DEVELOPMENT OF A COUPLED SUBPLANE CAPABILITY IN MPACT

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 5800, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6170

This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy (DOE). The US government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government purposes. DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).

Published online: 22 February 2021

Abstract

Recent efforts in the development of the deterministic transport code MPACT have been devoted to preparing the 2D/1D subplane method to be a production-level capability, as well as leveraging a multilevel coarse mesh finite difference (CMFD) approach to substantially reduce the runtime of target problems. For example, as compared to the previous default 2D/1D solver in MPACT on a standard quarter core model, the new solver reduces in core-hour requirements by ~5–6×.

Previous work focused solely on cases without multiphysics feedback, which is obviously important for analyzing the more realistic problems of operating reactors. The work presented in this article focuses on efforts to incorporate thermal hydraulics (TH) coupling through CTF by leveraging what are termed as subgrid solvers, which effectively treat material heterogeneities within subplane regions. Previous efforts have targeted using subgrid solvers for control rods and spacer grids; in this work, they are applied to account for the material property heterogeneities with regards to temperature/density distributions. This will allow the fidelity of coupling to be maintained while still reaping the performance benefits.

These new developments are demonstrated on two problems: (1) a single assembly case with feedback, known as Progression Problem 6a, and (2) a 3×3 cluster of assemblies with feedback based on Progression Problem 4a. The results demonstrate notable performance improvement potential for cases with TH feedback, but this approach is more dependent on the iteration process.