Open Access
Issue
EPJ Web Conf.
Volume 247, 2021
PHYSOR2020 – International Conference on Physics of Reactors: Transition to a Scalable Nuclear Future
Article Number 13007
Number of page(s) 8
Section Fuel Cycle and Scenarios
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202124713007
Published online 22 February 2021
  1. B. Sjenitzer, “Analysis of the Belgian nuclear fuel cycle using the ANICCA fuel cycle code,” SCK•CEN external report, SCK•CEN/ER-263, (2014). [Google Scholar]
  2. I. Merino et. al., “ANICCA code and the Belgian nuclear fuel cycle”, Proceedings of the 2016 European Nuclear Conference (ENC), Warsaw, Poland, October 2-6, 2016 pp. 45–54 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  3. A. V. Skarbeli et. al., “Quantification of the differences introduced by nuclear fuel cycle simulators in advanced scenario studies”, Annals of Nuclear Energy 137, (2020). [Google Scholar]
  4. K. Ivanov et. al. “Benchmark for Uncertainty Analysis in Modeling (UAM) for the Design, Operation and Safety Analysis of LWRs. Volume I. Specification and Support Data for Neutronic Cases,” NEA/OECD Report, NEA/NSC/DOC(2013)7, (2013). [Google Scholar]
  5. B. Hyland et. al., “The effects of the uncertainty of input parameters on nuclear fuel cycle scenario studies”, Nuclear Science NEA/OECD, NEA/NSC/R(2016)4, (2017). [Google Scholar]
  6. J. Leppänen et. al., “The Serpent Monte Carlo Code: Status, development and applications in 2013”, Ann. of Nuc. Energy, 82(2015), pp. 142–150, (2015). [Google Scholar]
  7. M. B. Chadwick et. al. “ENDF/B-VII.1 Nuclear Data for Science and Technology: Cross-sections, Covariances, Fission Product Yields and Decay Data”, Nucl. Data Sheets, 112, pp. 2887–2996 (2011). [Google Scholar]
  8. L. Fiorito et. al., “Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation to Integral Responses using SANDY,” Ann. of Nuc. Energy, 101, pp. 359–366 (2017). [Google Scholar]
  9. R.E. MacFarlane and A. C. Kahler, “Methods for Processing ENDF/B-VII with NJOY,” Nuclear Data Sheets 111, pp. 2739–2890 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  10. Nuclear Energy Agency, “Benchmark study on nuclear fuel cycle transition scenarios analysis codes,” NEA/NSC/WPFC/DOC(2012)16, (2012). [Google Scholar]
  11. G. Krivtchik et. al., “Artificial neural network surrogate development of equivalence models for nuclear data uncertainty propagation in scenario studies,” EPJ Nuclear Sci. and Tech. 3(22), (2017). [Google Scholar]
  12. M. Herman and A. Trkov, “ENDF-6 Formats Manual. Data Formats and Procedures for the Evaluated Nuclear Data Files ENDF/B-VI and ENDF/B-VII,” Brookhaven National Lab., Report BNL-90365-2009 Rev.1 (2010). [Google Scholar]
  13. M. Pusa, “Rational Approximations to the Matrix Exponential in Burnup Calculations”, Nuclear Science and Engineering 169, pp.155–167 (2011). [Google Scholar]
  14. R. Bris et. al., “”Reliability, Risk and Safety: Theory and Applications,” Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2009), Prague, Czech Republic, 7-10 September 2009, CRC Press Volume 1, pp. 477–486 (2009). [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.