Study on Typical Design Basis Conditions of HPR1000 With Nuclear Safety Analysis Code ATHLET

• Main Authors: Xi Huang, Weixin Zong, Ting Wang, Zhikang Lin, Zhihao Ren, Chubin Lin, Yuan Yin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-07-01
• Series: Frontiers in Energy Research
• Subjects: design basis conditions; LOCA; SGTR; FLB; HPR1000; ATHLET
• Online Access: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenrg.2020.00127/full

The third-generation nuclear power plant Hua-long Pressurized Reactor (HPR1000) is developed based on the experience of Chinese commercial Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) designs, construction, operation and maintenance. It improves the concept of defense in depth and strengthens severe accident prevention and mitigation strategies. The HPR1000 has implemented a number of active and passive innovative safety systems and accident management procedures for design basis conditions, e.g., the employment of Medium Pressure Rapid Cooldown (MCD) and Atmospheric Steam Dump System (ASDS) for the activation of Middle Head Safety Injection (MHSI), the application of Secondary Passive Residual Heat Removal System (SPRHR) for the residual heat removal. In the article, calculations are carried out for HPR1000 nuclear power plant with nuclear system safety analysis code ATHLET (Analysis of Thermal-Hydraulics of Leaks and Transient) 3.1 (Lerchl et al., 2016). By means of conservative deterministic safety analysis approach, transient analyses concerning selected typical design basis conditions, i.e., Large Break Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (LB-LOCA), Small Break Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (SB-LOCA), Steam Generator Tube Rupture accident (SGTR), and Feed water Line Break (FLB) are performed. The ATHLET results are also compared with the results performed by CGN-CNPTRI (China General Nuclear—China Nuclear Power Technology Research Institute) with their own code LOCUST with similar assumptions. The comparisons indicate that, although some discrepancies are detected, the trends of system responses predicted by the two codes are generally in agreement with each other for different accident scenarios. The results also demonstrate that the acceptance criteria for each accident can be met with significant safety margin. Thus, the effectiveness of safety system configuration and accident management procedures is guaranteed.