Nuclear Science and Engineering

ISSN: 0029-5639 (Print) 1943-748X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/unse20

A Consistent Technique for the Pin-by-Pin

Homogenization of a Pressurized Water Reactor
Assembly

A. Hébert

To cite this article: A. Hébert (1993) A Consistent Technique for the Pin-by-Pin Homogenization
of a Pressurized Water Reactor Assembly, Nuclear Science and Engineering, 113:3, 227-238, DOI:
10.13182/NSE92-10

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.13182/NSE92-10

Published online: 12 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 16 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=unse20

Download by: [University of Saskatchewan Library] Date: 24 August 2017, At: 14:01
 NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: 113, 227-238 (1993)

A Consistent Technique for the Pin-by-Pin

Homogenization of a Pressurized
Water Reactor Assembly

A. Hebert*
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Institut de Genie Energetique
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3A7
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017

Received January 6, 1992

Accepted August 3, 1992

Abstract—Proposals are made for improving the heterogeneous diffusion procedure for reactor de-
sign and operating calculations. The procedure is based on the use of pin-by-pin properties for the
assemblies and on low-order discretization for the reactor diffusion calculation. It proposes the intro-
duction of a second-generation superhomogeneisation equivalence technique between the flux and cross-
section edit calculations to yield heterogeneous diffusion properties consistent with exact control rod
worth calculations. This equivalence technique is designed to preserve the pin-cell reaction rates and
the assembly integrated fluxes. Two-group colorset benchmarks are proposed to validate the new pro-
cedures. Numerical results are also given for typical fine-group test cases.

I. INTRODUCTION The second procedure, the homogeneous diffusion

Neutronic design calculations for pressurized water
reactors (PWRs) are based on one of the two proce-
dures presented in Fig. 1. The first is the heterogeneous
diffusion approach, which relies on finite difference
(low-order) discretization and uses pin-by-pin nuclear
properties, i.e., nuclear properties that are homoge-
nized over each pin cell (a fuel rod surrounded by its
coolant). These pin-by-pin properties are based on as-
sembly flux, and the procedure uses one superhomog-
eneisation (SPH) equivalence factor per pin cell and per
coarse energy group. 1 ' 2 The complete procedure en-
ables accurate prediction of on-site measurements and
corresponds to a procedure validated and accepted in
France. 3 ' 4 Using modern computer architectures, it is
now possible to obtain three-dimensional heteroge-
neous diffusion solutions of a complete PWR (Ref. 5).
However, it should be understood that the accuracy of
such a reference solution requires knowledge of a con-
sistent set of SPH factors.
•Current address: Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique,
DRN/DMT-CEN/Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex,
France.
approach, is based on nodal or finite element (high-
order) discretization and uses homogeneous nuclear
properties that are defined for each assembly. A recent
paper by Hebert and Benoist6 shows that a homoge-
neous SPH equivalence calculation is also required to
reproduce the control rod worth with sufficient accu-
racy. In this case, only one SPH factor, similar to the
inverse of a simplified discontinuity factor, is used per
coarse energy group.
Either of these procedures can be used for reactor
design and operating analysis, but there is now a con-
sensus that an SPH equivalence calculation is required
in both cases.The object of this study is to present an
efficient technique for computing the SPH factors for
heterogeneous diffusion calculations. Before present-
ing the theory, it is useful to provide a historical over-
view of the development of the SPH procedure.
I.A. A Historical Overview
Many important contributions to the homogeniza-
tion theory were presented at the Lugano meeting in
1980. A first attempt to generate homogenized SPH-
corrected cross sections for the heterogeneous diffusion
 HETEROGENEOUS DIFFUSION PROCEDURE:
SPH
FINE-GROUP TWO-GROUP
ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY
HOMOGENEOUS DIFFUSION PROCEDURE:
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017
FINE-GROUP TWO-GROUP
ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY
Fig. 1. Procedures for diffusion theory reactor calculations.
analysis of an irregular lattice was presented by Kave-
noky.1 The SPH procedure involves a renormalization
of the homogenized cross sections and fluxes to pro-
duce the correct reaction rates in the homogenized as-
sembly. This study was mainly exploratory and was
therefore of limited practical use. Next, an important
contribution by Mondot 7 introduced the idea of also
using the SPH factors as a mean for correcting the errors
due to both Fick's law and to the low-order discretiza-
tion of the diffusion equation. Other contributions by
Koebke8 and by Henry, Worley, and Morshed 9 set up
the basis of the discontinuity factor method.
During the following years, the SPH technique was
further developed and was included by Hebert 2 as a
new module in the APOLLO-1 lattice code.10 At that
time, only the heterogeneous diffusion procedure was
considered, and an attempt was made to support both
transport-transport and transport-diffusion equivalence
techniques similar to those of Mondot. This work was
tightly coupled with EURYDICE-1, a computer pro-
gram for computing the collision probabilities in a
Cartesian PWR assembly using the interface current
method 2 and BIVAC for solving the two-dimensional
diffusion equation.11 Extensive work was subsequently
undertaken to validate both EURYDICE-1 and the new
SPH module against experiments.3'4 The SPH module
in the 1981 version of APOLLO-1 comprises three dis-
tinct algorithms:
TWO-GROUP REACTOR
(FINITE DIFFERENCES)
Q.
TWO-GROUP REACTOR
(FINITE ELEMENTS OR NODAL)
1. A first-generation SPH method was introduced
by Kavenoky1 as an attempt to generate homogenized
SPH-corrected cross sections for the heterogeneous dif-
fusion analysis of an irregular lattice. First, an assump-
tion is made concerning the isotropy and uniformity of
the interface current (i.e., entering current) surround-
ing each pin cell. This first SPH procedure involves a
renormalization of the homogenized cross sections and
fluxes to preserve all the reaction rates and interface
currents in a simplified assembly calculation. This sim-
plified calculation, which will be referred to as a macro
calculation, is carried on with homogenized pin cells,
uniform interface currents and is defined over a coarse
energy grid. The number of SPH factors in a coarse en-
ergy group is equal to the number of distinct pin cells
in the assembly. This approach is consistent only in the
case where the number of interface currents is equal to
the number of SPH factors and is therefore limited to
situations in which each pin cell is surrounded by a
unique isotropic interface current. Kavenoky's ap-
proach is clearly not valid for the pin cells surround-
ing a poison cell in a PWR assembly. The inadequacy
of this approximation was at the origin of the develop-
ment of EURYDICE-1, a flux solution module in
which each side of each pin cell is differentiated. Four
or 12 interface currents per pin cell, respectively, are
required for a standard DP-0 or DP-1 EURYDICE cal-
culation. In these situations, the original Kavenoky
 algorithm cannot be used consistently. Apart from the
acronym SPH, two strong ideas of Kavenoky's work
have been kept in the development of second-genera-
tion SPH techniques. First, an SPH technique never
needs the solution of an eigenvalue (keff or buckling
search) problem in the adjustment phase; the distribu-
tion of fission and diffusion sources is always known
from the initial flux calculation. Second, a unique
equivalence factor per pin cell always gives enough de-
gree of freedom to preserve all the reaction and leak-
age rates.
2. A second-generation transport-transport equiv-
alence technique was designed by Hubert 2 to provide
a consistent set of SPH factors, whatever the number
of interface currents might be. This was achieved by
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017
making a steepest-descent search of the SPH factors
that preserve the reaction rates in the macro calculation.
Gradients were obtained using a generalized perturba-
tion of the macro calculation, which can easily be done
in EURYDICE-1 provided that the pin cells are homo-
geneous. This approach can be expected to be straight-
forward since the number of reaction rates is equal to
the number of SPH factors. However, we were sur-
prised to discover that the hessian matrix of the search
was singular in every case where the domain is closed
(i.e., when the albedos are equal to one). This means
that an infinite number of SPH factor sets can be the
solution of the problem and satisfy the reaction rates.
This brings an extra degree of freedom that must be oc-
cupied by a normalization condition to obtain a unique
set of SPH factors. The simplest normalization condi-
tion was chosen, namely, the flux-volume condition,
in which the integrated flux in the global assembly is
preserved.
3. Another second-generation method designed by
Hebert is similar to the previous one, except that the
macro calculation was realized in diffusion theory,
using the BIVAC code.2 The BIVAC code contains
many two-dimensional Cartesian finite element related
approximations up to fourth-order Lagrangian poly-
nomials, including mesh corner finite differences and
variational collocation approximations. 12 Again, a
steepest-descent search was used together with a gen-
eralized perturbation of the BIVAC macro calculation.
Here, too, the Hessian matrix was singular for closed
domains, and a flux-volume normalization was chosen
to remove this singularity.
A third-generation transport-transport SPH tech-
nique was recently introduced by Hebert and Benoist
for the specific treatment of homogeneous diffusion
calculations.6 The idea behind third-generation tech-
niques lies in the use of the aforementioned extra de-
gree of freedom to preserve some interface current
surrounding the global assembly (first-generation meth-
ods were preserving each individual pin-cell interface
current). This new algorithm leads to SPH factors that
are similar to the inverse of the heterogeneity factors
used in the simplified equivalence theory of Koebke13
or in the simplified discontinuity factor theory of
Tanker and Henry. 14 This is true for the global ho-
mogenization of an assembly and only in the case where
the leakage is uniformly distributed using the E5 — dB2
approach.
The aim of this study is to propose a unified SPH
algorithm that will encompass most of the existing
second-generation transport-transport and transport-
diffusion equivalence techniques while providing ex-
tended functionality. It will be possible to use any
transport or diffusion module to achieve the macro cal-
culation. Generalized perturbation theory will no lon-
ger be used. Arbitrary geometries, including hexagonal
lattices, will be supported. It is important to note that
no modification of the reactor diffusion calculation
software will be required. This approach is therefore
compatible with all types of finite element techniques.
II. THE SUPERHOMOGfiNfilSATION
EQUIVALENCE PROCEDURE
The SPH algorithm is located in the lattice code be-
tween the main transport calculation and the cross-
section edit module. The aim of the main transport cal-
culation is to compute the neutron flux <£, (#) in region
i and over elementary group g, using the — dB2 it-
erative strategy presented in the Appendix. The purpose
of the edit module is to merge and condense the re-
quired macroscopic and microscopic cross sections over
macro regions and coarse energy groups.
Every SPH algorithm should proceed in two steps.
The first step is based on the result of the main trans-
port calculation and sets up the macro balance relation.
The second step is the iterative procedure that leads to
the set of SPH factors.
II. A. Definition of the Macro Balance Relation
The SPH factor calculation is preceded by a macro
balance calculation leading to target reaction rates and
target-integrated currents that will be preserved by the
equivalence procedure. A macro region Cm is defined
as a collection of regions i taken from the main trans-
port calculation. The volume Vm of a macro region can
be obtained as the sum of the volumes Vj of each ele-
mentary region
vm = E v,. (i)
<ec m
One macro region corresponds to a pin cell within
the heterogeneous diffusion approach, while a unique
macro region corresponding to the global assembly will
be used within the homogeneous diffusion approach.
A coarse energy group Mk is defined as a set of ele-
mentary groups g from the flux calculation. The colli-
sion rates, within-group scattering rates, leakage rates,
 arrival rates, and integrated fluxes are computed for and coarse energy group Mk in such a way as to pre-
each coarse energy group. serve the macro balance calculation of Sec. II.A.
The collision rates T^(k) are computed as A direct or flux-volume homogenization method
consists of dividing the coarse energy group reaction
K(k) = 2 2 V,L,(g)Mg) . (2) rates by the integrated flux. For instance, the total and
g£Mk iecm within-group scattering cross sections would be given by
where E,(g) is the total macroscopic cross section.
T*m(k)
Knowledge of the leakage rates in each macro re- £«(*>= (7)
gion and coarse energy group is required by the trans- F*m{k)
port-diffusion algorithm. The leakage rates L*m(k) are and
computed as
T*
L*m(k)=B2 2 d{g) 2 V,Mg) . (3)
(k) = ^ (8)
geMk iecm
Fm(k)
where B 2 is the buckling and d{g) is the leakage coef- Similarly, the direct homogenization of a diffusion co-
efficient would lead to
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017

ficient in the fine energy group g, as obtained by the

Bi leakage calculation. L*m(k)
The within-group scattering rates T ^ m ( k ) are Dm(k) = (9)
B2F*m(k)
computed as
This type of homogenization generally does not
Tw,m(k) — 2 2 2 v i i. s j{g^h)<j> i (h) permit conservation of the reaction and leakage rates.
h&Mk g<EMk iecm
We consequently introduce an SPH corrective factor
-B2 2 dig)
2 ViMg) . (4) on each macro region and coarse energy group and de-
geMk
iecm fine equivalent cross sections and diffusion coefficients
where L s < i (g*-h) is the differential scattering macro- by the relations:
scopic cross section. (10)
The arrival rates Q*m(k <- /) (fission and out-of- £„(*> =iim{k)tm{k) ,
group scattering) from each coarse energy group are
computed as (k) = nm{k)Zwm(k) , (11)
Qmik^l)
and
= ASM,
2 g&M
2 2 ^ T.sjig^hHiih) Dm(k) = tim(k)Dm{k) . (12)
iec k m
To preserve the macro balance calculation, the
+ y—
K
XiMvZfiiWMIi) same SPH factor should be used to multiply every cross
eff section belonging to a given macro region and coarse
energy group. Moreover, the corresponding homoge-
-hi 2 2 2 ViLSii(g<-h)Mh), (5)
h(EMk ge.Mk iecm nized flux should be redefined using the relation:
where 1
Fmik) = F*m(k) (13)
keff = effective multiplication factor
X/(g) = fission spectrum We define the macro calculation as a flux calcu-
vl,fj{h) = product of the number of secondary lation made over the macro regions and coarse energy
neutrons per fission with the macro- groups with SPH-corrected homogenized cross sec-
scopic fission cross section tions. Transport-transport equivalence is an SPH algo-
rithm in which the macro calculation is performed by
bki = Kronecker delta function. solving a transport equation. Similarly, a transport-
Finally, the integrated fluxes F„(k) are computed as diffusion equivalence is based on a macro calculation
performed by solving the diffusion equation. Differ-
F*m(k) = 2 2 ViMg) • (6) ent types of equivalence require specific macro calcu-
geMk iecm lations as follows:
II. B. Definition of the
1. Transport-transport equivalence: In this case,
Superhomogeneisation Factors
the macro calculation consists of the standard collision
The next step is the computation of the equivalent probability equation. The neutron flux is obtained by
macroscopic cross sections on each macro region Cm solving the following linear system:
 Mk) - S tWJ(k)p}j(k)4>j(k) = S Qj{k)p}j(k) , Mk) d3r <j>(r,k) . (19)
j= 1 7=1 Vii Vi
(14)
A single set of SPH factors will satisfy the system
of equations given by Eqs. (7) through (19). The pro-
where cedure for finding this set can be carried out in differ-
<j>i(k) = fine flux distribution of the macro calcu- ent ways. A proposed iterative strategy is presented in
lation Sec. II.C.
Z W j(k) = within-group scattering cross section II. C. Iterative Calculation of the
£„,„(*), if jecm
Superhomogeneisation Factors
p-j(k) = collision probabilities calculated for a
homogeneous closed assembly using the We have chosen an iterative strategy, which avoids
total cross-section set [£m(k);Vm}, recourse to generalized perturbation theory. The algo-
rithm is split into four steps:
and where the arrival neutron source Q*(k) exhibits a
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017

piecewise constant variation given by 1. At iteration 0, we set the SPH factors to the ini-
tial values
= 1 . (20)
/ rm(t)
Next, we set up an estimate for the arrival sources using
(15) the following equation in the transport-transport equiv-
2. Transport-diffusion equivalence: In this case, the alence case:
macro calculation consists of solving the neutron dif- Qt(0\k) = 2 Qm(k^l) , if / G Cm . (21)
fusion equation /
-V-D(r,k)V$(r,k) + [E(r,£) - Zw(r,k)]$(r,k) Similarly, in the transport-diffusion equivalence case,
we use
= Q*(r,k) , (16)
Q*(0)(r,k) = ?,Q*m(k^l) , ifr<EV m (22)
with reflective boundary condition
V<j>(rs,k) •N(rs) = 0 , if rs is a point of the 2. First, consider the case with transport-transport
reflective boundary ; equivalence. At iteration we compute the SPH-
(17) corrected cross-section set {E*(n)(A:);Vm} and com-
pute the corresponding collision probabilities for a
where closed assembly. We next perform a macro calculation
based on Eq. (14) to obtain the macro flux 4>\n){k) for
N(rs) = outgoing unit normal at point rs of the each region i and each coarse energy group A: as a func-
boundary tion of the arrival sources of the preceding iteration
D(r,k) = SPH-corrected diffusion coefficients Q?(n~l)(k).
Knowledge of these new fluxes allows the calcula-
L(r,k) = SPH-corrected total macroscopic cross tion of a fine arrival source distribution Q*(n)(k),
section which will be used at the next iteration, based on
tw(r,k) = SPH-corrected within-group scattering Eq. (15).
macroscopic cross section. The following normalization of the fluxes must be
performed:
These nuclear properties exhibit piecewise constant
variation over the assembly domain. Over each macro
region Vm, they are given, respectively, by Dm(k), m
t,m(k), and I,w m(k). The arrival neutron source 4>\n)norm(k) = $n)(k) (23)
Q*(r,k) exhibits a piecewise continuous variation S v,ftn\k)
given by
We next compute
Q W Z <*<*-!«r:""-1" . ifreK.. F%\k) = 2 v,$in\k). (24)
iec m
(18)
Second, consider the case with transport-diffusion
Flux <t>(r,k), the solution of Eqs. (16) and (17), can be equivalence. At iteration n, we successively compute
integrated to produce the required solution: the SPH-corrected cross-section sets {£„(,I)(Ar); vm),
 { t l ^ ( k ) ; y m ] and SPH-corrected diffusion coeffi-
cient set {Dm (n) (k);Vm}. We next perform a macro
calculation based on Eq. (16) with boundary condition
Eq. (17) to obtain the macro flux n)(r,k) for each
coarse energy group k as a function of the arrival
sources of the preceding iteration Q*(n~l)(r,k).
Knowledge of these new fluxes allows the calcula-
tion of a fine arrival source distribution Q*(n)(r,k),
which will be used at the next iteration, based on
Eq. (18).
The following normalization of the fluxes must be
performed:
4>(n)norm(r,k) =j>(n\r,k)
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017
code. 15 We present in this paper validation results of
the heterogeneous diffusion procedure relative to a two-
group benchmark and to a typical fine-group colorset.
Each colorset represents an infinite lattice made up of
the juxtaposition of control and unrodded assemblies.
III.A. Two-Group Heterogeneous
Colorset Benchmarks
Two reproducible two-group benchmarks have been
set up and used to validate the new heterogeneous trans-
port and diffusion procedure. The geometrical descrip-
tions of the two types of assemblies are presented in
Figs. 2, 3, and 4, with cross sections given in Tables I
and II. These assemblies comprise an 18 x 18 pattern
of pin cells with 299 fuel rods distributed over 324 lo-

d3r<j>(n)(r,k) cations in an eight-of-square symmetry. An even num-

s; jJVi ber of pin cells was chosen to simplify the numerical
(25) treatment of boundary conditions. The unrodded as-
sembly has four distinct types of elementary cells (or
We next compute generating cells): the empty cells and three types of fuel
cells. The control assembly consists of 24 poisoned cells
F%\k) =J d3r4>(n){r,k) . (26) inserted into the 25 empty locations. We thus obtain
five different types of elementary cells. These two types
3. We finally obtain the SPH factor using Eq. (13): of assembly are subsequently arranged in the patterns
(referred to as colorsets) presented in Figs. 5 and 6.
(27) The assembly flux calculation used the EXCELL mod-
ule 16 of DRAGON without making the cell merging
4. We check if the SPH factors satisfy the follow- approximation.
ing convergence criterion: The following assembly calculations are presented
in Table III:
max < 10- 4 (28) Calculation A: unrodded assembly calculation
m,k JFik)
without leakage modeling (B2 =
If the criterion is not satisfied, we go back to step 2. 0.0) with a search for the infinite
multiplication factor (&«,). The
kao thus obtained represents the
III. NUMERICAL RESULTS value of the colorset's effective
multiplication factor if an un-
The new equivalence procedure has been pro- rodded assembly is substituted for
grammed and integrated into the DRAGON lattice each control assembly.

0 0 ->
00"> 1.26472 cm

1.31472 cm

Fig. 2. Geometry of the pin cells. The instrumentation rod radius is 0.613142 cm. The fuel rod radius is 0.474364 cm.
The poison rod radii are 0.251725, 0.355992, 0.436, 0.541173, and 0.629 cm. Corresponding mixture indices are given in
Table I.
 TABLE I
Material Mixture Indices per Generating Cell
a — GENERATING CELL NUMBER
Material Mixture
Generating Indices from
Cell Type of Cell Cell Center
1 Instrumentation channel 3, 1
2 Poison cell 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1
3 Fuel cell 2, 1
4 Boundary cell 2,4
5 Corner cell 2,4
6 Instrumentation channel 8, 6
7 Fuel cell 7, 6
8 Boundary cell 7,9
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017

9 Corner cell 7,9

4
<E
Fig. 3. Description of the unrodded assembly. / £

3 4

3 3 4

2 3 3 4

3 3 3 3 4

2 3 3 2 3 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 8 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 6
£
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4

1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 Fig. 5. Description of the first colorset.

<&
Fig. 4. Description of the control assembly.
Calculation B: unrodded assembly calculation
with the £ s - dB2 leakage model
and critical buckling search
Calculation C: control assembly calculation with
the Ey - dB2 leakage model and
critical buckling search.
These calculations were performed using the EX-
CELL module of DRAGON, which allows an exact
collision probability treatment of the complete assem-
bly. Isotropic and reflective boundary conditions were
used on the assembly boundary. Calculations B and C
end with the definition of homogenized nuclear prop-
erties that could be used in a heterogeneous transport
based on EXCELL or a diffusion calculation based on
mesh corner finite differences or mesh-centered finite
differences. Thermal group SPH factors, correspond-
ing to the control assembly, are presented in Fig. 7.
 TABLE II
Cross-Section Data for the Two-Group Colorset Calculations

Material £.U> E/2) vU-U E <2^2> y- (2—1)

s, i
Mixture® (cm" )1 -1
(cm ) (cm" )1
(cm-1) (cm"1) (cm-1) (cm' 1 )

1 0.2601 1.0704 0.2331 1.0552 0.0266 0.0 0.0

2 0.3404 0.4952 0.3183 0.3384 0.0004 0.0150 0.2823
3 0.2667 1.0380 0.2381 1.0241 0.0281 0.0 0.0
4 0.2539 1.1073 0.2250 1.0924 0.0285 0.0 0.0
5 0.3761 5.7493 0.2813 0.1883 0.0 0.0 0.0
6 0.2519 1.1577 0.2229 1.1418 0.0287 0.0 0.0
7 0.3364 0.5095 0.3146 0.3389 0.0004 0.0150 0.3082
8 0.2619 1.0837 0.2345 1.0689 0.0270 0.0 0.0
9 0.2506 1.1504 0.2224 1.1348 0.0279 0.0 0.0
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017

a {
£, [/*"2) = 0 for every material mixture.

A The two heterogeneous color sets, with an explicit

modeling of each fuel pin, have been solved in EX-
1
3 3
CELL to provide unambiguous reference results. These
3 3 3 calculations, presented in Table IV, require the repre-
2 3 3 2 sentation of 362 volumes for the first colorset, and 382
3 3 3 3 3 volumes for the second, in an eight-of-square symme-
2 3 3 3 3 3 try. Their k x and absorption rate distributions are
3 3 3 2 3 3 2 used as reference results in the following tests.
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Table V shows the set of heterogeneous colorset cal-
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 culations with homogenized pin cells. They require the
representation of 171 homogeneous square or rectan-
5 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
gular cells in an eight-of-square symmetry. Numerical
3 4 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 results will be given for both transport and diffusion
3 3 4 8 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 heterogeneous colorset calculations. Diffusion color-
2 3 3 4 8 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7
set calculations were performed using the mesh corner
3 3 3 3 4 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
and mesh-centered finite difference approximations of
2 3 3 2 3 4 8 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 6
the TRIVAC code12,17 with only one mesh per fuel pin.
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
These calculations, presented in Table V, are identified
3 3 3 3 3 3 4 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
4 8 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 6
as I to VI for the first colorset, and as VII to XII for
3 2 3 3 2 3
£ the second colorset. In every case, the control rod worth
was computed with respect to assembly calculation A.
Each mesh-centered calculation is similar to a corre-
Fig. 6. Description of the second colorset. sponding mesh corner case:

TABLE III
Two-Group Assembly Calculations

Assembly Critical B2 CPU Time®

Case Eigenvalue Type Volumes (cm"2) Ar go (s)
A keff Unrodded 90 0.0 1.26825 17.9
B B2 Unrodded 90 5.424 x 10-3 1.26202 18.5
Cb B2 Control 110 -4.600 x 10"3 0.80153 20.8

"Using a Cray XMP computer.

b
Thermal group SPH factors are illustrated in Fig. 7.
 0.99
0.96
0.91
1.00 1.00
0.97 0.97
0.94 0.92
1.01 1.00 1.00
1.01 0.98 0.97
0.98 0.95 0.93
0.83 1.01 1.00 1.00
0.65 1.02 1.00 0.99
0.95 1.02 0.97 0.94
1.03 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00
1.09 1.06 1.05 1.03 1.00
1.04 1.05 1.03 0.99 0.96
0.83 1.02 1.02 0.83 1.02 1.00
0.67 1.06 1.05 0.65 1.02 1.01
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017

0.97 1.07 1.07 0.95 1.02 0.97

1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01
1.07 1.06 1.08 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.02
1.04 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.01 0.97
1.01 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.01
1.03 1.06 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05 1.02
1.00 1.03 1.07 1.04 1.04 1.06 1.01 0.98
1.02 1.00 1.02 0.83 1.02 1.02 0.82 1.02 1.00
1.12 1.02 1.04 0.65 1.07 1.06 0.65 1.05 1.03
0.98 0.99 1.03 0.97 1.07 1.06 0.97 1.03 0.99

TRANSPORT-TRANSPORT EQUIVALENCE
TRANSPORT-DIFFUSION EQUIVALENCE WITH MESH CORNER FINITE DIFFERENCES
TRANSPORT-DIFFUSION EQUIVALENCE WITH MESH-CENTERED FINITE DIFFERENCES

Fig. 7. Thermal group pin-by-pin SPH factors of the control assembly.

TABLE IV
Two-Group Reference Colorset Calculations

Assembly Calculations
Control
Unrodded Rodded Rod Worth CPU Time
Case Volumes Pattern Pattern keff (pcm) (s)
Reference 1 362 A B, B, B, C 1.17038 9787 144.2
Reference 2 382 A B, C, B, C 1.04732 22093 150.0

I, VII: transport calculations based on uncor- properties borrowed from calculations B

rected nuclear properties borrowed from
calculations B and C
II, VIII: transport calculations based on SPH-cor-
rected nuclear properties borrowed from
calculations B and C
III, IX: mesh corner heterogeneous diffusion cal-
culations based on uncorrected nuclear
properties borrowed from calculations B
and C
IV, X: mesh corner heterogeneous diffusion cal-
culations based on SPH-corrected nuclear
and C.
Following analysis of the numerical results relative
to the assembly calculations and the two types of color-
set calculation, it is possible to conclude the following:
1. The choice between mesh corner and mesh-cen-
tered finite differences for the heterogeneous diffusion
calculation with transport-diffusion equivalence slightly
affects the value of the control rod worth (discrepan-
cies of 50 and 96 pcm). Without using the SPH factors,
these discrepancies increase to 885 and 2778 pcm,
respectively.
 TABLE V
Heterogeneous Calculations for the Two-Group Colorsets
Percent Discrepancy on
Pin Absorption
Control Control Ratesb
Type of Rodded Rod Worth" Rod
Case Solution Equivalence Pattern keff (pcm) Worth Maximum Average

I Transport Without B,B,B,C 1.16679 10146 3.67 8.76 1.82

II Transport SPH B,B,B,C 1.16996 9829 0.43 1.34 0.17
III LAGRC Without B,B,B,C 1.15922 10903 11.40 26.85 6.03
IV LAGR SPH B,B,B,C 1.16920 9905 1.21 3.60 0.54
V MCFDd Without B,B,B,C 1.16807 10018 2.36 7.23 1.28
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017

VI MCFD SPH B,B,B,C 1.16970 9855 0.69 6.39 0.81

VII Transport Without B,C,B,C 1.03789 23036 4.27 9.11 2.85
VIII Transport SPH B,C,B,C 1.04723 22102 0.04 1.22 0.21
IX LAGR Without B,C,B,C 1.01398 25427 15.09 26.53 9.20
X LAGR SPH B,C,B,C 1.04548 22277 0.83 2.73 0.86
XI MCFD Without B,C,B,C 1.04176 22649 2.52 6.64 1.75
XII MCFD SPH B,C,B,C 1.04644 22181 0.40 4.91 1.36
a
Relative to assembly calculation A.
b
For thermal neutrons.
c
Diffusion theory with mesh corner finite differences.
d
Diffusion theory with mesh-centered finite differences.

2. The transport calculations with SPH equivalence
lead to the more accurate results, followed by the dif-
fusion calculations with SPH equivalence.
III.B. Fine-Group Heterogeneous
Colorset Calculations
Validation of the new heterogeneous transport and
diffusion procedure was also achieved against the two
fine-group heterogeneous colorset calculations pre-
sented in Ref. 6. These colorsets are made up of typical
assembly calculations with data taken from a current
PWR design data base. These assemblies comprise a
17 x 17 pattern of pin cells with 264 fuel rods distrib-
uted over 289 locations in an eight-of-square symme-
try. Three assembly calculations, denoted A, B, and C,
are presented in Table VI. These calculations were per-
formed using the EURYDICE-2 module of DRAGON,
which allows an interface current treatment of the com-
plete assembly. Note that these calculations lead to a
k x higher by —40 pcm than similar calculations re-
ported in Ref. 6. This small increase is due to various
improvements in the DRAGON lattice code but leads
to a negligible effect on the control rod worth value.
Heterogeneous diffusion calculations with flux-vol-
ume normalization correspond to a procedure validated
and accepted in France 3 and have been used as refer-
ence results in Ref. 6. It is important to remember that
the SPH factors of Ref. 6 have been obtained with the
APOLLO-1 algorithm, using generalized perturbation
of the diffusion equation. 2 Here, we have used the as-
sembly calculations of Table VI together with the new

TABLE VI
Fine-Group Assembly Calculations

Assembly Merged Critical B2 CPU Time3

Case Eigenvalue Type Volumes Cells (cm"2) koo (s)

A keff Unrodded 45 15 0.0 1.26871 52.0

B B2 Unrodded 45 15 4.496 X 10"3 1.26215 61.0
C B2 Control 107 29 -2.629 X 10"3 0.85617 203.0

"Using an IBM ES-9000 model 720 computer.

 TABLE VII
Heterogeneous Calculations for the Fine-Group Colorsets
Percent Discrepancy on

Pin Absorption
Control Control Rates"
Type of Rodded Rod Worth® Rod
Case Solution Equivalence Pattern k
eff (pcm) Worth Maximum Average

I LAGR Without B,B,B,C 1.15736 11135 17.3 33.0 6.5

II LAGR SPH B,B,B,C 1.17376 9495 =0% 3.6 0.4
III MCFD Without B,B,B,C 1.16708 10163 7.1 15.6 2.7
IV MCFD SPH B,B,B,C 1.17380 9491 Reference
V LAGR Without B,C,B»C 1.02069 24802 21.5 35.7 10.0
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017

VI LAGR SPH B,C,B,C 1.06427 20444 0.2 3.5 0.8

VII MCFD Without B,C,B,C 1.04689 22182 8.7 16.6 3.9
VIII MCFD SPH B,C,B,C 1.06464 20407 Reference

"Relative to assembly calculation A.

b
For thermal neutrons.

algorithm to obtain the SPH factors. In spite of the
small differences between the two sets of calculations,
the control rod worth values given in Table VII are in-
distinguishable from those reported in Ref. 6.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
consists of first solving the homogeneous Bx equations
to obtain fundamental flux <p(k)[B(k),g] and funda-
mental current J(k)[B(k),g] for a critical buckling
[B{k)]2 at outer iteration k. Next, a leakage coefficient
d(k)(g) and a leakage rate T/k)(g) are computed, fol-
lowing the equations:

A second-generation heterogeneous diffusion pro- d(k\s) = 7^17 J

) 2 t y \ (A.1)
<p^[B(k\g]
cedure was implemented and verified on two simple
colorsets formed by the juxtaposition of control and and
unrodded assemblies. This procedure makes use of a
k
simplified iterative strategy for computing the pin-by- r} \g) = d«Hg) [B(k)]2 f d3r^k\r,g) .
pin SPH factors that no longer requires a generalized Vassembly
perturbation of the macro calculation. Numerical results (A.2)
confirm the absolute need for using SPH correction.
The actual SPH procedure is adequate as far as cur- These leakage rates are next introduced in the fine-
rent reactor designs are concerned. Depending on the group flux calculation in the form of a d(g)B2 fictitious
level of heterogeneity in the assembly patterns of fu- cross section. They will be subsequently condensed over
ture reactors, further work may be required to improve each coarse energy group and preserved by the SPH
the accuracy of SPH factor normalization. The idea equivalence procedure. The outer flux iteration is per-
here would be to use a third-generation pin-by-pin SPH formed using the following strategy:
method, similar to the one introduced in Ref. 6, where [ l - p ^ ^ o U ) ] ^ 1
^ )
a surface leakage model is used in replacement of the
(k)
T,s — dB2 model and where the flux-volume normaliza- = p U s ) {Q- (g) ~ dw(g) [*<*>] V*>(g)} ,
tion is replaced with the Selengut normalization. 18 (A.3)
where
APPENDIX
I = identity matrix
THE Ls - dB1 LEAKAGE MODEL [
p (g) = reduced collision probability matrix in
a closed assembly
The E s - dB2 leakage model used in most lattice
codes consists of representing both axial and radial E s o(g) — diagonal matrix containing the within-
leakage rates by a d(g)B2 fictitious cross section uni- group scattering macroscopic cross
formly distributed into the global assembly. This model sections
 <t>ik)(g) = neutron flux vector at outer iteration k
(k)
Q~~ {g) = fission and out-of-group scattering
sources vector.
Equation (A.3) can be rewritten in a form compat-
ible with the numerical analysis techniques used in the
DRAGON lattice code:
(g)
= W(g)lQ~W(g) ~ dw(g) [*<*>] V*>(*)} ,
(A.4)
where
w ( g ) = [I - p ' U J E r f t e M - V t e ) . (A.5)
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 14:01 24 August 2017
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by a grant from the
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of
Canada. The author also wishes to express his thanks to
Dr. Pierre Benoist for his helpful comments.
REFERENCES
1. A. KAVENOKY, "The SPH Homogenization Method,"
Proc. Specialists'Mtg. Homogenization Methods in Reac-
tor Physics, Lugano, Switzerland, November 13-15, 1978,
IAEA-TECDOC-231, p. 181, International Atomic Energy
Agency (1980).
2. A. HEBERT, "Developpement de la methode SPH:
Homogeneisation de cellules dans un reseau non uniforme
et calcul des parametres de reflecteur," CEA-N-2209, Com-
missariat a l'Energie Atomique (1981).
3. C. MARTIN DEL CAMPO, "Contribution a l'elabo-
ration du schema de calcul neutronique des reacteurs £ eau
sous pression," DSc Thesis, University de Paris XI (Jan.
1987).
4. G. B. BRUNA, M. NOBILE, and A. VALLEE, "Trans-
port and Diffusion Infinite Medium Assembly Calculations
of Pin Power Distribution," Proc. Int. Topi Mtg. Advances
in Mathematics, Computations, and Reactor Physics, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, April 28-May 2,1991, Vol. 3, p. 15.13-1,
American Nuclear Society (1991).
5. J. J. LAUTARD, S. LOUBIERE, and C. FEDON-
MAGNAUD, "Three Dimensional Pin by Pin Core Dif-
fusion Calculation," Proc. Int. Topi. Mtg. Advances in
Mathematics, Computations, and Reactor Physics, Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, April 28-May 2,1991, Vol. 2, p. 6.11-1,
American Nuclear Society (1991).
6. A. HEBERT and P. BENOIST, "A Consistent Tech-
nique for the Global Homogenization of a Pressurized Wa-
ter Reactor Assembly," Nucl. Sci. Eng., 109, 360 (1991).
7. J. MONDOT, "Determination de constantes equiva-
lentes pour les calculs de diffusion aux differences finies,"
Proc. Specialists' Mtg. Homogenization Methods in Reac-
tor Physics, Lugano, Switzerland, November 13-15, 1978,
IAEA-TECDOC-231, p. 389, International Atomic Energy
Agency (1980).
8. K. KOEBKE, "A New Approach to Homogenization
and Group Condensation," Proc. Specialists'Mtg. Homog-
enization Methods in Reactor Physics, Lugano, Switzerland,
November 13-15,1978, IAEA-TECDOC-231, p. 303, Inter-
national Atomic Energy Agency (1980).
9. A. F. HENRY, B. A. WORLEY, and A. A. MORSHED,
"Spatial Homogenization of Diffusion Theory Parameters,"
Proc. Specialists' Mtg. Homogenization Methods in Reac-
tor Physics, Lugano, Switzerland, November 13-15, 1978,
IAEA-TECDOC-231, p. 275, International Atomic Energy
Agency (1980).
10. A. HOFFMANN et al., "APOLLO: Code Multigroupe
de resolution de l'equation du transport pour les neutrons
thermiques et rapides," CEA-N-1610, Commissariat a
l'Energie Atomique (1973).
11. A. HUBERT, "Application of the Hermite Method for
Finite Element Reactor Calculations," Nucl. Sci. Eng., 91,
34 (1985).
12. A. HfiBERT, "TRIVAC, A Modular Diffusion Code
for Fuel Management and Design Applications," Nucl. J. of
Canada, 1, 325 (1987).
13. K. KOEBKE, "Advances in Homogenization and De-
homogenization," Proc. Int. Topi. Mtg. Advances in Math-
ematical Methods for the Solution of Nuclear Engineering
Problems, Munich, Federal Republic of Germany, April 27-
29, 1981, Vol. 2, p. 59, Kerntechnische Gesellschaft (1981).
14. E. TANKER and A. F. HENRY, "Finite Difference
Group-Diffusion Theory Parameters That Reproduce Ref-
erence Results," Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 50, 280 (1985).
15. G. MARLEAU and A. HEBERT, "A New Driver for
Collision Probability Transport Codes," Proc. Topi. Mtg.
Advances in Nuclear Engineering Computation and Radia-
tion Shielding, Santa Fe, New Mexico, April 9-13, 1989,
Vol. 1, p. 37:1, American Nuclear Society (1989).
16. R. ROY, "Anisotropic Scattering for Integral Transport
Code. Part 2. Cyclic Tracking and Its Application to x-y Lat-
tices,^"Ann. Nucl. Energy, 18, 511 (1991).
17. A. HUBERT, "Development of the Nodal Collocation
Method for Solving the Neutron Diffusion Equation,'M/w.
Nucl. Energy, 14, 527 (1987).
18. D. S. SELENGUT, "Diffusion Coefficients for Heter-
ogeneous Systems," Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc., 3, 398 (1960).