SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
The first meeting that became the International Conference on Nuclear Criticality—ICNC—was held at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in February 1981. This presentation includes information on that meeting, including several experiments performed around that time period.
The Y-12 National Security Complex and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) selected the Mirion CAAS-3S as the Criticality Accident Alarm System for UPF and for Y-12 facilities replacing their legacy CAAS as part of efforts to extend the facility lifespans. As part of this process, the CAAS-3S system was exposed to a high radiation dose and dose rate during reactor testing with the Godiva-IV fast burst reactor. The reactor testing was designed around preliminary analyses that determined Y-12 and UPF requirements, and simulations of the radiation field within the reactor facility were used to determine reactor operating parameters, CAAS equipment locations, and the design of a neutron shield wall. This paper presents the design and results of the testing, and discusses how the test results were interpreted by criticality safety engineers at Y-12 and UPF.
Motivations for EPDs as a CAAS: Key features of the 2022 revision of ANS 8.3; Review of the relevant criteria in ANS-8.3 2022–How does (or could) an EPD based CAAS comply; Advantages & Disadvantages of Permanently Installed CAAS; Advantages & Disadvantages of EPD Based CAAS; Suggested Decision Criteria; Conclusions & Recommendations.
The following is a summary of advice for CAAS modeling in SCALE. Refer to the SCALE Criticality Safety and Radiation Shielding training slides or to the SCALE manual for exact syntax. Use a mesh for the fission source that is the most adequate for the problem to solve (coarse/fine). Don’t spend unnecessary resources; simplify the model if it does not impact the final results of interest. Be careful to deactivate secondary fissions in MAVRIC or the calculation may never end. Check that k eff and $\overline{\upsilon}$ calculated results are logical. Between KENO and MAVRIC, cross section libraries, materials, geometry, and mesh grid can be the same or different. Iterative calculations are usually complex problems that need variance reduction. It will be hard to find the best solving parameters in the first attempt; expert judgement is needed. Check each step separately. Use Fulcrum to visualize fission source, mesh source, and spatial/energy distributions to find potential errors or impactful imprecisions.
The Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) is developing a shielding benchmark using the Godiva IV assembly as a source. Its present status is reviewed herein. Even eight decades into the nuclear era, substantial work remains to develop a database of shielding benchmarks to support future nuclear development. A nuclear simulation is only as good as its supporting data, inputs, and validation basis. Uncertainty in these areas is addressed using conservatism, which adds margin and, occasionally, cost. In many shielding situations, high accuracy is not necessary because additional material is not particularly expensive. After all, 1–2 cm of lead often reduces the gamma ray dose substantially. However, in certain areas, conservatism can add unnecessary cost. These areas include mobile shielding applications such as casks, ships, microreactors, and spacecraft, where weight and, thus, margin is expensive. Although these characteristics are side benefits for NCSP shielding benchmark development, the main driver is enabling more reliable placement of criticality accident alarm systems (CAASs) in nuclear material facilities, such as those dedicated to the production of advanced reactor fuels. CAAS placement relies on more than accurate data and code validation. It also relies on sufficiently accurate materials specifications, geometry specifications, and a well-defined, alarm-producing baseline accident. All these things require tacit knowledge and understanding of the problem being evaluated. Benchmarks can help ensure this understanding.