Open Access
EPJ Web Conf.
Volume 247, 2021
PHYSOR2020 – International Conference on Physics of Reactors: Transition to a Scalable Nuclear Future
Article Number 15006
Number of page(s) 10
Section Sensitivity & Uncertainty Methods
Published online 22 February 2021
  1. L. Wang, J. Guo, and F. Li, “Direct Evaluation of Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation in Pebble-bed HTR Core,” in PHYSOR 2016, Sun Valley, Idaho, 2016, p. 2394. [Google Scholar]
  2. C. HAO, Y. CHEN, J. GUO et al., “Mechanism analysis of the contribution of nuclear data to the keff uncertainty in the pebble bed HTR,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 120, pp. 857–868, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  3. L. Fiorito, C. J. Diez, O. Cabellos et al., “Fission yield covariance generation and uncertainty propagation through fission pulse decay heat calculation,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, vol. 69, pp. 331–343, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  4. O. Leray, L. Fiorito, D. Rochman et al., “Uncertainty propagation of fission product yields to nuclide composition and decay heat for a PWR UO2 fuel assembly,” Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 101, pp. 486–495, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  5. H. J. Rütten, K. A. Haas, H. Brockmann et al., “V.S.O.P. (99/05) Computer code system for reactor physics and fuel cycle simulation,” Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, ISR, Jül – 4189, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Z. Zhang, Z. Wu, D. Wang et al., “Current status and technical description of Chinese 2×250MWth HTR-PM demonstration plant,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 239, no. 7, pp. 1212–1219, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  7. Z. Zhang, Y. Dong, F. Li et al., “The Shandong Shidao Bay 200 MW e High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Pebble-Bed Module (HTR-PM) Demonstration Power Plant: An Engineering and Technological Innovation,” Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 112–118, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. T. R. E. a. B. F. Rider, “Evaluation and Compilation of Fission Product Yields 1993,” Los Alamos National Laboratory1994. [Google Scholar]
  9. D. L. Smith, Probability, statistics, and data uncertainties in nuclear science and technology. 1991. [Google Scholar]
  10. T. Kawano and M. B. Chadwick, “Estimation of 239Pu independent and cumulative fission product yields from the chain yield data using a Bayesian technique,” Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 1034–1042, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  11. M. T. Pigni, M. W. Francis, and I. C. Gauld, “Investigation of Inconsistent ENDF/B-VII.1 Independent and Cumulative Fission Product Yields with Proposed Revisions,” Nuclear Data Sheets, vol. 123, pp. 231–236, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  12. M. F. James, R. W. Mills, and D. R. Weaver, “A new evaluation of fission product yields and the production of a new library (UKFY2) of independent and cumulative yields,” Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–29, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  13. D. L. Smith, D. G. Naberejnev, and L. A. Van Wormer, “Large errors and sever conditions,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A, vol. 488, no. 1-2, pp. 342–361, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  14. F. H. Fröhner, “Assigning Uncertainties to Scientific Data,” Nuclear Science and Engineering, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 1997. [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.