ARGONNE CODE CENTER MASTER COPY REFERENCE. ABSTRACT_22?_ ___ NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING: 23, 58-73 (1965) Criticality Calculations for Uniform Water-Moderated L. E. Strawbridge and R. F. Barry Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Atomic Power Division, Box 355, Pittsburgh 30, Posylvanio Received August 7, 1964 Revised February 11, 1965 ‘A procedure for calculating the neutron multiplication factor and few -group constants for water-moderated reactors has beon developed. The intent of this development was to produce # calculational procedure which could be used with 7 ‘confidence in the engineering design of water-moderated reactors. Analytio pro~ ‘edures that require large amounts of computer time were excluded from consid eration. ‘The proposed procedure includes a heterogeneous treatment of the fast-fission effect, resonance absorptions and the thermal utilization, The results of the pro~ edure agree well with more rigorous calculations requiring orders of magnitude more computer time, ‘The procedures have been applied to 116 U-motal and UO2 ‘experimental lattices covering a wide range of parameters. ‘The multiplication factor is INTRODUCTION ‘The engineering design of a nuclear reacior core requires hundreds and even thousands of criticality calculations. The neutron multiplication factor (#) Is undoubtedly the most frequently calculated parameter in the physics design of a reactor core. Regardless of whether one Is studying fuel depletion effects, reactivity coetfi- cients, methods of control, or analyzing critical experiments, the neutron multiplication factor is of utmost importance. ‘There are probably at least as many techniques for calculating few-group constants and multipli- cation factors as there are physics design groups in the industry. The methods that have been proposed range from techniques that are amenable to hand calculations to those that require many hours of computational time on a high-speed computer. Both of these extremeg may serve a useful purpose In the Industry, For example, it might be argued tat the hand calculations give the user a better uncerstanding of the physical phe- nomena involved. The extremely complex and expensive techniyues may be justified, if the This work was performed under Contract AT(20-1)~ 3269 for the Atomic Energy Commission. ‘oulated for all cases with a standard deviation about the mean of 0.86%. results’are accurate enough to negate the need for a critical experiment; thus the expensive calcula~ tion might be used as a critical experiment’ is used — as 2 basis for developing analytic tech- niques, For engineering design calculations, neither of the extreme methods is satisfactory. The hand calculations must ordinarily be simplified to the point where many of the physical phenomena can- not be adequately represented. Empiricism is strongly relled upon and the success of the method often depends upon the cancellation of errors. With a method of this type, It is extremely Important that the method be used only within the range of variables for which it was empirically developed. On the other hand, the most refined caleulational methods are not Sultable for engi- neering design work because of the large compu- tational expense involved, Thus, a strong necd exists for a method that is between these ex- tremes. The work described here is an attempt to fulfill this need. ‘The method that has been developed is believed to be orders of magnitude better than hand calcu- lations in terms of accurate representation of the physical phenomena involved. The computational time is orders of magnitude less than the most detailed calculations (computational time on theCRITICALITY CALCULATIONS order of 20 or 30 seu on the IBM-7094), Compari- sons with a large range of critical experiments and with more rigorous calculations justify the use of the method for engineering design. THEORETICAL METHODS Over-All Description of Method ‘Tne proposed procedure relies upon the fa- miliar Mutt! and Sofocate? codes in the calculation of nonthermal and thermal effects, respectively. The Muft-Sofocate model has previously been used at WAPD for criticality calculations", Mult is a 54-group Fourier-transform slowing-down code, whieh ineludes the energy range from 10 MeV to 0.625 eV. ‘The Greuling-Goertzel and B, approx! mations are used. The Sofocate code calculates the thermal-group constants averaged over a Wigner-Wilkins spectrum with a cutolf energy of 0.625 ev. Both Muft and Sofocate perform homogeneous calculations; i.e, there is no explicit representa- tion of the fuel, clad and moderator. Consequently, any effects that are dependent on the heterogeneity of the lattice must be accounted for by modifica- tions of the homogeneous results, In the past, for example, the homogeneous number densities input to Sofocate were flux-weighted to account for the different thermal flux in the fuel and moderator. In the resonance region of Mult, self-shielding factors for resonance absorbers were supplied to account for the flux depression at resonance energies. ‘The treatment of the heterogeneous effects basically distinguishes one calculational technique from another. The proposed method treats heterogencities in the calculation of the thermal utilization, the resonance absorption and the fast fission. The procedures are described in the following sections. The cross-section library, of course, portant in determining the success of tional procedure. It is impractical to present the {W, BORL, E. M. GELBARD and G. H. RYAN, “MUFT-4 Fast Neutron Spectrum Code for the IBM-104,"" WAPD= ‘TM-T2, Westinghouse Bettis Atomle Power Laboratory Guly 1859, ‘WH. ANSTER and R. SUAREZ, “The Calculation of ‘Thermal Constants Averaged over a Wigner-Wilkins Flux ‘Spectrum/Deseription of the Sofocate Code,” WAPD-TM- 28, Mestnghause Betis etomle Pover Laboratory (Jamary 1957). AW. H. ARNOLD, Jr, “Critical Masses and Lattice Parameters of H,0-UO, Critical Evperiments; A Compa fon of Theory and Exper! nert,"" YAEC-152, Westinghouse Atoniic Power Departiser. (November 1959). ‘4y. 3. BICH and W. F_KOVACIK, “Reactivity and Neu- tron Flux Distribation Studies in’ Multi-Region Loaded Reactor Cores," WCAP-1433, Westinghouse Atomic Power Department (June 1961). 59 library here since the various cross sections for each nuclide are tabulated for 54 Mult groups and 172 Sofoeate groups (up to the cutoff energy). The cross-section libraries were compiled at Westing- house Atomic Power Division based on the re- ported data. It is noteworthy that all of the cross sections are credible and are within the range of the reported cross-section measurements; i.e. none of the cross sections were arbitrarily ‘ad- justed’ to improve the agreement with critical experiments. ‘The multi-group Muit-Sofocate calculations are ordinarily édited to few-group results for use in the standard diffusion codes. When four-group results are used, the energy breakdown is: group 1, 10 MeV —- 0,821 MeV; group 2, 821 keV — 5.53 keV; group 3, 5530 eV — 0.625 eV; group 4, 0.625 eV 0eV. When two-group results are used, the breakpoint is at 0.625 eV. Calculations at Thermal Energies Consider a fuel-rod unit cell, which can be approximated as three concentric regions as shown in Fig. 1. The three regions correspond to the fuel, moderator and clad, and will be referred MODERATOR SUBSCRIPT REFERS TO 0 FUEL 1 MODERATOR 2 CLAD Fig. 1, Fuol-rod unit cell,60 : to by subscripts 0, 1, and 2 respectively in the following discussion. If a void exists between the fuel and clad, it will be assumed that the void and clad can be homogenized. ‘The most significant thermal parameter in eriticality calculations is nf,the number of fission neutrons released per thermal absorption. Tt can be calculated from group constants averaged over the thermal spectrum: Eye vB ja Yo bo = Sie * Dag Vado + Bai Vi Ge? Daa aga me) Vo where Let, Ve and dy are the macroscopic absorption exon ss fad fac a throat, respectively, in region &. Tr Sipe hy cre apcton and te oe ranag actors (8a) are enere tepene eommon pant ben to eles the energy dependence of the disadvantage factors 2 ay cau in tte mse ely the Maxwellian distribution. The success of this method is a result of a cancellation of errors; the assumption of a constant spectrum in the fuel and moderator overestimates 1f, while the use of Maxwellian cross sections in calculating disad- vantage factors underestimates nf. ‘The proposed calculational procedure attempts to circumvent thése errors by eliminating the as- ce aitdvatage core nip energy. As proposed by Greebler etal,*, disad- vantage factors are calculated at every Sofocate energy level and are inherently included in the Spe leance, Te deseo fe a culation can be divided into two parts: 1) the cal- ti Oe Soaurtipel Gaatnage tor and 2) the calculation of the spectrum and group ‘The Calculation of Monoenergetic Disadvantage Factors ‘The calculation o” monoenergetic disadvantage factors follows the :ntegral transport method as proposed by Amouya. and Benolst*, Modifications have been made to avcount for the clad, which was "Pp, GREEBLER, W. TARKER and J. HARRIMAN, Nucl, Set. Eng, 6, 128 (1859). “‘ACAMOUYAL, P, Bi NOIST and J, HOROWITZ, J. Nucl. Energy, 8, 79 (1957). STRAWBRIDGE AND BARRY assumed to be a void in the original derivation. Diffusion theory is used in the moderator and the method of successive generations ts applied in the fuel region; a transport boundary condition is applied at the inside of the moderator. "Amouyal and Benoist report that for a range of moderator-to-fuel ratios, their method reproduces 41/4 to within 0.5% of the DS: monoenergetic transport calculation. Furthermore, the spherical harmonie approximation (,) approaches their calculation as the order of the approximation in- creases from Pi to Ps. ‘The Amouyal-Benoist equations are not derived here. However, the final resclts are presonted along with a discussion of the modifications made to the original equations. ‘The clad disadvantage factor is given by fe bs 5 Ame em Bm” where 4, is the flux at the fuel surface and A¢: 1s the flux rise across the clad region. ‘The flux rise across the clad is calculated for a thin annulus by a diffusion theory approximation, (2) Bb. qty Be Ment Ee, 6 where « is the inverse thermal diffusion length andf is the thickness of the region. ‘The factor $ in Eq. (8) is a result of assuming the flix rise across the clad Is linear so that the average flux in the clad equals the fuel surface flux plus } the total flux rise across the clad. The ratio of surface flux to average fuel flux is calcu- lated by, Hee aati eee Pere par fice Bates x) ] w cross sections are transport-corrected to account for anisotropy so that Exo® = Bsol( 1-1) (5) Trot = Eso(1-2) + Zao (6) ‘The colfision probability in a cylinder (function of RoEro*) 1s Pe and is tabulated by Case et al."; a and f are functions of ReZie* and are plotted in Fig, 2. Ero "K. M. CASE, F. de HOFFMAN and G, PLACZEK, “‘In- troduction to the Thaory of Neutron Diffuston,” Los Alamos Sclentific Laboratory (1953).CRITICALITY ‘CALCULATIONS at orp w 20 «wo ~«5O. 30 Fo%te Fig. 2, Functions alMeSts) end P(ReEte) used to calculate thermal disadvantage Tactors, ‘The moderator disadvantage factor is det mined from the following expression: Oa, Ae yd + Ya Zea $2) Ge go 72 bo (t Vo Fao 3) 2x 1, 2 {ae TER tT (™ ~ »)] ieee where X is a function of xR, and xy and is given in terms of modified Bessel functions "0p, Rat »[ es eva noma Tr Gai) Riles) ~ Ga) cia ane where x is the inverse diffusion length. The term Ai {8 the extrapolation length (in terms of moder ator mean free paths) for a black cylinder and is plotted as a funetion of Rau: in Fig. 3. The term Fok v4 nw» ane» AB, SP m fox 30H a 3 a me -NUREAN FREE PATHS) , th Reker Fig, 8, Extrapolation length A for a black cylinder. Dus is the transport eross section of the moder- ator. Th Faq. (7), Zao in the original derivation has been replaced by Eae(1+ ¥2 $e? #). ‘Thus the fuel absorption cross section has, in effect, been Increased to account for both fuel and clad ab- sorption. ‘The blackness of the nonmoderator region, a6 seen from the moderator, is thereby preserved in calculating the flux rise across the Troderator region. Once the flix ratios $/% and é/& are determined, the fluxes are normalized to 2 volume average of tnity. Hence Voge + Vidi + Vaga = 2, ) where Vj is the volume fraction in region &. The above calculations are performed for ‘cross sections corresponding to each energy level In Sofocate, ‘The Calculation of Spectrum -Averaged Cross Sections The Sofocate spectrum is determined by the macroscople absorption cross sections at each energy level. (There are 172 energy levels in Sofocate up to the normal cutoff energy of 0.62562 eV). The macroscopic cross section at energy level ¢ is calculated by summing the flux-weighted cross sections and number densities over all elements (j) and all regions (4) in the untt cell Bie DE Nao! gat. (0) ‘The Wigner-Wilkins spectrum is calculated by Sofocate and the average Sofocate flux in the cell y? is determined at each energy level. The macroscople cross sections at each energy level, which include the effect of the disadvantage fac- tors (64'), are weighted by the spectrum flux yf to obtain the absorption eross section for the core: Eel y! ae - ae ay The term yj" is calculated in an identical fashion, with p-fission cross sections replacing absorption cross sections in Eqs, (10) and (11). ‘The other thermal parameter needed to de- scribe the system is the diffusion coefficient for the core (D), At energy level i we calculate a diffusion coefficient Including the effect of the disadvantage factors, Eacee 1 Dey 12) 35 E Na ow! on te Sofocate then weights Dé over the spectrum: core, L DIY! dE pe as) Calculations at Resonance Energies In the resonance energy range, the only impor- tant heterogeneity is the lumping effect of reso- nance absorbers and the consequent reduction in absorption, A self-shielding factor is applied to the resonance cross sections to account for the reduced absorption. In slightly enriched U-metal and UO; lattices, the only isotope for which self- shielding is important is U"*, The concentration of U™ is relatively low and calculations indicate the resonance self-shielding factor for U"* can be changed by a factor of 2 with a negligible change in the multiplication factor. This is due to the fact that both fission and absorption rates change In U®, whereas only the absorption rate changes in U"""with the self-svielding factor. Consequent- ly all resonance self- shielding is neglected except that in U™*. In Mult, the self- shielding factor aiso includes the Doppler effect tince the Mult cross-section brary contains no te uperature dependence. The calculation of the resonance absorption is made in three step::, First the U* resonance escape probability (1%) is calculated for the lattice; then a self-sl.ielding factor is obtained for STRAWBRIDGE AND BARRY 1; finally, the self-shtelding factor is used to determine the Muft spectrum and fast few-group constants. The three steps are described in detail. Calculation of p* ‘The Ui" resonance escape probability p* is calculated from the Wigner expression, = a Rit Pes 2 |e , swhere N™ and ££, are homogenized values, ‘The resonance integral for U™* (RJ**) is cal- culated from a correlation developed as part of this work and referred to as the ‘metal-oxide cor- relation.’ It has been found to agree with Hell- strand’s U-metal® and UO, (Ref. 9) correlations for isolated rods. The correlation is also con- sistent with Helistrand’s temperature correlations for U-metal and UO, (Ref. 10). Thus, a single correlation, applicable to both U-metal and UO: rods at any temperature, replaces the four Hell~ strand correlations. In close-packed lattices a shadowing correction (usually called the Dancoff correction) must be applied. ‘This correction is simply the effective blackness of the moderator and is designated Derr When 1.08 barns is included for 1/v absorp- tion, the metal-oxide correlation is RI = 2:16x + 2,86 + (0.0279 - 0.0537) Tex, aay (15) where Tet 1s in degrees Kelvin and 4 Zagh Dett 16) fs Petey st] (18) the scattering cross section of the fuel. The microscopic scattering cross sections to be used are 10.7 barns for uranium and 3.8 barns for oxygen Saf ts Ne is the U"* number density in the fuel re- gion fo 1s the meat. chord length in fuel (to= 4Vo/Se = 2Re for fuel rod) Pp = 1-P where P; is a function of Ese! Ro and is tabulated” the effective shielding factor for the lattice. is 'E, HELLSTRAND and G, LUNDGREN, Nucl. Set. Bry. 42, 435 (1952). #5, HELLSTRAND, J. Appl. Phys. 28, 1499 (1957). 5, HELLSTRAND, P. BLOMBERG and 8, HORNER, Nucl. Sei. Eng. 8, 497 (1960),CRITICALITY CALCULATIONS ‘The blackness of the moderator (1s D) iscalcu- lated by the method of Sauer" with the following equations: ean) = 1 SPT on or a square lattice olf (B* - Boo. a) For a hexagonal lattice je C#] 84 Boe, an where Zi Is the total cross section of the moderator fi is the mean chord length of the moderator vy ( = to Vi is the volume fraction of region # ‘Moderator’ is defined as the homogenization of ail nonfuel regions, Levine™ has shown that the Dancoff correction calculated for a black rod should be modified to account for partial transparency. Aisu'® has inte- grated the monoenergetic escape probabilities over a Breit-Wigner resonance to obtain the cor- rection for transparency. In both eases, the cor- rection factor is the same: Dar 01 1B) * tad ‘The metal-oxide correlation is plotted In Fig. 4 for three effective resonance temperatures. Also plotted are many points from Hellstrand’s corre- lations including his temperature corrections. It 1s apparent that the metal-oxide correlation 1s in excellent agreement with the Hellstrand correla- tions, The metal-oxide correlation uses an equiva- lence parameter rather similar to those proposed earlier as, for example, by Dresner"’, However, the factor Ps has becn included in the volume term of Eq. (16) to account for the flux dip within the fuel rod. ‘The volume absorption ts assumed to be due to neutrons, which enter the fuel from the moderator at energies just above the resonance energies and then are scattered into a resonance BAL SAUER, Nucl. Se’, Eng., 16, 329 (1963). BM. M. LEVINE, Nuc! Sct. Euy., 16, 271 (1383). SH. AISU and G. H. MINTON, Nucl. Set, Bng., 19, 468 (3368), ML. DRESNER, Rescuance Absorption in Nuclear Reac~ tors, Pergamon Press (1960). 63 “+ HRUsTRANO'S conRaLATION FOR UD, 2005 “+ RUSTRANOS CORRELATONFOR UNETAL RODS aL — weaonte conmeuron Fig. 4, Comparisonof metal-oxide resonance integral correlation with Hellstrand’s correlations for isolated reds. line in the fuel. The term Po accounts for the depression in this flux within the fuel rod; from the reciprocity relation, Ps is the ratio of average fuel flux to surface ‘flux for neutrons entering the fuel rod. Since the scattering cross section of the fuel includes the scattering of the absorber atoms In the correlation, the narrow resonance approxi- mation is implied. This form of the resonance Integral 1s not rigorous; however, its usefulness is demonstrated in Fig. 4. ‘The fret two terms in the metal-oxide corre- lation gives the resonance Integral at zero de- grees absolute, and the last two terms provide the temperature correction from O°K (-273°C) to Test (the effective resonance temperature). Although Dopplet correlations usually use room tempera- ture as a reference, this choice is arbitrary and is usually selected to coincide with the lowest temperature at which the experiments are per- formed, ‘The use of 0°K (-273°C) as the reference temperature does not affect the results in any way; however, it does tend to aid in understanding4 the magnitude of the resonance integral correc- tion which results (rom Doppler broadening. ‘The metal-oxide correlation appears to be more generat than the name implies. The corre- lation has been used to calculate the resonance integral for a wide range of homogeneous experi- ments reported in the early literature’ The homogeneous experiments include pure UO, and UsOs, mixtures of carbon with UO; or U;Os, and mixtures of UO, with H,O, D2O or sugar in varying ‘concentrations. ‘At room temperature, if the 1/y absorption is excluded, the metal-oxide correlation (Eq. 15) reduces to RI™ = 2,638 + 0.561. (2) For the homogeneous ease (22) ‘The results from this correlation are plotted in Fig. 5 along with the experimental results for the homogeneous cases (modified to account for a uy 25a ® yl rw, 2009 amy a3 SUCAR . a 5 5 1 ql eh et ay Fig, 8. Metal-o ide eorielation for homogeneous mistures, 8C.G. ALLAN ef al ,“*Resonince Absorption of Uranium tee on athe, telana Unversity (940. Wp, CREUTZ, H. JU °NIK,T. SNYDER and E. P. WIGNER, J. Appl, Phys, 26, 271 (1958), STRAWBRIDGE AND BARRY change in the accepted’ infinitely dilute resonance integral since the experiments were performed). ‘The agreement is excellent except when the scattering cross section per absorber atom is greater than several hundred barns. For very dilute homogeneous eases, the metal-oxide corre- lation overestimates the resonance integral, The success in calculating the resonance integrals for the homogeneous cases increases confidence in using the correlation for other fuel types (e.g uranium carbides or uranium alloys) Calculation of the U"* Self-Shielding Factor ‘A very important nonthermal lattice parameter is w, defined as the ratio of nonthermal neutrons captured in U"* to those thermalized, This para~ meter ts obviously important in deterniining the maltiplieation of the core as well as the conver- Sion ratio. In a reactor which has no leakage and no captures except those in U"", w can be calcu- lated very simply and, for this Special case, will be called w*. (23) The term w* is calculated from the results of step 1, A ‘modified Muft’ ts then run in which the brary is modified so that the caplure cross section in all elements except U"** is set equal to zero and the leakage is made zero by setting B?=0, The modified Mutt performs iterations on the self-shielding factor for U'* until w* is satisfied (w* is readily calculated from the Mutt output). The U"* self-shielding factor in Muft that satisfies w* is then used in step 3. Calculation of Nonthermal Group Constants It is assumed that the self-shielding factor in U"" is unaffected by the absorption in other isotopes and by the fast-neutron leakage. This is a reasonable assumption since the resonances of various isotopes interact only, slightly: Monte Carlo studies” indicate the U'* self-shielding factor changes by 1% or less for each weight per- cent change in U™ enrichment. Note that this ‘assumption does not mean that the reaction rate in U®* is unaffected by absorption in other Isotopes and leakage; the reaction rate will reflect changes in flux level and spectrum which result from other absorption and leakage. However, these effects should cause little, if any, change in the shielding in U"" due to lumping, or the Doppler — which are My, A. RISTY, “Unit Cell Homogenization for Reactor Depletion Studies," WCAP-6060, Westinghouse Atomic Power Division (1564).CRITICALITY CALCULATIONS 6 ' the two phenomena the self-shielding factor must account for. ‘Using the U" self-shielding factor calculated from step 2 and self-shielding factors of unity for all other isotopes, @ normal Muft is run, ‘This Muft has the regular cross sections for all ele- ments, and the leakage is accounted for by using the critical buckling. The fast few-group constants for the lattice are obtained from the Mutt edit. (This procedure is modified slightly as explained In the next section.) Although the above method for treailng reso- nances may appear rather involved, the procedure can readily be automated; since Muft requires only a few seconds of computing time, the several Muft’s required in the above procedure present no computational difficulties, Calculations at Fast-Fission Energies - The fast-fission reaction rate depends on the high-energy flux within the fuel region. Since fis- sion neutrons are all born in the fuel region, one would expect the high-energy flux to be greater in the fuel region than in the moderator region. If this is true, the homogeneous Muft calculation would underpredict the fast-fission rate in U™*. It is not obvious that this effect is important since, at a given energy, the source of neutrons is comprised of the direct fission source and the slowing-down source from all higher energies. This slowing-down source, along with the exchange ‘of neutrons between moderator and fuel as gov~ erned by the escape probabilities, may tend to equalize the flux throughout a unit cell. At some energies, these considerations may even lead to a higher flux in the moderator. Since the situation [5 complicated, it is well to derive a heterogeneous correction and investigate its effect. Essentially all fast fission in U™* occurs in the first ten energy groups, spanning the energy range from 10 MeV to 0.821 MeV, Conse- quently, a heterogeneous correction is calculated for each of the first ten groups. The heterogene- ‘ous correction is in terms of a flux ‘advantage factor’, which is the ratio of fuel fux to moderator flux. The procedure is a variation of the method proposed by Hellens"*, We consider a fuel. rod mit cell consisting of two regions, fuel (wil subscript 0) and nonfuel (with subscript 1). By analogy with the treatment of the thermal utilizatic a factor, we define the flux ratio in terms of the ‘fst utilization factor’ of the fuel, fo. In the therm :d group, only absorptions are counted in determi ing f; however, in the fast RL, HELLENS and F.C. HONECK, IAEA Tech. Rep. Ser. No, 12, 27 (1962). groups, all reactions that result In neutron re- moval from the microgroup must be included, Hence, all absorptions and inelastic scatterings and a fraction of the elastic scatterings must be counted. The fraction of the elastic scatterings that results in removals is a function of the logarithmic energy decrement (£) and the micro- group lethargy width (41). The total cross section (including all elastic scatters) 1s designated 2, and the cross section for removal from the group is designated E,. We define 1-cez, @) For any microgroup, we can write z Ero Veo Po" Fe Voges Dnt Vig 5) or te Eats fo $1 Ere Ifo Ea (l-C)Va . fe Zee (1=Co) Vo Ifo * ‘The flux corrections are normalized In each group so that foVor oi Vin de (26) The flux correction factors f and 6 are multiplied by the Muft group flux to obtain the actual flux in the fuel and nonfuel regions, respec tively, All reaction rates are thereby adjusted to account for the heterogeneity. ‘The calculation of the fast utilization factor, fo, Ig based on the method of successive generations, using escape probabilities from the moderator and fuel regions. The escape probability from the fuel is based on tables by Case, ef al.’; in the moder- ator, the method of Sauer" described previously 1s used, The derivation of fo appears in the appendix. 4 RESULTS Comparison with More Rigorous Calculations Comparisons for several experimental lattices have been made between the proposed calculation- al procedure described in this paper and a more rigorous procedure evaluated at WAPD". The more rigorous procedure used Monte Carlo meth ads to calculate the resonance absorption”. This absorption is forced into Muft, which then calcu- lates the slowing-down spectrum and the fast- group constants. The thermal constants are cal- 'y. J, EICH and R, B, RADCLIFFE, Westinghouse Atomic Power Division, Personal Communication (1963). “"R, D. RICHTMYER, “Monte Carlo Study of Resonance Escape in Hexagonal Reactor Laltices,"” NYO-G179, New ‘York University (1955).68 : culated by a ‘scattering ring’ Thermos", which is a unit-cell thermalization transport code. The total computer time required for a eriticality calculation using the more rigorous procedures {8 approximately 20 min on the IBM-7094, or ap- proximately 50 times as long as the proposed method, Some significant parameters are compared in Table I. The heterogeneous treatment of the resonance absorption can be evaluated through ‘comparisons of the parameter w, defined as the ratio of U** nonthermal capture rate to the thermalization (slowing-down) rate. ‘The statisti- eal uncertainty in the Monte Carlo calculations results in a probable error of approximately 1.5% in w; the proposed calculation generally falls within this uncertainty band. It should be pointed out that any difference in the calculated values of w results in a smaller percentage difference in &. For example, changing w by 1% causes a change in & of approximately 1%. Therefore, a negligible difference in & should result from using the Proposed method rather than the Monte Carlo method to treat heterogeneities in resonance ab- sorption. ‘The most significant parameter in the evalua- tion of thermal energy heterogeneities is mf, the number of fission neutrons per thermal absorp- tion. The following table indicates excellent agree~ ment between the proposed method and the trans- port unit-cell calculation using the Thermos code. ‘The largest deviation in nf is less than 3%. "Iq, C, HONECK, “THERMOS, A Thermalization Trans- STRAWBIIDGE AND BARRY ‘The fast-fission heterogeneous effect was eval- uated by comparing the flux advantage factors calculated by the proposed method with those calculated by the Monte Carlo code, Moca™. The flux advantage factor is defined as the ratio of flux in fuel region to flux in nonfuel regions. A comparison of the advantage factor (averaged over energies 0.8 to 10.0 MeV) for two U-metal lattices is made in Table Il. Although some library differences exist be- tween the calculations, and the Monte Carlo cal- culations have a statistical uncertainty estimated to be several percent in terms of flux advantage factor, it is evident that the proposed method does not predict as large a heterogeneous effect as the Monte Carlo calculations. However, a major por- tion of the heterogeneous effect is accounted for by the proposed method, and the calculation is obviously much better than disregarding the het- erogeneity entirely (which would imply an advan- tage factor of 1.0). ‘The difference in fast fissions resulting from differences in the advantage factor calculations should not cause an error in the multiplication factor greater than 0.1% in the oxide lattices; in U-metal lattices, the errors could be somewhat larger and might approach 1% in extreme cases (large rod size and high W/U). Because of the relative insensitivity of the multiplication factor to the fast-flux advantage factor, the proposed method is judged to be adequate for engineering design purposes and the "4. RIEF, “An IBM-104 Monte Carlo Code to Calculate Fast Fission Effects in Homogeneous and Heterogeneous port Code for Reactor Lattice Calculations,” BNL-8626, Systoms,"" BNL-647, Brookhaven National Laboratory Brookhaven National Laboratory (1961). 360). TABLET Comparison of Proposed Calculations with Moate Carlo-Thermos Calealations ot v Serre Monte Proposed Proposed Carlo Method Thermos Method = (w%) 21 Steet Clad 0.358 1.481 22 Steel Clad 0.383, 1423 37 Steel Clad 0.364 160 37 Steel Clad 0.194 14s 32 Steel Clad 0.194 1286 40 1 Clad 0.334 1682 40 Steel Clad 0.334 1284 1s Alclad 9.280 25 al Clad 0.239, ‘tw ratlo of nonthe mal capture rate In U" to the neutron thermalization rate. Su,0:U-Borated,CRITICALITY CALCULATIONS 8r TABLE Comparison of Monte Carlo and Proposed Fast-Fission Advantage Factor Lattice Deseription . Advantage Factor um [_rod, Uemetal | Monte | Proposed 0:0 | (wt) [~in [em] Carlo | “Method x0 [ro [os | us | 109 | 10s additional computer time {approximately 10 min on IBM-7094) required for Monte Carlo calcula= tions is not justified. However, the 5- to 10-sec increase in computer time to perform the pro- posed heterogeneous calculations Is justified, par- ticularly if U-metal lattices are considered, Comparison with Experiments Data for a large number of critical and expo- neftial lattices using U-metal or UO, fuel have been collected from the literature, Only uniform lattices have been considered; i.e. cases containing heterogeneities due to fuel element cans, water slots, control rods or followers were not included in these studies. ‘The cases were limited (with a few exceptions) to lattices for which experimental bucklings have been reported. Using the experi- mental buckling to represent leakage, the multi- plication factor can be calculated ‘in a ‘point model,’ without performing any diffusion calcula tions. ‘The experimental lattices used in this study represent a severe test of any calculational pro- cedure. Of the 116 lattices studied, 55 used UO, fuet and 61 used U-metal fuel. The U"* enrich- ments varied from 1.0 to 4.0%; Hz0:U varied from ‘approximately 1.0 to 12; boron concentrations in the moderator as high as 3500 parts/10° were considered and as much as 85% of the moderator was D,O in some cases. Fuel rod diameters from 0.175 in, (0,445 em) to 0.925 in, (2.35 cm) were ‘used; both stainless steel and aluminum clad were studied as well as both square and hexagonal lattice arrays. ‘The data for all the UO, cases, along with the multiplication factors calculated by the proposed procedures, are given in Table III. Similar data for’the U-metal lattices are presented in Table IV. Considering all UO, and U-metal cases to- gether, the calculaticns resuit in ‘de= 0,£331 + 0,0086 (116 cases), where the quoted er-or corresponds to one stand- ard deviation of a sample about the mean, ao | vo | o6 | 18 | ust] 120.:}- If the UO, and U-metal cases are considered separately, we have For UO; cases Je= 0.9899 0,008 (55 cases) For U-metal cases A= 0.9960 + 0.0072 (61 cases). Perhaps it is more instructive to consider the results grouped. according to the major labor: tories whieh provided the experimental data. ‘Table V provides this information. An interesting observation from this table is that the mean & is approximately the same (0.994 to 0.997) for all groups of experiments except the Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) group, which is 1% lower. Part of this discrepancy may be due to failures in the proposed calculational procedure for the B&W cases. However, a part may also be due to a systematic difference in the experimental ‘buckling determination. Reference 28 reports the results of B&W calculations for a number of their critical experiments, It was observed that diffu- sion calculations resulted in a mean & that was more than 0.6% higher than the mean & from ‘point model’ calculations using the experimental bucklings, Differences in several cases were In excess of 1.5%. Consequently, either the buckling measurements or the diffusion calculations appear to be questionable. If our calculated 4's for the B&W cases were increased by 0.6% (applying the bias determined by B&W), the mean & for those cases would be raised to approximately 0.992, placing them much more in line with all the others. This would also have a major effect in reducing the standard deviation for all cases, since the B&W experiments account for nearly one-half of the total deviation. ‘We have also compared radial diffusion calcu~ lations with point calculations for several B&W cases, In general, the agreement is better thar that reported by B&W. However, case 37 stands out as having a very large discrepancy between the point calculation and the diffusion calculation. For that case, the diffusion calculation results in a that is more than 2% lower than the point ealculation. Thus the reported buckling for case 37 appears to be inconsistent with the other buckling measurements. This would explain why ease 37 has the highest calculated & in Table Ill and why it is inconsistent with the other B&W cages, which are generally underpredicted by the proposed calculational method, ‘The reported experimental buckling uncertain- ties often result in an uncertainty in & of less than 0.1% and rarely in excess of 0.25%. However, the uncertainties in the UO, cases. 51 through 55 are larger than normal, ranging from 0.6 to 1.5%. No