Nuclear physics deterministic code

Abstract The deterministic method has served as a standardized approach to the neutronics modeling of nuclear reactors. To get satisfactory computational efficiency and accuracy, the deterministic method usually utilizes a multistep approach. Generally, the first step is obtaining spatial-homogenized and group-collapsed multigroup cross sections, and the second step is the execution of whole-core calculations with multigroup cross sections. The whole process involves resolving a series of neutronics problems, that is, the nuclear data processing; treatments to the cross section resonance behavior; the modeling of the isotopic depletion; corrections for homogenization errors; and solutions of the one-, two-, or three-dimensional transport/diffusion equation. To guarantee accurate predictions of neutronics features of a nuclear reactor, a variety of neutronics models have been proposed and the judicious combination of them depending on reactor types and application purposes is the key to the success of the reactor physics discipline. To offer a holistic view, this chapter introduces typical (if not all) deterministic computational codes and their neutronics models employed for the design and analysis of nuclear reactors.

[1]  Soeren Kliem,et al.  Development of multi-physics code systems based on the reactor dynamics code DYN3D , 2011 .

[3]  Masahiro Tatsumi,et al.  Numerical Solution of Stiff Burnup Equation with Short Half Lived Nuclides by the Krylov Subspace Method , 2007 .

[4]  D. Knott,et al.  The two-dimensional transport solution within CASMO-4 , 1993 .

[5]  S. Duerigen,et al.  The simplified P3 approach on a trigonal geometry of the nodal reactor code DYN3D , 2012 .

[6]  M. Carta,et al.  The neutronic modelling of the VENUS-F critical core experiments with the ERANOS deterministic code (FREYA EU FP7 project) , 2018, Annals of Nuclear Energy.

[7]  Igor Zmijarevic,et al.  New Numerical Solution with the Method of Short Characteristics for 2-D Heterogeneous Cartesian Cells in the APOLLO2 Code: Numerical Analysis and Tests , 2009 .

[8]  Nikolay Petrov,et al.  APOLLO2 and TRIPOLI4 solutions of the OECD VVER-1000 LEU and MOX assembly benchmark , 2013 .

[9]  Bin Zhang,et al.  Development and verification of PWR-core fuel management calculation code system NECP-Bamboo: Part I Bamboo-Lattice , 2018, Nuclear Engineering and Design.

[10]  Soeren Kliem,et al.  Calculation of the VVER-1000 coolant transient benchmark using the coupled code systems DYN3D/RELAP5 and DYN3D/ATHLET , 2007 .

[11]  O. Reistad,et al.  Comparison of HELIOS-2.1 and SCALE-6.1 codes on pin-cell model , 2018, Annals of Nuclear Energy.

[12]  Soeren Kliem,et al.  ATWS analysis for PWR using the coupled code system DYN3D/ATHLET , 2009 .

[13]  S. Kliem,et al.  The HEXNEM3 nodal flux expansion method for the hexagonal geometry in the code DYN3D , 2018, Annals of Nuclear Energy.

[15]  Simone Santandrea,et al.  APOLLO2 YEAR 2010 , 2010 .

[16]  Allan F. Henry,et al.  SIMULATE-3 Pin Power Reconstruction: Methodology and Benchmarking , 1989 .

[17]  L. M. Petrie,et al.  Recent Enhancements to the SCALE 5 Resonance Self-Shielding Methodology , 2005 .

[18]  T. Takeda,et al.  Depletion Calculations for PWR Assemblies including Burnable Absorbers with Lattice Code PARAGON , 2006 .

[19]  Soeren Kliem,et al.  The reactor dynamics code DYN3D – models, validation and applications , 2016 .

[20]  S. Leite.  An assessment of WIMS method for computing collision probabilities in one-dimensional annular systems , 2000 .

[21]  Yoshihiro Yamane,et al.  Improvement of the SPH Method for Pin-by-Pin Core Calculations , 2004 .

[22]  Robert E. MacFarlane,et al.  Methods for Processing ENDF/B-VII with NJOY , 2010 .

[24]  M. F. Murphy,et al.  Within-Pin Reaction Rate Distributions: CASMO-4 and HELIOS Compared Against Tomographic Measurements at the PROTEUS Reactor , 2005 .

[25]  Giuseppe Palmiotti,et al.  Simplified spherical harmonics in the variational nodal method , 1997 .

[26]  P. Blaise,et al.  High-burn up 10 × 10 100%MOX ABWR core physics analysis with APOLLO2.8 and TRIPOLI-4.5 codes , 2010 .

[27]  Hongchun Wu,et al.  Development and verification of PWR-core fuel management calculation code system NECP-Bamboo: Part II Bamboo-Core , 2018, Nuclear Engineering and Design.

[28]  Jamal Al Zain,et al.  Validation of DRAGON4/DONJON4 simulation methodology for a typical MNSR by calculating reactivity feedback coefficient and neutron flux , 2018, Results in Physics.

[29]  A. Pautz,et al.  Development and validation of a TRACE/PARCS core model of Leibstadt Kernkraftwerk cycle 19 , 2017 .

[30]  M. Pusa,et al.  Computing the Matrix Exponential in Burnup Calculations , 2010 .

[31]  Maria Pusa,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of assembly and core-level calculations with application to CASMO-4E and SIMULATE-3 , 2017 .

[32]  Sunghwan Yun,et al.  Validation of the MC2-3/TWODANT/DIF3D code system for control rod worth via BFS-75-1 and BFS-109-2A reactor physics experiments , 2018 .

[33]  A. S. Shirani,et al.  Estimation of Control Rod Worth in a VVER-1000 Reactor using DRAGON4 and DONJON4 , 2014 .

[35]  E. Gilad,et al.  Monte Carlo and nodal neutron physics calculations of the IAEA MTR benchmark using Serpent/DYN3D code system , 2016 .

[36]  Y. Saad,et al.  Chebyshev acceleration techniques for solving nonsymmetric eigenvalue problems , 1984 .

[37]  Alexander Vasiliev,et al.  Development of a CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3/MCNPX calculation scheme for PWR fast neutron fluence analysis and validation against RPV scraping test data , 2007 .

[38]  Soeren Kliem,et al.  Development and verification of the coupled 3D neutron kinetics/thermal-hydraulics code DYN3D-HTR for the simulation of transients in block-type HTGR , 2012 .

[39]  Y. Oka,et al.  Accuracy of nuclear design of fast and thermal neutron coupled core by SRAC , 2014 .

[40]  G. Palmiotti,et al.  Optimized Two-Dimensional S n Transport (BISTRO) , 1990 .

[42]  Stephen M. Bowman,et al.  Reactor Physics Methods and Analysis Capabilities in SCALE , 2011 .

[44]  F. Faghihi,et al.  Reactivity coefficients simulation of the Iranian VVER-1000 nuclear reactor using WIMS and CITATION codes , 2007 .

[45]  Y. Kozmenkov,et al.  Simulation of an MSLB scenario using the 3D neutron kinetic core model DYN3D coupled with the CFD software Trio_U , 2017 .

[46]  A. Abbaspour,et al.  Burnup span sensitivity analysis of different burnup coupling schemes , 2012 .

[47]  Akio Yamamoto,et al.  Lattice Physics Computations , 2010 .

[48]  A. Yamamoto,et al.  Resonance Treatment Based on Ultra-fine-group Spectrum Calculation in the AEGIS Code , 2007 .

[49]  A. W. Harto,et al.  Neutronic analysis of fuel assembly design in Small-PWR using uranium mononitride fully ceramic micro-encapsulated fuel using SCALE and Serpent codes , 2019, Nuclear Engineering and Technology.

[50]  E. Fridman,et al.  Solution of the OECD/NEA neutronic SFR benchmark with Serpent-DYN3D and Serpent-PARCS code systems , 2015 .

[51]  Soeren Kliem,et al.  Validation and verification of the coupled neutron kinetic/thermal hydraulic system code DYN3D/ATHLET , 2015 .

[52]  Yongping Wang,et al.  Comparison of two three-dimensional heterogeneous variational nodal methods for PWR control rod cusping effect and pin-by-pin calculation , 2017 .

[53]  P. J. Smith,et al.  Current status of the reactor physics code WIMS and recent developments , 2017 .

[54]  Hongchun Wu,et al.  Adaptive expansion order for diffusion Variational Nodal Method , 2018, Annals of Nuclear Energy.

[55]  Hangbok Choi,et al.  Benchmarking MCNP and WIMS/RFSP against Measurement Data—I: Deuterium Critical Assembly , 2004 .

[56]  Alexander Grahn,et al.  Coupling of the 3D neutron kinetic core model DYN3D with the CFD software ANSYS-CFX , 2015 .

[57]  Igor Zmijarevic,et al.  CRONOS2 and APOLL02 results for the NEA C5G7 MOX benchmark , 2004 .

[58]  P. Van Uffelen,et al.  Development of a general coupling interface for the fuel performance code TRANSURANUS – Tested with the reactor dynamics code DYN3D , 2015 .

[59]  Thomas J. Downar,et al.  Application of TRACE/PARCS to BWR stability analysis , 2008 .

[60]  Won Sik Yang,et al.  FAST REACTOR PHYSICS AND COMPUTATIONAL METHODS , 2012 .

[61]  F. D'auria,et al.  Analysis of the VVER1000 coolant trip benchmark using the coupled RELAP5/PARCS code , 2006 .

[62]  E. Nikitin,et al.  Extension of the reactor dynamics code DYN3D to SFR applications – Part II: Validation against the Phenix EOL control rod withdrawal tests , 2018, Annals of Nuclear Energy.

[63]  U. Rohde,et al.  Simulations of RUTA-70 reactor with CERMET fuel using DYN3D/ATHLET and DYN3D/RELAP5 coupled codes , 2012 .

[64]  S. Feher,et al.  Calculation of the void reactivity of CANDU lattices using the scale code system , 1995 .

[65]  T. Takeda,et al.  Spatially Dependent Self-Shielding Method with Temperature Distribution for the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON , 2006 .

[67]  Kai Huang,et al.  Improvements to the Transmutation Trajectory Analysis of depletion evaluation , 2016 .

[69]  Wei Shen,et al.  PWR few-group constants parameterization analysis , 2016 .

[70]  H. Joo,et al.  Improved stiffness confinement method within the coarse mesh finite difference framework for efficient spatial kinetics calculation , 2015 .

[71]  Yousry Gohar,et al.  MCNPX, MONK, and ERANOS analyses of the YALINA Booster subcritical assembly , 2011 .

[72]  Tomohiro Endo,et al.  AEGIS: AN ADVANCED LATTICE PHYSICS CODE FOR LIGHT WATER REACTOR ANALYSES , 2010 .

[73]  Hsien-Chuan Lin,et al.  Qualification of the Taiwan Power Company's pressurized water reactor physics methods using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 , 2012 .

[75]  Andrej Trkov,et al.  Analysis of the Burnup Credit Benchmark with an Updated WIMS-D Library , 2000 .

[76]  Alain Hébert,et al.  Performance of advanced self-shielding models in DRAGON Version4 on analysis of a high conversion light water reactor lattice , 2008 .