2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.05.041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consistent criticality and radiation studies of Swiss spent nuclear fuel: The CS2M approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, since both approaches being developed at PSI to derive the loading curves for the Swiss reactor spent fuel assemblies differ from the more conventional “conservative” approaches (see Section 4 “Group Discussions” of Reference [48]), it is definitely an advantageous situation at PSI that two different methods can be compared, and in such way, the resulting loading curves can be verified with high confidence. In line with this, the results of the work in Reference [46] and of the BUCSS-R assessments presented in this paper have been compared, as demonstrated in Figure 13. For a consistent comparison, the BUCSS-R results were reevaluated for this particular graph, using the same conditions as were applied in Reference [46]: no uncertainty components and no bounding burnup profiles are taken into account in this test exercise, i.e., only the reference/nominal burnup profiles are considered.…”
Section: Outlook and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Finally, since both approaches being developed at PSI to derive the loading curves for the Swiss reactor spent fuel assemblies differ from the more conventional “conservative” approaches (see Section 4 “Group Discussions” of Reference [48]), it is definitely an advantageous situation at PSI that two different methods can be compared, and in such way, the resulting loading curves can be verified with high confidence. In line with this, the results of the work in Reference [46] and of the BUCSS-R assessments presented in this paper have been compared, as demonstrated in Figure 13. For a consistent comparison, the BUCSS-R results were reevaluated for this particular graph, using the same conditions as were applied in Reference [46]: no uncertainty components and no bounding burnup profiles are taken into account in this test exercise, i.e., only the reference/nominal burnup profiles are considered.…”
Section: Outlook and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…In line with this, the results of the work in Reference [46] and of the BUCSS-R assessments presented in this paper have been compared, as demonstrated in Figure 13. For a consistent comparison, the BUCSS-R results were reevaluated for this particular graph, using the same conditions as were applied in Reference [46]: no uncertainty components and no bounding burnup profiles are taken into account in this test exercise, i.e., only the reference/nominal burnup profiles are considered. As can be seen, the results are in good agreement.…”
Section: Outlook and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 70%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…These particularities play a role in the calculation of k eff , as well as the relative position of each UNF. For these canisters, the k eff values are 0.94803 for the top one and 0.95533 for the bottom one [27]. Such difference is non-negligible as in the first case k eff is below the limit of 0.95, whereas in the second case it is above.…”
Section: Reactor Core and High Resolution Unf Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 88%