English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

One of the methodologies used in criticality safety analysis is burnup credit method, which allows considering fuel burnup in models with spent fuel. This removes excessive conservatism from the analysis, but it also brings new uncertainties originating from computational prediction of spent fuel composition. The burnup credit method offer several possibilities of how to deal with this problem, e.g. using bounding approach with correction factors on nuclide concentrations, which is simple, but still very conservative approach. Another option is Monte Carlo sampling, which aims at receiving the most realistic result as possible, but is very computationally demanding. In this work, we have analyzed correction factors for selected nuclides and compared the results of both methods on model of spent fuel storage pool. The results show how much conservative the bounding approach is – in this case, the multiplication factor was higher by almost 0.03 than in Monte Carlo sampling, exceeding the standard deviation by more than 5.4 times.

A comparison of bounding approach with isotopic correction factors and Monte Carlo sampling in burnup credit method