Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Summary of UK PIE data Richard Moore PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Summary of UK PIE data Richard Moore

Summary of UK PIE data Richard Moore

70 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Summary of UK PIE data Richard Moore

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of UK PIE dataRichard Moore Presented by : Jim Gulliford

  2. Overview • Sellafield Dataset • Other Data • CERES, UK BUC validation measurements • Consistency, Completeness, Uncertainties • Need for more data • Classification – suitability for benchmarking • Lessons Learned • UK participation in OECD-NEA PIE Experts Group

  3. Sellafield Dataset • PIE data used to validate spent fuel inventory calculations to support UK nuclear operations • Database of PIE measurements from around the world • Database includes the results of calculations performed • WIMS – TRAIL – FISPIN • Classification of validation data

  4. Sellafield database • Includes: • Experimental result • Calculated result • C/E • Cooling • Enrichment • Assembly and sample irradiation • Laboratory • Classification • Calculation code and details

  5. LWR PIE Summary

  6. LWR & MOX Data ‘pulled-pin’ samples – not used for benchmarking

  7. Other PIE Data • Burnup Credit Programmes at Winfrith • Used to valid WIMS & MONK • CERES • Reactivity and PIE measurements on PWR & BWR samples from France & USA • PIE included analysis of 15 major BUC fission products • Pre-CERES • Reactivity and PIE on HEU research reactor fuel, AGR & PWR (Zorita & Besnau) samples • UK ready to make data available (need to get agreement from US and French partners for CERES data)

  8. CERES Reactivity Measurements – fuel samples

  9. CERES Reactivity Measurements – FP samples

  10. CERES PIE Analysis • Result for Sm149 appears to be due to problem with measurement. Later PIE work gave much better agreement

  11. Inter lab agreement Sometimes excellent, sometimes not…

  12. Inter-lab agreement For measurements made in two laboratories: • Some studies show up to 77% of results agree to within 2-sigma errors • Statistically it should be 95% • 77% is good when compared with other studies: • 36% for fission products • 22% for actinides Demonstrates a problem with measurements or uncertainty estimation – need some other means to assess the reliability of validation data.

  13. Data classifications • Class A [Most consistent and reliable data; laboratory cross checks performed and consistent] • Class B [Multiple laboratory measurement on dissolved sample and results consistent] • Class C [Single laboratory measurement on multiple similar samples and results consistent] • Class D [Reliable data as assessed by experts, without laboratory cross check] • Class F [Results unsuitable for validation]

  14. Classification overview Actinides Fission products

  15. Lessons Learned • Chemical separation process is very delicate – (particularly for Fission Products) good idea to get independent verification • ‘Pulled-pin’ irradiations difficult to analyse – try to avoid if possible • Rh chemistry difficult – we have experienced problems with sample manufacture and PIE • Need to do thorough check on completeness of description of irradiation history & environment • Inconsistent results - measurement uncertainty analysis appears incomplete in some cases (i.e. uncertainties in chemical separation)

  16. UK Participation in PIE Experts Group • Donation of data as/when available • Review of other’s contributions • Seek to identify remaining UK expertise in chemical separation to add to ‘lesson learned’ • Build consensus on reliable experimental techniques • Benchmark new data and present summary of new and old benchmark results • Identify gaps in database • Highlight problem areas in calculations

  17. Finally • Currently investigating whether we can give all this information for use in SFCOMPO • Hopefully we will be able to provide the data soon • Suggest inclusion of similar procedure to ICSBEP where evaluation includes results of ‘indicative’ calculation results • Provides test of completeness of data and gives early indication of gross errors