Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Andrews, Nathan

Publications and source records attributed to Andrews, Nathan.

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Material Interactions in Severe Accidents – Benchmarking the MELCOR V2.2 Eutectics Model for a BWR-3 Mark-I Station Blackout: Part II – Uncertainty Analysis

Single case comparisons between severe accident simulations can provide detailed insights into severe accident model behavior, however, they cannot offer insights into model uncertainty, sensitivity to uncertain parameters, or underlying model biases.Here in this analysis, the single case benchmark comparison of the MELCOR material interaction models for a station blackout (SBO) scenario of a boiling water reactor (BWR) using representative Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 boundary conditions is expanded to include an uncertainty analysis. As part of this uncertainty analysis, 1200 simulations are performed for each material interaction model (2400 total), with random sampling of 14 uncertain MELCOR input parameters. Input parameters are selected for their impact on models representing core degradation processes. These include candling, fuel rod failure, debris quenching and dryout. The analysis performed here is not a traditional “best-estimate” uncertainty analysis that uses best-estimate parameters or identifies best-estimate figure of merit distributions. Instead, it is an exploratory uncertainty analysis that identifies and interrogates underlying model form biases of the two material interaction models (eutectics and interactive materials models). Uniform distributions are applied to all uncertain parameters to ensure coverage of the model parameter uncertainty space. Key findings from this study include underlying model form biases exhibited by material interaction models, and notable differences in accident progression outcomes between the material interaction models. This uncertainty study extends and confirms the conclusions from the first part of this study, which compared the impact of material interaction modeling on simulation of a short-term station blackout scenario with representative Fukushima Daiichi Unit I boundary conditions. In particular, this study confirms that the eutectics model generally exhibits accelerated degradation and failure of fuel components, the core plate, and the lower head. The eutectics model also has a tendency to exhibit a greater degree of core degradation, greater debris mass formation, and larger debris mass ejection. Finally, the eutectics model exhibits higher maximum temperatures for fuel, cladding, particulate debris, oxidic molten pool, and metallic molten pool components than the interactive materials model; interactive materials model simulations exhibit a soft “limitation” on maximum temperatures that is related to the temperature at which material relocation occurs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Material Interactions in Severe Accidents – Benchmarking the MELCOR V2.2 Eutectics Model for a BWR-3 MARK-I Station Blackout: Part I – Single Case Analysis

Here in this analysis, the two material interaction models available in the MELCOR code are benchmarked for a severe accident at a BWR under representative Fukushima Daiichi boundary conditions. This part of the benchmark investigates the impact of each material interaction model on accident progression through a detailed single case analysis. It is found that the eutectics model simulation exhibits more rapid accident progression for the duration of the accident. The slower accident progression exhibited by the interactive materials model simulation, however, allows for a greater degree of core material oxidation and hydrogen generation to occur, as well as elevated core temperatures during the ex-vessel accident phase. The eutectics model simulation exhibits more significant degradation of core components during the late in-vessel accident phase – more debris forms and relocates to the lower plenum before lower head failure. The larger debris bed observed in the eutectics model simulation also reaches higher temperatures, presenting a more significant thermal challenge to the lower head until its failure. At the end of the simulated accident scenario, however, core damage is comparable between both simulations due to significant core degradation that occurs during the ex-vessel phase in the interactive materials model simulation. A key difference between the two models’ performance is the maximum temperatures that can be reached in the core and therefore the maximum ΔT between any two components. When implementing the interactive materials model, users have the option to modify the liquefaction temperature of the ZrO 2 -interactive and UO 2 -interactive materials as a way to mimic early fuel rod failure due to material interactions. Through modification of the liquefaction of high melting point materials with significant mass, users may inadvertently limit maximum core temperatures for fuel, cladding, and debris components.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗