Benchmark Tutorial -- IV - Participation
- 1. Benchmarking Experiments for Criticality Safety and Reactor Physics Applications – II – Tutorial John D. Bess and J. Blair Briggs – INL Ian Hill (IDAT) – OECD/NEA www.inl.gov 2012 ANS Annual Meeting Chicago, Illinois June 24-28, 2012 This paper was prepared at Idaho National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract Number (DE-AC07-05ID14517)
- 2. Outline I. Introduction to Benchmarking a. Overview b. ICSBEP/IRPhEP II. Benchmark Experiment Availability a. DICE Demonstration b. IDAT Demonstration III. Dissection of a Benchmark Report a. Experimental Data b. Experiment Evaluation c. Benchmark Model d. Sample Calculations e. Benchmark Measurements IV. Benchmark Participation 2
- 4. Getting Started • Criticality Safety Analyses • Student and Young – Most of the work has Generation Involvement already been performed – Provide education – Typically only uncertainty opportunities prior to and bias calculations incorporation into the remain workforce – Expand upon training at • Reactor Operations facilities/workplace – Occur on a daily basis • Especially when handbook worldwide data is already widely – Requires reorganization utilized and evaluation of activities • Computational analysis is performed rapidly being incorporated in the nuclear community • Just for Fun 4
- 5. Getting Started (Continued) • ICSBEP Handbook • Look at available – Uncertainty Guide benchmark data – Critical/Subcritical Guide • Talk with current and – Alarm/Shielding Guide past participants in the – Fundamental Physics benchmark programs Guide – DICE User’s Manual – Reviewer Checklist • What are you interested in • IRPhEP Handbook benchmarking? – Evaluation Guide – Uncertainty Guide • What if you can’t do a complete benchmark? 5
- 6. Past and Present Student Involvement • Since 1995, ~30 students have participated in the ICSBEP and/or IRPhEP – 14 directly at INL • Students have authored or coauthored over 60 benchmark evaluations – 28 & 2+ in progress at INL • They have also submitted technical papers to various conferences and journals 6
- 7. Opportunities for Involvement • Each year the ICSBEP hosts up to one or two Summer Interns at the Idaho National Laboratory • INL has also funded benchmark development via the CSNR Next Degree Program • Students have participated in the projects as subcontractors through various universities and laboratories • Benchmark development represents excellent work for collaborative Senior Design Projects, Master of Engineering Project, or Master of Science Thesis Topic • Further information can be Obtained by contacting the Chairman of the ICSBEP – J. Blair Briggs, J.Briggs@inl.gov 7
- 8. Opportunities for Student Involvement – I • Internships • Augmented Education – Traditional approach – Rigorous structure for – 10-weeks Master’s Thesis – Benchmark review – Mentor and peer-review process completed on network “free-time” during – Undergraduate thesis university studies – Undergraduate team – Encouraged to publish projects – Encouraged to publish 8
- 9. Opportunities for Student Involvement – II • Center for Space Nuclear Research (CSNR) – Next Degree Program • Work as a part- or full-time subcontractor while completing a graduate degree – Via local or remote university participation – Opportunity for interaction with students participating in space nuclear activities • Other Next Degree students • Summer fellow students (interns) – Collaboration opportunities on other projects 9
- 10. Opportunities for Student Involvement – III • Nuclear and Criticality Safety Engineers – Pilot program collaboration • Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) • U.S. Department of Energy – Idaho (DOE-ID) – Idaho State University and University of Idaho – Graduate Nuclear Engineering Curriculum – Part-time employment (full-time summer) – Hands-on training, benchmarking, ANS meetings, thesis/dissertation work, shadow mentors, DOE and ANS standard development, etc. 10
- 11. Investigation Breeds Comprehension • Benchmark procedures require investigation into – History and background • Purpose of experiment? – Experimental design and methods – Analytical capabilities and procedures – Experimental results • Often experiments were performed with the intent to provide data for criticality safety assessments – Many are utilized to develop criticality safety standards 11
- 12. Culturing Good Engineering Judgment • Often experimental information is incomplete or misleading – Contact original experimenters (if available) – Interact with professionals from the ICSBEP/IRPhEP community – Establish a personal network for the young professional engineer “Do, or do not. There is no „try‟” - Jedi Master Yoda 12
- 13. Developing an Analytical Skill and Tool Set • Evaluators develop analytical and computational capabilities throughout the evaluation process – Utility of conventional computational codes and neutron cross section data libraries • Monte Carlo or Diffusion methods • MCNP and KENO are the most common in the US – Application of perturbation theory and statistical analyses • Uncertainty evaluation • Bias assessment – Technical report writing – Understanding acceptability of results 13
- 14. We Want You… • Numerous reactors and test facilities worldwide that can be benchmarked – Availability of data and expertise for various systems dwindle with time • Visit the website – http://icsbep.inl.gov/ – http://irphep.inl.gov/ • Contact us – icsbep@inl.gov – irphep@inl.gov – jim.gulliford@oecd.org http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/wpncs/icsbep/ http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/wprs/irphe/
- 15. Reactors Can Be Used for More Than Making Heat 15
- 16. WHAT BENCHMARK DATA ARE YOU MISSING? 16
- 17. Example Experiments (Not Currently Benchmarked) • Fast Test Reactors • Small Modular Reactors – ZPR-3, ZPR-6, ZPR-9, – SCCA-004 and ZPPR Assemblies – SORA Critical – EBR-II Experiment Assembly • Gas Cooled Reactors – CLEMENTINE – GA HTGR – GE-710 Tungsten Nuclear Rocket – Fort St. Vrain – HNPF – Peach Bottom – PBR-CX – PNWL HTLTR – SNAP & NASA Activities – ROVER/NERVA – N.S. Savannah Program – Project Pluto – B&W Spectral Shift Experiments – DRAGON 17
- 18. Example Experiments (Continued) • Research Reactors • Experiments at ORCEF – More TRIGAs – Mihalczo HEU Sphere – AGN – USS Sandwich – PULSTAR – Moderated Jemima – Argonaut – Numerous HEU Cases – Pool-type such as MSTR – SNAP Water Immersion – MNSR – “Libby” Johnson Cases – HFIR • And many, many, more – ACRR – Similar experiments – Fast Burst Reactors validate the benchmark – Kodak CFX process and further improve nuclear data – See OECD/NEA IRPhEP website for reports with data for benchmarking 18
- 19. General Benchmark Evaluation/Review Process • ICSBEP and IRPhEP benchmarks are subject to extensive review – Evaluator(s) – primary assessment of the benchmark – Internal Reviewer(s) – in-house verification of the analysis and adherence to procedure – Independent Reviewer(s) – external (often foreign) verification of the analysis via international experts – Technical Review Workgroup Meeting – annual international effort to review all benchmarks prior to inclusion in the handbook • Sometimes a subgroup is assigned to assess any final workgroup comments and revisions prior to publication – Benchmarks are determined to be Acceptable or Unacceptable for use depending on uncertainty in results • All Approved benchmarks are retained in the handbook • Unacceptable data are published for documentation purposes, but benchmark specifications are not provided 19
- 20. Quality Assurance Each experiment evaluation included in the Handbook undergoes a thorough internal review by the evaluator's organization. Internal reviewers are expected to verify: 1. The accuracy of the descriptive information given in the evaluation by comparison with original documentation (published and unpublished). 2. That the benchmark specification can be derived from the descriptive information given in the evaluation 3. The completeness of the benchmark specification 4. The results and conclusions 5. Adherence to format. 20
- 21. Quality Assurance (continued) In addition, each evaluation undergoes an independent peer review by another Technical Review Group member at a different facility. Starting with the evaluator's submittal in the appropriate format, independent peer reviewers are expected to verify: 1. That the benchmark specification can be derived from the descriptive information given in the evaluation 2. The completeness of the benchmark specification 3. The results and conclusions 4. Adherence to format. 21
- 22. Quality Assurance (continued) A third review by the Technical Review Group verifies that the benchmark specifications and the conclusions were adequately supported. 22
- 23. Annual Technical Review Meeting • Typically 30 international participants • Usually OECD/NEA Headquarters in Paris, France • Technical review group converges to discuss each benchmark, page-by-page, prior to approval for entry into the handbook • List of Action Items are recorded; these must be resolved prior to publication – Final approval given by Internal and Independent Reviewers and, if necessary, a Subgroup of additional reviewers • Final benchmark report sent to INL for publication 23
- 24. What to Expect at Tech Review Group Meetings 24
- 26. Annual Important Dates (Guidelines) ICSBEP IRPhEP Benchmark Evaluation Year-round Year-round Internal Review Year-round Year-round Independent Review February – March August – September Technical Review Group Late March – Late September – Distribution Early April Early October Technical Review Meeting Early May Late October Resolution of Action Items May – July November – January Submission of Final Report Before Late July Before Late January Handbook Preparation June – September November – March Handbook Publication End September End March Reviews can be coordinated throughout the year. These are the guidelines for annual publications. 26
- 27. Questions? SCCA-002 27