Blind Modeling Validation Exercises Using the Horizontal Dry Cask Simulator

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established a need to understand the thermal-hydraulic properties of dry storage systems for commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in response to a shift towards the storage of high-burnup (HBU) fuel (> 45 gigawatt days per metric ton of uranium, or GWd/MTU). This shift raises concerns regarding cladding integrity, which faces increased risk at the higher temperatures within spent fuel assemblies present within HBU fuel compared to low-burnup fuel (≤ 45 GWd/MTU). A dry cask simulator (DCS) was built at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in Albuquerque, New Mexico to produce validation-quality data that can be used to test the accuracy of the modeling used to predict cladding temperatures. These temperatures are critical to evaluating cladding integrity throughout the storage cycle of commercial spent nuclear fuel. A model validation exercise was previously carried out for the DCS in a vertical configuration. Lessons learned during the previous validation exercise have been applied to a new, blind study using a horizontal dry cask simulator (HDCS). Three modeling institutions – the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and Empresa Nacional del Uranio, S.A., S.M.E. (ENUSA) – were granted access to the input parameters from the DCS Handbook, SAND2017-13058R, and results from a limited data set from the horizontal BWR dry cask simulator tests reported in the HDCS update report, SAND2019-11688R. With this information, each institution was tasked to calculate peak cladding temperatures and air mass flow rates for ten HDCS test cases. Axial as well as vertical and horizontal transverse temperature profiles were also calculated. These calculations were done using modeling codes (ANSYS/Fluent, STAR-CCM+, or COBRA-SFS), each with their own unique combination of modeling assumptions and boundary conditions. For this validation study, the ten test cases of the horizontal dry cask simulator were defined by three independent variables – fuel assembly decay heat (0.5 kW, 1 kW, 2.5 W, and 5 kW), internal backfill pressure (100 kPa and 800 kPa), and backfill gas (helium and air). The plots provided in Chapter 3 of this report show the axial, vertical, and horizontal temperature profiles obtained from the dry cask simulator experiments in the horizontal configuration and the corresponding models used to describe the thermal-hydraulic behavior of this system. The tables provided in Chapter 3 illustrate the closeness of fit of the model data to the experiment data through root mean square (RMS) calculations of the error in peak cladding temperatures (PCTs), PCT axial locations, axial temperature profiles, vertical and horizontal temperature profiles at two different axial locations, and air mass flow rates for the ten test cases, normalized by the experimental results. The model results are assigned arbitrary model numbers to retain anonymity. Due to the relatively flat axial temperature profiles, small temperature gradients resulted in large deviations of all models’ PCT axial location from the experimental PCT axial location. When the PCT axial location error is excluded in the calculation of the combined RMS of the normalized errors that considers PCT, the temperature profiles, and the air mass flow rates, the model data fits the experimental data to within 5%. When the vault information is excluded, the model data fits the experimental data to within 2.5%. An error analysis was developed further for one model, using the model and experimental uncertainties in each validation parameter to calculate validation uncertainties. The uncertainties for each parameter were used to define quantifiable validation criteria. For this analysis, the model was considered validated for a given comparison metric if the normalized error in that metric divided by the validation uncertainty was less than or equal to 1. When considering the combined RMS of the normalized errors of all metrics divided by their validation uncertainties, the model was found to have satisfied the criterion for model validation.