International Atomic Energy Agency PGAP, Vienna 13 - 15 December 2011 Update on the IAEA CRPI31018 “Development of Methodologies for the Assessment of.

International Atomic Energy Agency

PGAP, Vienna13 - 15 December 2011

Update on the IAEA CRPI31018 “Development of Update on the IAEA CRPI31018 “Development of Methodologies for the Assessment of Passive Safety Methodologies for the Assessment of Passive Safety

System Performance in Advanced Reactors”System Performance in Advanced Reactors”

Dr. M. Hadid SubkiNuclear Power Technology Development Section

Division of Nuclear Power, Department of Nuclear EnergyContact: [email protected]

Consultancy on PGAP Collaborative Project, 13 - 15 December 2011:

International Atomic Energy AgencyPGAP, Vienna13 - 15 December 2011

Programme OverviewProgramme Overview• Programme: CRPI31018 on Development of Methodologies for the

Assessment of Passive Safety System Performance in Advanced Reactors

• Background: Performed in Conjunction with the Technical Working Group on Water Cooled Reactors

• IAEA players: Department of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power Technology Development Section and Department of Nuclear Safety, Safety Assessment Section

• Objective: Determine a common analysis-and-test method for reliability assessment of passive safety system performance

• Outcome: A method to facilitate application of risk-informed approaches in design optimization and safety qualification of future advanced reactors, contributing to enhanced safety levels and improved economics.

• International Participants: CNEA (Argentina), BARC (India), IGCAR (India), ENEA (Italy), University of Pisa (Italy), CEA (France), OKB Gidropress (Russian Federation), Idaho State University (USA), Japan and Sweden as observers

• Initial Project Officer: Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov (Originator, 2008), Alternate POs: Mr. S.M. Modro, Mr. A. Stanculescu and Ms. S. Bilbao


Purpose of RCM-3 (April 26-28, 2011)Purpose of RCM-3 (April 26-28, 2011)

• To review progress and milestones on all research activities;

• To discuss the preliminary experimental data obtained from the Natural Circulation Loop Facility L2 in Italy constructed for the assessment of different methodologies for the evaluation of the reliability of passive safety system;

• To discuss lessons-to be-learned from the Fukushima Daiichi Accident in Japan and its implications to near future R&D needs on thermal-hydraulics and reactor safety;

• To develop an outline of integrated annual technical report and future collaboration plan.



Progress and Status UpdateProgress and Status Update

• 1st Research Coordination Meeting (RCM-1) convened on 31 March - 3 April 2009 in IAEA, Vienna

• Detailed work plan and schedule for 2009 - early 2010 defined and implemented

• RCM-2 convened on 16 – 19 March 2010 in IAEA, Vienna

• Natural Circulation Loop L2 at University of Genoa selected as Reference Facility to generate test data

• Mr. Vladimir Kuznetsov, the initial Project Officer (PO) ended his assignment in April 2010.

• Hadid Subki from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI – Japan) assumed the new PO from June 1, 2010


(cont’d) Progress and Status Update(cont’d) Progress and Status Update

• The IAEA reviewed approved 3 research renewal requests:• CNEA

• BARC

• IGCAR

• The three Alternate POs also retired

• The new Alternate PO is Mr. Artur Lyubarskiy (Department of Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Security) – an Expert in PSA

• 2011 – 2012 is the final year




1st year activities:• Elaboration of requirements to the method of reliability

assessment of passive safety systems• Elaboration of a set of definitions for reliability assessment

of passive safety systems and their treatment by PSA• Development, validation and verification of the

methodologies:Validation of methodologies using testsAPSRA application to IRIS passive containment cooling systemMethods to minimize the number of calculationsComparison of APSRA and RMPS and REPAS on a benchmark

problem

• Development of a framework for a databank of probability density functions for process parameters



(cont’d) 1st year activities:• 3.1. Validation of methodologies using tests• Subtask (b): Select a facility• Candidate facility 1: L2 natural circulation loop (University of Pisa)• Already used for investigations of natural circulation – dynamic behaviour of the loop was

analyzed versus (i) power transferred to the fluid, (ii) temperature of the cooler, and (iii) loop inclination

• The shape of the loop can be modified for reaching the Y configuration


Implementation Schedule Implementation Schedule April 2010 – March 2011April 2010 – March 2011

• Task 3.1 Validation of Methodologies using tests on the L2 Natural Circulation Loop (University of Pisa)• Subtask (a) Preparatory activities, including issuance of initial

problem suggestion and description of tests already performed• Subtask (b) Identification of important modifiable parameters and

PDFs• Subtask (c) Identification of additional tests to be performed• Subtask (d) Performance of tests• Subtask (e) Reliability evaluation based on test results• Subtask (f) Thermal-hydraulic codes’qualification and nodalization• Subtask (g) Identification of PDFs for other parameters (e.g. code

uncertainties)• Subtask (h) Performance of calculations• Subtask (i) Reliability evaluation based on calculation results



• Task 3.1. Team Leader: Mr. Dino Araneo

• Members: D. Araneo, M. Bykov, D. Saha, A.K. Nayak, M. Marquez, L. Burgazzi, J. Arul, M. Gimenez, M. Kryuchkov

• Activity during Sept – Dec 2010:• Team members perform blind calculations for

new tests with the aim to assess reliability of the selected configuration. Team members define PDFs for other parameters (e.g. uncertainty)


Task 3.1 Results (1)Task 3.1 Results (1)

• The L2 Natural circulation loop experimental facility was described;

• Preliminary analysis was performed for the experimental data obtained from the test matrix proposed at the RCM2.

• The results show that the L2 natural circulation facility has a transition region from a fully unstable to a stable behavior.

• Simulation using RELAP5/mod3.3 was carried out and preliminary results were obtained.



Task 3.1 Results (2): RELAP5 Nodalization Task 3.1 Results (2): RELAP5 Nodalization for the L2 Loopfor the L2 Loop

Expansion tank connection pointCoil

Expansion tank


Task 3.1 Results (3): Comparison of Test Task 3.1 Results (3): Comparison of Test Data with the RELAP5 SimulationData with the RELAP5 Simulation


Task 3.1 Results (4): Comparison of Test Task 3.1 Results (4): Comparison of Test Data with the RELAP5 Simulation (CNEA)Data with the RELAP5 Simulation (CNEA)





International Atomic Energy Agency15

Heat Sink Temperature [ºC]Power [kW] -10 0 10 20 30

0.5 US US US S US1 S S US US US

1.5 US US US US US2 US US US US US

2.5 US US US US US

Stability Map obtained using RELAP5

Stability Map obtained from L2 Test




• Task 3.2. Exchange of information and planning of the application of APSRA to the analysis of IRIS/PCCS. Design activities and planning of tests for the ISU test facility.• Subtask (a) Develop preliminary facility layout

• Subtask (b) Develop preliminary test matrix

• Subtask (c) Share the information with BARC, including that on for IRIS/PCCS



• Task 3.2. Team Leader: Mr. Brian Williams

• Members: B. Williams, D. Saha, A.K. Nayak

• Activity 2010 - 2011:

• Team leader coordinates the implementation of Subtasks (a), (b), (c) and reports to the scientific secretary on a periodic quarterly basis


Task 3.2 ResultsTask 3.2 Results

• The Idaho State University has never participated in any RCM on the subject CRP.

• No information provided by the ISU neither on the activities nor the results achieved to date. No withdrawal expressed yet.

• Change of research orientation (the termination of IRIS project in the US) or human resource/budget allocation may have been the cause.




• Task 3.3 Development of a bench mark problem, and development and application of efficient methods to minimize the number of calculations needed for reliability assessment of passive safety systems

• Team Leader: Mr. John Arul, Members: Mr. John Arul & Mr. M. Marques (CEA)• Subtask (a) Refine SDHR model specs (IGCAR)• Subtask (b) Elaborate the criteria and the scenario (IGCAR)• Subtask (c) (d) (l) Select codes (IGCAR, CEA)• Subtask (e) Perform automatic differentiation (IGCAR)• Subtask (f) (g) Perform reliability calculations and procedure results (IGCAR)• Subtask (h) Explore open source (IGCAR)• Subtask (i) Assemble and validate open source code (IGCAR)• Subtask (j, k) Perform reliability calculations using assembled and validated open

source code and produce results (IGCAR)• Subtask (m) Develop Meta model (CEA)• Subtask (n) Perform subset simulations for importance sampling using Monte-Carlo

method (CEA)• Subtask (o, p) Perform reliability calculations and produce results (CEA)



• At the RCM3, IGCAR reported progress on “Passive System Reliability Towards Efficient Methodology” (by U.P Sarathy, A. John Arul, et al)

• Progress to demonstrate efficiency and applicability of methods based on Automatic Differentiation of programs:

• Code development and validation

• Use of PHENIX-DYN for Phenix Benchmark (EOL natural convection Tests)

• Development of AD tool

• Simulation of L2 loop using TRANSI code was in progress



Period of oscillations (s)

Stable or unstable

% Full power

TRANSI SPORTS DYML1 TRANSI SPORTS DYML1

0.26 - 86.3 89 unstable unstable unstable

0.29 - 93.69 88.88 unstable unstable unstable

0.23 80.8 98.32 92.68 unstable unstable unstable



0.36 - 69.99 - stable stable stable

L = 26.67m, D =0.0189 m, mass flow rate = 0.1879 kg/s, Inlet temperature Ti=200.0 C

inlet pressure = 6.9 MPa, Full Power = 805kW, uniform source.

Task 3.3 Results (2):Task 3.3 Results (2):Straight Pipe stability modelingStraight Pipe stability modeling


Task 3.3 Results (3)Task 3.3 Results (3)Typical Causes of Passive System Typical Causes of Passive System

Structural failureStructural failure

No. Causes %

1 Inadequate understanding of loading conditions or structural behavior

43

2 Inadequate execution of erection procedure 13

3 Random variations in loading, structure, materials etc. 10

4 Contravention of requirements in contract documents 9

5 Mistakes in calculation or drawing 7

6 Misuse, deterioration .. 7

7 others



• CEA – France presented “Development of a benchmark problem and development and application of efficient methods to minimize the number of calculations needed for reliability assessment of passive safety systems”

• Within the framework of Gen IV. The Natural Convection study is important to demonstrate the possibility of passive heat removal by natural convection for sodium reactor technology.

• Benchmark on the natural convection test performed in Phenix in 2009

• Comparison of system codes• CRP starts in 2008, ends in 2011• Final report to be edited by IAEA in 2012


Task 3.3 Results (5): Benchmark problemTask 3.3 Results (5): Benchmark problem

• Initial proposal by IGCAR:

benchmark on the Safety Grade Decay Heat Removal System (SGDHR) of the Indian PFBR. This proposal was initially accepted by the CEA, but:

• necessity for CEA to develop a specific CATHARE2 modeling for this problem difficulty to find human resources for this work

• necessity for IGCAR to obtain source files of the DHDYN code to perform your automatic differentiation

• New proposal by CEA

Benchmark on the natural convection test on Phenix Reactor developed within the IAEA CRP on Phenix End of Life tests :

• IGCAR uses DYANA-P code and STAR-CD) while CEA uses CATHARE2 code

• The modeling developed, complete data package available, the input decks available

• Experimental data available


Flow-chart of Task 3.3 activities Flow-chart of Task 3.3 activities 2011 - 20122011 - 2012 (a) Benchmark

definition CEA (available)

(b) Elaboration of failure criteria (CEA/IGCAR)

(d) DYANA source

(h) Explore open source

Codes such as open FOAM

(e) Automatic Differentiation (AD)

(i) Assemble and validate

(j) Reliability calculations

(k) Results

(q) Results

(p) Reliability calculations

(n) Meta model

(m) CATHARE model

(g) Results

(f) Reliability calculations

(o) Monte-Carlo method : Subset

simulations, Importance

sampling

(r) Comparison of results

(c) Uncertainties model

(l) Uncertainties model



• Task 3.4 Comparison of different methodologies for reliability assessment of passive safety system on the benchmark problem of an isolation condenser of LWCR, developed by ENEA

• Team Leader: Mr. D. Saha, Members: D. Saha, L. Burgazzi, J. Arul, D. Araneo, A.K. Nayak• Subtask (a) Describe a problem (completed)• Subtask (b) Share RMPS and REPAS results

(completed)• Subtask (c) Provide inputs for CATHARE/RELAP5

(partly completed)• Subtask (d) Repeat RMPS modelling (IGCAR to initiate)• Subtask (e) Start assessment using APSRA



• BARC – India presented “Passive System Performance and Reliability Assessment using the APSRA Methodology” (V. Jain, A.K. Nayak)

• Performance assessment for SBWR like Isolation Condenser System (ICS) was carried out using APSRA Method and issues related to APSRA was discussed.

• RELAP5 Nodalisation for the L2 Loop was developed, and issues in RELAP5 simulation was also discussed

• Mr. V. Jain also presented an assessment results of using the BE Code RELAP5/Mod3.2 to simulate NC phenomena in test facilities at BARC

International Atomic Energy Agency283rd IAEA RCM, Vienna, April 26-28, 2011 (VJ)

Task 3.4 Results (2):Task 3.4 Results (2): L2 Loop Stability SimulationL2 Loop Stability Simulation

12000 12200 12400 12600 12800 13000 13200 13400 13600 13800-40

-20

0

20

40

Time(s)

0C 10C 20C 30C

Power=0.5kW

•Sample Results are qualitatively in good agreement with test data.

•More details are required, e.g. expansion tank and lines, secondary side details.

•Detailed test matrix required along with instability thresholds.

12000 12200 12400 12600 12800 13000 13200 13400 13600 13800-40

-20

0

20

40

Time(s)

-10C 0C 10C 20C 30C

Power=1.0kW



• BARC work plan for 2011 – 2012:

• Perform reliability assessment for the SBWR like Isolation Condenser system out

• Analyze the L2 facility using expanded test matrix

• Analyze PCCS test for the IRIS reactor if data are obtained (from ISU?)



Lesson-learned from the current CRPLesson-learned from the current CRP• Participating MS and/or Chief Scientific

Investigator to advise the IAEA’s PO on:• How to maintain and increase the fruitfulness of the

current CRP:• Are the schedule, milestones and objective realistically

achievable? What are the constraints?

• Anticipated miscellaneous issues

• Impact of the CRP to what is going on in the real nuclear power world

• Formulation of Outline of the Final Document

• Interest in an extension of the current CRP reflecting implications from the Fukushima event

• Opportunity for senior researchers from newcomer countries’ to participate and establish joint-research



Lessons-to be Learned from the Lessons-to be Learned from the Fukushima Event (as of April 2011)Fukushima Event (as of April 2011)

Topics to be emphasized on future CRPs on thermal-hydraulics and reactor safety:

• Review on multiple external initiating events

• Assessment on single failure criteria and common cause failures

• Station black-out system – design and acceptance Criteria

• Reliability of emergency power supply

• Containment hydrodynamic and seismic load

• Hybrid passive and active engineered safety features

• Direct containment heating

• Acceptance criteria of the performance of standby gas treatment system; hydrogen recombiner system; etc.

• Wider postulated scenario of Beyond Design Basis Accident (DBA)

• Accident management and long-term core coolability assessment

• Non-reactor cooling systems performance

31


For inquiries, please contact: [email protected]

THANK YOU

International Atomic Energy Agency PGAP, Vienna 13 - 15 December 2011 Update on the IAEA CRPI31018 “Development of Methodologies for the Assessment of.

Documents