JOM

, Volume 68, Issue 11, pp 2930–2937 | Cite as

Multi-Dimensional Simulation of LWR Fuel Behavior in the BISON Fuel Performance Code

  • R. L. Williamson
  • N. A. Capps
  • W. Liu
  • Y. R. Rashid
  • B. D. Wirth
Article
  • 193 Downloads

Abstract

Nuclear fuel operates in an extreme environment that induces complex multiphysics phenomena occurring over distances ranging from inter-atomic spacing to meters, and times scales ranging from microseconds to years. To simulate this behavior requires a wide variety of material models that are often complex and nonlinear. The recently developed BISON code represents a powerful fuel performance simulation tool based on its material and physical behavior capabilities, finite-element versatility of spatial representation, and use of parallel computing. The code can operate in full three dimensional (3D) mode, as well as in reduced two dimensional (2D) modes, e.g., axisymmetric radial-axial (R-Z) or plane radial-circumferential (R-θ), to suit the application and to allow treatment of global and local effects. A BISON case study was used to illustrate analysis of Pellet Clad Mechanical Interaction failures from manufacturing defects using combined 2D and 3D analyses. The analysis involved commercial fuel rods and demonstrated successful computation of metrics of interest to fuel failures, including cladding peak hoop stress and strain energy density. In comparison with a failure threshold derived from power ramp tests, results corroborate industry analyses of the root cause of the pellet-clad interaction failures and illustrate the importance of modeling 3D local effects around fuel pellet defects, which can produce complex effects including cold spots in the cladding, stress concentrations, and hot spots in the fuel that can lead to enhanced cladding degradation such as hydriding, oxidation, CRUD formation, and stress corrosion cracking.

References

  1. 1.
    Fuel analysis and licensing code: FALCON MOD01—volume 1: theoretical and numerical bases. Technical Report. EPRI-1011307 (2004).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.L. Williamson, J.D. Hales, S.R. Novascone, M.R. Tonks, D.R. Gaston, C.J. Permann, D. Andrs, and R.C. Martineau, J. Nucl. Mater. 423, 149 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.D. Hales, R.L. Williamson, S.R. Novascone, D.M. Perez, B.W. Spencer, and G. Pastore, J. Nucl. Mater. 443, 531 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Medvedev, Fuel performance modeling results for representative FCRD irradiation experiments: projected deformation in the annular AFC-3A U-10Zr fuel pins and comparison to alternative designs. Technical Report INL/EXT-12-27183 Revision 1, Idaho National Laboratory (2012).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N.N. Carlson, C. Unal, and J.D. Galloway, Formulation of the constituent distribution model implemented into the BISON framework for the analysis of performance of metallic fuels with some initial simulation results. Technical Report LA-UR-13-26824, Los Alamos National Laboratory (2013).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Medvedev, Summary report on the fuel performance modeling of the AFC-2A, 2B irradiation experiments. Technical Report INL/EXT-13-30006, Idaho National Laboratory (2013).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K.E. Metzger, T.W. Knight, and R.L. Williamson, Model of U3Si2 fuel system using BISON fuel code, in Proceedings of the International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power PlantsICAPP 2014, Charlotte, NC, April 6–9 (2014).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S.G. Stimpson, J.J. Powers, K.T. Clarno, R.P. Pawlowski, and R.N. Bratton, Assessment of pellet-clad interaction indicators in watts bar unit 1, cycles 1-3 using VERA, PHYSOR 2016, May 1–5, 2016, Sun Valley, Idaho, USA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Gaston, C. Newman, G. Hansen, and D. Lebrun-Grandie, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239, 1768 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.A. Knoll and D.E. Keyes, J. Comput. Phys. 193, 357 (2004).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.A. Berna, C.E. Beyer, K.L. Davis, and D.D. Lanning, FRAPCON–3: a computer code for the calculation of steady-state, thermal-mechanical behavior of oxide fuel rods for high burnup. Technical Report. NUREG/CR-6534 vol. 2, PNNL–11513 (1997).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.A. Berna, R. Chambers, E.W. Coryell, K.L. Davis, D.L. Hagrman, D.T. Hagrman, N.L. Hampton, J.K. Hohorst, R.E. Mason, M.L. McComas, K.A. McNeil, R.L. Miller, C.S. Olsen, G.A. Reymann, and L.J. Siefken, SCDAP/RELAP5/MOD3.1 code manual, volume IV: MATPRO—a library of materials properties for light-water-reactor accident analysis. Technical Report NUREG/CR-6150, EGG-2720, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (1993).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.D. Hales, R.L. Williamson, S.R. Novascone, G. Pastore, B.W. Spencer, D.S. Stafford, K.A. Gamble, D.M. Perez, R.J. Gardner, and W. Liu, BISON theory manual: the equations behind nuclear fuel analysis. Technical Report INL/EXT- 13-29930, Rev.1. Idaho National Laboratory (2014).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.D. Hales, S.R. Novascone, B.W. Spencer, R.L. Williamson, G. Pastore, and D.M. Perez, Ann. Nucl. Energy 71, 81 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R.L. Williamson, K.A. Gamble, D.M. Perez, S.R. Novascone, G. Pastore, R.J. Gardner, J.D. Hales, W. Liu, and A. Mai, Nucl. Eng. Des. 301, 232 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Capps, R. Montgomery, D. Sunderland, M. Pytel, and B.D. Wirth, Nucl. Eng. Des. 305, 51 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    B.W. Spencer, J.D. Hales, S.R. Novascone, and R.L. Williamson, 3D simulation of missing pellet surface defects in light water reactor fuel rods, in Proceedings of Top Fuel 2012, Manchester, UK, September 3–5 (2012).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    G. Pastore, S.R. Novascone, R.L. Williamson, J.D. Hales, B.W. Spencer, and S. Stafford, Modeling of fuel behavior during loss-of-coolant accidents using the BISON code. 2015 LWR Fuel Performance Meeting—Top Fuel, Zurich, Switzerland, September 13-17, 2015.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D.S. Stafford, J. Nucl. Mater. 466, 362 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M.R. Tonks, P. Millett, P. Nerikar, S. Du, D. Andersson, C. Stanek, D. Gaston, D. Andrs, and R.L. Williamson, J. Nucl. Mater. 440, 193 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Andersson, P. Garcia, X.-Y. Liu, G. Pastore, M. Tonks, P. Millett, B. Dorado, D. Gaston, D. Andrs, R.L. Williamson, R.C. Martineau, B.P. Uberuaga, and C.R. Stanek, J. Nucl. Mater. 451, 225 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M.R. Tonks, X. Liu, D. Andersson, D. Perez, A. Chernatynskiy, G. Pastore, C.R. Stanek, and R.L. Williamson, J. Nucl. Mater. 469, 89 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J.D. Hales and K.A. Gamble, Modelling accident tolerant fuel concepts. Paper F2.9, Enlarged Halden Program Group Meeting, Fornebu, Norway, May 8–13 (2016).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J.D. Hales, P.G. Medvedev, S.R. Novascone, D.M. Perez, and R.L. Williamson, Analysis of double-encapsulated fuel rods. Paper F6-9, 2014 Enlarged Halden Program Group Meeting, Roros, Norway, September 7–12 (2014).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Casagranda, B.W. Spencer, G. Pastore, S.R. Novascone, J.D. Hales, R.L. Williamson, and R.C. Martineau, Determination of experimental fuel rod parameters using 3D modeling of PCMI With MPS defect. Paper F4.8, Enlarged Halden Program Group Meeting, Fornebu, Norway, May 8–13 (2016).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y.R. Rashid, A.J. Zangari, and C.L. Lin, Modeling of PCI under steady state and transient operating conditions. IAEA Technical Committee Meeting on Water Reactor Fuel Element Computer Modeling in Steady State, Transient and Accident Conditions, IAEA-659/IWGFPT/32 Preston England, pp. 91–101, September 18–22 (1988).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    F. Groeschel, G. Bart, R. Montgomery, and S.K. Yagnik, Failure root cause of a PCI suspect liner fuel rod. IAEA Technical Meeting on Fuel Failure, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 17–21 (2002).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D. Sunderland, W. Lyon, and R. Montgomery, PWR Restart Ramp Rate Restrictions, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Electicité de France—SEPTEN, Cedex, France, and Korea Electric Power Corporation, Munji-Dong, Yusung-Gu, Taejon, Korea. TR-112140-V1 (1999).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. Nesbit, M. Kennard, and S. Yagnik, Use of core analyses in assessments of fuel failure risk due to pellet-cladding interaction, in Proceedings of ANS 2009, Topical Meeting ANFM, pp. 1–20 (2009).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Y. Aleshin, C. Beard, G. Mangham, D. Mitchell, E. Malek, and M. Young, The effect of pellet and local power variations on PCI margin, in Proceedings of Top Fuel 2010, September 26–29, Orlando, FL, USA, Paper 041 (2010).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C. Powers, P. Dewes-Erlangen, M. Billaux, R. Perkins, E.D. Ruzauskas, E. Armstrong, R. Ralph, G. Blomberg, G. Lysell, and B.O. Cheng, Hot cell examination results of non-classical PCI failures at La Salle, in Proceedings of the 2005 Water Reactor Fuel Performance Meeting, Kyoto, Japan, October 2–6 (2005).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    S.G. Stimpson, K.T. Clarno, J J. Powers, and R.P. Pawlowski, Assessing pellet-clad interaction with VERA: WBN1, cycles 6–7, in Proceedings of Top Fuel 2016, September 12–15, Boise, ID, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (outside the U.S.) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Idaho National LaboratoryIdaho FallsUSA
  2. 2.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.ANATECHSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations