Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis and comparison of the 2D/1D and quasi-3D methods with the direct transport code SHARK

  • Zhao, Chen (Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institute of China) ;
  • Peng, Xingjie (Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institute of China) ;
  • Zhang, Hongbo (Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institute of China) ;
  • Zhao, Wenbo (Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institute of China) ;
  • Li, Qing (Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institute of China) ;
  • Chen, Zhang (Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institute of China)
  • Received : 2020.10.14
  • Accepted : 2021.07.22
  • Published : 2022.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The 2D/1D method has become the mainstream of the direct transport calculation considering the balance of accuracy and efficiency. However, the 2D/1D method still suffers from stability issues. Recently, a quasi-3D method has been proposed with axial Legendre expansion. Analysis and comparison of the 2D/1D and quasi-3D method is conducted in theory from the equation derivation. Besides, the C5G7 benchmark, the KUCA benchmark and the macro BEAVRS benchmark are calculated to verify the theory comparisons of these two methods with the direct transport code SHARK. All results show that the quasi-3D method has better stability and accuracy than the 2D/1D method with worse efficiency and memory cost. It provides a new option for direct transport calculation with the quasi-3D method.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12005214, 11905214) and China Association for Science and Technology (Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program 2019QNRC001).

References

  1. W. Wu, Y. Yu, Q. Luo, et al., Verification of the 3D capability of OpenMOC with the C5G7 3D extension benchmark, Ann. Nucl. Energy 140 (2020) 107293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2019.107293
  2. H.G. Joo, et al., Methods and performance of a three-dimensional whole-core transport code DeCART, in: Proc. Of PHYSOR, 2004. Chicago, IL, April 25-29.
  3. B. Kochunas, B. Collins, D. Jabaay, T. Downar, W. Martin, Overview of Development and Design of MPACT: Michigan Parallel Characteristics Transport Code"M&C 2013, Sun Valley, Idaho, 2013. May 5-9.
  4. Y.S. Jung, et al., Practical numerical reactor employing direct whole core neutron transport and subchannel thermal/hydraulic solvers, Ann. Nucl. Energy 62 (2013) 357-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2013.06.031
  5. J. Chen, Z.Y. Liu, C. Zhao, et al., A new high-fidelity neutronics code NECP-X, Ann. Nucl. Energy 116 (2018) 417-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.02.049
  6. Y. Zheng, S. Choi, D. Lee, A new approach to three-dimensional neutron transport solution based on the method of characteristics and linear axial approximation, J. Comput. Phys. 350 (2017) 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.08.026
  7. S. Choi, J. Choe, K. Nguyen, et al., Recent development status of neutron transport code STREAM, in: Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Spring Meeting, 2019. Jeju, Korea, May 23-24.
  8. A. Marin-Lafleche, M.A. Smith, C.H. Lee, Proteus-Moc, A 3D Deterministic Solver Incorporating 2D Method of Characteristics[C], M&C, 2013. Sun Valley, May 5-9, 2013.
  9. C. Zhao, X. Peng, H. Zhang, et al., A linear source scheme for the 2D/1D transport method in SHARK, Ann. Nucl. Energy 161 (2021), 108479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108479
  10. S. Stimpson, M. Young, B. Collins, et al., Assessment and improvement of the 2D/1D method stability in DeCART[C], M&C (2013). Sun Valley, May 5-9, 2013.
  11. Oecd, Calculations without spatial homogenization, in: MOX Fuel Assembly 3-D Extension Case", Nuclear Science, NEA/NSC/DOC, 2005, p. 16.
  12. C. Zhao, Research for the Improvement of the 2D/1D Transport Method and Application in the Numerical Nuclear Reactor Physics calculation[D], Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China, 2019.
  13. M. Jarrett, B. Kochunas, E. Larsen, et al., An Improved 2D/1D P3 Method with Angle-dependent Leakage and Pin Homogenization, Cancun, Mexico, 2018. PHYSOR2018, April 22-26.
  14. A. Yamamoto, M. Tabuchi, N. Sugimura, et al., Derivation of optimum polar angle quadrature set for the method of characteristics based on approximation error for the bickley function, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 44 (2007) 129-136. https://doi.org/10.3327/jnst.44.129
  15. N. Horelik, B. Herman, B. Forget, et al., Benchmark for evaluation and validation of reactor simulations (BEAVRS), in: International Conference on Mathematics and Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering, Sun Valley, Idaho, 2013.
  16. K. Wang, Z. Li, D. She, J.G. Liang, Q. Xu, Y. Qiu, J. Yu, J. Sun, X. Fan, G. Yu, RMC - a Monte Carlo code for reactor core analysis, Ann. Nucl. Energy 82 (2015) 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.048