TUBRNP (Transuranus/FRAPCON) model

In summary, the author is attempting to understand the TUBRNP model which is used to calculate isotope compositions and the radial power profile evolution with the burnup. He is trying to create a simple algorithm to do the same thing, but is having some difficulty with the shape function and the conversion factor. He is also having some difficulty calculating the burnup increment. Finally, he is trying to compare the compositions N(n)_i+1 and N(n-1)_i+1. If the difference is small enough, he goes to the next burnup step, otherwise he takes N(n-1)_i+1 to calculate a new A and a new matrix M.
  • #1
yrob
12
0
Hello,

I am currently trying to understand the TUBRNP model which is used to calculate the isotope compositions and the radial power profile evolution with the burnup. I am talking about the basic model (the one from 1994 with only 6 isotopes taken into account) in the case of a LWR with UO2.

In order to understand it, I try to create a simple algorithm doing the same thing. i will be the burnup step and n the inner iteration index for convergence.
1) From an initial composition vector N_0 (determined with the enrichment), calculate the parameter A.

2) Determine the matrix M so that I can calculate the next composition N(n)_i+1 with N(n)_i+1*M=b with b depending on the old concentration N_old (see below the code for a given position):
Code:
function [M,b]=create_matrices(delta_BU,A,sigma_abs,sigma_capt,radial_pos,shape_function,N_average,N_old)
f_r=shape_function(radial_pos);

M=zeros(6);
%U235
M(1,1)=1+sigma_abs(1)*A*delta_BU;
%U238
M(2,2)=1;
%Pu239
M(3,3)=1+sigma_abs(3)*A*delta_BU;
%Pu240
M(4,3)=-sigma_capt(3)*A*delta_BU;
M(4,4)=1+sigma_abs(4)*A*delta_BU;
%Pu241
M(5,4)=-sigma_capt(4)*A*delta_BU;
M(5,5)=1+sigma_abs(5)*A*delta_BU;
%Pu242
M(6,5)=-sigma_capt(5)*A*delta_BU;
M(6,6)=1+sigma_abs(6)*A*delta_BU;

b=N_old;
b(2)=b(2)-N_average(2)*sigma_abs(2)*f_r*A*delta_BU;
b(3)=b(3)+N_average(2)*sigma_abs(2)*f_r*A*delta_BU;

3) Calculate the inverse diffusion length (kappa) from this new composition, then the flux with the Bessel function.
4) Calculate the power profile from the average power that I want and the flux.
5) Determine the burnup increment from the power, the initial uranium mass and the simulated time increment
6) Compare the compositions N(n)_i+1 and N(n-1)_i+1. If the difference is small enough, go to next burnup step, otherwise take N(n-1)_i+1 to calculate a new A and a new matrix M, ...

First, does this reproduce properly TUBRNP? I took the cross sections and the p_i parameters for the shape function from the FRAPCON user manual.

Then I have several issues with the shape function f(r). As there is a volumetric normalization step, the outer radius value matters. Thus, the unit of this parameter influences the results and unfortunately in the publication, no unit is given. If I try to reproduce the Plutonium radial profiles given in this paper with cm as units, the shape is not peak enough, but if I try with mm, it is not working either.

Finally, I face some problems calculating the conversion factor alpha. From what I understand, it is a factor created to convert time to burnup units. As I am working with MWd/kg_HM as burnup unit and cm as spatial unit, we have : [BU]=[alpha]*(fission/cm^3)/(kg/cm^3) =MWd/kg_HM
So for me : [alpha]=MWd/fission
alpha=200MeV/reac*1.602e-19/(24*3600)=3.7088e-22
If my calculation is correct, then why in the Lassman's paper the value of alpha is 3.35e-16 in the case of MWd/t_HM ? This 1e6 factor does not make sense to me.

I would really appreciate your help on this ! And if you have questions or if I have not been clear enough on a point, please ask me.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Which version of Frapcon? Besides the Frapcon manual, what are one's references?
I presume one references: K. Lassmann et al, Journal of Nuclear Materials 208, Issue 3, February 1994, pp. 223-231

Also, 1 MeV = 1.60218e-13 J.
 
  • #3
Hello and thank you for you answer,

I based this on the FRAPCON 3.4 Manual that can be found here : https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1110/ML11101A005.pdf from page 2.15 to 2.18

Moreover, the reference you put is the one I was talking about.

Regarding the conversion, I am using 1 Mev = 1.602e-19 MJ because the burnup unit is MWd/kg_HM, and in the case of the paper it is MWd/t_HM. Therefore, to my mind, this cannot be the reason of this 1e6 factor.
 
  • #4
yrob said:
1 Mev = 1.602e-19 MJ
This is correct, but since one did not put the units, it looked like one off by a factor of 1e6.

In the paper, Lassmann states burnup in units of MWd/tHM, and 1 tHM = 1000 kgHM. Also, I expect he used SI or MKS for other numbers, e.g., density in kg/m3. In one's equation, one uses density in (kg/cm^3). I would recommend caution in mixing units.

Frapcon uses a conversion factor of 3.8e-16 with burnup given in terms of MWd/t, and density of the fuel is in terms of kgHMO2/m3, which is converted to kgHM/m3 by a factor of 0.8815. The FALCON code also uses this approach.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes jim mcnamara

1. What is the TUBRNP (Transuranus/FRAPCON) model?

The TUBRNP model is a computer code used to simulate the behavior of nuclear fuel rods under various conditions, such as high temperatures and irradiation. It is a combination of two codes, Transuranus and FRAPCON, and is commonly used in the nuclear industry to predict fuel rod performance.

2. How does the TUBRNP model work?

The TUBRNP model uses mathematical equations and data inputs to simulate the behavior of nuclear fuel rods. It takes into account factors such as temperature, pressure, and material properties to predict the performance of the fuel rod under different conditions. The model also includes features such as fuel swelling and fission gas release to provide a more accurate representation of real-world behavior.

3. What are the advantages of using the TUBRNP model?

The TUBRNP model is widely used in the nuclear industry because it has been extensively validated and has a strong track record of accurately predicting fuel rod behavior. It also allows for the simulation of various scenarios, such as different fuel types and operating conditions, which can help inform decision-making and improve fuel rod design.

4. What are the limitations of the TUBRNP model?

Like any computer model, the TUBRNP model has its limitations. It relies on data inputs and mathematical equations, which may not always accurately reflect real-world conditions. Additionally, the model may not be able to account for all possible scenarios, and its predictions are only as good as the data and assumptions used.

5. How is the TUBRNP model used in the nuclear industry?

The TUBRNP model is primarily used in the nuclear industry for fuel rod design and safety analysis. It helps engineers and scientists understand how fuel rods will behave under different conditions and can aid in the development of new and improved fuel designs. The model is also used in accident scenarios to predict the behavior of fuel rods and inform emergency response plans.

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
520
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
0
Views
224
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
300
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
260
Back
Top