Colameco Master Thesis

The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School

Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering
IMPROVED REFLECTOR MODELING FOR LIGHT WATER REACTOR ANALYSIS
A Thesis in
Nuclear Engineering
by
David V. Colameco
2010 David V. Colameco
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
May 2010
ii
The thesis of David Colameco was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Kostadin Ivanov
Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Thesis Advisor
Maria Avramova
Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Jack Brenizer, Jr.

Professor of Nuclear Engineering
Chair of Nuclear Engineering Program
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
iii
ABSTRACT
Special treatment of the reflector in reactor analysis is required due to the drastic
differences of neutronics properties between the core and reflector regions. The strong
spectrum change observed at core/reflector boundaries combined with geometry
complexity, material and structural heterogeneity of radial and axial reflectors make such
treatment a challenging task. The correct modeling of the reflector response is important
for accurate predictions of core power distribution especially in regions next to the
reflector. For this reason special care is taken in generation of reflector homogenized
cross-sections and discontinuity factors (DFs). Historically, one-dimensional (1-D) color
set problems are used for the reflector, which are different from the unit fuel assembly
cross-section generation models. The investigations presented in this thesis are further
extension of studies performed elsewhere to achieve a more correct modeling by
introducing improved color set models for reflector cross-section and DF generation and
parameterization. These color set models more accurately capture the 2-D effects that
occur on reentrant surfaces.
From the transport solution of the color set model,
discontinuity factors are calculated, which in turn preserve the transport solution in the
nodal code calculations. Two sensitivity studies have been performed. The first study
evaluates the effect of the size of the color-set model on calculated reflector constants as
compared to full 1/8 core sector of symmetry. The second sensitivity study is conducted
with the aim of determining a parameterization for the reflector discontinuity factors at
the core-reflector interface as function of the core conditions such as boron concentration,
iv
moderator temperature and density. In addition, the effects of the loading pattern next to
the reflector region on the discontinuity factors are examined through the use of color sets
that include Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel and the traditional UO2 fuel. The prediction
improvements that are achieved in both the global eigenvalue and power distribution
from the selected optimal 2-D color sets as compared to the 1-D models currently in use
are discussed in this thesis for two nuclear power plants.
The newly calculated
discontinuity factors show an improvement in predicting the global eigenvalue and power
distribution and correcting the power tilt that was previously observed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Modeling .................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Sensitivity Studies ...................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Parameterization of Factors and Constants ................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 2 Reflector Modeling ........................................................................................... 8
2.1 Axial Reflector Modeling .......................................................................................... 9
2.2 Radial Reflector Modeling ......................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3 Sensitivity Studies ............................................................................................ 22
CHAPTER 4 Parameterization ............................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 63
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 66
APPENDIX A: MCNP Modeling ............................................................................................ 68
APPENDIX B: Sample DF Routine Input ............................................................................... 69
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: 1-D Assembly/Reflector Models .............................................................................. 10
Figure 2: 3x3 Mini-Core Model ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 3: 1/8th Core Results .................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4: 1/8th Core Normalized Power Absolute Error Results ............................................ 20
Figure 5: Mini-Cores Used in the Sensitivity Study ................................................................ 23
Figure 6: Reflector Node Identification ................................................................................... 25
Figure 7: Constant Boron Concentration Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior ........................ 27
Figure 8: Constant Temperature Fast Discontinuity Behavior ................................................ 28
Figure 9: Constant Boron Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior ......................................... 29
Figure 10: Constant Temperature Discontinuity Factor Behavior ........................................... 30
Figure 11: Fast Flat Side Discontinuity Factor Behavior......................................................... 31
Figure 12: Thermal Flat Side Discontinuity Factor Behavior .................................................. 32
Figure 13: Fast Inner-Corner Discontinuity Factor Behavior .................................................. 33
Figure 14: Inner-Corner Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior ........................................... 34
Figure 15: Flat-Sides Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior....................................................... 35
Figure 16: Flat-Sides Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior ................................................ 36
Figure 17: Inner-Corner Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior .................................................. 37
Figure 18: Inner-Corner Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior ........................................... 38
Figure 19: MOX Flat-Side Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior .............................................. 39
Figure 20: MOX Flat-Side Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior ....................................... 40
Figure 21: MOX Inner-Corner Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior........................................ 41
Figure 22: MOX Inner-Corner Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior ................................. 42
vii
Figure 23: Flat-Sides Fast Absorption Reflector Constant Behavior....................................... 43
Figure 24: Flat-Side Thermal Absorption Reflector Constant Behavior ................................. 44
Figure 25: Inner-Corner Fast Absorption Reflector Constant Behavior .................................. 45
Figure 26: Inner-Corner Thermal Absorption Reflector Constant Behavior ........................... 46
Figure 27: Flat Sides Fast Diffusion Reflector Constant Behavior.......................................... 47
Figure 28: Flat Side Thermal Diffusion Reflector Constant Behavior .................................... 48
Figure 29: Inner-Corner Fast Diffusion Reflector Constant Behavior ..................................... 49
Figure 30: Inner-Corner Thermal Diffusion Reflector Constant Behavior .............................. 50
Figure 31: Flat Side Removal Reflector Constant Behavior .................................................... 51
Figure 32: Inner-Corner Removal Reflector Constant Behavior ............................................. 52
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: 3x3 Mini-Core Results ............................................................................................... 15
Table 2: 1/8th Core Results...................................................................................................... 16
Table 3: PWR Axial Absolute Percent Error of Predicted Constant and Factor Data ............. 54
Table 4: BWR Axial Factor and Constant Absolute Percent Error ......................................... 55
Table 5: Individual Side Maximum Absolute Errors ............................................................... 58
Table 6: Individual Assembly Side Maximum Absolute Errors .............................................. 58
Table 7: Flat and Inner-Corner Side Maximum Absolute Errors ............................................ 59
Table 8: Maximum Absolute Errors for Multiple Minicore Modelings .................................. 60
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not be possible without the dedication of my advisors, Dr.
Kostadin Ivanov and Dr. Mohamed Ouisloumen.
Their guidance has been greatly
appreciated through the development and implementation of this project.

I am also grateful to Huria Harish, Boacheng Zhang, and Larry Mayhue for their
guidance while conducting the research behind this thesis.
Last but not least,
Westinghouse Electric Company made this research possible through their sponsorship
for which I am extremely grateful.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
The objectives of this research are to investigate, develop and test a reflector
model for generation of equivalent homogenous (homogenized) reflector diffusion
parameters (cross-sections, diffusion coefficients and discontinuity factors) as well to
study and determine the important feedback effects for core reflector modeling. The
investigations presented in this thesis are further extension of studies performed
elsewhere [1-12] to achieve a more correct modeling by introducing improved color set
models for LWR reflector cross-sections and DF generation and parameterization. These
color set models more accurately capture the 2-D effects that occur on reentrant surfaces
that was not in previous 1-D models.
In the past the direct treatment of the reflector region in reactor core analysis was
ignored by relying on user-adjusted albedo boundary conditions to treat the neutron
reflection at the core/reflector interface. One-Dimensional (1-D) and Two-Dimensional
(2-D) transport models were used to calculate such albedos. The major deficiencies of
albedo boundary conditions are their dependency on fuel loading and the fact that they
are not capable of modeling axial neutron transfer through the radial reflector.
The above described disadvantages of the albedo-type boundary conditions were
avoided by explicit modeling the reflector (by introducing additional ring of
homogenized radial nodes for radial reflector, and layer of homogenized axial nodes
for each bottom and top reflector), and treating reflector homogenization in an analogous
manner to the fuel assembly homogenization. The difference is that instead of the single
assembly model used for fuel assembly homogenization, a color set model including the
reflector region and the adjacent core region is utilized. This approach requires definition
of few-group (usually two-group) diffusion parameters for the reflector nodes based on
the Equivalence theory, which should preserve both volume-averaged reaction rates and
surface-averaged net currents, corresponding to multi-group heterogeneous solution. This
can be achieved for any spatial discretization method used to solve the few-group
diffusion equation but the equivalent homogenized few-group diffusion parameters are
specific for a given flux solver [1, 2].
Special treatment of the reflector in reactor analysis is required due to the drastic
differences of neutronics properties between the core and reflector regions. The strong
spectrum change observed at core/reflector boundaries combined with geometry
complexity, material and structural heterogeneity of radial and axial reflectors make such
treatment a challenging task. The correct modeling of reflector response is important for
accurate prediction of core power distributions, especially in regions next to the reflector.
The radial and axial reflectors of Light Water Reactors (LWRs) consist of heterogeneous
arrangements of materials.
The radial reflector of a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) contains a stainless
steel plate with an approximate thickness of 2-4 cm depending on the reactor
manufacturer. The physical nature of the reflector has an impact on neutron behavior it
affects the energy-dependent flux gradient in the reflector as well as the reflection of
neutrons of different energies to the core thus affecting the power distribution in the core.
This effect is seen not only by the power distribution (assembly-wise and pin-wise) of
periphery fuel assemblies but it may result in a power distribution tilt across the core.
For this reason special care is taken in generation of reflector homogenized crosssections and discontinuity factors (DFs). Historically, one-dimensional (1-D) color set
problems have been used for the reflector for the reasons described above.
The
investigations presented in this thesis will utilize the more accurate modeling through
color sets which capture the 2-D effects that occur on reentrant surfaces.
1.2 Modeling
Modeling consisted of the traditional 1-D and 2-D color sets. 1-D models were
utilized with the axial reflector and had been previously developed by Westinghouse.
Both PWR and BWR axial models were utilized. In using the same models developed by
Westinghouse, comparisons of the current reflector modeling methodology to the
equivalence reflector methodology can be made.
The radial modeling for PWR reflectors was performed through the use of 2-D
color sets. These color sets consisted of 3x3 and 5x5 mini-cores which represented a
variety of loading patterns with fuel of varying enrichments, uranium oxide only and
uranium and mixed oxide, and varying beginning of cycle assembly burnups.
The
reflector region was explicitly modeled and included the baffle and core barrel. The
radial color sets were burned out to 40GWd/MTU in eleven burnup steps.
Boron
concentrations were varied from 0 ppm, to 500 ppm, 1000 ppm, 2000 ppm, and 3000
ppm. The moderator temperature was also varied from 293K, to 538K, 558K, 578K,
598K, and 618K. The results from the axial and radial modeling discussed in Chapter 2,
provided data sets for the sensitivity studies and parameterization. With the models in
place sensitivity studies can be completed.
1.3 Sensitivity Studies

Two sensitivity studies have been performed. The first study evaluates the effect
of the size of the color-set model on reflector constants. Different color sets have been
introduced and examined.
From the transport solution of the color set model,
discontinuity factors are calculated which in turn preserve the transport solution in the
nodal code solution. The basis for this work was developed by Ivanov [9] with the
improvements to Penn States Nodal Expansion Code (NEM), which was originally
developed by Bandini [16], through the discontinuity factors from Smith [2]. For this
study the discontinuity factors are calculated using the polynomial flux representation
homogenization procedure (which is consistent with the NEM solution) developed by
Ivanov [9]. This procedure is based on the Generalized Equivalence Theory [2], which
preserves both volume-averaged reaction rates and surface-averaged net currents,
corresponding to the multi-group heterogeneous solution.
In this work the
homogenization procedure has been further developed to accommodate the semi-analytic

flux representation of the Westinghouse Advanced Nodal Code (ANC) solution. The
discontinuity factors calculated in this way were then used in NEM and ANC [15]
respectively. This semi-analytic flux representation was developed through the following
approximation to the one-dimensional transverse-integrated flux, which is the same
approximation used in ANC:
lg,x x = A sinh k gl x + B cosh k gl x +
n
l
n=0 a g,x n fn
(1)
Where for two groups:

k g,l = Alg Dlg
k1,l = Al1 D1l
k 2,l = Al2 Dl2
1
1
1
2
2
2
(2)
Ag = lr g ; lr 1 = a 1 + s 12
lr 2 = la 2
The transport lattice physics code PARAGON [13] was used to generate the
homogenized cross sections, surface average currents, surface average fluxes, volume
average fluxes based on user defined regions, and the global eigenvalue for the 1-D and
2-D models in this study. In addition, PARAGON provided the reference solutions by
which the nodal calculations were compared.
This thesis first analyzes the improvements gained in power distribution and
global eigenvalue by using the discontinuity factors calculated by using 2-D color-sets
compared to factors calculated using 1-D color set models. For this study the NEMbased polynomial flux expansion homogenization procedure is used. Next the results
using discontinuity factors, calculated by using semi-analytic flux expansion based
homogenization procedure, were compared to a generic set of discontinuity factors with
the Westinghouse nodal code ANC for 1/8th core models. A second sensitivity study was
conducted with the aim of determining a parameterization for the discontinuity factors as
function of the core conditions such as boron concentration, moderator temperature and
density. In addition, the effects of loading pattern variations next to the reflector region
on the discontinuity factors were examined through the use of color sets that included
Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel and the traditional UO2 fuel. Multiple color set models were
developed in order to determine the magnitude of the changes to the discontinuity factors
for each effect and the feasibility of a correlation to capture these discontinuity factor
changes caused by changing core conditions. The core condition changes that were
analyzed included: boron concentration, moderator density, moderator temperature, and
variations in the loading pattern next to the reflector region.
1.4 Parameterization of Factors and Constants

The discontinuity factors along with the reflector constants were gathered from
the sensitivity studies. The reflector constants are simply the ratios of the homogenized
reflector constants to the discontinuity factors. The goal of the parameterization was to
find a relationship for the discontinuity factors and reflector constants that was not
dependent upon loading pattern or fuel burnup. Ultimately this was accomplished with
two sets of parameterizations. One set for uranium oxide only loading patterns and
another for loading patterns including MOX. A generic parameterization for flat sides
and inner corners was also desired; however the study found that the most accurate
parameterization was specific to the location upon the fuel-reflector interface, meaning
that each individual node surface on the fuel reflector interface had an individual
parameterization for each energy group.
CHAPTER 2
Reflector Modeling
The axial reflector models were provided by Westinghouse in the form of two
documents. The first document was an axial offset study performed for PWRs and the
second document was F. Reitsmas Masters thesis, which served as the basis for BWR
axial reflector modeling. In both of these documents the modeling and dimensions were
specified. The pin by pin data in the PARAGON models for the axial offset study were
not changed, however homogenization of the group constants occurred over regions of
equal size for use in a discontinuity factor routine. The discontinuity factor routine was a
standalone program which took the boundary conditions from the transport reference
solution and generated discontinuity factors.
Likewise for BWRs, the models in
Reitsmas thesis were kept the same except for minor adjustments to achieve fuel sized
reflector nodes such as extending the reflector region. It should be noted that this
extension occurred in such a way as not to affect the results. When the reflector is
modeled of an adequate depth or length, as discussed by Reitsma, additional reflector or
changes in boundary conditions will not affect the results because once the neutrons
reach that distance away from the reflector core interface, they are not going to make
their way back to the reflector core interface in sufficient numbers to affect the results.
2.1 Axial Reflector Modeling

This section will describe the details of the axial reflector modeling for the PWR
cases first, followed by the BWR cases. The axial reflector models were based on an
axial offset study conducted by Westinghouse. The original PARAGON input files were
provided by Westinghouse and the models were not changed in their physical
dimensions, only the regions over which the reflector constants were homogenized were
changed to match the regions of the fuel. In some cases the outer reflector region was
extended to provide a consistent node size throughout the model.
The axial offset cases covered the following conditions:
1. Fresh and Burned Fuel.
2. Rodded and Unrodded Cases.
3. Cases with 0 and 900 ppm Boron.
4. Two sets of moderator temperatures.
575K and 610K Top Axial Models
540K and 575K Bottom Axial Models
Figure 1 below shows the 1-D assembly-reflector color-set models that were
composed with reflective and vacuum boundary conditions. Although the detail of the
reflector node is not shown, the reflector is modeled explicitly to include different vessel
internals and moderator.
10
Figure 1: 1-D Assembly/Reflector Models
There was a wide variation in the discontinuity factors produced from these
models when comparing the Equivalence DFs (consistent with the nodal method) to the
DFs (determined by analytical solution of the 1-D diffusion equation) used in the current
Westinghouse methodology.
This is expected due to the differences in the
methodologies. The equivalence reflector constants generated were then utilized in the
benchmarking against an actual cycle. It was found that the reflector constants did not
affect the overall global solution much at all, but any change was in the correct direction
towards the measured values. The axial leakage is small and causes this lack of effect in
the cores global solution.
The BWR modeling was conducted in the same way as the PWR modeling in that
the original models developed previously would not be changed unless necessary.
Changes to the models involved extending the outer reflector region, as was done in the
PWR cases. This allowed for homogenization of the group constants over regions of
equal size for use in the discontinuity factor routine. There was a single temperature
bottom reflector model that was rodded and unrodded. The top reflector model was also
single temperature with voiding from zero to ninety percent void in increments of ten
percent. As in the case of the PWR models, the BWR models also displayed a difference
between the equivalence DFs and the DFs of the current methodology.
11
The axial modeling of this project is not as extensive as the radial modeling and
this is due to core conditions being fewer in number. While the PWR axial cases could
have included more boron concentrations, the multiple other conditions were adequate.
More exact details of the upper and lower plenum were not readily available, however in
the future if a more detailed exploration of the axial models is desired more conditions
could be added.
2.2 Radial Reflector Modeling
This section will describe the details of the radial reflector modeling. The radial
reflector modeling consisted of three robust sets of models. The first set of models was
used to verify the accuracy of the discontinuity factor routine and to display the
improvements over the existing modeling methodology. The second set of radial models
was developed to benchmark the new methodology against an actual cycle. This was
accomplished using data for various types of plants and fuel loading patterns. The third
set of radial reflector models was utilized to perform the sensitivity study and consisted
of color set models. These color sets included both uranium oxide only loading patterns
and loading patterns with both uranium oxide and mixed oxide fuel assemblies.
The radial reflector modeling underwent various changes as it was being
developed over the course of the project. At first, full sized assembly nodes were used to
model both the fuel and reflector region. Then modeling of the fuel and reflector region
using quarter assembly sized nodes was deemed desirable.
This evolution in the
modeling has in part led to the first set of models being completed with full sized
12
assembly nodes, while the second and third set were completed with both full assembly
sized and quarter assembly sized nodes. For the second and third sets of radial models
the quarter sized nodes will be discussed.
Traditionally the homogenized constants (cross sections and diffusion
coefficients) and the discontinuity factors for fuel assemblies are calculated in an infinite
environment (unit assembly calculations). This data combined with homogenized
constants and discontinuity factors calculated for the core-reflector interface are then
used in a nodal code for core simulation and analysis. The first comparison looks at a 2-D
3x3 mini-core. The following models were developed for PARAGON: the individual
assemblies in an infinite environment, a 1-D assembly-reflector node color-set, and the
entire 3x3 mini-core model. Using the PARAGON data from these various models,
discontinuity factors based on a polynomial flux expansion were calculated, which were
then used with NEM to model the 3x3 mini-core. This accomplishes two things. First, the
nodal code solution shows the need for including color-set models for reflector cross
section and DF generation that include 2-D effects. Second, the nodal code solution
shows that the transport reference solution can be reproduced when all nodes have side
dependent discontinuity factors generated by the above-mentioned homogenization
procedure applied to the whole 3x3 mini-core. It is important to note that the 3x3 minicore by its very nature will produce exaggerated results as compared to a 1/8 th core
symmetry model due to its small size.
Furthermore the discontinuity factors, calculated using the 3x3 color-set model
above, are used in conjunction with an 1/8th core symmetry model. The nodal code
13
solutions for the 1/8th core model show that the transport reference solution can again be
reproduced using side dependent discontinuity factors generated by the homogenization
procedure applied to the whole 1/8th core. The nodal code solutions also show that the
3x3 color-set model performs well in providing representative discontinuity factors.
Nodal code solutions using discontinuity factors from 1-D assembly-reflector node color
sets (the standard models currently in use) are also provided for comparison. To verify
the accuracy of the equivalence methodology, the following 3x3 mini-core that is
representative of the fuel-reflector interface of a 1/8th core sector of symmetry was
developed and is shown in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: 3x3 Mini-Core Model
As in Figure 1, Figure 2 does not illustrate the detail of the reflector region. The
reflector region was modeled explicitly in PARAGON with a baffle and core barrel.
14
Discontinuity factors were developed for the reflector and the fuel regions. The
individual fuel assemblies were modeled in an infinite environment in PARAGON and
assembly discontinuity factors were calculated. With the discontinuity factors from the
models described above, 3x3 mini-core nodal code models were developed and compared
to the PARAGON reference solutions.
Table 1 below contains the 3x3 mini-core results. The PARAGON reference
solution is shown for keff along with the normalized assembly powers. The differences in
pcm and absolute percent difference are shown for the eigenvalue and normalized
assembly powers respectively. No DF means that the nodal code was executed without
any discontinuity factors, fuel assembly cross-sections are generated in infinite
environment and the reflector cross-sections are taken from 1-D color-set models. IA
means that the fuel assemblies have infinite environment discontinuity factors and cross
sections, while ARR are reflector discontinuity factors and cross-sections from the 1-D
assembly-reflector models. DF means side dependent assembly discontinuity factors
and cross sections calculated from the 3x3 mini-core while RDF represents side
dependent reflector discontinuity factors and cross sections calculated from the 3x3 minicore. A case using equivalence discontinuity factors in the fuel and reflector regions
reproduced the reference transport solution and it was performed to demonstrate that the
utilized homogenization procedure works correctly. The results in Table 1 show that the
3x3 mini-core exaggerates the effects with the 9766 pcm difference between the
reference transport solution and the nodal code solution with No DF. Using the
assembly discontinuity factors (ADFs) calculated in an infinite environment combined
15
with the discontinuity factors at the fuel-reflector interface from the 1-D assemblyreflector models (case IA-ARR) shows significant improvement as expected. This is the
standard model currently in use. In this model the side dependent discontinuity factors for
all reflector-reflector interfaces were set to one.
Table 1: 3x3 Mini-Core Results
Model
Reference
No DF
IA-ARR
IA-RDF
Eigenvalue
0.95000
9766.0 pcm
-219.5 pcm
7.1 pcm
Fuel Type A
1.7531
-12.6068 ABS %
0.4832 ABS %
0.0922 ABS %
Fuel Type B
1.0188
10.4789 ABS %
-1.7711 ABS %
-0.0230 ABS %
Fuel Type C
0.2281
2.1283 ABS %
1.2883 ABS %
-0.0688 ABS %
The use of the new discontinuity factors is shown in the IA-RDF model. The 2D color-set model used to generate the RDF discontinuity factors shows further
improvement over the 1-D ARR model used to generate discontinuity factors. The next
comparison is even more important because it represents the actual color-set models that
could be used to produce side dependent discontinuity factors for an actual 1/8th core
symmetry model. For this comparison the side dependent discontinuity factors from
above are used.
Table 2 shows the 1/8th core results. The PARAGON reference solution is shown
along with the differences in pcm for the eigenvalue. Normalized assembly power
absolute errors are displayed in Figure 3. As in Table 1 IA means that the fuel
assemblies have infinite environment discontinuity factors and cross sections, 1-D are
models with reflector discontinuity factors and cross sections from the 1-D assemblyreflector models while MC means models with reflector discontinuity factors and cross
sections from the 2-D 3x3 mini-core model.
16
Table 2: 1/8th Core Results
Model
Reference
IA-1D
IA-MC
Eigenvalue
0.98782
22.8 pcm
-0.2 pcm
The results in Table 2 show a spread in eigenvalues that is smaller than for minicore results of Table 1. This is due to the exaggerated effects from a smaller core. The
reflector constants and cross sections from the 3x3 mini-core are proving to be excellent
substitutes. This is seen in the eigenvalue results above and in the normalized power
absolute percent errors from the PARAGON reference solution in Figure 3.
IA-1D
IA-MC
ABS
%
Error
-1.6975
-1.7574
-1.5870
-1.3460
-2.1511
-0.7757
-0.5912
-0.6180
-0.2607
-0.2665
-0.3274
0.0700
-0.1289
0.6811
0.6889
0.2290
0.9815
1.1018
1.1999
1.4224
1.5318
0.4178
1.2790
0.3392
ABS
%
Error
-0.7527
-0.5134
-0.7341
-0.5652
-1.1616
-0.2095
0.2115
-0.1036
0.1659
-0.2787
0.3706
0.0015
0.4023
-0.1445
0.0749
-0.5657
1.1943
0.7333
0.1414
0.4897
-0.0042
-0.5536
0.9006
0.8530
0.5407
0.1159
0.7737
0.1824
Figure 3: 1/8th Core Results
17
The absolute errors above show that the mini-core, with its capturing of 2-D
effects that occur at reentrant surfaces, is a better means of modeling the reflector
response. The results in this section used side dependent discontinuity factors that were
generated from the polynomial flux expansion based homogenization procedure used in
the NEM code. This was done as an extension of the methodology developed by B.
Ivanov [9] to be applicable to larger and more complex modeling as compared to the
original study. The next section presents the results of using the semi-analytic flux
expansion based homogenization procedure to calculate side dependent discontinuity
factors, which are then used in the Westinghouse nodal code ANC [15].
With the polynomial flux expansion based homogenization procedure (consistent
with the NEM solution) of the previous set yielding the desired results in both eigenvalue
and assembly power predictions, similar comparisons were made using discontinuity
factors from a semi-analytic flux expansion based homogenization procedure (consistent
with the ANC solution). Please note that in NEM calculations one node per assembly in
the radial plane was used. In ANC PWR calculations usually four nodes per assembly
model are utilized.
In ANC the explicit representation of the reflector is utilized, i.e. the baffle and
reflector are represented by a homogenous node. The homogenization is performed using
1-D color-set calculation with PARAGON. Since ANC is using a four nodes per
assembly calculation scheme, a half-assembly size (one radial node) reflector is used
along with albedo boundary conditions on the outer surface of the reflector node. The
18
homogenized flux distribution in the reflector node is obtained by analytical solution of

1-D diffusion homogeneous boundary value problem. This analytical solution is not
consistent with the nodal solver of ANC. The generic reflector DFs obtained in this way
are used with the reflector cross-sections to generate reflector constants, which are then
utilized in ANC for core calculations.
The difference with the NEM study is that instead of using only one side
dependent discontinuity factor per assembly side (as it is the case for NEM), two side
dependent discontinuity factors are calculated since four nodes per assembly are used.
Utilization of two assembly side dependent discontinuity factors will more accurately
model the reflector response in inner corners of the core-reflector interface and this
modeling will also match the methodology of the Westinghouse nodal code ANC.
In the ANC reflector model one row of quarter assembly reflector nodes are used
to explicitly model the reflector response while in the NEM model one row of full
assembly reflector nodes is used. In the ANC reflector model albedo boundary conditions
are used on the outer surface of reflector nodes in difference of the NEM model where
vacuum boundary conditions are used on the outer surface of the reflector nodes. For a
water reflector at room temperature a thickness of ~ 20 cm (an assembly-size reflector
node) is thick enough. The boundary conditions, applied on the outer surface of such
reflector, do not affect keff and power distribution in the core. In cases when a steel region
is also part of the reflector, or the moderator density is low, or a half-assembly size
reflector node is used, the boundary conditions on outer surface of reflector are
important. Adding additional rings of reflector nodes will affect the efficiency of core
19
nodal calculations, and the calculations of DFs for the additional reflector nodes may be
problematic. This is the reason why the ANC model uses albedo boundary conditions and
there is a need to investigate whether these albedos have to be parameterized also in
terms of feedback parameters.
Two 3-Loop PWR (Westinghouse type) plants were chosen for this study. One is
a core loaded with only UO2 assemblies while the second is loaded with a combination of
UO2 and MOX assemblies. The side dependent discontinuity factors calculated with a
semi-analytic flux expansion based homogenization procedure are utilized in addition to
a generic set of discontinuity factors. The normalized assembly powers generated using
these two sets of discontinuity factors with the nodal code ANC are compared to one
another in Figure 4 below. Discontinuity Factors using 3x3 models as described in the
Polynomial cases before are used, and additionally, larger 5x5 mini-cores were used to
determine the effect of modeling the inner fuel assemblies would have. The results in
Figure 4 are from 5x5 mini-cores, while not shown the 3x3 mini-cores generated similar
discontinuity factors, which varied by less than 1%, which in-turn had little effect on the
power distributions. It should be noted that even though more fuel was modeled with the
5x5 mini-cores, only the discontinuity factors at the fuel reflector interface were utilized.
The results in Figure 4 show a tilt correction. The generic set of discontinuity
factors suffered from a power tilt of over predicting assembly powers towards the center
of the core and under predicting assembly powers toward the periphery when compared
to measured data, which was especially pronounced for the loading pattern shown in the
right part of Figure 4. The new discontinuity factors are correcting this error in the proper
20
direction when compared to measured data. The effect of the new constants on the boron
prediction is usually negligible (few ppm) but could be in the range of 10 ppm with the
depletion for high leakage cores. More pronounced improvements are seen in the
absolute percent errors in assembly powers of Figure 4. The observed deviations in
critical boron concentration predictions were below 10 ppm.
150 MWd/MTU, 3Loop PWR Core, UO2 Fuel
150 MWd/MTU, 3Loop PWR Core, UO2 and MOX Fuel
ABS
%
Error
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
-0.2
0.2
0.2
-0.3
-1.0
-0.1
-0.4
ABS
%
Error
2.3
2.6
4.0
3.9
2.5
2.0
1.6
1.8
1.1
1.3
0.1
2.0
1.2
1.0
-0.2
-1.3
-0.7
0.6
0.1
-0.1
-2.1
-3.5
-0.5
-0.9
-2.8
-4.9
-0.7
-1.2
Figure 4: 1/8th Core Normalized Power Absolute Error Results
The absolute errors above show an improvement in the power tilt problem
discussed above. The larger 5x5 mini-cores produced results that maintain good results
for UO2 loading patterns, and improve the results where the generic set struggles in the
case of loading patterns with MOX fuel.
21
The issue of P3 scattering in large core reflectors has been raised by J. Vidal, R.
Tellier, et. al., [17]. To investigate the effects of P3 scattering on the models of this study
an MCNP reference model was developed. Unfortunately the cross sections used with
MCNP were not developed for the 3x3 mini-core and thus generated large errors. These
results can be found in Appendix A. Likewise, the discontinuity factors were generated
using a standalone routine. A sample input is given in Appendix B.
The process of generating discontinuity factors can be a computationally costly
endeavor. Sensitivity studies are carried out in the following section in an effort to
generate a correlation (parameterization) for changing core conditions.
22
CHAPTER 3
Sensitivity Studies
Using a single generic set of discontinuity factors does not always produce the
desired results.
Calculating a new set of discontinuity factors for changing core
conditions and loading patterns is also not desirable due to the computational costs
involved. Developing a correlation for changing core conditions to be used in conjunction
with a set or sets of discontinuity factors is one of the goals of the research discussed in
this thesis.
The current reflector model in ANC does not take into account feedback effects.
From a consistency point of view it will be better if the reflector parameter representation
is expressed in similar manner as for fuel assemblies if possible. One of objectives of this
study is to identify the correct feedback parameters for accurate and efficient reflector
modeling.
The parameters shown below were individually adjusted to the following values
in the sensitivity study:
Moderator Temperature:
293K, 538K, 558K, 578K, 598K, and 618K
Moderator Density:
0.40, 0.50, 0.60, and 0.72 g/cc
Moderator Boron Concentration 0, 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 ppm
Fuel Burnup
0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, , 38, 39, and 40 GWd/MTU
Loading Pattern
Various assemblies with different initial burnup,

enrichment as well as UO2 vs. MOX fuel
23
A total of eight loading patterns were developed. The following four in Figure 5
are discussed first.
Figure 5: Mini-Cores Used in the Sensitivity Study
The reflector region contains a baffle and core barrel that has been explicitly
modeled even though it is not depicted in the illustration of Figure 5. The same reflective
and vacuum boundaries depicted in Figure 2 are applied to the four mini cores of Figure
5. All four mini-cores also had a moderator density of 0.72 g/cc. In addition the minicore depicted in the top right of Figure 5 had its moderator density varied. The
discontinuity factors generated via the polynomial flux expansion based homogenization
procedure are discussed below.
24
In [10] it was concluded that the only meaningful spectrum parameter is the
core/reflector net current spectrum (e.g., J1/J2 on core/reflector interface) since this
determines the spatial shape of the flux (especially the thermal flux) throughout the
reflector. Since this spatial shape is primarily responsible for environment sensitivity (to
core loading for instance) that results from the spatial smearing, this (J 1/J2) is the correct
parameter to use and not the fuel or reflector spectrum index, or even fuel temperature.
The basis of the Westinghouse improved cross section representation methodology,
implemented in the NEXUS system [11], is the modeling of both macroscopic and
microscopic cross sections primarily as a function of spectrum index (SI) (the ratio of fast
to thermal group node-average fluxes). These two spectrum representative parameters
have been investigated in this work along with some additional parameters as listed
below.
The discontinuity factors were plotted against numerous variables including:
Mini-core Burnup
Spectral Index (Fast Node Average Flux/Thermal Node Average Flux)
Incoming Current/Node Average Flux per energy group
Albedo at the Fuel/Reflector Interface per energy group
Net Current per energy group
Net Current Ratio
Delta Spectral Index (Surface SI Node SI)
Net Current/Surface Flux at the Fuel/Reflector Interface per energy group
As will be seen in the data that follows, Net Current/Surface Flux at the
Fuel/Reflector Interface yielded the best results when visually inspecting the plots of the
25
data. In each 3x3 mini-core there are four fuel/reflector interface sides. The nodes are
labeled on an XY plane that originates in the upper left hand corner of the mini-cores as
depicted in Figure 5. The X-axis is positive to the right, and the Y-axis is positive moving
down the page. For example the central node is node X2Y2. The West side of this node
is X2Y2W.
The legend in Figure 6 depicts these sides and the particular boron
concentration for the mini-core depicted in the top left of Figure 5 with a moderator
temperature of 578 K, density of 0.72 g/cc. Each point in the plot represents a burnup
step as the mini-core is depleted.
The discontinuity factor and reflector constant data was gathered based on the
nodes labeled in accordance with the following Figure:
10
13
14
19
20
25 26
31
32
15 16
21
5
11
12
17
18
22
23
24
27
28
29
30
33
34
35
36
Figure 6: Reflector Node Identification
26
Figure 6 shows the fuel assemblies in yellow, green and red. The reflector region
is in blue. The reflector nodes, depicted in white large numbers, are the nodes of interest.
Each node has the data associated with the node sides labeled as south, east, north and
west. From Figure 6 only the west and north sides of the respective reflector nodes were
gathered for this sensitivity study.
Although not shown in Figure 6, the reflector
components such as the baffle and core barrel are explicitly modeled.
The following plots and discussion presented will cover 3x3 mini-cores loaded
with only UO2 followed immediately by those with MOX-UO2 in sets of fast and thermal
results.
Figures 7 through 10 show the behavior of the discontinuity factors for a
particular side of node 5. Figures 11 through 18 show the behavior of the discontinuity
factors for flat and inner corner sides respectively grouped together. Like Figures 11
through 18, Figures 19 through 22 show the behavior of the discontinuity factors for flat
and inner respectively grouped together, but for a mini-core loaded with MOX-UO2.
Figures 23 through 32 show the behavior of reflector constants for both energy groups
and flat and inner-corners for a UO2 loaded mini-core. The reflector constants behave in
a similar manner for all mini-cores and the smaller subset of data shown in the Figures
below provides a basic display of parameter behavior.
The following plot in Figure 7 depicts the change in the fast discontinuity factor
with a constant boron concentration and multiple temperatures. Side 5W refers to the
west side of node 5 in Figure 6. The discontinuity factors display a linear behavior
followed by an inflection point and a leveling off. As the mini-core is burned the
discontinuity factors decrease as the Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux increases. The
27
burnup effects are captured in the environmental effects of the dependent variable. The
blue diamonds represent a moderator with no boron and a temperature of 293K. When
the moderator temperature increases to 538K the data shifts to the right and downwards
to the red squares on the same plot. This shifting behavior is common throughout all
similar data sets. This also occurs when temperature is held constant and the boron
concentration is changed. Uranium only loading patterns are discussed here.
Side 5W DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux
0ppm 293K
0.939
0.939
0ppm 538K
0.938
0.938
DF1
0.937
0ppm 558K
0.937
0.936
0ppm 578K
0.936
0.935
0.935
0ppm 598K
0.934
0.1723 0.1724 0.1725 0.1726 0.1727 0.1728 0.1729 0.1730 0.1731
Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux
Figure 7: Constant Boron Concentration Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior
0ppm 618K
28
The following plot in Figure 8 depicts the change in the fast discontinuity factor
with a constant temperature and multiple boron concentrations. As in Figure 7, the
discontinuity factor displays a linear behavior and inflection point. For comparison the
shift to the right as boron concentration increases is much more pronounced than the shift
from a change in temperature.
As in Figure 7, as the mini-core is burned, the
discontinuity factors decrease as the Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux increases. The
burnup effects are again captured in the environmental effects of the dependent variable.
When the boron concentration increases, the data shifts to the right.
This shifting
behavior is common throughout all data sets of changing boron concentration.
Side 5W DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

0.9395
0ppm 293K
0.9390
0.9385
500ppm 293K
DF1
0.9380
0.9375
0.9370
1000ppm 293K
0.9365
0.9360
2000ppm 293K
0.9355
0.9350
0.1724
0.1726
0.1728
0.1730
0.1732
0.1734
3000ppm 293K
Figure 8: Constant Temperature Fast Discontinuity Behavior
29
The next two plots are a repeat of Figures 7 and 8 but for the thermal
discontinuity factors. The following plot in Figure 9 depicts the change in the thermal
discontinuity factor with a constant boron concentration and multiple temperatures. As in
Figure 7, the discontinuity factors display a linear behavior. As the mini-core is burned,
the discontinuity factors increase with the Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux
ratio.
The burnup effects are again captured in the environmental effects of the
dependent variable. The effects are more drastic in the thermal discontinuity factor as
expected. This overall behavior is common throughout all data sets of changing
temperature on the thermal discontinuity factor.
Side 5W DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux
0ppm 293K
0.210
0.200
0ppm 538K
0.190
DF2
0ppm 558K
0.180
0.170
0ppm 578K
0.160
0ppm 598K
0.150
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux
Figure 9: Constant Boron Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior
0ppm 618K
30
The following plot in Figure 10 depicts the change in the thermal discontinuity
factor with a constant temperature and multiple boron concentrations. As in Figure 9, the
discontinuity factors display a linear behavior. Unlike in Figure 7, as the mini-core is
burned, the discontinuity factors increase with the Net Thermal J/Surface Average
Thermal Flux ratio. The burnup effects are again captured in the environmental effects of
the dependent variable. The effects are more drastic in the thermal discontinuity factor as
expected. As in the comparison of Figure 7 to Figure 8, comparing Figure 9 to Figure 10,
the change in boron concentration has a larger effect than change in temperature. This
behavior is also common throughout all plots of similar data sets.
Side 5W DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

0.330
0ppm 293K
0.310
0.290
500ppm 293K
DF2
0.270
0.250
0.230
1000ppm 293K
0.210
0.190
2000ppm 293K
0.170
0.150
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0.100
0.110
3000ppm 293K
Figure 10: Constant Temperature Discontinuity Factor Behavior
31
Figures 7 through 10 above display the behavior of just one node within the minicore. Behaviors of other nodes are similar in trends but different in magnitude. The
sensitivity study revealed that the flat sides along the fuel-reflector interface (sides 5
west, 11 west, 25 north and 26 north, from Figure 6), behave in a different manner as
compared to the inner corners of sides 15 west, 15 north, 16 north and 21 west. A further
distinction will be made amongst the individual sides with the parameterization; that the
flat and inner corner sides behave based location on the fuel-reflector interface and not on
the type of fuel. Figure 11 below illustrates flat sides.
0ppm 293K
Flat Sides DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.945
0ppm 578K
0.940
0ppm 598K
0.935
0ppm 293K
0ppm 618K
0ppm 538K
0.930
0ppm 558K
DF1
0ppm 578K
0.925
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.920
0ppm 293K
0.915
0ppm 538K
0.910
0ppm 578K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 598K
0.905
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.900
0.1660
0ppm 538K
0.1680
0.1700
0.1720
0.1740
0.1760
0.1780
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 11: Fast Flat Side Discontinuity Factor Behavior
32
Figure 11 above shows several interesting trends. First the top right of the plot is
data for sides 5 west and 11 west (See Figure 6 for node numbering). The lower left
includes both sides 25 north and 26 north. Sides 5 west and 11 west in the upper right
hand corner are separated whereas 25 and 26 overlap. This may be due to a lack of a core
barrel in close proximity to the fuel-reflector interface being analyzed. Figure 12 shows
data for constant boron of 0 ppm and multiple temperatures. The scale used in Figure 12
adequately shows the differences in data behavior between the different sides, however
now the shift due to changes in temperature is not as visible as in Figures 7 through 10.
Likewise we can combine the thermal discontinuity factors below. Sides 5 west and 11
west overlap at the top right, and sides 25 north and 26 north at bottom left.
0ppm 293K
Flat Sides DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux
0.450
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.400
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.350
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.300
DF2
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.250
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.200
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.150
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.100
0.020
0ppm 538K
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.160
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 12: Thermal Flat Side Discontinuity Factor Behavior
33
The internal corners will be examined next. Sides 15 west, 15 north, 16 north,
and 21 west from Figure 6 are the internal corners. The discontinuity factors for the
internal corners shift with changes in moderator temperature and moderator boron
concentration. Unlike the flat sides, the internal corners group themselves more based on
location. Sides 15 west and 21 west are interfacing with a fresh naturally enriched
assembly, sides 15 north and 16 north are facing a fresh assembly enriched to 3.2 w/o
without burnable absorbers. In Figure 13 below working clockwise from the left most
grouping of discontinuity factors is side 15 west, 16 north, 21 west, and 15 north. The
two sides touching the inner corner, 15 west and 15 north are grouped together to the
lower left and the two inner corner sides that are further away from the inner corner are at
the top right of the plot. Position matters, a fact reinforced with parameterization.
0ppm 293K
Inner-Corner DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

0.990
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.980
0ppm 618K
0.970
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.960
0ppm 558K
DF1
0.950
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.940
0ppm 618K
0.930
0ppm 293K
0.920
0ppm 558K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 578K
0.910
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.900
0ppm 293K
0.890
0.0500
0ppm 538K
0.0700
0.0900
0.1100
0.1300
0.1500
0.1700
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 13: Fast Inner-Corner Discontinuity Factor Behavior
34
The inner corner thermal discontinuity factors display a grouping behavior and
are shown in Figure 14 below. The grouping behavior for the thermal discontinuity
factors is slightly different than that seen above with the fast discontinuity factors.
Looking closely at Figure 14 there is overlap between the four sides. The data is
arranged clockwise from the top right as 15 west, 21 west, 16 north, and 15 north. Both
data sets of 15 north, 15 west and 16 north, 21 west overlap each other in a continuing
manner; meaning that the light blue diamonds at the bottom of the plot for 16 north 293K
form a line that continues up to the darker blue diamonds of 21 west 293K. The same
occurs for other temperatures between 16 north and 21 west. Likewise the inner-inner
corner sides of 15 west and 15 north enjoy some overlap as well. This again shows that
location affects the data more so than fuel type.
0ppm 293K
Inner-Corner DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

0.400
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.350
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.300
0ppm 558K
DF2
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.250
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.200
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.150
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.100
0.020
0ppm 538K
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.140
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 14: Inner-Corner Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior
35
The data above in Figures 7 through 14 were from a mini-core loaded with fresh
uranium oxide fuel only. This was done to provide a data set from both different
positions and different fuel assemblies at the interface. The next set of plots comes from
a mini-core model with burned assemblies at the periphery in a symmetric loading
pattern. This symmetric pattern does not offer this difference in fuel next to the interface
as seen in the first set of plots; however it represents the typical in-out loading pattern
that is used today. As with Figures 7 through 14 the data for each side is grouped in
overlapping sets of data of different temperatures. Looking at Figure 15 below and
working from left to right in the figure below are: 25 north, 26 north, 5 west, and 11 west.
The sides closest to the reflective boundary behave similarly as do the two sides which
are one node away from the reflective boundary. Their magnitudes are of course shifted.
0ppm 293K
Flat Sides DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux
0.940
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.935
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.930
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.925
DF1
0ppm 538K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.920
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.915
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.910
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.905
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.900
0ppm 538K
0.1670 0.1680 0.1690 0.1700 0.1710 0.1720 0.1730 0.1740 0.1750 0.1760
0ppm 558K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 618K
Figure 15: Flat-Sides Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior
36
Analyzing the thermal discontinuity factors for the same flat sides as in Figure 15,
we see in Figure 16 below. The overlap of sides in Figure 16 is very similar to the
overlap seen in Figure 12. Sides 5 west and 11 west are overlapping each other in the
bottom left of the plot, while sides 25 north and 26 north are overlapping each other in
the top right portion of the plot. Even with identical fuel, a twice burned 3.2 w/o
assembly, in each position next to the reflector-core interface, we still see the same
groupings of sides as with different assemblies of Figure 12. This grouping of the results
is consistent with the parameterization results which will show that position is dominant
not the loading pattern.
0ppm 293K
Flat Sides DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux
0.290
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.270
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.250
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.230
DF2
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.210
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.190
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.170
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.150
0.040
0ppm 538K
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 16: Flat-Sides Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior
37
The inner-corner fast discontinuity factors are analyzed next. Sides 15 west and
15 north overlap each other at the bottom left of Figure 17. Sides 16 north and 21 west
overlap each other at the top right of Figure 17. This grouping of data based on reflector
location is, again, consistent with the overall findings in this study. As in the other plots
the change in temperature still exerts a shift in the data, however that shift is very small in
comparison to change in magnitude due to the change in position along the fuel-reflector
interface.
0ppm 293K

0.960
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.950
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.940
0ppm 558K
DF1
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.930
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.920
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.910
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.900
0.1000
0ppm 538K
0.1100
0.1200
0.1300
0.1400
0.1500
0.1600
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 17: Inner-Corner Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior
38
Looking to the inner-corner thermal discontinuity factor behavior in Figure 18

below, similar results are illustrated in terms of groupings of sides. Sides 16 north and 21
west both overlap each other in the data shown in the lower left portion of the plot. Sides
15 west and 15 north overlap each other and are seen in the top right portion of the plot.
Position again dominates in discontinuity factor behavior.
0ppm 293K

0.260
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.240
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.220
0ppm 558K
DF2
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.200
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.180
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.160
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.140
0.010
0ppm 538K
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 18: Inner-Corner Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior
Analysis of core loadings with both MOX and Uranium assemblies at the
periphery show a similar tendency to be position dependent. MOX does have an effect
on the inner-corner uranium assembly fuel-reflector interface. The harder spectrum shifts
the discontinuity factors. The following figures will show the MOX loading pattern with
39
all MOX at the periphery. Following that we will return to the above mini-core but look
at reflector constants. The discontinuity factors of the MOX fuel-reflector interface
behave more like steady points rather than shifting data as seen in the figures above. The
discontinuity factors still shift, and as a matter of fact their behavior is not as linear. In
fact, close inspection of the data reveals interesting trends with inflection points. Plotted
with a bigger scale however, as in Figure 19 we see the variation due to burnup,
moderator temperature, and moderator boron concentration is rather small compared to
the uranium loading patterns. In Figure 19 below, if we work clockwise from the top the
data is grouped by sides in the figure as follows: side 11 west, side 26 north, side 25
north, and side 5 west. Sides 5 west and 11 west are facing a fresh MOX assembly while
sides 25 north and 26 north are facing that same assembly but twice burned.
0ppm 293K
Flat-Side DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
1.600
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
1.500
0ppm 618K
1.400
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
1.300
0ppm 558K
DF1
1.200
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
1.100
0ppm 618K
1.000
0ppm 293K
0.900
0ppm 558K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 578K
0.800
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.700
0ppm 293K
0.600
0.1500
0ppm 538K
0.1700
0.1900
0.2100
0.2300
0.2500
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 19: MOX Flat-Side Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior
40
Analyzing the thermal discontinuity factors for the flat-sides occurs in Figure 20
below. Side 5 west data, below a discontinuity factor value of 0.160 and 0.140 appears in
the lower left hand corner of the plot. Sides 11 west and 26 north overlap a little bit and
are seen near discontinuity values of 0.180 and above 0.160. Side 25 north is seen above
all of the other data near a discontinuity value below 0.240 and 0.220 in Figure 19. The
shift in discontinuity factors due to changes in temperature is more drastic than changes
in burnup as expected with MOX.
0ppm 293K
Flat-Side DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

0.260
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.240
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.220
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.200
DF2
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.180
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.160
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.140
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.120
0ppm 538K
0.000
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 20: MOX Flat-Side Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior
41
The inner-corner fast discontinuity factor behavior is shown below in Figure 21.
The sides are grouped together as in all previous plots, and here no overlap from one side
to another occurs. Clockwise from the top left of the figure are sides: 15 north, 21 west,
16 north and 15 west. As in the strictly uranium loading patterns the inner-inner corner
sides of 15 west and 15 north are to the left of the flat-inner corner sides of 16 north and
21 west. For MOX, location matters over fuel type, just as it did with uranium loading
patterns. In addition the variation in the discontinuity factors due to the change in
temperature is not noticeable at this scale compared to the change due to location on the
fuel-reflector interface.
0ppm 293K

2.000
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
1.800
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
1.600
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
1.400
DF1
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
1.200
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
1.000
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.800
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.600
0ppm 538K
-0.0500
0.0000
0.0500
0.1000
0.1500
0.2000
0.2500
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 21: MOX Inner-Corner Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior
42
The inner-corner thermal discontinuity factors are displayed in Figure 22 below.

The discontinuity factors have grouped themselves according to location along the fuelreflector interface. Side 15 north is located in the top left portion of the figure below.
Side 15 west is located just below the discontinuity factor value of 0.300 in the figure
below. Sides 21 west and 16 north are in close proximity to each other. Side 21 west is
elongated more along the x-axis and appears above the 16 north side data which is
directly below and more tightly located along the x-axis.
0ppm 293K

0.700
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.600
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.500
0ppm 558K
DF2
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.400
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.300
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.200
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.100
0ppm 538K
-0.150
-0.100
-0.050
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 22: MOX Inner-Corner Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior
43
The discontinuity factors were the initial step in calculating the reflector constants
which are the ratios of the homogenized nodal constants to the discontinuity factors. The
plots in the next set of Figures will show the reflector constant behavior of the mini-core
which most closely matches actual core loading patterns at the fuel-reflector interface
with burned fuel at the periphery. This pattern matches the in-out loading patterns used
today. Figures 7 through 14 above showed data for a loading pattern of a non-symmetric
nature, the following plots have a loading pattern that is symmetric. Starting from the
data at the top of the figure below and working clockwise are sides: 26 north, 11 west, 5
west, and 25 north. The reflector constants group themselves as the discontinuity factors
did.
Flat Sides a1/DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux
0.0030
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.0029
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
a1/DF1 [cm-1]
0.0028
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.0027
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.0026
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.0025
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.0024
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.0023
0ppm 538K
0.1670 0.1680 0.1690 0.1700 0.1710 0.1720 0.1730 0.1740 0.1750 0.1760
0ppm 558K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 618K
Figure 23: Flat-Sides Fast Absorption Reflector Constant Behavior
44
The flat-side thermal absorption reflector constant behavior is shown in Figure 24

below. This reflector constant overlaps more so than the discontinuity factors did. In
Figure 24, sides 25 north and 26 north appear on the upper right diagonal of the figure.
Similarly the data for sides 5 west and 11 west occurs towards the bottom left of the
figure. It is important to note that the 293K data for both sides 5 west and 11 west occurs
further to the top right portion of the plot on the diagonal than the higher temperature data
for the sides 25 north and side 26 north.
Flat-Side a2/DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

0.220
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.200
0ppm 293K
a2/DF2 [cm-1]
0ppm 538K
0.180
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.160
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.140
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.120
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.100
0ppm 538K
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 24: Flat-Side Thermal Absorption Reflector Constant Behavior
45
The inner-corner fast absorption reflector constant behavior is shown below in

Figure 25. The data below for each side is grouped, however sides 15 west and 15 north
overlap each other in the top left portion of the plot below, while sides 16 north and 21
west overlap in the bottom right portion of the figure below. The elongation of the data is
due to burnup as described with the first plot of discontinuity factor data.
Inner-Corner a1/DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

0.0032
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.0030
0ppm 293K
a1/DF1 [cm-1]
0ppm 538K
0.0028
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.0026
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.0024
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.0022
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.0020
0ppm 538K
0.1000
0.1100
0.1200
0.1300
0.1400
0.1500
0.1600
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 25: Inner-Corner Fast Absorption Reflector Constant Behavior
46
The inner-corner thermal absorption reflector constant behavior is shown in

Figure 26 below. Sides 15 west and 15 north data overlap on one another and appear in
the right portion of the plot. The higher temperature data appears towards the bottom of
the plot, while the 293K data appears higher around a reflector constant value of 0.170.
The data for sides 16 north and 21 west overlap as well and appear to the left of the side
15 data. The data overlaps less than the fast data did causing the different temperature
data sets to stratify the plot area in bands of their respective data colors.
Inner-Corner a2/DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal

Flux
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.180
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.170
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
a2/DF2 [cm-1]
0.160
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.150
0ppm 598K
0.140
0ppm 618K
0.130
0ppm 538K
0.120
0ppm 578K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 598K
0.110
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.100
0.000
0ppm 538K
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 26: Inner-Corner Thermal Absorption Reflector Constant Behavior
47
The diffusion coefficient reflector constant appears in the next set of four plots.
The data is grouped by side in the plot below. Starting from the data set furthest to the
left in the figure and working to the right are the sides: 25 north, 26 north, 5 west, and 11
west. The diffusion reflector constants incur the most amount of absolute error when
they are parameterized using a linear fit.
There small reliance on the independent
variable as seen below could be a possible cause.
0ppm 293K
Flat-Sides D1/DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

0.830
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.825
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
D1/DF1 [cm]
0ppm 558K
0.820
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.815
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.810
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.805
0ppm 538K
0.1670 0.1680 0.1690 0.1700 0.1710 0.1720 0.1730 0.1740 0.1750 0.1760
0ppm 558K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 618K
Figure 27: Flat Sides Fast Diffusion Reflector Constant Behavior
48
The flat-sides thermal diffusion reflector constant appears in the figure below.
Sides 5 west and 11 west are grouped together at the top of the plot. Their respective
293K data is to the top right of the plot, while the higher temperatures lie to the top left.
Sides 25 north and 26 north data lie below and to the right of sides 5 west and 11 west.
Similarly the 293K data is to the right of the higher temperature data sets.
0ppm 293K
Flat-Side D2/DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

1.300
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
1.200
0ppm 293K
D2/DF2 [cm]
0ppm 538K
1.100
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
1.000
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.900
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.800
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.700
0ppm 538K
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.090
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 28: Flat Side Thermal Diffusion Reflector Constant Behavior
49
The inner-corner fast diffusion coefficient reflector constant behavior is shown in

Figure 29 below.
As with the flat-sides, here the inner-corner side data sets are
overlapping one another. Sides 15 west and 15 north are in the lower left portion of the
figure while sides 16 north and 21 west are found in the top right of the figure. Similarly
the temperature variation is not seen in each sides data set due to the overlap. The
elongation is due to the burning of the mini-core.
0ppm 293K
Inner-Corner D1/DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

0.840
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.830
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.820
D1/DF1 [cm]
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.810
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.800
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.790
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.780
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.770
0ppm 538K
0.1000
0.1100
0.1200
0.1300
0.1400
0.1500
0.1600
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 29: Inner-Corner Fast Diffusion Reflector Constant Behavior
50
The inner-corner thermal diffusion reflector constant behavior is shown in Figure

30 below. As in Figure 28 above the data sets for each side are overlapping one another.
Sides 15 west and 15 north appear at the bottom of the plot with data for the 293K
conditions appearing to the right of the higher temperature data sets for the same side.
Sides 16 north and 21 west lie in the upper region of Figure 30. Similarly, the 293K data
appears to the right of the higher temperature data sets.
0ppm 293K
D2/DF2 [cm]
Inner-Corner D2/DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal

Flux
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
1.300
0ppm 598K
1.250
0ppm 618K
1.200
0ppm 538K
1.150
0ppm 558K
1.100
0ppm 598K
1.050
0ppm 618K
1.000
0ppm 538K
0.950
0ppm 558K
0.900
0ppm 598K
0.850
0ppm 618K
0.800
0ppm 538K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 293K
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 30: Inner-Corner Thermal Diffusion Reflector Constant Behavior
51
The flat-side removal reflector constant data appears in Figure 31 below. The
data sets for each side do not overlap in the figure below. Working clockwise from the
data set on the far right is side: 11 west, 26 north, 25 north and 5 west. Data sets for sides
11 west and 26 north have similar behavior as do sides 25 north and 5 west. This
behavior is dependent on the location of the surface along the fuel-reflector interface.
Flat-Side R/DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

0.028
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.028
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
R/DF1 [cm-1]
0.027
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0.027
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.026
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0.026
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.025
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.025
0ppm 538K
0.1670 0.1680 0.1690 0.1700 0.1710 0.1720 0.1730 0.1740 0.1750 0.1760
0ppm 558K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 618K
Figure 31: Flat Side Removal Reflector Constant Behavior
52
The inner-corner removal reflector constant behavior is shown in Figure 32

below.
Unlike Figure 31 above, the sides are grouping themselves together and
overlapping. Sides 15 west and 15 north appear as the dot in the lower left portion of
Figure 32, while sides 16 north and 21 west overlap and appear in the upper right hand
portion of the plot.
Inner-Corner R/DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

0.032
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
0.030
0ppm 293K
R/DF1 [cm-1]
0ppm 538K
0.028
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.026
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0ppm 538K
0.024
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0.022
0ppm 618K
0ppm 293K
0.020
0.1000
0ppm 538K
0.1100
0.1200
0.1300
0.1400
0.1500
0.1600
0ppm 558K
0ppm 578K
0ppm 598K
0ppm 618K
Figure 32: Inner-Corner Removal Reflector Constant Behavior
Discontinuity factor and reflector constant behavior is similar for all mini-cores
studied. The behavior as the mini-core was burned may differ, however the shifts due to
changes in temperature and boron concentration are essentially the same.
53
CHAPTER 4
Parameterization
The parameterization occurred in two steps.
The axial discontinuity factors
contained a much smaller set of data and were analyzed separately from the radial factors
and constants.
Due to the location along the fuel-reflector interface being most
important, the PWR axial models were parameterized separately from the BWR axial
models.
This is due to the much larger difference relative difference in reflector
composition between the PWR and BWR models.

Ideally axial reflector composition drawings would have been obtained and a
detailed axial model would have been set up in PARAGON as it was done for the radial
modeling. The axial data was not readily obtainable and reproduction of previously
developed models was done. Leakage in the axial direction is typically small; however it
will be recommended for future work that axial models be given more attention.
The axial discontinuity factors and reflector constants from the sensitivity study
were gathered and analyzed. Each factor was regressed using a linear fit. The linear
equation was then used to predict the factors and constants. An absolute percent error
was calculated by taking the prediction and subtracting the actual factor from it. The
PWR axial models are discussed first followed by the BWR axial models.
54
For the PWR axial models large absolute errors appeared when using a linear
regression. These absolute errors in Table 3 below suggest that changes to increase the
data set overall to include more temperatures and conditions need to be done, modeling
of the reflector as a two-dimensional assembly rather than one row of pins, or a different
grouping of data for regression needs to occur. Table 3 has been conditionally formatted
from the largest positive magnitude in red to the largest magnitude negative in blue.
Table 3: PWR Axial Absolute Percent Error of Predicted Constant and Factor Data
Absolute Error: (Predicted - Actual)*100%
1-D Axial Model
Equivalence
top_0ppm_575
top_0ppm_575_CR
top_0ppm_575_fresh
top_0ppm_575_CR_fresh
top_0ppm_610
top_0ppm_610_CR
top_0ppm_610_fresh
top_900ppm_575
top_900ppm_575_CR
top_900ppm_575_fresh
top_900ppm_610
top_900ppm_610_CR
top_900ppm_610_fresh
bottom_0ppm_540_feed
fbottom_0ppm_540_feed
DF1
11.748521
17.303182
-6.600885
-30.016796
4.555617
19.530475
-5.922213
-10.597901
3.778634
17.207546
-5.456249
-7.963952
-6.311541
13.531308
-11.310267
-3.475478
25.202320
19.376897
-48.850431
4.271215
-12.831517
-38.964625
36.479629
15.316513
Maximum
Minimum
36.479629
-48.850431
Equivalence Reflector Constants

DF2
-1.040185
3.148093
-4.586771
2.626068
-1.815705
3.969232
-5.610432
3.309699
4.728230
-3.757466
3.093657
-4.211627
4.090252
-2.790221
2.195169
-3.347996
1.555384
-1.634993
1.688185
-1.608576
-1.564678
1.705564
-1.678891
1.538005
D1 /DF1
-6.366993
-12.928029
14.285907
6.336146
-7.554697
-11.405973
11.064776
6.568863
-8.485686
-10.511164
10.629633
7.040187
-8.399805
-7.841617
8.997368
8.571085
0.441501
-0.247166
1.002920
-1.197256
-1.153449
0.948786
-0.290972
0.495635
a1 /DF1
-0.146158
-0.176401
0.073508
0.260091
-0.104450
-0.219160
0.118618
0.193951
-0.044166
-0.239523
0.144213
0.128434
-0.002591
-0.260503
0.187765
0.086370
0.001896
0.000985
0.000536
-0.003417
-0.003679
0.000381
0.001247
0.002051
r /DF1
0.006515
-0.022979
0.125216
-0.079357
0.021654
-0.019534
0.072028
-0.103543
-0.123997
0.067259
-0.003959
0.031302
-0.072478
0.087367
-0.012101
0.026608
0.015466
-0.014897
0.047294
-0.047862
-0.045480
0.045695
-0.017279
0.017064
D2 /DF2
4.847764
-6.562464
9.642762
-5.722557
-0.083035
-4.233767
4.718047
-2.606748
-6.414436
3.433773
-3.082441
3.857600
-7.259078
5.961572
-3.632170
7.135180
1.814191
-2.607189
2.337967
-1.544970
-1.439335
2.278997
-2.712824
1.873161
a /DF2
-0.277547
-2.407928
3.423666
-0.116571
-7.580553
3.705561
-3.507039
6.760410
3.557084
-6.932813
7.666406
-4.912299
-2.940364
-0.387032
1.551470
2.397547
0.671744
-0.755203
0.732165
-0.648705
-0.619238
0.731328
-0.784671
0.672581
55
For the BWR axial models, only the top reflector model is regressed because
bottom reflector models only contained two data points that dont make an accurate
portrayal of the true regression. The regressions are done as a function of the Net
Current/Surface Flux and the void. The BWR regressions have a smaller absolute error
at the maximum and minimum as seen in Table 4 below, however the variety of cases
regressed was much smaller.
There was one reflector configuration regressed over
multiple void fractions. The BWR data suggests that the PWR data could be regressed
more successfully if the reflector region compositions were taken into account. The
PWR bottom axial reflector data contradicts this assumption because the bottom reflector
region remains the same with a changing boron and moderator temperature. Further
strengthening of the axial methodology and plan of attack is required in future work.
Table 4: BWR Axial Factor and Constant Absolute Percent Error

Absolute Percent Error: (Predicted - Actual)*100%
1-D Axial Model
Equivalence
Equivalence Reflector Constants
DF1
DF2
D1/DF1
a1/DF1
r/DF1
D2/DF2
a/DF2
Bottom Control Blade

Bottom No Control Blade
Top 0 Void
Top 10 Void
Top 20 Void
Top 30 Void
Top 40 Void
Top 50 Void
Top 60 Void
Top 70 Void
Top 80 Void
Top 90 Void
-0.045751
0.003111
0.029303
0.036635
0.022750
0.003650
-0.020128
-0.038266
-0.029494
0.038190
-0.021764
0.008049
0.018889
0.012918
-0.000575
-0.008106
-0.009828
-0.007709
0.001953
0.006173
-0.542765
-0.016676
0.279114
0.376956
0.466116
0.235655
-0.203703
-0.572515
-0.714296
0.692115
1.733446
1.271695
0.846202
0.467264
0.154192
-0.093137
-0.249628
-0.278332
-0.139802
0.274180
-0.001285
-0.000037
0.000778
0.001171
0.000905
-0.000024
-0.000651
-0.001019
-0.001054
0.001215
0.187979
-0.008463
-0.112899
-0.136810
-0.131896
-0.062465
0.091904
0.212212
0.196256
-0.235817
-0.003550
0.000466
0.002434
0.002794
0.001730
-0.000188
-0.001971
-0.002884
-0.001794
0.002963
Maximum
Minimum
1.733446
-0.714296
56
Next the details of the parameterization of the radial discontinuity factors and
reflector constants are discussed. The radial reflector modeling contained a vastly wider
array of fuel types, fuel burnup, moderator temperatures, boron concentrations, and
moderator densities when compared with the axial modeling. This is somewhat expected
as the radial modeling can be more complex when considering that many assemblies
contain natural blankets at both their top and bottom.
The parameterization was carried out as follows:

1. Discontinuity Factors and Reflector Constants were gathered.
2. Linear Regressions were Performed based on Moderator Temp, Boron
Concentration, Net J/Surface Flux, and Moderator Density if Applicable.
3. Predictions were made based on the Regressions.
4. Absolute Errors were Calculated: (Predicted Actual)*100%
A linear regression was found to be adequate for both uranium loading and MOX
loading patterns. The two types of fuel cannot be regressed together for the same
reflector location without introducing excessively large errors. Two mini-cores were
voided in the fuel region. These voided cases were difficult to parameterize. It is
recommended that a relationship for uranium at the fuel-reflector interface and a separate
relationship for MOX at the fuel-reflector interface be developed. The difficulty in
parameterizing voided cases may require a separate relationship. Further investigation is
required.
57
During the parameterization process each mini-core had a relationship developed

for each individual node side along the fuel-reflector interface for both fast and thermal
energy groups.
Initial discussions suggested developing relationships for the
discontinuity factors and reflector constants based on whether they were on a flat or
inner-corner side; the errors encountered is higher than acceptable. Developing constants
for the same fuel assembly along the fuel-reflector interface by grouping neighboring
node faces leads to errors smaller than those seen from grouping flat and inner-corner
sides, but much larger than individual node relationships. Using individually developed
relationships for each node face on the fuel-reflector interface for each energy group is
best. It was also found that relationships can be developed for uranium and MOX fuel
that covers a wide array of enrichments and burnups. The following tables illustrate the
magnitudes of the errors in each case through a listing of the highest absolute errors for
each mini-core or set of mini-cores.
The errors in Table 5 below occur in the thermal energy group, if it exists for that
constant. The errors for the voided cases are by far the highest. The maximum error is
determined by finding the error with the highest positive magnitude, whereas the
minimum error is determined by finding the largest negative magnitude. The errors are
located across the data set for all sides and energy groups. The maximum errors are not
indicative of the average error seen throughout the data sets. Locations of the errors will
be discussed for the combination of mini-cores that were parameterized, and absolute
errors will be located in the appendix for inspection. In addition to the individual sides,
assemblies were modeled by grouping neighboring faces in Table 6.
58
Table 5: Individual Side Maximum Absolute Errors
Individual
MiniCore
DF
Sig A/DF
MAX
MIN
D/DF
MAX
MIN
MAX
Sig R/DF
MIN
MAX
MIN
F480_2320_2320_DENS040
1.558459
-2.070572
1.346410
-1.675945
7.443446
-11.942856
0.005918
-0.010583
F480_2320_2320_DENS050
1.686324
-1.943243
1.586682
-1.927153
6.163832
-9.913567
0.005476
-0.008953
F480_2320_2320_DENS060
1.750503
-1.829825
1.597617
-2.046164
5.593410
-8.766644
0.007577
-0.008170
F480_2320_2320_DENS072
1.814575
-1.756600
1.702681
-2.287026
5.121642
-8.543196
0.011272
-0.012595
F480_F320_2480
2.498985
-1.854561
2.154268
-2.185231
7.695234
-10.539861
0.018415
-0.013086
F480_F320_2480_REFL
2.499737
-1.855540
2.153717
-2.185944
7.697723
-10.547070
0.018437
-0.013086
F480_F320_F074
3.258230
-3.107092
2.079169
-2.187517
4.331855
-7.766403
0.023510
-0.039375
F480_F320_F074_VOID
76.035910
-11.093110
9.675415
-21.857952
66.400262
-249.641920
5.354190
-0.826182
F480_F320_2MOX
4.631051
-2.566974
2.353082
-2.170346
6.292381
-9.104068
0.095136
-0.070592
F480_FMOX_2MOX
7.777114
-7.707727
2.279489
-2.016213
5.295540
-10.044947
0.056606
-0.108233
F480_FMOX_1320
4.552449
-3.278872
2.638410
-2.402291
6.374035
-12.446458
0.021717
-0.028814
F480_FMOX_2480
2.977110
-3.270520
2.599822
-2.259979
6.729886
-12.416460
0.044663
-0.029600
F480_FMOX_F074
4.441298
-4.189975
2.976249
-2.256110
8.345223
-12.141917
0.035679
-0.039001
F480_FMOX_F074_VOID
73.348685
-10.870875
9.231620
-27.835555
63.695456
-286.272852
5.467360
-0.409471
F480_FMOX_F074_REFL
4.444354
-4.195300
2.972911
-2.254378
8.339583
-12.171421
0.035036
-0.038974
Table 6: Individual Assembly Side Maximum Absolute Errors

Assembly Sides
MiniCore
DF
MAX
Sig A/DF
MIN
MAX
MIN
D/DF
MAX
Sig R/DF
MIN
MAX
MIN
F480_2320_2320_DENS040
1.708568
-2.100777
1.401304
-1.904103
8.790753
-15.254537
0.028991
-0.024619
F480_2320_2320_DENS050
1.691336
-1.967303
1.605338
-2.054535
6.257670
-12.014126
0.021181
-0.019309
F480_2320_2320_DENS060
1.752892
-1.832302
1.630091
-2.204527
5.390081
-9.665478
0.030306
-0.026710
F480_2320_2320_DENS072
1.814356
-1.753409
1.723860
-2.365641
4.738726
-9.110183
0.033468
-0.030751
F480_F320_2480
2.689446
-2.707301
2.962474
-2.268548
8.291249
-10.817198
0.018286
-0.022587
F480_F320_2480_REFL
2.689596
-2.707705
2.961927
-2.312471
8.296514
-10.831534
0.019386
-0.023511
F480_F320_F074
3.840963
-4.856397
3.487299
-2.915349
5.102979
-8.327818
0.048462
-0.039933
F480_F320_F074_VOID
25.034826
-10.043342
8.932102
-21.954329
61.266537
-220.343161
4.428826
-0.338352
F480_F320_2MOX
28.771553
-32.688062
3.292235
-4.076205
18.460803
-17.382684
0.576498
-0.508959
F480_FMOX_2MOX
14.409543
-13.557742
5.294981
-6.662330
31.788764
-36.481058
0.295928
-0.242544
F480_FMOX_1320
36.594435
-28.092579
11.640742
-9.072063
30.298004
-23.062474
0.506835
-0.640174
F480_FMOX_2480
12.086597
-16.099326
11.775511
-9.686356
49.494908
-31.965910
0.268906
-0.212730
F480_FMOX_F074
12.093628
-19.994265
12.073787
-9.413937
23.112128
-15.727417
0.295227
-0.276381
F480_FMOX_F074_VOID
26.691221
-9.999030
8.691459
-24.160861
59.918256
-264.370978
4.460751
-2.824725
F480_FMOX_F074_REFL
12.524468
-19.985154
12.077672
-9.406447
23.101018
-15.742229
0.294956
-0.276147
59
The voided cases are again the cases with the highest errors. Also there is an
increase in the magnitude of the maximum and minimum errors for each mini-core from
the modeling of individual sides to individual assemblies.
Modeling of individual
assemblies in Table 6 was performed by combining neighboring faces on the fuelreflector interface. The following table has even higher magnitude errors and is the result
of combining all of the flat sides, (5 west, 11 west, 25 north, 26 north from Figure 6) in
one relationship, and combining all inner-corners, (15 west, 21 west, 15 north, 16 north
from Figure 6):
Table 7: Flat and Inner-Corner Side Maximum Absolute Errors
Flat and Inner Corner
MiniCore
DF
MAX
Sig A/DF
MIN
MAX
MIN
D/DF
MAX
MIN
Sig R/DF
MAX
MIN
F480_2320_2320_DENS040
5.816247
-6.514283
3.094978
-3.302006
41.347819
-35.109391
0.096236
-0.099024
F480_2320_2320_DENS050
5.634528
-6.912250
3.226782
-3.389403
31.035074
-25.015197
0.114536
-0.117313
F480_2320_2320_DENS060
5.374862
-6.972131
3.383028
-3.432719
23.934402
-17.738379
0.136497
-0.140731
F480_2320_2320_DENS072
4.991794
-6.593102
3.823919
-3.684974
18.292299
-13.615393
0.157455
-0.162977
F480_F320_2480
5.494831
-7.801155
4.372796
-4.109073
23.633188
-22.653216
0.490033
-0.670180
F480_F320_2480_REFL
5.489097
-7.801430
4.369681
-4.104868
23.609301
-22.776427
0.489898
-0.669830
F480_F320_F074
7.478829
-10.078945
5.312602
-4.657267
12.585547
-16.614271
0.521297
-0.873499
F480_F320_F074_VOID
15.472410
-48.266480
6.638049
-28.831804
101.579197
-222.014497
-1.202610
-2.404721
F480_F320_2MOX
46.242935
-47.747673
9.453420
-8.451485
40.927715
-40.341798
0.718038
-0.737156
F480_FMOX_2MOX
44.397017
-50.110925
10.671342
-15.393044
46.336767
-70.567760
0.783430
-0.486387
F480_FMOX_1320
23.511508
-23.442068
15.526964
-17.424082
35.791986
-59.895967
0.399186
-0.458542
F480_FMOX_2480
24.553888
-24.981290
18.491579
-17.584854
41.566285
-60.422841
0.296508
-0.364186
F480_FMOX_F074
25.957294
-26.955643
14.936521
-18.274640
47.436681
-62.768594
0.334665
-0.746665
F480_FMOX_F074_VOID
16.789241
-26.517476
2.034958
-32.654679
49.994132
-273.678184
-0.647004
-3.623273
F480_FMOX_F074_REFL
25.975058
-26.956181
14.933590
-18.241219
47.323140
-62.536680
0.334260
-0.746014
From the tables and inspection of the set of absolute errors, it is seen that the
lowest errors occur when each individual half-node side along the fuel-reflector interface
is modeled individually.
The next table combines several mini-cores together to
60
determine if the parameterization is dependent on the loading pattern or if the Net

J/Surface Flux parameter adequately captures the effect of the environment. It was found
that is does; however MOX and uranium fuel behave differently enough to warrant
separate parameterization for each.
Table 8: Maximum Absolute Errors for Multiple Minicore Modelings

Combination
MiniCore
DF
MAX
MIN
2.7986036
-8.2285967
6.1559926
-6.4273296
Sig A/DF
MAX
D/DF
Sig R/DF
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
5.5491636
-1.2409698
17.634372
-20.0518686
0.06038
-0.072902
3.9044655
-3.1922584
10.365159
-13.3646958
0.0451
-0.056218
F480_2320_2320_DENS040
F480_2320_2320_DENS050
F480_2320_2320_DENS060
F480_2320_2320_DENS072
F480_F320_2480
F480_F320_2480_REFL
F480_F320_F074
F480_F320_F074_VOID
F480_F320_2MOX
F480_FMOX_2MOX
F480_FMOX_F074_VOID
F480_FMOX_1320
F480_FMOX_2480
F480_FMOX_F074
F480_FMOX_F074_REFL
Table 8 above shows that the different mini-cores can be combined together in
one parameterization and adequately model the discontinuity factors and reflector
constants. The Voided cases were not combined in the uranium and MOX combinations
due to their large errors in Table 5. The cases with MOX in a minority location as
compared to the other MOX cases was not combined with MOX cases due to the high
61
errors associated with mixing uranium and MOX loadings for the same location on the
fuel-reflector interface.
These errors were upwards of forty absolute percent.
The
maximum and minimum errors occur under specific conditions to be discussed next.
The maximum errors for the uranium combination of mini-cores occur primarily
in the mini-cores with the lower moderator density, high boron concentration and lower
temperatures as a whole. Some of these high errors occur at other temperatures from
293K but the cases are 2000 ppm and 3000 ppm boron. Errors above 5 absolute percent
in the absorption reflector constant occurred in the thermal group, 3000 ppm, and 293K
for the moderator density case of 0.60 g/cc. For the diffusion reflector constant, absolute
errors occur throughout the mini-cores and conditions for the thermal energy group.
Absolute errors for the fast diffusion reflector constant are typically under one percent.
Errors for the removal reflector constant are acceptable and below a fraction of an
absolute percent.
For the MOX loading patterns that were combined the maximum absolute errors
for the discontinuity factors are localized in two mini-cores under high the highest burnup
for the MOX assembly, side 11W in the fast group. The absorption reflector constant had
errors of less than 4 absolute percent. The diffusion reflector constant for the MOX
parameterization showed more of a clustering of high absolute errors, however they still
occurred over a wide range of conditions. The highest errors both positive and negative
appear to occur at cases of 293K. Errors for the removal reflector constant are acceptable
and below a fraction of an absolute percent.
62
The parameterization performed in this study is just the first step in developing
the relationships of the discontinuity factors and reflector constants to the varying core
conditions. Further development is necessary, however the initial analysis shows that
parameterization is possible using the fuel-reflector interface condition of the net current
to the surface flux.
63
CHAPTER 5
Conclusion
The discontinuity factor routine developed based on equivalence theory has been
shown to be properly implemented through its reproduction of the PARAGON reference
solution in Chapter 2. In addition, the routine provides smaller improvements where the
generic set of Westinghouse reflector constants currently in use generates good results,
and more importantly the routine provides a much larger improvement where the generic
constants do not perform as well. These improvements are in both the global eigenvalue
and local power distribution as noted in Chapter 2.
Chapter 3 discussed the behavior of the various factors and constants. Most
behavior was shown to be in a linear fashion, although some was not. This non-linear
behavior was mostly seen in the loading patterns containing MOX.
Chapter 4
demonstrated that a linear regression can be used to accurately predict most factors and
constants. The diffusion reflector constant is proving to be more difficult to regress,
although the errors may be deemed acceptable based on the conditions in which they
occur and their magnitude relative to previous studies conducted by Westinghouse on the
sensitivity of the global eigenvalue and local power distribution to changes in the
reflector constants of up to fifteen percent.
The voided color-sets could not be parameterized based on a linear regression.
Separate parameterizations for voided conditions could be made, however a general
parameterization to cover all core conditions was desired. Parameterizing the voided
64
conditions separately may have to be done just as with MOX. The axial voiding cases
were parameterized with much smaller errors.
The axial PWR cases proved to be
difficult and require more investigation and development.

It is recommended that color-sets be used to calculate the reflector constants as
they capture the two dimensional effects in the inner-corners of the fuel-reflector
interface.
Due to the behavior of the errors seen in the previous chapter, it is
recommended that the boron concentrations and temperatures used in this study be used.
Burnup steps can be reduced further if necessary. Originally the color-sets were burned
out to 40 GWd/MTU using 42 burnup steps. This was reduced to 11 with no noticeable
degradation in the results. Reduction to 6 burnup steps may be possible in strictly
uranium cases, however the behavior of MOX is best captured with the 11 burnup steps
used.
Changing the albedo boundary conditions one fuel pitch away from the fuelreflector interface had little to no noticeable effect on the factors and constants. A half of
an assembly pitch in distance from the interface may result in noticeable errors. The core
barrel that is located in Node 25 (Figure 6) resulted in noticeable changes in the factors
and constants when comparing them to the factors and constants generated in Node 5
with a symmetric loading pattern.
Care must be taken when modeling voiding in axial models, as noted by F.
Reitsma [12]. The axially voided models did result in parameterization with acceptable
errors, however the smeared reflector region and single row of pins may not accurately
capture the two dimensional nature it possesses. It is recommended that the axial models
include more than one row of pins and move to an assembly pitch size.
This
65
recommendation is the result of the difficulties seen in parameterizing the axial constants
and from the benefits the two-dimensional color sets brought to the radial models.
66
REFERENCES
1.
K. Koebke, Advances in Homogenization and Dehomogenization, Proc. Conf.

Advances in Mathematical Methods for Solution of Nuclear Engineering Problems,
Volume II, Munich, American Nuclear Society. p. 59, April 1981.
2. K. Smith, Assembly Homogenization Techniques for Light Water Reactor Analysis,

Prog. In Nuclear Energy, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 303-335, 1986.
3. L. Hetzelt, H-J Winter, Generalization of the Equaivalent Reflector Model for the
Siemens Standard Core Design Procedure, Proc. of M&C 99 Conference, Madrid, Spain
(1999).
4. E. Muller, Environment-Insensitive Equivalence Diffusion Theory Group Constants for
Pressurized Water Reactor Radial Reflector Regions, Nuclear Science and Engineering,
103, 359-376 (1989).
5. E. Muller, Improved Pressurized Water Reactor Radial Reflector Modeling in Nodal
Analysis, Nuclear Science and Engineering, 109, 200-214 (1991).
6. Y. Takara, T. Kanagawa, and H. Sekimoto, Two-dimensional Baffle/Reflector
Constants for Nodal Code in PWR Core Design, Journal of Nuclear Science and
Technology, Vol. 37, p. 986-995 (2000).
7. Y. Takara, H. Sekimoto, Two-dimensional Baffle/Reflector Constants Based on
Transport Equaivalent Diffusion Parameters, Proc. of PHYSOR-2002, Seoul, Korea
(2002).
8. Y. Takara, H. Sekimoto, Transport Equivalent Diffusion Constants for Reflector Region
in PWRs, Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, Vol. 39, p. 716-728 (2002).
9. B. Ivanov, Methoddology for Embedded Transport Core Calculation, PhD Thesis, PSU
2007.
67
10. E. Muller, Development of an Environment-Insensitive PWR Radial Reflector Model

Applicable to Modern Nodal Reactor Analysis Methods, PhD Thesis, Potchefstroom
University for CHO, Potchefstroom, South Africa (1989).
11. L. Mayhue, B. Zhang, D. Sato, and D. Jung, PWR Core Modeling using the NEXUS
Once-Through Cross Section Model, PHYSOR 2006 Conference, Vancouver, Canada,
(2006).
12. F. Reitsma, The Application of Advanced Homogenization Models to the Reflector
Regions of Boiling Water Reactors, Potchfstroom University for CHE, 1989.
13. PARAGON User Manual, PARAGON 1.2.0 Release, Westinghouse Electric Company
(2005).
14. T. Beam, K. Ivanov, A. Baratta, H. Finnemann, Nodal Kinetics Model Upgrade in the
Penn State Coupled TRAC/NEM Codes, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 26, 1205-1219
(1999).
15. ANC User Manual, Westinghouse Electric Company, ANC 8.7.3 Release (2001).
16. B. Bandini, A Three-Dimensional Transient Neutronics Routine for the TRAC-PF1

Reactor Thermal Hydraulic Computer Code, PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State
University, May 1990.
17. J.F. Vidal, P.B. Tellier, et. al., Analysis of the FLOULE Experiment for the APOLLO2
Validation of PWR Core Reflectors, PHYSOR 2008 Conference, Interlaken,
Switzerland, (2008).
68
APPENDIX A: MCNP Modeling

The effects of P3 scattering on thick reflectors in PWRs were raised by J. Vidal,
R. Tellier, et. al. [17]. To investigate this effect on our modeling methodology an MCNP
reference was developed. Unfortunately the libraries used were not specific to this
model, and introduced large errors.
In the near future 70 group libraries will be
developed for MCNP so that a benchmark of this type can be carried out. The details of
the MCNP modeling performed in this project are given here as a reference:
1. 3980 Total Cycles with 3890 Active Cycles.

2. Source of 30,000 Particles per Cycle.
3. K-effective 0.95691.
4. 1 Standard Deviation = 0.00007.
5. 95% CI (0.95678 0.95704).
6. PARAGON k-effective 0.95000
The 691 pcm difference was the result of non model specific multi-group libraries being
utilized.
69
APPENDIX B: Sample DF Routine Input

The Discontinuity Factors generated in this study were done so using a routine
described in Chapter 1. The routine takes the boundary conditions from a transport
reference solution, calculates the flux based on the approximation selected (polynomial or
semi-analytic) and then calculated the discontinuity factors. In the case where reflector
constants were analyzed, the homogenized constants from the transport reference solution
were divided by the discontinuity factors from the routine.
The routine was a standalone program and a sample input for a 3x3 mini-core is
given below:
&NEM
NEM_Option
= 1
&CORE
Number_Groups = 2
Number_Regions
= 36
Number_Fuel_Assemblies_Y
= 6
Number_Fuel_Assemblies_X
= 6
Quad_Leakage
= 1
&DIMENSIONS
XDimension
= 10.799975D+00
YDimension
= 10.799975D+00
&COMPOSITIONS
Composition =
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10
11
12
70
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
&ASSEMBLY_BOUNDARY_CONDITIONS
Assembly_Boundary_Condition =
0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
/
&AVERAGE_NET_CURRENTS
Average_Net_Current =
-3.123797870780E+13 -3.132302031400E+13 0.000000000000E+00
0.000000000000E+00
-2.153099236660E+12 -2.154747180180E+12 0.000000000000E+00
0.000000000000E+00
-2.632435303210E+13 -5.972966118160E+13 0.000000000000E+00
3.233382727200E+13
-1.866672294930E+12 -4.546289151800E+11 0.000000000000E+00
-8.821482642000E+11
-1.783715156220E+13 -3.816599275924E+13 0.000000000000E+00
5.972966118160E+13
-1.053596245671E+12 -1.430417749909E+12 0.000000000000E+00
4.546289151800E+11
-1.069733616340E+13 -2.930473572770E+13 0.000000000000E+00
4.121596149955E+13
-6.728286652190E+11 -4.488944936280E+11 0.000000000000E+00
3.196233267450E+11
-3.490096946440E+12 -1.083515559744E+13 0.000000000000E+00
2.930473572770E+13
-4.477720282000E+11 -1.518294845130E+12 0.000000000000E+00
4.488944936280E+11
-1.428575795142E+12 -4.420803210809E+12 0.000000000000E+00
1.239935935217E+13
-3.461199175900E+11 -3.097809012438E+12 0.000000000000E+00
9.999785722700E+11
-5.959973124340E+13 -2.640829763300E+13 3.225785152970E+13
0.000000000000E+00
-4.501168188800E+11 -1.868855241140E+12 -8.839922952100E+11 0.000000000000E+00
-5.012744277800E+13 -5.026084322030E+13 2.712670314860E+13
2.720380093150E+13
-4.180287664840E+11 -4.222176810890E+11 -7.967153718900E+11 -7.954056657100E+11
71
-3.316263602890E+13 -3.104410386924E+13 1.746476218980E+13
5.026084322030E+13
-8.673252462520E+11 -1.200197957746E+12 -3.271423296190E+11 4.222176810890E+11
-2.114557932749E+13 -2.289919591371E+13 1.041258177387E+13

1.153255368620E+11
3.376069531738E+13
-3.379570620540E+11 -2.169594520570E+11 2.399878203980E+11
-6.047802686405E+12 -8.291191481917E+12 3.127113669970E+12
2.289919591371E+13
1.087720217600E+11
-1.268768676790E+12 4.119597828000E+11
3.379570620540E+11
-1.954893773351E+12 -3.596032795807E+12 1.294611994554E+12
9.445035250622E+12
-3.785468735530E+11 -2.564127949224E+12 3.191083582900E+11
8.449212630600E+11
-3.794345064583E+13 -1.792217670420E+13 5.959973124340E+13
0.000000000000E+00
-1.426779734955E+12 -1.057986763618E+12 4.501168188800E+11
0.000000000000E+00
-3.084677855441E+13 -3.329315323044E+13 5.012744277800E+13
1.754599221830E+13
-1.198271324361E+12 -8.744106480600E+11 4.180287664840E+11
-3.276653963730E+11
-1.796079314022E+13 -1.819421951469E+13 3.316263602890E+13
3.329315323044E+13
-1.184878988520E+12 -1.112549379750E+12 8.673252462520E+11
8.744106480600E+11
-1.094147117052E+13 -1.058048544161E+13 2.114557932749E+13
1.986968754655E+13
-1.006271713830E+12 -1.127672588050E+12 -1.153255368620E+11 6.464392126400E+11
-3.683155396035E+12 -4.438314645206E+12 6.047802686405E+12
1.058048544161E+13
-9.361053426300E+11 -1.335552605003E+12 -1.087720217600E+11 1.127672588050E+12
-1.278424203317E+12 -2.415957781220E+12 1.954893773351E+12
4.908533075783E+12
-7.210135581270E+11 -1.672634163963E+12 3.785468735530E+11
1.231018411700E+12
-2.849922393797E+13 -1.080025801385E+13 4.101281858734E+13
0.000000000000E+00
-7.305643328820E+11 -6.807344584510E+11 3.090858677110E+11
0.000000000000E+00
-2.209980442141E+13 -2.124519364339E+13 3.357961427121E+13
1.051187361483E+13
-6.491577564350E+11 6.207653510500E+10
-2.167924318580E+11
2.318932729960E+11
-9.811616828001E+12 -1.123833240216E+13 1.966219226177E+13
2.124519364339E+13
-2.269941453620E+12 -9.548856575800E+11 6.891185578700E+11
-6.207653510500E+10
-5.057519402125E+12 -5.790036453265E+12 1.198724265722E+13
1.225351090948E+13
72
-3.928531993795E+12 -1.969701135510E+12 2.927223071400E+11
3.285394227700E+11
-2.300811418729E+12 -2.441857648953E+12 3.933846085183E+12
5.790036453265E+12
-2.296526640810E+11 -9.666379343370E+11 6.455347088200E+11
1.969701135510E+12
-9.765221792188E+11 -1.434943796145E+12 1.365539655565E+12
2.688142241503E+12
1.377703189900E+10
-6.054920216112E+11 6.177668587190E+11
1.003699637953E+12
-1.028093523001E+13 -3.408250519540E+12 2.849922393797E+13
0.000000000000E+00
6.093882049320E+11
-3.589512022690E+11 7.305643328820E+11
0.000000000000E+00
-7.953608718062E+12 -5.896561081666E+12 2.209980442141E+13
3.071731119830E+12
8.322068405200E+10
6.491577564350E+11
2.961963795180E+11
-4.222514570779E+12 -3.561692661196E+12 9.811616828001E+12
5.896561081666E+12
-3.840498528960E+11 -3.923316267570E+11 2.269941453620E+12
-1.188607814640E+11
-2.396521091295E+12 -2.053442693777E+12 5.057519402125E+12
3.788601969287E+12
-5.165789371240E+11 -3.834380942750E+11 3.928531993795E+12
4.471439393840E+11
-1.208116747738E+12 -1.155637862958E+12 2.300811418729E+12
2.053442693777E+12
-3.400517645230E+11 -3.287209271010E+11 2.296526640810E+11
3.834380942750E+11
-5.997846367396E+11 -8.047759655193E+11 9.765221792188E+11
1.230951308233E+12
1.188607814640E+11
-1.410829615240E+11 -4.074214715946E+11 -1.377703189900E+10 3.244204427940E+11
-4.143776018851E+12 -1.310071236904E+12 1.169483272738E+13
0.000000000000E+00
-2.257259983158E+12 -1.154425360400E+11 -1.123150382080E+12 0.000000000000E+00
-3.379540649684E+12 -1.821029082308E+12 9.051998651613E+12
1.193885296268E+12
-1.965198095562E+12 -2.240637121270E+11 -7.185456964040E+11 1.073651860160E+11
-2.185984775164E+12 -1.310562808279E+12 4.690684952798E+12
1.821029082308E+12
-1.389494408088E+12 -2.326098380040E+11 1.061335947970E+11
2.240637121270E+11
-1.400509415906E+12 -9.162033631597E+11 2.627322226682E+12
1.369164046795E+12
-9.100769157252E+11 -2.105124790710E+11 4.238696675860E+11
2.310660991720E+11
-8.181272556306E+11 -5.870175650728E+11 1.296387166744E+12
9.162033631597E+11
-4.884018987331E+11 -1.680244541100E+11 3.108031858510E+11
2.105124790710E+11
73
-4.563444650119E+11 -4.517714182038E+11 6.319460890243E+11
6.164910632285E+11
-1.920199037571E+11 -1.859258887556E+11 1.332366459610E+11
1.704431191490E+11
&ASSEMBLY_DATA
Assembly_kinf =
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
7.281301548232E-03
7.289478323649E-03
7.675593212339E-03
1.536624320419E-02
7.371930526434E-03
7.489928342704E-03
7.931412988810E-03
1.560350009223E-02
7.493118515493E-03
1.120007620223E-02
1.764638318649E-02
2.523456775745E-02
7.964368803874E-03
1.770659321006E-02
2.890751501442E-02
2.604764403668E-02
1.339196310942E-02
2.148504347620E-02
2.351408127074E-02
2.466605638095E-02
2.730962110444E-02
2.716903799188E-02
2.519981114338E-02
2.220100967049E-02
1.026952345716E+15
9.396094180397E-03
7.118889755545E-03
1.433206833884E+00
1.000000000000E+00
6.355608253973E+13
1.107076088188E-01
1.711888056112E-01
4.685408559192E-01
0.000000000000E+00
8.462816955212E+14
9.387920300012E-03
7.127229297835E-03
1.434836517494E+00
1.000000000000E+00
5.332821853131E+13
1.103756125360E-01
1.716258461564E-01
4.666695514138E-01
0.000000000000E+00
5.024022077929E+14
1.009734713521E-02
4.160958960786E-03
1.412513186483E+00
1.000000000000E+00
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
8.072011150720E-01
Assembly_Removal_XSEC =
7.212716305321E-03
2.750765429881E-02
7.281412226796E-03
2.735663952909E-02
7.292167193890E-03
2.667365804099E-02
7.702919531008E-03
2.137467469601E-02
1.346870751989E-02
2.196408185493E-02
2.679301610059E-02
1.793482971041E-02
Region_Data =
74
3.643905634963E+13
9.570805273675E-02
1.289722063859E-01
4.537939722301E-01
0.000000000000E+00
2.725059772001E+14
1.021536034438E-02
4.159889019502E-03
1.411462112749E+00
1.000000000000E+00
2.140948238429E+13
9.446995146988E-02
1.269033035702E-01
4.501746885834E-01
0.000000000000E+00
7.607894286310E+13
1.840834782916E-03
0.000000000000E+00
9.892470768128E-01
0.000000000000E+00
5.426780964685E+13
1.912064758298E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.072043788379E-01
0.000000000000E+00
2.060437586959E+13
2.384947026513E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.918822598604E+00
0.000000000000E+00
4.423461840564E+13
8.008405736604E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.027630568951E-01
0.000000000000E+00
8.467328439320E+14
9.388239579597E-03
7.127343643712E-03
1.434820863609E+00
1.000000000000E+00
5.335744201542E+13
1.103793439577E-01
1.716277588466E-01
4.666683711634E-01
0.000000000000E+00
6.960862114276E+14
9.383098968345E-03
7.136320069620E-03
1.435919534323E+00
1.000000000000E+00
4.478936961100E+13
1.098919016676E-01
1.719580294463E-01
4.650753386121E-01
0.000000000000E+00
4.050371552207E+14
1.020338657900E-02
4.147760323699E-03
1.408649005625E+00
1.000000000000E+00
3.009940789462E+13
9.514669991546E-02
1.281903046698E-01
4.540855999181E-01
0.000000000000E+00
2.136024359488E+14
1.031055014823E-02
4.150880797830E-03
1.409381887096E+00
1.000000000000E+00
1.781695106672E+13
9.412190029239E-02
1.262717400024E-01
4.484286609901E-01
0.000000000000E+00
5.851951011719E+13
1.862236885398E-03
0.000000000000E+00
9.872816294828E-01
0.000000000000E+00
4.526737976616E+13
1.938485301373E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.062837999639E-01
0.000000000000E+00
1.641515181721E+13
2.402460461808E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.930533649601E+00
0.000000000000E+00
3.669150314059E+13
8.021083886682E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.023432392218E-01
0.000000000000E+00
5.037770084611E+14
1.009873377789E-02
4.160770630004E-03
1.412433473324E+00
1.000000000000E+00
3.655528753778E+13
9.570285955938E-02
1.289642457136E-01
4.537871860247E-01
0.000000000000E+00
4.059533096883E+14
1.020494450738E-02
4.147581007240E-03
1.408566280510E+00
1.000000000000E+00
3.017881380574E+13
9.513871432551E-02
1.281792246222E-01
4.540900298797E-01
0.000000000000E+00
1.951470253854E+14
2.380062908045E-03
0.000000000000E+00
8.476907456309E-01
0.000000000000E+00
7.275153387435E+13
2.938217046342E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.113744071719E-01
0.000000000000E+00
8.824023413779E+13
1.665401484302E-03
0.000000000000E+00
1.053957985076E+00
0.000000000000E+00
7.889355970188E+13
1.797265320823E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.062840088006E-01
0.000000000000E+00
75
2.860016640173E+13
7.631963880391E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.470810642676E+00
0.000000000000E+00
5.283469629186E+13
1.159392225707E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.029569192798E-01
0.000000000000E+00
1.028591684934E+13
2.448419547518E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.977465815754E+00
0.000000000000E+00
2.558037491941E+13
8.053972164937E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.012589502453E-01
0.000000000000E+00
2.753508318157E+14
1.024069900852E-02
4.158961376163E-03
1.410164659165E+00
1.000000000000E+00
2.147182115135E+13
9.436044171411E-02
1.268229711230E-01
4.511482338852E-01
0.000000000000E+00
2.158616286504E+14
1.034258819672E-02
4.149455896139E-03
1.407725439326E+00
1.000000000000E+00
1.777675209590E+13
9.393882889440E-02
1.261201820340E-01
4.498159682857E-01
0.000000000000E+00
8.955575030413E+13
1.667470467569E-03
0.000000000000E+00
1.053389717973E+00
0.000000000000E+00
7.568189273199E+13
1.797586989528E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.071715954411E-01
0.000000000000E+00
4.009256815804E+13
2.429663641516E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.881456893582E+00
0.000000000000E+00
8.753248742746E+13
7.997250956194E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.031364846899E-01
0.000000000000E+00
1.633284465813E+13
6.623207624895E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.627821643330E+00
0.000000000000E+00
3.679878083677E+13
1.491762703310E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.014953626806E-01
0.000000000000E+00
6.479248636155E+12
8.478420510257E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.578811035115E+00
0.000000000000E+00
1.073125128077E+13
2.126915493296E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.023369152486E-01
0.000000000000E+00
8.231105190856E+13
2.283651917579E-03
0.000000000000E+00
8.952076743540E-01
0.000000000000E+00
2.849086607505E+13
4.189237145430E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.174989854991E-01
0.000000000000E+00
6.302311936840E+13
2.340708089349E-03
0.000000000000E+00
8.847629512420E-01
0.000000000000E+00
2.338829454896E+13
4.033323677906E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.157421589169E-01
0.000000000000E+00
3.022173153236E+13
1.477483392075E-03
0.000000000000E+00
1.170815650326E+00
0.000000000000E+00
2.901367621891E+13
2.649963212351E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.084871349891E-01
0.000000000000E+00
1.561876377848E+13
1.181554391221E-03
0.000000000000E+00
1.351192555936E+00
0.000000000000E+00
2.500624574558E+13
2.680519646361E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.030766089942E-01
0.000000000000E+00
6.933151673022E+12
4.468054304893E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.839562129097E+00
0.000000000000E+00
1.425986075723E+13
1.166821751515E-02
0.000000000000E+00
3.023209474601E-01
0.000000000000E+00
3.156549111547E+12
2.525537507095E-04
0.000000000000E+00
2.171117214072E+00
0.000000000000E+00
6.067943747190E+12
8.038674984049E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.017612357445E-01
0.000000000000E+00
76
2.005240375404E+13
2.952886807682E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.835353458626E+00
0.000000000000E+00
2.636281019499E+13
8.887041291717E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.087277366025E-01
0.000000000000E+00
1.594884461904E+13
2.323363216555E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.897752022832E+00
0.000000000000E+00
2.442454225994E+13
7.891320197086E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.066904814704E-01
0.000000000000E+00
9.596028240575E+12
2.393669471549E-04
0.000000000000E+00
1.933146889192E+00
0.000000000000E+00
1.861830613627E+13
7.978893509865E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.037436031936E-01
0.000000000000E+00
5.766470184867E+12
2.462092517482E-04
0.000000000000E+00
2.034626282616E+00
0.000000000000E+00
1.304741257353E+13
8.044618002967E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.015667431792E-01
0.000000000000E+00
3.143047007520E+12
2.560330985121E-04
0.000000000000E+00
2.178113483242E+00
0.000000000000E+00
7.206354850212E+12
8.079262993102E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.004305244277E-01
0.000000000000E+00
1.633917987522E+12
2.674730190743E-04
0.000000000000E+00
2.403219507103E+00
0.000000000000E+00
2.845405761273E+12
8.066024831346E-03
0.000000000000E+00
3.008564571485E-01
0.000000000000E+00
Average_Surface_Flux
9.583395374312E+14
9.581293149168E+14
1.051542268750E+15
1.051608868170E+15
6.523036031705E+13
6.521760953187E+13
6.417332220826E+13
6.417896055183E+13
7.897785060421E+14
6.737637784619E+14
8.648887936599E+14
9.794516308676E+14
5.505449121502E+13
4.445321354406E+13
5.305719023982E+13
6.658176498971E+13
4.570941646032E+14
3.648815867799E+14
5.157433954806E+14
6.737637784619E+14
3.544931032385E+13
2.871977464055E+13
3.783820359391E+13
4.445321354406E+13
2.452879529120E+14
1.721417522767E+14
2.798972104799E+14
3.916177274705E+14
2.071552235442E+13
1.471105474644E+13
2.206537243241E+13
3.069227516193E+13
6.533376726901E+13
3.748772024101E+13
7.540265845127E+13
1.721417522767E+14
5.000241001846E+13
6.868966463987E+13
5.650384478093E+13
1.471105474644E+13
1.658049570431E+13
8.841606421618E+12
1.890203861152E+13
4.346380086702E+13
4.084584487254E+13
6.195618024876E+12
4.601702997779E+13
7.230631925229E+13
6.746174455500E+14
7.900241030444E+14
9.796086481718E+14
8.654081058410E+14
4.451453636692E+13
5.507324697596E+13
6.659077917838E+13
5.309292017050E+13
77
5.509141819709E+14
5.505090471076E+14
8.074807841293E+14
8.077794743531E+14
3.659487572078E+13
3.656470252615E+13
5.620099213198E+13
5.622349713513E+13
3.136552840615E+14
2.893393096877E+14
4.685516733852E+14
5.505090471076E+14
2.367656729028E+13
2.387959178016E+13
3.626493413752E+13
3.656470252615E+13
1.561733197701E+14
1.330440444991E+14
2.521141538318E+14
3.115332947212E+14
1.607933826432E+13
1.230653724274E+13
2.122903954208E+13
2.550661867052E+13
4.044482931084E+13
2.912178432717E+13
6.742176515422E+13
1.330440444991E+14
4.134830908923E+13
5.702331778600E+13
5.129646867410E+13
1.230653724274E+13
1.207345659314E+13
7.192065591614E+12
1.704191581336E+13
3.360611313568E+13
3.129654594514E+13
5.128255898448E+12
4.186273319783E+13
6.007496678089E+13
3.669402527272E+14
4.582576259317E+14
6.746174455500E+14
5.171846861774E+14
2.890685242392E+13
3.555652935721E+13
4.451453636692E+13
3.796061011861E+13
2.908805383132E+14
3.141752625874E+14
5.509141819709E+14
4.697690056634E+14
2.401510777196E+13
2.370924113261E+13
3.659487572078E+13
3.637651218168E+13
1.230593030516E+14
1.224859672708E+14
3.136552840615E+14
3.141752625874E+14
9.474090862005E+13
9.504527258639E+13
2.367656729028E+13
2.370924113261E+13
5.393585729924E+13
5.124868773630E+13
1.561733197701E+14
1.347144943873E+14
1.109152150471E+14
5.830405873874E+13
1.607933826432E+13
9.740387507799E+13
1.996201143055E+13
1.663188805294E+13
4.044482931084E+13
5.124868773630E+13
5.408330322130E+13
4.172009925996E+13
4.134830908923E+13
5.830405873874E+13
7.787414505257E+12
4.831915562440E+12
1.207345659314E+13
1.872450994242E+13
1.829745723776E+13
3.345268327926E+12
3.129654594514E+13
4.563201699151E+13
1.767831215781E+14
2.478263807935E+14
3.935130193854E+14
2.827875658568E+14
1.376405863689E+13
2.076869499750E+13
3.086416206199E+13
2.213387507586E+13
1.370107926165E+14
1.579553563212E+14
3.129275482904E+14
2.547229384314E+14
1.110094735549E+13
1.578571772111E+13
2.563186385880E+13
2.129149324811E+13
5.431778881071E+13
5.460230081879E+13
1.351438231372E+14
1.579553563212E+14
4.697355777440E+13
1.058102606781E+14
9.729421131447E+13
1.578571772111E+13
78
2.697897731683E+13
2.553420211430E+13
5.922711717905E+13
6.004152673225E+13
4.544654639861E+13
6.022606687510E+13
1.126042976044E+14
1.074532697666E+14
1.061573389643E+13
1.020316926613E+13
2.132648192236E+13
2.553420211430E+13
1.436903171767E+13
1.918897514984E+13
5.648198626631E+13
6.022606687510E+13
4.231580001675E+12
2.869887592290E+12
8.121631392269E+12
1.135064515885E+13
6.805704824910E+12
1.210984043222E+12
2.041290068632E+13
2.227066719437E+13
3.621791197866E+13
7.117183894344E+13
1.767831215781E+14
8.278521266760E+13
3.417810812658E+13
2.653190248021E+13
1.376405863689E+13
2.715879899664E+13
2.830970828592E+13
4.377749859199E+13
1.370107926165E+14
7.344407824174E+13
3.379868558264E+13
2.075288332974E+13
1.110094735549E+13
2.750654488688E+13
1.576250905618E+13
2.025953458546E+13
5.431778881071E+13
4.377749859199E+13
2.764855722749E+13
3.024588597280E+13
4.697355777440E+13
2.075288332974E+13
9.003667023707E+12
1.015339891125E+13
2.697897731683E+13
2.204377450814E+13
2.044380648505E+13
1.856092956885E+13
4.544654639861E+13
3.150834275616E+13
4.596062270641E+12
4.568063164355E+12
1.061573389643E+13
1.015339891125E+13
1.153213401722E+13
9.861570021216E+12
1.436903171767E+13
1.856092956885E+13
2.235151528907E+12
1.609551931039E+12
4.231580001675E+12
5.002223984467E+12
4.579442083607E+12
8.148429431892E+11
6.805704824910E+12
1.086512525095E+13
8.287552037702E+12
1.639641587529E+13
4.250181455880E+13
1.860094353371E+13
4.514519966316E+12
2.621004820368E+13
3.091933146517E+13
2.468586279154E+13
6.759081299368E+12
1.163660569918E+13
3.269684783461E+13
1.687323237866E+13
3.930396191124E+12
2.168935131441E+13
3.218459582544E+13
2.652352457851E+13
4.371969550328E+12
6.779561453421E+12
1.783605520930E+13
1.163660569918E+13
2.778988816176E+12
1.553429396053E+13
2.826407723375E+13
2.168935131441E+13
2.801018831812E+12
4.115559966561E+12
1.004814293490E+13
7.211358381060E+12
1.820153831450E+12
9.941736058858E+12
2.185202055500E+13
1.623718398375E+13
1.636254511261E+12
2.217418665777E+12
5.037194889657E+12
4.115559966561E+12
79
9.768037974662E+11
4.695185856161E+12
1.252885395775E+13
9.941736058858E+12
9.126889300238E+11
9.035428364076E+11
2.411355948538E+12
2.390184676083E+12
3.840398075142E+11
3.718517775112E+11
5.002436158674E+12
5.221145263494E+12

Colameco Master Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Colameco Master Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

IMPROVED REFLECTOR MODELING FOR LIGHT WATER REACTOR ANALYSIS

2010 David V. Colameco

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Jack Brenizer, Jr.

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

From the transport solution of the color set model,

The newly calculated

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. vi

Their guidance has been greatly

appreciated through the development and implementation of this project.

Last but not least,

1.3 Sensitivity Studies

From the transport solution of the color set model,

In this work the

homogenization procedure has been further developed to accommodate the semi-analytic

Where for two groups:

1.4 Parameterization of Factors and Constants

Likewise for BWRs, the models in

2.1 Axial Reflector Modeling

Figure 1: 1-D Assembly/Reflector Models

This is expected due to the differences in the

2.2 Radial Reflector Modeling

This evolution in the

Figure 2: 3x3 Mini-Core Model

Table 2: 1/8th Core Results

Figure 3: 1/8th Core Results

homogenized flux distribution in the reflector node is obtained by analytical solution of

150 MWd/MTU, 3Loop PWR Core, UO2 Fuel

150 MWd/MTU, 3Loop PWR Core, UO2 and MOX Fuel

Figure 4: 1/8th Core Normalized Power Absolute Error Results

Calculating a new set of discontinuity factors for changing core

293K, 538K, 558K, 578K, 598K, and 618K

0.40, 0.50, 0.60, and 0.72 g/cc

Moderator Boron Concentration 0, 500, 1000, 2000, and 3000 ppm

0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, , 38, 39, and 40 GWd/MTU

Various assemblies with different initial burnup,

Figure 5: Mini-Cores Used in the Sensitivity Study

Spectral Index (Fast Node Average Flux/Thermal Node Average Flux)

Incoming Current/Node Average Flux per energy group

Albedo at the Fuel/Reflector Interface per energy group

Net Current per energy group

Net Current Ratio

Delta Spectral Index (Surface SI Node SI)

Net Current/Surface Flux at the Fuel/Reflector Interface per energy group

Figure 6: Reflector Node Identification

Although not shown in Figure 6, the reflector

Figures 7 through 10 show the behavior of the discontinuity factors for a

Side 5W DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

Figure 7: Constant Boron Concentration Fast Discontinuity Factor Behavior

As in Figure 7, as the mini-core is burned, the

behavior is common throughout all data sets of changing boron concentration.

Side 5W DF1 vs. Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

Figure 8: Constant Temperature Fast Discontinuity Behavior

Side 5W DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

Figure 9: Constant Boron Thermal Discontinuity Factor Behavior

Side 5W DF2 vs. Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

Net Thermal J/Surface Average Thermal Flux

Figure 10: Constant Temperature Discontinuity Factor Behavior

Net Fast J/Surface Average Fast Flux

Figure 11: Fast Flat Side Discontinuity Factor Behavior