Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) systems can be divided into two basic categories: liquid-fueled MSRs in which the fuel is dissolved in the salt, and solid-fueled systems such as the Fluoride-salt-cooled High-temperature Reactor (FHR). The molten salt provides an impediment to fission product release as actinides and many fission products are soluble in molten salt. Nonetheless, under accident conditions, some radionuclides may escape the salt by vaporization and aerosol formation, which may lead to release into the environment. We present recent enhancements to MELCOR to represent the transport of radionuclides in the salt and releases from the salt. Some soluble but volatile radionuclides may vaporize and subsequently condense to aerosol. Insoluble fission products can deposit on structures. Thermochimica, an open-source Gibbs Energy Minimization (GEM) code, has been integrated into MELCOR. With the appropriate thermochemical database, Thermochimica provides the solubility and vapor pressure of species as a function of temperature, pressure, and composition, which are needed to characterize the vaporization rate and the state of the salt with fission products. Since thermochemical databases are still under active development for molten salt systems, thermodynamic data for fission product solubility and vapor pressure may be user specified. This enables preliminary assessments of fission product transport in molten salt systems. In this paper, we discuss modeling of soluble and insoluble fission product releases in a MSR with Thermochimica incorporated into MELCOR. Separate-effects experiments performed as part of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment in which radioactive aerosol was released are discussed as needed for determining the source term.
This document summarily provides brief descriptions of the MELCOR code enhancement made between code revision number 18019and 21440. Revision 18019 represents the previous official code release; therefore, the modeling features described within this document are provided to assist users that update to the newest official MELCOR code release, 21440. Along with the newly updated MELCOR Users’ Guide [2] and Reference Manual [3], users are aware and able to assess the new capabilities for their modeling and analysis applications.
Single case comparisons between severe accident simulations can provide detailed insights into severe accident model behavior, however, they cannot offer insights into model uncertainty, sensitivity to uncertain parameters, or underlying model biases. In this analysis, the single case benchmark comparison of the MELCOR material interaction models for a station blackout (SBO) scenario of a boiling water reactor (BWR) using representative Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 boundary conditions is expanded to include an uncertainty analysis. As part of this uncertainty analysis, 1200 simulations are performed for each material interaction model (2400 total), with random sampling of 14 uncertain MELCOR input parameters. Input parameters are selected for their impact on models representing core degradation processes. These include candling, fuel rod failure, debris quenching and dryout. The analysis performed here is not a traditional “best-estimate” uncertainty analysis that uses best-estimate parameters or identifies best-estimate figure of merit distributions. Instead, it is an exploratory uncertainty analysis that identifies and interrogates underlying model form biases of the two material interaction models (eutectics and interactive materials models). Uniform distributions are applied to all uncertain parameters to ensure coverage of the model parameter uncertainty space. Key findings from this study include underlying model form biases exhibited by material interaction models, and notable differences in accident progression outcomes between the material interaction models. This uncertainty study extends and confirms the conclusions from the first part of this study, which compared the impact of material interaction modeling on simulation of a short-term station blackout scenario with representative Fukushima Daiichi Unit I boundary conditions. In particular, this study confirms that the eutectics model generally exhibits accelerated degradation and failure of fuel components, the core plate, and the lower head. The eutectics model also has a tendency to exhibit a greater degree of core degradation, greater debris mass formation, and larger debris mass ejection. Finally, the eutectics model exhibits higher maximum temperatures for fuel, cladding, particulate debris, oxidic molten pool, and metallic molten pool components than the interactive materials model; interactive materials model simulations exhibit a soft “limitation” on maximum temperatures that is related to the temperature at which material relocation occurs.
In this analysis, the two material interaction models available in the MELCOR code are benchmarked for a severe accident at a BWR under representative Fukushima Daiichi boundary conditions. This part of the benchmark investigates the impact of each material interaction model on accident progression through a detailed single case analysis. It is found that the eutectics model simulation exhibits more rapid accident progression for the duration of the accident. The slower accident progression exhibited by the interactive materials model simulation, however, allows for a greater degree of core material oxidation and hydrogen generation to occur, as well as elevated core temperatures during the ex-vessel accident phase. The eutectics model simulation exhibits more significant degradation of core components during the late in-vessel accident phase – more debris forms and relocates to the lower plenum before lower head failure. The larger debris bed observed in the eutectics model simulation also reaches higher temperatures, presenting a more significant thermal challenge to the lower head until its failure. At the end of the simulated accident scenario, however, core damage is comparable between both simulations due to significant core degradation that occurs during the ex-vessel phase in the interactive materials model simulation. A key difference between the two models’ performance is the maximum temperatures that can be reached in the core and therefore the maximum ΔT between any two components. When implementing the interactive materials model, users have the option to modify the liquefaction temperature of the ZrO2-interactive and UO2-interactive materials as a way to mimic early fuel rod failure due to material interactions. Through modification of the liquefaction of high melting point materials with significant mass, users may inadvertently limit maximum core temperatures for fuel, cladding, and debris components.
This document summarily provides brief descriptions of the MELCOR code enhancement made between code revision number 14959and 18019. Revision 14959 represents the previous official code release; therefore, the modeling features described within this document are provided to assist users that update to the newest official MELCOR code release, 18019. Along with the newly updated MELCOR Users Guide and Reference Manual, users are aware and able to assess the new capabilities for their modeling and analysis applications.