SAND2013-3567C

New Modeling
MELCOR
SQA

Utilities

MELCOR Code Development Status

Presented by Larry Humphries
llhumph@sandia.gov

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed
Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. 2
 MELCOR Code Development
CORQUENCH

Mechanistic Fan Model

New/improved
MELCOR Code

New Modeling modeling

Development

Radiation Exchange Factors

Code
Performance
Sodium Properties

SQA Validation Assessments (Volume III)

User Defined
Functions
Animated Plots
PTFREAD
Utilities Formatting Templates
User Coded
Functions

3
MELCOR New Modeling
Current Code Development
Tasks
SQA

Utilities

 CONTAIN modeling capabilities to be added to MELCOR

 Mechanistic fan cooler model similar to CONTAIN model to be
implemented into MELCOR
 Modifications for correlations for CONTAIN/MELCOR parity
 CORQUENCH modeling to be added to CAV package
 Implementation of PSI air oxidation modeling into MELCOR 2.1
 Enhancements to radiation exchange modeling
 Implementation of PVM coupling into MELCOR 2.1
 Liquid metal reactors
 Sodium properties to be added to MELCOR
 Substitute working fluid
 Other CONTAIN/LMR modeling to be added for modeling sodium fires

4
 New Modeling

Mechanistic Fan Cooler Model

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Based on CONTAIN mechanistic

Model*
 Nusselt number correlation for flow
over horizontal tubes.

 Valid for 10 or more transverse rows

 1.25<Pitch/D<1.5
 Analogy between heat and mass
transfer

 Mass transfer driven by

concentration gradient (partial
pressures)

*Murata, et al, “Code Manual for CONTAIN 2.0: A computer Code for Nuclear Reactor Containment Analysis”, NUREG/CR-6533, December 1997. 5
 New Modeling

Mechanistic Fan Cooler Model

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Iterative solution is necessary

 First row of coils seen by
incoming air/steam mixture is at
the outlet of the coils.
 Coolant exit temperature is
estimated from March model
 Coolant conditions for coil row
inlet / gas outlet calculated
 Repeated for next coil row
 Coolant inlet temperature and
exhaust gas temp calculated.
 If calculated inlet temperature
different from inlet value
procedure is repeated with
modified estimate
 Efficiency of cooler decreases
with number of rows
6
 Mechanistic Fan Cooler Model
MELCOR New Modeling

SQA

Utilities

 Test Case
 Control Volume
 Tatm = 355 K
 Disable heat transfer to pool
 Volume = 5.0E4 m^3
 N2 = 80%, O2 = 20%
 Fan Cooler (MARCH &
mechanistic)
 QRAD = 0.818E5 Watt
 Tcool=293 K
 Mdot = 19.57 kg/sec
 Results
 MELCOR & CONTAIN mechanistic models give nearly same results over full range of
relative humidity (RH)
 CONTAIN MARCH model significantly underestimates cooling
 MELCOR Extended MARCH model not far off
 MELCOR partitions heat transfer coefficient into convection and condensation components
– noncondensible gases and superheated atmosphere 7
MELCOR New Modeling
Mechanistic Fan Cooler Model
Input
SQA

Utilities

 FCL_ID FCNAME FCMODEL

 FCNAME – Fan Cooler Name
 FCMODEL – Fan Cooler Model to be used
 “MECHANISTIC” or “CONTAIN” - new mechanistic model
 “MARCH” or blank – old MARCH modeling
 COR_HT NCOILS DCOIL AREAHT AREAFL HTCEFF
 NCOILS - Fan cooler number of coil rows from front to back of cooler
 DCOIL - OUTER DIAMETER OF FAN COOLER COIL (M)
 AREAHT - EFFECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER AREA FOR ONE ROW OF COILS
(M**2)
 AREAFL - FLOW AREA OF COOLER (FRONTAL) (M**2)
 HTCEFF - HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT THRU BOUNDARY LAYER AND
COIL (W/M**2 K)
8
 New Modeling

Top-Quenched Debris in Cavity

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Quenching of the upper crust at the top of the corium

debris can lead to a considerable density change
(~18%volume) leading to cracking and formation of voids
 Molten corium extruded by entrainment from
decomposition gases as they escape through fissures and
defects in the crust.
 Enhance the coolability of the molten corium
 by relocating enthalpy from the internal melt through the crust
 more coolable geometry that is more porous and permeable to water
9
 New Modeling

Current MELCOR Best Practice

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Water ingression will increase the contact

surface area between water and the corium water

 Decrease the conduction path length through

the corium, both of which will enhance the d corium d
heat transfer through the crust
concrete

 MELCOR best practice attempted to account for this effect by

applying a thermal conductivity multiplier of 5.0
 Based on benchmarking against MACE tests
 Problems recently fixed with the current model
 Multiplier was applied globally (not just at upper crust)
 Model applied when water was not present
 This is a temporary fix 10
 New Modeling

Temporary Fix to Best Practice

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

Current SNL Best Practice Previous SNL Best

 Boiling Enhancement Practice
– BOILING 10.0  Boiling Enhancement
 Thermal conductivity – BOILING 10.0
enhancement in the top crust  Thermal conductivity
only. enhancements
– COND.CRUST=2.0 – COND.OX 5.0
 Multiplier on liquid sublayer heat – COND.MET 5.0
transfer coefficient  Enhances thermal
– HTRINT=5.0 conductivity globally
 Code modification to apply
HTRINT at upper layer
 Enhancement is only applied
when water is present
11
MELCOR New Modeling
Implementation of CORQUENCH
Models into MELCOR
SQA

Utilities

 The MELCOR modeling framework is currently limited to

calculating convective heat transfer from the molten core to
the boundary layer crust and conduction across the crust.
 Conduction Limited
Conductivity Effective Thermal Conduction Heat Flux
Multiplier Conductivity (W/m-K) Limit (cm) (kW/m^2)
1.0 4 W/m-K 13 80
5.0 20 W/m-K 30 175
10.0 40 W/m-K 43 250
80.0 320 W/m-K 120 (sump depth) 700

 MELCOR model development is focusing on improvements in the

CAV package to capture water ingression and molten eruptions
 New porous layer for debris relocating above crust
 New porous crust layer
 Dense crust layer 12
 New Modeling

PSI Air Oxidation Model

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

Quench-16 Hydrogen Generation

 Reviewed PSI air oxidation
model implemented into
MELCOR 1.8.6 by IBRAE

MELCOR 2.1
and recommended
implementation changes to
PSI. Identical without
breakaway

 PSI made modeling changes

and performed validation
on Quench-10,16
 Implemented revised
oxidation modeling into

MELCOR 1.8.6
MELCOR 2.1 and tested
against Quench-16
experiment.
 Results appear to show
more hydrogen after
quench in 2.1 with
breakaway model active.
13
 New Modeling

Radiative Exchange Factors

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Simple model for radiant heat View Default

Notes
factor Value
exchange between COR cells. Radiative exchange factor for radiation
FCNCL 0.25 heat transfer from the canister wall to the
 Radiation Exchange Factors fuel rod cladding surfaces.
Radiative exchange factor for radiation
A1F12  A2 F21  AF  min  A1 , A2 , Acell , x Fcell , x from NS (e.g., control blades) to the
 Acell , x Fcell , x min  A1 Acell , x , A2 Acell , x ,1
adjacent canister walls or to fuel rods and
debris if canister is not present.
FSSCN 0.25
Redefined in the spent fuel pool model as
 where Fcell,x is the effective inter-cell
a view factor for radiation heat transfer
view factor input by the user and x from cladding surfaces to the rack surfaces
may be r (radial) or a (axial), (if applicable) within a ring.
Radiative exchange factor for radiation
 A1 is the surface area of the heat transfer radially outward from the
component in cell 1, FCELR 0.1
cell/node boundary to the adjacent
 A2 is the surface of the component in cell/node boundary.
Radiative exchange factor for radiation
cell 2, and heat transfer axially upward from the
FCELA 0.1
 F12 is the actual view factor between cell/node boundary to the next adjacent
components in cells 1 and 2. cell/node boundary.
Radiative exchange factor for radiation
FLPUP 0.25 from the liquid pool to the core
components.

14
 New Modeling

Radiative Exchange Factors

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Previously FCELR and FCELA were defined globally only

! FCNCL FSSCN FCELR FCELA FLPUP
COR_RF 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

 Now, FCELR and FCELA can also be defined locally

 Can be defined as a local constant
 Can be defined as a local control function
 Can be calculated locally by internal model
COR_FCEL 4 FCELR
7 .5 - 0.0 !IA=7, FCELR(IR=1), FCELR(IR=2), FCELR(IR=3)
8 .5 0.25 0.0
9 .5 0.25 0.0
10 MODEL MODEL 0.0
COR_FCEL 1 FCELRCF
7 - 5 - !CF-5 used (alternatively could specify CF character name)

15
MELCOR New Modeling
Radiative Exchange Factors
Model
SQA

Utilities

 Geometric Radiative Exchange Factors

 Qualitatively represent radiation geometric view
factors
 Actual geometry may be too complicated

 Assume the combination of distance and view factor

obstruction can be approximated as a simple
exponential
 fraction of un-obscured solid angle remaining visible to
a differential surface at depth x is e-x
 Can be validated against more exact methods (Monte
Carlo)
 Effective Exchange Factors
 There is currently no attempt in the MELCOR COR
Package to account for the fact that for thick cells
radiation at the cell boundary “sees” only a fraction of
the average temperature difference between cells.

16
 MELCOR New Modeling
Geometric Radiative Exchange
Factors
SQA

Utilities

 Geometric view factor only (no accounting

(AF)/Acell with A2/Acell as Parameter

1.2

for temperature effects) 0.1*

0.3*

 The view factor between a cell of thickness of L1 1 0.75*

1.5*

and one of thickness L2 may be calculated as 0.8

10.0*

F0=(AF)/Acell
0 L2
A

F0=(AF)/Acell
A 1F12   dx 1A cell   e 1x1  dx 2  2 e ex 2 0.6

L1  V 1 0
Not Validated Yet

0.4

 In terms of dimensionless variables

0 0
 A 

 A 
 
0.2

 dy1e 1 
 L  L
A1F12  A cell  
y
dy 2 e y 2  A cell   1 e 1 1 1 e 2 2
 V  1 1L1  2L2  V 1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

 By reciprocity A1/Acell

 
A 2F21  A 2F21  AF  A cellF0  A cellK 1  e  1L1 1  e  2L2  where  i Li 
Ai
KAcell
 In limits (reasonable therefore to assume K = 1)
 Both cells large AF  A cellK

 Cell 1 small and cell 2 large AF  A1

 Both cells small A 1A 2

AF 
KA cell
17
MELCOR New Modeling
Geometric Radiative Exchange
Factors - Validation
SQA

Utilities

 Simple geometric
radiation exchange
factors compared to
Monte Carlo evaluated
view factors.
 Simple model is adequate
for A/Acell > 10
 Monte Carlo utility was
created for calculating
both FCELR and FCELA
exchange factors from
fuel rod arrays.
 Partially implemented as
an option for PWR at
MELGEN
18
 MELCOR New Modeling
Effective Radiative Exchange
Factors
SQA

Utilities

 Accounting for temperature variation in cell

2y 1  y 2 
0 0
AF eff   A cellK  dy1e 1
y
 dy e 2
y2

 1L1   2L 2
1L 1   2L 2

 where the fraction in the integrand is the

fraction of the average difference in T4
Not Validated Yet

between point 1 and point 2.

 Using K=1 defined for geometric exchange
factor and simplifying
 AF eff 2
 Acell 2
A1  A2
1  1   L e 1  e
1 1
1L1  2 L2
  1  e 1L1
1  1   L e
2 2
 2 L2

 Limits for Exchange factors
 AF eff  4  Acell 
2

 both cells large A1  A2

 cell 1 small and cell 2 large AA
 AF eff  1 cell
A1  A2
 both cells small AFeff 
1 A 12  A 22
2 A1  A 2

19
 New Modeling

Importance of Code Validation

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Code Developers
 provide the necessary guidance in developing and improving models
 Desirable to have validation test at time of model implementation
 Code Users
 Increased confidence in applying code to real-world application
 Improved understanding of modeling uncertainties
 New Modeling

Historical Assessments
MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

• Validations should
be performed by
both
o Developers
 More intimate
understanding of
the model nuances
o Code Users
 Greater knowledge
of real-world
applications
 Validations should
focus on what can
be learned from the
exercise
 Should avoid trying
to ‘tune’ results
Gauntt, R. O., Cash, J.E., Cole, R. K., Erickson, C. M, Humphries, L.L., Rodriguez, S.
B., Young, M. F., 2005, “MELCOR Computer Code Manuals, Vol. 1: Primer and
User’s Guide, Version 1.8.6,” NUREG/CR 6119, Vol. 1, Rev. 3, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
Tills, J, Notafrancesco, A.,Longmire, P., “An Assessment of MELCOR 1.8.6:
Design Basis Accident Tests of the Carolinas Virginia Tube Reactor
(CVTR) Containment (Including Selected Separate Effects Tests)”,
SAND2008-1224 (2008).
Souto, F.J., Haskin, F.E., Kmetyk, L.N., “MELCOR 1.8.2 Assessment: Aerosol
Experiments ABCOVE AB5, AB6, AB7, and LACE LA2,” SAND94-2166 (1994),
Tautges, T.J., “MELCOR 1.8.2 Assessment: The MP-1 and MP-2 Late Phase Melt
Progression Experiments,” SAND94-0133 (1994)
Kmetyk, L.N., “MELCOR 1.8.3 Assessment: CSE Containment Spray Experiments,”
SAND94-2316 (1994).
Tills, J., Notafrancesco, A, Longmire, P., “An Assessment of MELCOR 1.8.6: Design
Basis Accident Tests of the Carolinas Virginia Tube Reactor (CVTR) Containment
(Including Selected Separate Effects Tests),” SAND2008-1224 (2008).
Tautges, T., “MELCOR 1.8.2 Assessment: The DFI-4 BWR Damaged Fuel Experiment,”
SAND93-1377 (1993).
Tautges, T., “MELCOR 1.8.3 Assessment: GE Large Vessel Blowdown and Level Swell
Experiments,” SAND94-0361 (1994).
Kmetyk, L.N., “MELCOR 1.8.2 Assessment: IET Direct Containment Heating Tests,”
SAND93–1475 (1993).
Kmetyk, L.N., “MELCOR 1.8.1 Assessment: LACE Aerosol Experiment LA4,” SAND91–
1532 (1991).
Kmetyk, L.N., “MELCOR 1.8.1 Assessment: LOFT Integral Experiment LP-FP-2,”
SAND92–1373 (1992).
Kmetyk, L.N., “MELCOR 1.8.1 Assessment: Marviken-V Aerosol Transport Tests ATT-
2b/ATT-4,” SAND92–2243 (1993).
Gross, R.J., “PNL Ice Condenser Aerosol Experiments,” SAND92–2165 (1993).
Kmetyk, L.N., “MELCOR 1.8.1 Assessment: FLECHT SEASET Natural Circulation
Experiments,” SAND91-2218 (1991).
Kmetyk, L.N., “MELCOR 1.8.1 Assessment: ACRR Source Term Experiments ST-1/ST-
2", SAND91-2833 (1992).
MELCOR New Modeling
Selection of Validation Test
Cases
SQA

Utilities

 Separate Effects Tests

 Designed to focus on an individual physical process
 Eliminates complications from combined effects
 May be difficult or impossible to design a single test to isolate a single process
 Sometimes geometry or boundary conditions for SETs are difficult to model within
an integral code
 Integral Tests
 Examines relationships between coupled processes
 Tests should be selected that are applicable to the calculation domain of the code.
 Actual Plant Accidents
 TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.
 Captures all relevant physics
 Poorly ‘instrumented’
 International Standard Problems
 Well documented
 Often there are code-to-code comparisons to compare modeling approaches
 New Modeling

Validation Code Coverage

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Coverage of most important physics

 Heatup/Heat transfer
 Oxidation
 Reflood
 Degradation
 Molten pool
 FP Release
 Vessel failure
 Critical Flow
 MCCI
 DCH
 Condensation
 Containment stratification
 Hydrogen Burn
 Hygroscopic effects
 Aerosol deposition
 RN transport
 Pool scrubbing
 Iodine pool chemistry
 Suppression pool level response
 Vent clearing
 Engineering Safety Features
 Sprays
 Ice Condensers
 New Modeling

Coolant Boil-off
MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Modeling
 Standard heat transfer coefficients
 Equation of state for water
 Inclusion of non-condensible gases
 Bubble separation model assumes that the volume flow of bubbles varies
linearly along a CV, from zero at the bottom and a maximum at the top
 Does not account for bubbles flowing from adjacent CVs
 Challenges/Findings
 Level swell is better predicted by a single control volume than from a
finely subdivided stacked volume
 Model for bubble rise and phase separation needs to be modified for
multiple CVs
 Validation Cases
 NEPTUN 5006, 5007, GE Level Swell, Bethsy-6.9c
MELCOR New Modeling
Oxidation – Hydrogen
Generation
SQA

Utilities

 Modeling
 Standard parabolic kinetics, with appropriate rate constant expressions
 Zircaloy
– Urbanic-Heidrich constants
 Steel
 For very low oxidant concentrations, gaseous diffusion may limit reaction
rate.
 Challenges
 Difficult or impossible to discriminate between Zr and Steel oxidation in
experiments
 Differences in oxidation can be masked by differences in core degradation
 Validation Cases
 Phebus B9, FPT1, FPT3, CORA-13, LOFT-FP2, PBF SFD, Quench-6
MELCOR New Modeling
Oxidation – Hydrogen
Generation
SQA

Utilities

PHEBUS-B9 hydrogen generation FPT-1 hydrogen generation

 New Modeling

Aerosol Dynamics Models

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Modeling
 MAEROS
 Multisection (size), multicomponent (type of aerosol)
 Agglomeration
 Deposition
– Gravitational, Brownian diffusion, thermophoresis, diffusiophoresis
 Condensation and Evaporation at surfaces
 Decoupled from MAEROS
 TRAP-MELT2 code
 Validation Cases
 Simple geometry: ABCOVE (AB5 & AB6), LACE(LA4),
 Multi-compartment geometry: VANAM (M3), DEMONA(B3)
 Deposition: STORM, LACE(LA1, LA3)
 New Modeling

Aerosol Physics Modeling

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

ABCOVE AB5 DEMONA-B3

M 182

Test
MELCOR New Modeling
Fission Product Retention in
Pools - Pool Scrubbing
SQA

Utilities

 SPARC 90 Model
 Thermodynamics of bubble interactions with a pool
 Scrubbing and retention radionuclides by pool
 Original SPARC 90 model only accounted for scrubbing of aerosols and Iodine vapor
– Species such as CsOH and CsI sometimes are released at high temp in vapor form
– Such vapors would not have been condensed and scrubbed
 Code Versions
 Implemented in MELCOR 1.8.4
 MELCOR 1.8.6 - extended to include scrubbing of vapors
 Observations
 A deeper pool resulted in more aerosol capture and a larger DF
 Having no steam in the carrier gas led to less capture and a smaller DF
 Larger particles combined with greater steam content in the carrier gas led to
more capture and a larger DF
 MELCOR tends to overestimate DFs for deep pools and large particle sizes.
 Validation Cases
 ACE Pool Scrubbing Tests
 PSI Poseidon Experiments (PA06, PA07, PA08, PA12 and PA17)
29
 New Modeling

Critical Flow Modeling

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Modeling
 Only Atmosphere
 sonic flux at the minimum section
in the flow path
 Only Pool
 Subcooled water
– Henry-Fauske
 Two-phase water
– Moody
 Atmosphere & Pool
 weighted average for the two
phases
 Observations
 Atmosphere and subcooled
conditions well-predicted
 Two-phase water predicts higher
critical flow rates
 Experiments
 MARVEKIN CFT-21 & JIT-11
 GE Level Swell,
30
MELCOR New Modeling
Critical Flow: Only
Atmosphere
SQA

Utilities
JIT-11 Test

 Time variation of flow

calculated by MELCOR is
consistent with test data
 Mass flow rate vs vessel
pressure
 mass flow rate is
independent of the
downstream pressure
 Experimental uncertainty
of 5% indicated by error
bars
MELCOR New Modeling
Critical Flow: Sub-Cooled and
2-Phase Flow
SQA

Utilities

 MELCOR calculation
matches closely for sub- MARVIKEN CFT-21
cooled conditions at exit
(extended Henry-Fauske
critical flow)
 MELCOR over-predicts
flow for two-phased
conditions
 Moody multiplier, CM, of
0.6 for area ratio = 0.5 & P
= 5 MPa consistent with
other data*
 Moody model always over
estimates critical flow.
 Rapid formation of high
vapor concentrations at
inlet to exit pipe
 Moody theory
overestimates flow *Ardron,
K.H., A STUDY OF THE CRITICAL FLOW MODELS
rates for stagnation USED IN REACTOR BLOWDOWN ANALYSIS, Nuclear
quality > 1%. Engineering & Design 39 (1976) 257-266.

32
 New Modeling

Hydrogen Burn Modeling

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Model
 Based on HECTR 1.5 code
 Effects of burning on a global basis without modeling the actual reaction
kinetics or tracking the actual flame front propagation
– Ignition criteria based on LeChatlier’s formula
– Combustion completeness based on LeChatelier formula
– Burn duration calculated from user-specified characteristic dimension
 Deflagration (no detonation)
 Code Versions
 Implemented in MELCOR 1.8.0
 Diffusion flame model added to 1.8.5
 Observations
 MELCOR adequately predicts peak pressures
 MELCOR consistently predicts higher peak pressure and peak
temperatures
 Validation Cases
 Nevada Test Site (NTS) Hydrogen burn (1984): NTSP01, 12, 15, & 20
 New Modeling

Hydrogen Burn Modeling

MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

Test ID & InitialH2 & H2O P(max)/P(initial)

Concentrations
Test ID H2, v/o H2O, v/o M 1.8.5 M1.8.6 M2.1 Test
Standard Tests
NTSP01 5.3 4.2 1.71 1.70 1.70 1.48
NTSP15 9.9 4.2 4.11 4.08 4.08 3.61
Steam-Laden Tests
NTSP12 6.9 28.3 2.37 2.36 2.36 1.831
NTSP20 12.9 27.8 3.97 3.95 3.95 3.87
MELCOR New Modeling
Containment Spray Pressure
Response
SQA

Utilities

 Model
 Based on the HECTR 1.5
 Assumptions
 Spray droplets are spherical and isothermal
 User specified size distribution
 Droplets fall with their terminal velocity
 Spray droplets fall through a volume atmosphere at rest
 Sprays are fully mixed with atmosphere in volume
 Observations
 Pressure reduction trends predicted well by code
 Excellent agreement between CONTAIN and MELCOR
 Validation Cases
 Containment Spray Experiments (A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12)
 CVTR (CVTR-4, CVTR-5)
 JAERI Spray Tests (PHS-6, PHS-1)
MELCOR New Modeling
Containment Spray Pressure
Response
SQA

Utilities

Containment Systems JAERI Spray

Experiment (CSE-9) Tests(PHS-1)
MELCOR New Modeling
Molten Core / Concrete
Interactions (MCCI)
SQA

Utilities

 Modeling – CORCON-MOD3
 Uses CCM3 routines for phenomenological models
 Geometry, heat transfer, chemistry, concrete ablation
 Obtains boundary condition and source data from other MELCOR packages rather
than user input
 Stand-alone options available (in MELCOR format)
 Interface to VANESA preserved
 VANESA is fission product release model
– Implemented as part of the RN package
– Separate scrubbing model replaced by general SPARC model
 Observations/challenges
 Extremely difficult to model some experiments
 SURC (no radial ablation), CCI (non-axisymmetric geometry)
 Ray treatment is challenging, results may be sensitive to ray origin
 No treatment of melt cooling via surface eruptions
 No precursor heating (no dryout)
 Validation Cases
 SURC (1 & 2), CCI (1 & 2)
MELCOR New Modeling
Molten Core / Concrete
Interactions (MCCI)
SQA

Utilities

Ablation Map
0.00E+00 • CCI-2
Axial Ablation Depth  Sidewall ablation
2.00E-01 depth, 30cm
 Basemat, 30cm
4.00E-01
• MELCOR
6.00E-01
 Max axial depth =
30.8cm
t=0
8.00E-01  Max radial depth =
t=423min 36.1cm
1.00E+00
t=210min
 Axial rate = 4.4cm/h
 Radial rate = 3.8cm/h
1.20E+00

1.40E+00

1.60E+00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

SURC-1 CCI-2
MELCOR New Modeling
MELCOR Volume III: Code
Assessment Report
SQA

Utilities

 MELCOR Documentation
 Volume I: User Guide
 Volume II: Reference Manual
 Volume III: Code Assessment Report
 Volume IV: Modeling Guide
 Currently completing the Volume III Assessment report
 Reviewing and re-running historic assessments
 Adding new assessments for un-assessed physics
 POSEIDEN (Pool scrubbing – SPARC-90)
 MARVIKEN CFT-21 & JIT-11 (Critical Flow)
 LACE LA1 & LA3 (Turbulent Deposition)
 LHF, OLHF (Lower Head Failure)
 New Modeling

PTFREAD-Animated Charts
MELCOR

SQA

Utilities

 Animation of
multiple plots
and BMPs on a
single worksheet
 History plots
 Profile plots
 COR
degradation
images
 CAV images
 Comparison of
multiple MELCOR
runs
 Simple to
generate
 Copy and paste
to AVI page
40
MELCOR New Modeling
PTFREAD Formatting
Templates
SQA

Utilities

 The Formatting Template

feature was added to allow
users to generate customized
formatting selections for
PTFREAD to use when
creating a new chart.

Primary Template
 When creating a new chart
with PTFREAD, the final
dialog asks the user selects a
formatting template from a
list of available templates
that can be applied to the
Goulash Template
newly created chart.
 A default template will be
used by PTFREAD if a
template is not selected.
41
Managing Formatting Templates
 Modify Chart Formatting
 Make changes to the active chart and
optionally to apply a template to the
plot. Some formatting changes can be
made to the template at this time
 Extract Template
 Read the formatting from the
activechart and apply this formatting to
a saved format template
 Export Formatting Template
 Write the formatting information from
a formatting template to a file
 Import Formatting Template
 Read the formatting information from a
text file an save as a formatting
template.

42
Modify Chart Formatting (Templates)
 ‘Chart’ Tab
 Make changes to chart units,
select alternate formatting
template, and mofify axis
min/max
 ‘Series Tab’
 Make changes to formatting for
plot series , i.a., line color, line
style, and line thickness
 ‘Legend’ Tab
 Make changes to the legend.
Currently only placement of
legend is changed here
 ‘Advanced’ Tab
 Currently not active
43
MELCOR New Modeling
User-Coded Control Functions
(1)
SQA

Utilities

 MELCOR versions through 1.8.6 allowed the option of “user-

defined” control function types
 Ten names recognized, FUN1, FUN2, …, FUN10
 Interfaces provided to REAL functions of 5 REAL variables
 User required to program and link actual functions
 Two potential advantages in use
 Easier to define more complex functions (e.g. nested IF blocks)
 Could re-use definition many times (e.g. same function of variables in
different CVH volumes or COR cells
 Not ported to MELCOR 2.x
 Not widely used
 Implementation required access to source code
MELCOR New Modeling
User-Coded Control Functions
(2)
SQA

Utilities

 Now have trial implementation for MELCOR 2.x

 Based on dynamic linking (.dll/.so) concept
 Code can be built with or without capability
 Need only distribute source code for functions themselves
 Could distribute template that (as in previous versions) simply sets error
flag
 Will provide easy-to-use/adapt modules
 Concept could be generalized
 Allow user-named with REAL or LOGICAL functions
 Allow arbitrary number of REAL and/or LOGICAL arguments
 Might also be possible to allow definition by formula in user
input
 Would not require dynamic link library
 Questions?
CORQUENCH Models

Mechanistic Fan Model

New/improved
MELCOR Code

New Modeling modeling

Development

Radiation Exchange Factors

Code
Performance
Sodium Properties

SQA Validation Assessments (Volume III)

User Defined
Functions
Animated Plots
PTFREAD
Utilities Formatting Templates
User Coded
Functions

46