Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Jacobian-free Newton Krylov two-node coarse mesh finite difference based on nodal expansion method

  • Zhou, Xiafeng (Department of Nuclear Engineering and Technology, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2021.10.07
  • Accepted : 2022.02.06
  • Published : 2022.08.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A Jacobian-Free Newton Krylov Two-Nodal Coarse Mesh Finite Difference algorithm based on Nodal Expansion Method (NEM_TNCMFD_JFNK) is successfully developed and proposed to solve the three-dimensional (3D) and multi-group reactor physics models. In the NEM_TNCMFD_JFNK method, the efficient JFNK method with the Modified Incomplete LU (MILU) preconditioner is integrated and applied into the discrete systems of the NEM-based two-node CMFD method by constructing the residual functions of only the nodal average fluxes and the eigenvalue. All the nonlinear corrective nodal coupling coefficients are updated on the basis of two-nodal NEM formulation including the discontinuity factor in every few newton steps. All the expansion coefficients and interface currents of the two-node NEM need not be chosen as the solution variables to evaluate the residual functions of the NEM_TNCMFD_JFNK method, therefore, the NEM_TNCMFD_JFNK method can greatly reduce the number of solution variables and the computational cost compared with the JFNK based on the conventional NEM. Finally the NEM_TNCMFD_JFNK code is developed and then analyzed by simulating the representative PWR MOX/UO2 core benchmark, the popular NEACRP 3D core benchmark and the complicated full-core pin-by-pin homogenous core model. Numerical solutions show that the proposed NEM_TNCMFD_JFNK method with the MILU preconditioner has the good numerical accuracy and can obtain higher computational efficiency than the NEM-based two-node CMFD algorithm with the power method in the outer iteration and the Krylov method using the MILU preconditioner in the inner iteration, which indicates the NEM_TNCMFD_JFNK method can serve as a potential and efficient numerical tool for reactor neutron diffusion analysis module in the JFNK-based multiphysics coupling application.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (12005073), the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFE0180900, 2020YFB1901600) and the Project of Nuclear Power Technology Innovation Center of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense (HDLCXZX-2021-HD-033).

References

  1. R.D. Lawrence, Progress in nodal methods for the solution of the neutron diffusion and transport equations, Prog. Nucl. Energy 17 (1986) 271-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-1970(86)90034-X
  2. K. Smith, An Analytic Nodal Method for Solving the 2-Group, Multi-dimensional, Static and Transient Neutron Diffusion Equations, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1979.
  3. R. Manish, S. Suneet, Nodal integral method for mutli-group neutron diffusion in three dimensional cylindrical coordinate system, Ann. Nucl. Energy 151 (2021) 107904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107904
  4. D.A. Knoll, D.E. Keyes, Jacobian-free Newton-Krylov methods: a survey of approaches and applications, J. Comput. Phys. 193 (2) (2004) 357-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2003.08.010
  5. X.F. zhou, F. Li, Jacobian-free Newon-Krylov nodal expansion methods with physics-based preconditioner and local elimination for three-dimensional and mutigroup k-eigenvalue problems, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 190 (3) (2018) 238-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2018.1435136
  6. N. Humar, S. Singh, A novel physics-based preconditioner for nodal integral method using JFNK for 2D Burgers equation, Prog. Nucl. Energy 134 (2021) 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.103668
  7. D.R. Gaston, C.J. Permann, J.W. Peterson, et al., Physics-based multiscale coupling for full core nuclear reactor simulation, Ann. Nucl. Energy 84 (2015) 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.09.060
  8. J.A. Turner, K. Clarno, M. Sieger, et al., The virtual environment for reactor applications (VERA): design and architecture, J. Comput. Phys. 326 (2016) 544-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2016.09.003
  9. E.D. Walker, B. Collins, J.C. Gehin, Low-order multiphysics coupling techniques for nuclear reactor applications, Ann. Nucl. Energy 132 (2019) 327-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2019.04.022
  10. X.F. Zhou, D.Y. Wang, Li Fu, Jacobian-free Newton Krylov nodal expansion method in three-dimensional cylindrical coordinates, Ann. Nucl. Energy 166 (2022) 108825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108825
  11. K.S. Smith, Nodal method storage reduction by nonlinear iteration, Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. 44 (1983) 265-266.
  12. T. Downar, D. Lee, Y. Xu, J. Staudenmier, PARCS v2.6 U.S. NRC Core Neutronics Simulator Theory Manual, School of Nuclear Engineering Purdue University, 2004.
  13. C. Hao, Y. Xu, T. Downar, Multi-level coarse mesh finite difference acceleration with local two-node nodal expansion method, Ann. Nucl. Energy 116 (2018) 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.02.002
  14. T.F. Chan, H.A. Vorst, Approximate and Incomplete Factorizations 4, Parallel numerical algorithms, Springer, Dordrecht, 1997, pp. 167-202.
  15. D.A. Knoll, P.R. McHugh, Enhanced nonlinear iterative techniques applied to a nonequilibrium plasma flow, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 19 (1) (1998) 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827596304034
  16. S.C. Eisenstat, H.F. Walker, Choosing the forcing term in inexact Newton method, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 17 (1) (1996) 16-32. https://doi.org/10.1137/0917003
  17. S.C. Eisenstat, H.F. Walker, Globally convergent inexact Newton methods, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 4 (2) (1994) 393-422.
  18. T. Kozlowski, T. Downar, PWR MOX/UO2 Core Transient Benchmark Final Report, NEA/NSC/DOC, 2006, p. 20.
  19. M. Imron, Development and verification of open reactor simulator ADPRES, Ann. Nucl. Energy 133 (2019) 580-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2019.06.049
  20. H. Finnemann, A. Galati, NEACRP 3-D LWR Core Transient Benchmark Final Specifications. NEACRP-L-335, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 1991.
  21. A. Cherezov, R. Sanchez, H.G. Joo, A reduced-basis element method for pin-by-pin reactor core calculations in diffusion and SP3 approximations, Ann. Nucl. Energy 116 (2018) 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.02.013
  22. J.C. Lefebvre, J. Mondot, J.P. West, Benchmark calculations of power distribution within assemblies, NEACRP-L- 336 (1991).
  23. Benchmark on Deterministic Transport Calculations without Spatial Homogenization: MOX Fuel Assembly 3-D Extension Case, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, 2005.
  24. S. Stimpson, B. Collins, T. Downar, A 2-D/1-D transverse leakage approximation based on azimuthal, fourier moments, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 185 (2017) 243-262. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2016.1272360