ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
September 8–11, 2025
Atlanta, GA|Atlanta Marriott Marquis
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Aug 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
September 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
August 2025
Latest News
New coolants, new fuels: A new generation of university reactors
Here’s an easy way to make aging U.S. power reactors look relatively youthful: Compare them (average age: 43) with the nation’s university research reactors. The 25 operating today have been licensed for an average of about 58 years.
A. Delbrassine, L. Smith
Nuclear Technology | Volume 49 | Number 1 | June 1980 | Pages 129-135
Technical Paper | Nuclear Power Reactor Safety / Fuel | doi.org/10.13182/NT80-A32514
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Mixed (U,Pu)C fuel pins of both pellet and sphere-pac designs have been irradiated in epithermal and fast fluxes. The results of postirradiation examination allow a limited comparison of the two designs to be made. Two experiments were performed, one in the Belgian Reactor 2 at Mol, Belgium and the other in the United Kingdom ’s Dounreay Fast Reactor. In each experiment the two fuel designs were coirradiated. Peak burnup of 7.7% was achieved at ratings up to 95 kW· m−1. In each experiment one of the pellet pins failed. Postirradiation examination revealed minor differences in the fuel pin behavior in regard to gas release, clad carburization, and plutonium movement. However, fuel restructuring and the pattern of pin strain were markedly different in the two designs and resulted in the failure of two of the pellet pins. The poorer performance of the pellet pins was due to the design—high bulk density fuel and large fuel clad gap.