Standardized verification of fuel cycle modeling

B. Feng, B. Dixon, E. Sunny, A. Cuadra, J. Jacobson, N. R. Brown, J. Powers, A. Worrall, S. Passerini, R. Gregg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations

Abstract

A nuclear fuel cycle systems modeling and code-to-code comparison effort was coordinated across multiple national laboratories to verify the tools needed to perform fuel cycle analyses of the transition from a once-through nuclear fuel cycle to a sustainable potential future fuel cycle. For this verification study, a simplified example transition scenario was developed to serve as a test case for the four systems codes involved (DYMOND, VISION, ORION, and MARKAL), each used by a different laboratory participant. In addition, all participants produced spreadsheet solutions for the test case to check all the mass flows and reactor/facility profiles on a year-by-year basis throughout the simulation period. The test case specifications describe a transition from the current US fleet of light water reactors to a future fleet of sodium-cooled fast reactors that continuously recycle transuranic elements as fuel. After several initial coordinated modeling and calculation attempts, it was revealed that most of the differences in code results were not due to different code algorithms or calculation approaches, but due to different interpretations of the input specifications among the analysts. Therefore, the specifications for the test case itself were iteratively updated to remove ambiguity and to help calibrate interpretations. In addition, a few corrections and modifications were made to the codes as well, which led to excellent agreement between all codes and spreadsheets for this test case. Although no fuel cycle transition analysis codes matched the spreadsheet results exactly, all remaining differences in the results were due to fundamental differences in code structure and/or were thoroughly explained. The specifications and example results are provided so that they can be used to verify additional codes in the future for such fuel cycle transition scenarios.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)300-312
Number of pages13
JournalAnnals of Nuclear Energy
Volume94
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Funding

The work performed by ANL, BNL, INL, and ORNL was funded through the Fuel Cycle Options Campaign within the U.S. DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (Fuel Cycle Technologies). Argonne National Laboratory is supported under U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-06CH11357 . Brookhaven National Laboratory is supported under U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-98CH10886 . Idaho National Laboratory is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy , Office of Nuclear Energy, under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517 . Oak Ridge National Laboratory is supported under U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC0500OR22725 . National Nuclear Laboratory is supported by an internally funded ‘Signature Research’ program.

FundersFunder number
Fuel Cycle Options Campaign
U.S. Department of EnergyDE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-AC02-06CH11357
Office of Nuclear EnergyDE-AC0500OR22725, DE-AC07-05ID14517
Argonne National Laboratory
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Idaho National Laboratory

    Keywords

    • DYMOND
    • MARKAL
    • ORION
    • VISION

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Standardized verification of fuel cycle modeling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this