Quantification of the uncertainty of the physical models in the system thermal-hydraulic codes – PREMIUM benchmark

Skorek, T.; Crécy, A. de; Kovtonyuk, A.; Petruzzi, A.; Mendizábal, Rafael; Alfonso, Elsa de; Reventós, F.; Freixa, J.; Sarrette, Christine; Kyncl, M.; Pernica, R.; Baccou, Jean; Fouet, Fabrice; Probst, Pierre; Chung, Bub Dong; Tram, Tran Tranh; Oh, Dong Yeol; Gusev, Alexey; Fal'kov, A. A.; Shvestov, Yuri; Li, Dong; Liu, Xiaojing; Zhang, Jinzhao; Alku, Torsti; Kurki, Joona; Jäger, Wadim; Sánchez, V.; Wicaksono, Damar; Zerkak, Omar; Pautz, Andreas

doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110199

Cited by 27 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current codes for nuclear reactor safety analyses make use of the structure of the above formula. This is at the origin of large discrepancies among predictions: following the BEMUSE project, [12], reflood is at the center of attention for derivation of uncertain parameters and ranges [15,16].…”

Section: Spread Of Model Results (Bulletsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Based on the comparison with experimental data, each phenomenon becomes both an origin for uncertainty and a way to quantify uncertainty: the identification and the characterization of physical parameters and related ranges of variations (PP&R) constitute the result from the seventh column, see e.g. [15] and [16].…”

Section: Figure 4 Perspective Use Of T-hp: Topicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physical Phenomena in Nuclear Thermal Hydraulics and Current Status

D'Auria¹,

Aksan²,

Glaeser³

2021

TI-IJES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

116 nuclear Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena T-HP are identified in the present paper, following documents issued during the last three decades by the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations of Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD/NEA/CSNI) and by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The derived T-HP list includes consideration of experiments performed in Separate Effect Test (SET) and Integral Effect Test (IET) facilities relevant to reactor coolant system and containment of Water Cooled Nuclear Reactors (WCNR). We consider a dozen WCNR types: Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), Boiling Water Reactors (BWR), Russian reactors (VVER-440, VVER-1000 and RBMK), pressure tube heavy water reactors by Canada (CANDU) and India (PHWR) and so-called ‘advanced’ reactors (e.g. AP-1000 and APR-1400 designed in US and Korea, respectively). We envisage a variety of applications for the T-HP list. Four of the phenomena are helpful to characterize the current state of art in nuclear thermal-hydraulics: Counter Current Flow Limitation (CCFL), Critical Heat Flux (CHF), reflood and Two-Phase Critical Flow (TPCF). Furthermore, the T-HP identification contributes to addressing the scaling issue, performing uncertainty evaluations, developing constitutive equations and ‘special models’ in codes and prioritizing the research.

show abstract

Section: Spread Of Model Results (Bulletsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figure 4 Perspective Use Of T-hp: Topicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical Phenomena in Nuclear Thermal Hydraulics and Current Status

D'Auria¹,

Aksan²,

Glaeser³

2021

TI-IJES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even though comparative analyses on the performance of damage models have become more frequent in the literature (Jongman et al, 2012;Cammerer et al, 2013;Scorzini and Frank, 2017;Carisi et al, 2018;Figueiredo et al, 2018;Amadio et al, 2019), according to the authors' knowledge, this study would represent the first flood damage model comparison performed in a blind mode. This type of comparison can provide more objective insights for a better understanding of models' capabilities and then for reducing modelling uncertainties, as already demonstrated in similar tests performed for other disciplines like seismology, hydrology, and computational fluid dynamics (Smith et al, 2004;Soares-Frazao et al, 2012;Krogstad and Eriksen, 2013;Zelt et al, 2013;Andreani et al, 2019;Ransley et al, 2019;Skorek et al, 2019). Indeed, possible biases are avoided as participants cannot be influenced by validation data, these data being undisclosed in the implementation phase of the models, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Are flood damage models converging to “reality”? Lessons learnt from a blind test

Molinari

Scorzini

Arrighi

et al. 2020

Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Effective flood risk management requires a realistic estimation of flood losses. However, available flood damage estimates are still characterized by significant levels of uncertainty, questioning the capacity of flood damage models to depict real damages. With a joint effort of eight international research groups, the objective of this study was to compare, in a blind-validation test, the performances of different models for the assessment of the direct flood damage to the residential sector at the building level (i.e. microscale). The test consisted of a common flood case study characterized by high availability of hazard and building data but with undisclosed information on observed losses in the implementation stage of the models. The nine selected models were chosen in order to guarantee a good mastery of the models by the research teams, variety of the modelling approaches, and heterogeneity of the original calibration context in relation to both hazard and vulnerability features. By avoiding possible biases in model implementation, this blind comparison provided more objective insights on the transferability of the models and on the reliability of their estimations, especially regarding the potentials of local and multivariable models. From another perspective, the exercise allowed us to increase awareness of strengths and limits of flood damage modelling, which are summarized in the paper in the form of take-home messages from a modeller's perspective.

show abstract

“…The validation is an on-going process taking advantage of the always new experimental facility results. The input uncertainty quantification (IUQ) on the physical models still requires further investigations, even if this issue has already been tackled in the past through three OECD/ NEA projects: Best-Estimate Methods Uncertainty and Sensitivity Evaluation (BEMUSE) [4], Post-BEMUSE Reflood Models Input Uncertainty Methods (PREMIUM) benchmark [5], Systematic APproach for Input Uncertainty quantification Methodology (SAPIUM). Indeed, the analysis of PREMIUM phases III and IV benchmark results has shown a large dispersion results between participants [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

VVUQ of a thermal-hydraulic multi-scale tool on unprotected loss of flow accident in SFR reactor

Marie

Marrel

et al. 2021

EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the framework of the French 4th-generation Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor safety assessment, methodology on VVUQ (Verification, Validation, Uncertainty Quantification) is conducted to demonstrate that the CEA's thermal-hydraulic Scientific Computation Tools (SCTs) are effective and operational for design and safety studies purposes on this type of reactor. This VVUQ-based qualification is a regulatory requirement from the French Nuclear Safety Authority (NSA). In this paper, the current practice of VVUQ approach application for a SFR accidental transient is described with regard to the NSA requirements. It constitutes the first practical, progressively improvable approach. As the SCT is qualified for a given version on a given scenario, the transient related to a total unprotected station blackout has been selected. As it is a very complex multi-scale transient, the SCT MATHYS (which is a coupling of the CATHARE2 tool at system scale, TrioMC tool at component scale and TrioCFD tool at local scale) is used. This paper presents the preliminary VVUQ application to the qualification of this tool on this selected transient. In addition, this work underlines some feedback on design and R&D aspects that should be addressed in the future to improve the SCT.

show abstract

Quantification of the uncertainty of the physical models in the system thermal-hydraulic codes – PREMIUM benchmark

Cited by 27 publications

References 10 publications

Physical Phenomena in Nuclear Thermal Hydraulics and Current Status

Physical Phenomena in Nuclear Thermal Hydraulics and Current Status

Are flood damage models converging to “reality”? Lessons learnt from a blind test

VVUQ of a thermal-hydraulic multi-scale tool on unprotected loss of flow accident in SFR reactor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About