Second Target Station High-Fidelity Target Activation Comparison

Abstract

The development of the Second Target Station (STS) target system at the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is well underway. The target system at STS consists of a rotating target disk that contains 21 segments of tungsten clad in tantalum clad in steel. A key aspect of the design of the target system is to account for the delayed heating and material damage caused by the delayed dose from decaying radionuclides. These radionuclides are a product of either spallation reactions or transmutation of the nuclei in the target system. These radionuclides build up in the target system components over the lifetime of the facility, and the radiation that is emitted can deposit energy in the components causing significant component heating and material damage. Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) Version 6.2 transports the various particle species and calculates the spallation products and neutron fluxes throughout the target system. These spallation products and neutron fluxes along with the material definition of each component are relayed to the CINDER2008 transmutation code to calculate the radionuclide inventories and the corresponding decay gamma emission spectra. MCNP6.2 coupled with CINDER2008 is the computational method-of-choice for the analysis discussed in the following sections of this report. The analysis focuses on validating major assumptions in calculating the radionuclide inventory in the STS target system: all of the target segments are fresh, unirradiated material when the protons are incident on the segment, the average of the 21 segments of the target is sufficient to represent a single segment, and that averaging the proton pulse structure over time does not significantly affect the radionuclide inventory. The position-averaged, high-fidelity, and single-tally computational methods are used to validate the assumptions and provide a point of comparison to evaluate how the assumptions impact the radionuclide inventories. A more detailed explanation of the three computational methods is provided in Section 2. The position-averaged and single-tally methods are less computationally expensive when compared with the high-fidelity method where 54,000 individual calculations are needed to calculate 1 hr of STS operation. Section 3 details the comparison of the three methods to show that the assumptions made in the position-averaged method do not significantly impact the radionuclide inventory after 1 hr of operation. The discussions and results in this report are for 1 hr of operation. Due to the computational cost associated with calculating the transmutation and activation using the high-fidelity method, only 1 hr of operation has been calculated. The discrepancies observed after 1 hr of operation are not extrapolated out to longer operational times, and this report does not address how the discrepancies between the computational methods may manifest for longer operational periods.