0
Research Papers

Benchmarking the Real-Time Core Model for VVER-1000 Simulator Application on Asymmetric Core Load

[+] Author and Article Information
Emiliya Georgieva

Risk Engineering Ltd.,
10 Vihren Street,
Sofia 1618, Bulgaria
e-mail: emilia.georgieva@riskeng.bg

Yavor Dinkov

Risk Engineering Ltd.,
10 Vihren Street,
Sofia 1618, Bulgaria
e-mail: yavor.dinkov@riskeng.bg

Kostadin Ivanov

Department of Nuclear Engineering,
North Carolina State University,
2500 Stinson Drive,
3140 Burlington Engineering Labs,
Raleigh, NC 27695-7909
e-mail: knivanov@ncsu.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 30, 2016; final manuscript received December 14, 2016; published online May 25, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Leon Cizelj.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 3(3), 031005 (May 25, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: NERS-16-1132; doi: 10.1115/1.4035550 History: Received September 30, 2016; Revised December 14, 2016

The aim of this paper is to summarize authors' experience in adaptation of an existing plant-specific VVER-1000/V320 model for simulation of a rare example of a Kalinin 3 nuclear power plant (NPP) transient of “switching-off of one of the four operating main circulation pumps at nominal reactor power” with an asymmetric core configuration. The fidelity and accuracy of simulation with emphasis on reactor core model is illustrated through comparison with plant-specific data. Simulation results concerning fuel assembly (FA) power and axial power distribution during the transient are compared with records from Kalinin 3 in-core monitoring system (ICMS). Main operating parameters of nuclear steam supply system of a VVER-1000/V320 series units vary to a considerable degree. While Kalinin 3 benchmark specification contains very good description of the transient, as well as record of many parameters of the unit, the document provides only superficial description of the reference unit. In such a case, an approach based on a “generic” V320 model by default introduces deviations which are difficult to quantify. There are several examples which warrant discussion. Some of the most important lessons learned are as follows. (1) individual characteristics of all the main circulation pumps and the reactor coolant loops are quite important for the quality of simulation and should be accounted for in the model; (2) variations in fuel assembly characteristics should be accounted for not only in terms of macroscopic cross section library but also in terms of local pressure loss coefficients and mixing factors in the case of mixed core loads; (3) comprehensive plant-specific model of dynamic response of instrumentation and control (I&C) systems is a necessity; dynamic characteristics of individual measurement channels (nuclear instrumentation, pressure, temperature) should be accounted for; and (4) comprehensive plant-specific model of balance-of-plant equipment, instrumentation, and control is a necessity. Above requirements impose a difficult task to comply with. Nevertheless, any individual nuclear power unit is supposed to maintain a detailed design database and data requirements for plant-specific model development should be considered.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Kalinin 3 load 1 (1 bis) pattern—one-sixth symmetry representation with number, uranium enrichment, and number of gadolinium fuel pins (if present). Variation in fuel assembly specification is indicated (five variations of TVSA type and one replacement FA of TVS-M type).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Power excursion (ex-core detectors, power range, linear) and control rod bank nos. 9 and 10 positions. Plant data are shown with symbols (31YCS00FX005AXQ2 ex-core detector 2; 31YCS00FX005BXQ2 ex-core detector 12; 33YCS00FX006AXQ2 ex-core detector 7; 30YVS00FG013XQ01 position of control rod 14–25, bank no. 9; 30YVS00FG009XQ01 position of control rod 10–23, bank no. 10). Simulation data are shown with lines (N OR2 (linear) ch 1, ch 2, and ch 3—ex-core detectors, power range, linear, set 1; CR 12–29 (10) control rod 12–29, bank no. 10; CR 08–29 (9) control rod 08–29, bank no. 9).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Axial offset. Data recorded by Kalinin 3 ICMS are shown with symbols (30YQR00FU005XQ01 axial offset of SPND; 30YQR00FU901XQ01 axial offset of the reconstructed 3D power distribution). Simulation data are shown with a tick line.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Kalinin 3 transient—Comparison between simulation and plant data (ICMS)—Assembly wise power peaking factors at the start of the transient. Number-in-a-circle is a control rod bank number (missing symbol indicates no control rod present).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Kalinin 3 transient—comparison between simulation and plant data (ICMS)—assembly wise power peaking factors at 45 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Kalinin 3 transient—comparison between simulation and plant data (ICMS)—assembly wise power peaking factors at 90 s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Kalinin 3 transient—comparison between simulation and plant data (ICMS)—assembly wise power peaking factors the end of the transient (300 s)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Axial power profile for FA 27 (12–21) at 0, 45, 90, and 300 s. Data recorded by Kalinin 3 ICMS are shown with symbols–30YQR04FX027, 30YQR06FX027 (LHR readings normalized to peaking factor).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Axial power profile for FA 30 (12–27) at 0, 45, 90, and 300 s. Data recorded by Kalinin 3 ICMS are shown with symbols—30YQR04FX030, 30YQR06FX030 (LHR readings normalized to peaking factor).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Axial power profile for FA 81 (08–27) at 0, 45, 90, and 300 s. Data recorded by Kalinin 3 ICMS are shown with symbols—30YQR04FX081, 30YQR06FX081 (LHR readings normalized to peaking factor).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Axial power profile for FA 96 (07–30) at 0, 45, 90, and 300 s. Data recorded by Kalinin 3 ICMS are shown with symbols—30YQR04FX096, 30YQR06FX096 (LHR readings normalized to peaking factor).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Axial power profile for FA 134 (04–31) at 0, 45, 90, and 300 s. Data recorded by Kalinin 3 ICMS are shown with symbols—30YQR04FX134, 30YQR06FX134 (LHR readings normalized to peaking factor).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Axial power profile for FA 150 (02–23) at 0, 45, 90, and 300 s. Data recorded by Kalinin 3 ICMS are shown with symbols—30YQR04FX150, 30YQR06FX150 (LHR readings normalized to peaking factor).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Reactor pressure vessel coolant mass flow rate—comparison between RELAP5-HD simulation and Kalinin 3 ICMS record. Data recorded by Kalinin 3 ICMS (signal 30YCR10FF903XQ02 in the plant database) are shown with symbols.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

An illustration of the magnitude of variation of Kalinin 3 reactor system thermal power during the transient. Kalinin 3 ICMS signals are shown with symbols (30YQR00FX001XQ01 power from SPND readings; 30YCR00FX001XQ01 ex-core detectors; 30RLR00FX903XQ03 thermal balance of steam generators secondary side; 30YAR00FX001XQ01 primary coolant loop thermal balance). Simulation data are shown with tick lines for comparison (core thermal power, NEM; SG primary-to-secondary heat flux, RELAP5-HD; power from SPND model).

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