Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Zhong, Zhaopeng

Publications and source records attributed to Zhong, Zhaopeng.

21 records · Page 2

Recent Updates in ETOE-2 and MC 2 -3

The MC 2 -3 code is a multigroup cross section generation code for fast reactor applications, developed by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) under the DOE Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program. In this work, first, the cross section libraries for ENDF/B-VII.1 and ENDF/B-VIII.0 data were generated using the updated ETOE-2 code. Preliminary verification and validation tests of the ENDF/B-VII.1 MC 2 -3 library were performed with the selected fast reactor benchmark problems. Processing and verifying the libraries suggested that significant efforts would be required for thoroughly verifying the ENDF/B-VII.1 MC 2 -3 library and successfully processing the ENDF/B-VIII.0 MC 2 -3 library. Secondly, the cross section generation capability of MC 2 -3 was updated with the intermediate group lattice calculation and the equivalent Dancoff-factor cell (EDC) method to significantly improve the performance of a twodimensional assembly calculation using the method of characteristics (MOC). This effort was made useful in implementing and verifying the EDC method in the Griffin cross section API. Finally, we analyzed a SFR problem, for which unusually large deviations in core eigenvalues from Monte Carlo solutions were reported, by generating multigroup cross sections with MC 2 -3, performing core calculations with DIF3D-VARIANT, and analyzing cross section and eigenvalue results against Monte Carlo solutions. The analysis confirmed that the MC 2 -3/DIF3D solutions were in good agreement with Monte Carlo solutions, providing the correct process of accurately generating broad-group cross sections with MC 2 -3

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Assessment of the Griffin Reactor Multiphysics Application Using the Empire Micro Reactor Design Concept

In late 2019, INL and ANL agreed to jointly develop the reactor physics code named Griffin based on the integration of the two code suites, MAMMOTH/Rattlesnake (INL) and MC2 - 3/PROTEUS (ANL). Griffin is being developed based on the MOOSE framework and MOOSE quality assurance procedures. This decision was made to be able to allow DOE-NE to efficiently invest funding to this area and to provide effective and timely support for existing and potential users; the latter includes industry and government organizations who are developing various types of advanced reactors in the near and long term. Since MAMMOTH/Rattlesnake has been developed based on the MOOSE framework, the INL/ANL Griffin development team agreed to build Griffin beginning with a merger of MAMMOTH and Rattlesnake into a single code and moving forward by implementing capabilities from the PROTEUS suite into Griffin. Moving forward, both ANL and INL efforts are equally invested in the Griffin project, with management support, to provide an advanced reactor multiphysics tool to assist in reactor design, optimization, and safety analysis. Much work remains in moving Griffin forward to migrate PROTEUS capabilities and to optimize performance to meet user needs. The main objective of this work is to assess the current status of Griffin capabilities in terms of performance and accuracy, to determine priorities for PROTEUS migration, and to identify capabilities and features to improve for supporting the code integration effort. For this assessment, the Empire micro reactor problem that was developed in the ARPA-E MEITNER program was selected as an advance reactor concept of interest to the technical community. The Empire reactor problem was expanded from its original incomplete specification to be a small heat-pipe-cooled micro reactor core with ~113 cm radius and 70 cm in height, composed of 18 fuel assemblies, 12 control drums, and beryllium radial and axial reflectors. In the current model, using 5 cm axial reflectors specified in the original Empire assembly model, more than 10% of neutrons leak axially and through the empty center safety hole, as well as through heat pipe channels in fuel assembly elements that extend through the top reflector region. Several calculation models of the core were defined for systematic assessment, including 2-D and 3-D fuel assemblies and whole cores with cylindrical boundaries. Cross sections were generated using Serpent 2, and meshes were produced using the Argonne mesh tool or the INL neutronics meshing tools combined with CUBIT. Cross sections and meshes were converted to the ISOXML and Exodus formats, respectively, so that Griffin and PROTEUS could use consistent data for solving the reactor problems. With the prepared cross sections and meshes, PROTEUS was run first to ensure that all input data were correctly generated and input options in terms of angle, mesh, and energy group were accurately determined. Comparisons against Serpent 2 solutions were made in terms of eigenvalue and pin power. The same calculations and comparisons were then conducted using Griffin. For the fuel assembly and whole core problems, the PROTEUS eigenvalues agreed well with reference Serpent 2 solutions within 100 and 30 pcm, respectively, and pin power differences relative to Serpent 2 were overall less than 2.2% and RMS 0.8% for the whole core models. This indicated that all input data were properly prepared. Using the same data, Griffin was run selecting the SAAF-CFEM SN solver with Legendre-Gaussian quadrature and NDA and DSA for acceleration. It was found that the SAAF-CFEM solver of Griffin required finer meshes to achieve eigenvalue and pin power solutions in good agreement with Serpent 2, consequently requiring more memory requirement and longer computation time. On the other hand, the SPH-Diffusion 2-D core calculations performed using Griffin were able to recover the exact eigenvalue from the reference Serpent 2 solutions, resulting in a pin-power distribution with an RMS of 0.6% and maximum absolute difference of less than 1.4%. The runtimes for SPH-Diffusion for the 2-D core were less than 3 minutes on 40 cores. During this evolution of this evaluation, many updates were made in Griffin by the Griffin development team of INL (focusing on software updates) and ANL (reviewing and supporting software updates) to complete this assessment. Observations from the code assessment are presented in the conclusion section of this report, followed by a discussion of recommendations for future work.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

ZPPR-15 Criticality Measurements

A reference critical configuration was established for each phase of the ZPPR-15 experimental program. The reference critical configuration for each phase corresponds to a configuration in which the measured excess reactivity was adjusted to a standard set of reporting conditions with an average reactor temperature of 293 K, a zero interface gap and all operational control rods parked 30 inches from the axial centerline of the core. The ZPPR staff published the measured excess reactivity and the statistical uncertainty in the measurement. In reality, the published uncertainty for each reference critical configuration is only a small component of the total uncertainty for that configuration. Additional uncertainties related measurement technique, configuration geometry and material compositions exist. The geometry and material composition uncertainties are the dominant uncertainties for ZPPR-15. A full uncertainty analysis was performed for each ZPPR-15 reference critical configuration. The significant uncertainties related to measurement technique, configuration geometry and material compositions were quantified, and a total uncertainty was derived for each reference critical configuration. The ZPPR-15 experimental records were used to create detailed as-built Monte Carlo models for the reference critical configurations established in ZPPR-15A loading 15, ZPPR-15B loading 88, ZPPR-15C loading 166 and ZPPR-15D loading 185. The as-built models neglect the small, non-uniform gap between matrix halves at full closure, any structures outside the matrix tubes and minor components, e.g., impurities, in some materials. The biases associated with the neglected items were quantified. The experimental value of keff and its associated uncertainty for each reference critical configuration were adjusted to account for biases introduced by items that are neglected in the as-built model for that configuration.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗