Report of Experiment:8

Response of the Penn State TRIGA Reactor to

Large Reactivity Insertions
Nuclear Engineering 451: Experiments in Reactor Physics: Section 004

Laboratory Group #3
Alex Landress
Matt Green
Angela DeBiase

Date of Performance 11/14/2017

Date Report Due 11/28/2017
Date Report Submitted 11/28/2017

1
Laboratory Objective
The objective of this experiment is to observe the variations in reactor power and temperature resulting
from step reactivity insertions of various large magnitudes in excess of $1, and compare the results with
those calculated using a simple kinetic model. This kinetic model, also known as the Fuchs-Nordheim
Model, allows us to make predictions about reactor behavior during a pulse.

The physics of the TRIGA reactor provides unique characteristics that allow pulsing with absolute safety.
This is due to a large negative temperature feedback mechanism called the cell effect. As the TRIGA fuel
heats up, zirconium hydride molecules in the fuel begin to vibrate. The molecules are able to efficiently
up scatter neutrons at higher fuel temperatures resulting in increased core leakage. This, combined with
doppler broadening, turn power very quickly during a pulse which prevents core damage.

Experimental Procedure
This lab was performed in accordance with reference 1.

The first part of the procedure required the setup for pulse data acquisition with a data acquisition
computer (DAC). This was done by the PSBR staff prior to us performing the experiment.

The second part of the procedure was a pulse data recording and analysis with the DAC. The reactor was
started in accordance with SOP-1 to an initial power of 100 watts. A square wave was performed with
the reactor by inserting 80-90 of reactivity. Our section pulsed the reactor using transient rod
reactivities of $1.75 and $2.5. The data from these pulsed was collected using the DAC as instructed by
the professor and the lab assistant.

The third part of the procedure was a pulse data recording and analysis with the control console. We
obtained the official reactor console peak power, pulse width, and maximum fuel temperature from the
Control Room and recorded the data.

2
Equipment

This experiment utilized the Penn State TRIGA reactor and a setup for pulse data acquisitions with a data
acquisition computer (DAC).

For this experiment we are specifically interested in the mechanism used for initiating a large reactivity
insertion within the reactor which is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Transient Rod Drive Mechanism [Ref 1]

The setup for pulse data acquisition with a data acquisition computer was done by the PSBR staff prior
to us performing the lab. The DAC is a lab view based system reading the analog voltage signals from
the two measurement channels at 2 kHz rate and dumping the result into an ASCII text file.

Using the DAC, we collected data from each pulse as instructed by the professor and the lab assistant.

3
 Figure 2 - Pulsing Data Acquisition System [Ref 1]

References

1. Lab #8: Response of the Penn State TRIGA Reactor to Large Reactivity Insertions, in Nuclear
Engineering 451: Laboratory Manuals, Fall 2017.
2. Nuclear Engineering 451 classroom notes. Fall 2017
3.

4
 Data
1. Include your completed Appendix 1 experimental data.
Summary data was obtained using noise reduced signals for GIC and CIC for all pulses.
Table 1 - Pulsing Data Summary

Estimated PSBR Values Estimated Fuchs-Nordheim Model

Pulse Peak Power FWHM Peak Temp Peak Power FWHM Peak Temp
Reactivity [MW] [ms] [C] [MW] [ms] [C]
$1.50 76.5 49 218.8 155.18 38 433.12
$1.75 172.9 35.4 276.8 349.15 25.3 493.43
$2.00 317.7 22.4 302.2 620.71 19 553.74
$2.25 523 17.2 367.3 969.85 15.2 614.05
$2.50 802 14.7 412.8 1396.59 12.7 674.36

Table 2 - CIC Pulsing Data Summary

Pulse Expected Power Peak Voltage Peak Power FWHM

Reactivity [MW] [V] [MW] [ms]
$1.50 76.5 7.63E-03 76.67 51
$1.75 172.9 1.30E-02 174.05 44
$2.00 317.7 1.65E-02 321.93 22
$2.25 523 1.60E-02 525.57 15
$2.50 802 1.24E-02 793.09 14
*Expected power is from PSBR data

Table 3 - GIC Pulsing Data Summary

Pulse Expected Power Peak Voltage Peak Power FWHM

Reactivity [MW] [V] [MW] [ms]
$1.50 76.5 7.64E-02 76.75 49
$1.75 172.9 1.86E-01 170.94 41
$2.00 317.7 3.11E-01 319.90 22
$2.25 523 5.11E-01 522.71 19
$2.50 802 7.88E-01 797.91 14
*Expected power is from PSBR data

Table 4 - Pulsing Temperature Summary

Pulse Expected Avg Measured Avg

Reactivity Fuel T [C] Fuel T [C]
$1.50 433.12 218.8
$1.75 493.43 276.8
$2.00 553.74 302.2
$2.25 614.05 367.3
$2.50 674.36 412.8
*Expected values from Fuchs-Nordheim model

5
 Discussion of Results
2. Plot predicted and experimental results from both detectors on the same plot. Briefly describe the
behavior shown on each plot.

The data acquisition system used in this lab introduced a lot of noise in to the power signals of both
detectors. The noise at steady power would often exceed 10% of the pulse peak power during the
smaller pulses. For this reason, the data was inputted in to MATLAB and a 5-point moving average was
applied. This helped eliminate some of the noise without disrupting the data. The following figure shows
a plot of the raw data (blue) and the smooth data (orange).

Figure 3 - MATLAB Data Averaging ($1.75 Pulse)

The following figure shows the smoothed CIC and GIC data on the same plot.

Power vs Time ($1.75 Pulse)

230

180

CIC

GIC
130
Power (MW)

80

30

4.4 4.45 4.5 4.55 4.6 4.65

-20
Time (s)

Figure 4 - CIC and GIC Power Comparison ($1.75 Pulse)

6
 Figure 4 shows a noticeable difference in the amount of noise experienced between the 2 detector
signals. Even after applying the 5-point moving average, the GIC signal still shows an unacceptable
amount of noise, though the general shape and of the 2 plots are similar. During larger pulses the noise
in the signals is less noticeable and there is nearly perfect agreement between the two detectors.

3. Using the measured data from the lab pulses to produce the plots listed below. Plot one point for each
reactivity pulse. These plots show important theory about the pulses. They should be linear
relationships, but may not be for low reactivity pulses.

Peak Power vs Delta K Squared

900.00

800.00

700.00

600.00
Peak Power

500.00

400.00

300.00

200.00

100.00

0.00
0.00E+00 2.00E-05 4.00E-05 6.00E-05 8.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.20E-04
Delta Pulse Reactivity (dk/k)

Figure 5 - Peak Power vs Delta K Squared

FWHM vs Peak Power

100
FWHM (ms)

10

1
50 500
Peak Power (MW)
Figure 6 - FWHM vs Peak Power

7
 Peak Power vs Max Fuel Temperature
450
400

Max Fuel Temperature (C)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Peak Power (MW)

Figure 7 - Peak Power vs Max Fuel temperature

Inverse FWHM vs Pulse Reactivity

0.08

0.07
Inverse FWHM (1/ms)

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Pulse reactivity (dk/k)

Figure 8 - Inverse FWHM vs Pulse Reactivity

These figures should show a linear relationship, though several of them deviate from the expected
behavior. This is due to condition of the core when the pulses were performed. Ideally, this lab would be
performed with a clean core (xenon free). These pulses were performed on a Tuesday, following a full
day of operation on Monday. This resulted in deviations from expected results captured by the control
console and the detectors monitored with the data acquisition system.

8
Additional Discussion Questions

1. Qualitatively describe the difference between the square wave and the pulses that followed.

The fundamental difference between a squarewave and a pulse is the amount of reactivity inserted. A
squarewave is a step insertion of reactivity less than the delayed neutron fraction (700 pcm) and a pulse
exceeds the delayed neutron fraction. The difference in response can be seen in the following figures.

Power vs Time for 80 Cent Squarewave

500

450

400

350

300
Power (kW)

250

200

150

100

50

0
25 75 125 175 225 275 325 375
Time (s)

Figure 9 - Power vs Time (80 Cent SW)

Figure 10 - Power vs Time ($2.25 Pulse)

Figure 9 and 10 show the vast difference between a pulse and a squarewave. By simple examination, the
magnitude of the y-axis indicates that the 2 procedures are nothing alike. During a pulse the reactor
9
achieves a prompt critical state. While the reactor is critical on prompt neutrons alone, the generation
lifetime is extremely small. The produces large changes in power over a very short period of time. The
peak power of the smallest pulse in this lab was 76 MW, the steady state limit of the reactor is 1 MW.
Power turns shortly after the reactivity insertion due to the fuel temperature increase causing the cell
effect to significantly increase core leakage. The reactor never achieves a prompt critical state during a
squarewave.

Squarewaves are large step insertions of reactivity, but the chain reaction is still controlled by delayed
neutrons. The rise in power following the insertion of reactivity occurs at a reactor period of
approximately 3.5 seconds. This exceeds the normal procedural limit of 15 seconds, but the reactor is
still very much controllable. Power is turned automatically by the control system during a squarewave
and stabilized a predetermined power level. Power during a squarewave never exceeds the maximum
steady state level of 1 MW. The shutdown at the end of the squarewave is performed by the operator. In
this case, rods were manually driven in to the core.

2. Describe the reactor behavior if the transient rod remained out after the pulse instead of being
dropped into the core (be as specific as possible)?

The pulse trend shown in figure 10 is zoomed in on a 0.15 second period of time. The transient rod is up
during this entire period. Power sharply rises and then decreases during the pulse due to temperature
increases within the fuel. The temperature increase causes the zirconium hydride molecules to vibrate and
upscatter neutrons resulting in increased core leakage and a large negative reactivity effect. At the end of
the figure 10 plot core power is approximately 3 MW, still 3 times higher than the allowable steady state
power limit. Fuel temperature continues to rise and drive down power. Leaving the transient rod up
wouldnt result in any significant effect on the core.

The reactor scram occurs approximately 3 seconds following the pulse. In figure 10, power reached over
500 MW and decreased to 3 MW in a period of less than 100 ms. This means that the scram occurs when
the reactor is already near a safe steady state condition. If the scram was overridden, the reactor would
reach a steady state power level below 1 MW and all parameters would be within licensed NRC limits. This
is due to the normal amount of negative reactivity effect introduced in to the core from 100 W (initiation
of the pulse) and 1 MW. To have a steady state power level that exceeded the limit following a pulse, more
than $2.50 would need to be inserted with the transient rod.

The scram following a pulse is a conservative safety feature and is not necessarily needed to prevent
violating operational limits. The automatic scram is however required to be in place to meet the license
requirements.

3. What would happen if $2.50 reactivity was inserted (as a pulse) with an initial power of 1MW
instead of 100 W? Use data and calculated values (T) from this lab and the Temperature Effects
Lab (Lab 7).

If we were to see a $2.50 reactivity insertion with an initial power of 1MW you would see 150 MJ of energy
released. This was calculated using the following equation and using the average fuel temperature increase
at peak power found in Lab 7 to be 459 C:

10
 $0.02
= = 459 = $9.18


[ ] = (# . . ) (1038 + 1.23 ) = 102 (1038 + 1.23 459)


= 163462.14 [ ]

$9.18
=2 = 2 163462.14 = 150058244.5 150
$0.02

11