Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Guglielmo Lomonaco

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 1 Continued... It is important to underline that, a reasonably agreement exists for all nuclides, although non- negligible differences (with reference to SERPENT2) can be noted for both MCNP6 and MONTEBURNS. For a clearer comparison, in the table 2, the relative differences in comparison to SERPENT2 (applied for each nuclide at each End of Step, EoS) are shown. The greatest differences are reported for Cm*™* and Pu’, although the values remain well below 1.5 % for the whole campaign. Europe [36]. The comparison concerned some nuclear parameters and material data evaluated by MCNP6, Monteburns and Serpent2 Monte Carlo based burnup codes have been shown with particular attention given to Serpent2 as reference calculation.

Table 1 Continued... It is important to underline that, a reasonably agreement exists for all nuclides, although non- negligible differences (with reference to SERPENT2) can be noted for both MCNP6 and MONTEBURNS. For a clearer comparison, in the table 2, the relative differences in comparison to SERPENT2 (applied for each nuclide at each End of Step, EoS) are shown. The greatest differences are reported for Cm*™* and Pu’, although the values remain well below 1.5 % for the whole campaign. Europe [36]. The comparison concerned some nuclear parameters and material data evaluated by MCNP6, Monteburns and Serpent2 Monte Carlo based burnup codes have been shown with particular attention given to Serpent2 as reference calculation.

Related Figures (13)

Figure 1: ALLEGRO Y-Z (left) and X-Y (right) geometrical sections. In the next figure 1 the Y-Z and X-Y geometrical sections of ALLEGRO reactor are shown.
Figure 1: ALLEGRO Y-Z (left) and X-Y (right) geometrical sections. In the next figure 1 the Y-Z and X-Y geometrical sections of ALLEGRO reactor are shown.
Table 1: Relative Differences in 6-Group Spectra with Respect to SERPENT2
Table 1: Relative Differences in 6-Group Spectra with Respect to SERPENT2
Figure 2: Comparison of ke trends calculated by MCNP6, MONTEBURNS and SERPENT2
Figure 2: Comparison of ke trends calculated by MCNP6, MONTEBURNS and SERPENT2
Figure 3: Relative differences in reactivity values.
Figure 3: Relative differences in reactivity values.
Figure 5: Comparison of 69-group spectra of reactor core at BoC. Figure 4: Comparison of 6-group spectra of reactor core at BoC
Figure 5: Comparison of 69-group spectra of reactor core at BoC. Figure 4: Comparison of 6-group spectra of reactor core at BoC
In the figure 4 and the table 1, the 6-group spectra evaluated at BoC on whole core are shown: a good agreement exists between all codes, although MCNP6 seems to have a slight softer flux. It is important to note that the second group has almost no neutrons (more In the next figures the trends of some (selected) nuclides amounts vs. burnup (in MWd/kgym) are shown: these inventories are represented as the atomic concentration in the fuel pin material. As it expected, there is a constant consumption of the u**? and Pu’? and a non-linear increase of Am**".
In the figure 4 and the table 1, the 6-group spectra evaluated at BoC on whole core are shown: a good agreement exists between all codes, although MCNP6 seems to have a slight softer flux. It is important to note that the second group has almost no neutrons (more In the next figures the trends of some (selected) nuclides amounts vs. burnup (in MWd/kgym) are shown: these inventories are represented as the atomic concentration in the fuel pin material. As it expected, there is a constant consumption of the u**? and Pu’? and a non-linear increase of Am**".
239 Figure 7: Inventory of Pu*~~ vs. burnup. Figure 6: Inventory of U** vs. burnup.
239 Figure 7: Inventory of Pu*~~ vs. burnup. Figure 6: Inventory of U** vs. burnup.
241 Figure 8: Inventory of Am* vs. burnup.
241 Figure 8: Inventory of Am* vs. burnup.
Table 2: Differences with Respect to SERPENT2 of Nuclides Inventories
Table 2: Differences with Respect to SERPENT2 of Nuclides Inventories
244 Figure 9: Inventory of Cm*™ vs. burnup.
244 Figure 9: Inventory of Cm*™ vs. burnup.
Table 3: Comparison of Some Codes Features As already shown also in some previous works (see, as examples, [1-10,34,35]), ALLEGRO remains a suitable benchmark test for code-to-code assessment focusing on the main neutronic data: it is mainly due to the peculiar neutronic characteristics (such as the use of He as coolant), transparent to the neutrons, and the future concrete possibility to be located in the central
Table 3: Comparison of Some Codes Features As already shown also in some previous works (see, as examples, [1-10,34,35]), ALLEGRO remains a suitable benchmark test for code-to-code assessment focusing on the main neutronic data: it is mainly due to the peculiar neutronic characteristics (such as the use of He as coolant), transparent to the neutrons, and the future concrete possibility to be located in the central
Related topics:
McNp SimulationGas Cooled Nuclear ReactorsFAST BREEDER REACTORSPrototype fast breeder reactorNeutronics AnalysisGeneration IV
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved