FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1972854172> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1972854172 endingPage "51" @default.
• W1972854172 startingPage "37" @default.
• W1972854172 abstract "In preparation for the transient analysis of the Generation IV gas fast reactor (GFR) and experimental technology demonstration reactor (ETDR) designs, a transient benchmark exercise (in the frame of the Generation IV GFR project) was performed to compare the capabilities and limitations of the different code systems to analyse these new reactor concepts. The benchmark was based on the ETDR concept and was performed in three phases, i.e. a loss-of-flow (LOF) transient with reactor scram for phases 1 and 2 and a small-break loss-of-coolant accident for phase 3. The organizations which participated in the benchmark were AREVA, France; CEA, France; NRG and TUD, The Netherlands; AMEC, United Kingdom; INL, USA (phase 1); CIRTEN, Italy; JRC-IE EURATOM and PSI, Switzerland. Phase 1 of the benchmark was performed in a “blind” manner in that all participants were provided with the same information, but were free to make their own judgement on the use of this information. Following a review of the results from phase 1, the conclusion was made that the agreement between all the partners was acceptable, but better agreement was to be preferred. The reason for the discrepancies was identified, namely: different heat transfer correlations for the main and DHR heat exchangers and reactor core, modelling of the vessel wall thermal capacity, core and vessel pressure drop calculations and flow resistance in the DHR helium and water loops. The phase 1 transient was repeated as (phase 2) but with more ‘strict boundary conditions’ to identify which of the above gave the largest contribution to the differences in the phase 1 submissions. The second phase results were much improved. However, to demonstrate the capabilities of the codes at low pressures a SB-LOCA transient with reactor scram (phase 3) was defined to model the ETDR DHR system during the depressurization from 70 bar to the 3 bar containment pressure. The phases 1 and 2 results showed that the use of different heat transfer correlations for the main heat exchanger does not significantly affect the core coolant temperatures, while the modelling of ETDR heat structures has a major impact on the core inlet temperatures. Even though three participants used the RELAP5 code and two participants used CATHARE, there was limited consistency between the results for each specific code. This was particularly true for phase 1, where the wide spread in the results came from different input and boundary assumptions by the codes users, i.e. the so-called “user-effect”. The results of the third phase (SB LOCA with reactor scram), showed sensitivity to the extrapolation of the core pressure drop calculation to low pressures and low Reynolds numbers, with the result that there was an extreme sensitivity of the core flow rate to small changes in core geometry, grid spacer losses, etc. resulting in large differences in coolant, clad and fuel temperatures. The most important message to be taken from the benchmark exercise is that to obtain consistent results, it is especially important to have consistency in the use and interpretation of the plant data as well as the availability of clear and unambiguous information and it is only when these features have been resolved is it possible examine the importance of differences in physical modelling. On this basis all the codes used demonstrated an ability to model gas-cooled systems under natural circulation and low pressure low Reynolds numbers' conditions." @default.
• W1972854172 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5007852112 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5009709731 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5010373445 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5012169780 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5030007123 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5037462424 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5052303288 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5071275337 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5076569588 @default.
• W1972854172 creator A5079339513 @default.
• W1972854172 date "2008-01-01" @default.
• W1972854172 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1972854172 title "A GFR benchmark: Comparison of transient analysis codes based on the ETDR concept" @default.
• W1972854172 cites W1534972653 @default.
• W1972854172 cites W1986583961 @default.
• W1972854172 cites W2061307935 @default.
• W1972854172 cites W2066948469 @default.
• W1972854172 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2007.11.090" @default.
• W1972854172 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W1972854172 type Work @default.
• W1972854172 sameAs 1972854172 @default.
• W1972854172 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W1972854172 countsByYear W19728541722015 @default.
• W1972854172 countsByYear W19728541722019 @default.
• W1972854172 countsByYear W19728541722020 @default.
• W1972854172 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5007852112 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5009709731 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5010373445 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5012169780 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5030007123 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5037462424 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5052303288 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5071275337 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5076569588 @default.
• W1972854172 hasAuthorship W1972854172A5079339513 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C114088122 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C116915560 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C124184767 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C13280743 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C174379495 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C185798385 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C2780799671 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C50517652 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConcept C57879066 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C111919701 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C114088122 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C116915560 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C121332964 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C124184767 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C127413603 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C13280743 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C174379495 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C185798385 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C205649164 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C2780799671 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C39432304 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C41008148 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C50517652 @default.
• W1972854172 hasConceptScore W1972854172C57879066 @default.
• W1972854172 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1972854172 hasLocation W19728541721 @default.
• W1972854172 hasOpenAccess W1972854172 @default.
• W1972854172 hasPrimaryLocation W19728541721 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W1501333778 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W154047206 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W1997303646 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W2056575911 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W2069087030 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W2604530681 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W3009755401 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W306564421 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W3202328728 @default.
• W1972854172 hasRelatedWork W2135962780 @default.
• W1972854172 hasVolume "50" @default.
• W1972854172 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1972854172 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1972854172 magId "1972854172" @default.
• W1972854172 workType "article" @default.