CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

TECHNICATOME REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF ANSTO-2 BENCHMARK

M. CHAMPAGNAT, F. ESTEBE, N. GANDOIN, J. KOUBBI, L. MANIFACIER
TechicAtome, France

1. INTRODUCTION

OPAL is a 20MW multipurpose RR. After 6 years of utilization, a major maintenance was
planned in order to replace the CNG shutter and the In-Pile part associated. ANSTO has
made calculations in order to predict doses received by operators during this maintenance
phase and to manage the team involved in this operation. Measurements were also done
during the operation. According to the available data (calculated and measured), ANSTO
was able to propose a benchmark of this maintenance operation in the framework of this
CRP.

The data provided by ANSTO for this benchmark were the following:
- Description of the whole facilities concerned (core, irradiation facilities, CNS,
reflector tank and internal components) [1];
- Description of the different operational steps for this maintenance [1];
- Calculation model used [1] ;
- Calculated values [1]:
o Neutron Fluxes calculations;
o Activation calculations;
o dose rates evaluations;
- Measured values [1].

These calculated values were used to assess doses received by operators during this
maintenance operation and permitted to manage it regarding the team involved.
Measurements were done during the operation to confirm calculated results and the
methodology employed.

In order to determine the  dose rates for this operation, TechnicAtome performs all the
calculations necessary, namely:
- Neutron flux calculations in the CNS and along the CNG #2;
- Activation calculation in the major components concerned;
- Evaluation of the dose rates received by operators during the CNG #2 replacement.
2. SUMMARY OF THE CODES AND LIBRARIES USED
This benchmark was achieved using codes and libraries presented in Table 1 [2-5].
Hereafter, a short description of codes used is proposed.

TABLE 1. TECHNICATOME - CODES AND LIBRARIES USED FOR THE

BENCHMARK
Codes MCNP6.1 DARWIN2.3 TRIPOLI4.10® MERCURE6.3

Nuclear Data JEFF3.1.1 JEFF3.1.1 JEFF3.1.1 JEF2.2

Developed by LANL CEA CEA CEA

Used for (this Neutron Flux
Activation dose rates
study) dose rates

1
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

DARWIN-PEPIN2 [4] (French code equivalent of ORIGEN2) was designed to offer an

application range covering the entire fuel cycle, from fuel fabrication plant to waste storage,
via the reactor, reprocessing plant and enrichment plant. This code is a modular computer
code used to calculate isotopic concentrations under irradiation conditions and/or under
cooling conditions, and allowed to obtain the following key parameters, derived from
concentrations:

— Activity, mass, concentration;

— Neutron production by spontaneous fission and reaction (, n) ;
— Total neutron production and neutron spectrum;
— residual power and power spectra;
— Potential radiotoxicity.

TRIPOLI4® [3] (French code equivalent of MCNP6) is a 3D stochastic general-purpose

Monte Carlo N-Particle code used for neutron, photon and coupled neutron/photon transport
and charged particles. The areas of application for these studies are neutronic, radiation
protection and dosimetry, radiation shielding and experimental devices design.

MERCURE6 [5] is used to design gamma radiation shielding. It is a 3D stochastic code to

integrate straight-line attenuation point kernels. The multigroup gamma calculations
achieved allow making Build-up factor calculation using Kitazume or CEA (SERMA)
method and calculation of scalar flux at calculation points and determination of dose
equivalent rates and energy deposits using response functions taken from ICRP 74
recommendations.
3. RESULTS OF THE BENCHMARK
3.1 BENCHMARK SPECIFICATION

The objective of this benchmark provided by ANSTO is to estimate the dose rate
received by the personnel during the replacement of CNG #2 of the OPAL Reactor. In
order to achieve this benchmark in the same configuration as ANSTO had done it, it is
pointed out all fuel assemblies and targets are unloaded during the operation. It is also
noted that operators activated components are in direct view from activated components
during operations.

The estimation methodology used by ANSTO is composed by 3 calculation steps. The first
one is dedicated to the calculation of the neutron flux along the main internal components of
the OPAL Reactor (i.e. Neutron Guides, CNS thimble …). Once neutron fluxes are
obtained, the second step consists in determining the specific activity per radio nuclide
induced by neutron flux for these components. Finally, the third step is the assessment of the
dose rates during the operations. Each step presented above will be detailed in the
following paragraphs.

3.1.1 Stage 1: Neutron flux calculation

ANSTO used a detailed model of the core, with irradiation facilities in the reflector tank and
internal components as described in [1]. Fluxes are calculated in the CNS in-pile part and
along the CNG till the In-Pile Cavity. The calculations are performed with MCNP6 code. The
MCNP6 model used by ANSTO is presented on Figure 1.

2
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

CNG
#2

CN

FIG. 1. ANSTO – MCNP model for Neutron fluxes calculations.

The neutron flux for the CNS thimble in its central region, 20 cm above and below the
CNG centre line was estimated by ANSTO to be 1.0E+14 n.cm-2.s-1.

Table 2 depicts neutron fluxes along CNG #2 obtained by ANSTO.

TABLE 2. ANSTO - NEUTRON FLUXES ALONG THE CNG #2

Distance (cm) Neutron Flux (n.cm-2.s-1)
0 8.51E+13
10 5.68E+13
20 4.59E+13
30 3.29E+13
40 2.62E+13
50 1.94E+13
60 1.30E+13
70 1.04E+13
80 8.33E+12
90 6.68E+12
100 5.35E+12
110 4.29E+12
120 3.44E+12

The distances in the table above are relative to the inner face of the beam tube (Figure 1).

3.1.2 Stage 2: Evaluation of the total activity

The total activity is evaluated by ANSTO with ORIGEN2 code. The activity of each internal
component is estimated by considering an irradiation time of 10 years and a decay time
after irradiation of 1 week.

Material balances of the different components concerned by the activation are given by
ANSTO. Table 3 to Table 5 give specific activities calculated by ANSTO for the main
 emitters of each material concerned.

3
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

TABLE 3. ANSTO - ZRY-4 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY - MAIN ISOTOPES

Material Zry-4
Isotope Zr95 Nb95
Specific Activity (Bq/g) 6.0E+9 6.3E+9

TABLE 4. ANSTO - ZR-2.5%NB SPECIFIC ACTIVITY - MAIN ISOTOPES

Material Zr-2.5%Nb
Isotope Zr95 Nb95
Specific Activity (Bq/g) 5.7E+9 1.2E+10

TABLE 5. ANSTO – SAE1020 SPECIFIC ACTIVITY - MAIN ISOTOPES

Material SAE1020
Isotope Fe59 Co60
Specific Activity (Bq/g) 2.3E+6 1.2E+2

3.1.3 Stage 3: Evaluation of the dose rates

The dose rates are evaluated and measured for two positions of the Transport Shielding as
it shown on the following pictures. The two positions considered are at contact of the
reactor face, Figure 3, and at 2 meters from the reactor face, Figure 2.

2m

FIG. 2. ANSTO - Radiation point locations. Plan view of the experimental area with the in-pile
transport shielding at 2 meters from the reactor face.

FIG. 3. ANSTO - Radiation point locations. Plan view of the experimental area with the in-pile
transport shielding flush with the reactor face.

4
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

The aim of these calculations is to find the most penalizing task, in terms of dose rates,
received by operators. Calculations were performed with a simplified MCNP6 model
presented on Figure 4. In parallel, measurements were achieved during the operation.
Both calculated and measured results by ANSTO are given in Table 6.

FIG. 4. ANSTO – MCNP simplified CNG model with the In-Pile extracted.

TABLE 6. ANSTO – CALCULATED AND MEASURED  DOSE RATES

Tally Location Dose rates (mSv.h-1)
Position - Description At contact At 1 meter
of the shield from the
Calculated shield Measured
Measured Calculated
1 - Front face of shield 180 - 300 200
2 - Left side of in-pile shield (front) 40 30
3 - Left side of in-pile shield (front) 2 - 40 40
4 - Left side of in-pile shield (rear) 3 2
5 - Left side of in-pile shield (rear) 9 10
6 - Front face of shield 460 - 500 500
7 - Left side of in-pile shield (front) 250 - 300 300
8 - Left side of in-pile shield (front) 2 - 10 400
9 - Left side of in-pile shield (rear) 5 - 14 7
10 - Left side of in-pile shield (rear) 30 - 40

To be noted: When the tally result presents an important fluctuation with respect to its
location, a range of the obtained dose rate is indicated.

3.2 CALCULATIONS BY TECHNICATOME

In this section, the work done to perform the benchmark ANSTO-2 by TechnicAtome is
described. In particular, the calculation models used and the results associated are
presented. Comparisons and discrepancies analysis are also presented in the following
paragraphs.

3.2.1 Stage 1: Neutron flux calculation

3.2.1.1 Modelling

Neutron fluxes are calculated with MCNP6 code. The modelling developed includes a
detailed model of the core with a simplified model of the reflector tank and its internal

5
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

components (i.e. without irradiation devices in the tank). Neutron fluxes are calculated in
all the CNS components and along the CNG #2 down to the In-Pile Cavity. Figure 5
illustrates the model used for these calculations.

FIG. 5. TechnicAtome - MCNP models used for neutron fluxes calculations.

3.2.1.2 Results and Comparisons

Neutron fluxes in all parts of the CNS are calculated. A focus is made on the area of
interest defined by ANSTO as 20 cm above and below the centre line of the CNG. The
results obtained are presented in Table 7.

TABLE 7. TECHNICATOME - NEUTRON FLUXES IN CNS

Neutron Flux
CNS component σ
(n.cm-2.s-1)
1 - Moderator D2 1.714E+14 0.30%
2 - Displacer He 1.008E+14 0.44%
3 – Containement vessel (all) 7.556E+13 0.22%
4 - Containement vessel (cylindrical part) 8.121E+13 0.23%
5 – Containement vessel (cylindrical part – interest area) 1.004E+14 0.23%
6 – Containement vessel (Plug part) 4.772E+13 0.37%
7 – Containement vessel (spherical part) 5.501E+13 0.36%

6
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

Figure 6 gives the calculation point location in the CNS. The two red dotted lines mark out
the area of interest considered for the calculation.

3 6

5
4
1 2

7
FIG. 6. TechnicAtome - Schematic view of the CNS.

As a reminder, the neutron flux considered by ANSTO in the CNS thimble is 1.0E+14
n.cm-2.s-1. There is a good agreement between calculated (by TechnicAtome) and reference
(by ANSTO) values. The discrepancy observed (0.4%) is not relevant taking into account
the calculation statistical uncertainty.
The second step of neutron fluxes calculations is related to the determination of the
neutron flux along CNG #2. Table 8 gives the results obtained and discrepancies associated
to each calculation point. (*“best estimate” values given by ANSTO).

The results show a pretty good agreement between calculated and reference values for the
first half of CNG #2. In the second part of CNG #2, discrepancies are much higher even
though statistical uncertainties are acceptable.

A detailed analysis of the results shows that there is on offset of 5 cm of the tally location
in TechnicAtome calculations (depending on whether the location is measured from the
centre of the mesh or its edge). In order to verify that the fluxes are well calculated by
TechnicAtome, neutron fluxes obtained both by TechnicAtome and ANSTO are plotted on
Figure 7.

7
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

TABLE 8. TECHNICATOME - NEUTRON FLUXES ALONG THE CNG #2

Distance from
the inner face of Reference* Calculated σ Discrepancies
CNG (cm) (n.cm-2.s-1) (n.cm-2.s-1)

0 8.51E+13 7.78E+13 0.48% 8.5%

10 5.68E+13 6.50E+13 0.62% -14.4%
20 4.59E+13 5.10E+13 0.68% -11.1%
30 3.29E+13 3.97E+13 0.75% -20.7%
40 2.62E+13 3.14E+13 0.83% -19.9%
CNG #2 50 1.94E+13 2.41E+13 0.92% -24.2%
60 1.30E+13 1.90E+13 1.02% -46.2%
70 1.04E+13 1.43E+13 1.16% -37.5%
80 8.33E+12 1.09E+13 1.30% -30.9%
90 6.68E+12 7.89E+12 1.52% -18.1%
10 5.35E+12 5.38E+12 1.80% -0.6%
110 4.29E+12 3.30E+12 2.13% 23.1%
120 3.44E+12 1.91E+12 2.93% 44.5%
Flange
170 - 4.39E+11 5.48% -
220 1.00E+10 1.70E+11 10.56% -
In-Pile Cavity
270 9.33E+10 12.27% -

FIG. 7. TechnicAtome & ANSTO - Neutron Fluxes along the CNG #2.

8
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

This diagram shows that the shape of the fluxes along CNG #2 is the same in both cases,
provided TechnicAtome data is shifted 5 cm. Calculations of neutron fluxes along the CNG
#2 present a good agreement with the reference values.

Concerning the neutron flux in the In-Pile Cavity, the calculated values present a fairly
good agreement with the reference values. Calculations could be improved in order to
reduce statistical uncertainty.

3.2.2 Stage 2: Evaluation of the total activity

3.2.2.1 Modelling

The total activity was calculated using DARWIN2 code. DARWIN2 is composed by the two
modules INTERPEP and PEPIN. It is highlighted with the bold red line in Figure 8. The
following picture depicts the calculation line used for the activity evaluations.

The calculation line uses neutron spectrum as an input from MCNP6 calculations
(determined according to a given geometry, material balance and reactor power). Then
neutron spectrums are injected in INTERPEP module in addition to material impurities and
irradiation history (included decay time). The results obtained as an output of INTERPEP
module are integrated reaction rates on all energy groups. These reaction rates are then
used in PEPIN module in order to determine  spectrums and activity inventory of materials
per radionuclide.

FIG. 8. TechnicAtome - General overview of DARWIN2.

9
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

3.2.2.2 Results and Comparisons

Table 9 presents results obtained by TechnicAtome and discrepancies observable with

reference values given by ANSTO.

TABLE 9. TECHNICATOME – SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES

Calculated by Reference by ANSTO
Isotopes TechnicAtome Activity (Bq/g) Discrepancies
Activity (Bq/g)
CNS thimble Zr95 5.42E+9 5.70E+9 -5.0%
(Zr-2.5Nb)
Nb95 1.22E+10 1.20E+10 2.0%

CNG #2 Zr95 6.46E+9 6.00E+9 7.7%

(Zry4)
Nb95 6.91E+9 6.30E+9 9.6%

In-Pile Cavity Fe59 3.33E+5 2.30E+6 -86%

(SAE E+20)
Co60 2.00E+1 1.20E+2 -83%

It is noticeable that discrepancies are acceptable (less than 10%) for both CNS thimble
and CNG #2 activation.

However, abnormal values are obtained for the In-Pile Cavity. Despite the neutron flux
being more or less well determined, a spectrum analysis is performed in order to identify
the causes of these bad results. The investigations reveal that neutron spectrum
determined for the In-Pile Cavity is incorrect probably due to missing information for the In-
Pile Cavity modelling.

In order to be sure that it would be possible to continue the benchmark, even though
specific activities for the In-Pile Cavity are not satisfying, contributions of each component
to dose rates calculated are evaluated. Table 10 presents the results obtained.

TABLE 10. TECHNICATOME –  SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO  DOSE RATE

Contribution
Source
At Contact At 2m
CNS thimble 43% 47%

1st half of CNG 42% 44%

2nd half of CNG 13% 8%

In-Pile Cavity 2% 1%

It appears that the main contributions are due to the CNS thimble and the first half of CNG
#2. The second half of CNG #2 has to be taken into account for accurate calculation. The
In-Pile Cavity contribution is negligible (ANSTO confirms that it is the same in their
calculations). To conclude, even though specific activities for the In-Pile Cavity are
inconsistent, the dose rates can be evaluated properly.

10
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

3.2.3 Stage 3: Evaluation of the dose rates

3.2.3.1 Modelling

TechnicAtome performed the evaluation of dose rates with three different codes. The
level of accuracy of the model developed is depending on the code used. All calculation
parameters are summarized in Table 11.

TABLE 11. TECHNICATOME - SYNTHESIS OF MODELS USED FOR  DOSE RATES

CALCULATIONS
MCNP6 TRIPOLI4® MERCURE6

Detailed Simplified Simplified

Geometry

Calculation
parameters DXTRAN Spatial weighting -----

Score Mesh Tally Extended Mesh Point detectors

volume

3.2.2.2 Results and Comparisons

This sub section is divided in three parts. The first one is dedicated to the determination of
 dose rates when Transport Shielding is at the contact of the reactor face. The second
concerns the calculations with the Transport Shielding at 2m from the reactor face. The
third one is specific to MERCURE6 calculations.

Transport Shielding at contact of reactor face

Table 12 shows  dose rates obtained with both MCNP6 and TRIPOLI4® with the Transport
Shielding at contact of reactor face. Figure 9 and Figure 10 present respectively
visualizations of MCNP6 FMESH and TRIPOLI4® EXTENDED MESH of dose rates
calculated.

11
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

TABLE 12. TECHNICATOME - TRANSPORT SHIELDING AT CONTACT OF

REACTOR FACE - DOSE RATES CALCULATED WITH MCNP6 AND TRIPOLI4®
Calculated by TechnicAtome Reference (ANSTO)

MCNP6 TRIPOLI4® MCNP6 Measured

Dose Rate σ Dose Rate σ Dose Rate Dose Rate

(mSv/h) (mSv/h) (mSv/h) (mSv/h)
Point #6 650 0,3% 454 - 481 2% 460 - 500 500

Point #7 85 - 380 0,5% 168 -363 2% 250 - 300 300

Point #8 0.65 6% <1 41% 2 - 10 400

Point #9 1-8 8% 1-4 20% 5 - 14 7

Point #10 4-6 3% 2-3 25% 30 - 40 30

FIG. 9. TechnicAtome - Transport Shielding at contact of reactor face - MCNP6 FMESH visualization
of  dose rates.

FIG 10. Transport Shielding at contact of reactor face – TRIPOLI4® EXTENDED MESH visualization
of dose rates.

12
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

Table 12 illustrates that MCNP6 and TRIPOLI4® results are consistent. However,
TRIPOLI4® results are not enough converged. Globally, there is a pretty good agreement
between calculated values and measurements. Two points present some troubles however:
#8 and #10. Concerning point #10, it is assumed the position of the point might be wrong
in TechnicAtome’s calculation. Concerning point #8, at least two assumptions could be
made to explain the huge discrepancy. Firstly, the position of the measurement is not the
same as the calculated one. Secondly, it could be possible that units are not correct. It
might be possible that dose rate at this point is not 400 mSv/h but 400 µSv/h (0.4
mSv/h). In this case, the calculated value and measurement would present a good agreement.

In any case, the huge spatial sensitivity of the result is remarkable, as shown on Figure 9
and Figure 10.
Transport Shielding at 2m from reactor face

Table 13 shows  dose rates obtained with both MCNP6 and TRIPOLI4® with the
Transport Shielding at 2m from reactor face. Figure 11 and Figure 12 present respectively
visualizations of MCNP6 FMESH and TRIPOLI4® EXTENDED MESH of dose
rates calculated.

TABLE 13. TECHNICATOME - TRANSPORT SHIELDING AT 2M FROM REACTOR

FACE -  DOSE RATES CALCULATED WITH MCNP6 AND TRIPOLI4®
Calculated by TechnicAtome Reference (ANSTO)
MCNP6 TRIPOLI4® MCNP6 Measured
Dose Rate Dose Rate Dose Rate Dose Rate
(mSv/h) σ (mSv/h) σ (mSv/h) (mSv/h)
Point #1 255 - 267 1% 202 - 211 2% 180 - 300 200
Point #2 200 - 205 1% 142 - 164 2% 40 30
Point #3 5-6 5% 1-4 15% 2 - 40 40
Point #4 2 - 40 5% 9 - 90 8% 3 2
Point #5 8 - 14 3% 3-6 14% 9 10

FIG. 11. TechnicAtome - Transport Shielding at 2m from reactor face - MCNP6 FMESH visualization of
 dose rates.

13
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

TRIPOLI4®
10 x 10 cm²

FIG. 12. Transport Shielding at 2m from reactor face – TRIPOLI4® EXTENDED MESH visualization
of dose rates.

Table 13 illustrates that MCNP6 and TRIPOLI4® results are consistent. However
TRIPOLI4® results are not enough converged. Globally, there is a pretty good agreement
between calculated values and measurements. Two points present some troubles: Point #2,
#3 and #4. It is assumed the position of these points might be wrong in TechnicAtome’s
calculation. Moreover, concerning point #3 and #4, the results let us think that there could
be a switch between these two points. In any case, the significant spatial sensitivity of the
result is remarkable, as shown on Figure 11 and Figure 12.

MERCURE6 results

As explained in §3, MERCURE6 is only usable for straight line attenuation calculations.
Indeed, only points #1, #2, #6 and #7 could be calculated using this code. Table 14 gives the
dose rates obtained using MERCURE6.

TABLE 14. TECHNICATOME – MERCURE6  DOSE RATES DETERMINATION

Calculated by TechnicAtome Reference (ANSTO)
MERCURE6 MCNP6 TRIPOLI4® MCNP6 Measured
Measure Dose Rate Dose Rate Dose Rate Dose Rate Dose Rate
Point (mSv/h) σ (mSv/h) σ (mSv/h) σ (mSv/h) (mSv/h)
6 512 650 0.3% 454 - 481 2% 500 460 - 500
7 251 4,5% 85 - 380 0.5% 168 - 363 2% 300 250 - 300
1 229 255 - 267 1% 202 - 211 2% 200 180 - 300
2 210 4,5% 200 - 205 1% 142 - 164 2% 30 40

The main observation is that all 3 simulations made by TechnicAtome are consistent.
 dose rates calculated for points #1 and #6 present good agreements both with
calculations and measurements. Point #7 is in the right order of magnitude. Concerning
point #2, as it is already discussed, the bad result obtained is probably due to a bad
positioning of the measurement.

3.2.2.3 Extra calculations

As an example of the large variety of codes used at TechnicAtome, a GEANT4 [6]

calculation is performed just for testing purposes. As the ROOT geometry of the

14
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

problem is already created for TRIPOLI4® and taking into account that GEANT4 can use
ROOT geometry, it is tested to perform a transport calculation with GEANT4. One of the
main advantages of GEANT4 is its huge capability of visualization. Examples are given in
Figure 13 and Figure 14.

FIG. 13. TechnicAtome - GEANT4 model of the problem.

FIG. 14. TechnicAtome - GEANT4 tracking visualization of the problem.

At this stage, no results are available with this calculation, only visualizations.
4. CONCLUSION AND ON-GOING WORK
In this benchmark, the work performed by TechnicAtome shows:

— The neutron fluxes are well determined;

— Activation of the major components are good except for the In-Pile Cavity;
— dose rates are rather well evaluated with different calculation codes, except for 2
points;
— dose rates evaluations are strongly dependent on spatial positioning.

Regarding neutron fluxes calculations, TechnicAtome obtains pretty good results for the
CNS thimble and along CNG #2. The results show that possible missing information for
the In-Pile cavity could lead to the bad results observed in this particular area.

According to activation calculations, there are good agreements for the CNS and CNG #2
but there is still trouble with the In-Pile Cavity. The contribution assessment made shows
that contribution of the In-Pile Cavity activation to  dose rates is negligible in
TechnicAtome calculations (it is also the case on ANSTO side).

15
 CHAMPAGNAT ET AL.

Concerning the  dose rates evaluations, in this benchmark the points in direct view are
well calculated whatever the code used (MCNP6, TRIPOLI4®, MERCURE6). Some
inconsistency for particular points still remains. This is probably due to a measurement
positioning problem. The discrepancies observed between MCNP6 and TRIPOLI4® results
are linked to the model used (difference in geometry and meshes).

Taking into account the previous analyses and statements made to evaluate this work,
TechnicAtome considers that the work performed until now presents overall good results.

Concerning the following work, TechnicAtome will plan to enhance calculations already
done and go further in the verification process. TechnicAtome will also finalize
calculations made with TRIPOLI4® code with the objective to calculate neutron flux and
compare them to those obtained with MCNP6.

As a bonus, TechnicAtome will investigate deeply the possibility to perform calculations with
GEANT4 code.

REFERENCES

[1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Research Reactor Benchmarking

Database: Facility Specification and Experimental Data, Technical Reports Series No.
480 (Rev. 1), IAEA, Vienna (in preparation).
[2] GOORLEY, J.T., et al., Initial MCNP6 Release Overview ‒ MCNP6 version 1.0, Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-13-22934, Los Alamos, NM (2013).
[3] TRIPOLI-4 PROJECT TEAM, TRIPOLI-4 Version 10 User Guide, Commissariat à
l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives Technical Report,
CEA/DEN/DANS/DM2S/SERMA/LTSD/RT/15-5928/A.
[4] SAN-FELICE, L., ESCHBACH, R., BOURDOT, P., Experimental Validation of the
DARWIN2.3 Package for Fuel Cycle Applications, Nucl. Technol. 184 (2013) 217–
232.
[5] MERCURE PROJECT TEAM, MERCURE 6.3: User Guide, Commissariat à l'énergie
atomique et aux énergies alternatives Technical Report,
CEA/DEN/DANS/DM2S/SERMA/LPEC/RT/07-4125/A.
[6] AGOSTINELLI, S., ET AL., GEANT4 – A Simulation Toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A
506 3 (2003) 250 – 303.

16