Published February 2018 | Version v1
Journal article

"Virtual density" and traditional boundary perturbation theories: Analytic equivalence and numeric comparison

  • 1. Elucidate Solutions, 3922 14th Ave. S, Unit B, Seattle, WA 98108 (United States)
  • 2. Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Room 24-107, Cambridge, MA 02139 (United States)

Description

Highlights: • Virtual density and boundary perturbation theories are analytically equivalent. • Virtual density and boundary perturbation theories are compared numerically. • Virtual density perturbations more accurate than boundary perturbations in diffusion. - Abstract: We compare and contrast "virtual density" perturbation theory with the traditional boundary perturbation theory developed by Pomraning, Larsen, and Rahnema in the context of diffusion theory. First, after reviewing that literature, we mathematically prove that virtual density perturbations and traditional boundary perturbations are precisely equivalent for arbitrary 1-D problems, which constitute non-uniform isotropic expansions. We also mathematically prove that these two perturbation theories are equivalent for 2-D boundary shift problems, which constitute non-uniform anisotropic expansions. Extension of this proof to swellings or 3-D problems is straightforward. We compare the two theories numerically for a series of alternating uranium and sodium 1-D slabs in finite difference diffusion, and we show that virtual density theory predicts reactivities much more accurately and efficiently than traditional boundary perturbation theory. Boundary perturbation theory is often very inaccurate on a coarse mesh but converges to the virtual density solution as the mesh becomes finer. We also compare the two theories for axial assembly swelling in an abbreviated FFTF benchmark with a coarse mesh. Here we find that reactivity coefficients obtained via virtual density perturbation theory agree with reference solutions to within 0.1%, while those obtained via boundary perturbation theory exhibit sporadic accuracy – sometimes in the range of 1–5% error, more frequently in the range 5–20% error, and occasionally well over 100% error in control rod assemblies. We conclude that although virtual density perturbation theory and boundary perturbation theory are analytically equivalent, boundary perturbations in diffusion theory are often thwarted in coarse mesh finite difference solutions due to inaccurate flux gradients along mesh cell surfaces in heterogeneous cores.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.09.028

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.anucene.2017.09.028;
PII
S0306454917303080;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Annals of Nuclear Energy (Oxford)
Journal Volume
112
Journal Page Range
p. 531-548
ISSN
0306-4549
CODEN
ANENDJ

INIS

Country of Publication
United Kingdom
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
50068478
Subject category
S21: SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS;
Descriptors DEI
CONTROL ELEMENTS; DISTURBANCES; FLUX DENSITY; FUEL RODS; NEUTRON FLUX; PERTURBATION THEORY; REACTIVITY COEFFICIENTS
Descriptors DEC
FUEL ELEMENTS; RADIATION FLUX; REACTOR COMPONENTS

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2017 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.