Method and system for designing a nuclear reactor core for uprated power operations

1. A method of modifying a nuclear reactor core for uprated power operations, comprising:

inputting a set of constraints to be satisfied for uprated power operations, the uprated power operations operating at greater than 100% of a currently-licensed power level for the nuclear reactor core;

generating a test reactor core design based on the constraints;

selecting, from a set of automated tools, one or more automated tools to evaluate the test core design against the constraints; and

operating the selected automated tool, including,

simulating reactor operation with the test core design, based on the constraints, to produce a plurality of outputs,

comparing the outputs against the constraints, and

providing data indicating constraints that were violated by the test core design during the simulation, based on the comparison,

providing procedural recommendations for modifying the test reactor core design to achieve the uprated power operations based on the violated constraints,

wherein one of more of the automated tools are iterated until a test core design meets all constraints for uprated power operations, thereby representing an acceptable power uprate core design.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the set of automated tools includes a rod pattern design tool to modify the rod pattern of the test core design, a core loading pattern design tool to modify core loading pattern of the test core design, and a fresh fuel bundle type design tool to modify the fresh fuel loading pattern within the test core design.

3. The method of claim 2 , wherein each of the rod pattern, core loading pattern and fresh fuel bundle type design tools are invoked sequentially and provide feedback as an output to each corresponding tool, until all rod, exposed fuel and fresh fuel changes have been exhausted in the test core design.

4. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

storing information related to the test design, constraints, outputs and data from the comparison.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein inputting a set of constraints further includes:

defining input constraints applicable to variables that are to be input for performing the simulating step; and

defining output constraints applicable to the outputs,

wherein the input constraints and output constraints are evaluated in the comparison step.

6. The method of claim 5 , wherein the input constraints are related to client-inputted plant specific constraints and core performance criteria.

7. The method of claim 5 , wherein the output constraints are related to at least one of operational parameter limits used for reactor operation, core safety limits, margins to those operational and safety limits and client-inputted plant specific constraints.

8. The method of claim 1 , wherein the comparing step further comprises:

configuring an objective function to evaluate the outputs; and

generating objective function values for each output using the objective function; and

evaluating the objective function values based on the constraints to determine which of the outputs violate a limit.

9. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

outputting data related to an acceptable power uprate core design, if the comparing step indicates that all constraints have been satisfied, or satisfied within an acceptable margin.

10. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

modifying the test core design to create a derivative core design; and

repeating the selecting and operating steps for multiple automated tools to determine whether any constraints were violated by the derivative core design during the simulation.

11. The method of claim 10 , wherein, for the derivative core design, the selecting step selects the same automated tool used for the test core design.

12. The method of claim 10 , wherein, for the derivative core design, the selecting step selects a different automated tool than used for the test core design.

13. The method of claim 10 , further comprising:

iteratively repeating the modifying, selecting and operating steps for N iterations of the derivative design, and, for selected ones of the N iterations,

storing information at each iteration related to the given derivative core design, constraints, outputs and data from the comparison.

14. The method of claim 13 , wherein, based on which constraints were violated by a particular derivative design, a specific automated tool is selected for a subsequent iteration.

15. The method of claim 13 , wherein the iteratively repeating step is performed until a particular iteration of a derivative design indicates that all constraints have been satisfied, or satisfied within an acceptable margin, the method further comprising:

outputting data related to an acceptable reactor core design for the nuclear reactor.

16. The method of claim 1 , wherein the acceptable power uprate core design includes data illustrating to a user how to load and run the reactor to satisfy the constraints and operate at the increased power level.

17. The method of claim 1 , wherein the accepted power uprate core design has N unique fresh fuel bundle types, N≧2.

18. The method of claim 1 , wherein the constraints to be satisfied for uprated power operations include client-inputted plant-specific limits and core performance criteria for uprate reactor power operation and core flow, the method further comprising:

accessing actual exposure accounting data from the evaluated plant for a given cycle of interest,

revising margins to the plant specific limits based on the exposure accounting data, and

simulating reactor operation with the accepted power uprate core design based on the revised margins using one of the selectable automated tools to determine if the accepted power uprate core design satisfies the limits with the revised margins thereto.

19. A core of a nuclear reactor, the core loaded in accordance with the method of claim 1 .