Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the challenges of using the Triton depletion code within the SCALE framework to calculate the activity of radioisotope targets, specifically focusing on molybdenum-99 (mo-99) in uranium targets surrounding a reactor core. Participants explore issues related to input parameters for burn-up schemes and methods for determining neutron flux in the reactor core.
Discussion Character
- Technical explanation
- Debate/contested
- Mathematical reasoning
Main Points Raised
- One participant expresses uncertainty about the appropriate input parameters for the burn-up scheme, questioning whether to use power depletion or flux depletion and whether these are normalized.
- Another participant suggests that TRITON calculates spatially dependent fluxes using KENO or NEWT and recommends creating a simpler model first to avoid lengthy outputs.
- Concerns are raised about the adequacy of average flux data provided by TRITON for determining optimal target placements.
- Participants discuss the limitations of using NEWT with large models, noting crashes when attempting to simulate many fuel assemblies.
- There is a suggestion that modeling the entire core may not be necessary if the focus is on flux outside the core, proposing a simplified approach by modeling fewer fuel rows.
- Questions arise regarding the output format of neutron flux, specifically whether it can be expressed in absolute terms or only as relative flux.
- One participant offers an alternative method for determining mo-99 activity using MCNPX2.6 or COMB, indicating a willingness to assist.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express varying opinions on the necessity of modeling the entire reactor core and the best methods for determining neutron flux. There is no consensus on the optimal approach or the adequacy of the tools discussed.
Contextual Notes
Participants highlight limitations related to computational capacity when modeling large numbers of fuel assemblies and the potential complexity of TRITON outputs. The discussion also reflects uncertainty regarding the normalization of depletion modes and the interpretation of output data.