Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 (2008) 2351–2356

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anucene

A point kernel model for the energy deposited on samples

from gamma radiation in a research reactor core
M. Varvayanni a,*, N. Catsaros a, M. Antonopoulos-Domis b
a
NSCR ‘‘DEMOKRITOS”, PoB 60228, 15310 Aghia Paraskevi, Greece
b
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A basic safety requirement for a research reactor is the reliable estimation of the gamma heating of sam-
Received 24 April 2008 ples irradiated in the reactor core. A three-dimensional numerical code of gamma heating using a point
Received in revised form 28 July 2008 kernel parameterization is developed. The heating due to c-rays, produced from U235 fission and from
Accepted 29 July 2008
(n, c) reactions with the core materials is considered. The dose build-up due to photons scattering on
Available online 26 September 2008
the core materials as well as the energy absorption build-up in the sample are also included, based on
empirical relationships. The developed code (GHRRC: Gamma Heating in Research Reactor Cores) is
applied for the Greek Research Reactor (GRR-1) core. The required microscopic cross-sections and the
three-dimensional neutron flux are obtained with the neutronics code system XSDRNPM and CITATION.
The macroscopic cross-sections of the U235 fission and the (n, c) reactions in the core materials are deter-
mined assuming a homogenized core. Comparisons of the computed gamma heating power deposited on
a Fe sample with in-pile and out of pile measurements of the sample temperature show that GHRRC gives
reasonable estimations. GHRRC may easily be handled even by poorly experienced users.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Heating from gamma radiation of irradiated sample materials is
an issue of primary importance for the safety and the radiation
protection of research reactors. Designing of the optimum condi-
tions for a sample irradiation requires calculation of the energy
that will be deposited on the target material. Several computa-
tional tools have been developed for gamma heating, based either
on the point kernel approach such as in the MERCURE-5 code (Lee
et al., 2001) or on the Monte Carlo method such as in the TRIPOLI-4
(Petit et al., 2008) and MCNP (Briesmeister, 2000) codes. Approxi-
mate methodologies have also been reported, which estimate the
deposited gamma energy either assuming mono-energetic photons
and spatial zones where gamma ray production is uniform and iso-
tropic (e.g. Woodruff and Quimby, 1977) or based on experimental
gamma dose rates and subsequent use of a correction factor, for
converting dose-to-energy in various media (Martinho, 1996).
A review of the related reports indicates that the accurate
assessment of gamma heating of materials in nuclear reactor cores
remains a matter of investigation. More recent computational
works have been performed in the frame of the design of the future
fusion reactor ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor) and utilize mainly Monte Carlo codes combined with
selected gamma kerma libraries (e.g. Ikeda et al, 1998; Richter
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 650 3715; fax: +30 210 653 3431.
E-mail address: melina@ipta.demokritos.gr (M. Varvayanni).
et al, 1999; Seidel et al, 2000). In this type of approach, the speci-
fication of the gamma kerma factors appears to be crucial (Zhang
and Abdou, 1997). For example, in comparison with measurements
of the ITER nuclear heating experiment, simulations with two
alternative kerma libraries have produced overestimations of 20–
30% for the gamma energy deposited in a tungsten sample (Ikeda
et al, 1998). In the same context, it is worth noting that in a frame
of benchmark experiments for the tungsten neutron cross-sections
validation, analysis of the experimental results, using different
kerma factors libraries, indicated gamma heating underestima-
tions up to 40% or overestimations up to a factor of four (Batistoni
et al, 2004).
An improved gamma-heating computational method has also
been suggested for fast reactors, basing the gamma flux calculation
on a more accurate determination of the gamma source distribu-
tion, obtained from the computed neutron flux map; however de-
spite the above modeling improvements, comparisons with
measurements performed at the MASURCA facility of CEN Cadar-
ache, indicated significant discrepancies between the predicted
and measured values (Luthi and Chawla, 2001).
In a recent study, Blanchet et al. (2008) developed the mod-
eling of the nuclear heating of the experimental devices of the
future Jules Horowitz material testing reactor (RJH). The devel-
opment include the modeling of cavity phenomena and delayed
gamma emissions by decay of the fission products. It was found
that there is a discrepancy of 15% between results obtained from
experimental and theoretical results on the total gamma heat-

0306-4549/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2008.07.008
2352 M. Varvayanni et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 (2008) 2351–2356

ing. The discrepancy emerges from gaps and uncertainties on the Pð~ r0 ¼ Rf;n ðr 0 ÞUn ð~
r 0 ; EÞd~ r0 ÞX n ðEÞdEd~
r0 ð4Þ
gamma emission data from standard basic nuclear data libraries. 1
where Rf;n ð~ r0 Þ , in [cm ], is the fission macroscopic cross-section
In the same study, comparisons between measurements and cal-
collapsed in the neutron energy group ‘n’ at the core position ~ r0 ,
culations on delayed gamma-ray heating reveals a discrepancy
and Un ðr 0 Þ , in [cm2 s1], is the flux of neutrons in the energy
of 11%.
group ‘n’ at core position r0 . To take also into account the gamma
In the frame of this work, a three-dimensional numerical
rays due to (n, c) reactions in the core materials with neutrons of
code (GHRRC: Gamma Heating in Research Reactor Cores), based
the energy group ‘n’, the product Rf;n ð~ r 0 ÞX n ðEÞ must be increased
on a point kernel parameterization, was developed to estimate
by the sum over all nuclides ‘j’ included in the active reactor core
the gamma heating of small samples inside a research reactor X
core. The model includes the prompt and delayed photons pro- Sn ð~
r0 ; EÞ ¼ Rj;n ð~
r 0 ÞY j;n ðEÞ ð5Þ
duced from the U235 fission and the gammas produced by neu- j
tron capture – (n, c) reactions – in the core materials. Empirical
where Rj;n ð~ r 0 Þ , in [cm1], is the macroscopic cross-section of (n, c)
correlations are adopted for the dose build-up in the core and
reaction for nuclide ‘j’, with neutrons of the energy group ‘n’ at core
the energy absorption build-up in the irradiated sample. The re-
position ~r 0 and Y j;n ðEÞ , in [J1], is the spectrum of gamma rays due
quired neutron fluxes are calculated using the neutronics code
to (n, c) reactions in nuclide ‘j’, with neutrons of the energy group
system XSDRNPM (Greene and Petrie, 2000) and CITATION-
‘n’.
LDI2 (Fowler et al., 1971) in a three-dimensional representation
Using the notation An ð~ r0 ; EÞ ¼ Sn ð~
r 0 ; EÞ þ Rf;n ð~
r0 ÞX n ðEÞ , it arises
of the reactor core. For the determination of the macroscopic
from Eqs. (2)–(4) that the mono-energetic gamma rays due to fis-
cross-sections for the U235 fission and the (n, c) reactions in
sion induced by neutrons of the energy group ‘n’ at the position ~ r0
the core materials, a homogenization of the core is performed.
of the reactor core, depose energy per unit volume of the irradiated
The GHRRC code was applied to simulate the gamma heating
sample with a rate
of a Fe sample positioned at several depths of a peripheral irra-
diation channel of the GRR-1 core. The results compared with in- elðEÞjr~r0 j
w0 ð~
r; EÞdE ¼ dElab ðEÞE An ð~
r 0 ; EÞUn ð~
r 0 Þd~
r0 ð6Þ
pile and out-of-pile temperature measurements showed that the 4pj~
r ~ r 0 j2
model can provide reasonable estimations within acceptable er-
ror margins, which allow the Reactor Operator to pre-determine It is assumed that in the sample mass, all photons cover an average
the irradiation conditions so that the sample temperature will distance ‘ equal to the mean chord length (Duderstadt and Hamil-
safely remain below the melting point during irradiation. ton, 1976) of the sample, defined as ‘ ¼ 4V s =Ss , where Vs and Ss
are respectively the volume and the external surface of the sample;
2. Formulation then, the integration of Eq. (6) over the sample’s volume gives
Z ‘
l ðEÞ 
wð~
r; EÞdE ¼ r; EÞdE dx ¼ dE  ab
w0 ð~ ð1  elat ðEÞ‘ Þ
Let a sample material placed at the position ~ r of the reactor core 0 ‘lat ðEÞ
and a photon source of energy E at position ~ r0 of the core. The sam- elðEÞjr~r0 j
ple’s dimensions are assumed small. E An ð~
r 0 ; EÞUn ð~
r 0 Þd~
r0 ð7Þ
According to the linear attenuation model, the probability 4pj~
r ~ r 0 j2
pð~ r0 ; EÞ that a photon of energy E found at the position ~
r;~ r0 of the where lat ðEÞ in [cm1] is the attenuation coefficient of the mono-
core crosses the distance j~ r ~r0 j without being collided is energetic photons of energy E in the sample.
expðlðEÞj~ r 0 jÞ , where l(E) is the attenuation coefficient for
r ~ The dose build up in the core and the energy absorption build-
the mono-energetic c-rays in core materials [cm1]. If the photons up in the sample are, respectively, included by multiplying Eq. (7)
produced at the ~ r 0 position are assumed to move isotropically to- with the build-up factors Bc ðlðEÞj~ r ~  EÞ ob-
r0 j; EÞ and Bs ðlab ðEÞ‘;
wards all directions in the core, their probability to reach the sam- tained from empirical relationships (Capo, 1958; Wallace, 1974)
ple without being collided writes: which give an average error margin of 7% relatively to
measurements.
elðEÞj~r~r0 j Including the above mechanisms and taking also into consider-
pð~
r;~
r0 ; EÞ ¼ ð1Þ
4pj~
r ~ r 0 j2 ation (f, c) and (n, c) reactions with neutrons from all of the energy
groups, Eq. (7) becomes
Pð~
r0 ; EÞd~
r 0 being the production rate of mono-energetic photons of
energy E per unit volume at the core position ~
r 0 , the flux of these l ðEÞ 
r; EÞdE ¼ dE  ab
wð~ ð1  elat ðEÞ‘ ÞBs ðlab ðEÞ‘;
 EÞBc ðlðEÞj~r
photons at position ~
r will be ‘lat ðEÞ
elðEÞj~r~r0 j elðEÞjr~r0 j X
Fð~
r; EÞ ¼ pð~
r;~
r 0 ; EÞPð~
r0 ; EÞd~
r0 ¼ Pð~
r 0 ; EÞd~
r0 ð2Þ ~r 0 j; EÞE 2
d~
r0 An ð~
r0 ; EÞUn ð~
r0 Þ ð8Þ
4pj~
r ~ r 0 j2 4pj~r ~ r0 j n

If lab ðEÞ is the absorption coefficient of the mono-energetic photons Finally, by integrating Eq. (8) over the whole photon energy
of energy E in the sample material, the rate of energy deposition per spectrum and over the volume Vc of the active part of the reactor
unit volume of the irradiated sample is given as core, the rate of the total gamma energy deposited per unit volume
of the sample is obtained
w0 ð~
r; EÞdE ¼ lab ðEÞEFð~
r; EÞ ð3Þ Z Z
The rate of production of prompt and delayed photons produced by W¼ wð~
r; EÞdEd~
r0 : ð9Þ
Vc E
fission at ~r 0 is proportional to the local fission rate, that is, propor-
tional to the local multigroup neutron flux U ð~ r 0 Þ . Accordingly, the
rate of fissions per unit volume at position ~ r 0 with neutrons of the 3. Approximations and data used
energy group ‘n’ is given by Rfn ðr0 ÞUn ð~
r 0 Þ . Further, Xn (E)dE being
the probability that a photon of energy between E and E + dE results Thermal fission of only U235 has been considered. If more fissile
from fission-produced neutron at the energy group ‘n’, then the pro- nuclides are contributing (e.g. Pu239 and Pu241 included at appre-
duction rate of mono-energetic photons due to fission neutrons of ciable quantities in high burn-up fuel elements), then the An ð~
r 0 ; EÞ
the energy range ‘n’, is quantity in Eq. (5) must be replaced by
 M. Varvayanni et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 (2008) 2351–2356
X
An ð~
r 0 ; EÞ þ X n;i ðEÞRf;n;i ð~
r0 Þ
i 9
where ‘i’ stands for each fissile nuclide. For the gamma spectra Xn(E)
and Yj,n(E), compiled experimental data have been utilized. For
Xn(E), exponential fits are used (Maienschein, 1968a, b). For Yj,n(E)
the discrete values of the PGAA-IAEA database (http://www-
nds.iaea.org/pgaa/) and NNDC database (http://www.nndc.
bnl.gov/capgam) have been included.
For the solution of Eq. (9), a homogenized reactor core is
assumed for the determination of the fission and capture macro-
scopic cross-section. Thus, the Rf;n ð~ r 0 Þ and Rj;n ð~
r 0 Þ , are respectively
substituted with Rf;n and Rj;n . The attenuation coefficient l(E) of
the mono-energetic c-rays is also derived for a homogenized core,
as a with-respect-to-density weighted sum of the individual lj(E)
values of the core materials (Blizard, 1953). The same approxima-
tion is used for the derivation of the core dose build-up factor
Bc ðlðEÞj~
r ~ r 0 j; EÞ based on the values Bj ðlðEÞj~ r ~ r 0 j; EÞ tabulated
for each core material ‘‘j”.
In the model described by Eq. (8), the w component due to
fission gammas, which contributes to the total gamma heating
for more than 80% (Varvayanni et al, 2008), is obtained based on
the input quantities Bs ; Bc ; Rf ; X n and U, while parameters such as
l and E are considered to be known exactly. Uncertainty on the
build-up factors is of the order of 7% (Capo, 1958). Uncertainties
on the fission macroscopic cross-section is assessed using
XSDRNPM code with two different neutron libraries, i.e. NDF5
and VITAMIN-B6 and is estimated of the order of 1%. The maximum
uncertainty on the fission-c spectrum is taken 15% (Maienschein,
1968a,b) while the uncertainty on neutron flux is also assessed
using the XSDRNPM and CITATION code system with NDF5 and
VITAMIN-B6 libraries and is estimated 1.2% in average. Therefore,
since Bs ; Bc ; Rf ; X n and U are mutually uncorrelated, the uncertainty
on the fission gammas component of w is found dw w
¼ 31:2% . The
uncertainties of the above input quantities – propagate into w
(Kirkup and Frenkel, 2006) according to ðdw w
Þ2 ¼ 0:03.
The sensitivity of the GHRRC results on the neutron library
used, has been assessed by evaluating the gamma heating of
various materials (e.g. Fe, W, Al, C, Pb), based on NDF5 data and VITA-
MIN-B6 data. The discrepancy found did not exceed 1% in all cases.
Energy integration (9) is performed using the trapezoidal meth-
od. A 21-Point, 5th-degree of accuracy formula for triple integrals
(Tyler, 1953) is used for the volume integration.
It should be noted that in the present model application, only
the gamma rays produced from reactions (fission and capture)
with thermal neutrons have been considered, due to lack of gamma
rays yield data from epithermal neutrons reactions.
4. Model application to the GRR-1 core and temperature
measurements
GRR-1 is a pool type, light water moderated and cooled reac-
tor, using beryllium reflectors and fueled by MTR-type fuel
elements. The reactor is normally operating at 5 MW power.
The active core dimensions in x, y (horizontal) and z (vertical)
directions are 45.66 cm, 47.74 cm and 62.55 cm, respectively.
There are five control blade locations in the core where shim/
safety rods are placed. The GRR-1 core configuration used in this
work is mixed, including both high (HEU, 93% U235) and low
(LEU, 19.75% U235) enrichment uranium fuel, with a maximum
burn-up of 25% for LEU (average 9.4%) and 35% for HEU (average
30.4%). The horizontal core configuration is shown in Fig. 1,
using x (letters) and y (numbers) coordinates. The grid position
D4 hosts a control fuel assembly without absorbing blade and
is used as a flux trap. Grid positions D4, A7 and F7 are used
for material irradiation.
2353
ð10Þ
W
8 Be
7 L H
6 CR
5 CR CR
4
3 CR CR
2
1
A B C D E F
Fig. 1. Horizontal cross-section of the GRR-1 core. The notation is: L, H, for low and
high uranium enrichment fuel assemblies respectively, CR for control fuel assem-
blies with control rods inserted, W for water and Be for beryllium reflectors.
The gamma heating power W(z) deposited per unit volume of a
Fe cylindrical sample of 5 cm height and 7 mm diameter, was cal-
culated using GHRRC at different depths along the channel A7. The
gamma sources considered in the computations include: (i) fission
and neutron capture in the active reactor core consisting of fuel,
control rods, aluminum fuel-cladding and core water (moderator
and coolant), (ii) neutron capture in the layer of pool water (left
core part) adjacent to A7, and (iii) neutron capture in the double
beryllium block (rows 8 and 9 of Fig. 1, including also the water
of grid channels A9 and F9). For the latter, a homogenized volume
was considered and the corresponding capture macroscopic cross-
sections and dose build-up factors for beryllium and water were
utilized, as described in Section 3. It should be noted that the single
beryllium block and the remaining pool water were not consid-
ered, since their homogenization with the active core that inter-
venes between the considered volume and the irradiated sample
would introduce more significant error. Also, the c-rays produced
from thermal capture in several nuclides that are present in the
irradiated fuel plates were not taken into account, since their
(n, c) spectra were not available from the literature. Thus, less than
25% of the above nuclides was taken into account, while nuclides
with rather significant (n, c) cross-section in the thermal range,
such as Xe135, Sm151, Pu241, Pm isotopes and others, were
omitted.
The computational domain includes the core shown in Fig. 1,
with 20 cm of surrounding pool-water in all six sides. The three-
dimensional group-averaged neutron flux in the GRR-1 core,
Un ðr0 Þ, as well as the densities of the nuclides contained in the irra-
diated fuel inventory were calculated using the neutronics code
system XSDRNPM and CITATION-LDI2 with the NDF5-238group li-
brary; a slab geometry with the actual nuclide distribution was
2354 M. Varvayanni et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 (2008) 2351–2356

considered for the above calculations, i.e. separate homogenized nz is equivalent to the number of fuel assemblies), rjz is the micro-
zones were defined in the core, as in previous works (Varvayanni scopic cross-section (fission or capture) of the nuclide j in the zone
et al., 2004, 2007). Five neutron energy groups were considered, z, Njz is the number density of the nuclide j in the zone z, Vzone is the
the thermal threshold being set at 0.5 eV. The macroscopic cross- volume of zone z and Vc is the volume of the active core, i.e. without
sections of the U235 fission and the (n, c) reactions in the core beryllium blocks and surrounding pool water. For the homogenized
materials, Rfn and Rjn , respectively, were determined assuming a (n, c) macroscopic cross-sections used for the determination of the
homogenized core, through the relationship double beryllium block contribution to the sample heating, rela-
P tionship (11) was used for Be, H and O, replacing Vc with the volume
nz rjz Njz V zone
hRcore i ¼ ð11Þ of beryllium and water in core channels 8A–F and 9A–F.
Vc
Fig. 2 shows the computed profiles, Wf(Z), which represents the
where hRcore i can be Rfn or Rjn , nz is the number of homogenized gamma heating power deposited on the sample from fission gam-
zones that include the nuclide j (e.g. for a nuclide of the fuel meat, mas and Wc(Z), which includes Wf(Z) increased by the (n, c) reac-
tions and the elastic scattering contributions. The latter was
determined based on the formulation described in Varvayanni
et al. (2008) and was found about 2% of the sum. The computations
20 450 were made for reactor power 5 MW. The analysis of the results is
presented in Section 5.
18
400 Two types of temperature measurements of the same Fe cylin-
16 drical sample were carried out to validate the GHRRC results, i.e.
in-pile measurements N(z) for several sample positions z along ver-
14 350 tical channel A7 at reactor power 5 MW and out-of-pile measure-
Power Density (W/cm3)

ments using the device shown in Fig. 3. The tube containing the
Temperature (C)

12 sample holder is of 80 cm height and 2.1 cm diameter. The electri-

300
cal resistor and thermocouple sockets are of heights 2.5 cm and
10
1 cm, respectively, and diameters 0.4 cm and 0.3 cm, respectively.
250 The tube was plunged into a water container of 80 cm diameter.
8
The sample holder was designed to reduce heat losses by minimiz-
6 200
ing the contacts of the sample with surrounding surfaces; however,
as shown in Varvayanni et al. (2008), radiation heat losses increase
4 with increasing heating power. The same aluminum tube and sam-
150 ple holder were used for the in-pile temperature measurements at
2
reactor power 5 MW, along grid channel A7. The in-pile and out-of-
pile results are respectively shown in Figs. 2 and 4. In both cases
0 100
the presented temperatures are the equilibrium temperatures,
0 10 20 30 50 60 70 80
Depth (cm) reached when heat deposition rate equals heat losses.
Using the distributions Ts(z) and Wc(z) of Fig. 2, where Ts(z) is
Fig. 2. Computed heating power densities of the Fe sample from thermal fission the measured sample temperature and Wc(z) is the computed
gammas (e), computed heating power densities Wc of the Fe sample from thermal heating power density at position z, one can deduce the Wc(Ts) dis-
fission, thermal capture and elastic scattering gammas (N), and measured temper-
tribution. Also, based on the electric power curve P(Ts) of Fig. 4, the
atures of the Fe sample (X) along a peripheral channel of GRR1, all for reactor power
5 MW. We(Ts) distribution can be derived from the relation We(Ts) = P(Ts)/

water air
Electrical
power
V
+ -

Electrical
Aluminum resistor
air

Fe
sample

Thermocouple

Fig. 3. Out-of-pile arrangement for the measurement of the sample temperature variation with varying electrical power. For the in-pile measurements the same device is
used but without the electrical resistor. The drawing is not in scale.
 M. Varvayanni et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 (2008) 2351–2356 2355

30 Since for relatively light sample materials inelastic scattering

Measurements is less important compared to elastic, the error due to the omis-
Power fit: log(P)=1.79*log(T)-6.985
sion of the inelastic scattering in Fe is not expected greater than
25 2%, which represents the contribution of elastic scattering to Wc,
(Duderstadt and Hamilton, 1976). Activated nuclei in GRR1 in-
clude water hydrogen, aluminum and nuclides of the fuel inven-
ELECTRICAL POWER (W)

tory (mainly U238). The emitted gamma rays are usually less
20
energetic and fewer in number than capture gamma rays (Selph,
1968). Thus, their contribution to Wc is expected to be less than
10%, which represents the contribution of the (n, c) reactions in
15 the above materials.
The omission of epithermal capture may induce some under-
estimation, since several materials have significant (n, c) micro-
10 scopic cross-sections in the first (0.5 eV < E 6 1.45 eV) and/or
second (1.45 eV < E 6 3.9 keV) epithermal neutron energy groups.
Such materials include U236, U238, Pu240, Pu242 and Sm iso-
5 topes, as well as some absorbers in the control rods. Since the
neutron flux in the second epithermal group is comparable to
that of the thermal within the active core (excluding the flux trap
0 D4), the (n, c) reaction rate in these neutron energies may become
important.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
The omission of several (n, c) reactions is expected to introduce
TEMPERATURE (C)
higher underestimation compared to the above three mechanisms.
Fig. 4. Results of out-of-pile experiment. The water is a significant gamma emitter (the contribution to Wc of
the 20 cm thick water layer at the left core side was found at 2.6%);
thus, the omission of (n, c) in the greater part of the pool water is
expected to contribute substantially to the total error. The same is
Table 1
expected for the omission of (n, c) in structural materials; more
Measured electrical power density We (out of pile) and in-core computed power
density W (gamma heating + elastic scattering) with in-core measured temperatures specifically, the substitution with water (made to avoid improper
Ts at positions z homogenizations) of some aluminum structures, such as the tube
W e W c in A7, the grid plate and the extensions of the fuel plates and
Ts (°C) (Figs. Positions z (cm) We Computed power density We
2 and 4) with measured Ts (W/cm3) Wc (W/cm3) (Fig. 2) (%) assemblies, is expected to reduce noticeably Wc, since the contri-
(Fig. 2) (Fig. 4) bution of core aluminum (in fuel meat and cladding) has been
200 5 and 60.5 6.24 5.0 19.87 computed about 35% higher than that of the core water. The omis-
250 11 and 58 9.36 7.2 23.08 sion of (n, c) reactions in certain nuclides of the irradiated fuel
300 14 and 55.5 13.00 8.8 32.31 inventory is also expected to reduce Wc by a non-negligible factor.
The same applies for the omission of the withdrawn part of the
control rods (in average 60% of their length, during operation).
As expected, the core homogenization has also been found to
Vs, where We(Ts) is the electrical power density deposited on the cause underestimations, when it includes materials that are not
sample and Vs is the sample volume. Table 1 presents representa- really distributed within the GRR-1 core. For example, the inclu-
tive values obtained from both approaches. The results obtained sion of the Be blocks in the core homogenization, causes a Wc
are discussed in Section 5. underestimation of about 20%. Unlike the fuel plates and core
water, the absorbing materials of the control rods are not distrib-
5. Analysis of the results and discussion uted within the core; thus, their homogenization in the total vol-
ume of active core can induce noticeable underestimation of
As can be seen in Table 1, Wc compared with We shows an their real effect. This is particularly true for the contribution of rods
underestimation which increases with increasing power and located in grid positions B5 and C6, which are very close to the
ranges from 19.87 to 32.31%. This result is expected and is mainly sample in A7.
attributed to (a) the omission from calculations of heating mecha-
nisms such as inelastic scattering, activation of nuclides, epither-
mal capture and thermal capture in several compartments, (b) 6. Conclusions
the core homogenization at least for the control rod constituents,
(c) the lack of strict equivalence between the heat losses occurred The three-dimensional numerical code of gamma heating,
in the in-pile and out-of-pile experiments (e.g. there is technical GHRRC, was developed using a point kernel parameterization.
impossibility at GRR-1 to reproduce out-of-pile the same heat The code was applied to a mixed core configuration of the Greek
transfer coefficient from the sample to the surrounding fluid as Research Reactor (GRR-1) and the gamma heating power density
in in-pile; this is due to the stagnant water that surrounds the deposited in a Fe sample placed at several depths of a boundary
experimental tube out-of-pile, while in-pile the pool water flows core channel was computed. Comparison of the computations with
towards the tube axis), and (d) to the augmentation of radiation in-pile temperature measurements of the same Fe sample along
heat loss with increasing electric power (see also Section 4). The the same irradiation channel of GRR1, as well as with out-of-pile
omission of epithermal fission of U235 and thermal and epithermal temperature measurements of the Fe sample with varying electri-
fission of Pu239 and Pu241 are not expected to reduce noticeably cal power, show that GHRRC code can provide reasonable results.
Wc, since epithermal fission cross-sections of U235 are found sig- Underestimations are expected between 20% and 32% and are
nificantly lower than the thermal one while Pu239 and Pu241 have attributed to various factors, including the omission of some heat-
very low densities in the GRR-1 fuel elements. ing mechanisms.
2356 M. Varvayanni et al. / Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 (2008) 2351–2356

References Maienschein, F.C., 1968b. Fission product gamma rays. In: Jaeger, R.G., Blizard, E.P.,
Chilton, A.B., Grotenhuis, M., Honig, A., Jaeger, Th.A., Eisenlohr, H.H. (Eds.),
Engineering Compendium on Radiation Shielding, Shielding Fundamentals and
Batistoni, P., Angelone, M., Petrizzi, L., Pillon, M., 2004. Neutronics benchmark
Methods, vol. 1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
experiment on tungsten. J. Nucl. Mater. 329–333, 683–686.
Martinho, E., 1996. Calculation of total absorbed doses in research reactors.
Blanchet, D., Huot, N., Sireta, P., Serviere, H., Boyard, M., Antony, M., Laval, V.,
Kerntechnik 61, 122–127.
Henrard, P., 2008. Qualification of a gamma-ray heating calculation scheme for
Petit, O., Hugot, F.-X., Lee, Y.-K., Jouanne, C., Mazzolo, A., 2008. Tripoli-4 version 4
the future Jules Horowitz material testing reactor (RJH). Ann. Nucl. Energy 35,
User Guide, Report CEA-R-6169. Code available from OECD/NEA Data Bank.
731–745.
Richter, D., Freiesleben, K., Seidel, S., Unholzer, S., 1999. Application of a silicon
Blizard, E.P., 1953. Nuclear radiation shielding. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 5, 73–98.
micro-sensor for measurements of nuclear heating. Nucl. Instrum. Methods
Briesmeister, J.-F. (Ed.), 2000. MCNP – A General Monde Carlo N-Particle Transport
Phys. Res. 422, 611–616.
Code. LA-13709-M. RSICC Computer Code Collection, Oak Ridge National
Seidel, K., Angelone, M., Batistoni, P., Fischer, U., Freiesleben, H., Hansen, W., Pillon,
Laboratory, Radiation Safety Information Computational Center, CCC-700.
M., Richter, D., Unholzer, S., 2000. Investigation of neutron and photon flux
Code available from OECD/NEA Data Bank.
spectra in a streaming mock-up for ITER. Fusion Eng. Des. 51–52, 661–855.
Capo, M.A., 1958. Polynomial approximation of gamma ray buildup factors for a
Selph, W., 1968. Activation product gamma rays. In: Jaeger, R.G., Blizard, E.P.,
point isotropic source. General Electric Atomic Products Division, Aircraft
Chilton, A.B., Grotenhuis, M., Honig, A., Jaeger, Th.A., Eisenlohr, H.H. (Eds.),
Nuclear Propulsion Department, 14th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio, APEX 510, UC-34
Engineering Compendium on Radiation Shielding, Shielding Fundamentals and
Physics and Mathematics TID-4500.
Methods, vol. 1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Duderstadt, J.J., Hamilton, L.J., 1976. Nuclear Reactor Analysis. J. Wiley & Sons Inc.,
Tyler, G.W., 1953. Numerical integration of functions of several variables. Can. J.
New York.
Math. 5, 393–412.
Fowler, T.B., Vondy D.R., Guningham, G.W., 1971. Nuclear Reactor Core Analysis
Varvayanni, M., Stakakis, E., Catsaros, N., Antonopoulos-Domis, M., 2004. Void
Code: CITATION. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-TM-2496, Rev. 2.
induced reactivity in a mixed MTR core. Nucl. Eng. Des. 235, 855–865.
Greene, N.M., Petrie, L.M., 2000. XSDRNPM a one-dimensional discrete-ordinates
Varvayanni, M., Grigoriadis, D., Catsaros, N., Stakakis, E., 2007. Neutronic
code for transport analysis. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/NUREG/CSD-
calculations for the conversion to LEU of a research reactor core. RERTR 2007
2/V2/R6.
International Meeting, Prague, 23–27 September.
Ikeda, Y., Maekawa, F., Wada, M., Kasugai, Y., Konno, C., Uno, Y., Kumar, A., Youssef,
Varvayanni, M., Catsaros, N., Antonopoulos-Domis, M., 2008. Evaluation of nuclear
M.Z., Abdou, M.A., 1998. Nuclear heating measurements for SS-316, copper,
heating of small samples in a research reactor core. Ann. Nucl. Energy 35, 1414–
graphite, tungsten, hrominum, beryllium in a copper centered assembly
1420.
bombarded with 14 MeV neutrons and analysis. Fusion Eng. Des. 42, 289–297.
Wallace, O.J., 1974. Gamma-ray dose and energy absorption build-up factor data for
Kirkup, L., Frenkel, R.B., 2006. An Introduction to Uncertainty in Measurement.
use in reactor shield calculations. National Technical Information Service. US
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 10 0-521-60579-2.
Department of Commerce. WAPD-TM-1012.
Lee, Y.K., David J.-C., Carcreff, H., 2001. A gamma heating calculation methodology
Woodruff, G.L., Quimby, D.C., 1977. An approximate calculational method for
for research reactor application. In: 5th International Topical Meeting on
nuclear heating. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 62, 45–54.
Research Reactor Fuel Management, Aachen, Germany, 1–3 April.
Zhang, L., Abdou, M.A., 1997. Kerma factor evaluation and its application in nuclear
Luthi, A., Chawla, R., 2001. Improved gamma-heating calculational methods for fast
heating experiment analysis. Fusion Eng. Des. 36, 479–503.
reactors and their validation for plutonium-burning configurations. Nucl. Eng.
<http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/capgam> accessed (20.04.08). Thermal Neutron Capture
Des. 138, 233–255.
c’s, National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA.
Maienschein, F.C., 1968a. Prompt-fission gamma rays. In: Jaeger, R.G., Blizard, E.P.,
<http://www-nds.iaea.org/pgaa/pgaadatabase/pgaa.htm> accessed (20.004.08).
Chilton, A.B., Grotenhuis, M., Honig, A., Jaeger, Th.A., Eisenlohr, H.H. (Eds.),
IAEA Coordinated Research Project ‘‘Development of a Database for Prompt
Engineering Compendium on Radiation Shielding, Shielding Fundamentals and
Gamma-Ray Neutron Activation Analysis”, 1999–2003.
Methods, vol. 1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.