2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2008.12.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A VVER-1000 LEU and MOX assembly computational benchmark analysis using the lattice burnup code EXCEL

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Several solutions of the benchmark are available in literature, each of which using different methods and combinations of nuclear data libraries (Kalugin et al, 2002;Petrov et al, 2013;Thilagam et al, 2009). Three of the solutions have been obtained by means of Monte-Carlo methods, while the remaining ones are based on collision probability (or similar) methodologies.…”
Section: Benchmark Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several solutions of the benchmark are available in literature, each of which using different methods and combinations of nuclear data libraries (Kalugin et al, 2002;Petrov et al, 2013;Thilagam et al, 2009). Three of the solutions have been obtained by means of Monte-Carlo methods, while the remaining ones are based on collision probability (or similar) methodologies.…”
Section: Benchmark Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 8 shows the variation of the k ∞ values as a function of fuel pitch for cold zero power (CZP) state and hot zero power (HZP) state of the proposed infinite fuel cell‐wise lattice. The CZP state calculation was carried when the operation fuel temperature was 300 K, while HZP state calculation when the operation fuel temperature was 1027 K. Both the calculation of CZP sate and the HZP state were performed when the 153 Xe and 149 Sm concentrations were zero and the boric acid concentration was zero 33 . The highest values of k ∞ in cold and hot zero power states are 1.4574 and 1.4291 at 15 mm and 17 mm fuel pitch, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the same problem was analyzed using various codes & data libraries over the past several years. Some of them are EXCEL (Thilagam 2009), APOLLO2 & TRIPOLI4 (Petrov 2013), MCNPX (Louis and Amin 2016), VISWAM (Khan et al 2016) & GETERA (Abuqudaira and Stogov 2018). Having been launched in December 2012, OpenMC is a fairly new Monte Carloparticle transport code (Romano and Forget 2013) which gives the user an advantage of obtaining results based on the average result of three different methods namely track length, collision probability & absorption.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%