Benchmark Exercise for the Control Rod Swelling Evaluation
The VTR core has six reactivity control assemblies and three safety assemblies. The control assemblies or primary control rods are adjusted during the normal operation to balance the core reactivity and to control the reactor power. A typical control assembly radial layout is presented in Figure 1. The figure shows the swelled absorber (B 4 C) rod. Initially, helium gas fills the gap between the pin and the cladding before irradiation swelling takes place. For VTR, HT9 steel was selected as the cladding and duct material. The main neutron absorbing material used in the VTR is B 4 C. When residing in the core, the neutronics, thermophysical, and mechanical properties of the materials used in a control assembly will degrade due to accumulated neutron damage. Material degradation limits how long a control assembly can reside in the core. Many phenomena affect the control assembly lifetime, such as the loss of reactivity worth due to B 4 C depletion, the mechanical interaction of the absorber rod and the cladding due to B 4 C swelling, the helium gas buildup in the pin due to B-10 capture, etc. B 4 C swelling, which causes closure of the gap between the absorber rod and the cladding, is usually considered as the main limiting factor from past experience. An initial study was conducted at PNNL to evaluate the irradiation behavior of a VTR control assembly. The evaluation was performed using the CNRD2 code that was initially developed for the FFTF. The study also included an assessment of the VTR control assembly and focused on a 61-pin control assembly design, which is different from that used (37-pin design) in the core design study. The study conducted by PNNL was reviewed independently by ANL. A Python script referred to as the Control Assembly Evaluation Script (CAES) was developed for the independent review and additional assessment of 37-pin control assembly design. The script has focused on the assessment of the absorber rod swelling for its importance in determining the control assembly lifetime. CAES uses geometry, neutronics, materials data as input to predict the swelling of the absorber rod during its residence in the reactor core. The results from CAES showed some non-negligible differences against the PNNL results. Some of the differences can be attributed to the different interpretation of the control rod assembly dimensions. To resolve this issue, a benchmark exercise was proposed. The benchmark specification was developed by PNNL. The benchmark exercise was performed independently at PNNL and ANL using different codes/scripts (CRND2 and CAES). This memo documents the results calculated using the different codes. However, this report is limited to presenting the results obtained. Further investigation of the cause of the observed difference will be performed as part of future activities, pending continuation of the VTR program.