| |
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), US
Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC),
Penn State University (PSU), Japan Nuclear Safety Organisation (JNES)
NEA Nuclear Science Committee (NSC), NEA
Committee on
Safety of Nuclear
Installations (CSNI)
NEA/NRC Benchmark based on
NUPEC BWR Full-size Fine-mesh Bundle Tests
(BFBT)
In the past decade, a large amount of effort has been made
toward the direct simulation of the boiling transition (BT) for BWR
fuel bundles. The most advanced sub-channel codes explicitly take into
account droplet along with liquid and vapor. They predict the dry-out
process as disappearance of the liquid film on the fuel rod surface
without employing any semi-empirical correlations. Through a series of
benchmark comparisons with full length/scale bundle data, it was
verified that the codes are reliable in predicting the critical power
of the conventional BWR fuel types. However, these sub-channel codes
are not yet utilized in new fuel design. Adequacy of fuel lattice
geometries, spacer configurations, etc., is still confirmed mainly by
costly experiments using partial- and full-scale mock ups. The main
reason for this situation is a shortage of high resolution and
full-scale experimental databases under actual operating conditions.
The detailed void distribution inside the fuel bundle has been
regarded as one of the important factors in the boiling transition in
BWRs. With regard to the sub-channel wise void distribution, it is
clear that the cross flow across the sub-channel gap dominates void
distributions. Most of the well known sub-channel codes still employ
the classical Lahey's Void Drift Model or its modified models. Although
there have been substantial efforts to establish a sound theoretical
background of detailed void distributions, the numerical models that
are verified in a wide range of geometrical and thermal hydraulic
conditions are not yet available. In this sense, this subject still
remains the major unsolved problem in the two-phase flow of BWR fuel
bundles. The main reason for this lack of resolution is the lack of
reliable full bundle databases under operating conditions. Up to now,
only partial bundle (3 3 or 4 4) test data
under relatively low pressure (1 MPa) conditions have been made
available.
It was during the Fourth OECD/NRC BWR TT Benchmark Workshop on
6
October 2002 in Seoul, Korea, that the need to refine models for
best-estimate calculations based on good-quality experimental data was
discussed. The needs arising in this respect should not be limited to
currently available macroscopic approaches but should be extended to
next-generation approaches that focus on more microscopic processes. It
is suggested that this international benchmark be based on data made
available from the NUPEC (Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation)
database. From 1987 to 1995, NUPEC performed a series of void
measurement tests using full-size mock-up tests for both BWRs and PWRs.
Based on state-of-the-art computer tomography (CT) technology, the void
distribution was visualised at the mesh size smaller than the
sub-channel under actual plant conditions. NUPEC also performed
steady-state and transient critical power test series based on the
equivalent full size mock-ups. Considering the reliability not only of
the measured data, but also other relevant parameters such as the
system pressure, inlet sub-cooling and rod surface temperature, these
test series supplied the first substantial database for the development
of truly mechanistic and consistent models for void distribution and
boiling transition.
This international benchmark, based on the NUPEC database,
encourages advancement in this uninvestigated field of two-phase flow
theory with very important relevance to the nuclear reactor's safety
margins evaluation. Considering the immaturity of the theoretical
approach, the benchmark specification is being designed so that it
systematically assesses and compares the participants' numerical models
on the prediction of detailed void distributions and critical powers.
Furthermore, the following points are kept in mind while the benchmark
specification is being established:
- As concerns the numerical model of void distributions, no
sound theoretical approach that can be applied to a wide range of
geometrical and operating conditions has been developed.
- In the past decade, experimental and computational
technologies have improved tremendously through the study of the
two-phase flow structure. Over the next decade, it can be expected that
mechanistic approaches will be more widely applied to the complicated
two phase fluid phenomena inside fuel bundles.
- The development of truly mechanistic models for critical
power prediction is currently underway. These models must include
elementary processes such as void distributions, droplet deposit,
liquid film entrainment, etc.
The BFBT benchmark consists of two parts (phases), each part consisting
of different exercises:
- Phase I - Void Distribution Benchmark
Exercise I-1 - Steady-state
sub-channel grade benchmark
Exercise I-2 - Steady-state microscopic grade benchmark
Exercise I-3 - Transient macroscopic grade benchmark
Exercise I-4 - Uncertainty analysis of the steady state sub-channel
benchmark
- Phase II - Critical Power Benchmark
Exercise II-0 - Pressure drop
benchmark
Exercise II-1 - Steady-state
benchmark
Exercise II-2 - Transient benchmark
Exercise II-3 - Uncertainty analysis of the steady critical power
benchmark.
It should be recognised that the purpose of this benchmark is
not
only the comparison of currently available macroscopic approaches but
above all the encouragement to develop novel next-generation approaches
that focus on more microscopic processes. Thus, the benchmark problem
includes both macroscopic and microscopic measurement data. In this
context, the sub-channel grade void fraction data are regarded as the
macroscopic data and the digitized computer graphic images are the
microscopic data.
The first workshop of the OECD/NRC Benchmark based on NUPEC BWR
Full-size Fine-mesh Bundle Tests (BFBT) was held on 4 October 2004.
The workshop was hosted by the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety (JNES)
Organisation. The BFBT Benchmark is sponsored by the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), the NEA, and the Nuclear Engineering
Program (NEP) of the Pennsylvania State University. The experimental
data was produced during a measurement campaign by the NUPEC,
Japan, and sponsored by the Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry (METI). The second workshop was hosted by PSU, State
College 27-29 June 2005. The third workshop was held from
26-28 April 2006 and was hosted by the University of Pisa, Italy. The
fourth workshop was held on 8-9 May 2007 in Paris, France and was
hosted by
the French Commisariat à l'énergie atomique.
- Summary
of
the first workshop
(BFBT1), Nara, Japan, 4 October 2004
- Proceedings of BFBT1
- Conditions for
releasing BFBT data
- BFBT
benchmark
proposal
- Summary
of
second workshop
(BFBT2), PSU, State College, USA, 27-29 June 2005
- Summary
of the third
workshop (BFBT3) University of Pisa, Italy, 26-27 April 2006.
- Summary of the
fourth workshop
(BFBT4), Paris, France, 8-9 May
2007 (issued on 27 September 2007)
- Proposal
for Elemental Task of the BFBT Benchmark, by H. Utsuno, JNES, 20
March 2007
- Summary of the
fifth Workshop
(BFBT5) GRS mbH, Garching, Germany, 31 March to 1 April
2008 (issued 25 April 2008) NEW
Reports
- OECD-NEA/US-NRC/NUPEC
BWR Full-size Fine-mesh Bundle Test
(BFBT)
Benchmark, Volume I: Specifications, B. Neykov, F. Aydogan, L.
Hochreiter, K. Ivanov (PSU), H. Utsuno, F. Kasahara (JNES), E.Sartori
(OECD/NEA), M. Martin (CEA), OECD 2006, NEA No. 6212,
NEA/NSC/DOC(2005)5, ISBN 92-64-01088-2 (11 August 2006)
Planned reports
- NUPEC BWR Full Size Bundle Tests (BFBT) Volume II :
Benchmark Results for Void Distribution
- NUPEC BWR Full Size Bundle Tests (BFBT) Volume III :
Benchmark Results for Critical Power
BFBT Forum
Password-protected files
for participants (last update
15 November 2007)
Related expert groups
NSC
CSNI
- Working Group on
Accident Management and Analysis (GAMA) Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) Code issues
- Workshop
Proceedings on Benchmarking of CFD Codes for Application to Nuclear
Reactor Safety,
Garching, Munich, Germany, 5-7 September 2006
- Extension of CFD Codes to Two-Phase Flow Safety Problems,
by D. Bestion (CEA), H. Anglart (KTH), B.L. Smith (PSI), M. Scheuerer
(GRS), M. Andreani (PSI), J. Mahaffy (PSU), F. Kasahara (JNES), E.
Komen (NRG), P. Mühlbauer (UJV) , T. Morii (JNES), With additional
input from E. Laurien (IKE), T. Watanabe (JAERI), A. Dehbi (PSI) -
OECD/NEA/CSNI Working Group on the Analysis and Management of
Accidents, NEA/SEN/SIN/AMA(2006)2, 11 July 2006 (available on request)
- Best
Practice
Guidelines for the use of CFD in Nuclear Reactor Safety Applications,
OECD Nuclear Enegy Agency, Committee on the Safety of Nuclear
Installations NEA/CSNI/R(2007)5, 15-May-2007
NEA contact
Enrico Sartori
OECD/NEA Data Bank
Le Seine-Saint Germain
12 boulevard des Iles
F-92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux
France
Tel: +33 1 45 24 10 72 / 78
Fax: +33 1 45 24 11 10 / 28
Last update: 25 April 2008
|