Development and Application of Structural Method for Uncertainty Evaluation of Constitutive Models

Xiong Qingwen; Gou Junli; Du Peng; Deng Jian; Liu Yu; Chen Wei; Dang Gaojian

doi:10.13832/j.jnpe.2022.04.0147

Volume 43 Issue 4

Aug. 2022

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Nuclear Power Engineering > 2022 > 43(4): 147-153

Xiong Qingwen, Gou Junli, Du Peng, Deng Jian, Liu Yu, Chen Wei, Dang Gaojian. Development and Application of Structural Method for Uncertainty Evaluation of Constitutive Models[J]. Nuclear Power Engineering, 2022, 43(4): 147-153. doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2022.04.0147

Citation:

Xiong Qingwen, Gou Junli, Du Peng, Deng Jian, Liu Yu, Chen Wei, Dang Gaojian. Development and Application of Structural Method for Uncertainty Evaluation of Constitutive Models[J]. Nuclear Power Engineering, 2022, 43(4): 147-153. doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2022.04.0147

Citation:

Xiong Qingwen, Gou Junli, Du Peng, Deng Jian, Liu Yu, Chen Wei, Dang Gaojian. Development and Application of Structural Method for Uncertainty Evaluation of Constitutive Models[J]. Nuclear Power Engineering, 2022, 43(4): 147-153. doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2022.04.0147

PDF( 5775 KB)

Development and Application of Structural Method for Uncertainty Evaluation of Constitutive Models

doi: 10.13832/j.jnpe.2022.04.0147

1.
Science and Technology on Reactor System Design Technology Laboratory, Nuclear Power Institute of China, Chengdu, 610213, China
2.
School of Nuclear Science and Technology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, China

Received Date: 2021-05-31
Rev Recd Date: 2021-07-12
Publish Date: 2022-08-04

Abstract

Abstract

The best estimate plus uncertainty (BEPU) analysis is recommended by IAEA for safety analysis of nuclear power plants, and has become the mainstream method for license application of nuclear power plants. Typical BEPU method relies on the best estimation program to propagate the uncertainties of input parameters to the output, while the uncertainties of the program constitutive model are often not properly considered. In this study, a structural method is proposed to evaluate the uncertainties of program constitutive model. Based on this method, constitutive models are classified according to characteristics, and different evaluation methods are adopted for different model types. The model evaluation methods used in this study include the non-parametric curve estimation method in the forward method and the Bayesian calibration method and coverage calibration method in the reverse method, as well as alternative model construction methods. The structural method is used to quantify the uncertainties of important models in LOCA, and the quantified model uncertainties are transmitted to the peak cladding temperature through sampling calculation. The results show that both the sampling calculation values and the experimental values are smaller than the conservative calculation value, and the propagation calculation results after considering the model uncertainties can well cover the experimental values, and the safety margins can be effectively increased after considering the model uncertainties.
- Constitutive model,
- Structural method,
- Non-parametric curve estimation,
- Bayesian calibration,
- Uncertainty quantification

FullText(HTML)

References(13)

References

[1]	单建强, 廖承奎, 苟军利, 等. 压水堆核电厂瞬态安全数值分析方法[M]. 西安: 西安交通大学出版社, 2016: 24-28.
[2]	FLETCHER C D, Schultz R R. RELAP5/MOD3 code manual: DC 20555[R]. United State: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1992: 4-6.
[3]	BAJOREK S. TRACE V5.0 theory manual, field equations, solution methods and physical models: DC 20555-0001[R]. Washington, DC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2008:7-9.
[4]	GEFFRAYE G, ANTONI O, FARVACQUE M, et al. CATHARE 2 V2.5_2: a single version for various applications[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2011, 241(11): 4456-4463. doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.09.019
[5]	TESCHENDORFF V, AUSTREGESILO H, LERCHL G. Methodology, status and plans for development and assessment of the code ATHLET: NUREG/CP-0159[R]. Washington, DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1997: 7-8.
[6]	BOYACK B, DUFFEY R, WILSON G, et al. Quantifying reactor safety margins: Application of code scaling, applicability, and uncertainty evaluation methodology to a large-break, loss-of-coolant accident: NUREG/CR-5249[R]. United State: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1989: 3-5.
[7]	D'AURIA F S, DUSIC M, DUTTON L M, et al. Deterministic safety analysis for nuclear power plants[Z]. IAEA Specific Safety Guide SSG-2, 2009: 5-7.
[8]	ZHANG J Z, DETHIOUX A, KOVTONYUK A, et al. Development of a pragmatic approach to model input uncertainty quantification for BEPU applications[J]. Nuclear Technology, 2019, 205(1-2): 140-152. doi: 10.1080/00295450.2018.1516055
[9]	VINAI P, MACIAN-JUAN R, CHAWLA R. A statistical methodology for quantification of uncertainty in best estimate code physical models[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2007, 34(8): 628-640. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2007.03.003
[10]	李冬. 最佳估算模型的不确定性量化方法研究及再淹没模型评估的应用[D]. 上海: 上海交通大学, 2017: 6-12.
[11]	JIN R, CHEN W, SIMPSON T W. Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria[J]. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2001, 23(1): 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s00158-001-0160-4
[12]	GILKS W R, RICHARDSON S, SPIEGELHALTER D. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice[M]. Cambridge: Chapman and Hall, 1995: 21-54.
[13]	FELL J, MODRO S M. An account of the OECD LOFT project: OECD/LOFT-T-3907[R]. U. S. Department of Energy, 1990: 11-13.