1 / 11

Paul Scherrer Institut

Stefan Radman, Mathieu Hursin, Gregory Perret. Paul Scherrer Institut. PROTEUS FDWR-II (HCLWR) program summary for SG-39; Status of Re-analysis for Core 7, 8, void coefficient. PSI,. 19. Dezember 2019. Outline. Reminder of FDWR Experiments at PROTEUS

kgriffith
Download Presentation

Paul Scherrer Institut

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stefan Radman, Mathieu Hursin, Gregory Perret Paul Scherrer Institut PROTEUS FDWR-II (HCLWR) program summary for SG-39; Status of Re-analysis for Core 7, 8, void coefficient PSI, 19. Dezember 2019

  2. Outline Reminder of FDWR Experiments at PROTEUS Summary of PSI experimental data contribution to SG39 Selected results • Infinitely dilute cross sections • Kinf sensitivity coefficients • Reactivity sensitivity coefficients Conclusion and outlook PSI,

  3. FDWR-II – Experimental Configurations • FDWR Phase II • From 1985 to 1990 in PROTEUS reactor • PROTEUS is a driven system whose test zone contains the FDWR lattices • UO2/PuO2 pellets with 11% PuO2 • Pu(8/9/0/1/2): 1%, 64%, 23%, 8%, 4% • Fuel diameter: 8.46mm • Fuel total height: 84 cm • 2 axial blankets: • Udep. 0.224w% 235U • 28-cm high each • Several moderation conditions • Two triangular pitches • Different moderators (water, downterm, air) Seite 3 PSI, PSI,

  4. FDWR-II – Measurement types • K∞ measurements • Using axial and radial bucklings • Using compensation methods with auto-rod and a 252Cf source • Reactivity effects • Void volume • Moderator volume • Absorber rods Seite 5 PSI, PSI, 19. Dezember 2019

  5. FDWR-II – Measurement types • Spectral index measurements (core 7) • F5/F9 ~0.91 F1/F9 ~ 1.68 • F8/F9 ~1.14e-2 C2/F9 ~ 1.12 • C8/F9 ~7.8e-2 • Typical uncertainties F5: 1.8%, F8: 1.9%, F9:1.5%, C8: 1.8% • Reaction rate radial and axial traverses Seite 6 PSI, PSI, 19. Dezember 2019

  6. Data package provided to SG39 members C/E for kinf of Core 7 and 8 • Data provided • Pincell geometry • Fuel composition • C and E values • Calculation: MCNP and pincell models • Preferred measurement: cell method b/c smaller uncertainty Sensitivity coefficients generated from pincell models • MCNP6.1.1 & JEFF-3.1.1 • Uncertainties are provided • Infinitely diluted cross sections are provided Sensitivity coefficients tables according to SG33 format PSI,

  7. Infinitely Dilute Cross Sections 20 MeV homogeneous source in infinite pure graphite medium MCNPX-2.4 & JEFF-3.1.1 library. • 106 neutrons histories • The reaction rates and flux were tallied in the 33-energy group structure The cross sections and associated relative uncertainties (1 standard deviation) for the isotopes and reactions of the WPEC Subgroup 33 U-238 Capture PSI,

  8. K-Sensitivity Coefficients comparison Monte Carlo sensitivity coefficients • MCNP and SERPENT • Iterated Fission Probability • 10 latent generations Plot done with EmericDupont scripts. SC Comparison • Good agreement (i.e. within 1 standard deviation) sensitivity over 0.01% per % per unit lethargy. • Issue related to poor statistics with elastic and inelastic cross sections. • Uncertainty of MCNP solution looks underestimated. PSI,

  9. Void reactivity Sensitivity Coefficients Sensitivity coefficients of void reactivity • Computed with EGPT • Using kinf SC C/E can be inferred from kinf results. PSI,

  10. Outlook of Re-analysis work at PSI Master student currently working on HCLWR re-analysis(~ 3-4 months) • Development of a 3D models • Enhanced S/U analysis with comparison between codes (MCNP, SERPENT, TSUNAMI) and methods (GPT) • Look at non-kinf measurements (Spectral indices, power traverse) • Formatting of results according to specifications of SG39 Feedbacks on Data Delivery • Was it used? • Is it useful in terms of data assimilation? • What should be the next responses to be looked at? PSI,

  11. PSI,

More Related