EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 11 (2025) EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol., 11 (2025) 74 References
Issue
EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.
Volume 11, 2025
Special Issue on ‘Overview of recent advances in HPC simulation methods for nuclear applications’, edited by Andrea Zoia, Elie Saikali, Cheikh Diop and Cyrille de Saint Jean
Article Number 74
Number of page(s) 19
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2025069
Published online 21 November 2025
  1. V. Sanchez-Espinoza et al., The McSAFE project – High-performance Monte Carlo based methods for safety demonstration: From proof of concept to industry applications, EPJ Web Conf. 247, 943 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202124706004 [Google Scholar]
  2. D. Ferraro et al., Serpent and Tripoli-4 transient calculations comparisons for several reactivity insertion scenarios in a 3D PWR minicore benchmark, in Proc. M &C2019 (Portland, USA, 2019) [Google Scholar]
  3. M. Faucher, D. Mancusi, A. Zoia, New kinetic simulation capabilities for Tripoli-4: Methods and applications, Ann. Nucl. Energy 120, 74 (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. D. Mancusi, M. Faucher, A. Zoia, Monte Carlo simulations of the SPERT III E-core transient experiments, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 127 (2022) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. A. Levinsky et al., Modeling of the SPERT transients using Serpent 2 with time-dependent capabilities, Ann. Nucl. Energy 125, 80 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.09.038 [Google Scholar]
  6. D. Ferraro et al., Serpent/SUBCHANFLOW pin-by-pin coupled transient calculations for the SPERT-IIIE hot full power tests, Ann. Nucl. Energy 142, 107387 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107387 [Google Scholar]
  7. J. Kang et al., Direct whole core modeling and simulation of the SPERT III E-Core experiments by nTRACER, Prog. Nucl. Energy 139, 103824 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.103824 [Google Scholar]
  8. X. Guo et al., Kinetic methods in Monte Carlo code RMC and its implementation to C5G7-TD benchmark, Ann. Nucl. Energy 151, 107864 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107864 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. B. Molnar, G. Tolnai, D. Legrady, A GPU-based direct Monte Carlo simulation of time dependence in nuclear reactors, Ann. Nucl. Energy 132, 46 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2019.03.024 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. M. Faucher et al., Variance-reduction methods for Monte Carlo kinetic simulations, in International Conference on Mathematics andComputational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering, M &C 2019 (2019), pp. 130–139 [Google Scholar]
  11. D. Mancusi, A. Zoia, Zero-variance schemes for kinetic Monte Carlo simulations, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 401 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00387-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. D. Legrady, J.E. Hoogenboom, Scouting the feasibility of Monte Carlo reactor dynamics simulations, in PHYSOR’08: International Conference on the Physics of Reactors (Interlaken, Switzerland, 2008) [Google Scholar]
  13. B.L. Sjenitzer, J.E. Hoogenboom, Dynamic Monte Carlo method for nuclear reactor kinetics calculations, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 175, 94 (2013) [Google Scholar]
  14. B.L. Sjenitzer, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, 2013 [Google Scholar]
  15. D. Legrady et al., Population-based variance reduction for dynamic Monte Carlo, Ann. Nucl. Energy 149, 107752 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107752 [Google Scholar]
  16. I. Variansyah, R.G. McClarren, Analysis of population control techniques for time-dependent and eigenvalue Monte Carlo neutron transport calculations, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 196, 1280 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2022.2091906 [Google Scholar]
  17. K. Fröhlicher et al., Improving variance estimation for time-dependent detectors in Monte Carlo dynamic calculations using adaptive sampling of neutrons, in M &C 2023 – The International Conference on Mathematics and Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering, American Nuclear Society (Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, 2023) [Google Scholar]
  18. F.X. Hugot et al., Overview of the TRIPOLI-4 Monte Carlo code, version 12, EPJ Nucl. Sci. Technol. 10, 17 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1051/epjn/2024018 [Google Scholar]
  19. E. Brun et al., Tripoli-4, CEA, EDF and AREVA reference Monte Carlo code, Ann. Nucl. Energy 82, 151 (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. M. Faucher, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Saclay, France, 2019 [Google Scholar]
  21. T. Booth, A weight (charge) conserving importance-weighted comb for Monte Carlo, in Proc. RPSD Topical Meeting (Falmouth, USA, 1996) [Google Scholar]
  22. C. Montecchio et al., Towards a highly efficient and unbiased population-control algorithm for kinetic Monte Carlo simulations, EPJ Web Conf. 302, 09006 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202430209006 [Google Scholar]
  23. OECD/NEA, International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments, 1995 [Google Scholar]
  24. A. Zoia, E. Brun, Reactor physics analysis of the SPERT III E-core with Tripoli-4®, Ann. Nucl. Energy 90, 71 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.11.032 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. OECD/NEA, Benchmark on the Kinetics Parameters of the CROCUS Reactor, Tech. Rep. NEA 4440, 2007 [Google Scholar]
  26. C. de Mulatier et al., The critical catastrophe revisited, J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2015, 08021 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2015/08/p08021 [Google Scholar]
  27. B. Sjenitzer, J. Hoogenboom, A Monte Carlo Method for calculation of the dynamic behaviour of nuclear reactors, Prog. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 2, 716 (2011), https://doi.org/10.15669/pnst.2.716 [Google Scholar]
  28. D. Mancusi, HDR thesis, Université Paris-Saclay, France, 2023 [Google Scholar]
  29. E.M. Gelbard, R.E. Prael, Monte Carlo Work at argonne national laboratory, in Proc. NEACRP Meeting of a Monte Carlo Study Group, ANL-75-2 (1974) [Google Scholar]
  30. R. Brissenden, A. Garlick, Biases in the estimation of Keff and its error by Monte Carlo methods, Ann. Nucl. Energy 13, 63 (1986) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. G. Truchet et al., Computing adjoint-weighted kinetics parameters in Tripoli-4 by the iterated fission probability method, Ann. Nucl. Energy 85, 17 (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. G.I. Bell, S. Glasstone, Nuclear Reactor Theory (Van Nostrand Reinhold Inc., US, 1970) [Google Scholar]
  33. D.A. Brown, M.B. Chadwick, R. Capote et al., ENDF/B-VIII.0: The 8th major release of the nuclear reaction data library with CIELO-project cross sections, new standards and thermal scattering data, Nucl. Data Sheets 148, 1 (2018) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. R.E. Heffner, T.R. Wilson, SPERT-III Reactor Facility, Tech. Rep. IDO-16721, Idaho Operations Office, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1961 [Google Scholar]
  35. J.E. Houghtaling, J.A. Norberg, J.C. Haire, Addendum to the SPERT-III Hazards Summary Report: Low-Enrichment Oxide Core, Tech. Rep. IDO-17003, Idaho Operations Office, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1965 [Google Scholar]
  36. R.K. McCardell, D.I. Herborn, J.E. Houghtaling, Reactivity Accident Test Results and Analyses for the SPERT-III E-CORE – A Small Oxide-Fueled, Pressurized-Water Reactor, Tech. Rep. IDO-17281, Idaho Operations Office, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1969 [Google Scholar]
  37. A. Dervaux et al., Benchmarking of the SPERTIII E-core experiment with the Monte Carlo codes TRIPOLI-4®, TRIPOLI-5® and OpenMC, EPJ Web Conf. 302, 13011 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202430213011 [Google Scholar]
  38. A. Zoia et al., Analysis of dynamic reactivity by Monte Carlo methods: The impact of nuclear data, Ann. Nucl. Energy 110, 11 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.06.012 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. R. Hourcade, A. Jinaphanh, A. Zoia, Reactor Period Calculations by Monte Carlo Methods: Analysis of the SPERT III E-Core Reactivity Excursions, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Physics of Reactors (PHYSOR 2022) (May 15-20, Pittsburgh, PA, 2022) [Google Scholar]
  40. A. Zoia et al., Monte Carlo analysis of the CROCUS benchmark on kinetics parameters calculation, Ann. Nucl. Energy 96, 377 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.06.024 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Y. Nauchi, A. Jinaphanh, A. Zoia, Analysis of time-eigenvalue and eigenfunctions in the CROCUS benchmark, EPJ Web Conf. 247, 04011 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202124704011 [Google Scholar]
  42. A.J.M. Plompen et al., The joint evaluated fission and fusion nuclear data library, JEFF-3.3, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 181 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00141-9 [Google Scholar]
  43. A. Zoia, E. Brun, F. Malvagi, Alpha eigenvalue calculations with TRIPOLI-4, Ann. Nucl. Energy 63, 276 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  44. A. Zoia et al., Monte Carlo methods for reactor period calculations, Ann. Nucl. Energy 75, 627 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  45. V. Vitali et al., Comparison of direct and adjoint k and α-eigenfunctions, J. Nucl. Eng. 2, 132 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  46. N. Terranova, A. Zoia, Generalized iterated fission probability for Monte Carlo eigenvalue calculations, Ann. Nucl. Energy 108, 57 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.04.014 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

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.