Special Section Papers

Benchmarking Severe Accident Computer Codes for Heavy Water Reactor Applications

[+] Author and Article Information
Thambiayah Nitheanandan

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories,
Chalk River, ON K0J 1J0, Canada
e-mail: thambiayah.nitheanandan@cnl.ca

X. Cao

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Shanghai, China
e-mail: caoxuewu@sjtu.edu.cn

J.-H. Choi

International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, Austria
e-mail: jhchoi2@kepco-enc.com

D. Dupleac

Power Engineering Department,
Politechnica University of Bucharest,
Bucharest, Romania
e-mail: danieldu@cne.pub.ro

D.-H. Kim

Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute,
Daejeon, South Korea
e-mail: dhkim8@kaeri.re.kr

H. G. Lele

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai, India
e-mail: hglele@barc.gov.in

A. K. Nayak

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai, India
e-mail: arunths@barc.gov.in

H. P. Rammohan

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited,
Mumbai, India
e-mail: hprammohan@npcil.co.in

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received July 29, 2016; final manuscript received November 22, 2016; published online March 1, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Arun Nayak.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 3(2), 020903 (Mar 01, 2017) (11 pages) Paper No: NERS-16-1084; doi: 10.1115/1.4035726 History: Received July 29, 2016; Revised November 22, 2016

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) organized a coordinated research project (CRP) on “Benchmarking Severe Accident Computer Codes for Heavy Water Reactors (HWR) Applications,” (IAEA TECDOC Series No. 1727), and the activity was completed in 2012. This paper summarizes the results from the CRP: the selection of a severe accident sequence, definition of appropriate geometrical and boundary conditions, benchmarking code analyses, comparison of the code results, evaluation of the capabilities of existing computer codes to predict important severe accident phenomena, and suggestions for code improvements and/or new experiments to reduce uncertainties.

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


Mathew, P. M. , Nitheanandan, T. , and Bushby, S. J. , 2008, “ Severe Core Damage Accident Progression Within a CANDU 6 Calandria Vessel,” ERMSAR Seminar, 3rd European Review Meeting on Severe Accident Research, Nesseber, Bulgaria.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 2008, “ Analysis of Severe Accidents in Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors,” IAEA, Vienna, Austria, IAEA TECDOC Series No. 1594.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, 2005, “ CANDU 6 Technical Summary,” Reactor Development Business Unit, AECL, Chalk River, ON, Canada.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 2013, “ Benchmarking Severe Accident Computer Codes for Heavy Water Reactor Applications,” IAEA, Vienna, Austria, IAEA TECDOC Series No. 1727.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 2002, “ Heavy Water Reactors: Status and Projected Development,” Technical Reports Series No. 407, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, Report No. INIS-XA-413.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of an HWR reactor assembly

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic of a CANDU primary heat transport system: 1—steam line leading to turbines, 2—pressurizer, 3—steam generators, 4—pumps, 5—inlet headers, 6—calandria vessel, 7—fuel channel, 8—moderator circulation pump, 9—moderator heat exchanger, and 10—fueling machines

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A comparison of the calculated PHTS pressure at the reactor outlet header (ROH)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

A comparison of the time when liquid relief valves in the PHTS open for the first time in loops 1 and 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A comparison of the coolant mass inventory in the steam generator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

A comparison of total coolant mass in the PHTS and pressurizer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

The time SG dryout calculated by participants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

The variation of moderator inventory

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Comparison of time from the accident initiation until the moderator was completely boiled off

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The UO2 mass in the intact core, showing the variation in the core disassembly process. The KAERI results include the zirconium in the channels.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The corium mass (UO2 + Zr + ZrO2) in the calandria vessel terminal debris bed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The calculated calandria vessel wall temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

The transient containment pressure calculated by the participants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Timing of containment equipment airlock seal failure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Total amount of hydrogen generated during the accident

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

The amount (mass) of fission products calculated in the primary heat transport system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

The amount of noble gas released to the containment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Total amount of noble gas released

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

A comparison of the different stages of the station blackout sequence with increasing complexity



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