Practical Monte Carlo using MCBEND

The Monte Carlo modeling assignment using MCBEND.

The problem is divided into two parts, both of which use the same starting MCBEND Base
Model. The details required for the MATERIAL GEOMETRY, MATERIALS
SPECIFICATION and SCORING units are presented first before the two exercises are set.

The assessment will take the form of a single short report with a maximum length of 5
pages of text. This can be supplemented by up to three pages of tables and figures. You
will also need to submit MCBEND input and output files.

The report will include both exercises and must take the following format:

 Abstract: A brief description of the work and the key conclusions (200 words max.)
1. Introduction: Explain in outline what you have done, providing some background
information on the methods used.
2. Method:
2.1. Describe your MCBEND model, using figures and table where appropriate.
2.2. Exercise 1: Describe the computational methods used for Exercise 1 including
what nuclear data you have used.
2.3. Exercise 2: Describe the computational methods used for Exercise 2 including
what nuclear data you have used.
3. Results:
3.1. Exercise 1: Describe results for Exercise 1 – referring to results tables and
figures where appropriate. Choose which results to present with the questions
in mind.
3.2. Exercise 2: Describe results for Exercise 2 – referring to results tables and
figures where appropriate.
4. Analysis & Discussion:
4.1. Exercise 1: Use appropriate analysis and discussion to answer the set
questions
4.2. Exercise 2: Use appropriate analysis and discussion to answer the set
questions
There may be other relevant points to make about your results and analysis,
especially if you have gone beyond the required exercises. Feel free to include
these in your results and discussion, subject to the total page limit.
5. Conclusions: What conclusions can you draw from the modelling you have done?

Target Readership: Write the report to be read by somebody who is already familiar with
Monte Carlo radiation transport methods and MCBEND.
Although no marking scheme is provided the allocated marks are heavily weighted
towards the accuracy of your MCBEND model, your results, how you present them and
the conclusions you draw from them.
We will not assess any textual material within the report beyond the first five pages, but
we will look in detail at your figures and tables. A single input file needs to be submitted
for each of the two exercises along with its corresponding MCBEND output file. These
input files needs to be separate text documents suitable for immediate input to MCBEND
(i.e. not pdf or WORD files and not appended to the report). These will be assessed along
with your report.

You must include your name within a comment at the top of your MCBEND input files
(you will be assessed on your general use of comments).

1 The MCBEND Base Model Geometry:

You are required to construct a MCBEND model of a bundle of 100 fuel elements
held within a water-filled lead container. A completed MCBEND model is shown in
Figure 1. This is not necessarily a fully realistic nuclear industry scenario; it has been
designed to enable you to demonstrate the skills you have learned on the course. The
details required to build the model are as follows.

Array of Fuel Elements

Stainless Steel Basket

Lead Shielding
Container

Figure 1 Bundle of Fuel Elements within a Lead Shielded Container

Left: with water removed. Right: with all materials present
1.1 The Fuel Elements

Figure 2 A Fuel Element

The fuel elements are made from metallic uranium fuel rods with enrichment in 235U of
1.0% by weight.
The rods are clad in stainless steel of radial thickness 0.25 mm
The clad thickness at each end of the rod is 5 mm
Fuel rod radius 12.5 mm
Fuel rod length 1100 mm
The fuel rod and its clad together make up the fuel element (see Figure 1).

1.2 The Fuel Element Bundle

One hundred fuel elements are arranged in a square array of 10 x 10 (you can assume
the elements are held in position by an unknown structure, which you do not need to
model). The lattice pitch in both direction is 30 mm and the space between the fuel
elements is filled with water.

Figure 3 A Bundle of 100 Fuel Elements Within a Stainless Steel Basket

Left – cross-sectional end elevation. Right – cross-sectional side elevation

The array of fuel elements is held centrally within a stainless steel basket of wall
thickness 5 mm.
Basket internal widths 310 mm
Basket internal length 1140 mm
Basket wall thickness 5 mm

1.3 The Shielded Container

The basket containing the array of fuel elements is held centrally within a lead cylindrical
shielded container. This has in external radius of 260 mm and an external length of
1300 mm. Its radial and end thicknesses are both 25 mm.
 Figure 4 Lead Shielded Container
Left – cross-sectional end elevation. Right – cross-sectional side elevation

1.4 Material Densities

The following materials are to be used for the model.

Material Density (g/cm3) Used for

Uranium (enriched to 1wt%) 18.0 Fuel rods
Stainless Steel 7.9 Fuel element clad
Basket
Water 1.0 Fills the gaps inside
the shielded container
Lead 11.0 Shielded container
Table 1. Materials Required for the MCBEND Model

1.5 Scoring Geometry

You are required to score dose rates at 1 m from the three external surfaces of the
shielded container. Hint – two of these are equivalent to each other.

Figure 5 Scoring Regions 1 m from the External Surfaces of the Container

Each scoring region shall be 10 mm thick and straddle the required scoring distance (1 m).
The end scoring region(s) shall be cylinders coaxial with the container which have a
diameter equal to half the external diameter of the container.
The side scoring region shall be centred about the mid point of the container and have a
length of 200 mm. Figure 5 shows what they should look like in your model.

You are required to score dose rates using ICRP74 fluence-to-dose responses in
MCBEND’s inbuilt response library (see Table 1 in Section 3.7.3 of the Manual).

The model as defined in this section is referred to as the Base Model.

2 Exercise 1: Gamma-Ray Problem

This exercise requires you to define a specified source of gamma-rays within the
MCBEND Base Model and run Monte Carlo simulations to score the required dose rates.
You will then need to change aspects of the model to investigate how dose rates change.

The fuel rods within the bundle have been uniformly irradiated in a nuclear reactor so that
they all emits the same gamma-ray spectrum shown in Table 2.

Upper Lower Photons/s/g

Bound of Bound of
energy bin energy bin
(MeV) (MeV)
4 3 8.15E+00
3 2.5 3.44E+02
2.5 2 4.77E+03
2 1.66 5.16E+02
1.66 1.44 1.04E+04
1.44 1.22 4.44E+03
1.22 1 1.28E+04
1 0.8 1.37E+04
0.8 0.6 1.15E+06
0.6 0.4 2.83E+05
0.4 0.3 2.75E+03
0.3 0.2 2.62E+03
0.2 0.1 1.32E+05
0.1 0.05 1.10E+04
0.05 0.02 2.32E+05
0.02 0.01 3.64E+03
Table 2 Photon Emissions from the Irradiated Fuel in the Model

The values in the right hand column represent the number of photons emitted per second
per gram of irradiated uranium within each of the energy groups defined by the first two
columns.

Define a source within your MCBEND model to represent the gamma emission from your
fuel. Use the photon Standard 22 group scheme to score Contributions to Responses as
well as the total responses.

Gamma Case 1. Run the simulation for long enough to score reliable dose rates
within your scoring regions.
Gamma Case 2. Run the simulation again, but this time with water drained from the
container and basket.
 Gamma Case 3. Put the water back in and run with the lead shield replaced by Cast
Iron (use the MCBEND library definition).
Gamma Case 4. It is found that all the water in the container is contaminated with
137Cs at a concentration of 0.5 MBq/cm3. Run a separate simulation to calculate the

dose rates in the same scoring locations from this additional gamma-emitting
component. Explain in your report what changes you needed to make to your model
to run this case.
For each result:
What is the total source in your model (gamma-rays per second)?
Explain in the Method section of your report what you did.
Present your results in the Results section and discuss in the Analysis section
whether you think the results are reliable.
Which are the most significant dose rate scoring groups and why?
Don’t forget stochastic uncertainties.

Comment on and explain the relative dose rates in the different scoring regions.
Comment on how dose rates vary between your simulations and explain your
observations. Which of the container materials makes the best shield and does the
presence of water matter for shielding?

Feel free to investigate alternative materials for the shielding container and to comment
on their shielding ability. See if you can get lower dose rates with alternative materials
with realistic densities.

Submit the MCBEND input and output files for Gamma Case 1 (fuel source with
water and lead) with your report.
These files must be plain text so the examiners can run your models.

3 Exercise 2: Neutron Problem

This exercise requires you to define a specified source of neutrons within the MCBEND
Base Model and to run Monte Carlo simulations to score the required dose rates. You will
then need to change aspects of the model to investigate how dose rates change.

Go back to the MCBEND Base Model and redefine the source to be fission neutrons from
235U. The intrinsic source strength is 50 neutrons per second per gram of uranium. In

reality such neutrons would come from the decay of actinides present within the irradiated
fuel, but you can treat it as having a fission source spectrum. Since the fuel contains
fissile nuclides, secondary fission neutrons will also be produced and may well dominate.
Remember that this is not the default situation in MCBEND, neutron multiplication by
fission needs to be switched on.

Use the neutron Standard 28 group scheme to score Contributions to Responses as well
as the total responses.

Neutron Case 1. Run the simulation for long enough to score reliable dose rates
within your scoring regions.
Neutron Case 2. Run the simulation again, but this time with water drained from the
container and basket.
Neutron Case 3. Put the water back in and run your simulation with different fuel
enrichments. The lowest enrichment to model can be 0% but the highest is limited
 by the need for the system to be sub-critical. Try to find what this upper limit is
(approximately), but note that MCBEND is not an appropriate code for criticality
assessment and eventually it will fail at high enrichment.
What is the total source in your model (neutrons per second)? This should be the intrinsic
source before any secondary fission neutrons.

For each result:

Explain in the Method section of your report what you did.
Present your results in the Results section and discuss in the Analysis section
whether you think the results are reliable.
Which are the most significant dose rate scoring groups and why?
Don’t forget stochastic uncertainties.

Comment on how dose rates vary in each case and explain your observations.
Plot a graph of dose rate against fuel enrichment and explain its behaviour.

Although MCBEND is not a criticality code, it is possible to derive an approximate value

for keff of this system by comparing the results with and without FISSION MATERIALS
switched on. The total number of neutrons (including secondary fission neutrons) is the
number of intrinsic source neutrons multiplied by sum of a geometric progression (which
is 1/[1-keff]). Estimate keff from your neutron dose rate results at 1 wt% enrichment.

Apart from fuel enrichment what other parameters in your model might affect the external
neutron dose rates? Feel free to adjust some of them to see what happens and report
your results.

Submit the MCBEND input and output files for Neutron Case 1 (water present) with
your report.
These files must be plain text so the examiners can run your models.