Benchmark Tutorial -- II - Availability
Transcript of Benchmark Tutorial -- II - Availability
ww
w.in
l.g
ov
Benchmarking Experiments for Criticality Safety and Reactor
Physics Applications – II –Tutorial
John D. Bess and J. Blair Briggs – INL
Ian Hill (IDAT) – OECD/NEA
This paper was prepared at Idaho National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of
Energy under Contract Number (DE-AC07-05ID14517)
2012 ANS Annual Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
June 24-28, 2012
Outline
I. Introduction to Benchmarkinga. Overviewb. ICSBEP/IRPhEP
II. Benchmark Experiment Availabilitya. DICE Demonstrationb. IDAT Demonstration
III. Dissection of a Benchmark Reporta. Experimental Datab. Experiment Evaluationc. Benchmark Modeld. Sample Calculationse. Benchmark Measurements
IV. Benchmark Participation
2
BENCHMARK EXPERIMENT AVAILABILITY
3
4
Contribution by Country – ICSBEP Evaluations
Distribution of the 532 Evaluations in the 2011 Publication of theInternational Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments
5
Contribution by Country – ICSBEP Configurations
Distribution of the Estimated 4550 Configurations in the 2011 Publication of the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments
6
• Experiment title
• Identification number(Fissile Material) - (Physical Form) - (Spectrum) - (Three-Digit Numerical Identifier)
Subcritical measurements are denoted by including the letters “SUB” at the beginning of the identifier.
• Key words
A list of words that describe key features of the experiment is provided.
ICSBEP Evaluation Identification
Fissile Material Physical Form Spectrum
Plutonium PU Metal MET Fast FAST
Highly Enriched Uranium HEU Compound COMP Intermediate-Energy INTER
Intermediate Enriched Uranium IEU Solution SOL Thermal THERM
Low Enriched Uranium LEU Miscellaneous MISC Mixed MIXED
Uranium-233 U233
Mixed Plutonium – Uranium MIX
Special Isotope SPEC
7
Distribution of Benchmark Configurations
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Pu HEU IEU LEU U233 MIX SPEC
717
1384
184
1520
244
482
20
118
576
4179
1153
20
563
517
64117
227
7235
284
79
1264
6
277
760 77
Nu
mb
er
of
co
nfi
gu
rati
on
s
Total
Metal
Solution
Compound
Misc.
8
Plutonium Systems – Fuel Type & Form(716 Configurations)
PU - Metal Systems
PU - Solution Systems
563 thermal
PU - Compound Systems
6 fast4 intermediate
17 thermal
8 mixed
111 fast
1 mixed2 thermal
4 intermediate
Highly Enriched Uranium Systems(1384 Configurations)
HEU - Metal Systems
HEU - Solution Systems
514 thermal
HEU - Compound Systems
388 fast
137 thermal36 mixed
14 intermediate
218 thermal
47 mixed
3 intermediate
15 intermediate
2 thermal
HEU - Metal & Solution Systems
5 thermal
HEU – Compound & Solution Systems
5 fast
9
Intermediate and MixedEnrichment Uranium Systems(184 Configurations)
IEU - Metal Systems
41 fast
IEU - Solution Systems
64 thermal
IEU - Compound Systems
46 thermal
17 intermediate2 fast14 mixed
10
Low Enriched Uranium Systems(1520 Configurations)
LEU - Metal Systems
LEU - Solution Systems
117 thermal
LEU - Compound Systems
79 thermal
1258 thermal
LEU – Mixed Compound & Solution Systems
60 thermal
1 fast5 mixed
11
Uranium-233 Systems(244 Configurations)
U233 - Metal Systems
10 fast
U233 - Solution Systems
190 thermal
29 intermediate8 mixed
U233 - Compound Systems
6 thermal
1 thermal
12
Mixed Plutonium-Uranium Systems (482 Configurations)
MIX - Metal Systems
MIX - Solution Systems
72 thermal
MIX - Compound Systems
255 thermal
48 fast
4 intermediate 1 mixed
MIX - Compound & Solution Systems
56 thermal
5 fast
MIX – Metal & Compound
13 fast
3 intermediate17 mixed
8 mixed
13
Special Isotope Systems(20 Configurations)
SPEC - Metal Systems
20 fast
14
Neptunium-237
Plutonium-238
Plutonium 242
Curium-244
ICSBEP Benchmark Generation Over the Years
15
High Quality Benchmark Experiments
16
Even Higher Quality Benchmark Experiments
17
18
IRPhEP Evaluation Identification
• Experiment title
• Identification number(Reactor Name) - (Reactor Type) - (Facility Type) - (Three-Digit Numerical Identifier)
(Measurement Type(s))
Reactor Type Facility Type Measurement Type
Pressurized Water Reactor PWR Experimental Facility EXP Critical Configuration CRIT
VVER Reactors VVER Power Reactor POWER Subcritical Configuration SUB
Boiling Water Reactor BWR Research Reactor RESR Buckling & Extrapolation Length BUCK
Liquid Metal Fast Reactor LMFR Spectral Characteristics SPEC
Gas Cooled (Thermal) Reactor GCR Reactivity Effects REAC
Gas Cooled (Fast) Reactor GCFR Reactivity Coefficients COEF
Light Water Moderated Reactor LWR Kinetics Measurements KIN
Heavy Water Moderated Reactor HWR Reaction-Rate Distributions RRATE
Molten Salt Reactor MSR Power Distributions POWDIS
RBMK Reactor RBMK Nuclide Composition ISO
Fundamental FUND Other Miscellaneous Types of Measurements
MISC
IRPhEP 2012 Available Benchmarks (52 + 4 Drafts)
• PWR – 3– CREOLE, VENUS, SSCR– +2 VENUS Drafts
• VVER – 2– Pfacility, ZR6– +1 LR0 Draft
• BWR – 0
• LMFR – 20– BFS1, BFS2, FFTF, JOYO,
SNEAK, ZEBRA, ZPR, ZPPR
• GCR – 6– ASTRA, HTR10, HTTR,
HTR-PROTEUS– +1 VHTRC Draft
• GCFR – 0
• LWR – 8– CROCUS, DIMPLE,
IPEN/MB01, KRITZ, TCA
• HWR – 2– DCA, ZED2
• MSR – 0
• RBMK – 1– RBMKCF
• FUND – 10– ATR, BFS1, BFS2, NRAD,
PBF, RHF, SCCA, ZEBRA
19
IRPhEP 2012 Available Benchmark Data
20
Demonstration of ICSBEP Handbook
21
Demonstration of IRPhEP Handbook
22
Requesting the Handbooks
• For OECD/NEA Member Countries and Participants in the Handbooks
• ICSBEP Handbook
• IRPhEP Handbook
• DVD and Online Access
23
http://icsbep.inl.gov/
http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/wpncs/icsbep/
http://irphep.inl.gov
http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/wprs/irphe/
Current OECD/NEA Member Countries (2012)
Australia France Luxembourg Slovak Republic
Austria Germany Mexico Slovenia
Belgium Greece Netherlands Spain
Canada Hungary New Zealand Sweden
Chile Iceland Norway Switzerland
Czech Republic Ireland Poland Turkey
Denmark Israel Portugal United Kingdom
Estonia Italy Republic of Korea United States
Finland Japan Russian Federation (2013)
24
DICE DEMONSTRATIONDatabase for the International CriticalitySafety Benchmark Evaluation Project
25
Critical/Subcritical Data
26
Alarm/Shielding Data
27
Fundamental Physics Data
28
Correlation Matrix
29
Search by Evaluator
30
Search by Varying Parameter
31
Search by Laboratory
32
Search by Dates
33
Search by Fuel Form/Fissile Material
34
Search by Material(s) in Fuel Region
35
Search by Fuel Isotopic Content
36
Search by Pu/(U+Pu) Ratio
37
Search by Moderator/Coolant Material
38
Search by Neutron Absorbing Material
39
Search by Geometry
40
Search by EALF
41
Search by Fission Energy Distribution
42
Calculation Codes and Cross Section Data
43
Search by Neutron Balance Data
44
Search on Neutron Balance for Cr (Natural)
45
Neutron Balance Data Summary
46
Detailed Balance Data
47
Search HEU-SOL-THERM Benchmarks
48
HEU-SOL-THERM Search Results
49
Spectra Plots
50
Search U233-SOL
51
U233-SOL Search Results
52
Sensitivity Plots
53
Comparison of ABBN and TSUNAMI Data
54
HTML Summary Information
55
Recent Examples of DICE Implementation – I
• Slovenia– Identify experiments with significant captures in boron
to re-examine the treatment of boron uncertainty for natural isotopic abundance of 10B
• Example– Search Neutron Absorbing Material = Boron
– Apply Energy and Spectra = Fission options
– View Sensitivity Plots: HMF010, LCT050, & HST013
56
Search Neutron Absorbing Material = Boron
57
Apply Energy and Spectra = Fission options
58
View Sensitivity Plots: HMF010, LCT050, & HST013
59
Look at Plot of Boron Concentration (g/L)
60
Recent Examples of DICE Implementation – II
• U.S.– Identify plutonium experiments with low EALF to
evaluate sensitivity to low energy eta (# fission neutrons produced per absorption in the fuel).
• Example– Search Identification = PU and EALF < 0.06 eV
– Apply Energy and Spectra = EALF (eV) option
– View Spectra Plots: PST003-008 & PST009-002 (n,f)
– Now Search PU without EALF limit
– Add Spectra Plot: PMF004-009 (n,f)
61
Search Identification = PU and EALF < 0.06 eV
62
Apply Energy and Spectra = EALF (eV) option
63
Look at Plot of EALF (eV)
64
View Spectra Plots: PST003-008 & PST009-002 (n,f)
65
Add Spectra Plot: PMF004-009 (n,f)
66
Recent Examples of DICE Implementation – III
• U.S.– Identify U-Zr-H experiments and see how well they can
be calculated
• Example– Search Fuel Form/Fissile Material = Uranium Hydride
– Search Fuel Region = Zr (Natural)
– Apply Benchmark and Calculated keff options
– Plot C/E Results• X-axis = Case Identification
• Y-axis = C/E
• Series = Library or Code Name
67
Search Fuel Form/Fissile Material = Uranium Hydride
68
Apply Benchmark and Calculated keff options
69
Plots C/E Results – I
70
Plots C/E Results – II
71
Validation, Interpretation and Bias Estimation (VIBE)
• Plug-in for DICE developed by SCALE team at ORNL
• GUI to identify and display available TSUNAMI sensitivity data
• Exported for criticality code validation studies
• ORNL is increasing the availability of TSUNAMI files for ICSBEP benchmark data
72
Questions on DICE?
73
IDAT DEMONSTRATIONInternational Reactor Physics ExperimentEvaluation Database and Analysis Tool
74
IDAT
DEMO
Questions on IDAT?
75
UNAVAILABLE BENCHMARK DATA…NOW WHAT?
76
Are We There Yet?
• Initially thought all benchmarks would be completed in less than a decade
• Constant need for updated/refined cross section data
• Demand for materials, conditions, methods, safety, etc., evolve with time
• Numerous nuclear experiments performed world-wide
– In danger of losing even more of our nuclear heritage
77
What Benchmark Data Are We Missing?(Some Examples)
ICSBEP
• Intermediate Spectra
• Intermediate Enriched Uranium
• Uranium Hexafluoride
• Uranium-10Mo
• Nitride Fuels
• Minor Actinides
• Subcritical Methods
IRPhEP
• BWR
• GCFR
• MSR
• Power Distributions
• Isotopic Measurements– Burnup
• Plutonium Dioxide Fuel
• Similar needs as ICSBEP
78
WHAT BENCHMARK DATA ARE YOU MISSING?
79
Finding or Designing Benchmark Data
1. Literature Search– OSTI
– NASA Technical Reports
– Laboratory Reports• Digitization and Data
Recovery Projects
– Journals and Conference Proceedings
2. Benchmark Analysis
1. New Experiments– CeDT/NCSP
• NCERC @ NNSS
– Other Critical Facilities
– Operational Reactor Facilities
• RERTR – LEU Conversions
2. Experiment Design Process
3. Benchmark Analysis
80
Questions?
81
Mihalczo
HEU
Sphere