆ T = 38 ºC

Pitch = 12.6 mm µ=9.75 x 10-5
kg/m s
a = 2 mm
Figure 1: Annular Geometry
QUESTION
What are the values of the flowrates in the inside and outside flow regions associated
with the fuel pin? (i.e. m& i and m& o )
Consider friction pressure loss only.

The outside flow region can be modeled with the equivalent annulus approach.
4 of 6
PROBLEM #4 (30 %)
A reactor core is in a long vertical cylindrical pressure vessel located within a spherical
containment as shown in Figure 2. The pressure vessel is filled with water above the core
to a height H.
Figure 2
The containment is designed to be small and can withstand an internal pressure of 150
psia. In the event of a rupture of the primary system, when the water/vapor mixture
reaches the final equilibrium condition, the liquid drains into a cavity around the lower
portion of the pressure vessel where the core is located. Supplemental analysis already
available has shown that the core can be satisfactorily cooled if the cavity is filled to
above the core level. The relevant problem geometry and operating conditions are given
in the table below.
Operating Conditions RV Geometry Containment Geometry

Primary Pressure = 15.5 MPa Reactor Vessel Inside Inside Diameter of
Diameter = 6.1 m containment = 30 m
Free Volume of Vessel to Top of Free Volume Ratio in
Core = 134.5 m3 containment = 0.9
Free Volume Ratio in Reactor Volume of liquid to fill the cavity
Vessel above core = 0.6 (due to to above the core level = 86.5 m3
presence of primary system
equipment)
Free Volume of Reactor Vessel =
335 m3
5 of 6
QUESTION
a) What is the minimum value of H such that subsequent to a rupture of the primary
system the cavity is filled above the core level?
b) For this value of H, is the final pressure below the design pressure limit?
Ignore the presence of air in the containment and assume primary water at saturated
conditions.
6 of 6
Fall 2002
December 17, 2002
FINAL EXAM SOLUTIONS
Problem 1
a)
The basic expression for finding equilibrium quality is:
1  1 z′ 
xe = h
 in − h f + ∫ q′( z )dz  = 0 (1)
h fg GA 0 
Simplifying, to solve for xe = 0:
1 z′
q ′( z )dz
GA ∫0
h f − hin = (2)
hf = 1256.6 kJ/kg, hin = 1105 kJ/kg
find A: P/D and D are both given -> find pitch:

P
P = D × = .01016 × (1.326) = .0135m
D
 D2  .01016 2
Area =  P 2 − π  = .0135 2 − π = 1.0043 × 10 − 4 m 2
 4  4
Inserting the above values, and performing the integration on the linear heat rate:
77
1256.6 − 1105 = {.949 − .949 exp(− .946 z ′)[1.114 sin (.8491z ′) + cos(.8491z ′)]}
(
(1356) 1.0043 × 10 −4 )
This must be iterated for z’ resulting in: z’ = 1.17m.
17 February 2003 1 of 11
b)
The following schematic is an attempt to illustrate that since the position where xe = 0 is
above the “hump” in the power profile, the maximum clad temperature occurs at this
point.
Using the Jens Lottes correlation to find the temperature rise from the bulk coolant to the
wall:
exp 4 p (Twall − Tbulk )

4
 6.2 
q ′′ = (3)
25 4
where q’’ is in MW/m2, p is in MPa, and T is in ˚C.
Evaluating for heat flux at z = 1.169 m:

(77 ) exp − (3.5) (1.169)  sin π (1.169) 
q ′( z = 1.169 )  3 .7   3 .7  kW
q ′′ = = = 668.6 2
πD rod π (.01016 ) m
Now, adjust units to MW/m2, and solve for temperature rise:

.25
∆T = q ′′ exp − 4 p  25 = 7.55 ˚C ⇒ Twall,max = Tsat + 7.549 = 283.71+ 7.55 = 291.26 ˚C
  6 .2  
c)
Using the CISE-4 correlation to find CPR: The critical position is 0.75*L.
Find Lcr: The distance between xe = 0 and the critical position:
Lcr = 0.75(3.7 ) − 1.169 = 1.606 m
Insert this value into the CISE-4 correlation to find xcr.
 D  Lcr 
x cr =  h  a  (4)
 De   Lcr + b 
Dh is the heated diameter = .01016 m

De is the hydraulic diameter:
De =
4(FlowArea )
=
[
4 ((1.326 )(.01016 )) − π .01016
4 = .0126 m
2
]
(WettedPerimeter ) π (.01016)
3
G* = 33751 − p  where pc is the critical pressure = 22.09 MPa
 pc 
G* = 1119.2
Since G > G*
a = 1 − p  G

(
p c  1000
)
−1
3
(
= 1 − 6 .8
22.09
)(13561000)−1
3
= 0.6254
( )
0.4
b = 0.199 c − 1 GD 1.4 = 0.199 22.09
p
− 1 (1356)(.01016) = 0.6047
0.4 1.4
 p  6.8
Combining these values xcr is:

.01016  1.606 
x cr =  (.6254 ) = 0.367
.0126  1.606 + 0.6047 
To find the CPR, evaluate the power required (with the same power profile) to achieve in
xcr at the critical position, as a ratio of the actual power profile.
The enthalpy for x = 0.367 is:
hcrit = h f + xh fg = 1256.6 + (0.367 )1516.7 = 1812.9 kJ/kg
Now find the power profile required to achieve in this quality.
1 0.75 L  3.5 z   πz 
GA ∫0
hcrit − hin = C exp−  sin  dz (5)
 L  L
C
1812.9 − 1105 = (0.5224)
(
(1356) 1.0043 ×10 −4)
C = 184.5
1 0.75 L  3.5 z   πz 
∫
GA 0
184.5 exp −

 sin  dz
L  L 184.5
CPR = = = 2.40
1 0.75 L  3.5 z   πz  77
GA ∫0
77 exp −  sin  dz
 L  L
Question 2
The sphere has geometry of:
t 0.3
= = 0.1 so it can be treated as thin walled
R 3.15
1
εr = (σ r −νσ α −νσ ϑ ) (1)
E
pR −p
σθ = σα = , σr = (2)
2t 2
Where p is the pressure imposed on the outside surface by the shrinkage.
So,
1 − p pR pR 
εr =  −ν −ν 
E 2 2t 2t 
(3)
pR  − t 
=  − v −ν 
2 Et  R 
t
Since ≈ 0 , equation 3 becomes:
R
pR
εr = (− 2ν ) = p 10 6 (− 0.6)
2 Et 2 29 ×10( ) (4)
ε r = p(− .103 ×10 −6
)
So to find max ε r , find the maximum pressure (which is in the negative r direction)
Max normal stress theory:
pR
S yc =
2t
p = S yc 2 t = 60 × 10 3 (2 )(0.1) = 12 × 10 3 psia
R
εr
max
( )
= 12 ×10 3 − 0.103 ×10 −6 = −1.236 × 10 −3 (5)
Max shear stress theory:
pR p
S yc = +
2t 2
pR 
S yc =  + 1
2 t 
p=
2 S yc
=
(
2 60 × 10 3
= 10.9 × 10 3 psia
)
R 10 + 1
+1
t
εr
max
( )
= 10.9 ×10 3 − 0.103 ×10 −6 = −1.128 ×10 −3 (6)
Max distortion energy theory:
Sy =
2
2
[
(σ 1 − σ 2 )2 + (σ 2 − σ 3 )2 + (σ 3 − σ 1 )2 ]
1
2
1
2   pR p   − p pR  
2 2 2
= 0 +  +  + −  
2   2t 2   2 2t  
(7)
1
2   pR p  
2 2
= 2 +  
2   2t 2  
pR p
= +
2t 2
This result is the same as for the maximum shear stress theory: 10.9 x 103 psia,
-1.128x10-3 radial strain.
Question 3
The flow for this rod will be such that the pressure drop on each flow area will be the
same.
L ρV 2 L m& 2
∆p = f = f (1)
D 2 D 2 ρA
m&
since V = .
ρA
The friction factor f is assumed to be a function of the Reynolds number according the
McAdams relationship
ρVD
f (Re) = 0.184 Re −0.2 . Since Re = , simplifying the equation for the friction
µ
factor:
−0.2
 m& D 
f (Re) = 0.184  (2)
 µA 
Combining the above equation:
−0.2
 m& D  Lm& 2 m& 1.8 µ 0.2 L
∆p = 0.184  = 0.184 (3)
 µA  2 DρA 2 D 1.2 A1.8 ρ
This expression is the same for both the inside and outside of the annular fuel.
m& i1.8 µ 0.2 L m& 1o.8 µL

0.184 = 0.184 1.2 1.8 The length is obviously the same for both sides of
Di1.2 Ai1.8 ρ Do Ao ρ
this equation. The density and viscosity are assumed to be the same on both sides of the
expression. Therefore, the equation reduces to:
m& i1.8 m& 1o.8

= (4)
Di1.2 Ai1.8 Do1.2 Ao1.8
This defines one constraint.
Since there are two unknowns (the inner and outer mass flow rate), a second constraint is
required.
The second constraint is for the total mass flow rate.
m& i + m& o = m& t (5)
The total mass flow rate m& t is set by the rod power and temperature rise as given.
q ′L = m& t c p ∆T ⇒ m& t =
q ′L
=
(20)(4.25) = 0.422 kg/s
c p ∆T (5.3)(38)
So, the second constraint becomes:
m& i + m& o = 0.422 kg/s (6)
The inside radius is given, therefore the inner diameter is given: Di = 2 * a = 0.004 m.
The inner flow area is: Ai = πa 2 = 1.26 × 10 −5 m2.
The outer radius is found from the hydraulic diameter:
 πD 2   .0095 2 
4 P 2 −  4 .0126 2 − π 
4 A flow  4   4 
Do = De = = = = .01178 m (7)
Pw πD π (.0095)
The outside flow area above is computed as above:

D2 .0095 2
Ao = P 2 − π = .0126 2 − π = 8.788 × 10 −5 m2 (8)
4 4
Manipulating the pressure drop constraint:
 Di1.2 Ai1.8  ( )
 .0041.2 1.26 × 10 −5 1.8 
ln 1.2 1.8  ln 

1.8
 m& i 
 =
1.2
D A
i
1.8
i
 m&  D A
⇒ ln i  =  o o  = 
(
.01178 8.788 × 10
1.2 −5 1.8 
)
 = −2.66
1.2 1.8
 m& o  D A
o o  m& o  1 .8 1 .8
m& i
= e − 2.66 = .0698 (9)
m& 2
Now solve for the flow rates:
 m&  0.422
m& i + m& o = m& t = m& o  i + 1 = 0.422 ⇒ m& o = = 0.394 kg
 mo 
& (.0698 + 1) s
(10)
⇒ m& i = m& t − m& o = 0.422 − 0.394 = .0275 kg
s
As a check on our assumption that the flow both inside and outside the annular fuel is
turbulent, evaluate the Reynolds number of both flows. Using typical values for water
properties:
ρ = 720 kg 3
m
µ = 1× 10 −4 kg m − s
Inside:
Find Velocity
m& i 0.0275
Vi = = = 3.03 m (11)
(
ρAi (720) 1.26 × 10 −5 ) s
Compute Reynolds Number:
ρVi Di (720)(3.03)(0.004)
Re i = =
µ (1×10 −4 ) = 87,300 (12)
Outside:
Find Velocity
m& o 0.394
Vi = = = 6.23 m (13)
(
ρAo (720) 8.788 ×10 −5 s)
Compute Reynolds Number:
ρVi Di (720)(6.23)(0.01178)
Re i = = = 528,143 (14)
µ (1×10 −4 )
Therefore, our assumption of turbulent flow was appropriate.
Question 4
Using the control volume approach:
The control volume is defined to be the entire containment region.
The energy balance for this volume is:
∆U = Q1→ 2 + W1→ 2 (1)

This containment is rigid, and insulated. No work is performed and there is no heat
transfer out of the control volume. The conservation of energy equation becomes:
∆U = 0 (2)
Any air or water vapor initially in the containment is assumed to have negligible effect.
The energy balance equation becomes:
U wp 2 − U wp1 = 0 (3)
Assuming, from the problem statement, that the final equilibrium condition will be a
saturated mixture, and that the water in the primary is initially in an approximately
saturated condition, the energy equation is further defined:
M wp (u f 2 + xu fg 2 ) − M wp u f 1 = 0 (4)
This can be simplified by factoring out the mass of the water in the primary:
M wp (u f 2 + xu fg 2 − u f 1 ) = 0 ⇒ u f 2 + xu fg 2 − u f 1 = 0 (6)
Additionally, there is a volume constraint. The water and steam mixture must completely
fill the reactor vessel and containment.
M wp (ν f + xν fg )= V containmen t + V RV (7)
The constraints set by equations 6 and 7 are insufficient. For a range of postulated final
equilibrium pressures, a quality can be chosen to satisfy equation 6, and then a value for
the mass of primary water can always be found to satisfy equation 7. It is further
required that the volume of liquid in the containment be sufficient to fill the annulus. It is
assumed that the water/vapor mixture is uniformly distributed in the containment and in
the reactor vessel. Only the fraction that is in the containment (i.e. outside the reactor
vessel) is assumed to contribute water to fill the annulus. The last constraint becomes:
 V containmen t 
M wp
  (1 − x )v f = V annulus = 86 . 5 m 3 (8)
 V containmen t + V RV 
4 3 4
The free volume of the containment is: πRcont (F ) = π (15)3 (0.9 ) = 12,723 m3.
3 3
The free volume of the reactor vessel is given as: 335m3.
In general, for a higher final equilibrium pressure, the quality required to satisfy equation
6 will be lower, therefore resulting in more liquid in the containment at final equilibrium
conditions. There exists a minimum pressure where the volume of liquid remaining just
fills the annulus. This also corresponds to the minimum mass of primary water required.
(By inspection of equation 7, as pressure increases x and vg go down faster than vf goes
up. As a result, the mass of primary water required to satisfy equation 7 goes up as
pressure increases. Therefore, choosing the minimum pressure that results in the
satisfaction of equation 8 minimizes the mass of primary water required and minimizes
H.)
The basic algorithm is:

a) guess a trial pressure
b) find the quality (at the trial pressure) that satisfies the energy equation (eq 6).
c) Find the mass of primary water that then satisfies the volume constraint (eq 7) for
that pressure and quality.
d) Find the resulting volume of liquid in the containment for that quality, and mass
of primary water (eq 8).
e) If the water volume is insufficient, increase the pressure (resulting in a reduced
quality and more liquid). If the water volume is excessive, reduce pressure, with
converse results.
The results of this algorithm are final equilibrium pressure, quality, and mass of primary
water required to satisfy all constraints.
These are: P = 1.02MPa (pressure limit = 150 psia = 1.03MPa -> just below the pressure
limit), x = .46, and Mwp = 146,200 kg.
To answer the question, the mass of water in the primary must be translated into a value
of H:
M wp v f 1 − (VRV −to −top −of −core ) 146,200(0.0017 ) − (134.5)

H= = = 6.5m (9)
πDRV 2
π (6.1)2
(FVRV _ above _ core ) (0.6)
4 4
Some numerical parameters:
uwp1 = 1604.1 kJ/kg, vwp1 = .0017 m3/kg
uf (1MPa) = 761.07 kJ/kg

ug (1MPa) = 2581.7 kJ/kg
vf (1MPa) = .0011 m3/kg
vg (1Mpa) = .1945 m3/kg
PROBLEM HH-2
Conditions Leading to a “P vs. w” Instability
A wide variety of adiabatic, heated and cooled tubes can experience a pressure drop versus
flow rate (first order) instability. Five possibilities are illustrated in the next two pages. You are
to look at the terms contributing to the pressure drop and state whether they are stabilizing or
destabilizing. Rather than computing the pressure drop versus flow rate curve, say which
correlations you would use to compute the terms in the pressure drop equation. If you do not
know of the appropriate correlation, state what characteristics the correlation must have in order
to be satisfactory.
The following table should be filled in:
EXAMPLE FRICTION MOMENTUM GRAVITY
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
a) A mixture of a gas and a liquid flow

up at low velocity and low quality.
No heat is added or removed from
the tube. The pressure drop is
maintained constant by a large
number of parallel tubes.
b) Dry
saturated steam at a low
pressure is condensed completely in
a metal tube at a very high heat
transfer rate (for the first part of the
tube anyway). The cooling is
provided by water, which flows
across the tube at ah high rate.
c) Dry
saturated steam at a low
pressure is condensed completely in
a water-cooled glass tube in up flow.
The heat flux is moderate and fixed.
A number of parallel tubes maintain
a constant pressure difference across
this tube.
d) A long horizontal heated tube filled

with steam and water for its entire
length has a fixed pressure
difference across it. A very low
velocity of saturated water comes in
one end. The L/D is around 1000
and the pressure level around one to
three atmospheres. The quality out is
variable from 2 to75 %. Heat is
provided by a warm gas passing
over the tubes.
e) A vertical down-flow tube with

saturated liquid coming into it
experiences a moderate heat transfer
rate on the walls of a boiler. The
pressure is half the critical pressure and
the inlet velocity is around two feet per
second.
PROBLEM JJ-7 QUESTION
For a local condition correlation of your choice, compute CHFR using the HBM and
DSM (or L) approaches for several axial positions along the tube operating under conditions as
defined in the graph below (Figure 4 of the Hejzlar and Todreas 1996 paper, “Considerations for
CHF Margin Prediction at Subcooled or Low Quality Correlations.”)
Page 1
Note 1 - RECOMMENDATION FOR THE USE OF
THE VARIOUS PRESSURE DROP CORRELATIONS
1) Todreas Set
• Low Pressure Systems
Air-Liquid Mixtures: Lockhart-Martinelli
• High Pressure Water: p > 200 psia
G > 0.5 x105 lbm/hr ft2 Thom (Martinelli-Nelson)
• General Correlation
i.e., Liquid Metals Baroczy
• Analytical Expressions
High Quality, High Pressure,
High Mass Flux, Simplicity Homogeneous
Page 1 of 2
2) Papers of
ESDU, 1977
IDSINGU, 1975
FRIEDEL, 1976
BRYCE, 1977
WHALLEY, 1980
EPRI, TR-113189 “Pressure Drop Technology for Design and Analysis”,
August 1999
3) WHALLEY RECOMMENDATIONS (from Collier and Thome, pp. 68)
Whalley (1980) has evaluated separated flow models against a large proprietary data bank and
gives the following recommendation:
(a) For (µf /µg) < 1000: Utilize the Friedel (1979) correlation
(b) For (µf /µg) > 1000 and G > 100 kg/ms2: Utilize the most recent refinement of the
Chisholm (1973) correlation;
(c) For (µf /µg) > 1000 and G < 100 kg/ms2: Utilize the correlations of Lockhart and
Martinelli (1949) and Martinelli and Nelson (1948)
For most fluids and operating conditions, (µf /µg) is less than 1000 and the Friedel correlation will
be the preferred method.
References
ESDU (1977), “The gravitational component of pressure gradient for two-phase gas or
vapor/liquid flow through straight pipes” Engineering Science Data Unit, London
Idsinga, W. (1975), “An assessment of two-phase pressure drop correlations for steam-water
systems”, MsC Thesis, MIT - Department of Nuclear Engineering, May.
Friedel, L. (1975), “ Momentum exchange and pressure drop in two-phase”, proceedings NATO
Advanced Study Institute, Istanbul, Turkey, 16-27 August, I, 239-312. Hemisphere Pub. Corp.
(Also see Appendix B, P. Whalley “Boiling Condensation and Gas-Liquid Flow”, Oxford, 1987)
Bryce, W.M. (1977), “A new flow dependent slip correlation which gives hyperbolic steam-water
mixture flow equation”, AEEW-R 1099
Whaley, P.B. (1980), Private Communication to G.F. Hewitt
Page 2 of 2
Note 2 - Summary of Void Fraction and Slip

Models for Homogeneous and Separated Flow
Models
χ ⎛ 1 − α ⎞ ρl
In general S = ⎜ ⎟
1 - χ ⎝ α ⎠ ρv
α Slip Ratio = S
Homogeneous χυ g 1
Collier (2.26)
υ
where ⎯υ = χυg + (1-χ)υf Collier (2.23)
Separated ρ
χ ⎛1−α ⎞ l
In general S= ⎜ ⎟
1 - χ ⎝ α ⎠ ρv
1−α 1−α
or = =
α K -α
−α
β
α = (1 + X0.8)-.378 ⎧ .378 ⎫
χ ρ l ⎪⎡ ⎛ 1 − χ ⎞ ⎤
0.72
⎪
S= ⎨⎢1 + ⎜ ⎟ C(P)⎥ − 1⎬
Martinelli -
1 1 - χ ρ v ⎪⎢ ⎜⎝ χ ⎟⎠ ⎥ ⎪
Lockhart α= ⎩⎣ ⎦ ⎭
0.378
⎡ ⎛ 1 − χ ⎞ 0.72 ⎤
⎢1 + ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ C(P) ⎥ −1 / .72
⎢ ⎝ χ ⎠ ⎥ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎣ ⎦ ρ 1 − α ⎢ 1 − α .378 ⎥
S= l
0.5 0.1 ρ v α ⎢ 1.378 ⎥
1 ⎛ρ ⎞ ⎛ µl ⎞ ⎣⎢α C(P) ⎦⎥
where C(P) 0.8 = ⎜⎜ v ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ρl ⎠ µ
⎝ v⎠
Martinelli – α = F(P,χ) fig. 2.6 Collier S = use general expression with α
Nelson prediction
Thom γ ( P) χ
α= 1 ρl
1 + χ (γ ( P) − 1) S=
for γ(P) see Thom paper; for α see Collier γ (P) ρ g
Table 2.3
Baroczy α = f (p, x) - Fig. E8 notes EE-F S = use general expression above with α
Page 1 of 1 v04/22/03
prediction
Baker α = fig 2.11 Collier S = use general expression above with α
prediction
Pseudo Homogeneous −1 S = use general expression above with α

BANKOFF ⎡⎛ ρ ⎞ ⎛ ρ K ⎞⎤ and K values.
χ = ⎢⎜⎜1 − l ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ l ⎟⎟⎥ HSU (5.46)
⎢⎣⎝ ρ v ⎠ ⎝ ρ v α ⎠⎥⎦
K = 0.833+0.05 in p (5.52)
Page 2 of 1 v04/22/03
Note 3 - How to Calculate α (Z)
1
Eqn 5-55 (Text 2) α=
1- χ ρv
1+ S
χ ρl
⎡ χ e (z) ⎤
Eqn 12-22 (Text 2) χ (z) = χ e (z ) − χ e (Z D ) exp ⎢ − 1⎥
⎣ χ e (Z D ) ⎦
Using the above equations there are 4 combinations of assumptions of the parameters
Mechanical Equilibrium / Non-Equilibrium and Thermal Equilibrium / Non-Equilibrium which
can be employed as noted in the table below.
Mechanical Thermal
(1)
Equilibrium S=1 χe
(2) (3)
Non-Equilibrium S≠1 χ
(4)
Page 1 v03/19/03
PROBLEM PP-1 QUESTION
1 Show that the cross-sectionally averaged void fraction is
j g − j gf
α =
Co j
2 Gas is injected into a column of stagnant water through a coarse grid as shown. With no
air injection the height of the water is 1 m. By using the above information, determine the
height of the column as a function of jg, and sketch the resulting curve. Be sure to
consider bubbly, slug, and churn flow regimes as possible using the following flow
regime parameters
Page 1
Quiz Solution
Problem #1
This solution takes a step-by-step approach to determining SG tube wall temperature, primary and
secondary fluid temperatures, quality and void fraction. Starting with the initial conditions
provided at the tube inlet, an energy balance is performed between the primary and secondary.
Neglecting any work, or external energy gains or losses:
'E primary 'Esec ondary 0 or,
'E primary 'Esec ondary (1)
It will be assumed that the only mode of energy transfer will be convection.
'Ei SD ³ q ccdz (2)
Using Newton’s Equation:
q ccpri ( z ) h pri ( z )TP ( z ) Twall ,out ( z ) (3)

cc ( z )
qsec hsec ( z )Twall ( z ) Tsec,in ( z ) (4)
For this problem, the thermal conductivity of the SG tube is neglected, so there is not
temperature drop across the tube thickness (which also is neglected).
Twall ,out ( z ) Twall ,in ( z ) Twall ( z ) (5)
Since the tube thickness is neglected, equations (2) – (5) can be applied to equation 1 to
form a more explicit energy balance:
h pri ( z )T pri ( z ) Twall ( z ) hsec ( z )Twall ( z ) Tsec ( z ) (6)
The task at hand is to track carefully the fluid conditions in the SG tube, starting from the
tube inlet so as to allow equation (6) to remain continually in balance along the axial
length of the tube. Note that convective heat transfer is the only mode considered. It is
asserted without proof that for pressurized water at the temperature, pressure and flow-
rates considered, other heat transfer mechanisms are negligible.
Page 1 of 9
The procedure used in this solution to the problem is as follows:
1. The tube is discretized axially into a number of nodes. For this solution, 200
nodes were used. No analysis was performed to find the numerical sensitivity to
the density of axial nodalization. The goal was to have a discretization that is
sufficiently fine to allow wall temperature and void fraction to be found and
plotted with, in rough terms, reasonable accuracy.
2. At the tube inlet, find the (assumed constant) heat transfer coefficient on the
primary side of the SG tube. This reduces by one the unknown variables in
equation (6). The primary side fluid is assumed to be subcooled, and thus, the heat
transfer coefficient will be determined by the Dittus-Boelter correlation:
Nu f 0.023Re 0.8 Pr 0.3

(Text 2, eq. 10-946)
0.023(1.485E 6) 0.8 1.47
0.3
Nu f 2235.3
Nu f k 2235.50.448
h pri 1.42E5
D .0071
3. Initially assume that the secondary heat transfer mode will be by subcooled
forced convection, with the heat transfer coefficient given by the Dittus-Boelter:
Nu f 0.023Re 0.8 Pr 0.4

(Text 2, eq. 10-94a)
0.023(1.44E5) 0.8 0.934
0.4
Nu f 358.3
Nu f k 358.30.557
hsec 2.35E4
D .0085
Note that it is assumed that the flow can be modeled as fully developed turbulent flow in circular tubes.
For this solution, the effects of the SG tube bundle geometry was disregarded.
4. With the above approximations and the given primary and secondary inlet
temperature, the inlet wall temperature Twall (0) can be estimated using a re-
arrangement of equation (6):
h pri (z)T pri (z) hsec (z)Tsec (z)

Twall (z) (7)
h pri (z) hsec (z)
5. Given the above calculations:
1.42E5330 2.35E4230

Twall 0 315.8
1.42E5 2.35E4
6. With this estimated wall temperature and heat flux, we must test to determine if
nucleate boiling would occur. This is a sort of chicken-and-egg portion of the
Page 2 of 9
problem. The wall temperature (and thus wall-temperature/saturation-temperature
delta t) is determined with an assumed mode of heat transfer. If it is found that
nucleate boiling would occur with this condition, one must go back and re-
determine the heat transfer coefficient with the assumption that nucleate boiling is
occurring. These will then, in turn, result in a new heat transfer coefficient, wall
temperature and heat flux; different than those used to determine that there is
nucleate boiling in the first place. One could wonder then, if one should go back
and check (again!) if nucleate boiling should occur. It was decided for this
problem that, if nucleate boiling is predicted after the initial computation under
the assumption of subcooled forced convection is made, then there is nucleate
boiling (period – no re-checking required.)
To check for the onset of nucleate boiling, the Davis-Anderson correlation is

used
§ k L H fg U g · (Text 1, eq. 4-3)

q ccIB ¨¨ ¸¸Tw Tsat 2
© 8VTsat ¹
Close inspection of this equation reveals that it is dimensionally

inconsistent (British Units are used) – and a conversion factor of 778 (lbf-ft/BTU)
is required. Additionally, it is better to re-arrange this equation to give the
Twall Tsat to indicate that incipient boiling would occur at a given heat flux.
Performing this re-arrangement:
0.5
§ cc ·
Twall Tsat ¨ q 8VTsat ¸ in British units this is:
¨ 778k H U ¸
© L fg g ¹
0.5
§ 6.39E680.0011554.87 ·
'T ¨¨ 7780.3219632.6 2.47 ¸¸ 2.87
© ¹
For the previously assumed conditions of subcooled forced convection:

'T 45.1 degrees F, therefore, nucleate boiling must occur at the inlet.
7. Heat transfer correlations in the nucleate boiling region were computed using
the Thom correlation:
exp¨§ 2 p ·¸
© 8.7 ¹ T T 2 (Text 2, eq. 12-28b)
q cc wall sat
22.7 2
To obtain an expression for the heat transfer coefficient, the above expression is
divided by the quantity Twall Tsec . This is needed because the heat flux will
depend upon wall temperature. The wall temperature is, in turn determined by the
heat transfer coefficient. (As compared to the primary side heat transfer
coefficient, and the respective primary and secondary bulk temperatures.) This
Page 3 of 9
requires an iterative procedure. The algorithm used in this solution is provided in
the included Matlab® files.
8. The heat flux has now been determined. The heat flux is a quantity that describes
the amount of heat that flows from the primary coolant to the secondary water in
the SG. It is assumed that q cc z is sufficiently smooth so as to be accurately
approximated by a piecewise constant function. Therefore:
> @
m pri c p, pri T pri (z i 1 ) T pri (z i ) SDq ccz i SD^h pri z i T pri (z i ) Twall (z i ) ` (8)
The primary coolant mass flow rate and specific heat are assumed to be constant
and given. The only unknown in equation (8) is: T pri z i 1 .
9. Similarly, on the secondary side, the analogous heat balance is performed. Since
the secondary water enters the SG in a subcooled state, the water specific heat is
used in conjunction with the secondary mass flow rate to determine the secondary
temperature until the water reaches a saturated state. At that time, enthalpy is used
to account for the transfer of energy from the primary coolant to the secondary
water.
m sec c p,sec Tsec (z i1 ) Tsec (z i ) SDq cc z i SD^hsec z i >Twall (z i ) Tsec (z i )@` (9)
or: m sec hs z i 1 hs z i
In a similar fashion, the secondary quality is tracked for all axial levels.
10. When it is determined that equilibrium quality is equal to zero, the correlation for
secondary heat transfer coefficient is shifted to the Chen correlation as given in
NS Vol I equations 12-29 through 12-32. The details of this correlation are also
provided in the accompanying Matlab® script. It is notable that this equation also
requires iteration since the heat transfer coefficient depends of the difference
between wall temperature and saturation temperature – with the wall temperature
itself depending on the heat transfer coefficient.
11. This process is carried out for each axial level in the channel. It was determine
using the Biasi CHF correlation that the Dryout CHF condition occurs at
approximately 4 meters up the channel. It is expected that for a real SG, the
thermal resistance of the SG tubes would cause the axial location of CHF to occur
further up the channel.
12. The void fraction is computed using the real quality
ª x z º (Text 2, eq. 12-22)

x z x e z xe Z D exp « e 1»
¬ x e Z D ¼
1
^D z `
1 x z U v (Text 2, eq. 5-55)
1 S
x z U A
Page 4 of 9
and the given expression for slip as related to quality and (other) water
properties:
1/ 2
uv ª U U .41 x z -1 º
.4 1- .4« A v »
uA ¬ 1 .41 x z -1 ¼
To find the location of Z D , the Saha and Zuber criterion was used:
For Pe < 7x104 :

§ q cc z De · (Text 2, eq. 12-21a)
Nu Dep 455 or Tsat Tbulk z 0.0022¨¨ ¸¸
© k A ¹
For Pe > 7 x 104:
§ q cc z · (Text 2, eq. 12-21b)
St Dep 0.0065 or Tsat Tbulk (z) 154¨
¨ Gc ¸
¸
© pA ¹
For this problem, the Peclet number for the secondary fluid was ~ 134,000 , so use
equation 12-21b. For this problem, heat flux and bulk temperature was tracked up the
axial length of the tube. At the location where the right hand side of 12-21b is greater
than or equal to the left hand side, the criteria was satisfied, and the point of bubble
departure Z D was found also to occur at the channel entrance.
Using the above computed information, the following plots were produced:
Page 5 of 9
Part B:
As a simple mathematical relationship, if the secondary side heat transfer

coefficient approaches zero – as can be seen by equation (7):
h pri (z)T pri (z) (0)Tsec (z) h pri z T pri z

Twall (z) T pri z
h pri (z) (0) h pri z
Physically this can be equated to an insulation of the secondary water. Insulation prevents
the passage of heat flux, and thus, on the primary side, where there is a small heat flux
(but a constant heat transfer coefficient) the temperature drop is small. Conversely, from
the secondary side where the heat transfer coefficient is vanishingly small, even a small
heat flux requires a large temperature drop as a driving force.
Problem #2
In general for liquid and vapor entering a vertical tube and rising
jv u b jA
Where the rise velocity of the inertia controlled slug bubble ub is given as
1/ 2
§ U Uv ·
ub 0.35gd1/ 2 ¨¨ A ¸¸
© UA ¹
Page 6 of 9
In this case only vapor enters the bottle so:
1/ 2
§U Uv ·
jv 0.35gd 1/ 2 ¨ A ¨ ¸¸
© UA ¹
Now
Sd 2
V jv t
4
so
1/ 2
4V 1 ª UA º
t « »
Sd 2 0.35(gd)1/2 ¬ UA U V ¼
for V = 10-3m3, d = 0.02m, UA 103 kg m3 , U g 1.25kg m3
t = 20.5 seconds (compared to 15.84 sec for flooding controlled homework case)
Problem #3
1. The space above beer in a capped bottle while predominately filled with CO2 also
contains water vapor (since beer is mostly water). When the bottle is opened, the
gasses/vapor in the neck expand rapidly into the surroundings causing the
temperature in the neck to drop rapidly. The cooler temperature causes the water
molecules in the neck to move so sluggishly that by chance several combine to form
small embryos that serve as sites for further condensation. Particles in the neck region
at the time of bottling likely have settled to the surfaces by gravity (large ones) or by
diffusion (small ones). In a word the observed phenomena is homogeneous
nucleation.
2. Overwhelmingly nucleation sites on the bottom and sides of the glass.
3. Dissolved carbon dioxide in the supersaturated beer diffuses into the gas in these
sites. It also diffuses into the rising bubbles (see question 4).
4a. Observed bubble size 0.2 mm.

From figure 3.4 (corrected) from Whalley given in class, the rise velocity is then 2
cm/s.
Page 7 of 9
4b. As the bubble rises it expands: Its diameter change is due to decreasing external
pressure and increasing CO2 mass, which is diffused from the beer through the
bubble wall. Analytic determination of bubble diameter with axial position requires
simultaneous solution of the ideal gas law, bubble mechanical energy balance and
diffusion law for dissolved CO2 into the bubble. The important parameters are:
x surface tension
x gas constant
x external beer pressure
x beer temperature
x CO2 diffusion coefficient and concentration
I believe bubble growth is dominated by diffusion of dissolved carbon dioxide in the

supersaturated beer into the rising bubbles since the external pressure change over the
glass height is small.
To predict change in bubble diameter we must know the time available for
diffusion. If we take the rise distance as 1.5 inches form and initial rise
velocity of 2cm/s, then the first estimate of that time is about 1.9 seconds (somewhat
long)
1.5 (2.54)
1.9 seconds
2
However, with this time one could start to solve the CO2 diffusion kinetics and
calculate the increase in mass of CO2 in the bubble. The problem needs an iterative
solution since per fig 3.4, Whalley, the velocity increases dramatically with diameter.
Estimate the bubble diameter increases by 3X over the rise

distance of 1.5 inches. At a diameter of 0.6mm, from fig 3.4, the rise velocity is of order
40 cm/s. For this velocity a bubble could traverse the 1.5” distance in 0.1 sec (a more
satisfying duration).
Page 8 of 9
(Whalley, 1987)
Note: Units of ub should be cm/s versus mm/s
Page 9 of 9
PROBLEM RR-2 QUESTION
CRITICAL FLOW PROBLEM
A vessel containing a homogeneous mixture of saturated stream and water at 1000 psia
“blows down” through a 2 ft. long 1 in. diameter pipe into a receiver vessel. The quality of the
mixture in the first vessel is 50 %. Determine the initial mass flow rate for the following receiver
vessel pressures:14.7 psia, 600 psia, 900 psia. What would the numbers be if the flow in the pipe
were frictionless?
(Hint: For the critical pressure ratio determination use Figure 11-25 in
Nuclear Systems I, the critical flow solution for all 4 cases can be obtained by
using Levy’s Two Phase Flow in Complex System or Todreas and Kazimi’s
Nuclear Systems I)
1
PROBLEM S1-1 QUESTION

Determining Material Properties From Test Results
Using the (uniaxial) Tensile Stress data listed in Table 1, calculate the following
parameters:
• Young's Modulus, E (Pa)

• The Yield Stress, σy (Pa)
• The Ultimate Stress σu (Pa)
• Poisson's ratio, υ = (Transverse Strain) / (Axial Strain)
Table I
L (mm) D (mm) F(kN)

50.000 7.0000 0.00
50.012 6.9995 2.00
50.025 6.9990 4.00
50.038 6.9985 6.00
50.057 6.9975 8.00
50.131 6.9928 9.99
50.501 6.9674 11.90
52.113 6.8592 13.45
55.467 6.6489 13.89
69.751 5.9294 12.43
129.415 4.3533 7.44
Page 1 of 1 v.2/25/03

Stress Field Determination Using Mohr’s Circle
A thin plate lying in the xy plane (small thickness in the z direction) is acted upon by
forces so that the stress components with respect to the xy axes are as given in Fig. 1.
QUESTIONS
A. Find the stress components (σ a , σ b , τ ab ) with respect to the ab axes, which are
inclined at 45° to the xy axes.
B. Display results from A above on the inclined element below in Fig. 2.
C. Display all results from Fig. 1 and part A above on a Mohr’s circle. Also compute
and include the magnitude of the radius of the circle and the magnitude of the angle
between the stresses on the x plane and the plane of the principle stresses.
y y
b a b
5,000 psi a
45˚
4,000 psi 45˚
11,000 psi x x
Figure 1 Figure 2
Page 1 of 1 v. 2/25/03

Discontinuity Analysis at the Joint of
Cylindrical Pipes of Different Wall Thickness
Two sections of stainless steel cylindrical piping of different wall thickness are
joined by welding. Before an internal pressure pi (above atmospheric) is applied (assume
no outside pressure above atmospheric), the geometry of the piping is as shown in Fig. 1.
The numerical values of geometry and pressure pi are given in Table 1. You can assume
the piping is capped at both ends to hold the internal pressure. Stainless steel properties
are given in Table 1.
Table 1
t1 Section 1
t2 Section 2 D, cm = 46
D t1, cm = 4
t2 Section 2 t2, cm = 2
t1 Section 1
pi, MPa = 5
Figure 1 (not to scale)
Table 2. Stainless Steel

Modulus of elasticity, E 2 x 105 MPa
Poisson’s ratio, γ 0.3
Density, ρ 8000 kg/m3
Page 1 of 1 v.2/25/03
QUESTIONS
A. What is the magnitude and location of the maximum principle stress within the
piping when the internal pressure pi (above atmospheric) is applied. You may
neglect the discontinuity stresses.
B. Sketch the geometry of the piping after internal pressure pi (above atmospheric) is
applied. Your sketch should clearly show the relative displacements of the two pipe
sections and rotations of the material about the location they are joined. Further you
should explain and justify the key features of your sketch in words.
Page 2 of 2 v.2/25/03

External and Internal Pressure to Fail a Spherical Vessel by the
Maximum Shear Stress Theory
A stainless steel spherical vessel of dimensions shown in Fig. 1 is subjected to an

external pressure of 4000 psi and an internal pressure, pi. Assume failure is to be
established by the maximum shear stress theory and the yield stress in a tensile specimen
test is 105 psi. What is the maximum internal pressure that will not fail the vessel? Other
stainless steel properties are given below.
1.9 m
2.0
m
Figure 1
Stainless Steel
Modulus of elasticity, E 29x106 psi

Poisson’s ratio, γ 0.3
Density, ρ 0.28 lb/in3
Coefficient of linear expansion, α 9x10-6/°F
Page 1 of 1 v.2/25/03

Interior Pressure to Fail Cylindrical and Spherical Vessel by
Several Failure Theories
Determine the internal pressure required to yield the inner surface of each vessel
(assure plane stress for the cylinder) for the maximum normal stress theory, the
maximum shear stress theory, and the maximum distortion energy theory. Hence, you
are asked to provide six answers to fill in the following matrix.
Internal Pressure to Cause Cylinder Sphere

Yielding at Inside Surface
Maximum normal stress theory ? ?
Maximum shear stress theory ? ?
Maximum distortion energy theory ? ?
Assume that the cylindrical and spherical vessels illustrated in Fig. 1 are made of steel
with properties Sy = 100 ksi and ν = 0.3
L is ri = 2" ri = 2"
very ro = 3" ro
long pi =
3"
pi
Cylinder Sphere
Figure 1
Page 1 of 1 v.2/25/03

Determining Allowable Pressure by ASME Criteria
Consider the reactor vessel geometry, material properties and operating conditions given
below. Based on these results, evaluate the design pressure, Pd, at which the following ASME
code limits will be violated:
1. The limit on General Primary Membrane Stress, Pm,
2. The limit on Primary Membrane plus Bending plus Secondary Stresses, and
3. The limit on Fatigue Usage Factor considering pressurization cycles only (i.e., use Fig.
N.415(A) of ASME Code, pp. 5, 6 and 17-26, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Vessels,”
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, ASME, 1968).
The steel used for construction has the following properties:

Young’s Modulus = E = 1.91x1011 Pa
Poisson’s Ratio = ν = 0.286
Yield Stress = sy = 345 MPa = 2.45x108 Pa
Ultimate Stress = Su = 552 MPa = 5.52x108 Pa
Design Fatigue Curve = Dashed curve of Fig. N-415(A) of ASME Code, pp. 5, 6 and
17-26, “Rules for Construction of Nuclear Vessels,” ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, ASME, 1968
The maximum values of stress occurring at the inside surface of the sphere are:
σt = 10.53 p t c = 0.216 m
max
σl = 9.85 p
max
R1 = 2.185 m
σr =−p
max
R o = 2.401 m
2.185 m
2.307 m
t s = 0.122 m
Page 1 of 1 v.2/25/03
PROBLEM SS-1
ANNULAR FLOW PROBLEM
Using the simplest annular flow theory, determine how thick an

annular film will be on the core of an annulus which is passing air and water
at 70o Fahrenheit and 14.7 psia. The rod outer diameter is 0.75’’ (19.05mm)
while the outside tube inner diameter is 1.25’’(31.75mm). The water is all on
the rod with the outside tube completely dry.
(Note: This problem cannot be solved by any of the overall calculation

methods.)
The superficial velocities (based on the entire flow area) of the air and
water are given below:
Ql
= 0.5 ft/sec ρ l =62.247 lb/ft3 Wall Friction
A Factor: fw = 0.005
(997.101 kg/m3)
(.152 m/sec) (Fanning)
Qair
= 50 ft/sec ρ air =0.0752 lb/ft3
A
(1.205 kg/m3)
(15.24 m/sec)
Take Home Quiz
Due at 9:30AM on Day# 16
Do not consult anyone about this examination in preparing your solution.
Problem 1 (60%)
A once through steam generator of a new design has the high pressure primary flow in
the shell side and the lower pressure secondary flow in the tubes. A single tube with its associated
annular primary system flow region is pictured in Figure 1. Operating conditions and water steam
properties to be used are given below.
Figure 1
8.5
11.5 mm (annulus outer diameter)
8.5 m
kg kg
m s = 9 × 10 − 2 m p = 7.2 × 10 −1
s s
The secondary flow becomes steam at 10 oC superheat at the outlet. The inlet and
outlet temperature and enthalpy conditions are:
Temperature Enthalpy
Primary Inlet 330 oC 1980 kJ/kg
Secondary Inlet 230 oC 991.2 kJ/kg
The secondary coolant pressure is 7.5 MPa and the saturation temperature and
related enthalpies are:
Saturation temperature 290.5 oC
Saturated liquid enthalpy 1292.7 kJ/kg
Saturated steam enthalpy 2766.9 kJ/kg
Heat of evaporation 1474.2 kJ/kg
Page 1 of 3
Steam and water properties:
v cp σ x 103 µ x 106 ν x 106 k Pr

m3/kg kJ/kg/K N/m Ns/m2 m2/s W/m/K ---
Water 1.368 x 10-3 5.47 16.71 94.10 0.128 0.558 0.932
Steam 2.533 x 10-2 7.09 --- 19.21 0.491 0.066 1.61
Questions:
You are encouraged to prepare a numerical algorithm for the solution of this
problem. but be sure also to write out the solution approach including all equations and
correlations used as well.
a) Compute and make a plot of the following quantities considering thermal non-
equilibrium and mechanical non-equilibrium (use the slip correlation of Smith
provided below)
i) Twall(z)
ii) α(z)
Please show all computations and assumptions. You may assume that at 4
meters along the tube length the CHF condition occurs. (i.e. film dryout)
Hence, calculate conditions in the SG tube only up to z = 4.0 meters.
b) If at film dryout it is assumed that the heat transfer coefficient on the

secondary side goes to zero, what is the resulting tube wall temperature?
Smith 1969 Slip Correlation (eqn 3.12, Collier and Thome)
1/ 2
uv  ρ ρ + .4(1 x -1)
= .4 + (1- .4) A v 
uA  1 + .4(1 x -1) 
Acceptable Calculation Simplifications:
1. Neglect tube wall resistivity

2. Take primary side heat transfer coefficient to be constant
3. Neglect pressure losses
Calculational Aids
Matlab® data files and scripts will be made available to you that are free to use for the
purposes of obtaining the additional water properties you may need for this problem.
Additionally, a Matlab® script is provided the two-phase heat transfer coefficient from the Chen
Page 2 of 3
correlation for a given set of water properties. (Please see the TA if you need help in setting up
these Matlab® functions.)
However you choose to solve this problem, be sure to provide a clear description of the
correlations and flow models that you use.
Problem 2 (20%)
A bottle has a volume, V, of 1 liter and neck internal diameter, d, of 20mm. It is full of
water and emptied by turning it upside down. Assume the bottle emptying is controlled by the
entry of slug (plug) flow bubbles into the bottle. If these bubbles are inertia controlled, find the
emptying time.
Problem 3 (20%)
1. Open yourself a bottle of beer. Explain the origin of the cloud you observe in the
neck of the bottle.
Pour your beer into a transparent glass. As you relax, observe the beer and answer the following
additional questions.
2. Identify the types of locations of sites from bubbles are originating.
3. By what mechanism are bubbles being continually created from these given sites?
4. For any given site bubbles depart at a given frequency and rise in a column.
a) Predict the rise velocity of any given bubble and compare it with
your observation.
b) Also predict and compare the observed bubble diameter change.
5. Sprinkle some salt into the beer and explain the behavior you observe.
MATLAB® is a trademark of The MathWorks, Inc.
Page 3 of 3
Fall 2002
NOTE L.4
“INTRODUCTION TO STRUCTURAL MECHANICS”
Lothar Wolf*, Mujid S. Kazimi** and Neil E. Todreas†
Nominal Load Point

35 55 6569 100
σ1
-25
Max τ theory
DE theory Limiting
-45 Mohr theory Points
Max σ theory
-57.7
-60
Load Line
-100
Shear Diagonal
σ2
* Professor of Nuclear Engineering (retired), University of Maryland

** TEPCO Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
† KEPCO Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Rev 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Definition of Concepts .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Concept of State of Stress ........................................................................................... 4
1.2 Principal Stresses, Planes and Directions .................................................................... 6
1.3 Basic Considerations of Strain ..................................................................................... 6
1.4 Plane Stress ................................................................................................................. 8
1.5 Mohr’s Circle...............................................................................................................10
1.6 Octahedral Planes and Stress........................................................................................13
1.7 Principal Strains and Planes .........................................................................................14
2. Elastic Stress-Strain Relations ..............................................................................................17

2.1 Generalized Hooke’s Law............................................................................................17
2.2 Modulus of Volume Expansion (Bulk Modulus) ........................................................19
3. Thin-Walled Cylinders and Sphere .......................................................................................21

3.1 Stresses .......................................................................................................................21
3.2 Deformation and Strains ..............................................................................................22
3.3 End Effects for the Closed-Ended Cylinder .................................................................24
4. Thick-Walled Cylinder under Radial Pressure ......................................................................27

4.1 Displacement Approach................................................................................................28
4.2 Stress Approach ...........................................................................................................29
5. Thermal Stress.......................................................................................................................31
5.1 Stress Distribution........................................................................................................32
5.2 Boundary Conditions ...................................................................................................34
5.3 Final Results.................................................................................................................32
6. Design Procedures ...............................................................................................................37

6.1 Static Failure and Failure Theories ...............................................................................38
6.2 Prediction of Failure under Biaxial and Triaxial Loading .............................................40
6.3 Maximum Normal-Stress Theory (Rankine) ...............................................................41
6.4 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (The Coulomb, later Tresca Theory)...........................44
6.5 Mohr Theory and Internal-Friction Theory ..................................................................46
6.6 Maximum Normal-Strain Theory (Saint-Varants’ Theory)..........................................47
6.7 Total Strain-Energy Theory (Beltrami Theory).............................................................48
6.8 Maximum Distortion-Energy Theory (Maximum Octahedral-Shear-Stress
Theory, Van Mises, Hencky) .......................................................................................49
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
6.9 Comparison of Failure Theories .................................................................................51
6.10 Application of Failure Theories to Thick-Walled Cylinders........................................51
6.11 Prediction of Failure of Closed-Ended Circular Cylinder Thin-Walled
Pressure Vessels.........................................................................................................58
6.12 Examples for the Calculation of Safety Factors in Thin-Walled Cylinders.................60
References ...................................................................................................................................61
ii
“INTRODUCTION TO STRUCTURAL MECHANICS”
M. S. Kazimi, N.E. Todreas and L. Wolf
1. DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS
Structural mechanics is the body of knowledge describing the relations between external
forces, internal forces and deformation of structural materials. It is therefore necessary to clarify
the various terms that are commonly used to describe these quantities. In large part, structural
mechanics refers to solid mechanics because a solid is the only form of matter that can sustain
loads parallel to the surface. However, some considerations of fluid-like behavior (creep) are also
part of structural mechanics.
Forces are vector quantities, thus having direction and magnitude. They have special names
(Fig. 1) depending upon their relationship to a reference plane:
a) Compressive forces act normal and into the plane;
b) Tensile forces act normal and out of the plane; and
c) Shear forces act parallel to the plane.
Pairs of oppositely directed forces produce twisting effects called moments.
y y y
x x x
z z z
Compressive Tensile Shear
Figure 1. Definition of Forces.

Note L.4
Page 2
The mathematics of stress analysis requires the definition of coordinate systems. Fig. 2
illustrates a right-handed system of rectangular coordinates.
y z x
x y z
z x y
Figure 2. Right-handed System of Rectangular Coordinates.
In the general case, a body as shown in Fig. 3 consisting of an isolated group of particles will
be acted upon by both external or surface forces, and internal or body forces (gravity, centrifugal,
magnetic attractions, etc.)
If the surface and body forces are in balance, the body is in static equilibrium. If not,
accelerations will be present, giving rise to inertia forces. By D’Alembert’s principle, the resultant
of these inertial forces is such that when added to the original system, the equation of equilibrium is
satisfied.
The system of particles of Fig. 3 is said to be in equilibrium if every one of its constitutive
particles is in equilibrium. Consequently, the resulting force on each particle is zero, and hence the
vector sum of all the forces shown in Fig. 3 is zero. Finally, since we observe that the internal
forces occur in self-canceling pairs, the first necessary condition for equilibrium becomes that the
vector sum of the external forces must be zero.
F1
Fn
F2
Figure 3. An Isolated System of Particles Showing External and Internal Forces (Ref. 1,
Fig 1.12).
Note L.4
Page 3
F 1 + F 2 + ... + Fn = ∑n Fn = 0 (1.1a)
The total moment of all the forces in Fig. 3 about an arbitrary point 0 must be zero since the vector
sum of forces acting on each particle is zero. Again, observe that internal forces occur in self-
canceling pairs along the same line of action. This leads to the second condition for equilibrium:
the total moment of all the external forces about an arbitrary point 0 must be zero.
r1F 1 + r2F 2 + ... + rnFn = ∑n rn F n = 0 (1.1b)
where rn extends from point 0 to an arbitrary point on the line of action of force F n.
In Fig. 4A, an arbitrary plane, aa, divides a body in equilibrium into regions I and II. Since the
force acting upon the entire body is in equilibrium, the forces acting on part I alone must be in
equilibrium.
In general, the equilibrium of part I will require the presence of forces acting on plane aa.
These internal forces applied to part I by part II are distributed continuously over the cut surface,
but, in general, will vary over the surface in both direction and intensity.
n
II dF
a a
dA
a a
I I
Point 0 Point 0
A B
Figure 4. Examination of Internal Forces of a Body in Equilibrium.
Stress is the term used to define the intensity and direction of the internal forces acting at a
particular point on a given plane.
Metals are composed of grains of material having directional and boundary characteristics.
However, these grains are usually microscopic and when a larger portion of the material is
considered, these random variations average out to produce a macroscopically uniform material.
Macroscopic uniformity = homogenous,
If there are no macroscopic direction properties the material is isotropic.

Note L.4
Page 4
Definition of Stress (mathematically), (Fig. 4B) [see Ref. 1, p. 203]
n
r
T = stress at point 0 on plane aa whose normal is n passing through point 0
= lim dF where dF is a force acting on area dA.
dA→0 dA
n n
[Reference 1 uses the notation T to introduce the concept that T is a stress vector]
NOTE: Stress is a point value.
The stress acting at a point on a specific plane is a vector. Its direction is the limiting direction
of force dF as area dA approaches zero. It is customary to resolve the stress vector into two
components whose scalar magnitudes are:
normal stress component σ: acting perpendicular to the plane
shear stress component τ: acting in the plane.
1.1 Concept of State of Stress
The selection of different cutting planes through point 0 would, in general, result in stresses
differing in both direction and magnitude. Stress is thus a second-order tensor quantity, because
not only are magnitude and direction involved but also the orientation of the plane on which the
stress acts is involved.
NOTE: A complete description of the magnitudes and directions of stresses on all possible
planes through point 0 constitutes the state of stress at point 0.
NOTE: A knowledge of maximum stresses alone is not always sufficient to provide the best
evaluation of the strength of a member. The orientation of these stresses is also
important.
In general, the overall stress state must be determined first and the maximum stress values
derived from this information. The state of stress at a point can normally be determined by
computing the stresses acting on certain conveniently oriented planes passing through the point of
interest. Stresses acting on any other planes can then be determined by means of simple,
standardized analytical or graphical methods. Therefore, it is convenient to consider the three
mutually perpendicular planes as faces of a cube of infinitesimal size which surround the point at
which the stress state is to be determined.
Figure 5 illustrates the general state of 3D stress at an arbitrary point by illustrating the stress
components on the faces of an infinitesimal cubic element around the point.
Note L.4
Page 5
Infinitesimal Cube about Point of Interest

y σy
τyx
τyz
x
z
0 τxy
τzy σx
τzx τxz
σz
P
Figure 5. Stress Element Showing General State of 3D Stress at a Point Located Away from
the Origin.
Notation Convention for Fig. 5:
Normal stresses are designated by a single subscript corresponding to the outward drawn
normal to the plane that it acts upon.
The rationale behind the double-subscript notation for shear stresses is that the first designates
the plane of the face and the second the direction of the stress. The plane of the face is represented
by the axis which is normal to it, instead of the two perpendicular axes lying in the plane.
Stress components are positive when a positively-directed force component acts on a positive
face or a negatively-directed force component acts on a negative face. When a positively-directed
force component acts on a negative face or a negatively-directed force component acts on a positive
face, the resulting stress component will be negative. A face is positive when its outwardly-directed
normal vector points in the direction of the positive coordinate axis (Ref. 1, pp. 206-207). All
stresses shown in Fig. 5 are positive. Normal stresses are positive for tensile stress and negative
for compressive stress. Figure 6 illustrates positive and negative shear stresses.
NOTE: τyx equals τxy.
y
+ τ yx
- τ yx
z x
Figure 6. Definition of Positive and Negative τyx.
Note L.4
Page 6
Writing the state of stress as tensor S:

σx τxy τxz
S = τyx σy τyz 9-components (1.2)
τzx τzy σz
However, we have three equal pairs of shear stress:
τxy = τyx, τxz = τzx, τyz = τzy (1.3)
Therefore, six quantities are sufficient to describe the stresses acting on the coordinate planes
through a point, i.e., the triaxial state of stress at a point. If these six stresses are known at a point, it
is possible to compute from simple equilibrium concepts the stresses on any plane passing through
the point [Ref. 2, p. 79].
1.2 Principal Stresses, Planes and Directions
The tensor S becomes a symmetric tensor if Eq. 1.3 is introduced into Eq. 1.2. A fundamental
property of a symmetrical tensor (symmetrical about its principal diagonal) is that there exists an
orthogonal set of axes 1, 2, 3 (called principal axes) with respect to which the tensor elements are all
zero except for those on the principal diagonal:
σ1 0 0
S' = 0 σ2 0 (1.4)
0 0 σ3
Hence, when the tensor represents the state of stress at a point, there always exists a set of mutually
perpendicular planes on which only normal stress acts. These planes of zero shear stress are called
principal planes, the directions of their outer normals are called principal directions, and the stresses
acting on these planes are called principal stresses. An element whose faces are principal planes is
called a principal element.
For the general case, the principal axes are usually numbered so that:
σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ σ3
1.3 Basic Considerations of Strain
The concept of strain is of fundamental importance to the engineer with respect to the
consideration of deflections and deformation.
A component may prove unsatisfactory in service as a result of excessive deformations,
although the associated stresses are well within the allowable limits from the standpoint of fracture
or yielding.
Strain is a directly measurable quantity, stress is not.
Note L.4
Page 7
Concept of Strain and State of Strain

Any physical body subjected to forces, i.e., stresses, deforms under the action of these forces.
Strain is the direction and intensity of the deformation at any given point with respect to a
specific plane passing through that point. Strain is therefore a quantity analogous to stress.
State of strain is a complete definition of the magnitude and direction of the deformation at a
given point with respect to all planes passing through the point. Thus, state of strain is a tensor and
is analogous to state of stress.
For convenience, strains are always resolved into normal components, ε, and shear components,
γ (Figs. 7 & 8). In these figures the original shape of the body is denoted by solid lines and the
deformed shape by the dashed lines. The change in length in the x-direction is dx, while the change
in the y-direction is dy. Hence, εx, εy and γ are written as indicated in these figures.
y y
x εx = lim dx
x
dy dx x→0 dx dx γyx = lim dxy
y dy θ θ y→0
εy = lim y
y = tan θ ≈ θ
x y→0
0 x
Figure 7. Deformation of a Body where the Figure 8. Plane Shear Strain.

x-Dimension is Extended and the
y-Dimension is Contracted.
Subscript notation for strains corresponds to that used with stresses. Specifically,
• γyx: shear strain resulting from taking adjacent planes perpendicular to the y-axis and
displacing them relative to each other in the x-direction (Fig. 9).
• εx, εy: normal strains in x- and y-directions, respectively.
y γyx > 0 γxy < 0
initial deformed
rotated clockwise initial deformed
rotated counter-clockwise
x
Figure 9. Strains resulting from Shear Stresses ± γxy.
Note L.4
Page 8
Sign conventions for strain also follow directly from those for stress: positive normal stress
produces positive normal strain and vice versa. In the above example (Fig. 7), εx > 0, whereas
εy < 0. Adopting the positive clockwise convention for shear components, γxy < 0, γyx > 0. In
Fig. 8, the shear is γyx and the rotation is clockwise.
NOTE: Half of γxy, γxz, γyz is analogous to τxy , τxz and τyz , whereas εx is analogous to σx.
εx 1 γxy 1 γxz
2 2
T = 1 γyx εy 1 γyz
2 2
1 γzx 1 γzy εz
2 2
It may be helpful in appreciating the physical significance of the fact that τ is analogous to γ/2
rather than with γ itself to consider Fig. 10. Here it is seen that each side of an element changes in
slope by an angle γ/2.
γ
2
γ
2
Figure 10. State of Pure Shear Strain
1.4 Plane Stress

In Fig. 11, all stresses on a stress element act on only two pairs of faces. Further, these
stresses are practically constant along the z-axis. This two-dimensional case is called biaxial stress
or plane stress.
σy
τyx
τxy
σx
x
0
z
A
Figure 11. State of Plane Stress

Note L.4
Page 9
The stress tensor for stresses in horizontal (x) and vertical (y) directions in the plane xy is:
S = σx τxy
τyx σy
When the angle of the cutting plane through point 0 is varied from horizontal to vertical, the
shear stresses acting on the cutting plane vary from positive to negative. Since shear stress is a
continuous function of the cutting plane angle, there must be some intermediate plane in which the
shear stress is zero. The normal stresses in the intermediate plane are the principle stresses. The
stress tensor is:
S' = σ1 0
0 σ2
where the zero principal stress is always σ3. These principal stresses occur along particular axes in
a particular plane. By convention, σ1 is taken as the larger of the two principal stresses. Hence
σ1 ≥ σ2 σ3 = 0
In general we wish to know the stress components in a set of orthogonal axes in the xy plane,
but rotated at an arbitrary angle, α, with respect to the x, y axes. We wish to express these stress
components in terms of the stress terms referred to the x, y axes, i.e., in terms of σx, σy, τxy and the
angle of rotation α. Fig. 12 indicates this new set of axes, x1 and y1, rotated by α from the original
set of axes x and y. The determination of the new stress components σx1, σy1, τx1y1 is
accomplished by considering the equilibrium of the small wedge centered on the point of interest
whose faces are along the x-axis, y-axis and perpendicular to the x1 axis. For the general case of
expressing stresses σx1 and τx1y1 at point 0 in plane x1, y1 in terms of stresses σx, σy, τxy and the
angle α in plane x, y by force balances in the x1 and y1 directions, we obtain (see Ref. 1, p. 217):
σx1 = σx cos2 α + σy sin2 α + 2τxy sin α cos α (1.5a)
τx1y1 = (σy - σx) sin α cos α + τxy (cos2 α - sin2 α) (1.5b)
σy1 = σx sin2 α + σy cos2 α - 2τxy sin α cos α (1.5c)
where the angle α is defined in Fig. 12.
y y
y1
x1
α α x1
α
α x x
(A) (B)
Figure 12. (A) Orientation of Plane x1y1 at Angle α to Plane xy;
(B) Wedge for Equilibrium Analysis.
Note L.4
Page 10
These are the transformation equations of stress for plane stress. Their significance is that
stress components σx1, σy1 and τx1y1 at point 0 in a plane at an arbitrary angle α to the plane xy are
uniquely determined by the stress components σx, σy and τxy at point 0.
Eq. 1.5 is commonly written in terms of 2α. Using the identities:
1 - cos 2α 1 + cos 2α
sin2α = ; cos2α = ; 2 sin α cos α = sin 2α
2 2
we get
σ x + σy σ - σy
σ x1 = + x cos 2α + τxy sin 2α (1.6a)
2 2
σ - σy
τx1y1 = - x sin 2α + τxy cos 2α (1.6b)
2
σ + σ y σx - σy
σ y1 = x - cos 2α - τxy sin 2α (1.6c)*
2 2
The orientation of the principal planes, in this two dimensional system is found by equating τx1y1 to
zero and solving for the angle α.
1.5 Mohr's Circle
Equations 1.6a,b,c, taken together, can be represented by a circle, called Mohr’s circle of stress.
To illustrate the representation of these relations, eliminate the function of the angle 2α from
Eq. 1.6a and 1.6b by squaring both sides of both equations and adding them. Before Eq. 1.6a is
squared, the term (σx + σy)/2 is transposed to the left side. The overall result is (where plane y1x1
is an arbitrarily located plane, so that σx1 is now written as σ and τx1y1 as τ):
[σ - 1/2 (σx + σy)]2 + τ2 = 1/4 (σx - σy)2 + τ2xy (1.7)
Now construct Mohr’s circle on the σ and τ plane. The principal stresses are those on the σ-axis
when τ = 0. Hence, Eq. 1.7 yields the principal normal stresses σ1 and σ2 as:
σ x + σy σx - σy 2
σ 1,2 = ± τ2xy + (1.8)
2 2
center of circle radius
The maximum shear stress is the radius of the circle and occurs in the plane represented by a
vertical orientation of the radius.
* σy1 can also be obtained from σx1 by substituting α + 90˚ for α.

Note L.4
Page 11
σx - σy 2
τmax = ± τ2xy + = 1 σ1 - σ2 (1.9)
2 2
The angle between the principal axes x1y1 and the arbitrary axis, xy can be determined from
Eq. 1.6b by taking x1y1 as principal axes. Hence, from Eq. 1.6b with τx1y1 = 0 we obtain:
2τxy
2α = tan-1 (1.10)
σx - σy
From our wedge we know an arbitrary plane is located an angle α from the general x-, y-axis set
and α ranges from zero to 180˚. Hence, for the circle with its 360˚ range of rotation, planes
separated by α in the wedge are separated by 2α on Mohr’s circle. Taking the separation between
the principal axis and the x-axis where the shear stress is τxy, we see that Fig. 13A also illustrates
the relation of Eq. 1.10. Hence, Mohr’s circle is constructed as illustrated in Fig. 13A.
τ σx - σy
σx + σy 2
2
(σ y , τ yx) y locus of τ yx locus of τ xy
+ -
2 1
−σ α σ
(σ 2 , 0) 2α (σ 1 , 0)
x (σ x , τ xy) - +
σx - σy 2
τ2xy +
2
A B
Figure 13. (A) Mohr’s Circle of Stress; (B) Shear Stress Sign Convection for Mohr’s Circle.*
When the principal stresses are known and it is desired to find the stresses acting on a plane
oriented at angle φ from the principal plane numbered 1 in Fig. 14, Eq. 1.6 becomes:
σφ = σ1 + σ2 ± σ1 - σ2 cos 2φ (1.11)
2 2
and
τφ = - σ1 - σ2 sin 2φ (1.12)
2
* For shear stresses, the sign convection is complicated since τyx and τxy are equal and of the same sign (see Figs 5
and 6, and Eq. 1.3), yet one must be plotted in the convention positive y-direction and the other in the negative y-
direction (note the τ-axis replaces the y-axis in Fig. 13A). The convention adopted is to use the four quadrants of the
circle as follows: positive τ xy is plotted in the fourth quadrant and positive τ yx in the second quadrant.
Analogously, negative τxy lies in the first quadrant. Further, the shear stress at 90˚ on the circle is positive while
that at 270˚ is negative. [Ref. 1, p. 220]
Note that the negative shear stress of Eq. 1.12 is plotted in the first and third quadrants of Fig. 14, consistent with
this sign convention.
Note L.4
Page 12
σ1 - σ2 cos 2φ
τ 2
σ1 + σ2
2
σ1 - σ2 sin 2φ
2 2φ 1 2
σ
σ2
σ1
Figure 14. Mohr’s Circle Representation of Eqs. 1.11 & 1.12.
Example 1:
Consider a cylindrical element of large radius with axial (x direction) and torque loadings
which produce shear and normal stress components as illustrated in Fig. 15. Construct Mohr’s
circle for this element and determine the magnitude and orientation of the principal stresses.
From this problem statement, we know the coordinates σx, τxy are 60, 40 ksi and the
coordinates σy, τyx are 0, 40 ksi. Further, from Eq. 1.10, 2α = tan-1 2(40)/(60) = 53˚. From these
values and the layout of Fig. 13, we can construct Mohr’s circle for this example as shown in
Fig. 16. Points 1 and 2 are stresses on principal planes, i.e., principal stresses are 80 and -20 ksi
and points S and S' are maximum and minimum shear stress, i.e., 50 and -50 ksi. These results
follow from Eqs. 1.8 and 1.9 as:
2
From Eq. 1.8 σ1, σ2 = 60 + 0 ± 402 + 60 - 0 = 80, -20 ksi
2 2
2
From Eq. 1.9 τmax = ± 402 + 60 - 0 = ± 50 ksi
2
From Fig. 13A σ at plane of τmax = (60 + 0)/2 = 30 ksi, i.e., at S and S'
τ S (30, 50)
T y (0, 40)
F
37˚
(-20, 0) 2 1 (80, 0)
τxy = T = 40 ksi 0 3 σ
A 53˚= 2α
σx = F = 60 ksi
A
x (60, 40)
σy = 0
S' (30, -50)
Figure 15. Example 1 Loadings. Figure 16. Mohr’s Circle for Example 1.
Note L.4
Page 13
The principal element, i.e., its faces are principal planes, and the maximum shear element are
shown in Fig. 17.
NOTE: The angle between points y and S is the complement of 53˚ or 37˚, and plane y is rotated
37˚/2 counter-clockwise from plane S.
NOTE: The procedure for determining the orientation of these elements: point 1 is 53˚ counter-
clockwise from point x on the circle; hence the plane represented by 1 is half of 53˚
counter-clockwise from plane x. Similarly, the S plane is 143˚/2 counter-clockwise of
plane x, or 37˚/2 clockwise of plane y.
S axis
y axis y axis
143˚
Plane perpendicular 37˚ 2
26.5˚ to x axis 2 σ = 30 ksi
σ 1 = 80 ksi Plane y Plane y
Plane τmax= 50 ksi
e S′
S
(2) (1)
S′
Plan
x axis x axis
Plane
37˚
(1) (2) Plane 2 σ = 30 ksi
S S′ axis
σ 2 = - 20 ksi Plane x Plane x
τmax= 50 ksi
Principal Element Maximum Shear Elements
Figure 17. Key Elements for Example 1.
Mohr’s circle clearly illustrates these additional points:

1. the principal stresses represent the extreme values of normal stress at the point in question;
2. τmax = 1 σ1 - σ2 ;
2
3. planes of maximum shear are always 45˚ removed from the principal planes; and
4. normal stresses acting on maximum shear planes S and S' are equal to the algebraic average of
principal stresses σ1 and σ2, i.e., 1/2 (σ1 + σ2).
1.6 Octahedral Planes and Stresses
Figure 18 illustrates the orientation of one of the eight octahedral planes which are associated
with a given stress state. Each of the octahedral planes cut across one of the corners of a principal
element, so that the eight planes together form an octahedron.
The stresses acting on these planes have interesting and significant characteristics. First of all,
identical normal stresses act on all eight planes. By themselves the normal stresses are therefore
said to be hydrostatic and tend to compress or enlarge the octahedron but not distort it.
Note L.4
Page 14
σoct = σ1 + σ2 + σ3 (1.13a)
3
Shear stresses are also identical. These distort the octahedron without changing its volume.
Although the octahedral shear stress is smaller than the highest principal shear stress, it constitutes
a single value that is influenced by all three principal shear stresses. Thus, it is important as a
criterion for predicting yielding of a stressed material.
τoct = 1 σ1 - σ2 2 + σ2 - σ3 2 + σ3 - σ1 2
1/2
(1.13b)
3
In cases in which σx, σy, σz, τxy, τxz and τyz are known:
σ + σy + σz
σoct = x (1.14a)
3
τoct = 1 σx - σy + σy - σz + σz - σx 2 + 6 τ2xy + τ2xz + τ2yz
2 2 1/2
(1.14b)
3
σ2
σ1 τ oct
σ3 σoct
Figure 18. Octahedral Planes Associated with a Given Stress State.
1.7 Principal Strains and Planes
Having observed the correspondence between strain and stress, it is evident that with suitable
axis transformation one obtains an expression for the strain tensor T ' which is identical to that of
stress tensor S' except that the terms in the principal diagonal are ε1, ε2, ε3. Hence, recalling from
Section 1.3 that γ/2 corresponds to τ, strain relations analogous to Eqs. 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 can be
written as follows:
ε x + εy 1 γxy 2 + εx - εy
2
ε1, ε2 = ± (1.15)
2 2 2
1 γ 2 + εx - εy
2
γmax = ± 2 (1.16)
2 xy 2
γ xy
2α = tan-1 (1.17)
εx - εy
Note L.4
Page 15
Conclusion
The preceding sections dealt separately with the concepts of stress and strain at a point. These
considerations involving stresses and strains separately are general in character and applicable to
bodies composed of any continuous distribution of matter.
NOTE: No material properties were involved in the relationships, hence they are applicable to
water, oil, as well as materials like steel and aluminum.
Note L.4
Page 16
intentionally left blank

Note L.4
Page 17
2. ELASTIC STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONS
The relationships between these quantities are of direct importance to the engineer concerned
with design and stress analysis. Generally two principal types of problems exist:
1. Determination of the stress state at a point from a known strain state—the problem
encountered when stresses are to be computed from experimentally determined strains.
2. Determination of the state of strain at a point from a known stress state—the problem
commonly encountered in design, where a part is assured to carry certain loads, and strains
must be computed with regard to critical clearances and stiffnesses.
We limit ourselves to solids loaded in the elastic range. Furthermore, we shall consider only
materials which are isotropic, i.e., materials having the same elastic properties in all directions.
Most engineering materials can be considered as isotropic. Notable exceptions are wood and
reinforced concrete.
2.1 Generalized Hooke’s Law
Let us consider the various components of stress one at a time and add all their strain effects.
For a uni-axial normal stress in the x direction, σx, the resulting normal strain is
εx = σx (2.1)
E
where E is Young’s modulus or the modulus of elasticity.
Additionally this stress produces lateral contraction, i.e., εy and εz, which is a fixed fraction of
the longitudinal strain, i.e.,
εy = εz = - νεx = - ν σx . (2.2)
E
This fixed fraction is called Poisson’s ratio, ν. Analogous results are obtained from strains due to
σy and σz.
The shear-stress components produce only their corresponding shear-strain components that
are expressed as:
τ τ
γzx = τzx , γ xy = xy , γyz = yz (2.3a,b,c)
G G G
where the constant of proportionality, G, is called the shear modulus.
Note L.4
Page 18
For a linear-elastic isotropic material with all components of stress present:
εx = 1 σx - ν σy + σz (2.4a)
E
ε y = 1 σy - ν σ z + σ x (2.4b)
E
εz = 1 σz - ν σx + σy (2.4c)
E
τ
γ xy = xy (2.5a) same as (2.3)
G
τyz
γyz = (2.5b)
G
τ
γzx = zx (2.5c)
G
These equations are the generalized Hooke’s law.
It can also be shown (Ref 1, p. 285) that for an isotropic materials, the properties G, E and ν
are related as:
G = E . (2.6)
2 (1 + ν)
Hence,
2 (1 + ν)
γ xy = τxy (2.7a)
E
2 (1 + ν)
γyz = τyz (2.7b)
E
2 (1 + ν)
γzx = τzx . (2.7c)
E
Equations 2.4 and 2.5 may be solved to obtain stress components as a function of strains:
σx = E 1 - ν εx + ν εy + εz (2.8a)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
σy = E 1 - ν ε y + ν ε z + εx (2.8b)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
σz = E 1 - ν ε z + ν ε x + εy (2.8c)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
τxy = E γxy = Gγxy (2.9a)
2 (1 + ν)
τyz = E γyz = Gγyz (2.9b)
2 (1 + ν)
τzx = E γzx = Gγzx . (2.9c)
2 (1 + ν)
Note L.4
Page 19
For the first three relationships one may find:

σx = E εx + ν εx + εy + εz (2.10a)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
σy = E εy + ν εx + εy + εz (2.10b)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
σz = E εz + ν εx + εy + εz . (2.10c)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
For special case in which the x, y, z axes coincide with principal axes 1, 2, 3, we can simplify the
strain set, Eqs. 2.4 and 2.5, and the stress set Eqs. 2.8 and 2.9, by virtue of all shear strains and
shear stresses being equal to zero.
ε 1 = 1 σ1 - ν σ 2 + σ 3 (2.11a)
E
ε 2 = 1 σ2 - ν σ 3 + σ 1 (2.11b)
E
ε 3 = 1 σ3 - ν σ 1 + σ 2 (2.11c)
E
σ1 = E 1 - ν ε 1 + ν ε 2 + ε3 (2.12a)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
σ2 = E 1 - ν ε 2 + ν ε 3 + ε1 (2.12b)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
σ3 = E 1 - ν ε 3 + ν ε 1 + ε2 . (2.12c)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
For biaxial-stress state, one of the principal stresses (say σ3) = 0, Eqs. 2.11a,b,c become:
ε1 = 1 σ1 - νσ2 (2.13a)
E
ε2 = 1 σ2 - νσ1 (2.13b)
E
ε3 = - ν σ 1 + σ2 . (2.13c)
E
In simplifying Eqs. 2.12a,b,c for the case of σ3 = 0, we note from Eq. 2.12c that for σ3 to be zero,
ε3 = - ν ε 1 + ε2 . (2.14)
1 - ν
Substituting this expression into the first two of Eqs. 2.12a,b,c gives:
σ1 = E ε1 + νε2 (2.15a)
1 - ν2
σ2 = E ε2 + νε1 (2.15b)
1 - ν2
σ3 = 0 . (2.15c)
Note L.4
Page 20
In case of uniaxial stress Eqs. 2.13 and 2.15 must, of course reduce to:
ε1 = 1 σ1 (2.16a)
E
ε2 = ε3 = - ν σ 1 (2.16b)
E
σ1 = Eε1 (2.17a)
σ2 = σ3 = 0 . (2.17b)
2.2 Modulus of Volume Expansion (Bulk Modulus)
k may be defined as the ratio between hydrostatic stress (in which σ1 = σ2 = σ3) and
volumetric strain (change in volume divided by initial volume), i.e.,
k = σ/(∆V/V). (2.18)
NOTE: Hydrostatic compressive stress exists within the fluid of a pressurized hydraulic cylinder,
in a rock at the bottom of the ocean or far under the earth’s surface, etc.
Hydrostatic tension can be created at the interior of a solid sphere by the sudden
application of uniform heat to the surface, the expansion of the surface layer subjecting
the interior material to triaxial tension. For σ1 = σ2 = σ3 = σ, Eqs. 2.11a,b,c show that:
ε1 = ε2 = ε3 = ε = σ 1 - 2ν .
E
This state of uniform triaxial strain is characterized by the absence of shearing deformation; an
elemental cube, for example, would change in size but remain a cube. The size of an elemental cube
initially of unit dimension would change from 13 to (1 + ε)3 or to 1 + 3ε + 3ε2 + ε3. If we
consider normal structural materials, ε is a quantity sufficiently small, so that ε2 and ε3 are
completely negligible, and the volumetric change is from 1 to 1 + 3ε. The volumetric strain, ∆V/V,
is thus equal to 3ε or to:
∆V = 3ε = 3σ (1 - 2ν) . (2.19)
V E
Hence,
k ≡ σ = E . (2.20)
3ε 3 (1 - 2ν)
Now ν ≤ 0.5, so that k cannot become negative. A simple physical model of a representative
atomic crystalline structure gives:
ν = 1/3 , (2.21)
so that
k = E . (2.22)
Note L.4
Page 21
3. THIN-WALLED CYLINDERS AND SPHERE
3.1 Stresses
• Stresses in a Thin-Walled Cylinder:
Consider a portion of the cylinder sufficiently remote from the ends to avoid end effects.
The equation of equilibrium of radial forces (Fig. 19) acting on the element is:
dφ
pi ridφdL = 2σt,avtdL sin (3.1)
2
yielding p ir i
σ t,av = . (3.2)
t
when sin (dφ/2) is approximated by dφ/2, which is valid for small dφ. This is a correct expression
for the average tangential stress (hoop stress) regardless of cylinder thickness.
NOTE: It is only when this equation is used as an approximation for the maximum tangential
stress, σt,max, that the thickness t must be very small in comparison with the cylinder
diameter.
Equation 3.1 can be modified to give a good quick estimate of the maximum tangential stress due to
internal pressure for cylinders of moderate thickness by replacing ri with rav, which we label R:
R = ri + t . (3.3)
2
Thus,
p iR
σt,max ≈ (3.4)
t
pi σt,avtdL
dφ
R
t dL
p i r i dφdL dφ/2
2r i
2r o
Figure 19. Radial Forces in an Internally Pressurized Thin-Walled Cylinder.

Note L.4
Page 22
The following are errors in estimating σt,max from Eqs. 3.2 or 3.4 compared to the thick-walled
cylinder results:
% Error Using % Error Using
t/ri Eq. 3.2 Eq. 3.4
0.1 5 (low) 0.5 (low)
0.2 10 (low) 1.0 (low)
0.5 23 (low) 3.8 (low)
1.0 40 (low) 10.2 (low)
If the ends are closed, the cylinder is also subjected to an axial force of magnitude p iπr2i . This is
distributed over an area of cross section that can be expressed as:
A = π r2o - r2i = 2πRt . (3.5)
Thus the average axial tensile stress can be expressed by:

p ir2i p r2
σa,av = = ii . (3.6)
r2o - r2i 2ravt
For the thin-walled case, ri ≈ rav ≡ R since ri = R(1 - 0.5t/R). Hence, Eq. 3.6 reduces to:
p iR
σa,av = . (3.7)
2t
Thus the axial stress is approximately half the tangential stress.
• Stresses in a Thin-Walled Sphere:
From a force balance these stresses can be determined to be

pR
σa,av = σt,av = (3.8)
2t
3.2 Deformation and Strains
The deformation of the diameter of a thin-walled cylinder or sphere caused by the internal
pressure is to be determined. Note that the state of stress at the inner surface is triaxial and is not
plane stress. The principal stresses of the inner surface are σ1 = σφ, σ2 = σz and σ3 = -p.
However, σ3 = -p is so small compared to σ1 and σ2 that it can be neglected when considering
strains. Thus, the state of stress in thin-walled pressure vessels is usually considered to be plane
stress.
The deformation of such pressure vessels is influenced by the tangential and axial (transverse
for the sphere) stresses, and hence use must be made of the following relations obtained from Eqs.
2.4, 2.5 and 2.8, respectively, with σy = 0.
Note L.4
Page 23
εx = σx - νσz (3.9a)
E E
εy = - ν σx + σz (3.9b)
E
σ νσx
εz = z - (3.9c)
E E
τ
γ = xy (3.9d)
G
σx = E εx + νεz (3.10a)
1 - ν2
σz = E εz + νεx (3.10b)
1 - ν2
to express Hooke’s law for plane stress. Equations 3.10a,b are obtained from Eqs. 2.8a and 2.8c
upon inspection of εy evaluated from Eq. 2.8b with σy taken as zero.
Let σφ, σz, εφ and εz represent the tangential and axial stress and strain, respectively, in the wall.
The substitution of these symbols in Eqs. 3.9a,b,c, i.e., x ≡ φ and z = z, gives:
σφ
εφ = - ν σz (3.11)
E E
σφ
εz = σz - ν . (3.12)
E E
• Closed-End Cylinder:
For the strains in the closed-end cylinder, the values of σφ and σz as derived in Eqs. 3.4
and 3.8, respectively, are substituted into Eqs. 3.11 and 3.12 to give:
pR pR pR
εφ = 1 - ν = (2 - ν) (3.13)
E t 2t 2Et
pR pR pR
εz = 1 - ν = (1 - 2ν) . (3.14)
E 2t t 2Et
Let the change in length of radius R be ∆r when the internal pressure is applied. Then the change in
length of the circumference is 2π∆r. But the circumferential strain, εφ, is, by definition, given by the
following equation:
εφ = 2π∆r = ∆r . (3.15)
2πR R
By combining Eqs. 3.15 and 3.13 we get:
pR2
∆r = (2 - ν) . (3.16)
2Et
Note L.4
Page 24
The change in length, ∆l, for a closed-end cylinder is equal to:

∆ l = εzl (3.17)
or pRl
∆l = (1 - 2ν) (3.18)
2Et
• Sphere:
pR
σz = σφ = (3.19)
2t
Thus, from Eq. 3.11:
pR pR pR
εφ = 1 - ν = (1 - ν) . (3.20)
E 2t 2t 2Et
By combining Eq. 3.20 with Eq. 3.15, we obtain:
pR2
∆r = (1 - ν) . (3.21)
2Et
3.3 End Effects for the Closed-End Cylinder

Figure 20 illustrates a cylinder closed by thin-walled hemispherical shells. They are joined
together at AA and BB by rivets or welds. The dashed lines show the displacements due to internal
pressure, p. These displacements are given by Eqs. 3.16 and 3.21 as:
pR2
∆Rc = (2 - ν) (3.22a)
2Et
pR2
∆Rs = (1 - ν) (3.22b)
2Et
The value of ∆Rc is more than twice that of ∆Rs for the same thickness, t, and as a result the
deformed cylinder and hemisphere do not match boundaries. To match boundaries, rather large
shearing forces, V, and moments, M, must develop at the joints as Fig. 20 depicts (only those on the
cylinder are shown; equal but opposite shears and moments exist on the ends of the hemispheres).
This shear force is considerably minimized in most reactor pressure vessels by sizing the
hemisphere thickness much smaller than the cylinder thickness. For example, if the hemisphere
thickness is 120 mm and the cylinder thickness is 220 mm, for ν = 0.3, then the ratio ∆Rc to ∆Rs is
∆Rc = ts 2 - ν = 1.32
∆Rs tc 1 - ν
Note L.4
Page 25
∆Rs
Μ Μ
Α Rs Α
V V
∆Rc V ≡ Shearing Forces
V V
Β Β
Μ Μ
Figure 20. Discontinuities in Strains for the Cylinder (∆Rc) and the Sphere (∆Rs).
The general solution of the discontinuity stresses induced by matching cylindrical and
hemisphere shapes is not covered in these notes. However, a fundamental input to this solution is
the matching of both displacements and deflections of the two cylinders of different wall
thicknesses at the plane they join. Thus, the relationship between load, stress, displacement and
deflection for cylinders and hemispheres are derived. These relations are presented in Tables 1
and 2, respectively.
Table 1. Relationship Between Load, Stresses, Displaced and Deflection for the Cylinder
(equations cited are from Ref. 2)
Stresses Displacement Deflection

σt, σl, σr
uo θo
Load σθ, σz, σr
pR pR p pR2
p t
,
2t
, -
2 2 - ν + ν t 0
2tE R
EMo± γ 6Mo , ± 6Mo , 0 Mo
Mo - Mo
2
2β DR t2 t2 2
2β D βD
Edge
Moment (Eq. 7.3.22, (Eq. 7.3.21, (Eq. 7.3.18, p. 7.3.7) (Eq. 7.3.19, p. 7.3.8)
per Unit p. 7.3-12) p. 7.3-11)
Perimeter F ⋅ L/L dimensionless
Mo units = L
Length Note: u o = ; so first term 1 F L3
2β2 D
L2 L2
Eu o
= .
R
Table 1 continued on next page

Note L.4
Page 26
Table 1. Relationship Between Load, Stresses, Displaced and Deflection for the Cylinder (cont’d)
EQo Qo Qo
Qo , 0, 0 -
3 3 2
R2β D 2β D 2β D
Edge Shear
Force (Eq. 7.3.22, (Eq. 7.3.18, p. 7.3.7) (Eq. 7.3.19, p. 7.3.8)
per Unit p. 7.3-12)
Perimeter units F/L = L dimensionless
Qo 1 FL
Length Note: u o = 3 ; so first term
2β D L3
u E
= o .
R
where Plate Flexural Rigidity:
D = Et3 , units F L3
12 1 - ν2 L2 Equations and pages cited are from Ref. 2.
4 Et = 3 1 - ν2 1 1
β =
4R2D R 2 t2 L2 L2
Table 2. Relationship Between Load, Stresses, Displaced and Deflection for the Hemisphere
Stresses Displacement Deflection

Load σt, σl, σr δo θo
pR pR p pR2
p 2t
,
2t
, -
2 1 - ν + ν t 0
2tε R
2 2 3
Mo 2λ Mo ± γ 6Mo , ± 6Mo , 0 2λ Mo 4λ Mo
tR t2 t2 Et REt
Edge 2
Note: 2λ Mo = δo ; so first
Moment
per Unit t E
Perimeter Eδ o
Length term = .
R
2
Qo 2λQ0 2RλQ0 2λ Qo
, 0, 0
Edge Shear t Et Et
Force 2λQ0
per Unit Note: = Eδo .
t R
Perimeter
Length
where
λ = βR ; β 4 =
(
3 1 − ν2 )
R2t 2
Note L.4
Page 27
4. THICK-WALLED CYLINDER UNDER RADIAL PRESSURE [Ref. 1, pp. 293-300]
• Long Cylinder Plane Strain
The cylinder is axially restrained (εz = 0) at either end and subjected to uniform radial pressure,
not body forces. The cylinder cross section and stresses on an element are illustrated in Fig. 21.
dφ
σφ 2
po σr + dσr
ro
pi ri σr
dφ
r
r + dr
dφ
σφ
2
Figure 21. Force Balance and Displacements in a Pressurized Cylinder.
The relevant elastic equation set when azimuthal symmetry prevails is

• Strain–Displacement Relations
εr = du , εφ = u , γrφ = dv - vr (4.1a,b,c)
dr r dr
where u is the outward radial displacement and v is the φ direction displacement. Since the effect of
internal pressure is to move the material in the radial direction without any rotation, both v and γrφ
should be zero. This will be demonstrated formally from the boundary conditions.
• Stress–Equilibrium Relations (for forces in the r and φ directions)

dσr + σr - σφ = 0 , dτrφ 2τrφ
+ r = 0. (4.2a,b)
dr r dr
• Stress–Strain Relations
εr =
1
E [ (
σ r − γ σφ + σz )] (4.3a)
1
[
ε φ = σ φ − γ (σ z + σ r )
E
] (4.3b)
1
[ (
εz = 0 = σz − γ σ r + σφ
E
)] (4.3c)
Note L.4
Page 28
The strain-displacement relations can, by elimination of the displacement variables, be

combined as a compatibility (of strain) equation:
dε φ εφ − ε r
+ =0 (4.4)
dr r
Finally the boundary conditions are:
σr ri = - pi ; σr r o = - p o (4.5a)
τrφ ri = τrφ ro = 0 (4.5b)
Note that the radial dimension is assumed to be free of displacement constraints.
4.1 Displacement Approach
When displacements are known, it is preferable to use this solution approach. In this case we
solve for the displacements. Proceeding, solve Eq. 4.3 for stresses and substitute them into the
stress–equilibrium relations of Eq. 4.2 to obtain:
εr - εφ dεφ εφ - εr
(1 - ν) dεr + + ν + = 0 (4.6a)
dr r dr r
dγrφ 2γrφ
+ r = 0 (4.6b)
dr
Substituting Eq. 4.1 in Eq. 4.6 and simplification show that the displacements u and v are
governed by the equations:
d2u + 1 du - u = d 1 d (ru) = 0 (4.7a)
dr2 r dr r2 dr r dr
d2v + 1 dv - v = d 1 d (rv) = 0 . (4.7b)
dr2 r dr r2 dr r dr
Successive integration of these equations yields the displacement solutions
u = C1r + Cr2 ; v = C3r + Cr4 (4.8a,b)

2 2
where the constants of integration are to be determined by the stress boundary conditions
(Eqs. 4.5a,b). With the use of Eqs. 4.8a,b, the strain and stress solutions are obtained from Eq. 4.1
and
σr = E (1 - ν)εr + νεφ (4.9a)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
σφ = E (1 - ν)εφ + νεr (4.9b)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
τrφ = Gγrφ (4.9c)
as C C
εr = 1 - 2 , εφ = C 1 + C 2 , γrφ = - 2C4 (4.10a,b,c)
2 r 2 2 r 2 r2
Note L.4
Page 29
E C1 - (1 - 2ν) C2
σr = (4.11a)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν) 2 r2
E C1 + (1 - 2ν) C2
σφ = (4.11b)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν) 2 r2
νEC1
σz = ν σr + σφ (4.11c)
(1 + ν) (1 - 2ν)
τrφ = - 2GC4 . (4.11d)
r2
By virtue of the boundary conditions, Eqs. 4.5a,b, the first and last of Eq. 4.11 yield the
following equations for the determination of the constants C1 and C2.
C1 - (1 - 2ν) C2 = - (1 + ν) (1 - 2ν) p
i (4.12a)
2 r2i E
C1 - (1 - 2ν) C2 = - (1 + ν) (1 - 2ν) p
o (4.12b)
2 r2o E
C4 = 0 (4.12c)
The solutions for C1 and C2 are
C1 = (1 + ν) (1 - 2ν) p ir2i - por2o (4.13a)
2 E r2o - r2i
(1 + ν) pi - po r2i r2o
C2 = . (4.13b)
E r2o - r2i
As to the constant C3, it remains undetermined. However, with C4 = 0, Eq. 4.8 shows that v = C3r/2
which corresponds to a rigid-body rotation about the axis of the cylinder. Since this rotation does
not contribute to the strains, C3 is taken as zero. Hence Eqs. 4.11a,b,c and Eq. 4.8a become:
1 ro/ri 2 ro 2p
σr = 1 - pi - 1 - 1 (4.14a)
ro/ri 2 - 1 r/ri 2 r/ri 2 ri o
1 ro/ri 2 ro 2p
σφ = 1 + pi - 1 + 1 o (4.14b)
ro/ri 2 - 1 r/ri 2 r/ri 2 ri
pi - rro p o
2ν 2
σz = Plane Strain! (4.14c)
ro/ri 2 - 1 i
(1 + ν) r/ri ri ro/ri 2 pi ro 2 po
u = (1 - 2ν) + - (1 - 2ν) + 1 (4.14d)
ro/ri 2 - 1 r/ri 2 E r/ri 2 ri E
4.2 Stress Approach
In this case we solve directly for the stresses and apply the boundary conditions as before.
Thus, re-expressing the stress-strain relations (Eq. 4.3) directly as strain when εz = 0 we get:
Note L.4
Page 30
εr = 1 + ν (1 - ν) σr - νσφ (4.15a)
E
εφ = 1 + ν (1 - ν) σ - νσr (4.15b)
φ
E
τrφ
γrφ = , (4.15c)
G
and then substituting them into Eq. 4.4 upon simplification yields
dσ φ dσ r σ φ − σ r
(1 − ν) −ν + =0. (4.16)
dr dr r
By the first stress-equilibrium relation in Eq. 4.2, this equation is reduced to the simple form
d σ + σ = 0. (4.17)
φ
dr r
Integration of this equation and the second of Eq. 4.2 yields
C2
σ r + σ φ = C1 ; τ rφ = . (4.18a,b)
r2
Substitution of the relation σφ = C1 - σr in Eq. 4.2, transposition, and integration yield
σr = C1 + C3 , (4.19)
2 r2
where C1, C2 and C3 are constants of integration. Applying the boundary conditions we finally get
pir2i - por2o pi - po r2i r2o
C1 = , C2 = 0 , C3 = . (4.20a,b,c)
r2o - r2i r2o - r2i
With these values for the constants, Eqs. 4.18, 4.19 and the relation σz = ν(σr + σφ), the complete
stress solution is explicitly given. This solution can then be substituted in Eqs. 4.15a and 4.15b to
determine εr and εφ and, finally, u is determined by the relation u = rεφ.
NOTE: Since the prescribed boundary conditions of the problem are stresses, it is evident that the
stress approach in obtaining the solution involves simpler algebra than the displacement
approach.
Note L.4
Page 31
5. THERMAL STRESS
Let us consider the additional stresses if the cylinder wall is subjected to a temperature gradient
due to an imposed internal wall temperature, T1, and an external wall temperature, To. For this case
the following stresses and stress gradients are zero,
∂σφ
τrφ ; τzφ and = 0 (5.1a,b,c)
∂φ
∂σz
τrz = 0 and = 0 (5.1d, e)
∂z
NOTE: All boundary planes are planes of principal stress.
For this case the governing equations become:

• Equilibrium
∂σr σφ - σr
- = 0 (5.2)
r
∂r
• The strain equation can be applied to get
∂u
Eεr = E = σr - νσφ - νσz + EαT (5.3a)
∂r
Eεφ = E ur = σφ - νσr - νσz + EαT (5.3b)
∂w
Eεz = E = σz - νσr - νσφ + EαT (5.3c)
∂z
• Compatibility
∂ u 1 ∂u - 1 u
r = r r r (5.4)
∂r ∂r
or from this with the expression for u/r and ∂u/∂r,
∂
σφ - νσr - νσz + EαT = 1r σr - νσφ - νσz + EαT - 1r σφ - νσr - νσz + EαT (5.5)
∂r
= 1r σr - σφ + νr σr - σφ = 1 +r ν σr - σφ
and therefore,
r ∂ ∂σ
σ φ - σr = - σφ - νσr - νσz + EαT = r r (5.6)
1 + ν ∂r ∂r
from the
Equilibrium Condition
Note L.4
Page 32
or, ∂σφ ∂σz ∂T ∂σr

- + ν - Eα = (5.7)
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r
or, ∂σφ ∂σr ∂σz ∂T
+ - ν + Eα = 0. (5.8)
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r
• Assumptions (εz = constant so that it is independent of r)
2
∂εz ∂w
= 0 or = 0 (5.9)
∂r ∂r∂z
and therefore, differentiating Eq. 5.3c with respect to r

∂σz ∂σφ ∂σr ∂T
- ν - ν + Eα = 0. (5.10)
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r
Eliminating ∂σz/∂r from Eqs. 5.8 and 5.10 we get
∂σφ ∂σr ∂σφ ∂σr ∂T ∂T
+ - ν2 - ν2 + Eαν + Eα = 0 (5.11a)
∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r ∂r
∂ ∂T
(1 - ν) σφ + σr + Eα = 0 (5.11b)
∂r ∂r
By integration we get
σφ + σr + Eα T = Z (independent of r). (5.11c)
(1 - ν)
Let us solve the energy equation to get the wall radial temperature distribution:
2
∂T ∂T
+ 1r = 0 (5.12a)
∂r
2
∂r
1 ∂ r ∂T = 0 (5.12b)
r
∂r ∂r
∂T
= br (5.12c)
∂r
T = a + b lnr . (5.13)
5.1 Stress Distribution
• Radial Stress
From Eq. 5.11c
σφ + σr + EαT = Z . (5.14)
(1 - ν)
Note L.4
Page 33
From Eq. 5.2

∂σr
σφ - σr - r = 0 (5.15)
∂r
or by subtraction
∂σr EαT = Z
2σr + r + (5.16)
∂r (1 - ν)
or
1 ∂ r2σr + Eα (a + blnr) = Z (5.17)
r
∂r (1 - ν)
By integration we get
r2σ r + Eαar2 + Eαb r2lnr - r2 = Zr2 + B (5.18)

2 (1 - ν) (1 - ν) 2 4 2
or
σr = A + B - EαT (5.19)
r2 2 (1 - ν)
where A = Eαb/4(1 - ν) + Z/2 and B is a constant with respect to r.
• Tangential Stress
From Eq. 5.11c

σφ = - σr - EαT + Z = - A - B + EαT - EαT + 2A - Eαb (5.20)
(1 - ν) r2 2 (1 - ν) (1 - ν) 2 (1 - ν)
σφ = A - B - EαT - Eαb (5.21)

r 2 2 (1 - ν) 2 (1 - ν)
• Axial Stress
∂w
1) = 0
∂z
ro
2) no axial load so that 2π σzrdr = 0 .
ri
From Eq. 5.3c
σz = ν σφ + σr - EαT + Eεz (5.22a)
σz = ν 2A - EαT - Eαb - EαT + Eεz

(1 - ν) 2 (1 - ν)
= 2νA - Eαbν - EαT + Eεz (5.22b)
2 (1 - ν) (1 - ν)
= 2νA - Eαbν - Eαa - Eαblnr + Eεz
2 (1 - ν) (1 - ν) (1 - ν)
Note L.4
Page 34
1) If εz = 0 then from Eq. 5.22b

σz = 2νA - Eαbν - EαT (5.23)
2 (1 - ν) (1 - ν)
NOTE: T = a + blnr
ro
2) If no axial load so that 2π σzrdr = 0 ;
ri
or
ro
Dr - Eαa - Eαblnr dr = 0 (5.24)
(1 - ν) (1 - ν)
ri
where D ≡ 2νA - Eαbν/2(1 - ν), and

σz = D - EαT = D - Eαa - Eαblnr (5.25)
(1 - ν) (1 - ν) (1 - ν)
or
ro
Dr - Eα ∂ ar2 + br2lnr - br2 dr = 0 (5.26)

(1 - ν) ∂r 2 2 4
ri
or
ro
Dr2 - Eα ar2 + br2lnr - br
2
= 0 (5.27a)
2 2 (1 - ν) 2 ri
ro
Dr2 - Eα r2T - br
2
= 0 (5.27b)
2 2 (1 - ν) 2 ri
Eα r2oTo - r21T1
D = - b (5.27c)
(1 - ν) r2o - r21 2
and
Eα r2oTo - r21T1
σz = - b - T (5.28)
(1 - ν) 2 2
r o - r1 2
5.2 Boundary Conditions

r = ro, σr = 0, T = To
r = r1, σr = 0, T = T1
Therefore, from Eq. 5.19 at the inner and outer boundaries, respectively:
0 = A + B - EαT1 (5.29a)
r21 2 (1 - ν)
Note L.4
Page 35
0 = A + B - EαTo . (5.29b)
r2o 2 (1 - ν)
Solving Eqs. 5.29a,b obtain
Eαr2or21 T1 - To
B = (5.30a)
2 (1 - ν) r2o - r21
Eα r2oTo - r21T1
A = . (5.30b)
2 (1 - ν) r2o - r21
With regard to temperature, from Eq. 5.13, at the inner and outer boundaries, respectively:
T1 = a + blnr1, To = 1 + blnro . (5.31a,b)
Solving Eqs. 5.31a,b obtain

b = T1 -r To (5.32a)
ln r 1
o
a = Tolnr1 -r T1lnro (5.32b)

ln r 1
o
5.3 Final Results

r2or21
r2oTo - r21T1 + T1 - To
σr = Eα r2 - T (5.33a)
2 (1 - ν) r2o - r21
r2or21
r2oTo - r21T1 + T1 - To
σφ = Eα r2 - T1 -r To - T (5.33b)
2 (1 - ν) r2o - r12
ln r 1
o
εz = 0, from Eq. 5.23
Eα 2ν r2oTo - r21T1 ν T1 - To
1) σz = - - 2T (5.34)
2 (1 - ν) r2o - r21 ln rr1
o
2) No axial load
Eα r2oTo - r21T1 T - T
σz = - 1 r o - T (5.35)
(1 - ν) 2 2
r o - r1 2ln r 1
o
Note L.4
Page 36
intentionally left blank

Note L.4
Page 37
6. DESIGN PROCEDURES
There are four main steps in a rational design procedure:
Step 1:
Determine the mode of failure of the member that would most likely take place if the loads
acting on the member should become large enough to cause it to fail.
The choice of material is involved in this first step because the type of material may
significantly influence the mode of failure that will occur.
NOTE: Choice of materials may often be controlled largely by general factors such as:
availability
cost
weight limitations
ease of fabrication
rather than primarily by the requirements of design for resisting loads.
Step 2:
The mode of failure can be expressed in terms of some quantity, for instance, the maximum
normal stress.
Independent of what the mode of failure might be, it is generally possible to associate the
failure of the member with a particular cross section location.
For the linearly elastic problem, failure can be interpreted in terms of the state of stress at the
point in the cross section where the stresses are maximum.
Therefore, in this step, relations are derived between the loads acting on the member, the
dimensions of the member, and the distributions of the various components of the state of stress
within the cross section of the member.
Step 3:
By appropriate tests of the material, determine the maximum value of the quantity associated
with failure of the member. An appropriate or suitable test is one that will produce the same action
in the test specimen that results in failure of the actual member.
Note L.4
Page 38
NOTE: This is difficult or even impossible. Therefore, theories of failure are formulated such
that results of simple tests (tension and compression) are made to apply to the more
complex conditions.
Step 4:
By use of experimental observations, analysis, experience with actual structures and machines,
judgment, and commercial and legal considerations, select for use in the relation derived in Step 2 a
working (allowable or safe) value for the quantity associated with failure. This working value is
considerably less than the limiting value determined in Step 3.
The need for selecting a working value less than that found in Step 3 arises mainly from the
following uncertainties:
1. uncertainties in the service conditions, especially in the loads,
2. uncertainties in the degree of uniformity of the material, and
3. uncertainties in the correctness of the relations derived in Step 2.
These considerations clearly indicate a need for applying a so-called safety factor in the design of a
given load-carrying member. Since the function of the member is to carry loads, the safety factor
should be applied to the loads. Using the theory relating the loads to the quantity associated with
failure desired in Step 2 and the maximum value of the quantity associated with failure in Step 3,
determine the failure loads which we will designate Pf. The safety factor, N, is the ratio:
N = Pf = failure load
Pw working load
NOTE: If Pf and Pw are each directly proportional to stress, then
N = σf
σw
The magnitude of N may be as low as 1.4 in aircraft and space vehicle applications, whereas in
other applications where the weight of the structure is not a critical constraint, N will range from 2.0
to 2.5.
6.1 Static Failure and Failure Theories
This section will treat the problem of predicting states of stress that will cause a particular
material to fail—a subject which is obviously of fundamental importance to engineers.
Note L.4
Page 39
Materials considered are crystalline or granular in nature. This includes metals, ceramics
(except glasses) and high-strength polymers.
The reason for the importance of crystalline materials is their inherent resistance to
deformation. This characteristic is due to the fact that the atoms are compactly arranged into a
simple crystal lattice of relatively low internal energy.
In this section we neglect the following types of failures:

• creep failures which occur normally only at elevated temperature,
• buckling and excessive elastic deflection, and
• fatigue failure which is dynamic in nature.
Thus we limit ourselves to failures which are functions of the applied loads.
Definition: Failure of a member subjected to load can be regarded as any behavior of the member
which renders it unsuitable for its intended function.
Eliminating creep, buckling and excessive elastic deflection, and fatigue, we are left with the
following two basic categories of static failure:
1. Distortion, or plastic strain—failure by distortion is defined as having occurred when the
plastic deformation reaches an arbitrary limit. The standard 0.2% offset yield point is
usually taken as this limit.
2. Fracture—which is the separation or fragmentation of the member into two or more parts.
I. Distortion is always associated with shear stress.
II. Fracture can be either brittle or ductile in nature (or a portion of both).
As tensile loading acts on an atomic structure and is increased, one of two events must
eventually happen:
• Either the shear stress acting in the slip planes will cause slip (plastic deformation), or
• The strained cohesive bonds between the elastically separated atoms will break down (brittle
fracture) with little if any distortion. The fractured surfaces would be normal to the applied
load and would correspond to simple crystallographic planes or to grain boundaries.
NOTE: The stress required for fracture ranges from about 1/5 to as little as 1/1000 of the
theoretical cohesive strength of the lattice structure because of sub-microscopic flaws or
dislocations.
Note L.4
Page 40
Many fractures are appropriately described as being partially brittle and partially ductile,
meaning that certain portions of the fractured surface are approximately aligned with planes of
maximum shear stress and exhibit a characteristic fibrous appearance, while other portions of the
fractured surface appear granular as in the case of brittle fracture and are oriented more toward
planes of maximum tensile stress.
NOTE: Tensile fractures accompanied by less than 5% elongation are often classed as brittle. If
the elongation is > 5% elongation, then the fracture is classed as ductile.
Brittle fractures often occur suddenly and without warning. They are associated with a release
of a substantial amount of elastic energy (integral of force times deflection) which for instance may
cause a loud noise. Brittle fractures have been known to propagate great distances at velocities as
high as 5,000 fps.
Primary factors promoting brittle fracture are:

a. low temperature increases the resistance of the material to slip but not to cleavage,
b. relatively large tensile stresses in comparison with the shear stresses,
c. rapid impact – rapid rates of shear deformation require greater shear stresses, and these
may be accompanied by normal stresses which exceed the cleavage strength of the
material,
d. thick sections – this "size effect" has the important practical implication that tests made
with small test samples appear more ductile than thick sections such as those used in
pressure vessels. This is because of extremely minute cracks which are presumably
inherent in all actual crystalline materials.
6.2 Prediction of Failure under Biaxial and Triaxial Loading
Engineers concerned with the design and development of structural or machine parts are
generally confronted with problems involving biaxial (occasionally triaxial) stresses covering an
infinite range or ratios of principal stresses.
However, the available strength data usually pertain to uniaxial stress, and often only to uniaxial
tension.
As a result, the following question arises: If a material can withstand a known stress in
uniaxial tension, how highly can it be safety stressed in a specific case involving biaxial (or triaxial)
loading?
Note L.4
Page 41
The answer must be given by a failure theory. The philosophy that has been used in
formulating and applying failure theories consists of two parts:
1. Postulated theory to explain failure of a standard specimen. Consider the case involving a
tensile specimen, with failure being regarded as initial yielding. We might theorize that
tensile yielding occurred as a result of exceeding the capacity of the materials in one or
more respects, such as:
a) capacity to withstand normal stress,
b) capacity to withstand shear stress,
c) capacity to withstand normal strain,
d) capacity to withstand shear strain,
e) capacity to absorb strain energy (energy associated with both a change in volume and
shape),
f) capacity to absorb distortion energy (energy associated with solely a change in
shape).
2. The results of the standard test are used to establish the magnitude of the capacity chosen
sufficient to cause initial yielding. Thus, if the standard tensile test indicates a yield
strength of 100 ksi, we might assume that yielding will always occur with this material
under any combination of static loads which results in one of the following:
a) a maximum normal stress greater than that of the test specimen (100 ksi),
b) a maximum shear stress greater than that of the test specimen (50 ksi),
c–f) are defined analogously to a and b.
Hence, in the simple classical theories of failure, it is assumed that the same amount of whatever
caused the selected tensile specimen to fail will also cause any part made of the materials to fail
regardless of the state of stress involved.
When used with judgment, such simple theories are quite usable in modern engineering
practice.
6.3 Maximum Normal Stress Theory (Rankine)
In a generalize form, this simplest of the various theories states merely that a material subjected
to any combination of loads will:
Note L.4
Page 42
1. Yield whenever the greatest positive principal stress exceeds the tensile yield strength in a
simple uniaxial tensile test of the same material or whenever the greatest negative principal
stress exceeds the compressive yield strength.
2. Fracture whenever the greatest positive (or negative) principal stress exceeds the tensile
(or compressive) ultimate strength in a simple uniaxial tensile (or compressive) test of the
same material.
NOTE: Following this theory, the strength of the material depends upon only one of the principal
stresses (the largest tension or the largest compression) and is entirely independent of the
other two.
Uniaxial
Hydrostatic Tension Hydrostatic
-σ σ
Compression Tension
Pure Shear
σ = S yc -τ σ = S yt
Figure 22. Principal Mohr’s Circles for Several Stress States Representing Incipient Yielding
According to Maximum Normal Stress Theory (Note, for Pure Shear σ1 = σ2 = τ).
NOTE: Each of the circles is a principal circle for the state of stress which it represents. This
theory implies that failure (in this case yielding) occurs when and only when the principal
Mohr’s circle extends outside the dashed vertical lines given by Syt and Syc.
The failure locus for the biaxial stress state for yield according to the maximum normal-stress
theory is to be illustrated. σ1,2 are the principal stresses. Yield will occur if either the compressive
yield strength, Syc, or the tensile yield strength, Syt, is exceeded by either of the principle stresses
σ1 or σ2. Hence, the maximum value of + σ1 is Syt, + σ2 is Syt, - σ1 is Syc, and - σ2 is Syc. These
maxima are plotted in Fig. 23, thus defining the failure locus as a rectangle. Failure is predicted for
those states that are represented by points falling outside the rectangle.
Note L.4
Page 43
NOTE: If use is made of Sut and Suc instead of Syt and Syc, the theory would have predicted
failure by fracture.
NOTE: In the 3D case we have to deal with a cube.
σ2
Syc Syt
Syt
− σ1 σ1
Syc
Failure Locus
− σ2
Figure 23. Failure Locus for the Biaxial Stress State for the Maximum Normal-Stress Theory.
• Failure for Brittle Material
σ2
S uc S ut
S ut
σ1
Suc Maximum Normal-Stress Theory

Mohr's Theory
Figure 24. Failure Locus for Mohr’s Theory
NOTE: For most brittle materials the ultimate compressive strength exceeds the ultimate tensile
strength. The locus of biaxial stress states of incipient failure will be a square as shown
above, and "safe" stress will lie within this square. Mohr’s theory (denoted by dashed
lines) is more conservative.
Note L.4
Page 44
It is often convenient to refer to an equivalent stress, Se (σe), as calculated by some

particular theory.
NOTE: The equivalent stress may or may not be equal to the yield strength.
Mathematically, the equivalent stress based on the maximum stress theory is given by:
Se = σi max i = 1, 2, 3 (6.1)
Applicability of Method –
Reasonably accurate for materials which produce brittle fracture both in the test specimen
and in actual service such as: Cast iron, concrete, hardened tool steel, glass [Ref. 3, Fig. 6.8].
It cannot predict failure under hydrostatic compression (the state of stress in which all three
principle stresses are equal). Structural materials, including those listed above, can withstand
hydrostatic stresses many times Suc.
It cannot accurately predict strengths where a ductile failure occurs.
6.4 Maximum Shear Stress Theory (The Coulomb, later Tresca Theory)
The theory states that a material subjected to any combination of loads will fail (by yielding or
fracturing) whenever the maximum shear stress exceeds the shear strength (yield or ultimate) in a
simple uniaxial stress test of the same material.
The shear strength, in turn, is usually assumed to be determined from the standard uniaxial
tension test. Principle Mohr’s circles for several stress states representing incipient yielding
according to maximum shear stress theory are shown in Fig. 25.
τ
Sy
τ = Sys =
2
Uniaxial
Uniaxial Tension
Compression
−σ σ
Pure Shear
Sy
τ = - Sys = -
2
−τ
Figure 25. Stress States for Yielding According to the Maximum Shear Stress Theory
Note L.4
Page 45
It was shown in connection with the Mohr’s circle that,
τmax = 1 σ1 - σ2 , (6.2a)
2
where τmax occurs on faces inclined at 45˚ to faces on which the maximum and minimum principle
stresses act. Hence, in this failure theory, it is important to recognize σ1 and σ2 are the maximum
and minimum principle stresses, or
τmax = 1 σmax - σmin . (6.2b)

2
In the tensile test specimen, σ1 = Sy, σ2 = σ3 = 0, and thus:
τmax = 1 Sy . (6.3)
2
The assumption is then made that this will likewise be the limiting shear stress for more
complicated combined stress loadings, i.e.,
τmax = 1 Sy = 1 σmax - σmin (6.4)

2 2
or
S y = σmax - σmin (6.5)
The failure locus for the biaxial stress state for the maximum shear stress theory is shown in
Fig. 26. This locus is determined as follows. There are three principal stresses involved, σ1, σ2 and
σ3 (σ3 is always equal to zero). In the first quadrant, along the vertical line, σ1 > σ2 > σ3, which
means that σ1 = σmax and σ3.= σmin. Thus, the value of σ2 is free to be any value between σ1 and
σ3, yielding the vertical line. Similarly, along the horizontal line in the first quadrant, σ2 > σ1 > σ3,
which means that σ2.= σmax.and σ3.= σmin. Thus, in this situation, σ1 is free to be any value
between σ2 and σ3, yielding the horizontal line. In Quadrant II, σ1.is a compressive stress. Hence,
this stress is now σmin. Thus, one now has the situation:
σ2 = σmax > σ3 = 0 > σ1 = σmin (6.6)
and direct application of the criterion
S y = σmax - σmin = σ2 - - σ1 (6.7)
yields the diagonal line in Quadrant II. Similar arguments apply to Quadrants III and IV.
Note L.4
Page 46
σ2 σ2
Syt Sy
A G
E Locus of
principal
axes
45˚
Syc Sy B
σ1 σ1
Syt D Sy
Yield strength is F Pure shear

S y in tension and
compression C S
Syc H y
Figure 26. The Failure Locus for the Biaxial Figure 27. Pure Shear State Representation on
Stress State for the Maximum the Failure Locus for the Maximum
Shear-Stress Theory Shear-Stress Theory
NOTE: When σ1 and σ2 have like signs, the failure locus is identical to that of the maximum
stress theory.
NOTE: The boundaries of all principal Mohr circles not representing failure are the two
horizontal lines ± Sys (or ± Sus). This theory predicts that failure cannot be produced
by pure hydrostatic stress.
The failure locus for the biaxial stress state is shown in Fig. 27. EF represents the shear
diagonal of the σ1 - σ2 plot, since it corresponds to the equation σ 1 = -σ 2 which yields Mohr’s
circle with σ1 = σ2 = τ which represents pure shear in the 1-2 plane. GH corresponds to
σ1 = σ2, which yields Mohr’s circle as a point with τ = 0. Hence, GH represents the locus of
principal axes.
Applicability of Method –
For ductile failure (usually yielding) – steel, aluminum, brass. 15% error on the
conservative side.
6.5 Mohr Theory and Internal-Friction Theory
This theory suggests that Mohr’s circles be drawn representing every available test condition
and that the envelope of these circles be taken as the envelope of any and all principal Mohr circles
representing stress states on the verge of failure.
Note L.4
Page 47
Figure 28 represents what might be called Mohr’s theory in its simplest form where only
uniaxial tension and compression data are available, and where the envelope is assumed to be
represented by the two tangent straight lines.
In this form, the Mohr theory is seen to be a modification of the maximum shear-stress theory.
If both compression and tension data are available, the Mohr theory is obviously the better of the
two.
Uniaxial
Compression Uniaxial
Tension
Syc S yt
σ
Figure 28. Mohr’s Failure Theory for Uniaxial Tension and Compression
6.6 Maximum Normal-Strain Theory (Saint-Vanant’s Theory)
Failure will occur whenever a principal normal strain reaches the maximum normal strain in a
simple uniaxial stress test of the same material.
The principal normal strains have been written as follows in Eq. 2.4:
ε i = 1 σi - ν σ j + σ k (6.8)
E
which for a biaxial stress state are
ε1 = 1 σ1 - νσ2 (6.9a)
E
ε2 = 1 σ2 - νσ1 (6.9b)
E
For failure in a simple tensile test, Eq. 6.9 reduces to
σ
εf = f (6.10)
E
where εf and σf are taken in the uniaxial loading direction.
Note L.4
Page 48
Hence, taking σf as Sy, the failure criteria are

σ1 - νσ2 ≥ Sy (6.11a)
σ2 - νσ1 ≥ Sy (6.11b)
and σ1 - νσ2 ≤ - Sy (6.11c)
σ2 - νσ1 ≤ - Sy (6.11d)
where failure is predicted if any one of the relations of Eq. 6.11 are satisfied.
NOTE: Unlike the previously considered theories, the value of the intermediate principal stress
influences the predicted strength.
The graphical representation of this failure theory is presented in Fig. 29.
This theory predicts failure in hydrostatic states of stress, i.e., ductile, which is not in agreement
with experimental evidence plus does not work well for brittle material failures. It is of historical
but not current importance.
σ2
Sy
-Sy
σ1
Sy
Yield strength is Sy
in tension and
compression.
-Sy
Figure 29. The Failure Locus for the Maximum Normal Strain Theory (for fixed ν).
6.7 Total Strain-Energy Theory (Beltrami Theory)
The total amount of elastic energy absorbed by an element of material is the proper criterion
for its yielding. It is a forerunner to the important maximum distortion-energy theory discussed
next.
Note L.4
Page 49
6.8 Maximum Distortion-Energy Theory (Maximum Octahedral-Shear-Stress Theory, Van

Mises, Hencky)
Given a knowledge of only the tensile yield strength of a material, this theory predicts ductile
yielding under combined loading with greater accuracy than any other recognized theory. Where
the stress involved is triaxial, this theory takes into account the influence of the third principal
stress.
NOTE: Its validity is limited to materials having similar strength in tension and compression.
Equations can be developed from at least five different hypotheses! The most important of these
relate to octahedral shear stress and distortion energy. [see Ref. 3, p. 139 for a derivation based on
direct evaluation of distortion energy.]
We consider this theory as the maximum octahedral-shear-stress theory, i.e., yielding will
occur whenever the shear stress acting on octahedral planes exceed a critical value. This value is
taken as the octahedral shear existing in the standard tensile bar at incipient yielding.
The maximum octahedral-shear-stress theory is closely related to the maximum shear-stress

theory but may be thought of as a refinement in that it considers the influence of all three principal
stresses.
From
τoct = 1 σ1 - σ2 2 + σ2 - σ3 2 + σ3 - σ1 2
1/2
(1.13b)
3
the octahedral shear stress produced by uniaxial tension, i.e., only σ1 ≠ 0, is
τoct = 2 σ1 . (6.12)
3
According to the theory, yielding always occurs at a value of octahedral shear stress established by
the tension test as
τoct (limiting value) = 2 Sy . (6.13)
3
Thus, the octahedral shearing stress theory of failure can be expressed as follows by utilizing
Eqs. 6.13 and 1.13b:
S y = 2 σ1 - σ2 2 + σ2 - σ3 2 + σ3 - σ1 2
1/2
. (6.14)
2
Equation 6.14 implies that any combination of principal stresses will cause yielding if the right side
of this equation exceeds the tensile test value of Sy. This may be written alternatively as
2S2y = σ1 - σ2 2 + σ2 - σ3 2 + σ3 - σ1 2 . (6.15)
Note L.4
Page 50
A variation of Eq. 6.14 which is sometimes useful involves the concept of an equivalent
uniaxial tensile stress, σe, where σe is the value of uniaxial tensile stress which produces the same
level of octahedral shear stress as does the actual combination of existing principal stresses, thus
σe = 2 σ1 - σ2 2 + σ2 - σ3 2 + σ3 - σ1 2
1/2
(6.16)
2
Obviously, if the loads are such that σe > Sy, yielding would be predicted. For design purposes, σe
should be made equal to the allowable working uniaxial stress.
• Case of Pure Biaxial Shear-Stress
Recalling Mohr’s circle for this case, we have the principal stresses
σ1 = τ, σ2 = -τ, σ3 = 0.
Substituting these values into Eqs. 6.14 or 6.16 gives
S y or σe = 3 τ , (6.17)
S
This means that if τ > y = 0.577 Sy, the material will yield. Hence, according to the maximum
3
octahedral-shear-stress theory, a material is 57.7% as strong in shear as it is in tension.
• General Case of Biaxial Stress (σ3 = 0)
Equation 6.16 reduces to

1/2
σe = σ21 + σ22 - σ1σ2 (6.18)
In many biaxial-stress problems it is more convenient to work directly with stress σx, σy and
τxy, because these can be determined more readily than principal stresses. Equation 6.18 can be
modified for this purpose by application of Eq. 1.8 to yield Eq. 6.19:
σ1, σ2 = ± τ2xy + (1.8)
2 2
σe = σ2x + σ2y - σxσy + 3τ2xy 1/2 (6.19)
Equation 6.19 can also be derived by superposition of Eqs. 6.17 and 6.18.
The locus of failure conditions for this failure theory is illustrated by the ellipse in Fig. 30.
NOTE: The theory can be independently developed from the maximum distortion-energy theory,
which postulates that failure (yielding) is caused by the elastic energy associated with this
distortion.
Note L.4
Page 51
σ2
Syt
-0.577 Syt
Syt
0.577 Syt
σ1
45˚ -0.577 Syt
Shear Diagonal
0.577 S yt
Figure 30. Failure Locus for the Biaxial Stress State for the Maximum Distortion Energy Theory
6.9 Comparison of Failure Theories
The failure theories are compared graphically for a biaxial state of stress in Fig. 31. From this
figure, it can be seen that:
• The distortion energy and maximum shear stress theories predict similar results with the
shear stress theory being more conservative.
• The maximum normal stress and maximum shear stress theories agree in the first and third
quadrants where the signs of the principal stresses are the same but not in the second and
fourth quadrants.
• Biaxial strength data for a variety of ductile and brittle materials are shown in Fig. 32 with
several failure theory limits. From this figure it can be seen that experimental data supports:
- Maximum normal stress theory is appropriate for brittle behavior.
- Distortion energy or maximum shear stress theories is appropriate for ductile failure.
6.10Application of Failure Theories to Thick-Walled Cylinders

An examination of the cases
a) internally pressurized cylinder, and
b) externally pressurized cylinder
indicate that in both cases failure would be expected at the innermost fibers. Moreover, this
statement is true with respect to each of the aforementioned failure theories. Assuming zero axial
Note L.4
Page 52
σ2
σf
1.6
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.4
-1.0 1.0
-1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 σ1
σf
-0.4
-1.0
-0.8
Maximum normal stress theory

-1.2
Maximum shear theory

Maximum normal strain theory (µ = 0.35)
-1.6
Total strain energy theory (µ = 0.35)

Distortion energy theory
Figure 31. Comparison of Failure Theories for a Biaxial State of Stress. (From Ref. 4, p. 123.)
σ2 Ductile materials σ 2 Brittle materials

σyp σult
1.0 Aluminum 1.0 Brass
Copper Cast iron
Nickel Cast iron
Steel
Mild Steel
Carburized Steel
σ1 σ1
σyp σult
0 1.0 0 1.0
Distortion
energy theory Maximum normal
stress theory
Maximum shear
theory
-1.0 -1.0
Figure 32. Comparison of Biaxial Strength Data with Theories of Failure for a Variety of Ductile
and Brittle Materials. (From Ref. 3, p. 144.)
Note L.4
Page 53
stress (plane state of stress), the critical inner surfaces are subjected to uniaxial stress. For these
cases, the failure theories are, of course, in complete agreement as to the load intensity causing
failure.
Example 1:
Internally pressurized cylinder. Determine the internal pressure required to yield the inner
surface of a cylinder, where ri = 1 in., ro = 2 in., (t = 1 in.), and the material is steel with the
properties Sy = 100 ksi and ν = 0.3. Assume plane stress.
Maximum stresses located at the inner surface are

r2o + r2i
σ t = pi = pi 4 + 1 = 5 p i
2 2
r o - ri 4 - 1 3
σr = - pi .
The predictions of the various failure theories are displayed as numbered curves on Fig. 33 for
a spectrum of geometries of internally pressurized cylinders. The specific results for several failure
theories for this example are as follows:
1.6
Thin-walled analysis. All failure
theories [initial and complete
1.4 yielding]. Max r theory curve
based on complete
1.2
Strength Ratio, p i /Sy
pi yielding.
= rr
Sy i
1.0 1.0 at r/r i = ∞ Max σ
theory
(6) (5) (4) Max ε
0.8 1/(1 + ν) at r/r i = ∞ theory
Curves
(3) for ν = 0.3 based on
initial
0.6 (2) 0.577 at r/ri = ∞ Max DE
yielding
0.5 at r/ri = ∞ theory
Max τ
0.4 (1) theory
0.2
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Cylinder Proportion t/r i
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Cylinder Proportion ro /ri = (r i + t)/r i
Figure 33. Failure Predictions for Internally Pressurized Cylinder

Note L.4
Page 54
Curve (1)
According to the maximum shear-stress theory, yielding will begin when the highest shear
stress in the cylinder reaches that in the standard tensile test at initial yielding, which is Sy/2. Thus,
S
τmax = y
2
or
σt - σr = 50 ksi ,
2
4 pi = 50 ksi
3
or pi = 37.5 ksi .
Hence, for this case where t/ri = 1.0, pi/Sy = 0.375. This value appears on Fig. 33.
Curve (2)
According to the maximum distortion-energy theory, yielding will begin when the equivalent
tensile stress at the inner cylinder wall reaches the tensile stress in the standard tensile test at initial
yielding, which is Sy. Hence, using Eq. 6.18 and the known principal stresses:
σe = Sy
1/2
σ2t + σ2r - σtσr = 100 ksi
5 pi 2 + - pi 2 - - 5 p2 1/2 = 100 ksi
3 3 i
2.33 pi = 100 ksi
or pi = 43 ksi for t/ri = 1.0
Curve (4)
According to the maximum normal-stress theory, yielding will begin when the highest normal
stress in the cylinder reaches the highest normal stress in the standard tensile test at initial yielding,
which is Sy. Hence,
σ t = Sy
5/3 pi = 100 ksi
or the internal pressure required to yield the inner surface is

pi = 60 ksi for t/ri = 1.0.
For the full range of cylindrical geometries, pi can be determined for each theory and is presented
on Fig. 33.
Note L.4
Page 55
Example 2:
Strain-gage tests on the surface of a steel part indicate the stress state to be biaxial with
principal stresses of 35 ksi tension and 25 ksi compression. The steel has been carefully tested in
tension, compression and shear, with the results that Syt = Syc = 100 ksi and Sys = 60 ksi.
• Estimate the safety factor with respect to initial yielding using the following failure theories:
Maximum normal-stress,
Maximum shear-stress,
Distortion-energy, and
Mohr’s theory.
• Evaluate briefly the relative merits of the four approaches.
Solution:
We assume that the safety factor should be computed on the basis of all stresses increasing
proportionally as the load is increased to failure. On this basis the load line has been extended
outward from the nominal load point until it intersects the limiting lines corresponding to each
failure theory.
NOTE: By simple proportion, we obtain the safety factor as the ratio by which the nominal
stresses can be increased before yielding is predicted.
a) Maximum Normal-Stress Theory

σ2
Syc Syt
Syt = 100 ksi
σ1
35, -25 Syc = -100 ksi
Figure 34. Maximum Normal-Stress Theory
Yield will occur if either the compressive yield strength, Syc, or the tensile yield strength, Syt, is
exceeded by either of the principal stresses, σ1 or σ2. Hence, the maximum value of +σ1 is Syt,
+σ2 is Syt, -σ1 is Syc, and -σ2 is Syc. Thus, for this problem:
Note L.4
Page 56
S yt S yc
Safety Factor = min ,
σ1 σ2
= min 100 , -100
35 -25
= min 2.86 , 4.00
= 2.86 ≈ 2.9
b) Maximum Shear-Stress Theory
σ2
Sy
Sy = Syt = Syc = 100 ksi

-Sy Sy
σ1
(35, -25)
σ1′ , σ2′ Need to find σ1′ and σ2′

Minimum distance to failure
-Sy (i.e., yielding)
Figure 35. Maximum Shear-Stress Theory
For the failure locus in the fourth quadrant, σ2 = σ1 − Sy ⇒ slope = 1. For the minimum
distance to failure line ⇒ slope = -1.
NOTE: m m⊥ = - 1 ⇒ m⊥ = -m1 = - 1 = -1
1
∆y - 25 - σ2′
Thus, -1 = =
∆x 35 - σ1′
At the point of intersection between the failure locus line and the minimum distance to failure line
(i.e., at σ1′, σ2′), σ2′ = σ1′ - Sy. So:
- 25 - σ1′ - Sy
-1 =
35 - σ1′
-35 + σ1′ = -25 - σ1′ + Sy
2σ1′ = 35 - 25 + Sy Sy = 100
σ1′ = 35 - 25 + 100 = 55
2
Note L.4
Page 57
σ2′ = σ1′ - Sy = 55 - 100 = -45
σ′max - σ′min 55 - - 45
τ′max = = = 100 = 50
2 2 2
For σ1′ = 35 ksi, σ2′ = -25 ksi ⇒ τmax = 30
τ′
Safety Factory = max = 50 = 1.67 ≈ 1.7
τmax 30
Solutions for the distortion energy theory and Mohr theory are shown together with the
foregoing solutions in Fig. 36. Satisfactory accuracy can be obtained by drawing the partial ellipse
representing the distortion-energy theory as a careful freehand curve through the three known
points. The curve representing the Mohr theory is drawn similar to the distortion energy curve
except that it passes through a value of 60 on the shear diagonal instead of through 57.7.
Nominal Load Point

35 55 6569 100
σ1
-25
Max τ theory
DE theory Limiting
-45 Mohr theory Points
Max σ theory
-57.7
-60
Load Line
-100
Shear Diagonal
σ2
Figure 36. Failure Theories for Example 2 Conditions
NOTE: Only the lower right quadrant is needed, because of one tensile and one compressive
stress.
Note L.4
Page 58
Hence, the resulting safety factors for the failure theories examined are:
THEORY SAFETY FACTOR
Maximum Shear Stress 50/30 = 1.7 conservative
Distortion-Energy 65/35 = 1.9
Mohr 69/35 = 2.0 preferable
Maximum Normal-Stress 100/35 = 2.9 no basis for believing this factor
6.11Prediction of Failure of Thin-Walled Cylinders
• Maximum Normal-Stress Theory

For a thin-walled cylinder
pR/t = σf
where σf is as determined from a tension test.
Rearranging yields
p
= 1 . (6.20)
σf R/t
• Maximum Shear-Stress Theory
For a thin-walled pressure vessel
τmax = σmax - σmin = 1 σf .
2 2
For a thin-walled pressure vessel, σmax = pR/t, σmin = -p/2, thus
pR/t + p/2 = σf, or

p 1
= (6.21)
σf R/t + 1/2
• Maximum Distortion-Energy Theory

According to this theory, failure occurs as expressed by Eq. 6.13 when the maximum
octahedral shear stress, τoct, becomes equal to 2 σf. Hence, applying Eq. 1.13b we can write
3
τoct = 1 σ1 - σ2 2 + σ2 - σ3 2 + σ3 - σ1 2 = 2 σf (6.22)
3 3
Now σ1 = pR/t, σ2 = pR/2t, σ3 = -p/2
Note L.4
Page 59
Hence
pR pR 2 pR p 2 p pR 2
1 - + + + - - = 2 σf (6.23)
3 t 2t 2t 2 2 t 3
When the terms on the left side of Eq. 6.23 are squared and like terms collected, the following
equation is obtained:
p 2
= (6.24)
σf 2
3 R + 3 R + 1
2 t 2 t 2
Figure 37 compares the foregoing results for p/σf for various thin-walled cylinders, and shows that
the maximum shear-stress theory predicts the lowest value of pressure to cause failure and the
maximum distortion-energy theory the largest. The maximum normal-stress theory predicts
intermediate values.
NOTE: The maximum difference between the lowest and largest values of the failure pressure is
about 15%.
NOTE: For cylinders of brittle materials, the maximum normal-stress theory (curve (4) of Fig. 33
with Sy replaced by Su) may be applied. It is obvious that brittle cylinders must be
designed with much larger safety factors than ductile cylinders, as failure involves
complete fracture, whereas ductile cylinders have a substantial plastic reserve between
initial (or small) yielding and fracture.
0.12
Max. octahedral shearing stress

0.10 (or distortion energy) theory
= Internal Pressure
Max. normal stress theory

Failure Stress
0.08
Max. shearing stress theory
0.06
0.04
σf
p
0.02
0
20 10 30 40
R = Intermediate Radius
t Wall Thickness
Maximum Internal Pressure in Closed-Ended Thin-Walled Circular Cylindrical
Pressure Vessel Predicted by Various Theories of Failure
Figure 37. Failure of Closed-End Circular Cylinder Pressure Vessels
Note L.4
Page 60
6.12Examples for the Calculation of Safety Factors in Thin-Walled Cylinders
Example:
The most stressed volume element of a certain load-carrying member is located at the free
surface. With the xy plane tangent to the free surface, the stress components were found to be
σx = 15,000 psi
σy = -2,000 psi
τxy = 7,000 psi
The load-stress relations for the member are linear so that the safety factor, N, can be applied either
to loads or stresses. Determine N if the member is made of a ductile metal with a tensile yield
stress of σe = 44,000 psi.
NOTE: In general N ≡ Yield Stress . Hence, we can write N(Load Stress) ≡ Yield Stress.
Load Stress
1) Maximum Distortion-Energy Theory – From Eq. 6.12 together with the definition of N we
obtain:
N τoct = 2 Sy
3
For a uniaxial tensile test σe = Sy. Also, τoct is given by Eq. 1.14b for stresses in the general x,
y, z directions. Hence, the above equation becomes:
N 2 1/2
σx - σy 2 + σy - σz 2 + σz - σx 2 + 6 τxy
2 + τ2 + τ2
xz yz = 2 (44,000)
3 3
For the given stress components obtain:
N 17,000 2 + - 2,000 2 + - 15,000 2 + 6 7,000 2 = 2 (44,000)
3 3
6
N 812 ⋅ 10 = 2 (44,000)
N = 2.18
NOTE: This result can also be obtained directly from the result for a biaxial stress state,
Eq. 6.19 as:
N σx2 + σy2 - σxσy + 3τxy 2 1/2 = σ
e
N 15,000 2 + - 2,000 2 + 30 ⋅ 106 + 3 7,000 2 1/2 = 44,000
N 406 ⋅ 106 = 44,000

N = 2.18
2) Maximum Shear-Stress Theory – In order to use this theory it is necessary to determine the
three principal stresses. From Mohr’s circle:
Note L.4
Page 61
σ1 = + + τ2xy
2 2
= 1 (13,000) + 1 (17,000) 2 + (7,000) 2
2 4
= 6,500 + 11,010
= 17,510 psi
σ2 = 6,500 - 11,010
= - 4,510 psi
σ3 = 0
At failure the three principal stresses are:
σ1 = 17,510 N psi
σ2 = - 4,510 N psi
σ3 = 0
Now, from Eq. 6.5, which expresses the failure criterion for the maximum shear stress theory:
17,520 N + 4,510 N = 44,000
N ≈ 2
If the maximum distortion-energy theory is used, the loads can be increased by a factor of 2.18
before failure by general yielding. Assuming this is correct, the maximum shear-stress theory
of failure is conservative since it predicts smaller failure loads.
REFERENCES
[1] S.H. Crandall, N.C. Dahl and T.J. Lardner, An Introduction to the Mechanics of Solids,
McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed., 1972.
[2] P.L. Pfenningwerth, “Stress Analysis with Applications to Pressurized Water Reactors,”
Report #TID-4500 (16th Ed.), Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA, January,
1963. Alternately, see Chapter 4 of J.F. Harvey, Theory and Design of Pressure Vessels,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1985.
[3] J.A. Collins, Failure of Materials in Mechanical Design – Analysis, Prediction, Prevention,
Wiley, 1981.
[4] J. Marin, Mechanical Behavior of Engineering Materials, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962.


The Westinghouse reactor IRIS features a spherical containment made of steel and of diameter
25 m.
i) Estimate the minimum shell thickness required to limit the shell displacement to 1 cm at
the design pressure and temperature (1.4 MPa and 190°C). (10%)
ii) Assuming the shell thickness is actually 8 cm, calculate the margin to the ASME limit at
the design pressure and temperature. (5%)
Properties of steel at 190°C:

Sm =110 MPa
Sy = 170 MPa
ρ = 7900 kg/m3
E = 184 GPa
ν = 0.33
J. Buongiorno, 2009
1
Consider the IRIS containment from Problem 1. Assume a LOCA has occurred. Immediately
after it the resulting pressure, temperature and steam quality in the containment are 1.4 MPa,
190°C and 0.11, respectively. There is a safety system that removes a constant 20 MW of heat
from the containment. Write a complete set of equations that would allow you to calculate the
time it takes for the containment pressure to be reduced to 0.5 MPa. In calculating the decay
heat, assume the reactor had operated for an infinite time prior to the LOCA.
The total containment volume: Vtot=6,000 m3

Mass of air in containment: Ma= 6,400 kg
Total mass of water in containment: Mw= 320,000 kg
Air specific heat at constant volume: cv,a=719 J/kg-K
Air gas constant: Ra=286 J/kg-K
Nominal reactor power: Q& 0 =1,000 MWt
J. Buongiorno, 2009
2
The schematic of an advanced Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) concept being studied at MIT is
shown in the figure below. Water is boiled in the reactor core (A→B), and the steam-liquid
mixture enters a steam separator; the liquid from the steam separator is returned to and mixed
with the feedwater (C→D), while the steam from the steam separator is superheated in a second
pass through the reactor core (E→F), and then sent to the turbine. The first and second pass in
the reactor core occur in physically separated channels. Steam superheating is done to increase
the thermal efficiency of the plant.
• The system operating pressure is 6 MPa

• The feedwater temperature is 230°C
• The superheated steam temperature is 510°C
Table 1. Properties of water at 6 MPa.
Parameter Value
Steam C
Separator
Tsat 275°C
ρf 760 kg/m3
ρg 30 kg/m3
hf 1211 kJ/kg
hg 2785 kJ/kg
Cp,f 5.2 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 4.8 kJ/(kg°C)
Reactor core E B μf 1×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 2×10-5 Pa⋅s
F A kf 0.6 W/(m°C)
D
kg 0.06 W/(m°C)
Steam to Feedwater σ 0.02 N/m
the turbine
i) Put points A, B, C, D, E and F on a T-s diagram. (5%)
ii) Determine the feedwater mass flow rate required to operate the reactor at a thermal
power of 1,000 MW. Assume constant specific heat for subcooled water and
superheated steam. (10%)
iii) Assuming that the slip ratio is S=2, calculate ΔPacc in the A→B core channels. The
total mass flow rate in these channels is 2270 kg/s, the inlet (Point A) temperature is
268°C and the outlet (Point B) steam quality is 15%. The channels are 3 m long,
have an equivalent diameter of 2 cm and a total flow area of 1.26 m2. Assume the
heat flux in the core is axially uniform. (15%)
iv) Calculate the Critical Power Ratio in the A→B channels, using the CISE-4
correlation reported below. Use the same operating conditions of question ‘iii’ above.
The boiling length can be assumed to be equal to the distance from the channel inlet.
The heat flux is axially uniform. (15%)
J. Buongiorno, 2009
3
CISE-4 correlation (simplified)
L
xcr = a b with a = (1 − P / Pcr ) /(G / 1000)1 / 3 and b = 0.199( Pcr / P − 1) 0.4 GDe1.4 ,
Lb + b
J. Buongiorno, 2009
4
Problem 4 (15%) – Thermodynamic analysis of a power cycle
Researchers at a university have proposed a new power cycle that takes heat (1,000 MW) from a
nuclear reactor at 450°C, converts part of it into electricity (400 MW net), and discharges heat at
low temperature in a cooler. The cooler uses 15,000 kg/s of seawater, which enters the cooler at
15°C and 1 atm, and exits at 25°C and 1 atm.
Does this system violate the 1st and/or 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Assumptions
Treat seawater as an incompressible fluid with density 1,000 kg/m3 and specific heat 4,000
J/kg°C. Recall that the entropy change for an incompressible fluid can be calculated as
s − so = c ln(T /To )
J. Buongiorno, 2009
5
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

The Westinghouse reactor IRIS features a spherical containment made of steel and of diameter
25 m.
i) Estimate the minimum shell thickness required to limit the shell displacement to 1 cm at
the design pressure and temperature (1.4 MPa and 190°C). (10%)
ii) Assuming the shell thickness is actually 8 cm, calculate the margin to the ASME limit at
the design pressure and temperature. (5%)
Properties of steel at 190°C:

Sm =110 MPa
Sy = 170 MPa
ρ = 7900 kg/m3
E = 184 GPa
ν = 0.33
J. Buongiorno, 2009
1
Consider the IRIS containment from Problem 1. Assume a LOCA has occurred. Immediately
after it the resulting pressure, temperature and steam quality in the containment are 1.4 MPa,
190°C and 0.11, respectively. There is a safety system that removes a constant 20 MW of heat
from the containment. Write a complete set of equations that would allow you to calculate the
time it takes for the containment pressure to be reduced to 0.5 MPa. In calculating the decay
heat, assume the reactor had operated for an infinite time prior to the LOCA.
The total containment volume: Vtot=6,000 m3

Mass of air in containment: Ma= 6,400 kg
Total mass of water in containment: Mw= 320,000 kg
Air specific heat at constant volume: cv,a=719 J/kg-K
Air gas constant: Ra=286 J/kg-K
Nominal reactor power: Q& 0 =1,000 MWt
J. Buongiorno, 2009
2
The schematic of an advanced Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) concept being studied at MIT is
shown in the figure below. Water is boiled in the reactor core (A→B), and the steam-liquid
mixture enters a steam separator; the liquid from the steam separator is returned to and mixed
with the feedwater (C→D), while the steam from the steam separator is superheated in a second
pass through the reactor core (E→F), and then sent to the turbine. The first and second pass in
the reactor core occur in physically separated channels. Steam superheating is done to increase
the thermal efficiency of the plant.
• The system operating pressure is 6 MPa

• The feedwater temperature is 230°C
• The superheated steam temperature is 510°C
Table 1. Properties of water at 6 MPa.
Parameter Value
Steam C
Separator
Tsat 275°C
ρf 760 kg/m3
ρg 30 kg/m3
hf 1211 kJ/kg
hg 2785 kJ/kg
Cp,f 5.2 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 4.8 kJ/(kg°C)
Reactor core E B μf 1×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 2×10-5 Pa⋅s
F A kf 0.6 W/(m°C)
D
kg 0.06 W/(m°C)
Steam to Feedwater σ 0.02 N/m
the turbine
i) Put points A, B, C, D, E and F on a T-s diagram. (5%)
ii) Determine the feedwater mass flow rate required to operate the reactor at a thermal
power of 1,000 MW. Assume constant specific heat for subcooled water and
superheated steam. (10%)
iii) Assuming that the slip ratio is S=2, calculate ΔPacc in the A→B core channels. The
total mass flow rate in these channels is 2270 kg/s, the inlet (Point A) temperature is
268°C and the outlet (Point B) steam quality is 15%. The channels are 3 m long,
have an equivalent diameter of 2 cm and a total flow area of 1.26 m2. Assume the
heat flux in the core is axially uniform. (15%)
iv) Calculate the Critical Power Ratio in the A→B channels, using the CISE-4
correlation reported below. Use the same operating conditions of question ‘iii’ above.
The boiling length can be assumed to be equal to the distance from the channel inlet.
The heat flux is axially uniform. (15%)
J. Buongiorno, 2009
3
CISE-4 correlation (simplified)
L
xcr = a b with a = (1 − P / Pcr ) /(G / 1000)1 / 3 and b = 0.199( Pcr / P − 1) 0.4 GDe1.4 ,
Lb + b
J. Buongiorno, 2009
4
Problem 4 (15%) – Thermodynamic analysis of a power cycle
Researchers at a university have proposed a new power cycle that takes heat (1,000 MW) from a
nuclear reactor at 450°C, converts part of it into electricity (400 MW net), and discharges heat at
low temperature in a cooler. The cooler uses 15,000 kg/s of seawater, which enters the cooler at
15°C and 1 atm, and exits at 25°C and 1 atm.
Does this system violate the 1st and/or 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Assumptions
Treat seawater as an incompressible fluid with density 1,000 kg/m3 and specific heat 4,000
J/kg°C. Recall that the entropy change for an incompressible fluid can be calculated as
s − so = c ln(T /To )
J. Buongiorno, 2009
5
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Tuesday, December 16th, 2014, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
OPEN BOOK FINAL EXAM (SOLUTIONS)
Problem 1 (20%) – Power Uprate in a PWR Core

i)
The heat flux is axially uniform, thus the location of MDNBR is the channel exit. Recall the
definition of the MDNBR:
qDNB

MDNBR 
q
In both Approaches A and B the operating heat flux q is increased by 30% with respect to the
reference case. The DNB heat flux qDNB
 depends on the local equilibrium quality, mass flux,
pressure and equivalent diameter, i.e. qDNB
  qDNB
 ( xe , G, P, De ) .
In Approach A the exit temperature (and thus equilibrium quality), pressure and mass flux are
unchanged; therefore the qDNB
 is also unchanged. As such, the MDNBR is simply reduced by
30%, i.e. MDNBR=1.6/1.31.23.
In Approach B the mass flow rate (and thus the mass flux) has to increase by 30% to maintain the
inlet temperature constant, according to the conservation of energy Q  m
 c(Tout  Tin ) . Using the
Tong-68 correlation, we can see that an increase by 30% of the mass flux results in an increase of
1.30.4 in the DNB heat flux ( qDNB   G 0.4 ). Thus, for approach B we get the
MDNBR=1.61.30.4/1.31.37.
ii)
The results in Part ‘i’ suggest that Approach B has a better margin to DNB than Approach A, and
in fact the MDNBR for Approach A is below the typical limit mandated by the NRC for U.S.
PWRs. Also, Approach A will lower the inlet core temperature, which reduces the thermal
efficiency of the plant, clearly undesirable. However, Approach B has its drawbacks: for example,
it requires higher pumping power; also, the higher mass flux could cause excessive vibrations of
the fuel rods. Likely the best approach is a combination of Approaches A and B that would preserve
an acceptable MDNBR without inducing excessive vibrations in the fuel assemblies.
1
Problem 2 (15%) – Use of a Spring to Reduce the Cladding Stresses
The axial force balance for a section of the cladding is as follows:
 
Pout D 2  Pin D 2   zDt  kx  0 (1)
4 4
where Pin = 3 MPa, Pout = 7 MPa, D = 11.2 mm, t = 0.5 mm, x = 1 cm and k is the (unknown) spring
rigidity constant. Setting the axial stress z equal to zero and solving for k, we get:

( Pout  Pin ) D2
k 4  39.4 kN/m
x
Note that in writing Eq. 1 we assumed the cladding is a thin shell (R/t>10). If we do account for
the thickness of the cladding in calculating the force due to the pressure forces, then the expression
for the rigidity constant becomes:

[ Pout  Pin (1  2t / D) 2 ] D2
k 4  44.4 kN/m
x
Thus in this case the thin-shell approximation results in an error of about 11%.
2
Problem 3 (65%) – Debris Transport following a LOCA in a PWR Containment
i)
The minimum mass flow rate is obtained when the coolant is allowed to evaporate completely in
the core. The conservation of energy yields:
Q  m
 (hg  h f )  m
 h fg (2)
where hfg = 2257 kJ/kg, Q  0.066Q 0t 0.2  51.3 MW, Q 0 =4000 MW and t = 3600 s. Solving Eq.
  Q / h  22.7 kg/s.
2 for the mass flow rate, we get m fg
ii)
The terminal velocity corresponds to zero acceleration, thus is obtained from the force balance (in
the vertical direction) for the debris:
 
Fweight  Fbouyancy  Fdrag  0   d g D3   f g D 3  Cd Ad  f Vd2 / 2  0 (3)
6 6
where d = 3500 kg/m3, f = 958 kg/m3, Cd =3, Ad  D 2 / 4 , D=100 m. Solving Eq. 3 for Vd,
we get:
 
4 d  1 gD
 
Vd   f   3.4 cm/s
3Cd
iii)
The debris settling time is equal to the ratio of the sump depth (4 m) to the settling velocity, thus
4/0.034  118 s. The flow-through time is equal to the ratio of the sump volume (100 m3) to the
 /  f 0.0237 m3/s), thus 100/0.0237  4212 s. Since the settling time is
volumetric flow rate ( m
much shorter than the flow-through time, the debris actually settle at the bottom of the sump, which
is desirable.
iv)
The pumping power, W p , is:
P 1
W p  m pump  (4)
f p
where m =23 kg/s, p=0.85 and Ppump is the pressure head provided by the pump. To find Ppump,
we have to add up the pressure changes in the loop:
(m / Acore ) 2
0  Ppump   f g ( H bc  H sump )   m,core gH core  K core   g g ( H bc  H sump  H core )
2 g
3
(m / Acore ) 2
Ppump  K core  (  f   g ) g ( H bc  H sump )  (  m,core   g ) gH core (5)
2 g
where Kcore = 150, Acore = 6 m2, Hbc = 6 m is the bottom core elevation relative to the pump, Hsump
= 4 m is the depth of the sump, Hcore = 4 m is the core height; also, we have neglected acceleration
pressure changes, and all friction and form losses in the loop except the form loss in the core, per
the problem statement. In Eq. 5, the average density in the core is calculated as follows:
1 1 1 1
H core H core H core
 m,core 
H core 0  m dz  H core 0 [  g   f (1   )]dz  H core 
0
x /  g  (1  x) /  f
dz 
ln(  f /  g )
  4.43 kg/m3
1 1

g f
where we used HEM with a linear variation of the steam quality in the core (x=z/Hcore), as suggested
by the problem statement.
Substituting all numerical values in Eq. 5, we get Ppump  20.7 kPa. Finally, Eq. 4 gives W p 
580 W.
v)
Heat is transferred through three thermal resistances in series: steam condensation + conduction in
the containment wall + air convection. Thus the heat flux can be calculated as follows:
Tsteam  Tair  2,200 W/m2

q" 
1  cont 1
 
hsteam kcont hair
where Tsteam=100C, Tair=40C, hsteam=800 W/m2C, cont=3 cm, kcont=35 W/mC and hair=40
 =23 kg/s of steam is Q  m
W/m2C. The total heat rate to be transferred to condense m  h fg 51.9
MW. Therefore, the minimum containment area required is A  Q / q" 23,400 m2, which is
cont
very large, and would result in an enormous (un-economical) containment.
vi)
Since the dominant thermal resistance is on the air side, any design modification should aim at
reducing that thermal resistance. For example, one could implant ribs on the outer surface to
increase the heat transfer area exposed to air, or enhance the heat transfer coefficient by actively
blowing the air on the containment shell, or increase the heat transfer coefficient by dripping water
on the outer containment shell, to take advantage of evaporative cooling. The latter approach is
actually implemented in the AP1000 passive containment cooling system.
vii)
At the conditions of interest, water occupies the whole containment volume:
Vc  M w[v f (Tsat )(1  x)  vg (Tsat ) x]
4
where Vc = 60,000 m3 , Tsat=100C, vf = 0.001 m3/kg and vg =1.67 m3/kg are the specific volumes of
saturated liquid water and steam, respectively, and x is the static quality in the containment. Solving
for x, we get x0.119. Therefore, the volume occupied by liquid water is V f  M wv f (1  x)  276
m3 and that of steam is Vg  Vc  M wv f (1  x)  59,724 m3.
viii)
The total pressure in the containment is the sum of the partial pressures of air and water:
M a RTsat
Pc  Pw  Pair  Pw (Tsat )   225 kPa
Vg
where Pw (Tsat ) =101 kPa, Ma = 7104 kg and R=286 J/kg-K.
5
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
OPEN BOOK FINAL EXAM (SOLUTIONS)

i)
The heat flux is axially uniform, thus the location of MDNBR is the channel exit. Recall the
definition of the MDNBR:
qDNB

MDNBR 
q
In both Approaches A and B the operating heat flux q is increased by 30% with respect to the
reference case. The DNB heat flux qDNB
 depends on the local equilibrium quality, mass flux,
pressure and equivalent diameter, i.e. qDNB
  qDNB
 ( xe , G, P, De ) .
In Approach A the exit temperature (and thus equilibrium quality), pressure and mass flux are
unchanged; therefore the qDNB
 is also unchanged. As such, the MDNBR is simply reduced by
30%, i.e. MDNBR=1.6/1.31.23.
In Approach B the mass flow rate (and thus the mass flux) has to increase by 30% to maintain the
inlet temperature constant, according to the conservation of energy Q  m
 c(Tout  Tin ) . Using the
Tong-68 correlation, we can see that an increase by 30% of the mass flux results in an increase of
1.30.4 in the DNB heat flux ( qDNB   G 0.4 ). Thus, for approach B we get the
MDNBR=1.61.30.4/1.31.37.
ii)
The results in Part ‘i’ suggest that Approach B has a better margin to DNB than Approach A, and
in fact the MDNBR for Approach A is below the typical limit mandated by the NRC for U.S.
PWRs. Also, Approach A will lower the inlet core temperature, which reduces the thermal
efficiency of the plant, clearly undesirable. However, Approach B has its drawbacks: for example,
it requires higher pumping power; also, the higher mass flux could cause excessive vibrations of
the fuel rods. Likely the best approach is a combination of Approaches A and B that would preserve
an acceptable MDNBR without inducing excessive vibrations in the fuel assemblies.
1
The axial force balance for a section of the cladding is as follows:
 
Pout D 2  Pin D 2   zDt  kx  0 (1)
4 4
where Pin = 3 MPa, Pout = 7 MPa, D = 11.2 mm, t = 0.5 mm, x = 1 cm and k is the (unknown) spring
rigidity constant. Setting the axial stress z equal to zero and solving for k, we get:

( Pout  Pin ) D2
k 4  39.4 kN/m
x
Note that in writing Eq. 1 we assumed the cladding is a thin shell (R/t>10). If we do account for
the thickness of the cladding in calculating the force due to the pressure forces, then the expression
for the rigidity constant becomes:

[ Pout  Pin (1  2t / D) 2 ] D2
k 4  44.4 kN/m
x
Thus in this case the thin-shell approximation results in an error of about 11%.
2
i)
The minimum mass flow rate is obtained when the coolant is allowed to evaporate completely in
the core. The conservation of energy yields:
Q  m
 (hg  h f )  m
 h fg (2)
where hfg = 2257 kJ/kg, Q  0.066Q 0t 0.2  51.3 MW, Q 0 =4000 MW and t = 3600 s. Solving Eq.
  Q / h  22.7 kg/s.
2 for the mass flow rate, we get m fg
ii)
The terminal velocity corresponds to zero acceleration, thus is obtained from the force balance (in
the vertical direction) for the debris:
 
Fweight  Fbouyancy  Fdrag  0   d g D3   f g D 3  Cd Ad  f Vd2 / 2  0 (3)
6 6
where d = 3500 kg/m3, f = 958 kg/m3, Cd =3, Ad  D 2 / 4 , D=100 m. Solving Eq. 3 for Vd,
we get:
 
4 d  1 gD
 
Vd   f   3.4 cm/s
3Cd
iii)
The debris settling time is equal to the ratio of the sump depth (4 m) to the settling velocity, thus
4/0.034  118 s. The flow-through time is equal to the ratio of the sump volume (100 m3) to the
 /  f 0.0237 m3/s), thus 100/0.0237  4212 s. Since the settling time is
volumetric flow rate ( m
much shorter than the flow-through time, the debris actually settle at the bottom of the sump, which
is desirable.
iv)
The pumping power, W p , is:
P 1
W p  m pump  (4)
f p
where m =23 kg/s, p=0.85 and Ppump is the pressure head provided by the pump. To find Ppump,
we have to add up the pressure changes in the loop:
(m / Acore ) 2
0  Ppump   f g ( H bc  H sump )   m,core gH core  K core   g g ( H bc  H sump  H core )
2 g
3
(m / Acore ) 2
Ppump  K core  (  f   g ) g ( H bc  H sump )  (  m,core   g ) gH core (5)
2 g
where Kcore = 150, Acore = 6 m2, Hbc = 6 m is the bottom core elevation relative to the pump, Hsump
= 4 m is the depth of the sump, Hcore = 4 m is the core height; also, we have neglected acceleration
pressure changes, and all friction and form losses in the loop except the form loss in the core, per
the problem statement. In Eq. 5, the average density in the core is calculated as follows:
1 1 1 1
H core H core H core
 m,core 
H core 0  m dz  H core 0 [  g   f (1   )]dz  H core 
0
x /  g  (1  x) /  f
dz 
ln(  f /  g )
  4.43 kg/m3
1 1

g f
where we used HEM with a linear variation of the steam quality in the core (x=z/Hcore), as suggested
by the problem statement.
Substituting all numerical values in Eq. 5, we get Ppump  20.7 kPa. Finally, Eq. 4 gives W p 
580 W.
v)
Heat is transferred through three thermal resistances in series: steam condensation + conduction in
the containment wall + air convection. Thus the heat flux can be calculated as follows:
Tsteam  Tair  2,200 W/m2

q" 
1  cont 1
 
hsteam kcont hair
where Tsteam=100C, Tair=40C, hsteam=800 W/m2C, cont=3 cm, kcont=35 W/mC and hair=40
 =23 kg/s of steam is Q  m
W/m2C. The total heat rate to be transferred to condense m  h fg 51.9
MW. Therefore, the minimum containment area required is A  Q / q" 23,400 m2, which is
cont
very large, and would result in an enormous (un-economical) containment.
vi)
Since the dominant thermal resistance is on the air side, any design modification should aim at
reducing that thermal resistance. For example, one could implant ribs on the outer surface to
increase the heat transfer area exposed to air, or enhance the heat transfer coefficient by actively
blowing the air on the containment shell, or increase the heat transfer coefficient by dripping water
on the outer containment shell, to take advantage of evaporative cooling. The latter approach is
actually implemented in the AP1000 passive containment cooling system.
vii)
At the conditions of interest, water occupies the whole containment volume:
Vc  M w[v f (Tsat )(1  x)  vg (Tsat ) x]
4
where Vc = 60,000 m3 , Tsat=100C, vf = 0.001 m3/kg and vg =1.67 m3/kg are the specific volumes of
saturated liquid water and steam, respectively, and x is the static quality in the containment. Solving
for x, we get x0.119. Therefore, the volume occupied by liquid water is V f  M wv f (1  x)  276
m3 and that of steam is Vg  Vc  M wv f (1  x)  59,724 m3.
viii)
The total pressure in the containment is the sum of the partial pressures of air and water:
M a RTsat
Pc  Pw  Pair  Pw (Tsat )   225 kPa
Vg
where Pw (Tsat ) =101 kPa, Ma = 7104 kg and R=286 J/kg-K.
5
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

Consider the hot channel in a PWR core. You wish to increase the power in that channel by 30%,
without changing the outlet temperature and pressure. You are to evaluate two alternative
approaches:
A. Reduced inlet temperature; same mass flow rate

B. Increased mass flow rate; same inlet temperature
Please answer the following questions:
i) If the value of the MDNBR in the reference case is 1.6, what is the value of the
MDNBR in approaches A and B? You may assume the heat flux in the channel is
axially uniform. (15%)
ii) Which approach would you choose? In answering this question, please consider the
results in Part ‘i’, but also any other design and operation aspects that you deem
appropriate. (5%)

As a means to reduce the stresses in the cladding of a BWR fuel
Pout=7 MPa
rod, a nuclear engineer proposes to use a spring that compresses
the fuel pellets, as shown in Figure 1. The rod outer diameter and
Spring
cladding thickness are 11.2 and 0.5 mm, respectively. During Cladding
operations the pressure inside the rod (due to the filler gas and
Pin=3 MPa
fission gases) is 3 MPa and the coolant pressure is 7 MPa. At
these conditions the spring is compressed by 1 cm. Calculate the
rigidity constant of the spring [N/m] that will result in a zero axial Fuel pellet
stress (z) in the cladding.
Figure 1. Schematic of the

fuel rod end (not to scale)
1
The occurrence of a Large-Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LB-LOCA) in a Pressurized Water
Reactor (PWR) would cause the generation of large amounts of debris within the containment, i.e.
mostly fibers from the insulation around primary system pipes and components. Such debris would
be washed to the containment sump along with any dirt normally present within the containment.
Water that accumulates in the sump is used by the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), i.e.
the sump pump injects that water into the reactor vessel. This situation is shown schematically in
Figure 2. There is a concern that the debris could be transported to the core by the sump pump and
there clog the fuel channels, thus preventing core cooling in the long term. To minimize the
probability of debris transport, it is desirable to limit the coolant flow rate from the sump pump to
the minimum flow rate required to remove the decay heat.
Containment steel shell
Steam
RPV
Break
Condensate
Core
4m
Sump
4m Debris 6m
Sump pump
Figure 2. Post-LOCA recirculation within containment
In answering the following questions, please state and justify all your assumptions. The
properties needed for this problem are reported in the table on the last page of this exam.
i) Calculate the minimum flow rate required to remove the decay heat by boiling, one hour after
shutdown, for a PWR of nominal power equal to Q 0 =4000 MWt. Assume the sump water is
saturated at 0.101 MPa. Assume the reactor had operated for an infinite period of time prior
to shutdown. (10%)
2
Now focus on the debris in the water that accumulates in the sump. The total volume of water in
the sump is 100 m3 and its depth is 4 m.
ii) Calculate the debris terminal velocity for gravity settling, Vd. You may assume the debris are
spherical, have a density of 3500 kg/m3, and a constant drag coefficient,
Cd  Fd /( Ad  f Vd2 / 2) , equal to 3, where Fd is the drag force, Ad  D2 / 4 is the frontal
area of the debris, D=100 m is the effective average diameter of the debris, and f = 958
kg/m3 is the density of water in the sump. (10%)
iii) Using the results in Parts ‘i’ and ‘ii’, compare the time scale for debris settling in the sump to
the time scale for debris flow through the sump, and determine if the debris actually settle to
the bottom of the sump. (5%)
Steam exits the primary system through the break and is condensed somewhere in the containment;
the condensate drips back into the sump, from which it is pumped to the core, effectively realizing
a loop (see Figure 2).
iv) Calculate the power required by the sump pump to deliver a coolant mass flow rate of 23 kg/s
to the core. (10%)
In answering your question you may make use of the following assumptions:
o Steady-state operation
o The pump has an isentropic efficiency of 85%
o Neglect all friction and form pressure losses in the loop except for the pressure loss in the
core, which can be modeled as a single form loss with coefficient Kcore = 150. Use the
density of steam g and the flow area of the core (6 m2) to calculate the form pressure loss.
o Neglect all acceleration pressure changes in the loop.
o Consider gravity pressure changes throughout the loop. Relevant elevations are shown in
Fig. 2.
o Assume the steam quality varies linearly in the core from zero (inlet) to one (outlet); use
HEM to calculate the average density in the core.
Now focus on the containment shell, which is 3-cm thick and made of steel with thermal
conductivity 35 W/mC. There is air at 40C circulating on the outer surface with a heat transfer
coefficient of 40 W/m2C. Condensation of steam at 100C occurs on the inner surface with a heat
transfer coefficient of 800 W/m2C.
v) What is the minimum containment surface area required to condense 23 kg/s of steam?
(10%)
vi) What design changes would you consider if you wished to reduce the minimum surface
area requirement in Part ‘v’? A qualitative answer is acceptable. (5%)
3
Now focus on the containment as a whole. Its free volume is Vc = 60,000 m3. The total mass of air
is Ma = 7104 kg. At a certain time after the LB-LOCA the temperature in the containment
atmosphere is 100C and the total amount of water (steam + liquid) is Mw = 3105 kg.
vii) What is the volume occupied by the liquid and what is the volume occupied by the steam?
In answering this question you may assume the liquid water/steam mixture in the
containment is saturated. (10%)
viii) What is the total pressure in the containment? Treat air as a perfect gas (R=286 J/kg-K,
cv=719 J/kg-K). (5%)
Properties of saturated water at 0.101 MPa
Parameter Value
Tsat 100C
f 958 kg/m3
g 0.6 kg/m3
hf 419 kJ/kg
hg 2676 kJ/kg
cf 4.22 kJ/(kgC)
cg 2.03 kJ/(kgC)
f 2.810-4 Pas
g 1.210-5 Pas
kf 0.681 W/(mC)
kg 0.025 W/(mC)
 0.059 N/m
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

Consider the hot channel in a PWR core. You wish to increase the power in that channel by 30%,
without changing the outlet temperature and pressure. You are to evaluate two alternative
approaches:
A. Reduced inlet temperature; same mass flow rate

B. Increased mass flow rate; same inlet temperature
i) If the value of the MDNBR in the reference case is 1.6, what is the value of the
MDNBR in approaches A and B? You may assume the heat flux in the channel is
axially uniform. (15%)
ii) Which approach would you choose? In answering this question, please consider the
results in Part ‘i’, but also any other design and operation aspects that you deem
appropriate. (5%)

As a means to reduce the stresses in the cladding of a BWR fuel
Pout=7 MPa
rod, a nuclear engineer proposes to use a spring that compresses
the fuel pellets, as shown in Figure 1. The rod outer diameter and
Spring
cladding thickness are 11.2 and 0.5 mm, respectively. During Cladding
operations the pressure inside the rod (due to the filler gas and
Pin=3 MPa
fission gases) is 3 MPa and the coolant pressure is 7 MPa. At
these conditions the spring is compressed by 1 cm. Calculate the
rigidity constant of the spring [N/m] that will result in a zero axial Fuel pellet
stress (z) in the cladding.
Figure 1. Schematic of the

fuel rod end (not to scale)
1
The occurrence of a Large-Break Loss of Coolant Accident (LB-LOCA) in a Pressurized Water
Reactor (PWR) would cause the generation of large amounts of debris within the containment, i.e.
mostly fibers from the insulation around primary system pipes and components. Such debris would
be washed to the containment sump along with any dirt normally present within the containment.
Water that accumulates in the sump is used by the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS), i.e.
the sump pump injects that water into the reactor vessel. This situation is shown schematically in
Figure 2. There is a concern that the debris could be transported to the core by the sump pump and
there clog the fuel channels, thus preventing core cooling in the long term. To minimize the
probability of debris transport, it is desirable to limit the coolant flow rate from the sump pump to
the minimum flow rate required to remove the decay heat.
Containment steel shell
Steam
RPV
Break
Condensate
Core
4m
Sump
4m Debris 6m
Sump pump
Figure 2. Post-LOCA recirculation within containment
In answering the following questions, please state and justify all your assumptions. The
properties needed for this problem are reported in the table on the last page of this exam.
i) Calculate the minimum flow rate required to remove the decay heat by boiling, one hour after
shutdown, for a PWR of nominal power equal to Q 0 =4000 MWt. Assume the sump water is
saturated at 0.101 MPa. Assume the reactor had operated for an infinite period of time prior
to shutdown. (10%)
2
Now focus on the debris in the water that accumulates in the sump. The total volume of water in
the sump is 100 m3 and its depth is 4 m.
ii) Calculate the debris terminal velocity for gravity settling, Vd. You may assume the debris are
spherical, have a density of 3500 kg/m3, and a constant drag coefficient,
Cd  Fd /( Ad  f Vd2 / 2) , equal to 3, where Fd is the drag force, Ad  D2 / 4 is the frontal
area of the debris, D=100 m is the effective average diameter of the debris, and f = 958
kg/m3 is the density of water in the sump. (10%)
iii) Using the results in Parts ‘i’ and ‘ii’, compare the time scale for debris settling in the sump to
the time scale for debris flow through the sump, and determine if the debris actually settle to
the bottom of the sump. (5%)
Steam exits the primary system through the break and is condensed somewhere in the containment;
the condensate drips back into the sump, from which it is pumped to the core, effectively realizing
a loop (see Figure 2).
iv) Calculate the power required by the sump pump to deliver a coolant mass flow rate of 23 kg/s
to the core. (10%)
In answering your question you may make use of the following assumptions:
o The pump has an isentropic efficiency of 85%
o Neglect all friction and form pressure losses in the loop except for the pressure loss in the
core, which can be modeled as a single form loss with coefficient Kcore = 150. Use the
density of steam g and the flow area of the core (6 m2) to calculate the form pressure loss.
o Neglect all acceleration pressure changes in the loop.
o Consider gravity pressure changes throughout the loop. Relevant elevations are shown in
Fig. 2.
o Assume the steam quality varies linearly in the core from zero (inlet) to one (outlet); use
HEM to calculate the average density in the core.
Now focus on the containment shell, which is 3-cm thick and made of steel with thermal
conductivity 35 W/mC. There is air at 40C circulating on the outer surface with a heat transfer
coefficient of 40 W/m2C. Condensation of steam at 100C occurs on the inner surface with a heat
transfer coefficient of 800 W/m2C.
v) What is the minimum containment surface area required to condense 23 kg/s of steam?
(10%)
vi) What design changes would you consider if you wished to reduce the minimum surface
area requirement in Part ‘v’? A qualitative answer is acceptable. (5%)
3
Now focus on the containment as a whole. Its free volume is Vc = 60,000 m3. The total mass of air
is Ma = 7104 kg. At a certain time after the LB-LOCA the temperature in the containment
atmosphere is 100C and the total amount of water (steam + liquid) is Mw = 3105 kg.
vii) What is the volume occupied by the liquid and what is the volume occupied by the steam?
In answering this question you may assume the liquid water/steam mixture in the
containment is saturated. (10%)
viii) What is the total pressure in the containment? Treat air as a perfect gas (R=286 J/kg-K,
cv=719 J/kg-K). (5%)
Properties of saturated water at 0.101 MPa
Parameter Value
Tsat 100C
f 958 kg/m3
g 0.6 kg/m3
hf 419 kJ/kg
hg 2676 kJ/kg
cf 4.22 kJ/(kgC)
cg 2.03 kJ/(kgC)
f 2.810-4 Pas
g 1.210-5 Pas
kf 0.681 W/(mC)
kg 0.025 W/(mC)
 0.059 N/m
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Problem 1 (35%) – Containment Heat Transfer and Structural Mechanics

Please answer the following short questions related to a hypothetical PWR containment:
i) Determine the maximum possible heat rejection rate through a steel containment wall
(thermal conductivity 40 W/m°C) whose thickness is 25 mm and surface area is 50,000 m2
if it is desired to limit the temperature inside the containment to 150°C or less. Assume
the external side is cooled by natural convection of air (heat transfer coefficient is 5
W/m2°C) to an ambient temperature of 30°C. The internal side of the containment
experiences condensation heat transfer with a heat transfer coefficient of 1,000 W/m2°C.
Assume steady state. (10%)
ii) Would it make sense to build the containment out of a material with higher thermal
conductivity to increase the heat rejection rate in Part ‘i’? Answer qualitatively. (5%)
iii) Assuming that the initial gas in the containment is dry air at atmospheric pressure and at
30 °C, what is the pressure in the containment if hot steam is ejected into it until the gas
temperature reaches 150°C? Assume saturated steam is present in the containment at the
final state. (Water properties are in the table below) (10%)
iv) If the containment building volume is 75,000 m3 what is the mass of steam that will be
present inside the containment when the temperature is 150°C? (5%)
v) Consider the building to be of cylindrical geometry, with a radius equal to 20 m. What is

the maximum allowable internal pressure if it is desired to limit the hoop stress in the steel
wall to 500 MPa? (5%)
Data for saturated water:

T P vf vg hf hg sf sg
(C) (kPa) (m3/kg) (m3/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg-K) (kJ/kg-K)
30 4 1.010-3 32.9 126 2556 0.4 8.4
100 101 1.010-3 1.7 419 2676 1.3 7.3
150 476 1.110-3 0.39 632 2747 1.8 6.8
1
Problem 2 (40%) – Creating a Two-Phase Mixture from Flashing of Pressurized
Water
Pressurized water at 10 MPa and 300C (the corresponding specific enthalpy and entropy are 1343
kJ/kg and 3.1 kJ/kg-K, respectively) is throttled to 6 MPa, to induce flashing and generate a two-
phase mixture. The resulting two-phase mixture now flows in a horizontal, smooth, adiabatic tube
which is 10-m long and has a diameter of 10 cm. The mass flow rate is steady at 10 kg/s.
i) Calculate the steam quality in the tube assuming thermal equilibrium exists at the outlet of
the throttle. (5%) (Hint: depressurization in the throttle is a highly irreversible, isenthalpic
process)
ii) Using the map in Fig. 1, determine which two-phase flow regime is present in the tube.
(5%)
Parameter Value
Tsat 275.4 C
f 758.5 kg/m3
g 30.6 kg/m3
hf 1213 kJ/kg
hg 2785 kJ/kg
sf 3.0 kJ/kg-K
sg 5.9 kJ/kg-K
f 110-4 Pas
g 210-5 Pas
Figure 1. Simplified flow map for water at 6 MPa.
kf 0.58 W/(mC)
The x and y axes are vapor and liquid superficial
velocity, respectively. “Intermittent” means kg 0.06 W/(mC)
plug/churn flow.  0.02 N/m
iii) Calculate the void fraction and friction pressure drop in the tube using models/correlations
appropriate for the conditions of interest. (15%)
The two-phase mixture finally enters a heated test section, which also comprises a tube, 3-m long,
10-cm diameter, and has a heat flux q = 600 kW/m2, axially uniform, but applied only to the top
half of the tube (see Fig. 2). There is a concern that dryout may occur in the test section.
iv) Calculate the critical power for the heated test section
using the CISE-4 correlation for the critical quality q
(assume it is suitable for the conditions of interest).
(15%) (Hint: you may approximate the boiling length
with the distance from the inlet of the adiabatic tube).
10 cm
Bonus question (extra 5%):
v) Calculate the entropy generation rate in the throttle.
Figure 2. Cross-section of
the tube
2
Problem 3 (25%) – Sizing the fuel pin of a Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor
(LMFBR)
An LMFBR operates with an average specific power in the fuel of 120 W/g. It is desired to upgrade
the capability of the reactor so that the specific power becomes 200 W/g. There is a requirement
that the temperature drop across the fuel pellet radius remains the same. The present fuel pellet
diameter is 0.51 cm.
i) What fuel pellet diameter should be used in the upgraded core? (10%)
ii) If an annular fuel pellet of outer diameter 0.51 cm were to be used, what would be the
diameter of the hole in the middle of the pellet? Develop (but do not solve) an equation
that would give you the answer. (10%)
iii) Now back to a solid cylindrical pellet. If the fuel pellet diameter is not to change, but the
fuel material is to be changed to one of 20% higher density, what is the ratio of the needed
fuel thermal conductivity to the conductivity of the present fuel? (5%)
In all questions above assume the fuel thermal conductivity is independent of temperature.
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

Please answer the following short questions related to a hypothetical PWR containment:
i) Determine the maximum possible heat rejection rate through a steel containment wall
(thermal conductivity 40 W/m°C) whose thickness is 25 mm and surface area is 50,000 m2
if it is desired to limit the temperature inside the containment to 150°C or less. Assume
the external side is cooled by natural convection of air (heat transfer coefficient is 5
W/m2°C) to an ambient temperature of 30°C. The internal side of the containment
experiences condensation heat transfer with a heat transfer coefficient of 1,000 W/m2°C.
Assume steady state. (10%)
ii) Would it make sense to build the containment out of a material with higher thermal
conductivity to increase the heat rejection rate in Part ‘i’? Answer qualitatively. (5%)
iii) Assuming that the initial gas in the containment is dry air at atmospheric pressure and at
30 °C, what is the pressure in the containment if hot steam is ejected into it until the gas
temperature reaches 150°C? Assume saturated steam is present in the containment at the
final state. (Water properties are in the table below) (10%)
iv) If the containment building volume is 75,000 m3 what is the mass of steam that will be
present inside the containment when the temperature is 150°C? (5%)
v) Consider the building to be of cylindrical geometry, with a radius equal to 20 m. What is

the maximum allowable internal pressure if it is desired to limit the hoop stress in the steel
wall to 500 MPa? (5%)

(C) (kPa) (m3/kg) (m3/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg-K) (kJ/kg-K)
30 4 1.010-3 32.9 126 2556 0.4 8.4
100 101 1.010-3 1.7 419 2676 1.3 7.3
150 476 1.110-3 0.39 632 2747 1.8 6.8
1
Water
Pressurized water at 10 MPa and 300C (the corresponding specific enthalpy and entropy are 1343
kJ/kg and 3.1 kJ/kg-K, respectively) is throttled to 6 MPa, to induce flashing and generate a two-
phase mixture. The resulting two-phase mixture now flows in a horizontal, smooth, adiabatic tube
which is 10-m long and has a diameter of 10 cm. The mass flow rate is steady at 10 kg/s.
i) Calculate the steam quality in the tube assuming thermal equilibrium exists at the outlet of
the throttle. (5%) (Hint: depressurization in the throttle is a highly irreversible, isenthalpic
process)
ii) Using the map in Fig. 1, determine which two-phase flow regime is present in the tube.
(5%)
Parameter Value
Tsat 275.4 C
f 758.5 kg/m3
g 30.6 kg/m3
hf 1213 kJ/kg
hg 2785 kJ/kg
sf 3.0 kJ/kg-K
sg 5.9 kJ/kg-K
f 110-4 Pas
g 210-5 Pas
Figure 1. Simplified flow map for water at 6 MPa.
kf 0.58 W/(mC)
The x and y axes are vapor and liquid superficial
velocity, respectively. “Intermittent” means kg 0.06 W/(mC)
plug/churn flow.  0.02 N/m
iii) Calculate the void fraction and friction pressure drop in the tube using models/correlations
appropriate for the conditions of interest. (15%)
The two-phase mixture finally enters a heated test section, which also comprises a tube, 3-m long,
10-cm diameter, and has a heat flux q = 600 kW/m2, axially uniform, but applied only to the top
half of the tube (see Fig. 2). There is a concern that dryout may occur in the test section.
iv) Calculate the critical power for the heated test section
using the CISE-4 correlation for the critical quality q
(assume it is suitable for the conditions of interest).
(15%) (Hint: you may approximate the boiling length
with the distance from the inlet of the adiabatic tube).
10 cm
Bonus question (extra 5%):
v) Calculate the entropy generation rate in the throttle.
Figure 2. Cross-section of
the tube
2
(LMFBR)
An LMFBR operates with an average specific power in the fuel of 120 W/g. It is desired to upgrade
the capability of the reactor so that the specific power becomes 200 W/g. There is a requirement
that the temperature drop across the fuel pellet radius remains the same. The present fuel pellet
diameter is 0.51 cm.
i) What fuel pellet diameter should be used in the upgraded core? (10%)
ii) If an annular fuel pellet of outer diameter 0.51 cm were to be used, what would be the
diameter of the hole in the middle of the pellet? Develop (but do not solve) an equation
that would give you the answer. (10%)
iii) Now back to a solid cylindrical pellet. If the fuel pellet diameter is not to change, but the
fuel material is to be changed to one of 20% higher density, what is the ratio of the needed
fuel thermal conductivity to the conductivity of the present fuel? (5%)
In all questions above assume the fuel thermal conductivity is independent of temperature.
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
OPEN BOOK FINAL EXAMS (SOLUTIONS)
i)
Heat rejection from the containment can be viewed as the series of three heat transfer processes:
Q  Ahin (Tin  Tci ) (condensation on the inner shell) (1)

Akc
Q  (Tci  Tco ) (conduction through the shell) (2)
tc
Q  Ahout (Tco  Tout ) (convection to air on the outer shell) (3)
where A = 50,000 m2, tc = 25 mm and kc=40 W/m°C are the is the containment surface area,
thickness and thermal conductivity, respectively; hin = 1,000 W/m2°C and hout = 5 W/m2°C are the
steam condensation and air convection heat transfer coefficients, respectively; Tout = 30°C and Tin
= 150°C are the ambient temperature and the temperature inside the containment, respectively; Tci
and Tco are the (unknown) temperatures on the inner and outer surfaces of the containment shell,
respectively. Eliminating Tci and Tco, and solving for the heat rejection rate Q , we get:
Tin  Tout
Q   29.8 MW (4)
1 tc 1
 
Ahin Akc Ahout
ii)
It would NOT make sense to change containment material to a higher thermal conductivity
material, because the thermal resistance associated with conduction within the containment
( tc /( Akc ) ) is already very small, thus the impact on heat rejection rate would be negligible.
Efforts should focus on increasing the heat transfer coefficient on the outer surface of the
containment shell, which is the dominant thermal resistance. This could be accomplished, for
example, by spraying the shell with water to induce evaporative cooling, which is the approach
used in the AP1000 design.
iii)
The total pressure at the final state (State 2) is:
P2 = Pw2 + Pa2 (5)
1
Where Pw2 = 476 kPa is the partial pressure of the dry saturated steam at T2 = 150°C. Since the
volume and mass of air in the containment have not changed, the ideal gas equation of state provides
the partial pressure of air at state 2 as:
Pa2 = Pa1 T2 / Ta1  141 kPa (6)
where Pa1 = 101 kPa and Ta1 = 303 K (30°C) are the initial (atmospheric) pressure and temperature
in the containment, respectively. Substituting the numbers back into Eq. 5, we find P2  617 kPa.
iv)
The total mass of steam in the containment at State 2 is:
Mw = Vc /vg  191,000 kg (7)
where Vc = 75,000 m3 is the containment volume and vg = 0.39 m3/kg is the specific volume of
saturated steam at 150°C.
v)
The thin shell theory can be used since Rc /tc = 800 >10, where Rc = 20 m and tc = 25 mm. Then the
hoop stress is
θ = (Pin -Pout)Rc /tc (8)
Solving Eq. 8 for Pin and setting θ = 500 MPa, we find Pin  726 kPa.
2
Water
i)
The throttle reduces the pressure of the fluid from 10 MPa to 6 MPa. Taking the throttle as the
control volume, the conservation of mass and energy yield, respectively:
0m
 in  m
 out   in  m
m  out  m

0m
 hin  m hout  hin  hout  hf (1  x0 )  hg x0 (9)
where m  = 10 kg/s is the mass flow rate, and we assumed steady-state, adiabatic flow with
negligible changes in the kinetic and gravitation terms, as usual; hin = 1343 kJ/kg (given in the
problem statement), hf = 1213 kJ/kg and hg = 2785 kJ/kg are the specific enthalpies of the
pressurized water at the throttle inlet and saturated liquid and vapor at the throttle outlet,
respectively. We also assumed the vapor and liquid phases are in thermal equilibrium at the exit
of the throttle, per the problem statement. From Eq. 9 we can readily get the steam quality in the
channel, x0:
x0  (hin  hf ) / hfg  0.083
ii)
To identify the flow regime with the map provided in the problem statement, we need to first find
the superficial velocities:
x0G
jv  3.43 m/s
g
(1  x0 )G
j  1.54 m/s
f
m 
where G   1273 kg/m2s is the mass flux, A  D 2  78 cm2 is the flow area, D = 10 cm
A 4
is the tube diameter, f = 758.5 kg/m and g = 30.6 kg/m3. Then the flow map suggests the flow
3
regime is annular flow.
iii)
We resort here to a simple drift flux model: per the textbook (page 628) at high void fraction one
can take C0 = 1 and in annular flow Ishii proposed Vvj  0. Thus the drift flux model effectively
reduces to HEM for which:
1
  0.69
 1  x0
1 g 
f x0
By comparison the EPRI correlation (which is more cumbersome to use, especially during the final
exam  ) predicts   0.62.
3
The friction pressure drop in the channel is:
L G2
Pfric  2o fo (10)
D 2 f
where L = 3 m is the length of the unheated section of the tube. For 2o fo we make use of the
Friedel correlations (Eqs. 11.99 through 11.101b in the textbook), which is valid for all flow
regimes in both vertical and horizontal channels. At the conditions of interest the parameters of
the Friedel correlation are E  0.962, F  0.140, H  11.67, Fr  25.2 and We  3.14104, fo 
0.0112. Substituting into Eq. 10 we get 2o  4.15 and Pfric  4.96 kPa.
iv)
Since the heat flux is axially uniform, dryout would occur first at the channel outlet. The critical
quality at the outlet is found to be xcr  0.1562 from the CISE-4 correlation with Lb = 13 m (equal
to the distance from the inlet of the tube, per the hint in the problem statement), and the coefficients
a  0.6724 and b  14.98, calculated for P = 6 MPa, Pc = 22.1 MPa, G = 1273 kg/m2s < G*  1306
kg/m2s, Ph =  D/2  15.7 cm (the heated perimeter) and Pw = D  31.4 cm (the wetted perimeter).
Then the critical power can be calculated from the conservation of energy:
 xcr hg  (1  xcr )hf  hin   1156 kW

Q cr  m
The actual power in the channel is Q   q" P L  283 kW, where q" = 600 kW/m2 and Lh = 3 m
h h
are the applied heat flux and length of the heated test section, respectively; therefore, there is a
good margin to dryout in the channel (CPR = 1156/283  4.09)
v)
The second law of thermodynamics for the throttle (steady-state, adiabatic flow) yields:
0m  sout  S gen

 sin  m  S gen  m
 (sout  sin )  m
 [sf (1  x0 )  sg x0  sin ]  1.4 kW/K
where sin = 3.23 kJ/kg-K (given in the problem statement), sf = 3.0 kJ/kg-K and sg = 5.9 kJ/kg-K
are the specific entropies of the pressurized water at the throttle inlet and saturated liquid and vapor
at the throttle outlet, respectively. The above result confirms that irreversibilities take place in the
throttle.
4
(LMFBR)
i)
The temperature drop, T, within a solid fuel pellet can be calculated as follows (see derivation in
the textbook):
q'
T  (11)
4k f
where kf is the fuel thermal conductivity (assumed independent of temperature) and q ' is the linear
power. The linear power is related to the specific power, qm , as follows:

q '  qm  f D2 (12)
4
where f is the fuel density and D is the fuel pellet diameter. Substituting Eq. 12 into Eq. 11,
solving for D, and assuming the temperature drop is constant, we can readily get the ratio of the
fuel pellet diameters for the upgraded and present core:
qm1
D2  D1  0.395 cm
qm2
,1 =120 W/g and qm, 2 =200

where D1 = 0.51 cm is the fuel pellet diameter in the present core, qm
W/g are the specific powers in the present and upgraded core, respectively.
ii)
The temperature drop, T, within an annular fuel pellet can be calculated as follows (see derivation
in the textbook):
q'  ln( D / Dv ) 2 
T  1 
 (D / D ) 2  1 (13)
4kf  v 
where Dv is the diameter of the hole in the middle of the pellet. In an annular pellet we have:

q '  qm  f (D 2  Dv2 ) (14)
4
Substituting Eq. 14 into Eq. 13, assuming the temperature drop and pellet diameter are constant,
we get one equation in the only unknown Dv:
qm2  qm1
ln( D / Dv ) 2  1  (D / Dv ) 2  0 (15)
qm2
5
Solving Eq. 15 numerically (not required for full credit), we get Dv  0.185 cm.
iii)
Solving for kf in Eq. 11, assuming the temperature drop and the pellet diameter to be constant, and
setting the ratio f2/f1 = 1.2, we get:
k f 2 qm2  f 2
 =2
k f 1 qm1  f 1
6
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
i)

Akc
tc
Tin  Tout
Q   29.8 MW (4)
1 tc 1
 
Ahin Akc Ahout
ii)
iii)
P2 = Pw2 + Pa2 (5)
1
Pa2 = Pa1 T2 / Ta1  141 kPa (6)
iv)
Mw = Vc /vg  191,000 kg (7)
v)
hoop stress is
2
Water
i)
0m
 in  m
 out   in  m
m  out  m

0m
channel, x0:
x0  (hin  hf ) / hfg  0.083
ii)
x0G
jv  3.43 m/s
g
(1  x0 )G
j  1.54 m/s
f
m 
A 4
3
iii)
1
  0.69
 1  x0
1 g 
f x0
3
L G2
Pfric  2o fo (10)
D 2 f
iv)

Q cr  m
h h
v)

 [sf (1  x0 )  sg x0  sin ]  1.4 kW/K
throttle.
4
(LMFBR)
i)
the textbook):
q'
T  (11)
4k f

q '  qm  f D2 (12)
4
qm1
D2  D1  0.395 cm
qm2
,1 =120 W/g and qm, 2 =200

ii)
in the textbook):
q'  ln( D / Dv ) 2 
T  1 
 (D / D ) 2  1 (13)
4kf  v 

q '  qm  f (D 2  Dv2 ) (14)
4
qm2  qm1
ln( D / Dv ) 2  1  (D / Dv ) 2  0 (15)
qm2
5
iii)
k f 2 qm2  f 2
 =2
k f 1 qm1  f 1
6
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Tuesday, October 27th, 2009, 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 1 1.5 HOURS
Problem 1 (60%) – Nuclear power plant for night-time desalination of seawater

A nuclear power plant located on the seashore of an arid country sells electricity to the grid
during the day (from 6 am to 10 pm) and heat and electricity to a seawater desalination plant at
night. In the day-time mode, the plant employs a simple Rankine cycle with saturated steam at 70
bar at the turbine inlet, and a condenser temperature of 40°C. In the night-time mode, the
expansion in the turbine is terminated at 1 bar, followed by complete condensation at that
pressure. During the night, the latent heat of condensation is used by the desalination plant, and
the condensate is then pumped back to 70 bar. The reactor thermal power is 300 MW, constant
day and night.
Assumptions:
- Electricity is sold at 8 ¢/kW-hour during the day, and 2 ¢/kW-hour at night. Heat to the
desalination plant is 0.2 ¢/MJ.
- The isentropic efficiencies of the turbine and feedwater pump are 0.90 and 0.85, respectively.
Questions:
i) Sketch the cycle T-s diagram for the day-time and night-time modes of operation. (5%)
ii) Calculate the total revenues ($$) generated by the plant in one full day (24-hour). (35%)
iii) Would the plant owner be better off selling only electricity to the grid during the night? (5%)
iv) What is the 24-hour-averaged energy utilization factor (EUF) of the plant? The EUF is
defined as the ratio of the energy utilized (net work + desalination heat) to the heat input
(reactor heat). (10%)
v) What would the EUF be, if the plant operated in the electricity-production mode all the time?
(5%)
Properties of saturated water

(°C) (bar) (m3/kg) (m3/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg⋅K) (kJ/kg⋅K)
40 0.074 1.01×10-3 19.54 167 2574 0.572 8.257
100 1 1.04×10-3 1.67 419 2676 1.307 7.354
285.7 70 1.35×10-3 0.0275 1267 2772 3.119 5.815
1
Problem 2 (40%) – Nuclear energy storage in molten-salt pool
The heat produced by a High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), rated at 500 MWt, is transferred
to and stored in a large pool of molten salt. The molten-salt pool has a cover gas (nitrogen), as
shown in the figure below. During a transient lasting 3 minutes, 500 kg/s of molten salt are
extracted from the bottom of the pool, while heat addition from the reactor continues at a steady
500 MWt.
i) Write a complete set of equations that would allow you to find the pressure and
temperature of the system at the end of the transient. (35%)
Nitrogen cover gas
Heat from
reactor
Molten salt
Molten salt
extraction
Figure 1. Schematic of the energy storage pool.
ii) If the cover gas were helium, how would the temperature and pressure at the end of
the transient change with respect to the nitrogen case? A qualitative answer is
acceptable. (5%)
Assumptions:
- The molten salt can be treated as an incompressible fluid (ρ = 1600 kg/m3, cp = 1200 J/kg-K)
with zero vapor pressure.
- Nitrogen can be treated as a perfect gas (cv = 742 J/kg-K, R = 297 J/kg-K).
- The enthalpy of the molten salt drawn from the bottom of the pool can be assumed to be
constant during the transient.
- The pool is well insulated, so heat losses to the environment can be neglected.
- Neglect kinetic and gravitational energy terms in the analysis.
- Helium can be treated as a perfect gas (cv = 3116 J/kg-K, R = 2077 J/kg-K).
Data:
Initial volume of molten salt in the pool: 1600 m3
Initial volume of nitrogen: 160 m3
Initial pressure of nitrogen and molten salt: 200 kPa
Initial temperature of nitrogen and molten salt: 600°C
2
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

A nuclear power plant located on the seashore of an arid country sells electricity to the grid
during the day (from 6 am to 10 pm) and heat and electricity to a seawater desalination plant at
night. In the day-time mode, the plant employs a simple Rankine cycle with saturated steam at 70
bar at the turbine inlet, and a condenser temperature of 40°C. In the night-time mode, the
expansion in the turbine is terminated at 1 bar, followed by complete condensation at that
pressure. During the night, the latent heat of condensation is used by the desalination plant, and
the condensate is then pumped back to 70 bar. The reactor thermal power is 300 MW, constant
day and night.
Assumptions:
- Electricity is sold at 8 ¢/kW-hour during the day, and 2 ¢/kW-hour at night. Heat to the
desalination plant is 0.2 ¢/MJ.
- The isentropic efficiencies of the turbine and feedwater pump are 0.90 and 0.85, respectively.
Questions:
i) Sketch the cycle T-s diagram for the day-time and night-time modes of operation. (5%)
ii) Calculate the total revenues ($$) generated by the plant in one full day (24-hour). (35%)
iii) Would the plant owner be better off selling only electricity to the grid during the night? (5%)
iv) What is the 24-hour-averaged energy utilization factor (EUF) of the plant? The EUF is
defined as the ratio of the energy utilized (net work + desalination heat) to the heat input
(reactor heat). (10%)
v) What would the EUF be, if the plant operated in the electricity-production mode all the time?
(5%)

40 0.074 1.01×10-3 19.54 167 2574 0.572 8.257
100 1 1.04×10-3 1.67 419 2676 1.307 7.354
285.7 70 1.35×10-3 0.0275 1267 2772 3.119 5.815
1
The heat produced by a High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), rated at 500 MWt, is transferred
to and stored in a large pool of molten salt. The molten-salt pool has a cover gas (nitrogen), as
shown in the figure below. During a transient lasting 3 minutes, 500 kg/s of molten salt are
extracted from the bottom of the pool, while heat addition from the reactor continues at a steady
500 MWt.
i) Write a complete set of equations that would allow you to find the pressure and
temperature of the system at the end of the transient. (35%)
Nitrogen cover gas
Heat from
reactor
Molten salt
Molten salt
extraction
Figure 1. Schematic of the energy storage pool.
ii) If the cover gas were helium, how would the temperature and pressure at the end of
the transient change with respect to the nitrogen case? A qualitative answer is
acceptable. (5%)
Assumptions:
- The molten salt can be treated as an incompressible fluid (ρ = 1600 kg/m3, cp = 1200 J/kg-K)
with zero vapor pressure.
- Nitrogen can be treated as a perfect gas (cv = 742 J/kg-K, R = 297 J/kg-K).
- The enthalpy of the molten salt drawn from the bottom of the pool can be assumed to be
constant during the transient.
- The pool is well insulated, so heat losses to the environment can be neglected.
- Neglect kinetic and gravitational energy terms in the analysis.
- Helium can be treated as a perfect gas (cv = 3116 J/kg-K, R = 2077 J/kg-K).
Data:
Initial volume of molten salt in the pool: 1600 m3
Initial pressure of nitrogen and molten salt: 200 kPa
Initial temperature of nitrogen and molten salt: 600°C
2
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 1 (solution)
i) T-s diagrams for daytime cycle (1→2→3→4) and night-time cycle (1→5→6→7):
T 70 bar
1 bar
1
7s 7
4
4s 5s 5
6 0.0737 bar
3 2s 2
ii) The total revenues, R (in $), is the sum of the electricity and heat revenues over a period of 24
hours:
R = (Q& ⋅η cycle,day ⋅16 ⋅ Ce,day + Q& ⋅η cycle,night ⋅8⋅ Ce,night + Q& ⋅ (1− η cycle,night ) ⋅8⋅ Cheat ) /100
(1)
where Q& is the reactor thermal power (in kW), ηcycle,day is the daytime thermal efficiency of the
Rankine cycle, ηcycle,night is the thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle at night, 16 and 8 are the
daytime and night-time hours, respectively; Ce,day , Ce,night and Cheat are the prices of electricity
at day and night and the price of heat, respectively. The factor 100 at the denominator is to
convert ¢ into $.
The thermal efficiency of the cycle in daytime mode and night-time mode are:
(h1 − h2 ) − (h4 − h3 )
ηcycle,day = (2)
(h1 − h4 )
(h − h ) − (h7 − h6 )
ηcycle,night = 1 5 (3)
(h1 − h7 )
So, one has to find the enthalpies h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 and h7.
1
Daytime Cycle
Turbine inlet (Point 1): T1=285.7°C, P1=70 bar, h1=2772 kJ/kg, s1=5.815 kJ/kg⋅K
Turbine outlet (Point 2): T2=40°C, P2=0.0737 bar, s2s=s1=5.815 kJ/kg⋅K, x2s=(s2s-sf)/(sg-
sf)=0.6822, h2s=hf+x2s(hg-hf)=1809 kJ/kg, h2=h1- (h1-h2s)ηT=1905 kJ/kg
Condenser outlet (Point 3): T3=40°C, P3=0.0737 bar, h3= 167 kJ/kg
Pump outlet (Point 4): P4=70 bar, h4s=h3+(P4-P3)vf ≈ 174 kJ/kg, h4=h3+ (h4s-h3)/ηP=175 kJ/kg
Night-time Cycle
Turbine outlet (Point 5): T5=100°C, P5=1 bar, s5s=s1=5.815 kJ/kg⋅K, x5s=(s5s-sf)/(sg-sf)= 0.7455,
h5s=hf+x5s(hg-hf)= 2102 kJ/kg, h5=h1- (h1-h5s)ηT= 2169 kJ/kg
Condenser outlet (Point 6): T6=100°C, P6=1 bar, h6= 419 kJ/kg
Pump outlet (Point 7): P7=70 bar, h7s=h6+(P7-P6)vf ≈ 426 kJ/kg, h7=h6+ (h7s-h6)/ηP= 427 kJ/kg
Therefore, from Eqs. (2) and (3) we get ηcycle,day ∼0.330 and ηcycle,night ∼0.254, and from Eq. (1)
R∼$152,000.
iii) If the plant sold only electricity, the total revenues per day would be:
R = (Q& ⋅η cycle,day ⋅16 ⋅ Ce ,day + Q& ⋅η cycle,day ⋅8⋅ Ce ,night ) /100 ∼ $143,000
Therefore, the utility makes more money selling part of its night-time output as heat to the
desalination plant.
iv)
Q& ⋅η cycle,day ⋅16 + Q& ⋅η cycle,night ⋅8 + Q& ⋅ (1− η cycle,night ) ⋅8
EUF = ∼0.554
Q& ⋅ 24
v) If the plant operated in the electricity-production mode all the time, the EUF would be simply
equal to the daytime thermal efficiency (∼0.330), and thus lower than the EUF for the bimodal
operation.
2
i)
Conservation of mass:
∂M CV
= −m& 0
∂t
Integrating and recognizing that the mass of nitrogen in the system does not change:
M s 2 − M s1 = −m& ot2 (4)
Where Ms2 and Ms1 are the final and initial mass of molten salt in the pool, respectively,
and m& o =500 kg/s is the mass flow rate of the outgoing molten salt, and t2=180 s is the
duration of the transient. Note that Ms1 is easily found, M s1 = Vs1ρ s =2.56×106 kg, where
Vs1= 1600 m3 is the initial volume of molten salt and ρs=1600 kg/m3 its density. Then
Eq. (4) gives M2s= 2.47×106 kg.
Conservation of energy (with negligible gravitational and kinetic terms):
∂ECV
= −m& 0 hs1 + Q&
∂t
Integrating and recognizing that hs1 is constant, as per the problem statement:
E2 − E1 = −hs1m& ot2 + Q& t 2
Where Q& =500 MW. Expanding the left-hand side, one gets:
&
M N cv,N (T2 − T1 ) + M s 2u s 2 − M s1u s1 = −hs1m& ot2 + Qt (5)
2
Where cv,N=742 J/kg-K is the nitrogen specific heat at constant volume, T1=873 K
(600°C) is the initial temperature, MN=(P1VN1)/(RT1)=123.4 kg is the mass of nitrogen in
the system, P1=200 kPa and VN1=160 m3 are the nitrogen initial pressure and volume,
respectively; R=297 J/kg-K is the gas constant for nitrogen. Eliminating m& ot 2 from Eqs.
(4) and (5) and re-arranging the terms, one gets:
&
M N cv,N (T2 − T1 ) + M s 2 (u s 2 − hs1 ) + M s1 (hs1 − u s1 ) = Qt 2
Using the constitutive relations for enthalpy and internal energy of an incompressible
fluid, the second and third terms on the left-hand side of the above equation can be found
3
P1 P1
as us 2 − hs1 = c p ,s (T2 − T1 ) − and hs1 − us1 = , where cp,s = 1200 J/kg-K is the specific
ρs ρs
heat of the molten salt. Therefore:
P1 P1
M N cv,N (T2 − T1 ) + M s2 [c p,s (T2 − T1 ) − ] + M s1 = Q& t 2 (6)
ρs ρs
Eq. (6) can be solved for its only unknown T2:
& + (M − M ) P1
Qt 2 s2 s1
ρs
T2 = T1 + ≈ 903.4 K (630°C)
M N cv,N + M s2c p,s
The final nitrogen pressure is P2=MNRT2/VN2 ≈ 153 kPa, where VN2 =VN1 + (M1s-M2s)/ρs
≈ 216.25 m3, as the total volume of the pool is fixed.
ii)
The equation of state for the gas yields the following relation between pressure before
and after the transient:
P2 T2 VN1
= (7)
P1 T1 VN 2
The thermal capacity of the gas is negligible with respect to the thermal capacity of the
molten salt, so the temperature change during the transient would not be affected by the
type of cover gas, i.e., T2/T1 is independent of the gas. Also, the change in gas volume
during the transient depends only on the amount of salt extracted, which is not affected
by the type of gas. Then Eq. (7) suggests that also the change in pressure P2/P1 is
independent of the type of gas. Bottom line: final pressure and temperature are expected
to be the same whether one uses nitrogen or helium.
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 1 (solution)
i) T-s diagrams for daytime cycle (1→2→3→4) and night-time cycle (1→5→6→7):
T 70 bar
1 bar
1
7s 7
4
4s 5s 5
6 0.0737 bar
3 2s 2
ii) The total revenues, R (in $), is the sum of the electricity and heat revenues over a period of 24
hours:
R = (Q& ⋅η cycle,day ⋅16 ⋅ Ce,day + Q& ⋅η cycle,night ⋅8⋅ Ce,night + Q& ⋅ (1− η cycle,night ) ⋅8⋅ Cheat ) /100
(1)
where Q& is the reactor thermal power (in kW), ηcycle,day is the daytime thermal efficiency of the
Rankine cycle, ηcycle,night is the thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle at night, 16 and 8 are the
daytime and night-time hours, respectively; Ce,day , Ce,night and Cheat are the prices of electricity
at day and night and the price of heat, respectively. The factor 100 at the denominator is to
convert ¢ into $.
The thermal efficiency of the cycle in daytime mode and night-time mode are:
(h1 − h2 ) − (h4 − h3 )
ηcycle,day = (2)
(h1 − h4 )
(h − h ) − (h7 − h6 )
ηcycle,night = 1 5 (3)
(h1 − h7 )
So, one has to find the enthalpies h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 and h7.
1
Daytime Cycle
Turbine outlet (Point 2): T2=40°C, P2=0.0737 bar, s2s=s1=5.815 kJ/kg⋅K, x2s=(s2s-sf)/(sg-
sf)=0.6822, h2s=hf+x2s(hg-hf)=1809 kJ/kg, h2=h1- (h1-h2s)ηT=1905 kJ/kg
Condenser outlet (Point 3): T3=40°C, P3=0.0737 bar, h3= 167 kJ/kg
Pump outlet (Point 4): P4=70 bar, h4s=h3+(P4-P3)vf ≈ 174 kJ/kg, h4=h3+ (h4s-h3)/ηP=175 kJ/kg
Night-time Cycle
Turbine outlet (Point 5): T5=100°C, P5=1 bar, s5s=s1=5.815 kJ/kg⋅K, x5s=(s5s-sf)/(sg-sf)= 0.7455,
h5s=hf+x5s(hg-hf)= 2102 kJ/kg, h5=h1- (h1-h5s)ηT= 2169 kJ/kg
Condenser outlet (Point 6): T6=100°C, P6=1 bar, h6= 419 kJ/kg
Pump outlet (Point 7): P7=70 bar, h7s=h6+(P7-P6)vf ≈ 426 kJ/kg, h7=h6+ (h7s-h6)/ηP= 427 kJ/kg
Therefore, from Eqs. (2) and (3) we get ηcycle,day ∼0.330 and ηcycle,night ∼0.254, and from Eq. (1)
R∼$152,000.
iii) If the plant sold only electricity, the total revenues per day would be:
R = (Q& ⋅η cycle,day ⋅16 ⋅ Ce ,day + Q& ⋅η cycle,day ⋅8⋅ Ce ,night ) /100 ∼ $143,000
Therefore, the utility makes more money selling part of its night-time output as heat to the
desalination plant.
iv)
Q& ⋅η cycle,day ⋅16 + Q& ⋅η cycle,night ⋅8 + Q& ⋅ (1− η cycle,night ) ⋅8
EUF = ∼0.554
Q& ⋅ 24
v) If the plant operated in the electricity-production mode all the time, the EUF would be simply
equal to the daytime thermal efficiency (∼0.330), and thus lower than the EUF for the bimodal
operation.
2
i)
Conservation of mass:
∂M CV
= −m& 0
∂t
Integrating and recognizing that the mass of nitrogen in the system does not change:
M s 2 − M s1 = −m& ot2 (4)
Where Ms2 and Ms1 are the final and initial mass of molten salt in the pool, respectively,
and m& o =500 kg/s is the mass flow rate of the outgoing molten salt, and t2=180 s is the
duration of the transient. Note that Ms1 is easily found, M s1 = Vs1ρ s =2.56×106 kg, where
Vs1= 1600 m3 is the initial volume of molten salt and ρs=1600 kg/m3 its density. Then
Eq. (4) gives M2s= 2.47×106 kg.
Conservation of energy (with negligible gravitational and kinetic terms):
∂ECV
= −m& 0 hs1 + Q&
∂t
Integrating and recognizing that hs1 is constant, as per the problem statement:
E2 − E1 = −hs1m& ot2 + Q& t 2
Where Q& =500 MW. Expanding the left-hand side, one gets:
&
M N cv,N (T2 − T1 ) + M s 2u s 2 − M s1u s1 = −hs1m& ot2 + Qt (5)
2
Where cv,N=742 J/kg-K is the nitrogen specific heat at constant volume, T1=873 K
(600°C) is the initial temperature, MN=(P1VN1)/(RT1)=123.4 kg is the mass of nitrogen in
the system, P1=200 kPa and VN1=160 m3 are the nitrogen initial pressure and volume,
respectively; R=297 J/kg-K is the gas constant for nitrogen. Eliminating m& ot 2 from Eqs.
(4) and (5) and re-arranging the terms, one gets:
&
M N cv,N (T2 − T1 ) + M s 2 (u s 2 − hs1 ) + M s1 (hs1 − u s1 ) = Qt 2
Using the constitutive relations for enthalpy and internal energy of an incompressible
fluid, the second and third terms on the left-hand side of the above equation can be found
3
P1 P1
as us 2 − hs1 = c p ,s (T2 − T1 ) − and hs1 − us1 = , where cp,s = 1200 J/kg-K is the specific
ρs ρs
heat of the molten salt. Therefore:
P1 P1
M N cv,N (T2 − T1 ) + M s2 [c p,s (T2 − T1 ) − ] + M s1 = Q& t 2 (6)
ρs ρs
Eq. (6) can be solved for its only unknown T2:
& + (M − M ) P1
Qt 2 s2 s1
ρs
T2 = T1 + ≈ 903.4 K (630°C)
M N cv,N + M s2c p,s
The final nitrogen pressure is P2=MNRT2/VN2 ≈ 153 kPa, where VN2 =VN1 + (M1s-M2s)/ρs
≈ 216.25 m3, as the total volume of the pool is fixed.
ii)
The equation of state for the gas yields the following relation between pressure before
and after the transient:
P2 T2 VN1
= (7)
P1 T1 VN 2
The thermal capacity of the gas is negligible with respect to the thermal capacity of the
molten salt, so the temperature change during the transient would not be affected by the
type of cover gas, i.e., T2/T1 is independent of the gas. Also, the change in gas volume
during the transient depends only on the amount of salt extracted, which is not affected
by the type of gas. Then Eq. (7) suggests that also the change in pressure P2/P1 is
independent of the type of gas. Bottom line: final pressure and temperature are expected
to be the same whether one uses nitrogen or helium.
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Department of Nuclear Engineering
22.314 : Structural Mechanics In Nuclear PowerTechnology
Quiz No.1 Fall Term 2006
Open Book, 1.5 hours
Please state your assumptions and the definition of symbols appearing in your equations
clearly.
Note that there is an opportunity to get a score over 100 if you solve all questions
correctly.
Question #1 (45%)
For future sodium-cooled reactors, uranium carbide may be used as fuel. The fuel pin
will be of cylindrical geometry and housed in a stainless steel clad. The dimensions as
well as the physical and mechanical properties of the fuel material and the clad are given
in Table 1.
1.1 What is the maximum linear hear generation rate (in kW/m) that the fuel
pin can operate at if the fuel is not to experience any fracture for r < 0.4R,
where R is the pellet radius? You may assume the pressure at the pellet-
clad gap to be 0.3 MPa.
1.2 Does the clad design satisfy the ASME criteria for structural integrity
under static loads? The fission gases will build up within the clad until the
gas plenum pressure reaches 5.0 MPa. You may assume the coolant
pressure to be 0.3 MPa and the maximum operating linear heat generation
rate is 45 kW/m.
Question #2 (45%)
A long, thin-walled cylindrical tank is used in transporting radioactive gases. While it is
being filled, the tank is subjected to radial constraint that can be approximated by a rigid
boundary that allows slip in the axial direction (see Figure 1).
2.1 What is the maximum pressure that should be allowed in the tank in order
to avoid plastic deformation of the membrane?
Material Properties:
Young’s Modulus, E = 30,000 ksi (1ksi = 1000 psi)
Poisson’s Ratio, υ = 0.3
Yield Stress, σ y = 36 ksi
State any assumptions you make.
2.2 Is fatigue a factor in limiting the lifetime of the tank if the maximum gas
pressure is limited to 400 psi (see attached data in Figure 2)?
Consider the utilization factor suggested by Soderberg for cyclical
σm σa
loading: + ≤1
σy σN
Where σ m is the mean stress during a cycle, σ y is the yield stress,
σ a is the alternating stress, and σ N is the stress intensity causing failure
after 105 cycles.
Table 1
Fuel Pellet Radius = 20mm

Clad Inner Radius = 21mm
Clad Outer Radius = 23mm
Active Fuel Height = 1.5m
UO2 UC Steel
Young’s Modulus E (GPa) 200 210 70
Poisson’s Ratio υ 0.32 0.30 0.30
Fracture Strength σf (MPa) 150 300
Yield Strength σy ( MPa) 330
Thermal Conductivity k (W / m°C) 3 20 20
Thermal Expansion Coefficient α (µm /mC) 10 10 16
Figure by MIT OCW.
Question #3 (20%)
Consider a beam as shown in Figure 3, subjected to an axial force, F2 and a lateral force,
F1. Evaluate the value of F2 that will lead to a “ limit load “ condition for elastic behavior
of the beam when F1 = 8 MN.
Steel Data: Young’s Modulus, E = 191 GPa

Yield Stress, Sy = 345 MPa
Figure by MIT OCW.

Department of Nuclear Engineering
22.314 : Structural Mechanics In Nuclear PowerTechnology
Quiz No.1 Fall Term 2006
Open Book, 1.5 hours
Please state your assumptions and the definition of symbols appearing in your equations
clearly.
Note that there is an opportunity to get a score over 100 if you solve all questions
correctly.
Question #1 (45%)
For future sodium-cooled reactors, uranium carbide may be used as fuel. The fuel pin
will be of cylindrical geometry and housed in a stainless steel clad. The dimensions as
well as the physical and mechanical properties of the fuel material and the clad are given
in Table 1.
1.1 What is the maximum linear hear generation rate (in kW/m) that the fuel
pin can operate at if the fuel is not to experience any fracture for r < 0.4R,
where R is the pellet radius? You may assume the pressure at the pellet-
clad gap to be 0.3 MPa.
1.2 Does the clad design satisfy the ASME criteria for structural integrity
under static loads? The fission gases will build up within the clad until the
gas plenum pressure reaches 5.0 MPa. You may assume the coolant
pressure to be 0.3 MPa and the maximum operating linear heat generation
rate is 45 kW/m.
Question #2 (45%)
A long, thin-walled cylindrical tank is used in transporting radioactive gases. While it is
being filled, the tank is subjected to radial constraint that can be approximated by a rigid
boundary that allows slip in the axial direction (see Figure 1).
2.1 What is the maximum pressure that should be allowed in the tank in order
to avoid plastic deformation of the membrane?
Material Properties:
Young’s Modulus, E = 30,000 ksi (1ksi = 1000 psi)
Yield Stress, σ y = 36 ksi
State any assumptions you make.
2.2 Is fatigue a factor in limiting the lifetime of the tank if the maximum gas
pressure is limited to 400 psi (see attached data in Figure 2)?
Consider the utilization factor suggested by Soderberg for cyclical
σm σa
loading: + ≤1
σy σN
Where σ m is the mean stress during a cycle, σ y is the yield stress,
σ a is the alternating stress, and σ N is the stress intensity causing failure
after 105 cycles.
Table 1
Fuel Pellet Radius = 20mm

Clad Inner Radius = 21mm
Clad Outer Radius = 23mm
Active Fuel Height = 1.5m
UO2 UC Steel
Young’s Modulus E (GPa) 200 210 70
Poisson’s Ratio υ 0.32 0.30 0.30
Fracture Strength σf (MPa) 150 300
Yield Strength σy ( MPa) 330
Thermal Conductivity k (W / m°C) 3 20 20
Thermal Expansion Coefficient α (µm /mC) 10 10 16
Figure by MIT OCW.
Question #3 (20%)
Consider a beam as shown in Figure 3, subjected to an axial force, F2 and a lateral force,
F1. Evaluate the value of F2 that will lead to a “ limit load “ condition for elastic behavior
of the beam when F1 = 8 MN.
Steel Data: Young’s Modulus, E = 191 GPa

Yield Stress, Sy = 345 MPa
Figure by MIT OCW.

Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 1:30-4:30 pm
SOLUTIONS
Problem 1 (55%) – Structural and thermal-hydraulic analysis of a PWR pressurizer

i) The primary general membrane stresses for a thin cylindrical shell can be calculated as:
σr = -(pi+po)/2
σθ = (pi-po)R/t
σz = (pi-po)R/2t
So the primary general membrane stress intensity, Pm, is (pi-po)R/t -[-(pi+po)/2], and the
ASME code mandates that
Pm < S m
Solving for t,
t > R(pi-po)/[Sm – (pi+po)/2] = 9.6 cm
with R=1 m, pi=17 MPa, po=0.1 MPa, Sm=180 MPa.
ii) Taking the pressurizer as the control volume (CV), the conservation of mass equation
gives the final coolant mass in the pressurizer, M2:
∂M CV
t2
= − m& 0 ⇒ (integrating) M 2 − M 1 = − ∫ m& o dt (1)

∂t t1
t2
where ∫ m& dt =Mo=3,500 kg/s, and M1 can be easily found from the initial liquid and
t1
o
vapor volumes and densities (see Table 1 in the problem statement).

The conservation of energy equation (with negligible gravitational and kinetic terms) is:
∂U CV
t2 t2
= −m& 0 h f + Q& ⇒ (integrating) U 2 − U 1 = −h f ∫ m& o dt + ∫ Q& dt = − h f M o + Q

∂t t1 t1
(2)
Cite as: Jacopo Buongiorno, course materials for 22.312 Engineering of Nuclear Reactors, Fall 2007.
MIT OpenCourseWare (http://ocw.mit.edu/), Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Downloaded on [DD Month YYYY].
where hf (=1,631 kJ/kg) is the enthalpy of the water leaving the pressurizer, Q is the total
heat supplied by the heaters, U1=M1(uf+x1ufg) can be readily found from the initial
conditions. The final internal energy, U2, is:
U2=M2(uf+x2ufg) (3)
where x2 is the (unknown) final quality in the pressurizer. Also, the volume of the
pressurizer, Vp, does not change during the transient, so:
Vp=M2(vf+x2vfg) (4)
Equations 1, 2, 3 and 4 constitute a system of four equations in four unknown (i.e., M2,
U2, Q and x2), from which Q can be found.
iii) The answer in “ii” does not depend on the duration of the process, but only on the initial
and final conditions of the system.
iv) The total heater power, Q& (=3 MW), is related to the heat flux as:
& = 30 π d L q′′
Q
Thus the minimum heater length is:
& /(30 π d q ′′ ) = 1.13 m

L>Q DNB
where d=1 cm and q″DNB=2.8 MW/m2 from the boiling curve.
v) The DNB heat flux increases with pressure at low pressure, while it decreases at high
pressure (e.g., see Figure 12-3, T&K, Vol. 1, page 527). Therefore, if the pressure in the
pressurizer significantly decreased while the heaters are at full power, meeting the no-
CHF criterion would depend on the magnitude of the pressure reduction. For example,
for a final pressure of 10 MPa, the no-CHF criterion would still be met, because the DNB
heat flux at 10 MPa is higher than at 15.5 MPa.
Problem 2 (35%) – Void fraction and pressure drop in an isolation condenser.

i) Saturated steam is completely condensed at a rate of 50 kg/s. Thus, the heat
removal rate can be calculated from the energy balance as:
Q& = m& (ho − hi ) = m& h fg =77.15 MW

where the subscripts “o” and “i” refer to the tube outlet and inlet, respectively.
ii) The average heat flux at the inner surface of the tubes, q″, is:
Q&
q ′′ = ≈ 341 kW/m2
N tubes πDL
The inner wall temperature can be readily found from Newton’s law of cooling:
1/ 4
⎡ gρ f (ρ f − ρ g )k 3f h fg ⎤
q ′′ = h D (Tsat − Tw ) = 0.555⎢ ⎥ (Tsat − Tw ) 3/4
⎢⎣ µf D ⎥⎦
where hD is from the simplified Chato correlation. Solving for Tw, one gets
Tw≈216°C.
iii) For HEM the void fraction can be calculated as:

1
α=
ρg 1− x
1+ ⋅
ρf x
where x is the flow quality, assumed to vary linearly with the axial location, z, from
1 (inlet) to 0 (outlet), i.e., x(z)=1-z/L. This equation can be used to sketch α vs. z,
as shown below.
Void fraction
0 L z
iv) The gravity pressure drop is zero, because the tubes are horizontal.
Acceleration:
⎛ 1 1 ⎞
∆Pacc = G 2 ⎜⎜ + − + ⎟⎟ ≈ -3,594 Pa
⎝ ρo ρi ⎠
where the subscripts “o” and “i” refer to the tube outlet and inlet, respectively.
Note that in this case, ρ i+ = ρ g =33.3 kg/m3, ρ o+ = ρ f =769.2 kg/m3, and
G=50/200/(π/4×0.032) ≈ 354 kg/m2s.
Friction:
⎛ dP ⎞ 1 G2
⎜ ⎟ = f TP ⋅ (5)
⎝ dz ⎠ fric D 2ρTP
0 . 184 GD
where D=3cm, f TP = f l o = ≈0.018 ( Re lo = ≈108,400). Also, for
0 .2
Re l o µf
1 x 1− x
HEM, = + . Thus, equation 5 can be integrated:
ρTP ρ g ρ f
1
L
1 G2 L G2
1
⎡ x 1− x ⎤ L G 2 ⎛⎜ x 2 / 2 x − x 2 / 2 ⎞⎟
∆Pfric = ∫ f TP dz = f lo ∫0 ⎢⎢ ρ g + ρ f ⎥⎥dx = f lo D 2 ⎜ ρ g + ρ f ⎟ ≈ 7,060 Pa
0
D 2ρTP D 2 ⎣ ⎦ ⎝ ⎠0
where again a linear variation of x along the tubes has been assumed (i.e.,
x(z)=1-z/L).
Total:
− ∆Ptot = ∆Pacc + ∆Pfric ≈ -3,594+7,060 = 3,466 Pa
I.e., the pressure at the tube outlet is lower than at the inlet.
v) The acceleration and friction pressure drops would not change. The gravity
pressure drop would be negative because the flow direction is downward.
Problem 3 (10%) – Departure from Nucleate Boiling in a PWR

The mass flow rate, pressure and inlet bulk temperature (and thus the inlet equilibrium
quality) are fixed. If the reactor power increased, the equilibrium quality would increase in the
channel, thus, the DNB heat flux would decrease. The heat flux and DNB curves for the higher
power level are shown below. Note that obviously the MDNBR is lower at the higher power.
Heat flux
q″DNB (100% power)
q″DNB (>100% power)

q″ (>100% power)
q″ (100% power)
0 L z
Thursday, October 14th, 2004, 9:30 – 11:00 a.m.
Problem 1 (45%)
i) The T-s diagram is:
T
7 6
1
5
3 2
s
ii) Turbine inlet (Point 1): T1=280°C, P1=64 bar, h1=2780 kJ/kg, s1=5.9 kJ/kg⋅K, x1=1.0
Turbine outlet (Point 2): T2=30°C, P2=0.04 bar, s2=s1=5.9 kJ/kg⋅K, x2=(s2-sf2)/(sg2-sf2) ≈ 0.69,
h2=hf2+x2(hg2-hf2) ≈ 1797 kJ/kg
Condenser outlet (Point 3): T3=30°C, P3=0.04 bar, h3=126 kJ/kg, x3=0
Pump outlet (Point 4): T4 ≈ 30°C, P4=64 bar, h4=h3+(P4-P3)vf4 ≈ 132.4 kJ/kg
Recirculation line (Point 7): T7=280°C, P7=64 bar, h7=1236 kJ/kg, x7=0
Core inlet (Point 5): P5=64 bar, h5=0.1⋅h4+0.9⋅h7 ≈ 1126 kJ/kg
Core outlet (Point 6): T6=280°C, P6=64 bar, h6=hf6+0.1⋅(hg6-hf6) ≈ 1390 kJ/kg
Thermal efficiency = (Wturb-Wpump)/Qin = [0.1(h1-h2)-0.1(h4-h3)]/(h6-h5) ≈ 37%

or, equivalently, =1-Qout/Qin = 1-0.1(h2-h3)/(h6-h5) ≈ 37%
iii) The T-s diagram is:

T
3 2
s
The thermal efficiency = (Wturb-Wpump)/Qin = [(h1-h2)-(h4-h3)]/(h1-h4) ≈ 37%, i.e., identical to the
cycle with recirculation. This is expected because recirculation does not change either the net
work done by the cycle or the external heat input to the cycle.
iv) Advantages of using cycle without recirculation:

- No steam separator, no recirculation line, thus lower capital cost
Disadvantages of using cycle without recirculation:

- Lower water density in the core, thus worse moderation
- Large temperature rise in the core, bad for thermal stresses (will learn more on
this subject later in the course)
- Worse heat transfer (will learn more on this subject later in the course)
Problem 2 (55%)
i) The amount of He initially in the primary system, N1, is readily obtained from the equation of
state:
P1i V1
N1 = ≈ 250,000 mol (1)
RT1i
where P1i (=7 MPa) and T1i (=673 K) are the initial pressure and temperature in the primary
system, respectively, and V1 (=200 m3) is the primary system volume.
Similarly, the amount of He initially in the containment, N2, is found as:
P2i V2
N2 = (2)
RT2i
Where P2i (=0.1 MPa) and T2i (=300 K) are the initial pressure and temperature in the
containment, respectively. However, the containment volume, V2, is unknown. When the large
break LOCA occurs, the gas inventories in the primary system and containment mix; thus the
final pressure, Pf (=1.3 MPa), can be related to the gas inventories, the containment volume and
the final (unknown) temperature, Tf, as:
(N 1 + N 2 )RTf
Pf = (3)
V1 + V2
Equations 2 and 3 have three unknown (Tf, V2 and N2), so a third equation is needed to solve the
problem. The conservation of energy for the control volume representing the primary system and
containment is:
Uf − Ui = 0 (4)
(note that the decay heat addition is negligible because we are to assume that instantaneous
equilibrium is achieved). With reference to the two gas inventories, Equation 4 can be rewritten
as:
(U1f − U1i ) + ( U 2f − U 2i ) = 0 or N1c v (Tf − T1i ) = N 2 c v (T2i − Tf ) (5)
Where cv is the helium specific heat. Then Tf is readily obtained as:
N1T1i + N 2 T2i
Tf = (6)
N1 + N 2
Substituting Equation 2 and 6 in Equation 3, and solving for V2, the following result is obtained:
RN 1T1i − Pf V1
V2 = ≈ 950 m3 (7)
Pf − P2i
And back-substituting in Equation 2 and 6, N2 (≈38,100 mol) and Tf (≈623 K) can be found.
ii) & (=300 MW) the nominal reactor power, the pressure (and temperature) in the
Indicating with Q o
& )
containment will continue to rise until the emergency cooling system capacity (=0.02 Q o
& t-0.2). Thus, solving for t, one obtains:
matches the decay heat rate (=0.06 Q o
1/0.2
⎛ 0.06 ⎞
t peak =⎜ ⎟ ≈ 243 s (8)
⎝ 0.02 ⎠
where tpeak is the time at which pressure and temperature peak. The net heat input to the
containment, Q, between t=0 and t=tpeak can be calculated as:
t peak
Q= ∫ (0.06 Q&
0
o
& )dt ≈ 364.5 MJ
t −0.2 − 0.02 Q o (9)
The energy equation yields:
(N 1 + N 2 )c v (Tpeak − Tf ) = Q (10)
And the peak temperature is:
Q
Tpeak = Tf + ≈ 724 K (11)
(N1 + N 2 )c v
So the peak pressure is:
(N1 + N 2 )RTpeak
Pf = ≈ 1.5 MPa (12)
V1 + V2
iii) Advantages:
- Lower loads on the containment.
- Can reduce containment thickness, which results in lower capital costs.
Disadvantages:
- Release of potentially radioactive gas to the environment, depending on the efficiency of
the filter.
- If the vent valve failed open, the containment would lose its function.
Problem 1 (45%) – Power Cycle for a Simplified BWR

The power cycle of a simplified BWR is shown in Figure 1a. Steam at 10% quality exits the core.
The steam is separated from the water in a steam separator, and then is directed to the turbine, then
completely condensed and pumped back to the reactor. The separated water is mixed with the feedwater
coming from the pump, and recirculated to the core inlet.
Saturated Steam
at 280˚C 1
Saturated Steam
at 280˚C 1
Turbine
Turbine
2
7
Steam Condenser
Separator Saturated Condenser
Liquid at
6 280˚C
Steam/Water Saturated Liquid
Mixture at at 30˚C
280˚C Saturated Liquid
3 at 30˚C
Core 4
Pump
4 3
Core Pump
a) With recirculation b) Without recirculation

Figure 1. Schematic of a simplified BWR plant.
i) Sketch the T-s diagram for the cycle of Figure 1a. Make sure to include the effect of recirculation.
(10%)
ii) Using the data below, calculate the cycle thermal efficiency. (15%)
iii) Consider now the same cycle but without recirculation, i.e., the feedwater from the pump goes
directly to the core, the steam quality at the core outlet is 100%, and there is no steam separator
(Figure 1b). Sketch the T-s diagram and calculate the thermal efficiency for this cycle. How does the
thermal efficiency compare to that of the cycle with recirculation? (15%)
iv) Given the results in “iii”, what are the advantages/disadvantages of using the cycle with recirculation?
(5%)
Assumptions:
• Assume perfect steam/water separation in the steam separator.
• Assume ideal turbine and pump.
• Assume constant water density in the pump.
• Neglect kinetic and gravitational terms.

30 0.04 1.0×10-3 32.9 126 2556 0.4 8.4
280 64 1.3×10-3 0.03 1236 2780 3.1 5.9
Problem 2 (55%) – Containment sizing for a gas-cooled reactor with passive emergency
cooling
An advanced helium-cooled graphite-moderated reactor generates a nominal thermal power of 300

MW. To prevent air ingress in the core during a Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA), the reactor
containment is filled with helium at atmospheric pressure and room temperature (Figure 2a). The reactor
also features an emergency cooling system to remove the decay heat from the containment during a
LOCA. To function properly, this system, which is passive and based on natural circulation of helium
inside the containment, requires a minimum containment pressure of 1.3 MPa.
Emergency cooling system
Atmosphere
He at low pressure and Containment

He at intermediate pressure
temperature
He at high pressure
and temperature
Core Core
Primary system
a) Normal operating conditions b) Post-LOCA situation

Figure 2. Helium-cooled reactor with helium-filled containment.
i) Find the containment volume, so that the pressure in the containment is 1.3 MPa immediately after a
large-break LOCA occurs (Figure 2b). (Assume that thermodynamic equilibrium within the
containment is achieved instantaneously after the break) (40%)
ii) Assuming that the emergency cooling system removes 2% of the nominal reactor thermal power,
calculate at what time the pressure in the containment reaches its peak value after the LOCA.
(Calculate the decay heat rate assuming infinite operation time) (10%)
iii) To reduce the peak pressure in the containment, a nuclear engineer suggests venting the containment
gas to the atmosphere through a filter. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of this
approach? (5%)
Assumptions:
• Treat helium as an ideal gas.
• Neglect the heat contribution from fission and chemical reactions.
• Neglect the thermal capacity of the structures.
Data:
Gas volume in the primary system: 200 m3
Initial primary system temperature and pressure: 673 K, 7.0 MPa
Initial containment temperature and pressure: 300 K, 0.1 MPa
Helium specific heat at constant volume: cv=12.5 J/(mol⋅K)
Helium atomic weight: A=0.004 kg/mol
Gas constant: R=8.31 J/(mol⋅K)
J. Buongiorno / Fall 2004

Due November 17 by 12:00 pm
TAKE HOME QUIZ #2 SOLUTIONS
Problem 1 (60%)
i) To select a suitable heat transfer correlation for this problem, we must first calculate the Reynolds
3 2 π
number and identify the flow regime. The flow area is A f = w − 19 d 2 =1053 mm2; w is the
2 4
fuel assembly width, and d is the fuel pin outer diameter.
The wetted perimeter is p w = 2 3w + 19πd =714 mm
4A f
The equivalent diameter is d e = =5.9 mm
Pw
Q
& =
m =19.6 kg, cp is the Pb specific heat, Q the assembly power and T=150°C is the coolant
c p ΔT
temperature rise in the fuel assembly.
(m & /A f )d e
Re = =57,800. Therefore the flow regime is turbulent
μ
c pμ
Pr = =0.0184 Pe=Re⋅Pr=1,064
k
For example, the Westinghouse correlation (Eq. 10-117, T&K) is for liquid metal fully-developed
turbulent flow in triangular rod bundles, with 1.1<P/D<1.4 and 10<Pe<5000, and thus is suitable for
this problem. The Westinghouse correlation yields Nu=9.842 and h=Nu·k/de=26.7 kW/m2 (Note that
sometime people use the “heated” diameter, dh, instead of de for calculating the heat transfer
coefficient).
ii) The length of the velocity entry region in turbulent flow can be as high as 40⋅de, or about 24 cm in our
case. The length of the thermal entry region for a metallic fluid in turbulent flow is about 60⋅de
(Chapter 10, Section A.IV.2) or ~35 cm in our case. Due to the larger radial momentum and
temperature gradients, the heat transfer coefficient is higher in the entry region than in the fully-
developed region. Therefore, using a fully-developed-flow correlation for the whole channel
underestimates the actual heat transfer coefficient.
iii) If the axial power profile is flat and the transport properties are constant, the coolant bulk temperature
and the wall temperature vary linearly with the axial coordinate (we are again neglecting the thermal
entry region effects here).
Temperature
Tw
Tbo
q″/h
Tb
Tbi
0 Axial coordinate L
iv) The cladding temperature reaches its peak value at the fuel assembly outlet (see Figure 1), and can be
q′
calculated as Tpc = Tbo + =576.5°C, where Tbo=550°C is the outlet bulk temperature, q′=20
πd h
kW/m is the linear power (calculated assuming local and axial peaking factors equal to unity), and
h=26.7 kW/m2K is the heat transfer coefficient (calculated with the Westinghouse correlation).
The fuel centerline temperature, Tcl, can be calculated using the concept of thermal resistance, and
recognizing that there are three thermal resistances in series between the cladding outer position and
the fuel centerline, i.e., cladding + thermal bond + fuel. Therefore:
⎡ ⎛d⎞ ⎛ di ⎞ ⎤
⎢ ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥
d d 1
Tcl = Tpc + q′⎢ ⎝ i ⎠ + ⎝ f ⎠ + ⎥ =696°C
⎢ 2πk c 2π k Na 4π k f ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
where di=7.8 mm and df=6.8 mm are the cladding inner diameter and the fuel slug diameter,
respectively, while kc, kNa and kf are the stainless steel, sodium and U-Zr thermal conductivities,
respectively.
v) The reactor power (hence the linear power) is increased by 10% without changing the coolant mass
flow rate. Then the ΔT in the coolant bulk, coolant film, cladding, thermal bond and fuel temperature
also increase by 10%. This is because constant properties are assumed, thus the thermal resistances
do not change with power. The result is Tpc=400+1.1×(576.5-400)=594.2°C, and Tcl=400+1.1×(696-
400)=725.6°C
vi) Wire spacers would reduce the flow area and the equivalent diameter of the fuel assembly.
Therefore, the coolant velocity would increase, which would result in higher turbulence and thus
higher heat transfer coefficient, but also higher pressure drop. The bulk temperature would stay the
same because the mass flow rate and power are the same.
Problem 2 (40%)
i) Because UO2 has a higher melting point, it should be placed in Zone 1.
ii) The linear power for the duplex pellet can be expressed as:
⎡ q′′′ ⎤
q′ = πR 12 q1′′′+ π(R fo2 − R 12 )q ′2′′ = π ⎢R 12 + 2 (R fo2 − R 12 )⎥ q1′′′ (1)
⎣ q1′′′ ⎦
Where q 1′′′ and q ′2′′ are the volumetric heat generation rates in Zone 1 and 2, respectively, and
q′2′′
=1.5. To solve the problem, it is necessary to establish a relationship between q1′′′ and the max
q1′′′
temperature in the pellet. To do so, one needs to solve the heat conduction equation in both zones.
Starting from Zone 2 (i.e., PuO2):
1 d ⎡ dT ⎤
⎢ rk 2 + q ′2′′ = 0 (2)
r dr ⎣ dr ⎥⎦
where k2 is the PuO2 thermal conductivity. Integrating twice and setting the boundary conditions
dT
- 2π ⋅ R 1k 2 = q1′′′πR 12 and T R = Tfo , one gets:
dr R1
fo
R 12 ⎛R ⎞ q ′2′′
T1 − Tfo = − (q ′2′′ − q1′′′) log⎜⎜ fo ⎟⎟ + (R fo2 − R 12 ) (3)
2k 2 ⎝ R1 ⎠ 4k 2
where T1 is the temperature at R1.

For Zone 1 the heat conduction equation yields:
1 d ⎡ dT ⎤
rk 1 + q1′′′ = 0 (4)
r dr ⎢⎣ dr ⎥⎦
dT
Integrating twice and setting the boundary condition - k 1 = 0 and T 0 = Tcl , one gets:
dr 0
q 1′′′R 12
Tcl − T1 = (5)
4k 1
From equations 3 and 4 it follows that:
⎧ R 12 R 12 ⎛ q ′2′′ ⎞ ⎛ R fo ⎞ 1 q ′2′′ 2 ⎫
Tcl − Tfo = q1′′′⎨ − ⎜⎜ − 1⎟⎟ log⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + (R fo − R 12 )⎬ (6)
⎩ 4k 1 2k 2 ⎝ q1′′′ ⎠ ⎝ R 1 ⎠ 4k 2 q1′′′ ⎭
For Tcl=2,800°C and Tfo=400°C, equation 6 yields q 1′′′ ≈ 1,000 MW/m3 and from equation 1 it is easy
to get the linear power q′≈95.6 kW/m.
iii) For the traditional pellet the linear power is:
q′ = 4π ⋅ k1 (Tcl − Tfo ) ≈90.5 kW/m (7)
which is somewhat lower than for the duplex pellet.
Friday, December 16th, 2005, 1:30-4:30 pm
Problem 1 (50%) –Loss Of Flow Accident (LOFA) in a fast-spectrum BWR.

i) The mass flow rate can be calculated from the energy equation:
Q&
[ ]
Q& = m& C p , f (Tsat − Tb,in ) + xout h fg ⇒ m& =
C p , f (Tsat − Tb , in ) + xout h fg
=10.56 kg/s
where the inlet temperature is Tb,i=260°C and the outlet quality is xout=0.3. The
corresponding mass flux is 10.56/0.005=2,112 kg/m2s.
ii) The critical quality at the outlet is found to be xcr=0.401 from the CISE-4 correlation with
Lb=2.5 m, and the coefficients a=0.5539 and b=0.9543, calculated for P=6.4 MPa,
Pc=22.1 MPa, G=2,112 kg/m2s>G*=1,211 kg/m2s, De=Dh=0.01 m. Since the heat flux is
axially uniform, dryout would occur first at the channel outlet. Since the equilibrium
quality at the outlet is lower than the critical quality at the outlet, dryout does not occur.
iii) When the mass flow rate is reduced to 0.5×10.56=5.28 kg/s, the corresponding mass flux
is reduced to 5.28/0.005=1,056 kg/m2s. Since the mass flux decreases, the critical quality
increases.
The critical quality at the outlet is found to be xcr=0.585 from the CISE-4 correlation with
Lb=2.5 m, and the coefficients a=0.696 and b=0.477, calculated for P=6.4 MPa, Pc=22.1
MPa, G=1,056 kg/m2s<G*=1,211 kg/m2s, De=Dh=0.01 m. The equilibrium quality at the
outlet can be calculated from the energy equation (at the reduced flow conditions) and is
found to be 0.668. Since the equilibrium quality is higher than the critical quality, it can
be concluded that dryout has in fact occurred in the fuel assembly at the reduced
conditions.
iv) Given the conclusions in “ii” and “iii”, two-phase forced convection (saturated boiling)
and post-dryout heat transfer (forced convection to vapor + droplet evaporation at the
wall) are the heat transfer mechanisms of interest at the channel outlet for the nominal
and reduced-flow conditions, respectively. Thus, for example the Chen correlation
(saturated boiling) and the Groeneveld correlation (post-dryout heat transfer) can be used,
respectively.
v) Acceleration pressure drop. If the flow is reduced, while the power remains constant,
there are two conflicting effects, i.e., G decreases, which tends to reduce the pressure
drop, but the two-phase density at the outlet ( ρ out+
) also decreases, which tends to
J. Buongiorno, 2005
increase the acceleration pressure drop. (Note that the coolant density at the fuel
assembly inlet does not change.) At high pressure typically the G effect is dominant.
Friction pressure drop. Once again, two conflicting effects. G decreases, which tends to
reduce the friction pressure drop, but the average quality increases, which increases the
two-phase multiplier ( φl2o ) and thus tends to increase the friction pressure drop. At high
pressure typically the G effect is dominant.
Form pressure drop. Same as friction.
Gravity pressure drop. The gravity pressure drop is reduced because the average density
in the fuel assembly is lower.
vi) Operation at reduced flow (and same power) is more susceptible to dynamic instabilities
because more steam is generated within the fuel assembly, thus making the flow more
compressible, which has a destabilizing effect.
Problem 2 (15%) – Sizing the pressure vessel for a high-pressure gas cooled reactor
The primary general membrane stresses for a thin cylindrical shell can be calculated as follows:
σr = -(pi+po)/2 (1)
σθ = (pi-po)R/t
σz = (pi-po)R/2t
with pi=20 MPa and po=0.1 MPa, and R and t unknown.
The primary general membrane stress intensity, Pm, is then (pi-po)R/t -[-(pi+po)/2], and the
ASME code mandates that
Pm < S m (2)
with Sm=220 MPa.
So the minimum allowable thickness is:
t = R(pi-po)/[Sm – (pi+po)/2] (3)
The total mass of the shell, M, can be as high as 300,000 kg:
M=2πRtLρ (4)
with M=300,000 kg, L=4 m and ρ=7,000 kg/m3. Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (4) and solving for
R, one gets:
J. Buongiorno, 2005
Pi + Po
M(Sm − )
R= 2 ≈4.24 m, or D≈8.48 m (5)
ρ(Pi − Po )2π ⋅ L
The corresponding thickness is t=0.40 m, from Eq. (3). Note that the thin-shell approximation is
indeed acceptable in this case because R/t>10.
Problem 3 (10%) – Thermodynamic analysis of a gas turbine

Consider the entropy equation for transformation 1→2:
Q& S& gen Q&

0 = m& s1 − m& s2 + S& gen + ⇒ s2 = s1 + + (6)
Ts m& m& Ts
where m& is the mass flow rate, S& gen (>0) is the entropy generation due to irreversibilities (e.g.,
friction), Q& is the heat rate exchanged between the turbine and the surroundings and Ts is the
temperature at which that exchange occurs.
Normally, for a turbine it is assumed that Q& =0 (the turbine is adiabatic). Then Eq. (6) gives:
S& gen
s2 = s1 + > s1 (7)
m&
and one has to conclude that transformation 1→2 is not thermodynamically possible.
However, the transformation becomes thermodynamically possible if one assumes that Q& <0, i.e.,
the turbine is cooled.
Problem 4 (25%) – Effect of geometry on single-phase heat transfer in straight tubes
i) Both tubes have the same equivalent diameter, De=2 cm. The Reynolds number
ρVDe m& De
Re = = is 1996 for the round tube and 1568 for the square tube. Since Re<2100,
μ Aμ
the flow regime is laminar for both tubes.
ii) We must first calculate if Points b and c are in the entry or fully developed region. For
z
laminar flow, the length of the entry region, ze, can be calculated as e ≈ 0.05 Re . Thus,
De
ze=1.996 m (round tube) and ze=1.568 m (square tube), and it can be concluded that Points b
and c are in the entry region and fully-developed region, respectively, for both tubes. The
qualitative velocity profile at Point b and c is:
J. Buongiorno, 2005
Point b Point c
The profile develops from uniform to parabolic because of the radial momentum transfer due
to viscosity.
iii) In order to select a heat transfer coefficient correlation, we note that:

- Pr∼0.97, thus the fluid is non-metallic.
- The flow regime is laminar.
- The geometry is round tube and square tube.
- The boundary condition is constant wall temperature.
- Point c is in the fully-developed region (for both velocity and temperature profiles)
Thus, the Nusselt number for laminar flow in a round tube with constant wall temperature is
3.66, while for a square tube is 2.98. The corresponding heat transfer coefficients are ∼99.8
W/m2°C and ∼80.5 W/m2°C, respectively, i.e., the round tube has a higher heat transfer
coefficient.
iv) If the flow rate triples, the Reynolds number triples (i.e., Re∼5998 for round tube and
Re∼4704 for the square tube), taking the flow regime from laminar to turbulent. The
situation is still one of fully-developed flow (ze=40De=0.8m<zc). For turbulent flow in the
fully developed region, the heat transfer is insensitive to geometry and boundary conditions.
Since the round tube has a higher Reynolds number than the square tube, its heat transfer
coefficient will also be higher. Note that the Dittus-Boelter correlation cannot be used
because it is valid for Re>10,000 (see Page 443 in the textbook).
J. Buongiorno, 2005
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 9:30 – 11:00 a.m.
Problem 1 (45%) – Two-unit nuclear plant with single containment building

i) The containment building is the control volume of choice.
The energy equation is:
∂E
t2
= m& ws hws ⇒ E2 − E1 = hws ∫ m& ws dt = hws 0.2 M ws (1)

∂t t1
where E is the total energy of the control volume, and 0.2Mws is the mass of water flown into
the containment building. Expanding the energy terms on the left-hand side of Eq. (1), one
gets:
(0.2 M ws + M wsp )u w 2 (T2 , Pw 2 ) + M a u a 2 − M wsp u wsp − M a ua1 = hws 0.2 M ws (2)
where superheated steam conditions were assumed in the containment at t2. Equation (2) can
be re-written as follows:
(0.2 M ws + M wsp )u w 2 (T2 , Pw 2 ) + M a cva (T2 − T1 ) = M wsp u wsp + hws 0.2 M ws (3)
The equation to calculate the mass of air in the containment building (with zero initial
humidity) is:
P1Va1
Ma = (4)
RaT1
The total control volume is:
M wsp
Vc = Va1 + (5)
ρ wsp
The equation for the water volume at t2 is:
Vc = (0.2 M ws + M wsp )vw 2 (T2 , Pw 2 ) (6)
Finally, the equation to calculate the containment pressure at t2 is:
M a RaT2
P2 = Pw 2 + Pa 2 = Pw 2 + (7)
Vc
Equations (3) through (7) constitute a system of 5 equations in the 5 unknowns T2, Pw2, Ma, Vc
and P2.
ii) Advantages of the single-containment approach include lower capital cost and greater ease of
access and inspection. The disadvantages include reduced redundancy (failure of the
containment building would result in a leak path for two reactors instead of one), and possibly
larger plant footprint (depending on the building design).
Problem 2 (55%) –Power cycle for a High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor

i)
T
3
4
4s
2
ii) The net electric power of the plant, W&net , is:
W& net = W&T − W&C = m& c p [(T3 − T4 ) − (T2 − T1 )] = m& c p [ηT (T3 − T4 s ) − (T2 − T1 )] =
⎡ ⎛ T ⎞ ⎛T ⎞⎤
= m& c p ⎢ηT T3 ⎜⎜1 − 4 s ⎟⎟ − T1 ⎜⎜ 2 − 1⎟⎟⎥ (8)
⎣ ⎝ T3 ⎠ ⎝ T1 ⎠⎦
where m & , cp, ηT and T1 are all given in the problem statement. The ratios T4s/T3 and T2/T1 can
be readily calculated from the equation of the isentropic transformation for a perfect gas:
γ −1
T3 T2 ⎛ P2 ⎞ γ
= =⎜ ⎟ ≈1.904 (9)
T4 s T1 ⎜⎝ P1 ⎟⎠
Then T2=1.904·T1≈710.2 K.
T3 can be calculated from the energy equation for the reactor:
Q& 0
Q& 0 = m& c p (T3 − T2 ) ⇒ T3 = T2 + ≈1,017.9 K (10)
m& c p
Substituting the numerical values into Eq. (8), one gets W&net ≈1,017 MW.
iii) The energy equation for the fuel is:
∂E &
t2 65 min
=Q ⇒ E2 − E1 = ∫ Q& dt = ∫ 0.066Q& t
−0.2
dt = 1.22×1010 J (11)
∂t
0
t1 60 min
where Q& is the decay power. The energy variation on the left-hand term of Eq. (11) can be
rewritten in terms of the temperature rise, ∆TF, as follows:
E2 − E1 = M F cF ∆TF (12)
where MF is the fuel mass (4.405×11,000=44,495 kg) and cF is the fuel specific heat. Therefore
the temperature rise is:
∆TF=1.22×1010/(44,495×230)≈1,200 K (13)
Tuesday, October 18th, 2005, 9:30 – 11:00 a.m.
Problem 1 (45%) – Two-unit nuclear plant with single containment building

A two-unit PWR nuclear power station features a single large containment building into which
the coolant is discharged following a Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA) in either unit (see Figure
1). A suppression pool is located in the containment building to reduce the peak pressure when
the LOCA occurs.
Control volume
Containment
building
Unit 1 Unit 2
Suppression pool
Figure 1. Two-unit nuclear power plant with single containment building.
i) Write a complete set of equations to calculate the pressure in the containment building two
minutes after a small pipe rupture causes 20% of the secondary coolant inventory in Unit 1 to
flow into the containment building. Identify the known and unknown parameters. (35%)
ii) Using your engineering judgment, identify the advantages and disadvantages of this single-
containment building configuration vs. a more traditional configuration with one containment
building for each unit. (10%)
Assumptions
- At t2=2 min thermodynamic equilibrium exists in the containment building
- Neglect heat losses to the surroundings and the structures
- Neglect kinetic and gravitational terms
- Assume superheated steam conditions exist in the containment at t2
- No mass or energy exchanged with Unit 2 during the accident
- Assume the enthalpy of the secondary coolant to be constant as it flows into the
containment building.
Data
Containment building:
Free volume Va1=70,000 m3
Initial temperature T1=300 K
Initial pressure P1=0.1 MPa
Initial humidity φ=0%
Air constant Ra=286 J/(kg·K)
Air specific heat cva=719 J/(kg·K)
Suppression pool water:
Mass Mwsp=5,000 kg
Density ρwsp=1,000 kg/m3
Internal energy uwsp=113 kJ/kg
Secondary water:
Mass Mws=72,000 kg
Density ρws=810 kg/m3
Enthalpy hws=1,213 kJ/kg
Internal energy uws=1,205 kJ/kg
Problem 2 (55%) –Power cycle for a High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor
The layout of the Brayton power cycle of a High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) is sketched
in Figure 2:
Reactor
2 3
Turbine
Compressor
1 4
Cooler
Figure 2. Simple Brayton cycle.
Assumptions and Data

- The transformations in the compressor, reactor and cooler are ideal
- The turbine isentropic efficiency is 90%
- The compressor inlet temperature and pressure are 100°C and 1.5 MPa, respectively
- The turbine inlet pressure is 7.5 MPa
- The reactor power is 3,200 MWt
- Coolant (Helium):
Mass flow rate: 2,000 kg/s
Specific heat at constant pressure: 5,200 J/kg K
cP
γ = = 1.667
cV
Helium gas constant: RHe=2,077 J/kg K
i) Sketch the T-s diagram for this cycle. (5%)
ii) Find the net electric power of the plant. (30%)
iii) The plant has been operating at full power for a long time when suddenly a turbine trip causes
the reactor to scram (i.e., to shut down). However, forced circulation of helium in the core
ensures the necessary removal of the decay heat. At t=60 min (after shutdown) a loss of offsite
power causes the compressor to stop. As a result, the helium coolant does not circulate in the
core anymore and the fuel is now thermally insulated. It takes about five minutes before the
emergency diesel generators can energize the compressor again and restore efficient heat
removal in the core. Calculate the fuel temperature rise during the five minutes the compressor
is off. (20%)
Fuel volume: 4.045 m3

Fuel density: 11×103 kg/m3
Fuel enrichment: 90 wt% of 235U
Fuel specific heat: 230 J/kg·K
Due November 16, 2005 by 12:00 pm
TAKE HOME QUIZ #2 SOLUTIONS
Problem 1 (80%) – Coolant selection for an advanced high-temperature reactor

i) & , we use the continuity equation:
To calculate the mass flow rate, m
⎛π ⎞
m& = ρV ⎜ D 2 ⎟ (1)
⎝4 ⎠
where ρ, V and D are the coolant density, coolant velocity and channel diameter, respectively.
The friction pressure drop in the coolant channel, ΔPfric, can be calculated as:
L ρV 2
ΔPfric = f ⋅ ⋅ (2)
D 2
where f and L, are the friction factor and channel length, respectively. The generic expression of the
friction factor for fully-developed flow in smooth channels is:
f=C/Ren (3)
where Re is the Reynolds number, Re≡(ρVD)/μ, and C and n are numerical coefficients depending on
the flow regime. Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (2), we get:
C L ρV 2 C μ n Lρ 1−nV 2−n
ΔPfric = ⋅ ⋅ = ⋅ (4)
Re n D 2 2 D1+ n
Since ΔPfric is given, Eq. (4) can be solved to find the coolant velocity:
1 /( 2−n )
⎛ 2ΔPfric D1+n ⎞
V = ⎜⎜ ⎟
1−n ⎟
(5)
⎝ C μ n
L ρ ⎠
Because the flow regime is not known a priori, one has to guess it and then verify the accuracy of the
guess. Let us assume turbulent flow with Re>30,000 for which C=0.184, n=0.2 (see Eq. 9-79 in the
textbook). Then, Eq. (5) yields V=5.82 m/s for liquid sodium and V=2.95 m/s for the liquid salt. The
corresponding Reynolds numbers are 267,250 and 28,656, respectively. So the flow regime is indeed
turbulent, but it is not high-Re turbulent for the liquid salt, because Re<30,000. So, Eq. (5) has to be
recomputed for the liquid salt with C=0.316 and n=0.25 (see Eq. 9-80 in the textbook), which gives
V=2.91 m/s and Re=28,207.
The corresponding mass flow rates are calculated from Eq. (1) and are 0.357 kg/s and 0.443 kg/s for
liquid sodium and liquid salt, respectively.
ii) The pumping power due to friction, W& p , can be calculated as follows:
ΔP
W& p = m& ⋅ fric (6)
ρ
Thus, the pumping power is about 91 W and 46 W for liquid sodium and liquid salt, respectively.
iii) Since the power profile is axially uniform, the maximum temperature in the fuel occurs at the channel
outlet (z=L). Per the hint, let us approximate the fuel around the coolant channel as an annulus of
inner diameter D and outer diameter Df, where Df is calculated imposing the conservation of the fuel
volume:
⎛ 3 2 π 2⎞ π π
⎜ w − D ⎟ L = ⎛⎜ D 2f − D 2 ⎞⎟ L ⇒ Df =
2 3
w =3.15 cm (7)
⎜ 2 4 ⎟ ⎝4 4 ⎠ π
⎝ ⎠
where w=3 cm is the width of the hexagonal unit cell of the core (see Figure 1).
w
Df
Figure 1. Equivalent annulus.
The heat conduction equation in this annulus is:
1 d ⎡ dT ⎤
⋅ ⎢k f r + q′′′ = 0 (8)
r dr ⎣ dr ⎥⎦
where r is the radial coordinate, kf is the fuel thermal conductivity (=6 W/m·K, independent of
temperature) and q″′ is the volumetric heat generation rate within the fuel. The linear power, q′, is
related to q″′ as follows:
π
q' =
4
(D 2
f )
− D 2 q′′′ (9)
The boundary condition for Eq. (8) is:
dT
−kf =0 at r = Df/2 (10)
dr
The solution of Eq. (8) is then:
q' ⎡ D 2f ⎛D ⎞ 1⎤
∴ Tmax − Ts ,L = ⎢ 2 ln⎜⎜ f ⎟− ⎥
⎟ 2 (11)
2πk f ⎢⎣ D f − D ⎝ D
2
⎠ ⎥⎦
where Tmax=1000°C is the maximum temperature in the fuel, Ts,L is the (unknown) temperature at the
surface of the coolant channel at z=L. Newton’s law of cooling provides a relationship between Ts,L
and Tb,L, i.e., the coolant bulk temperature at the channel outlet:
q' q'
= h(Ts ,L − Tb ,L ) ⇒ Ts ,L = Tb ,L + (12)
πD πDh
where h is the heat transfer coefficient, which can be calculated from Eq. 10-113 in the textbook for
the liquid sodium (Pr=0.037, Re=267,250 ⇒ Nu=13.2), and the Dittus-Boelter correlation for the
liquid salt (Pr=4.82, Re=28,207 ⇒ Nu=156.7). The values of ‘h’ are then 79.2 kW/m2K and 15.7
kW/m2K for liquid sodium and liquid salt, respectively.
The bulk temperature at the channel outlet can be calculated from the energy equation as follows:
q' L
m& c p (Tb ,L − Tb ,o ) = q' L ⇒ Tb ,L = Tb ,o + (13)
m& c p
Where Tb,o=600°C is the inlet temperature. Combining Eq. (11), (12) and (13), one gets:
q' ⎡ D 2f ⎛D ⎞ 1⎤
Tmax − Tb ,o = ⎢ 2 ln⎜⎜ f ⎟ − ⎥ + q' + q' L (14)
2πk f ⎟ 2 πDh m& c
⎣⎢ D f − D ⎝ D
2
⎠ ⎦⎥ p
which can be solved for q′:
Tmax − Tb,o
q' = (15)
1 ⎡ D 2f ⎛D ⎞ 1⎤
⎢ 2 ln⎜⎜ f ⎟− ⎥+ 1 + L
2πk f ⎟ 2 πDh m& c
⎣⎢ D f − D ⎝ D
2
⎠ ⎦⎥ p
Equation (15) gives q′=9.4 kW/m and q′=12.5 kW/m for liquid sodium and liquid salt, respectively.
iv) The thermal-hydraulic analysis indicates that a liquid salt coolant is the better choice, as it affords
higher heat removal rates while requiring lower pumping power. The good thermal-hydraulic
& cp).
performance of the liquid salt is due mainly to its high heat capacity ( m
Problem 2 (20%) – Flow split in downflow
Because the two channels are connected to the same inlet and outlet plena, the total pressure change in
each channel, -ΔPtot, is the same:
L G12
− ΔPtot = f ⋅ ⋅ − ρ1 gL (16)
De 2 ρ1
L G22
− ΔPtot = f ⋅ ⋅ − ρ 2 gL (17)
De 2 ρ 2
where the form and acceleration terms were neglected, f is the friction factor (assumed equal in both
channels, as per the problem statement), De is the hydraulic diameter of the channels, G1 and G2 are the
mass fluxes in channel 1 and 2, respectively, and ρ1 and ρ2 are the average water densities in channel 1
and 2, respectively. Eliminating -ΔPtot from Eq. (16) and (17) and recognizing that ρ1>ρ2 (i.e., channel 1
is cooled, while channel 2 is heated), one gets:
G12 G22 ρ1
> ⇒ G1 > G > G2 (18)
ρ1 ρ2 ρ2 2
Therefore, the mass flow rate in channel 1 is higher than the mass flow rate in channel 2. This result is
also intuitive because cooling channel 1 and heating channel 2 creates a “chimney” effect that opposes
downflow in channel 2.
Tuesday, December 19th, 2006, 9:00am-12:00 pm
FINAL EXAM SOLUTIONS
Problem 1 (35%) – Analysis of a Liquid-Metal Reactor Vessel

i) The primary general membrane stresses for a thin cylindrical shell can be calculated as
follows:
σr = -(Pi+Pb)/2 (1)
σθ = (Pi-Pb)R/t
σz = (Pi-Pb)R/2t
where Pb=0.1 MPa is the external pressure, R=2.5 m and t=4 cm are the vessel radius and
thickness, respectively, and Pi is the internal pressure, which is a function of the elevation within
the vessel, as follows:
Pi=Pgas+ρPbgz (2)
where Pgas=0.5 MPa is the cover gas pressure, ρPb=10500 kg/m3 is the lead density, g=9.81 m/s2
is the acceleration of gravity and z is the depth measured from the free surface of the lead.
The primary general membrane stress intensity in the cylindrical shell, Pm, is:
Pm=(Pi-Pb)R/t -[-(Pi+Pb)/2] (3)
Eq. (3) shows that the stress intensity increases with increasing internal pressure, so the
maximum stress intensity in the cylindrical shell is reached at z=15 m, and is equal to about 122
MPa. Thus, the margin to the ASME code limit is Sm/Pm=138/122≈1.13, or 13%. Note that,
while the internal pressure further increases in the lower vessel head, the stress intensity in the
lower vessel head is relatively low because of its spherical geometry.
ii) First case. The pressure at the bottom of the vessel is Pi=2.3 MPa, calculated from Eq. (2) for
z=17.5 m. Assuming steady-state, incompressible, inviscid and adiabatic flow, the mass flow
rate through the break, m& , can be calculated as:
m& = GA = A 2 ρ Pb ( Pi − Pb ) ≈215 kg/s (4)
where G is the mass flux through the break and A=10 cm2 is the break size.
Second case. Here we can use the critical flow model for a perfect gas. The critical pressure,
Pcr, is given by Eq. (11-126b) in the textbook:
J. Buongiorno, 2006
γ
⎛ 2 ⎞ γ −1
Pcr = Pgas ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ≈0.264 MPa (5)
⎝ γ +1⎠
where γ=1.4. Since Pb<Pcr, critical flow is achieved in the break. To calculate the value of the
critical flow we can use Eq. (11-125) in the textbook, which can be re-rewritten for our situation
as:
γ +1
⎡ 2
⎤
⎛ ⎞ γ ⎛
⎢⎜ Pcr ⎟ ⎜ Pcr ⎟ ⎥ ⎞ γ
m& = GA = Aρi 2c pTi ⎢ − ≈ 0.765 kg/s (6)
⎜P ⎟ ⎜P ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣⎝ gas ⎠ ⎝ gas ⎠
⎥⎦
where Ti=673 K (400°C) is the temperature of the cover gas in the vessel, cp=1039 J/kg·K is the
nitrogen specific heat and ρi is the density of the cover gas in the vessel, which can be found
from the equation of state for a perfect gas as follows:
Pgas
ρi = ≈2.5 kg/m3 (7)
R*Ti
iii) The first case (i.e., break at the bottom of the vessel) is far more dangerous from a safety
viewpoint, because it has the potential to empty the vessel and uncover the core. The second
case merely results in a depressurization of the reactor without any loss of coolant (the boiling
point of lead is very high, so it does not flash upon depressurization).
Problem 2 (30%) – Boiling Crisis in the Plasma Divertor of a Fusion Reactor

i) Because the heat flux is axially uniform, the MDNBR will occur at the tube outlet:
q′DNB
′ ,out
MDNBR= (8)
q"
The Tong-68 correlation provides the value of the DNB heat flux at the tube outlet, q′DNB
′ ,out , as
follows:
G 0.4 μ 0f .6 h fg
q′DNB
′ ,out = KTong ( xe,out ) (9)
D 0.6
where G is the mass flux and D=8 mm. Substituting Eq.(9) into Eq. (8), one gets:
J. Buongiorno, 2006
μ 0f .6 h fg G 0.4
MDNBR= KTong ( xe ,out ) (10)
D 0.6 q"
The equilibrium quality at the outlet, xe,out, can be calculated starting from the energy equation:
dh q′′Ph
G = (11)
dz A
where h is the enthalpy, q″ is the heat flux, Ph=πD/2 is the heated perimeter and A=πD2/4 is the
flow area. Using the definition of equilibrium quality (xe=(h-hf)/hfg) and integrating Eq. (11),
one gets:
2q" L
xe ,out = xe ,in + (12)
Gh fg D
where xe,in=(hin-hf)/hfg= -0.326 and L=0.2 m. Equation (12) yields xe,out= -0.268 at 100% power.
Equation (12) also shows that xe,out depends only on the q″/G ratio, which is constant because
both heat flux and mass flux scale linearly with power, as per the problem statement. Thus, xe,out
is also constant in the power range 20-100%. Then Eq. (10) suggests that the MDNBR depends
only on the parameters G and q″, and can be re-written as follows:
0.4
μ 0f .6 h fg ⎛ G ⎞ 1
MDNBR= KTong ( xe,out ) ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (13)
D 0.6
⎝ q′′ ⎠ q′′0.6
Because the G/q″ ratio is constant, Eq. (13) clearly indicates that the MDNBR will have its
minimum value when the heat flux is maximum, i.e., at 100% power. The minimum value of the
MDNBR, calculated from Eq. (13) is 1.138.
ii) The equilibrium quality at the outlet is negative (-0.268), indicating that the flow conditions
are subcooled. However, the flow quality is defined positive, so assuming xe=x would be
inaccurate.
Problem 3 (35%) – Flow Dynamics of Nanofluids

i) Since the slip ratio is one, the volumetric flow rate of the nanoparticles is simply
Q& s =α Q& tot =20 cm3/s, and that of water is Q& l =(1-α) Q& tot =380 cm3/s, where Q& tot =400 cm3/s and
α=0.05. Their respective mass flow rates are m& s =ρs Q& s =80 g/s and m& l =ρℓ Q& l =380 g/s.
Therefore, the total mass flow rate of the nanofluid is m& tot = m& s + m& l =460 g/s. The mass flux, G,
is then:
m& tot [αρ s + (1 − α ) ρ l ] &

G= = Qtot =93.7 g/cm2s (14)
A A
J. Buongiorno, 2006
where A=πD2/4=4.91 cm2 and D=2.5 cm.
ii) The pressure gradient within the tube is provided by the momentum equation for downflow at
steady-state with no acceleration term (i.e., no change in density of the nanofluid within the tube)
and no form term (i.e., the tube has no change in flow area):
dP ⎞ dP ⎞ dP ⎞ 1 G2
− ⎟ = ⎟ + ⎟ = f TP − ρm g (15)
dz ⎠ tot dz ⎠ fric dz ⎠ grav D 2ρ m
where ρm=αρs+(1-α)ρℓ=1.15 g/cm3 is the mixture density, and fTP is the nanofluid friction factor,
which is equal to the liquid-only friction factor, fℓo, as per the problem statement. To calculate
fℓo, one needs to find the Reynolds number for the liquid:
GD
Re = =23425 (16)
μl
where μℓ=10-3 Pa·s. Thus the friction factor can be calculated with the correlation
fℓo=0.316/Re0.25≈0.0255 (valid for fully-developed turbulent flow in smooth tubes and
Re<30000). Thus, from Eq. (15) the friction pressure gradient is about 389 Pa/m, while the
gravity pressure gradient is about -11281 Pa/m (negative because the direction of the flow is
downward). The total pressure gradient in the tube is then -10892 Pa/m, i.e., the pressure
increases in the direction of the flow.
iii) Assume that Q& tot and α are the same, as per the problem statement. If the nanoparticles were
made of a material with higher density than alumina, the mixture density ρm would be higher,
and thus the gravity pressure gradient would be larger (more negative). As for the friction
pressure gradient, Eq. (15) and the friction factor correlation suggest that:
dP ⎞ G 1.75
⎟ ∝ (17)
dz ⎠ fric ρm
Using Eq. (14) and the definition of ρm, one gets:
dP ⎞ ρ m1.75
⎟ ∝ = ρ m0.75 (18)
dz ⎠ fric ρm
Equation (18) suggests that the pressure gradient would be higher, if the nanoparticles were
made of a material heavier than alumina.
J. Buongiorno, 2006
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 1 SOLUTION
Problem 1 (45%) – Assessment of a steam cycle with moisture separation and vapor
compression
i) T-s diagram for the modified cycle
T 70 bar
8
2 3
6
0.0737 bar
5
1 4 7
ii) The thermal efficiency of the modified cycle is:
& & &

W Turbine − WPump − WCompressor (h − h ) − (1 − x1 )(h6 − h5 ) − x1 (h8 − h7 )
η th = & = 3 4 ≈0.166
Q (h − h )
3 2
where x1 is the steam quality at Point 1. Thus the fraction of flow diverted to the pump is 1-x1
and the fraction of flow diverted to the compressor is x1. The enthalpies were clauclated as
follows:
Turbine inlet (Point 3): T3=285.7°C, P3=70 bar, h3=2772 kJ/kg, s3=5.815 kJ/kg⋅K, x3=1.0
Turbine outlet (Point 4): T4=40°C, P4=0.0737 bar, s4=s3=5.815 kJ/kg⋅K, x4=(s4-sf)/(sg-sf)=0.6822,
h4=hf+x4(hg-hf)=1809 kJ/kg
Condenser outlet (Point 1): T1=40°C, P1=0.0737 bar, s1=sf(70 bar)=3.119 kJ/kg⋅K, x1=(s1-sf)/(sg-
sf)=0.33142, h1=hf+x1(hg-hf)=965 kJ/kg
Pump inlet (Point 5): T5=40°C, P5=0.0737 bar, h5=hf=167 kJ/kg, x5=0
Pump outlet (Point 6): P6=70 bar, h6=h5+(P6-P5)vf ≈ 174 kJ/kg
Vapor compressor inlet (Point 7): T7=40°C, P7=0.0737 bar, h7=2574 kJ/kg, s7=8.257 kJ/kg⋅K,
x7=1.0
Vapor compressor outlet (Point 8): P8=70 bar, s8=s7=8.257 kJ/kg⋅K, h8=4957 kJ/kg, T8=1132°C
Feedwater heater outlet (Point 2): P2=70 bar, h2=(1-x1)⋅h6+x1⋅h8 =1759 kJ/kg
iii) The thermal efficiency of the Carnot cycle is:
T4
η th, Carnot = 1 − ≈0.440
T3
Therefore, the modified cycle does not achieve a thermal efficiency nearly as high as that of the
Carnot cycle. This is due primarily to two reasons. First, the amount of work needed to
compress the vapor from P7 to P8 is very large. Second, the temperature difference between the
two streams mixed in the feedwater heater (T8-T6) is extremely high. This process is highly
irreversible, which hurts the thermal efficiency.
Problem 2 (55%) – Analysis of a transient overpower in a PWR steam generator

i) The control volume selected to analyze the problem is the volume occupied by the secondary
coolant in the steam generator. The conservation of mass at steady state is:
0 = m& i − m& o ⇒ m& o = m& i
where m & o is the secondary coolant outlet mass flow rate. The conservation of energy for steady-
state yields the following equation:
0 = Q& + m& i hi − m& o hg ⇒ Q& = m& i (hg − hi ) =737.8 MW
where kinetic and gravitational terms were neglected and hg is the specific enthalpy of dry
saturated steam at 5.7 MPa.
ii) The conservation of mass equation is:
dM SC
= m& i − m& o (1)
dt
The conservation of energy equation is:
dESC
= 1.2Q& + m& i hi − m& o hg (2)
dt
where the total energy of the secondary coolant is:
ESC = M SC (u f + u fg x) (3)
and x is the steam quality of the secondary coolant. The total volume of the secondary coolant in
the steam generator is VSC=100 m3 and can be written as:
VSC = M SC (v f + v fg x) (4)
& i , Q& , hi, hg, uf, ufg, VSC, vf and vfg are all known. Therefore, these
In Eqs. (1) through (4) m
equations represent a system of four equations of the four unknown MSC, m & o , ESC and x, which
can be solved to find the variation of MSC(t) during the transient.
dM SC
Note that for this particular problem it is possible to find in close form, as follows.
dt
Solving Eq. (4) for x, substituting into Eq. (3), and eliminating ESC from Eq. (2) one gets:
d ⎡ u fg ⎤
⎢ M SC u f + (VSC − v f M SC )⎥ = 1.2Q& + m& i hi − m& o hg (5)
dt ⎢⎣ v fg ⎥⎦
The left-hand side of Eq. (5) can be simplified to give:
vf dM SC
(u f − u fg ) = 1.2Q& + m& i hi − m& o hg (6)
v fg dt
dM SC
& o from Eqs. (1) and (6), and solving for
Eliminating m , one gets:
dt
dM SC m& i (hg − hi ) − 1.2Q&

= = constant = -89.2 kg/s (7)
dt vf
hg − u f + u fg
v fg
Thus,
MSC(t)= MSC(0)-89.2·t (8)
where MSC(0) is 54880 kg and t is in seconds.
iii) Since the secondary coolant receives more heat, the rate at which steam is produced and
& o increases.
delivered to the turbine increases, which means m
iv) If the inlet and outlet are closed shut and heat is still being supplied to the secondary coolant,
the pressure will increase. The equations are as follows.
Mass:
dM SC
=0 ⇒ Msc = const
dt
That is, the secondary coolant mass in the steam generator does not change during the transient
and can be treated as a constant, equal to 44176 kg from Eq. (8).
Energy:
dESC
= 1.2Q& (9)
dt
where the stored energy is:
ESC = M SC [u f ( P) + u fg ( P) x] (10)
Volume:
VSC = M SC [v f ( P) + v fg ( P) x] (11)
Equations (9), (10) and (11) are three equations of the three unknown Esc, P and x, which can be
solved to find P(t).
Problem 1 (45%) – Assessment of a steam cycle with moisture separation and vapor
compression
Consider the Carnot cycle in Figure 1, which uses water as the working fluid. It is well known
that such cycle could not be realized in practice mainly due to the difficulties of designing and
operating a two-phase mixture pump (1→2). A bright MIT student thinks he can solve this
problem by separating the liquid from the vapor at Point 1, separately compressing the liquid and
vapor in a pump and compressor, respectively, and finally mixing the compressed liquid and
vapor in an open feedwater heater. A schematic layout of the modified cycle is shown in Figure
2.
2 70 bar 3
1 40°C 4
Figure 1. T-s diagram for the Carnot cycle.
Steam generator
2 3
Feedwater
heater
8
6 Turbine
Pump Vapor
compressor
5 7
Moisture
separator
1 4
Condenser
Figure 2. The modified cycle with moisture separation and vapor compression.
i) Sketch the T-s diagram for the modified cycle assuming the pump, compressor and turbine are
ideal machines. (5%)
ii) Find the thermal efficiency of the modified cycle. (35%)
iii) Find the thermal efficiency of the Carnot cycle and compare it with the answer in ‘ii’. Does the
student idea have merit? Why? (5%)

3 3
(°C) (bar) (m /kg) (m /kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg⋅K) (kJ/kg⋅K)
40 0.0737 1.01×10-3 19.54 167 2574 0.572 8.257
285.7 70 1.35×10-3 0.0275 1267 2772 3.119 5.815
Data for superheated vapor at 70 bar:

T h s
(°C) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg⋅K)
950 4497 7.905
1060 4775 8.122
1132 4957 8.257
1300 5403 8.555
Problem 2 (55%) – Analysis of a transient overpower in the PWR steam generator
The steam generator of a large PWR delivers dry saturated steam at 5.7 MPa to the turbine.
Consider the steam generator secondary side, which has a volume of 100 m3 and receives a
thermal power Q& from the primary coolant flowing in the U-tubes (Figure 3). At steady state the
operating conditions for the secondary coolant are as
follows:
- & i = 456 kg/s

Inlet mass flow rate m m& o , Tsat
- Inlet temperature Ti = 267°C (hi = 1170 kJ/kg)
- Mass of steam 880 kg
- Mass of liquid 54000 kg
i) Calculate Q& . (10%) Q&

m& i , Ti
At one point in time the operator maneuvers the reactor so
that the thermal power supplied to the secondary coolant
increases to 1.2 Q& . Assume that the secondary coolant U-tubes
pressure, inlet mass flow rate and inlet temperature do not Figure 3. Schematic of the steam
change during the transient. generator.
ii) Write a complete set of equations that would allow you to

find how the secondary coolant mass (MSC(t)) in the steam generator changes during the
transient. Clearly identify all known and unknown parameters in the equations. You may
neglect kinetic and gravitational terms. State all your assumptions. (30%)
iii) Does the secondary coolant outlet mass flow rate increase, decrease or stay the same during the
transient? (5%)
iv) Now imagine that after 2 minutes both the secondary coolant inlet and outlet are suddenly and
simultaneously closed shut, while the thermal power remains at 1.2 Q& . Does the secondary
coolant pressure increase or decrease during this transient? Write a complete set of equations
that would allow you to find the pressure change in the secondary coolant during this transient.
(10%)
Properties of saturated water at 5.7 MPa.

Parameter Value
Tsat 272°C
vf 1.3×10-3 m3/kg
vg 0.034 m3/kg
hf 1196 kJ/kg
hg 2788 kJ/kg
Cp,f 5.2 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 4.7 kJ/(kg°C)
uf 1189 kJ/kg
ug 2592 kJ/kg
TAKE HOME QUIZ 2 (SOLUTION)
Problem 1 (60%) – Hydraulic Analysis of the Emergency Core Spray System in a BWR
The numbering of the relevant locations within the system is shown in Figure 1 below.
3
1
Figure 1. Numbering of the locations within the emergency spray system.
The pumping power, W& p , is:
ΔP 1
W& p = m& pump ⋅ (1)
ρ ηp
where m& =50 kg/s, ρ=997 kg/m3, ηp=0.8 and ΔPpump is the pressure head provided by the pump
(i.e., ΔPpump=P4-P3). To find ΔPpump, we have to solve the momentum equation for this system,
which we can break down in the segments 1→2, 2→3, 3→4 and 4→5. First, let us calculate
some parameters that will be used in the analysis. The mass flux in the pipes, G, is:
m&
G= ≈6366 kg/m2s (2)
π
Di2
4
where Di=0.1 m. Obviously, the velocity in the pipes is V=G/ρ≈6.385 m/s. The Reynolds
number is the pipes, Re, is:
GDi
Re = ≈707376 (3)
μ
where μ=9×10-4 Pa⋅s. The flow is turbulent and the friction factor in the (smooth) pipes, f, can
be calculated as follows:
0.184
f = ≈0.01244 (4)
Re 0.2
Momentum equation for 1→2:
P1 − P2 = ρg ( z2 − z1 ) (5)
where z1 and z2 are the elevation of location 1 and 2, respectively.
L23 G 2 G2 G2
P2 − P3 = f ⋅ + ρg ( z3 − z2 ) + + K entrance (6)
Di 2 ρ 2ρ 2ρ
where L23=2 m, Kentrance=0.5 and the last two terms on the right-hand side of the equation
represent the form acceleration and form loss term, respectively.
⎡⎛ π 2 ⎞ 2 ⎤
G 2 G 2 ⎢⎜ 4 i ⎟ ⎥
D
L45 G 2
P4 − P5 = f ⋅ + ρg ( z5 − z4 ) + ( K elbow1 + K elbow 2 + K spray ) + ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥
Di 2 ρ 2 ρ 2 ρ ⎢⎜ Aspray ⎟ ⎥
⎢⎣⎜⎝ ⎟ ⎥⎦
⎠
(7)
where L45=27 m, Kelbow1=Kelbow2=0.9, Kspray=15 and Aspray=26 cm2. The last term on the right-
hand side of the equation represents the form acceleration term for the spray nozzle, and was
calculated using the definition of form acceleration plus the continuity equation for the nozzle:
π
ρV Di2 = ρVspray Aspray (8)
4
where Vspray is the water velocity immediately outside the nozzle.

Adding Eq. (5), (6) and (7), one gets:
⎛π 2⎞
2
G2 G2 ⎜ 4 i ⎟
D
L23 + L45 G 2
P1 − P3 + P4 − P5 = f ⋅ + ρg ( z5 − z1 ) + ( K entrance + K elbow1 + K elbow 2 + K spray ) + ⎜ ⎟
Di 2ρ 2 ρ 2 ρ ⎜ Aspray ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
(9)
where it was assumed z3≈z4, as per the problem statement. Note that z5-z1=16.5 m.
However, P1=P5=0.1 MPa and P4-P3=ΔPpump, therefore Eq. (9) becomes:
⎛π 2⎞
2
G2 G2 ⎜ 4 i ⎟
D
L23 + L45 G 2
ΔPpump = f ⋅ + ρg ( z5 − z1 ) + ( K entrance + K elbow1 + K elbow 2 + K spray ) + ⎜ ⎟
Di 2ρ 2 ρ 2 ρ ⎜ Aspray ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
(10)
Substituting all numerical values in Eq. (9), one gets ΔPpump≈766.7 kPa. Finally, Eq. (1) gives
W& p ≈48.06 kW.
ii) There are three thermal resistances here, i.e., convection in the steam, conduction in the pipe
wall and convection in the water. Thus the total temperature drop from steam to water, Tsteam-
Twater=200°C-25°C=175°C, can be expressed as:
⎡ 1 ln( Do / Di ) 1 ⎤
Tsteam − Twater = q ' ⎢ + +
πDi hi ⎥⎦
(11)
⎣ πDo ho 2πk ss
where q′ is the heat transfer rate per unit length of the pipe, Do=11 cm, ho=5000 W/m2K (given
in the problem statement), kss=14 W/m·K and hi is the heat transfer coefficient on the water side
of the pipe. Note that Eq. (11) is very similar to the expression to calculate the temperature drop
within a fuel pin. Solving for q′, one gets:
Tsteam − Twater
q' = (12)
1 ln( Do / Di ) 1
+ +
πDo ho 2πk ss πDi hi
In order to obtain q′ from Eq. (12), one needs to know hi. To find hi, we recognize that:
- The heat transfer mode is internal forced convection

- The fluid of interest is non-metallic (Pr=cpμ/k≈6.917)
- The geometry is round tube
- The flow regime is turbulent, so the boundary condition does not matter much
- Entry region effects are neglected, as suggested by the problem statement
With these assumptions the Dittus-Boelter correlation is suitable to calculate hi:
Nu = 0.023 Re 0.8 Pr 0.4 ≈2385 ⇒ hi =Nu·k/Di≈14.55 kW/m2 (13)
Substituting the numerical values in Eq. (12), one gets q′≈93 kW/m. Because the length of pipe
exposed to steam is 5 m, the total heat transfer rate is Q& =93×5≈465.1 kW.
Q&
iii) The water temperature rise due to heating from the steam is small, ΔTwater = ≈2.2°C, so
m& c p
the assumption of constant properties used in part ‘i’ is accurate.
Problem 2 (40%) – Radial and Axial Temperature Distribution in a Restructured Fuel Pin
i) Restructuring will occur where the temperature exceeds 1600°C. To find the first axial
location at which restructuring occurs, one needs to know the axial distribution of the coolant
and fuel temperature. The coolant energy equation is:
dTb ⎛ πz ⎞
m& c p = q' ( z ) = qm′ sin ⎜ ⎟ (14)
dz ⎝L⎠
where Tb is the bulk coolant temperature, z is the axial coordinate measured from the channel
inlet, m& =0.38 kg/s, cp=6.1 kJ/kg·K, q′m =40 kW/m and L=4 m. Equation (14) can be integrated
to give:
qm′ L ⎡ ⎛ πz ⎞⎤
Tb ( z ) = Tb 0 + ⎢1 − cos⎜ L ⎟⎥ (15)
m& c pπ ⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦
where Tb0=285°C. At any axial location before restructuring occurs, the max fuel temperature,
Tmax, can be calculated by means of Eq. (8-119) in the T&K textbook:
⎡ 1 1 1 R 1 ⎤
Tmax ( z ) = Tb ( z ) + q′( z ) ⎢ + + ln co + ⎥ (16)
⎢⎣ 4πk f 2πRg hg 2πkc Rci 2πRco h ⎥⎦
where kf=3 W/m·K (assumed to be independent of temperature, as per the problem statement),
Rg=4.14 mm, hg=5 kW/m2K, kc=13 W/m·K and h=25 kW/m2K. Substituting Eq. (15) into Eq.
(16), one gets:
qm′ L ⎡ ⎛ πz ⎞⎤ ⎛ πz ⎞ ⎡ 1 1 1 Rco 1 ⎤
Tmax ( z ) = Tb 0 +
m& c pπ ⎢1 − cos⎜ L ⎟⎥ + qm′ sin ⎜ L ⎟ ⎢ 4πk + 2πR h + 2πk ln R + 2πR h ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎝ ⎠ ⎢⎣ f g g c ci co ⎥
⎦
(17)
If Tmax is set equal to 1600°C, Eq. (17) can be solved for z, to find the axial location at which
restructuring first occurs. Note that Eq. (17) can be re-arranged as follows:
1 1 1 R 1 L
+ + ln co +
4πk f 2πRg hg 2πkc Rci 2πRco h ⎛ πz ⎞ m& c pπ ⎛ πz ⎞
sin ⎜ ⎟ − cos⎜ ⎟ = 1
1600°C − Tb 0 L ⎝L⎠ 1600 °C − T L ⎝L⎠
− b0
−
′
qm mc pπ
& qm′ mc pπ
&
(18)
Equation (18) is in the form a ⋅ sinx − b ⋅ cosx = 1 , with a=1.14834 and b=0.01699. Thus, the
solution is (πz/L)=1.07147, or z≈1.364 m.
ii) The linear power at z=2 m is at its maximum q′m =40 kW/m. The bulk coolant temperature at
this axial location is Tb≈307°C, obtained from Eq. (15). The fuel outer temperature, Tfo, can be
found from the following equation:
⎡ 1 1 R 1 ⎤
T fo = Tb + qm′ ⎢ + ln co + ⎥ ≈730.7°C (19)
⎢⎣ 2πRg hg 2πkc Rci 2πRco h ⎥⎦
One can find Rs, the boundary of the restructured region, from Eq. (8-99) in the T&K textbook
for the two-zone restructuring situation:
q′m ⎡⎢ ⎛⎜ Rs ⎞⎟ ⎤⎥
2
k f (1600°C − T fo ) = 1− (20)
4π ⎢ ⎜⎝ R fo ⎟⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Eq. (20) yields Rs/Rfo≈0.4251, or Rs≈1.743 mm. Then, the radius of the void region, Rv, can be
found from Eq. (8-98) in the textbook:
ρs − ρ 2
Rv2 = Rs ⇒ Rv≈0.25 mm (21)
ρs
where ρs=97 %TD and ρ=95 %TD. Finally, the maximum temperature in the fuel at this axial
location, Tmax, can be found from Eq. (8-100) in the textbook:
q′m ρ s ⎛⎜ Rs ⎞⎟ ⎧⎪ ⎛ Rv ⎞ ⎡ ⎛ Rs ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪
2 2 2
k f ,s (Tmax − 1600°C ) = ⋅ ⋅ ⎨1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎢1 + ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ ⎬ (22)

4π ρ ⎜⎝ R fo ⎟⎠ ⎪ ⎜⎝ Rs ⎟⎠ ⎢ ⎝ Rv ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭
⎩ ⎣
where kf,s≈3.093 W/m·K is the thermal conductivity of the restructured fuel (97 %TD), obtained
scaling the value at 95 %TD with the Biancharia’s correlation (spherical pores). Equation (22)
yields Tmax≈1770.8°C.
iii) There is no void region for z<1.364 m because the temperature in the fuel does not reach
1600°C. For z>1.364 m the void region expands as the linear power increases and contracts as
the linear power decreases above the fuel pin midplane. Note that there exists an axial location
where the fuel temperature drops again under 1600°C and no restructuring occurs. The
(quantitative) Rv vs. z plot is shown in Figure 2 below. While it is hard to see from this figure,
the maximum Rv is reached at a location slightly above the midplane.
Figure 2. Axial variation of the void region radius.
TAKE HOME QUIZ 2
Problem 1 (60%) – Hydraulic Analysis of the Emergency Core Spray System in a BWR
The emergency spray system of a BWR delivers cold water to the core after a large-break loss of
coolant accident has emptied the reactor vessel. The system comprises a large water pool, a
pump, a spray nozzle and connecting pipes (Figure 1). All pipes are smooth round tubes made of
stainless steel with 10 cm internal diameter and 5 mm thickness. The pipe lengths are shown in
Figure 1. Two sharp 90° elbows connect the vertical pipe to the horizontal pipe and the
horizontal pipe to the spray nozzle. Each elbow has a form loss coefficient of 0.9. The spray
nozzle has a total flow area of 26 cm2 and a form loss coefficient of 15. The suction pipe in the
pool has a sharp edged entrance with a form loss coefficient of 0.5.
Reactor vessel
12 m
Spray
nozzle
15 m 0.1 MPa
CORE 16.5 m
Pump
0.1 MPa 2m
Figure 1. The emergency spray system.
i) Calculate the pumping power required to deliver 50 kg/s of cold water to the core. (Assume
steady-state and constant water properties. Do not neglect the acceleration terms in the
momentum equation. Neglect entry region effects in calculating the friction factor. To
calculate the irreversible term of the spray nozzle form loss, use the value of the mass flux
in the pipe. Neglect the vertical dimension of the pump. The isentropic efficiency of the
pump is 80%.) (40%)
ii) The horizontal pipe leading to the spray nozzle is exposed to superheated steam at 200°C
and 0.1 MPa. The length of the exposed section is 5 m. Estimate the heat transfer rate from
the steam to the water inside the pipe. (Assume that the heat transfer coefficient on the
outer surface of the pipe is 5000 W/m2K. Neglect entry region effects in calculating the heat
transfer coefficient within the pipe.) (15%)
iii) In light of the results in ‘ii’ judge the accuracy of the constant property assumption made in
calculating the pumping power in ‘i’. (5%)
Properties of water at room temperature (25°C)

Property Value
Density 997 kg/m3
Viscosity 9×10-4 Pa⋅s
Thermal conductivity 0.61 W/m⋅K
Specific heat 4.2 kJ/kg⋅K
Properties of steam at 200°C and 0.1 MPa

Property Value
Density 0.46 kg/m3
Viscosity 2×10-5 Pa⋅s
Thermal conductivity 0.03 W/m⋅K
Properties of stainless steel

Property Value
Density 8000 kg/m3
Thermal conductivity 14 W/m⋅K
Problem 2 (40%) – Radial and Axial Temperature Distribution in a Restructured Fuel Pin
You are to analyze the temperature distribution in a PWR fuel pin that has undergone
restructuring.
Fuel Pin Geometry and Density

The fuel pin is composed of a clad, a gap and a UO2 fuel pellet (Figure 2). Assume two zone
fuel restructuring.
Rco 4.75 mm Rco

Rci 4.18 mm
Rfo 4.10 mm Rfo
Active fuel length, L 4.0 m Rci
Density of the as-manufactured fuel pellet 95 %TD
Density of restructured fuel region 97 %TD
(T≥1600°C) Figure 2. The as-manufactured
fuel pin.
Thermo-physical Properties
Coolant specific heat, cp 6.1 kJ/kg·K
Heat transfer coefficient 25 kW/m2K
(coolant/clad), h
Clad conductivity, kc 13 W/m·K
Gap conductance, hg 5 kW/m2K
Fuel conductivity, kf (at 95 %TD) 3 W/m·K (independent of temperature. Use Biancharia’s
correlation to account for the effect of porosity)
Operating Conditions
Coolant entry temperature 285°C
Mass flow rate in peak channel 0.38 kg/s
Peak linear power 40 kW/m
Axial power shape Cosine
Operating pressure 15.5 MPa
i) Find the first axial location where restructuring occurs. (15%)
ii) What is the maximum fuel temperature at the pin midplane, i.e., 2 m from the inlet? (15%)
iii) Provide a qualitative plot of the fuel pellet void radius (Rv) as a function of the axial
coordinate z. (10%)
Useful trigonometry formula to be used in solving Part ‘i’:

⎡ a - a 2 + b2 -1 ⎤
a ⋅ sinx − b ⋅ cosx = 1 ⇒ x = 2 ⋅ atan ⎢ ⎥
⎣⎢ 1− b ⎦⎥
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 1 (solutions)
Problem 1 (55%) - Nuclear cogeneration plant

i) The T-s diagram for the cycle is shown in Figure 1.
T
1
6 • 2
2s
5s 5 •3
4
s
Figure 1. T-s diagram for the cogeneration Brayton cycle.
ii) The condition that the thermal efficiency has to be equal to 0.3 can be expressed
mathematically as follows:
WT −WC
ηth ≡ =0.3 (1)
Q1→6
Turbine
( γ −1) / γ
⎛P ⎞
The temperature of point 2s is T2s = T1 ⎜⎜ 2s ⎟⎟ = T1r (p1−γ ) / γ where T1=1000 K and
⎝ P1 ⎠
rp=P1/P2s=2. From the definition of isentropic efficiency of the turbine (ηT=0.9) it is possible
to calculate T2 as
T2 = T1 − ηT (T1 − T2s ) = T1[1− ηT (1− r (p1−γ ) / γ )] ≈782 K
The turbine work is then:
WT = c p (T1 − T2 ) ≈1132 kJ/kg
Where cp=5193 J/kg-K.
Compressor
( γ −1) / γ
⎛P ⎞
The temperature of point 5s is T5s = T4 ⎜⎜ 5s ⎟⎟ = T4 r (pγ −1) / γ where T4=373 K and
⎝ P4 ⎠
rp=P5s/P4=2. From the definition of isentropic efficiency of the compressor (ηC=0.9) it is
possible to calculate T5 as
(T5s − T4 ) r (pγ −1) / γ −1
T5 = T4 + = T4 [1+ ] ≈505 K
ηC ηC
The compressor work is then:
WC = c p (T5 − T4 ) ≈688 kJ/kg
Reactor and Regenerator

The reactor heat rate per unit mass of helium is:
Q1→6 = c p (T1 − T6 ) (2)
T6 is the temperature at the outlet of the regenerator. To relate T6 to T3 (the unknown of the
problem), one has to analyze the regenerator. The energy balance for the regenerator is
c p (T6 − T5 ) = c p (T2 − T3 ) , which yields:
T6 = T5 + T2 − T3 = 1287 − T3 (3)
Back substituting Eq. (3) and (2) into Eq. (1) and solving for T3, one gets T3≈572 K and then
(from Eq. 3) T6≈715 K.
iii) The EUF of this cycle is obviously equal to one, because all heat produced by the reactor is
either converted to (net) work in the turbine and compressor or utilized in the cogeneration
heat exchanger, i.e., no heat is discharged to the environment. Mathematically:
WT −WC + Q3→4 c p (T1 − T2 ) − c p (T5 − T4 ) + c p (T3 − T4 )

EUF = = =1
Q6→1 c p (T1 − T6 )
iv) The power of the cogeneration heat exchanger, i.e., the power required to generate 100 kg/s
of saturated steam at 0.5 MPa from water at 80°C (also at 0.5 MPa), is:
[ ]
Q& CGHX = m& w c pw (Tsat − Tin ) + h fg ≈241 MW
Where Tsat=152°C is the saturation temperature at 0.5 MPa, cpw= 4.24 kJ/kg-K is the specific
heat of water and hfg=2109 kJ/kg is the water enthalpy of vaporization.
Now, to find the reactor thermal power, Q& 6→1 , one can proceed in two different ways:
1. The energy balance for the whole cycle is Q& 6→1 +W&C = W&T + Q& 3→4 . Recognizing that
& −W&
W Q&
Q& 3→4 = Q& CGHX and that ηth ≡ T& C , one gets Q&1→6 = 3→4 ≈348 MW
Q1→6 1 − ηth
2. Recognizing that Q& 3→4 = Q& CGHX , one has Q& CGHX = m
& He c p (T3 − T4 ) , from which the
helium mass flow rate can be calculated, m& He ≈233 kg/s. Then,
Q&1→6 = m& He c p (T1 − T6 ) ≈348 MW.
v) The main issues hindering development of nuclear cogeneration for residential heating on a
large scale are as follows.
• For safety reasons nuclear plants are sited far from major residential areas. As such, heat
transport losses and costs from the plant to the end users would be high.
• The residential heating load varies greatly throughout the year and even during a single
day. This may force frequent changes in the operating conditions of the plant, something
nuclear plants are not particularly suitable for.
Note that questions (iii), (iv) and (v) could be answered without answering question (ii).
Problem 2 (45%) – Pressure rise in a BWR suppression pool during a LOCA

i) As the steam coming from the reactor is condensed in the pool, the pool temperature increases,
which leads to a higher partial pressure of nitrogen and steam in the wet well. When the wet well
pressure reaches 0.68 MPa, the safety/relief valve opens. Since the steam discharge rate, m& i , is
constant in time, the time at which the safety/relief valve opens, t2, is simply:
t 2 = M i / m& i (4)
Where Mi is the mass of steam that will cause the pressure to rise to 0.68 MPa. To find Mi, we
need to use the conservation of mass, energy, volume and the definition of the total pressure in
the wet well. But first let us identify the initial conditions (t1=0) for the system. The initial mass
of water in the pool is 240×996=239000 kg, where 996 kg/m3 is the density of water at 30°C
(from the steam tables). The mass of nitrogen in the system, MN, is found from the equation of
state:
PN1V N1
MN = = 215 kg
RN T1
WhereVN1=160 m3, T1=303 K (30°C) and PN1 is the partial pressure of nitrogen:
PN1 = P1 − Psat(30°C ) =96.8 kPa
Where P1=0.101 MPa is the initial wet well pressure and, as the initial humidity in the wet well is
100%, Psat(30°C)=4.2 kPa is the saturation pressure of steam at 30°C (obtained from the steam
tables). Obviously, the mass of steam initially in the nitrogen is VN1/vsat(30°C)=6 kg, where
vsat(30°C)=32.9 m3/kg is the specific volume of saturated steam at 30°C (from the steam tables).
Therefore the total mass of water initially present in the system is Mw1=239000+6=239006 kg.
The total water internal energy at t1=0 is Ew1=239000×125+6×2146≈3×1010 J with 125 kJ/kg and
2146 kJ/kg being the specific internal energy of the pool water and steam in the wet well,
respectively.
Now, we can write the equations to find Mi.
Mass conservation
∂M CV
= m& i ⇒ ( M w 2 + M N ) − ( M w1 + M N ) = M i ⇒ M w 2 = M w1 + M i
∂t
(5)
Energy conservation
∂E
= m& i hi ⇒ E 2 − E1 = M i hi ⇒
∂t
M w 2 [u f (T2 ) + x2 u fg (T2 )] + M N u N 2 − E w1 − M N u N 1 = M i hi ⇒
M w2 [u f (T2 ) + x2 u fg (T2 )] + M N cvN (T2 − T1 ) − E w1 = M i hi (6)
Where hi=2600 kJ/kg is the enthalpy of the steam coming from the reactor, x2 is the steam quality
at t2 and cvN=742 J/kg-K.
Volume
The total volume of the suppression pool does not change during the accident. Therefore:
Vtot = 440 m 3 = M w 2 [v f (T2 ) + x2 v fg (T2 )] (7)
Finally, the total pressure at t2 is equal to 0.68 MPa and also equal to the sum of the steam and
nitrogen partial pressures:
M N RN T2
P2 = 0.68 MPa = Pw2 (T2 ) + PN 2 = Pw2 (T2 ) + (8)
[Vtot − M w2 (1− x2 )v f (T2 )]
Equations (5) through (8) are four equations in the four unknowns Mi, Mw2, T2 and x2. When Mi is
found, Eq. (4) provides t2. The numerical values for these parameters can be found by iteration
and are Mi=60000 kg, Mw2=299006 kg, T2=147.4°C, x2=0.0009, t2=60 s.
ii)
Effects that tend to increase the level:
1. water heat up leads to lower density

2. condensation of steam from reactor leading to more liquid water in the pool
Effects that tend to decrease the level:
3. water heat up leads to water evaporation into the wet well (this is also the main effect
causing the wet well pressure to rise)
The dominant effect is number 2, so the level during the LOCA actually increases.

Problem 1 (55%) - Nuclear cogeneration plant

A High-Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) is being considered for cogeneration of electricity
and heat for residential heating. This HTGR uses the direct Brayton cycle shown in Figure 1,
which comprises a turbine, a regenerator, a cogeneration heat exchanger (3→4) and a
compressor. The cogeneration heat exchanger is used to generate steam, which is then sent to the
residential area served by the plant. The helium temperature and pressure at the turbine inlet are
1000 K and 9 MPa, respectively. The minimum temperature in the cycle is 373 K. The cycle
operates with a compression ratio equal to 2. The isentropic efficiency for the turbo-machines
(turbine and compressor) is 0.9. Assume negligible pressure losses throughout the cycle.
Reactor
6
1
Turbine
5
Compressor
2
Regenerator
Cogeneration
heat exchanger
4 3
Return water Steam to residential

heating system
Figure 1. Schematic of the nuclear cogeneration plant.
i) Sketch the T-s diagram for the cycle. (5%)
ii) An important parameter to select is the cogeneration temperature T3. If T3 is too high,
regeneration is minimal and the cycle thermal efficiency becomes too low. If T3 is too
low, the amount of heat delivered to the residential heating system may be too low. Find
the value of T3 that will give a cycle thermal efficiency equal to 30%. (30%)
iii) What is the energy utilization factor (EUF) of this cycle? The EUF is defined as the ratio
of the energy utilized (net work + cogeneration heat) to the heat input (reactor heat). (5%)
iv) What is the reactor thermal power if the plant is to produce 100 kg/s of saturated steam at
0.5 MPa from the return water at 80°C? (10%)
v) Nuclear cogeneration for residential heating has been rarely done. What are in your
opinion the drawbacks of this approach? (5%)
Useful properties
Helium: Treat as an ideal gas with cp= 5193 J/kg-K, R=2077 J/kg-K, γ=1.667.
Water at 0.5 MPa (Tsat=152°C): specific heat = 4.24 kJ/kg-K, enthalpy of vaporization = 2109
kJ/kg
Problem 2 (45%) – Pressure rise in a BWR suppression pool during a LOCA

In a BWR containment the steam discharged from the reactor during a Loss of Coolant Accident
(LOCA) is directed to and condensed in a large suppression pool (Figure 2). The free volume
above the water in the pool (i.e., the so-called ‘wet well’) is sealed tight and filled with nitrogen
gas. The wet well is equipped with a safety/relief valve that opens at 0.68 MPa.
Steam from reactor

Safety/relief valve
Wet well
Liquid level
Figure 2. The BWR suppression pool.
i) Assuming that during a large LOCA the rate of steam discharge to the pool is 1000 kg/s
(constant in time), write a complete set of equations that would allow you to calculate the
time at which the safety/relief valve opens. (35%)
ii) Does the liquid level (i.e., height of water) in the pool increase, decrease or stay the same
during the LOCA (prior to the safety/relief valve opening)? To get full credit for this
question, it is sufficient to list the effects that tend to increase the level and those that tend
to decrease the level, and take a guess based on your engineering judgment of the relative
importance of such effects. (10%)
Data
Initial liquid water volume in the pool: 240 m3
Initial relative humidity of nitrogen: 100%
Initial temperature of the pool: 30°C
Initial pressure of the pool: 0.101 MPa (atmospheric)
Nitrogen specific heat at constant volume: 742 J/kg-K
Nitrogen gas constant: 297 J/kg-K
Enthalpy of the steam discharged into the pool: 2600 kJ/kg
Assumptions
- Steam tables are available
- Treat nitrogen as a perfect gas
- Thermodynamic equilibrium exists in the suppression pool throughout the accident
- Neglect heat transfer between the pool and the surrounding structures


Steam
Riser g
L
Downcomer
Q&
Heater
Assumptions:
- Steady state
⎛ρ ⎞
⎜ρ ⎟
⎝ g ⎠
Parameter Value
Tsat 234°C (507 K)
ρf 822 kg/m3
ρg 15 kg/m3
hf 1,008 kJ/kg
hg 2,803 kJ/kg
Cp,f 4.7 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 3.6 kJ/(kg°C)
μf 1.1×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 1.7×10-5 Pa⋅s
kf 0.638 W/(m°C)
kg 0.047 W/(m°C)
σ 0.030 N/m
q″
D
G
z
Parameter Value
Tsat 180°C (453 K)
ρf 887 kg/m3
ρg 5.1 kg/m3
hf 763 kJ/kg
hg 2,778 kJ/kg
Cp,f 4.4 kJ/(kg°C)
Cp,g 2.6 kJ/(kg°C)
μf 1.5×10-4 Pa⋅s
μg 1.4×10-5 Pa⋅s
kf 0.677 W/(m°C)
kg 0.034 W/(m°C)
σ 0.042 N/m
R* 462 J/kg⋅K
∂h q"Ph
∂z A
G(t)
Go
(10%)
Nsub
Nsub=Npch - 4
Stable Unstable
0 6 12 Npch




m& 2
2 ρ f A2
in the riser is:
ρ riser = αρ g + (1− α ) ρ f (2)
1
α= (3)
ρ 1− x
1+ g ⋅
ρf x
separator is:
⎛ ρf ⎞
φlo2 = 1+ x⎜⎜ −1⎟
⎟
(4)
⎝ ρg ⎠
heater:
Q& = xh fg m& ⇒ x = Q& /(h fg m& ) (5)
(ρ f − ρg ) ⎡ ⎛ ρf ⎞⎤ m& 2
&
gL = ⎢1+ Q /(mh fg )
& ⎜ ⎟
−1 ⎥ K (6)
1− Q& /(m& h fg ) ρ g ⎜ρ ⎟ 2 ρ A2
1+ & ⎢
⎣ ⎝ g ⎠⎦⎥ f
Q /(m& h fg ) ρ f
ρ
ρg
2 ρ g A2 ( ρ f − ρ g )gL
m& = (7)
have a maximum.
Q& /(m& h fg )


q"Ph t / τ
h(z,t) = hin + ze (8)
AGo
xe
(z,t) ≡ = + zet / τ (9)
h fg h fg h fg AGo
q"Ph
Tb (z,t) = Tin + zet / τ (10)
C p, f AGo
⎡ C (T − T ) AGo ⎤
⎣ q"Ph L ⎦
8R*Tsat2 σ
k f h fg P
a
Ph fg q"
q"= H (Tw − Tb ) (13)
G(t)
Go
channel:
⎡ ⎤
⎢ T −T ⎥
tONB = τ ln ⎢ w,ONB in ⎥ ≈11.7 s (14)
⎢ q"Ph L + q" ⎥
⎣ ⎦
⎧ q"D
⎪0.0022 k Pe < 7 ×10 4
⎪ f
(Tsat − Tb )OSV =⎨ (15)
⎪ q" Pe ≥ 7 ×10 4
⎪ 154
GC
⎩ p , f
channel:

t OSV = τ ln ⎢ ⎥ ≈23.3 s (16)
⎣ q"P h L ⎦
′ decreases with
MDNBR
0 tONB tDNB t (s)

Tw = Tb + q"/ H (17)
Temperature
Tw
Tw,ONB
Tsat
Tb

number, Nsub:
N sub = ⋅ (18)
ρg h fg
N pch = ⋅ (19)
ρg GAh fg
⎛ G ⎞
tcr = τ ln⎜⎜ o ⎟⎟ ≈26.5 s (20)
⎝ Gunst ⎠
Nsub
(3,34) t
•
(38,34)
Nsub=Npch - 4
0 6 12 Npch

K
ΔTsat ,cr = (21)
rmin
⎧ rc
⎪ sin θ θ > 90o
⎪
rmin =⎨ (22)
⎪ r θ ≤ 90 o
⎪ c
⎩
i
1
2
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary............................................................................................... v
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
2. Background ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 The Energy Landscape ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2 The Value and Need for an “Energy Portfolio” Approach................................................ 7
2.3 Nuclear Energy as an Element of the Future U.S. Energy Portfolio ................................. 8
3. Mission and Goals of the Office of Nuclear Energy .....................................11
3.1 The Office of Nuclear Energy Mission ........................................................................... 11
3.2 Nuclear Energy R&D Objectives and the Role of NE in Achieving Them .................... 11
3.2.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can Improve
the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of Current Reactors ................... 12
3.2.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New Reactors
to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the Administration's Energy Security and
Climate Change Goals ...................................................................................................... 12
3.2.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles .......................................... 13
3.2.4 R&D Objective 4: Understand and Minimize the Risks of Nuclear Proliferation
and Terrorism.................................................................................................................... 13
4. An Integrated Nuclear Energy Roadmap .....................................................15
4.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can
Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of
Current Reactors.............................................................................................................. 16
4.1.1 Challenges Facing the Current Fleet................................................................................. 17
4.1.2 R&D Topics for Life Extension and Performance Improvement ..................................... 18
4.1.3 Key Activities ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New
Reactors to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the Administration's
Energy Security and Climate Change Goals ................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Challenges Facing New Reactor Deployments................................................................. 22
4.2.2 R&D Topics for Enabling New Builds ............................................................................. 22
4.2.3 Key Activities ................................................................................................................... 26
4.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles ........................................ 27
4.3.1 Major Challenges Associated with Fuel Cycle Options ................................................... 30
APRIL 2010 i
3
4.3.2 R&D for Sustainable Fuel Cycle Options ......................................................................... 31
4.3.3 Key Activities ................................................................................................................... 33
4.4 R&D Objective 4: Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear
Proliferation and Terrorism ............................................................................................. 34
4.4.1 Challenges......................................................................................................................... 36
4.4.2 R&D for Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear Proliferation and
Terrorism .......................................................................................................................... 37
4.4.3 Key Activities and Milestones .......................................................................................... 39
5. R&D Approach ................................................................................................41
5.1 Solution-Driven, Goal-Oriented, Science-Based Approach to Nuclear
Energy Development ....................................................................................................... 41
5.2 Enabling Technologies .................................................................................................... 42
5.3 R&D Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 44
5.4 Interfaces and Coordination ............................................................................................ 44
6. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................47
Figures
Figure 1. Major Elements of a Science-Based Approach ......................................................... viii

Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 3

Figure 3. 2005 Human Development Index vs. Energy Consumption ........................................ 4

Figure 4. U.S. Primary Energy Use in 2008 ................................................................................. 5

Figure 5. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2007 ...................................................................... 6

Figure 6. U.S. Nuclear Energy History, 1980 – 2008 .................................................................. 8

Figure 7. NE Mission, R&D Objectives, and Technologies ...................................................... 15

Figure 8. Nuclear Capacity With and Without License Extensions ........................................... 17

Figure 9. Key Activities for R&D Objective 1 .......................................................................... 21


Figure 11. Constituents of Used LWR Fuel ................................................................................. 28



Figure 14. Major Elements of Science-Based Research, Development & Demonstration .......... 42

ii APRIL 2010
4
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BTU British Thermal Units

CO2 Carbon dioxide
DOE Department of Energy
EE DOE–Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EIA Energy Information Agency
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FE DOE–Office of Fossil Energy
GDP Gross domestic product
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWe Gigawatt (electric)
GWe-yr Gigawatt-year (electric)
HTGR High-temperature gas-cooled reactor
HTR High-temperature reactor
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
II&C Instrumentation, information and control
IPSR Integral primary system reactor
ITAAC Inspections, test, analyses and acceptance criteria
kW-hr Kilowatt-hour
LWR Light-water reactor
MPACT Materials Protection, Accounting and Control for Transmutation
MT Metric ton
MWe Megawatt (electric)
MWh Megawatt-hour
NDE Nondestructive evaluation
NE DOE–Office of Nuclear Energy
NEA Nuclear Energy Agency
NGNP Next Generation Nuclear Plant
NGSI Next Generation Safeguards Initiative
NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
R&D Research and development
RISMC Risk-informed safety margin characterization
SC DOE–Office of Science
SMR Small, modular reactor
UNF Used nuclear fuel
APRIL 2010 iii

5
iv APRIL 2010
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To achieve energy security and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction objectives, the United
States must develop and deploy clean, affordable, domestic energy sources as quickly as
possible. Nuclear power will continue to be a key component of a portfolio of technologies that
meets our energy goals. This document provides a roadmap for the Department of Energy’s
(DOE’s) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) research, development, and demonstration activities that
will ensure nuclear energy remains viable energy option for the United States.
Today, the key challenges to the increased use of nuclear energy, both domestically and
internationally, include:
• The capital cost of new large plants is high and can challenge the ability of electric utilities
to deploy new nuclear power plants.
• The exemplary safety performance of the U.S. nuclear industry over the past thirty years
must be maintained by an expanding reactor fleet.
• There is currently no integrated and permanent solution to high-level nuclear waste
management.
• International expansion of the use of nuclear energy raises concerns about the proliferation
of nuclear weapons stemming from potential access to special nuclear materials and
technologies.
In some cases, there is a necessary and appropriate federal role in overcoming these challenges,
consistent with the primary mission of NE to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of
making major contributions to meeting the nation’s energy supply, environmental, and energy
security needs. This is accomplished by resolving technical, cost, safety, security and
proliferation resistance barriers, through research, development, and demonstration, as
appropriate. NE’s research and development (R&D) activities will help address challenges and
thereby enable the deployment of new reactor technologies that will support the current fleet of
reactors and facilitate the construction of new ones.
Research and Development Objectives

NE organizes its R&D activities along four main R&D objectives that address challenges to
expanding the use of nuclear power: (1) develop technologies and other solutions that can
improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors; (2) develop
improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the
Administration's energy security and climate change goals; (3) develop sustainable nuclear fuel
cycles; and (4) understanding and minimization of risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
APRIL 2010 v
7
R&D OBJECTIVE 1: Develop technologies and other solutions that can

improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current
reactors
The existing U.S. nuclear fleet has a remarkable safety and performance record, and today these
reactors account for 70 percent of the low greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting domestic electricity
production. Extending the operating lifetimes of current plants beyond sixty years and, where
possible, making further improvements in their productivity will generate near-term benefits.
Industry has a significant financial incentive to extend the life of existing plants, and as such,
activities will be cost shared. Federal R&D investments are appropriate to answer fundamental
scientific questions and, where private investment is insufficient, to help make progress on
broadly applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits. The DOE role in this
R&D objective is to work in conjunction with industry and where appropriate the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support and conduct the long-term research needed to inform
major component refurbishment and replacement strategies, performance enhancements, plant
license extensions, and age-related regulatory oversight decisions. DOE will focus on aging
phenomena and issues that require long-term research and are generic to reactor type.
R&D OBJECTIVE 2: Develop improvements in the affordability of new

reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy
security and climate change goals
If nuclear energy is to be a strong component of the nation’s future energy portfolio, barriers to
the deployment of new nuclear plants must be overcome. Impediments to new plant deployment,
even for those designs based on familiar light-water reactor (LWR) technology, include the
substantial capital cost of new plants and the uncertainties in the time required to license and
construct those plants. Although subject to their own barriers for deployment, more advanced
plant designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and high-temperature reactors (HTRs),
have characteristics that could make them more desirable than today’s technology. SMRs, for
example, have the potential to achieve lower proliferation risks and more simplified construction
than other designs. The development of next-generation reactors could present lower capital
costs and improved efficiencies. These reactors may be based upon new designs that take
advantage of the advances in high performance computing while leveraging capabilities afforded
by improved structural materials. Industry plays a substantial role in overcoming the barriers in
this area. DOE provides support through R&D ranging from fundamental nuclear phenomena to
the development of advanced fuels that could improve the economic and safety performance of
these advanced reactors. Nuclear power can reduce GHG emissions from electricity production
and possibly in co-generation by displacing fossil fuels in the generation of process heat for
applications including refining and the production of fertilizers and other chemical products.
vi APRIL 2010
8
R&D OBJECTIVE 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

Sustainable fuel cycle options are those that improve uranium resource utilization, maximize
energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety, and limit proliferation risk. The
key challenge is to develop a suite of options that will enable future decision makers to make
informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel from reactors. The Administration has
established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to inform this waste-
management decision-making process. DOE will conduct R&D in this area to investigate
technical challenges involved with three potential strategies for used fuel management:
• Once-Through – Develop fuels for use in reactors that would increase the efficient use of
uranium resources and reduce the amount of used fuel requiring direct disposal for each
megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced. Additionally, evaluate the inclusion of
non-uranium materials (e.g., thorium) as reactor fuel options that may reduce the long-lived
radiotoxic elements in the used fuel that would go into a repository.
• Modified Open Cycle – Investigate fuel forms and reactors that would increase fuel
resource utilization and reduce the quantity of long-lived radiotoxic elements in the used
fuel to be disposed (per MWh), with limited separations steps using technologies that
substantially lower proliferation risk.
• Full Recycling – Develop techniques that will enable the long-lived actinide elements to be
repeatedly recycled rather than disposed. The ultimate goal is to develop a cost-effective
and low proliferation risk approach that would dramatically decrease the long-term danger
posed by the waste, reducing uncertainties associated with its disposal.
DOE will work to develop the best approaches within each of these tracks to inform waste
management strategies and decision making.
R&D OBJECTIVE 4: Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear

proliferation and terrorism
It is important to assure that the benefits of nuclear power can be obtained in a manner that limits
nuclear proliferation and security risks. These risks include the related but distinctly separate
possibilities that nations may attempt to use nuclear technologies in pursuit of a nuclear weapon
and that terrorists might seek to steal material that could be used in a nuclear explosive device.
Addressing these concerns requires an integrated approach that incorporates the simultaneous
development of nuclear technologies, including safeguards and security technologies and
systems, and the maintenance and strengthening of non-proliferation frameworks and protocols.
Technological advances can only provide part of an effective response to proliferation risks, as
institutional measures such as export controls and safeguards are also essential to addressing
proliferation concerns. These activities must be informed by robust assessments developed for
understanding, limiting, and managing the risks of nation-state proliferation and physical
security for nuclear technologies. NE will focus on assessments required to inform domestic fuel
APRIL 2010 vii

9
cycle technology and system option development. These analyses would complement those
assessments performed by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to evaluate
nation state proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime. NE will work with other
organizations including the NNSA, the Department of State, the NRC, and others in further
defining, implementing and executing this integrated approach.
R&D Areas
The Department expects to undertake R&D in a variety of areas to support its role in the
objectives outlined above. Examples include: Figure 1. Major Elements of a
Science-Based Approach
• Structural materials
• Nuclear fuels
• Reactor systems
• Instrumentation and controls
• Power conversion systems
• Process heat transport systems
• Dry heat rejection
• Separations processes
• Waste forms
• Risk assessment methods
• Computational modeling and simulation
R&D Approach
A goal-driven, science-based approach is essential to
achieving the stated objectives while exploring new technologies and seeking transformational
advances. This science-based approach, depicted in Figure 1, combines theory, experimentation,
and high-performance modeling and simulation to develop the fundamental understanding that
will lead to new technologies. Advanced modeling and simulation tools will be used in
conjunction with smaller-scale, phenomenon-specific experiments informed by theory to reduce
the need for large, expensive integrated experiments. Insights gained by advanced modeling and
simulation can lead to new theoretical understanding and, in turn, can improve models and
experimental design. This R&D must be informed by the basic research capabilities in the DOE
Office of Science (SC).
NE maintains access to a broad range of facilities to support its research activities. Hot cells and
test reactors are at the top of the hierarchy, followed by smaller-scale radiological facilities,
specialty engineering facilities, and small non-radiological laboratories. NE employs a multi-
pronged approach to having these capabilities available when needed. The core capabilities rely
on DOE-owned irradiation, examination, chemical processing and waste form development
facilities. These are supplemented by university capabilities ranging from research reactors to
materials science laboratories. In the course of conducting this science-based R&D,
viii APRIL 2010

10
infrastructure needs will be evaluated and considered through the established planning and
budget development processes.
There is potential to leverage and amplify effective U.S. R&D through collaboration with other
nations via multilateral and bilateral agreements, including the Generation IV International
Forum. DOE is also a participant in Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) initiatives that bear directly on the development and deployment of new reactor systems.
In addition to these R&D activities, international interaction supported by NE and other
government agencies will be essential in establishment of international norms and control
regimes to address and mitigate proliferation concerns.
APRIL 2010 ix
11
x APRIL 2010
12
1. INTRODUCTION
Access to affordable, abundant energy – chiefly from fossil fuel sources – has been a key enabler
of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. However, as the first decade of the 21st
century draws to a close, the United States finds itself confronted with economic, environmental,
and national security challenges related in part to the manner in which our society produces,
distributes, and uses energy. Continued access to plentiful, secure, and environmentally benign
energy is fundamental to overcoming these challenges.
Nuclear power is a proven
Nuclear energy is an important element of the diverse
clean, affordable, domestic
energy portfolio required to accomplish our national
objectives. NE conducts research and development,
energy source that is part of
and demonstrations, as appropriate, that will help the current U.S. energy
enable the benefits of clean, safe, secure and affordable portfolio.
nuclear energy to continue and expand.
This document identifies opportunities and challenges associated with continued and increased
use of fission energy to enhance our nation’s prosperity, security, and environmental quality;
outlines the NE role and mission in enabling the benefits of nuclear energy for our nation; and
presents a strategy and roadmap to guide the NE scientific and technical agenda. The report
presents a high-level vision and framework for R&D activities needed to keep the nuclear energy
option viable in the near term and to expand its use in the decades ahead.
Section 2 describes the current energy production and utilization landscape in the United States.
Section 3 articulates NE’s fundamental mission and role in enabling nuclear energy solutions and
presents the four R&D objectives for nuclear energy development that are the focus of NE
activities. The details of the roadmap are presented in Section 4. The R&D approach presented
in Section 5 embodies a goal-oriented, science-based R&D portfolio that includes both
evolutionary and transformational, high-risk–high-payoff R&D, including those research areas
that encompass multiple objectives. Finally, Section 6 provides a summary of the objects
presented in this report.
This report is not an implementation plan, but rather provides a basis that will guide NE’s
internal programmatic and strategic planning for research going forward.
APRIL 2010 1
13
The report focuses on R&D activities sponsored by NE.

The U.S. nuclear industry plays a central role in To achieve its energy
overcoming barriers and is ultimately responsible for security and GHG reduction
the commercial deployment of the resulting objectives, the U.S. must
technologies. NE intends to proceed in a manner that develop and deploy clean,
supports a strong and viable nuclear industry in the
United States and preserves the ability of that industry
affordable, domestic energy
to participate in nuclear projects here and abroad. sources as quickly as
possible.
Finally, it should be noted that in some limited cases,
NE’s mission extends beyond terrestrial deployment of nuclear energy into other arenas, such as
space applications of both fission and radioisotope power systems. Some technology
development needs identified in this document also benefit space applications, but these mission
arenas are not addressed in this roadmap. Educational programs, while vital, are interwoven
through the technical programs and are not discussed as separate entities.
2 APRIL 2010
14
2. BACKGROUND
All governments of the world share a common challenge to ensure their people have access to
affordable, abundant, and environmentally friendly energy. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has
reiterated the Administration’s position that nuclear is an important part of the energy mix. He
has recognized the importance of nuclear energy in meeting this challenge and supports R&D
that can help increase the benefits of nuclear energy. A key objective that will shape the energy
landscape of the United States is the transition to clean energy sources with reductions in GHG
emissions (with a quantitative goal of 83% reduction below 2005 emissions levels by 2050,
shown in Figure 2).
Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1
2.1 The Energy Landscape
The Human Development Index 2 is a commonly used measure of quality of life. Figure 3
illustrates that a nation’s standard of living depends in part on energy consumption. Access to
adequate energy is now and will continue to be required to achieve a high quality of life.
Economic development, combined with efforts to limit carbon emissions, will likely lead to a
12007 GHG emissions reported in EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2007 EPA
430-R-09-004, April 15, 2009. Administration emission goals taken from the “Testimony of Peter R. Orszag,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of
Representatives” on March 3, 2009.
2
The index was developed by the United Nations to enable cross-national comparisons of development and is
updated in an annual report. The derivation of the index was introduced in United Nations Development
Programme, Human Development Report 1990, Oxford University Press, 1990.
APRIL 2010 3
15
significant expansion of nuclear power. The U.S., in concert with the international community,
must develop the technologies and systems to accomplish such expansion while limiting
proliferation risks.
Figure 3. 2005 Human Development Index vs. Energy Consumption

(Per Capita Kilograms Oil Equivalent)
As we move forward, efficiency and conservation will become ever-increasing components of

energy policy. However, conservation and energy efficiency alone will not be sufficient to
maintain a desirable quality of life.
The United States currently consumes roughly 100 quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTU), or
100 quads, of primary energy. 3 This represents 25% of world’s energy consumption in a country
that produces 30% of the global gross domestic product (GDP). Figure 4 shows energy
consumption in the United States as a function of sectors and energy sources. At present, 40% of
the total energy consumed is in the form of electricity, of which about 20 percent is generated by
nuclear power. With 6 billion metric tons (MT) of emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) as a result of
fossil fuel usage (see Figure 5), the United States contributes 25 percent of global GHGs emitted.
3The data in Figures 5 and 6 are reported by the U.S. DOE Energy Information Agency “An Updated Annual
Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case,” 2009.
4 APRIL 2010
16
Figure 4. U.S. Primary Energy Use in 2008
17
APRIL 2010 5
Figure 5. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2007
18
6 APRIL 2010
The Administration’s clean energy and climate change objectives are ambitious and achievable.
Successful achievement of these objectives will require solutions to technical challenges
associated with various energy sectors, including:
• Electricity Sector GHG Production – As seen in Figures 4 and 5, the U.S. electricity
production sector annually consumes 40 quadrillion BTU of primary energy, producing
4,150 million MWh of electricity, and emitting 2,400 million MT of CO2. The average
carbon intensity of the U.S. electric-generating sector is 0.58 MT–CO2/MWh of electricity
produced. While far from the world’s highest carbon intensity (China produces 0.87 MT-
CO2/MWh of electricity), U.S. electric-generating-sector carbon intensity is far higher than
some industrialized countries. For instance, France emits only 0.09 MT–CO2/MWh of
electricity produced. There is clearly both the need for, and the real potential for,
significant improvement in U.S. electric-generating-sector carbon intensity and GHG
emissions.
• Transportation Sector Energy Use and GHG
Emissions – The transportation sector is currently
responsible for 33% of GHG emissions (Figure The driver for the new
5). In addition to more energy-efficient internal

energy policy is to continue
combustion engines, electrification of the to generate energy, mostly
transportation sector using new low-carbon
electricity-generation technologies will assist in
from domestic sources, at
reducing these emissions. Successful an affordable price. The
electrification of the transportation sector is also policy must meet increasing
dependent on improvements in battery technology demand, with considerably
to enable high-density energy storage to meet reduced GHG emissions,
vehicle service range requirements.
and without stifling GDP
• Industrial Sector Energy Use and GHG Emissions growth.
– Industrial use of energy is responsible for 16
percent of the country’s GHG emissions (Figure
5). About half of these emissions come from chemical facilities and oil refineries. The
development of GHG-free technologies that can generate and deliver significant thermal
and chemical energy to industry is needed.
2.2 The Value and Need for an “Energy Portfolio” Approach

Given the issues noted in Section 2.1, an effective energy policy will almost certainly rely on the
development and use of a portfolio of domestic clean energy sources. This is true not only
because of resource limits at various points in the energy supply chain but also because all
APRIL 2010 7
19
energy sources face economic, technical, and societal risks to their successful deployment. 4
R. Socolow and S. Pacala, in “A Plan To Keep Carbon In Check,” 5 have demonstrated the
potential for energy portfolio approaches to enhance U.S. energy security and reduce the threat
of global warming. The following section discusses the role of nuclear energy as an element of
the U.S. energy portfolio.
2.3 Nuclear Energy as an Element of the Future U.S. Energy Portfolio

In 2007, the 104 light-water
reactors (LWRs) currently Figure 6. U.S. Nuclear Energy History, 1980 – 2008
operating in the United
States generated 806 billion
kilowatt-hours (kW-hrs),
equivalent to 92 gigawatt-
years (GWe-yrs). As shown
in Figure 6, even though the
generating capacity of the
nuclear fleet has been
essentially flat for almost
twenty years, the production
of nuclear electricity
(EIA, Annual Energy Review 2008)
continued to grow largely as
a result of increased capacity factors. The fleet’s average capacity factor improved from 56.3%
in 1980 to 91.9% in 2008. 6 This improvement was driven by reactor operators and the efforts of
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), spurred by NE-sponsored R&D into high-burnup
fuels that allowed utilities to shift from 12-month operating cycles to 18- or 24-month operating
cycles that reduced downtime. Additionally, some growth can be attributed to power uprates that
increased capacity at existing plants.
While in operation, nuclear power plants do not emit GHGs. Every MWh of electricity produced
with nuclear energy avoids the emission of approximately 1.0 MT of CO2 if the same amount of
energy had been generated with conventional coal-fired technologies or approximately 0.6 MT
of CO2 if the energy had been produced with natural gas. Since the per capita electricity
consumption in the United States is approximately 14 MWh of electricity per year per person,
nuclear energy offers the prospect of avoiding what could otherwise be an annual personal
carbon footprint from electricity production of up to 14 MT of CO2. In addition, nuclear power
4
R. Socolow and S. Pacala, "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current
Technologies." Science, August 13, 2004: 968-972.
5 Scientific American, September 2006
6 EIA, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 9.2.
8 APRIL 2010
20
is dependable. It is available day or night, when the wind is blowing and when it is not. After
more than three decades of outstanding safety performance, the public acceptance of nuclear
energy has turned in favor of its deployment. 7 However, continued and increased use of nuclear
energy faces several key challenges:
• Capital Cost – The current fleet of nuclear power plants produces electricity at a very low
cost (approximately 2–3 cents/kilowatt-hour) because these plants have already repaid the
initial construction investments. However, the capital cost of a large new plant is high and
can challenge the ability of electric utilities to deploy new nuclear reactors. Thus, it is
important to reduce the capital cost by innovative designs. The introduction of smaller
reactors might reduce capital costs by taking advantage of series fabrication in centralized
plants and may reduce financial risk by requiring a smaller up-front investment.
• Waste Management – At present, no permanent solution to high-level nuclear waste
management has been deployed in the United States. Innovative solutions will be required
to assure that nuclear waste is properly managed. The Administration has initiated the
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to conduct a review of policies for
managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage,
processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The
results will inform the Government’s process to establish a policy for used fuel and waste
management. Ultimately, while the need for permanent waste disposal can never be
eliminated, transition to nuclear energy technologies that significantly reduce the
production of long-lived radioactive waste – rather than deal with it after it is produced – is
a desirable goal.
• Proliferation Risk – There is considerable interest in the global expansion of nuclear
energy. However, such expansion raises concerns about the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, including nuclear explosive devices, stemming from access to enrichment and
reprocessing activities that might produce weapons-usable materials. Development of
innovative technologies and international policies are essential to prevent nuclear
proliferation by nation-states as well as nuclear terrorism by rogue entities. Furthermore, a
more robust capability to evaluate and compare proliferation and terrorism risks is needed.
In addition, it is in the U.S. interest to engage nations contemplating civil nuclear power for
the first time in order to help them develop an indigenous infrastructure designed to deploy
the technology in a safe and secure manner.
• Safety and Reliability – As existing plants continue to operate and new plants and new
types of plants are constructed, it is vital that the excellent safety and reliability record of
nuclear energy in the United States be maintained. It is also important that the U.S. share
its experience with other countries and work with them to ensure safe operation of their
plants.
7 Ref. http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/Support-Nuclear-Energy-Inches-New-High.aspx.
APRIL 2010 9
21
10 APRIL 2010
22
3. MISSION AND GOALS OF THE

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
The analysis presented in Section 2 supports the conclusion that increased greenhouse gas-free
electricity production is necessary to achieve the transition to a clean-energy economy.
3.1 The Office of Nuclear Energy Mission

The primary mission of NE is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the
nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety,
security, and proliferation resistance, through R&D and demonstrations, as appropriate. Progress
in these areas should promote the deployment of fission power systems in a socially acceptable,
environmentally sustainable, and economically attractive manner.
Four specific research and development objectives for nuclear energy development outline NE’s
approach to delivering progress in the areas noted above. The objectives are:
• R&D Objective 1 – Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve the
reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors.
• R&D Objective 2 – Develop improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable

nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy security and climate change goals.
• R&D Objective 3 – Develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles.
• R&D Objective 4 – Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear proliferation and
terrorism.
The four objectives are discussed more fully in the following sections.
3.2 Nuclear Energy R&D Objectives and the Role of NE in Achieving

Them
This section presents a description of the four R&D objectives and NE’s role in making progress
in these areas.
APRIL 2010 11
23
3.2.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can
Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of Current
Reactors
reactors account for 70 percent of the low GHG-emitting domestic electricity production.
Extending the operating lifetimes of current plants beyond sixty years and, where possible,
making further improvements in their productivity will generate near-term benefits. Industry has
a significant financial incentive to extend the life of existing plants, and as such, activities will be
cost shared. Federal R&D investments are appropriate to answer fundamental scientific
questions and, where private investment is insufficient, to help make progress on broadly
applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits.
The DOE role in this R&D objective is to work with industry and, where appropriate, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support and conduct the long-term research needed to
inform major component refurbishment and replacement strategies, performance enhancements,
plant license extensions, and age-related regulatory oversight decisions. The DOE R&D role
will focus on aging phenomena and issues that require long-term research and are generic to
reactor type.
3.2.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New

Energy Security and Climate Change Goals
even for those designs based on familiar light-water reactor technology, include the substantial
capital cost of new plants and the uncertainties in the time required to license and construct them.
More advanced plant designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and high-temperature
reactors (HTRs), will have additional barriers for deployment. These reactors have
characteristics that could make them more attractive than today’s technology. SMRs, for
example, have the potential to achieve lower proliferation risk and more simplified construction
by improved structural materials. Industry’s role in overcoming the barriers in this area is
substantial. DOE supports R&D ranging from fundamental nuclear phenomena to the
development of advanced fuels that could improve the economic and safety performance of these
advanced reactors. Nuclear power can reduce GHG emissions from electricity production and
possibly in co-generation by displacing fossil fuels in the generation of process heat for
12 APRIL 2010
24
3.2.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety, and complement institutional
measures in limiting proliferation risk. The key challenge for the government in this R&D
objective is to develop a suite of options that will enable future decision makers to make
informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel from reactors. DOE will conduct
R&D in this area to investigate the technical challenges involved with three potential strategies
for used fuel management.
uranium resources and reduce the amount of used fuel for direct disposal for each MWh of
electricity produced. Additionally, evaluate the inclusion of non-uranium materials (e.g.,
thorium) in reactor fuel options that may reduce the long-lived radiotoxic elements in the
used fuel that would go into a repository.
• Modified Open Cycle – Investigate fuel forms and reactors that would increase utilization
of the fuel resource and reduce the quantity of long-lived radiotoxic elements in the used
repeatedly recycled rather than be disposed. The ultimate goal is to develop a cost-
effective and low proliferation risk approach that would dramatically decrease the long-
term danger posed by the waste, reducing uncertainties associated with its disposal.
3.2.4 R&D Objective 4: Understand and Minimize the Risks of Nuclear

Proliferation and Terrorism
It is important to assure that access to the benefits of nuclear power can be enabled while
limiting nuclear proliferation and security risks. This goal requires an integrated approach that
incorporates simultaneous development of nuclear fuel cycle technology, safeguards and security
technologies and systems, new proliferation risk assessment tools, and non-proliferation
frameworks and protocols. These activities must be informed by robust assessments that identify
potential approaches for limiting risks of specific technologies and nuclear fuel cycle system
options. NE will work with other organizations such as the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), the Department of State, the NRC, and others in further defining,
implementing and executing this integrated approach. Aspects of this research may help to
inform the exploration of concepts such as international fuel service arrangements.
APRIL 2010 13
25
14 APRIL 2010
26
4. AN INTEGRATED NUCLEAR
ENERGY ROADMAP
This section presents an objective-focused roadmap to advance nuclear energy technologies. As
depicted in Figure 7, the activities described here ultimately “unpack” to a suite of science and
technology development activities, many of which will support more than one R&D objective.
Figure 7. NE Mission, R&D Objectives, and Technologies
The approach incorporates a portfolio of long-term R&D objectives and a balanced focus on
evolutionary, innovative, and high-risk–high-payoff R&D in many diverse areas. The
organization and coordination of the science and technology thrusts (“Enabling Technologies” in
APRIL 2010 15
27
Figure 7) will be a focus of program and strategic planning follow-on implementation plants, but
is briefly addressed in Section 5.2 of this document.
In laying out the activities in each of the R&D objectives described below, we must remain goal-
oriented to avoid falling into the trap of doing a great deal of work that, while interesting, fails to
address the challenges to the deployment of nuclear energy. The following sections highlight
areas in which NE may undertake future R&D. These R&D activities have been considered with
the end in mind to ensure that the linkage between research and solution is clear. To that end, in
depicting the timelines of activity for the R&D objectives below, the charts show a distinction
between near-term milestones toward which the NE R&D plan is designed to progress,
represented as triangles, and longer-term potential outcomes that provide a framework for the
milestones, which are shown as ovals. The milestone charts attempt to depict the stages of
development so as not to leave a sense that new technologies can be immediately deployed at a
commercial level. Not every milestone or potential outcome outlined in these charts represent
actions that are within DOE’s roles and responsibilities, and research paths will include many
decision points that require choosing the most promising options for continued R&D. Especially
as technology matures, industry has a role and a responsibility to share the costs of making
progress. It is ultimately industry’s decision which commercial technologies will be deployed.
The federal role falls more squarely in the realm of R&D.
These long-term milestones and potential outcomes are not set in stone, and in some cases the
following sections outline multiple competing paths within an objective, knowing that ultimately
only one direction will be chosen. In all cases, the activities, milestones, and plans outlined in
this document will be reconsidered and revised periodically to ensure that NE R&D is consistent
with priorities and reflects what we have learned from these efforts. Activities will be reviewed
and modified as necessary through the established budgetary and decision-making processes.
Although some smaller component or process “demonstration” activities are mentioned, these
are largely field tests and other actions to provide proof or validation of system elements. They
are not large-scale demonstrations like the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). Any
decisions to embark on such large-scale demonstrations will be the result of decision-making
processes that include the relevant stakeholders in the Executive Branch and Congress and will
be made in accordance with NEPA and DOE Order 413 requirements. This R&D will enable
these stakeholders to understand the potential tradeoffs embodied in these decisions.
4.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions

that Can Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend
the Life of Current Reactors
The current fleet of 104 nuclear power plants has reliably and economically contributed almost
20 percent of electricity generated in the United States over the past two decades. However, by
16 APRIL 2010
28
2030, even those current nuclear power plants that have received 20-year extensions from the
NRC authorizing 60 years of life will begin reaching the end of their licensed periods of
operation. Figure 8 shows projected nuclear energy contribution to domestic generating capacity
from those plants that have already received 20-year license extensions. If current plants do not
operate beyond 60 years, the total fraction of generated electricity from nuclear power could
begin to decline, even with the addition of new nuclear-generating capacity.
Replacing the current fleet would require hundreds of billions of dollars. Replacement of this
100 GWe-generating capacity with traditional fossil plants would lead to significant increases in
CO2 emissions. Extending operating licenses beyond 60 to perhaps 80 years would enable
existing plants to continue providing safe, clean and economic electricity without significant
GHG emissions. The objective of this R&D objective is to provide a comprehensive technical
basis for extending the life of today’s LWRs that could be used to inform licensing and
managing the long-term safe and economical operation.
Figure 8. Nuclear Capacity With and Without License Extensions
4.1.1 Challenges Facing the Current Fleet

The following are the major challenges facing the current fleet:
• Aging and degradation of system structures and components, such as reactor core internals,
reactor pressure vessels, concrete, buried pipes, and cables.
• Fuel reliability and performance issues.
• Obsolete analog instrumentation and control technologies.
APRIL 2010 17
29
• Design and safety analysis tools based on 1980s vintage knowledge bases and
computational capabilities.
Industry’s economic incentive to meet these challenges in order to continue the safe and reliable
operation of existing plants is tremendous. As such, federal activities undertaken in this area will
be cost-shared with industry. Industry, working through EPRI or through the various owners’
groups, will engage some of these problems directly. Federal R&D investments are appropriate
to answer fundamental scientific questions and where private investment is insufficient, to help
make progress on broadly-applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits. The
government holds a great deal of theoretical, computational, and experimental expertise in
nuclear R&D that is not available in industry. The benefits of assisting industry with R&D on
life-extension apply not only to current plants but also to the next generation of reactor
technologies still in development.
4.1.2 R&D Topics for Life Extension and Performance Improvement

The overall focus of the R&D activities will be to improve a power plant operator’s ability to
manage the effects of the aging of passive components and increase operational efficiency and
economics. In selecting projects for federal investment, it is vital that due consideration be given
not only to how each of the R&D activities support achievement of safety and economic
sustainability for existing LWRs, but also to how the R&D results will be more broadly
applicable to the next generation of reactor technologies. These activities should also be
integrated with outside sources of information and parallel R&D programs in industry, the NRC,
universities, and other laboratories, both domestic and international. Close coordination with the
NRC as appropriate is needed to assure that R&D programs focus on issues relevant to licensing.
The following are R&D topics where NE will focus its efforts to help provide solutions to the
challenges listed above, thereby helping enable reactor life extension beyond 60 years with
improved performance. Progress on this long-term and high-risk–high-reward R&D, which
supports the current nuclear power plant fleet, will provide the scientific underpinnings for plant
owners to make billion-dollar investment decisions to prolong the economic lifetime of these
assets. R&D findings will also inform improvements in the lifetime of future-generation reactor
designs.
• Nuclear Materials Aging and Degradation – Develop a scientific basis for understanding
and predicting long-term environmental degradation behavior of materials in nuclear power
plants. Provide data and methods to assess performance of systems, structures, and
components essential to safe and sustained nuclear power plant operation.
• Advanced LWR Nuclear Fuel Development – Improve the scientific knowledge basis for
understanding and predicting fundamental nuclear fuel and cladding performance in
nuclear power plants. Apply this information to the development of high-performance,
high-burnup fuels with improved safety, cladding, integrity, and economics.
18 APRIL 2010
30
• Advanced Instrumentation, Information, and Control (II&C) System Technologies –

Research to address long-term aging and obsolescence of existing instrumentation and
control technologies and to develop and test new technologies. Establishing a strategy to
implement long-term modernization of II&C systems will be the focus of federal R&D,
while industry will focus on the more immediate benefits of adapting existing digital
technologies to current plants. NE will work with industry to develop advanced condition-
monitoring technologies for reliable plant operation, improved understanding of physical
methods of degradation, and the means to detect and characterize these processes.
• Risk-Informed Safety Margin Characterization (RISMC) – Bring together risk-informed,
performance-based methodologies with fundamental scientific understanding of critical
phenomenological conditions and deterministic predictions of nuclear plant performance to
provide an integrated characterization of public safety margins in aging nuclear power
plants. Such an approach will better characterize safety margins and should improve the
reliability and efficiency of plant operations. RISMC will also be applicable to future
generations of nuclear power plants.
• Efficiency Improvement – Improve the efficiency of the current fleet while maintaining
excellent safety performance is one of the primary objectives of life extension. Power
uprates have contributed to improving the current fleet’s economic performance. This
activity focuses on developing methodologies and scientific bases to enable more extended
power uprates.
• Advanced Modeling and Simulation Tools – Conduct R&D needed to create a new set of
modeling and simulation capabilities that will be used to better understand the safety
performance of the aging reactor fleet. These tools will be fully three-dimensional, high-
resolution, modeling integrated systems based on first-principle physics. To accomplish
this, the modeling and simulation capabilities will have to be run on modern, highly
parallel processing computer architectures.
The sustainability of light water reactors will benefit enormously from advanced modeling and
simulation capabilities. The NE Modeling and Simulation Hub will integrate existing nuclear
energy modeling and simulation capabilities with relevant capabilities developed by the Office of
Science, the NNSA, and others. The results will leapfrog current technology to provide a multi-
physics, multi-scale predictive capability that is a revolutionary improvement over conventional
codes. A key challenge will be to adapt advanced computer science tools to an applications
environment. The hub is intended to create a new state-of-the-art in an engineering-oriented
multi-physics computational environment that can be used by a wide range of practitioners to
conduct ultra-high fidelity predictive calculations of reactor performance.
APRIL 2010 19
31
4.1.3 Key Activities

The following chart outlines potential milestones and future national industry aims for this
objective. It presents a distinction between near-term milestones toward which the NE R&D
plan is designed to progress, represented as triangles, and longer-term potential outcomes that
provide a framework for the milestones, shown as ovals. The milestone charts attempt to depict
the stages of development so as not to leave a sense that new technologies can be immediately
deployed at a commercial level. Not every milestone or potential outcome outlined in these
charts represents actions that are within DOE’s roles and responsibilities, and research paths will
include many decision points that require choosing the most promising options for continued
R&D. All DOE R&D activities will be evaluated and revisited regularly and modified as
necessary through the budget process to ensure the portfolio reflects past progress and current
priorities.
are not costly, large-scale demonstrations like NGNP. Any consideration to embark on such
large-scale demonstrations will be the result of decision-making and budget development
processes.
4.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of

New Reactors to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the
Administration's Energy Security and Climate Change Goals
The previous 30-year U.S. hiatus in new nuclear plant orders presents a number of immediate
hurdles for the construction of new plant designs. Utility investors are still wary of the new
regulatory framework, which will not be fully exercised until the first new plant begins
operation. There are also concerns regarding the large capital costs of plants and associated
difficulties in financing their construction.
NE’s objective is to assist in the revitalization of the U.S. industry through R&D. By advancing
technologies through R&D, NE can help accelerate deployment of new plants in the short term,
support development of advanced concepts for the medium term, and promote design of
revolutionary systems for the long term. Work will be done in partnership with industry to the
maximum extent possible. Elements of NE’s strategy in this area include:
• Assist industry to improve light water reactors using existing technologies and designs.
• Explore advanced LWR designs with improved performance.
• Research and develop small modular reactors that have the potential to achieve lower
proliferation risks and more simplified construction than other designs.
20 APRIL 2010
32
Figure 9. Key Activities for R&D Objective 1
• In the longer term, support R&D of advanced reactor technologies that offer lower costs
and waste generation.
• Investigate revolutionary reactor concepts that promise to significantly reduce costs and
improve performance of nuclear energy.
• Support R&D of nuclear energy’s potential to displace fossil fuels in the production of
process heat.
APRIL 2010 21
33
Implementing this strategy will require that DOE work in partnership with the nuclear industry
and, to the degree appropriate, the NRC.
4.2.1 Challenges Facing New Reactor Deployments

There are several new plant designs, often referred to as Gen III+, that have been certified or are
being reviewed by the NRC for immediate deployment in the United States. Potential owners of
these Gen III+ plants must overcome serious financial hurdles. All near-term options for new
plants are large LWR designs that are optimized for baseload electricity production. Smaller
reactors that could be deployed in modules might help reduce the up-front capital costs
associated with large plants by allowing utilities to incrementally “step up” to larger electrical
capacities while generating revenue and repaying initial debts. New reactor designs beyond Gen
III+ may also be deployed. In many cases, new technologies will be needed to enable these new
designs, and innovative features will need to be fully demonstrated. Certain aspects of the
regulatory framework need to accommodate these new technologies and design features,
especially for designs that differ significantly from the large LWR plants in operation today.
Economic competitiveness will remain the major hurdle for all novel concepts, including smaller
reactors and reactors for non-electric applications.
During the 30-year hiatus from new plant orders in the United States, some nations have
continued to grow their nuclear industries. As a result, some other countries have advanced the
state-of-the art in manufacturing of nuclear plant components and have made progress in
applying more efficient construction techniques. The domestic industry can learn from these
international experiences.
4.2.2 R&D Topics for Enabling New Builds

In the United States, it is the responsibility of industry to design, construct, and operate
commercial nuclear power plants. However, DOE has statutory authority under the Atomic
Energy Act to promote and support nuclear energy technologies for commercial applications. In
general, appropriate government roles include researching high-potential technologies beyond
the investment horizon of industry and also reducing the technical risks of new technologies. In
the case of new commercial reactor designs, potential areas of NE involvement could include:
• Enabling new technologies to be inserted into emerging and future designs by providing
access to unique laboratory resources for new technology development and, where
appropriate, demonstration.
• Working through the laboratories and universities to provide unique expertise and facilities
to industry for R&D in the areas of:
o Innovative concepts and advanced technologies.
o Fundamental phenomena and performance data.
o Advanced modeling and simulation capabilities.
22 APRIL 2010
34
o New technology testing and, if appropriate, demonstration.

o Advanced manufacturing methods.
Representative R&D activities that support each of the roles stated above are presented below.
The level of DOE investment relative to industry investment will vary across the spectrum of
these activities, with a generally increasing trend in DOE investment for longer-term activities.
Finally, there is potential to leverage and amplify effective U.S. R&D through collaborations
with other nations through multilateral and bilateral agreements including the Generation IV
International Forum, which is investigating multiple advanced reactor concepts. DOE is also a
participant in OECD/NEA and IAEA initiatives that bear directly on the development and
deployment of new reactor systems.
4.2.2.1 Accelerate Advancements in LWR Designs

Given the maturity of the Gen III+ LWR designs, R&D needs are necessarily limited, as the
design of these plants is well underway or already complete, some of them are being built
overseas, and many have been ordered in the United States and elsewhere. Nevertheless the
R&D topics identified jointly with industry for R&D Objective 1 are all applicable to this task.
R&D of more advanced LWR concepts, including novel materials, fuels, and innovative system
architectures, is a legitimate role for DOE and its laboratories in partnership with industry. This
R&D will help address long-term trends in the capital cost of large LWR plants. Much of this
research is also expected to be applicable to non-LWR technologies.
4.2.2.2 Accelerate the Development of SMR Designs

Several U.S.-based companies are seeking to bring new SMR designs to market, including some
with potential for deployment within the next decade. Many of these designs use well-
established light-water coolant technology to the fullest extent possible to shorten the timeline
for deployment. As such, R&D needs for these technologies are minimal. However, these
designs may include new features, such as the use of an integral primary system reactor (IPSR)
design and components that are not currently used in commercial plants, such as helical-coil
steam generators. DOE will hold workshops with LWR SMR vendors and suppliers, potential
utility customers, national laboratory and university researchers, DOE, NRC, and other
stakeholders to identify potential priorities to enable their commercialization and development.
The Administration will evaluate potential priorities in the context of the appropriate federal role
to identify the most cost-effective, efficient, and appropriate mechanisms to support further
development.
SMR designs that are not based on LWR technology have the potential to offer added
functionality and affordability. In this area, NE will support a range of R&D activities, such as
basic physics and materials research and testing, state-of-the-art computer modeling and
simulation of reactor systems and components, probabilistic risk analyses of innovative safety
APRIL 2010 23
35
designs and features, and other development activities that are necessary to establish the
concept’s feasibility for future deployment. For SMRs that are based on concepts with lower
levels of technical maturity, the Department will first seek to establish the R&D activities
necessary to prove and advance innovative reactor technologies and concepts. The Department
will support R&D activities to develop and prove the proposed design concepts. Emphasis will
be on advanced reactor technologies that offer simplified operation and maintenance for
distributed power and load-following applications and increased proliferation resistance and
security.
Activities will focus on showing that SMRs provide an innovative reactor technology that is
capable of achieving electricity generation and performance objectives that meet market
demands and are comparable, in both safety and economics, to the current large baseload nuclear
power plants.
NE may also support the development of new/revised nuclear industry codes and standards
necessary to support licensing and commercialization of innovative designs and, consistent with
NRC guidance and regulations, identify activities for DOE funding to enable SMR licensing for
deployment in the United States.
4.2.2.3 Develop Advanced Reactor Technologies

Future-generation reactor systems will employ advanced technologies and designs to improve
performance beyond what is currently attainable. Moving beyond LWR technology, for
example, may enable reactors to operate at higher temperatures and improved efficiencies
resulting in improved economics. Advanced materials may make reactors easier to construct
while also enabling better performance. Improved designs utilizing these advances could reduce
the capital costs associated with the current set of reactors being considered. Two prominent
examples of advanced reactor technologies worthy of further investigation include:
• The high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), a graphite moderated thermal-spectrum
reactor operated at high temperature for efficient generation of electricity and heat delivery
for non-electric applications.
• Fast-spectrum reactors that could provide options for future fuel cycle management and
could also be used for electricity generation (see R&D Objective 3).
The U.S. is also a member of the Generation IV International Forum, which is investigating
additional advanced reactor systems that employ comparatively less mature technologies while
offering significant potential for performance, safety, and economic advances.
Key areas of R&D for future systems could include:

• High-performance materials compatible with the proposed coolant types and capable of
extended service at elevated temperatures.
24 APRIL 2010
36
• New fuels and cladding capable of irradiation to high burnup.

• Advanced heat delivery and energy conversion systems for increased efficiency of
electricity production.
• Advanced modeling and simulation tools that can reduce uncertainties in predicted
performance, improve characterization of uncertainties, and streamline the design of new
reactor technologies.
• Systems design for revolutionary new reactor concepts.
4.2.2.4 Develop Technologies Consistent with Both Electric and Non-Electric

Applications
An additional potential benefit from nuclear power could be realized through new plant designs
that would be used to displace GHG-emitting fuels in the industrial sector while also generating
electricity. Some industrial process heat applications require temperatures substantially above
the 300–325°C outlet temperature of today’s LWRs. Petroleum refining, for example, requires
temperatures in the range of 250-500°C while steam reforming of natural gas requires process
heat in the 500-900°C range. Achieving higher output temperatures requires switching to a new
coolant technology such as gas, liquid metal, or molten salt. With these coolants, it may be
possible to achieve outlet temperatures ranging from over 500°C for liquid metal coolants to
over 900°C for helium or molten salt coolants. Achieving these temperatures, however, will
require the development and qualification of fuels, materials and instrumentation, particularly at
the higher end of the temperature range. Also, the use of coolants other than water will require
the development of a variety of plant components and systems such as electromagnetic pumps
for liquid metal coolants, compact heat exchangers for gas coolants, and chemical purification
systems for molten salt coolants. These coolants will also require the development of new
licensing requirements and codes and standards. While the economic market for dedicated
process heat from nuclear power may be limited, reactors that could produce electricity as well
as industrial process heat may have broader applications.

• Develop interfacing heat transport systems – Supply process heat with minimal losses to
industrial users within several kilometers of the reactor.
• Develop modeling and simulation capabilities – These tools would improve understanding
of interactions between the kinetics of the various reactor types and the kinetics of the
chemical plants or refineries, which they would serve. Modeling may also be used to
understand the long-term performance of catalysts and solid-oxide cells at an atomistic
level.
APRIL 2010 25
37

priorities.
processes.
26 APRIL 2010
38
4.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles
principal challenge for the government in this objective is to develop a suite of options that will
enable future decision makers to make informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel
from reactors. The Administration has established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future to inform this waste management decision-making process. The Commission
will review policies for managing the back end of the fuel cycle including alternatives for the
storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. All
research and development activities and plans outlined here will be revisited and revised as
needed to reflect the Commission’s findings and associated Administration decisions.
APRIL 2010 27
39
An expansion of nuclear power in the United States will result in a growth of the used nuclear
fuel inventories. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 gave the U.S. government the mission
to safely manage the used fuel from these nuclear power plants. Research and development of
sustainable nuclear fuel cycles and waste management activities is important to support the
expansion of nuclear energy. Some of the attributes of the sustainable fuel cycle, including
waste management and disposal technologies, include the responsible use of natural resources,
preservation of the environment for future generations, safety, security, public acceptance, and
cost effectiveness.
The constituents of current Figure 11. Constituents of Used LWR Fuel

used nuclear fuel (UNF) after
discharge from LWRs are
shown in Figure 11. As this
figure shows, the vast
majority of the material in
the used fuel is uranium that
is generally unchanged from
the fuel that went into the
reactor to produce energy.
Uranium is considered an
element in the category
called “actinides,” along with the “transuranic” elements of plutonium and the “minor” actinides:
neptunium, americium, and curium, principally. These elements generally are long-lived and
must be isolated from the environment for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Actinides are
also of interest because uranium and plutonium could be recycled to produce more energy in
reactors, as could the minor actinides in fast-spectrum reactors. The remaining class of elements
in the used fuel is fission products, many of which are stable and pose little concern. The short-
lived fission products – primarily cesium and strontium – generate most of the hazard for the first
hundreds of years of disposal. There are also fission products, notably iodine and technetium,
that last for hundreds of thousands of years and must be isolated from the environment.
NE will research and develop nuclear fuel and waste management technologies that will enable a
safe, secure, and economic fuel cycle. The NE R&D strategy will be to investigate the technical
challenges that would be encountered in each of three potential methods and perform R&D
within each of these tracks:
• Once-Through – Nuclear fuel makes a single pass through a reactor after which the used
fuel is removed, stored for some period of time, and then directly disposed in a geologic
repository for long-term isolation from the environment. The used fuel will not undergo
any sort of treatment to alter the waste form prior to disposal in this approach, eliminating
28 APRIL 2010
40
the need for separations technologies that may pose proliferation concerns. Less than one
percent of the mined uranium is utilized in the present once-through fuel cycle.
• Modified Open Cycle – The goal of this approach is to develop fuel for use in reactors that
can increase utilization of the fuel resource and reduce the quantity of actinides that would
be disposed in used fuel. This strategy is “modified” in that some limited separations and
fuel processing technologies are applied to the used LWR fuel to create fuels that enable
the extraction of much more energy from the same mass of material and accomplish waste
management goals.
• Full Recycle – In a full recycle strategy, all of the actinides important for waste
management are recycled in thermal- or fast-spectrum systems to reduce the radiotoxicity
of the waste placed in a geologic repository while more fully utilizing uranium resources.
In a full recycle system, only those elements that are considered to be waste (primarily the
fission products) are intended for disposal, not used fuel. Implementing this system will
require extensive use of separation technologies and the likely deployment of new reactors
or other systems capable of transmuting actinides.
The R&D approach will be to understand what can be accomplished in each of these strategies
and then to develop the promising technologies to maximize their potential. One element that
crosscuts all potential approaches is disposal and R&D activities will include a focus on those
technologies. Additionally, storage will be an important part of any strategy, and R&D will be
needed to assess the performance of storage technologies with higher-burnup used LWR fuels, as
well as any potential new fuels that may be deployed in the future.
The discussion above is primarily focused on the uranium fuel cycle that is the norm throughout
the world. An alternative that could be considered would be the use of thorium to replace at least
part of the uranium in the system. Thorium could be used as part of a once-through, modified
open, or full recycle fuel cycle. The appeal of thorium is two-fold. First, thorium is more
abundant in nature than uranium and can be used to extend or replace uranium in the fuel cycle.
Second, the use of thorium enables reduced production of transuranic elements that end up in
used fuel. However, there are still technical and economic challenges facing thorium-based fuels.
Thus some R&D to address related challenges may be considered. Significant R&D in the use of
thorium has been performed previously in the United States and is currently being considered in
other parts of the world (particularly in India).
Unlike R&D Objectives 1 and 2, management of UNF and development of fuel cycle
technologies are primarily the government’s responsibilities because the government is legally
responsible for UNF. Thus, the necessary research, development, and demonstration, if
appropriate, will be led primarily by the government. However, early and continuous industrial
involvement is important because any technologies that are developed will ultimately be
implemented by the commercial entities.
APRIL 2010 29
41
4.3.1 Major Challenges Associated with Fuel Cycle Options

Each of the potential fuel cycle strategies faces challenges, some of which may be shared with
other approaches. Similarly, the R&D needed to overcome these challenges may support more
than one strategy.
• Once-Through – Improving the sustainability of a once-through approach to used fuel
management begins with increasing the burnup of the fuel – the amount of energy that can
be extracted from fuel in the reactor – which may also have the effect of consuming more
actinides in the fuel, leaving less to be disposed. Increasing the burnup of a fuel will
require ensuring that both the fuel itself and the structural material designed to keep it in
place in the reactor will be able to withstand extended irradiation in the reactor and
maintain its integrity when being stored after removal. Deploying advanced fuels will
require that they first undergo a qualification process that can take a great deal of time, as
researchers must irradiate and conduct examinations on test samples to assure their
performance. Also, fuels that are notably different from those currently used in LWRs may
drive changes in the fuel processing infrastructure that has evolved to meet current needs.
To the extent that the deployed once-through fuel cycle is built upon enriched uranium
fuels, the proliferation concerns associated with enrichment technologies will need to be
addressed.
• Modified Open Cycle – A modified open cycle faces some of the same challenges as the
once-through, along with some encountered in a full recycle approach. The modified open
cycle introduces the possibility of a used fuel separations step to enable more options for
producing fuels. This flexibility enables the inclusion of transuranic elements – notably
plutonium – at concentrations capable of supporting ultra-high burnup, along with the
attendant difficulties of developing these fuels. The challenges of developing high-burnup
fuels discussed in the previous paragraph are applicable to this strategy. The use of
separations technology to prepare the ultra-high-burnup fuel introduces difficulties in
separations as well as managing proliferation concerns. A key element of this fuel cycle is
the likely need to introduce advanced reactors that can utilize these new fuels. The
overarching challenge in making a modified open cycle worthwhile is to determine if the
improvement in fuel resource utilization and in the waste to be disposed is sufficient to
justify the additional complication, potential proliferation concerns, and expense this
approach would entail.
• Full Recycle – In a full recycle approach, used fuel is not directly disposed in a repository;
rather, those elements of the used fuel that are deemed appropriate for recycling are
reintroduced into reactors or other systems while the remaining elements are stabilized in a
waste form and disposed. This strategy offers the potential of waste forms that pose far
less long-term concern, although the approach would require overcoming not only
technical challenges but also economic, proliferation, and public perception concerns. This
system would rely on multiple separations processes that must minimize process losses and
30 APRIL 2010
42
waste generation while addressing proliferation concerns. Furthermore, fuels must be

developed that will allow for the inclusion of all of those elements that are to be recycled in
concentrations that vary over time. This is a central tradeoff in the full recycle approach:
the more elements that are recycled, the better the waste form will be; however, more
separation of elements in the fuel increases the technical and other challenges. Elements
that are recycled must be capable of transmutation in a system – likely, but not necessarily,
a fast reactor – to eventually eliminate them. In order for a full recycle strategy to be
considered, the waste benefits and improved resource utilization produced by such a
system must outweigh the complication, expense and potential proliferation concerns
associated with it.
4.3.2 R&D for Sustainable Fuel Cycle Options

There are major R&D needs to understand how best to overcome the challenges posed by each of
the fuel cycle approaches being considered. The potential R&D efforts that DOE would
undertake would have a long-term view and would be science-based. It would take considerable
time before the issues in the modified open and the full recycle alternatives would be overcome.
Many R&D areas will be applicable to multiple strategies. Prior to beginning major R&D work
in these areas, analyses will be performed to gauge the likely value of the efforts.
• Fuel Resource Exploration and Mining – The availability of fuel resources for each
potential fuel cycle and reactor deployment scenario must be understood. Extended use of
nuclear power may drive improvements in defining resource availability and on fuel
resource exploration and mining. Primarily, this is work that the private sector would
undertake, and how and when this would occur would depend on price and other market
conditions. This is most relevant for a once-through approach, but even modified open
cycles and full recycle systems may require comparable levels of natural sources of fuel for
the foreseeable future. Most appropriate for federal involvement in this area would be
R&D to support investigation of long-term, “game-changing” approaches such as
recovering uranium from seawater.
• Used Fuel Disposition – All radioactive wastes generated by existing and future fuel cycles
will need to be safely stored, transported, and disposed. This R&D will identify options for
performing these functions, including research into disposal in a variety of geologic
environments. This R&D will consider used fuel and high-level waste inventories arising
from the current reactor fleet and any additional new builds, including the potential for
changing used fuel characteristics from enhanced operations (e.g., increased fuel burnup)
and the projected inventories from advanced reactor and fuel cycle systems (e.g., HTRs and
SMRs). This research is important to all of the potential fuel cycle approaches.
• Reduce Transuranic Production In Reactors – One thrust in developing sustainable fuel
cycles will be the exploration of nuclear fuels and reactors that significantly reduce the
long-lived actinide content of the used fuel per MWh of energy produced. Exploration of
APRIL 2010 31
43
avenues both to reduce actinide production in present and near-term LWRs and to develop
future non-LWR systems that produce lower actinide inventories in their used fuel is
important. This research area is central to developing the high burnup fuels that will
improve the attractiveness of a once-through or modified open fuel cycle.
• Separation and Partitioning – The development of processes to recycle used fuel is needed,
as well as an evaluation of the feasibility and risks associated with recycling. The objective
is to use a predictive approach to evaluate separation chemistry and processes to achieve
the desired performance in terms of product purity, environmental impact, and losses.
Though not applicable in a once-through system, this topic would be germane to a
modified open cycle approach and central to a full recycle strategy.
• Waste Forms – It is necessary to develop understanding of waste form behavior over time
to help inform decisions on recycle and disposal options. This understanding must extend
over a broad range of potential waste chemistry and disposal environments so waste forms
can be adapted and implemented when specific repository conditions are known. This
R&D area may be somewhat relevant to strategies that rely on the direct disposal of certain
used fuels (such as disposal of high-temperature gas reactor fuels) but the development of
improved waste forms is a key component in enabling a full recycle strategy to achieve its
promise.
• Fuel Forms – The science-based approach will combine theory, experiments, and multi-
scale modeling and simulation aimed at a fundamental understanding of the fuel fabrication
processes and fuel and clad performance under irradiation. The objective is to use a
predictive approach to design future fuels and cladding to enable the development of ultra
high-burnup fuels in a modified open cycle and to demonstrate the inclusion of recovered
actinides in transmutation fuels under a full recycle approach. In the early phases of the
program, the major fuel fabrication activities include development of innovative processes
to enhance the process efficiency and to improve the control of fuel microstructure for
enhanced performance, including tailored fuel forms designed to limit excess actinides
across the complex.
• Material Reuse – The research will focus primarily on recovered uranium for reuse in
reactors to obviate the need to dispose of this material once separated from the rest of the
used fuel. The critical areas that require process or equipment modifications will be
identified, and technologies will be developed to enable the reuse (and in some cases the
re-enrichment) of recycled uranium. Efforts will also investigate the potential recycling and
reuse of other constituents of used fuel, such as the zirconium cladding, that are potentially
useful but not currently being considered by industry because of uncertainties about
material characteristics.
• Transmutation Systems – Transmutation is a process to change the characteristics of waste
by turning recycled elements into elements with more desirable disposal characteristics.
While the focus of most recent work has been on fast-spectrum transmutation reactors,
thermal-spectrum transmutation can offer some waste management benefits. R&D would
32 APRIL 2010
44
focus on broadly applicable issues including areas such as materials and energy conversion.
In addition, studies may be conducted to review the technical and economic aspects of
external neutron source-driven transmutation systems to inform whether future
investigation in this approach is warranted.

NE’s science-based R&D program will provide a more complete understanding of the underlying
science supporting the development of advanced fuel cycle and waste management technologies
and, therefore, help provide a sound basis for future decision making. The program will also
conduct scientific research and technology development to enable storage, transportation, and
disposal of used nuclear fuel and all radioactive wastes generated by existing and future nuclear
fuel cycles. Over the next decade, the R&D program will mainly be geared to ensuring that the
needed breakthroughs and advancements are available and ready when needed. Examples of
such technologies would include ultra-deep-burn LWR, HTR, or fast reactor fuel; reactor
technologies to support optimized once-through fuel cycles; and advanced fast reactor concepts
to support closed fuel cycles. These technologies would encompass all of the known and
anticipated advances that could be expected to be available in areas including materials, design
methods, components, and energy conversion.
In keeping with Secretary Chu's vision of using science to provide technological breakthroughs
to solve America's grand challenges, the program will include long-term, high-risk–high-payoff
R&D. This part of the program will seek revolutionary and transformational breakthroughs in
systems, materials and components of the fuel cycle that can better meet the program's
objectives. Examples of this could include novel reactor concepts such as molten-salt fuel
reactors or thorium fuel cycles. Thus while evolutionary advancements are being made,
revolutionary advancements will also be pursued such that, if successful, they could replace all
or part of existing or near-term technologies. The roadmap includes milestones for selection of
technologies as the program matures. Each approach has a set of reference technologies
associated with these milestones:
• Once-Through – Develop higher-burnup fuel for LWRs.
• Modified Open Cycle – Develop ultra-high-burnup fuel for high-temperature gas-cooled
reactors using transuranic elements from used LWR fuel. It is assumed that the NGNP or a
comparable reactor will be available for fuel testing. Alternative approaches may require
access to a fast-spectrum test reactor and nuclear fuel research capabilities.
• Full Recycle – Develop technologies to allow repeated recycling of transuranic elements in
fast-spectrum reactors. The initial fuel for the fast reactors will come from separated used
LWR fuel with successive reloads made from used fast reactor fuel. Access to a fast-
spectrum test reactor will be essential for this research, as will nuclear fuel research
capabilities.
APRIL 2010 33
45
priorities.
processes.
4.4 R&D Objective 4: Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of

Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism
The final R&D objective for nuclear energy is to enable secure nuclear energy expansion by
developing and demonstrating options that limit proliferation and physical security risks
associated with nuclear power while also achieving economic, public health and safety, and
environmental goals. These risks include not only the possibility that nations may attempt to use
nuclear technologies in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, but also the concern that terrorists might
seek to steal material that could be used in a nuclear explosive device. This requires NE
advocacy for, and participation in, an integrated program to develop technologies, frameworks,
and policy options for the future nuclear enterprise, cutting across all aspects of the fuel cycle.
The United States has extensive experience protecting nuclear materials, from the weapons
program that has produced significant quantities of plutonium-239 and highly enriched uranium,
to 104 commercial reactors in the U.S. today that handle, use, and store nuclear materials.
Internationally, the U.S. has also contributed extensively to the development of technologies now
used in the application of international safeguards to monitor used fuel recycling activities in
England, France, and Japan. Going forward, safeguards and physical security will become even
more integral components in the domestic and global expansion of nuclear power, including the
development of future fuel cycle and reactor technologies that further increase the barriers
against proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
34 APRIL 2010
46
An integrated U.S. safeguards program provides an opportunity to design improved safeguards

and physical security directly into the planning and deployment of new energy systems and fuel
cycle facilities. Incorporating safeguards and physical security into the early design phase for
new facilities will allow the international community to monitor and verify nuclear material
more effectively and efficiently.
APRIL 2010 35
47
DOE has three programs that are collaborating to address safeguards and nonproliferation
challenges. The NE Fuel Cycle R&D Materials Protection, Accounting, and Control for
Transmutation (MPACT) campaign develops advanced nuclear material management
technologies and methods in support of the future domestic U.S. nuclear fuel cycle. The Next
Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI) within the NNSA Office of Nonproliferation and
International Security is designed to leverage U.S personnel, technology, and R&D to add new
capacity and significantly strengthen international nuclear safeguards. The third program, the
NNSA Office of Nonproliferation Research and Development’s Global Nuclear Safeguards
R&D Program, whose mission is to support long-term nonproliferation R&D, rounds out the
U.S. safeguards R&D efforts for nuclear energy. The work described in this section reflects NE’s
aspect of the integrated safeguards and nonproliferation work being performed within DOE.
This work will be performed in direct collaboration or close coordination with NNSA activities.
In addition to addressing technical safeguards R&D needs, successful integration of these

programs would develop revolutionary new tools for proliferation risk assessments and
subsequent optimization of advanced nuclear energy systems from nonproliferation and physical
security perspectives. The ultimate goal of this crosscutting effort would be to develop and use
new analytical tools that could revolutionize our ability to compare proliferation and physical
security risk of nuclear energy system options, including aspects of policy and human behavior
as well as technical attributes.
As civilian nuclear power expands across the globe, it becomes more important that high
standards of safety and security be implemented around the world. Looking only at how the
R&D can improve nuclear technologies without considering who is to use these technologies,
and the national and international frameworks under which they are operating, will provide an
overly narrow perspective of proliferation risks. NE, in cooperation with other DOE offices and
national agencies and in partnership and collaboration with other nations, must implement
collaborative programs with civilian nuclear power programs in both experienced and
inexperienced states in order to minimize proliferation and physical security risks, enhance
reactor safety, maximize resource utilization through cooperative R&D, and encourage methods
to minimize the dispersion of enrichment and reprocessing facilities worldwide.
4.4.1 Challenges
A key challenge facing the expanded use of nuclear energy and associated fuel cycles is
minimizing the potential for the misuse of the technology and materials for weapons purposes.
International treaties such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, combined with transparency in
the use of technology and materials, provide the basic building blocks to assure the peaceful use
of nuclear energy. Fuel cycle infrastructure built upon these tenets while enabling the economic
provision of fuel cycle services can help prevent the spread of sensitive nuclear technology and
materials.
36 APRIL 2010
48
Today’s key challenges are to take the wealth of knowledge and experience that exists within the
international safeguards and physical security communities and to deploy advanced, affordable
techniques to immediately detect the diversion of nuclear materials or the modification of
systems. The key technical challenges that must be addressed include:
• Incorporation of nuclear safeguards and physical security technology into designs for fuel
cycle facilities, advanced fast reactors, and associated nuclear materials storage and
transportation systems.
• Development of proliferation risk assessment methodologies and tools that allow for an
integrated view of fuel cycle options to be studied, optimized, and compared.
• Development of advanced containment and surveillance, smart safeguards information
management systems, nuclear facility use-control systems, and next-generation
nondestructive analysis and process-monitoring systems.
• R&D of advanced material tracking methodologies, process-control technologies, and plant

engineering.
• Remote sensing, environmental sampling, and forensic verification methods.
Addressing these challenges will enable the use and expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes to proceed in a safe and secure manner.
4.4.2 R&D for Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear Proliferation
and Terrorism
Some potential R&D areas for Objective 4 are:
• Proliferation Risk Assessments – Any fuel cycle technologies deployed in the U.S. must be
considered in light of how other nations might choose to incorporate them into their own
nuclear enterprises. Towards this end, it is important for NE to develop a means of
understanding how these new technologies would be viewed by other countries in the
context of their national goals. This research effort would develop the tools and
approaches for understanding, limiting, and managing the risks of nation-state proliferation
and physical security for fuel cycle options. NE will focus on assessments required to
inform domestic fuel cycle technology and system option development. These analyses
would complement those assessments performed by NNSA to evaluate nation-state
proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime. Taken in conjunction, these
comprehensive proliferation risk assessments will provide important information for
discussions and decisions regarding fuel cycle options. These assessments will:
o Exploit science-based approaches, to the extent possible, for analyzing difficult-to
quantify proliferation risk factors or indicators (e.g., capabilities, motivations, and
intentions); address issues identified in several National Academy of Sciences studies
APRIL 2010 37
49
related to risk assessment; and leverage current state-of-the-art academic social science
research in this field.
o Integrate the diverse decision factors (including economics, public health and safety,
environmental benefits, and proliferation and terrorism risk reduction) for different fuel
cycle options to understand the tradeoffs and potential synergies between these decision
criteria.
o Apply these tools to study nuclear energy system options, and display the results in a
useful format for decision makers.
• Safeguards and Physical Security Technologies and Systems – The NE focus is on the
development of safeguards technologies and integrated systems for current and potential
future domestic fuel cycle options. These technologies and systems contribute significantly
to limiting proliferation and physical security risks while also achieving economic, public
health and safety, and environmental goals. This requires that these activities be performed
in an integrated program with the fuel cycle technology development activities.
Opportunities exist to collaborate with other organizations (e.g. NNSA, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense) and will be utilized. NNSA will be
responsible for evaluating the nation-state proliferation risks of deploying new fuel cycle
technologies – particularly recycling technologies – outside of the United States.
o Advanced Instrumentation – Many advanced fuel cycle processes, such as advanced
aqueous reprocessing, electrochemical separations, and recycle fuel fabrication pose
new challenges for safeguards and nuclear material management. The safeguards state
of-the-art will be advanced through a developmental program to improve the precision,
speed, sampling methods, and scope of nuclear process monitoring and accountancy
measurements, and innovative approaches for containment and surveillance. This
effort supports the development of advanced safeguards instrumentation such as active
interrogation methods based on neutron and photon drivers and advanced passive
detectors, such as ultra-high resolution spectrometer and neutron multiplicity counting.
Additionally, existing nuclear data is evaluated for the identification of gaps or needed
improvements.
o Advanced Concepts and Integration – Early integration of safeguards concepts into
nuclear facility design is optimal to meet U.S. and international standards with
minimum impact on operations. This requires development of a framework to codify
the safeguards-by-design concept, applicable for both international safeguards and
physical security for U.S. fuel cycle facilities. It also includes the evaluation of
material attractiveness of relevant fuel cycle materials. A monitoring and control
system must be developed that is secure and can rapidly authenticate and investigate
summary and raw data to unequivocally distinguish process deviations, maintenance
problems, and calibration and component failures from actual diversion events.
o Modeling and Simulation – Development of modeling and simulation tools to enable
new technology development, elucidation of high-impact R&D priorities, and
approaches that optimize effectiveness and efficiency of the overall system will be
38 APRIL 2010
50
essential for the integration of new safeguards technologies and techniques into nuclear
energy systems.
• Nuclear Energy Technologies and Systems – This element includes developing and
assessing a sufficiently wide and innovative range of options (in concert with R&D
Objectives 1–3) to achieve Objective 4. This includes, for example, options that enable
decreasing the attractiveness and accessibility of used fuel and intermediate materials,
transmuting materials of potential concern, optimizing safeguards and physical security
systems approaches, and minimizing the number of needed enrichment and recycle
facilities. In conjunction with NNSA, NE will lead the development of these options and
implement mechanisms that tightly link and inform both this R&D and other elements of
R&D Objective 4.
4.4.3 Key Activities and Milestones

priorities.
processes.
APRIL 2010 39
51
40 APRIL 2010
52
5. R&D APPROACH
Section 4 of this roadmap presents NE’s four R&D objectives. These objectives show the
connection between how nuclear energy will contribute to meeting the nation’s energy goals and
the R&D that needs to be performed to enable that contribution. This section describes the
approach that will be taken to perform this R&D, provides brief descriptions of the key areas of
technological development that will be undertaken, presents a brief description of the facilities
needed to perform this research, and describes the interfaces with stakeholders that will be
required for success.
5.1 Solution-Driven, Goal-Oriented, Science-Based Approach to

Nuclear Energy Development
Nuclear power systems were initially developed during the latter half of the 20th century. Their
development was greatly facilitated by the nation’s ability and willingness to conduct large-scale
experiments. The federal government constructed 52 reactors at what is now Idaho National
Laboratory, another 14 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a few more at other national
laboratory sites. By today’s standards, even large experiments and technology demonstrations
were relatively affordable. While relying heavily on the Edisonian approach in the 1950s and
1960s, the nuclear energy community was a rapid adopter of high-end computational modeling
and simulation during the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, nuclear power plant designers
and regulators developed and deployed many of the most demanding simulation models and
tools on the most advanced computational platforms then available. Still, the United States
embraced a regulatory process that relied, and still relies, heavily on the use of experiments to
confirm the ultimate safety of nuclear power systems. Building upon the scientific advances of
the last two decades, our understanding of fundamental nuclear science, improvements in
computational platforms, and other tools can now enable a new generation of nuclear power
plant designers, fabricators, regulators, and operators to develop technological advancements
with less of a reliance on large-scale experimentation. The developmental approach employed in
this roadmap embodies four elements, as depicted in Figure 14:
Experiments – These are generally small-scale experiments aimed at observation of isolated

phenomena or measurements of fundamental properties. However, targeted integral experiments
also will be needed in some cases.
Theory – Based either on first principles or observations made during phenomenological testing,
theories are developed to explain fundamental physical phenomena.
APRIL 2010 41
53
Modeling and Simulation – A range of Figure 14. Major Elements of Science-Based

mathematical models for diverse phenomena at Research, Development & Demonstration
much different time and spatial scales are
developed and then integrated to predict the
overall behavior of the system. Key objectives
of the modeling and simulation effort are to
reduce the number of prototypes and large-
scale experiments needed before demonstration
and deployment and to quantify uncertainties
and design and operational parameters.
Demonstrations – While the state of

knowledge can be significantly advanced
through the combination of experiments,
theory, and modeling and simulation, there
may be instances where it is appropriate to
work with the private sector to further develop
and validate laboratory findings.
Demonstrations can be a useful element in proving viability of new technologies, but their high
cost must be considered in the context of a variety of other factors. There must be sufficient
industry commitment for deployment of commercial technologies before such demonstrations
would be considered. Any potential future demonstration activities will be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis through the established decision-making procedures of the Department and budget
formulation.
5.2 Enabling Technologies

A set of enabling technologies has been identified that support progress on multiple objectives.
Where NE has an R&D role in these technology areas, coordination of NE’s activities across
these technologies must be implemented. For example, the NE “owner” of the fuel cycle
objective in such a case will be responsible for coordination of all nuclear fuel work across
objectives.
• Structural Materials – Advanced radiation and corrosion-resistant materials with extension
to high-temperature applications benefit many of the R&D objectives, especially when
conducted using a science-based development approach without relying heavily on
empirical experiments. Thus, a synergistic R&D program can be developed to support all
the objectives.
• Nuclear Fuels – The development of improved and advanced nuclear fuels is clearly a
major objective for both existing LWRs and the entire spectrum of advanced nuclear
energy systems discussed throughout this document. The short list of potentially needed
42 APRIL 2010
54
fuels include high-burnup LWR, fast reactor, and gas-reactor fuels; coated-particle fuels;
fast-spectrum and thermal-spectrum transmutation fuels and targets; thorium fuels; and
molten-salt fuels. A tightly coordinated and well integrated nuclear fuels R&D program
must be developed to support all of the R&D objectives.
• Reactor Systems – The development of advanced reactor concepts and supporting
technologies is a core function of NE. Advanced technologies and reactor concepts are
needed to improve the economics of electricity production. Multiple advanced reactor
concepts (LWR, small modular, gas-cooled, liquid metal-cooled, molten salt-cooled, etc.)
may play a role in our nuclear future. The development of a robust advanced reactor
system concept definition capability will be an important element of NE strategy
development.
• Instrumentation and Control – The development and implementation of digital
instrumentation and control systems will benefit current reactors as well as future reactors.
Advanced instrumentation and control systems will also benefit future fuel cycle facilities.
Safeguards technology development also relies on advanced instrumentation and plant
control systems through safeguards-by-design.
• Power Conversion Systems – Advanced power conversion systems will lead to increased
efficiency for the future reactors and facilitate the use of nuclear power in markets
requiring process heat.
• Process Heat Transport Systems – The development of process heat transport systems that
can be combined with multiple reactor technologies will enable the use of nuclear power to
deliver needed process heat to the industrial sector.
• Dry-Heat-Rejection Systems – Advanced dry-heat-rejection systems will improve the
environmental friendliness of the nuclear power plants and enable the deployment of
nuclear energy in areas where water constraints might otherwise preclude its use.
• Separations Processes – This report has noted the wide variety of fuel cycle options that
may be needed in the future to address U.S. energy security, economic, and sustainability
goals. Our future ability to sustainably and economically recycle LWR fuels, fast reactor
fuels, gas-cooled reactor fuels, molten salt fuels, etc. will depend, in part, on our ability to
separate key elements from the waste that will not be disposed in a repository.
• Waste Forms – The ability to engineer, produce, and manage fuel cycle waste forms that
are chemically and structurally stable over relevant periods of time from decades to
hundreds of thousands of years (depending on the radioisotope) is critical to achieving a
sustainable fuel cycle and must be closely integrated with both radiochemical research and
repository systems research.
• Risk Assessment Methods – Advanced methods for risk assessment based on mechanistic
modeling of system behavior will benefit the safety assessments of the new nuclear energy
systems and fuel cycle technologies. State-of-the-art computational and experimental
APRIL 2010 43
55
techniques will benefit not only novel reactor concepts but other nuclear facilities needed
for the fuel cycle.
• Advanced Modeling and Simulation – The science-based approach relies heavily on
fundamental experiments combined with associated theories for predictive capabilities.
However, a comprehensive use of the science-based approach for predictive tools with
multiple interrelated phenomenologies requires advances in computational sciences where
phenomena at different time and length scales can be bridged into an engineering code
using modern computational platforms.
5.3 R&D Facilities and Infrastructure

Ultimately all design and safety tools for nuclear systems must be validated with underpinning
experimental data. Without such a foundation in reality, licensing these systems would be
virtually impossible. Experiments also provide essential waypoints for guiding the development
of technology. Having such an experimental capability requires that nuclear energy R&D
maintain access to a broad range of facilities from small-scale laboratories potentially up to full
prototype demonstrations. Hot cells and test reactors are at the top end of the hierarchy,
followed by smaller-scale radiological facilities, specialty engineering facilities, and non-
radiological small laboratories.
Nuclear energy R&D employs a multi-pronged approach to having these capabilities available
when needed. The core capabilities rely on DOE-owned irradiation, examination, chemical
processing and waste form development facilities. These are supplemented by university
capabilities ranging from research reactors to materials science laboratories. Future
infrastructure requirements will be considered through the established budget development
processes as needs arise.
The high cost of creating and maintaining physical infrastructure for nuclear R&D, including the
necessary safety and security infrastructure, requires creativity and periodic realignment of
infrastructure planning with programmatic direction. NE successfully employs a solid approach
to maintaining infrastructure. The approach concentrates the high-risk nuclear facilities at the
remote Idaho site, maintains unique capabilities at other sites if required, supports vital
university infrastructure, negotiates equitable capability exchanges with trusted international
partners, refurbishes and reequips essential facilities if required, addresses maintenance backlogs
to ensure safe operation, and makes efficient use of modeling, simulation, and single-effect
experiments.
5.4 Interfaces and Coordination

In order to achieve the objectives under each R&D objective, NE must closely coordinate its
activities with other agencies, the nuclear industry, and international partners.
44 APRIL 2010
56
Other Department of Energy Offices –The use of a “science-based” approach to develop

innovative nuclear energy systems and components requires a strong collaboration between NE
and the Office of Science (SC) to employ the tools developed for science in engineering
applications. Such tools include advanced experimental techniques, a fundamental
understanding of materials behavior, and advanced computational sciences. R&D on storage and
disposal of nuclear waste will be performed in coordination with the Office of Environmental
Management (EM) and the Office of Naval Reactors (NR), as there are salient similarities in the
disposition challenges facing each.
NNSA – Technology development for safeguards is a crosscutting tool that is applicable for both
domestic and international uses. NNSA and NE are implementing a coordinated effort to
address the safeguards R&D needs for domestic and international applications. These
collaborative efforts address the assessment of proliferation risks, accountancy, and control
(domestic) and verification (international) by contributing new safeguards technologies;
recruiting a new generation of safeguards specialists into the U.S. national laboratories,
universities, and industry; and informing the development of safe and secure nuclear facilities.
NNSA will be responsible for evaluating the international nation state proliferation risks of
deploying new fuel cycle technologies, particularly recycling technologies, outside of the United
States.
NRC – Appropriate collaboration between DOE and the NRC will help assure that nuclear
energy remains a viable option for the United States. The development of science-based tools to
inform licensing paradigms is one key goal of this collaboration.
Nuclear Industry – The decision to deploy nuclear energy systems is made by industry and the
private sector in market-based economies. However, it is important that industry is engaged
during the definition and execution of the R&D phase and that industry participate in joint
demonstration activities if such demonstration is deemed necessary and appropriate to facilitate
commercialization and deployment of the resulting technologies and systems. As technologies
are developed, cost-sharing with industry is an integral part of NE’s agenda. DOE will proceed
in a manner that recognizes the importance of maintaining a strong and viable nuclear industry.
International Community –Strong participation and leadership by the United States in

international nuclear R&D, safety and nonproliferation programs is essential. Nuclear energy
worldwide must be deployed with safety and security of paramount importance. In addition,
several countries have established strong nuclear R&D programs and specialized expertise from
which the United States can benefit, such as the leadership position of Russia, France, and Japan
in fast reactor technology. Collaborations in nuclear technology R&D will be implemented
through bilateral and multilateral agreements and through international organizations such as the
Generation IV International Forum.
APRIL 2010 45
57
In order for nuclear power to continue to be a viable energy option in any country, including the
United States, nuclear safety, security, and safeguards must be maintained at the highest levels
on a global scale. DOE will help to achieve consensus criteria for safe reactor operation through
international organizations, such as the World Association of Nuclear Operators, and seek to
enhance safety standards for nuclear power, promote appropriate infrastructure at the national
and international levels, and minimize proliferation risks from the expansion of nuclear power
through its participation with the IAEA and related organizations.
46 APRIL 2010
58
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This document presents an integrated strategy and R&D framework for the DOE Office of
Nuclear Energy. In order to meet the Administration’s goals of energy security and greenhouse
gas reductions, nuclear energy must play an important role in the national energy portfolio. NE’s
derived missions in support of these national goals are to enable the development and
deployment of fission power systems for the production of electricity and process heat. Four
research and development objectives have been identified, which will guide NE’s program and
strategic planning. Progress in these areas will help ensure that nuclear energy continues to be
among the suite of available U.S. energy options throughout the 21st century. These objectives
are:
• R&D Objective 1 – Develop technology and other solutions that can improve the reliability,
sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors.
terrorism.
APRIL 2010 47
59
48 APRIL 2010
60
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.033 / 22.33 Nuclear Systems Design Project

Fall 2011
i
1
2
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary............................................................................................... v
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
2. Background ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 The Energy Landscape ...................................................................................................... 3
2.2 The Value and Need for an “Energy Portfolio” Approach................................................ 7
2.3 Nuclear Energy as an Element of the Future U.S. Energy Portfolio ................................. 8
3. Mission and Goals of the Office of Nuclear Energy .....................................11
3.1 The Office of Nuclear Energy Mission ........................................................................... 11
3.2 Nuclear Energy R&D Objectives and the Role of NE in Achieving Them .................... 11
3.2.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can Improve
the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of Current Reactors ................... 12
3.2.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New Reactors
to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the Administration's Energy Security and
Climate Change Goals ...................................................................................................... 12
3.2.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles .......................................... 13
3.2.4 R&D Objective 4: Understand and Minimize the Risks of Nuclear Proliferation
and Terrorism.................................................................................................................... 13
4. An Integrated Nuclear Energy Roadmap .....................................................15
4.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can
Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of
Current Reactors.............................................................................................................. 16
4.1.1 Challenges Facing the Current Fleet................................................................................. 17
4.1.2 R&D Topics for Life Extension and Performance Improvement ..................................... 18
4.1.3 Key Activities ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New
Energy Security and Climate Change Goals ................................................................... 20
4.2.1 Challenges Facing New Reactor Deployments................................................................. 22
4.2.2 R&D Topics for Enabling New Builds ............................................................................. 22
4.2.3 Key Activities ................................................................................................................... 26
4.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles ........................................ 27
4.3.1 Major Challenges Associated with Fuel Cycle Options ................................................... 30
APRIL 2010 i
3
4.3.2 R&D for Sustainable Fuel Cycle Options ......................................................................... 31
4.3.3 Key Activities ................................................................................................................... 33
4.4 R&D Objective 4: Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear
Proliferation and Terrorism ............................................................................................. 34
4.4.1 Challenges......................................................................................................................... 36
4.4.2 R&D for Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear Proliferation and
Terrorism .......................................................................................................................... 37
4.4.3 Key Activities and Milestones .......................................................................................... 39
5. R&D Approach ................................................................................................41
5.1 Solution-Driven, Goal-Oriented, Science-Based Approach to Nuclear
Energy Development ....................................................................................................... 41
5.2 Enabling Technologies .................................................................................................... 42
5.3 R&D Facilities and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 44
5.4 Interfaces and Coordination ............................................................................................ 44
6. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................47
Figures
Figure 1. Major Elements of a Science-Based Approach ......................................................... viii

Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................... 3

Figure 3. 2005 Human Development Index vs. Energy Consumption ........................................ 4

Figure 4. U.S. Primary Energy Use in 2008 ................................................................................. 5

Figure 5. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2007 ...................................................................... 6

Figure 6. U.S. Nuclear Energy History, 1980 – 2008 .................................................................. 8

Figure 7. NE Mission, R&D Objectives, and Technologies ...................................................... 15

Figure 8. Nuclear Capacity With and Without License Extensions ........................................... 17



Figure 11. Constituents of Used LWR Fuel ................................................................................. 28



Figure 14. Major Elements of Science-Based Research, Development & Demonstration .......... 42

ii APRIL 2010
4
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BTU British Thermal Units

CO2 Carbon dioxide
DOE Department of Energy
EE DOE–Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EIA Energy Information Agency
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FE DOE–Office of Fossil Energy
GDP Gross domestic product
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWe Gigawatt (electric)
GWe-yr Gigawatt-year (electric)
HTGR High-temperature gas-cooled reactor
HTR High-temperature reactor
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
II&C Instrumentation, information and control
IPSR Integral primary system reactor
ITAAC Inspections, test, analyses and acceptance criteria
kW-hr Kilowatt-hour
LWR Light-water reactor
MPACT Materials Protection, Accounting and Control for Transmutation
MT Metric ton
MWe Megawatt (electric)
MWh Megawatt-hour
NDE Nondestructive evaluation
NE DOE–Office of Nuclear Energy
NEA Nuclear Energy Agency
NGNP Next Generation Nuclear Plant
NGSI Next Generation Safeguards Initiative
NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
R&D Research and development
RISMC Risk-informed safety margin characterization
SC DOE–Office of Science
SMR Small, modular reactor
UNF Used nuclear fuel
APRIL 2010 iii

5
iv APRIL 2010
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To achieve energy security and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction objectives, the United
States must develop and deploy clean, affordable, domestic energy sources as quickly as
possible. Nuclear power will continue to be a key component of a portfolio of technologies that
meets our energy goals. This document provides a roadmap for the Department of Energy’s
(DOE’s) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) research, development, and demonstration activities that
will ensure nuclear energy remains viable energy option for the United States.
Today, the key challenges to the increased use of nuclear energy, both domestically and
internationally, include:
• The capital cost of new large plants is high and can challenge the ability of electric utilities
to deploy new nuclear power plants.
• The exemplary safety performance of the U.S. nuclear industry over the past thirty years
must be maintained by an expanding reactor fleet.
• There is currently no integrated and permanent solution to high-level nuclear waste
management.
• International expansion of the use of nuclear energy raises concerns about the proliferation
of nuclear weapons stemming from potential access to special nuclear materials and
technologies.
In some cases, there is a necessary and appropriate federal role in overcoming these challenges,
consistent with the primary mission of NE to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of
making major contributions to meeting the nation’s energy supply, environmental, and energy
security needs. This is accomplished by resolving technical, cost, safety, security and
proliferation resistance barriers, through research, development, and demonstration, as
appropriate. NE’s research and development (R&D) activities will help address challenges and
thereby enable the deployment of new reactor technologies that will support the current fleet of
reactors and facilitate the construction of new ones.
Research and Development Objectives

NE organizes its R&D activities along four main R&D objectives that address challenges to
expanding the use of nuclear power: (1) develop technologies and other solutions that can
improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors; (2) develop
improvements in the affordability of new reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the
Administration's energy security and climate change goals; (3) develop sustainable nuclear fuel
cycles; and (4) understanding and minimization of risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
APRIL 2010 v
7
R&D OBJECTIVE 1: Develop technologies and other solutions that can

improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current
reactors
reactors account for 70 percent of the low greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting domestic electricity
production. Extending the operating lifetimes of current plants beyond sixty years and, where
possible, making further improvements in their productivity will generate near-term benefits.
Industry has a significant financial incentive to extend the life of existing plants, and as such,
activities will be cost shared. Federal R&D investments are appropriate to answer fundamental
scientific questions and, where private investment is insufficient, to help make progress on
broadly applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits. The DOE role in this
R&D objective is to work in conjunction with industry and where appropriate the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support and conduct the long-term research needed to inform
major component refurbishment and replacement strategies, performance enhancements, plant
license extensions, and age-related regulatory oversight decisions. DOE will focus on aging
phenomena and issues that require long-term research and are generic to reactor type.
R&D OBJECTIVE 2: Develop improvements in the affordability of new

reactors to enable nuclear energy to help meet the Administration's energy
security and climate change goals
even for those designs based on familiar light-water reactor (LWR) technology, include the
substantial capital cost of new plants and the uncertainties in the time required to license and
construct those plants. Although subject to their own barriers for deployment, more advanced
plant designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and high-temperature reactors (HTRs),
have characteristics that could make them more desirable than today’s technology. SMRs, for
example, have the potential to achieve lower proliferation risks and more simplified construction
by improved structural materials. Industry plays a substantial role in overcoming the barriers in
this area. DOE provides support through R&D ranging from fundamental nuclear phenomena to
the development of advanced fuels that could improve the economic and safety performance of
these advanced reactors. Nuclear power can reduce GHG emissions from electricity production
and possibly in co-generation by displacing fossil fuels in the generation of process heat for
vi APRIL 2010
8
R&D OBJECTIVE 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

key challenge is to develop a suite of options that will enable future decision makers to make
informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel from reactors. The Administration has
established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to inform this waste-
management decision-making process. DOE will conduct R&D in this area to investigate
technical challenges involved with three potential strategies for used fuel management:
uranium resources and reduce the amount of used fuel requiring direct disposal for each
megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced. Additionally, evaluate the inclusion of
non-uranium materials (e.g., thorium) as reactor fuel options that may reduce the long-lived
radiotoxic elements in the used fuel that would go into a repository.
• Modified Open Cycle – Investigate fuel forms and reactors that would increase fuel
resource utilization and reduce the quantity of long-lived radiotoxic elements in the used
repeatedly recycled rather than disposed. The ultimate goal is to develop a cost-effective
and low proliferation risk approach that would dramatically decrease the long-term danger
posed by the waste, reducing uncertainties associated with its disposal.
R&D OBJECTIVE 4: Understand and minimize the risks of nuclear

proliferation and terrorism
It is important to assure that the benefits of nuclear power can be obtained in a manner that limits
nuclear proliferation and security risks. These risks include the related but distinctly separate
possibilities that nations may attempt to use nuclear technologies in pursuit of a nuclear weapon
and that terrorists might seek to steal material that could be used in a nuclear explosive device.
Addressing these concerns requires an integrated approach that incorporates the simultaneous
development of nuclear technologies, including safeguards and security technologies and
systems, and the maintenance and strengthening of non-proliferation frameworks and protocols.
Technological advances can only provide part of an effective response to proliferation risks, as
institutional measures such as export controls and safeguards are also essential to addressing
proliferation concerns. These activities must be informed by robust assessments developed for
understanding, limiting, and managing the risks of nation-state proliferation and physical
security for nuclear technologies. NE will focus on assessments required to inform domestic fuel
APRIL 2010 vii

9
cycle technology and system option development. These analyses would complement those
assessments performed by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to evaluate
nation state proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime. NE will work with other
organizations including the NNSA, the Department of State, the NRC, and others in further
defining, implementing and executing this integrated approach.
R&D Areas
The Department expects to undertake R&D in a variety of areas to support its role in the
objectives outlined above. Examples include: Figure 1. Major Elements of a
Science-Based Approach
• Structural materials
• Nuclear fuels
• Reactor systems
• Instrumentation and controls
• Power conversion systems
• Process heat transport systems
• Dry heat rejection
• Separations processes
• Waste forms
• Risk assessment methods
• Computational modeling and simulation
R&D Approach
A goal-driven, science-based approach is essential to
achieving the stated objectives while exploring new technologies and seeking transformational
advances. This science-based approach, depicted in Figure 1, combines theory, experimentation,
and high-performance modeling and simulation to develop the fundamental understanding that
will lead to new technologies. Advanced modeling and simulation tools will be used in
conjunction with smaller-scale, phenomenon-specific experiments informed by theory to reduce
the need for large, expensive integrated experiments. Insights gained by advanced modeling and
simulation can lead to new theoretical understanding and, in turn, can improve models and
experimental design. This R&D must be informed by the basic research capabilities in the DOE
Office of Science (SC).
NE maintains access to a broad range of facilities to support its research activities. Hot cells and
test reactors are at the top of the hierarchy, followed by smaller-scale radiological facilities,
specialty engineering facilities, and small non-radiological laboratories. NE employs a multi-
pronged approach to having these capabilities available when needed. The core capabilities rely
on DOE-owned irradiation, examination, chemical processing and waste form development
facilities. These are supplemented by university capabilities ranging from research reactors to
materials science laboratories. In the course of conducting this science-based R&D,
viii APRIL 2010

10
infrastructure needs will be evaluated and considered through the established planning and
budget development processes.
There is potential to leverage and amplify effective U.S. R&D through collaboration with other
nations via multilateral and bilateral agreements, including the Generation IV International
Forum. DOE is also a participant in Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development/Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) and International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) initiatives that bear directly on the development and deployment of new reactor systems.
In addition to these R&D activities, international interaction supported by NE and other
government agencies will be essential in establishment of international norms and control
regimes to address and mitigate proliferation concerns.
APRIL 2010 ix
11
x APRIL 2010
12
1. INTRODUCTION
Access to affordable, abundant energy – chiefly from fossil fuel sources – has been a key enabler
of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution. However, as the first decade of the 21st
century draws to a close, the United States finds itself confronted with economic, environmental,
and national security challenges related in part to the manner in which our society produces,
distributes, and uses energy. Continued access to plentiful, secure, and environmentally benign
energy is fundamental to overcoming these challenges.
Nuclear power is a proven
Nuclear energy is an important element of the diverse
clean, affordable, domestic
energy portfolio required to accomplish our national
objectives. NE conducts research and development,
energy source that is part of
and demonstrations, as appropriate, that will help the current U.S. energy
enable the benefits of clean, safe, secure and affordable portfolio.
nuclear energy to continue and expand.
This document identifies opportunities and challenges associated with continued and increased
use of fission energy to enhance our nation’s prosperity, security, and environmental quality;
outlines the NE role and mission in enabling the benefits of nuclear energy for our nation; and
presents a strategy and roadmap to guide the NE scientific and technical agenda. The report
presents a high-level vision and framework for R&D activities needed to keep the nuclear energy
option viable in the near term and to expand its use in the decades ahead.
Section 2 describes the current energy production and utilization landscape in the United States.
Section 3 articulates NE’s fundamental mission and role in enabling nuclear energy solutions and
presents the four R&D objectives for nuclear energy development that are the focus of NE
activities. The details of the roadmap are presented in Section 4. The R&D approach presented
in Section 5 embodies a goal-oriented, science-based R&D portfolio that includes both
evolutionary and transformational, high-risk–high-payoff R&D, including those research areas
that encompass multiple objectives. Finally, Section 6 provides a summary of the objects
presented in this report.
This report is not an implementation plan, but rather provides a basis that will guide NE’s
internal programmatic and strategic planning for research going forward.
APRIL 2010 1
13
The report focuses on R&D activities sponsored by NE.

The U.S. nuclear industry plays a central role in To achieve its energy
overcoming barriers and is ultimately responsible for security and GHG reduction
the commercial deployment of the resulting objectives, the U.S. must
technologies. NE intends to proceed in a manner that develop and deploy clean,
supports a strong and viable nuclear industry in the
United States and preserves the ability of that industry
affordable, domestic energy
to participate in nuclear projects here and abroad. sources as quickly as
possible.
Finally, it should be noted that in some limited cases,
NE’s mission extends beyond terrestrial deployment of nuclear energy into other arenas, such as
space applications of both fission and radioisotope power systems. Some technology
development needs identified in this document also benefit space applications, but these mission
arenas are not addressed in this roadmap. Educational programs, while vital, are interwoven
through the technical programs and are not discussed as separate entities.
2 APRIL 2010
14
2. BACKGROUND
All governments of the world share a common challenge to ensure their people have access to
affordable, abundant, and environmentally friendly energy. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has
reiterated the Administration’s position that nuclear is an important part of the energy mix. He
has recognized the importance of nuclear energy in meeting this challenge and supports R&D
that can help increase the benefits of nuclear energy. A key objective that will shape the energy
landscape of the United States is the transition to clean energy sources with reductions in GHG
emissions (with a quantitative goal of 83% reduction below 2005 emissions levels by 2050,
shown in Figure 2).
Figure 2. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1
2.1 The Energy Landscape
The Human Development Index 2 is a commonly used measure of quality of life. Figure 3
illustrates that a nation’s standard of living depends in part on energy consumption. Access to
adequate energy is now and will continue to be required to achieve a high quality of life.
Economic development, combined with efforts to limit carbon emissions, will likely lead to a
12007 GHG emissions reported in EPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2007 EPA
430-R-09-004, April 15, 2009. Administration emission goals taken from the “Testimony of Peter R. Orszag,
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of
Representatives” on March 3, 2009.
2
The index was developed by the United Nations to enable cross-national comparisons of development and is
updated in an annual report. The derivation of the index was introduced in United Nations Development
Programme, Human Development Report 1990, Oxford University Press, 1990.
APRIL 2010 3
15
significant expansion of nuclear power. The U.S., in concert with the international community,
must develop the technologies and systems to accomplish such expansion while limiting
proliferation risks.
Figure 3. 2005 Human Development Index vs. Energy Consumption

(Per Capita Kilograms Oil Equivalent)
As we move forward, efficiency and conservation will become ever-increasing components of

energy policy. However, conservation and energy efficiency alone will not be sufficient to
maintain a desirable quality of life.
The United States currently consumes roughly 100 quadrillion British Thermal Units (BTU), or
100 quads, of primary energy. 3 This represents 25% of world’s energy consumption in a country
that produces 30% of the global gross domestic product (GDP). Figure 4 shows energy
consumption in the United States as a function of sectors and energy sources. At present, 40% of
the total energy consumed is in the form of electricity, of which about 20 percent is generated by
nuclear power. With 6 billion metric tons (MT) of emitted carbon dioxide (CO2) as a result of
fossil fuel usage (see Figure 5), the United States contributes 25 percent of global GHGs emitted.
3The data in Figures 5 and 6 are reported by the U.S. DOE Energy Information Agency “An Updated Annual
Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case,” 2009.
4 APRIL 2010
16
Figure 4. U.S. Primary Energy Use in 2008
17
APRIL 2010 5
Figure 5. U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in 2007
18
6 APRIL 2010
The Administration’s clean energy and climate change objectives are ambitious and achievable.
Successful achievement of these objectives will require solutions to technical challenges
associated with various energy sectors, including:
• Electricity Sector GHG Production – As seen in Figures 4 and 5, the U.S. electricity
production sector annually consumes 40 quadrillion BTU of primary energy, producing
4,150 million MWh of electricity, and emitting 2,400 million MT of CO2. The average
carbon intensity of the U.S. electric-generating sector is 0.58 MT–CO2/MWh of electricity
produced. While far from the world’s highest carbon intensity (China produces 0.87 MT-
CO2/MWh of electricity), U.S. electric-generating-sector carbon intensity is far higher than
some industrialized countries. For instance, France emits only 0.09 MT–CO2/MWh of
electricity produced. There is clearly both the need for, and the real potential for,
significant improvement in U.S. electric-generating-sector carbon intensity and GHG
emissions.
• Transportation Sector Energy Use and GHG
Emissions – The transportation sector is currently
responsible for 33% of GHG emissions (Figure The driver for the new
5). In addition to more energy-efficient internal

energy policy is to continue
combustion engines, electrification of the to generate energy, mostly
transportation sector using new low-carbon
electricity-generation technologies will assist in
from domestic sources, at
reducing these emissions. Successful an affordable price. The
electrification of the transportation sector is also policy must meet increasing
dependent on improvements in battery technology demand, with considerably
to enable high-density energy storage to meet reduced GHG emissions,
vehicle service range requirements.
and without stifling GDP
• Industrial Sector Energy Use and GHG Emissions growth.
– Industrial use of energy is responsible for 16
percent of the country’s GHG emissions (Figure
5). About half of these emissions come from chemical facilities and oil refineries. The
development of GHG-free technologies that can generate and deliver significant thermal
and chemical energy to industry is needed.
2.2 The Value and Need for an “Energy Portfolio” Approach

Given the issues noted in Section 2.1, an effective energy policy will almost certainly rely on the
development and use of a portfolio of domestic clean energy sources. This is true not only
because of resource limits at various points in the energy supply chain but also because all
APRIL 2010 7
19
energy sources face economic, technical, and societal risks to their successful deployment. 4
R. Socolow and S. Pacala, in “A Plan To Keep Carbon In Check,” 5 have demonstrated the
potential for energy portfolio approaches to enhance U.S. energy security and reduce the threat
of global warming. The following section discusses the role of nuclear energy as an element of
the U.S. energy portfolio.
2.3 Nuclear Energy as an Element of the Future U.S. Energy Portfolio

In 2007, the 104 light-water
reactors (LWRs) currently Figure 6. U.S. Nuclear Energy History, 1980 – 2008
operating in the United
States generated 806 billion
kilowatt-hours (kW-hrs),
equivalent to 92 gigawatt-
years (GWe-yrs). As shown
in Figure 6, even though the
generating capacity of the
nuclear fleet has been
essentially flat for almost
twenty years, the production
of nuclear electricity
(EIA, Annual Energy Review 2008)
continued to grow largely as
a result of increased capacity factors. The fleet’s average capacity factor improved from 56.3%
in 1980 to 91.9% in 2008. 6 This improvement was driven by reactor operators and the efforts of
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), spurred by NE-sponsored R&D into high-burnup
fuels that allowed utilities to shift from 12-month operating cycles to 18- or 24-month operating
cycles that reduced downtime. Additionally, some growth can be attributed to power uprates that
increased capacity at existing plants.
While in operation, nuclear power plants do not emit GHGs. Every MWh of electricity produced
with nuclear energy avoids the emission of approximately 1.0 MT of CO2 if the same amount of
energy had been generated with conventional coal-fired technologies or approximately 0.6 MT
of CO2 if the energy had been produced with natural gas. Since the per capita electricity
consumption in the United States is approximately 14 MWh of electricity per year per person,
nuclear energy offers the prospect of avoiding what could otherwise be an annual personal
carbon footprint from electricity production of up to 14 MT of CO2. In addition, nuclear power
4
R. Socolow and S. Pacala, "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current
Technologies." Science, August 13, 2004: 968-972.
5 Scientific American, September 2006
6 EIA, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 9.2.
8 APRIL 2010
20
is dependable. It is available day or night, when the wind is blowing and when it is not. After
more than three decades of outstanding safety performance, the public acceptance of nuclear
energy has turned in favor of its deployment. 7 However, continued and increased use of nuclear
energy faces several key challenges:
• Capital Cost – The current fleet of nuclear power plants produces electricity at a very low
cost (approximately 2–3 cents/kilowatt-hour) because these plants have already repaid the
initial construction investments. However, the capital cost of a large new plant is high and
can challenge the ability of electric utilities to deploy new nuclear reactors. Thus, it is
important to reduce the capital cost by innovative designs. The introduction of smaller
reactors might reduce capital costs by taking advantage of series fabrication in centralized
plants and may reduce financial risk by requiring a smaller up-front investment.
• Waste Management – At present, no permanent solution to high-level nuclear waste
management has been deployed in the United States. Innovative solutions will be required
to assure that nuclear waste is properly managed. The Administration has initiated the
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to conduct a review of policies for
managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage,
processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The
results will inform the Government’s process to establish a policy for used fuel and waste
management. Ultimately, while the need for permanent waste disposal can never be
eliminated, transition to nuclear energy technologies that significantly reduce the
production of long-lived radioactive waste – rather than deal with it after it is produced – is
a desirable goal.
• Proliferation Risk – There is considerable interest in the global expansion of nuclear
energy. However, such expansion raises concerns about the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, including nuclear explosive devices, stemming from access to enrichment and
reprocessing activities that might produce weapons-usable materials. Development of
innovative technologies and international policies are essential to prevent nuclear
proliferation by nation-states as well as nuclear terrorism by rogue entities. Furthermore, a
more robust capability to evaluate and compare proliferation and terrorism risks is needed.
In addition, it is in the U.S. interest to engage nations contemplating civil nuclear power for
the first time in order to help them develop an indigenous infrastructure designed to deploy
the technology in a safe and secure manner.
• Safety and Reliability – As existing plants continue to operate and new plants and new
types of plants are constructed, it is vital that the excellent safety and reliability record of
nuclear energy in the United States be maintained. It is also important that the U.S. share
its experience with other countries and work with them to ensure safe operation of their
plants.
7 Ref. http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/Support-Nuclear-Energy-Inches-New-High.aspx.
APRIL 2010 9
21
10 APRIL 2010
22
3. MISSION AND GOALS OF THE

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
The analysis presented in Section 2 supports the conclusion that increased greenhouse gas-free
electricity production is necessary to achieve the transition to a clean-energy economy.
3.1 The Office of Nuclear Energy Mission

The primary mission of NE is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the
nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety,
security, and proliferation resistance, through R&D and demonstrations, as appropriate. Progress
in these areas should promote the deployment of fission power systems in a socially acceptable,
environmentally sustainable, and economically attractive manner.
Four specific research and development objectives for nuclear energy development outline NE’s
approach to delivering progress in the areas noted above. The objectives are:
• R&D Objective 1 – Develop technologies and other solutions that can improve the
reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors.

terrorism.
The four objectives are discussed more fully in the following sections.
3.2 Nuclear Energy R&D Objectives and the Role of NE in Achieving

Them
This section presents a description of the four R&D objectives and NE’s role in making progress
in these areas.
APRIL 2010 11
23
3.2.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions that Can
Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend the Life of Current
Reactors
reactors account for 70 percent of the low GHG-emitting domestic electricity production.
Extending the operating lifetimes of current plants beyond sixty years and, where possible,
making further improvements in their productivity will generate near-term benefits. Industry has
a significant financial incentive to extend the life of existing plants, and as such, activities will be
cost shared. Federal R&D investments are appropriate to answer fundamental scientific
questions and, where private investment is insufficient, to help make progress on broadly
applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits.
The DOE role in this R&D objective is to work with industry and, where appropriate, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to support and conduct the long-term research needed to
inform major component refurbishment and replacement strategies, performance enhancements,
plant license extensions, and age-related regulatory oversight decisions. The DOE R&D role
will focus on aging phenomena and issues that require long-term research and are generic to
reactor type.
3.2.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of New

Energy Security and Climate Change Goals
even for those designs based on familiar light-water reactor technology, include the substantial
capital cost of new plants and the uncertainties in the time required to license and construct them.
More advanced plant designs, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and high-temperature
reactors (HTRs), will have additional barriers for deployment. These reactors have
characteristics that could make them more attractive than today’s technology. SMRs, for
example, have the potential to achieve lower proliferation risk and more simplified construction
by improved structural materials. Industry’s role in overcoming the barriers in this area is
substantial. DOE supports R&D ranging from fundamental nuclear phenomena to the
development of advanced fuels that could improve the economic and safety performance of these
advanced reactors. Nuclear power can reduce GHG emissions from electricity production and
possibly in co-generation by displacing fossil fuels in the generation of process heat for
12 APRIL 2010
24
3.2.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles

energy generation, minimize waste generation, improve safety, and complement institutional
measures in limiting proliferation risk. The key challenge for the government in this R&D
objective is to develop a suite of options that will enable future decision makers to make
informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel from reactors. DOE will conduct
R&D in this area to investigate the technical challenges involved with three potential strategies
for used fuel management.
uranium resources and reduce the amount of used fuel for direct disposal for each MWh of
electricity produced. Additionally, evaluate the inclusion of non-uranium materials (e.g.,
thorium) in reactor fuel options that may reduce the long-lived radiotoxic elements in the
used fuel that would go into a repository.
• Modified Open Cycle – Investigate fuel forms and reactors that would increase utilization
of the fuel resource and reduce the quantity of long-lived radiotoxic elements in the used
repeatedly recycled rather than be disposed. The ultimate goal is to develop a cost-
effective and low proliferation risk approach that would dramatically decrease the long-
term danger posed by the waste, reducing uncertainties associated with its disposal.
3.2.4 R&D Objective 4: Understand and Minimize the Risks of Nuclear

Proliferation and Terrorism
It is important to assure that access to the benefits of nuclear power can be enabled while
limiting nuclear proliferation and security risks. This goal requires an integrated approach that
incorporates simultaneous development of nuclear fuel cycle technology, safeguards and security
technologies and systems, new proliferation risk assessment tools, and non-proliferation
frameworks and protocols. These activities must be informed by robust assessments that identify
potential approaches for limiting risks of specific technologies and nuclear fuel cycle system
options. NE will work with other organizations such as the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), the Department of State, the NRC, and others in further defining,
implementing and executing this integrated approach. Aspects of this research may help to
inform the exploration of concepts such as international fuel service arrangements.
APRIL 2010 13
25
14 APRIL 2010
26
4. AN INTEGRATED NUCLEAR
ENERGY ROADMAP
This section presents an objective-focused roadmap to advance nuclear energy technologies. As
depicted in Figure 7, the activities described here ultimately “unpack” to a suite of science and
technology development activities, many of which will support more than one R&D objective.
Figure 7. NE Mission, R&D Objectives, and Technologies
The approach incorporates a portfolio of long-term R&D objectives and a balanced focus on
evolutionary, innovative, and high-risk–high-payoff R&D in many diverse areas. The
organization and coordination of the science and technology thrusts (“Enabling Technologies” in
APRIL 2010 15
27
Figure 7) will be a focus of program and strategic planning follow-on implementation plants, but
is briefly addressed in Section 5.2 of this document.
In laying out the activities in each of the R&D objectives described below, we must remain goal-
oriented to avoid falling into the trap of doing a great deal of work that, while interesting, fails to
address the challenges to the deployment of nuclear energy. The following sections highlight
areas in which NE may undertake future R&D. These R&D activities have been considered with
the end in mind to ensure that the linkage between research and solution is clear. To that end, in
depicting the timelines of activity for the R&D objectives below, the charts show a distinction
between near-term milestones toward which the NE R&D plan is designed to progress,
represented as triangles, and longer-term potential outcomes that provide a framework for the
milestones, which are shown as ovals. The milestone charts attempt to depict the stages of
development so as not to leave a sense that new technologies can be immediately deployed at a
commercial level. Not every milestone or potential outcome outlined in these charts represent
actions that are within DOE’s roles and responsibilities, and research paths will include many
decision points that require choosing the most promising options for continued R&D. Especially
as technology matures, industry has a role and a responsibility to share the costs of making
progress. It is ultimately industry’s decision which commercial technologies will be deployed.
The federal role falls more squarely in the realm of R&D.
These long-term milestones and potential outcomes are not set in stone, and in some cases the
following sections outline multiple competing paths within an objective, knowing that ultimately
only one direction will be chosen. In all cases, the activities, milestones, and plans outlined in
this document will be reconsidered and revised periodically to ensure that NE R&D is consistent
with priorities and reflects what we have learned from these efforts. Activities will be reviewed
and modified as necessary through the established budgetary and decision-making processes.
are not large-scale demonstrations like the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). Any
decisions to embark on such large-scale demonstrations will be the result of decision-making
processes that include the relevant stakeholders in the Executive Branch and Congress and will
be made in accordance with NEPA and DOE Order 413 requirements. This R&D will enable
these stakeholders to understand the potential tradeoffs embodied in these decisions.
4.1 R&D Objective 1: Develop Technologies and Other Solutions

that Can Improve the Reliability, Sustain the Safety, and Extend
the Life of Current Reactors
The current fleet of 104 nuclear power plants has reliably and economically contributed almost
20 percent of electricity generated in the United States over the past two decades. However, by
16 APRIL 2010
28
2030, even those current nuclear power plants that have received 20-year extensions from the
NRC authorizing 60 years of life will begin reaching the end of their licensed periods of
operation. Figure 8 shows projected nuclear energy contribution to domestic generating capacity
from those plants that have already received 20-year license extensions. If current plants do not
operate beyond 60 years, the total fraction of generated electricity from nuclear power could
begin to decline, even with the addition of new nuclear-generating capacity.
Replacing the current fleet would require hundreds of billions of dollars. Replacement of this
100 GWe-generating capacity with traditional fossil plants would lead to significant increases in
CO2 emissions. Extending operating licenses beyond 60 to perhaps 80 years would enable
existing plants to continue providing safe, clean and economic electricity without significant
GHG emissions. The objective of this R&D objective is to provide a comprehensive technical
basis for extending the life of today’s LWRs that could be used to inform licensing and
managing the long-term safe and economical operation.
Figure 8. Nuclear Capacity With and Without License Extensions
4.1.1 Challenges Facing the Current Fleet

The following are the major challenges facing the current fleet:
• Aging and degradation of system structures and components, such as reactor core internals,
reactor pressure vessels, concrete, buried pipes, and cables.
• Fuel reliability and performance issues.
• Obsolete analog instrumentation and control technologies.
APRIL 2010 17
29
• Design and safety analysis tools based on 1980s vintage knowledge bases and
computational capabilities.
Industry’s economic incentive to meet these challenges in order to continue the safe and reliable
operation of existing plants is tremendous. As such, federal activities undertaken in this area will
be cost-shared with industry. Industry, working through EPRI or through the various owners’
groups, will engage some of these problems directly. Federal R&D investments are appropriate
to answer fundamental scientific questions and where private investment is insufficient, to help
make progress on broadly-applicable technology issues that can generate public benefits. The
government holds a great deal of theoretical, computational, and experimental expertise in
nuclear R&D that is not available in industry. The benefits of assisting industry with R&D on
life-extension apply not only to current plants but also to the next generation of reactor
technologies still in development.
4.1.2 R&D Topics for Life Extension and Performance Improvement

The overall focus of the R&D activities will be to improve a power plant operator’s ability to
manage the effects of the aging of passive components and increase operational efficiency and
economics. In selecting projects for federal investment, it is vital that due consideration be given
not only to how each of the R&D activities support achievement of safety and economic
sustainability for existing LWRs, but also to how the R&D results will be more broadly
applicable to the next generation of reactor technologies. These activities should also be
integrated with outside sources of information and parallel R&D programs in industry, the NRC,
universities, and other laboratories, both domestic and international. Close coordination with the
NRC as appropriate is needed to assure that R&D programs focus on issues relevant to licensing.
The following are R&D topics where NE will focus its efforts to help provide solutions to the
challenges listed above, thereby helping enable reactor life extension beyond 60 years with
improved performance. Progress on this long-term and high-risk–high-reward R&D, which
supports the current nuclear power plant fleet, will provide the scientific underpinnings for plant
owners to make billion-dollar investment decisions to prolong the economic lifetime of these
assets. R&D findings will also inform improvements in the lifetime of future-generation reactor
designs.
• Nuclear Materials Aging and Degradation – Develop a scientific basis for understanding
and predicting long-term environmental degradation behavior of materials in nuclear power
plants. Provide data and methods to assess performance of systems, structures, and
components essential to safe and sustained nuclear power plant operation.
• Advanced LWR Nuclear Fuel Development – Improve the scientific knowledge basis for
understanding and predicting fundamental nuclear fuel and cladding performance in
nuclear power plants. Apply this information to the development of high-performance,
high-burnup fuels with improved safety, cladding, integrity, and economics.
18 APRIL 2010
30
• Advanced Instrumentation, Information, and Control (II&C) System Technologies –

Research to address long-term aging and obsolescence of existing instrumentation and
control technologies and to develop and test new technologies. Establishing a strategy to
implement long-term modernization of II&C systems will be the focus of federal R&D,
while industry will focus on the more immediate benefits of adapting existing digital
technologies to current plants. NE will work with industry to develop advanced condition-
monitoring technologies for reliable plant operation, improved understanding of physical
methods of degradation, and the means to detect and characterize these processes.
• Risk-Informed Safety Margin Characterization (RISMC) – Bring together risk-informed,
performance-based methodologies with fundamental scientific understanding of critical
phenomenological conditions and deterministic predictions of nuclear plant performance to
provide an integrated characterization of public safety margins in aging nuclear power
plants. Such an approach will better characterize safety margins and should improve the
reliability and efficiency of plant operations. RISMC will also be applicable to future
generations of nuclear power plants.
• Efficiency Improvement – Improve the efficiency of the current fleet while maintaining
excellent safety performance is one of the primary objectives of life extension. Power
uprates have contributed to improving the current fleet’s economic performance. This
activity focuses on developing methodologies and scientific bases to enable more extended
power uprates.
• Advanced Modeling and Simulation Tools – Conduct R&D needed to create a new set of
modeling and simulation capabilities that will be used to better understand the safety
performance of the aging reactor fleet. These tools will be fully three-dimensional, high-
resolution, modeling integrated systems based on first-principle physics. To accomplish
this, the modeling and simulation capabilities will have to be run on modern, highly
parallel processing computer architectures.
The sustainability of light water reactors will benefit enormously from advanced modeling and
simulation capabilities. The NE Modeling and Simulation Hub will integrate existing nuclear
energy modeling and simulation capabilities with relevant capabilities developed by the Office of
Science, the NNSA, and others. The results will leapfrog current technology to provide a multi-
physics, multi-scale predictive capability that is a revolutionary improvement over conventional
codes. A key challenge will be to adapt advanced computer science tools to an applications
environment. The hub is intended to create a new state-of-the-art in an engineering-oriented
multi-physics computational environment that can be used by a wide range of practitioners to
conduct ultra-high fidelity predictive calculations of reactor performance.
APRIL 2010 19
31

priorities.
processes.
4.2 R&D Objective 2: Develop Improvements in the Affordability of

New Reactors to Enable Nuclear Energy to Help Meet the
Administration's Energy Security and Climate Change Goals
The previous 30-year U.S. hiatus in new nuclear plant orders presents a number of immediate
hurdles for the construction of new plant designs. Utility investors are still wary of the new
regulatory framework, which will not be fully exercised until the first new plant begins
operation. There are also concerns regarding the large capital costs of plants and associated
difficulties in financing their construction.
NE’s objective is to assist in the revitalization of the U.S. industry through R&D. By advancing
technologies through R&D, NE can help accelerate deployment of new plants in the short term,
support development of advanced concepts for the medium term, and promote design of
revolutionary systems for the long term. Work will be done in partnership with industry to the
maximum extent possible. Elements of NE’s strategy in this area include:
• Assist industry to improve light water reactors using existing technologies and designs.
• Explore advanced LWR designs with improved performance.
• Research and develop small modular reactors that have the potential to achieve lower
proliferation risks and more simplified construction than other designs.
20 APRIL 2010
32
• In the longer term, support R&D of advanced reactor technologies that offer lower costs
and waste generation.
• Investigate revolutionary reactor concepts that promise to significantly reduce costs and
improve performance of nuclear energy.
• Support R&D of nuclear energy’s potential to displace fossil fuels in the production of
process heat.
APRIL 2010 21
33
Implementing this strategy will require that DOE work in partnership with the nuclear industry
and, to the degree appropriate, the NRC.
4.2.1 Challenges Facing New Reactor Deployments

There are several new plant designs, often referred to as Gen III+, that have been certified or are
being reviewed by the NRC for immediate deployment in the United States. Potential owners of
these Gen III+ plants must overcome serious financial hurdles. All near-term options for new
plants are large LWR designs that are optimized for baseload electricity production. Smaller
reactors that could be deployed in modules might help reduce the up-front capital costs
associated with large plants by allowing utilities to incrementally “step up” to larger electrical
capacities while generating revenue and repaying initial debts. New reactor designs beyond Gen
III+ may also be deployed. In many cases, new technologies will be needed to enable these new
designs, and innovative features will need to be fully demonstrated. Certain aspects of the
regulatory framework need to accommodate these new technologies and design features,
especially for designs that differ significantly from the large LWR plants in operation today.
Economic competitiveness will remain the major hurdle for all novel concepts, including smaller
reactors and reactors for non-electric applications.
During the 30-year hiatus from new plant orders in the United States, some nations have
continued to grow their nuclear industries. As a result, some other countries have advanced the
state-of-the art in manufacturing of nuclear plant components and have made progress in
applying more efficient construction techniques. The domestic industry can learn from these
international experiences.
4.2.2 R&D Topics for Enabling New Builds

In the United States, it is the responsibility of industry to design, construct, and operate
commercial nuclear power plants. However, DOE has statutory authority under the Atomic
Energy Act to promote and support nuclear energy technologies for commercial applications. In
general, appropriate government roles include researching high-potential technologies beyond
the investment horizon of industry and also reducing the technical risks of new technologies. In
the case of new commercial reactor designs, potential areas of NE involvement could include:
• Enabling new technologies to be inserted into emerging and future designs by providing
access to unique laboratory resources for new technology development and, where
appropriate, demonstration.
• Working through the laboratories and universities to provide unique expertise and facilities
to industry for R&D in the areas of:
o Innovative concepts and advanced technologies.
o Fundamental phenomena and performance data.
o Advanced modeling and simulation capabilities.
22 APRIL 2010
34
o New technology testing and, if appropriate, demonstration.

o Advanced manufacturing methods.
Representative R&D activities that support each of the roles stated above are presented below.
The level of DOE investment relative to industry investment will vary across the spectrum of
these activities, with a generally increasing trend in DOE investment for longer-term activities.
Finally, there is potential to leverage and amplify effective U.S. R&D through collaborations
with other nations through multilateral and bilateral agreements including the Generation IV
International Forum, which is investigating multiple advanced reactor concepts. DOE is also a
participant in OECD/NEA and IAEA initiatives that bear directly on the development and
deployment of new reactor systems.
4.2.2.1 Accelerate Advancements in LWR Designs

Given the maturity of the Gen III+ LWR designs, R&D needs are necessarily limited, as the
design of these plants is well underway or already complete, some of them are being built
overseas, and many have been ordered in the United States and elsewhere. Nevertheless the
R&D topics identified jointly with industry for R&D Objective 1 are all applicable to this task.
R&D of more advanced LWR concepts, including novel materials, fuels, and innovative system
architectures, is a legitimate role for DOE and its laboratories in partnership with industry. This
R&D will help address long-term trends in the capital cost of large LWR plants. Much of this
research is also expected to be applicable to non-LWR technologies.
4.2.2.2 Accelerate the Development of SMR Designs

Several U.S.-based companies are seeking to bring new SMR designs to market, including some
with potential for deployment within the next decade. Many of these designs use well-
established light-water coolant technology to the fullest extent possible to shorten the timeline
for deployment. As such, R&D needs for these technologies are minimal. However, these
designs may include new features, such as the use of an integral primary system reactor (IPSR)
design and components that are not currently used in commercial plants, such as helical-coil
steam generators. DOE will hold workshops with LWR SMR vendors and suppliers, potential
utility customers, national laboratory and university researchers, DOE, NRC, and other
stakeholders to identify potential priorities to enable their commercialization and development.
The Administration will evaluate potential priorities in the context of the appropriate federal role
to identify the most cost-effective, efficient, and appropriate mechanisms to support further
development.
SMR designs that are not based on LWR technology have the potential to offer added
functionality and affordability. In this area, NE will support a range of R&D activities, such as
basic physics and materials research and testing, state-of-the-art computer modeling and
simulation of reactor systems and components, probabilistic risk analyses of innovative safety
APRIL 2010 23
35
designs and features, and other development activities that are necessary to establish the
concept’s feasibility for future deployment. For SMRs that are based on concepts with lower
levels of technical maturity, the Department will first seek to establish the R&D activities
necessary to prove and advance innovative reactor technologies and concepts. The Department
will support R&D activities to develop and prove the proposed design concepts. Emphasis will
be on advanced reactor technologies that offer simplified operation and maintenance for
distributed power and load-following applications and increased proliferation resistance and
security.
Activities will focus on showing that SMRs provide an innovative reactor technology that is
capable of achieving electricity generation and performance objectives that meet market
demands and are comparable, in both safety and economics, to the current large baseload nuclear
power plants.
NE may also support the development of new/revised nuclear industry codes and standards
necessary to support licensing and commercialization of innovative designs and, consistent with
NRC guidance and regulations, identify activities for DOE funding to enable SMR licensing for
deployment in the United States.
4.2.2.3 Develop Advanced Reactor Technologies

Future-generation reactor systems will employ advanced technologies and designs to improve
performance beyond what is currently attainable. Moving beyond LWR technology, for
example, may enable reactors to operate at higher temperatures and improved efficiencies
resulting in improved economics. Advanced materials may make reactors easier to construct
while also enabling better performance. Improved designs utilizing these advances could reduce
the capital costs associated with the current set of reactors being considered. Two prominent
examples of advanced reactor technologies worthy of further investigation include:
• The high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), a graphite moderated thermal-spectrum
reactor operated at high temperature for efficient generation of electricity and heat delivery
for non-electric applications.
• Fast-spectrum reactors that could provide options for future fuel cycle management and
could also be used for electricity generation (see R&D Objective 3).
The U.S. is also a member of the Generation IV International Forum, which is investigating
additional advanced reactor systems that employ comparatively less mature technologies while
offering significant potential for performance, safety, and economic advances.

• High-performance materials compatible with the proposed coolant types and capable of
extended service at elevated temperatures.
24 APRIL 2010
36
• New fuels and cladding capable of irradiation to high burnup.

• Advanced heat delivery and energy conversion systems for increased efficiency of
electricity production.
• Advanced modeling and simulation tools that can reduce uncertainties in predicted
performance, improve characterization of uncertainties, and streamline the design of new
reactor technologies.
• Systems design for revolutionary new reactor concepts.
4.2.2.4 Develop Technologies Consistent with Both Electric and Non-Electric

Applications
An additional potential benefit from nuclear power could be realized through new plant designs
that would be used to displace GHG-emitting fuels in the industrial sector while also generating
electricity. Some industrial process heat applications require temperatures substantially above
the 300–325°C outlet temperature of today’s LWRs. Petroleum refining, for example, requires
temperatures in the range of 250-500°C while steam reforming of natural gas requires process
heat in the 500-900°C range. Achieving higher output temperatures requires switching to a new
coolant technology such as gas, liquid metal, or molten salt. With these coolants, it may be
possible to achieve outlet temperatures ranging from over 500°C for liquid metal coolants to
over 900°C for helium or molten salt coolants. Achieving these temperatures, however, will
require the development and qualification of fuels, materials and instrumentation, particularly at
the higher end of the temperature range. Also, the use of coolants other than water will require
the development of a variety of plant components and systems such as electromagnetic pumps
for liquid metal coolants, compact heat exchangers for gas coolants, and chemical purification
systems for molten salt coolants. These coolants will also require the development of new
licensing requirements and codes and standards. While the economic market for dedicated
process heat from nuclear power may be limited, reactors that could produce electricity as well
as industrial process heat may have broader applications.

• Develop interfacing heat transport systems – Supply process heat with minimal losses to
industrial users within several kilometers of the reactor.
• Develop modeling and simulation capabilities – These tools would improve understanding
of interactions between the kinetics of the various reactor types and the kinetics of the
chemical plants or refineries, which they would serve. Modeling may also be used to
understand the long-term performance of catalysts and solid-oxide cells at an atomistic
level.
APRIL 2010 25
37

priorities.
processes.
26 APRIL 2010
38
4.3 R&D Objective 3: Develop Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles
principal challenge for the government in this objective is to develop a suite of options that will
enable future decision makers to make informed choices about how best to manage the used fuel
from reactors. The Administration has established the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future to inform this waste management decision-making process. The Commission
will review policies for managing the back end of the fuel cycle including alternatives for the
storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. All
research and development activities and plans outlined here will be revisited and revised as
needed to reflect the Commission’s findings and associated Administration decisions.
APRIL 2010 27
39
An expansion of nuclear power in the United States will result in a growth of the used nuclear
fuel inventories. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 gave the U.S. government the mission
to safely manage the used fuel from these nuclear power plants. Research and development of
sustainable nuclear fuel cycles and waste management activities is important to support the
expansion of nuclear energy. Some of the attributes of the sustainable fuel cycle, including
waste management and disposal technologies, include the responsible use of natural resources,
preservation of the environment for future generations, safety, security, public acceptance, and
cost effectiveness.
The constituents of current Figure 11. Constituents of Used LWR Fuel

used nuclear fuel (UNF) after
discharge from LWRs are
shown in Figure 11. As this
figure shows, the vast
majority of the material in
the used fuel is uranium that
is generally unchanged from
the fuel that went into the
reactor to produce energy.
Uranium is considered an
element in the category
called “actinides,” along with the “transuranic” elements of plutonium and the “minor” actinides:
neptunium, americium, and curium, principally. These elements generally are long-lived and
must be isolated from the environment for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Actinides are
also of interest because uranium and plutonium could be recycled to produce more energy in
reactors, as could the minor actinides in fast-spectrum reactors. The remaining class of elements
in the used fuel is fission products, many of which are stable and pose little concern. The short-
lived fission products – primarily cesium and strontium – generate most of the hazard for the first
hundreds of years of disposal. There are also fission products, notably iodine and technetium,
that last for hundreds of thousands of years and must be isolated from the environment.
NE will research and develop nuclear fuel and waste management technologies that will enable a
safe, secure, and economic fuel cycle. The NE R&D strategy will be to investigate the technical
challenges that would be encountered in each of three potential methods and perform R&D
within each of these tracks:
• Once-Through – Nuclear fuel makes a single pass through a reactor after which the used
fuel is removed, stored for some period of time, and then directly disposed in a geologic
repository for long-term isolation from the environment. The used fuel will not undergo
any sort of treatment to alter the waste form prior to disposal in this approach, eliminating
28 APRIL 2010
40
the need for separations technologies that may pose proliferation concerns. Less than one
percent of the mined uranium is utilized in the present once-through fuel cycle.
• Modified Open Cycle – The goal of this approach is to develop fuel for use in reactors that
can increase utilization of the fuel resource and reduce the quantity of actinides that would
be disposed in used fuel. This strategy is “modified” in that some limited separations and
fuel processing technologies are applied to the used LWR fuel to create fuels that enable
the extraction of much more energy from the same mass of material and accomplish waste
management goals.
• Full Recycle – In a full recycle strategy, all of the actinides important for waste
management are recycled in thermal- or fast-spectrum systems to reduce the radiotoxicity
of the waste placed in a geologic repository while more fully utilizing uranium resources.
In a full recycle system, only those elements that are considered to be waste (primarily the
fission products) are intended for disposal, not used fuel. Implementing this system will
require extensive use of separation technologies and the likely deployment of new reactors
or other systems capable of transmuting actinides.
The R&D approach will be to understand what can be accomplished in each of these strategies
and then to develop the promising technologies to maximize their potential. One element that
crosscuts all potential approaches is disposal and R&D activities will include a focus on those
technologies. Additionally, storage will be an important part of any strategy, and R&D will be
needed to assess the performance of storage technologies with higher-burnup used LWR fuels, as
well as any potential new fuels that may be deployed in the future.
The discussion above is primarily focused on the uranium fuel cycle that is the norm throughout
the world. An alternative that could be considered would be the use of thorium to replace at least
part of the uranium in the system. Thorium could be used as part of a once-through, modified
open, or full recycle fuel cycle. The appeal of thorium is two-fold. First, thorium is more
abundant in nature than uranium and can be used to extend or replace uranium in the fuel cycle.
Second, the use of thorium enables reduced production of transuranic elements that end up in
used fuel. However, there are still technical and economic challenges facing thorium-based fuels.
Thus some R&D to address related challenges may be considered. Significant R&D in the use of
thorium has been performed previously in the United States and is currently being considered in
other parts of the world (particularly in India).
Unlike R&D Objectives 1 and 2, management of UNF and development of fuel cycle
technologies are primarily the government’s responsibilities because the government is legally
responsible for UNF. Thus, the necessary research, development, and demonstration, if
appropriate, will be led primarily by the government. However, early and continuous industrial
involvement is important because any technologies that are developed will ultimately be
implemented by the commercial entities.
APRIL 2010 29
41
4.3.1 Major Challenges Associated with Fuel Cycle Options

Each of the potential fuel cycle strategies faces challenges, some of which may be shared with
other approaches. Similarly, the R&D needed to overcome these challenges may support more
than one strategy.
• Once-Through – Improving the sustainability of a once-through approach to used fuel
management begins with increasing the burnup of the fuel – the amount of energy that can
be extracted from fuel in the reactor – which may also have the effect of consuming more
actinides in the fuel, leaving less to be disposed. Increasing the burnup of a fuel will
require ensuring that both the fuel itself and the structural material designed to keep it in
place in the reactor will be able to withstand extended irradiation in the reactor and
maintain its integrity when being stored after removal. Deploying advanced fuels will
require that they first undergo a qualification process that can take a great deal of time, as
researchers must irradiate and conduct examinations on test samples to assure their
performance. Also, fuels that are notably different from those currently used in LWRs may
drive changes in the fuel processing infrastructure that has evolved to meet current needs.
To the extent that the deployed once-through fuel cycle is built upon enriched uranium
fuels, the proliferation concerns associated with enrichment technologies will need to be
addressed.
• Modified Open Cycle – A modified open cycle faces some of the same challenges as the
once-through, along with some encountered in a full recycle approach. The modified open
cycle introduces the possibility of a used fuel separations step to enable more options for
producing fuels. This flexibility enables the inclusion of transuranic elements – notably
plutonium – at concentrations capable of supporting ultra-high burnup, along with the
attendant difficulties of developing these fuels. The challenges of developing high-burnup
fuels discussed in the previous paragraph are applicable to this strategy. The use of
separations technology to prepare the ultra-high-burnup fuel introduces difficulties in
separations as well as managing proliferation concerns. A key element of this fuel cycle is
the likely need to introduce advanced reactors that can utilize these new fuels. The
overarching challenge in making a modified open cycle worthwhile is to determine if the
improvement in fuel resource utilization and in the waste to be disposed is sufficient to
justify the additional complication, potential proliferation concerns, and expense this
approach would entail.
• Full Recycle – In a full recycle approach, used fuel is not directly disposed in a repository;
rather, those elements of the used fuel that are deemed appropriate for recycling are
reintroduced into reactors or other systems while the remaining elements are stabilized in a
waste form and disposed. This strategy offers the potential of waste forms that pose far
less long-term concern, although the approach would require overcoming not only
technical challenges but also economic, proliferation, and public perception concerns. This
system would rely on multiple separations processes that must minimize process losses and
30 APRIL 2010
42
waste generation while addressing proliferation concerns. Furthermore, fuels must be

developed that will allow for the inclusion of all of those elements that are to be recycled in
concentrations that vary over time. This is a central tradeoff in the full recycle approach:
the more elements that are recycled, the better the waste form will be; however, more
separation of elements in the fuel increases the technical and other challenges. Elements
that are recycled must be capable of transmutation in a system – likely, but not necessarily,
a fast reactor – to eventually eliminate them. In order for a full recycle strategy to be
considered, the waste benefits and improved resource utilization produced by such a
system must outweigh the complication, expense and potential proliferation concerns
associated with it.
4.3.2 R&D for Sustainable Fuel Cycle Options

There are major R&D needs to understand how best to overcome the challenges posed by each of
the fuel cycle approaches being considered. The potential R&D efforts that DOE would
undertake would have a long-term view and would be science-based. It would take considerable
time before the issues in the modified open and the full recycle alternatives would be overcome.
Many R&D areas will be applicable to multiple strategies. Prior to beginning major R&D work
in these areas, analyses will be performed to gauge the likely value of the efforts.
• Fuel Resource Exploration and Mining – The availability of fuel resources for each
potential fuel cycle and reactor deployment scenario must be understood. Extended use of
nuclear power may drive improvements in defining resource availability and on fuel
resource exploration and mining. Primarily, this is work that the private sector would
undertake, and how and when this would occur would depend on price and other market
conditions. This is most relevant for a once-through approach, but even modified open
cycles and full recycle systems may require comparable levels of natural sources of fuel for
the foreseeable future. Most appropriate for federal involvement in this area would be
R&D to support investigation of long-term, “game-changing” approaches such as
recovering uranium from seawater.
• Used Fuel Disposition – All radioactive wastes generated by existing and future fuel cycles
will need to be safely stored, transported, and disposed. This R&D will identify options for
performing these functions, including research into disposal in a variety of geologic
environments. This R&D will consider used fuel and high-level waste inventories arising
from the current reactor fleet and any additional new builds, including the potential for
changing used fuel characteristics from enhanced operations (e.g., increased fuel burnup)
and the projected inventories from advanced reactor and fuel cycle systems (e.g., HTRs and
SMRs). This research is important to all of the potential fuel cycle approaches.
• Reduce Transuranic Production In Reactors – One thrust in developing sustainable fuel
cycles will be the exploration of nuclear fuels and reactors that significantly reduce the
long-lived actinide content of the used fuel per MWh of energy produced. Exploration of
APRIL 2010 31
43
avenues both to reduce actinide production in present and near-term LWRs and to develop
future non-LWR systems that produce lower actinide inventories in their used fuel is
important. This research area is central to developing the high burnup fuels that will
improve the attractiveness of a once-through or modified open fuel cycle.
• Separation and Partitioning – The development of processes to recycle used fuel is needed,
as well as an evaluation of the feasibility and risks associated with recycling. The objective
is to use a predictive approach to evaluate separation chemistry and processes to achieve
the desired performance in terms of product purity, environmental impact, and losses.
Though not applicable in a once-through system, this topic would be germane to a
modified open cycle approach and central to a full recycle strategy.
• Waste Forms – It is necessary to develop understanding of waste form behavior over time
to help inform decisions on recycle and disposal options. This understanding must extend
over a broad range of potential waste chemistry and disposal environments so waste forms
can be adapted and implemented when specific repository conditions are known. This
R&D area may be somewhat relevant to strategies that rely on the direct disposal of certain
used fuels (such as disposal of high-temperature gas reactor fuels) but the development of
improved waste forms is a key component in enabling a full recycle strategy to achieve its
promise.
• Fuel Forms – The science-based approach will combine theory, experiments, and multi-
scale modeling and simulation aimed at a fundamental understanding of the fuel fabrication
processes and fuel and clad performance under irradiation. The objective is to use a
predictive approach to design future fuels and cladding to enable the development of ultra
high-burnup fuels in a modified open cycle and to demonstrate the inclusion of recovered
actinides in transmutation fuels under a full recycle approach. In the early phases of the
program, the major fuel fabrication activities include development of innovative processes
to enhance the process efficiency and to improve the control of fuel microstructure for
enhanced performance, including tailored fuel forms designed to limit excess actinides
across the complex.
• Material Reuse – The research will focus primarily on recovered uranium for reuse in
reactors to obviate the need to dispose of this material once separated from the rest of the
used fuel. The critical areas that require process or equipment modifications will be
identified, and technologies will be developed to enable the reuse (and in some cases the
re-enrichment) of recycled uranium. Efforts will also investigate the potential recycling and
reuse of other constituents of used fuel, such as the zirconium cladding, that are potentially
useful but not currently being considered by industry because of uncertainties about
material characteristics.
• Transmutation Systems – Transmutation is a process to change the characteristics of waste
by turning recycled elements into elements with more desirable disposal characteristics.
While the focus of most recent work has been on fast-spectrum transmutation reactors,
thermal-spectrum transmutation can offer some waste management benefits. R&D would
32 APRIL 2010
44
focus on broadly applicable issues including areas such as materials and energy conversion.
In addition, studies may be conducted to review the technical and economic aspects of
external neutron source-driven transmutation systems to inform whether future
investigation in this approach is warranted.

NE’s science-based R&D program will provide a more complete understanding of the underlying
science supporting the development of advanced fuel cycle and waste management technologies
and, therefore, help provide a sound basis for future decision making. The program will also
conduct scientific research and technology development to enable storage, transportation, and
disposal of used nuclear fuel and all radioactive wastes generated by existing and future nuclear
fuel cycles. Over the next decade, the R&D program will mainly be geared to ensuring that the
needed breakthroughs and advancements are available and ready when needed. Examples of
such technologies would include ultra-deep-burn LWR, HTR, or fast reactor fuel; reactor
technologies to support optimized once-through fuel cycles; and advanced fast reactor concepts
to support closed fuel cycles. These technologies would encompass all of the known and
anticipated advances that could be expected to be available in areas including materials, design
methods, components, and energy conversion.
In keeping with Secretary Chu's vision of using science to provide technological breakthroughs
to solve America's grand challenges, the program will include long-term, high-risk–high-payoff
R&D. This part of the program will seek revolutionary and transformational breakthroughs in
systems, materials and components of the fuel cycle that can better meet the program's
objectives. Examples of this could include novel reactor concepts such as molten-salt fuel
reactors or thorium fuel cycles. Thus while evolutionary advancements are being made,
revolutionary advancements will also be pursued such that, if successful, they could replace all
or part of existing or near-term technologies. The roadmap includes milestones for selection of
technologies as the program matures. Each approach has a set of reference technologies
associated with these milestones:
• Once-Through – Develop higher-burnup fuel for LWRs.
• Modified Open Cycle – Develop ultra-high-burnup fuel for high-temperature gas-cooled
reactors using transuranic elements from used LWR fuel. It is assumed that the NGNP or a
comparable reactor will be available for fuel testing. Alternative approaches may require
access to a fast-spectrum test reactor and nuclear fuel research capabilities.
• Full Recycle – Develop technologies to allow repeated recycling of transuranic elements in
fast-spectrum reactors. The initial fuel for the fast reactors will come from separated used
LWR fuel with successive reloads made from used fast reactor fuel. Access to a fast-
spectrum test reactor will be essential for this research, as will nuclear fuel research
capabilities.
APRIL 2010 33
45
priorities.
processes.
4.4 R&D Objective 4: Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of

Nuclear Proliferation and Terrorism
The final R&D objective for nuclear energy is to enable secure nuclear energy expansion by
developing and demonstrating options that limit proliferation and physical security risks
associated with nuclear power while also achieving economic, public health and safety, and
environmental goals. These risks include not only the possibility that nations may attempt to use
nuclear technologies in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, but also the concern that terrorists might
seek to steal material that could be used in a nuclear explosive device. This requires NE
advocacy for, and participation in, an integrated program to develop technologies, frameworks,
and policy options for the future nuclear enterprise, cutting across all aspects of the fuel cycle.
The United States has extensive experience protecting nuclear materials, from the weapons
program that has produced significant quantities of plutonium-239 and highly enriched uranium,
to 104 commercial reactors in the U.S. today that handle, use, and store nuclear materials.
Internationally, the U.S. has also contributed extensively to the development of technologies now
used in the application of international safeguards to monitor used fuel recycling activities in
England, France, and Japan. Going forward, safeguards and physical security will become even
more integral components in the domestic and global expansion of nuclear power, including the
development of future fuel cycle and reactor technologies that further increase the barriers
against proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
34 APRIL 2010
46
An integrated U.S. safeguards program provides an opportunity to design improved safeguards

and physical security directly into the planning and deployment of new energy systems and fuel
cycle facilities. Incorporating safeguards and physical security into the early design phase for
new facilities will allow the international community to monitor and verify nuclear material
more effectively and efficiently.
APRIL 2010 35
47
DOE has three programs that are collaborating to address safeguards and nonproliferation
challenges. The NE Fuel Cycle R&D Materials Protection, Accounting, and Control for
Transmutation (MPACT) campaign develops advanced nuclear material management
technologies and methods in support of the future domestic U.S. nuclear fuel cycle. The Next
Generation Safeguards Initiative (NGSI) within the NNSA Office of Nonproliferation and
International Security is designed to leverage U.S personnel, technology, and R&D to add new
capacity and significantly strengthen international nuclear safeguards. The third program, the
NNSA Office of Nonproliferation Research and Development’s Global Nuclear Safeguards
R&D Program, whose mission is to support long-term nonproliferation R&D, rounds out the
U.S. safeguards R&D efforts for nuclear energy. The work described in this section reflects NE’s
aspect of the integrated safeguards and nonproliferation work being performed within DOE.
This work will be performed in direct collaboration or close coordination with NNSA activities.
In addition to addressing technical safeguards R&D needs, successful integration of these

programs would develop revolutionary new tools for proliferation risk assessments and
subsequent optimization of advanced nuclear energy systems from nonproliferation and physical
security perspectives. The ultimate goal of this crosscutting effort would be to develop and use
new analytical tools that could revolutionize our ability to compare proliferation and physical
security risk of nuclear energy system options, including aspects of policy and human behavior
as well as technical attributes.
As civilian nuclear power expands across the globe, it becomes more important that high
standards of safety and security be implemented around the world. Looking only at how the
R&D can improve nuclear technologies without considering who is to use these technologies,
and the national and international frameworks under which they are operating, will provide an
overly narrow perspective of proliferation risks. NE, in cooperation with other DOE offices and
national agencies and in partnership and collaboration with other nations, must implement
collaborative programs with civilian nuclear power programs in both experienced and
inexperienced states in order to minimize proliferation and physical security risks, enhance
reactor safety, maximize resource utilization through cooperative R&D, and encourage methods
to minimize the dispersion of enrichment and reprocessing facilities worldwide.
4.4.1 Challenges
A key challenge facing the expanded use of nuclear energy and associated fuel cycles is
minimizing the potential for the misuse of the technology and materials for weapons purposes.
International treaties such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, combined with transparency in
the use of technology and materials, provide the basic building blocks to assure the peaceful use
of nuclear energy. Fuel cycle infrastructure built upon these tenets while enabling the economic
provision of fuel cycle services can help prevent the spread of sensitive nuclear technology and
materials.
36 APRIL 2010
48
Today’s key challenges are to take the wealth of knowledge and experience that exists within the
international safeguards and physical security communities and to deploy advanced, affordable
techniques to immediately detect the diversion of nuclear materials or the modification of
systems. The key technical challenges that must be addressed include:
• Incorporation of nuclear safeguards and physical security technology into designs for fuel
cycle facilities, advanced fast reactors, and associated nuclear materials storage and
transportation systems.
• Development of proliferation risk assessment methodologies and tools that allow for an
integrated view of fuel cycle options to be studied, optimized, and compared.
• Development of advanced containment and surveillance, smart safeguards information
management systems, nuclear facility use-control systems, and next-generation
nondestructive analysis and process-monitoring systems.
• R&D of advanced material tracking methodologies, process-control technologies, and plant

engineering.
• Remote sensing, environmental sampling, and forensic verification methods.
Addressing these challenges will enable the use and expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes to proceed in a safe and secure manner.
4.4.2 R&D for Understanding and Minimizing the Risks of Nuclear Proliferation
and Terrorism
Some potential R&D areas for Objective 4 are:
• Proliferation Risk Assessments – Any fuel cycle technologies deployed in the U.S. must be
considered in light of how other nations might choose to incorporate them into their own
nuclear enterprises. Towards this end, it is important for NE to develop a means of
understanding how these new technologies would be viewed by other countries in the
context of their national goals. This research effort would develop the tools and
approaches for understanding, limiting, and managing the risks of nation-state proliferation
and physical security for fuel cycle options. NE will focus on assessments required to
inform domestic fuel cycle technology and system option development. These analyses
would complement those assessments performed by NNSA to evaluate nation-state
proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime. Taken in conjunction, these
comprehensive proliferation risk assessments will provide important information for
discussions and decisions regarding fuel cycle options. These assessments will:
o Exploit science-based approaches, to the extent possible, for analyzing difficult-to
quantify proliferation risk factors or indicators (e.g., capabilities, motivations, and
intentions); address issues identified in several National Academy of Sciences studies
APRIL 2010 37
49
related to risk assessment; and leverage current state-of-the-art academic social science
research in this field.
o Integrate the diverse decision factors (including economics, public health and safety,
environmental benefits, and proliferation and terrorism risk reduction) for different fuel
cycle options to understand the tradeoffs and potential synergies between these decision
criteria.
o Apply these tools to study nuclear energy system options, and display the results in a
useful format for decision makers.
• Safeguards and Physical Security Technologies and Systems – The NE focus is on the
development of safeguards technologies and integrated systems for current and potential
future domestic fuel cycle options. These technologies and systems contribute significantly
to limiting proliferation and physical security risks while also achieving economic, public
health and safety, and environmental goals. This requires that these activities be performed
in an integrated program with the fuel cycle technology development activities.
Opportunities exist to collaborate with other organizations (e.g. NNSA, the Department of
Homeland Security, the Department of Defense) and will be utilized. NNSA will be
responsible for evaluating the nation-state proliferation risks of deploying new fuel cycle
technologies – particularly recycling technologies – outside of the United States.
o Advanced Instrumentation – Many advanced fuel cycle processes, such as advanced
aqueous reprocessing, electrochemical separations, and recycle fuel fabrication pose
new challenges for safeguards and nuclear material management. The safeguards state
of-the-art will be advanced through a developmental program to improve the precision,
speed, sampling methods, and scope of nuclear process monitoring and accountancy
measurements, and innovative approaches for containment and surveillance. This
effort supports the development of advanced safeguards instrumentation such as active
interrogation methods based on neutron and photon drivers and advanced passive
detectors, such as ultra-high resolution spectrometer and neutron multiplicity counting.
Additionally, existing nuclear data is evaluated for the identification of gaps or needed
improvements.
o Advanced Concepts and Integration – Early integration of safeguards concepts into
nuclear facility design is optimal to meet U.S. and international standards with
minimum impact on operations. This requires development of a framework to codify
the safeguards-by-design concept, applicable for both international safeguards and
physical security for U.S. fuel cycle facilities. It also includes the evaluation of
material attractiveness of relevant fuel cycle materials. A monitoring and control
system must be developed that is secure and can rapidly authenticate and investigate
summary and raw data to unequivocally distinguish process deviations, maintenance
problems, and calibration and component failures from actual diversion events.
o Modeling and Simulation – Development of modeling and simulation tools to enable
new technology development, elucidation of high-impact R&D priorities, and
approaches that optimize effectiveness and efficiency of the overall system will be
38 APRIL 2010
50
essential for the integration of new safeguards technologies and techniques into nuclear
energy systems.
• Nuclear Energy Technologies and Systems – This element includes developing and
assessing a sufficiently wide and innovative range of options (in concert with R&D
Objectives 1–3) to achieve Objective 4. This includes, for example, options that enable
decreasing the attractiveness and accessibility of used fuel and intermediate materials,
transmuting materials of potential concern, optimizing safeguards and physical security
systems approaches, and minimizing the number of needed enrichment and recycle
facilities. In conjunction with NNSA, NE will lead the development of these options and
implement mechanisms that tightly link and inform both this R&D and other elements of
R&D Objective 4.
4.4.3 Key Activities and Milestones

priorities.
processes.
APRIL 2010 39
51
40 APRIL 2010
52
5. R&D APPROACH
Section 4 of this roadmap presents NE’s four R&D objectives. These objectives show the
connection between how nuclear energy will contribute to meeting the nation’s energy goals and
the R&D that needs to be performed to enable that contribution. This section describes the
approach that will be taken to perform this R&D, provides brief descriptions of the key areas of
technological development that will be undertaken, presents a brief description of the facilities
needed to perform this research, and describes the interfaces with stakeholders that will be
required for success.
5.1 Solution-Driven, Goal-Oriented, Science-Based Approach to

Nuclear Energy Development
Nuclear power systems were initially developed during the latter half of the 20th century. Their
development was greatly facilitated by the nation’s ability and willingness to conduct large-scale
experiments. The federal government constructed 52 reactors at what is now Idaho National
Laboratory, another 14 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a few more at other national
laboratory sites. By today’s standards, even large experiments and technology demonstrations
were relatively affordable. While relying heavily on the Edisonian approach in the 1950s and
1960s, the nuclear energy community was a rapid adopter of high-end computational modeling
and simulation during the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, nuclear power plant designers
and regulators developed and deployed many of the most demanding simulation models and
tools on the most advanced computational platforms then available. Still, the United States
embraced a regulatory process that relied, and still relies, heavily on the use of experiments to
confirm the ultimate safety of nuclear power systems. Building upon the scientific advances of
the last two decades, our understanding of fundamental nuclear science, improvements in
computational platforms, and other tools can now enable a new generation of nuclear power
plant designers, fabricators, regulators, and operators to develop technological advancements
with less of a reliance on large-scale experimentation. The developmental approach employed in
this roadmap embodies four elements, as depicted in Figure 14:
Experiments – These are generally small-scale experiments aimed at observation of isolated

phenomena or measurements of fundamental properties. However, targeted integral experiments
also will be needed in some cases.
Theory – Based either on first principles or observations made during phenomenological testing,
theories are developed to explain fundamental physical phenomena.
APRIL 2010 41
53
Modeling and Simulation – A range of Figure 14. Major Elements of Science-Based

mathematical models for diverse phenomena at Research, Development & Demonstration
much different time and spatial scales are
developed and then integrated to predict the
overall behavior of the system. Key objectives
of the modeling and simulation effort are to
reduce the number of prototypes and large-
scale experiments needed before demonstration
and deployment and to quantify uncertainties
and design and operational parameters.
Demonstrations – While the state of

knowledge can be significantly advanced
through the combination of experiments,
theory, and modeling and simulation, there
may be instances where it is appropriate to
work with the private sector to further develop
and validate laboratory findings.
Demonstrations can be a useful element in proving viability of new technologies, but their high
cost must be considered in the context of a variety of other factors. There must be sufficient
industry commitment for deployment of commercial technologies before such demonstrations
would be considered. Any potential future demonstration activities will be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis through the established decision-making procedures of the Department and budget
formulation.
5.2 Enabling Technologies

A set of enabling technologies has been identified that support progress on multiple objectives.
Where NE has an R&D role in these technology areas, coordination of NE’s activities across
these technologies must be implemented. For example, the NE “owner” of the fuel cycle
objective in such a case will be responsible for coordination of all nuclear fuel work across
objectives.
• Structural Materials – Advanced radiation and corrosion-resistant materials with extension
to high-temperature applications benefit many of the R&D objectives, especially when
conducted using a science-based development approach without relying heavily on
empirical experiments. Thus, a synergistic R&D program can be developed to support all
the objectives.
• Nuclear Fuels – The development of improved and advanced nuclear fuels is clearly a
major objective for both existing LWRs and the entire spectrum of advanced nuclear
energy systems discussed throughout this document. The short list of potentially needed
42 APRIL 2010
54
fuels include high-burnup LWR, fast reactor, and gas-reactor fuels; coated-particle fuels;
fast-spectrum and thermal-spectrum transmutation fuels and targets; thorium fuels; and
molten-salt fuels. A tightly coordinated and well integrated nuclear fuels R&D program
must be developed to support all of the R&D objectives.
• Reactor Systems – The development of advanced reactor concepts and supporting
technologies is a core function of NE. Advanced technologies and reactor concepts are
needed to improve the economics of electricity production. Multiple advanced reactor
concepts (LWR, small modular, gas-cooled, liquid metal-cooled, molten salt-cooled, etc.)
may play a role in our nuclear future. The development of a robust advanced reactor
system concept definition capability will be an important element of NE strategy
development.
• Instrumentation and Control – The development and implementation of digital
instrumentation and control systems will benefit current reactors as well as future reactors.
Advanced instrumentation and control systems will also benefit future fuel cycle facilities.
Safeguards technology development also relies on advanced instrumentation and plant
control systems through safeguards-by-design.
• Power Conversion Systems – Advanced power conversion systems will lead to increased
efficiency for the future reactors and facilitate the use of nuclear power in markets
requiring process heat.
• Process Heat Transport Systems – The development of process heat transport systems that
can be combined with multiple reactor technologies will enable the use of nuclear power to
deliver needed process heat to the industrial sector.
• Dry-Heat-Rejection Systems – Advanced dry-heat-rejection systems will improve the
environmental friendliness of the nuclear power plants and enable the deployment of
nuclear energy in areas where water constraints might otherwise preclude its use.
• Separations Processes – This report has noted the wide variety of fuel cycle options that
may be needed in the future to address U.S. energy security, economic, and sustainability
goals. Our future ability to sustainably and economically recycle LWR fuels, fast reactor
fuels, gas-cooled reactor fuels, molten salt fuels, etc. will depend, in part, on our ability to
separate key elements from the waste that will not be disposed in a repository.
• Waste Forms – The ability to engineer, produce, and manage fuel cycle waste forms that
are chemically and structurally stable over relevant periods of time from decades to
hundreds of thousands of years (depending on the radioisotope) is critical to achieving a
sustainable fuel cycle and must be closely integrated with both radiochemical research and
repository systems research.
• Risk Assessment Methods – Advanced methods for risk assessment based on mechanistic
modeling of system behavior will benefit the safety assessments of the new nuclear energy
systems and fuel cycle technologies. State-of-the-art computational and experimental
APRIL 2010 43
55
techniques will benefit not only novel reactor concepts but other nuclear facilities needed
for the fuel cycle.
• Advanced Modeling and Simulation – The science-based approach relies heavily on
fundamental experiments combined with associated theories for predictive capabilities.
However, a comprehensive use of the science-based approach for predictive tools with
multiple interrelated phenomenologies requires advances in computational sciences where
phenomena at different time and length scales can be bridged into an engineering code
using modern computational platforms.
5.3 R&D Facilities and Infrastructure

Ultimately all design and safety tools for nuclear systems must be validated with underpinning
experimental data. Without such a foundation in reality, licensing these systems would be
virtually impossible. Experiments also provide essential waypoints for guiding the development
of technology. Having such an experimental capability requires that nuclear energy R&D
maintain access to a broad range of facilities from small-scale laboratories potentially up to full
prototype demonstrations. Hot cells and test reactors are at the top end of the hierarchy,
followed by smaller-scale radiological facilities, specialty engineering facilities, and non-
radiological small laboratories.
Nuclear energy R&D employs a multi-pronged approach to having these capabilities available
when needed. The core capabilities rely on DOE-owned irradiation, examination, chemical
processing and waste form development facilities. These are supplemented by university
capabilities ranging from research reactors to materials science laboratories. Future
infrastructure requirements will be considered through the established budget development
processes as needs arise.
The high cost of creating and maintaining physical infrastructure for nuclear R&D, including the
necessary safety and security infrastructure, requires creativity and periodic realignment of
infrastructure planning with programmatic direction. NE successfully employs a solid approach
to maintaining infrastructure. The approach concentrates the high-risk nuclear facilities at the
remote Idaho site, maintains unique capabilities at other sites if required, supports vital
university infrastructure, negotiates equitable capability exchanges with trusted international
partners, refurbishes and reequips essential facilities if required, addresses maintenance backlogs
to ensure safe operation, and makes efficient use of modeling, simulation, and single-effect
experiments.
5.4 Interfaces and Coordination

In order to achieve the objectives under each R&D objective, NE must closely coordinate its
activities with other agencies, the nuclear industry, and international partners.
44 APRIL 2010
56
Other Department of Energy Offices –The use of a “science-based” approach to develop

innovative nuclear energy systems and components requires a strong collaboration between NE
and the Office of Science (SC) to employ the tools developed for science in engineering
applications. Such tools include advanced experimental techniques, a fundamental
understanding of materials behavior, and advanced computational sciences. R&D on storage and
disposal of nuclear waste will be performed in coordination with the Office of Environmental
Management (EM) and the Office of Naval Reactors (NR), as there are salient similarities in the
disposition challenges facing each.
NNSA – Technology development for safeguards is a crosscutting tool that is applicable for both
domestic and international uses. NNSA and NE are implementing a coordinated effort to
address the safeguards R&D needs for domestic and international applications. These
collaborative efforts address the assessment of proliferation risks, accountancy, and control
(domestic) and verification (international) by contributing new safeguards technologies;
recruiting a new generation of safeguards specialists into the U.S. national laboratories,
universities, and industry; and informing the development of safe and secure nuclear facilities.
NNSA will be responsible for evaluating the international nation state proliferation risks of
deploying new fuel cycle technologies, particularly recycling technologies, outside of the United
States.
NRC – Appropriate collaboration between DOE and the NRC will help assure that nuclear
energy remains a viable option for the United States. The development of science-based tools to
inform licensing paradigms is one key goal of this collaboration.
Nuclear Industry – The decision to deploy nuclear energy systems is made by industry and the
private sector in market-based economies. However, it is important that industry is engaged
during the definition and execution of the R&D phase and that industry participate in joint
demonstration activities if such demonstration is deemed necessary and appropriate to facilitate
commercialization and deployment of the resulting technologies and systems. As technologies
are developed, cost-sharing with industry is an integral part of NE’s agenda. DOE will proceed
in a manner that recognizes the importance of maintaining a strong and viable nuclear industry.
International Community –Strong participation and leadership by the United States in

international nuclear R&D, safety and nonproliferation programs is essential. Nuclear energy
worldwide must be deployed with safety and security of paramount importance. In addition,
several countries have established strong nuclear R&D programs and specialized expertise from
which the United States can benefit, such as the leadership position of Russia, France, and Japan
in fast reactor technology. Collaborations in nuclear technology R&D will be implemented
through bilateral and multilateral agreements and through international organizations such as the
Generation IV International Forum.
APRIL 2010 45
57
In order for nuclear power to continue to be a viable energy option in any country, including the
United States, nuclear safety, security, and safeguards must be maintained at the highest levels
on a global scale. DOE will help to achieve consensus criteria for safe reactor operation through
international organizations, such as the World Association of Nuclear Operators, and seek to
enhance safety standards for nuclear power, promote appropriate infrastructure at the national
and international levels, and minimize proliferation risks from the expansion of nuclear power
through its participation with the IAEA and related organizations.
46 APRIL 2010
58
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This document presents an integrated strategy and R&D framework for the DOE Office of
Nuclear Energy. In order to meet the Administration’s goals of energy security and greenhouse
gas reductions, nuclear energy must play an important role in the national energy portfolio. NE’s
derived missions in support of these national goals are to enable the development and
deployment of fission power systems for the production of electricity and process heat. Four
research and development objectives have been identified, which will guide NE’s program and
strategic planning. Progress in these areas will help ensure that nuclear energy continues to be
among the suite of available U.S. energy options throughout the 21st century. These objectives
are:
• R&D Objective 1 – Develop technology and other solutions that can improve the reliability,
sustain the safety, and extend the life of current reactors.
terrorism.
APRIL 2010 47
59
48 APRIL 2010
60
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.033 / 22.33 Nuclear Systems Design Project

Fall 2011
i)

Akc
tc
Tin  Tout
Q   29.8 MW (4)
1 tc 1
 
Ahin Akc Ahout
ii)
iii)
P2 = Pw2 + Pa2 (5)
1
Pa2 = Pa1 T2 / Ta1  141 kPa (6)
iv)
Mw = Vc /vg  191,000 kg (7)
v)
hoop stress is
2
Water
i)
0m
 in  m
 out   in  m
m  out  m

0m
channel, x0:
x0  (hin  hf ) / hfg  0.083
ii)
x0G
jv  3.43 m/s
g
(1  x0 )G
j  1.54 m/s
f
m 
A 4
3
iii)
1
  0.69
 1  x0
1 g 
f x0
3
L G2
Pfric  2o fo (10)
D 2 f
iv)

Q cr  m
h h
v)

 [sf (1  x0 )  sg x0  sin ]  1.4 kW/K
throttle.
4
(LMFBR)
i)
the textbook):
q'
T  (11)
4k f

q '  qm  f D2 (12)
4
qm1
D2  D1  0.395 cm
qm2
,1 =120 W/g and qm, 2 =200

ii)
in the textbook):
q'  ln( D / Dv ) 2 
T  1 
 (D / D ) 2  1 (13)
4kf  v 

q '  qm  f (D 2  Dv2 ) (14)
4
qm2  qm1
ln( D / Dv ) 2  1  (D / Dv ) 2  0 (15)
qm2
5
iii)
k f 2 qm2  f 2
 =2
k f 1 qm1  f 1
6
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Problem 1 (55%) – Heat up of the waste canisters following a ceiling collapse at the
Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository
The Department Of Energy (DOE) plans to stor e the spent fuel from the U.S. n uclear power
plant fleet in a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Yucca Mountain
repository is a system of underground tunnels which will accommodate the waste canisters
containing the spent fuel assemblies. Consider the situation shown in Figure 1, in which it is
hypothesized that the ceiling of a tunnel has collapsed, thus creating a sealed “chamber” within
the tunnel.
Ground
Air
Waste canisters (containing the fuel
assemblies)
Figure 1. The “chamber” created by a ceiling collapse in a repository tunnel.
i) Assuming that the decay power from the spent fuel assemblies in the chamber is 200 kW
(constant for the purpose of this calculation), write a complete set of equations that would
allow you to find the time it takes for the chamber temperature to rise to 200 °C after the
ceiling collapses. (30%)
ii) Numerically solve the set of equations developed in Part ‘i’, and find the final pressure in
the chamber. (15%)
iii) If a substantial amount of liquid water had been present in the chamber at the time of the
ceiling collapse, would the time to reach 200 °C be shorter, longer or stayed the same?
(5%)
iv) In light of your answer in Part ‘iii’ should the Yucca Mountain engineers keep the tunnels
flooded or not? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?
Please think broadly, i.e., beyond the thermal-hydraulic performance of the repository.
(5%)
1
Data
Total volume of air in the chamber: 3500 m3
Initial relative humidity of air: 80%
Initial temperature of air: 50°C
Initial pressure in the chamber: 101 kPa (atmospheric)
Initial temperature of waste canisters: 100°C
Mass of waste canisters: 600 tons (6×105 kg)
Average specific heat of waste canisters: 470 J/kg-K
Air specific heat at constant volume: 719 J/kg-K
Air gas constant: 286 J/kg-K
Assumptions
- Include the thermal capacity of the waste canisters in your calculations
- Use the steam tables below to calculate the properties of water in the air (do not interpolate)
- Treat air as a perfect gas
- The air and waste canisters in the chamber are in thermal equilibrium at the final conditions
- Neglect heat transfer to the ground
Properties of Saturated Water
T P vf vg uf ug hf hg sf sg
(°C) (kPa) (m3/kg) (m3/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg⋅K) (kJ/kg⋅K)
50 12 .5 1.01×10-3 12 209 24 43 20 9 25 91 0.7 8.1
200 15 50 1.15×10-3 0.13 850 25 94 85 2 27 92 2.33 6.43
Properties of Superheated Steam
T=50°C
P v u h S
(kPa) (m3/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg⋅K)
10 14.9 2443 2592 8.2
8 18.6 2444 2592 8.3
6 24.8 2444 2593 8.4
T=200°C
P v u h S
25 8.7 2660 2879 8.5
15 14.9 2661 2879 8.7
5 43.7 2661 2880 9.2
2
Problem 2 (45%) – Aircraft nuclear propulsion
In the 1950s the U.S. Air Force studied the development of a nuclear-powered airplane to
be used as a strategic bomber in missions over the Soviet Union. The airplane was to be
equipped with two turbojet engines, each powered by a small direct-cycle nuclear reactor. In
these engines, air taken from the atmosphere undergoes the following processes:
- Compression in the compressor (1→2)

- Isobaric heating in the reactor core (2→3)
- Expansion in the turbine (3→4)
The air at the outlet of the turbine is discharged back to the atmosphere.
Data
Each reactor (thermal) power is 30 MW. The compression ratio of the cycle is 4.
The isentropic efficiencies of the turbine and compressor are 0.9 and 0.9, respectively . Pressure
losses can be neglected throughout t he cycle. Air can be treated as a perfect gas with R a=286
J/kg⋅K, Cp=1005 J/kg⋅K and γ=Cp/Cv=1.4
i) Sketch the T-s diagram for the air processes in the engine. (5%)
ii) Assume that the nuclear airplane is flying at 180 m/s through air that is at pressure 80 kPa
and temperature 253 K, and that the air intake port for each engine has a flow ar ea of 0.8 m2.
Calculate the air mass flow rate through each engine. (10%)
iii) Calculate the maximum air temperature in the engine, and the net power developed by t he
engine. (30%)
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
The Department Of Energy (DOE) plans to stor e the spent fuel from the U.S. n uclear power
plant fleet in a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The Yucca Mountain
repository is a system of underground tunnels which will accommodate the waste canisters
containing the spent fuel assemblies. Consider the situation shown in Figure 1, in which it is
hypothesized that the ceiling of a tunnel has collapsed, thus creating a sealed “chamber” within
the tunnel.
Ground
Air
Waste canisters (containing the fuel
assemblies)
Figure 1. The “chamber” created by a ceiling collapse in a repository tunnel.
i) Assuming that the decay power from the spent fuel assemblies in the chamber is 200 kW
(constant for the purpose of this calculation), write a complete set of equations that would
allow you to find the time it takes for the chamber temperature to rise to 200 °C after the
ceiling collapses. (30%)
ii) Numerically solve the set of equations developed in Part ‘i’, and find the final pressure in
the chamber. (15%)
iii) If a substantial amount of liquid water had been present in the chamber at the time of the
ceiling collapse, would the time to reach 200 °C be shorter, longer or stayed the same?
(5%)
iv) In light of your answer in Part ‘iii’ should the Yucca Mountain engineers keep the tunnels
flooded or not? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of this approach?
Please think broadly, i.e., beyond the thermal-hydraulic performance of the repository.
(5%)
1
Data
Total volume of air in the chamber: 3500 m3
Initial relative humidity of air: 80%
Initial temperature of air: 50°C
Initial pressure in the chamber: 101 kPa (atmospheric)
Initial temperature of waste canisters: 100°C
Mass of waste canisters: 600 tons (6×105 kg)
Average specific heat of waste canisters: 470 J/kg-K
Air specific heat at constant volume: 719 J/kg-K
Air gas constant: 286 J/kg-K
Assumptions
- Include the thermal capacity of the waste canisters in your calculations
- Use the steam tables below to calculate the properties of water in the air (do not interpolate)
- Treat air as a perfect gas
- The air and waste canisters in the chamber are in thermal equilibrium at the final conditions
- Neglect heat transfer to the ground
Properties of Saturated Water
(°C) (kPa) (m3/kg) (m3/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg⋅K) (kJ/kg⋅K)
50 12 .5 1.01×10-3 12 209 24 43 20 9 25 91 0.7 8.1
200 15 50 1.15×10-3 0.13 850 25 94 85 2 27 92 2.33 6.43
Properties of Superheated Steam
T=50°C
P v u h S
10 14.9 2443 2592 8.2
8 18.6 2444 2592 8.3
6 24.8 2444 2593 8.4
T=200°C
P v u h S
25 8.7 2660 2879 8.5
15 14.9 2661 2879 8.7
5 43.7 2661 2880 9.2
2
In the 1950s the U.S. Air Force studied the development of a nuclear-powered airplane to
be used as a strategic bomber in missions over the Soviet Union. The airplane was to be
equipped with two turbojet engines, each powered by a small direct-cycle nuclear reactor. In
these engines, air taken from the atmosphere undergoes the following processes:
- Compression in the compressor (1→2)

- Isobaric heating in the reactor core (2→3)
- Expansion in the turbine (3→4)
The air at the outlet of the turbine is discharged back to the atmosphere.
Data
Each reactor (thermal) power is 30 MW. The compression ratio of the cycle is 4.
The isentropic efficiencies of the turbine and compressor are 0.9 and 0.9, respectively . Pressure
losses can be neglected throughout t he cycle. Air can be treated as a perfect gas with R a=286
J/kg⋅K, Cp=1005 J/kg⋅K and γ=Cp/Cv=1.4
i) Sketch the T-s diagram for the air processes in the engine. (5%)
ii) Assume that the nuclear airplane is flying at 180 m/s through air that is at pressure 80 kPa
and temperature 253 K, and that the air intake port for each engine has a flow ar ea of 0.8 m2.
Calculate the air mass flow rate through each engine. (10%)
iii) Calculate the maximum air temperature in the engine, and the net power developed by t he
engine. (30%)
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
The energy equation for the (air + structures) control volume is:
∂E &
= Qdecay ⇒ E2 − E1 = Q& decay t2 (1)
∂t
where E is the total energy of the control volume, Q& decay = 200 kW and t 2 is the final time.
Solving Eq. (1) for t2 and expanding the term E2-E1, one gets:
E − E1 M a cva (T2 − Ta1 ) + M w [uw2 (T2 , Pw2 ) − u w1 ] + M s cs (T2 − Ts1 )

t2 = &2 = (2)
Qdecay Q& decay
where T2=200°C, cva=719 J/kg-K, Ra=286 J/kg-K, Ta1=50°C, cs=470 J/kg-K, Ms=6×105 kg,
Ts1=100°C. The mass and the initial internal energy of water in air can be found from knowledge
of its partial pressure ( Pw1 = φPsat (Ta1 ) =10 kPa, with φ=0.8) and temperature
(Tw1=Ta1=50°C=323 K), and the total volume it occupies (Va= 3500 m3)
Va
Mw = ≈235 kg vw1 = vw (Pw1 ,Ta1 ) = 14.9 m3 / kg
vw (Pw1 ,Ta1 )
uw1 = uw (Pw1 ,Ta1 ) =2443 kJ/kg
The mass of air in the chamber is:
[P1 − Pw1 ]Va

Ma = ≈3447 kg
RaTa1
where P 1= 101 kPa. To find u w2, we first note that the volume occupied by the water in air in t he
final state is still Va. Also, the final state of the water in air is superheated. Thus:
Mw
14.9 m3/kg = = vw1 = vw2 (T2 , Pw2 )
Va
Then from the steam tables, the pressure of water in air at the final state is P w2= 15 kPa, and
uw2=2661 kJ/kg. Finally, from Eq. (2) we get t2≈ 1.43×105 s = 39 hours.
1
ii) The final pressure in th e chamber, P 2, is simply the su m of the partial pressures of water and
air:
P2 = Pw2 + M a RaT2 /Va ≈148 kPa
iii) If there were liquid water in the chamber at the initial state, it would increase the thermal
capacity of the system (thus acting as an effective ‘heat sink’), and therefore the time required to
reach 200°C would increase.
iv) It would not be advisable to flood the tunnels because the waste canisters would corrode faster
and, importantly, the fission products released over time would be more easily transported
through the ground.
2
i) The T-s diagram for the cycle is shown in the figure below.
T
3
4
4s
2
2s
1
s
T-s diagram for the nuclear engine cycle
ii) The mass flow rate, m

& , is:
m& = ρ1VA ≈159.2 kg/s
Where V= 180 m /s, A= 0.8 m 2 and the air density at the intake, ρ1 , can be calculated from th e
perfect gas equation of state as:
P1
ρ1 = ≈1.1 kg/m3
RaT1
with P1=80 kPa and T1=253 K.
iii)
Compressor
(γ −1) / γ
⎛P ⎞
T2s = T1 ⎜⎜ 2s ⎟⎟ = T1r (pγ −1) / γ ≈376 K where r p=P1/P2s= 4. From the definition of isentropic
⎝ P1 ⎠
efficiency of the compressor (ηC=0.9) it is possible to calculate T2 as
T2 s − T1
T2 = T1 + ≈389.6 K
ηC
The compressor power is then:
W&T = m& c p (T2 − T1 ) ≈21.86 MW
3
Reactor
The reactor power is:
Q& = m& c p (T3 − T2 )
Therefore, the reactor outlet temperature, T3, is:
m& c
T3 = T2 + & p ≈577.1 K
Q
T3 is also the maximum air temperature in the engine.
Turbine
( γ −1) / γ
⎛P ⎞ γ )/γ
The temperature of point 4s is T4s = T3 ⎜⎜ 4s ⎟⎟ = T3r (1−
p ≈388.4 K with r p=P3/P4s=4. From
⎝ P3 ⎠
the definition of isentropic efficiency of the turbine (ηT=0.9) it is possible to calculate T4 as
T4 = T3 − ηT (T3 − T4s ) ≈407.2 K
The turbine power is then:
W&T = m& c p (T3 − T4 ) ≈27.18 MW
Finally, the net power developed by each engine is:
W& net = W&T −W&C ≈5.32 MW
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
The energy equation for the (air + structures) control volume is:
∂E &
= Qdecay ⇒ E2 − E1 = Q& decay t2 (1)
∂t
where E is the total energy of the control volume, Q& decay = 200 kW and t 2 is the final time.
Solving Eq. (1) for t2 and expanding the term E2-E1, one gets:
E − E1 M a cva (T2 − Ta1 ) + M w [uw2 (T2 , Pw2 ) − u w1 ] + M s cs (T2 − Ts1 )

t2 = &2 = (2)
Qdecay Q& decay
where T2=200°C, cva=719 J/kg-K, Ra=286 J/kg-K, Ta1=50°C, cs=470 J/kg-K, Ms=6×105 kg,
Ts1=100°C. The mass and the initial internal energy of water in air can be found from knowledge
of its partial pressure ( Pw1 = φPsat (Ta1 ) =10 kPa, with φ=0.8) and temperature
(Tw1=Ta1=50°C=323 K), and the total volume it occupies (Va= 3500 m3)
Va
Mw = ≈235 kg vw1 = vw (Pw1 ,Ta1 ) = 14.9 m3 / kg
vw (Pw1 ,Ta1 )
uw1 = uw (Pw1 ,Ta1 ) =2443 kJ/kg
The mass of air in the chamber is:
[P1 − Pw1 ]Va

Ma = ≈3447 kg
RaTa1
where P 1= 101 kPa. To find u w2, we first note that the volume occupied by the water in air in t he
final state is still Va. Also, the final state of the water in air is superheated. Thus:
Mw
14.9 m3/kg = = vw1 = vw2 (T2 , Pw2 )
Va
Then from the steam tables, the pressure of water in air at the final state is P w2= 15 kPa, and
uw2=2661 kJ/kg. Finally, from Eq. (2) we get t2≈ 1.43×105 s = 39 hours.
1
ii) The final pressure in th e chamber, P 2, is simply the su m of the partial pressures of water and
air:
P2 = Pw2 + M a RaT2 /Va ≈148 kPa
iii) If there were liquid water in the chamber at the initial state, it would increase the thermal
capacity of the system (thus acting as an effective ‘heat sink’), and therefore the time required to
reach 200°C would increase.
iv) It would not be advisable to flood the tunnels because the waste canisters would corrode faster
and, importantly, the fission products released over time would be more easily transported
through the ground.
2
i) The T-s diagram for the cycle is shown in the figure below.
T
3
4
4s
2
2s
1
s
T-s diagram for the nuclear engine cycle
ii) The mass flow rate, m

& , is:
m& = ρ1VA ≈159.2 kg/s
Where V= 180 m /s, A= 0.8 m 2 and the air density at the intake, ρ1 , can be calculated from th e
perfect gas equation of state as:
P1
ρ1 = ≈1.1 kg/m3
RaT1
with P1=80 kPa and T1=253 K.
iii)
Compressor
(γ −1) / γ
⎛P ⎞
T2s = T1 ⎜⎜ 2s ⎟⎟ = T1r (pγ −1) / γ ≈376 K where r p=P1/P2s= 4. From the definition of isentropic
⎝ P1 ⎠
efficiency of the compressor (ηC=0.9) it is possible to calculate T2 as
T2 s − T1
T2 = T1 + ≈389.6 K
ηC
The compressor power is then:
W&T = m& c p (T2 − T1 ) ≈21.86 MW
3
Reactor
The reactor power is:
Q& = m& c p (T3 − T2 )
Therefore, the reactor outlet temperature, T3, is:
m& c
T3 = T2 + & p ≈577.1 K
Q
T3 is also the maximum air temperature in the engine.
Turbine
( γ −1) / γ
⎛P ⎞ γ )/γ
The temperature of point 4s is T4s = T3 ⎜⎜ 4s ⎟⎟ = T3r (1−
p ≈388.4 K with r p=P3/P4s=4. From
⎝ P3 ⎠
the definition of isentropic efficiency of the turbine (ηT=0.9) it is possible to calculate T4 as
T4 = T3 − ηT (T3 − T4s ) ≈407.2 K
The turbine power is then:
W&T = m& c p (T3 − T4 ) ≈27.18 MW
Finally, the net power developed by each engine is:
W& net = W&T −W&C ≈5.32 MW
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Problem 1 (50%) – Loss of condensate pump transient in a LWR condenser

Consider the condenser of a large Light Water Reactor (LWR), which uses seawater as the heat
sink (Figure 1). Wet steam (mass flow rate = 1,231 kg/s; enthalpy = 1,840 kJ/kg) enters the
condenser and is condensed to saturated liquid water, which is drawn away by a condensate pump
(not shown in the figure). At steady-state the condenser operating pressure and temperature are
0.03 bar (3.3 kPa) and 25C, respectively. The seawater mass flow rate, inlet and outlet
temperatures are 51,000 kg/s, 10C and 20C, respectively.
i) Find the heat transfer rate to seawater at steady conditions. (10%).
Now assume that the condensate pump stops working, and as a result no more condensate is drawn
from the bottom of the condenser. During the ensuing transient the mass flow rate and enthalpy of
the wet steam entering the condenser can be assumed constant and equal to their steady-state values
stated above. The heat transfer rate to seawater can be assumed to be 90% of the value calculated
in Part ‘i’.
ii) After the condensate pump stops working, do the temperature and pressure in the
condenser increase, decrease or stay the same? Answer qualitatively. (5%)
iii) Write a complete set of equations that would allow you to find the pressure and
temperature in the condenser 30 seconds after the condensate pump stops working.
(35%)
Wet steam
from turbine
Seawater in
Condensate Seawater out

to condensate
pump Condensate
Figure 1. Schematic of the condenser.
1
Assumptions:
- Neglect kinetic and gravitational energy terms in the analysis
- Seawater heating in the condenser is isobaric
- Treat seawater as an incompressible fluid
Data:
Initial volume of condensate in the condenser: 86 m3
Initial volume of steam in the condenser: 778 m3
Properties of seawater: cw = 4190 J/kg-K, w = 1020 kg/m3
(C) (kPa) (m3/kg) (m3/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kgK) (kJ/kgK)
20 2.3 1.0010-3 57.8 83.9 2403 83.9 2538 0.297 8.667
25 3.3 1.0010-3 45.4 104.8 2410 104.8 2547 0.367 8.560
30 4.2 1.0010-3 32.9 125.7 2416 125.7 2556 0.437 8.453
35 5.8 1.0010-3 26.2 146.6 2423 146.6 2565 0.505 8.355
40 7.4 1.0010-3 19.5 167.5 2430 167.5 2574 0.572 8.257
2
Problem 2 (50%) – Thermal parameters in the core of a helium-cooled fast reactor
Figure 2 shows the power of each fuel pin in the hot fuel assembly of a small helium-cooled fast
reactor. Assume the axial power profile within the pins follows a chopped-cosine function:
z
q( z )  qmax
 cos( )
Le
where z is the axial coordinate (z = 0 at core midplane), Le = 1.5L is the extrapolated length, and L
= 1.2 m is the heated length of the fuel pin.
Fuel assembly
Helium duct
14
15 15
14 15 14
115 155
9 mm 15 16 15
15 15
144 115 114
15 15
14
Fuel pin (1 of 19)
Figure 2. Cross sectional view of the hot fuel assembly. Values of fuel pin power are in kW.
i) Calculate the local power peaking factor (15%)
ii) Assuming the fuel pin diameter is 9 mm, calculate the maximum heat flux (on the outer
surface of the cladding) in the assembly (15%)
In the same reactor the following conditions are observed for the helium coolant at steady state:
Core inlet: 5.0 MPa, 350C, 38 m/s
Core outlet: 4.7 MPa, 700C
The total core flow area is 0.75 m2. Helium is an ideal gas (cv = 3116 J/kg-K, R = 2077 J/kg-K).
Calculate the following quantities:
iii) The coolant mass flow rate (10%)
iv) The coolant velocity at the outlet of the core. (5%)
v) The reactor power. (5%)
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

Consider the condenser of a large Light Water Reactor (LWR), which uses seawater as the heat
sink (Figure 1). Wet steam (mass flow rate = 1,231 kg/s; enthalpy = 1,840 kJ/kg) enters the
condenser and is condensed to saturated liquid water, which is drawn away by a condensate pump
(not shown in the figure). At steady-state the condenser operating pressure and temperature are
0.03 bar (3.3 kPa) and 25C, respectively. The seawater mass flow rate, inlet and outlet
temperatures are 51,000 kg/s, 10C and 20C, respectively.
i) Find the heat transfer rate to seawater at steady conditions. (10%).
Now assume that the condensate pump stops working, and as a result no more condensate is drawn
from the bottom of the condenser. During the ensuing transient the mass flow rate and enthalpy of
the wet steam entering the condenser can be assumed constant and equal to their steady-state values
stated above. The heat transfer rate to seawater can be assumed to be 90% of the value calculated
in Part ‘i’.
ii) After the condensate pump stops working, do the temperature and pressure in the
condenser increase, decrease or stay the same? Answer qualitatively. (5%)
iii) Write a complete set of equations that would allow you to find the pressure and
temperature in the condenser 30 seconds after the condensate pump stops working.
(35%)
Wet steam
from turbine
Seawater in
Condensate Seawater out

to condensate
pump Condensate
Figure 1. Schematic of the condenser.
1
Assumptions:
- Neglect kinetic and gravitational energy terms in the analysis
- Seawater heating in the condenser is isobaric
- Treat seawater as an incompressible fluid
Data:
Initial volume of condensate in the condenser: 86 m3
Initial volume of steam in the condenser: 778 m3
Properties of seawater: cw = 4190 J/kg-K, w = 1020 kg/m3
(C) (kPa) (m3/kg) (m3/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kgK) (kJ/kgK)
20 2.3 1.0010-3 57.8 83.9 2403 83.9 2538 0.297 8.667
25 3.3 1.0010-3 45.4 104.8 2410 104.8 2547 0.367 8.560
30 4.2 1.0010-3 32.9 125.7 2416 125.7 2556 0.437 8.453
35 5.8 1.0010-3 26.2 146.6 2423 146.6 2565 0.505 8.355
40 7.4 1.0010-3 19.5 167.5 2430 167.5 2574 0.572 8.257
2
Figure 2 shows the power of each fuel pin in the hot fuel assembly of a small helium-cooled fast
reactor. Assume the axial power profile within the pins follows a chopped-cosine function:
z
q( z )  qmax
 cos( )
Le
where z is the axial coordinate (z = 0 at core midplane), Le = 1.5L is the extrapolated length, and L
= 1.2 m is the heated length of the fuel pin.
Fuel assembly
Helium duct
14
15 15
14 15 14
115 155
9 mm 15 16 15
15 15
144 115 114
15 15
14
Fuel pin (1 of 19)
Figure 2. Cross sectional view of the hot fuel assembly. Values of fuel pin power are in kW.
i) Calculate the local power peaking factor (15%)
ii) Assuming the fuel pin diameter is 9 mm, calculate the maximum heat flux (on the outer
surface of the cladding) in the assembly (15%)
In the same reactor the following conditions are observed for the helium coolant at steady state:
Core inlet: 5.0 MPa, 350C, 38 m/s
Core outlet: 4.7 MPa, 700C
The total core flow area is 0.75 m2. Helium is an ideal gas (cv = 3116 J/kg-K, R = 2077 J/kg-K).
Calculate the following quantities:
iii) The coolant mass flow rate (10%)
iv) The coolant velocity at the outlet of the core. (5%)
v) The reactor power. (5%)
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

i)
Consider the seawater in the condenser as the control volume for this first analysis. The
conservation of energy for steady-state yields the following equation:
0  Q  m
 w hwi  m
 w hwo  Q  m
 w (hwo  hwi )  m
 w cw (Two  Twi ) = 2137 MW
where m  w , Twi , Two, and cw, are, respectively, the seawater mass flow rate, inlet and outlet
temperatures, and specific heat, all given in the problem statement. Kinetic and gravitational terms
were neglected; seawater was treated as an incompressible fluid; seawater flow was assumed to be
isobaric, per the problem statement. Note that the same result could have been obtained by applying
the conservation of energy to the steam side of the condenser.
ii)
Now consider the steam side of the condenser as the control volume. During the transient the
amount of energy entering the control volume is constant (i.e. the mass flow rate and enthalpy of
the incoming wet steam is constant); however, the heat transfer rate removed by the seawater is
lower (i.e. 90% of its steady-state value), and the condensate is no longer pumped away by the
condensate pump. As a result a net accumulation of mass and energy is expected on the steam side
of the condenser, which thus results in a higher pressure and temperature.
iii)
Again the steam side of the condenser is the control volume for the analysis. Conservation of mass
dM
 m i (1)
dt
Where m i = 1,231 kg/s is the mass flow rate of the incoming wet steam, given in the problem
statement. Integrating between initial time (t1=0) and final time (t2=30 s), we get:
M 2  M1  m
 it2 (2)
Note that the initial mass in the control volume, M1, is easily found from the initial masses of
condensate and steam, which in turn are found from the initial volumes of condensate and steam
given in the problem statement, and the specific volumes of saturated water and vapor given in the
property table:
M 1  M f 1  M g1  V f 1 / v f (T1 )  Vg1 / v g (T1 ) = 86,150 kg
1
Here T1 = 25C is the initial temperature of the steam and condensate. Therefore, Eq. (2) can be
used to get M2 = 123,094 kg.
dE
 0.9Q  m i hi (3)
dt
where 0.9 Q is 90% of the heat transfer rate to the seawater calculated in Part ‘i’, and hi = 1,840
kJ/kg is the enthalpy of the incoming wet steam. Integrating Eq. (3) between the initial and final
times, we get:
M 2 u 2  M 1u1  (0.9Q  m
 i hi )t 2 (4)
Expanding the LHS of Eq. (4), we get:
M 2 [u f (T2 )  x2 u fg (T2 )]  M 1[u f (T1 )  x1u fg (T1 )]  (0.9Q  m

 i hi )t 2 (5)
where T2 and x2 are the final temperature and steam quality in the condenser, respectively. Note
that the initial steam quality is found from the initial masses in the condenser: x1  M g1 / M 1 =
0.000199.
We can also write the following volume equation for the final conditions:
V  M 2 [v f (T2 )  x2 v fg (T2 )] (6)
where the total volume of the condenser is V  V f 1  Vg1 = 864 m3.

Equations (5) and (6) are two implicit and coupled equations in the unknown T2 and x2, thus the
problem can be solved by iterations. The results are T2 = 37. 4C (corresponding to a pressure P2
= 6.56 kPa) and x2 = 0.000261. Therefore the temperature and pressure increase, as expected, and
the steam quality also increases. Finally the mass of condensate M f 2  M 2 (1  x2 ) increases
(Mf2= 123,060 kg vs Mf1= 86,133 kg), which is expected because the condensate pump has stopped
working.
2
i)
The local peaking factor is defined as the ratio of the maximum pin power to the average pin power
in the hot fuel assembly:
q max 16
Ploc    1.086
q (1 16  6  14  12  15) / 19
ii)
Let us first calculate the axial peaking factor, defined as the ratio of the maximum linear power to
the average linear power in the hot pin:
 L 
 

qmax qmax 
qmax  2 Le 
Pax      1.209
q 1 L/2 1 L/2 z   
L  L / 2 L  L / 2
q( z )dz  cos( )dz L
qmax sin  
Le  2 Le 
The average linear power in the hot pin is q  = 16 kW/ 1.2 m  13.3 kW/m. Then the maximum
  q Pax  16.12 kW/m. And finally the maximum heat flux is:
linear power in the hot pin is qmax

qmax
 
qmax  570 kW/m2
 d co
where dco = 9 mm is the pin diameter.
iii)
The mass flow rate can be found from the inlet coolant velocity, density and flow area as:
  inVin A  110 kg/s

m
where Vin = 38 m/s, A = 0.75 m2 and the coolant at the inlet density is given by the equation of state:
Pin
 in   3.86 kg/m3
RTin
where Tin = 623 K (350C) and Pin = 5.0 MPa.
iv)
The coolant velocity at the outlet of the core is easily found as follows:
 /( out A)  62.9 m/s

Vout  m
3
Pout
where  out   2.32 kg/m3 and Tout = 973 K (700C) and Pout = 4.7 MPa.
RTout
v)
Conservation of energy applied to the coolant in the core yields:
v2 v2
0  Q  m  (hin  in  gzin )  m
 (hout  out  gzout )
2 2
2 2
v v
Q  m [c p (Tout T in)  out in  g ( zout  zin )]  200 MW
2
where we have used the constitutive relation for enthalpy of an ideal gas hout hin  c p (Tout T in) ;
and c p  cv  R =5193 J/kg-K. Note that in this case the kinetic and gravitational terms actually
can be calculated (since we have the velocities and elevations), and turn out to be completely
negligible with respect to the enthalpy term, as usual.
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

i)
0  Q  m
 w hwi  m
 w hwo  Q  m
 w cw (Two  Twi ) = 2137 MW
ii)
iii)
dM
 m i (1)
dt
M 2  M1  m
 it2 (2)
property table:
1
dE
 0.9Q  m i hi (3)
dt
times, we get:
M 2 u 2  M 1u1  (0.9Q  m
 i hi )t 2 (4)

 i hi )t 2 (5)
0.000199.
V  M 2 [v f (T2 )  x2 v fg (T2 )] (6)

working.
2
i)
q max 16
Ploc    1.086
q (1 16  6  14  12  15) / 19
ii)
 L 
 

qmax qmax 
Pax      1.209
q 1 L/2 1 L/2 z   
L  L / 2 L  L / 2
Le  2 Le 

qmax
 
qmax  570 kW/m2
 d co
iii)
  inVin A  110 kg/s

m
Pin
 in   3.86 kg/m3
RTin
iv)
 /( out A)  62.9 m/s

Vout  m
3
Pout
RTout
v)
v2 v2
0  Q  m  (hin  in  gzin )  m
2 2
2 2
v v
2
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

i)
0  Q  m
 w hwi  m
 w hwo  Q  m
 w cw (Two  Twi ) = 2137 MW
ii)
iii)
dM
 m i (1)
dt
M 2  M1  m
 it2 (2)
property table:
1
dE
 0.9Q  m i hi (3)
dt
times, we get:
M 2 u 2  M 1u1  (0.9Q  m
 i hi )t 2 (4)

 i hi )t 2 (5)
0.000199.
V  M 2 [v f (T2 )  x2 v fg (T2 )] (6)

working.
2
i)
q max 16
Ploc    1.086
q (1 16  6  14  12  15) / 19
ii)
 L 
 

qmax qmax 
Pax      1.209
q 1 L/2 1 L/2 z   
L  L / 2 L  L / 2
Le  2 Le 

qmax
 
qmax  570 kW/m2
 d co
iii)
  inVin A  110 kg/s

m
Pin
 in   3.86 kg/m3
RTin
iv)
 /( out A)  62.9 m/s

Vout  m
3
Pout
RTout
v)
v2 v2
0  Q  m  (hin  in  gzin )  m
2 2
2 2
v v
2
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Problem 1 (50%) – Cooling tower

The schematic drawing of a draft cooling tower used in a large LWR plant is shown in Figure 1.
Hot water from the condenser enters the tower at Point 1, at a flow rate m  w1 =17,000 kg/s,
temperature T1 = 35C and enthalpy h1 = 146.7 kJ/kg, and is sprayed downward to be cooled by a
flow of cold air. The water collected at the bottom of the tower (Point 3) is returned to the
condenser. Air entering the tower at Point 2 is perfectly dry (2 = 0) at temperature T2 = 20C, and
with a flow rate m
 a =16,000 kg/s. The air exiting the tower at Point 4 is at T4 = 30C, with 100%
humidity (4 = 1). The pressure can be assumed atmospheric throughout the system.
i) Find the mass flow rate of water discharged from the cooling tower, m  w3 . (15%)
(Hint: the air and the water in the air at Point 4 have the same volumetric flow rate,
m3/s)
ii) Find the temperature of water discharged from the cooling tower, T3. (30%)
Now consider a different situation: it is a very hot day, and the air entering the cooling tower is at
the same temperature of the water entering the cooling tower, i.e. T2 = T1.
iii) Will T3 be higher, lower or equal than T1? In other words, will the cooling tower still
be able to cool the water coming from the condenser? A qualitative answer is
acceptable. (5%)
④ Air outlet
T4 = 30C
4 = 1
① Water inlet (from condenser)

T1 = 35C, h1 = 146.7 kJ/kg
=17,000 kg/s
② Air inlet
T2 = 20C
=16,000 kg/s
2 = 0
③ Water discharge (to condenser)
T3 = ? =?
Figure 1. Draft cooling tower
1
Assumptions:
- Assume steady operation
- Neglect kinetic and gravitational terms in the energy equation
- Neglect solubility of air in water
- Treat air as an ideal gas (R = 287 J/kg-K; cp = 1005 J/kg-K)
- You may treat subcooled water as an incompressible fluid ( =1000 kg/m3, c =4180 J/kg-K)
Properties of saturated water:

Temperature Pressure f g hf hg
(C) (kPa) (kg/m ) 3
(kg/m ) 3
(kJ/kg) (kJ/kg)
30 4.24 995 0.03 126 2556
100 101 958 0.6 419 2676
(atmospheric)
Courtesy of Michael Kappel on Flickr. Used with permission.
iv) Bonus question (extra 5%): in the photo above, why is the plume of humid air at the top of
the tower visible?
2
Problem 2 (50%) – Transient analysis of a firebrick-based energy storage system
NSE’s Dr. Forsberg has been developing the concept of Firebrick Resistance-heated Energy
Storage, or FIRES. In this approach, excess electric energy from the grid, for example due to a
surge in renewable energy generation at a time of low demand, is stored as internal energy in a
large stack of firebricks. That energy can be recovered by blowing cooler air through the hot
firebrick stack, to provide hot air to industrial furnaces and/or gas turbines at a time of peak power
demand. Consider one such stack of firebricks contained within a well-insulated vessel. At first
there is no flow of air in or out of the vessel, and electrical power is delivered from the grid to the
firebricks at a steady rate 100 MW. The initial temperature and pressure of the system are T1 = 950
K and P1 = 2 MPa, respectively. The mass of firebricks is Mb =3.6106 kg; the free volume of air
in the vessel is Va =180 m3.
=100 MW
Air
Air Air out, , Tout
Vessel Firebricks
Firebricks
T(t)
T(t)
Air in , Tin
Air
Air
(a) (b)
Figure 2. The FIRES system during (a) the charging phase, and (b) when air is forced
through the system after t= 3 hours
i) Calculate the thermal capacity (J/K) of the air and compare it to thermal capacity of
the bricks. (5%)
ii) Find an expression for and plot the temperature of the system vs. time, T(t), during the
charging, and calculate the temperature of the system after 3 hours of charging. You
may assume that the air and bricks are in thermal equilibrium at all time. (15%)
At t = 3 hours the electrical power is turned off, the intake and discharge valves are open, and a
steady air flow in and out of the vessel is established, m
 in = m out =300 kg/s. The inlet temperature
of the air is Tin = 950 K constant in time, while you may assume that the temperature of the air at
the outlet is equal to the instantaneous temperature of the bricks within the system, Tout = T(t).
iii) Find an expression for and plot the temperature of the system vs. time, T(t), for t>3
hours. (30%)
Assumptions:
- Assume the FIRES vessel is well insulated
Properties:
Firebrick: cb = 700 J/kg-K, b = 4000 kg/m3
Air (treat as ideal gas): Ra = 287 J/kg-K; cva = 718 J/kg-K
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Problem 1 (50%) – Cooling tower

The schematic drawing of a draft cooling tower used in a large LWR plant is shown in Figure 1.
Hot water from the condenser enters the tower at Point 1, at a flow rate m  w1 =17,000 kg/s,
temperature T1 = 35C and enthalpy h1 = 146.7 kJ/kg, and is sprayed downward to be cooled by a
flow of cold air. The water collected at the bottom of the tower (Point 3) is returned to the
condenser. Air entering the tower at Point 2 is perfectly dry (2 = 0) at temperature T2 = 20C, and
with a flow rate m
 a =16,000 kg/s. The air exiting the tower at Point 4 is at T4 = 30C, with 100%
humidity (4 = 1). The pressure can be assumed atmospheric throughout the system.
i) Find the mass flow rate of water discharged from the cooling tower, m  w3 . (15%)
(Hint: the air and the water in the air at Point 4 have the same volumetric flow rate,
m3/s)
ii) Find the temperature of water discharged from the cooling tower, T3. (30%)
Now consider a different situation: it is a very hot day, and the air entering the cooling tower is at
the same temperature of the water entering the cooling tower, i.e. T2 = T1.
iii) Will T3 be higher, lower or equal than T1? In other words, will the cooling tower still
be able to cool the water coming from the condenser? A qualitative answer is
acceptable. (5%)
④ Air outlet
T4 = 30C
4 = 1
① Water inlet (from condenser)

T1 = 35C, h1 = 146.7 kJ/kg
=17,000 kg/s
② Air inlet
T2 = 20C
=16,000 kg/s
2 = 0
③ Water discharge (to condenser)
T3 = ? =?
Figure 1. Draft cooling tower
1
Assumptions:
- Assume steady operation
- Neglect kinetic and gravitational terms in the energy equation
- Neglect solubility of air in water
- Treat air as an ideal gas (R = 287 J/kg-K; cp = 1005 J/kg-K)
- You may treat subcooled water as an incompressible fluid ( =1000 kg/m3, c =4180 J/kg-K)
Properties of saturated water:

Temperature Pressure f g hf hg
(C) (kPa) (kg/m ) 3
(kg/m ) 3
(kJ/kg) (kJ/kg)
30 4.24 995 0.03 126 2556
100 101 958 0.6 419 2676
(atmospheric)
iv) Bonus question (extra 5%): in the photo above, why is the plume of humid air at the top of
the tower visible?
2
NSE’s Dr. Forsberg has been developing the concept of Firebrick Resistance-heated Energy
Storage, or FIRES. In this approach, excess electric energy from the grid, for example due to a
surge in renewable energy generation at a time of low demand, is stored as internal energy in a
large stack of firebricks. That energy can be recovered by blowing cooler air through the hot
firebrick stack, to provide hot air to industrial furnaces and/or gas turbines at a time of peak power
demand. Consider one such stack of firebricks contained within a well-insulated vessel. At first
there is no flow of air in or out of the vessel, and electrical power is delivered from the grid to the
firebricks at a steady rate 100 MW. The initial temperature and pressure of the system are T1 = 950
K and P1 = 2 MPa, respectively. The mass of firebricks is Mb =3.6106 kg; the free volume of air
in the vessel is Va =180 m3.
=100 MW
Air
Air Air out, , Tout
Vessel Firebricks
Firebricks
T(t)
T(t)
Air in , Tin
Air
Air
(a) (b)
Figure 2. The FIRES system during (a) the charging phase, and (b) when air is forced
through the system after t= 3 hours
i) Calculate the thermal capacity (J/K) of the air and compare it to thermal capacity of
the bricks. (5%)
ii) Find an expression for and plot the temperature of the system vs. time, T(t), during the
charging, and calculate the temperature of the system after 3 hours of charging. You
may assume that the air and bricks are in thermal equilibrium at all time. (15%)
At t = 3 hours the electrical power is turned off, the intake and discharge valves are open, and a
steady air flow in and out of the vessel is established, m
 in = m out =300 kg/s. The inlet temperature
of the air is Tin = 950 K constant in time, while you may assume that the temperature of the air at
the outlet is equal to the instantaneous temperature of the bricks within the system, Tout = T(t).
iii) Find an expression for and plot the temperature of the system vs. time, T(t), for t>3
hours. (30%)
Assumptions:
- Assume the FIRES vessel is well insulated
Properties:
Firebrick: cb = 700 J/kg-K, b = 4000 kg/m3
Air (treat as ideal gas): Ra = 287 J/kg-K; cva = 718 J/kg-K
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Problem 1 (50%) – Thermodynamic analysis of a cooling tower

i)
Taking the whole cooling tower as the system, the conservation of mass yields:
0  m w1  m a  m w3  (m a  m w4 )  m w3  m w1  m w4 (1)
 w 4 is the mass flow rate of water in the air at Point 4. The partial pressure of water in the
where m
air is easily found Pw4  4 Psat (T4 ) = 4.24 kPa, where 4 = 1 and Psat (T4 ) = 4.24 kPa is the
saturation pressure of water at 30C. The corresponding density (from the table) is w4 =0.03 kg/m3.
Since air and water exiting the cooling tower at Point 4 occupy the same volume, the volumetric
flow rate of water is equal to the volumetric flow rate of air:
m w 4 m a a
m
   w4   w4
m 431.4 kg/s
 w4 a4 a4
Pa 4
where the density of air at Point 4 is calculated from the equation of state  a 4  1.11 kg/m3,
Ra T4
and Pa 4  Patm  Pw4 96.76 kPa is the partial pressure of air at Point 4. Finally, Eq. (1) yields
m w 3 16,569 kg/s. Note that it is therefore necessary to provide make-up water for 431.4 kg/s to
compensate for evaporative losses in this cooling tower.
ii)
Again taking the cooling tower as the system, the conservation of energy yields:
0  m w1hw1  m a ha 2  m w3hw3  (m a ha 4  m w4 hw4 )

or
m w3 (hw1  hw3 )  m a (ha 4  ha 2 )  m w4 (hw4  hw1 ) (2)
Now, let us expand each term in Eq. (2):

- Treating subcooled water as an incompressible fluid and recognizing that since P1=P3=Patm,
P1  P3
we have hw1  hw3  cw (T1  T3 )   cw (T1  T3 ) .
w
- Treating air as an ideal gas, we have ha 4  ha 2  c pa (T4  T2 )
1
- Note that hw 4  hg =2556 kJ/kg from the table; and hw1 =146.7 kJ/kg from the problem statement.
The only unknown in Eq. (2) is T3, from which T3  17.7C.
iii)
The answer depends on the humidity of the air at Point 3. If the humidity is low (i.e. <100%), then
there is evaporation from the water into the air, and as a result the water discharged at Point 3 will
be cooler than the water entering at Point 4, T3 < T1. On the other hand, if the humidity is 100%,
there is no driving force for evaporation or heat transfer, and as result T3 = T1 = T2 = T4, and thus
the cooling tower fails to cool the water coming from the condenser.
iv)
Upon coming in contact with the cooler atmosphere, the warm humid air exiting the tower will
experience some condensation, which results in the generation of tiny droplets. Those droplets
deflect the sun light thus making the plume visible.
2
i)
The mass of air in the vessel is found from the equation of state:
P1Va
Ma   1324 kg
RaT1
where Va =180 m3 and P1 = 2 MPa. Then the air thermal capacity is Ma cva  9.5105 J/K, which is
much lower than the firebrick thermal capacity Mb cb  2.5109 J/K, where Mb =3.6106 kg.
ii)
Taking the firebricks and the air as the system, the energy equation is:
E dT
 Welectric  ( M b cb  M a cva )  Welectric 
t dt
 Welectric
T (t )  T1  t (3)
M b cb  M a cva
where we assumed E (t )  ( M bcb  M a cva )T (t ) (note that it would be acceptable to neglect the
thermal capacity of the air, per the result in ‘i’), Welectric = -100 MW, the vessel is well insulated (
Q =0), and T(0) = T1 = 950 K. Equation (3) is a linearly increasing function of time and is plotted
(for t < t2 = 3 hours) in the figure below. The maximum temperature reached by the system is T(t2)
T ( t2 )
 1378 K. Note that the pressure of that air at time has risen to P2  P1  2.9 MPa.
T1
iii)
Again taking the firebricks and the air within the vessel as the system, the conservation of mass
equation is:
M
 m in  m out
t
M
 in = m out = 300 kg/s, it follows that
Since m = 0, and thus the mass of air in the vessel is constant.
t
E dT (t )
 m in hin  m outhout  ( M b cb  M a cva )  m in (hin  hout ) 
t dt
dT (t )
( M bcb  M a cva )  m in c pa [Tin  T (t )] (4)
dt
where Tin = 950 K constant in time, and it was assumed that the air outlet temperature is equal to
the system temperature at any given time (per the problem statement), and cpa = cva+ Ra = 1005
J/kg-K. Integrating Eq. (4) with the initial condition T = T(t2) at t2, we get:
T (t )  [T (t2 )  Tin ]e ( t t2 ) /  Tin (5)
3
M b cb  M a cva
where    8361 sec is the time constant of the system. Equation (5) is plotted in
m in c pa
the figure below for t > t2.
Figure. Temperature history of the FIRES system
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Problem 1 (50%) – Thermodynamic analysis of a cooling tower

i)
Taking the whole cooling tower as the system, the conservation of mass yields:
0  m w1  m a  m w3  (m a  m w4 )  m w3  m w1  m w4 (1)
 w 4 is the mass flow rate of water in the air at Point 4. The partial pressure of water in the
where m
air is easily found Pw4  4 Psat (T4 ) = 4.24 kPa, where 4 = 1 and Psat (T4 ) = 4.24 kPa is the
saturation pressure of water at 30C. The corresponding density (from the table) is w4 =0.03 kg/m3.
Since air and water exiting the cooling tower at Point 4 occupy the same volume, the volumetric
flow rate of water is equal to the volumetric flow rate of air:
m w 4 m a a
m
   w4   w4
m 431.4 kg/s
 w4 a4 a4
Pa 4
where the density of air at Point 4 is calculated from the equation of state  a 4  1.11 kg/m3,
Ra T4
and Pa 4  Patm  Pw4 96.76 kPa is the partial pressure of air at Point 4. Finally, Eq. (1) yields
m w 3 16,569 kg/s. Note that it is therefore necessary to provide make-up water for 431.4 kg/s to
compensate for evaporative losses in this cooling tower.
ii)
Again taking the cooling tower as the system, the conservation of energy yields:
0  m w1hw1  m a ha 2  m w3hw3  (m a ha 4  m w4 hw4 )

or
m w3 (hw1  hw3 )  m a (ha 4  ha 2 )  m w4 (hw4  hw1 ) (2)
Now, let us expand each term in Eq. (2):

- Treating subcooled water as an incompressible fluid and recognizing that since P1=P3=Patm,
P1  P3
we have hw1  hw3  cw (T1  T3 )   cw (T1  T3 ) .
w
- Treating air as an ideal gas, we have ha 4  ha 2  c pa (T4  T2 )
1
- Note that hw 4  hg =2556 kJ/kg from the table; and hw1 =146.7 kJ/kg from the problem statement.
The only unknown in Eq. (2) is T3, from which T3  17.7C.
iii)
The answer depends on the humidity of the air at Point 3. If the humidity is low (i.e. <100%), then
there is evaporation from the water into the air, and as a result the water discharged at Point 3 will
be cooler than the water entering at Point 4, T3 < T1. On the other hand, if the humidity is 100%,
there is no driving force for evaporation or heat transfer, and as result T3 = T1 = T2 = T4, and thus
the cooling tower fails to cool the water coming from the condenser.
iv)
Upon coming in contact with the cooler atmosphere, the warm humid air exiting the tower will
experience some condensation, which results in the generation of tiny droplets. Those droplets
deflect the sun light thus making the plume visible.
2
i)
The mass of air in the vessel is found from the equation of state:
P1Va
Ma   1324 kg
RaT1
where Va =180 m3 and P1 = 2 MPa. Then the air thermal capacity is Ma cva  9.5105 J/K, which is
much lower than the firebrick thermal capacity Mb cb  2.5109 J/K, where Mb =3.6106 kg.
ii)
Taking the firebricks and the air as the system, the energy equation is:
E dT
 Welectric  ( M b cb  M a cva )  Welectric 
t dt
 Welectric
T (t )  T1  t (3)
M b cb  M a cva
where we assumed E (t )  ( M bcb  M a cva )T (t ) (note that it would be acceptable to neglect the
thermal capacity of the air, per the result in ‘i’), Welectric = -100 MW, the vessel is well insulated (
Q =0), and T(0) = T1 = 950 K. Equation (3) is a linearly increasing function of time and is plotted
(for t < t2 = 3 hours) in the figure below. The maximum temperature reached by the system is T(t2)
T ( t2 )
 1378 K. Note that the pressure of that air at time has risen to P2  P1  2.9 MPa.
T1
iii)
Again taking the firebricks and the air within the vessel as the system, the conservation of mass
equation is:
M
 m in  m out
t
M
 in = m out = 300 kg/s, it follows that
Since m = 0, and thus the mass of air in the vessel is constant.
t
E dT (t )
 m in hin  m outhout  ( M b cb  M a cva )  m in (hin  hout ) 
t dt
dT (t )
( M bcb  M a cva )  m in c pa [Tin  T (t )] (4)
dt
where Tin = 950 K constant in time, and it was assumed that the air outlet temperature is equal to
the system temperature at any given time (per the problem statement), and cpa = cva+ Ra = 1005
J/kg-K. Integrating Eq. (4) with the initial condition T = T(t2) at t2, we get:
T (t )  [T (t2 )  Tin ]e ( t t2 ) /  Tin (5)
3
M b cb  M a cva
where    8361 sec is the time constant of the system. Equation (5) is plotted in
m in c pa
the figure below for t > t2.
Figure. Temperature history of the FIRES system
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
TAKE HOME QUIZ 2
Problem 1 (75%) – Cooling system for an accelerator target

An electron accelerator is used to generate X-rays for industrial radiography. The electron beam
impinges on a tungsten target of thickness δ = 2 mm, width w = 10 mm and length L = 50 mm.
The volumetric energy deposition in the target can be described by the following equation:
π z⎞
′′′ e −α x cos⎜⎛
q ′′′(x, z) = q max ⎟
⎝ L ⎠
Where α = 2 mm-1 is the attenuation coefficient for electrons in tungsten, and x and z are the
Cartesian coordinates shown in Figure 1. The target is cooled by 5.3×10-3 kg/s of molten
sodium-potassium eutectic alloy (Na-K) flowing along the side not exposed to the beam. The
Na-K channel cross section is rectangular with one side being w = 10 mm and the other s = 2
mm, and an upstream length of 300 mm. The Na-K coolant enters the channel at 50°C.
δ s
z
Electron
Beam x
Tungsten
target
300 mm
Na-K Na-K
(lateral view)
Figure 1. Geometry and dimensions of the accelerator target and the coolant channel.
(drawing not to scale)
J. Buongiorno / Fall ’08
1
i) Determine q′′′max , such that the total beam power is 200 W. (5%)
ii) Calculate the temperature distribution in the target, T(x,z). (45%)
In answering question ‘ii’ please make the following assumptions:

- Heat conduction in the z and y directions is negligible
- Radiative heat transfer is negligible
- Use the chart below to estimate the heat transfer coefficient; neglect entrance effects
- Use the following material properties (assumed constant):
Tungsten: k = 174 W/m°C, ρ = 19300 kg/m3, c = 132 J/kg°C
Na-K: k = 24 W/m°C, μ = 4.9×10-4 Pa-s, ρ = 850 kg/m3, cp = 946 J/kg°C
iii) Find the location and value of the maximum temperature in the target. (10%)
iv) Sketch qualitatively the axial distributions of the coolant bulk temperature (Tb(z)), and the
target temperature at x = 0 and x = δ. (10%)
v) An assumption was made in ‘ii’ that entrance effects could be neglected in calculating the
heat transfer coefficient for Na-K. Is this assumption accurate? (5%)
s
Nu
ξ = w/s ξ = s/w
ξ
© John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative
Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
Nusselt number for laminar fully-developed flow in a rectangular channel with 3 adiabatic
walls. (adapted from the “Handbook of Single-Phase Convective Heat Transfer” by S. Kakaç et al., 1987)
2
Problem 2 (25%) – Natural circulation flow
Water is flowing in a loop with a single riser pipe and two downcomer pipes (see Figure 2).
Heat is added at point A and rejected at point B, so that the temperature difference between the
riser and downcomer sections is 30°C. The diameter of the two downcomer pipes is D1=10 cm
and D2=5 cm, respectively.
i) Calculate the mass flow rate in the loop. (25%)
Assumptions:
- Neglect all acceleration, friction and form pressure changes in the loop, except for the
friction pressure changes in the downcomer pipes.
- To calculate the friction factor in the pipes, ignore entrance effects, assume the flow
is turbulent and use the MacAdams correlation.
- Use the Boussinesq’s approximation to estimate the water density dependence on
temperature. (β = 3×10-4 K-1, ρc = 1000 kg/m3)
Other properties of water at the conditions of interest

μ = 8×10-4 Pa⋅s, k = 0.61 W/m-K, cp = 4.18 kJ/kg-K
Heat rejection
B
Downcomer
pipe # 1
Riser
H=10 m
Downcomer
g pipe # 2
Heat addition
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
TAKE HOME QUIZ 2

An electron accelerator is used to generate X-rays for industrial radiography. The electron beam
impinges on a tungsten target of thickness δ = 2 mm, width w = 10 mm and length L = 50 mm.
The volumetric energy deposition in the target can be described by the following equation:
π z⎞
′′′ e −α x cos⎜⎛
q ′′′(x, z) = q max ⎟
⎝ L ⎠
Where α = 2 mm-1 is the attenuation coefficient for electrons in tungsten, and x and z are the
Cartesian coordinates shown in Figure 1. The target is cooled by 5.3×10-3 kg/s of molten
sodium-potassium eutectic alloy (Na-K) flowing along the side not exposed to the beam. The
Na-K channel cross section is rectangular with one side being w = 10 mm and the other s = 2
mm, and an upstream length of 300 mm. The Na-K coolant enters the channel at 50°C.
δ s
z
Electron
Beam x
Tungsten
target
300 mm
Na-K Na-K
(lateral view)
Figure 1. Geometry and dimensions of the accelerator target and the coolant channel.
(drawing not to scale)
1
i) Determine q′′′max , such that the total beam power is 200 W. (5%)
ii) Calculate the temperature distribution in the target, T(x,z). (45%)
In answering question ‘ii’ please make the following assumptions:

- Heat conduction in the z and y directions is negligible
- Radiative heat transfer is negligible
- Use the chart below to estimate the heat transfer coefficient; neglect entrance effects
- Use the following material properties (assumed constant):
Tungsten: k = 174 W/m°C, ρ = 19300 kg/m3, c = 132 J/kg°C
Na-K: k = 24 W/m°C, μ = 4.9×10-4 Pa-s, ρ = 850 kg/m3, cp = 946 J/kg°C
iii) Find the location and value of the maximum temperature in the target. (10%)
iv) Sketch qualitatively the axial distributions of the coolant bulk temperature (Tb(z)), and the
target temperature at x = 0 and x = δ. (10%)
v) An assumption was made in ‘ii’ that entrance effects could be neglected in calculating the
heat transfer coefficient for Na-K. Is this assumption accurate? (5%)
s
Nu
ξ = w/s ξ = s/w
ξ
© John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative
Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
Nusselt number for laminar fully-developed flow in a rectangular channel with 3 adiabatic
walls. (adapted from the “Handbook of Single-Phase Convective Heat Transfer” by S. Kakaç et al., 1987)
2
Water is flowing in a loop with a single riser pipe and two downcomer pipes (see Figure 2).
Heat is added at point A and rejected at point B, so that the temperature difference between the
riser and downcomer sections is 30°C. The diameter of the two downcomer pipes is D1=10 cm
and D2=5 cm, respectively.
i) Calculate the mass flow rate in the loop. (25%)
Assumptions:
- Neglect all acceleration, friction and form pressure changes in the loop, except for the
friction pressure changes in the downcomer pipes.
- To calculate the friction factor in the pipes, ignore entrance effects, assume the flow
is turbulent and use the MacAdams correlation.
- Use the Boussinesq’s approximation to estimate the water density dependence on
temperature. (β = 3×10-4 K-1, ρc = 1000 kg/m3)
Other properties of water at the conditions of interest

μ = 8×10-4 Pa⋅s, k = 0.61 W/m-K, cp = 4.18 kJ/kg-K
Heat rejection
B
Downcomer
pipe # 1
Riser
H=10 m
Downcomer
g pipe # 2
Heat addition
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
TAKE HOME QUIZ 2 (solution)

i)
The total beam power, Q& =200 W, can be obtained by integrating the volumetric heat generation
over the whole volume of the tungsten target, VW:
δ
⎛π z ⎞ 2q′′′ wL
L/2
Q& = ∫∫∫ q′′′dVW = qmax
′′′ ∫ e −α x wdx ∫ cos⎜ ⎟dz = max (1 − e −α δ )
VW 0 −L / 2 ⎝ ⎠
L πα
From which we get:
πα Q&
′′′ =
qmax −α δ
≈ 1.28×109 W/m3
2wL(1− e )
ii)
First let us use the energy equation for the Na-K coolant, to find the axial distribution of the
coolant bulk temperature, Tb(z):
dTb
m& c p = q ′′(z)Ph (1)
dz
where the heated perimeter for the Na-K coolant channel is Ph = w, and the heat flux into the
coolant is:
δ
′′′
qmax ⎛π z ⎞
q′′(z) = ∫ q′′′dx = (1− e −α δ ) cos⎜ ⎟
0
α ⎝ L ⎠
Integrating Eq (1) with the initial condition Tb(-L/2) = Tin = 50°C, we get:
′′′ Lw
qmax πz
Tb ( z ) = Tin + (1 − e −α δ )[1 + sin( )] (2)
απ m& c p L
To get the temperature distribution within the tungsten target, we now need to solve the heat
conduction equation:

1
d 2T
0 = kW + q′′′(x, z) (3)
dx 2
where conduction in the y and z directions was neglected, as per the problem statement. The
boundary conditions for Eq. (3) are:
dT
− kW =0 at x = 0 (no heat transfer at the surface exposed to the beam)
dx
dT
− kW = h(T − Tb ) at x = δ (convective heat transfer at the surface exposed to the
dx
coolant)
The heat transfer coefficient, h, can be found from the chart:

- fully developed flow, as per problem statement
- equivalent diameter De = 4sw/[2(s+w)] ≈ 3.33 mm
m&
- average Na-K velocity V = ≈ 0.312 m/s
ρ sw
ρVDe
- laminar flow (Re= ≈1800 < 2100)
μ
- ξ = s/w =0.2 ⇒ Nu≈4.5
- h=Nu⋅k/De ≈ 32.4 kW/m2°C
Integrating Eq. (3) with the above boundary conditions, we get the temperature distribution
within the tungsten target:
πz
′′′ cos(
qmax ) −α δ
L ⎧e − e δ − x 1 − e −α δ ⎫
−α x
T ( x, z ) = Tb ( z ) + ⎨ + + ⎬ (4)
α ⎩ α kW kW h ⎭
Where Tb(z) is given by Eq. (2).
iii)
To find the maximum temperature in the target, we note that, at any given axial location, the
temperature is maximum at the surface exposed to the beam (x = 0). Thus, we can set x = 0 in
Eq. (4), differentiate with respect to z, set the derivative equal to zero, and solve for z:
∂T (0, z ) L Lw(1 − e −α δ )
=0 ⇒ ∴ zmax = tan −1{ }≈10.7 mm
∂z π ⎡ −α δ 1 1 δ ⎤
π m& c p ⎢(1− e )( − )+ ⎥
⎣ h α kW kW ⎦
Thus the maximum temperature occurs above the target midplane, as expected. Substituting zmax
into Eq (4), again for x = 0, we get Tmax=101.9°C.

2
iv)
The coolant and target temperatures of interest are shown in the Figure below.
v)
The length of the velocity entrance region in laminar flow can be estimated as Lv/De∼0.05⋅Re ⇒
Lv≈300 mm. Therefore, the velocity profile can be assumed to have fully developed before the
target area.
On the other hand, the thermal entrance region starts at the lower edge of the target, and its
length (for metallic fluids in laminar flow) can be estimated as LT/De∼0.004⋅Re ⇒ LT≈24 mm,
which is a significant fraction of the 50-mm length of the target.
In summary, the assumption of fully-developed flow made in ‘ii’ is not accurate, because the
temperature profile develops over a significant fraction of the target region. Rigorously, one
should use a heat transfer correlation that accounts for a developing temperature profile in the
presence of a fully-developed velocity profile.

3
Under the assumptions recommended in the problem statement the momentum equation for the
riser is:
PA − PB = ρ H gH (5)
where ρH is the water density in the riser. The momentum equation for downcomer pipe # 1 is:
H G12
PB − PA = − ρC gH + f1 ⋅ (6)
D1 2 ρ C
Where ρC is the water density in the downcomer, D1 is the diameter of pipe #1, G1 is the mass
flux in pipe #1 and f1 is the friction factor in pipe #1 (found from the MacAdams correlation):
0.184 0.184
f1 = = (7)
Re 0.2
(G1D1 / μ ) 0.2
Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (6), eliminating PA-PB from Eqs. (5) and (6), and solving for G1, we
get:
1 / 1.8
⎛ 2 ρ 2 gβD12 ΔT ⎞
G1 = ⎜⎜ C ⎟⎟ ≈ 1002 kg/m2s
⎝ 0.184μ
0.2
⎠
where the Boussinesq’s approximation was used to find ρC -ρH = ρC β ΔT, with ΔT=30°C.
π
Once G1 is known, the mass flow rate in pipe #1 is readily found, m& 1 = G1 D12 = 7.87 kg/s.
4
Similarly, for pipe #2:
1 / 1.8
H G22 ⎛ 2 ρ 2 gβD22 ΔT ⎞
PB − PA = − ρC gH + f 2 ⋅ ⇒ G2 = ⎜⎜ C ⎟⎟ ≈ 631 kg/m2s
D2 2 ρC ⎝ 0.184μ
0.2
⎠
And m& 2 = 1.24 kg/s. Finally the total mass flow rate in the loop is m& tot = m& 1 + m& 2 = 9.1 kg/s.
Note that for the calculated values of G1 and G2, the Reynolds numbers in pipes #1 and 2 are
∼125000 and ∼40000, respectively. So the assumption of turbulent flow is accurate.

4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
TAKE HOME QUIZ 2 (solution)

i)
The total beam power, Q& =200 W, can be obtained by integrating the volumetric heat generation
over the whole volume of the tungsten target, VW:
δ
⎛π z ⎞ 2q′′′ wL
L/2
Q& = ∫∫∫ q′′′dVW = qmax
′′′ ∫ e −α x wdx ∫ cos⎜ ⎟dz = max (1 − e −α δ )
VW 0 −L / 2 ⎝ ⎠
L πα
From which we get:
πα Q&
′′′ =
qmax −α δ
≈ 1.28×109 W/m3
2wL(1− e )
ii)
First let us use the energy equation for the Na-K coolant, to find the axial distribution of the
coolant bulk temperature, Tb(z):
dTb
m& c p = q ′′(z)Ph (1)
dz
where the heated perimeter for the Na-K coolant channel is Ph = w, and the heat flux into the
coolant is:
δ
′′′
qmax ⎛π z ⎞
q′′(z) = ∫ q′′′dx = (1− e −α δ ) cos⎜ ⎟
0
α ⎝ L ⎠
Integrating Eq (1) with the initial condition Tb(-L/2) = Tin = 50°C, we get:
′′′ Lw
qmax πz
Tb ( z ) = Tin + (1 − e −α δ )[1 + sin( )] (2)
απ m& c p L
To get the temperature distribution within the tungsten target, we now need to solve the heat
conduction equation:

1
d 2T
0 = kW + q′′′(x, z) (3)
dx 2
where conduction in the y and z directions was neglected, as per the problem statement. The
boundary conditions for Eq. (3) are:
dT
− kW =0 at x = 0 (no heat transfer at the surface exposed to the beam)
dx
dT
− kW = h(T − Tb ) at x = δ (convective heat transfer at the surface exposed to the
dx
coolant)
The heat transfer coefficient, h, can be found from the chart:

- fully developed flow, as per problem statement
- equivalent diameter De = 4sw/[2(s+w)] ≈ 3.33 mm
m&
- average Na-K velocity V = ≈ 0.312 m/s
ρ sw
ρVDe
- laminar flow (Re= ≈1800 < 2100)
μ
- ξ = s/w =0.2 ⇒ Nu≈4.5
- h=Nu⋅k/De ≈ 32.4 kW/m2°C
Integrating Eq. (3) with the above boundary conditions, we get the temperature distribution
within the tungsten target:
πz
′′′ cos(
qmax ) −α δ
L ⎧e − e δ − x 1 − e −α δ ⎫
−α x
T ( x, z ) = Tb ( z ) + ⎨ + + ⎬ (4)
α ⎩ α kW kW h ⎭
Where Tb(z) is given by Eq. (2).
iii)
To find the maximum temperature in the target, we note that, at any given axial location, the
temperature is maximum at the surface exposed to the beam (x = 0). Thus, we can set x = 0 in
Eq. (4), differentiate with respect to z, set the derivative equal to zero, and solve for z:
∂T (0, z ) L Lw(1 − e −α δ )
=0 ⇒ ∴ zmax = tan −1{ }≈10.7 mm
∂z π ⎡ −α δ 1 1 δ ⎤
π m& c p ⎢(1− e )( − )+ ⎥
⎣ h α kW kW ⎦
Thus the maximum temperature occurs above the target midplane, as expected. Substituting zmax
into Eq (4), again for x = 0, we get Tmax=101.9°C.

2
iv)
The coolant and target temperatures of interest are shown in the Figure below.
v)
The length of the velocity entrance region in laminar flow can be estimated as Lv/De∼0.05⋅Re ⇒
Lv≈300 mm. Therefore, the velocity profile can be assumed to have fully developed before the
target area.
On the other hand, the thermal entrance region starts at the lower edge of the target, and its
length (for metallic fluids in laminar flow) can be estimated as LT/De∼0.004⋅Re ⇒ LT≈24 mm,
which is a significant fraction of the 50-mm length of the target.
In summary, the assumption of fully-developed flow made in ‘ii’ is not accurate, because the
temperature profile develops over a significant fraction of the target region. Rigorously, one
should use a heat transfer correlation that accounts for a developing temperature profile in the
presence of a fully-developed velocity profile.

3
Under the assumptions recommended in the problem statement the momentum equation for the
riser is:
PA − PB = ρ H gH (5)
where ρH is the water density in the riser. The momentum equation for downcomer pipe # 1 is:
H G12
PB − PA = − ρC gH + f1 ⋅ (6)
D1 2 ρ C
Where ρC is the water density in the downcomer, D1 is the diameter of pipe #1, G1 is the mass
flux in pipe #1 and f1 is the friction factor in pipe #1 (found from the MacAdams correlation):
0.184 0.184
f1 = = (7)
Re 0.2
(G1D1 / μ ) 0.2
Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (6), eliminating PA-PB from Eqs. (5) and (6), and solving for G1, we
get:
1 / 1.8
⎛ 2 ρ 2 gβD12 ΔT ⎞
G1 = ⎜⎜ C ⎟⎟ ≈ 1002 kg/m2s
⎝ 0.184μ
0.2
⎠
where the Boussinesq’s approximation was used to find ρC -ρH = ρC β ΔT, with ΔT=30°C.
π
Once G1 is known, the mass flow rate in pipe #1 is readily found, m& 1 = G1 D12 = 7.87 kg/s.
4
Similarly, for pipe #2:
1 / 1.8
H G22 ⎛ 2 ρ 2 gβD22 ΔT ⎞
PB − PA = − ρC gH + f 2 ⋅ ⇒ G2 = ⎜⎜ C ⎟⎟ ≈ 631 kg/m2s
D2 2 ρC ⎝ 0.184μ
0.2
⎠
And m& 2 = 1.24 kg/s. Finally the total mass flow rate in the loop is m& tot = m& 1 + m& 2 = 9.1 kg/s.
Note that for the calculated values of G1 and G2, the Reynolds numbers in pipes #1 and 2 are
∼125000 and ∼40000, respectively. So the assumption of turbulent flow is accurate.

4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
TAKE HOME QUIZ 2
Problem 1 (70%) – Temperature distribution in pebble fuel of advanced design

A recently-proposed Generation-IV reactor concept features a pebble-bed core with a molten-salt
coolant. The geometry of a fuel pebble is shown in Figure 1. Each pebble has an inner graphite
core, an outer graphite shell, and a middle region fueled with TRISO particles dispersed in
graphite.
i) Determine the maximum allowable power generated by a pebble, assuming that the
maximum temperature in the pebble cannot exceed 1000°C. Assumptions: coolant bulk
temperature = 700°C; heat transfer coefficient = 10 kW/°C-m2. (35%)
R1=1.00 cm
R2=1.25 cm
R3 R3=1.50 cm
R2
Fueled region
R1
Graphite
Figure 1. Geometry and dimensions of the fuel pebble. (drawing not to scale)
ii) Repeat question ‘i’ for a pebble in which the inner graphite core is replaced with fuel.
(5%)
iii) Please list advantages and disadvantages of the two pebble designs in questions ‘i’ and
‘ii’. Which one would you select? (10%)
iv) Now, for the pebble design of question ‘i’, assume that heat removal by the coolant
ceases suddenly and completely, and the reactor is scrammed. How long does it take for
the pebble temperature to reach 1600°C (i.e., the temperature at which the TRISO
particles fail)? Assume an initial average pebble temperature of 800°C and a nominal
power of 700 W. Temperature gradients within the pebble are negligible during this
transient. In calculating the decay power, assume infinite operation prior to scram.
(20%)
1
Useful Properties (assumed independent of temperature)
Graphite: k = 15 W/m°C, ρ = 1300 kg/m3, c = 700 J/kg°C
Fueled region: k = 30 W/m°C, ρ = 1700 kg/m3, c = 2000 J/kg°C
2
Problem 2 (30%) – Emergency core cooling system for sodium-cooled reactor
The emergency core cooling system of a sodium-cooled reactor relies on a pump to circulate
sodium through the core during accidents. Assuming the core is made of 151 identical fuel
assemblies, each with an equivalent diameter of 0.3 cm, a flow area of 60 cm2 and length of 3.5
m, calculate the coolant temperature rise in the core, if the electric power available to drive the
pump is 58 kW and the decay power in the core is 30 MW. Assume an isentropic efficiency of
80% for the pump.
In calculating the pressure change across the core, you may neglect acceleration, gravity and
form loss terms.
Properties of Sodium (assumed constant in the temperature and pressure ranges of interest)
k = 60 W/m°C
ρ = 780 kg/m3
c = 1300 J/kg°C
μ = 1.7×10-4 Pa⋅s
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
TAKE HOME QUIZ 2

A recently-proposed Generation-IV reactor concept features a pebble-bed core with a molten-salt
coolant. The geometry of a fuel pebble is shown in Figure 1. Each pebble has an inner graphite
core, an outer graphite shell, and a middle region fueled with TRISO particles dispersed in
graphite.
i) Determine the maximum allowable power generated by a pebble, assuming that the
maximum temperature in the pebble cannot exceed 1000°C. Assumptions: coolant bulk
temperature = 700°C; heat transfer coefficient = 10 kW/°C-m2. (35%)
R1=1.00 cm
R2=1.25 cm
R3 R3=1.50 cm
R2
Fueled region
R1
Graphite
Figure 1. Geometry and dimensions of the fuel pebble. (drawing not to scale)
ii) Repeat question ‘i’ for a pebble in which the inner graphite core is replaced with fuel.
(5%)
iii) Please list advantages and disadvantages of the two pebble designs in questions ‘i’ and
‘ii’. Which one would you select? (10%)
iv) Now, for the pebble design of question ‘i’, assume that heat removal by the coolant
ceases suddenly and completely, and the reactor is scrammed. How long does it take for
the pebble temperature to reach 1600°C (i.e., the temperature at which the TRISO
particles fail)? Assume an initial average pebble temperature of 800°C and a nominal
power of 700 W. Temperature gradients within the pebble are negligible during this
transient. In calculating the decay power, assume infinite operation prior to scram.
(20%)
1
Useful Properties (assumed independent of temperature)
Graphite: k = 15 W/m°C, ρ = 1300 kg/m3, c = 700 J/kg°C
Fueled region: k = 30 W/m°C, ρ = 1700 kg/m3, c = 2000 J/kg°C
2
The emergency core cooling system of a sodium-cooled reactor relies on a pump to circulate
sodium through the core during accidents. Assuming the core is made of 151 identical fuel
assemblies, each with an equivalent diameter of 0.3 cm, a flow area of 60 cm2 and length of 3.5
m, calculate the coolant temperature rise in the core, if the electric power available to drive the
pump is 58 kW and the decay power in the core is 30 MW. Assume an isentropic efficiency of
80% for the pump.
In calculating the pressure change across the core, you may neglect acceleration, gravity and
form loss terms.
Properties of Sodium (assumed constant in the temperature and pressure ranges of interest)
k = 60 W/m°C
ρ = 780 kg/m3
c = 1300 J/kg°C
μ = 1.7×10-4 Pa⋅s
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

i)
The maximum temperature, Tmax, within the pebble occurs at R1 (note that the temperature is
constant and equal to Tmax for r<R1). To find the max allowable power, q& , given a fixed
Tmax-T∞, one needs to develop expressions for the temperature difference in each region of the
pebble. For the temperature at r=R3, Newton’s law of cooling immediately provides the
following equation:
q&
T3 - T∞ = (1)
4πR32 h
Where h is the heat transfer coefficient. For r<R3, the heat conduction equation in spherical
coordinates has to be solved:
1 d ⎡ 2 dT ⎤
r k = −q′′′ (2)
r 2 dr ⎢⎣ dr ⎥⎦
Integrating for each zone (outer graphite and fueled zone) and imposing the boundary conditions
(T=T3 at r=R3 and dT/dr=0 at r=R1), one gets:
q& ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
T2 - T3 = ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ (3)
4πkC ⎝ R2 R3 ⎠
q& ⎡1 2 ⎛1 1 ⎞⎤
Tmax - T2 = 3 ⎢
(R2 − R12 ) − R13 ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟⎥ (4)
4πk F ( R2 − R1 ) ⎣ 2
3
⎝ R1 R2 ⎠⎦
Where kC and kF are the thermal conductivity of the graphite and fueled zones, respectively.
Adding Eqs. (1), (3) and (4), and solving for q& , one gets:
⎧⎪ 1 1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 1 ⎡1 2 ⎛1 1 ⎞⎤ ⎫⎪
q& max = (Tmax - T∞ ) / ⎨ + ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ + 3 ⎢
(R2 − R12 ) − R13 ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟⎥⎬
⎪⎩ 4πR3 h 4πkC ⎝ R2 R3 ⎠ 4πk F (R2 − R1 ) ⎣ 2 ⎝ R1 R2 ⎠⎦ ⎪⎭
2 3
≈ 2330 W
1
ii)
Same equations as in ‘i’ for r>R2. However, for r<R2, one has to solve the heat conduction
equation (Eq. 2) anew. Integrating and imposing the boundary conditions (dT/dr=0 for r=0), one
gets:
q&
Tmax - T2 =
8πk F R2
Thus:
⎧ 1 1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 1 ⎫
q& max = (Tmax - T∞ ) / ⎨ + ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ + ⎬ ≈ 1414 W
⎩ 4πR3 h 4πkC ⎝ R2 R3 ⎠ 8πk F R2 ⎭
2
iii)
As shown by the calculations in ‘i’ and ‘ii’ above, the shell design allows for a higher power
operation wrt the solid design. This is a major economic advantage, countered by the shell
design’s higher fabrication costs and lower heavy metal loading. Without quantitatively
assessing this economic tradeoff, it is not possible to pick one design vs the other. FYI, the
University of California at Berkeley, which is developing a molten-salt-cooled, pebble-fueled
reactor concept, has selected the shell design.
iv)
The conservation of energy for the pebble, after the coolant ceases suddenly and completely, is:
dT
MC = q& dec (t ) (5)
dt
Where MC is the total heat capacity of the pebble, calculated as follows:
4 4
MC = ρ F c F π ( R23 − R13 ) + ρ C cC π [( R33 − R23 ) + R13 ] ≈ 22.8 J/K
3 3
ρF, cF, ρC, cC are the fuel and graphite density and specific heat, respectively. T(t) is the pebble
temperature (same everywhere within the pebble, per the problem statement) and
q& dec (t ) = q&0 0.066t −0.2 is the decay power associated with a nominal power q&0 = 700 W.
Integrating Eq. (5) from t=0 to the time tf, at which Tf=1600°C, one gets:
q&0 0.066 0.8

T f = T0 + tf (6)
0.8MC
where T0=800°C. Solving Eq. (6) for tf, one gets tf≈1332 s.
2
From the conservation of energy, the temperature rise in the core, ΔT is:
Q&
ΔT = (7)
m& c
& is the sodium flow rate in the core, and Q& =30 MW is the
Where c is the sodium specific heat, m
decay power. To find m& , we need to analyze the pump. The pumping power W& (=58 kW) can
be expressed as:
ΔP
W& = m& core (8)
ρη P
Where ρ is the sodium density, ηP=0.8 is the isentropic efficiency of the pump, and ΔPcore is the
pressure drop in the core (assumed to be only due to friction, per the problem statement):
L G2
ΔPcore = f (9)
De 2 ρ
m&
L is the fuel assembly length, G = is the mass flux, with A being the flow area of each fuel
NA
assembly and N the total number of fuel assemblies. Assuming that the flow in the core is
turbulent and Re<30000, the friction factor is:
0.316 0.316
f = = (10)
Re 0.25
(GDe / μ ) 0.25
From Eqq. (8), (9) and (10) one gets:
1 / 2.75
⎡ 2W& ρ 2 De1.25 ⎤
G=⎢ 0.25 ⎥
≈1274 kg/m2s
⎣ 0.316 LANμ ⎦
& ≈1154 kg/s. Then from Eq. (7), one gets ΔT≈20°C.
And m
Note that Re≈22500, so the assumption of turbulent flow was accurate.
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

i)
The maximum temperature, Tmax, within the pebble occurs at R1 (note that the temperature is
constant and equal to Tmax for r<R1). To find the max allowable power, q& , given a fixed
Tmax-T∞, one needs to develop expressions for the temperature difference in each region of the
pebble. For the temperature at r=R3, Newton’s law of cooling immediately provides the
following equation:
q&
T3 - T∞ = (1)
4πR32 h
Where h is the heat transfer coefficient. For r<R3, the heat conduction equation in spherical
coordinates has to be solved:
1 d ⎡ 2 dT ⎤
r k = −q′′′ (2)
r 2 dr ⎢⎣ dr ⎥⎦
Integrating for each zone (outer graphite and fueled zone) and imposing the boundary conditions
(T=T3 at r=R3 and dT/dr=0 at r=R1), one gets:
q& ⎛ 1 1 ⎞
T2 - T3 = ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ (3)
4πkC ⎝ R2 R3 ⎠
q& ⎡1 2 ⎛1 1 ⎞⎤
Tmax - T2 = 3 ⎢
(R2 − R12 ) − R13 ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟⎥ (4)
4πk F ( R2 − R1 ) ⎣ 2
3
⎝ R1 R2 ⎠⎦
Where kC and kF are the thermal conductivity of the graphite and fueled zones, respectively.
Adding Eqs. (1), (3) and (4), and solving for q& , one gets:
⎧⎪ 1 1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 1 ⎡1 2 ⎛1 1 ⎞⎤ ⎫⎪
q& max = (Tmax - T∞ ) / ⎨ + ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ + 3 ⎢
(R2 − R12 ) − R13 ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟⎥⎬
⎪⎩ 4πR3 h 4πkC ⎝ R2 R3 ⎠ 4πk F (R2 − R1 ) ⎣ 2 ⎝ R1 R2 ⎠⎦ ⎪⎭
2 3
≈ 2330 W
1
ii)
Same equations as in ‘i’ for r>R2. However, for r<R2, one has to solve the heat conduction
equation (Eq. 2) anew. Integrating and imposing the boundary conditions (dT/dr=0 for r=0), one
gets:
q&
Tmax - T2 =
8πk F R2
Thus:
⎧ 1 1 ⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 1 ⎫
q& max = (Tmax - T∞ ) / ⎨ + ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ + ⎬ ≈ 1414 W
⎩ 4πR3 h 4πkC ⎝ R2 R3 ⎠ 8πk F R2 ⎭
2
iii)
As shown by the calculations in ‘i’ and ‘ii’ above, the shell design allows for a higher power
operation wrt the solid design. This is a major economic advantage, countered by the shell
design’s higher fabrication costs and lower heavy metal loading. Without quantitatively
assessing this economic tradeoff, it is not possible to pick one design vs the other. FYI, the
University of California at Berkeley, which is developing a molten-salt-cooled, pebble-fueled
reactor concept, has selected the shell design.
iv)
The conservation of energy for the pebble, after the coolant ceases suddenly and completely, is:
dT
MC = q& dec (t ) (5)
dt
Where MC is the total heat capacity of the pebble, calculated as follows:
4 4
MC = ρ F c F π ( R23 − R13 ) + ρ C cC π [( R33 − R23 ) + R13 ] ≈ 22.8 J/K
3 3
ρF, cF, ρC, cC are the fuel and graphite density and specific heat, respectively. T(t) is the pebble
temperature (same everywhere within the pebble, per the problem statement) and
q& dec (t ) = q&0 0.066t −0.2 is the decay power associated with a nominal power q&0 = 700 W.
Integrating Eq. (5) from t=0 to the time tf, at which Tf=1600°C, one gets:
q&0 0.066 0.8

T f = T0 + tf (6)
0.8MC
where T0=800°C. Solving Eq. (6) for tf, one gets tf≈1332 s.
2
From the conservation of energy, the temperature rise in the core, ΔT is:
Q&
ΔT = (7)
m& c
& is the sodium flow rate in the core, and Q& =30 MW is the
Where c is the sodium specific heat, m
decay power. To find m& , we need to analyze the pump. The pumping power W& (=58 kW) can
be expressed as:
ΔP
W& = m& core (8)
ρη P
Where ρ is the sodium density, ηP=0.8 is the isentropic efficiency of the pump, and ΔPcore is the
pressure drop in the core (assumed to be only due to friction, per the problem statement):
L G2
ΔPcore = f (9)
De 2 ρ
m&
L is the fuel assembly length, G = is the mass flux, with A being the flow area of each fuel
NA
assembly and N the total number of fuel assemblies. Assuming that the flow in the core is
turbulent and Re<30000, the friction factor is:
0.316 0.316
f = = (10)
Re 0.25
(GDe / μ ) 0.25
From Eqq. (8), (9) and (10) one gets:
1 / 2.75
⎡ 2W& ρ 2 De1.25 ⎤
G=⎢ 0.25 ⎥
≈1274 kg/m2s
⎣ 0.316 LANμ ⎦
& ≈1154 kg/s. Then from Eq. (7), one gets ΔT≈20°C.
And m
Note that Re≈22500, so the assumption of turbulent flow was accurate.
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Thursday, November 13th, 2014, 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
Problem 1 (50%) – Gas lift pump for a lead-cooled reactor

You are designing a lift pump for a small test fast reactor, cooled by molten lead. A lift
pump consists in injection of an inert gas (such as helium) in the lead coolant, to create
buoyancy. The region in which the lead/helium two-phase mixture is created is called the
chimney. Helium naturally separates at the top of the chimney, while lead circulates back
to the core via a downcomer, thus effectively realizing a flow loop. The situation is shown
in the figure below.
The desired mass flow rate of liquid lead coolant in the core is 2,500 kg/s.
i) Find the void fraction required in the chimney to achieve the desired lead mass
flow rate in the core. In solving this problem you may neglect all pressure
changes due to friction, form and acceleration in the loop, except the friction
pressure loss in the core. In calculating the friction factor in the core, you may
neglect entrance effects. The core has a total flow area of 0.25 m2, an equivalent
diameter of 4.7 mm, and a length of 3.5 m. The chimney length is 4.1 m and
its diameter is 1 m. (30%)
ii) For the value of void fraction found in Part Helium outlet
‘i’, calculate the mass flow rate of helium
needed in the chimney. In solving this
problem you may assume a slip ratio equal to
1.5. (10%)
Chimney
4.1 m Downcomer
iii) What is the likely flow regime in the 1m
chimney? Justify your answer. (10%)
Helium
The properties of helium and liquid lead are reported inlet
below and can be considered independent of both
temperature and pressure:
3.5 m Core
Fluid  (kg/m3)  (Pas)
Molten Lead 10,400 1.910-3
Helium 0.3 3.510-5
1
Problem 2 (50%) – Lowering the temperature of the fuel in a PWR
The core of a PWR has a power rating of 4500 MW, 241 fuel assemblies and 264 fuel pins
in each assembly. The fuel pins have the following dimensions: pin outer diameter 9.5
mm; cladding thickness 0.6 mm; gap thickness 0.1 mm; heated length 4.2 m. The cladding
is made of Zircaloy-4. The power peaking factors are Prad = 1.40, Ploc = 1.18 and Pax=1.50.
i) Calculate the maximum linear power in the core. (5%)
A nuclear fuel vendor wishes to reduce the operating temperature in the fuel, without
changing the total core power. This would increase the safety margin for undercooling
accidents, without hurting the economics of the plant. Three alternative options are
explored:
a) Change fuel pellet material, from UO2 to U-Zr alloy.

b) Fill the gap with an inert liquid metal, such as molten tin.
c) Change the radial distribution of the enrichment in the pellet to get a non-uniform
volumetric heat generation rate distribution, q(r )  q0[1  (r / R f )] , where q0 is the
volumetric heat generation rate at the pellet centerline, r is the radial coordinate within
the pellet, Rf is the radius of the pellet.
ii) For each of the three options listed above, calculate the average temperature in
the fuel pellet at the location of maximum linear power. (40%)
iii) Which option would you choose? In your answer please consider the results in
Part ‘ii’, but also other aspects of fuel design that you deem appropriate. (5%)
Properties of materials (assumed constant):

Material  (kg/m3) k (W/mC) c (J/kgC)
UO2 10,300 2.8 250
U-Zr 16,000 25 130
Molten Tin 7,300 65 220
Zircaloy-4 6,500 20 330
Assumptions:
- Steady-state analysis
- At the location of interest in the core, the coolant has a bulk temperature of 310C and
a heat transfer coefficient of 38 kW/m2C.
- Gap conductance is 10 kW/m2C for options (a) and (c)
- Develop an appropriate gap conductance model for option (b) assuming the molten tin
in the gap is stagnant
2
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015

You are designing a lift pump for a small test fast reactor, cooled by molten lead. A lift
pump consists in injection of an inert gas (such as helium) in the lead coolant, to create
buoyancy. The region in which the lead/helium two-phase mixture is created is called the
chimney. Helium naturally separates at the top of the chimney, while lead circulates back
to the core via a downcomer, thus effectively realizing a flow loop. The situation is shown
in the figure below.
The desired mass flow rate of liquid lead coolant in the core is 2,500 kg/s.
i) Find the void fraction required in the chimney to achieve the desired lead mass
flow rate in the core. In solving this problem you may neglect all pressure
changes due to friction, form and acceleration in the loop, except the friction
pressure loss in the core. In calculating the friction factor in the core, you may
neglect entrance effects. The core has a total flow area of 0.25 m2, an equivalent
diameter of 4.7 mm, and a length of 3.5 m. The chimney length is 4.1 m and
its diameter is 1 m. (30%)
ii) For the value of void fraction found in Part Helium outlet
‘i’, calculate the mass flow rate of helium
needed in the chimney. In solving this
problem you may assume a slip ratio equal to
1.5. (10%)
Chimney
4.1 m Downcomer
iii) What is the likely flow regime in the 1m
chimney? Justify your answer. (10%)
Helium
The properties of helium and liquid lead are reported inlet
below and can be considered independent of both
temperature and pressure:
3.5 m Core
Fluid  (kg/m3)  (Pas)
Molten Lead 10,400 1.910-3
Helium 0.3 3.510-5
1
The core of a PWR has a power rating of 4500 MW, 241 fuel assemblies and 264 fuel pins
in each assembly. The fuel pins have the following dimensions: pin outer diameter 9.5
mm; cladding thickness 0.6 mm; gap thickness 0.1 mm; heated length 4.2 m. The cladding
is made of Zircaloy-4. The power peaking factors are Prad = 1.40, Ploc = 1.18 and Pax=1.50.
i) Calculate the maximum linear power in the core. (5%)
A nuclear fuel vendor wishes to reduce the operating temperature in the fuel, without
changing the total core power. This would increase the safety margin for undercooling
accidents, without hurting the economics of the plant. Three alternative options are
explored:
a) Change fuel pellet material, from UO2 to U-Zr alloy.

b) Fill the gap with an inert liquid metal, such as molten tin.
c) Change the radial distribution of the enrichment in the pellet to get a non-uniform
volumetric heat generation rate distribution, q(r )  q0[1  (r / R f )] , where q0 is the
volumetric heat generation rate at the pellet centerline, r is the radial coordinate within
the pellet, Rf is the radius of the pellet.
ii) For each of the three options listed above, calculate the average temperature in
the fuel pellet at the location of maximum linear power. (40%)
iii) Which option would you choose? In your answer please consider the results in
Part ‘ii’, but also other aspects of fuel design that you deem appropriate. (5%)
Properties of materials (assumed constant):

Material  (kg/m3) k (W/mC) c (J/kgC)
UO2 10,300 2.8 250
U-Zr 16,000 25 130
Molten Tin 7,300 65 220
Zircaloy-4 6,500 20 330
Assumptions:
- Steady-state analysis
- At the location of interest in the core, the coolant has a bulk temperature of 310C and
a heat transfer coefficient of 38 kW/m2C.
- Gap conductance is 10 kW/m2C for options (a) and (c)
- Develop an appropriate gap conductance model for option (b) assuming the molten tin
in the gap is stagnant
2
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 2 (SOLUTIONS)

i)
The steady-state momentum equation for the loop is:
L G2
(  p  ch ) gH  f  (1)
Dc 2  p
where p=10,400 kg/m3 is the liquid lead density, H=4.1 m is the chimney length, L=3.5 m
m
is the core length, Dc=4.7 mm is the core equivalent diameter, G  p 10,000 kg/m2s is
Ac
the coolant mass flux in the core, m p =2,500 kg/s is the desired coolant mass flow rate in
the core, Ac=0.25 m2 is the core flow area, f is the friction factor in the core, which can be
calculated using the Blasius correlation for turbulent fully-developed flow:
0.316
f  0.0252
Re0.25
GDc
where Re  24,740 and p=1.910-3 is the liquid lead viscosity. The density in the
p
chimney is:
ch   p (1   )   He (2)

where He=0.3 kg/m3 is the helium density and  is the void fraction in the chimney.
Substituting Eq. 2 into Eq. 1 and solving for , we get:
L G2 1
 f   0.217
Dc 2  p (  p   He ) gH
ii)
The flow quality in the chimney, x, can be found from the fundamental relation of two-
phase flow:
1
x 1.210-5

1 p 1
1
  He S
where S=1.5 is the slip ratio, given in the problem statement. Then the mass flow rate of
helium in the chimney is easily found:
1
x
m He  m p 0.03 kg/s
1 x
iii)
At a void fraction of 0.22 the flow regime is likely bubbly flow, since significant bubble
coalescence does not occur at void fractions below 0.25-0.30, according to Taitel’s
criterion (Section 11.2.2.1 in the textbook). A more accurate determination could be made
by building a flow regime map, again using the methodology developed by Taitel et al.
i)
The average linear power in the core q   Q /( N FA N pin L) 16.8 kW/m, where Q =4500
MW, NFA=241, Npin=264 and L=4.2 m. Therefore, the maximum linear power in the core
  q Prad Ploc Pax 41.7 kW/m, where Prad = 1.40, Ploc = 1.18 and Pax=1.50.
is qmax
ii)
First, let us calculate the temperatures in the cladding, which are the same for all cases.

q max
Tco  Tb  346.8C
d co h
q d
Tci  Tco  max ln co 391.6C
2k c d ci
where dco=9.5 mm, dci=8.3 mm, kc=20 W/mC and h=38 kW/m2C. For all cases except
(b), the temperature on the outer surface of the fuel pellet can be found from the gap
conductance given in the problem statement:

q max
T fo  Tci  553.6C (for Case (a) and (c))
d g hg
where dg=8.2 mm and hg=10 kW/m2C. For case (b), the gap is occupied by stagnant
molten tin, thus there is only conduction; as such, the temperature on the outer surface of
the fuel pellet is found from an expression similar to that in the cladding:

q max d
T fo  Tci  ln ci 394.1C (for Case (b))
2k Sn d f
where df=8.1 mm and kSn=65 W/mC.
Now let us look at the temperatures in the fuel pellet. Note that the average temperature
in the fuel is formally defined as follows:
2
Rf
 T (r )2rdr
T f  T fo  0
(1)
R 2f
where Rf=4.05 mm is the radius of the fuel pellet. Therefore, one needs to first find the
temperature distribution in the fuel pellet, T(r), and then perform the integration in Eq. 1.
For the reference UO2 case, the volumetric heat generation rate is radially uniform within
the pellet, thus the temperature distribution is parabolic, as derived in class, and the
q
average fuel temperature is found from Eq. 1 to be T f ,ref  T fo  max 1147C, where
8kUO 2
q
kUO2=2.8 W/mC. Similarly for Case (a) T f ,UZr  T fo  max 620C, where kUZr=25
8kUZr
q
W/mC, and for Case (b) T f , Sn  T fo  max 987C. Both temperatures are lower than
8kUO 2
the reference case, as expected.
For Case (c), in which the volumetric heat generation rate is not radially uniform, we first
need to actually solve the heat equation to find the temperature distribution in the pellet:
1 d dT d dT rq 
kUO 2 [r ]  q (r )  0  [r ]   0 [1  (r / R)] (2)
r dr dr dr dr kUO 2
The boundary conditions are as follows:
T=Tfo at r=R
dT
0 at r=0
dr
Integrate Eq 2 from r=0 to a generic location r, to get:
dT dT q0 r 2 r3 dT q  r r2
r r  [  ]   0 [  ] (3)
dr dr r 0 kUO 2 2 3R f dr kUO 2 2 3R f
where the second boundary condition was imposed. Integrating Eq 3 from r=Rf to a
generic location r, we get:
2 2 3 3
q0 r  R f r  R f
T (r )  T fo   [  ] (4)
kUO 2 4 9R f
where the first boundary condition was imposed. Introducing Eq. 4 into Eq. 1 and
performing the integration we get:
3
23 q0R f
2
T f  T fo  (5)
120 kUO 2
Finally note that we have:

Rf
5
R
   q(r )2rdr   q[1  (r / R)]2rdr  qR (6)
2
q max 0 0
0 0
3
Eliminating q 0 from Eqs. 5 and 6, we finally get an expression for the average
 :
temperature in the fuel pellet as a function of q max

23 q max
T f  T fo  1099C, which is lower than the reference case, as expected
200 kUO 2
because now more power is generated close to the periphery of the pellet.
iii)
The use of highly conductive metallic fuel (Case (a)) yields a large reduction (530C) in
average fuel temperature. It also increases the heavy metal loading, thus allowing for a
reduction in enrichment, for the same burnup. However, there are some drawbacks with
the use of U-Zr, including a much lower melting point than UO2, and oxidation by water,
should the cladding be breached. The latter issue is potentially a showstopper, because of
the large amounts of hydrogen that would be generated during severe accidents.
Case (b) results in a significant reduction (160C) of the average temperature fuel, with
a modest increase in fuel fabrication cost. Compatibility of tin and zirconium at the
temperature and irradiation conditions of interest would have to be evaluated carefully.
Varying the enrichment radially (Case (c)) provides a modest reduction (50C) in the
average fuel temperature, at the expense of much greater manufacturing complexity and
thus cost.
In summary, Case (b) probably provides the best compromise of improved safety, cost
and ease of fuel fabrication. Note that the use of a molten metal gap for LWR fuel indeed
has been proposed, e.g. R. Wright et al., “Thermal bonding of light water reactor fuel
using nonalkaline liquid-metal alloy”, Nuclear Technology, 115(3), pp. 281-292, 1996.
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 2 (SOLUTIONS)

i)
The steady-state momentum equation for the loop is:
L G2
(  p  ch ) gH  f  (1)
Dc 2  p
where p=10,400 kg/m3 is the liquid lead density, H=4.1 m is the chimney length, L=3.5 m
m
is the core length, Dc=4.7 mm is the core equivalent diameter, G  p 10,000 kg/m2s is
Ac
the coolant mass flux in the core, m p =2,500 kg/s is the desired coolant mass flow rate in
the core, Ac=0.25 m2 is the core flow area, f is the friction factor in the core, which can be
calculated using the Blasius correlation for turbulent fully-developed flow:
0.316
f  0.0252
Re0.25
GDc
where Re  24,740 and p=1.910-3 is the liquid lead viscosity. The density in the
p
chimney is:
ch   p (1   )   He (2)

where He=0.3 kg/m3 is the helium density and  is the void fraction in the chimney.
Substituting Eq. 2 into Eq. 1 and solving for , we get:
L G2 1
 f   0.217
Dc 2  p (  p   He ) gH
ii)
The flow quality in the chimney, x, can be found from the fundamental relation of two-
phase flow:
1
x 1.210-5

1 p 1
1
  He S
where S=1.5 is the slip ratio, given in the problem statement. Then the mass flow rate of
helium in the chimney is easily found:
1
x
m He  m p 0.03 kg/s
1 x
iii)
At a void fraction of 0.22 the flow regime is likely bubbly flow, since significant bubble
coalescence does not occur at void fractions below 0.25-0.30, according to Taitel’s
criterion (Section 11.2.2.1 in the textbook). A more accurate determination could be made
by building a flow regime map, again using the methodology developed by Taitel et al.
i)
The average linear power in the core q   Q /( N FA N pin L) 16.8 kW/m, where Q =4500
MW, NFA=241, Npin=264 and L=4.2 m. Therefore, the maximum linear power in the core
  q Prad Ploc Pax 41.7 kW/m, where Prad = 1.40, Ploc = 1.18 and Pax=1.50.
is qmax
ii)
First, let us calculate the temperatures in the cladding, which are the same for all cases.

q max
Tco  Tb  346.8C
d co h
q d
Tci  Tco  max ln co 391.6C
2k c d ci
where dco=9.5 mm, dci=8.3 mm, kc=20 W/mC and h=38 kW/m2C. For all cases except
(b), the temperature on the outer surface of the fuel pellet can be found from the gap
conductance given in the problem statement:

q max
T fo  Tci  553.6C (for Case (a) and (c))
d g hg
where dg=8.2 mm and hg=10 kW/m2C. For case (b), the gap is occupied by stagnant
molten tin, thus there is only conduction; as such, the temperature on the outer surface of
the fuel pellet is found from an expression similar to that in the cladding:

q max d
T fo  Tci  ln ci 394.1C (for Case (b))
2k Sn d f
where df=8.1 mm and kSn=65 W/mC.
Now let us look at the temperatures in the fuel pellet. Note that the average temperature
in the fuel is formally defined as follows:
2
Rf
 T (r )2rdr
T f  T fo  0
(1)
R 2f
where Rf=4.05 mm is the radius of the fuel pellet. Therefore, one needs to first find the
temperature distribution in the fuel pellet, T(r), and then perform the integration in Eq. 1.
For the reference UO2 case, the volumetric heat generation rate is radially uniform within
the pellet, thus the temperature distribution is parabolic, as derived in class, and the
q
average fuel temperature is found from Eq. 1 to be T f ,ref  T fo  max 1147C, where
8kUO 2
q
kUO2=2.8 W/mC. Similarly for Case (a) T f ,UZr  T fo  max 620C, where kUZr=25
8kUZr
q
W/mC, and for Case (b) T f , Sn  T fo  max 987C. Both temperatures are lower than
8kUO 2
the reference case, as expected.
For Case (c), in which the volumetric heat generation rate is not radially uniform, we first
need to actually solve the heat equation to find the temperature distribution in the pellet:
1 d dT d dT rq 
kUO 2 [r ]  q (r )  0  [r ]   0 [1  (r / R)] (2)
r dr dr dr dr kUO 2
The boundary conditions are as follows:
T=Tfo at r=R
dT
0 at r=0
dr
Integrate Eq 2 from r=0 to a generic location r, to get:
dT dT q0 r 2 r3 dT q  r r2
r r  [  ]   0 [  ] (3)
dr dr r 0 kUO 2 2 3R f dr kUO 2 2 3R f
where the second boundary condition was imposed. Integrating Eq 3 from r=Rf to a
generic location r, we get:
2 2 3 3
q0 r  R f r  R f
T (r )  T fo   [  ] (4)
kUO 2 4 9R f
where the first boundary condition was imposed. Introducing Eq. 4 into Eq. 1 and
performing the integration we get:
3
23 q0R f
2
T f  T fo  (5)
120 kUO 2
Finally note that we have:

Rf
5
R
   q(r )2rdr   q[1  (r / R)]2rdr  qR (6)
2
q max 0 0
0 0
3
Eliminating q 0 from Eqs. 5 and 6, we finally get an expression for the average
 :
temperature in the fuel pellet as a function of q max

23 q max
T f  T fo  1099C, which is lower than the reference case, as expected
200 kUO 2
because now more power is generated close to the periphery of the pellet.
iii)
The use of highly conductive metallic fuel (Case (a)) yields a large reduction (530C) in
average fuel temperature. It also increases the heavy metal loading, thus allowing for a
reduction in enrichment, for the same burnup. However, there are some drawbacks with
the use of U-Zr, including a much lower melting point than UO2, and oxidation by water,
should the cladding be breached. The latter issue is potentially a showstopper, because of
the large amounts of hydrogen that would be generated during severe accidents.
Case (b) results in a significant reduction (160C) of the average temperature fuel, with
a modest increase in fuel fabrication cost. Compatibility of tin and zirconium at the
temperature and irradiation conditions of interest would have to be evaluated carefully.
Varying the enrichment radially (Case (c)) provides a modest reduction (50C) in the
average fuel temperature, at the expense of much greater manufacturing complexity and
thus cost.
In summary, Case (b) probably provides the best compromise of improved safety, cost
and ease of fuel fabrication. Note that the use of a molten metal gap for LWR fuel indeed
has been proposed, e.g. R. Wright et al., “Thermal bonding of light water reactor fuel
using nonalkaline liquid-metal alloy”, Nuclear Technology, 115(3), pp. 281-292, 1996.
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
Thursday, November 12th, 2015
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 2 TAKE HOME
Problem 1 (65%) – Helium-cooled fast reactor with molten fuel within steel rods
A new fast reactor concept uses a molten solution of UCl3/PuCl3/NaCl as the fuel. This fuel is
contained within cylindrical rods made of steel (see Figure 1). The reactor coolant is helium gas
which flows along the fuel rods. The nominal core power is 1,500 MW. The mass flow rate of
helium is 1,440 kg/s and the inlet temperature of helium is Tin = 400 C. The total number of rods
in the core is 30,000 and their length is L = 3 m. The rods have an outer diameter dco = 10 mm, and
are arranged in square-lattice fuel assemblies with an unknown rod-to-rod pitch p. The thickness
of the steel cladding is tc = 0.5 mm. The thermo-physical properties of all relevant materials are
shown on the next page.
i) Find the core outlet temperature and the average linear power in the core. (5%)
ii) Find the minimum allowable value of p if the total pressure drop in the core must be
limited to 120 kPa. Please consider only friction and gravity pressure drops. In
calculating the friction factor, please use a correlation for smooth tubes with the
equivalent diameter concept. Neglect entrance region effects. (25%)
p
Helium coolant
tc
Molten fuel
Steel cladding
dco
Figure 1. Cross-sectional view of a fuel rod under normal operating conditions.
Normally all the fuel is molten, however when the reactor operates at reduced power, a frozen fuel
annulus develops within the rods, as shown in Figure 2. At a certain time during a slow power
descent, the core power is 500 MW, while the helium inlet temperature and mass flow rate are the
same as before.
iii) Find and plot the radius of the molten fuel region, Rm, as a function of the axial
coordinate z. The melting point of the fuel is Tm = 460C. You may still assume steady
state, and neglect convective motion of the molten fuel within the fuel rods. You may
also assume that the linear power is uniform everywhere in the core. (35%)
1
Frozen fuel
annulus
Molten
fuel
Rm
Steel cladding
Figure 2. Fuel rod with a frozen fuel annulus.
Properties (all assumed independent of temperature and pressure)

Helium: cp = 5,200 J/kgC,  = 4.81 kg/m3, k = 0.22 W/mC, µ = 2.810-5 Pas
Steel: c = 500 J/kgC,  = 7,700 kg/m3, k = 19 W/mC
UCl3/PuCl3/NaCl fuel (both liquid and solid): c = 950 J/kgC,  = 2,350 kg/m3, k = 0.7 W/mC
2
Problem 2 (35%) – Passive Residual Heat Removal System
In a small modular Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) the decay heat is removed by the Residual
Heat Removal System (RHRS) shown in Figure 3. The RHRS consists of an external water loop,
which removes heat from the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) via the RHRS heat exchanger and
discharges it to an atmospheric pool at a higher elevation. The system operates based entirely on
natural circulation.
Calculate the flow of water in the core and in the RHRS loop at a time when the decay power is 9
MW. Calculate also the core inlet and outlet temperatures. Use the following assumptions:
o Coolant is single-phase water throughout the system. The relevant properties of water are
given in the table at the end.
o Neglect all pressure losses in the primary system except for the friction loss in the core
(friction factor = 0.02; flow area = 1 m2; fuel length = 3 m; hydraulic diameter = 1.2 cm)
o The pressure losses in the RHRS loop are equivalent to a single form loss (K = 40; pipe
diameter = 15 cm)
o The relative elevation of the core and RHRS heat exchanger is 10 m; the relative elevation
of the RHRS heat exchanger and RHRS pool is also 10 m.
o There is a 10C temperature difference between the hot leg in the primary system and the
hot leg in the RHRS loop
o The cold leg temperature in the RHRS loop is 100C
RHRS Loop
RHRS Pool 10 m
RHRS Heat
Exchanger 10 m
RPV
Figure 3: Schematic of the RHRS
Properties of Water in Primary System and RHRS

Parameter Value
 800 kg/m3
 2×10-3 1/C
c 5.0 kJ/kgC
 9×10-5 Pa·s
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 2 TAKE HOME
A new fast reactor concept uses a molten solution of UCl3/PuCl3/NaCl as the fuel. This fuel is
contained within cylindrical rods made of steel (see Figure 1). The reactor coolant is helium gas
which flows along the fuel rods. The nominal core power is 1,500 MW. The mass flow rate of
helium is 1,440 kg/s and the inlet temperature of helium is Tin = 400 C. The total number of rods
in the core is 30,000 and their length is L = 3 m. The rods have an outer diameter dco = 10 mm, and
are arranged in square-lattice fuel assemblies with an unknown rod-to-rod pitch p. The thickness
of the steel cladding is tc = 0.5 mm. The thermo-physical properties of all relevant materials are
shown on the next page.
i) Find the core outlet temperature and the average linear power in the core. (5%)
ii) Find the minimum allowable value of p if the total pressure drop in the core must be
limited to 120 kPa. Please consider only friction and gravity pressure drops. In
calculating the friction factor, please use a correlation for smooth tubes with the
equivalent diameter concept. Neglect entrance region effects. (25%)
p
Helium coolant
tc
Molten fuel
Steel cladding
dco
Figure 1. Cross-sectional view of a fuel rod under normal operating conditions.
Normally all the fuel is molten, however when the reactor operates at reduced power, a frozen fuel
annulus develops within the rods, as shown in Figure 2. At a certain time during a slow power
descent, the core power is 500 MW, while the helium inlet temperature and mass flow rate are the
same as before.
iii) Find and plot the radius of the molten fuel region, Rm, as a function of the axial
coordinate z. The melting point of the fuel is Tm = 460C. You may still assume steady
state, and neglect convective motion of the molten fuel within the fuel rods. You may
also assume that the linear power is uniform everywhere in the core. (35%)
1
Frozen fuel
annulus
Molten
fuel
Rm
Steel cladding
Figure 2. Fuel rod with a frozen fuel annulus.
Properties (all assumed independent of temperature and pressure)

Helium: cp = 5,200 J/kgC,  = 4.81 kg/m3, k = 0.22 W/mC, µ = 2.810-5 Pas
Steel: c = 500 J/kgC,  = 7,700 kg/m3, k = 19 W/mC
UCl3/PuCl3/NaCl fuel (both liquid and solid): c = 950 J/kgC,  = 2,350 kg/m3, k = 0.7 W/mC
2
In a small modular Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) the decay heat is removed by the Residual
Heat Removal System (RHRS) shown in Figure 3. The RHRS consists of an external water loop,
which removes heat from the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) via the RHRS heat exchanger and
discharges it to an atmospheric pool at a higher elevation. The system operates based entirely on
natural circulation.
Calculate the flow of water in the core and in the RHRS loop at a time when the decay power is 9
MW. Calculate also the core inlet and outlet temperatures. Use the following assumptions:
o Coolant is single-phase water throughout the system. The relevant properties of water are
given in the table at the end.
o Neglect all pressure losses in the primary system except for the friction loss in the core
(friction factor = 0.02; flow area = 1 m2; fuel length = 3 m; hydraulic diameter = 1.2 cm)
o The pressure losses in the RHRS loop are equivalent to a single form loss (K = 40; pipe
diameter = 15 cm)
o The relative elevation of the core and RHRS heat exchanger is 10 m; the relative elevation
of the RHRS heat exchanger and RHRS pool is also 10 m.
o There is a 10C temperature difference between the hot leg in the primary system and the
hot leg in the RHRS loop
o The cold leg temperature in the RHRS loop is 100C
RHRS Loop
RHRS Pool 10 m
RHRS Heat
Exchanger 10 m
RPV
Figure 3: Schematic of the RHRS
Properties of Water in Primary System and RHRS

Parameter Value
 800 kg/m3
 2×10-3 1/C
c 5.0 kJ/kgC
 9×10-5 Pa·s
3
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
OPEN BOOK QUIZ 2 SOLUTIONS
i)
The energy equation for the coolant is:
Q
Q  M c p (Tout  Tin )  Tout  Tin   600C (1)
M c p
where Tin = 400C is the bulk coolant temperature, M =1440 kg/s, cp= 5.2 kJ/kgC, and Q = 1,500
MW.
 /( N L) =16.67 kW/m, Npin=30,000 and L = 3 m.

The average linear power is q  = Q pin
ii)
Considering one rod and its coolant channel under the assumptions given in the problem statement
(gravity + friction only, smooth rod surface, fully-developed flow), the total pressure drop can be
expressed as:
L G2 L  / A) 2
(m
 Ptot  f   gL  f   gL (2)
De 2 (4 A / Pw ) 2
 = M / N pin 0.048 kg/s,  = 4.81 kg/m3, A

where  Ptot =120 kPa (per the problem statement), m
2  2
is the unknown flow area of the channel ( A  p  dco ), and Pw is the wetted perimeter
4
P w   dco =31.4 mm. Assuming turbulent, fully-developed flow, a smooth rod and a large
Reynolds number, the friction factor can be found from the correlation
0.184 0.184 0.184

f  0.2
 0.2
 0.2
(3)
Re  GDe  m 4 
   
    Pw 
where µ = 2.810-5 Pas. Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (2) and solving for A, we get:
1/ 3
  0.2Pw1.2m 1.8L 
A  0.0174  90.5 mm2
  ( Ptot  gL) 
1
Then the rod-to-rod pitch can be found to be p  13 mm. At this value of p the mass flux is G 
530 kg/m2s and the Reynolds number is Re  218,270, which confirms the accuracy of the
assumption made.
iii)
Considering only conduction (per the problem statement), the radial temperature distribution within
the fuel can be easily found by integrating the heat equation:
1 d dT
kf [r ]  q   0
r dr dr
with boundary conditions dT/dr=0 at r=0 and T=Tci at r=Rci=Rco-tc= 4.5 mm:
q   r  
2
T (r )  Tci  1     (4)
4kf   Rci  
 
where kf = 0.7 W/m·K (assumed to be independent of temperature, as per the problem statement)
and the linear power at the conditions of interest is q  =5.5 kW/m (calculated from the 500 MW
core power). Setting T(r) = Tm = 460C (the fuel freezing point) in Eq. (4), and solving for r we
get the radius of the molten region as follows:
4k f (Tm  Tci (z ))

Rm (z )  Rci 1  (5)
q
Now recall that the temperature on the inner surface of the cladding is:
 1 R 1 
Tci (z )  Tb (z )  q  ln co   (6)
 2k c R ci 2R co h 
where kc = 19 W/mC, and h  6955 W/m2C is the heat transfer coefficient found from the Dittus-
Boelter correlation, which is appropriate for the conditions of interest (non-metallic fluid, fully-
developed, turbulent flow1). Also note that from the conservation of energy for the coolant we get:
q
Tb (z )  Tin  z (7)
 cp
m
Finally, back substituting Eqs. (7) and (6) into Eq. (5), we get:

T  Tin z  1 R 1  
Rm (z)  Rci 1  4k f  m   ln co  (8)
 c p  2k c Rci 2Rcoh  

 q
 m 

1
Similar values of the heat transfer coefficient are obtained using other correlations applicable to these
conditions, e.g. simplified Gnielinski’s or Petukhov’s
2
which is plotted in the figure below. Note that above z = 1.33 m there is no frozen annulus in the
fuel rods.
Neglecting all pressure losses in the primary system except for the friction loss in the core, the
momentum equation for the primary loop is:
Lcore (M pl / Acore )

2
 (Tc ,out  Tc ,in )gHpl  fcore  (9)

Dcore 2
where Tc,out and Tc,in are the unknown core inlet and outlet temperatures, respectively, M pl is the
unknown mass flow rate in the primary system, Hpl = 10 m, fcore = 0.02; Acore = 1 m2; Lcore = 3 m;
Dcore = 1.2 cm,  = 2×10-3 1/C and  = 800 kg/m3. The energy equation for the core is:
Q  M pl c (Tc ,out  Tc ,in ) (10)
where Q = 9 MW and c = 5.0 kJ/kgC. Substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (9) and solving for M pl , we
get:
1/ 3
 2 2 Q gHpl Dcore Acore
2


M pl     448.8 kg/s
 fcoreLcorec 
3
Now let us move to the RHRS loop. Neglecting all pressure losses except for an equivalent form
loss with KR = 40 (per the problem statement), the momentum equation for the RHRS loop is:
(M R / AR ) 2
 (TR ,hot  TR ,cold )gHR  KR (11)
2

where AR  DR2 and DR = 15 cm, TR,high is the unknown hot leg temperature in the RHRS loop,
4
TR,cold = 100C (per the problem statement) and HR = 10 m. The energy equation for the RHRS is:
Q  M R c (TR ,hot  TR ,cold ) (12)
 , we get:
Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (11) and solving for M R
1/ 3
  2  2 Q gHR AR2 
MR     15.2 kg/s
 KR c 
Then from Eq. (12), we can get the hot leg temperature in the RHRS loop:
TR ,hot  TR ,cold  Q /(M Rc ) 218.2C
Finally, since Tc ,out  TR ,hot =10C (per problem statement), we get Tc ,out =228.2C, and from Eq.
(10):
Tc ,in  Tc ,out  Q /(M corec ) 224.2C
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
i)
Q
M c p
MW.
 /( N L) =16.67 kW/m, Npin=30,000 and L = 3 m.

ii)
expressed as:
L G2 L  / A) 2
(m
 Ptot  f   gL  f   gL (2)
De 2 (4 A / Pw ) 2
 = M / N pin 0.048 kg/s,  = 4.81 kg/m3, A

2  2
4
0.184 0.184 0.184

f  0.2
 0.2
 0.2
(3)
Re  GDe  m 4 
   
    Pw 
1/ 3
  0.2Pw1.2m 1.8L 
A  0.0174  90.5 mm2
  ( Ptot  gL) 
1
assumption made.
iii)
1 d dT
kf [r ]  q   0
r dr dr
q   r  
2
T (r )  Tci  1     (4)
4kf   Rci  
 
4k f (Tm  Tci (z ))

Rm (z )  Rci 1  (5)
q
 1 R 1 
Tci (z )  Tb (z )  q  ln co   (6)
 2k c R ci 2R co h 
q
Tb (z )  Tin  z (7)
 cp
m

T  Tin z  1 R 1  
Rm (z)  Rci 1  4k f  m   ln co  (8)
 c p  2k c Rci 2Rcoh  

 q
 m 

1
2
fuel rods.

2

Dcore 2
Q  M pl c (Tc ,out  Tc ,in ) (10)
get:
1/ 3
2


M pl     448.8 kg/s
3
(M R / AR ) 2
2

4
 , we get:
1/ 3
  2  2 Q gHR AR2 
MR     15.2 kg/s
 KR c 
(10):
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
i)
Q
M c p
MW.
 /( N L) =16.67 kW/m, Npin=30,000 and L = 3 m.

ii)
expressed as:
L G2 L  / A) 2
(m
 Ptot  f   gL  f   gL (2)
De 2 (4 A / Pw ) 2
 = M / N pin 0.048 kg/s,  = 4.81 kg/m3, A

2  2
4
0.184 0.184 0.184

f  0.2
 0.2
 0.2
(3)
Re  GDe  m 4 
   
    Pw 
1/ 3
  0.2Pw1.2m 1.8L 
A  0.0174  90.5 mm2
  ( Ptot  gL) 
1
assumption made.
iii)
1 d dT
kf [r ]  q   0
r dr dr
q   r  
2
T (r )  Tci  1     (4)
4kf   Rci  
 
4k f (Tm  Tci (z ))

Rm (z )  Rci 1  (5)
q
 1 R 1 
Tci (z )  Tb (z )  q  ln co   (6)
 2k c R ci 2R co h 
q
Tb (z )  Tin  z (7)
 cp
m

T  Tin z  1 R 1  
Rm (z)  Rci 1  4k f  m   ln co  (8)
 c p  2k c Rci 2Rcoh  

 q
 m 

1
2
fuel rods.

2

Dcore 2
Q  M pl c (Tc ,out  Tc ,in ) (10)
get:
1/ 3
2


M pl     448.8 kg/s
3
(M R / AR ) 2
2

4
 , we get:
1/ 3
  2  2 Q gHR AR2 
MR     15.2 kg/s
 KR c 
(10):
4
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

Fall 2015
conditions
L dm m2
A dt 2ρ l A 2
dm
dt
mss:
2ρ l A 2 ΔPpump
m ss = ≈ 9,960 kg/s (2)
(K core + K sg )
2ρ l A ⋅ L dm
⋅ = m ss2 − m 2 (3)
(K core + K sg ) dt
1 − e−t / τ
m( t ) = m ss (4)
1 + e −t / τ
ρl A ⋅ L ρl
τ= =L ≈ 0.6 s (5)
τ 50 = τ ⋅ ln(3) ≈ 0.66 s (6)
is:
2σ
Pl − Patm = (8)
r
dH
r= ≈ 0.29 mm (9)
2 sin θ
2σ
L max = ≈ 49 cm (10)
ρl g ⋅ r
opposes draining.
2σ
r

&1+m
m & 2 =m
& tot (12)
where m & 1 and m

equations are:
& =m
Q & 1c p (T1L − To ) (channel 1) (13)
0=m
& 2 c p (T2 L − To ) (channel 2) (14)
m12 ⎡ β ⎤
2ρ o A 2
⎣ 2 ⎦
unknowns m & 1, m
1/3
& ρ 2 gL ⎤
⎡ βA 2 Q
&1 = ⎢
m o
⎥ (17)
⎢⎣ c p K ⎥⎦
& 2 = 0, m
& 3tot
c p Km
&
Qo = (18)
βA 2ρ o2gL

LOCA.
dT
ρC P V = −q ′′S = − h (T − Tsat )S (19)
dt
Equation 19:
d 2T dq ′′ ⎛ dT ⎞
ρC P V 2
=S ⋅⎜− ⎟ (20)
dt dT ⎝ dt ⎠
⎛ dT ⎞
⎝ dt ⎠
boiling.
T-Tsat (°C)
Film boiling
1500 Transition
boiling
400 Nucleate
boiling Free
20
convection
1
t


quality:
1
ρ 1− x
1+ v ⋅S⋅
ρl x
vv
vl

∂G
=0
∂z
∂G ∂P ∂ ⎡ G 2 ⎤ P ∂G ∂P f G G
= − − ⎢ ⎥ − τ w w − ρg cos θ ⇒ =− − − ρg
∂t ∂z ∂z ⎣ ρ ⎦ A ∂t ∂z D e 2ρ
L L L
∂G f GG
0
∂t 0
D e 2ρ 0

xG xm
& 4 xm &
jv = = ⇒ D= = 0.196 m
ρv π ρ v πjv
ρv ( D2 )
4
where x=0.95 and m

& =0.42 kg/s.
de
& (1 − x )
m = − πDΓd
dz
1− x
Γd = K ρve
x
πDKρ v
e(L) = e(0) ⋅ exp(− L)
xm
&
xm
&
L= log(2) ≈ 3.7 m
πDKρ v
removed.
conditions
A greatly-simplified schematic of the PWR primary system is shown in Figure 1. The core and
steam generators are represented by two form losses of coefficients 7 and 4, respectively. The
loop can be modeled as a series of four identical round tubes of 1.45 m ID and 10 m length. The
flow within the loop is driven by a pump that delivers a constant head, ΔPpump=200 kPa,
regardless of the flow.
10 m
Steam
generator
(K=4)
10 m
Core
(K=7)
Pump
Figure 1. Simplified schematic of the PWR primary system
You are to evaluate the hydraulic behavior of the system at cold zero-power conditions. In this
situation the fluid can be considered isothermal at 20°C and atmospheric pressure. The
properties of water at this temperature and pressure are reported in Table 1.
i) Calculate the steady-state mass flow rate in the system. Clearly state all your
assumptions. (10%)
ii) Now consider flow start-up from stagnant conditions. At t=0 the pump is turned on and
the flow is established. Calculate the time it takes for the mass flow rate to reach 50% of
1
its steady-state value. (15%) (Hint: use the following integral ∫ 2 dx 2 = ln⎛⎜ c + x ⎞⎟ 2c )
c −x ⎝c−x⎠
iii) A nuclear engineer wishes to simulate the PWR primary system by means of an
experimental flow loop with the same form coefficients and geometrically similar, but of
1/10 scale (the pump head is also scaled down to 1/10). Would such loop have the same
time constant of the PWR primary system? (5%)
Assumptions:
- Neglect the acceleration and friction terms (Facc and Ffric, respectively) in the momentum
equation.
Table 1. Water properties at 20°C.
Parameter Value
ρℓ 1,000 kg/m3
Cpℓ 4.2 kJ/(kg⋅K)
kℓ 0.6 W/(m⋅K)
μℓ 1.0×10-3 Pa⋅s
β 2.2×10-4 1/K
BWRs have a Standby Liquid Control Tank (SLCT) containing highly-borated water at room
temperature that can be injected into the core, should the control rods fail to shutdown the reactor
during an accident. Over a long period of time, borated water corrosion has created a small
round hole of 0.5 mm diameter on the bottom of the SLCT (Figure 2a). The contact angle
between borated water and the SLCT material is θ = 120°. The surface tension of borated water
at room temperature is 0.07 N/m, and its density is about 1,000 kg/m3. The initial liquid level in
the SLCT is 1 m.
Borated water Liquid level
Cover gas
Hole
Borated water
θ
0.5 mm Hole
(a) Open top (b) With cover gas

Figure 2. The SLCT.
i) Assuming that the SLCT top is open to the atmosphere, would you expect the borated
water to completely drain from the hole? (10%)
If so, explain why.
If not, calculate the level at which draining would stop.
ii) Now assume that the contact angle is 60°. Does the tank drain completely? Explain.
(5%)
iii) To prevent draining, a fellow MIT nuclear engineering student suggests sealing the
tank top and put a cover gas (Figure 2b). Would this in fact prevent draining? Does
the contact angle affect your answer? (10%)
Consider the two parallel channels shown in Figure 3. They are connected only at the inlet and
outlet plena, and both have flow area A, equivalent diameter De and length L. Channel 1 is
heated ( Q & is the total heat rate), while channel 2 is adiabatic. Channel 1 has an orifice at the
inlet (of form loss coefficient K). The boundary conditions are as follows:
- The inlet plenum temperature is To

- The total mass flow rate is m
& tot
- The outlet plenum pressure is PL
The fluid specific heat and thermal expansion coefficient are cp and β, respectively. The density
of the fluid can be calculated by means of the Boussinesq approximation with To and ρo as the
reference temperature and density, respectively.
m
& tot
Outlet
plenum
2 1
g &
Q
L
Inlet
plenum Form loss
m
& tot
Figure 3. Parallel channels connected at plena.
i) Find an expression for the mass flow rate in channel 1 in terms of the heat rate,
geometry and properties only. (15%) (Hint: assume steady-state upflow in both
channels)
ii) Find an expression for Q & at which the mass flow rate in channel 2 becomes zero.
(5%)
iii) What happens to the flow in channel 2, if the heat rate in channel 1 is increased
beyond the threshold calculated in “ii”? (5%) (Note: provide only a qualitative
answer)
Assumptions:
- Heating in channel 1 is axially uniform.
- Assume single-phase flow in the system.
- Neglect acceleration and friction terms in both channels.
- All thermophysical properties (except density) can be considered independent of
temperature.
LOCA.
To simulate boiling heat transfer on the surface of the fuel pins during a Large-Break Loss Of
Coolant Accident (LB-LOCA) in a PWR, a nuclear engineer has designed a very simple
quenching experiment, in which a small copper sphere (∼1 cm diameter) is heated up to very
high temperatures (∼1,000°C), and then dropped in a large pool of water at atmospheric pressure.
i) What are the differences between the experiment and the actual reactor situation that are
likely to have an effect on boiling heat transfer? (5%)
ii) Write the energy conservation equation describing the temperature history (T vs. t) of the
copper sphere during a quenching experiment? (5%) (Hint: neglect the temperature
gradient within the sphere, describe boiling heat transfer at the surface of the sphere by
means of a heat transfer coefficient, and assume that the water bulk is saturated)
iii) The boiling curve for the experimental conditions is shown in Figure 4. Provide a
qualitative sketch of the sphere temperature history for an initial temperature of 1,500°C.
(10%)
(W/m2)
2 1 °
Figure 4. Boiling curve for a sphere in saturated water at 1 atm.


at 7.0 MPa.


Table 1.
z
Drained liquid
Assumptions
your convenience:
σ ρl μl
μl ρv σ
ρlσ
g (ρ l − ρ v )
0.1
⎛ μ ⎞
K = 0.03 ⋅ j ⎜⎜ v ⎟⎟
0.9
v (McCoy-Hanratty)
⎝ ρvD ⎠
Parameter Value
Water
ρℓ 1,000 kg/m3
μℓ 0.001 Pa⋅s
σ 0.07 N/m
Air
ρv 1.2 kg/m3
μv 1.7×10-5 Pa⋅s
Problem Parameters

  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
b) Bottom Peaked
  ( H   - z)    ( H   - z) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
c) Top Peaked
  (z  )    (z  ) 
q( z ) = q0   sin 
  H


 H e   e 
SOLUTION
qc ( z )
DNBR 
q( z )
for the minimum.
Heat Flux

heat flux.
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz z max
H
2
q0  q ( zmax )  qmax

  440,300 Btu/hr-ft2.
.
 z
  q sin
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  dz
H e 
0
H 0 H 0
q0 H e      ( H   ) 
q  cos    cos  
 H   H e   H e 

Fz 
He      ( H   ) 
cos    cos  
H   H e   H e 
  0.301 feet.

H
2
H  z
x 
He
such that
q( x )  q0 x sin( x)
0
d
dx xmax
zmax  [0, H ]  xmax  ( ,0) for   0
 H  z  H  z
 
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  q0    sin  
 
dz

H 0 H 0  He   He 
q0      (H   )     He  (H   )  He 
q  cos    cos 
 
( H   )  sin  
 

  sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
xmax sin( xmax )

Fz 
1      (H  )     He  (H  )  He 
cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
  1.772 feet.
  q( zmax )
qmax


qmax
such that
qmax

q0 max 
q0 max  241,962 Btu/hr-ft 2
Top Peaked Profile
  1.772 feet
and
q0 max  241,962 Btu/hr-ft 2
Critical Heat Flux
 q( z) Ddz

1
h( z )  h(0) 
m  f
0
a) Nominal Profile
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
q0H e D  ( H    z )  (H    z)  (H   )  (H   )   (H    z)   (H   ) 
m f 
 He  He  He  He   He   H e  

q0H e D   ( z   )     (z  )  (z  )     
m  f   He   He  He  He  He  H e  
m  GAx
0.496 2    0.374 2 / 4
Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4   9.455  10 4 ft 2
144
m  2.62  106  9.455 104  2477.3 lbm / hr
qc, EU
  (2.022  0.0004302 P)  (01722
.  0.0000984 P )
106
 exp[(18177
.  0.004129 P ) xc ]
 [(01484
.  1596
. xc  01729
. xc xc )G/106  1037
. ] (1)
 (1157
.  0.869 xc )  [0.2664  0.8357 exp( 3151
. De )]
 [0.8258  0.000794(h f  hin )]
where:

qc,EU
qc,N  (2)
F
c, N

C
F q ( z ) exp[  C (  c, N  z )]dz (3)
q (  c , N )[1  exp(  C c ,EU )]
0
(1  xc ) 7.9
C  0.44 inches-1 (4)
 G/10 
6 1.72
where:


qc,N
DNBR 
q  ( c ,N )
are the closest.
flux.
 c ,N
 q( z)Ddz
1
hc  hin 
m f
 0

hc  h f
xc 
h fg
 c , EU
 q
1
m  f 0
1
m  f
 f m (hc  hin )
 c, EU 
qc, EU D
qc,EU
qc,N 
F

the following table

Nominal 102 2.494

Q crit  f Fq
 crit 
n DH
Q  f Fq
 
n DH
giving
 crit
   CPR

also

H
qcrit
CPR   0

q0hot

H
qhot
0
therefore
qcrit q0 Q
a (G , P )( H  H o )

H
1

Ho
0
and Ax  S 2   D 2 / 4
 crit 
n DH n DH

dZ
0
dz zmax
giving
 crit
qmax
q0crit 
Z ( zmax )

Ho
iii) G ( H o )  0
where
m c
i) G
Ac
 h( z )  h f

 h fg h( z )  h f

ii) x( z )  
 0 h( z )  h f


 q( z) Ddz

z
nrods
m c  f 0
iv) T ( z )  T (h( z ), P)
or

 q( z) Ddz
z
nrods
T (0)   T ( z )  Tsat
 mc C p  f 0

T ( z )  


location.
Problem Parameters

  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
b) Bottom Peaked
  ( H   - z)    ( H   - z) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
c) Top Peaked
  (z  )    (z  ) 
q( z ) = q0   sin 
  H


 H e   e 
SOLUTION
qc ( z )
DNBR 
q( z )
for the minimum.
Heat Flux

heat flux.
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz z max
H
2
q0  q ( zmax )  qmax

  440,300 Btu/hr-ft2.
.
 z
  q sin
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  dz
H e 
0
H 0 H 0
q0 H e      ( H   ) 
q  cos    cos  
 H   H e   H e 

Fz 
He      ( H   ) 
cos    cos  
H   H e   H e 
  0.301 feet.

H
2
H  z
x 
He
such that
q( x )  q0 x sin( x)
0
d
dx xmax
zmax  [0, H ]  xmax  ( ,0) for   0
 H  z  H  z
 
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  q0    sin  
 
dz

H 0 H 0  He   He 
q0      (H   )     He  (H   )  He 
q  cos    cos 
 
( H   )  sin  
 

  sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
xmax sin( xmax )

Fz 
1      (H  )     He  (H  )  He 
cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
  1.772 feet.
  q( zmax )
qmax


qmax
such that
qmax

q0 max 
q0 max  241,962 Btu/hr-ft 2
Top Peaked Profile
  1.772 feet
and
q0 max  241,962 Btu/hr-ft 2
Critical Heat Flux
 q( z) Ddz

1
h( z )  h(0) 
m  f
0
a) Nominal Profile
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
q0H e D  ( H    z )  (H    z)  (H   )  (H   )   (H    z)   (H   ) 
m f 
 He  He  He  He   He   H e  

q0H e D   ( z   )     (z  )  (z  )     
m  f   He   He  He  He  He  H e  
m  GAx
0.496 2    0.374 2 / 4
Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4   9.455  10 4 ft 2
144
m  2.62  106  9.455 104  2477.3 lbm / hr
qc, EU
  (2.022  0.0004302 P)  (01722
.  0.0000984 P )
106
 exp[(18177
.  0.004129 P ) xc ]
 [(01484
.  1596
. xc  01729
. xc xc )G/106  1037
. ] (1)
 (1157
.  0.869 xc )  [0.2664  0.8357 exp( 3151
. De )]
 [0.8258  0.000794(h f  hin )]
where:

qc,EU
qc,N  (2)
F
c, N

C
F q ( z ) exp[  C (  c, N  z )]dz (3)
q (  c , N )[1  exp(  C c ,EU )]
0
(1  xc ) 7.9
C  0.44 inches-1 (4)
 G/10 
6 1.72
where:


qc,N
DNBR 
q  ( c ,N )
are the closest.
flux.
 c ,N
 q( z)Ddz
1
hc  hin 
m f
 0

hc  h f
xc 
h fg
 c , EU
 q
1
m  f 0
1
m  f
 f m (hc  hin )
 c, EU 
qc, EU D
qc,EU
qc,N 
F

the following table

Nominal 102 2.494

The hot channel in a PWR operates under the conditions given below. Compute the outer clad temperature
Rosenhow correlation in the mixed boiling region. Compare your results to those assuming the wall temperature is
determined by
from the point at which the wall temperature exceeds the saturation temperature, where hFC is an appropriate single
phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient (e.g. Weisman), and hNB is an appropriate nucleate boiling heat
transfer coefficient (e.g. Thom and Jens-Lottes). You may assume an axial heat flux profile of the form
  (z  ) 
q( z )  q0 sin  
 He 
Problem Data

SOLUTION
Heat Flux
heat flux.
Average Channel
 f Q
q    196, 600 Btu/hr-ft 2
n2 Ro H
Hot Channel
  Fq q   471,800 Btu/hr-ft 2
qmax

q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz z max
H
2
q0  qmax
  471,800 Btu/hr-ft2
 z
  q sin
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  dz
H e 
0
H 0 H 0
q0 H e      ( H   ) 
q  cos    cos  
 H   H e   H e 

Fz 
He      ( H   ) 
cos    cos  
H   H e   H e 
  0.0813 feet.
given by
z
1
h( z )  h(0) 
m  f  q( z ) Ddz 
0

q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  
Channel Mass Flux
Channel Flow Area
Do2
Ax  S 2    9.596  104 ft2
4
Core Flow Area
Acore  205  17  17  Ax  56.85 ft2
m
G  2.79  106 lbm/hr-ft2
Acore
(Tsat  Tinlet ) (651.8  569)

Tave    610.4
2 2
giving
Cp = 1.4838
 = 0.1933
k = 0.2993
Tsat = 651.8
hf = 699.19
h fg = 418.09

q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
k
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3
De
where C  0.042( S / D)  0.024  0.042(0.501/ 0.379)  0.024 = 0.0315.
Equivalent Diameter
De  

4 Ax 4 S 2  D 2 / 4 
 0.0386 ft
D D
Reynolds Number
GDe (2.79  106 )(0.0387)

Re    558,300
 0.1933
Prandtl Number
Cp  1.4838  0.1933
Pr    0.958
k 0.2993
k 0.2993
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3 = (0.0315)(558,300)0.8 (0.958)1/3  9516 Btu/hr-ft2-F
De 0.0387
q( zsat )
hc
given by
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m  f   H e   H e  

q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc
2.3
q( zi )  15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( zi )  Tsat ] P
0.0234
1/ 2
    ( zi )  
2
 q ( z B )  qNB

 

q ( z B )  q FC ( z B ) 1    1  
 ( z B ) 
  qFC q( z B )  
 
qFC
 ( z B )  hc [Tw ( z B )  T ( z B )]
1/ m
 q( z B ) 
Tw ( z B )  Tsat  6
   10 
qNB
 ( zi )    10 6 [Tw ( zi )  Tsat ]m
q( zi )
Tw ( zi )  T ( zi ) 
hc
T ( z )  T (h( z ))
q0H e D      ( z   ) 
h( z )  h(0)  cos     cos   
m f   H e 
  H e  

 4P 
exp 
  900 
60 4
m4
 P 
Tco ( z )  Tsat  1.897q( z )0.25 exp  
 900 
Thom Correlation
 2P 
exp 
  1260 
72 2
m2
 P 
Tco ( z )  Tsat  0.072q( z )0.5 exp  
 1260 
1/ 2
    ( zi )  
2
q ( z )  qNB
 ( z ) 1   NB
q( z )  qFC 1  
  qFC
 ( z)  qNB
 ( z )  
 
qFC
 ( z )  hc [Tw ( z )  T ( z )]
qNB
 ( z )    10 6 [Tw ( z )  Tsat ]m
qNB
 ( zi )    10 6 [Tw ( zi )  Tsat ]m
q( zi )
Tw ( zi )  T ( zi ) 
hc

T ( z )  T (h( z ))
hNB ( z )    106 (Tw ( z )  Tsat ) m 1
the mixed boiling region is 659.5 1 F and occurs at approximately 7.63 feet in the channel. For the wall temperature
680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
600
Fluid Temperature
Mixed Boiling Correlation
580 Thom and Single Phase Force Convection
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)

680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
600
Fluid Temperature
580 Mixed Boiling Correlation
Jens-Lottes and Single Phase Force Convection
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)

680
660
640
Temperature (F)
620
Fluid Temperature
600 Jens-Lottes
Thom
580
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Comparison of Jens-Lottes and Thom Correlations In the Mixed Boiling Region

q ′( z ) = qo′ exp( −0.693z / H )
Problem Data

Tube Length 52 ft
SOLUTION
G2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x ) 2 x2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υ (0)⎬
gc ⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭
∫φ
H
fH o G 2 f f HB G2
ΔPfriction = + 2
Ao dz
ΔPlocal =
∑ j
Kj
G2
2ρ j g c
Ψj
∫
H
g
0 gc
a) Linear Heat Rate
∫ ∫
H H
⎛ z ⎞
Q = q ′( z )dz = qo′ exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟dz
0 0 ⎝ H⎠
Q = qo′
H
{1 − exp(−0.693)}
0.693
1400 × 3.4138 × 10 6 = qo′

52
{1 − exp(−0.693)}
0.693
Btu
qo′ = 1.274 × 108
hr − ft
z′ ⎞
∫ q′ exp⎜⎝ − 0.693 H ⎟⎠dz′
z
1 ⎛
h( z ) = h(0) + o
m 0
qo′ H ⎧ ⎛ z ⎞⎫
h( z ) = h(0) + ⎨1 − exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟⎬
0.693m ⎩ ⎝ H ⎠⎭
h( H o ) = h f
qo′ H ⎧ ⎛ Ho ⎞⎫
h f = h(0) + ⎨1 − exp⎜ − 0.693 ⎟⎬
0.693m ⎩ ⎝ H ⎠⎭
Ho = −
H ⎡ 0.693m h f − h(0) ⎤
ln ⎢1 −
( )
⎥
0.693 ⎣ qo′ H ⎦
Btu
h(0) ≅ h f @ 460 F = 441.5
lbm
Btu
h f = 550.1
lbm
52 ⎡ 0.693 × 8.35 × 10 6 (550.1 − 441.5) ⎤

Ho = − ln ⎢1 − ⎥ = 7.48 ft
0.693 ⎣⎢ 127.4 × 10 6 × 52 ⎦⎥
d) Exit Quality
Q
h( H ) = hin +
m
1400 × 3.4138 × 10 6 Btu
h( H ) = 441.5 + = 1013.87
8.35 × 10 6 lbm
Btu
h fg = 640.9
lbm
h( H ) − h f
x( H ) =
h fg
1013.87 − 550.1
x( H ) = = 0.7236
640.9
1
αg =
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) ρ g ⎤ ρ gV gj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ x ρf ⎥⎦ xG ⎪
⎭
1
⎧⎪ ( ρ f − ρ g ) ⎫⎪ 4
V gj = 1.41⎨σgg c ⎬
⎪⎩ ρ 2f ⎪⎭
lbm
ρ f = 45.93
ft 3
lbm
ρ g = 2.368
ft 3
lbf
σ = 0.00125
ft
1
⎧ (45.93 − 2.368) ⎫ 4 ft
V gj = 1.41⎨0.00125 × 32.17 2 ⎬ = 0.57
⎩ 45.932 ⎭ sec
m
G=
n × Ax
Ax = S 2 −
πD 2
= 12 − π
(0.625)2 = 0.6932 in 2
4 4
8.35 × 10 6 lbm
G= × 144 = 1.085 × 10 5
16,000 × 0.6932 hr − ft 2
1 1
αg = = = 0.824
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) ρ g ⎤ ρ gV gj ⎫⎪ ⎧ ⎡ (1 − 0.7236) 2.368 ⎤ 2.368 × 0.57 × 3600 ⎫
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎨1.13 × ⎢1 + + ⎬
x ρ f ⎦⎥
⎬
⎩ ⎣ 0.7236 45.93 ⎥⎦ 0.7236 × 1.085 × 10 5 ⎭
⎪⎩ ⎣⎢ xG ⎪
⎭
G2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x ) 2 x2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − υ (0)⎬
gc ⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭
(1.084 × 10 5 ) 2 ⎧⎪⎡ (1 − 0.7236) 2 0.7236 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪ lbf

ΔPacc = ⎨ ⎢ + ⎥ − 0. 01961 ⎬ = 7.28 2
4.17 × 10 ⎪⎩⎣⎢ 0.176 × 45.9 0.824 × 2.368 ⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
8
ft
∫φ
H
fH o G 2 f f H B G2
ΔPfriction = + 2
Ao dz
−0.2
⎧ GDe ⎫
f = 0.184⎨ ⎬
⎩ μ ⎭
−0.2
⎧⎪ GDe ⎫⎪
f f = 0.184⎨ ⎬
⎪⎩ μ f ⎪⎭
4 Ax 4 A x 4 × 0.6932
De = = = = 1.412 inches = 0.12 ft
Pw πD π × 0.625
μ = 0.257
μ f = 0.23
ρ = 49.10
−0.2
⎧⎪1.084 × 10 5 × 0.12 ⎫⎪
f = 0.184⎨ ⎬ = 0.0212
⎪⎩ 0.257 ⎪⎭
−0.2
⎧⎪1.084 × 10 5 × 0.12 ⎫⎪
f f = 0.184⎨ ⎬ = 0.021
⎪⎩ 0.23 ⎪⎭
Local Pressure Loss

ΔPlocal =
∑j
Kj
G2
2ρ j g c
Ψj
ΔPlocal =
G2
2ρ f g c ∑K Ψj
j j
Ψ j = Ψ (G , x j )
zj hj xj Ψj
13 623.6 0.115 3.12
26 776.8 0.354 7.51
39 905.5 0.554 11.19
(1.084 × 10 5 ) 2
ΔPlocal = {1.5 × (3.12 + 7.51 + 11.19)} = 10.04 lbf
2 × 45.93 × 4.17 × 10 8
ftt 2
Elevation Loss
∫
H
g
0 gc
⎧ ρ A ( h) z < Ho
⎪
ρ=⎨
⎪α ( z ) ρ + α ( z ) ρ z > Ho
⎩ A f g g
numerically.
A 3820 Mwt PWR with Once Through steam generators is to be operated between a core inlet temperature of 569 F
and a core exit temperature of 626 F. The reactor coolant system consist of the reactor vessel, 2 hot legs, 2 steam
generators, four cold legs and four reactor coolant pumps. The vessel, hot leg and cold legs can be considered
commercial steel. The fuel rods and steam generator tubes can be considered smooth drawn tubing.
Problem Data

Rod Array 17 x 17
Grid Loss Coefficient .5
Core Height 150 inches
Core Outlet Loss Coefficient 0.5
Vessel ID 182 inches

Core Barrel OD 161 inches
Downcomer Length 21 ft
Downcomer Loss Coefficient 4.5
Length 100 ft
Diameter 3.17 ft
Hot Leg Equivalent L/D 75
Hot Leg Inlet Loss Coefficient 1.5
Bundle Inlet Loss Coefficient (referenced to tube velocity) 0.5

Average tube length 52.1 ft
Tube Inner Diameter 0.557 inches
Number of tubes 16016
RCP Suction Length 9 ft

RCP Suction Diameter 2.67 ft
RCP Suction Inlet Loss Coefficient 0.5
RCP Suction Equivalent L/D 20
Cold Leg Length 30
Cold Leg Diameter 2.33 ft
Cold Leg Equivalent L/D 18
a) Assuming the reactor coolant pumps are 100% efficient, determine the necessary horsepower of each
reactor coolant pump.
b) Assuming the reactor is allowed to operate at reduced power with one pump in each loop running, what
would be the maximum reactor power if the core inlet and exit temperatures were to be kept constant.
SOLUTION
The pump P is given by
Pp  Pvessel  PHL  PSG  PCL
where the vessel pressure drop includes the core and downcomer. The solution requires the total system mass flow
rate. This can be obtained from the core power level and the enthalpy change across the core
hin  h(Tin , P )  hin  571.28 Btu/lbm

hex  h(Tex , P )  hex  652.29 Btu/lbm
Q 3820  3.412  106

m core    160.9  106 lbm/hr
hex  hin 652.29  571.28
Fluid Properties
Fluid properties in the core and steam generator are taken at the core average temperature of 597.5 F. Fluid
properties in the hot leg are taken at the core exit temperature of 626 F. Fluid properties in the cold leg and
downcomer are taken at the core inlet temperature of 559 F.
Core Average Properties
 = 43.43 lbm/ft3
 = 0.2008 lbm/ft-hr
Hot Leg Properties
 HL = 40.68 lbm/ft3
 HL = 0.1842 lbm/ft-hr
Cold Leg Properties
CL = 45.57 lbm/ft3
CL = 0.2157 lbm/ft-hr
Vessel Pressure Drop
Core
 

2
fL Gcore g
Pcore    kj   H
 De  2  gc gc
 j core
 D2   0.501  2 (0.379 / 12)2 

Acore  nrods   S 2   o   (205  289)       56.85 ft
2
 4   12  4 
 D2   0.501  2 (0.379 / 12) 2 
4 S 2   o  4    
 12  4 
De  
4 
  0.039 ft
 Do  (0.379 / 12)
m core 160.9  106

Gcore    2.83  106 lbm/hr ft 2
Acore 56.85
GDe 2.83  106  0.039

Re    545, 200
 0.2008
Assuming smooth drawn tubing for the core friction factor f  0.015 . Taking the coolant properties at the core
averaged temperature of T  597.5 F gives   43.43 lbm / ft 3 . The vessel pressure drop is then
 
  0.015  150 / 12  (2.83 106 ) 2
2
fL Gcore g 150
Pcore    kj   H   0.5  8  0.5  0.5   43.43 
 De  2  gc gc  0.0.039  2  43.43  4.17 10
8
12
 j core
 2692.1 lbf / ft 2  18.69 psi
Downcomer
 
Pdc  
fL
 De


 j
kj 
Gdc2
 2 CL g c
dc
 CL
g
gc
H dc
   182   161  
2 2
Adc 
4
 DVess
2
 DCB
2
       39.29 ft
4  12   12  
2
182 161
De  DVESS  DCB    1.75 ft
12 12
m core 160.9  106

Gdc    4.10  106 lbm/hr ft 2
Adc 39.29
GDe 4.10  106  1.75

Re    3.323  107
 0.2157
Assuming commercial steel for the friction factor,   0.00015  f  0.012 .
 
Pdc  
fL
 De


 j
kj 
Gdc2
 2 CL g c
dc
 CL
g
gc
H dc
 0.012  21  (4.10  106 ) 2

  4.5   45.57  21
 1.75 dc 2  45.57  4.17 10
8
 1090.83 lbf/ft 2  7.58 psi

Vessel
g
PVESS  Pdc  Pcore   HL ( H dc  H )
gc
 1090.8  2692.1  40.68  (21  150 / 12)
 4129 lbf/ft 2  28.67 psi
  G2

 L L 
PHL   f      kj  HL
 D D  2 gc
  e eq 
j  HL
m core  DHL
2
  (3.17)2
GHL  where AHL    7.89 ft 2 , therefore
nHL  AHL 4 4
160.9  106
GHL   10.19  106 lbm/hr ft 2
2  7.89
GDe 10.19  106  3.17

Re    1.754  108
 0.1842
Assuming commercial steel for the core friction factor,   0.00015  f  0.01 . The hot leg pressure drop is then
  G2

 L L 
PHL   f     kj 
 D D 
HL
  eq 
 2 gc
 e
j  HL
  100   (10.19 106 ) 2
  0.01   75   1.5 
 3.17   2  40.68  4.17 10
8

 8004.28 lbf / ft 2  55.58 psi
  G2
PSG  
fL
 De


 j
kj 
 SG
SG
 2 gc
m core  Dtube
2
  (0.557 /12)2
GSG  where Atube    1.692 103 ft 2 , therefore
2  ntubes  Atube 4 4
160.9  106
GSG   2.968  106 lbm/hr ft 2
2  16, 016  1.692  103
GDe 2.968  106  (0.557 / 12)

Re    686, 200
 0.2008
Assuming smooth drawn tubing for the core friction factor f  0.014 . The steam generator pressure drop is then
  G2
PSG  
fL
 De


 j
kj 
 SG
SG
 2 gc
 0.014  52.1  (2.968  106 ) 2

  0.5 
 0.557 / 12  2  43.43  4.17  10
8
 3950.9 lbf / ft 2  27.44 psi
RCP Suction Segment
  G2

 L L 
PRCP   f    1 kj 
 D D 
RCP
  eq 
 2 gc
 e
j CL
m core  DRCP
2
  (2.67) 2
GRCP  where ARCP    5.60 ft 2 , therefore
nRCP  ARCP 4 4
160.9  106
GRCP   7.18 106 lbm/hr ft 2
4  5.60
GDe 7.18  106  2.67

Re    8.892  107
CL 0.2157
then
  G2

 L L 
PRCP   f      1  kj  RCP
   2 gc
  De D eq  j CL
  9   (7.184  106 ) 2
  0.011   29   1  0.5 
 2.67   2  45.57  4.17  10
8

 1700.5 lbf / ft 2  11.81 psi
Cold Leg Segment
  L L   GCL 2
PCL   f     
  D D   2 g
  e eq  
CL
c
m core  DCL
2
  (2.33)2
GCL  where ACL    4.264 ft 2 , therefore
nCL  ACL 4 4
160.9 106
GCL   9.43  106 lbm/hr ft 2
4  4.264
GDe 9.43  106  2.33

Re    10.19  107
CL 0.2157
then
  G2

 L L 
PCL   f     kj 
 D D 
CL
  eq 
 2  gc
 e
j CL
  30  (9.43  106 ) 2
  0.011   18  
 2.33   2  45.57  4.17  10
8

 799.23 lbf / ft 2  5.6 psi
Pp  Pvessel  PHL  PSG  PRCP  PCL  28.67  55.58  27.44  11.81  5.6  129.05 psi
The pump work is then
P 1 160.9  106 129.05 144 1

W p  m CL      2.11107 Btu/hr  8286 hp
 p 4 45.57 778 1
Assuming the loops behave symmetrically, the momentum equations can be reduced to the following equation in the
core mass flux
Pp  P1 (Gcore )  Pvessel (Gcore )
Gcore Acore  Gdc Adc  GHL AHL  nHL  GSG ASG  nSG  GCL ACL  nCL  GRCP ARCP  nCL
2
DHL
AHL  
4
 Dtube
2
ASG  ntubes  Atube  ntubes 
4
D2
ACL   CL
4
D2
ARCP   RCP
4
where
P1  PHL  PSG  PRCP  PCL are from the expressions above evaluated using the appropriate loop mass fluxes.
For a given Pp , this equation can be solved iteratively for the core mass flux. Reducing the number of cold legs
from 4 to 2 yields for the core mass flux Gc  2.386  106 lbm/hr-ft2 and a corresponding system flow rate of
m new  1.357  108 lbm/hr. For the same temperature (enthalpy) rise across the core, the power level corresponding
to the new flow rate is
m
Q new  Q new  3221 Mw.
m
a(G, P ) Lcrit
xcrit 
Lcrit  b(G, P )
q( z )  q0 Z ( z )

Pressure P
Core Mass Flux Gc
Core Flow Area Ac
Fuel Height Hc
Rod Diameter D
Solution
 
  qhot
dZ
0
dz zmax
by
 q Z ( z)Ddz  q
Hc
crit
q
q

Hc
qhot
hot
hot
0
such that

qcrit
 
qhot
MCPR

the form
a(G , P ) Lcrit
xcrit 
Lcrit  b(G, P )

qcrit
 q Z ( z)Ddz
Hc

Ho
b) m (h f  hin )   Z ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
0
D 2
4

Dh  aLcrit 
xcrit   
where:
 1
1  1.481  10 4 (1  P / P ) 3 G G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 c
a
 1  P / Pc
 G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 (G / 1000)1 / 3
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1) 0.4 GD1.4
G = kg/m2-s
D=m
P = MPa
Lcrit = m
a) Determine the critical power ratio in the channel.

b) Determine the channel exit quality as well as the critical quality at the channel exit.
c) Determine the coolant mass flux necessary to achieve a critical power ratio of 1.2
d) For the nominal coolant mass flux, determine the minimum CHF ratio assuming the Hench-Levy limit line
correlation
Problem Data
Pressure 1000 psia

  (H   -z )    (H   -z ) 
q (z ) = q0   sin  
 H e   He 

SOLUTION
The critical power ratio for the channel is

 H  z  H  z 
H
(q0)crit    sin     Do dz
 He   He   q0 crit
CPR  0 H 
 q0 

 H   z   H  z 
(q0)    sin     Do dz
0  He   He 
which implies the problem reduces to finding the magnitude of the heat flux profile.
Heat Flux
heat flux.
q( zmax )
Fz 
q
d
q 0
dz zmax
H
2
H  z
x 
He
such that
q( x)  q0 x sin( x)

0
d
dx xmax
zmax  [0, H ]  xmax  ( ,0) for   0
 H  z  H  z
 
H H
1 1
q  q( z )dz  q0    sin  
 
dz

H 0 H 0  He   He 
q0      (H   )     He  (H  )  He 
q  cos    cos 
 
( H   )  sin  
 

  sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
xmax sin( xmax )

Fz 
1      (H   )     He  (H  )  He 
cos    cos  ( H   )  sin     sin    
H   H e   He   He    H e   
  3.055 feet.
Hot Channel
  q( zmax )
qmax

qmax
such that

qmax
q0 max 
q0 max  1.92338 105 Btu/hr-ft 2

hin = 526.9
hf = 542.66
h fg = 649.94
Ax  S 2   D 2 / 4  0.642   (0.493) 2 / 4  0.2187 in 2  1.519 10 3 ft 2 . The channel mass flow rate is then
m  1.33  106  1.519  10 3  2020 lbm/hr .
CISE-4 Correlation

zcrit
 crit
aL 1
   ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
D
where a~  h a
De
 1
1  1.481  10 4 (1  P / P ) 3 G G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 c
a
 1  P / Pc
 G  3375  (1  P / Pc ) 3
 (G / 1000)1 / 3
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1) 0.4 GD1.4

Ho
m  f  h f  hin    ( z ) Ddz
qcrit
  0
hsub

  cos     cos     sin     sin   
and

  
crit
He  He  He  He   He   He

m  f hsub
 q0 crit 
 (H    Ho )  (H    H o )  (H   )  (H   )   (H    Ho )   ( H   ) 
 He  He  He  He   He   H e 
iteratively
Given G  1.33 106 lbm/hr-ft 2  1803.75 kg/m 2 -s
1  P / Pc 1  1000 / 3208.2
a 1/3
  0.5654 (unitless)
(G / 1000) (1803.75 / 1000)1/3
1.4
 0.493 
b  0.199  ( Pc / P  1)0.4 GD1.4  0.199  (3208.2 /1000  1) 0.4 1803.75    0.3048   1.070 m  3.5109 ft
 12 
4[ S 2   D 2 / 4] 4[0.642   (0.493) 2 / 4]
De    0.5648 inches
D   0.493
0.493
a  0.5654   0.4935
0.5648
Btu
 q0 crit  251,193 and H o  0.677 ft giving a critical power ratio of
hr-ft 2
250,983
CPR=  1.305
192,338
The channel exit quality is give by
h( H )  h f
x
h fg
where
 q0  H e D      (H  )  (H  )      ( H   ) 
h( H )  hin   cos     cos     sin     sin   
m  f  H e  He  He  He   He   H e  

727.25  526.9
x( H )   0.284
649.94
a ( H  H o ) 0.4935  (12.167  0.688)

xcrit    0.378
H  Ho  b 12.167  0.688  3.511
The mass flux necessary to achieve a Critical Power Ratio of CHR = 1.2 is the solution of the two equations

a (G, P )( H  H o )
H
1
1)  CPR  q ( z ) Ddz

Ho
2) GAx  f  h f  hin   CPR  q ( z ) Ddz

0
in the two unknowns Ho and G, where q ( z ) is the heat flux profile in the hot channel. For the data given here, the
solution is
Ho = 0.621 feet
G = 1.115 x 106 lbm/hr-ft2
1. xc  ( xc )1
q c 
6
 .  3.3x c  0.7 tanh 2 (3G / 10 6 )
19 ( xc )1  xc  ( xc ) 2 Btu/hr-ft2
10 0.6  0.7 x  0.09 tanh 2 (2G / 10 6 ) xc  ( xc ) 2
 c
where
( xc )1  0.273  0.212 tanh 2 (3G / 106 )

( xc ) 2  0.5  0.269 tanh 2 (3G / 106 )  0.0346 tanh 2 ( 2G / 106 )
The correlations given here are for 1000 psia, so can be applied directly to this problem without a pressure
correction.

For the data given in the problemstatement, the critical heat flux computed from the Hench-Levy Correlation and
ft.
1.2x106

Heat Flux
Heat Flux (Btu/hr-ft )
2
800.0x103
600.0x103
400.0x103
200.0x103
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)

SOLUTION
∫
g
ΔP = − ρ dH
gc
g g g g g
c c c c c
Ldc Ho HB H ch
∫ρ g
g g g g g
c gc gc gc gc
g g
ρ dH = − ρ dc
gc gc gc gc gc
∫ρ g
g
(
g
gc
H ch
c c c
(
ΔP = − ρ H o − ρ dc ) gg (
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
g
gc
H ch
c c
(
c c
= H ch
gc
G2 ⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x) 2 x2 ⎤ 1 ⎫⎪
ΔPacc = ⎨⎢ + ⎥ − ⎬
⎩⎪ ⎣⎢ A f
gc
⎭
For the given data:
ρ dc ≅ ρ f @ 520 F = 47.82
ρ H o = 47
ρ H B = 38
Ho = 2
HB = 3
1
αg =
⎛1− x ⎞ ρg
1+ ⎜ ⎟ S
⎝ x ⎠ ρf
flux such that
(
c c
= H ch
(ρ dc − ρ ch )
g
gc
q ′′( z ) = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]
Problem Data
Number of Tubes n
Tube Length L
Dh a(G, P ) Lcrit
xcrit =
De Lcrit + b(G , P)
available.
Tp (z)
Superheated Region
zcrit
Boiling Region
Ho
Subcooled Region
T (0)
SOLUTION
T∞ ( L) = T∞ (h( L), Psg )
∫
L
1
m 0
considered.
U [Tp ( z ) − Tw ( z )] = hc [Tw ( z ) − T∞ ( z )]
or
UTp ( z ) + hcT∞ ( z )
Tw ( z ) =
U + hc
1/ 3
⎛ Cpμ ⎞
0.8
k ⎛ GDe ⎞
hc = C⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
De ⎜⎝ μ ⎟⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
Where
4[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
De =
πDo
m
G=
Ax
Ax = n[ S 2 − πDo2 / 4]
∫
z
1
m 0
is the solution of

U + hc
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
∫
z crit
= h = U [T p ( z ) − Tw ( z )]πDo dz
where
( ) ∫
Ho
0
UT p ( z ) + hcT∞ ( z )
Tw ( z ) =
U + hc
steam.

Problem Data

Pressure 1050 psia
Height 52 ft
SOLUTION
Frictional Loss
fg (H − H g ) G2
∫
Hg
fH o G 2 f f G2
energy balance
∫ q′( z)dz .
Ho
1
h f = hin +
m 0
q′H o
h f = hin +
m
m (h f − hin )
Ho =
q′
m
Ax
Ax = ( S 2 − π D 2 / 4) × n
GDe
Re =
μ
4[ S 2 − π D 2 / 4]
De =
πD
fH o G 2
De 2 ρ g c
∫
Hg
1
hg = hin + q ′( z )dz .
m 0
q ′H g
hg = hin +
m
m (hg − hin )
Hg =
q′
GDe
Re f =
μf
∫
Hg
ff G2
De 2 ρ f g c Ho
where
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
and
∫
q ′( z − H o )
z
1
h( z ) = h f + q ′dz = h f +
m Ho m
q′H
hexit = hin +
m
GDe
Re g =
μg
fg (H − H g ) G2
De 2ρ g gc
Acceleration Drop
1 d ⎧⎪ G 2 (1 − x) 2 G 2 x 2 ⎫⎪
∫ ∫ { } { }0H
H H
1 d 1
G2
gc
where

Operating parameters for representative BWR and PWR designs are given below. For the PWR hot channel and the
BWR average channel compute and plot:
1) the void and quality distributions
2) the phase velocity distribution
3) Determine the individual components of and the total pressure drop
Compare the results obtained using both equilibrium and non equilibrium models. You may assume the saturation
properties are constant along the length of the channel and may be evaluated at the inlet pressure. Assume the Dix
correlation for Concentration Parameter and Drift Velocity
Pressure 2250 psia

Core Inlet Temperature 552.5 F
Number of Spacer grids 10
Spacer loss coefficient 0.5
Core Exit Loss Coefficient 1.5

  (z   ) 
q ( z ) = q0 sin  
 He 

Pressure 1000 psia
Coolant Flow Rate 77 x 106 lbm/hr
Rod locations per Assembly 64
Upper and Lower Tie Plate Loss Coefficient 1.5
Number of grids 8
Two Phase 33 1
  (H - z  )    (H - z  ) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 He   He 
Note: q0 is not the maximum heat flux for this distribution.
You may assume the two-phase friction multiplier is given by the expression
 20 1 
2o  1   2 (1  x)1.75
   
0.2
 f   1 x
1.8 
 
   
2
   g 
 g   x   f 
and that the Homogeneous Multiplier derived in class is valid for the local losses.
Two Phase 33 2
SOLUTION
Heat Flux Profiles
PWR
The heat flux profile for the PWR case is given as
  (z   ) 
q ( z ) = q0 sin  
 He 
where for this profile the maximum heat flux occurs at H / 2 and is equal to q0 . For the hot channel, then
q0  qmax
  474,500 Btu/hr - ft 2 . The extrapolation distance associated with this heat flux profile is   0.301 ft.
BWR
The heat flux profile for the BWR case is given as
  (H - z  )    (H - z  ) 
q ( z ) = q0   sin  
 H e   He 
The average channel is defined such that
 q(z)dz
H
1
 
qave
H 0
q0       (H   )  H e    H e   ( H   ) 
 
qave  cos   ( H   ) cos   sin    sin  
H   He   He    He    He 
  144,032 may be solved directly for q0 giving

which for qave
q0  1.108  10 5 Btu/hr-ft2.
The extrapolation distance associated with this profile is   3.055 ft.

z
1
h( z )  h(0)  q ( z ) Ddz 
m  f 0
where the mass flow rate is given by m  GAx and Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4 . The mass flux is determined from
m m 77  106
G    1.266  106 lbm/hr-ft2
Acore nasssemblies  ( Scan
2
 nrods   D 2 / 4) 60.823
Two Phase 33 3
PWR

  ( H  z ) 
z
1
h( z )  h(0)  q0 sin    Ddz 
m  f 0  He 
qDH e       ( z   )  
h( z )  h(0)  0 cos    cos  
m  f   H e   H e  
Where: Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4  0.496 2    0.374 2 / 4  0.1362 in 2  9.46  10 4 ft 2

m  GAx  2.48 106  9.46 104  2344.9 lbm/hr
BWR

  ( H    z )    ( H    z ) 
z
1
h( z )  h(0)  q0   sin    Ddz 
m  f 0  He   He 
q0DH e   ( H    z )    H    z)    (H    z)   (H   )    H  )    ( H   )  
h( z )  h(0)   cos    sin   cos    sin  
m  f  He  He   He  He  He   He  
Where: Ax  S 2  D 2 / 4  0.640 2    0.4932 / 4  0.2187 in 2  15.19  10 4 ft 2

m  GAx  1.266 106 15.19  104  1922.8 lbm/hr
 DeC p
0.0022  q( zd )  Pe  70,000
 k
h f  hd  
 q( zd )
 154  Pe  70,000
 G
GDeC p
where Pe   Re  Pr is the Peclet Number and the enthalpy at the bubble departure point is given by
k

zd
1
hd  hin  q ( z ) Ddz .
m  f 0
For the equilibrium model, the bubble departure point is taken to be the nonboiling height defined by
h f  h( H o )
In either case, solution is iterative.
PWR
Taking the thermodynamic properties at the midpoint between the inlet temperature and the saturation temperature
gives
Two Phase 33 4
C p  1.4336 Btu/lbm-F
k  0.3051 Btu/hr-ft-F

4 Ax 4  0.1362
De    0.4637 inches  0.0386 ft
D   0.374
GDe C p 2.48  106  0.0386  1.4336

Pe    4.501 105
k 0.3051
q( z d )
h f  hd  154 
G
where
q0DH e       ( zd   )  
hd  h(0)  cos    cos  
m f   H e 
  He  
q0DH e       ( H o   )  
h f  h(0)  cos    cos  
m  f   H e   He  
For the PWR hot channel, zd  8.319 ft and H o  10.07 ft .
BWR
The subcooling is sufficiently small, that the thermodynamic properties can be approximated as those at the
saturation point for evaluation of the Peclet number. At 1000 psia, the saturation temperature is Tsat  544.58 F.
C p  1.285 Btu/lbm - F
k  0.3314 Btu/hr - ft - F
4 Ax 4  0.2187
De    0.5648 inches  0.0471 ft
D   0.493
GDe C p 1.266  106  0.04711.285

Pe    2.311 105
k 0.3314
Two Phase 33 5
q( z d )
h f  hd  154 
G
where
q0DH e   ( H    zd )    H    zd )    ( H    zd )   ( H   )   H  )    ( H   )  
hd  h(0)   cos    sin   cos    sin  
m  f  He  He   He  He  He   He  
q0DH e   ( H    H o )    H    Ho )    (H    Ho )   (H   )   H  )    ( H   )  
h f  h(0)   cos    sin   cos    sin  
m  f  He  He   He  He  He   He  
For the BWR average channel, zd  0.118 ft  zd  0 and H o  1.399 ft .

 0 z  zd

x
  x 
 xe  ( xe ) d exp e  1 z  zd
  ( xe ) d 
hd  h f
( xe ) d 
h fg
For the equilibrium model, the flow quality is given by
0 z  Ho

x
x z  Ho
 e
h( z )  h f
xe ( z ) 
h fg
PWR
quality assuming equilibrium flows is xe ( H )  0.029 , and assuming non equilibrium flow is x( H )  0.043 .
Two Phase 33 6
PWR Quality Distributions
0.05
Equilibrium Model
0.04
0.03
Quality
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
BWR
quality assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are the same and equal to x( H )  0.162 .
BWR Quality Distributions
0.16
Equilibrium model
0.14 Non equilibrium model
0.12
0.10
Quality
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Two Phase 33 7
Void Distribution
1

 g 1  x  gVgj
Co 1  
  x  Gx
which for a give channel mass flux and pressure is only a function of the quality and the liquid phase density. The
liquid phase density can be fit to a low order polynomial as a function of the liquid phase enthalpy. Assuming an
equilibrium flow model, the liquid phase density is given by
   ( h) z  Ho

  
  z  Ho
 f
For the non equilibrium model, the quality is obtained from the profile fit model and the liquid phase density is
given by
   (h ) h  h f

  
  h  h f
 f
h ( z )  x ( z ) hg
h ( z ) 
1  x( z )
PWR
The Void distributions assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are illustrated below. The channel exit
void assuming equilibrium flows is  eq ( H )  0.179 , and assuming non equilibrium flow is  ( H )  0.235 .
Two Phase 33 8
PWR Void Distributions
0.25
Equilibrium Model
0.20
Void Fraction
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
BWR
The void distributions assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are illustrated below. The channel exit void
fraction assuming equilibrium and non equilibrium flows are the same and equal to  ( H )  0.711 .
BWR Void Distributions
0.7
Equilibrium model
0.6
0.5
Void Fraction
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Two Phase 33 9
Velocity Distributions
The phase velocities are obtained from the definitions
Gx   g  g v g
and
G (1  x )     v
such that
Gx
vg 
 g g
and
G (1  x )
v 
  
If the quality and void fraction are both zero, the vapor velocity can be taken to be equal to the liquid velocity.
PWR
liquid and vapor velocities assuming equilibrium flows are v eq ( H )  21.96 and vg eq ( H )  17.61 ft/sec and
assuming non equilibrium flow v ( H )  23.24 and vg ( H )  19.6 ft/sec.
PWR Liquid Velocity Distributions
24
Equilibrium Model
22
LiquidVelocity (ft/sec)
20
18
16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Two Phase 33 10
PWR Vapor Velocity Distributions
22
Equilibrium Model
21 Non Equilibrium Model
VaporVelocity (ft/sec)
20
19
18
17
16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
The vapor velocity displays non physical behavior when using the Dix model at the low qualities associated with
PWR operation.
BWR
liquid and vapor velocities assuming equilibrium flows and non equilibrium flows are equal and are v  ( H )  22.1
and vg ( H )  35.7 ft/sec. As in the PWR case, the vapor velocity displays non physical behavior at very low
qualities when using the Dix model. This behavior quickly disappears once void reaches moderate levels.
Two Phase 33 11
BWR Liquid Velocity Distributions
25
Equilibrium model
20
Liquid Velocity (ft/sec)
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
BWR Vapor Velocity Distributions
40
Equilibrium model
30
Vapor Velocity (ft/sec)
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Pressure Drop
Two Phase 33 12
Acceleration Losses
G 2  1  x( H ) 2 x( H ) 2 1 
Pacc ( z )   
g c    ( H )   g ( H )  g  (0) 

H
fz d G 2 f f G2
Pfriction ( z )   2o ( z)dz
De 2  g c De 2  f g c zd
where again for the equilibrium case, the bubble departure point is taken as the non boiling height H o .
For smooth tubing, the friction factor can be taken to be
f  0.184 Re 0.2
Local Losses
Plocal 
G2
2  j gc  K ( z )
z j [ 0, z ]
j j
where in the two phase multiplier is taken to be one in the single phase region. For the PWR case, the grid locations
(in inches) are
z j  [0, 16, 32, 48, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 144]
In the BWR case, the grids are placed uniformly along the length of the bundle, but not at the bundle inlet and exit
such that the grid locations (in inches) are
z j  [16.22, 32.44, 48.66, 64.88, 81.11, 97.33, 113.56, 129.78]
Elevation Losses

H
g
Pelev   ( z) dz
0 gc
Two Phase 33 13
 ( z ) z  zd

 ( z)  
 ( z )  ( z )   ( z )  zd  z
   g g
Prior to reaching equilibrium, the liquid density is a function of enthalpy and can be obtained by a simple parabolic
fit of density to enthalpy from the steam tables.
The total pressure drop is the sum of the individual drops
P  Pacc  Pfriction  Plocal  Pelev
The integrals in the pressure drop equations are evaluated numerically. The individual pressure drops are
PWR
Equilibrium

Ptotal  20.87
Non Equilibrium

Ptotal  22.52
BWR
Equilibrium

Ptotal  18.42
Non Equilibrium
Two Phase 33 14
Ptotal  18.54
Two Phase 33 15
NE 402/502 Exam # 2 Fall 2008
Thermal Output Q
Core Height H
Rod Diameter Do
Rod Pitch S
q′′( z ) = q0′′Z ( z )
numerically.
Mixture Mass
∂ρ ∂GAx
Ax + =0
∂t ∂z
Mixture Energy
∂ρu ∂GhAx
Ax + = q ′( z )
∂t ∂z
Mixture Momentum
⎧ ⎫
1 ∂G 1 1 ∂ ⎧⎪ 2 ⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎤ ⎫⎪
+ ⎨G ⎢
⎩
+
x2
α g ρg
⎥ Ax ⎬ = −
⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
∂P ⎪ f f G 2
−⎨
⎩
φA2o + ∑
j
K jδ ( z − z j )
G2 ⎪
Ψ⎬ − ρ
2ρ f g c ⎪
⎭
g
gc
x 1
α= =
⎨Co ⎢ x + (1 − x ) ⎥ + ⎬ C ⎢1 + ⎥+
⎪⎩ ⎣ ρA ⎦ G ⎪⎭ ⎨⎪ o ⎢ x υg ⎥⎦ Gx ⎪
⎬
⎩ ⎣ ⎭
( ) ⎫⎪⎬
1
⎧ ρA − ρg
4
⎪
C0 = 113 . ⎨σggc
. and Vgj = 141
⎪ ρA2 ⎪
⎩ ⎭
1
α=
(1 − x ) ⎛ υ f ⎞
1+ ⎜ ⎟S
x ⎜⎝ υ g ⎟⎠
Profile Fit Model
⎛ x ⎞
x = xe − ( xe ) d exp⎜⎜ e − 1⎟⎟
⎝ ( xe ) d ⎠
⎧ De C p
⎪0.0022 × q ′′(z d )× Pe < 70,000
⎪ k
h f − hAd =⎨
⎪ q ′′( z d )
⎪ 154 × Pe > 70000
⎩ G
q ′′( z n ) = 15.6 P1.156 [Tco ( z n ) − Tsat ]2.30 / P

0.0234
⎛ 20 1 ⎞
φA2o = ⎜⎜1 + + 2 ⎟⎟(1 − x)1.75
⎝ χ χ ⎠
0.2
⎛ μf ⎞ ⎛ 1− x⎞
1.8 ⎛
ρ ⎞
χ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
2
⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟
⎝ μg ⎠ ⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ ρf ⎠
υ fg
Ψ = 1+ x
υf
Friction Factor
f = f (Re, ε / D)

1
⎛ S ⎞
⎝ D ⎠
SOLUTION
q′′( z )
Tco ( z ) = T∞ ( z ) +
hc
energy balance
∫ q′′( z′)πD dz′

z
1
hA ( z ) = h(0) + o
GAx 0
π
Ax = S 2 − Do2
4
1
⎛ S ⎞
Nu = ⎜ 0.042 − 0.024 ⎟ Re0.8 Pr 3
⎝ D ⎠
1
⎛ C pμ ⎞ 3
0.8
⎛ S ⎞⎛ GDe ⎞
= ⎜ 0.042 − 0.024 ⎟⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ D ⎠⎝ μ ⎠ ⎝ k ⎠
⎛ 2 π 2⎞
⎜ S − Do ⎟
De = 4 ⎝ ⎠
4
πDo

= + =0
q′′( z )πDo 1 dq′′( z )

= +
GAxC p hc dz z max
z max
Q γ f Fq
′′ =
nrodsπDo H
′′ = q0′′Z ( z ′max )
qmax

dZ
=0
dz z ′max
of the channel
G 2 ⎧ fH ⎫
∫ ρ (z)gdz
H
2 ρ o ⎩ De ⎭ 0
G2
P ( H ) + ρ 0 gH = P (0) +
2ρ0
such that
G 2 ⎧ fH ⎫
∫ ρ (z)gdz
H
2 ρ o ⎩ De ⎭ 0
⎛ GDe ε ⎞
⎝ μ D⎠
′′ ( x( z ), G, P, De )
qcrit
DNBR( z ) =
q′′( z )
where
h( z ) − h f
x( z ) =
h fg
and
z
1
h( z ) = h f + o
GAx 0
⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎫⎪
x2 ⎤
∫ ∑ ∫ ρ ( z) gdz
H H
f f H G2 G2
⎪⎩⎣⎢ α A ρ f α g ρ g ⎦⎥
H ⎪⎭ De 2 ρ f 0 2ρ f
j
0
G2
P ( H ) + ρ f gH = P (0) +
2ρ f
such that
⎧⎪⎡ (1 − x) 2 ⎫⎪ f H G 2 ⎛ ⎞
x2 ⎤
∫ ∑ ∫ ρ (z)gdz
H H
G2 ⎜ ⎟
f
G 2 ⎨⎢ +
α ρ
⎪⎩⎣⎢ A f α ρ ⎥H
g g ⎦ ⎪⎭ D e 2ρ f 0 2 ρ f ⎜⎜ ⎟ 0
⎝ j ⎠
For
i) ρ ( z ) = α A ( z ) ρ f + α g ( z ) ρ g
1
ii) α g ( z ) = ; α A ( z) = 1 − α g ( z)
⎧⎪ ⎡ (1 − x ( z )) υ f ⎤ ρ gVgj ⎫⎪
⎨Co ⎢1 + ⎥+ ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎣⎢ x( z ) υ g ⎦⎥ Gx( z ) ⎪⎭
0.2
⎛ 20 1 ⎞ ⎛ μf ⎞ ⎛ 1 − x( z ) ⎞
1.8
⎛ ρg ⎞
iii) φA2o ( z ) = ⎜⎜1 + + 2 ⎟⎟(1 − x( z ))1.75 ; χ 2 ( z ) = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
χ ( z) χ ( z) ⎠ ⎜ μg ⎟ ⎝ x( z ) ⎠ ⎜ρf ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠
υ fg
iv) Ψ j = 1 + x( z j )
υf
⎛ GDe ε ⎞
v) f f = f ⎜ , ⎟
⎜ μf D⎟
⎝ ⎠
determined

A Pressurized Water Reactor has operating characteristics given below. For the hot and average channels, compute
and plot the coolant temperature, outer clad surface temperature and fuel centerline temperature as a function of
axial position. As appropriate,
a) Determine the position the clad temperature reaches the saturation temperature
b) Determine the boiling transition point
c) Determine the maximum clad surface temperature
d) Determine the maximum fuel centerline temperature
in the fuel.
  (z   ) 
q ( z )  qo sin .
 He 
For this problem you may assume the boiling transition point is that point where the wall temperature given by the
single phase forced convection heat transfer coefficient is equal to that given by the Thom Nucleate Boiling
Correlation.
Problem Data

Fuel Thermal Conductivity 2 Btu/hr-ft-F
Heat Convection 17
SOLUTION
Average Channel
 f Q
q    196, 600 Btu/hr-ft 2
n2 Ro H
Hot Channel
q0 hot  Fq q   446,300 Btu/hr-ft 2
Channel Mass Flux
Channel Flow Area
Do2
Ax  S 2    9.596  104 ft2
4
Core Flow Area
Acore  205  17  17  Ax  56.85 ft2
m
G  2.79  106 lbm/hr-ft2
Acore
k
hc  C Re 0.8 Pr 1/ 3
De
C p  1.4083
  0.2004
k  0.3083
Heat Convection 17
Equivalent Diameter
 Do2
S2 
De  4  0.039 ft
 Do
Reynolds Number
GDe
Re   538,525

Prandtl Number
Cp
Pr   0.9154
k
hc = 9,379Btu/hr-ft2-F

1   (z   ) 

H  He 
0
He q0       (H  )  
 
H    He   He  
q0 1
 Fz  .

qaxial He 1       (H  )  
cos   cos 
H    He   He  
Average Channel

  (z   ) 
q ( z )  qo sin 
 He 
Heat Convection 17
q0  1.55qave
  304, 721 Btu/hr-ft 2 .
Fluid Temperature

1
h( z )  h(0)  q ( z ) Ddz 
m f

0
q0DH e       ( z   )  
h( z )  h(0)  cos    cos  
m  f   H e   H e  
q  ( z )
Tco ( z )  T ( z ) 
hc

  0
q ( zmax ) D 1 q ( z )

 
 p f
mC hc dz zmax
q0 D  (z  )  1   (z  ) 
0 sin   max   q0 cos   max 
 p f
For the data given here, the maximum clad temperature occurs at zmax  8.94 ft and has a value of Tco ( zmax ) 
645.9 F. The maximum clad temperature is below the saturation temperature, and therefore boiling does not
occur in the average channel.
For the average channel, the axial fluid temperature and clad temperature are illustrated below.
Heat Convection 17
660
Fluid Temperature
Temperature (F)
620
600
580
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
The fuel centerline temperature for a uniform radial volumetric heat generation rate is given by
 1 1 1 R  1 
T0 ( z )  T ( z )  q ( z ) Ro    ln  o   
 2k Ri H G kc  Ri  hc Ro 
q ( z ) R 2  2 Ro q ( z ) .
The position of maximum fuel temperature is that position zmax such that
dT0 dT q ( z )  1 1 1 R  1 

  Ro    ln  o   0
dz zmax dz zmax dz zmax  2k Ri H G kc  Ri  hc Ro 
q ( zmax ) D q ( z )  1 1 1 R  1 
  Ro    ln  o   
 p f
mC dz zmax  2k Ri H G kc  Ri  hc Ro 
Heat Convection 17
q0 D  (z  )    ( z   )   1 1 1 R  1 
0 sin   max   q0 cos   max  Ro    ln  o   
 p f
mC  He  He  He   2k Ri H G kc  Ri  hc Ro 
For the data given here, the maximum fuel centerline temperature occurs at zmax  5.96 ft and has a value of
T0 ( zmax )  2252 F. The fuel centerline temperature as a function of axial position is illustrated below.
2400
2200
2000
1800
Temperature (F)
1600
1200
1000
800
600
400
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Hot Channel
The maximum heat flux in the hot channel is q0  446,300 Btu/hr-ft 2 . The relationship for the enthalpy distribution
is unchanged. The magnitude of the heat flux is changed to reflect the hot channel.
q0DH e       ( z   )  
h( z )  h(0)  cos    cos  
m  f   H e   H e  
The fluid temperature is given by
T (h( z )) h( z )  h f

T ( z )  
 T h( z )  h f
 sat
Heat Convection 17
Transition to Nucleate Boiling
The transition point from single phase forced convection to nucleate boiling, is taken as that point zb, such that
q ( zb ) 72
T ( zb )   Tsat  3 q ( zb )1/ 2 e  P /1260
hc 10
The axial position at which the clad temperature reaches the saturation temperature is that point zsat , such that
q( z sat )
Tco ( zsat )  Tsat  T ( zsat ) 
hc
For the given data, the point at which the clad temperature reaches the saturation temperature is zsat  5.03 feet.
The transition to nucleate boiling occurs at an axial position of zb 5.64 feet.
The outer clad surface temperature in the presence of boiling is then given by
 q ( z )
 T ( z )  z  zb
hc

Tco ( z )  
 60 1/ 4  P / 900
Tsat  3/ 2 q ( z ) e z  zb
 10
For the hot channel, the axial fluid temperature and clad temperature distributions are given below.
680
660 Fluid Temperature

Clad Temperature
640
Temperature (F)
620
600
580
560
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
Heat Convection 17
Given the outer clad surface temperature, the fuel centerline temperature is given by
 1 1 1  R  
T0 ( z )  Tco ( z )  q ( z ) Ro    ln  o  
 2k Ri H G kc  Ri  
The fuel centerline termperature as a function of axial position is given below.
3500
3000
2500
Temperature (F)
2000
Centerline Temperature
1500
1000
500
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial Position (ft)
The maximum clad temperature is 659.96 F and occurs at the boiling transition point. Since the boiling transition
point occurs prior to the position of maximum heat flux, the maximum fuel centerline temperature occurs
at zmax  5.96 ft and is 3028 F.
Heat Convection 17

Full File PHT

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Full File PHT

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Pressurized Water Reactor has operating characteristics given below.

For the average channel, compute and plot

Problem Data (Westinghous 4 Loop PWR)

Core Thermal Output 3400 Mw

Rod Surface Heat Flux

Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient

From the Weisman Correlation

From which the convective heat transfer coefficient can be found to be

The axially averaged heat flux is

such that the axial peak to average ratio is

The heat flux profile in any channel is given as

which for the sinusoidal heat flux given above yields

The mass flow rate is given by m  GAx  2458 lbm / hr .

Outer Clad Temperature

dTco dT 1 q ( z )

q ( zmax ) D 1 q ( z )

Fuel Pellet Surface Temperature

 692.61  Ts ( z )  6.02366  10 12

2Ro q ( z ) 2 Ro q ( z )

Axial Position (ft)

800 Centerline Temperature

Axial Position (ft)

In the absence of boiling, the clad temperature distribution is also unchanged

Where C = 1.1 and  g is limited to a maximum value of 0.8.

A uniformly heated, circular boiling channel has parameters listed below.

b) Repeat part a) using the flow regime independent Zuber-Findlay correlation.

BOILING CHANNEL PARAMETERS

Heat Flux 144,032 Btu/hr-ft2

where the mixture velocity (v ) is determined from

 vrA ( ) 0.85    0.9

giving the superficial velocities as a function of position

Axial Position (ft)

Hewitt and Roberts Flow Regime Predictions (TRAC correlations)

q( z )  hFC [Tw ( z )  T ( z )]  hNB (z)[Tw ( z )  Tsat ]

You may assume an axial heat flux profile of the form

Core Thermal Output 3411 Mw

Rod Surface Heat Fluxes

  Fq q   439, 400 Btu/hr-ft 2

Boiling Heat Transfer 34 1

The axial peak to average ratio is defined to be

The axially averaged heat flux is defined to be

The axial peaking factor is then

Coolant Enthalpy and Temperature Distributions

which for the heat flux profile given here yields

Boiling Heat Transfer 34 2

Channel Flow Area

Channel Mass Flow Rate

m channel  G  Ax  2477.3 lbm/hr

Channel Exit Conditions

(Tsat  Tinlet ) (652.74  559)

The channel saturation properties are taken at 2250 psia

Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient

From the Weisman Correlation

Boiling Heat Transfer 34 3

GDe (2.62  106 )(0.0386)

From which the convective heat transfer coefficient can be found to be

Location where the clad temperature exceeds the saturation temperature

Transition from Single Phase Forced Convection to Nucleate Boiling

Incipient Boiling Point

Boiling Heat Transfer 34 4

Fully Developed Nucleate Boiling Point

where: q(z ) is the operating heat flux profile

The Jens-Lottes Correlation gives