Nuclear Energy Knowledge and Validation Center (NEKVaC) Needs

INL/EXT-15-34683
Nuclear Energy Knowledge and Validation Center (NEKVaC) Needs Workshop Summary Report
Hans Gougar February 2015
The INL is a U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory operated by Battelle Energy Alliance

INL/EXT-15-34683
Nuclear Energy Knowledge and Validation Center (NEKVaC) Needs Workshop Summary Report
Hans Gougar
February 2015
Idaho National Laboratory Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415
http://www.inl.gov
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Under DOE Idaho Operations Office Contract DE-AC07-05ID14517

Nuclear Energy Knowledge and Validation Center (NEKVaC)
Needs Workshop Summary Report
Manufacturing Related Disciplines Complex (MRDC) Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia January 15-16, 2015 February 2015
Hans Gougar Director, NEKVaC [email protected]
Lori Braase Systems Analyses

INTRODUCTION
The Department of Energy (DOE) has made significant progress developing simulation tools to predict the behavior of nuclear systems with greater accuracy and of increasing our capability to predict the behavior of these systems outside of the standard range of applications. These analytical tools require a more complex array of validation tests to accurately simulate the physics and multiple length and time scales. Results from modern simulations will allow experiment designers to narrow the range of conditions needed to bound system behavior and to optimize the deployment of instrumentation to limit the breadth and cost of the campaign.
Modern validation, verification and uncertainty quantification (VVUQ) techniques enable analysts to extract information from experiments in a systematic manner and provide the users with a quantified uncertainty estimate. Unfortunately, the capability to perform experiments that would enable taking full advantage of the formalisms of these modern codes has progressed relatively little (with some notable exceptions in fuels and thermal-hydraulics); the majority of the experimental data available today is the “historic” data accumulated over the last decades of nuclear systems R&D.
A validated code-model is a tool for users. An unvalidated code-model is useful for code developers to gain understanding, publish research results, attract funding, etc. As nuclear analysis codes have become more sophisticated, so have the measurement and validation methods and the challenges that confront them. A successful yet cost-effective validation effort requires expertise possessed only by a few, resources possessed only by the well-capitalized (or a willing collective), and a clear, well-defined objective (validating a code that is developed to satisfy the need(s) of an actual user).
To that end, the Idaho National Laboratory established the Nuclear Energy Knowledge and Validation Center to address the challenges of modern code validation and to manage the knowledge from past, current, and future experimental campaigns. By pulling together the best minds involved in code development, experiment design, and validation to establish and disseminate best practices and new techniques, the Nuclear Energy Knowledge and Validation Center (NEKVaC or the ‘Center’) will be a resource for industry, DOE Programs, and academia validation efforts.This implies that Center personnel have a good grasp of the needs and priorities of potential collaborators. One of the first tasks of the Center, therefore, is to open a dialogue with stakeholders and solicit firsthand their views on what is needed and how the Center can help. This dialogue began with a ‘Needs Workshop’ in which representatives of different stakeholder groups were invited to discuss common and not-so-common challenges, identify opportunities, and offer advise on the direction and priorities of the Center. This workshop was help on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology on January 15th and 16th of 2015. This document summarizes the content and outcome of that meeting.
NEKVaC WORKSHOP
Objectives
At the time of the workshop, NEKVaC was still mainly a broad concept without much form. One of the intended outcomes was therefore to begin the process of defining the “Center’s” structure by soliciting stakeholders’ needs for nuclear code/model validation and the relative priority of those needs and identifying challenges and opportunities that would influence the scope and direction of DOE-sponsored validation efforts. These include:
• New system codes/models
• Multiphysics, multiscale code development
• Access to legacy experimental data
2

• New experiments in physics, thermal fluids, fuel materials, structures (fundamental, separate and mixed effects, integral experiments)
• New approaches to measurement and validation • Validation for knowledge, performance, licensing.
The other goal of the workshop was to gather overall views on validation needs and practices and to identify the high priority validation needs of different stakeholders. This was accomplished mainly through breakout sessions in which the participants were divided into two groups among which there were common challenges, light water reactor technology and advanced reactor technology.
Proceedings
The morning session of the first day consisted primarily of overview presentations covering the mission of the NEKVaC and the meaning of validation in the context of today’s nuclear analysis codes. Hans Gougar, NEKVaC Director, opened the meeting and reviewed the objectives and mission. Philip Finck, INL Chief Scientist and Director of the OECD Experts Group on Multi-Physics Experimental Data, Benchmarks and Validation (MPEBV), discussed the background of the Center, the purpose of code validation, and complexity of the endeavor.
Validation serves different purposes for different stakeholders. Utilities and vendors validate codes as a necessary part of plant licensing. Vendors also require validated codes to accurately predict the performance of systems, structures, components, and plants. Scientists need validated codes to investigate the behavior of phenomena. A validated code can help reduce the need and frequency of experiments, which reduces product development time. Modeling helps to discover unknown phenomena. The nuclear industry is becoming more reliant upon validated simulations to integrate modeling with experiment to aid in the design process and to focus limited resources on the areas
Bill Oberkampf, WLO Consulting, discussed “Modern Code Validation Presentation.” Traditional experiment goals understand the physics and mathematics. The goal of modern validation is to focus on the model, not the safety issue, margin, or plant safety. He then went into detail on the differences between traditional experiments and proper validation experiments. Oberkampf described the Hierarchy of validation experiments which capture individual phenomena at the unit scale and connect it up through the behavior of the complete system (Figure 1).
3

Figure 1: Validation Experiment Heirarchy (AIAA Guide, 1998).
Oberkampf described the six characteristics of a validation experiment and went on to give numerous examples of validation databases related to nuclear power. The goal of a modern validation experiment is to obtain an estimate of the model form uncertainty for the specific conditions and physics of the experiment, which subsumes an assessment of the accuracy, calibration, and it predictive capability. He concluded with suggestions for planning of new experiments and activities by the Center.
Shortly after lunch, two participants volunteered to present issues and thoughts on behalf of specific stakeholders. Gregg Swindlehurst, a private consultant for the Electric Power Research Institute, presented the EPRI perspective. Any research and development supporting the existing fleet must be considered important by both the industry and the regulator. This means the product of a validation effort must maintain or enhance public safety, address legacy, emerging, and aniticpated regulatory issues, sustain the operation of the fleet, improved operating margins, and economics, facilitate power uprates and life extension, and improve fuel reliability. Swindlehurst went on to list many existing data sets that need to be updated with new data. He shared results of a survey conducted by his company of industry organizations which identified key LWR phenomena for which validation data is lacking.
Steve Bajorek of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission followed with a discussion of legacy data which continues to have high value but may be under-utilized. Additional legacy data that may be used can be identified by PIRTs (Phenomenon Identification and Ranking Tables) and prior submittals. The efficient use of this data, however, requires a consistent electronic format, details of instrumentation, and detailed facility description, a full data report documenting the tests, and a scaling report. He recommended that NEKVaC focus on model uncertainty, as opposed to code uncertainty which is scenario specific. Bajorek indicated that the NRC is will to help link their extensive database with the Portal to be constructed by the Center.
Immediately following these talks, the two Breakout Sessions were organized to identify customers/stakeholders and their needs for NEKVaC, including facilities, data, validation support, etc. The first group focused on needs from Light Water Reactors (LWR), Advanced LWRs, and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The second group focused on other advanced reactors (non-LWRs).
4

The meeting concluded with a summary from each breakout team and an overall discussion of the critical short-term activities for NEKVaC success. All presentations were posted on a INL public website, https://nekvacworkshop.inl.gov.
Specific Suggestions and Outcomes
• Establish the US Center (Hans Gougar)
- Charter, functions, staff - Interface with OECD/NEA (Phillip Finck) - Establish relations with stakeholders/identify needs (today) • Form a Steering Committee to Develop and Initiate a Process for Assessing and Prioritizing Legacy and New Experiment Evaluations (Hussein Khalil)
• Form the Methods/Standards Group Identify best practices/protocols of the reactor physics benchmark projects and adapt/expand them for thermal fluid and multiphysics code validation (Tim Valentine)
• Initiate identified near-term projects
Specific suggestions for Center activities were identified and listed here.
Near-Term/High Priority Activities
• Populate committees/Charter
• Data
- Process for submitting/selecting proposals for access to non-US data - Legacy data recovery - Legacy and nonUS data qualification - Database Portal – construct an internet ‘storefront; in which a user could gain easy access to
existing databases. Some discussion ensued regarding the format and access policies. • University project (IRP/NEUP) – advise DOE on calls for proposals and develop a plan for an
integrated research project.
Specific Projects
• LOFT/EBR2/THORS Legacy Experiment Mining and Re-evaluation for Sodium Fast Reactors
• Portal Construction (hosted by the Radiation Safety Information and Computation Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Initial databases to be linked:
- NRC - OECD/NEA - NDMAS • Build on the Nuclear Energy Knowledge Management System (NEKAMS)
• Standard Development for Data Qualification
• Value Proposition
- Qualification/Benchmark Construction • Develop a Roadmap for future projects
The attached Appendixes I and II includes the Agenda, Breakout Session Results, a statement of the EPRI Perspective, and a list of Attendees.
5

Appendix I Agenda

Thursday, January 14, 2015 08:00 Welcome/Workshop Goals and Format ............................................................... Hans Gougar
Director, NEKVaC

08:30 08:45

Introduction of Participants.....................................................................................................All Modern Code Validation – Challenges and Opportunities......................................Phillip Finck
INL Chief Scientist and Director, MPEBV

09:15

Modern Code Validation – How do we do it?.............................................. William Oberkampf
WLO Consulting

10:00 10:15 11:45 12:00 13:00 13:30 14:00

Break Roundtable: Terms of Reference - Validation Definition, Objectives, Activities, and Gaps .. All Preparation for Breakout Sessions ........................................................................................ All Working Lunch – NEKVaC Organization and Initial Activities ............................. Hans Gougar Industry Perspective .......................... Gregg Swindlehurst, Electric Power Research Institute NRC Perspective ......................................Stephen Bajorek, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Breakout Sessions .....................................................................................................................

• LWR, SMR, and ALWR

15:00

• Advanced (non-LWR) Reactors
Identify and prioritize validation needs related to reactor and fuel performance, core physics and fuel cycle analysis, T-H design, safety analysis, structural mechanics, etc. Describe the types of experiments and/or legacy data analysis that would be needed.
Adjourn

Friday, January 15, 2015
08:30 Breakout Session Reports ................................................... Kumar Rohatgi and Hans Gougar
10:00 Break
10:15 NEKVaC Scope and Strategy ................................................................................................ All
How can DOE, through NEKVaC, have the most impact given limited resources? For high priority activities, who must NEKVaC engage? What value can be obtained from legacy experiments and international efforts (MPEBV)? How can stakeholders help NEKVAC help stakeholders?
11:30 Summary and Path Forward

6

Last Bajorek Braase Deo Dinh Edgar Finck Ghiaasiaan Gougar Holbrook Ivanov Khalil Kothe Oberkampf Petrovic Pointer Rabiti Rahnema Ray Rohatgi Sofu Swindlehurst Taiwo Turinsky Valentine Williamson Youngblood Zhang

First Stephen Lori Chaitanya Nam Christopher Phillip Mostafa Hans Mark Kostadin Hussein Doug William Bojan Dave Cristian Farzad Sumit Kumar Tanju Gregg Temitope Paul Timothy Rich Bob Hongbin

Appendix II Attendee List
Email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

7

Organization NRC INL Georgia Tech NCSU Georgia Tech INL GA Tech/ ANE INL INL PSU ANL ORNL WLO Georgia Tech ORNL INL GA Tech Westinghouse BNL ANL EPRI ANL NCSU ORNL INL INL INL

$SSHQGL[,,, 1(.9D&2UJDQL]DWLRQ

7KH1XFOHDU(QHUJ\.QRZOHGJHDQG9DOLGDWLRQ&HQWHUZDV FUHDWHGWRDGGUHVVWKHFKDOOHQJHVRIFRPSOH[HJPXOWLSK\VLFV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6WDQGDUGV'HYHORSPHQWDQG %HQFKPDUN3URWRFROVHJ=XEHU V7HLUHG+LHUDUFK\,&6%(3 ,53K(3'DWD$QDO\VLVOHJDF\GDWDHYDOXDWLRQDQGUHXVHGDWD UHGXFWLRQWHFKQLTXHVHWF([SHULPHQWDQG&RGH'HYHORSPHQW )DFLOLWDWH,QWHJUDWHGSODQQLQJDQG.QRZOHGJH0DQDJHPHQW7KHVH DUHUHIOHFWHGLQWKHVWUXFWXUHRIWKHRUJDQL]DWLRQ)LJXUH

VISION
The Nuclear Energy Knowledge and Validation Center is a
partner and essential resource for code owners, users, and
developers to acquire the best practices and latest techniques for validating codes, planning
and executing experiments, gaining access to and fully exploiting existing data, and preserving knowledge for use by
their successors.


 )LJXUH1(.9D&2UJDQL]DWLRQDO6WUXFWXUH