NUREG/IA-0431 

International 

 Agreement Report

The FSAR Transients Analysis of Lungmen

ABWR Using TRACE/PARCS 

Prepared by:

Jong-Rong Wang, Hao-Tzu Lin, Chia-Ying Chang*, Chunkuan Shih*

Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Atomic Energy Council, R.O.C.

1000, Wenhua Rd., Chiaan Village, Lungtan, Taoyuan, 325, TAIWAN

 

*Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University,

101 Section 2, Kuang Fu Rd., Hsinchu, TAIWAN

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

 Division of Systems Analysis

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Manuscript Completed: March 2013

Date Published: September 2013

Prepared as part of 

The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange

Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released 

records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs 

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found on 

a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the 

material available on the date cited may subsequently be 

removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, 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 Technical 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, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org

212–642–4900 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series 

publications. The views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily 

those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences 

(NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from 

international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4) 

brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of 

legal decisions and orders of the Commission and 

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations 

(NUREG-0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared under an 

international cooperative agreement for the exchange of 

technical information. Neither the U.S. Government nor 

any agency thereof, nor any employee, 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 publication, or 

represents that its use by such third party would not 

infringe privately owned rights. 
NUREG/IA-0431 

International 

 Agreement Report

The FSAR Transients Analysis of Lungmen

ABWR Using TRACE/PARCS 

Prepared by:

Jong-Rong Wang, Hao-Tzu Lin, Chia-Ying Chang*, Chunkuan Shih*

Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Atomic Energy Council, R.O.C.

1000, Wenhua Rd., Chiaan Village, Lungtan, Taoyuan, 325, TAIWAN

 

*Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University,

101 Section 2, Kuang Fu Rd., Hsinchu, TAIWAN

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

 Division of Systems Analysis

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Manuscript Completed: March 2013

Date Published: September 2013

Prepared as part of 

The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange

Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Published by

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

iii 

ABSTRACT

This study consists of two steps. The first step is the development of a TRACE (TRAC/RELAP 

Advanced Computational Engine)/PARCS(Purdue Advanced Reactor Core Simulator) model of 

Lungmen nuclear power plant (NPP) which includes the vessel, reactor internal pumps (RIPs), 

main steam lines, and important control systems (such as the feedwater control system, steam 

bypass & pressure control system, and recirculation flow control system), etc.. Key parameters 

are identified to refine the TRACE/PARCS model further in the frame of a steady state analysis. 

The second step is the performance of Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model transient analyses. 

The transient data of Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) chapter 15th are used to compare 

with the analysis results of the Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model. The trends of 

TRACE/PARCS analysis results are consistent with the FSAR data for the important parameters. 

However, there are some difference in their bypass valve flow response, scram reactivity and 

void reactivity. 

 
iv 

 
v 

FOREWORD

The US NRC (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission) is developing an advanced 

thermal hydraulic code named TRACE for nuclear power plant safety analysis. The development 

of TRACE is based on TRAC, integrating RELAP5 and other programs. NRC has determined 

that in the future, TRACE will be the main code used in thermal hydraulic safety analysis, and no 

further development of other thermal hydraulic codes such as RELAP5 and TRAC will be 

continued. A graphic user interface program, SNAP (Symbolic Nuclear Analysis Program) which 

processes inputs and outputs for TRACE is also under development. One of the features of 

TRACE is its capacity to model the reactor vessel with 3-D geometry. It can support a more 

accurate and detailed safety analysis of nuclear power plants. TRACE has a greater simulation 

capability than the other old codes, especially for events like LOCA. 

Taiwan and the United States have signed an agreement on CAMP (Code Applications and 

Maintenance Program) which includes the development and maintenance of TRACE. INER 

(Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Atomic Energy Council, R.O.C.) is the organization in 

Taiwan responsible for the application of TRACE in thermal hydraulic safety analysis, for 

recording user’s experiences of it, and providing suggestions for its development. To meet this 

responsibility, the TRACE/PARCS model of Lungmen NPP has been built. In this report, the 

FSAR transient data of Lungmen NPP is utilized and conducted to confirm the accuracy of the 

TRACE/PARCS model. 
vi 

 
vii 

CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... iii 

FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................... v

CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... vii 

FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................ ix 

TABLES .......................................................................................................................................... xi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. xiii 

ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................... xv 

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1 

2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 2-1 

3. TRACE/PARCS MODELING OF LUNGMEN NPP ............................................................... 3-1 

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS............................................................................................ 4-1 

4.1 Turbine Trip with Bypass Valve Transient (TTWB) ................................................. 4-1 

4.2 Turbine Trip with Failure of All Bypass Valve Transient (TTNB) ........................... 4-1 

4.3 Load Rejection with Failure of All Bypass Valves Transient (LRNB).................... 4-2 

4.4 Loss of Feedwater Flow Transient (LOFW) ............................................................. 4-3 

5. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 5-1

6. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 6-1
viii 

 
ix 

FIGURES

Page

1. The methodology of Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model .......................... 2-1 

2. The TRACE/PARCS model of Lungmen NPP .................................................. 3-3 

3. The simulation of the TRACE Channel component (cross-section): 

1. full length fuel rod, 2. partial length fuel rod, 3. water rod ........................ 3-4 

4. The assembly rotations map in the PARCS model......................................... 3-5 

5. The control rod map in the PARCS model ...................................................... 3-6 

6. The animation model of Lungmen NPP ........................................................... 3-7 

7. The comparison of neutron flux between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for TTWB.............................................................................................................. 4-6 

8. The comparison of steam dome pressure rise between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTWB .................................................................................. 4-7 

9. The comparison of total bypass valve flow between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTWB .................................................................................. 4-8 

10. The comparison of vessel outlet steam flow between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTWB .................................................................................. 4-9 

11. The comparison of neutron flux between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for TTNB ............................................................................................................ 4-10 

12. The comparison of scram reactivity between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTNB ................................................................................. 4-11 

13. The comparison of Doppler reactivity between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTNB... .............................................................................. 4-12 

14. The comparison of void reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for TTNB ............................................................................................................ 4-13 

15. The comparison of steam dome pressure rise between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTNB ................................................................................. 4-14 

16. The comparison of core inlet flow between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for TTNB ............................................................................................................ 4-15 

17. The comparison of neutron flux between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for LRNB ............................................................................................................ 4-16 

18. The comparison of scram reactivity between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LRNB ................................................................................. 4-17 

19. The comparison of Doppler reactivity between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LRNB ................................................................................. 4-18 

20. The comparison of void reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for LRNB ............................................................................................................ 4-19 

21. The comparison of steam dome pressure rise between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LRNB ................................................................................. 4-20 

22. The comparison of core inlet flow between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for LRNB ............................................................................................................ 4-21 

23. The comparison of narrow water level between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LOFW ................................................................................ 4-22 

24. The comparison of wide water level between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LOFW ................................................................................ 4-23 

25. The comparison of core inlet flow between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for LOFW ........................................................................................................... 4-24 
x 

FIGURES 

(Continued)

26. The comparison of neutron flux between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for LOFW ........................................................................................................... 4-25 

27. The comparison of scram reactivity between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LOFW ................................................................................ 4-26 

28. The comparison of Doppler reactivity between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LOFW ................................................................................ 4-27 

29. The comparison of void reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for LOFW ........................................................................................................... 4-28 

30. The comparison of steam dome pressure rise between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LOFW ................................................................................ 4-29 
xi 

TABLES

Page

1. The comparison of initial conditions between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS ............. 3-2 

2. The comparison of Lungmen NPP ODYN model and TRACE/PARCS model ......... 3-2 

3. The TTWB sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS ................................................. 4-4 

4. The TTNB sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS .................................................. 4-4 

5. The LRNB sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS .................................................. 4-5 

6. The LOFW sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS ................................................. 4-5 
xii 

 
xiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An agreement in 2004 which includes the development and maintenance of TRACE has been 

signed between Taiwan and USA on CAMP. INER is the organization in Taiwan responsible for 

applying TRACE to thermal hydraulic safety analysis in order to provide users’ experiences and 

development suggestions. To fulfill this responsibility, the TRACE/PARCS model of Lungmen 

NPP is developed by INER. 

According to the user manual, TRACE is the product of a long term effort to combine the 

capabilities of the NRC’s four main systems codes (TRAC-P, TRAC-B, RELAP5 and RAMONA) 

into one modernized computational tool. NRC has ensured that TRACE will be the main code 

used in thermal hydraulic safety analysis in the future without further development of other 

thermal hydraulic codes, such as RELAP5 and TRAC. Besides, the 3-D geometry model of 

reactor vessel, which is one of the representative features of TRACE, can support a more 

accurate and detailed safety analysis of NPPs. On the whole TRACE provides greater simulation 

capability than the previous codes, especially for events like LOCA. 

PARCS is a multi-dimensional reactor core simulator which involves a 3-D calculation model for 

the realistic representation of the physical reactor while 1-D modeling features are also available. 

PARCS is capable of coupling the thermal-hydraulics system codes such as TRACE directly, 

which provide the temperature and flow field data for PARCS during the calculations. 

Lungmen NPP is the first ABWR plant in Taiwan and still under construction. It has two identical 

units with 3,926 MWt rated thermal power each and 52.2×106 kg/hr rated core flow. The core 

has 872 bundles of GE14 fuel, and the steam flow is 7.637×106

 kg/hr at rated power. There are 

10 RIPs in the reactor vessel, providing 111% rated core flow at the nominal operating speed of 

151.84 rad/sec. This research focuses on the development of the Lungmen NPP 

TRACE/PARCS model. The transient data from FSAR have been used to compare with the 

analysis results of the Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model. The trends of TRACE/PARCS 

analysis results are similar to the FSAR data for the important parameters. However, there are 

some difference in their bypass valve flow response, scram reactivity and void reactivity. 

Therefore, the above difference will be checked with the startup tests data. The startup tests of 

Lungmen NPP will be performed in 2014 and the measured data of Lungmen NPP will be used 

to estimate and modify the TRACE/PARCS model of Lungmen NPP in the future. 
xiv 

 
xv 

ABBREVIATIONS

 

CAMP Code Applications and Maintenance Program

FSAR Final safety analysis report

INER Institute of Nuclear Energy Research Atomic Energy Council, R.O.C.

LOCA Loss Of Coolant Accident 

LOFW Loss of Feedwater Flow Transient 

LRNB Load Rejection with Failure of All Bypass Valves transient

NPP Nuclear Power Plant

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRWL Narrow Range Water Level 

RIPs Reactor Internal Pumps

SNAP Symbolic Nuclear Analysis Program

TCVs Turbine Control Valves

TPC Taiwan Power Company 

TRACE TRAC/RELAP Advanced Computational Engine

TTNB Turbine Trip with failure of all Bypass valve transient

TTWB Turbine Trip with Bypass valve transient

US United States 

 

 

 

 

 

 
xvi 

 

 

 

 

 
1-1 

1. INTRODUCTION

The safety analysis of the NPP is very important work. After the Fukushima NPP event occurred, 

further concerns over the safety of the NPPs in the world have been raised. The development of 

computer programs related to NPP safety analysis is one of the main research and development 

work in the nuclear engineering. One of the advanced thermal hydraulic codes named TRACE 

has been developed by U.S. NRC for NPP safety analysis. The development of TRACE is based 

on TRAC, combining with the capabilities of RELAP5 and other programs. In the future, TRACE 

will be the main code used in thermal hydraulic safety analysis and will replace NRC’s present 

four main systems codes (TRAC-P, TRAC-B, RELAP5 and RAMONA) [1]. Besides, a graphic 

user interface program, SNAP, which processes inputs, outputs, and the animation model for 

TRACE, has also been developing. One of the features of TRACE is its capacity to model the 

reactor vessel with 3-D geometry. It could support a more accurate and detailed safety analysis 

for nuclear power plants. PARCS is a multi-dimensional reactor core simulator which involves a 

3-D calculation model for the realistic representation of the physical reactor while 1-D modeling 

features are also available. PARCS is capable of coupling the thermal-hydraulics system codes 

such as TRACE directly, which provide the temperature and flow field data for PARCS during 

the calculations. 

An increasing number of researchers are using TRACE code to analyze the transients of 

facilities and NPPs. In 2008, Barten et al. published the paper [2] which described the 

development of a TRACE model for the UMSICHT water hammer experiments. Their TRACE 

model analysis results showed agreement with experimental data. Xu et al. [3] used 

TRACE/PARCS to perform the validation work of the stability analysis of Ringhals. Their results 

showed agreement with the Ringhals data. Gallardo et al. [4] established the TRACE model of a 

Large-Scale Test Facility, and confirmed its accuracy against data on small-break loss of coolant 

accidents. 

In 2004, the authorities of Taiwan and the United States signed an agreement on CAMP which 

included the development and maintenance of TRACE. INER is the organization in Taiwan in 

charge of the application of TRACE in thermal hydraulic safety analysis, including collecting 

users’ experiences and providing suggestions for future improvement of TRACE. To meet this 

responsibility INER built the TRACE model of TPC (Taiwan Power Company) Maanshan PWR 

NPP in 2008. The detailed model description and verification can be found in INER report [5]-[7]. 

In previous research, the actual startup test data of Maanshan NPP were used to establish and 

verify the Maanshan NPP TRACE model. The results of verification demonstrate that the model 

has quite good accuracy. Subsequently, based on the successful experience from Maanshan 

TRACE model, the Lungmen TRACE/PARCS model was established by referring to the FSAR 

data of Lungmen NPP. 

Lungmen NPP is the first ABWR in Taiwan and still under construction. It has two identical units 

with 3,926 MWt rated thermal power each and 52.2×106

 kg/hr rated core flow. The core has 872 

bundles of GE14 fuel, and the steam flow is 7.637×10

6

 kg/hr at rated power. There are 10 RIPs 

in the reactor vessel, providing 111% rated core flow at the nominal operating speed of 151.84 

rad/sec. This research focuses on the development of the Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model. 

The transient data from FSAR [8] have been used to compare the analysis results of Lungmen 

NPP TRACE/PARCS model. 
1-1 

 
2-1 

2. METHODOLOGY 

SNAP v 2.0.6, TRACE v 5.0p2 and PARCS 3.0 are used in this research. The research process 

is shown in Figure 1. First, the system and operating data [8]-[14] for the FSAR cases of 

Lungmen NPP are collected. Second, several important control systems such as RIPs control 

system, steam bypass and pressure control system and feedwater control system etc. are 

established by SNAP and TRACE. Third, other necessary components (e.g., reactor pressure 

vessel and main steam piping) are added into the TRACE model to complete the TRACE model 

for Lungmen NPP. Fourth, CASMO-4 is used to carry out the lattice calculations. CASMO-4 data 

are employed to establish the PARCS model. Then, the Lungmen TRACE model is coupling 

with the PARCS model. Finally, the analysis results of the Lungmen TRACE/PARCS model are 

compared by the FSAR data under the steady state and transient conditions. Additionally, the 

startup tests of Lungmen NPP will be performed in 2014 and the measured data of Lungmen 

NPP will be used to estimate and modify the TRACE/PARCS model of Lungmen NPP. 

Figure 1 The methodology of Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model
2-2 

 
3-1

3. TRACE/PARCS MODELING OF LUNGMEN NPP 

The TRACE/PARCS model of Lungmen NPP is shown in Figure 2. In this model, the vessel is 

divided into 11 axial levels, four radial rings, and six azimuthal sectors (separated 36°, 36°, 108°, 

36°, 36°, and 108° apart), and connected with four steam lines (connected to the 36° azimuthal 

sector of the vessel), six feedwater lines (connected to six azimuthal sectors separately, one for 

each sector), 18 channels which are used to simulate the fuel region (one for each azimuthal 

sector in three inner radial rings), and 10 RIPs (connected to six azimuthal sectors separately, 

one for every 36°). The water rods and partial leng th rods are also simulated in the channels 

(shown in Figure 3) and each channel component multiple some bundles (30 bundles × 6 + 40 

bundles × 6 + 75 bundles × 4 + 76 bundles × 2 = 872 bundles). Besides, each steam line has 

one MSIV and several SRVs. The 10 RIPs are classified into three groups, three RIPs for the 

first group, another three for the second, and the remaining four RIPs for the third group. The 

RIPs in the third group are not connected to the motor generator (M/G) set while the other six 

RIPs are connected to the M/G set. 

Before the transient calculation of Lungmen TRACE/PARCS model begins, it is necessary to 

carry out the steady state calculation to make sure that the system parameters are consistent 

with those from FSAR [8]-[9]. These system parameters include feedwater flow rates, steam flow 

rates, NRWL (Narrow Range Water Level), vessel dome pressure, etc. Table 1 shows the 

comparison of steady state simulations between the results from FSAR and TRACE. It can be 

seen that the TRACE/PARCS results agree well with FSAR data. The differences of the steady 

state results between TRACE/PARCS and FSAR are caused by the different calculation 

procedures, phenomenological modelings, and nodalizations. 

ODYN is the GE transient analysis tool which is used in the FSAR, where the one-dimensional 

neutron kinetics and thermal hydraulic simulation of the reactor core are performed. The overall 

ODYN model consists of one reactor vessel, one steamline, RIP control system, feedwater 

control system, and liquid control system, etc. 

A comparison of TRACE/PARCS and ODYN models of Lungmen NPP shows that the main 

differences among simulations of TRACE/PARCS and FSAR are in the RPV and main steam 

lines (shown in Table 2). The RPV of Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model is composed of only 

one component (vessel, 3-D component). However, only one one-dimensional vessel 

component is used to simulate the RPV of Lungmen NPP ODYN model, considering the axial 

direction of the RPV only. As for steam lines, there are four separate steam lines in Lungmen 

NPP TRACE model, which is identical to those in Lungmen NPP. However, these four steam 

lines are lumped to one steam line in Lungmen NPP ODYN models. 

Besides, a one-dimensional kinetic model and neutronics data are used for power calculations in 

Lungmen NPP ODYN model, while in Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model, the neutronics 

model is three-dimensional model. The TRACE/PARCS neutronics model is comprised of 872 

assemblies with a rated power of 3926 MWt, and 205 control rods are simulated as well. Each 

fuel assembly is represented by a single neutronics node. Figure 4 shows the assembly 

rotations map in the PARCS model. The control rod pattern is divided into four groups as shown 

in Figure 5. 

In addition, the animation of Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model is presented using the 

animation function of SNAP/TRACE/PARCS with above models and TRACE/PARCS analysis 

results. The Lungmen NPP animation model is shown in Figure 6. 
3-2

Table 1 The comparison of initial conditions between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

Parameters FSAR TRACE 

/PARCS

Difference 

(%)

Power (Mwt) 3926 3926 0 

Dome pressure (MPa) 7.1705 7.1244 -0.65 

Narrow range water level (m) 1.19 1.19 0 

Steam flow (kg/sec) 2122 2113 -0.4 

Feedwater flow (kg/sec) 2122 2113 -0.4 

Core flow(kg/sec) 12314.8 12343.6 0.2 

Table 2 The comparison of Lungmen NPP ODYN model and TRACE/PARCS model 

ODYN model TRACE/PARCS model 

The simulation of RPV One 1-D vessel component 

(axial) 

One 3-D vessel component 

The simulation of main steam 

lines 

Four main steam lines 

lumped to one main steam 

line 

Four main steam lines 

Lattice code TGBLA CASMO-4 

The calculation of power One-dimensional kinetic 

model 

3-D kinetic model 

Fluid field equations Five equations Six equations 

Animation function No Yes 
3-3

Figure 2 The TRACE/PARCS model of Lungmen NPP 
3-4

Figure 3 The simulation of the TRACE Channel component (cross-section): 

1. full length fuel rod, 2. partial length fuel rod, 3. water rod 
3-5

Group assembly rotations

0

1

2

3

rotate assembly 0° anti-clock wise

rotate assembly 90° anti-clock wise

rotate assembly 180° anti-clock wise

rotate assembly 270° anti-clock wise

Group assembly rotations

0

1

2

3

rotate assembly 0° anti-clock wise

rotate assembly 90° anti-clock wise

rotate assembly 180° anti-clock wise

rotate assembly 270° anti-clock wise

Figure 4 The assembly rotations map in the PARCS model 
3-6

Figure 5 The control rod map in the PARCS model 
3-7

Figure 6 The animation model of Lungmen NPP 
3-8

 
4-1

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

4.1. Turbine Trip with Bypass Valve Transient (TTWB) 

In order to verify the dynamic response of the Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model and 

demonstrate the bypass valve capability of this model to withstand a turbine trip without scram, 

the TTWB is chosen to check this model. In this transient, turbine stop valve (TSV) closure 

initiates signals for a reactor scram and four RIPs trip via TSV position signals. However, these 

signals are purposely delayed to allow time for bypass valve operation verification. Verification of 

fast opening of all bypass valves inhibits reactor scram and four RIPs trip. The initial condition of 

TTWB transient is 100% rated power/100% rated core flow. 

Table 3 shows the TTWB sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. Their time series are the 

same. When Main turbine stop valves reach 85% open position, bypass operation signal is 

verified. Then, the reactor scram and four RIPs trip are inhibited. Figure 7 depicts the neutron 

flux curves of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. The result of TRACE/PARCS is consistent with FSAR 

data. Figure 8 compares the steam dome pressure rise of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. The 

trends of the curves are approximately in agreement. Figure 7 and 8 also shows the peaks of 

TRACE/PARCS are higher than FSAR. It may be caused by the difference of the bypass valve 

flow and steam flow between the TRACE/PARCS and FSAR (see Figure 9 and 10). Both the 

bypass valve flow and steam flow of TRACE/PARCS are smaller than FSAR’s results before 1 

sec; therefore, the dome pressure of TRACE/ PARCS is higher than FSAR’s data. Due to the 

higher dome pressure in the TRACE/PARCS result, it indicates that the core void fraction of 

TRACE/PARCS is smaller than FSAR. The smaller core void fraction results in the neutron flux 

of TRACE/PARCS higher than FSAR. By comparing the above Figures, it also depicts that there 

are some oscillations in the FSAR’s results, which indicates that the system response of the 

TRACE/PARCS model is less sensitive than FSAR. On the comparison of the other parameters 

(such as the feedwater flow, core flow, narrow range water level, etc.), the trends of FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS are also similar. In summary, the bypass valve performance and important 

parameters (eq. dome pressurs, steam flow, feedwater flow, etc.) can be observed at a 

satisfactory value in the TRACE/PARCS model. It indicates that there is the reasonable dynamic 

response of the Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model in the TTWB. 

4.2. Turbine Trip with Failure of All Bypass Valve Transient (TTNB) 

In order to demonstrate the scram, relief valves and RIPs trip capability of this model, the TTNB 

is chosen to check this model. The initial condition of TTNB transient is 100% rated power / 85% 

rated core flow. In this transient, the TSV closure initiates signals for a reactor scram and four 

RIPs trip via TSV position signals. Subsequently, the relief valves are activated. 

Table 4 compares the TTNB sequences of FSAR with TRACE/PARCS. Their sequences 

approximately are the same. Figure 11 shows the neutron flux curves of FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS. The result of TRACE/PARCS is similar to FSAR’s result. The increase of the 

neutron flux is caused by the TSVs closing. The TSVs closing decreases the reactor’s void 

which generates the positive reactivity. Then, the scram initiates and the neutron flux drops. 

Figure 11 also depicts the time of TRACE/PARCS in the neutron flux dropped earlier than FSAR 

data, which may result from the difference of the scram reactivity between TRACE/PARCS and 

FSAR. Figure 12 shows the scram reactivity results of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. FSAR may 

be using different insertion deep of control rod motion speed; nevertheless, TRACE/PARCS is 

using a fixed motion speed of the control rod insertion. TRACE/PARCS scram curve may not be 

totally consistent with FSAR data. The Doppler reactivity is shown in Figure 13. The trend of 
4-2

TRACE/PARCS curve is similar to FSAR curve. However, in the void reactivity, their curves are 

not in agreement (see Figure 14). The difference on the calculation of void fraction of 

TRACE/PARCS and FSAR may result in the difference of void reactivity. Figure 15 compares 

the steam dome pressure of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. The trends of the curves are 

approximately in agreement. The TSV closing causes the dome pressure to rise. Then, relief 

valves open and lead to the decline of dome pressure. The dome pressure of TRACE/PARCS is 

smaller than FSAR data after 3 sec. The above result is caused by the difference of the neutron 

flux between TRACE/PARCS and FSAR. The neutron flux of TRACE/PARCS drops earlier than 

FSAR data. It indicates that the steam generated amount of TRACE/PARCS is less than of 

FSAR, which makes the dome pressure of TRACE/PARCS smaller than FSAR data after 3 sec. 

Besides, the dome pressure decreases after 3 sec which indicates that the core void fraction 

may increase. However, the feedwater flow also increases at this time which results in the larger 

cooler water into the core. It indicates that the core void fraction may decrease. Combining the 

above effects, we think that the core void fraction still decrease slower after 3 sec which cause 

the void reactivity also rises slower. The TRACE/PARCS result is consistent with this 

phenomenon (see Figure 14). Figure 16 shows the core inlet flow of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. 

Due to the dome pressure increase, it results in the core inlet flow rising before 0.46 sec. Then, 

four RIPs trip causes the core inlet flow drop. On the comparison of the other parameters (such 

as the feedwater flow, steam flow, narrow range water level, etc.), the trends of FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS are also in agreement. In summary, the scram, relief valves, and RIPs trip 

performance can be observed in the TRACE/PARCS model. It also indicates that there is 

reasonable response of the Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model in the TTNB. 

4.3. Load Rejection with Failure of All Bypass Valves Transient (LRNB) 

In order to demonstrate the turbine control valves (TCVs) capability and the system response of 

this model, the LRNB is used to check this model. The initial condition of LRNB transient is 

100% rated power / 85% rated core flow. In this transient, fast closure of the TCVs is initiated 

whenever electrical grid disturbances which result in significant loss of electrical load on the 

generator occur. The TCVs are required to be closed as soon as possible to prevent the 

excessive overspeed of the turbine-generator (T-G) rotor from happening. The closure of the 

main TCVs may cause a sudden reduction in turbine steam flow, which results in an increase in 

system pressure if bypass valves fail to open. Then, in order to protect the reactor, the reactor 

scram and four RIPs trip occur due to the failure of all bypass valves. 

Table 5 shows the LRNB sequences of FSAR with TRACE/PARCS. The TRACE/PARCS 

sequence is consistent with the FSAR data. Figure 17 ~ Figure 22 show the comparisons of 

TRACE/PARCS and FSAR data. Figure 17 depicts the neutron flux results of FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS. The curve of TRACE/PARCS is similar to FSAR’s result. The TCVs closing 

causes the neutron flux rise and the reactor’s void drop, then the positive reactivity generates 

thereby. Subsequently, the scram initiates and the neutron flux decreases. The neutron flux 

dropped time of the TRACE/PARCS is earlier than FSAR, which is also observed in Figure 17. 

The difference of the scram reactivity between TRACE/PARCS and FSAR may be the reason for 

the above results. Figure 18 shows the scram reactivity curves of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. 

TRACE/PARCS scram curve would not be totally consistent with FSAR data due to the different 

motion speed of the control rod insertion between TRACE/PARCS and FSAR. Figure 19 

compares the Doppler reactivity of the TRACE/PARCS and FSAR. The trend of TRACE/PARCS 

result is similar to the FSAR data. But their curves are not in agreement in the void reactivity 

(see Figure 20). The difference on the calculation of void fraction of TRACE/PARCS and FSAR 

may cause the different void reactivity. The steam dome pressure of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

is shown in Figure 21. Their curves are approximately in agreement. The TCVs closing makes 

the increase of dome pressure. Subsequently, relief valves open and lead to the decline of dome 
4-3

pressure. The dome pressure of TRACE/PARCS is smaller than FSAR data after 3 sec. The 

dome pressure decreases after 3 sec which indicates that the core void fraction may rise. But 

the feedwater flow also increases at this time which leads the larger cooler water into the core. It 

indicates that the core void fraction may decrease. Combining the above effects, we think that 

the core void fraction still decrease slower after 3 sec which cause the void reactivity also rises 

slower. The TRACE/PARCS result is similar to this phenomenon (see Figure 20). Figure 22 

shows the core inlet flow curves of TRACE/PARCS and FSAR. Due to the dome pressure rise, it 

causes the core inlet flow rising before 0.49 sec. Then, four RIPs trip results in the decrease of 

the core inlet flow. On the comparison of the other parameters (such as the feedwater flow, 

steam flow, narrow range water level, etc.), the results of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS are also in 

agreement. In summary, the TCVs capability and the system response of TRACE/PARCS model 

can be observed in this transient. It also indicates that there is reasonable response of the 

Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model in the LRNB. 

4.4. Loss of Feedwater Flow Transient (LOFW) 

A loss of feedwater flow could occur from pump failures, loss of off site power, operator errors, 

or reactor system variables such as a high vessel water level (L8) trip signal. The feedwater flow 

reduces to zero flow in 5 sec after the feedwater pumps trip. When the NRWL reaches L3, the 

reactor scram and four RIPs trip initiate. The initial condition of LOFW transient is 100% rated 

power/100% rated core flow. Besides, for the conservative consideration, the NRWL initial value 

of FSAR in LOFW is lower than the value (1.19 m) of the steady state (shown in Figure 23 and 

Table 1). 

Table 6 shows the LOFW sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. The time series of their 

sequences are roughly similar, but the “action 3” times of TRACE/PARCS are later than that of 

FSAR. The NRWL initial value of TRACE/PARCS in LOFW is 1.19m. However, the NRWL initial 

value of FSAR in LOFW is lower than this value. Therefore, it takes longer time to reach L3 

water level for TRACE/PARCS. Figure 23 also shows the NRWL dropping rate of 

TRACE/PARCS is consistent with the FSAR data. After the feedwater pump trip, the NRWL 

decreases to L3 which results in the reactor scram and the trip of four RIPs. When the water 

level of reactor vessel descends to L2, it causes the other six RIPs to trip (see Figure 24). Figure 

25 compares the core inlet flows between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. The trends of the curves 

are generally consistent, but the value of FSAR is lower than those of TRACE/PARCS due to the 

fact that the RIPs trip of FSAR occurred earlier. Figure 26 compares the neutron flux curves 

between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS. The trends of their curves are generally in agreement, but 

the scram of FSAR is earlier than those of TRACE/PARCS. The similar responses of 

TRACE/PARCS and FSAR on other parameters also can be observed in Figure 27~30. In 

summary, the difference of the initial NRWL value between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS causes 

the response time of TRACE/PARCS later than FSAR data. However, it also shows that the 

parameters trends of the TRACE/PARCS are similar to the FSAR data for the above results. 
4-4

Table 3 The TTWB sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS

Action 

Time (s) 

FSAR TRACE/PARCS 

Turbine trip initiates closure of main stop valves 0.0 0.0 

Main turbine stop valves reach 85% open 

position 0.015 0.015 

Turbine bypass valves start to open 0.02 0.02 

Turbine stop valves are closed 0.1 0.1 

Bypass operation signal is verified. Scram and 

four RIPs trip are inhibited. Yes Yes 

Table 4 The TTNB sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS

Action 

Time (sec) 

FSAR TRACE/PARCS

Turbine trip initiated the closure of main stop 

valves 0 0 

Turbine stop valves closed. 0.10 0.10 

Scram initiated 0.175 0.175 

Four RIPs tripped 0.46 0.46 

Safety/relief valves opened due to high pressure 2.6 2.57 
4-5

Table 5 The LRNB sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS

Table 6 The LOFW sequences of FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

Action 

Time (sec) 

FSAR TRACE/PARCS

1 Two feedwater pumps under normal 

operation trip, and Loss of Feedwater Flow 

event occurs. 

0.00 0.00 

2 Feedwater Flow drops thoroughly 5.00 5.00 

3 The water level of reactor vessel descends to 

L3 lower level setting point, and it results in 

the reactor vessel scram and trip signals of 

four RIPs which were not connected to the 

M/G set 

7.53 13.23 

4 The water level of reactor vessel descends to 

L2 lower level setting point, and it causes 

the other six RIPs to trip 

18.28 17.35 

Action

Time (sec) 

FSAR TRACE/ 

PARCS 

Generator Load Rejection with Failure of All 

Bypass Valves 0 0 

Turbine control valves closed 0.076 0.076 

Scram initiated 0.40 0.40 

4 RIPs tripped 0.49 0.49 

Safety/relief valves opened due to high pressure 2.6 2.56 
4-6

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6

Time (s)

80

90

100

110

120

N

orm

aliz

e

d

N

e

utro

n

Flu

x (%)

Figure 7 The comparison of neutron flux between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for TTWB 
4-7

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6

Time (s)

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

Ste

a

m

D

o

m

e

Pre

s

s

ure

Ris

e (M

p

a) Figure 8 The comparison of steam dome pressure rise between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTWB 
4-8

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6

Time (s)

0.0

40.0

80.0

120.0

N

orm

aliz

e

d

T

otal B

y

p

a

s

s

V

alv

e

Flo

w (%)

 Figure 9 The comparison of total bypass valve flow between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS 

for TTWB 
4-9

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6

Time (s)

40

60

80

100

120

N

orm

aliz

e

d

V

e

s

s

el O

utlet Ste

a

m

Flo

w (%)

 

Figure 10 The comparison of vessel outlet steam flow between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTWB
4-10

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

N

orm

aliz

e

d

N

e

utro

n

Flu

x (%)

 

Figure 11 The comparison of neutron flux between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for TTNB
4-11

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

S

cra

m

R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 12 The comparison of scram reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

TTNB
4-12

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

D

o

p

pler R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 13 The comparison of Doppler reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

TTNB 
4-13

 

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

V

oid

R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 14 The comparison of void reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

TTNB
4-14

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Ste

a

m

D

o

m

e

Pre

s

s

ure

Ris

e (M

p

a) Figure 15 The comparison of steam dome pressure rise between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for TTNB.
4-15

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

C

ore Inlet Flo

w (%)

 

Figure 16 The comparison of core inlet flow between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

TTNB

 

 
4-16

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

0.0

40.0

80.0

120.0

160.0

N

orm

aliz

e

d

N

e

utro

n

Flu

x (%)

Figure 17 The comparison of neutron flux between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LRNB 
4-17

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

S

cra

m

R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 18 The comparison of scram reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LRNB 
4-18

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

D

o

p

pler R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 19 The comparison of Doppler reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LRNB 
4-19

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

V

oid

R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 20 The comparison of void reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LRNB 
4-20

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Ste

a

m

D

o

m

e

Pre

s

s

ure

Ris

e (M

p

a) Figure 21 The comparison of steam dome pressure rise between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LRNB 
4-21

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Time (s)

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

C

ore Inlet Flo

w (%)

Figure 22 The comparison of core inlet flow between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LRNB
4-22

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

L3

L8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

N

arro

w

R

a

n

g

e

W

ater L

e

v

el (m)

Figure 23 The comparison of narrow water level between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LOFW
4-23

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

L2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

Wid

e

R

a

n

g

e

W

ater L

e

v

el (m)

Figure 24 The comparison of wide water level between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LOFW
4-24

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

N

orm

aliz

e

d

C

ore Inlet Flo

w (%)

Figure 25 The comparison of core inlet flow between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LOFW
4-25

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

N

orm

aliz

e

d

N

e

utro

n

Flu

x (%)

Figure 26 The comparison of neutron flux between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LOFW
4-26

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

S

cra

m

R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 27 The comparison of scram reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LOFW
4-27

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

D

o

p

pler R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 28 The comparison of Doppler reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LOFW
4-28

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

V

oid

R

e

a

ctivity ($)

Figure 29 The comparison of void reactivity between FSAR and TRACE/PARCS for 

LOFW
4-29

FSAR

TRACE/PARCS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Time (s)

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Ste

a

m

D

o

m

e

Pre

s

s

ure

Ris

e (M

p

a)

Figure 30 The comparison of steam dome pressure rise between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS for LOFW
4-30

 
5-1

5. CONCLUSIONS

By using SNAP/TRACE/PARCS, this study has developed the TRACE/PARCS model of the 

Lungmen NPP. The proposed TRACE/PARCS model analyzed the cases of FSAR chapter 15th. 

Analytical results indicate that the Lungmen NPP TRACE/PARCS model can predict the 

behaviors of important plant parameters reflecting consistent trends with FSAR data. However, 

some parameters have less difference, as follows: 

 In TTWB transient, the response difference of the bypass valve flow between the 

TRACE/PARCS and FSAR affects their dome pressure and neutron flux. 

 In TTNB and LRNB transients, the difference of the scram curve between TRACE/PARCS 

and FSAR leads the different neutron flux. 

 In TTNB and LRNB transients, the difference on the calculation of void fraction of 

TRACE/PARCS and FSAR results in the difference of void reactivity. 

 In LOFW transients, the difference of the initial NRWL value between FSAR and 

TRACE/PARCS causes the response time of TRACE/PARCS later than FSAR data. 

Therefore, the above difference will be checked with the startup tests data. The startup tests of 

Lungmen NPP may be performed in 2014. The measured data of startup tests will be used to 

estimate and modify the TRACE/PARCS model of Lungmen NPP. 
5-2

 
6-1 

6. REFERENCES

1 U.S. NRC: TRACE V5.0 User’s Manual (2010). 

2 Barten, W.; Jasiulevicius, A.; Manera, A.; Macian-Juan, R.; Zerkak, O.: Analysis of the 

capability of system codes to model cavitation water hammers: Simulation of UMSICHT 

water hammer experiments with TRACE and RELAP5. Nuclear Engineering and Design 

238 (2008)1129-1145. 

3 Xu, Y.; Downar, T.; Walls, R.; Ivanov, K.; Staudenmeier, J.; March-Lueba, J.: Application 

of TRACE/PARCS to BWR stability analysis Annals of Nuclear Energy 36 (2009) 

317-323. 

4 Gallardo, S.; Abella, V.; Verdú, G.: Assessment of TRACE5 against ROSA serie 3-1: Cold 

Leg SBLOCA Transient. The 13th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor 

Thermal Hydraulics (NURETH-13) Kanazawa City, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, September 

27-October 2, 2009, N13P1407. 

5 Cheng, Y.H.; Shih, C.; Wang, J.R.; Lin, H.T: Benchmark Calculations of Pressurizer Model 

for Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant using TRACE Code. Proceedings of the 16th

International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE16), May 11-15, 2008, Orlando, 

Florida, USA, ICONE16-48603. 

6 Wang, J.R.; Lin, H.T.; Cheng, Y.H.; Wang, W.C.; Shih, C.: TRACE modeling and its 

verification using Maanshan PWR start-up tests. Annals of Nuclear Energy 36 (2009) 

527-536. 

7 Wang, J.R.; Lin, H.T.; Shih, C.: Assessment of the TRACE Code Using Transient Data 

from Maanshan PWR Nuclear Power Plant. NUREG report (2010) NUREG/IA-0241. 

8 Taiwan Power Company: Final Safety Analysis Report for Lungmen Nuclear Power 

Station Units 1&2 (FSAR), Chapter 15 (2007). 

9 Kao, L.S.; Wang, J.R.; Yuann R.Y.; Tung, W.H.; Jing, J.A.; Lin, C.T.: Parallel calculations 

and verifications of limiting transient analyses for Lungmen nuclear power plant. INER 

report (2008) INER-A1609R, Institute of Nuclear Energy Research Atomic Energy Council, 

R.O.C.. 

10 Kao, L.S.; Wang, J.R.; Tang, J.R.; Jing, J.A.; Tung, W.H.; Yuann, R.Y.; Lin, C.T.; Lin, 

H.T.: Development of Lungmen ABWR Thermal hydraulic Safety analysis Method-The 

Summary Report. INER report (2008) INER-A1742R, Institute of Nuclear Energy 

Research Atomic Energy Council, R.O.C.. 

11 Taiwan Power Company: Lungmen Nuclear Power Station Startup Test ProcedureFeedwater Pump Trip, STP-27-HP (2008). 

12 Taiwan Power Company: Lungmen Nuclear Power Station Startup Test Procedure- One 

RIP Trip Test, STP-28A-HP (2008). 

13 Taiwan Power Company: Lungmen Nuclear Power Station Startup Test Procedure- Three 

RIPs Trip Test, STP-28B-HP (2008). 

14 Taiwan Power Company: Lungmen Nuclear Power Station Startup Test ProcedureReactor Full Isolation, STP-32-HP (2008). 




UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG/IA-0431 The FSAR Transients Analysis of Lungmen ABWR Using TRACE/PARCS