Status and Scientific Contributions of the OECD-NEA NSC Benchmarks - Nuclear …€¦ · ·...

Status and Scientific Contributions of the

OECD-NEA NSC Benchmarks

Nuclear Science Committee, NEA-OECD

Annual Meeting, Paris 10-12 June 2009

Prepared by

Prof. Kostadin IVANOV (Head Benchmarks Team)

Penn State University, USA

Presented by

Prof. José-María ARAGONÉS (NSC Coordinator)

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, SPAIN

Dep. of Mechanical & Nuclear Engineering

RDFMG

2

Outline

OEDC/NRC BWR Full Bundle Test (BFBT) Benchmark

OECD PWR Sub-channel and Bundle Tests (PSBT)

Benchmark

OECD LWR Uncertainty Analysis in Modeling (UAM)

Benchmark

Kalinin-3 VVER-1000 Coupled Code Benchmark

Next Year Workshops


RDFMG

OEDC/NRC BWR Full Bundle Test (BFBT)

Benchmark


RDFMG

4

Status

The OECD-NEA/US-NRC/NUPEC BWR Full-size Fine-mesh

Bundle Test (BFBT) Benchmark has been successfully

completed

Consists of 2 phases – Phase I (Void distribution) and Phase II

(Critical power)

Phase I consists of 4 exercises – steady state and transients,

sub-channel and CFD, and uncertainty analysis

Phase II consists of 4 exercises – steady state and transients,

pressure drop and critical power, and uncertainty analysis

The international benchmark team consists of PSU (USA), JNES

(Japan) and CEA-Saclay

Supported by US NRC and NEA/OECD


RDFMG

BFBT Benchmark: Phases and Exercises

o The OECD-NEA/US-NRC/NUPEC BWR Full-size Fine-mesh Bundle

Test (BFBT) Benchmark consists of two parts (phases). Each part

consists of different exercises:

o Phase I – Void Distribution Benchmark• Exercise 1 – Steady-state sub-channel grade benchmark

• Exercise 2 – Steady-state microscopic grade benchmark

• Exercise 3 – Transient macroscopic grade benchmark

• Exercise 4 – Uncertainty analysis of the void distribution benchmark

o Phase II – Critical Power Benchmark• Exercise 0 – Steady-state pressure drop benchmark

• Exercise 1 – Steady-state critical power benchmark

• Exercise 2 – Transient critical power benchmark

• Exercise 3 – Uncertainty analysis of the critical power benchmark

5


RDFMG

6

Status

Two Volumes of the Benchmark Specification:

“OECD-NEA/US-NRC/NUPEC BWR Full-size Fine-mesh Bundle Test

(BFBT) Benchmark, Volume I: Specifications”, B. Neykov, F. Aydogan,

L. Hochreiter, K. Ivanov (PSU), H. Utsuno, K. Fumio (JNES), E.Sartori

(OECD/NEA), M. Martin (CEA), © OECD 2006, NEA No. 6212,

NEA/NSC/DOC(2005)5, ISBN 92-64-01088-2

“OECD-NEA/US-NRC/NUPEC BWR Full-size Fine-mesh Bundle Test

(BFBT) Benchmark, Volume II: Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses

of Void Distribution and critical Power – Specification”, F. Aydogan, L.

Hochreiter, K. Ivanov (PSU), M. Martin (CEA), H. Utsuno(JNES), and E.

Sartori (OECD/NEA), NEA/NSC/DOC(2007)21, 15 November 2007


RDFMG

7

Status

This benchmark activity has had a major impact in code

development and improvement internationally using high-

quality full bundle experimental data

The participants are representatives of Research

Organizations, Industry, Academia (with many PhD students -

our engineers of tomorrow), and licensing bodies

There are 3 types of codes participating in the benchmark –

CFD, sub-channel and system codes


RDFMG

8

Participation

PARTICIPANT CODES COUNTRY

KAERI MARS 3D Module (COBRA-TF) Korea

KAERI MATRA Korea

Westinghouse&KTH MONA 3 Sweden

KTH TRACE v50rc1 Sweden

KTH RELAP 5 Mod3.3 Patch 0.3 Sweden

FZK CFX 10.0 Germany

FZK CFX 5.7.1 Germany

FZK TRACE v5.0 rc2 Germany

FZK TwoPorFlow Germany

CEA Neptune System France

CEA NEPTUNE-FLICA-4 France

NUPEC CAPE_Mod 1.0 Japan

AREVA NP GmbH F-COBRA-TF 1.4 Germany

AREVA NP GmbH IVA Germany

PSU COBRA-TF USA

TEPCO NASCA 2.12 Japan

UPM COBRA-TF Spain

UNIPI RELAP-3D 2.2.4 Italy

ANL STAR-CD 3.26 USA

Westinghouse VIPRE-W & MEFISTO USA

VIPRE-I USA


RDFMG

Benchmark Meetings and Workshops

o Six international OECD/NEA workshops have been

conducted:

• BFBT1, Nara, Japan, 4 October, 2004

• BFBT2, PSU, State College, USA, 27-29 June, 2005

• BFBT3 University of Pisa, Italy, 26-27 April, 2006

• BFBT4, Paris, France, 8-9 May, 2007

• BFBT5 GRS mbH, Garching, Germany, 31 March-1 April, 2008

• BFBT6, PSU, State College, USA, 27-28 April, 2009

9


RDFMG

10

The last OECD/NRC BFBT-6 benchmark workshop has accomplished the following objectives:

Discussion of the report on Phase I

Discussion of the report on Phase II

Discussion of the results submitted for the uncertainty analysis exercises

Introduction and presentation of the new OECD benchmark based on NUPEC PWR Sub-channel and Bundle Tests (PSBT): database, specification and schedule

>

BFBT-6 benchmark workshop


RDFMG

11

Status

Statistics of the 6th Benchmark Workshop

40 participants from 21 organizations of 9 countries

7 sessions

9 presentations from the benchmark team

18 presentations from the participants


RDFMG

12

Status

The Workshop summary was prepared and distributed as

NEA/NSC document

Nuclear Engineering and Design Special Journal Issue on the

OECD/NRC BFBT Benchmark is being prepared which will

contain 16 papers from the benchmark team and participants

The OECD/NEA reports,

NUPEC BWR Full Size Bundle Tests (BFBT) Volume III:

Benchmark Results for Void Distribution

NUPEC BWR Full Size Bundle Tests (BFBT) Volume

IV: Benchmark Results for Critical Power

will be finalized by the end of June 2009 and send to the

report reviewers


RDFMG

o The last decade has seen a lot of progress in the simulation

of the boiling transition for BWR fuel bundles:

o State-of-the-Art is defined by well-known sub-channel codes, which

take explicitly into account the entrained droplet behaviour along with

liquid film and vapour

o Sub-channel codes are able to predict the dry-out process, taking into

account the competing mechanisms of entrainment, deposition, and

evaporation

o Sub-channel codes are able to predict the critical power of

conventional BWR fuel assemblies, though with large uncertainties

o In order to reduce this uncertainties in critical power

predictions the BFBT benchmark was designed to help in

the qualification of simulation tools using full-scale mock-

up experiments

13

Contributions


RDFMG

o Also of main interest is the detailed void distribution over

the fuel assembly cross sectional area, which may be

dominated by significant cross flows

o The majority of sub-channel codes still employs the

classical Lahey’s void drift model or modified versions

o No sound theoretical background of detailed void

distribution calculation over a wide range of geometrical

and thermal-hydraulic conditions has been established

o This poses a major unsolved problem, which has been

addressed by the BFBT benchmark based on a high-

resolution database for fuel bundle experiments (full scale

experiments)

14

Contributions


RDFMG

o The BFBT benchmark addressed the need for model

refinements for best-estimate calculations on high-fidelity

data bases

o It was explicitly expressed that such investigations should

not be limited to macroscopic approaches but should also

include next generation analysis tools (i.e. advanced CFD

codes)

o A sound experimental data base was supplied by NUPEC

(Nuclear Power Engineering Cooperation), which performed a

large series of full-size BWR and PWR assembly void

measurements between 1987 and 1995

o Measurements comprised of State-of-the-Art CT technology

for visualization of void distribution on small scales, as well

as steady-state and transient critical power test series

15

Contributions


RDFMG

The NUPEC BWR BFBT Test Facility

16

• Operating Conditions of Test Facility:– Pressure = 10.3 MPa

– Temperature = 315 °C

– Power = 12 MW

– Mass Flow = 33 kg/s

– Both steady-state and transient operation possible

High-burnup 8 88 8

Spacer

Water rodHigh-burnup 8 88 8

Spacer

Water rod


RDFMG

The NUPEC BWR BFBT Test Facility

17

Geometry of heated Rods Spacer Locations

Spacer

Elevation (m)

3.527

3.015

2.503

1.991

1.479

0.967

0.455

0

Heate

d Z

one (

3.7

08 m

)

Spacer Type: Ferrule

Spacer Type: Grid1,5

1,3

0,4

0,8

Water

Chann

el

Radial Power Profile


RDFMG NUPEC Measurement Facilities

18

Pressure Vessel

Channel Box (Beryllium)

X-Ray Transmssion Section

Top End of Heated Section

Spacer grid

#3: 682 mm

#2: 1706 mm

#1: 2730 mm

CT: 3758 mm

51

2

512 =

0.2

6 M

pix

els

Ph

oto

Im

ag

e

Dig

ital D

ata

51

2

512 =

0.2

6 M

pix

els

Ph

oto

Im

ag

e

Dig

ital D

ata

Photo Image

Digital Image


RDFMG NUPEC Measurement Facilities

Measurement by CT Scanner

Measurement by X-Ray Densitometer

19


RDFMG

Channel ID

1 1a

2 1a

3 2a

4 2b

5 3a

6 3b

7 4a

8 4b

9 4c

10 4d

11 5a

12 5b

13 6

14 7a

15 7b

16 8

Results: Test Case 4101-61 by Participants

Central

regionPeripher

y

Test case 4101-61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Channel ID

Vo

id F

rac

tio

n (

%)

MEASURED

KAERI - MATRA

KAERI - MARS 3.1

KTH - MONA 3

NUPEC - CAPE_MOD 1.0

AREVA - F-COBRA-TF 1.4

AREVA - IVA 2005

CEA NEPTUNE-FLICA4

FZK - TwoPorFlow 2005

ANL - STARCD 3.26

TEPCO - NASCA 2.12

UPM - COBRA-TF

UNIPI - RELAP5-3D 2.2.4

VIPRE-W & MEFISTO


RDFMG

21

Results: Test Case 4101-61 by Methods

Central

regionPeripher

y

Test case 4101-61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Channel ID

Vo

id F

rac

tio

n (

%)

MEASURED

Sub-channel code / Laheymodel

Prandtl model, lubricationforce

Porous media approach

CFD code

Sub-channel code / Lahey,Kumamoto, Sadatomi

RELAP5-3D 2.2.4

VIPRE-W & MEFISTO


RDFMG

Assembly Type 4, ID1a-Internal Sub-channel with Water Rod and

Peaking Factor 0.67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Measured Void Fraction (%)

Pre

dic

ted

Vo

id F

racti

on

(%

)

KAERI - MATRA

KAERI - MARS 3.1

KTH-MONA 3

NUPEC CAPE Mod 1.0



AREVA- IVA 2005

CEA - NEPTUNE FLICA 4

TEPSYS - NASCA 2.12

ANL - Star-CD 3.26

UPM - COBRA-TF


VIPRE-W & MEFISTO

-10%

+10%

22

8 6 7

a

7

a

7

b

7

a

7

a6

8

6 5a 4a 4b 4b 4a 4c 5b 6

7a 4a 3a 2a 2a 2b 3b 4c 7a

7a 4b 2a 1a1b

1a 2b 4d 7

a

7b 4b 2a 1b 1b 2a 4c 7b

7a 4a 2b 1a1b

1a 2b 4d 7a

7a 4c 3b 2b 2a 2b 3a 4c 7a

6 5b 4c 4d 4c 4d 4c 5b 6

86 7a 7a 7b 7a 7b 6 8



RDFMG

Assembly Type 4, ID4c Internal Sub-channel Connected to Side

Sub-channel with Peaking Factor 1.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Measured Void Fraction (%)

Pre

dic

ted

Vo

id F

racti

on

(%

)KAERI - MATRA

KAERI - MARS 3.1

KTH-MONA 3

NUPEC CAPE Mod 1.0



AREVA- IVA 2005

CEA - NEPTUNE FLICA 4

TEPSYS - NASCA 2.12

ANL - Star-CD 3.26

UPM - COBRA-TF


VIPRE-W & MEFISTO

-10%+10%

23

8 6 7

a

7

a

7

b

7

a

7

a6

8

6 5a 4a 4b 4b 4a 4c 5b 6

7a 4a 3a 2a 2a 2b 3b 4c 7a

7a 4b 2a 1a1b

1a 2b 4d 7

a

7b 4b 2a 1b 1b 2a 4c 7b

7a 4a 2b 1a1b

1a 2b 4d 7a

7a 4c 3b 2b 2a 2b 3a 4c 7a

6 5b 4c 4d 4c 4d 4c 5b 6

86 7a 7a 7b 7a 7b 6 8



RDFMG

24

o The scatter in code predictions is less for higher void fractions

(greater than 70% - annular flow)

o Most scatter in calculations is observed for lower void fractions -

bubbly to large bubble/slugging flow void fraction range (void

fraction less than 40%)

o Significant scatter is seen in churn-turbulent void fraction range

(approximately 40%)

o Most of the codes have difficulty predicting the void distribution

near unheated structures (housing and water rods)

o In most cases the porous media codes stays in the lower bound of

the predicted void fractions, while the system codes stay in the

upper bound

Conclusions from Phase I, Exercise 1


RDFMG

25

o Comparing cross flow models performance, it could be concluded

that the mixing length approach gives best prediction of the

measured data

o The user effect in those codes can be clearly seen in some results

o CFD codes generally underestimate the void fraction

Conclusions from Phase I, Exercise 1


RDFMG

26

Turbine Trip Transient without BypassTest Case 4102-001~009

Test Case 4102-001~009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Transient time, sec

Vo

id f

racti

on

, %

DEN. # 1 (2730 mm)

DEN. # 2 (1706 mm)

DEN. # 3 (682 mm)

CT Scanner (3758 mm)

Phase I, Exercise 3 – Measured Data


RDFMG

27

Turbine Trip Transient - Chordal Average Void Fraction

at X-RAY DEN #1 2730 mm

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00

Time (s)

Vo

id F

racti

on

(%

)

EXPERIMENTAL DATA

KAERI - MARS 3.1

F-COBRA-TF

MATRA

KTH - TRACE v50rc1

KTH - RELAP5 Mod 3.3

UPM - COBRA-TF

F-COBRA-TF


EXP. DATA with DCR correction

Phase I, Exercise 3 – Results


RDFMG

28

o Transient void distribution predictions were provided by

four system and four subchannel codes

o All codes demonstrate capability of reproducing the

transient behavior of the bundle average void fraction for

both transient scenarios

o Comparisons to CT scanner data show a tendency of

over-prediction of the bundle average void fraction by 5 %

in average (the accuracy of the cross-sectional void

fraction measured by the CT scanner is 2%)

o When using the DCR correction, improvements in the

comparison’s results can be clearly seen

Phase I, Exercise 3 – Conclusions


RDFMG

OECD/NEA PWR Sub-channel and Bundle Tests

(PSBT) Benchmark


RDFMG

30

Contributions

o Based on the success of the OECD/NRC BFBT benchmark the

JNES, Japan has decided to release also the data based on the

NUPEC PWR Sub-channel and Bundle Tests (PSBT) for an

international benchmark and has asked PSU to organize and

conduct this benchmark activity

o Void fraction measurements and departure from nucleate boiling

(DNB) tests were performed at NUPEC under the conditions

simulating PWR thermal-hydraulic conditions including the steady

states and the transients such as the power increase, the flow

reduction, the depressurization and the temperature increase


RDFMG

31

Contributions

o The proposed technical approach is to establish an expert group to

coordinate this international benchmark based on the NUPEC PWR

Sub-channel and Bundle Test (PSBT) database

o It will be using as bases a series of well defined problems with

complete sets of input specifications and reference experimental

data

o In summary, the objectives are to define, coordinate, conduct, and

report an international benchmark for PWR void-distribution and

DNB calculations

o It is expected that the benchmark activities will be performed as an

international project supported by METI (Japan) and endorsed by

the OECD/NEA

o The benchmark team will be organized based on the collaboration

between USA and Japan


RDFMG

32

Benchmark Team

o It shall be recognized that METI had sponsored the NUPEC PWR

sub-channel and bundle test project

o JNES on behalf of METI will provide the test information and

measured data

o OECD/NEA will provide supporting activities for the proposed

international PSBT benchmark project

o The US team, PSU, will prepare the benchmark specification,

organize the technical content of the workshops (the logistics of

the workshops will be managed by NEA/OECD), answer the

questions issued by participants, compare and analyze

participants’ results and prepare comparison reports as NEA/OECD

o The PSU has submitted a proposal to US NRC requesting a support

of the PSU benchmark team


RDFMG

33

PSBT Experimental Database


RDFMG

34


Void Fraction Measurements

o Sub-channel and rod bundle void fraction measurements were

performed by the gamma-ray transmission method


RDFMG

35


Void Fraction Measurements

o Estimated Accuracy


RDFMG

36

Definition of the OECD/NEA PSBT Benchmark

o The proposed OECD/NEA PSBT benchmark will consist of two

Phases, with each Phase consisting of several Exercises

o The Phase I will be the Void distribution benchmark and Phase II will

be the DNB benchmark

o The participants can choose either of the following two Phases and

any of the Exercises within the Phases to take part and contribute

o The preliminary indications show that a sufficient number of

participants will attempt both Phases with different numerical

approaches

o In addition to the measured experimental data and the relevant

boundary conditions, the detailed geometrical data of mock-up

assemblies, spacers and the test loop will be included as far as

possible in the specification in order to allow a wide range of

numerical modeling


RDFMG

37

Status

List of Agreed Actions on the PSBT benchmark:

End of October 2009 – draft of the PSBT specification will be

distributed to the participants.

Mid-March 2009 – deadline for submission preliminary results on

Phase I

The PSBT-1 workshop will be held on April 12-13, 2010.

The objectives of the PSBT-1 workshop will be the following:

Discussion of the draft PSBT specification

Discussion of support studies performed by the benchmark team

Discussion of preliminary results submitted for Phase I exercises

Discussion of final results submitted for BFBT uncertainty

analysis exercises


RDFMG

OECD LWR Uncertainty Analysis in Modeling

(UAM) Benchmark


RDFMG

The ongoing OECD LWR UAM expert group and benchmarkactivities contribute to establishing a unified framework toestimate safety margins, which would provide more realistic,complete and logical measure of reactor safety

For the first time the uncertainty propagation will be estimatedthrough the whole simulation process on a unified benchmarkframework to provide credible coupled code predictions withdefensible uncertainty estimations of safety margins at thefull core/system level

The full chain of uncertainty propagation from basic data,engineering uncertainties, across different scales (multi-scale), and physics phenomena (multi-physics) will be testedon a number of benchmark exercises for which experimentaldata is available and for which the power plant details havebeen released

Contributions


RDFMG

The OECD LWR UAM activity will establish an internationallyaccepted benchmark framework to compare, assess and furtherdevelop different uncertainty analysis methods associated withthe design, operation and safety of LWRs

As a result the LWR UAM benchmark will address the scientificbackground and tools aimed to help current nuclear powergeneration industry and regulation needs and issues related topractical implementation of risk informed regulation

The use of coupled codes supplemented with uncertaintyanalysis allows to avoid unnecessary penalties due to incoherentapproximations in the traditional decoupled calculations, and toobtain more accurate evaluation of margins regarding licensinglimit

This becomes important for licensing power upgrades, improvedfuel assembly and control rod designs, higher burn-up and othersissues related to operating LWRs as well as to the newGeneration 3+ designs being licensed now (ESBWR, AP-1000,EPR-1600 and etc.)

Contributions


RDFMG

To develop, propose and/or validate advanced SU methodology

Have access to different techniques in sensitivity / uncertainty analysis

Compare and exchange of know-how, resolve difficulties with the world experts

Improve understanding of model validity and their limitation

Provide evidence to model simplification

Have access to high quality integral experiments from experimental facilities and operating power reactors

Acquire competence in quantifying confidence bounds for physics and safety parameters in best estimate methods required for licensing

Benefits to the participants


RDFMG

Reactor calculation

I. Neutronics (XS, core steady state)

II. Core (fuel, TH, kinetics)

III. Coupled N-TH, core & system

Three Phases


RDFMG

Phase I

Test problems on two different levels are defined to be used

within Phase I of the OECD LWR UAM benchmark:

HZP and HFP test cases based on the realistic LWR designs (for

which the continuous energy Monte Carlo method is used for

reference calculations)

Documented experimental benchmark plant cold critical data and

critical lattice data

In summary, Phase I is focused on stand-alone neutronics core

calculations and associated prediction uncertainties

It does not address the uncertainties related to cycle and

depletion calculations

No feedback modelling is assumed:

It will address the propagation of uncertainties associated with

few-group cross-section generation

But will not address cross-section modelling (it will be addressed

in the following Phases)


RDFMG

Phases II and III

The obtained output uncertainties from Phase I of the

OECD LWR UAM benchmark will be utilized as input

uncertainties in the remaining two phases – Phase II

(Core Phase) and Phase III (System Phase)

Phase II will address core neutron kinetics, thermal-

hydraulics and fuel performance, without any

coupling between the three physics phenomena

Phase III will include system thermal-hydraulics and

coupling between fuel, neutronics and thermal-

hydraulics for steady-state, depletion and transient

analysis


RDFMG

OECD UAM-3 Benchmark Workshop

The Third OECD LWR Uncertainty Analysis in Modeling (UAM-3)

benchmark workshop was be held in conjunction with the First

OECD Kalinin-3 VVER-1000 Benchmark Workshop and the

OECD/NRC BFBT-6 benchmark workshop

The OECD UAM-3 benchmark workshop took place on April 29 -

May 1 2009 (hosted by PSU) in University Park / State College,

Pennsylvania

The objectives of the OECD UAM-3 benchmark workshop were the

following:

Discussion of the updated final specification for Phase 1 (the final

specification will be issued by the end of June 2009)

Discussion of submitted results of Phase 1

Discussion of draft Specification for Phase 2 (the draft specification

will be issued by the end of August 2009)

Discussion of priorities for Phase 3

The next workshop – UAM-4 will be on April 14-16 2010 either in Paris

or in Pisa


RDFMG


Statistics of UAM-3:

44 participants from 28 organizations of 13 countries

10 sessions

20 presentations of the benchmark team

14 presentations of the participants


RDFMG


List of Actions:

End of May 2009 – Updated version of ANGELO/LAMBDA + SCALE-6 44-group

variance / covariance data library

End of June 2009 – Version 2.0 of the Volume I of OECD LWR UAM Benchmark

Specification (Phase I)

End of July 2009 – Templates for submission results for the 3 exercises of Phase I

End of August 2009 – Version 1.0 (draft) of the Volume II of OECD LWR UAM

Benchmark Specification (Phase II)

End of January 2010 – Deadline for submission results for Exercises I-1 and I-2

End of February 2010 - Deadline for submission results for Exercises I-3 and II-1

End of March 2010 - Deadline for submission results for Exercises II-2 and II-3

April 14-16, 2010 – UAM-4 workshop


RDFMG

OECD/NEA Kalinin-3 VVER-1000 Coupled Code

Benchmark


RDFMG

Transient:

Switch-off of one Main Circulation Pump (MCP) at nominal

power, while the other three pumps remain in operation.

Data source:

During the commissioning phase and exploitation of NPP Kalinin-

3 (Russia) have been performed measurements of integral and

local thermal-hydraulics and neutron-physics parameters for

different transient conditions.

High-quality steady-state and transient data for both neutronics

and thermal-hydraulic parameters , which allow for extensive

validation and uncertainty analysis of coupled code predictions

Contributions


RDFMG

To verify the capability of system codes to analyze complex transients

with coupled core-plant interactions and complicated fluid mixing

phenomena

To fully test the 3D neutronics/thermal-hydraulic coupling.

To evaluate discrepancies between predictions of the coupled codes

in best-estimate transient simulations with measured data.

To perform uncertainty analysis having at disposal not only the

measured values but also their accuracy

The objective of this benchmark is four-fold:

Contributions


RDFMG

CHALLENGES

Predicting the SPNDs (detector) readings (in relative units) at 65 fuel

assemblies (7 axial layers)

Describing correctly the mixing phenomena in the reactor vessel

Correctly modeling the core outlet coolant flows (temperature) at the

assemblies with thermocouples.

Correct interpretation of the measured results.

Accounting for the inertia term of the measurements.

Correct interpretation of the coolant temperature measurements in the

cold and hot legs.

Measured stratified flow at hot legs! (This phenomena is being proven

by other measurements at Kalinin NPP and also by scaled test facilities

of VVER-1000)

Contributions


RDFMG

PREPARATORY WORK

Work is being done to prove the applicability of the experimental

data for benchmark purposes :

All necessary measured data is already extracted from the plant archives

and transformed to readable format (Exel, txt..)

The data is well visualized

Preliminary calculations are performed with the coupled system code

ATHLET/BIPR-VVER and results are compared with measurements

Detected are potential difficult modelling topics and solutions are worked

out

The experimental NPP data and information is officially delivered to

NEA/OECD from the owner of the data – VNIIAES, Russia

A Benchmark Specification is generated and delivered to the

NEA/OECD

Status


RDFMG

Measured data available for the benchmark

All main integral parameters (mass flow, pressure, water level,

temperature ...) in the primary and secondary loops at all relevant

locations (reactor, SGs, PRZ, turbines, piping, valves …)

Local coolant temperature measurements at 95 assemblies outlets

and azimuthal coolant temperature measurements at several

locations in the cold and hot legs of the primary circuit.

Local nuetron flux meausrements (DPZ) at 65 assemblies in 7 axial

layers

Controler and regulator positions and their time histories

Measurement accuracy specified for each data set


RDFMG

Benchmark Team

VNIIAES, Russia (V. Tereshonok)

RRC Kurchatov Institute, Russia (S. Nikonov, M. Lizorkin)

GRS mbH, Germany ( K. Velkov, A. Pautz)

PennState University, USA (Prof. K. Ivanov)

Communication center and coordination: GRS mbH, Germany


RDFMG

First Kalinin-3 Workshop

The first Kalinin-3 benchmark workshop took place at PSU,

USA on April 27-28, 2009.

Eleven presentations from the benchmark team and four

presentations from the participants

Twenty three (23) participants from fourteen (14) organizations

representing eight (8) countries

Participants included representatives of international

agencies, industry, national laboratories, research

organizations, consulting companies and universities


RDFMG

Status

List of Agreed Actions on Kalinin-3

End of August 2009 – deadline for generation of the new cross-

section libraries.

End of December 2009 – deadline for submitting results for Exercise

#1 from Group 2

End of February 2010 – deadline for submitting results for Exercise

#3 from Group 1

End of February 2010 – deadline for submitting results for Exercise

#2 from Group 2

End of May 2010 - deadline for submitting results for Exercise #3

from Group 2

The second Kalinin-3 (K-2) workshop will be held on April 12-13,

2010.


RDFMG

57

Next Year Workshops

The idea is to hold the PSBT, UAM and Kalinin benchmark

workshops together, in order to facilitate co-ordination and

sharing of work

Several meetings to be held during the same week in order to

combine efforts in common areas such as sub-channel and CFD

modelling, coupled code calculations and uncertainty analysis

and to make participation more efficient:

Second Workshop on the KALININ-3 Coupled Code Benchmark

(Kalinin-2)

First Workshop on the NUPEC PWR Sub-channel and Bundle Tests

(PSBT-1) Benchmark

AER Working Group D Workshop (VVER Dynamics and Safety)

Fourth Workshop on Uncertainty Analysis in Modeling of Light

Water Reactor (LWR) Benchmark (UAM-4)


RDFMG

58

Next Year Workshops

OECD recommends that OECD workshops / meetings be held in

Paris

The first proposal is to hold the above workshops in the week of

April 12 – 16, 2010 (the dates were chosen to avoid conflicts

with other meetings)

Room reservations have been made at NEA/OECD (Issy les

Moulineaux in Paris)

Room A: 12-13 April 2010 – for Kalinin-2

Room B: 12-13 April 2010 – PSBT-1

Room A: 14-16 April 2010 - AER Working Group D Workshop

Room B: 14-16 April 2010 – UAM-4

o The second proposal for 2010 (for the same dates) is to have the

workshops in Pisa, Italy hosted by University of Pisa

o KTH, Sweden wants to host the workshops in 2011 in Stockholm

Status and Scientific Contributions of the OECD-NEA NSC Benchmarks - Nuclear …€¦ · ·...

Documents

Transcript of Status and Scientific Contributions of the OECD-NEA NSC Benchmarks - Nuclear …€¦ · ·...