TENDL-2011 processing and criticality benchmarking

TENDL-2011 processing and criticality benchmarking

JEF/DOC-1438
TENDL-2011 processing and
criticality benchmarking
Jean-Christophe C Sublet
UK Atomic Energy Authority
Culham Science Centre,
Abingdon, OX14 3DB
United Kingdom
CCFE is the fusion research arm of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
December 2011 -TENDL-2011 release contents
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Incident-neutron data: 2424 isotopes
Incident-proton data: 2429 isotopes
Incident-deuteron data: 2419 isotopes
Incident-triton data: 2431 isotopes
Incident-He3 data: 2428 isotopes
Incident-alpha data: 2429 isotopes
Incident-gamma data: 2428 isotopes
All evaluations to 200 MeV with covariance on
n-induced
Processing steps: transport
•  Monte Carlo pointwise multi-temperatures libraries
with probability tables in the URR:
–  For TRIPOLI-4.8 with NJOY-99.364 and CALENDF-2010
–  For MCNP5 1.60 with NJOY-99.364
–  For MCNPX 2.7.0 with NJOY-99.364
–  For SERPENT-1 or -2 with NJOY-99.364
–  …
•  From TENDL-2011s20, neutron induced data
Processing steps: burnup, transmutation
•  EAF’s format style libraries are been phased out,
replaced by ENDF’s style libraries, however the
physics input streams remain: JUKO legacy’s
•  This has been made possible because of:
–  November 2010 CSWEG ENDF-6 format extension
–  NJOY-99 extensions: mf8, reconr basic, acer, gaspr…
–  PREPRO-2010 extensions: sixpack, complot,…
–  TENDL-2011 new format framework: unequivocal, clear
format cutoff @ 20, 30 or 60 MeV then to 200 MeV.
•  The development of the FISPACT-II inventory code
Processing steps
•  Not one……not two ….but three processing codes
are used in sequence and in parallel to produce,
shape, check, and compare the nuclear data
NJOY, PREPRO and CALENDF
Robustness, redundancy, portability, availability,
accessibility, repeatability
All processing steps cannot be handle by only one or even
two of those quite unique processing codes !!!
Processing steps
•  NJOY-99.364+
–  moder
–  reconr
–  broadr
–  unresr
–  heatr
–  gaspr
•  purr
•  groupr
•  acer
•  …
Ø  PREPRO-2010+
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
linear
recent
sigma1
sixpack
activate
merger
dictin
groupie
ENDF file
•  CALENDF-2010
• 
• 
• 
• 
calendf
regroutp
lecritp
….
PT file
Differences in formalism interpretation
Cubic interpolation for CALENDF
but PREPRO and CALENDF
interpretations are similar
Differences between 1.0 and 2.0 Kev
and only on the fission channel !!
Processing steps are not unique !!
293.6K
0K !!
Competition (3 51)
opens at 77 eV, in the
RR. NJOY-99 default
broadening stops, not
PREPRO or CALENDF
7.733040+1 0.000000+0 2.300000+3 1.251350-7 2.500000+3 1.433900-79228 3 51 4
max energy for broadening and thinning = 7.73297E+01
--7.733040+1 0.000000+0 2.300000+3 0.000000+0 2.500000+3 1.433900-79228 3 51 4
max energy for broadening and thinning = 2.25000E+03
Processing steps are not unique !!
CALENDF’s resonances in the URR
Emitted spectra energy distribution “edges”
Smoothing: in PREPRO first, then NJOY, MCNP !!
LLNL UCRL-TR-233310
EASY-II(12) libraries – 1 GeV
•  n-tendl-2011, multi temperatures, 709 groups
library with covariance and PT’s; 2429 targets
•  γ-tendl-2011, 162 groups library, 2428 targets
•  p-tendl-2011, 162 groups library, 2429 targets
•  d-tendl-2011, 162 groups library, 2419 targets
•  α-tendl-2011, 162 groups library, 2429targets
•  dec-2012, 3873 isotopes
•  hazards, clearance and transport indices libraries
TENDL-2011 pendf, 200 MeV
TENDL-2011 pendf, 200 MeV
APPM OF
APPM OF
APPM OF
APPM OF
APPM OF
He
He
H
H
H
NJOY generated MT’s displayed by PREPRO
4
3
3
2
1
=
=
=
=
=
1.13E+03
1.30E-02
1.43E-18
2.07E+01
1.18E+03
TENDL-2011 pendf, 200 MeV
Kerma rates
Dpa rate
NJOY generated MT’s displayed by PREPRO
TENDL-2011 pendf from mf3*mf6
Unique to PREPRO-2010+
TENDL-2011 gendf, 200 MeV
From PREPRO or NJOY
TENDL-2011 gamma pendf
All of the changes made for TENDL-2011
will be included in PREPRO-2012
Libraries, ICSBEP benchmarks, Transport code
•  JEFF-3.1.2 neutron induced library (=JEFF-3.1.1 in those cases)
•  BRC-2009 = JEFF-3.2β (isotopes replaced in JEFF-3.1.2 with Eh=
30 Mev; Am241, Pu238, Pu239, Pu240, U235, U236, U237, U238, U239
•  ENDF/B-VII.1 neutron induced library (Dec. 2011)
•  TENDL-2011 neutron induced library (Dec. 2011), with H1, H2
and thermal compounds data from JEFF-3.1.2
•  A 100’s selected benchmarks from the International Handbook of
Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments
•  With the Monte Carlo code TRIPOLI-4, 293.6K pointwise data and
CALENDF probability tables in the URR for every isotopes that
contains one
TRIPOLI-4 – ICSBEP’s Fast range
Code
Library
ICSBEP
IMF-007
Big Ten
Δ (C-E)
Δ (C-E)
IMF-012
ZPR(16%)
Δ (C-E)
IMF-10
ZPR-U9
Δ (C-E)
IMF-002
Δ (C-E)
IMF-001
Jemima
Average
Δ (C-E)
Tripoli-4.6
Tripoli-4.6
Tripoli-4.7
Tripoli-4.8
JEFF-3.1.2
BRC-2009
ENDF/B.VII.1
Experiment
Calc.
Calc.
Δ
Calc.
Keff
Unc.
Kcalc
S.D.
Kcalc
(C-C)
Kcalc
Name
Fast Range
Cyl. U Metal (10% 235U), thick 238U Reflector
deta.
1.0045
70
0.99878
13
1.00610
1.00479
simp.
1.0045
70
0.99770
13
1.00527
1.00419
-626
119
744
-1
t.z.h.
0.9948
130
0.98838
13
0.99617
0.99515
-642
137
778
35
TENDL-2011
Δ
Calc.
(C-C)
Kcalc
Cyl. U Metal (16% 235U), Al and Steel, Reflected by Depleted-U
c-1
1.0007
270
1.00262
13
1.00745
1.00370
192
675
483
300
Cyl U Metal (9% 235U), thick Depleted U Reflector
c-1
0.9954
240
0.99191
13
1.00021
0.99710
-349
481
830
170
Nat. U Reflected Assembly of Enriched U Plates
c-1
1.0000
300
0.99207
10
0.99768
0.99912
-793
-232
561
-88
Bare Cyl. Conf. of Enriched and Natural U
c-2
1.0000
120
0.99797
12
1.00087
0.99850
c-3
1.0000
100
0.99779
12
1.00041
1.00056
c-4
1.0000
100
0.99821
12
1.00126
1.00132
0.99799
1.00084
1.00013
-201
84
285
13
Δ
(C-C)
677
1.00274
1.00195
-216
0.99379
-101
108
1.00987
917
724
519
0.99441
-99
250
705
1.00083
83
876
214
1.00524
1.00532
1.00581
1.00546
546
747
625
TENDL-2011 perform well in the fast range
410
541
TRIPOLI-4 – ICSBEP’s Fast range
Code
Tripoli-4.7
Tripoli-4.8
TENDL-2011
Δ
Calc.
(C-C)
Kcalc
Average
Δ (C-E)
JEFF-3.1.2
BRC-2009
ENDF/B.VII.1
Experiment
Calc.
Calc.
Δ
Calc.
Keff
Unc.
Kcalc
S.D.
Kcalc
(C-C)
Kcalc
Name
Fast Range
235U Sphere Reflected by Normal U using Flattop
1.0000
300
1.00199
11
1.00455
1.00325
199
455
256
325
Bare, Highly Enriched U Sphere
c1
1.0000
100
0.99668
11
1.00015
1.00014
c2
1.0000
100
0.99647
11
1.00015
1.00019
0.99658
1.00015
1.00016
-342
15
357
16
PMF-001
Jezebel
Δ (C-E)
PMF-002
Jez. 240
Δ (C-E)
Bare Sphere of Pu-239 Metal
c-1
1.0000
200
0.99999
-1
Bare Sphere of Pu-239 Metal
c-1
1.0000
200
1.00426
426
Library
ICSBEP
HMF-028
Flattop-25
Δ (C-E)
HMF-001
Godiva
Tripoli-4.6
Tripoli-4.6
15
15
1.00033
33
1.00292
292
34
0.99960
-40
-134
0.99975
-25
Δ
(C-C)
126
1.00726
726
527
359
1.00420
1.00437
1.00429
429
771
-39
1.00184
184
186
-450
1.01463
1463
1037
PNFS Pu’s (239 and 240 JEF/DOC-1359) and fast U235 data
Only BRC-2009 compare well to ENDF/B-VII.1
How can you expect to properly model (not fit) the thermal range
If you do not get it right in the fast (but still fission) range ??
TRIPOLI-4 – ICSBEP’s Thermal range
Code
Library
ICSBEP
LCT-006
Average
Δ (C-E)
LCT-007
Valduc
Average
Δ (C-E)
LCT-039
Valduc
Average
Δ (C-E)
Tripoli-4.6
Tripoli-4.6
Tripoli-4.7
Tripoli-4.8
JEFF-3.1.2
BRC-2009
ENDF/B-VII.1
TENDL-2011
Experiment
Calc.
Calc.
Δ
Calc.
Δ
Calc.
Δ
Keff
Unc.
Kcalc
S.D.
Kcalc
Δ (C-C)
Δ (C-C)
Kcalc
Δ (C-C)
Name
Thermal range U
Low Enriched UO2 Fuel Rods with # Water-to-Fuel Volume Ratios
c-1
1.0000
200
1.00071
12
1.00040
1.00074
1.00290
c-3
1.0000
200
1.00127
9
1.00120
1.00114
1.00595
c-4
1.0000
200
1.00082
12
1.00070
1.00092
0.99980
c-8
1.0000
200
1.00118
12
1.00098
1.00086
1.00440
c-9
1.0000
200
1.00067
12
1.00037
1.00053
0.99303
c-13
1.0000
200
1.00042
12
1.00040
1.00010
0.99586
c-14
1.0000
200
1.00036
12
1.00011
1.00052
0.98415
c-18
1.0000
200
1.00049
12
1.00008
1.00005
0.98752
1.00074
1.00053
1.00061
0.99670
74
53
-21
61
-13
-330
-404
Water Reflected 4.738 Wt.% Enriched UO2 Fuel Rod Arrays
c-2
1.0000
160
0.99975
10
0.99951
0.99984
0.99701
c-6
1.0000
160
0.99988
10
0.99973
1.00003
0.99890
0.99981
0.99962
0.99993
0.99796
-19
-38
-19
-7
-204
-186
Incomplete Arrays of Water Reflected 4.738 Wt.% Enriched UO2 Fuel Rods
c-1
1.0000
140
0.99799
12
0.99807
0.99815
1.00614
c-4
1.0000
140
0.99723
12
0.99720
0.99746
1.00362
c-6
1.0000
140
0.99831
12
0.99799
0.99824
1.00283
0.99784
0.99775
0.99795
1.00419
-216
-225
-9
-205
11
419
635
TENDL-2011 O16 & U238 !! known correction
TRIPOLI-4 – ICSBEP’s Thermal range
Code
Library
Tripoli-4.6
Tripoli-4.6
Tripoli-4.7
ICSBEP
LCT-027
Pb refl.
Δ (C-E)
LCT-10
Pb refl.
Δ (C-E)
Pb refl.
Δ (C-E)
JEFF-3.1.2
BRC-2009
ENDF/B-VII.1
Experiment
Calc.
Calc.
Δ
Calc.
K eff
Unc.
Kcalc
S.D.
Kcalc
Δ (C-C)
Name
Thermal range U
Water Moderated and Lead Reflected 4.75% Enriched UO2 Rod Arrays
c-1
1.0000
110
1.00786
12
1.00799
1.00338
785
799
14
337
Water-Mod. U(4.31)O2 Fuel Rods Reflected by Two Lead, Uranium, or Steel Walls
c-1
1.0000
210
1.00768
12
1.00774
1.00608
768
774
6
608
c-20
1.0000
280
1.00574
12
1.00614
1.00526
574
614
40
526
ICSBEP
Name
MCT-004
2.4 w/f ratio
2.9 w/f ratio
4.2 w/f ratio
5.5 w/f ratio
Average
Δ (C-E)
Mox 3.01 wt% PuO2-UO2 fuel rods,
c-1
1.0000
460
0.99601
c-4
1.0000
390
0.99605
c-7
1.0000
400
0.99654
c-10
1.0000
510
0.99631
0.99622
-378
Tripoli-4.8
Δ
Δ (C-C)
TENDL-2011
Calc.
Kcalc
Δ
Δ (C-C)
-448
0.98823
-1177
-1962
-48
0.99480
-520
1.01579
1579
217
1.01975
1.01332
1.01332
0.97564
1.00550
550
-160
-1287
1005
Thermal range Pu
13
13
13
13
0.99764
0.99849
0.99790
0.99858
0.99815
-185
193
0.99781
0.99822
0.99851
0.99903
0.99839
-161
Lead impact and Mox interesting trend
928
Conclusions
•  With TENDL-2011, the NRG library’s have entered the
secluded world of criticality benchmarking
•  TENDL-2011 uniquely contain covariance information
•  TENDL-2011 provides for all applications: transport, burnup,
inventory, transmutation, dosimetry, astrophysics,…
•  TENDL-2011 has fully benefited from TENDL-2008, 2009,
2010, EAF’s V&V and the T6 technological construction
framework
•  n-TENDL-2011 evaluated nuclear data libraries already outwit
the regional majors: ENDF, JENDL, JEFF,..
However, low z isotopes still will need to come from R-matrix
theory and actinides from carefully nurture TALYS model
è TENDL-2012
Acknowledgement
I would like to gratefully acknowledge the mature
advices, understanding, willingness and contributions
of Dermott E. Cullen, Robert E. MacFarlane, Albert C.
Kahler and Pierre Ribon without whom we would not
have been able to reach our goal.