Issue 
EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.
Volume 4, 2018
Special Issue on 4th International Workshop on Nuclear Data Covariances, October 2–6, 2017, Aix en Provence, France – CW2017



Article Number  47  
Number of page(s)  7  
Section  Applied Covariances  
DOI  https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2018033  
Published online  14 November 2018 
https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2018033
Regular Article
Nuclear data adjustment based on the interpretation of postirradiation experiments with the DARWIN2.3 package
^{1}
CEA, DEN, DER, SPRC, Cadarache,
13108
SaintPaulLezDurance, France
^{2}
CEA, DEN, DER, SESI, Cadarache,
13108
SaintPaulLezDurance, France
^{3}
AREVA NC, BU Recyclage,
Paris, France
^{*} email: axel.rizzo@cea.fr
Received:
30
October
2017
Received in final form:
20
February
2018
Accepted:
17
May
2018
Published online: 14 November 2018
DARWIN2.3 is the French reference package dedicated to fuel cycle applications, computing fuel inventory as well as decay heat, neutron emissions, α, β and γ spectra. The DARWIN2.3 package fuel inventory calculation was experimentally validated with PostIrradiation Experiments (PIEs), mainly consisting in irradiated fuel pellets analysis. This paper presents a method to assimilate these integral trends for improving nuclear data. In this study, the method is applied to ^{137}Cs/^{238}U concentration ratio. Results suggest an increase of the JEFF3.1.1 ^{235}U cumulated thermal fission yield in ^{137}Cs by (+3.8 ± 2.1)%, from 6.221E02 to 6.460E02 ± 2.1%.
© A. Rizzo et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2018
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1 Introduction
^{137}Cs is a nuclide of interest for the nuclear fuel cycle [1] mostly because it is a convenient burnup indicator thanks to its γray emission. It is therefore of major importance to compute its concentration in nuclear fuel as a function of the combustion rate as accurately as achievable.
DARWIN2.3 [2] is the French reference package for fuel cycle applications. It solves the Boltzmann and Bateman equations to compute fuel cycle parameters, at any irradiation and cooling time. A package is defined by a nuclear data library, one or several computer codes, and one or several calculation schemes. For DARWIN2.3, nuclear data used come from the JEFF3.1.1 evaluation [3].
DARWIN2.3 includes both deterministic transport codes APOLLO2 [4] (for light water reactors) and ERANOS2 [5] (for fast reactors), which provide neutron data to the DARWIN/PEPIN2 depletion solver [6]. APOLLO2 and DARWIN/PEPIN2 codes are developed by CEA/DEN with the support of its industrial partners, AREVA and EDF. These neutron data are selfshielded cross sections libraries and multigroup neutron fluxes as a function of burnup.
In addition, data such as multigroup activation cross sections at infinite dilution, a full filiation chain, and specific nuclear constants are used in the DARWIN/PEPIN2 solver, directly taken from JEFF3.1.1. This allows taking into account isotopes and reactions that are not described in the simplified filiation chains used in APOLLO2 or ERANOS2.
The reference calculation scheme used for DARWIN2.3 PWR calculations, called CYCLE2008PWR [2], is based on the recommended APOLLO2.8 calculation scheme REL2005 [4] used for neutron transport calculations. These two calculation schemes mainly differ in the flux solver used (Probability Collision method instead of the Method Of Characteristics) and energy collapsing.
The DARWIN2.3 package has been experimentally validated for light water reactors for the material balance and decay heat calculation [2]. It has also been experimentally validated for sodium fast reactors for the material balance of the main actinides and fission products involved in burn upcredit calculations [7].
The experimental validation of the DARWIN2.3 package for material balance calculation was performed for a large range of burnup from 10 to 85 GWd/t for UOX fuels and from 10 to 60 GWd/t for MOX fuels. Table 1 displays CalculationtoExperimental values for the ^{137}Cs concentration that will be used for this study.
One can observe a slight underestimation of ^{137}Cs for UOX fuels whereas ^{137}Cs is better calculated in MOX fuel. It is worth clarifying that the σ uncertainty associated to the CalculationtoExperimental values gathers:

the precision on the fuel temperature, taken at ±50 °C at 1σ (systematic contribution),

the precision on the moderator temperature, taken at ±2 °C at 1σ (systematic contribution),

the local burnup characterization, corresponding to the uncertainty on neodymium fission yields − used as burnup indicators − taken at ±2% at 1σ (systematic contribution),

the measurement uncertainty on concentration ratio at 1σ (statistic contribution).
DARWIN2.3 accuracy can be improved by identifying sources of biases and uncertainties [8]. In this framework, this paper presents an integral data assimilation method to improve nuclear data involved in the buildup of nuclides of interest for the fuel cycle.
Next section will present this method, and Section 3 will illustrate an application to the ^{137}Cs case. Results will be presented and discussed in section 4.
2 Integral data assimilation method
To assimilate the integral trends of the DARWIN2.3 package, a Bayesian approach was considered. The CONRAD [9,10] code was used for this study. The successive steps of the study are presented in the following sections.
2.1 Experimental correlation matrix, and schemerelated uncertainties
Since the experiments taken from the database are correlated, the AGS code [11] method was used to compute an experimental correlation matrix, combining statistic and systematic uncertainties.
The sources of uncertainties considered are the ones mentioned in Section 1, except the uncertainty on the local burnup characterization (neodymium fission yields), which was marginalized (see Sect. 2.3).
Moreover, since DARWIN2.3 is a package using deterministic solvers, methodological approximations (selfshielding, spatial discretization…) may introduce numerical biases on the calculated parameters. Thus, in addition to the sources of uncertainties previously mentioned, dedicated studies were carried out to provide an order of magnitude of these numerical biases.
A comparative pincell depletion calculation was carried out between APOLLO2 with the CYCLE2008 calculation scheme and the reference stochastic code TRIPOLI4 [12], which can perform depletion calculation thanks to a coupling with the MENDEL depletion solver [13]. The ensuing discrepancies on material balance of fission products and main actinides have been found to be of the order of 1% or less; they will be considered as 1σ systematic uncertainty on fuel inventory calculation with the DARWIN2.3 package for this study.
The effect of the resonant upscattering phenomenon [14], which can be simulated with APOLLO2, can be considered as a modelling bias on the deterministic calculation scheme as well. A comparative pincell depletion study was carried out with and without this modelling option to assess its impact on fuel inventory calculation. The ensuing discrepancies on material balance have been found to be of the order of 1% or less, and they will also be considered as 1σ systematic uncertainty.
To provide an experimental correlation matrix, each systematic contribution was considered as a unit normalization factor with an associated uncertainty corresponding to the systematic contribution, hence: (1) where:

E= experimental value before normalization,

E' = experimental value after normalization,

λ_{i} = 1 ± Δ_{i} is the unit normalization factor associated with the ith source of uncertainty,

Δ_{i} = standard deviation of λ_{i}.
Eventually, one can build the M_{E} experimental correlation matrix with the AGS code [11] method: (2) where:

D is a diagonal matrix filled with experimental variances (statistical uncertainty),

S is a rectangular matrix − number of experiment × number of systematic uncertainty sources (fuel and moderator temperatures, methodological approximations in the CYCLE2008 calculation scheme, the impact of modelling the upscattering phenomenon).
The experimental matrix is depicted on Figure 1.
Fig. 1 Experimental correlation matrix obtained with the AGS code method, taking into account schemerelated uncertainties. 
2.2 Fitting method
The fitting procedure implemented in the CONRAD code [15] relies upon the use of the generalized Bayes' theorem on conditional probability: (3) where:

represents the model parameters vector,

represents the experimental values vector,

U denotes the “prior” information,

is the “prior” probability density,

is the “likelihood” probability density, corresponding to the CalculationtoExperimental values,

represents the “posterior” probability density.
To solve this problem and determine the “posterior” probability density of the model parameters, assumptions on the “prior” distribution are necessary: according to the principle of maximum entropy, a multivariate joint normal distribution is chosen for the prior probability density.
If the Laplace approximation is made, the posterior density probability is assumed to be a normal distribution as well: the evaluation of the posterior parameters is achieved by finding the minimum of the following generalized least square function: (4) where designates the prior parameters and M_{x} designates their associated covariance matrix. A GaussNewton iterative scheme is used [16] to solve equation (4) and derive the posterior model parameters and the associated covariance matrix. Nevertheless, only one iteration of this scheme can be used in this very specific study. Given that the overall give relevant results.
2.3 Marginalization procedure
A marginalization analysis is led in this study, to produce more realistic uncertainties associated to the posterior model parameters. This method [17] was implemented in CONRAD, to account for the uncertainties on nuisance parameters θ. It consists in building a “full” M covariance matrix of the simulation as follows: (5) with:

= covariance matrix between fitted and nuisance parameters,

= sensitivity vector of fitted and nuisance parameters.
One can deduce the M_{x,Marg} covariance matrix for fitted parameters that reproduces the system when resolving: (6)
To avoid Peelle's pertinent puzzles [18], namely the occurrence of abnormal values of quantities that are fitted on experimental data with both statistical and systematic uncertainties, the burnup uncertainty (neodymium fission yields) was marginalized.
3 Application of the method to ^{137}Cs
3.1 ^{137}Cs fitted parameters
Figure 2 depicts the ^{137}Cs decay path. Each nuclide of this filiation is created through fissions on actinides like ^{235}U, ^{239}Pu, ^{241}Pu.
Given this decay path, one can list the model parameters used for the ^{137}Cs study. Either independent or cumulated fission yields could be considered here, provided that a prior correlation matrix between the independent fission yields is accounted. Recent studies have been conducted to compute these matrices [19].
In this paper, only the case of thermal cumulated fission yields will be presented. Considering that ^{137}Cs is mainly underestimated in UOX fuels at low and high combustion rate, it was decided to fit both ^{235}U and ^{239}Pu fission yields.
The prior uncertainty considered for these parameters are taken from COMACV2.0 [19,20] and are 1.5% and 1.4% for ^{235}U and ^{239}Pu fission yields respectively.
A diagonal matrix was considered as prior correlation matrix between these parameters.
Fig. 2 Decay path of ^{137}Cs and associated branching ratios taken from JEFF3.1.1. 
3.2 Marginalized parameters
Table 2 presents the model parameters used for this study and their associated uncertainties, in which designates the Z nuclide thermal cumulated fission yield in X fission product, and τ(X) designates the X period.
It can be noted that the impact of fission and capture cross sections of major actinides on ^{137}Cs buildup was taken into account. In this study, only 1group cross sections were considered: the COMAC database was used to provide an uncertainty for 1group cross sections, folding the covariance matrices as follows [21]: (7) where:

τ_{i} is the microscopic reaction rate of the ith group,

τ is the microscopic reaction rate,

σ is the reaction cross section of interest,

M_{σ} is the ngroup covariance matrix of σ, with n = 26.
Energy released by neutron reactions such as capture or fission were not accounted here as model parameters. Since they should be considered, it might induce a slight underestimation of the final uncertainty after the marginalization procedure. Further study should investigate this effect.
The marginalized parameters are assumed here to be independent.
Model parameters used for the study, and associated uncertainties from COMACV2.0.
3.3 Sensitivity calculation
A direct method to compute sensitivity coefficients was used with APOLLO2 and the CYCLE2008 calculation scheme: for each model parameter, a nominal calculation and a perturbed calculation are performed, with a 1% perturbation rate being applied to the parameter of interest for the latter. A routine was used to compute all sensitivity coefficients for all model parameters as follows: (8)
The perturbation rate was applied after the selfshielding step of the first transport calculation. Selfshielded cross sections are chosen not to be recalculated at specific burnup steps, contrary to the CYCLE2008 recommendations, in order not to overwrite the perturbation rate. This modification of the calculation scheme on fuel inventory has a very small impact, which becomes negligible on sensitivity coefficients, provided that selfshielded cross sections are not recalculated in the nominal calculation either.
In this study, the fact that covariance matrices are associated to infinite diluted crosssections instead of selfshielded crosssections is not assessed. Since no crosssection is fitted in this study, this will only affect the uncertainty associated to fitted fission yields through the marginalization process. The impact of this effect will be investigated in further study, and might increase the final uncertainty after marginalization.
Table 3 depicts the sensitivity coefficients for the chosen model parameters for three types of irradiated fuel to give general tendencies on the sensitivity coefficients.
One can see that the thermal cumulative fission yield of ^{239}Pu in ^{137}Cs has an important sensitivity for UOX fuels even at low burnup. This also justifies fitting it together with the ^{235}U thermal cumulative fission yield.
Model parameters used for the study and their sensitivity coefficient for a 3.1%enriched UOX fuel at 20 and 60GWd/t, and a 6.7% Pu amount MOX fuel at 40GWd/t.
4 Results and discussion
Table 4 displays the results obtained when fitting both ^{235}U and ^{239}Pu cumulated thermal fission yields in ^{137}Cs.
One can observe an increase of the ^{235}U cumulated thermal fission yield in ^{137}Cs, consistent with the underestimation of its concentration in UOX fuels. The marginalization procedure computes more realistic uncertainties for both fission yields, as one can see on Table 4.
The study does not suggest a change in ^{239}Pu cumulated thermal fission yields in ^{137}Cs, given its very small modification, consistent with the good calculation of ^{137}Cs concentration in MOX fuels.
Figure 3 depicts the (C/E)1 values calculated by CONRAD for UOX fuels before adjustment, after the adjustment step, and after the full process of adjustment and marginalization. One can see a satisfactory compensation of the underestimated prior values. The oneiteration limitation on the cost function minimization process does not seem to be an issue here, since consistent results are obtained.
The residual slight underestimation of (C/E)1 is due to the relative small prior uncertainty of the ^{235}U cumulated thermal fission yield in ^{137}Cs, therefore constraining the posterior value.
It is worth comparing the ^{235}U cumulated thermal fission yields in ^{137}Cs value with different libraries. One can observe on Figure 4 that this work is consistent within the uncertainties with JEFF3.1.1 at 1σ and other evaluations at 2σ.
However it is important to point out that JEFF3.3 suggests the opposite of the present work, meaning that the latest JEFF evaluation will amplify the current underestimation of the ^{137}Cs concentration calculation with the DARWIN2.3 package.
To complete this study, it will be interesting to confront the result obtained with microscopic measurements.
Results of the DARWIN2.3 integral data assimilation on ^{235}U and ^{239}Pu fission yields.
Fig. 3 (C/E)1 values of the ^{137}Cs concentration calculation before fit (top), after fit (middle), and after fit + marginalization (bottom). 
Fig. 4 ^{235}U cumulated thermal fission yields in ^{137}Cs from various nuclear data evaluation (1σ). 
5 Conclusion
The assimilation of integral data from the DARWIN2.3 package experimental validation, using JEFF3.1.1 library, was investigated here.
The AGS code method was used to provide an experimental correlation matrix between the PIEs, allowing to take into account both the statistic and systematic sources of uncertainty. The order of magnitude of numerical biases on fuel inventory calculation were also quantified and considered as 1σ uncertainty on fuel inventory calculation.
The generalized leastsquare equation derived from Bayes' theorem was used to fit both ^{235}U and ^{239}Pu cumulated thermal fission yields in ^{137}Cs.
Uncertainties on nuisance parameters involved in ^{137}Cs buildup, e.g. energyintegrated capture or fission cross section of actinides, are accounted through an analytic marginalization technique implemented in the CONRAD code, leading to more realistic uncertainty on the posterior values of the fitted parameters.
Results suggest an increase of the ^{235}U cumulated thermal fission yields in ^{137}Cs by +(3.8 ± 2.1)%, from 6.22E02 in JEFF3.1.1 to 6.46E02 ± 2.1%. This adjusted value of ^{235}U cumulated thermal fission yields in ^{137}Cs leads to reduced (C/E)1 values.
Although the posterior fission yield value is consistent with other international nuclear data libraries at 2σ, one can point out that the latest JEFF3.3 suggests the opposite of the present work.
Even though the method is validated here, one can emphasize the importance of reliable and dedicated integral data experiments to fit nuclear data.
Further studies are expected to be led with the same method to assimilate more integral data from the DARWIN2.3 package experimental validation and investigate other nuclides important for the fuel cycle.
Author contribution statement
Axel Rizzo carried out all the calculations for the study reported in this paper. Claire VaglioGaudard and Gilles Noguère provided help and pieces of advice for the analysis of the results, as well as support for handling the CONRAD code. Many fruitful discussions were conducted with JulieFiona Martin and Romain Eschbach, and provided valuable knowledge for the understanding of the fuel cycle. Vanessa Vallet also provided pieces of advice for the use of the CYRUS code.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the colleagues from CEA who helped us during this work, especially, David Bernard, Coralie Carmouze, Pascal Archier, Stéphane Mengelle and Claude Mounier.
References
 J.F. Martin et al., EPJ Web Conf., 146, 09010 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 L. SanFelice et al., Nucl. Tech. 184, 217 (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 A. Santamarina et al., The JEFF3.1.1 Nuclear Data library, JEFF report, 22, OECDNEA data bank, 2009 [Google Scholar]
 A. Santamarina et al., Validation of the new code package APOLLO2.8 for accurate PWR neutronics calculations, in Proc. Int. Conf. Advances in Nuclear Fuel Management IV, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, USA, 2009 [Google Scholar]
 J.M. Ruggieri et al., Eranos2.1: the International Code System for GENIV fast reactor analysis in Proc. Int. Conf. ICAPP , Reno, Nevada, USA, 2006 [Google Scholar]
 A. Tsilanizara et al., DARWIN: an evolution code system for a large range of applications, in Proc. Int. Conf. ICRS9, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan, 1999 [Google Scholar]
 J.F. Lebrat et al., Analysis of the TRAPU and DOUBLON irradiations in PHENIX for the experimental validation of the DARWIN package for fast reactors, in Proc. Int. Conf. GLOBAL, Paris, France, 2015 [Google Scholar]
 A. Rizzo et al., EPJ Web Conf. 146, 09030 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 C. de Saint Jean et al., Status of CONRAD, a nuclear reaction analysis tool, in Proc. Int. Conf. Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, Nice, France, 2007 [Google Scholar]
 P. Archier et al., CONRAD evaluation code: development status and perspectives, in Proc. Int. Conf. Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, NewYork, USA, 2013 [Google Scholar]
 C. Bastian et al., AGS, a computer code for uncertainty propagation in timeofflight cross section data, in Proc. Int. Conf. PHYSOR, Vancouver, Canada, 2006 [Google Scholar]
 E. Brun et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 82, 151 (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 S. Lahaye et al., First verification and validation steps of MENDEL release 1.0 cycle code system, in Proc. Int. Conf. PHYSOR, Kyoto, Japan, 2014 [Google Scholar]
 M. Ouisloumen et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 107, 189 (1991) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 E. Privas et al., EPJ Web Conf. 106, 04015 (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 B. Habert et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 166, 276 (2010) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 G. Noguere et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 172, 164 (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
 D.L. Smith, Probability, statistics, and data uncertainties in nuclear science and technology (American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, Illinois, 1991) [Google Scholar]
 N. Terranova, Covariance Evaluation for Nuclear Data of Interest to the Reactivity Loss Estimation of the Jules Horowitz Reactor, Ph.D. thesis report, Bologne University, Italy, 2016 [Google Scholar]
 P. Archier et al., COMAC − Nuclear data covariance matrices library for reactor applications, in Proc. Int. Conf. PHYSOR, Kyoto, Japan, 2014 [Google Scholar]
 G. Krivtchik, Analysis of uncertainty propagation in nuclear fuel cycle scenarios, Ph.D. thesis report, Grenoble University, France, 2014 [Google Scholar]
Cite this article as: Axel Rizzo, Claire VaglioGaudard, Gilles Noguere, JulieFiona Martin, Vanessa Vallet, Romain Eschbach, Nuclear data adjustment based on the interpretation of postirradiation experiments with the DARWIN2.3 package, EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 4, 47 (2018)
All Tables
Model parameters used for the study, and associated uncertainties from COMACV2.0.
Model parameters used for the study and their sensitivity coefficient for a 3.1%enriched UOX fuel at 20 and 60GWd/t, and a 6.7% Pu amount MOX fuel at 40GWd/t.
Results of the DARWIN2.3 integral data assimilation on ^{235}U and ^{239}Pu fission yields.
All Figures
Fig. 1 Experimental correlation matrix obtained with the AGS code method, taking into account schemerelated uncertainties. 

In the text 
Fig. 2 Decay path of ^{137}Cs and associated branching ratios taken from JEFF3.1.1. 

In the text 
Fig. 3 (C/E)1 values of the ^{137}Cs concentration calculation before fit (top), after fit (middle), and after fit + marginalization (bottom). 

In the text 
Fig. 4 ^{235}U cumulated thermal fission yields in ^{137}Cs from various nuclear data evaluation (1σ). 

In the text 
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (fulltext article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 4896 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.