WPEC Sub group 34 Coordinated evaluation of 239 Pu in the resonance region

Transcription

1 WPEC Sub group 34 Coordinated evaluation of 239 Pu in the resonance region Coordinator C. De Saint Jean / Monitor R. D. McKnight Subgroup report Based on Contributions from ORNL/LANL and CEA Cadarache 2012, May 24-25, NEA Headquarters

2 History Sub-group proposition by McKnight/Dunn/Chadwick on June 2009 Justification : General discrepancies on Pu-SOL-THERMAL assemblies and Pu-INTER assemblies JEFF thermal part New Derrien/Leal ENDF resonance files : With covariances Using new microscopic data sets Goal obtain an improved 239 Pu resonance evaluation : including covariances consistent with our fundamental cross section data, leading to improvements in calculations of integral data

3 Work Strategy Selected Illustrative ICSBEP Benchmarks ICSBEP PFNS Nu Resonance Parameters Intermediate ENDF File ENDF File Covariances Microscopic Exp. Gwin,Harvey, Wagemans, Weston, Bollinger EOLE MINERVE Other Isotopes Impacted 241 Am, 240 Pu

4 Work Strategy For Resonance Parameters Use the SAMMY code to perform resonance analysis with the best selected set of experimental time-of-flight data + adding integral quantities of interest : f f and ( k ) a K1~ f a Additional CONRAD analysis (Covariances) Generate cross-section library a NJOY code for use in benchmark calculations with the MCNP code; GALILEE (NJOY+CALENDF) code for use in benchmark calculations with the TRIPOLI (point energy) and APOLLO (multigroup SHEM) codes; Test on selected set of experimental benchmarks Test on MISTRAL and FUBILA experiments (MOX fuel) performed at the EOLE facility

5 Eta: η

6 Eta: η (first negative resonance with very low n ) Improves Reactivity Temperature Coefficient Results (JEFF3.1.1)

7 Cross Section Fitting Wagemans (GEEL) Gwin (ORNL) Bollinger (ANL)

8 paradigm shift Thermal values and integral quantities calculated with SAMMY

9 Benchmark problem from ICSBEP Benchmar k Experimental Keff EALF(eV) Contents PST ± % 240 Pu PST ± % 240 Pu PST ± % 240 Pu PST ± % 240 Pu PST ± % 240 Pu PST ± % 240 Pu PST ± g Pu/L, 1.42g Gd/L PST ± g Pu/L, 20.25g Gd/L EALF: Average Neutron Lethargy Causing Fission

10 CEA Benchmark Results PST001.4 PST004.1 EALF = ev EALF = ev 5 % Pu % Pu-240 MH1.2 (EOLE, Cadarache) PWR-MOx miwed core 4 years BASALA-Hot (EOLE, Cadarache) BWR-MOx BWR-MOx 12 years 13 years MISTRAL-2 (EOLE, Cadarache) PWR-MOx 8 years MISTRAL-3 (EOLE, Cadarache) PWR-MOx 9 years MISTRAL-4 (EOLE, Cadarache) FUBILA-Hot (EOLE, Cadarache) ERASME (EOLE, Cadarache) MOx-REF MOx-AIC MOx-Hf MOx-B4C BWR-REF (EPICURE) BWR-NORM (EPICURE) BWR-70% Void (EPICURE) BWR-1010 (EPICURE) BWR-UGD (EPICURE) ERASME/R, HCPWR ERASME/S 10 years 10 years 10 years 10 years 1 years (16-17 years) 1 years (16-17 years) 1 years (16-17 years) 1 years (16-17 years) 1 years (16-17 years) OSMOSE (MINERVE, Cadarache) Oscillation measurements (R1U02 and R1MOX lattices ) Post Irradiated Experiments (PIE) GRAVELINE (ALIX-HTC), GUNDREMMINGEN, DAMPIERRE,

11 ICSBEP Benchmark Results (everything else from BVII.1) paradigm shift

12 Additional Benchmark Results With new Pu-239 ORNL/CEA collaboration (V11.7a) ENDF\B-VII JEFF CEA2005V4 Codes MCNP T4 AP2 (Chabint) AP2 (GALILEE) PST001.4 PST004.1 ± 500 ± (19) (15) (15) (13) MH1.2 (PWR-MOx mixed core) BASALA-Hot (BWR-MOx) BASALA-Cold (BWR-MOx) MISTRAL-2 (PWR-MOx) MISTRAL-3 (PWR-MOx) keff at 20 C MISTRAL-4 (MOx-REF) MISTRAL-4 (MOx-AIC) MISTRAL-4 (MOx-Hf) MISTRAL-4 (MOx-B4C) FUBILA-Hot (BWR-REF) FUBILA-Hot (BWR-NORM) FUBILA-Hot (BWR-70% VOID) 270 (50) 615 (50) 692 (50) 351 (50) ~50 pcm ~132 pcm ~ 113 pcm ~ 70 pcm With new Am-241 IRMM/CEA FUBILA-Hot (BWR-1010) FUBILA-Hot (BWR-UGD) MISTRAL-3 (PWR-MOx) RTC C ± ± 0.3 OSMOSE (R1U02 Lattice) OSMOSE (R1MOX Lattice) ± 2.8 ± Pu240, Pu241

13 Investigation of the two-step (n,f) process Neutron multiplicity evaluation p takes into account. 2 openened fission channels for J =0 + f1 (0) and f2 (0) f (0 + ). 1 openened fission channels for J =1 + f (1 + ). J-dependent width for the (n,f) reaction f (0 + ) and f (1 + ) Phenomenological description ) ( ) ( 4 1 E P E i i i p Where ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( E E E E P f f fi i

14 Investigation of the two-step (n,f) process For J =1 +, the smallest resonances are due to the (n,f) process Problem!!!. in the evaluated file they are considered as simple (n,f) reaction. possible overestimation of the radiative capture Cf. production of Pu-240

15 Investigation of the two-step (n,f) process

16 PFNS Study principle 6 evaluation files tested Tested evaluation files JEFF BRC-09 ENDFB-7.0 JENDL-4.0 MASLOV(*) KORNILOV LosAlamos Madland Nix Model Some differences in the data taken into account but the model is the same More fission neutrons in lower energies range for Maslov and Kornilov May 21st, 2012 Study principle (first analysis) JEFF as a reference evaluation PFNS from other files introduced in JEFF3.1.1 file for 239 Pu k eff comparison with TRIPOLI-4 Monte Carlo code (Advantage : TRIPOLI-4 reads the evaluation file as it is, without processing for PFNS Just replace MF=5 MT=18) MASLOV(*) : personal communication WPEC SG34

17 Consistent data for JEFF, ENDFB, JENDL PFNS Study : Spectra characterization E max n E ( E) de n E min Energie incidente (MeV) BRC2009 ENDFB7 JEFF311 JENDL4 MASLOV KORLINOV 1,00E-11 2,113 2,112 2,112 2,116 2,092 2,055 2,53E-08 2,092 0,0005 2,113 0,001 2,113 0,01 2,113 0,05 2,093 0,1 2,116 2,115 2,122 0,2 2,124 0,5 2,126 2,125 2,126 2,107 2,070 0,75 2, ,139 2,138 2,140 2,140 2,122 2,084 1,25 2,146 1,5 2,152 2,150 2,137 2,100 1,75 2, ,165 2,163 2,168 2,165 2,152 2,115 2,25 2,172 2,5 2,179 2,175 2,167 2,130 2,75 2,185 2,9 2, ,192 2,188 2,195 2,183 2,146 3,5 2, ,219 2,212 2,222 2,212 2,175 4,5 2, ,236 2,236 2,226 2,237 2,242 2,205 5,5 2,230 2,187 2, ,199 2,177 2,201 2,120 2,251 2,233 6,5 2,178 2,086 2, ,164 2,133 2,173 2,082 2,185 2,262 7,5 2,162 2, ,168 2,130 2,173 2,101 2,215 2,262 WPEC SG34 Moments of order 1 (<E>) énergie incidente (MeV) BRC2009 ENDFB7 JEFF311 JENDL4 MASLOV KORLINOV -2,7% -2,4% 8,5 2,177 2, ,188 2,145 2,191 2,135 2,255 2,262 9,5 2, ,213 2,167 2,215 2,173 2,291 2,262 10,5 2, ,238 2,190 2,240 2,217 2,226 2,262 11,5 2, ,251 2,209 2,245 2,250 2,157 2,262 12,5 2, ,228 2,216 2,227 2,258 2,181 2,262 13,5 2, ,211 2,222 2,219 2,279 2,211 2,262 14,5 2,212 14,7 2, ,216 2,233 2,229 2,313 2,249 2,262 15,5 2, ,230 2,179 2,356 2,292 2,262 16,5 2, ,249 2,407 2,336 17,5 2, ,267 2,300 2,459 2,385 18,5 2, ,283 2,515 2,433 19,5 2, ,295 2,179 2,338 2,575 2,482 2, , ,311 2, , ,329 2, , ,353 2, , ,377 2, , ,396 2,481 Different meshes Maslov/Kornilov different from other evaluations

18 PFNS Study : PMF Series R. Capote list EALF (MeV) 1,28 1,28 0,083 1,26 0,647 0,069 1,28 0,177 Maslov and Kornilov discrepancies : as expected by previous analysis Different behaviour for PMF011 et PMF027,031 : water and polyethylene reflected AFGE : lower than or close to 100 kev WPEC SG34

19 PFNS Study : PST Series Selected benchmarks : series 001, 004 and 012 Maslov and Kornilov discrepancies : from 400 to 800 pcm for PST001,004 Behaviour different for PST012 : very low EALF, low Pu content in solution ENDFB, BRC, JENDL very close to JEFF : around +/-20 pcm WPEC SG34

20 PFNS Study : CEA mock-up Mockup experiments - Thermal spectrum : EOLE/MISTRAL-2 - Fast spectrum : MASURCA/ZONA2A Exp. JEFF3.1.1 MASLOV Dk (x 10 5 ) MISTRAL2 1, , (23) (23) (33) ZONA2A 1, , (12) (12) (17) KORNILOV 1,00847 (23) 1,00685 (12) Dk (x 10 5 ) 106 (33) -310 (17) MISTRAL Around 100 pcm maximum May 21st, 2012 WPEC SG34 PMF confirmation

21 Conclusions Resonance parameter evaluation including both microscopic and integral data : 2 months of intensive work between CEA/ORNL in March/April 2012 to have a first set Resonance file available Download at SG34 web site To be tested by international participants (CENDL/JENDL/BROND/ ) Covariance work is on the way. Continue CEA/ORNL iteration For prompt nu-bar (), new analysis similar to JEFF/ENDF For PFNS no clear conclusion wait for IAEA- CRP

22 Conclusions Future : Work remaining Activities activities Finalize Covariances Finalize Re-evaluation of unresolved resonance region; Verify the impact of prompt fission neutron spectrum from IAEA (Coordinate Research Project) understand the IAEA perspective Add Pu-INTER Benchmarks calculations Test the new Evaluation on a broader range of Benchmarks Feedback from JENDL,CENDL,BROND,etc At least 6 months of additional work and feed back 1 additional year with Final report in may 2013?

23 Conclusions/Comments/Propositions Benchmark experiments : need of more precise measurements (500 pcm too high) support the refurbishment of existing Experimental reactors (in France/US) New microscopic data experiments are needed : capture-to-fission ratio (alpha, eta) Transmission at low energy ( ~ 20 ev) Capture (3% normalization uncertainty for the time being ) Open issues merely treated in this SG34 (even for may 2013) Need of a new SG?