See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263918335

Modélisation Monte Carlo et Interprétation de l'Expérience CREOLE sur les

Effets de Température des Réacteurs à Eau Légère - Qualifications des
Données Nucléaires de Base Monte Car...

Thesis · May 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 386

1 author:

YASSINE Boulaich
National Center for Energy Sciences and Nuclear Techniques
68 PUBLICATIONS   240 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Safety Analysis of Research Reactors and Related Experiments. View project

nuclear cross sections adjustment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by YASSINE Boulaich on 18 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2927–2932

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

CREOLE experiment study on the reactivity temperature coefficient with

sensitivity and uncertainty analysis using the MCNP5 code and different
neutron cross section evaluations
Y. Boulaich a,d,∗ , T. El Bardouni a , L. Erradi b , E. Chakir c , H. Boukhal a , B. Nacir d ,
C. El Younoussi a,d , B. El Bakkari a,d , O. Merroun a , M. Zoubair a
a
Radiations and Nuclear Systems Laboratory, University Abdelmalek Essaadi, Faculty of Sciences of Tetouan, Morocco
b
University Mohammed V of Rabat, Morocco
c
LRM/EPTN, Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, Kénitra, Morocco
d
CEN-Maamora, CNESTEN, Rabat, Morocco

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present work, we analyze the CREOLE experiment on the reactivity temperature coefficient (RTC)
Received 10 November 2010 by using the three-dimensional continuous energy code (MCNP5) and the last updated nuclear data eval-
Received in revised form 3 June 2011 uations. This experiment performed in the EOLE critical facility located at CEA/Cadarache, was mainly
Accepted 5 June 2011
dedicated to the RTC studies for both UO2 and UO2 –PuO2 PWR type lattices covering the whole temper-
ature range from 20 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C. We have developed an accurate 3D model of the EOLE reactor by using
the MCNP5 Monte Carlo code which guarantees a high level of fidelity in the description of different con-
figurations at various temperatures taking into account their consequence on neutron cross section data
and all thermal expansion effects. In this case, the remaining error between calculation and experiment
will be awarded mainly to uncertainties on nuclear data. Our own cross section library was constructed
by using NJOY99.259 code with point-wise nuclear data based on ENDF-BVII, JEFF3.1 and JENDL3.3 eval-
uation files. The MCNP model was validated through the axial and radial fission rate measurements at
room and hot temperatures. Calculation-experiment discrepancies of the RTC were analyzed and the
results have shown that the JENDL3.3 and JEFF3.1 evaluations give the most consistent values; the dis-
crepancy is less than 0.23 pcm/◦ C. Whereas, when using ENDF-BVII evaluation for UOX configuration,
this discrepancy reaches a value of 0.63 pcm/◦ C. In order to specify the source of this relatively large dis-
crepancy in the case of ENDF-BVII nuclear data evaluation, the keff discrepancy between ENDF-BVII and
JENDL3.3 was decomposed by using sensitivity and uncertainty analysis technique. The thermal energy
range of 238 U(n,␥) absorption cross section was found to contribute to the major part of the observed keff
discrepancy between ENDFB-VII and JENDL3.3 evaluations.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The purpose of this study is to analyze the CREOLE (Coefficient of

The reactivity temperature coefficient is a very important
parameter for safety and control of light water reactors. It results
from contribution of several factors related to fuel or modera-
tor temperature variations. Although an exact calculation of this
parameter presents a very delicate problem, particularly for small
temperature ranges; its value must be determined precisely for a
correct criticality assessment in various states of a nuclear reactor.
∗ Corresponding author at: Radiations and Nuclear Systems Laboratory, Univer-
sity Abdelmalek Essaadi, Faculty of Sciences of Tetouan, Morocco.
Tel.: +212 666715372; fax: +212 39994500.
E-mail addresses: boulaich@cnesten.org.ma, yassineboulaich@gmail.com
(Y. Boulaich).
Reactivity in EOLE) experiment which aims to measure the reactiv-
ity effect with temperature in PWR type lattices. In this experiment
performed in the EOLE critical facility located at CEA/Cadarache, the
RTC has been measured for both UO2 and UO2 –PuO2 PWR type lat-
tices covering the whole temperature range from 20 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C.
Other measurements have been performed to characterize axial
and radial fission rate distributions in the EOLE reactor. All of these
measured values are compared to their computed equivalents. In
the case of MOX configuration, the calculation of radial fission rate
has covered 8 fuel elements involving two radial heterogeneities:
(a) 5 fuel rods with 3.2% of fissile Pu and (b) 3 fuel rods with 2% of
fissile Pu.
Our calculations are based on the Monte Carlo method by using
the MCNP code, which allows simulating all types of interactions
and using point-wise cross sections. Moreover, in order to reach

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.06.009
2928 Y. Boulaich et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2927–2932

Table 1
Experiment fuel rods characteristics (Erradi et al., 2003).

Pellet diameter
Outside diameter of cladding
Uranium enrichment
Plutonium characteristics
8 mm
9.4 mm
3.1% for UO2 fuel rods and natural uranium
for UO2 –PuO2 fuel rods
80 fuel rods with 3.2% of fissile Pu
120 fuel rods with 2% of fissile Pu

sufficient accuracy, the maximum details of geometry have been

introduced in our MCNP input file and an extremely long comput-
ing time was consumed. In this case, any additional discrepancy
between calculation and experiment can be awarded only to uncer-
tainties on nuclear data.

2. CREOLE experiment

The CREOLE experiment, performed in the EOLE critical facility

at CEA-Cadarache, has been designed to provide interesting and
complete information on the temperature effects in the light PWR
lattices covering the whole temperature range from 20 ◦ C up to Fig. 1. The NJOY modules adopted in the generation of continuous-energy cross
300 ◦ C (Erradi, 1982). section libraries for MCNP code.

The EOLE reactor consists of a tank in which is placed a central

loop surrounded by the driver core. At room temperature, the tank
is filled with water just above the fuel assemblies (to achieve a
critical situation, the number of fuel elements in the feeder zone
was adjusted depending on operating conditions in the test loop)
(Erradi, 1982).
The central test loop contains a PWR type assembly of 200 UO2
or UO2 –PuO2 fuel pins with Zircaloy cladding. The fuel rods were
arranged in a 1.26 cm square lattice pitch. The main characteristics
of the fuel rods are summarized in Table 1. Concerning the driver
core, it was loaded with UO2 (3.5% enrichment) fuel pins with alu-
minum cladding arranged in a 1.43 cm square lattice pitch (Erradi
et al., 2003).
In the CREOLE experimental program, a large number of mea-
surements were carried out for various configurations of the central
test loop and at different temperatures. In this study, we are only
interested in the calculation of the reactivity temperature coeffi-
cient and fission-rate distributions for the following configurations
of the experimental loop (Erradi, 2007):
- UO2 clean lattices (200 fuel rods of 3.1% enrichment) with
graphite and stainless steel as axial reflectors.
- UO2 –PuO2 clean lattices (80 fuel rods with 3.2% of fissile Pu and
120 fuel rods with 2% of fissile Pu) with graphite and aluminum
as axial reflectors.
stituting materials of this reactor, at various temperature ranges
using the processing nuclear data system NJOY99.259 with corre-
sponding evaluation tapes (MacFarlane, 2000, 2002; Rose, 1991).
The NJOY processing modules used in this study are listed in Fig. 1.
The thermal scattering law data, S(˛,ˇ), for H/H2 O and graphite
were used to account for the molecular binding effects at energies
below ∼4 eV (X-5 Monte Carlo Team, 2003; Sunny et al., 2008). In
order to take into account the temperature dependence of these
thermal scattering data, the S(˛,ˇ) function was reproduced at
each temperature by using a polynomial interpolation of tabu-
lated frequency spectra (frequency distributions of H bound in H2 O)
between the two available values limiting the desired temperature.
The repeated structure capability of MCNP code was utilized for
loading different parts of the core with various types of fuel sub-
assemblies. The TMP card of MCNP code was used to define the
temperature in each cell and to accurately simulate the neutron
transport at low energies. The initial source distribution for criti-
cality calculation was defined at the center of each fuel element in
the central loop by using the ksrc option of the MCNP code.
Thermal expansion effect in the fuel and the structural materials
has been considered by using the following equations for changing
density and dimensions of the expanded materials as function of
temperature (Chakir, 2005):
(T ) = (T0 )(1 − 3˛T ) and x(T ) = x(T0 )(1 + ˛T )

Measurements were performed in the following four tempera-
ture ranges related to four corresponding driver core loadings to
achieve the initial reactivity excess (Erradi et al., 2003):
- 1st range: 20–111 ◦ C
- 2nd range: 111–186 ◦ C
- 3rd range: 186–242 ◦ C
- 4th range: 242–289 ◦ C
3. MCNP model of EOLE reactor
For the purpose of developing our 3D model of EOLE reactor, we
have used the MCNP5 code which allows describing the real geom-
etry and materials composition. This leads to minimize the number
of approximations and to highlight the errors linked to nuclear data
libraries. The calculations were performed with this Monte Carlo
code based on the ENDF/B-VII, JEFF3.1 and JENDL3.3 cross section
libraries. These libraries were constructed, for all the isotopes con-
where (T) is the density as function of temperature, x(T) is the
dimension as function of temperature, ˛(T) is the linear coefficient
of thermal expansion whose values are given in Table 2.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the geometry of EOLE reactor as it was pre-
sented in the MCNP Visual Editor in comparison with real geometry.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Fission rate distributions
The EOLE MCNP model was validated through the axial and
radial fission rate distributions by comparing the measured and
calculated values.
The axial fission rate is calculated every 2-cm along the experi-
mental tube using the track length estimate of flux with multiplier
tally (FM4). The measured and calculated axial profiles for UOX
and MOX configurations at room temperature are displayed in
Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
 Y. Boulaich et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2927–2932 2929

Table 2
Linear thermal expansion coefficients (Erradi and Santamarina, 2008).

Material UO2 or UO2 –PuO2 Zr-2 SS304

˛ (◦ C−1 ) 8379 × 10−6 + 5792 × 10−9 T 5770 × 10−6 + 6154 × 10−9 T 18 × 10−6

Fig. 2. Schematic axial view of EOLE reactor.

For both of these configurations, there is an overall satisfactory
agreement between calculation and experiment especially around
the center region with differences essentially within the uncertain-
ties.
The observed asymmetry in the axial profiles of fission rates for
the two configurations is due to the presence of the graphite in the
upper part of the fuel element as reflector. The UOX configuration
is characterized also by the presence of stainless steel in the upper
and lower part of fuel elements, while in the MOX configuration
neutrons are reflected by graphite and aluminum from upper part
and by aluminum in the lower part.
The discrepancies between calculation and experiment toward
the edge for the MOX configuration, at ∼30-cm from the core
mid-plane, are mainly due to the lower and upper aluminum
reflectors (Klann et al., 2004). In fact, we can notice that the
difference in the lower part is greater because of the large quantity

Fig. 3. Schematic radial view of EOLE reactor.

2930 Y. Boulaich et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2927–2932

ENDF-BVII
JEFF3.1 1.00 ENDF-BVII
1.0 JENDL3.3 JEFF3.1
EXP JENDL3.3
0.98 EXP
0.9
Normalized fission rate

Normalized fission rate

0.96
0.8
0.94
0.7
0.92

0.6
0.90

0.5
0.88

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

0.86
H(cm)
0 2 4 6 8 10
Fig. 4. Calculated axial fission rate distribution in the experimental tube for UOX H(cm)
configuration in comparison with the experiment.
Fig. 6. Calculated radial fission rate distribution for UOX configuration with fitting
curves in comparison with the experiment.
of aluminum reflector under fuel elements. On the other side,
when comparing neutron scattering cross sections, it appears that
the overestimation of calculated fission rates toward the edges for ENDF-BVII
JEFF3.1
MOX configuration was due to the overestimation of evaluated
JENDL3.3
aluminum elastic scattering cross sections in comparison to the 1.10 EXP
EXFOR experimental data. This is not the case for stainless steel
neutron cross sections where the agreement is better.
The radial pin-by-pin fission rate distribution in the central loop 1.05
is calculated in the direction along x axis. Figs. 6 and 7 represent the
Normalized fission rate

measured and calculated radial profiles for the UOX and MOX con-
1.00
figurations, respectively, at room temperature. One can find that
the calculated values are reasonably in good agreement with the
experiment except near the boundaries because of the proximity 0.95
of the void region.

4.2. Axial buckling 0.90

The axial fission rate profiles can also be used to determine the
axial buckling by fitting the results with a cosine function (Baeten 0.85
et al., 2004). Practically the cosine function can be used in a region
where the influence of the upper and lower water reflector is neg- 0.80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ENDF-BVII H(cm)
JEFF3.1
JENDL3.3
1.05 Fig. 7. Calculated radial fission rate distribution for MOX configuration with fitting
EXP
curves in comparison with the experiment.
1.00

0.95
ligible. Results of the axial buckling compared to the experimental
Normalized fission rate

0.90 values are summarized in Table 3. As it can be seen, the very large
0.85 extrapolated distance (active fuel 70 cm) due to the streaming effect
near the boundaries is well predicted by the calculation.
0.80
It must be noted that all of these calculations were performed by
0.75 using the last updated nuclear data evaluations (ENDF-BVII, JEFF3.1
0.70 and JENDL3.3) with 432 millions of neutron histories (7200 active
cycles with 60,000 neutrons each, and 100 discarded cycles for con-
0.65

0.60 Table 3
0.55 Extrapolated length in the central test loop at room and hot temperatures for the
UOX configuration by using ENDF-BVII nuclear data evaluation in comparison with
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 experimental values.

H(cm) T (◦ C) He (experiment) He (calculation)

20.27 100.4647 100.4479

Fig. 5. Calculated axial fission rate distribution in the experimental tube for MOX
289.05 104.5050 105.7503
configuration in comparison with the experiment.
 Y. Boulaich et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2927–2932 2931

verging the source distribution), leading to statistical uncertainties

around 3 × 10−5 in the multiplication factors and 1 × 10−2 in the 1.0
axially averaged fission rates on the 1␴ level. 0.8
0.6
4.3. Reactivity calculation 0.4
0.2
In order to reach a suitable accuracy with the MCNP5 model
of the EOLE reactor, an extremely long computing time was con- 0.0
sumed. Calculations which we carried out made it possible to -0.2
achieve keff accuracy around 3 pcm during 5619.08 min on a lab -0.4
Desktop – Intel (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Core 2 Duo CPU 3065 @ 2.33 GHz)
-0.6
architecture.
Criticality calculations were performed with the KCODE option -0.8
of the MCNP code by using the ENDF-BVII, JEFF3.1 and JENDL3.3 -1.0
nuclear data for both UOX and MOX configurations. The results, at
-1.2
room temperature for which experimental values exist, are pre-
-1.4
sented in Table 4 along with the measurements.
As it can be seen from this table, there is a relatively good 0 50 100 150 200 250
agreement between calculation and experiment; the calculation-
experiment discrepancy is less than 350 pcm. For both, UOX and
MOX configurations, the best estimated values were obtained when Fig. 8. Calculation-experiment discrepancy on the RTC as function of temperature
using the JENDL-3.3 nuclear data evaluation. for UO2 configuration with fitting curves.

4.4. Reactivity temperature coefficient
In a given temperature range [T1 , T2 ], the calculation of the reac-
tivity temperature coefficient was performed by calculating the
effective multiplication factors keff (T1 ) and keff (T2 ) at temperatures
T1 and T2 , respectively, and using the following expression:
1 keff (T1 ) − keff (T2 )
˛=
T keff (T1 )keff (T2 )
It must be noted that the reactivity temperature coefficient calcu-
lations will include take into account both Doppler coefficient and
moderator temperature coefficient based on changes in moderator
density and the moderator and reflector temperatures.
Results of the RTC calculation are compared to the experimental
values in Figs. 8 and 9.
For the UOX configuration, one can found that the calculation-
experiment discrepancy is within the experimental uncertainties
(<0.19 pcm/◦ C) when using JENDL3.3 or JEFF3.1 nuclear data evalu-
ations; whereas this discrepancy reaches an absolute value of 0.63
when we use ENDF-BVII. This relatively large discrepancy can be
awarded mainly to uncertainties on nuclear data.
In the case of MOX configuration, the discrepancy is within the
experimental uncertainties for each evaluation (<0.23 pcm/◦ C). It is
probable that the relatively large discrepancy produced when using
ENDF-BVII is concealed by compensation with plutonium isotopes
contribution.
4.5. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
As it is shown above, integral parameters are poorly reproduced
by ENDF-BVII. Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool to identify the
nuclear data contribution to the discrepancy between calculated
integral quantities in fission reactors. Hence, in order to under-
stand the relatively large discrepancy between results calculated
by JENDL3.3 and ENDF-BVII evaluations for UOX configuration, a
preliminary sensitivity and uncertainty study on the multiplication
factor was carried out to evaluate the impact of neutron cross-
section at room temperature (Takeda and Van Rooijen, 2009).
These sensitivity calculations were processed by nuclide and
reaction type using the PERT card of MCNP code for fifteen energy
groups (McKinney and Iverson, 1995; Hendricks et al., 1999). Once
the sensitivity coefficient matrix Sr for each integral parameter and
the covariance matrix D are available, the uncertainty of the inte-

Table 4
Reactivity excess for UOX and MOX configurations calculated by using different nuclear data evaluations at room temperature in comparison with experimental values.

 (experiment) (C-E) ENDF-BVII (C-E) JEFF-3.1 (C-E) JENDL-3.3

UO2 clean lattice 325 +259 pcm +185 pcm +86 pcm
UO2 –PuO2 lattice 295 +350 pcm +302 pcm +229 pcm

Table 5
Uncertainty (in pcm), by isotope, due to cross-sections for the UOX configuration.

Isotopes  cap  fiss  el  n,2n  inel Total

234
U −2.14 −0.41 −2.18 0.00 −0.28 −3.09
235
U 7.44 −9.28 −3.36 0.01 −2.57 −12.63
238
U 156.66 6.97 0.00 −1.51 −12.28 157.31
16
O 0.08 0.00 −17.51 0.00 8.15 −19.32
90
Zr −92.27 0.00 −6.71 0.05 −16.83 −94.03
91
Zr 130.05 0.00 5.61 0.00 0.00 130.17
92
Zr 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.59
94
Zr −0.94 0.00 −18.26 0.00 0.00 −18.28
96
Zr 11.76 0.00 3.31 0.00 0.00 12.22
Total 223.98 −11.61 −27.28 −1.51 −22.52 227.06
2932 Y. Boulaich et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 2927–2932

5. Conclusion

1.0 In this study we have analyzed the CREOLE experiment by calcu-

0.8 lating the reactivity temperature coefficient for UOX and MOX light
water lattices covering a relatively large temperature range from
0.6
20 ◦ C to 300 ◦ C. Calculations are based on our MCNP model for EOLE
0.4 reactor which is validated through the axial and radial fission rate
0.2 distributions in the central loop. ENDF-BVII, JEFF-3.1 and JENDL3.3
nuclear data evaluations have been tested and the results show that
0.0 the JENDL3.3 gives the most efficient results especially for the UOX
-0.2 configuration. Generally, the calculation-experiment discrepancies
are less than the current accuracy requirements for the RTC calcu-
-0.4
lation (1 pcm/◦ C) in the light water reactor lattices (Erradi, 2007). In
-0.6 this case, the residual discrepancy between calculations and exper-
iment was awarded to uncertainties on nuclear data evaluations. A
-0.8
comprehensive sensitivity and uncertainty study based on diagonal
-1.0 covariance matrices has been performed to evaluate the impact of
-1.2 neutron cross-section uncertainties on the reactivity temperature
coefficient. The thermal energy range of 238 U(n,␥) absorption cross
-1.4 section was found to be the major responsible of the observed keff
0 50 100 150 200 250 discrepancy between ENDFB-VII and JENDL3.3 evaluations.

References
Fig. 9. Calculation-experiment discrepancy on the RTC as function of temperature
Baeten, P., et al., 2004. Critical experiment with low-moderated MOX rods in VENUS.
for MOX configuration with fitting curves.
In: Workshop Proceedings , Paris, France, 14–15 April.
Chakir, E., 2005. Analyse des benchmarks expérimentaux sur le coefficient de tem-
pérature des réseaux des réacteurs à eau par la méthode de Monte Carlo et
gral parameter can be evaluated as follows (Salvatores and Jacqmin, implication sur les données nucléaire de base. PhD Thesis, University Mohamed
2008; Salvo, 2002): V, Rabat.
Erradi, L., 1982. Etude des effets de températures dans les réseaux caractéristiques
R2 = SR+ DSR des réacteurs nucléaires de la filière à eau ordinaire. PhD Thesis, Université de
Paris Sud Orsay.
In our case, each covariance matrix will be Erradi, L., 2007. Creole PWR reactivity temperature coefficient experiment. Cea
Report, CEA/Cadarche/DER/SPRC.
replaced by a diagonal matrix representing the
Erradi, L., Santamarina, A., 2008. Interprétation de l’expérience CREOLE sur le coeffi-
discrepancy between ENDF-BVII and JENDL3.3 cient de température des REP UOX et MOX par les codes APOLLO2.8 et TRIPOLI4.5
nuclear data evaluations in the fifteen energy groups (Rochman avec la bibliothèque JEFF3.1.1. Note technique de cea, Novembre.
et al., 2007; NEA/NSC/DOC, 2006). Erradi, L., Santamarina, A., Litaize, O., 2003. The reactivity temperature coefficient
analysis in light water moderated UO2 and UO2 –PuO2 lattices. Journal of Nuclear
Table 5 presents the contribution to the multiplication factor Science and Engineering 144, 47–73.
change of nuclide and reaction type. The energy dependence of the Hendricks, J.S., et al., 1999. MCNP perturbation capability for Monte Carlo criticality
contribution is shown in Table 6 for 238 U capture reaction. calculations. In: Sixth International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety ,
Versailles, France, September 20–24.
As it can be seen from these tables, the multiplication factor Klann, R.T. et al., 2004. Final Report of the International Nuclear Energy Research
was found to be most sensitive to the thermal energy range of 238 U Initiative OSMOSE Project (FY01-FY04). Nuclear Engineering Argonne National
capture cross section. In fact, for LWR calculations, the 238 U(n,␥) Laboratory, December 17.
Leal, L., et al., 2007. ORNL Methodology for Covariance Generation for Sensitiv-
reaction is considered as the most important reaction in the reso- ity/Uncertainty Analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
nance (Litaize et al., 2002). Nuclear Criticality Safety (ICNC 2007), Vol. II , May 28–June 1, St. Petersburg,
A total uncertainty of ∼227 pcm is obtained by squaring each Russia, pp. 25–29.
Litaize, O. et al., 2002. Analysis of the Mistral Experiment with APOLLO2 – Qualifi-
component of Table 5 and adding positive values or subtracting cation of Neutronic Parameters of UOX and MOX. PHYSOR 2002, Seoul, Korea,
negative ones (Leal et al., 2007). October.
MacFarlane, R.E., 2000. Understanding NJOY, Trieste, 13 March–14 April.
MacFarlane, R.E., 2002. NJOY-99 Nuclear Data Processing System. Los Alamos
Table 6 National Laboratory, Los Alamos, USA.
238
Uncertainty (in pcm), by energy, due to U capture cross-sections for the UOX McKinney, G.W., Iverson, J.L., 1995. MCNP perturbation technique for criticality
configuration. analysis. In: ICNC Meeting , Albuquerque, NM, September 17–21.
NEA/NSC/DOC, 2006. Benchmark on the KRITZ-2 LEU and MOX critical experiments.
Group E (MeV)  cap Nuclear Science, NEA/NSC/DOC (2005) 24, Final Report.
Rochman, D. et al., 2007. Preliminary Cross Section and n-Bar Covariances for WPEC
1 1.10E−07 136.04
Subgroup26. Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL-77407-2007-IR, January.
2 5.40E−07 37.25
Rose, P.F., 1991. ENDF-201, ENDF/B-VI Summary Documentation, 4th edition. BNL-
3 4.00E−06 23.71 NCS-17541.
4 2.26E−05 54.09 Salvatores, M., Jacqmin, R., 2008. Uncertainty and target accuracy assessment for
5 4.54E−04 13.95 innovative systems using recent covariance data evaluations. NEA/WPEC-26, a
6 2.04E−03 12.53 Report by the Working Party on International Evaluation Co-Operation of the
7 9.12E−03 −7.55 NEA Nuclear Science Committee.
8 2.48E−02 −25.79 Salvo, J.D., 2002. Contribution à l’Etude des Incertitudes des Paramètres Neu-
9 6.74E−02 −5.02 troniques d’un Cœur Compact et Hétérogène: Le Réacteur d’irradiation Jules
10 1.83E−01 38.52 Horowitz. Report CEA-R-6015, Décembre.
11 4.98E−01 5.63 Sunny, C.S., et al., 2008. KAMINI reactor benchmark analysis. Annals of Nuclear
12 1.35 3.34 Energy 35.
13 2.23 9.86 Takeda, T., Van Rooijen, W.F.G., 2009. Sensitivity Coefficients for Fast Reactor Core
Analysis. Research Institute for Nuclear Engineering, University of Fukui.
14 6.07 −8.17
X-5 Monte Carlo Team, 2003. MCNP – A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport
15 19.60 −0.10
Code, Version 5. Los Alamos National Laboratory, April 24.
Total 156.66

View publication stats