Abstract
This paper presents the steady state analysis of the Rostov-II benchmark using the conventional two-step approach. It involves the STREAM/RAST-K and CASMO-5/PARCS code systems. This paper documents a comprehensive code-to-code comparison between Serpent 2, CASMO-5, and STREAM at the lattice level for the different fuel assemblies (FAs) loaded in the Rostov-II core; and between Serpent 2, PARCS, and RAST-K at the core level in 2D. Finally, the 3D results of both deterministic models are compared to the steady state measurements of the Rostov-II benchmark. With respect to the measurements available in the Rostov-II benchmark, comparable accuracy (30 ppm difference in boron concentration, 2% assembly power) with an industrial calculation scheme (BIPR8) are reported up to 36.73 EFPDs. The calculations reported in the paper showed that the modeling of the resonance self-shielding in the lattice code as well as the geometrical modeling of the reflector are key for an accurate solution (reducing the in-out power tilt). At the core simulator level, a fairly crude 1D reflector model appears to be enough. Overall, this paper provides the detailed models and conditions used in STREAM/RAST-K and CASMO-5/PARCS, and accurate calculation solution for the Rostov-II benchmark with STREAM/RAST-K and CASMO-5/PARCS compared with measurement.