This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
NEACRP-319 "L"
NEANDC-275 "-0"
DECAY HEAT CALCULATION An International Nuclear Code Comparison
B. DUCHEMIN Laboratoire de Metrologie des Rayonnements Ionisants
I.,abcwal.oire de Metrologie des Rayonnements Ionisants C.E.N., Saclay, France
C. NORDBORG
NEA Data Bank, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
‘1’1~ renult.s of an international code comparison on decay heat are presented and dis- crossed. Participants from more than ten laboratories calculated, using the same input dabn, decay heal: for thirteen cooling times between 1 and 1013 sec. Two irradiation cases were lm~psed: fission pulse and 3x10’ seconds of irradiation of 235U fuel. The resuhs are analysed and compared. This inter-comparison shows that, if the same input data are given, most of t,he codes give very similar results for the decay heat and consequently also for the fssion product contribution.
Contents
1 Introduction
z Contributions Received
3 General Comments
4 Comments on Benchmark no. 1
5 Comments on Benchmark no. 2
0 Conclusion
7 List of Figures
8 List of Tables
3
4
7
10
11
12
13
14
*
a
.This report.contnins the preliminarp’results df an international effort to compa?e the results obtained by codes which calculate decay heat either for pulse fission or after irradiation. These decay heat calculations are very important for reactor studies. The comparison was init.iat.ed during the specialist meeting on data for decay heat predictions held at Studsvik (Swetla~) in September 1987. The objective is to verify that the discrepancies appearing Mwcen different calculations are due to the data used (yields, capture cross-sections, nuclide m3m energies, ) and not to the method used to solve the generalised Bateman equat.ions which describe the nuclide evdlution during irradiation and cooling.
The specification of the exercise is given in the annex 1. The participants were asked to calculate the decay heat, with uncertainties :if possible, for.two cases, each for several cooling t,imes, using a given set of input data. The results should contain, for each cooling t.ime, information on the total decay heat, the p and 7 parts separately and, a list of the nuclides which contribute more than 1 % to the total decay heat. The two cases agreed U,‘O” were:
1. R 23511 fission pulse,
2. a 3x IO’ seconds irradiation of 235U with no burn-up.
Tbr cooling times chosen ranged from 1 second to 1Ol3 seconds. The input data contained inl’orm;rtiw on: yields, spectroscopic data, and capture cross-sections. Only the decay heat dw 1.1, fission products should be calculated. The decay ,heat due to actinide forma- t.ion was omitted from this comparison.
This report is organised in the following way. S&on 2 ,&es a’stirvey of the co&b&ions received and are grouped in two classes: class A for analyti&l solution of the Bateman equations, t,he class B for numerical solution of these same equatioix. Section 3 gives some general comments and sections 4 and 5 contains comments on the results from benchmark no. 1 and benchmark no. 2 respectively. Section 6 contains a brief conclusion.
3
2 CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED
The contributions received can he divided int.o two classes: one for analytical s&&xx of the equations and one for numerical solutions.
MECCYCO GILLET, G. C!EA/CEN Cadarache, DRP/SPRC, F-13108 Saint Paul lez Durance Cedex, France
5
Code name: ORIGEN-S
Participants: BRADY M.C., BOHNHOFF W.I., HERMANN 0.W
Address: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 378314238 USA
3 GENERAL COMMENTS
Some of the comments below cqncerning the input data :were given by the participants:
A. InconsisteIic~“het.ureen Ld$&d&t &d cu&&ti~e yields:
0
0 0
This inconsistency arose for some nuclides hut its influence on the results is’less than 2 per-mil at 1 sec. cooling time and 1 per-mil after.
.;,: The fact that branching ratio may not sum to 100 is gnly due to round-up differ- WXS. It has no r&l itl?portanck pn the r&&t+
C!. Cnpt.ure branching ratio
The capture cross-section branching ratio when the daughter has ground and iso- merit state was not given. This has however no influence on theresults (5 1 per-mil) as shown by the..PEPIN cr%tribution, where &ults had been obtained for the two hypot.hesis: 100 percent on ground-state, and 50 percent on ground state and 50 percent on isomeric state.
1). Uncertainties.
Only I.he INVENT and KORIGEN results were given with uncert&inti& In the case of KORIGEN it. WXR stated, that the uncertainties resulted from energy release only. The INVENT code used all uncertainties in the input data in the calculations. This code gives for example uncertainties for the total decay heat for.benchmark no 1 t.hat varies from about 5 percent at very short and very long cooling times down 1.0 about, 1.3 percent at medium cooling times. The corresponding values given for benchmark no 2,by INVENT tie:, about 1 percent’ at short cooling times up &about 10 percent at very long cooling times. It should be. noted ,that these quoted uncertainties are relevant to t.his exercise only
..:a~ and not to a real c&se of dectiy.heat calculation, as the input data did not correspond to a realistic case and did not included a complete set of uncertainties.
E. Computing times.
‘I%<? object.ive of thisexercise was not to compare computing times otl different con1- lm1.w~. Nevertheless; for-information, Table 1 summaiises the values-given by each cml.ril~utor.
Followillg 1.11~ NEANDCINEACRP Task Force meeting on Decay Heat Predictions held al 1.11~: NlM Data Bank on 21st and 22nd September 1989, when preliminary results were presented, some contributions were revised with subsequent corrections to the codes:
a. Double precision
In the case of INVENT and KORIGEN some calculational parameters were modi- fied to double precision in order to better reproduce the results at long cooling t.imes.
h. Wrongly lab&d data.
Two set of results, one with the benchmark data and one with the local data library, were given for the AFPA code. The hen&mark data results did not agree very well with the results of other contributions, but it was noted t,hat the result,s were wrongly labeled, and it was really the results for the local data library that were deviant. This deviation was explained by different treatment of conversion electrons and X-ray data in t,he two set of results and a re-calculat.ion showed much better agreement between the results.
c. Capture effects in benchmark no. 2.
The first CINDER results did not take into account the capture effects, but. t:his was corrected in a second set of results.
d. Wrong input data
The first results from hen&mark no 2 from the code KORIGEN were discrepant. and the reasons were two: misunderstanding of the interpretation of the one group capture cross section and a typing error resulting in an irradiation of 1 x 10’ i:lst.ead of 3 x 10’ seconds.
e. Burn-up effect.
(I, In the specification of benchmark no. 2 it was stated that no burn-up sho~dd I:ake place, which is unrealistic, but avoids further complications in a inter-conli)aricol, 0 benchmark like this. One code, INVENT, which had a built-in hum-up calcnlat.ion routine had to be modified to keep the amount of Uranium constant during the long irradiation.
f. Delayed neutron effects
Following the discussions of the first benchmark results, the FISPG code was revised to avoid any manual manipulation of the fission yields (to account for delayed net,- tron effects). This involved extension of the linearised decay chains I:O account. for the delayed neutron effects as well as sane minor data manipulation amendment.s t,o the FISPG code itself.
8
g. Subdivision of then i+radkti’on tiine. .’ ’ ’
In benchmark no 2 a subdivision of the irradiation time was not. prescribed in t,he specifications. Theoretically in case of constant coefficients the solution does not de- pend on this subdivision. Numerically, however, a certain dependence is introduced by treating the chain equations with respect to the half-lives of the nuclides in the chains, as in.t,he code KORIGEN. High total decay heat values were no&d before for KORIGEN at lo7 and 10’ seconds cooling time but this dependence was since st,rongly reduced. The values are still slightly higher that the average but well wit,hin t:hc quoted uncertainties. The same tendency was also found in the results of the OIUGEN-S code.
L~ollowing these ikrations, the results from the different codes agree very well and only minor differknces are found. No systematic differences between the results of the Analytical and Numerical codes could be found.
e e
9
4 COMMENTS ON BENCHMARK NO. 1
The objective of the pulse fission calculation was to test the ability of the codes to use the fission yields and to treat correctly the mass decay-chain calculation.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, all codes give results for the total decay heat which agree, on the average, to better than l/2 percent. This is well within t,he uncertainties given by the INVENT and KORIGEN result. A few points can be noted when studying figure 2:
CINDER-10
Relatively high values were reported for cooling times lo5 and 10’ seconds.
INVENT
The results are about 0.2 percent above the average. This is most probabIy due to t;he fact that the amount of Uranium was fitted to give 1.25 * 1O’5 fissions and the program only outputs the nun~ber of fissions with 4 significant digits, which means an uncert.ainty of 5 * 10” fissions or * 0.04 %.
KORIGEN
The results between lo4 and lOlo seconds cooling time are all above the average, 1x11. within 0.5 % of the average.
ORIGEN-S
The somewhat scattered results for this code is due to the fact that the results were given with only two significant decimals. This effect could for example be seen in Table T where the fission product contribution after lo9 seconds cooling time add up to over 100 percent. Relatively low values were reported for cooling times lo5 and above 10” seconds.
10
0
e 0
5 COMMENTS ON BENCHMARK NO. 2
The objective of long irradiation (3x107’se~ond~) calculation was to test the ability of the codes to treat the capture (or absorption) problem.
As shown in Figures 5 and 6, all codes give results for the total decay heat which agree, on the average, to better than l/2 percent, except maybe for the CINDER contribution by Wang Dao. A few points c& be noted when studying figure 6:
CINDER-10
Relat.ively high values were reported for cooling times 10“ and lo5 seconds.
CINDER
The result:s are on the average,about 1 to 3 percent lower than dther results.
INVENT
The resu1t.s are about 0.2 percent abpve the ayerage, except for cooling times above IO”’ seconds. This is most probably due to the fact that the amount of Uranium was fitted to give 1.25 * lOI fissions and the program only outputs the number of fissions with 4 significant digits, which means an uncertainty of 5 * 10” fissions or f. 0.04 %.
Two relatively high values are noted for lo7 and 10’ seconds cooling time (see item g. above). At cooling times 10” seconds and above the results are about 0.2 percent higher t.11an average.
OFUGEN-S
The somewhat~ scattered results for this code is due to the fact that the resnlts were given wit.h only t,wo significant decimals. This effect could for example be seen in Table 13 where t.he fission product contribution after 10’ seconds cooling time add up to over 100 percent. Two relatively high values were reported at lo7 and 10’ seconds cooling time (see item g. above). Somewhat low values were reported for cooling times above 1O’O seconds as in benchmark no 1.
6 CONCLUSION
In the present exercise t,he following codes were compared:
Analytical Numerical
AFPA CINDER-IO CINDER DCHAIN FISPG INVENT PEPIN
FISPIN KORIGEN MECCYCO ORIGEN-S
The overall results of the calculation of decay heat and contributing fission prot1uct.s are in very good agreement for the codes. The results given by the CINDER code (contribution by Wang Dao) are on the average 1 to 3 percent lower that other results.
The objective of this exercise was to ensure that t.he discrepant. results for decay heat. calculation obtained in different laboratories were due to different input data and not I& different: solutions of the equations describing the fission product evolution. This objective has been reached.
This inter-comparison has permit.ted the participants to gain confidence in their codes and minor modifications to a few of the codes have been noted as a result of this exercise.
12
*
List of Figures
Large scale plot showing the rebults.at diffe&nt &ling t&s for the total decay heat of lmichmirk tie’ 1 (235U fission pulse irradiation) Fine scale plot showing the results at different cooling times for the total decay heat of henchn%rk no 1 (‘s% fission pul~e’irradiatjon) ~. Fine scale plot showing the r&As at different cooling times for the p decay heat of benchmark no’ 1 (sssU fission pulse irradiation) Fine scale plot showing the restilts at different cooling times for the y decay heat of benchmark nb i ( 235U fission’pulse~irradiation) Large scale plot showing the results at different cooling times for the total decay heat df he&hmark’xio 2 (I&g irradiation) :, ~. ‘. Fine scale plot showing the results at differ&t coqling~&mes for the total decay heat of henchniark no’2 (Long irradiation) Fine scale plot showing the results at differ+nt cooling times for t.he 0 decay heat of h&chmark’no 2 (Iqg i+ra+tion) ~. 1 ~. .’ Fine scale plot showing thcresults at different cooling times for the 7 decay he&t of benchmark no 2 (Long irradiation) . ~1 .
“,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
13
List of Tables
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Computers and CPU time (seconds) used in the exercise 23 p Decay Heat results (in MeV/sec) for a ‘W fission pulse given at cooling times from 1 second to lOI seconds 24 7 Decay Heat results (in MeV/sec) for a 235U fission pulse given at cooling times from 1 second to 1Ol3 seconds 25 Total Decay Heat results (in MeV/sec) for a 235U fission pulse given at. cooling times from 1 second to lOI seconds 26 Fission product contribution (in %) to the total decay heat for a ZRSll fission pulse after 10 second cooling time 27 Fission product contribution (in %) to the total decay heat for a 235U fission pulse after 10’ seconds cooling time 28 Fission product contribution (in %) to the total decay heat for a 235U l&ion pulse after 10” seconds cooling time 28 /? Decay Heat results (in MeV/sec) for a 3~10~ seconds irradiation given at. cooling t,imes from 1 second to 1Ol3 seconds 21) y Decay Heat results (in MeV/sec) for a 3~10~ seconds irradiat.ion given at. cooling times from 1 second to 1Ol3 seconds 30 Total Decay Heat results (in MeV/sec) for a 3x lo7 seconds irradiation given at cooling times from 1 second to 1Ol3 seconds 31 Fission product contribution (in %) to the total decay heat for a 3x10’ seconds irradiation after 1 second cooling time 32 Fission product contribution (in %) to the total decay heat for a 3x10’ seconds irradiation after IO4 seconds cooling time 33 Fission product contribution (in %) to the total decay heat for a 3x10’ seconds irradiation after 10’ seconds cooling time 34
Bernard Duchemin, CEA Saclay Claes Nordborg, NEA Data Bank
25th November 1988
1. INTRODUCTION
Following a discussion at the NEACRP/NEANDC Specialists' Meeting on Data for Decay Heat Predictions, held at Studsvik, Sweden, 7th-10th September 19871,' it was decided to,perform an inter-comparison of codes used in decay heat calculations. It tias shown that the existing codes could not repro- duce the experimental data .at short cooling times. The main reason for this discrepancy, was thought to be due to lack of good data for short lived fission products. It was nevertheless felt, that a comparison of the summation codes, both analytical and numerical, for the calculation of decay heat would be very useful in order to verify the computational aspect of the problem. The following ttio benchmark specifications were agreed upon.
2. SPECIFICATION
Benchmark no 1:
'23~s tem~: U-235 fission' pulse
Input Data: Decay Data: The heavy mass peak A=131-140. The data have been extracted from the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF) and translated into the ENDF-5 format at the NEA Data Bank, using a new version of the code RADLST. Delayed neutron data are also included. (File no 1 on tape)
Fission Yields: The file contains data for U-235 and in the ENDF-5 format. Independent yields with uncertainties are given at thermal energy. The corresponding cumulative yields, without uncertainties are also included. (File no 2 on tape)
35
Benchmark no 2:
System: Long irradiation ( 3.0 * IO7 seconds) of fuel elements com- posed of 100% U-235. It is assumed that no burn-up will take place.
Input Data: Decay Data: Same as for benchmark no 1.
Fission Yields: Same as for benchmark no 1.
Neutron flux: Maxwellian 2(600° K) spectrum of 5.0*1013 neutrons/cm *second
Fission rate:
Capture data:
1.25 * 1015 fissions/second
The average one-group capture cross sec- tions has been given in file number 3 on the tape. They have been calculated using the following formula : 0
< 0 > = -E- 7% 2g3 --- + cap
sc*1 1.128 T cap
where T = 600’ K, SC = 0.3 (Epithermal to thermal flux ratio), and I is the capture resonance integral. cap
The data are given in free format, one isotope per line. Each line contains the following information: isotope proton number (Z), isotope mass (A), and the one-group capture cross section.
3. WHAT TO CALCULATE 0
The following quantities should be calculated for both benchmark 1 and 2:
A. Decay heat for beta, gamma, and beta + gamma in MeV/second, for cooling
B. List of fission products and their contribution (in per-cent) to the decay heat at each of the above mentioned cooling times. Only those isotopes contributing more than 1.0 % to the decay heat should be specified.
All calculated values should preferable be given with uncertainties. The answers should contain a reference to what computer code was used, and on what computer it was run. The CPU time used could also be of interest.
36
,
4. PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS
Those interested in participating and receiving the input data on tape, should contact:
Claes Nordborg NEA Data Bank Bat. 445 91191 GIF-SW&YVETTE CEDEX FRANCE