1 / 78

COUPLED 3D N K AND T H TECHNIQUES AND RELEVANCE FOR THE DESIGN OF N C SYSTEMS

DIPARTIMENTO DI INGEGNERIA MECCANICA, NUCLEARE E DELLA PRODUZIONE - UNIVERSITA' DI PISA 56100 PISA - ITALY. DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802 - USA.

ria-knapp
Download Presentation

COUPLED 3D N K AND T H TECHNIQUES AND RELEVANCE FOR THE DESIGN OF N C SYSTEMS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DIPARTIMENTO DI INGEGNERIA MECCANICA, NUCLEARE E DELLA PRODUZIONE - UNIVERSITA' DI PISA 56100 PISA - ITALY DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND NUCLEAR ENGINEERING THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802 - USA COUPLED 3D NK AND TH TECHNIQUES AND RELEVANCE FOR THE DESIGN OF NC SYSTEMS F. D’Auria, K. Ivanov– Lecture T11 IAEA & ICTP Course on NATURAL CIRCULATION IN WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Trieste, Italy, June 25-29 2007

  2. CONTENT • Introduction • Need for the Benchmark, • Benchmark methodology, • OECD/NEA coupled system Benchmarks • OECD/NRC PWR MSLB Benchmark, TMI-1 hypothetic transient • OECD/NRC BWR TT Benchmark, Peach Bottom-2 planned transient data • OECD/NEA/CEA V1000CT Benchmark, Kozloduy-6 planned transient data • Relevance to Natural Circulation • Conclusions

  3. INTRODUCTION Need for the Benchmark • Incorporation of a full 3D core model into system transient codes allows best-estimate simulation of interaction between core behaviour and plant dynamics • Until recently, few system codes incorporated full 3D modelling of the reactor core • For past nine years, Nuclear Energy Agency (NSC and CSNI) has developed a series of benchmarks to study the accuracy of coupled codes

  4. INTRODUCTION Need for the Benchmark The previous sets of transient benchmark problems addressed separately: • System transients (designed mainly for thermal-hydraulics codes with point kinetics models) • Core transients (designed for thermal-hydraulic core boundary conditions models coupled with a three-dimensional (3-D) neutron kinetics)

  5. INTRODUCTION Need for the Benchmark Best-Estimate Problems Plant transient benchmarks, which use a three-dimensional neutronics core model Purpose To verify the capability of system codes to analyze complex transients with coupled core/plant interactions To test fully the 3D neutronics/thermal-hydraulic coupling To evaluate discrepancies between the predictions of coupled codes in best-estimate transient simulations

  6. INTRODUCTION Benchmark Methodology • Development of thereference design from a real reactor • Definition of a benchmark problem with acomplete setof input data • Application ofthreebenchmark exercises (phases) • Evaluation ofHZP and HFP steady states • Simulation ofbest-estimate and extreme transient scenarios • Provision ofmethod for comparisonof results obtained from different codes and reference solution

  7. INTRODUCTION Benchmark Methodology Exercise OnePoint Kinetics/System Plant Simulation Exercise TwoCoupled 3D Neutronics/Thermal-Hydraulic Evaluation of Core Response Exercise ThreeBest-Estimate Coupled Core/Plant Transient Model

  8. INTRODUCTION Benchmark Methodology Any Benchmark requires a Methodology for Comparative Analysis • To evaluate discrepancies between the predictions of coupled codes in best estimate transient simulations • Different types of code results to be compared to both measured data and other code predictions • Single values, 1-D distributions, 2-D maps, and time histories • ACAP Assessment tool

  9. OECD/NEA Coupled System Benchmarks INTRODUCTION • The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recently completed under the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sponsorship a PWR Main Steam Line Break Benchmark (MSLB) for evaluating coupled T-H system and neutron kinetics codes • A similar benchmark for codes used in analysis of a BWR plant transient has been recently defined. The NEA, OECD and US NRC have approved the BWR TT benchmark for the purpose of validating advanced system best-estimate analysis codes • VVER-1000 CT Coupled Code Benchmark Problem is a further continuation of these efforts and it defines a coupled code benchmark problem for validation of thermal-hydraulics system codes for application to Soviet-designed VVER-1000 reactors based on actual plant data

  10. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Reference Problem • Simulated Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) Break occurs in one steam line upstream of the cross-connect Control rod with maximum worth is assumed stuck out • Event is characterized bysignificant space-time effectsin the core due to the asymmetric cooling 3.Conservative assumptionsutilized to maximize RCS cool-down 4.Major concern:possible return-to-power and criticality

  11. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Evaluation of Results • Need to compare the results of over 20 different codes • Should quantify the comparison using a figure of merit • Complications • No experimental data to serve as reference calculation • Several participants submitted multiple solutions from related versions of the same code • Certain parameters are normalized so that simple averaging techniques cannot be applied

  12. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Evaluation of Results • Standard method applied for most parameters • Generate mean solution and standard deviation over all participant results for each parameter • Calculates each participant’s deviation from mean value • Divide this deviation by standard deviation to generate a figure-of-merit • Determined for each participant • Time history – at each point of interest • 2-D distribution – at each radial node • 1-D distribution – at each axial level • Normalized parameters are treated to a separate analysis to preserve normalization of mean solutions

  13. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Exercise 2 – Axial Power

  14. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Exercise Three • Combines elements of the first and second exercises and is an analysis of the transient in its entirety • Study on the impact of different NK and TH models as well as the coupling between them • Detail of spatial mesh overlays – important for local safety predictions • Modeling issues – density correlations, and spatial decay heat distribution

  15. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Exercise Three – List of participants

  16. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Exercise Three – the reference NPP & Scenario

  17. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Issues Two issues have impacted the final results of this benchmark: • Choice of Thermal-Hydraulic Model is very important for local parameters predictions during the transient (especially in the vicinity of the stuck rod) • Different Decay Heat Models have led to pronounced deviations in the transient snapshot axial power distributions after the scram

  18. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Thermal-Hydraulic Models • 18 Channel Model • These codes must lump assemblies into 18 averaged thermal-hydraulic channels ( as specified in the Specifications) • “NK Assembly” at the position of the Stuck Rod is averaged with the surrounding assemblies for the feedback modeling • The smeared in this way feedback at the stuck rod position is underestimated • 177 Channel Model - One T-H Channel (Cell) Per Assembly • Improved feedback resolution • More accurately reflects coupled behavior at stuck rod position

  19. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Reference results

  20. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Reference results

  21. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Reference results t = 10 s t = 0 s t = 90 s t = 60 s

  22. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Reference results

  23. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK T-H Models – N12 Power at Return-to-Power

  24. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Decay Heat Models • To avoid uncertainties due to different models, participants were provided with: • Decay heat evolution for each scenario • Procedures to describe decay heat distributions • Average decay heat should be spatially distributed according to the initial spatial fission power distribution • This initial distribution is defined as the spatial fission power distribution at the initial HFP conditions • Deviations were still noticed: • In axial power distribution, deviations increase as time progresses after reactor scram • Some participants were re-distributing the decay heat to follow the fission power distribution at each time step

  25. OECD/NRC PWR MSLB BENCHMARK Decay Heat Models

  26. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK • TT benchmark is established to challenge the thermal-hydraulic/neutron kinetics codes against a Peach-Bottom-2 (PB2) TT transient • Three TT transients at different power levels were performed at PB2 BWR/4 NPP prior to shutdown for refuelling at the end of Cycle 2 in April 1977 • The Turbine Trip Test 2 is chosen for the benchmark because of the impact of feedback effects and quality of the measured data

  27. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK REF SYSTEM BIC & TSE

  28. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 1 • Power vs. time plant system simulation with fixed axial power profile table (obtained from the experimental data) • Purpose: To initialize and test the participants’ thermal-hydraulic system models • Core power response is fixed to reproduce the actual test results utilizing either power or reactivity vs. time data • 14 Participants have submitted their results

  29. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 1

  30. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 1

  31. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 1 – core average axial void fraction

  32. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 1 – delta dome pressure time history

  33. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 1 – SL pressure time history

  34. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 2 • Coupled 3-D kinetics/core thermal-hydraulic BC model and/or 1-D kinetics/core thermal BC model • Purpose: Qualification of the coupled 3-D neutron kinetics/thermal-hydraulic system transient codes • Two steady states are modeled: • 1- HZP (in order to provide a clean initialization of the core neutronic models) conditions • 2- Initial condition of TT2 • 18 different results have been submitted by the participants

  35. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 2

  36. Average value was calculated from overall data: OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 2 – HFP core average axial power

  37. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 2- HFP norm. radial power distribution

  38. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 2 - transient power

  39. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 • Best-estimate coupled 3-D core/thermal-hydraulic system modeling • Consists of two options: 1) 3-D core/T-H calculation for core and 1-D T-H calculation for the balance of the plant 2) 1-D kinetics core model and 1-D T-H for the reactor primary system • This exercise combines elements of the first two exercises • Also this exercise has some extreme scenarios that provide an opportunity to test better the code coupling • 15 different results have been submitted by the participants

  40. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3

  41. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3

  42. Axial Void Fraction 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – core average axial void distribution Axial Void Fraction 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 PSI CEA-33 Void Fraction Void Fraction CEA-764 PUR/NRC FANP 0.30 TEPSYS FZR U.PISA GRS UPV-1 0.20 NEU NFI UPV-2 NUPEC WES. 0.10 AVERAGE AVERAGE 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 Axial Nodes Axial Nodes Average value was calculated from overall data excluding NEU result:

  43. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – delta dome pressure history Measured Dome Pressure and Deviation Measured Dome Pressure and Average of the Other Data

  44. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – TRAC-M/PARCS Results

  45. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – TRAC-M/PARCS results

  46. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – TRAC-M/PARCS Results

  47. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – RELAP5/PARCS Results

  48. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – Sample results from uncertainty estimation EVALUATION OF POWER PEAK FOLLOWING A BWR-TT EVENT AND UNCERTAINTY EVALUATION

  49. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – Extreme Scenarios Turbine trip without bypass system relief opening Turbine trip without scram Combined Scenario – Turbine trip with bypass system relief failure without reactor scram Turbine trip with bypass system failure without scram and without safety relief valves opening SAFETY VALVES ARE MODELLED WITH 4 GROUPS

  50. OECD/NRC BWR TT BENCHMARK Exercise 3 – Extreme Scenarios TRAC-M/PARCS results TOTAL REACTIVITY POWER DOME PRESSURE VOID FRACTION

More Related