vgbe energy journal 10 (2022) - International Journal for Generation and Storage of Electricity and Heat

Analysis of VERA core physics benchmark problems
Tab. 4. K-eff comparison for uncontrolled and AIC controlled core.
Problem Description keff ∆ρ
(pcm)
KENO-VI DRAGON5
5A-2D Uncontrolled 1.004085 (8) 1.000749 -332
5B-2D AIC Controlled 0.991496 (8) 0.985022 -663
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the
institute of Nuclear Engineering at École
Polytechnique de Montréal for their great
development of the open source codes
DRAGON and DONJON and their valuable
suggestions/help to complete this work.
Reference
Calsulated
% Error
Fig. 6. Comparison of relative power distribution for 2P assembly.
assembly power distribution for the uncontrolled
and AIC controlled cores respectively.
The maximum power error in the uncontrolled
core is -2.8 % and in the AIC controlled
core the powers are overestimated at
maximum up to 6.6 %, which still are in acceptable
limits. From the results it can be
deduced that these codes systems can be applied
for the lattice as well as core calculation.
5 Conclusions and future
work
This paper presents the VERA Benchmark
analyses performed for pin cell, assemblies
inclusive of Burnable poison (Borosilicate
Glass and Gd) Control structure and HZP
quarter core problems using the open source
computer codes DRAGON5 and DONJON5.
The reactivity calculated for pin cell and assemblies
using the lattice code DRAGON are
consistent with the referenced values. The
pin power distribution for all the analyzed
assemblies are in the acceptable limits.
The VERA quarter core results for effective
multiplication factor, flux and power distribution
are in good agreement with the reference
values from KENO-VI. These analyses
reveal that DRAGON5 and DONJON5 can be
used for the lattice calculation as well as
core calculation of PWRs. To extend the current
study the spacer grids will be modelled
in DRAGON. This code system will also be
checked for depletion calculations and coupled
thermal hydraulics calculations. This
system will be used to model Pakistan CNP-
300 NPPs and results will be published in
the next article.
References
Al Zain, J., et al. (2018). Deterministic evaluation
of safety parameters and neutron flux spectra
in the MNSR research reactor using DRAG-
ON-4 code. Journal of Radiation Research
and Applied Sciences 11(3): 255-261.
Al Zain, J., et al. (2021). Validation of deterministic
code DRAGON5 for the fuel depletion
analysis of a PWR pin-cell benchmark. Radiation
Physics and Chemistry 186: 109545.
Bacha, M. and H. G. Joo (2015). Pointwise crosssection-based
on-the-fly resonance interference
treatment with intermediate resonance
approximation. Nuclear Engineering Technology
47(7): 791-803.
Clerc, T., et al. (2014). An advanced computational
scheme for the optimization of 2D radial
reflector calculations in pressurized water
reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design
273: 560-575.
El Yaakoubi, H., et al. (2021). Neutronic modeling
and calculation of the Nuclear Heating
Reactor NHR-5 by the deterministic codes
DRAGON5 & DONJON5. Progress in Nuclear
Energy 142: 104000.
Fröhlicher, K., et al. (2021). Investigating fission
distribution behavior under various homogenization
techniques for asymmetrical fuel assemblies
and different reflector equivalence
methods. Annals of Nuclear Energy 157:
108221.
Fig. 7. Comparison of relative power distribution for uncontrolled core.
Fig. 8. Comparison of relative power distribution for AIC controlled core.
58 | vgbe energy journal 10 · 2022