Nuclear data uncertainty quantification analysis at Studsvik Scandpower

被引:0
|
作者
Hykes, J. [1 ]
Simeonov, T. [1 ]
Ferrer, R. [1 ]
Jonsson, C. [2 ]
Wemple, C. [1 ]
Eronen, V. -p. [5 ]
Ranta, T. [3 ]
Ranta-aho, A. [4 ]
Hynonen, V. [4 ]
Kumpula, J. [4 ]
Huttunen, J. [5 ]
机构
[1] Studsvik Scandpower Inc, 1070 Riverwalk Dr, Idaho Falls, ID 83402 USA
[2] Studsvik Scandpower AB, Badhusgatan 12, SE-72215 Vasteras, Sweden
[3] Univ Turku, Dept Math & Stat, FI-20014 Turku, Finland
[4] Teollisuuden Voima Oyj, Mikonkatu 7, FI-00100 Helsinki, Finland
[5] Posiva Oy, FI-27160 Eurajoki, Finland
关键词
CASMO5; HELIOS2; SNF; Uncertainty quantification; Uncertainty propagation; Covariance; Clab;
D O I
10.1016/j.anucene.2024.110752
中图分类号
TL [原子能技术]; O571 [原子核物理学];
学科分类号
0827 ; 082701 ;
摘要
Studsvik Scandpower has recently added nuclear data uncertainty quantification to several of its tools, with the hope to provide user-friendly access to these methods to existing users of HELIOS2, CASMO5, and SNF. The lattice physics codes HELIOS2 and CASMO5 have been extended to perform the propagation of nuclear data cross section uncertainty using statistical sampling. HELIOS2 utilizes existing uncertainty data based on the SCALE/XSUSA 44-group covariance library. In contrast, for CASMO5, Studsvik generated a custom covariance library based primarily on ENDF/B-VIII using the cross section processing code NJOY/ERRORR. This paper presents the methods for constructing and applying these perturbations. The perturbations applied to the cross sections have been verified by comparing HELIOS2 and CASMO5 uncertainties using identical perturbation vectors. Furthermore, the UAM-1 benchmarks were applied for the BWR, PWR, and VVER pincells; in these cases, significant differences were observed due to the different covariance libraries. The uncertainties from HELIOS2 and CASMO5 are passed to SNF, which uses the isotopic uncertainties for the burned fuel to compute uncertainties on various backend quantities, such as decay heat and activity. The SNF UQ features are applied to the Clab decay heat measurements, where the predicted uncertainty of 1.8 % was close to the measurement-to-computed error with bias of 0.72 % and standard deviation of 1.49 %. Finally, the effect of the decay heat uncertainty is shown for a disposal canister loading scenario for more than 8000 BWR fuel assemblies from Olkiluoto 1 and 2. The decay heat uncertainty imposes a similar to 1 % decay heat power safety margin in the loading of the disposal canister.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Editorial: Uncertainty quantification in nuclear physics
    Piarulli, Maria
    Epelbaum, Evgeny
    Forssen, Christian
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PHYSICS, 2023, 11
  • [22] Sensitivity Analysis, Uncertainty Quantification and Predictive Modeling of Nuclear Energy Systems
    Cacuci, Dan Gabriel
    [J]. ENERGIES, 2022, 15 (17)
  • [23] Uncertainty quantification and propagation analysis of structures based on measurement data
    Wang, Xiaojun
    Wang, Lei
    [J]. MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER MODELLING, 2011, 54 (11-12) : 2725 - 2735
  • [24] Automated uncertainty quantification analysis using a system model and data
    Nannapaneni, Saideep
    Mahadevan, Sankaran
    Lechevalier, David
    Narayanan, Anantha
    Rachuri, Sudarsan
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS 2015 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BIG DATA, 2015, : 1408 - 1417
  • [25] STUDSVIK - SWEDISH NUCLEAR R AND D CENTRE
    MARGEN, PH
    [J]. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL, 1970, 15 (172): : 705 - &
  • [26] Uncertainty quantification of fuel pebble model and its effect on the uncertainty propagation of nuclear data in pebble bed HTR
    Cheng, Youying
    Hao, Chen
    Li, Fu
    [J]. ANNALS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, 2020, 139
  • [27] Optimal uncertainty quantification with model uncertainty and legacy data
    Kamga, P. -H. T.
    Li, B.
    McKerns, M.
    Nguyen, L. H.
    Ortiz, M.
    Owhadi, H.
    Sullivan, T. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE MECHANICS AND PHYSICS OF SOLIDS, 2014, 72 : 1 - 19
  • [28] Uncertainty quantification and falsification of chiral nuclear potentials
    Perez, R. Navarro
    Ruiz Arriola, E.
    [J]. EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL A, 2020, 56 (03):
  • [29] A recipe for EFT uncertainty quantification in nuclear physics
    Furnstahl, R. J.
    Phillips, D. R.
    Wesolowski, S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PHYSICS G-NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE PHYSICS, 2015, 42 (03)
  • [30] Uncertainty quantification for nonlinear seismic analysis of cabinet facility in nuclear power plants
    Thanh-Tuan Tran
    Kim, Dookie
    [J]. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, 2019, 355