Towards Realistic and High Fidelity Models for Nuclear Reactor Power Synthesis Simulation with Self-Powered Neutron Detectors

As presented in this report, a weighting function–based inferencing method is being applied to synthesize the power distribution in next-generation and university research reactors based on simulated self power neutron detector (SPND) responses. The overall goal is to assess the impacts of sensor uncertainty and true power distribution perturbations on the error in the synthesized power distribution. Regarding sensor uncertainty, the NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) and the Westinghouse AP1000 serve as testbeds for analyzing the impact of varying the sensor uncertainty, as well as varying the number of sensors per sensor string in the reactor core. The reactor models are informed by Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) neutron flux tallies. For the NuScale SMR and Westinghouse AP1000, the SPND response functions (i.e., the response of the SPNDs to individual segments of fuel) were determined homogeneously. Regarding an analysis of power distribution perturbation detection, the Texas A&M Testing, Research, Isotopes, General Atomics Reactor (TAMU TRIGA) reactor was used as a demonstration case with one particular arrangement of SPNDs; the response functions for this reactor model were determined heterogeneously, making this a uniquely high-fidelity demonstration of perturbation detection. Finally, SPND models generated in the Geometry and Tracking 4 (Geant4) code have been generated and tested for comparison with traditionally implemented analytical SPND models, with the intent for Geant4 integration with the full methodological framework. SPND current outputs as a function of distance from some fuel assembly segment in the NuScale SMR are compared with the analytically determined currents. Results from the sensor uncertainty simulations for the NuScale SMR and AP1000 indicate that the average error in the inferred power distribution on the fuel assembly segment level is reasonably low, being slightly less than the random uncertainty applied to all respective SPNDs in both cores. For example, if all SPNDs in the core have a random uncertainty of 5%, then the corresponding fuel assembly segment level error (i.e. difference between the true and inferred local power) is ~2–3%. However, the maximum error in the inferred power distribution on the fuel assembly segment level can be considerably high (>15%) when SPND random uncertainties start to exceed ~3%. In general, the average and maximum errors in the inferred power distribution were slightly higher in the AP1000 as opposed to the NuScale SMR for the sensor string configurations considered herein. Another result determined from analysis of the sensor uncertainty simulations was that increasing the number of SPNDs per string does not clearly reduce inferred power distribution error and can in fact make the error large in some cases; however, this assessment may skewed due to imposed iteration limits. Results from the perturbation detection demonstration using the high-fidelity TAMU TRIGA model indicate that, given the arrangement of 17 SPND strings and 4 SPNDs per string considered herein, there is a clear, provable ability to infer a localized Gaussian-type peak perturbation in the 3D power distribution. Such a perturbation was detected with an average fuel assembly segment level error of 0.19%, and the general visualization of the detected perturbation clearly indicates that the magnitude and shape were appropriately resolved. Finally, the electrical current output generated by the Geant4 modeled SPND indicates significant magnitude differences than the analytically modeled SPND, demonstrating the need for accurate SPND models which account for finite sensor geometry effects to inform the power synthesis work described herein.