InternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015www.ijnese.

org
doi:10.14355/ijnese.2015.05.003

Analysisofthe2DC5G7MOXBenchmark
withVISWAMCode
ArvindMathur*1,SuneetSingh1,SuhailAhmadKhan2,V.Jagannathan3
DepartmentofEnergyScienceandEngineering,IndianInstituteofTechnology,Bombay,Powai,Mumbai400076,
INDIA
1

ReactorProjectsDivision,BhabhaAtomicResearchCentre,Mumbai400085,INDIA

ReactorPhysicsDesignDivision,BhabhaAtomicResearchCentre,Mumbai400085,INDIA(Retired)

*1akmathur@iitb.ac.in

Abstract
The Indian nuclear power programme is being augmented with a variety of imported light water reactors (LWRs). Close
interaction between the national labs, plant operators and educational institutions is required to meet the human resource
requirementsofthisprogram.AneutronicscodeVISWAMforphysicsanalysisofcurrentandfuturepowerreactorsisbeing
developedasapartoftheabovelongtermgoal.Theoverallplanistodevelopalatticecodeforgeneratingfewgroupcross
sections and a diffusion theory based few group core solver for steady state and transient core calculations. As a first step
towards this goal, we have taken up the development of a lattice burnup code. Initially, we used a combination of 1D
multigroup transport for pincell and supercell calculations and 2D fewgroup diffusion theory for assembly calculations.
Althoughthismethodwasfastandreasonablyaccurateforsimplefuelassemblydesigns,wefoundthatthepowerdistribution
errors were large in the vicinity of strong absorbers like burnable poison and control rod pins. We improved the solution
methodbyusingthe2Dcollisionprobability(CP)methodforcalculatingthefluxesineachregionandcurrentsateachsurface
ofacell.AdjacentcellsarecoupledusinginterfacecurrentsatcellboundarieswithdoubleP2(DP2)expansionofangularflux.
Theadvantageofthismethodisthatitcanbeenextendedfor2Dfullcoresolutionoftheneutrontransportequationwithout
spatialhomogenization.WetestedthiscodeusingtheOECD/NEA2DC5G7MOXfuelassemblybenchmark.Theeigenvalue
forthecorecalculationlieswithin0.05%ofthereferenceresult.Theaveragepowerdistributionerrorislessthan1.0%.
Keywords
IntegralTransportTheory;2DCollisionProbability;InterfaceCurrent;C5G7MOXBenchmark

Introduction
AneutronicscodesystemVISWAMforphysicsanalysisofcurrentandfuturepowerreactorsisbeingdevelopedas
aresearchandteachingtool.Theoverallplanistodevelopalatticecodeforgeneratingfewgroupcrosssections
andadiffusiontheorybasedfewgroupcoresolverforsteadystateandtransientcorecalculations.Wehavestarted
with the development of a lattice burnup code. In the first version of the code, the solution method used a
combination of 1D multigroup transport and 2D fewgroup diffusion theory for assembly calculations. This
methodwasfastandreasonablyaccurateforsimplefuelassemblydesigns.WetestedthecodeusingtheLEUand
MOXbenchmarkproblemsproposedbyYamamotoet.al.[13]andnotedthatthepowerdistributionerrorswere
largeinthevicinityofstrongabsorberslikeburnablepoisonandcontrolrodpins[4].Wethereforeimprovedthe
lattice solution method by adopting a 2D collision probability (CP) method for calculating the fluxes in each
region and currents at each surface of the cell. Adjacent cells were coupled using interface currents at cell
boundaries with double P2 (DP2) expansion of angular flux. The DRAGON code has an option for using this
methodwithdoubleP1(DP1)expansion[5].IntheCOHINTcode[6]thetransportequationissolvedbyinterface
currentmethodinXYgeometrywithafourtermexpansionofangularflux.Thecircularfuelrodismodeledas
square. In the VISWAM model, the geometry is treated exactly and six term expansion of angular flux is
considered.
In Section 2, we will briefly cover the equations and methods implemented in this code. With improvements in
storageandcomputingcapabilities,itisnowfeasibletoattemptadirectsolutionofthetransportsolutionforacore
problem. We validated the VISWAM code using the OECD/NEA 2D C5G7 MOX fuel assembly benchmark [7].

19

www.ijnese.orgInternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015

Thisbenchmarkproblemteststheabilityofdeterministictransportmethodsandcodestotreatreactorcore
problemswithoutspatialhomogenization.Largeleakageratesandsteepfluxgradientsatthecorereflectorand
UO2MOXinterfacesmakethisachallengingproblemtomodel.Section3hasabriefdescriptionofthisbenchmark
problemandsection4containstheresultsoftheanalysis.
Theory
The VISWAM code solves the integral form of transport equation by the collision probability (CP) method. We
dividethetotalproblemdomainintocellswhicharecoupledbyinterfacecurrents.Eachcellisfurthersubdivided
intoregions.Weassumefluxesandcrosssectionsareconstantineachregion.Wediscretisetheexternalboundary
ofacellintoNSsurfacesofareaS.Tomodelanisotropiceffects,theangularfluxoneachsurfaceisapproximatedby
aseriesexpansionintermsofhalfrangesphericalharmonics[810]

.(1)

where is the number of terms retained in the expansion, are the expansion coefficients and
orthonormalfunctions.Wehaveusedthefollowingfunctionsforexpansionofangularflux:
,

,
,

32 sin cos
sin

306 sin
,

1.(2)

2 sin sin (3)

,
,

are the

sin cos
sin

sin

cos

(4)
(5)

sin cos

sin

sin sin

(6)
(7)

where istheanglebetweenneutrontrackingdirectionandpolaraxis,and istheanglewhichprojectionofthe

neutrondirectionon2Dplanemakeswiththeoutward(+)orinward()normaltosurface .Thefirstfunction(Eq.
2)correspondstotheP0expansion,thefirstthreefunctions(Eq.2to4)correspondtotheP1expansionandallsix
functions(Eq.2to7)constitutetheP2expansion.Hereon,resultsusingP0andP1expansionwillbereferredtoas
DP0andDP1respectively.Resultsusinguptothefourth,fifthorsixthtermsoftheP2expansionwillbereferredas
DP21,DP22andDP23respectively.
The spatially averaged fluxes and partial currents as and J, in region j and surface of a cell are calculated
usingthefollowingequations[11](groupindexgisomittedforsimplicity)

,
,

.(8)

.(9)

where,
qiisthetotalsourceinregioni
isthelengthofsurface
is the probability ofa neutron emitted uniformlyand isotropicallyin region i and having its first collision in
regionj
istheprobabilityofneutronenteringthroughsurfaceinmodeandhavingfirstcollisioninregionj.
istheprobabilitythatneutronsemitteduniformlyandisotropicallyinregioniwillescapethroughsurfacein
mode
is the probability that neutrons entering through surface in mode will exit through surface in mode
withoutmakingacollision.

20

InternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015www.ijnese.org

Theequationsforcalculatingtheprobabilitiesaredescribedindetailinreferences[9;12].
Themultigrouptransportequationstobesolvedinacellcontaining regionsformalinearsystem.Thesolution
methoddescribedin[11]hasbeenadopted.InthetwolinearequationsdefinedbyEqs.(8)and(9),thesource ,
writtenintermsofgroupsourceandselfscatteringsource,isgivenby

.(10)

.(11)

Thegroupsource isdefinedas

Wedefinethevectorsforcollisionrate,

.(12)

thepartialcurrents,

.(13)

, . (14)

.(15)

andthesource.

Thesource givenby(11)canbewritteninthevectorformas
q=Cf+s.(16)
whereCisadiagonalmatrixdefinedby
.(17)
ThusEqs.(3)&(4),canbewritteninthematrixformas

.(18)

.(19)

where we have defined as the matrix of region to region, as the matrix of surface to region, as the
matrix of region to surface and as the matrix of surface to surface collision probabilities respectively. The
boundaryconditionusedhereisintheformofarelationbetweentheaverageoutgoingangularfluxonsurface
andtheaverageincomingangularfluxonsurface .Inmatrixformthiscanbewrittenas
J

A J (20)

SoEq.(19)takestheform
J

AP

P q.(21)

Eqs. (18) & (21) are iteratively solved using the conventional innerouter iteration scheme to calculate partial
currentsacrossthesurfacesandcollisionratesineachregion.
Benchmark Description
The OECD/NEA C5G7 MOX assembly benchmark problem [7] was proposed to test the ability of modern
deterministic transport methods and codes to treat reactor core problems without spatial homogenization. The
assemblyandcoreconfigurationisshowninFigs.13.Vacuumboundaryconditionsareappliedtotherightandto
thebottomboundarieswhilereflectiveboundaryconditionsareappliedtothetopandleftboundaries.Theoverall
dimensionsofthetwodimensionalconfigurationasshownare64.26x64.26cm,whileeachassemblyis21.42x21.42
cm.Eachfuelassemblyismadeupofa17x17latticeofsquarecells.Thelengthofthesideofthecellis1.26cmand
all of the fuel pins and guide tubes have a radius of 0.54 cm. Seven group cross sections, inclusive of transport

21

www.ijnese.orgInternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015

corrected isotropic scattering cross sections, have been prescribed for UO2, the three enrichments of MOX, the
guidetubesandfissionchambers,andthemoderatorintheproblemspecifications.

FIGURE1LEUASSEMBLYFIGURE2MOXASSEMBLY

FIGURE3CORECONFIGURATION

Results
Thediscretisationschemeusedforthe2DCPanalysisofeachuniquepincellintheUO2andMOXassembliesis
shown in Fig.4. The combinedfuelclad regionof each pincell was divided into threeannular meshes while the
coolantwasdividedinto20regionsasshowninthefigure.Itisseenthatthecoolantregionshavethreeconcentric
arcregionsandtwooddshapedouterregionswithstraightandcurvedsurfacesoneachofthefoursidesofthe
squarecell.Thismethodofdiscretizationisneededtotakecareofthestrongazimuthalvariationsoftheangular
fluxbetweenLEUandMOXFAsandnearreflectorregions.Thesurroundingreflectorregionwasmodeledasthin
rectangularmeshes.Thelengthoftherectangularmeshisthesameasthesideofthesquarepincellmeshandthe
widthis1/10thofthelength.Thefinegridinthereflectorregionisrequiredtoreproducethesteepfluxgradientin
thecorereflectorinterface.Theraytracingwasdonein16azimuthalanglesandarayseparationof0.01cm.
The results of VISWAM analysis of the C5G7 benchmark are comparable or better in accuracy to the other CP
codeswhoseresultsaresummarizedinReference12.Inthispaper,wehavecomparedtheresultsoftheVISWAM
analysiswiththereferenceMCNPsolution[13].TheVISWAManalysishasbeendonefordifferentexpansionsof
theangularfluxatcellboundariesstartingfromDP0whereonlyonetermwasconsideredtoDP23andwhereall
sixtermswereconsidered.TheresultsoftheDP0model(isotropicincomingfluxapproximation)showverylarge
errorsasexpectedinaproblemofthisnature.Forcompleteness,theseresultsarealsopresented.

22

InternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015www.ijnese.org

FIGURE4FUELPINMESHDISCRETISATION

Table1showstheeigenvaluecomparisonofthedifferentcases.ExceptfortheDP0case,alltheresultsarewithin
0.05%.
TABLE1EIGENVALUECOMPARISON

Eigenvalue

Percenterror

Reference

1.18655

DP0

1.23647

4.21

DP1

1.18642

0.01

DP21

1.18663

0.007

DP22

1.18652

0.003

DP23

1.18716

0.05

Table 2 shows the comparison of maximum and minimum pin power and Table 3 shows the comparison of
integralassemblypower.TheresultsoftheCOHINTcodearealsoshown.Theerrorsinmaximumpinpowerand
assembly power calculated by VISWAM are very small. However the minimum pin power is overpredicted by
about7%.Table4hasthreedifferentmeasuresofpinpowererror,averageerror(AVG),rootmeansquareerror
(RMS)andmeanabsoluteerror(MAE).Asexpected,theerrorsareveryhighfortheDP0caseanditreduceswhen
more terms of the angular flux expansion are considered. The main difference between the VISWAM and the
COHINTmodelsliesinthegeometrytreatmentoffuelpins.ThecircularrepresentationofpincellsinVISWAM
hasresultedinsignificantreductionoferrorbothatassemblyandatpinlevel.
TABLE2.MAXIMUMANDMINIMUMPINPOWER

Max.pinpower

Percenterror

Min.pinpower

Percenterror

Reference

2.498

+/0.16

0.232

+/0.58

Max.percenterror

COHINT

2.395

4.11

0.250

8.11

11.36

DP0

2.984

19.47

0.152

34.39

34.39

DP1

2.506

0.34

0.249

7.37

7.37

DP21

2.505

0.28

0.248

7.23

7.23

DP22

2.501

0.14

0.248

7.18

7.18

DP23

2.512

0.57

0.248

6.97

6.97

TABLE3.ASSEMBLYPOWERPERCENTERRORS

InnerUO2

Percenterror

MOX

Percenterror

OuterUO2

Percenterror

Ref.

492.8

211.7

139.8

COHINT

486.8

1.22

213.8

0.97

141.7

1.36

DP0

556.1

12.84

191.5

9.53

116.9

16.4
0.11

DP1

491.6

0.24

212.2

0.25

139.9

DP21

491.6

0.24

212.2

0.25

139.8

0.0

DP22

491.1

0.34

212.4

0.33

140.0

0.19

DP23

492.4

0.08

211.9

0.11

139.7

0.04

23

www.ijnese.orgInternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015

TABLE4.PINPOWERDISTRIBUTIONERRORMEASURES

AVG

RMS

MAE

Reference

0.32

0.34

0.27

COHINT

2.66

3.58

2.34

DP0

13.95

16.29

12.24

DP1

1.02

1.49

0.82

DP21

1.00

1.48

0.79

DP22

1.02

1.51

0.81

DP23

0.95

1.37

0.78

Tables 5 is a tally of the number of fuel pin power predictions that were within the 68%, 90%, 98%, and 99.8%
confidenceintervalsoftheMonteCarloreferencesolution.TableVIindicatesthepercentageofthefuelpinsthat
VISWAMpredictswithinthelevelsofprecisionofthereferencesolution.
TABLE5.NO.OFFUELPINSWITHINREFERENCECONFIDENCEINTERVALS

68%

90%

98%

DP0

10

13

99.8%
21

DP1

120

190

269

349

DP21

141

228

298

377

DP22

144

213

300

379

DP23

155

243

316

394

TABLE6.PERCENTAGEOFFUELPINSWITHINREFERENCECONFIDENCEINTERVALS

68%

90%

98%

99.8%

DP0

0.04

0.09

1.2

1.9

DP1

11.4

18.0

25.5

33.0

DP21

13.4

21.6

28.2

35.7

DP22

13.6

20.2

28.4

35.9

DP23

14.7

23.0

29.9

37.3

Figs.57showthepowerdistributionandpinpowererrorsfortheinnerUO2assembly,outerUO2assemblyand
MOX assembly respectively using DP23 model. The pin powers at the core periphery are overpredicted. The
errors are the highest in the outermost layer of the outerUO2 assembly which has the reflector on two surfaces.
Finerdiscretizationdidnotsignificantlymitigatethiserror.
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

2.25

2.25

2.26

2.27

2.27

2.26

2.22

2.18

2.14

2.07

2.01

1.96

1.86

1.76

1.63

1.48

1.28

2.26

2.28

2.31

2.33

2.40

2.28

2.23

2.26

2.13

2.07

2.07

1.92

1.79

1.65

1.49

1.28

2.35

2.47

2.49

2.40

2.34

2.24

2.17

2.05

1.92

1.70

1.50

1.28

2.51

2.47

2.31

2.26

2.29

2.15

2.10

2.13

2.06

1.79

1.53

1.28

2.42

2.44

2.29

2.24

2.28

2.14

2.08

2.11

1.99

1.95

1.81

1.54

1.29

2.35

2.30

2.20

2.14

2.01

1.92

1.59

1.29

2.23

2.18

2.22

2.09

2.03

2.04

1.89

1.80

1.75

1.51

1.27

2.14

2.18

2.05

1.99

2.00

1.86

1.76

1.71

1.49

1.25

2.09

2.03

1.89

1.80

1.52

1.24

1.96

1.91

1.92

1.78

1.69

1.65

1.43

1.20

10

1.86

1.87

1.74

1.66

1.61

1.40

1.18

11

1.77

1.69

1.42

1.15

12

1.67

1.64

1.54

1.32

1.11

13

1.45

1.25

1.06

14

1.30

1.16

1.00

15

1.07

FIGURE5A.INNERUO2ASSEMBLYNORMALISEDPINPOWER(DP23MODEL)

24

0.94

16

0.87

17

InternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015www.ijnese.org

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

2.32

2.24

2.06

1.93

1.68

1.65

1.55

1.28

0.94

0.96

0.84

0.62

0.54

0.32

0.07

0.04

0.49

2.28

1.98

1.81

1.40

1.10

1.00

0.81

0.53

0.48

0.24

0.01

0.06

0.06

0.25

0.33

0.45

1.46

1.07

0.63

0.56

0.38

0.09

0.15

0.61

0.64

0.70

0.51

0.45

0.57

0.62

0.68

0.66

0.00

0.15

0.02

0.52

0.88

1.05

0.90

0.59

0.68

0.51

0.67

0.59

0.12

0.14

0.08

0.55

0.68

1.12

1.32

1.10

0.57

0.43

0.20

0.21

0.54

0.86

1.19

1.34

0.55

0.57

0.52

0.07

0.09

0.03

0.54

0.41

0.74

1.12

1.04

0.67

0.23

0.18

0.06

0.13

0.58

0.47

0.69

1.13

1.12

0.51

0.46

0.49

0.68

0.98

1.38

0.77

0.23

0.43

0.84

0.68

0.77

1.40

1.27

0.76

10

0.45

0.99

0.72

0.91

1.39

1.33

0.82

11

1.24

1.55

1.59

1.17

12

1.27

1.59

1.82

1.53

0.99

13

1.78

1.20

0.86

14

1.51

1.11

1.03

15

1.25

1.03

16

0.93

17

FIGURE5B.INNERUO2ASSEMBLYPINPOWERERROR
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

0.79

0.78

0.76

0.74

0.72

0.69

0.65

0.62

0.58

0.54

0.50

0.47

0.43

0.40

0.38

0.40

0.51

18

0.82

0.82

0.81

0.80

0.79

0.73

0.69

0.67

0.60

0.56

0.54

0.48

0.44

0.42

0.44

0.54

19

0.85

0.88

0.87

0.79

0.74

0.65

0.61

0.53

0.49

0.44

0.45

0.54

20

0.87

0.84

0.76

0.71

0.70

0.63

0.59

0.58

0.54

0.47

0.46

0.54

21

0.83

0.81

0.74

0.70

0.68

0.62

0.58

0.56

0.51

0.49

0.47

0.45

0.53

22

0.74

0.70

0.62

0.58

0.51

0.47

0.45

0.52

23

0.68

0.65

0.64

0.58

0.54

0.52

0.47

0.44

0.43

0.42

0.50

24

0.62

0.61

0.55

0.51

0.49

0.44

0.41

0.41

0.40

0.47

25

0.54

0.50

0.44

0.41

0.39

0.45

26

0.49

0.46

0.44

0.40

0.37

0.37

0.36

0.42

27

0.43

0.41

0.37

0.35

0.34

0.34

0.40

28

0.36

0.34

0.33

0.37

29

0.33

0.32

0.30

0.29

0.34

30

0.28

0.27

0.31

31

0.25

0.25

0.29

32

0.25

0.28

33

0.30

34

FIGURE6A.OUTERUO2ASSEMBLYNORMALISEDPINPOWER(DP23MODEL)
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

0.94

0.99

1.13

1.08

1.24

1.28

1.23

1.10

0.95

0.78

0.71

0.78

0.38

0.50

1.25

2.63

2.10

18

1.24

1.35

1.69

1.76

1.64

1.61

1.44

1.55

1.34

1.65

1.15

0.58

0.04

1.34

2.62

1.76

19

1.84

2.11

2.21

1.58

1.69

1.44

1.56

1.02

0.42

0.94

2.68

1.63

20

1.88

1.76

1.23

1.09

1.23

1.07

0.87

1.13

1.05

0.88

2.58

1.83

21

1.57

1.34

1.21

1.20

0.99

0.70

0.74

1.08

0.57

0.27

0.82

2.14

2.30

22

1.17

1.40

0.82

0.78

0.31

0.14

1.95

1.59

23

0.83

0.74

0.90

0.51

0.03

0.53

0.06

0.83

1.37

2.47

2.11

24

0.73

0.69

0.46

0.19

0.50

0.35

0.55

1.30

2.53

2.39

25

0.50

0.56

0.21

0.44

2.39

2.43

26

0.11

0.13

0.13

0.79

1.31

1.82

2.97

2.83

27

0.37

0.17

0.85

1.47

2.38

3.21

3.03

28

1.18

1.58

3.38

3.10

29

1.79

2.23

3.16

3.95

3.77

30

3.63

4.51

4.21

31

4.24

5.29

5.08

32

6.97

6.07

33

5.59

34

FIGURE6B.OUTERUO2ASSEMBLYPINPOWERERROR

25

www.ijnese.orgInternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

1.30

1.06

0.93

0.86

0.81

0.76

0.71

0.66

0.62

0.57

0.52

0.48

0.44

0.40

0.38

0.41

0.59

1.29

1.35

1.17

1.09

1.04

1.04

0.91

0.84

0.83

0.72

0.67

0.65

0.56

0.51

0.47

0.52

0.58

1.29

1.33

1.18

1.17

1.11

0.94

0.86

0.75

0.69

0.60

0.54

0.48

0.52

0.58

1.29

1.34

1.26

1.10

1.12

0.95

0.88

0.87

0.76

0.70

0.70

0.58

0.52

0.52

0.58

1.29

1.36

1.28

1.17

1.13

1.08

0.93

0.85

0.85

0.74

0.68

0.68

0.61

0.54

0.52

0.53

0.59

1.29

1.43

1.28

1.14

0.98

0.90

0.78

0.71

0.62

0.58

0.56

0.59

1.27

1.33

1.23

1.15

1.04

1.04

0.90

0.83

0.83

0.72

0.66

0.65

0.56

0.53

0.50

0.53

0.59

1.25

1.31

1.20

1.12

1.02

1.02

0.88

0.82

0.82

0.71

0.65

0.64

0.55

0.52

0.49

0.52

0.58

1.24

1.36

1.19

1.07

0.94

0.87

0.76

0.69

0.59

0.55

0.55

0.58

1.21

1.27

1.17

1.09

0.99

0.99

0.86

0.80

0.80

0.69

0.64

0.63

0.54

0.51

0.48

0.51

0.57

10

1.18

1.24

1.15

1.07

0.98

0.97

0.85

0.79

0.79

0.68

0.63

0.62

0.54

0.51

0.48

0.51

0.57

11

1.16

1.29

1.16

1.04

0.90

0.83

0.73

0.67

0.58

0.55

0.53

0.56

12

1.12

1.19

1.13

1.03

1.01

0.97

0.83

0.77

0.77

0.67

0.62

0.62

0.56

0.50

0.49

0.50

0.56

13

1.07

1.13

1.08

0.96

0.98

0.84

0.78

0.78

0.68

0.63

0.63

0.53

0.48

0.49

0.55

14

1.03

1.09

0.99

1.00

0.95

0.83

0.76

0.67

0.62

0.55

0.50

0.44

0.48

0.54

15

1.00

1.10

0.99

0.95

0.92

0.92

0.82

0.77

0.76

0.67

0.62

0.61

0.53

0.48

0.46

0.50

0.55

16

1.01

0.91

0.85

0.82

0.78

0.75

0.71

0.67

0.63

0.58

0.54

0.51

0.46

0.43

0.41

0.44

0.59

17

32
0.39
0.62
0.44
0.76
0.01

1.90
2.13

2.43
2.29

1.80
2.33
2.64
3.58
2.73

33
1.10
0.67
1.77
2.13
2.15
2.57
2.68
2.50
3.17
3.50
3.53
3.44
3.87
4.26
4.94
5.07
3.38

34
2.28
1.57
0.95
0.77
0.03
0.12
1.09
1.29
1.58
1.96
1.99
1.95
2.60
2.65
3.17
2.67
2.31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

FIGURE7A.MOXASSEMBLYNORMALISEDPINPOWER(DP23MODEL)
18
0.72
0.42
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.26
0.02
0.13
0.55
0.27
0.07
0.09
0.22
0.71

19
0.37
0.14
0.79
0.58
0.24
0.26
0.16
0.14
0.30
0.15
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.73
0.78
0.92
0.33

20
0.55
0.16
0.18
0.09
0.35

0.19
0.36

0.34
0.17

0.39
0.44
0.47
0.89
0.04

21
0.51
0.15
0.34

0.59
0.15
0.02
0.03
0.21
0.04
0.22
0.16
0.85

0.05
0.40
0.36

22
0.82
0.98
1.40
1.12
0.80
0.06
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.98
0.87
0.91
0.06
0.34

23
0.66
0.92

0.41
0.20

0.16
0.18

0.02
0.20

0.09
0.27

0.08
0.32

24
0.54
1.23
0.44
0.66
0.16
0.08
0.35
0.62
0.33
0.40
0.11
0.15
0.17
0.09
0.14
0.03
0.03

25
0.82
1.17
0.83
0.52
0.32
0.32
0.25
0.27
0.65
0.35
0.17
0.00
0.13
0.30
0.34
0.04
0.03

26
0.88
0.97

0.68
0.45

0.34
0.31

0.33
0.18

0.22
0.49

0.15
0.15

27
0.67
1.16
0.62
0.53
0.37
0.33
0.83
0.47
0.18
0.67
0.03
0.16
0.25
0.39
0.39
0.12
0.16

28
0.92
0.93
0.45
0.20
0.04
0.07
0.27
0.30
0.32
0.22
0.04
0.06
0.23
0.27
0.50
0.38
0.28

29
0.71
0.84

0.15
0.25

0.04
0.05

0.23
0.30

0.18
0.16

0.55
0.11

30
0.45
0.99
0.93
1.08
0.78
0.30
0.02
0.44
0.36
0.29
0.53
0.41
0.33
0.24
0.10
0.51
0.35

31
0.35
0.12
0.06

0.23
0.61
0.85
0.83
1.17
1.29
1.25
1.38
0.36

1.66
2.04
1.25

FIGURE7B.MOXASSEMBLYPINPOWERERROR

Conclusion
The combination of collision probability and interface current techniques has been used for solving the neutron
transport equation in fuel assemblies and generating homogenized few group cross sections. We have extended
thissametechniquetoanalyzea2Dcoreproblemwithoutspatialhomogenization.Higherorderexpansionsofthe
angular flux at cell interfaces were used to model the anisotropic effects. The VISWAM code could accurately
predictintegralquantitiessuchaseigenvalueandassemblypowers.Thepinpowersatthecoreperipheryareover
predicted.ThereisasharpreductioninpinpowererrorswhengoingfromDP0expansiontoDP1expansion.The
DP2 results show a small improvement over DP1 results. Therefore it is unlikely that higher order expansion
functions,likeP3,willgivesignificantlybetterresults.OneoftheadvantagesoftheCPmethodisthatthecurved
surfacessuchascircularfuelpinscanbemodeledexactly.InCartesiangeometry,thestaircaseapproximationis
requiredtomodelcurvedsurfaces.ComparisonofCOHINTandVISWAMresultsbringouttheimprovementin
accuracy achieved by exact modeling of fuel pin geometry and considering all six terms of DP2 expansion of
angularflux.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank Shri K. N. Vyas for encouraging the work and Dr. P. Mohanakrishnan for his guidance and
suggestions.ThefirstauthorthanksDrM.A.SmithofArgonneNationalLabforsharingthereferencesolutionfor
theC5G7benchmark.

26

InternationalJournalofNuclearEnergyScienceandEngineering(IJNESE)Volume5,2015www.ijnese.org

REFERENCES

[1]

Yamamoto A., Ikehara T., Ito T., Saji E., Benchmark Problem Suite for Reactor Physics Study of LWR Next Generation
Fuels,J.Nucl.Sci.&Tech.,39,900(2002).

[2]

Mathur Arvind, Khan Suhail Ahmad, Jagannathan V., Thilagam L., Mohapatra D.K., Validation of VISWAM square
latticemodulewithMOXpincellbenchmark,BARCReportBARC/2013/I/009(2013).

[3]

KhanSuhailAhmad,MathurArvind,JagannathanV,ThilagamL.,MohapatraD.K.,AnalysisofLEUpincellbenchmark
usingVISWAMcodesystem,BARCReportBARC/2013/I/010(2013).

[4]

Khan Suhail Ahmad, Mathur Arvind, Jagannathan V, Incorporation of Interface Current Method Based on 2D CP
ApproachinVISWAMCodeSystemforHexagonalGeometry,BARCreportBARC/2015/E/012(2015).

[5]

MarleauG.,DragonTheoryManualPart1:CollisionProbabilityCalculations,IGE236colePolytechniquedeMontral
(2001)

[6]

MohanakrishnanP.,AnalysisOfNEAC5MOXBenchmarkwithComputerCodeCOHINTbasedOnInterfaceCurrent
Approach,,Prog.Nucl.Energ.,45(24),125(2004).

[7]

Lewis,E.E.,Smith,M.A.,Tsoulfanidis,N.,Palmiotti,G.,Taiwo,T.A.,andBlomquist,R.N.,Benchmarkspecification
forDeterministic2D/3DMOXfuelassemblytransportcalculationswithoutspatialhomogenisation(C5G7MOX),
OECD/NEAdocument,Finalspecification,NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)4,March2001.

[8]

Sanchez R., Approximate Solutions of the TwoDimensional Integral Transport Equation by Collision Probability
Methods,Nucl.Sci.Eng,64,384(1987).

[9]

Krishnani P. D., Analysis of 2D LWR benchmarks with an interface current method for solving the integral transport
equation,Ann.Nucl.Energy,14,463(1987)

[10] Mohanakrishnan P.,Choice of angular current approximations for solving the neutron transport problems in 2D by
interfacecurrentapproach,Ann.Nucl.Energy,9,261(1982)
[11] LewisE.E.andMillerW.F.Jr.,ComputationalMethodsofNeutronTransport,JohnWiley&SonsInc,NewYork,(1984)
[12] Smith,M.A.,Lewis,E.E.,ByungChanNa,BenchmarkonDeterministic2DMOXFuelAssemblyTransportCalculations
withoutSpatialHomogenization,Prog.Nucl.Energ.,45(24),107(2004).
[13] Smith,M.A.,Privatecommunication.

27