Analysis of Rostov-II Benchmark Using Conventional Two-Step Code Systems

Jaerim Jang, Mathieu Hursin, Woonghee Lee, Andreas Pautz, Marianna Papadionysiou, Hakim Ferroukhi and Deokjung Lee
Additional contact information
Jaerim Jang: Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea
Mathieu Hursin: Nukleare Energie und Sicherheit, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), 5232 Villigen, Switzerland
Woonghee Lee: Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea
Andreas Pautz: Nukleare Energie und Sicherheit, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), 5232 Villigen, Switzerland
Marianna Papadionysiou: Nukleare Energie und Sicherheit, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), 5232 Villigen, Switzerland
Hakim Ferroukhi: Nukleare Energie und Sicherheit, Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI), 5232 Villigen, Switzerland
Deokjung Lee: Department of Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, 50 UNIST-gil, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan 44919, Korea

Energies, 2022, vol. 15, issue 9, 1-24

Abstract: This paper presents the steady state analysis of the Rostov-II benchmark using the conventional two-step approach. It involves the STREAM/RAST-K and CASMO-5/PARCS code systems. This paper documents a comprehensive code-to-code comparison between Serpent 2, CASMO-5, and STREAM at the lattice level for the different fuel assemblies (FAs) loaded in the Rostov-II core; and between Serpent 2, PARCS, and RAST-K at the core level in 2D. Finally, the 3D results of both deterministic models are compared to the steady state measurements of the Rostov-II benchmark. With respect to the measurements available in the Rostov-II benchmark, comparable accuracy (30 ppm difference in boron concentration, 2% assembly power) with an industrial calculation scheme (BIPR8) are reported up to 36.73 EFPDs. The calculations reported in the paper showed that the modeling of the resonance self-shielding in the lattice code as well as the geometrical modeling of the reflector are key for an accurate solution (reducing the in-out power tilt). At the core simulator level, a fairly crude 1D reflector model appears to be enough. Overall, this paper provides the detailed models and conditions used in STREAM/RAST-K and CASMO-5/PARCS, and accurate calculation solution for the Rostov-II benchmark with STREAM/RAST-K and CASMO-5/PARCS compared with measurement.

Keywords: VVER-1000; Rostov-II; PWR; STREAM/RAST-K; CASMO-5/PARCS (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/9/3318/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/9/3318/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:9:p:3318-:d:807401

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().