DOE OSTI2020
This report details the Parallel and Highly Innovative Simulation for Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Code System (PHISICS)/Reactor Excursions and Leak Analysis Program (RELAP5)-3D results obtained for the transient core exercises defined for Phase IV of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Coordinated Research Project (CRP) on high-temperature gas cooled reactor (HTGR) uncertainty analysis in modeling (UAM). The Phase III models and results are linked to the earlier Standardized Computer Analyses for Licensing Evaluation (SCALE)/Sampler/New ESC-based Weighting Transport (NEWT) data generated for the lattice physics (lattice) stage Phase I of the CRP. The focus of this report is the Uncertainty/Sensitivity Assessment (U/SA) of the prismatic modular high-temperature gas cooled reactor (MHTGR)-350 design, and specifically for Exercises IV-1 and IV-2 of the benchmark: the Control Rod Withdrawal (CRW) and Pressurised Loss of Cooling (PLOFC) events. The statistical U/SA methodology is implemented and demonstrated using the RAVEN code, based on perturbed cross-section libraries obtained from the SCALE/Sampler sequence. Uncertainties in nuclear data (cross-sections and the average number of neutrons produced per fission, 235U[¯v ]) lead to standard deviations (uncertainties of one s) of approximately 0.5% in the core eigenvalues of the MHTGR-350 and core models. For the coupled neutronics/thermal fluid model, local power density uncertainties up to 3.6% were observed in the colder regions of the core, while the local maximum fuel temperature uncertainties reached 1.5% for the models that included thermal fluid uncertainties. The addition of thermal fluid uncertainties dominated the impacts of nuclear data uncertainties in all cases. The main contributors to uncertainties in the power density and fuel temperatures during the transients were uncertainties in the reactor operating conditions (total power, inlet mass flow rate and inlet gas temperature). Variations in the bypass flows did not have significant impact on any of the output variables. For the nuclear data uncertainties it was found that the 235U(¯v ) / 235U(¯v ) covariance produced the largest sensitivities in terms of its impact on the eigenvalue and peak reactor power. It was also observed that the impact of any nuclear data uncertainties on the maximum fuel temperature was much less significant that the impact on eigenvalue and power. Another important finding was that although the use of eight or more energy groups is recommended for best-estimate HTGR simulation, two-group models produced acceptable uncertainty and sensitivity results for most FOMs. Since the statistical U/SA methodology is computationally expensive, and most transient solver requirements will scale directly with the number of energy groups, two energy groups could be used by HTGR developers during the early stages of design when larger uncertainty margins can be tolerated.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗