Program - Brookhaven National Laboratory

step was to determine which detector and which configuration was better suited to predict fuel burnup and
cooling time. Three different detectors of High Purity Germanium (HPGe), Lanthanum Bromide (LaBr3),
and High Pressure Xenon (HPXe) in two system configurations of above and below the water pool were
used during the study [1]. Data was collected and analyzed in order to create burnup and cooling time
calibration curves for ATR fuel. From spectra taken and the calibration curves obtained, it was determined
that although the HPGe detector yielded better quality spectra alternatives were needed because of the
in-situ nature of the measurements. The ATR fuel scanning system will be located at the canal adjacent to
the reactor and has to be a rugged, low maintenance and an easy to control system. It was concluded that
the LaBr3 and HPXe are better alternatives for canal in-situ measurements and that in order to enhance
the quality of the spectra and burnup predictions obtained with these detectors a deconvolution process
had to developed and applied before the final design of the ATR fuel scanning measurement system was
completed. The deconvolution technique involved determining the response function of the two detectors
using MCNPX. Once the response function of the detectors was determined and validated deconvolution
algorithms were tested to determine which method was better suited for ATR fuel applications. The last
step in the enhancement process will be testing the deconvolution technique against data generated from
models, experimental data from calibration radiation sources and ultimately against high enriched uranium
samples.
[1] J. Navarro, R. Aryaeinejad, D.W. Nigg, A, “Feasibility Study to Determine Cooling Time and Burnup of
Advanced Test Reactor Fuel Using a Nondestructive Technique and Three Types of Gamma-ray Detectors”,
Journal of ASTM International, March 2012, Vol. 9, No. 6, March 2012.
BE 4 11:40 AM
Re-analysis of Fusion Relevant Benchmark Experiments Using Recent Nuclear Data
Libraries
Keitaro Kondo, Ulrich Fischer, Axel Klix, Pavel Pereslavtsev, Arkady Serikov
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, 76344, Germany
With the release of ENDF/B-VII, JENDL-4.0 and JEFF-3.1.2 a set of up-to-date nuclear data libraries
has been made available which are also suitable for fusion technology applications. These data libraries
complement the Fusion Evaluated Nuclear Data Library (FENDL) which is developed under the auspices
of the IAEA/NDS to provide a qualified data library for fusion applications. The version FENDL-2.1,
assembled in 2003, currently serves as the reference data library for ITER nuclear design analyses. A
major update of this library has been provided with the FENDL-3 project of the IAEA, resulting in the
recent starter library FENDL-3/SLIB, release 4. In this work, we re-analyse a wide range of fusion relevant
benchmark experiments conducted previously with 14 MeV neutron generators at Frascati, ENEA (FNG),
the Technical University Dresden (TUD) and the Fusion Neutron Source (FNS) at Tokai-mura, Japan.
Our special focus is on two breeding blankets experiments, which have been performed previously in the
frame of the European fusion programme on two mock-ups of the European Helium-Cooled-Lithium to
Lead (HCLL) and Helium-Cooled-Pebble-Bed (HCPB) test blanket modules (TBMs) for ITER. Tritium
production rates as well as the neutron and photon spectra measured in these mock-ups are compared
with calculations using the FENDL-3/SLIB, release 4 and state-of-the-art nuclear data evaluations, JEFF-
3.1.2, JENDL-4.0 and ENDF/B-VII. Because nuclear data for lead and beryllium have a large impact
on the calculation for these mock-up experiments, several clean benchmark experiments relevant to the
experiments are also analysed. The paper describes detailed results of the analyses performed on the
benchmark experiments. The comparison includes results obtained previously with the FENDL-2.1 data
library and concludes with recommendations on the use of the data libraries for fusion applications.
36