Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 4 – uploaded by Yahya Alzahrani

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 4: Comparison between SMART with UO, and UN fuel.

Table 4 Comparison between SMART with UO, and UN fuel.

Related Figures (10)

Figure 2: Cross-section view of the SMART reactor core (left), and fuel assembly configuration of SMART core (right) with assembly types (A, B, A, B, BC, BZ, and CZ) (Al-Zahrani et al. 2021; Mehboob et al. 2021). Figure 1: System-integrated modular advanced reactor (SMAT) fuel assembly configurations (Al-Zahrani et al. 2021; Mehboob et al. 2021).
Figure 2: Cross-section view of the SMART reactor core (left), and fuel assembly configuration of SMART core (right) with assembly types (A, B, A, B, BC, BZ, and CZ) (Al-Zahrani et al. 2021; Mehboob et al. 2021). Figure 1: System-integrated modular advanced reactor (SMAT) fuel assembly configurations (Al-Zahrani et al. 2021; Mehboob et al. 2021).
Table 2: Comparison of physical properties uranium dioxide (UO2) and uranium mononitrate (UN) (Tyler 2006). Table 3: SMART reactor core configuration for uranium dioxide (UO,) and UN fuel (Dobuchi et al. 2016).
Table 2: Comparison of physical properties uranium dioxide (UO2) and uranium mononitrate (UN) (Tyler 2006). Table 3: SMART reactor core configuration for uranium dioxide (UO,) and UN fuel (Dobuchi et al. 2016).
fuel cycle using OpenMC (Romano et al. 2015) Monte Carlo neutron transportation code and compared with the reference core. The enrichment of uranium mononitrate (UN) was the same as the refer- ence core.
fuel cycle using OpenMC (Romano et al. 2015) Monte Carlo neutron transportation code and compared with the reference core. The enrichment of uranium mononitrate (UN) was the same as the refer- ence core.
Table 1: Design specification of SMART (Al-Zahrani et al. 2021; Mehboob et al. 2021; Mehboob and Aljohani 2018). 3.2 OpenMC computer code
Table 1: Design specification of SMART (Al-Zahrani et al. 2021; Mehboob et al. 2021; Mehboob and Aljohani 2018). 3.2 OpenMC computer code
Figure 3: Normalized thermal flux for uranium dioxide (UO) and uranium mononitrate (UN).
Figure 3: Normalized thermal flux for uranium dioxide (UO) and uranium mononitrate (UN).
Figure 4: Effective multiplication factor for one fuel cycle (<3.5 years).
Figure 4: Effective multiplication factor for one fuel cycle (<3.5 years).
Figure 5: Compression of burnup (depletion) results for one fuel cycle (<3.5 years) for UO2 and UN.
Figure 5: Compression of burnup (depletion) results for one fuel cycle (<3.5 years) for UO2 and UN.
Figure 6: Comparison of PPF at the BOC, MOC and EOC of the UO, and UN fuel for 1/ of the core. One of the most important roles of the primary loop is o contain the radioactive. Therefore, it is essential to know the amount and the normal location of fission products (FP) and their result buildup of radioactivity. The objective of fuel cladding is to prevent the scape FP from fuel cladding to the primary coolant. Almost all he radioactive products are contained in fuel located in he reactor core itself. A compression of accumulative radioactivity at the end of 42 months fuel cycle due to he fission product of Uranium dioxide (UQ,) and proposed fuel material uranium mononitrate (UN) is duplicated in Table 5. Radioactivity at the end of the fuel cycle of uranium dioxide (UO2) and uranium mononitrate (UN) are nearly similar. Thus Figures 4-6 and Table 2 indicate that the uranium mononitrate (UN) can be used for the SMART reactor for prolonged fuel cycle under the safe limits. has been seen 28.0 and 25.0 respectively. The power peaking factor is one of the most critical parameters for reactor safety. The PPF of the candidate fuel and the reference fuel is depicted in Figure 6 the BOC, MOC, and EOC. Notably, the PPF of reference fuel (UO;) is higher than the candidate Fuel (UN) at the BOC. Whereas the PPF of candidate fuel (UN) has been found corresponding to the reference fuel at the MOC and EOC. Thus, controlling the reactivity at the BOC of fuel cycle is much easier for candidate fuel (UN). The maximum PPF of UO, and UN has
Figure 6: Comparison of PPF at the BOC, MOC and EOC of the UO, and UN fuel for 1/ of the core. One of the most important roles of the primary loop is o contain the radioactive. Therefore, it is essential to know the amount and the normal location of fission products (FP) and their result buildup of radioactivity. The objective of fuel cladding is to prevent the scape FP from fuel cladding to the primary coolant. Almost all he radioactive products are contained in fuel located in he reactor core itself. A compression of accumulative radioactivity at the end of 42 months fuel cycle due to he fission product of Uranium dioxide (UQ,) and proposed fuel material uranium mononitrate (UN) is duplicated in Table 5. Radioactivity at the end of the fuel cycle of uranium dioxide (UO2) and uranium mononitrate (UN) are nearly similar. Thus Figures 4-6 and Table 2 indicate that the uranium mononitrate (UN) can be used for the SMART reactor for prolonged fuel cycle under the safe limits. has been seen 28.0 and 25.0 respectively. The power peaking factor is one of the most critical parameters for reactor safety. The PPF of the candidate fuel and the reference fuel is depicted in Figure 6 the BOC, MOC, and EOC. Notably, the PPF of reference fuel (UO;) is higher than the candidate Fuel (UN) at the BOC. Whereas the PPF of candidate fuel (UN) has been found corresponding to the reference fuel at the MOC and EOC. Thus, controlling the reactivity at the BOC of fuel cycle is much easier for candidate fuel (UN). The maximum PPF of UO, and UN has
Table 5: Compression of accumulative radioactivity SMART with UO, and UN Fuel.
Table 5: Compression of accumulative radioactivity SMART with UO, and UN Fuel.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved