2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2017.04.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Verification of different Monte Carlo approaches for the neutronic analysis of a stellarator

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Three different approaches to generate a CAD based MC geometry were investigated in [2] which show, that all these approaches can be used to translate CAD data into MC geometry and generate the same results in neutronic calculations afterwards. These approaches are first, the translation approach with KIT's CAD to MC conversion tool McCad [3]; second, the unstructured mesh (UM) geometry description approach [4,5]; third, the direct usage of CAD geometry in MC codes with DAGMC (Direct Accelerated Geometry Monte Carlo) [6].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three different approaches to generate a CAD based MC geometry were investigated in [2] which show, that all these approaches can be used to translate CAD data into MC geometry and generate the same results in neutronic calculations afterwards. These approaches are first, the translation approach with KIT's CAD to MC conversion tool McCad [3]; second, the unstructured mesh (UM) geometry description approach [4,5]; third, the direct usage of CAD geometry in MC codes with DAGMC (Direct Accelerated Geometry Monte Carlo) [6].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Equation ( 33) simplifies the geometry vessel by neglecting 'shadowed' regions in the vacuum vessel and it further does not account for neutron scattering, but it is a method to compute the peaking factor f peak computationally fast. More sophisticated values for f peak can be obtained [44] by dedicated 3D Monte-Carlo codes such as MCNP [45], which can include neutron scattering and further are able to resolve in detail vessel and blanket geometries at the cost of computational time. Equation ( 33) can be substituted with results from an MCNP run in Process, if more accuracy is needed.…”
Section: Breeding Blanketmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the previous considerations, a collaboration within IPP, CIEMAT and KIT has recently started for the assessment of stellarator-specific aspects of the blanket design. While KIT has dedicated many efforts to the design and analysis of the helium-cooled pebble bed (HCPB) BB concept [9][10][11] for HELIAS, CIEMAT has focussed on the development and preparation of a dual-coolant lithium-lead breeding blanket (DCLL BB) model within the HELIAS geometry. The vast experience gained at CIEMAT in BB designs for the DEMO tokamak has been exploited, adapting the DCLL BB design [13,14], which was elaborated in the frame of the PPPT EUROfusion programme for DEMO, to the HELIAS configuration.…”
Section: Dcll Bb Adaptation From Demo To Heliasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has to be emphasised that unlike neutronics for tokamaks, the state of the art of the neutronics for stellarators is quite limited and still primitive. Preliminary developments, assessments and 2D neutronics results have been found in the literature [5][6][7] and some new 3D approaches have been considered only recently [8][9][10][11][12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%