Fusion decay-heat benchmark for nuclear data validation ... · Fusion decay heat validation,...

This work was funded by the RCUK Energy Programme[Grant number EP/P012450/1]

FISPACT-II V&V

Fusion decay-heat benchmark fornuclear data validationAdvanced interrogation capabilities with FISPACT-II

Mark Gilbert, United Kingdom Atomic Energy AuthorityFISPACT-II workshop

October 23-25, 2019, Manchester

FISPACT-II workshop October 2019 M. Gilbert2/30

Introduction

• Validation & Verification (V&V) is an important part ofthe development and release of FISPACT-II

• A suite of automated validation benchmarks have beencreated to test new releases of both the FISPACT-II codeand the nuclear data libraries

I against international experimental databases

• Results are compiled into open access pdf reports(see fispact.ukaea.uk)

I thousands of pages in total providing a near-completecoverage of the physics landscape for neutron interactions

fispact.ukaea.uk


FISPACT-II validation

available from http://fispact.ukaea.uk

UKAEA-R(18)004

February 2018

Michael FlemingJean-Christophe Sublet

Jiri Kopecky

Integro-Differential Verification andValidation, FISPACT-II & TENDL-2017

nuclear data libraries

UKAEA-R(18)003

February 2018


Validation of FISPACT-IIDecay Heat and Inventory

Predictions for Fission Events

UKAEA-R(18)005

February 2018


Arjan KoningDimitri Rochman

Maxwellian-AveragedNeutron-Induced Cross Sections for

kT=1 keV to 100 keV, KADoNiS,TENDL-2017,-2014, ENDF/B-VIII.0,

JEFF-3.3, JENDL-4.0u, and EAF-2010nuclear data libraries

CCFE-R(18)002

September 2018

Mark R. GilbertJean-Christophe Sublet

Fusion decay heat validation,FISPACT-II & TENDL-2017, EAF2010,

ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, andIRDFF-1.05 nuclear data libraries

www.ccfe.ac.uk

• V&V exercises recentlyrepeated for new FISPACT-II-4.0

• focussing particularly on TENDL-2017

• but also benchmarking ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3 (and others)

• decay heat validation against (Japan-FNS) fusion experiments

• integral & differential xs validation against EXFOR

• fission decay heat and criticality benchmarks

• astrophysics testing (KADoNiS)

• In conjunction withJ.-Ch. Sublet (IAEA)& M. Fleming (NEA)

http://fispact.ukaea.uk


Other validation efforts (1)

UKAEA-R(18)003

• Fission decay heat

• Comparison of simulated fission pulse decay heat to carefully interpretedexperimental data

• e.g. 235U thermal (0.0253 eV) pulse comparison

• total andβ-generated decayheat

• simulated withlatest ENDF/B,JEFF, and JENDLlibraries

• Also included inexercise: 233U,238U, 239Pu, 241Pu,232Th, and 237Np

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Dec

ay h

eat (

MeV

/fis

sion

)

Time (s)

ENDF/B-VIII.0 nFY+DDJENDL-4.0+JENDL-2015/DDF

JEFF-3.3 nFY+DDGEFY-6.1+ENDF/B-7.1

TobiasDickensLowell


Other validation efforts (2)

UKAEA-R(18)005

• Maxwellian-averagedneutron xs comparison

• using KADoNiS astrophysicsexperimental database, whichincludes data for 357 nuclidesat temperatures ranging from 5keV (58 million K) to 100 keV(1.2 billion K)

• e.g. 56Fe results:

• TENDL-2017 xs & comparisonto KADoNiS of average xs atvarious temperatures fordifferent libraries

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

10-1 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Eh=8.50E+05eV

Mic

rosc

opic

cro

ss s

ectio

n (b

)

Nor

mal

ised

rea

ctio

n ra

te

Energy (eV)

TENDL-2017 kT=0 keVkT=5 keV

kT=30 keVkT=80 keV

10-3

10-2

10-1

2 5 3010 100

< A

vera

ge c

ross

sec

tion

(b)

>

Temperature (keV)

TENDL-2017 TENDL-2014

ENDF/B-VIII.0 JENDL-4.0

JEFF-3.3 EAF-2010 KADoNiS


Other validations (3)

UKAEA-R(18)004

• Integro-differential V&V

• Comparison of cross section data against integral and differentialdata in the EXFOR database

• more than 400 reactions currently assessed this way (more could be added)

• e.g. 115In(n,γ)differential datacompared toTENDL-2017

• obvious complexityassociated withthree metastablestates of 116In andpotential formis-attribution

1.0E

-04

1.0E

-03

1.0E

-02

1.0E

-01

1.0E

+00

1.0E

+01

1.0E

+02

1.0E

+03

1.0E

+04

1.0E

+05

1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07

Cro

ss s

ectio

n (b

)

Energy (eV)

TENDL17 totalTENDL17 g

TENDL17 mTENDL17 n

Alexander1963.L01Anand1979.tot

Antonini1978.L01Bacso1963.L00

Bacso1963.totBao2000.L01

Bao2000.totBeckurts1963.L00Beckurts1963.L01

Bhike2012.L01Blair1944.tot

Booth1958.totBroadhead1967.tot

Brzosko1971.totCampbell1970.tot

Celenk1991.L01Chaubey1965.L00

ChiFongAiii1979.totClark1967.L02

Cox1964.L00Cox1964.tot

Demekhin1986.L01FarinaArbocco2014.tot

FarinaArbocco2014A001.totGautam1990.L01Grench1968.L00Hummel1951.totJohnsrud1959.tot

Jozefowicz1963.L01


Fusion decay heat benchmark• Experiments performed at the Fusion Neutron Source

(FNS) at JAEA in 1996-2000

• aimed at providing fusion-relevant decay-power data forimportant structural materials

• accurate experimental measurements with detailed recordsare ideal for simulation benchmarking

Experiment reports & papers: F. Maekawa M. Wada, Y. Ikeda et al.Tech. Rep. JAERI-Data/Code 98-024, JAERI-Data/Code 98-021,& JAERI 99-055. http://www.jaea.go.jp/jaeri/

Maekawa et al., Fus. Eng. Des. 47 (2000) 377-388 &J. Nucl. Sci. Tech. 39 (2002) 990-993

Simulation paper: Gilbert, Sublet, Nuclear Fusion 59 (2019) 086045Latest report: Gilbert, Sublet, CCFE(R)18-002 (2018), available fromfispact.ukaea.uk/documentation-2/reports/

http://www.jaea.go.jp/jaeri/

fispact.ukaea.uk/documentation-2/reports/


The experiment

10-2 100 102 104 106 108

Energy (eV)

102

104

106

108

1010

Flu

x(n

/uni

tlet

harg

y)

Pos1 1.135E+10

Pos2 1.116E+10

Pos3 1.116E+10

Pos7 1.050E+10

MCNP-calculated

spectra in the

four locations

• 2 mA deuteron beam onto a tritium target producing afusion neutron spectrum with fluxes of ∼ 1010 n cm−2 s−1

at the sample location

• samples irradiated for 5 minutes or 7 hours(4 different experimental set-ups)

• for the short irradiations, a rapid rabbit extraction systemwas used to make the samples available for immediatemeasurement


The experiment• time-dependent decay heat of each sample was measured

using a WEAS systemI providing almost 100% detector efficiencyI around 1 hour of recording for the 5-minute irradiations

(starting from less than 1 minute after irradiation)I & up to a year of measurements from the 7-hour-irradiated samples

Z Material Form Z Material Form9 Fluorine CF2 46 Palladium Metallic Foil

11 Sodium Na2CO3 47 Silver Metallic Foil12 Magnesium MgO 48 Cadmium Metallic Foil13 Aluminium Metallic Foil 49 Indium Metallic Foil14 Silicon Metallic Powder 50 Tin SnO215 Phosphorus P3N5 51 Antimony Metallic Powder16 Sulphur Powder 52 Tellurium TeO217 Chlorine C2H2Cl2 53 Iodine IC6H4OH19 Potassium K2CO3 55 Caesium Cs2O320 Calcium CaO 56 Barium BaCO321 Scandium Sc2O3 57 Lanthanum La2O322 Titanium Metallic Foil 58 Cerium CeO223 Vanadium Metallic Foil 59 Praseodymium Pr6O1124 Chromium Metallic Powder 60 Neodymium Nd2O325 Manganese Metallic Powder 62 Samarium Sm2O326 Iron Metallic Foil 63 Europium Eu2O3

Alloy SS304 Metallic Foil 64 Gadolinium Gd2O3Alloy SS316 Metallic Foil 65 Terbium Tb4O7

27 Cobalt Metallic Foil 66 Dysprosium Dy2O3Alloy Inconel-600 Metallic Foil 67 Holmium Ho2O3

28 Nickel Metallic Foil 68 Erbium Er2O3Alloy Nickel-chrome Metallic Foil 69 Thulium Tm2O3

29 Copper Metallic Foil 70 Ytterbium Yb2O330 Zinc Metallic Foil 71 Lutetium Lu2O331 Gallium Ga2O3 72 Hafnium Metallic Powder32 Germanium GeO2 73 Tantalum Metallic Foil33 Arsenic As2O3 74 Tungsten Metallic Foil34 Selenium Metallic Powder 75 Rhenium Metallic Powder35 Bromine BrC6H4COOH 76 Osmium Metallic Powder37 Rubidium Rb2CO3 77 Iridium Metallic Powder38 Strontium SrCO3 78 Platinum Metallic Foil39 Yttrium Y2O3 79 Gold Metallic Foil40 Zirconium Metallic Foil 80 Mercury HgO41 Niobium Metallic Foil 81 Thallium Tl2O42 Molybdenum Metallic Foil 82 Lead Metallic Foil44 Ruthenium Metallic Powder 83 Bismuth Metallic Powder45 Rhodium Metallic Powder


Simulations

CCFE-R(18)002

• Detailed experimental information (irradiation times,measurement times, material compositions, etc.) have beentranslated into a set of FISPACT-II input files

I these can be rapidly repeated for different nuclear data libraries

• Latest version of exercise compares results from TENDL-2017,ENDF/B-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, and EAF2010 neutron cross sectionlibraries

I in some cases it is also possible to produce a meaningfulcomparison with the IRDFF-1.05 dosimetry file

• where available, the decay data file associated with each xs libraryis used (i.e. for JEFF and ENDF/B)

• otherwise the “dec 2012” decay database distributed withFISPACT-II is used – applies to TENDL-2017

I 3875 nuclidesI a combination of data from JEFF-3.1.1, JEF-2.2 to produce the

EAF2010 decay file, UK evaluations in UKPADD6.1-6.9, andsupplemented from ENDF/B-VII


Typical results and presentation• 5 minute irradiation of pure iron

• decay heat curves fromsimulations with differentlibraries vs. experiment

5E-02

3E-01

1E-01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]

Time after irradiation [minutes]

FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Fe

FNS ExperimentJEFF-3.3EAF2010

ENDF/B-VIII.0TENDL-2017

IRDFF-1.05

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min 5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]

Time after irradiation [years]

FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Fe - TENDL-2017

totalMn58Fe53Mn57Mn5600 Exp

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min 5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Fe - TENDL-2017

totalMn58Fe53Mn57Mn5600 Exp

Product T1/2 Pathways Path %Mn58 1.09m Fe58(n,p)Mn58 98.4Mn57 1.42m Fe57(n,p)Mn57 100.0Fe53 8.51m Fe54(n,2n)Fe53 100.0Mn56 2.58h Fe56(n,p)Mn56 99.5

• nuclide contribution breakdown forTENDL-2017 vs. experiment

• showing 56Mn dominance

• experimental artifact likely cause ofslight disagreement – otherwisesimulation captures the profile well


Typical results and presentation

Times FNS EXP. 5 mins TENDL-2017 ENDF/B-VIII.0 JEFF-3.3 EAF2010 IRDFF-1.05Min. µW/g µW/g E/C E/C E/C E/C E/C0.58 1.17E−01 +/-5% 1.24E−01 +/-16% 0.94 1.00 0.91 0.94 1.150.83 1.14E−01 +/-5% 1.22E−01 +/-17% 0.94 0.99 0.90 0.93 1.131.08 1.12E−01 +/-5% 1.19E−01 +/-17% 0.94 0.99 0.90 0.93 1.111.35 1.08E−01 +/-5% 1.17E−01 +/-17% 0.93 0.97 0.89 0.92 1.081.60 1.07E−01 +/-5% 1.15E−01 +/-17% 0.93 0.98 0.90 0.92 1.072.03 1.04E−01 +/-5% 1.12E−01 +/-18% 0.93 0.97 0.89 0.92 1.042.63 1.02E−01 +/-5% 1.08E−01 +/-18% 0.94 0.97 0.90 0.92 1.023.23 9.87E−02 +/-5% 1.05E−01 +/-19% 0.94 0.96 0.90 0.92 1.004.10 9.58E−02 +/-5% 1.02E−01 +/-19% 0.93 0.95 0.90 0.91 0.985.20 9.30E−02 +/-5% 9.98E−02 +/-20% 0.93 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.966.32 9.13E−02 +/-5% 9.79E−02 +/-20% 0.93 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.957.93 8.96E−02 +/-5% 9.58E−02 +/-20% 0.93 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.959.98 8.73E−02 +/-5% 9.39E−02 +/-20% 0.93 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.94

12.03 8.58E−02 +/-5% 9.24E−02 +/-20% 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.9315.10 8.41E−02 +/-5% 9.05E−02 +/-21% 0.93 0.93 0.91 0.92 0.9319.20 8.13E−02 +/-5% 8.82E−02 +/-21% 0.92 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.9323.32 7.94E−02 +/-5% 8.61E−02 +/-21% 0.92 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.9327.42 7.75E−02 +/-5% 8.42E−02 +/-21% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.9234.53 7.47E−02 +/-5% 8.11E−02 +/-21% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.9244.65 7.10E−02 +/-5% 7.73E−02 +/-21% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.9254.75 6.77E−02 +/-5% 7.37E−02 +/-21% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.92mean % diff. from E 8 5 10 9 7

Product T1/2 E/C %∆E %∆Cnuc

Mn56 2.58h 0.94 5% 21%

• tabulated comparison against each experimental measurement

• and tabulated characteristic E/C values for important radionuclides


A complex case• 7 hour irradiation of 316 stainless steel

• a good fit with all major datalibraries despite the relativecomplexity

I predictions are within a few %of the experiment at all decaytimes

• numerous (minor) contributions butimportance dominance of 56Mn,57Ni, and 58Co at different times

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]

Time after irradiation [days]

FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - SS316



IRDFF-1.05

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - SS316 - TENDL-2017

totalFe55Co60Co57Nb96Mn54Tc99mCr51Co58mMo99Co58Ni57Mn56Exp

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

% d

eca

y h

ea

t co

ntr

ibu

tio

n



Fe55Co60Co57Nb96Mn54Tc99mCr51Co58mMo99Co58Ni57Mn56

58Co57Ni

56Mn1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]



totalFe55Co60Co57Nb96Mn54Tc99mCr51Co58mMo99Co58Ni57Mn56Exp

TENDL-2017


Multiple metastable importance• 7 hour irradiation of pure tin

• TEND-2017 and EAF2010 produce a good match to the measuredprofile

I but absolute decay heat values are not very close to the experiment

• JEFF-3.3 and ENDF/B-VIII.0 get the profile wrong

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - SnO2



1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - SnO2 - TENDL-2017

totalIn113mSn119mSn123Sn121In111Sn117mExp

TENDL-2017 results

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]




TENDL-2017 ENDF/B-VIII.0 JEFF-3.3 EAF2010mean % diff. from E 22 50 60 23


Tin nuclide comparisons• TENDL result shows importance of two metastable nuclides

I 119mSn and 117mSn produced via (n,2n) reactions

• JEFF & ENDF/B include the (n,2n)s but only to ground-states

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]




0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

% d

ecay h

eat contr

ibution



In113mSn119mSn123Sn121In111Sn117m

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - SnO2 - JEFF-3.3

totalIn113mSn119mSn123Sn121In111Sn117mIn115mCd115Exp

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay%

decay h

eat contr

ibution


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - SnO2 - JEFF-3.3

In113mSn119mSn123Sn121In111Sn117mIn115mCd115

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]




TENDL-2017

JEFF-3.3


A case where TENDL-2017 is best• 5 minute irradiation of pure palladium

• a complex case with many contributing nuclidesI particularly metastables: 108mRh, 109mPd, and 106mRhI a mixture of (n,2n) and (n,p) reactions dominateI TENDL-2017 outperforms all others

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Pd



1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Pd - TENDL-2017

totalPd109Rh106mRh108mRh106Rh104Pd109mPd107m00 Exp



A case where TENDL-2017 is best• 5 minute irradiation of pure palladium

• a complex case with many contributing nuclidesI particularly metastables: 108mRh, 109mPd, and 106mRhI a mixture of (n,2n) and (n,p) reactions dominateI TENDL-2017 outperforms all others

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Pd



0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

eca

y h

ea

t co

ntr

ibu

tio

n



Pd109Rh106mRh108mRh106Rh104Pd109mPd107m



Palladium nuclide comparisons

• EAF2010 overpredicts 108mRhproduction

• ENDF/B-VIII.0 & JEFF-3.3(not shown) miss 108mRh,109mPd, and 106mRh

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]




1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Pd - EAF2010


1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]




TENDL-2017

EAF2010


A case where JEFF-3.3 is best• 7 hour irradiation of sodium

• only JEFF-3.3 matches closely the experimental measurementsI other libraries either under or over predict the production of 22NaI this could be a coincidence due to an experimental artefact –

especially since the IRDFF dosimetry file underpredicts

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - Na2CO3



IRDFF-1.05

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - Na2CO

3 - JEFF-3.3

totalNa22Na24Exp

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]



3 - JEFF-3.3

totalNa22Na24Exp

JEFF-3.3 results

TENDL-2017 ENDF/B-VIII.0 JEFF-3.3 EAF2010 IRDFF-1.05mean % diff. from E 16 18 4 24 15


Sodium nuclide comparisons

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]



3 - TENDL-2017

totalNa22Na24Exp

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]



3 - ENDF/B-VIII.0

totalNa22Na24Exp

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]



3 - EAF2010

totalNa22Na24Exp

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]



3 - JEFF-3.3

totalNa22Na24Exp

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]



3 - TENDL-2017

totalNa22Na24Exp

TENDL-2017 ENDF/B-VIII.0

EAF2010 JEFF-3.3

• 23Na(n,γ)24Na

• 23Na(n,2n)22Na


A case where all are wrong (1)• 5 minute irradiation of pure Indium

• no library is close to the experiment

• the TENDL-2017 nuclide profiles suggestan overestimate of 116mIn production

I 116mIn decay profile matches the experimental measurementsbeyond 5 minutes of cooling

I incorrect distribution of 115In(n,γ) to 116In, 116mIn, 116nIn?(T1/2=14.2s, 54.6m, and 2.2s, respectively)

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - In



IRDFF-1.05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]Time after irradiation [years]

FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - In - TENDL-2017

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]



totalIn116In114In116m00 Exp

TENDL-2017 results


Indium nuclide comparisons

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]



totalIn116In114In116m00 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - In - ENDF/B-VIII.0

totalIn116In114Cd115Ag112In112In115m00 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - In - EAF2010

totalIn116In114In116mCd115Ag112In112In115mIn112m00 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - In - JEFF-3.3

totalIn116In114Cd115Ag112In11200 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]





EAF2010 JEFF-3.3

• JEFF-3.3, ENDF/B-VIII.0 miss 116mIn completely

• EAF2010 predicts many other contributing nuclides, but agrees withTENDL-2017 on 116mIn dominance


Indium nuclide comparisons

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

eca

y h

ea

t co

ntr

ibu

tio

n



In116In114In116m

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

eca

y h

ea

t co

ntr

ibu

tio

n


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - In - ENDF/B-VIII.0

In116In114Cd115Ag112In112In115m

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

eca

y h

ea

t co

ntr

ibu

tio

n



In116In114In116mCd115Ag112In112In115mIn112m

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

ecay h

eat contr

ibution


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - In - JEFF-3.3

In116In114Cd115Ag112In112

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]





EAF2010 JEFF-3.3

• JEFF-3.3, ENDF/B-VIII.0 miss 116mIn completely

• EAF2010 predicts many other contributing nuclides, but agrees withTENDL-2017 on 116mIn dominance


A case where all are wrong (2)• 5 minute irradiation of pure Osmium

• no library predicts the correct decay-profile or heat magnitudesI JEFF-3.3 and TENDL-2017 are identical and under & overpredict

at different timesI EAF2010 always overpredicts, while ENDF/B-VIII.0 underpredicts

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Os



1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Os - TENDL-2017

totalIr191mW189Os189mOs191mRe19000 Exp


1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]




TENDL-2017 results


Osmium nuclide comparisons

• The EAF2010 profile is thebest match and is attributedto 190Os(n,n′)190mOs

• this channel is missing fromthe group-wise processedversion of TENDL-2017 (&JEFF-3.3 & ENDF/B-VIII.0)

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]




1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Os - EAF2010

totalIr191mW189Re192Os189mOs191mRe190Os190m00 Exp

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]




TENDL-2017

EAF2010


Osmium nuclide comparisons

• The EAF2010 profile is thebest match and is attributedto 190Os(n,n′)190mOs

• this channel is missing fromthe group-wise processedversion of TENDL-2017 (&JEFF-3.3 & ENDF/B-VIII.0)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

ecay h

eat contr

ibution



Ir191mW189Os189mOs191mRe190

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

ecay h

eat contr

ibution



Os191Re190mOs193Re188mIr191mW189Re192Os189mOs191mRe190Os192mOs190m

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]




TENDL-2017

EAF2010


Statistical analysis

100

101

102

103

104

105

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

5-min exp.7-hour exp.

aver

age

% d

evia

tion

from

exp

erim

ent

Z

TENDL-2017ENDF/B-VIII.0JEFF-3.3EAF2010

• % deviation across all experiments

• deviation increases at higher Z


χ2 test

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

104

105

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

5-min exp.7-hour exp.

χ2 /n

Z

TENDL-2017ENDF/B-VIII.0JEFF-3.3EAF2010

• χ2/n variation for all experiments

• less clear trend ⇒ higher experimental errors at high Z

χ2 =(Dsim − Dexp

∆Dexp

)2

n values perexperiment


χ2 test

0

20

40

60

80

100

TENDL-2017 ENDF/B-VIII.0 JEFF-3.3 EAF2010

χ2/n ≤ 22 ≤ χ2/n < 55 ≤ χ2/n < 1010 ≤ χ2/n < 20χ2/n ≥ 20

% o

f exp

erim

ents

• TENDL-2017 performs better than other modern libraries& slightly better than EAF2010


Summary

• The FNS experimental results from Japan offer a uniquevalidation benchmark for inventory simulations infusion-relevant conditions

I they test the cross section data for a significant fraction ofstable nuclides

• Automation of benchmarking against these experimentswith FISPACT-II allows rapid testing of libraries

I quickly provides a global impression of data qualityI but each individual experiment and associated simulations

can have unexpected subtletiesI overall libraries perform well, particularly at low ZI no library succeeds for every caseI new libraries still have something to learn

from older ones ...


A case where the “legacy” is best• 5 minute irradiation of pure Iridium

• Only EAF2010 correctly matchesthe experimental profile (and scale)

I the observed decay heat originates from 192mIr in the first 5 minutesof cooling

I at longer times 190mOs dominates

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Ir



1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Ir - EAF2010

totalIr192Ir190mRe190Ir194Ir190Ir192mIr190nOs190mIr191mIr191n00 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g





EAF2010 results


Iridium nuclide comparisons• TENDL-2017 underpredicts 191Ir(n,2n)190nIr(β+)190mOs

• ENDF/B-VIII.0 and JEFF-3.3 overestimate this path and predict adifferent dominant nuclide (193Ir(n,α)190Re) at short cooling times

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Ir - TENDL-2017

totalIr192Ir190mRe190Ir194Ir190Ir192m00 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Ir - ENDF/B-VIII.0

totalIr192Ir190mRe190Ir194Ir190Ir192mIr190nOs190mIr191m00 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]




1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10mH

ea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Ir - JEFF-3.3

totalIr192Ir190mRe190Ir194Ir190Ir192mIr190nOs190m00 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]





EAF2010 JEFF-3.3


FISPACT-II inputs & outputs


.gra files• e.g. irradiation of pure iron

5E-02

3E-01

1E-01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]





IRDFF-1.05

• separate FISPACT-IIsimulation for each differentnuclear data library (and foreach different material)

• curves extracted directly from.gra files

GRAPH 1 2 1 3

UNCERTAINTY 2

• UNCERTAINTY keyword included to provide uncertainty estimates

• GRAPH <<n>> <<show>> <<uncert>> <<list>>

I instructs FISPACT-II to output <<n>> blocks of summary data inan additional output file with a .gra stub

I <<show>> equal to 2 makes the output suitable for GNUPLOTplotting (+ a template .plt file is written)


.gra files• e.g. irradiation of pure iron

5E-02

3E-01

1E-01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]





IRDFF-1.05

• separate FISPACT-IIsimulation for each differentnuclear data library (and foreach different material)

• curves extracted directly from.gra files

GRAPH 1 2 1 3

UNCERTAINTY 2

• UNCERTAINTY keyword included to provide uncertainty estimates

• GRAPH <<n>> <<show>> <<uncert>> <<list>>

I <<uncert>> equal to 1 includes the uncertainties in the .gra file(and plot)

I <<list>>: list of <<n>> graphs required1=activity;2=dose;3=decay-heat...


Nuclide graphs• e.g. irradiation of palladium

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]




1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]




• recently developedcapability to extractnuclide contributionbreakdown to radiologicalquantities

• curves extracted directlyfrom .grn files

NUCGRAPH 1 1.0 1 2• NUCGRAPH <<n>> <<floor>> <<uncert>> <<list>>

• instructs FISPACT-II to output <<n>> blocks of data in .grn file1=activity;2=decay-heat;3=dose...

• for each radiological quantity (block) as a function of time:I total with uncertainty (if <<uncert>> equals 1)I contribution to quantity from any nuclide that contributes

<<floor>> % or more at any time


Additional Examples


A good agreement case

CCFE-R(18)002

• 5 minute irradiation of pure copper

• a straightforward caseentirely dominated by 62Cu

I 63Cu(n,2n)62CuI all library predictions are within a few % of the experiment at all

decay times

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Cu



IRDFF-1.05

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Cu - TENDL-2017

totalNi65Co62mCu64Co62Cu6200 Exp



Copper at longer times

CCFE-R(18)002

• 7 hour irradiation of pure copper

• two-nuclide contribution profile(different nuclides to 5 minute case)and good agreement with all libraries

I 63Cu(n,α)60Co (including isomeric transition via 60mCo)I 65Cu(n,2n)64Cu

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - Cu



IRDFF-1.05

1E-06

1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E-03 1E-02 1E-01 1E+00

WeekDay

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g


FNS-96 7 hours Irradiation - Cu - TENDL-2017

totalCo60Cu64Exp



A problem for JEFF-3.3?

CCFE-R(18)002

• 5 minute irradiation of pure zirconium

• JEFF-3.3 underpredicts duringthe first 30 minutes of cooling

I other libraries produce agood match to theexperiment(IRDFF-1.05 only capturesthe low-level production of89Zr via 90Zr(n,2n))

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Zr



IRDFF-1.05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Zr - TENDL-2017

totalSr87mY90Y91mZr89Y92Y90mY94Y89mZr89m00 Exp

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

eca

y h

ea

t co

ntr

ibu

tio

n



Sr87mY90Y91mZr89Y92Y90mY94Y89mZr89m

TENDL-2017 results

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]





Zr nuclide contributions

CCFE-R(18)002

• JEFF-3.3 does not include the 90Zr(n,2n)89mZr channelI this is unexpected because it was included in JEFF-3.2

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]




1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Zr - ENDF/B-VIII.0

totalSr87mY90Y91mZr89Y92Y90mY94Y89mZr89mY96Sr9300 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Zr - EAF2010

totalSr87mY90Y91mZr89Y92Y90mY94Y89mZr89mY96Sr9300 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Zr - JEFF-3.3

totalY90Y91mZr89Y92Y94Y89mY96Sr9300 Exp

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]





EAF2010 JEFF-3.3


A problem for JEFF-3.3?

CCFE-R(18)002

• 5 minute irradiation of pure aluminium

• beyond 20 minutes of coolingJEFF-3.3 underpredicts theexperimentally measured decayheat

I all other libraries produce agood match to theexperiment

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Hea

t O

utp

ut

[µW

/g]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Al



IRDFF-1.05

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Al - TENDL-2017

totalAl28Na24Mg2700 Exp

TENDL-2017 results

0

20

40

60

80

100

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

% d

ecay h

eat contr

ibution



Al28Na24Mg27

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]





Aluminium nuclide contributions

CCFE-R(18)002

• JEFF-3.3 does not predict any 24Na via 27Al(n,α)

I analysis of the raw ENDF-6 JEFF-3.3 reveals that the MF 9 entriesfor this reaction are incorrect(MF 9 is necessary to split between 24Na and 24mNa)

I causes incorrect processing to group-wise formatI TENDL-2017 doesn’t include the 24mNa channel

(the MF 3 entry is correct in both JEFF-3.3 and TENDL-2017)

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]




1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

He

at

Ou

tpu

t [µ

W/g

]


FNS-00 5 Min. Irradiation - Al - JEFF-3.3

totalAl28Mg2700 Exp

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E-06 1E-05 1E-04

Min Hour5m 10m

Heat O

utp

ut [µ

W/g

]




TENDL-2017 JEFF-3.3

Fusion decay-heat benchmark for nuclear data validation ... · Fusion decay heat validation,...

Documents

Transcript of Fusion decay-heat benchmark for nuclear data validation ... · Fusion decay heat validation,...