ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV Failure

A 2 inch, cold-leg loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) in a 900 MWe generic Western PWR was simulated using ASTEC 2.1.1 and MAAP 5.02. The progression of the accident predicted by the two codes up to the time of vessel failure is compared. It includes the primary system depressurization, accumulator dis...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: J. C. de la Rosa Blul, S. Brumm, F. Mascari, S. J. Lee, L. Carenini
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2018-01-01
Series:Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9189010
id doaj-1021b417272443a5b778ff4b762b08b8
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1021b417272443a5b778ff4b762b08b82020-11-24T23:31:41ZengHindawi LimitedScience and Technology of Nuclear Installations1687-60751687-60832018-01-01201810.1155/2018/91890109189010ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV FailureJ. C. de la Rosa Blul0S. Brumm1F. Mascari2S. J. Lee3L. Carenini4European Commission Joint Research Centre, NetherlandsEuropean Commission Joint Research Centre, NetherlandsItalian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, ItalyFauske & Associates, LLC, USAInstitute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety, FranceA 2 inch, cold-leg loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) in a 900 MWe generic Western PWR was simulated using ASTEC 2.1.1 and MAAP 5.02. The progression of the accident predicted by the two codes up to the time of vessel failure is compared. It includes the primary system depressurization, accumulator discharge, core heat-up, hydrogen generation, core relocation to lower plenum, and lower head breach. The purpose of the code comparison exercise is to identify modelling differences between the two codes and the user choices affecting the results. The two codes predict similar primary system depressurization behaviour until the accumulation injection, confirming similar break flow and primary system thermal-hydraulic response calculations between the two codes. The choice of the accumulator gas expansion model, either isentropic or isothermal, affects the rate and total amount of coolant injected and thereby determines whether the core is quenched or overheated and attains a noncoolable geometry during reflooding. A sensitivity case was additionally simulated by each code to allow comparisons to be made with either accumulator gas expansion models. The two codes predict similar amount of in-vessel hydrogen generated and core quench status for a given accumulator gas expansion model. ASTEC predicts much larger initial core relocation to lower plenum leading to an earlier vessel failure time. MAAP predicts more gradual core relocation to lower plenum, prolonging the lower plenum debris bed heat-up and time to vessel failure. Beside the effect of the code user in conducting severe accident simulations, some discrepancies are found in the modelling approaches in each code. The biggest differences are found in the in-vessel melt progression and relocation into the lower plenum, which deserve further research to reduce the uncertainties.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9189010
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author J. C. de la Rosa Blul
S. Brumm
F. Mascari
S. J. Lee
L. Carenini
spellingShingle J. C. de la Rosa Blul
S. Brumm
F. Mascari
S. J. Lee
L. Carenini
ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV Failure
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
author_facet J. C. de la Rosa Blul
S. Brumm
F. Mascari
S. J. Lee
L. Carenini
author_sort J. C. de la Rosa Blul
title ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV Failure
title_short ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV Failure
title_full ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV Failure
title_fullStr ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV Failure
title_full_unstemmed ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV Failure
title_sort astec–maap comparison of a 2 inch cold leg loca until rpv failure
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
issn 1687-6075
1687-6083
publishDate 2018-01-01
description A 2 inch, cold-leg loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) in a 900 MWe generic Western PWR was simulated using ASTEC 2.1.1 and MAAP 5.02. The progression of the accident predicted by the two codes up to the time of vessel failure is compared. It includes the primary system depressurization, accumulator discharge, core heat-up, hydrogen generation, core relocation to lower plenum, and lower head breach. The purpose of the code comparison exercise is to identify modelling differences between the two codes and the user choices affecting the results. The two codes predict similar primary system depressurization behaviour until the accumulation injection, confirming similar break flow and primary system thermal-hydraulic response calculations between the two codes. The choice of the accumulator gas expansion model, either isentropic or isothermal, affects the rate and total amount of coolant injected and thereby determines whether the core is quenched or overheated and attains a noncoolable geometry during reflooding. A sensitivity case was additionally simulated by each code to allow comparisons to be made with either accumulator gas expansion models. The two codes predict similar amount of in-vessel hydrogen generated and core quench status for a given accumulator gas expansion model. ASTEC predicts much larger initial core relocation to lower plenum leading to an earlier vessel failure time. MAAP predicts more gradual core relocation to lower plenum, prolonging the lower plenum debris bed heat-up and time to vessel failure. Beside the effect of the code user in conducting severe accident simulations, some discrepancies are found in the modelling approaches in each code. The biggest differences are found in the in-vessel melt progression and relocation into the lower plenum, which deserve further research to reduce the uncertainties.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/9189010
work_keys_str_mv AT jcdelarosablul astecmaapcomparisonofa2inchcoldleglocauntilrpvfailure
AT sbrumm astecmaapcomparisonofa2inchcoldleglocauntilrpvfailure
AT fmascari astecmaapcomparisonofa2inchcoldleglocauntilrpvfailure
AT sjlee astecmaapcomparisonofa2inchcoldleglocauntilrpvfailure
AT lcarenini astecmaapcomparisonofa2inchcoldleglocauntilrpvfailure
_version_ 1725536424473657344