Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Upper Subcritical Limits (USLs)”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

18 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Nuclear data covariances are critical input to determine upper sub-critical limits and to design experiments to increase it [Slides]

This presentation discusses how Upper Subcritical Limits (USL) are key parameters to determine operational limits in nuclear criticality safety evaluations. It also discusses an example of plutonium casting operation using tantalum at LANL PF-4. The Whisper tool at Los Alamos relies on many inputs, including covariance data, leading the presentation to ask if an existing benchmark data be used in Whisper to adjust nuclear data and covariances to justify a higher USL. If not, Whisper can be used to help design an optimal new benchmark experiment. The presentation also seeks to determine what the possible impacts are on USL and operational limits for plutonium casting. In conclusion, nuclear data covariances are used for by Whisper for: GSSL adjustment of nuclear data and covariances, identification of most similar existing benchmark experiments to application, simulation of Upper Subcritical Limit of application, and input to optimization techniques for designing most appropriate new benchmark experiment(s) to meet requirements. This requires a complete set of nuclear data covariances, benchmarks and k-effective sensitivity profiles (for both benchmarks and applications). The presentation concludes by asking if end users should trust results that depend on current covariance data.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

S/U Comparison Study with a Focus on USLs

Under a DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) task involving Analytical Methods, three Laboratories collaborated in a comparison of results obtained from Sensitivity/Uncertainty (S/U) packages relevant to validation of transport codes. The task involves Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) comparing results of MORET 5/MACSENS V3.0, MCNP6.2/Whisper-1.1, and SCALE 6.2.3/TSUNAMI/USLSTATS respectively. All Monte Carlo transport code results utilize ENDF/B-VII.1. Four cases from the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook) were selected as application models: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOL-THERM 001-008, PU-MET-FAST-022-001, and PU-SOL-THERM 001-001. Ultimately, comparison is made between Upper Subcritical Limits (USLs) obtained using each code package for each application case. Since differences exist in whether packages take into account margin of subcriticality (MOS), the USL may be computed using bias and bias uncertainty, also known as the calculational margin (CM) in ANSI/ANS 8.24. Application of portions of MOS to the USL for nuclear data uncertainty of and potential code margin is referred to as USL herein. In either case, additional MOS is considered for actual application cases.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Whisper Use of Nuclear Data Covariances [Slides]

Whisper is statistical analysis code using sensitivity/uncertainty-based methods to determine baseline upper subcritical limit (USL) for nuclear criticality safety. Features of Whisper 1.1 include: GLLS method implemented to compute adjusted covariance based on current benchmark suite (1,100+ ICSBEP models), BLO “low-fidelity” covariance data used (44 energy groups), adjusted covariance is pre-computed and saved, and adjusted cross sections are NOT computed. Potential future efforts include: an extension to include angular distributions in benchmark selection and in GLLS adjustment, a move toward more modern covariance data (ENDF/B-VIII.0) and different group structure, and compute and store adjusted cross sections (trivial).

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison Study of Upper Subcritical Limits Derived Using Sensitivity/Uncertainty Tools: Case Studies of U233-SOL-THERM-001-001, MIX-COMP-THERM-001-001, IEU-MET-FAST-002-001, LEU-COMP-THERM-001-001, LEU-SOL-THERM-004-001

Neutron transport methods used to establish subcriticality require validation by comparison to critical experiments considered to be benchmarks. Whisper is a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis tool developed to assist with the task of validation in nuclear criticality safety. Details on the Whisper methodology can be found in References 1-3 on the MCNP® reference collection website at https://mcnp.lanl.gov. Whisper-1.0 was originally developed in 2014 and used to assist with nuclear criticality safety validation at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Whisper was upgraded in 2016 to Whisper-1.1 and prepared for release with MCNP6.2 [References 3-5]. Whisper contains a library of over 1100 critical experiment benchmarks and quantifies neutronic similarity of an application to benchmarks in the library. Using highest similarity benchmarks, Whisper computes a calculational margin (CM) encompassing of the worst-case bias and bias uncertainty at a 99% confidence level for each application. In addition, portions of the margin of subcriticality (MOS) for nuclear data uncertainty and potential code errors are computed. The baseline upper subcritical limit (USL) computed by Whisper is comprised of the CM, MOS nuclear data , and MOS code errors . The Whisper baseline USL is absent a portion of the MOS due to the area of application, which is applied based upon judgment by the criticality safety analyst. An objective of this paper is to present the baseline USL, CM and portions of the MOS as computed by Whisper for comparison with similar sensitivity/uncertainty tools, such as those used by IRSN and ORNL. An initial comparison involved four critical experiment benchmarks: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOLTHERM-001-008, PU-MET-FAST-022-001, AND PU-SOL-THERM-001-001, which have been documented in References 10-13. This study extends the comparison to include cases U233-SOL-THERM-001-001, MIX-COMP-THERM-001-001, IEU-MET-FAST-002-001, LEU-COMP-THERM-001-001, LEU-SOL-THERM- 004-001.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

VADER: A Tool for Criticality Safety Validation

The purpose of criticality safety is to prevent any inadvertent criticality from occurring during the handling or storage of fissile material. Calculations are frequently used to demonstrate that a sufficient subcritical margin exists. Validation is a key aspect of the evaluation process, establishing the suitability, accuracy, and associated uncertainty of the computational method and data to be used for the intended application. The validation process is performed by comparing the results of critical experiments with the calculated results from models of the experiments using the computational method to be validated. Laboratory critical experiments are controlled systems that achieve a k eff of approximately 1 in order to investigate the parameters at which such a critical condition is achieved. The validation parameters that are traditionally applied to safety analysis calculations are the bias and the bias uncertainty . The bias is the deviation of the average k eff of the validation suite from unity. The bias uncertainty accounts for the statistical uncertainty in the bias based on the standard deviation, sample size, and distribution of k eff values of the validation suite. The values of bias and bias uncertainty ensure that the systems predicted to be subcritical by the computational method will indeed be subcritical. The bias and bias uncertainty are often combined to determine an upper subcritical limit (USL) or computational margin that can then be applied to safety analysis calculations. Many methods have been developed by different organizations to calculate the bias and bias uncertainty for various types of criticality analyses. Each of these methods typically requires that the validity of various underpinning statistical assumptions be confirmed to demonstrate that the method is appropriate for the analysis of a given validation suite. An example of the validation decision making flow is shown in Fig.1. As shown in Fig. 1, the analyst performing the validation fits a trend line to the data and performs a test to determine if the trend was a statistically better representation of the data than if it were treated as an uncorrelated sample. If the trend line is a better representation of the data, then the analyst uses any one of a number of trending techniques to determine the bias and bias uncertainty. If a trend is not an appropriate representation of the data, then the analyst proceeds to perform a normality assessment for the data. If the normal assumption can be shown to be acceptable, then the analyst calculates the bias and bias uncertainty with the parametric technique. If the assumption of normality cannot be justified, then the nonparametric technique is used. Once the decision flow has been followed and the appropriate technique has been selected, the bias and bias uncertainty is typically combined with an administrative margin to determine a USL below which calculated values of k eff for safety analysis models can be considered subcritical. The calculations used in each decision are often performed with spreadsheets or with small programs available at various sites performing criticality analyses. Expertise in understanding and interpreting the results must be maintained to perform these calculations. This can often be an error-prone process. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is currently developing the Validation and Data Evaluation Resource (VADER) to simplify and automate the criticality safety validation process and to provide a software quality assurance pedigree to the calculational methods used. This paper discusses the use of the Fulcrum user interface with VADER, the anticipated initial capabilities of VADER to perform validation analyses, and the output from the code.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Effect of Nuclear Data Covariances on Integral Experiment Design with Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) uses MCNP6.2 and the Whisper code for criticality safety analyses of the Hanford Tank Farm. Together the codes derive baseline upper subcritical limits (USLs) for the waste models using experimental benchmarks. Whisper returns higher USLs, i.e. , has less of a conservative penalty, when the neutronic similarity of the experimental benchmarks to the application is high. Unfortunately, few critical benchmarks have high similarity to the Hanford tanks. The waste in the tanks is highly dilute in plutonium and contains large masses of weakly neutron-absorbing elements like iron and manganese. Experimental benchmarks typically have low sensitivity to these absorbers because they are present as structural materials. Lacking similar benchmarks, new Thermal Epithermal eXperiment (TEX) configurations with high Pu content and interstitial iron absorbers have been designed for the criticality safety validation. The features of the design have been iterated upon to maximize the similarity between the experiment and different Hanford waste models. The similarity is quantified with sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification using the representativity coefficient, or c k . The representativity calculation requires nuclear data covariances, which may differ between nuclear data libraries and between library versions. Because of these variations, the optimal design may depend on the nuclear data covariances library. A scenario can be envisioned where an experiment is designed, and c k is maximized, with one set of covariance data. However, when the covariance data is changed, say from ENDF/B-VII.1 to ENDF/B-VIII.0, and the benchmark is used in a criticality safety evaluation, the experiment becomes suboptimal with respect to c k . In this paper, we present how the optimal design of the new TEX experiments varied depending on the nuclear data covariances used to calculate c k . We compare ENDF/B-VII.1 and ENDF/B-VIII.0, as if the library had been updated since the design of the experiment. Additionally, we use JEFF3.3 to simulate if the covariance data of a different library had been used. The results show that the covariances do have an important effect on the designs, less so for thermal systems (where the data are more consistent between evaluations) and more so for epithermal systems where more differences exist.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comparison Study of Upper Subcritical Limits Derived Using Sensitivity/Uncertainty Tools Case Studies of Benchmarks and Applications

Neutron transport methods used to establish subcriticality require validation by comparison to critical experiments considered to be benchmarks. Whisper is a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis tool developed to assist with the task of validation in nuclear criticality safety. Details on the Whisper methodology can be found in References 1-3 on the MCNP ® reference collection website at https://mcnp.lanl.gov. Whisper-1.0 was originally developed in 2014 and used to assist with nuclear criticality safety validation at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Whisper was upgraded in 2016 to Whisper-1.1 and prepared for release with MCNP6.2. Whisper contains a library of over 1100 critical experiment benchmarks and quantifies neutronic similarity of an application to benchmarks in the library. Using highest similarity benchmarks, Whisper computes a calculational margin (CM) encompassing of the worst-case bias and bias uncertainty at a 99% confidence level for each application. In addition, portions of the margin of subcriticality (MOS) for nuclear data uncertainty and potential code errors are computed. The baseline upper subcritical limit (USL) computed by Whisper is comprised of the CM, MOS nuclear data , and MOS code errors . The Whisper baseline USL is absent a portion of the MOS due to the area of application, which is applied based upon judgment by the criticality safety analyst. An objective of this paper is to present the baseline USL, CM and portions of the MOS as computed by Whisper for comparison with similar sensitivity/uncertainty tools, such as those used by IRSN and ORNL. The initial comparison involves four critical experiment benchmarks: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOLTHERM-001-008, PU-MET-FAST-022-001, AND PU-SOL-THERM-001-001, which have been: 1. modeled independently by LANL, IRSN, and ORNL based upon information provided in the ICSBEP Handbook, 2. are common in S/U libraries for LANL, IRSN, and ORNL, 3. span a range of energy spectrum and fissile material, and 4. taken as applications for the purposes of this study and therefore excluded from use as a benchmark for calculating the upper subcritical limit. Results presented in this paper have been computed using covariance data for all isotopes in ENDF/BVII.0 using a 44-group energy structure. Benchmarks in the Whisper library were run in MCNP6.2 using 100,000 neutrons per cycle, skipping 100 cycles for 500 active cycles. Reference 10 also compares the results for baseline USL with an order of magnitude greater neutrons, using the same total number of cycles with 1,000,000 neutrons per cycle. Subsequent to the results presented in Reference 10 changes were made to the benchmark library, as discussed in Reference 11. Newer results using the revised benchmark library are presented herein.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Nuclear Criticality Safety Assessment of Criticality Control Containers without Moderation Control at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) provides for safe, permanent disposal of government-owned transuranic (TRU) and TRU mixed wastes. Receipt and disposal of waste at the WIPP site began in March 1999. The Sandia report, Consideration of Nuclear Criticality When Disposing of Transuranic Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, addressed potential nuclear criticality safety issues based on the projected inventory characteristics known at the time [1]. As designs for inventory, waste forms, and disposal packages have changed, new analyses have been performed, and updates have been made to address any potential effects to the WIPP safety basis. New analyses performed include Saylor 2017 [2] and Brickner 2019 [3], which address certain waste containers with specified loadings under post-closure conditions. Both examined several hypothetical scenarios and included analyses to bound (from a criticality potential standpoint) credible configurations that could occur at WIPP during the repository regulatory post-closure disposal time period for feature, event, and process (FEP) considerations—10,000 years. During this post-closure period at WIPP, the screening of FEPs is governed by the risk-based standards and implementing regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (i.e., 40 CFR 191 and 40 CFR 194, respectively) [4,5]. An FEP screening can be based on either a low-consequence or low-probability rationale. A low-probability rationale includes either (a) a qualitative rationale that the FEP is not credible or (b) a quantitative demonstration that the probability is less than 10-4 in 104 years. In this evaluation, a qualitative lowprobability rationale of not credible is used by demonstrating that bounding configurations of the waste are not critical. The demonstration of subcriticality is through quantitative calculations, but a probability of criticality is not evaluated. Rather, the rationale for this evaluation is that bounding configurations with an effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) well below the upper subcriticality limit (USL) make criticality incredible. Reference [2] documented a nuclear criticality assessment of the WIPP repository for disposal of dilute surplus plutonium materials using the Dilute and Dispose Approach and packaging in criticality control overpacks (CCOs). The CCO is the waste disposal container recently designed to allow for up to 380 fissile gram equivalent (FGE) 239 Pu per drum, which is a higher fissile loading than typical waste containers. The CCO consists of a criticality control container (CCC) positioned by upper and lower plywood spacers within a standard 55 gal drum. The CCC is used to establish a geometry control for fissile materials during transportation and WIPP emplacement operations. The current WIPP waste acceptance criteria for CCO payloads limit beryllium to less than or equal to 1% by weight of the waste contents and require the waste form to be non-machine compacted. Reference [2] considered two scenario progressions—room closure from salt creep, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured dry scenario, and flooding with brine, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured wet scenario. The subsequent drying out of the reconfigured wet scenarios was also considered. For all scenarios, subcriticality was maintained when 50 g of B 4 C (acting as a neutron absorber) per CCC was intermixed within the plutonium disposition waste form. The analysis used a waste form description that limits the amount of moderation that could be present within the waste form (i.e., it limits the amount of water and polyethylene that could be present based on planned processing conditions). This analysis to evaluate increased limits on the amount of moderation that could be present was performed as a companion to Reference [2] to address concerns associated with verifying moisture and/or plastic contents of waste materials following packaging of dilute surplus plutonium in the CCO. To that end, this analysis used the models and methods from Reference [2] to evaluate a more generic base waste form consisting of water and polyethylene that is more similar (and nearly identical) to the generic waste forms utilized in other models/analyses supporting the TRU Package Transporter Model II (TRUPACTII) safety analysis [6] (all are without moderation controls). The waste form in this analysis uses a base mixture of 75% water and 25% polyethylene, the total amount of which is varied to determine the optimum moderation to fissile material (H/Pu) ratio. The fissile loading is maintained at up to 380 FGE 239 Pu (modeled as PuO 2 ) per CCO with an additional 545 g of beryllium (to bound the 1% by weight contents restriction) and 50 g of B 4 C intermixed per CCO. The beryllium content (1% by weight) is based on the total allowed waste weight (this does not include packaging and container weights). Figures ES-1 and ES-2 display summary results, showing that with this model including 50 g of B 4 C per CCO, the system keff remains under 0.85 for all moderator amounts and provides a significant margin against post-closure criticality under postulated bounding conditions for compaction. Figure ES-1 compares an infinite model with a room model at the initial emplacement spacing and under full radial compaction. Full radial compaction places each CCC in direct contact and does not credit any anticipated spacing associated with current post-closure geomechanical modeling of the repository [7]. The effects of variations in the H/Pu ratio were evaluated by varying the amount of the water/polyethylene component of the waste model, with fissile loading maintained at 380 239 Pu FGE. Similarly, Figure ES-2 illustrates how various amounts of B 4 C per CCO influence k eff at different radial compactions, all at the H/Pu ratio of 200 (in the room array model). Therefore, while the results from Saylor 2017 [2] modeled more realistic process limits associated with packaging of dilute surplus plutonium, this analysis demonstrates that limits on moderation (plastic and water content) are not necessary to ensure subcriticality in the WIPP repository, provided the requisite B 4 C absorber is present.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Verification of the Uniformly-Ordered Binary Decision Algorithm in Correlated-Benchmark Whisper Calculations

Whisper is a nuclear criticality safety code package that aids analysts in validation exercises by computing upper subcritical limits (USL) for applications of interest. To obtain statistically meaningful, significant, and conservative USLs, the analyst must ensure that Whisper selects a sufficient number of benchmarks that are neutronically similar to the application. Many of the available benchmarks are correlated but are currently treated as independent, leading to an artificially small sample size, as their individual information contributions will be overestimated. To aid the analyst in obtaining a sufficient sample size, prior work [2] demonstrated application of the Uniformly-Ordered Binary Decision (UOBD) algorithm in adjusting benchmark weights to account for benchmark correlations. This work provides verification of the Whisper implementation and considers the impact of updated benchmark correlations compared to those available previously. We demonstrate that the UOBD algorithm performs as expected with an analytic example. With HEU-SOL-THERM-001 cases 1 through 10 as the applications, we compare the USLs computed with benchmark correlations available in the Whisper 1.1 release only to those computed with additional benchmark correlations from DICE 2023 and demonstrate substantive differences.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Pebble Tanker Model for Nuclear Criticality Safety Needs

This report documents a study performed to investigate the requirements for criticality safety benchmark experiments for high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel in transportation applications. In this work, an exploratory application model, the “Pebble Tanker,” was developed to represent TRISO fuel in a transportation scenario for an analysis of the validation basis in industrial quantities. An aspect of the criticality validation process involves assessing the “similarity” between application and experimental benchmark systems through an integral index parameter evaluation. Here, this includes propagating nuclear data uncertainties and calculating a correlation coefficient (hereinafter referred to as “c k ”) to evaluate the similarity of benchmark experiments compared with the application Pebble Tanker model. Finding sufficient critical benchmark experiments allows for the evaluation of bias and bias uncertainty, thus determining the upper subcritical limit (USL) of the transportation package. A target k eff of ~0.94 was used in this work to establish appropriate modeling conditions, reflecting a reasonable estimate for a USL. Two container models were investigated: one with the Hermes-type pebble and one with the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)–type pebble. The models were simplified, considering only fuel, containment structure, and either water or air. This allows a focus on the underlying physics of applications involving TRISO fuel pebbles using the Pebble Tanker model. A crucial consideration is the transport package's ability to safely hold pebbles while flooded, maintaining subcritical conditions. Tools available in the SCALE 6.3.1 suite—the CSAS6-Shift, TSUNAMI-3D-Shift, and TSUNAMI-IP sequences—were employed for neutronics and sensitivity and uncertainty (S/U) analysis of the Pebble Tanker. Findings demonstrated sufficient available critical experiment benchmarks to perform a validation of the Pebble Tanker in the most reactive state, i.e., when the Tanker is flooded.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sensitivity/Uncertainty Comparison Study Involving IRSN, LANL, and ORNL Tools to Support Validation

Under a DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) task involving Analytical Methods, three Laboratories collaborated in a comparison of results obtained from Sensitivity/Uncertainty (S/U) packages relevant to validation of transport codes. The task involves Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) comparing results of MORET 5/MACSENS V3.0, MCNP6.2/Whisper-1.1, and SCALE 6.2.3/TSUNAMI/USLSTATS respectively. All Monte Carlo transport code results utilize nuclear data from ENDF/B-VII.1 evaluation. This study examines five cases from the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook) selected as application models: IEU-MET- FAST-002-001, LEU-COMP-THERM-001-001, LEU-SOL-THERM-004-001, MIX-COMP- THERM-001-001, and U233-SOL-THERM-001-001. This is a continuation of a previous study to examine Pu and HEU cases: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOL-THERM-001-008, PU-MET- FAST-022-001, and PU-SOL-THERM-001-001. Ultimately, comparison is made between Upper Subcritical Limits (USLs) obtained using each code package for each application case. Since differences exist in whether packages take into account margin of subcriticality (MOS), the USL is computed using only bias and bias uncertainty, also known as the calculational margin (CM) in ANSI/ANS-8.24. Results comparison appears to show that benchmark selection has a greater influence on the USL than the method used for calculation of bias and bias uncertainty.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Comparison of the Baseline USL Calculation Methods for Loosely-Coupled and Novel Neutronic Systems [Slides]

Current work includes reconstructing 187-group ENDF B/VII.1 covariance matrix for comparison study to 44-group ENDF B/VII.1 matrix to determine how covariance matrix structures affect the USL calculations and investigating the exact domination mechanism of region-wise sensitivities in a loosely-coupled system. Future work will involve seeking to understand how bias distributions change with reactivity and how to calculate propagate distribution error into USL calculations, as well as how cross section perturbation studies can be extended to other types of calculations, such as shielding calculations.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Nuclear Data Adjustment with Whisper for Criticality Safety Applications [Slides]

Nuclear data adjustment is used by Whisper to compute residual nuclear data uncertainties within a full suite of benchmarks; in order to do so, a complete set of nuclear data covariances, benchmarks and k-effective sensitivity profiles (for both benchmarks and applications) is required. For applications that are similar to the full benchmark suite, the residual uncertainties add a small margin to the overall USL calculation. For applications that are dissimilar to the full benchmark suite, the residual uncertainties add a reasonable margin to the overall USL calculation (more conservative). This methodology helps to overcome any issues in the released covariance libraries where nuclear data uncertainties appear to be too large.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

MCNP6.3: A Year in Review [Slides]

This presentation discusses the past year and the many accomplishments of the MCNP6.3 team. It states that the MCNP6.3 release is imminent and that the approved, final documents have been making their way to the website. The code executables and source are already packaged up for distribution and the new installer is being finalized and tested now, for all platforms. The package will be sent to RSICC before the end of October 2022. Additionally, the presentation discusses some things to think about as MCNP6.3 is requested and/or used. For example, many of the recent efforts have been focused on making development, updates, and distribution of the code and documents more robust and streamlined. They will be revising/updating documents more frequently than ever before and they will be exploring avenues to distribute official patches to MCNP6.3. As they explain, this allows them to be more responsive to bugs and issues that are identified. In conclusion, the application of a patch to MCNP6.3 will require having the source code.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Comparative Analysis of Standard and Advanced USL Methodologies for Nuclear Criticality Safety

The American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society national standards 8.1 and 8.24 provide guidance on the requirements and recommendations for establishing confidence in the results of the computerized models used to support operation with fissionable materials. By design, the guidance is not prescriptive, leaving freedom to the analysts to determine how the various sources of uncertainties are to be statistically aggregated. Due to the involved use of statistics entangled with heuristic recipes, the resulting safety margins are often difficult to interpret. Also, these technical margins are augmented by additional administrative margins, which are required to ensure compliance with safety standards or regulations, eliminating the incentive to understand their differences. With the new resurgent wave of advanced nuclear systems, e.g., advanced reactors, fuel cycles, and fuel concepts, focused on economizing operation, there is a strong need to develop a clear understanding of the uncertainties and their consolidation methods to reduce them in manners that can be scientifically defended. In response, the current studies compare the analyses behind four notable methodologies for upper subcriticality limit estimation that have been documented in the nuclear criticality safety literature: the parametric, nonparametric, Whisper, and TSURFER methodologies. Specifically, the work offers a deep dive into the various assumptions of the noted methodologies, their adequacies, and their limitations to provide guidance on developing confidence for the emergent nuclear systems that are expected to be challenged by the scarcity of experimental data. Here, to limit the scope, the current work focuses on the application of these methodologies to criticality safety experiments, where the goal is to calculate a bias, a bias uncertainty, and a tolerance limit for k eff in support of determining an upper subcriticality limit for nuclear criticality safety.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗