COUPLED MC21 AND COBRA-IE SOLUTION TO VERA CORE PHYSICS

BENCHMARK PROBLEM #6
Brian N. Aviles1, Daniel J. Kelly1, David L. Aumiller2, Daniel F. Gill2, Brett W. Siebert1
Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation
1
Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, Schenectady, New York, USA
2
Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, West Mifflin, Pennsylvania, USA
brian.aviles@unnpp.gov
daniel.kelly@unnpp.gov
david.aumiller@unnpp.gov
daniel.gill@unnpp.gov
brett.siebert@unnpp.gov
Andrew T. Godfrey, Benjamin S. Collins, Robert K. Salko
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
1 Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA
godfreyat@ornl.gov
collinsbs@ornl.gov
salkork@ornl.gov
ABSTRACT
VERA core physics benchmark problem #6, 3D Hot Full Power (HFP) Assembly, from the
Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) was simulated using
the MC21 continuous energy Monte Carlo code coupled with the COBRA-IE subchannel
thermal-hydraulics code using the R5EXEC coupling framework. Upon convergence, MC21
computed an eigenvalue of 1.16431 2.9E-05, and eigenvalue, local pin power, and thermal-hydraulic parameters were compared to results from CASLs MPACT/COBRA-TF (CTF)
code.
Key Words: MC21, Monte Carlo, COBRA-IE, MPACT, CTF, Multiphysics

1. INTRODUCTION
The CASL VERA Core Physics Benchmark Progression Problems [1] are designed to aid multiphysics researchers with a set of single reactor physics and coupled reactor physics / thermal-hydraulics problems of increasing complexity. Problem #6 is a single Westinghouse 17x17-type
fuel assembly at beginning-of-life (BOL) and hot full power (HFP) conditions based on Watts Bar
Nuclear 1 (WBN1) initial core loading. The purpose of Problem #6 is to demonstrate that coupled
reactor physics and thermal-hydraulics can be iterated to convergence. To date, coupled solutions
based on deterministic neutron transport and thermal-hydraulics subchannel codes have been published [2], but a coupled Monte Carlo / thermal-hydraulics subchannel code solution has not yet been
published. MC21 [3] and COBRA-IE [4] coupling via R5EXEC [5] (formerly known as PVMEXEC)
has been described previously [6] as have running strategies for performing coupled Monte Carlo /

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

243

thermal-hydraulics analyses [7]. This research utilizes these tactics and submits a high-fidelity
MC21/COBRA-IE solution for Benchmark Problem #6 and compares results with MPACT/CTF
results provided by the ORNL co-authors. MPACT/CTF is one of the available reactor physics /
thermal-hydraulics solvers in the VERA code system [8].
2. MC21/COBRA-IE MODEL DESCRIPTION
Full specifications for Problem #6 are given in [1]. Because of symmetry, a -assembly radial model
is employed. There are 49 axial mesh regions in the active core. All fuel pins and water subchannels
are modeled explicitly, and each guide tube is modeled as an unheated cylinder with water flowing
inside. The center instrument tube in the specification is modeled as a guide tube to be consistent with
the MPACT/CTF model. In the MC21/COBRA-IE model, heat transfer through guide tube walls is
allowed to heat the water flowing in the guide tubes. This is not present in the MPACT/CTF model,
and a sensitivity to this assumption is performed with MC21/COBRA-IE.
ENDF/B-VII.1 is used for the MC21 cross section library and contains 55 beginning-of-cycle nuclides. Non-water materials have cross sections ranging from 500K to 1600K in 50K increments up to
900K and 100K increments thereafter. Water cross sections range from 500K to 650K at 10K intervals.
The COBRA-IE model contains 72 fuel rods, 81 fuel subchannels, and nine channels representing
flow within the guide tubes. From the Problem #6 specification, 9% of the total flow accounts for
bypass flow. Of this, one third is assumed to flow through the guide tubes, resulting in 1.56196 lbm/s
flowing through all guide tube channels in this -assembly model. Other input parameters for
COBRA-IE were selected to be similar to CTF to minimize differences between the thermal-hydraulic solvers, which share a common code ancestor but different development paths.
Figure 1 shows the radial geometry for the MC21 and COBRA-IE -assembly models, respectively.
On the left is the MC21 geometry at an axial elevation with a spacer grid (75.0 cm). In order to model
spacer grids correctly and to preserve flexibility in assigning subchannels, multiple intra-channel
regions were required in the MC21 model. Thicknesses of these intra-channel regions were determined to preserve masses of the Zircaloy and Inconel spacer grids. In the MC21 figure, lines through
the subchannels denote MC21 subchannel subdivisions. The COBRA-IE fuel rod / channel model is
shown on the right in Figure 1 at an axial elevation with no spacer grid. Specific fuel pins, subchannels and guide tubes identified in Figure 1 are used to show axial plots of various state variables
in the Results section.
MPACT was executed using the 2D/1D technique with transport-corrected P0 2D MOC in the radial
planes and SP3 in the axial direction. MPACT employs a 47 energy group cross section library based
on ENDF/B VII data with subgroup parameters to capture self-shielding effects.

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

244

Fuel Pin 1

Fuel Pin 44

Fuel Pin 72

Subchannel 1

Subchannel 40

Guide Tube 7

Figure 1. MC21/COBRA-IE -Assembly Geometry

3. RUNNING STRATEGY
Following Gill et al. [7], stability of the coupled MC21/COBRA-IE solution is achieved by exchanging data between the reactor physics and thermal-hydraulics codes at an interval smaller than
the time needed for transient COBRA-IE to achieve a steady-state solution. This is analogous to a
physics-based under-relaxation scheme in which the change in thermal-hydraulic parameters is controlled by timestep size rather than by an under-relaxation factor. In this analysis, parameters are
exchanged between MC21 and COBRA-IE 14 times during the COBRA-IE transient (initially at a
higher frequency as the thermal-hydraulic solution is developing), with a steady-state MC21 solution
performed at each data exchange point using updated COBRA-IE local densities and temperatures as
input for MC21 material properties and cross section interpolation. Inspection of convergence parameters (eigenvalue trajectory, L2 and L norms of local fuel and coolant temperatures) indicate that
additional parameter exchanges between MC21 and COBRA-IE beyond the eighth exchange do not
further reduce convergence metrics.
At each reactor physics calculation, MC21 utilizes 200 active generations (50 discarded generations)
and 10 million neutrons per generation for a total of 2 billion active neutrons per MC21 execution.
Although 50 discarded batches are not sufficient to converge the fission source in the first two
MC21/COBRA-IE data exchanges as indicated by Shannon entropy, all subsequent data exchanges
exhibit a converged source prior to 50 discarded batches, as the previous fission source, which is used
as the initial source guess, approaches the converged MC21/COBRA-IE solution. Convergence
metrics are discussed in the next section, along with MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF results
comparisons.

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

245

4. RESULTS
4.1. MC21/COBRA-IE Convergence Metrics
Figure 2 presents the MC21 eigenvalue trajectory during the 14 MC21/COBRA-IE data exchanges.
The 95% confidence interval is shown with each eigenvalue, and all are less than 3.0E-5. The eigenvalue at the first exchange is an outlier because MC21 is being fed temperatures and densities
from an undeveloped COBRA-IE solution. Batch-wise eigenvalues and Shannon entropy for MC21
during the first and final data exchanges are presented in Figure 3. As described in Section 3, 50
discarded batches are not sufficient to converge the source in the first two MC21 executions, but early
data exchanges are used only to start the coupled analysis on the path to convergence. After the first
few data exchanges, the fission source is well converged because the converged fission source from
the previous data exchange is employed as an initial guess; hence 50 discarded batches are sufficient
to fully converge the fission source before tallies are accumulated.
1.1647

1.1646

MC21 Eigenvalue

1.1645

1.1644

1.1643

1.1642

1.1641
0

10

11

12

13

14

MC21/COBRA-IE Exchange Index

Figure 2. MC21 Eigenvalue Convergence during MC21/COBRA-IE Data Exchanges

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

246

11.765

1.1700

11.760
1.1680

11.755

1.1660
11.745
11.740
1.1640
11.735

Initial Exchange: Entropy

Final Exchange: Entropy
Initial Exchange: Converged Entropy
Final Exchange: Converged Entropy
Initial Exchange: Batch-wise Eigenvalue
Final Exchange: Batch-wise Eigenvalue

11.730
11.725

1.1620

11.720

-50

Batch-wise Eigenvalue

Shannon Entropy

11.750

1.1600

50

100

150

200

Batch

Figure 3. MC21 Batch-Wise Shannon Entropy and Eigenvalue Convergence during Initial and Final
Data Exchanges
Two billion active neutron histories are sufficient for this 3D -assembly model to drive all local
uncertainties in fission rate to a target of <1%. Table 1 lists relative error in power density for all 3528
mesh tally regions (72 fuel pins * 49 axial levels) in 0.1% resolution bins. At two billion active histories, all regions have a relative error (based on a 95% confidence interval) less than 0.7%, a majority
of regions have relative errors between 0.1% and 0.2%, and ~99.5% of all regions have a relative
error 0.5%. The minimum relative error is 0.09%, and the maximum relative error is 0.67%. All 19
regions with a relative error >0.5% occur in the bottom plane. MC21 requires ~6000 wall clock
seconds per execution (tracking and tallies) for 2.5 billion tracked neutrons (active plus inactive
batches) using 50 nodes containing two 12-core Intel Xeon E5-2680v3 2.5GHz (Haswell) processors
(1200 total cores). COBRA-IE execution time is a small fraction of the total simulation time.
Figure 4 presents convergence metrics for local fuel temperature and coolant density, as measured by
the L2 and L norms with respect to the final (exchange index 14) fuel temperature and coolant density distributions, respectively. Both fuel temperature and coolant density L2 and L norms, along
with the eigenvalue in Figure 2, converge after ~8 data exchanges for the chosen data exchange and
MC21 neutron history schemes (a simulation was run with 20 data exchange intervals, and norms
decrease no further).

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

247

Table 1. Distribution of Relative Errors for CASL P6 -Assembly, 2 Billion Neutrons

Relative
Error (%)
Min. Max.
0.0
0.1

Cumulative
Number of
Regions
9

Number of
Regions

Cumulative
Fraction
0.0026

0.1

0.2

2788

2797

0.7928

0.2

0.3

547

3344

0.9478

0.3

0.4

99

3443

0.9759

0.4

0.5

66

3509

0.9946

0.5

0.6

11

3520

0.9977

0.6

0.7

3528

1.0000

Figure 4. Convergence Metrics: Fuel Temperature (left) and Coolant Density (right)
4.2. MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF Results
Table 2 compares the eigenvalue for MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF. The difference between
MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF is 71 pcm.
Table 2. Calculated Eigenvalue for CASL P6 -Assembly
Code
MC21/COBRA-IE
MPACT/CTF

Eigenvalue (95% CI)

1.16431 (2.9E-05)
1.16360

Figures 5 presents axially-integrated normalized radial fission rate distributions for

MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF. Normalized pin powers agree within 0.1% for
MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF with an RMS error of 0.07%. Slight -core asymmetries for
MC21/COBRA-IE are the result of Monte Carlo uncertainties. Figure 6 is a plot of axial normalized

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

248

fission power profiles for fuel pin 1, fuel pin 44 (pin with the highest MC21 power), and fuel pin 72
(at the assembly corner). MC21/COBRA-IE predicts higher power from the bottom through the elevation of peak power, and MPACT/CTF predicts slightly higher power in the upper third of the core.
Figure 7 compares MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF volume-averaged fuel pin temperatures at
axial level 25 (the axial level of maximum temperature for both code suites). MC21/COBRA-IE
predicts higher maximum fuel temperatures by ~1 C to ~3 C compared with MPACT/CTF. CTF
models ten radial rings in the fuel pins and COBRA-IE models seven rings. Axial plots of volume-averaged fuel pin temperatures shown in Figure 8 indicate that both code suites predict similar
axial temperature distributions. Again, slight -core asymmetries in COBRA-IE fuel temperatures
are caused by MC21 power asymmetries.
Figure 9 compares MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF exit coolant temperatures for all fuel subchannels. MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF exit coolant temperatures agree within 3 C, except
for the -subchannel in the assembly corner. The effects of MC21/COBRA-IE transferring heat
through the guide tube walls to heat water flowing through the guide tubes is evident in Figure 9, as
MC21/COBRA-IE exit coolant temperatures are ~1.5 C to ~3 C colder than MPACT/CTF in subchannels bordering guide tubes. Figure 10 presents axial coolant temperature profiles for subchannels
1 and 40 and guide tube 7 (identified in Figure 1). MC21/COBRA-IE predicts a smaller temperature
rise in subchannel 1 near the assembly center as a result of guide tube cooling, and a larger temperature rise in subchannel 40 which is adjacent to the fuel pin with the highest relative power density.
The axial profile of guide tube 7 water shows the heating in MC21/COBRA-IE, whereas all guide
tube water is unheated in MPACT/CTF. A sensitivity study to guide tube heating is discussed in the
next section.
In general, COBRA-IE exhibits less mixing between subchannels than CTF. Sensitivity studies were
performed with stand-alone COBRA-IE and CTF to isolate the differences, including (a) running
with and without spacer grids, (b) running with and without the gap model connecting subchannels,
and (c) running with and without turbulent mixing. Results from these sensitivity studies indicate that
differences in turbulent mixing are primarily responsible for differences in subchannel mixing between COBRA-IE and CTF. Additionally, CTF friction factors are ~10% higher than COBRA-IE at
the Reynolds Numbers in encountered in this problem, and slight differences in water property tables
between COBRA-IE and CTF are worth a few tenths of a degree C.

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

249

1.0370
1.0356
-0.1%
1.0371
1.0359
-0.1%

1.0350
1.0344
-0.1%
1.0319
1.0313
-0.1%

1.0118
1.0113
-0.1%
0.9771
0.9760
-0.1%

1.0369
1.0356
-0.1%
1.0096
1.0097
0.0%
1.0098
1.0102
0.0%
1.0369
1.0361
-0.1%
1.0087
1.0091
0.0%
1.0056
1.0060
0.0%
1.0259
1.0253
-0.1%
0.9882
0.9889
0.1%
0.9729
0.9726
0.0%

1.0370
1.0359
-0.1%
1.0099
1.0102
0.0%
1.0102
1.0108
0.1%
1.0384
1.0374
-0.1%
1.0110
1.0114
0.0%
1.0087
1.0093
0.1%
1.0272
1.0267
0.0%
0.9881
0.9890
0.1%
0.9723
0.9720
0.0%

1.0368
1.0361
-0.1%
1.0384
1.0374
-0.1%

1.0445
1.0440
0.0%
1.0444
1.0440
0.0%

1.0113
1.0115
0.0%
0.9743
0.9736
-0.1%

1.0351
1.0344
-0.1%
1.0086
1.0091
0.1%
1.0110
1.0114
0.0%
1.0443
1.0440
0.0%
1.0317
1.0331
0.1%
1.0508
1.0512
0.0%
1.0356
1.0365
0.1%
0.9832
0.9842
0.1%
0.9653
0.9651
0.0%

1.0320
1.0313
-0.1%
1.0056
1.0060
0.0%
1.0085
1.0093
0.1%
1.0444
1.0440
0.0%
1.0507
1.0512
0.0%

1.0172
1.0171
0.0%
0.9649
0.9649
0.0%
0.9558
0.9556
0.0%

1.0258
1.0253
-0.1%
1.0272
1.0267
0.0%

1.0357
1.0365
0.1%
1.0170
1.0171
0.0%
0.9736
0.9744
0.1%
0.9484
0.9488
0.0%
0.9466
0.9468
0.0%

1.0117
1.0113
0.0%
0.9882
0.9889
0.1%
0.9882
0.9890
0.1%
1.0112
1.0115
0.0%
0.9832
0.9842
0.1%
0.9649
0.9649
0.0%
0.9485
0.9488
0.0%
0.9393
0.9400
0.1%
0.9429
0.9426
0.0%

0.9769 MC21/COBRA-IE
0.9760 MPACT/CTF
-0.1% % diff (MPACT vs MC21)
0.9728
0.9726
0.0%
Color Key
0.9722
0.935
0.9720
0.995
0.0%
1.055
0.9744
0.9736
-0.1%
0.9654
0.9651
0.0%
0.9557
0.9556
0.0%
0.9466
0.9468
0.0%
0.9430
0.9426
0.0%
0.9488
0.9481
-0.1%

1.6

4%

1.4

3%

1.2

2%

1%

0.8

0%

0.6

-1%
MC21/COBRA-IE: Fuel Pin 1
MPACT/CTF: Fuel Pin 1
MC21/COBRA-IE: Fuel Pin 44
MPACT/CTF: Fuel Pin 44
MC21/COBRA-IE: Fuel Pin 72
MPACT/CTF: Fuel Pin 72
Fuel Pin 1: % Difference, MPACT vs. MC21
Fuel Pin 44: % Difference, MPACT vs. MC21
Fuel Pin 72: % Difference, MPACT vs. MC21

0.4

0.2

20

40

60
80
Axial Height (cm)

100

% Difference: MPACT vs. MC21

Relative Power Density

Figure 5. Axially-Integrated -Assembly Normalized Pin Fission Rates, MC21/COBRA-IE and

MPACT/CTF

-2%

-3%

-4%

120

140

Figure 6. Axial Normalized Pin Fission Rate Profiles, MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

250

850.5
849.0
-1.6
849.8
849.1
-0.7

850.0
848.1
-1.9
847.7
846.0
-1.7

834.4
832.7
-1.6
812.7
810.9
-1.8

851.3
849.0
-2.3
834.3
832.9
-1.4
834.8
833.2
-1.7
851.1
849.2
-1.9
834.1
832.4
-1.7
831.6
830.3
-1.2
844.0
842.0
-2.0
820.2
819.0
-1.2
809.8
808.8
-1.0

851.7
849.1
-2.6
834.4
833.2
-1.2
835.0
833.5
-1.4
852.6
850.0
-2.5
835.8
833.8
-1.9
833.9
832.4
-1.5
845.1
842.9
-2.2
820.6
819.0
-1.6
809.5
808.4
-1.1

851.7
849.2
-2.5
852.1
850.0
-2.0

856.3
854.2
-2.2
856.6
854.1
-2.5

834.2
832.8
-1.4
810.8
809.4
-1.4

850.5
848.1
-2.4
834.1
832.4
-1.7
835.5
833.8
-1.6
856.3
854.2
-2.1
847.9
847.2
-0.6
859.7
858.3
-1.4
850.0
848.6
-1.4
817.3
815.9
-1.4
805.3
804.0
-1.3

847.7
846.0
-1.7
832.2
830.3
-1.8
834.5
832.4
-2.1
856.3
854.1
-2.2
859.2
858.3
-0.9

838.4
836.5
-1.9
806.4
804.1
-2.3
799.2
798.0
-1.2

843.7
842.0
-1.7
845.1
842.9
-2.3

850.1
848.6
-1.5
838.0
836.5
-1.5
811.3
809.8
-1.5
795.9
793.9
-2.1
793.7
792.4
-1.3

834.4
832.7
-1.6
820.5
819.0
-1.5
820.6
819.0
-1.6
834.6
832.8
-1.8
817.5
815.9
-1.5
805.8
804.1
-1.7
796.0
793.9
-2.1
789.7
788.1
-1.5
790.8
789.5
-1.3

812.8 MC21 / COBRA-IE (C)

810.9 MPACT / CTF (C)
-1.8 Difference (C): MPACT/CTF 809.9
MC21/COBRA-IE
808.8
-1.1
Color Key (C)
809.9
788.0
808.4
824.0
-1.5
860.0
811.0
809.4
-1.7
805.4
804.0
-1.5
799.3
798.0
-1.3
793.5
792.4
-1.2
790.6
789.5
-1.1
793.3
792.6
-0.7

900

10.0

800

7.5

700

5.0

600

2.5

500

0.0
MC21/COBRA-IE: Fuel Pin 1
MPACT/CTF: Fuel Pin 1
MC21/COBRA-IE: Fuel Pin 44
MPACT/CTF: Fuel Pin 44
MC21/COBRA-IE: Fuel Pin 72
MPACT/CTF: Fuel Pin 72
Fuel Pin 1 Difference (C): CTF - COBRA-IE
Fuel Pin 44 Difference (C): CTF - COBRA-IE
Fuel Pin 72 Difference (C): CTF - COBRA-IE

400

300

20

40

60
80
Axial Height (cm)

100

120

Difference (C): CTF - COBRA-IE

Volumetric Avegraged Fuel Temperature (C)

Figure 7. Volume-Averaged Fuel Pin Temperatures at Axial Level 25, MC21/COBRA-IE and
MPACT/CTF

-2.5

-5.0

140

Figure 8. Axial Volume-Averaged Fuel Pin Temperature Profile for Select Fuel Pins,
MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

251

325.1
327.7
2.6
329.2
327.8
-1.5
325.2
327.7
2.5
325.3
327.6
2.3
329.1
327.5
-1.6
325.1
327.3
2.3
324.8
327.0
2.2
327.7
326.7
-1.0
324.7
326.6
1.9

329.2
327.8
-1.5
329.2
327.8
-1.5
329.2
327.7
-1.4
329.2
327.6
-1.6
329.2
327.5
-1.7
328.9
327.3
-1.6
328.5
327.0
-1.5
327.8
326.8
-1.1
324.7
326.6
1.8

325.2
327.7
2.5
329.2
327.7
-1.4
325.4
327.7
2.3
325.5
327.6
2.1
329.2
327.5
-1.7
325.3
327.3
2.0
325.0
327.0
2.0
327.6
326.7
-0.9
324.8
326.5
1.7

325.3
327.6
2.3
329.2
327.6
-1.6
325.5
327.6
2.1
325.6
327.5
1.8
329.5
327.3
-2.2
325.5
327.2
1.7
325.0
326.8
1.8
327.5
326.6
-1.0
324.7
326.4
1.7

329.1
327.5
-1.6
329.2
327.5
-1.7
329.2
327.5
-1.7
329.5
327.3
-2.2
325.7
327.2
1.5
325.3
327.0
1.6
328.1
326.6
-1.4
327.4
326.4
-1.0
324.4
326.2
1.8

325.1
327.3
2.3
328.9
327.3
-1.6
325.3
327.3
2.0
325.5
327.2
1.7
325.3
327.0
1.6
324.9
326.7
1.8
327.7
326.4
-1.3
327.0
326.3
-0.8
324.1
326.0
1.9

324.8
327.0
2.2
328.5
327.0
-1.5
325.0
327.0
2.0
325.0
326.8
1.8
328.1
326.6
-1.4
327.7
326.4
-1.3
327.3
326.2
-1.1
326.7
326.0
-0.6
323.9
325.8
2.0

327.7
326.7
-1.0
327.8
326.8
-1.1
327.6
326.7
-0.9
327.5
326.6
-0.9
327.4
326.4
-1.0
327.0
326.2
-0.8
326.7
326.0
-0.6
326.2
325.8
-0.4
323.4
325.6
2.1

324.7 MC21/COBRA-IE (C)

326.6 MPACT/CTF (C)
1.9 Difference (C): MPACT/CTF MC21/COBRA
324.7
326.6
Color Key
1.8
324.8
326.5
321.0
1.7
324.7
326.4
325.5
1.7
324.4
326.2
330.0
1.8
324.1
326.0
1.9
Guide Tube Location
323.9
325.8
2.0
323.4
325.6
2.1
321.1
325.4
4.3

Figure 9. Subchannel Exit Coolant Temperature, MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF

335

5.0
MC21/COBRA-IE: Subchannel 1
MPACT/CTF: Subchannel 1

330

4.0

MC21/COBRA-IE: Subchannel 40
MPACT/CTF: Subchannel 40

325

3.0

MC21/COBRA-IE: Guide Tube 7

Coolant Temperature (C)

2.0

Subchannel 1 Difference (C): CTF - COBRA-IE

Subchannel 40 Difference (C): CTF - COBRA-IE

315

1.0

310

0.0

305

-1.0

300

-2.0

295

-3.0

290

-4.0

285

Difference (C): CTF - COBRA-IE

MPACT/CTF: Guide Tube 7

320

-5.0
0

20

40

60
80
Axial Height (cm)

100

120

140

Figure 10. Axial Coolant Temperature Profile for Select Subchannels and Guide Tubes,
MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

252

4.3. Guide Tube Heating Sensitivity

To determine the effect of heat transfer through the guide tube walls to the water flowing inside,
MC21/COBRA-IE was executed with heat transfer to the guide tubes turned off. The MC21 eigenvalue of this case is 1.16427 3.7E-05 (only one billion active neutrons were simulated for this sensitivity study), a drop of 4 pcm from the case with guide tube heating and closer to the MPACT
calculated eigenvalue. Figure 11 presents MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF exit coolant temperatures for the case of no guide tube heating. Exit temperatures for MC21/COBRA-IE in subchannels
neighboring guide tubes are higher than when guide tube heating is allowed, as expected. However,
there is still less mixing between subchannels in COBRA-IE than CTF, as evidenced by the more
drastic temperature differences between subchannel temperatures in MC21/COBRA-IE. As discussed
above, these differences are attributed to the turbulent mixing model, friction model, and water
property differences between the COBRA-IE and CTF.
326.7
327.7
1.0
329.4
327.8
-1.6
326.8
327.7
0.9
326.8
327.6
0.8
329.2
327.5
-1.7
326.6
327.3
0.7
326.3
327.0
0.7
327.9
326.7
-1.1
324.7
326.6
1.9

329.4
327.8
-1.6
329.2
327.8
-1.5
329.3
327.7
-1.6
329.4
327.6
-1.7
329.2
327.5
-1.7
329.1
327.3
-1.7
328.7
327.0
-1.7
327.8
326.8
-1.1
324.7
326.6
1.9

326.8
327.7
0.9
329.3
327.7
-1.6
326.9
327.7
0.8
327.0
327.6
0.6
329.4
327.5
-1.9
326.9
327.3
0.4
326.4
327.0
0.6
327.7
326.7
-1.0
324.8
326.5
1.7

326.8
327.6
0.8
329.4
327.6
-1.7
327.0
327.6
0.6
327.2
327.5
0.2
329.8
327.3
-2.4
327.1
327.2
0.1
326.5
326.8
0.3
327.6
326.6
-1.1
324.7
326.4
1.7

329.2
327.5
-1.8
329.2
327.5
-1.7
329.4
327.5
-1.9
329.8
327.3
-2.4
327.3
327.2
-0.1
326.9
327.0
0.0
328.3
326.6
-1.7
327.4
326.4
-1.0
324.4
326.2
1.8

326.6
327.3
0.7
329.1
327.3
-1.7
326.9
327.3
0.4
327.1
327.2
0.1
326.9
327.0
0.0
326.3
326.7
0.4
327.8
326.4
-1.4
327.0
326.3
-0.8
324.1
326.0
2.0

326.3
327.0
0.7
328.7
327.0
-1.7
326.4
327.0
0.6
326.5
326.8
0.3
328.3
326.6
-1.7
327.8
326.4
-1.4
327.3
326.2
-1.1
326.6
326.0
-0.6
323.8
325.8
2.0

327.9
326.7
-1.1
327.8
326.8
-1.1
327.7
326.7
-1.0
327.6
326.6
-1.1
327.4
326.4
-1.0
327.0
326.2
-0.7
326.6
326.0
-0.6
326.1
325.8
-0.4
323.4
325.6
2.1

324.7 MC21/COBRA-IE (C)

326.6 MPACT/CTF (C)
1.9 Difference (C): MPACT/CTF MC21/COBRA-IE
324.7
326.6
Color Key
1.9
324.8
326.5
321.0
1.7
324.7
326.4
325.5
1.7
324.4
326.2
330.0
1.8
324.1
326.0
2.0
Guide Tube Location
323.8
325.8
2.0
323.4
325.6
2.1
321.1
325.4
4.3

Figure 11. Subchannel Exit Coolant Temperature, MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF: No Guide
Tube Heating
4. CONCLUSIONS
A coupled MC21/COBRA-IE simulation of VERA core physics benchmark problem #6, 3D Hot Full
Power (HFP) Assembly, providing the first coupled Monte Carlo neutronics / subchannel thermal-hydraulics solution to this problem. Convergence metrics for eigenvalue, fuel pin temperature,
and subchannel fluid density demonstrate that the physical under-relaxation method iterates
steady-state MC21 and transient COBRA-IE to convergence in a stable manner. MC21/COBRA-IE
results were also compared to MPACT/CTF, and calculated eigenvalues agree within 71 pcm. Axi-

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

253

ally-integrated relative power densities and peak fuel temperatures agree well between
MC21/COBRA-IE and MPACT/CTF, as do axial power and fuel temperature profiles. Subchannel
exit temperatures and axial temperature profiles do not show the same level of agreement. A sensitivity study in which guide tube heating was turned off in MC21/COBRA-IE was performed, and
temperature comparisons with MPACT/CTF improved in subchannels adjacent to guide tubes. Remaining differences are attributed to differences in the turbulence models, friction models and water
property tables between COBRA-IE and CTF.
REFERENCES
[1] Andrew T. Godfrey, VERA Core Physics Benchmark Progression Problem Specifications,
Revision 4, CASL-U-2012-0131-004, August 29, 2014.
[2] Scott Palmtag, et al., Coupled Neutronics and Thermal-Hydraulic Solution of a Full-Core PWR
Using VERA-CS, PHYSOR 2014 The Role of Reactor Physics Toward a Sustainable Future,
American Nuclear Society, Kyoto, Japan (2014).
[3] David P. Griesheimer, et al., MC21 v.6.0 A Continuous-Energy Monte Carlo Particle
Transport Code with Integrated Reactor Feedback Capabilities, Annals of Nuclear Energy,
Volume 82, pp. 29 40, (2015).
[4] David L. Aumiller, et al., COBRA-IE: A New Sub-channel Analysis Code, NURETH-16
International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal Hydraulics, American Nuclear Society, Chicago, Illinois (2015).
[5] David L. Aumiller, et al., Development of an Integrated Code System using R5EXEC and
RELAP5-3D, Nuclear Technology, Volume 193, Number 1, pp. 183 199, (2016).
[6] Daniel F. Gill, David L. Aumiller and David P. Griesheimer, Monte Carlo and Thermal-Hydraulic Coupling via PVMEXEC, PHYSOR 2014 The Role of Reactor Physics Toward a Sustainable Future, American Nuclear Society, Kyoto, Japan (2014).
[7] Daniel Gill, David Griesheimer and David Aumiller, Numerical Methods in Coupled Monte
Carlo and Thermal-Hydraulic Calculations, ANS MC2015 Joint International Conference
Mathematics and Computation (M&C), Supercomputing in Nuclear Applications (SNA) and the
Monte Carlo (MC) Method, American Nuclear Society, Nashville, Tennessee (2015).
[8] VERA 3.3 Release Notes, CASL-U-2015-0042-000, April 20, 2015.

PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, ID, May 15, 2016

254