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.
Numerous MELCOR modeling improvements and analyses have been performed in the time since the severe accidents at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station that occurred in March 2011. This report briefly summarizes the related accident reconstruction and uncertainty analysis efforts. It further discusses a number of potential pursuits to further advance MELCOR modeling and analysis of the severe accidents at Fukushima Daiichi and severe accident modeling in general. Proposed paths forward include further enhancements to identified MELCOR models primarily impacting core degradation calculations, and continued application of uncertainty analysis methods to improve model performance and a develop deeper understanding of severe accident progression.
Select one or more publication years and click "Update search results".
This list has already been filtered by author.
SELECTED PUBLICATION YEARS
MATCHING PUBLICATION YEARS
ALL PUBLICATION YEARS
No matches found.
Select a document type
Select one or more document types and click "Update search results".
This list has already been filtered by author.
SELECTED DOCUMENT TYPES
MATCHING DOCUMENT TYPES
ALL DOCUMENT TYPES
No matches found.
Search for an author
Search for a Sandian author by first name, last name, or initials. Click on the author's name to add them as an option, and then click "Update search results".
This list has already been filtered by author.
SELECTED AUTHORS
MATCHING AUTHORS
ALL AUTHORS
No matches found.
Search for a funding sponsor
Search for one or more funding sponsors and click "Update search results".
This list has already been filtered by author.
SELECTED FUNDING SPONSORS
MATCHING FUNDING SPONSORS
ALL FUNDING SPONSORS
No matches found.
Search for a research partner
Search for one or more research partners and click "Update search results".
This list has already been filtered by author.
SELECTED RESEARCH PARTNERS
MATCHING RESEARCH PARTNERS
ALL RESEARCH PARTNERS
No matches found.
Search for a subject
Search for one or more subjects and click "Update search results".
This list has already been filtered by author.
SELECTED SUBJECTS
MATCHING SUBJECTS
ALL SUBJECTS
No matches found.
Search for a keyword
Search for one or more keywords and click "Update search results".