Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Adjustment of nuclear data libraries using integral
benchmarks Henrik Sjöstrand1,UU , Petter HelgessonUU ,
Erwin AlhassanUU
UUUppsala University, Department of Physics and Astronomy
1
Uncertainty reduction using benchmarks
• Idea of using benchmarks for TENDL calibration is not new. – Petten method for
best estimates • Here:
– Multiple correlated benchmarks
– Multiple isotopes within one benchmark
CW 2017
2
Cases available Benchmarks from ICSBEP Handbook were used in this work. • Method 1: Pu-Met-Fast
– Re-evaluation of previously obtained data. (TENDL2012)
• Method 2: IEU-Met-Fast and HEU-Met-Fast – Curtesy of Steven Van
Der Marck – TENDL2014
Benchmark example – 239Pu Jezebel. Picture taking from the ICSBEP Handbook
3
Uncertainty reduction
Prior keff distribution
Simulations: MCNP
Validation with a set of benchmarks
Posterior
Physical models parameters: TALYS based system (T6)
1st level of constraint: Differential data
A large set of acceptable ND libraries
2nd level of constraint: Integral benchmarks
Assign weights to random files
Weighted random files
Simulations: mcnp etc.
Applications: Criticality, burnup, Fuel cycle etc.
Random nuclear data from the 1st step is used as the prior for the 2nd step.
2
2i
iw eχ
−=
4
The posterior is constrained by both the differential and integral data
5
Benchmark consists of multiple isotopes contributing to ND uncertainty
I.e., a deviation between C and E can be due to any of these isotopes.
6
Important to also include the calculation uncertainty
22 ,, 2
,
2 2 2 2,,
overall pwher
2 2,
e
2
p j
( ), , ,B i B
i jB B j
B statE Ej ND p otherC j
C Ei randomfile j isotope B benchmarkχ
σ
σ σ σσ σ σ σ≠
−= = = =
= + = + + +∑
∑
Method 1: Use benchmarks to calibrate the ND for a specific isotope (here Pu239). Varying a single isotope at a time (here Pu239,240,241).
7
Important to also include the calculation uncertainty
• Main idea: if the calculation deviates from the benchmark value it can be due to σE, σstat, an error in the isotope that we are calibrating, any of the other isotopes in the benchmark, or other errors not accounted for.
• Note: the σE in, e.g., ICSBEP, includes both the actual experimental uncertainty, but also uncertainties in transferring the experiment to a benchmark (e.g., densities).
8
22 ,, 2
,
2 2 2 2,,
overall pwher
2 2,
e
2
p j
( ), , ,B i B
i jB B j
B statE Ej ND p otherC j
C Ei randomfile j isotope B benchmarkχ
σ
σ σ σσ σ σ σ≠
−= = = =
= + = + + +∑
∑
Benchmark exp. errors are correlated
Database for the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (DICE), https://www.oecd-nea.org/science/wpncs/icsbep/dice.html
9
Working with covariances How can COVE be determined? 1. Careful analysis of the
experiments. 2. Using DICE. 3. Here: guessing,
checking sensitivity of results, and try to be conservative.
COVC is also strongly correlated
( ) ( ),
,
2 1
,
B j
B j
Ti
E C j
C E COV C E
COV COV COV
χ −= − −
= +
,,overall pwhere p j
stat ND pC jCOV COV COV≠
= + + ∑10
Before and after calibration
Calibration Validation
TENDL2012 250 randomfiles
11
Comment on results • Decreased ND uncertainty
to more ‘realistic values’. • Small improvement of the
best-estimates. – Strong correlations
• The inclusion of COVC and ρexp=0.5 affects the ND uncertainty but not the mean values. – If COVC is included the
results are quite insensitive to the value of ρexp.
12
Method 2 • All isotopes of interest are
varied simultaneously • Intrinsically the
uncertainty of the different isotopes are taking into account simultaneously
• Investigated for U8 and U5.
( ) ( )
2
,
,
2
2 1
i
B j
B j stat
iT
i
E
w e
C E COV C E
COV COV COV
χ
χ
−
−
=
= − −
= + 13
Importance of benchmark exp. correlation
14
Importance of benchmark exp. correlation 2
15
Before and after calibration
Calibration Validation
ρexp=0.6 1000 TENDL2014 files
16
Difficult to fit the experimental data?
• Wrong model parameter distribution? • Model defects?
– Solution Gaussian Processes? • To small experimental uncertainties or wrong
experimental covariance matrix.
17
Adding 80 pcm experimental uncertainty to hmf1 and imf7_4
Calibration Validation
TENDL2014 1000 randomfiles
18
Method 1 vs. Method 2 Method 2 -hypothesis • Better calibration of the best
estimate- due to higher degree of freedom
• Smaller posterior ND uncertainty – negative correlations between isotopes.
• Higher cost in terms of random files needed. I.e., the method produce lower average weights.
Proposal • Use Method 1 for the
complete models to determine the uncertainty for minor isotopes (e.g. 234U) and Method 2 for the major isotopes (235, 238U).
Limitation of this work • To few effective randomfiles • ENDF/B-VII.0 used as
background library
19
How is the uncertainty reduced? • Using integral data introduce
correlations: between isotopes and between different parts of the ND file.
• Difficult to improve nuclear physics
• Improve understanding of reactor behavior.
D. Rochman et al., EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 3, 14 (2017)
20
Conclusion Methods for the inclusion of integral experiments for nuclear data calibration and uncertainty reduction within the TMC method were presented. It was stressed that calculation uncertainties should be included.
– The correlation between the benchmarks are important
– Important to take into account the multiple isotopes within the benchmarks
,over
2
all pwhere
2
p j
2stat NDC jσ σ σ
≠
= + ∑21
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
22
Acknowledgment • Figures for slide 18 where provided with curtsey from
Dimitri Rochman
23
References 1. Alhassan, E., et al. On the use of integral experiments
for uncertainty reduction of reactor macroscopic parameters within the TMC methodology, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 88, pp. 43-52. (2016)
2. D. Rochman, et al. Nuclear data correlation between different isotopes via integral information , submitted to EPJ/N, Sept. 2017
3. D. Rochman et al., EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 3, 14 (2017)
24