SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CGMF parameters”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

9 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE 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 OSTI2022

Evaluated 238 U(n,f) Average Prompt Fission Neutron Multiplicities Including the CGMF Model

This report documents an evaluation of the average prompt fission neutron multiplicity, $\overline{v}_p$, of 238 U from 800 keV to MeV. This evaluation had to be re-done from “scratch” as the input to previous $\overline{v}_p$ evaluations, specifically ENDF/B-VIII.0, was not found. That means that all available experimental data were re-analyzed and uncertainties were re-estimated. The new evaluated 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ based on only experimental data differs distinctly from ENDF/B-VIII.0 $\overline{v}_p$ from 2 to 4.5 MeV, and from 6 to 7 MeV, and is otherwise similar. The difference from 2 to 4.5 MeV stems from the fact that ENDF/B-VIII.0 was tweaked in this energy range to data of Frehaut, while two other, equally trustworthy, data sets would indicate an evaluated 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ that is up to 2% higher. Also, second chance fission in ENDF/B-VIII.0 was smoothed over from 6–7 MeV. Another major difference to ENDF/B-VIII.0 is that one of the evaluations presented here includes model information from the Hauser-Feshbach fission fragment decay code CGMF, while ENDF/B-VIII.0 is based purely on experimental data. CGMF links several fission quantities with each other; $\overline{v}_p$ is predicted by assumptions made on, e.g., pre-neutron emission yields as a function of mass, the total kinetic energy, or spin and parity of fission fragments. This allows to validate the new 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ by using CGMF parameters obtained from fitting to experimental 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ to predict yields as a function of mass, the average total kinetic energy, or the mean energy of the prompt fission neutron spectrum. These model-predicted values can then be compared to experimental and evaluated data. The model-predicted fission-observable values using evaluated parameters obtained here are reasonably close to experimental data for some observables, but are farther away from experimental data related to TKE observables. In addition to that, the evaluated 238 U(n,f) $\overline{v}_p$ shows similar deviations from ENDF/B-VIII.0 as for the evaluation with only experimental data. This difference is expected to lead to changes in simulated effective neutron multiplication factor, $k_{eff}$ of ICSBEP critical assemblies that are sensitive to 238 U in the fast range (BigTen, Flattop, Flattop-Pu). These changes in $k_{eff}$ need to be counter-balanced. Chi-Nu PFNS experimental data are expected to be released in the next few months that might lead to the needed changes in the PFNS. Until then, we hold off in benchmarking the new 238 U(n,f) $\overline{v}_p$ as well as submitting it to ENDF/B-VIII.1. Also, new high-precision 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ are expected to be measured by the CEA in the next two years that will shed further light on question on 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ from 2–4.5 and 6–7 MeV.

238U↗

DOE OSTI2022

Release of Evaluated 235 U(n,f) Average Prompt Fission Neutron Multiplicities Including the CGMF Model

This report documents an evaluation of the average prompt fission neutron multiplicity, $\overline{v}_p$, of 235 U from 200 keV to 15 MeV that is a potential release candidate for the upcoming U.S. nuclear data library, ENDF/B-VIII.1. This evaluation had to be re-done from "scratch", as the input to the $\overline{v}_p$ evaluation of the previous library, ENDF/B-VIII.0, was lost. That means that all available experimental data were re-analyzed and uncertainties were re-estimated. Another major difference to ENDF/B-VIII.0 is that this evaluation includes model information from the Hauser-Feshbach fission fragment decay code CGMF, while ENDF/B-VIII.0 is based purely on experimental data. CGMF links several fission quantities with each other; $\overline{v}_p$ is predicted by assumptions made on, e.g., pre-neutron emission yields as a function of mass, the total kinetic energy, or spin and parity of fission fragments. This allows to perform two types of validation for the new 235 U $\overline{v}_p$: On the one hand, one can employ evaluated CGMF parameters obtained from fitting to experimental 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ to predict yields as a function of mass, the average total kinetic energy, or the mean energy of the prompt fission neutron spectrum. These model-predicted values can then be compared to experimental and evaluated data. The model-predicted fission-observable values using evaluated parameters obtained here are reasonably close to experimental data indicating the evaluated 235 U(n,f) $\overline{v}_p$ are physical. On the other hand, one can validate 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ with respect to integral responses such as fast ICSBEP critical assemblies or LLNL pulsed spheres. LLNL pulsed-sphere neutron-leakage spectra are minimally impacted by the new 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ as these experimental data are shape data and the $\overline{v}_p$ would mostly lead to a change in normalization of the data as the spheres are relatively thin (0.7 and 1.5 mean-free path) and, thus, mostly depend on 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ from 12-15 MeV. The change in the predicted effective neutron multiplication factor, k eff , of selected ICSBEP critical assemblies, however, is large compared to values using ENDF/B-VIII.0 and experimental k eff : The average bias is 108 pcm across all studied k eff values versus 12 pcm for ENDF/B-VIII.0. A reasonable performance in simulating keff (mean bias of 14 pcm) can be retained by tweaking 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ from 3-5 MeV, and combining it with a recent 235 U PFNS evaluation that is also a ENDF/B-VIII.1 release candidate.

235U↗

DOE OSTI2022

Open-source release of CGMF 1.1 and Integration into the MCNP6.3 ® Code [Slides]

As a result of a multi-year NA-22 project, CGMF was integrated into MCNP6.2 and publicly released. CGMF was open-sourced and publicly released and MCNP6.3 was updated to include the latest version and is in the process of being publicly released. Current and future plans include global optimization and uncertainty quantification within CGMF, model parameter fitting such that CGMF may be used in ENDF/B evaluations, and improving both standalone and MCNP-integrated CGM (non-fission) simulations.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Fitting $\overline{ν}$ for Minor Pu Isotopes

After successful fitting of prompt ν for 235 U, 238 U, and 239 Pu(n,f) using CGMF, we have moved on to the minor plutonium isotopes. Minor isotopes pose a greater challenge both because there is less data available and we do not, by default, have parametrizations in CGMF already. Initially, we had planned to mitigate these challenges—and provide consistency within CGMF—by taking a stepped approach to the optimization. Continuing from the 239 Pu work, we would then fit 241Pu(n,f) $\overline{ν}$, where there is also a number of experimental measurements, keeping consistency between the parameters that are included in the calculation for 239 Pu and 241 Pu. With these parametrizations settled, we could consistently optimize 240 Pu(n,f) $\overline{ν}$. Following that step, we would move on to 242 Pu(n,f) (and increasing neutron number) and 238 Pu(n,f) (and decreasing neutron number). By including the fissioning systems in this manner, we should be able to minimize the unknown parameters in CGMF. We were also able to develop systematics for the CGMF input parameters along the Pu isotopic chain. However, after studies in the beginning of FY23, where we found reasonable agreement between CGMF and experimental prompt neutron multiplicities for 238−242 Pu, using a compound mass dependent parametrization from, and from discussions with I. Stetcu and P. Talou, we instead performed the evaluation of all five isotopes simultaneously. For all parameters in CGMF, they are either the same for each compound nucleus, or have a dependence on the compound mass. The details of these updates are given in. This report builds upon those details. In this short report, we first give an example of how we have updated CGMF to include 240 Pu(n,f) and 242 Pu(n,f), keeping consistency with the current 239 Pu and 241 Pu calculations, but without rigorous optimization (Sec. 2). Then, we will show in Section 3 what experimental data exist for the various isotopes to provide some insight into why 241 Pu and 239 Pu are used as anchor points. The evaluation is detailed in Section 4, and the comparison between CGMF calculations using the evaluated parameters and other prompt observables besides average neutron multiplicity are discussed in Section 2.2. Finally, we present conclusions and future work in Section 5.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Fitting $\overline{\nu}$ for minor Pu isotopes

After successful fitting of prompt $\overline{\nu}$ for 235 U, 238 U, and 239 Pu(n,f) using CGMF, we will move on to the minor plutonium isotopes. Minor isotopes pose a greater challenge both because there is less data available and we do not, by default, have parametrizations in CGMF already. To mitigate these challenges— and provide consistency within CGMF—we will take a stepped approach to the optimization. Continuing from the 239 Pu work, we will then fit 241 Pu(n,f) $\overline{\nu}$, where there is also a number of experimental measurements, keeping consistency between the parameters that are included in the calculation for 239 Pu and 241 Pu. With these parametrizations settled, we can consistently optimize 240 Pu(n,f) $\overline{\nu}$. Following that step, we will move on to 242 Pu(n,f) (and increasing neutron number) and 238 Pu(n,f) (and decreasing neutron number). By including the fissioning systems in this manner, we should be able to minimize the unknown parameters in CGMF. We will possibly also be able to develop systematics for the CGMF input parameters along the Pu isotopic chain. This work can serve as a guide to broadening the reactions available in CGMF. In this short report, we first give an example of how we have updated CGMF to include 240 Pu(n,f) and 242 Pu(n,f), keeping consistency with the current 239 Pu and 241 Pu calculations, but without rigorous optimization (Sec. 2). Then, we will shown in Section 3 what experimental data exist for the various isotopes to provide some insight into why 241 Pu and 239 Pu are used as anchor points.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Energy-dependent optimization of the prompt fission neutron spectrum with CGMF

Throughout the course of FY21, significant effort was put into investigating models within the LANL developed Hauser-Feshbach fission fragment decay code, CGMF, to understand and potentially solve the long-standing challenge of a too-soft prompt fission neutron spectrum, PFNS. Several inputs and models to CGMF were investigated, including the discrete nuclear levels, the optical model potential, level densities, and the fission fragment initial conditions. Some of the global models within CGMF led to a slight hardening of the neutron spectrum—particularly the likely incomplete discrete levels in through which γ-rays decay—but none of the changes where large enough for the tail of the PFNS to reproduce experimental data. A significant hardening of the spectrum tail was observed when the fission fragment initial conditions were optimized based on their sensitivities to the PFNS data for thermal incident neutrons. In this way, the parameters for the CGMF mass and total kinetic energy distributions, along with the spin cutoff factor were adjusted to better reproduce the experimental PFNS measurements. This optimization hardened the tail of the PFNS slightly but led to unphysical mass distributions for the fission fragments before neutron emission. It was clear from the above that we do not expect to be able to produce an evaluation-quality PFNS with CGMF in the near future. Challenges at thermal will persist–and possibly worsen–with increasing incident energy, where more models are needed to completely describe the fission. Basic-science research funding exceeding the amount available and scope of our NCSP funds would be needed to tackle this decade-long challenge impacting many fission-fragment event generator. And, in fact, Amy Lovell won LDRD ECR funding to do so over the next few years. Therefore, we focused in FY22 on extending evaluation capabilities beyond thermal incident neutrons, to take into account the incident energy dependence of the PFNS and fission fragment initial condition distributions in CGMF. We chose to set up the evaluation methodology to perform PFNS evaluations with CGMF across incident-neutron energies, in order to have it readily available for future NCSP evaluations when the PFNS from CGMF has improved. In this report, we outline the evaluation methodology, along with the results of the optimization, including full model calculations with CGMF using the evaluated parameters.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Producing Evaluation-quality 239 Pu Average Prompt Fission Neutron Multiplicities using a Correlated Fission Model

An evaluation of the average prompt fission neutron multiplicity, $\bar{ν}_p$, of 239 Pu(n,f) is shown. This evaluation includes (a) the correlated fission model CGMF, and (b) a detailed analysis of past and recently published experimental data. Using CGMF-calculated $\bar{ν}_p$ as prior enables to link, through the use of evaluated model input parameters, $\bar{ν}_p$ to other fission observables such as the prompt fission neutron spectrum (PFNS), preneutron emission fission yields as a function of mass, and the average total kinetic energy of the fragments. These evaluated parameters produce realistic predictions of many fission observables, while the evaluated $\bar{ν}_p$ agrees well (χ 2 ≈ 1) with data. Moreover, with the new evaluated $\bar{ν}_p$, the effective neutron multiplication factor of fast Pu ICSBEP critical assemblies are predicted with a mean bias of 58 pcm compared to 18 pcm with ENDF/B-VIII.0, when paired with a new 239 Pu PFNS and fission cross section. Due to these encouraging validation results, the evaluated $\bar{ν}_p$ is currently part of a release candidate for the 239 Pu ENDF/B-VIII.1 file. Hence, a correlated fission model was used for the first time for evaluating $\bar{ν}_p$ that is of evaluation quality. This is an important step towards consistent evaluations of prompt fission observables.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Shedding light on the 239Pu fission source term with new high-precision experiments and advanced fission modeling

In the last decade, there has been a renaissance of fission research resulting in new high-precision experiments and advanced fission modeling. For instance, the Chi-Nu and CEA teams supplied, for the first time, the 239 Pu prompt fission neutron spectrum (PFNS) for broad ranges of incident and outgoing neutron energies. The CEA team also measured 239 Pu average prompt neutron multiplicities, ν ̄ p , with lower statistical uncertainties and a technique significantly different than the one used in the past. The NIFFTE collaboration provided 239 Pu( n ,f)/ 235 U( n ,f) cross section shape ratios with uncertainties below 1% utilizing a novel detector type. Advanced fission event generators were developed, among them CGMF, FIFRELIN, FREYA, and GEF, which calculate post-scission fission observables in a correlated manner. These new experimental data and more consistent fission models change the evaluated PFNS, ν ̄ p , and ( n ,f) cross sections, some only modestly, compared to ENDF/B-VIII.0. In turn, the individual new nuclear data distinctly change simulated effective neutron multiplication factors of fast critical assemblies, but their combined impact is small, while affecting the prediction of LLNL pulsed sphere neutron leakage spectra and reaction rates only within experimental uncertainties. Also, the parameters obtained from fitting to ν ̄ p reproduce various post-scission fission observables within the uncertainties of experimental data. This indicates that new differential experiments and consistent fission modeling reduce compensating errors present in ENDF/B-VIII.0.

fission cross section↗