NUREG/IA-0157

* International

Agreement Report

Contrast of

RELAP5/MOD3..2

Results From

Different Computing Platforms

Prepared by

A. L6pez, CNA

J. M. Sierra, CDI

Central Nuclear de Almaraz Control Data Ib~rica, SA

C/Claudio Coello, 123 Paseo de La Castellana, 93

28006 Madrid 28046 Madrid

Spain Spain

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

April 1999

Prepared as part of

The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange

under the International Code Application and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
AVAILABILITY NOTICE

Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, and Title 10, Energy, of the Code of Federal

Regulations, may be purchased from one of the following sources:

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

PO. Box 37082

Washington, DC 20402-9328

<http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs>

202-512-1800

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA-22161-0002

<http://www.ntis.gov/ordernow>

703-487-4650

The NUREG series comprises (1) brochures

(NUREG/BR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-)000g, (3) reports resulting

from international agreements (NUREG/IA-)XOXX,

(4) technical and administrative reports and books

[(NUREG-XXXX) or (NUREG/CR-)XXOQ], and (5)

compilations of legal decisions and orders of the

Commission and Atomic and Safety Ucensing

Boards and of Office Directors' decisions under

Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREGxxox.

A single copy of each NRC draft report is available

free, to the extent of supply, upon written request

as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer

Reproduction and Distribution

Services Section

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: <DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov>

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

A portion of NRC regulatory and technical information is available at NRC's World Wide Web site:

<http://www.nrc.gov>

All NRC documents released to the public are available for inspection or copying for a fee, in paper,

microfiche, or, in some cases, diskette, from the

Public Document Room (PDR):

NRC Public Document Room

2120 L Street, N.W., Lower Level

Washington, DC 20555-0001

<http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PDR/pdrl.htm>

1-800-397-4209 or locally 202-634-3273

Microfiche of most NRC documents made publicly

available since January 1981 may be found in the

Local Public Document Rooms (LPDRs) located in

the vicinity of nuclear power plants. The locations

of the LPDRs may be obtained from the PDR (see

previous paragraph) or through:

<http:l/www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/

SR1350N9/lpdr/html>

Publicly released documents include, to name a

few, NUREG-series reports; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents

and correspondence; NRC correspondence and

internal memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigation reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and

their attachments.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such

as books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation;

and congressional reports. Such documents as

theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings may

be purchased from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process

are maintained at the NRC Library, Two White Flint

North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852-2738. These standards are available in the

library for reference use by the public. Codes and

standards are usually copyrighted and may be

purchased from the originating organization or, if

they are American National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

<http://www.ansi.org>

212-642-4900

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under an international cooperative

agreement for the exchange of technical information. Neither

the United States Government nor any agency thereo, nor any

of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied,

or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third

party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents

that its use by such third party would not infringe privately

owned rights.
NUREGIIA-0157

International

Agreement Report

Contrast of

RELAP5/MOD3.2

Results From

Different Computing Platforms

Prepared by

A. L6pez, CNA

J. M. Sierra, CDI

Central Nuclear de Almaraz Control Data IbWrica, SA

C/Claudio Coello, 123 Paseo de La Castellana, 93

28006 Madrid 28046 Madrid

Spain Spain

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

April 1999

Prepared as part of

The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange

under the International Code Application and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ABSTRACT

This work has focused in detecting (and, where possible,

correcting) problems ocurred during the installation of

Relap5/Mod 3.2 on different computing environments that

encompass all major workstations (namely: DEC, HP, IBM, SGI

and SUN), besides that of CONVEX, all of which run under the

UNIX operating system. Once that the production version - that

obtained with the supplied installation procedure - of Relap5

was obtained for each platform, it was run a common sample

case and the results produced were analysed. As a result of

that analysis, substantial differences were observed in the

magnitude of the selected components (i.e., pressure, mass

flow and temperature in the intact and broken loop, etc.),

establishing as a possible cause for the discrepancies: the

level of optimization adopted for compilation, the chosen

maximum time step size, and the inherent precision of the

platforms under consideration (32 or 64 bit architectures,

compliance with IEEE-754, etc.). Those discrepancies,

however, lay within acceptable limits when the results of the

different machines are produced by non-optimised versions of

Relap5 (only for some machines) and using a maximum time step

size of about 0.125 s.. Hence, the recommendations are

two-fold: to users, about the need to run the test (both, with

and without optimisation) whenever a new version of Relap5,

operating system and/or compiler level is installed, and to

urge their system software providers to supply robust and

reliable products, and to developers, about the need to

deliver a code which is compliant with ANSI standards for

Fortran, to establish a more rigid criteria to evaluate the

maximum time step size and the convenience to put in place a

test, or set of them, to be used as an acceptance/rejection

criteria of the Relap5 version produced.

This work has been performed by Central Nuclear de Almaraz

(CNA), a member of Unidad El6ctrica, S.A. (UNESA) that

participates in the Code Application and Maintenance Project

(CAMP), and is part of the "in kind" contribution of Spain to

the CAMP Project.

Being the CAMP project of an international and

multidisciplinary scope, this work reinforzes that nature for

it is made out of contribution from the following groups: the

Spanish PWR Plant Operators, the Spanish Nuclear Safety

Council (CSN), the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEA) and

the High Technical School of Mines of Madrid (ETSIMM). Their

effort and suggestions are gathered here along with our deep

gratitude.

iii

CONTENTS

ABSTRA CT ........................................................................................................

CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ v

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... ix

EXECUTIVE SUM M ARY .............................................................................. xi

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

2. COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS CONSIDERED ..................................... 1

3. CA SE UNDER STUDY .............................................................................. 2

4. RESULTS .................................................................................................... 5

5. CON CLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 9

6. RECOM M ENDATION S .............................................................................. 9

7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 37

8. ACKN OW LEDGEM EN TS ......................................................................... 37

APPEND IX I ................................................................................................... 38

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. HW/SW Configurations ............................................................................ 1

Table 2. Common test case run (modified "typpwr.i") ........................................ 3

Table 3. Input for strip run .................................................................................. 3

Table 4. Common test case run (for time step sizes) ........................................... 4

Table 5. Input for strip run (for time step sizes and mass error) .......................... 5

Table 6. Inherent precision parameters .............................................................. 7

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Mass Flow Rate in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (116020000).

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, DEC-3 100 and DEC-5240 (from 0 to 650 s.) ..................................... 11

Figure 1.2 Pressure in the SG Sec. of the Intact Loop (180010000)

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, DEC-3 100 and DEC-5240 (from 0 to 650 s.) .................................... 12

Figure 1.3 Temperature in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (114010000)

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, DEC-3 100 and DEC-5240 (from 0 to 650 s.) .................................. 13

Figure 2.1 Mass Flow Rate in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (116020000)

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 14

Figure 2.2 Pressure in the SG Sec. of the Intact Loop (180010000)

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HIP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 15

Figure 2.3 Temperature in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (114010000)

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAIpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 16

Figure 3.1 Mass Flow Rate in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (116020000)

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ........ 17

Figure 3.2 Pressure in the SG Sec. of the Intact Loop (180010000)

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ............... 18

Figure 3.3 Temperature in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (114010000)

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ............... 19

Figure 4.1 Time Step Size, dt,

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50and Convex 3440 (from 0 to 650 s.) ................................. 20

Figure 4.2 Time Step Size, dt,

Results from the Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 0 to 650 s.) ............... 21

Figure 5.1 Mass Flow Rate in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (116020000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAIpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 22

Figure 5.2 Pressure in the SG Sec. of the Intact Loop (180010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 23

Figure 5.3 Temperature in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (114010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 24

ix
Figure 6.1 Mass Flow Rate in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (116020000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ........... 25

Figure 6.2 Pressure in the SG Sec. of the Intact Loop (180010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, LBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ........... 26

Figure 6.3 Temperature in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (114010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/2 seg, on

SGI-Indy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ........... 27

Figure 7.1 Mass Flow Rate in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (116020000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/8 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 28

Figure 7.2 Pressure in the SG Sec. of the Intact Loop (180010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/8 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ............ 29

Figure 7.3 Temperature in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (114010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/8 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 30

Figure 8.1 Mass Flow Rate in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (116020000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/8 seg, on

SGI-Indy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ........... 31

Figure 8.2 Pressure in the SG Sec. of the Intact Loop (180010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/8 seg, on

SGI-Indy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ............... 32

Figure 8.3 Temperature in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (114010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/8 seg, on

SGI-Lndy, IBM-6000, SUN-ULSP and SGI-4D30 (from 150 to 650 s.) ........... 33

Figure 9.1 Mass Flow Rate in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (116020000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/64 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 34

Figure 9.2 Pressure in the SG Sec. of the Intact Loop (180010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/64 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 35

Figure 9.3 Temperature in the Cold Leg of the Intact Loop (114010000)

Results from the Non-Optimized version, Max. dt = 1/64 seg, on

SGI-Indy, HP715/50, DECAlpha and Convex 3440 (from 150 to 650 s.) ...... 36

x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Relap5 code, as it is presently being distributed for

installation on different platforms, consists of a common

source code body and some installation procedures that use

specific scripts tailored for the target platforms. One of the

main concerns is the "portability" of the results produced,

that is, the results produced for the same input data should be

the same, regardless of the machine in which the were produced.

This work has focused in detecting (and, where possible,

correcting) problems ocurred during the installation of

Relap5/Mod 3.2 on different computing environments that

encompass all major workstations (namely: DEC, HP, IBM, SGI and

SUN), besides that of CONVEX, all of which run under the UNIX

operating system. A common sample case was run in each platform

using the production version - that obtained with the supplied

installation procedure - of Relap5 and the results produced

were analysed. As a result of that analysis, substantial

differences were observed in the magnitude of the selected

components (i.e., pressure, mass flow and temperature in the

intact and broken loop, etc.), establishing as a possible cause

for the discrepancies: the level of optimization adopted for

compilation, the chosen maximum time step size, and the

inherent precision of the platforms. Those discrepancies,

however, lay within acceptable limits when the results of the

different machines are produced by non-optimised versions of

Relap5 (only for some machines) and using a maximum time step

size of about 0.125 s..

Some recommendations are made: to users, about the need to run

the test (both, with and without optimisation) whenever a new

installation of Relap5 takes place, and to developers, about

the need to deliver a robust code and to establish a more rigid

criteria to evaluate the maximum time step size and the

convenience to put in place a test, or set of them, to be used

as an acceptance/rejection criteria of the Relap5 version

produced.

xi

1. IN~TRODUCTION

In the past recent years, there have been a number of

advancements in computing technology - namely, the widespread

use of open systems on high performance RISC workstations

under the UNIX operating system - that have dramatically

changed the scenario on which the Relap5 analysis code is

operated. As far as the user/analyst is concerned, it has

derived from a situation in which he/she was just a "code

runner" - the code was on the corporate mainframe (CDC, CRAY,

IBM or IBM-compatible) and somebody else took care of

installing and quality controlling it - to a "do-it-yourself"

situation in which he/she has to do everything from

installing, to running, to quality controlling it on a

departmental high performance workstation. That is due also,

no doubt, to the way Relap5 is being disseminated (unique

source code, simple media, i.e. diskette, etc., and simple

installation procedures that use powerful and sophisticated

scripts for the different platforms). However, that - in

principle - leap forward achievement, poses serious concerns

about the portability/independence of results being produced

on different computing environments.

2. COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS CONSIDERED

As depicted on Table 1, the choice of computing platforms

under study encompass all major players in today's market of

high performance RISC workstations. The exception to that is

the CONVEX computer, a none-of-a-kind" installation.

Table 1. WIISW Configurations

Confia. Description

CNVX3440 CONVEX-3440, Unix 11.2, ftn77 v9.1, 128 MB

DEC-3100 DECStation 3100, Ultrix 4.3, ftn77 v3.2, 16 MB

DEC-5240 DECStation 5000/240 PX, Ultrix 4.2A, DECftn v3.1,32 MB

DECA2100 DEC-A-Ser 2100/500 MP, OSF/1 3.2, DECftn v3.5, 256 MB

DEC-A-Ser 2100/500 MP, OSF/1 3.2, Fortran 90, 256 MB

DEC-A-Sta 200 4/233, OSF/1 3.2 41 Alpha,

DECftn for OSF/1 AXP v3.8, 256 MB

HP715/50 HP-715/50, HP/UX 9.03, ftn77, 64 MB

HP-735/125, HP/UX 10.0, ftn77, 64 MB

IBM-6000 IBM.R/S-6000, AIX 3.2, XL Fortran vl.1, 64 MB

SGI-INDY SGI-INDY, IRIX 5.2, ftn77 v3.2, 32 MB

SGI-4D30 SGI-4D30, IRIX 4.05, ftn77 v3.4.1, 16 MB

SUN-ULSP SUN-UltraSPARC 140, Solaris 2.5, ftn77 v4.0, 32 MB

1
The peculiarities occurred during the installation of

Relap5/Mod 3.2 on the different platforms are described in

Appendix I. As a general rule, the changes needed in the

procedures can be labelled as very mild.

It should be pointed out that configuration "DECA2100" is

representative of the DEC-Alpha Server 2100/500 and the

DEC-Alpha Station, since all give (for the operating system

level and compilers indicated in Table 1) identical results.

Likewise happens with configuration "HP715/50", representative

of platforms HP-715/50 and HP-735/125.

The results produced by the SGI-Indy are considered, all

through this work and for comparison purposes only, as the

reference ones. Although they seem to be smoother than the

rest, that, by no means, should be taken as any claim to the

accuracy and/or correctness of the results.

3. CASE UNDER STUDY

Whenever.a new version of Relap5 is released, it is common

practice within the Spanish group - it started when first

involved in project ICAP and now has become a normal operating

procedure - to run and check the results of the (modified)

sample case "typpwr.i" (included along with the installation

material). The modifications introduced extend the problem

time from 100 to 650 sec. whereas the output units are changed

from British to SI (mks) (See Table 2). Sample case "typpwr.i"

presents a 4-loop PWR undergoing a 4" SBLOCA in the cold leg

starting at 0.01 sec. and as far as evaluation purposes is

concerned offers two good reasons to select it: first, it

encompass a good number of components and phenomena, and

second, it is known to all Relap5 users and, as such, provides

a common ground for discussion and evaluation. The magnitudes

and components, whose evolution over time are analysed, are

depicted in Table 3. Due to the large number of potential

figures, however, the representation of results have been

restricted to those of mass flow rate in the cold leg of the

intact loop (mflowj 116020000), the pressure in the steam

generator (SG) secondary of the intact loop (p 180010000) and

the temperature of the cold leg of the intact loop (tempf

114010000), for each calculational case considered. Also, the

maximum time step selected has been depicted for the base

case.

The analysis of the results (note: the "typpwr.i" uses a

maximum time step size of 0.50 sec.), obtained on the Relap5

production versions on different platforms, show generalized

discrepancies among them, starting at problem time of about

400 s. Those discrepancies affect to all magnitudes except

"rktpow", that shows identical results for all platforms. For

the sake of completeness - although they have been phased out

by their respective users - the results from DEC-Stations 3100

2
and 5240 are included in this work, and depicted in Figures

1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 over the whole time span from 0 to 650 sec.

(the observed discrepancies from time 0. and on, of the

results produced on the DEC Stations 3100 and 5124 have been

clearly identified with the compilation level chosen for two

subroutines).

Table 2. Conmmon test case run (modified Rtyppwr.i")

cna> diff typpwr.i typpwr.i.mod

12c12

< 102 british british

> 102 british si

21c21

< 201 100.0 1.0-7

> 201 650.0 1.0-7

0.50 7 2 40 160

0.50 7 2 260 1040

Table 3. Input for strip run

=typical pwr

100 strip

103 0

1001 mflowj

1003 mflowj

1005 mflowj

1011 p

1013 p

1015 p

1020 rktpow

1021 tempf

1023 tempf

1025 mflowj

1027 mflowj

1029 p

end of case

model -- 4 inch cold leg break

fmtout

116020000

212020000

505000000

180010000

280010000

345010000

0

114010000

210010000

192000000

190010000

190010000

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

cold leg, intact loop

cold leg, broken loop

cold leg, break

SG sec., intact loop

SG sec., broken loop

RV upper plenum

cold leg, intact loop

cold leg, broken loop

SI, triple loop

Accumulator

Accumulator

Following suggestions received from some of the assistants at

the Madrid meeting in May, 1996, the colleagues participating

in this work, as well as those offered in Refs. [1J-[3], the

search for the causes behind the said discrepancies was

limited to the following aspects:

1. use of non-optimized versions of Relap5,

2. maximum time step size (MTSS) selected, and

3. inherent precision parameters of the platforms.

3
To cover aspects 1 and 2 above, several sets of calculations

were performed on each of the platforms, namely:

a) with optimised version of Relap5/Mod 3.2, and MTSS

dt=0.5 s (they are depicted in Figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3,

3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 over the time span from 150 to 650

sec.). The time step size used during the calculations

are depicted in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 over the whole

time span from 0 to 650 sec.

b) with non-optimised version of Relap5/Mod 3.2, and MTSS

dt=0.5 s (they are depicted in Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3,

6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 over the time span from 150 to 650

sec.).

c) with non-optimised version of Relap5/Mod 3.2, and MTSS

dt=0.125 s (they are depicted in Figures 7.1, 7.2,

7.3, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 over the time span from 150 to

650 sec.).

d) with non-optimised version of Relap5/Mod 3.2, and MTSS

dt=0.015625 s (they are depicted in Figures 9.1, 9.2

and 9.3 over the time span from 150 to 650 sec.).

Besides the calculations already described, some others were

performed at the suggestion of the revision team (though only

on two specific machines, i.e. SGI-Indy and SGI-4D30), namely:

1. using as input the reference one (modified "typpwr.i")

but with the explicit introduction of the "d"

descriptor for the floating point numbers (i.e. 0.24

is replaced by 0.24d0),

2. analizing the time step size vs. the Courant time step

(see an extract of the modified input deck in Table 4),

3. analizing the mass error in the calculations (see an

extract of the modified strip input deck in Table 5),

Table 4. Common test case run (for time step sizes)

cna> diff typpwr.i typpwr.i.mod.dt

12c12

< 102 british british

> 102 british si

21c21

< 201 100.0 1.0-7 0.50 7 2 40 160

> 201 650.0 1.0-7 0.50 7 2 260 1040

37a38,40

> 20800361 dt 0

> 20800362 dtcrnt 0

4
Table 5. Input for strip run (time step sizes and mass error)

=typical pwr

100 strip

103 0

1001 mflowj

1003 mflowj

1005 mflowj

1011 p

1013 p

1015 p

1020 rktpow

1021 tempf

1023 tempf

1025 mflowj

1027 mflowj

1029 p

model -- 4

fmtout

116020000

212020000

505000000

180010000

280010000

345010000

0

114010000

210010000

192000000

190010000

190010000

inch cold leg break

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

cold leg, intact loop

cold leg, broken loop

cold leg, break

SG sec., intact loop

SG sec., broken loop

RV upper plenum

cold leg, intact loop

cold leg, broken loop

SI, triple loop

Accumulator

Accumulator

1031 dt

1032 dtcrnt

1033 emass

1034 tmass

. end of case

0

0

0

0

4. RESULTS

After pursuing the above mentioned three avenues, it was

found that:

1. When comparing the results obtained on the same platform,

from the current production version with those from the

non-optimised one, it was observed that only for the

DEC-Alpha and for the SGI-Indy those results were identical,

that is, only for those platforms the results are independent

of the compilation level selected. It was also observed that

the non-optimised results from different platforms "don't

differ as much" the optimised results do.

2. The study of the effect of the selected maximum time step

size on the results showed two things: first, the time step

sizes used are different (particularly from problem time 400

s. on) among platforms and, second, that the results and,

even more the differences between them, are very sensitive to

the maximum time step size. Obviously, the maximum time step

size is problem dependent, and for this particular problem,

"typpwr.i", it was found that for a maximum time step size of

0.125 s (= 1/8), most of the observed spikes in pressure,

mass flow and temperature - present at larger maximum time

step sizes, in all platforms results - dissapear and, what is

more important, when that maximum time step size of 0.125 s.

is used in conjunction with the non-optimised version of

Relap5 the results produced by all platforms agree fairly

well among themselves.

5
3. The analysis of the inherent precision parameters of the

platforms involved was focused on three aspects:

a) analysis of three specific parameters, EPS, TIN and

BIG, where:

EPS ... the smallest number, accepted by the

machine, to avoid unit round off:

( 1 - EPS < 1 < 1 + EPS ).

TIN ... the smallest number (in absolute value),

accepted by the machine, such that -TIN exists and

TIN <> 0 and -TIN <> 0.

BIG ... the largest number (in absolute value),

accepted by the machine, such that -BIG exists and

BIG <> Inf and -BIG <> Inf.

b) test LINPACK 100 x 100.

c) several iterative calculation tests:

A = exp(log(A )), with A = 2., for i =1,2,...N,

i i-1 0

B = sqrt((B )**C), with B = 3, C = 2, for i=1,2,...N,

i i-1 0

X = X / Z and Y = Y / Z , for i =1,2,...N,

i i-i i-1 i i-i i-1

and with Z given by:

i-1

Z = sqrt((X )**2 + (Y )**2), with X = Y = sen(Pi/4)

i-i i-1 i-1 0 0

This analysis proved to be of not much help since, as

shown in Table 4, the platforms analysed form a rather

homogenous set, that is, although for some there is

hardware support for 64-bits, the operating system

and/or the compiler level only provides support for

32-bits, thus all platforms appear "as if they were"

32-bit ones.

6
Table 6. Inherent precision parameters

Config. Pre. n1 n2 n3 n4 archit. NOR. RES. MACHEPS

S ----+----------------------------

CNVX3440

DECA2100

HP715/50

IBM-6000

SGI-INDY

SGI-4D30

SUN-ULSP

DP

DP

DP

DP

DP

DP

DP

52

52

52

52

52

52

52

53

53

53

53

53

53

53

1024

1074

1074

1074

1074

1074

1074

1022

1023

1023

1023

1023

1023

1023

HW32/SW32

HW64/SW32

HW32/SW32

HW32/SW32

HW64/SW32

HW32/SW32

HW64/SW32

9.58D-1

1.67D+0

1.67D+0

1.28D+0

1.67D+0

1.67D+0

1. 67D00

2.22D-16

2.22D-16

2.22D-16

2.22D-16

2.22D-16

2.22D-16

2.22D-16

max n1, such that: (1 + 2

max n2, such that: (1 - 2

-n2

)>1 \

)<i /

I ==> EPS = 2 /

- (min (nl, n2) )

-n3

max n3, such that: 2

+n4

max n4, such that: 2

-n3 -n3

<> 0. and -2 <> 0. ==>TIN= 2

+n4 +n4

<> Inf. and -2 <> Inf. ==> BIG = 2

7
The analysis of the tests of the inherent precision

parameters showed:

a) values of parameter EPS are platform independent,

whereas those of TIN and BIG are identical for all

platforms except for CONVEX, that shows a more

balanced values although within a narrower range.

b) test LINPACK 100 x 100 yields similar results for all

machines except for CONVEX and IBM-6000 which give

smaller normalised residue (NOR. RES.) values.

c) the iterative calculational tests, for N = 10000:

A = 2., (= A), B =3., (=B ), and

N 0 N 0

X = (except last digit) Y , (= cos(Pi/4)

N N

give excellent results for all platforms involved.

It should be mentioned, that a rigorous precision analysis

would require an exhaustive examination of the code - to see

the range of validity of the expresions coded, i.e.

exp(x)/sqrt(x), etc. - a task, however, that clearly exceeds

the scope of this work.

4. As it was mentioned in Section 3 above, additional

calculations were performed. Those calculations were carried

out only on two specific machines, the SGI-Indy and the

SGI-4D30, and the results obtained showed:

1. results obtained using the "d" descriptor in the input

data and those obtained without using it are identical.

2. during most of the problem time, the time step size

used is smaller than the Courant time step calculated.

Only in a few instances (around problem times 300 and 400

sec.) and for a short time, the time step size used is

slightly larger than the Courant time step calculated,

however, it is never less than 80% of the Courant time

step.

3. the relative mass error obtained in the calculations

never exceeds 0.016 % (that translates into a maximum

mass error of about 69 Kg in about 422000 Kg).

There is no-reason to believe that the trend observed for the

two SGI machines is not followed by the results from the rest

of the platforms.

8
5. CONCLUSIONS

In analysing the possible causes for the discrepancies

observed, three avenues were pursued, namely: the compilation

level, the maximum time step size and the platforms inherent

precision. The effect of the first two proved to be very

important in justifying the observed discrepancies and in

finding the corrections to them, whereas the third one was

rather useless given the fact that the platforms considered

constituted a rather homogeneous set (RISC hardware, UNIX

operating system, "effective" 32-bits architecture) which

produced very similar, if not identical, results for the

numerical tests performed.

As a summary, it can be concluded that results for the

magnitudes of the components of the problem under study are

very sensitive to the time step size selected for all

platforms considered. Likewise, results are dependent upon

the compilation level chosen when generating the Relap5

executable (except for the DEC Alpha and the SGI Indy, which

yield identical results for the optimised and non-optimised

versions). Those results resemble more among themselves when

the time step size decreases and even more so when they are

produced with the non-optimised version. In fact, the

agreement between the results - obtained on the platforms

considered - from the non-optimised versions and with a

maximum time step size of 0.125 s. can be considered to be

reasonably good for some magnitudes whereas for others the

agreement is excellent. Further analyses show that, for

smaller (1/16 s., 1/32 s., 1/64 s.) time step sizes, the

spikes dissapear and oscillations atenuate for all platforms

considered.

6. RECOI4MEMDTIONS

From the experiences gathered during the course of this work,

we dare to suggest a few recommendations to both, users and

developers.

To users:

1. inform to the system SW suppliers about the

discrepancies observed when the results are produced

from non-optimised and optimised versions (a fact in

itself unacceptable!), and demand from them robust

and reliable products. It is important to notice that

developers too have a say in this - avoiding possible

causes of getting different results from

non-optimised and optimised versions - by supplying

a code compliant with ANSI standards for Fortran.

2. run the tests whenever a new version of Relap5 comes

along, and a new operating system version and/or

9
compiler version is installed. Check for sensitivity

of optimisation level and time step size.

To developers:

1. rework the criteria for calculating the time step

size. It is clear that a more tight criteria is

needed and, as is suggested in Ref [3], starting from

the one implemented in Mod2 could point in the right

direction.

2. work out a master case (or set of them) - to be

included along with the installation material - to be

used as a reference case to check the quality

(acceptance/rejection) of the Relap5 executable. That

master case should encompass the most important

components and relevant phenomena as well, and it

would be desirable also to count on experimental

results.

10
Figure 1.1

CAMP PROJECT

*dhm

('3

0)

14400.

12800.

11200.

Relop5/Mod 3.2, Std-Opt, max dt=l

Ii .. .'........ '......... t............... !..................*

/2 S.

.1

1~~.

!

i

9600. .0

-4- C

r- C 8000.

SGI-INDY

L. DEC-3t100 Ii . . ..

0-

0

0L

-DEC-5240

6400.

?- 4800.

0

E 3200.

1600.

O.

A

.+

* .. -i

- I

* I *~*1

* I

* I

I..

I

t

i

!

-1600.

v %*J " w v WL!J - V

0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

II
Figure 1.2

CAMP PROJECT

Relap5/Mod 3.2.

a.

Ln

w

Q

cc3

V. 00IrV)

0

in CL

r.

65. (Yý6 2. 5+

60. CY-'-

57. S+

55.0[*

1

52.Sl50.

4 7 . SP

Std-.Opt, max dt=l/2 s.

"t .. . . . . . . . I '' '

I.

SGI-INDY ii

DEC-31O0 00 ----

*DEC-5240 A ------- &

t\

0%

a_

45.

42.

40.

I

I

0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400.

Time (s)

450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

12
Figure 1.3

CAMP PROJECT

Rolap5/Mod 3.2. Std-Opt, 4 r.,am

U)

0

0

-I

.4-

--I

0

0

-IU

L

0

aE

U,

573. 1

548.1.

523.1'

0

g 498.1,

0

o 473.1

448.1

4-423.1

• 4'- &~QR. 1

• '!"'

max dtl1/2 s.

* Pt

SGI-INDY +

I I'

ii

*1-

~1

a

:11

0

A II U

DEC-31 00

-DEC-5240

s1-

!

"t'

W•WUI

373.161- I

* . - I.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

348.15-

323.15r

-I

0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

13
Figure 2.1

CAMP PROJECT

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Std-Op tf max dt=l/2 s.

0

L;

0

* .. ..i .. ... ..... .. IUV. ! T!"V .... i-= '•,.. V V

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

14
Figure 2.2

CAMP PROJECT J.

- _4 Re l ap5/Mod 3.2, Std-Opt, max dt=l/2 s.

0-

0~

10

0

V-o

CD

CD

()

60.

57.

55.

52.

50.

47.

45.

(j~

02

0

L

aCL 42

40

37

35.

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550.

Time (s)

600. 650.

15
Figure 2.3

CAMP PROJECT

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Std-Opt, max dt=1/2 s.

573.1

0)

..J

,4-

rC--

C

b..

E

548.1!

523.1!

0498.1V 0

0

o 473.1V

V-" "

448.1

*- 423.1

'+" 398.1

373.1

348.1

323.1

I I

tip,-

*~D *i*-

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550.

Time (s)

600. 650.

16
Figure 3.1

CAMP PROJECT

(4-

2000.(

1750.(

1500.1

-0 1250.4

0 1000.' to I'-.

Relap5/Mod 3.2. Std-Opt, max dt=1/2 s.

BM-6S '00 6 a

UN--...-,

I Gt-4 30 (D

0-1- -

oi 4

0oE

Li..

750.

500.

.

-250.

-500.

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400.

Time (s)

450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

17
Figure 3.2

CAMP PROJECT

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Std-Opt, "I"

max dt=1/2 s.

0

0~

c : 0

T v7-

CLI

r_

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550.

Time (s)

18

600. 650.
Figure 3.3

CAMP PROJECT

Re l ap5/Mod 3.2. Std-Opt, max d t=1/2 S .

573.1

0)

4-

4-

-j

548.1.

523.1!

0

o49811 0

0

0473.1

448.1

C

0

.9-

0

I0

0~

E

0

I4- 423.

0

-0 398.

373.

348.

323.

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550.

Time (s)

600. 650.

19
Figure 4.1

CAMP PROJECT

1 .OE+03 8.oE+021

6. 0 E+0.

4.0E+0"

2.0E+021

1. OE+02

8.0E+01

6.0 E+0 1

4.OE+01

ReIap5/Mod 3.2. Std-Opt, max dt=l/2 s. .. . r . . . . .. .. . -i.. 

I

~, j~ii (4 jI~

!

I

I

(n

CL

0

E- 2.OE+01

; . i • i Ii 'II I I I

.* *

"- II "~

* .

SGI-INDY C-.8

HP715/50 0-- CNVX3440 9 7

1. oE+01

6

4.

2.

1,

0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450.

Time (s)

500. 550. 600. 650.

20
Figure 4.2

CAMP PROJECT

RelapS/Mod 3.2, Std-Opt, max dt=1/2 s. 1 . ......................... 8.0E+02. ................ .4 . .. ... ........... .

6.0EO÷ 2~ ... ......... - -.. ....................... ... ,... .,

I

4. OE+O0

I

2.OE+02

E

N

(/n

0.

i0

E

S* OE+02

8.0E+01

6.0E+01

4.OE+01

2.0E 4-01

SUN4ILSP

1 . OE-t0I

8.0E+-00

6.OE+00

4. OE+00

-- .--4

.... I

SGI-INDY rn

2. OE+00

I .E+O I BM-6000 s.-- - SG I-4D30 G

0. 50. 100. 150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

21
Figure 5.1

CAMP PROJECT

Re oap5/Mod

(4

0)

2000.

1750.

1500.

!

3.2. Non-

*SGI-Il1DY

NP71 5/50

Opt, max dt=1/2 s. - - - -I-.........

I

'I

SI

A~A 8'~S

* 1 I

.36

gS

'I 1. * iii I,

II gi

- U jU

.0

.J g 1250. cq)

: 0 1000.

I'--

ýDECA21O00

CNVX3440

-J

C.)

'-0

oE

(4

U'

a

750.

500.

250.

0.

-250.

-500.

200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500.

Time (s)

150. 550. 600. 650

22
Figure 5.2

CAMP PROJECT

Relap5/Mod 3.2. Non-Opt, max d t=l/2 S.

a_

LO,

60. T

5 5.. 5, --

h . _

r

i "

%00

*0

~0

50.Ct -

c)

0

CL

47.5" .

45.0- ......

SI I DY , 

HP715/50 .PT5io •- --

iDECA210 *0 .....

,CNVX3440

% %

I %%

I. . .. . .

---. - - l....-- 

*1***-. . .- .

I CL 42.5-t

40.0

L. I - ...

I

I. 37.5" 4

i

=

I

0

it

!

t

r

! !

35. I ! _ - i -- , I L.

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

23
Figure 5.3

CAMP PROJECT 0-~~~-

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt, dt=l

573.1

In

CL

E

548.1

523.1

0

oo 498.1

0

o473.1

448.1

.-423.1

398.1

373.1

348.1

323.1

- -- I - -I -- - - E . -.- ,.... 3 9 1

-- 4-- I

650.

Time (s)

24
Figure 6.1

CAMP PROJECT

3.2. Non-Opt, max

Or

PRelap5/Mod dt=1/2 S .

2000.!ul

I.

Co 1750.0"j.........

* 1500.01-

-C ' 1250.d

10

£:o1000.0

I,,--

rt

-J

C.)

c

S

750.•F

0

500.Ot-

* .7 *7j.

I... -

*1.-.

-- I.

-I..-

-.-i-.. -

.1..-

L

SGI-40~30

IIBM-60

SUN-4JL

DY

00

sP A

d

-- --- i--~-.

-A i i

I I

I I

v-li"'

'III

-~ ~

I'

4....

"'1

0j

250.-Ot

m

]

-250.0" .°

€

-500.0-

150.

-- I.

200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

25
Figure 6.2

0

0~

0

rco

T

C,

60.4C

57.5"

55. t52."St

- .. I.

CAMP PROJECT

ReIap5/Mod 3.2. Non-Opt, max dt=1/2 s.

J I* 

L...---... . - .. . .. .. . . . . .'... ....... i.. .. .. . I - I ' 1--!- I - . . . . .- "1 . .. -I .. .. . ._. .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..

; I -..

50. 0----

47. St"

45.0 tISGl-I jDY ri-m¶

1IBU-6000 q

'SUN-UW LS ----

S1-4d3I0

I..

- I....... -4

40.O -

--Ii

* I.... -

I !

!

i

I C

* -4 * I

11 r. I I

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400.

Time (s)

26

450.. 500. 550. 600. 650.
Figure 6.3

CAMP PROJECT 0--~--

Re Iap5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt, max dt=l/2 s.

0)

0

a

573.13-

548.14

5i3.1I5

. .[, 1

I ' ;4-

-J

4-

f

0

0

0

0

498.1 &

o 473. 1

WIU 448. 1 5fC

0-I

a,

L

4-

0

I..

a,

0.

E

a,

IheI.4-

423.1 5-. --

398. 1 W- - - .-

IDBM-6d000

.*U-'-L*--**-----A-~--*--*-- K

,SG 1-4t3O EHD~

p 1 1I

I I I

p1-

mi

~g-I ~It -~

4~ 11 __

~I 'I - g~ I~i

~ :~ ~'~! g~I

~ I~i. ~ ~ '

. - .... I" t .i. a.

I * 1d1 1~~

, I I * I P

I-...-. . ~ turn

I II.. ~ I.

~: '. .~,'..I..

'¶1 1~1~.

I; I 'II s I

i* -14~I' ,

373. 1 Sf- -

348.1 &F ------

323.1" t----

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (a)

27
Figure 7.1

CAMP PROJECT 0<-711

ReIcp5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt. max dt=1/8 a.

2000.

1750.

.~1~.

SGI-INDY

%%.0 HP71 5/50

.I....

----- A

'DECA21100

a

".10 1250.

04

r- 0 1000. .CD ", -"

I'

II

II

II

II.

It

II

a,

Ii

I'

I'

I

11!

I

ii

Ii

II

S

I

'V

I

CNVX3440

I.

!

0

Z.,

750.

0

250.

.

-250. A. .

-500. .J.

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

28
Figure 7.2

CAMP PROJECT

w

C

0D

(0

-Jo

CD

C')

60.ql

57.5S

55.0O

Re !ap5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt, max dt1l/8 s. .. •m

- ...... .... T -Tr----"-.....--***---*

I I I I . /

I I

, I i I ' K. . .... •....... -'... .... .- ! T - K .! .. . '

I I

*, I .. . . .-- o--- I I a a

* I I

.. '•,........ .. ......... ... .... .. i .. .. .....--- . . . -.-........ .. . ... ..-- . ..... •......-. - .......... - -- •

K - - bI b .. j.j ;I I *"'--

52.51

50.0-

42.6t--

'HP715)150 .a-

!CNVX344O --... .

40.O "-

37.5"--

35.©

150 0

a a 1T -~ ~- 1- ~~~.~~.1~~~... ...

200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

29
Figure 7.3

CAMP PROJECT c

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt, max dt=I/8 s.

573.15"1

" I 4. -. ~------- j I

I I

- ------

Cl

I.

i-4

-ID

0--

523.1 S'

I- I ft

0

4.-

.1

I

'ft

* Ii

498.14- --. f .... I

473.1" S448.1S-

"- 423.1 af

E -

, I

.. . .... .. .. . . . .. ?. ..

SGI-INDY

I '

;H75)50 iHP7150

DECA21.00

! -

... cNvx3 440

I

.I

.~1.--*

4...

I'l

V *- -

Ii

I I--

-1

-.4

|

I 5g.

U

373. 1St

... ....-

Aa~~~TTT!

I340.15" ....... 4

!

I

I

I °

i

i •i'1* 41

32 1 i----

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

30
Figure 8.1

CAMP PROJECT

r 4 7.,,k. ý 1ý, --

(12

a)

-Jo

0

*0

-'a

* ~.-

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt, max dt=l/8 s.

SUHUýSP ý--------

IHA I 

' M6 O 1 

............ i.......... -- i1...................................................................-.... .................................................

I I I . . I

. I

.. ,.... . .. -... . . .. ,.. .. ........ L •.?...

I I I Ili

L

-4.

C,3

60

OE

a,

(I,

a

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550.

Time (9)

600. 650.

31
Figure 8.2

CAMP PROJECT

Relap5/Mod 3.2. Non-Opt, max dt=1/8 s.

+

*' 6 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .... . ... ... . . . . .. .. .. .... . ..

, i I

0) 52. •................. ..... "...-.....:.............. . ....... **......................... '.................

, I • I

C,-!,

5. 2.5-U-6O I :.I

• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... . ....... ..... .. . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . .. .. ... =

c Go

*4 0. ..... ........ . T .,. . .. ........................... . r............ ........... t......... .... ;.. ;.............

0S sGI-4DY

* I i

35.0----4 -+ - c IBM 6O0 > 0- 42. gki'

150' 20. 0-45. 300 350 40. 40 0. 500. 60

SUN.-.U.SP A ------ m )

~~'SGI-4 S si : ,,"' 37,. :,

35. O-f-,'-

150o. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

T ime (S)

32
Figure 8.3

CAMP PROJECT

573. oS--

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt, max dt=1/8 s.

..... ... .. ........ 

. .- . . ... . . . T .. . .. .. ..

548.

.... - .......... 1- * I

0

(

C'

I.

@1

-ii

C-,

C

0

L

4-

a

0

I.

I523. 15-

498.15&

S473.1 &I.

II SI

6 I--.N..

SGA. IfDI

JIBM-6000 40

I- -

, -i

I

i

448.1 St423.15

E0

-0 395. 15

t---_

373. 1-

A I -............ ;....-.4. .~...

I I ~

I I SUt4-UI4SP A...... - - ~..

I I 6 9

-. SGI-4D30

-. . .4...

I * I

!

|

f

348.1 Si I

I

323.1 m

q• i-~

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400.

Time (a)

0

500.

I

550. ! T"

450. 600. 650.

33
Figure 9.1

CAMP PROJECT

RelapS/Mod 3.2, Won-Opt, max dt=1/64 s.

2000 O[" .. .. . . . . . . .r . . . . r. .. . .r .

'0 :SGI-INDY IS .. 1750.

HP715/50 .-- I 1500.0 .- k.. ......

:DECA21'0 A ----A

CNVX3440 c - ' ./'

750. -1LI -... 

00

0 E 250. [

€:: 10 0.0 ....

250. . , 

-2500.0 -- ' "4 '-....---

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

Time (s)

34
Figure 9.2

CAMP PROJECT

c00

(n

0

(n M

60.4

57.5&

55.0

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt, max dt=1/64 ...

I Ii,

I I' I I .... .............. , . . .I .. . . . ....... i. .. .. ... ..... ..i ......... .. ..- ... ,- .. .

"•... ... .. . .. .. . . ... "

52.5"

, i

* I

-- ............ .. .

"|.. ... . . . . . .. . ... "

,-..,____

50.01F.

47.5 '-

45.0-F

I D ISI I9

P.71.. 5/5 .H.. ..

DECA1!>

.jVX44 - D

I.

42.5" .1...

iN

... . .. .. .. . .. . .

S

go

*1

0

I0~

40. 0 --

37.5-f...- I1.

!|

i

35. A~ m I I i

~.a a I -- ~rrz--~ i -- 4 ~

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550. 600. 650.

TIme (s)

35
Figure 9.3

CAMP PROJECT

Relap5/Mod 3.2, Non-Opt. max

.1I

dt=l/64 8. -

i ,. I

CD 5413.1

0

523.1

0498.1

"'4

" 473.

C)" 448.1

0

I..

4-

0

I..

0

I.

H

398.1

373.

348.

323.1

150. 200. 250. 300. 350. 400. 450. 500. 550.

Time (s)

600. 650.

36
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is part of the Spanish contribution to the CAMP

project. The authors want to express their gratitude and

appreciation to the following colleagues that kindly

volunteered to provide both, suggestions and data from which

this work was made, especifically: Miguel Sanchez-Perea from

CSN, Arturo L6pez-Cedillo from CNT, Emilio Moralo from CNJC,

Francesc Revent6s from ANA, Carlos Llopis from ANV-II, Ali

Tanrikut from TAEA, and Cesar Queral from ETSIMM. Our deep

appreciation goes also to Jose Vicente L6pez from CNG who

carefully revised and gave meaninful comments to enrich this

work.

8. REFERENCES

[1] Lynn R. Feinauer, "Compiler Issues Associated with

Safety-related Software", Nucl. Tech., Vol. 93, pp. 116-122.

[2] K. Trambauer, "Computer and Compiler Effects on Code

Results", Status Report, GRS Garching. NEA/CSNI/R(96)15.

[3] R.J. Preece and J.M. Putney, "Preliminary Assessment of

PWR Steam Generator Modeling in Relap5/Mod3", NUREG/IA-0113,

USNRC , September 1993.

37

Appendix I

Problems ocurred during the installation of Relap5/Mod 3.2 on

the different platforms and actions taken to overcome them

and produce Relap5 executables.

On CONVEX

Given the fact that it is a one-of-a-kind installation,

extensive conversion effort had to be done, the description

of which lies beyond the scope of this work.

On DecStations (DEC-3100, DEC5240)

No problem with DECftn v3.2, using script decrisc or

decrisc2, however, v3.1 does not support dimensioning of the

type: A(*).

On DEC-Alpha under OSF/1 v3.2

In the different Make files it is needed to append the

continuation character, \, to each line in order to get every

subprogram compiled.

Using DECftn v3.6, it was observed that when executing

procedure dselap (within Makeq), the compiler was unable to

compile subprograms stpupu.f and svpupu.f. The errors are

localized in:

line 90 of stpupu.f (which reads as follows):

if (s(2,n) .It. ptrip) uin = max(uin,tphtbl(3,1))

line 94 of svpupu.f (which reads as follows):

if (s(2,n) .lt. ptrip) s(12,n) = max(s(12,n),tphtbl(3,l))

in both cases the error message given is:

GEM ASSERTION, compiler internal error - please submit

problem report. Fatal error in: /usr/lib/cmplrs/fort/decfort

Apparently, this type of error is linked to the compiler

level (it has not been detected for DECftn v3.3).

Note: The problem was reported to DEC and corrected in upper

level compiler versions.

On HP under HP/UX 9.03

The installation run smoothly except for the fact that file

"icompn.f" had to be compiled with optimization deactivated.

39
On IBM under AIX 3.2

No incidences reported.

On SGI under IRIX 5.2

The following reflects the proposed changes in file

'goodies'.

NOTE: The files with appended '.ori' in their names are the

INEL supplied ones, whereas the (modified) ones used in the

actual installation keep their original names.

The below changes in 'goodies' are necessary to compile

correctly and generate binary libraries and executables.

cna> diff goodies.ori goodies

1712,1713c1712,1713

< set F1 = 'F1="-c -02 -Olimit 2000 -onetrip -Nq1500 -Nn4000

-trapuv -G 0"'

< set F2 = 'F1="-c -02 -Olimit 2000 -Nql500 -Nn4000 -trapuv -G 0"'

> set F1 = 'Fl="-c -02 -Olimit 2000 -onetrip -Nq1500 -Nn9500

-trapuv -G 0"'

> set F2 = 'Fl='-c -02 -Olimit 2000 -Nq1500 -Nn9500 -trapuv -G 0"'

The below changes in 'goodies' are necessary to avoid warning

messages.

cna> diff goodies.ori goodies

679c679

< set TOUCH = 'TOUCH=ranlib'

> set TOUCH = 'TOUCH=touch'

993c993

< set TOUCH = 'TOUCH=ranlib'

> set TOUCH = 'TOUCH=touch'

1715c1715

< set TOUCH = 'TOUCH=ranlib'

> set TOUCH = 'TOUCH=touch'

On SUN under Solaris 2.5

The following changes in source files 'stgh2o.f' and

'stgd2o.f' ire necessary to correctly read the steam tables.

NOTE: The files with appended '.ori' in their names are the

INEL supplied ones, whereas the (modified) ones used in the

actual installation keep their original names.

40
minas> diff stgh2o.f.ori stgh2o.f

422c422

< parameter ( maxlen = 5000 )

> parameter ( maxlen = 50000

460c460

< open (2,status=lscratch')

> open (2,file='TEMPRESI,status=lunknown')

475c475

< if (record.ne.blnkln) write (2,1000) record

> C if (record.ne.blnkln) write (2,1000) record

481c481

< rewind 2

> C rewind 2

522c522,525

< read (2,*,iostat=ios) (tables(i),i=next,next+np-1)

> do i=next, next+np-1

> read (2,*,iostat=ios) tables(i)

> end do

> C read (2,*,iostat=ios) (tables(i),i=next,next+np-1)

minas> diff stgd2o.f.ori stgd2o.f

214c214,217

< read (2,*) (a(i),i=next,next+np-1)

> do i= next, next+np-i

> read(2,*) a(i)

> end do

> C read (2,*) (a(i),i=next,next+np-1)

41

NRC FORM US U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(2.8-) (Assigned by NMRC Add Va.. Supp.M Rev.

NRCM I 10Z and Addendum Numbers If any.)

3201.3o BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

__,_______________,______,__________NUREGAIA-0157

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Contrast of RELAP5/MOD3.2 Results From Different Computing Platforms 3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH YEAR

April 1999

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

W6706

S. AUTHOR(S) 6. TE OF REPORT

A Lopez, CNA

J. M. Sierra, CDI 7. PERIOD COVERED (Odusive Dow)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (XNRC provide Divkkn Of'xaRega U.S& MfwPReg wCwnbsJ and Waft address; rowtcla,.

provide name nd maftn addr**ssJ

Central Nuclear de Almaraz Control Data Ibgrica, SA

C/Claudio Coello, 123 Paseo de la Castellana, 93

28006 Madrid 28046 Madrid

Spain Spain

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (FARC; 6" "Sam as above," 1omiracor, provide KRC Ofvkibr Ofre a-Ra•bm U.S.t•er Mx*-ftbotry C-omm,/n.

and mailin address.)

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

T. Lee, NRC Project Manager I r

11. ABSTRACT I2o wards orbss)

RELAP5/MOD3.2 was installed in aH major UNIX workstatons that include DEC, HP, IBM, SGI and SUN, besides that of

CONVEX, and a common sample case was run on each of them. When these results were analyzed, substantial differences were

observed in the magnitudes of selected parameters such as; pressure, mass flow, temperature, etc. The level of optimization

adopted for compilation, the chosen maximum time step size and the inherent precision of the platforms under consideration are

identified as possible causes for the discrepancies. Those discrepancies, however, led within acceptable imits when results of

different machines were produced by non-optimized version of RELAPS and a maximum time step of about 0.125 seconds was

used. To the users, it is recommended that a test be run whenever a new version of the code, operation system and/or compiler

level is installed. The code developer needs to deliver a code which is compliant with ANSI standard for FORTRAN. The

developer is also urged to evaluate the maximum time step size and provide a (or a set of) test to be used as an

acceptancelrejection criterion for the new version of RELAP5.

12. KEY WORDSIDESCRIPTORS (Lkwcrds oarpes N' wxwesisth res:hws inocang e rpor) 13. AVALABJLITY STATEMENT

RELAP5 unlimited

Different Platforms 14. SECURY CLASSFICATION

unclassified

(Thi Rap

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

iR FOR 33 I2Og TIS TIwseelokfypoue yl~ e~a om.I

KRC FORM 33S (24M TPOs ftm was siectror6cally produced by EWA Feftal Far., . Irm
ppr

Federal Recycling Program

NUREGIIA-0157 CONTRAST OF RELAPS/MOD3.2 RESULTS FROM DIFFERENT COMPUTING PLATFORMS APRIL 1999

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

USNRC

PERMIT NO. G.67

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300