Uncertainty Analyses Applied to the UAM/TMI-1 Lattice Calculations Using the DRAGON (Version 4.05) Code and Based on JENDL-4 and ENDF/B-VII.1 Covariance Data
The OECD/NEA Uncertainty Analysis in Modeling (UAM) expert group organized and launched the UAM benchmark. Its main objective is to perform uncertainty analysis in light water reactor (LWR) predictions at all modeling stages. In this paper, multigroup microscopic cross-sectional uncertainties are propagated through the DRAGON (version 4.05) lattice code in order to perform uncertainty analysis on and 2-group homogenized macroscopic cross-sections. The chosen test case corresponds to the Three Mile Island-1 (TMI-1) lattice, which is a 15 15 pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel assembly segment with poison and at full power conditions. A statistical methodology is employed for the uncertainty assessment, where cross-sections of certain isotopes of various elements belonging to the 172-group DRAGLIB library format are considered as normal random variables. Two libraries were created for such purposes, one based on JENDL-4 data and the other one based on the recently released ENDF/B-VII.1 data. Therefore, multigroup uncertainties based on both nuclear data libraries needed to be computed for the different isotopic reactions by means of ERRORJ. The uncertainty assessment performed on and macroscopic cross-sections, that is based on JENDL-4 data, was much higher than the assessment based on ENDF/B-VII.1 data. It was found that the computed Uranium 235 fission covariance matrix based on JENDL-4 is much larger at the thermal and resonant regions than, for instance, the covariance matrix based on ENDF/B-VII.1 data. This can be the main cause of significant discrepancies between different uncertainty assessments. 1. Introduction The significant increase in capacity of new computational technology made it possible to switch to a newer generation of complex codes, which are capable of representing the feedback between core thermal-hydraulics and neutron kinetics in detail. The coupling of advanced, best estimate (BE) models is recognized as an efficient method of addressing the multidisciplinary nature of reactor accidents with complex interfaces between disciplines. However, code predictions are uncertain due to several sources of uncertainty, like code models as well as uncertainties of plant, materials, and fuel parameters. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the uncertainty of the results if useful conclusions are to be obtained from BE codes. In the current procedure for light water reactor analysis, during the first stage of the neutronic calculations, the so-called lattice code is used to calculate the neutron flux distribution over a specified region
References
[1]
R. E. MacFarlane and A. C. Kahler, “Methods for processing ENDF/B-VII with NJOY,” Nuclear Data Sheets, vol. 111, no. 12, pp. 2739–2890, 2010.
[2]
A. Hébert, “A nuclear data library production system for advanced lattice codes,” in International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, pp. 701–704, 2007.
[3]
G. Marleau and A. Hébert, “A user guide for DRAGON version 4,” Institute of Nuclear Energy Internal Report IGE-294, école Polytechnique de Montréal, 2009.
[4]
K. Shibata, O. Iwamoto, T. Nakagawa et al., “JENDL-4.0: a new library for nuclear science and engineering,” Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–30, 2011.
[5]
M. B. Chadwick, M. Hermanb, P. Oblozinsky, et al., “ENDF/B-VII. 1 nuclear data for science and technology: cross sections,” Nuclear Data Sheets, vol. 112, no. 12, pp. 2887–2996, 2011.
[6]
K. Ivanov, et al., “Benchmark for Uncertainty Analysis in Modeling (UAM) for Design, Operation and Safety Analysis of LWRs vol. I: Specification and Support Data for the Neutronic Cases (Phase I),” NEA/NSC/DOC(2011), Version 2, 2011.
[7]
J. C. Helton and F. J. Davis, “Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 23–69, 2003.
[8]
A. Hernandez-Solis, C. Ekberg, A. ？. Jensen, et al., “Statistical uncertainty analyses of void fraction predictions using two different sampling strategies: Latin hypercube and random sampling,” in Proceedings of the18th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering (ICONE '10), Xi’An, China, May 2010.
[9]
A. Hernandez-Solis, Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis applied to LWR neutronic and thermal-hydraulic calculations [Ph.D. thesis], Chalmers University of Technology, 2012.
[10]
K. Kosako and N. Yamano, “Preparation of a Covariance Processing System for the Evaluated Nuclear Data File JENDL (III),” JNC TJ9440 99-003, 1999.
[11]
G. Chiba and M. Ishikawa, “Revision and application of the covariance data processing code, ERRORJ,” in International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, pp. 468–471, October 2004.
[12]
H. Glaeser, “GRS method for uncertainty and sensitivity evaluation of code results and applications,” Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations, vol. 2008, Article ID 798901, 6 pages, 2008.
[13]
S. S. Wilks, “Determination of sample sizes for setting tolerance limits,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 91–96, 1941.
[14]
S. S. Wilks, “Statistical prediction with special reference to the problem of tolerance limits,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 400–409, 1942.
[15]
S. S. Wilks, Mathematical Statistics, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1962.
[16]
A. Wald, “An extension of Wilks’method for setting tolerance limits,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 14, pp. 44–55, 1943.
[17]
A. Wald and J. Wolfowitz, “Tolerance limits for a normal distribution,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 17, pp. 208–215, 1946.
[18]
A. Guba, M. Makai, and L. Pál, “Statistical aspects of best estimate method-I,” Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 217–232, 2003.
[19]
G. E. Noether, Elements of Nonparametric Statistics, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1967.
[20]
H. Scheffe and J. W. Tukey, “A formula for sample sizes for population tolerance limits,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 217, 1944.
[21]
H. Ackermann and K. Abt, “Designing the sample size for non-parametric,” Multivariate Tolerance Regions. Biometrical Journal, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 723–734, 1984.
[22]
A. Matala, “Sample size requirement for monte carlo—simulations using latin hypercube sampling,” Internal Report 60968, Departmentof Engineering Physics and Mathematics, Helsinki University of Technology, 2008.
[23]
A. Hernandez-Solis, C. Ekberg, C. Demaziere, A. ？deg？rd Jensen, and U. Bredolt, “Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses as a validation tool for BWR bundle thermal-hydraulic predictions,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 241, no. 9, pp. 3697–3706, 2011.
[24]
M. Stein, “Large sample properties of simulations using Latin Hypercube Sampling,” Technometrics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 143–151, 1987.
[25]
W. M. Stacey, Nuclear Reactor Physics, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2004.
[26]
R. L. Iman and W. J. Conover, “A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables,” Communication in Statistics-Simulation and Computation B, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 311–334, 1982.
M. Ball, Uncertainty analysis in lattice reactor physics calculations [Ph.D. thesis], McMaster University, 2012.
[29]
M. Pusa, “Incorporating sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to a lattice physics code with application to CASMO-4,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 40, pp. 153–162, 2012.
