Search

The future circular collider (FCC) is foreseen as the next-generation ~100-km long synchrotron to be built in the Geneva area starting 2050. This machine is expected to reach an energy level of 100 TeV generating unprecedented radiation levels >100 times higher than in today’s large hadron collider (LHC). Current radiation monitoring system, like the RADMONs employed in the LHC, will not be capable to function and withstand this harsh environment. The development of a new ultrahigh fluence and dose radiation sensor is a key element to allow irradiation tests of FCC equipment and, at a later stage, to monitor radiation levels in the FCC itself. In this paper, we present an innovative dosimetry solution based on thin layers of metals, which resistivity is shown to increase significantly due to the accumulated displacement damage. After describing the fabrication techniques used to manufacture these radiation-dependent resistors, we show and discuss the results of the irradiation experiments carried out with neutrons (up to $10^{18}$ n/cm$^2$ at the JSI TRIGA reactor) and with protons (up to $5.2 \times 10^{16}$ p/cm$^2$ at CERN IRRAD Facility) to validate the proposed concept of possible ultrahigh fluence FCC dosimeter.

The work presented in this thesis deals with the characterization of gamma field inside a nuclear reactor by experiments and computational modelling. In the first part of the thesis an outline of the nuclear with neutrons and neutron transport. A description of high energy photon and electron reactions and importance of their coupling for accurate calculations of energy deposition. Particle transport equations are presented with emphasis on deriving adjoint operators used for variance reduction of Monte Carlo particle transport codes. Characterization of gamma radiation field using Monte Carlo transport codes only takes into account prompt gamma generation from fission, inelastic scattering and prompt (n,gamma) reactions. Previous evaluations suggest a roughly 30 % underestimation compared to measurements. A JSIR2S code package for delayed radiation field calculations has been developed and validated by numerous experiments. Characterization of neutron and prompt gamma radiation field inside the JSI TRIGA reactor core irradiation facilities was performed using the kerma approximation. The computational model was later expanded and the criticality source term translated to a fixed source for calculations of variance reduction parameters. The methodology has been validated by experiments, showing good agreement for neutrons, while underestimating the gamma field due to neglecting delayed radiation field. Several experimental campaigns were performed at JSI TRIGA reactor using fission and ionization chamber and Thermoluminescent dosimeters. An experimental procedure for estimation of the delayed gamma fraction was developed. Validation of the JSIR2S was performed on the above mentioned measurements, showing agreement within the uncertainty. use case on using the JSIR2S for calibration of semiconductor detectors in the JSI TRIGA reactor after reactor shut-down is described. The JSIR2S code package is also applied to shut-down dose rate calculations in fusion problems showing good agreement with experiments and similar two-step and single-step methodology codes for delayed radiation field characterization.

A series of fission rate profile measurements with miniature fission chambers, developed by the Commisariat á l’énergie atomique et auxénergies alternatives, were performed at the Jožef Stefan Institute’s TRIGA research reactor. Two types of fission chambers with different fissionable coating (235U and 238U) were used to perform axial fission rate profile measurements at various radial positions and several control rod configurations. The experimental campaign was supported by an extensive set of computations, based on a validated Monte Carlo computational model of the TRIGA reactor. The computing effort included neutron transport calculations to support the planning and design of the experiments as well as calculations to aid the evaluation of experimental and computational uncertainties and major biases. The evaluation of uncertainties was performed by employing various types of sensitivity analyses such as experimental parameter perturbation and core reaction rate gradient calculations. It has been found that the experimental uncertainty of the measurements is sufficiently low, i.e. the total relative fission rate uncertainty being approximately 5 %, in order for the experiments to serve as benchmark experiments for validation of fission rate profiles. The effect of the neutron flux redistribution due to the control rod movement was studied by performing measurements and calculations of fission rates and fission chamber responses in different axial and radial positions at different control rod configurations. It was confirmed that the control rod movement affects the position of the maximum in the axial fission rate distribution, as well as the height of the local maxima. The optimal detector position, in which the redistributions would have minimum effect on its signal, was determined.

We present results from combined Laplace-Deep Level Transient Spectroscopy (Laplace-DLTS) and density functional theory studies of the carbon vacancy (VC) in n-type 4H-SiC. Using Laplace-DLTS, we were able to distinguish two previously unresolved sub-lattice-inequivalent emissions, causing the broad Z1/2 peak at 290 K that is commonly observed by conventional DLTS in n-type 4H-SiC. This peak has two components with activation energies for electron emission of 0.58 eV and 0.65 eV. We compared these results with the acceptor levels of VC obtained by means of hybrid density functional supercell calculations. The calculations support the assignment of the Z1/2 signal to a superposition of emission peaks from double negatively charged VC defects. Taking into account the measured and calculated energy levels, the calculated relative stability of VC in hexagonal (h) and cubic (k) lattice sites, as well as the observed relative amplitude of the Laplace- DLTS peaks, we assign Z1 and Z2 to VC(h) and VC(k), respectively. We also present the preliminary results of DLTS and Laplace-DLTS measurements on deep level defects (ET1 and ET2) introduced by fast neutron irradiation and He ion implantation in 4H-SiC. The origin of ET1 and ET2 is still unclear.

The present paper describes the findings of the calibration of the neutron yield monitors on the Joint European Torus (JET) performed in 2013 using a 252Cf source deployed inside the torus by the remote handling system, with particular regard to the calibration of fission chambers which provide the time resolved neutron yield from JET plasmas. The experimental data obtained in toroidal, radial, and vertical scans are presented. These data are first analysed following an analytical approach adopted in the previous neutron calibrations at JET. In this way, a calibration function for the volumetric plasma source is derived which allows us to understand the importance of the different plasma regions and of different spatial profiles of neutron emissivity on fission chamber response. Neutronics analyses have also been performed to calculate the correction factors needed to derive the plasma calibration factors taking into account the different energy spectrum and angular emission distribution of the calibrating (point) 252Cf source, the discrete positions compared to the plasma volumetric source, and the calibration circumstances. All correction factors are presented and discussed. We discuss also the lessons learnt which are the basis for the on-going 14 MeV neutron calibration at JET and for ITER. © 2017 EURATOM.

Recently a series of test irradiations was performed at the JSI TRIGA Mark II reactor for the Fission Track-Thermoionization Mass Spectrometry (FT-TIMS) method, which requires a well thermalized neutron spectrum for sample irradiation. For this purpose the Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNP5) was used to computationally support the design of an irradiation device inside the TRIGA model and to support the actual measurements by calculating the neutron fluxes inside the major ex-core irradiation facilities. The irradiation device, filled with heavy water, was designed and optimized inside the Thermal Column and the additional moderation was placed inside the Elevated Piercing Port. The use of the device improves the ratio of thermal neutron flux to the sum of epithermal and fast neutron flux inside the Thermal Column Port by 390% and achieves the desired thermal neutron fluence of 1015 neutrons/cm2 in irradiation time of 20 h.

A complete evaluation of the experimental uncertainties of the KRITZ-2 series of critical and relative fission rate experiments was performed within the International Reactor Physics Experiment Eva...

Benchmark models were developed to evaluate 11 critical core configurations of the HTR-PROTEUS pebble bed experimental program. Various additional reactor physics measurements were carried out as p...

The power output of fusion experiments and fusion reactor-like devices is measured in terms of the neutron yields which relate directly to the fusion yield. In this paper we describe the devices and methods used to make the new in situ calibration of JET in April 2013 and its early results. The target accuracy of this calibration was 10%, just as in the earlier JET calibration and as required for ITER, where a precise neutron yield measurement is important, e.g., for tritium accountancy. We discuss the constraints and early decisions which defined the main calibration approach, e.g., the choice of source type and the deployment method. We describe the physics, source issues, safety and engineering aspects required to calibrate directly the Fission Chambers and the Activation System which carry the JET neutron calibration. In particular a direct calibration of the Activation system was planned for the first time in JET. We used the existing JET remote-handling system to deploy the Cf-252 source and developed the compatible tooling and systems necessary to ensure safe and efficient deployment in these cases. The scientific programme has sought to better understand the limitations of the calibration, to optimise the measurements and other provisions, to provide corrections for perturbing factors (e.g., presence of the remote-handling boom and other non-standard torus conditions) and to ensure personnel safety and safe working conditions. Much of this work has been based on an extensive programme of Monte-Carlo calculations which, e.g., revealed a potential contribution to the neutron yield via a direct line of sight through the ports which presents individually depending on the details of the port geometry. (C) 2014 EURATOM. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The JSI TRIGA Mark II, IJS research reactor is equipped with numerous irradiation positions, where samples can be irradiated by neutrons and γ-rays. Irradiation position selection is based on its properties, such as physical size and accessibility, as well as neutron and γ-ray spectra, flux and dose intensities. This paper presents an overview on the neutron and γ-ray fluxes, spectra and dose intensities calculations using Monte Carlo MCNP software and ENDF/B-VII.0 nuclear data libraries. The dose-rates are presented in terms of ambient dose equivalents, air kerma, and silicon dose equivalent. At full reactor power the neutron ambient dose equivalent ranges from 5.5×103Svh-1 to 6×106Svh-1, silicon dose equivalent from 6×102Gy/hsi to 3×105Gy/hsi, and neutron air kerma from 4.3×103Gyh-1 to 2×105Gyh-1. Ratio of fast (1MeV

The 2014–2016 JET results are reviewed in the light of their significance for optimising the ITER research plan for the active and non-active operation. More than 60 h of plasma operation with ITER first wall materials successfully took place since its installation in 2011. New multi-machine scaling of the type I-ELM divertor energy flux density to ITER is supported by first principle modelling. ITER relevant disruption experiments and first principle modelling are reported with a set of three disruption mitigation valves mimicking the ITER setup. Insights of the L–H power threshold in Deuterium and Hydrogen are given, stressing the importance of the magnetic configurations and the recent measurements of fine-scale structures in the edge radial electric. Dimensionless scans of the core and pedestal confinement provide new information to elucidate the importance of the first wall material on the fusion performance. H-mode plasmas at ITER triangularity (H = 1 at ßN ~ 1.8 and n/nGW ~ 0.6) have been sustained at 2 MA during 5 s. The ITER neutronics codes have been validated on high performance experiments. Prospects for the coming D–T campaign and 14 MeV neutron calibration strategy are reviewed. This work has been carried out within the framework of the EUROfusion Consortium and has received funding from the Euratom research and training programme 2014–2018 under grant agreement No 633053. Peer Reviewed Article signat per 1.173 autors/es: X. Litaudon35, S. Abduallev39, M. Abhangi46, P. Abreu53, M. Afzal7, K.M. Aggarwal29, T. Ahlgren101, J.H. Ahn8, L. Aho-Mantila112, N. Aiba69, M. Airila112, R. Albanese105, V. Aldred7, D. Alegre93, E. Alessi45, P. Aleynikov55, A. Alfier12, A. Alkseev72, M. Allinson7, B. Alper7, E. Alves53, G. Ambrosino105, R. Ambrosino106, L. Amicucci90, V. Amosov88, E. Andersson Sundén22, M. Angelone90, M. Anghel85, C. Angioni62, L. Appel7, C. Appelbee7, P. Arena30, M. Ariola106, H. Arnichand8, S. Arshad41, A. Ash7, N. Ashikawa68, V. Aslanyan64, O. Asunta1, F. Auriemma12, Y. Austin7, L. Avotina103, M.D. Axton7, C. Ayres7, M. Bacharis24, A. Baciero57, D. Baião53, S. Bailey7, A. Baker7, I. Balboa7, M. Balden62, N. Balshaw7, R. Bament7, J.W. Banks7, Y.F. Baranov7, M.A. Barnard7, D. Barnes7, M. Barnes27, R. Barnsley55, A. Baron Wiechec7, L. Barrera Orte34, M. Baruzzo12, V. Basiuk8, M. Bassan55, R. Bastow7, A. Batista53, P. Batistoni90, R. Baughan7, B. Bauvir55, L. Baylor73, B. Bazylev56, J. Beal110, P.S. Beaumont7, M. Beckers39, B. Beckett7, A. Becoulet8, N. Bekris35, M. Beldishevski7, K. Bell7, F. Belli90, M. Bellinger7, É. Belonohy62, N. Ben Ayed7, N.A. Benterman7, H. Bergsåker42, J. Bernardo53, M. Bernert62, M. Berry7, L. Bertalot55, C. Besliu7, M. Beurskens63, B. Bieg61, J. Bielecki47, T. Biewer73, M. Bigi12, P. Bílková50, F. Binda22, A. Bisoffi31, J.P.S. Bizarro53, C. Björkas101, J. Blackburn7, K. Blackman7, T.R. Blackman7, P. Blanchard33, P. Blatchford7, V. Bobkov62, A. Boboc7, G. Bodnár113, O. Bogar18, I. Bolshakova60, T. Bolzonella12, N. Bonanomi97, F. Bonelli56, J. Boom62, J. Booth7, D. Borba35,53, D. Borodin39, I. Borodkina39, A. Botrugno90, C. Bottereau8, P. Boulting7, C. Bourdelle8, M. Bowden7, C. Bower7, C. Bowman110, T. Boyce7, C. Boyd7, H.J. Boyer7, J.M.A. Bradshaw7, V. Braic87, R. Bravanec40, B. Breizman107, S. Bremond8, P.D. Brennan7, S. Breton8, A. Brett7, S. Brezinsek39, M.D.J. Bright7, M. Brix7, W. Broeckx78, M. Brombin12, A. Brosławski65, D.P.D. Brown7, M. Brown7, E. Bruno55, J. Bucalossi8, J. Buch46, J. Buchanan7, M.A. Buckley7, R. Budny76, H. Bufferand8, M. Bulman7, N. Bulmer7, P. Bunting7, P. Buratti90, A. Burckhart62, A. Buscarino30, A. Busse7, N.K. Butler7, I. Bykov42, J. Byrne7, P. Cahyna50, G. Calabrò90, I. Calvo57, Y. Camenen4, P. Camp7, D.C. Campling7, J. Cane7, B. Cannas17, A.J. Capel7, P.J. Card7, A. Cardinali90, P. Carman7, M. Carr7, D. Carralero62, L. Carraro12, B.B. Carvalho53, I. Carvalho53, P. Carvalho53, F.J. Casson7, C. Castaldo90, N. Catarino53, J. Caumont7, F. Causa90, R. Cavazzana12, K. Cave-Ayland7, M. Cavinato12, M. Cecconello22, S. Ceccuzzi90, E. Cecil76, A. Cenedese12, R. Cesario90, C.D. Challis7, M. Chandler7, D. Chandra46, C.S. Chang76, A. Chankin62, I.T. Chapman7, S.C. Chapman28, M. Chernyshova49, G. Chitarin12, G. Ciraolo8, D. Ciric7, J. Citrin38, F. Clairet8, E. Clark7, M. Clark7, R. Clarkson7, D. Clatworthy7, C. Clements7, M. Cleverly7, J.P. Coad7, P.A. Coates7, A. Cobalt7, V. Coccorese105, V. Cocilovo90, S. Coda33, R. Coelho53, J.W. Coenen39, I. Coffey29, L. Colas8, S. Collins7, D. Conka103, S. Conroy22, N. Conway7, D. Coombs7, D. Cooper7, S.R. Cooper7, C. Corradino30, Y. Corre8, G. Corrigan7, S. Cortes53, D. Coster62, A.S. Couchman7, M.P. Cox7, T. Craciunescu86, S. Cramp7, R. Craven7, F. Crisanti90, G. Croci97, D. Croft7, K. Crombé15, R. Crowe7, N. Cruz53, G. Cseh113, A. Cufar81, A. Cullen7, M. Curuia85, A. Czarnecka49, H. Dabirikhah7, P. Dalgliesh7, S. Dalley7, J. Dankowski47, D. Darrow76, O. Davies7, W. Davis55,76, C. Day56, I.E. Day7, M. De Bock55, A. de Castro57, E. de la Cal57, E. de la Luna57, G. De Masi12, J. L. de Pablos57, G. De Temmerman55, G. De Tommasi105, P. de Vries55, K. Deakin7, J. Deane7, F. Degli Agostini12, R. Dejarnac50, E. Delabie73, N. den Harder38, R.O. Dendy7, J. Denis8, P. Denner39, S. Devaux62,104, P. Devynck8, F. Di Maio55, A. Di Siena62, C. Di Troia90, P. Dinca86, R. D’Inca62, B. Ding51, T. Dittmar39, H. Doerk62, R.P. Doerner9, T. Donné34, S.E. Dorling7, S. Dormido-Canto93, S. Doswon7, D. Douai8, P.T. Doyle7, A. Drenik62,81, P. Drewelow63, P. Drews39, Ph. Duckworth55, R. Dumont8, P. Dumortier58, D. Dunai113, M. Dunne62, I. Ďuran50, F. Durodié58, P. Dutta46, B. P. Duval33, R. Dux62, K. Dylst78, N. Dzysiuk22, P.V. Edappala46, J. Edmond7, A.M. Edwards7, J. Edwards7, Th. Eich62, A. Ekedahl8, R. El-Jorf7, C.G. Elsmore7, M. Enachescu84, G. Ericsson22, F. Eriksson16, J. Eriksson22, L.G. Eriksson36, B. Esposito90, S. Esquembri94, H.G. Esser39, D. Esteve8, B. Evans7, G.E. Evans7, G. Evison7, G.D. Ewart7, D. Fagan7, M. Faitsch62, D. Falie86, A. Fanni17, A. Fasoli33, J. M. Faustin33, N. Fawlk7, L. Fazendeiro53, N. Fedorczak8, R.C. Felton7, K. Fenton7, A. Fernades53, H. Fernandes53, J. Ferreira53, J.A. Fessey7, O. Février8, O. Ficker50, A. Field7, S. Fietz62, A. Figueiredo53, J. Figueiredo53,35, A. Fil8, P. Finburg7, M. Firdaouss8, U. Fischer56, L. Fittill7, M. Fitzgerald7, D. Flammini90, J. Flanagan7, C. Fleming7, K. Flinders7, N. Fonnesu90, J. M. Fontdecaba57, A. Formisano79, L. Forsythe7, L. Fortuna30, E. Fortuna-Zalesna19, M. Fortune7, S. Foster7, T. Franke34, T. Franklin7, M. Frasca30, L. Frassinetti42, M. Freisinger39, R. Fresa98, D. Frigione90, V. Fuchs50, D. Fuller35, S. Futatani6, J. Fyvie7, K. Gál34,62, D. Galassi2, K. Gałązka49, J. Galdon-Quiroga92, J. Gallagher7, D. Gallart6, R. Galvão10, X. Gao51, Y. Gao39, J. Garcia8, A. Garcia-Carrasco42, M. García-Muñoz92, J.-L. Gardarein3, L. Garzotti7, P. Gaudio95, E. Gauthier8, D.F. Gear7, S.J. Gee7, B. Geiger62, M. Gelfusa95, S. Gerasimov7, G. Gervasini45, M. Gethins7, Z. Ghani7, M. Ghate46, M. Gherendi86, J.C. Giacalone8, L. Giacomelli45, C.S. Gibson7, T. Giegerich56, C. Gil8, L. Gil53, S. Gilligan7, D. Gin54, E. Giovannozzi90, J.B. Girardo8, C. Giroud7, G. Giruzzi8, S. Glöggler62, J. Godwin7, J. Goff7, P. Gohil43, V. Goloborod’ko102, R. Gomes53, B. Gonçalves53, M. Goniche8, M. Goodliffe7, A. Goodyear7, G. Gorini97, M. Gosk65, R. Goulding76, A. Goussarov78, R. Gowland7, B. Graham7, M.E. Graham7, J. P. Graves33, N. Grazier7, P. Grazier7, N.R. Green7, H. Greuner62, B. Grierson76, F.S. Griph7, C. Grisolia8, D. Grist7, M. Groth1, R. Grove73, C.N. Grundy7, J. Grzonka19, D. Guard7, C. Guérard34, C. Guillemaut8,53, R. Guirlet8, C. Gurl7, H.H. Utoh69, L.J. Hackett7, S. Hacquin8,35, A. Hagar7, R. Hager76, A. Hakola112, M. Halitovs103, S.J. Hall7, S.P. Hallworth Cook7, C. Hamlyn-Harris7, K. Hammond7, C. Harrington7, J. Harrison7, D. Harting7, F. Hasenbeck39, Y. Hatano108, D.R. Hatch107, T.D.V. Haupt7, J. Hawes7, N.C. Hawkes7, J. Hawkins7, P. Hawkins7, P.W. Haydon7, N. Hayter7, S. Hazel7, P.J.L. Heesterman7, K. Heinola101, C. Hellesen22, T. Hellsten42, W. Helou8, O.N. Hemming7, T.C. Hender7, M. Henderson55, S.S. Henderson21, R. Henriques53, D. Hepple7, G. Hermon7, P. Hertout8, C. Hidalgo57, E.G. Highcock27, M. Hill7, J. Hillairet8, J. Hillesheim7, D. Hillis73, K. Hizanidis70, A. Hjalmarsson22, J. Hobirk62, E. Hodille8, C.H.A. Hogben7, G.M.D. Hogeweij38, A. Hollingsworth7, S. Hollis7, D.A. Homfray7, J. Horáček50, G. Hornung15, A.R. Horton7, L.D. Horton36, L. Horvath110, S.P. Hotchin7, M.R. Hough7, P.J. Howarth7, A. Hubbard64, A. Huber39, V. Huber39, T.M. Huddleston7, M. Hughes7, G.T.A. Huijsmans55, C.L. Hunter7, P. Huynh8, A.M. Hynes7, D. Iglesias7, N. Imazawa69, F. Imbeaux8, M. Imríšek50, M. Incelli109, P. Innocente12, M. Irishkin8, I. Ivanova-Stanik49, S. Jachmich58,35, A.S. Jacobsen83, P. Jacquet7, J. Jansons103, A. Jardin8, A. Järvinen1, F. Jaulmes38, S. Jednoróg49, I. Jenkins7, C. Jeong20, I. Jepu86, E. Joffrin8, R. Johnson7, T. Johnson42, Jane Johnston7, L. Joita7, G. Jones7, T.T.C. Jones7, K.K. Hoshino69, A. Kallenbach62, K. Kamiya69, J. Kaniewski7, A. Kantor7, A. Kappatou62, J. Karhunen1, D. Karkinsky7, I. Karnowska7, M. Kaufman73, G. Kaveney7, Y. Kazakov58, V. Kazantzidis70, D.L. Keeling7, T. Keenan7, J. Keep7, M. Kempenaars7, C. Kennedy7, D. Kenny7, J. Kent7, O.N. Kent7, E. Khilkevich54, H.T. Kim35, H.S. Kim80, A. Kinch7, C. king7, D. King7, R.F. King7, D.J. Kinna7, V. Kiptily7, A. Kirk7, K. Kirov7, A. Kirschner39, G. Kizane103, C. Klepper73, A. Klix56, P. Knight7, S.J. Knipe7, S. Knott96, T. Kobuchi69, F. Köchl111, G. Kocsis113, I. Kodeli81, L. Kogan7, D. Kogut8, S. Koivuranta112, Y. Kominis70, M. Köppen39, B. Kos81, T. Koskela1, H.R. Koslowski39, M. Koubiti4, M. Kovari7, E. Kowalska-Strzęciwilk49, A. Krasilnikov88, V. Krasilnikov88, N. Krawczyk49, M. Kresina8, K. Krieger62, A. Krivska58, U. Kruezi7, I. Książek48, A. Kukushkin72, A. Kundu46, T. Kurki-Suonio1, S. Kwak20, R. Kwiatkowski65, O.J. Kwon13, L. Laguardia45, A. Lahtinen101, A. Laing7, N. Lam7, H.T. Lambertz39, C. Lane7, P.T. Lang62, S. Lanthaler33, J. Lapins103, A. Lasa101, J.R. Last7, E. Łaszyńska49, R. Lawless7, A. Lawson7, K.D. Lawson7, A. Lazaros70, E. Lazzaro45, J. Leddy110, S. Lee66, X. Lefebvre7, H.J. Leggate32, J. Lehmann7, M. Lehnen55, D. Leichtle41, P. Leichuer7, F. Leipold55,83, I. Lengar81, M. Lennholm36, E. Lerche58, A. Lescinskis103, S. Lesnoj7, E. Letellier7, M. Leyland110, W. Leysen78, L. Li39, Y. Liang39, J. Likonen112, J. Linke39, Ch. Linsmeier39, B. Lipschultz110, G. Liu55, Y. Liu51, V.P. Lo Schiavo105, T. Loarer8, A. Loarte55, R.C. Lobel7, B. Lomanowski1, P.J. Lomas7, J. Lönnroth1,35, J. M. López94, J. López-Razola57, R. Lorenzini12, U. Losada57, J.J. Lovell7, A.B. Loving7, C. Lowry36, T. Luce43, R.M.A. Lucock7, A. Lukin74, C. Luna5, M. Lungaroni95, C.P. Lungu86, M. Lungu86, A. Lunniss110, I. Lupelli7, A. Lyssoivan58, N. Macdonald7, P. Macheta7, K. Maczewa7, B. Magesh46, P. Maget8, C. Maggi7, H. Maier62, J. Mailloux7, T. Makkonen1, R. Makwana46, A. Malaquias53, A. Malizia95, P. Manas4, A. Manning7, M.E. Manso53, P. Mantica45, M. Mantsinen6, A. Manzanares91, Ph. Maquet55, Y. Marandet4, N. Marcenko88, C. Marchetto45, O. Marchuk39, M. Marinelli95, M. Marinucci90, T. Markovič50, D. Marocco90, L. Marot26, C.A. Marren7, R. Marshal7, A. Martin7, Y. Martin33, A. Martín de Aguilera57, F.J. Martínez93, J. R. Martín-Solís14, Y. Martynova39, S. Maruyama55, A. Masiello12, M. Maslov7, S. Matejcik18, M. Mattei79, G.F. Matthews7, F. Maviglia11, M. Mayer62, M.L. Mayoral34, T. May-Smith7, D. Mazon8, C. Mazzotta90, R. McAdams7, P.J. McCarthy96, K.G. McClements7, O. McCormack12, P.A. McCullen7, D. McDonald34, S. McIntosh7, R. McKean7, J. McKehon7, R.C. Meadows7, A. Meakins7, F. Medina57, M. Medland7, S. Medley7, S. Meigh7, A.G. Meigs7, G. Meisl62, S. Meitner73, L. Meneses53, S. Menmuir7,42, K. Mergia71, I.R. Merrigan7, Ph. Mertens39, S. Meshchaninov88, A. Messiaen58, H. Meyer7, S. Mianowski65, R. Michling55, D. Middleton-Gear7, J. Miettunen1, F. Militello7, E. Militello-Asp7, G. Miloshevsky77, F. Mink62, S. Minucci105, Y. Miyoshi69, J. Mlynář50, D. Molina8, I. Monakhov7, M. Moneti109, R. Mooney7, S. Moradi37, S. Mordijck43, L. Moreira7, R. Moreno57, F. Moro90, A.W. Morris7, J. Morris7, L. Moser26, S. Mosher73, D. Moulton7,1, A. Murari12,35, A. Muraro45, S. Murphy7, N.N. Asakura69, Y.S. Na80, F. Nabais53, R. Naish7, T. Nakano69, E. Nardon8, V. Naulin83, M.F.F. Nave53, I. Nedzelski53, G. Nemtsev88, F. Nespoli33, A. Neto41, R. Neu62, V.S. Neverov72, M. Newman7, K.J. Nicholls7, T. Nicolas33, A.H. Nielsen83, P. Nielsen12, E. Nilsson8, D. Nishijima99, C. Noble7, M. Nocente97, D. Nodwell7, K. Nordlund101, H. Nordman16, R. Nouailletas8, I. Nunes53, M. Oberkofler62, T. Odupitan7, M.T. Ogawa69, T. O’Gorman7, M. Okabayashi76, R. Olney7, O. Omolayo7, M. O’Mullane21, J. Ongena58, F. Orsitto11, J. Orszagh18, B.I. Oswuigwe7, R. Otin7, A. Owen7, R. Paccagnella12, N. Pace7, D. Pacella90, L.W. Packer7, A. Page7, E. Pajuste103, S. Palazzo30, S. Pamela7, S. Panja46, P. Papp18, R. Paprok50, V. Parail7, M. Park66, F. Parra Diaz27, M. Parsons73, R. Pasqualotto12, A. Patel7, S. Pathak46, D. Paton7, H. Patten33, A. Pau17, E. Pawelec48, C. Paz Soldan43, A. Peackoc36, I.J. Pearson7, S.-P. Pehkonen112, E. Peluso95, C. Penot55, A. Pereira57, R. Pereira53, P.P. Pereira Puglia7, C. Perez von Thun35,39, S. Peruzzo12, S. Peschanyi56, M. Peterka50, P. Petersson42, G. Petravich113, A. Petre84, N. Petrella7, V. Petržilka50, Y. Peysson8, D. Pfefferlé33, V. Philipps39, M. Pillon90, G. Pintsuk39, P. Piovesan12, A. Pires dos Reis52, L. Piron7, A. Pironti105, F. Pisano17, R. Pitts55, F. Pizzo79, V. Plyusnin53, N. Pomaro12, O.G. Pompilian86, P.J. Pool7, S. Popovichev7, M.T. Porfiri90, C. Porosnicu86, M. Porton7, G. Possnert22, S. Potzel62, T. Powell7, J. Pozzi7, V. Prajapati46, R. Prakash46, G. Prestopino95, D. Price7, M. Price7, R. Price7, P. Prior7, R. Proudfoot7, G. Pucella90, P. Puglia52, M.E. Puiatti12, D. Pulley7, K. Purahoo7, Th. Pütterich62, E. Rachlew25, M. Rack39, R. Ragona58, M.S.J. Rainford7, A. Rakha6, G. Ramogida90, S. Ranjan46, C.J. Rapson62, J.J. Rasmussen83, K. Rathod46, G. Rattá57, S. Ratynskaia82, G. Ravera90, C. Rayner7, M. Rebai97, D. Reece7, A. Reed7, D. Réfy113, B. Regan7, J. Regaña34, M. Reich62, N. Reid7, F. Reimold39, M. Reinhart34, M. Reinke110,73, D. Reiser39, D. Rendell7, C. Reux8, S.D.A. Reyes Cortes53, S. Reynolds7, V. Riccardo7, N. Richardson7, K. Riddle7, D. Rigamonti97, F.G. Rimini7, J. Risner73, M. Riva90, C. Roach7, R.J. Robins7, S.A. Robinson7, T. Robinson7, D.W. Robson7, R. Roccella55, R. Rodionov88, P. Rodrigues53, J. Rodriguez7, V. Rohde62, F. Romanelli90, M. Romanelli7, S. Romanelli7, J. Romazanov39, S. Rowe7, M. Rubel42, G. Rubinacci105, G. Rubino12, L. Ruchko52, M. Ruiz94, C. Ruset86, J. Rzadkiewicz65, S. Saarelma7, R. Sabot8, E. Safi101, P. Sagar7, G. Saibene41, F. Saint-Laurent8, M. Salewski83, A. Salmi112, R. Salmon7, F. Salzedas53, D. Samaddar7, U. Samm39, D. Sandiford7, P. Santa46, M.I.K. Santala1, B. Santos53, A. Santucci90, F. Sartori41, R. Sartori41, O. Sauter33, R. Scannell7, T. Schlummer39, K. Schmid62, V. Schmidt12, S. Schmuck7, M. Schneider8, K. Schöpf102, D. Schwörer32, S.D. Scott76, G. Sergienko39, M. Sertoli62, A. Shabbir15, S.E. Sharapov7, A. Shaw7, R. Shaw7, H. Sheikh7, A. Shepherd7, A. Shevelev54, A. Shumack38, G. Sias17, M. Sibbald7, B. Sieglin62, S. Silburn7, A. Silva53, C. Silva53, P.A. Simmons7, J. Simpson7, J. Simpson-Hutchinson7, A. Sinha46, S.K. Sipilä1, A.C.C. Sips36, P. Sirén112, A. Sirinelli55, H. Sjöstrand22, M. Skiba22, R. Skilton7, K. Slabkowska49, B. Slade7, N. Smith7, P.G. Smith7, R. Smith7, T.J. Smith7, M. Smithies110, L. Snoj81, S. Soare85, E. R. Solano35,57, A. Somers32, C. Sommariva8, P. Sonato12, A. Sopplesa12, J. Sousa53, C. Sozzi45, S. Spagnolo12, T. Spelzini7, F. Spineanu86, G. Stables7, I. Stamatelatos71, M.F. Stamp7, P. Staniec7, G. Stankūnas59, C. Stan-Sion84, M.J. Stead7, E. Stefanikova42, I. Stepanov58, A.V. Stephen7, M. Stephen46, A. Stevens7, B.D. Stevens7, J. Strachan76, P. Strand16, H.R. Strauss44, P. Ström42, G. Stubbs7, W. Studholme7, F. Subba75, H.P. Summers21, J. Svensson63, Ł. Świderski65, T. Szabolics113, M. Szawlowski49, G. Szepesi7, T.T. Suzuki69, B. Tál113, T. Tala112, A.R. Talbot7, S. Talebzadeh95, C. Taliercio12, P. Tamain8, C. Tame7, W. Tang76, M. Tardocchi45, L. Taroni12, D. Taylor7, K.A. Taylor7, D. Tegnered16, G. Telesca15, N. Teplova54, D. Terranova12, D. Testa33, E. Tholerus42, J. Thomas7, J.D. Thomas7, P. Thomas55, A. Thompson7, C.-A. Thompson7, V.K. Thompson7, L. Thorne7, A. Thornton7, A.S. Thrysøe83, P.A. Tigwell7, N. Tipton7, I. Tiseanu86, H. Tojo69, M. Tokitani67, P. Tolias82, M. Tomeš50, P. Tonner7, M. Towndrow7, P. Trimble7, M. Tripsky58, M. Tsalas38, P. Tsavalas71, D. Tskhakaya jun102, I. Turner7, M.M. Turner32, M. Turnyanskiy34, G. Tvalashvili7, S.G.J. Tyrrell7, A. Uccello45, Z. Ul-Abidin7, J. Uljanovs1, D. Ulyatt7, H. Urano69, I. Uytdenhouwen78, A.P. Vadgama7, D. Valcarcel7, M. Valentinuzzi8, M. Valisa12, P. Vallejos Olivares42, M. Valovic7, M. Van De Mortel7, D. Van Eester58, W. Van Renterghem78, G.J. van Rooij38, J. Varje1, S. Varoutis56, S. Vartanian8, K. Vasava46, T. Vasilopoulou71, J. Vega57, G. Verdoolaege58, R. Verhoeven7, C. Verona95, G. Verona Rinati95, E. Veshchev55, N. Vianello45, J. Vicente53, E. Viezzer62,92, S. Villari90, F. Villone100, P. Vincenzi12, I. Vinyar74, B. Viola90, A. Vitins103, Z. Vizvary7, M. Vlad86, I. Voitsekhovitch34, P. Vondráček50, N. Vora7, T. Vu8, W.W. Pires de Sa52, B. Wakeling7, C.W.F. Waldon7, N. Walkden7, M. Walker7, R. Walker7, M. Walsh55, E. Wang39, N. Wang39, S. Warder7, R.J. Warren7, J. Waterhouse7, N.W. Watkins28, C. Watts55, T. Wauters58, A. Weckmann42, J. Weiland23, H. Weisen33, M. Weiszflog22, C. Wellstood7, A.T. West7, M.R. Wheatley7, S. Whetham7, A.M. Whitehead7, B.D. Whitehead7, A.M. Widdowson7, S. Wiesen39, J. Wilkinson7, J. Williams7, M. Williams7, A.R. Wilson7, D.J. Wilson7, H.R. Wilson110, J. Wilson7, M. Wischmeier62, G. Withenshaw7, A. Withycombe7, D.M. Witts7, D. Wood7, R. Wood7, C. Woodley7, S. Wray7, J. Wright7, J.C. Wright64, J. Wu89, S. Wukitch64, A. Wynn110, T. Xu7, D. Yadikin16, W. Yanling39, L. Yao89, V. Yavorskij102, M.G. Yoo80, C. Young7, D. Young7, I.D. Young7, R. Young7, J. Zacks7, R. Zagorski49, F.S. Zaitsev18, R. Zanino75, A. Zarins103, K.D. Zastrow7, M. Zerbini90, W. Zhang62, Y. Zhou42, E. Zilli12, V. Zoita86, S. Zoletnik113, I. Zychor65 and JET Contributorsa // EUROfusion Consortium JET, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, OX14 3DB, United Kingdom / 1 Aalto University, PO Box 14100, FIN-00076 Aalto, Finland / 2 Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, M2P2 UMR 7340, 13451, Marseille, France / 3 Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, IUSTI UMR 7343, 13013 Marseille, France / 4 Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS, PIIM, UMR 7345, 13013 Marseille, France / 5 Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States of America / 6 Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Barcelona, Spain / 7 CCFE, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 3DB, United Kingdom / 8 CEA, IRFM, F-13108 Saint Paul Lez Durance, France / 9 Center for Energy Research, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, United States of America / 10 Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Fisicas, Rua Xavier Sigaud, 160, Rio de Janeiro CEP 22290-180, Brazil / 11 Consorzio CREATE, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy / 12 Consorzio RFX, corso Stati Uniti 4, 35127 Padova, Italy / 13 Daegu University, Jillyang, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk 712-174, Republic of Korea / 14 Departamento de Física, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, 28911 Leganés, Madrid, Spain / 15 Department of Applied Physics UG (Ghent University) St-Pietersnieuwstraat 41 B-9000 Ghent, Belgium / 16 Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden / 17 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari, Piazza d’Armi 09123, Cagliari, Italy / 18 Department of Experimental Physics, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics Comenius University Mlynska dolina F2, 84248 Bratislava, Slovakia / 19 Department of Materials Science, Warsaw University of Technology, PL-01-152 Warsaw, Poland / 20 Department of Nuclear and Quantum Engineering, KAIST, Daejeon 34141, Korea / 21 Department of Physics and Applied Physics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G4 ONG, United Kingdom / 22 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, SE-75120 Uppsala, Sweden / 23 Department of Physics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden / 24 Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom / 25 Department of Physics, SCI, KTH, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden / 26 Department of Physics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland / 27 Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 2JD, United Kingdom / 28 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom / 29 Department of Pure and Applied Physics, Queens University, Belfast, BT7 1NN, United Kingdom / 30 Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica Elettronica e Informatica, Università degli Studi di Catania, 95125 Catania, Italy / 31 Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, University of Trento, Trento, Italy / 32 Dublin City University (DCU), Dublin, Ireland / 33 Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Swiss Plasma Center (SPC), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland / 34 EUROfusion Programme Management Unit, Boltzmannstr. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany / 35 EUROfusion Programme Management Unit, Culham Science Centre, Culham, OX14 3DB, United Kingdom / 36 European Commission, B-1049 Brussels, Belgium / 37 Fluid and Plasma Dynamics, ULB—Campus Plaine—CP 231 Boulevard du Triomphe, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium / 38 FOM Institute DIFFER, Eindhoven, Netherlands / 39 Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institut für Energie- und Klimaforschung—Plasmaphysik, 52425 Jülich, Germany / 40 Fourth State Research, 503 Lockhart Dr, Austin, TX, United States of America / 41 Fusion for Energy Joint Undertaking, Josep Pl. 2, Torres Diagonal Litoral B3, 08019, Barcelona, Spain / 42 Fusion Plasma Physics, EES, KTH, SE-10044 Stockholm, Sweden / 43 General Atomics, PO Box 85608, San Diego, CA 92186-5608, United States of America / 44 HRS Fusion, West Orange, NJ, United States of America / 45 IFP-CNR, via R. Cozzi 53, 20125 Milano, Italy / 46 Institute for Plasma Research, Bhat, Gandhinagar-382 428, Gujarat State, India / 47 Institute of Nuclear Physics, Radzikowskiego 152, 31-342 Kraków, Poland / 48 Institute of Physics, Opole University, Oleska 48, 45-052 Opole, Poland / 49 Institute of Plasma Physics and Laser Microfusion, Hery 23, 01-497 Warsaw, Poland / 50 Institute of Plasma Physics AS CR, Za Slovankou 1782/3, 182 00 Praha 8, Czechia / 51 Institute of Plasma Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei 230031, People’s Republic of China / 52 Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, Rua do Matão Travessa R Nr.187 CEP 05508-090 Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, Brasil / 53 Instituto de Plasmas e Fusão Nuclear, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal / 54 Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute, 26 Politekhnicheskaya, St Petersburg 194021, Russian Federation / 55 ITER Organization, Route de Vinon, CS 90 046, 13067 Saint Paul Lez Durance, France / 56 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, PO Box 3640, D-76021 Karlsruhe, Germany / 57 Laboratorio Nacional de Fusión, CIEMAT, Madrid, Spain / 58 Laboratory for Plasma Physics Koninklijke Militaire School—Ecole Royale Militaire, Renaissancelaan 30 Avenue de la Renaissance B-1000, Brussels, Belgium / 59 Lithuanian energy institute, Breslaujos g. 3, LT-44403, Kaunas, Lithuania / 60 Magnetic Sensor Laboratory, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Ukraine / 61 Maritime University of Szczecin, Waly Chrobrego 1-2, 70-500 Szczecin, Poland / 62 Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, D-85748 Garching, Germany / 63 Max-Planck-Institut für Plasmaphysik, Teilinsitut Greifswald, D-17491 Greifswald, Germany / 64 MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Centre, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America / 65 National Centre for Nuclear Research (NCBJ), 05-400 Otwock-Świerk, Poland / 66 National Fusion Research Institute (NFRI), 169-148 Gwahak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-806, Republic of Korea / 67 National Institute for Fusion Science, Oroshi, Toki, Gifu 509-5292, Japan / 68 National Institute for Fusion Science, Toki, 509-5292, Japan / 69 National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, Naka, Ibaraki 311-0193, Japan / 70 National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Politechniou 9, 157 73 Zografou, Athens, Greece / 71 NCSR ‘Demokritos’, 153 10, Agia Paraskevi Attikis, Greece / 72 NRC Kurchatov Institute, 1 Kurchatov Square, Moscow 123182, Russian Federation / 73 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6169, United States of America / 74 PELIN LLC, 27a, Gzhatskaya Ulitsa, Saint Petersburg, 195220, Russian Federation / 75 Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, I-10129 Torino, Italy / 76 Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, James Forrestal Campus, Princeton, NJ 08543, United States of America / 77 Purdue University, 610 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States of America / 78 SCK-CEN, Nuclear Research Centre, 2400 Mol, Belgium / 79 Second University of Napoli, Consorzio CREATE, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy / 80 Seoul National University, Shilim-Dong, Gwanak-Gu, Republic of Korea / 81 Slovenian Fusion Association (SFA), Jozef Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia / 82 Space and Plasma Physics, EES, KTH SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden / 83 Technical University of Denmark, Department of Physics, Bldg 309, DK-2800 Kgs Lyngby, Denmark / 84 The ‘Horia Hulubei’ National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Magurele-Bucharest, Romania / 85 The National Institute for Cryogenics and Isotopic Technology, Ramnicu Valcea, Romania / 86 The National Institute for Laser, Plasma and Radiation Physics, Magurele-Bucharest, Romania / 87 The National Institute for Optoelectronics, Magurele-Bucharest, Romania / 88 Troitsk Insitute of Innovating and Thermonuclear Research (TRINITI), Troitsk 142190, Moscow Region, Russian Federation / 89 University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China / 90 Unità Tecnica Fusione, ENEA C. R. Frascati, via E. Fermi 45, 00044 Frascati (Roma), Italy / 91 Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain / 92 Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain / 93 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain / 94 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Grupo I2A2, Madrid, Spain / 95 Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Via del Politecnico 1, Roma, Italy / 96 University College Cork (UCC), Ireland / 97 University Milano-Bicocca, piazza della Scienza 3, 20126 Milano, Italy / 98 University of Basilicata, Consorzio CREATE, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy / 99 University of California, 1111 Franklin St., Oakland, CA 94607, United States of America / 100 University of Cassino, Consorzio CREATE, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy / 101 University of Helsinki, PO Box 43, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland / 102 University of Innsbruck, Fusion@Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ÖAW), Innsbruck, Austria / 103 University of Latvia, 19 Raina Blvd., Riga, LV 1586, Latvia / 104 University of Lorraine, CNRS, UMR7198, YIJL, Nancy, France / 105 University of Napoli ‘Federico II’, Consorzio CREATE, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy / 106 University of Napoli Parthenope, Consorzio CREATE, Via Claudio 21, 80125 Napoli, Italy / 107 University of Texas at Austin, Institute for Fusion Studies, Austin, TX 78712, United States of America / 108 University of Toyama, Toyama, 930-8555, Japan / 109 University of Tuscia, DEIM, Via del Paradiso 47, 01100 Viterbo, Italy / 110 University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, United Kingdom / 111 Vienna University of Technology, Fusion@Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (ÖAW), Austria / 112 VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, PO Box 1000, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland / 113 Wigner Research Centre for Physics, PO Box 49, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary

The aim of the current bilateral project between CEA Cadarache and JSI is to improve the accuracy of the online thermal power monitoring at the JSI TRIGA reactor. Simultaneously, a new wide range multichannel acquisition system for fission chambers, recently developed by CEA, is tested. In the paper, calculational and experimental power calibration methods are described. The focus is on use of multiple detectors in combination with pre-calculated and pre-measured control-rod-position-dependent correction factors to improve the reactor power reading. The system will be implemented and tested at the JSI TRIGA reactor in 2014.

Neutron and gamma flux levels are key parameters in nuclear research reactors. In Material Testing Reactors, such as the future Jules Horowitz Reactor, under construction at the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA Cadarache, France), the expected gamma flux levels are very high (nuclear heating is of the order of 20 W/g at 100 MWth). As gamma rays deposit their energy in the reactor structures and structural materials it is important to take them into account when designing irradiation devices. There are only a few sensors which allow measurements of the nuclear heating [12]; a recent development at the CEA Cadarache allows measurements of the gamma flux using a miniature ionization chamber (MIC) [3]. The measured MIC response is often compared with calculation using modern Monte Carlo (MC) neutron and photon transport codes, such as TRIPOLI-4 and MCNP6. In these calculations only the production of prompt gamma rays in the reactor is usually modelled thus neglecting the delayed gamma rays. Hence calculations and measurements are usually in better accordance for the neutron flux than for the gamma flux. In this paper we study the contribution of delayed gamma rays to the total MIC signal in order to estimate the systematic error in gamma flux MC calculations. In order to experimentally determine the delayed gamma flux contributions to the MIC response, we performed gamma flux measurements with CEA developed MIC at three different research reactors: the OSIRIS reactor (MTR — 70 MWth at CEA Saclay, France), the TRIGA MARK II reactor (TRIGA — 250 kWth at the Jozef Stefan Institute, Slovenia) and the MARIA reactor (MTR — 30 MWth at the National Center for Nuclear Research, Poland). In order to experimentally assess the delayed gamma flux contribution to the total gamma flux, several reactor shut down (scram) experiments were performed specifically for the purpose of the measurements. Results show that on average about 30 % of the MIC signal is due to the delayed gamma rays. In this paper we describe experiments in each of the three reactors and how we estimate delayed gamma rays with MIC measurements. The results and perspectives are discussed.

The re-evaluation of a series of experiments is presented in the paper. The critical experiments, involving aqueous uranyl fluoride (UO 2 F 2 ) solutions, filled in seven interacting cylinders, were performed in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1955. A Monte-Carlo calculation model to be used with MCNP5 was now developed for the determination of the uncertainties and the effects of various uncertainties on the multiplication factor were studied. The evaluation of the benchmark was performed for validation of calculation techniques and comparison of calculation results with the experimental data. The sensitivity studies include parametric variations of material composition and geometry. The largest care was devoted to the determination of the U concentration levels in the fissile solution and its density since the original experimental data is scarce. Both parameters are also the biggest contributors to the overall uncertainty.

After the coated CFC wall to ITER-Like Wall (Beryllium/Tungsten/Carbon) transition in 2010-2011, confirmation of the neutron yield calibration will be ensured by direct measurements using a calibra ...

After the coated CFC wall to ITER-Like Wall (Beryllium/Tungsten/Carbon) transition in 2010–11, confirmation of the neutron yield calibration will be ensured by direct measurements using a calibrated 252 Cf neutron source deployed by the in-vessel remote handling boom and Mascot manipulator inside the JET vacuum vessel. The paper describes preliminary calculations and the results of numerical study of the effect of source holder on neutron detector response. The source baton was designed in such a way, that it does not significantly affect the neutron spectrum, angular neutron flux distribution or activation detector response. All effects are approximately equal to or less than 1%. The largest disturbance to the neutron flux angular distribution and to the neutron spectrum arises from the source capsule. Hence one should obtain as much information as possible about the capsule and the 252 Cf source material in order to avoid additional systematic errors.

Neutron yield measurements are the basis for the determination of the absolute fusion reaction rate and the operational monitoring with respect to the neutron budget during any campaign for JET, the Joint European Torus. After the 2010 changes of the JET plasma-facing materials (Carbon wall to ITER-Like Wall transition), confirmation of the neutron yield calibration will be ensured by direct measurements using a calibrated 252 Cf neutron source deployed inside the JET vacuum vessel. In order to thoroughly understand the transport of neutrons from the vacuum vessel to the fission chamber detectors mounted outside the vessel on the transformer limbs and thus to computationally support the JET neutron calibrations project, we developed a simple but quick-running computational model of the JET tokamak for performing Monte Carlo neutron transport calculations. From the modelling we find that a minority of the neutrons hitting the fission chambers penetrate the tokamak wall, whilst most come via the ports. The highest contribution to a fission chamber response comes via the port nearest to a point neutron source and the second highest contribution comes via the next nearest ports. If the port is blocked by a massive object, the fission chamber response is decreased by up to the contribution of that port. It was observed that the torus hall wall significantly affects the response of each external fission chamber due to back scattering of neutrons. The whole process of understanding and improving the knowledge of the neutron yield calibration for JET is of great interest for ITER, where the methods and procedures for calibrating the neutron yield monitors are still being developed, but the requirement is for 10% accuracy in the fusion yield determination, as it is in JET.

In this paper we investigate the influence of various up-to-date nuclear data libraries, such as ENDF/B-VI.6, ENDF/B-VII.0 and JEFF 3.1, on the multiplication factor of the TRIGA benchmark with fuel made of enriched uranium and zirconium hydride and SB light-water reactor benchmarks with fuel made of fissile material in zirconium matrix. The calculations are performed with the Monte Carlo computer code MCNP. Differences of ∼600 pcm in k eff are observed for the benchmark model of the TRIGA reactor, while there are practically no differences in the k inf of the fuel. Therefore, an investigation is performed also for hypothetical homogeneous and heterogeneous systems with different leakage. The uncertainty analysis shows that the most important contributors to the difference in k eff are the Zr isotopes (especially 90 Zr and 91 Zr) and thermal scattering data for H and Zr in ZrH. As the differences in k eff due to the use of different cross section libraries are relatively large, there is certainly a need for a review of the evaluated cross section data of the zirconium isotopes.

International audience; The characterization of experimental locations of a research nuclear reactor implies the determination of neutron and photon flux levels within, with the best achievable accuracy. This study focuses on the photon flux problematic. In nuclear reactors, photon fluxes are commonly calculated by Monte Carlo simulations but rarely measured on-line. In this context, experiments were conducted with a miniature gas ionization chamber (MIC) based on miniature fission chamber mechanical parts, recently developed by the CEA (French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission) irradiated in the core of the Jožef Stefan Institute TRIGA Mark II reactor in Ljubljana, Slovenia. The aim of the study was to compare the measured MIC currents with calculated currents based on simulations with the MCNP6 code. A discrepancy of around 50 per cent was observed between the measured and the calculated currents; in the latter taking into consideration only the prompt photon field. Further experimental measurements of MIC currents following reactor SCRAMs (reactor shutdown with rapid insertions of control rods) provides evidence that over 30 per cent of the total measured signal is due to the delayed photon field, originating from fission and activation products, which are untreated in the calculations. In the comparison between the measured and calculated values, these findings imply an overall discrepancy of less than 20 per cent of the total signal which is still unexplained.

Modern computer codes allow detailed neutron transport calculations. In combination with advanced 3D visualization software capable of treating large amounts of data in real time they form a powerful tool that can be used as a convenient modern educational tool for (nuclear power plant) operators, nuclear engineers, students and specialists involved in reactor operation and design. Visualization is applicable not only in education and training, but also as a tool for fuel management, core analysis and irradiation planning. The paper treats the visualization of neutron transport in different moderators, neutron flux and power distributions in two nuclear reactors (TRIGA type research reactor and typical PWR). The distributions are calculated with MCNP and CORD-2 computer codes and presented using Amira software.

In order to verify and validate the computational methods for neutron flux calculation in TRIGA research reactor calculations, a series of experiments has been performed. The neutron activation method was used to verify the calculated neutron flux distribution in the TRIGA reactor. Aluminium (99.9 wt%)–Gold (0.1 wt%) foils (disks of 5 mm diameter and 0.2 mm thick) were irradiated in 33 locations; 6 in the core and 27 in the carrousel facility in the reflector. The experimental results were compared to the calculations performed with Monte Carlo code MCNP using detailed geometrical model of the reactor. The calculated and experimental normalized reaction rates in the core are in very good agreement for both isotopes indicating that the material and geometrical properties of the reactor core are modelled well. In conclusion one can state that our computational model describes very well the neutron flux and reaction rate distribution in the reactor core. In the reflector however, the accuracy of the epithermal and thermal neutron flux distribution and attenuation is lower, mainly due to lack of information about the material properties of the graphite reflector surrounding the core, but the differences between measurements and calculations are within 10%. Since our computational model properly describes the reactor core it can be used for calculations of reactor core parameters and for optimization of research reactor utilization.

Neutron fluxes and reaction rates in MCNP output tallies are normalized per source neutron. Since the absolute normalization for the fixed source (NPS) calculations is straightforward, the absolute normalization for the criticality (KCODE) calculations is addressed. The correspondence between the MCNP calculated and measured flux is sought. The normalization constant at a certain thermal power of a neutron multiplication system is derived and discussed. This normalization constant is the same for both neutron flux and reaction rate tallies.

Rhodium foils of about 5 mm diameter were obtained from IRMM. One foil had thickness of 0.006 mm and three were 0.112 mm thick. They were irradiated in the pneumatic transfer system and in the carousel facility of the TRIGA reactor at the Jozef Stefan Institute. The foils were irradiated bare and enclosed in small cadmium boxes (about 2 g weight) of 1 mm thickness to minimise the perturbation of the local neutron flux. They were co-irradiated with 5 mm diameter and 0.2 mm thick Al-Au (0.1%) alloy monitor foils. The resonance self-shielding corrections for the 0.006 and 0.112 mm thick samples were calculated by the Monte Carlo simulation and amount to about 10% and 60%, respectively. The consistency of measurements confirmed the validity of self-shielding factors. Trial estimates of Q0 and k0 factors for the 555.8 keV gamma line of 104 Rh were made and amount to 6.657 0.18 and (6.617 0.12) � 10 -2 , respectively.

Modern Monte Carlo transport codes in combination with fast computer clusters enable very accurate calculations of the most important reactor kinetic parameters. Such are the effective delayed neutron fraction, β eff , and mean neutron generation time, Λ . We calculate β eff and Λ for various realistic and hypothetical annular TRIGA Mark II cores with different types and amount of fuel. It is observed that the effective delayed neutron fraction strongly depends on the number of fuel elements in the core or on the core size. β eff varies for 12 wt.% uranium standard fuel with 20% enrichment from 0.0080 for a small core (43 fuel rods) to 0.0070 for a full core (90 fuel rods). It is found that calculated value of β eff strongly depends also on the nuclear data set used in calculations. The prompt neutron lifetime mainly depends on the amount (due to either content or enrichment) of 235 U in the fuel as it is approximately inversely proportional to the average absorption cross-section. It varies from 28 μs for 30 wt.% uranium content fuelled core to 48 μs for 8.5 wt.% uranium content LEU fuelled core. Description of the calculation method and detailed results are presented in the paper.

Preliminary calculations were performed with the aim to establish optimal experimental conditions for the measurement campaign within the collaboration between the Jožef Stefan Institute (JSI) and Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (CEA Cadarache). The goal of the project is to additionally characterize the neutron spectruminside the JSI TRIGA reactor core with focus on the measurement epi-thermal and fast part of the spectrum. Measurements will be performed with fission chambers containing different fissile materials (235U, 237Np and 242Pu) covered with thermal neutron filters (Cd and Gd). The changes in the detected signal and neutron flux spectrum with and without transmission filter were studied. Additional effort was put into evaluation of the effect of the filter geometry (e.g. opening on the top end of the filter) on the detector signal. After the analysis of the scoping calculations it was concluded to position the experiment in the outside core ring inside one of the empty fuel element positions.

Whenever the sample size in neutron activation analysis cannot be made small enough, self-shielding effects need to be taken into account. When several resonance absorbers are present in the sample, resonance interference must also be considered. Estimation of the self-shielding factors by the Monte Carlo technique is too cumbersome for routine application. Various simplified approaches were compared to rigorous Monte Carlo calculations, pointing out their potential limitations. Good results are obtained using self-shielding factors calculated from evaluated nuclear data libraries and tabulated as a function of the dilution cross-section. The dilution cross-section depends on the material composition and the sample dimensions through the equivalence principle, which is well known in reactor physics. Resonance interference is calculated by solving the neutron spectrum slowing-down equation from cross-sections in 640-group representation. The MATSSF code was written for the purpose and is available on request.

We demonstrated the use of combinatorial methods to optimize the filling of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in metal canisters for final deep SNF repository, according to the maximal allowed thermal power...

Modern Monte–Carlo codes (e.g. MCNP) allow calculation of the power density distribution in 3D geometry assuming detailed geometry without unit-cell homogenization. The power density distribution (and its maximum value—the peaking) can be calculated ‘point-wise’ with the resolution of approximately 1 mm. Results of the detailed power density distribution calculated by MCNP are presented for 250 kW TRIGA Mark II reactor, assuming various realistic and hypothetical core-loading patterns with focus on the mixed cores. Combinations of 8.5 w/o, 12 w/o, 20 w/o and 30 w/o low-enriched (20%) fresh TRIGA fuel rods are systematically treated in the mixed cores. The power peaking factor value and position strongly depends on the core configuration. Power peakings are usually found in fuel rods with higher uranium content especially if they are inserted near the core centre. The results are conservative and can be applied in planning realistic mixed core-loading patterns.

The main aim of this paper is the development and validation of a 3D computational model of TRIGA research reactor using Serpent 2 code. The calculated parameters were compared to the experimental results and to calculations performed with the MCNP code. The results show that the calculated normalized reaction rates and flux distribution within the core are in good agreement with MCNP and experiment, while in the reflector the flux distribution differ up to 3% from the measurements.

For efficient utilization of research reactors, such as TRIGA Mark II reactor in Ljubljana, it is important to know neutron flux distribution in the reactor as accurately as possible. The focus of this study is on the neutron flux redistributions due to control rod movements. For analyzing neutron flux redistributions, Monte Carlo calculations of fission rate distributions with the JSI TRIGA reactor model at different control rod configurations have been performed. Sensitivity of the detector response due to control rod movement have been studied. Optimal radial and axial positions of the detector have been determined. Measurements of the axial neutron flux distribution using the CEA manufactured fission chambers have been performed. The experiments at different control rod positions were conducted and compared with the MCNP calculations for a fixed detector axial position. In the future, simultaneous on-line measurements with multiple fission chambers will be performed inside the reactor core for a more accurate on-line power monitoring system.

International audience; In the perspective of irradiation experiments in the future Jules Horowitz Reactor (JHR), the Instrumentation Sensors and Dosimetry Laboratory of CEA Cadarache (France) is developing a numerical tool for SPND design, simulation and operation. In the frame of the SPND numerical tool qualification, dedicated experiments have been performed both in the Slovenian TRIGA Mark II reactor (JSI) and very recently in the French CEA Saclay OSIRIS reactor, as well as a test of two detectors in the core of the Polish MARIA reactor (NCBJ). A full description of experimental set-ups and neutron-gamma calculations schemes are provided in the first part of the paper. Calculation to experiment comparison of the various SPNDs in the different reactors is thoroughly described and discussed in the second part. Presented comparisons show promising final results.

International audience; Significant efforts have been made over the lastfew years in the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) to adopt multi-step Monte Carlo calculation schemes in the investigation and interpretation of the response of nuclear reactor instrumentation detectors (e.g.miniature ionization chambers - MICs and self-powered neutron or gamma detectors - SPNDs and SPGDs). The first step consists of the calculation of the primary data, i.e. evaluation of the neutron and gamma flux levels and spectra in the environment where the detector is located, using a computational model of the complete nuclear reactor core and its surroundings. Thesedata are subsequently used to define sources for the following calculation steps, in which only a model of the detector under investigation is used. This approach enables calculations withsatisfactory statistical uncertainties (of the order of a few %) within regions which are very small in size (the typical volume of which is of the order of 1 mm$^3$). The main drawback of a calculation scheme as described above is that perturbation effects on the radiation conditions caused by the detectors themselves are not taken into account. Depending on the detector, the nuclear reactor and the irradiation position,the perturbation in the neutron flux as primary data may reach 10 to 20%. A further issue is whether the model used in the second step calculations yields physically representative results. This is generally not the case, as significant deviations may arise, depending on the source definition. In particular, as presentedin the paper, the injudicious use of special ptions aimed at increasing the computation efficiency (e.g. reflective boundary conditions) may introduce unphysical bias in the calculated flux levels and distortions in the spectral shapes. This paper presents examples of the issues described above related to a case study on the interpretation of the signal from differenttypes of SPNDs, which were recently irradiated in the Jozef Stefan Institute TRIGA Mark II reactor in Ljubljana, Slovenia, and provides recommendations on how they can be overcome.The paper concludes with a discussion on the renormalization of the results from the second step calculations, to obtain accurate physical values.

Absolute average capture cross sections of gold, thorium, tantalum, molybdenum, copper and strontium in 252 Cf spontaneous fission neutron spectrum were simulated for two types of experiment setups preformed by Z. Dezso and J. Csikai and by L. Green. The experiments were simulated with MCNP5 using cross section data from the ENDF/B-VII.0 library. The determination of neutron backscattering was calculated with the use of neutron flagging. Correction factors to experimentally measured values were determined to obtain average cross sections in a pure 252 Cf spontaneous fission spectrum. Influence of concrete wall thickness, air moisture and room size on the average cross section was analyzed. Correction factors amounted to about 30%. Corrected values corresponding to average cross sections in a pure 252 Cf spectrum were calculated for 197 Au, 232 Th, 181 Ta, 98 Mo, 65 Cu and 84 Sr. Average cross sections were also calculated with the RR_UNC software using IRDFF-v.1.05 and ENDF/B-VII.0 libraries. The revised average radiative capture cross sections are 75.5±0.1 mb for 197 Au, 87.0±1.6 mb for 232 Th , 98.0±4.5 mb for 181 Ta, 21.2±0.5 mb for 98 Mo, 10.3±0.3 mb for 63 Cu, and 34.9±6.5 mb for 84 Sr.

New computational model of the JSI TRIGA Mark II research reactor was built for TRIPOLI computer code and compared with existing MCNP code model. The same modelling assumptions were used in order to check the differences of the mathematical models of both Monte Carlo codes. Differences between the TRIPOLI and MCNP predictions of keff were up to 100 pcm. Further validation was performed with analyses of the normalized reaction rates and computations of kinetic parameters for various core configurations.

CEA developed fission chambers and ionization chambers were utilized at the JSI TRIGA reactor to measure neutron and gamma fields. The measured axial fission rate distributions in the reactor core are generally in good agreement with the calculated values using the Monte Carlo model of the reactor thus verifying both the computational model and the fission chambers. In future, multiple absolutely calibrated fission chambers could be used for more accurate online reactor thermal power monitoring.

In its deployment as a pebble bed reactor (PBR) critical facility from 1992 to 1996, the PROTEUS facility was designated as HTR-PROTEUS. This experimental program was performed as part of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Coordinated Research Project (CRP) on the Validation of Safety Related Physics Calculations for Low Enriched HTGRs. Within this project, critical experiments were conducted for graphite moderated LEU systems to determine core reactivity, flux and power profiles, reaction-rate ratios, the worth of control rods, both in-core and reflector based, the worth of burnable poisons, kinetic parameters, and the effects of moisture ingress on these parameters. One benchmark experiment was evaluated in this report: Core 4. Core 4 represents the only configuration with random pebble packing in the HTR-PROTEUS series of experiments, and has a moderator-to-fuel pebble ratio of 1:1. Three random configurations were performed. The initial configuration, Core 4.1, was rejected because the method for pebble loading, separate delivery tubes for the moderator and fuel pebbles, may not have been completely random; this core loading was rejected by the experimenters. Cores 4.2 and 4.3 were loaded using a single delivery tube, eliminating the possibility for systematic ordering effects. The second and third cores differed slightlymore » in the quantity of pebbles loaded (40 each of moderator and fuel pebbles), stacked height of the pebbles in the core cavity (0.02 m), withdrawn distance of the stainless steel control rods (20 mm), and withdrawn distance of the autorod (30 mm). The 34 coolant channels in the upper axial reflector and the 33 coolant channels in the lower axial reflector were open. Additionally, the axial graphite fillers used in all other HTR-PROTEUS configurations to create a 12-sided core cavity were not used in the randomly packed cores. Instead, graphite fillers were placed on the cavity floor, creating a funnel-like base, to discourage ordering effects during pebble loading. Core 4 was determined to be acceptable benchmark experiment.« less

A dedicated effort on nuclear data validation and nuclear instrumentation techniques for Test Blanket Modules (TBM) in ITER is conducted as an integral part of Fusion for Energy's (F4E) programme to ensure validated nuclear analysis capabilities for fusion technology applications. It is closely linked to nuclear data development activities, which are jointly coordinated and conducted by F4E and nuclear data consortia formed by European research institutions. The current experimental activities, an integral copper validation experiment and gas production experiments in EUROFER elements, as well as activities on the development and testing of candidate nuclear detectors for TBM in ITER and the related design integration assessment are presented in this paper. ﾩ 2014 Fusion for Energy.

The aim of the current bilateral project between CEA Cadarache and JSI is to improve the accuracy of the online thermal power monitoring at the JSI TRIGA reactor. Simultaneously, a new wide range multichannel acquisition system for fission chambers, recently developed by CEA, is tested. In the paper, calculational and experimental power calibration methods are described. The focus is on use of multiple detectors in combination with pre-calculated and pre-measured control-rod-position-dependent correction factors to improve the reactor power reading. The system will be implemented and tested at the JSI TRIGA reactor in 2014.

This work deals with several neutron flux measurement instruments and particle transport calculations combined in a method to assess the neutron field in experimental locations in nuclear reactor core or reflector. First test of this method in the TRIGA Mark II of Slovenia led to the assessment of three energy groups neutron fluxes in central irradiation locations within reactor core.

The calculation of axial neutron flux distributions with the MCNP code at the JSI TRIGA Mark II reactor has been validated with experimental measurements of the (197)Au(n,γ)(198)Au reaction rate. The calculated absolute reaction rate values, scaled according to the reactor power and corrected for the flux redistribution effect, are in good agreement with the experimental results. The effect of different cross-section libraries on the calculations has been investigated and shown to be minor.

In its deployment as a pebble bed reactor (PBR) critical facility from 1992 to 1996, the PROTEUS facility was designated as HTR-PROTEUS. This experimental program was performed as part of an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Coordinated Research Project (CRP) on the Validation of Safety Related Physics Calculations for Low Enriched HTGRs. Within this project, critical experiments were conducted for graphite moderated LEU systems to determine core reactivity, flux and power profiles, reaction-rate ratios, the worth of control rods, both in-core and reflector based, the worth of burnable poisons, kinetic parameters, and the effects of moisture ingress on these parameters. Four benchmark experiments were evaluated in this report: Cores 1, 1A, 2, and 3. These core configurations represent the hexagonal close packing (HCP) configurations of the HTR-PROTEUS experiment with a moderator-to-fuel pebble ratio of 1:2. Core 1 represents the only configuration utilizing ZEBRA control rods. Cores 1A, 2, and 3 use withdrawable, hollow, stainless steel control rods. Cores 1 and 1A are similar except for the use of different control rods; Core 1A also has one less layer of pebbles (21 layers instead of 22). Core 2 retains the first 16 layers of pebbles from Cores 1 and 1A andmore » has 16 layers of moderator pebbles stacked above the fueled layers. Core 3 retains the first 17 layers of pebbles but has polyethylene rods inserted between pebbles to simulate water ingress. The additional partial pebble layer (layer 18) for Core 3 was not included as it was used for core operations and not the reported critical configuration. Cores 1, 1A, 2, and 3 were determined to be acceptable benchmark experiments.« less

Characterization and optimization of irradiation facilities in a research reactor is important for optimal performance. Nowadays this is commonly done with advanced Monte Carlo neutron transport computer codes such as MCNP. However, the computational model in such calculations should be verified and validated with experiments. In the paper we describe the irradiation facilities at the JSI TRIGA reactor and demonstrate their computational characterization to support experimental campaigns by providing information on the characteristics of the irradiation facilities.

The High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR) of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) is a 30 MWth, graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor that was constructed with the objectives to establish and upgrade the technological basis for advanced high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) as well as to conduct various irradiation tests for innovative high-temperature research. The core size of the HTTR represents about one-half of that of future HTGRs, and the high excess reactivity of the HTTR, necessary for compensation of temperature, xenon, and burnup effects during power operations, is similar to that of future HTGRs. During the start-up core physics tests of the HTTR, various annular cores were formed to provide experimental data for verification of design codes for future HTGRs. The Japanese government approved construction of the HTTR in the 1989 fiscal year budget; construction began at the Oarai Research and Development Center in March 1991 and was completed May 1996. Fuel loading began July 1, 1998, from the core periphery. The first criticality was attained with an annular core on November 10, 1998 at 14:18, followed by a series of start-up core physics tests until a fully-loaded core was developed on December 16, 1998. Criticality tests were carried out intomore » January 1999. The first full power operation with an average core outlet temperature of 850oC was completed on December 7, 2001, and operational licensing of the HTTR was approved on March 6, 2002. The HTTR attained high temperature operation at 950 oC in April 19, 2004. After a series of safety demonstration tests, it will be used as the heat source in a hydrogen production system by 2015. Hot zero-power critical, rise-to-power, irradiation, and safety demonstration testing , have also been performed with the HTTR, representing additional means for computational validation efforts. Power tests were performed in steps from 0 to 30 MW, with various tests performed at each step to confirm core characteristics, thermal-hydraulic properties, and radiation shielding. The high-temperature test operation at 950 oC represented the fifth and final phase of the rise-to-power tests. The safety tests demonstrated inherent safety features of the HTTR such as slow temperature response during abnormal events due to the large heat capacity of the core and the negative reactivity feedback. The experimental benchmark performed and currently evaluated in this report pertains to the data available for the annular core criticals from the initial six isothermal, annular and fully-loaded, core critical measurements performed at the HTTR. Evaluation of the start-up core physics tests specific to the fully-loaded core is compiled elsewhere (HTTR-GCR-RESR-001).« less

A benchmark model of the initial fully-loaded start-up core critical of Japan’s High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR) was developed to provide data in support of ongoing validation efforts of the Very High Temperature Reactor Program using publicly available resources. The HTTR is a 30 MWt test reactor utilizing graphite moderation, helium coolant, and prismatic TRISO fuel. The benchmark was modeled using MCNP5 with various neutron cross-section libraries. An uncertainty evaluation was performed by perturbing the benchmark model and comparing the resultant eigenvalues. The calculated eigenvalues are approximately 2-3% greater than expected with an uncertainty of ±0.70%. The primary sources of uncertainty are the impurities in the core and reflector graphite. The release of additional HTTR data could effectively reduce the benchmark model uncertainties and bias. Sensitivity of the results to the graphite impurity content might imply that further evaluation of the graphite content could significantly improve calculated results. Proper characterization of graphite for future Next Generation Nuclear Power reactor designs will improve computational modeling capabilities. Current benchmarking activities include evaluation of the annular HTTR cores and assessment of the remaining start-up core physics experiments, including reactivity effects, reactivity coefficient, and reaction-rate distribution measurements. Long term benchmarking goals might include analyses of the hot zero-power critical, rise-to-power tests, and other irradiation, safety, and technical evaluations performed with the HTTR.

This paper presents the characterization of the electrically active defects created by epithermal and fast neutrons in epitaxial n-type 4H-SiC material using Laplace Deep Level Transient Spectroscopy (Laplace DLTS). While the deep level related to the carbon vacancy has been observed in as-grown material, we observed that epithermal and fast neutron irradiation introduces additional simple defect complexes, with energy levels at EC – 0.40 eV and EC – 0.70 eV.

The power output of fusion experiments and fusion reactor-like devices is measured in terms of the neutron emission rates which relate directly to the fusion yield rate. Determination of such param ...