Discussion of Serpent2 flow functionality, possible uses, pitfalls, and workarounds. How it differs from batch-wise reprocessing. Discuss usefulness over batchwise (Xe-135 in batchwise is not removed until after depletion, meaning more captures occur by Xe-135 than would have happened if removed continuously).
Use Serpent2 build-in flows and binary restarts to create "piping" where material decays naturally while not in core. How does this differ from MSBR analysis as a single unit geometry analyzed in SaltProc where piping volume is included in core volume? Does it improve result by providing more accuracy to location of DNP decay? Does a smaller "mesh" of materials allow for better results?
- Abstract
- Introduction
- Literature Review
- Accounting for material decay in piping
- Serpent2 continuous removal
- Serpent2 restart scripts
- Methods of tracking DNPs in MSRs
- GenFOAM?
- Moltres?
- Batchwise removal methods in Serpent2
- SaltProc
- MSBR
- Methods
- Results
- Conclusions
- Explanation of flow functionality
- Discussion of cyclic flow effects (breaks depletion); workarounds
- Explanation of why type 1 approximations necessary given removal fraction
- Type 1 cycle-time-decay approximation
- Type 1 linear generation approximation
- Type 2 different approaches and non-physicality
- Discussion of when each type could be used (pros/cons)
- Isotope-importance based type 1 MSBR approximation
- Difference plots along with mass plots for type 1 approximations
- N-steps for different type 1 approximations
- Type 1 approximations at different starting positions (BOC vs SS)
- Implementation of Serpent2 built-in flows in SaltProc
- Separation of MSBR into core and piping material difference in results
- Difference from single-material model
- Discuss validty of slug flow approximation (no mixing of materials)
- DNP groups SS locations
- Difference in neutronic parameters
- Mesh refinement analysis (cost vs accuracy)
- Analysis of separate parts of the core
- Neutronics parameters for different type 1 approximations
- Comparison of MSBR with SaltProc, subdivided materials, and with CFD