L-MT-16-037, ANP-3284NP, Revision 1, Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Methods for Monticello ATWS-I.
| ML16221A276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/2016 |
| From: | Northern States Power Company, Minnesota, Xcel Energy |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-MT-16-037, TAC MF5002 ANP-3284NP, Rev 1 | |
| Download: ML16221A276 (125) | |
Text
L-MT-16-037 Enclosure 6 AREVA Report ANP-3284NP Non-Proprietary Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Revision 1 July 2016 124 pages follow
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Revision 1 Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 July 2016 A
AREVA Inc. AREVA
Controlled Document AREVA Inc.
ANP-3284NP Revision 1 Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Methods for Monticello ATWS-1
Controlled Document AREVA Inc.
ANP-3284NP Revision 1 Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Copyright© 2016 AREVA Inc.
All Rights Reserved AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page i Nature of Changes Item Pa e Description and Justific_a_ti_o_n_ _ _ _ _ _ ___,
- 1. Figures 3-1 Updated with new benchmarking results through 3-58
- 2. 4-1 Added a reference for the final anal sis of record (ANP-3435)
- 3. 6-1 Updated Reference 3 and added Reference 10 AREVA Inc.
Controiled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page ii Contents 1.0 Introduction and Scope .................................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 Benchmarking the Code AISHA ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Test Suite and Acceptance Criteria .................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Benchmarking AISHA to KATHY Stability Tests ................................................ 2-3 2.3 Benchmarking AISHA to Regional Oscillations in BWRs ................................... 2-6 2.4 Sensitivity and Verification of Trends for an ATWS-1 with Regional Oscillations ......................................................................................................... 2-6 3.0 Benchmarking the Code SINAN0 .................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Benchmark Results ............................................................................................ 3-4 3.2 Discussion of SI NANO Benchmarking Results ................................................ 3-64 4.0 ATWS-1 Calculations for Monticello Extended Flow Window ........................................ .4-1 4.1 Peak Clad Temperature Results ..................................................................... .4-12 5.0 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page iii Tables Table 2-1 Measured and AISHA calculated regional mode stability ................................... 2-6 Table 3-1 [ ] ................................ 3-4 Table 3-2 Figures for ATRIUM 10XM KATHY test simulations .......................................... 3-6 Table 4-1 Monticello ATWS-1 calculations ......................................................................... .4-2 Table 4-2 Calculated peak clad temperatures during ATWS-1 ........................................ .4-12 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page iv Figures Figure 2-1 Comparison between ATRIUM-10 KATHY test and AISHA calculated decay ratios ....................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-2 Comparison between ATRIUM-10 KATHY test and AISHA calculated frequencies ........................................................................................ 2-5 Figure 2-3 Hydraulic type map where type (1) is ATRIUM 10XM, types (5) and (6) are GE14 ................................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-4 Example calculated bundle power as function of time ........................................ 2-9 Figure 2-5 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time .......................... 2-10 Figure 2-6 Example calculated bundle power as function of time, zoom from Figure 2-4 ......................................................................................................... 2-11 Figure 2-7 Example calculated bundle power as function of time, zoom from Figure 2-5 ......................................................................................................... 2-12 Figure 2-8 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for base and reduced time step cases .................................................................................. 2-13 Figure 2-9 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for base and [ ]. ............................................................. 2-14 Figure 2-10 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for base and
[ ] ......................................... 2-15 Figure 2-11 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for base and [ ] ......................... 2-16 Figure 2-12 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for two adjacent bundles of different fuel types ............................................................ 2-17 Figure 2-13 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for two adjacent bundles of different fuel types ..................................................... 2-18 Figure 2-14 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for two adjacent bundles of different fuel types, zoom from Figure 2-12 ...................... 2-19 Figure 2-15 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for two adjacent bundles of different fuel types, zoom from Figure 2-13 .................................................................................................................. 2-20 Figure 2-16 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for two symmetrically opposite bundles ........................................................................ 2-21 Figure 2-17 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for two symmetrically opposite bundles ................................................................. 2-22 Figure 2-18 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for two symmetrically opposite bundles, zoom from Figure 2-16 ................................. 2-23 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Pagev Figure 2-19 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for two symmetrically opposite bundles, zoom from Figure 2-17 ........................... 2-24 Figure 2-20 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for nominal and [ ]. .............................. 2-25 Figure 2-21 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for
[ ]. ................ 2-26 Figure 2-22 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for nominal and [
] ............................................................................................ 2-27 Figure 2-23 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for nominal and [
] ................................................................................... 2-28 Figure 3-1 [
] ................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 3-2 [
] ................................................................................. 3-8 Figure 3-3 [
] ................................................................................. 3-9 Figure 3-4 [
] ............................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-5 [
] ............................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3-6 [
] ............................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-7 [
] ............................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3-8 [
] ............................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-9 [
] ............................................................................... 3-15 Figure 3-10 [
] ............................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-11 [
] ............................................................................... 3-17 AREVA Inc.
Control!ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page vi Figure 3-12 [
] ............................................................................... 3-18 Figure 3-13 [
] ............................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3-14 [
] ............................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3-15 [
] ............................................................................... 3-21 Figure 3-16 [
] ............................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3-17 [
] ............................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3-18 [
] ............................................................................... 3-24 Figure 3-19 [
] ............................................................................... 3-25 Figure 3-20 [
] .............. :................................................................ 3-26 Figure 3-21 [
] ............................................................................... 3-27 Figure 3-22 [
] ............................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3-23 [
] ............................................................................... 3-29 Figure 3-24 [
] ............................................................................... 3-30 Figure 3-25 [
] ............................................................................... 3-31 Figure 3-26 [
] ............................................................................... 3-32 Figure 3-27 [
] ............................................................................... 3-33 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page vii Figure 3-28 [
] ............................................................................... 3-34 Figure 3-29 [
' ] ............................................................................... 3-35 Figure 3-30 [
] ............................................................................... 3-36 Figure 3-31 [
] ............................................................................... 3-37 Figure 3-32 [
] ............................................................................... 3-38 Figure 3-33 [
] ............................................................................... 3-39 Figure 3-34 [
] ............................................................................... 3-40 Figure 3-35 [
] ............................................................................... 3-41 Figure 3-36 [
] ............................................................................... 3-42 Figure 3-37 [
] *************************************************************************:***** 3-43 Figure 3-38 [
] ............................................................................... 3-44 Figure 3-39 [
] ............................................................................... 3-45 Figure 3-40 [
] ............................................................................... 3-46 Figure 3-41 [
] ............................................................................... 3-47 Figure 3-42 [
] ............................................................................... 3-48 Figure 3-43 [
] ............................................................................... 3-49 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document l ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page viii Figure 3-44 [
] ............................................................................... 3-50 Figure 3-45 [
] ............................................................................... 3-51 Figure 3-46 [
] ............................................................................... 3-52 Figure 3-47 [
] ............................................................................... 3-53 Figure 3-48 [
] ............................................................................... 3-54 Figure 3-49 [
] ............................................................................... 3-55 Figure 3-50 [
] ............................................................................... 3-56 Figure 3-51 [
] ............................................................................... 3-57 Figure 3-52 [
] ............................................................................... 3-58 Figure 3-53 [
] ............................................................................... 3-59 Figure 3-54 [
] ............................................................................... 3-60 Figure 3-55 [
] ............................................................................... 3-61 Figure 3-56 [
] ............................................................................... 3-62 Figure 3-57 [
] ............................................................................... 3-63 Figure 3-58 [
] ............................................................................... 3-64 Figure 4-1 ATWS-1 conditions for GE14 core hot bundle at BOC ....................................... .4-3 Figure 4-2 ATWS-1 conditions for GE14 core hot bundle at MOC ...................................... .4-4 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page ix Figure 4-3 ATWS-1 conditions for mixed core hot ATRIUM 1OXM bundle at BOC .................................................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 4-4 ATWS-1 conditions for mixed core hot GE14 bundle at BOC ............................ .4-6 Figure 4-5 ATWS-1 conditions for mixed core hot ATRIUM 10XM bundle at MOC ................................................................................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-6 ATWS-1 conditions for mixed core hot GE14 bundle at MOC ............................ .4-8 Figure 4-7 ATWS-1 conditions for ATRIUM 10XM core hot bundle at BOC ........................ .4-9 Figure 4-8 ATWS-1 conditions for ATRIUM 10XM core hot bundle at MOC ..................... .4-10 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Pagex Abstract This report presents the results of analysis needed for licensing the Extended Flow Window (EFW) operation of Monticello BWR plant with regard to Anticipated Transient without Scram with Instability (ATWS-1). The analysis focuses on the fuel specific differences needed to license Monticello with AREVA fuel type ATRIUM 10XM. The comparative analysis described in this report covers a full core loaded with GE14, an equilibrium cycle fully loaded with ATRIUM 10XM, as well as a transition cycle of mixed GE14 and ATRIUM 10XM fuel types.
The analysis presented in this report utilizes two computer codes: AISHA and SINANO. AISHA is a detailed core model capable of simulating severe power and flow oscillations that are associated with core instabilities unsuppressed with scram. The AISHA code is [
] pertaining to the limiting plant response to an A TWS event. Selected bundles for which the operating conditions are the most severe under unstable oscillations were analyzed further using the single channel code SINANO. SINANO is [ ].
The code SI NANO applies advanced models for post-dryout heat transfer for the calculation of the cladding temperature excursion in the highest power rod.
SINANO models are based on, and benchmarked against, data obtained from Karlstein hydraulic loop KATHY where a full scale electrically heated ATRIUM 10XM bundle has been tested under realistic A TWS-1 conditions of severe unstable density waves with simulated reactivity and power feedback.
The AISHA code has been benchmarked against measured stability data obtained from KATHY loop for ATRIUM-10 fuel type. AISHA was also benchmarked against all the regional instabilities in actual BWR plants contained in AREVA database.
The benchmarking of AISHA and SINANO codes against experimental data is presented in this report preceding the presentation of representative A TWS-1 transient analysis results for Monticello. The analysis, supported by the benchmarking, concludes that the peak clad temperature reached during ATWS-1 transient is well below the acceptance limit.
AREVA Inc.
l Contro~!ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 1-1 1.0 Introduction and Scope This document presents the results of calculated BWR instability transients that are not terminated by scram and thus power and flow oscillations are allowed to grow to large amplitudes (see References 1 and 2). This class of transients is the so-called Anticipated Transients Without Scram with Instability (ATWS-1). The instability of the regional mode type is specified. The code used for calculating the regional mode instability and the large power and flow oscillations in the fuel bundles of the core is AISHA, which is described in Reference 3.
Selected bundles identified as limiting are used to provide data for the single channel code SI NANO for calculation of the clad temperature excursion and determine the peak clad temperature. SINANO is described in Reference 3 Appendix B.
The scope of the analysis includes several core loadings for Monticello plant. The analysis of these different cores is specified to highlight the impact of the fuel design on the peak clad temperature response. To accomplish this objective, three cores were analyzed: a core loaded with GE14 fuel type, a mixed core representing the transition from GE14 to ATRIUM 10XM, and an equilibrium core loaded with ATRIUM 10XM.
The ability of the codes AISHA and SI NANO to perform the calculations is demonstrated by presenting benchmark results comparing code calculations with experimental data. The benchmark results and the Monticello ATWS-1 analysis suite constitute a consistent demonstration of the consequences of an ATWS-1.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-1 2.0 Benchmarking the Code AISHA The AISHA code theory is described in Reference 3 Appendix A. The code calculates the transient thermal-hydraulic response of a BWR core with a detailed representation of one channel per fuel assembly. It applies a [
] There are no limitations with respect to flow direction, and the severe flow oscillations accompanied with inlet flow reversal can be simulated.
AISHA applies [
] The steady state simulator provides automated input coupling for the hydraulic and neutron cross section parameters. [
] The dynamic functionality of the algorithms which is important in stability and oscillation calculations is verified by benchmarking to stability specific data.
The benchmarking of AISHA is divided into three parts. The first part is focused on the pure thermal-hydraulic modeling and is accomplished by comparing the code results with the stability tests of ATRIUM-10 performed at the KATHY loop (Reference 7). The measured decay ratio and frequency for a large number of test points are compared with the AISHA calculated values.
The agreement provides the needed proof of the validity of the AISHA thermal-hydraulic models.
The second part of the benchmarking is an integral exercise where both the thermal-hydraulic and the neutron kinetics are coupled in the simulation of regional mode oscillations that occurred in actual BWR plants. The set of regional mode oscillations is the same used to AREVA Inc.
Controi~ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-2 benchmark the NRC-approved frequency domain stability code STAIF (Reference 5), and the time-domain code RAMONA5-FA (Reference 6).
The third part of benchmarking AISHA is testing the general core performance against theoretically predicted trends. This is accomplished by running an ATWS-1 transient and performing checks to demonstrate the ability of the code to generate very large oscillations in power and flow of regional type and demonstrate large amplitude inlet flow reversal in some bundles. Sensitivity calculations for key parameters are examined.
2.1 Test Suite and Acceptance Criteria The AISHA code validation includes the following cases:
- Comparison for ATRIUM-10 KATHY loop stability tests. Comparisons include the decay ratio and frequency for all the runs in the test suite. [
]
- Benchmarking to all the stability tests and events of regional mode unstable oscillations in actual BWR plants included in the RAMONA5-FA test suite. These are:
[The acceptance criteria are satisfied if the AISHA code results agree with the experimental J
results. Quantitatively, the criteria are
- Calculated decay ratios are within [ ] of the measured value. Conservative trends
[ ] are acceptable.
- Calculated frequencies are within [ ] Hz of the measured values. Conservative trends [ ] are acceptable.
. [
]
AREVA Inc.
Contro!~ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-3 2.2 Benchmarking AISHA to KA THY Stability Tests The data collected from the stability testing of the ATRIUM-10 bundle in the KATHY loop are used for benchmarking AISHA. The KATHY loop is a general purpose test apparatus where test sections of PWR and BWR fuel bundles can be connected. The loop can operate under forced or natural circulation modes. It is capable of various types of measurements such as void fraction and pressure profiles and critical heat flux under steady state conditions. Different reactor transients including BWR stability can be simulated. In the test used for this benchmark, a full-scale ATRIUM-10 electrically heated bundle with bottom-skewed axial power distribution is operated under natural circulation.
The operating conditions of power and inlet subcooling were varied and data were collected for each operating point. [
]
The number of data points used in this benchmarking is [ ]. The measured operating parameters for each test point are used as input to AISHA. [
] The decay ratio and frequency for each test point are compared with the corresponding measured values.
The following figures depict good agreement between the measured and calculated decay ratios r
and frequencies.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-4 Figure 2-1 Comparison between ATRIUM-10 KATHY test and AISHA calculated decay ratios AREVA Inc.
Control!ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-5 Figure 2-2 Comparison between ATRIUM-10 KATHY test and AISHA calculated frequencies It is important to notice that the excellent agreement between measured and calculated frequencies is of particular significance to the fidelity of simulating density waves. This point has been discussed in more details in the DIVOM methodology report, Reference 7.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-6 2.3 Benchmarking AISHA to Regional Oscillations in BWRs The table below shows good agreement between AISHA calculated and test measured decay ratio and frequency for all the cases.
Table 2-1 Measured and AISHA calculated regional mode stability 2.4 Sensitivity and Verification of Trends for an A TWS-1 with Regional Oscillations A representative set of calculations were performed to verify the capability of AISHA to simulate very large oscillation amplitudes. These runs include [
]
The core loading map showing the hydraulic types is shown below where hydraulic type (1) is ATRIUM 10XM, and types (5) and (6) are GE14. Type (6) refers to the peripheral tight orificed GE14 bundles.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-7 Figure 2-3 Hydraulic type map where type (1) is ATRIUM 10XM, types (5) and (6) are GE14.
The time step is set to [
] run to very large oscillation amplitudes with large reverse flow. A subcooling transient was specified where the subcooling is linearly incr~ased from [ ] initial value to the very large magnitude of [ ]. A regional power perturbation is introduced [
l Repeated runs of the base case were made where the selected bundle is different from the base case. In one run, a GE14 is selected. In another run, a bundle which is the symmetric opposite of the base ATRIUM 1OXM assembly has been selected for output to verify that the oscillation is of the regional type if these bundles are shown to oscillate out-of-phase.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-8 Sensitivity runs to vary [ ] were made.
The first sensitivity case is identical to the base case with the one difference of using [
].
The second sensitivity case is the same as the base case, but selects a GE14 bundle for the special output (adjacent to the special output bundle in the base case).
The third sensitivity case is the same as the base case, but selects the bundle symmetric to the base ATRIUM 10XM assembly for the special output.
The fourth sensitivity case is identical to the base case with the exception that [
]
The fifth sensitivity case is also identical to the base case with the exception that [
]
The results are presented and discussed below using the selected bundle output for the test cases to plot power and inlet flow. For some plots the time range spans the entire run, and for others a zoom is shown for better visualization of details.
The following two figures show the base case selected bundle power and inlet flow respectively.
Notice that the significant power peaking is produced. Notice also that the inlet mass flow oscillation is large with significant reverse flow of [ ].
AREVA Inc.
ControHed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-9 Figure 2-4 Example calculated bundle power as function of time.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-10 Figure 2-5 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-11 The following two figures show the [
l Figure 2-6 Example calculated bundle power as function of time, zoom from Figure 2-4 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-12 Figure 2-7 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time, zoom from Figure 2-5 AREVA Inc.
Contro~ied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-13 The following two figures depict comparisons between the base case and the [
]
Figure 2-8 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for base and [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-14 Figure 2-9 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for base and [ ].
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-15 The following two figures depict comparisons between the base case and the [
]
Figure 2-1 O Example calculated bundle power as function of time for base and [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Controiled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-16 Figure 2-11 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for base and [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-17 The following two figures depict comparison of power and flow between the base case [
1 Figure 2-12 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for two adjacent bundles of different fuel types.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page2-18 Figure 2-13 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for two adjacent bundles of different fuel types.
AREVA Inc.
Contro~!ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-19 The following two figures depict comparison of power and flow between the base case [
]
Figure 2-14 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for two adjacent bundles of different fuel types, zoom from Figure 2-12 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-20 Figure 2-15 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for two adjacent bundles of different fuel types, zoom from Figure 2-13.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-21 The following two figures depict comparison of power and flow between the base case [
]
Figure 2-16 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for two symmetrically opposite bundles.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-22 Figure 2-17 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for two symmetrically opposite bundles.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-23 The following two figures depict comparison of power and flow between the base case [
]
Figure 2-18 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for two symmetrically opposite bundles, zoom from Figure 2-16 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-24 Figure 2-19 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for two symmetrically opposite bundles, zoom from Figure 2-17 AREVA Inc.
l Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-25 The following two figures depict comparisons between the base case and the [
]
Figure 2-20 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for nominal and [ ].
AREVA Inc.
l Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-26 Figure 2-21 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for [ ].
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 2-27 The following two figures depict comparisons between the base case and [
l Figure 2-22 Example calculated bundle power as function of time for nominal and [
].
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 2-28 Figure 2-23 Example calculated bundle inlet flow rate as function of time for nominal and [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-1 3.0 Benchmarking the Code SINANO The data used for the development and benchmarking of the code SI NANO is obtained from the stability testing campaign for the ATRIUM 1OXM at the KATHY loop. The KATHY loop is a general purpose test apparatus where test sections of PWR and BWR fuel bundles can be connected. The loop can operate under forced or natural circulation modes. It is capable of various types of measurements such as void fraction and pressure profiles and critical heat flux under steady state conditions. Different reactor transients including BWR stability can be simulated.
For stability and severe oscillation testing of ATRIUM 10XM, a full scale electrically heated test section is used. The axial power shape is bottom-peaked [ ]. The heated rods include full-length and part-length rods. [
]
The tests include stable operation under different power and subcooling conditions where the stability is determined from [ ] and also include a large number of cases where the stability threshold was crossed and oscillations were allowed to grow. Some of the oscillation tests were pure thermal-hydraulic tests, and some others included power feedback to simulate reactivity-to-power and [ ] processes.
The procedure in the pure thermal-hydraulic testing is similar to the previous stability testing campaigns with ATRIUM-9 and ATRIUM-10. [
] These fluctuations are not purely random and carry information regarding the system stability. The stability state is measured online using a noise analysis AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-2 program. [
]
Information about dryout behavior is extracted from the pure thermal-hydraulic stability testing by simply allowing the flow oscillations to increase, and apply additional power increase steps as needed. Cyclical dryout and rewetting were observed in these tests by recording the responses of the many thermocouples attached to the heater rods at different elevations. [
]
It is well-known from numerical and theoretical studies of density waves in BWRs that the reactivity-to-power feedback has a destabilizing effect. By implementing such feedback in the KATHY test loop, the loop is operated at conditions closely resembling the actual conditions in an unstable BWR. With the power feedback turned on, [
]
oscillations of the flow and now power to reach high amplitudes with significant inlet flow reversal [ ]
[
]
AREVA Inc.
L _ _ __
ControHed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-3
[
]
The test results were studied and important data were extracted. These data allowed the transient extraction of [
] The measured and extracted information from the tests were essential in developing the models in the code SINANO, and serve to benchmark it.
The entire test run database was reviewed with regard to dryout occurrence under oscillation.
All the test runs that were identified as experiencing dryout at any spacer, with or without failure to rewet, are processed and used for the benchmarking of SI NANO. [
]
AREVA Inc.
Contro~ied Document
. ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-4 Table 3-1 [ 1 The identified cases were run using SI NANO and the comparison between the measured and calculated results forms the base benchmark. Sensitivity studies to model input parameters are also performed.
3.1 Benchmark Results The calculation results for all [ ] test cases are presented in the following Figures. These figures depict comparison of measured and calculated [
1 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-5
[
]
Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-7 present measured and model calculated results for [
]
Figure sets similar to Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-7 similarly present measured and model calculated results for [ ] test runs. In order to reduce the volume of the plotted data,
[
]
The cases and figure numbers are given in the table below.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-6 Table 3-2 Figures for ATRIUM 10XM KATHY test simulations AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-7 Figure 3-1 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-8 Figure 3-2 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-9 Figure 3-3 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-10 Figure 3-4 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-11 Figure 3-5 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-12 Figure 3-6 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-13 Figure 3-7 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-14 Figure 3-8 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP I Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 I
Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-15 Figure 3-9 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-16 Figure 3-10 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Contro!!ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-17 Figure 3-11 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-18 Figure 3-12 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-19 Figure 3-13 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-20 Figure 3-14 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controiled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-21 Figure 3-15 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-22 Figure 3-16 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-23 Figure 3-17 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-24 Figure 3-18 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-25 Figure 3-19 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-26 Figure 3-20 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-27 Figure 3-21 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-28 Figure 3-22 [
1 AREVA Inc.
Control~ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-29 Figure 3-23 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-30 Figure 3-24 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-31 Figure 3-25 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controi~ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-32 Figure 3-26 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-33 Figure 3-27 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-34 Figure 3-28 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-35 Figure 3-29 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-36 Figure 3-30 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-37 Figure 3-31 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-38 Figure 3-32 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-39 Figure 3-33 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-40 Figure 3-34 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-41 Figure 3-35 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-42 Figure 3-36 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-43 Figure 3-37 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-44 Figure 3-38 [
1 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-45 Figure 3-39 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-46 Figure 3-40 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-47 Figure 3-41 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controiied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-48 Figure 3-42 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-49 Figure 3-43 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controi!ed .Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-50 Figure 3-44 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-51 Figure 3-45 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-52 Figure 3-46 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Contro!~ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-53 Figure 3-47 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-54 Figure 3-48 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-55 Figure 3-49 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-56 Figure 3-50 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controi!ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-57 Figure 3-51 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-58 Figure 3-52 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controiied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-59 Figure 3-53 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controiled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-60 Figure 3-54 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controned Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-61 Figure 3-55 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-62 Figure 3-56 [
l AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-63 Figure 3-57 [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-64 Figure 3-58 [
l 3.2 Discussion of 5/NANO Benchmarking Results Boiling transition under oscillatory power and/or flow conditions is shown to follow a consistent pattern. [
l AREVA Inc.
Controiied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-65 The first temperature pulses indicating the initial inception of dryout are observed [
] The temperature pulses indicate dryout as marked by positive temperature time derivative, followed by rewetting as indicated by the turnaround and temperature falling. The cyclical dryout and rewetting produced periodic temperature pulses where (under steady oscillation with fixed amplitude) the temperature oscillates between the same minima and maxima. [
] Failure to rewet was observed to occur [
]
A mathematical conception of the above observations can be made to aid in the modeling effort.
The heat transfer processes as indicated by the response of the thermocouples form a dynamical system [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-66
[
]
The model described in this report is consistent with the characterization of the dryout and rewetting processes provided above. The model describes a dynamical system which upon integration is capable of producing [
]. The other important output parameter of the model is the peak temperature upon failure to rewet. [
]
A general survey of the results as depicted in Figure 3-1 through Figure 3-58 shows general good agreement between the measured and model calculated rod surface temperatures. More details describing the nature of agreement and behavior of the model are presented here.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 3-67 Comments regarding representative runs [ ] are given below.
AREVA Inc.
Controiied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 3-68
[
1 AREVA Inc.
Control~ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 4-1 4.0 ATWS-1 Calculations for Monticello Extended Flow Window Note that the calculations documented in this section are kept for historic purposes only. The final analysis of record is documented in Reference 10.
A total of [ ] transient runs were calculated with AISHA. The main variant in the calculations is the core loading. These cores are:
- 1. A full core loaded with GE14
- 2. An initial transition core loaded with GE14 and ATRIUM 10XM
- 3. An equilibrium core of ATRIUM 10XM The transient scenario is specified as [ ] to simulate a turbine trip with turbine bypass. The loss of feedwater heating is represented by [
] Increasing core inlet subcooling destabilizes the core in two different ways:
AREVA Inc.
Controlied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page4-2 through its intrinsic destabilizing effect even if other conditions were kept unchanged, and through increasing the total reactor power.
The core pressure was [
]
There are a total of [ ] AISHA runs as given in the following table.
Table 4-1 Monticello ATWS-1 calculations For each of the runs, the limiting bundles were identified, and AISHA output for each of these limiting bundles was processed using the code SI NANO to calculate the hot rod temperature response. [
] The peak clad temperature is calculated as the maximum nodal temperature of the hot rod of the limiting bundles.
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Docun1ent ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 4-3 The following figures depict the results for the respective limiting bundle for each of the runs. In each figure, the bundle power is shown (RED) as function of time, the inlet mass flow rate is shown (BLUE) as function of time, and the clad temperature at the indicated limiting node (BLACK) is also plotted.
Figure 4-1 ATWS-1 conditions for GE14 core hot bundle at [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Revision 1 Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 4-4 Figure 4-2 ATWS-1 conditions for GE14 core hot bundle at [ l AREVA Inc.
Controlied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 4-5 Figure 4-3 ATWS-1 conditions for mixed core hot ATRIUM 10XM bundle at [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Control!ed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 4-6 Figure 4-4 ATWS-1 conditions for mixed core hot GE14 bundle at [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 4-7 Figure 4-5 ATWS-1 conditions for mixed core hot ATRIUM 10XM bundle at [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page4-8 Figure 4-6 ATWS-1 conditions for mixed core hot GE14 bundle at [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello A TWS-1 Page 4-9 Figure 4-7 ATWS-1 conditions for ATRIUM 10XM core hot bundle at [ ]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page4-10 Figure 4-8 A TWS-1 conditions for ATRIUM 1OXM core hot bundle at [ 1 The general pattern of the ATWS-1 transient starts with a regional mode power perturbation.
[
] self-sustaining oscillations start to grow exponentially, i.e. with a fixed decay ratio greater than unity. A characteristic of the regional mode oscillation is that [
] It is observed that the power and flow oscillation magnitudes [
1 AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 4-11
[
]
The temperature response in the limiting bundle starts when the flow oscillation magnitude is sufficiently large to cause dryout. This typically starts at the [
] Cyclical dryout and rewetting occurs, [
] The peak clad temperature is thus governed by the [
]
AREVA Inc.
Controlled Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 4-12 4.1 Peak Clad Temperature Results The peak clad temperature for each of the calculations is reported in the table below. For the mixed core, the peak clad temperature for each of the two fuel types is reported separately.
Table 4-2 Calculated peak clad temperatures during ATWS-1 The results indicate that:
- Peak clad temperature is below the coolability limit of 1204 °C (2200 °F).
AREVA Inc.
ControUed Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 5-1 5.0 Conclusions The analysis described in this report indicates that the ATWS-1 transient in Monticello does not violate the peak clad temperature criterion. Due to applying conservative assumptions, significant margin exists. Fuel type has not been identified as a significant factor.
AREVA Inc.
Controiied Document ANP-3284NP Results of Analysis and Benchmarking of Revision 1 Methods for Monticello ATWS-1 Page 6-1 6.0 References
- 1. "ATWS Rule Issues Relative to BWR Core Thermal-Hydraulic Stability," NED0-32047-A, Class I June 1995.
NUREG/CR 5816, BNL/NUREG-52312, October 1992.
- 3. ANP-3274P Revision 2, "Analytical Method for Monticello ATWS-1," AREVA NP Inc., July 2016.
- 4. EMF-2158(P)(A) Revision 0, "Siemens Power Corporation Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors: Evaluation and Validation of CASM0-4/MICROBURN-B2," Siemens Power Corporation, October 1999.
- 5. EMF-CC-074(P)(A) Volume 4 Revision 0, BWR Stability Analysis-Assessment of STAIF with Input from MICROBURN-82, Siemens Power Corporation, August 2000.
- 6. EMF-3028(PA) Vol. 2 Revision 4, "RAMONA5-FA: A Computer Program for BWR Transient Analysis in the Time Domain -- Theory Manual," AREVA NP Inc., January 2011.
- 7. BAW-10255(P)(A) Rev. 2, "Cycle-Specific DIVOM Methodology Using the RAMONA5-FA Code," AREVA NP Inc., May 2008.
- 8. D. W. Pruitt, K. R. Greene, F. Wehle, R. Velten, J. Kronenberg, A. Beisiegel, and Y. M.
Farawila, "Stability and Void Fraction Measurements for the ATRIUM 1OXM BWR Fuel Bundle," Proceedings of 2010 LWR Fuel Performance Top Fuel WRFPM, Orlando, Florida, Sept. 26-29, 2010.
- 9. F. Wehle, R. Velten, J. Kronenberg, A. Beisiegel, D. Pruitt, K. Greene, and Y. Farawila, "Full Scale Stability and Void Fraction Measurements for the ATRIUM 1OXM BWR Fuel Bundle,"
2011 Jahrestagung Kerntechnik, Berlin, Germany, May 17-19 2011.
- 10. ANP-3435P Revision 2, "AREVA Responses to RAl-8 and RAl-32 from SRXB and SNPB on MNGP EFW LAR," July 2016.
AREVA Inc.