Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Engineering
OPTIMIZATION OF COUPLED MULTIPHYSICS METHODOLOGY FOR SAFETY
ANALYSIS OF PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR
A Dissertation in
Nuclear Engineering
by
Peter Tshepo Mkhabela
© 2010 Peter Tshepo Mkhabela
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
August 2010
ii
The dissertation of Peter Tshepo Mkhabela was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Kostadin N. Ivanov
Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Thesis Advisor Co-Chair of Committee
Maria N. Avramova Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Co-Chair of Committee
Robert M. Edwards Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Yousry Y. Azmy Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Frederik Reitsma Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (Pty) Ltd
Special Member
Ntate D. Kgwadi North-West University
Special Member
Michael Adewumi
Professor of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering
Arthur Motta
Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Material Science and Engineering
Chair of Nuclear Engineering Program
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
iii
ABSTRACT
The research conducted within the framework of this PhD thesis is devoted to the high-
fidelity multi-physics (based on neutronics/thermal-hydraulics coupling) analysis of Pebble Bed
Modular Reactor (PBMR), which is a High Temperature Reactor (HTR). The Next Generation
Nuclear Plant (NGNP) will be a HTR design. The core design and safety analysis methods are
considerably less developed and mature for HTR analysis than those currently used for Light
Water Reactors (LWRs). Compared to LWRs, the HTR transient analysis is more demanding
since it requires proper treatment of both slower and much longer transients (of time scale in
hours and days) and fast and short transients (of time scale in minutes and seconds). There is
limited operation and experimental data available for HTRs for validation of coupled multi-
physics methodologies.
This PhD work developed and verified reliable high fidelity coupled multi-physics models
subsequently implemented in robust, efficient, and accurate computational tools to analyse the
neutronics and thermal-hydraulic behaviour for design optimization and safety evaluation of
PBMR concept The study provided a contribution to a greater accuracy of neutronics
calculations by including the feedback from thermal hydraulics driven temperature calculation
and various multi-physics effects that can influence it. Consideration of the feedback due to the
influence of leakage was taken into account by development and implementation of improved
buckling feedback models. Modifications were made in the calculation procedure to ensure
that the xenon depletion models were accurate for proper interpolation from cross section
tables.
To achieve this, the NEM/THERMIX coupled code system was developed to create the
system that is efficient and stable over the duration of transient calculations that last over
several tens of hours.
Another achievement of the PhD thesis was development and demonstration of full-
physics, three-dimensional safety analysis methodology for the PBMR to provide reference
solutions. Investigation of different aspects of the coupled methodology and development of
iv
efficient kinetics treatment for the PBMR were carried out, which accounts for all feedback
phenomena in an efficient manner. The OECD/NEA PBMR-400 coupled code benchmark was
used as a test matrix for the proposed investigations.
The integrated thermal-hydraulics and neutronics (multi-physics) methods were extended
to enable modeling of a wider range of transients pertinent to the PBMR. First, the effect of the
spatial mapping schemes (spatial coupling) was studied and quantified for different types of
transients, which resulted in implementation of improved mapping methodology based on user
defined criteria. The second aspect that was studied and optimized is the temporal coupling
and meshing schemes between the neutronics and thermal-hydraulics time step selection
algorithms. The coupled code convergence was achieved supplemented by application of
methods to accelerate it. Finally, the modeling of all feedback phenomena in PBMRs was
investigated and a novel treatment of cross-section dependencies was introduced for
improving the representation of cross-section variations.
The added benefit was that in the process of studying and improving the coupled multi-
physics methodology more insight was gained into the physics and dynamics of PBMR, which
will help also to optimize the PBMR design and improve its safety. One unique contribution of
the PhD research is the investigation of the importance of the correct representation of the
three-dimensional (3-D) effects in the PBMR analysis. The performed studies demonstrated
that explicit 3-D modeling of control rod movement is superior and removes the errors
associated with the grey curtain (2-D homogenized) approximation.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................VIII
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................XI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................XII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem identification ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Literature review ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2.1 History of gas-cooled reactors ............................................................................ 1 1.2.2 Current developments in gas-cooled reactors ..................................................... 2 1.2.3 Neutron kinetics methods ................................................................................... 5 1.2.4 Cross section generation and modeling .............................................................. 9
1.3 Objectives and layout of the thesis ................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER 2 ENERGY GROUP SENSITIVITY STUDIES ........................................... 13
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 NEM diffusion solution ...................................................................................... 18 2.2.2 MCNP probabilistic transport solution ............................................................... 21
2.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 Results at 300K ................................................................................................ 28 2.3.2 Results at 1000K .............................................................................................. 29
2.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE NEM/THERMIX CODE SYSTEM .................... 31
3.1 Description of NEM ....................................................................................................... 31 3.1.1 Cylindrical geometry ......................................................................................... 31 3.1.2 Steady state solution procedure ....................................................................... 34 3.1.3 Description of the transient solution .................................................................. 35
3.2 Description of THERMIX-DIREKT ................................................................................. 37 3.3 Description of coupling scheme..................................................................................... 41 3.4 Description of coupling scheme..................................................................................... 41 3.5 Status of verification...................................................................................................... 45 3.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 47
CHAPTER 4 MULTIPHYSICS CODE DEVELOPMENT AND OPTIMIZATION........... 48
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 48 4.2 Thermal-hydraulic modeling .......................................................................................... 48
4.2.1 Calculation of the kernel temperature ............................................................... 48 4.2.2 NEM/THERMIX kernel model ........................................................................... 53 4.2.3 New NEM fuel kernel temperature model.......................................................... 56 4.2.4 TINTE kernel model ......................................................................................... 58
4.3 Optimizing temporal coupling schemes ......................................................................... 59 4.4 Improved and efficient feedback modeling..................................................................... 61
4.4.1 Thermal and fast buckling calculation ............................................................... 61 4.5 Xenon and Iodine models ............................................................................................. 68
vi
4.5.1 Final 5-D steady problem convergence ............................................................. 71 4.6 Transient cross section modeling .................................................................................. 72 4.7 Control rod movement modeling ................................................................................... 74
4.7.1 Linear Rod Motion Model (ROMO) ................................................................... 75 4.7.2 Volume-weighting method ................................................................................ 78 4.7.3 Flux-volume weighting Method ......................................................................... 78
4.8 Decay heat calculation .................................................................................................. 85 4.9 Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 88
CHAPTER 5 NEA/OECD PBMR-400 COUPLED CODE BENCHMARK .................... 89
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 89 5.2 Steady State Cases ...................................................................................................... 91
5.2.1 Exercise 1 (Case S-1): Neutronics solution with fixed cross sections................. 91 5.2.2 Exercise 2 (Case S-2): Thermal hydraulic solution with given power ................. 92 5.2.3 Exercise 3 (Case S-3): Combined neutronics thermal hydraulics calculation ..... 93
5.3 Comparison of steady state results ............................................................................... 93 5.4 Transient cases .......................................................................................................... 100
5.4.1 DLOFC........................................................................................................... 100 5.4.2 Control rod ejection (CRE).............................................................................. 102 5.4.3 Control rod withdrawal (CRW) ........................................................................ 108
5.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 110
CHAPTER 6 THREE-DIMENSIONAL SPATIAL MODELS ....................................... 111
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 111 6.2 Optimizing spatial coupling schemes ........................................................................... 112 6.3 Reference neutronic solution ....................................................................................... 114
6.3.1 DORT Model of PBMR-268 ............................................................................ 115 6.3.2 TORT Model of PBMR-268 ............................................................................. 116
6.4 Results for 3-D spatial modeling .................................................................................. 119 6.5 PBMR-400 Steady state 3-D modeling with NEM ........................................................ 126 6.6 3-D spatial modeling of PBMR-400 with TORT-TDS .................................................... 131
6.6.1 The LMW 3-D transient problem without feedback .......................................... 132 6.7 Reference thermal-hydraulic models ........................................................................... 136 6.8 ATTICA3D model ........................................................................................................ 138
6.8.1 Description of ATTICA3D ............................................................................... 138 6.8.2 Results of ATTICA3D modeling ...................................................................... 140
6.9 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 141
CHAPTER 7 CFD TRANSIENT MODELING OF PBMR-400 .................................... 142
7.1 Description of CFD model ........................................................................................... 142 7.2 PHOENICS calculations.............................................................................................. 143 7.3 DASPK solution .......................................................................................................... 145
7.3.1 Results and Discussion of CFD modeling ....................................................... 145 7.3.2 Transient calculations ..................................................................................... 150
7.4 The 1-D Model PLOFC and DLOFC results ................................................................. 156 7.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 158
CHAPTER 8 CONTRIBUTIONS AND FUTURE WORK ........................................... 159
8.1 Contributions .............................................................................................................. 159 8.2 Future work ................................................................................................................ 162
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 163
vii
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................................... 167
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................................... 171
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: PBMR spherical fuel element [41] .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: Comparison of cross section representation in PBMR modeling .............................................. 11
Figure 3: Methodology for the energy group sensitivity studies ............................................................... 19
Figure 4: PBMR-400 model in NEM and MCNP ..................................................................................... 21
Figure 5: TRISO particle for PBMR-400 reactor ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 6: Pebble bed fuel sphere with homogeneous distribution of TRISO particles .............................. 23
Figure 7: Lattice of TRISO particles in graphite matrix ............................................................................ 24
Figure 8: Axial cross sectional view of PBMR-400 reactor in MCNP model ............................................. 25
Figure 9: Horizontal cross sectional view of PBMR-400 reactor in MCNP model ..................................... 25
Figure 10: Comparison of K-Effective for 300K and 1000K with upscattering correction .......................... 26
Figure 11: Flux ratio for MCNP to NEM .................................................................................................. 27
Figure 12: Radial flux distribution at 300K .............................................................................................. 28
Figure 13: Axial flux distribution at 300K ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 14: Axial flux distribution at 1000K ............................................................................................... 29
Figure 15: Radial flux distribution at 1000K ............................................................................................ 30
Figure 16: Old transient Xenon model .................................................................................................... 44
Figure 17: Old NEM/THERMIX coupling scheme.................................................................................... 45
Figure 18: Comparison of axial power profiles for steady state ............................................................... 46
Figure 19: Comparison of radial power profiles for steady state .............................................................. 47
Figure 21: Convergence of temperature after modifications .................................................................... 49
Figure 20: Temperature transfer to NEM ................................................................................................ 49
Figure 22: Power during the control rod ejection transient [23] ................................................................ 51
Figure 23: Representative micro-system for shell calculation [45] ........................................................... 52
Figure 24: Simplified kernel heat transfer model ..................................................................................... 57
Figure 25: Convergence of the buckling distribution ............................................................................... 64
Figure 26: Simplified representation of spectral zones of PBR ................................................................ 65
Figure 27: New Xenon model ................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 28: Xenon changes in response to power changes [46] ............................................................... 70
Figure 30: Steady state convergence of 3-D map of Xenon number densities ......................................... 71
Figure 29: Xenon model processing for cross section interpolation ......................................................... 71
Figure 31: The k-effective convergence .................................................................................................. 72
Figure 32: Partially rodded nodes ........................................................................................................... 75
Figure 33: Simulation of control rod movement ....................................................................................... 76
Figure 34: Material homogenisation approach ........................................................................................ 79
Figure 35: Flux estimation for partially rodded nodes .............................................................................. 80
Figure 36: Flowchart for the control rod model........................................................................................ 82
Figure 37: Index of rod position .............................................................................................................. 83
Figure 38: Tracking of rod tip during DLOFC transient ............................................................................ 83
Figure 39: Results testing for the flux approximation .............................................................................. 84
Figure 40: Cusping effects during rod movement ................................................................................... 85
Figure 41: Decay heat behaviour (% of fission power) ............................................................................ 86
Figure 42: Log interpolation data points and time step error estimation ................................................... 87
Figure 43: New NEM/THERMIX feedback model.................................................................................... 88
Figure 44: PBMR-400MWth reactor ....................................................................................................... 90
Figure 45: Neutronic model for case S1 ................................................................................................. 92
Figure 46: Comparison of k-eff for OECD PBMR-400 Case S1 ............................................................... 94
Figure 47: Axial power distribution in the PBMR-400 reactor .................................................................. 95
ix
Figure 48: Radial power distribution for PBMR-400 reactor .................................................................... 96
Figure 49: Radial thermal flux distribution in PBMR-400 reactor ............................................................. 97
Figure 50: Comparison of outlet temperature for OECD PBMR-400 exercise 2 ....................................... 98
Figure 51: NEM axial power distribution for cases S1 and S3 ................................................................. 99
Figure 52: DALTON axial power distribution for cases S1 and S3 ........................................................... 99
Figure 53: Power during reactor scram................................................................................................. 101
Figure 54: Maximum temperatures reached during LOFC accidents ..................................................... 102
Figure 55: Power evolution for combinations of multiple time step sizes during the CRE transient ........ 103
Figure 56: Power evolution for single rod ejection for Case 5c .............................................................. 104
Figure 57: Power for two rods CRE ...................................................................................................... 105
Figure 58: Maximum temperature for two rods CRE ............................................................................. 105
Figure 59: Case 5b with all rods ejected ............................................................................................... 106
Figure 60: Maximum temperature for all rods CRE without kernel model .............................................. 106
Figure 61: Sensitivity on number of rods ejected .................................................................................. 107
Figure 62: Effect of fuel kernel model for CRE transient ....................................................................... 107
Figure 63: Maximum temperature for all rods CRE with the kernel model ............................................. 108
Figure 64: Case 5a control rod withdrawal transient ............................................................................. 109
Figure 65: Fuel temperature during CRW transient ............................................................................... 109
Figure 66: Reduction of 3-D model to 2-D ............................................................................................ 113
Figure 67: Neutronic model for PBMR-268 ........................................................................................... 116
Figure 68: Actual size of rods in 3-D model .......................................................................................... 117
Figure 69: Top view of the PBMR-400 reactor ...................................................................................... 117
Figure 70: Control rod equivalent volume ............................................................................................. 118
Figure 71: K-effective for 3-D modeling of PBMR-268 reactor............................................................... 119
Figure 72: 3-D view of thermal flux at top of PBMR-268 ....................................................................... 120
Figure 73: Azimuthal flux distribution at the top of the reactor ............................................................... 120
Figure 74: Middle core thermal flux distribution for PBMR-268 .............................................................. 121
Figure 75: Azimuthal flux distribution in the middle of the reactor .......................................................... 121
Figure 76: Thermal flux distribution at the bottom of PBMR-268 reactor................................................ 122
Figure 77: Thermal flux distribution at the bottom of PBMR-268 reactor................................................ 122
Figure 78: Top flux distribution PBMR-268 ........................................................................................... 123
Figure 79: Top azimuthal flux distribution comparison .......................................................................... 124
Figure 80: Middle of core flux distribution for PBMR-268 ...................................................................... 124
Figure 81: Flux comparison PBMR-268 ................................................................................................ 125
Figure 82: Bottom of core flux distribution for PBMR-268...................................................................... 125
Figure 83: Comparison of 10 sectors azimuthal flux distribution ............................................................ 126
Figure 84: PBMR-400 flux distribution at the top with ORO ................................................................... 127
Figure 85: PBMR-400 flux distribution at the top with ARI ..................................................................... 128
Figure 86: PBMR-400 flux distribution at rods with ORO....................................................................... 128
Figure 87: PBMR-400 Flux distribution at rods with ARI ....................................................................... 129
Figure 88: PBMR-400 Flux distribution bottom core with ORO .............................................................. 129
Figure 89: PBMR-400 Flux distribution bottom core with ARI ................................................................ 130
Figure 90: Middle PBMR-400 core ARI................................................................................................. 130
Figure 91: Middle of PBMR-400 core ORO........................................................................................... 131
Figure 92: PBMR-400 model using TORT-TDS .................................................................................... 132
Figure 93: Source convergence for the LMW problem .......................................................................... 133
Figure 94: Power for the LMW benchmark using TORT-TDS ................................................................ 134
Figure 95: LMW comparison of results ................................................................................................. 135
Figure 96: Reactor period for the LMW problem ................................................................................... 135
Figure 97: Comparison of axial thermal fluxes for Case S-3 PBMR-400................................................ 138
Figure 98: Aspects of transport, reaction and phase change in porous media ....................................... 139
x
Figure 99: Aspect of transport, reaction and phase change at pore level .............................................. 140
Figure 100: PHOENICS model of PBMR-400 ....................................................................................... 144
Figure 101: Velocity vectors in steady state PBMR-400 reactor ............................................................ 146
Figure 102: Recirculation at the bottom of the PBMR reactor................................................................ 147
Figure 103: Velocity vectors for steady state flow at the top of PBMR reactor ....................................... 148
Figure 104: Steady state temperature distribution for PBMR-400.......................................................... 149
Figure 105: HTR-10 Maximum temperatures as function of emissivity .................................................. 150
Figure 106: Recirculation at the top of the reactor ................................................................................ 151
Figure 107: Temperature evolution during PLOFC transient in PBMR reactor ....................................... 152
Figure 108: Temperature variation with emissivity at 8hrs for PLOFC ................................................... 153
Figure 109: Variation of temperature with emissivity at 20hrs ............................................................... 153
Figure 110: Variation of maximum temperature with emissivity at 40hrs ............................................... 154
Figure 111: Axial temperature profile at 8hrs ........................................................................................ 154
Figure 112: Heat transferred by radiation ............................................................................................. 155
Figure 113: Radial temperature distribution during PLOFC transient..................................................... 155
Figure 114: Heat transferred by convection during PLOFC ................................................................... 156
Figure 115: Emissivity sensitivity of PBMR surfaces during PLOFC transient ....................................... 156
Figure 116: Radial temperature distribution at different stages of the PLOFC transient ......................... 157
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Historical HTRs that have been operated.................................................................................... 2
Table 2: Energy group structures for Xe oscillation studies by Yamasita ................................................. 16
Table 3: Energy group structure used at Fort St. Vrain ........................................................................... 17
Table 4 Thermal cut-off values for cross section generation in COMBINE .............................................. 19
Table 5: Reactor material compositions .................................................................................................. 21
Table 6: Thermal conductivity of fuel kernel layers ................................................................................. 54
Table 7: Specific heat capacity of fuel kernel layers ................................................................................ 54
Table 8: Temperature representation in the fuel element ........................................................................ 55
Table 9: Suggested convergence criteria ............................................................................................... 60
Table 10: Suggested convergence criteria and step sizes for transient cases ........................................ 60
Table 11: 5-dimensional cross section table ........................................................................................... 73
Table 12: Major design and operating characteristics of the PBMR-400 reactor ...................................... 91
Table 13: Comparison of k-eff with and without feedback ....................................................................... 98
Table 14: PBMR-268 axial slices for flux profile .................................................................................... 123
Table 15: Description of levels for 3-D flux distribution .......................................................................... 127
Table 16: Parameter for LMW transient calculation .............................................................................. 134
Table 17: Eigenvalue comparison for case S-3 PBMR-400 ................................................................... 137
Table 18: Exercise 1 DLOFC without scram ......................................................................................... 171
Table 19: Exercise 2 DLOFC with scram .............................................................................................. 172
Table 20: Exercise 3 PLOFC with scram .............................................................................................. 174
Table 21: Exercise 4a load follow without control rod movement .......................................................... 175
Table 22: Exercise 4b load follow with control rod movement ............................................................... 178
xii
Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to express profound appreciation and deep regards for my Ph.D.
adviser, Prof. Kostadin N. Ivanov, for his vision, professional expertise, and continued
guidance.
I thank Dr Armin Seubert, Dr Andreas Pautz and Mr Antonio Sureda Sureda from GRS
mbH in Germany for their technical support.
I would like to thank Profs. Robert M. Edwards, Maria N. Avramova, Yousry Y. Azmy,
Michael Adewumi and Ntate D. Kgwadi as well as Mr. Frederik Reitsma for their time and effort
in reviewing this work and serving on my doctoral committee.
I thank Messrs. A.J. van der Merwe, Z. Mbambo, Jeff Victor and Dr Alex Tsela of PBMR
(Pty) Ltd for affording me the contract to support my studies.
I want to thank the Penn State University and Department of Mechanical and Nuclear
Engineering for giving me this opportunity.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge my friends and family for being supportive and for having
faith in me.
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Problem identification
The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) will be a High Temperature (HTR) design. For
HTRs core design and safety analysis methods are considerably less developed and mature
than those currently used for Light Water Reactors (LWRs).
The continued development of the NGNP requires verification of HTR design and its safety
features with reliable, and high fidelity coupled multi-physics models within the framework of
robust, efficient, and accurate code systems. While the coupled three-dimensional (3-D)
neutron kinetics/thermal-hydraulics methodology has been extensively researched and
established for LWR applications, there is a limited experience for HTRs in this area.
Compared to LWRs, HTR transient analysis can be more complex because it is required that
the safety analysis accounts for slower and much longer transients, as well as for fast and
short transients. High fidelity kinetics methods are important for core transients involving
significant variations of the flux shape and these methods have not been systematically
applied to HTRs. These facts motivate establishing consistent, sophisticated and efficient
coupled methodologies for the HTR.
1.2 Literature review
1.2.1 History of gas-cooled reactors
Conventional nuclear reactors have limitations on the outlet temperature, which also limit
the thermal efficiency of these reactors. Other industries could take advantage of the higher
outlet temperature provided by high temperature reactors that could be used as the source of
heat. The HTR, which are graphite-moderated, helium/CO2-cooled and use graphite as
reflector material, are the most appropriate candidates with outlet temperatures ranging
between 750°C to 950°C and with the inlet temperature of about 350°C. Although the high
temperatures of these reactors limit the use of metallic cladding material, fission product
2
retention takes place at the microscopic level of the coated particle that could take a
BISO(double coating) or TRISO (triple coating) configuration using coating material such as
SiC.
Earlier development of the HTR technology was with the Dragon project which was
collaboration between different countries. Other historical HTR developments are summarized
in Table 1.
Table 1: Historical HTRs that have been operated
Plant Thermal
Power (MW)
Electrical
Power (MW)
Fuel Element Site Operation
AVR 46 15 Pebble-shaped fuel
element
Germany 1965-1988
DRAGON 20 Tubular fuel element Great
Britain
1966-1975
Peach
Bottom
115 40 Tubular fuel element USA 1965-1988
THTR 750 308 Pebble-shaped fuel
element
Germany 1985-1988
Fort St.
Vrain
852 342 Block Type fuel
element
USA 1976-1989
1.2.2 Current developments in gas-cooled reactors
Recently Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR) systems were investigated by the Gas-Cooled
Reactor Technical Working Group (GCR-TWG) to fulfill the goals for sustainability, safety and
reliability, and economics for Generation IV nuclear energy systems. Twenty-one concept
descriptions were evaluated based on the public response to the U.S. Department of Energy
request for information [1] and nineteen of the twenty-one concepts considered are grouped
into the following four concept sets, representing the common capabilities and attributes
among the concepts:
• Modular Pebble Bed Reactor Systems (PBRs)
• Prismatic Fuel Modular Reactor Systems (PMRs)
3
• Very-High-Temperature Reactor Systems (VHTRs)
• Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor Systems (GFRs).
Other efforts for exploring the resurgence of the HTRs are taking place internationally and
have sparked research and development in the area of fuel design and management, reactor
design and operation, as well as safety analysis. Research initiatives are under way with larger
research initiatives undertaken under the EURATOM project.
In China, the modular HTR-10 was designed based on the AVR design technology using
spherical fuel [2]. Its construction was started in 1995 and began operation in 2002. It was
constructed to acquire the know-how of the design, construction and operation of HTRs; to
demonstrate the inherent safety features of modular HTRs and to test the electricity and heat
co-generation technology. Post Irradiation Examination (PIE) for the spherical pebble fuel for
the HTR-10 was recently conducted in Russia [3]. It was shown that the fabricated fuel
elements were suitable for use in the HTR-10 reactor.
In another development, China Institute of Nuclear Energy Technology (INET) was
investigating the Ordered Bed Modular Reactor (OBMR). In this design, the annular reactor
core is filled with an ordered bed of fuel spheres that are packed in a rhombohedral geometry
[4]. The unit cell layer is formed by four spheres lying at the corners of a square and the
individual spheres in subsequent layers fill the cusps formed by them. This reactor is said to
have the most of advantages from both the pebble bed reactor and block type reactor and
decreases core pressure drop.
In Japan, the operating 30 MW High Temperature Test Reactor (HTTR) plant achieved its
criticality in 1998. It achieved the full power of 30MW and reactor outlet coolant temperature of
about 850°C on 7 December 2001. The reactor outlet coolant temperature of 950°C was
reached after several operation cycles on 19 April 2004 [5]. This reactor uses block type
tubular fuel elements and it was constructed for testing of intermediate heat exchangers.
4
Other developments have been reported in the IAEA coordinated research meeting (CRM)
held in Vienna in 2002 on the status of development in the HTR technology by various
countries for the Coordinated Research Project (CRP-5), with the final report on the
benchmark being published in the TECDOC1382 [6].
While the traditional fuel design of HTR fuel is of the TRISO configuration with SiC and
uranium dioxide (UO2) (see Figure 1), there are developments looking into using alternative
kernel composition (UCO) as well as alternative coating layer (ZrC). UCO would help in
decreasing the CO pressure build-up in the particle and ZrC remains more stable at higher
temperature than SiC; thus providing increased margins in accident conditions. This work is
undertaken in the RAPHAEL (ReActor for Process Heat And ELectricity) project that was
established in April 2005 as part of EURATOM’s 6th Framework Programme [7].
It has been experimentally proven that the release of fission products from the TRISO-
coated particles become significant when the temperatures exceed 1600°C. This was tested in
the heat-up experiment of irradiated pebbles to measure release of fission products as a
function of time and temperature under simulated accident conditions. The information thus
obtained was required for the determination of the consequences of accident conditions in an
HTR and the suitability of the fuel. The heat-up experiment was made with the KÜFA device,
which was used in the 1990s at Julich Research Centre FZJ in Germany.
5
Figure 1: PBMR spherical fuel element [41]
The HTR transient analysis is conducted using deterministic methods by employing
computer codes designed to model various accident conditions. The computer codes used for
designing the reactor must be verified and validated for the assurance of safety of operation
under normal operations and accident conditions. To test the performance of different
methodologies adopted by various types of computer codes, there are efforts by various
organizations to engage in comparative analyses using a set of defined design and operating
parameters as it will be shown with the OECD PBMR-400 benchmark in the work presented in
this PhD thesis.
1.2.3 Neutron kinetics methods
There are different approaches to the solution of the time-dependent neutron diffusion
equation for reactor physics calculations. The ultimate goal is to determine the reactivity and
power density distribution of the reactor so that various safety calculations can be conducted.
Three well-known approaches based on flux factorization have been investigated in the past,
which include the Point Reactor Model (PRM), Adiabatic Model (AM) and Improved Quasistatic
Model (IQSM). The IQSM has been shown to be the most accurate of the three options in the
6
analysis of reactivity accidents as compared with the adiabatic and the point kinetic models for
the PBMR type reactor [8].
In the PRM the reactivity is a function of time only since it is assumed that the flux
distribution in the reactor remains constant during the transient. In heterogeneous systems,
this assumption would be flawed since the reactivity of the reactor also depends on the spatial
flux distribution itself. The flux factorization utilized in PRM and IQSM methods assumes slow-
varying change of flux shape. The best approach is to introduce complete finite difference (or
higher order) formulations of flux derivatives and treat the space and time dependence directly
and simultaneously [9]. These formulations are the basis for the NEM code that is being used
in the proposed work described in this PhD thesis.
The neutron energy distribution depends on the spatial temperature distribution, which
depends on the heat/power distribution. This dependence on temperature arises from the
dependence of the macroscopic cross sections that depend on the number densities of
materials in the core, which are used to calculate the power distribution. Hence the
temperature feedback is important in the determination of the power distribution in a reactor
and power is important for the determination of the correct temperature distribution. The
challenge is to develop models that account for temperature and power feedback effects in the
safety analysis. Hence the coupling of neutronic and thermal hydraulic computer codes has
become necessary, resulting in multi-physics tools for reactor dynamics simulation.
Interest is growing in the improvement of capabilities of different computer codes for safety
analysis of HTRs. The neutronic calculation without feedback could lead to incorrect
representation of the behavior of the reactor. Hence the neutronic codes are coupled with
thermal hydraulic codes in safety calculations. Several developments are currently under way
in coupling computer codes in the area of HTRs analysis.
One of the developments is with the HELIOS/MASTER code that is being developed at the
Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) [10]. The code has been modified for
7
analysis of HTRs of both pebble bed and prismatic fuel by introducing the treatment of double
heterogeneity, thermal up-scattering and the effects of spectrum shift.
The VSOP code has been coupled with a CFD code (Flownex) to perform heat source
calculations that were mapped into CFD code. The CFD is used in the design of the PBMR
reactor unit to calculate temperature fields and gradients, pressure drops and flow distributions
for the PBMR [11]. Empirical models were used to model the detailed heat transfer
phenomena and provide detailed results to structural analysis codes.
The CATHARE code was initially developed for the thermal hydraulic analysis of the
French Pressurized Water Reactors. This code has been adapted to evaluate gas cooled
reactor for various transient situations and has been applied in the analysis of the direct
Brayton cycle in the SALSA project [12]
The Time Dependent Neutronic and Temperature (TINTE) code was developed to analyze
the nuclear and transient behavior of high temperature reactors with full neutron, temperature,
and Xenon feedback effects taken into account in two-dimensional r-z geometry. The code
was developed by Kernforschungsanlage (KFA), today Forschungzentrum Jülich (FZJ) in
Germany. The main time-dependent calculation components mentioned here are:
• The neutron flux
• The nuclear heat generations source distribution
• The heat transport from the kernel to the fuel sphere surface
• Global temperature distribution
• The coolant gas flow distribution
• Convection and its feedback on the circulation
• The gas mixing effects including corrosion between gases and solid structures.
The code incorporates numerous material property correlations for graphite and other core
structure materials including the temperature and fast fluence dependence of the thermal
8
conductivity. More details about further coding information can be obtained from the work of
Gerwin 1987 and 1989 [13].
Most of the codes used in HTR safety analysis use one or other form of THERMIX [14] as
thermal hydraulic code because it was one of the initial thermal hydraulic codes designed
specifically for HTRs in Germany. A variety of neutronics calculation codes have been coupled
with this code and few that have been identified are mentioned below.
The commonly investigated cases for the HTR are the loss of forced cooling under
depressurized and pressurized conditions. The equivalence of the LOCA accident in an HTR is
often referred to as depressurized loss of forced cooling (DLOFC) [15] and Depressurized
Conduction Cooling (DCC) [16, 17]. To demonstrate the inherent safety of these types of
reactors, the codes have to demonstrate the capability of conduction, convection and radiative
heat transfer. The main goal is to demonstrate by calculation that the temperature limit of
1600°C would not be exceeded during a severe accident conditions for HTR.
PEBBED, a three-dimensional core simulator code was developed at the Idaho National
Laboratory (INL) specifically for pebble-bed reactor design and depletion analysis, was
recently coupled with THERMIX to determine the maximum temperature of the RPV during a
depressurize conduction cool down accident in a PBMR reactor [18].
The Control Rod Ejection accident in the PBMR-400 was analyzed using the U.S. NRC
neutronics code PARCS coupled to THERMIX-DIREKT. The calculated results were analyzed
using the “Nordheim Fuchs” linear feedback model for one of the cases of the OECD PBMR-
400 Coupled Neutronics and Thermal Hydraulics Transient Benchmark Problem [19].
Coupled steady state and transient calculations for the PBMR-400 design have been
conducted with the diffusion code DALTON [20].
9
Another code system comprised of KIND coupled with THERMIX to model fast transients of
HTR and ZIRKUS with THERMIX for steady state calculations has been developed at IKE in
Germany. This code system includes introduction of LabView for real-time intervention [21].
The NEM code, developed at PSU, has been coupled with THERMIX for analysis of PBMR
reactor in the framework of the OECD PBMR-268 benchmark [22]. The optimisation,
improvements and further development of this code system will be discussed later in this
thesis.
DORT-TD, a numerically optimized transient extension of the well known steady-state SN
code DORT, was developed at the Technical University of Munich, Germany in 2001. In
developing the time-dependent features of DORT-TD, the usage of a fully implicit time
discretization scheme was favored, which required the extension of DORT’s steady-state
formulation by a “time-like” source term, precursor contributions and some modifications to
total cross section and fission spectra. It is now possible e.g. to take into account delayed
neutron spectra different from the prompt fission spectrum as well as to have spatially varying
neutron group velocities [23]. DORT-TD code has been coupled with THERMIX-DIREKT for
analysis of the PBMR-268 and PBMR-400 transients that involve control rod movement.
1.2.4 Cross section generation and modeling
Few-group homogenized cross sections are typically pre-calculated and then stored in
some form or another to be reconstructed during most reactor cycle depletion and transient
analyses. This approach has to be followed since the detailed fine-group transport solutions
needed to calculate the few-group homogenized cross sections are typically very expensive
and therefore on-line calculations will not be practical. Furthermore historical experience has
shown that a fairly accurate representation of the cross sections can be found without too
much effort. More recently the need for increased accuracy and more complex fuel designs
required enhancements in the cross section models to include environment effects, history
effects, the inclusion of cross-term dependency of the state parameters and some additional
base parameters such as the spectral index.
10
Traditionally the most commonly used representations were linear interpolation in tables or
the use of some functional representation such as polynomials of varying order. The aim of
these approaches is to obtain accurate few-group cross section data at the material specific
conditions or state parameters in a computational efficient way. Typically the selected method
or the level of sophistication of the model needed is found as a balance between accuracy, the
complexity of the method and the calculation efficiency.
A derivative program of TINTE code called MGT has been developed with different options
such as: multi-group time-dependent neutron diffusion calculations with cross section
representations as the on-line spectrum calculations, tabulated cross-sections using linear
interpolation and the polynomial cross-section expansions. These options were evaluated for
the OECD PBMR-400 benchmark transient cases such as the loss of flow (case 3) and case 5
where different control rod or control banks were withdrawn to investigate the effect of cross
section representation.
The power excursions for the CRW and CRE cases are shown in Figure 2 for the four
different cross section representations. Significant differences were noticed between the
results although the general behavior and magnitude of the excursions were similar. Part of the
differences was attributed to different spectrum region definitions; especially the mesh on
which the spectrum analysis in the reflector regions was performed had a huge effect. The
results for the polynomial representation were significantly lower than for the other approaches
in the CRE case. In this extreme case the linear extrapolation used for the table
representations was more accurate than the extrapolation of the polynomial function, which
was possibly used beyond its range of application.
11
Figure 2: Comparison of cross section representation in PBMR modeling
These comparisons between the different cross section representation methodologies
provided a first estimation of the uncertainties that can be introduced due to the approximate
representations relative to the use of the on-line fine-group spectrum evaluations. The
availability of an efficient and accurate cross section representation will be required in future
because the on-line spectrum calculation is only practical if a very simple fine-group solution
method is used. The use of more advanced transport models and solution methods will be too
expensive. Ideally the same cross section representation should also be used in the steady-
state core analysis code [24]
The HTGR coordinated projects have investigated different benchmark cases using various
HTR reactors. Different core physics methods ranging from Monte Carlo, transport and
diffusion have been used in the investigations. The challenges identified in these studies are
double heterogeneity, library data and streaming of neutrons. In the thermal hydraulic
12
investigations, the methods include finite volume, finite element and CFD. For all these
methods there are still challenges in the geometry, and validity of correlations [25].
1.3 Objectives and layout of the thesis
The objectives of the PhD work reported in this thesis are as follow:
a) Development and verification of reliable high fidelity coupled multi-physics models
and their subsequent implementation in robust, efficient, and accurate computational
tools for design and safety analysis of the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR);
b) Development and demonstration of a PBMR full-physics, three-dimensional safety
analysis methodology for reference solutions;
c) Optimization of different aspects of the coupled multi-physics methodology and
development of efficient kinetics treatment for the PBMR, which accounts for all
feedback phenomena in a sophisticated and efficient manner.
d) Utilization of the OECD/NEA PBMR-400 coupled code benchmark as a test matrix
for the performed investigations.
Chapter 2 introduces energy group studies that were conducted to justify the optimized
group structure for 2-group deterministic core calculation. The energy group structure finds its
application in the NEM/THERMIX code system presented in Chapter 3. The developments and
optimization work are presented in Chapter 4 followed by Chapter 5 where the models are
verified and validated. The reference models for the calculations are conducted in Chapter 6
and Chapter 7 followed by a summary of the contributions of this PhD research and the
envisioned future work in Chapter 8.
13
Chapter 2 Energy group sensitivity studies
2.1 Introduction
The work described in this chapter was conducted by the author as a part of his PhD
research since the OECD PBMR-400 benchmark, which is used as a test framework for the
developments of this thesis, was defined in two energy groups. Thus, the two-energy group
structure had to be optimized for HTR core analysis. The two-group optimization was also a
part of a broader sensitivity study on the few-group energy group structure for HTR core
analysis performed at PSU in collaboration with Idaho National Laboratory (INL). It is known
that the few-group energy structure for reactor analysis provides approximation for the physical
phenomena occurring in the reactor. This is due to the discretization of the continuous energy
spectrum and lumping together the cross-section regions into groups such as the two-group
structure adopted in this study. It was also postulated that the actual cut-off energy for the
thermal energy range could have an effect on the outcome of the diffusion solution i.e. flux, k-
effective, reaction rates and power. Hence, sensitivity study on the energy group structure
optimization was performed first for analysis of the reactor physics.
Probabilistic transport codes utilize statistical approach in obtaining the solution of neutron
problem and it allows continuous energy spectrum calculation. This enables the calculation to
capture all reactions (scattering, capture, fissions, etc.) in transport calculation whereas
diffusion codes require the discretization into few- or multi-group structure. Hence, MCNP was
identified as a transport code that could provide a good reference solution of the reactor
physics problem with all physical phenomena accounted for.
Nuclear reactions between nuclei and neutron are divided into potential and resonance
reactions. Potential scattering occurs when the neutrons are deflected from the nuclei by the
potential field of the nuclei. Resonance reactions occur when a compound nucleus is formed in
an excited state energy composed of the binding energy and neutron kinetic energy. When the
excited state energy corresponds to quantum states of the nucleus, cross sections as function
of enrgy of incoming neutron present sharp peaks around these energies called resonances.
The compound nucleus will decay by neutron emission (scattering), fission and gamma
(capture) reactions with different probabilities.
14
The probabilities of these decay modes are given by:
Γ
Γ=
∑i
i
i
i
λ
λ
2.1
If resonances are well separated, the cross sections are defined by the Breit-Wigner
formula of equation 2.2.
( )( ) 22
0
2
4
1Γ+−
ΓΓ=
EE
gE xn�πσ
2.2
At low energies the v
1 behavior of cross sections is obtained when the Enn 0Γ=Γ is
substituted into Breit-Wigner formula.
Reactor physics calculations require data on the neutron-induced reactions covering the
range of energies of the interest in the calculation for all the materials present in the system.
This data is obtained from different laboratories in the form of Evaluated Nuclear Data Files
(ENDF). The recommended reference data set is the ENDF/B and contains evaluated data set
for each material.
The neutron cross sections are represented by a series of tabulated values and a
method of interpolating between input values. Processing codes are needed to process the
cross section data from the ENDF/B libraries so that the information could be applied to
specific neutron calculation codes. For this purpose we utilize COMBINE Code Version 6
developed at INL [36].
Neutron calculation codes are designed to solve the multi-group diffusion equation of
the form represented in equation 2.3.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )∑∑==
→ +Σ+Σ=Σ+∇−N
k
ikfkk
eff
iN
k
kiksitiirSr
krrrD
11
,0
2 φυχ
φφφ 2.3
In these calculations the reaction rates are represented by ( )riti
φΣ where the energy
dependence of the cross section determines the number of reactions occurring per unit volume
in a certain energy range. Hence accurate energy representation of cross sections is required.
15
This is attained by subdividing the neutron energy spectrum into manageable energy group
structures. For solving the diffusion equation, the neutron diffusion code NEM was used.
For a detailed spectrum calculation, high number of energy groups is required with only
a rough approximation on the spatial dependence. A library of fine structure (40-200 groups) is
commonly used by codes including all the cross sections, transfer matrices, resonance
parameters, fission spectra, etc. For few group calculations, usually the thermal group’s cut-off
boundary is where the probability of neutron gaining energy in a collision is very small. For
High Temperature Reactors (HTRs) this boundary is between 2 and 4eV [37]. Spectrum
calculations have to be performed to ensure proper treatment of neutrons slowing down in a
heterogeneous reactor system in the presence of anisotropic scattering and leakage. In HTRs
the fundamental buckling is used in the approximation of the leakage because of the limited
anisotropy of graphite scattering. Once the spectrum calculations are performed, average
constants for few group reactor calculations are produced. These constants are averaged
according to the structure of the energy groups.
The microscopic cross section for energy group I can be expressed as:
( ) ( )
( )∫
∫
−
−=i
i
i
i
E
E
E
E
i
dEE
dEEE
1
1
''
φ
φσσ
2.4
Other constant like the transfer coefficients, Diffusion coefficients are obtained in a
Spectrum calculations are performed for heterogeneous systems having the core and reflector
regions. These calculations are conducted separately for the two regions and coupled to
account for the energy dependent buckling. Although the HTRs are more homogeneous as
compared to other reactor types, heterogeneity exists in HTR. This is encountered on the
microscopic level (fuel kernel) and macroscopic level (fuel pebble) where the term ‘double
heterogeneity’ arises. However, spectrum calculations of HTRs adopt the cell homogenization
approach in the determination of group constants. This is done by ensuring the conservation of
reaction rates in the homogenized cell as compared to the real cell using disadvantage factors
(self-shielding factors). The self-shielding factors, referred to as the Dancoff factors, can be
obtained by using different methods described in references [38] and [39].
16
Space-dependent spectrum calculations in heterogeneous cells could be done using a cell-
transport calculation with a high number of groups. This is adopted by the codes such as
MICROX (200 groups) and THERMOS. In MICROX the leakage is treated with the diffusion
formulation of B1 equations that are transformed into multi-group diffusion equation. The
transport cross section is obtained by weighting the scattering matrices on the reference
current spectrum. Another code that is used in the spectrum calculations is the WIMS code,
which includes 69 group libraries using the MULTICELL approximation. The advantage of this
approach is that very large meshes can be used where the spectrum is constant allowing finer
meshes where the spectral variations are large.
Yamasita et al.[40] modeled Xe oscillations and investigated the effect of the energy
group structures on the oscillations. In that study, the diffusion code CITATION and the burnup
code DELIGHT were used. DELIGHT uses the Garrison-Roos model to perform depletion
calculations and the energy group structures adopted 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 groups with
boundaries as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Energy group structures for Xe oscillation studies by Yamasita
Upper
bound
1 2 4 6 7 8
10MeV 1 1 1 1 1 1
183keV 2 2 2
961eV 2 3 3 3
2.38eV 2 3 4 4 4
0.65eV 5 5 5
0.35 6 6
0.105eV 4 6 7 7
0.055eV 8
It was shown that the Xenon absorption cross section was higher below 0.65eV when
the 8 energy-group structure was adopted (5% Σabs,fuel). The concentration of Xenon decreased
as the finer energy group structure (7 and 8) was adopted since the absorption cross sections
17
in the energy below 0.65eV was higher. This was a demonstration that the energy-group
structure had significant effect on the reaction rates calculations.
The number of energy groups could be chosen to be as low as possible to limit the
computer time. The effect of the reduction of groups may not be evident in the calculation of
the k-effective value but in the power distribution in the regions with strong spatial dependence
on the neutron spectrum (e.g. core-reflector boundaries). The choice depends on the type of
phenomena to be separated and the types of nuclear reactions. The partitioning could be used
to distinguish between range of fission source spectrum, a range of unresolved and resolved
resonances, a thermal energy range, etc. For shielding calculations, a high number of fast
groups may be required. The data on Table 3 and Table 4 show energy group structures
adopted in the Fort St. Vrain and THTR calculations respectively.
Table 3: Energy group structure used at Fort St. Vrain
Energy
Boundaries(eV)
Upper Lower 9 groups 7 groups 4 groups
1.50E+07 1.83E+05 1 1 1
1.83E+05 961 2 2 2
961.000 17.6 3
17.600 3.93 4 3 3
3.930 2.38 5
2.380 0.414 6 4 4
0.414 0.1 7 5
0.100 0.04 8 6
0.040 0 9 7
18
Table 3: Energy group structure used for the THTR
Energy Group Structure for THTR Calculations
Energy
Boundaries(eV) Number of Groups
Upper Lower
7
groups
6
groups
4
groups
2
groups
1.00E+07 6.74E+04 1 1 1 1
6.74E+04 748.5 2
748.500 17.6 3 2 2
17.600 1.9 4 3 3 2
1.900 0.37 5 4 4
0.370 0.03 6 5
0.030 0.0025 7 6
2.2 Procedure
2.2.1 NEM diffusion solution
The energy group structure considered for the cross section generation for this problem
was determined by the fixed thermal energy cutoff points in COMBINE. The energy range in
COMBINE is from 0.001 eV to 16.905 MeV spanned by 166 discrete groups. The equations
solved for the energy-dependent fast and thermal neutron spectra are the B-1 and B-3
approximations of the transport equation using two neutron spectrum codes INCITE (thermal
spectrum) and PHROG (fast spectrum). The thermal cutoff points in the code are shown in
Table 4. The sensitivity in the group structure was brought about by the difference in the
treatment of the solution for the cross section generation in the thermal spectrum. The
methodology for performing energy group sensitivity studies is depicted in Figure 3.
19
Table 4 Thermal cut-off values for cross section generation in COMBINE
Lower Energy (eV) Upper Energy (MeV)
0.414eV
16.905
0.532eV
0.683eV
0.876eV
1.125eV
1.44eV
1.86eV
2.38eV
Cross sections were generated at each temperature for all compositions in the reactor
model and used to define materials characteristic of the PBMR reactor. These cross sections
were used in the diffusion equation solved by NEM.
Figure 3: Methodology for the energy group sensitivity studies
20
The diffusion solution for the steady state problem was solved using the NEM code from
the Pennsylvania State University (PSU). NEM approximates node-averaged fluxes and other
group constants using the transverse-integration technique on the nodal equation. The solution
from the code includes the fluxes, power distributions and effective multiplication of the reactor,
which are utilized and presented in this study.
The reactor model adopted in this study is shown in Figure 4 with the ‘void’ replaced by
graphite material from the original model described in the OECD PBMR-400 benchmark
specifications
21
Figure 4: PBMR-400 model in NEM and MCNP
Table 5 shows material compositions provided in the benchmark specifications [41].
Table 5: Reactor material compositions
Isotope
Graphite
(reflector)
all regions
RCS/RSS Core Barrel
C 8.925E-02 8.925E-02 0.0
B-10 1.0E-09 6.0E-06 0.0
Fe (Nat) 0.0 0.0 5.810E-02
Cu (Nat) 0.0 0.0 3.861E-04
Co-59 0.0 0.0 1.544E-04
Si 0.0 0.0 2.488E-04
Ni (Nat) 0.0 0.0 7.996E-03
Mo (Nat) 0.0 0.0 1.733E-03
Mn – 55 0.0 0.0 1.278E-03
Cr (Nat) 0.0 0.0 1.590E-02
2.2.2 MCNP probabilistic transport solution
Explicit modeling of the kernels and the pebbles in the pebble bed reactor were
conducted by Karriem et al. [42] using the MCNP model of the ASTRA facility. In that study, it
was found that the modeling of the individual coatings had no significant influence on the k-
effective. The smearing of the layers of the coating to one has yielded significant reduction in
the calculation time by about 30%. Another model by Colac and Seker [43] was used to model
the HTR-10 using MCNP with explicit modeling of the heterogeneity of the reactor. Although
22
higher computational expense is encountered, there is a capability of modeling the double
heterogeneity of PBMR reactor using MCNP, which is described in the MCNP manual.
Figure 5: TRISO particle for PBMR-400 reactor
Options available in the MCNP solution for the problem allow using heterogeneous or
homogeneous compositions of the reactor material. Although the heterogeneous model for the
reactor would yield more accurate results for the problem, it was realized that the time required
for the solution was enormous. Hence the homogeneous core model was adopted. However,
the fuel TRISO particle (see Figure 5) and the fuel pebble with homogenously distributed
TRISO particles (see Figure 6 and Figure 7) were modeled with MCNP. The input decks for
MCNP for the TRISO particle and the pebble are attached to this thesis as Appendix A.
23
Figure 6: Pebble bed fuel sphere with homogeneous distribution of TRISO
particles
To obtain the unit volume of combined TRISO particles and graphite matrix, the volume
of the inner fuel region of the pebble was divided by the number of TRISO particles. It was
estimated that the pebble would contain 15000 particles. Since this volume would be spherical,
it was converted into a cube by taking the cube root of the spherical volume to determine the
length of the side of the cube. Then the TRISO particles could be inserted into these cubes as
shown in Figure 6.
24
Figure 7: Lattice of TRISO particles in graphite matrix
In Figure 7 the TRISO particles are arranged in square lattice, hence making the
arrangement of the particles in the fuel sphere to be fixed. This is not practical since the
process of binding fuel particles can only be produced in a random arrangement. Conducting
calculations at this scale has already proved to be computationally expensive and can be
imagined how the full core calculations involving this setup would entail.
The final reference model for MCNP that was consistent with the diffusion model is
shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The void above the reactor core and next to the core barrel
was removed and replaced with graphite reflector material. The material in the core is
homogenized for simplification of the geometry and calculation in MCNP, hence the double
heterogeneity is not modeled. The control rods are inserted about 350 cm from the top of the
reactor, hence 150 cm into the core.
25
Figure 8: Axial cross sectional view of PBMR-400 reactor in MCNP model
For the heterogeneous model, many parameters were determined using the benchmark
specifications [41].
Figure 9: Horizontal cross sectional view of PBMR-400 reactor in MCNP model
26
2.3 Results
The reactivity comparison was done based on the k-effective (in pcm) difference of the
diffusion solution from the MCNP reference solution. The results indicate a strong sensitivity of
the neutronic solution to the neutrons energy group structure for 2-group calculation. The k-
effective (in pcm) difference is calculated as shown below where the MCNP result serves as a
reference value:
( ) 510eff MCNP i
k k k∆ = − ×
Figure 10: Comparison of K-Effective for 300K and 1000K with upscattering correction
The results for the k-effective indicate that the diffusion solution is closer for the 2.38eV at
1000K temperature than at 300K temperature for the 2-group calculation as shown in Figure
10. Please note that for the energy cut-off point of 0.414 ev no result was produced with the
NEM/COMBINE methodology. Although the calculation in NEM could be performed with the
27
full scattering matrix, the removal cross section in NEM was corrected for up-scattering. This
was conducted by the following procedure:
2Re 1 2 2 1
1
moval
φ
φ→ →Σ = Σ − Σ
The upscattering would be considered for groups that have a subsequent energy level to
ensure accounting for upscattering in the removal cross section. Since 0.414eV cut-off energy
was the lowest cut-off point in COMBINE multi-group structure, upscattering below this group
was not available. Hence this case could not produce any results for comparison.
0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.29 0.39 0.62 0.82 0.85 0.77 0.64 0.64 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.55 0.58 0.53 0.62 1.22
0.33 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.52 0.63 0.79 1.08 1.85 2.45 2.27 1.91 1.88 1.90 1.75 1.64 1.58 1.62 1.62 1.37 1.55 2.33
0.52 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.65 0.69 0.73 0.79 0.94 1.17 1.63 2.85 3.92 3.86 3.33 3.20 2.99 2.87 2.50 2.37 2.41 2.49 2.42 2.29 3.80
0.68 0.69 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.88 0.94 0.99 1.13 1.40 2.01 3.31 4.94 4.72 4.25 3.93 3.44 3.14 3.01 2.74 2.84 2.80 2.69 2.76 4.64
0.74 0.78 0.83 0.79 0.77 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.95 1.01 1.08 1.15 1.25 1.54 2.15 3.48 4.64 4.72 4.34 3.77 3.38 3.31 3.01 2.98 2.61 2.48 2.75 2.66 4.31
0.90 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.07 1.13 1.22 1.36 1.59 2.19 3.58 4.90 4.59 4.19 3.78 3.51 3.03 2.76 2.65 2.63 2.64 2.45 2.71 4.80
1.03 1.01 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.98 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.09 1.15 1.23 1.37 1.63 2.17 3.36 4.41 3.93 3.73 3.46 3.29 2.90 2.60 2.39 2.41 2.38 2.38 2.36 4.09
1.03 1.03 1.02 1.00 0.99 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.11 1.14 1.20 1.29 1.49 1.91 3.00 3.88 3.47 3.17 2.89 2.72 2.44 2.31 2.16 2.17 2.19 2.20 2.28 3.65
1.09 1.10 1.09 1.04 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.14 1.18 1.23 1.37 1.69 2.45 2.91 2.77 2.51 2.49 2.38 2.13 2.04 2.04 2.09 2.16 2.26 2.57 4.55
1.24 1.12 1.08 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.12 1.15 1.19 1.28 1.41 1.73 2.04 2.04 2.02 2.00 1.98 1.84 1.80 1.82 1.87 2.00 2.27 2.50 4.33
1.06 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.09 1.07 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.12 1.11 1.14 1.19 1.30 1.47 1.70 1.70 1.72 1.74 1.72 1.74 1.77 1.79 1.79 1.89 2.06 2.39 4.06
1.04 1.03 1.07 1.10 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.15 1.24 1.54 1.76 1.68 1.67 1.63 1.64 1.69 1.66 1.73 1.76 1.81 1.97 2.27 3.82
1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.20 1.33 1.41 1.40 1.39 1.40 1.42 1.42 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.57 1.67 2.01 3.45
1.04 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.13 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.17 1.19 1.21 1.26 1.30 1.29 1.30 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.39 1.38 1.42 1.47 1.60 1.88 3.15
1.02 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.21 1.25 1.29 1.28 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.41 1.46 1.56 1.84 3.01
1.02 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.20 1.25 1.28 1.28 1.27 1.29 1.28 1.30 1.30 1.32 1.37 1.43 1.55 1.83 3.04
1.04 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.18 1.23 1.27 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.31 1.39 1.48 1.72 2.82
1.03 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.16 1.21 1.25 1.22 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.20 1.21 1.24 1.26 1.31 1.41 1.66 2.76
1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.18 1.21 1.26 1.36 1.60 2.65
1.05 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.16 1.20 1.29 1.53 2.54
1.03 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.12 1.17 1.26 1.48 2.46
1.05 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.16 1.23 1.46 2.43
1.02 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.14 1.22 1.44 2.40
1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.14 1.22 1.43 2.37
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.21 1.43 2.37
0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.21 1.43 2.39
0.97 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.20 1.42 2.36
0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.20 1.41 2.35
0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.12 1.20 1.41 2.35
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.07 1.12 1.20 1.41 2.35
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.20 1.41 2.34
0.98 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.06 1.11 1.19 1.41 2.32
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.06 1.11 1.18 1.40 2.32
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.10 1.18 1.40 2.32
0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.10 1.18 1.39 2.31
0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.10 1.18 1.39 2.31
0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.09 1.17 1.38 2.29
0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.17 1.39 2.32
0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.17 1.38 2.30
0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.09 1.17 1.38 2.30
0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.09 1.16 1.37 2.27
0.96 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.08 1.16 1.37 2.29
0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.04 1.08 1.16 1.36 2.27
0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.08 1.15 1.36 2.27
0.96 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.03 1.07 1.15 1.36 2.26
0.94 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.14 1.35 2.24
0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.06 1.14 1.34 2.24
0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.02 1.06 1.13 1.33 2.23
0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.06 1.13 1.34 2.23
0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.05 1.13 1.33 2.21
0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.11 1.31 2.19
0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.11 1.31 2.17
0.93 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.99 1.03 1.10 1.30 2.16
0.90 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.02 1.09 1.29 2.14
0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.97 1.01 1.08 1.28 2.13
0.88 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.06 1.26 2.09
0.87 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.98 1.05 1.25 2.09
0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.91 0.93 0.97 1.04 1.23 2.03
0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.96 1.03 1.22 2.01
0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.91 0.94 1.02 1.19 1.98
0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.93 1.00 1.19 1.95
0.78 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.90 0.97 1.15 1.93
0.73 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.93 1.09 1.82
0.68 0.67 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.75 0.76 0.79 0.85 1.00 1.68
0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.68 0.71 0.76 0.90 1.53
0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.55 0.54 0.55 0.54 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.65 0.77 1.28
0.36 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.50 0.59 0.96
0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.37 0.61
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.45
Figure 11: Flux ratio for MCNP to NEM
28
The result of NEM consisted of the thermal and the fast neutron fluxes whereas the
MCNP only produced one set of total flux. The NEM results were reduced by adding the
thermal and the fast fluxes. The axial flux was obtained by radially averaging the flux
distribution and the radial flux distribution by axially averaging the flux distribution.
The spatial ratio between the flux of NEM and MCNP showed differences in the reflector
material and where the control rods were located as shown in Figure 11. This was a difference
arising from the fact that the diffusion theory approximation is known to be deficient around
strongly absorbing materials and near boundaries with strong material changes.
2.3.1 Results at 300K
Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the results of the 300K case for the total flux distributions. The
ratios discussed above, show closer agreement in the distributions for the 2.38eV case than
those of the lower energy cut-offs.
1.00E+14
1.10E+14
1.20E+14
1.30E+14
1.40E+14
1.50E+14
1.60E+14
1.70E+14
1.80E+14
1.90E+14
100 120 140 160 180 200
Flu
x (
#.c
m-2
.s-1
)
Radial Distance (cm)
MCNP_300K
2.38eV_300K
1.86eV_300K
1.44eV_300K
1.125eV_300K
.876eV_300K
.683eV_300K
0.532eV_300K
0.414eV_300K
Figure 12: Radial flux distribution at 300K
29
0.00E+00
5.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.50E+14
2.00E+14
2.50E+14
3.00E+14
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Flu
x(#
.cm
-2.s
-1)
Axial Distance (cm)
MCNP_300K
2.38eV_300K
1.86eV_300K
1.44eV_300K
1.125eV_300K
.876eV_300K
.683eV_300K
0.532eV_300K
0.414eV_300K
Figure 13: Axial flux distribution at 300K
2.3.2 Results at 1000K
Analysis results for 1000K cases are shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15. These
comparisons also indicate closer agreement in the distributions for the 2.38eV case than those
of the lower energy cut-offs.
0.00E+00
5.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.50E+14
2.00E+14
2.50E+14
3.00E+14
0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00
Flu
x (
#.c
m-2
.s-1
)
Height (cm)
Axial_MCNP_1000K
2.38eV_1000K
1.86eV_1000K
1.44eV_1000K
1.125eV_1000K
0.876eV_1000K
0.6834eV_1000K
0.532eV_1000K
0.414eV_1000K
Figure 14: Axial flux distribution at 1000K
30
0.00E+00
5.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.50E+14
2.00E+14
2.50E+14
100 120 140 160 180 200
Flu
x (
#.c
m-2
.s-1
)
Radial Distance (cm)
MCNP_1000K
2.38eV_1000K
1.86eV_1000K
1.44eV_1000K
1.125eV_1000K
0.876eV_1000K
0.683eV_1000K
0.532eV_1000K
0.414eV_1000K
Figure 15: Radial flux distribution at 1000K
2.4 Conclusion
The results for the cut-off energy of 2.38 eV are closer to the MCNP results in all cases for
the distributions of the flux and the k-effective comparisons. The differences between the
MCNP and NEM/COMBINE for the 1000K case are minimized. These conditions are closer to
the operating conditions of the PBMR at average temperature around the 1000K. Hence, the
use of the thermal energy cut-off of 2.38 eV for this reactor can be considered optimal for two-
group PBMR analysis studies conducted within the framework of this PhD thesis.
Please note that the fine group structure hardwired within INL’s COMBINE-6 code that is
used to generate broad group constants is fixed and has not been optimized for HTR analyses.
If the fine group structure is not sufficiently refined in energy regions of importance, such a
structure may prevent the flexibility needed for more accurate cell-level energy collapsing. The
limitations inherent in the actual fine group structure are being currently addressed explicitly in
a follow-up study performed by PSU and INL.
31
Chapter 3 Description of the NEM/THERMIX code system
3.1 Description of NEM
The Nodal Expansion Method (NEM) code is a 3-D multi-group nodal code used at PSU for
modeling both steady state and transient core conditions. It utilizes a transverse integration
procedure and is based on the partial current formulation of the nodal balance equations. The
code has options for modeling of 3-D Cartesian, cylindrical and hexagonal geometry. The
cylindrical option utilizes fourth-order polynomial expansions of the 1-D transverse-integrated
flux distribution in the R-, Z- and θ-directions. It is important to note that the detailed treatment
of the effects of azimuthally dependent reactor control rods requires a full three-dimensional
representation of the PBMR.
3.1.1 Cylindrical geometry
In this section, the detail of deriving the NEM in 3-D cylindrical geometry is outlined. This
option is used for PBMR core modeling. To begin this derivation, the steady-state diffusion
equation within node l in two energy groups (for sake of simplicity – please note that NEM is a
multi-group code with no limitation on the number of energy groups) is rewritten as:
2,1,),,(
),,(),,(),,(
),,(1
,,(1
2
2
2
2
2
=∈
=+∂
∂−
∂
∂−
∂
∂
∂
∂−
gVzr
zrQzrAzrz
D
zrr
Dzrr
rrr
D
l
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
g
θ
θθφθφ
θφθ
θφ
3.1
where
32
( )
1 1 ,12 1
2 2
1 2 2
2 12 1
2 2
12
1
1( , , ) ( , , )
( , , ) ( , , )
1
2
1 2
l l l l
a s f
l l
a
l l l
f
l l l
l
out in
ag
Ak
A
Q r z r zk
Q r z r z
V R R z Volume
absorptionXS
ScatteringXS
υ
θ ν φ θ
θ φ θ
θ
= Σ + Σ − Σ
= Σ
= Σ
= Σ
= − ∆ ∆ ≡
Σ =
Σ = →
where Rin and Rout are inner and outer radius of node l respectively.
In cylindrical geometry, the Fick’s law may be used to express the three components of the
current vector as:
),,(),,( zrr
Dzrj l
g
l
g
l
grθφθ
∂
∂−= 3.2
),,(),,(
),,(),,(
zrz
Dzrj
zrDzrj
l
g
l
g
l
gz
l
g
l
g
l
g
θφθ
θφθ
θθ
∂
∂−=
∂
∂−=
3.3
From these relationships, Equation 3.1 can be written as:
( ) ( ) ( )
,),,(
),,(),,(
),,(1
),,(1
),,(1
l
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
gz
l
g
l
gr
Vzr
zrQzrA
zrrjzr
zrrjr
zrrjrr
∈
=+
∂
∂+
∂
∂+
∂
∂
θ
θθφ
θθθ
θ θ
3.4
If we assume the coordinate origin to be at the center of the cell l, Equation 3.4 can be
integrated over the node to obtain the nodal balance equation in cylindrical geometry:
( ) ( )
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
gz
l
gz
l
g
l
g
l
gr
l
gr
QA
JJz
JJR
Jr
RJr
RrR
=+
−∆
+−∆
+
∆−−
∆+
∆−+−+−+
φ
θθθ
11
22
1
3.5
where
33
R= radius from the coordinate centerline to a point midway between Rin and Rout
dzrdrrdzrV
z
z
l
g
rR
rR
l
l
g θθφφθ
θ∫∫∫
∆
∆−
∆
∆−
∆+
∆−
=2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
),,1
= node volume average flux
dzrdrrdzrQV
Q
z
z
l
g
rR
rR
l
l
g θθθ
θ∫∫∫
∆
∆−
∆
∆−
∆+
∆−
=2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
),,1
= node volume average source
/ 2 / 2 / 2
/ 2 / 2 / 2
1 1 1{ ( , , )}
2 2
R r z
l l l
gr gr grl
R r z
r rR J R J rj r z rdrd dz
R r V r r
θ
θ
θ θ+∆ ∆ ∆
+ −
−∆ −∆ −∆
∆ ∆ ∂ + − − =
∆ ∂ ∫ ∫ ∫
≡±l
grJ average r-directed net current on node faces 2
rR
∆±
( ) =−∆
−+l
g
l
gJJ
Rθθ
θ
1dzrdrdzrj
rV
z
z
l
g
rR
rR
lθθ
θθ
θ
θ∫∫∫
∆
∆−
∆
∆−
∆+
∆−∂
∂2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
)},,({11
≡±l
gJ θ average θ-directed net current on node faces 2
θ∆±
( ) =−∆
−+l
gz
l
gzJJ
z
1dzrdrdzrj
zrV
z
z
l
gz
rR
rR
lθθ
θ
θ∫∫∫
∆
∆−
∆
∆−
∆+
∆−∂
∂2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
2/
)},,({11
≡±l
gzJ average z-directed net current on node faces 2
z∆±
For central nodes, i.e. where Rin =0 and R =2
z∆ one can see that l
gzJ − drops out of the
nodal balance equation. In order to develop a relationship between the node average flux and
the face average net currents in Equation 2.5, one must use transverse integration method in
directions perpendicular to the direction of interest.
For the r-direction the transverse integrated diffusion equation becomes:
( ) )(1
)(1
)()()(1
rLz
rLr
rQrArrjdr
d
r
l
gx
l
g
l
gr
l
gr
l
g
l
gr∆
−∆
−=+ θθ
φ 3.6
The theta-direction transverse integrated diffusion equation is written as:
( ) )(1
)(1
)()()(1
θθθ
θθφθθ
θθl
gx
l
g
l
gr
l
gr
l
g
l
gL
zL
rQAj
d
d
R ∆−
∆−=+ 3.7
and for the z-direction we have:
( ) )(1
)(1
)()()( zLr
zLR
zQzAzrjdz
d l
gx
l
g
l
gz
l
gz
l
g
l
gz∆
−∆
−=+ θθ
φ 3.8
From Equations 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8:
34
θθθ
θ
θ
dzdzrjz
rLl
gz
z
z
l
gz ),,(1
)(
2/
2/
2/
2/
∫∫∆
∆−
∆
∆−∂
∂
∆= = r-direction transverse leakage
dzrdrzrjzrR
Ll
gz
z
z
rR
rR
l
gz ),,(1
)(
2/
2/
2/
2/
θθ ∫∫∆
∆−
∆+
∆−∂
∂
∆= = z-directed transverse leakage
rdrdzrjzrr
zLl
g
z
z
rR
rR
l
g θθθθ ),,(11
)(
2/
2/
2/
2/
∫∫∆
∆−
∆+
∆−∂
∂
∆= = theta direction transverse leakage
Finally, NEM requires that the one-dimensional fluxes in Equations 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 be
expanded in a series of polynomials, i.e.
)()(1
rfar n
N
n
l
grn
l
g
l
gr ∑=
+= φφ 3.9
)()(1
θφθφ θθ n
N
n
l
ng
l
g
l
g fa∑=
+= 3.10
)()(1
zfar n
N
n
l
gzn
l
g
l
gz ∑=
+= φφ 3.11
In the current version of the NEM code at PSU the cylindrical option utilizes fourth-order
polynomial expansions of the 1-D transverse-integrated flux distribution in the R-, Z- and θ-
directions. Implementing these expansions one can solve the resulting equations by deriving
and solving the response matrix equations and simply calculating the transverse leakage
moments. To speed up the convergence of the outer or source iterations, coarse mesh
rebalancing and asymptotic extrapolation can be used.
3.1.2 Steady state solution procedure
The multi-group equations in NEM are solved by inner/outer iteration multi-group diffusion
theory method. In order to invert the diffusion removal matrix, inner iterations/multiple sweeps
are performed through the mesh with a known internal source. Outer iterations or source
iterations are then performed around the inner iterations to calculate the correct eigenvalue
and the space and energy dependent neutron source distribution. The solution is tested for
35
convergence and whether to proceed to the next outer iteration. The production source for
node l is calculated as:
2
1
ll l
fg g
g
S rdrd dzυ φ θ=
= Σ∑ 3.12
Then these sources are summed over the entire system to get the global source ( totalS ).
Next the a new value of the eigenvalue keff is calculated using
n n 1
1
n
total
eff eff n
total
SK K
S
−
−= ⋅ 3.13
3.1.3 Description of the transient solution
Two energy groups, three-dimensional (3D) transient neutron diffusion and precursors
equations for node l, which has constant neutron properties, can be written as:
( )2
1 1 1 1 2 1 1
1
2 2
1
1( , ) ( , ) (1 ) ( , )
(1 ) ( , ) ( , )
l l l l l l l
a a f
Il l l
f i i
i
r t D r t r tV t
r t C r t
φ φ β ν φ
β ν φ λ=
∂− ∇ + Σ + Σ − − Σ
∂
= − Σ +∑
),(),(),(),(1
112222
2
22
2
trtrtrDtrtV
llll
a
lll φφφφ Σ=Σ+∇−∂
∂
( ) IitrCtrtrtrCt
l
ii
ll
f
ll
fi
l
i,1),(),(),(),( 2211 =−Σ+Σ=
∂
∂λφνφνβ
3.14
where
gV is the energy group g neutron velocity;
),( trl
gφ is the time- and space-dependent neutron flux in group g;
l
gD is the group g diffusion coefficient;
ν is the average number of neutrons produced by a fission event;
l
iC is the time- and space-dependent group i delayed-neutron precursor concentration;
ν is the fraction of delayed neutron in group i;
∑ ==
I
i i1ββ is the total fraction of delayed neutrons where
iβ is the fraction of delayed
neutrons in group i and I is the number of delayed-neutron groups;
36
iλ is the decay constant for delayed-neutron precursors in group i;
agΣ is the group g absorption cross-section;
12Σ is the group 1 to 2 scattering cross-section; and
fgΣ is group g fission cross-section.
First-order finite difference expression for the time derivatives of the fluxes is:
t
rrtr
t
oldl
g
l
gl
g∆
−=
∂
∂ )()(),(
,φφφ
3.15
Delayed neutron source contribution to the fast group equation is given by:
( )
1 1 2 2
( , ) ( , )
( ( , ) ( ( , ))
i
newnew
i
old
tl new l old
i i
tt tl l l l
i f ft
C r t C r t e
r t r t e dt
λ
λβ ν φ ν φ
− ∆
− −
=
+ Σ + Σ∫
3.16
It is assumed that the fission source varies linearly between time steps:
)()()()(
),(,,
,,
rttt
rrtr
oldl
g
oldl
fg
old
oldl
g
oldl
fg
l
g
l
fgl
g
l
fg φνφνφν
φν Σ+−∆
Σ−Σ=Σ
3.17
Then
( )
( )
−
∆
−−Σ+Σ+
∆
−−Σ+Σ+=
∆−∆−
∆−∆−
t
i
toldloldl
f
oldloldl
f
i
i
i
tll
f
ll
f
i
itoldl
i
newl
i
i
i
i
i
et
err
t
erretrCtrC
λλ
λλ
λφνφν
λ
β
λφνφν
λ
β
11)()(
11)()(),(),(
,
2
,
2
,
1
,
1
2211
3.18
Finally
2,1)()()(2 ==+∇− grQrArD l
g
l
g
l
g
l
g
l
g φφ 3.19
where
∑=
∆−
∆
−−Σ+Σ−−
∆+Σ+Σ=
I
i i
tl
fi
l
f
ll
a
l
t
e
tVA
i
1
11
1
1211
11)1(
1
λνβνβ
λ
tVA l
a
l
∆+Σ=
2
22
1
3.20
37
( )
,,1
1 2 2 2 2
11
, , , ,
1 1 2 2
( ) 1( ) (1 ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1
1( ) ( )
i
i
i
i
tl old Itl l l l old l li
f i i f
i i i
ttl old l old l old l old
f f
i
r eQ r r C r e r
V t t
er r e
t
λλ
λλ
βφβ ν φ λ ν φ
λ λ
ν φ ν φλ
− ∆− ∆
=
− ∆− ∆
−= + − Σ + + Σ − ∆ ∆
−+ Σ + Σ − ∆
∑
)()(
)( 112
2
,
22 r
tV
rrQ
lloldl
l φφ
Σ+∆
=
a. These equations can be solved in either cylindrical geometry using the NEM spatial
approximations. It is assumed that there is no dependence of the delayed neutrons precursor
yield on the neutron energy.
b. ( )1
dgk fg k g fg
pgk fg k g fg
υ β υ
υ β υ
Σ = Σ
Σ = − Σ
It is a fixed source calculation where the total source magnitude is fixed and no need to
calculate an eigenvalue. The new time flux distribution is calculated by the previous one
applying inner/outer iteration strategy. However, to calculate the two-group flux distribution at
time step one, time zero values for the average fluxes and flux moments have to be already
obtained. The initial time zero fluxes are calculated by performing an initial steady-state
eigenvalue calculation. The initial precursors’ concentrations are calculated from this steady-
state condition by setting
( )
( ))0,()0,()0,(
0),(),(),(),(
2
0,
21
0,
1
22112
rrrC
trCtrtrtrCt
ll
f
ll
f
i
il
i
l
ii
ll
f
ll
fi
l
φνφνλ
β
λφνφνβ
Σ+Σ=
=−Σ+Σ=∂
∂
3.21
The old time fluxes are calculated at the previous time step, while the previous time
precursor concentrations are calculated from one and two time steps previous fluxes.
3.2 Description of THERMIX-DIREKT
THERMIX-DIREKT is a two-dimensional code for thermal hydraulic analysis of HTRs. The
code consists of steady-state or transient conduction module (THERMIX) and the quasi-steady
38
state convection module (DIREKT). Both modules in the code use the finite-difference method
with successive point-wise over-relaxation solution technique. THERMIX solves the time-
dependent general heat conduction equation with temperature dependent material properties.
DIREKT solves the steady-state continuity, energy and momentum equations for the core and
adjacent flow regions.
Heat transfer between the spherical fuel element and the coolant gas occurs in the thermal
boundary layer surrounding the fuel element. In this thin layer it is considered that heat
conduction is equal in importance to heat convection, whereas outside this layer the heat
conduction is relatively small.
For a spherical fuel element in a gas stream, the heat transfer Q (in W) from the pebble to
the surrounding gas is calculated by [27]:
( - )k k gQ A T Tα=� 3.22
where Ak is the surface area of fuel element in m2,
Tk, is the average fuel element surface temperature in K,
Tg is the gas temperature in K and
α is the mean heat transfer coefficient of the fuel element surface in Wm-2K-1.
The heat transfer coefficient α is calculated by [27]:
Nu
d
λα = 3.23
where α is in Wm-2K-1
λ is the heat (thermal) conductivity of the gas in Wm-1K-1,
Nu is the Nusselt number (dimensionless) and
d is the outer diameter of the fuel element in m.
The heat conductivity of helium is well studied and is calculated from experimentally
measured parameters [28]:
43 0.71(1.0 2.0 10 ) 32.682 10 (1.0 1.123 10 )PT Pλ−− − × −= × + × 3.24
39
where λ is in Wm-1K-1
P is the pressure in bar and
T is the temperature in K.
The Nusselt number is a dimensionless coefficient of heat transfer and determines the size
of the thermal boundary layer. The Nusselt number measures the enhancement of heat
transfer from a surface which occurs in a “real” situation, compared to the heat transfer that
would be measured if only conduction could occur. Typically it is used to measure the
enhancement of heat transfer when convection takes place. The Nusselt number for spherical
fuel elements in a pebble bed core is given by [27]:
1 3 1 20.36 0.86
1.18 1.07
Pr PrNu 1.27 Re 0.033 Re
ε ε= + 3.25
where ε is the porosity of the bed, i.e. the relation between the volume filled by the gas and the
total volume of the reactor packed with fuel elements. Thus (1- ε) is the sphere-packing factor,
Pr is the Prandtl number (dimensionless) and
Re is the Reynolds number (dimensionless).
The Reynolds number is a non-dimensional parameter that compares the inertia to viscous
forces. If the Reynolds number is low, then viscosity plays an important part in the flow
phenomena. The Reynolds number determines whether the gas flow over the fuel spheres is
laminar or turbulent. The two types of flows, laminar or turbulent, have different heat transfer
mechanisms, and influence the formation and size of the thermal boundary layer. The
Reynolds number is calculated by the following equation:
( )Re
m dA
η=
�
3.26
where m� is the helium mass flow through the core in kgs-1
A is the core (sphere pile) cross section in m2
η is the dynamic viscosity of the gas (helium) in kgm-1s-1, defined in equation 3.28.
40
Prandtl number is the non-dimensional ratio between the product of heat advection and
viscous forces and the product of heat diffusion and inertial forces in a given fluid. Standard
thermo fluids textbooks define Pr as:
Pr PCη
λ= 3.27
where λ is the heat (thermal) conductivity of the gas in Wm-1K-1, defined in equation 3.24,
CP is the specific heat of the gas at constant pressure
(KTA3102.1 gives for Helium CP =5195 Jkg-1K-1) and
η is the dynamic viscosity of the gas (helium) in kgm-1s-1.
The dynamic viscosity η of the coolant gas (Helium) is a function of the temperature and is
given as [28]:
7 0.73.674 10 Tη −= × 3.28
where T is the gas (helium) temperature in K.
The pressure drop through the core is defined by [29]: 2
3
1 1
2
mP H
d A
ε
ρε
− ∆ = Ψ
� 3.29
where H is the height of the reactor core in m,
Ψ is the coefficient of pressure loss defined in equation 3.29 and
ρ is the density of the gas (helium) in kg.m-3.
The density of the helium is defined by [28]:
1.2
48.14
1 0.446
P
T
P
T
ρ
=
+ ×
3.30
where P is the pressure in bar and
T is the temperature in K.
ρ is in kg.m-3
The coefficient of loss of pressure through friction shall be determined in accordance with
the following empirical correlation [29]:
41
0.1
320 6
Re Re
1 1ε ε
Ψ = + − −
3.30
where Re is the Reynolds number defined in equation 3.30.
3.3 Description of coupling scheme
The NEM code has been coupled with THERMIX-DIREKT using a serial integration
approach (see Figure 17). The spatial mesh overlays are exact in r-z geometry and provide a
capability for different spatial meshing in neutronics and thermal-hydraulics models. The
temporal coupling is based on the same time step size used by NEM and THERMIX-DIREKT
with the time step determined by the latter code. During both steady state and at each time
step of transient a coupling iteration loop is performed between neutronics and thermal-
hydraulic calculations upon reaching a defined convergence in temperature distribution. The
cross-section dependencies on feedback parameters are modeled through linear surface
interpolation in multi-dimensional tables.
3.4 Description of coupling scheme
The NEM code has been coupled with THERMIX-DIREKT using a serial integration
approach (see Figure 17). The spatial mesh overlays are exact in r-z geometry and provide a
capability for different spatial meshing in neutronics and thermal-hydraulics models. The
temporal coupling is based on the same time step size used by NEM and THERMIX-DIREKT
with the time step determined by the latter code. During both steady state and at each time
step of transient a coupling iteration loop is performed between neutronics and thermal-
hydraulic calculations upon reaching a defined convergence in temperature distribution. The
cross-section dependencies on feedback parameters are modeled through linear surface
interpolation in multi-dimensional tables.
42
3.4.1.1 Old fuel temperature approximation
The temperature distribution obtained from THERMIX was considered to be the fuel
temperature distribution. This was the only distribution that was transferred to NEM. The idea
was that the solid temperature refers to both the fuel and the moderator temperatures, which
was a good estimation for the homogenized material. It was also known that the actual fuel
temperature is higher than the moderator temperature.
3.4.1.2 Old moderator temperature approximation
An intuitive approach to the estimation of the moderator temperature was adopted. This
was based on the observation that the fuel temperature in the pebble bed was about 50°C
higher than the fuel temperature. Hence the adopted approach for the estimation of moderator
temperature was using equation 3.31:
Tmoderator = Tfuel -50°C 3.31
This approximation was not entirely correct but was sufficient to enable calculations for the
coupled code system since both the fuel and the moderator temperature distributions would be
available when the cross section interpolation routine is called.
3.4.1.3 Old Xenon approximation
To account for Xenon reactivity, node-wise Xenon number densities were calculated
internally in NEM. The equilibrium number densities at steady state were computed using
equation (3.32) for Iodine and (3.33) for Xenon for each neutronic spatial node. The
assumptions were that after a long time of operation, the reactor reaches an equilibrium state
where the xenon and iodine number densities no longer change with time.
( ) 0I f
t
I
I t Iγ φ
λ∞→∞
Σ→ = 3.32
( )( ) 0
0
I X f
t X
X a
X t Xγ γ φ
λ σ φ∞→∞
+ Σ→ =
+ 3.33
43
0φ = Flux at steady state condition
I∞ = Iodine concentration at the beginning of the transient
X ∞ = Xenon concentration at the beginning of the transient
Iλ =Iodine decay constant
Xλ = Xenon decay constant
Iγ = Iodine fission yield
Xγ = Xenon fission yield
For time-dependent calculations the number densities of Xenon and Iodine had to be
tracked. The previous implementation of time-dependent Xenon and Iodine concentrations was
using equations (3.34) and (3.35).
( ) ( )0I f II t I t Iγ φ λ∞ ∞= + ∆ Σ − 3.34
( ) ( )( )0 0
X
X f I X aX t X t I Xγ φ λ λ σ φ∞ ∞ ∞= + ∆ Σ + − + 3.35
The results shown in Figure 16 for these models show that Iodine and Xenon
concentrations could only build-up in a system and are very sensitive to the time step size
changes in calculations. For instance, when the time step is changed at 60 hours, the there
was an abrupt jump in the Xenon number densities as displayed in Figure 16. This anomaly
justified the need for the improvement of the Xenon number density prediction model. Hence
the models in equations 3.34 and 3.35 cannot be used to approximate the correct reactor
conditions where there is a change in power/flux level and time step since they were only
dependent on the steady state flux, 0φ and time step changes.
44
Figure 16: Old transient Xenon model
This shortcoming was identified as one area for improvement since all transient cases that
were studied in this work required realistic models to best estimate reactor conditions. The
improvements implemented in this aspect are discussed in Chapter 4.
The old coupled code system involved NEM starting with initial guess of the temperature
distribution to initiate the calculation. NEM passes the power distribution to THERMIX, which
uses the power distribution to calculate the temperature distribution. As discussed above, the
temperature distribution is send to the cross section interpolation routine where fuel
temperature and the moderator temperature distributions are estimated. The two temperature
distributions and the saved Xenon number densities from the previous coupled iteration NEM
calculation, are used to interpolate the new cross section data using three-dimensional (i.e.
Tfuel, Tmoderator and [Xe]) interpolation routine.
45
Figure 17: Old NEM/THERMIX coupling scheme
The ultimate coupled scheme for the code system was organised as shown in Figure 17
with the 3-dimensional cross-section interpolation scheme. The coupled calculation continues
until a converged solution is reached on the temperature and xenon distribution. This system
was validated as discussed in section 3.5 below with some results shown in Figure 18 and
Figure 19.
3.5 Status of verification
The stand-alone version of the THERMIX-DIREKT code was verified for use in modular
HTR (PBMR) through simple stand-alone cases at PSU [22]. In fact, an extensive verification
(and validation) of this code was performed in Germany many years ago for the AVR reactor.
At PSU, the verification was performed for PBMR applications using the stand-alone thermal-
hydraulic test cases of the PBMR-268 and recently the PBMR-400 international benchmark
efforts between the PBMR Ltd (South Africa), NRG (Netherlands), PSU, PU and INL (USA),
and other organizations.
The verification of the stand-alone NEM has been performed through another benchmark
initiative, which was a joint effort between three institutions namely: Penn State, Purdue
NEM
Cross Section Library
Interpolation THERMIX Temp
Mass Flow Rates
Pressure
Power Density
TModerator
Tfuel
Xe
Flux
46
University (PU) and the PBMR Ltd. Company in South Africa [22]. These institutions defined a
benchmark with three steady-state core physics test problems hereafter referred to as test
cases. The ultimate intention was to develop these test problems into HTGR benchmarks
similar to the well-known IAEA PWR steady-state benchmarks. These test cases were
analyzed with three different codes: VSOP (PBMR Ltd), NEM (Penn State University), and
PARCS (Purdue University). In the framework PBMR-268 benchmark, which was a
comprehensive benchmark exercise aimed at both steady-state and transient analysis of the
PBMR reactor core, NEM was tested further in standalone mode and in coupled mode also. In
this benchmark, the PBMR Ltd still used VSOP for steady state analysis and the TINTE code
for transients, PSU used NEM/THERMIX; NRG used PANTHERMIX, and PU used
PARCS/THERMIX. Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the comparisons between different
participants for axial and radial power distributions for the initial steady state conditions, using
coupled neutronics/thermal-hydraulics models. Transient verification of both code systems was
also performed for different scenarios within the framework of the PBMR-268 benchmark
activities.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Axial position (cm)
Re
lati
ve
Po
wer
NEM
PANTHERMIX
PARCS
Figure 18: Comparison of axial power profiles for steady state
47
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Radial Position (cm)
Re
lati
ve
Po
we
r
NEM
PANTHERMIX
PARCS
Figure 19: Comparison of radial power profiles for steady state
3.6 Conclusions
In this chapter the basic coupled multi-physics code system NEM/THERMIX, developed
and verified at PSU, was introduced. NEM/THERMIX is the tool selected for performing the
proposed optimization studies of multi-physics coupling methodology since it has
demonstrated a potential for accurate and efficient steady-state and transient solutions. This
sets the platform for enhancements and optimization studies on NEM/THERMIX codes
system. Such studies require the extension of the three-dimensional cross-sectioninterpolation
scheme to five-dimensional scheme in order to model all of the important cross-section
feedback dependencies including spectrum (environment) dependence. It was also learned
that the models for Xenon and Iodine would require improvements to ensure temporal stability
to enable longer transient calculations to be performed in an efficient manner.
48
Chapter 4 Multiphysics code development and optimization
4.1 Introduction
Multi-physics approach deals with coupled fields, such as neutronics and thermal-
hydraulics fields, analysis to determine the combined effects of multiple physical phenomena
on design and safety. In this research the coupled thermal-hydraulics and neutronics methods
were extended to enable modeling of a wider range of transient scenarios pertinent to the
PBMR. As described in the Appendix B, such transient problems are defined within the
framework of the OECD PBMR-400 benchmark. The benchmark is suitable to verify and
validate PBMR transient and safety analyses methods, and the benchmark suite includes
variety of transient scenarios to cover the whole transient range (from slow to fast transients)
and feedback phenomena involved. The accuracy and efficiency of the coupled neutronics /
thermal-hydraulics model depends on many parameters related to the neutronics model,
thermal-hydraulics model and the utilized coupling scheme. In order to evaluate the
importance of each parameter related to the multiphysics coupling sensitivity studies were
performed. The obtained results were utilized further in this research to reduce the coupled
code system dependency on these parameters thus optimizing it.
4.2 Thermal-hydraulic modeling
4.2.1 Calculation of the kernel temperature
The first challenge was the transfer of the temperature distribution itself, which was not
conducted properly into the NEM meshes in the previous version of the code. Since THERMIX
provides the temperature in 2-D maps, there was a need to expand the model to be a full 3-
map in NEM as shown in Figure 25.
49
After the modifications of the temperature transfer were implemented properly the
convergence of the solution was achieved as shown in Figure 21. This figure demonstrates
spatial temperature convergence realized on the r-theta-z spatial mesh – for a given spatial
node as function of coupled iterations.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
0 5 10 15 20
Te
mp
era
ture
(°K
)
Iteration
Tfuel1(1,1,1)
Tfuel1(1,2,1)
Figure 21: Convergence of temperature after modifications
TTHERMIX(2-D)
NEM (3-D)
Interpolate
T(r,z)
Tfuel (r,z)
Tfuel1 (r,θ,z)
Figure 20: Temperature transfer to NEM
50
The PBMR feedback effects are affected by the large heat capacity of the core (that results
in very slow overall temperature changes during transients). There was a need to model the
core heterogeneous temperatures variations and studies were performed to evaluate the effect
of heterogeneous vs. homogenous modeling for different transients as discussed later.
The effect of the fuel kernel thermal-hydraulics model was studied and is discussed first.
For fast reactivity transients the thermal conductivity models employed to determine fuel
temperatures during normal operation often does not take the coated particles and its thermal
properties into account. In most cases this omission is acceptable since a rapid heat transfer
takes place from the coated particle to the surrounding graphite matrix. However, if fast power
transients occur the temperature differences between the coated particles and the surrounding
graphite will be large and must be taken into account to be able to predict fast reactivity
transients accurately. A method was developed to introduce the solution of a representative
micro-system representing the coated particles within discretized fuel pebble shells. The
developed time-dependent algorithm to solve for the temperatures in a pebble was introduced
into NEM/THERMIX and results are presented in this thesis for fast reactivity transient cases.
The THERMIX-DIREKT code provides for two methods to calculate temperature of the fuel,
namely, the so-called homogeneous model and the shell-model. In the homogeneous model, it
is assumed that there is a uniform distribution of temperature across the fuel pebble, and
therefore the fuel and moderator are essentially the same, with the exception that for the
moderator, only the temperature of the outer graphite of the pebble is considered. On the other
hand, the shell model divides the fuel pebble into five shells and the temperature of the inner
most shell is regarded as the maximum fuel temperature, while the average over the four inner
shells is regarded as the fuel temperature. The moderator temperature is then computed to be
the average of all five shells. The first model is obviously fraught with very extreme
assumptions and can only be used for overly simplified calculations. For a reactor operating at
a significant level of power, the assumption of uniform temperature is not valid because the
central (fuel) region of the pebble will experience a higher temperature than the surface. The
two most important consequences will be that (a) the maximum fuel temperature will be
underestimated, thus resulting in the neutronics model calculating higher powers and (b) the
temperature at which the cross sections are tabulated i.e. the feedback temperature will in fact
be wrong.
51
Studies have shown that this difference can be as small as 36oC at steady-state conditions.
This temperature difference albeit smaller for steady state calculations suggests that there is a
need for correction introduced in order to accurately model the fuel kernel temperature for fast
reactivity insertion transients where this difference may be larger. The importance of this
correction was demonstrated by showing the difference between using the shell model and the
correction model for fast transients [23], such as control rod ejection (CRE) transient.
Effect of fuel temperature model on CRE power
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time (s)
Rela
tive P
ow
er
(%)
Doppler Temperature from shell model
Doppler Temperature from shell model + fuelkernel correction
Figure 22: Power during the control rod ejection transient [23]
It can be seen from Figure 22 that there are significant differences in the maximum fuel
temperature peak and consequently in the fission power time evolution depending on which
fuel temperature model was used. When the shell model is used, (i.e. treating the temperature
of the inner shell of the pebble as the fuel without taking into consideration that the kernels are
embedded into a matrix of graphite) this results in very high maximum fuel temperature
because the Doppler feedback to turn back the power is delayed due to the lowered thermal
conductivity of uranium dioxide and the coatings which makes heat transfer even slower in
kernel, thereby causing the fission power to surge by a factor of 120 before returning promptly
to about 600% within 0.5 seconds. On the other hand, using the model that corrects the shell
model to take care of fuel kernels explicitly results in a much reduced power peak and hence a
52
much lower maximum fuel temperature peak. It is thus very important to use the correct fuel
temperature treatment for this transient, especially for safety analysis purposes.
Figure 23: Representative micro-system for shell calculation [45]
The implemented method involves the following steps:
1. Discretization of fuel sphere into shells;
2. Assignment of a homogeneous (independent of r) heat source to each shell within the
inner 2.5 cm of fuel sphere;
53
3. Definition of a representative micro-system for each shell within the inner 2.5 cm of fuel
sphere. Each kernel consists of UO2, four kernel coatings and a part of the graphite
matrix, as shown in Figure 23;
4. Temperature dependent thermal conductivity and heat capacity values for UO2, kernel
coatings and graphite as shown in Table 6 and Table 7 are used;
5. Micro-system assigns the average temperature of the fuel sphere shell (as usually
calculated);
6. Time-dependent discrete mathematical model for heat conduction is solved;
7. The end result is average temperatures in shells of each representative micro-system at
each time point.
4.2.2 NEM/THERMIX kernel model
The moderator and Doppler temperatures are obtained from THERMIX using the
currently implemented procedure for cross section interpolation purposes. The anticipated
changes were in the calculation of heterogeneous temperature in THERMIX. In the current
model the fuel sphere is discretised into a number of shells for solving the differential equation
of heat conduction. Nuclear heat sources are considered to be homogeneously distributed (i.e.
smeared out) throughout the shells, which are inside the inner 2.5 cm of the fuel sphere. This
is clearly not true since the nuclear heat sources are heterogeneously distributed throughout
each of the shells inside the inner 2.5 cm of the fuel sphere. Sources are concentrated in the
small UO2 kernels, which are coated with several layers. Thermal properties of UO2 and
coatings are different from that of the graphite in which they are embedded.
The effect of homogenization approximation of the kernel and graphite are justified
during steady state operation or slow reactivity transients since the temperature difference
between fuel kernels and surrounding graphite matrix is small. However, when fast reactivity
transients occur, there is a strong power surge and the temperature of the UO2 kernels and
coatings rise well above that of the surrounding graphite matrix. This introduces large
differences between homogeneously and heterogeneously distributed sources as well as in the
explicit coated particle models.
54
To give an idea of the differences in the material properties of the coatings and the fuel
kernel in the fuel pebble, some of the properties are given in Table 6 and Table 7.
Table 6: Thermal conductivity of fuel kernel layers
Region Thermal conductivities (W.cm-1.K-1)
UO2 3.7E-02
PyC buffer layer 0.5E-02
Inner / Outer PyC 4.0E-02
SiC layer 16.0E-02
graphite matrix 0.54E-02
Table 7: Specific heat capacity of fuel kernel layers
Region Specific heat capacity (J. g-1. K-1)
UO2 0.04E-01
PyC buffer layer 3.50E-01
Inner / Outer PyC 3.50E-01
SiC layer 0.25E-01
graphite matrix 0.50E-01
The modeling of correct heterogeneous representation of temperature includes the
discretization of fuel sphere into shells and representing temperature in the pebble according
to Table 8.
55
Table 8: Temperature representation in the fuel element
Parameter Description Unit
Average and Maximum
Fuel Temperature
The “fuel temperature” is defined as the average fuel kernel
temperatures of all the fuel spheres present in a single mesh.
(This is the value used for Doppler feedback calculations in
each mesh point).
The maximum value that occurs in the 2D spatial map (the
report mesh) is defined as the “maximum fuel temperature”,
and the average of all the spatial moderator temperatures is
defined as the “average fuel temperature”. These are reported
in the time dependent results list.
oC
Maximum Kernel
Temperature
The maximum kernel temperature of a pebble refers to the
maximum temperature seen by a single kernel, assumed in the
centre of a fuel element (a region the size of a kernel).
The core maximum kernel temperature (as is required in the
time dependent single parameter edit for Cases 5) is the
highest of all the maximum kernel temperatures of pebbles that
occurs in the entire 2D spatial map.
To exclude mesh effects these parameters are to be calculated
in the reported mesh and not in the refined calculational mesh.
Thus values calculated in a refined mesh should first be
averaged per the reported mesh and then the maxima should
be found.
oC
56
Parameter Description Unit
Average and Maximum
Moderator Temperature
The “moderator temperature” is defined as the average
temperatures of all graphite in the fuel spheres present a single
mesh (i.e. in the fuel graphite matrix and the outer fuel free
graphite zone of a sphere). (This is the value used for
moderator temperature feedback calculations in each mesh
point).
The maximum value that occurs in the 2D spatial map (the
report mesh) is defined as the “maximum moderator
temperature”, and the average of all the spatial moderator
temperatures is defined as the “average moderator
temperature”. These are reported in the time dependent results
list.
oC
4.2.3 New NEM fuel kernel temperature model
The correct modeling of kernel temperature was developed using the heat resistance
model and the conductivities as listed in Table 7. Heat transfer in the kernel is through
conduction since the layers are solid as shown in Figure 24. Newton’s Law of cooling applies
since the heating is from the inner part of the fuel particle (kernel) and since the temperature of
the outer layer (the graphite) is known, and it forms the boundary condition for our purpose. It
is also assumed that heat deposited in the graphite is also homogeneous in all layers of the
fuel particle.
The fuel kernel has different layers that have different properties as noted above. To
determine the heat transfer through the fuel layer, the heat resistance through the layers of the
fuel particle had to be conducted. Each material has its own thermal conductivity, which is
named k and the indices of SiC for instance are 1 (on the left) and 2 (on the right), hence SiC
has properties temperature (T12) thermal conductivity k12 and thickness (x1 – x2). The thickness
is determined by the difference between the locations of the boundaries. The thermal
resistance is then converted into a total resistance.
57
0 10 1 0
01
1 21 2 0
12
2 32 3 0
23
3 43 4 0
34
4 54 5 0
45
x xT T q
k
x xT T q
k
x xT T q
k
x xT T q
k
x xT T q
k
−− = −
−− = −
−− = −
−− = −
−− = −
where
ki,i+1 is the thermal conductivity of the material
Ti = temperature at the boundary
xi-xi+1 = the thickness of the layer
Adding the terms on both sides:
Graphite Pyrolytic Carbon
SiC Pyrolytic Carbon
Porous Buffer Carbon
UO2
T0
T34
T45
T12
T23
T01
K23 k12 k0 k01 k34 k45
Figure 24: Simplified kernel heat transfer model
58
0 1 2 3 3 4 4 51 20 5 0
01 12 23 34 45
x x x x x x x xx xT T q
k k k k k
− − − −−− = − + + + +
0 1 2 3 3 4 4 51 25 0 0
01 12 23 34 45
x x x x x x x xx xT T q
k k k k k
− − − −−= + + + + +
Currently the thickness of the layers is fixed as the first approximation. But it is known that
the properties of materials change in response to changes in conditions such as temperature
that cause the expansion and contraction. The radiation effects on the materials can also
change the properties of graphite and result in poor conductivity. In future the effects of these
changes can be taken into account.
4.2.4 TINTE kernel model
An approximation to a complete explicit model is available in the TINTE code system where
the temperature in the UO2 fuel kernel, used for cross section reconstruction, is calculated for
a steady state case as:
mlff TQT +′′′= �'α
where
f'α = User supplied parameter
lQ ′′′� = Local heat production in the mesh (Watt/cc)
Tm = Matrix (graphite) temperature
Note that the heat production is defined as being homogenized over a mesh (fuel sphere
and helium) and include only the locally deposited heat component – in the PBMR-400
benchmark definition this includes all fission heat. This will of course influence the definition of
f'α .
59
In the time dependent case, the fuel temperature at the end of the time step is given in
terms of the steady state values as follows (subscripts 0 and 1 indicate beginning and end of
time step respectively):
( ) ( )∆
−−+−+=
∆−∆−
f
ff
f
fe
AAeATATλ
λλ 1
100011
where
000 ' mlf TQA +′′′= �α
111 ' mlf TQA +′′′≡ �α
( ) fpfUO
U
be
bef
cM
M
SM
V
,'
1
12
αελ
−=
∆ = Time step length (s)
3
3
4bebe
RV π=
beR = Fuel sphere radius (3 cm)
SM = Heavy metal loading per fuel sphere (9 g)
beε = Pebble bed void fraction (0.39)
2UOM = Molar mass of uranium dioxide fuel (270 g/mol)
UM = Molar mass of low enriched uranium metal (238 g/mol)
fpc , = Specific heat capacity for UO2 fuel (0.3 kJ/kg/K)
4.3 Optimizing temporal coupling schemes
The temporal coupling and meshing schemes aspect was studied and optimized between
the neutronics and thermal-hydraulics time step selection algorithms. The temporal coupling
can be either direct (implicit) or iterative (explicit). Implicit coupling requires a single matrix
solution of both fields, while explicit coupling sequentially solves the individual problems,
passing explicit values across the field interfaces and iterating until all solutions converge.
All coupled transient calculations start with a fully converged steady state solution. The
convergence criteria utilized in NEM/THERMIX for coupled steady state solution are shown in
Table 9.
60
Table 9: Suggested convergence criteria
1 k-eff 0.00001
2 Local Fluxes 0.0001
3 Local Temperature °C 0.01
4 Local Flows m/s 0.1
The time step size and total run time information are specified as an input parameter. A
time step size adjustment could be input at certain time points with a certain fraction of the
initial time step size. The temporal discretization of all fields was performed with a theta
method which enables to specify any type of scheme from fully explicit to fully implicit. At each
time step a marching scheme through the calculation fields must be performed until the
specified convergence is achieved.
For fast transient scenarios such as Control Rod Ejection (CRE) or Control Rod Withdrawal
(CRW), the typical time step size is in order of milliseconds to achieve a reasonable accuracy.
On the other hand, some of the anticipated accident scenarios that are investigated for reactor
safety characteristics of the PBMR type reactors require very long run times. For instance, the
“Depressurized Loss Of Forced Cooling without SCRAM” accident is analyzed for about 100
hours in order to capture the effects of re-criticality which occurs around 72 hours. To simulate
such an accident scenario with a reasonable accuracy, a time step size of less than 5 seconds
should be applied, which results in a total CPU time of 7 – 8 days. The optimization of this
aspect enabled the efficient run of such calculation in hours.
Table 10 provides the convergence criteria and time step sizes utilized in NEM/THERMIX
for transient simulations.
Table 10: Suggested convergence criteria and step sizes for transient cases
1 Temperature iterations °C 0.2
2 k-eff 1.0E-05
Step sizes
61
3 Case 1 – 3 (during heat-up and cool-down) sec 60
4 Recriticality phase of Case 1 sec 2
5 Case 5 sec 0.1
The true coupled code convergence and application of innovative methods to accelerate
it and solve the coupled field problem simultaneously was another important issue, which was
addressed in this research through the development of reference solutions as discussed in
Chapter 6.
4.4 Improved and efficient feedback modeling
4.4.1 Thermal and fast buckling calculation
Finally, the modeling of all feedback phenomena in HTRs was investigated and novel
treatment was introduced for improving the representation of cross-section variations. The
dependence on fast / thermal leakage (buckling) may introduce problems. The leakage
dependence parameterization approach was thoroughly evaluated and compared to the
directly calculated cross section data sets. Attention was given to the restrictive fast and
thermal buckling input values yielding physical cross sections results to prevent excessive
extrapolation with potential negative cross sections.
As it has been mentioned before when generating PBMR cross-section libraries it is
very important to model the spectrum dependence. As a consequence the cross-sections
should be represented as a function of some spectral parameter as for example the leakage
term - L or buckling – B2. Leakage of neutrons from/to the adjacent spectrum zones is included
by buckling terms, which are generated from the diffusion calculation over the whole reactor.
From the 3-D NEM diffusion core simulator calculation the leakage terms LSI are calculated for
each spectrum zones S and for each coarse energy group I (normally four). The leakage terms
can be transformed into bucklings:
62
SSISI
SI
SIVD
LB
•Φ•=2
4.1
The leakage can be also transferred into the albedo at the surface of the spatial cell (the
group indices are omitted for sake of simplicity):
+
−=
J
Ja
4.2
This is the ratio of the partial current J- of neutrons entering the cell divided by J+ leaving
the cell.
The partial currents are given by:
00
2
1
4JJ −
Φ=−
4.3
00
2
1
4JJ +
Φ=+
4.4
in which J0 = J+ - J- is the net current leaving the cell per cm2.
The net current of the cell is equal to the ratio of the leakage LC of the cell per surface SC .
C
C
S
LJ =0
4.5
The leakage of the cell is equal to the LS of the whole spectrum zone divided by the number
of cells in the spectrum zone, as given by the ratio of the volumes VS/VC of the spectrum zone
and cell.
S
CSC
V
VLL •=
4.6
Further the neutron flux Φ0 at the surface of each cell is equivalent to the average neutron
flux ΦS of the whole spectrum zone. As a result the albedo is calculated as:
C
C
SS
S
C
C
SS
S
S
V
V
LS
V
V
L
A
••Φ
+
••Φ
−=
21
21
4.7
63
In the case of a spherical cell of the pebble bed the VC includes the volume of the void per
cell, but SC is just the surface of the cell.
The calculation of buckling is based on the transverse buckling equivalence method [30].
The approximation of the transverse leakage is given as:
gu g
S
L J dS= ∫� 4.8
The surface integral is performed on the surface orthogonal to the collapsed directions,
where u is our direction of interest ( , ,r z θ ).
out in
in out
J J J
J J J
+
−
= −
= − 4.9
The total leakage is:
( ) ( ) ( )g r r r r z z zL J S J S J J S J J Sθ θ θ+ + − − + − + −= − + − + − 4.10
The buckling is then given as
12
1
G
g
g
g G
g g
g
L
B
D Vφ
=
=
=
∑
∑
4.11
In Figure 25 it is shown that the two-group buckling converges in a given spatial node (as
illustration of convergence in all nodes) for the 3-D calculations.
64
-4.00E-03
-3.50E-03
-3.00E-03
-2.50E-03
-2.00E-03
-1.50E-03
-1.00E-03
-5.00E-04
0.00E+00
0 5 10 15 20
Bu
cklin
g
Iteration
Buckling(1,1,1,1)
Buckling(1,2,1,1)
Figure 25: Convergence of the buckling distribution
From the core diffusion calculation the leakage term (and thus the albedo and buckling) for
the spectrum feedback is obtained. The core thermal-hydraulic model provides the
corresponding temperatures of the fuel, moderator and coolant averaged over the volumes of
the reactor spectrum zones, being ready for further neutronics evaluation.
In the improved in this study the PSU base feedback model the cross-sections are
calculated for each spectral zone (see Figure 26) and for each coarse energy group (normally
four). The basic unit of material composition is a batch. In each layer a number of batches with
different irradiation ages can reside. These are mixed and put together to form a layer. These
layers present partial volumes of the reactor core, which provide the distribution of materials
(or cross sections) for the flux calculation. All the batches within a layer are exposed to the
same local flux. Number of batches can be placed together to form a spectral zone. Spectral
calculations are based on the averaged atom densities of all the batches within this zone and
therefore provide the broad group cross sections for the respective batches.
65
Figure 26: Simplified representation of spectral zones of PBR
In the void above the pebble bed calculations are performed by employing adapted
(direction-dependent) diffusion coefficients. Since a diffusion coefficient for each coordinate
direction is provided in the PSU model the different streaming effects (depending on the
relative size and shape of the void) can be adjusted.
The major PBR reactivity feedback parameters are fuel temperature and moderator
(graphite) temperature, and to the less extent the coolant (helium) temperature. The spatial
variation of these parameters requires a proper modeling of local cross-section dependencies
on these feedback parameters for a multi-dimensional PBR core analysis. Entire ranges of
changes of the major feedback parameters are covered using multi-dimensional table
interpolation thus avoiding simplified polynomial fitting with possibilities for extrapolation.
Unloaded fuel elements
StorageBoxes
Batch 1,2 3
Fresh FuelElements
66
Special software package is developed that reads the tables and interpolates in them to
obtain macroscopic cross-section values for each spectral zone (core region) and for each
broad energy group. The testing of the functionality of the package was performed successfully
in the framework of the NEM/THERMIX-DIREKT code. By using this method there is no
chance that the calculation of the cross section can be outside of the bounds set by the user
and to involve extrapolation procedure. In addition, this approach also helps to improve the
accuracy of modeling the cross section variations by getting around user-calculated
coefficients that could contain errors and by treating explicitly the cross terms of cross-section
dependencies (which is especially important for transient simulations). This method takes into
account the non-linear thermal hydraulic feedback parameter phenomena that are critical for
accurate prediction of the cross section behavior.
The developed feedback model has three options: the base one using linear surface
interpolation routine, the second using a higher order interpolation and the third using Besier
splines (B-spline) surface interpolation routine.
For the base feedback model it is necessary to tabulate a sufficient number of points to
achieve the degree of accuracy that is desired. Since linear interpolation is used and the
behavior of the cross sections is not linear with respect to temperature, many points are
necessary. In addition temperature varies significantly and non-linearly across the core in both
the radial and axial directions. When more points are added, the table size increases
disproportionately. To keep the number of cross-section generation calculations to a minimum,
and also the total amount of data that has to be tabulated while maintaining a particular degree
of accuracy, a higher order interpolation scheme has been implemented to interpolate the
tables. The use of a higher order interpolation over linear interpolation has the advantage of
yielding the same degree of accuracy with fewer points.
The utilized higher order interpolation scheme is based on quintic spline routine. It uses a
fifth order polynomial to fit the data. This routine calculates the coefficients at a set of knots
(independent points at which dependent points are known) and these coefficients are then
used for the interpolation. A front-end routine is needed to supply the routine with the required
data and a back end routine is needed to do the interpolation using the coefficients.
67
The curve fitting subroutine calculates the coefficients of a piece wise natural quintic spline
with knots and uses the method of least resistance. The term spline was adopted from a tool
that draftsmen used to create a smooth curve through a set of points. The method of least
resistance ensures that the curve passes through each point with the least amount of tension
on the curve. This is important to prevent the formation of oscillations between the points
defining the curve (knots). This curve fitting method can only be used for a strictly increasing or
decreasing sequence of knots. The knots must be formed such that the fifth power of X(I+1)-
X(I) can be formed without overflow or underflow of the exponents. This does not create a
problem with the parameters used in this application. The equations used are:
( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )IYPIBPICPIDPIEPIFxS +×+×+×+×+×= 4.12
or
( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( ) ( )( )( )1
11111
++×
+−×++×+−×++×+−=
IYQ
IBQICQIDQIEQIFxS
4.13
where :
S(x) = Interpolated spline value at point x.
F(I) , E(I) , D(I), C(I), B(I) = Calculated spline coefficients at point I.
P = x – x(I)
Q = x(I+1) – x
When cross terms are present the additive effect is less accurate when compared to actual
cross section data calculated by the spectral codes. This is due to interdependence (non-
linearity) of the cross section behavior on the parameters. Such non-linearity can be explained
with the spectral shifts in the neutron behavior based on these parameters that cannot be
accurately described by simply adding up the individual effects to obtain a total representative
cross section.
More sophisticated interpolation routines have been utilized to help model these
interactions. Multi-dimensional surface interpolation schemes such as Besier splines (B-spline)
surface interpolation have been shown to be able to handle varying shapes and to be very
stable. They also have the advantage of being local, which means that the basis function is
only affected by the neighboring nodes. The number of neighboring nodes that is needed is
68
based on the smoothness of the curve that is desired, which means that fewer points have to
be evaluated to obtain the same information thus reducing the computational effort that is
required. Another advantage to B-splines is that they are an approximation not an
interpolation. This means that the curve or surface generated only has the requirement that it
comes close to the point and is not forced through the point. It is well known that any computer
code can produce varying results and when spectral codes are pushed to bounds that are not
well defined, such as points at the extreme limits of the off-nominal condition range; they can
produce results that do not correspond to a smooth curve.
The three interpolation methods – linear surface interpolation, higher order (quintic splines)
interpolation, and Bezier surface interpolation method – have been implemented in the
NEM/THERMIX feedback model. The test results demonstrated the superiority of the Bezier
surface interpolation method in terms of an optimal combination of accuracy and efficiency for
steady state and transient calculations.
4.5 Xenon and Iodine models
The previously implemented time-dependent Xenon and Iodine models for transient
calculation have been improved using equations 4.14 and 4.15. The improvement in the
representation of Xenon is shown in Figure 27.
( ) 0I II ft t
I
I t I e eλ λ
γ φ
λ− −
∞
Σ= = 4.14
( ) ( )
( )( )0 0
0
X X I
X X I
t t tI
I X
I X f I ft t t
X
X a I X
IX t X e e e
e e e
λ λ λ
λ λ λ
λ
λ λ
γ γ φ γ φ
λ σ φ λ λ
− − −∞∞
− − −
= + −−
+ Σ Σ = + −
+ −
4.15
However, these equations assume that the reactor shutdown occurs at the beginning of the
transient. Hence the conditions are valid only if the flux disappears promptly after initiation of
the transient and these models still need further improvements.
69
Figure 27: New Xenon model
These Xenon and Iodine models have to be modified to enable the calculation that reflects
response to changes in power as function of time appropriately as represented in Figure 28.
These changes have been implemented by the introduction of analytical models represented
by equations (4.16) for Iodine and (4.17) for Xenon.
( ) 0 1 0
1
1 II f t
I
I t eλ
γ φ φ φ
λ φ−
Σ −= −
4.16
( )( ) ( )
( )( )1
1 1 0
1 1 1
1
1
1X
X a
XX aI
tI X f X
X X
X a X a
XttX aI
X
I X X a I
X t e
e e
λ σ φ
λ σ φλ
γ γ φ φ φ λ
λ σ φ φ λ σ φ
λ σ φγ
γ γ λ σ φ λ
− +
− +−
+ Σ −= −
+ +
+ + − + + −
4.17
70
Figure 28: Xenon changes in response to power changes [46]
The Xenon interpolation routine had challenges in a sense that the units of interpolation
table were stated in barn-1.cm-1 whereas NEM returns the Xenon atom concentration in
atoms.cm-3. These challenges have been addressed in this study by modifying the feedback
model in NEM/THERMIX as shown in Figure 29. The steady state convergence of Xenon
number density in two selected spatial nodes, as illustration of convergence in all spatial
nodes, when using the improved Iodine and Xenon models in NEM/THERMIX is depicted in
Figure 30.
71
0.00E+00
2.00E+15
4.00E+15
6.00E+15
8.00E+15
1.00E+16
1.20E+16
1.40E+16
1.60E+16
1.80E+16
0 5 10 15 20
Nu
mb
er
De
nsi
ty (
ato
ms.
cm3)
Iteration
xennold(17,1,19)
xennold(12,3,19)
Figure 30: Steady state convergence of 3-D map of Xenon number densities
4.5.1 Final 5-D steady problem convergence
The overall solution convergence of the coupled calculations with all of the implemented
feedback modeling enhancements in NEM/THERMIX as part of this PhD research are shown
[Xe] barn-1.cm-1
x
aσ barn
LIBRARY x
aσ cm2
[Xe] atoms.cm-3
BBSTEA
*1024
barn.cm-2 *10-24
cm2.barn-1
BBTRANS
Figure 29: Xenon model processing for cross section interpolation
72
in Figure 31 on the example of the multiplication factor convergence as a function of the
number of coupled iterations.
0.98500
0.99000
0.99500
1.00000
1.00500
1.01000
1.01500
1.02000
1.02500
0 5 10 15 20
K-E
ffe
ctiv
e
Iteration
Figure 31: The k-effective convergence
4.6 Transient cross section modeling
The previous modeling of instantaneous cross-sections dependencies (important for
transient analysis) was limited in accuracy and applicability for cross section data sets with
three-dimensional tables. The new model performs direct five-dimensional table interpolation
to account for most feedback phenomena. A feedback model has been developed to account
for the feedback effects of temperature and spectrum and was implemented into NEM. The
five parameters of interest in the model are fuel temperature (Tf), moderator temperature (Tm),
fast buckling ( 2
1Β ), thermal buckling ( 2
2Β ) and Xenon concentration ([ ]Xe ).
The ultimate advantage was to extend the range of applicability and eliminate the
possibility of negative cross sections by introducing, in addition to the interpolation between
points, extrapolation beyond prescribed points in the tables; thus obtaining improved efficiency
in the transient analysis calculation. Two software packages have been developed as part of
this new feedback model. The first package automatically generates a macroscopic cross
section library for a given PBMR core model using MICROX-2. This library contains sets of
73
macroscopic 5-D cross section tables for each composition. Users can specify the ranges of
the feedback parameters as well as the number of reference points themselves. Once this
information is selected it is stored at the beginning of the cross section tables. This information
is read by NEM together with the reference cross section values. This library contains tables
for transport, absorption, fission, production and scattering cross sections. The second
software package reads the tables and interpolates in them to obtain the macroscopic cross
section values for each spectral zone (core region) and for each broad energy group. This
package interacts with NEM in the following way: first, the cross section library is read once at
the beginning of the calculation process and stored in the NEM arrays. During the calculation
process for each spatial node of the NEM core model, five parameters representative of this
node are passed to the feedback module. Using these values, five-dimensional tables are then
interpolated for the appropriate macroscopic cross section values. The updated macroscopic
cross sections are passed back to NEM to perform core calculations, pass the power
distribution to THERMIX-DIREKT and getting the relevant thermal-hydraulics data in turn, and
this calculation loop continues. The layout of a typical cross section table for PBMR with
parameters Tf, Tm, 2
1Β , 2
2Β and [Xe] (the fuel temperature, moderator temperature, fast buckling,
thermal buckling and Xenon number density respectively) is shown in Table 11.
Table 11: 5-dimensional cross section table
Tf1 Tf2 Tf3 Tf4 Tm1
Tm2 Tm3 Tm4 Tm5 Tm6
Tm7 Bf1 Bf2 Bf3 Bt1
Bt2 Bt3 X1 X2 X3
Σ1 Σ2 Σ3 Σ4 Σ5
Σ6 Σ7 Σ8 Σ9 Σ10
Σ11 … … … …
Σ756
74
where:
• Tf is the fuel temperature
• Tm is the moderator temperature
• Bf is the fast buckling
• Bm is the thermal buckling
• X is the Xenon number density
• Σ is the macroscopic cross section
The layout of cross section tables is as follows:
• Σ1 is a function of (Tf1,Tm1,Bf1,Bt1,X1)
• Σ2 is a function of (Tf2, Tm1,Bf1,Bt1,X1)
• Σ3 is a function of (Tf3, Tm1,Bf1,Bt1,X1)
• Σ4 is a function of (Tf4, Tm1,Bf1,Bt1,X1)
• Σ5 is a function of (Tf1, Tm2,Bf1,Bt1,X1)
• …
• Σ253 is a function of (Tf1,Tm1,Bf1,Bt1,X2)
• …
• Σ756 is a function of (Tf4,Tm7,Bf3,Bt3,X3)
4.7 Control rod movement modeling
The reactor designer has to specify the Operating Technical Specifications (OTS) for the
reactor design. Within this section the limiting conditions of operation have to be detailed. This
entails the level of safe operation dictated by the performance of the equipment. The control
rods form an important part of this aspect in the justification of the control of reactivity. The
demonstration of this safety aspect involves the best estimate deterministic modeling of the
75
reactivity insertion/withdrawal during operation. In this section the movement of the control
rods modeling is demonstrated by adopting different approaches for the estimation of reactivity
change.
The challenge in the modeling of control rod movement is in the estimation of reaction rates
in partially rodded nodes during a numerical procedure of blending rodded and unrodded
cross-section values. The setup for the system is depicted in Figure 33.
NEM processing that includes the control rod movement is shown in Figure 32.
4.7.1 Linear Rod Motion Model (ROMO)
The control rod movement has been implemented to introduce the capability of modeling
transients that involve shutdown of the reactor or control rod insertion, rod withdrawal and
control rod ejection.
The control rods positioned in the side reflector cannot be represented explicitly in two-
dimensional axi-symmetric geometry. A number of models are commonly used to overcome
σF
VF ϕg
dzc, Vc, σC
dzF, VF, σF
Zin(k)
Partially Rodded Material (PRM)
Unrodded Material (URM)
k
Rodded Material (RM)
Zin(k+1)
ktop
kbot
Z
r
Figure 32: Partially rodded nodes
76
this limitation. The ‘grey’ curtain model is adopted. This approximation models the 24 control
rods as a ring or curtain of absorber material (for all azimuthal meshes-symmetry in 2-D) by
defining a material with an effective absorber boron concentration that conserves the reactivity
effect of the control rods. This method can be used with great success to conserve the
reactivity effect of the control rods. This model is easily implemented by means of overlaid
cross-section sets. Typically cross-section sets are defined as follows: one for the control rod
fully inserted and another for the control rod withdrawn from a given material mesh as shown
in Figure 33.
Control rod withdrawnfrom mesh
Control rod fullyInserted in mesh
etcrffa ;;;; ΣΣΣΣ ν etcrffa ;;;; ΣΣΣΣ νCross-section set A Cross-section set B
Figure 33: Simulation of control rod movement
When continuous control rod movements need to be simulated, the same principle can be
used by adjusting the neutron poison concentration in the given axial mesh where the control
rods are partially inserted into. A typical overlaid cross-section value is calculated by blending
unrodded and rodded cross-section values. In the case of Figure 33 this is ( )BA
Σ+Σ−=Σ ςς1 .
The correct choice of the parameter ς ( 10 ≤≤ ς ) is essential for modeling small control rod
movements because the parameter is not linearly dependent on control rod position. If a
simple linear relation or volume weighting is used the reactivity effect of the partial insertion will
be overestimated since the self-shielding effect cannot be modeled correctly and the diluted
boron have a relatively too large absorption effect. This leads to the so-called “cusping effect”
where the rate of reactivity insertion as a function of rod movement is not smooth function. This
problem is solved if flux volume weighting is used to obtain the effective boron concentration in
the partially rodded mesh but an axial flux shape is then needed in advance to get the correct
77
weighting. This axial flux shape within the mesh has to be calculated explicitly or estimated
from the available flux information. Typically this information is not available in many codes. If
correct flux-volume-weighting can be performed this is the preferred method to apply.
A simple approximate method to obtain a smooth reactivity insertion for the partially rodded
meshes is given below and is based on the TINTE implementation developed at FZJ, the so-
called ‘Linear Rod Motion Model’ (ROMO). This model uses a special exponential interpolation
algorithm for the absorber concentration in the partially rodded mesh (node). The calculation of
the variable absorber concentration c* as a function of the insertion length l of the rods in an
annular region with partially inserted rods is given by:
( )( )
LlcS
SL
l
lc ≤≤∗−
−
= 0,1ln
1ln*
2.44
c absorber concentration in the rod region when rod bank is fully inserted in this
region
c*(l) absorber concentration in the rod region when rod bank is partially inserted in
this region over the length l , according to the linear rod motion model
l insertion length of the rod bank in the rod region
L length (axial height) of the rod region
S interpolation factor of the special exponential interpolation scheme of the linear
rod motion model, also called “absorber blackness value” because it
characterizes the neutron absorber poison strength; it is always: 0 < S < 1.
The cross sections of the partially rodded meshes can thus be mixed in this way to reduce
the cusping effects. The interpolation factor S is in general dependent on the mesh size and
the blackness of the grey curtain and can be found by inspection of performing several k-
effective calculations at various control rod positions and adjusting the value until a smooth
curve, per mesh is obtained, resulting in potentially different S factors per mesh. This treatment
is important for the control rod withdrawal transient. For the 50 cm meshes applicable in the
benchmark a starting guess of 0.9 can be used. If the mixing of the two sets of cross sections
by volume weighting is applied on a very fine sub-mesh (< 5 cm) and not on the material mesh
defined (50cm), the cusping effect will still appear for each of these sub-meshes when they are
78
partially rodded but the overall effect is much reduced and should not introduce major
variations in the overall results.
4.7.2 Volume-weighting method
The properties of the new material FM are given by:
( ) ( )M F
M F
M F
g V VFM
g
g V V
E dV E dV dE
dV dV dE
σ σ
σ
+
=
+
∫ ∫ ∫
∫ ∫ ∫
This method has limitations since it does not provide for the preservation of reaction
rates and leads to cusping effect.
4.7.3 Flux-volume weighting Method
The control rod methodology for flux-volume-weighting approach was developed and
implemented in NEM/THERMIX as part of this PhD study. This involves the mixing of materials
from the rodded region and the unrodded regions in a sophisticated manner to ensure that the
cusping effects are eliminated and that the reaction rates are preserved.
The method involves the use of the Equivalence Theory in homogenization of materials
(e.g. M and F in Figure 34) in a cell of interest.
79
The properties of the new material FM are given by:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
, ,
, ,
M F
M F
M F
g V VFM
g
g V V
E dV r E E dV r E dE
dE dV r E dV r E
σ φ σ φ
σ
φ φ
+
=
+
∫ ∫ ∫
∫ ∫ ∫
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
M F
M F
M F
FM V Vg
V V
dV r dV r
dV r dV r
σ φ σ φ
σφ φ
+
=+
∫ ∫
∫ ∫
Homogenisation of the cross section FC
gσ for cell k in Figure 38, in the partially rodded
area is given by:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
C F
C F
C F
g C g F
FC V Vg
g C g F
V V
r dV r dV
r dV r dV
σ φ σ φ
σφ φ
+
=+
∫ ∫
∫ ∫
C C C F F F
g g g gFC
g C C F F
g g
V V
V V
σ φ σ φσ
φ φ
+=
+
Figure 34: Material homogenisation approach
VF, σF
VM, σM
80
4.7.3.1 Linear interpolation of the flux
The flux in the partially rodded nodes will also depend on the flux of the neighbors (see
Figure 35). Linear interpolation will be used to obtain the approximated flux:
1
2
k ka
z zz −−
=
2 1
2
k kb
z zz + +−
=
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )a b a
a b a
z z z z
z z z z
φ φ φ φ− −=
− −
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )ag g b g a g a
b a
z zz z z z
z zφ φ φ φ
− = ⋅ − + −
Figure 35: Flux estimation for partially rodded nodes
Φg(Z1
)
Φg(Z)
Zk-
Φg(Z0)
ΦgF
ΦgC
k-1=ka
Za Zmin= Zk Zk+2
Zb
dZF
Zk+1=Zmax
Zc
z
K+1=kb
dZC
81
( )F
g g Fzφ φ=
( )C
g g Czφ φ=
where
( )1 1
2 2
F
F k k kz z z z z dz= − + = +
( )1
1 1
2 2
C
C kz z z z z dz+= − + = +
4.7.3.2 Implementation and testing for control rod movement
The algorithm for the control rod movement was implemented as shown in Figure 42
82
The most important thing to record during calculation procedure is the location of the
control rod tips. First the location is tracked by the location index of the node corresponding to
the distance of insertion. In Figure 37, the indices of the location of the rods are shown with ka
indicating the node below and kb indicating the node above the partially rodded node.
Change Material in kCR MixCR
Identify and index affected control rod locations setCR_NEM (x, y)
Calculate ZCR(*) MoveCR
Is the rod tip covering the next boundary?
Check against zdim(k) to index the z location of control rod
Mix materials mixCR
Interpolate cross sections XSTAB
Solve diffusion equation
Figure 36: Flowchart for the control rod model
83
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
20.5
21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
No
de
Nu
mb
er
Time(sec)
k_a
k
k_b
Figure 37: Index of rod position
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Dis
tan
ce (
cm)
Time(sec)
Figure 38: Tracking of rod tip during DLOFC transient
Figure 38 shows the actual distance of insertion during the reactor scram that lasts 3
seconds for the DLOFC transient
84
0.00E+00
2.00E+13
4.00E+13
6.00E+13
8.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.20E+14
1.40E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Flu
x (
#.c
m-2
.s-1
)
Time(sec)
phi_a
phi_C
phi_k
phi_F
phi_b
Figure 39: Results testing for the flux approximation
To test the impletentation of flux interpolation model, the control rod simulation was
conducted by withdrawing the rods from the original operation location for 20 seconds from 30
to 50 seconds. The flux interpolation showed that the flux could be tracked at every time step
during the calculation as shown in Figure 39.
Figure 40 illustrtaes that the Flux-Volume-Weighting (FVW) method reduces the
cusping effects as comapred to the Volume-Weighting (VW) approach.
2.50E+13
2.55E+13
2.60E+13
2.65E+13
2.70E+13
2.75E+13
2.80E+13
2.85E+13
2.90E+13
20 40 60 80 100 120
Flu
x(#
.cm
-2.s
-1)
Time(sec)
VW
FVW
85
Figure 40: Cusping effects during rod movement
It must be emphasised that the time step size selection for the analysis of the fast and slow
transients is important. This is not just the consideration for stability of the numerical solution,
but also for the dynamics of the problem that is being investigated. For instance if the time step
size will allow the tip of the rod to skip axial nodes during the movement, this can result in the
material map not being updated for the nodes that were not traversed by the rod tip – see
Figure 40. Hence there would be traces of rodded material trailing in the preceding nodes
during the movement.
This has posed additional limitations to the time step size selection in the current code. The
requirement for the proper modeling in this instance is that the time step has to be selected
considering the speed of the rod and the smallest axial node size in mind. Hence the product
of the speed and the time step size (in seconds) should not exceed the size of the smallest
node (in cm).
4.8 Decay heat calculation
The decay heat source is only of importance in certain transient cases, typically where the
fission power is reduced to zero during the event as shown in Figure 41. For the steady-state
cases the decay heat is assumed to be part of the energy released per fission, which is
assumed to be all deposited locally, i.e. where the fission took place.
86
0%
1%
10%
1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06
Decay time (seconds)
De
ca
y h
ea
t (%
of
tota
l p
ow
er)
Decay Heat (%)
Figure 41: Decay heat behaviour (% of fission power)
The decay heat value for each material mesh in the core is derived making use of the
relative core average decay heat behaviour (values provided as determined from the DIN
25485 standard) and the material mesh power. This implies that the decay heat is directly
related to the steady-state power produced in the mesh prior to the start of the transient. No
history effects or power excursions after the start of the transient (t=0) are taken into account.
The decay heat as calculated for the equilibrium core during DLOFC transient is shown
in Figure 41 for a period of just over 100 hours (365000 seconds). NEM reads and linearly
interpolates within the set of data points to obtain total decay heat relative to the total power at
any given time step and re-distributes it spatially according to the initial steady state power
distribution.
As an alternative a reduced set of data points can also be utilised for interpolation and
that will lead to an acceptable error. A linear interpolation of the log of time and log of the
decay heat is used. The maximum error is -1.5% but this only applies to the first half second.
87
After 100 seconds the time-integrated heat error is already smaller than -0.2%
(underestimated) while over the 100 hour total period the error is only -0.026%. For the
transient cases where this decay heat data is used the effect of these errors will be
insignificant. This is illustrated in Figure 42. The data points (25 in total) is shown with the
“LOG interpolated decay heat” data that falls on top of the reference “Decay Heat” set. The
small differences are shown as the “LOG Interpolation error” and are also expressed as a
percentage difference.
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Decay time (hours)
De
cay
he
at
(% o
f to
tal
po
we
r)
Decay Heat (%)
Data Points
LOG Interpolated decay heat
LOG Interpolation error
Figure 42: Log interpolation data points and time step error estimation
The final feedback model developed in this PhD research for NEM/THERMIX coupled
calculations is shown in Figure 43. The feedback model was improved and accounts for five
cross-sectional dependencies of fuel temperature, moderator temperature, Xenon number
densities, fast and thermal buckling.
88
4.9 Conclusions
This chapter summarized the completed optimization studies of the coupled multi-physics
methodology for PBMR safety analysis. Such studies were designed to quantify the effects of
thermal-hydraulic modeling, coupling spatial and temporal schemes and feedback modeling for
steady state and transient simulations. The NEM/THERMIX code system is now ready to
analyze any of the problems within the OECD benchmark framework.
Figure 43: New NEM/THERMIX feedback model
NEM
Cross Section Library
Interpolation THERMIX Temperature
Mass Flow Rates
Pressure
Power Density
TModerator
Tfuel
Xe
Flux
Buckling 2
Buckling 1
89
Chapter 5 NEA/OECD PBMR-400 Coupled Code Benchmark
5.1 Introduction
The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) has accepted, through the Nuclear Science Committee (NSC), the
inclusion in its program, the Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) coupled neutronics/thermal
hydraulics transient benchmark problem.
The benchmark is complementary to other ongoing or planned efforts in the reactor
physics community. The PBMR-268 benchmark problem [22]; initiated by PBMR Pty Ltd, PSU
and NRG, served as the predecessor to this effort. The work was concluded and future efforts
were focused on this benchmark. The PBMR-400 MW core design was also a test case in the
IAEA CRP-5 (TECDOC2 in preparation) but important differences exist between the test case
definitions and approaches. The OECD benchmark includes additional steady-state and
transient cases including reactivity insertion transients that are not included in the CRP5 effort.
Furthermore it makes use of a common set of cross sections (to eliminate uncertainties
between different codes) and includes specific simplifications to the design to limit the need for
participants to introduce approximations in their models which could be inconsistent.
The scope of the benchmark is to establish a well-defined problem, based on a common
given set of cross sections and to compare methods and tools in core simulation and thermal
hydraulics analysis with a specific focus on transient events through a set of multi-dimensional
computational test problems. In addition the benchmark exercise has the following objectives:
• establish a standard benchmark for coupled codes (neutronics/thermal-hydraulics) for
PBMR design;
• code-to-code comparison using a common cross section library, which is important for
verification and validation; and
• obtain a detailed understanding of the events and the processes.
90
Figure 44: PBMR-400MWth reactor
The reference design for the PBMR-400 benchmark problem is derived from the PBMR-
400MW NPP design described in Table 12. Several simplifications were made to the design as
shown in Figure 44 in order to limit the need for any further approximations to a minimum.
During this process care has been taken to ensure that all the important characteristics of the
reactor design were preserved. This ensures that the results from the benchmark will be
91
representative of the actual design’s characteristics. This benchmark is used in this PhD
studies as a test set for the developed optimized coupled code models.
Table 12: Major design and operating characteristics of the PBMR-400 reactor
PBMR Characteristic Value
Installed thermal capacity 400 MW(t)
Installed electric capacity 165MW(e)
Load following capability 100-40-100%
Availability ≥ 95%
Core configuration Vertical with fixed centre graphite reflector
Fuel TRISO ceramic coated U-235 in graphite
spheres
Primary coolant Helium
Primary coolant pressure 9Mpa
Moderator Graphite
Core outlet temperature 900°C.
Core inlet temperature 500°C.
Cycle type Direct
Number of circuits 1
Cycle efficiency ≥ 41%
Emergency planning zone 400 meters
5.2 Steady State Cases
The steady state benchmark calculation cases include 3 exercises:
5.2.1 Exercise 1 (Case S-1): Neutronics solution with fixed cross sections
An equilibrium core is utilized with the reactor operational state achieved after a
considerable time of operating at a specific set of conditions. Operating conditions are defined
to be at full power and with the control rods inserted 2.0 m below the bottom of the top reflector
(therefore 1.5 m alongside the pebble-bed). Once equilibrium is reached no significant
changes can be observed in the properties of the core. For example the k-eff, power profile,
temperatures and isotopic concentration distribution do no longer change.
92
Cross sections, which were generated by making use of the isotopic distribution calculated
in VSOP99, were provided. Hence no state parameter dependence and thermal-hydraulic
feedback modeling were required. All participants used this common set of cross sections to
facilitate better and well-defined comparisons as well as to allow broader participation in the
benchmark.
There are 190 different material sets for the core at equilibrium, which were arranged in the
2-D model as shown in Figure 45.
Figure 45: Neutronic model for case S1
5.2.2 Exercise 2 (Case S-2): Thermal hydraulic solution with given power
This exercise makes use of the thermal hydraulic properties and model description and the
following conditions:
o The provided power/heat source density given with the values corresponding to core
regions 1 – 110 as used in Exercise 1 (Case S1).
0 10 41 73.6 80.55 92.05 100 117 134 151 168 185 192.95 204.45 211.4 225 243.6 260.6 275 287.5 292.5
-200 10 31 32.6 6.95 11.5 7.95 17 17 17 17 17 7.95 11.5 6.95 13.6 18.6 17 14.4 12.5 5
-150 50 133 133 133 133 155 116 113 113 113 113 113 135 164 144 144 152 152 152 189 190
-100 50 133 133 133 133 155 116 113 113 113 113 113 135 164 144 144 152 152 152 189 190
-50 50 133 133 133 133 155 116 112 112 112 112 112 135 164 144 144 152 152 152 189 190
0 50 133 133 133 133 155 116 111 111 111 111 111 135 165 144 144 152 152 152 189 190
50 50 134 134 134 125 156 117 1 23 45 67 89 136 166 145 145 153 153 153 189 190
100 50 134 134 134 125 156 117 2 24 46 68 90 136 167 145 145 153 153 153 189 190
150 50 134 134 134 126 157 118 3 25 47 69 91 137 168 146 146 153 153 153 189 190
200 50 134 134 134 126 157 118 4 26 48 70 92 137 169 146 146 153 153 153 189 190
250 50 134 134 134 126 157 118 5 27 49 71 93 137 170 146 146 153 153 153 189 190
300 50 134 134 134 127 158 119 6 28 50 72 94 138 171 147 147 153 153 153 189 190
350 50 134 134 134 127 158 119 7 29 51 73 95 138 172 147 147 153 153 153 189 190
400 50 134 134 134 127 158 119 8 30 52 74 96 138 173 147 147 153 153 153 189 190
450 50 134 134 134 127 158 119 9 31 53 75 97 138 174 147 147 153 153 153 189 190
500 50 134 134 134 128 159 120 10 32 54 76 98 139 175 148 148 153 153 153 189 190
550 50 134 134 134 128 159 120 11 33 55 77 99 139 176 148 148 153 153 153 189 190
600 50 134 134 134 128 159 120 12 34 56 78 100 139 177 148 148 153 153 153 189 190
650 50 134 134 134 128 159 120 13 35 57 79 101 139 178 148 148 153 153 153 189 190
700 50 134 134 134 129 160 121 14 36 58 80 102 140 179 149 149 153 153 153 189 190
750 50 134 134 134 129 160 121 15 37 59 81 103 140 180 149 149 153 153 153 189 190
800 50 134 134 134 129 160 121 16 38 60 82 104 140 181 149 149 153 153 153 189 190
850 50 134 134 134 129 160 121 17 39 61 83 105 140 182 149 149 153 153 153 189 190
900 50 134 134 134 130 161 122 18 40 62 84 106 141 183 150 150 153 153 153 189 190
950 50 134 134 134 130 161 122 19 41 63 85 107 141 184 150 150 153 153 153 189 190
1000 50 134 134 134 130 161 122 20 42 64 86 108 141 185 150 150 153 153 153 189 190
1050 50 134 134 134 131 162 123 21 43 65 87 109 142 186 151 151 153 153 153 189 190
1100 50 134 134 134 131 162 123 22 44 66 88 110 142 187 151 151 153 153 153 189 190
1150 50 132 132 132 132 163 124 114 114 114 114 114 143 188 151 151 154 154 154 189 190
1200 50 132 132 132 132 163 124 115 115 115 115 115 143 188 151 151 154 154 154 189 190
1250 50 132 132 132 132 163 124 115 115 115 115 115 143 188 151 151 154 154 154 189 190
93
o Calculate the temperatures distribution, outlet temperature, pressure drop over the core
and heat loss to the constant temperature boundary.
o Assume fresh fuel Zehner-Schlünder pebble bed effective thermal conductivities
(resultant values to be provided to be used as input if required).
5.2.3 Exercise 3 (Case S-3): Combined neutronics thermal hydraulics calculation
This exercise represents the equilibrium cycle steady-state conditions and makes use of
the state-parameter dependent cross section library and thus is a coupled neutronics/thermal-
hydraulics calculation. This case also represents the starting conditions for the transient
events.
5.3 Comparison of steady state results
The k-effective results for Case S1 are shown in Figure 46 with the average value of
1.00437 shown with the black line. The codes were in reasonable agreement in the prediction
of the multiplication factor for this case.
94
1.00437 + 22 pcm
1.00370
1.00380
1.00390
1.00400
1.00410
1.00420
1.00430
1.00440
1.00450
1.00460
1.00470
K-E
ffe
ctiv
e
Figure 46: Comparison of k-eff for OECD PBMR-400 Case S1
The power distribution reported by participants was in 2-D maps. The data was reduced by
radially averaging for axial power distribution and axially averaging for radial distribution. From
the axial and radial power distributions shown in Figure 47 and Figure 48, it can be noted that
different codes predicted different maximum power densities. The power at the top of the
reactor was also different as result of challenges in modeling the helium space at the top of the
pebble bed reactor. From the visual inspection of the data, it was evident that the power and
the flux distributions reported by all participants were in agreement. The main difference was at
the top of the reactor where cavities are encountered. This was an indication that some
spatially optimized calculation is still required.
95
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
PO
WE
R D
EN
SIT
Y(W
.cm
-3)
AXIAL POSITION(cm)
DALTON
DORT-TD Diff.
CAPP (IC FEM)
CAPP (CMFDM)
TOPS
TINTE
NEM
PARCS
BOLD VENTUREMGRAC
CITATION
PEBBED_FD
Figure 47: Axial power distribution in the PBMR-400 reactor
96
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
100 120 140 160 180
PO
WE
R D
EN
SIT
Y(W
/cm
-3)
RADIAL POSITION(CM)
DALTON
DORT-TD Diff.
CAPP (IC FEM)
CAPP (CMFDM)
TOPS
TINTE
NEM
PARCS
BOLD VENTURE
MGRAC
CITATION
PEBBED_FD
PEBBED_ND
Figure 48: Radial power distribution for PBMR-400 reactor
The flux distributions also displayed evident differences especially in the reflector and
the helium regions of the reactor as shown in Figure 49.
97
0
2E+13
4E+13
6E+13
8E+13
1E+14
1.2E+14
1.4E+14
1.6E+145
25.5
57.3
77.0
75
86.3
96.0
25
108.
5
125.
5
142.
5
159.
5
176.
5
188.
975
198.
7
207.
925
218.
2
234.
3
252.
1
267.
8
281.
25 290
FL
UX
(n
/cm
2/s
)
RADIAL POSITION (cm)
DALTON
DORT-TD Diffusion
CAPP (IC FEM)
CAPP-CMFDM
TOPS
TINTE
NEM
PARCS
BOLD VENTURE
OSCAR-4
CITATION
PEBBED_FD
PEBBED_ND
Figure 49: Radial thermal flux distribution in PBMR-400 reactor
The high Helium outlet temperature of about 900C was demonstrated by the results of
Case S2 as shown in Figure 50.
98
896.5
897.0
897.5
898.0
898.5
899.0
899.5
900.0T
EM
PE
RA
TU
RE
(°
C)
Figure 50: Comparison of outlet temperature for OECD PBMR-400 exercise 2
One can notice the differences introduced by modeling the reactor with and without
feedback in Table 13 (i.e. between exercise S1 and S3).
Table 13: Comparison of k-eff with and without feedback
Code K-eff_S1 K-eff_S3
NEM 1.00045 1.09060
PARCS 0.99283 1.04099
DALTON-Fine Mesh 0.99928 1.00476
The change in power distribution can also be demonstrated by the results of NEM
(Figure 51) and DALTON (Figure 52).
99
Comparison of axial power distribution
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Axial distance from top to battom(cm)
Po
wer
den
sit
y (
W/c
m^
3) Axial_Power_S3
Axial_Power_S1
Figure 51: NEM axial power distribution for cases S1 and S3
Figure 52: DALTON axial power distribution for cases S1 and S3
100
5.4 Transient cases
Six transient cases, covering the range from slow to fast neutronic transients, as well as
feedback effects from thermal-hydraulic parameters and fission products, are defined in the
transient part of the benchmark study. The cases are given below and their detailed
descriptions are given in Appendix A (Table 18 through Table 22):
• De-pressurized loss of forced cooling (DLOFC) without scram-case 1,
• DLOFC with scram-case 2,
• Pressurized loss of forced cooling (PLOFC) with scram -case 3,
• Load follow 100%-40%-100% -case 4,
• Reactivity insertion by Control rod ejection (CRE) and Control Rod Withdrawal (CRW) -
case 5, and
• Cold Helium injection into the core inlet plenum -case 6.
The focus of the PhD work was on the analysis of cases 1,2,3 and 5.
5.4.1 DLOFC
The DLOFC and PLOFC cases involve the control rod insertion over 3 seconds to scram
the reactor from 13 to 16 seconds. The modeling of control rods adopted the generally
accepted grey curtain approach where the rods move as one continuous sector of absorber
material. In this PhD study flexibility was introduced to enable the movement of control rods
independent of each other based on individual location in the reflector material. In NEM, one-
twelfth symmetry of the core consisting of 3 sectors of 10° each, is usually utilized. This implies
that the grey curtain will have three sectors of absorber material moving simultaneosly.
To check the implemented flexibility of the movement of the rods, the scram was conducted
with only parts of the control rods moving at their actual location in the reactor. Since there are
three sectors, sensitivity study was conducted by moving 1, 2 and then all (3) rods into the
RCS channels. Taking into account the one-twelfth core symmetry these movemnets
coresspond to insertion of 12, 24 and 36 rods respectively. The reactivity effect on power
101
during the time period of scram is shown in Figure 53. When the number of rods inserted is
increased, the negative reactivity increases; thus causing the power to decrease more for
larger number of rods than in the fewer cases.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.5 16.0
Re
lati
ve
Po
we
r
Time(sec)
One_Rod
Two_Rods
All_Rods
Figure 53: Power during reactor scram
The implementation of the conrol rod movement has enabled the NEM/THERMIX analysis
of the cases like Loss Of Coolant Accidents (LOFC), which include DLOFC and PLOFC
(shown in Figure 54) with scram, which were previoulsy unattainable due to the absence ot a
robust control rod model. The cases with scram (WS) exibit lower maximum fuel tempertaures
than the cases without scram (WOS).
102
Figure 54: Maximum temperatures reached during LOFC accidents
5.4.2 Control rod ejection (CRE)
In this case it was assumed that the control rods are ejected from the reactor over a period
of 0.1 seconds. This provided another test scenario, which introduces fast reactivity changes in
a short period of time. The case description is similar to the pulsing in the operation of the
TRIGA reactor in the following manner:
• Large reactivity insertion
• Prompt critical transient
• Power increases
• Fuel temperature increases
• Reactivity decreases due to negative reactivity temperature effect (feedback reactivity)
• Power decreases and temperature decreasing
• Power stabilising at a lower level higher than the initial power level
103
Figure 55: Power evolution for combinations of multiple time step sizes during the CRE
transient
The challenge was imposed by the global code system time-control. The time step
combinations in the calculation introduced some errors since thermal hydraulic time steps
should be compatible with the neutronics time steps in terms of size and stability limitations in
both numerical solutions. Since the time step is controlled by THERMIX, it is allowed for the
user to select multiple time step sizes during different intervals. This added flexibility helps to
meet the requirement to refine time step or to make it coarser in order to obtain an optimal
balance in terms of accuracy and efficiency. The utilization of very different time step sizes
introduced unstable results as seen in Figure 55. (please explain what mean the two cases).
This observation prompted performing sensitivity studies on time-step size and explicit iterative
temporal coupling in NEM/THERMIX for different transients. Time step selection algorithms
were developed for neutronics and thermal-hydraulics models supplemented by automatic
meshing schemes between them.
After this implementation, the results improved dramatically as shown in CRE cases shown
below in Figure 56 through Figure 63. The observations in this cases are in agreement with the
postulations described above.
104
Figure 56: Power evolution for single rod ejection for Case 5c
Sinsitivity studies on the CRE transients were on the time step sizes (see Figure 56 where
0.001, 0.002 and 0.003 are in seconds time step sizes used during CRE simulations), and also
on the number of rods ejected. As expected the more rods were ejected, the more the
reactivity insertion was. Hence the negative feedback reactivity would be more. This is
illustrated by the comparison of maximum power attained after ejection of the rods, which
increases with the number of rods ejected in Figure 56, Figure 57 and Figure 59 and is also
summarised in Figure 61.
105
Figure 57: Power for two rods CRE
Figure 58: Maximum temperature for two rods CRE
106
Figure 59: Case 5b with all rods ejected
Figure 60: Maximum temperature for all rods CRE without kernel model
Fewer rods take longer to insert reactivity and this is also accompanied by slower
negative reactivity feedback.
107
Figure 61: Sensitivity on number of rods ejected
Figure 62 shows that the correct prediction of the kernel temperature would result in
stronger negative feedback reactivity than when the fuel kernel temperatures are
homogenised.
Figure 62: Effect of fuel kernel model for CRE transient
108
Figure 63: Maximum temperature for all rods CRE with the kernel model
The maximum temperature predictions for the kernel model were as much as 400°C higher
than in the homogeneous case as shown in Figure 63.
The performed studies suggest that all the rods have to be ejected to have the effect of
power excursion that is significantly high. This situation has to be closely investigated for its
frequency using relevant PRA techniques since in the deterministic analysis it is assumed that
it will occur. The ejection of a single control rod did not introduce significant reactivity as
compared to the ejection of all rods. This transient scenario has no measured results to
compare against since it is impractical to conduct an experiment of this type. The best way to
account for such scenario is to have the knowledge of the control rod worths and design
control rod drive mechnisms with the defence-in-depth consideration to avoid such an
occurrence.
5.4.3 Control rod withdrawal (CRW)
The control rod withdrawal is modeled by the withdrawal of rods at 1 cm/s for 200 seconds.
This would withdraw the control rods 200 cm from the initial insertion level after the transient.
As discussed before, the slower control rod movement is a challenge for estimation of the
109
reactivity insertion that is linear with the linear movement of the rods (cusping effect). Figure 64
shows the deficiency of the volume-weighting (VW) and the superiority of the flux-volume-
weighting (FVW) approach in the elimination of the cusping problem. Using higher order of flux
aproximation in the FVW appraoch would further improve the results.
Figure 64: Case 5a control rod withdrawal transient
Figure 65: Fuel temperature during CRW transient
110
Figure 65 shows the effect of the cusping on the temperature during the rod withdrawal.
This type of transient is longer than the CRE case since the control rod insertion is slower.
CRWs probably will happen many times during the reactor operation. CRE while having much
larger safety consequences than CRW is in orders of maginute less probable than CRW to
occur.
5.5 Conclusions
In this chapter the OECD PBMR-400 coupled code benchmark was introduced. This
benchmark was selected as reference test framework for the optimization studies since it
includes a wide spectrum of transient scenarios ranging from longer and slow transients to
shorter and faster transients. This benchmark helped to demonstrate the effectiveness and
efficiency of the optimization developments described in Chapter 4. This also helped to explain
certain requirements for improvement and guidelines for performing high-fidelity multi-physics
simulations. It was also demonstrated the importance of the interplay between temporal and
spatial effects in the modeling of the PBMR reactor design. The use of the grey curtain
assumption was also demonstrated to be a limitation in terms of the proper analysis of the rod
ejection transient. Hence a full spatially coupled 3-D model has to be used to analyze such
physical phenomena as spatial flux re-distribution during the transient. This modeling aspect is
the focus of Chapter 6 where the 3-D models are discussed and analyzed.
111
Chapter 6 Three-Dimensional Spatial Models
6.1 Introduction
Coarse mesh methods are motivated by the fact that in some instances a reactor may be
adequately described by a model consisting of homogeneous regions that are relatively large.
Coarse mesh methods are able to use mesh sizes, which are much larger than the utilized by
finite difference methods, because they use higher order approximations to the spatial
variations of the unknowns within a mesh cell. As representative of coarse mesh methods,
nodal methods utilize relatively large computational mesh cells to solve multi-dimensional
reactor problems, and use significantly less computer resources than the fine-mesh finite
difference methods. Early nodal methods required a variety of schemes to deal with face-
averaged partial currents and the node-averaged fluxes. The coupling parameters for a node
are defined as the ratios of the face-averaged out-going partial currents to the node-averaged
flux. The homogenized parameters are usually computed by weighting the spatially dependent
cross-sections with the flux solution obtained in an assembly calculation with zero net current
boundary conditions. These parameters are computed using a reference fine-mesh calculation.
While these methods work well in situations in which the conditions analyzed using the nodal
method closely resemble the reference condition at which the coefficients were computed, they
often break down when the difference between the analyzed and reference conditions
becomes large.
Transverse-integrated nodal methods assume that either nodes are truly uniform
throughout their entire volume, or that they may be adequately represented using node-
averaged values of the cross-sections and diffusion coefficients. This assumption of uniformity
of intranodal composition does not apply to most reactor calculations that employ assembly or
quarter-assembly sized nodes. These issues are addressed by advanced nodal
homogenization schemes yielding equivalent diffusion theory parameters that allow
transverse-integrated nodal codes to compute node-averaged quantities agreeing closely with
the results of fine-mesh calculations in which the heterogeneity within the node is explicitly
represented.
112
In order to perform optimization studies of coupled multi-physics code, it is necessary in
addition to reference test problems to have also reference solutions in terms of 3-D higher
order approximation such as transport solution for the neutronics field implicitly coupled to a 3-
D thermal-hydraulic model in Cylindrical geometry. Such developments of the 3-D neutronic
models for diffusion and the transport codes are discussed in this chapter.
6.2 Optimizing spatial coupling schemes
The solution of the neutron balance equation requires the availability of the cross section
data which strongly depend on state feedback parameters as described in the previous
sections. On the other hand, the power distribution must be known to solve the reactor thermal
hydraulic fields. In order to perform a complete calculation of a design or safety analysis
problem, the two calculations must be coupled with accurate and efficient methods.
In this study, multi-dimensional coupling schemes, the 2-D dimensional thermal hydraulic
calculation (THERMIX-DIREKT) that is coupled to 3-D neutronics solution (NEM), are studied.
The effects of thermal feedback required during the flow of calculations in steady state and
transient problems was studied by investigating the effects of mesh structure on the neutronics
calculation to accurately predict the flux distribution.
Currently, the spatial mapping from neutronic to thermal-hydraulic mesh and from
thermal-hydraulic to neutronic mesh (spatial coupling schemes) is done to pass parameters
during the coupled calculations. After each thermal-hydraulics call the cross sections are
recalculated for the current conditions. A converged coupled neutronic and thermal-hydraulic
steady state solution is obtained before any time-dependent simulation in order to initialize the
transient problem.
The reference solution consisting of porous media thermal-hydraulic model and neutron
transport model was developed to demonstrate the effect of spatial mapping schemes on the
distribution of flux. Thus, the effects of mapping methodology were studied and quantified.
113
In Figure 66, a 3-D sector (in R-Θ-Z geometry) of a PBMR core in NEM modeling is
shown in cylindrical geometry, which usually adopts 30o sector of symmetry in θ-direction used
for PBMR calculations. This constitutes a 1/12th sector of symmetry of the full core model. The
control rod channels shown here are usually modeled as continuous absorber material since it
was the best way to represent the control rods when the 3-D model was not available.
However, the actual material representation would be to tap into the 3-D capability of NEM and
generate a full 3-D model that accurately represents the reactor configuration.
Horizontalinlet slots
Control rodchannels
Centralreflector
Pebble bed
Verticalriserchannels
Core barrelannulus
Core barrel
Gas inletmanifold
Corestructures
Figure 66: Reduction of 3-D model to 2-D
114
6.3 Reference neutronic solution
This PhD study utilizes the 3-D time-dependent discrete ordinates multi-group transport
code TORT-TD, coupled to a 3-D thermal-hydraulic module described in next section, as
reference coupled 3D transport neutronics/thermal-hydraulics solution to verify the optimization
studies performed in this research.
TORT-TD is the 3-D counterpart to the 2-D code DORT-TD that has been introduced some
years ago [32]. The TORT-TD code was transferred to PSU as a part of PSU/GRS
cooperation. TORT solves the stationary multi-group transport equation using the discrete
ordinates or SN theory with quadrature order N. Anisotropic scattering is treated in terms of a
Legendre Pn cross section expansion where n denotes the scattering order. For coupled
neutronic/thermal-hydraulic calculations, TORT-TD has also been coupled with the GRS
thermal-hydraulic system code ATHLET [32]. The time-dependent code TORT-TD is based on
the steady-state 3D transport code TORT [32] from the DOORS package, which has been
developed at ORNL.
In the work of B. Tyobeka [23] the 3-D neutron transport SN code TORT, was used with the
cross sections generated from MICROX-2 to perform control rod worth calculations with control
rods accurately and explicitly modeled in three-dimensions. The main objective of these
studies was to obtain an optimum control rod representation in TORT, and use the differential
control rod worth curve resulting from this configuration to adjust the 2-D DORT-TD control rod
approximation so that accurate transient analysis can be performed with the developed at PSU
coupled code DORT-TD/THERMIX. The DORT-TD/THERMIX code system models in 2-D
geometry both the neutronics and thermal-hydraulics phenomena in the PBMR core.
The work performed for this thesis was conducted with the various neutronic codes. These
codes include transport codes (DORT, TORT and TORT-TDS), which results were compared
to the obtained results of the diffusion code (NEM). This was very extensive and
comprehensive work as far as the spatial and temporal modeling is concerned. The modeling
involved moving from 2-D to 3-D geometry, which helped to assess spatial effects for the
115
DORT to TORT transition as well as the temporal effects for the TORT to TORT-TDS
transition. Later the comparisons were performed on the thermal hydraulic side of analysis
from 2-D THERMIX-DIREKT to 3-D Porous Media Code. The ultimate coupled analysis
involved higher order full 3-D modeling of the HTR both on the neutronic and the thermal
hydraulic aspects.
6.3.1 DORT Model of PBMR-268
DORT is a 2-D neutron transport code developed at ORNL. Its limitations in the modeling of
the PBMR reactor problem were in the modeling of the control rod movement, which required a
full 3-D model either for the control movement in symmetry or single rod movement. The code
has performed very well in the steady state 2-D calculations and the models have been used
as the basis for the development of the 3-D model for TORT model. Cases that were
considered were N1 and N2 as described below for the PBMR-268 benchmark.
6.3.1.1 CASE N-1: Fresh fuel and cold conditions
• All fuel is fresh (9 grams HM and 8 w/o enriched): Use ND-set1
• Cold conditions (300K) for all materials
• Use own cross sections
6.3.1.2 CASE N-2: Equilibrium cycle with given number densities
• The equilibrium uranium, graphite and structural number densities are used (no fission
products or higher elements).
• Constant temperature conditions (600K and 900K) for all materials.
• Use own cross sections.
As it was required that the cross sections be generated the MICROX code for cross section
generation was used. For the studies conducted in this work, the PBMR-268 benchmark with
fixed cross sections for cases N1 and N2 were generated in 4 neutron energy groups. These
cross sections were used in the TORT model of the same test problem.
116
0 78.6 110.9 135.7 156.6 175 181 194 215 235 250 275 287 292 300 317 417 418
-231 78.6 32.3 24.8 20.9 18.4 6 13 21 20 15 25 12 5 8 17 100 1
-230 1 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 18-200 30 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 15 16 17 18-175 25 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11 12 15 16 17 18-125 50 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18-75 50 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18-25 50 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 180 25 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18
50 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18100 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18150 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18200 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18250 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18300 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18350 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18400 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18450 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18500 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18550 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18600 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18650 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18700 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18750 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18800 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18850 50 a b c d e 3 5 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18900 50 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 18950 50 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 6 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 181000 50 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 8 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 181050 50 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 181100 50 10 10 10 10 10 3 3 3 3 3 7 11 12 15 16 17 181125 25 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11 12 15 16 17 181155 30 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 15 16 17 181156 1 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18
Figure 67: Neutronic model for PBMR-268
Figure 67 shows the PBMR-268 model on which cases N1 and N2 were based upon. It
should be noted that in this configuration material number 5 is the control material. This means
that the control rods are inserted to the bottom of the core in this problem.
6.3.2 TORT Model of PBMR-268
The 4-group cross sections were modified to be compatible with the input definition for
TORT using the GIP preprocessor. This model required finer meshing than the DORT
counterpart since the 3-D model was adopted and azimuthal dependence was introduced.
Since the control rods were previously modeled as a grey curtain, the goal was to ensure that
the control rods were modeled as close as possible to the dimensions in the specifications for
the design of PBMR-268. This would be achieved by setting the discretization of the azimuthal
dependence and the arrangement of control (absorbing) material region in different positions of
the reflector regions as shown in Figure 68 with the control rods shown in purple.
117
Figure 68: Actual size of rods in 3-D model
The real control rod positions and sizes are shown in the top view of the PBMR in
Figure 69 as the RCS (Reactivity Control System) channels.
Figure 69: Top view of the PBMR-400 reactor
118
Ultimately the azimuthal sector containing the absorbing material would span an
equivalent volume of the real control rod as shown in Figure 70, (i.e. circles and squares have
equivalent volumes to preserve the reaction rates as accurately as possible):
Figure 70: Control rod equivalent volume
This ensures that the effective absorption of the region is similar to that of the actual control
rod. The results of these studies have been compared to those of the diffusion calculations to
evaluate the accuracy of this approach without the requirement of expensive calculations that
are generally performed by the transport methodology. Hence, the NEM diffusion code was
used for comparative studies.
Sensitivity studies were conducted in the form of spatial meshing mainly concentrating on
the azimuthal dimensions. The number of azimuthal sectors was increased gradually to obtain
a full 3-D model with the control rod regions representing as closely as possible the actual
configuration of the PBMR-268 reactor design. Hence, the grey curtain model was replaced
with a realistic model with alternating absorbing and reflector regions in the azimuthal direction.
119
6.4 Results for 3-D spatial modeling
Figure 71 shows k-effective (multiplication factor) for the different meshing in the azimuthal
direction. It was interesting to note that the k-effective value was not increasing when the
number of sectors increased. The postulation was that increasing the sectors results in
increased reflector material, hence fewer absorbing regions, which would imply more neutron
population in the system.
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
0 50 100 150 200 250
K-E
ffe
ctiv
e
Theta (Degrees)
NEM
TORT
Figure 71: K-effective for 3-D modeling of PBMR-268 reactor
The following plots (Figure 73 through Figure 77) show the comparison of the azimuthal
flux distribution between NEM and TORT for different axial positions for PBMR-268. The
spatial visualisation of the flux distributions are shown for the 60° symmetry sector models for
the PBMR-268 reactor. The flux profiles indicate cleary the absorption power of the control
rods in their actual locations in the full 3-D model. Please note that the plots are not drawn to
the same scale so that the detail in the flux distribution is not lost.
120
Figure 72: 3-D view of thermal flux at top of PBMR-268
0.0E+00
1.0E+13
2.0E+13
3.0E+13
4.0E+13
5.0E+13
6.0E+13
7.0E+13
8.0E+13
9.0E+13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Flu
x (
#.s
-1.c
m-2
)
Theta(degrees)
TORT
NEM
Figure 73: Azimuthal flux distribution at the top of the reactor
121
Figure 74: Middle core thermal flux distribution for PBMR-268
0.0E+00
2.0E+13
4.0E+13
6.0E+13
8.0E+13
1.0E+14
1.2E+14
1.4E+14
1.6E+14
1.8E+14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Flu
x(#
.s-1
.cm
2)
Theta (degrees)
TORT
NEM
Figure 75: Azimuthal flux distribution in the middle of the reactor
122
Figure 76: Thermal flux distribution at the bottom of PBMR-268 reactor
0.0E+00
5.0E+12
1.0E+13
1.5E+13
2.0E+13
2.5E+13
3.0E+13
3.5E+13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Flu
x (
#.s
-1.c
m-2
)
Theta (Degrees)
TORT
NEM
Figure 77: Thermal flux distribution at the bottom of PBMR-268 reactor
123
Similarly, flux distributions were obtained for the corresponding 90° comparison plots at
different height of the core shown Figure 78 to Figure 83 which were taken according to Table
14.
Table 14: PBMR-268 axial slices for flux profile
Height (cm) Description
25 top
425 middle
825 bottom
Figure 78: Top flux distribution PBMR-268
124
0.0E+00
1.0E+13
2.0E+13
3.0E+13
4.0E+13
5.0E+13
6.0E+13
7.0E+13
8.0E+13
9.0E+13
0 20 40 60 80 100
Flu
x (
#.s
-1.c
m-2
)
Theta (degrees)
TORT
NEM
Figure 79: Top azimuthal flux distribution comparison
Figure 80: Middle of core flux distribution for PBMR-268
125
0.0E+00
2.0E+13
4.0E+13
6.0E+13
8.0E+13
1.0E+14
1.2E+14
1.4E+14
1.6E+14
0 20 40 60 80 100
Flu
x (
#.s
-1.c
m-2
)
Theta (Degrees)
TORT
NEM
Figure 81: Flux comparison PBMR-268
Figure 82: Bottom of core flux distribution for PBMR-268
126
0.0E+00
5.0E+12
1.0E+13
1.5E+13
2.0E+13
2.5E+13
3.0E+13
3.5E+13
0 20 40 60 80 100
Flu
x (
#.s
-1.c
m-2
)
Theta (degrees)
TORT
NEM
Figure 83: Comparison of 10 sectors azimuthal flux distribution
It was noted that the flux profiles tend to agree at middle of the core, but tend to deviate
from each other at the two extremes.
6.5 PBMR-400 Steady state 3-D modeling with NEM
These cases involved two variations:
• All rods inserted (ARI)
• One rod withdrawn (ORO)
The thermal flux distribution is represented in polar coordinate system to ensure that the 3-
D distribution is of the reactor is viewed. As noted the reactor is modeled with the core from the
centred and the radius of the reactor extending to 292.5 cm at the core barrel. It should be
noted that the rods are during the normal operation of this reactor are inserted 150 cm into the
core. In the case All Rods In (ARI) all rods remain at these positions and the thermal flux is
represented for the half core model (Figure 84 to Figure 91) from the 0 to 180 degrees in the
127
azimuthal direction. The plots were produced using NEM to provide the full 3-D modeling of the
PBMR-400 reactor.
The plots are not drawn to the same scale of colour for the contours to appear at each level
since the flux varies according to axial location. In these graphs the axial layers were selected
according to Table 15.
Table 15: Description of levels for 3-D flux distribution
Height (cm) Description
200 Top core
350 At rods’ position
500 Middle Core
1150 Bottom Core
The model consisted of alternating control rod material and reflector material as close
as possible to the actual PBMR control rod arrangement in the reflector region between 192
cm and 211 cm in the radial direction.
Figure 84: PBMR-400 flux distribution at the top with ORO
128
Figure 85: PBMR-400 flux distribution at the top with ARI
Figure 86: PBMR-400 flux distribution at rods with ORO
129
Figure 87: PBMR-400 Flux distribution at rods with ARI
Figure 88: PBMR-400 Flux distribution bottom core with ORO
130
Figure 89: PBMR-400 Flux distribution bottom core with ARI
Figure 90: Middle PBMR-400 core ARI
131
Figure 91: Middle of PBMR-400 core ORO
The effect of the removal of a single rod can be observed from is removed from the
core. The assumption of the grey curtain approach is definitely not adequate for the modeling
of the PBMR reactor. The flux distribution has to be modelled in full 3-D to see the effects on
the spatial flux distribution.
6.6 3-D spatial modeling of PBMR-400 with TORT-TDS
TORT-TDS is the time-dependent version of TORT, which enables transient analysis for
long and short transients of HTR. This is very crucial for the development of reference solution
for the PBMR-400 benchmark, which consists of 6 transient cases. TORT-TDS has capability
of control rod movement for analysis of the full spectrum of the transients described in this
benchmark. Figure 92 shows the result of the 90° symmetry sector of PBMR-400 reactor.
132
Figure 92: PBMR-400 model using TORT-TDS
6.6.1 The LMW 3-D transient problem without feedback
The LMW LWR benchmark problem is a 3D transient problem without thermal-hydraulic
feedback. This benchmark is useful for the verification of 3D kinetic code and is quoted in
many papers. It is modeled with two neutron energy groups, and six delayed precursor
133
families. In this problem, a small core is composed of 2 types of fuel assemblies, reflectors and
2 groups of control banks. The macroscopic cross sections of each region are given by the
LMW benchmark specifications. This problem simulates the motion of 2 groups of banks, and
the transient is initiated by withdrawing of group bank 1, which is partially inserted, at 3.0 cm/s.
Bank 1 is withdrawn to the top in 26.6 s, and bank 2 is inserted to 120 cm deep over the time
interval 7.5 to 47.5 s. The transient calculation for 60 seconds can be compared with
benchmark results. This was used to verify the performance of TORT-TDS code in the analysis
of transients. It should be noted that this problem is analyzed in Cartesian coordinates system.
The HTR transient analysis requires cylindrical geometry.
6.6.1.1 Results for LMW with TORT-TDS
At the beginning of the calculation a few cycles were required for the fission source to
converge before the transient calculation begins as shown Figure 93.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 10 20 30 40 50
De
lta F
issi
on
so
urc
e
Iteration
Figure 93: Source convergence for the LMW problem
The cross sections for the analysis with TORT-TDS were provided in the LMW benchmark
specification and they were fixed at the shown in Table 16 parameters:
134
Table 16: Parameter for LMW transient calculation
Moderator Density Boron (ppm) Fuel Temperature (K)
711.87 1000.00 900.00
A depletion analysis was not considered in the calculation; hence the burnup was
maintained at 0.00 GWd/tU, which represented a fresh core. The power evolution during this
transient is shown in Figure 94.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Re
lati
ve
Po
we
r
Time(sec)
Figure 94: Power for the LMW benchmark using TORT-TDS
The power history of the LMW problem with TORT–TDS has been demonstrated to be
consistent with the ANCK and the CUBBOX analysis [35] as shown in Figure 95. This
benchmark problem has been widely used to demonstrate capability of the codes to analyze
transient problems.
135
Figure 95: LMW comparison of results
Figure 96 shows that the reactor is put in positive period in the first 20 seconds and then
negative period to the end of the transient. This is consistent with the power evolution as
shown in Figure 94.
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Re
act
or
Pe
rio
d
Time (sec)
Figure 96: Reactor period for the LMW problem
136
6.7 Reference thermal-hydraulic models
This thesis utilizes a 3-D porous medium thermal hydraulic model as a reference. There are
several potentially important three-dimensional neutron and temperature field effects in the
PBMR. However, the current version of the THERMIX/DIREKT code is designed for the
calculation of two-dimensional problems. Basically the models used in this code are in
cylindrical geometry, i.e. a mesh is superimposed in the r- and z-directions. The influence of
azimuthal temperature/fluid field variations is not taken into account. The heat conduction and
radiation component is also capable of calculating r-z-mesh using cylindrical coordinates or x-
y-meshes with Cartesian coordinates since the third dimension is ignored. The convection
component has only been designed to stimulate matrix grids in the r- and z-directions. The
computer model is divided into two different regions, which are called “compositions” and can
be described as follows:
• The solid model (THERMIX), a region which has the same material composition
(material values, temperature-dependent heat conduction equations, temperature-
dependent heat capacity equations),
• The fluid model (DIREKT), a region in which the same hydraulic properties (percentage
empty spaces/voids, hydraulic diameter), or the same type of internal geometry (e.g.
pebble-bed, pipe geometry, or two-dimensional voids in which flow occurs), are present.
A mesh system is superimposed on this system of inter-connected “compositions”.
Therefore every “composition”, consists of many or few material meshes depending on the
degree of accuracy that is required. Within such a mesh, constant mean values apply to all the
parameters.
In the fluid model flow generally occurs in the r- and the z-direction in the “compositions”
(with the exception of the solid region where no flow occurs). In the “compositions”, which
define pipes in which flow occurs in only one direction (e.g. the top and bottom reflectors) or
one-dimensional circular areas, flow is only described in the z-direction.
137
The important feedback effects in the PBMR are the temperature effects of the fuel and
moderator, and in this sense the extension to 3-D modeling is important for thermal hydraulic
part of the code. The methodology for adding θ-direction to heat conduction, radiation and
convection component models thus having complete 3-D cylindrical (r-θ-z) geometry has been
developed at Purdue University (PU) [34]. The extended 3-D porous medium thermal hydraulic
model (named AGREE) is part of the PARCS code system and it has been verified by code-to-
code comparison with CAPP/MARS results for the coupled neutronic/thermal-hydraulic
exercise S3 of the OECD PBMR-400 benchmark. Some of the comparison results are shown
in Figure 97.
Table 17: Eigenvalue comparison for case S-3 PBMR-400
CODE keff
CAPP/MARS 0.99270
PARCS 0.99283
PARCS * 0.99282
keff (at zero power)
PARCS * 1.04099
KAERI 1.04090
* Calculation with single diffusion coefficient
138
Axial Thermal Flux
0
5E+13
1E+14
1.5E+14
2E+14
2.5E+14
-150 50 250 450 650 850 1050 1250 1450
Axial Position (cm) (top-to-bottom)
Ne
utr
on
Flu
x(n
/cm
2/s
)
KAERIPARCSPARCS *
Figure 97: Comparison of axial thermal fluxes for Case S-3 PBMR-400
A porous media code for thermal hydraulic analysis has been used to model different
problems of HTR. These problems include those described in the HTR-10 and PBMR-400
benchmark exercises as well as the AVR transient analysis.
A test case was developed to familiarize with the input definition of the code. This
consisted of a reflector, fuel and control region to resemble a general configuration of the HTR.
The main focus of the study was to ensure that the interfacing between a neutronic code was
understood so that coupling is conducted in an efficient manner.
6.8 ATTICA3D model
6.8.1 Description of ATTICA3D
The general description of a heat transfer model in porous media is examined. This code is
based on the differential conservation equations and the associated constitutive equations
required for the analysis of transport in porous media. In the last four decades, the transport in
139
these heterogeneous systems has been addressed in sufficient detail. So far, the heat transfer
in porous media has been treated or at least formulated satisfactorily. The theoretical
treatment is based on the local volume-averaging of the momentum and energy equations with
closure conditions necessary for obtaining solutions. Heat transfer models used in the code
are similar to the ones in the KTA rules given in references [27, 28 and 29].
Examination of transport, reaction, and phase change in porous media relies on the
knowledge we have gained in studying these phenomena in plain media. The presence of a
permeable solid (which is assumed to be rigid and stationary) influences these phenomena
significantly. Due to practical limitations, as a general approach these phenomena are
described at a small length scale which is yet larger than a fraction of the linear dimension of
the pore or the linear dimension of the solid particle (for a particle-based porous medium). This
requires the use of the local volume averaging theories.
Figure 98: Aspects of transport, reaction and phase change in porous media
Figure 98 gives a classification of the transport phenomena in porous media based on
the single- or two-phase flow through the pores.
140
Figure 99: Aspect of transport, reaction and phase change at pore level
Figure 99 renders these phenomena at the pore level. Description of transport of
species, momentum and energy, chemical reactions (endothermic or exothermic) and phase
change (solid/liquid, solid/gas, and liquid/gas) at the differential, local phase-volume level and
the application of the volume averaging theories lead to a relatively accurate and yet solvable
local description. ATTICA3D is focused on the transport phenomena in a single-phase flow leg
of Figure 98 which are more relevant for our application in the modeling of the PBMR reactor.
6.8.2 Results of ATTICA3D modeling
The stand-alone steady state results for ATTICA3D are being developed for the
PBMR400 model for benchmarking the code. These developments will be followed by the
coupled TORT-TDS/ATTICA3D calculations for steady state and transient cases as reference
solutions.
141
6.9 Conclusions
The current analysis of the LMW problem has demonstrated the capability of TORT-TDS to
analyze the transient behavior of HTR cores with control rod movement. These studies
demonstrated the capabilities of TORT-TDS for modeling of sophisticated transient
calculations in Cartesian geometry. The development of the code for cylindrical geometry has
been completed and transferred to PSU recently. This development was concluded to enable
studies on different PBMR-400 benchmark cases. Development of input and problem analysis
has taken place after the extensions were concluded.
Comparative results carried out for the 4-group analysis of the PBMR-268 N2 case were
not conclusive since it was noted that there were convergence issues with TORT calculations.
This would require further investigations. Outstanding issues in NEM were in the modeling of
more than 36 sectors of 10 degrees each, which seemed to be the limitation. The sensitivity
studies on the control rod modeling in 3-D geometry, revealed some features of the boundary
conditions specification, which should be taken care of in the input description of the problem.
This chapter introduced the 3-D neutronics code TORT-TDS and the 3-D porous medium
thermal-hydraulic (ATTICA3D) model. The TORT-TDS/ATTICA3D code system was coupled in
an implicit manner to provide reference solutions for steady state and transient calculations of
PBMR. Such reference solutions provide insight to the importance of coupled 3-D effects in
PBMR analysis.
142
Chapter 7 CFD transient modeling of PBMR-400
7.1 Description of CFD model
Reference studies have been conducted as part of this PhD work to validate a specific
model in the THERMIX thermal-hydraulic code. The model consisted of a radial slice of the
PBMR-400 reactor taken at a random axial position as a representative of all axial layers. This
model consisted of the central reflector, core, side reflector, helium gap and core barrel.
A finite difference formulation of the heat conduction, convection and radiation were used to
model the heat transfer in the reactor. The models include temperature dependence of the
conductivities and heat capacities for materials.
One of the fundamental safety functions that must be fulfilled by the PBMR reactor design
is the heat removal. In the PBMR reactor, heat removal is going to be achieved by conduction
in the solid materials, and convection and radiation in the gaps. Hence, the phenomena
governing these heat removal paths must be examined closely. In the event of loss of forced
cooling (LOFC) accident, the convective heat transfer is lost due to the loss of coolant (helium)
in the system. The reactor is expected to rely on passive heat removal mechanisms by
conduction, natural convection and radiation through the gaps where there is helium and air.
The radiative heat transfer between two surfaces is governed by the following relation:-
( )( )
o
i
o
o
i
oi
i
T
T
TTq
⋅−
+
−=
ε
ε
ε
σ
11
44''�
where ε is the emissivity of the surfaces and it plays an important role in the transfer of heat
during the LOFC. In order to verify the effect on the heat transfer by radiation a specialised
study on the emissivity sensitivity studies for the PBMR reactor was conducted. The
emissivities of reactor materials such as core barrel, side reflector, etc. were provided by the
143
PBMR (Pty) Ltd. company. This also provides an independent check of the results calculated
by STAR-CD and FLUENT for the development of the Safety Analysis Report.
7.2 PHOENICS calculations
This study involved the use of the CFD code PHOENICS (Parabolic Hyperbolic Or Elliptic
Numerical Integration Code Series) for modeling of the PBMR-400 and the HTR-10 reactors.
The purpose of this code is to solve finite-domain basic differential equations including
the mass, momentum and energy equations for steady or unsteady flows and in 2D or 3D
geometries. Any property obeying the balance equation can be represented using PHOENICS.
It simulates how fluids (single- or multi-phase) flow, change in chemical and physical
composition and radiation fluxes.
PHOENICS is arranged in such a way that it contains a pre-processor (Satellite), a solver
(Earth) and post-processing units (VR Viewer, Photon, Autoplot, and Result). This
arrangement is referred to as the planetary arrangement. The output allows the prediction of
temperature, pressure, velocities and the geometry of the system under investigation.
At AMEC NNC the code has been used to model different systems including the
modeling of the HTR-10 and PBMR reactors in 2D and in 3D geometries.
The model of the PBMR-400 reactor was generated using PHOENICS and this model
could be viewed using Photon as shown in Figure 100.
144
Figure 100: PHOENICS model of PBMR-400
Steady state calculations were performed for a wide range of possible emissivities from 0.2
to 0.8 using the HTR-10 model that has been developed for the IAEA CRP-5 benchmark
exercise. The same calculations were performed for the PBMR-400 model with further analysis
of the transient calculation for the Pressurized Loss of Coolant Accident (PLOFC).
145
The PLOFC transient conditions in PHOENICS are achieved by reducing the pressure from
the nominal value of 90 MPa to 60 MPa, and modeling the heat source as an exponential
function of time G(t) from the initial steady state value. This gives the characteristic time
function of ~10 hrs; hence was no neutronic calculation performed during the transient
calculation.
7.3 DASPK solution
A one-dimensional independent analytical model of the transient calculation was developed
by the author of this PhD study using a FORTRAN code and a time-dependent solver
(DASPK). This allowed the comparison of the calculations performed by the 2D and 3D models
in PHOENICS.
This code solves a system of differential/algebraic equations of the form G(t,y,y') = 0 ,
using a combination of Backward Differentiation Formula (BDF) methods and a choice of two
linear system solution methods: direct (dense or band) or Krylov (iterative).
7.3.1 Results and Discussion of CFD modeling
7.3.1.1 Steady state calculations
The results of PHOENICS consist of temperatures, velocities and pressure fields in the
model of the reactor. The velocity vectors for the steady state calculation of the PBMR-400
reactor are shown in Figure 101. Helium is blown into the system through the inlet plenum,
goes up the riser channels, into the top reflector and flows down through the pebble bed, out of
the bottom reflector and leaves the system through the outlet plenum.
146
Figure 101: Velocity vectors in steady state PBMR-400 reactor
The magnified flow at the bottom of the reactor is shown in Figure 102. Helium is fed
through the inlet plenum at a mass flow rate of 192.7kg/s and drops by about 75% when it
flows into the pebble bed due to friction. This flow shows a general downward flow and the
recirculation is observed at the bottom as shown in Figure 102. The flow tends to accelerate at
the exit of the outlet plenum. Hence the larger velocity vectors observed.
147
Figure 102: Recirculation at the bottom of the PBMR reactor
148
Figure 103 shows the magnified top of the reactor and a clearly visible forced flow
pattern under nominal conditions.
Figure 103: Velocity vectors for steady state flow at the top of PBMR reactor
149
Figure 104: Steady state temperature distribution for PBMR-400
150
Figure 104 shows the steady state temperature distribution calculated for the emissivity
of 0.7. This temperature distribution was generally observed in all steady state calculations at
different emissivities, but tended to yield different maximum temperatures. Generally, the
maximum temperature decreased as the emissivities of different materials was increased (see
Figure 105).
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Te
mp
era
ture
(Ce
lciu
s)
Emissivity
PEBBLE SURFACE
PEBBLE CENTRE
SIDE REFLECTOR
BOTTOM REFLECTOR
Figure 105: HTR-10 Maximum temperatures as function of emissivity
7.3.2 Transient calculations
The transient was initiated by reducing the pressure from 90MPa to 60MPa to simulate
the PLOFC. Figure 106 shows the velocity vectors under the PLOFC conditions with a notable
change in the flow as compared to Figure 103. Recirculation occurs at the top of the plenum
due to helium picking up some energy at the surface of the pebble bed at low velocities. This
hot air then becomes buoyant and rises against the walls. As the air rises, it loses energy
against the walls and tends to flow downwards. This causes the recirculation observed in the
gas plenum.
151
Figure 106: Recirculation at the top of the reactor
In Figure 107 the core starts to heat up due to the loss of convective heat removal from
the system. The temperature rises until it reaches a maximum since the heat source is also
disappearing during this period. When the heat source levels off, the reactor also starts to cool
152
off; hence, the decrease in temperature was observed. The emissivity did not play a bigger
role in the initial stages of this transient but had a significant effect in the heat removal in the
later stages. The maximum temperature during the transient changed by 10.96°C between the
0.8 and 0.2 emissivity cases. This maximum is achieved at about 8hrs as shown in Figure 107.
Figure 108, Figure 109 and Figure 110 show the temperature variation at different stages
during the PLOFC transient.
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40
Te
mp
era
ture
(°C
)
Time(hrs)
PB 0.2
PB 0.3
PB 0.4
PB 0.5
PB 0.6
PB 0.7
PB 0.8
CB 0.2
PV 0.2
PV 0.8
CB 0.8
Figure 107: Temperature evolution during PLOFC transient in PBMR reactor
153
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Tem
pera
ture
(°C)
Emissivity
Centre Reflector
Pebble Bed
Core Barrel
Pressure Vessel
Figure 108: Temperature variation with emissivity at 8hrs for PLOFC
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Te
mp
era
ture
(°C
)
Emissivity
Centre Reflector
Pebble Bed
Core Barrel
Pressure Vessel
Figure 109: Variation of temperature with emissivity at 20hrs
154
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Te
mp
era
ture
(°C
)
Emissivity
Centre Reflector
Pebble Bed
Core Barrel
Pressure Vessel
Figure 110: Variation of maximum temperature with emissivity at 40hrs
Although the maximum temperature at the centre of the pebble bed was comparable,
the temperature at the end of the side reflector, varied for the emissivities of 0.2 and 0.8. The
temperature of the 0.2 case was higher than those of the 0.8 case, suggesting that the heat
lost at the surface of the side reflector was higher at 0.8 than at 0.2.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Tem
per
atu
re (D
eg C
)
Height (m)
e8ty12PB
e2ty12PB
e2ty22SRO
e8ty22SRO
Figure 111: Axial temperature profile at 8hrs
155
Figure 112 confirms that the heat transferred by radiation from the side reflector is
higher for the 0.8 emissivity than for the 0.2 emissivity case at the 8 hours mark during the
PLOFC transient. Heat transfer in the core barrel was shown to be dominated by radiation
rather than conduction.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Ra
dia
tive
He
at (
W)
Height (m)
e8RAD4SRO
e2RAD4SRO
e8RAD1CBO
e2RAD1CBO
e8DiffusionCBI
e2DiffusionCBI
Figure 112: Heat transferred by radiation
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Tem
per
atu
re (°
C)
Radial Dsitance (m)
e8tz27-8hrs
e2tz27-8hrs
e8tz27-40hrs
e2tz27-40hrs
e8tz27ss
e2tz27ss
Figure 113: Radial temperature distribution during PLOFC transient
156
Comparing the heat transferred by convection (Figure 114) and radiation (Figure 112) at
the side reflector, it can also be concluded that radiative heat transfer dominates.
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
CO
NV
EC
TIV
E H
EA
T (W
)
HEIGHT (M)
e8CONV4SRO
e2CONV4SRO
e8CONV4CBI
e8CONV1CBO
e2CONV1CBO
e8CONV1PVI
e2CONV1PVI
e8CONV2PVO
e2CONV2PVO
Figure 114: Heat transferred by convection during PLOFC
7.4 The 1-D Model PLOFC and DLOFC results
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
1700
1900
2100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
Time (hours)
Tem_PB_02
Tem_PB_03
Tem_PB_04
Tem_PB_05
Tem_PB_06
Tem_PB_07
Tem_PB_08
Figure 115: Emissivity sensitivity of PBMR surfaces during PLOFC transient
157
The maximum temperature attained at the maximum time indicates that the radiation is
efficient heat removal since the temperature is lower for this emissivity value, thus
demonstrating the fact that the reactor will require material with higher emissivity value to be
efficient heat removal of the core barrel. This verifies the claim that the reactor will definitely
remove heat automatically when the engineered cooling systems fail, making radiation a
critical inherent safety feature.
The increase in emissivity of surface did not have a significant effect on the maximum
temperature attained during the DLOFC transient since the difference of about 20°C was
attained for the maximum temperature. However at the end of the transient (60 hours) the
temperature difference of about 200°C was attained between the two extreme case of 08 and
0.2 emissivity.
The variation of the temperature distribution during the transient is shown in Figure 116.
The temperature of the core was the highest when the maximum temperature of ~2018°C was
attained at about 10hrs. This analysis also demonstrated that the core will be cooler than the
central reflector which had the highest temperature at the end of the transient.
Figure 116: Radial temperature distribution at different stages of the PLOFC transient
158
7.5 Conclusion
It can be concluded that the emissivity contributed to the temperature of the reactor only
after the maximum temperature of the reactor was reached. Hence, the radiative heat transfer
would not have a significant effect on the maximum temperature of the fuel during the
transient.
159
Chapter 8 CONTRIBUTIONS AND FUTURE WORK
8.1 Contributions
The research conducted within the framework of this PhD thesis is devoted to the high-
fidelity multi-physics (based on neutronics/thermal-hydraulics coupling) analysis of Pebble Bed
Modular Reactor (PBMR), which is a High Temperature Reactor (HTR) design reactor. Two
facts motivated the selection of this PhD research scope:
a) The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) will be a HTR design;
b) Core design and safety analysis methods are considerably less developed and mature
for HTR analysis than those currently used for Light Water Reactors (LWRs).
The continued development of the NGNP requires verification of HTR design and its safety
features with reliable, and high fidelity coupled multi-physics models within the framework of
robust, efficient, and accurate code systems. As mentioned above while the coupled three-
dimensional (3-D) neutron kinetics/thermal-hydraulics methodologies have been extensively
researched and established for LWR applications, there is a limited experience for HTRs in this
area. Compared to LWRs, the HTR transient analysis is more demanding since it requires
proper treatment of both slower and much longer transients (of time scale in hours and days)
and fast and short transients (of time scale in minutes and seconds). High fidelity multi-physics
methods based on neutronics/thermal-hydraulic coupling are important for core transients
involving significant space/time variations of the flux and feedback parameters shapes and
these methods have not been systematically applied to HTRs. These facts motivated the
establishing of consistent, sophisticated and efficient coupled methodologies for the HTR.
There is limited operation and experimental data available for HTRs for validation of
coupled multi-physics methodologies. In this situation the verification based on code-to-code
comparisons on well-specified international benchmark problems becomes very important. The
160
Nuclear Energy Agency of Organisation for Economic Development (NEA/OECD) PBMR-400
coupled code benchmark is one of these benchmark problems, which have been developed in
last few years and which allow for comprehensive testing and qualification of coupled multi-
physics codes for steady-state and transient analysis of PBMRs. This benchmark has been
used in this PhD thesis as a test framework for the performed development and optimization
studies. In such benchmark problems the establishment of reference 3-D high-order steady-
state and time-dependent solutions is very important. The experience gained in the PBMR
benchmark code-to-code comparisons indicated also the importance of optimization of coupled
multi-physics methodologies for PBMR analysis.
The work conducted within the framework of this PhD thesis contributed towards
addressing the above-described modeling and verification needs of the coupled high-fidelity
multi-physics methodologies for PBMR analysis. This PhD research has led to the
establishment of PBMR analysis reference models based on higher-order complete 3-D
coupled methods. On the neutronics side the reference models are based on the 3-D multi-
group neutron transport discrete-ordinates TORT-TDS code for both steady-state and time-
dependent simulations. Two reference thermal-hydraulic models have been developed. The
first one is based on the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code PHOENICS (Parabolic
Hyperbolic Or Elliptic Numerical Integration Code Series) and is used to generate reference
solutions for the Depressurised Loss of Forced Cooling (DLOFC) and Pressurised Loss of
Forced Cooling (PLOFC) transients. However, the CFD calculations are stand-alone thermal-
hydraulic calculations (there is no neutronics model associated with the calculations) and can
be used only for verification of design and safety analysis thermal-hydraulic codes such as
THERMIX-DIREKT. The second one is using the porous media based ATTICA3D code, which
is coupled with TORT-TDS code in order to provide reference solutions for coupled steady
state and transient analysis.
This PhD research also resulted in more accurate and efficient tool based on the
NEM/THERMIX code system to analyze the neutronics and thermal-hydraulic behavior for
design optimization and safety evaluation of the PBMR concept. New modeling features and
methods enhancements have been developed and implemented in NEM/THERMIX to enable
161
this code system to analyze the full spectrum of safety-related transients in PBMR.
Furthermore, based on comparative analysis with reference results the NEM/THERMIX code
system has been optimized in terms of different aspects of the coupling methodologies.
Finally, the added benefit of this work is that in the process of studying and improving the
coupled methodology more insight was gained into the physics and dynamics of PBMR, which
will help also to optimize the PBMR design and improve its safety by better prediction of
maximum temperature during transient. This in turn would result in better prediction of flux
distribution to ensure better prediction of radiation damage amongst other things.
One unique contribution of the PhD research is the investigation of the importance of the
correct representation of the 3-D effects in the PBMR analysis. Most of the current coupled
codes analyze PBMRs in 2-D R-Z geometry neglecting the θ-direction of the 3-D cylindrical
geometry. One of the examples for such simplifying modeling is the representation of the
control rod movement as a 2-D grey curtain. The studies performed within the framework of
this thesis demonstrated that explicit 3-D modeling of control rod movement is superior and
removes the errors associated with the grey curtain approximation.
In summary, the contributions of this PhD thesis are as follows:
a) Developing reference neutronics, thermal-hydraulics and coupled models for PBMR-400
steady-state and transient analysis using high-order methodologies: TORT-TDS (for
neutronics analysis), PHOENICS and ATTICA-3D (for thermal-hydraulics analysis) and
TORT-TDS/ATTICA3D (for coupled analysis);
b) Completion of the development and verification of NEM/THERMIX by adding modeling
capabilities to the coupled code (such as control rod movement model, Xenon model,
improved temperature feedback model, spectrum feedback model, and high-order
interpolation of cross-section tables) for performing in accurate and efficient manner the
whole spectra of transients important for the PBMR design and safety analysis;
c) Performing optimization studies of different aspects of the NEM/THERMIX multi-physics
methodology such as spatial coupling, temporal coupling, coupled convergence,
feedback modeling and cross-section representation.
162
d) Finding the optimal cut-off energy for the two-group PBMR analysis based on sensitivity
studies;
8.2 Future work
The optimization of multi-group structure of the microscopic cross-section libraries, used as
input in the lattice physics codes such as COMBINE for few-group cross-section generation
has to be performed by utilizing the more systematic, consistent, and sophisticated energy
group selection methodology called CPXSD (Contribution and Point-wise Cross-Section
Driven) methodology. Following the examination and optimization of the multi-group structure,
the finalization of the few-group structure for HTR core analysis can be accomplished using
again the CPXSD methodology.
The envisioned future work includes performing transient reference calculations with
TORT-TDS/ATTICA for all transient cases of the OECD PBMR-400 benchmark, and further
optimization of the NEM/THERMIX coupled code system for simulation of different PBMR
transients by comparisons with the reference TORT-TDS/ATTICA results.
163
References
1. Generation IV Roadmap; “Description of Candidate Gas-cooled Reactor Systems Report
Issued by the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV
International Forum”; 2002.
2. Y. Xu; “High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Programme in China”, Institute of Nuclear
Energy Technology (INET).
3. C. Tang et al; “Irradiation Testing of Matrix Material for Spherical HTR-10 Fuel Elements”;
Proceedings HTR2006: 3rd International Topical Meeting on High Temperature Reactor
Technology, South Africa, 2006.
4. J. Tian; “A New Ordered Bed Modular Reactor Concept”; Proceedings HTR2006: 3rd
International Topical Meeting on High Temperature Reactor Technology, South Africa,
2006.
5. N. Fujimoto et al; “Present Status of HTTR Project-- Achievement of 950 ºC of Reactor
Outlet Coolant Temperature”; 2nd International Topical Meeting on High Temperature
Reactor Technology; CHINA, 2004.
6. IAEA-TECDOC-1382; “Evaluation of High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor Performance:
Benchmark Analysis Related to Initial Testing of the HTTR and HTR-1”, IAEA, VIENNA,
2003.
7. M. Phelip et al; “High-Temperature Reactor Fuel Technology in the European Projects
HTR-F1 and RAPHAEL”; Proceedings HTR2006: 3rd International Topical Meeting on High
Temperature Reactor Technology, South Africa, 2006.
8. P. H. Liem et al; “Neutronic Modeling for Modular Pebble Bed Reactor during Reactivity
Accident”; Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 29(8), pp.805-812, 1992.
9. B. R. Bandini; A 3-Dimensional transient neutronic routine for the TRAC-PF1 reactor
thermal-hydraulic computer code, PhD Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1990.
10. J. M. Noh et al; “Development of a Computer Code for the Analysis of Prism and Pebble
Type VHTR Cores”.
11. J. E. Hoffmann et al; “Verification and validation of the CFD model of the PBMR reactor”,
Proceedings HTR2006: 3rd International Topical Meeting on High Temperature Reactor
Technology, South Africa, 2006.
164
12. N. TAUVERON et al.; “Preliminary Design of a Small Air Loop for System Analysis”;
Proceedings HTR2006: 3rd
International Topical Meeting on High Temperature Reactor
Technology, South Africa, 2006.
13. H. Gerwin, W. Scherer; E. Teuchet; “The TINTE modular code system for computational
simulation of transient processes in the primary circuit of a pebble-bed High Temperature
Gas-Cooled Reactor”, Nuclear Science and Engineering, 103, p302-312.
14. S. Struth; “Direkt – A Computer Programme for non-steady, two-dimensional simulation of
thermo-hydraulic transients”, Kernforschunsanslage Jülich, JÜL-1702, 1999.
15. E.C. Verkerk, A. I. van Heek; “Dynamics of a Small Direct Cycle Pebble Bed HTR”, IAEA-
TECDOC--1238, pp:78-86.
16. J. Simoneau; “Three Dimensional Simulation of Coupled Convection, Conduction and
Radiative Heat Transfer During Decay Heat Removal in an HTR”; Nuclear Engineering and
Design 237 p1923-1937, 2007.
17. H. Haque, W. Feltes, G. Brinkmann; “Thermal Response of High Temperature Reactor
During Passive Cooldown under Pressurised and Depressurized Conditions”, Nuclear
Engineering and Design 236, 2006.
18. H. Gougar et al.; “Reactor Pressure Vessel Temperature Analysis of Candidate Very High
Temperature Reactor Designs”; Proceedings HTR2006: 3rd
International Topical Meeting
on High Temperature Reactor Technology; 2006.
19. V. Seker, T. J. Downar; “Analysis of a PBMR-400 Control Rod Ejection Accident Using
PARCS-THERMIX and the Nordheim Fuchs Model”; Advances in Reactor Physics Analysis
and Design of High-Temperature Reactors-I, 2004.
20. B. Boer; “Coupled neutronics / thermal hydraulics calculations for High Temperature
Reactors with the DALTON-THERMIX code system”; International Conference on Reactor
Physics, Nuclear Power: A Sustainable Resource, Switzerland, 2008.
21. T. RADEMER et al; “Coupling of Neutronics and Thermal Hydraulics Codes for Simulation
of Transients of Pebble Bed HTR Reactors”; 2nd International Topical Meeting on High
Temperature Reactor Technology; CHINA, 2004.
22. B. Tyobeka; “PBMR coupled neutronics and thermal-hydraulics calculations”, Master
Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 2004.
165
23. B. Tyobeka, “Advanced multi-dimensional deterministic transport computational capability
for safety analysis of pebble-bed reactors”, PhD Thesis, Pennsylvania State University,
2007.
24. F. Reitsma et al; “Cross section representation options for HTR transient analysis tested on
the OECD PBMR-400MW transient benchmark”; International Conference on Reactor
Physics, Nuclear Power: A Sustainable Resource, Switzerland, 2008.
25. M. Methnani; “Highlights of recent IAEA research activities on High-Temperature Gas-
Cooled Reactors”, International Atomic Energy Agency OECD PBMR Benchmark
Workshop, Paris, 2005.
26. F. Reitsma; “OECD/NEA/NSC: PBMR coupled neutronics/thermal hydraulics benchmark:
the PBMR-400 core design”; 2005.
27. KTA Rule 3102.2: “Reactor Core Design for High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor, Part
2: Heat transfer in spherical fuel elements”; June 1983.
28. KTA Rule 3102.1: “Reactor Core Design for High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor, Part
1: Calculation of the Material Properties of Helium”; June 1978.
29. KTA Rule 3102.3: Reactor core design for High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor, Part 3:
Loss of pressure through friction in pebble bed cores; March 1981.
30. A. D. Osso; “A transverse buckling based method in core neutronics models equivalence”,
Annals of Nuclear Energy, 29, p659-671; 2002.
31. A. Pautz, A. Birkhofer, “DORT-TD: A Transient Neutron Transport Code with Fully Implicit
Time Integration”, Nuclear Science and Engineering, Vol. 145, pp. 299-319, 2003.
32. A. Pautz, A. Birkhofer, “Coupling of time-dependent neutron transport theory with the
thermal hydraulics code ATHLET and Application to the Research Reactor FRM-II”, Nucl.
Sci. Eng.; pp 167-180, 2003.
33. W. A. Rhoades, R. L. Childs, “The TORT Three-dimensional Discrete Ordinates
Neutron/Photon Transport Code”; Nucl. Sci. Eng. 107, 397, 1991.
34. V. Seker; “Multiphysics methods development for high temperature gas cooled reactor
analysis”, PhD Thesis, Purdue University, 2007.
35. S. AOKI, et al. , “The verification of the 3-Dimensional nodal kinetic code ANCK using
transient benchmark Problem”, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Vol. 44, No. 6,
p. 862–868 (2007)
166
36. R.A. Grimesey et al., “COMBINE/PC-A portable ENDF/B version 5 neutron spectrum and
cross section generation program”.
37. L. Massimo, “Physics of High temperature Reactors”, Pergamon Press (1976).
38. E.E. Bende et al., “Analytical calculation of average Dancoff factor for a fuel kernel in a high
temperature pebble bed reactor”, Nuclear Science and Engineering: 133, 147-153 (1999).
39. J. Valko, “Calculation of Dancoff factor for Pebble Bed Reactors”, Nuclear Science and
Engineering: 135, 304-307 (2000)
40. K. Yamasita et al., “Effects of core models and neutron energy group structures on Xenon
oscillation in large graphite-moderated reactors”, Nuclear Science and Technology: 30 [3],
249-260 (March 1993).
41. F. Reitsma, “PBMR coupled neutronics/thermal hydraulics transient benchmark for the
PBMR-400 core”, September 2005.
42. Z. Karriem et al., “MCNP modeling of HTGR pebble-type fuel”,
43. U. Colak and V. Seker, “Monte Carlo criticality calculations for a pebble bed reactor with
MCNP”, Nuclear Science and Engineering: 149, 131-137(2005)
44. MCNP Manual volume 1,
45. O. Ubbink et al., “PBMR fuel kernel model for the prediction of accurate temperature
profiles”, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering,
ICONE16 , May 11-15, 2008, Orlando, Florida, USA
46. J. Duderstadt and L. Hamilton, “Nuclear Reactor Analysis”, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, (1941)
167
Appendix A
TRISO Particle for PBMR-400 Reactor
c Cell Cards
c TRISO particle is part of universe 1
1 1 6.9663E-02 -1 imp:n=1
2 2 5.2654E-02 1 -2 imp:n=1
3 3 9.5279E-02 2 -3 imp:n=1
4 4 9.5536E-02 3 -4 imp:n=1
5 5 9.5279E-02 4 -5 imp:n=1
c Cube of Graphite outside the TRISO particle
6 0 5 imp:n=1
c 6 6 8.9262E-02 5 u=1 imp:n=1
c 7 0 6 -7 8 -9 10 -11 lat=1 fill=1 u=2 imp:n=1
c Surface Cards
1 so 0.0250 $ Kernel UO2 10.4 density
2 so 0.03450 $ Porous Carbon Buffer C 1.05
3 so 0.03850 $ Inner Pyrolytic Carbon C 1.9
4 so 0.04200 $ SiC Barrier SiC 3.18
5 so 0.04600 $ Outer Pyrolytic Carbon C 1.9
c Graphite Cube outside of the TRISO particle
c c6 px -8.1704E-02
c 7 px 8.1704E-02
c 8 py -8.1704E-02
c 9 py 8.1704E-02
c 10 pz -8.1704E-02
c 11 pz 8.1704E-02
c c Fill the graphite matrix with fuel spheres
c 12 so 2.50 $ Graphite matrix sphere
168
c Data Cards
c Criticality Control card
kcode 5000 1.0 50 250
ksrc 0 0 0
c Materials Card
m1 92238.66c 2.0992E-02
92235.66c 2.2292E-03
8016.66c 4.6442E-02
m2 6012.42c 5.2654E-02
m3 6012.42c 9.5279E-02
m4 14028.66c 4.7768E-02
6012.42c 4.7768E-02
m5 6012.42c 9.5279E-02
c m6 6012.42c 8.9262E-02
169
Fuel Pebble for PBMR-400 Reactor
c Cell Cards
c TRISO particle is part of universe 1
1 1 6.9663E-02 -1 u=1 imp:n=1
2 2 5.2654E-02 1 -2 u=1 imp:n=1
3 3 9.5279E-02 2 -3 u=1 imp:n=1
4 4 9.5536E-02 3 -4 u=1 imp:n=1
5 5 9.5279E-02 4 -5 u=1 imp:n=1
c Cube of Graphite outside the TRISO particle
7 6 8.9262E-020 -6 7 -8 9 -10 11 5 u=1 imp:n=1 $ window for
the lattice
71 0 6:-7:8:-9:10:-11 u=1 imp:n=1 $ void outside
unit cell
8 0 -6 7 -8 9 -10 11 u=2 fill=1 lat=1 imp:n=1 $
infinite lattice
9 0 -12 fill=2 imp:n=1 $ Fill
inside of pebble with lattice
10 6 8.9262E-020 12 -13 imp:n=1 $ graphite layer
outside fuel zone
100 0 13 imp:n=0 $ void outside
the pebble
c Surface Cards
1 so 0.0250 $ Kernel UO2 10.4 density
2 so 0.03450 $ Porous Carbon Buffer C 1.05
3 so 0.03850 $ Inner Pyrolytic Carbon C 1.9
4 so 0.04200 $ SiC Barrier SiC 3.18
5 so 0.04600 $ Outer Pyrolytic Carbon C 1.9
c Graphite Cube outside of the TRISO particle
6 px 8.1704E-02
7 px -8.1704E-02
8 py 8.1704E-02
170
9 py -8.1704E-02
10 pz 8.1704E-02
11 pz -8.1704E-02
c Fill the graphite matrix with fuel spheres
12 so 2.50 $ Graphite matrix sphere
13 so 3.00
c Data Cards
c Criticality Control card
c kcode 5000 1.0 50 250
c ksrc 0 0 0
c Materials Card
m1 92238.66c 2.0992E-02
92235.66c 2.2292E-03
8016.66c 4.6442E-02
m2 6012.42c 5.2654E-02
m3 6012.42c 9.5279E-02
m4 14028.66c 4.7768E-02
6012.42c 4.7768E-02
m5 6012.42c 9.5279E-02
m6 6012.42c 8.9262E-02
171
Appendix B
Table 18: Exercise 1 DLOFC without scram
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
0 Equilibrium steady-state completed. Equilibrium steady-state output
at this time point should be
identical to the values of
Exercise 3 of Steady State, so
a new output set will not be
needed here.
0 Assume t=0 as the time zero for the decay heat
(Normalization to total power during steady-state to
be kept in mind)
0 – 13 A reduction in reactor inlet coolant mass flow from
nominal (192.7 kg/s) to 0.2 kg/s over 13 seconds.
The mass flow ramp is assumed linear. A trickle flow
of 0.2 kg/s should then be assumed to remain after
this step to continue flowing through the reactor with
inlet temperature of 500°C.
None.
0 – 13 A reduction in reactor helium outlet pressure from
nominal (90 bar) to 1 bar over 13 seconds. The
pressure ramp is assumed linear. (Note that all
pressures defined in this benchmark study are
absolute pressure values, and not gauge values).
None.
13 Depressurisation phase completed.
Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power density and pebble-bed
effective thermal conductivity.
Single parameter value for axial
power/heat offset.
172
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
13 – 360000 No change in input parameters. Just the defined time
dependent edits.
re-critical Re-critical condition should be reached after some
time (cool down and Xenon decay)
Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power/heat density.
Single parameter value for core
power, axial power offset,
reactivity edit.
~ 360000 Transient case completed.
100 hours or at least 10 hours after re-criticality
Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator temperature, power
density.
Single parameter value for axial
power/heat offset.
Table 19: Exercise 2 DLOFC with scram
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
0 Equilibrium steady-state completed. Equilibrium steady-state output
at this time point should be
identical to the values of
Exercise 3 of Steady State, so a
new output set will not be
needed here.
0 Assume t=0 as the time zero for the decay heat
(Normalization to total power during steady-state to
be kept in mind)
173
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
0 - 13 A reduction in reactor inlet coolant mass flow from
nominal (192.7 kg/s) to 0.0 kg/s over 13 seconds.
The mass flow ramp is assumed linear. No external
flow after this step
None.
0 - 13 A reduction in reactor helium outlet pressure from
nominal (90 bar) to 1 bar over 13 seconds. The
pressure ramp is assumed linear. (Note that all
pressures defined in this benchmark study are
absolute pressure values, and not gauge values).
None.
13 Depressurisation phase completed. Natural
convection must be included that will lead to some
internal mass flow. No external mass flow.
Transient output at this time
point should be similar to the
values in Exercise 1 (tricle flow
the only difference), so a new
output set will not be needed
here.
13 – 16 All control rods are fully inserted over 3 seconds to
SCRAM the reactor.
None.
16 Scram phase completed. Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power/heat density.
Single parameter value for
fission power and axial power /
heat offset.
16 – 180000 No change in input parameters. None.
180000 Transient case completed.
50 hours or at least 5 hours after maximum
temperature has been reached
Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power/heat density.
Single parameter value for axial
power / heat offset.
174
Table 20: Exercise 3 PLOFC with scram
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
0 Equilibrium steady-state completed. Equilibrium steady-state output
at this time point should be
identical to the values of
Exercise 3 of Steady State, so
a new output set will not be
needed here.
0 Assume t=0 as the time zero for the decay heat
(Normalization to total power during steady-state to
be kept in mind)
0 - 13 A reduction in reactor inlet coolant mass flow from
nominal (192.7 kg/s) to 0.0 kg/s over 13 seconds.
The mass flow ramp is assumed linear.
None.
0 - 13 A reduction in reactor helium outlet pressure from
nominal (90 bar) to 60 bar over 13 seconds. The
pressure ramp is assumed linear. CHANGE TO
CONSTANT INVENTORY.
None.
13 Pressure equalization phase completed. Natural
convection must be included that will lead to some
internal mass flow. No external mass flow.
The core helium inventory is to stay unchanged thus
pressure changes due to heat-up and cool-down are
possible. Only helium volumes in the core to be
included (no PCU). If needed hand calculation
estimates using the average helium temperature can
be used to adjust the pressure linearly over time if
this function does not exist in the core.
Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power density, relative
pressure, mass flow.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
13 – 16 All control rods are fully inserted over 3 seconds to
SCRAM the reactor.
None.
175
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
16 Scram phase completed. None.
16 - 180000 No change in input parameters. None.
TBD Maximum fuel temperature reached Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power density relative pressure,
mass flow.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
180000 Transient case completed.
50 hours or at least 5 hours after maximum
temperature has been reached
Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power density relative pressure,
mass flow.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
Table 21: Exercise 4a load follow without control rod movement
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
0 Equilibrium steady-state completed. Equilibrium steady-state output
at this time point should be
identical to the values of
Exercise 3 of Steady State, so a
new output set will not be
needed here.
176
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
0 - 360 A reduction in reactor inlet coolant mass flow from
nominal (192.7 kg/s) to 77 kg/s (40% of nominal)
over 6 minutes. The mass flow ramp is assumed
linear. The reactor outlet pressure is decreased over
the same time from nominal (90 bar) to 40% of the
inventory.
None.
0 - 360 A reduction in reactor power level from nominal
400 MW (100%) to 160 MW (40%) over 6 minutes.
The power ramp is assumed linear. The reactor total
power is thus a fixed target condition.
None.
360 100-40% phase completed. Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solid temperature,
power density.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
360 - 10800
(3 hours)
No change in input parameters. Spatial maps of the Xenon
concentration every two hours,
at t = 3600, 7200 and 10800 s.
Also axial power offset values
at these times.
10800 –
11160
An increase in reactor inlet coolant mass flow from
77 kg/s (40% of nominal) back to 192.7 kg/s, again
over 6 minutes. The reactor outlet pressure is
increased linearly back to nominal at the same time.
None.
10800 -
11160
An increase in reactor power level from 160 MW to
400 MW, again over 6 minutes. The reactor total
power is thus a fixed target condition.
None.
177
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
11160 40-100% phase completed. Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solid temperature,
power density, Xenon
concentration.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
11160 –
32400
No change in input parameters. Spatial maps of the Xenon
concentration every hours up to
9 hours. Also axial power offset
values at these times.
32400 Transient case completed. Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
maximum and average
moderator temperature, power
density, Xenon concentration.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
172800 Optional
The Xenon oscillation behaviour can be studied over
a longer period.
Transient up to for 48 hours (at
t = 43200, 57600, 72000,
86400, 100800, 115200,
129600, 144000, 158400, and
172800 s)
178
Table 22: Exercise 4b load follow with control rod movement
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
0 Equilibrium steady-state completed. Equilibrium steady-state output
at this time point should be
identical to the values of
Exercise 3 of Steady State, so a
new output set will not be
needed here.
0 - 32400 Scenario 2: Activate controller moving control rods
to keep the reactor critical. Control rods move at
1 cm.s-1 and the reactivity band width is 0.1% ∆k.
0 – 360 A reduction in inlet reactor coolant mass flow from
nominal (192.7 kg/s) to 77 kg/s (40% of nominal)
over 8 seconds. The mass flow ramp is assumed
linear. The reactor outlet pressure is decreased over
the same time from nominal (90 bar) to 40% of the
inventory.
None.
0 – 360 The reactor fission power to be calculated. It should
more or less follow the 400 MW (100%) to 160 MW
(40%) ramp.
None.
360 100-40% phase completed. Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power density.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
360 - 10800
(3 hours)
No change in input parameters. Spatial maps of the Xenon
concentration every two hours,
at t = 3600, 7200 and 10800 s.
Also axial power offset values
at these times.
179
Time
(seconds) Description
Time-specific Output
Generated
10800 –
11160
An increase in reactor inlet coolant mass flow from
77 kg/s (40% of nominal) back to 192.7 kg/s, again
over 8 seconds. The reactor outlet pressure is
increased linearly back to nominal at the same time.
None.
10800 -
11160
The reactor fission power to be calculated. It should
more or less follow an increase from around
160 MW to 400 MW. The total power variation is still
a boundary condition as in Exercise 4a.
None.
11160 40-100% phase completed. Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power density, Xenon
concentration.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
11160 –
32400
No change in input parameters. Spatial maps of the Xenon
concentration every hours up to
9 hours.. Also axial power offset
values at these times.
32400 Transient case completed. Spatial maps of the maximum
kernel and fuel temperature,
moderator/solids temperature,
power density, Xenon
concentration.
Single parameter value for axial
power offset.
172800 Optional
The Xenon oscillation behaviour can be studied over
a longer period.
Transient up to for 48 hours (at
t = 43200, 57600, 72000,
86400, 100800, 115200,
129600, 144000, 158400, and
172800 s)
180
VITA
Peter received his BS in Education with Chemistry and Physics in 1998 and a M.S. in
Applied Radiation Science and Technology in 2001 from North-West University, South Africa.
He also received his MS in Nuclear Engineering from The Pennsylvania State University in
2006. Some of his publications are:
• J. Ortensi, H. Gougar, P. Mkhabela, J. Han, B. Tyobeka, K. Ivanov, "PBMR-400 Coupled Code Benchmark: Challenges and Successes with NEM-THERMIX," Annual ANS-2006 Meeting, (Contributing author), (Peer Reviewed), 2006.
• P. Mkhabela*, A. Ougouag, K. Ivanov, H. Gougar, J. Han, "Systematic Method of Neutron Energy Group Structure Selection for HTR Reactor," TANSAO 96 (First author), (Peer Reviewed), 2007.
• J. Han*, A. Ougouag, K. Ivanov, H. D. Gougar, P. Mkhabela, "Broad Energy Group Structure Sensitivity Studies for the PBMR", TANSAO 97, pp.511-513, (Contributing author), (Peer Reviewed) 2007.
• P. Mkhabela*, J. Han, K. Ivanov, "DLOFC Transient Analysis for PBMR with NEM/THERMIX", PHYSOR-2008 International Conference, Interlaken, Switzerland, (First author), (Peer Reviewed), September 14-19, 2008.
• P. Mkhabela*, K. Ivanov, “Improvements to the NEM/THERMIX coupled code analysis of High Temperature Reactors”, PHYSOR-2010 International Conference, Pittsburg, USA, (First author), (Peer Reviewed), May 9-14, 2010