FEATURE E ADVANCED NODAL FOR PEDESTRIANS Yung-An Chao ERFD Core Engineering crneveail Mawlery Bert boop. METHODS The basic physics of advanced nodal theory is deseribed in simple terns, Different nodal methods are reviewed with a winizal use of mathenatics, PROLOGUE Advanced nodal theory is easy to un- derstand. After more than a decade of deve opment and applications, advanced nodal methods have overcome the skepticism thet classical nodai methods received in the early years and acquired a firm stetus and general acceptance in the reactor physics community. However, despite the success of advanced nodal methods in practical applications, the Question for some people still remains what, after all, really makes them work? Is there anything magic about them? Are we getting some- thing for nothing? NO, edvanced nodal theories are neither complicated or magical. in fact, the physics in- volved is quite simple, although the resulting mathematical equations ere more sophisticated than the good old finite difference equations. in this article, | will elaborate on this point with minimal mathematics. 1 will elso review different nodal methods from the seme perspective. NODAL METHODS EVOLUTION : THE CLASSICAL TO THE ADVANCED ‘There have been two chronological phases of nodal method development, the classical and the advanced. The mid-seventies was the dividing tine of the two periods. The classical nodal methods started with BWR methods development in the early sixties. They are based on more heuristic arguments and rely to some extent on empirical adjustments to achieve adequate accurecy. The first Hh oye Advanced Nodal Methods for PedestriansTECHNOLOGY TRENDS advanced nodal method was intro- duced by KWU, followed by several others. They are besed on more rig- erous enelysis, and are much more accurate, FLARE and PALADON ere examples of codes using classical nodal methods. CUBBOX, QUANDRY, ANC, and NOVA ere examples of codes using advanced nodal methods. Classica! nodal methods use coupling coefficients, Leakage Probabftity Nodal methods ere introduced to save computing time as compared to the finite difference method. The latter approximates derivatives by linear difference ratios, end therefore re- quires many small meshes to be ac- curate, which is 1ime consuming, The original idea behind @ classical nodel method is to resolve the conflict between accurecy and speed if March 1988 Several small meshes sre combined into a large “node” to speed up the computation, the finite difference ap- Proximation is no longer valid. Since the finite difference approximation is applied to the derivatives to evaluate currents, which account for leakages, the question is whether a different method can be used to evaluate the leakages between adjacent (large) nodes. The central idea of a classi nodal method is to relate the nodal leakage currents to t ‘one Aeutron source in a homogeneous node to calculate anaiytically the transit. probabilities of the source Yo the surrounding regions. ssary to make the simple assumptions of fist source distrib- ution, node homogeneity, and # spe- cific surrounding environment in order to make the problem solvable. However it is also precisely these assumptions that cause the classical nodal methods to be heuristic and empirical, Two very important features about classical nodal methods should be 2 Advanced Nodal Methods for Pedestrians— to be solved. TECHNOLOGY TRENDS March 1888 emphasized before we turn to the discussion of advanced nodal methods. The key elements of a classical nodal method ere the coup! ing coefficients, which are precalcu- lated independently of the problem For this reason we may classify classical nodal methods as “nodal coupling methods”. The other point is that in order to be able to calculate the coupling coefficients, the nodes are assumed to be homo- geneous. Advanced nodel methods ‘sew up node wise solutions. Sewing up nodevise solutions “oo™ Bee ee Taney The assumption of homogeneous nodes provides the key clue to the development of advanced nodal methods. If the nodes are already assumed to be homogeneous, we / Should be able to do a lot better than Phir ba pen Vv fn inher wate ne Yi peat °y nodal coupling methods provide. The problem of neutron diffusion over @ homogeneous node is s0 much simpler that we know a lot more about the characteristics of its sol- ution. If we could properly “sew up” these individual solutions valid for each of the homogeneous nodes, we would be able to obtein the solution for the whole core. Instead of pre- uiating coupling coefficients by juming flat neutron sources, ad- venced nodal..methods «connect the nodewise solutions via “coupling equations”, which result from inter _boundsry conditions. Beceuse explicit representations of nodewise solutions are made in advanced nodal methods, we may classify them as “nodal representation methods” in contrast to classical nodal coupling methods. More detailed discussions ‘on the basic ideas of the nodal rep- resentation methods are given in the next section. WHAT MAKES ADVANCED NODAL METHODS WORK ? Homogenization is the key. Let us start with @ simple one di- mensions! problem, 8 homogeneous medium of, say. 200 em length. To solve this problem with the finite difference method, we need to divide it into at least 40 meshes, each 5 em fong, to get # solution of acceptable accuracy. Therefore, we need to in- troduce at least 40 unknowns in a set of 40 by 40 matrix equations, which Advanced Nodal Methods for Pedestrians = 3 Balt aTECHNOLOGY TRENDS result from the 40 interface boundary conditions between adjacent meshes. However, for such @ simple problem, we can trivially obtain the exact an- alytic solution, which is simply @ linear combination of @ sine and & cosine function. The coefficients of the two terms are the only two ine dependent parameters to be deter- mined by the core boundary conditions. Thus, we can say thet for this problem, we can use @ “nodal!” method with only 8 single (extremely coarse) node of 200 em to obtain & solution even more accurate than that of the finite difference method with) aroivarly fine meshes. Is. tis| statement trivial? Yes, nevertheless the essence of the nodal method is all contained herein, The very im- portant point to recognize here is that the medium being homogeneous does the trick. If this 1D core were not homogeneous, one would not be able to obtain the complete solution with a single node and two parameters, and divi¢ing the core into meshes would be necessary. A nodal solution can be exact. Now let us generalize the above example to a slightly more interesting fone. Suppose that the core contains 10 different sections, each 20 cm tong and of a different homogeneous material composition. Since for each of the 1D homogeneous problems we can obtain its analytic solution in terms of two parameters, the com- plete solution can be represented in A March 4988 terms of 20 parameters. Actually we can do better than that, The two parameters for each section can be Getermined in terms of the boundary conditions of that section, which can be prescribed by the flux values at the two ends of the section. There- fore the complete “exact” solution can be represented in terms of only 31 parameters, which are the fluxes at the 9 interfaces and the 2 end boundaries. So we conclude that for this problem we can use # nodal method with 10 (coarse) nodes and 11 parameters to obtain a solution even better than that of a finite dif- ference method with arbitrarily fine meshes. Again the trick is thet each of the 10 sections is 8 homogeneous medium. Another very important \point to be noted is that since the 1odal solution is analytic within each section, it provides flux values con- tinuously at every point. On the contrary, the finite difference solution provides flux Values only at discrete points. : refine the core model further by introducing 15 fuel rod subintervals in each of the 10 sec- tions, each fuel rod with a different burnup. The core now contains 300 intervals of different media. A finite Gifference model for this core will have typically 300 meshes with 300 unknowns. If we follow the same analysis as that above, we need 300 nodes to obtain an exact nodal sol- ution, There. is no advantage other than that the nodal solution will still Next, we 4 Advanced Nodal Methods for PedestriansTECHNOLOGY TRENDS be the exact solution while the finite difference solution is not. But for meshes so small, this advantage is no longer significant. However, if we know in practice that the solution Variation across the 15 rod intervals in each of the 10 sections is either smail or very local, we may “homo- genize” each section and obtain, as described before, the 10 node and 11 Parameter exact solution to the hom- ogenized problem. This method is, of course, & lot faster than the finite difference method using 300 meshes, and its solution provides & continuous and smooth global description of the flux verietion over the core. This solution should be very good for calculating any node averaged quanti- ties although it does miss local Structures, which can be recovered, however, with @ post-caiculation re- construction or superposition method. We see once again that the key here is the homogenization of the nodes. Thus far, we can reach two conclu- sions through this 1D example. The first is that for a core containing a number of homogenous regions, there is no point in using @ fine mesh finite difference method. One ‘would be much better off to use a nodal method to obtain 8 whole core sol- ution by “sewing up” analytic sol- utions for each of the homogeneous regions. The second conclusion is that if @ heterogeneous core can be decomposed to distinct regions, which cen be epproximately homo- genized, one would still be better off to use a nodal method to obtain the March 1986 Smooth continuous solution and then reconstruct local variations. When we generalize the above 1D example to 2D or 3D, however, com- Plications rise. For simplicity of discussion, we will consider here only the 2D case. For 8 2D homogeneous region, an analytic solution to the diffusion equation usually can not be obtained. The geometry of the region ang the boundary conditions can complicate the solutions tremen- Gously. Even for the simplest case of & homogeneous rectangular region, the closest that one can get to an analytic solution is an integral repre- sentation in terms of the boundary values and the Green's function for the rectangular region, which ean only be expressed ss en infinite series expension. Only for an extremely imple boundary condition on this rectangular region, can this integral representation result in @ closed sol- ution. The question now is whether one can still take any advantage of the homogeneity of the regions to do better than using the fine mesh finite difference method. Well, al- though one can not obtain the exact analytic solution for » homogeneous rectangular node, one may be able to obtain an approximate one. If the approximate solution has acceptable accuracy and contains fewer pereme- ters than the number of meshes re- quired for a finite difference methoo solution, one would still be better off. It is easy to see that this should be possible. For a homogeneous Advanced Nodal Methods for Pedestrians 5TECHNOLOGY TRENDS region, the solution must be a smooth function. Now consider fitting to e smooth curve. One can choose dis- crete points on the curve and join them by straight lines, which is ane ogous to the finite difference method, Or one can fit it with functional forms containing parameters, which is enalogous to nodal methods. Fitting with line segments versus parameterized functions It seems obvious thet even if we do not know the exact or correct fune- tional form, we should expect to do much better with reasonable func- tional representations than straight tine segments. On the other hand if the region is not homogeneous, the Solution may have zigzags or local Structures. For that type curve, a Smooth functional representation can only describe its smooth “back- ground” shepe, The local structures then have to be reconstructed on top March 1988 of the smooth background. How to obtain such en approximate snelytic solution and how many parameters are needed for its representation are the crucial questions to be answered. Different nodal representation methods differ in their answers to these questions. This leads to the discussion of the next section, » review of different advenced nodal methods. REVIEW OF ADVANCED NODAL METHODS Ditferem methods use different sol- ution parameterizations. Since the analytic solution for @ ho- Mogeneous node can not be obtained in @ closed form except for the one dimensional case, nodal represen- tation methods try to construct the single node solution representation from the one dimensional solution. This solution is usually obtained by fegrating over the transverse vari- ables, for example, integrating over the y and z variables to reduce the diffusion equation to # one dimen- sional equation in x The resulting 1D equation contains en extra term re- Presenting the neutron leakage in transverse directions, which ean be treated as en additional source term. However, this 1D equation can not be solved until the transverse leakege term can be explicitly specified. This is where approximations are intro- duced. A quadratic approximation to the tensverse leakage is introduced, 6 Advanced Nodal Methods for PedestriansTECHNOLOGY TRENDS the parameters of which ere in turn relaied to the solutions to the similar 1D equations along the transverse di: rections, Thus, all the three 1D equations are coupled, The so called analytic nodal method (QUANDRY code developed at MIT and used by STUDSVIK) solves each of the 1D equations analytically, while the nodal expension method (used in the CUBBOX code developed at KWU and our ANC) represents the 1D solution by a polynomial expansion consistent with the transverse leakage approxi mation. There are other methods having mixed features from both methods. There are also variants of each method, for example, using partial currents or net currents to implement interface boundary condi- tions. In any case, all the methods essentially approximate the single node solution with @ representation involving the parameters appearing in the 1D solution ang the transverse leakage term. These parameters are the unknown variables entering the nodal equations resulting from con- Recting the single node solutions through the interface boundary con: tions. Unlike the nodaf”" coupling methods, where only the node average flux is determined, the nodal representation methods determine all the representation parameters, from which both tne average and the dis- tribution of the node flux cen be seduced. March 1988 What is the most economical paremet- erization? ht is important to reatize thet ed- vanced nodal methods actually solve for the representation parameters rather than just the assembly aver- aged fluxes. This has two implix tations. More parameters provide more information, which is good. On the other hand, to determine more parameters requires more calculation and computation time. Therefore it is important to address the question, whether the parameters are theore- tically independent, end what is the Most economical parameterization to use. These questions opened up a new perspective to the understanding of advanced nodal methods, and mo- tivated our work on the “interface flux nodal method” discussed in the following paragraph. Let us consider a 2D homogeneous rectangular node, and ask how the solution of the diffusion equation over the node can be approximated with a minimum number of parame- ters, First, the solution is uniquely determined by the boundary condi- tions, which can be @ specification of the boundary flux value or the boundary current value. In fact the exact solution is an integral, over the four sides of the node, of the product ‘of the boundary value and 2 known function, the so-called Green's func- tion, So the best approximation to the solution with a minimum number of parameters is the one that ap- proximates the boundary value profile Advanced Nodal Methods for Pedestrians 7TECHNOLOGY TRENDS With a minimum number of perame- ters. If one chooses to use current 85 the boundary value, then the in- terface current profile needs to be Parameterized. The same current Profile is shared by the two adjacent nodes, and the parameters are deter- mined through the nodal equations resulting from the condition of inter- face flux continuity. On the other hand if flux is chosen as the bound- ary value, the interface flux profile is approximated. The seme flux profile is shered by two adjacent Nodes, and the parameters are then determined through the_condition of interface current continuity. When the former approach is taken, parameter- izing the interface current profile with 8 parabolic function, it can be proved that the resulting nodal equations are very similar to those used in the above cited analytic nodal method {QUANDRY}, In fact, they can be re- Produced with only slight modifica- tions, The so called interface flux nodal method chooses to paremeter- ize the interface flux with @ parabolic function, and the resulting - nodal equations are the ones used in the NOVA code. The advantage of par- ameterizing an interface flux profile over an interface current profile is that the neutron flux function is the- oretically continuous everywhere. On the other hand, an interface current is continuous in its direction, but its Profile over the interface is not nec- essarily 2 continuous function. Merch 1988 All the different advanced nodal methods have about the same eccu- tacy and computing speed. With two group end one node per homogenized assembly, they give excellent pred- ictions of node averaged powers. In Addition, they can also provide very good power gradient predictions inside the nodes. SUPERNOVA : A SUPERFAST NEO-CLASSICAL NODAL COUPLING METHOD. The minimum number of parameters is one. The efficiency of & nodal represen- tation method depends on how many perameters per node are used to re- Present a nodewise solution. The minimum number is, of course, just one parameter. But is that possible? This question turns our discussion to a very recent development in ac- vanced nodal’ methods, the methogol- ogy of the SUPERNOVA’ (SPNOVA) code. In order to provide an ade- quate background for the discussion, we will first describe related aspects of the NOVA code. Although the above advanced nodal Methods are much faster than the finite difference method, in some application areas, where many re- Peated dimensional calculations are required such as fuel management, core monitoring and kinetics analysis, there is still a very strong need for even faster computing methods. For 8 — Agvanced Nodal Methods for PedestriansTECHNOLOGY TRENDS loading pattern search applicetions, NOVA wes revised to 8 simpler for- mulation to increase its speed. A two group two dimensional albedo Model was introduced to replace the baffle reflector region. The “Effec- tive Fast Group” mode! wes intro- duced to collapse the two group formulation to an effective one group formulation. The assumption of the FG model is that the thermal flux leakage is small compared to the fast flux leakage so thet the ratio of the two can be: treated as ® small ex- Pansion parameter. In keeping the expansion to the first order of the Parameter, an epproximate thermal to-fast flux ratio can be obtained. Using this flux ratio in the fission source term of the fast group dif- fusion equation leads to the following EFG diffusion equation, LtVPO, OL keg, oD where L, is the fest neutron diffusion length and k«# is the EFG multipli~ cation factor, This factor differs from the conventional multiplication fector ke in that it includes the thermal leakage effect to the first order. The revised NOVA assumes that equation (1} can provide an ac- curate approximation for the fast flux The physical argument for this as- sumption is that because of the large fast neutron diffusion length, the fast flux distribution is not very sensitive to the detailed local variations of the fission source term. The use of equation (1) reduces the nurverical it- March 1988 eration scheme from two group to one group. After the fast fiux is obtained, the thermal flux, however, is not simply deduced from the fast flux by using the essumed fast 10 thermal flux ratio. An additional correction, accounting for higher order thermal leakage effects, is carried out on a node by node basis. The EFG model is 2 forebeer of SPNOVA. From equation (1) we see that its solution depends on two pa~ rameters, k* and L,. An iterative numerical solution to equation (1) contains two loops, the outer iter- ation loop and the inner iteration loop. The outer iteration loop updates the fission source term on the right side of equation (1), and the inner iteration loop solves the fixed source problem for the flux by nu- merically inverting the diffusion op- erator on the left side of equation (1). The outer iteretion calculation in- volves the parameter ks, while the inner iteration depends only on the parameter L, and the core boundary condition. It i that_the same diffusion ¢ is fepeatediy inverted after every outer iteration. If the inverted operator could be pre-calculated and stored, inner iterations could then be elimi- Rated and the resulting nodal equation could contain only one parameter per node. This would be worth doing only if the seme inverted operator g/ could be used for. different problems. Fortunately, for a PWR core, th of Ly is nearly independent of the Advanced Nodal Methods for Pedestrians 9TECHNOLOGY TRENDS fuel enrichment and burnup, and hence is independent of the core loading condition, We name this property’ of an epproximately constant L, "Dif- fusive Homogeneity", which means that a PWR is essentially homogene- us with respect to the diffusion of fest neutrons despite the heterogene- ity in its reactivity distribution. This has @ very important consequence, That is, the diffusion operator in equation (1) is essentially unique and therefore needs to be inverted only once. Inner iterations are elimineted. After the diffusion operator is in- verted, equation (1) becomes, = [G]k«9,) (2) where [G] is # square matrix releting each node to the other ones. This “G-matrix” is the Green’s function of the diffusion operator (essentially its inverse) cast in a discrete matrix form. This Green's function is valid for the whole core, unlike the Green's function discussed in previous sec- tions which is valid only far each individuat node. The — G-matrix depends only on L,, the core geom- etry and the core boundary condition. SPNOVA is a renewed nodal coupling method. The physical meaning of the G-matrix, 5 it stands in equation (2), -can be March 1968 interpreted as the diffusion probabil ity of source neutrons from one node to other nodes. This reminds us of the coupling constants in the classical nodal coupling methods. indeed equation (2) is the simplest form of 2 nodal coupling equation. Are we then meking progress or retrogress- ing? How is this different trom 2 Classical nodal coupling method? Well, recall how the classical coupling coefficients are obtained. They are calculated with over-simplitied as- sumptions and approximations, The G-matrix elements, however, stand for more accurately calculated coupi- ing coefficients. For this reason, we may categorize SPNOVA as a “neo- classical” nodal coupling method. Another difference in the classical Rodel coupling methods is that they have more complicated coupling schemes so that inner iterations and Mterative updating on the coupling coefficients are still required. To sppreciate the simplicity of the Methodology, one notes that equation (2) is the only nodal equation to be Solved iteratively, it involves only one parameter per node, the coupling coefficients need not be updated during iterations, and there are no inner iterations to perform. These features combined with the use of one node per assembly and the removal of baffle and reflector makes SPNOVA a factor of fifty to ® hundred times faster than conven- tional nodal codes. 10 Advanced Nodal Methods for PedestriansTECHNOLOGY TRENDS NODE HOMOGENIZATION : A BASIC PROBLEM FOR NODAL METHODS. A discussion on advanced nodal methods would not be complete without some remarks on node hom- ogenization. By now, it is not nec- essary to repest that node homogenization. is the central as- sumption of ail the nodal methods. But it may not be obvious thet hom- ogenizetion can become a rather subtle problem. There are two prob: lems _with the homogenization of e Node, The first is thet it depends on the node boundary condition, which one does not know unless the exact Solution of the problem is already available, Therefore, one always Reeds to assume some “typical” or “expected” nodal boundary condition. The second probiem is more subtle and less familiar to nonexperts. Even if the exact flux solution for a het= erogeneous node were given, one still could no: perform a “rigorous” hom= ogenization, To expiain this in simple way, let us consider the fol lowing simple 1D and 1G diffusion equation over one node, > (6/dx) [0 (x) (4/dx) 6 (x) J + Ee (x) 9G) = Ir Gx) eG) @) One would like to homogenize the above equation to the following form, Bie? /ex)$(x) + Ee 30) = Er G(x) (a) March 1988 Such that its solution preserves all the reaction rates given by the sol- ution of equation (3). We will see that this is simply impossible. Rigorous homogenization is impossible! Assuming the flux values are given on the two boundaries suffices to uniquely determine the solutions, glx) and $x). The solution gx) depends on the three parameters, B, Ea , and tr. The question is whether the three group constants can be so chosen that the node integrated flux is preserved and the node integrated value of each of the three terms in equation (3) is also preserved. Since the three terms in equation (3) are related, we need to impose conser- vation on only two of them.’ There- fore, we have three independent conditions for three unknowns, uniquely determining the three group constants. Now the function $x! is totally fixed, there is no freedom to adjust the currents at the “two bound- aries, which depend on the slopes of Bod there. So the currents at the two boundaries can not be forced to agree individually with the true currents, falthough the sum of the two bound- ary currents is the total node leakage, namely the first term of equation (d), and is indeed preserved.) Therefore we conclude that the homogeneous solution and the heterogeneous -sol- ution have the same boundary fluxes but not the same boundary currents, Hed the boundary currents been spe- cified es the boundary conditions Advanced Nodal Methods for Pedestrians 11TECHNOLOGY TRENDS instead, with the seme argument we would conclude that the flux on each of the boundary ends would not be Preserved. in short, there are simply Ret enough homogenized group con- stants to be adjusted to meet all the conditions on preserving reaction tates, flux level, end the boundery values of both the flux and current. The only way to resolve the problem is to introduce more parameters in order ‘to bring in more degrees of freedom. This is why the “mysteri- ‘ous discontinuity factors” are intro- duced. One simply uses the ratios of the boundary values-of the fluxes {or currents) between the heteroge- neous and homogeneous solutions to alter the interface flux (or current) continuity condition. The homogene- ous solution is not required to be continuous at en interface, instead it is required to be discontinuous by 2 specific amount. Of course the correct discontinuity factors can be caiculatée only if the exact solution is already available. In practice, one could choose @ “typical” case to calculate them and assume that they apply approximately to other cases. Obviously one could introduce pa- Femeters other than the discontinuity factors to solve the homogenization Problem. For instance, one could assume directional dependence in B, SO that instead of one diffusion co- efficient. per node, there would be several diffusion coefficients apply- ing to different directions. March 1988 EPILOGUE What next? | have given » conceptual discussion of advanced nodal theory with ali details omitted. Although the basic physical idea is indeed very simple, 88 any good physics should be, the implementation may become rether involved mathematically. Further dis- cussion on the subject would get into the details and would no longer be light reading to the readers. There- fore | will wind up this article with 2 few personal opinions, which un- doubtedly reflect my biased views. For years | have heard people say ‘that reactor physics is dead, there is nothing new on the horizon, and all that is needed are bigger computers. Of course from the point of view of fundamental theory, reactor physics may be mature. However, from a practical point of view, reactor Physics methods are still complicated and clumsy. Physics is a science of approximation. it models a compli- cated system or problem in a simple wey to capture its major character- istics of interest. As long as a physics model is found complicated for certain applications, there is a need for model simplification and there is “new” physics to be devel oped. Beyond a certain point one may mot call it pure physics any more, and that is the beginning of So-called engineering physics. 12° Advanced Nodal Methods for PedestriansTECHNOLOGY TRENDS The technology is not mature In my opinion, today’s technology for core design and analysis is not yet & mature technology. We ttle capability for optimizing the design end operation of & core. Conse- quently, core designers may not find design as challenging, creative and enjoyable as it could be. However, the recent developments in nodal methods will allow us to do a lot more things than we could ever think of doing before. As a result, de- signers with more powerful and flex- ible tools will be able to do more interesting designs. in particular, for the first time it will be feasible to develop useful optimizers. Despite many unfruitful attempts in the past, 1 believe that optimization will Fesurge es a main theme of the next 6T Téactor physics methods, along With design tools on workstations and Pts. In conclusion. reactor physics may be @ mature science but reactor physics methods are not mature technology. There are many interest- ing problems to be solved and many powerful tools to be developed. A new era is yet to come. But... will it? It would be very sad if we lack the vision needed for this time to arrive. March 1988 Author Yung-An Chao is 8 fellow engineer in the Methods Development and inte- gration group of CNFD Core Engi- neering. He can be reached et WIN 293-2556. Advanced Nodal Methods for Pedestrians 13