Search Menu
DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Search Scholarly Publications

Title: Upgrading Limiting Peak-Power Analysis Techniques with Modern Validation and Uncertainty Quantification for the Advanced Test Reactor

Abstract

Here, this work demonstrates the acceptability of the 2D deterministic transport code, HELIOS, to replace the legacy diffusion code, PDQ, for computing the peak-power performance parameters of the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). The 95% Confidence Rule, commonly used in the commercial reactor sector, is explored to develop the so-called “reliability factors” which provide statistical confidence that the peak-power limits within the hottest location along a fuel plate, referred to as the hot-stripe, will not be exceeded. Additionally, an alternative “legacy” methodology was explored that attempts to mimic the exact PDQ analysis process used for defining the peak-power limits. The legacy methodology, involves interpolating power between regions at azimuthal boundaries subtending the regions of interest. In order to apply the 95% Confidence Rule, a statistically significant calculation-to-measurement bias must first be established. Unlike the commercial world where thousands of power observations can be collected every cycle using on-line flux mapping instrumentation, the ATR power distribution must be measured during “depressurized” zero-power measurements using fission wires in polyethylene wands. In 2012, fission wire activation data was collected during a flux run in the Advanced Test Reactor – Critical facility. Also to improve statistical validity, archival data from ATR zero power flux runsmore » from 1977, 1986, and 1994 were digitized from scanned reports and used to create new benchmark models. Borrowing from least-squares adjustment methods commonly used for neutron activation spectroscopy, adjusted fission wire powers were calculated for all four datasets. The mean and standard deviation of the bias between a priori calculated and adjusted wire-powers was then taken as the bias and uncertainty used in the 95% Confidence Rule.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1];  [1];  [1]
+ Show Author Affiliations
  1. Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)
OSTI Identifier:
1473711
Report Number(s):
INL/JOU-17-41057-Rev000
Journal ID: ISSN 0029-5450
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC07-05ID14517
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Nuclear Technology
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 201; Journal Issue: 3; Journal ID: ISSN 0029-5450
Publisher:
Taylor & Francis - formerly American Nuclear Society (ANS)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS; Advanced Test Reactor; Verification and Validation; Uncertainty Quantification; 95% Confidence Rule; Reliability Factor

Citation Formats

Bays, Samuel E., Davis, Cliff B., and Archibald, Periann A.. Upgrading Limiting Peak-Power Analysis Techniques with Modern Validation and Uncertainty Quantification for the Advanced Test Reactor. United States: N. p., 2018. Web. doi:10.1080/00295450.2017.1415091.
Copy to clipboard
Bays, Samuel E., Davis, Cliff B., & Archibald, Periann A.. Upgrading Limiting Peak-Power Analysis Techniques with Modern Validation and Uncertainty Quantification for the Advanced Test Reactor. United States. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2017.1415091
Copy to clipboard
Bays, Samuel E., Davis, Cliff B., and Archibald, Periann A.. Fri . "Upgrading Limiting Peak-Power Analysis Techniques with Modern Validation and Uncertainty Quantification for the Advanced Test Reactor". United States. https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2017.1415091. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1473711.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_1473711,
title = {Upgrading Limiting Peak-Power Analysis Techniques with Modern Validation and Uncertainty Quantification for the Advanced Test Reactor},
author = {Bays, Samuel E. and Davis, Cliff B. and Archibald, Periann A.},
abstractNote = {Here, this work demonstrates the acceptability of the 2D deterministic transport code, HELIOS, to replace the legacy diffusion code, PDQ, for computing the peak-power performance parameters of the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). The 95% Confidence Rule, commonly used in the commercial reactor sector, is explored to develop the so-called “reliability factors” which provide statistical confidence that the peak-power limits within the hottest location along a fuel plate, referred to as the hot-stripe, will not be exceeded. Additionally, an alternative “legacy” methodology was explored that attempts to mimic the exact PDQ analysis process used for defining the peak-power limits. The legacy methodology, involves interpolating power between regions at azimuthal boundaries subtending the regions of interest. In order to apply the 95% Confidence Rule, a statistically significant calculation-to-measurement bias must first be established. Unlike the commercial world where thousands of power observations can be collected every cycle using on-line flux mapping instrumentation, the ATR power distribution must be measured during “depressurized” zero-power measurements using fission wires in polyethylene wands. In 2012, fission wire activation data was collected during a flux run in the Advanced Test Reactor – Critical facility. Also to improve statistical validity, archival data from ATR zero power flux runs from 1977, 1986, and 1994 were digitized from scanned reports and used to create new benchmark models. Borrowing from least-squares adjustment methods commonly used for neutron activation spectroscopy, adjusted fission wire powers were calculated for all four datasets. The mean and standard deviation of the bias between a priori calculated and adjusted wire-powers was then taken as the bias and uncertainty used in the 95% Confidence Rule.},
doi = {10.1080/00295450.2017.1415091},
journal = {Nuclear Technology},
number = 3,
volume = 201,
place = {United States},
year = {2018},
month = {2}
}
Copy to clipboard
Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record
https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2017.1415091
Copyright Statement
Other availability
Search WorldCat Search WorldCat to find libraries that may hold this journal
Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 3 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Figures / Tables:

Table 1 Table 1: Comparison of averaged relative error with averaged post-adjustment relative biases
All figures and tables (15 total)
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

Works referenced in this record:

On measuring skewness and kurtosis
journal, September 2007

  • Đorić, Dragan; Nikolić-Đorić, Emilija; Jevremović, Vesna
  • Quality and Quantity, Vol. 43, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1007/s11135-007-9128-9

A fission matrix based validation protocol for computed power distributions in the advanced test reactor
journal, December 2015

An Extension of Shapiro and Wilk's W Test for Normality to Large Samples
journal, January 1982

An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)
journal, December 1965

Experimental Statistics
journal, January 1952

An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples)
journal, December 1965

  • Shapiro, S. S.; Wilk, M. B.
  • Biometrika, Vol. 52, Issue 3/4
  • DOI: 10.2307/2333709

Experimental Statistics.
journal, June 1964

  • H., C.; Natrella, Mary Gibbons
  • Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 59, Issue 306
  • DOI: 10.2307/2283035

Experimental Statistics
journal, November 1965

    Sort by:
    [ × clear filter / sort ]

    Figures / Tables found in this record:

    Table 1 (p. 38)table
    Table 2 (p. 39)table
    Figure 1 (p. 40)figure
    Figure 2 (p. 41)figure
    Figure 3 (p. 42)figure
    Figure 4 (p. 43)figure
    Figure 5 (p. 44)figure
    Figure 6 (p. 45)figure
    Figure 7 (p. 46)figure
    Figure 8 (p. 47)figure
    Figure 9 (p. 48)figure
    Figure 10 (p. 49)figure
    Figure 11 (p. 50)figure
    Figure 12 (p. 51)figure
    Figure 13 (p. 52)figure
      [ × clear filter / sort ]
      Figures/Tables have been extracted from DOE-funded journal article accepted manuscripts.

      Similar Records in DOE PAGES and OSTI.GOV collections: