Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group, NRG, … / 19 Uncertainty evaluations and validations D....
92
1 / 19 Uncertainty evaluations and validations D. Rochman and A.J. Koning Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group, NRG, Petten, The Netherlands May 22, 2008
Transcript of Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group, NRG, … / 19 Uncertainty evaluations and validations D....
1 / 19
Uncertainty evaluations and validations
D. Rochman and A.J. Koning
Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group,
NRG, Petten, The Netherlands
May 22, 2008
Contents
2 / 19
① Motivations for a change:=⇒ a roadmap to ban covariance files
② Concept:=⇒ Monte Carlo from nuclear data to large-scale systems
③ Where can we apply it ?=⇒ (needed tools & knowledge)
④ How does it work ?
⑤ Examples with Pb isotopes:=⇒ keff benchmarks and reactors
⑥ Examples on global scale:=⇒ keff benchmarks, fusion shielding, reactivity swing
⑦ Pros, Cons and Conclusions
Introduction: Motivations for a change
3 / 19
Usual procedures in uncertainty propagation imply
☞ rigid format,
☞ need for fixed libraries of cross section values,
☞ need for processing, sensitivity and perturbation codes,
☞ group scheme,
☞ simplification of covariance matrix (restricted correlation),
☞ necessity of linearizing inherently nonlinear relationships,
☞ and so on. . .
➸ Most of these routines were developed decades ago when the supportfor nuclear data and nuclear reactor physics research was sufficient to
allow them to be produced !
Introduction: Motivations for a change
3 / 19
Usual procedures in uncertainty propagation imply
☞ rigid format,
☞ need for fixed libraries of cross section values,
☞ need for processing, sensitivity and perturbation codes,
☞ group scheme,
☞ simplification of covariance matrix (restricted correlation),
☞ necessity of linearizing inherently nonlinear relationships,
☞ and so on. . .
➸ Most of these routines were developed decades ago when the supportfor nuclear data and nuclear reactor physics research was sufficient to
allow them to be produced !
Introduction: Motivations for a change
3 / 19
Usual procedures in uncertainty propagation imply
☞ rigid format,
☞ need for fixed libraries of cross section values,
☞ need for processing, sensitivity and perturbation codes,
☞ group scheme,
☞ simplification of covariance matrix (restricted correlation),
☞ necessity of linearizing inherently nonlinear relationships,
☞ and so on. . .
➸ Most of these routines were developed decades ago when the supportfor nuclear data and nuclear reactor physics research was sufficient to
allow them to be produced !
Introduction: Motivations for a change
3 / 19
Usual procedures in uncertainty propagation imply
☞ rigid format,
☞ need for fixed libraries of cross section values,
☞ need for processing, sensitivity and perturbation codes,
☞ group scheme,
☞ simplification of covariance matrix (restricted correlation),
☞ necessity of linearizing inherently nonlinear relationships,
☞ and so on. . .
➸ Most of these routines were developed decades ago when the supportfor nuclear data and nuclear reactor physics research was sufficient to
allow them to be produced !
Introduction: Motivations for a change
3 / 19
Usual procedures in uncertainty propagation imply
☞ rigid format,
☞ need for fixed libraries of cross section values,
☞ need for processing, sensitivity and perturbation codes,
☞ group scheme,
☞ simplification of covariance matrix (restricted correlation),
☞ necessity of linearizing inherently nonlinear relationships,
☞ and so on. . .
➸ Most of these routines were developed decades ago when the supportfor nuclear data and nuclear reactor physics research was sufficient to
allow them to be produced !
Introduction: Motivations for a change
3 / 19
Usual procedures in uncertainty propagation imply
☞ rigid format,
☞ need for fixed libraries of cross section values,
☞ need for processing, sensitivity and perturbation codes,
☞ group scheme,
☞ simplification of covariance matrix (restricted correlation),
☞ necessity of linearizing inherently nonlinear relationships,
☞ and so on. . .
➸ Most of these routines were developed decades ago when the supportfor nuclear data and nuclear reactor physics research was sufficient to
allow them to be produced !
Introduction: Motivations for a change
3 / 19
Usual procedures in uncertainty propagation imply
☞ rigid format,
☞ need for fixed libraries of cross section values,
☞ need for processing, sensitivity and perturbation codes,
☞ group scheme,
☞ simplification of covariance matrix (restricted correlation),
☞ necessity of linearizing inherently nonlinear relationships,
☞ and so on. . .
➸ Most of these routines were developed decades ago when the supportfor nuclear data and nuclear reactor physics research was sufficient to
allow them to be produced !
After all, not a new idea
4 / 19
Here is the mantra in which we believe and motivates us:
“Researchers should cease trying to be clever in devising refinements toold methods that were developed when computational resources were
limited.
Instead, their creative instincts should be redirected to unleashing the fullpotential of computers for brute force analysis”
D. Smith, Santa Fe 2004
=⇒ Most straightforward way: Global Monte Carlo Approach !
After all, not a new idea
4 / 19
Here is the mantra in which we believe and motivates us:
“Researchers should cease trying to be clever in devising refinements toold methods that were developed when computational resources were
limited.Instead, their creative instincts should be redirected to unleashing the full
potential of computers for brute force analysis”
D. Smith, Santa Fe 2004
=⇒ Most straightforward way: Global Monte Carlo Approach !
We are proposing a conceptual revolution
5 / 19
(integral, differential)
Experiments(basic quantities)
Evaluation 1(uncertainties)
Evaluation 2
Formatting
Checking
(MCNP, Perturbation)
Benchmarks(NJOY)
Processing Library
�
�
� � � �
� �
� �
(basic quantities + uncertainties)
Evaluation
We are proposing a conceptual revolution
5 / 19
(integral, differential)
Experiments(basic quantities)
Evaluation 1(uncertainties)
Evaluation 2
Formatting
Checking
(MCNP, Perturbation)
Benchmarks(NJOY)
Processing Library
�
�
� � � �
� �
� �
�
�
(basic quantities + uncertainties)
Evaluation
We are proposing a conceptual revolution
5 / 19
(integral, differential)
Experiments(basic quantities)
Evaluation 1(uncertainties)
Evaluation 2
Formatting
Checking
(MCNP, Perturbation)
Benchmarks(NJOY)
Processing Library
�
�
� � � �
� �
� �
�
�
(basic quantities + uncertainties)
Evaluation
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)
=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)
=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Fields of application & Needs
6 / 19
Where can it be applied ?
✑ Everywhere where there are nuclear data (not hardcoded)
=⇒ Monte Carlo codes (MCNP, Tripoli...)=⇒ Deterministic codes (APOLLO, WIMS...)=⇒ Quantities: criticality, flux ( + all from SG-26), shielding and fusion (withEAF files)
In the following, we will restrict ourselves to elements between 19F and 209Bi (forthe time being):
✑ Stable Nuclear reaction code: TALYS
✑ Monte Carlo transport code: MCNP
✑ Tabulated resonance parameters
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 1
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 1
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 1(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 1(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 2
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 2
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 2(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 2(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 3
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 3
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 3(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 3(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 4
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 4
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 4(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 4(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 5
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 5
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 5(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 5(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 6
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 6
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 6(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 6(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 7
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 7
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 7(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 7(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 8
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 8
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 8(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 8(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 9
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 9
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 9(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 9(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 10
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 10
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 10(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 10(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
n = 15
θn = 61 degEn = 5.2 MeV
(n,xn)
Energy (MeV)
d2σ/d
E/d
θ(b
/eV
/sr)
6543210
10−6
10−7
10−8
10−9
10−10
n = 15
En = 500 keV
(n,el)
Angle (deg)
dσ/d
θ(b
/sr)
150100500
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
n = 15(n,γ)
Incident Energy (eV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
1000800600400200
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
n = 15(n,2n)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
201510
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 20
keff = 1.01451± 703 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 25
keff = 1.01403± 696 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 30
keff = 1.01395± 678 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 40
keff = 1.01337± 712 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 60
keff = 1.01429± 676 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 100
keff = 1.01358± 693 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 200
keff = 1.01306± 766 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 300
keff = 1.01304± 743 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
10
8
6
4
2
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 400
keff = 1.01355± 769 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
25
20
15
10
5
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 600
keff = 1.01372± 745 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
25
20
15
10
5
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv MCNPTALYS
n = 800
keff = 1.01363± 744 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
25
20
15
10
5
0
Hands on “1000 ×(Talys + ENDF + NJOY + MCNP) calculations”
7 / 19
Γn
acompound
atarget
Γγ
av
rv
=⇒ uncertainty due to nuclear data ' 740 pcm
Statistical uncertainty ' 68 pcm
MCNPTALYS
n = 800
keff = 1.01363± 744 pcm
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.011.000.99
25
20
15
10
5
0
Examples with Pb isotopes
8 / 19
❅ Full evaluations for 204−208Pb (see NIM A589 (2008) 85 for evaluation)
❅ Parameter uncertainty assessment and Monte Carlo maximum likelihoodestimate with “accept-reject” method,
❅ 5000 random ENDF files
❅ Applied on keff and βeff for thermal and fast criticality benchmarks (LCT-10and HMF-64) and to ADS and LFR
204Pb(n,inl)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
20151050
3
2
1
0
208Pb(n,γ)
Incident Energy (keV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
90807065
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
Examples with Pb isotopes
8 / 19
❅ Full evaluations for 204−208Pb (see NIM A589 (2008) 85 for evaluation)
❅ Parameter uncertainty assessment and Monte Carlo maximum likelihoodestimate with “accept-reject” method,
❅ 5000 random ENDF files
❅ Applied on keff and βeff for thermal and fast criticality benchmarks (LCT-10and HMF-64) and to ADS and LFR
204Pb(n,inl)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
20151050
3
2
1
0
208Pb(n,γ)
Incident Energy (keV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
90807065
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
Examples with Pb isotopes
8 / 19
❅ Full evaluations for 204−208Pb (see NIM A589 (2008) 85 for evaluation)
❅ Parameter uncertainty assessment and Monte Carlo maximum likelihoodestimate with “accept-reject” method,
❅ 5000 random ENDF files
❅ Applied on keff and βeff for thermal and fast criticality benchmarks (LCT-10and HMF-64) and to ADS and LFR
204Pb(n,inl)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
20151050
3
2
1
0
208Pb(n,γ)
Incident Energy (keV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
90807065
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
Examples with Pb isotopes
8 / 19
❅ Full evaluations for 204−208Pb (see NIM A589 (2008) 85 for evaluation)
❅ Parameter uncertainty assessment and Monte Carlo maximum likelihoodestimate with “accept-reject” method,
❅ 5000 random ENDF files
❅ Applied on keff and βeff for thermal and fast criticality benchmarks (LCT-10and HMF-64) and to ADS and LFR
204Pb(n,inl)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
20151050
3
2
1
0
208Pb(n,γ)
Incident Energy (keV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
90807065
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
Examples with Pb isotopes
8 / 19
❅ Full evaluations for 204−208Pb (see NIM A589 (2008) 85 for evaluation)
❅ Parameter uncertainty assessment and Monte Carlo maximum likelihoodestimate with “accept-reject” method,
❅ 5000 random ENDF files
❅ Applied on keff and βeff for thermal and fast criticality benchmarks (LCT-10and HMF-64) and to ADS and LFR
204Pb(n,inl)
Incident Energy (MeV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
20151050
3
2
1
0
208Pb(n,γ)
Incident Energy (keV)
Cro
ssse
ctio
n(b
)
90807065
10−1
10−2
10−3
10−4
10−5
Examples with Pb isotopes
9 / 19
LCT10-1Thermal criticality benchmark
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.00
40
30
20
10
0
Lead Fast Reactor
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.00
40
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.01028±(60 pcm and 212 pcm) keff = 1.00894±(60 pcm and 240 pcm)
< keff >
hmf64-1
204−208Pb
Sample number
Update
dk
eff
120010008006004002000
1.019
1.017
1.015
1.013
1.011
< σ >
Sample number
Updat
edunce
rtai
nty
(pcm
)
120010008006004002000
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
Examples with Pb isotopes
9 / 19
LCT10-1Thermal criticality benchmark
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.00
40
30
20
10
0
Lead Fast Reactor
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.00
40
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.01028±(60 pcm and 212 pcm) keff = 1.00894±(60 pcm and 240 pcm)
< keff >
hmf64-1
204−208Pb
Sample number
Update
dk
eff
120010008006004002000
1.019
1.017
1.015
1.013
1.011
< σ >
Sample number
Updat
edunce
rtai
nty
(pcm
)
120010008006004002000
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
Examples with Pb isotopes
9 / 19
LCT10-1Thermal criticality benchmark
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.00
40
30
20
10
0
Lead Fast Reactor
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.00
40
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.01028±(60 pcm and 212 pcm) keff = 1.00894±(60 pcm and 240 pcm)
< keff >
hmf64-1
204−208Pb
Sample number
Update
dk
eff
120010008006004002000
1.019
1.017
1.015
1.013
1.011
< σ >
Sample number
Updat
edunce
rtai
nty
(pcm
)
120010008006004002000
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
Examples with Pb isotopes
10 / 19
HMF64-1Fast criticality benchmark
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.051.041.021.010.99
50
40
30
20
10
0
Accelerator Driven System
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
0.980.970.96
50
40
30
20
10
0
Examples with Pb isotopes
10 / 19
HMF64-1Fast criticality benchmark
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.051.041.021.010.99
50
40
30
20
10
0
Accelerator Driven System
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
0.980.970.96
50
40
30
20
10
0
Better fit with the “Extreme Value Theory”, or EVT:F(z) = e−z−e−z with z = X−µ
σMean µ′ = µ+ γσ
Standard Deviation σ′ = σ π√6
Examples with Pb isotopes
10 / 19
HMF64-1Fast criticality benchmark
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.051.041.021.010.99
50
40
30
20
10
0
Accelerator Driven System
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
0.980.970.96
50
40
30
20
10
0
Better fit with the “Extreme Value Theory”, or EVT:F(z) = e−z−e−z with z = X−µ
σMean µ′ = µ+ γσ
Standard Deviation σ′ = σ π√6
HMF-64.1 ADSkeff 1.00848 0.96648
µ′=1.01394 µ′=0.96785σk ×105 855 291
σ′=1097 σ′=345
Why not a Normal distribution for keff ?
11 / 19
(1) The central limit theorem does not apply
(2) Cross sections do not follow a Gaussian distribution:
En = 3MeV
206Pb(n,γ)
Cross Section (mb)
Cou
nts
/chan
nel
6420
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cou
nts
/Chan
nel
20
10
0
Cross section (b)
3.0 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.4
Ener
gy(M
eV)4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
206Pb(n,inl)
Any safety related issue regarding high keff tail ?
Why not a Normal distribution for keff ?
11 / 19
(1) The central limit theorem does not apply(2) Cross sections do not follow a Gaussian distribution:
En = 3MeV
206Pb(n,γ)
Cross Section (mb)
Cou
nts
/chan
nel
6420
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cou
nts
/Chan
nel
20
10
0
Cross section (b)
3.0 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.4
Ener
gy(M
eV)4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
206Pb(n,inl)
Any safety related issue regarding high keff tail ?
Global calculations: from 19F to 208Pb
12 / 19
“In general, this paper will or will not be a breakthrough in methodology if the[practicality and robustness] can or can not be demonstrated.”,
ANE Referee, May 2008
Okay, let’s go from academic solutions to mass production !
® Default TALYS calculation + Resonance parameters (RP)
® Default TALYS uncertainties + RP uncertainties derived from the Atlas
® 100 to 2000 ENDF files per isotope from 19F to 208Pb (100 isotopes)
® 150 criticality-safety benchmarks calculated (> 30 000 calculations) fromS. van der Mark’s list
® All Oktavian shielding benchmarks (neutrons and gammas)
® Reactivity swing for a LWR using an “Inert Matrix Fuel” (Pu and Mo),Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
Global calculations: from 19F to 208Pb
12 / 19
“In general, this paper will or will not be a breakthrough in methodology if the[practicality and robustness] can or can not be demonstrated.”,
ANE Referee, May 2008
Okay, let’s go from academic solutions to mass production !
® Default TALYS calculation + Resonance parameters (RP)
® Default TALYS uncertainties + RP uncertainties derived from the Atlas
® 100 to 2000 ENDF files per isotope from 19F to 208Pb (100 isotopes)
® 150 criticality-safety benchmarks calculated (> 30 000 calculations) fromS. van der Mark’s list
® All Oktavian shielding benchmarks (neutrons and gammas)
® Reactivity swing for a LWR using an “Inert Matrix Fuel” (Pu and Mo),Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
Global calculations: from 19F to 208Pb
12 / 19
“In general, this paper will or will not be a breakthrough in methodology if the[practicality and robustness] can or can not be demonstrated.”,
ANE Referee, May 2008
Okay, let’s go from academic solutions to mass production !
® Default TALYS calculation + Resonance parameters (RP)
® Default TALYS uncertainties + RP uncertainties derived from the Atlas
® 100 to 2000 ENDF files per isotope from 19F to 208Pb (100 isotopes)
® 150 criticality-safety benchmarks calculated (> 30 000 calculations) fromS. van der Mark’s list
® All Oktavian shielding benchmarks (neutrons and gammas)
® Reactivity swing for a LWR using an “Inert Matrix Fuel” (Pu and Mo),Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
Global calculations: from 19F to 208Pb
12 / 19
“In general, this paper will or will not be a breakthrough in methodology if the[practicality and robustness] can or can not be demonstrated.”,
ANE Referee, May 2008
Okay, let’s go from academic solutions to mass production !
® Default TALYS calculation + Resonance parameters (RP)
® Default TALYS uncertainties + RP uncertainties derived from the Atlas
® 100 to 2000 ENDF files per isotope from 19F to 208Pb (100 isotopes)
® 150 criticality-safety benchmarks calculated (> 30 000 calculations) fromS. van der Mark’s list
® All Oktavian shielding benchmarks (neutrons and gammas)
® Reactivity swing for a LWR using an “Inert Matrix Fuel” (Pu and Mo),Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
Global calculations: from 19F to 208Pb
12 / 19
“In general, this paper will or will not be a breakthrough in methodology if the[practicality and robustness] can or can not be demonstrated.”,
ANE Referee, May 2008
Okay, let’s go from academic solutions to mass production !
® Default TALYS calculation + Resonance parameters (RP)
® Default TALYS uncertainties + RP uncertainties derived from the Atlas
® 100 to 2000 ENDF files per isotope from 19F to 208Pb (100 isotopes)
® 150 criticality-safety benchmarks calculated (> 30 000 calculations) fromS. van der Mark’s list
® All Oktavian shielding benchmarks (neutrons and gammas)
® Reactivity swing for a LWR using an “Inert Matrix Fuel” (Pu and Mo),Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
Global calculations: from 19F to 208Pb
12 / 19
“In general, this paper will or will not be a breakthrough in methodology if the[practicality and robustness] can or can not be demonstrated.”,
ANE Referee, May 2008
Okay, let’s go from academic solutions to mass production !
® Default TALYS calculation + Resonance parameters (RP)
® Default TALYS uncertainties + RP uncertainties derived from the Atlas
® 100 to 2000 ENDF files per isotope from 19F to 208Pb (100 isotopes)
® 150 criticality-safety benchmarks calculated (> 30 000 calculations) fromS. van der Mark’s list
® All Oktavian shielding benchmarks (neutrons and gammas)
® Reactivity swing for a LWR using an “Inert Matrix Fuel” (Pu and Mo),Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
Global calculations: from 19F to 208Pb
12 / 19
“In general, this paper will or will not be a breakthrough in methodology if the[practicality and robustness] can or can not be demonstrated.”,
ANE Referee, May 2008
Okay, let’s go from academic solutions to mass production !
® Default TALYS calculation + Resonance parameters (RP)
® Default TALYS uncertainties + RP uncertainties derived from the Atlas
® 100 to 2000 ENDF files per isotope from 19F to 208Pb (100 isotopes)
® 150 criticality-safety benchmarks calculated (> 30 000 calculations) fromS. van der Mark’s list
® All Oktavian shielding benchmarks (neutrons and gammas)
® Reactivity swing for a LWR using an “Inert Matrix Fuel” (Pu and Mo),Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
Examples of keff benchmarks for 19F
13 / 19
keff = 1.01735 ± 939 pcmhmf7-34 (19F)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.051.041.031.021.011.000.990.98
40
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.00270 ± 1562 pcm
hmf5-1 (92−100Mo)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.061.041.021.000.980.960.94
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.01295 ± 144 pcmlst1 (19F)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0201.0151.0101.005
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.00383 ± 470 pcmhmf7-32 (19F)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.000.99
80706050403020100
keff = 1.03929 ± 1062 pcm
hst39-1 (19F)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.081.071.051.041.021.01
40
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.01347± 733 pcmhmf7-33 (19F)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.051.041.031.021.011.000.99
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Examples of keff benchmarks for 27Al and 92−100Mo
14 / 19
keff = 1.01469 ± 155 pcmhmt8d (27Al)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.00
25
20
15
10
5
0
keff = 1.02529 ± 161 pcmhmt8s (27Al)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.031.021.01
20
10
0
keff = 1.00432 ± 198 pcmhmt22 (27Al)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0151.0101.0051.0000.995
25
20
15
10
5
0
keff = 1.01846± 68 pcmhmi1 (27Al)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0251.0201.015
25
20
15
10
5
0
keff = 1.00469 ± 853 pcmhmf5-2 (92−100Mo)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.041.021.010.990.98
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.00186 ± 755 pcmhmf5-5 (92−100Mo)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.031.021.011.000.990.980.97
30
20
10
0
Examples of keff benchmarks for 59Co and 90−96Zr
15 / 19
keff = 0.99650± 158 pcmmmf11-2 (90−96Zr)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0051.0000.9950.9900.985
25
20
15
10
5
0
keff = 0.96338 ± 3777 pcmhci5-5 (90−96Zr)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.051.000.950.90
10
5
0
keff = 1.01044 ± 326 pcmict3-133 (90−96Zr)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.000.99
20
10
0
keff = 1.00571 ± 322 pcmict3-132 (90−96Zr)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.021.011.000.99
20
10
0
keff = 0.99977 ± 84 pcmlct51-4 (59Co)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0051.0000.995
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.00026 ± 89 pcmlct51-8 (59Co)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0051.0000.995
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Examples of keff benchmarks for 54−58Fe
16 / 19
keff = 0.99129 ± 59 pcmimf10-1 (54−58Fe)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
0.9960.9930.9900.987
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.01140 ± 123 pcm
pmf12 (54−58Fe)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0201.0151.0101.005
20
15
10
5
0
keff = 1.01066± 475 pcmhmt13-625 (54−58Fe)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.031.021.011.00
20
15
10
5
0
keff = 1.00848± 137 pcmhmt13-15 (54−58Fe)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0151.0101.005
30
20
10
0
keff = 1.04501 ± 1852 pcm
hmi1-1 (54−58Fe)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.101.081.061.041.021.000.98
20
10
0
keff = 0.99813± 82 pcmlmt1 (54−58Fe)
keff value
Num
ber
ofco
unts
/bin
s
1.0051.0000.995
25
20
15
10
5
0
Examples of shielding benchmarks and reactivity swing
17 / 19
ExperimentCalculation
Oktavian Cr Neutron Leakage
Emission Neutron Energy (MeV)
Lea
kage
curr
ent/
leth
argy
per
sourc
epar
ticl
e
10521
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
1σ Mo data uncertainty
12 % Pu, 88 % Mo (volume)Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
LWR Inert Matrix Fuel
δT ' 35 efpd
Reactivity Swing
Time (efpd)
keff
2000150010005000
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
(Blind Taly calculations)
E Also applied to Mn, Co, Al, Cu Oktavian benchmarksE and industrial PWR reactor for life-time extension (uncertainty on the reactorpressure vessel damage)
Examples of shielding benchmarks and reactivity swing
17 / 19
ExperimentCalculation
Oktavian Cr Neutron Leakage
Emission Neutron Energy (MeV)
Lea
kage
curr
ent/
leth
argy
per
sourc
epar
ticl
e
10521
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
1σ Mo data uncertainty
12 % Pu, 88 % Mo (volume)Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
LWR Inert Matrix Fuel
δT ' 35 efpd
Reactivity Swing
Time (efpd)
keff
2000150010005000
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
(Blind Taly calculations)
E Also applied to Mn, Co, Al, Cu Oktavian benchmarks
E and industrial PWR reactor for life-time extension (uncertainty on the reactorpressure vessel damage)
Examples of shielding benchmarks and reactivity swing
17 / 19
ExperimentCalculation
Oktavian Cr Neutron Leakage
Emission Neutron Energy (MeV)
Lea
kage
curr
ent/
leth
argy
per
sourc
epar
ticl
e
10521
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.1
1σ Mo data uncertainty
12 % Pu, 88 % Mo (volume)Westinghouse 3 loops type reactor
LWR Inert Matrix Fuel
δT ' 35 efpd
Reactivity Swing
Time (efpd)
keff
2000150010005000
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
(Blind Taly calculations)
E Also applied to Mn, Co, Al, Cu Oktavian benchmarksE and industrial PWR reactor for life-time extension (uncertainty on the reactorpressure vessel damage)
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA
§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Pros and Cons
18 / 19
© + No MF 32-35 (no 2 Gb files) but every possible cross correlation included
© + No approximation but true probability distribution
© + Only essential info for an evaluation is stored
© + No perturbation code necessary, only “essential” codes
© + Feedback to model parameters
© + (Random) EAF libraries
© + QA§ - Needs discipline to reproduce
§ - Memory and computer time
§ - Complexity for full reactor core calculation unknown
§ - Role of data centers would change
Conclusions and future improvements
19 / 19
X New methodology to propagate nuclear data uncertainty to integralquantities (keff benchmarks, shielding benchmarks, reactivity swing,neutron flux for commercial reactor) via Monte Carlo
X Proof of principle with high quality Pb evaluations
X Mass production tested on more than 150 benchmarksX “Paper to present the principle”: under revision for ANE� Needs for better sampling in the resonance region
� Needs for a better “accept-reject” mechanism
� What if nuclear modeling does not match the accuracy of themeasurements ? (how to sample ?)
� Needs to develop best central-value evaluations (non-fissile and fissile) ?
Conclusions and future improvements
19 / 19
X New methodology to propagate nuclear data uncertainty to integralquantities (keff benchmarks, shielding benchmarks, reactivity swing,neutron flux for commercial reactor) via Monte Carlo
X Proof of principle with high quality Pb evaluations
X Mass production tested on more than 150 benchmarksX “Paper to present the principle”: under revision for ANE� Needs for better sampling in the resonance region
� Needs for a better “accept-reject” mechanism
� What if nuclear modeling does not match the accuracy of themeasurements ? (how to sample ?)
� Needs to develop best central-value evaluations (non-fissile and fissile) ?
Conclusions and future improvements
19 / 19
X New methodology to propagate nuclear data uncertainty to integralquantities (keff benchmarks, shielding benchmarks, reactivity swing,neutron flux for commercial reactor) via Monte Carlo
X Proof of principle with high quality Pb evaluations
X Mass production tested on more than 150 benchmarks
X “Paper to present the principle”: under revision for ANE� Needs for better sampling in the resonance region
� Needs for a better “accept-reject” mechanism
� What if nuclear modeling does not match the accuracy of themeasurements ? (how to sample ?)
� Needs to develop best central-value evaluations (non-fissile and fissile) ?
Conclusions and future improvements
19 / 19
X New methodology to propagate nuclear data uncertainty to integralquantities (keff benchmarks, shielding benchmarks, reactivity swing,neutron flux for commercial reactor) via Monte Carlo
X Proof of principle with high quality Pb evaluations
X Mass production tested on more than 150 benchmarksX “Paper to present the principle”: under revision for ANE
� Needs for better sampling in the resonance region
� Needs for a better “accept-reject” mechanism
� What if nuclear modeling does not match the accuracy of themeasurements ? (how to sample ?)
� Needs to develop best central-value evaluations (non-fissile and fissile) ?
Conclusions and future improvements
19 / 19
X New methodology to propagate nuclear data uncertainty to integralquantities (keff benchmarks, shielding benchmarks, reactivity swing,neutron flux for commercial reactor) via Monte Carlo
X Proof of principle with high quality Pb evaluations
X Mass production tested on more than 150 benchmarksX “Paper to present the principle”: under revision for ANE� Needs for better sampling in the resonance region
� Needs for a better “accept-reject” mechanism
� What if nuclear modeling does not match the accuracy of themeasurements ? (how to sample ?)
� Needs to develop best central-value evaluations (non-fissile and fissile) ?
Conclusions and future improvements
19 / 19
X New methodology to propagate nuclear data uncertainty to integralquantities (keff benchmarks, shielding benchmarks, reactivity swing,neutron flux for commercial reactor) via Monte Carlo
X Proof of principle with high quality Pb evaluations
X Mass production tested on more than 150 benchmarksX “Paper to present the principle”: under revision for ANE� Needs for better sampling in the resonance region
� Needs for a better “accept-reject” mechanism
� What if nuclear modeling does not match the accuracy of themeasurements ? (how to sample ?)
� Needs to develop best central-value evaluations (non-fissile and fissile) ?
Conclusions and future improvements
19 / 19
X New methodology to propagate nuclear data uncertainty to integralquantities (keff benchmarks, shielding benchmarks, reactivity swing,neutron flux for commercial reactor) via Monte Carlo
X Proof of principle with high quality Pb evaluations
X Mass production tested on more than 150 benchmarksX “Paper to present the principle”: under revision for ANE� Needs for better sampling in the resonance region
� Needs for a better “accept-reject” mechanism
� What if nuclear modeling does not match the accuracy of themeasurements ? (how to sample ?)
� Needs to develop best central-value evaluations (non-fissile and fissile) ?
Conclusions and future improvements
19 / 19
X New methodology to propagate nuclear data uncertainty to integralquantities (keff benchmarks, shielding benchmarks, reactivity swing,neutron flux for commercial reactor) via Monte Carlo
X Proof of principle with high quality Pb evaluations
X Mass production tested on more than 150 benchmarksX “Paper to present the principle”: under revision for ANE� Needs for better sampling in the resonance region
� Needs for a better “accept-reject” mechanism
� What if nuclear modeling does not match the accuracy of themeasurements ? (how to sample ?)
� Needs to develop best central-value evaluations (non-fissile and fissile) ?
