Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology Volume 52, 2015 - Issue 9
Submit an article Journal homepage
1,833
Views
22
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Article

Resonance self-shielding methodology of new neutron transport code STREAM

Sooyoung ChoiSchool of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), UNIST-gil 50, Ulsan689-798, KoreaView further author information
,
Hyunsuk LeeSchool of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), UNIST-gil 50, Ulsan689-798, KoreaView further author information
,
Ser Gi HongKyung Hee University (KHU), Yongin, KoreaView further author information
&
Deokjung LeeSchool of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), UNIST-gil 50, Ulsan689-798, KoreaCorrespondence[email protected]
View further author information
Pages 1133-1150 | Received 21 Aug 2014, Accepted 26 Nov 2014, Published online: 04 Feb 2015

Figures & data

Table 1. Energy group structure.

Figure 1. Resonances below 4 eV and the extended resonance energy range for each isotope.

Figure 1. Resonances below 4 eV and the extended resonance energy range for each isotope.

Figure 2. IR parameter for 10 isotopes.

Figure 2. IR parameter for 10 isotopes.

Figure 3. Fuel-to-fuel collision probability.

Figure 3. Fuel-to-fuel collision probability.

Figure 4. Geometry approximation for cladding region.

Figure 4. Geometry approximation for cladding region.

Table 2. Extended resonance energy range.

Table 3. Material composition.

Figure 5. Case 1: 235U capture XS error.

Figure 5. Case 1: 235U capture XS error.

Figure 6. Case 2: 242Pu capture XS error.

Figure 6. Case 2: 242Pu capture XS error.

Figure 7. Case 3: 241Am capture XS error.

Figure 7. Case 3: 241Am capture XS error.

Figure 8. Geometry of pincell problem.

Figure 8. Geometry of pincell problem.

Table 4. Material composition of pincell problem.

Table 5. Coefficients of rational approximations (group 13).

Figure 9. Fuel-to-fuel collision probability calculated by MOC.

Figure 9. Fuel-to-fuel collision probability calculated by MOC.

Figure 10. Comparison of fuel-to-fuel collision probabilities.

Figure 10. Comparison of fuel-to-fuel collision probabilities.

Table 6. keff comparison for pincell problem.

Table 7. Reactivity difference contributions of Zr absorption reaction rates [Unit : pcm].

Figure 11. Reaction rate comparison for 91Zr.

Figure 11. Reaction rate comparison for 91Zr.

Figure 12. Capture XS comparison for 91Zr.

Figure 12. Capture XS comparison for 91Zr.

Table 8. Geometry description of UO2 pincell problem.

Table 9. UO2 pincell problem description.

Table 10. Comparison of KENO-MG, NEWT and STREAM.

Table 11. keff results comparison for UO2 pincell problem 1–15.

Table 12. keff for UO2 fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Table 13. keff for UO2 fuel with the resonance upscattering correction (Mosteller benchmark).

Table 14. FTC for UO2 fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Figure 13. Doppler coefficients for UO2 Fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Figure 13. Doppler coefficients for UO2 Fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Table 15. keff for reactor-recycle MOX fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Table 16. keff for reactor-recycle MOX fuel with resonance upscattering correction (Mosteller benchmark).

Table 17. FTC for reactor-recycle MOX fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Figure 14. Doppler coefficients for reactor-recycle MOX Fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Figure 14. Doppler coefficients for reactor-recycle MOX Fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Table 18. keff for weapons-grade MOX fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Table 19. keff for weapons-grade MOX fuel with resonance upscattering correction (Mosteller benchmark).

Table 20. FTC for weapons-grade MOX fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Figure 15. Doppler coefficients for weapons-grade MOX Fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Figure 15. Doppler coefficients for weapons-grade MOX Fuel (Mosteller benchmark).

Figure 16. 17 × 17 fuel assembly.

Figure 16. 17 × 17 fuel assembly.

Figure 17. Description of fuel rod.

Figure 17. Description of fuel rod.

Figure 18. Description of Instrument tube.

Figure 18. Description of Instrument tube.

Figure 19. Description of guide tube.

Figure 19. Description of guide tube.

Table 21. Description of material.

Table 22. Results for fuel assembly problem.

Figure 20. Comparison of fission source distributions from MCNP6 and STREAM. (IT: instrument tube; GT: guide tube).

Figure 20. Comparison of fission source distributions from MCNP6 and STREAM. (IT: instrument tube; GT: guide tube).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.