OECD/NEA Transient Benchmark Analysis with PARCS - THERMIX

Similar documents
Computational and Experimental Benchmarking for Transient Fuel Testing: Neutronics Tasks

ANALYSIS OF THE OECD MSLB BENCHMARK WITH THE COUPLED NEUTRONIC AND THERMAL-HYDRAULICS CODE RELAP5/PARCS

Lesson 14: Reactivity Variations and Control

PWR CONTROL ROD EJECTION ANALYSIS WITH THE MOC CODE DECART

Utilization of two-dimensional deterministic transport methods for analysis of pebble-bed reactors

Research Article Analysis of NEA-NSC PWR Uncontrolled Control Rod Withdrawal at Zero Power Benchmark Cases with NODAL3 Code

Coolant Flow and Heat Transfer in PBMR Core With CFD

The Pennsylvania State University. The Graduate School ADVANCED MULTI-DIMENSIONAL DETERMINISTIC TRANSPORT

Department of Engineering and System Science, National Tsing Hua University,

Study of Control rod worth in the TMSR

ANALYSIS OF THE OECD PEACH BOTTOM TURBINE TRIP 2 TRANSIENT BENCHMARK WITH THE COUPLED NEUTRONIC AND THERMAL-HYDRAULICS CODE TRAC-M/PARCS

Steady-State and Transient Neutronic and Thermal-hydraulic Analysis of ETDR using the FAST code system

A Hybrid Deterministic / Stochastic Calculation Model for Transient Analysis

Considerations for Measurements in Support of Thermal Scattering Data Evaluations. Ayman I. Hawari

Development of 3D Space Time Kinetics Model for Coupled Neutron Kinetics and Thermal hydraulics

Lectures on Applied Reactor Technology and Nuclear Power Safety. Lecture No 4. Title: Control Rods and Sub-critical Systems

English text only NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR SCIENCE COMMITTEE

MONTE CALRLO MODELLING OF VOID COEFFICIENT OF REACTIVITY EXPERIMENT

USA HTR NEUTRONIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SAFARI-1 MATERIAL TESTING REACTOR

X. Neutron and Power Distribution

Chapter 7 & 8 Control Rods Fission Product Poisons. Ryan Schow

TRACE/SIMULATE-3K Analysis of the NEA/OECD Oskarshamn-2 Stability Benchmark

VHTR Thermal Fluids: Issues and Phenomena

CANDU Safety #3 - Nuclear Safety Characteristics Dr. V.G. Snell Director Safety & Licensing

Lectures on Applied Reactor Technology and Nuclear Power Safety. Lecture No 5. Title: Reactor Kinetics and Reactor Operation

Operational Reactor Safety

Safety Analyses for Dynamical Events (SADE) SAFIR2018 Interim Seminar Ville Sahlberg

Challenges in Prismatic HTR Reactor Physics

Introduction to Reactivity and Reactor Control

DEVELOPMENT OF A COUPLED CODE SYSTEM BASED ON SPACE SAFETY ANALYSIS CODE AND RAST-K THREE-DIMENSIONAL NEUTRONICS CODE

Dynamic Analysis on the Safety Criteria of the Conceptual Core Design in MTR-type Research Reactor

Reactivity Coefficients

Fundamentals of Nuclear Reactor Physics

Neutronic Issues and Ways to Resolve Them. P.A. Fomichenko National Research Center Kurchatov Institute Yu.P. Sukharev JSC Afrikantov OKBM,

Title: Development of a multi-physics, multi-scale coupled simulation system for LWR safety analysis

The Pennsylvania State University. The Graduate School. College of Engineering

NEA Nuclear Science Committee Working Party on Scientific Issues of Reactor Systems. Final Report. January 2007

Calculation of the Fission Product Release for the HTR-10 based on its Operation History

OECD-PBMR Benchmark Thermal Hydraulics J.B.M. de Haas (NRG) The Netherlands. OECD Paris June, 2005

Results of a Neutronic Simulation of HTR-Proteus Core 4.2 Using PEBBED and Other INL Reactor Physics Tools: FY-09 Report

English - Or. English NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR SCIENCE COMMITTEE

Reactor Kinetics and Operation

APPLICATION OF THE COUPLED THREE DIMENSIONAL THERMAL- HYDRAULICS AND NEUTRON KINETICS MODELS TO PWR STEAM LINE BREAK ANALYSIS

Instability Analysis in Peach Bottom NPP Using a Whole Core Thermalhydraulic-Neutronic Model with RELAP5/PARCS v2.7

VALIDATION OF THE POINT KINETIC NEUTRONIC MODEL OF THE PBMR. D Marais BEng

Calculation of a Reactivity Initiated Accident with a 3D Cell-by-Cell Method: Application of the SAPHYR System to a Rod Ejection Accident in TMI1

The Lead-Based VENUS-F Facility: Status of the FREYA Project

NEW FUEL IN MARIA RESEARCH REACTOR, PROVIDING BETTER CONDITIONS FOR IRRADIATION IN THE FAST NEUTRON SPECTRUM.

ON THE EVALUATION OF PEBBLE BEAD REACTOR CRITICAL EXPERIMENTS USING THE PEBBED CODE

Lectures on Applied Reactor Technology and Nuclear Power Safety. Lecture No 6

DEVELOPMENT OF MELCOR INPUT TECHNIQUES FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTOR ANALYSIS. A Thesis JAMES ROBERT CORSON, JR.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WWER-440 REACTOR CORE WITH PARCS/HELIOS AND PARCS/SERPENT CODES

Cross Section Generation Strategy for High Conversion Light Water Reactors Bryan Herman and Eugene Shwageraus

Fuel Element Burnup Determination in HEU - LEU Mixed TRIGA Research Reactor Core

Whole Core Pin-by-Pin Coupled Neutronic-Thermal-hydraulic Steady state and Transient Calculations using COBAYA3 code

SUB-CHAPTER D.1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

Malcolm Bean AT THE MAY All Rights Reserved. Signature of Author: Malcolm Bean Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

Validation of Traditional and Novel Core Thermal- Hydraulic Modeling and Simulation Tools

ANALYSIS OF THE OECD MAIN STEAM LINE BREAK BENCHMARK PROBLEM USING THE REFINED CORE THERMAL-HYDRAULIC NODALIZATION FEATURE OF THE MARS0MASTER CODE

Working Party on Pu-MOX fuel physics and innovative fuel cycles (WPPR)

VERIFICATION OF A REACTOR PHYSICS CALCULATION SCHEME FOR THE CROCUS REACTOR. Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) CH-5232 Villigen-PSI 2

VERIFICATION OF REACTOR DYNAMICS CALCULATIONS USING THE COUPLED CODE SYSTEM FAST

THERMAL HYDRAULIC REACTOR CORE CALCULATIONS BASED ON COUPLING THE CFD CODE ANSYS CFX WITH THE 3D NEUTRON KINETIC CORE MODEL DYN3D

Automated Design and Optimization of Pebble-Bed Reactor Cores

Serpent Neutronic Calculations of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Reactors

A FINITE VOLUME-BASED NETWORK METHOD FOR THE PREDICTION OF HEAT, MASS AND MOMENTUM TRANSFER IN A PEBBLE BED REACTOR

Lamarsh, "Introduction to Nuclear Reactor Theory", Addison Wesley (1972), Ch. 12 & 13

A COMPARISON OF PEBBLE MIXING AND DEPLETION ALGORITHMS USED IN PEBBLE-BED REACTOR EQUILIBRIUM CYCLE SIMULATION

Study of boron dilution phenomenon in the core and fuel assemblies of Bushehr VVER-1000 reactor in normal operating conditions

Homogenization Methods for Full Core Solution of the Pn Transport Equations with 3-D Cross Sections. Andrew Hall October 16, 2015

Institute of Atomic Energy POLATOM OTWOCK-SWIERK POLAND. Irradiations of HEU targets in MARIA RR for Mo-99 production. G.

Idaho National Laboratory Reactor Analysis Applications of the Serpent Lattice Physics Code

Neutronic Calculations of Ghana Research Reactor-1 LEU Core

REACTOR PHYSICS FOR NON-NUCLEAR ENGINEERS

The influence of thorium on the temperature reactivity. coefficient in a 400 MWth pebble bed high temperature. plutonium incinerator reactor

Reactivity Power and Temperature Coefficients Determination of the TRR

DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH-FIDELITY MULTI- PHYSICS SYSTEM FOR LIGHT WATER REACTOR ANALYSIS

Sensitivity Analyses of the Peach Bottom Turbine Trip 2 Experiment

Advanced Heavy Water Reactor. Amit Thakur Reactor Physics Design Division Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, INDIA

Comparison of Silicon Carbide and Zircaloy4 Cladding during LBLOCA

Impact of the Hypothetical RCCA Rodlet Separation on the Nuclear Parameters of the NPP Krško core

Safety Reevaluation of Indonesian MTR-Type Research Reactor

The moderator temperature coefficient MTC is defined as the change in reactivity per degree change in moderator temperature.

Verification of Predicted Powers and Shim Positions for Advanced Test Reactor Cycle 159A-1

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF SCALE NUCLEAR ANALYSIS METHODS FOR HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTORS

Benchmark Calculation of KRITZ-2 by DRAGON/PARCS. M. Choi, H. Choi, R. Hon

A Newton-Krylov Solution to the Coupled Neutronics-Porous Medium Equations

Chem 481 Lecture Material 4/22/09

Chemical Engineering 412

Hybrid Low-Power Research Reactor with Separable Core Concept

Spectral History Correction of Microscopic Cross Sections for the PBR Using the Slowing Down Balance. Abstract

CASMO-5/5M Code and Library Status. J. Rhodes, K. Smith, D. Lee, Z. Xu, & N. Gheorghiu Arizona 2008

Kr-85m activity as burnup measurement indicator in a pebble bed reactor based on ORIGEN2.1 Computer Simulation

PRISMATIC MODULAR REACTOR ANALYSIS WITH MELCOR. A Thesis NI ZHEN

Testing the EPRI Reactivity Depletion Decrement Uncertainty Methods

ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION

Tritium Transport and Corrosion Modeling in the Fluoride Salt-Cooled High-Temperature Reactor

Shutdown Margin. Xenon-Free Xenon removes neutrons from the life-cycle. So, xenonfree is the most reactive condition.

NEUTRONIC ANALYSIS STUDIES OF THE SPALLATION TARGET WINDOW FOR A GAS COOLED ADS CONCEPT.

Physics of Plutonium Recycling. Volume IX. Benchmark on Kinetic Parameters in the CROCUS Reactor

Transcription:

OECD/NEA Transient Benchmark Analysis with PARCS - THERMIX Volkan Seker Thomas J. Downar OECD/NEA PBMR Workshop Paris, France June 16, 2005

Introduction Motivation of the benchmark Code-to-code comparisons. Analysis of transient behavior of PBMR (Application of analytic models). Original OECD/NEA PBMR benchmark was based on the PBMR-268, but has since been updated to the PBMR-400. Results here will first be shown for the original PBMR-268 design, and then initial analysis of the PBMR-400 will be presented

PBMR-268 Design Power= 268 MW th Dynamic Central reflector P sys = 7 MPa T in-out =500-900 o C

Some Simplifications of the Model Flattening of the pebble bed s upper surface Flat bottom reflector (removal of the bottom cone and discharge tube) Flow channels within the pebble bed are parallel and at equal speed Dynamic central column and mixing zone widths are constant over the axial height Control rods in the side reflector are assumed as a cylindrical skirt with a given B-10 concentration

Code Descriptions: PARCS PARCS (Purdue Advanced Reactor Core Simulator) is the U.S. NRC Code for Best Estimate neutronics analysis. Nodal (ANM-NEM), Multi-group SP3, FMFD Cartesian, Hexagonal, Cylindrical geometries in 3D Coupled to RELAP5 and TRACE Extensively verified for PWR, BWR, and ACR applications

PARCS for PBMR In 2002 U.S. NRC contracted Purdue/PSU to upgrade PARCS for PBMR analysis Cylindrical (r-θ-z) neutronics by FMFD (fine mesh finite difference) kernel was added. NRC support was suspended after Exelon withdrew its PBMR license application. Work was continued anyway, most recently for T/H feedback. The THERMIX code was implemented as a subroutine into PARCS.

THERMIX For PBMR analysis in 2D (r-z) Combination of THERMIX and DIREKT THERMIX Solves SS and TR heat transfer in porous medium and conduction in pebble. DIREKT Perform gas flow field and temperature calculation for SS and TR.

Coupling of PARCS- THERMIX

Application to PBMR-268: Ejection All 24 Rods at CZP Fuel Regions Control Rod Channels Inner Reflector Outer Reflector

PARCS-THERMIX Results

PARCS-THERMIX: Fuel Temp

Analysis of CRE w/ Simplified Prompt Kinetics Model (Nordheim-Fuchs) Control Rod Ejection (CRE) analysis at zero power. Application of the Linear Energy Feedback Model with prompt kinetics approximation. Basis to assess PARCS-THERMIX results and to design benchmark cases.

Linear Feedback Model The maximum power rise in linear feedback model * P m 0 ρ 2 p1 = P 2 Λγ e * Karl. O. Ott, Robert J. Neuhold Nuclear Reactor Dynamics

γ P e = ρ P ρ β 0 1 1 0 (Energy Coefficient) = CIT ρ T C IT = q& ρ c d p C IT = 400 K/fp-s for FBR 40 K/fp-s for BWRs 13.6 K/fp-s for PBMR

ρ = T -0.02$/K -0.002$/K -0.0072$/K for LWRs (Ott) for FBRs (Ott) for PBMR γ = -0.8$/fp-s for FBRs and LWRs (Ott) -0.098$/fp-s for PBRs β = 0.00759 for PBMR Λ= 2.23 10 3

ρ 0 1 P = P=2.4P 0 0 ρ1 β P m 2 2 0 p1 P = Λ -3 γ e P =11.8P m 0 ρ 0.5 (0.736) 0.00759 = =9.4P 2 2.23 10 0.098 n t m ln 4 m = 0 ρ p1 p Λ = 16.5 for 0 tm p pm ρ p1 t m Λ p 2.23e 3 = 16.5 = 6.5sec 0.736 0.00759

Comparison of Results Analytic Nordheim- Fuchs PARCS- THERMIX t max (sec) 6.5 6.0 P max 11.8 14.5

Conclusions of CRE analysis at HZP. The generation time calculated with PARCS is reasonable when compared to the PROTEUS experimental results which are performed with 16% enriched uranium fuel. Long neutron generation time results in slower CRE transients than those in the LWR. With the use of kinetics data available, the analytic results calculated by PKA with Linear Feedback Model are in reasonable agreement with those obtained by PARCS-Thermix coupled code, so this gives confidence for further analysis with other cores (e.g. PBMR-400)

Further Analysis of CRE Transient Response for Different Initial Power levels 1x10-6 P 0 (Zero Power) 1x10-3 P 0 0.1P 0 0.5P 0 1.0P 0 (Full Power)

PARCS-THERMIX: Reactivity

PARCS-THERMIX: Power t m = 16.5 Λ ρ p1

PARCS-THERMIX: Max. Fuel Temperature

Conclusions Cont At full power the control rod worth is significantly higher than that at low powers, primarily because of the bottom peaked axial flux profile resulting from the high temperature difference between top and bottom at full power conditions The transient response with different power levels suggests that the CRE accident at full power is more appropriate for benchmark analysis (i.e. at lower power conditions transients are much slower)

OECD / NEA PBMR-268: Benchmark Case 5 Case B: ejection of all control rods corresponding to a symmetric superprompt transient of more than 2$ of reactivity Case C: ejection of a single CR corresponding to an asymmetric subprompt critical transient Case D: ejection of four control rods corresponding to an asymmetric superprompt critical transient

Control Rod Positioning The total of 24 CRs are placed into two groups of 12 which are inserted in a staggered configuration in the side reflector. Bank 1 (Group 1) is inserted to the bottom part of the core. Bank 2 (Group 2) is inserted to the top part of the core. Group 1 is used for the reactivity control during normal operations.

CR positions

PARCS CR Modeling Capability PARCS can define different types of control rods and assign them to the related banks. PARCS (input) Crb_def 2 Type 2 1 1 582.3 2 1 0 582.3 267.7 Type 1 Crb_type 1 2 1

Case B: Ejection of All Rods Initial Condition Steady state full power All 24 CRs are inserted 2m from the top of the core. Sequence of events t = 0 second to t = 0.1 second: Withdrawal of all 24 CRs over 0.1 second. t = 0.1 second to t = 60 seconds: Transient phase completed.

PARCS-THERMIX: Reactivity

PARCS-THERMIX: Power

PARCS-THERMIX Results

Summary of Case B Results Power level rises up to 80 times the nominal value in 0.7 seconds (HZP). The amount of reactivity inserted is about 3$ (HZP). The maximum fuel temperature of 1436 o Cis reached at about 2.7 seconds.

HFP Cases: CR Positions Core Condition Critical Single Rod out 4 Rods Out CR insertion Depth BANK 1 BANK 2 BANK 1(N-1) BANK 1(1) BANK 2 BANK 1(N-4) BANK 1(4) BANK 2 425 cm OUT 425 cm OUT OUT 425 cm OUT OUT k eff 1.000008 1.001940 (0.26$) 1.010481 (1.37$)

Case C: Single Rod Ejection (HFP)

Case C: SRE Power

Case C: SRE Max. Fuel Temperature

Case D: Four Rods Ejected (HFP)

Case D: 4 Rods Ejected HFP

Case D: 4 Rods Ejected Max. Fuel Temperature

Conclusions The proposed extensions to CASE-5 were analyzed to complement the current Case A: Case B: ejection of all control rods corresponding to a symmetric superprompt transient of more than 2$ of reactivity. Case C: ejection of a single CR corresponding to an asymmetric subprompt critical transient Case D: ejection of four control rods corresponding to an asymmetric superprompt critical transient The Benchmark specifications were modified to include Cases C and D The Cases will be reanalyzed for the PBMR-400

OECD/NEA/NSC PBMR-400 COUPLED NEUTRONICS/THERMAL HYDRAULICS TRANSIENT BENCHMARK

PBMR-400 vs. PBMR-268 Characteristic Thermal Power ( MW) System Pressure (MPa) Mass Flow Rate (kg/s) Central reflector Core outer diameter (m) Core effective height (m) Reserve Shutdown System 7.0 3.5 8.5 PBMR-268 268.0 129.0 Dynamic with graphite pebble in outer reflector 400.0 9.0 192.7 fixed centre graphite reflector column 3.7 11.0 PBMR-400 in inner reflector

Core Layout of PBMR-400 0 10 41 73.6 80.55 92.05 100 117 134 151 168 185 192.95 204.45 211.4 225 243.6 260.6 275 287.5 292.5 310 328 462 463-235 10 31 32.6 6.95 11.5 7.95 17 17 17 17 17 7.95 11.5 6.95 13.6 18.6 17 14.4 12.5 5 17.5 18 134 1-200 35 TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP He RPV Air RCCS -150 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC TR TR TR TR TR SR RCS SR SR SR SR SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS -100 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC TR TR TR TR TR SR RCS SR SR SR SR SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS -50 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC TR TR TR TR TR SR RCS SR SR SR SR SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 0 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC V V V V V SR RCS SR SR SR SR SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 50 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F IP RCS IP IP IP RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 100 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 150 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 200 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 250 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 300 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 350 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 400 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 450 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 500 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 550 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 600 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 650 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 700 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 750 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 800 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 850 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 900 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 950 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1000 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1050 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1100 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC F F F F F SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1150 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC BR BR BR BR BR SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1200 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC BR BR BR BR BR SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1250 50 CC CC CC CC RSS CC BR BR BR BR BR SR RCS SR SR SR RC SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1300 50 CC CC CC CC CC CC BR BR BR BR BR SR SR SR SR SR IP SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1350 50 CC CC CC CC CC CC BR BR BR BR BR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1400 50 CC CC CC CC CC CC OP OP OP OP OP SR SR SR SR SR SR SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1450 50 CC CC CC CC CC CC BR BR BR BR BR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1500 50 CC CC CC CC CC CC BR BR BR BR BR SR SR SR SR SR SR SR He CB He RPV Air RCCS 1535 35 BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP BP He RPV Air RCCS

PBMR-400 Reactivity Control System 24 Absorber Rods in the Side Reflector 12 Control Rods 12 Shutdown Rods Rod effective height 6.5m Moving depth CR : 6.5m from the bottom of top refl. SR : 10m from the bottom of top refl. Normal operation, 24 CR move together.

STEADY STATE BENCHMARK CALCULATIONAL CASES CASE S-1: Neutronics Solution with Fixed Cross Sections CASE S-2: Thermal Hydraulic solution with given power / heat sources CASE S-3: Combined neutronics thermal hydraulics calculation starting condition for the transients TRANSIENT BENCHMARK CALCULATIONAL CASES CASE T-1: Depressurised Loss of Forced Cooling (DLOFC) without SCRAM CASE T-2 : DLOFC with SCRAM CASE T-3 :Pressurised Loss of Forced Cooling (PLOFC) with SCRAM CASE T-4 : 100-40-100 Load Follow CASE T-5 : Reactivity Insertions by CRE CASE T-6 : Cold Helium Inlet

Case S-1: Simplified Cross-section Sets Extracted from VSOP equilibrium core calculation. 2-G, thermal cut-off 3.059eV. In order to compare neutronics calculations before going into the detailed feedback mechanisms.

Preliminary Results for Case S-1 CODE VSOP PARCS (VSOP mesh) PARCS (fine mesh) PARCS (VSOP mesh+dddc) k-eff 1.00000 1.00048 (+48 pcm) 1.00272 (+272 pcm) 0.99875 (-125 pcm)

Axial Thermal Flux

Radial Thermal Flux

Axial Fast Flux

Radial Fast Flux

Axial Power (S.S. Full Power)

Summary / Continuing Work Calculations with simplified VSOP crosssections gives good agreement in flux and power profiles. Some small discrepancies are observed in k-eff results. Continuing Work: S-2, S-3 and Transient Cases

STEADY STATE BENCHMARK CALCULATIONAL CASES CASE S-1: Neutronics Solution with Fixed Cross Sections CASE S-2: Thermal Hydraulic solution with given power / heat sources CASE S-3: Combined neutronics thermal hydraulics calculation starting condition for the transients TRANSIENT BENCHMARK CALCULATIONAL CASES CASE T-1: Depressurised Loss of Forced Cooling (DLOFC) without SCRAM CASE T-2 : DLOFC with SCRAM CASE T-3 :Pressurised Loss of Forced Cooling (PLOFC) with SCRAM CASE T-4 : 100-40-100 Load Follow CASE T-5 : Reactivity Insertions by CRE CASE T-6 : Cold Helium Inlet

THANKS

2024 © sciencedocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback