ML20154M242

Simulate-3 Validation & Verification

ML20154M242
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe, 05000000
Issue date:	09/30/1988
From:	Cacciapouti R, Digiovine A, Gorski J, Slifer B, Tremblay M YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20154M233	List: ML20154M230 ML20154M242
References
YAEC-1659, NUDOCS 8809270100
Download: ML20154M242 (105)

Text

-

i

[

l8-SIMULATE-3 VALIDATION and VERIFICATION September 1988 by A. C. L% vine J. P. Corski M. A. Tremblay 9/9 /88 Prepared By:

A. S. DIGlok'ine, dnior Engineer (Date) l Nucle r nginee Department Prepared By:

J[#Gorski,"Nuclear Engineer (Date) i h"uclear Engineering Department Prepared Dy:

4

/

9 M. A. Tremblay, Engineer [

(Date)

Nuclear Engineering Department k

((

Approved By:

I-

1. 4 ( G-(M R.//. Cacciapod[ Group

. Manager

'(Ddte)

Reactor Physics Nuclear Engineering Department Approved By:

J As

/

i D. C. SlifeW Director (Date) l Nuclear Engineering Department l

l l

Yankee Atomic Electric Company Nuclear Services Division 580 Main Street Dolton, Massachusetts 01740 1398 i

l

m. _

i l

j 8809270100 seo912

/'

PDR ADOCK 05000029 i, _ _P_

PDC t

DISCLAIMER This document was prepared by Yankee Atomic Electric Company for its own use.

The use of information contained in this document by anyone other than Yankee Atomic Electric Company is not authorized, and in regard to unauthorized use neither Yankee Atomic Electric Company or any of its officers, directors, agents or employees cssumes any obligation, responsibility or liability, or makes any warranty or representation, with respect to the contents of this document, or its accuracy or completeness.

l __

AR$ TRACT This report presents the validation of the SibiULATE-3 computer code for use as an incore reactor phyt.tcs analysts model. The intended use of the code is in une generation of spanal reactor physics calculations typically required as part of reload licensing analysts.

These analyses encompass global reactivity calculations such as boron letdown, startup test predicuons, temperate.re coefficient calculanons, etc. In addition.

the code will be used in detailed power distributton analysis, including pin by pin power distribuuons, as well as incore detector teacuan rate calculations, in a previous document. YAEC 1363, CAShf0 3G VALIDATION, Yankee Atomic Electric presented the lattice physics computer code that will be used to supply required nuclear data constants to the Sih!ULATE 3 code. The validauon presented in this report uses only data supplied by the CAShlO-3G computer code.

This report focuses upon three mqfor applications of the SiblULATS 3 code. The prst is application to operating Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and includes comparison of Sih!ULATE-3 generated data to actual measured data, as well as to the BNL PWR Ccre Standard Problem. The second application is to operating Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) and again includes comparisons to actual measured data. The final application focuses on the pin bypin pouer distribution capabilities of SinfULA7E 3. This applicath, compares multi-assembly SibiUIATE 3 pin-by pin power distributions to h@her order transport theoni solutions. In addition, p6t by ptn pouer distributtonsfor an operating P%7t are compared between GihiULATE-3 and the currently accepted method ofpin power distribution calculations, PDQ-7.

i

- 1 11 -

s t

I

~. _ _ _ _ _ _

4 l

l TABLE OF CO.VIEh'IS DI SCIRM E R.............................................

11 ABSTRAC I'..............................................

111 LIST OF TABLES vil UST OF FIGURES x

ACKNOWLEDGEMEh*IS xil 1.0 IhTRODUC110N/ SCOPE OF APPLICA110N........................

1 2.0 SIMULATE 3 OVERVIEW...................................

5 2.1 Description of SIMULA'IE 3...............................

5 2.1.1 Two-Group Diffusion Model...........................

5 2.1.2 Assembly Homogenization Model........................

6 2.1.3 BafIle/ Reflector Model 6

2.1.4 Fuel Depletion Model...............................

6 2.1.5 Pin Power Reconstruction Model........................

7 2.2 CASMO-30 Ovetview...................................

8 4

2.3 TABLES 3 Description..................................

9 2.4 Calculational Capabillues................................

10 2.5 Validation 10 3.0 PWR VALIDAT10N CA14UIA110N 15 3.1 McGuire Unit 2. Cycle 1 'Ihrough 3 Validation...................

15 3.1.1 Model Description.................................

15 3.1.2 Boron letdown Results 16 3.1.3 IIFP Detector Calculations 16 3.1.4 HFP Power Distributions................,............

17 3.1.5 liFP Xenon Transient 17

. tv.

)

3.1.6 HFP EOC Moderator Temperature Coefilcients 19 l

3.1.7 HZP Startup Test Predictions..........................

19 3.1.8 McGuire Unit 2 Summary............................

20 3.2 Farley Unit 2. Cycles 1 through 4 Validauon....................

20 3.2.1 Model Description.................................

21 3.2.2 Boron 14tdown Results 21 3.2.3 HFP Detector Calculations 22 3.2.4 HFP Power Distribuuons.

22 3.2.5 HZP Power Distributions.............................

22 3.2.6 HZP Startup Test Predicuons.....

23 3.2.7 Farley Unit 2 Summary.............................

23 4.0 BWR VALIDATION CAlfUIADON 41 4.1 Quad Cities 1 Cycles 1 and 2 Validauon 41 4.1.1 Quad Cities 1 Model Description 41 4.1.2 Hot Eigenvalue Calculation. Cgles 1 and 2.................

42 4.1.3 Cold In. Sequence Criticals. Cycles 1 and 2 42 4.1.4 Cold local Crtucals. Beginning of Cycle 1 43 4.1.5 'nP Trace Evaluation. Cycles 1 and 2 43 4,1.6 Quad Cities 1 Summa 2y.............................

44 4.2 Forsmark Unit 1 Cycles 1 Through 6 Validation..................

44 4.2.1 Forsmark 1 Model Descripuon.........................

45 4.2.2 Hot Eigenvalue Calculadons. Cycles 1 'Ihrough 6 45 4.2.3 Cold Critical Calculauons. Cycles 1 'Ihrough 6...............

46 4.2.4 BP Trace Evaluation. Cycles 1 Through 6..................

46 4.2.5 Forsmark 1 Summary....................

47 5.0 PWR PIN POWER RECONSTRUCHON VALIDABON 65 5.1 Validation versus Measured Critical Experiments 65 5.2 Validauon versus Measured Reacuan Rates.....................

66 5.3 Validation versus Higher Order Numerical CLiculauons 66 5.4 PWR Quarter Core SIMUIATE 3 Reconstruction Compared to PDQ.7.....

68 5.5 Pin Power Reconstruction Summary 69 6.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 83

.y.

N

7.0 REFERENCES

89 APPENDIX A A1

. vt.

I

LIST OF TABIES lhAII1DE M

Eagt 1.1 IJst of Key PWR Physics Parameters 3

1.2 List of Key BWR Physics Parameters 4

2.1 PWR Functional Dependencies 13 2.2 BWR Functional Dependencies 14 3.1 McGu're Unit 2 Operating Characteristics 24 3.2 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 Boron Letdown 24 3.3 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 2 Boron Letdown 25 3.4 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 3 Boron Letdown 25 3.5 McGuire Unit 2 Cycles 1 Through 3 Detector Comparison Case Description 26 3.6 McGutre Unit 2 Cycles 1 Through 3 Comparison of Predicted and Measured 27 Axially Integrated Average Reaction Rates and Axial Offsets 3.7 McGuire Unit 2 Cycles 1 Through 3 Comparison of Predicted and 28 Measured Assembly Powers 3.8 McGuire Unit 2 MOC 3 Xenon Transient 29 3.9 McGuire Unit 2 EOC 3 Xenon Transient 30 s

3.10 McGuire Unit 2 EOC HFP Modemtor Temperature CoefBelent 31 l

- vil

• i I

i

i 3.11 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 HZP Control Ibd Worths 31 3.12 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 2 HZP Control Rod Worths 31 3.13 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 3 HZP Control Rod Worths 31 3.14 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 HZP Boron Endpoints 32 3.15 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 2 HZP Boron Endpoints 32 3.16 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 3 HZP Boron Endpoints 32 3.17 McGuire Unit 2 HZP BOC isothennal Temperature Coef!)cients 32 3.18 Farley Unit 2 Operating Characteristics 33 3.19 Farley Unit 2 Cycles 1 '1hru 4 Comparison of Predicted and Measured 33 Reaction Rates, Axial Offsets, and Assembly Powers 3.20 Farley Unit 2 HZP Core Average Axial Detector Reaction Rates 34 3.21 Farley Unit 2 Cycles 1 and 2 Comparison of Predicted and Measured 34 Reaction Rates, Axial Offsets, and Assembly Powers at HZP BOC 3,22 Farley Unit 2 Cycle 1 HZP Control Rod Worths 35 3.23 Farley Unit 2 Cycle 2 HZP Control Rod Worths 35 3.24 Farley Unit 2 Cycle 3 HZP Control Rod Worths Using Rod Swap Tecimique 35 3.25 Farley Unit 2 Cycle 4 HZP Control Rod Wo.rths Using Rod Swap Technique 35 4.1 Summary of Quad Clues Cycles 1 and 2 Hot Depletions 48 4.2 Quad Cities Cycles 1 and 2 Cold Critical Cases 49

• Vili *

%.i-

)

4.3 Summary of Quad Clues Cycles 1 and 2 '11P Data 50 4.4 Characterisucs of Forsmark Unit 1 Fuel Designs 51 4.5 Forsmark Unit 1 Hot Eigenvalue Summary 52 4.6 Forsmark Unit 1 Cold Criucal Summary 52 5.1 SIMUIATE 3 Pin Power Validation for B&W Critical Experiments 71 5.2 Colorset Analysis Case Listing and Identifiers 72 5.3 Colorset Verification Results 73 5.4 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 Comparison Between PDQ 7 and SIMUIA'IE 3 of 74 Peak Pin 6.1 Summary of SIMUIATE-3 Accuracy for PWR Application 85 6.2 Summary of SIMUIA'IE 3 Accuracy for BWR Application 87 6.3 Summary of SIMULA'IE-3 Accuracy for PWR Pin Power Reconstruction 88 A.1 BNL PWR Core Standard Problem Calculated Parameters A2 A.2 BNL PWR Core Standard Problem DNL/YAEC Comparison Results A 3'

. ix.

1.tST OF FIGURES Number Figure East 3.1 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 Summary of Reaction Rate Comparisons 36 3.2 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 2 Summary of Reaction Rate Comparisons 37 3.3 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 3 Summary of Reaction Rate Comparisons 38 3.4 McGuire Unit 2 Cycles 1 'Ihrough 3 Summary of Reaction Rate 39 Comparisons 3.5 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 3 Xenon Transient 40 4.1 Quad Cities Cycles 1 and 2 Hot Eigenvalues 53 4.2 Quad Cities Cycles 1 and 2 Cold Eigenvalues Results 54 4.3 Quad Cities Unit 1 Cycle 1 TP Trace Summary Predicted Measured 55 Average UP Integrals 4.4 Quad Cities Unit 1 Cycle 2 BP Trace Summary Predicted Measured 56 Average EP Integrals 4.5 Quad Cities Unit 1 Cycle 1 BP Trace Comparison Summary 57 4.6 Quad Cities Unit 1 Cycle 2 BP Trace Comparison Summary 59 4.7 Forsmark Unit 1 BP Trace Summary Cycles 1A Through 6 61 Predicted Measured Average TIP Integrals 4.8 Forsmark Unit 1 'I1P Trace Summary Cycle 1A Predicted Measured 62 Average TIP Integrals

.X*

4.9 Forsmark Unit 1 T1P Trace Summary Cycle 6 Predicted Measured 63 Average 'I1P Integral 4.10 Forsmark 1 Cycle 6 Core Average Axial' IIP Comparisons 64 5.1 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 leading Pattern and Naming Convention 75 5.2 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 2 Loading Pattern and Naming Convention 76 5.3 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 BOC and EOC Comparison Between PDQ 7 77 and SIMUIAE 3 Peak Power Pin by Assembly 5.4 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 BOC.15 Gwd/Mt Comparison Between PDQ 7 78 and SIMUIA'IE-3 of Assembly Power 5.5 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 1 EOC 14.0 Gwd/Mt Comparison Be veen PDQ 7 79 and SIMUIA'IE 3 of Assembly Power 5.6 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 2 BOC.15 Gwd/Mt Comparison Between PDQ 7 80 and SIMUIA'1I 3 of Assembly Power 5.7 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 2 BOC.15 Gwd/Mt Comparison Between PDQ 7 81 and SIMULATE 3 Peak Pin by Assembly 5.8 McGuire Unit 2 Cycle 2 BOC (.15 Gwd/Mt) Comparison Between PDQ 7 82 and SIMUIA'IE 3 Pin Distribution of Upper Lell Quadrant of Assembly 28 Which Contains Peak Pin

. x1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENIS

'nie authors wish to acknowledge all the indMduals who assisted in the development of the CASMO-30/SIMULA'IE-3 methods program. Many different people within Yankee Atomic assisted with their ideas and support. In particular, we would hke to acknowledge R A.

Wochlke, K. J. Morrissey, and O. M. Solan for their assistance. In addition, many indMduals outside of Yankee Atomic also helped us. We thank M. Edenius. K. S. Smith, and D. M. Ver Planck of Studsvik of America for their assistance. Finally, thanks to N. Barbetta for helping us put the reports together.

. xil -

I

1.0 LyrRODUCEON/ SCOPE OF APPLICATION nis report describes the SIMULATE 3 computer code, which is intended to be used by Yankee Atomic Elmtnc Company for reload physics design analysis.' ne code is capable of perfonning all calculations currently performed with codes such as SIMUIATE 2 and PDQ 7."

nis includes generauon of startup test prrdicuons, core foDow calculations, and physics data for safety analysis.

ne intent of this report is to desenbe the computer code and demonstrate the vahdity of applying the code to reload physics design analysis.

An overview of the code and the associated spectrum lattice code, CASMO 30, is included." In addition, the report is dMded into three major categories; apphcation to Pressurized Water Reactom (P%%s), application to Bothng Water Reactors (BWRs), and application to generating detailed pin by pin power distMbuuons.

For the PWR appucation, several key physics parametem are calculated using SIMUIATE 3 and compared to measured data from two operating PWRs. nese parameters are typical parameters associated with reload physics core design and are usted in Table 1.1.

For the BWR appucation, nyeral key parameters were also generated and compared to operating BWR data. These pammeters are usted in Table 1.2.

ne final applicauon is the demonstrauon of the SIMUIATE 3 pin power reconstruction capabihty This capabihty includes pin.by pin power distribution generation, which is required for safety analysis evaluauons. This data is generated using SIMUIATE 3 and compared to measured data from critical experiments, and comparisons to higher order numerical benchmark solutions. In addluon, a comparison is made between SIMUIATE 3 pin power distnbutions and those generated using a PDQ-7 model of an operating PWR. The final secuon of this report contains a summary of the typical accuracy associated when using SIMUIATE 3 to calculate key reactor physics parameters.

As further verification of the SIMULATE 3 code, the code is applied to the BNL PWR Core Standard Problem.e his problem was designed by Brookhaven National laboratory for the purposes of tesung the validity of a particular physics code apphed to a typical reload type 1

calculation, as well as to test the competence of the engineers using the code in performing reload analysis.

Since the intent of this report is consistent with these purposes, the evaluation that Yankee Atomic received from Brookhaven is included in Appendix A of this report.

i f

i 2-

TABLE 1.1 UST OF KEY PWR PHYSICS PAIULMERS Critical Boron Concentrauon versus Cycle Exposure Cycle length -

Detector Fission Reaction Rates Radial Assembly Power Distribution Axial Power Distribution Control Rod Worths Critical Boron Concentrations at Hot Zero Power versus Control Rod Insertion Temperature Coeflicients Axial Oilset During Xenon Transients at Power TABLE 1.2 IJST OF KEY BWR PHYSICS PAIVLMETERS K cNective versus Cycle Exposure Local Cold Criticals In Sequence Cold Cnticals Axial' IIP Tmces versus Cycle Exposure 4

2.0 SIMUIATE-3 OVERVIEW This section provides a brief overview of the SIMULATE 3 code used for PWR and DWR steady state physics anahsis.

An overview of the lattice physics code, CASMO 30, as it pertains to SIMULA E-3, is also included.

Bis overview is intended to summarize the characteristics of the codes, the modeling approximations employed, and some of the benchmarking provided by the code vendor. Detailed descriptions of the theory d each code are contained in sepamte documents provided by the code vendor. Studsvik of America."

2,1 Descriotion Of SIMUIATE-3 The SIMUIATE 3 code is an advanced nodal code for perfonning steady state incore physics calculations, with coupled thermal hydraulic and Doppler feedback.

De physics models employed are quite diferent than those of conventional nodal codes. nese models have eliminated the need for user-adjustable parameters (e.g., albedos, thennal leakage corrections, etc.), and all of the physics data required for SIMUIATE 3 is obtained directly from CASMO-3G assembly spectrum / depletion calculations, ne SIMUIATE-3 code consists of five physics models: the two-group d11Tusion equation model, the fuel assembly homogenizauon model, the baflie/ reflector model, the cross section/ depletion model, and the pin power reconstrucuon model.

2.1.1 T\\vo-Groun DifTusion Model The spatial neutronics model used in SIMULATE-3 is called the QPANDA model which solves the three dimensional, two-group neutron d1Euston equation: using forth order polynomials, to represent intra nodal, Dux distribuuons, in both fast and thermal groups.

QPANDA explicitly treats group to-group coupling effects on the intra nodal flux distributions, an important phenomenon which is ignored in conventional nodal models.

De spatial distribution of exposure within each node is also used to improve the accuracy of the nodal couphng coeficients and to provide informauon required for calculauon of pin by pin power distribuuons. De nodal coupling equations are solved by a nonhnear iterauve technique in which polynomial coupling equations are solved analytically, using sources obtained from the glo'oal flux iteration, ne flux iteration is perfonned using Wielandt's fractional iteration (eigemalue shifting) and the Cyclic Chebyshev Semilterauve method.

5-

i 2.1.2 Assembh* Homogenintion Model t

The use of a nodal model imphes that the fuel assem*ohes are treated as homogenous. It 1

is well known that conventional flux volume weighting of cross sections leads to mispredictions in the ccupling between assembhes, and correspondingly, to mispredictions in the reactor power distribuuons.

In order to avoid introducing such errors, SIMUIAE-3 employs the use of flux discontinuity factom to tnat the spatial homogenization of fuel assembues.

We discontinuity factors are derived from the assumption that the aux distribuuon is comprised of two pieces: a global shape 01omogeneous smooth flux dist:1bution) and a local shape (heterogeneous assembly Oux distribution).

nts assumption allows discontinuity factors (ADFs) to be edited from the same assembly calculations perfonned to compute two group cross secuons.

When used in the QPANDA model, ADFs alter the prediction of neutron currents between assembhes and effectively chminate homogenizauon erro m.

2.1.3 Bame/ Reflector Model The discontinuity factor concept is also apphed to the modehng of homogenized bafne/ reflector nodes in SB1ULAE 3. We CASMO-3G reflector option is used to solve a fuel assembly /bame/reficctor region. Bis data is used in the QPANDA model to represent all radial reflector nodes, and detailed tests have demonstrated that this model eliminates the need for any user adjustments in the baflie/reDector modehng. A similar model is also used for upper and lower axial rettttors.

2.1 A Fuel Deoletion Model The fuel assembly depleuon model used in SIMUIAE-3 uses macroscopic cross section data functionahzed versus exposure and *htstory" variables, ne use of history variables (covered in more detat! in Section 2.3) allows SIMUIAE 3 to accurately model the effects of local conditions (e.g., moderator density, inserted control rods, etc.) on the depletion induced changes in nuclide concentmtions. Wis macroscopic depletion model permits SIMUIAE 3 to account for microscopic depletion effects, without tracking nuclide concentrations in each node of the reactor model.

0

0.1.5 Pin Power Reconstruction Model SIMUIATE-3 is also capable of accurately predicung three-dimensional pin by pin power distributhns. Individual pin powers are computed by assuming spatial separability of the smooth intra nodal power distributions and the local pin by pin power distributions.

Calculation of the smooth intra nodal power distribution requires evaluation of the intra nodal flux and fission cross section distribution. Intranodal flux distributions are computed using bi quadratic flux expansions with constraint terms taken from the QPANDA surface-averaged fluxes, cuntnts and nodal comer-point fluxes. De corner point fluxes are evaluated by using the QPANDA fourth order flux distributions and continuity conditions at corner points which assure corner point conunuity of reconstructed fluxes.

Calculation of the intra nodal cross section distribution requires treatment of two distinct phenomena. First, the effects of depleting nodes with asynunetric (tilted) flux distribuuons are evaluated by expanding the intra nodal exposure distribution '.n bi quadrauc polynomials and calculating pin by pin homogen! zed fission cross sections as functiore of the pin by-pin exposures.

Secondly, the effects of spectmm interaction from neighboring assemblies are treated, nese "spectral history" effects develop because the spectrum which exists on the surface of an assembly is alTected by neighboring assemblies, and this spectrum is different from that assumed in the infinite medium CASMO 30 assembly depleuon calculations.

Consequently, the actual cross sections for the surface of an assembly depend not only on the exposure, but also on the spectrum which existed as the assembly was depleted. n ese spectml interacuon effects are modeled in SIMUIAW.-3 by continuously integraung the spectm for each assembly surface and by evaluating the surface cross sections based on the exposure integrated spectra.

Once the intra nodal flu:: and homogenized fission cross secuon distnoutions are known, the intra nodal power distribuuon can be computed. Pin by pin power distributions are then computed by multiplying the intra nodal power distdbution with the CASMO 3G pin by pin power distributions. %e CASMO 3G power distnbutions account for all of the assembly heterogenettles (water holes, burnable absorber pins, etc.), and the intra nodal power dtstnbution accounts for all of the gross power tilts and assembly interaction effects. The 7

spectral history treatment in SIMUIAE3 allows all pin power distributions to be compute from single assembly CASMO-30 calculations. All CASMO-3G pin power distributJons are evaluated such that the distribuuons reDect local condluons (e.g., exposure, modot.trr density, etc.) which exist in each node.

2.2 CASMO 3G Qerview CASMO-3G is a two-dimensional, mulu group tmnsport theory code for the calculauon of eigenvalue, spatial reaction rate distnbuuons, nuchde depletion of pin cells, and depletion of BWR and PWR fuel lattices. Die code is an improved vem!on of the CASMO aM. CASMO 2

codes, it is capable of modehng cruciform control rods containing cy1:ndrical absorber elements, cluster control rods, water gaps, incore instrumentatfor. channels, borun curtains, burnable absorber rods, bumable absorbers within the fuel rods, and fuel icd Imded with gadounitun. CASMO 3G includes a bafile/ reflector cross section generanen roodet. tmd the ebility to genemte assembly flux disconunuity factom for use in SIMUIAE4 Vie nuclear data hbrary is based on ENDF/B IV with some fission spectm data taken fmm ENDF/B V.

The data are collected in a hbrary containing cross sections in 40 energy groups, for neutron energie' from 0 to 10 Mev.

'1he data required from CASMO 30 for StMU1 ATE 3 consists of two poup cell average macroscopic cross sections, and microscopic cross sections for xenon, samarium, ar'd soluble boron. Also required are disconunuity factors, pin by pin distribuuons, comer point fluxes.

4 and detector reaction rates.

For a variety of individual reactor statepoint conditions, the CASMO 3G code is used to cadculate spectrum weighted infonnation for each unique fuel type to be analyzed Mth SIMUIAE3. Unse condPions include vartauon cf moderator temperature, soluble boron (fri PWRs), insertion of control rods, fuel temperature and exposure. !!! story effecta base,( cn depletion at off nominal ecndluons, are also included.

Vlis data is then processed unto tabular form by the TADIES 3 code for use in SIMUIAE3. Yankee Atomic has submitted a topical report on the CASMO-3G code for appucaucn to GIMULATE 3.*

That report descAbes the theory and presents vahdation of CASMO 30.

.S.

M/

l 2.3 TABES 3 Descriotion ne TADES-3 computer code processes the infonnation from single assembly CASH!O 3G lattice calculauons into a tabular form for use in the SIh!UIATE 3 code.' The methodology used by TABZS-3 is similar to that used by the TABES 2 computer code.

The methodology is based upon defining node average cross secuons which are a summation of "partial cross sections". De partial cross secuons are funcuons of the diEerent statepoints analyzed at the CASH!O 3G le rel.

De TABES 3 code functionahzes the "partial cross secuons" by subtract 1 rig the cross sections generated from each of the statepoint calculations from som:; base condition cross section. De functional 12ations are presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 for PWR and D%R applicauons, respectively, nese functionalizauons are typical of those used for rnany years with nodal codes for reload analysis. History eEects are included in the cross section model in order to improve the accuracy of the cross secuon representation. ne intent of these htstories is to provide accuracy compamble to a de: ailed microscopic analysis.

In a PWE. the history eEects that are most prominent are soluble boron history and moderator history. In a D%7L the dominant history efects are void history and control rod history.

Consider, for example, requirements on the cross section model of including moderator history eEects. At 8he CASH 10 3G level, a base depletion is perfonned at a fixed moderator candluon.

Staue staterint calculations, or branch calculauons, are performed from this depletion to other moderator conditions, ne moderator partial crou, s uons that will be calculated by TABES 3 will have been produced using consistent nuclide concentmtions (that of the base ca54 with the excepuon of hydrog,en and oxygen concentrations).

For c.< atntaneous moderator changes this representation is adequate.

However, sia.c-a t; pical PAR will de%ete, with varying moderator conditions axially in the core, the instan aneous elTects do not entirely address the spectmm effects of depletion at moderator condiuon that are different than the base case moderator cundluon. Rese effects result in d1Eerent nuchde concentration chmges and different reactMt, effects with decletion.

n erefore, the need arises to include history (depletion) effects m the cross secuan representation associated with the SIhtUIATE 3 model. De history efeet is incorporated m the Sth1UIATE 3 model by performing an additional depletion at sorne other moderator condition.

nis data ic combined with the base moderator depletion and instantaneous mod:rutor bmnch cases to produce history partial cross secuons. A similar approach is used 9

for the remainmg history effects. Exposure weighted average soluble boron, moderator, void and control history variables are accumulated with depletion on a nodal basis to quantify the history compvnent of the cross sections.

In addition to macroscopic cross section handling, the TABLES 3 code also tabularizes CASMO 3G generated microscopic cross sections for xenon, samarium and sohable boron.

Dese nuclides are treated expbcitly in SIMUIATE-3, as are the precursor nuclides, iodine and promethium.

Finally, discontinuity factors, corner point fluxes, CASMO 30 pin power distributions, and detector reaction rates are also functional 12ed by the TABLES 3 code for appbcation at the SIMUIATE 3 level.

2.4 Calculattoral Cacabilities ne SIMUIATr' code is capable of calculating physics parameters typically associated with reload physics analysis for P%Rs and DwRs. The code can calculate core reactMty and power distributions in two or three dimensions.

Moderator, Doppler, and xenon feedback effects can be utilized or isolated for sensitMty studies. Incore computer constants such as predicted detector signals can be generated. Previcusly, Yankee Atomic has perfcT.ted such calculations using the SIMULATE and PDQ 7 computer codes "

2.5 Validation The accuracy of each of the five models which comprise the physics portion of SIMUIATE-3 have been evaluated by the code vendor though direct comparison to higher-order numerical calculations." Dese tests provide verificauon that each model functions properly, and equally as important, these tests provide quantification of the accuracy of each model. The benchmark tests include the following cases:

2 D PWR Denchma-k (with and without control rods) 2 D D%R Denchmark (with and without Discontinuity Factors) 2 D D%R Benchmark versus PDQ 7 (with and without Discontinuity Factors) 3 D IAFA PWR Denchmark 3 D PMR Benchmark versus PDQ 7 10 -

l These benchmarks demonstrate the following versus the reference solution:

the two group neutronic model, QPANDA, used in SIh!ULA'IE 3 provides assembly power distribuuons ranging from 1.0% maximum RMS errors for PWR appbcauons to 1.5% to 3.0% R5tS ermrs for D%R applicat'ons.

the use cf disconunuity factors corrects most of the spaual homogenizauon errors which are traditionally introduced by the use of 'Jux volume weighted cross sections.

the CAShtO 3G/Sih!UIATE 3 ballle/ reflector modeling techniques yield very accumte power distnbutions, inciuding inside or outside bafIle/ reflector comers.

the overall accuracy of the S15tCIATE-3 code is comparable to the accuracy of direct two group PDQ 7 calculations.

The second benchmark report provides further verification by appitation to a P%R for two cycles of depletion." The problem tests the accuracy of the nodal methud in terms of depletion. 'Ihis is also an integral test of the partial cross secuon functionalizauon in that it tests the validity of the "partial cross section" methodology to accurately recon:truct nueroscopic creas sections for a given statepo'.nt at the S15tUIATE-3 level.

'Ihis benchmark demonstrates:

the two group neutronic model, QPANDA, used in S15tUIA"IE-3 provides accurate assembly power distributions for P%R problems, the macroscopic depleuon mcdel (macroscopic cress sections functionaMzed versus assembly exposure, including history efTects) and the SIA1UIA'IE 3 code is compamble in accumey to microscopic depteuon models, -

These benchmarks establish the verification of the code system. CASMO 3G statepoint calcubtions. TADIIS-3 cross section functionahzation, and SIMUIATE 3 reactivity and gross power distribution calcuhtions are all vertfled.

l 6

TABLE 2,1 PWR FUNCT10NAL DEPENDENCIES Iygg CASMO-30 Data Tvoe Function Fuel Cross Section Exposure hioderator History Boron History Instantaneous bloderator Instantaneous Doppler Instantaneous Boron Control Rod Insertion Fission Product Data, Exposure Discontinutty Factors, Instantaneous htoderator Pin Power Distributions, Instantaneous Dopphr Corner Point Fluxes, Instantaneous Boron Detector Reaction Rates Control Rod Insertion Radial and Axial Reflectors Cross Section, Instantaneous Boron Di:: continuity Factors Instantaneous htoderator 13 -

1 TABLE 2.2 BWR FUNCT10NAL DEPENDENCIES h

CASMO-30 Data TVoe Function Fuel Cross Section Exposure Void History Control Rod litstory Instantaneous Void Instantaneous Doppler instantaneous M. Aerator Co.itrol Rod Insertion Ftssion Product Data, Exposure Discontinuity Factors Vold liistory Instantaneova Vold Instantaneous Doppler Control Rod Insertion Radial and Axial Reflectors Cross Section, Instantaneous Void Discontinuity Facters Instantaneous Moderator 14

3.0 PWR VALIDAT10N CALCWA'nON Yankee Atomic intends to use the SIMUIATE 3 code to perform reactor physics analyses for operating PWR and D%Bs. His section provides vahdation calculauons performed on two operating PWHs.

The next section will provide similar verification on DWHs.

The P%R verification consists of mojeling several operating cycles of the PWR reactors using SIMULATE 3 in a manner similar to the way Yankee Atomic intends to model tractors for licensing applications.

Data generated using these models are compared to actual plant measured data in order to vahdate the code for reactor physics appucations.

I 1

l 3.1 McGuire Unit 2. Cveles 1 throuch 3 Validation The SIMUIATE-3 code was apphed to the analysts of McGuire Unit 2, a Westinghouse 4 loop 3411 Mwth Pressurtzed water reactor, owned and operated by Duke Power Company "

The analysis consisted of performing typical reactor physics calculations used in Irload bcensing. These calculations were compared to measured data encompassing three cycles of a

operation. Comparisons were made for criucal boron concentrauons as a funcuon of cycle exposure, detector reaction rates, assembly power distributions and axial ofIset as a function of exposure, axial offset during xenon transients, and startup test predicuans consisting of reactivity coelDelents, boron endpoints and control rod werths.

Table 3.1 provides a brief summary of the cyc';e otsign of the three cycles analyzed.

These cycles include the Standard and Optimized W(stinghouse fuel design ustng dry pyrex bumable absorbers which are removed after one cycle of operation, as well as transluon from a convenuonal out in loading pattem to a low leakage pattem featuring loading fresh fuel inboani.

3.1.1 Model Devriotion Single assembly CASMO-3G lattice calculauons were perfonned for each of the fuel types resident in the core in Cycles 1 through 3.

The fuel designs ranged in enrichment from 2.1 to 3.2 w/o U 235, and contained various numbeni of burnable absorber pins. The bumable poison material was borostlicate glass. CASMO-3G cross secuon data was processed with the TABLES 3 code for use in the SIMU1 ATE 3 model.

S L-

l The S!MUIATE-3 model was three-dimensional with four nodes per assembly radially and twelve nodes axially.

In ti.' fuel region, while the reflector is modelled explicitly.

nermal hydraulic (moderator) feedback and Doppler feedback were used. Fuel temperature, as a function of exposure, was also used.

3.1.2 Boron Ixtdown Results llot Full Power (liFP) depledons were performed to calculate critical boron as a function of exposure for each of the three cycles, nts data is compared to measured data in Tables 3.2 through 3.4.

As the results demonstrate, the SIMU1AE 3 model achieves cceptable agirement versus the measured data. The average absolute difference in the SIMULAE 3 calculated critical baron and the plant measured data was 13 ?pm with a io of 10 ppm for 50 data points over the three cycles that were compared.

De end of cycle boron concentrr.t!ons were predicted to within an average absolute difference of 7 ppm, indicating accumte prediction of reactMty depletion rate to end of c>rle.

3.1.3 IIFP Detector Calculations McGuire Unit 2, contains the standard Westinghouse flux mapping system comprised of movable fission chambers. In the core, 58 of the 193 assemblies are measured directly with these devices which traverse the central instrument tube of the. assembly. Flux maps are taken approximately every thiny days of plant operation. He HFP S!MULAE-3 model was used to calculate detector reacuon rates (fission rates) to compare to the plant measured data.

A sample set of flux maps from Cycles 1 through 3 were used for comparison purposes.

Table 3.5 presents the hst of cases analyzed. Table 3.6 presents a summary of the results of reaction rate comparisons that were made.

As the table demonstrates, SIMULAE-3 accurately predicts the detector reaction rates and axial offsets versus the measured data.

De average overall itMS (Meta'ce over the three cycles in ' e predicted axially integmted reacuon rates versus Qe plant data was 1.5% and the average absolute delta ofTset was 1%

ne axial o!Tset is c'efined as the difIerence of the flux in the top half of the core and the bottom half of the core dtvided by the total flux. It is assumed that the detector reaction rates are proportional to the fluxes. Derefore, the axial offset is calculated using the deter or rtaction rates integrated axially. Figures 3.1 through 3.3 present radial distributions for cas a 16 -

i

)

of the three cycles analyzed. De value at each location is the percent difference and the standard deviauon of the percent difference between the SthtUIATE 3 predicted axially integrated reaction rate and the plant measurement integrated and averaged over the enure cycle. Signs are included in order to determine if any radially trends exist, such as in out tilts. Figure 3.4 presents the data for all three cycles combined together. As the figures show, there are no significant radial innds with each cycle.

3.1 A liFP Power Distributions In the previous section, the SIhtU1 ATE 3 capability to accurately calculate detector reaction rates was demonstrated.

In this section, the inferred measured assembly power distributions, are compared to S!h1UIATE 3 predicted assembly powers.

Assembly power distributions are not measured directly by the Westtnghouse flux mapping system, but are inferred from measured detector reacuon rates, hiuluplication of the predicted assembly powers by the mtio of the measured detector reaction mte versus the predicted reacuan rate is performed for the instrumented assemilles. De non instrumented assembly powers are dertved using distance weighung techniquet to couple them to the instrumented locauons and to the analyucally predicted assembly pc ver distribution.

De Sth!UIATE 3 values are p oduced directly by the model discussed previously. Table 3.7 presents the summary of the average difference between the measured and assembly powers for each of the cases presented in Table 3.5.

De overall average absolute difference in predicted and measured assembly powers over the three cycles was 1%.

Again these results are quite good, and should be: considering the detector reacuon rate comparison results.

As the results demonsunte, there is no noticeable trend versus cycle depleuon.

3.1.5 liFP Xenon Transient As part of plant operating procedures, mild xenon tmnsients are induced at or near HFP I

in order to perform a cahbmtion of the incon: and excore detecuon systems, ne transients are induced by the inseruon and withdrawal of the regulating control bank in order to produce a range of axial o!Isets that span the allowable operating space. nis is usually in the +5% to 15% range in axial offset.

17 -

The HFP SIMUIATE 3 model previously presented was used to simulate a xenon transient in order to compare pred!Med core average axial offsets to those measured at the plant. This is a difIlcult calculauon due to the uncertainty in the ume control rods move to a certain position, and when the actual axial offset is measured. In addiuon, it is essential that the plant has been operating at an equilibriurn condluon (no significant change in oEset over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />).

Two plant measured xenon transients were modeled for McGuire Cycle 3.

ne first transient occurred at a core exposure of 6.245 Gwd/Mt. or approximately at middle-of cycle (MOC). ne second transient occurred neal end of cycle (EOC) at an exposure of 9.330 Gwd/Mt.

Each of the transients lasted appmximately 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> with the regulating bank ranging in insertion from 214 steps to 179 steps withdrawn (228 steps is fully withdrawn),

nese control rod maneuvers produced measured axial oEsets that ranged from +3.5% to -

11.6%.

The SIMULATE-3 model predicted axial ofIset quite well versus the plant measured data for the MOC transient. This appears to be a good benchmark case since the measured axial oEset remains quite flat (indicating plant equilibrium) Just prior to the regulaung control bank being moved (at 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> into the trenstnt). Table 3.8 presents the comparison of the plant measured core average axial oEset for this transient and the SBtUIATE-3 value. The average absolute difference in axial offset was 0.78 with a o of 0.59. Figure 3.5 presents a plot of the plant measured core average axial oEset and the SIMUIATE 3 predicted core average axial offset versus time during die transient. De figure also includes the regulating con;rol bank position during the transient, and further demonstrates the accuracy of SIMUIA'1E 3.

The second xenon transient evaluated with SIMULATE 3 did not achieve as good agreement as the MOC transient, nts is due to the fact tha; the plant was not in tme equthbrtum when the transient began (indicated by the measured core average axial offset fluctuating prior to the actual induced xenon transient). Dese results are presented in Table 3.9.

The results appear very good with the excepuon of the end of the transient. ne average absolute difference in oEset was 1.54 with a o of 1.14.

Figure 3.5 also presents a plot of the plant measured core average axial offset and the SIMUIATE-3 predicted core average axial offset versus t+me durti g this transient, ne figure also includes the regulating control ba..k position during the tmnstent. As the figure shows the plant measured axial 18 -

i offset is not stable at the beginning of the transient, demonstrating that the plant is not in equihbrium before the actual transient began. OvemII. SIMUIAE-3 predicts the axial offset quite well versus the plant measur:d data during the transient.

The average absolute delta in core avercge axial offset for both transients combined was 1.2% with a o of 1%. nis is slightly highcr than the results of the st:ady state reaction rate comparisons. liowever, due to the nature of conducting this measurement, the results are quite good and acceptable.

3.1.611W EOC Moderator Temocrature Coefficients Moderator temperature coefficients (MTC's) were measured near the end of each cycle at liFP. Rese measurements were conducted at or near a critical boron concentration of 300 ppm by varying moderator temperature of the plant by appmximately 3'F.

Dese conditions were modeled with the liFP SIMUIATE 3 model and comparisons made to the plant measured results. Table 3.10 presents the SIMULATE 3 calculated MTC's versus the plant measured.

We average absolute difference for the three measurements was 1.6 pcm/'F. De results are quite good; showing the SIMUIATE 3 models ability to predict temperature coefficients at liFP conditions, especially m light of the difficulty associated with taking such a measurement.

3.1,7 liZP Startun Test Predictions Startup test predictions were generated using SIMUIATE 3 at }{ot Zero Power (llZP) at the beginning of each cycle.

De tests consisted of conducting control rod worth measurements via the conventional boration/dtlution technique. De control rods are D.C with Ag in Cd tips. De control rods were measured in a sequential, non overlap format.

l During the testing rod worths are measured as well as the critical boron concentration with l

each bank fully inserted (also referred to as boron endpoints).

Isothennal temperature coemetents trIrs) are also measured with control rods inserted in several different l

configurations.

l l

Startup Physics Tests for Cycles 2 and 3 employed a rod-swap technique of measuring control rods worths.

In these cycles only two control banks were measured with the 19 -

conventional boration/ dilution: consequently, only these banks are predicted with SIMUIAE 3. De rod swap technique was not modeled for this SIMULATE 3 anahsis.

Tables 3.11 through 3.13 present the predicted control rod worths and compares them to measured data, ne agreement is very good in Cycle I with mixed results in Cycles 2 and 3.

We average absolute difference was 3.5% with a o of 2.7%. However, all predictions remain within the ICnt acceptance criteria versus the measured data. Tables 3.14 through 3.16 presents boron endpoint results for the control rod measurements conducted in Cytles 1, 2, end 3.

De average absolute difference was 21 ppm with a o of 17 ppm, and include all rods out measurements for each of the three cycles. Again overall agreement is quite good in Cycle 1 with acceptable results in Cycles 2 and 3.

Table 3.17 presents isothermal temperature coefIlcients that were measured during Startup Testing of Cycles 1, 2, and 3.

nese coefficients were predicted quite well by the SIMULATE 3 code with the average cbsolute difference being 1.2 pcm/'F with a o of 0.3 pcm/'F, 3.1.8 McGuire Unit 2 Summarv In summary, the results of the SIMUIAE 3 analysis demonstrate the code coupled with data from CASMO 3G can efIcctively predict the reactor physics characteristics of an operating PWTt. Wis translates intr., confidence in performing reload physics calculations and genemting r.hysics data for safety analysis applications using the SIMULAE-3 code. A varied set of validation cases were conducted that attest to this.

3.2 Farlev Unit 2. Oveles 1 through 4 Validation A similar validauon of the SIMUIAE 3 code, as was performed by Yankee on the McGuire unit, was performed by Studsvik of America on the Westinghouse Parley Unit 2."

A tummary of the Studsvtk results are presented in this report since Farley provides several additional validations, beyond those presented by the McGuire analysis.

Farley is a three loop,157 assembly, 2G52 Mwth, Westinghouse unit. The core design

{

through four cycles of operation consists of standard Westinghouse 17x17 fuel rod array 1

assembhes (same as McGuire) spanning in enrichment from 2.1 to 3.45 w/o U 235. Table 3.18 presents a brief sununary of the four cycles analyzed.

As with McGuire, the fuel 1

20 -

l l

contains a varying number of burnable poison pins. The burnable poison is borostheate glass. De analysis of Farley adds to the SIMULATE 3 PWR validation by including several characteristics which are different from McGuire. These additions are:

Slightly higher enrichments Control rod material is full length Ag-In Cd Cycles 3 and 4 were 18 month Cyrles with extremely high soluble boron concentrations at beginning of cycle Bumable poison was inserted into depleted fuel Il2P power distribuuons were predicted and compared to measured data Rod Swap Startup Test Predictions were performed with SIMUIATE 3 3.2.1 Model Descrintfoo ne SIMUIATE-3 model constnacted for Farley was virtually idenucal to the model setup for McGuire. The only distinguishable difference in the model was the treatment of inserting bumable poison pins into depleted fuel. nis was required since fresh burnable poisons were inserted into depleted fuel assembhes in Cycle 3.

However, no addiuonal CASMO 30 baron cases were required to deal with the high boron concentrauons at beginning of Cycles 3 and 4.

3.2.2 Iloron Letdown Results Reference IG contains detailed tables of data for the criucal boron concentrauons versus plant measured data for four cycles of operauon. For the total of 48 comparison points, the average absolute delta in ppm of SIMU1 ATE 3 versus the plant measurement was 12 ppm with a to of 9 ppm. No trends with cycle or cycle exposure were evident. We end of cycle critical boron concentrauons for the four cycles average 4 ppm different with the worst point being 8 ppm. Wis indicates an accurate prediction of the reactMty depletion rate to end of cycle.

De irsults are quite similar in recuracy to those witnessed in the McGuire SIMULATE 4 vahdation analysis.

21 -

3.2.3 HFP Detector Calculations Compartsons between SIMUIAE 3 generated incore detector reaction rates and plant measured data was performed on four cycles of Farley.

Farley contains the standard Westinghouse flux mapping system.

As was done in the McGuire analysis, SIMUIAE 3 predicted reaction rates were compared against plant measured results.

Table 3.22 summartzes the results of this analysts. A total of 15 flux maps were used for comparison purposes. The average RMS difTerences in reaction rates was near 1% in all cycles. No noticeable trends exist with cycle or cycle exposure.

The detailed assembly to assenibly results also reveal no noticeable trend with assembly type or location in the core (periphery vs. inboard).i, The average absolute difference in axial offset was 1%.

3.2.4 HFP Power Distributions The assembly power distitbution comparisons for Farley yield similar results to the McGuire analysis.

No discernable pattern in the results is seen, with the exception of beginning of each reload cycle which exhibits slightly higher differences than the rest of the cycle. De results overall are very good and, again, quite similar to the McGuire results. We average difTerence was 1%. He statistical summary versus the measured data can also be found in Table 3.22.

3,2.5 HZP Power Distributions As part of the Farley benchmark, comparisons were made between SIMUIAE 3 and measured data for power distributions at Hot Zero Power (HZP). beginning of cycle. These comparisons were conducted for Cycles 1 and 2.

SIMU1 ATE 3 calculated detector reaction rotes, axial offset and assembly relative powers were compared to plant measurrd data.

Tables 3.20 and 3.21 summartze the results, ne percent differences are larger than those witnessed at HFP but are expected since the uncertainty of the measurements is higher, ne Overage absolute difference was 2.7% w:th a.wr of 2%. However, the SIMUIAE-3 results are very good, particularly for Cycle 2 which exhibits such a large positive axial o!Iset, r

22 -

l 3.2.6 HZP Startun Test Predictions c

ne Startup Test Predicuons for Farley are interesung in that the rod swap technique was used in Cycles 3 and 4 (boration/dllution was used for Cycles 1 and 2) and the control rod material is Ag In-Cd. De results for control rod worths are presented in Tables 3.22 through 3.25 for each cycle, respectively. Cycles 1 and 2 used the convenuonal borauon/ dilution measurement technique and Cycles 3 and 4 used a rod swap technique of measurement. De results for all cycles are very good with the average absolute percent I

diference versus measured data being 3.2% with a e of 2.5%. Again no discernable trends j

with cycle were apparent.

Reference 16 also includes Isothermal Temperature Coeficient I

comparisons conducted during HZP tesung.

Over the four cycles analyzed the average cbsolute difference between the plant measured and SIMUIATE 3 predicted was 0.9 pcm/'F with a 1o of 0.3 pem/'F.

3.2.7 Farlev tituL2/ mntuv 1

I In summary, the results of the SIMUIA'IE 3 analysis demonstrate that the code can j

accurately predict plant operating characterisucs.

This Farley analysts coupled with the McGuire results show the code te be quite accurate for performing reactor physics i

calculations. De analyst.= conducted spanned a large array of calculations and demonstrated e

the code capabilities versus measured plant data for typical operating PWRs.

(

I 1

4 l

l l

1 23 -

r._

TABLE 3.1 McGUIRE UNIT 2 OPERATING CHARACTERIST1CS CHARACTER]STIC CYCLE 1 CYCLE 2 CYCLE 3 l'

ENRIC11MENTS 2.1/2.6/3.1 2.6/3.1/3.2 3.1/3.2/3.2 FUEL DESIGN STANDARD STANDARD /OFA STANDARD /OFA

1. OF UP'S 1520 64 352 BOC !!ZP BORON 1295 PPM 1413 PPM 1379 PPM LOADING SCllEME OUT/IN OUT/IN TRANSITION CYCLE LENGTl!

14.6 Gwd/Mt 0.9 Gwd/Mt 10.8 Gwd/Mt TABLE 3.2 McGUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 1 13ORON LETDOWN CYCLE EXPOSURE MEASURED SIMULATE-3 DIFFERENCE (Gwd/Mt)

(PPM)

(PPM)

(PPM) 1.079 846 816 30 1.865 836 808 28 2.119 837 803 34 3,142 794 763 31 3.872 758 729 29 4.929 704 674 30 5.963 652 616 36 7.075 582 550 32 7.962 520 495 25 8.737 461 445 16 9.257 429 410 19 9.818 389 371 18 10.517 337 321 16 11.248 284 269 15 t

13.327 125 111 14 l

14.261 38 38 0

14.582 11 13 2

i 1

f f

I TABLE 3.3 McGUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 2 BORON LETDOWN CYCLE EXPOSURE MEASURED SIMULATE 3 DIFFERENCE (Gwd/Mt)

(PPM)

(PPM)

(PPM) l 0.975 857 865 8

0.131 851 849 2

i 1.250 840 838 2

1.407 835 823

-12 2.112 760 755 5

i 2.559 723 713 10 l

2.810 695 690 5

[

3.270 654 647 7

[

4.215 571 558 13 4.759 522 507 15 5.263 482 461 21 t

6.080 389 385 4

[

6.717 334 329 5

l i

7.410 261 267 6

8.438 169 177 8

l 9.827 48 59 11 l

t TABLE 3.4 McGUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 3 BORON LETDOWN CYCLE EXPOSURE MEASURED S!MULATE 3 DIFFERENCE (Gwd/Mt)

(PPM)

(PPM)

(PPM)

.232 928 953 25 l

.478 900 926 26

.718 880 907 27 i

l

.915 881 891 10 I

i 1.386 846 854 8

1.887 814 816 2

2.007 808 806

-2 2.046 799 803 4

l 2.208 794 790 4

2.475 772 768 4

3.003 726 725 1

4.132 641 630 11 i

4.890 579 566

-13 i

5.743 503 496

-7 I

6.914 410 400 10 l

7.740 338 333 5

h 7.943' 318 317 1

(

l

• Cycle 3 had not completed operation when this analysts was conducted 25 -

i TABLE 3.5 hicQUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLES 1 THROUOli 3 DETECTOR COMPARISON CASE DESCRIPI1ON e

EXPOSURE POWER LEVEL BANK D STEPS CYCLE (Owd/ML)

(% FULL POWER)

WITHDRAWN

• 1 1.221 88.48 185 i

3.417 89.74 203 5.470 100.00 214 7.577 100.00 218 9.258 100.00 215 12.379 100.00 216 14.270 100.00 220 2

0.981 100.00 214 1.448 100.00 214 2.737 100.00 210 4.218 100.00 214 3

6.723 100.00 211 9.171 100.00 214 3

1.052 100.00 214 l

3.020 100.00 211 l

4.900 100.00 212 5.787

.100.00 217 7.951 100.00 214 9.029 100.00 212

• 228 steps is fully withdrawn j

a 1

I 26 -

4 1

J

TABLE 3.0 McGUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLES 1 THROUGH 3 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED AXIALLY INTEGRATED AVERAGE REACTION RATES AND AXIAL OFFSETS REACTION RATE EXPOSURE R.MS OF AVERACE AX1AL CYCLE (Gwd/Mt)

DIFFERENCES (%)

DELTA OFFSET (%)

1 1.221 1.181 1.5 i

3.417 1.401 1.5 5.470 1.180 1.2 7.577 1.768 1.6 9.258 1.476 1.0 12.379 1.268 0.7 14.270 1.434 0.8 2

0.981 2.239 1.2 1.448 2.186 1.7 2.737 1.602 J.6 4.218 1.446 0.5 6.723 1.182 0.6 9.171 1.173 0.5 3

1.052 1.842 1.1 3.026 1.598 1.2 4.900 1.768 0.9 5.787 1.328 1.2 7.951 1.547 1.0 0.029 1.445 0.7 l

l i

t l

I I

I l

l 27 -

l I

f TABLE 3.7 McOUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLES 1 T11ROUQ}L3

(

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED f

ASSEMBLY POWERS ASSEMBLY POWER EXPOSURE AVERAGE CYCLE (Owd/Mt)

DIFFERENCES (%)

1 1.221 0.790

[

3.417 0.870 5.470 0.660 7.577 1.042

[

9.258 0.916

[

12.379 0.767 14.270 0.770 L

2 0.981 1.598 l

1.448 1.525 2.737 1.016 4.218 0.985 l

6.723 0.793 i

9.171 0.752 3

1.052 1.136 3.026 0.998 I

4.909 0.976 5.787 0.643 7.951 0.981 l

9.029 0.951 1

)

I 28 -

i

TABLE 3.8 McGUIRE UNIT 2 MOC 3 XENON TRANSM l

AX1AL OFFSET (%)

TIME BANK D SIMULATE.3 MEASURED 83 MEAS (HOURS)

POS1710N' O

211 4.0 4.2 0.2 6

211 4.0 4.1 0.1 12 211 4.1 4.3 0.2 19 211 4.1 4.4 0.3 20 207 5.3 5.2 0.1 21 201 7.5 7.3 0.2 22 197 10.3 9.4 0.9 23 196

-11.8 11.2 0.6 24 199 12.9 11.4 1.5 25 202 12.8 11.6 1.2 26 203 12.7 11.5 1.2 27 203 12.2

+ 11.2 1.0 28 201 12.1 11.0 1.1 29 204 10.0 9.4 0.6 30 209 7.0 6.1 0.9 31 211 3.6 3.5 0.1 32 205 1.7 2,1 0.4 33 211 2.2 1.4 0.8 34 209 4.7 3.1 1.6 35 104 2.6 0.8 1.8 30 182 1.6 3.4

- 1. 8 37 181 4.5 6.4 1.9 38 181 7.9 9.0 1.1 39 184 10.2 11.1 0.9 40 214 4.7 5,0 0.3 41 213 3.9 3.8 0.1 42 210 3.8 4.0 0.2 AVERAGE DELTA AO IS 0.78 to 0.59

• 228 steps is fully withdramm 29 -

i i

i TABLE 3.9 i

McGUIRE UNIT 2 EOC 3 XENON TRANSIENT j

AX1AL OFFSET (%)

i 71ME BANK D SIMULATE 3 MEASURED S3 MEAS (HOURS)

POSITION

• I L

0 211 4.6 3.9 0.7 6

211 4.7 4.3 0.4 l

12 212 4.0 4.5 0.5 19 212 4.0

-4.0 0.0 1

20 208 5.3 4.7 0.6 l

21 205 5.6 6.3 0.7 22 200 8.5 8.7 0.2 I

23 202 0.5 9.6 0.1 24 200 11.6 11.3 0.3 25 204 11.5 11.2 0.3 26 205 11.5 11.2 0.3 27 205 11.4

+ 11.0 0.4 28 203 11.6 10.8 0.8 20 211 9.9 8.0 1.9 30 211 8.2 6.0 2.2 31 211 6.0 3.7 2.3 32 211 3.4 1.2 2.2 33 211 0.5 1.3

-1.8 34 211 2.4 3.5 1.1 5

35 187 3.6 1.7 1.C 36 179 7.9 6.2 1.7 37 179 11.5 9.0 2.5 l

38 208 0.3 3.7 2.6 39 205 5.0 3.5 1.5 l

40 204 4.2 4.5 0.3 r

41 205 2.6 4.1 1.5 42 206 2.4 4.0

- 1,6 43 206 1.8 4.0 2.2

(

44 206

.l.3 4.1 2.8 45 206 1.0 4.3 3.3

[

46 206 0.9 4.5 3.6

}

47 207 0.7 4.3 3.6 l

48 208 0.7

-4.3 3.6 49 208 1,2 4.2 3.0 AVERAGE DELTA AO IS 1,54 to 1.14 I

l i

• 228 steps is fully withdrawn f

r f

t l

I 30 -

l C

l l

l I

I TABLE 3.10 MeOUIRE UNIT 2 EOC HFP MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEL CYCLE EXPOSURE MEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (Gwd/ML)

(PCM/'F)

(PCM/'F)

(M P) 1 11.14 15.5 19.4 3.9 2

7.21 23.8 24.0 0.2 3

7.78 22.3 21.7 0.6 TABLE 3.11 McOUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 1 HZP CONTROL ROD WORTHS BANK MEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (PCM)

(PCM)

(%)

D 6 64 671 1.0 DC 1283 1296 1.0 DCD 1105 1085 1.8 DCDA 678 697 2.7 DASC 853 881 3.2 D A SE SD 771 788 2.2 D A SE SD SC 1026 1077 4.7 TABLE 3.12 McOUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 2 H2P CO'TTROL ROD WORTHS BANK MEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (PCM)

(PCM)

(%)

1 i

D 665 658 1.1 C

871 932 6.6 1

4 TABLE 3.13 McOUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 3 HZP CONTROL ROD WORTHS i

a BANK MEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (PCM)

(PCM)

(%)

j D

556 580 4.1 C

787 873 9.8 i

3 31 -

TABLE 3,14 McGUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 1 HZP BORON ENDPOINTS DANK MEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (PPM)

(PPM)

(Pred Meas)

ARO 1295 1292 3

D 1217 1227 10 DC 1097 1099 2

DCD 997 995 2

DCDA 938 928

-10 D A SE 860 841 19 D A SE SD 791 764 27 D A SE SD SC 694 661 33 TABLE 3.15 McCUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 2 HZP BORON ENDPOINTS BANK MEASURED PREDICTED DlFFERENCE (PPM)

(PPM)

(Pred Meas)

ARO 1413 1432 19 D

1333 13J9 26 C

1318 13N 11 TABLE 3.16 MtGUIRE UNIT 2 CYCLE 3 HZP BORON ENDPOINTS DANK MEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (PPM)

(PPM)

(Pred Meas) 1 ARO 1379 1409 30 D

1302 1347 45 C

1256 1315 59 TABLE 3.17 McCUlRE UNIT 2 HZP BOC ISOTHERMAL TEMPERATURE COEFFICIEN'IS DANK CYCLE MEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (PCM/'F)

(PCM/'F)

(Pred Meas)

ARO 1

1.41 2.48 1.07 D

2.73 3.78 1.05 DC 0.07 7.54 1,47 ARO 2

1.73 3.12 1.39 ARO 3

0.55 1,32 0.77 32 -

(

TADLE 3.18 PARLEY UNTT 2 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS C11ARANER!SEC CYC,L,1 CYCE 2 CYCM 3 CYCdC 4 gNicenutNTs 2.1/2.6/3.1 2.6/3.1/3.1 3.1/3.1/3.4 3.1/3.4/3.45 8 OF BP's 1074 0

704 432 BOC ltZP MRON 1313 stu 1387 Mu 1605 mt 1910 Pru LOADlho KitLMt OUT/tN OUr/IN TRAMmON IN/OVr cycts LINoin 15.4 Cws/Mr 10.4 Cws/Mr 14.6 Ows/Mr 15.2 Ows/Mr TABLE 3.19 FARLEY UNTT 2 CYCLES 1 THRU 4 COMPARISON OF PREDICm'D ANT) MEASURED REACTON RA'ITS.

AX1AL OFFSI'rS. AND ASSEMBLY POWERS REACT 10N RATE AX1AL ASSEMBLY EXPOSURE EMS OF OFFSET POWERS CYCIE (Gwd/Mt)

DIFFERENCES (%)

DELTA (%)

RMS (%)

1 1.522 1.04 0.5 1.01 5.556 0.98 1.1 0.97 10.071 0.77 0.9 0.81 14.278 0.74 0.7 0.78 2

1.117 1.21 1.3 1.22 6.511 0.04 1.5 0.93 9.519 1.13 1.9 1.13 3

2.343 0.94 0.1 0.94 6.335 0.81

-1.7 0.80 10.425 1.01 0.7 1.00 13.854 0.98

-0.7 0.98 4

1.048 1.40 0.1 1,38 6.111 0.80 1.4 0.80 10.113 0.89 1.0 0.87 12.123 0.97 1.8 0.90 33 -

t

l r

l r

i TABLE 3.20 t

FARIIY UNTP 2 IMP CORE AVERAGE AX1AL DE1EcrOR REACI10N RKIES l

l t

5 CYCIE 1 CYCIE 2 1

NODE MEAS $1M 3 DIFF NODE MEAS SIM 3 DIFF i

i I

j 12 0.241 0.291 0.050 12 1.166 1.120 0.044 11 0.533 0.636 0.043 11 1.812 1.832 0.018 l

10 0.976 0.962 0.014 10 1.875 1.907 0.033 I

i 9

1.241 1.219 0.023 9

1.667 1.673 0.007 8

1.425 1.381 0.044 8

1.368 1.365 0,005

[

]-

7 1.570 1.513 0.057 7

1.139 1.127 0.010 l

6 1.516 1.472 0.045 6

0.868 0.856 0.014 i

5 1.442 1.415 0.027 5

0.689 0.680 0.000 j

4 1.235 1.209 4.026 4

0.522 0.513 0.009 l

3 0.938 0.954 0.016 3

0.405 0.405 0.001 i

2 0.608 0.654 0.046 2

0.316 0.327 0.012 i

1 0.214 0.295 0.081 1

0.173 0.194 0.021 l

I l

l AO 0.8 0.0 RMS= 04 A0 49.7 49.7 RMS=0.02 i

L

[

l T

1 i

I TABLE 3.21 l

j FARIIY UhTP 2 CYct FA 1 AND 2

[

COMPABISO1QEJREDICIED AND MEASUprn REACITON HATES.

I

!j AXIAL OFFSE15. AND ASSEMBLY POWERS AT lEP. BOC I

REACI10N RATE AXIAL ASSEMBLY I

BANK D RMS OF OFFSET PO%T.RS J

j CYC11 STEPS WDRWN DIFFERENCES (%)

DELTA (%)

RMS (%)

{

t 1

224 2.64 0.8 2.68 2

213 2.84 0.0 2.86 i

i f

i l

I 1

i 34 -

i f

l 1

TADLE 3.22 fARLEY UNrr 2 CYCLE 1 HZP CON *rROL ROD WOImlS 1RNK htEASURED PRED!CTED DIFFERENCE (PCht)

(PCht)

(%)

D 1430 1406 1.71 DC 1224 1191 2.77 DCD 1967 1961 0.31 DCDA 1288 1348 4.45 TADLE 3.23 FARLEY UhTT 2 CYCLE 211ZP CONTROL ROD WOImlS IRNK htCASLTtED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (PC)l)

(PCht)

(%)

D 1048 1114 5.92 DC 1076 1106 2.71 DCD 1506 1543 2.40 DCDA 155J 1000 2.94 TADLE 3.24

)

ffELEY USTr 2 CYCLE 3 HZP CON'IROL ROD WOrmlS USING _ ROD SWAP TECHN10UE IRNK htEASURED PREDICTED DIFFERENCE (PCht)

(PCht)

(%)

D 1035 1105 6.33 C

635 704 0.80 D

1403 1444 2.84 A

759 760 1.30 TADLE 3.25 FARLEY UhTT 2 CYCLE 4 IlZP CON'IROL ROD WOim1S USING ROD SWAP 'ITCilN10UE IRNK htEASURED PREDICTED DIFFEIENCE (PCht)

(PCht)

(%)

D 900 993 3.32 C

886 910 2,M U

1224 1237 1.05 A

608 608 0.00 35 -

FIGURE 3.1 McGUIRE UNrr 2 CYCLE 1 WMMARY OF REACMON hfE COWAMSONS 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 0.63..~

1.50 ~..

1.17 ~~ ~~ 0.49.-

g 2

3.15 ~ ~ ~.- ~. ~ ~ 0.29..- ~~ ~~ ~~..~

0.67 ~~

1.65.~.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

-..~ ~~

0.15

.. 0.04..~

1.01 -~ 2.6 %

3

~ ~ ~.. ~~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

0.41 ~~

1.03 ~~

1.51 ~~ 0.90

~ ~..... ~.. 0.06 ~ ~ ~ ~.~. ~.-

4

-0.73 0.30 ~~

- -... ~ ~

~~

0.1 5 -. ~ ~ -. ~ ~ ~.. - - ~ ~

O.72 1.53.~. ~~ ~~

~.... ~

0.10 ~ ~ -

....- 0.39 ~~

0.4 5 ~.. 0.3b ~~

5

~~

.. ~ ~~ ~~ ~~

0.52 ~~ 0.52 ~~ 0.37 ~~

.................,.. 0.18 ~~

-- ~~

1.11..~

0.17.- - 0 69 -~

6 2.81 - ~.0.51 ~..

- ~ ~. -

h82 -.

0.80 ~. 0.66.~. ~~ 0.86 -~

0.93-~

- ~~

0.10. ~ ~ ~ 0.4 5. ~ ~~

0.24 ~~

~.. 0.2 7 ~ ~

7

~~

-- ~~

0.90.~... - 0.40 ~~

0.56 - ~ ~ ~

0.4 6 -~

8 0.94 --- O.10 >~. 0.56 -

0.35.....

0.86.~.

0.20 0.11 0.52...

0.85 ~-

0.59 0.93 0.34. --

1.28

0. M u m 0.4 3...- 0.67 -~

0.4 6 ~..

0. 56 ~ ~..- - --

1.05 i

0 0.G0........

1.29 ~..

0.9 9. - ~.... -

83 9.4 8.,~

.-- ~~ ~~ ~~

0.3 7 ~~.0 38 -. -

..~ --.0.13 ~..

10

. ~... -

~~ ~. ~.. -...

0.40 - -...-

0.53.~. 0.64..~

~..

-........ ~.

r l

1.01

- ~~.0.03 ~~

- ~~.2 21 ' 22 O,s1 -...-.- 0,44 ~~ ~.. 1,05 ~~.~. 0.34 -.. - -.1.17 ~. 12 ~~ -.. -- ~~ 0.66 ~.. --. 1.10.......-.. O.?n -~ .. ~ .O.07 - - 0.C7 ~ ~ - -. 0 27 m. -... -. ~.. ~.. U. 4 2 13 ~~ 1.83 0.63 ~ ~ 0.53 - - 0.51 ~~ .~. 14

0. 50 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.13. ~...~

.O.46.. ~ 0.49.~. Average Df.(%) 0.69 -~ 0.05...~ Stand. Dev. L56 - 1.19-~~ 15 0.61 ~. . - 2.17. - - -.. ~ -. 0.67 --.. ~~ 0.68 ~~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ % Averaf,e Dderence = ($1M'ItATE 3 Measured)/(SIMULATE-3)

• 10Cr4 4

I 36 i

"IGURE 3.2 L McGUIRE UNIT 2 CYCE q

SUMMARY

OF REACTION RNIE COMPARISONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 -0.12 - - .. -.0,4 7 -... 1.25 ----- 0.56 --- 1 2 -3.32 -- -- - - 1.03 -- -- 0.72 -- - ---- - -- - - - - - 0.81 --- 0.4 3 --- -- ~~ 2.17 --- ~~ 2.08 --- 0.29 - - 1.07 - - 2.20 3 -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - 1,44 --- 0.36 ---- 0.3S - - 1.50

0. 53 --- -- - ~ ~ -- ~ ~ --- -- -

4 -1.8 9 0.17 1.92 1.08 -.- -- ~~ ----- 0.87 - - 1.05 --- 1.22 ----- -0.04 - - 0.08--- 5 ~- - - - - - - - - - 0.69 - 1.22 - - 0.06 ~.- -- 0.42 - - 0.54 ---- 6 0.68 --- 0.61 ---- - -0.27 -- - 0.04 1.15 ----- 0.82 - - 0.82 - 1.24 - - 0.40 -- 1.00 -- --- 0.90 - ~~ 2.86 ----- 0.11 - --- 7 0.61 - - - 0.97 ---- 1.02 - --- 0.65 - -- ........... ~ 8 0.21 -- 1.83 1.17 - - 0.00 ---- - - 1.09 ~~ --- 1.46-0.14 - - 0.92 -- - - -- 1.27 0.23 ~~- 0.78 - - 1.09 --- 0.97 - 1.12 -- 0.43- - 0.88 ~~ ~~ - - 1,68

0. 3*'

9 1.26 0.78 -~ 0.61 --- 1.07... - -.... --...~.....- -.. 1,77 --- - 0.32 --- --- - -- -0.59 10 0.82 -- 1.01 - - --- - - 0.27 --- 0.19 ~~ ---- - - 2.78 11 2.55 -0.19 - -- 0.9'1 -- 2.20 0.24 0.78 - --- 0.54 - o25 --- ~~ 0.9 5 - - - - 1.36 - - 0.37 -- 12 0.80 - ~~ 0.68 ~ ~ ---- 0.52 --- 13 ~~ 0.01 - - 0.65 - - ~ ~ 2.16 -- - --- ~~ - - 3.03 1.83 0,07.~. 0,41 -...-- 0,49.-. -.- ~~. . ~. ~... 14 -0.4 8 - -- ~~ 0.49 - - - 1,38 -- -3.98 ~~, Average DS.(%) 0.99 - - ~~ - 0.62 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.94 --- 1.36-Stand. Dev. 15 1.60 - - ~~ 0.62 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.13 - ~ -- - - - ~ ~ 1.07 --- i % Average Dference = (SIMUIATE 3 Measured)/(SIMU1A'IE 3)

• 100%

37 -

i FIGURE 3.3 ) 1 McGUIRE UhTP 2 CYCLS_3

SUMMARY

OF REACT 10N RA'IE COMPARISONS 1 2 3 4 5 '6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t 1,18..~ 1.90...-- l 1 2.38 ---- ~~ 0.36 - 2 -1.06 ~~ --- 1.05 -- 0.65 - -l 0.34 -- 0.82 ~~ 2.04 - - ~ ~ - - - - - 0.87 - - -0.79 -~~ 0.36 ~~ -!.39 3, --- - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - C.44 -- 0.86 -- 0.51 ---- 1.97 1.61 -~ ~ -- 1.08 1.24 4 0.91 0.68 - ---- - - --- 1.62 -- ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.17 ~ ~ -- 1.85 --- 0.11 - - 1.44 --- --- 5 ~~ 0.66 ~~ ~~ -- 1.30 ---- 0.55 ~~ 0.48 ~~ -- 1.07 ---- 6 1.19 -~ - 1.4 5 --- - 0.81 --- 0.58 --- 0.40 -- 0.91 - - 0.30 -- --- 0.83 - 0A2 - - - - ~ ~ - - - - ~ ~ 7 0.2 8 -~ - 0.32 -- -- .2.79 --- - 0.39 - 0.25 - 0,73 ~~.~. 0.56 - - - 0.77 0.67 0.60 0.81 - - 8 2.17 - - -0.44 1.33 -- -0.68 - 0.30 0.68 1.40 - - 2.23 - - 0.51 --- 1.04 - - 0.73 -- - - -1.50 ..... 0.62 - - 0,50 -... 9 ~~ ~~ -- ~~ 0.59 0.53 0.44 - -- - -- ~~ ~~ 0.47 -- - - 1.05 - - - 10 ~ ~ - - - --- - -- ~~ 0.83 - -- --- 0.68 - - - - 1.55 0.29 ~~ -- 0.33 - ~ ~ - 1.16 - 11 0.12 ~~ 2.37 0.75 - -- 0.76 ---- 0.00 ~~ 1.50 0.16 - - 2.28 - -- 0.12 12 ~~ ~~ -- 0.4 9 ~ ~ - - 0.60 - - - 0.82 - ~~ c -4,21 0,16 -m 0,l}..... },4 0... 13 ~ ~ -. - ~~.~. ...~ 1.20 0.88 -~ 0.43-~ -~~ 0.54 -- i - -- -- ~~ i 0.48 - - 0.58 - - -1.22 -~ Average Diff.(%) 14 0.61 -~ 1.37 - 1,74. - Stand. Dev. 0.37 ~~ 1.43 --- ~~ l 1.83 -~ 15 1.16 ~ ~ - - ~~ ~~ 0.G8 ~~ -- 0.56 - - ~~ - ~~ l % Average Difference = (SIMUIATL3 Measured)/(SIMUIA'IE 3)

• 100%

l l l,

s ,v FIGURE 3.4 McGUIRE UNTP 2 CYCIES 1 '1HROUGH 3

SUMMARY

OE,. REACT 10N RATE COMPARISONS I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.8 5 - -- - 0.22 ~~ 1.73 ~~ ~~ 1.35 --- - 1 2 2.54 --- -0.4 8 -- 0.57 -- ~ ~ - - - 2.11 ~~ ~~ 0.78 --- 0.64 --- -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ - -- 1.03 - - -0.06 ~~ 0.83 - -.2.42 g 1.19 -~.. 0,7 9 --. 0.99 -~ 1.08 0.37 - - 4 --- 0.39 0.47 - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - 1.60 1.25 -- 1.11 - - -- ~ ~ - - - 1.06 -- - 0.60 - - 0.32 -~ 0.23 5 - ~~ -- -- 0.39 ~~ ~~ - -- 1.04 --- - 0.85 - - 0.60 - -- 6 ................. ~ 0.2 5 - - 0.4 5 -- - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ 0.92 - - 6 0.99 -- -0.87 - ~ 1.92 - 0.66 ~~ ---- 0.89 -- 0.78 ---- - - ~ ~ - ---- 0.84 ~~ 0.18 ~~ --- 0.27 ~ ~ --- 0.06 ---- --- 0.79 - - - - 7 ~~ -- -- 2.41 -- ~~ 0.72 -- - 0.93 - 0.57- - ........... ~ 8 0.41 --- 0.4 8 ~ ~ 0.89 - - 0.50 - - -- 0.81 - - 0.04 0.47 0.32 ~~ 0.97 - 0.46 1.03 0.46 ~~ 1.96 -- 1.19 - 0.84 - - 0.95 ~~ i 0.90 Q,OS -.. 0.62 - -- ~ ~ Q,$ 4.. - Q ~~ ..... -.. ~~ -m m. 1.19 1.04 ~~ 0.84 -- - - 0.80 ---- ~~ ~~ - -- -- -- --- i 0.57 ~~ 0.88 ~~ 0.1 1 to ~~ ~~ ...-.~. ~~... 0.67 O,93..... 0.81 - - ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.72 -- - 0.28 - - - --- 2.38 0 04 ~ 11 -1.23 - 1.57 0.80 ~ ~ ~~ 0.77 -- 1,00 ~. ~.. ~. - - 0,34...~ -- -~ 0.99 - - -- 0.53 -- - 0.53 --- 12 - - ~ ~ ~~ -- 1.4 0 -- --- 0.79 - - ~~ 0.92 - - ~ ~ -3. 53 l 0.08 -- 0.69 - ~~ 0.63 ~~ --- 13 1.65 l J.51 ~~ 0.73 - ~ ~ 1.23 -- -- --- ~~ 14

0. 88 - ~ ~ - - 0.71 - ~~

1.02 -~ 1.82 ~~ Average 31K.(%) 1.86 - -- ~~ - 0.84 - - - 0.91 - - 2.00 - - Stand. Dev. 0.03 - ~~ --- i 15 1.04 ~~ ~~ l 0.87 - 1.22 -- - ~ ~. - l 6 t t l % Average Diference = (SIMULATE-3 Measured)/(SIMUIATE-3)

• 100%

i r l i t a 39 - 1 p l b i 1 h ). Ir l

I FIGURE 3.5 ~ McGUIRE UNIT 2 a-CYCLE 3 XENON TRANSIENT MOC TRANSIEh7 in- .. sea ^ ....o x io. (o. IIGEND - toof S. N r

• = BANK D POSmON

,,,.o K S = SIMUIATE 3 DATA L 3, M = MEASURED DATA D U X .. iso P o. \\ O O -a- ..,,o S i Y W-c __ _ g... .4o i O R -e-N E M N -ie. g "40 E -ia-o -i<- -in- ..so -ta-

• • J s s 4

s 4 co is is is ce sa ia i< is is n ta se se to 40 da i< TIME (HCURS) 'T EOC TRANEIENT ,,1, ..a zo is- = ..aoo A i>. ..s eo x g to-8 6-LEGEND ..i eo A g g N 6--

• = BANK D POSmON k

I S = SIMULATE.3 DATA ..i.e h.. M = MEASURED DATA D X ..i to 6-P O \\ O ~3" ..soo S l I F , n n u n n o n n c t e n c, e. e e e e e a: y - - = <... ' " " T E -e-h .4s 1 R O e -e-I N N.se- / -40 C E -ti- --so -1<- -id- .Jo -iE-i ..... i i.... n a i ~'71 4 4 4 (o is (e is s's to fa f. to to Jo fa $4 Je se do da 44 +e de so TIME (HOURS) 40-

4.0 BWR VAUDAT10N CALCULATION Wis section provides validauon of tae SIMULATE 3 code for apphcation on Bothng Water Reactors (BWRs). De vahdation consists of modehng severa] cycles of two operating BWRs in a manner consistent with Yankee's intended appucation. De rnode'3 are used to generate eigenvalue and Traversing Incore Probe frIP) trace data as a f'mcuon of cycle exposure, his data is then compared to plant measured data. 4.1 Ornd Cities 1 Celes 1 and 2 Validation The SIMUIA'IE-3 code was apphed to the analysis of the Quad Clues I reactor.8*** Quad Clues 1 is considered a typical DWR of GE design and has been previously benchmarked at YAEC using SIMUIA'IE 2.88 For the vahdation of SIMUIAE 3, the first two l cycles of operation were modelled, ne analysis consisted of comparing SIMUIATE 3 results to plant measured data for the following: hot eigenvalues as a funcuon of exposure, local cold cdticals at the beginning of Cycle 1, cold in sequence criucals during Cycles 1 and 2. and TIP tmees during Cycles 1 and 2. 4.1.1 Quad Cities 1 Model Description Single assembly lattice calculations were performed for each of the fuel designs resident in Cycles 1 or 2 of Quad Clues. De fuel designs contained individual pins that ranged in U 235 enrichment from 1.7 w/o to 2.73 w/o. Some of the fuel designs contained Gd,O, loadings ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 w/o. Cycle 2 cortained several MO, assembhes, which were also modeled. Both 7x7 and 8x8 latuces were employed. De pellets were both dished and undished, resulting in different fuel densiues. De gadounia pin spectrum calculations were performed using the MICDURN 3 code, for use in CAS'.iO 30.** ne CASMO 30 cross section data was processed with the TABLES-3 code for use in the SIMUIA'II 3 model. l 1 ne $1MUIATE 3 hot model consisted of a quarter core representauon using one node per assembly radially, and 24 axially. De cold criucal calculations were conducted in full 41 -

e-core geometry. For the thermal hydraubes portion of the coc., the EPRI vold correlation Ls assumed. 4.1.2 Hot Eidem'alue Calculations. Cveles 1 and 2 Table 4.1 presents the eigenvalues obtained from SIMUIRE-3 depletions for Cycles 1 and 2. We criucal control rod positions and core condluons as a function of cycle exposure were taken from the standard EPRI data set found in References 18 and 19. De core condition histories provided in Reference 18 show that certain 'I1P data sets were measured when the plant was not in equihbdum xenon condluons. However, the SIMULAIE 3 model was run assuming equihbrium xenon. De equilibrium xenon cases yield an average eigenvalue of 1.00472 with a o of 0.00078, while the entire data set yielded an average eigenvalue of 1.00415 with a o of 0.00214. We results of the entire data set are graphically presented in Figure 4.1. As the figure demonstrates the equlhbdum xenon eigenvalues versus exposure and cycle are quite consistent. We solid une is the average k effecuve and the dashed hnes are the plus and minus la calculated using the equihbrium cases only. 4.1.3 Cold in Seauence Criticals. Cveles 1 and 2 A series of cold in-sequence criticals were run during Cycles 1 and 2. De SIMUIME-3 results, corrected for the period, are presented in Table 4.2. De average predicted eigenvalue is 0.99674 with a e of 0.00258. In reviewing the data, the first eigenvalue at the beginning of Cycle 1 appears suspect, if this value is omitted, the average eigenvalue is 0.99586 with a .to of 0.00071. In any case, with the excepuon of the first critical, the values are very consistent and show no trend with cycle number or cycle exposure. Figure 4.2 shows the results versus core exposure and moderator temperature. No noticeable trends a': evident in the results versus these parameters. In Figure 4.2 the average k effective of 0.99586 is portrayed as a sohd une with the to's portrayed as dashed unes. Notice that the first in-sequerwe eigenvalue hes far from the nomi. 21s value is more than two standard deviations fmm the average and therefore, may be ehminated from the statisucal summary. l 42 -

4.1.4 Cold Incal Criticals. Becinning of Cvele 1 At the beginning of Cycle 1 a series of local criticals wen: conducted at cold conditions. Table 4.2 also presents the SBtUIATE-3 calculated values, corrected for the period. ne consistency is excellent. ne average eigenvalue was 0.99829 with a e of 0.00053. 4.1.5 TP Trace Evaluation. Oveles 1 and 2 DP traces were analyzed for Cycles 1 and 2 of the Quad Clues, Unit 1. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 present the difference, in percent, for each integrated UP trace, calculated by SbiUIATE 3, versus the plant measured integrated EP trace. The data in the figures is the average percent difference over the entire cycle in each instrument location. Figure 4.3 presents this data for Cycle 1, and Figure 4.4 presents this data for Cycle 2. Also included, in each of the figures, is the standard deviation, relative to the average, of each location. Dese figures give an indication of the accuracy of the S!htUIATE-3 model in predicting the radial power distribution in the core. He average pertent differences, standard deviations of the averages, and the Tots for all EP locations, as a function of exposure, for each statepoint analyzed, are summarized in Table 4.3. No egosure or cycle dependence is apparent. He overall average absolute percent difference was 5.46% and the average stanaard deviation was 5.52%. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 present the core average axial EP trace comparisons for SNUIATE-3 and the plant measured data, ne comparison of predicted data and measured data demonstrate that S151UIATE 3 sufficiently reproduce 3 the plant axial power shape over the two cycles analyzed, nese two cycles include a range of exposure, control rod insertion, power level, and flow rate. Part of the difference between the S151U1A1E 3 and the plant measured data arises from i the BP asyrmnetry, nat is, an instrumentation errcr believed to be caused by bowing of the instrumentation tube. His causes it to move out of the center of the narrow / narrow water gap. Neutron TIPS. such as those of Quad Cities, are significantly affected by such mis-Crientation, ne analytical model, of course, assumes that all instrumentation tubes are centrally located. Approximately half of the differences between S!h!UIATE-3 and the plant 43 -

TP data is assr.wd to BP asymmet2y. his is the amount of improvement observed in the current model when Vermont Yankee replaced neutron sensit!"e devices with gamma senstive devices.** 4.1.6 Quad Cities 1 Summary The Quad Cities Unit 1 validation study using SIMULATE-3 yielded very good reeults. We hot eigenvalues are very consistent and within an acceptable mnge. The power distnbutions are also good considering the limite.tlons of the measured data set. This be":hmark demonstrates the code to perform as good or better than previous studies on Quad Cities. The cold eigenvalues are also well behaved versus varying conditions and do not demonstate any significant biases. Were is however, a difference in the average eigemalues fmm h:,t to cold conditions. Since these two conditions are always analyzed sepamtely, this does not pose a problem. The hot and cold cross section TABLES-3 hbraries have unique epphcations which do not overlap. 4.2 Forsmark Unit 1 Oveles 1 throuch 6 Valfdation A similar val;dattor, of the SIMUIAIE 3 code, as was performed by Yankee on the Quad Cities 1 reactor, was performed by Studsvik of America on the Forsmark Unit 1 BWR A l summary of the Studsvik results is presented in this report since Forsmark p wides several different validations of SIMUIATE 3 beyond those presented by the Quad Cities analysis. i Forsmark 1 is a ASEA ATOM BWR 2700 reactor located in Sweden. The core consists of 676 fuel channels. Control is maintained by cruciform control rods and the core circulation flow system. There are 36 EP detector strings. Gamma sensithe MP devices were installed near the end of Cycle 5. Thus Forsmark demonstrates the improvement in the plant l measured to SIMUIATE 3 predicted 71P data compartsons when the effects of '1TP asymmetry I are reduced, l The analysis consisted of six cgles of operation. These cycles included a variety of fuel i designs. Table 4.4 pirsents a summary of the different fuel designs that were employed. The ( 44

.~ 1 p analysis of Fommark 1 adds to the SIMUIATE-3 BWR validation by including several characteristics of the reactor which are different from Quad Clues. Dese addiuons include : Axially graduated Gd (with black and grey Od zones) 8x8 and 9x9 fuel rod array bundles Higher Gd loadings Reconstituted depleted assemblies Ioad following and long coast down periods Iow enriched and natural U ends For each cycle analyzed, hot eigenvalues as a funcuon of ?.xposure, and associated 11P trace measumments were evaluated. A series of cold critical eigenvalues were alsc, analyzed. i 4.2.1 Forsmark 1 Model Descriotion The Forsmark CASMO-3G statepoint calculations wem constructed similar to those of Quad Cities, uadolinia cross sections were generated using the MICBURN 3 code. De J SIMUIATE 3 model was similar to the Quad Cities model, ne EPRI void correlation was also used in the SIMUIATE 3 analysis. 4.2.2 l{ot Eigenvalue Calculations Cveles 1 through 6 Table 4.5 presents the eigenvalues obtained from SIMUIATE 3 depleuons for Cycles 1 through 6. De average eigenvalue for all cycles is 1.00429 with a nominal standard l deviation of 0.00114. (Reference 24 did not contain enough detail to calculate the actual standard deviauon of the hot eigenvalue over all cycles. Standard deviations were reponed for each c>rle indMdually, ne number reported here is simply an average of those values found I in Table 4.5.) ne eigenvalues for individual cycles exhibit somewhat smaller deviauons indicating consistency during the cycle, however the average eigenvalue from cycle to cycle

changes, ne largest single change in the average eigenvalue, from one cycle to the next, is 0.31%ik (Cycle 3 to Cycle 4), well within the reactMty anomaly criteria of 1.0%ik.

With the exceptbn of Cycle 1A (which Reference 24 indicates did not have a smooth power history), the Forsmark 1 average eigenvalues lie in a range from 1.C0270 to 1.00725, 4

with standard deviations of 0.00049 to 0.00158. Notice that the Quad Clues equilibrium hot eigenvalue results, reported in Section 4.1, fall in the middle of this range (1.0(M72 10 0.00078) demonstrating consistency between the SIMULATE-3 models for two different reactors. 4.2.3 Cold Critical Calculations Cveles 1 through G A number of cold educal calculations were conducted at the Forsmark reactor at the beginning of each cycle. Table 4.6 presents the SIMUIATE-3 results for the cold criticals. A total of thirty seven enticals were calculated. For all criticals the average eigenvalue was 0.99857 vsh a nominal standard deviauon of 0.00108. ne results are not as good as the Quad Cities results. However, the results are still acceptable for predicting cold educals because the reactMty anomaly critena is 1%.ik. Again, the hot to cold eigenvalue bias observed in the Forsmark 1 is similar to that reponed in Secuon 4.1 for Quad Clues. 4.2.411P Trace Evaluation. Oveles 1 through G TIP traces were analyzed over the six cycles of opemuon at Forsmark 1. As was done for the Quad Clues benchmark, both axial and radial behavior were examined. As an indication of the mdial pe formance of the SIMULATE 3 model, axially integrated IP traces were analyzed. We percent difference between the calculated and measured data was averaged at each 71P location in the core. Figures 4.7 presents this data averaged at each location over the six cycles analyzed. Notice that, when all cycles are considered, there is no apparent radial tilt in the results (that is, the + and differences are randomly distributed). The average absolute percent difference for all locauons shown in Figure 4.7 is 1.7% and the average of the standard deviations shown in the figure is 2.7%. L in examining the results for each cycle indMdually, Cycle 1A exhibited the worst agreement. nese results are presented in Figure 4.8. For this cycle, the absolute percent difference for all locations is 2.8% and the average of the standard deviations is 1.6%. Cycle 6, which had ganuna sensitive TIP devices, demonstrated the best agreement. %e average cbsolute perrent difference is 1.6% and the average of the standard deviations is 0.6%. Reference 24 also reports results of comparing axial point by point 11P data at each locauon between plant measured and SIMUIATE 3 calculated data, at each 11P location. These 4r;.

1 . results are also averaged over the six cycles, and each cycle individually. These results yield an average point by point difference of 4.8% over the six cycles. Cycle 1A exhibited an average difference of 6.9% and Cycle 6 yielded an average difference of 3.9%. The Forsmark report did not include core average axial MP trace comparisons between the plant measured and SIMUIAE-3 in a manner consistent with that shown for the Quad Cities analysis (the Quad Cities analysis included axial EP tmce comparisons for each ctatepoint analyzed). Rather a sample of trace comparisons were presented for the beginning, middle, and end of each cycle. Because the gamma sensitive EP devices are the least prone to instrument error, only the axial EP trace comparisons for Cycle 6 are presented here. Figure 4.10 presents the axial core average EP trace comparisons at the beginning, middle, and end of cycle. 'Ihe axial agreement is very good considering that Cycle 6 contains the accumulated void and exposure history effects of all the previous cycles. Both sets of data demonstrate that, overall, SIMUIAE 3 predicts the power distribution in the core quite well, and to a degree of accuracy comparable to the Quad Cities analysis. As was discussed previously, the installation of gamma sensing devres reduces asymmetry in the plant measured data, which results in improved comparisons to the SIMUIAE-3 model. 4.2.5 Forsmark 1 Summary i The Forsmark 1 validation using SIMUIATE 3 demonstrate the capabilities of the code to model real plant operation. No special treatment of these designs were required in terms of either the CASMO-30 calculations performed or for the SIMUIAE 3 model. l l l 47 - i .,, - ~ - - -. _ _ _ _.,.

TAB 1E 4.1

SUMMARY

OF QUAD CmES CYCmS 1 AND 2 HOT DEPLERONS Cycle 11P Data Exposure Power Flow Rods Xenoa K es Set (Gwd/Il lael (%) Rate (%) Inserted Eq. (Pred.) 1 1 0.247 87.0 86.1 1936 No 0.99909 2 0.646 89.7 101.6 2032 Yes 1.00353 3 0.800 89.2 99.6 2056 Yes 1.00420 4 1.334 87.5 99.6 2192 Yes 1.00409 5 2.031 97.6 100.0 2056 Yes 1.00515 6 2.894 96.1 97.2 2156 Yes 1.00593 7 3.480 87.5 96.8 2436 Yes 1.00404 8 3.696 92.4 96.7 2316 Yes 1.00650 0 4.297 94.7 94.8 2290 Yes 1.00544 10 4.809 93.1 92.8 2256 No 1.00389 11 5.471 80.2 75.0 2104 No 1.00154 12 5.949 88.6 99.9 2064 No 1.00488 q 13 6.175 88.0 96.1 1892 unknown 1.00583 14 6.710 90.3 97.6 1924 No 1.00357 15 6.948 87.8 97.9 1688 No 1.00713 16 7.239 87.8 97.9 1688 Yes 1.00438 i 2 17 6.625 56.7 50.3 1788 No 0.99770 4 18 6.833 86.5 85.5 1408 No 1.00289 19 7.225 91.0 89.8 1204 Yes 1.00467 20 7.641 83.5 83.7 1332 No 1.00082 i 21 7.973 96.0 99.4 1160 Yes 1.00411 22 8.293 99.6 98.7 956 No 1.00017 23 9.229 98.1 99.2 744 No 1.00703 24 10.195 98.5 98.0 368 No 1.00321 l 25 10.827 85.8 100.3 336 No 1.00574 i j 26 11.699 72.8 95.8 32 Yes 1.00488 l 27 11.073 68.2 96.0 0 Yes 1.00440 28 12.348 69.6 97.7 0 Yes 1.00439 29 12.466 59.2 96.8 0 Yes 1.00418 r 48 l

TABLE 4.2 QUAD CmES CYCLES 1 AND 2 COLD CRmCAL CASES In Sequence Cr10cals Date Cycle Exposure Sequence Temperature Period K efectNe (Gwd/11 ('F) (Sec) 4/5/72 1 0.0 A 147 230 1.00293 2/8/73 1 2.6 A 160 300 0.99615 5/7/73 1 3.4 A 120 120 0.99573 8/7/73 1 4.48 B 120 45 0.99479 1/6/74 1 6.27 A 180 300 0.99642 10/6/74 2 7.51 A 185 100 0.99514 12/16/74 2 8.29 B 160 45 0.99683 5/4/75 2 9.619 B 190 130 0.99596 Local Criucals Imal Period K efIective (sec) l 1 160. 0.99845 2 45. 0.99/63 3 60. 0.99774 4 148. 0.99835 5 238. 0.99753 6 25. 0.99913 7 260. 0.99816 l 8 350. 0.99852 9 30, 0.99886 10 175. 0.99854 1 l 49 ?

TABIE 4.3 i stb 1 MARY OF QUAD CTIIES CYCLES 1 AND 2 'ITP DATA Cycle Exposure Average Standard Deviation RMS (Gwd/I) DifTerence 1 0.247 4.45 !L.00 5.53 0.646 4.84 5.87 5.80 0.800 4.87 5.92 5.92 1.334 5.08 6.14 6.07 2.031 4.87 6.06 5.99 2.894 5.15 6.35 6.27 3.696 5.37 6.47 6.39 4.297 5.05 6.13 6.05 4.809 4.88 5.99 5.91 5.471 4.49 5.63 5.56 5.949 5.09 6.21 6.13 6.175 4.95 6.02 5.94 6.710 4.61 5.51 5.44 6.920 4.92 5.96 5.89 6.948 4.91-5.96 5.89 2 6.610 4.12 5.00 4.94 6.625 4.12 4.99 4.93 6.833 4.45 5.36 5.29 7.225 3.97 4.78 4.72 7.641 4.24 5.16 5.10 2 7.973 4.06 4.91 4.85 8.293 4.08 5.04 4.98 i 9.229 4.14 5.13 5.07 10.195 3.74 4.62 4.56 10.827 4.12 5.05 4.99 11.973 4.07 4.80 4.75 12.348 3.85 4.50 4.44 i t 1 b I i i i 50 - [

l TABLE 4.4 PHARACIERIST1CS OF FORSMARK UNTP 1 FUEL DESIGNS load Geometry Enrichment Gd Loading Gd Pins Segments C>rle Init a 8x8 2.08 3.95 3 3 1A 1B,2 Init b 8x8 2.08 0.0 0 1 1A Rel 1 8x8 2.80 2.00 4 3 2.3 Rel2 8x8 2.82 2.00 4 3 3,4 Rel3 8x8 2.94 2.50 4,5 3 4.5,6 Rel4 9x9 2.91 2.50 5,6 4 5 Rel 5 9x9 2.94 .2.50 6,7 3 6 Demo 1 8x8 2.82 3.00 6 1 3 Demo 2 9x9 3.00 3.00 6 2 4 4.5,6 Recon 8x8 i i ( l l

TABLE 4.5 FORSMARK UhTP 1 HOT EIGENVALUE L'UMMARY . Cycle Average Standard Deviation Humber of Points IA 1.00063 0.00228 9 1D 1.00270 0.00082 11 2 1.00380 0.00158 23 3 1.00418 0.00104 15 4 1.00725 0.00049 22 5 1.00450 0.00093 16 6 1.00697 0.00084 13 TABLE 4.6 FORSMARK UNTP 1 COLD CRTTICAL

SUMMARY

Cycle Average Standard Deviation Number of Points 1A 0.99682 0.00262 7 ID 0.99260 0.00219 6 2 0.99920 0.00134 5 3 1.00050 0.00085 4 4 1.00327 0.00213 5 5 0.99929 0.00234 5 6 0.99830 0.00112 5 i l I i 52 -

FIGURE 4.1 QUAD CmES CYCLES 1 AND 2 HOT EIGENVALUES QUAD OTES CYCLES 1 AND 2 HOT DGENVALUES VS. CORE AVERAGE EXPOSURE tom.- 0 0 O ..................'........g.......... 9...........................A............ o LOOS-o .....e...e....................O...................e...........................%.... 8 8 3 O O O O O t000-D 0 iX 0 0.995-e EOLS Da m m 0N O NON EQL",una:t;M se AvraAos vauts 0.990 i O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 EXPOSURE (GWD/T) l i l 1 l 53 - l l t L

a d 1 1 FIGURE 4.2 OtJAD CmES CYCLES 1 AND 2 COLD EIGENVALUES RESULTS QUAD QTES CYC.IS 1 AND 2 COLD N-SEQUDG CRmCALS W. CORE AVERAE DPOSURE tow so AVI.RAC: VALLT, t006-ii ?x .................................................g.............. 9............. O n o. -..........................................................o...................

o. o -.

O I- ,2 3 4 ,S 4,- 7,- ,8 ,9 C EXPOSURE (CWE/T) OVAD QTES CRES 1 APO 2 COLD N-SEQUENCE CRRCALS VS. MODERATOR TEWpERATLIRE t i 1010 i l l AvrucivAw ( toos-l O tDA - 1 ..............................................N..............g.............. i l D a ...............h..................................................A........... 0 tot-t e coo to US 300 40 0 US TEupERATW (DEcntrS rate +cT) 54

FIGURE 4.3 OUAD CmFS UNIT 1 CYCLE 1 TIP 'IRACE

SUMMARY

PREDIC'IED - MEASURED AVERAGE 11P IhTEGRALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE 1 STAND DEV - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - 2 3.3 5.3 ---- 3.2 5.7 -- - -4.7 ~ ~ 3 1.4 ~ ~ 1.6 - - 1.2 - - 1.9. -- 2.3 - - 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ t 2.5. - -4.2. - - 5.8 --. 5.3 - -- 5.2 --- 5.4 ~~ 5 ~~ 1.9 ~~ 4.7~~ 1.8 - -

1. 5 -- -

2.7 --- 1.1 ~ ~ --- 6 ~~ - - - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ ~ 13.8 ~ ~ -1.2 ~ ~

6. 7 ~ ~

4.4 ~~ 2.4 ~~- 1.5 - 6.2 ~~ 7 ~~ 1.5 -~~ 2.1~~ 2.0 -...

1. 6.. -

1.2 ~~ 1.4 ~~ 1.7 ~~ 8 -- ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - 3.5 1.6 0.0 - -- 7.2 ~ ~ 1.7 - - 9.7.- 3.3 ~~ 9 2.0 - - 2.1 --- 2.5 ~ ~ 1.8 - t.2 -- - 1.4 ~~ 2.0 - - 10 -- ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1,2 ~ ~ 4,9..~ 0.0 -... 2.4 -. 4.4 - -.. 4.4 - - 2.1 1} 1,7...~ 2.6. -- 2.9 -~ ~ 1.2 -- 1.7 - - 1.0 -- 1.1 12 l I l 13 3.4 ~ ~ 1.1.7 ~ ~ - 1.2 -. 1.4 - - 10.4 - 2.7~~ f 1.5-1.3 ~ ~ 2.0 ~ ~ 2.4 -- 1.9 ~~ 1.4 -- I l 14 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9.4 ~.- -4.3 - - 6.4.-- 15 ~~ -- 1,8..... 3.2.. 1.5.-- l l 16 ~~ -- ~~ ~~ i i l i l I 1 I 55 - i r L I +

p 1 FIGURE 4.4 QUAD CmES UNIT 1 CYCIE 2 RP 'IRACE

SUMMARY

PREDICIED - MEASURED AVERAGE BP 1.VIEGRAI A i 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE ~~ - - 1 STAND DEV ~ ~ ----- 2 6.3 ~~ 7.9. -- 5.7 ~ ~ -0.9 -. 0.3 3 1.0 ~ ~ 1.6 -.- 1.6.-- 2.6 --- 1.0 -- 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 2.3 ~~ 3.1 - - 1.2 ~ ~- 2.4 - 2.3 - - 4.8 ~~ 5 ~~ 1.3 - - 2.3 -- - 1.9 -- 1.4 --- 1.8 -- 2.4~~ 6 ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8.0 7.7 --- 4.8~~ 5.2 - - 4.4....

9. 5 ~ ~

5.1 7 ~~ - -- 2.3- - 1.1 ~ ~ 2.4 -- 1.2 ~ ~ 1.3 -- - 1.6..~ 1.6 ~ ~ .......~ 8 ........................................................................... ~... 3.4 - - 2.2 ~~ 5.9- - 0.3.---- 2.0 --- -6.0. - 2.9 ~~ g 1.1..- 1.3 2.0~~ 0.5 -- 1.3 ~~ 1.6 --- 1.6 ~- - 10 ~~ -- -- -- - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - ~ ~ i 2.4 -- 5.5 ~~ 1.7 ~ ~ 6.0 -.. 5.3 -~ ~ 1.7 -- 3.1 11 ~~ 2.3 ~~ 1.9 - - 1.2 -- 0.8 ~ ~ 1.4 - - 2.3 ~~ 1.4 12 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 -2.7 ~ ~

6. 6 ~ ~

1.2 -- 1.9 ~... 2.4 --. 0.3.- - 1.9 -- 2.0 ~ ~ 1.1 ~ ~ 2.1 -. 2.5 - - 1.7 - - 14 ~~ -- - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - 5.6 ~~ 6.9 - - 3.1 - 15 ~~ ~~ 2.0 -- 3.1.-- 1.4 -. 16 - ~~ ~~ ~~ 56 - l I i l

FIGURE 4.5 QUAD CTI1ES UNIT 1 CYCLE 1 'I1P TRACE COMPARISON

SUMMARY

g m m E n a e ei e e, n e i P e e e a rg E E E m ( E E m I r m m X E E 1 e a a m 'e a e a e e a A e a a A A I E E E E E E E m E E E I E E E E E E E A A A e a e a e A e a e a $8 E m E m E E W E E m m E E W s e a e e a e E X m m m X E e E e a e E e B e e a a e a 19 e e a e a e E E m E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E a a E e a A e a a e e e a e a a e a e E E E E m E E = m E E m X E m e A a e e e e e e e a e e e a E E E E E E E E m E m .I a e A E a e G. I _____ g mw gg g 0 4 4 8 0 5 e e' 8 e 9 e 11 ~, s 3 H,4 4 r'~ qc. y UU FE"2"2 M p eg q E E o m E' e a m c. 1 E a a a E i e = E = I ri d a a = es m a E m ril E e u E e r s a a a a w hh e a a a a I a a e a e E E E E E g a'r g g 'az a a e a in m m m m m m m E E n W E E I E X E E N 'e a e a N m a e a a m l a e a. m E m m m x K E m m L a e2 m a a

e. Ge' m

e a e a e I a a e e a a m E M E E E K M m E E m E E L E E E K e' S e e n! E m e a a m .a, i e a a a a i E E E I a m E x E aii E e E 2 T F e e a a .1 m n, i a. m.x, g I n a e a a ti n e yy 1 e a: i mmx 2 i xm _u.u_ ____u gg 88 e e 0 9 MR e 1.1 a i. 0 1 1 J-I em c____ .: m e E i a. m m a na E i ri ra w m ai ',J m a e t g E x i E m z a ei a- .1

• __a el e

a h la 1 e a e la a I E E E E E I g g g E E E E m xx m E E E E E e' e ei m' m: W E E I E 2 E E W W h at a e a 137 I a a e a la a la E E L E E E E a e 4 a e' e a' n .E F. E. E. 5 E I E .i m E E E E E a m E E m e a a a' 1 e a a la a 1 E E E E E E E I E E ] E a E El a X h 4 e m e a m m a a I a a m K] M E E E E p E E E I m E I M. a e R, i eS c____ __ g, L____ ,4, Se ,8 g 8 8 ,g e G G G 9 9 ,., r ~ 57 -

FIGURE 4.5 (CONTINUED) OUAD CmES UNrr 1 CYCLE 1 TIPiTIACE COMPARISON

SUMMARY

m Q r z m-i g p E E E i d e e a e' I e m' La' le 1 1 E E E E E II E E E E' E Il e e a In a e' I e a e e a 1' y g E E I E I E E E E I E' X K E W N a e a a e a i m a e e e e i E E E I E E E E I E 1 E I E a e a a e a I e a e. e a e I E E I E E E K K K I E X. E X~ d e e e a e I e a el a he le 1 E E W E E I E E m E E I A e a di e al m. le. 1 E E E I. E E X I1 am nm um d uds Ameddd se g. 8 0 8 l il H "d r-r- J Lp mm g

• = m g

mayq hh p I E K I I Q W I E E E N 9 I1. d In a a lel I I gi e a la",'3 88 E E I E K 1 1 E E F,3 E e e e e A na a a Im' It' I )) g g E E E E E I L E E E E E rX m e a e e m'I W W m la le le Im' Q7 E' E E I E E X K r r 2' E 2 X m .e e a e In I e a e le W m' I I I E .I E E T E E I E X X X~ W e el e le 19' ] e e a la le! Ie1 1 h i] E E .I X m i 1 I E E E. ~X I I In Fe7 !a' a: 1I 9. m! le I X X X 1I 1 X Y. iL II M M 1i,s, .. - = - . ~,_. 'j.. 8 11 i3 \\ W b l 1 P m c r,, n.: -1. 5 1 Kw W !.I 2 I I T It' m' W! 'i vi rx xZ u: i i r et a e imi n la La' la' II X Xi K X 12 : I .T X K E Z T~ F e! le! W Ie' :k! g g m' al 'al Im WW E E E E E 2 I W W X I T T E Z LL E m' in e' m: W b: E a a le in imi X E 1 II E rI 5k E E I E E E IX E E e E al e Inf ~ a m w a W E E E 1 E i E L X' I EI E e A el mi m1 19: .X. T "K_ 1] .i" ".5 F J*, [WH8H t e a h a le: 1e: tu..a

u. u es

• • .. e s 0

8 0 0 4 I s t l 58 { l

1 i FIGURE 4.6 OUAD CmES UNIT 1 CYCLE 2 TIP' RACE COMPARISON

SUMMARY

l T9 TT A F. i re rL W r' r r Y E E-1 1 i er 1 i i 1 E E 1r i i i i i e r r e E e e a e !K-E' e E mi K e K g g E 1 ri 2 i 2 E 2 X X 2 X W W W m E m E e a e s. e E x II 2 i X E a a e et a m a E e K a E m. E X l E. I I I II I E 1 E E 2 X X m a mJ m I' E a K. n' E. al E I I 2 I x II i-i i i e r m e E m el E I L m' e a 1 I I I 1 I I. 1 I 1 I I L 4. A L 11 ,e s e e e e e e* e a s ,se.se' ee e e e e ee 8 e e e e e 11 8 a 46 r y g ,m g h k 7 'X 37 I I Q h _I I I I i 11 I d 1 a m? '1! I1. N I T e e a: M' m Y Y m? i A T 1 I I I .I e,7 I E E 7X! M-I 1 5 e 1 e a m m .1 .1 e m awmi W E 2 X II! IK .7. E IN W I W I I I 1 I g W Y K X E E F W s e a' W lei I W X e e! X e! 9. E m g I U X. 3 I '7' I I I 7 I I I IT l 1 l I II I I f 2 R I X 1_ei M I Z e a: I e: e' Z. I r T: I Z- >I a e e e 1 12. !T 7 1 12 i i I I I I AI e

e. e"'e' II I

.7 I 2 I ] I I I I T In e' e ef e' X m a X E a e' Q 'T U r pe! le I T e' e. ei 'Z: a IT T a i I I II i!. I I I I I I I kg I I.7 1 ~ 1 L.1J e. i IIIII LL 1 I, I Et e VW e e s e e ,ee',e 8,ee i L .e g s e. e a t a l p 'T rT"1 r TT 7 W II 7 I

2. 0 Q

I T 1 1 . II II_ h d I la a Ie It! I1 h I I e! e IX: I I 'X: e I e 11 1 Y E F M X I 1 I T. I T1 I 'I I 1 11 1

• ~ '*

7 7

• 7

~*I u H I IT I E2 I T m E I I I W 3 Z Z al e e X e E I" e* W U a e m. a m. Iel 1.. I' W X II X. K 'X' II I I 3 I I f m al a 'a la I m'

m. T Z e?

e a X m n n r e J,X X K "M J.I II : IT g_g a a a If I I T lei e le o! X 7 T. e 2 7 l l [, ff M E I. 1 I T a I. I I le e In2 I. IX' 4 It TX 2. e: I e X. pp IT J. M I I I I .T I I I I II .] 6e ,g L =d=1m d M M g e e e l e e** ee o' e I ,es ,,e

• ,ee es l

e e'e e e a i e 1 59 e e

FIGURE 4.6 (CONDNUED) OUAD CmES UNrr 1 CYCLE 2 TIP TRACE COMPARISON

SUMMARY

m eaa g 8 0 08 0 8 5e 11 4e a s n d I-5 m 11 ~ l e ii lgg 9 g g.. 9 g n x x E

l.,

f. g ___w. 0 Se A 0 ',"^,- 4 0 0 0 6 i 60 -

FIGURE 4.7 FORSMARK UNTT 1 BP TRACE

SUMMARY

CYCLES 1 A 'IHROUGH 6 PREDICIED - MEASURED AVERAGE UP IN'TEGRALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE 1 STAND DEV - ---- - -- ~~ 2 4 0.26 -- 0.94 - -- 0.33 ~~ 2.06 ~ 3 -~~ ---- -- 2.28 --- 1.97 --- 2.84 -~~ 1.87 ~~ 4 -- ~~ ~~ ~~ - -- ~~ ---- -- - ~ ~ ~~ 0.54 - 0.49 -- 0.41 - - 2.80 - 1.23 - - 5 1 - ~~ 2.55 - 2.45 --- 3.82 - - 2.59 - 2.97 - - 6 ~~ ~~ - ~~ - - - - ~ ~ ~~ - ~~ ~~ ~~ -~ i 2.53 -- 0.82.-- 0.2 6 ~ ~ 2.63 - - 0.41 - - 2.53 - -0.65 7 2.85 - -- 2.74 - -- 2.00 -- 2.72 ~~ 3.77 - - 3.32 -- 2.85 - t I 8 ) 1,4 0 ~ ~ 2.00 ~ ~ 1.86 --- 0.77 -- 0.87 - - 5.31--- 0.98 ---- 9 ~~ ..~. 2.07 ~~ 2.00 -- - 2.85 ~~ 2.95 ~~ 1.96- - 3.89 ~~ 3.24 - -- i 10 ~~ --- - -- ~~ - - - ~~ ~~ - -- ~~~ --- -- -- -- -- ~~ -- i 8 l, 1.09 - -0.32 --- 1.28 ~~ 0.95 - 2.28 - - 3.10 - - t 11 i 2.86 -. 2.77 -- 2.07 -- 2.85 - 2.95 - - 2.35 - - 1 a i 12 - -- - - - ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ -- - -- -- ~~ -- -- --- ~~ { 1.93 ~~ 2.15 ~~ -0.39 - - -0.37 ~~ 1.63 -. 13 -~~ 2,09 1,7 7 - - 3.51 ~~ 2.54 ~~ 2.33 ~~ 14 j,, -- -- --- ~~ -- - -- ~~ 7.41 - - 4.03 -- 15 .. ~ ~~ -~~ 4.13. - 2.33 ~~ 16 ~~. - - -- -. f qd 61 - a

.= FIGURE 4.8 FORSMARK UhTT 1 TP TRACE

SUMMARY

CYCLES 1A PREDICTED MEASURED AVERAGE TP INTEGRALS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE 1 STAND DEV ~~ ~~ - ----- 2 3.20. - 1.62 - - 1.16. -- 3.92 -~ 3 ~~ 2.11 -- 1.26 ~~ 1.08 - - 1.04 -- -- 4 -2.76 - - 1.56 -.-- 4.13..- 3.31 -. 2.61 - - 5 ~~ ~~ 2.10 -- 2.17 -- 2.39 1.33 -- 0.91 - ~ 6 -- ~~ -- ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ -- -~ -- ~~ -- ~~ 5.66 ~ ~ 2.4 9 ---- 1.80 - - 2.73 - -2.26. ~ 1.10 -- 3.90. - 7 1.28 ~~- 1.78 -- - 1.62 -- 1.33 --- 2.6 2 -- - 0.62 ~~- 1.68 - - ~~ 8 -- --- -- -- ~~ -- --- -- ~~ ~~ ~~ -- -- 4.90.-- 2.53 --- 0.65 - - 0.72 - - 1.57.-. 0.86 - - 3.36 9 .. ~ 3.12 -- 1.65 -- 0.93 -- 1.10 -- 0.90 - 3.04 - 1.58 -~~ 10 - ~~ - -- -- - -- -- - ~~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - ~~ - -- 1.77 . 3.22 -- 0.12 - -- 2.28 - 3.96 -- 4.35. - - 11 2.54. - 1.22 1.56 -- 2.26 ~~ 1.93 - 0.88 - 12 2.00 - -3.72 ~ ~ 3.43 .2.28 - - 0.87 ~~ 13 ~~ 1.21 -. 1.32 - 1.08 - - 2.40 ~~ 1.78 14 3 5 6.18. - 6.38 -- 15 -- -- ~~ 1.84 - 1.00 ~~ ~... 16 - -- ~~..-- 62

FIGURE 4.9 FORSMARK UNTT 1 'DP TR ACE

SUMMARY

CYCLES 6 } PREDICIED - MEASURED AVERAGE "ITP IMEGRAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 AVERAGE DIFFERENCE 1 STAND DEV 2 - 1.54 - 0.96 -.- 2.59 - - 0.17 3 -- -- - ~ ~ 0.33 - 0.44. -- 0.74 - - 0.2 / 4 -- -~~ -- ~~ -~~ -- ~~- ---- - - - ~~- - - - - - ~ 3.15 -- - 1.71 -- - 0.35 ~ 4.50 - - 2.47 5 0.93 - 0.35 -- 0.52 - - 095 -- 1.03 ~~- 6 --- - - - ~~ ~~- -~ ~~- ~~ ~ ~ - - - ~~- --~ ~~- ~~ ~~ =- 0.14.-- 1.54 ~~- 0.34 - - 1.50.- - 1.64 -- 2.31 - - 2.2 6 - - - -- 7 O,91..... 0.53 - - 1.03 - 0.68 -- - 0.99 ~~- 0.87-~~ 0.36 - - ~~ - -- ~~ - -- ~~ -~~ - - - -~~- -- -- 8 1.29 - - 0.67 - - - 1.31 - 2.14 --- 0.50 --- 2.59 ~~- 5.08 - - 9 0.85 --- - 0.4 5 -- 0.75 ~~ 0.38 - 0.71 -~- 0.43 - - 0.36. ...~ 10 -- ~~- -- --- -- ~~- - ~~ -- ~~- - - - ~~ 0.62 1.94 - - 0.83.-~ 1.41 -. 0.05 3.05. - 11 045 -- 0.84 -- 0.46 - 0.72 - - 0.54 - - 0.72 -. 12 ~~ - ~~ --- -- ~~ -- 2.19 - - 0.07 - - -1.68 - 3.02 - 0.55 13 0.69 -~ 0.93 -- 0.55 -- 0 'n - - 0.49 r }4 4.2 5 - - 1.85 - - 15 -- ~~ ~~ 0.25 - 0.47 ~~ ~~ 16 --..... ~.....- 63

e.** v. e n, ., 9. ' 1 g f,.. E " [0 V. l ,e

• t A

. ' "9 .,,,7 ,e = en = [M m W n ) e g S 2 uu so e A c. w* ti et it 44 at et sa si as os u n is ti u es e a e 5 e s 4 e s 1 seqwnw epow p!v-d ' * %.a .k".. p l CL W +t s eF = J l O '/ ' *.E " N-m y 9 n 9 W ;D !k .,3 U g n ib Y. P gy o u

== g ao e O ct + ( L O 8> 0 (,) U it t't l't it 6't b b U s ~4 N t'l El 8'8 5* i 8 b E E 5 E E 8 - et 9wnu ePow p'8f n I s 2

1. 2 h.,

/ ..., c .,V 1 1 ./

1 MM

.h 4 s. 9 Y e a ti is e O it f'. H N b e,i y,9 a: te au W 4 0 8 9 4 ' 8' j ' S = y p+ g _,,...... = 44Qwnw epow P'8f e G4 - 4% W

5.0 DEB R!N POWER RECONS 1RUC'T10N VALIDATION This seruon prmides validauon of the pin power reconstrucuon capabiliues of SIMUIATE-3. An extensive benchmarking process was conducted consisung of comparisons of SBfUIATE-3 data to critical experiments, higher order calculadons, and pin by pin diffusion theory (PDQ 7) results. The critical experiment comparisons provide a direct validauon of the accuracy of the method for the range of independent parameters examined. In addiuon, higher order transport theory solutions were generated by modeling muluple assembly or colorset geometries using CASMO 30, These benchmarks demonstrate the accumcy of the SIMUIAiE-3 method versus changes in indepadent parameters such as exposure, endchment, burnable poison shims, and control rods. In addition, a comparison of pin by pin diffusion theory (PDQ 7) (3 SBiUIATE 3 pin by ptn distnl.utions was performed for an actual PWR core model. McGuire Unit 2, which was presented in Section 3.1 of this report, was modeled with PDQ 7. The SIMULATE-3 model presented in Section 3.1 was used to generate the pin-by pin data. 5.1 Yp% tion versus Measured Critical Exneriments The Babcox and Wilcox measured critical experiments prvvide direct vaiQcation of the pin distribution calculation in that actual pin distributions were measured and compared to l SBlUIATE ?, ihese criucal experiments covered various PWR lattices consisting of enrichment variatfora, small and large water holes within the lattices, and an array of poison material. including gadohnia. The results demonstrate SIMUIATE 3 to be accurate to within an RMS difference in avemge pin power of 0.8% in lattices not containing gadolinia, and 1.3% for lattices with gadohnia. Table 5.1 presents a summary of the results of these ertucal expertmats, and is taken directly from Reference 25. 'this verificauon, however, does not include fuel depletion effects, and therefore Yankee Atomic performed further vahdauon of the pin power reccru ruon capabihues. 65 - b

5.2 Valfdation Versus Measured Reaction Rates The instrument thimble reaction rates, presented for the McGuire Unit 2 in Section 3 o' this report, provide an integral test of SIMUIAE 3 to calculate accurate re:auve Duxes in the ce:itrally located instrument thtmble of typical PWR lattices. Dese comparisons are a demonstration of the Dux reconstru: tion capabiltues of SIMUIAE 3, which is an integral part of the pin power reconstruction method. His verification demonstrated the overall accuracy of the SIMUIAE-3 calculated reaction rates, compared to measured data, to be within an RMS error of 1.5%. De comparisons were made for 19 difTerent flux maps comprised of approximately 58 measured samples per map, or a total of over 1100 samples of data. 5.3 Validation versus Hicher Order Numerical Calculat:ons A series of multiple assembly (2x2) array pin by pin transport theory soluuons were calculated as higher order benchmarks, nese colorsets consisted of 17x17 fuel rod lattices of the standard Westinghouse fuel design. Fifteen different colorsets were constructed. Within the coloidets, combinauons of enrichment, exposure, contre' rods inserted, number of burnable poison pins, and removal of burnable poison pins were represented. ne values of these parameters were selected to be typical of those used in current PWR core design. D ese colorsets were depleted to generate pin power distributions as a function of exposure for the i various lattices. Table 5.2 pr:sents a description of the different lattices evaluated. I l l Transport theory soluuons for these geometries were constructed uring CASMO-30. CASMO-3G has the capability to physically model four different assemblies within the same i l problem description, with reDecting boundary conditiets. However, the SIMUIAE 3 model was based upon group constants and nux discontinuity factors prodi ed from the single assembly car netry CASMO-3G cases. No colorset infomiation was used in generating these constants. tn addition, pin by pin difTusion theory (PDQ 7) wa.:,. used to construct these colorsets, in cMet to illustrate the relative accuracy of both methods. Comparisons were made between assembly and pin powers for each assembly analyzed in the colorsets, ne compartsans made were for SIMUIAE-3 versus CASMO-30. De same comparisons were made between PDQ 7 and CASMO 30. Dese results show the SIMULAE-3 and PDQ 7 asymbly powers to be generally within 1% of the reference CASMO-3G solution, even in rodded conf!gurations. Table 5.3 presents a staustical summary of the pin power 66 -

results of the SBtUIATE 3 and PDQ 7 models versus CASMO 30. The results show the average and standard deviation of percent differences for the peak pins, predicted worst pins and all pins fcr each depletloa step of the colorset. De results show both SBtUIATE 3 and PDQ 7 accurately predict pin power distributions. The SB1UIATE 3 results indicate no trend with lattice except for the lattices containing control rods. In these latuces, the peak pin is accurately predicted and the overall e.verage of all pins is quite good. 11.r exception is that the worst pin in these latuces is in ermr by cppmximately 3%. Dese pins are at the central corner of the latuce where controlled and uncontmiled assemblies are adjacent to or.e another. However, the peak pin does not occur in these regions. The PDQ-7 results are similar to the S!MULATE 3 results, but with higher perrent differences. The worst pins in some of the heavily poisoned lattices does show PDQ / to exhdit somewhat larger differences than S!MULA'IE 3. Again, in theee lattices the worst predicted pin is not near the peak value. The PDQ 7 colorset calculations. use a G factor multiplier in the cross section formulation for the non-fuel regions. The non fuel regions are the guide tubes, with or without inserted burnable poison pins or control rod fingers, ne G factors assure that the reaction rates in these regions are correct in the diffusion theory calculation, so that reactivity worths of burnable poisons and control rods are accurately represented. his is a standard technique in the r generation of fine mesh difTusion theory cross sections, ne results in Table 5.3 shuw, however, that there is a hmited abihty to reproduce highly accurate pin powers with standard diffusion theory. In general, peaking in the arer. of guide tubes is under predicted and peaking in the areas of heavy absorbers is overpredicted. This fact has been recognized for many years and is addressed in a conservauve manner in the core hcensing process. De summary of pin power tesults in Table 5.3 shows that the EBtUIATE 3 pin power reconstructica is a highly accurate technique which produces average end peak pin powers to wit! tn 1% for a variety of reahsuc reactor conditions in colorset gecanetry. For contml rod insertions, this is also the case, bm with worst difference in pin peaking increasing to cppmximately 3% in non hmiting pins. De accuracy of the technique is seperior to standard 67 - i

diffusion theory, which reues upon addiuonal factors to assure consenauve pin power representation. 5.4 DVR Quarter Core SIMULATE 3 Reefnstruction Comnared to PDO 7 A second benchmark was constructed which consists of quarter core representation of a contemporary Wesunghouse design PWR Two cycles of operation were simulated with both PDQ 7 and SIMUIATE 3 for the McGuire unit presented in Section 3. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 present the loading patterns for Cycles 1 and 2 of McGuire Urti 2. He loading patterns cos,tain a variety of etaichments and number of burnable poison pins, representauve of a typical operaung PWR ne burnable poison pins were removed after one cycle, which is customary for Wesunghouse units. In addition, one third of the fuel was removed afler one cytle and replaced with fresh fuel. A second cycle is analyzed since there is interest in obsening the abihty of SIMULATE 3 to accurately calculate the distnbuuon within an assembly that resided near the core periphery in an earher cycle. Such assemblies usually have extremely large intra assembly exposure gradients and are generally beheved to be a hmiting case for pin reconstrucuon using a nodal code. Since the version of PDQ 7 used at Yankee Atomic does not include thermal hydraube or Doppler feedback, these effects were neglected in the SIMUIATE-3 model as well. The purpose of chminating these feedbacks from the SIMUIATE-3 model was to maintain as much consistency as poselble betiveen the models. Also, since the PDQ.7 model is two-dimensional, the SIMU*. ATE-3 analysis was conducted in two-dimensions. ne first cycle was depleted to a cycle average expmure of 14.5 Gwd/Mt. A shuf!1e into the second loading pattern was made and this pattern was depleted to 3.0 Gwd/Mt. We second cyrle was rMt fully oepleted. After the nrst few exposure steps the power and exposure gradients are less pwncanced and further depleuon would not add any adt. tal infonnauen j than was estabbshed in the first cyrle comparisons. 1 The results of this PDQ-7 benchmark demonstrated the SIMULATE 3 accurac/ in predicting peak pin powers per assembly for all assembhes to be within 2.5% of the PDQ-7 calculated data for Cycle 1. Figure 5.3 presents the distributions for the differences of the peak pin per av.embly at begtnntng arid end of Cycle 1. De dference in average assemby powers for the first cyrle of depleuon were less than 1% with the worst assembly exbibiting a 1.04 difference l l 68 - l l l l l

in power i:ompared to PDQ 7. as shown in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. De peak pin in the entire core versuo exposure exhibited an average agreement to within 1.1% over the first cycle with no trend versus exposure. Table 5.4 summarizes the renits of the comparison of the peak pin in f the en.e versus exposure. The Cycle 2 cornparisons to PDQ 7 from beginning of cycle to 3.0 Gwd/Mt were similar to the Cycle 1 results in terms of assembly powen and peak pin. De peak pin per assembly and assembly power comparisons yielded much the same results as Cycle 1. Figure 5.6 and 5.7 present the comparisons for the peak pin per assembly and assembly relative powers at the beginning of Cycle 2. De codes again yield much the same results, despite large intra-assembly up',sure gradients produced by the Cycle 1 depletion and shufDed to the interior of the core. Further evidence of the accuracy of the SIMU1AIE 3 method is illustrated by examining detailed intra assembly pin distnbuuons at the beginning of Cycle 2. De assembly containing the peak pin in the entire core at the beginning of Wele 2 resided at the core periphery in the first cycle. The assembly is location number 28 in Figure 3.2 moved from location number 16 in C>rle 1. adjacent to the core periphery. At the beginning of Cycle 2. this assembly containa on exposure gradicnt from one edge of the assembly to the other that ranges from 5.5 Gwd/Mt 1 to 14.0 Gwd/Mt. De pin by pin compartson, of the pin relative powers, in the quadrant containing the peak j pin of this assembly, is presented in F1gure 5.8. As the figure illustrates. SIMU1AIE 3 and PDQ 7 yield similar results and predict the same peak pin locaticn. Such good results are achieved since SIMULATE-3 tracks spectral history effects that influence intra assembly isotopics. Such effects are especially important near the core periphery, where the spectrum unout properly accounting for this differs signifncantly from the infinite medium spectrum effect, macroscopic depleting models cannot accuratdy calculate the pin by pin distribution in such an assembly. 5.0 Pin Power Reconstruction Summarv i ne SIMUIA1E 3 pin power distribution cakulation has been ve-1r

• against critical experiments, higher-order s Jculations and currently eccepted metho generating such data, ne results demonstrate SIMU! ATE 3 to predict pin by pin powers to wit 19n 1% of critical 1

j C9 - 1

cy.periments, higher orrier calculations and currently accepted methods for producing such data. The resu'ts validate that accurate pin power distributions are achieved without the need fcr multiple assembly or colorset spectrum calculations. All spectrum data used in the SIMUIATS 3 modds were infinite lattice, single assembly CASMO-3G calculations. Tracking of intra assembly spectral history affects in the pin power reconstruction technique is suscient to provide accurate local pin power predictions. This is demonstrated by comparison to pin by pin difrusion theory, in which the basic spectrum history cil'ects are accounted for in the representation of local pinwise isotopics. I i 70

1 TABLE 5.1 SIMUIEIT-3 PIN POWER VAIJDATION FOR 'INE B&W CRmCAL EXPERIMENTS Core # 1 5 12 14 18 20 Fuel 2.46% 2.46 % 4.02 % 4.02 % 4.02 % 4.02 % Assembly 15x15 15x15 15x15 15x15 16x16 16x16 Design 0 Gd 12 Gd 0 Gd 12 Gd 0 Gd 16 Gd RMS Difference 0.6% 1.5% 0,9% 1.2% 0.8% 1.2% (S3 Meas) Error in Peak 0.1% 1.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.8% -0.1% Pin (S3 - Meas) J l 4 ll f l l l 71 - 1 l l l 1

TABLE 5.2 COLORSET ANALYSIS CAW LISTING AND IDENnFIERS 4 lattke Enrichment Initial Number of Contml Rods Numlmr (w/o U 235) Exposure Burnable Inserted Absorbers 1 2.4 Fresh 0 no 2.4 Dumed 0 no 2 3.1 Fresh 0 no 3.1 Bumed 0 no 3 2.4 Fr:sh 0 no 2.4 Fiesh 12 no 4 3.1 Fresh 0 no 3.1 Fresh 24 no 5 2.4 Fresh 0 no 2.4 Bumed puUed 12' no 6 3.1 Fresh 0 yes 3.1 Fresh 0 no 7 3.1 Fresh 0 yes 3.1 Dumed 0 no 1 8 3.1 Fresh 0 no 3.1 Dumed 0 yes l 9 3.1 Fresh 0 no 2.4 Fresh 0 no 10 3.1 Fresh 0 no 2.4 Fresh 12 no 11 3.1 Fresh 0 no 2.4 Fresh 0 yes I 12 3.1 Fresh 0 no 2.4 Bumed 0 no 13 3.1 Fresh 12 no 2,4 Bumed 0 no 14 3.1 Fresh 0 no 2.4 Bumed pulled 12' no i 15 3.1 Fresh 12 no i 2.4 Bumed puDed 12' yes Removal o! 12 bumable poison shtms prior to depletka of lattice ~~ i 1 c

d TABLE 5.3 COLORSEP VERIFICA'110N RESULTS ? AVT. RAGE OF ABSOLIIIE VALUE IN PERCENT DIFFERENCE

• IN PINS FROM CASMO-30 COLORSET 1ATI1CE DEPIEnONS 144ttice Peak Pin Worst Pin All Pins l

No. Avg to Avg ic RMSto i SIM 3 followed S!M 3 followed SIM 3 followed by PDQ 7 by PDQ 7 by PDQ 7 f 1.2 .3451 351 .5201 307 .176.127 1 .9051 201 1.581 233 .689i.120 3.4 .1951 186 .8351 226 .2841.072 .9841.205 1.971 871 .8341.367 5 .2701.279 .6401 299 .2071.098 .7931 179 1.421 178 .6591.103 ( i 6 8.11 .7351.235 3.15.466 .9461.097 2.721 315 7.981 235 4.031 152 i ,660.218 .225.091 l 9.12 .3801238 1 1.241 141 1.78.t,.323 .7281 116 l 10 .3401 272 .780.358 .2691 109 l 1 f 1.221 163 2.3111.10 .8701 354 i t 13 .1001 094 .5901 238 .2031.000 l l 1.45.200 2.28i.679 .7991 144 14.15 .2701 244 .560.245 .196.108 l 1.231.227 2.091.567 .8221 145 i OVERALL .3301 237 .967A.295 .313i.099 1.32.215 2.681 523 1.121 188 1 ) t i

• % Difference = (SIMULA'IE 3 or PDQ 7 minus CASM.*)-30) dhtled by CASMO 30 l

l tinws 100% j i r i l l t i I + 73 - I t i l i

TAB 12 5.4 McOUIRE UNTP 2 CYCLE 1 COMPARISON BEmVEEN PDO 7 AND SIMUIAIE 3 OF JEAK PIN Exposure Peak Pin Power % Diff Assembly of the (Gwd/Mt) S3 PDQ S-3 PDQ 0.15 1.349 1.334 1.14 37 37 0.5 1.341 1.323 1.32 37 37 1.0 1.332 1.312 1.52 20 20 2.0 1.344 1.323 1,59 4 4 3.0 1.324 1.305 1.41 4 4 l 4.0 1.305 1.292 1.02 4 4 l 5.0 1.200 1.276 1.05 37 37 1 60 1.281 1.268 1.02 ' 37 37 l 7.0 1.275 1.263 0.96' 37 37 8.0 1.268 1.256 0.95 37 37 9.0 1.263 1.252 0.00 37 37 10.0 1.257 1.240 0.91 37 37 11.0 1.252 1.240 0.97 37 37 12.0 1.246 1.233 1.05 37 37 13.0 1.238 1.225 1.0G 37 37 14.0 1.230 1.21G 1.15 37 37 14.5 1.223 1.210 1.24 37 37 Average Percent Difference of Peak Pin for Entire Cycle is 1.1 % ' % Difference is (SibiUIATE 3 PDQ)/SIMUIATE-3

• 1009f._

r- +, FIGURE 5.1 McGtJIRE l'hTP 2 CYrtR 1 LDADING PAM' AND NAMINC CONVEhTON L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ADO B20 ADO B16 ADO B16 ADO C10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A00 B20 A00 B16 A00 C20 COO 19 20 21 22 23 24 A00 B16 A00 B16 A00 C10 [ 28 29 30 31 32 I A00 B20 ADO C12 COO 37 38 39 1 B00 B20 COO - Assembly Ntunber 45 46 COO C09 Enrichment DPs 1 Enrichment w/o U235 A 7.1 i B 2.6 C 3.1 [ i i I l t I a i I L r I

FIGURE 5.2 McGUIRE UhTP 2 CYrfR 2 tnADING PATIERN AND NAMING CO. WEN'110N f 23 1 62 83 24 4 5 37 6 7 7 " 8 ADO BR16 CR10 BR20 BR16 B00 A00 DOO 16 10 15 11 46 12 22 13 11 14 " 15 " 16 COO CR20 CR09 BR16 BR2O D04 DOO 31 19 38 20 24 21 20 22 13 23 " 24 CR12 BR20 CC10 BR16 BR16 DOO 16 28 32 29 29 30 " 31 " 32 COO COO BR20 DO4 DOO s 31 37 39 38 " 39 CR12 COO D00 t 45 45 " 46 Assemb! Number / COO D00 Enrichment bps Enrichment w/o U235 A 2.1 B 2.6 C 3.1 D 3.2 OFA NCTII: R DESIGNATES REMOVAL OF BP AF'IER CYCLE 1 OPERA'!10N i 76

l l l t 1 FIGURE 5.3 McGUIRE UNrr 2 CYCLE 1 BOC AND EOC COMPARISON BETFEEN PDO 7 AND SIMULATE 3. PEAK PLN BY ASSEMBLY l l +0.19 + 1.17 + 1.12 +2.06 + 1.22 + 1.99 + 1.58 +1.12 + 1.38 +0.84 + 1.36 + 1.24 +1.27 +0.82 +0.97 +1.28 + 1.06 + 1.73 ^ 1.70 +2.05 + 1.87 + 1.38 +1.10 + 1.35 + 1.13 + 1.46 + 1.01 + 1.17 + 1.76 + 1.54 + 1.77 + 1.88 +'. 84 + 1.77 + 1.'23 + 1.01 + 1.52 + 1.19 + 1.14 +0.86 +0.85 + 1.26 + 1.75 + 1.73 +1.15 +0.74 +0.03 + 1.11 +0.66 +0.73 + 1.89 +2.51 + 1.14 +1.42 +0.25 + 1.14 4.28 + 1.93 +1.04 + 1.39 -- ((S3 PDQ)/S3) l DOC SIMUIATE 3 Peak Pin Power vs PDQ 7 +0.91 +2.14

• 100%

l EOC SIMULATE 3 Peak Pin Power vs PDQ 7 r l DOC (.15 Gwd/Mt) RMS Dtfierence = 1.44 EOC (14.0 Gwd/Mt) RMS Difference = 1.33 I I I i h f i 77 - I l i _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ -.. _ _,.... - ___ _ ___~

FIGURE 5.4 McQUIRE UNfr 2 CYC121 BOC.15 Gwd/Mt COMPARISON BETWEEN PDO 7 AND SIMUIAE-3 OF ASSLMBLY POWER 1.093 1.014 1.159 1.169 1.240 1.123 1.019 0.706 +0.29 1.86 +0.89 0.13 + 1.53 0.14 +0.82 1.21 1.120 1.065 1.223 1.172 1.168 1.100 0.778 +0.55 1.17 + 1.34 0.01 + 1.19 1.21 +0.08 1.195 1.163 1 ?OO 1.086 0.980 0.649 + 1.12 0.21 + 1.24 0.51 4.46 1.46 1.199 1.058 1.089 0.971 0.554 +1.17 1.08 +0.69 1.29 0.99 1.244 0.908 0.832 +0.57 1.18 0.13 0.994 0.432 S!MU1AE 3 Assembly Power (IS3 PDQl/S3)'100 +0.59 0.42 RMS DIF-1'nce = 0.96 78 - 1

i FIGURE 5.5 McGUIRE UNTT 2 CYCLE 1 EOC 14.0 Gwd/Mt COMPARISON BNEN PDO 7 @ SIMUIATE 3 OF ASSEMBLY POWER 1.063 1.107 1.000 1.115 1.071 1.126 1.011 0.786 +0.62 +0.51 +0.60 +0.82 +0.58 +0.35 -0.20 0.63 1.061 1.107 1.065 1.126 1.074 1.108 0.810 +0.55 +0.57 +0.64 +0.63 +0.18 0.22 -0.37 1.065 1.126 1.082 1.123 0.981 0.733 10.61 +0.70 +0.43 +0.21 0.46 1.02 1.088 1.142 1.062 1.015 0.608 +0.42 +0.10 4.24 0.97 0.73 1.175 1.056 0.863 +0.06 0.89 0.61 1.010 0.572 SIMULATE 3 Assembly Power 0.71 1.59 ((S3 PDQ)/S3)*100% RMS D'.erence = 0.64 79 -

l FIGURE 5.6 McGUIRE UNTT 2 CYCII 2 BOC.15 Cwd/Mt CQ,WAltlSON BETWEZN PDO-7 AND SIMLIA'IT-3 OF ASSEMRI_Y POWEB i l i 0.882 1.037 1.311 1.058 0.830 0.726 0.730 0.801 0.83 0.56 0.31 0.35 -0.36 0.44 0.32 4.59 1.031 1.245 1.267 1.333. 0." 9 0.798 1.051 0.824 0.36 0.58 0.45 0.05 +0. i d 0.43 +0.29 +0.37 1.294 1.252 1.300 1.212 1.240 0.866 0.818 0.766 0.23 -0.46 +0.32 +0.90 +0.47 0.16 0.33 +0.12 j 1.048 1.321 1.198 1.373 1.351 0.980 1.054 0.648 j -0.40 0.06 +0.87 +0.56 +t 42 0.01 0.10 0.73 i 0.826 0.925 1.232 1.345 1.226 1.102 0.923 l 0.46 +0.17 +0.55 +0.43 +0.30 0.03 -0.40, 0.729 0.803 0.869 0.984 1.113 0.893 0.595 0.41 0.46 -0.16 -0.07 -0.03 0.41 0.80 r l 0.761 1.071 0.827 1.064 0.936 0.605 -0.28 +0.33 0.31 0.07 -0.28 0.68 [ O 822 0.842 0.777 0.611 SIMUIATE-3 ASSEMBLY POWER t i +0.65 +0.55 +0.21 0.6% - - (S3 PDQ)/S3

• 100 t

j l' RMS Dtfierence =.44 1 I [ [ 4 i i I i r r i i l t i i

F10UBE 5.7 McOUIRE UhTT 2 CYCIE 2 BOC.15 Gwd/Mt COMPARISON BEBVEEN PDO 7 AND SIMUIATE 3 PEAK PIN BY ASSEMBLY 0.905 1.148 1.390 1.183 0.941 0.762 0.797 1.018 0.13 +0.08 0.50 +0.35 +0.04 +1.65 + 1.79 + 1.48 1.138 1.339 1.370 1.464 1.099 0.874 1.171 1.080 +0.33 0.31 0.40 + 1.32 + 1.24 +0.37 +0.92 +0.82 1.374 1.355 1.400 1.318 1.402 0.999 0.883 1.012 0.45 0.48 +1.13 +2.11 +0.95 +0.60 0.01 + 1.24 0.171 1.449 1.307 1A01 1.4 54 1.101 1.207 0.940 +0.35 + 1.28 +2.12 +0.49 +1.72 +0.99 +0.59 +0.69 0.935 1.092 1.386 1.437 1.324 1.208 1.211 -0.01 + 1.26 +2.09 + 1.68 +1.61 +0.08 +0.77 0.733 0.875 0.999 1.100 1.216 1.096 0.955 + 1.71 +0.18 +0.00 + 1.07 +0.11 + 1.41 +0.67 0.833 1.194 0.891 1.218 1.225 0.975 +0 G2 + 1.03 +0.04 +0.06 +0.81 +0.67 1.016 1.103 1.027 0.950 SIMULATE-3 Peak Pin + 1.54 +0.94 +1.30 +0.70 - - (S3 PDQ)/S3 ' 100 RMS D11Terence = 1.017 ) 81 -

i. FIGURE 5.8 hicGUIRE UNIT 2 CYetR 2 BOC f.15 Gwd/hfIl COMPARISON BE'IWEEN PDO-7 AND SIMUIA*IE 3 PIN DISTRIB1 MON i OF UPPER LEFT QUADRANI' OF ASSEMBLY 28 WHICH CONTAINS PEAK PIN ) i 1.382 1.383 1 382 1.381 1.373 1.361 1.350 1.343 1.345 1.14 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.73 -0.69 0.37 +0.07 1.414 1.391 1.394 1.418 1 387 1.363 1.345 1.333 1.337 0.91 1.69 -).69 0.56 1.70 1.02 0.96 0.82 0.07 h guide 1.430 1.432 guide 1.445 1.420 1.373 1.342 1.341 tube 0.28 0.28 tube 0.00 0.21 1.29 0.67 0.00 1.431 1.411 1.414 1.449 J,461 guide 1.419 1.357 1.351 0.07 0.91 0.91 +0.28 +0.48, tube +0.28 -0.51 +0.22 1.434 1.415 1.410 1.450 1.440 1.460 1.444 1.383 1.362 +0.42 0.35 -0.49 +0.69 0.28 +0.97 +0.98 0.50 +0.44 guide 1.440 1.441 guide 1.447 1.445 guide 1.411 1.369 l tube +1.19 +1.12 tube + 1.05 + 1.05 tube +0.93 +0.74 1430 1.409 1.408 1.436 1.408 1.405 1,423 1.382 1.365 + 1.20 +0.28 +0.07 + 1.34 0.00 0.07 + 1.14 -0.14 +0.74 1.422 1.400 1.399 1,454 1.397 1.392 1.412 1.374 1.360 l + 1.28 +0.21 +0.07 +1.14 0.07 0.22 + 1.00 0.29 +0.59 guide 1.410 1.400 guide 1.408 1.405 guide 1.389 1.359 S3 t tube +0.93 +0.79 tube. +0.72 +0.72 tube +0.73 +0.74 % DitT % Dl!Terence = (IS3 PDQ)/PDQ)*100% l RMS Difference of all Pins = 0.79 l Difference of Peak Pin = 0.48 l I Peak Pin location is Italicized and Bolded b l l l,

6.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSION 3 nis report focused upon validating the SIMULAE 3 code for three major categories: PWR cpplication BWR appilcation, and de'stled pin power reconstruction for PWRs. Key physics parameters were compared to plant measured data aral higher order calculauons. De first category presented validauon of the code versus p'. ant measured data for two operating PWRs 21s analysis encompassed seven cycles of operation. Table 6.1 presents a cummary of the typleal accumcy o' the SLMUIAE 3 code in predicting the measured parameters. As the table shows, the SLMULAE-3 predlets these parameters to a high degree of

accuracy, ne second category presented vahdauon of the code versus plant measured data for two or-ating BWRs. nts analysis encompassed eight cycles of operauon. Table 6.2 presents a cummary of the accuracy SIMUIAE 3 achieved in predicting measured parameters. As the tible shows, SIMUIAE 3 predicts thm pararneters to a high degree of accuracy.

De final category presented validation of SIMUIAE 3 for the purposes of calculating detailed pin by pin relauve power distributions. Bis capability was verified by comparing SIMUIAE 3 calculated data to higher order transport theory solutions as well as to the currently accepted method of generating such data, PDQ 7, The analysis demonstrated that SD.,1AE 3 calculated the peak pin to an accuracy of within 1% of the reference transport theory solution. this wa w Jtin the same level of accuracy as PDQ 7, ne pin power capability was also compared between SIMUIAE 3 and PDQ 7 for a quarter cc.t depleuon model of McGuire Unit 2 for two c>rles of operauon. Compared to PDQ 7 the results of this study demonstrate that MMU1AE 3 predicts the peak pin in the entire core to within 1.1%. No trends existed with cycle exposure. Recycled assemblies with large intra-assembly exposure gradients were also predicted to the same degree of accuracy. Table 6.3 presents a nummary of the pin power reconstruction analysis. By virtue of the analysis presented in this report it is concluded that the SIMUIAE 3 code, coupled with spectrum data produced by the CASMO 30 code, is acceptable as a spatial incore reactor phpics analysis model. The code is acceptable for the perfonnance of all 83

l calculations, including detailed pin by ptn power seconstruction for PWRs that are currently conducted with such codes as PDQ 7 and SIMUlW1E-2. Furthennore, it is concluded that the code performs to a level of accuracy sumclent for the performance of reload physics analysis for [ licensing applications. l r,L -t b I i r f I 84 -

T TT / // m mm T aa m i c cc u r p pp S r r p R p p p r 4 %a %a p A AA 3 O p

8. 9

0. 6

4. 6 6

88 9 9

5. 2 68 1

W 33 1 8 52 44 33 3 99 5 3 1 1 mn m pp pp pp %a AA 7 09

2. 8 0

1 1 75 T TT

3. 2

3. 2 0

1 1 Y oo O0 00 22 r_ c / // C g oo o m mm A ma oo oo df d ro df i d w_ m c cc t p pp Tr p r um p C pp rp Ah A p A AA I pp C 32

5. 0

5. 0

3. (.

2 52 6 29 1 1 1 74 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 2 1 1 0 A YC J A E R 34 3 3 34 34 24 34 34 34 I 1 U C C S Y C N C A O l 3 lA 1 E C T 6 A U ss ss ss P EI pp pp pp L G P aa aa aa BM A mm mm mm AI3 R S I xx xx xx T W 'N uu uu uu F P Dl f D Df I l l O O f R P 08 95 95 95 1 1 G 4 Y O 54 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 I 1 3 57 R F A M ev t M n n n i la t o a o e U n m i i i l l st s o d a l s e S o e l d rt a s s s n r c i R r en r u 1 i f t o c s : l F Ff a o (p ud a* he n i D y rO T r l i o b ol Cs Co mi o c r t t r l r M. r R rf sB la C mt t a nt ef I f t t o C h C e r e ct c t t ho Co P e e x eA n (s Or Ov oC O C 1 s I s t

t u

F t o e cO r I D D s M C n D Ar D-X P. W.n p D. p. I 1 A s e 1 d Pa Pm P u R P Cm Pe e Wo Wt W*, w r t A Oo Fa e Z u a Z o Z o I I I I I I I I R A R D T I T ED R P I P I I I I I I I I e e e e e e e e e e r r r r r r r r r r T uy uy uy uy uy u uy u u uy i i i i i i t i i i N. e e e e e e e Gl Gl Gl Gl Gl G Cl G G Gl A c a c a c r r r r r r r c c c c c c c a a a a a P MF MF MF MF MF M MF M M MF I m l

A b. i i l l h l N N ]Ii e 1 E ige G lg EaJ e e IE E i I$ I i ii i f 86 - f

TAREF. C.2 SEDOGARY OF SDSUIATE-3 AOCLRACY FOR BWR APPUCAT10NS 1 PI M r PARAMETER POLVTS CYCLFJ ACCURACY WORST Quad Cmes Hot Eigenvalues 15 (Eq Xenon) 2 1.00472_us 0.00072 1.00650 Quad Cmes 29 (A!! data) 2 1.00415_wr 0.00214 0.99909 i Fonsnark 109 6 1.00429_wy 0.00108 - N/A - Quad CWes Coki In-Sequence 7 2 0.9!Ed6_ws 0.00071 0.99479 F.,=. it citicals 37 6 0.99857_ws 0.00108 - N/A ' Quad CWes BOC Cold local 10 1 0.99829_ws 0.00053 0.99913 Criticah Quad Mea Integrated Axial 27 flux maps 2 5.46% _ws of 5.42% 13.8 % Forsmark "DP"naces 109 fluv. maps 6 4% - 7% _wr of 3% 7.4 % Forsmark Integrated Gamma 13 flux maps 1 3.9% 4.3% 9 "DP "Races i e ~ The Forsmark data "hbat 24) dkl not contain detailed information with regards to these poi i.e;ers j i I i [

TABLE C.3 SUBOGARY OF SD4UIATE-3 AOCURACY PWR PIN PCWER RECONSTRUCTION E[AME PARAMETER POINTS ACCU 5MCY EDBST B&W Cr:11cals Peak Pin G Cores 1.1% 2.9% Erdire Lattice Colorsets Peak Pin 150 0.3% 0.7% Entire lattice Quarty Core Assemidy Power 20 Statepoints 0.7% 1.4% PDQ-7 Quarter Core Peak.Pir: per Amtdy 2Ox62r w. h 1.2% 2.1% PDQ-7 Quarter Core Peak Pin Erd.N. Core 20 1.1% l.0% PDQ-7 l

l l

7.0 REFERENCES

1. VerPlanck, D. M., Smith, K. S., and Umbarger, J. A., "SIMULATE 3P Advanced Three Dimensional Two Group Reactor Analysis Code." Studsvik/SOA 88/01. February,1988, 2. VerPlanck, D. M., "SIMULATE 2: A Nodal Core Analysis Program for Light Water Reactors," EPRI Research Project 710 1, 1982, 3. Cadwell, W. R., *PDQ 7 Reference Manual" WAPD TM 678,1967. 4. D!Giovine, A. S., et al, "CASMO 3G Validation," YAEC 1363. April,1988. 5. Edenius, M., Ahlin, A. and llaggblom, H., "CASMO 3. A Fuel Assembly Burnup Program, "Studsvik/NFA 86/7, Nos ember 1986, Studsvik Energitenik,1986. 6. Carew, J. F, to Cacciapouti, R. J. "Yankee Atomic Electric Company Calculation of the DNL PWR Core Standard Problem," letter from Drookhaven National Laboratory, dated July 29,1988. 7.

Smith, K.

S. et al., "SIMULATE-3: The Studsvik Steady State Nodal Reactor Analysis Code," Studsvik/SOA - 88/03, August,1988. 8. Smith, K. S., Rempe, K. R., ' Testing and Applications of the QPANDA Nodal Model," Proceedings International Meeting on Advances in Reactor Physics and Computation, Volume 2, p. 861 Paris, France, April,1987. 9. Ver Planck, D. M., et al., ' TABLES 3P Library Preparation Code for SIMULATE.3P " Users Manual Version 2.0, Studsvik /SOA 88/02, February,1988.

10. Ver Planck, D. M., "TABLES 2 Manual", YAEC 1391P, April,1983,

11. Smith, K. S., Rempe K. R., "SIMULATE 3 Pin Power Reconstruction: Methodology and Denchmarking," accepted for publication, International Reactor Physics Conference, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, September,1988.

12. Denver, D. J., et al., "Application of Yankee's Reactor Physics Methods to Maine Yankee," YAEC-1115. October 1976.

13. Smith, K.

S., Ver Planck, D. M., "S3 TESTER A SIMULATE-3 Installation and Vertileatica Denchmark Problem Series " Studsvik/SOA 87/13, May 1987,

14. Smith, K. S.,

Ver Planck, D. M., "KWU PWR SIMUIATE 3 Solution to the KWU Two Cycle PWR Depletion Benchmark Problem " Studsvik/SOA 87/14 Rev D May, 1987.

15. D!Giovine, A. S., et al., "McGuire Unit 2 SIMULATE 3 Denchmark Analysis Cycles 1 through 3." YAEC 1608. October 1987.

16. Smith, K.

S., et al., "SIMULATE 3 PWR Denchmark Report Parley Unit Studsvik/SOA-87/10, April 1987.

17. Personal Communication with K. S. Smith, Studsvik of America.

89 -

1 1

18. larsen, N. H., et al., "Core Design and Operating Data for Cycles 1 and 2 of Quad Clues 1," EPRI report EPlu NP 240, November 1976,

19. lArsen, N. H., et al., "Core Design and Operating Data for Quad Cities 1 Cycle 3" EPRI report EPRI NP 552, March 1983.

20. Tennessee Valley Authority. "Verification of '1VA Steady State BWR Physics Methods,"

Topical Report, January 1979.

21. Ver Planck. D. M., "Methods 104 the Analysis of Dolling Water Reactors, Steady State Core Physics," YAEC 1238, March 1981.

22. Ahlin, A.,

Edenius, M.,

Gragg, C.,

"MICBURN 3 Microscopic Burnup in Bumable Absorber Rods," Studsvik/NFA 86/26, November,1986.

23. Wochlke, R. A, et al., ' Vermont Yankee Cycle 8 Sununary Report," YAEC 1305, August, 198'.

24. Hakansson, H., et al., "SIMUIATE 3 BWR Benchmark, Forsmark Unit 1 Cycles 1 through 6 " Studsvik/NFA 88/44 Revised, July 25,1988.

25. Smith, K. S., "SIMU1ME-3 Pin Power Reconstruction: Benchmarking Against the D&W Critical Experiments." Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., Volume 56, p. 531. San Diego, Ca., June, 1988.

i s s - 90 - .p

APPENDIX A As part of the SIMULATE 3 validation, the Brookhaven National Laboratcry (DNL) PWR Core Standard Problem was analyzed. The problem was designed for the express purpose of testing the validity of a particular code or code package applied to typical reload physics calculations. Since this document is a validation of the SIMULATE 3 code, the problem was analyzed with SIMULATE 3, and the results were transmitted to DNL. DNL evaluated these results versus their reference solution, and their evaluation is summartzed in thin Appendtx. The DNL PWR Core Standard Problem consists of analyzing a typical PWR. This PWR includes several fuel types; both with and without burnable poison. On crder to analyze this problem several physics calculations are required. They include: cycle depletion analysis at Hot Full Power (HFP) conditions, calculation of control bank worths at HFP and Hot Zero Power (HZP), soluble boron concentration at HFP and HZP e conditions, and reactivity coefficients at HFP and HZP. Cross section data for the different fuel designs was calculated using CASMO 3G in a manner consistent with the analyses of both the McGuire and Farley units. The Core Standard Problem calculations were pedormed using S!MULATE 3. Again. In a manner consistent with the analysis of the McGuire and Parley units. Table A.1 presents a list of the parameters that were required to be calculated as part of the Core Standard Problem. As the data in the table demonstrates, a variety of physics calculations are required in order to provide this data. Table A.2 presents a summary of the evaluation of the results Yankee Atomic calculated for these parameters versus the DNL reference solution. DNL concluded upon evaluating Yankee Atomics results that "In summary, the DNL/YAEC depletion and reactivity calculations are found to be in generally good agreement, and agree to within the expected uncertainty of the DNL reference solution." A1 o

TABLE A.1 BNL PWR CORE STANDARD PROBLEM CALCULATED PARAMET2PS COR" DEPLETION CALCULATIONS Provide the following quantities at beginning, middle and end of cycle at liFP conditions. Core average assembly wise radial power distribution Core average assembly wise radial exposure distribution Core average axial nodal power distribution Axial Offset Overall three dimensional peaking factor Critical boron concentration CORE REACTIVITY CALCULATIONS Provide the following core reactivity coefficients, multiplication factors and critical boron concentrations at the given conditions. Xenrn free power defect at HFP and liZP at BOL and EOL Equilibrium xenon power defect at 112P and IIZP at BOL and EOL Subcritical boron (Keff=0.95) at ilZP and BOL Differential control bank worth at HZP and BOL Integral control bank worth at liZP and BOL Moderator coe!Ticient at liFP at BOL and EOI.

1) oppler defect at BOL A2

l l TADLE A.2 BNL PWR CORE ETANDARD PROBLEM BNL/YAEC COMPARISON RESULTS CORE DEPLET10N CALCULATIONS Core average radial power distribution Exoosure RMS % Difference DOL MOL EOL <2 Core average radial exposure distribution Exoosure RMS % Difference DOL s MOL EOL <2 Core average axial power distribution Excosure RMS % Difference DOL MOL EOL <2 Power Defect DOL (no Xe) DOL (eq Xe) EOL (no Xe) EOL (eq Xe) < 15 Subcritical Boron DOL (keff=0.95) <2 Doppler Defect DOL, 50% power 75% power 100% power < 15 MTC DOL < 3 pcm/'F Differential Rod Worth < 25 Integral Worth < 20 A3 _}}