2017
DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/201714606004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Benchmarking and validation activities within JEFF project

Abstract: The challenge for any nuclear data evaluation project is to periodically release a revised, fully consistent and complete library, with all needed data and covariances, and ensure that it is robust and reliable for a variety of applications. Within an evaluation effort, benchmarking activities play an important role in validating proposed libraries. The Joint Evaluated Fission and Fusion (JEFF) Project aims to provide such a nuclear data library, and thus, requires a coherent and efficient benchmarking process… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(13 reference statements)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two Monte-Carlo codes were used for that purpose: MCU (Monte-Carlo Universe) of the NRC «Kurchatov Institute» [10] and MCNP (Monte-Carlo Nuclear Particles) of the Argonne national Laboratory [11]. For the purpose of obtaining the relevant results the up-to-date nuclear data libraries (ENDF B/VIII [6], JEFF 3.3 [7] and JENDL 4.0 [8]) were used in calculations. For the comparative analysis the additional calculations with previous versions of data libraries (ENDF B/VII.1 [12] and JEFF 3.1 [13]) were performed as well.…”
Section: Model Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Two Monte-Carlo codes were used for that purpose: MCU (Monte-Carlo Universe) of the NRC «Kurchatov Institute» [10] and MCNP (Monte-Carlo Nuclear Particles) of the Argonne national Laboratory [11]. For the purpose of obtaining the relevant results the up-to-date nuclear data libraries (ENDF B/VIII [6], JEFF 3.3 [7] and JENDL 4.0 [8]) were used in calculations. For the comparative analysis the additional calculations with previous versions of data libraries (ENDF B/VII.1 [12] and JEFF 3.1 [13]) were performed as well.…”
Section: Model Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The analysis of the uncertainty from the initial parameters gives total model uncertainty at δk eff = ±0.003. The calculations for different nuclear libraries [6][7][8]12] were carried out as well. The corresponding data shown on figure 3.…”
Section: K Eff Calculationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The F A * α ′ (E x , J, π) distribution as input to the LNG code is supplied easily by the TALYS code [18] that triggers an ECIS06 optical model DWBA calculation. The SRMbased reaction probabilities are simply the corresponding neutron reaction cross sections reconstructed from the JEFF-3.3 evaluation [19] divided by the neutron-induced total compound nucleus formation cross section σ CN n (E n ) of the Eq. (1) according to the 240 Pu * excited nucleus.…”
Section: In-house Simulated Surrogate-reaction Probabilities Vs Srm Imentioning
confidence: 99%