DOE OSTI2016
In validation, statistical methods routinely incorporate information from integral experiments to improve estimations of code biases and uncertainties. One source of high quality integral experiments is the ICSBEP Handbook. While uncertainties for criticality benchmarks are well characterized in the Handbook, information pertaining to the shared uncertainty/covariance between the cases is sparse, yet required for the aforementioned methods; correlations can result from using the same fuel for example. To remedy the lack of available covariance data in the Handbook, recent efforts have been undertaken, notably, within the framework of the NEA Expert Group on Uncertainty Analysis in Criticality Safety Assessment (UACSA) under the Working Party on Nuclear Criticality Safety (WPNCS) . The UACSA activities have focused primarily on comparing methods used to generate high quality covariance matrices for a small number of evaluations. Despite these efforts, within the Database for ICSBEP DICE only about 2% of the nearly 5000 experiments in the ICSBEP Handbook have correlation coefficients, so the amount of work required to generate the missing data appears daunting. And so, to fill in the gaps where no correlations are available, it is proposed to generate low fidelity correlations by isolating the largest components of uncertainty and determining the fraction shared between cases within an evaluation. Uncertainties can be shared when they are not independently measured, or the source of uncertainty is unchanged between cases. The degree to which an uncertainty is shared is linked to the experimental procedure; an approximation is made that in the absence of additional information, similar experimental procedures will lead to a similar fraction of shared uncertainty. Between experimental procedures there is some commonality. One method, proposed here, to help elucidate similar procedures is to encode each procedure into a decision tree grouped by uncertainty type. End nodes of the tree require judgment to assign the fraction of shared uncertainty between cases associated with the node. This can also be thought of as a set of rules, such that if experimental procedures and conditions occurred, then assign the shared uncertainty as some number between 0.0 and 1.0. One advantage of such a procedure is the formation of a transparent logical link between the judgment applied and the amount of shared uncertainty. This makes the results both more reproducible and easy to update. Generating correlation coefficients is reduced to developing decision trees that categorize how the experiments were done, and apply judgment of the degree of shared uncertainty for the end node of the tree. Trees need to be constructed after reading section 1 and 2 of the evaluation and some evaluations certainly do not contain enough information to create informative decision trees nor to assign an amount of shared uncertainty. These evaluations will not be considered here. (authors)