Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CGMF”

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.

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

$\overline{TKE}$ Parameterization and $\bar{v}$ Uncertainty Analysis for CGMF

Previous work was performed on tuning CGMF parameters for 235 U, 238 U, and Plutonium isotopes. Now work is being done to tune minor uranium isotopes. However, uranium isotopes like 232 U and 236 U have almost no experimental data. We are applying cross-isotope models to extrapolate and tune CGMF on isotopes that lack experimental data. There exist several internal CGMF physics quantities that affect the output of CGMF—multi-chance fission probability, excitation energy sharing, spin-cutoff factor, spin scaling, and fragment total kinetic energy to name a few. The mean fragment total kinetic energy, $\overline{TKE}$, is particularly interesting because of its strong anti-correlation with $\bar{v}$. We are most interested in the mean fragment total kinetic energy before neutron emissions. $\overline{TKE}$ is assumed to be pre-neutron emission unless otherwise stated. Currently in CGMF, the $\overline{TKE}$ model for 233,234,235,238 U are tuned independently to reproduce ν for the associated isotopes. In this report, we will tune a cross-isotope $\overline{TKE}$ model to experimental $\overline{TKE}$ data for 232,233,234,235,236,238 U. Because of the unreliable and sparse nature of $\overline{TKE}$ experimental data, future work will use more reliable experimental $\bar{v}$ data to infer the $\overline{TKE}$ model (and likely other internal CGMF parameters) for uranium isotopes. Such work has been performed previously using a sensitivity analysis and Kalman filter methods.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Consistent $\overline{ν}$ evaluation for minor Pu isotopes with CGMF

This report follows up on the evaluation work done in 2023 where we developed a procedure and performed the first consistent evaluation of the average prompt neutron multiplicity for minor Pu isotopes, including 238,240-242 Pu, using CGMF. Details on the necessary updates to the release version of CGMF, the experimental data and experimental uncertainty quantification that went into the evaluation, and this first evaluation effort are documented in and will not be repeated in this report. Instead, we discuss here the further investigations into the CGMF model space to improve the evaluation results from FY23. Additionally, we note that these evaluation results have been transformed into the ENDF format for mean values and covariances, and validation with critical assemblies has been performed; that work is documented elsewhere. In this short report, we discuss the updated evaluation efforts performed during FY24 in Sec. 2, show results from CGMF for other prompt fission observables in Sec. 3, and then briefly conclude in Sec. 4.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Consistent $\overline{ν}$ evaluation for minor U isotopes with $\tt{CGMF}$

Following several successful prompt $\overline{ν}$ evaluations using $\tt{CGMF}$, including consistent evaluations for minor Pu isotopes, we detail in this report our efforts to perform a consistent $\overline{ν}$ evaluation for minor U isotopes during FY25. Although we have not yet produced a finalized evaluation, we present the progress that we have made towards such an evaluation for 232,233,234,236,237,239 U prompt $\overline{ν}$. Our milestone explicitly calls out evaluations for 233 U, 234 U, and 236 U, however, to better constrain the model with reliable experimental $\overline{ν}$ data, we also include 235 U and 238 U in the evaluation procedure. Then, we additionally produce evaluations for 232 U, 237 U and 239 U $\overline{ν}$ as a byproduct. Elsewhere, we will report our efforts on a stand-alone 233 U $\overline{ν}$ evaluation. This report is organized in the following manner. In Sec. 2, we briefly outline the updates to CGMF that were needed to be able to calculate all of these minor U fission reactions. The experimental data overview is given in Sec. 3. The evaluation methodology and results are presented in Secs. 4 and 5, respectively. Finally, we conclude and outline work for FY26 in Sec. 6.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Formatting and V&V of Consistent 238,240−24 2Pu $\overline{v}_p$ Evaluated Mean Values and Covariances

This report is in answer to the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program FY24 quarter 4 milestone that requires: “Format and V&V nu-bar means and covariances” for 238,240-242 Pu average prompt fission neutron multiplicities, $\overline{ν}$ p , that were obtained by a consistent evaluation leveraging the fission-event generator CGMF and a detailed uncertainty quantification of experimental data. It is described how nuclear data mean values and covariances were formatted using ENDFtk. Implementing the new 238,240-242 Pu $\overline{ν}$ p into the ENDF/B-VIII.1β 4 library leads to only small overall changes in criticality values of the Jezebel, Dirty Jezebel, Jupiter-001, Jupiter-002, EUCLID 3x2 and EUCLID 8x1 critical assemblies. Simulated k eff uncertainties due to $\overline{ν}$ p covariances change only little if cross-isotope covariances are considered or not for those assemblies with low percentage content of minor Pu isotopes. However, for the Dirty Jezebel critical assembly, that has a sizeable 240 Pu and non-negligible 241 Pu content, the simulated k eff uncertainties due to considering or neglecting cross-isotope $\overline{ν}$ p covariances is 443 versus 374 pcm.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗