Neutron flux in coolant and fuel pin in PWR

AI Thread Summary
In Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), fast neutrons from fission in fuel are moderated to thermal neutrons through collisions with coolant, primarily H2O, leading to differing neutron flux characteristics between the coolant and fuel pins. Specific data comparing multi-group neutron flux in these areas typically requires the use of lattice codes like CASMO or WIMS, along with core simulators such as SIMULATE or PANTHER, rather than MCNP simulations. The neutron flux is often calculated using a reduced number of groups, commonly two to four, which are derived from larger group data, while finer mesh techniques are now more feasible due to advancements in processing power. Detailed analysis of neutron energy spectra is generally not performed unless specific isotopic effects are being investigated. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the importance of appropriate modeling techniques for accurate neutron flux calculations in PWR systems.
Pengtaofu
Messages
23
Reaction score
2
In PWR, fast neutron produced from fission in fuel has been moderated into thermal neutron by the a series of collisiion with coolant,i.e. H2O. So the multi-group neutron flux in coolant and fuel pin has much diffenrce, e.g. the relative higher fast neutron in fuel pin and relative higher thermal neutron in coolant as to the uniform.
Are there specific data about comparision of multi-group neutron flux in coolant and fuel pin in PWR, if it don't need to use MCNP to simulate it ? Thank you very much.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Pengtaofu said:
In PWR, fast neutron produced from fission in fuel has been moderated into thermal neutron by the a series of collisiion with coolant,i.e. H2O. So the multi-group neutron flux in coolant and fuel pin has much diffenrce, e.g. the relative higher fast neutron in fuel pin and relative higher thermal neutron in coolant as to the uniform.
Are there specific data about comparision of multi-group neutron flux in coolant and fuel pin in PWR, if it don't need to use MCNP to simulate it ? Thank you very much.
I'm not sure about the question, but one would ordinarily use a lattice code, e.g., CASMO or WIMS, in conjunction with a core simulator, e.g., SIMULATE or PANTHER, respectively, to calculate the neutron flux and fission density. Using MCNP is also an option.

WIMS Physical models :
explicit water gap;
grids homogenisation;
WIMS Numerical models :
condensed to 6 groups for pin by pin calculation;
2D XY diffusion theory (GOG);
DMOD option (local transport theory correction for neighbouring rods of perturbing cells such as guide tubes or Gd burnable absorber rods)

http://www.answerssoftwareservice.com/resource/pdfs/139.pdf
http://www.jofamericanscience.org/journals/am-sci/am1002/019_23211am100214_125_131.pdf

In general, one would use a small number of groups, e.g., 2 or 4, which are collapsed from a larger number of groups. The WIMS paper mentions 69 groups, but newer versions (WIMS 9 or 10) use more groups. The group neutron spectrum is usually not reported since that would be a tremendous volume of data over time/burnup for even 1/8 or 1/4 of an assembly. Usually, there is a numerically processed mean or smeared value.

Meshing the lattice is also important, and finer meshes are more often used now, because we have access to faster processors and greater memory capacity.
 
Normally, one does not look at the neutron energy spectrum in the coolant or fuel, unless one is digging into the details of a calculation, e.g., looking at specific cross-sections, or effects of specific nuclides/isotopes. The codes process the multigroup data and collapse into two, three or four groups, depending on the code system, and the flux is smeared over the fuel, cladding and coolant.
 
OK. Thank you very much for providing the general introduction and the papers .
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top