Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of a Pebble Bed HTGR Loss of Cooling Event
The Very High Temperature Reactor Methods Development group at the Idaho National Laboratory identified the need for a defensible and systematic uncertainty and sensitivity approach in 2009. This paper summarizes the results of an uncertainty and sensitivity quantification investigation performed wi...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2013-01-01
|
| Series: | Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/426356 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832555509427732480 |
|---|---|
| author | Gerhard Strydom |
| author_facet | Gerhard Strydom |
| author_sort | Gerhard Strydom |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The Very High Temperature Reactor Methods Development group at the Idaho National Laboratory identified the need for a defensible and systematic uncertainty and sensitivity approach in 2009. This paper summarizes the results of an uncertainty and sensitivity quantification investigation performed with the SUSA code, utilizing the International Atomic Energy Agency CRP 5 Pebble Bed Modular Reactor benchmark and the INL code suite PEBBED-THERMIX. Eight model input parameters were selected for inclusion in this study, and after the input parameters variations and probability density functions were specified, a total of 800 steady state and depressurized loss of forced cooling (DLOFC) transient PEBBED-THERMIX calculations were performed. The six data sets were statistically analyzed to determine the 5% and 95% DLOFC peak fuel temperature tolerance intervals with 95% confidence levels. It was found that the uncertainties in the decay heat and graphite thermal conductivities were the most significant contributors to the propagated DLOFC peak fuel temperature uncertainty. No significant differences were observed between the results of Simple Random Sampling (SRS) or Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) data sets, and use of uniform or normal input parameter distributions also did not lead to any significant differences between these data sets. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-043f625b385d4c45ae05a0691c516c81 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-6075 1687-6083 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2013-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations |
| spelling | doaj-art-043f625b385d4c45ae05a0691c516c812025-02-03T05:47:56ZengWileyScience and Technology of Nuclear Installations1687-60751687-60832013-01-01201310.1155/2013/426356426356Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of a Pebble Bed HTGR Loss of Cooling EventGerhard Strydom0Nuclear Science and Engineering Division, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), 2525 N. Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, USAThe Very High Temperature Reactor Methods Development group at the Idaho National Laboratory identified the need for a defensible and systematic uncertainty and sensitivity approach in 2009. This paper summarizes the results of an uncertainty and sensitivity quantification investigation performed with the SUSA code, utilizing the International Atomic Energy Agency CRP 5 Pebble Bed Modular Reactor benchmark and the INL code suite PEBBED-THERMIX. Eight model input parameters were selected for inclusion in this study, and after the input parameters variations and probability density functions were specified, a total of 800 steady state and depressurized loss of forced cooling (DLOFC) transient PEBBED-THERMIX calculations were performed. The six data sets were statistically analyzed to determine the 5% and 95% DLOFC peak fuel temperature tolerance intervals with 95% confidence levels. It was found that the uncertainties in the decay heat and graphite thermal conductivities were the most significant contributors to the propagated DLOFC peak fuel temperature uncertainty. No significant differences were observed between the results of Simple Random Sampling (SRS) or Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) data sets, and use of uniform or normal input parameter distributions also did not lead to any significant differences between these data sets.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/426356 |
| spellingShingle | Gerhard Strydom Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of a Pebble Bed HTGR Loss of Cooling Event Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations |
| title | Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of a Pebble Bed HTGR Loss of Cooling Event |
| title_full | Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of a Pebble Bed HTGR Loss of Cooling Event |
| title_fullStr | Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of a Pebble Bed HTGR Loss of Cooling Event |
| title_full_unstemmed | Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of a Pebble Bed HTGR Loss of Cooling Event |
| title_short | Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses of a Pebble Bed HTGR Loss of Cooling Event |
| title_sort | uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of a pebble bed htgr loss of cooling event |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/426356 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gerhardstrydom uncertaintyandsensitivityanalysesofapebblebedhtgrlossofcoolingevent |