nuclear and thermal hydraulic characteristics and follow
TRANSCRIPT
NEACRP-A- gxc
TO EZ-PUSLTSZ~ IN TiiE NUCiZ’;Ls CICiXEZXISNG 4XD DESIGX Topic-l.2
,
Analysis of Chernobyl Reactor Accident (I)
. . Nuclear and Thermal Hydraulic Characteristics
and Follow-up Calculation of Accident -
Toshio WAKABAYASHIY, Hiroyasu MOCHIZUKI*,
Hiroshi MIDORIKA\VA*, Yoshitaka HAYAMIZU*,
and Tanemichi KITAHARA*
* Power Reactor & Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation Address: Oarai Engineering Center, PNC, 4007. Narita, Oarai-machi, Ibaraki-ken,
JAPAN.
Abstract
A follow-up calculation was made on the accident of No.4 reactor of Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant based on the literatures and accident reports published by the
USSR. The analysis code system used had models peculiar to a pressure tube type
reactor, of which accuracy had been verified by the experimental facilities at 0-arai
Engineering Center and the tests .made at the “Fugen” Nuclear Power Plant. The
analysis data were prepared based ion plant specifications and its operation history
obtained from those published literatures and accident reports.
The analysis was composed of (1) a cakulation of the nuclear and thermal hydraulic
characteristics, and the graphite heating and temperature distributions which were the
basic data for the follow-up calculation of the accident, (2) an analysis of the plant
behaviors before .the test started, using these basic characteristics, and (3) a follow-up
calculation of the power increase which occurred after the test started. The analytical
results were found to agree well with the data published by the USSR.
It was confirmed from these analyses that the main factors causing the accident
were the increased enthalpy at the core entrance caused by the test made at low power
level and the increased void fraction due to reduced coolant flow rate,. in addition to the
nuclear characteristics and performance of the control system peculiar to Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant.
1. Introduction.
With the object of making clear the accident of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant
NO.4 reactor whic:h occurred on April 26, 1986, an analysis was made on the nuclear and
thermal-hydraulic characteristics and plant characteristics of this reactor before and
after the accident happened. This reactor is a graphite-moderated, light-water-cooled
pressure-tube-type reactor.
Power Reactor & Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC) has been develop-
ing a heavy-water-moderated pressure-tube-type reactor “ATR”, and has operated its
prototype reactor “Fugen” since 1979 (11. Regarding the nuclear and thermal-hydraulic
characteristics of the core, 0-arai Engineering Center of PNC has developed the
evaluation model,s and analysis codes of a pressure-tube-type reactor through the
experiments by Deuterium Critical Assembly (DCA) having a pressure-tube-type reactor
core, and the burn-out tests using a 14 MW full-scale heat transfer loop. These analysis
methods have been improved in precision, including that of the burn-up characteristics
analysis, by operation data of “Fugen”. Regarding the core cooling performance in loss-
of-coolant accident, the Center has also developed some analytical models and codes by
performing tests at the ATR Safety Experimental Facility simulating a pressure-tube-
type reactor.
The ATR, using heavy-water as the moderator, differs in it’s nuclear character-
istics from a graphite-moderated, pressure-tube-type reactor, but they have a similar
system as a pressure-tube-type reactor. Therefore, we applied the analytical method
developed for “ATR” to the analysis of the nuclear characteristics of the Chernobyl
reactor. The analytical results coincided well with the characteristics published by the
USSR and we could confirm the adequacy of using the characteristics obtained from our
analysis in the follow-up calculation of the accident. The results of the follow-up
calculation based on such reactor core charactersitics were compared with the plant
behaviors at the accident time reported by the USSR to the IAEA on August 25 to 29
111.
The data used in the analysis were prepared based on the literatures [ 3, 4, 5 1 laid
open by the USSR and its accident report to the IAEA (2). -I-
.
2. Analysis code system
Figure I shows the code system used in analyses of the nuclear, thermal-hydraulic
and dynamic characteristics of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and in the follow-up
calculation of the accident. It further shows the role of each code.
The codes used are outlined below.
2.1 ‘WIMS-ATR code (6, 71
The WIMS-D code is a general lattice cell program that uses transport
theory to calculate flux as a function of energy and position in a cell.~ The basic
cross-section library is in 69 groups with 14 fast, ‘13 resonance and 42 thermal
groups. The transport equation is solved by a collision probability method using
up to 69 neutron energy groups. The WIMS-D gives D, Z a, x rem 2 f and K-
infinitive :for the whole unit cell. The group constants are given in a.few energy
groups suitable for use with other computer codes such as the CITATION.
Besides producing few group cell-averaged constants, point-by-point reac-
tion rates over the entire energy range are calculated for detectors such as
plutonium and uranium.
Evaluation and adjustment to the WIMS nuclear data library for each
uranium and plutonium isotope have been preformed using Fugen operation data
and results of micro-parameter experiments in DCA. The code with new library
was named the WIMS-ATR.
2.2 CITATION code (8 1
The CITATION is a two- and three-dimensional reactor core calculation
code based on the diffusion theory, and the group constant obtained by the
WIMS-ATR code is used. The CITATION code is used in the analysis of the
reactivity coefficient and the control rod worth.
-2-
2.3 ANISN code 191
The ANISN is a one-dimensional transport equation code, which is used to
calculate the amount of heat generated in graphite by neutron and gamma ray.
2.4 TACZD code (101
The TAC-2D code is used to calculate temperature distributions within
graphite rings and the graphite moderator around the pressure tubes at the
steady state and transient. This code can calculate temperature distribution if it
is given the mesh position, the densities, specific heat, thermal conductivities
and heat amount corresponding to the substance within the mesh, and further the
amount of gaps existing between substances contacting each other and the
physical properties of the gas existing there.
2.5 HBALANCE: code
The HBALANCE code can analyze the heat balance in the reactor cooling
system of a pressure~tube type reactor, and can determine the heat balance of a
plant if it is given the operational pressure, flow rate, nuclear fission energy, the
incoming heat from graphite, the heat from pumps, the heat loss from piping, the
feed water enthalpy, etc. The main steam flow rate obtained by this code is
used as the initial condition of the FATRAC, which is a plant dynamic
characteristics analysis code.
2.6 FATRAC code 111, 121
The E’ATRAC code is used to analyze plant dynamic characteristics by
using the basic equations concerned with the change of neutron flux the change
of fuel temperature, the thermo-hydrodynamic behavior of plant components and
operation of control devices. The code can calculate dynamic characteristics of
each plant component taking account of necessary nuclear characteristics and
thermal flow models. In the thermal flow calculation, the flow area is divided
-3-
into both two-phase and single phase areas, which are differently treated to
speed up the calculation. Further control models simulating actual plant control
systems are incorporated there, which can arbitrarily have any characteristics by
selecting the control constants. As the typical systems and components, there
are a power control system, a feed water control system, a pressure control
system and a turbine control system. The precision of the calculation code has
been verified using the results of various steady state and transient tests
conducted in the start-up test of “Fugen”.
2.7 EUREKA-2 code 1131
The EUREKA-2 is a one-point approximation multi-region thermal/
hydraulic combined dynamic characteristics analysis code to analyze the nuclear
and thermal hydrodynamic behavior of a plant at the time of the reactivity
insertion. ‘The code can analyze the reactor transient due to the reactivity
changes caused by abnormal drawing out of control rods, coolant flow or
temperature changes. It is especially suitable for analyiing the reactivity
initiated accident. From the view point of nuclear physics, it determines the
reactor power by solving the one-point approximation dynamic characteristics
equation which assumes that the neutron flux distribution in space does not
change with the passage of time. The coolant’s thermal hydrodynamic behaviors
are analyzed by solving the equation of mass, momentum and energy conserva-
tion by the node junction method, which equation is based on the assumption of
one-dimensional uniform-flow thermal equilibrium flow (EVET).
2.8 SENHOR code (II, 121
The SENHOR code can analyze flow rate, pressure and fuel temperature in
the cooling system of a pressure-tube-type reactor during various transients or
pipe breaks., At the same time, it can also analyze operating characteristics of
emergency core cooling systems. The calculation of flow within the piping is
-4-
.
0;
0 l
conducted hased on the law of conservation of mass, momentum and energy,
using the one-dimensional IVIT with slip model and employing the character-
istics method. Of the thermal hydraulic correlations used in the codes, those
peculiar to the pressure tube type reactor have been developed by PNC and used
in this analysis. Their precision has been verified by full-scale blowdown experiments.
2.9 HEATUP code ( 11, 12 1
The HEATUP code cananalyze temperature and oxidation of each fuel pin
constituting the fuel assembly as well as the temperature changes of the
pressure tube and other components. In the temperature calculation, it can take
the convection heat transfer between fuel pins and coolant, and radiation heat
transfer inbetween fuel pins and between fuel pins and the pressure tube, into
consideration.
3. Analysis of the nuclear and thermal characteristics of the Chernobyl Reactor
3.1 Analysis of ,the nuclear characteristics
3.1.1 Analysis items
The following items, which were important nuclear characteristics in
the follow-up calculation of the accident of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant,
were analyzed.
(1) Coolant void reactivity coefficient
(2) Moderator (graphite) temperature reactivity coefficient.
(3) Doppler reactivity coefficient.
(4) Control rod worth.
(5) Composition of discharged fuel.
-5-
.
3.1.2 Analytical conditions
Table I shows the main specifications of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power
Plant, and Fig. 2 shows the core configuration.
The analysis of the coolant void reactivity coefficient, the moderator
temperature reactivity coefficient, the doppler reactivity coefficient and the
control and worth was made using the two-groups constants calculated by
WIMS-ATR, and using the two-dimensional (X-Y) model of CITATION. By the
way, the two-group nuclear constant of the control rod lattice used in the
analysis of the control rod worth was calculated by the multi-cell option
(141 of WIMS-ATR where the control rod lattice was surrounded by 15 fuel
lattices in order to simulate the control rod and fuel arrangement. The core
average ‘burn-up was set at 10.3 CW d/t as published by the USSR and the
burn up distribution in the core was assumed to be uniform.
3.1.3 Analytical results
(1) Coolant void reactivity coefficient
Figure 3 shows the results of the dependency of the coolant void
reactivity coefficient on the coolant void fraction and the burn-up, in
comparison with the values published by the USSR. At the burn-up of
10.3 GW d/t, the calculational value (2.0 x 10e44 k/k/% void) of the
coolant void reactivity coefficient at the rated power (40% void) agrees
well with the value (2 x 10e4d k/k/% void) published by the USSR. The
coolant void reactivity coefficient moves to the positive side following
the burn-up.
-6-
.
0
(2) Moderator temperature reactivity coefficient
Figure 4 shows the calculational values of the moderator tem-
perature reactivity coefficient in comparison with the value published
by the USSR. The calculational value (4 x low54 k/k/oC) at rated power
approximates to the value (6 x 10m5 d k/k/‘C) shown by the USSR.
(3) Doppler reactivity coefficient
Figure 5 shows the calculational value of the doppler reactivity
coefficient in comparison with the value shown by the USSR. The
calc:ulational value (-l.4x10-5dk/k/oC) at the rated power closely
approximates to the value (-1.2 x IO-?lk/k/‘C) announced by the USSR.
(4) Control rod reactivity
Table 2 shows the dependency of the control rod reactivity on the
cool,ant void fraction when all the manual control rods (163 PCS) are
inserted,‘in comparison with the value published by the USSR. The
analysis value (7.2% d k/k) of the control rod reactivity at the rated
power agrees well with the value (7.5% d k/k) shown by the USSR.
(5) Isotopic composition of discharge fuel
The coolant void reactivity coefficient largely depends on burn-
up. Therefore, the precision in calculating the isotopic composition of
fuel burn-up is important for evaluating the dependency of the coolant
void reactivity coefficient on burn-up. The composition fo discharged
fuel (235U, 236U, 239Pu, 240Pu and 241Pu) with a 20 GW d/t burn-up
revealed from the USSR was compared with our calculational values
obta.ined by WIMS-ATR. They agree well with each other, as shown in
Table 3.
-7..
.
It was recognized from these results that the WIMS-ATR/CITATION
code system could closely reproduce the nuclear characteritics of Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant. The analytical results of nuclear characteristics were
used as the input data to analyze the plant dynamic characteristics and the
accident.
3.2 Graphite temperature analysis
3.2.1 Analysis .items
The graphite moderator generates heat by neutron moderation and
gamma-r;xy, and the heat is transfered to the coolant through the pressure
tubes. Therefore the estimation of the heat transferred from graphite to the
coolant is important as it is used as a boundary condition for the analysis of
the plant: behavior. The following items were analyzed from this point of
view.
(1) The amount of the heat genarated in the moderator.
(2) Temperature distributions within the moderator at the rated power.
(3) Change of the heat transferred from the moderator to coolant consider-
ing the power change.
3.2.2. Analytical conditions
In the analysis, the square columnar moderator around the pressure tube
is treated as a cylinder having the same volume. Further, there is a I m
thick reflector around the reactor core of 11.8 m in diameter and 7 m in
height, and a 0.5 m thick reflector at the top and bottom of it. With such a
shape of the core taken into account, the amount of generated heat was
analyzed by ANISN, the steady and transient temperature distributions by
TAC-2D and the change of heat from the graphite over many hours by
HEATUP.
3.2.3 Analytical results
According to the literature (151, the maximum temperature reached
one year after the start of operation is estimated to be 73O’C. Therefore,
the gap of graphite rings and their gap conductance were determined by the
results of the TAC-2D calculation, using the amount of generated heat
calculated by the ANISN, so that the maximum temperature might become
73O’C. Figure 6 shows the results of analyses of the temperature distribu-
tions at rated power and 6% power using the analytical result for the amount
of heat obtained by ANISN. The amount of heat transfer between the
graphite and coolant in one day from the start of power decreasing (from I:00
of April 25) was analyzed by HEATUP. Figure 7 shows the result, which
indicates that the heat of 84MW has been discharged to the coolant just
before the test started.
-9-
4. Analysis of plant behaviors just before the accident
4.1 Analytical model
The analysis of the plant behaviors just before the accident was conducted
using the FATRAC code. The circulation systems handled by this code include,
the turbine system, the feed water system and the reactor purification system,
in addition to the primary cooling system. The code assumes that the primary
system is made of two loops, each loop including one hottest channel and 845
average channels. Regarding ~the size, etc. of the primary circulation system, we
followed the USSR’s report presented at the IAEA ( I!, and the literatures ( 2,
3, 4, 5 ) published by the USSR. Since no detailed information could be obtained
about control system, we assumed it to be the same as the control system in
ATR and analyzed plant behavior by using the model shown in Figure 8.
4.2 Analytical conditions
The ‘analytical results of nuclear characteristics in chapter 3.1 were used
as the various reactivity coefficients and dynamic characteristic parameters
which were necessary for the analysis of the plant behaviors. The analysis was
conducted under the following initial conditions from I:19 taken as the starting
point.
Drum separator pressure:
Drum water level:
Recirculation flow rate:
Main steam flow rate:
Feed water flow rate:
6.9 MPa
ordinary level - 600 mm
42,000 ton /h, 8 pumps
3: 7% of the rated flow rate
(5,800 ton /h)
Y 6% of the rated flow rate.
-lO-
The main steam flow rate was determined by the heat balance analysis
assuming that the heat generated by nuclear fission was 200 MW, heat transfer
from the graphite was 84 MW, the pump heat generation was 28 MW, the heat
loss from piping, etc. was 31 MW and the feedwater enthalpy was 200 kcal/kg.
Concerning the operation history, the feed water flow rate published by the
USSR was used.
4.3 Analytical results
According to the announcement by the USSR, the operators increased the
feedwater flow rate at 1:19 when the drum water level was found to be far below
the alarm level, and reduced it again 3 minutes later. As a result, as shown in
Fig. 9, the drum water level increased, but it caused pressure drop from 6.9MTa
to 6.3MPa, showing the tendency of rising again before 1:23:04 when the test
started.
The analytical results in figure 9 obtained by the FATRAC code have
predicted those values reported from the USSR with good precision.
- II -
.
5. Follow-up calculation of the accident
5.1 Analysis of the reactivity accident by EUREKA-2
5.1.1 Analysis items
EUREKA-2 was employed to analyze the changes in the power and
reactivities (the total reactivity, the doppler reactivity, the coolant void
reactivity and the control reactivity with automatic control rods (AC)
inserted), the enthalpy stored in fuel etc. at the Chernobyl accident. The
analytical results for the plant behavior (the changes in the entrace flow
rate, steam drum pressure, entrance ehthalpy, etc. with the passage of time)
before the accident obtained by FATRAC were used for the EUREKA-2
calculation.
5.1.2 Analysis conditions
(1) 1nit:ial analysis conditions
(a) Thermal Power: 200 MW
(b) Coolant flow: 42,000 t/h
(c) Peaking factor (the calculated values by WIMS-ATR/CITATION)
Radial peaking factor (RPF): 1.5
Axial peaking factor (APF): 1.3
(2) Plant characteristics
(a) Dynamic characteristics parameters:
Beff = 0.0057
e= 6.3 x 10-3 set
(The values were calculated by WIMS-ATR.)
(b) Coolant void reactivity coefficient:
Figure 3 was used.
- 12 -
(c) Control reactivity:
The reactivity corresponding to the inserted length of AC control
rod was obtained from the control rod S-shaped curves
(d) Changes in oressure, coolant flow rate and entrance enthalpy:
The calculated values by FATRAC were used.
(3) Analytical model
The object of analysis was limited to the core part,. which was radially
divi.ded into 4 regions (number of the hottest channels . . . 16, number of
the hot channels . . . 335, number of average channels . . . 654, and number
of ~1.0~ power channels . . . 654), with each region axially divided into 8
reg.ions.
5.1.3 Analytical results
Figure 10 shows the thermal power normalised at 200 MW.
Figure 11 shows the changes in the recirculation flow rate. Figure 12.
shows the total reactivity, the void reactivity, the doppler reactivitiy and the
control reactivity.
The following have been made clear.
(1) The peak power and the time when it occurred agree well to the values
(that of the first peak) published by the USSR.
The peak power is about 150 times greater than the rated power (100
times greater, as announced by the USSR).
The time when it occurred is 23 minutes 44 seconds past one (23
minutes 44 seconds past one, as announced by the USSR).
(2) The maximum enthalpy stored in fuel is about 370 Cal/g. (More than
300 Cal/g as announced by the USSR).
- 13 -
5.2 Analysis of the primary cooling system behavior
5.2.1 Analysis items
The primary cooling system behavior when the accident occurred, such
as the pressure, flow rate, etc. in the system, was analyzed by the SENHOR
and HEATUP codes using the analytical results (the reactor power) obtained
by EUREKA-2. The analysis was conducted from the time of 1:23:04.
5.2.2 Analytical conditions
(11 The initial conditions
(a) Thermal power: 200 MW
(b) Drum-type separator pressure: 6.5 MPa
(c) Re-circulation flow rate: 42,000 t/h
(d) Feed water flow rate: 342 t/h
(e) Feed water enthalpy: 200 kcal/kg
(2) The transient conditions
(a) Recirculation flow rate and feed water flow rate were used the
information reported by the USSR. Feed water temperature was
calculated by FATRAC.
(b) Turbine bypass valve flow rate: 0 t/h
(c) Safety valve capacity: 5,800 t/h
(3) Nuc:lear characteristics
The values obtained in Chapter 3.1 were used for the coolant void
reactivity coefficient, the doppler reactivity coefficient and peff.
- 14 -
5.2.3 Analytical results
Figure 13 shows the analytical results for the drum-type separator
pressure (and the flow rates at the entrance and exit of the reactor core. As
can be seen from the figure, the drum-type separator pressure rapidly
increases after the power increase and reached PMPa at 1:23:47. By rapid
generation of steam in the reactor core, the coolant was divided into the up
flow and the down flow, and its supply to the core ceased.
On the other hand,. as shown in Figure 14, the fuel temperature when
the accident occurs rises after the rapid reactor power increases. The fuel
dried out at 1:23:44 and, three seconds plater, reaches l,SOO’C, the meltdown
temperature of the fuel claddings. This analysis was made in an assumption
that the fuel pellets and cladding tubes maintained their original forms.
Acc:ording to the analytical results by the EUREKA-2 code in the
preceding: section, however, the enthalpy stored in fuel increased to 370 Cal/g
UO2, and we can suppose, judging from .the results of tests on the nuclear
safety research reactor (NSRR in JEARI), etc., that the pellets and claddings
were melted and crushed at the time point of power increase, generating the
impact pressure(l61.
On ,the basis of the present analyses, we think that this accident
occurred by the combined effects of such causes as (1) the large positive
coolant void coefficient, (2) that the test was conducted under the low power
conditions where steam void could be easily generated, and (3) that the
control rods were inserted too slowly (0.4 m/set).
- 15 -
6. Conclusion
We analyzed the nuclear and thermal hydraulic characteristics, the graphite
temperature, etc. for the follow-up calculation of the accident of Chernobyl Nuclear
Power Plant, using the ATR design and design evaluation codes. Our analyses were based
on the plant specifications and system data described in the literatures and accident
reports published by the USSR. The analysis results have agreed well to the fragmental
characteristic values published by the USSR and we could confirm the propriety to use
the various characteristic values obtained from our analysis in our follow-up calculation
of the accident.
On the basis of these characteristics obtained, we made an analysis of the’ plant
behaviors before .the test started and a follow-up calculation of the accident, and the
results have generally coincided with the values pubiished by the USSR.
By the above analysis, we have obtained the nuclear and thermal hydraulic
characteristics and plant characteristics for examining the cause of the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant accident and considering the.measures to prevent similar accidents,
and we have confirmed the applicability of our analysis models and codes.
- 16 -
References
(11
(21
(31
(41.
(51
(61
(71
(83
(91
S. Sawai et al., Nucl. Eng. Int., 24 (1979) 33.
The Accident of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and its Consequences, Information
Compiled for the IAEA Experts’ Meeting, 25 - 27 August 1986, Vienna.
V.G. Aden et al., Fuel Elements of the RBMK-1000 Reactor, Translated in English
from Atomnaya Energiya, Vol. 43, No. 4, (1977), 235.
A.P. Alkersandrov et al., Physical and Power Startup of the First Unit of the V.I.
Lenin Nuclear Power Station, Leningrad, Translated in English from Atomnaya
Energiya, Vol. 37, No.2, (1974) 99.
Soviet Power Reactors 1974, ERDA-2, Report of the United States of America
Nuclear Power Reactor Delegation Visit to the Union Soviet Socialist Republics,
Sep. 19 - Ott; I, 1974.
T. Wakabayashi et al., Characteristics of Plutonium Utilisation in ATR, NEARRP-
A744 (1985).
J.R. Askew let al., J. of British. Nucl. Sot. 5 (1966) 564.
J.B. Fowier et al., ORNL-TM-249~6 Rev.2, USAEC July (19711..
W.W. Engle Jr., A User Manual for ANISN, CCC-Z!, RSIC Computer Code
Collection, ORNL (1976)
(101 S.S. Clark et al., GA-8868, USAEC, September (1969)
Cl 11 H. Kato et al., The Hitachi Hyoron 62 (1980) 724.
(121 Y. Hayamizu et al., The Hitachi Hyoron 67 (1985) 905.
(131 N. Ohnishi et al., EUREKA-2: A Computer Code for the Reactivity Accident
Analysis in a Water Cooled Reactor, JAERI-M84-074, (1984).
IIU! T. Wakabayashi et al., Power distribution and control rod worth in heavy-water-
moderated, cluster-type plutonium fuelled core, 27th OECD NEA-CRP, Aix-en-
Provence, (1984).
cl51 N.A. Dollez:hal’ and I.Y. Emel’ yanov, The Pressure - Tube Reactor, Moscow
Atomizdat (1980). (in Russian)
- 17 -
(16) M. Ishikawa and 5. Shiozawa, A Study of Fuel Rehavior under Reactivity Initiated
Accident Conditions - Review, J. Nucl. Hater. 95 (1980) 1.
- 18 -
T’ab le 1 Data of Chernobyl Reactor
rharmal Power
SueI Assembly
Number of Fuel Elements
Diameter of Fuel Elements
Diameter of Fuel Pellets
Fuel Enrichment
Mass of Uranium
Core
Fuel Burnw
Core Average Burnuo
Number of f’uel Channels
Number of Control Rods
Core Diameter
Core Heigh,t
Lattice P i tch
Vm/V f
Reactor Cool ins System
Flow (Rated Powei)
P ressure ( f?ated Power)
Inlet Temparature (Rated Power 1
Outlet Temperature (Rated Power)
Outlet Quality (Rated Power)
3200MW
t a .1 3.6mm
1 1.5mm
z.Owt%
1 1 4.7 kg
2.0 GWd/ t
1 0.3 GWd/t
1659
211
11.8m
7.0 m
250mm
3 0.1
37,5OOt/h
7MP a
27O’c
284’CCSaturated)
14%
Table2 Dependence of Control Rod Worth on Coolant Void Fraction at the Chernobyl Reactor ( Number of Manual Rods***164, Burnup.- 10.3 GWd/t >
Coolant Present Results Ini’ormat ion Reported by the
Void Fraction (%dK/K) USSR(% AK/K)
0 6.5
20 6.8
.40 7.2 7.5
60 7.6
8~0 8. 1
‘* 1 0 0 8.7
. .
Table3 Isotopic Composition of Discharged Fuel at the Chernobyl Reactor (‘Burnup -.- 20 C;Wd/t )
Nucl ide
235 u
231; U
2nnp L,
2,J”P u
2.4’ P LI
P resent
R es 14. I t s
4.8
2.5
2.4
1.8
0.6
(kg,‘tHM)
lnformat ion Reported by the USSR
4.5
2.4
2.6
1.8
0.5
I .
08
. .-.
<Nuclear Analysis>
JWIMS-IITRj-jZi-
Void Coefficient. Beff.L, etc.
<Heat Generation Analysis >
Heat Generation Distribution of Graphite of Graphite
TaIIW.
<Heat Balance Analysis>
pi-
Dynamic Analysis Accident Analysis
(Plant Dynamic Analysis>
Flow. Pressure, Level. Inlet Enthalpy. etc.
<PIant.Oehavior Analysis>
Pressure. Flow. etc.
l=ue I Tem~., Graphite Temp.,. Pressure Ture Temp., etc.
Figure] Code System for Analysis of Chernobyl Reactor Accident
Number of Detectors
8 DMEH 12 * : L_ocaI &tomatic sontrol Rod l Calibration T Chamber 225 ** : Local Emergency Protection
@ DMER 12 Rod
9 Detector fok LAC?LEP?System 48
@ Fission Chamber 4
Figure2 Core Configuration in’ the .Chernobvl Reactor
0 10.3GWd/t
A 15GWd/t ? I
I
// 1 SGWd/t ’
I’
/' , _A0 ’
L m-m- .&---
J 0.3 GWD/ t
0 Information Reported by the USSR
20 40 60
Void Fraction (% 1
80 1 0
Figure3 Dependence of Coolant Void Reactivity on Burnup at the Chernobyl Reector
e
0 Information Fiworied by the USSR
450 550 650 ‘5( I
Graphite Temperature (‘c)
Figure 4 Dependence of Graphite Temperature Coefficient on Graphite Temperature at the Chernobyl Reactor (Burnup **+ 10.3 GWd/t >
.
.
0
a SJ ? e Information Fiarorred by the
? USSR P
‘p z x -l.O-
00
Temperature ( C 1
Figure5 Dependence of Doppler Reactivity Coefficient on Fuel Temperature at the Chernobyl Reactor (Burnup--+10.3GWd/t >
0 s t
l ‘F
294 a-
Pr SL
/
-
rre
, 5
/ 3
/3
Graphite Ring
at Rated Power
Gas Layer
I ! I
_) 380
,.A’
54
Grzghita
Temperazure et Experiment
15
55.5 57 141.1
Distance form Center of Pressure tube (ur,nn)
Figure 6 Steady State Temperature Distribution in
the Coreof Chernobyl Reactor
. ’
3-
Itleat Generot ion Rate 0
!$j I I Power I I ‘, I I I \
50 I -L--- ;- - - _ :
I- -2 o’-----7- ---- , ___;_--- L-
I E -~ I I
I .-
5 - I I I
I I I I
; I I I I I I
I I I D 0. ------;------’ I__-__--_~_ _- ____ ;-- ----
I I I I
I # I I I
I I
I I I I
L 2 am
Time (I-lair)
Figure7 Heat Generation Rate History in Graphite from the Day before the
,Accident of Chernoby I Reactor
Neutron COUIXIX
(Turbine Control System) c - - - -
I-
Turbine Bypass Valve
!iO%X4
Feed Water Fecad Wator l:low Motor Control
L- -
Condl!rlsed Wa1or Pllrnr,
Figure 8 Plant Control Model of Chernol~yl Reactor
I
I ln,Format ion I- ---Reported by 8 the USSR I , - Calcalated I by FATRAC
I 1
!2
F---- - ___- -- -_----- -,-, --_-_---.-..-- - - --- --- -9 4 -cl
i I i
1:19 20 21 22 23
Time (min)
Figure 7 Plant Behaviar from 1: 17 to the Time before Experiment
I_ I_ b - b - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
r ---------- I n.Format i on Reported by the USSR ---------- I n.Format i on Reported by the USSR
Calculated by EUREKA-2 it 1 I
“0 - f I’:
I I ’ I I ‘, I
“0 - :
i i I I I I I I IA IA I I I I I I I I ” ” 1:23:4 1:23:4 9 9 I4 I4 19 19 24 24 29 29 34 34 39 39 44 44 49 49 54
Time ( set) Time ( set)
Figure10 Neutron Power at the Accident o,f Chernobyl Reactor
. ~ 0
----------- ---=------
--O--==-~--- - a-
:- ,
0 5 I I ILL------J
14 l!l :4 2b 34 30 44 40 1:24:Oam Time (set)
I I I I I I I I I
-----, information Reported by the USSR
p resent Resu I t
Figure 11 Main Circulation Flow at the Accident of Chernobyl Reactor
. 7
. . I .
I _,
Void Fieactivi ty .I.
c
Tota I Reactivity
,\ Control Reactivity
\ ‘. Dow I er React ivi
Time (set)
Figure12 Reactivity Changes at the Accident 0.f Chernobyl Reactor
, I I .
c
,
.
I I - Colculatod by SENllOR
Yo Y- .__- --------L--------f-----. -I
- -- I > 1 1 IM- t
-Ii= I i 1 -d .---- ------I---------+------.---- I I
Time ( set )
Ficlure 13 Time History of Drum-Type Separator Pressure and Core Inlet and Outlel Flow Rate at the Accident of Chernohy I Reactor
.
;
L :i--.-------+--------
AZ I I I
I
Pel let center Y
.------,
21 adding .
if --- r
d 1
J
i
- 49
,------
%I
<
/ =-v
s/ 3 ressure Tube
I _i_
I I I I
I I
2 I z 5 + z---- ----_-- L---.-i.-
0 I I 1
.+
II c 14 1:23:4 19
Time ( set >
Figure14 Time H istory of Fuel Pet let, Cl adding and Pressure Tube Temperature at the Accident of Chernobyl Reactor
.
.