Search

The joint evaluated fission and fusion nuclear data library 3.3 is described. New evaluations for neutron-induced interactions with the major actinides U , U and Pu , on Am and Na , Ni , Cr, Cu, Zr, Cd, Hf, W, Au, Pb and Bi are presented. It includes new fission yields, prompt fission neutron spectra and average number of neutrons per fission. In addition, new data for radioactive decay, thermal neutron scattering, gamma-ray emission, neutron activation, delayed neutrons and displacement damage are presented. JEFF-3.3 was complemented by files from the TENDL project. The libraries for photon, proton, deuteron, triton, helion and alpha-particle induced reactions are from TENDL-2017. The demands for uncertainty quantification in modeling led to many new covariance data for the evaluations. A comparison between results from model calculations using the JEFF-3.3 library and those from benchmark experiments for criticality, delayed neutron yields, shielding and decay heat, reveals that JEFF-3.3 performes very well for a wide range of nuclear technology applications, in particular nuclear energy., Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all contributors to the JEFF project that shared their insights and provided their specific input for the present JEFF-3.3 evaluation and its immediate predecessors JEFF-3.2 and JEFF-3.1.2.

The role of nuclear data for neutronics analyses of Fusion Technology (FT) facilities is presented in this paper. Nuclear data evaluations of high quality are required for transport simulations, uncertainty assessments, activation and radiation damage calculations affecting the design and performance of the FT facilities, as well as safety, licensing, waste management and decommissioning issues. A corresponding programme on the nuclear data development (NDD) and qualification is conducted within the Power Plant Physics and Technology (PPPT) programme of EUROfusion supporting the development of the DEMO fusion power plant and the IFMIF-DONES neutron source. The programme builds on the achievements of pre-ceding NDD activities within the European fusion programme as addressed in the paper. Further needs for design, shielding, activation and radiation dose calculations are discussed, and recommendations are given to further improve and qualify the nuclear data base for PPPT nuclear analyses. This includes dedicated experimental activities tailored to the needs of DEMO and IFMIF-DONES.

The activities of the EUROfusion consortiums on the development of high quality nuclear data for fusion applications are presented. The activities, implemented in the Power Plant Physics and Technology (PPPT) programme of EUROfusion, include nuclear data evaluations for neutron and deuteron induced reactions and the production of related data libraries which satisfy the needs for nuclear analyses of the DEMO fusion power plant and the IFMIF-DONES neutron source. The activities are closely linked to the JEFF initiative of the NEA Data Bank. The evaluation work is complemented by extensive benchmark, sensitivity and uncertainty analyses to check the performance of the evaluated cross-section data and libraries against integral experiments.

An application of the ADVANTG (AutomateD VAriaNce reducTion Generator) code, which combines the Denovo deterministic transport solver with the MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle) Monte Carlo code, to the JET3-NEXP (Joint European Torus work package 3) streaming benchmark experiment is presented in this paper. An ADVANTG input parameter variation analysis was performed in order to find optimal input parameters for the hybrid two-step workflow. ADVANTG-accelerated calculations from three different institutions (JSI (Jožef Stefan Institute), ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), and CCFE (Culham Centre for Fusion Energy)) were compared to analog MCNP simulations confirming no bias is introduced due to the use of ADVANTG. Additionally, ADVANTG-accelerated MCNP numerical simulations of the neutron fluence were compared to experimental results performed in 2016 at JET using thermo-luminescence detectors. Calculation/Experiment values from 0.7 to 13 were calculated for the experimental positions in the SW (southwest) labyrinth and SE (southeast) chimney. Using ADVANTG-generated variance reduction parameters, speed-up factors of up to 1100 relative to analog calculations were achieved. The MCNP statistical tests on track length estimator volume averaged tallies were consistently passed for all experimental locations with ADVANTG-generated variance reduction parameters. These results demonstrate that ADVANTG is capable of accelerating tally convergence at locations far from the source in streaming-dominated transport simulations of complex fusion facility models.

A neutronics benchmark experiment on copper assembly was performed end 2014–beginning 2015 at the 14-MeV Frascati neutron generator (FNG) of ENEA Frascati with the objective to provide the experimental database required for the validation of the copper nuclear data relevant for ITER design calculations, including the related uncertainties. The paper presents the pre- and post-analysis of the experiment performed using cross-section sensitivity and uncertainty codes, both deterministic (SUSD3D) and Monte Carlo (MCSEN5). Cumulative reaction rates and neutron flux spectra, their sensitivity to the cross sections, as well as the corresponding uncertainties were estimated for different selected detector positions up to ∼58 cm in the copper assembly. This permitted in the pre-analysis phase to optimize the geometry, the detector positions and the choice of activation reactions, and in the post-analysis phase to interpret the results of the measurements and the calculations, to conclude on the quality of the relevant nuclear cross-section data, and to estimate the uncertainties in the calculated nuclear responses and fluxes. Large uncertainties in the calculated reaction rates and neutron spectra of up to 50%, rarely observed at this level in the benchmark analysis using today's nuclear data, were predicted, particularly high for fast reactions. Observed C/E (dis)agreements with values as low as 0.5 partly confirm these predictions. Benchmark results are therefore expected to contribute to the improvement of both cross section as well as covariance data evaluations.

Shielding benchmarks were extensively used for the validation and improvement of nuclear data since many years. Recent evaluations however mostly rely on the validation using critical benchmarks, which can introduce biases and compensation effects. A new Working Party on International Nuclear Data Evaluation Co-operation Subgroup 47 (WPEC SG47) entitled "Use of Shielding Integral Benchmark Archive and Database for Nuclear Data Validation" was started in June 2019 with the objective to promote further development and use of Shielding Integral Benchmark Archive and Database (SINBAD) and thus contribute to the diversification of the nuclear data validation practice by including more extensively other types of integral measurements, such as shielding benchmarks, in the validation and evaluation procedure. Use of shielding benchmarks is expected to provide a wider-scope test of the performance of the evaluated nuclear data and would ultimately contribute to a production of more general-purpose cross-section evaluations.

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Working Party on International Nuclear Data Evaluation Cooperation (WPEC) was established in 1989 to facilitate collaboration in nuclear data activities. Over its thirty year history, different Subgroups have been created to address topics in nearly every aspect of nuclear data, including: experimental measurements, evaluation, validation, model development, quality assurance of databases and the development of software tools.WPEC has recently completed activities on fission yield evaluation, the general nuclear database structure (GNDS) to replace the ENDF-6 format, methods to provide feedback to evaluation, studies of specific capture cross sections, new methods in thermal scattering kernel evaluation and the Collaborative International Evaluated Library Organisation (CIELO) Pilot Project. Ongoing activities in GNDS application programming interface (API) development, methods for covariance evaluation and quality assurance in nuclear data validation using the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) database are complemented by the work of two Expert Groups that oversee the High-Priority Request List (HPRL) for Nuclear Data and the continuous development of the GNDS. New activities on the use of integral experiments for nuclear data validation and adjustment, as well as the use of the Shielding Integral Benchmark Archive and Database (SINBAD) for validation have begun and will be coordinated alongside future Subgroups.After three decades we will review the status of WPEC, how it integrates other collections and activities organised by the NEA and how it dovetails with the initiatives of the IAEA and other bodies to effectively coordinate international activities in nuclear data.

The CIELO collaboration has studied neutron cross sections on nuclides that significantly impact criticality in nuclear technologies - 235,238U, 239Pu, 56Fe, 16O and 1H - with the aim of improving the accuracy of the data and resolving previous discrepancies in our understanding. This multi-laboratory pilot project, coordinated via the OECD/NEA Working Party on Evaluation Cooperation (WPEC) Subgroup 40 with support also from the IAEA, has motivated experimental and theoretical work and led to suites of new evaluated libraries that accurately reflect measured data and also perform Fil: Chadwick, M.B.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Capote, R.. International Atomic Energy Agenc; Austria Fil: Trkov, A.. Brookhaven National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Herman, M.W.. Brookhaven National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Brown, D.A.. European Commission, Joint Research Center; Bélgica Fil: Hale, G.M.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Kahler, A.C.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Talou, P.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Plompen, A.J.. European Commission, Joint Research Center; Bélgica Fil: Schillebeeckx, P.. European Commission, Joint Research Center; Bélgica Fil: Pigni, M.T.. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Leal, L.. Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire; Francia Fil: Danon, Y.. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Estados Unidos Fil: Carlson, A.D.. National Institute of Standards and Technology; Estados Unidos Fil: Romain, P.. Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique; Francia Fil: Morillon, B.. Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique; Francia Fil: Bauger, E.. Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique; Francia Fil: Hambsch, F.-J.. European Commission, Joint Research Center; Bélgica Fil: Kopecky, S.. European Commission, Joint Research Center; Bélgica Fil: Giorginis, G.. European Commission, Joint Research Center; Bélgica Fil: Kawano, T.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Lestone, J.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Neudecker, D.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Rising, M.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Paris, M.. Los Alamos National High Magnetic Field Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Nobre, G.P.A.. Brookhaven National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Arcilla, R.. Brookhaven National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Cabellos, O.. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Nuclear Energy Agency; Francia Fil: Hill, I.. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Nuclear Energy Agency; Francia Fil: Dupont, E.. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Nuclear Energy Agency; Francia Fil: Koning, A.J.. International Atomic Energy Agency; Austria Fil: Cano Ott, D.. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnólogicas; España Fil: Mendoza, E.. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnólogicas; España Fil: Balibrea, J.. Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas Medioambientales y Tecnólogicas; España Fil: Paradela, C.. European Commission. Joint Research Center; Bélgica Fil: Durán, I.. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela; España Fil: Qian, J.. China Nuclear Data Center; China Fil: Ge, Z.. China Nuclear Data Center; China Fil: Liu, T.. China Nuclear Data Center; China Fil: Hanlin, L.. China Institute of Atomic Energy; China Fil: Ruan, X.. China Institute of Atomic Energy; China Fil: Haicheng, W.. China Institute of Atomic Energy; China Fil: Sin, M.. Bucharest University; Rumania Fil: Noguere, G.. Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique. Nuclear Energy Division; Francia Fil: Bernard, D.. Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique. Nuclear Energy Division; Francia Fil: Jacqmin, R.. Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique. Nuclear Energy Division; Francia Fil: Bouland, O.. Commissariat a L'Energie Atomique. Nuclear Energy Division; Francia Fil: De Saint Jean, C.. CEA, Nuclear Energy Division; Francia Fil: Pronyaev, V.G.. PI Atomstandart at SC Rosatom; Rusia Fil: Ignatyuk, A.V.. Institute of Physics and Power Engineering; Rusia Fil: Yokoyama, K.. Japan Atomic Energy Agency; Japón Fil: Ishikawa, M.. Japan Atomic Energy Agency; Japón Fil: Fukahori, T.. Japan Atomic Energy Agency; Japón Fil: Iwamoto, N.. Japan Atomic Energy Agency; Japón Fil: Iwamoto, O.. Japan Atomic Energy Agency; Japón Fil: Kunieda, S.. Japan Atomic Energy Agency; Japón Fil: Lubitz, C.R.. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Salvatores, M.. Idaho National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Palmiotti, G.. Idaho National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Kodeli, I.. Jozef Stefan Institute; Eslovenia Fil: Kiedrowski, B.. University of Michigan; Estados Unidos Fil: Roubtsov, D.. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories; Canadá Fil: Thompson, I.. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Quaglioni, S.. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Kim, H.I.. Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute; Corea del Sur Fil: Lee, Y.O.. Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute; Corea del Sur Fil: Fischer, U.. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology; Alemania Fil: Simakov, S.. Karlsruhe Institute of Technology; Alemania Fil: Dunn, M.. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Guber, K.. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: Marquez Damian, Jose Ignacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Bariloche; Argentina Fil: Cantargi, Florencia Olga. Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica. Centro Atómico Bariloche; Argentina Fil: Sirakov, I.. Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy; Bulgaria Fil: Otuka, N.. International Atomic Energy Agency; Austria Fil: Daskalakis, A.. Naval Nuclear Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: McDermott, B.J.. Naval Nuclear Laboratory; Estados Unidos Fil: van der Marck, S.C.. Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group; Países Bajos

The development of high quality nuclear data, radiation detectors and instrumentation techniques for fusion technology applications in Europe is supported by Fusion for Energy (F4E) and conducted in a joint and collaborative effort by several European research associations (ENEA, KIT, JSI, NPI, AGH, and CCFE) joined to form the "Consortium on Nuclear Data Studies/Experiments in Support of TBM Activities". This paper presents the neutronics activities carried out by the Consortium. A selection of available results are presented. Among then a benchmark experiment on a pure copper block to study the Cu cross sections at neutron energies relevant to fusion, the fabrication of prototype neutron detectors able to withstand harsh environment and temperature >200 °C (artificial diamond and self-powered detectors) developed for operating in ITER-TBM as well as measurement of relevant activation and integral gas production cross-sections. The latter measured at neutron energies relevant to IFMIF (>14 MeV) and the development of innovative experimental techniques for tritium measurement in TBM. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Two methods for random sampling according to a multivariate lognormal distribution – the correlated sampling method and the method of transformation of correlation coefficients – are briefly presented. The methods are mathematically exact and enable consistent sampling of correlated inherently positive parameters with given information on the first two distribution moments. Furthermore, a weighted sampling method to accelerate the convergence of parameters with extremely large relative uncertainties is described. However, the method is efficient only for a limited number of correlated parameters.

The objective of the research was to test available photoatomic data libraries for fusion relevant applications, comparing against experimental and computational neutronics benchmarks. Photon flux and heating was compared using the photon interaction data libraries (mcplib 04p, 05t, 84p and 12p). Suitable benchmark experiments (iron and water) were selected from the SINBAD database and analysed to compare experimental values with MCNP calculations using mcplib 04p, 84p and 12p. In both the computational and experimental comparisons, the majority of results with the 04p, 84p and 12p photon data libraries were within 1σ of the mean MCNP statistical uncertainty. Larger differences were observed when comparing computational results with the 05t test photon library. The Doppler broadening sampling bug in MCNP-5 is shown to be corrected for fusion relevant problems through use of the 84p photon data library. The recommended libraries for fusion neutronics are 84p (or 04p) with MCNP6 and 84p if using MCNP-5.

The European approach for the development of nuclear data for fusion technology applications is presented. Related R&D activities are conducted by the Consortium on Nuclear Data Development and Analysis for Fusion to satisfy the nuclear data needs of the major projects including ITER, the Early Neutron Source (ENS) and DEMO. Recent achievements are presented in the area of nuclear data evaluations, benchmarking and validation, nuclear model improvements, and uncertainty assessments.

The challenge for any nuclear data evaluation project is to periodically release a revised, fully consistent and complete library, with all needed data and covariances, and ensure that it is robust and reliable for a variety of applications. Within an evaluation effort, benchmarking activities play an important role in validating proposed libraries. The Joint Evaluated Fission and Fusion (JEFF) Project aims to provide such a nuclear data library, and thus, requires a coherent and efficient benchmarking process. The aim of this paper is to present the activities carried out by the new JEFF Benchmarking and Validation Working Group, and to describe the role of the NEA Data Bank in this context. The paper will also review the status of preliminary benchmarking for the next JEFF-3.3 candidate cross-section files. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2017.

A critical examination of the role of uncertainty assessment, target accuracies, role of integral experiment for validation and, consequently, of data adjustments methods is underway since several years at OECD-NEA, the objective being to provide criteria and practical approaches to use effectively the results of sensitivity analyses and cross section adjustments for feedback to evaluators and experimentalists in order to improve without ambiguities the knowledge of neutron cross sections, uncertainties, and correlations to be used in a wide range of applications and to meet new requirements and constraints for innovative reactor and fuel cycle system design. An approach will be described that expands as much as possible the use in the adjustment procedure of selected integral experiments that provide information on “elementary” phenomena, on separated individual physics effects related to specific isotopes or on specific energy ranges. An application to a large experimental data base has been performed and the results are discussed in the perspective of new evaluation projects like the CIELO initiative.

The CIELO collaboration has studied neutron cross sections on nuclides that significantly impact criticality in nuclear technologies – 16 O, 56 Fe, 235,8 U and 239 Pu – with the aim of improving the accuracy of the data and resolving previous discrepancies in our understanding. This multi-laboratory pilot project, coordinated via the OECD/NEA Working Party on Evaluation Cooperation (WPEC) Subgroup 40 with support also from the IAEA, has motivated experimental and theoretical work and led to suites of new evaluated libraries that accurately reflect measured data and also perform well in integral simulations of criticality.

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

This paper presents an overview of the activities of the European Consortium on Nuclear Data Development and Analysis for Fusion. The Consortium combines available European expertise to provide services for the generation, maintenance, and validation of nuclear data evaluations and data files relevant for ITER, IFMIF and DEMO, as well as codes and software tools required for related nuclear calculations.

Due to the influence of delayed neutrons on the reactor dynamics an accurate estimation of the effective delayed neutron fraction ( β eff ), as well as good understanding of the corresponding uncertainty, is essential for reactor safety analysis. This paper presents the β eff sensitivity and uncertainty analysis based on the derivation of Bretscher's prompt k-ratio equation. Performance of both deterministic (SUSD3D generalized perturbation code) and Monte Carlo (XSUSA random sampling code) methods applied with the multi-group neutron transport codes XSDRN and DANTSYS were compared on a series of ICSBEP critical benchmarks. Using the JENDL-4.0m and SCALE-6.0 covariance matrices the typical β eff uncertainty was found to be around 3–4% and is generally dominated by the uncertainty of delayed nu-bar; depending on the considered assembly, the nu-prompt, inelastic, elastic and fission cross-section uncertainties may also significantly contribute to the overall uncertainty. The β eff measurements in combination with the sensitivity and uncertainty analysis can therefore be exploited for validation of nuclear cross sections, such as delayed fission yields, 238 U elastic and inelastic cross section, complementing thus the information obtained from the k eff measurements.

Two series of measurements were performed in the JSI TRIGA research reactor in 2014 and 2017 to validate the 55Mn(n,γ)56Mn cross-sections and experimentally investigate the relationship between the 55Mn(n,γ)56Mn reaction and the rate of tritium production through the 6Li(n,t)4He reaction. Indeed, previously observed similarities between the sensitivity profiles of the neutron reaction of tritium production on lithium, 6Li(n,t)4He, and those of the 55Mn(n,γ)56Mn reaction in tritium breeder modules indicated that the latter reaction could be used as an effective monitor of tritium production, at least for short-term monitoring (the half-life of 56Mn being 2.579 h). However, experimental verification, improvements and validation of the 55Mn(n,γ)56Mn cross-sections are needed in order to meet the required accuracy. Foils of certified reference material Al–1%Mn, as well as LiF thermoluminescent detectors and Li2O samples were irradiated, both bare and under cadmium, to study the potential use of the 55Mn(n,γ)56Mn reaction for monitoring tritium production in fusion devices. Additionally, Al–0.1%Au was also irradiated for comparison, the 197Au(n,γ)198Au reaction cross-section being a standard. In order to obtain complementary information for data validation purposes, the irradiations were performed in positions within the JSI TRIGA reactor with different neutron spectra, i.e. in the central channel, the pneumatic tube and the F19 position, both in the outer ‘F’ ring of the reactor core and in the IC-40 irradiation channel located in the graphite reflector surrounding the reactor core. Bare and cadmium-covered irradiations were needed to subtract the contribution of epithermal neutrons to the 55Mn(n,γ)56Mn reaction. Calculations of the reaction rates were performed using the Monte Carlo code MCNP6.1 with a detailed model of the JSI TRIGA reactor, with the samples, the irradiation capsules and covers being modelled explicitly. The uncertainties involved in the measurements and the calculations were carefully evaluated. The principal objective was to study the energy response and correlations between the 55Mn(n,γ)56Mn reaction in irradiated Al–1%Mn and the 6Li(n,t)4He reaction in irradiated LiF and Li2O. Good consistency between the measured and calculated 55Mn(n,γ)56Mn and 197Au(n,γ)198Au reaction rates, in most cases within the uncertainty bars, was observed.

In this paper, we discuss distinct ways of calculating nuclear cross-section variance–covariance matrices issued from the spherical optical model such as the deterministic sensitivity method and Monte Carlo method. We also discuss the selection of uncertain parameters using both the local sensitivity and global sensitivity methods (based on spectral methods using a polynomial decomposition) to determine the importance of the input parameters with respect to the final uncertainty. Finally, we attempt to evaluate the differences between the uncertainties generated by methods like least squares method and Bayesian method, both necessitating the use of experimental data. Discussing the results of simulation for the cross-section calculations of the major neutron reactions on 89 Y, our interest was particularly focused on the mathematical rigour and quality of the uncertainties that we obtained.

The EMPIRE code system is a versatile package for nuclear model calculations that is often used for nuclear data evaluation. Its capabilities include random sampling of model parameters, which can be utilised to generate a full covariance matrix of all scattering cross sections, including cross-reaction correlations. The EMPIRE system was used to prepare the prior covariance matrices of reaction cross sections of 232 Th, 180,182,183,184,186 W and 55 Mn nuclei for incident neutron energies up to 60 MeV. The obtained modelling prior was fed to the GANDR system, which is a package for a global assessment of nuclear data, based on the Generalised Least-Squares method. By introducing experimental data from the EXFOR database into GANDR, the constrained covariance matrices and cross section adjustment functions were obtained. Applying the correction functions on the cross sections and formatting the covariance matrices, the final evaluations in ENDF-6 format including covariances were derived. In the resonance energy range, separate analyses were performed to determine the resonance parameters with their respective covariances. The data files thus obtained were then subjected to detailed testing and validation. Described evaluations with covariances of 232 Th, 180,182,183,184,186 W and 55 Mn nuclei are included into the ENDF/B-VII.1 library release.

The mock-up of the EU Test Blanket Module (TBM) based on the Helium-Cooled Lithium-Lead (HCLL) concept was irradiated at Frascatti, Italy, in order to assess the uncertainty in the tritium production rate (TPR) due to the uncertainty in the nuclear data and the computational methods. The benchmark should contribute also to the validation of the new nuclear cross-section and covariance data evaluations. This paper presents the final design of the benchmark and the analysis using the deterministic transport, sensitivity and uncertainty code system. The analysis includes the calculation of the tritium production rate (TPR) in LiPb layers and the neutron reaction rates, which were measured in the experimental set-up. The SUSD3D cross-section sensitivity and uncertainty code together with the 2D/3D deterministic transport code package DOORS is used for the analysis of the experiment. Based on the sensitivity analyses the most important nuclear reactions and energy ranges in the particular reaction rate measurements are identified, as well as the corresponding uncertainties.

Within the European Fusion Technology Programme dedicated computational methods, tools and data have been developed and validated for sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of fusion neutronics experiments. The present paper is devoted to this kind of analyses on the recent neutronics experiment on a mock-up of the Helium-Cooled Lithium Lead Test Blanket Module for ITER at the Frascati neutron generator. They comprise both probabilistic and deterministic methodologies for the assessment of uncertainties of nuclear responses due to nuclear data uncertainties and their sensitivities to the involved reaction cross-section data. We have used MCNP and MCSEN codes in the Monte Carlo approach and DORT and SUSD3D in the deterministic approach for transport and sensitivity calculations, respectively. In both cases JEFF-3.1 and FENDL-2.1 libraries for the transport data and mainly ENDF/B-VI.8 and SCALE6.0 libraries for the relevant covariance data have been used. With a few exceptions, the two different methodological approaches were shown to provide consistent results. A total nuclear data related uncertainty in the range of 1–2% (1σ confidence level) was assessed for the tritium production in the HCLL mock-up experiment.

In support of the breeder blanket development program, the EU is conducting a dedicated neutronics R&D effort to provide the basis for the design of nuclear tests to be performed in ITER on the Test Blanket Modules (TBMs). It includes the development of computational tools comprising both Monte-Carlo and deterministic transport, sensitivity and uncertainty codes, the generation of high quality neutron cross-section and covariance data libraries. These are validated experimentally in view of their application in the ITER TBM and the DEMO design. To this purpose, two neutronics experiments have been carried out on mock-ups of both the Helium Cooled Pebble Bed (HCPB) and the Helium Cooled Lithium Lead (HCLL) variants of ITER TBMs, at 14-MeV neutron sources. Redundant experimental techniques have been used to measure the resulting tritium production rate and the neutron and gamma ray spectra which are needed to predict the blanket shielding performance, nuclear power production and all nuclear loads. The comparison of experiment and corresponding calculation is obtained with the associated uncertainty margin based on experimental as well as calculational uncertainties. At the same time, suitable nuclear measuring techniques for TBMs in ITER, in particular for the tritium production, are being developed, optimised, and tested in the mock-up experiments. In particular, the present paper summarizes the preliminary results of the latest of such experiments, i.e. the one conducted on a mock-up of the HCLL blanket. It describes also the dedicated neutronics R&D activities, including the efforts to specify the neutronics tests and objectives in TBMs in ITER, considering the various design concepts.

A neutronics experiment on a mock-up of the EU Test Blanket Module (TBM), helium cooled lithium lead concept, is in preparation with the objective to validate the capability of the neutronics codes and nuclear data to predict nuclear responses, such as the tritium production rate (TPR), with qualified uncertainties. Three independent measurements of the TPR will be performed using Li 2 CO 3 pellets. Other measurement techniques have been developed using thermo-luminescence detectors, and diamond detectors covered with 6 LiF. Neutron flux spectra will also be measured from fast energies down to thermal energies, relevant for TPR. Comparison of measured quantities ( E ) with the same calculated quantities ( C ) will be provided, together with the related uncertainties. The paper presents the results of development of the measurement techniques and their relevance for tritium measurements in TBM in ITER. It presents also the pre-analyses conducted to optimise the mock-up configuration so that the neutron spectra are as similar as possible to those in the TBM in ITER. Sensitivity/uncertainty assessments of the TPR show that the calculation uncertainty due to the uncertainties of the neutron cross sections amounts to a few %, depending on position. The largest uncertainties are due to the elastic scattering (n,2n), and (n,3n) reactions on Pb.

We review the methods employed in the GANDR system to perform a global assessment of nuclear data. We then describe the integration of the International Standards Evaluation into a recently initiated global data assessment.

As a follow-up of the work presented at the ND-2007 conference in Nice, additional fast reactor benchmarks were analyzed. Adjustment to the cross sections in the keV region was necessary. Evaluated neutron cross section data files for 180,182,183,184,186W isotopes were produced. Covariances were generated for all isotopes except 180W. In the resonance range the retro-active method was used. Above the resolved resonance range the covariance prior was generated by the Monte Carlo technique from nuclear model calculations with the Empire-II code. Experimental data were taken into account through the GANDR system using the generalized least-squares technique. Introducing experimental data results in relatively small changes in the cross sections, but greatly constrains the uncertainties. The covariance files are currently undergoing testing.

This paper discusses the consistent usage of fission spectrum covariance matrices and sensitivity coefficients for response parameter uncertainty estimation. The effects of covariance matrix normalization on response parameter uncertainties are described from a mathematical point of view, along with their inter-relation with the constrained sensitivity coefficients. The numerical precision for practical renormalization of covariance matrices and the impact of the constrained sensitivity coefficients are also discussed by estimating the multiplication factor uncertainties due to fission spectrum uncertainties for a sodium-cooled fast burner core concept.

Following the outcomes and the recommendations of the Working Party on Evaluation Cooperation (WPEC) SG-26 the impact of the uncertainties and energy correlations in the prompt neutron fission spectra (PFNS) was studied in several critical benchmarks, both thermal and fast. Two different approaches to calculate the sensitivity of keff with respect to the fission neutron spectra, including the new so-called normalized sensitivity method, were used as a means to check and assure the mathematical correctness of the derived fission spectrum covariance matrices. A new Monte Carlo (MC) method has been proposed and applied to produce the covariance matrices of the PFNS for the neutron induced fission on 235U, 238U and 239Pu nuclei. The MC method was validated by comparison with the matrix derived analytically using the so-called File-30 formalism in ENDF terminology. Several sets of covariance matrices of the PFNS of 235U, 238U and 239Pu nuclei were derived from the uncertainties assigned to the model parameters of the Watt and the recently proposed Kornilov PFNS parameterizations.

The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) is a specialised agency within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) focusing on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Through its activities in the reaction data field, the NEA participates in the preparation of data for the modelling of future nuclear facility concepts and the development of reactor installations. A Working Party at the NEA on International Nuclear Data Evaluation Co-operation is established to promote the exchange of nuclear data evaluations, measurements, nuclear model calculations and validation. Activities on evaluated data in the European Fusion and Activation File projects are monitored through the Joint Evaluated Fission and Fusion (JEFF) collaboration as they play an important role for new fusion applications. The NEA provides also data from integral experiments collected in benchmark databases. Materials research is a field of key relevance for innovative nuclear systems, such as Generation IV reactors, critical and sub-critical transmutation systems and fusion devices. Recently, a new Working Party on Multi-Scale Modelling of Fuels and Structural Materials for Nuclear Systems has been created within the NEA.

Within the scope of CONRAD (A Coordinated Action for Radiation Dosimetry) Work Package 4 on Computational Dosimetry jointly collaborated with the other research actions on internal dosimetry, complex mixed radiation fields at workplaces and medical staff dosimetry. Besides these collaborative actions, WP4 promoted an international comparison on eight problems with their associated experimental data. A first set of three problems, the results of which are herewith summarised, dealt only with the expression of the stochastic uncertainties of the results: the analysis of the response function of a proton recoil telescope detector, the study of a Bonner sphere neutron spectrometer and the analysis of the neutron spectrum and dosimetric quantity H(p)(10) in a thermal neutron facility operated by IRSN Cadarache (the SIGMA facility). A second paper will summarise the results of the other five problems which dealt with the full uncertainty budget estimate. A third paper will present the results of a comparison on in vivo measurements of the (241)Am bone-seeker nuclide distributed in the knee. All the detailed papers will be presented in the WP4 Final Workshop Proceedings.

A special-purpose multigroup cross-section library optimized for nuclides and reactions arising in nuclear oil well logging was prepared for use in deterministic and Monte Carlo transport codes. The library is based on the recent ENDF/B-VI.8 evaluation, which includes among others improved oxygen and chlorine cross sections. A 175-neutron and 45-gamma-ray energy group structure was selected as a way to take into account the requirements of oil well-logging applications. This library is expected to improve the prediction of the neutron and gamma spectra at the detector positions of the logging tool. For the Monte Carlo codes the library can be useful in particular in calculations requiring multigroup cross sections, like adjoint or MIDWAY methods. Furthermore, comparison of deterministic and Monte Carlo calculations using the same or similar cross sections can reveal the uncertainty linked to the computational method and model. The use of the library for the interpretation of the carbon/oxygen neutron logging measurements in boreholes was studied. Preparation and testing of this library, which is available from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency Data Bank, is described.

A neutronics experiment has been performed in the frame of European Fusion Technology Program on a mock-up of the EU Test Blanket Module (TBM), HCPB concept, with the objective to validate the capability of nuclear data to predict nuclear responses, such as the tritium production rate (TPR), with qualified uncertainties. In the experiment, the TPR has been measured using Li 2 CO 3 pellets located at various depths at two symmetrical positions at each depth, one in the upper and one in the lower breeder cassette. Three independent measurements were performed by ENEA, TUD/VKTA and JAEA. The neutron flux in the beryllium layer was measured as well using activation foils. The measured tritium production in the TBM ( E ) was compared with the same quantity ( C ) calculated by the MCNP-4C code using a very detailed model of the experimental set up. A sensitivity and uncertainty analysis has also been performed to evaluate the calculation uncertainty due to the uncertainty on neutron cross sections. The results of such analysis, carried out using both Monte Carlo and deterministic codes, shows that the uncertainty due to cross sections amounts to 4–5% (2 σ ). C / E ratios were obtained with a total uncertainty on the C / E comparison of 9–10% (2 σ ). The C / E comparison shows that the calculation of the tritium production is underestimated by about 10% in average and is within the combined 2 σ uncertainty margin of the measurements and the calculations. The obtained results indicate that design calculations of the tritium breeding ratio provide conservative results for the fusion reactor employing a HCPB type breeder blanket.

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Data Bank participates in the production of data and their distribution to users including the collection and validation as well as the distribution of the Joint Evaluated Fission and Fusion (JEFF) library. The JEFF project has evolved from two separate projects, namely the European Fusion File (EFF) and the Joint Evaluated File (JEF), with the release of JEFF-3.1, in May 2005. The NEA also provides tools for the EFF project, such as computer codes for nuclear energy and radiation physics applications. Of special interest for fusion applications are the integral experiments collected in the SINBAD database, with radiation shielding and dosimetry experiments including many fusion neutronics shielding experiments. In this paper an overview will be given of the NEA, and some examples of nuclear data services offered, such as the SINBAD database. JANIS, a display program evaluated and experimental data developed at the NEA will be mentioned briefly. The main emphasis will be given to the EFF project including the contents of the new JEFF-3.1 library, released in May 2005. Examples of recent work are given as well as a discussion on the forth-coming evaluation efforts among the EFF collaborators.

A neutronics experiment performed at the Frascati Neutron Generator (FNG) on a mock-up of the Helium-Cooled Pebble Bed (HCPB) breeder test blanket module (TBM) has been analysed on the basis of neutron transport, sensitivity and uncertainty calculations using both deterministic and probabilistic computational methods. The calculations revealed a slight but systematic underestimation of the measured tritium activities by 5 to 10% on average, independent of the nuclear data used that were taken from the EFF-3 and FENDL-2.0, -2.1 data files. The uncertainty assessments showed data related uncertainties of the calculated tritium production rates at a level of 4% (2σ confidence level). The beryllium cross-section data were shown to be the main source of these uncertainties. The total uncertainties of the tritium production prediction including the data uncertainties, the statistical uncertainties of the Monte Carlo calculation and the experimental uncertainties are in the order of 8 to 10% (2σ). The observed underestimation of the measured tritium production is at the lower bound of the assessed uncertainty margin. The obtained results indicate that design calculations for the tritium breeding ratio (TBR) of fusion power reactors employing a HCPB type breeder blanket are conservative. Thus, an additional TBR margin is provided which allows compensation for potential other uncertainties.

A Data Development Project was instigated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to update the library of dosimetry cross-sections “International Reactor Dosimetry File: IRDF-2002” and this was completed recently. Thermal capture cross-sections and resonance integrals were compared against the database of integral constants for neutron activation analysis in a validation exercise; this new IRDF-2002 file was also used in the analysis of several benchmark experiments performed at the Frascati Neutron Generator (FNG), ENEA, Frascati, and in the ASPIS facility, AEA Technology, Winfrith. The results exhibited good consistency and improved the “calculation/experiment” ratios. Reduction of some uncertainties in the new IRDF-2002 file is supported by the analysis. Inclusion of pointwise cross-section data is an important enhancement of the library for the Monte Carlo methods, as well as for codes using multigroup data for cases where self-shielding of the resonances is important.

SINBAD is an internationally established set of radiation shielding and dosimetry data relative to experiments relevant in reactor shielding, fusion blanket neutronics and accelerator shielding. In addition to the characterization of the radiation source, it describes shielding materials and instrumentation and the relevant detectors. The experimental results, be it dose, reaction rates or unfolded spectra are presented in tabular ASCII form that can easily be exported to different computer environments for further use. Most sets in SINBAD also contain the computer model used for the interpretation of the experiment and, where available, results from uncertainty analysis. The set of primary documents used for the benchmark compilation and evaluation are provided in computer readable form. SINBAD is available free of charge from RSICC and from the NEA Data Bank.

A sensitivity and uncertainty study has been performed to evaluate the impact of neutron cross-section uncertainty on the most significant integral parameters related to the core and fuel cycle. This work is a contribution to the feasibility assessment of innovative reactor and fuel cycle systems, proposed within the Generation IV initiative. Results of an extensive analysis indicate the most relevant parameters and show any potential significant problems arising from the quality of existing nuclear data, in the assessment of the systems considered. In order to perform these studies, uncertainty covariance data have been produced, mostly based on selected, high accuracy integral experiments. A target accuracy assessment has been also performed in order to evaluate nuclear data improvement requirements. The results of the assessment allows to give guidelines in order to define the most appropriate and effective strategy for data uncertainty reduction.

Neutronics and nuclear data have an essential role in the development programme leading to the realization of a fusion power plant. A well-qualified nuclear database and validated computational tools are required in the nuclear design of fusion devices for reliable neutronics and activation calculations with the associated uncertainties. The EU is conducting a large effort on neutronics and nuclear data for fusion applications. According to the fusion strategy, the efforts focus on the development and qualification of computational tools and nuclear data required for design analyses of ITER, in particular for the test blanket modules (TBM), and of IFMIF. A major effort is devoted to integral experiments with the objective to provide the experimental database for testing the nuclear data and validating neutronics design calculations. The paper provides an overview of the nuclear design activities conducted in the EU on the development of TBMs for ITER and the layout of material test modules for IFMIF. The focus is on the supporting neutronics efforts including the experiments for validating design calculations and nuclear data with associated uncertainties. The recent achievements will be presented and recommendations will be given for further development efforts on neutronics and nuclear data for fusion applications.

In the scope of QUADOS, a Concerted Action of the European Commission, eight calculational problems were prepared in order to evaluate the use of computational codes for dosimetry in radiation protection and medical physics, and to disseminate "good practice" throughout the radiation dosimetry community. This paper focuses on the analysis of the P4 problem on the 'TLD-albedo dosemeter: neutron and/or photon response of a four-element TL-dosemeter mounted on a standard ISO slab phantom'. Altogether 17 solutions were received from the participants, 14 of those transported neutrons and 15 photons. Most participants (16 out of 17) used Monte Carlo methods. These calculations are time-consuming, requiring several days of CPU time to perform the whole set of calculations and achieve good statistical precision. The possibility of using deterministic discrete ordinates codes as an alternative to Monte Carlo was therefore investigated and is presented here. In particular the capacity of the adjoint mode calculations is shown.

QUADOS, a Concerted Action of the European Commission, has promoted an intercomparison aimed at evaluating the use of computational codes for dosimetry in radiation protection and medical physics. This intercomparison was open to all users of radiation transport codes. Eight problems were selected for their relevance to the radiation dosimetry community, five of which involved photon and proton transport. This paper focuses on the analysis of the photon and charged particle problems. The neutron problems were presented in a paper at the NEUDOS9 conference. © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

The 14 MeV Neutron Experiment on Tungsten carried out at the Frascati Neutron Generator (FNG) in 2002 was analysed using deterministic computational tools, with a stress on the cross-section sensitivity analysis. The DORT discrete ordinates (S N ) with FENDL-2 and JENDL-3.3 cross-section data, and the SUSD3D sensitivity and uncertainty computer codes were used in the analysis. The sensitivity profiles of various reaction rates measured at four positions up to 35 cm in the block of tungsten, and covering thermal to fast neutron energy range, with respect to all the partial as well as the total cross-sections of tungsten were calculated using the SUSD3D code. Combined with the comparison of the calculated and the measured reaction rates, the cross-section sensitivity profiles indicate areas where further evaluation work is needed. The results were compared with those obtained from the OKTAVIAN Tungsten Experiment and FNS Clean Experiment on the Tungsten Cylindrical Assembly.

'QUADOS', a Concerted Action of the European Commission, has run an intercomparison aimed at evaluating the use of computational codes for dosimetry in radiation protection and medical physics. This intercomparison was open to all users of Monte Carlo, analytic and semi-analytic codes or deterministic methods. Its main aim was to provide a snapshot of the methods and codes currently in use. It also intended to furnish information on the methods used to assess the reliability of computational results and disseminate 'good practice' throughout the radiation dosimetry community. Eight problems were selected for their relevance to the radiation dosimetry community, three of which involve neutron transport. This paper focuses on the analysis of the neutron problems. © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved.

A sensitivity analysis has been performed for a 14 MeV neutron benchmark on an iron assembly, typical for a fusion neutronic integral experiment. Probabilistic and deterministic computational methods have been used in the sensitivity calculations with the main objective to check and validate the novel Monte Carlo technique for calculating point detector sensitivities. Good agreement has been achieved between the Monte Carlo and the deterministic approaches for the individual calculated sensitivity profiles, the uncertainties and the neutron flux spectra. It is thus concluded that the Monte Carlo technique for calculating point detector sensitivities and related uncertainties as being implemented in MCSEN, a local version of the MCNP4A code with the capability to calculate point detector sensitivities, is well qualified for sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of integral experiments.

A shielding experiment on a silicon carbide (SiC) composite, a potentially important low activation structural material for the fusion reactor, was performed at the 14 MeV Frascati Neutron Generator (FNG) in 2001 and analyzed using both deterministic and probabilistic transport, sensitivity and uncertainty methods. The objective of the experiment was to verify the nuclear cross section files, as well as the calculational methods, used in the design and shielding calculations for fusion reactor. Neutron activation reaction rates, neutron and photon flux spectra, and nuclear heating rates were measured at several positions inside the SiC block. Point-wise and group cross sections derived from the European Fusion File (EFF-2.4 and -3.0) and the Fusion Evaluated Nuclear Data Library (FENDL-2) were used in the analysis. Results indicate that the calculation based on the recent EFF-3.0 Si-28 nuclear data estimates the measured quantities with a reasonable uncertainty of ±(10–15)% for 1 σ.

A neutronics benchmark experiment on a pure Copper block (dimensions 60 × 70 × 70 cm3) aimed at testing and validating the recent nuclear data libraries for fusion applications was performed in the frame of the European Fusion Program at the 14 MeV ENEA Frascati Neutron Generator (FNG). Reaction rates, neutron flux spectra and doses were measured using different experimental techniques (e.g. activation foils techniques, NE213 scintillator and thermoluminescent detectors). This paper first summarizes the analyses of the experiment carried-out using the MCNP5 Monte Carlo code and the European JEFF-3.2 library. Large discrepancies between calculation (C) and experiment (E) were found for the reaction rates both in the high and low neutron energy range. The analysis was complemented by sensitivity/uncertainty analyses (S/U) using the deterministic and Monte Carlo SUSD3D and MCSEN codes, respectively. The S/U analyses enabled to identify the cross sections and energy ranges which are mostly affecting the calculated responses. The largest discrepancy among the C/E values was observed for the thermal (capture) reactions indicating severe deficiencies in the 63,65Cu capture and elastic cross sections at lower rather than at high energy. Deterministic and MC codes produced similar results. The 14 MeV copper experiment and its analysis thus calls for a revision of the JEFF-3.2 copper cross section and covariance data evaluation. A new analysis of the experiment was performed with the MCNP5 code using the revised JEFF-3.3-T2 library released by NEA and a new, not yet distributed, revised JEFF-3.2 Cu evaluation produced by KIT. A noticeable improvement of the C/E results was obtained with both new libraries. © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2017.