MCNP terminology question -- Effective Full Power Days (EFPDs)

AI Thread Summary
In the context of MCNP users, Effective Full Power Days (EFPDs) can be calculated based on the number of days a fuel assembly is depleted under constant power, with variations in reactor power affecting the calculation. For example, operating at 50% power for one day results in 0.5 EFPD, while 80% power yields 0.8 EFPD. The trapezoidal rule can be applied for varying power levels throughout the day to determine equivalent EFPDs or EFPHs. Additionally, the choice between using EFPH or burnup based on UO2 mass versus metal mass is noted as a personal preference among users. Understanding these calculations is crucial as fuel performance properties are influenced by burnup and fast fluence.
Rofida
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
the term EFPDs
for MCNP users, i would like to ask about terminologies: if i depleted a fuel assembly under constant power, is the number of days in the out can be used as Effective Full Power Days (EFPDs), or this term has another specific meaning?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Effective Full Power Days (EFPD) or Effective Full Power Hours (EFPH) are useful for calculating burnup in terms of MWd/kgU, or GWd/tU, or GWd/tHM. If a reactor operates at 50% power for 1 day, then that would give 0.5 EFPD, or 12 EFPH. Similarly, if a reactor operated at 80% of full power for one day, then that would give 0.8 EFPD, or 19.2 EFPH. If the power is varied over a day, then one could use the trapezoidal rule to calculate the equivalent EFPD or EFPH.

Note that some folks like to calculate with EFPH, and some use burnup in terms of mass of UO2 rather than mass of metal.

In fuel performance, some properties and behavioral models are dependent on burnup, e.g., thermal conductivity of the fuel, while other properties, e.g., growth, strength and ductility of the Zr-alloy cladding, depend on fast fluence (and temperature).
 
  • Informative
Likes Alex A and berkeman
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top