CUGM 2002

CUGM May 2002

• Status of training simulator applications of S3R

• Implementation at Dominion

• Core physics testing and examples of results

CUGM May 2002

S3R Core Neutronics ModelS3R Core Neutronics ModelATHENA RCS and Core ATHENA RCS and Core

ThermalThermal--Hydraulic ModelHydraulic ModelGeneric Implementation Generic Implementation

with OpenSimwith OpenSim

S3RS3RS3K Core Neutronics and S3K Core Neutronics and

Core Thermal HydraulicsCore Thermal Hydraulics

PrePre--existing RCS Modelexisting RCS ModelCustomized ImplementationCustomized Implementation

CUGM May 2002

SIMULATE-3R• Tokai-2 BWR• Tsuruga-1 BWR• Tsuruga-2 PWR• Oconee PWR• McGuire PWR• Catawba PWR• D.C. Cook PWR

THOR-S3R• North Anna PWR• Surry PWR• Davis Besse PWR• Indian Point 2 PWR• Indian Point 3 PWR• Limerick BWR

CUGM May 2002

• Training simulator upgrade done as part of a major methods upgrade

• Acquire the complete CMS packageCASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 for Core DesignSIMULATE-3K for Transient AnalysisSIMULATE-3R for Real-Time Training

CUGM May 2002

• Maintenance and usage burden of existing methods

• Desire to use a system that is readily applicable to multiple reactor types, in the event that units are added through merger or acquisition

CUGM May 2002

• Cycle-specific simulation and easy cycle upgrade

• Engineering-grade methods

• Closer and smoother alignment with the Fuels Group

• Direct benchmarking to the Fuels Group calculations

CUGM May 2002

• Good core design software is slower than real-time.

• What choices and options allow real-time performance for the simulator?

CUGM May 2002

S3RS3R

• Mesh is more coarsebut it’s not hard-wired.

• Assume dedicated hardwareUse all the resources, which allows faster processing of the nuclear data library.

• Don’t waste time computing thingsthat you can’t see or measureCore designers need to look at a lot of things (like the power in individual pins) for licensing that are CPU intensive but arenot relevant to training.

CUGM May 2002

THOR/S3R picks up thecore design results directlywith no intermediate steps

CUGM May 2002

'DIM.CAL' 16 4 1 / 'DIM.DEP' 'XEN' 'SAM' 'EXP' 'HBOR' 'HTFU' 'HTMO' 'PIN'

'HCRD' 'EB1' 'EB2' 'BP1' 'B10' 'BP2' 'B20' /'RES' 'e:\surry16\ssp_data\s1c16m00150.res' 10000 /'LIB' 'e:\surry16\ssp_data\su_mbp.lib' /'HYD.CND' 2, 0.46469,0.47422,0.53594 / pin conduction data'ITE.KEF' /'PIN.EDT' 'OFF' /'KIN.FST' 1 4 / fast XS, coupling coeff every 4 steps'KIN.ATP' 0.001 0.500 0 0 3.0E-04 15 15 / looser convergence for real time'COM' 6= total detectors'COM' 219.6 radius to vessel (cm)'COM' 248.0 radius to detector (cm)'COM' 90/270/ etc. angular position of detector'COM' 55.0 field of view half angle of detector'COR.DET' 'ON' 6 219.6 , , , ,

248.0 90.0 55.0248.0 270.0 55.0248.0 45.0 55.0 248.0 135.0 55.0248.0 225.0 55.0248.0 315.0 55.0 /

'STA' /'END' /

'DIM.CAL' 16 4 1 / 'DIM.DEP' 'XEN' 'SAM' 'EXP' 'HBOR' 'HTFU' 'HTMO' 'PIN'

'HCRD' 'EB1' 'EB2' 'BP1' 'B10' 'BP2' 'B20' /'RES' 'e:\surry16\ssp_data\s1c16m09000.res' 10000 /'LIB' 'e:\surry16\ssp_data\su_mbp.lib' /'HYD.CND' 2, 0.46469,0.47422,0.53594 / pin conduction data'ITE.KEF' /'PIN.EDT' 'OFF' /'KIN.FST' 1 4 / fast XS, coupling coeff every 4 steps'KIN.ATP' 0.001 0.500 0 0 3.0E-04 15 15 / looser convergence for real time'COM' 6= total detectors'COM' 219.6 radius to vessel (cm)'COM' 248.0 radius to detector (cm)'COM' 90/270/ etc. angular position of detector'COM' 55.0 field of view half angle of detector'COR.DET' 'ON' 6 219.6 , , , ,

248.0 90.0 55.0248.0 270.0 55.0248.0 45.0 55.0 248.0 135.0 55.0248.0 225.0 55.0248.0 315.0 55.0 /

'STA' /'END' /

'DIM.CAL' 16 4 1 / 'DIM.DEP' 'XEN' 'SAM' 'EXP' 'HBOR' 'HTFU' 'HTMO' 'PIN'

'HCRD' 'EB1' 'EB2' 'BP1' 'B10' 'BP2' 'B20' /'RES' 'e:\surry16\ssp_data\s1c16m16100.res' 10000 /'LIB' 'e:\surry16\ssp_data\su_mbp.lib' /'HYD.CND' 2, 0.46469,0.47422,0.53594 / pin conduction data'ITE.KEF' /'PIN.EDT' 'OFF' /'KIN.FST' 1 4 / fast XS, coupling coeff every 4 steps'KIN.ATP' 0.001 0.500 0 0 3.0E-04 15 15 / looser convergence for real time'COM' 6= total detectors'COM' 219.6 radius to vessel (cm)'COM' 248.0 radius to detector (cm)'COM' 90/270/ etc. angular position of detector'COM' 55.0 field of view half angle of detector'COR.DET' 'ON' 6 219.6 , , , ,

248.0 90.0 55.0248.0 270.0 55.0248.0 45.0 55.0 248.0 135.0 55.0248.0 225.0 55.0248.0 315.0 55.0 /

'STA' /'END' /

CUGM May 2002

•• North Anna & SurryNorth Anna & Surry

•• Two units per siteTwo units per site

•• 157 assembly cores 157 assembly cores

•• Some special core design techniquesSome special core design techniques-- “Cross“Cross--Unit Shuffle”Unit Shuffle”-- “Part“Part--Length Burnable Poison”Length Burnable Poison”-- “Burnable Poison Shuffle”“Burnable Poison Shuffle”-- “Flux Suppression Inserts”“Flux Suppression Inserts”

CUGM May 2002

UNIT 1 UNIT 2Shared Storage Pool

CUGM May 2002

Burnable poison pins do not typically span the

whole assembly length, or even the same fraction in

all assemblies.

CUGM May 2002

Symmetric BP in Fresh Assembly

BP Pulled in Next Cycle

CUGM May 2002

No BP in Fresh Assembly

Asymmetric BP (Fresh or Burnt) Added in Next Cycle

CUGM May 2002

Permanent neutron absorber inserts in

higher power peripheral assemblies reduce the radiation damage to

the vessel.

CUGM May 2002

•• All the special core design features are All the special core design features are accounted for by the Fuels Group. accounted for by the Fuels Group.

•• The Fuels Group provides the Core Design and The Fuels Group provides the Core Design and Calculated Performance reports.Calculated Performance reports.

•• S3R recreates the core physics calculations:S3R recreates the core physics calculations:-- same datasame data-- realreal--time options invokedtime options invoked

•• A complete static physics benchmark is A complete static physics benchmark is established offline before model is implemented established offline before model is implemented on site and hooked to the panels on site and hooked to the panels

CUGM May 2002

•• Special features were all handled wellSpecial features were all handled well

•• Generally excellent agreementGenerally excellent agreement

•• But, some “lessons learned”But, some “lessons learned”-- axial meshaxial mesh-- fuel temperaturefuel temperature

CUGM May 2002

•• Studsvik Scandpower recommended axial meshes are 6” Studsvik Scandpower recommended axial meshes are 6” for core design, 12” for the simulatorfor core design, 12” for the simulator

•• Fuels Group uses 4.5” (32 nodes) for core designFuels Group uses 4.5” (32 nodes) for core design-- better accuracy (somewhat)better accuracy (somewhat)-- safety analysis methods expect data on that meshsafety analysis methods expect data on that mesh

•• Expansion to 12” gave poor axial flux resultsExpansion to 12” gave poor axial flux results

•• 9” mesh (16 nodes) was acceptable9” mesh (16 nodes) was acceptable

•• S3R portion runs slower, but still sufficient margin S3R portion runs slower, but still sufficient margin

S3R can run in any axial mesh. S3R can run in any axial mesh. Some users run in 24Some users run in 24

CUGM May 2002

•• Fuels Group uses a nonFuels Group uses a non--Studsvik product Studsvik product to correlate fuel temperature with power to correlate fuel temperature with power (ESCORE)(ESCORE)

•• THOR/S3R uses a dynamic pin conduction THOR/S3R uses a dynamic pin conduction modelmodel

•• Difference in fuel temperature models seen Difference in fuel temperature models seen in Power Defectin Power Defect

•• Simulator temperatures were matched to core Simulator temperatures were matched to core designdesign

CUGM May 2002

S1C16 - B-BANK INTEGRAL ROD WORTH VS. POSITION (HZP, BOC)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 50 100 150 200 250

Bank Position (step)

S3S3RPDQ

CUGM May 2002

(Surry 1 Cycle 16)

Bank Boron (ppm)

S3 (pcm)

S3R (pcm)

Meas (pcm)

Diff to Meas

B (ref) 1747 1409 1403 1374 +2.1%

D 1747 1036 1036 1070 -3.2%

C 1747 711 710 712 -0.3%

A 1747 315 315 286 29 pcm

SB 1747 1092 1090 1129 -3.5%

SA 1747 1050 1046 1010 +3.6%

CUGM May 2002

H G F E D C B A0.903 0.958 1.051 1.383 1.238 1.379 0.912 0.320 SIMULATE-3

8 0.894 0.951 1.045 1.380 1.237 1.383 0.915 0.319 THOR-S3R

-0.94 -0.74 -0.52 -0.22 -0.09 0.29 0.30 -0.30 %Diff0.957 0.990 1.120 1.181 1.414 1.194 1.062 0.285

9 0.950 0.984 1.116 1.176 1.414 1.198 1.066 0.287

-0.73 -0.60 -0.33 -0.42 0.02 0.30 0.36 0.601.051 1.123 1.173 1.408 1.209 1.298 0.592

10 1.045 1.118 1.169 1.407 1.208 1.302 0.593

-0.54 -0.40 -0.32 -0.09 -0.09 0.30 0.241.383 1.181 1.412 1.236 1.319 1.067 0.337

11 1.380 1.177 1.411 1.236 1.321 1.070 0.339

-0.21 -0.36 -0.10 -0.02 0.14 0.31 0.661.238 1.415 1.212 1.326 0.678 0.337

12 1.236 1.415 1.211 1.328 0.675 0.336

-0.12 0.01 -0.09 0.12 -0.39 -0.191.377 1.197 1.302 1.068 0.340

13 1.381 1.200 1.305 1.071 0.339

0.27 0.28 0.25 0.28 -0.160.911 1.065 0.594 0.338

14 0.914 1.069 0.595 0.340

0.30 0.36 0.18 0.710.321 0.287 S3R QUADRANT TILTS

15 0.320 0.288 1.0007 0.99991.0002 0.9992

-0.31 0.51

SIMULATE-3 (Design Code) Compared to

THOR/S3R

CUGM May 2002

• S3R results compare very well with core design results

• Most comparisons done batch mode and offline before attaching to panels

• Little onsite integration work due to generic integration with ATHENA and OpenSim