Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Seo, Jeongwon

Publications and source records attributed to Seo, Jeongwon.

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Comparative Analysis of Confidence Metrics for Nuclear Criticality Safety

Nuclear criticality safety standards provide guidance on the requirements and recommendations to establish confidence in computerized model results used to support operation with fissionable materials. By design, the guidance is not prescriptive, leaving the analysts free to determine how various sources of uncertainties are to be statistically aggregated. This report compares the analyses and key assumptions behind four notable methodologies documented in the nuclear criticality safety literature: the parametric, nonparametric, Whisper, and TSURFER methodologies. Because of the involved use of statistics entangled with heuristic recipes, the results of these methodologies are often difficult to interpret. Also, they are augmented by additional large administrative margins, eliminating the incentive to understand their differences. With the new resurgent wave of advanced nuclear systems focused on economizing operation—including advanced reactors, fuel cycles, and fuel concepts—there is a strong need to develop a clear understanding of uncertainties and their fusion methodologies to reduce uncertainties in a scientifically defensible manner. This report offers a deep dive into the various assumptions of the four noted methodologies, their adequacy, and their limitations, to provide guidance on developing confidence for the emergent nuclear systems. These systems are expected to be challenged by the scarcity of experimental data.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2023

Comparative Analysis of Standard and Advanced USL Methodologies [Slides]

This presentation is on the comparative analysis of standard and advanced USL methodologies. Each method has a different way to address/account for experimental biases and uncertainties. This study showed why bias and uncertainty predictions by these popular methods differ significantly in some cases. In order to establish confidence to our validation efforts, especially with new reactor concepts, in designing new critical experiments and claiming experimental coverage for our existing applications, we need to understand capabilities of our methods further.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

ACCRUE—An Integral Index for Measuring Experimental Relevance in Support of Neutronic Model Validation

A key challenge for the introduction of any design changes, e.g., advanced fuel concepts, first-of-a-kind nuclear reactor designs, etc., is the cost of the associated experiments, which are required by law to validate the use of computer models for the various stages, starting from conceptual design, to deployment, licensing, operation, and safety. To achieve that, a criterion is needed to decide on whether a given experiment, past or planned, is relevant to the application of interest. This allows the analyst to select the best experiments for the given application leading to the highest measures of confidence for the computer model predictions. The state-of-the-art methods rely on the concept of similarity or representativity, which is a linear Gaussian-based inner-product metric measuring the angle—as weighted by a prior model parameters covariance matrix—between two gradients, one representing the application and the other a single validation experiment. This manuscript emphasizes the concept of experimental relevance which extends the basic similarity index to account for the value accrued from past experiments and the associated experimental uncertainties, both currently missing from the extant similarity methods. Accounting for multiple experiments is key to the overall experimental cost reduction by prescreening for redundant information from multiple equally-relevant experiments as measured by the basic similarity index. Accounting for experimental uncertainties is also important as it allows one to select between two different experimental setups, thus providing for a quantitative basis for sensor selection and optimization. The proposed metric is denoted by ACCRUE, short for Accumulative Correlation Coefficient for Relevance of Uncertainties in Experimental validation. Using a number of criticality experiments for highly enriched fast metal systems and low enriched thermal compound systems with accident tolerant fuel concept, the manuscript will compare the performance of the ACCRUE and basic similarity indices for prioritizing the relevance of a group of experiments to the given application.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗