Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||ASTEC–MAAP Comparison of a 2 Inch Cold Leg LOCA until RPV Failure|
|Authors:||DE LA ROSA BLUL JUAN CARLOS; BRUMM STEPHAN; MASCARI F.; LEE SUNG JIN; CARENINI L.|
|Citation:||SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS vol. 2018 p. 9189010|
|Publisher:||HINDAWI PUBLISHING CORP|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||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 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 non-coolable 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.|
|JRC Directorate:||Nuclear Safety and Security|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.