0
Special Section Papers

Combining RAVEN, RELAP5-3D, and PHISICS for Fuel Cycle and Core Design Analysis for New Cladding Criteria

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrea Alfonsi

Idaho National Laboratory,
2525 Fremont Avenue,
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
e-mail: Andrea.Alfonsi@inl.gov

George L. Mesina

Mem. ASME
Idaho National Laboratory,
2525 Fremont Avenue,
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
e-mail: George.Mesina@inl.gov

Angelo Zoino

Department of Astronautical, Electrical
and Energy Engineering,
University La Sapienza,
Rome 00135, Italy
e-mail: angelo@zoino.it

Nolan Anderson

Idaho National Laboratory,
2525 Fremont Avenue,
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
e-mail: Nolan.Anderson@inl.gov

Cristian Rabiti

Idaho National Laboratory,
2525 Fremont Avenue,
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
e-mail: Cristian.Rabiti@inl.gov

Manuscript received September 29, 2016; final manuscript received December 16, 2016; published online March 1, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Guoqiang Wang.The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States government purposes.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 3(2), 020906 (Mar 01, 2017) (8 pages) Paper No: NERS-16-1120; doi: 10.1115/1.4035851 History: Received September 29, 2016; Revised December 16, 2016

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has considered revision of 10-CFR-50.46C rule (Borchard and Johnson, 2013, “10 CFR 50.46c Rulemaking: Request to Defer Draft Guidance and Extension Request for Final Rule and Final Guidance,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.) to account for burn-up rate effects in future analysis of reactor accident scenarios so that safety margins may evolve as dynamic limits with reactor operation and reloading. To find these limiting conditions, both cladding oxidation and maximum temperature must be cast as functions of fuel exposure. To run a plant model through a long operational transient to fuel reload is computationally intensive, and this must be repeated for each reload until the time of the accident scenario. Moreover for probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), this must be done for many different fuel reload patterns. To perform such new analyses in a reasonable amount of computational time with good accuracy, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has developed new multiphysics tools by combining existing codes and adding new capabilities. The parallel highly innovative simulation INL code system (PHISICS) toolkit (Rabiti et al., 2016, “New Simulation Schemes and Capabilities for the PHISICS/RELAP5-3D Coupled Suite,” Nucl. Sci. Eng., 182(1), pp. 104–118; Alfonsi et al., 2012, “PHISICS Toolkit: Multi-Reactor Transmutation Analysis Utility—MRTAU,” PHYSOR 2012 Advances in Reactor Physics Linking Research, Industry, and Education, Knoxville, TN, Apr. 15–20.) for neutronic and reactor physics is coupled with the reactor excursion and leak analysis program—three-dimensional (RELAP5-3D) (The RELAP5-3D© Code Development Team, 2014, “RELAP5-3D© Code Manual Volume I: Code Structure, System Models, and Solution Methods,” Rev. 4.2, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, Technical Report No. INEEL-EXT-98-00834.) for the loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analysis and reactor analysis and virtual-control environment (RAVEN) (Alfonsi et al., 2013, “RAVEN as a Tool for Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Software Overview,” 2013 International Conference on Mathematics and Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering, Sun Valley, ID, May 5–9, pp. 1247–1261.) for the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and margin characterization analysis. For RELAP5-3D to process a single sequence of cores in a continuous run required a sequence of restarting input decks, each with different neutronics or thermal-hydraulic (TH) flow region and culminating in an accident scenario. A new multideck input processing capability was developed and verified for this analysis. The combined RAVEN/PHISICS/RELAP5-3D tool is used to analyze a typical pressurized water reactor (PWR).

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Borchard, R. , and Johnson, M. , 2013, “ 10 CFR 50.46c Rulemaking: Request to Defer Draft Guidance and Extension Request for Final Rule and Final Guidance,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Alfonsi, A. , Rabiti, C. , Mandelli, D. , Cogliati, J. , and Kinoshita, R. , 2013, “ RAVEN as a Tool for Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Software Overview,” International Conference on Mathematics and Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering, Sun Valley, ID, May 5–9, pp. 1247–1261.
The RELAP5-3D© Code Development Team, 2014, “ RELAP5-3D© Code Manual Volume I: Code Structure, System Models, and Solution Methods,” Rev. 4.2, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, Technical Report No. INEEL-EXT-98-00834.
Mesina, G. L. , Aumiller, D. L. , Buschman, F. X. , and Kyle, M. R. , 2016, “ Modeling Moving Systems With RELAP5-3D,” J. Nucl. Sci. Eng., 182(1), pp. 83–95.
Weaver, W. L. , Aumiller, D. L. , and Tomlinson, E. T. , 2003, “ A Generic Semi-Implicit Coupling Methodology for Use in RELAP5-3D,” J. Nucl. Eng. Des., 211(1), pp. 13–26.
Weaver, W. L. , 2014, “ RELAP5-3D Code Manual, Volume 1, Appendix B: User Guide for the PVM Coupling Interface in the RELAP5-3D© Code,” Rev. 4.2, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, Technical Report No. INEEL-EXT-98-00834.
Rabiti, C. , Alfonsi, A. , and Epiney, A. S. , 2016, “ New Simulation Schemes and Capabilities for the PHISICS/RELAP5-3D Coupled Suite,” Nucl. Sci. Eng., 182(1), pp. 104–118. [CrossRef]
Alfonsi, A. , Rabiti, C. , Epiney, A. S. , Wang, Y. , and Cogliati, J. , 2012, “ PHISICS Toolkit: Multi-Reactor Transmutation Analysis Utility—MRTAU,” Advances in Reactor Physics Linking Research, Industry, and Education (PHYSOR 2012), Knoxville, TN, Apr. 15–20.
Strydom, G. , Epiney, A. S. , Alfonsi, A. , and Rabiti, C. , 2016, “ Comparison of the PHISICS/RELAP5-3D Ring and Block Model Results for Phase I of the OECD/NEA MHTGR-350 Benchmark,” J. Nucl. Technol., 193(1), pp. 15–35.
Horelik, N. , Herman, B. , Forget, B. , and Smith, K. , 2013, “ Benchmark for Evaluation and Validation for Reactor Simulations (BEAVRS) v1.01,” International Conference on Mathematics and Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering, Sun Valley, ID, May 5–9, pp. 2986–2999.
Szilard, R. , Frepoli, C. , Yurko, J. , Youngblood, R. , Zoino, A. , Alfonsi, A. , Rabiti, C. , Zhang, H. , Bayless, P. , Zhao, H. , Swindlehurst, G. , and Smith, C. , 2015, “ Industry Application Emergency Core Cooling System Cladding Acceptance Criteria Early Demonstration,” Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, Technical Report No. INL/EXT-15-36541.
Zoino, A. , Alfonsi, A. , Rabiti, C. , Slizard, R. H. , Giannetti, F. , and Caruso, G. , 2017, “ Performance-Based ECCS Cladding Acceptance Criteria: A New Simulation Approach,” Ann. Nucl. Energy, 100(2), pp. 204–216. [CrossRef]
Mesina, G. L. , 2013, “ RELAP5-3D Restart and Backup Verification Testing,” Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, Technical Report No. INL/EXT-13-29568.
Mesina, G. , Aumiller, D. , and Buschman, F. , 2016, “ Extremely Accurate Sequential Verification of RELAP5-3D,” ANS J. Nucl. Sci. Eng., 182(1), pp. 1–12.
Mesina, G. , and Anderson, A. , 2016, “ Enhanced Verification for RELAP5-3D Parameter and Sensitivity Studies,” ASME Paper No. ICONE24-61040.
Alfonsi, A. , Rabiti, C. , Mandelli, D. , Cogliati, J. , Kinoshita, R. , and Naviglio, A. , 2013, “ Dynamic Event Tree Analysis Through RAVEN,” International Topical Meeting on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Analysis (PSA 2013), on CD-ROM, Columbia, SC, Sept. 22–26, Report No. INL/CON-14-32595.
Alfonsi, A. , Rabiti, C. , Mandelli, D. , Cogliati, J. , and Kinoshita, R. , 2014, “ RAVEN: Development of the Adaptive Dynamic Event Tree Approach,” Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, Technical Report No. INL/MIS-14-33246.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Reactor core layout

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Depletion time evolution coupled with RELAP5-3D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Reactor core RELAP5-3D nodalization

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

PRA strategy for analyzing the accident scenario from equilibrium core

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) First cycle and (b) second cycle reloading patterns

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Third cycle and (b) fourth cycle reloading patterns

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Fifth cycle and (b) Nth cycle reloading patterns

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Assembly peaking factor for BOC (top), MOC, and EOC

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Burnup at begin of cycle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Burnup at middle of cycle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Burnup at end of cycle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Peak clad temperature during the LBLOCA scenario initiated at BOC, MOC, and EOC [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Maximum local oxidation rate during the LBLOCA scenario initiated at BOC, MOC, and EOC [9]

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In