Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

System dynamics simulation of the thermal dynamic processes in nuclear power plants

  • El-Sefy, Mohamed (Department of Civil Engineering, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, McMaster University) ;
  • Ezzeldin, Mohamed (Department of Civil Engineering, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, McMaster University) ;
  • El-Dakhakhni, Wael (Department of Civil Engineering, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, McMaster University) ;
  • Wiebe, Lydell (Department of Civil Engineering, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, McMaster University) ;
  • Nagasaki, Shinya (Department of Engineering Physics, CaNRisk NSERC-CREATE Program on Canadian Nuclear Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Systemic Risks, Canada Research Chair in Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Radioactive Waste Management, McMaster University)
  • Received : 2018.11.27
  • Accepted : 2019.04.19
  • Published : 2019.09.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A nuclear power plant (NPP) is a highly complex system-of-systems as manifested through its internal systems interdependence. The negative impact of such interdependence was demonstrated through the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. As such, there is a critical need for new strategies to overcome the limitations of current risk assessment techniques (e.g. the use of static event and fault tree schemes), particularly through simulation of the nonlinear dynamic feedback mechanisms between the different NPP systems/components. As the first and key step towards developing an integrated NPP dynamic probabilistic risk assessment platform that can account for such feedback mechanisms, the current study adopts a system dynamics simulation approach to model the thermal dynamic processes in: the reactor core; the secondary coolant system; and the pressurized water reactor. The reactor core and secondary coolant system parameters used to develop system dynamics models are based on those of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. These three system dynamics models are subsequently validated, using results from published work, under different system perturbations including the change in reactivity, the steam valve coefficient, the primary coolant flow, and others. Moving forward, the developed system dynamics models can be integrated with other interacting processes within a NPP to form the basis of a dynamic system-level (systemic) risk assessment tool.

Keywords

References

  1. IAEA, Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development, 2016. http://www.aben.com.br/Arquivos/477/477.pdf%5Cnhttp://jia.sipa.columbia.edu.
  2. World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in the World Today, 2019. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx.
  3. J. Barrett, The Canadian Nuclear FactBook, Canadian Nuclear Association, 2017. https://cna.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017-Factbook-EN-WEB-FINAL.pdf.
  4. V. Hassija, C. Senthil Kumar, K. Velusamy, Probabilistic safety assessment of multi-unit nuclear power plant sites - an integrated approach, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 32 (2014) 52-62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2014.07.013.
  5. G. Pescaroli, D. Alexander, A definition of cascading disasters and cascading effects : going beyond the " toppling dominos " metaphor, in: GRF Davos Planet@Risk, the 5th IDRC Davos 2014, 2015, pp. 58-67.
  6. R.G. Little, Controlling cascading failure: understanding the vulnerabilities of interconnected infrastructures, J. Urban Technol. 9 (2002) 109-123, https://doi.org/10.1080/106307302317379855.
  7. A. Mosleh, PRA: a Perspective on strengths, current limitations, and possible improvements, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 46 (2014) 1-10, https://doi.org/10.5516/NET.03.2014.700.
  8. C. Perrow, Fukushima and the inevitability of accidents, Bull. At. Sci. 67 (2011) 44-52, https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340211426395.
  9. M. Chino, H. Nakayama, H. Nagai, H. Terada, G. Katata, H. Yamazawa, Preliminary estimation of release amounts of 131 I and 137 Cs accidentally discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the atmosphere, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 48 (2011) 1129-1134, https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2011.9711799.
  10. M. Holt, R.J. Campbell, M.B. Nikitin, Fukushima Nuclear Disaster (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416727-8.00009-6.
  11. ASME, Forging a New Nuclear Safety Construct, the ASME Presidential Task Force on Response to Japan Nuclear Power Plant Events, 2012. https://www.ipen.br/biblioteca/slr/cel/0087.
  12. IAEA, Deterministic Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants, International Atomic Energy Agency, 2009. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1428_web.pdf.
  13. K.M. Dawson, Advanced Thermal Hydraulic Simulations for Human Reliability Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants by, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/112392.
  14. CNSC, Probabilistic Safety Assessment: A Tool to Estimate Risk and Drive Safety Improvement at Nuclear Power Plants, 2017, pp. 1-3. http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/educational-resources/feature-articles/probabilistic-safety-assessment.cfm.
  15. NUREG/CR-2300, PRA ROCEDURES GUIDE "A Guide to the Performance of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Power Plants,", 1983. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0635/ML063560439.pdf.
  16. R. Bartel, WASH-1400: the Reactor Safety Study. The Introduction of Risk Assessment to the Regulation of Nuclear Reactors, U.S.NRC, 2016.
  17. P. Moieni, A.J. Spurgin, Advances in human reliability analysis methodology. Part I : frameworks, models and data, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 44 (1994) 27-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(94)90105-8.
  18. D. Mandelli, C. Parisi, A. Alfonsi, Dynamic PRA of a Multi-Unit Plant, vol. 1, 2017, pp. 1-5. http://www.diegomandelli.com/papers/2017/multiUnitMandelliPSA17_final2.pdf.
  19. S.H. Nejad-Hosseinian, Automatic Generation of Generalized Event Sequence Diagrams for Guiding Simulation Based Dynamic Probabilistic Risk Assessment of Complex Systems, PhD thesis, University of Maryland, 2007.
  20. T. Aldemir, Advanced Concepts in Nuclear Energy Risk Assessment and Management, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1142/10587.
  21. D. Manselli, C. Smith, C. Rabiti, A. Alfonsi, R. Youngblood, V. Pascucci, B. Wang, D. Maljovec, P.T. Bremer, T. Aldemir, A. Yilmaz, D. Zamalieva, Dynamic PRA : an overview of new algorithms to generate, analyze and visualize data, in: Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc, 2013.
  22. A. Amendola, Accident sequence dynamic simulation versus event trees, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 22 (1988) 3-25, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(88)90065-8.
  23. C. Acosta, N. Siu, Dynamic event trees in accident sequence analysis: application to steam generator tube rupture, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 41 (1993) 135-154, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(93)90027-V.
  24. K.S. Hsueh, A. Mosleh, The development and application of the accident dynamic simulator for dynamic probabilistic risk assessment of nuclear power plants, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 52 (1996) 297-314, https://doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00140-9.
  25. K. Coyne, A. Mosleh, Nuclear plant control room operator modeling within the ADS-IDAC, Version 2, Dynamic PRA Environment: Part 1 - general description and cognitive foundations, Int. J. Perform. Eng. 10 (2014) 691-703.
  26. E. Hofer, M. Kloos, B. Krzykacz-Hausmann, J. Peschke, M. Woltereck, An approximate epistemic uncertainty analysis approach in the presence of epistemic and aleatory uncertainties, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 77 (2002) 229-238, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00056-X.
  27. U. Catalyurek, B. Rutt, K. Metzroth, A. Hakobyan, T. Aldemir, R. Denning, S. Dunagan, D. Kunsman, Development of a code-agnostic computational infrastructure for the dynamic generation of accident progression event trees, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95 (2010) 278-294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2009.10.008.
  28. A. Alfonsi, C. Rabiti, D. Mandelli, J.J. Cogliati, R.A. Kinoshita, A. Naviglio, Dynamic event tree analysis through RAVEN, in: Int. Top. Meet. Probabilistic Saf. Assess. Anal. ANS PSA 2013, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1021/ic302386u.
  29. N.R.C. Job, W. Code, RELAP5/MOD3 Code Manual, vol. 5, 1995.
  30. R.-O. Gauntt, R. Cole, C.M. Erickson, R.G. Gido, R.D. Gasser, S.B. Rodriguez, M.F. Young, MELCOR Computer Code Manuals, 2000.
  31. M. Sonnessa, Modelling and Simulation of Complex Systems, PhD thesis, University of Turin, 2004.
  32. J. Sterman, Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Irwin Professional/_McGraweHill, New York, 2000, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210417646.
  33. B.K. Bala, F.M. Arshad, K.M. Noh, System Dynamics: Modelling and Simulation, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/SpringerReference_7284.
  34. I. Grigoryev, AnyLogic 7 in Three Days, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s007690000247.
  35. J. Forrester, Some Basic Concepts in System Dynamics, Sloan School of Management. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2009. http://www.systemsmodelbook.org/uploadedfile/238_63f73156-02df-4d87-b0c6-c286a7beec26_SomeBasicConcepts.pdf.
  36. A. Borshchev, A. Filippov, From System Dynamics and Discrete Event to Practical Agent Based Modeling: Reasons, Techniques, Tools, Simulation, vol. 66, 2004, pp. 25-29. http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/systemdyndiscreteeventabmcompared.borshchevfilippov04.pdf.
  37. A.M. Yacout, J.J. Jacobson, G.E. Matthern, S.J. Piet, A. Moisseytsev, Modeling the nuclear fuel cycle, in: 23rd Int. Conf. Syst. Dyn. Soc, 2005.
  38. C.J. Jeong, H. Choi, Dynamic modeling and analysis of alternative fuel cycle scenarios in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 39 (1) (2007).
  39. E.S. Chia, C.K. Lim, A. Ng, N.H.L. Nguyen, The system dynamics of nuclear energy in Singapore, Int. J. Green Energy 12 (2015) 73-86, https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2014.889001.
  40. X. Guo, X. Guo, Nuclear power development in China after the restart of new nuclear construction and approval: a system dynamics analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57 (2016) 999-1007, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.190.
  41. Thakkar, Correlation of Theory and Experiment for the Dynamics of a Pressurized Water Reactor, University of Tennessee, 1975. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2696%0A%0A.
  42. T.W. Kerlin, E.M. Katz, J.G. Thakkar, J.E. Strange, Theoretical and experimental dynamic analysis of the HB Robinson nuclear plant, Nucl. Technol. 30 (1976) 299-316, https://doi.org/10.13182/NT76-A31645.
  43. M. Ali, Lumped Parameter, State Variable Dynamic Models for U-Tube Recirculation Type Nuclear Steam Generators, PhD thesis, University of Tennessee, 1976, https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2548%0A%0A.
  44. S. Arda, K.E. Holbert, J. Undrill, Development of a linearized model of a pressurized water reactor generating station for power system dynamic simulations, in: 45th North Am. Power Symp. NAPS 2013, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1109/NAPS.2013.6666832.
  45. S. Arda, Implementing a Nuclear Power Plant Model for Evaluating Load- Following Capability on a Small Grid, MASc Thesis, Arizona State University, 2013.
  46. B. Puchalski, T.A. Rutkowski, K. Duzinkiewicz, Nodal models of Pressurized Water Reactor core for control purposes - a comparison study, Nucl. Eng. Des. 322 (2017) 444-463, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.07.005.
  47. J. Duderstadt, L. Hamilton, Nuclear Reactor Analysis, Department of Nuclear Engineering. The University of Michigan, 1976. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7355364.
  48. T. Kerlin, Dynamic Analysis and Control of Pressurized Water Reactors, 1978, pp. 103-212.

Cited by

  1. Simulation of Thermal System of Nuclear Power Plant Based on SimStore vol.7, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.12677/nst.2019.73015
  2. Optimal feed-water level control for steam generator in nuclear power plant based on meta-heuristic optimization vol.13, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/16878507.2020.1748350
  3. Uncertainty Quantification Spectral Technique for the Stochastic Point Reactor with Random Parameters vol.13, pp.6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13061297
  4. A developed analytical model for the pressurizer unit in nuclear power plants vol.14, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/16878507.2021.1885950