Abstract

This paper discusses work done to benchmark the deterministic code WIMS [1] against the Monte Carlo code Serpent [2] and experiment. Comparison is made against the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as a Serpent model produced at the University of California, Berkeley. Producing a model for an MSR is possible thanks to the development of the next version of WIMS, WIMS11. The structure of the WIMS model built is discussed, and the final predicted criticality value for the MSR is given. This compares favourably with the Serpent model; however, both codes predict values considerably different to those expected. Potential reasons for this are suggested. However, it is concluded that WIMS has successfully been benchmarked against the current state of the art. This provides confirmation that this is a valid approach for molten salt reactor research analysis.

Highlights

  • This paper describes a validation exercise for molten salt reactors (MSRs), utilising the deterministic reactor physics code WIMS11

  • The WIMS model is in very good agreement with the Serpent model, with a difference in keffective of just 160 pcm

  • As WIMS is a deterministic code while Serpent is a Monte Carlo code, this offers the appealing prospect of using WIMS to obtain good MSR modelling results quickly

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

This paper describes a validation exercise for molten salt reactors (MSRs), utilising the deterministic reactor physics code WIMS11. MSRs are a proposed generation fission reactor and, given their potential, it is important to develop codes to predict their behaviour, as licensing cannot be obtained without a safety case supported by modelling. An exercise is described which aims to show the level of confidence in WIMS’s predictions for MSRs, utilising experimental work from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These WIMS calculations utilise the ENDF/BVII.0 nuclear data library. The benchmarking of the new WIMS model is discussed, including an outline of the model and potential improvements that could be made in the future

PAPER BACKGROUND
Geometry
Process
DESCRIPTION OF WIMS MODEL
RESULTS
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.