Revised Burnup Code System SWAT: Description and Validation Using Postirradiation Examination Data

Suyama, Kenya; Mochizuki, Hiroki; Kiyosumi, Takehide

doi:10.13182/nt02-a3282

Cited by 29 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1. The benchmark began with assemblies loaded with fresh UO 2 fuel rods with an initial enrichment of 4.11% 235 U by weight, with the remainder being 238 U with traces [19]; however, this number was updated to 16 in later publications [23][24][25]. Samples were taken from three fuel rods.…”

Section: The Takahama Benchmarkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reactor simulation for antineutrino experiments using DRAGON and MURE

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rising interest in nuclear reactors as a source of antineutrinos for experiments motivates validated, fast, and accessible simulations to predict reactor fission rates. Here we present results from the DRAGON and MURE simulation codes and compare them to other industry standards for reactor core modeling. We use published data from the Takahama-3 reactor to evaluate the quality of these simulations against the independently measured fuel isotopic composition. The propagation of the uncertainty in the reactor operating parameters to the resulting antineutrino flux predictions is also discussed.PACS numbers: 14.60. Lm,14.60.Pq, 28.41.Ak, 28.50.Hw As new high-power reactors come online, opportunities for reactor-based antineutrino experiments are rising. Three experiments searching for the last unknown neutrino oscillation parameter, θ 13 [1], have released results [2][3][4][5][6][7]. New short-baseline reactor oscillation experiments [8] are motivated by the "reactor antineutrino anomaly", a recent analysis with results that are consistent with neutrino oscillations at ∆m 2 ∼ 1 eV 2 [9]. Searches for neutrino-nucleus coherent scattering [10] and studies of antineutrino-electron scattering [11] using reactor sources are also underway. Precise measurements of antineutrino rates may also permit a real-time, nonintrusive assay of the entire reactor core for nonproliferation applications [12,13].In the reactor core, neutron-rich fission products β-decay creating antineutrinos. The prediction of the antineutrino flux proceeds in two steps. First, the fission rates of the primary fissile isotopes are calculated. Then, this output is convolved with the antineutrino spectrum, the sum of the spectra from the β-decay of each isotope's fission products. The antineutrino spectral predictions have recently been updated to include more detailed information on the daughter β-decay isotopes and higherorder corrections to the β energy spectrum [14,15]. In this paper, we focus on understanding the systematic uncertainties involved in the first step, the fission rate simulations. We introduce two codes: DRAGON [16], a fast 2D parameterized simulation, and MURE (MCNP Utility for Reactor Evolution) [17, 18] a 3D Monte Carlo simulation. While neutrino experiments require fission rate predictions, reactor core simulations in industry focus on other quantities. In particular, the DRAGON code was modified by the authors to produce fission rates, whereas MURE already possessed this ability. DRAGON and MURE are used in the recent Double Chooz result [3], and DRAGON is used by the Daya Bay experiment [5].In this work, we compare our DRAGON and MURE simulations to the Takahama-3 benchmark. This benchmark allows a comparison of absolute predictions of fissile material production to measurements from destructive assays of fuel rods from the Takahama-3 reactor in Japan [19]. The Takahama-3 benchmark is the most complete and therefore most common data set to benchmark codes against, though other data sets exist [20]. By focussing on this bench...

show abstract

Section: The Takahama Benchmarkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reactor simulation for antineutrino experiments using DRAGON and MURE

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rods SF95 and SF96 were from assembly NT3G23 and rod SF97 was from assembly NT3G24. Each of these two assemblies had a 17 × 17 configuration, with 264 fuel rods (16 of these containing gadolinia) 42 and 25 water-filled guide tubes. They resided in the reactor core for two (assembly NT3G23) or three (assembly NT3G24) consecutive cycles, starting from cycle 5.…”

Section: Takahama Unitmentioning

confidence: 99%

SCALE 5.1 Predictions of PWR Spent Nuclear Fuel Isotopic Compositions

Radulescu¹,

Gauld²,

Ilas³

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The most common means reactor operators use to globally assess the performance of the codes is to compare measurements of the isotopic content of spent fuel elements with the values predicted by the simulations. Such verifications have been performed for a number of codes at a variety of PWRs and BWRs in the US, Japan and Europe [50,51,52,53]. Samples are obtained from representative locations throughout the core, commonly selected from regions that are difficult to simulate accurately, such as boundaries and hot-spots.…”

Section: Uncertainties In Fission Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainties in the anti-neutrino production at nuclear reactors

Djurcic

Detwiler

Piepke

et al. 2009

J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anti-neutrino emission rates from nuclear reactors are determined from thermal power measurements and fission rate calculations. The uncertainties in these quantities for commercial power plants and their impact on the calculated interaction rates inνe detectors is examined. We discuss reactor-to-reactor correlations between the leading uncertainties, and their relevance to reactorνe experiments.

show abstract

Revised Burnup Code System SWAT: Description and Validation Using Postirradiation Examination Data

Cited by 29 publications

References 10 publications

Reactor simulation for antineutrino experiments using DRAGON and MURE

Reactor simulation for antineutrino experiments using DRAGON and MURE

SCALE 5.1 Predictions of PWR Spent Nuclear Fuel Isotopic Compositions

Uncertainties in the anti-neutrino production at nuclear reactors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About