Merging MSRE Xe Poisoning Model#788
Conversation
|
|
||
| ### Reactivity Impact of Xe Poisoning | ||
|
|
||
| A reference case without Xe poisoning was also evaluated. Comparison of $k_{eff}$ between poisoned and unpoisoned coupled cases indicates an estimated reactivity penalty of approximately -410 pcm, which is in good agreement with trends from the SAM-Griffin coupled study. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
that's a lot less than PWRs? is that a core size thing or strictly the external removal?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, i think it is probably due to the combination of both. the value is also close in a parallel SAM-Griffin modeling study
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is the penalty now with the fixes in the model
🚀 PR Update: Refactoring & Review Comments AddressedHi @GiudGiud, I have completed the refactoring of the MSRE Xenon poisoning model and addressed your feedback on the input files. The model is now much leaner and fully utilizes the modern 🛠️ Physics Syntax Migration
⚙️ Logic & Parameter Adjustments
📝 Documentation & Metadata
The model is now updated and ready for further review. All tests have been verified against the new syntax. |
|
Hi @GiudGiud , I’ve addressed the review comments for PR #788. Below is a summary of the updates and a few notes on why certain refactoring suggestions were not implemented in this iteration. Completed Updates
Technical Notes on RefactoringThere are three areas where I have opted to maintain the current manual implementation:
The model is now in a stable, cleaned-up state. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions before we move toward merging. |
|
|
||
| ### Reactivity Impact of Xe Poisoning | ||
|
|
||
| A reference case without Xe poisoning was also evaluated. Comparison of $k_{eff}$ between poisoned and unpoisoned coupled cases indicates an estimated reactivity penalty of approximately -410 pcm, which is in good agreement with trends from the SAM-Griffin coupled study. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is the penalty now with the fixes in the model
I'm afraid this might have changed the flow rate? We should check which change impacted the results so much. |
|
Hi @GiudGiud, thanks for the thorough review. I will probably have to wait until the weekend to get time to address them. |
|
Works for me. will fix that EDIT: fixed in PR |
|
Job VTB Documentation, step Sync Docs on 3bca4c2 wanted to post the following: View the site here This comment will be updated on new commits. |
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Giudicelli <guillaume.giudicelli@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Giudicelli <guillaume.giudicelli@gmail.com>
- if we skip solves we wont get a smooth evolution of quantities - we are now solving too often for what we need for steady state
- be consistent with the older model - prepare for tuning the mdots to match MSRE operating parameters
Co-authored-by: Guillaume Giudicelli <guillaume.giudicelli@gmail.com>
The PR related to #768 is now ready for review and merging.