Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Margin of Subcriticality”

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.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluation of the Sum-of-Fractions Methodology for Water and Polyethylene Moderated Systems

Sum-of-Fractions is a method intended to assure a subcritical margin for aqueous solutions and slurries of fissionable isotopes. The method indicates that a system is subcritical if the sum of the ratios of the mass of each isotope in a mixture to its individual minimum subcritical mass limit is less than or equal to one. The basis of the Sum-of Fractions has historically been derived from allowances given in ANSI/ANS-8.15-1981. However, the allowance was removed in ANSI/ANS-8.15-2014 due to a lack of technical basis. A methodology was developed to assess the validity of using the Sum-of-Fractions for water or polyethylene moderated systems for the following nuclides: 232 U, 233 U, 234 U, 235 U, 237 Np, 236 Pu, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, 241 Pu, 242 Pu, 241 Am, 242 mAm, 243 Am, 242 Cm, 243 Cm, 244 Cm, 245 Cm, 246 Cm, 247 Cm, 249 Cf, and 251 Cf. The methodology uses available benchmark data for mixtures of 233 U, 235 U, and 239 Pu to establish the calculational margin, and a mass limit reduction to establish the margin of subcriticality. Water or polyethylene moderated and reflected mixtures containing the nuclides are evaluated with SCALE 6.2.4. Including the calculational margin, subcritical mass limits for each nuclide were computed for optimally water or polyethylene moderated and fully reflected systems. These masses were used to create nuclide mixtures in which the sum of the mass to subcritical mass limit ratios is one. The various nuclide mixtures were modeled over a range of moderation and demonstrate the k eff does not exceed the calculational margin. For additional assurance of subcriticality, a significant mass reduction is applied to each computed minimum critical mass of the nuclides without adequate benchmark data consistent with the method in ANSI/ANS-8.15-2014.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sum-of-Fractions Method

Sum-of-fractions is a method intended to make sure a subcritical margin for aqueous solutions and slurries of fissionable isotopes exists. The method indicates that a system is subcritical if the sum of the ratios of the mass of each isotope (in a mixture) to its individual minimum subcritical mass limit is less than or equal to one. Historically, the basis of the sum-of-fractions has been derived from allowances given in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ American Nuclear Society (ANS)-8.15-1981. However, the allowance was removed in ANSI/ANS-8.15-2014 due to a lack of technical basis. A methodology was developed to assess the validity of using the sum-of-fractions for water- or polyethylene-moderated systems for the following nuclides: 232U, 233U, 234U, 235U, 237Np, 236Pu, 238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu, 241Pu, 242Pu, 241Am, 242mAm, 243Am, 242Cm, 243Cm, 244Cm, 245Cm, 246Cm, 247Cm, 249Cf, and 251Cf. The methodology uses available benchmark data for mixtures of 233U, 235U, and 239Pu to establish the calculational margin, and a mass limit reduction to establish the margin of subcriticality. Water- or polyethylene-moderated and -reflected mixtures containing the nuclides are evaluated with the code system, SCALE 6.2.4. Including the calculational margin, subcritical mass limits for each nuclide were computed for optimally water- or polyethylene-moderated and fully reflected systems. These masses were used to create nuclide mixtures in which the sum of the mass to subcritical mass limit ratios is one. The various nuclide mixtures were modeled over a range of moderation and demonstrate the keff does not exceed the calculational margin. For additional assurance of subcriticality, a significant mass reduction is applied to each computed minimum critical mass of the nuclides without adequate benchmark data consistent with the method in ANSI/ANS-8.15-2014.

criticality safety, Actinide↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sum-of-Fractions Methodology for Actinides in Water- and Polyethylene-Moderated and -Reflected Systems

Sum-of-fractions is a method intended to make sure a subcritical margin for aqueous solutions and slurries of fissionable isotopes exists. The method indicates that a system is subcritical if the sum of the ratios of the mass of each isotope (in a mixture) to its individual minimum subcritical mass limit is less than or equal to one. Historically, the basis of the sum-of-fractions has been derived from allowances given in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ American Nuclear Society (ANS)-8.15-1981. However, the allowance was removed in ANSI/ANS-8.15-2014 due to a lack of technical basis. A methodology was developed to assess the validity of using the sum-of-fractions for water- or polyethylene-moderated systems for the following nuclides: 232 U, 233 U, 234 U, 235 U, 237 Np, 236 Pu, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu, 241 Pu, 242 Pu, 241 Am, 242 m Am, 243 Am, 242 Cm, 243 Cm, 244 Cm, 245 Cm, 246 Cm, 247 Cm, 249 Cf, and 251 Cf. The methodology uses available benchmark data for mixtures of 233 U, 235 U, and 239 Pu to establish the calculational margin, and a mass limit reduction to establish the margin of subcriticality. Water- or polyethylene-moderated and -reflected mixtures containing the nuclides are evaluated with the code system, SCALE 6.2.4. Including the calculational margin, subcritical mass limits for each nuclide were computed for optimally water- or polyethylene-moderated and fully reflected systems. These masses were used to create nuclide mixtures in which the sum of the mass to subcritical mass limit ratios is one. The various nuclide mixtures were modeled over a range of moderation and demonstrate the keff does not exceed the calculational margin. For additional assurance of subcriticality, a significant mass reduction is applied to each computed minimum critical mass of the nuclides without adequate benchmark data consistent with the method in ANSI/ANS-8.15-2014.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

VADER: A Tool for Criticality Safety Validation

The purpose of criticality safety is to prevent any inadvertent criticality from occurring during the handling or storage of fissile material. Calculations are frequently used to demonstrate that a sufficient subcritical margin exists. Validation is a key aspect of the evaluation process, establishing the suitability, accuracy, and associated uncertainty of the computational method and data to be used for the intended application. The validation process is performed by comparing the results of critical experiments with the calculated results from models of the experiments using the computational method to be validated. Laboratory critical experiments are controlled systems that achieve a k eff of approximately 1 in order to investigate the parameters at which such a critical condition is achieved. The validation parameters that are traditionally applied to safety analysis calculations are the bias and the bias uncertainty . The bias is the deviation of the average k eff of the validation suite from unity. The bias uncertainty accounts for the statistical uncertainty in the bias based on the standard deviation, sample size, and distribution of k eff values of the validation suite. The values of bias and bias uncertainty ensure that the systems predicted to be subcritical by the computational method will indeed be subcritical. The bias and bias uncertainty are often combined to determine an upper subcritical limit (USL) or computational margin that can then be applied to safety analysis calculations. Many methods have been developed by different organizations to calculate the bias and bias uncertainty for various types of criticality analyses. Each of these methods typically requires that the validity of various underpinning statistical assumptions be confirmed to demonstrate that the method is appropriate for the analysis of a given validation suite. An example of the validation decision making flow is shown in Fig.1. As shown in Fig. 1, the analyst performing the validation fits a trend line to the data and performs a test to determine if the trend was a statistically better representation of the data than if it were treated as an uncorrelated sample. If the trend line is a better representation of the data, then the analyst uses any one of a number of trending techniques to determine the bias and bias uncertainty. If a trend is not an appropriate representation of the data, then the analyst proceeds to perform a normality assessment for the data. If the normal assumption can be shown to be acceptable, then the analyst calculates the bias and bias uncertainty with the parametric technique. If the assumption of normality cannot be justified, then the nonparametric technique is used. Once the decision flow has been followed and the appropriate technique has been selected, the bias and bias uncertainty is typically combined with an administrative margin to determine a USL below which calculated values of k eff for safety analysis models can be considered subcritical. The calculations used in each decision are often performed with spreadsheets or with small programs available at various sites performing criticality analyses. Expertise in understanding and interpreting the results must be maintained to perform these calculations. This can often be an error-prone process. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is currently developing the Validation and Data Evaluation Resource (VADER) to simplify and automate the criticality safety validation process and to provide a software quality assurance pedigree to the calculational methods used. This paper discusses the use of the Fulcrum user interface with VADER, the anticipated initial capabilities of VADER to perform validation analyses, and the output from the code.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Assessment of Existing Transportation Packages for Use with HALEU

Commercial light water reactor operators and fuel vendors in the United States are pursuing changes to fuel that include increased 235 U enrichment. Economic studies generally anticipate maximum near-term fuel assembly designs with up to 8 wt.% 235 U. Many next-generation nuclear reactor designs require high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) (19.75 wt.% > 235 U > 5 wt.%) fuel. One necessary element for the commercial-scale use of HALEU is the ability to safely transport large quantities of enriched fuel material in multiple forms. However, there is uncertainty as to whether subcriticality requirements can be satisfied with existing package designs and whether existing critical benchmark experiment data are sufficient to support criticality safety code validation for HALEU transportation applications. This study assesses the potential to use currently licensed transportation packages for the transportation of increased enrichment unirradiated U fuel forms. The assessment uses selected package designs that represent the five categories of fuel form-boiling water reactor pins and assemblies, pressurized water reactor pins and assemblies, UF 6 , U-metal and tristructural isotropic (TRISO) particles, and UO 2 pellets or powder-and focuses on demonstrating subcriticality and identifying benchmark critical experiments appropriate for use in criticality computer code validation. Key quantities of interest that relate to subcriticality are limiting conditions (e.g., optimum moderation), package or package array k eff , package capacity, and package transportation array size. The SCALE TSUNAMI-3D and TSUNAMI Indices and Parameters codes are used for sensitivity and uncertainty calculations and for identification of candidate critical benchmark experiments for code validation. The primary metric for identifying candidate benchmarks is the similarity coefficient, c k . For each fuel form category, a representative package is evaluated. Results provided for each package evaluation include enrichment and packaging limits (e.g., maximum transportation array size as a function of enrichment) and benchmark critical experiment similarity coefficients. Results indicate that there are viable means for increasing enrichments into the HALEU range across the spectrum of fuel forms with differing increase amounts available for different packages. Sources of subcriticality margin to offset increased enrichment reactivity include reduced transportation array size, reduced fissile mass, burnable absorber credit, and safety analysis margin harvesting. For all packages except the DN-30, numerous critical benchmark experiment candidates for validation were identified.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Impacts of LEU+ and ATF on Fresh Fuel Storage Criticality Safety

The use of increased fuel enrichment, which is still in the realm of low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel, has been of interest to commercial light water reactor operators as part of the next iteration in fuel cycle technological advances and research and development. Using increased enrichment fuel, or high-assay LEU (HALEU), in power plants has clear benefits for being able to load cores with additional power-producing fuel. Although HALEU enrichments can range up to 20%, the more guarded approach of investigating enrichments above current fuels within 10% enrichment is referred to as LEU plus (LEU+) to reflect the less drastic change in operating conditions and requirements and similarity to current fuel cycles. Of additional interest and increasing maturity is the incorporation of accident-tolerant fuel (ATF) concepts, which are also applicable to the current fleet. This class of technologies involves changes such as cladding (e.g., chromium coating or FeCrAl) and fuel composition (e.g., chromia dopant) alterations to demonstrate improved fuel performance under accident scenarios. The ability to properly store fuel before and after residence time in the reactor is crucial to plant operation. Typically, this is done in either a new fuel vault (NFV) or spent fuel pool (SFP). Storing, loading, and unloading dozens of fuel assemblies within the same general area provides opportunities for obvious criticality concerns. These concerns are addressed with regulations to the subcriticality margin that the NFV and SFP must maintain in certain conditions. Adopting LEU+ fuel results in inherent reactivity increases, which are extremely relevant for safe fuel storage. Therefore, a clear understanding of the effects of LEU+ fuel and ATF on criticality safety margins to regulatory limits is required, as well as an understanding of the degree of absorber crediting under normal and accident conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS1956

A variable-geometry annular cascade-type inlet at Mach numbers of 1.9 and 3.05

A variable-geometry annular cascade-type inlet is proposed and demonstrated. Such an inlet yielded total-pressure recoveries of 0.84 and 0.53 at Mach numbers of 1.9 and 3.05., respectively. Unity mass-flow ratios were obtained at each Mach number with only marginal subcritical stability ranges of mass-flow ratio (?0.03). Angles of attack up to 6 percent produced only moderate decreases in performance.

Connors, James F↗
DOE OSTI2020

Validation and Independent Uncertainty Analysis of the MIX-SOL-THERM-003 ICSBEP Benchmark

The International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) was started in 1992 by the United States Department of Energy and later in 1995 became an international project with contributions from 22 countries. The project is now organized by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). In its most recent iteration, the ICSBEP handbook contains over five thousand evaluations of critical, near-critical, and subcritical experiments conducted in facilities all around the world. These benchmarks serve as valuable information for criticality safety engineers who can use them to validate calculation techniques and establish minimum subcritical margins for operations with fissionable materials. The benchmarks in the handbook are categorized by their fissile material composition, material form (oxide, solution, or metal), and fission energy spectra. This is especially useful for those looking for benchmarks similar to a system they are working on to compare methods and identify trends. The ICSBEP Handbook Uncertainty Guide is document outlining recommended practices and methods for determining uncertainties in these benchmarks. Quantifying these uncertainties thoroughly is crucial as it allows a higher degree of confidence that data used from them is valid and relevant. The guide stresses the importance of a thorough and well documented uncertainty analysis when evaluating an experiment. All measured values of a system, whether they be dimensions or material compositions, have a certain amount of uncertainty associated with them and can be analyzed one by one to determine their effects on the system. Many evaluated benchmarks in the handbook present this in detail, however some do not, mostly earlier evaluations performed in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. Recently at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division (NCSD) of LANL has been validating MCNP6.2 ® input files of criticality benchmarks for use by Whisper, a criticality safety code developed at LANL. This effort is also part of the OECD NEA Working Party on International Nuclear Data Evaluation Co-operation (WPEC) Subgroup 45, also known as Validation of Nuclear Data Libraries (VaNDaL). The goal of VaNDaL is to compile a set of validated simulation inputs for use in validating nuclear data and simulation codes. As part of these efforts, one of the benchmarks reviewed was the MIX SOL-THERM-003 ICSBEP benchmark. This paper provides an independent uncertainty analysis of this benchmark experiment.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Polymer Compositions in Critical Experiments: Possibly Not What You Think

The Chlorine Worth Study (CWS) Experiment was performed at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC) in December 2021. Its goal was to provide a validation benchmark experiment with chlorine and plutonium in the thermal neutron spectrum. This purpose is necessary to reduce the margin of subcriticality in aqueous chloride operations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Plutonium Facility (PF-4). Reducing the margin of subcriticality will enable higher throughput, required to meet NNSA mission needs. The experiment used layers of plutonium plates, polyethylene (HDPE), aluminum, and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). They were optimized to match plutonium-chloride solutions of 30 g/L, 300 g/L, and 600 g/L. Upon completion of the experiment, a International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Program (ICSBEP) report was immediately started. The compositions of all materials were assumed pure unless additional information was known (such as for the plutonium plates). During the benchmark analysis, the assumed CPVC composition was questioned. The follow-on work led to lessons learned on compositions in benchmarks. Materials, and specifically polymers, are often much more complex than a basic chemical formula. The CWS experiment is used as an example in this paper to document the lessons learned.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

S/U Comparison Study with a Focus on USLs

Under a DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) task involving Analytical Methods, three Laboratories collaborated in a comparison of results obtained from Sensitivity/Uncertainty (S/U) packages relevant to validation of transport codes. The task involves Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) comparing results of MORET 5/MACSENS V3.0, MCNP6.2/Whisper-1.1, and SCALE 6.2.3/TSUNAMI/USLSTATS respectively. All Monte Carlo transport code results utilize ENDF/B-VII.1. Four cases from the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook) were selected as application models: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOL-THERM 001-008, PU-MET-FAST-022-001, and PU-SOL-THERM 001-001. Ultimately, comparison is made between Upper Subcritical Limits (USLs) obtained using each code package for each application case. Since differences exist in whether packages take into account margin of subcriticality (MOS), the USL may be computed using bias and bias uncertainty, also known as the calculational margin (CM) in ANSI/ANS 8.24. Application of portions of MOS to the USL for nuclear data uncertainty of and potential code margin is referred to as USL herein. In either case, additional MOS is considered for actual application cases.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison Study of Upper Subcritical Limits Derived Using Sensitivity/Uncertainty Tools: Case Studies of U233-SOL-THERM-001-001, MIX-COMP-THERM-001-001, IEU-MET-FAST-002-001, LEU-COMP-THERM-001-001, LEU-SOL-THERM-004-001

Neutron transport methods used to establish subcriticality require validation by comparison to critical experiments considered to be benchmarks. Whisper is a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis tool developed to assist with the task of validation in nuclear criticality safety. Details on the Whisper methodology can be found in References 1-3 on the MCNP® reference collection website at https://mcnp.lanl.gov. Whisper-1.0 was originally developed in 2014 and used to assist with nuclear criticality safety validation at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Whisper was upgraded in 2016 to Whisper-1.1 and prepared for release with MCNP6.2 [References 3-5]. Whisper contains a library of over 1100 critical experiment benchmarks and quantifies neutronic similarity of an application to benchmarks in the library. Using highest similarity benchmarks, Whisper computes a calculational margin (CM) encompassing of the worst-case bias and bias uncertainty at a 99% confidence level for each application. In addition, portions of the margin of subcriticality (MOS) for nuclear data uncertainty and potential code errors are computed. The baseline upper subcritical limit (USL) computed by Whisper is comprised of the CM, MOS nuclear data , and MOS code errors . The Whisper baseline USL is absent a portion of the MOS due to the area of application, which is applied based upon judgment by the criticality safety analyst. An objective of this paper is to present the baseline USL, CM and portions of the MOS as computed by Whisper for comparison with similar sensitivity/uncertainty tools, such as those used by IRSN and ORNL. An initial comparison involved four critical experiment benchmarks: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOLTHERM-001-008, PU-MET-FAST-022-001, AND PU-SOL-THERM-001-001, which have been documented in References 10-13. This study extends the comparison to include cases U233-SOL-THERM-001-001, MIX-COMP-THERM-001-001, IEU-MET-FAST-002-001, LEU-COMP-THERM-001-001, LEU-SOL-THERM- 004-001.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sensitivity/Uncertainty Comparison Study Involving IRSN, LANL, and ORNL Tools to Support Validation

Under a DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) task involving Analytical Methods, three Laboratories collaborated in a comparison of results obtained from Sensitivity/Uncertainty (S/U) packages relevant to validation of transport codes. The task involves Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) comparing results of MORET 5/MACSENS V3.0, MCNP6.2/Whisper-1.1, and SCALE 6.2.3/TSUNAMI/USLSTATS respectively. All Monte Carlo transport code results utilize nuclear data from ENDF/B-VII.1 evaluation. This study examines five cases from the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook) selected as application models: IEU-MET- FAST-002-001, LEU-COMP-THERM-001-001, LEU-SOL-THERM-004-001, MIX-COMP- THERM-001-001, and U233-SOL-THERM-001-001. This is a continuation of a previous study to examine Pu and HEU cases: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOL-THERM-001-008, PU-MET- FAST-022-001, and PU-SOL-THERM-001-001. Ultimately, comparison is made between Upper Subcritical Limits (USLs) obtained using each code package for each application case. Since differences exist in whether packages take into account margin of subcriticality (MOS), the USL is computed using only bias and bias uncertainty, also known as the calculational margin (CM) in ANSI/ANS-8.24. Results comparison appears to show that benchmark selection has a greater influence on the USL than the method used for calculation of bias and bias uncertainty.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Microreactor Assembly Transportation Cask Model Description for Criticality Safety Validation Basis Assessment

Criticality safety analyses are completed on a transportation cask used for microreactor assembly shipment to provide an example of model and analysis to industry for reproducing this type of study on their microreactor fuel shipment. The fuel assembly considered is based on a gas-cooled microreactor (GC-MR), which utilizes HALEU fuel in the form of TRISO particles and utilizes various design options considered in industry designs. Various versions of this GC-MR assembly were studied, with and without YH2 moderator, providing similar conclusions. The shipment cask design is revised based on an existing design ES-3100, developed by Y-12 for the transport of highly enriched uranium (HEU), but is enlarged to hold the GC-MR fuel assembly. Criticality safety analysis for the cask/GC-MR fuel assembly package was performed using the CSAS6 sequence of SCALE6.3.2, utilizing the ENDF/B-VII.1 based continuous energy neutron library, and the analysis strictly follows the guideline from NRC reference reports. Different scenarios, e.g. normal operation, undamaged cask with water flooded, damaged cask with optimal water moderation, have been analyzed and it could be concluded the package would always have a large margin of subcriticality even packed in an infinite array. Sensitivity and similarity analyses are also performed using the TSUNAMI sequence of SCALE6.3.2, and the similarity analysis uses all the experiments from the ICSBEP Handbook with Intermediate and Mixed Enriched Uranium (IEU) and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) systems together with additional ones that are sponsored by the DNCSH program. These similarity analyses indicate that dry cases have no similar benchmark experiments (ck values greater than 0.8), which may become problematic if more assemblies are shipped together (or a fully loaded core is shipped) and margin to criticality is reduced. However, the damaged cask models with flooded assemblies exhibited similarities to many experiments with ck values greater than 0.8.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Microreactor Assembly Transportation Cask Model Description for Criticality Safety Validation Basis Assessment (Rev. 3)

Criticality safety analyses are completed on a transportation cask used for microreactor assembly shipment to provide an example of model and analysis to industry for reproducing this type of study on their microreactor fuel shipment. The fuel assembly considered is based on a gas-cooled microreactor (GC-MR), which utilizes HALEU fuel in the form of TRISO particles and utilizes various design options considered in industry designs. Various versions of this GC-MR assembly were studied, with and without YH 2 moderator, providing similar conclusions. The shipment cask design is revised based on an existing ES-3100 design, developed by Y-12 for the transport of highly enriched uranium (HEU), but is enlarged to hold the GC-MR fuel assembly. Criticality safety analysis for the cask/GC-MR fuel assembly package was performed using the CSAS6 sequence of SCALE6.3.2, utilizing the ENDF/B-VII.1 based continuous energy neutron library, and the analysis strictly follows the guideline from NRC reference reports. Different scenarios, e.g. normal operation, undamaged cask with water flooded, damaged cask with optimal water moderation, have been analyzed and it could be concluded the package would always have a large margin of subcriticality even packed in an infinite array. Sensitivity and similarity analyses are also performed using the TSUNAMI sequence of SCALE6.3.2, and the similarity analysis uses all the experiments from the ICSBEP Handbook with Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), Intermediate and Mixed Enriched Uranium (IEU) and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) systems, together with additional ones that are sponsored by the DNCSH program, and selected IRPhEP experiments using TRISO fuel and graphite moderator. These similarity analyses indicate that the dry nominal design has no similar benchmark experiments (ck values greater than 0.8), which may become problematic if more assemblies are shipped together (or a fully loaded core is shipped) and margin to criticality is reduced. However, the cask models with flooded assemblies exhibited similarities to many experiments with c k values greater than 0.8.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comparison Study of Upper Subcritical Limits Derived Using Sensitivity/Uncertainty Tools Case Studies of Benchmarks and Applications

Neutron transport methods used to establish subcriticality require validation by comparison to critical experiments considered to be benchmarks. Whisper is a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis tool developed to assist with the task of validation in nuclear criticality safety. Details on the Whisper methodology can be found in References 1-3 on the MCNP ® reference collection website at https://mcnp.lanl.gov. Whisper-1.0 was originally developed in 2014 and used to assist with nuclear criticality safety validation at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Whisper was upgraded in 2016 to Whisper-1.1 and prepared for release with MCNP6.2. Whisper contains a library of over 1100 critical experiment benchmarks and quantifies neutronic similarity of an application to benchmarks in the library. Using highest similarity benchmarks, Whisper computes a calculational margin (CM) encompassing of the worst-case bias and bias uncertainty at a 99% confidence level for each application. In addition, portions of the margin of subcriticality (MOS) for nuclear data uncertainty and potential code errors are computed. The baseline upper subcritical limit (USL) computed by Whisper is comprised of the CM, MOS nuclear data , and MOS code errors . The Whisper baseline USL is absent a portion of the MOS due to the area of application, which is applied based upon judgment by the criticality safety analyst. An objective of this paper is to present the baseline USL, CM and portions of the MOS as computed by Whisper for comparison with similar sensitivity/uncertainty tools, such as those used by IRSN and ORNL. The initial comparison involves four critical experiment benchmarks: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOLTHERM-001-008, PU-MET-FAST-022-001, AND PU-SOL-THERM-001-001, which have been: 1. modeled independently by LANL, IRSN, and ORNL based upon information provided in the ICSBEP Handbook, 2. are common in S/U libraries for LANL, IRSN, and ORNL, 3. span a range of energy spectrum and fissile material, and 4. taken as applications for the purposes of this study and therefore excluded from use as a benchmark for calculating the upper subcritical limit. Results presented in this paper have been computed using covariance data for all isotopes in ENDF/BVII.0 using a 44-group energy structure. Benchmarks in the Whisper library were run in MCNP6.2 using 100,000 neutrons per cycle, skipping 100 cycles for 500 active cycles. Reference 10 also compares the results for baseline USL with an order of magnitude greater neutrons, using the same total number of cycles with 1,000,000 neutrons per cycle. Subsequent to the results presented in Reference 10 changes were made to the benchmark library, as discussed in Reference 11. Newer results using the revised benchmark library are presented herein.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Chlorine Validation through Critical Integral Experiments

An increased interest in the validation of chlorine nuclear data, specifically 35Cl, in recent years has led to the prioritization of conducting chlorine critical experiments for nuclear data validation and criticality safety evaluations. A previous experiment was conducted with PVC and CPVC (chlorinated polyvinyl chloride) to reduce the margin of subcriticality for PF-4 operations with aqueous plutonium chloride solutions. Challenges in determining the composition of specific polymers, namely the CPVC, made it difficult to characterize, and therefore benchmark. Additional materials that were utilizable for chlorine validation were not immediately clear, as form, strength, purity, and composition are all important. A series of possible absorber materials were identified and studied, but ultimately granular sodium chloride was chosen. In addition to the needs of LANL’s PF-4 other industry collaborators have brought attention to the need for chlorine validation. Specifically, the need for HEU electrorefining with LiCl salts at Y-12 was taken into consideration for this experiment, with the experimental configurations being finely tuned to best meet their needs. Needs for validation were also presented by Idaho National Lab (INL) and TerraPower for validation of their Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment (MCRE) and Molten Chloride Fast Reactor (MCFR) and have also been considered.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Demand Response in Bangalore: Implications for Electricity System Operations

Recent Greening the Grid studies for India highlight the benefits of flexible resources for integrating variable renewable energy onto India’s electricity system. India’s ambitious renewable energy targets, which are particularly focused on renewable resource states such as Karnataka, will face fewer challenges when combined with new planning and operational strategies and technologies. This report explores one such strategy - demand response - by which the system operator shifts load throughout a day to minimize system wide production costs. To explore this strategy, we added demand response resources to Karnataka’s electricity system in a production cost model of India, using load shifting potential analyzed by Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. We then investigated the impacts of increasing demand response capacity under several renewable resource scenarios. Our results show the addition of demand response enables fuel shifting from high-marginal-cost and emissions-intensive subcritical coal and diesel generation to zero-marginal-cost and emissions-free renewable generation. Accordingly, the value that demand response provides to the system increases as the renewable penetration increases. In addition to reducing production costs and emissions, demand response reduces the time that thermal generators spend at their minimum output levels, which typically represents a less efficient and costlier operational state. Agricultural load shifting provides greater value to the system than residential, commercial, or industrial loads. Agricultural demand response is more flexible than other sectors because it is not exposed to subdaily operational constraints and it can operate for more hours per day without impacting customer satisfaction. Further, the first increment of demand response that is added to a system provides the greatest value; further additions provide additional benefits but have a decreasing impact. The insights we discuss could be leveraged by system planners and operators in other jurisdictions, particularly those facing significant renewable energy penetrations, to develop their own demand response programs.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗