The HEXNEM3 nodal flux expansion method for the hexagonal geometry in the code DYN3D

Bilodid, Y.; Grundmann, U.; Kliem, S.

doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2018.02.037

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The maximum difference in total decay heat power estimated by DYN3D and Serpent is less than 0.7%, which is very good agreement considering typical nodal power errors in DYN3D are on the order of 1-3% (Nikitin et al, 2015;Bilodid et al, 2018). Serpent for UOX, MOX and TOX fuels are 6.10%, 5.94% and 5.71%, respectively.…”

Section: Pwr Pin Cell With Uox Mox and Tox Fuelsupporting

confidence: 74%

Explicit decay heat calculation in the nodal diffusion code DYN3D

Bilodid

Fridman

Kotlyar

et al. 2018

Annals of Nuclear Energy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Pwr Pin Cell With Uox Mox and Tox Fuelsupporting

confidence: 74%

Explicit decay heat calculation in the nodal diffusion code DYN3D

Bilodid

Fridman

Kotlyar

et al. 2018

Annals of Nuclear Energy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In that way, HEXNEM2 method additionally includes the corner points in comparison with HEXNEM1 method and uses functions that are more exponential in the flux expansion. The main difference of the HEXNEM3 method is the additional use of tangentially weighted exponential functions and the coupling of neighboring nodes by tangentially weighted fluxes and currents on node surfaces [4]. Hence, one should expect that HEXNEM3 is more accurate method than HEXNEM1 and HEXNEM2.…”

Section: Results Of Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of Pin Power Calculations Using DYN3D on MIDICORE Benchmark

Kuchyn

Ovdiienko

Khalimonchuk

et al. 2019

Nucl. and Rad. Safe.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-dimensional code DYN3D is widely used for the calculation of steady states and transients in light water reactors with hexagonal fuel assemblies like VVER. The capability of pin-by-pin power calculation is implemented in the code through an intranodal power reconstruction approach. The calculations of pin power distribution using DYN3D were performed for AER MIDICORE benchmark for the validation of given extension and developed cross-section library. MIDICORE VVER-1000 core periphery power distribution benchmark was proposed on the 20th Symposium of AER. It is a 2D calculation benchmark based on the VVER-1000 core cold state geometry taking into account the geometry of explicit radial reflector. The main issue of MIDICORE benchmark is to provide the reference solution for the validation of pin-by-pin power distribution at the VVER-1000 core periphery calculated by few-group diffusion codes. Various 3D neutron kinetics nodal solvers HEXNEM1, HEXNEM2 and HEXNEM3 are used in DYN3D for neutron flux distribution calculation. The AER MIDICORE benchmark was solved using all solvers implemented in DYN3D with regard to the three most representative fuel assemblies. Considered fuel assemblies are placed both in the inner part and in the peripheral part of the core, and contain the pin with integrated gadolinium burnable absorber. This paper provides results of comparing the effective multiplication factor, assembly-wise power distribution and pin-by-pin power distribution calculated by DYN3D with benchmark data.

show abstract

“…From Figure 23, it becomes obvious that a side ADF will produce an average boundary flux, where the true unbalance within the assembly is more corner based. Some studies have been performed to provide corner ADF's for hexagonal assembly LWR's [50]; however, this study has identified that a similar treatment is likely to be beneficial for modelling BWR's due to the highly non-symmetrical nature of the fuel assemblies. ADF's within SP is a simplification for assemblies as SP assumes that the neighbouring assembly is of the same type as that assembly being modelled; however, this is currently the only available approach to account for the non-symmetry of the problem inside the homogenization area of a full fuel assembly.…”

Section: Full Core Pure Neutronic Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Simulations between Serpent/CTF and Polaris/DYN3D: Steady State Operational Characteristics and Burnup Evolution

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High fidelity modelling for nuclear power plant analysis is becoming more common due to advances in modelling software and the availability of high-performance computers. However, to design, develop and regulate new light water nuclear reactors there are, up until now, limited requirements for high fidelity methods due to the already well-established computational methods already being widely accepted. This article explores the additional detail which can be obtained when using high fidelity methods through Monte Carlo/Sub-channel analysis compared to industrial methods of cross-section/nodal analysis using the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor as a case study. This case study was chosen due to the challenges in modelling two phase flow and the high levels of heterogeneity within the fuel assembly design. The article investigates how to implement such an approach, from a bottom-up procedure, by analysing each stage of the modelling process.

show abstract

The HEXNEM3 nodal flux expansion method for the hexagonal geometry in the code DYN3D

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

Explicit decay heat calculation in the nodal diffusion code DYN3D

Explicit decay heat calculation in the nodal diffusion code DYN3D

Validation of Pin Power Calculations Using DYN3D on MIDICORE Benchmark

A Comparison of Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Simulations between Serpent/CTF and Polaris/DYN3D: Steady State Operational Characteristics and Burnup Evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About