galileo fuel rod performance code and methodology for bwrs ... · " galileo was calibrated to...
Post on 25-Aug-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
M-- -mný M-
GALILEO Fuel Rod PerformanceCode and Methodology forBWRs and PWRs
loan ArimescuPhilippe BellangerChristophe Garnier
Jerry HolmHorst LandskronPierre Mailhe A
AREVA
Agenda
lo Objectives
Oo Introduction
Po GALILEO - Selected Topics* Thermal Conductivity Degradation (TCD) with Burnup* Fission Gas Release (FGR)* Gaseous Swelling and Advanced Mechanical Models* Crud, Corrosion and Hydrogen Pickup
0- GALILEO MOX* Fuel Modeling* Non-Proliferation (NP) vs. Reactor Grade (RG)* Applicability to Dry Conversion Process" Impact on Margin
Oo Summary0. Next steps
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 2 AR EVA
M M 11 M 60 W -= M -M - -M nMM
so M - m - m, - M so some=
Meeting Objectives W
lo-Present a summary of the GALILEO topicalreport
OoPresent in depth a sub-set of key topicsK Models applicable to both U0 2 (with and without
gadolinium) and MOX
* MOX key models and considerations
OoDiscuss the NRC review and approvalprocess for the GALILEO topical report
K Goal is an SER by December 31, 2015
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 3 AR EVA
GALILEO Topical ReportObjectives
Oo Produce state-of-the-art design code and methodsto license AREVA fuel
* Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) and Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)* All AREVA cladding and fuel types4 Address all observed phenomena, including fuel thermal
conductivity reduction with burnup* Code backed by extensive calibration and validation database* Statistical methodology
lo Replace legacy codes RODEX2/2A, TACO3,GDTACO
* Incorporate modern fuel thermal conductivity models* Add hydrogen models to address future NRC changes to loss of
coolant accident (LOCA) and control rod ejection criteria
Oo Provide a means to transition to a single fuelperformance code
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 4 AR EVA
-NMO-M eU OW " Mm M mo M -
M" Ps am - m - l no - 1 MW 0 -m -o I s ofam up
Requirements and Capabilities
Po Criteria to be evaluated (NUREG-0800, Section 4.2)K Fuel temperature for anticipated operational occurrences
(AOOs)K Cladding transient strain (AOOs)K Rod internal pressureK Cladding corrosionK> Cladding hydrogen uptaket> Cladding collapset> Cladding fatigue
Po LOCA criteriaK GALILEO will be used to generate LOCA initialization dataK Implementation in LOCA methodology will be addressed in
separate topical reports A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 5 AR EVA
Proprietary Meeting
This concludes the public portion of AREVA's presentation.
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 6 AR EVA
-f OW 66 -0 =- 000 Am w **- w I" to M - - -- i-i
-M A WE Wk W M) W M. -M 1M
Requirements and CapabilitiesAOO Criteria
OP Fuel temperature
K Calculated maximum fuel temperature shall remain lessthan the fuel melt temperature
K Lower bound melting temperature includes effect ofgadolinia, Pu content of MOX, and is a function of exposure
Oo Cladding transient strain
* Transient-induced tangential outside diameter (OD) strain,elastic + plastic, excluding irradiation growth and steady-state creep down, shall not exceed 1%
* Hydrogen limits established to preserve adequate ductilityat higher exposures
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 7 AREVA
Requirements and CapabilitiesNormal Operation Criteria
N Rod internal pressure* Rod internal pressure limited to prevent unstable increase in the pellet-clad gap, i.e.,
the outward cladding creep shall not exceed fuel swelling rate* To avoid hydride reorientation, rod pressure is restricted to:
*<C
Oo Cladding oxidation, hydriding, and crud buildup+ Calculated oxidation shall be less than:
-[
+ Hydrogen shall be less than:o[
+ The thermal effect of crud is taken into account
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 8 AR EVA
A= am M wea N is11. M is U M I
- - , m Iwe mtw W mM o N O
Requirements and CapabilitiesNormal Operation Criteria
01 Cladding cyclic fatigue0 Cladding fatigue usage factor shall not exceed 1.0. The fatigue design
curve (O'Donnell & Langer) includes a factor of safety of either 2 onstress, or a factor of 20 on the number of cycles, whichever is moreconservative
0. Cladding creep collapse
K Axial gap formation [] to provide adequate support to the cladding (RODEX4
methodology)
*If greater than[ ]toshow the following sub-criteria are satisfied (CROV methodology):
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 9 AR EVA
Requirements and CapabilitiesNormal Operation Criteria
Oo Hydrogen uptake criterion for Zry-2 cladding
* Hydrogen uptake model developed for RODEX4
* RAI response with model submitted in November 2013
* The GALILEO topical report refers to the separate submittal
* AREVA plans to update GALILEO topical report to includethis model following NRC approval for use in RODEX4
* This allows for a single model9 Review of implementation in GALILEO will be required
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 10 AR EVA
s 0 o m -M " M W M No m - mM M, 4" ,
N" mM m M m" M " M M am W =- -
Requirements and CapabilitiesStatistical Methodology
lo Follows the same statistical methodology described inBAW-10247PA for RODEX4
" GALILEO was calibrated to provide a best-estimate response with aminimum of bias and no significant local bias over the range ofapplicability
" Fuel rods (power histories) and uncertainties are sampled andpropagated through the code using known statistical variances of theinput variables
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 11 AR EVA
Requirements and CapabilitiesReactor Operations Scenarios
lo Normal Operation
* Analysis is made separately for each reload (batch) of fuelin the core
e Power histories for the reload are calculated using current neutronic coresimulator codes for BWRs and PWRs
* BWR and PWR normal operations scenarios are evaluatedin a very similar manner
2A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 12 AR EVA
m m m w m= M o•-m M m "=I" m M ýý M M
mm urn mm - mm - mm - -
Requirements and CapabilitiesReactor Operations Scenarios
lo-AOOs
) Effort was made to consolidate BWR and PWR methods tothe extent feasible - some differences continue to exist
" BWRs and PWRs use different methods for power monitoring, and the fuelrod power limits are not defined in the same way
" Historical differences exist in the treatment of strain between BWRs andPWRs
K The BWR AOO method with GALILEO was derived from theRODEX4 methodology
* The same types of transients are evaluated, and GALILEO was substitutedfor RODEX4
0 The PWR AOO method is based on the COPERNICmethodology
* The PWR AOO methodology accounts for uncertainties, as with theRODEX4 methodology
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 13 AR EVA
Requirements and CapabilitiesReactor Operations Scenarios
Po Evaluation of AOOs+ For BWRs, slow transients are embedded in the steady-state
power histories for the evaluation of the transient strain criteria(cladding strain and fuel melt). Additionally, the transients areincluded to account for their effect on rod internal pressure.
+ For PWRs, transient power spikes are included in the steady-state power histories only for their effect on rod pressure. Thetransient strain criteria for PWRs are evaluated separately fromthe power history analysis.
+ Compared to the COPERNIC methodology, uncertainties aretaken into account in the analysis of AQOs for PWRs, as well asof BWRs.
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 14 AR EVA
=M " =a NO M M M M
m m I"- m M Mmm- M M lm m m
Requirements and CapabilitiesReactor Operations Scenarios
Po Evaluation of AOOs (continued)<>A separate analysis is performed using GALILEO on the hot
node to determine an allowable overpower factor based on themaximum allowed cladding strain and fuel temperature. Thismethod is used for BWR slow transients and PWR transients.
" The overpower factor result is used in conjunction with an approvedPWR systems transient code to evaluate setpoint limits to protect thetransient criteria.
* The overpower factor result is used for BWRs to establish flow-dependent LHGR multipliers that protect the transient criteria for slowtransients.
0 For BWR fast transients, the power excursions calculated froman approved reactor system transient code (e.g., COTRANSA2)are evaluated by GALILEO for cladding strain and fueltemperature. Linear heat generation rate (LHGR) multipliers areestablished as a function of power to protect the transientcriteria.
15 AREVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Requirements and CapabilitiesGALILEO Fuel Rod Code
IUTF
Rod Characteristics
Pellet & Cladding Geometry
Material
PUT DATAIrradiation Conditions
Thermal.Hydraulic Conditions
Power Histories
Pellet and CladdingThermilcs
Cla Corrosion
BAI aLEO Lt and Cladding FRlselonsG
Mechanics Helium Bala
U ~1
1711FFPelle
OUTPUT RESULTS
Fuel and Clad Temperatures
Fuel and Clad Stresses and Strains
Outer Zirconia Thickness and Hydrogen Content
Fission Gas Release and Helium Balance
Rod Internal Pressure- A16AREVA2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M M M " M M " M M M M = 3-0 M 111111110 M M
M M M M M mM M W - M IM M -- an
Requirements and CapabilitiesGALILEO Highlights
Po A single code for both BWR and PWR
< Cladding models include Zry-4, M5®, and Zry-2, stress-relief (SR) annealedand recrystallized (RX) annealed
Po Some models adapted from RODEX4, COPERNIC and CARO-E3,as part of a best practice effort
Oo New models and model improvements based on research anddevelopment programs
GALILEO incorporates modern technology and best practices.
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 17 AR EVA
Requirements and CapabilitiesGALILEO Highlights
Model Comes from: New features___________ ~~~~~RODEX4 COP2 CARO-E _______________________
Fuel Pellet Radial Power Profile Y Use of the sophisticated pin cell code CIRTHE and interpolationFtechniques
Coolant model Y Y Y IAPWS-IF97 tables for water and steam
New contact conductance modelPellet-cladding gap conductance YInterac soothng model
Interface smoothing model
THERMAL (Lucuta's Kinetic radiation damageFuel Thermal conductivity radiationFuel T c idamagie) Improved conductivity modeling at high temperature (Fink correlation)
Rim model Partly Temperature thresholdImpact on density and pellet strain
Pellet relocation Partly
High burnup release enhancement model considering Xe concentrationFission Gas Release Partly Partly limit and bubble interlinkage
Grain growth
GAS Helium models He producion and release modeling for MOX fuel (from CEA)
Contribution of a fraction of the gaseous porosity to the open porosityRod free volume and inner pressure (open porosity) Y Lwrpeu eprtr orltoLower plenum temperature correlation
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 18 AR EVA
M M " M = -0 M M M m M m -- 7
m -mm MM-m .... m = m• m m - m
Requirements and CapabilitiesGALILEO Highlights
-- - - I - I
Model Comes from:Comes from: New features
RODEX4 COP2 CARO-EDensification Y
Solid-Swelling YGaseous Swelling Partly _AREVA model
PELLETSTRAIN Fuel creep CEA modelSTRAINS
Pellet Relocation YPellet cracking YGLOVD New AREVA modelZr4 low stress creep YZr4 high stress creep YZr4 plastic strain Y
Zr4 free growth Partly New AREVA model after contact
CLAD STRAINS M5 low stress creep Partly Creep anisotropy modelingM5 high stress creep Y
M5 plastic strain Y
M5 free growth New AREVA modelSR and RX Zr2 creep Partly Creep anisotropy modelingSR and RX Zr2 free growth PartlyHourglassing model Partly Improved RODEX4 modelClad shell model new AREVA model
MULTI- Cladding ridging Partly Improved RODEX4 modelDIMENSIONAL _________
MODELS Cladding ovality YCROVINC (CROV)Dish filling Partly Improved RODEX4 model
Zr4 corrosion YZr4 H2 pick-up model Y
CORROSION M5 corrosion YM5 H2 pick-up model _New AREVA model
Zr2 corrosion Y A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 19
AW-1k
AREVA
Database Highlights *lo Database is composed of 1439 fuel rods selected from
over 2000 rods covering high burnups (>75 GWD/MTU)and high duty plants (>35 kW/m)
lo PWR vs. BWR
lo Rod Type Breakdown
Po Test reactor vs. commercial reactor data
>> Extensive and balanced validation database2014 June 2 4th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
A2o AR EVA
MW-rM- M M =-10 - om we - mso M M M 2-ý
M arm M wk M m w M -4www MMwM MM
Ranges of Applicability
Fuel types U0 2, U0 2-Gd 2O3 and MOX (NP andRG)
Cladding types Zircaloy-4, M5®, Zircaloy-2 (SR andRX)
Fuel rod burnup (all fuel types) Up to 62 GWd/tM for full-length rodand equivalent for part-length rods
A21 AREVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 2 R V
GALILEO - Selected Topics
OoThermal Conductivity Degradation
lo Fission Gas Release
OoAdvanced Pellet Mechanical Models
0o Corrosion and Hydrogen Pickup
2 A22 AR EVA2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
No- - wMýW " -- M -="lf
M lo M M M = am M-o"= w a
Fuel TCDGeneral Background, Phenomenology
A24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 23 AR EVA2014 June;
Fuel TCDU0 2 Model Formulation
Oo Fully dense U0 2 fuel TCD model formulation:
2 A24 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
No= MM M M am M M mu m m M nom M M M " mS
M- -M -M- ~r
Fuel TCDCalibration Methodology
A25 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Fuel TCD IBurnup, Temperature Trends
lo Fully dense (100% TD) U0 2 fuel thermal conductivity modeltrends vs. burnup and temperature:
2 A26 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M m M a•m - mM o M M M M mm
w " M M MN - -w M " M
Fuel TCDCalibration, Validation Results
lo No bias vs. burnup on the calculated fuel temperature upto very high burnup (102 GWd/tM) A
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 27 AR EVA
Fuel TCD
0o Satisfactory UO2 fuel temperature predictions up to veryhigh burnup (102 GWd/tM) ^
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 28 AREVA
mM MWMntom m M " m Moni0
Ma mMn- a aMa M a - a - a - a aI
Fuel TCD
Po Satisfactory U0 2 fuel temperature predictions at high burnup
(62 GWd/tM) for LHGR ranging from 11 to 31 kWIm A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 29 AR EVA
Fuel TCDI[
No Satisfactory U0 2 fuel temperature predictions at highburnup (60 GWd/tM) up to fuel melting
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 30 AR EVA
M m-mm m M m - m m - m - am
= - = U = M M I M M M M w m - M M M
Fuel TCDMixed Fuels (MOX, Gd)U
P Satisfactory fuel temperature predictions vs. burnup formixed fuels (MOX, Gd) A
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 31 AR EVA
Fission Gas Release *Po Short overview about the model and the main release
mechanisms
Po Results* Enhanced release
" Validation
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 32 AR EVA
M M M M -M M M -M M-
= M = M m m -= = = = = = - - = m M
FGRMechanisms: Athermal Release
lo Recoil and knockout of fission gas (FG) atomsthrough free surfaces (cracks, open pores)
lo Temperature independent
Oo Increases with burnup and open porosity
lo Remains low with acceleration at high burnupassociated with the formation of fuel pellet rim.
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 33 AR EVA
FGRMechanisms: Thermal Release (I)
A34 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M M M M M M = = = M = M = = = M = M M
= ----- M M M-
FGR mMechanisms: Thermal Release (11)
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 35 AR EVA
FGRMechanisms: Enhanced Release
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 36 AR EVA
= | Hi M M M M M M M M = = = -= M
=m =Mm== mi== ==M = M M=
FGR*Mechanisms: Additional Remarks
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 37 AREVA
FGRMechanisms: Schematic Overview
I Steady state:]I- -
Transient
Gas escaping thepellet by recoiland knock-out
of atoms
ftlFathermal
Grain matrixswept by
grain boundaries
Fgrain growth
I---------------------------------------------
Diffusion of gas(Steady-stateor Transient)
Gas retained in matrix Gas diffused to(Booth solutions) grain boundaries
(intergranular bubbles)
Gas in Gas retained Saturationbubbles Xe solubility of grain boundary
limit (surface density
threshold)Intedinkage
FthermalFBu Enhancement steady-state I
transient
I---------------------------------------------
Partial openingof
Grain boundaries'
FBurt
--- - - - -
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 38 AR EVA
rn M - Mn--rn-- M M -M Mi M Mn -M M
M -- M-M M -M M M M M M -M -M-
FGREnhanced Release - Results (I)
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 39 AR EVA
FGREnhanced Release - Results (11)
=> Measured EPMA profiles are well reproduced by GALILEO FGR model.
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 40A
NREVA
m = - m - M - -M = M m m - m m m =
M M M M M nM Mn M MM M r M M -MM
FGRValidation
A41 AREVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Advanced Pellet Mechanical Models
ll Gaseous swelling model
00 Dish filling model
Oo Pellet mechanics
lo Original model GLOVD developed for transientconditions (driving clad strain)
Calibration process of the pellet deformationsdiffusion s
]incubation[ Gas ]strain fDish Pellet mechanicsFGR Swelling "LFilling during ramps
I check I
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 42 AR EVA
S= = n= M = = m = M M = = = = =
= m -= = = = = = = = = = = = = -= m
Gaseous Swelling Phenomenology
Oo Gaseous swelling refers to the portion of fuelswelling linked to porosity induced by fissiongases
K Mainly intergranular bubbles
" Does not include nanobubbles (included in solid swelling) atmacroscopical level
Po Closely linked to FGRI Evolution governed by FG diffusion towards bubbles
K Gaseous swelling occurs above the FG incubation threshold
Oo Mitigated by* Strong PCMI (hot pressing)
* Very high temperature (redensification)
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 43 AR EVA
Gaseous Swelling DatabasePp No direct access to measurements of gaseous swelling
A44 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M-m-- - -- -M----- --M M M
- - -- m ------- n-mm-mm-m- m- -
Gaseous SwellingModel Formulation
Oo Gaseous swelling equation rate
A45 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Gaseous SwellingResults
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
46 AR EVA
M M M m M M-mm M M M M M M M M MM
M M M MM - M M -- -- -- M MM
Dish Filling
A47 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Pellet Mechanical Model
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
48 AR EVA
m M - - M - -M - - - -M m M M m
---- rn-rn-- m -. --- - --I - -
Cracking Model
A49 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
The GLOVD Model
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
50 AREVA
M M M m I M M m-m-m- m
- M|----- M M --- M-- - -i
Clad Strain Validation (1/3)
Io Satisfactory results on the whole LID range
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
51 AREVA
Clad Strain Validation (2/3)
l Satisfactory results for all types of fuel rods
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 52 AR EVA
M M no M -m M M M M M M M M M im M M M M
- - M - w M - - M-- - -M M M M - -M
Clad Strain Validation (3/3)
0o Satisfactory results for all types of fuel
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
53 AREVA
Corrosion: Model Basis and Databases
Oo Separate oxidation models for each of the three claddingmaterials: Zry-4 and M5® for PWR and Zry-2 for BWR
]
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 54 AREVA
M M M M-m - -M M M M m m M m M M M
-= - -= n -= -= M M M M M = = = = M=
Low Tin SR Zircaloy-4 CorrosionModel Formulation
A) post-submittal meeting 55 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEe
Low Tin SR Zircaloy-4 CorrosionAccelerated Oxidation Rate at High Exposure
Validation Database - Measured Values
A56 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
m m M M M M M m M M M M M M M M M M M
= M M - W = - M--- M -=m
Low Tin SR Zircaloy-4 CorrosionModel Calibration, Validation
Apost-submittal meeting 57 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEC
Low Tin SR Zircaloy-4 Hydrogen Pick-UpModel Calibration, Validation
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
5a AREVA
- = M m M M -M m M M M M MMM
=-n M -M M -=- M = = = M
Recrystallized M5® CorrosionModel Formulation
Anittal meeting 59 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-subn
Recrystallized M5® CorrosionModel Calibration, Validation
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
6o AR EVA
---- M M=M mm - M to M MI
= M M= ==MmiM =M == wM = M =
Recrystallized M5® Hydrogen Pick-UpModel Formulation
A24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 61 AR EVA2014 June
Recrystallized M5® Hydrogen Pick-UpModel Calibration, Validation
6 A62 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
MMH m - M MI M M m - -
- M m = m mm M m = M m -=
BWR Corrosion, Hydrogen, Crud00.[
]O Modern Zry-2 material has optimized microstructure that
minimizes nodular corrosion, however the lift-off databaseincludes older data points with higher nodular corrosion.
Oo A hydrogen model for Zircaloy-2 has been developed byAREVA separate from the GALILEO code and was submittedto the NRC in Nov. 2013.
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 63 AR EVA
BWR Uniform Corrosion
Oo Model validation, as shown later, is based on [measurements from (9x9) and (10x10) rodsirradiated in various commercial BWRs.
Oo It is applicable to both RXA and CWSR Zry-2claddings.
6 A64 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
= m m M = - m - M m m m -
= = = = M = = M = M M M = = M = = = =
Zircaloy-2 Cladding CorrosionModel Formulation
Atal meeting 65 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submit
BWR Zy-2 Uniform CorrosionValidation
Oo Despite the relativelylarge scatter, which iscommon for corrosionmodeling and which isaccounted for by modelparameter uncertainties,both figures show anoverall balanced result.
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 66 AR EVA
M - M m M M HI M M M -M M M M M M M M
M M M = w M m M m m M M m m m M M
Accounting for Crud in BWRAnalyses If
PopTypical crud layer thickness is part of the lift-off measurements on fuel rods irradiated inboth European and U.S. plants and Zr-2cladding in both CWSR and RXA metallurgicalcondition
0.[
]- A67 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Uniform Oxide and Crud ModelsShow Best-estimate Prediction of
Measured Lift-off Data
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
68 AREVA
= --------- -=i---i -M M
Oxidation and Hydriding: DesignCriteria Background
No Oxidation limits were established by considering wallthickness stress analysis constraints and operatingexperience regarding corrosion-induced failures
Corrosion-related failures not observed up to the established limitsbased on extensive operating experience.
Stress analyses conservatively support the amount of wall thinning atthe oxidation limits. Cyclic fatigue is also considered.
Corrosion limits coincide approximately with the hydrogen limits.
Oxdto liit Hyrgnlmt
Cladin tyePmS
BWR Zry-2 RXA [ ]
PWRM5RXA [ ] [ A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 69 AR EVA
Oxidation and Hydriding: DesignCriteria Background
Po Hydrogen limits
] for normal operation and AQOs, asrequested by NUREG-0800 SRP4.2
* Available mechanical test data were grouped according tometallurgical state - stress-relieved or recrystallized, andenvironmental conditions - unirradiated or irradiated, roomtemperature or elevated temperature.
* Data sources- AREVA mechanical test data on M5 cladding- Test program undertook by AREVA to gain data on RXA Zry-2 cladding: main
results described in AREVA paper 8538 at Topfuel 2013
- NFIR data: consists of SRA and RXA Zry-4 samples
* Most data include information regarding both uniform and total elongation
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 70 AR EVA
- ==M =M ===m ==mm ==
M M m M m M M M M M M M M M M M
Oxidation and Hydriding: DesignCriteria Background
Po Uniform strain, RXA data
0 Sharp reduction in ductility observed as a function of irradiation
A71 AREVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Oxidation and Hydriding: DesignCriteria Background
lo Uniform strain, SRA data
7 A72 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
m M- -m - -M-m -M M M MM m m M -
M--n M M M M M M M M M M nM M M M
Highlights of axial tensile and biaxial testson irradiated RXA Zry-2 cladding
Po Axial tensile tests:" All samples failed by ductile shear with the main fracture surface inclined 450 to the loading
direction
" Necking was noticed in all cases, at a higher degree in the low fast fluence samples, asexpected
" The residual strain to failure varied in the range of 4.3 % (HF and high H uptake) to 14.9 % (LF)
"2 The ultimate tensile strength (UTS) varied from 413 MPa to 714 MPa
lo The results from the hardening and relaxation tests aresummarized as follows:
" A total strain of 1.1% was achieved during the loading
"> At the end of the test after all relaxation steps, a total permanent strain of around 1.5% wasaccumulated
»• Ductility is maintained at the levels requiredby licensing criteria even for this elevatedhydrogen uptake level combined with highirradiation embrittlement
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 73 AR EVA
Hydrogen Uptake Model for Zry-2
Oo Hydrogen uptake criterion for Zry-2 cladding
< Hydrogen uptake model developed based on most recentdata acquired by AREVA and confirmed with non-AREVAdata - AREVA paper accepted at Topfuel 2014
tThe H uptake model was submitted in November 2013 in theframework of RAI response to RODEX4 RXA Supplement
+The GALILEO topical report makes reference to thisseparate submittal
AREVA plans to update GALILEO topical report to includethis model following NRC approval for use in RODEX4
*This allows for a single model* Review of implementation in GALILEO will be required
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 74 AR EVA
S- Mn - n= = = M-- = = = M m
m = = = M M - = = = M m m m - M-- - =
GALILEO MOX
OoModels
0oApplicability to NP MOX
loConversion
Hlmpact on Margin
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
A75 AR EVA
MOX Fuel ModelingIntroduction, Overview
OoAdapted MOX Fuel Models
Oo Specific MOX Fuel Models
Oo Key Material Properties
•[ ]
6 A76 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
= =----- =----- = -M = = m
M- m -m M M M M M M M M M M M M M MM
MOX Fuel Modeling*
A77 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
MOX Fuel ModelingI
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
78 AREVA
M m m =-- M = =m m m m m=m- M m
- - ~ - -- - - ------ - - ---
MOX Fuel Modeling
He balance = He volume after irradiation - Initial He volume (manufacturing)
STP: (00C/32°F - 101 3.25hPa/1 4.6959psi)
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 79 ARIEVA
MOX Fuel ModelingHelium Production Mechanisms (1/2)
lo He production originates from 3 different sources
* a decay of some of the actinides
* (n, a) reactions on 160
* Ternary fissions I Decreasing amount
ao a decay is a continuous process, depending on calendar elapsedtime, whereas (n, a) reactions on 160 and ternary fissions onlyoccur under irradiation
O Only MOX fuel can yield a significant amount of He, depending onthe initial isotopic composition and more particularly on the 241Amcontent (RG vs. NP MOX)
OP He production and by extension He behavior can be neglected forother fuel types (U02, U0 2-Gd2O3) AI.
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 8o AREVA
M- -M- Mm~ MON-
M M M M M M M -m- m -m n= M mM
MOX Fuel ModelingHelium Production Mechanisms (2/2)
AIth - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 81 AR EVA2014 June 24
MOX Fuel ModelingHelium Production Validation
• He production calculations are performed through the PRODHEL V2.2 module (CEA,France) embedded in the GALILEO code
]
N He production calculations have been successfully benchmarked with the ORIGEN-S code (ORNL, US) results [ I
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 82 AR EVA
M M Im M M M-M W W M'= mm M M M M -
= = M - m m - -o mm M M w M - -
MOX Fuel ModelingHelium Release Mechanisms (1/2)
ALEO post-submittal meeting 83 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALl
MOX Fuel ModelingHelium Release Mechanisms (2/2)
A84 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M M M - m M M M w M m m M M M -,M m
= = - m - --= --M -m , M m = M
MOX Fuel ModelingHelium Release Multiscale Model
A E"0 post-submittal meeting
85 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILE
MOX Fuel ModelingHelium Release Model Calibration
6 A86 AREVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M M -m M MW S = = up M o M M g = M M-M
M = -I -I,-II I-II
MOX Fuel ModelingHelium Release Model Validation
A0 post-submittal meeting 87 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILE
MOX Fuel ModelingAdaptation for Helium Transient Release
A88 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M l M M no M m M M M -IM M m M MM
M- m M = M M m mm m M m m M 9 M M, = m
MOX Key Material PropertiesFuel Melting Point (1/2)
Aiittal meeting 89 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-subm
MOX Key Material PropertiesFuel Melting Point (2/2)
Oo Robustness of the MOX fuel melting temperature model andconservatism of its lower bound limit have been successfullybenchmarked against experimental data and reference modelsset-out from the literature
1) K. Yamamoto, T. Hirosawa, K. Yoshikawa, K. Mrozumi and S. Nomura, "Melting temperature and thermal conductivity
of irradiated mixed oxide fuel", Journal of Nuclear Materials 204 (1993) 85-92 A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 90 AR EVA
Mm fmm M 1111m--, m m - - -= M o M M m
m -m -m -m = m
Applicability to NPMOX
2014
AAREVA
Introduction
Po Difference between NP MOX and RG MOX
Po US NP MOX LTA Measurement in Database
lo US NP MOX LTA Performance Prediction
The fuel rod design and the fuel assembly design will providereliable and safe operation, comparable to that of equivalentlow- enriched uranium (LEU) designs.
9 A92 AR EVA2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M M Mmm m W m -- m M n M M - m
- MmMM No mmm- m M m M M
Difference and Solution
Po1. Isotopics
0 Difference
NP plutonium has a greater concentration of fissionableisotopes and lower concentration of absorber isotopes.
K Approach
The difference in isotopes is modeled explicitly in Galileo fuelperformance code.Primary blend is more dilute for NP MOX to control localheating and fission gas release.
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 93 AR EVA
For information: Sample Un-irradiated Fuel Isotopic
- A94 AR EVA2014 June 2 4th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M O |- - -| m m M M n M M a
M M- M M M M~~m M-
For information: Plutonium Fissionsas a Fraction of Total Fissions
£
I
I
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
08
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.00 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Bumup (GWdUThm)
40 45 50 55 60
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
95AREVA
Difference and Approach
0-2. Impurity
* Difference
NP plutonium will contain small amounts of gallium as astabilizer.
+ Approach
Manufacturing process: NP plutonium will be polished toremove the gallium prior to the MOX processing stage.Specification: The design impurity level for gallium for the NPMOX is similar to the current trace levels of gallium in LEUfuel.
A2014 June 2 4th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 96 AR EVA
M" M m m M M- m m -M - m M
M M M M --- -M--- -MM M =
Difference and Solution
lo3. Microstructure
0 Difference
Very slight difference in thermal conductivity, fission gasrelease, fuel pellet swelling, and pellet radial powerdistribution.
0 Approach
U0 2 matrix that establishes the overall pellet microstructureis the same.NP MOX has a smaller total concentration of plutonium thanRG MOX to achieve similar reactivity.These parameters have been modeled in GALILEO.
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 97 AR EVA
US NP MOX LTA Measurements
t 4 lead test assemblies (LTAs) manufactured in Franceand irradiated at Catawba Unit 1
÷ Post-irradiation examination (PIE) performed at OakRidge National Laboratory
Non-destructive and destructive tests
Conclusion: NP MOX Measurements are within the rangeof the current database
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 98 AR EVA
m m m = M -= M = = m M M
--m wmm m M m mmm M- = M
US NP MOX LTA Measurements
2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
A99 AR EVA
NP MOX LTA PerformancePrediction
O Using GALILEO, predictions for the Catawba MOX LTAfuel rods have been compared with the measurementsfrom the hot cell PIE.
l- The GALILEO code is found to satisfactorily predict allphenomena. The predicted vs. measured behaviors forthe NP MOX are consistent with that of the RG MOX inthe verification and validation database.
" Fuel rod growth* Fuel stack growth* Fuel rod diameter* Fission gas release* Helium Balance* Free void volume* Internal gas pressure* Pellet density
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting ioo AR EVA
M ý ý M M M M M M M - M M M m -- M M
i-R- -M M m - - -M
NP MOX LTA PerformancePrediction
Conclusion: FGR for NP MOX LTA is well predicted by GALILEO. The NP rods
are also consistent with the RG MOX data. A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 101 AR EVA
Dry Conversion Process MOXIntroduction, Context
lo Current MOX manufacturing context:+ Industrial shift from ADU U0 2 feeding powder to DCP (dry conversion
process) U0 2 powder.
+ AREVA experience feedback is mainly based on ADU MOX.
Objective: demonstration))level vs. ADU MOXof DCP MOX in-pile equal performance
A102 AREVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
inmmin~minminminmm
m M m = - -M - M
Dry Conversion Process MOXDCP MOX vs. ADU MOX
> Overall equivalent phases surface distribution than reference>ADU MOX. No impact foreseen on in-pile performance. A
103 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Dry Conversion Process MOXDCP MOX vs. ADU MOX
No Same expected in-pile performances:+ No major microstructural specificities of DCP MOX
No foreseen impact of DCP U0 2 feeding powder on:" Thermal conductivity" Melting point" Densification & Swelling" Fission gas release" Pellet cladding interaction (PCI) behavior" Reactivity initiated accident (RIA) behavior
lo Positive experience feedback from DCP MOX irradiationfollow-up program - no impact of DCP U0 2 feeding powderon base-irradiation performances relative to:
" Rod and fuel stack dimensional evolution" Fuel density" FG and helium release
Next objective: demonstration of the ability of GALILEO to predict DCPMOX behavior A
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 104 AR EVA
= ý M = M = = M M = -M- MMMM MMM
- - - -- - - - - m - m m -
Dry Conversion Process MOXGALILEO Predictions vs. Measurements
Io Fuel rods dimensional behavior
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meetingA
105 AR EVA
Dry Conversion Process MOXGALILEO Predictions vs. Measurements
lo Fuel pellet density evolution
2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting1 A106 AR EVA
= M = -= -=n M - -= ==M===M M
= ------- = = -=- ==N
Dry Conversion Process MOXGALILEO Predictions vs. Measurements
Pp Puncturing results
A107 AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Dry Conversion Process MOXConclusions -
lo DCP MOX as-fabricated properties and microstructuralfeatures are equivalent to those of standard ADU MOX.
4 Therefore in-pile performances are expected to be the same.
lo Results from the DCP MOX irradiation follow-up programlead to the conclusion of the non-impact of DCP U0 2 feedingpowder on MOX in-pile performance under base-irradiationconditions.
lo GALILEO prediction results of DCP MOX fuel rods are in thesame scatter as standard ADU MOX fuel from the experiencefeedback database.
))GALILEO is able to correctly predict the in-pile behaviorof DCP MOX fuel rods.
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 108 AR EVA
M m M M M M M M M M M M M-
M - m M - m M m M m m m m m M - m M
Impact of MOX on Fuel RodAnalyses
Oo Expected Impact of MOX on fuel rod analyses
Alog AR EVA2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Impact of MOX on Fuel RodAnalyses
Oo Differences in results from application examples* For BWRs, an application example for MOX fuel shows similar
results to the corresponding U0 2 case
* For PWRs, an application example for MOX fuel also showssimilar results to the corresponding U0 2 case except for lowermargin to the collapse criterion (due to a combined effect ofhigher LID and densification for the MOX fuel)
* In general, the MOX fuel is designed by taking intoconsideration fuel differences
00 In summary, the application example cases do not showsignificant differences in results between MOX and U0 2 fuelbecause of fuel design and core design strategies
A2014 June 24th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 110 AR EVA
M MI M M M M M M n M M M M M
M m MMm m M Mm m m M M M M
Summary
lo The GALILEO topical report presents of a state-of-the-art fuel rod code and methodology
Applicable to PWRs and BWRs<0 Applicable to U0 2 and MOXKApplicable to all AREVA cladding and fuel typesK Includes all observed phenomena, including fuel thermal
conductivity reduction with burnup2 Code is backed by extensive calibration and validation
databaseK Utilizes a realistic methodology
lo Replaces legacy codes RODEX2I2A, TACO3,GDTACO
loAdds hydrogen models to address future NRCchanges to LOCA and control rod ejection criteria
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 111 AR EVA
NRC Review Process
Pp Audits
Pp RAIs
1 A112 AREVA2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
M M M M M M M M M m m m m M M M M M
M M M M M M M M M M I M M M M M M
Next Steps
Oo Update of GALILEO topical report to include Zr-2hydrogen model - upon RODEX4 approval
.Audit(s)
0 One or more audits will facilitate the NRC review
OoRAI
K One round of RAIs would make the review efficient
Op SER
0 SER Requested by December 31, 2015
A2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting 113 AR EVA
Acronyms/NomenclatureADUAOOB&WBWR
CECEACWSRDCPEPUFEFGFGRHPUFIDL/DLEULHGRLOCALTAMOX
NPNRCOD
Ammonia DiuranateAnticipated Operational OccurrenceBabcock and WilcoxBoiling Water ReactorCombustion EngineeringFrench Atomic Energy CommissionCold Worked Stress RelievedDry Conversion ProcessExtended Power UprateFinite ElementFission GasFission Gas ReleaseHydrogen Pick-up FractionInner DiameterLengthlDiameter
Low-Enriched UraniumLinear Heat Generation RateLoss of Coolant AccidentLead Test AssemblyMixed OxideNon ProliferationNuclear Regulatory Commission
Outer Diameter
PCIPCMIPIEPIRT
PWRRAIRGRIARXRXASRATCDTD
Pellet Cladding InteractionPellet Cladding Mechanical Interaction
Post-Irridiation ExaminationPhenomena Identification and RankingTablePressurized Water ReactorRequest for Additional InformationReactor GradeReactivity Insertion AccidentRecrystallizedRecrystallizedStress Relieved AnnealedThermal Conductivity DegradationTheoretical Density
A114 AR EVA2014 June 2 4 th - GALILEO post-submittal meeting
Mmn M M M M M M M M m m M - M
top related