Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “reactor type”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types, such as light- and heavy-water-moderated reactors, graphite-moderated reactors, and breeder reactors, with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and condition of SNF, a robust canister termed the DOE Standardized SNF Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard SNF Canister had four variations consisting of a 10- or 15-foot length and an 18- or 24-inch diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository these canisters were to be grouped with 24-inch diameter HLW canisters in a codisposal waste package. The 18-inch DOE Standardized SNF Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The 24-inch DOE Standardized SNF Canister would take the place of one the five HLW canister on the outer ring in the codisposal waste package. No DOE Standardized SNF Canisters have been loaded, and many fuel types can be loaded in multiple canisters. Depending on the selected diameter of the DOE Standardized SNF Canister for a particular fuel, the number of potential codisposal waste packages could vary. In addition, different types of DOE SNF may be able to be combined in a single canister. This could significantly change the number of DOE SNF canisters that are loaded and result in a decrease of the number of total potential codisposal waste packages. Ultimately, if too many HLW canisters need disposition, then a reduction in the number of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters will change the final total of codisposal waste packages very little. Likewise, if the ratio of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters to HLW canister produced is too high, then DOE Standardized SNF Canisters will not have enough HLW canisters to surround them in the codisposal waste package. This paper examines the results of differing loading strategies for a few DOE SNFs. It also compares the ranges of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters that may be produced to the ranges of HLW canisters that may be produced in order to determine potential scenarios.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Modeling and Simulation Supporting Material Control and Accounting for Advanced Reactors: Task 2: Safeguards Modeling and Simulation Assessment

Commercial interest in advanced reactors for power production in the United States is increasing. A variety of advanced reactor designs are being developed, and many of them use non-traditional fuel forms. Therefore, the material control and accounting (MC&A) methods that will be required for these advanced reactor systems also need to be developed to ensure that the necessary safeguards are implemented. To provide information that can be leveraged to explore different MC&A approaches, three representative advanced reactor types were evaluated from a technical safeguards perspective. These reactor designs were selected to encompass common materials and configurations that could affect safeguards considerations. The three designs evaluated were a molten salt reactor (MSR), a gas-cooled reactor (GCR), and a heat pipe-cooled microreactor.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW PPT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Co-Disposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW - 20331

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

SAM Enhancements and Model Developments for Molten-Salt-Fueled Reactors

To support the development and utilization of the SAM code for molten-salt-fueled reactor (MSR) safety analysis and licensing, an effort was devoted to enhancing code capabilities and developing reference models for the MSR primary loop. A reference standard problem of a prototypical reactor design is foundational to NRC to verify the adequacy of computer codes and evaluation models for a specific reactor type. A thermo-fluid model of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) has been developed. The MSRE primary loop model consists of a 2-D core region and external core components in 1-D or 0-D. Both the steady-state and a transient scenario are simulated. The porous medium model is utilized for both the molten salt fluid channels and the moderator matrix in the MSRE core. The use of the porous medium model for the MSRE core is verified with the higher-fidelity simulation results using 1-D representations of the fluid channels and 3-D modeling of core structures. To further enhance SAM multi-scale simulation capabilities for MSRs, a mass transport model is developed and implemented in SAM multi-dimension flow module for modeling of species transport such as delayed neutron precursors in MSRs.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Assessing the Impact of Effective Thermal Conductivity on Gas-cooled Reactor Transients in RELAP5-3D

High-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) are a relatively mature advanced reactor concept that are of interest to industry and government for near-term deployment. These systems feature passive safety through low power density, coated particle fuels, and large graphite volumes that lead to slow heatup. In loss of flow transients, cooldown is achieved through conduction and radiation heat transfer. In prismatic block-type reactors, such as the mHTGR-350, the presence of coolant holes and fuel compacts alters the flow of heat through the blocks. To capture this effect in systems codes like RELAP5-3D, relationships for effective thermal conductivity (ETC) must be used to appropriately degrade the thermal conductivity. This work presents an assessment of the impact of ETC on performance of block-type gas-cooled reactors in a pressurized conduction cooldown (PCC) and depressurized conduction cooldown (DCC) transients. Models for PCC and DCC with bulk material thermal conductivity and ETC were run for both the mHTGR-350 and the High-Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) to determine the impact of ETC on transient performance.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Functional Requirements for the Modeling and Simulation of Advanced (Non-LWR) Reactor Mechanistic Source Term

A number of industry vendors are leading a resurgence in advanced reactor development. As the assurance of public safety from the accidental release of radionuclides to the environment is central to regulatory licensing and the reactor design process, the development of a mechanistic source term (MST) assessment has been identified by the advanced reactor industry as a foremost priority. In contrast to historic light-water reactor (LWR) source term analysis efforts, an MST attempts to realistically model the release and transport of radionuclides from the source to the environment for specific scenarios, while accounting for retention or transmutation phenomena and associated uncertainties. This work seeks to aid in the development of MST modeling and simulation tools by performing a preliminary identification of functional requirements for the major advanced reactor types.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Updated SAM Model for the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE)

The development of reference standard problems based on prototypical reactor designs is of particular importance to verify the adequacy of computer codes and evaluation models for specific reactor types. To support the multiphysics coupled simulation of molten-salt-fueled reactor (MSR) using SAM and Griffin computer codes for safety and licensing analysis, much efforts have been put into enhancing code capabilities and developing reference models for the MSR primary loop in SAM. In this work, a previously developed Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) primary loop model was updated to include a two-dimensional (2-D) core region and external core components in one-dimension (1-D) or zero-dimension (0-D). To ensure accurate feedback calculation in multi-physics simulations, the delayed neutron precursor tracking model and solid graphite model were added in the SAM model. In addition, the 2-D and 1-D domains are tightly coupled using the recently developed single-solve approach in SAM. The updated model has been tested under both steady-state and transient scenarios to demonstrate its potential for the multi-physics simulation of MSRE with coupled SAM and Griffin.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Pros and Cons Analysis of HALEU Utilization in Example Fuel Cycles

The Systems Analysis and Integration campaign assessed the pros and cons of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) utilization in advanced reactors and associated fuel cycles. The assessment was done for three example fuel cycles at equilibrium states: once-through, limited recycle, and continuous recycle (CR) starting with HALEU. Front- and back-end fuel cycle parameters and the Levelized Cost of Fuel (LCF), which is the Levelized Cost of Electricity excluding reactor cost, of the three example fuel cycles were calculated using a single Analysis Example Reactor. The pros and cons of HALEU utilization were assessed by normalizing the fuel cycle parameters and LCF to a unit of electricity generation (GWe-year) and comparing them with a Basis of Comparison. In this study, a sodium-cooled reactor with sodium-bonded metallic fuel having a burnup of ~100 GWd/t was used as the Analysis Example Reactor because its technology readiness level is high, and the burnup and fuel enrichment are in the middle of those ranges of advanced reactor concepts that are under development. The current once-through Light Water Reactors (OT-LWRs) with <5% low-enriched uranium and 50 GWd/t burnup were used as the Basis of Comparison. In addition, a series of sensitivity analyses was conducted by varying burnup, enrichment, fuel forms, and reactor types to capture the design variations in two once-through Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) reactors, Natrium with sodium-free metallic fuel having a burnup of ~150 GW/t and Xe-100 with Tristructural-Isotropic (TRISO) pebble fuel having a burnup of ~168 GWd/t.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Coupled SAM/Griffin Model of a Reference Pebble Bed High-Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor for Multi-Physics Simulations

An effort has been dedicated to developing a reference model for multi-physics coupled simulation of the pebble bed high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (PB-HTGR) with SAM and Griffin computer codes for safety analysis and licensing purpose. The reference problem of a prototypical reactor design serves as the foundation for the U.S. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to verify the adequacy of computer codes and evaluation models for specific reactor types. In this work, a SAM model of the HTR-PM reactor has been developed based on publicly available design information and the multi-dimensional Pronghorn model developed by Idaho National Laboratory. The SAM HTR-PM model includes a multi-dimensional core region and 0- D/1-D fluid components. Additionally, a simplified air RCCS loop is modeled for decay heat removal. The Griffin model is based on a recent work by Idaho National Laboratory. The coupling between the models is achieved through the MOOSE MultiApp system. Both steady-state and transient scenarios were simulated to demonstrate the coupled model’s capability for multi-physics simulations.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Data-driven approach to Core Power distribution reconstruction in a Nuclear Reactor

This report presents the initial development of a data-driven approach for reconstructing the core power distribution in a nuclear reactor (power shape synthesis) using ex-core sensors. Traditional techniques rely on deploying a large number of detectors throughout the reactor core. However, this approach is not feasible for innovative reactor concepts like Advanced Reactors and Microreactors. First, the tight lattice pitch, designed to maximize power density, limits the space available for sensors. Secondly, the harsh operating conditions are not compatible with commercially available detectors. The method proposed in this work integrates high-fidelity modeling with data-driven techniques to accurately reconstruct power distribution across various reactor types, thereby reducing the reliance on in-core sensors. Purdue University Reactor One (PUR-1) was selected as the test case. The CAD model representing the latest configuration of the PUR-1 core was imported into the OpenMC simulation framework, and the model was built. Additionally, the previously developed MCNP6 model was updated. The two models were assessed against the data collected during an experimental campaign conducted in July 2024. Thirty gold foils were placed in three Irradiation Assemblies in PUR-1 core. Using the measured activity of the irradiated foils, the neutron flux at different core locations was estimated.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Development Plan for Ultrasonic Pressure Sensors [Slides]

Current light water reactors (LWRs) utilize differential pressure cells, based on strain gauges, which are remotely located from the reactor vessel via impulse lines. These pressure sensors are used to measure liquid level within the vessel and to give a general indication of system health with regard to leaks and flow system fouling. The advanced reactor types currently under development generally operate at higher temperatures than light-water reactors and utilize coolants that may be highly corrosive (i.e., liquid metals). They will use pressure measurements for varied measurands, such as level and flow rate, as well as indications of accident conditions or off-normal operating conditions. More robust pressure sensors are needed to address these more challenging conditions.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2024

Meta-Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Cost Estimations

Supporting Data can be downloaded at: https://gain.inl.gov/content/uploads/4/2024/06/INL-RPT-24-77048-R1.xlsx Nuclear energy is a critical cornerstone of the current United States clean energy supply and may play a larger role in the future in support of a transition to a net-zero economy. The current fleet of nuclear reactors predominantly consists of large light-water reactors (LWRs), while many of the reactor designs under consideration are smaller and/or different technologies. Because these new designs have not yet been built, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with their cost. This complicates energy-planning efforts because cost projections are not always standardized, consistent, and centralized in an easily accessible location. To help support energy planning in the US, this report provides advanced nuclear cost ranges using a transparent methodology along with other relevant information that can be used to help support decision making and energy planning. The purpose of this work was to conduct a methodical process for cost evaluation using only public information that was vetted with the end-goal to provide reference cost projections for nuclear energy. To provide a solid basis for these values, the approach and assumptions are explicitly laid out throughout the report allowing any user of the data to challenge or reconsider them. Because future US nuclear-reactor costs are still unknown due to little recent observed data, the report opted to compile a comprehensive list of bottom-up estimates and evaluate averages/trends within the data to identify reference ranges. This was deemed preferable to opining on the robustness or validity of one cost estimation versus another. To that end, the work evaluated thousands of lines of cost subaccounts from several bottom-up cost estimates. A wide variety of different reactor types captured in the data are of various sizes and technologies. Some of these reactors will be representative of advanced reactors under development while others will not. Thus, the results here are dependent on the data that are available and the accuracy of the estimates that are used. Each bottom-up estimate was reviewed to determine whether it was complete. Incomplete data sets were corrected to ensure an adequate basis of cross-comparison. The report is not without limitations and should be interpreted as an initial step to develop cost ranges for nuclear technology. Ultimately, future work can build upon the methodology with refined cost estimates to reduce uncertainty. US-based overnight capital cost (OCC) estimates were compiled from extensive data sets into ranges for both large and small reactor sizes for 2030. To project the cost declines over time, learning rates were sampled from literature sources. No SMRs were previously built; hence, learning rates based on bottom-up approaches (e.g., by quantifying the impact stemming from fabrication of different components, modular work, site construction, commissioning) were prioritized. For larger reactors, actual learning rates from deployments were used to project future costs (adjusted to account for standardization or lack thereof between designs). Other costs included are fixed and variable operations and maintenance costs. The final variables were capacity factors and ramp rates to support energy planning.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI1992

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 4, October-December 1992]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 499 Technical Note: Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Examination Question Bank System, C. L Jensen and N. L. Skinner; 506 Report on the Specialists’ Meeting on Passive and Active Safety Features of Liquid-Metal Fast Breeder Reactors Organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency at Oarai Engineering Centre of Power Reactor and Nuclear Development Corporation, Japan, November 5-7,1991, S. R. Paranjpe; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 514 A Review of Hydrogen Production During Melt/Water Interaction in LWRs, D. F. Fletcher, B. D. Turland, and S. P. A. Lawrence; 535 A Review of the U 3 0 8 -Al Reaction as a Potential Heat Source in Research and Test Reactor Accidents, J. L. Snelgrove; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 543 Multilevel Interfaces for Power Plant Control Rooms II: A Preliminary Design Space, K. J. Vicente; DESIGN FEATURES: 549 Twenty-Second DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First; 562 Book Review: Safety Assessment of Unit 5 (WWER-440/W-213) of the Greifswald Nuclear Power Station, M. H. Fontana; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 576 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 586 Analysis of Corrective Actions Applied to Nuclear Power Plant Operations, A. E. Cross; 593 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 596 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 609 Non-Commercial Power Operating Experience; 614 World Nuclear Performance, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 623 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 635 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 639 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1992; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 513 Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Waste Management RECOD '94; 585 International Topical Meeting on Advanced Reactors Safety; 622 International Workshop on Implementation of ALARA at Nuclear Power Plants; 648 Short Course on Nuclear Criticality Safety; 648 8th Topical Meeting on Problems in Reactor Physics MEPhi-VOLGA-93; 643 The Authors; 646 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 33

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Electrocatalytic Hydrogenation of Biomass-Derived Organics: A review

Sustainable energy generation calls for a shift away from centralized, high-temperature, energy-intensive processes to decentralized, low-temperature conversions that can be powered by electricity produced from renewable sources. Electrocatalytic conversion of biomass-derived feedstocks would allow carbon recycling of distributed, energy-poor resources in the absence of sinks and sources of high-grade heat. Selective, efficient electrocatalysts that operate at low temperatures are needed for electrocatalytic hydrogenation (ECH) to upgrade the feedstocks. For effective generation of energy-dense chemicals and fuels, two design criteria must be met: (i) a high H:C ratio via ECH to allow for high-quality fuels and blends, and (ii) a lower O:C ratio in the target molecules via electrochemical decarboxylation/deoxygenation to improve the stability of fuels and chemicals. The goal of this review is to determine whether the following questions have been sufficiently answered in open literature, and if not, what additional information is required: (1) What organic functionalities are accessible for electrocatalytic hydrogenation under a set of reaction conditions? How do substitutions and functionalities impact the activity and selectivity of ECH? (2) What material properties cause an electrocatalyst to be active for ECH? Can general trends in ECH be formulated based on the type of electrocatalyst? (3) What is the impact of reaction (electrolyte concentration, pH, operating potential) and reactor type conditions?

Catalysts, redox reactions, hydrocarbons, Aromatic↗
DOE OSTI2024

Radiation characterization summary of the NETL beam port 1/5 free-field environment at the 128-inch core centerline adjacent location

The characterization of the neutron, prompt gamma-ray, and delayed gamma-ray radiation fields in the University of Texas at Austin Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory (NETL) TRIGA reactor for the beam port (BP) 1/5 free-field environment at the 128-inch location adjacent to the core centerline has been accomplished. NETL is being explored as an auxiliary neutron test facility for the Sandia National Laboratories radiation effects sciences research and development campaigns. The NETL reactor is a TRIGA Mark-II pulse and steady-state, above-ground pool-type reactor. NETL is intended as a university research reactor typically used to perform irradiation experiments for students and customers, radioisotope production, as well as a training reactor. Initial criticality of the NETL TRIGA reactor was achieved on March 12, 1992, making it one of the newest test reactor facilities in the US. The neutron energy spectra, uncertainties, and covariance matrices are presented as well as a neutron fluence map of the experiment area of the cavity. For an unmoderated condition, the neutron fluence at the center of BP 1/5, at the adjacent core axial centerline, is about 8.2×10 12 n/cm 2 per MJ of reactor energy. About 67% of the neutron fluence is below 1 keV and 22% above 100 keV. The 1-MeV Damage-Equivalent Silicon (DES) fluence is roughly 1.6×10 12 n/cm 2 per MJ of reactor energy.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2022

Comparative Structural Rigidity Analysis of the NBSR DDE and the NBSR LEU Fuel Element

The National Bureau of Standards Reactor (NBSR) is a 20-MW heavy-water moderated and cooled, enriched-fuel, tank-type reactor located in the NIST Center for Neutron Research laboratory complex. NBSR is one of six U.S. high performance research reactors (USHPRR), including one critical facility, that actively collaborates with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Material Management and Minimization (M3) Reactor Conversion Program to convert from the use of highly enriched uranium fuel to the use of low-enriched uranium (LEU, < 20 wt% U-235) fuel. On the LEU U-10Mo fuel qualification side, mini-plate and large-plate irradiations have been successfully performed, and more experiments are either ongoing or planned. As an additional experimental campaign to support licensing of the LEU fuel for the use in the NBSR, the NBSR Design Demonstration Element (DDE) will be a full-sized test element similar to the NBSR LEU fuel element and irradiated in a test reactor under conditions as prototypic of the NBSR LEU fuel element operating conditions as possible.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Numerical Simulation and Experimental Comparison of System Analysis Module 1D Mixing Model for Cold Shock Transients in the Gallium Thermal-Hydraulic Mixing Facility

Abstract Liquid metals are being investigated as coolants in many advanced reactor designs because of their high thermal conductivity and effectiveness at high temperatures. However, they often pose challenges to reactor operation and safety because of the complex thermal mixing and stratification in the plenum of pool-type reactor designs. The advanced system analysis code System Analysis Module (SAM) currently under development at Argonne National Laboratory aims to develop and implement thermal mixing models to accurately capture these complex thermal fluid behaviors. In this study, the SAM thermal mixing model was compared against experimental data from the Gallium Thermal-Hydraulic Experiment facility, a scaled liquid metal test facility that uses gallium as a surrogate fluid to investigate the stratification and thermal mixing of low-Prandtl-number fluids in the upper plenum of a liquid metal-cooled reactor. Two cold shock transient cases were used: one with stable stratified flow (Ri = 32) and one with stronger thermal mixing (Ri = 0.5). The resultant temperatures were then compared with the experimental temperatures over the entire plenum to assess the ability of the mixing models to capture the thermal behavior and to better correspond mixing parameters to various flow scenarios. Generally, the zero-dimensional mixing model was more capable of capturing the bulk temperature of the component modeled assuming that an accurate mass flow rate was provided, but it was inherently unable to capture thermal gradients in space. The one-dimensional mixing model was capable of capturing that the thermal gradients provided accurate selection of the mixing coefficients. Further, the temperature at the outlet junction was compared over time for each of the mixing models with the recorded experimental temperature. The implemented mixing models demonstrated the ability to effectively capture the overall thermal behavior for stronger mixing scenarios but struggled with more stably stratified flows. It was found that a system analysis code's covering of the entire range of different operating conditions still remains a challenging task, and it is suggested that further model and closure improvements are necessary to accurately capture complex thermal mixing and stratification phenomena.

stratification↗