M. Di Giuli , J. Bittan , N. Bakouta , A.M. Swaidan
{"title":"EDF MAAP5.04和ASTECv3规范在整体式压水堆假想严重事故中的比较","authors":"M. Di Giuli , J. Bittan , N. Bakouta , A.M. Swaidan","doi":"10.1016/j.nucengdes.2025.114407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper presents a comparison between EDF MAAP 5.04 and ASTECv3 codes in simulating postulated Severe Accident (SA) scenarios in a generic integral PWR characterized by a submerged containment and about 60 MWe. The code crosswalk was performed by EDF and Tractebel within the Horizon Euratom project SASPAM-SA (Safety Analysis of SMR with PAssive Mitigation strategies – Severe Accident). MAAP is a deterministic code licensed by EPRI whilst ASTEC is an integral code developed by IRSN. Both codes were validated through intense and extensive validation activities and recognized with MELCOR as reference tools for SA deterministic studies in nuclear reactors. In the SASPAM-SA project, code benchmarks were performed between ASTEC, MAAP, MELCOR and AC<sup>2</sup>. The authors believe that, given the impossibility of conducting SA experiments and the scarcity of available data, such studies are the only way to improve the reliability of these codes. The aim of this work is to investigate capabilities and limitations of SA codes, as well as identify causes leading to relevant deviations in results. This is because the phenomena that occur in SMRs may be different from those that occur in commercial large reactors and may not be captured correctly by models currently implemented. Comparisons performed between EDF MAAP5.04 (SMR code version developed by EPRI and improved by EDF) and ASTEC V3.1 include accident progression from initial events to long-term in-vessel retention of the corium. Particular attention was also paid to the solution adopted to reproduce the strong vessel-containment interaction typical of SMRs. The main differences observed in the results were related to core degradation evolution and corium slumping mechanism in the lower plenum. Discrepancies in core degradation kinetics depend partly on how debris formation is modelled and partly on the different amounts of power exchanged between vessel and containment predicted by the codes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":19170,"journal":{"name":"Nuclear Engineering and Design","volume":"444 ","pages":"Article 114407"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between EDF MAAP5.04 and ASTECv3 codes on hypothetical severe accidents in an integral PWR\",\"authors\":\"M. Di Giuli , J. Bittan , N. Bakouta , A.M. Swaidan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.nucengdes.2025.114407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This paper presents a comparison between EDF MAAP 5.04 and ASTECv3 codes in simulating postulated Severe Accident (SA) scenarios in a generic integral PWR characterized by a submerged containment and about 60 MWe. The code crosswalk was performed by EDF and Tractebel within the Horizon Euratom project SASPAM-SA (Safety Analysis of SMR with PAssive Mitigation strategies – Severe Accident). MAAP is a deterministic code licensed by EPRI whilst ASTEC is an integral code developed by IRSN. Both codes were validated through intense and extensive validation activities and recognized with MELCOR as reference tools for SA deterministic studies in nuclear reactors. In the SASPAM-SA project, code benchmarks were performed between ASTEC, MAAP, MELCOR and AC<sup>2</sup>. The authors believe that, given the impossibility of conducting SA experiments and the scarcity of available data, such studies are the only way to improve the reliability of these codes. The aim of this work is to investigate capabilities and limitations of SA codes, as well as identify causes leading to relevant deviations in results. This is because the phenomena that occur in SMRs may be different from those that occur in commercial large reactors and may not be captured correctly by models currently implemented. Comparisons performed between EDF MAAP5.04 (SMR code version developed by EPRI and improved by EDF) and ASTEC V3.1 include accident progression from initial events to long-term in-vessel retention of the corium. Particular attention was also paid to the solution adopted to reproduce the strong vessel-containment interaction typical of SMRs. The main differences observed in the results were related to core degradation evolution and corium slumping mechanism in the lower plenum. Discrepancies in core degradation kinetics depend partly on how debris formation is modelled and partly on the different amounts of power exchanged between vessel and containment predicted by the codes.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nuclear Engineering and Design\",\"volume\":\"444 \",\"pages\":\"Article 114407\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nuclear Engineering and Design\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549325005849\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nuclear Engineering and Design","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549325005849","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison between EDF MAAP5.04 and ASTECv3 codes on hypothetical severe accidents in an integral PWR
This paper presents a comparison between EDF MAAP 5.04 and ASTECv3 codes in simulating postulated Severe Accident (SA) scenarios in a generic integral PWR characterized by a submerged containment and about 60 MWe. The code crosswalk was performed by EDF and Tractebel within the Horizon Euratom project SASPAM-SA (Safety Analysis of SMR with PAssive Mitigation strategies – Severe Accident). MAAP is a deterministic code licensed by EPRI whilst ASTEC is an integral code developed by IRSN. Both codes were validated through intense and extensive validation activities and recognized with MELCOR as reference tools for SA deterministic studies in nuclear reactors. In the SASPAM-SA project, code benchmarks were performed between ASTEC, MAAP, MELCOR and AC2. The authors believe that, given the impossibility of conducting SA experiments and the scarcity of available data, such studies are the only way to improve the reliability of these codes. The aim of this work is to investigate capabilities and limitations of SA codes, as well as identify causes leading to relevant deviations in results. This is because the phenomena that occur in SMRs may be different from those that occur in commercial large reactors and may not be captured correctly by models currently implemented. Comparisons performed between EDF MAAP5.04 (SMR code version developed by EPRI and improved by EDF) and ASTEC V3.1 include accident progression from initial events to long-term in-vessel retention of the corium. Particular attention was also paid to the solution adopted to reproduce the strong vessel-containment interaction typical of SMRs. The main differences observed in the results were related to core degradation evolution and corium slumping mechanism in the lower plenum. Discrepancies in core degradation kinetics depend partly on how debris formation is modelled and partly on the different amounts of power exchanged between vessel and containment predicted by the codes.
期刊介绍:
Nuclear Engineering and Design covers the wide range of disciplines involved in the engineering, design, safety and construction of nuclear fission reactors. The Editors welcome papers both on applied and innovative aspects and developments in nuclear science and technology.
Fundamentals of Reactor Design include:
• Thermal-Hydraulics and Core Physics
• Safety Analysis, Risk Assessment (PSA)
• Structural and Mechanical Engineering
• Materials Science
• Fuel Behavior and Design
• Structural Plant Design
• Engineering of Reactor Components
• Experiments
Aspects beyond fundamentals of Reactor Design covered:
• Accident Mitigation Measures
• Reactor Control Systems
• Licensing Issues
• Safeguard Engineering
• Economy of Plants
• Reprocessing / Waste Disposal
• Applications of Nuclear Energy
• Maintenance
• Decommissioning
Papers on new reactor ideas and developments (Generation IV reactors) such as inherently safe modular HTRs, High Performance LWRs/HWRs and LMFBs/GFR will be considered; Actinide Burners, Accelerator Driven Systems, Energy Amplifiers and other special designs of power and research reactors and their applications are also encouraged.