Research Article
Modelling and Validation of CANDU Shim Operation Using Coupled TRACE/PARCS with Regulating System Response
Table 3
Effect of adjuster depletion on reactivity device worths (in mk).
| Device | 0 EFPH | 154,008 EFPH | 182,500 EFPH | 195,000 EFPH |
| Liquid zones | 5.751 | 5.765 | (+0.26%) | 5.763 | (+0.22%) | 5.762 | (+0.20%) | Adjusters (all) | 12.240 | 11.116 | (−9.19%) | 10.904 | (−10.92%) | 10.814 | (−11.66%) | Adjuster bank A (type 3) | 1.116 | 1.058 | (−5.20%) | 1.043 | (−6.48%) | 1.038 | (−6.94%) | Adjuster bank B (type 3) | 1.195 | 1.116 | (−6.59%) | 1.100 | (−7.95%) | 1.093 | (−8.54%) | Adjuster bank C (type 2) | 1.708 | 1.529 | (−10.47%) | 1.495 | (−12.47%) | 1.481 | (−13.29%) | Adjuster bank D (type 4) | 0.927 | 0.838 | (−9.51%) | 0.824 | (−11.02%) | 0.815 | (−11.99%) | Adjuster bank E (type 1) | 1.505 | 1.351 | (−10.25%) | 1.322 | (−12.17%) | 1.311 | (−12.90%) | Adjuster bank F (type 3) | 1.404 | 1.330 | (−5.27%) | 1.318 | (−6.13%) | 1.309 | (−6.76%) | Adjuster bank G (type 2) | 2.052 | 1.847 | (−9.98%) | 1.808 | (−11.90%) | 1.794 | (−12.57%) | Adjuster bank H (type 1) | 2.335 | 2.047 | (−12.33%) | 1.994 | (−14.58%) | 1.973 | (−15.50%) |
|
|