Skip to main content
Log in

Analysis of Loss of Vacuum Accident at ITER using SOCRAT-V1/V2

  • Published:
Physics of Atomic Nuclei Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the end of the 1990s, work has been carried out on the creation of integrated computer programs that make it possible to simulate different scenarios of representative LOCA and LOVA at thermonuclear installations. Since many processes at thermonuclear installations and nuclear power plant reactors are similar integrated computer programs originally developed and used for NPP safety analysis are used as the basis for the calculation method. In Russia, the main volume of numerical analysis of severe accidents at NPPs with VVER reactors, accompanied by core damage, hydrogen release, and radioactive emissions into the environment, is performed using a certified integrated computer program SOCRAT. The article evaluates the applicability of SOCRAT in the phenomenological windows of beyond design basis accidents at thermonuclear installations, determined by thermohydraulic processes. Numerical analysis of the model problem LOVA accident in a simplified formulation demonstrated the fundamental possibility of using thermohydraulic models of SOCRAT and their stable operation under LOVA conditions. It has been found that the phenomenology of an accident is determined by choked and subsonic flow, convective heat transfer in the vacuum vessel, and flow reversal in a failed penetration line. The comparison of the results of calculations according to SOCRAT with calculations according to the MELCOR (version adapted to ITER condition) was performed, which showed good agreement in terms of the pressure dynamics in the vacuum vessel and bypass room during the accident and the air flow rate through the penetration line. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis was performed demonstrating the presence of a cliff-edge effect for parameters important to safety. The found monotonic correlations demonstrate consistency with analytical estimates, which provide additional confirmation of the adequacy of the models of the processes under consideration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.
Fig. 8.
Fig. 9.
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
Fig. 12.
Fig. 13.

REFERENCES

  1. Comprehensive Program for the Development of Equipment, Technology and Scientific Research in the Field of Use of Atomic Energy in the Russian Federation for the Period until 2024. III Federal Project: Development of Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion Technology and Innovative Plasma Technologies. https://www.rosatom.ru/upload/iblock/bf1/ bf1c689a3a2e6a78826104ecc1e6061c.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2023.

  2. Preliminary Safety Report, Vers. 1.0 (French Nucl. Safety Authorities, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  3. The RELAP5-3D Code Development Team, INL/MIS-15-36723, Rev. 4.4 (2018), Vols. I–V.

  4. TRACE V5.0 Theory Manual—Field Equations, Solution Methods, and Physical Models. U.S. NRC. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1200/ML120060218.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2023.

  5. CATHARE. Thermal-Hydraulic Simulation of Multiphase Flow Dynamics. https://cathare.cea.fr/. Accessed January 23, 2023.

  6. IAEA, IAEA-TECDOC-1872 (IAEA, Vienna, 2019).

  7. The ASTEC Software Package. https://www.irsn.fr/EN/Research/Scientific-tools/Computer-codes/Pages/The-ASTEC-Software-Package-2949.aspx. Accessed January 23, 2023.

  8. B. Merrill and P. W. Humrickhouse, INL/EXT-09-16715 (2010).

  9. F. Mascari (ENEA) et al., in Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of the European MELCOR User Group, Zagreb, Croatia, April 25–27, 2018.

  10. V. F. Strizhov, in Neutronics-2022, Proceedings of the Conference, Obninsk, May 31–June 3, 2022.

  11. CORSAR, Enhanced Estimate Calculation Code. https://korsar.niti.ru/?page_id=95. Accessed January 23, 2023.

  12. L. A. Bolshov, K. S. Dolganov, A. E. Kiselev, and V. F. Strizhov, Nucl. Eng. Des. 341, 326 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. N. A. Mosunova, Doctoral (Tech. Sci.) Dissertation (IBRAE RAN, 2018).

  14. NP-001-15: Federal norms and rules in the field of atomic energy use: General provisions for ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants (2015).

  15. A. Malaquias, C. Walker, A. Costley, T. Kondoh, et al., in Proceedings of the 30th EPS Conference on Contr. Fusion and Plasma Physics, St. Petersburg, July 7–11, 2003 (ECA, 2003), Vol. 27A, P-4.58.

  16. M. Muscatello, C. Anderson, J. Anderson, A. Basile, et al., Nucl. Fusion 60, 066005 (2020).

  17. M. Lukacs and L. G. Williams, Fusion Eng. Des. 150 (2019).

  18. T. Honda, H.-W. Bartels, B. Merrill, T. Inabe, et al., Fusion Eng. Des. 47, 361 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. S. Paci and M. T. Porfiri, Fusion Eng. Des. 81, 2115 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. J. Xiao et al., Eng. Des. 85, 205 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. I. E. Idel’chik, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, 3rd ed. (Mashinostroenie, Moscow, 1992) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  22. Deterministic Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants Specific Safety Guide, IAEA Safety Standards Series No. SSG-2, Rev. 1 (IAEA, Vienna, 2019).

    Google Scholar 

  23. IAEA Safety Glossary: Terminology Used in Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (IAEA, Vienna, 2019).

  24. A. I. Kobzar’, Applied Mathematical Statistics. For Engineers and Scientists (Fizmatlit, Moscow, 2006) [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  25. RB-166-20: Recommendations for assessing errors and uncertainties in the results of computational safety analyzes of nuclear power plants (2020).

  26. Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, V&V 20 (ASME, 2009).

  27. Guidelines for Expressing Uncertainty of Measurement. Evaluation of Measurement Data, OKRM 101:2008 (2008), Suppl. 1.

  28. Report IBRAE RAN (Moscow, 2022).

  29. K. Takase et al., J. Fusion Energy 16 (1997).

  30. K. Takase et al., Fusion Eng. Des. 42, 83 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. J. Malet et al., IRSN Report PSN-RES/SCA/2014-01 (2014).

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by ongoing institutional funding. No additional grants to carry out or direct this particular research were obtained.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I. S. Akhmedov.

Ethics declarations

The authors of this work declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note.

Pleiades Publishing remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akhmedov, I.S., Ryzhov, N.I., Yudina, T.A. et al. Analysis of Loss of Vacuum Accident at ITER using SOCRAT-V1/V2. Phys. Atom. Nuclei 86 (Suppl 2), S173–S186 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063778823140016

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063778823140016

Keywords:

Navigation