ML15091A215
| ML15091A215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson, Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/2015 |
| From: | Bortz D, Rybenski M Duke Energy Progress |
| To: | Plant Licensing Branch II |
| Barillas M DORL/LPL2-2 301-415-2760 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML15091A215 (39) | |
Text
DPC-NE-1008-P CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 Physics Methods Presenters:
David Bortz Matthew Rybenski Non-Proprietary Version Duke/NRC Pre-Meeting for DPC-NE-1008-P April 14, 2015 Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting
Objective
- Obtain feedback from the NRC on technical approach
- Determine if any additional meetings should be held to facilitate the review process
- Obtain NRC feedback on proposed review schedule Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 2
Presentation Outline
- Background
- Update on Proposed Submittals
- Licensing Approach
- DPC-NE-1008-P
- CASMO-4 to CASMO-5 Model Differences
- CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 Code Qualification
- Power Reactor Benchmarks
- Pin Power Benchmarks (Critical Experiments)
- Statistical Method
- Statistically Combined Uncertainty Factors
- Conclusion Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 3
=
Background===
- Duke nuclear design methods implemented in 1982
- Methods have been used to design over 80 reloads
- Currently perform reload design analyses for McGuire, Catawba and Oconee Nuclear Stations (7 units)
Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 4
Methods Reports MNS/CNS (Duke)
Proposed RNP/HNP (Duke)
Target Submittal Date Physics Codes / Models DPC-NE-1005 CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 DPC-NE-1008 CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 June 2015 Physics Applications Power Distribution Monitoring DPC-NE-2011 DPC-NE-2011 revision December 2015 Physics Applications Reload Design DPC-NF-2010 DPC-NF-2010 revision December 2015 NSSS Codes / Models DPC-NE-3000 RETRAN-02 DPC-NE-3008 RETRAN-3D July 2015 Subchannel T/H Methods DPC-NE-3000 DPC-NE-2004 VIPRE-01 DPC-NE-3008 DPC-NE-2005 (Appendix)
VIPRE-01 July 2015 SCD Methodology DPC-NE-2005 DPC-NE-2005 revision March 5, 2015 Transient Analysis DPC-NE-3001 DPC-NE-3002 SIMULATE-3K (REA)
DPC-NE-3009 SIMULATE-3K (REA)
December 2015 Fuel Performance DPC-NE-2008 (TACO-3)
DPC-NE-2009 (PAD 4.0)
N/A - TS changes only COPERNIC-2 December 2015 Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 5
Licensing Approach
- Goal is to extend nuclear analysis capability to Harris and Robinson
- Current nuclear analysis methodology uses the CASMO-4 /SIMULATE-3 computer codes described in:
- DPC-NE-1005-PA C-4/S-3 method for McGuire and Catawba
- DPC-NE-1006-PA C-4/S-3 method for Oconee
- Transition to CASMO-5 Adopted
- State-of-the-art technology
- Solution techniques are more robust and accurate
- Implements modern cross section library (ENDF/B-VII.1)
- Includes more nuclides allowing faithful representation of reactor materials and improved absorber depletion chains
- Future vendor support for CASMO-4 is limited Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 6
Licensing Approach
- DPC-NE-1008-P includes benchmark of Harris, Robinson and McGuire fuel cycles
- Harris and Robinson use soluble boron and gadolinia burnable absorbers for reactivity and peaking control
- McGuire uses soluble boron, IFBA and WABA
- McGuire data added to qualify the CASMO-5/
SIMULATE-3 method for IFBA and WABA burnable absorbers
- Allows for potential transition to other fuel vendor without resubmitting methods Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 7
Licensing Approach
- Long term, simplifies future transition of CASMO-5/
SIMULATE-3 methods to McGuire and Catawba
- Current submittal of DPC-NE-1008-P limited to the Harris and Robinson dockets
- Method applicable to all Duke Westinghouse PWRs
- Active CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 Reviews
- B&W mPower Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 8
Schedule
- Support the reload licensing analysis for Harris Cycle 22 and Robinson Cycle 32
- H1EOC21 (4/18)
- R2EOC31 (9/18)
- Reload Analyses Start:
- HNP ( December 2016)
- RNP (Spring 2017)
- Review requested by end of 2016 Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 9
DPC-NE-1008-P
- Describes the methodology for performing reload design calculations for Westinghouse PWRs using CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3
- Presents benchmark calculations against measured data from power operation and critical experiments
- Presents code-to-code comparisons for gadolinia and IFBA fuel
- Develops one-sided upper tolerance power distribution uncertainty factors Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 10
DPC-NE-1008-P
- Format and content will be similar to previously approved reports
- Major differences from the current licensed methodology
- Replaces CASMO-4 with CASMO-5
- Extends the CASMO/SIMULATE-3 design methodology to the Harris and Robinson PWRs
- Changes to CASMO-5 should improve model fidelity
- Updated nuclear data library
- Additional nuclides allow the more precise modeling of materials
- Improved burnable absorber depletion chains Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 11
Summary
- DPC-NE-1008 seeks to builds upon Dukes experience with CASMO/SIMULATE-3
- Over 50 McGuire/Catawba cycles designed
- Develop core modeling techniques that produce accurate and reliable results
- Methodology approach patterned after NRC-approved DPC-NE-1005-P and DPC-NE-1006-P methodology
- SIMULATE-3 methodology remains unchanged
- Extend nuclear analysis capability to the Harris and Robinson reactors
- Submittal targeting June 2015 Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 12
CASMO-4/CASMO-5 Model Differences Parameter CASMO-4 CASMO-5 Data library evaluation ENDF/B-IV ENDF/B-VII.1 Data library energy groups 70 586 Resonance Groups 13 41 Fission product chains Lumped Fission Product (LFP)
(29 + 2 lumped)
Explicit fission product chains (490 fission products)
No. of nuclides/materials 103 1095 Burnable absorber chains Limited Extensive PWR IFBA treatment Homogenized Explicit Multi-assembly capabilities 2x2 Colorset Generalized (up to full core)
Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 13
CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 Code Qualification
- Compare CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 predicted results against measured and calculated data
- Reactivity comparisons performed against startup physics test and operating measurements
- Core power distribution comparisons performed against flux map measurements
- SIMULATE-3 pin power comparisons performed against critical experiments and CASMO-5 (colorset MxN comparisons)
Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 14
CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 Code Qualification
- Additional CASMO-5 code benchmarks performed by Studsvik Scandpower in the proprietary report:
SSP-14-P01/012-R Rev. 0, CASMO5 PWR Methods and Validation Report
- Includes CASMO-5 benchmarks against measured data and higher order calculations (MCNP)
- Reactivity, reaction rate and pin power comparisons performed against KRITZ-3, B&W criticals (1810 and 1484), DIMPLE and others
- Depletion models verified against Yankee Rowe and JAERI PWR Isotopic benchmarks Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 15
Power Reactor Benchmarks
- Benchmarks performed against most recent fuel cycles
- Fourteen Fuel Cycles Modeled
- McGuire Unit 1 Cycles 20 through 23
- Harris Unit 1 Cycles 14 through 18
- Robinson Unit 2 Cycles 24 through 28
- Measured data available from
- BOC startup physics testing at HZP
- At power critical soluble boron concentration measurements
- At power core power distribution measurements Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 16
Measurement of Core Power Distribution
- Performed approximately once per month (produces ~ 20
- 25 measurements per cycle)
- Based on electrical signals produced from moveable incore fission chambers
- Fission chambers traverse the core in a central instrument tube at a constant rate
- Measured signals are proportional to the flux level in the center of the fuel assembly
- The measured flux level measured in the center of the fuel assembly is related to the average assembly power Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 17
Core Characteristics Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 18 Parameter Harris Robinson McGuire Rated Thermal Power (RTP) 2948 MWth+
2339 MWth 3411 MWth Number of Fuel Assemblies 157 157 193 Total Number of RCCAs 52 45 53 HFP Tave 588.8 °F 575.9 °F 585.1 °F HZP Tave 557 °F 547.0 °F 557.0 °F Number of Instrumented Locations 50 50 58
+ Uprated in Cycle 18
Fuel Characteristics Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 19 Parameter Harris Robinson McGuire Fuel Lattice 17x17 15x15 17x17 No. of Fuel Pins per Assembly 264 204 264 Number of GTs 24 20 24 Fuel Assembly Pitch 8.466 in 8.466 in 8.466 in Fuel Pin Pitch 0.496 in 0.563 in 0.496 in Fuel Rod OD 0.376 in 0.424 in 0.374 in Fuel Clad Material Zr-4 and M5 Zr-4 and M5 Zirlo Structural Material (IT, GT and Grid)
Zr-4 Zr-4 Zirlo Axial Blankets 3 in.
6 in.
6 in.
Fuel Management Parameter Harris Robinson McGuire Loading Pattern Type Low Leakage Low Leakage Low Leakage Cycle Length 18 months 18 months 18 months Number of Feed Assemblies 68 to 72 56 to 64 68 to 76 Burnable Absorber Type Gadolinia Gadolinia IFBA and WABA Burnable Absorber Loading 2.0 to 8.0 w/o gad 2.0 to 8.0 w/o gad 6816 to 7872 IFBA 32 to 528 WABA Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 20
Measured Minus Predicted Differences in BOC HZP ARO Critical Boron Concentrations Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 21
Measured Minus Predicted Deviation in BOC HZP Isothermal Temperature Coefficients Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 22
Measured Minus Predicted Percent Deviation in Individual Bank Worths Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 23
Distribution of Measured Minus Predicted Bank Worth Errors Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 24
Harris Measured Minus Predicted Differences in HFP Critical Boron Concentrations Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 25
Robinson Measured Minus Predicted Differences in HFP Critical Boron Concentrations Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 26
McGuire Measured Minus Predicted Differences in HFP Critical Boron Concentrations Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 27
Distribution of HFP Critical Boron Concentration Deviations Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 28
Critical Experiment Benchmarks
- B&W Critical experiments evaluated to develop pin power uncertainties
- Cores consist of pin power measurements of LEU and gad fuel pins at clean cold conditions
- Pin power measurements performed in 6 cores
- 3 contain gad fuel
- Small number of gad pins measured
- Low power density inflates percent differences Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 29
Critical Experiment Benchmarking Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 30
CASMO-5 Core 14 Results Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 31
SIMULATE-3 Core 14 Results Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 32
2x2 Theoretical Benchmarks
- 2x2 comparisons between CASMO-5 (MxN function) and SIMULATE-3
- 15x15 and 17x17 assemblies with varying enrichments, gadolinia/IFBA loadings, and assembly burnups
- Used to evaluate the ability of SIMULATE-3 to reconstruct CASMO-5 pin powers for gadolinia pins Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 33
2x2 Theoretical Benchmarks Relative Comparisons (S3 - C5)/C5 Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 34
Statistical Methodology
- One-sided upper tolerance limit uncertainties
- Uncertainty factor or ONRF = 1 - bias + K
- K factor ensures with a 95% confidence level that 95% of the local power predictions are equal to or larger than the measured value
- The above definition is based on the assumption the data is normal
- If distribution is not normal, then non-parametric statistics are used Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 35
Comparison of Assembly Power Distribution Uncertainties Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 36
Statistically Combined Uncertainty Factors
- One-sided upper tolerance limit uncertainties
- Separate factors calculated for LEU and gad fuel
- Assembly and pin uncertainties combined
= 1
+
() + ()
- Kaa represents the statistical deviation in the comparison between measured and calculated inter-assembly power distributions and Kpp is the equivalent term for the intra-assembly pin power distribution deviation Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 37
Statistically Combined Uncertainty Factors Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 38
Conclusion
- CASMO-5/SIMULATE-3 core models are capable of accurately modeling reactor cores with boron and gadolinia based burnable absorbers
- Uncertainty factors are comparable (slightly better) than values generated using CASMO-4/SIMULATE-3 Duke Energy - PWR Methods Duke / NRC Meeting 39