A Nonintrusive Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation Study for the ARC Fusion Reactor Design

References

• B. SORBOM et al., “ARC: A Compact, High-Field, Fusion Nuclear Science Facility and Demonstration Power Plant with Demountable Magnets,” Fusion Eng. Des., 100, 378 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2015.07.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. J. H. DONNÉ et al., “European Research Roadmap to the Realisation of Fusion Energy,” EUROfusion Consortium, Germany (2018).
   Google Scholar
• J. LEPPÄNEN et al., “The Serpent Monte Carlo Code: Status, Development and Applications in 2013,” Ann. Nucl. Energy, 82, 142 (2013); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. AIMETTA et al., “Neutronic Analysis of the Fusion Reactor ARC: Monte Carlo Simulations with the Serpent,” Fusion Sci. Technol., 78, 275 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2021.2003151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. AIMETTA, “Neutronic Analysis of the Fusion Reactor ARC: Monte Carlo Simulations with the Serpent Code,” (2020); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5118690.
   Google Scholar
• D. G. CACUCI, Sensitivity & Uncertainty Analysis, Volume I: Theory, Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York (2003); https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203911396.ch10.
   Google Scholar
• A. GANDINI, M. SALVATORES, and I. D. BONO, “Sensitivity Study of Fast Reactors Using Generalized Perturbation Techniques,” Fast Reactor Physics Vol. I. Proc. of a Symposium on Fast Reactor Physics and Related Safety Problems, International Atomic Energy Agency (1968).
   Google Scholar
• M. AUFIERO, M. MARTIN, and M. FRATONI, “XGPT: Extending Monte Carlo Generalized Perturbation Theory Capabilities to Continuous-Energy Sensitivity Functions,” Ann. Nucl. Energy, 96, 295 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.06.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. ABRATE et al., “Nuclear Data Uncertainty Quantification in Molten Salt Reactors with XGPT,” presented at the Int. Conf. on Mathematics Computational Methods and Reactor Physics, Portland, Oregon, August 25–29, 2019 (2019).
   Google Scholar
• N. ABRATE, S. DULLA, and P. RAVETTO, “Generalized Perturbation Techniques for Uncertainty Quantification in Lead-Cooled Fast Reactors,” Ann. Nucl. Energy, 164, 108623 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108623.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. KONING and D. ROCHMAN, “Towards Sustainable Nuclear Energy: Putting Nuclear Physics to Work,” Ann. Nucl. Energy, 35, 2024 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2008.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. ROCHMAN et al., “Uncertainty Propagation with Fast Monte Carlo Techniques,” Nucl. Data Sheets, 118, 367 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2014.04.082.
   Google Scholar
• W. ZWERMANN et al., “Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainties in Sampling Based Nuclear Data Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses,” Proc. Int. Topl. Mtg. on Advances in Reactor Physics (PHYSOR ‘12), Knoxville, Tennessee, April 15–20, 2012 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• S. J. JULIER and J. K. UHLMANN, “New Extension of the Kalman Filter to Nonlinear Systems,” Signal Processing, Sensor Fusion, and Target Recognition VI, Vol. 3068, I. KADAR, Ed., pp. 182–193, International Society for Optics and Photonics (1997).
   Google Scholar
• O. P. LE MAÎTRE and O. M. KNIO, Spectral Methods for Uncertainty Quantification: With Applications to Computational Fluid Dynamics. Scientific Computation, Springer, Dordrecht (2010).
   Google Scholar
• D. LEICHTLE et al., “Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses of the HCLL Mock-Up Experiment,” Fusion Eng. Des., 85, 10, 1724 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2010.05.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. LEICHTLE et al., “Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses of the Tritium Production in the HCPB Breeder Blanket Mock-Up Experiment,” Fusion Eng. Des., 82, 15, 2406 (2007); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2007.08.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U. FISCHER, D. LEICHTLE, and R. PEREL, “Monte Carlo Based Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of the HCPB Test Blanket Module in ITER,” Fusion Eng. Des., 83, 7, 1222 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2008.06.053.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I. KODELI, “Multidimensional Deterministic Nuclear Data Sensitivity and Uncertainty Code System: Method and Application,” Nucl. Sci. Eng., 138, 1, 45 (2001); https://doi.org/10.13182/NSE00-43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. KOS, A. ČUFAR, and I. A. KODELI, “ASUSD Nuclear Data Sensitivity and Uncertainty Program Package: Validation on Fusion and Fission Benchmark Experiments,” Nucl. Eng. Technol., 53, 7, 2151 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.01.034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. BUCALOSSI et al., “Comparison Between Best-Estimate–Plus–Uncertainty Methods and Conservative Tools for Nuclear Power Plant Licensing,” Nucl. Technol., 172, 1, 29 (2010); https://doi.org/10.13182/NT172-29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F. D’AURIA, C. CAMARGO, and O. MAZZANTINI, “The Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty (BEPU) Approach in Licensing of Current Nuclear Reactors,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 248, 317 (2012); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. MACFARLANE et al., “The NJOY Nuclear Data Processing System, Version 2016,” Los Alamos National Laboratory (2017); https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1338791.
   Google Scholar
• U. FISCHER et al., “Required, Achievable and Target TBR for the European DEMO,” Fusion Eng. Des., 155, 111553 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2020.111553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. FIORITO et al., “Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation to Integral Responses Using SANDY,” Ann. Nucl. Energy, 101, 359 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.11.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. DE MULATIER et al., “The Critical Catastrophe Revisited,” J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp., 2015, 8, P08021 (2015); https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-5468/2015/08/P08021/meta.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. FOAD, A. YAMAMOTO, and T. ENDO, “Efficient Uncertainty Quantification for PWR During LOCA Using Unscented Transform with Singular Value Decomposition,” Ann. Nucl. Energy, 141, 107341 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. SEABOLD and J. PERKTOLD, “Statsmodels: Econometric and Statistical Modeling with Python,” presented at the 9th Python in Science Conf., Austin, Texas, June 28–July 3, 2010 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• R. BORSDORF, N. J. HIGHAM, and M. RAYDAN, “Computing a Nearest Correlation Matrix with Factor Structure,” SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 31, 2603 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1137/090776718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. WIENER, “The Homogeneous Chaos,” Am. J. Math., 60, 4, 897 (1938); https://doi.org/10.2307/2371268.
   Google Scholar
• D. XIU and G. E. KARNIADAKIS, “The Wiener-Askey Polynomial Chaos for Stochastic Differential Equations,” SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 24, 2, 619 (2002); https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827501387826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. CANUTO et al., Spectral Methods: Evolution to Complex Geometries and Applications to Fluid Dynamics, Springer Science & Business Media (2007); https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-30728-0.
   Google Scholar
• A. KAINTURA, T. DHAENE, and D. SPINA, “Review of Polynomial Chaos-Based Methods for Uncertainty Quantification in Modern Integrated Circuits,” Electronics, 7, 3, 30 (2018); https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics7030030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. BELLMAN, Dynamic Programming, Rand Corporation Research Studies, Princeton University Press (1957); https://books.google.it/books?id=wdtoPwAACAAJ.
   Google Scholar
• J. FEINBERG and H. P. LANGTANGEN, “Chaospy: An Open Source Tool for Designing Methods of Uncertainty Quantification,” J. Comput. Sci., 11, 46 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2015.08.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. AIMETTA, “A Non-intrusive Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation Study for the ARC Fusion Reactor Design,” (2022); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7341479.
   Google Scholar
• “Cross Section Evaluation Working Group (CSEWG),” National Nuclear Data Center; https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/csewg/.
   Google Scholar
• G. RIMPAULT et al., “The ER-ANOS Code and Data System for Fast Reactor Neutronic Analyses,” Proc. Int. Conf. on Physics of Reactors (PHYSOR 2002), Seoul, South Korea, p. 1134 (2002); https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-02906396/.
   Google Scholar