In the current state of maturity of severe accident codes, the time has come to foster the systematic application of Best Estimate Plus Uncertainties (BEPU) in this domain. The overall objective of the HORIZON-2020 project on “Management and Uncertainties of Severe Accidents (MUSA)” is to quantify the uncertainties of severe accident codes (e.g., ASTEC, MAAP, MELCOR, and AC2) when modeling reactor and spent fuel pools accident scenarios of Gen II and Gen III reactor designs for the prediction of the radiological source term. To do so, different Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methodologies are to be used for the uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Innovative AM measures will be considered in performing these UQ analyses, in addition to initial/boundary conditions and model parameters, to assess their impact on the source term prediction. This paper synthesizes the major pillars and the overall structure of the MUSA project, as well as the expectations and the progress made over the first year and a half of operation.

No abstract

A 2 inch, cold-leg loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) in a 900 MWe generic Western PWR was simulated using ASTEC 2.1.1 and MAAP 5.02. The progression of the accident predicted by the two codes up to the time of vessel failure is compared. It includes the primary system depressurization, accumulator discharge, core heat-up, hydrogen generation, core relocation to lower plenum, and lower head breach. The purpose of the code comparison exercise is to identify modelling differences between the two codes and the user choices affecting the results. The two codes predict similar primary system depressurization behaviour until the accumulation injection, confirming similar break flow and primary system thermal-hydraulic response calculations between the two codes. The choice of the accumulator gas expansion model, either isentropic or isothermal, affects the rate and total amount of coolant injected and thereby determines whether the core is quenched or overheated and attains a noncoolable geometry during reflooding. A sensitivity case was additionally simulated by each code to allow comparisons to be made with either accumulator gas expansion models. The two codes predict similar amount of in-vessel hydrogen generated and core quench status for a given accumulator gas expansion model. ASTEC predicts much larger initial core relocation to lower plenum leading to an earlier vessel failure time. MAAP predicts more gradual core relocation to lower plenum, prolonging the lower plenum debris bed heat-up and time to vessel failure. Beside the effect of the code user in conducting severe accident simulations, some discrepancies are found in the modelling approaches in each code. The biggest differences are found in the in-vessel melt progression and relocation into the lower plenum, which deserve further research to reduce the uncertainties.