Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

On using computational versus data-driven methods for uncertainty propagation of isotopic uncertainties

  • Radaideh, Majdi I. (Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign) ;
  • Price, Dean (Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign) ;
  • Kozlowski, Tomasz (Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign)
  • Received : 2019.10.08
  • Accepted : 2019.11.25
  • Published : 2020.06.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This work presents two different methods for quantifying and propagating the uncertainty associated with fuel composition at end of life for cask criticality calculations. The first approach, the computational approach uses parametric uncertainty including those associated with nuclear data, fuel geometry, material composition, and plant operation to perform forward depletion on Monte-Carlo sampled inputs. These uncertainties are based on experimental and prior experience in criticality safety. The second approach, the data-driven approach relies on using radiochemcial assay data to derive code bias information. The code bias data is used to perturb the isotopic inventory in the data-driven approach. For both approaches, the uncertainty in keff for the cask is propagated by performing forward criticality calculations on sampled inputs using the distributions obtained from each approach. It is found that the data driven approach yielded a higher uncertainty than the computational approach by about 500 pcm. An exploration is also done to see if considering correlation between isotopes at end of life affects keff uncertainty, and the results demonstrate an effect of about 100 pcm.

Keywords

References

  1. G. Radulescu, D.E. Mueller, J.C. Wagner, Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of commercial reactor criticals for burnup credit, Nucl. Technol. 167 (2) (2009) 268-287. https://doi.org/10.13182/NT09-A8963
  2. D. Rochman, A. Koning, D. Da Cruz, Propagation of $^{235,236,238}U$ and $^{239}Pu$ nuclear data uncertainties for a typical PWR fuel element, Nucl. Technol. 179 (3) (2012) 323-338. https://doi.org/10.13182/NT11-61
  3. M. Pecchia, A. Vasiliev, H. Ferroukhi, A. Pautz, Criticality safety evaluation of a swiss wet storage pool using a global uncertainty analysis methodology, Ann. Nucl. Energy 83 (2015) 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.03.052
  4. H.J. Park, D.H. Lee, B.K. Jeon, H.J. Shim, Monte Carlo burnup and its uncertainty propagation analyses for VERA depletion benchmarks by McCARD, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50 (7) (2018) 1043-1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.06.003
  5. W.A. Metwally, A.S. Alawad, B.A. Khuwaileh, On the over-conservatism of the 5% depletion uncertainty rule in spent fuel criticality analyses, Ann. Nucl. Energy 125 (2019) 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2018.10.048
  6. M.I. Radaideh, D. Price, T. Kozlowski, Criticality and uncertainty assessment of assembly misloading in BWR transportation cask, Ann. Nucl. Energy 113 (2018) 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.11.006
  7. A. Papoulis, S.U. Pillai, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 2002.
  8. I. Gauld, Strategies for application of isotopic uncertainties in burnup credit, in: Tech. rep., NUREG/CR-6811, ORNL/TM-2001/257, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States, 2003.
  9. H. Yun, K. Park, W. Choi, S.G. Hong, An efficient evaluation of depletion uncertainty for a GBC-32 dry storage cask with PLUS7 fuel assemblies using the Monte Carlo uncertainty sampling method, Ann. Nucl. Energy 110 (2017) 679-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.07.020
  10. D. Price, M.I. Radaideh, D. O'Grady, T. Kozlowski, Advanced bwr criticality safety part ii: cask criticality, burnup credit, sensitivity, and uncertainty analyses, Prog. Nucl. Energy 115 (2019) 126-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.03.039
  11. M.I. Radaideh, D. Price, D. O'Grady, T. Kozlowski, Advanced BWR criticality safety part I: model development, model validation, and depletion with uncertainty analysis, Prog. Nucl. Energy 113 (2019) 230-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.01.010
  12. M.L. Fensin, Optimum Boiling Water Reactor Fuel Design Strategies to Enhance Reactor Shutdown by the Standby Liquid Control System, Master's thesis, University of Florida, 2004.
  13. D. Mueller, J. Scaglione, J. Wagner, S. Bowman, Computational benchmark for estimated reactivity margin from fission products and minor actinides in BWR burnup credit, in: Tech. rep., NUREG/CR-7157, ORNL/TM-2012/96, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States, 2013.
  14. G. Ilas, H. Liljenfeldt, Decay heat uncertainty for BWR used fuel due to modeling and nuclear data uncertainties, Nucl. Eng. Des. 319 (2017) 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.05.009
  15. G. M. Grandi, J. A. Borkowski, Benchmark of SIMULATE-3K against the frigg loop stability experiments, In: Proc. Advances in Nuclear Fuel Management III (ANFM 2003) Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, United States, October 5-8, 2003.
  16. M. Kruners, G. Grandi, M. Carlssonc, PWR transient xenon modeling and analysis using studsvik CMS, In: Proc. 2010 LWR Fuel Performance/TopFuel/WRFPM Orlando, Florida, United States, September 26-29, 2010.
  17. S.M. Bowman, Scale 6: comprehensive nuclear safety analysis code system, Nucl. Technol. 174 (2) (2011) 126-148. https://doi.org/10.13182/NT10-163
  18. A. Hoefer, T. Ivanova, B. Rearden, D. Mennerdahl, O. Buss, Proposal for benchmark phase IV role of integral experiment covariance data for criticality safety validation, in: Tech. rep., Working Party on Nuclear Criticality Safety, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, France, 2015.
  19. J.B. Briggs, L. Scott, A. Nouri, The international criticality safety benchmark evaluation project, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 145 (1) (2003) 1-10. https://doi.org/10.13182/NSE03-14
  20. F. Michel-Sendis, I. Gauld, J. Martinez, C. Alejano, M. Bossant, D. Boulanger, O. Cabellos, V. Chrapciak, J. Conde, I. Fast, et al., SFCOMPO-2.0: an OECD NEA database of spent nuclear fuel isotopic assays, reactor design specifications, and operating data, Ann. Nucl. Energy 110 (2017) 779-788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.07.022
  21. U. Mertyurek, M.W. Francis, I.C. Gauld, SCALE 5 analysis of BWR spent nuclear fuel isotopic compositions for safety studies, in: Tech. rep., ORNL/TM-2010/286, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, United States, 2010.
  22. M.I. Radaideh, K. Borowiec, T. Kozlowski, Integrated framework for model assessment and advanced uncertainty quantification of nuclear computer codes under bayesian statistics, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 189 (2019) 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.020

Cited by

  1. Multiphysics Modeling and Validation of Spent Fuel Isotopics Using Coupled Neutronics/Thermal-Hydraulics Simulations vol.2020, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2764634
  2. Criticality Analysis for BWR Spent Fuel Based on the Burnup Credit Evaluation from Full Core Simulations vol.11, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041498