FAQ
    
    AGREEMENT STATES
    
    Facility Locator
    
    What's New
    
    Site Help
    
    Index A-Z
    
    Contact Us
    
    Email Updates
      
      
      
      
       
      Report a Safety Concern
                  Search
        Nuclear Reactors
  
  Power Reactors
Research & Test ReactorsOperating Reactors
New ReactorsOperator Licensing
Research ActivitiesNuclear Reactor Quick LinksNuclear Materials
  
  Types of Nuclear Materials
Fuel Cycle Facilities
Medical, Industrial, & Academic UsesUranium Recovery
Materials TransportationMaterials Environmental Reviews
National Materials ProgramNuclear Materials Quick LinksRadioactive Waste
  
  Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
Low-Level Waste
Waste Incidental to Reprocessing
High-Level WasteUranium Mill Tailings
Low-Level Waste Disposal
High-Level Waste DisposalStorage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Research ActivitiesRadioactive Waste Quick LinksNuclear Security
  
  Domestic Safeguards
Information Security
Radioactive Material SecurityRequired Reporting for Clearance Holders
Insider Threat Program for Licensees
CybersecurityCriminal History & Firearms Checks
Contact UsPublic Meetings & Involvement
  
  The NRC Approach to Open Government
About Meetings Open to the Public
Conferences & SymposiaDocuments for Comment
NRC Rules and Petitions
Facilitating Stakeholder InvolvementNRC Information Quality Guidelines
Subscribe to E-mail UpdatesCommission Schedule
Public Meeting ScheduleAdjudications (Hearings)
Adjudicatory SubmissionsNRC Library
  
  Basic References
Document Collections
ADAMS Public Documents
Public Document Room
LSN LibraryFOIA & Privacy Act
Photos & Videos
Records Management
Training CoursesFAQ Index
Get Copies of Documents
Withholding of Sensitive Information
Controlled Unclassified Information Program (CUI)Electronic Hearing DocketAbout NRC
  
  The Commission
Organization & Functions
Governing Legislation
Plans, Budget, & Performance
Locations
History
Values
Direction-Setting & Policymaking
Research Activities
Radiation ProtectionFire Protection
Safety Culture
How We Regulate
Emergency Preparedness & Response
Public Affairs
Congressional Affairs
Enforcement
International Programs
State & Tribal ProgramsAlternative Dispute Resolution Programs
Privacy Program
Civil Rights Program
Contact Us
Career Opportunities
Contracting Opportunities
Small Businesses
Grant Opportunities
Generic SchedulesOther Links
  
  FAQ
Glossary
Facility Locator
What's NewSite Help
Index A-Z
Contact Us
Email UpdatesNRC Facebook
NRC Twitter Feed
NRC Linkedin
NRC Youtube Channel
NRC Flickr Gallery
NRC Blog Archived
NRC Email Subscriptions - GovDelivery Home
          NRC Library  Document Collections  NUREG-Series Publications  Publications Prepared by NRC ContractorsCFD Validation of Vertical Dry Cask Storage System (NUREG/CR-7260)

On this page: Publication Information AbstractDownload complete document NUREG/CR-7260 (PDF – 3.36 MB)Publication Information **Manuscript Completed:** April 2019**Date Published:** May 2019 **Prepared by:** K. Hall1, G. Zigh2, and J. Solis2 1Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.  Holden, MA 01541 2U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Don Algama, NRC Project Manager Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 Availability Notice Abstract Applicants submit spent nuclear fuel dry storage cask designs to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for certification under Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 72, "Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste". The NRC staff performs its technical review of these designs in accordance with 10 CFR Part 72 and NUREG-1536, "Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Systems at a General License Facility," Revision 1, issued July 2010 [6]. To ensure that the cask and fuel material temperatures of the dry cask storage system remain within the allowable limits or criteria for normal, off-normal, and accident conditions, the NRC staff performs a thermal review as part of the technical review. Recent applications have increasingly used thermal-hydraulic analyses using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes (e.g., ANSYS FLUENT) to demonstrate the adequacy of the thermal design. The applicants are also looking to license casks with decay heat close to 50 kW, resulting in peak cladding temperature (PCT) close to the ISG-11 suggested temperature of 400 C. These PCT predictions presented by the applicants usually are not supported by an uncertainty quantification calculation to assure the thermal reviewer that the calculated temperature margin is adequate. To remedy this, the NRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards asked the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to be part of a validation study of the FLUENT CFD code to assist it in making regulatory decisions to ensure adequate protection for storage and transportation casks. The validation studies were based on data collected in a demonstration project at the North Anna Power Plant sponsored by Department of Energy (DOE). A TN-32B cask loaded with about 30.5 kW of high burn-up fuel was used for this validation. Extensive temperature measurements throughout the cask were performed, including temperature measurements throughout the height of several fuel assemblies and temperature measurements on the outer surface of the cask [2]. USNRC recognizes that CFD using finite volume is one of the best and most valuable method for the applicants to show compliance with the regulations concerning the dry cask storage systems (DCSS) thermal response. Additionally, when demonstrating compliance, it is valuable to quantify the uncertainty in the simulation result as a function of the computational mesh and simulation inputs. As a participant in this CFD validation, USNRC led the effort to include uncertainty quantification and follow the CFD best practice guidelines in this validation exercise [NUREG 2152]. This report discusses validation and uncertainty quantification of a CFD model using experimental data. Uncertainty quantification follows the procedures outlined in [1]. Sources of uncertainty that were examined in the analysis include iterative uncertainty, spatial discretization, and uncertainty due to approximately twenty input parameters. Input parameters investigated include environmental conditions, material properties, decay heat, and the spacing of the many small gaps in the installation. The uncertainty in gap size was found to be the principal source of uncertainty in this particular installation. The effect of the multiple fluid gap dependence and correlation on the uncertainty quantification was evaluated and discussed. As a result, the uncertainty quantification due to the fluid gaps was determined to be dependent due to the heat path dependence, and as such, a correlated error estimation was used. Results of a "base case" using the conservative estimates outlined in the safety analysis report (SAR) are presented, as well as a "best estimate case" that uses more realistic values. These results are compared to experimentally measured values, which fall within the uncertainty band of the analysis. The model is then used to predict the peak cladding temperature (PCT) that would be expected when the cask is placed outside in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The method presented herein, showed that all the measured temperature values in all the seven lances inside the fuel region as well as the outside three columns of thermocouples measurements were predicted within the calculated uncertainty bands. Experimental data to validate a CFD simulation of a dry cask storage system for both design and safety studies, suffers from a lack of local measurements, an insufficient number of measured flow variables, a lack of well-defined initial and boundary conditions, and a lack of information on experimental uncertainty. V&V 20-2009 and the work by the working group on CFD application to nuclear safety of the OECD-NEA-CSNI-WGAMA [10] established some requirements for CFD-grade experiments able to properly validate single phase CFD models. The work in this report highlights the quality of experiment used for the validation as a concern, especially due to the many lacking inputs that are of valuable interest to the modeler. The discussion on this topic establishes the criteria to judge whether an experiment can be considered of a CFD grade. CFD grade experiments should be able to validate CFD and the main concern is to minimize the validation uncertainty on some selected figure of merit (FoM). Usually, the Peak Cladding Temperature (PCT) is used as the figure of merit for dry cask applications. Other local temperature throughout or flow variable can also be a figure of merit. Even though this validation was worth the time and the effort, the experiment cannot be classified as a CFD grade experiment due to lack of geometry specifications which resulted in large validation uncertainty. The lack of geometrical specification includes all the gaps that were part of the design specifications but not measured for the experiment performed in North Anna Power Plant. A validation uncertainty of 63 K (113°F) was calculated for the current experiment to validate the model's prediction of PCT. Therefore, this experiment cannot be classified as a CFD grade experiment because of the relatively large calculated validation uncertainty. Cask vendors have been submitting applications within margins close or less than 10-20 K (18-36°F) from ISG-11 specified temperature limit of 400°C (752°F). In order to be useful as a demonstration of the accuracy of the CFD modeling process or to improve the model's capabilities, the validation uncertainty should be minimized to the desired margin of 10-20 K (18-36°F) or less. The primary simulation uncertainties consisted mainly of lack of knowledge of the size of fluid gaps that existed in the dry cask. The gap sizes are an important simulation input, and greatly influence the value of PCT predicted by the model. 
      
      Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021  Home
NEWS RELEASES

EVENT REPORTS

ADAMS

OPEN GOV

DIGITAL GOVERNMENT

THE STUDENT CORNER

PHOTOS & VIDEOS

FOR DEVELOPERS
        About Us
STRATEGIC PLAN

BUDGET & PERFORMANCE

AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT

LICENSE FEES

HISTORY OF THE NRC

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

NRC ETHICS

AGENCY STATUS

CONTACT US
        Popular Documents
INFO DIGEST

FACT SHEETS & BROCHURES

FORMS

ELECTRONIC SUBMITTALS APPLICATION

ADJUDICATORY SUBMISSIONS

NRC REPORTS - NUREG

NRC REGULATIONS - 10-CFR

INSPECTION REPORTS

PLAIN WRITING

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

RULEMAKING

GLOSSARY
        Stay Connected
    
    
    
    
    United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    
    
    
    
    Regulations.gov

USA.gov

FOIA

Whistleblower Protection

No Fear EEO

Inspector General

Site Map

Accessibility

Privacy Policy

Site Disclaimer

For Employees