Thermal hydraulic analysis of supercritical water reactor cooled by TiO₂ nanofluid

Figures & data

Figure 1. Fuel bundle geometry [9].

Table 1. Major parameters of SCW-CANDU and channel reactor with supercritical pressure water [10]

Country	Canada
Coolant	Light Water
Moderator	Heavy Water
Thermal Power, MWth	2540
Electric Power, MWe	1220
Thermal Efficiency, %	48
Presssure, MPa	25
Inlet Temperature, °C	350
Outlet Temperature, °C	625
Flowrate, Kg/s	1320
Number of Fuel Channels	300
Number of Fuel Element in Bundle	43
Maximum Cladding Temperature, °C	850

Table 2. Density-specific thermal conductivity of TiO_2.

PARTICLES	$\rho -\left(kg/m^3\right)$	$C_P-\left(J/kgK\right)$	$K-\left(W/mK\right)$
TiO2	4250	686.2	8.9538

Figure 2. Pure water density at supercritical pressure 25 (MPa) compared with Ref. [23].

Figure 3. Pure water specific heat at supercritical pressure 25 (MPa) between current model and Ref. [23].

Figure 4. Pure water viscosity at supercritical pressure 25 (MPa) compared with Ref. [23].

Figure 5. Coolant temperature distribution in axial direction compared with Ref. [24] at ϕ 6%.

Figure 6. Coolant temperature distribution in axial direction compared with Ref. [24] at ϕ 10%.

Table 3. Maximum coolant temperature difference between SCWR cooled with pure water and SCWR cooled with TiO₂ -water nanofluid at P = 25 (MPa)

TiO2%	0%	2%	6%	10%
Maximum coolant temperature	570.6	575.1	584.5	594.8
Temperature difference	0	4.5	13.9	24.2

Figure 7. Coolant temperature at constant pressure 25 (MPa) different volume fractions of TiO₂ particles.

Table 4. Maximum coolant temperature difference between SCWR cooled with pure water and SCWR cooled with TiO₂ -water nanofluid at P = 30 (MPa)

TiO2%	0%	2%	6%	10%
Maximum coolant temperature	931	942.5	967	993.7
Temperature difference	0	11.5	36	62.7

Figure 8. Coolant temperature at constant pressure 30 (MPa) different volume fractions of TiO₂ particles.

Table 5. Maximum coolant temperature difference between SCWR cooled with pure water and SCWR cooled with TiO₂ -water nanofluid P = 35 (MPa)

TiO2%	0%	2%	6%	10%
Maximum coolant temperature	1237	1254	1291	1331
Temperature difference	0	17	54	94

Figure 9. Coolant temperature at constant pressure 35 (MPa) different volume fractions of TiO₂ particles.

Table 6. Maximum fuel temperature difference between SCWR cooled with pure water and SCWR cooled with TiO₂-water nanofluid at P = 25 (MPa)

TiO2%	0%	2%	6%	10%
Maximum fuel temperature	1176	873	867.6	867.5
Temperature difference	0	303	308.4	308.5

Figure 10. Fuel temperature at constant pressure 25 (MPa) different volume fractions of TiO₂ particles.

Figure 11. Fuel temperature at constant pressure 30 (MPa) different volume fractions of $\mathrm{T}\mathrm{i}{\mathrm{O}}_2$ particles.

Table 7. Maximum fuel temperature difference between SCWR cooled with pure water and SCWR cooled with TiO₂ -water nanofluid at P = 30 (MPa)

TiO2%	0%	2%	6%	10%
Maximum fuel temperature	1545	1158	1163	1177
Temperature difference	0	387	382	368

Figure 12. Fuel temperature at constant pressure 35 (MPa) different volume fractions of $\mathrm{T}\mathrm{i}{\mathrm{O}}_2$ particles.

Table 8. Maximum fuel temperature difference between SCWR cooled with pure water and SCWR cooled with TiO₂/water nanofluid at P =35 (MPa)

TiO2%	0%	2%	6%	10%
Maximum fuel temperature	1815	1423	1443	1471
Temperature difference	0	392	372	344

Pioro IL, Duffey RB. Heat transfer and hydraulic resistance at supercritical pressures in power engineering applications. New York (NY): ASME Press; 2007. p. 334.

 Google Scholar

Dyadyakin BV, Popov AS. Heat transfer and thermal resistance of tight seven-rod bundle, cooled with water flow at supercritical pressures. Trans VTI. 1977;11:244–253.

 Google Scholar

Pioro IL, Khartabil HF, Duffey RB. Heat transfer to supercritical fluids flowing in channels—empirical correlations (survey). Nucl Eng Des. 2004;230:69–91.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zarifi E, Jahanfarnia G, Veysi F. Thermal–hydraulic modeling of nanofluids as the coolant in VVER-1000 reactor core by the porous media approach. Ann Nucl Energy. 2013;51:203–212.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar