IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i13p3831-d582242.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Verification of MPACT for the APR1400 Benchmark

Author

Listed:
  • Kaitlyn Elizabeth Barr

    (Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Sooyoung Choi

    (Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Junsu Kang

    (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Brendan Kochunas

    (Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

Abstract

This paper describes benchmark calculations for the APR1400 nuclear reactor performed using the high-fidelity deterministic whole-core simulator MPACT compared to reference solutions generated by the Monte Carlo code McCARD. The methodology presented in this paper is a common approach in the field of nuclear reactor analysis, when measured data are not available for comparison, and may be more broadly applied in other simulation applications of energy systems. The benchmark consists of several problems that span the complexity of single pins to a hot full power cycle depletion. Overall, MPACT shows excellent agreement compared to the reference solutions. MPACT effectively predicts the reactivity for different geometries and several temperature and boron conditions. The largest deviation from McCARD occurs for cold zero conditions in which the fuel, moderator, and cladding are all 300 K. Possible reasons for this are discussed. Excluding these cases, the ρ reactivity difference from McCARD is consistently below 100 pcm. For single fuel pin problems, the highest error of 151 pcm occurs for the lowest fuel enrichment of 1.71 wt.% UO 2 , indicating possible, albeit small, enrichment bias in MPACT’s cross-section library. Furthermore, MOC and spatial mesh parametric studies indicate that default meshing parameters and options yield results comparable to finely meshed cases. Additionally, there is very good agreement of the radial and axial power distributions. RMS radial pin and assembly power differences for all cases are at or below 0.75%, and all RMS axial power differences are below 1.65%. These results are comparable to previous results from the VERA progression problems benchmark and meet generally accepted accuracy criteria for whole-core transport codes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaitlyn Elizabeth Barr & Sooyoung Choi & Junsu Kang & Brendan Kochunas, 2021. "Verification of MPACT for the APR1400 Benchmark," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-28, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:13:p:3831-:d:582242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/13/3831/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/13/3831/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mikołaj Oettingen & Juyoul Kim, 2023. "Detection of Numerical Power Shift Anomalies in Burnup Modeling of a PWR Reactor," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    MPACT; VERA-CS; APR1400; benchmark;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:13:p:3831-:d:582242. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.