Calculation of differential and integral rod worths

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of differential and integral rod worths using the Studsvik code Simulate-3, specifically focusing on the use of the SAV.LOK input card to lock hydraulics and fission products during calculations. The context includes theoretical considerations and practical implications for reactor operations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that using the SAV.LOK card is appropriate for holding temperatures and fission product concentrations constant during fast transients, allowing for comparisons to initial conditions.
  • Others contend that the calculations are unphysical, noting that total reactivity cannot be accurately calculated by summing contributions from power defect and rod worths due to the non-linear nature of the problem.
  • There is a viewpoint that while calculations may not be as accurate without accounting for secondary effects, they are still sufficient for operational contexts.
  • Some participants highlight that historical reactor operations relied on these types of calculations, despite potential inaccuracies.
  • Concerns are raised about the significant differences (up to 50 ppm) between these calculations and modern online core follow systems, suggesting a need for caution in their application.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the appropriateness of using the SAV.LOK card and the validity of the calculations, indicating that multiple competing views remain and the discussion is unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects limitations in the assumptions regarding the physical accuracy of the calculations and the dependence on specific operational contexts. The implications of using SAV.LOK versus not using it remain a point of contention.

ulriksvensson
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi forum members. I need some guidance in the following question.

In the Studsvik code Simulate-3 you can calculate differnetial and integral rod worths with the input card CRD.OCB. Further, you can specify if you want to lock hydraulics and fission products to some predefined state via the SAV.LOK card.

While this being a highly un-physical calculation in the first place, what would be the most apropriate in your opinion, to use SAV.LOK or not to use SAV.LOK? If you would use SAV.LOK what would you lock? Arguments?

I suppose the answer depends on what the result would be used for so let's say it's for a stone-age reactivity balance calculation.

Thanks in advance.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
SAV.LOK is used for holding temperatures and/or fission product concentrations constant during a fast transient such as rod ejection. This is physically real as these transients occur faster than the temperature or fission products change. With the CRD.OCB function, you use SAV.LOK so that the worth of each rod step is compared to the initial condition. Without the SAV.LOK card, each rod step worth will be compared to the equilibrium conditions of the previous rod step. Either way is physically valid, how you utilize this function depends on what you are trying to analyze.
 
Thanks for your reply. What I meant by unphysical is that for instance you cannot calculate total reactivity by summing up contributions from power defect and rod worths because in reality the problem is non-linear and therefore these calculations are not additive.
 
ulriksvensson said:
Thanks for your reply. What I meant by unphysical is that for instance you cannot calculate total reactivity by summing up contributions from power defect and rod worths because in reality the problem is non-linear and therefore these calculations are not additive.

Sure you can, it's just not as accurate without counting for secondary effects. But it's accurate enough in the context of operations. How do you think plant operators controlled the reactor back in the days before the advent of the PC?
 
I know they used to do this but the difference between these type of calculations and an on-line core follow system can be 50 ppm. That's a lot.
 
ulriksvensson said:
I know they used to do this but the difference between these type of calculations and an on-line core follow system can be 50 ppm. That's a lot.

It's a lot by today's standards but typical tech spec limits for ECC's are in the range of 500-1000 pcm.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 138 ·
5
Replies
138
Views
9K