EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 8 (2022) EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol., 8 (2022) 31 Full HTML
Open Access
Issue
EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.
Volume 8, 2022
Article Number 31
Number of page(s) 10
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2022034
Published online 18 November 2022

© G. Noguere and S. Xu, Published by EDP Sciences, 2022

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://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

The propagation of the thermal scattering law uncertainties to neutron cross sections and neutronic parameters is addressed in a few works reported in the literature. Methodologies rely on Monte-Carlo or direct perturbations of the model parameters involved in the calculation of the thermal scattering laws. Owing to its importance for criticality and reactor applications, they were mainly applied to H2O [1–7]. The present work aims to complement the reported results by including the effects of the thermal scattering laws of UO2.

Part of the model parameters used in the description of the elastic scattering cross section at low neutron energies comes from abinitio or molecular dynamic simulations. Therefore, the relationship between condensed matter and neutronic physics is not straightforward. Several calculation steps handled by dedicated processing tools are needed to link the model parameters and the neutronic parameters. In the case of UOX integral benchmarks with UO2 fuel moderated by water, this relationship can be simplified by assuming some approximations. The originality of this work is to use the effective temperature as an uncertainty indicator for quantifying the impact of the thermal scattering laws on the neutron multiplication factor. The effective temperature has the advantage of taking into account the vibration dynamics or atom binding effects of materials [8–11], but neglects some complex molecular behaviour, such as in the case of the water molecule. Fortunately, this specificity of the water molecule plays a minor role in the uncertainty quantification process associated to UOX benchmarks [4].

In this study, the relevance of using the effective temperature as an uncertainty indicator is illustrated with the MISTRAL-1 benchmarks [12] carried out at the EOLE facility (CEA Cadarache, France). The neutron multiplication factor was measured as a function of temperature up to 354 K (80°C). Such a unique set of integral results is suitable for testing the relationship between the effective temperature and the thermal scattering laws of H2O and UO2. For this purpose, the nominal calculations were performed with the Monte-Carlo code TRIPOLI-4® [13] by using the evaluated nuclear data library JEFF-3.1.1. The perturbed calculations also rely on JEFF-3.1.1 in which the thermal scattering laws of H2O and UO2 were replaced by candidate files for the JEFF-4 library, which are available in the test library JEFF-4T1 [14].

The definition of the effective temperature is given in Section 2. Section 3 presents the methodology used to propagate the model parameter uncertainties of the thermal scattering laws to the neutron multiplication factor in the case of the MISTRAL-1 core. Uncertainties obtained on the neutron cross sections of H2O and UO2, as well as their contributions on the keff uncertainty are discussed in Section 4.

Table 1.

Effective temperatures calculated with the H2O and UO2 candidate files for the JEFF-4 library, which is available in the test library JEFF-4T1.

2. Effective temperature

The evaluated nuclear data files used in this work come from the working library JEFF-4T1, which contains new files for H2O and UO2. The evaluation of 1H in H2O is a slightly modified version of the file available in the US library (ENDF/B.VIII.0) [15]. The evaluation was modified to include a refined temperature grid, including the freezing point (273.15 K), critical point (674.1 K), and a grid with 5 K interval between 285 K and 650 K. Extrapolated temperature points between 650 K and 1000 K (every 50 K) were also added. The model relies on a Gaussian expansion, following the work of Maul et al. [4]. The evaluations for 238U and 16O in UO2 are based on experimental results measured at the Institute Laue-Langevin of Grenoble (France). Detailed explanations are given in references [16, 17]. The evaluated nuclear data files for UO2 contain thermal scattering laws for 31 temperatures ranging from 284 K to 1700 K.

thumbnail Fig. 1.

Elastic scattering cross section of 1H in H2O as a function of the neutron incident energy. The top plot (a) shows the neutron cross-section over the full energy range. The middle plot (b) highlights the discontinuity at the thermal cut-off energy (4.95 eV) between the thermal scattering law and the Free Gas Model when the thermodynamic temperature T is introduced in the Free Gas Model. The bottom plot (c) shows the continuous behaviour of the cross-section when T = Teff.
thumbnail Fig. 2.

Neutron elastic scattering cross sections of 238U and 16O in UO2 reconstructed with the evaluated nuclear data files available in the test library JEFF-4T1.

The CINEL code [18] was used to generate the thermal scattering laws for H2O and UO2 by starting from model parameters describing the dynamics and structure of the materials. The key parameter is the phonon density of states ρ(ω), from which the effective temperature is calculated as follows [9, 19]:

(1)

where T is the temperature of the material under consideration, kB represents the Boltzmann constant and ℏω stands for the neutron energy transfer. The effective temperatures at T = 294 K (20°C) and T = 354 K (80°C) are listed in Table 1.

For 1H in H2O, the importance of the effective temperature can be illustrated by the behaviour of the elastic scattering cross section around the thermal cut-off energy of 4.95 eV (Fig. 1). Above this energy, nuclear data processing codes use a Free Gas Model to reconstruct the neutron cross sections at a given temperature T. A continuous behaviour between the thermal scattering law and the Free Gas Model treatments can only be achieved by introducing T = Teff in the Free Gas Model.

For UO2, the effective temperature is related to the Doppler broadening of the 238U resonances. As shown in Figure 2, the first resonance of 238U is very close to the thermal cut-off energy of 4 eV, below which dominate the different components of the elastic scattering of 238U and 16O in UO2. For reactor applications, it is useful to link the effective and Debye temperatures θD by introducing a Debye phonon spectrum in equation (1). The first-order approximation leads to:

(2)

Butland [20] derived a similar expression by introducing a phonon density of states for 238U in UO2 calculated by Thorson and Jarvis:

(3)

The combination of equations (2) and (3) gives a Debye temperature of θD = 249 K, which is equal to the Debye temperature reported in reference [21] derived from specific heat measurements at low temperature.

Starting from the work of Butland, Meister [22] approximated the phonon density of states of 238U in UO2 by an Einstein model with acoustic and optical vibration modes, whose characteristics were deduced from transmission experiments performed at the GELINA facility [23]. Equivalences between effective resonance integrals calculated with Free Gas and Crystal Lattice Model provided the following parameterization:

(4)

According to this expression, Butland’s effective temperature has to be increased by 8.6 K. Figure 3 compares the effective temperatures calculated with equations (3) and (4). Results obtained with the phonon density of states of the JEFF-4T1 library lie between these two trends.

thumbnail Fig. 3.

Ratio Teff/T for 238U in UO2 calculated with equations (3), (4) and (1) as a function of T.

3. Perturbation scheme

The integral benchmarks selected in this study are part of the MISTRAL program carried out in the EOLE reactor of CEA Cadarache [12]. A detailed description of the experiments can be found in reference [24]. This program was the subject of the work reported in reference [25], in which the impact of the thermal scattering law of H2O on the isothermal reactivity coefficients αiso is studied. The present work focuses on the integral results measured with the MISTRAL-1 core, which was a homogenous UO2 configuration that serves as a reference for the whole MISTRAL program. The cylindrical core (Fig. 4) consists of a regular lattice using 750 standard PWR fuel pins (3.7% enriched in 235U) in a square pitch of 1.32 cm with 16 guide tubes dedicated to safety rods. The moderation ratio is 1.7 (representative of light water reactor moderation). The reactivity excess was measured as a function of the temperature up to 354 K with a fine temperature step of 5 K. In the MISTRAL-1 configurations, the concentration of the soluble boron was adjusted in the moderator in order to compensate for the reactivity loss due to the temperature increase. The experimental uncertainties of about ±25 pcm mainly come from the kinetic parameters, the measurements of the doubling time and of the boron concentration. In comparison, the technological uncertainties are close ±250 pcm. Results calculated with the Monte-Carlo code TRIPOLI-4® are shown in Figure 5 as a function of T. For each configuration the statistical uncertainty due to the Monte-Carlo calculations is lower than ±5 pcm. The slope of the solid line represents the calculation bias on the reactivity temperature coefficient αiso. For JEFF-3.1.1, its value is close to −0.36 pcm/K, which remains in the lower limit of the experimental uncertainties (±0.3 pcm/K).

thumbnail Fig. 4.

Radial cross section of the MISTRAL-1 core composed of 750 UOX fuel pins in light water.
thumbnail Fig. 5.

Differences in reactivity for the MISTRAL-1 core expressed in terms of C-E obtained with the Monte-Carlo code TRIPOLI-4® and the JEFF-3.1.1 library up to 354 K (80°C). The solid line represents the best-fit curve reported in reference [25]. The present calculations account for the thermal expansion of the materials, while in the past study [25], the thermal expansion was taken into account as a correction factor of the Monte-Carlo results. The reported uncertainties only take into account the uncertainties of the kinetic parameters, measurements of the doubling time and boron concentration.

As indicated by Figure 5, a small variation of the C-E values is expected between the room temperature and 354 K. Such a small variation in conjunction with a demanding computational time makes an uncertainty analysis via repetitive Monte-Carlo perturbations difficult. Therefore, the uncertainty analysis will be performed by direct perturbations of the parameters involved in the thermal scattering law models. In addition, we will limit ourselves to two extreme temperatures at 294 K and 354 K.

Two types of model parameters can be distinguished. Those that are linked to the neutron-nucleus interaction and those that depend explicitly on the studied material. The neutron scattering lengths or equivalently the neutron elastic scattering cross sections at zero Kelvin are well documented in the literature. Their direct perturbation does not cause any problems. By contrast, the range of variation of the parameters describing the temperature-dependent dynamic structure factors for H2O and UO2 is poorly known. A solution to overcome this lack of information has been investigated in reference [2]. The reported results indicate that the sources of uncertainties impacting the calculated keff can be lumped into a single parameter which is the energy interval δ used to reconstruct the phonon density of state. This approximation was successfully used by Rochman on criticality benchmarks [7]. However, it supposes that the other parameters which drive the intramolecular vibrations or H-bond modes have negligible contributions to the keff uncertainty. This assumption was also confirmed by Maul in his work on the OPALE reactor [4], but cannot be generalized, especially for well-thermalized neutron spectrum or cold neutron sources. The aim of our perturbation scheme is to apply a scaling factor Δ to this energy interval δ as follows:

(5)

and to use Δ as an intermediate parameter for propagating Teff uncertainties to neutron cross sections and keff values via equation (1). Final results will be summarized in terms of calculation biases expressed in pcm/K.

thumbnail Fig. 6.

Comparison of the experimental and theoretical total cross section of H2O. For clarity, the EXFOR data [27] and the ISIS data [26] measured at room temperature are shown separately. The grey zones represent the uncertainties.

4. Results and discussions

4.1. Uncertainties on the thermal scattering laws for H2O

The covariance matrices associated with the thermal scattering laws of H2O were evaluated in the framework of a few studies [1, 2, 4–6] in the case of the evaluations available in the JEFF-3.1.1 and ENDF/B.VIII.0 libraries. Although different methodologies were used, they all converged to the same conclusions. At room temperature, the relative uncertainty on the total cross-section of H2O is lower than 0.5% in the eV energy range and remains below 5% around the thermal energy (25.3 meV). The relative uncertainties start to increase well beyond 5% in the cold and ultra-cold neutron energy ranges, where the translational diffusion behaviour of the water molecule plays a major role in the calculation of the dynamic structure factor. The assessment of the uncertainties at elevated temperatures is less documented because of the lack of accurate experimental values. Fortunately, a recent experimental program carried out at the Vesuvio facility of ISIS (UK) provided a unique set of accurate data for water at 283, 293 and 353 K [26].

Figure 6 summarizes the agreement between the total experimental cross-sections of H2O and the JEFF-4T1 library. At room temperature, many experimental values are available in the EXFOR data base [27]. The theoretical curve starts to deviate from the data below 1 meV. The right-hand plots of Figure 6 highlight the excellent agreement between the theory and the ISIS data in the thermal energy range. This good agreement validates the position, and the shape of the broad libration band observed in the phonon density of states of H2O calculated by molecular dynamic simulations. The accuracy of the ISIS data also reveals systematic biases in some of the EXFOR data. This trend is confirmed by the two structures observed in Figure 7, which compares the distributions of the EXFOR and ISIS data with respect to JEFF-4T1.

thumbnail Fig. 7.

Distributions of the ratios of the theoretical total cross-section of H2O (C) to the experimental data (E). The theoretical curves were calculated with the JEFF-4T1 evaluation of H2O.
thumbnail Fig. 8.

Correlation matrices of the total cross section of H2O calculated at 294 and 354 K.

As introduced in Section 3, covariance matrices for H2O at 294 and 354 K can be established by direct perturbations of two model parameters. In the eV energy range, the behaviour of the total cross-section mainly depends on the elastic scattering cross section of 1H at zero kelvin σs . The uncertainty on this parameter, recommended by the Neutron Data Standard of IAEA [28], is close to 0.2%:

We decided to apply a direct perturbation of the same order of magnitude, which is equivalent to a perturbation of 41 mbarns on σs . In the thermal energy range, the behaviour of the total cross section is driven by the phonon density of states or equivalently by the effective temperature Teff (Eq. (1)). In order to reach a statistically significant convergence of the results, a perturbation of 5 K was applied to Teff. According to our calculation scheme, this perturbation leads to a variation of 3% and 3.7% of the scaling factor Δ (Eq. (5)) at 294 and 354 K, respectively. The perturbation scheme was complemented by an iterative procedure in order to optimize the uncertainty of the effective temperature, given the constraint to obtain an uncertainty on the thermal total cross section σth that reproduces the standard deviation of the EXFOR data between 0.02 and 0.06 eV. The following sets of effective temperatures were found:

and

In Figure 6, the grey zones represent the resulting uncertainty bands calculated over the full neutron energy range. Around 5 eV, the relative uncertainty is close to 0.2%. In the thermal energy range, the uncertainty increases up to 3% and reaches 10% below 0.1 meV. At 25.3 meV, we obtained:

and

The correlation matrices associated with the total cross-section of H2O at 294 and 354 K are shown in Figure 8. Our perturbation scheme provides matrices with a two-block structure which is consistent with previous studies reported in the literature [4].

thumbnail Fig. 9.

Comparison of the experimental and theoretical total cross section of UO2 at room temperature.

4.2. Uncertainties on the thermal scattering laws for UO2

Evaluation works on UO2 are scarce in the literature. Despite the latest studies performed in the framework of the US library (ENDF/B.VIII.0) [29], no uncertainty analysis on the thermal scattering laws was undertaken. One reason can be the lack of experimental data covering the low neutron energy range. Only two rather old experimental total cross-sections of UO2 are available in the EXFOR library. In Figure 9, the comparison with the theoretical curve seems to confirm the poor quality of the existing data around thermal energy, making them unreliable for uncertainty analysis. Consequently, results provided in this work only comes from roughly estimated prior model parameter uncertainties.

The model parameters of interest are still the effective temperature as well as the neutron scattering lengths bcoh associated with the reactions n+16O and n+238U. Values for bcoh were taken from the compilation reported in reference [30], and the order of magnitude of the uncertainty was derived from values reported by Mughaghab [31]:

For the effective temperature, the difference between the prescriptions of Butland and Meister (Fig. 3) provides a confidence range of variation of Teff for 238U. A conservative estimate of ±10 K was used in this work:

thumbnail Fig. 10.

Elastic scattering cross sections of UO2 calculated at 294 and 354 K with the JEFF-4T1 evaluations. The solid black lines and the grey zones represent the uncertainties.
thumbnail Fig. 11.

Relative uncertainty calculated on the elastic scattering cross sections of UO2. The dotted black line indicates the thermal cut-off energy (4 eV).

Figure 10 shows the uncertainty band calculated for the UO2 elastic scattering cross-section by applying a perturbation of 0.01 fm and 5 K on bcoh and Teff, respectively. The perturbation of the effective temperature of 238U leads to a non-negligible variation of the scaling factor Δ (Eq. (5)) ranging from 10% to 15% at 294 and 354 K, respectively. This perturbation was simultaneously applied to the partial phonon density of states of 238U and 16O in UO2. The relative uncertainty as a function of the incident neutron energy is shown in Figure 11. A reliable value of ±1.9% is obtained at the cut-off energy of 4 eV. The uncertainty at the thermal energy slightly increases from ±3.9% to ±4.8% with the temperature:

and

Table 2.

Model parameters and uncertainties used in this work.

Table 3.

Differences between the calculated (C) and experimental (E) reactivities obtained for the MISTRAL-1 core with the Monte-Carlo code TRIPOLI-4®. The digits in parentheses are the statistical uncertainty due to the Monte-Carlo calculations.

4.3. Uncertainty on the multiplication factor keff

This work aims to illustrate the use of the effective temperature as an uncertainty indicator for quantifying the impact of the thermal scattering laws on the neutron multiplication factor. The nominal calculations are performed with the JEFF-3.1.1 library and compared to calculations in which the H2O or UO2 evaluations of the test library JEFF-4T1 are perturbed. The propagation of the model parameter uncertainties to the neutron multiplication factor of the MISTRAL-1 program follows the same methodology as presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. The parameters and uncertainties used in this study are summarized in Table 2. We applied perturbations of 5 K to Teff, 41 mbarns to σs and 0.01 fm to bcoh.

The nominal results calculated with TRIPOLI-4®-pagination

before perturbation are compared in Table 3 with those obtained thanks to the JEFF-4T1 evaluations of H2O and UO2. The thermal scattering laws of H2O and UO2 coming from JEFF-4T1 have opposite effects on keff. The compensation of each contribution is illustrated with the C-E results reported in Figure 12. The calculation bias on the isothermal reactivity coefficients αiso, given by the slope of the solid line, is improved with the JEFF-4T1 library. It becomes equal to −0.09 pcm/K, compared to −0.36 pcm/K with JEFF-3.1.1. Such an improvement is reflected by the low uncertainty on the keff values reported in Table 4. The uncertainties due to the thermal scattering laws of H2O are close to ±50 pcm, and those due to UO2 remain lower than 30 pcm. For comparison, Table 5 shows results previously reported in the literature for the MITRAL-1 core. The non-negligible uncertainties associated with the thermal scattering laws of H2O in JEFF-3.1.1 (> 100 pcm) progressively decrease to the present results. This trend is explained by the intense work performed on the modelization of the dynamical structure factor of H2O and on the total cross-section measurements at elevated temperatures.

thumbnail Fig. 12.

Differences in reactivity for the MISTRAL-1 core obtained with TRIPOLI-4®. The solid blue line is the best-fit curve obtained with the JEFF-3.1.1 library alone (see Fig. 5). The solid red line is the best-fit curve obtained when the thermal scattering laws of H2O and UO2 are replaced by those of JEFF-4T1. The slope of each line gives the calculation bias on the isothermal reactivity temperature coefficient αiso. For clarity, the uncertainties are shortly discussed in Section 3 and not reported in the plot.

Table 4.

keff uncertainties obtained for the MISTRAL-1 core at 294 and 354 K due to the model parameter uncertainties reported in Table 2. This uncertainty indicator expressed in pcm/K represents a calculation bias on keff relatively to the effective temperature uncertainty. The digits in parentheses come from the statistical uncertainty due to the Monte-Carlo calculations.

Table 5.

Evolution of the keff uncertainties for the MISTRAL-1 core at 294 and 354 K due to the thermal scattering laws of H2O.

The results of Table 4 can be conveniently translated into pcm/K. This uncertainty indicator represents a calculation bias on keff relatively to the effective temperature uncertainty. In our case, it has the advantage of providing rather similar results for H2O and UO2. At room temperature, it is close to 2.6 pcm/K on average for both H2O and UO2, while it is dominated by H2O at elevated temperatures. Consequently, an average estimate of about 2.3 pcm/K can be safely used from 294 to 354 K. This estimate provides a keff uncertainty of ±51 pcm, resulting from the quadratic sum of each contribution given effective temperature uncertainties of ±20 K and ±10 K for H2O and UO2, respectively. The consistency of the obtained results over the studied temperature range can be seen as a step forward to store thermal scattering law uncertainties in evaluated nuclear data files. Providing uncertainties on the effective temperatures instead of covariance matrices associated to temperature-dependent phonon densities of states can be easily handle in a modern nuclear data format [32].

The major conclusion of this study is that in the future evaluated nuclear data libraries, uncertainty budget analysis associated with the low neutron energy scattering process of H2O and UO2 will be a marginal contribution compared to the uncertainties on the capture process. Indeed, uncertainties in the UOX reactivity due to the 1H(n, γ) and 238U(n, γ) reactions are expected to be as large as ±150 pcm, if the covariance database COMAC [33] is used in the calculations.

5. Conclusions

The propagation of the model parameter uncertainties involved in the description of the thermal scattering law of H2O to neutronic parameters is the subject of a few works reported in the literature. The present uncertainty analysis provides new results as a function of the temperature for H2O and complements past uncertainty analysis with UO2. The obtained results confirm that the accuracy of the latest evaluations of H2O and UO2, available in the working library labelled JEFF-4T1, will imply a modest impact of about ±50 pcm on the keff uncertainty of UOX benchmarks. In comparison to capture reactions, the low neutron energy scattering process will become a marginal source of uncertainties. This achievement can be explained by the intense works performed on the modelization of the dynamical structure factor of H2O and UO2 in association with new measurements performed at elevated temperatures. This conclusion is only valid for UOX benchmarks and cannot be generalized, especially for well-thermalized neutron spectrum or cold neutron sources.

The results reported in this work also probe that the specificity of the neutron spectrum for UOX cores makes it possible to use the effective temperature as an uncertainty indicator to quantify the impact of the thermal scattering laws on the calculated reactivity. The corresponding uncertainty indicator, expressed in pcm/K, represents a calculation bias on keff relatively to the effective temperature uncertainty. In the framework of the MISTRAL-1 program, it has the advantage to be close to 2.3 pcm/K on average for both H2O and UO2 contributions. This approach simplifies the relationship between the condensed matter and neutronic physics, and reduces the complexity of the uncertainty analysis to a single parameter. Therefore, providing uncertainties about the effective temperatures in the evaluated nuclear data files is a recommendation that could avoid dealing with the covariance matrices associated to the temperature-dependent phonon densities of states.

Acknowledgments

TRIPOLI-4® is a registered trademark of CEA. The authors would like to thank Electricite De France (EDF) for partial financial support.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests to report.

Funding

This work is carried out in the framework of the SINET project funded by the CEA.

Data availability statement

This article has no associated data generated and/or analyzed.

Author contribution statement

G. Noguere: conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, writing, review, editing, visualization. S. Xu: software, review, editing.

References

  1. D. Rochman, A. Koning, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 172, 287 (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. G. Noguere et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 104, 132 (2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. J.P. Scotta et al., EPJ Web of Conf. 146, 13010 (2017) [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  4. L. Maul et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 121, 232 (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. J.P. Scotta et al., EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 4, 32 (2018) [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  6. C.W. Chapman et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 195, 13 (2021) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. D. Rochman et al., EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 8, 3 (2022) [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  8. W.E. Lamb, Phys. Rev. 55, 190 (1939) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. G.M. Borgonovi, Neutron Scattering Kernels Calculations at Epithermal Energies, Technical Report GA-9950, Gulf General Atomic, San Diego, USA (1970) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. T.M. Sutton et al., Comparison of some Monte Carlo models for bound hydrogen scattering, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Mathematics, Computational Methods and Reactor Physics, Saratoga Springs, New York USA (2009) [Google Scholar]
  11. J. Dawidowski et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 90, 247 (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. S. Cathalau et al., MISTRAL: an experimental program in the EOLE facility devoted to 100% MOX core physics, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Physics of Reactors PHYSOR, Mito, Japan (1996) [Google Scholar]
  13. E. Brun et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 82, 151 (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. A. Plompen et al., Status and perspective of the development of JEFF-4, in Proc. Int. Conf. Nuclear Data for Sci. and Technol., Gather Town (2022) [Google Scholar]
  15. J.I. Marquez Damian et al., Ann. Nucl. Energy 65, 280 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. G. Noguere et al., Phys. Rev. B 102, 134312 (2020) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. S. Xu et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1002, 165251 (2021) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. S. Xu, G. Noguere, EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 8, 8 (2022) [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  19. R. Macfarlane et al., The NJOY Nuclear Data Processing System Version 2016, Report LA-UR-17-20093 (Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA, 2017) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. A.T.D. Butland, Ann. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 1, 575 (1974) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. G.R. Stewart, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 54, 1 (1983) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. A. Meister, A. Santamarina, The effective temperature for Doppler broadening of neutron resonances in UO2, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Physics of Reactors PHYSOR, Long Island, USA (1998) [Google Scholar]
  23. A. Meister et al., Measurements to Investigate the Doppler-Broadening of 238U Neutron Resonances, Report IRMM-GE/R/ND/01/96 (Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, Belgium, 1996) [Google Scholar]
  24. L. Erradi et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 144, 47 (2003) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. J.P. Scotta et al., EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 2, 28(2016) [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  26. J.I. Marquez Damian et al., EPJ Web Conf. 239, 14001 (2020) [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  27. N. Otuka et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 120, 272 (2014) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. A.D. Carlson et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 148, 143 (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. J.L. Wormald et al., Nucl. Sci. Eng. 195, 227 (2021) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. V.F. Sears, Neutron News 3, 29 (1992) [Google Scholar]
  31. S.F. Mughabghab, Atlas of Neutron Resonances, (6th edn. (Elsevier, 2018) [Google Scholar]
  32. Specifications for the generalised nuclear database structure, OECD/NEA report no. 7519 (2020) [Google Scholar]
  33. P. Archier et al., COMAC: nuclear data covariance matrices library for reactor applications, in Proc. Int. Conf. on Physics of Reactors PHYSOR, Kyoto, Japan (2014) [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Gilles Noguere and Shuqi Xu. Using effective temperature as a measure of the thermal scattering law uncertainties to UOX fuel calculations from room temperature to 80°C, EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 8, 31 (2022)

All Tables

Table 1.

Effective temperatures calculated with the H2O and UO2 candidate files for the JEFF-4 library, which is available in the test library JEFF-4T1.

In the text
Table 2.

Model parameters and uncertainties used in this work.

In the text
Table 3.

Differences between the calculated (C) and experimental (E) reactivities obtained for the MISTRAL-1 core with the Monte-Carlo code TRIPOLI-4®. The digits in parentheses are the statistical uncertainty due to the Monte-Carlo calculations.

In the text
Table 4.

keff uncertainties obtained for the MISTRAL-1 core at 294 and 354 K due to the model parameter uncertainties reported in Table 2. This uncertainty indicator expressed in pcm/K represents a calculation bias on keff relatively to the effective temperature uncertainty. The digits in parentheses come from the statistical uncertainty due to the Monte-Carlo calculations.

In the text
Table 5.

Evolution of the keff uncertainties for the MISTRAL-1 core at 294 and 354 K due to the thermal scattering laws of H2O.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1.

Elastic scattering cross section of 1H in H2O as a function of the neutron incident energy. The top plot (a) shows the neutron cross-section over the full energy range. The middle plot (b) highlights the discontinuity at the thermal cut-off energy (4.95 eV) between the thermal scattering law and the Free Gas Model when the thermodynamic temperature T is introduced in the Free Gas Model. The bottom plot (c) shows the continuous behaviour of the cross-section when T = Teff.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 2.

Neutron elastic scattering cross sections of 238U and 16O in UO2 reconstructed with the evaluated nuclear data files available in the test library JEFF-4T1.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 3.

Ratio Teff/T for 238U in UO2 calculated with equations (3), (4) and (1) as a function of T.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 4.

Radial cross section of the MISTRAL-1 core composed of 750 UOX fuel pins in light water.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 5.

Differences in reactivity for the MISTRAL-1 core expressed in terms of C-E obtained with the Monte-Carlo code TRIPOLI-4® and the JEFF-3.1.1 library up to 354 K (80°C). The solid line represents the best-fit curve reported in reference [25]. The present calculations account for the thermal expansion of the materials, while in the past study [25], the thermal expansion was taken into account as a correction factor of the Monte-Carlo results. The reported uncertainties only take into account the uncertainties of the kinetic parameters, measurements of the doubling time and boron concentration.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 6.

Comparison of the experimental and theoretical total cross section of H2O. For clarity, the EXFOR data [27] and the ISIS data [26] measured at room temperature are shown separately. The grey zones represent the uncertainties.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 7.

Distributions of the ratios of the theoretical total cross-section of H2O (C) to the experimental data (E). The theoretical curves were calculated with the JEFF-4T1 evaluation of H2O.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 8.

Correlation matrices of the total cross section of H2O calculated at 294 and 354 K.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 9.

Comparison of the experimental and theoretical total cross section of UO2 at room temperature.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 10.

Elastic scattering cross sections of UO2 calculated at 294 and 354 K with the JEFF-4T1 evaluations. The solid black lines and the grey zones represent the uncertainties.
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 11.

Relative uncertainty calculated on the elastic scattering cross sections of UO2. The dotted black line indicates the thermal cut-off energy (4 eV).
In the text
thumbnail Fig. 12.

Differences in reactivity for the MISTRAL-1 core obtained with TRIPOLI-4®. The solid blue line is the best-fit curve obtained with the JEFF-3.1.1 library alone (see Fig. 5). The solid red line is the best-fit curve obtained when the thermal scattering laws of H2O and UO2 are replaced by those of JEFF-4T1. The slope of each line gives the calculation bias on the isothermal reactivity temperature coefficient αiso. For clarity, the uncertainties are shortly discussed in Section 3 and not reported in the plot.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text 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 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.