Development of nodal diffusion code RAST-V for Vodo–Vodyanoi Energetichesky reactor analysis

Jang, Jaerim; Dzianisau, Siarhei; Lee, Deokjung

doi:10.1016/j.net.2022.04.007

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The hexagonal geometry analysis solver in RAST-K is based on multi-group CMFD acceleration with triangular-based polynomial expansion nodal method (TPEN) [22,23]. The TPEN kernel ported in RAST-K has been successfully verified with VVER-440 [24] and VVER-1000 (Kalinin unit 3) benchmark problems [25]. RAST-K performs microscopic depletion calculations considering 36 isotopes (i.e., 22 of heavy nuclides and 12 of fission products).…”

Section: Code Systems 21 Stream/rast-kmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A VVER analysis module has been developed based on the triangular polynomial expansion nodal (TPEN) kernel [23], to extend the application area to reactors with hexagonal geometry. The core solver RAST-K has been verified using the Kalinin-3 and VVER-440 [24,25] benchmarks. As shown in previous studies, RAST-K has comparable accuracy with other code systems like PARCS, ATHLET/KIKO3D, and DIF [24,25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The core solver RAST-K has been verified using the Kalinin-3 and VVER-440 [24,25] benchmarks. As shown in previous studies, RAST-K has comparable accuracy with other code systems like PARCS, ATHLET/KIKO3D, and DIF [24,25]. Additionally, a conventional VVER analysis scheme is under development at Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) using CASMO-5 and PARCS [26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Code Systems 21 Stream/rast-kmentioning

confidence: 99%