Coupled Neutronic-Thermal-Hydraulic Simulations of the European SFR Core
Le résumé fourni par la source
Within the European SFR - Safety Measures Assessment and Research Tools (ESFR-SMART) project, steady-state coupled simulation of the ESFR core has been performed using several core analysis packages, with the objective of quantifying the coupling effect. Focus is on the fuel Doppler effect and coolant expansion effect. Standalone neutronics calculations in TRACE/PARCS (PSI), DYN3D (HZDR) and WIMS (Jacobs) showed superb agreement with the reference Serpent power distribution (root mean square (rms) discrepancies of 1.3%, 1.5% and 0.7% respectively). Results for COUNTHER (CIEMAT) were also in reasonable agreement, but with a somewhat higher discrepancy of 3.7%. Temperature distributions from thermal-hydraulic calculations were also compared and are found to be in good agreement. The effect of Doppler and coolant density feedback on core power distribution was predicted by TRACE/PARCS, DYN3D and WIMS to be between 0.4% and 0.8% rms difference in assembly powers. Reactivity coefficients for perturbations in the inlet temperature, flow rate and core power were shown to be negative for these three codes, with values of roughly -0.5 pcm/°C, -0.3 pcm/°C and -3.5 pcm/% respectively. A preliminary investigation of differential thermal expansion effects indicates that this may have a significant effect on core power distribution of a few %, greater than anticipated a priori and may warrant inclusion in coupled core analysis to ensure the accurate calculation of power distributions.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Coupled Neutronic-Thermal-Hydraulic Simulations of the European SFR Core
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2022
- Éditeur
- American Nuclear Society
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.