SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Validation with EBR-II Tests Performed During the SHRT Testing Program (Rev. 2)

Abstract

The EBR-II sodium-cooled fast reactor supported a wide range of fast reactor research activities. The final fifteen years of operations at EBR-II were used for experiments and tests to demonstrate the importance of passive safety in liquid metal reactors and the capability of such systems to provide strong passive responses during off-normal conditions. The Shutdown Heat Removal Test program at EBR-II provided test data supporting the validation of computer codes for design, licensing, and operation of LMRs, among other objectives. The program included nearly sixty tests, most of which were protected and unprotected loss of flow and loss of heat sink tests run at various initial powers and flow rates. This report documents the results of modeling and simulation of tests from the Shutdown Heat Removal Test program to support validation of Argonne’s SAS4A/SASSYS-1 fast reactor safety analysis code. SHRT-17 and SHRT-6 were protected loss of flow tests where a loss of electrical power to all sodium coolant pumps was simulated to demonstrate the effectiveness of natural circulation cooling characteristics. SHRT-45R, SHRT-39, and SHRT-43R were unprotected loss of flow tests where the control rod scram function of the plant protection system was disabled to demonstrate the effectiveness of EBR-II’s passive reactivity feedbacks. BOP-301 and BOP-302R were unprotected loss of heat sink tests that demonstrated how reactivity feedback effects driven by changes to the core inlet temperature can shut down the fission process. PICT-5/6 demonstrated how core power could be increased and decreased via changes in the intermediate sodium and feedwater flow rates. This validation activity leverages modeling and simulation efforts that originated under an International Atomic Energy Agency Coordinated Research Project for benchmark analysis of the EBR-II Shutdown Heat Removal Tests. The SAS4A/SASSYS-1 models originally developed for the CRP have been modernized to utilize new code features and modeling practices. Differences between the predicted and measured test data were explored and the causes of these differences were identified as being due to modeling approximations, uncertainty in transient component behavior, and instrumentation uncertainties. Overall, it was concluded that for all tests simulated there was good agreement between the flow, power, and temperature predictions and the measured data.