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
2026 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Jun 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
July 2026
Nuclear Technology
June 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
May 2026
Latest News
MARVEL team shares lessons learned through microreactor development
On June 1 at the American Nuclear Society’s Annual Conference in Denver, Colo., a team from Idaho National Laboratory presented a session titled “Lessons Learned from MARVEL Reactor Fabrication.” The presentation highlighted challenges that arose as they moved from design to manufacturing and assembly, with a focus on reactor part fabrication, Stirling engine implementation, and reactivity control system development.
Timo A. Vanttola, Markku K. Rajamäki
Nuclear Technology | Volume 85 | Number 1 | April 1989 | Pages 33-74
Technical Paper | Nuclear Safety | doi.org/10.13182/NT89-A34225
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Some of the most frequently presented scenarios for the initial power excursion of the Chernobyl accident are evaluated based on computer simulations. The applied transient model uses one-dimensional descriptions of the reactor core and the main flow circuit. According to the simulations, a slow flow decrease caused by gradual slowing down of the four main circulation pumps could have initiated the accident only if the void reactivity coefficient had been considerably larger than the original Soviet figure. On the other hand, a faster flow reduction, such as pump cavitation or deliberate stopping of even some of the pumps, would have produced enough void for prompt criticality. However, this scenario is sensitive to the size of the void coefficient and to the amount of flow reduction. The most probable initiator was considered to be the positive scram caused by the graphite followers of the manual control rods. Such a mechanism would naturally have brought the additional reactivity to the bottom half of the reactor, and the timing of the power surge would have been the reported one. The simulations indicated that the positive scram was possible only because of the double-humped axial power profile that probably prevailed in the reactor before the accident. The simulations also demonstrated the inability of the shutdown system in this sequence.