Examples of Use of SINBAD Database for Nuclear Data and Code Validation

Abstract

Abstract. The SINBAD database currently contains compilations and evaluations of over 100 shielding benchmark experiments. The SINBAD database is widely used for code and data validation. Materials covered include: Air, N. O, H2O, Al, Be, Cu, graphite, concrete, Fe, stainless steel, Pb, Li, Ni, Nb, SiC, Na, W, V and mixtures thereof. Over 40 organisations from 14 countries and 2 international organisations have contributed data and work in support of SINBAD. Examples of the use of the database in the scope of different international projects, such as the Working Party on Evaluation Cooperation of the OECD and the European Fusion Programme demonstrate the merit and possible usage of the database for the validation of modern nuclear data evaluations and new computer codes.

The joint evaluated fission and fusion nuclear data library, JEFF-3.3

“…73). A similar situation, where large C/E discrepancies are within the uncertainties predicted due to the cross section covariances, was observed for the FNG Copper benchmark [393,396] (see Table 56). This suggests that for the above cases the covariance matrices seem to be, on the average, relatively realistic, with no clear trends of over-or under-estimation.…”

“…Cross-section sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of several SINBAD [367,393,428] shielding benchmarks, such as the ASPIS-Iron88 and the FNG experiments were performed using the SUSD3D [305] perturbation code, based on the direct and adjoint neutron flux moments calculated by the DORT/TORT code system [429]. The uncertainties for the ASPIS-Iron88 reaction rates due to 56 Fe cross sections were assessed for several penetration depths in the experimental block using covariance matrices from JEFF-3.3, ENDF/B-VII.1 and JENDL-4.0u.…”

Interpretation of the JANUS Phase 7 shielding experiment with TRIPOLI-4® and quantification of uncertainties due to nuclear data

“…Their specifications are presented in Table 1 The associated activation reaction cross sections are detailed in Figure 3. Diameter Thickness Cadmium Calibration uncertainty (3) Counting uncertainty Reaction threshold 197 Au(n,γ) 198 Au 12.7 mm 0.05 mm 1.27mm (4) 0.9 % ~ 1 % -55 Mn(n,γ) 56 Mn 12.7 mm 0.15 mm 1.27 mm 1.5 % ~ 1 % -103 Rh(n,n') 103m Rh 12.7 mm 0.015 mm (5) -3 % 1-2 % 40 keV 32 S(n,p) 32 P (6) 51 mm 5.6 mm -5 % 1-20 % 900 keV 2 The composition of the detectors was assumed to be pure with the natural isotopic composition as no precisions were given about their exact composition, with the exception of the manganese detector. For the latter, the JANUS handbook [3] states that it contains some nickel, but the actual proportion was not provided.…”

“…3 As no precisions whether these are 1σ or 2σ uncertainties, it has been assumed that these were 1σ uncertainties, as found in a previous interpretation of the ASPIS Iron 88 experiment in the same experimental facility. [6]. 4 There are no information whether it corresponds to the total thickness of the cadmium cover or to the thickness for each side of the detector.…”

New approaches to provide feedback from nuclear and covariance data adjustment for effective improvement of evaluated nuclear data files

“…Separated isotope sample irradiation experiments have been already widely used in past adjustments [7]; Experiments with enhanced sensitivity to the actinide cross sections in the energy range ≤1 keV: k ∞ , reaction rates, void reactivity measurements performed at the PROTEUS facility in the frame of a High Conversion LWR validation program, [8]; Experiments with enhanced capture data sensitivity in the range from few hundred eV to 1 eV (MANTRA irradiation experiments at ATR with appropriate filters to tune the spectrum at the irradiation position, [9]); Experiments providing specific feedbacks on elastic and inelastic cross sections of structural materials (ASPIS-IRON88 neutron propagation experiment in Fe, [10]). …”