English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The OECD/NEA Benchmark on NPP Kalinin Unit 3 “Switching-off of one of the four operating main circulation pumps at nominal power” based on measurements is at its end phase. A new benchmark is starting based on measurements from the NPP Rostov Unit 2 “Reactivity compensation with diluted boron by stepwise insertion of control rod cluster into the VVER-1000 core”. The Rostov-2 core is loaded with assemblies of a new modern type “TVS-2M” which differs in construction in comparison with the “TVSA”-type implemented in the Kalinin-3 core. The goal of the performed study is to determine the thermohydraulic differences, during steady-state operation, between the two cores based on loads with different assembly types. Results of steady-state simulations are compared for Kalinin-3 and Rostov-2 cores, taken from the respective Benchmarks specifications. To ensure that the observed differences are coming only from the fuel assembly construction, the same axial power density is used for all cases. Calculations are done with an under-development version of the GRS system code ATHLET, which has sub-channel modeling capabilities. Thus, in addition to the typical assembly-wise models, calculations with seven assemblies modeled at the sub-channel (pin-by-pin) level were also performed and analyzed. This work will help the Benchmarks' Rostov-2 participants to set up more accurate core thermohydraulic models.

Comparative thermohydraulic analyses of VVER 1000 active core for two different construction types of assemblies