This document summarily provides brief descriptions of the MELCOR code enhancement made between code revision number 18019and 21440. Revision 18019 represents the previous official code release; therefore, the modeling features described within this document are provided to assist users that update to the newest official MELCOR code release, 21440. Along with the newly updated MELCOR Users’ Guide [2] and Reference Manual [3], users are aware and able to assess the new capabilities for their modeling and analysis applications.
In this analysis, the two material interaction models available in the MELCOR code are benchmarked for a severe accident at a BWR under representative Fukushima Daiichi boundary conditions. This part of the benchmark investigates the impact of each material interaction model on accident progression through a detailed single case analysis. It is found that the eutectics model simulation exhibits more rapid accident progression for the duration of the accident. The slower accident progression exhibited by the interactive materials model simulation, however, allows for a greater degree of core material oxidation and hydrogen generation to occur, as well as elevated core temperatures during the ex-vessel accident phase. The eutectics model simulation exhibits more significant degradation of core components during the late in-vessel accident phase – more debris forms and relocates to the lower plenum before lower head failure. The larger debris bed observed in the eutectics model simulation also reaches higher temperatures, presenting a more significant thermal challenge to the lower head until its failure. At the end of the simulated accident scenario, however, core damage is comparable between both simulations due to significant core degradation that occurs during the ex-vessel phase in the interactive materials model simulation. A key difference between the two models’ performance is the maximum temperatures that can be reached in the core and therefore the maximum ΔT between any two components. When implementing the interactive materials model, users have the option to modify the liquefaction temperature of the ZrO2-interactive and UO2-interactive materials as a way to mimic early fuel rod failure due to material interactions. Through modification of the liquefaction of high melting point materials with significant mass, users may inadvertently limit maximum core temperatures for fuel, cladding, and debris components.
Here in this analysis, the two material interaction models available in the MELCOR code are benchmarked for a severe accident at a BWR under representative Fukushima Daiichi boundary conditions. This part of the benchmark investigates the impact of each material interaction model on accident progression through a detailed single case analysis. It is found that the eutectics model simulation exhibits more rapid accident progression for the duration of the accident. The slower accident progression exhibited by the interactive materials model simulation, however, allows for a greater degree of core material oxidation and hydrogen generation to occur, as well as elevated core temperatures during the ex-vessel accident phase. The eutectics model simulation exhibits more significant degradation of core components during the late in-vessel accident phase – more debris forms and relocates to the lower plenum before lower head failure. The larger debris bed observed in the eutectics model simulation also reaches higher temperatures, presenting a more significant thermal challenge to the lower head until its failure. At the end of the simulated accident scenario, however, core damage is comparable between both simulations due to significant core degradation that occurs during the ex-vessel phase in the interactive materials model simulation. A key difference between the two models’ performance is the maximum temperatures that can be reached in the core and therefore the maximum ΔT between any two components. When implementing the interactive materials model, users have the option to modify the liquefaction temperature of the ZrO2-interactive and UO2-interactive materials as a way to mimic early fuel rod failure due to material interactions. Through modification of the liquefaction of high melting point materials with significant mass, users may inadvertently limit maximum core temperatures for fuel, cladding, and debris components.
This document summarily provides brief descriptions of the MELCOR code enhancement made between code revision number 14959and 18019. Revision 14959 represents the previous official code release; therefore, the modeling features described within this document are provided to assist users that update to the newest official MELCOR code release, 18019. Along with the newly updated MELCOR Users Guide and Reference Manual, users are aware and able to assess the new capabilities for their modeling and analysis applications.
This document summarily provides brief descriptions of the MELCOR code enhancement made between code revision number 11932 and 14959. Revision 11932 represents the last official code release; therefore, the modeling features described within this document are provided to assist users that update to the newest official MELCOR code release, 14959. Along with the newly updated MELCOR Users' Guide [2] and Reference Manual [3], users will be aware and able to assess the new capabilities for their modeling and analysis applications. Following the official release an addendum section has been added to this report detailing modifications made to the official release which support the accompanying patch release. The addendums address user reported issues and previously known issues within the official code release which extends the original Quick look document to also support the patch release. Furthermore, the addendums section documents the recent changes to input records in the Users' Guide applicable to the patch release and corrects a few issues in the revision 14959 release as well. This page left blank.
This report describes the progress on the validation of the development of MELCOR Sodium Chemistry (NAC) package. The primary focus for this report is to ensure that the implementation of the CONTAIN-LMR sodium models into MELCOR is correctly done. Thus, the verification test is to conduct the code-to-code comparison with MELCOR and CONTAIN-LMR. Last year we had reported the development of NAC package which included three sodium models: spray fire, pool fire and atmospheric chemistry. The first 2 models were completed and additional improvement for these two models were done this year to allow upward spray capability and various functional capability for modeling the pool fire experiment better, respectively. This year, the atmospheric chemistry implementation has been progressed to a point for testing in the presence of water vapor (modeled as ideal gas) as a part of the two-condensable option model in the CONTAIN- LMR. The user's guide and reference manual for the NAC package including these improvements are described in a separate document being published as a part of the MELCOR 2.2 release. For this report, we would discuss the experimental validation using the implemented spray fire and pool fire models. A code-to-code comparison with CONTAIN-LMR is described for a spray fire experiment. Note that the atmospheric chemistry model has not fully implemented due to the absence of the two condensable option. Only the chemical reactions between the sodium aerosol and water vapor can be modeled. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was overseen and managed by Matthew R. Denman (Sandia National Laboratories). In addition, we appreciate that Chris Faucett for developing experimental data and provided the initial input decks as a part of the MELCOR assessment report development for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's project. This work is supported by the Office of Nuclear Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy work package number AT-17SN170204 and NT-185N05030102.
This report provides an overview of technical issues and design features relevant to advanced reactors and reviews MELCOR's current readiness for modeling accidents in such reactor types. This report describes advanced reactor physics models currently available or under development, and gauges the level of effort required to develop new models and capabilities applicable to assessing advanced reactor safety issues. Finally, this report reviews the available database that can be used in verification and validation of new models. Four general advanced reactor types are considered in this report: 1) High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) 2) Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR) 3) Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) 4) Fluoride Salt-Cooled High Temperature Reactor (FHR)
This document summarily provides brief descriptions of the MELCOR code enhancement made between code revision number 9496 and 11932. Revision 9496 represents the last official code release; therefore, the modeling features described within this document are provided to assist users that update to the newest official MELCOR code release, 11932. Along with the newly updated MELCOR Users' Guide and Reference Manual, users will be aware and able to assess the new capabilities for their modeling and analysis applications. This page left blank.