Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

BEAVRS benchmark analyses by DeCART stand-alone calculations and comparison with DeCART/MATRA multi-physics coupling calculations

  • Received : 2019.11.12
  • Accepted : 2020.02.21
  • Published : 2020.09.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The BEAVRS (Benchmark for Evaluation and Validation of Reactor Simulation) benchmark calculations were performed by DeCART stand-alone and DeCART/MATRA multi-physics coupled code system to verify their accuracy. The solutions of DeCART stand-alone calculations for the control rod bank worth, detector signal, isothermal temperature coefficient, and critical boron concentration agreed very well with the measurements. The root-mean-square errors of the boron letdown curves for two-cycles were less than about 20 ppm, while the individual and total control rod bank worth agreed well within 7.3% and 2.4%, respectively. For the BEAVRS benchmark calculations at the beginning of burnup, the difference between DeCART simplified thermal-hydraulic stand-alone and DeCART/MATRA coupled calculations were not significantly large. Therefore, it is concluded that both the DeCART stand-alone code and the DeCART/MATRA multi-physics coupled code system have the capabilities to generate high fidelity transport solutions at core follow calculations.

Keywords

References

  1. S.J. Kim, et al., Preliminary coupling of MATRA code for multi-physics analysis, in: Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting, Jeju, Korea, May 29-30, 2014.
  2. J.Y. Cho, et al., "DeCART v1.2 User's Manual," KAERI/TR-3438/2007, 2007.
  3. H.G. Joo, et al., "Methods and Performance of a Three-Dimensional Whole-Core Transport Code DeCART," PHYSOR 2004 - the Physics of Fuel Cycles and Advanced Nuclear System, Global Developments, Chicago, Illinois, 2004. April 25-29.
  4. S.J. Kim, et al., Development and Assessment of Core T/H Code's Real Time Model for SMART Simulator, 2013. KAERI/TR-4904/2013.
  5. D.N. Horelik, et al., Benchmark for evaluation and validation of reactor simulations, MIT Computational Reactor Physics Group, rev03 29 (August) (2018).
  6. B.S. Collins, et al., Simulation of the BEAVRS benchmark using VERA, in: International Conference on Mathematics & Computational Method Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering (M&C 2017), Jeju, Korea, April 16-20, 2017.
  7. M. Ryu, et al., Solutions of the BEAVRS benchmark using the nTRACER direct whole core calculation code, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 52 (2015) 961-969. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2015.1038664
  8. P. Darnowski, et al., Analysis of the BEAVR PWR benchmark using SCALE and PARCS, Nukleonika 64 (3) (2019) 87. https://doi.org/10.2478/nuka-2019-0011
  9. S. Kumar, et al., Integral Full Core Multi-Physics PWR Benchmark with Measured Data, 2018. NEUP 14-6741.
  10. J. Leppanen, et al., Validation of the serpent-ARES code sequence using the MIT BEAVRS benchmark e initial core at HZP conditions, Ann. Nucl. Energy 69 (2014) 212-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.02.014
  11. H. Lee, et al., MCS - a Monte Carlo particle transport code for large-scale power reactor analysis, Ann. Nucl. Energy 139 (2020) 107276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2019.107276
  12. S. Choi, et al., Preliminary Results of BEAVRS Whole-Core Multi-Cycle Analysis with Neutron Transport Code System, 2019. M&C2019, Portland, OR, USA, August 25-29.
  13. D.J. Kelly, et al., Analysis of select BEAVRS PWR benchmark cycle 1 results using MC21 and OpenMC, 2014. PHYSOR2014 - the role of reactor physics toward a sustainable future, Kyoto, Japan, September 28 - October 3.
  14. H.J. Park, et al., Real variance analysis of Monte Carlo eigenvalue calculation by McCARD for BEAVRS benchmark, Ann. Nucl. Energy 90 (2016) 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.12.009
  15. H.J. Park, et al., An improved DeCART library generation procedure with explicit resonance interference using continuous energy Monte Carlo calculation, Ann. Nucl. Energy 105 (2017) 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.03.012
  16. S. Choi, et al., Resonance treatment using pin-based pointwise energy slowing-down method, J. Comput. Phys. 330 (2017) 134-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2016.11.007
  17. K.S. Kim, S.G. Hong, A new procedure to generate resonance integral table with an explicit resonance interference for transport lattice code, Ann. Nucl. Energy 38 (2011) 118-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2010.08.005
  18. D. Hwang, et al., Accuracy and Uncertainty Analysis of PSBT Benchmark Exercises Using a Subchannel Code MATRA, vol. 2012, Science and Technology of Nuclear Installation, 2012. Article ID 603752.
  19. H. Finnemann, A. Galati, "NEACRP 3-D LWR Core Transient Benchmark," NEACRP-L-335, 1992. Revision 1.
  20. C.A. Meyer, et al., 1967 ASME Steam Table, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1968.
  21. H.J. Shim, et al., McCARD: an Monte Carlo code for advanced reactor design and analysis, Nucl. Eng. Tech. 44 (2) (2012) 161-176. https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.01.2012.503
  22. New York Power, Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Cycle 11 Physics Test Report, New York Power Authority, 2000.
  23. D.C. Groeneveld, et al., The 1995 look-up table for critical heat flux in tubes, Nucl. Eng. Des. 163 (1996) 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-5493(95)01154-4
  24. A. Graham, et al., Assessment of Thermal-Hydraulic Feedback Models, PHYSOR2016, Sun Valley, ID, USA, 2016. May 1-5.

Cited by

  1. Investigating fission distribution behavior under various homogenization techniques for asymmetrical fuel assemblies and different reflector equivalence methods vol.157, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108221
  2. Minimizing Power Peaking Factor of BEAVRS-based Reactor Using Polar Bear Optimization Algorithms vol.927, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/927/1/012004