The Takahama-3 Benchmark: Validating DRAGON for
Nonproliferation and Neutrino OscillationsChristopher JonesAAP 2011, Wien
September 16, 2011
2
Ndetν (E, t) = Nemit
ν (E, t) · dσ
dΩ· dΩ · Nprotons · det
From a simulation code (e.g., DRAGON)
The Role of Reactor Simulations In Antineutrino Technology
3
arXiv:1003.1391v1arXiv:hep-ex/0701029v1 arXiv:hep-ex/0606025v4
Nuclear engineers want codes to assure stable running and criticality
and provide safety margins.
Neutrino physicists want codes to predict an antineutrino flux and assign it
a systematic uncertainty, even if they have a near-far design.
Nonproliferation through reactor monitoring also benefits
from this effort.
4
• Deterministic lattice code that calculates neutron flux in an assembly of heterogeneous cells
• Solves Bateman equations for burnup
• Using customized version to extract fission rates
Fuel Cell
http://www.polymtl.ca/nucleaire/DRAGON/en/index.php
DRAGON Basics
G. Marleau, R. Roy and A. Hébert, DRAGON: A Collision Probability Transport Code for Cell and Supercell Calculations, Report IGE-157, Institut de génie nucléaire, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Québec (1994)
5
Why are we excited about DRAGON?
1) It is a multiplatform open-source code.You can download it today!
2) It is fast, allowing quick calculations of systematic errors.
It is an order of magnitude faster than MCNP-based code.
But is it accurate enough?
http://www.polymtl.ca/nucleaire/DRAGON/en/index.php
(On a 2.8 GHz processor, the simulation ran in 27.5 hr)
Days100 200 300 400 500
]-1
Antin
eutri
no R
ate
[day
s
310
320
330
340
350
360SONGS Data vs. Simulation
DRAGON Systematic ErrorSONGS Data
6
-Assume 2% uncertainty on thermal power (red band); only Cycle 12 prediction shown here for clarity
DRAGON Prediction for SONGS Cycle 12
Suppressed zero!
Time dependence agrees well!
Cycle 12
Cycle 13
7
How can we be sure that our absolute predictions with DRAGON are correct?
SONGS gave us some confidence that we can get time-dependent behavior correct.
days
Rate
0.0e+00
2.0e+14
4.0e+14
6.0e+14
8.0e+14
1.0e+15
1.2e+15
1.4e+15
500 1000 1500
Isotope
P239
P241
U235
U238
8
• The Takahama-3 reactor is a reactor in Japan.
• They removed 3 fuel rods for a destructive assay from 2 of the assemblies.
• The results are publicly available!
• We (and many others) can compare our simulations to what they found!
• This is a very valuable method that allows us to assign systematic errors in
DRAGON’s fission rate and mass inventory predictions.
What Is the Takahama Benchmark?
Destructive Assay of Fuel Rods
After the reactor was shut down, the fuel rods in the benchmark underwent a chemical analysis.
From each rod, the fuel amounts along the axis were extracted at several points. Shown here is rod SF97.
Destructive Assay of Fuel Rods
After the reactor was shut down, the fuel rods in the benchmark underwent a chemical analysis.
From each rod, the fuel amounts along the axis were extracted at several points. Shown here is rod SF97.
11
Takahama-3 Reactor Assembly Details
guide tube filled with borated water
2.63% enriched Gd-U burnable absorber rod
4.11% enriched fuel rod
17 x 17 PWR264 fuel rods per assembly157 assemblies in the core
~3.648 m in height
2.652 GWth
~460 kg U per assembly
~95% theoretical fuel density
12
Takahama-3 Assembly NT3G24: Rod SF97
13
Takahama-3 Assembly NT3G24: Rod SF97
14
Irradiation Times
The reactor was evolved for 1343 days.This corresponds to 3 fuel cycles.
15
We see good agreement compared to other codes!
MURE and DRAGON are the codes to be used in the Double Chooz reactor simulations.
Sample0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ratio
Sim
ulat
ion
to M
easu
rmen
t
0.8
1
1.2
1.4U235
MUREHELIOSMONTEBURNSSCALEORIGENDRAGON
Sample0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ratio
Sim
ulat
ion
to M
easu
rmen
t
0.8
1
1.2
1.4Pu239
MUREHELIOSMONTEBURNSSCALEORIGENDRAGON
Sample0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ratio
Sim
ulat
ion
to M
easu
rmen
t
0.8
1
1.2
1.4Pu241
MUREHELIOSMONTEBURNSSCALEORIGENDRAGON
16
Systematic Variations Along SF97
Position from Top of Rod [mm]0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Rat
io S
imul
atio
n to
Mea
sure
men
t
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3U235
Power Variation 3%Density Variation 1.5%Temperature Variation 30KBoron Variation 10%JENDL
Position from Top of Rod [mm]0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Rat
io S
imul
atio
n to
Mea
sure
men
t
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3Pu239
Power Variation 3%Density Variation 1.5%Temperature Variation 30KBoron Variation 10%JENDL
Position from Top of Rod [mm]0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Rat
io S
imul
atio
n to
Mea
sure
men
t
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3Pu241
Power Variation 3%Density Variation 1.5%Temperature Variation 30KBoron Variation 10%JENDL
17
We used ENDF/B-VI. Are our results sensitive to choice of cross section library?
Position from Top of Rod [mm]0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Rat
io S
imul
atio
n to
Mea
sure
men
t
0.9
1
1.1
1.2U235
Nominal - ENDF
JENDL
Position from Top of Rod [mm]0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Rat
io S
imul
atio
n to
Mea
sure
men
t
0.9
1
1.1
1.2Pu239
Nominal - ENDF
JENDL
Position from Top of Rod [mm]0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Rat
io S
imul
atio
n to
Mea
sure
men
t
0.9
1
1.1
1.2Pu241
Nominal - ENDF
JENDL
18
How will the variations affect our fission rate predictions?
Irradiation Time [days]0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
per
s13
10
!In
stan
tane
ous N
umbe
r of F
issi
ons
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
U235
Irradiation Time [days]0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
per
s13
10
!In
stan
tane
ous N
umbe
r of F
issi
ons
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Pu239
Irradiation Time [days]0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
per
s13
10
!In
stan
tane
ous N
umbe
r of F
issi
ons
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Pu241
These results are specific to Takahama.You can get DRAGON from us to run your simulation!
+3% power variation
-3% power variationcentral values
Conclusions• DRAGON is fast, free, and accurate. It
performs as well as industry standards. The code will be available soon!
• Physicists can modify DRAGON to serve the reactor neutrino industry.
• Given accurate inputs, DRAGON can offer reliable predictions for fission rates for use in neutrino oscillation experiments and nonproliferation efforts.
Thanks...
• to Janet Conrad and Lindley Winslow at MIT,
• to Adam Bernstein and the LLNL ADG,
• to Muriel Fallot and the MURE team at Subatech,
• to Thierry Laserre and the AAP 2011 conveners.