Abstract

This paper presents an improved estimation of reactor core baffle temperature distribution, during operation, at the nominal power level to address swelling problems of the reactor internals. Swelling is the main limiting factor in the reactor core internals long term operation of VVER-1000 nuclear units. The material irradiation-induced swelling and creep models are very sensitive to temperature distribution in metal; thus, a more detailed analysis of the core baffle metal thermohydraulic cooling characteristics is required. A framework for the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis of VVER-1000 reactor baffle cooling is presented. First, an analytical model was developed to obtain boundary conditions (BCs) and simplify CFD analysis. Second, the CFD analysis was performed using 60 deg symmetry, which included core, baffle, and core barrel, and it is limited by the height of the baffle. Core is simplified as an equivalent coolant domain with considering of spatial volumetric energy release. Core baffle is presented as monolithic body with considering of gamma-ray heat generation. Model includes cooling ribs and simplified geometry of connecting studs, with cooling flow of the coolant through the nuts grooves. Calculated convection coefficient and temperature are in good agreement with analytical model and give a more accurate result comparing to RELAP5/mod3.2. Obtained temperature field was used to estimate baffle swelling process and justify safe long term operation of the reactor internals.

References

1.
Böttcher
,
M.
, and
Krüßmann
,
R.
,
2010
, “
Primary Loop Study of a VVER-1000 Reactor With Special Focus on Coolant Mixing
,”
Nucl. Eng. Des.
,
240
(
9
), pp.
2244
2253
.10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.02.044
2.
Bieder
,
U.
,
Fauchet
,
G.
,
Betin
,
S.
,
Kolev
,
N.
, and
Popov
,
D.
,
2007
, “
Simulation of Mixing Effects in a VVER-1000 Reactor
,”
Nucl. Eng. Des.
,
237
(
15–17
), pp.
1718
1728
.10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.02.015
3.
Spasov
,
I.
,
Mitkov
,
S.
,
Kolev
,
N. P.
,
Sanchez-Cervera
,
S.
,
Garcia-Herranz
,
N.
,
Sabater
,
A.
,
Cuervo
,
D.
,
Jimenez
,
J.
,
Sanchez
,
V. H.
, and
Vyskocil
,
L.
,
2017
, “
Best-Estimate Simulation of a VVER MSLB Core Transient Using the NURESIM Platform Codes
,”
Nucl. Eng. Des.
,
321
, pp.
26
37
.10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.03.032
4.
Chen
,
R.
,
Tian
,
M.
,
Chen
,
S.
,
Tian
,
W.
,
Su
,
G. H.
, and
Qiu
,
S.
,
2017
, “
Three Dimensional Thermal Hydraulic Characteristic Analysis of Reactor Core Based on Porous Media Method
,”
Ann. Nucl. Energy
,
104
, pp.
178
190
.10.1016/j.anucene.2017.02.020
5.
Péniguel
,
C.
,
Rupp
,
I.
,
Lingneau
,
N.
,
Tommy-Martin
,
M.
,
Beloeil
,
L.
, and
Lemaire
,
E.
,
2006
, “
Thermal Analysis of a PWR Core Internal Baffle Structure
,”
ASME
Paper No. PVP2006-ICPVT-11-93299. 10.1115/PVP2006-ICPVT-11-93299
6.
Filonova
,
Y.
,
Filonov
,
V.
, and
Dubyk
,
Y.
,
2018
, “
Reactor Baffle Cooling CFD Framework for Swelling  Assessment
,”
ASME
Paper No. ICONE26-82365.10.1115/ICONE26-82365
7.
Vasina
,
N. K.
,
Margolin
,
B. Z.
,
Gulenko
,
A. G.
, and
Kursevich
,
I. P.
,
2006
, “
Radiation Swelling of Austenitic Steels: The Effect of Various Factors. Processing of Experimental Data and Formulation of Basic Equations
,”
Probl. Mater. Sci.
,
4
(
48
), pp.
69
89
(in Russian)
8.
IAEA,
2013
,
VERLIFE: Unified Procedure for Lifetime Assessment of Components and Piping in WWER NPPs During Operation
,” IAEA, Vienna, Austria. 
9.
Ushakov
,
P. A.
,
Zhukov
,
A. V.
, and
Titov
,
P. A.
,
1974
, “
Generalization of Experimental Data on Heat Transfer to Water in Chess Beams of Rods
,” Preprint FEI Publ., Obninsk, USSR, p. 526 (in Russian). 
10.
Kirillov
,
P. L.
, and
Bogoslovskaya
,
G. P.
,
2000
, “Heat and Mass Transfer in Nuclear Power Plants,”
Energoatomizdat Publ
,
Moscow, Russia
, p.
446
(in Russian).
11.
Dement'ev
,
B. A.
,
1990
,
Nuclear Power Reactors
,
Energoatomizdat Publ
,
Moscow, Russia
, p.
351
(in Russian).
12.
Idel'chik
,
I. E.
,
1992
,
Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance
,
Mashinostroenie Publ
,
Moscow, Russia
(in Russian).
13.
OKB Gidropress
,
1979
, “
Reactor Facility. Thermal Hydraulic Calculation. Steady State Regimes. В-320. 320.00.00.00.000
,” OKB Gidropress, Podolsk, Russia.
14.
Davoudabadi
,
P.
,
2012
, “
The Most Accurate and Advanced Turbulence Capabilities
,”
Confidence by Design Workshop
,
Chicago, IL
, June 14, p. 47.https://support.ansys.com/staticassets/ANSYS/Conference/Confidence/Chicago/Downloads/most-accurate-advanced-turbulence-capabilities.pdf
15.
ANSYS, Inc
., 2017, “ANSYS CFX-Solver Theory Guide. Release 18.0,” ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA.
16.
Menter
,
F.
,
2002
, “
CFD Best Practice Guidelines for CFD Code Validation for Reactor-Safety Applications
,” 5th EURATOM Framework Programme, European Commission, Aix-en-Provence, France, Report No. EVOL-ECORA-D01.
You do not currently have access to this content.