Verification of neutron-induced fission product yields evaluated by a tensor decompsition model in transport-burnup simulations

Verification of neutron-induced fission product yields evaluated by a tensor decompsition model in transport-burnup simulations 1 2 first-author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5190-0760 2 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5294-3823 1 corresp ‡ sujun3@mail.sysu.edu.cn ‡ sujun3@mail.sysu.edu.cn sujun3@mail.sysu.edu.cn https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6552-2553 2 corresp † hui.guo@sjtu.edu.cn † hui.guo@sjtu.edu.cn hui.guo@sjtu.edu.cn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8518-6443 School of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China School of Nuclear Science and Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China Sino-French Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China Sino-French Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China Neutron-induced fission is an important research object in basic science. Moreover, its product yield data are an indispensable nuclear data basis in nuclear engineering and technology. The fission yield tensor decomposition (FYTD) model has been developed and used to evaluate the independent fission product yield. In general, fission yield data are verified by the direct comparison of experimental and evaluated data. However, such direct comparison cannot reflect the impact of the evaluated data on application scenarios, such as reactor transport-burnup simulation. Therefore, this study applies the evaluated fission yield data in transport-burnup simulation to verify their accuracy and possibility of application. Herein, the evaluated yield data of 235 U and 239 Pu are applied in the transport-burnup simulation of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) and sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) for verification. During the reactor operation stage, the errors in pin-cell reactivity caused by the evaluated fission yield do not exceed 500 and 200 pcm for the PWR and SFR, respectively. The errors in decay heat and 135 Xe and 149 Sm concentrations during the short-term shutdown of the PWR are all less than 1%; the errors in decay heat and activity of the spent fuel of the PWR and SFR during the temporary storage stage are all less than 2%. For the PWR, the errors in important nuclide concentrations in spent fuel, such as 90 Sr, 137 Cs, 85 Kr, and 99 Tc, are all less than 6%, and a larger error of 37% is observed on 129 I. For the SFR, the concentration errors of ten important nuclides in spent fuel are all less than 16%. A comparison of various aspects reveals that the transport-burnup simulation results using the FYTD model evaluation have little difference compared with the reference results using ENDF/B-VIII.0 data. This proves that the evaluation of the FYTD model may have application value in reactor physical analysis. Fission product yield Tensor decomposition Transport-burnup simulation Machine learning Introduction 1 Fission, which was discovered in 1938 [ 1 1 , 2 2 ], currently plays a vital role in various science and technology fields. Because of the complexity of the fission process, the exploration of its mechanism is valuable in nuclear physics, astrophysics, and particle physics [ 3 3 - 8 8 3-8 ]. Furthermore, because of the large thermal energies, neutrons, and radioisotopes produced during fission, it is widely used in the energy, biology, chemistry, and medicine domains. Therefore, fission is extensively studied in the nuclear engineering and technology field for its scientific use [ 9 9 ]. Fission product yield (FPY) is an important observable of fission; it is generally divided into the independent and cumulative cases depending on whether the products are counted before or after the β decay, respectively. The independent fission product yield (IFPY) reflects information on the fission process from macro and micro perspectives, which is very helpful for the research and modeling of the fission process [ 10 10 ]. Whereas the FPY determines the production of hundreds of radioisotopes in fission; hence, it is also an indispensable nuclear data basis for various applications of fission in nuclear engineering and technology. However, experimental measurements of the IFPY are difficult [ 11 11 ]. Hence, in major nuclear data libraries, such as ENDF/B [ 12 12 ], JEFF [ 13 13 ], and JENDL [ 14 14 ], complete evaluations of the IFPY are not available for certain actinides and are only available for three neutron incident energy points (0.0253 eV, 0.5 MeV, and 14 MeV). Therefore, a theoretical evaluation of the IFPY is still necessary. Owing to the complexity of the quantum many-body problem and the nuclear force problem, a deep understanding and simulation of the fission process is still a challenging task in nuclear physics [ 3 3 , 4 4 ]. Currently, microscopic [ 15 15 - 17 17 15-17 ] and macroscopic–microscopic [ 18 18 - 21 21 18-21 ] nuclear fission models have made significant progress in the calculation of the FPY. Phenomenological methods are widely used for practical applications that require higher precision. For example, the multi-Gaussian semi-empirical formula [ 10 10 , 22 22 ], the Brosa model [ 23 23 ], the Gorodisskiy’s method [ 24 24 , 25 25 ], and the general description of fission observables (GEF) model [ 26 26 ] have all achieved considerable success in evaluating fission yield data. Recently, machine learning algorithms have been used in various studies in nuclear physics and nuclear techniques owing to their powerful ability to learn from existing data and perform evaluations [ 27 27 - 36 36 27-36 ]. To study and evaluate fission yields, Lovell et al. used mixture density networks to learn the parameters of Gaussian functions and evaluate FPYs [ 37 37 ]. Wang et al. evaluated the mass distribution of fission yield by combining the Bayesian neural network (BNN) and TALYS model [ 38 38 ]. Qiao et al. used the BNN model to evaluate the charge distribution of 239 Pu fission yield [ 39 39 ]. Tong et al. predicted neutron-induced fission-product yields by combining the k-nearest neighbor (KNN) algorithm and GEF model [ 40 40 ]. Recently, considering the complex multidimensional dependence and large gaps in experimental independent yield data, the tensor decomposition algorithm, which is a standard technique to capture multidimensional structural dependence[ 41 41 - 43 43 41-43 ], was applied to the evaluation of IFPY, and the fission yield tensor decomposition (FYTD) model was developed [ 44 44 ]. Most of the abovementioned studies only directly compared and verified evaluation using experimental or evaluation data. Owing to the narrow evaluation range and low evaluation accuracy, the evaluation is difficult to use in practical applications. Further, accurately evaluating the yield of hundreds of products under the fission of several dozens of target nuclei is almost impossible. Direct comparison and verification alone cannot prove whether some of the nuclides that are not accurately evaluated have a greater impact on practical applications. In this regard, this study takes advantage of the fact that the FYTD model can currently evaluate the yields of 851 fission products. Thus, this study applies its evaluation results to transport-burnup simulations to verify its performance in practical applications. Burnup or depletion is a time-dependent process by which nuclides transmute upon irradiation. Simulation of this process plays an important role in the design and licensing of nuclear reactors [ 45 45 ]. In a nuclear reactor, this process involves the production, transmutation, and spontaneous decay of thousands of nuclides; thus, accurate FPY data are indispensable for the simulation of this process. Moreover, hundreds of fission products in the reactor affect the reactor operation stage, spent fuel temporary storage stage, reprocessing, and long-term waste storage [ 46 46 ]. Therefore, this study compares the transport-burnup simulation results using the FYTD model evaluation with the reference results using ENDF/B data from various aspects to verify the evaluation results. In this study, the transport-burnup simulation was performed using OpenMC, which is a community-developed Monte Carlo neutron and photon transport simulation code [ 47 47 ]. With the efforts of the community, OpenMC has implemented the burnup solver in Python and connected it with the OpenMC transport solver through a C++ interface program, thus realizing transport-burnup coupling in memory. In Ref.[ 48 48 ], the implementation and functions of OpenMC’s depletion capabilities were elaborated and verified. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the FYTD model [ 44 44 ] and OpenMC Monte Carlo transport code. Section 3 applies the FYTD model evaluation in OpenMC transport-burnup simulation for verification. Finally, Section 4 presents the conclusions and perspectives for future studies. Theoretical framework 1 Fission Yield Tensor Decomposition model 2 In our previous study, an FYTD model was developed [ 44 44 ]. In the FYTD model, first, the fission yield data are tensorized. Second, the constructed yield tensor is filled with the independent yield data of 227, 229, 232 Th, 231 Pa, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238 U, 237, 238 Np, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 Pu, 241, 243 Am, and 242, 243, 245, 246 Cm from the ENDF/B-VIII.0 database to obtain the missing tensor. Next, the yield tensor is decomposed into three factor matrices, and the factor matrices are iteratively updated using the Bayesian Gaussian CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (BGCP) tensor decomposition model algorithm [ 42 42 ]. After reconstruction of the three-factor matrices, the results are normalized to obtain the final evaluation result. A simple framework for the FYTD model is shown in Fig. 1 Fig. 1 , and details can be found in Ref. [ 44 44 ]. In this study, the FTYD model was used to evaluate 235 U and 239 Pu FPY. All the 235 U or 239 Pu FPY data in the ENDF/B-VIII.0 database for the three energy points (0.0253 eV, 0.5 MeV, and 14 MeV) were set as missing values, and the FYTD model was used to reproduce the 235 U or 239 Pu FPY data. In Ref. [ 44 44 ], to evaluate the FYTD model quantitatively, the root mean square error (RMSE) and <math id="M1"><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mi>N</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> metrics were used to measure the deviation between the evaluation and ENDF/B data. For a fission system, the RMSE is calculated by evaluating the deviation of the predicted results of the 851 products from the ENDF/B, as follows. <math display="block" id="M2"><mrow><mtext>RMSE</mtext><mo>=</mo><msqrt><mrow><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mi>N</mi></mfrac><msup><mrow><mstyle displaystyle="true"><msubsup><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>N</mi></msubsup><mrow><mrow><mo>[</mo><mrow><mi>log</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msup><mrow><mover accent="true"><mi>Y</mi><mo stretchy="true">^</mo></mover></mrow><mi>p</mi></msup><mo stretchy="false">)</mo><mo>−</mo><mi>log</mi><mo stretchy="false">(</mo><msup><mi>Y</mi><mi>p</mi></msup><mo stretchy="false">)</mo></mrow><mo>]</mo></mrow></mrow></mstyle></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup></mrow></msqrt><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where N = 851 for 851 fission products; <math id="M3"><mrow><msup><mrow><mover accent="true"><mi>Y</mi><mo stretchy="true">^</mo></mover></mrow><mi>p</mi></msup></mrow></math> represents the FYTD model evaluation of the yield of the p -th product; and Y p represents the corresponding ENDF/B data. For a comparison with other models and data, as defined in Ref. [ 38 38 ], <math id="M4"><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mi>N</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> is used to measure the deviation of the predicted value of the mass distribution from the ENDF/B data, as follows. <math display="block" id="M5"><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mi>N</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mfrac><mn>1</mn><mi>N</mi></mfrac><msup><mrow><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>N</mi></munderover><mrow><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><msup><mrow><mover accent="true"><mi>Y</mi><mo stretchy="true">^</mo></mover></mrow><mi>p</mi></msup><mo>−</mo><msup><mi>Y</mi><mi>p</mi></msup></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></mstyle></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup><mn>,</mn></mrow></math> where N = 107, which implies that the range of statistics is A =66–172 for a total of 107 mass points. RMSE and <math id="M6"><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mi>N</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> have different emphasis. In the calculation of RMSE, the magnitude difference between the predicted value of each product and the ENDF/B data is considered, which can globally evaluate the accuracy of the magnitude prediction. Therefore, the contribution of some products with small yield values cannot be ignored. By contrast, <math id="M7"><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mi>N</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> focuses more on evaluating the accuracy of the peak area predictions. When evaluating the fission yield data of 235 U, the FYTD model ( <math id="M8"><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mi>N</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>0.701</mn></mrow></math> ) agreed with the ENDF/B-VIII.0 data better than the TALYS model ( <math id="M9"><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mi>N</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>8.334</mn></mrow></math> ) and BNN+TALYS model ( <math id="M10"><mrow><msubsup><mi>χ</mi><mi>N</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>1.134</mn></mrow></math> ) did; the RMSE was 0.622 for thermal neutron-induced FPYs. Furthermore, the mass distribution and isotope yields during fission were evaluated herein. For fast neutron-induced fission of 239 Pu, as evidently from Fig. 2 Fig. 2 , 98% of the evaluations of the isotope yields by the FYTD model agreed with the ENDF/B-VIII.0 data within 1 order of magnitude, and the RMSE was 0.395. Overall, the larger the yield, the more accurate the evaluation, which is beneficial for practical applications in reactor physics. These direct comparisons further revealed that some FPYs still had large errors. Whether these products affect the the reactor physics simulation is unknown. The transport-burnup process in a reactor is quite complex and involves thousands of nuclides and their possible transmutation or decay. The concentration of nuclides may depend on the fission yields of the various products. These errors may accumulate or weaken during these processes. Theoretically analyzing these errors is challenging; thus, systematic and macro-level verification is required. In addition, the focus of reactor physics is different from that of nuclear physics, and minor changes in the concentration of some important products have a great impact; by contrast, less attention may be paid to the concentration of some nuclides. Therefore, to perform a macro-level verification, the evaluated FPY data of 235 U or 239 Pu were applied in the transport-burnup simulation in this study. Transport-burnup calculation method 2 Currently, the continuous energy (CE) transport-burnup calculation scheme has been implemented in numerous codes by coupling burnup calculations with Monte Carlo CE transport calculations, such as MCNP6 [ 49 49 ], Serpent [ 50 50 ], RMC [ 51 51 ], Shift[ 52 52 ], and OpenMC [ 48 48 ]. In this type of scheme, the nuclear reaction rates in depletable zones, which determine the rate at which nuclides are transmuted, are scored in the transport calculation and then used to solve the Bateman equations in burnup calculation. Compared with the burnup calculation coupling the deterministic neutron transport method [ 53 53 - 55 55 53-55 ], as the physic effects and geometry structure are intricately modeled, the Monte Carlo CE scheme is advantageous in terms of simulation accuracy. Further, it is well suited to paying attention to the details in transport-burnup simulation [ 52 52 , 56 56 - 58 58 56-58 ]. Therefore, OpenMC was used in this study. Figure 3 Figure 3 presents the theoretical framework of this study. In OpenMC, the depletion is inherently linked to the neutron transport equation. In the presence of an initial nuclide concentration, the transmutation reaction rate of each nuclide can be obtained by transport calculations. The burnup matrix of the burnup equation is constructed by combining the transmutation reaction rate and nuclear data (transmutation, decay, and FPY data) in the burnup chain. Conversely, obtaining new nuclide concentration data after solving the burnup equation affects the solution of the transport equation in the next step. The ENDF-6 format [ 59 59 ] is a common international nuclear data format; major nuclear databases provide nuclear data in this format. OpenMC can read fission yield data in this standard format and generate a burnup chain file. In this study, the FPY data evaluated by the FYTD model were converted to the ENDF-6 format according to the requirements of the ENDF-6 manual [ 59 59 ]. Thus, no more changes in the OpenMC were required. The FPY data evaluated by FYTD model can be used in transport-burnup calculations using the original ENDF-6 format interface of OpenMC. Benchmark cases 2 Two different reactors were selected to verify the FPY data. To verify the 235 U FPY and 239 Pu FPY, an AP1000 PWR [ 60 60 ] and MOX-3600 SFR [ 61 61 ] were adopted, respectively. At present, the PWR is widely used commercially worldwide, and the SFR is one of the most promising commercial reactors. These two reactor types have typical characteristics (one neutron spectrum of these two reactors is the thermal spectrum and the other is the fast spectrum); further, they used the UOX and MOX fuels, respectively. In Fig. 4 Fig. 4 , the calculation by OpenMC shows that the fission in the PWR over the entire 1620 effective full power days (EFPDs) is dominated by thermal neutron-induced fission, which is contributed primarily by 235 U. Whereas the fission in SFR over 2050 EFPDs is dominated by fast neutron-induced fission, which is contributed primarily by 239 Pu. Therefore, the transport-burnup simulations of these two reactions are suitable for verifying the evaluated 235 U and 239 Pu FPY, respectively. Simultaneously, to amplify the difference caused by the difference in FPY data, instead of the full-core simulation, a single pin-cell simulation was performed. The selection of a simple single pin-cell model is conducive for eliminating the interference of other factors in the core and reducing the complexity of the analysis. Thus, more attention can be paid to the influence of different original nuclear data. The geometric models of the two types of reactor pin-cells and the parameters used in the OpenMC burnup calculation are presented in Fig. 5 Fig. 5 and Table 1 Table 1 , respectively. In this study, the method of calculating the average FPY in OpenMC was applied to treat the energy dependence of FPY. The average energy at which fission events occur was tallied in the transport calculation and used to calculate an effective FPY by linear interpolation. Subsequently, the effective average FPY was used in the burnup calculation. 1 1   1 1 PWR(AP1000) 1 1 SFR(MOX-3600) 1 1 Line power density 1 1 187.7 W/cm 1 1 291.6 W/cm 1 1 Burnup depth 1 1 540×3 EFPD 1 1 410×5 EFPD 1 1   1 1 62 GWd/tHN 1 1 97 GWd/tHN 1 1 Calculation step 1 1 54 EFPD 1 1 205 EFPD Finally, verification in this study was not performed by comparison with the experimental data. Note that the experimental data of reactor physics involve various complex factors, such as shutdown and restart during reactor operation. Further, the restoration of these processes in the simulation is complex, and the resulting errors are inevitable. Thus, in the final comparison, determining whether the error was caused by the yield data or other factors is impossible. Therefore, by only changing the yield data, two calculations were performed. Thus, the impact of the yield data could be directly observed and the accuracy of the evaluated yield data could be better evaluated. Moreover, the experimental data of FPY is not systematic, and applying it directly to the burnup calculation is impossible. Therefore, burnup calculations were performed twice: once using the FPY in the ENDF/B-VIII.0 database, and once using the FPY evaluated by the FYTD model. The accuracy of the evaluation results was assessed by calculating the error between these two calculations. Results and discussion 1 To verify the evaluated neutron-induced FPY in practical applications, all the 235 U and 239 Pu yields under the three energy points were set as missing values, and the FYTD model was used to reproduce the 235 U or 239 Pu yield data. All burnup calculations were performed twice: once using the fission yield data of 235 U or 239 Pu in the ENDF/B-VIII.0 database, and once using the fission yield data of 235 U evaluated by the FYTD model; and all rest parameters and nuclear data remained the same. The burnup calculation results using the ENDF/B-VIII.0 data were regarded as the reference results and are denoted by a red dotted line in the subsequent figures. The burnup calculation results using the evaluated FPY are denoted by black dotted lines. The difference between these and reference results are denoted by the green dots. Note that the smaller the difference, the more accurate the evaluation. For convenience of presentation, ENDF/B-VIII.0 is abbreviated as ENDF/B in the following text and figures. The impacts of fission products on reactors and fuels are multifaceted. During reactor operation, neutron poisons in the fission products affect the reactivity of the reactor. Simultaneously, the variations in concentration of neutron poisons in a reactor shutdown for several hours to several days also affect the restart of the reactor. The short-lived fission products have strong radioactivity and decay heat; thus, the spent fuel must be stored for several years after being out of the reactor to reduce their impact. Medium-lived and long-lived fission products affect the subsequent reprocessing and long-term disposal of radioactive waste. Therefore, the comparison herein was performed step-by-step from the reactor operation stage, spent fuel temporary storage stage, reprocessing, and long-term waste storage stage to verify the accuracy of the evaluated FPY data in various scenarios. Reactor operation stage 2 The first comparison is the variation in the neutron effective multiplication factor k eff with burnup. With increasing burnup, fissionable nuclides are gradually consumed, and fission products are gradually accumulated. These processes have a significant impact on reactor reactivity, which requires attention during reactor operation. Evidently from Fig. 6(a) Fig. 6(a) , compared with the reference results, the PWR k eff calculated using the FYTD model evaluation was slightly underestimated, and the degree of underestimation was within 500 pcm over 1620 EFPDs. The variation in reactivity was as high as tens of thousands of pcm over 1620 EFPDs. By contrast, the degree of underestimation was not significant. For the SFR in Fig. 6(b) Fig. 6(b) , the difference was within 200 pcm over 2050 EFPDs. To explore the sources of the differences shown in Fig. 6 Fig. 6 , the macroscopic neutron radiative capture cross-section of the time point with the largest error was calculated and is presented in Tables 2 Tables 2 and 3 3 . These two tables list the 20 nuclides that contribute the most to neutron radiation capture in the reactor and the sum of the macroscopic neutron radiative capture cross-sections of all nuclides. Evidently from Table 2 Table 2 , for the PWR, the total macroscopic thermal neutron radiative capture cross-section was overestimated by 0.75% owing to the accumulation of calculation errors in various nuclides, for example, 135 Xe, 151 Sm, 103 Rh, and 153 Eu. Because of this overestimation, k eff was underestimated by 417 pcm at 864 EFPDs in Fig. 6 Fig. 6 . Evidently from Table 3 Table 3 , for the SFR, the contribution of fission products was smaller than that in the PWR, and the impact of their errors was relatively weak. However, the underestimation of 105 Pd, 103 Rh, 107 Pd, and other products ultimately led to an underestimation of 0.18% of the total macroscopic fast neutron radiative capture cross section, thus resulting in an overestimation of 171 pcm of k eff at 1620 EFPDs, as shown in Fig. 6 Fig. 6 . 1 1 Nuclide 1 1 Contribution (%) 1 1 ENDF/B (cm -1 ) 1 1 FYTD(cm -1 ) 1 1 Difference(%) 1 1 238 U 1 1 27.38 1 1 5.87E+22 1 1 5.87E+22 1 1 0.00 1 1 235 U 1 1 15.17 1 1 3.25E+22 1 1 3.25E+22 1 1 0.07 1 1 239 Pu 1 1 14.62 1 1 3.13E+22 1 1 3.14E+22 1 1 0.26 1 1 135 Xe 1 1 9.90 1 1 2.12E+22 1 1 2.14E+22 1 1 0.95 1 1 240 Pu 1 1 6.04 1 1 1.29E+22 1 1 1.30E+22 1 1 0.14 1 1 143 Nd 1 1 5.18 1 1 1.11E+22 1 1 1.08E+22 1 1 -3.07 1 1 241 Pu 1 1 4.07 1 1 8.73E+21 1 1 8.75E+21 1 1 0.15 1 1 151 Sm 1 1 2.90 1 1 6.21E+21 1 1 6.52E+21 1 1 5.06 1 1 149 Sm 1 1 1.61 1 1 3.45E+21 1 1 3.41E+21 1 1 -1.01 1 1 103 Rh 1 1 1.59 1 1 3.42E+21 1 1 3.61E+21 1 1 5.58 1 1 131 Xe 1 1 0.83 1 1 1.77E+21 1 1 1.89E+21 1 1 6.73 1 1 237 Np 1 1 0.75 1 1 1.61E+21 1 1 1.61E+21 1 1 0.41 1 1 133 Cs 1 1 0.68 1 1 1.46E+21 1 1 1.51E+21 1 1 3.44 1 1 147 Pm 1 1 0.66 1 1 1.41E+21 1 1 1.35E+21 1 1 -4.11 1 1 153 Eu 1 1 0.64 1 1 1.38E+21 1 1 1.56E+21 1 1 13.14 1 1 145 Nd 1 1 0.55 1 1 1.19E+21 1 1 1.10E+21 1 1 -6.90 1 1 150 Sm 1 1 0.51 1 1 1.08E+21 1 1 1.07E+21 1 1 -0.89 1 1 238 Pu 1 1 0.48 1 1 1.03E+21 1 1 1.03E+21 1 1 0.31 1 1 155 Eu 1 1 0.47 1 1 1.01E+21 1 1 1.16E+21 1 1 14.93 1 1 105 Rh 1 1 0.46 1 1 9.84E+20 1 1 1.05E+21 1 1 6.86 1 1 Others 1 1 5.50 1 1 1.18E+22 1 1 1.25E+22 1 1 6.03 1 1 Total 1 1 100.00 1 1 2.143E+23 1 1 2.159E+23 1 1 0.75 1 1 Nuclide 1 1 Contribution(%) 1 1 ENDF/B(cm -1 ) 1 1 FYTD(cm -1 ) 1 1 Difference(%) 1 1 238 U 1 1 71.57 1 1 1.80E+21 1 1 1.80E+21 1 1 0.00 1 1 239 Pu 1 1 8.46 1 1 2.12E+20 1 1 2.12E+20 1 1 0.00 1 1 240 Pu 1 1 5.52 1 1 1.39E+20 1 1 1.39E+20 1 1 0.02 1 1 242 Pu 1 1 1.45 1 1 3.64E+19 1 1 3.64E+19 1 1 0.00 1 1 241 Am 1 1 1.18 1 1 2.96E+19 1 1 2.96E+19 1 1 -0.01 1 1 241 Pu 1 1 0.87 1 1 2.19E+19 1 1 2.19E+19 1 1 0.01 1 1 243 Am 1 1 0.78 1 1 1.95E+19 1 1 1.95E+19 1 1 0.03 1 1 105 Pd 1 1 0.71 1 1 1.78E+19 1 1 1.54E+19 1 1 -13.53 1 1 238 Pu 1 1 0.63 1 1 1.57E+19 1 1 1.57E+19 1 1 -0.01 1 1 99 Tc 1 1 0.61 1 1 1.53E+19 1 1 1.56E+19 1 1 1.62 1 1 101 Ru 1 1 0.59 1 1 1.49E+19 1 1 1.43E+19 1 1 -3.74 1 1 133 Cs 1 1 0.56 1 1 1.41E+19 1 1 1.39E+19 1 1 -1.14 1 1 103 Rh 1 1 0.55 1 1 1.38E+19 1 1 1.30E+19 1 1 -6.07 1 1 107 Pd 1 1 0.39 1 1 9.72E+18 1 1 9.02E+18 1 1 -7.20 1 1 149 Sm 1 1 0.35 1 1 8.68E+18 1 1 8.55E+18 1 1 -1.57 1 1 97 Mo 1 1 0.34 1 1 8.46E+18 1 1 8.67E+18 1 1 2.45 1 1 102 Ru 1 1 0.33 1 1 8.40E+18 1 1 8.26E+18 1 1 -1.64 1 1 147 Pm 1 1 0.26 1 1 6.61E+18 1 1 6.92E+18 1 1 4.69 1 1 95 Mo 1 1 0.26 1 1 6.55E+18 1 1 6.58E+18 1 1 0.49 1 1 16 O 1 1 0.25 1 1 6.37E+18 1 1 6.37E+18 1 1 0.00 1 1 Others 1 1 4.33 1 1 1.09E+20 1 1 1.08E+20 1 1 -0.43 1 1 Total 1 1 100.00 1 1 2.51E+21 1 1 2.50E+21 1 1 -0.18 For more intuitive and effective comparison and verification, the subsequent comparisons focused on the key fission products. For the operation stage of the PWR, 135 Xe is one of the most important fission products, and its thermal neutron absorption cross section is as high as 2,650,000 barns. Its accumulation in the reactor significantly affects the reactivity of the reactor. A small part of 135 Xe in the reactor is directly generated by fission, whereas most of 135 Xe is produced by the decay of 135 I. Therefore, the concentration of 135 Xe in the reactor is directly affected by the independent yield of 135 Xe and 135 I and its parents. In the several hours after the shutdown of a PWR, owing to the sharp reduction of neutron flux, the concentration of 135 Xe varies sharply, and this short-term variation affects the restart of the reactor. Therefore, from the perspective of the actual operation of the reactor, the variation in 135 Xe concentration in the PWR was calculated over 72 h of shutdown after 1080 EFPDs. Evidently from Fig. 7(b) Fig. 7(b) , 135 Xe first increased to the maximum value, and then gradually decreased, thus exhibiting a distinct iodine pit phenomenon. During the period of the iodine pit, a forced shutdown time may occur because of the high concentration of 135 Xe, and the reactor cannot be restarted. Therefore, the concentration of 135 Xe during this period is very important. Evidently, the two results were similar; over these 72 h, the difference was within ±1%. This is primarily because the FYTD model can accurately evaluate the independent yield of 135 I and 135 Xe in thermal neutron induced 235 U fission. During the short-term shutdown period, the removal of decay heat of the reactor is another important issue, and the decay heat at this time is contributed primarily by short-lived and highly radioactive fission products. Fig. 7(a) Fig. 7(a) shows the variation in fuel decay heat within 72 h of shutdown. Evidently, the results using the FYTD model evaluation were still very close to the reference results, with a difference of no more than ±1% in the entire period. This indirectly proves that the FYTD model can evaluate the large yields of short-lived fission products, such as 131 I and 140 Ba. Similar to 135 Xe, 149 Sm is also an important fission product that affects reactivity. However, unlike 135 Xe, the concentration variation of 149 Sm is relatively simple because 149 Sm itself does not decay and the half-life of its parent nucleus 149 Pm is longer than 135 I; thus, its concentration variation rate is slower and the trend is more uniform. To compare the accumulation of 149 Pm, a period of 45 d of refueling overhaul after 1080 EFPDs of AP1000 operation was simulated. During this period, 149 Pm continued to accumulate in the reactor, and when the reactor was restarted after the refueling overhaul, it resulted in a certain negative reactivity to the reactor. Evidently from Fig. 7(c) Fig. 7(c) , the accumulation of 149 Sm had a small difference from the reference result and was within ±1%. Temporary storage of spent fuel 2 After 1620 EFPDs of AP1000 operation and 2050 EFPDs of MOX-3600 operation, the fuel is unloaded from the reactor and placed in a spent fuel storage pit for years to cool. Currently, temporary storage is widely used. The spent fuel that has just been released from the reactor contains a large amount of short-lived fission products, and the radioactivity and decay heat are extremely high. During the cooling process of the spent fuel, fission products with short half-lives gradually decay, and the heat generated is removed by water. Therefore, during temporary storage for several years, the activity and decay heat of spent fuel, which are contributed primarily by short-lived fission products, deserve attention. To this end, simulations of the decay process of spent fuel 3 y after leaving the reactor were performed focusing on the behavior of spent fuel in the pool. Evidently from Figs. 8 Figs. 8 and 9 9 , for both the PWR and SFR, the differences in decay heat and activity over these 3 y were within ±2%. Reprocessing of spent fuel is possible only after the fuel has been cooled for several years, thereby reducing the radioactivity and heat production to a certain level. Although the radioactivity, contributed primarily by 137 Cs and 90 Sr, is considerably reduced at this time, it is still an important factor that cannot be ignored in the reprocessing process. In addition, 90 Sr is the most biologically harmful nuclide in spent fuels. In addition, other types of nuclides, such as fission gases, also deserve attention in reprocessing. 85 Kr is the only radioactive fission gas that is present in large quantities after years of spent fuel cooling and is released from spent fuel during shearing. After a certain treatment, it is released into the atmosphere. Therefore, taking these three nuclides as examples, this study focused on the concentration variations and accumulation of some nuclides that are important for reprocessing. Figure 10 Figure 10 shows the variations in concentration of 137 Cs, 90 Sr, and 85 Kr within 3 y of cooling; the errors from the reference results were approximately 1%, 3%, and 6%, respectively. Reprocessing and long term disposal 2 After the mainstream reprocessing at this stage was completed, heavy nuclei, such as U and Pu, were separated, and 99.9% of the fission products were processed and entered high-level liquid waste (HLLW). HLLW still needs to be stored in tanks for 30 y to reduce the radioactivity and decay heat before solidification. Within 30 y, as the heavy nuclei were separated, the amount of interest changed from the activity and decay heat of the entire spent fuel to the activity and decay heat contributed solely by fission products. Assuming that the activity and decay heat of HLLW are all contributed by fission products, Fig. 11 Fig. 11 shows the calculated activity and decay heat of HLLW within 30 y; evidently, the difference was within ±1.5%. Because the effect of heavy nuclear decay was removed from this comparison of the decay heat and activity, it could better demonstrate the accuracy of FPY evaluations. After 30 y of storage, HLLW can undergo solidification treatment and deep geological disposal. In addition to solidified HLLW, other types of radioactive waste, such as silver adsorbents that adsorb 129 I, require deep geological disposal. Geological disposal can last for thousands or tens of thousands of years. At this time, the focus is on the seven longest-lived fission products (LLFP), 99 Tc, 126 Sn, 79 Se, 93 Zr, 107 Pd, 135 Cs, and 129 I. Among them, 129 I and 99 Tc are strong biological hazards. Evidently from Fig. 12 Fig. 12 , the evaluation of 99 Tc by the FYTD model was still very accurate, with a difference of approximately 2% from the benchmark result. However, the results of 129 I were different from those of the benchmark, with a difference of approximately 37%. This is because the independent yield of 129 I in the thermal neutron-induced 235 U fission in the ENDF/B-VIII.0 database is 0, and the accumulation of 129 I in the reactor is due to the decay of another product with mass 129. However, mass 129 is at the junction of the heavy nucleus peak and valley area in the FPY mass distribution, where the yield varies significantly, and the evaluation here is difficult. Thus, the FYTD evaluation at mass 129 deviated from the ENDF/B data. The above comparison and verification were aimed primarily at the reprocessing of the PWR, which is different from that of the SFR. Reprocessing is indispensable for the development of fast reactor because it is related to their fuel cycle process. The separation of additional fission products is being considered in a variety of advanced reprocessing processes. For example, 137 Cs and 90 Sr, two highly radioactive medium-lived fission products, are not considered for separation in the current process but are disposed of as high-level radioactive wastes. In future reprocessing processes, they will be considered separately for medical use. In addition, the seven LLFPs are not separated in the current reprocessing process and are ultimately disposed of in geology. These nuclides are extremely long-lived, and the hazards they will cause during deep geological disposal over the next tens of thousands of years are difficult to estimate. Thus, scientists are considering using fast reactors or accelerator-driven subcritical systems (ADSs) to transmutate them. Therefore, in the advanced reprocessing process, these long-lived fission products will be separated and returned to the fast reactor or ADS for transmutation. The accumulation of these long-lived fission products is important at this point and is a concern for subsequent transmutation processes. Therefore, the accumulation of some of the above important nuclides was calculated after cooling for 3 y and before the reprocessing process. Fig. 13 Fig. 13 shows the comparison of these nuclide accumulations. Evidently, the evaluations of 99 Tc, 137 Cs, and 85 Kr were relatively accurate, and the differences from the reference values were all within ±2%. They were followed by 135 Cs, 107 Pd, 93 Zr, and 90 Sr, the results of which had slightly larger errors, ranging from ±5% to ±10%. Further, the evaluations for 126 Sn, 79 Se, and 129 I were less accurate, with errors within ±15%. These three nuclides were located at A = 79, 126, 129, at the edge of the light-nuclear peak or the heavy-nuclear peak in the mass distribution. The yield values here were smaller and more variable; thus, the evaluations were not sufficiently accurate. However, several LLFPs were located in these regions. Therefore, if the evaluation using FYTD models is to be applied to the accurate study of LLFPs, further improvements to the model are required. CONCLUSION 1 In this study, an FYTD model was used to evaluate the IFPY. The evaluated FPYs were applied in the OpenMC transport-burnup simulation of a PWR and SFR for verification. By comparing the transport-burnup simulation results using the FYTD model evaluation with the reference results using ENDF/B data, the performance of the evaluation data in a real application was examined. First, for the reactor operation stage, the variation in k eff was calculated. For the pin-cell of the PWR, the errors in reactivity caused by the evaluated FPY did not exceed 500 pcm over 1620 EFPDs, and did not exceed 150 pcm for the SFR pin-cell over 2050 EFPDs. The errors in decay heat, and the 135 Xe and 149 Sm concentrations during the short-term shutdown of the PWR were all less than 1%. Second, the decay heat and activity of the spent fuel during the 3 y of temporary storage were calculated. For both the PWR and SFR, the decay heat and activity errors were less than 2%. Finally, for reprocessing and long-term waste storage, the concentrations of important nuclides and the activity and decay heat of HLLW were calculated. For the PWR, the errors in the concentration of important nuclides in the spent fuel, such as 90 Sr, 137 Cs, 85 Kr, and 99 Tc, were less than 6%. Further, the errors in the activity and decay heat of the HLLW were less than 1.5% over 30 y of canned storage. For the SFR, the concentration errors of the 10 important nuclides in the spent fuel were all less than 16%. Multiple rounds of comparative verification for the reactor operation stage, spent fuel temporary storage stage, reprocessing, and long-term waste storage revealed that the transport-burnup simulation results using the FYTD model evaluation exhibited little difference with the reference results using ENDF/B-VIII.0. This proves that the evaluation of the FYTD model may have application value for reactor physical analysis. References O. Hahn , F. Strassmann , Über den nachweis und das verhalten der bei der bestrahlung des urans mittels neutronen entstehenden erdalkalimetalle . Naturwissenschaften 27 , 11 – 15 ( 1939 ). doi: 10.1007/BF01488241 http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01488241 Über den nachweis und das verhalten der bei der bestrahlung des urans mittels neutronen entstehenden erdalkalimetalle L. Meitner , O.R. Frisch , Disintegration of uranium by neutrons: a new type of nuclear reaction . Nature 143 , 239 – 240 ( 1939 ). doi: 10.1038/143239a0 http://doi.org/10.1038/143239a0 Disintegration of uranium by neutrons: a new type of nuclear reaction N. Schunck , L. Robledo , Microscopic theory of nuclear fission: a review . Reports on Progress in Physics 79 , 116301 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/79/11/116301 http://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/11/116301 Microscopic theory of nuclear fission: a review M. Bender , R. Bernard , G. Bertsch , et al. , Future of nuclear fission theory . Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 47 , 113002 ( 2020 ). Future of nuclear fission theory J. Hamilton , S. Hofmann , Y. Oganessian , Search for Superheavy Nuclei . Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 63 , 383 – 405 ( 2013 ). doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102912-144535 http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-102912-144535 Search for Superheavy Nuclei J.C. Pei , W. Nazarewicz , J.A. Sheikh , et al. , Fission Barriers of Compound Superheavy Nuclei . Physical Review Letters 102 , 192501 ( 2009 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.192501 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.192501 Fission Barriers of Compound Superheavy Nuclei M. Eichler , A. Arcones , A. Kelic , et al. , THE ROLE OF FISSION IN NEUTRON STAR MERGERS AND ITS IMPACT ON THE r -PROCESS PEAKS . The Astrophysical Journal 808 , 30 ( 2015 ). doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/30 http://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/808/1/30 THE ROLE OF FISSION IN NEUTRON STAR MERGERS AND ITS IMPACT ON THE r -PROCESS PEAKS T.A. Mueller , D. Lhuillier , M. Fallot , et al. , Improved predictions of reactor antineutrino spectra . Physical Review C 83 , 054615 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.054615 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.83.054615 Improved predictions of reactor antineutrino spectra L.A. Bernstein , D.A. Brown , A.J. Koning , et al. , Our future nuclear data needs . Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 69 , 109 – 136 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023708 http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023708 Our future nuclear data needs D. Ramos , M. Caamaño , F. Farget , et al. , Insight into excitation energy and structure effects in fission from isotopic information in fission yields . Physical Review C 99 , 024615 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.024615 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.024615 Insight into excitation energy and structure effects in fission from isotopic information in fission yields H.O. Denschlag , Independent Fission Yield Measurements . Nuclear Science and Engineering 94 , 337 – 352 ( 1986 ). doi: 10.13182/NSE86-A18345 http://doi.org/10.13182/NSE86-A18345 Independent Fission Yield Measurements D. Brown , M. Chadwick , R. Capote , et al. , Endf/b-viii.0: The 8th major release of the nuclear reaction data library with cielo-project cross sections, new standards and thermal scattering data . Nuclear Data Sheets 148 , 1 – 142 ( 2018 ). doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2018.02.001 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2018.02.001 Endf/b-viii.0: The 8th major release of the nuclear reaction data library with cielo-project cross sections, new standards and thermal scattering data A.J. Plompen , O. Cabellos , C. De Saint Jean , et al. , The joint evaluated fission and fusion nuclear data library, jeff-3.3 . The European Physical Journal A 56 , 181 ( 2020 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00141-9 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00141-9 The joint evaluated fission and fusion nuclear data library, jeff-3.3 K. Shibata , O. Iwamoto , T. Nakagawa , et al. , JENDL-4.0: A New Library for Nuclear Science and Engineering . Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 48 , 1 – 30 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.1080/18811248.2011.9711675 http://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2011.9711675 JENDL-4.0: A New Library for Nuclear Science and Engineering A. Bulgac , P. Magierski , K.J. Roche , et al. , Induced Fission of Pu 240 within a Real-Time Microscopic Framework . Physical Review Letters 116 , 122504 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.122504 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.122504 Induced Fission of Pu 240 within a Real-Time Microscopic Framework D. Regnier , N. Dubray , N. Schunck , et al. , Fission fragment charge and mass distributions in 239 Pu (n,f) in the adiabatic nuclear energy density functional theory . Physical Review C 93 , 054611 ( 2016 ). Publisher: American Physical Society . doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.054611 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.054611 Fission fragment charge and mass distributions in 239Pu (n,f) in the adiabatic nuclear energy density functional theory W. Younes , D.M. Gogny , J.F. Berger , A microscopic theory of fission dynamics based on the generator coordinate method , Vol. 950 , ( Springer , 2019 ) A microscopic theory of fission dynamics based on the generator coordinate method J. Randrup , P. Möller , Brownian Shape Motion on Five-Dimensional Potential-Energy Surfaces:Nuclear Fission-Fragment Mass Distributions . Physical Review Letters 106 , 132503 ( 2011 ). Publisher: American Physical Society . doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.132503 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.132503 Brownian Shape Motion on Five-Dimensional Potential-Energy Surfaces:Nuclear Fission-Fragment Mass Distributions J. Randrup , P. Möller , A.J. Sierk , Fission-fragment mass distributions from strongly damped shape evolution . Phys. Rev. C 84 , 034613 ( 2011 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034613 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034613 Fission-fragment mass distributions from strongly damped shape evolution K. Pomorski , F.A. Ivanyuk , B. Nerlo-Pomorska , Mass distribution of fission fragments within the Born-Oppenheimer approximation . The European Physical Journal A 53 , 59 ( 2017 ). doi: 10.1140/epja/i2017-12250-5 http://doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2017-12250-5 Mass distribution of fission fragments within the Born-Oppenheimer approximation L.L. Liu , X.Z. Wu , Y.J. Chen , et al. , Study of fission dynamics with a three-dimensional Langevin approach . Physical Review C 99 , 044614 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.044614 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.044614 Study of fission dynamics with a three-dimensional Langevin approach Z.X. Fang , M. Yu , Y.G. Huang , et al. , Theoretical analysis of long-lived radioactive waste in pressurized water reactor . Nuclear Science and Techniques 32 , 72 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-021-00911-0 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-021-00911-0 Theoretical analysis of long-lived radioactive waste in pressurized water reactor U. Brosa , S. Grossmann , A. Müller , Nuclear scission . Physics Reports 197 , 167 – 262 ( 1990 ). doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(90)90114-H http://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(90)90114-H Nuclear scission D. Gorodisskiy , K. Kovalchuk , S. Mulgin , et al. , Systematics of fragment mass yields from fission of actinide nuclei induced by the 5–200 mev protons and neutrons . Annals of Nuclear Energy 35 , 238 – 245 ( 2008 ). doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2007.06.002 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2007.06.002 Systematics of fragment mass yields from fission of actinide nuclei induced by the 5–200 mev protons and neutrons M. Pahlavani , P. Mehdipour , Product yields for the photofission of 232th, 234,238 u, 237np, and 239,240,242 pu actinides at various incident photon energies . Nuclear Science and Techniques 29 , 146 ( 2018 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-018-0482-1 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-018-0482-1 Product yields for the photofission of 232th, 234,238 u, 237np, and 239,240,242 pu actinides at various incident photon energies K.H. Schmidt , B. Jurado , C. Amouroux , et al. , General Description of Fission Observables: GEF Model Code . Nuclear Data Sheets 131 , 107 – 221 ( 2016 ). doi: 10.1016/j.nds.2015.12.009 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2015.12.009 General Description of Fission Observables: GEF Model Code Z. Niu , H. Liang , Nuclear mass predictions based on Bayesian neural network approach with pairing and shell effects . Physics Letters B 778 , 48 – 53 ( 2018 ). doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.002 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.01.002 Nuclear mass predictions based on Bayesian neural network approach with pairing and shell effects L. Neufcourt , Y. Cao , W. Nazarewicz , et al. , Neutron Drip Line in the Ca Region from Bayesian Model Averaging . Physical Review Letters 122 , 062502 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.062502 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.062502 Neutron Drip Line in the Ca Region from Bayesian Model Averaging C.W. Ma , D. Peng , H.L. Wei , et al. , Isotopic cross-sections in proton induced spallation reactions based on the Bayesian neural network method . Chinese Physics C 44 , 014104 ( 2020 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/1/014104 http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/44/1/014104 Isotopic cross-sections in proton induced spallation reactions based on the Bayesian neural network method Z.P. Gao , Y.J. Wang , H.L. Lü , et al. , Machine learning the nuclear mass . Nuclear Science and Techniques 32 , 109 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-021-00956-1 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-021-00956-1 Machine learning the nuclear mass Q. Song , L. Zhu , J. Su , Target dependence of isotopic cross sections in the spallation reactions 238 U+ p, d and 9 Be at 1a gev . Chinese Physics C. 46 , 074108 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac6249 http://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1137/ac6249 Target dependence of isotopic cross sections in the spallation reactions 238U+ p, d and 9 Be at 1a gev E. Alhassan , D. Rochman , A. Vasiliev , et al. , Iterative bayesian monte carlo for nuclear data evaluation . Nuclear Science and Techniques 33 , 50 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01034-w http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-022-01034-w Iterative bayesian monte carlo for nuclear data evaluation H. Arahmane , E.M. Hamzaoui , Y. Ben Maissa , et al. , Neutron-gamma discrimination method based on blind source separation and machine learning . Nuclear Science and Techniques 32 , 18 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-021-00850-w http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-021-00850-w Neutron-gamma discrimination method based on blind source separation and machine learning Z.H. Wu , J.J. Bai , D.D. Zhang , et al. , Statistical analysis of helium bubbles in transmission electron microscopy images based on machine learning method . Nuclear Science and Techniques 32 , 54 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-021-00886-y http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-021-00886-y Statistical analysis of helium bubbles in transmission electron microscopy images based on machine learning method T.S. Shang , J. Li , Z.M. Niu , Prediction of nuclear charge density distribution with feedback neural network . Nuclear Science and Techniques 33 , 153 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01140-9 http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-022-01140-9 Prediction of nuclear charge density distribution with feedback neural network B.C. Wang , M.T. Qiu , W. Chen , et al. , Machine learning-based analyses for total ionizing dose effects in bipolar junction transistors . Nuclear Science and Techniques 33 , 131 ( 2022 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-022-01107-w http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-022-01107-w Machine learning-based analyses for total ionizing dose effects in bipolar junction transistors A. Lovell , A. Mohan , P. Talou , et al. , Constraining fission yields using machine learning . EPJ Web of Conferences 211 , 04006 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201921104006 http://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/201921104006 Constraining fission yields using machine learning Z.A. Wang , J. Pei , Y. Liu , et al. , Bayesian Evaluation of Incomplete Fission Yields . Physical Review Letters 123 , 122501 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.122501 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.122501 Bayesian Evaluation of Incomplete Fission Yields C.Y. Qiao , J.C. Pei , Z.A. Wang , et al. , Bayesian evaluation of charge yields of fission fragments of U 239 . Physical Review C 103 , 034621 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.103.034621 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.034621 Bayesian evaluation of charge yields of fission fragments of U 239 L. Tong , R. He , S. Yan , Prediction of neutron-induced fission product yields by a straightforward k-nearest-neighbor algorithm . Physical Review C 104 , 064617 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064617 http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.064617 Prediction of neutron-induced fission product yields by a straightforward k-nearest-neighbor algorithm J. Liu , P. Musialski , P. Wonka , et al. , Tensor Completion for Estimating Missing Values in Visual Data . IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 35 , 208 – 220 ( 2013 ). doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2012.39 http://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2012.39 Tensor Completion for Estimating Missing Values in Visual Data X. Chen , Z. He , L. Sun , A Bayesian tensor decomposition approach for spatiotemporal traffic data imputation . Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 98 , 73 – 84 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.003 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2018.11.003 A Bayesian tensor decomposition approach for spatiotemporal traffic data imputation X. Chen , Z. Han , Y. Wang , et al. , A general model for robust tensor factorization with unknown noise . arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.06755 . A general model for robust tensor factorization with unknown noise Q. Song , L. Zhu , J. Su , et al. , A tensor decomposition model for evaluating isotopic yield in neutron-induced fission . arXiv:2208.11815 A tensor decomposition model for evaluating isotopic yield in neutron-induced fission B.R. Betzler , F. Heidet , B. Feng , et al. , Modeling and simulation functional needs for molten salt reactor licensing . Nuclear Engineering and Design 355 , 110308 ( 2019 ). doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110308 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110308 Modeling and simulation functional needs for molten salt reactor licensing G. Chiba , M. Tsuji , T. Narabayashi , et al. , Important fission product nuclides identification method for simplified burnup chain construction: Physor 2014 . Journal of nuclear science and technology 52 , 953 – 960 ( 2015 ). doi: 10.1080/00223131.2015.1032381 http://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2015.1032381 Important fission product nuclides identification method for simplified burnup chain construction: Physor 2014 P.K. Romano , N.E. Horelik , B.R. Herman , et al. , Openmc: A state-of-the-art monte carlo code for research and development . Annals of Nuclear Energy 82 , 90 – 97 ( 2015 ). Joint International Conference on Supercomputing in Nuclear Applications and Monte Carlo 2013, SNA + MC 2013. Pluri- and Trans-disciplinarity, Towards New Modeling and Numerical Simulation Paradigms . doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.048 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.07.048 Openmc: A state-of-the-art monte carlo code for research and development P.K. Romano , C.J. Josey , A.E. Johnson , et al. , Depletion capabilities in the openmc monte carlo particle transport code . Annals of Nuclear Energy 152 , 107989 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107989 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107989 Depletion capabilities in the openmc monte carlo particle transport code M.L. Fensin , M.R. James , J.S. Hendricks , et al. , The new mcnp6 depletion capability . Proc. ICAPP 2012 24 – 28 ( 2012 ). The new mcnp6 depletion capability J. Leppänen , M. Pusa , T. Viitanen , et al. , The serpent monte carlo code: Status, development and applications in 2013 . Annals of Nuclear Energy 82 , 142 – 150 ( 2015 ). doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.024 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.024 The serpent monte carlo code: Status, development and applications in 2013 K. Wang , Z. Li , D. She , et al. , Rmc–a monte carlo code for reactor core analysis . Annals of Nuclear Energy 82 , 121 – 129 ( 2015 ). doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.048 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.048 Rmc–a monte carlo code for reactor core analysis G.G. Davidson , T.M. Pandya , S.R. Johnson , et al. , Nuclide depletion capabilities in the shift monte carlo code . Annals of Nuclear Energy 114 , 259 – 276 ( 2018 ). doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2017.11.042 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2017.11.042 Nuclide depletion capabilities in the shift monte carlo code T. Shannon , J. Wheeler , G. Touvannas , Tgbla/panacea and casmo/microburn analyses of ge9b/ge10 fuel in the quad cities . Transactions of the American Nuclear Society 74 , ( 1996 ). https://www.osti.gov/biblio/436981 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/436981 . Tgbla/panacea and casmo/microburn analyses of ge9b/ge10 fuel in the quad cities D. Knott , E. Wehlage , Description of the lancer02 lattice physics code for single-assembly and multibundle analysis . Nuclear Science and Engineering 155 , 331 – 354 ( 2007 ). doi: 10.13182/NSE155-331 http://doi.org/10.13182/NSE155-331 Description of the lancer02 lattice physics code for single-assembly and multibundle analysis H. Huria , R. Buechel , Recent improvements and new features in the westinghouse lattice physics codes . Transactions of the American Nuclear Society 72 , ( 1995 ). https://www.osti.gov/biblio/186699 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/186699 . Recent improvements and new features in the westinghouse lattice physics codes P. Archier , S. Domanico , J. Palau , et al. , in PHYSOR 2016-Unifying Theory and Experiments in the 21st Century , Validation of a multi-purpose depletion chain for burnup calculation through tripoli-4 calculations and ifp perturbation method . 2016 in PHYSOR 2016-Unifying Theory and Experiments in the 21st Century, Validation of a multi-purpose depletion chain for burnup calculation through tripoli-4 calculations and ifp perturbation method M.L. Fensin , M. Umbel , Testing actinide fission yield treatment in cinder90 for use in mcnp6 burnup calculations . Progress in Nuclear Energy 85 , 719 – 728 ( 2015 ). doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2015.09.001 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2015.09.001 Testing actinide fission yield treatment in cinder90 for use in mcnp6 burnup calculations R.R. Yang , Y. Yuan , C. Hao , et al. , keff uncertainty quantification and analysis due to nuclear data during the full lifetime burnup calculation for a small-sized prismatic high temperature gas-cooled reactor . Nuclear Science and Techniques 32 , 127 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1007/s41365-021-00969-w http://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-021-00969-w keff uncertainty quantification and analysis due to nuclear data during the full lifetime burnup calculation for a small-sized prismatic high temperature gas-cooled reactor A. Trkov , M. Herman , D. Brown , et al. , Endf-6 formats manual . Brookhaven National Laboratory 80 , ( 2012 ). Endf-6 formats manual T.L. Schulz , Westinghouse ap1000 advanced passive plant . Nuclear engineering and design 236 , 1547 – 1557 ( 2006 ). doi: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.03.049 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.03.049 Westinghouse ap1000 advanced passive plant N. Stauff , T. Kim , T. Taiwo , et al. , Benchmark for neutronic analysis of sodium-cooled fast reactor cores with various fuel types and core sizes . Tech. rep., Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development ( 2016 ) Benchmark for neutronic analysis of sodium-cooled fast reactor cores with various fuel types and core sizes Jun Su contributes comparably to the conceptualization and funding acuisition. Hui Guo contributes comparably to the conceptualization and funding acuisition. Qufei Song contributes mainly to investigation, methodology, resources, original draft writing, and review eding writing. Long Zhu contributes secondary to the original draft writing. 10.1007/s41365-023-01176-5 This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11875328, 12075327 and 12105170), the Key Laboratory of Nuclear Data foundation (No. JCKY2022201C157), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Sun Yat-sen University (No. 22lgqb39), and the Open Project of Guangxi Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Technology (No. NLK2020-02). 2022-09-28 2022-12-09 2022-12-12 2023-03-03 2023-03-20 © China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. (Science Press), Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, ChineseNuclear Society and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Nuclear Science and Techniques. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41365-023-01176-5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41365-023-01176-5 . Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. 2023 Nuclear Science and Techniques 2 34