High energy gamma activity

Suggest new ideas here
Post Reply
orca.blu
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:39 pm

High energy gamma activity

Post by orca.blu » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:36 am

At the meeting I forgot to ask something that might be interesting for someone (at least for me).

The new method for choosing inventory nuclides http://ttuki.vtt.fi/serpent/viewtopic.p ... 26841eb970
seem very useful.

Is it possible to add, among the top-N contributors,
also the activity*BR of the nuclides emitting gammas above a certain user-defined energy?

If it is too complicated, also a fixed energy (1.5 - 2 MeV?) would be good.

This might be interesting for many reasons,
mainly dose estimation during spent fuel assembly reprocessing operations.

I know that the depletion binary file does not handle this information so,
if it is too complicated, just forget it!

Ciao

Manu
Manuele Aufiero
LPSC/IN2P3/CNRS Grenoble

User avatar
Jaakko Leppänen
Site Admin
Posts: 2179
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:43 pm
Security question 2: 0
Location: Espoo, Finland
Contact:

Re: High energy gamma activity

Post by Jaakko Leppänen » Mon Sep 24, 2012 2:07 pm

It is possible, since the ENDF format decay data file contains the gamma emission spectra for all radioactive isotopes. But like you said, it gets pretty complicated. It would help if there was some single-valued parameter that would characterize the emitted radiation. Maximum gamma energy probably won't do, because it tells nothing about the intensity of the highest gamma line. Average gamma energy is probably not much better either. Any other suggestions?
- Jaakko

orca.blu
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: High energy gamma activity

Post by orca.blu » Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:48 pm

The boring way seemed to be the only viable option.
I took all the Jeff-3.1 photon lines above 1 MeV
(about 21300 gammas and few hundreds of transport+decay isotopes).

I collapsed them in a matlab/octave matrix that can be simply
multiplied by the MAT_XXX_A vector.

By the way, I found some notes that I wanted to bring with me at the workshop:

Two suggestions:

- Running time estimation gives ​​frightening values when many decay steps are present in burn-up simulation.
It seems that the average running time per step is multiplied by the total number of burning steps (both transport and decay-only).

- In burn-up calculation, after the last corrector steps, when the final composition is known, the possibility to have a (fake)
predictor step before the decay steps (if present) would be useful to estimate the final Keff, CR, etc...

(the last it's just a reminder, as you are already aware of it)
- the possibility to reduce inactive cycles after the first burn-step would be interesting

Thank you
Manuele Aufiero
LPSC/IN2P3/CNRS Grenoble

Post Reply