UFDC Home  myUFDC Home  Help 



Full Text  
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF8 REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchemainstance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd INGEST IEID E20101114_AAAAJZ INGEST_TIME 20101115T01:54:02Z PACKAGE UFE0021460_00001 AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC FILES FILE SIZE 4639 DFID F20101114_AADLQY ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH mock_t_Page_31thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5 553c3057b77a509be55402c77de444f7 SHA1 4fef4435f525ea31661db6987b826f84d746698a 1689 F20101114_AADLOA mock_t_Page_50.txt 14ec2f1e519897d2e39c618ed001b1a3 80db3cd95fe273b84cc9c671e7b89160e66fae80 75602 F20101114_AADLEF mock_t_Page_57.jpg 01d8eb08ab7816d9e60c9db757bac325 5fa5960bcc9702fd8371913fcbfe2b8725ba7eca 110739 F20101114_AADKXI mock_t_Page_17.jp2 14a6cd9c7a1e711d94f60a8161820f75 a64b9d92330372e9940c7338462a3efc8ad262f7 1053954 F20101114_AADLJD mock_t_Page_53.tif 09a162389f18b86ac4d1b39132f28f60 e342c60ee7a6a921980ce74c011955d33d5240af 17766 F20101114_AADLQZ mock_t_Page_32.QC.jpg 2bc41ff58c9491b5efaac07fbf40901f 842bfcdf5729a25151dd5a9a72882b75feeec095 1438 F20101114_AADLOB mock_t_Page_51.txt 7bfdce5c4c8abd346042bfe4d9420c73 ad6bef52d1ab9c93b66aa31a53e79e9583a72311 63999 F20101114_AADLEG mock_t_Page_58.jpg bfefd388521079f1eaf76f8a07caa383 45eb9a225391012fb525061b4bad188398b8ab55 6477 F20101114_AADKXJ mock_t_Page_08thm.jpg ad0ebcb5fe2635598b55182c4cbf7b29 b951deafc13e50122ed3ef2081a26b8d68f51ee4 25271604 F20101114_AADLJE mock_t_Page_54.tif 305cdc342228cb1119c10301f7ddc6fe fc95782a3a3196aa2487fc8777bca7d3790f4ef8 1395 F20101114_AADLOC mock_t_Page_52.txt 1877d2ac5028dd1b6b464355d7b28261 cc986b21789563f75061386f73de6eb9532d21df 55468 F20101114_AADLEH mock_t_Page_60.jpg e8353540c914efb7d95bc9f6f4bbef24 21510ed095125ae40fad9cceb93f2734502da860 83077 F20101114_AADKXK mock_t_Page_08.jpg 5062f8370c896f5605413b2a3fec60ba 8ce73bcd2b97a92cc8ff9412bd6db19d8b7d7432 F20101114_AADLJF mock_t_Page_56.tif 4216215c87eed4326acc0a664902dd15 00d687befbc6abedddb6f7c2c0d61ef09b7ee5d4 20138 F20101114_AADLTA mock_t_Page_66.QC.jpg 76e382652d10f52a76b95524fe87caf4 706e8564abcce972774179b64a78ddc2645b3072 1841 F20101114_AADLOD mock_t_Page_53.txt 3bc11c2b5d82be7a5582f244771f9c93 50a2a1316622bd60941848bef53222b35674487a 51855 F20101114_AADLEI mock_t_Page_61.jpg 4f8f906028e439e6845d362a1fcf04c7 b8bb9b0f5fe5a478657c9856be77daafe0777b07 6069 F20101114_AADKXL mock_t_Page_83thm.jpg 2b10834cbab3308ef06026e4ebe57545 c01ca91f5c12a0c087fc84cd7819663025109227 F20101114_AADLJG mock_t_Page_58.tif 5e66e8029cc10bf96de9a02e12b9335c ea95308ae36f009647b7ed0ad44a3308623da431 5561 F20101114_AADLTB mock_t_Page_66thm.jpg ef5b7e21723d6c117416374714afa3d5 40fe04f39ab6d1cf55e42e8252e2d8c2fad54716 327 F20101114_AADLOE mock_t_Page_54.txt d2ad450ee4fe80bcf00f0ba33b6da914 6a332af610c94e9fc64da6032fb6e705c223a61b 57234 F20101114_AADLEJ mock_t_Page_62.jpg ad997c5636d00576c0ecf6d7ccf6bbbf 6a7f54b8168c26bcbbe8741e70c9d7c992bb456e 1507 F20101114_AADKXM mock_t_Page_27.txt ee4e9d626425e96827b28b5de0da80e7 2e7fa2ee52b413c771ea0bee93136d8badcc83cd F20101114_AADLJH mock_t_Page_61.tif 681904adb7298cc540979fdca87b0bd4 38d85e807ceb37a53b9d01c655f2017c28986798 24214 F20101114_AADLTC mock_t_Page_67.QC.jpg fee067c696581470b837d022a0e74341 3507edcf424209c733bfd97a95c020d07792d6a2 1305 F20101114_AADLOF mock_t_Page_55.txt b7cb37aaea7b69c044c02d3cc36a5fce 859b51614eaad4ad5bcb4ede7cf561807489a9bd 75103 F20101114_AADLEK mock_t_Page_63.jpg f50cd443c5c31b85b876dd50c27970d2 026a551b356d6aada0f203717689a5a427b35bbd 24834 F20101114_AADKXN mock_t_Page_86.jpg 7eb7c18463888d1f107e15f03eb37760 8ecbb36ae7d241243218ce2ef9083e6fbc8088f2 6836 F20101114_AADLTD mock_t_Page_67thm.jpg bd88d6e4011f1ec6046bb971b78ada54 628c4d0c327ccab216233ff716cc28a2ae3a0f4c 921 F20101114_AADLOG mock_t_Page_56.txt 5641107e782d241a93326ce834c8eaa6 624503b320ca34d9588879c9243f405c73e5313b 58547 F20101114_AADLEL mock_t_Page_64.jpg 19e9d378701f43eee01cc2a00d30606d 957d800bb2fb5531678d6636a91df210ee498bbb 37775 F20101114_AADKXO mock_t_Page_27.pro 45910fa0ab3345216af47bb80dc22ff4 70cf370fab7b08a2414d2682a6aded9c93d12a98 F20101114_AADLJI mock_t_Page_62.tif f030d6e8596f41f03ab5da5f1e4ce7da 7fa333efe163672c8e635b44ce2c36653703db1b 27018 F20101114_AADLTE mock_t_Page_68.QC.jpg 68493fb3f71329d08f2dfd9d2b105708 484bdb412fda4778915478bb3c222e08a1128307 474 F20101114_AADLOH mock_t_Page_57.txt 181aaf7d27a142a52db098a4efe877ff b3fa591b8862b63fbc12ab3e3c980e31386ea009 61139 F20101114_AADLEM mock_t_Page_65.jpg 7f9917d23a294112c5ec39b5261f5b3e a0bad2b8c8a7e18bce823d4593321beff86a5b12 44961 F20101114_AADKXP mock_t_Page_31.jpg f83b4db0619eb776b9f71c8274b615be 8b518b8b9b267660a1cc3eefc540c0300bf79957 F20101114_AADLJJ mock_t_Page_63.tif 0a680e03c41505eec9291da2cb2602ef c12ebc60812b82e9055ddcbb4030cd0c057d032a 7105 F20101114_AADLTF mock_t_Page_68thm.jpg c93eb56e06d58503f6c8975c00c3fd9e f77ef1ff622a217f94397c2cb17f811b0c484bd8 677 F20101114_AADLOI mock_t_Page_60.txt ea42a8e6f600fa79e8955854371a64af 23873c4e921152158a5b92ae27f2aea4b4ced101 62783 F20101114_AADLEN mock_t_Page_66.jpg 08df26f6f2aebe0507fe02bb8a0d9cc1 a3f83bcdd927d414e670033ab512f295f1136a9d 84364 F20101114_AADKXQ mock_t_Page_62.jp2 611e18600431095e3fe2c1a6f78f6145 c184f44bee828265ba565eadcca9c50c20817e56 F20101114_AADLJK mock_t_Page_64.tif c8b64f154cb5f865287c12839c416796 93b0665630c94da75c6a16af3602de792104be97 25204 F20101114_AADLTG mock_t_Page_69.QC.jpg cb25591382207d47e56faecf8ccd81b1 8c52fbe963a39423351c8fb46165acfeef69c830 301 F20101114_AADLOJ mock_t_Page_61.txt 21941177d4ac61ca6d11fafff813e101 f4fe8df8530f40ebcfc008ad6aa88d8819f09b41 88121 F20101114_AADLEO mock_t_Page_68.jpg d28183002fa071e79bb7ee713d990f29 cbb6d7ac218dc4b3e3adac5149694233c9088e0e 103908 F20101114_AADKXR mock_t_Page_74.jp2 fbff854e2b548d331ed0118b604ca0b4 029ba59129f954d0da494695e3ee8b88a21d692a F20101114_AADLJL mock_t_Page_65.tif d7ce0b3a0f0c221a95b1c3af1253fd01 8f980469d8f06e4fb2843d890ffb4cb176690f43 6804 F20101114_AADLTH mock_t_Page_69thm.jpg 373bf8dad2d58cd9d95604e40c7fdf1c 2c589094ee67a06aad35a0b4843930a234e4a8b3 1560 F20101114_AADLOK mock_t_Page_62.txt fa711db300de45077e81560079214460 0aafe7d4bea5b1b58c0280e8968a6573d8ecab8d 88997 F20101114_AADLEP mock_t_Page_69.jpg ec838974c82f192835acfa161e7bfd60 93f34b872ada6ef6515759f6ca703be2fb0068eb 2242 F20101114_AADKXS mock_t_Page_75.txt 9d6e8b13ca5308b89637a9781e4d65d3 2e8a5a72d959485149ec5a36bc6859b65f98678f F20101114_AADLJM mock_t_Page_70.tif 8662f366203a0592597982eaa841698f 1dab637e9e9e33a9bc62392586795fad1a5da33a 25514 F20101114_AADLTI mock_t_Page_70.QC.jpg bc27d6e9dfd69dd4804508938da209c9 99ae5758fa7a633615d229e63a2d01df7ab3303a 2145 F20101114_AADLOL mock_t_Page_63.txt e99bc60a98876735c1311dc9b249f55e e7483376477983214cddaab32d624c444ea5db6c 66473 F20101114_AADLEQ mock_t_Page_71.jpg a90a8070518a21a4f0ac33c31d2cdd33 3dd786e22995db1273e3e08f28451a1aa0cb5a38 61872 F20101114_AADKXT mock_t_Page_74.jpg d723a366c02bfd02032e2133f6a489df 6245532893105a60db3dc2dae60fa1557b88f564 F20101114_AADLJN mock_t_Page_71.tif 66d12466c64f7f66803130b5f8793075 8b6788036be2cbcd1f2a2dfa9b6aadf1d9fb62fc 20405 F20101114_AADLTJ mock_t_Page_71.QC.jpg f9630634c18960f1be4d1d6f0c8909a3 7ca5af6233de0993d2e21e383b8d9cffcfac0239 1499 F20101114_AADLOM mock_t_Page_64.txt 9f35c2906e8b744f477cd2e9220208f3 22d4a734476a0b73d17350bc0d23c9d38e07b610 80833 F20101114_AADLER mock_t_Page_72.jpg c6a96ff8d48eb92b63bc3ef89ac98891 64f445f6573a9528a8f2c694693b0e6aed332504 54369 F20101114_AADKXU mock_t_Page_30.pro c2e3f1a14f257a89f28c676e9517b011 ad13accc8e2f271b31377384b15449d4bc6b71c1 F20101114_AADLJO mock_t_Page_72.tif accd06e649cfa00300dcd4e544d64366 9be710495cecd8740ad088074c9bc684d6e5c534 5932 F20101114_AADLTK mock_t_Page_71thm.jpg 737384c7c4718aaf7182b50209fb6d59 8f5656dafb29b4970fbb6178eda28866328b6635 59570 F20101114_AADLES mock_t_Page_73.jpg e5f41b8dd02a4c4613ec6ef81e6e1745 d1e6a525eab702f3a755a367aef0fa5af5e7f068 25607 F20101114_AADKXV mock_t_Page_40.QC.jpg cc06ee7b9be3bb6ef022210977602749 a133cb088244ca0f2600f0ebb6521022cece9743 F20101114_AADLJP mock_t_Page_73.tif 60c63e412578cf17f1ac5d2172f44310 2a2131fe6835bd79786a91f86056976f4ad7a96f 26987 F20101114_AADLTL mock_t_Page_72.QC.jpg 339d6501dbeed815e742ca7d6b02c447 fd2f08f47c274b065599c156d6848179e6441d3d 1866 F20101114_AADLON mock_t_Page_65.txt 9c1f58a396d17306b0b2e57eb6103dc2 4f5c386599fab7771d653843aa809f1462ca895d 62809 F20101114_AADLET mock_t_Page_75.jpg f35342068cb8b40c6ed9eb214c8a8e81 893ba2bae1d035923b1b4b88ea125e5affbda5d9 41017 F20101114_AADKXW mock_t_Page_13.pro ff6309f8175bae9f39389707dfdd2cf7 5d4cecc628593a69706a6bacab78362447b6a6f3 F20101114_AADLJQ mock_t_Page_75.tif 82a309357db86adf749a66b1b5a88732 084b92a33cc6ccd8f6fccb6e80b720460095cb6e 7094 F20101114_AADLTM mock_t_Page_72thm.jpg 1752b986e409c14884fc4da1612e8a08 fa9531fd73dd01096774c27bef5da0f052a06d2f 2089 F20101114_AADLOO mock_t_Page_67.txt 33f74f61f6a94f22ebcb1a2146d4e40b f3d419300a1cc65f291bd703f3b20b15b8a893a1 73794 F20101114_AADLEU mock_t_Page_76.jpg d6811a75485d2d6b1450b33c3cc01cf2 b53eda18a8466a621b1ab3d49d2a27c01ca59454 F20101114_AADLJR mock_t_Page_76.tif 464d1af158e0a43ed04a312c98c58c26 27492222417685e474808b4bc2522686bf5e9d7a 5849 F20101114_AADLTN mock_t_Page_73thm.jpg 63f3f7a2c588756d06cd628e93f80002 db44c950b8ae6791675e41c1278ef82d1752dc3c 2521 F20101114_AADLOP mock_t_Page_68.txt 29e0e4d28728c7d99f663b93004e885d 09f90312dc0bc0c89bcd994c562c7cf6460568f3 105874 F20101114_AADKXX mock_t_Page_75.jp2 3e875b70e7f45538e7d39fee4fc3959f 4284071c6715d0df8cd4541a9ef7234e8d60d3bb F20101114_AADLJS mock_t_Page_77.tif 04ce318ea2ac85951eff83ef6d4bf3b8 cae87c7b417a896658447c0531460b5a9db0305c 53510 F20101114_AADLEV mock_t_Page_77.jpg e156c97fa22bd9e5d8953ef0a9794c20 cdf790c2a37676632b5d76e64b88d5a18aad0b43 18924 F20101114_AADLTO mock_t_Page_74.QC.jpg 1ff3fa39320ba03cadc9c2740f1dbd05 2a9709bce9d20f7eb73fb7055e0b0b10d3756c3d 1770 F20101114_AADLOQ mock_t_Page_69.txt fcdc00d25de20597e0bb8f9177b2af55 647d0beb2c6b7c346d39d68b4576b1cc992ddb6e 29065 F20101114_AADKXY mock_t_Page_55.pro 7776f6c5501f0d80eae737630a2bbfcc 1d9a42acaca00e5aa6ae536315df17ff0e66c2d3 F20101114_AADLJT mock_t_Page_78.tif cfc33fcc34dc7ecf1d20f7d1b1f8f6d8 b400bfacafb6c0a8aba9384a883fefb323ba0060 56681 F20101114_AADLEW mock_t_Page_78.jpg ccc4aeb927ed6e1a971ad485d6dbc94a 6f0b1459a4b3e5478c32aa3e4dbc6b0055682f67 19389 F20101114_AADLTP mock_t_Page_75.QC.jpg f6743f180c7f76b480924450d0817482 7f570dc0e21f86d84316225677363d24ad895ce3 2630 F20101114_AADLOR mock_t_Page_70.txt e830a74f07ac457c253e5bcfa9ee7b1f bf2ced70b3ceaf67a45326bfcb6215de2785b0b5 F20101114_AADKXZ mock_t_Page_67.tif 08b7189530d84a9909fb70b6b009a867 9c0d432efde4b9bfd46ad01538a7afe7a109f549 F20101114_AADLJU mock_t_Page_79.tif aba697953dd22d21ce5e9d3ee2a4a0e0 7db859a5b126f41d3dd53aeb33e676103c0f7059 60721 F20101114_AADLEX mock_t_Page_80.jpg 8f4eba354bae7c3d6d8ce5050941d860 b58adf181eb41d787ff72a68eb17b2dec3a69cb0 24639 F20101114_AADLTQ mock_t_Page_76.QC.jpg cb95709dcd4b5e003b02d3568f2c270b 7b70bbdbb43aa7085fc507e2fb096f92f088c26c 2235 F20101114_AADLOS mock_t_Page_72.txt 6a7187d60b41ac7afe07383336b3a9b2 f4234ae65ec4885286b2c1cc2526c4f3e5252774 F20101114_AADLJV mock_t_Page_81.tif bc5a7fa630046c3e4c3a06316f8c7b65 a03ea4d7a7370463ef0e84045348816049016e4e F20101114_AADLCA mock_t_Page_57.tif 6e1213dc7097f242b3d527b406e10b94 4c7798ef3d0c76d83cd23d930ab71a7cd42c4272 20815 F20101114_AADLEY mock_t_Page_81.jpg 0abf4a58dc92bd50ce6814ee21e2f72e d98635caf28eabd529ddcbe9e4369064b555f44e 6721 F20101114_AADLTR mock_t_Page_76thm.jpg 4760f2a272466350051e0839d99cac5b 01e7892dea90c741ef9f24a5d630bcd7ce23ad1c 911 F20101114_AADLOT mock_t_Page_74.txt eb5c8c89b7d887917f0bd51642762bcb fd5cb164d8c413caf9751f8e394c9a8c5113094e F20101114_AADLJW mock_t_Page_82.tif b5202d2be259ebde9b971c6feb30c877 714d31af267df9f0cfb6bea9389fba3fd12a11b9 66982 F20101114_AADLEZ mock_t_Page_82.jpg 5aefa79ab0a097176463524a3e7b2a78 fa47786b81f54ddd9c33fb94f7443a901174c690 2061 F20101114_AADLOU mock_t_Page_76.txt d0cd46274f65408f0dc2a899072b1be6 6ba7cc84c4a9c287c71539669f96c0d109156bfc F20101114_AADLJX mock_t_Page_83.tif 18d26014f8d9550afb0509391f3d33d3 bceaeed63db1aa936622a3453d8b060177a064b2 1092 F20101114_AADLCB mock_t_Page_79.txt 217a636c0a6d5a3773747d3dadfb0826 92512023d9dda622432e27780b3d3e7a7aaecaf7 17499 F20101114_AADLTS mock_t_Page_77.QC.jpg cc15ff9fc42976b331ee07519d280920 a6bcb5ef1778fa12bf89188c7d7141deebb74e08 1147 F20101114_AADLOV mock_t_Page_77.txt 46a2ce44384f0098cb0072a85d544fca 182eb5612c16ce85576df412bd934f8bc05f7515 100455 F20101114_AADLHA mock_t_Page_73.jp2 944d7c823a4be4cb5f86a86af21c3274 2f9ee0282c5a587a372262352f7a89936bcac34d F20101114_AADLJY mock_t_Page_84.tif 16aec5072f812b80c0b06d747c9713f4 2fe3c028410301c79166815b5f67f8e730729354 1693 F20101114_AADLCC mock_t_Page_16.txt 0bcebb58e90a24c49db710dc856505d9 1d95472f912a655cb9743ceb7d485835b985ba5b 5494 F20101114_AADLTT mock_t_Page_77thm.jpg edacd8924bbfb8f2b0c1363d236e54a3 4ecc9e195d9eac24b203045cf8a33dde13d2bd0d 1840 F20101114_AADLOW mock_t_Page_82.txt 4057a51cc37f8643d9327b50dad8d181 7e0760dffbe4ed814dede0e5ad19b5b89c4fb4bc 110601 F20101114_AADLHB mock_t_Page_76.jp2 5e2cf2ca00ded630dc5cc13d3c8c2419 d245340dca1e7939571e9dfa7ae31ce0d72cbd72 F20101114_AADLJZ mock_t_Page_85.tif f80ea148150548b1a22fae976c244ccc baf46349ca77e4f569d36feabd81e8fc4ee2b3d2 66277 F20101114_AADLCD mock_t_Page_83.jpg 45377e0e3a50ffd9fe4e63fcd1791032 d5127426f49411d52b45ecfdfee1b4ebe279e42e 18340 F20101114_AADLTU mock_t_Page_78.QC.jpg f9b3b932c94595eb73bf3bc8004f826a aa0d979a4c258af3af534be7d02a60b88836caf6 2083 F20101114_AADLOX mock_t_Page_85.txt 4801ef2b61d4ec73aa309d549d308fa8 f72fba15a39cefcd21b77e54fd19079e1b0efe1c 725437 F20101114_AADLHC mock_t_Page_77.jp2 26342cf10ce920336bc6c4bf739c9e0c e45d11f21fbccec87e02a46d525c871909120931 83049 F20101114_AADLCE mock_t_Page_05.jpg 7725a918c56e83d7a04275c61aba920f facbd0031e5d335144fc87959bf5c97bd340c841 5786 F20101114_AADLTV mock_t_Page_78thm.jpg 1675f8980c11d20656fe96424eb56e70 ce8866c8dafa324097af1dce044f05e2f553fe49 519 F20101114_AADLOY mock_t_Page_86.txt 5b334f36a07b69d6d70f1a54c9ae1267 7aa222f5f66843be029ceae877aa0ec2ca8c5405 684240 F20101114_AADLHD mock_t_Page_79.jp2 046f336eb9d4f2b8ccdb22e54d24fcb4 243874dd2fd39c2342c58278fe727233e694e04c 726797 F20101114_AADLCF mock_t_Page_61.jp2 0c00f462c19022584d6f94d455bb802d 74838cdff4f13fe4bc7b1bf2d598e6d4f188808f 62784 F20101114_AADLMA mock_t_Page_68.pro edf6ab4402c84d58e6d3a66f1944deb5 eef08bba79170bd80db6b472264ec2ef42fe1457 20547 F20101114_AADLTW mock_t_Page_79.QC.jpg f7f501036134d79581884f5c4b1f42cd e74efecff977ca4b680fb8638ef2b949deb60451 2492988 F20101114_AADLOZ mock_t.pdf 4c155e5872555126cad07a404924342f 03cc9666b7d92e3c0dd3bebedb6e4e77a8f77378 88047 F20101114_AADLHE mock_t_Page_80.jp2 a5845439650c6c030df6a0ae2a58f9b6 c71b8c30aa73b7c52c4baf6cc7c6a29d894c38c7 904 F20101114_AADLCG mock_t_Page_84.txt 9d0f161836f6c46d50e3cfe34446720d 3fdc21d8f9858081aadc851ad5dec8a4dcb96b0f 42669 F20101114_AADLMB mock_t_Page_69.pro 67eb621ec08ebcbfff1c9638345d5237 7d533fefd37f8270d3d78f3343bc507140ebc5e3 6293 F20101114_AADLTX mock_t_Page_79thm.jpg 51eaad9fa58dc69e88653972cbfabbdb 09f53bfe041c5b93e973a099f92f8ac76d11e9b5 24110 F20101114_AADLHF mock_t_Page_81.jp2 0751de10a8f8d7e5ff94d7b8fba06025 3ce878a4f879574250f1695ccda805762a3c884e 19903 F20101114_AADLCH mock_t_Page_60.QC.jpg 73a5f25db8b68abdba438dc19e90a6a4 be0d7dff129bfffba6d6fb1cf1c15aa656c36f2d 41888 F20101114_AADLMC mock_t_Page_70.pro 7a5f08aed46840a294fa4798b8b84bd6 7c386cc3b12715943e50ccb8edaabcc177b126a2 21044 F20101114_AADLTY mock_t_Page_80.QC.jpg e1463c56fdb1165843c338477d494a3b a2203f3d864bcd65a04551fdac00d62e5298195a 5200 F20101114_AADLRA mock_t_Page_33thm.jpg 1d09898577529d2891d2e85c4232c411 7b00da5c7fc637554e503dadaf5658c43a49391c F20101114_AADLCI mock_t_Page_22.tif 5719ca5993718b1331301a6f3f4093af 0b4511411a9448225ea92687cdc93b09145becbf 33086 F20101114_AADLMD mock_t_Page_73.pro 7ee5c22baa7584ad35b40e3408a4f4d6 a5c86b4c571e193541034cc8a7ea6b9a28b69900 6054 F20101114_AADLTZ mock_t_Page_80thm.jpg c02707e09ceb092fc22fa42d8ac19c67 494ae9ba096ca95b9b2ff81297e8ee3469eb7164 18211 F20101114_AADLRB mock_t_Page_34.QC.jpg fc110d39779570ff755a3a9a2b266a0d f461e71176a648ed8067b78a0c1d6ea2913ef83d 50356 F20101114_AADLHG mock_t_Page_84.jp2 1f5bbb13710314cb29034c0218010d7d f2a36221c0305a3a59d04edf29d15cc817ffdf04 24449 F20101114_AADLCJ mock_t_Page_63.QC.jpg 3c9028d2f4682ff4346a16b39bbfab0e 559183d77576c4fccd05e94d7d3fe63cc5249ef6 20633 F20101114_AADLME mock_t_Page_77.pro ba88a243a740e2a17ef1dc9bdf71c5cb 192bcc87f294db71d9bd6ef2de0696c9c3326693 5338 F20101114_AADLRC mock_t_Page_34thm.jpg fa7151e5c53feb5fe4a25d7bae5eb2ab dbd1826c61cd7af4d70afb0a6d219f815bd3ac7b 112919 F20101114_AADLHH mock_t_Page_85.jp2 2af70e3d88b1f7a0a873b962a5061669 fb4a1658625eb8fb96d9ebb43334906ff25895dc 88033 F20101114_AADLCK mock_t_Page_49.jpg 26906e9d58d514eeedc8d9a37fb7189e cb4a0321b21488d2b16c0b62d54a5714cabc213e 25863 F20101114_AADLMF mock_t_Page_78.pro a9c9f7c931a9cbdb18bc845cf5957930 89f949c234d47dfd73c571fac841d2942eb74326 18058 F20101114_AADLRD mock_t_Page_35.QC.jpg 7928310ec757bda39ffa29554f079e35 4e590d3203f1fea416b32d24fb35324a060149e5 29561 F20101114_AADLHI mock_t_Page_86.jp2 12ea4b1b108a1a7a79a26fb8c0c4d46c d3b6cb133d70ce60f8d08b33e3384da05e8131c9 128625 F20101114_AADLCL UFE0021460_00001.xml FULL bb39f7462da293837f2b9553847f1eba d8b21f08af18caaa43405866cea23db6a3386fee 22337 F20101114_AADLMG mock_t_Page_79.pro 7753b80e42fd6c726ec99f283ef0c30b 8edfbcc7692e9d64547fbd0a821f13a6c0f9fb9d 5356 F20101114_AADLRE mock_t_Page_35thm.jpg 7e4b1a4d9dfe3726199038e869d3a6c0 b2861b890b8fbf615063beace24a1433d5eb5485 F20101114_AADLHJ mock_t_Page_01.tif c06b67ddf9ec742fd2e2a86c57707a5a 5d273bce40e3bfd3fb184b8a3ac01f78c391455b 39209 F20101114_AADLMH mock_t_Page_80.pro b18129cf09afe6b531d8ae33638a0017 9823738b7e35624182fd5435d70199b770906b35 12320 F20101114_AADLRF mock_t_Page_36.QC.jpg b91c5d52eb5f941dc6f8714e66ec0c30 812a663053a760ddb131a08d2d5d31a661edc3c0 F20101114_AADLHK mock_t_Page_02.tif 1846e14cc872d603e563d56dbd11c285 a874c5bd83b0a4d3ba1a652c98a22588fc627e83 9736 F20101114_AADLMI mock_t_Page_81.pro 5bd0e27aa972143ce876f98c756b4e67 648e0c45924d7628b827afd2949461fade9d6403 4454 F20101114_AADLRG mock_t_Page_36thm.jpg 951cc16f29987bd51b37533596125680 e53da9cef01d8d2d877b5a80fd0fe32bf2538f9b F20101114_AADLHL mock_t_Page_04.tif 95520830eb8631437de5b9dbaa5d981b c1d28d6a8d67ab384316091dd87047f83bd9ca5d 25483 F20101114_AADLCO mock_t_Page_01.jpg 7fee5cf10aed879d12685db3847a8ca8 d0623f04260b2a09eb9961b240b43594f510e3b5 44311 F20101114_AADLMJ mock_t_Page_82.pro 8707e60f9ae7daea3475733d8acccbc0 52746a0bfa9f91ef468998074cdf76817120d4a2 4027 F20101114_AADLRH mock_t_Page_37thm.jpg 7345235dfcb5e53d0bd03ed58762d05f 515c1a7ca818b29eb50e90efad5bb17e0fba7d71 F20101114_AADLHM mock_t_Page_05.tif 253a5e7d75cb23dfab9c12dd793f97cf 459eb7d6c423c135eba929da887b224458e7f271 9730 F20101114_AADLCP mock_t_Page_02.jpg 1da197e611a97d6fe57df3f6fb3eb383 e0bc72f9f2333e2fe6bba33984fbd8eaaeb9d2c2 45151 F20101114_AADLMK mock_t_Page_83.pro d3a306b62e6dd004e99a475b764e81ba c7958cd59a76c1489310ef19449692efa143f7b1 21250 F20101114_AADLRI mock_t_Page_38.QC.jpg e01be551fbe3760666b68d400e9a82b4 ccf45a4bc442be8b4e3a63d3fd20a4f5522e647b F20101114_AADLHN mock_t_Page_06.tif fa380310a5622585aed71d50af919d83 1e049fa1d07a9e1afcc46665fd86c49f6012f55e 13308 F20101114_AADLCQ mock_t_Page_03.jpg 264b7e3ee54080640c78018019c7ba85 016679182fb3f3f5900491a4b47686159bda8bf8 5916 F20101114_AADLRJ mock_t_Page_38thm.jpg f9507edfcf3f961d910da1926c3ee417 ac8c6f1895fd86ab30ed3898275fffd712c03a10 F20101114_AADLHO mock_t_Page_07.tif 58f3d86bc27d003543ca7a16d500d0de 168cce2755db7174d1a8a26612443e5805e2d438 23707 F20101114_AADLCR mock_t_Page_04.jpg 314080e3d7ffcdd1cfa8cac8744585b0 2df9e8fee94e83f3c39545d87ae9bd2591a08022 21838 F20101114_AADLML mock_t_Page_84.pro 30600cfc05ec751aebb5634a916b9f8c 7858d93368f02b84a97905dcce53fb3736b304e5 9711 F20101114_AADLRK mock_t_Page_39.QC.jpg ac074979a02b91da09a1fd3da4107b33 f6c4738431f0c0a3843b3332a9c17f358ee5e8b3 51175 F20101114_AADLMM mock_t_Page_85.pro bceec7ed02e054ff8b89be23f3d54d8a 1a37a8b10ec0e03b7397bb5d5db33eba7dc3bb8c F20101114_AADLHP mock_t_Page_08.tif c9ed6c024799e647bb5479d1be8cf98c f4f0aa8d5ea6ab4d9e79899565663ce5e2b097bd 71272 F20101114_AADLCS mock_t_Page_06.jpg da0c123a025a6a117804aced799523f7 bc2e076ec6069ec0f8ad17a05a04e6880d4e8a4f 3142 F20101114_AADLRL mock_t_Page_39thm.jpg 5c565740f08c34559d569eeda6dabdc3 3d463e9219ba025e7e08e6a335f74580cda8016c 506 F20101114_AADLMN mock_t_Page_01.txt d0a2f0f443b5732b1e7de98c698bbf85 ee1380e82387d5a8154a32f5203ee1edaaaf9aab F20101114_AADLHQ mock_t_Page_09.tif 03575954fabd071064a0907faa430701 72e4b304bbd3dfddb8a4192e934bab5954527de9 74568 F20101114_AADLCT mock_t_Page_07.jpg b2bda32dc3c25aef8b6427ee6c71787a bab10fe0b14a321264e7bd4c89e525877f3afbb6 26114 F20101114_AADLRM mock_t_Page_41.QC.jpg f74d658689abf9fab61f31717115a147 17d504cd1718a06c3ddf1c57a98feaa64745167f 80 F20101114_AADLMO mock_t_Page_02.txt 74cbdd348fd2366010e20b01523d8275 59bd641b0946e36cd4367b22708dd9f3d35420bb 107015 F20101114_AADLCU mock_t_Page_09.jpg 6c26784945e0702048055a354eb7fbe4 6fffb114167359c03b8932136cbce08ea1fcc025 F20101114_AADLHR mock_t_Page_10.tif a119cd1f8d36fc8930f11d7fa9262e28 58794692c778091aab7bd2819d95e1d53c8eca55 7138 F20101114_AADLRN mock_t_Page_41thm.jpg 7e68407555e469a97e6e411fa5d3e187 e2dc8299da8fea5b0bb0bba209f122ec17e1120b 2711 F20101114_AADLMP mock_t_Page_06.txt 79d9ed35c8b22d81227d82cfe03adcf3 9344267644378a16bb8ff8c5a1df5ab74d8a4693 21469 F20101114_AADLCV mock_t_Page_10.jpg b396752f52a0f10d74c3db8501936c39 e996ebb9a9358f6f0377fe6400dac077182d27fb F20101114_AADLHS mock_t_Page_11.tif f10138604197e3b405247006db18e595 7e3ba5223e2c640aa4659313cb7423b03753c5cd 24453 F20101114_AADLRO mock_t_Page_42.QC.jpg d09558ee75aeaad4be6992d74ec58a07 9dcc7a5219b866ed0044c0cb067cb33ee07e07b5 2321 F20101114_AADLMQ mock_t_Page_07.txt ecc04eeffc6541108e0df1842c37a3ac cce840a199a6178495f9c5f5ae6b2e0894fa9681 23416 F20101114_AADLCW mock_t_Page_12.jpg a1de09ae107ea85b6e8ce70a1e77f0fb 58211f13b0b037fc69099907a506acb92cd2c671 F20101114_AADLHT mock_t_Page_12.tif 3823da50156836643323821436555c82 54dc0a5552b020327012058a908d66ca0dbf34a9 6571 F20101114_AADLRP mock_t_Page_42thm.jpg a107f6517f288f447542bc318fadefa7 f7063addb1b02633a1e119626883c23a56101595 2578 F20101114_AADLMR mock_t_Page_08.txt 85a5c5b578dee12d65376fba050daa6c 4948f29375d6d3b218ea917bdb957dab6d6fe6af 62612 F20101114_AADLCX mock_t_Page_13.jpg 5aa740e4623acdf3c3577d8e44cf5a02 224e0128dd89d87b529e45d79c4e96c63d572746 F20101114_AADLHU mock_t_Page_13.tif 6eff04f0845d41be8d27e11dba387665 065fe7122dea560e299bc9c1fadfa0f4173196a7 2947 F20101114_AADLMS mock_t_Page_09.txt 1953b7f1af39233ee0627f346eedeb14 571518c54107495db0f6100ff4644eb815344788 44632 F20101114_AADLCY mock_t_Page_15.jpg 5986ef1c70bac1777fe96c18f1cc0511 4a85292d8e297b12b95c1299534b05c6f2ec2d5d F20101114_AADLHV mock_t_Page_15.tif cf1e417d5f9cc9acd8dc3956a93e66d7 c1e747a424032fe43f6916ce8bdc2468a12d6740 19339 F20101114_AADLRQ mock_t_Page_43.QC.jpg b2812b790abc51c5a46d431b400cb5e9 5f516aa07d143f3afaca517476b337f2421c6b16 415 F20101114_AADLMT mock_t_Page_10.txt a0fdae6cef578648b777f86e7d65e575 763752f9014215088d1dc5cef840702e8afc3ce2 64241 F20101114_AADLAA mock_t_Page_24.jpg 3668ed48561932bf9fc8fbadeaf5f036 f9f737ddbe113ab6e74aef1113b24d05d304ce66 54600 F20101114_AADLCZ mock_t_Page_16.jpg a4aa054c37bdc7553e5b4f8e5e95911d e20a1c00e0874db6d2adf4fff70a1439a7bf6db7 F20101114_AADLHW mock_t_Page_16.tif ba1894a947645820dbb813fd04862a87 20a96f9cb6c202403ede37f6ccef3aebfe8e0b6b 698681 F20101114_AADKYA mock_t_Page_78.jp2 64d573cb9a00842244b3784b01e7bdcc 62fcce0812c4552b3c3a9a60ddeba79e81ea5119 5650 F20101114_AADLRR mock_t_Page_43thm.jpg df15dd30f54caf368ec4f998d8f48dba 0b65f8435890243b3ea1c6038ed8b3b95b108df8 2059 F20101114_AADLMU mock_t_Page_11.txt d3a5963fc1907bc7df7ac8155627b0c1 a465b4badce75c1875a17838242a00801e45f212 5189 F20101114_AADLAB mock_t_Page_32thm.jpg e3ac312ec315f31dc3ff11237e46cdcc e1e6bc2f41ac16511cc11faea5d3e56743b843af F20101114_AADLHX mock_t_Page_18.tif fc75f1683ccd23665217857a536d968f bb408d56e5b698b5a5c750b87d264742f594d47d 18711 F20101114_AADKYB mock_t_Page_73.QC.jpg d4647629ceba061061105154fbe1c57c d00e3220439032ab7d57d1d52cd093bad6e0c40f 5955 F20101114_AADLRS mock_t_Page_44thm.jpg 4debf5be3c65d648ba17e2ea2744c35c 148b775bc58f4a6e2cdd50f26f6c7f904fd79432 484 F20101114_AADLMV mock_t_Page_12.txt 75042aaec5bc65612f6e9c6013eccb16 d36d2fc2460868f3b7a60beb283d9f5fec89f4fb 3224 F20101114_AADLAC mock_t_Page_05.txt fe1076c0b42c6c4b7a181e4af2c9b57a 84f960580c8fd30ac9cab40456117666251cceef 37564 F20101114_AADLFA mock_t_Page_84.jpg 9ee67e370aa1c25a7169be8251b2dc56 14d7824cf1e0fff6415d1ac64239635c5d25d058 F20101114_AADLHY mock_t_Page_19.tif 858101e0732b5ba2c6a49207eca75b13 b5984399465d0d5a6853f9dddf4037beb3fec56c 2483 F20101114_AADKYC mock_t_Page_86thm.jpg a034fd0a3dd15ecf671e878c2839c864 0c1f971b3207c55778ac49b66991f97960e8da87 21257 F20101114_AADLRT mock_t_Page_45.QC.jpg 83f02b2685d28c0f72760dba2e8a52d1 a048224e7e31591e5322c9c68df09a8d70fa0ed4 1811 F20101114_AADLMW mock_t_Page_13.txt 4fcd3b7f63487dcee244bc11a8b70a34 e56997d05371a41b95fe86240ce38cef9dd1b013 5673 F20101114_AADLAD mock_t_Page_74thm.jpg 4c2a08b47c1a6cc507c3188234dc99a1 0a6129ac682c6d275bffbe8974d215e5f054152a 73070 F20101114_AADLFB mock_t_Page_85.jpg a9af91a50b0b97c159239b53a4d4ab29 405cf5e0a93a5f825b6ff75f2abddf2159b6a71a F20101114_AADLHZ mock_t_Page_20.tif 83c03d8d23d522aec21c3704cc9dd48f 6d6ab128935ec2915e44aa728c7e28130aff8395 12170 F20101114_AADKYD mock_t_Page_12.pro 2e2283ec5c977550721031bc85516ae5 4b7c2a29b5bdd40f2a7cfa2ba2fef8b3de15fcb8 6556 F20101114_AADLRU mock_t_Page_45thm.jpg 41cd265c693a46642480dc180a832e3a 92f6085f06db09bcdb30742151e05a528fa30439 1627 F20101114_AADLMX mock_t_Page_14.txt c094474c8b9f4d9bd456c1baa7cfbe91 a6bf6c654be09ebd44471bab82896abfd518ca38 27093 F20101114_AADLFC mock_t_Page_01.jp2 490bd50f80613824d7b5ab151178e5d7 74a441e4e224bf0c37fe3fa982b70d8db88e0920 91547 F20101114_AADKYE mock_t_Page_13.jp2 b140b6f958b4af4cfc8a08b76b3e6faa 4d97e535c24a01a268f406dfdc67ef9868c4b92e 100000 F20101114_AADLAE mock_t_Page_83.jp2 957f462ca955f96d3fc97a92f5219762 c4be3da11ee350fc4a91324e8b9e45deec084d2e 11529 F20101114_AADLRV mock_t_Page_46.QC.jpg 5a1fa7b50b5ade875909aeeaf8a602c3 c1ad74286dcde90392bdaeb4ac893f3b3d49e218 1318 F20101114_AADLMY mock_t_Page_15.txt 653dc430e7a76ca32727f398c8fa7581 d468a9e34508adb8c7ff83d89ddbdc4f72c2eb1b F20101114_AADLKA mock_t_Page_86.tif 54673231cb4c6b70872214f7a4164551 c17c00d64ec857ee0b7f4c0696f31b95bc0ba34a 5717 F20101114_AADLFD mock_t_Page_02.jp2 1c05f395ada137348dd3dd89d3fa0baa 9f5e26d4df74f3be20a0435ab32f577bedd9e856 6202 F20101114_AADKYF mock_t_Page_85thm.jpg 876055711d024708becb52281be56032 8fd6227cccb98af2eaf476f190dff319e0e2ce06 F20101114_AADLAF mock_t_Page_80.tif 67207281daf210d408d495a7b6b1d458 7027d0f51046163e17c21ee6a5fc5c744bf2d71a 3942 F20101114_AADLRW mock_t_Page_46thm.jpg d15f03f61fd15942df656dd32f2d0db5 4f78e022307be9ab9eef1028c914c604d2186171 2069 F20101114_AADLMZ mock_t_Page_17.txt 4d032b0b0789ac7a9fcde4e7c3aa58eb 15cadb292b0284268dc407db25ec60a1431fabef 8921 F20101114_AADLKB mock_t_Page_01.pro 85c8d5550a54772acb147a017ce59f02 50e1f80c7aed0e7314750d2e8e1b91bf0fbb2fdd 7184 F20101114_AADKYG mock_t_Page_40thm.jpg 489d89f3437ffda8d3c276e6a31cdadc e138af2396a439f52d5828b31aa651526d9cb0ae 72643 F20101114_AADLAG mock_t_Page_11.jpg d1bffaf31c3c37545651a77df78161d5 2b1213810cf23d6e2c53f468ffe13523f9299752 26838 F20101114_AADLRX mock_t_Page_47.QC.jpg ef95a7de85c917868cf35330cf2a54c1 22b7df48f39bdb510bc11ab8c658d343430122ad 931 F20101114_AADLKC mock_t_Page_02.pro 35f1426c0ec69a29af02699674a74a98 af56e66b1bfad18dd6f2d9c44f0e5aec167f4a0c 12717 F20101114_AADLFE mock_t_Page_03.jp2 b3ae03fc62b4a6f851cda273bbd6a0d5 52581861fd1a046c5b7070352a3286d2d15d2530 108263 F20101114_AADKYH mock_t_Page_67.jp2 b562dc5d61b1f5c1d97ae6303a46a94f 55a37275ec2b6d28cd19ac19deb2a172f1226a4a 65598 F20101114_AADLAH mock_t_Page_51.jpg 0d8550bbec04c09a7142f544de12250a 3311320dd508e19c2af1052ecc603145939e5db8 6936 F20101114_AADLRY mock_t_Page_47thm.jpg dff8cac45625f28d045775cd21940a1b 1d05e397d2b25ca0179c40b9222f2712455da74a 2400 F20101114_AADLPA mock_t_Page_01thm.jpg 2f24801e3c773013c0127110d721573a 9d44eef6acd932241ab929af7d231fdb1376b316 4404 F20101114_AADLKD mock_t_Page_03.pro 9753a027befe1681966661272c71f571 cc10c52ba969eb14b3bdb8ca38dc08e85cb68a99 27755 F20101114_AADLFF mock_t_Page_04.jp2 d0ad321179c680337109eec3a5bb85de cae2aa4cdefaeac6d6774493e6e80ca8d226ed24 6325 F20101114_AADKYI mock_t_Page_19thm.jpg 7565211592aaf5b755c814637c576d55 be035b42ec573159f629876648fb2b64ec39020f 1895 F20101114_AADLAI mock_t_Page_83.txt ad9817bb51ea67bb2d32dbf6a5e326e7 a37dff67600bb231331451e57b3ccd9dc491a1a4 22815 F20101114_AADLRZ mock_t_Page_48.QC.jpg 3fa22776793c24fb4166a70869bfdb1c a1ed92c45403a28bcafd74518939f7b638c7c318 7647 F20101114_AADLPB mock_t_Page_01.QC.jpg 658d050b2c0613f9311ec558bb0ea3e0 6be4edc03b05299b9029ef370d751b1c6056d365 10938 F20101114_AADLKE mock_t_Page_04.pro 95054d9460cb25612f9cbc1b4ca890ad 7c982f3045415146c2df9b9eb30626079be6ecbf 1051976 F20101114_AADLFG mock_t_Page_05.jp2 188166ac6fb91c159747465aac3f1d35 479695c2ca3ac170ae55fc7db91e9eafa2c15930 6125 F20101114_AADKYJ mock_t_Page_10.QC.jpg 631dd05e032dcd5c9b884d198d6e57c1 921587be405c61509c6ba99cf9883f9b04fdf74b 16845 F20101114_AADLAJ mock_t_Page_60.pro cd0d7183c4e073b027d5554d8a3276c2 cd623c26865f51ec6e0d6b132cbfce1526db286c 1354 F20101114_AADLPC mock_t_Page_02thm.jpg 8bc458d964a2f29404dac474459c289e fed00aa3316e5077222740b0731b43f2a1dca897 73707 F20101114_AADLKF mock_t_Page_05.pro 2d6652df15e19ff519486051942dec8c fd5dda42672f2fc19d375d27f8aaf43689cbc59d 1051973 F20101114_AADLFH mock_t_Page_06.jp2 2ee7cb76ca30e33e34c79da656e551e0 c45924ec78df5c1b44a83b89209d08cbfb2dc413 25228 F20101114_AADKYK mock_t_Page_57.QC.jpg 7f7a39fdc3448cb3774c38cdf0eea30d a3dc966a37d9dd9fa343342b553617571d99b2e9 20053 F20101114_AADLAK mock_t_Page_37.pro ff713c0130ef69c03d4e1a495eb1298b dda85828ae1c718c0b98d10e369f9031c47e4510 6682 F20101114_AADLUA mock_t_Page_81.QC.jpg 5429c46864e97aea8e03fa67ae99bf7a 1445b56dd53dbcea5d12c76ad1590d3792ac64f3 1788 F20101114_AADLPD mock_t_Page_03thm.jpg 929ce8007e53cfd830788ecec2fb6391 9ba5b1d0b3e710fe2e9fc5f5c0dd5f253df67a4c F20101114_AADLKG mock_t_Page_06.pro 27bc4c12e18f3a2c8a9c2e20d5fe9c94 fe8999668fde1c796917abe9115266b672a94b2d 1051986 F20101114_AADLFI mock_t_Page_09.jp2 69015f812a57768e1a129c0c5f13d951 55d664cc306a7cbfc9e8aec55cb4cd5c28768078 1051983 F20101114_AADKYL mock_t_Page_08.jp2 abb2250fa462640e1cbfaf00716b954e b3a0b3154dd5062c6315cc7cd5baa231681aff19 21523 F20101114_AADLAL mock_t_Page_33.pro 995e615e45e5dd50559d3901611b4a7e 354b8a981362192240bee408b34d34781a0650bd 2303 F20101114_AADLUB mock_t_Page_81thm.jpg 2668cce890e794f5150a5eb3b57e2465 9ecfdcf51c998b8bce48c6b00bba518201398add 7627 F20101114_AADLPE mock_t_Page_04.QC.jpg 969fbc541fc5d3e757d2b00b0763d1a7 c66d86b92d3ee31f74a9761f08522e3a07e460e6 56573 F20101114_AADLKH mock_t_Page_07.pro 2b0668dc119ba68ffc8255305001f15c 8c808d6132a716bc81e0e53fbf67a6b1e7eeea91 428303 F20101114_AADLFJ mock_t_Page_10.jp2 328397b9a7c2e4a3f3e9dc798e1d428c a957b888b523c6e21904fbb4c1cb19511e3db274 38789 F20101114_AADKYM mock_t_Page_14.pro c74abeaf969d294d3b0bc30c3162210a 031713bd7bc030a15f0ff2a3a6a17650ac19101b 16950 F20101114_AADLAM mock_t_Page_25.QC.jpg ccec69428bd57ff1358a139a543b476c a45df879796bdb96a113f84a4dde93eb6dd13946 21314 F20101114_AADLUC mock_t_Page_82.QC.jpg dfdefb18ea6c33c06b8f30c24c214ac6 7068fa4a14f810c7faa20406dae43ee7502a282d 2368 F20101114_AADLPF mock_t_Page_04thm.jpg 21cbd8ee5d00638c0369ad66819ff29a e5ffdaf8b6b7f7be917a9c5d8c9d20e5ea2edf73 72610 F20101114_AADLKI mock_t_Page_09.pro 23e4dbcaefba83882d08fabbdcb7004a da5b8ae1e908adbfc8f658f68a11496c123fd13a 65014 F20101114_AADLFK mock_t_Page_15.jp2 bbaa9ad074557953b1c6cbf6b442c2f9 bb5e69b507cf52df290dde1ad76422b255b00d58 32074 F20101114_AADKYN mock_t_Page_22.jp2 43d79b2a33320e0f6962bcefb4b04e6b 86fc839f15a0c11fa47c7315b67fae90288bec06 1195 F20101114_AADLAN mock_t_Page_78.txt 65d073b04f7a3006a53881a92eecdddd 182a054342e7e8dceb22e218302518e9cc0cc10a 6095 F20101114_AADLUD mock_t_Page_82thm.jpg a5410587893a079fac0c6474a1e077a6 a9ec1327e180f4d4b8af41a3839d6ffe1e3e85e5 22167 F20101114_AADLPG mock_t_Page_05.QC.jpg 94fb1a879ff12f1bf2a871acd33fcc41 b5aa73a3b3021dff382aa89f19f8dfd8e572ea48 81885 F20101114_AADLFL mock_t_Page_16.jp2 47a4fe80d5a46ede3242b0de2ad32b7c e1640e6907342560edee79c59307b572fe10f0c4 F20101114_AADKYO mock_t_Page_60.tif e5e0f51cd15f78872833a05df7beebe4 7e9252bd0e81517646ba6924714eb379320433d8 22865 F20101114_AADLAO mock_t_Page_44.QC.jpg 4ea7ec22c1e64265d58953f9bad73682 f62003e173df1d1dbfd3fb68fad19d3254b70ae4 21353 F20101114_AADLUE mock_t_Page_83.QC.jpg 572699833aff4e2f650a5ea05b644b5b 6741d8cd1d6ab0fb0ba38fc46ecdd331d88347ad 5497 F20101114_AADLPH mock_t_Page_05thm.jpg e07c2e2e880f2172a37128e3ef79ce7d 793b29d02412fd502eae8dc6ee20569fdd4485c6 9965 F20101114_AADLKJ mock_t_Page_10.pro 36530332a76b193bf52fd3518e693134 c24f173cdf0919069f34527d565fc5970f2080a7 95294 F20101114_AADLFM mock_t_Page_18.jp2 268c5a4a75319e60d44ee353d7b35234 6293c96db50beab0e992a8a4a9f2da8fe791742f 1140 F20101114_AADKYP mock_t_Page_34.txt c6bdaddd5619f72b9e5b5910148239d8 aee1a6e4a894c1037a6330e8c652ad252fa20cde 29865 F20101114_AADLAP mock_t_Page_12.jp2 d7a5dd354461534ff6403bdbd4b0ac08 b6b3c4b48c9f5733d5df2d45731a35f58e38c8b1 3601 F20101114_AADLUF mock_t_Page_84thm.jpg 43d655f4a3dd3659cb75ebe6e8812aa8 5ee888539671d1fd3f271f5dddda12ef5e67f422 18245 F20101114_AADLPI mock_t_Page_06.QC.jpg 2db84d5af844b920c7ecf880aa2319fd 23c10e2804fe01895412b0394aceab918902c431 47552 F20101114_AADLKK mock_t_Page_11.pro 995b22115d8f851d90235f69b2a57a1a 0c64aba80846f88a30dac8323c23375754649373 113000 F20101114_AADLFN mock_t_Page_20.jp2 b029a0321ee4b1dc07d702dfed764f2a 9bc1cab79696455ad52e546aa937d54888d884d5 23288 F20101114_AADKYQ mock_t_Page_74.pro 2425989eb4ba33f51df8020dc56a7687 18ff7beee662fda727b1f881631f996609e54b7c 12423 F20101114_AADLAQ mock_t_Page_84.QC.jpg e3066fb5e316fc39da605ca08d122283 01a96f70b3e16d930f805560e18be201391afadd 22380 F20101114_AADLUG mock_t_Page_85.QC.jpg 29cf61d3ec5e0878f8d60f4456506238 b53ce67cc2a62441f006398299289e98a95b56c2 4727 F20101114_AADLPJ mock_t_Page_06thm.jpg 92227decb5b9fd2798770e4acfb9285e 849e720b77d9005e9cc69fb661a5dc33a3216335 28144 F20101114_AADLKL mock_t_Page_15.pro 562d026b1daad1135928781609552639 52820577b4600e019ce85aef652ac8e30b5f8b8b 118947 F20101114_AADLFO mock_t_Page_21.jp2 2c1ad2f806d3b828a4522b69eb188549 e63f3cef49f905a73e86a43376f9bef6d8fb1895 5625 F20101114_AADKYR mock_t_Page_46.pro ae63195df5ad34dbf058db79ac4bf8e3 162d8194ada4edabc951225a7b055a2ff4653991 6832 F20101114_AADLAR mock_t_Page_70thm.jpg e63416384ba5533e3134645d82d8b6f3 3dcbdaf069755e2975d3ec7acc08e46cadf84b5b 7998 F20101114_AADLUH mock_t_Page_86.QC.jpg 4d45f321592b9b8efdc960ffb2c2e665 d121b0cb13e78f51e2198877e5bb02d33b191033 21843 F20101114_AADLPK mock_t_Page_07.QC.jpg 8bbbec510eb62745d5a560c2a4eeecc9 61b70d8cab9c19e063ba0096bcdfaea4b0427872 51612 F20101114_AADLKM mock_t_Page_17.pro 437f2e2f05a7f17e507e5f1e4105506c 6e1a2e4606229a59520989525084f98467edf5b9 94514 F20101114_AADLFP mock_t_Page_24.jp2 ef4dc8ec876e1400fe49415183c005df c697767ac3de8bba920a352d003a3b09db0cb3e3 F20101114_AADKYS mock_t_Page_59.jp2 68f7cf981769d2c725e5633bf45c5fc5 4660ee352dabbab2ffe6986c52a87c72a7badbb2 1181 F20101114_AADLAS mock_t_Page_41.txt 94a491b5285ca96b13e9e19e9bff156d e195c2c8e683960d62666ce1802b256fa696c9c5 99634 F20101114_AADLUI UFE0021460_00001.mets c08d6caf3d16244cbcd37d6c8e7646a3 cbb1ebb9d1c7be1c8141bd0bc5760f0290286b2a 5562 F20101114_AADLPL mock_t_Page_07thm.jpg 2971ab4af79ed2a90104ea1f14bf8215 c1401038c028a9ef92b47cab61c60efdc78f71f0 74807 F20101114_AADLFQ mock_t_Page_25.jp2 5695f614d528dcb9c6c8fb745e6ececd d4bd5122fb1fc68cc257396134cc55725a9a7d28 F20101114_AADKYT mock_t_Page_42.tif 4d62ade2ef7da9c27e5e95a7cbf9cc84 2d6a3235837ddbbc8da4c42384fc9178c5632f9a 2273 F20101114_AADLAT mock_t_Page_73.txt d428be617c35efaff43517b40cc412e8 96ddc4e49c1511f04679d444bb72253699b21ab2 43382 F20101114_AADLKN mock_t_Page_18.pro 39fe59d579724e158fb2d51a9a552b6f 1bf1283d44e8b112457d4553ff1eb682f3d13070 24029 F20101114_AADLPM mock_t_Page_08.QC.jpg a9c17fc740e10a2f19ea3a57df06d0e8 a1c8e2c15e82efac6d4c208d0b5be84753980f28 911697 F20101114_AADLFR mock_t_Page_26.jp2 bb33c5d73e2105772edf84368129ccb8 12b9a6c0986d758f78fe684507599cd4f081bb14 1571 F20101114_AADKYU mock_t_Page_43.txt 08a86209d6375e028c9997d40aec34e9 83e37666013455add6b1c4f72488d650edc02277 104222 F20101114_AADLAU mock_t_Page_11.jp2 0277dac8e89815bdbad18920006f43cc ec480d5f9eb159588aa99634dc53b52fdf745f40 47941 F20101114_AADLKO mock_t_Page_19.pro 11a2d0751c8a1ed9acba10186eddd045 43abc1adf1d03fbfbabdd6c7ca45145f0850f75a 28723 F20101114_AADLPN mock_t_Page_09.QC.jpg a59a0d7d0503f8117fbcf834bc38d251 9e0ecfd4405c13913340c0f29546abb4fc2ba33c 82459 F20101114_AADLFS mock_t_Page_27.jp2 d78ef955a2d631a911612e122db60503 fc646552eaa6dc8085c1d08abfa9dcc107040bfb 65230 F20101114_AADKYV mock_t_Page_56.jpg ac6ecc6c7bb9382fe6a771b71614ca08 3fe7d8c04b5588c9939957e7f6232c5fd2b35873 17415 F20101114_AADLAV mock_t_Page_33.QC.jpg 11898a516533fbf9a8f75d34e0c25d43 2c684fcbc342b72583a1daf7e3081bb2897a085e 51294 F20101114_AADLKP mock_t_Page_20.pro 6b821eed2744a83790fd6651c8b990a2 b1baace545208b8da83e2d65cd500497eecb2351 998754 F20101114_AADLFT mock_t_Page_29.jp2 be096b1167d78d4925b043446a27f512 96cae9d1422057fef9ea368081a5e9f5cd596bd3 F20101114_AADKYW mock_t_Page_69.tif 35fc2479b3bbdfb5d400536065b180bc 99a8fa9a5e61d9933cd05ef369ba6f84c87104c4 F20101114_AADLAW mock_t_Page_74.tif 0f039695a401949366c56e8dfcd137a9 5bb062981f4b5a1877b19f37296e3463105d60c5 54983 F20101114_AADLKQ mock_t_Page_21.pro 5bb88141c6cfbd1d78013988f966421e e0595accc3390139472929152440a97bc7f77909 7222 F20101114_AADLPO mock_t_Page_09thm.jpg 9384d83ee7fe0b97814599a422d85e2e 22889a4b68dc034b6387d509d27caa9358ac5e69 117130 F20101114_AADLFU mock_t_Page_30.jp2 4f7017b3eaf15eb6343ad5a161016b58 f5ef24b39c4f8b5f22152e87231caefa28b92ba1 F20101114_AADKYX mock_t_Page_68.tif 195dac83039c67e49374261b2fe7e8e7 594eb752a333121d6b3a21a4452911b01e9b7ae0 F20101114_AADLAX mock_t_Page_03.tif 67d49a3738739e5f392b9b99dbebbd52 c8ef09d7b157843dd3879ded6258a40a78d21e43 13563 F20101114_AADLKR mock_t_Page_22.pro f9bf36e21753bda075e4621c16eaae64 8ed442ce424b2c2c91abe56a2b75fd0f25b10d42 2120 F20101114_AADLPP mock_t_Page_10thm.jpg 5e6d25d13bd3feb418e9450825bd457f 88c371d785cde4f61fae49239bf6a0988886b0af 74607 F20101114_AADLFV mock_t_Page_32.jp2 9af5700cbfe0509bea05422fc6cc218d bfc357b098aa09db27add7e4fff0dedb8f282b51 14711 F20101114_AADLAY mock_t_Page_31.QC.jpg 099aa2ba2dfa81847aff1ccf869d631b d98bcba8033b558b832cbcb12793b3ca04cd5f6b 39564 F20101114_AADLKS mock_t_Page_23.pro 3ed8d519cbea41ac056cafeaa135f1c6 1df269126d86e76132d76643863e3b8d178cf31f 22212 F20101114_AADLPQ mock_t_Page_11.QC.jpg 1116777e89b575969ce69375542e25ae 235772e9563c693c421fee664cec2ab117f96b78 68751 F20101114_AADLFW mock_t_Page_33.jp2 2eb54e7a00973146b599879b4469fbe4 3b6e2b03bdfc7a72e2408a981654d09c8dbacc38 20345 F20101114_AADKYY mock_t_Page_64.QC.jpg a4f56616651111d82bb3834b39014423 5014f58d21a5d1d67be65b0b83551bc61350fceb 1637 F20101114_AADLAZ mock_t_Page_66.txt 72f940203935f183dc22bae8592cded6 82346212edcb418a483d794aadbc1876ec80a94e 32846 F20101114_AADLKT mock_t_Page_25.pro 9eea1e20045406b9ea2da13aa60380ff d2a1feb73dc0cbe51a4e5f30492a1721538059c0 2460 F20101114_AADLPR mock_t_Page_12thm.jpg 9145edd0df5ed2bc058508fbf47d6518 0c76d52fe39c5adff8cbf5e25391038ce3f0f4ae 778453 F20101114_AADLFX mock_t_Page_34.jp2 1c7cf2aab241768304a66e94b8be0ad1 e97b108422337510d0a02e0a3f0d0d6d34534a7c 1013818 F20101114_AADKYZ mock_t_Page_42.jp2 2660ab0eff179b2740b750559e29476f 5ec251e8d2c933acbf15f3952255035bf3c1c09b 28715 F20101114_AADLKU mock_t_Page_26.pro d3024f4fc04026aac84a4fcbe562126e 3d6567a778dcff72dbb7faafe0314f9b79e59ad7 20195 F20101114_AADLPS mock_t_Page_13.QC.jpg 3b5c5b9610c0a211708547f0b5ba0a12 14cbb1c43dfb65a7f0864c7e980ef16f467d5aa2 73144 F20101114_AADLDA mock_t_Page_17.jpg f0dcbd8c3afd90bb5d2e1ad4032d6d3d 7a23f4034eb129ec297b6ce867d13259ca3a545d 784731 F20101114_AADLFY mock_t_Page_35.jp2 316e63cfc2b7af34ae8466dcbb9cfac6 820bfb79a87cc3f25d72332236a3e8c654af7af7 20621 F20101114_AADLKV mock_t_Page_28.pro 88a8b9a7c9c4f4c64c0530a09a36923e 8e84fb24dcdc4f2e103429e9e1873cea317a1a9a 5680 F20101114_AADLPT mock_t_Page_13thm.jpg 200fcf250f92d1953512ef42ef3f2159 442d76b7b842a67f3e3966cddbe0c3dc2583e86a 511558 F20101114_AADLFZ mock_t_Page_37.jp2 403ab3d6a2dfdff009895f4fdb35c44e 4c9228b478978249dc670820c28bed6a2aa2d9fb 32334 F20101114_AADLKW mock_t_Page_29.pro e15dc916608205b5893757c2814db653 7d82195783e63ab9874f47e14dd7cb3de3560605 64580 F20101114_AADLDB mock_t_Page_18.jpg f028c052db02b7db0f5f9cb0582ecf8a a7a2ddea75ea2fe4225055a02ec3b92f33b8d9b6 18021 F20101114_AADLPU mock_t_Page_14.QC.jpg 46e6f963f0236b5f46b8ab6275caa69a 18eb82305c40e4b1747329e2b42118ddf1312f59 25640 F20101114_AADLKX mock_t_Page_31.pro 22fe9c2eb3e83cf3a25ec9bc7594fc1c 1af087070826963f868353a965c8b9a89362e8f4 5764 F20101114_AADLPV mock_t_Page_14thm.jpg b6afe358499addffac8636987dc0668b fd972040b1f2e1b5b84e1b44357afabd3d160ef3 F20101114_AADLIA mock_t_Page_21.tif c11de73afe02d20f8c4a7efb007bfcb4 739939310eac140ec46143e9f6d0654f51c07d07 26445 F20101114_AADLKY mock_t_Page_34.pro a6d41f2e8f0084cbf2b23bd6550af732 71ee946629cc076f830a3a0d5f144aeb7330e0e2 69826 F20101114_AADLDC mock_t_Page_19.jpg 55ce5f0644137a1a77e134d55ae19507 acf21300c3d917d53ea0da6a33cc72fd047cc43e 14547 F20101114_AADLPW mock_t_Page_15.QC.jpg 73d44aa014d2e7ff4572b5cb3fac7aad c340fbfcf0780887bbe7eed66a164aa3604d521e 8423998 F20101114_AADLIB mock_t_Page_23.tif e60f22364f1c55c191a35ab5842cc9c9 9cc4d12a0d105dc6f0c90f3f92e6b72ce1903049 32417 F20101114_AADLKZ mock_t_Page_35.pro 217f53c2912496df10b1780ee7a03bf1 f31d4a0a5fa1d4722717ec04c91da22bde43b65f 75146 F20101114_AADLDD mock_t_Page_20.jpg 0632e4bbe10e87acb7aac179e749a46b 97ec724e3c761b298e57c94549f81355afefba51 4593 F20101114_AADLPX mock_t_Page_15thm.jpg b3043f1dfffc4952100c318cd2bb8e7c ae012fdb93c1433cdf66a7b3505615974df4cdf8 F20101114_AADLIC mock_t_Page_24.tif aca3c34f07ff47d909b5a8c4ea459837 779edb564ebfc6fdbe152a1887361ae7809bd303 79492 F20101114_AADLDE mock_t_Page_21.jpg 92b808e71efb6ee09fb2d9d75ce281cb e0b18cd1b30b8de84ab869fff15c789254a08545 17430 F20101114_AADLPY mock_t_Page_16.QC.jpg 2045c88a5f18925bc2c3e7391af836c2 3ef979851895bb0225aab7f56fa15025cc830c7b 1722 F20101114_AADLNA mock_t_Page_18.txt 39418664d73bf9e8a40b061c2fc548e6 b14dcf0de999aca962bf1cf77b2b092d8717eb57 F20101114_AADLID mock_t_Page_26.tif c583acaa0a2084095f959842fa6214da ee404967d9cdd616752460b1a0c1860f5a7f9119 25467 F20101114_AADLDF mock_t_Page_22.jpg 74576625cd7063be5e156023b9355c2d 7b2e7bac1d77d90435f7c114b8bc5ba24b2dc521 5416 F20101114_AADLPZ mock_t_Page_16thm.jpg 567dc3a3e393debf4567842a92504271 54aa2a178728cb99732e385a0a3e0020df139df3 2009 F20101114_AADLNB mock_t_Page_19.txt d79724f582d81b89361b1700629de9c0 f2e4fc457a2765f34feca27d8c05412cd475826d F20101114_AADLIE mock_t_Page_27.tif e56cf37ce6e447ce99833b0c7fae00de 0f59aa2bc82163e9dc808dea318dd36f6f68bc5b 71863 F20101114_AADLDG mock_t_Page_23.jpg b8e727a4b858917f034d771b5a985ab6 257699eccbc9672c007d1a2d5a4e4568c9dd991d 2029 F20101114_AADLNC mock_t_Page_20.txt c0dcc5edbe26be259dcae6117cc9f5b1 585c0251ad14522fd2bb346e7f9bb3ac6d10df66 F20101114_AADLIF mock_t_Page_28.tif 46f2841d9baf6f0e1f6bcd884663927a 36a923bd9e3d3bbe9116dad8f88b5d37cc1bd5d6 53521 F20101114_AADLDH mock_t_Page_25.jpg 49eeb9649bbc8562fe9a776b5e1c9c3c d77ad681cfdb2e1fd193f8c47d8534c1dec33c2d 24872 F20101114_AADLSA mock_t_Page_49.QC.jpg 0fcd93a071621907dbf8401f732524b5 959ecc18f5d76b95ffad7b08ed2cb46810c7f2d0 2190 F20101114_AADLND mock_t_Page_21.txt 8d327df336b6dd4674129008e27d9b5a ef0a02ffc0b1714315ddb75cbc4d9b5a7b03d729 F20101114_AADLIG mock_t_Page_29.tif 4211fc8614563620a33932bdf7d57426 aa7deebd2f94ae789feeff65863df92d999c61f7 57573 F20101114_AADLDI mock_t_Page_27.jpg bf8e23a804d69213ca9d59a07629c8d1 290b10d309250c344ad3fe85c4f2c4ebaf97cfcb 6766 F20101114_AADLSB mock_t_Page_49thm.jpg f6c0969546f8e35535329cf3d8932fc2 f75685ab8c2a79beef8f0fab226a295bd7c82dbd 540 F20101114_AADLNE mock_t_Page_22.txt 95596f13e0935004e10a306d7cb0d80a f025d6b391dc714ca998b48d34c8a9a99159c18d 59366 F20101114_AADLDJ mock_t_Page_28.jpg 128d77f0f122cb41b34ec24445c3ea2b cc24a0a5908dc0cd26f5f32a170838a0e988cfa6 21704 F20101114_AADLSC mock_t_Page_50.QC.jpg c036c92c616f57f6de79877dd1cc813c c27ac3f3c8fc4236f6469dfdce55b59bbde4a9ab 1682 F20101114_AADLNF mock_t_Page_23.txt 9335ecd824293d55891610d0768ed083 ffc22f5fa3c8c723179f3ba31c8bb5430b367eec F20101114_AADLIH mock_t_Page_30.tif e6569d069c7589dd545a62132de841ad a58c252886925ba33c771bcba4ac28619fabd160 77345 F20101114_AADLDK mock_t_Page_30.jpg 3ae97e06f666af9771b5b2934bd5a6a2 72e636bb133606a60eed19dbff406c6996922b86 5969 F20101114_AADLSD mock_t_Page_50thm.jpg 353ab58834600d57e41c8a4afd655bb8 ea926e1f57e4b29cf89718d1c06a19f56fe333eb 1685 F20101114_AADLNG mock_t_Page_24.txt 7bcc561a480582bb0559349d0e164b37 3d421db1b177e5bdabc80a6d70102b48c3b52455 F20101114_AADLII mock_t_Page_31.tif 56df14e66a56c57b7278e306f3fe709f 01c0e4afb685821415a7d19dd030aca5ef37a3fc 52945 F20101114_AADLDL mock_t_Page_32.jpg cf068785743be22c29e91422571e18c9 991d3039f3c1a8707d57ffa4decce9214a53b99c 21112 F20101114_AADLSE mock_t_Page_51.QC.jpg 1c2a91ba54867f6b9f6d1e2aa3d6568c 4eb7d7cc6ec24652855428f65c4e212ee4f8cad8 1192 F20101114_AADLNH mock_t_Page_26.txt cf05619288d1585371cd1f5f262bedc9 9de475ceb5dd9bd4f84b3456727aa42052d12240 F20101114_AADLIJ mock_t_Page_32.tif 43f5ecb7177a1822d9be2ba8a0811521 1badbcbc63d34926638b5fe181b834cb5db8e6ee 56541 F20101114_AADLDM mock_t_Page_33.jpg 331257ba0f0d3a7c0f2efc9491a2ffe6 4c502e731975850fefc443add1add095cd3e6483 6030 F20101114_AADLSF mock_t_Page_51thm.jpg 333b0ec349c7e2f100beefe56aadfb8e d8f04d7a7b271e3e8e02fe83435696e4bef9d320 925 F20101114_AADLNI mock_t_Page_28.txt 9188e08f52f5ebe887b61716a09fca7c 29252e543db896847adcbdb2811112045e3ef580 F20101114_AADLIK mock_t_Page_33.tif 3b3d9954a9bba65d8768badb714601bb e37068dcb614dbb2a499165a524a7e4690314aea 61914 F20101114_AADLDN mock_t_Page_34.jpg 9191f4ca1ec946113844bb0f61f0abde 33f9fb7c582a0f72ee9dc6a4a1b283994069eec8 21653 F20101114_AADLSG mock_t_Page_52.QC.jpg 04860c5489b3dacbb7a863f4b9b5625d 415ec467cffd4cc80e4f13609b454eade93e7d6f 1547 F20101114_AADLNJ mock_t_Page_29.txt 66c7685e21bd073a6451688ef7719afc 88e26b8cfbdb5c1b8dc8c8e2ea9793f78de671c8 F20101114_AADLIL mock_t_Page_34.tif 98844ae80f15abf67a7db6029d54efa5 c22134e730b19d65f6fd7293a6a51adc5816912c 55678 F20101114_AADLDO mock_t_Page_35.jpg 114ecb3422c876fe63c81d5125d1571f 600aaf90d053034be76deaa92ff70b1a28cdd63c 6260 F20101114_AADLSH mock_t_Page_52thm.jpg 2ff49482341131461297044a4d3779a8 8d10f4e5a6c308f783fcafe09ccc6fd55d19cf52 2143 F20101114_AADLNK mock_t_Page_30.txt 3d5bfd8ef5d20cea628d6c77584b93b3 ecceb2a935f87369fd8aeb16f2ee107e9843d5cb F20101114_AADLIM mock_t_Page_35.tif 9441394ddf612d3a214b0b113ac116cf 040d09c3110a8df04b46a9f245763e84c4ace269 40061 F20101114_AADLDP mock_t_Page_36.jpg a153d45dbed4df224169ba893976d90b 50914b3ebf0409ff969d51ae9a666a0da845d2fb 22365 F20101114_AADLSI mock_t_Page_53.QC.jpg e3fcb2c6d8741c8d90695029d6752537 3f9fcaa464f504c1453ccd1e97408c09e9477eaa 1106 F20101114_AADLNL mock_t_Page_31.txt 9ef714a18d0097776c4815bc49800a33 5b2c27c4f3ed7a573ec8b006511173c675b91e40 F20101114_AADLIN mock_t_Page_36.tif 66833970b2ee06c071c323bedc8461af 54311bb0d91fe7ed645a0beadcae080fa1860918 38530 F20101114_AADLDQ mock_t_Page_37.jpg 658caf41c7f53e5fa854a34ce727111f 1d3711dde10f97458d3fa3ad08a3e7d8a3c2379e 15867 F20101114_AADLSJ mock_t_Page_54.QC.jpg 4617ef5b4ca997dc2d5749f1528d6c70 146a753ac9caaed47041e87c9619e8d0b452808d F20101114_AADLIO mock_t_Page_37.tif 3514a5358e4194dd258f04299b437c19 2e8585c865e4f3e49a3ba7c92410d3f7a60a75a0 66712 F20101114_AADLDR mock_t_Page_38.jpg e035cdc73a7c3f09e38a77dce598e261 f248d4d105b4b5c9400a79f5a481ad4e87cec2a1 5504 F20101114_AADLSK mock_t_Page_54thm.jpg 85e7e32772052d199d85f1c108280927 b2bb5effcc7a36844d38feb19b64c226dad5905f 1283 F20101114_AADLNM mock_t_Page_32.txt 7c9b73faa3a52a30a5ea8c6b5715566f e1d58b51c7ce473ebb18314c4fc3bb3b19a61798 F20101114_AADLIP mock_t_Page_38.tif 91a7ac719644b1fca35718f79f646e46 a883dcbd1fc0375b5dfb40fe2278b3c953d18e76 29821 F20101114_AADLDS mock_t_Page_39.jpg 75d451dbddf782a8e90fa1a296a68dc7 8b1aeb6d71e5c5503673e4157d5a6b25a27ad666 16699 F20101114_AADLSL mock_t_Page_55.QC.jpg 2ac0889579826c1ceee86cb8ffd7eee0 59d1b56918aeffe841965021286830804175c9e1 1196 F20101114_AADLNN mock_t_Page_33.txt 20c0bd94939110ab1ea64ea88d87fdea 7925af565f5be265f50624da3cd232be4dfe023e F20101114_AADLIQ mock_t_Page_39.tif f175f60891e7993fa6340d52f4b6fcc5 a20fe5641d6842c1f48292e2c318dc50bbd6a377 85751 F20101114_AADLDT mock_t_Page_40.jpg 6ed3885ed85a60ea39db465eee8a80f0 4780a740f1b8742b640e3bcfd842b440b8b6c71e 5195 F20101114_AADLSM mock_t_Page_55thm.jpg 2b023d1c86ce2529092336a64b04055f b72139fbf2e7885d12152edf11aa8a3ba82fbaa4 2073 F20101114_AADLNO mock_t_Page_35.txt 217bace160bc33859befe7680489d681 039ac6879242b05218ec6fd47d2854828e688851 F20101114_AADLIR mock_t_Page_40.tif d6f8bb963dfd0a613a62c78bed0c90b2 5c73d615977509d3df06f7e89f5de7110b74bd41 80753 F20101114_AADLDU mock_t_Page_41.jpg ecbd06368b720f364748f9074944a321 c1ccd1a8413eeba9476ba0f7230544759957102d 19418 F20101114_AADLSN mock_t_Page_56.QC.jpg 396782332200f7d31cabcff7df180e48 e05ec255dd295c6ed646ac1a013a75cb23f28fcb 1141 F20101114_AADLNP mock_t_Page_36.txt 7351b76fcc4b8d5393765f5798276e68 031bbce27e465be3e6f8eafe85340daea525b947 F20101114_AADLIS mock_t_Page_41.tif ef2e74125756d8bcaee40c73a45b6423 98ee2b88d00a708fade7fe19738cb2c1395749c4 78493 F20101114_AADLDV mock_t_Page_42.jpg 0b7a7e2ef84ade8e86d6cc4223057a7e b7a7eba0b1525103ecab9f63a3ecdac2378a3ecc 5816 F20101114_AADLSO mock_t_Page_56thm.jpg 5bacadeb1422ae335a81c6c14e4ea9e7 f71c178c36fd77e51d8737557c3bfdb8fe3e420d 1089 F20101114_AADLNQ mock_t_Page_37.txt cd58a9a384d507a869e8e80c438b156d 32fd863edeef834fc5af19a89f6782d1e8b5e26e F20101114_AADLIT mock_t_Page_43.tif 7b17da250d658ec204f78727379ca8b8 ad80900f43c149d2e625a7f9c8d659c19b0bf9bc 59127 F20101114_AADLDW mock_t_Page_43.jpg 857b7589c2f6c4e8dba66dc5bc7747ea 9674839446d2b25d4f242bb7a9b6db7a250ef390 7800 F20101114_AADLSP mock_t_Page_57thm.jpg d6436a10af3f4ce1e9e29aa1ba312424 8b3af0e738fcd70989bed297bd9a492dbd762676 2311 F20101114_AADLNR mock_t_Page_38.txt ce9db9abe481ccc35cda8a5c5c3219a3 b89860af9c17f06113968139129daa8801451dcc F20101114_AADLIU mock_t_Page_44.tif 62b2b776c388c0b347b3e2c2678469d7 803a6c7860c122702cba8f58b818db2112a3e766 63650 F20101114_AADLDX mock_t_Page_45.jpg 109bd0a985ed73a03dd8ee7dadab2e3f ff741ec76e857311cd5528bfc3f80c6164c48096 20739 F20101114_AADLSQ mock_t_Page_58.QC.jpg 4c150207c9948571e6c3db01f15237bf 9528ee9fb2575fba5535a3e54ff3e6e01255c0b3 678 F20101114_AADLNS mock_t_Page_39.txt 85a510f94a137ccedaf32a8aa8811a26 4e8dcf87fd9fd3ef27d0bc023fc54c0eb5865f93 F20101114_AADLIV mock_t_Page_45.tif c96aa7f7f870a87a25278ccf62620d83 19030f0594d0a1f46e5dfa5b5515b5bc19f9890c 32988 F20101114_AADLDY mock_t_Page_46.jpg de68d0f819807227177202d588a313b3 02f1b99cf40d332cfbfb868d6438c2be421f98ef 871 F20101114_AADLNT mock_t_Page_40.txt 3e651a362e2a6def6cbe36d55d84514b d01e69cfb30a4fef048f0a5ffead3fad8117016e F20101114_AADLIW mock_t_Page_46.tif 78966cb22767ce3f286993fbf4871cb0 d3adf01deed0beb10d32b9eac8de85fc8823b5eb 57173 F20101114_AADKZA mock_t_Page_72.pro 16c973db80cbd97a3ce111a441100af6 6fd69552409ee037aed3c59331fdca0910e119a7 30669 F20101114_AADLBA mock_t_Page_71.pro eeb08019cb3aeb8d80cb1ecaefbb2caa c75d9983bdca25cf4c823f5d443ee96f6520a015 91289 F20101114_AADLDZ mock_t_Page_47.jpg 597ed0883a51ea77887b2d88ec2ee2db aeb606267c4e9576f44bf34327e5bb9704cde329 20613 F20101114_AADLSR mock_t_Page_59.QC.jpg 18d24f91fb2451991abb3c2b9a3070e3 d4280c7dfa8b4eac76426eb438b1d936f0271f54 740 F20101114_AADLNU mock_t_Page_42.txt 6bf51343b83b8648d61a4412b17efd78 abece0a4039a6794107500fee05aab8a6df70eb1 F20101114_AADLIX mock_t_Page_47.tif 960eda6d4e3edaedf94e890f88a04dd6 5a8663b80e54c650b15857fe08668665db086a31 77921 F20101114_AADKZB mock_t_Page_44.jpg 46518ce3cfa8314f580a0868c0d11887 0facc8c1f29ba3bf30a32353f9742235fc75b9b0 965 F20101114_AADLBB mock_t_Page_59.txt 2c132adea14e60ee2ab946d71091778b 2b0765c1238080a89dcfed08c4470733de2bb75a 5993 F20101114_AADLSS mock_t_Page_59thm.jpg 3c64823001775e4919eaf48687a32eb5 5fbf18489de45c40b8b195be3191e50a6e31b7b2 686 F20101114_AADLNV mock_t_Page_44.txt 2990c09cb1c47c25d4c6c722b05d30e6 9fa5ed9a8aca3219b3b8eff53c39faa6c9fc3542 F20101114_AADLIY mock_t_Page_48.tif 0d867de1587f1195f674e390b2c0db90 9deb3bb84fd7cc8302ae3d99cb9b9109d6e39b7b 19103 F20101114_AADKZC mock_t_Page_28.QC.jpg c463af7cdca11b9814d991c84b2e1f75 fda6d2c3b5a11c9cf2e612055f02e74d1b5100dd 72573 F20101114_AADLBC mock_t_Page_67.jpg 3079bd8e72dc7ccfe5ed2e82321d0ac5 5c535e0c480322fde2596b13df2e1067213ba039 910985 F20101114_AADLGA mock_t_Page_38.jp2 578141e76eb4fb4e9542a816685944ae de5823e6b3aec032c73f4f5b6affeace239cb8e6 6588 F20101114_AADLST mock_t_Page_60thm.jpg 75e3f22dd4de8ea5808d04f2bf75f47e b7ded5bb782dd4cec2e969dbf625ee8785321b7d 820 F20101114_AADLNW mock_t_Page_45.txt a6810771814c0b9a76690de3be495525 bacb63c6d97afbf64524bd16671bccf011d6138f F20101114_AADLIZ mock_t_Page_49.tif 7065c8009d97cf52e248aca6482a5a01 9caefdb4abc879e97a1b6a08814abafdd2754520 105469 F20101114_AADKZD mock_t_Page_19.jp2 fc8c17ddf70cb779359085191cf171ce 98fc877e7f6c5de68371cdb595798fd7e7fc8779 65927 F20101114_AADLBD mock_t_Page_59.jpg d42338abfdfe374ca12d741c3b79a018 fd0056fba75b3ea264bbd4d5b40f550a4c0dd296 38719 F20101114_AADLGB mock_t_Page_39.jp2 f387769ceb17a318393e5005d97c194b f5f66120996b5e43a657e3b4633f6c5612708bef 17519 F20101114_AADLSU mock_t_Page_61.QC.jpg 28ca94580dd17bc60120ed1bc21b819e 81703d0d8d95c1989632bb360b29777b6d5072ab 413 F20101114_AADLNX mock_t_Page_46.txt 58f049139936a42ed097f43ebc17a605 54df6b141b2273c3779bb3688e7d8ae9e9815f57 6752 F20101114_AADKZE mock_t_Page_63thm.jpg 8775e23e4eb03bfb992bf79a9296cece 861e1e5f9d2995f285de12870df91b45556a8d6b 4433 F20101114_AADLBE mock_t_Page_03.QC.jpg 94a30b8cc8998c861bdef6f23297ab0b e74bbbe97e065bcb576c709352d7b27792914a53 1051967 F20101114_AADLGC mock_t_Page_40.jp2 340fc365c8ee7b4bb418779656c8050b 6f956a91115f43e4c44c03f7ca8997de7fe22fa7 5264 F20101114_AADLSV mock_t_Page_61thm.jpg 37fec7b1e7d0b68bda89dae3ceb60b2c d67a93dc00039ab81427fe379edef4cec7fb1137 1223 F20101114_AADLNY mock_t_Page_48.txt 220860985ca1804cad6df3d111ebc2ce d4c14fd76721d29a7081d395eef622f90aa5404c F20101114_AADKZF mock_t_Page_57.jp2 4a2abc6892b49576fcc9a43e34e0a667 bc7163221895783d09aeb8552c3254a654e27ab6 1607 F20101114_AADLBF mock_t_Page_80.txt f69121b2d08dc8d64022ce5fbae91375 51bcdab520e5793848689bf1ddcb0aa34a906bd1 17909 F20101114_AADLLA mock_t_Page_36.pro 98576042abb62ade2e6039adecfaba76 1afa90775465dbb715e826808902f638161a474b 1051942 F20101114_AADLGD mock_t_Page_41.jp2 1959d2f1be4d5280983ba61c35aec238 8b637c6adf40d7037b8f0057f7006bfcdcd1a2c9 18351 F20101114_AADLSW mock_t_Page_62.QC.jpg 7c1ab57b1c72c7f359d4a08f8f76305e f8800f165f38204e0b1df7d3c731656181cb77cc 1921 F20101114_AADLNZ mock_t_Page_49.txt 2b00a561d446a2493588edbdea9e3db2 11fcec4b2759a5767e1918c4dca8fae8268d106c 5844 F20101114_AADKZG mock_t_Page_58thm.jpg 94d142d6d64f6c081a73ca4586fdbf75 3173abfbd1f3fa5178565f314b3302afdecc5e89 F20101114_AADLBG mock_t_Page_59.tif d68f76e8658f1439baf88fdd554e61ff 527a18b1254abe81606f4c515de79bdbf6b56884 36430 F20101114_AADLLB mock_t_Page_38.pro aa18632cdcec8220b85315e4a30671ba 1b74baccc0e9db3e5c443f76a0979dc2a499e8c1 86302 F20101114_AADLGE mock_t_Page_43.jp2 fffbd7c494bb59b9a9573307c511f64d 06802bb74159bbef5c899404ba4cb2a6728a2538 5265 F20101114_AADLSX mock_t_Page_62thm.jpg 43d66752b39b55a95de8b3b1d7ed1a67 afc22ff2c6caabfd3b3b55a5b62e3bf6a15f1274 38619 F20101114_AADKZH mock_t_Page_16.pro d1983e744be4d322a24bef3b6f58e252 ca89b1919c805a0da27b37cddf181ff6abe36bf8 6542 F20101114_AADLBH mock_t_Page_11thm.jpg f1446f5a34c78efd9f38179869f250e3 cb24fdca4e8ac2ed5747494b5686cd57007f6a2d 15827 F20101114_AADLLC mock_t_Page_39.pro 6c42847f518b28893ec90d5121234238 f74cdee3168d27507fbcd26ec4d26035f5c2b389 6004 F20101114_AADLSY mock_t_Page_64thm.jpg ab1e9b08d95e0cfb45572384bbe5d48c 14190fa03c9e980a0ca877e886e051570513fb4d 24199 F20101114_AADLQA mock_t_Page_17.QC.jpg 2a4a515db7686245f02449dea566da85 02329ba09c0a5f1ea4c33ce8552b4034152ec85c 20809 F20101114_AADKZI mock_t_Page_56.pro c6365caf6abe54bf447dc7bd7280af39 e6f45b14e872ddc32fb81f8fe3f4a7d58456dacc F20101114_AADLBI mock_t_Page_14.tif 9aba1ad3683a3bc645765e939cfd4696 669279a55b2fedeb3ed5858f75ef8240b21b5c28 19634 F20101114_AADLLD mock_t_Page_40.pro de19fe4db87d0ac4c36b4b0617b3602e 7efe50520e198268144d633b2d8de5a2c906dc8b 207888 F20101114_AADLGF mock_t_Page_44.jp2 90b5021a32ae66473c6d121d1ddfc85e 8dd7faa81e2fd5bdab8f20863e7668d4f64c7755 6064 F20101114_AADLSZ mock_t_Page_65thm.jpg ee537d26932a9ae2791100863221129d 30048835d98d13a9e2eac5bca6ab33a9a63c74d8 6553 F20101114_AADLQB mock_t_Page_17thm.jpg 505b8b15c1dfba7c0b12e7b89e7973b9 96f33ea115340cde20660d86cf3caaab92a509f9 1026055 F20101114_AADKZJ mock_t_Page_23.jp2 30a67b2b5a7098c6a738c84687f1cc35 eab9bee13da766700b50f5dc4e7f1b08779a1eb2 87275 F20101114_AADLBJ mock_t_Page_66.jp2 4500ecde7d1c647139356c51e9d7b37c 7f59939b601194bb9890f41cf5d3f146f096f73c 25475 F20101114_AADLLE mock_t_Page_41.pro 3cb8bbf3bd1e4835b98d6bb115f44361 6c5e67e30f2d43ea4b811a354db8593968f06877 843746 F20101114_AADLGG mock_t_Page_45.jp2 861550f9ba95d88232c8913f18f710f9 9a5111038c9c08051a84c634a3baf5ac36dd7cd2 21374 F20101114_AADLQC mock_t_Page_18.QC.jpg e61d1912818acf93d2434d5f83f8b72c abc03580b424b868d96b195753d5e2fe3fe62c55 8609 F20101114_AADKZK mock_t_Page_22.QC.jpg f1e96d1400b993190fa7fa9b0ba65238 b0bdf9a7f57e69e63e1348f2b49365bc86bae9b5 12056 F20101114_AADLBK mock_t_Page_86.pro 730b8521e6fc6156cc29f35b6c138c72 877726e8cc5e7f03481aae1552f80b66c2921266 18992 F20101114_AADLLF mock_t_Page_42.pro d63631267b8d64d433b9d0bcd7d7cbe5 137911867cf4247a003d312456e017271e561f73 1051962 F20101114_AADLGH mock_t_Page_47.jp2 4a84bfabc76c61f218ab4efa0e95dba8 624158efcc7413f79a0ae943d580e753b016a2a6 5771 F20101114_AADLQD mock_t_Page_18thm.jpg 314f4e453ecc6c10715943edeb23d6ad ea0e0ec8d1f04bd5b0a24917151036eebc5a6cf4 68417 F20101114_AADKZL mock_t_Page_29.jpg ebb86c1167c8d0e96c2976efdbb5738a 00364fe1f3fb19c48dd1fd247502afccb4effd78 82839 F20101114_AADLBL mock_t_Page_70.jpg 4db6a27352fbd5b623b5fa72a49d64ec 3cf9619f233ad85ac3627fe24d802db0a2da030b 39912 F20101114_AADLLG mock_t_Page_43.pro fffadc8863f5311c54c45915f083f53c 525c1bac862eb9518b84a6daca60e4e73d7ff60a 1051971 F20101114_AADLGI mock_t_Page_48.jp2 8716d762c59bd925cf2f117a9005dab6 9b4e860392023b25f92a4c337d780fab5baade22 23184 F20101114_AADLQE mock_t_Page_19.QC.jpg a1e7ba6a45997a39c01fb36b0f2df2e8 4e9d9b4032d5283fa0bc40bc3fd36ef540bdf496 35453 F20101114_AADKZM mock_t_Page_52.pro be235d7b9ffc06855c95790dc4ff6901 f9db6a4fc7c9d9869175ce5e7173d281ef552497 817 F20101114_AADLBM mock_t_Page_47.txt a46db2f7f3c7436798b7cfd05d1f1c16 9c4a696c68150fd1fa9d0e6f0f1fa13cc555b2a2 15504 F20101114_AADLLH mock_t_Page_44.pro 4376fd65f5ad4ff9f715790be95f7890 676fe1026e84bdd9240c9aff4dbd31a963624aff 1051953 F20101114_AADLGJ mock_t_Page_49.jp2 ea3f395a4219338a3cae428d7ea94e3c b483471c30e75b10adb13402191633c9ffe8b394 25567 F20101114_AADLQF mock_t_Page_20.QC.jpg fb5712ffa18f8571899902c5e430cf0b 7c8b162692eee5efce5d44f844a8a4d77551b376 F20101114_AADKZN mock_t_Page_25.tif 645a1a785610608107db60a18761607b 01afd7e05f3d19bc72a0566f9bd612e15f8bd5b3 64490 F20101114_AADLBN mock_t_Page_31.jp2 babb729029fa3671770cbb3b7b700bd0 76097b2472fba2dadc5db53985c2f2635249e3f2 19944 F20101114_AADLLI mock_t_Page_45.pro 23ba345042d91cfddaf874b611d98e4f bcd430c7831b7bf06cc5c20ba7cbaa6be554ecfe 971830 F20101114_AADLGK mock_t_Page_50.jp2 286080eb14531375cdc89407fa4fa1e8 4714f7111ebb9b19f729665e3193a2b933b3849a 6773 F20101114_AADLQG mock_t_Page_20thm.jpg 7cc9cfe93cf6227efdbdf34a2d14acbd c4e15ed5e78069e663d92bc08efe01e3fd7ca7a5 394 F20101114_AADKZO mock_t_Page_81.txt cd1cd3e9be553798c25f3803215d738a 4876a576e77ac00905a5c869addd04f6a850c184 F20101114_AADLBO mock_t_Page_07.jp2 99127eaeb41c993cfddd43ee3aff0b46 01506b43acb1931ba5387a68bf2f53d765941ccd 19656 F20101114_AADLLJ mock_t_Page_47.pro a93ce6208658d8ca0eee6143c674d355 ee557ac558c17c453bdd071db963f713b6df59d8 932733 F20101114_AADLGL mock_t_Page_51.jp2 6929227195284f1f4d9a7d559b8edb85 11a7e7311b8bd6d858a00ee6e97d5d17d26e9759 26686 F20101114_AADLQH mock_t_Page_21.QC.jpg cd6ce069dec13a30af4bae90bacdb0ec e59daa59a44d1042c2dcfa52fdc7195a214d14a0 1198 F20101114_AADKZP mock_t_Page_71.txt d56ba330fe6625bc80e138d9c2a2c70f 4c1853993aa193c71d55c41bea903cbf7d0c3ac8 51897 F20101114_AADLBP mock_t_Page_76.pro 7e29a703c52117fd61fa9f18cfa2eee1 ee8b430de6323b283fb5a86fa4b6e24e8955093c 973517 F20101114_AADLGM mock_t_Page_52.jp2 af9b158afd43df556eb566352468f00c 248050b319ec91da779be910f63b5b13868d2087 7252 F20101114_AADLQI mock_t_Page_21thm.jpg 7ddf3803d25dd02844ec5db69a6dcf31 59e520bd7f134de8f4de732b47d9dec66fb51a0a F20101114_AADKZQ mock_t_Page_66.tif afbfce065f756917c282e1bdb72935e5 47607a378aebcff1fda2f7cc7dd875647d0ff8c7 7733 F20101114_AADLBQ mock_t_Page_12.QC.jpg 3f176cfb5ca38e4e7fa9d612751d2ea1 268c23c7ea51b7cb83f5de435f5e1b6b933e9757 28939 F20101114_AADLLK mock_t_Page_48.pro 020e3d9e386dfc823987da679cc10d67 3a6361427d1ff69789f4ebd74bff8d26fd0a25fe 725539 F20101114_AADLGN mock_t_Page_54.jp2 6a835931b78f21cc9abc94ae7badead3 cfb89a50847b339730d30cbddf672044278f53de 2593 F20101114_AADLQJ mock_t_Page_22thm.jpg 7d9ac6975fd8f67cdc7f8535d5ca9037 bb76768e1bbe8aa386244dccfe1c9181f0538253 946286 F20101114_AADKZR mock_t_Page_28.jp2 4177c1fed94b454199d194984bd2dd4f 65d49c8adbd92eccdda69fa07c1d9daf544a9a3f 228 F20101114_AADLBR mock_t_Page_03.txt faee2954c35328df14a2eaf02be23c06 696bae4070ce3946079685fd63d3ed11acbfeb55 47115 F20101114_AADLLL mock_t_Page_49.pro 8b26e222fab02c5d23fbed5f3ea2cb08 5c9c510bdb935415fc16c973e4b01dc4e53e1368 71313 F20101114_AADLGO mock_t_Page_55.jp2 a6ecb19c1a560783ca8a0ae89502c906 718fa43c696b4efed414bd8ee9c37c81abdc799c 21370 F20101114_AADLQK mock_t_Page_23.QC.jpg ca9df25b8d289c03132b7ca624e5f9e0 1789f42643dd2b348d3a1abb2f167bb331a8ef12 44755 F20101114_AADLBS mock_t_Page_54.jpg 9c3bfedd999dd8eced418a2806d70436 9f92741882bc35e9fad9205c0057ba8028eb3741 41797 F20101114_AADLLM mock_t_Page_50.pro bce8ff2a1d61ba276c332f9430b4716d 1b9758bc0a6b4e3e3b3bbb429c677b3193f90547 1025183 F20101114_AADLGP mock_t_Page_56.jp2 dadc7cb98f0e77a6c3c13ba762c4631b 5d2432d115f84e04461f5750774d28ee48b473b0 59128 F20101114_AADKZS mock_t_Page_26.jpg f4d7d9f7550d87a0d2dd0db7b284f8b0 898368a92083008cd84b736f2d1cc949afbbb60c 5915 F20101114_AADLQL mock_t_Page_23thm.jpg 0364dd74fe03345d5ed5975a477f60ec 0b6c02be128ce47846fe275d04f040a19856e4ec 32206 F20101114_AADLBT mock_t_Page_32.pro 1eb68f91dcb21db800491bc618efcf58 3f9d7a27a346b3e6878da0886053774ef252d929 34973 F20101114_AADLLN mock_t_Page_51.pro 11d1f2751b7005c9e88cebe5e04e7f83 459d59dcea193b2ad5fa03b55b4fb140f2328610 1051975 F20101114_AADLGQ mock_t_Page_58.jp2 9fa1471f208587c903a05447495790c0 52a501fc69e3e2622fd642228ba08aed9e0729a2 586830 F20101114_AADKZT mock_t_Page_46.jp2 047e20bc00ad55394ac607c2f3ae83ee eb9ceecaada12d0ab177ab68428b2241a9e85815 20304 F20101114_AADLQM mock_t_Page_24.QC.jpg 332420d9a733c446db7a343357064742 f5a6e7b43cb226085cb73649586f4a39755be3f5 21760 F20101114_AADLBU mock_t_Page_65.QC.jpg acbd98d76ce6e6cf3f5927b98ebfa2ec 113fc7474e365b2039aab1db3f7272a3f2c5891e 42063 F20101114_AADLLO mock_t_Page_53.pro 0506e1de7b7af9db277f47ae0b8b818d de067066374e0abb6e3e260b26d3d6fa7f81366d 787169 F20101114_AADLGR mock_t_Page_60.jp2 8817fd2105be8a260a3adfa6c034e0e7 14dbaad9ac15d04d0f7ac1d8b0a73f5aba5ed9f6 5578 F20101114_AADKZU mock_t_Page_75thm.jpg f4006cea4552258e1b1e36883006bdf8 944d94495d831f155d5c2cff641574c2126daa34 5739 F20101114_AADLQN mock_t_Page_24thm.jpg 401ebf96a91c7a43b2805385b72fb8c5 cad897db826ec21a40a7783803af29db01adc0c1 6485 F20101114_AADLBV mock_t_Page_48thm.jpg ba89ef2eedc453e19dbbf84e7e0e81fa fc436c5a76c5b572bff743d75abe16561438e356 7055 F20101114_AADLLP mock_t_Page_54.pro 8252a810949c6b222dfd7e1ce5af80ba 35ef522a0379f9ac8ab2d51774721e96872283f4 113327 F20101114_AADLGS mock_t_Page_63.jp2 4e2b51bc71259167e8657e70a9f8a321 f8b3d0e2b38b0f5fb34f3c16c42d7233e83f4ba6 F20101114_AADKZV mock_t_Page_17.tif 0a511c364a95c4acea1abd0932e89b92 ac6ae170ee0c3d3df3519546759831f88cef307f 4882 F20101114_AADLQO mock_t_Page_25thm.jpg da6178043d1a8877258c97c3eea038c2 720a8480d0441f900a5ffce1b0dd93b174478dbd F20101114_AADLBW mock_t_Page_04.txt ea3ccd47a345d2cdbb49d3f23843c8b3 238ca602a6143b9ea437a7cbbc9dcbc7efc93c6b 10966 F20101114_AADLLQ mock_t_Page_57.pro 73cd2d26d354fa6d9d72d6ee8e13178f 50ce45b0dcc02a4bae7a0678f2a3e1a8904e9b43 87948 F20101114_AADLGT mock_t_Page_64.jp2 593c7edc29cbf66dbb0d1c6f957469ed 1c5f1b5bc877839784efeeb2c6b30b4384891de6 39709 F20101114_AADKZW mock_t_Page_24.pro 6540e4b2947bbe05f1c0776e5824bb6a dceccdea65a557d78644aa84a20d95758926dcb7 12854 F20101114_AADLBX mock_t_Page_37.QC.jpg 489f6168de4479a818c772a63e37353e 378b806accf3cc2e0e7ab9ee0f598b13589db0cd 32151 F20101114_AADLLR mock_t_Page_58.pro 90fcc309dab205f892f30eedb7fa0e59 487dbdefb6a45bb6331f8616d6559d4be3431f65 93598 F20101114_AADLGU mock_t_Page_65.jp2 8b1c6cb53d1d86c0b51b5626795c7c76 4fca668755e70cda7e41b11899d1168d04d62859 1396 F20101114_AADKZX mock_t_Page_58.txt 603f073fd1da2c8f545f56b5fd06f607 7d5a709aafe7b18fec7adb586b29abf157d26e1b 19048 F20101114_AADLQP mock_t_Page_26.QC.jpg e1c22ed3e452b9cfe668b90048863bee 5ad5e9374e43527d61897ac53bb13318d82f8f34 99053 F20101114_AADLBY mock_t_Page_82.jp2 a6a247692ad3d4ba388107a55a8f7820 07d1d93fafbcb7b08a6b1232b2f3297923ae0364 19052 F20101114_AADLLS mock_t_Page_59.pro 0dc13ee0814dedfc80d8a1660348d014 0f38176a650194295871cb35e02abf04e72c95fa 132730 F20101114_AADLGV mock_t_Page_68.jp2 8621a7f0501ee7c48e197c8a68a87b9b 30a558e9feeeb17ab9236f99d1290bc6fcd568af F20101114_AADKZY mock_t_Page_55.tif c5391dfbdb6d9f604774073711135191 c3e3b818ac4f00c99d3138baaf7413df1020aaa9 6109 F20101114_AADLQQ mock_t_Page_26thm.jpg ddc7400312c5d4f7a36c59c0aeaf4fa2 1bee71382d96b530ad5c3f246e379cb11d49fd2b 5199 F20101114_AADLLT mock_t_Page_61.pro 30ed4e4f070e8be042248024b01a5874 6945f98b5e3c26aa4a71d45cb6badeab53eb7412 1051978 F20101114_AADLGW mock_t_Page_69.jp2 136b7b76c4fb0367f3fa4c683d446251 6bb7f1067a3c473d464578bf80098163f91e1c55 87343 F20101114_AADKXA mock_t_Page_14.jp2 aaddb793c6cf89ecccefb0b91af6212a 5d4719eee89fe934bcfbaad1758674f84758c50f 58189 F20101114_AADLBZ mock_t_Page_14.jpg 5b1b3b634ea9e7bdd1daa372a0dc7c0a ed079aaed6d83f695cc6591d1763c10bf9f7e14f 19031 F20101114_AADLQR mock_t_Page_27.QC.jpg 4624e99418e70e022717b332e2d82167 f3260a6ded04a2ae2227f46a7d94a36f21ad0436 37924 F20101114_AADLLU mock_t_Page_62.pro 17dc9c0e976ce299787a8b5d23bdd66b bf9bf302328447a8714a6087ab43d5d936b530f8 960675 F20101114_AADLGX mock_t_Page_70.jp2 1b7f71a0eaee8222bae5826187273606 8db4d587d6cdd6138dd5afa8d1f7fe96c8b98f98 63948 F20101114_AADKXB mock_t_Page_08.pro 4fbf0cdf16a4b2d5045b784100c13758 039fd43e56bc4ac25042e82eec71603822883f35 29927 F20101114_AADKZZ mock_t_Page_75.pro bd009df2de0ebf2bea8b2ec6d0251e77 6f5aae44176e7c6d71beb19bbc9171461adab50d 5423 F20101114_AADLQS mock_t_Page_27thm.jpg 8322baf1e83c45087352970399ae3835 f04eb4f1036b00a06dcb71f5b1e6dc0bd8366c8a 51964 F20101114_AADLLV mock_t_Page_63.pro 34d2552ef28bd83205e37435d2f537c5 cb76a41489809390e93a54eeffb8573eb5107182 78852 F20101114_AADLEA mock_t_Page_48.jpg 94065efecf84f266e3d90ff5d08a9712 74618ece6eb40f12e4dfefdda5f6c6b09c41fff2 F20101114_AADLGY mock_t_Page_71.jp2 1ae11b794ca067fdad0712e989e65392 1012766e02bbf5357f2eea5e9f07ed1900fa9166 537513 F20101114_AADKXC mock_t_Page_36.jp2 ebc640c4d4789a210eba391a18a6a3f1 b387549834e432d42693f94c306a6e01f8ad5323 5927 F20101114_AADLQT mock_t_Page_28thm.jpg 261875bbfcd9ecb99a11ede560942057 3a8809d335bc09bcb163fa7cd6bd86df28671c2f 34321 F20101114_AADLLW mock_t_Page_64.pro dfcb68d6bc32c9a9a7deb7976f6afd84 6ec9aa38941ce914bf7a1f5b7e826fe04c0668fb 70622 F20101114_AADLEB mock_t_Page_50.jpg 8c70c789fbad3a866df62df65ebfa32d 4031a770a5211205817d1f4173f408b38ef4450e 121880 F20101114_AADLGZ mock_t_Page_72.jp2 33901cfe869f40d1a47663bae8315632 b5dd82f5682c9246b59ceb75a31e983a2c7f5925 1346 F20101114_AADKXD mock_t_Page_25.txt fc295416f2148401dfb58f4d8a52360f 0a3a755032cb367f3e4e9b5d02f1d02a7fdef67f 21386 F20101114_AADLQU mock_t_Page_29.QC.jpg 6421d721c8c47a1b1fef27272a69c020 342d9e460421408d3f2f81ac39cbde38bb77a5cf 44112 F20101114_AADLLX mock_t_Page_65.pro b5159475b0a9677a176f183f40f8d367 48d9f30dc8b97c2ebf1b09acbe03d67a9bf924b1 66397 F20101114_AADLEC mock_t_Page_52.jpg c228e883593e53229702390cfb61f979 d05480c42c93f390e082232ef396e13b0b7f29b3 96673 F20101114_AADKXE mock_t_Page_53.jp2 5fa5a6806e6f6862021dc764e381dd0d 286da40ca3928fd0610d417b773fc19bb847c1ef 6180 F20101114_AADLQV mock_t_Page_29thm.jpg bcd22931fa523c43b46f650b42407455 eade1ba383f47695abb60e2c347092bfdf7cc81c 40991 F20101114_AADLLY mock_t_Page_66.pro fe085f4f249fb225100bd539e3d74975 9db4d246239c7dbf0b46fc96c0612bcf9ef591d6 58871 F20101114_AADKXF mock_t_Page_79.jpg 71aed3834fd565dcf830ffd1b9b2f3c6 55a00fc4b0ef3036a916e9a1f62d97a89ce03282 F20101114_AADLJA mock_t_Page_50.tif fb8eb6b6f02d3cf8dc7fee9538bdfd29 4a5ee7b2a8c0030e97270e9c0cd870750563254f 25593 F20101114_AADLQW mock_t_Page_30.QC.jpg 7bbedc896656bdcf8b58b520e38bf7f5 218f8cb067e56145f439f5bcb41a3de530be9675 51163 F20101114_AADLLZ mock_t_Page_67.pro 0e250a5dfcc12c09b64dbcb94f1efb63 93ae602c0451558fd7e3b0f1b0e5f5a5a1f1be9e 65925 F20101114_AADLED mock_t_Page_53.jpg 428ec766e5a77b1d420f4cafe985d277 09f32ea533e6a71208c1c509660070c357e21fe6 6228 F20101114_AADKXG mock_t_Page_53thm.jpg 44f137fe535b2a7233a20d570d9e9225 417a1378c338a219d79276daaf0c6adb4c91e713 F20101114_AADLJB mock_t_Page_51.tif 09c7d5768941464a2509a8ef53e57b9f 885193a1d1fd9c4a4c190f45e8409167efa054b5 6792 F20101114_AADLQX mock_t_Page_30thm.jpg 6d26433a6e73056f8b6bbd0ba6290b1a ce6e898c313fe467a58f582866656b3958af34c3 51348 F20101114_AADLEE mock_t_Page_55.jpg d6e3f33ce1c88d726931ade2bfc6a2b4 8b5cd9fd626909db6ad4d34c77673d410bf31a52 3150 F20101114_AADKXH mock_t_Page_02.QC.jpg c9f04bd0c92842359fa3c278478c09f0 b66318f11f7f28c54707351dd0b634358b172fb8 F20101114_AADLJC mock_t_Page_52.tif 2756421fb98eb380868209bc57902fac ba6875d8df8444cbbb06be25dd66f3d78ee509fb TANDEM USE OF MONTE CARLO AND DETERMINISTIC METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF LARGE SCALE HETEROGENEOUS RADIATION SYSTEMS By TRAVIS OWINGS MOCK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT S FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 O 2007 Travis Owings Mock To the beautiful Lily Boynton Kaye, and my magnificent family, Todd, Elaine, and Ron Mock without their support, someone else would have completed this work. ACKNOWLEDGMENT S I must acknowledge the technical advice and help provided by Dr. Glenn Sj oden. At this stage of life, it is difficult to define a role model, but Dr. Sj oden has become mine with a seemingly endless wealth of knowledge, and dedication for work and family. Also, I must acknowledge Kevin Manalo for his help with Fortran coding, and Monte Carlo Neutral Particle (MCNP5) modeling techniques. TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENT S ............ ..... ._ .............. 4..... LIST OF TABLES................ ...............7. LIST OF FIGURES ............ ..... ._ ...............8.... AB STRACT ................. ................. 11.............. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................. ................. 13.............. Radiation Transport and Diffusion Theory .............. .................... 13 Transport Solution............... ................ 17 2 PREVIOUS WORK ................. ................. 19......... .... Deterministic Codes ................. .. ............ ... ......... ..... .......... 1 Oak Ridge's Reactor Physics and Shielding Package ................. ...........................19 Tetrahedral Mesh Transport ................. ................. 20......... .... Oak Rid ge' sTran sport Package ................. ........... ................. 20... Parallel Environment Neutral Particle Transport............... ...............2 Monte Carlo Stochastic Method of Solution ................. ...............21............... 3 MULTIGROUP CROSS SECTION GENERATION ................. .............. ......... .....23 Candidate Design Fuel Pin Data ................. ...............23.......... .... Process for Cross Section Collapse ................. ...............24........... ... Candidate Design Muligroup Binning ........._._........___ .....__ ............2 Codes for Cross Section Generation ..........._. ..........__ ... ...............25. Single Pin Mesh Modeling in Cartesian 3 D Sn Transport. .........._. .... ......_. ........26 Group Albedo Treatment in the 3D Deterministic Lattice Cell ................... ...............30 Single Pin Monte Carlo and Determini sti c Eigenvalue Compari sons ................... ...........3 2 Monte Carlo and Deterministic Flux Comparison............... ...............3 Di scu ssi on ................. ................. 39............. 4 RE ACT OR MODELING ................. ................. 40......... .... Candidate Design ................. ........... ...............40....... Candidate Design Parameters ................. ...............40................ Candidate Design Reactor Core Design ................. ...............42........... ... Reactor Phy si cs Analy si s M ethod s ............... ... ..... ......... ................. 45... Full Core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model ................. ...............45........... .. Radial Power Profile e................ ................. 48......... ... Axial Power Profile .........__........_. ...............50... Power Peaking Summary .........__........_. .............. 50.... Deterministic Analysis of Candidate Design .........__........_. ....__ ............5 1/8th Core Candidate Design Model .............. .. ... ...... ... ..._. ............5 Deterministic Criticality Calculation, 1/8th Core Candidate Design .........._... ..............52 Power Peaking in the 1/8th Core Candidate Design ....__ ......_____ ...... ....__........5 Full Core Power Density Comparisons ............ .....___ ...............56.. Further Refinement of the Deterministic Model ............__......__ ....___ ...........5 Di scu ssi on ................. ...............62................ 5 FIXED SOURCE SIMULATION ................. ...............63.......... ..... 3 D Gamma Transport Methods .........._. ......... ...............63... Forward and Ad joint Operators ..........._._ ........_. ...............64... Forward and Adj oint D etector Response ........._._.. .....__.. .....__. ..........6 Responses Aliased to Dose Rate ........._._.. .....__.. ...............66.... Solution Methodology ........._._.... ...............68..___......... Modeling Procedure ........._._.. .....__.. ...............69..... Source Spectra ........._._.... ...............69..___......... R results ........._.. .... .... ....._._. .. ...... ... ._ ... .. .... ... .......7 Monte Carlo Simulation of the Container Assembly ........._._.. .....__.. ........._......70 Deterministic (Sn) Forward Transport Simulation ...._.__... ..... ..___.. ......._...... ....72 Di scu ssi on ........._._.... ...............79..___.. ..... 6 CONCLUSIONS ........._._.... ...............82..___......... 7 FUTURE WORK ........._._.... ................ 83...__.. .... Candidate Design Deterministi c/Monte Carlo Agreement ....._____ .........__ ............... .83 Parallel Environment Burnup ........._._.._......_.. ...............84.... LIST OF REFERENCES ........._._.._......_.. ...............85.... BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........._._.._......_.. ...............86..... LIST OF TABLES Table page 31 8 group collapsed energy bin bounds ................. ...............25........... .. 32 6 group collapsed energy bin bounds ................. ...............25........... .. 33 Candidate Design single pin geometry parameters ................. ...............27........... .. 34 Excess mass balance and percent error for a 35x34 mesh full pin ................. ................. 28 35 Excess mass balance and percent error for a 21xl9 mesh full pin ................. ................. 29 36 Albedo boundary distance parameters ................. ......... ......... ............3 37 8 group albedo factors ................. ...............32........... ... 38 6 group albedo factors ................. ...............32........... ... 39 Monte Carlo and Deterministic single pin eigenvalue results for 8 groups .......................33 310 Monte Carlo and deterministic single pin eigenvalue results for 6 groups ........................34 41 Monte Carlo Candidate Design kcode full core results ................. .......... ...............48 42 Power density per pin (maximum error < 4.2%) ........._.._.. ....._.. .......__. .......4 43 Computed power density per axial zone (errors < 4.2%) .......__. .......... .... ........._...50 44 Power Peaking Factor Summary ........._.._........___ ...............50.. 45 Final values for 6group convergence comparison ....._._.__ ........_._ ......._._........5 46 Axial zone boundaries, zone and hottest channel power densities computed using the determine sti c model ................. ...............55.......... ..... 47 Hot channel power peaking factors compared to Monte Carlo ................. ............. .....55 48 Average power density by zone compared to Monte Carlo ........_.. ........ ...._............56 51 Interpolated Flux to Dose Conversion Factors, 1 cSv = 1 reml2............. ...................66 52 Deterministic and Monte Carlo dose comparisons of dose rate (rem/hr) at the Region of Interest ................. ................. 8......... 0.... LIST OF FIGURES Fiu~re page 31 Fuel element detail for Candidate Design. ........._ ...... __.. ......__ .........2 32 Wholecore U23 5 fission rate (average relative error 3%) and selected 8 group structure. ................. ................. 24.............. 33 Flow chart of the codes and used in the cross section generation process, where codes are represented in blue, files are represented in yellow. ................. ............... .....26 34 35x34 coarse mesh cell for deterministic model. ..........._..._ ..............__... 28....._ . 35 21xl9 coarse mesh cell for deterministic model. .....__.___ .... ... ._._ ... .._._ .......2 36 Single pin Candidate Design material description used in the Monte Carlo model. .........33 37 21xl9 mesh tally scheme for Monte Carlo single pin model ..........._..._. .....................34 38 Group 1 flux comparison (6 group model). .............. ...............35.... 39 Group 2 flux comparison (6 group model). .............. ...............36.... 310 Group 3 flux comparison (6 group model). .............. ...............36.... 311 Group 4 flux comparison (6 group model). .............. ...............37.... 312 Group 5 flux comparison (6 group model). .............. ...............37.... 313 Group 6 flux comparison (6 group model). .............. ...............38.... 41 Plant Overview of original Candidate Design.9 ..........._... ............_ ..... 40...._ .. 42 Candidate Design reactor core views.9 A) NorthSouth Candidate Design core view. B) EastWest Candidate Design core view. ................. ...............41............... 43 Enlarged EastWest Core cutaway.9 ................ ......... ...............42..... 44 Horizontal slice of core and surrounding beam ports.9 ................ ................. ........ 44 45 XZ (y=0 slice) plane view of full core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model ...............45 46 XY (z=0 slice) plane view of full core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model. .............46 47 Monte Carlo model full core pin numbering scheme. ............_... ........._..._... .........47 48 Radial (averaged over axial length) total power pin power densities based on relative errors of less than 4.2% for each value. ........._..._........... ...............48.. 49 1/8th COre Candidate Design. .........._.... ...............51....__.. .. 410 Convergence of the 1/8th COre Candidate Design for deterministic models. ................ .....52 411 Relative pin power for pins contained in 1/8th Candidate Design (W/cc). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1sigma) ................... .....54 412 Monte Carlo and Deterministic 6 group computed power densities (W/cc). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1sigma). .............56 413 Ratio of Monte Carlo power density to Deterministic power density. Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1sigma). ................... ....57 414 Monte Carlo 6 group fluxes ................. ................. 58............ 415 Deterministic 6 group fluxes ................. ...............59........... ... 416 Monte Carlo to Deterministic power ratios for S10 refined mesh (left) and S10 coarser mesh (right). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation ............59 417 PENTRAN differencing scheme map, blue = Directional Theta Weighted, red = Exponential Directional Iterative. ................. ...............60................ 418 Monte Carlo to Deterministic power ratios for S10 refined mesh with updated differencing. Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation. ........................61 51 Standard fuel pellet gamma source spectrum normalized from specified upper MeV bound s. ................. ...............69.......... ..... 52 Cobalt60 source spectrum normalized from specified MeV upper bounds ................... ...70 53 Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 generated picture of region of interest detector box position and assumed container assembly immersed in water. .....................71 54 Gamma flux at 0.65 MeV (average), proj ected on SS3 04 materials immersed in water ................. ...............73................. 55 Gamma flux, 0.08 MeV (average), proj ected on stainless steel 304 materials. .................74 56 Gamma group adj oint function, aliased to Importance at 0.08 MeV (average) proj ected on SS304 container materials immersed in water. ................ ................. ... 75 57 Dose for a single Fuel unit (mean burnup) in the Region of Interest as a function of source height at the xy center of nearest container (Adj oint Deterministic. ................. ....77 58 Dose from single fuel unit sources coupled for various burnups (low, mean, and high) in the Region of Interest as a function of source height at xy center. ................... ...77 59 Dose caused by 1 gram alloyed Co60 (3cycle irradiation) in the "ROI Detector Box" region as a function of source height at xy center of nearest container. .................. 78 510 Dose caused by 1g alloyed Co60 (5cycle irradiation) as a function of source height at xy center of nearest container. ................. ...............79.............. Abstract of Thesi s Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science TANDEM USE OF MONTE CARLO AND DETERMINISTIC METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF LARGE SCALE HETEROGENEOUS RADIATION SYSTEMS By Travis Owings Mock August 2007 Chair: Glenn Sjoden Major: Nuclear Engineering Sciences Monte Carlo stochastic methods of radiation system analysis are among the most popular of computation techniques. Alternatively, deterministic analysis often remains a minority calculation method among nuclear engineers, since large memory requirements inhibit abilities to accomplish 3 D modeling. As a result, deterministic codes are often limited to diffusion type solvers with transport corrections, or limited geometry capabilities such as 1D or 2D geometry approximations. However, there are some 3 D deterministic codes with parallel capabilities, used in this work, to abate such issues. The future of radiation systems analysis is undoubtedly evaluation through parallel computation. Large scale heterogeneous systems are especially difficult to model on one machine due to large memory demands, and it becomes advantageous not only to split computational requirements through individual particle interactions, (as is the method for stochastic parallelization), but also to split the geometry of the problem across machines in parallel. In this effort, first presented is a method for multigroup cross section generation for deterministic code use, followed by radiation system analysis performed using parallel 3 D MCNP5 (Monte Carlo) and parallel 3 D PENTRAN (Sn deterministic) such that these two independent calculation methods were used in order to boost confidence of the final results. T wo different radiation systems were modeled: an eigenvalue/criti cality problem, and a fixed source shielding problem. The work shows that in some systems, stochastic methods are not easily converged, and that tandem use of deterministic calculations provides, at the very least, another means by which the evaluator can increase problem solving efficiency and accuracy. Following this, lessons learned are presented, followed by conclusions and future work. CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Analysis of reactor and radiation systems aims at one central problem, the resolution of the neutron or photon distribution within a radiation system. Several different methods have been devised in order to obtain neutron densities, neutron flux, gamma flux, and subsequently reaction rates within radiation systems. The most notable of simulation methods include transport theory, diffusion theory (for neutrons), and Monte Carlo methods. Diffusion theory is an approximation to transport theory, and Monte Carlo methods are a statistical sampling approach. However, deterministic transport theory is subj ect to its own set of constraints due to phase space discretization, most notably multigroup cross section generation. Therefore, the most accurate modeling approach for radiation system analysis is one that utilizes a combination of techniques. Radiation Transport and Diffusion Theory The transport equation was developed by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1872 to describe the kinetic theory of gases.' For neutral particle transport, the linear Boltzmann equation (LBE) is used to accurately model neutron and photon behavior in radiation systems. The integro differential form for neutron multiplying systems is shown in Equation 11: + 0z V y(F~, E, 02, t) + o(F, E)W(F~, E, 02, t) = q, (F~, E, 02, t) v at (E) (11) Where; * v = neutral particle speed * S" = particle angular flux * 0Z = unit vector in direction of particle motion * P = particle coordinate location in space * E = particle energy * t = time * 0 = total macroscopic cross section * q,, = external independent particle source * o, = differential scattering cross section * X = fission spectrum * o, = fission production cross section * v = average number of fission neutrons produced per fission Most students of nuclear engineering live in fear of the neutron transport equation. The neutron transport equation, although relatively simple to understand, is difficult to solve in 3 D systems without immense computing power and parallel computation capabilities. Diffusion theory is often used as a substitute for the neutron transport equation in these cases because it is limitati ons. To arrive at the diffusion equation from Equation 11, we integrate angular flux over 4 Fr steradians such that the following is realized: di7(, E,6, ) 4F, E t)(12) If we integrate the LBE over all angles, we obtain the zeroth angular moment. Without showing all the steps of the integration, the zeroth moment balance equation takes the form of the follow ng: 1 84(F, E, t) + V J(F, E, t) + 0(F, E) (F, E, t) = q,, (F, E, t) v 8 t (13) Where a neutron current term, V J(F, E, t) becomes a second unknown, leaving two unknowns and only one equation. This divergence of current is the net leakage from the system. To resolve the equation, a relationship must be developed between ~(F, E, t) and J(F, E, t) The relationship is established by introducing jirst angular moment: di i(LBE)(14) This new relation, after some manipulation, becomes the following: 1~~ V E~tdn nsy(F, E, 02, t) + cr(F, E)J(F, E, t) = q,, (F, E, t) v dt 4x(15) + SdE'a, (F, E'~ E)J(F, E, t) Equation 15 may be of further use assuming that angular flux weakly depends on angle, so that, using first moments,2 we assume: y (F, E, 0, t) = 1 Q(F, E, t) + 302 J(F, E, t) (16) 47r Substitution of Equation 1 6 into Equation 15 with subsequent integration and simplification yields the P1 balance equations, as: 1 8 (F, E, t) + V J(F, E, t) + a(F, E)#(F, E, t) = q,, (F, E, t) v 8 t (17) + %dE'o, (F, E'~ >) (F, E,~ t) + X(E) RdE'v e (F, E) (r, E' t) And 1 8J(F, E, t) 1 + V #(F, E, t) + (F, E)J(F, E, t) = q,, (F, E, t) v dt 3 (18) Taking the one speed form of the P1 equations, (i.e. with integration over all possible energies) yields the one speed balance equations as: 1 84(F, t) + V J(F, t) + o(F, E) (F, t) = q,, (F, t) v dt (19) + o, (F)#(F, t) + va, (F)#(F, t) And 1 8J(F, t) 1 +V4(F,t)+o(F)J(F,t) =q,,,(F,t) v dt 3 (110) + o,, (F) J(F, t) dJ(F, t) Further assumptions can be made about .It is acceptable to assume the relative variation in current will not dominate the collision term, (e.g. unless there is a severe accident situation), and therefore the M(F~t) term is assumed to be zero.2 This is particularly convenient because it yields an approximation for J(F, t) itself from Equation (110) to give: J(F, t) = ( o (F, I~lt) (111) Where the diffusion constant can be defined as: D! = ( o (112) Substitution into Equation (19) gives the one speed diffusion equation as: 1 8 (F, t) D on2(F, t) + (F, E)#(F, t) = q,t(F, t) v 8t (113) + o, (F) (F, t) + vo, (F)#(F, t) Diffusion theory for neutrons is based on the idea that neutrons migrate from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration, much like diffusion of gases and heat. However, in most diffusive processes, diffusing particles are characterized by what can be described as frequent scattering. The problem is that the cross section for neutron scattering is often on the order of 1024 CM12 2 As a result, with typical atom densities, neutrons may travel for several centimeters before a collision or scattering event takes place, depending on neutron energy. What' s more, the dimensions of fuel rods, control rods, and other absorbers in a reactor or radiation system are of the same order as the mean free path (mfp) of a neutron. Diffusion theory fails to describe neutron behavior and becomes inaccurate in regions where the flux can change radically.2 The regions in a reactor or radiation system where the flux changes very rapidly include: * Material interfaces, where two different materials meet * Strong absorbers (especially, control rods) * At the boundary of a system Therefore, it' s not hard to imagine that these assumptions break down in a heterogeneous radiation system. To give reasonable solutions, diffusion theory is often specifically "tuned" by correction factors in order to produce transpor~rtrt~t~r~tcrtrected~fluxes and reaction rates. Needless to say, that the desired solution, often termed the "true solution, is only obtained through the transport theory, by solving the LBE. In most new reactor systems, every "tuned" diffusion theory is proving to be inadequate as reactor margins and efficiency are pressed. Transport Solution Today, 3 D transport reactor modeling is done primarily through stochastic Monte Carlo simulation, perhaps most popularly utilized by Los Alamos National Laboratory' s, (LANL) MCNP series. This is in part due to the fact that solving the LBE deterministically creates difficulties and generating multigroup cross section parameters can be difficult, and proper inning of energy groups, and therefore modeling of resonances, can become treacherous. MCNP uses "continuous energy" bins at a variety of temperatures, and many concerns about accurate representation of cross section resonances and energy dependence are lifted. As a result, nuclear engineers and physicists have learned to rely heavily on Monte Carlo methods, sometimes taking for granted the issues related to the statistics involved in obtaining a converged Monte Carlo solution. Radiation systems analysis with stochastic Monte Carlo methods alone can never be exact, but rather, are bounded by statistics and tests for statistical convergence. Thus, while the Monte Carlo method is quite useful, it may lead to difficulties in achieving a converged solution. Transport theory renders a scientist with a near "exact" global solution, providing the languid evaluator has the right tools and discretization of the phase space in Equation 11, including reasonably accurate geometric modeling and Doppler broadened, self shielded multigroup cross section generation tools. This brings us to a discussion involving the advantages and disadvantages of both Monte Carlo, and deterministic transport solutions. The following chapters describe a multigroup cross section generation and modeling approach in an effort to analyze two radiation systems using Sn and Monte Carlo simulation. In Chapter 2, previous work and different analytical methods are outlined. Chapter 3 highlights cross section generation, and presents a study involving a procedure for generating Doppler broadened energy weighted material cross sections for a 3 D Candidate Design (CD) pin cell. Chapter 4 presents a 3 D reactor model and simulation of the neutron flux behavior in a pressurized heavy water, natural uranium reactor using 3 D Sn Parallel Environment Transport theory, (PENTRAN) in tandem with Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5), while utilizing the cross section generation methods outlined in Chapter 3. In Chapter 5, a fixed source shielding problem is introduced and solved using Monte Carlo in tandem with transport theory that includes demonstration of the advantages of forward and adj oint equation. This is followed by a discussion of conclusions, future work, and references. CHAPTER 2 PREVIOUS WORK Deterministic Codes Although deterministic codes exist for evaluation of heterogeneous radiation systems, many fall short of geometry, memory, or parallel processing requirements. There are few parallel deterministic transport codes available and therefore, previous work involving analysis of large scale heterogeneous radiation systems is limited. Analysis and validation of deterministic code packages, through modeling of increasingly detailed reactor and fixed source systems, remains the method of quality control among the use of different deterministic radiation system simulation techniques. Oak Ridge's Reactor Physics and Shielding Package Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) has developed many useful codes for the public (U. S. citizens only) and their radiation systems analysis needs. The multitude of codes includes criticality safety codes using both stochastic and deterministic methods, as well as sophisticated reactor fuel burnup modules for certain standarddddd~~~~~~dddddd reactor systems (pressurized water reactor, boiling water reactor). However, deterministic 3 D transport remains a beast yet dominated in nuclear science. NEW Transport code (NEWT), XSection Dynamics for Reactor Nucleonics with Petrie Modifications (XSDRNPM) and the Discrete Ordinates Oak Ridge System (DOORS) system are the only ORNL codes available for transport analysis. XSDRNPM is a one dimensional (1D) Sn transport algorithm and is used in Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) for eigenvalue (keffective) determination, crosssection collapsing, production of bias factors for use in Monte Carlo shielding calculations, and shielding analysis.3 Diffusion theory can also be executed through use of XSDRNPM. However, 1 D models are less useful for large heterogeneous systems. NEWT (although it is not the newest addition to SCALES), was developed as a multigroup discrete ordinates radiation transport code with non orthogonal meshing to allow for complex twodimensional (2D) neutron transport models.4 NEWT is commonly spoken of in tandem with Triton (a transport and depletion module for nuclear fuel) and used for infinite lattice calculations and comparisons. It is especially useful for multigroup cross section generation and Doppler broadening. Unfortunately, NEWT has no parallel capabilities, and does not account for three dimensional (3D) effects. Tetrahedral Mesh Transport Attila solves the first order steady state form of the Linear Boltzmann Equation (LBE) using the discrete ordinates method, and does so using tetrahedral mesh geometries and angular discretization.5 Tetrahedral mesh geometry provides for impressive accuracy in material representation, but requires a commercial mesh generator. However, the complex tetrahedral mesh limits the differencing scheme versatility in the code, and therefore Attila is tied to linear discontinuous finiteelement spatial differencing. A notable advantage to this scheme is that since Attila allows for discontinuities between element faces, and the Linear Discontinuous Finite Element Method (LDFEM) is able to capture sharp gradients with large meshes allowing for lower Sn angular discretization.5 However, this can pose challenges to yielding accurate solutions in thick shielding problems. To date, Attila is not parallel, and memory issues are significant in cases where complex geometry couples with high angular discretization requirements. Oak Ridge's Transport Package ThreeDimensional Oak Ridge Transport (TORT), available through the Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) Discrete Ordinates Oak Ridge System (DOORS), is another ORNL code that solves the Linear Boltzmann Equation (LBE) using the method of discrete ordinates, but in 3D. TORT's limitations apply specifically to fixed source problems where penetration of particles through large nonscattering media produce errors in TORT's calculations because of nonphysical "ray effects". Further limitations memory limitations and no scalable parallel. Parallel Environment Neutral Particle Transport Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) is a scalable parallel code that solves the steady state form of the LBE in 3 D while using Cartesian mesh geometries and Sn angular discretization.6 The package, as mentioned previously, operates in a distributed parallel environment, solving the issue of memory availability by further distributing the phase space across 3 dimensions of domain decomposition, including space (Cartesian mesh spatial discretization), angle (angular discretization), and energy group (energy group discretization). PENTRAN is very efficient with adaptive differencing schemes, and has schemes for coarse mesh/partial current rebalance and Taylor proj section methods for linking grid discontinuities and mitigating ray effects. The very flexible differencing schemes allow for a solution that i s tailored to the experience of the user. Also, PENTRAN is in continuous development. Monte Carlo Stochastic Method of Solution As mentioned in the previous section, Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) uses a variety of codes, of which employ stochastic Monte Carlo methods to assist in problem simulations. The Keno criticality module Monte Carlo is an incredibly useful tool for criticality calculations, and much study has been directed towards obtaining solutions in loosely coupled systems. However, the code is not meant to model fixed source transport problems. Further applications ofKeno include its use in depletion calculations with the use of Triton. Los Alamos National Lab's (LANL) Monte Carlo Neutral Particle code (MCNP) has achieved high notoriety in the field of nuclear engineering and simulation, but there are situations in which loosely coupled systems provide waning confidence in source convergence. Such elusive resolutions require a keen eye for the statistical nature of the method of solution. Although statistical tests such as "driftinmean" and "1/N" tests can detect nonconvergence of a source, they cannot provide completely reliable indications of nonconvergence.7 Previous work in Monte Carlo solution methods include loosely coupled system simulations such as criticality safety geometries, eigenvalue, and fixed source shielding problems, and in particular address solutions to such problems. CHAPTER MULTIGROUP CROSS SECTION GENERATION In order to specifically address the problem involving the generation of multigroup Doppler broadened/self shielded material cross sections, a procedure was developed using Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) with the NEW Transport along with Triton (NEWTTriton) transport tool. In NEWT, a general purpose 23 8 group library can be collapsed to obtain a useful cross section library for use in 3 D Sn transport in Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN). This method was developed in the process of building a Candidate Design (CD) fuel pin, performing a 3 D unit cell or lattice eigenvalue calculation, and comparing the results against Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5). An example of the procedure is highlighted in subsequent sections. Candidate Design Fuel Pin Data The Candidate Design (CD) fuel rod, depicted in Figure 3 1, modeled for the study was taken from the full core CD with the following properties; * UraniumMo Alloy Annular Fuel, 0.72 w%/ U235 enriched; 98.5 w% U, 1.5 w% Mo * Inner Fuel Radius: 0 cm (reduced for natural uranium fuel design) * Outer Fuel Radius: 1.78 cm * Fuel Rod Length: 250 cm * Fuel Rod Pitch: 13.5 cm * Cladding, inner: 0.1 cm, Alloy 6061T6 * Cladding, outer: 0.1 cm, Alloy 6061T6 * Inner Pressure Tube Radius: 2.0 cm, Pressure Tube thickness: 0.15 cm Figre3. ue eemntdeaifoCadatDegn Fo.:rth simulation, the inr imte f h nnlr yefuldeitd nFiue3 a considered to be zero, impDlyigasldfuleeet Process for Cross Section Collapse Although the single pin infinite lattice calculation performed in order to validate the cross section collapse procedure using the Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) package only models 2D geometries, the process was shown to be accurate for 3 D calculations, as will be shown by the following sections. Candidate Design Muligroup Binning To select a proper group structure most applicable to the core physics Candidate Design (CD) problem, the entire CD reactor core, to be described in the following chapter, was modeled in a continuous energy Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) for approximately 10 hours on 16 64bit Opteron processors. Results of this Monte Carlo simulation yielded approximately 3% tally statistics throughout all 238 energy groups. MCNP5 continuous energy groups were binned to be identical with the general Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) library. Following analysis of this data, eight (8) total energy groups were collapsed from the original 238 groups that could best represent problem physics. Note these groups were identified through use of the global integrated U23 5 fission rate tally, with contributions from all fueled core regions portrayed in Figure 3 2. Table 31 shows each collapsed group's upper energy limits. CD Full Core, 1.35% Enriched Annular Fuel, Fission Rate in U235 G8 G7 G6 G5 G4 G3 321 G1 Energy In MeV Figure 32. Wholecore U235 fission rate (average relative error 3%) and selected 8group structure. Table 31. 8 group collapsed energy bin bounds Group Upper Group Bounds(MeV) 1 20 2 1.36 3 4.40E01 4 5.20E02 5 3.90E03 6 6.83E04 7 1.22E04 8 3.00E06 The study was also collapsed to six groups for in order to reduce memory requirements. The upper bounds for the six group collapse are shown in Table 3 2. Table 32. 6 group collapsed energy bin bounds Group Upper Group Bounds (MeV) 1 20 2 1.36 3 4.40E01 4 3.90E03 5 1.22E04 6 3.00E06 Codes for Cross Section Generation The 8 and 6 group libraries presented in the previous section were collapsed from the 238 group Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) general library for the pin cell materials and rendered into deterministic cross section libraries using tools that were developed or significantly expanded and enhanced in support of this proj ect: the Scale Form (SCALFORM) tool renders Scale5.1 microscopic cross sections in a readable text format following the use of the Scale5.1 Alpo tool. Mixing the rendered text based microscopic cross sections from SCALFORM was then accomplished using an updated group cross section mixer called Group Independent Mixer (GMIX), which provides material macroscopic cross sections, and fuel mixture group fission source "chi" values. For this work, a mean average integrated chi fission spectrum that accounts for the effects of multiple fissile nuclides was developed and incorporated into GMIX. A flowchart outlining the cross section generation process, termed the single uranium Pin (suPin) process, is shown in Figure 3 3. Output~ suPin.out (data file) Output s uPinXS suPin.inp Input NEWTTRITON .xsa (log file) Oupu Output suPin.out (log file) suPin.grp su Pin.xrf GMIX Output suPinMAC.xs Input su Pin.gmx Input Output suPinMAC.chi Figure 3 3. Flow chart of the codes and used in the cross section generation proce ss, where codes are represented in blue, files are represented in yellow. Single Pin Mesh Modeling in Cartesian 3D Sn Transport Following the generation of macroscopic cross sections, from the 2 D NEW Transport (NEWT) infinite lattice calculation, a 3 D calculation with Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) was modeled. Again, the purpose of the PENTRAN calculation was to validate the cross section generation procedure in a 3 D lattice calculation for further use on the 1/8th core Candidate Design (CD) model. For the simulation, the full pin model was used with the parameters shown in Table 3 3. Table 3 3. Candidate Design single pin geometry parameters Description length (cm) active fuel length 250 Length of D20 stacked above/below active fuel 79 rfyneortere 1.780 1st clad rozere; 1.992 Pressure tube rnner 2.430 Pressure tube rozere; 2.530 fuel pitch 12.563 Note that the fuel pitch in the single pin model is 12.563 cm, which is an adjusted equivalent square pitch to the triangular pitch of 13.5 cm in the full core model. The single pin model considers an infinite square lattice, whereas the full core model has fuel elements in a triangular array. PENTRAN is a 3 D Cartesian discrete ordinates code, and therefore mesh refinement must be implemented to represent the geometry specification of a desired design. In some cases, the design can be modeled to exact geometry, in cases with curved shapes, some approximations must be used. For the single lattice cell study, two geometries for the coarse mesh cell containing cylindrical fuel elements were considered. These two geometries will be referred to as a 35x34 coarse mesh cell and a 21xl9 coarse mesh cell; more specifically, these numbers refer to the fine mesh structure of the coarse mesh containing the fuel element. The 35x34 coarse mesh cell was intended to represent the cylindrical geometry of the fuel element to near exact design geometry specifications. The 35x34 coarse mesh cell is shown below in Figure 34. Figure 3 4. 35x34 coarse mesh cell for deterministic model. The 35x34 (xy) coarse mesh scheme in Figure 3 4 yields the approximations for masses in the model as shown in Table 34. Table 34. Excess mass balance and percent error for a 35x34 mesh full pin Model Excess Mass(g) 139.00 98.20 28.40 197.00 19.90 Material UMo Alinner D20inner Al outer D20outer Model Mass (g) 47,000.00 1,597.60 1,642.40 1,249.00 65,200.00 Target Mass (g) 47,139.00 1,499.40 1,614.00 1,446.20 65,180.00 Percent Error 0.29% 6.15% 1.73% 15.79% 0.03% This model worked well for representation of a unit cell calculation; however, due to the anticipated possible memory limitations encountered in developing the 1/8 Symmetry core model of the Candidate Design deterministically, it became necessary to perform a single lattice cell parameter study in an effort to limit the number of fine mesh cells defining the geometry within coarse mesh cells containing fuel pins and in outer coarse meshes in a triangular pitch assembly arrangement for the CD. After a brief study, a practical Cartesian meshing scheme was chosen. This scheme involved a blend of minimal meshing to achieve a balance of fissile mass, and minimize memory requirements in PENTRAN; this is depicted in Figure 3 5. Unatural SAlinner SD20Inner SAlouter M D20outer Figure 3 5. 21xl9 coarse mesh cell for deterministic model. The excess mass for the 21xl9 mesh scheme is shown in Table 3 5. Table 35. Excess mass balance and percent error for a 21xl9 mesh full pin Model Excess Model Target Mass Percent Material Mass(g) Mass (g) (g) Error Unatural 35.6 46820.0 46784.0 0.08% Alinner 136.0 1559.4 1423.0 8.75% D20inner 91.2 1762.0O 1853.2 5.18% Alouter 12.3 1039.6 1027.3 1.18% From inspection of Table 3 4, using Cartesian "voxels" as building blocks for meshed representation of the fuel assembly, there will inherently be a material approximation in representing curved boundary surfaces, so that approximately 9% of the aluminum cladding is underrepresented in the 21xl9 mesh model, and the D20 within the flow channel is overrepresented by ~5%. However, for the purposes of the study, this is acceptable, since it is most important to properly represent the targeted mass of fissile material present as closely as possible, along with reasonably close conservation of the moderator mass. Group Albedo Treatment in the 3D Deterministic Lattice Cell Due to the large size of the 1/8 core Candidate Design (CD) model, full representation of the almost meter of water above and below the fuel elements (79cm thick), the core was not tractable for the deterministic model to fit on the 8node, 16 processor Einstein cluster. Therefore, the model size may be reduced by implementing group dependent albedo factors, computed using a 3 D lattice cell calculation. To reduce the amount of heavy water atop the pins in the CD 1/8 core model, group albedos were calculated by using the multigroup solutions from a single pin lattice cell calculation and mapping albedo factors for each of 15 fine zlevels within the 79 cm of heavy water directly above the fuel pin location (every 5.267cm). To determine an appropriate location in the 79cm of heavy water reflector to truncate or chop" the D20 and implement a group dependent albedo factor boundary condition, a calculation was made using fluxweighted cross sections to truncate the model at a distance of 6 mean free paths above the fuel. The highly resolved 35x34 mesh scheme pin cell model, described in the previous section, was used to obtain group albedo factors for the full D20 reflected model, and with additional investigation using both a 35x34 and a 21xl9 mesh albedo based model. The formulations used for determining an average mean free path follows: g=1 I=1 With N,, = o,Mx Where hx=thickness of the medium (3 2) F = exp(N,f ) (33) Where ~, is the it fine mesh group g flux above the fuel element, my, represents the total macroscopic cross section in group g, and y, is the fine mesh volume. The fraction F of uncollided neutrons at Nmean free paths is given by Equation 3 3. A 6mean free path (6 mfp) length of reflector is often used as a thickness to apply a group albedo boundary. This was applied here; applicable data are presented in Table 3 6. Table 36. Albedo boundary distance parameters Parameter Value units "t 0.44464 cml 3*mfp 6.7470 cm 6*mfp 13.494 cm Here we should note that value of 6 mean free paths for the heavy water using the 3 D unit cell data yielded a reflector distance which also happens to be equivalent to the pitch of the fuel pins, 13.5 cm implying the fuel pins are decoupledd." Further, flux weighted group albedo factors were found using the following equation: 1=1 (34) The group dependent albedo factors determined from Equation 3 4 are easily recognized as the fraction of returned current computed for the mesh cells in the heavy water above the pin in mesh i, and of energy group g, where the desired heavy water cut is to be made. Due to the z fine mesh partitions of the problem throughout the heavy water above the fuel, a value of 1 0.53 cm, or 4.68 mean free paths above the fuel element. Albedo factors for the 8 group and 6 group model are provided in Table 3 7 and 3 8 respectively. Table 37. 8 group albedo factors Group Upper Group Bounds(MeV) ag 1 20.0 0.0823 2 1.36 0.2714 3 4.4E1 0.4089 4 5.2E2 0.4536 5 3.9E3 0.5063 6 6.83E4 0.5501 7 1.22E4 0.6239 8 3.0E6 0.9956 Table 38. 6 group albedo factors Group Upper Group Bounds (MeV) ag 1 20 0.0824 2 1.36 0.2715 3 4.40E01 0.4811 4 3.90E03 0.5451 5 1.22E04 0.6189 6 3.00E06 0.9949 Single Pin Monte Carlo and Deterministic Eigenvalue Comparisons The pin that was modeled in Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) is shown in Figure 36. It is easy to see the advantages of MCNP5 when compared to the discretized geometry required for Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN). Al 6061  Clad a i UMot Fuel I D20 Figure 36. Single pin Candidate Design material description used in the Monte Carlo model. No material approximations or albedo calculations were needed for the MCNP5 model, and geometries were modeled exactly as shown in Table 32. The results and comparisons for all single pin eigenvalue calculations compared to MCNP5's continuous energy calculation are shown in Table 3 9 and 310. Table 39. Monte Carlo and Deterministic single pin eigenvalue results for 8 groups Percent difference from Model Final kgf Standard Deviation MCNP MCNP continuous energy 1.091 4.20E04 N/A PENTRAN 35x34 Full 1.086 4.85E05 0.46% D20 Reflector PENTRAN 35x34 Albedo 1.084 1.23E04 0.64% Treated Reflector PENTRAN 21xl9 Albedo 1.092 1.94E04 0.09% Treated Reflector Table 310. Monte Carlo and deterministic single pin eigenvalue results for 6 groups Percent difference from Model Final kerr Standard Deviation MCNP MCNP continuous energy 1.091 4.20E04 N/A PENTRAN 35x34 Full D20 Reflector 1.086 4.95E05 0.46% PENTRAN 21xl9 Albedo Treated Refl ector 1.090 1.75E05 0.09% The 6 group 21xl9 fuel pin provided the most desirable results with the least amount of memory requirements. Therefore, the 21xl9 fuel pin was selected as the pin design of the 1/8th core Sn model. Monte Carlo and Deterministic Flux Comparison In order to collect volumetric fluxes, a mesh tally in Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) was incorporated Figure 3 7 shows a 21xl9 mesh overlaying the pin region, which was selected to provide adequate aliasing with the single pin Deterministic model. Radial flux profiles were gathered with only one zmesh spanning the active fuel length. I II 21xl9 mesh tally scheme for Monte Carlo single pin model. Figure 37. Figures 3 8 through 313 compare radial flux profiles for both MCNP5 and Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) for a single pin unit cell, allowing direct spectral comparison of group fluxes. The figures display relative flux through the centerline of the single pin model for both MCNP5 and PENTRAN, where tallies are aliased to the 6 group energy bins. The relative percent of total neutrons in each group (determined from integration over neutron density) are provided along with maximum and minimum flux values in both Monte Carlo and deterministic models, and maximum relative error between the two models. Group 1 Flux 1.36 MeV to 20 MeV ~Max % Oifference between MCNP/PENTRAN = 1.131% II IIII I MCNP Results 0 Max Flux S1 37E02 Mmn RE 0 66% a, It Lk I I ~ \UI II Al Clad 0 00217% of total o I i I I l ull II I neutrons D20 M N = PENTRAN Al Clad III1II ID20 Nat U X I l~l I I PENTRAN Results 0 / Max of total Mneurn a000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x (cm) Figure 38. Group 1 flux comparison (6 group model). N ~Max % Difference between MCNP/PENTRAN = 1 208% o 0 o 0 13579 1 1 1 1 x cm Fiue39 ru lxcoprsn( ru oe) Gru lx3. e o4 e Max % Difference between MCNP/PENTRAN = 1 482% Group 2 Flux 440 keV to 1.36 MeV IVCNP Results Ma Flux 0 001065 Mmn Flux 0000207 MaxRE 1 34% Mmn RE 0 69% 0 00700% of total neutrons *CNP  PENTRANj PENTRAN Results of total neutrons ~ 8 o m 6 o o co f8 iii, g 8 8 o 8 8 IVCNP Results Max Flux 0 001755 ein 6ns f oa * MCNP  PENTRAN PENTRAIN Results Max 0 001736 Mmn 0001220 0 271% of total neutrons 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x (cm) Figure 310. Group 3 flux comparison (6 group model). ii; Group 4 Flux 122 eV to 3.9 keV Max % Difference between MCNP/PENTRAN = 1 375% 0 12 3 4 O o o o 8 o 8 8 o 8 8 o x EB f8 lo B 8 o 6 8 o 6 8 o 8 8 o IVINP Results Ma Flux 0 000943 Mmn Flux 0 00 772 0 467% of total neutrons *MCNP =PNTRAN PENTRAIN Results 0 000953 Mmn 0 000804 3 615% of total neutrons 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 x (cm) Figure 311. Group 4 flux comparison (6 group model). Group 5 Flux 3 eV to 122 eV IVCNP Results Max Flux 0 000928 Mmn Flux 0 000632 Max RE 0 80% MmnRE 0 53% 2 558% of total neutrons * MCNP * PENTRAN PENTRAIN Results Max 0 000928 Mmn 0 000633 13 382% of total neutrons 012 3456 x (cm) 8 9 10 11 12 13 Figure 312. Group 5 flux comparison (6 group model). Group 6 Flux 0 eV to 3 eV o Max % Difference between MCNP/PENTRAN = 4 671% II IIII I I MCNP Results Max Flux 0 0055 0 32% MmnRE 0 23% ~II I i/I Iof ~totalneurons * MCNP PENTAN iij PENTRAN 0 004714 0 002370 8 1 I I I I II 1 82 645% o ~of total neutrons 0013457810 11 1213 x (cm) Figure 313. Group 6 flux comparison (6 group model). Differences between the MCNP and PENTRAN models for the single pin can be attributed to the multigroup energy group treatment and structure between the Monte Carlo and Deterministic computations, remembering that MCNP uses continuous energy bins, whereas PENTRAN uses discrete energy group bins mixed using the SCALES code with the SUPIN procedure developed for this proj ect. Multigroup cross sections represent averaged behavior in regions with strong resonances, particularly at high energies in U23 5, and especially U23 8.' In addition, the mean nzaxinsun difference between the MCNP5 continuous energy pin cell fluxes and the 6group model was 1.71%. However, based on the assessment of total neutrons in the system (computed using group neutron densities (equal to group flux/ velocity) integrated over the system volume for each energy group), 82.6% of all neutrons appear in group 6 (most thermal group) according to PENTRAN results, and 96.9% of the neutrons according to MCNP5, with a maximum flux difference in group 6 of 4.67% between deterministic and Monte Carlo values, outside of the standard error of the MCNP results. Discussion The single uranium Pin (suPin) process extracts Doppler broadened, self shielded cross sections after a user specified collapse from the Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) multigroup library. Results for eigenvalue calculations in both 3D Sn transport with Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) and Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) were consistent, and therefore are applicable for development of a 6 group full core model. CHAPTER 4 REACTOR MODELING This chapter describes the problem and evaluation of the Candidate Design (CD), with information on results, and limitations of the analysis. The structures of the CD are depicted in the plant overview shown in Figure 41 Figure 41. Plant Overview of original Candidate Design.9 Candidate Design Candidate Design Parameters The Candidate Design (CD) is based on a high flux pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR), located inside a 6061T6 aluminum cylindrical reactor tank vessel (boron, lithium, and cadmium free aluminum) with walls 1.3 cm thick, and a bottom that is 3.5 cm thick. The "reactor tank" design is designed for a power level of between 10 and 35 MWt with certain limitations; it is heavy water moderated and cooled. Secondary heat exchangers match heat transfer from the heavy water cooling circuit to a light water circuit. The initial design of the reactor was modified for fueling with naturally enriched uranium. Average fuel burnup for the core was specified to be 2400 MWD/MT, peak is 4000 MWD/MT for the 15 MWt design (note a peaking of 1.67 is attributed to these values); burnups for the natural uranium core are strongly dependent upon power density and irradiation history. A NorthSouth slice and EastWest slice of the CD reactor component essentials are provided in Figure 42, with an expanded view in Figure 43. A . B . Figre42 Cndiat Deig ractr oreviws. A NrthSuhCniae eincr iw B) EatWs Caddt Deig cor view. Altoug Fgur 41, igre 2 an Fgur 43 ae ot ssntil or hecomue moelngofth C, t sneesar t ginanaprcitin orth sz o te eato ad h potntalmeor rqureens ha my e ncunerd.Aloitisimoran t ntetht an of the structures labeled in Figures 41 and Figure 42 were not modeled in deterministic Sn Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN), or stochastic Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5). Boundary approximations, including vacuum boundaries and albedo boundary conditions at the edge of the actual reactor core give satisfactory results. Figure 43. Enlarged EastWest Core cutaway.9 Candidate Design Reactor Core Design The Candidate Design (CD) core holds a total of solid fuel slugs in fuel assemblies immersed in heavy water. Remaining positions house up to six B4C COntrol rods. Each fuel assembly is placed in the core using a 13.5 cm hexagonal pitch, and is composed of four "stacked" naturally enriched fuel rods clad in aluminum. Thermal hydraulic analysis and heat transfer parameter limits restrict the power increase, so that a ramped overpower operation in this design is bounded to < 35 MW. The CD reactor and fuel parameter are summarized by the follow ng; * 26 MWth Design Power * 166 fuel assembly positions * 5 fuel rods per assembly * Solid natural uranium * Up to 6 shim rods * Central channel * D20 around, above, and below core * Aluminum reactor wall * Aluminum support plate * Graphite around outer core The core contains the fuel inside individual pressure tubes spanning over a radius of ~90 cm in a 13.5 cm hexagonal lattice, which is then surrounded by 40 cm of heavy water as a primary reflector, made up from the outer edge of fuel channel subassemblies up to the physical tank wall. Immediately outside the tank (separated by a 0.8 cm air gap for air cooling) sits a large mass of graphite fashioned as a 14sided prism at an approximate inner radius of 130O cm and a thickness extending out at least 62.8 cm from the inner radius. At the edge of the graphite is another air gap of 2 cm, followed by a 100 MT cast steel thermal shield 19 cm thick. The graphite is stacked on top of a bismuth support plate (to avoid ngamma reactions since natural bismuth209 has only a 20 mb neutron capture cross section) to support the graphite. The graphite is purified nuclear grade graphite (< 3 ppm natural boron) composed of20 cm x 20 cm interlocking stringer blocks configured to be very resistant to shifting, even when heated. The air gaps support filtered atmospheric air flow used for a secondary cooling mechanism. The reactor tank is under pressure with helium cover gas, and based on the data available for the CD, tank seals can withstand ~2 psi of heavy water overpressure during an excursion. Beyond the graphite is a 200 cm thick concrete biological shield. Figure 44 shows a horizontal slice of the core and the surrounding beam ports. Figure 44. Horizontal slice of core and surrounding beam ports.9 Reactor Physics Analysis Methods Full Core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model A full core model for the Candidate Design (CD) was generated with complete detail for the reactor system components using Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5). Figure45 and Figure 46 rendered using the MCNP5 viewer, and provide the details of the schematic for the full core Monte Carlo model. In Figure 45, individual fuel pins with five fuel slugs are labeled, in addition to the aluminum reactor vessel and graphite reflector surrounding the core. The geometry of the pins is the same as in Table 44, a fuel pitch of 1 3.5 cm (triangular lattice of 166 pins). Figure 45. XZ (y=0 slice) plane view of full core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model J ~~ +++ & 0a6 *A& eassemenessel * *+ + 1 499* * meemseema weee * + ** ** ** Figure 46. XY(z=0 slice) plane view of full core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model. With a full core model in MCNP5, calculations to determine pin power, and peaking factors were performed. To assist in a core map reference, a pin numbering index was implemented. This numbering index is depicted in a simplified diagram of the full core model, with pins sequentially labeled 1 thru 166 for the CD as shown in Figure 47. 0@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@@@@> @@@ @ @ @@@@i @@@@@@@@@@@@@ Figure 47. Monte Carlo model full core pin numbering scheme. The full core model was simulated on the Einstein cluster using a "kcode" simulation sequence using MCNP5 to determine the overall criticality of the system. Table 41 provides a summary of the computed keff summary. Table 41. Monte Carlo Candidate Design kcode full core results Parameter Value Units kef Eag Ofa n COMSing fission 1.04231 +/ 0.00048 218. 3 2.464 keV neutrons/fission prompt removal lifetime 8.1916E04 +/ 1.89E06 Seconds CPU Time, Einstein, 16 Procs 5.09 Hours (+/ 5% pin power) Radial Power Profile A radial pin power profile (relative to a total reactor power of 26 MWr) is depicted in Figure 48 and Table 42 with power densities given in W/cc. This was established using F7 tallies to yield total fission power in each pin. As anticipated, the reactor power is the highest near the core center, in the immediate region which surrounds the largest experimental cavity; specifically, this is at pin number 76, with 0.901% of the total power generated, or 94.53 W/cc. The core average radial pin power was 63.6 W/cc. Pows m ce @B S @@***@ @@@ ~ 888 88 888 9999****989**~ 888 8 O 88 **6) G 999898990~~ ***888* Figure 48. Radial (averaged over axial length) total power pin power densities based on relative errors of less than 4.2% for each value. Table 42. Power density per pin (maximum error < 4.2%) pin number (W/cc) pin number (W/cc) pin number (W/cc) pin number 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 Average (W/cc) 73.892 70.729 66.285 60.786 52.727 50.391 55.137 54.497 59.581 64.665 70.428 72.876 67.113 64.100 57.397 53.141 50.730 51.446 50.354 57.171 63.121 65.833 59.430 55.476 49.902 48.998 47.529 46.362 52.312 57.962 58.677 54.610 49.827 45.985 46.588 45.006 45.947 48.697 53.141 52.990 51.446 45.232 42.897 63.195 51.484 53.555 54.798 54.572 55.401 48.734 47.379 54.723 54.271 57.585 55.739 55.288 51.823 50.015 50.843 57.660 57.020 60.033 61.539 63.347 61.125 56.832 53.555 53.291 60.711 59.656 63.799 68.356 71.143 68.469 66.473 63.686 55.589 54.723 60.033 59.807 67.151 72.424 74.985 77.583 72.085 70.503 63.724 57.133 55.288 58.828 59.129 66.774 71.633 78.299 79.353 76.830 77.546 71.030 64.402 54.534 53.932 60.598 58.865 65.155 72.725 78.901 80.333 81.011 80.634 77.018 70.277 62.519 54.120 54.836 58.338 63.347 73.892 82.027 87.338 94.531 90.426 85.379 80.672 69.109 58.752 53.103 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 61.878 59.167 72.461 89.823 93.853 75.889 64.552 54.647 52.049 59.694 61.991 76.114 80.408 86.697 93.439 87.865 86.057 78.600 67.226 58.564 48.659 47.680 57.660 57.510 63.422 72.650 75.625 80.220 78.751 78.148 74.834 67.528 59.543 52.049 47.567 54.685 55.626 62.632 68.168 70.767 74.118 Axial Power Profile Only five axial zones were modeled to obtain power density. Using five zones was convenient since five slugs compose a single pin. Since each fuel slug (~9.450 kg or ~500 cc) is the same volume and defined as a cell in the Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) model, fission power tallies are conveniently obtained. The results of the axial power densities are in Table 43. Table 43. Computed power density per axial zone (errors < 4.2%) Axial Zone Power Hot Channel Power Axial Zone (W/cc) (W/cc) 1, (1.05 cm to 51.05 cm) 47.03 69.11 2, (53.15 cm to 103.15 cm) 72.69 112.23 3, (105.25 cm to 155.25 cm) 80.76 122.21 4, (157.35 cm to 207.35 cm) 70.79 103.95 5, (209.45 cm to 259.45 cm) 44.70 65.16 Average 63.20 94.53 Power Peaking Summary Calculated power peaking factor (PPF) values representing peak to average assembly power densities are given in Table 44. Using Table 43, the radial PPF was calculated by locating the maximum power density (pin 76) of the 166 pins and dividing by the average power density. The axial PPF in the hottest pin was calculated by segmenting pin 76 into five (5) individual zones and calculating a local PPF for that pin alone. The PPF in the hottest pin/channel is calculated by multiplying the radial PPF with the axial PPF in the hottest pin. Table 44. Power Peaking Factor Summary Power Peaking Factor Summary radial PPF 1.496 axial PPF in the hottest pin 1.293 PPF in the hottest pin/channel 1.934 Therefore, 1.934 was the calculated power peaking factor using the Monte Carlo full core model. Deterministic Analysis of Candidate Design 1/8th COre Candidate Design Model The Candidate Design (CD)was generated using Latte triangular lattice generator. Latte was developed in an effort to ease construction of the model. Previously, the user would have to construct each individual pin. Latte was used to create the whole core assembly from the 21xl9 single pin coarse mesh described in the previous chapter. Memory requirements for the Einstein 8node, 16 processor cluster dictated that at most 1/8th of the core could be modeled, resulting in a modified core design without the empty channels of the original core design. A 1/8th COTO symmetry was obtained by modeling half the core in the zdirection and '/ core in the xy plane. The 1/8th CD is shown in Figure 49. 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Figure 49. 1/8th COre Candidate Design. It should be noted that the graphite reflector was omitted due to the approximation that the D20 already serves as an infinite reflector under the specified operating conditions. The 1/8th Core Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) model used a blockadaptive mesh grid, where high resolution meshing is applied in zones where needed (in fuel pin zones). Meshing can be relaxed in the peripheral heavy water region. The final 1/8 core model used contained 361,584 mesh cells, and as many as 260 million multigroup simultaneous equations in a power/source iteration for determination of the criticality eigenvalue and pin power distribution. Heavy water moderated systems are some of the most difficult systems to converge, since neutrons scatter quickly, and remain in thermal energies (as evidenced by the thermal group albedos of 0.995 determined previously). Deterministic Criticality Calculation, 1/8th COre Candidate Design The Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) deterministic criticality calculation presented several challenges due to limited cluster memory. Three calculations were performed using 21xl9 xy meshes for each fuel pin, studying convergence effects of changing the Sn ordinate parameters and number of energy groups. kgf convergence for 8 group models using S4 and S8 angular quadrature, and a 6 group model using S10 angular quadrature were studied; all cases were run with P1 scattering anisotropy. All calculations were initially performed using the Directional Theta Weighted (DTW) differencing scheme locked in all 1710 coarse meshes. The behavior of the criticality eigenvalue kgf and the convergence comparisons are provided in Figure 410 and Table 45, respectively. Figure 410. Convergence of the 1/8th COre Candidate Design for deterministic models. Table 45. Final values for 6group convergence comparison CPU Standard Final k Procs Procs Procs Time Model Final k Deviation Iteration tol erance Space Group Angle MB/Proc (hrs) S4 8 groups 1.00237 8. 10E0 5 84 1.00E04 4 3 1 2714.3 54.7 S8 8 groups 0.99741 5.85E05 75 1.00E04 10 1 1 3994.8 87.3 S10 6 groups 0.99807 5.15E05 75 1.00E04 5 3 1 3270.3 99.2 Power Peaking in the 1/8th COre Candidate Design Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) is capable of delivering fission source information directly to the user via PENTRAN Data extractor (PENDATA), and can be used to yield volumetric fission neutron source values in the fuel, sorted by energy group. The volumetric fission source data corresponds to the fission neutron source in the fuel in user specified fine meshes within each coarse mesh volume. Therefore, group sorted fission sources (# of neutrons/cc) in fuel values were integrated over energy group and fuel zone volume, and divided by total zone fuel volume and the average number of neutrons per fission to obtain the mean fission reaction density per zone. The source density per zone was then scaled to yi eld a computed core thermal power of 26 MWt in accordance with Candidate Design (CD) specifications. Powr~nsi~ =l I= 190M~eV 1.602E 13J 1 W 41 zone "ia fiss M~eV J/s Radial pin power peaking was calculated by summing over zones of fuel pin power volumes axially, and determining peak to average ratios between radial pin power densities. The results of the pin mean power densities are shown in Figure 41 1. P ow density (W~lcc) 97T 82 66 51 46 41 26 ~888 88888 9888 **8~888 Figure 411. Relative pin power for pins contained in 1/8th Candidate Design (W/cc). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1sigma) Axial power peaking was calculated in a similar manner, using 6 zaxial zones, where the pin power was summed over radial volumes in each axial zone. The hottest half pin was split over 6 z levels. Axial zone boundaries and associated zone averaged power densities are in Table 46. Table 46. Axial zone boundaries, zone and hottest channel power densities computed using the deterministic model Axial Zone Hot Channel No. Boundaries in cm Power (W/cc) Power (W/cc) 1 020 69.191 113.220 2 2040 68.099 111.324 3 4060 65.887 107.359 4 6080 62.626 101.718 5 80100 58.218 94.298 6 100125 53.196 86.244 Average 62.484 101.716 Power peaking values for the 1/8th COre deterministic computation are shown in Table 47. Average power density for each zone is shown in Table 48. Table 47. Hot channel power peaking factors compared to Monte Carlo Percent difference from Type Peak to Average Power Ratio MCNP5 PENTRAN Radial 1.628 8.82% MCNP Radial 1.496 N/A PENTRAN Axial 1.113 13.92% MCNP Axial 1.293 N/A PENTRAN Power Peaking Factor 1.934 6.73% MCNP Power Peaking Factor 1.812 N/A Table 48. Average power density by zone compared to Monte Carlo Average Power Density Percent difference from Zone (W/cc) MCNP5 MCNP5 Radial 63.6 0.01% PENTRAN Radial Full Core 63.605 N/A MCNP5 Axial (Hottest Pin) 94.53 7.65% PENTRAN Axial (Hottest Pin) 102.361 N/A Full Core Power Density Comparisons The pin powers for reactor power scaled to 26 MWt were computed as noted in previous sections, and are reproduced here for direct comparison. A sidebyside pin power comparison is provided in Figure 412, and the ratio of power density per pin is given in Figure 413. < : MCNP ~~~~~~ Figure 412. Monte Carlo and Deterministic 6 group computed power densities (W/cc). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1sigma). O 9 809 989 0.8 O .0 Q @ Fiue41.Rto fMneCropwe est oDtemnsi oe eniy ot al diuevito (1sigma) of 4.2%e orless Power density rtios divergiitioefro unity ionthe pinso primarily along the outer periphery, attributed largely to the use of inadequate mesh densities in outer core regions of the Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) model. Higher mesh densities are needed there to resolve the neutron leakage streaming off of the core, along with an investigation of adaptive differencing scheme behavior. The inadequate local mesh resolution at the edge of the core causes the leakage to be overestimated there, so that this directly explains why a lower system criticality eigenvalue (kegf= 1.00) resulted from the deterministic models (compared to the kegf=1.04 in the Monte Carlo model). In addition, since the PENTRAN model was a 1/8 core symmetry model, some differences near the center of the core can be attributed to the empty channels not modeled in PENTRAN model which also affect k. Given these facts, the models are comparable, although the differences could be narrowed further by refinement of the deterministic model. The following plots show that there was a severe flux drop at the outer edges of the core. The flux drop may not have been accurately modeled in the PENTRAN calculation due to limited memory capabilities. Further study was provided after expanding models on a new cluster named Bohr. MCNP 6 Group Group 60Group 54rloup 4M**Group 3M**roup 2 Group 1 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 70 80 9 0.0y cm) Fiue 4.Mnt aro6 rupfuxs PENTRAIN 6 Group Group 6Eroup5Mroup 4Group3iCroup 2 Group 1 0.00025 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 y (cm) Figure 415. Deterministic 6 group fluxes. Further Refinement of the Deterministic Model The Bohr cluster supplied more speed of calculation and memory for the Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) simulation. To a limit, the meshing surrounding fuel elements on the perimeter of the model could be refined and the results are shown in Figure 4 16. G @QQ0990 O OO se Figure 416. Monte Carlo to Deterministic power ratios for S10 refined mesh (left) and S10 coarser mesh (right). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1sigma). Mesh densities in Figure 416 were increased by a factor of 2 coarse meshes surrounding periphery fuel pins. Further study was employed in an effort to determine more accurate differencing schemes for the PENTRAN model. The Exponential Directional Iterative (EDI) differencing scheme has shown promising results in test problems and was implemented on the perimeter pins as indicated by Figure 417.10 Figure 418 presents the ratios, Monte Carlo to deterministic power densities, for the calculation. Figure 417. PENTRAN differencing scheme map, blue = Directional Theta Weighted, red Exponential Directional Iterative. Figure 418. Monte Carlo to Deterministic power ratios for S10 refined mesh with updated differencing. Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1sigma). The power ratios are closer to unity in the previous problem areas located at the top of the figure. This demonstrates the need for a differencing scheme like EDI to account for streaming and edge effects in core physics calculations. Also, agreement for the pin on the upper left corner of Figure 418 still remains an issue. This could be due to higher stochastic error in the fission source inherent in the pins. Discussion Tandem methods for the analysis of the reactor model provided two independent solutions that, for the most part, were in good agreement. Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) yielded a converged solution with no approximations for geometric parameters, while the Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) calculation had to be carefully constructed so that a converged solution could be obtained. MCNP5 and PENTRAN were in reasonable agreement for power density calculations on all but the periphery fuel pins. For peripheral fuel, one must note whether or not the Monte Carlo calculations truly converged, or if the Sn solutions are accurate for the discretization used. Further investigative techniques were employed in PENTRAN in order to access problem regions, which were prominent in the periphery of the model, with and improved with discretization and higher order differencing algorithm. The analysis identifies areas of investigation for both deterministic and Monte Carlo solution approaches. CHAPTER 5 FIXED SOURCE SIMULATION In the course of handling packaged radionuclides, it is often necessary to assay closed containers of radioactive materials for inventory and accountability, and to validate gamma ray dose rates and source spectra. Often, materials in sealed containers can be well characterized using gamma ray spectrometry and dosimetry when the container is readily accessible. With regard to emphasis on material accountability and minimizing personnel doses, it is useful to understand the magnitude and the spectrum of a containerized source without requiring the container to be opened. However, some packaged or containerized sources are often stored in locations not completely accessible for repeated or convenient survey via spectrometry, such as in spent fuel pools, fuel handling areas, etc, so that inventory, accountability, and control must be more generally verified through routine dose rate measurement audits. These measurements may be carried out in spent fuel pools at water depths of one to two atmospheres of pressure, and only a small probe ion chamber measurement for dose assessment is possible, given operational, environmental, or geometry constraints. Therefore, a study was commissioned at the FINDS Institute at the University of Florida to employ 3 D gamma radiation transport calculations to explore the extent of potential variations in measured dose rate from hypothetical containerized sources in a simulated spent fuel pool using standard stainless steel storage containers (S SC). These 3 D transport calculations were compared to and validated by Monte Carlo calculations under the use of MCNP5 code. 3D Gamma Transport Methods Performing the gamma ray transport computations necessary for this study involved obtaining either a deterministic solution (achieved in our studies via the Sn method), or statistically (achieved using the Monte Carlo method). Both solution methods were applied to provide consistent results in characterizing dose rates in this application. The steadystate multi group form of the transport equation operating on the forward group angular flux y, (F) using standard notation with total group cross section o,(F'), differential group scattering cross section es,, ,, (r, 6'O2), and source terms q (F', ^) g, is:11 g'=1 4a Forward and Adjoint Operators Principally, scattering from all other energy groups g' into group g is dominated by downscattering from higher energies to lower energies. 1 The adj oint transport operator H' can be derived using the adj oint identity for real valued functions and the forward multi group transport operator, where the angled brackets represent integration over all independent variables, in this case phase space: " Using Equation 41, it can be seen that the forward operator is g'=1 4K (53) The angular adj oint (importance) function is, lyg. Applying the adj oint boundary condition that particles leaving a bounded system have an importance of zero in all groups (converse of the forward vacuum boundary condition) with the above equations, and requiring a continuous importance function mathematically leads to the multi group adj oint transport operator:" Hi 8+~(;C dRXb.(;A~~G g'=1 4n (54) Note the minus sign on the streaming term indicates that adjoint particles travel along a reverse direction (relative to the forward transport formulation), where scattering progresses from group g back to other groups g (those groups formerly contributing to group g in the forward equation). Forward and Adjoint Detector Response To render a traditional detector response R (e.g., absorptions per unit time) attributed to a specific reaction using an adj oint transport solution, the desired R must be linked to the adj oint "importance" by aliasing the adj oint source to the cross section causing a response R in the detector. To illustrate this, consider a fixed forward sourcedetector problem, where the radiation flux between the source and the detector must satisfy the transport equation: 1 Hy, = q#(55) Where q g is the gamma source density, typically with units of y/cm3/S. Alternatively, the adjoint transport equation should also be satisfied using an adj oint source aliased to the group detector response cross section od, typically with units of l/cm: H' a~s (56) Applying Equations 5 2, 5 5, and 56, and integrating over all variables results in the very useful expression for detector response R: R = yr od g g g (57) Therefore, a traditional detector response can be obtained from the adj oint transport solution by integration of the product of the source distribution with the adjoint function computed over the problem phase space, for any arbitrary source distribution. Thus, detector response R caused by several sources may be computed in two ways: * Directly from the left side of Equation 5 7 from several individual forward transport computations for each radiation source, or * From the coupling of a single adj oint transport computation with the set of different source termsll Responses Aliased to Dose Rate Dose rate response (D) computations in our study were rendered using energy group dependent fluxtodose conversion factors (FDCFs) for gamma radiation (Chilton et. all, 1984). The units of these factors are in remcm2 (cSvcm2), So that when a (forward) gamma flux is determined in a region in y/cm2/S, the product of the group gamma fluxes with each group FDCF was computed, summed over all groups, and this yields the gamma dose rate in rem/s at that point. FDCFs interpolated onto BUGLE96 multigroup energy bins are presented in Table 51. Table 51. Interpolated Flux to Dose Conversion Factors, 1 Group MeV (hi) MeV (avg) 1 1.40E+01 1.20E+01 2 1.00E+01 9.00E+00 3 8.00E+00 7.50E+00 4 7.00E+00 6.50E+00 5 6.00E+00 5.50E+00 6 5.00E+00 4.50E+00 7 4.00E+00 3.50E+00 8 3.00E+00 2.50E+00 9 2.00E+00 1.75E+00 10 1.50E+00 1.25E+00 11 1.00E+00 9.00E01 12 8.00E01 7.50E01 13 7.00E01 6.50E01 14 6.00E01 5.00E01 15 4.00E01 3.00E01 16 2.00E01 1.50E01 17 1.00E01 8.00E02 18 6.00E02 4.50E02 19 3.00E02 2.50E02 20 2.00E02 1.00E02 cSv = 1 reml2 FDCF (cSv cm2) 3.10E09 2.44E09 2.13E09 1.93E+09 1.72E09 1.50E09 1.28E09 1.03E09 8.11E10 6.40E10 5.09E10 4.45E10 4.00E10 3.26E10 2.07E10 1.09E10 6.80E11 4.96E11 3.90E11 3.50E11 The desired dose rate can also be rendered using an adj oint transport computation if the adjoint source is properly aliased to yield D ." To accomplish this for the adj oint transport calculation, the group adj oint source must be set equal to the group FDCFs with units of cSv cm . Once the adj oint function is determined at the location of interest, the dose can be rendered using Equation 57, where the forward source, being aliased to the FDCFs, must be a gamma ray flux with units of '.Since placement of a small localized source is defined as a source rate cm2S (7 /s), this must be properly converted to an estimated flux in the problem for proper computation of the dose rate D (assuming volumetric variable dimensions cancel): D = 7 FDC~j=wvg = (58) Therefore, to convert a localized source rate to a source flux for coupling to the adjoint function (to then yield a dose rate), an equivalent radius (req) must be determined for computation of an effective surface area (1/(4 nreq2)), which is used to divide into the source rate to yield an effective source flux, 41 Since forward and adjoint calculations must each independently render the same D, this equality was used in this work to determine the equivalent radius (req) for each source rate. Therefore, use of the equivalent surface area in coupling a localized source with the adj oint aliased to the FDCFs is necessary to yield the correct D, within the practical limits of trncation error in the two deterministic transport computations. Flux to dose conversions are assumed to be applicable in this case without the specific need to consider specific electron transport effects in the transport computations, since the range of ~1 to~2 MeV (the dominant source term) photoelectrons in water is <0.5 to <1cm; lower energy electrons caused by interactions with lower energy photons have even lower ranges in water. Also, charged particle equilibrium can be assumed. As a result, dose rates computed using FDCFs coupled to transportdetermined photon fluxes are accurate. Solution Methodology Two source terms were selected to be simulated in closed containers for comparison: a single "average burnup" power reactor fuel pellet, and a Co60 source. Transport computational models were constructed to determine the variation in the expected dose rate near the bottom of "typical" spent fuel pool using a gamma ray ion chamber placed a short distance from a standard stainless steel container in a location designated as the "Region of Interest Detector Box," or ROI Detector Box position. In performing 3 D computations to determine the effect of dose rate attributed to the sources adjacent to the storage container, the following computations were performed: * Forward 3 D Monte Carlo photon transport computations using the MCNP5 code. Continuous energy gamma ray treatments of the source are to compute a dose in the ROI Detector Box. Tallies are set up in MCNP using group bins aliased to the group structure of the BUGLE96 gamma library to enable direct comparison to deterministic results; fluxes are rendered into a dose rate by coupling with ANSI fluxtodose conversions interpolated onto BUGLE96 group energy bins. * Forward deterministic 3D Discrete Ordinates (Sn) computations solving the 3 D radiation transport equation using the PENTRAN 3D Sn code to compute dose in the ROI Detector Box using the BUGLE96 multigroup gamma library. Resulting fluxes are rendered as a dose rate by coupling with fluxtodose conversions. * Adj oint 3 D Di screte Ordinates computations solving the adj oint transport equation with an adjoint source aliased to the ANSI standard fluxtodose conversion factors, with this adjoint source placed in the ROI Detector Box location. The adjoint transport result yields the relative contribution to the dose rate for any photon source placed anywhere in the model . Each of these computational approaches amounted to an independent method of determining a dose, and when converged, the result from each model for equivalent source terms should yield the same solution (within the statistical uncertainty for the Monte Carlo, and some small variation between the continuous energy and multigroup energy treatments, etc). Modeling Procedure In constructing the models for this effort, the following procedures were used: * Evaluation of gamma source terms using the Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) package considering a single "standard" boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel pellet (assuming a 19,800 MWD/MTU in a mean flux of 2.6E+13 n/cm2/S OVer a 3 cycle burnup history), and a Co60 alloy source * Use of the BUGLE96 multigroup gamma cross section library (Sn) and continuous energy (Monte Carlo) cross sections * Construction of 3 D Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) and 3 D Sn Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) models * Execution of models on computer systems (parallel clusters), post processing and analysis of results Source Spectra The simulated fuel pellet gamma source, rendered using Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1), yielded a total of 1.8441E+10 photons per second, and is characterized by the normalized spectrum data in Figure 51. 2.0 E02 3.00E02 6.00E02 1.00E01 2.00E01 4.00E01 6.00E01 7.00E01 8.00E01 1.00E40 1.50E00 2.00E00 3.00E00 4.00E00 5.00E40 6.00E00 7.00500 0 8.00E00 1.00Et1 1.40Et1 N o and rd 7.00E02 1.28E01 5.97E02 5.16E02 2.61E02 B.OBE03 5.03E01 3.32E03 3.72 E03 7.21E03 3.07 E04 1.34EOG 9.27E10 3.11E10 1.05E10 3.52E11 1.18E11 5.17E12 2.45E13 1.0E+13 1.0E+11 1.0E+09 1.OE+07 1.0E+05 1.0E+03 1.0E+01 1 .OE01 1 .0E03 1.0E02 1.0E01 1.0E+00 MeV 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 Figure 51. Standard fuel pellet gamma source spectrum normalized from specified upper MeV bounds. Average Fuel Pellet Gamma Source This data is partitioned into upper group energy bins compatible with a BUGLE96 group structure. The cobalt60 alloy source is given in Figure 5 2, yielding a total of 1.99E+12 photons per second. anny Normalized CO*60 Alloy Source 2.00E02 7.47E03 1.0OE+14 3.00E02 3.50E03 6.00E02 3.4HE03 1.0E+12 1.00E01 1.25E03 2.00E01 0.00E+00 > 1.0E+10 Q00E01 0.00E+00 6.00E01 0.00E+00 '311.0E+08 7.00E01 0.00E+00 I H.00E01 0.00E+00 S1.0E+06 1.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.50E+00 B.H4QE01 1.E0 2.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.0E 0 0.00E+0 4.00E+00 0.00E+00 1 .0E+ 02 5.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.0E+ 00 7.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.0E02 1.OE01 1 .0E+00 1.0E+01 1 E+2 H .00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E+01 0.00E+00 MeV 1.40E+01 0.00E+00 Figure 52. Cobalt60 source spectrum normalized from specified MeV upper bounds Results Monte Carlo, deterministic forward, and deterministic adj oint results are presented here to profile dose variation as a function of source position in the sealed stainless steel containers submersed in a spent fuel pool. Monte Carlo Simulation of the Container Assembly A graphical rendering of the geometry used in the Monte Carlo simulation of a stainless steel container assembly resting in a spent fuel pool given in Figure 5 3. The simulated spent fuel pool bottom was made of 1 cm of Type 3 04 stainless steel (SS3 04) liner assumed to be resting on top of 15 cm of standard concrete, which in turn was assumed to be resting on O'Brien dirt. For this model, it was also assumed that the container assembly was submerged, resting directly on the bottom of a pool as shown (on the top surface of the SS304 liner). The water filled "ROI Detector Box" region, discussed previously, was located at the bottom of the can (shown in dark red in Figure 5 3). The Region of Interest (ROI) Detector Box geometry was selected for the detector region for ready comparison with deterministic Sn computations discussed in later sections. Figure 5 3. Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 generated picture of region of interest detector box position and assumed container assembly immersed in water. The fuel pellet and Co60 sources were modeled individually using Monte Carlo as point sources inside the leftmost container in Figure 5 3 (adjacent to the ROI Detector Box), initially at a height of 4 cm above the bottom of the stainless container, and at higher zaxis elevations in the container. Doses were computed using Flux to Dose Conversion Factors (FDCFs) following simulation of photon transport with volumetric flux tallies. With a consideration of the percent contribution to the total dose, the main contribution to the dose from the fuel pellet was in energy groups 18 to 13, corresponding to gamma energies between 0.06 MeV to 0.70 MeV respectively; this accounts for over 97 percent of the total dose at the detector due to the fuel pellet. Based on the Monte Carlo results, the fuel pellet would yield a dose of 5.1 (+/ 0.01) rem/hour at the ROI Detector Box location. For the Co60 source, considering the contribution to the total dose (72.21 rem/hr) and, group 10, with energies ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 MeV, accounts for 56.8 % of the total dose at the detector due to the Co60 source. Deterministic (Sn) Forward Transport Simulation One forward calculation was performed using Sn methods using the Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) code in order to validate dose results for comparison with Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5), and establish a reference dose for the more useful adj oint calculation (for assessment of the variation of the dose depending upon source placement, detailed later). For the Sn computation, a mean fuel unit source was placed 4 cm above the bottom of the outer container (equivalent to the source placement in the Monte Carlo models discussed previously). Recall that the deterministic solution of the problem requires that the geometry be discretized into a number of fine mesh "voxels", characterized by 252 coarse meshes (containing fine meshes) proj ected on 6 zlevels. A total of 775,184 fine meshes were defined to describe the 3 D geometry of the container and surrounding water and components. These models used an S14 quadrature with an angular splitting technique available in PENTRAN (splitting S14 into additional directions for octant ordinates 12 and 27 with 2x2 segments, 18 added directions/octant) in an effort to mitigate ray effects in the detector region with P1 scattering. Therefore, the biased quadrature yielded an Sn equivalent quadrature comparable to S18. Model dimensions were 60 cm x 104 cm x 70 cm, and gamma ray water albedos, defined in a manner similar to that in Chapter 3, were used on all sides. This problem required the solution of 5.457 billion simultaneous equations in the PENTRAN code, and was solved using the high performance computing clusters at the University of Florida, with infinity norm convergence to at least 103 Or better. Figure 54 depicts the 0.65 MeV (average) gamma flux results with all water regions hidden for demonstration of the flux behavior. Unphysical ray effects are evident in the calculation at the outer perimeter of the problem away from the fuel unit source term placed inside the nearby container. Because the dose "probe" at the Region of Interest (ROI) Detector Box location is adj acent to the container in a region where ray effects were less of a concern; note that 35% of the ROI Detector Box dose is attributed to the 0.65 MeV averaged group. SS304 Pipes IC X Phi0 S3E+07 1.50949E+07 r7.59516E+06 3.82159E+06 1.92288E+06 967520 S486819 244949 123249 S62014.2 S31203.2 15700.3 7899.77 3974.86  2000 SS304 Pool Liner (Bottom of Pool) Probe Location Figure 54. Gamma flux at 0.65 MeV (average), projected on SS304 materials immersed in water. Figure 55 represents a 0.08 MeV (average) gamma transport calculation where the ray effects are reduced due to photon scattering interactions. Y1 Figure 55. Gamma flux, 0.08 MeV (average), projected on stainless steel 304 materials. The PENTRAN Snrendered dose computed by folding group fluxes with Flux to Dose Conversion Factors (FDCFs) at the ROI Detector Box location was 5.17 rem/hr, and compares extremely well with the continuous energy MCNP Monte Carlo rendered dose of 5.1 (+/ 0.01) rem/hr for the same source term. An adj oint transport computation and resulting adj oint function becomes particularly useful in analysis of different source locations in the geometry, and the predicted detector response. The Sn model constructed for the forward case (detailed in the previous section) was also used to perform an adj oint computation to analyze the effects of moving the source up through the container assembly. The adj oint source spectrum located at the ROI Detector Box is set to the FDCFs, and yields results that produce a dose caused by any source when the adj oint function values are folded together with a corresponding source flux at the desired location, anywhere in the model (reference Equation 4 7). Figure 56 portrays the scalar adj oint importance function for the 0.08 MeV (average) energy group, representing the relative importance (in the same units of the FDCF) of the gamma rays in each group as they contribute to the total dose. Ray effects are of smaller consequence in the adj oint solutions like this, partly because the adj oint source i s aliased with the FDCFs di stributed over the volume of the ROI Detector Box and is not a small localized source, and therefore the problem is much less prone to ray effects. I m port anceerdo s e) 3 5E10 7 49768E11 1.60615E11 3 44068E12 7 37061E13 1 57893E13 3.38237E14 7 24569E15 1 55217E15 3 32504E16 7.12289E17 z. 1.52586E17 3 26869E18 7 00217E19 1 5E19 Figure 56. Gamma group adj oint function, aliased to Importance at 0.08 MeV (average) proj ected on SS304 container materials immersed in water. The adj oint source used here is the FDCF as a function of energy in the ROI Detector Box. To compute the dose ob served in the ROI Detector B ox, the resulting adj oint at any location in the problem (where any true source could be placed) must be coupled to an effective source flux as noted previously. Since forward Sn and Monte Carlo results confirmed that a dose of ~5.1 rem/hr would be obtained for a single mean fuel unit located at z=4 cm in the container, and by Equation 57 and Equation 58, the adj oint result must match this result. The equivalent radius was calculated conservatively so that the adj oint model would yield 5.17 rem/hr at the original forward source location; this equivalent radius was calculated to be 5.01 cm (with a corresponding surface area equivalent of 3 15.4 cm2) for consistency among the results. Once determined, the group source flux (e.g. for fuel or alloyed Co60) was then multiplied by the scalar adj oint importance function for each energy group (aliased to a dose in the ROI Detector Box). Summing thi s then yields the integrated dose at the ROI Detector B ox caused by the source at the location selected. To analyze the overall effect of the source, it was then moved from the first position at 4 cm above the bottom of the outermost container along the zaxis, to 14 cm and 27 cm above the container bottom; detailed adj oint results are shown in Figure 5 7 for the mean fuel unit case mapped over the 3 source locations. Here, it is important to note that the time of calculation for the forward MCNP5 run was on the order of 12 hours. Considering that three forward runs were computed to yield doses at three locations, and that 1 PENTRAN calculation can provide a contiguous solution, it was shown that PENTRAN, in this particular instance using the adj oint, saved hours of computing. Depending on the number of points of interest, PENTRAN could save weeks of evaluation and computer hours. 6.66 5.18  2.53  2.19 0.73 0.57 0.49 600  10 50 60 70 Figure 57. Dose for a single Fuel unit (mean burnup) in the Region of Interest as a function of source height at the xy center of nearest container (Adj oint Deterministic dose vs. Monte Carlo dose). Figure 58 exclusively shows the results for all fuel unit cases at the 3 source point locations. Dose (z) (PENTRAN Adjoint) from Fuel Unit Source 7 00 6 00 5 00 ~400 O o 2 o Too 0 5 10 15 z (cm) 20 25 30 Figure 58. Dose from single fuel unit sources coupled for various burnups (low, mean, and high) in the Region of Interest as a function of source height at xy center of nearest container. Dose as a Function of Sou rce Height Along Z at ROI Detector Box z(cm) Obtaining adj oint function values using an adj oint source spectrum with fluxtodose conversion factors is convenient, so that other source spectra can be applied. Assuming a 1g alloyed Co60 source spectrum (3 cycles) was applied to obtain a dose of 74.07 rem/hr at the container nearest to the detector at 4 cm above the bottom of the container shown in Figure 5 9. Dose (z) (PENTRAN Adjoint) From I gram 3 Cycle Alloyed Co60 source 80.00 74.07 70.00 60.00 50.00 :E 40.oo352 30.00 20.00 10.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 z(c m) Figure 59. Dose caused by 1 gram alloyed Co60 (3cycle irradiation) in the "ROI Detector Box" region as a function of source height at xy center of nearest container. This compares extremely well with the Monte Carlo dose for 1 g of alloyed Co60 of 72.2 rem/hr. Similarly, the assumed 1g alloyed Co60 source spectrum (5cycle) was applied and yielded a dose of about 1668.3 rem/hr at the same location shown in Figure 510. Since the doses matched so well for the fuel pellet model, there was no need to run an MCNP5 calculation and compare results. Here the adj oint equation could save even more time. Dose (z) (PENTRAN Adjoint) From 1 gram 5 Cycle Alloyed Co60 source 1,668.3 1,00.0 MO.M 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 z~lcm) Figure 510. Dose caused by 1g alloyed Co60 (5cycle irradiation) as a function of source height at xy center of nearest container. Discussion In determining the dose at the Region of Interest (ROI) Detector Box (Ref Figure 5 6), Monte Carlo and deterministic radiation transport computations based on low, average, and high burnup single segmented fuel unit sources, and also calculations of expected dose rate on a "per gram" basis from irradiated Co60 materials were performed. The fuel sources were determined by simulating radiation histories of 8x8 boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel using the Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) package, for typical fuel cycle data. A summary of the results for the mean fuel unit (1 fuel segment with clad) and the single gram of 3 cycle irradiated Co60 (assuming 100% irradiation) is given in Table 52. Table 52. Deterministic and Monte Carlo dose comparisons of dose rate (rem/hr) at the Region of Interest Source Sn Forward Monte Monte Carlo 1 Sn Adj oint Rel % (PENTRAN) Carlo sigma rel (MCNP5) (PENTRAN) Difference (MCNP5) * Fuel Pellet at 5.17 5.1 <0.01 5.18 0.0153 z=4cm Fuel Pellet at  2.55 <0.01 2.53 0.0072 z=14cm Fuel Pellet at  0.55 <0.01 0.57 0.0291 z=27cm Co60 at z=4cm  72.2 0.04 74.07 0.0256 Co60 at z=14cm  37.2 0.03 35.23 0.0544 Co60 at z=27cm  9.1 0.01 8.29 0.0932 *Aliased to a Phantom Photon Dose Response in Detector Box ROI using a source flux computed from an effective radius of 5.01 cm Relative difference of the mean of the two values Because the method of calculation between the Monte Carlo (with continuous energy) and the deterministic Sn (with multigroup energy) are completely independent, the results exude very high confidence, where the forward Monte Carlo, Forward Sn, and Adj oint Sn results yielded very consistent results. It is clear that each "mean fuel unit" located 4 cm off of the bottom of the container rack will yield a dose of ~5 rem/hr when measured at the ROI Detector Box. In addition, the adjoint results permit coupling of any source inside the container rack assembly to predict an effective dose measured in the ROI Detector Box, useful in estimating doses attributed to new source materials. Adj ointderived dose results at elevated zaxi s values were fully consistent with Monte Carlo predicted doses as indicated in Table 52. CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS The advantages and disadvantages of each Monte Carlo stochastic methods, and deterministic methods of radiation systems analysis can be listed side by side with no other conclusion than that the two methods must be used side by side. Given the proper tools, deterministic Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) yields results that are accurate, speedy, and compare well with Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) while highlighting problem areas and designs that require further study. The single uranium Pin (suPin) cross section generation process delivered accurate results when compared with 3 D models in MCNP5 and PENTRAN, while allowing for some flexibility in geometry approximations. The suPin procedure also proved to be accurate and the 1/8th COTO model, while comparisons with MCNP5 revealed that periphery pins need to be locked into an EDI differencing scheme. The adj oint equation proved to be very powerful for fixed source problems. Multigroup adjoint study with PENTRAN reduced ray effects and matched MCNP5 dose calculations at the Region of Interest (ROI) detector box location. Also calculations utilizing the adj oint equation give dose importance in all regions with one calculation, rather than just one location for every source position as does MCNP5. With parallel machine clusters, parallel 3 D deterministic transport calculations can be performed on heterogeneous radiation systems under time constraints comparable to MCNP5. Further, with understanding of adj oint transport methods, stochastic solutions can verify parameters of the deterministic solution and reduce analysis time from weeks to days. CHAPTER 7 FUTURE WORK Integration of deterministic methods into the highly stochasticsaturated nuclear reaction/eigenvalue, and flux calculation arena naturally leads to the need for deterministic techniques in other areas of nuclear evaluation. The advantage of using two fundamentally different methods of solution reach out to obtain a system of checks and balances on each method. The problems of a nonconverged system are readily seen by a drastically different deterministic solution and raises new questions about the nature of the radiation system. Candidate Design Deterministic/Monte Carlo Agreement Further work includes evaluation of differencing schemes for reactor physics, and methods for obtaining multigroup cross section sets for different reactor cores. Advanced study could provide a sleek, easy to use manual on differencing schemes for set geometries and spectrum specific cross section sets. Cross section sets generated by SCALES are limited to certain typical reactors and geometry restraints apply. Future work will involve seeking other means to obtain cross section sets for any geometry in a thermal or fast reactor system. Flexibility of reactor system modeling should give new insight to experimental reactor design. It is apparent from this study that different meshing, and differencing schemes are desirable for different radiation system configurations. More work must be completed in order to set up preferred meshing/differencing schemes on the periphery of different reactor systems. Since PENTRAN is capable of a multitude of coarse mesh differencing schemes, it is in a prime position to be used for further study on reactor modeling and tandem use with MCNP. Parallel Environment Burnup The obvious next step from using stochastically determined radiation flux values for reaction rate calculations in a burnup solver, is to use deterministically solved flux values for reaction rate calculations in a burnup solver. Some preliminary studies have been completed with Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) on various reactor cores to develop a parallel 3D deterministic burnup solver. The Parallel Environment Burnup solver (PENBURN), will allow for further evaluation and comparisons between deterministic type solvers and Monte Carlo solvers. PENBURN will be produced independent of PENTRAN, and will be able to take reaction rate information from Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) as well as PENTRAN to solve for isotopic compositions for user specified burnsteps. LIST OF REFERENCES 1. L. BOLTZMANN, "Lectures on Gas Theory," (English translation from original German manuscript (1872)), University of California Press, (1964). 2. J. DUDERSTADT and L. HAMILTON, Nuclear Reactor Analysis, Wiley, New York (1976). 3. N. GREENE and L. PETRIE, "XSDRNPM: A OneDimensional DiscreteOrdinates Code for Transport Analysis," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (2006). 4. M. DEHART, "NEWT: A New Transport Algorithm for TwoDimensional Discrete Ordinates Analysis in NonOrthogonal Geometries," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (2006). 5. D. LUCAS, et al., "Applications of the 3 D Deterministic Transport Attila for Core Safety Analysis," Americas Nuclear Energy Symposium, Miami Beach, Florida, (2004). 6. G. SJODEN and A. HAGHIGHAT, "PENTRAN A 3 D Cartesian Parallel SN Code with Angular, Energy, and Spatial Decomposition," Proc of the Joint Int '1Conf on Ma'~thematical M~eth ods and' Supercomputing for Nuclear Applications, Vol I, p. 553, Saratoga Springs, New York (1997). 7. R. BLOMQUIST and E. GELBARD, "Monte Carlo Criticality Source Convergence in a Loosely Coupled Fuel Storage System," The 7th International Conference on NVuclear Cri ticali ty Safe ty, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, (2003). 8. H. FISHER, "A Nuclear Cross Section Databook," LA1 1711lM, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1989). 9. Atomic World, Vol 10, (1959). 10. G. SJODEN, "An Efficient Exponential Directional Iterative Differencing Scheme for ThreeDimensional Sn Computations in XYZ Geometry," Nuclear Science and' Engineering, 155, 179189 (2007). 11. E. LEWIS and W. F. MILLER, "Computational Methods of Neutron Transport," American Nuclear Society Publishing Co., LaGrange Park, Illinois, (1993). 12. A. CHILTON, J. SHULTIS, and R. FAW, Principles of ~~~~~~~~~RRRRRRRRRRadato .\/ue/Jin, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, (1984). BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Travis Owings Mock was born in 1981, on a cold day in the Mohave Desert, California, the first of two children. He spent most of his early years in Florida, participating in organized sports and water sports. After graduating high school in 2000, he began further study at the University of Florida. He spent 2 years studying physics before committing to nuclear engineering, and in all spent 7 years at the University of Florida. PAGE 1 1 TANDEM USE OF MONTE CARLO AND DETERMINISTIC METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF LARGE SCALE HETEROGENEOUS RADIATION SYSTEMS By TRAVIS OWINGS MOCK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFIL LMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007 PAGE 2 2 2007 Travis Owings Mock PAGE 3 3 To the beautiful Lily Boynton Kaye, and my magnificent family, Todd, Elaine, and Ron Mock without their support, someone else would have completed this work PAGE 4 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I must acknowledge the technical advice and help provided by Dr. Glenn Sjoden. At this stage of life, it is difficult to define a role model, but Dr. Sjoden has become mine with a seemingly endless wealth of knowledge, and dedication for w ork and family. Also, I must acknowledge Kevin Manalo for his help with Fortran coding, and Monte Carlo Neutral Particle (MCNP5) modeling techniques. PAGE 5 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13 Radiation Transport and Diffusion Theory ................................ ................................ ............... 13 Transport Solution ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 17 2 PREVIOUS WORK ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 19 Deterministic Codes ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 19 ................................ ....................... 19 Tetrahedral Mesh Transport ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 ................................ ................................ ......................... 20 Parallel Environment Neutral Particle Transport ................................ ............................... 21 Monte Carlo Stochastic M ethod of Solution ................................ ................................ ............. 21 3 MULTIGROUP CROSS SECTION GENERATION ................................ .............................. 23 Candidate Design Fuel Pin Data ................................ ................................ ................................ 23 Process for Cross Section Collapse ................................ ................................ ............................ 24 Candidate Design Muligroup Binning ................................ ................................ ............... 24 Codes for Cross Sect ion Generation ................................ ................................ ................... 2 5 Single Pin Mesh Modeling in Cartesian 3 D Sn Transport ................................ ............... 26 Group Albedo Treatment in the 3 D Deterministic Latt ice Cell ................................ ...... 30 Single Pin Monte Carlo and Deterministic Eigenvalue Comparisons .............................. 32 Monte Carlo and Deterministic Flux Comparison ................................ ............................. 34 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39 4 REACTOR MODELING ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 40 Candidate Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 40 Candidate Design Parameters ................................ ................................ ............................. 40 Candidate Design Reactor Core Design ................................ ................................ ............. 42 R eactor Physics Analysis Methods ................................ ................................ ............................ 45 Full Core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model ................................ .............................. 45 Radial Power Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 48 PAGE 6 6 Axial Power Profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 50 Power Peaking Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 50 Deterministic Analysis of Candidate D esign ................................ ................................ ............ 51 1/8 th Core Candidate Design Model ................................ ................................ ................... 51 Deterministic Criticality Calculation, 1/8 th Core Candidate Design ................................ 52 Power Peaking in the 1/8 th Core Candidate Design ................................ ................................ .. 53 Full Core Power Density Comparisons ................................ ................................ ..................... 56 Further Refinement of the Deterministic Model ................................ ................................ ....... 59 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 62 5 FIXED SOURCE SIMULATION ................................ ................................ ............................. 63 3 D Gamma Transport Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ 63 Forward and Adjoint Operators ................................ ................................ .......................... 64 Forward and Adjoint D etector Response ................................ ................................ ........... 65 Responses Aliased to Dose Rate ................................ ................................ ......................... 66 Solution Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 68 Modeling Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 69 Source Spectra ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 69 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 70 Monte Carlo Simulation of the Container Assembly ................................ ........................ 70 Deterministic (Sn) Forward Transport Simulation ................................ ............................ 72 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 79 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 82 7 FUTURE WORK ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 83 Candidate Design Deterministic/Monte Car lo Agreement ................................ ....................... 83 Parallel Environment Burnup ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 84 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 86 PAGE 7 7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 8 group collapsed energy bin bounds ................................ ................................ .................... 25 3 2 6 group collapsed energy bin bounds ................................ ................................ .................... 25 3 3 Candidate Design single pin geometry parameters ................................ .............................. 27 3 4 Excess mass balance and percent error for a 35x34 mesh full pin ................................ ...... 28 3 5 Excess mass balance and percent error for a 21x19 mesh full pin ................................ ...... 29 3 6 Albedo boundary distance parameters ................................ ................................ .................. 31 3 7 8 group albedo factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 32 3 8 6 group albedo factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 32 3 9 Monte Carlo and Determi nistic single pin eigenvalue results for 8 groups ....................... 33 3 10 Monte Carlo and deterministic single pin eigenvalue results for 6 groups ........................ 34 4 1 Monte Carlo Candidate Design k code full core results ................................ ...................... 48 4 2 Power density per pin (maximum error < 4.2%) ................................ ................................ .. 49 4 3 Compu ted power density per axial zone (errors < 4.2%) ................................ .................... 50 4 4 Power Peaking Factor Summary ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 4 5 Final values for 6 group convergence comparison ................................ .............................. 53 4 6 Axial zone boundaries, zone and hottest channel power densities computed using the deterministic model ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 55 4 7 Hot channel power peaking factors compared to Monte Carlo ................................ ........... 55 4 8 Average power density by zone compared to Monte Carlo ................................ ................ 56 5 1 I nterpolated Flux to Dose Conversion Factors, 1 cSv = 1 rem 12 ................................ ......... 66 5 2 Deterministic and Monte Carlo dose comparisons of dose rate (rem/hr) at the Region of Interest ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 80 PAGE 8 8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Fuel element detail for Candidate Design. ................................ ................................ ........... 23 3 2 Whole core U 235 fission rate (averag e relative error 3%) and selected 8 group structure. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 24 3 3 Flow chart of the codes and used in the cross section generation process, where codes are represented in blue, files are represented in yellow. ................................ ........... 26 3 4 35x34 coarse mesh cell for deterministic model. ................................ ................................ 28 3 5 21x19 coarse mesh cell for deterministic model. ................................ ................................ 29 3 6 Single pin Candidate Design material description used in the Monte Carlo model. ......... 33 3 7 21x19 mesh tally scheme for Monte Carlo single pin model. ................................ ............. 34 3 8 Group 1 flux comparison (6 group model). ................................ ................................ .......... 35 3 9 Group 2 flux comparison (6 group model). ................................ ................................ .......... 36 3 10 Group 3 flux comparison (6 group model). ................................ ................................ .......... 36 3 11 Group 4 flux comparison (6 group model). ................................ ................................ .......... 37 3 12 Group 5 flux comparison (6 group model). ................................ ................................ .......... 37 3 13 Group 6 flux comparison (6 group model). ................................ ................................ .......... 38 4 1 Pla nt Overview of original Candidate Design. 9 ................................ ................................ ... 40 4 2 Candidate Design reactor core views. 9 A) North South Candidate Design core view. B) East West Candidate Design core view. ................................ ................................ .......... 41 4 3 Enlarged East West Core cutaway. 9 ................................ ................................ ..................... 42 4 4 Horizontal slice of core and surrounding beam ports. 9 ................................ ........................ 44 4 5 X Z (y=0 slice) plane view of full core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model ............... 45 4 6 X Y (z=0 slice) plane view of full core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model. .............. 46 4 7 Monte Carlo model full core pin numbering scheme. ................................ ......................... 47 4 8 Radial (averaged over axial length) total power pin power densities bas ed on relative errors of less than 4.2% for each value. ................................ ................................ ................ 48 PAGE 9 9 4 9 1/8 th core Candidate Design. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 51 4 10 Convergence of the 1/8 th cor e Candidate Design for deterministic models. ...................... 52 4 11 Relative pin power for pins contained in 1/8 th Candidate Design (W/cc). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less th an 4.2% (1 sigma) ........................ 54 4 12 Monte Carlo and Deterministic 6 group computed power densities (W/cc). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1 sigma). ............. 56 4 13 Ratio of Monte Carlo power density to Deterministic power density. Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1 sigma). ....................... 57 4 14 Monte Carlo 6 group fluxes. ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 58 4 15 Deterministic 6 group fluxes. ................................ ................................ ................................ 59 4 16 Monte Carlo to Deter ministic power ratios for S10 refined mesh (left) and S10 coarser mesh (right). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviat ion ............ 59 4 17 PENTRAN differenc ing scheme map, blue = Directional Theta Weighted, red = Exponential Directional Iterative. ................................ ................................ ......................... 60 4 18 Monte Carlo to Deterministic power ratios for S10 refined mesh with updated differencing. M onte Carlo values are converged to a standard devia tion ........................ 61 5 1 Standard fuel pellet gamma source spectrum normalized from specified upper MeV bounds. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 69 5 2 Cobalt 60 source spectrum normalized from specified MeV upper bounds ...................... 70 5 3 Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 generated picture o f region of interest detector box position and assumed container assembly immersed in water. ..................... 71 5 4 Gamma flux at 0.65 MeV (average), projected on SS304 materials immersed in water. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 73 5 5 Gamma flux, 0.08 MeV (average), projected on stainless steel 304 materials. ................. 74 5 6 Gamma group adjoint function, aliased to Importa nce at 0.08 MeV (average) projected on SS304 container materials immersed in water. ................................ .............. 75 5 7 Dose for a single Fuel unit (mean burnup) in the Region of Interest as a function of source height at the x y center of nearest container (Adjoint Determin istic ..................... 77 5 8 Dose from single fuel unit sources coupled for various burnups (low, mean, and high) in the Regio n of Interest as a function of source height at x y center ...................... 77 PAGE 10 10 5 9 Dose caused by 1 gram alloyed Co 60 (3 of source height at x y center of nearest container. .................. 78 5 10 Dose caused by 1g alloyed Co 60 (5 cycle irradiation) as a function of source height at x y center of nearest container. ................................ ................................ ......................... 79 PAGE 11 11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science TANDEM USE OF MONTE CARLO AND DETERMINISTIC METHODS FOR ANALYSIS OF LARGE SCALE HETEROGENEOUS RADIATION SYSTEMS By Travis Owings Mock August 2007 Chair: Glenn Sjoden Major: Nuclear Engineering Sciences Monte Carlo stochastic methods of radiation system analysis are among the most popular of computation techniques. Alternatively, d eterministic analysis often remains a minority calculation method among nuclear engineers, since large memory requirements inhibit abilities to accomplish 3 D modeling. As a result, deterministic codes are often limited to diffusion type solvers with tran sport corrections, or limited geometry capabilities such as 1 D or 2 D geometry approximations. However, there are some 3 D deterministic codes with parallel capabilities, used in this work, to abate such issues. The future of radiation systems analysis is undoubtedly evaluation through parallel computation. Large scale heterogeneous systems are especially difficult to model on one machine due to large memory demands, and it becomes advantageous not only to split computational requirements through indivi dual particle interactions, (as is the method for stochastic parallelization), but also to split the geometry of the problem across machines in parallel. In this effort, first presented is a method for multigroup cross section generation for deterministic code use, followed by radiation system analysis performed using parallel 3 D MCNP5 (Monte Carlo) and parallel 3 D PENTRAN (Sn deterministic) such that these two independent calculation methods were used in order to boost confidence of the final results. T wo PAGE 12 12 different radiation systems were modeled: an eigenvalue/criticality problem, and a fixed source shielding problem. The work shows that in some systems, stochastic methods are not easily converged, and that tandem use of deterministic calculations provi des, at the very least, another means by which the evaluator can increase problem solving efficiency and accuracy. Following this, lessons learned are presented, followed by conclusions and future work. PAGE 13 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Analysis of reactor and radiation systems aims at one central problem, the resolution of the neutron or photon distribution within a radiation system. Several different methods have been devised in order to obtain neutron densities, neutron flux, gamma flux, and subsequently reaction rates within radiation systems. The most notable of simulation methods include transport theory, diffusion theory (for neutrons), and Monte Carlo methods. Diffusion theory is an approximation to transp ort theory, and Monte Carlo methods are a statistical sampling approach. However, deterministic transport theory is subject to its own set of constraints due to phase space discretization, most notably multigroup cross section generation. Therefore, the most accurate modeling approach for radiation system analysis is one that utilizes a combination of techniques. Radiation Transport and Diffusion Theory The transport equation was developed by Ludwig Boltzmann in 1872 to describe the kinetic theory of gase s. 1 For neutral particle transport, the linear Boltzmann equation (LBE) is used to accurately model neutron and photon behavior in radiation systems. The integro differential form for neutron multiplying systems is shown in Equation 1 1: (1 1) Where; v = neutral particle speed = particle angular flux = unit vector in direction of particle motion = particle coordinate location in space = particle energy = time PAGE 14 14 = total macroscopic cross section = external independent particle source = differential scattering cross section = fission spectrum = fission production cross section = average number of fission neutrons produced per fission Most students of nuclear engineering live in fear of the neutron transport equation. The neutro n transport equation, although relatively simple to understand, is difficult to solve in 3 D systems without immense computing power and parallel computation capabilities. Diffusion theory is often used as a substitute for the neutron transport equation i n these cases because it is limitations. To arrive at the diffusion equation from Equation 1 1, we integrate angular flux over 4 steradians such that the following is realized: (1 2) If we integrate the LBE ov er all angles, we obtain the zeroth angular moment Without showing all the steps of the integration, the zeroth moment balance equation takes the form of the following: (1 3) Where a neutron current term, b ecomes a second unknown, leaving two unknowns and only one equation. This divergence of current is the net leakage from the system. To resolve the equation, a relationship must be developed between and T he relationship is established by introducing first angular moment : (1 4) PAGE 15 15 This new relation, after some manipulation, becomes the following: (1 5) Equation 1 5 may be of further use assuming that angular flux weakly depends on angle, so that, using first moments, 2 we assume: (1 6) Substitution of Equation 1 6 into Equation 1 5 with subsequent integration and simplification yields the P 1 balance equations, as: (1 7) And (1 8) Taking the one speed form of the P 1 equations, (i.e. with integration over all possible energies) yields the one speed balance equations as: (1 9) And (1 10) PAGE 16 16 Further assum ptions can be made about It is acceptable to assume the relative variation in current will not dominate the collision term, (e.g. unless there is a severe accident situation), and therefore the term is assu med to be zero. 2 This is particularly convenient because it yields an approximation for itself from Equation (1 10) to give: (1 11) Where the diffusion constant can be defined as: (1 12) Substitution into Equation (1 9) gives the one speed diffusion equation as: (1 13) Diffusion theory for neutrons is based on the idea that neutrons migrate from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration, much like diffusion of gases and heat. However, in most diffusive processes, diffusing particles are characterized by what can be described as frequent scattering. The problem is that the cross section for neutron scattering is often on the order of 10 24 cm 2 2 As a result, with typical atom densities, neutrons may travel for several centimeters before a collision or scattering event takes place, depending on neutron actor or radiation system are of the same order as the mean free path (mfp) of a neutron. PAGE 17 17 Diffusion theory fails to describe neutron behavior and becomes inaccurate in regions where the flux can change radically. 2 The regions in a reactor or radiation sys tem where the flux changes very rapidly include: Material interfaces, where two different materials meet Strong absorbers (especially, control rods) At the boundary of a system rogeneous radiation system. To give reasonable solutions, diffusion theory is often specifically by correction factors in order to produce transport corrected fluxes and reaction rates. Needless to say, that the desired solution, often termed the solution, is only obtained through the tuned theory is proving to be inadequate as reactor margins and efficiency are pressed. Transport Solution Today, 3 D trans port reactor modeling is done primarily through stochastic Monte Carlo MCNP series. This is in part due to the fact that solving the LBE deterministically creates diff iculties and generating multigroup cross section parameters can be difficult, and proper binning of energy groups, and therefore modeling of resonances, can become treacherous. erns about accurate representation of cross section resonances and energy dependence are lifted. As a result, nuclear engineers and physicists have learned to rely heavily on Monte Carlo methods, sometimes taking for granted the issues related to the stati stics involved in obtaining a converged Monte Carlo solution Radiation systems analysis with stochastic Monte Carlo methods alone can never be exact, but rather, are bounded by statistics and tests for statistical PAGE 18 18 convergence. Thus, while the Monte Carl o method is quite useful, it may lead to difficulties in solution, providing the languid evaluator has the right tools and discretization of the phase space in Equation 1 1, including reasonably accurate geometric modeling and Doppler broadened, self shielded multigroup cross section generation tools. This brings us to a discussion involving the advantages and disadvantages of both Monte Carlo, and deterministi c transport solutions. The following chapters describe a multigroup cross section generation and modeling approach in an effort to analyze two radiation systems using Sn and Monte Carlo simulation. In Chapter 2, previous work and different analytical meth ods are outlined. Chapter 3 highlights cross section generation, and presents a study involving a procedure for generating Doppler broadened energy weighted material cross sections for a 3 D Candidate Design (CD) pin cell. Chapter 4 presents a 3 D reacto r model and simulation of the neutron flux behavior in a pressurized heavy water, natural uranium reactor using 3 D Sn Parallel Environment Transport theory, (PENTRAN) in tandem with Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5), while utilizing the cross section generation methods outlined in Chapter 3. In Chapter 5, a fixed source shielding problem is introduced and solved using Monte Carlo in tandem with transport theory that includes demonstration of the advantages of forward and adjoint equation. Th is is followed by a discussion of conclusions, future work, and references. PAGE 19 19 CHAPTER 2 PREVIOUS WORK Deterministic Codes Although deterministic codes exist for evaluation of heterogeneous radiation systems, many fall short of geometry, memory, or parallel processing requirements. There are few parallel deterministic transport code s available and therefore, previous work involving analysis of large scale heterogeneous radiation systems is limited. Analysis and validation of deterministic code packages, through modeling of increasingly detailed reactor and fixed source systems, rema ins the method of quality control among the use of different deterministic radiation system simulation techniques. Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) has developed many useful codes for the public (U.S. citizens only) and their radiation systems analysis needs. The multitude of codes includes criticality safety codes using both stochastic and deterministic methods, as well as sophisticated reactor fuel burnup modules for certain standard reactor systems (pressur ized water reactor, boiling water reactor). However, deterministic 3 D transport remains a beast yet dominated in nuclear science. NEW Transport code (NEWT), X S ection D ynamics for R eactor N ucleonics with P etrie M odifications ( XSDRNPM ) and the Discrete O rdinates Oak Ridge System ( DOORS ) system are the only ORNL codes a vailable for transport analysis. XSDRNPM is a one dimensional (1 D) Sn transport algorithm and is used in Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) for eigenvalue (k effective) determination, cross secti on collapsing, production of bias factors for use in Monte Carlo shielding calculations, and shielding analysis. 3 Diffusion theory can also be executed through use of XSDRNPM. However, 1 D models are less useful for large heterogeneous systems. PAGE 20 20 NEWT (alt hough it is not the newest addition to SCALE5), was developed as a multigroup discrete ordinates radiation transport code with non orthogonal meshing to allow for complex two dimensional (2 D) neutron transport models. 4 NEWT is commonly spoken of in tande m with Triton (a transport and depletion module for nuclear fuel) and used for infinite lattice calculations and comparisons. It is especially useful for multigroup cross section generation and Doppler broadening. Unfortunately, NEWT has no parallel capa bilities, and does not account for three dimensional (3 D) effects. Tetrahedral Mesh Transport Attila solves the first order steady state form of the Linear Boltzmann Equation (LBE) using the discrete ordinates method, and does so using tetrahedral mesh ge ometries and angular discretization. 5 Tetrahedral mesh geometry provides for impressive accuracy in material representation, but requires a commercial mesh generator. However, the complex tetrahedral mesh limits the differencing scheme versatility in the code, and therefore Attila is tied to linear discontinuous finite element spatial differencing. A notable advantage to this scheme is that since Attila allows for discontinuities between element faces, and the Linear Discontinuous Finite Element Method ( LDFEM) is able to capture sharp gradients with large meshes allowing for lower Sn angular discretization. 5 However, this can pose challenges to yielding accurate solutions in thick shielding problems. To date, Attila is not parallel, and memory issues ar e significant in cases where complex geometry couples with high angular discretization requirements. Three Dimensional Oak Ridge Transport (TORT), available through the Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) Discrete Ordinates Oak Ridg e System (DOORS), is another ORNL code that solves the Linear Boltzmann Equation (LBE) using the method of discrete ordinates, but in PAGE 21 21 3 particles through large non scat non Parallel Environment Neutral Particle Transport Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) is a scalab le parallel code that solves the steady state form of the LBE in 3 D while using Cartesian mesh geometries and Sn angular discretization. 6 The package, as mentioned previously, operates in a distributed parallel environment, solving the issue of memory av ailability by further distributing the phase space across 3 dimensions of domain decomposition, including space (Cartesian mesh spatial discretization), angle (angular discretization), and energy group (energy group discretization). PENTRAN is very effici ent with adaptive differencing schemes, and has schemes for coarse mesh/partial current rebalance and Taylor projection methods for linking grid discontinuities and mitigating ray effects. The very flexible differencing schemes allow for a solution that i s tailored to the experience of the user. Also, PENTRAN is in continuous development. Monte Carlo Stochastic Method of Solution As mentioned in the previous section, Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) uses a variety of codes, of which employ stochastic Monte C arlo methods to assist in problem simulations. The Keno criticality module Monte Carlo is an incredibly useful tool for criticality calculations, and much study has been directed towards obtaining solutions in loosely coupled systems. However, the code i s not meant to model fixed source transport problems. Further applications of Keno include its use in depletion calculations with the use of Triton. achieved high notoriety in t he field of nuclear engineering and simulation, but there are situations in which loosely coupled systems provide waning confidence in source convergence. 7 PAGE 22 22 Such elusive resolutions require a keen eye for the statistical nature of the method of solution. in convergence of a source, they cannot provide completely reliable indications of non convergence. 7 Previous work in Monte Carlo solution methods include loosely coupled syste m simulations such as criticality safety geometries, eigenvalue, and fixed source shielding problems, and in particular address solutions to such problems. PAGE 23 23 CHAPTER3 MULTIGROUP CROSS SEC TION GENERATION In order to specifically address the problem involving the generation of multigroup Doppler broadened/self shielded material cross sections, a procedure was developed using Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) with the NEW Transport along with Triton (NEWT Triton) transport tool. In NEWT, a general purpose 238 group library can be collapsed to obtain a useful cross section library for use in 3 D Sn transport in Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN). This method was developed in the process of building a Candidate Design (CD) fuel pin, performing a 3 D unit cell or lattice eigenvalue calculation, and comparing the results against Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5). An example of the procedure is highlight ed in subsequent sections. Candidate Design Fuel Pin Data Th e Candidate Design (CD) fuel rod, depicted in Figure 3 1, modeled for the study was taken from the full core CD with the following properties; Uranium Mo Alloy Annular Fuel, 0.72 w% U 235 enriched ; 98.5 w% U, 1.5 w% Mo Inner Fuel Radius: 0 cm (reduced for natural uranium fuel design) Outer Fuel Radius: 1.78 cm Fuel Rod Length: 250 cm Fuel Rod Pitch: 13.5 cm Cladding, inner: 0.1 cm, Alloy 6061T6 Cladding, outer: 0.l cm, Alloy 6061T6 Inner Pres sure Tube Radius: 2.0 cm, Pressure Tube thickness: 0.15 cm Figure 3 1 Fuel element detail for C andidate D esign. For the simulation, the inner diameter of the annular type fuel depicted in Figure 3 1 was considered to be zero, implying a solid fuel e lement. PAGE 24 24 Process for Cross Section Collapse Although the single pin infinite lattice calculation performed in order to validate the cross section collapse procedure using the Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) package only models 2 D geometries, the process was s hown to be accurate for 3 D calculations, as will be shown by the following sections. Candidate Design Muligroup Binning To select a proper group structure most applicable to the core physics Candidate Design (CD) problem, the entire CD reactor core, to be described in the following chapter, was modeled in a continuous energy Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) for approximately 10 hours on 16 64 bit Opteron processors. Results of this Monte Carlo simulation yielded approximately 3% tally statis tics throughout all 238 energy groups. MCNP5 continuous energy groups were binned to be identical with the general Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) library. Following analysis of this data, eight (8) total energy groups were collapsed from the original 238 g roups that could best represent problem physics. Note these groups were identified through use of the global integrated U 235 fission rate tally, with contributions from all fueled core regions portrayed in Figure 3 2. Table 3 1 shows each collapsed group Figure 3 2. Whole core U 235 fission rate (average relative error 3%) and selected 8 group structure. PAGE 25 25 Table 3 1. 8 group collapsed energy bin bounds Group Upper Group Bounds(MeV) 1 20 2 1.36 3 4.40E 01 4 5.20E 02 5 3.90E 03 6 6.83E 04 7 1.22E 04 8 3.00E 06 The study was also collapsed to six groups for in order to reduce memory requirements. The upper bounds for the six group collapse are shown in Table 3 2. Table 3 2. 6 group collapsed energy bin bounds Group Upper Group Bounds (MeV) 1 20 2 1.36 3 4.40E 01 4 3.90E 03 5 1.22E 04 6 3.00E 06 Codes for Cross Section Generation T he 8 and 6 group libraries prese nted in the previous section were collapsed from the 238 group Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) general libr ary for the pin cell materials and rendered into deterministic cross section libraries using tools that were developed or significantly expanded and enhanced in support of this project: the Scale Form ( SCALFORM ) tool renders S cale 5 .1 microscopic cross sect ions in a readable text format following the use of the S cale 5 .1 A lpo tool. Mixing the rendered text based microscopic cross sections from SCALFORM was then accomplished using an updated group cross section mixer called Group Independent Mixer ( GMIX ) whi ch provides material macroscopic cross sections, and fuel mixture group fission PAGE 26 26 chi val ues. For this work, a mean average integrated chi fission spectrum that accounts for the effects of multiple fissile nuclides was developed and incorporated in to GMIX. A flowchart outlining the cross section generation process, termed the single uranium Pin (suPin) process, is shown in Figure 3 3. Figure 3 3. Flow chart of the codes and used in the cross section generation proce ss, where codes are represented in blue, files are represented in yellow. Single Pin Mesh Modeling in Cartesian 3 D Sn Transport Following the generation of macroscopic cross sections, from the 2 D NEW Transport (NEWT) infinite lattice calculation, a 3 D calculation with Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) was modeled. Again, the purpose of the PENTRAN calculation was to validate the PAGE 27 27 cross section generation procedure in a 3 D lattice calculation for further use on the 1/8 th core Candidate Design (CD ) model. For the simulation, the full pin model was used with the parameters shown in Table 3 3. Table 3 3. Candidate Design single pin geometry parameters Description length (cm) active fuel length 250 L ength of D 2 O stacked above/below active fuel 79 r fuel outer 1.780 1st clad r outer 1.992 Pressure tube r inner 2.430 Pressure tube r outer 2.530 fuel pitch 12.563 Note that the fuel pitch in the single pin model is 12.563 cm, which is an adjusted equivalent square pitch to the triangular pitch of 13 .5 cm in the full core model. The single pin model considers an infinite square lattice, whereas the full core model has fuel elements in a triangular array. PENTRAN is a 3 D Cartesian discrete ordinates code, and therefore mesh refinement must be impleme nted to represent the geometry specification of a desired design. In some cases, the desig n can be modeled to exact geometry, in cases with curved shapes some approximations must be used For the single lattice cell study, two geometries for the coarse mesh cell containing cylindrical fuel elements were considered. These two geometries will be referred to as a 35x34 coarse mesh cell and a 21x19 coarse mesh cell ; m ore specifically these numbers refer to the fine mesh structure of the coarse mesh contain ing the fuel element PAGE 28 28 The 35x34 coarse mesh cell was intended to represent the cylindrical geometry of the fuel element to near exact design geometry specifications. The 35x34 coa rse mesh cell is shown below in F igure 3 4 Figure 3 4. 35x34 coarse me sh cell for deterministic model. The 35x34 ( x y ) coarse mesh scheme in Figure 3 4 yields the approximations for masses in the mod el as shown in Table 3 4. Table 3 4. Excess mass balance and percent error for a 35x34 mesh full pin Material Model Excess Ma ss(g) Model Mass (g) Target Mass (g) Percent Error U Mo 139.00 47,000.00 47,139.00 0.29% Al inner 98.20 1,597.60 1,499.40 6.15% D 2 O inner 28.40 1,642.40 1,614.00 1.73% Al outer 197.00 1,249.00 1,446.20 15.79% D 2 O outer 19.90 65,200.00 65,180.00 0.0 3% PAGE 29 29 This model worked well for representation of a unit cell calculation; however, due to the anticipated possible memory limitations encountered in developing the 1/8 Symmetry core model of the Candidate Design deterministically, it became necessary to p erform a single lattice cell parameter study in an effort to limit the number of fine mesh cells defining the geometry within coarse mesh cells containing fuel pins and in outer coarse meshes in a triangular pitc h assembly arrangement for the CD. After a brief study, a practical Cartesian meshing scheme was chosen. This scheme involved a blend of minimal meshing to achieve a bal ance of fissile mass, and minimize memory requirements i n PENTRAN; this is depicted in Figure 3 5 Figure 3 5. 21x19 coarse mesh cell for deterministic model. The excess mass for the 21x19 mes h scheme is shown in Table 3 5 Table 3 5. Excess mass balance and percent error for a 21x19 mesh full pin Material Model Excess Mass(g) Model Mass (g) Target Mass (g) Percent Error U n atural 35.6 46820.0 46784.0 0.08% Al inner 136.0 1559.4 1423.0 8.75% D 2 O inner 91.2 1762.0 1853.2 5.18% Al outer 12.3 1039.6 1027.3 1.18% PAGE 30 30 From inspec tion of Table 3 4 representation of the fue l assembly, there will inherently be a material approximation in representing curved boundary surfaces, so that approximately 9% of the aluminum cladding is underrepresented in the 21x19 mesh model, and the D 2 O within the flow channel is overrepresented by ~5%. However, for the purposes of the study this is acceptable, since it is most important to properly represent the targeted mass of fissile material present as closely as possible, along with reasonably close conservation of the moderator mass. Group Albedo Treatment in the 3 D Deterministic Lattice Cell Due to the large size of the 1/8 core Candidate Design (CD) model, full representation of the almost meter of water above and below the fuel elements (79cm thick), the core was not tractable for the de terministic model to fit on the 8 node, 16 processor Einstein cluster. Therefore, the model size may be reduced by implementing group dependent albedo factors computed using a 3 D lattice cell calculation. To reduce the amount of heavy water atop the pin s in the CD 1/8 core model, group albedos were calculated by using the multigroup solutions from a single pin lattice cell calculation and mapping albedo factors for each of 15 fine z levels within the 79 cm of heavy water directly above the fuel pin locat ion (every 5.267cm). To determine an appropriate location 2 O and implement a group dependent albedo factor boundary condition, a calculation was made using flux weighted cross sections to tru ncate the model at a distance of 6 mean free paths above the fuel. The highly resolved 35x34 mesh scheme pin cell model, described in the previous section, was used to obtain group albedo factors for the full D 2 O reflected model, and with additional inves tigation using both a 35x34 and a 21x19 mesh albedo based model. The formulations used for determining an average mean free path follows: PAGE 31 31 (3 1) With Where =thickness of the medium (3 2) (3 3) Where is the i t fine mesh group g flux above the tg represents the total macroscopic cross section in group g and V i is the fine mesh volume. The fraction F of uncollided neutrons at N mean free paths is given by Equation 3 3. A 6 mean free path (6 mfp) length of reflector is often use d as a thickness to apply a group albedo boundary. This was applied here; applicable data are presented in Table 3 6. Table 3 6. Albedo boundary distance parameters Parameter Value units 0.44464 cm 1 3*mfp 6.7470 cm 6*mfp 13.49 4 cm Here we should note that value of 6 mean free paths for the heavy water using the 3 D unit cell data yielded a reflector distance which also happens to be equivalent to the pitch of the fuel ther, flux weighted group albedo factors were found using the following equation: (3 4) PAGE 32 32 The group dependent albedo factors determined from Equation 3 4 are easily recognized as the fraction of returned current computed for the mes h cells in the heavy water above the pin in mesh i, and of energy group g where the desired heavy water cut is to be made. D ue to the z fine mesh partitions of the problem throughout the he avy water above the fuel, a value of 10.53 cm, or 4.68 mean free paths above the fuel element. Albedo factors for the 8 group and 6 group model are provided in Table 3 7 and 3 8 respectively. Table 3 7. 8 group albedo factors Group Upper Group Bounds(MeV) g 1 20.0 0.0823 2 1.36 0.2714 3 4.4E 1 0.408 9 4 5.2E 2 0.4 53 6 5 3.9E 3 0.506 3 6 6.83E 4 0.550 1 7 1.22E 4 0.623 9 8 3.0E 6 0.995 6 Table 3 8. 6 group albedo factors Group Upper Group Bounds (MeV) g 1 20 0.0824 2 1.36 0.2715 3 4.40E 01 0.4811 4 3.90E 03 0.5451 5 1.22E 04 0.6189 6 3.00E 06 0.9949 Singl e Pin Monte Carlo and Deterministic Eigenvalue Comparisons The pin that was modeled in Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) is shown in Figure 3 6. It is easy to see the advantages of MCNP5 when compared to the discretized geometry required for Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN). PAGE 33 33 Figure 3 6. Single pin Candidate Design material description used in the Monte Carlo model. No material approximations or albedo calculations were needed for the MCNP5 model, and geometries were modeled exactl y as shown in Table 3 2. The results and comparisons for shown in Table 3 9 and 3 10. Table 3 9. Monte Carlo and Deterministic single pin eigenvalue results for 8 groups Model Final k eff Standard Deviation Percent difference from MCNP MCNP continuous energy 1.091 4.20E 04 N/A PENTRAN 35x34 Full D 2 O Reflector 1.086 4.85E 05 0.46% PENTRAN 35x34 Albedo Treated Reflector 1.084 1.23E 04 0.64% PENTRAN 21x19 Albedo T reated Reflector 1.092 1.94E 04 0.09% PAGE 34 34 Table 3 10. Monte Carlo and deterministic single pin eigenvalue results for 6 groups The 6 group 21x19 fuel pin provided the most desirable results with the least amount of memory requirements. Therefore, the 21x19 fuel pin was selected as the p in design of the 1/8 th core Sn model. Monte Carlo and Deterministic Flux Comparison In order t o collect volumetric fluxes, a mesh tally in Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 ( MCNP5 ) was incorporated Figure 3 7 shows a 21x19 mesh overlaying the pin regi on, which was selected to provide adequate aliasing with the single pin Deterministic model. Radial flux profiles were gathered with only one z mesh spanning the active fuel length. Figure 3 7. 21x19 mesh tally scheme for Monte Carlo single pin model Model Final k eff Standard Deviation Percent difference from MCNP MCNP continuous energy 1.091 4.20E 04 N/A PENTRAN 35x34 Full D 2 O Reflector 1.086 4.95E 05 0.46% PENTRAN 21x19 Albedo Treated Reflector 1.090 1.75E 05 0.09% PAGE 35 35 Figures 3 8 through 3 13 compare radial flux profiles for both MCNP 5 and Parallel Environment Transport ( PENTRAN ) for a single pin unit cell, allowing direct spectral comparison of group fluxes. The figures display relative flux through the centerline o f the single pin model for both MCNP5 and PENTRAN, where tallies are aliased to the 6 group energy bins. The relative percent of total neutrons in each group (determined from integration over neutron density) are provided along with maximum and minimum fl ux values in both Monte Carlo and deterministic models, and maximum relative error between the two models. Figure 3 8. Group 1 flux comparison (6 group model). PAGE 36 36 Figure 3 9. Group 2 flux comparison (6 group model). Figure 3 10. Group 3 flux com parison (6 group model). PAGE 37 37 Figure 3 11. Group 4 flux comparison (6 group model). Figure 3 12. Group 5 flux comparison (6 group model). PAGE 38 38 Figure 3 13. Group 6 flux comparison (6 group model). Differences between the MCNP and PENTRAN models for the single pin can be attributed to the multigroup energy group treatment and structure between the Monte Carlo and Deterministic computations, remembering that MCNP uses continuous energy bins, whereas PENTRAN uses discrete energy group bins mixed using the SCALE5 code with the SUPIN procedure developed for this project. Multigroup cross sections represent averaged behavior in regions with strong resonances, particularly at high energies in U 235, and especially U 238. 7 In addition, the mean maximum differen ce between the MCNP5 continuous energy pin cell fluxes and the 6 group model was 1.71%. However, based on the assessment of total neutrons in the system (computed using group neutron densities (equal to group flux/ velocity) integrated over the system vol ume for each energy group), 82.6% of all neutrons appear in group 6 (most thermal group) according to PENTRAN results, and 96.9% of the neutrons according to MCNP5, PAGE 39 39 with a maximum flux difference in group 6 of 4.67% between deterministic and Monte Carlo values, outside of the standard error of the MCNP results. Discussion The single uranium Pin (suPin) pr ocess extracts Doppler broadened, self shielded cross sections after a user specified collapse from the Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) multigroup library. Results for eigenvalue calculations in both 3 D Sn transport with Parallel Environment Transport (PENT RAN) and Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) were consistent, and therefore are applicable for development of a 6 group full core model. PAGE 40 40 CHAPTER 4 REACTOR MODELING This chapter describes the problem and evaluation of the Candidate Design (CD), with information on results, and limitations of the analysis The structures of the CD are depicted in the plant overview shown in Figure 4 1 Fi gure 4 1. Plant Overview of original Candidate Design. 9 Candidate Design C andidate D esign Parameters The Candidate Design (CD) is based on a high flux pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR), located inside a 6061 T6 aluminum cylindrical reactor tank vess el (boron, lithium, and cadmium free aluminum) with walls 1.3 cm thick, and a bottom that is 3.5 cm thick. The PAGE 41 41 limitations; it is heavy water moderated and cooled. Secondary heat exchangers match heat transfer from the heavy water cooling circuit to a light water circuit. The initial design of the reactor was modified for fueling with naturally enriched uranium. Average fuel burnup for the core was specified to be 2400 MWD/MT, peak is 4000 MWD/MT for the 15 MWt design (note a peaking of 1.67 is attributed to these values); burnups for the natural uranium core are strongly dependent upon power density and irradiation history. A North South slice and East West slice of the CD reactor component esse ntials are provided in Figure 4 2, with an expanded view in F igure 4 3. A B Fig ure 4 2. Candidate Design reactor core views. 9 A) North South Candidate Design core v iew. B) East West Candidate Design core view. Altho ugh Figure 4 1, Figure 4 2, and Figure 4 3 are not essential for the computer modeling of the CD, it is necessary to gain an appreciation for the size of the reactor and the potential memory requirements that may be encountered. Also, it is important to n ote that many PAGE 42 42 of the structures labeled in Figures 4 1 and Figure 4 2 were not modeled in deterministic Sn Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN), or stochastic Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5). Boundary approximations, including vacuum bo undaries and albedo boundary conditions at the edge of the actual reactor core give satisfactory results. Figure 4 3. Enlarged East West Core cutaway. 9 C andidate D esign Reactor Core Design The Candidate Design (CD) core holds a total of solid fuel sl ugs in fuel assemblies immersed in heavy water. Remaining positions house up to six B 4 C control rods. Each fuel assembly is placed in the core using a 13.5 cm hexagonal pitch, and is composed of four PAGE 43 43 m. Thermal hydraulic analysis and heat transfer parameter limits restrict the power increase, so that a ramped overpower operation in this design is bounded to < 35 MW. The CD reactor and fuel parameter are summarized by the following; 26 MWth Design Pow er 166 fuel assembly positions 5 fuel rods per assembly Solid natural uranium Up to 6 shim rods Central channel D 2 O around, above, and below core Aluminum reactor wall Aluminum support plate Graphite around outer core The core contains the fuel inside i ndividual pressure tubes spanning over a radius of ~90 cm in a 1 3 .5 cm hexagonal lattice, which is then surrounded by 40 cm of heavy water as a primary reflector, made up from the outer edge of fuel channel sub assemblies up to the physical tank wall. Imm ediately outside the tank (separated by a 0.8 cm air gap for air cooling) sits a large mass of graphite fashioned as a 14 sided prism at an approximate inner radius of 130 cm and a thickness extending out at least 62.8 cm from the inner radius. At the edg e of the graphite is another air gap of 2 cm, followed by a 100 MT cast steel thermal shield 19 cm thick. The graphite is stacked on top of a bismuth support plate (to avoid n gamma reactions since natural bismuth 209 has only a 20 mb neutron capture cros s section) to support the graphite. The graphite is purified nuclear g rade graphite (< 3 ppm natural boron ) composed of 20 cm x 20 cm PAGE 44 44 interlocking stringer blocks configured to be very resistant to shifting, even when heated. The air gaps support filtere d atmospheric air flow used for a secondary cooling mechanism. The reactor tank is under pressure with helium cover gas, and based on the data available for the CD, tank seals can withstand ~2 psi of heavy water overpressure during an excursion. Beyond th e graphite is a 200 cm thick concrete biological shield. Figure 4 4 shows a horizontal slice of the core and the surrounding beam ports. Figure 4 4. Horizontal slice of core and surrounding beam ports. 9 PAGE 45 45 Reactor Physics Analysis Methods Full Core C and idate D esign Monte Carlo Model A full core model for the Candidate Design (CD) was generated with complete detail for the rea ctor system components using Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5). Figure4 5 and Figure 4 6 rendered using the MCNP5 vie wer, and provide the details of the schematic for the fu ll core Monte Carlo model. In F igure 4 5 individual fuel pins with five fuel slugs are labeled, in addition to the aluminum reactor vessel and graphite reflector surrounding the core. The geometry of the pins is the same as in T able 4 4 a fuel pitch of 13.5 cm (t riangular lattice of 166 pins). Figure 4 5. X Z (y=0 slice) plane view of full core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model PAGE 46 46 Figure 4 6. X Y (z=0 slice) plane view of full core Candidate Design Monte Carlo Model. PAGE 47 47 With a full core model in MCNP5, calculations to determine pin power and peaking factors were performed. To assist in a core map reference, a pin numbering index was implemented. This numbering index is depicted in a simplifi ed diagram of the full core model, with pins sequentially labeled 1 thru 166 for the CD as shown in Figure 4 7 Figure 4 7. Monte Carlo model full core pin numbering scheme. The full core model was simulated on code imulation sequence using MCNP5 to determine the overall criticality of the s ystem. Table 4 1 provides a summar y of the computed keff summary. PAGE 48 48 Table 4 1. Monte Carlo Candidate Design k code full core results Parameter Value Units k eff 1.04231 + / 0.0004 8 E avg of a n causing fission 218.3 keV avg 2.464 neutrons/ fission prompt removal lifetime 8.1916E 04 +/ 1.89 E 06 Seconds CPU Time, Einstein 16 Procs 5.09 Hours (+/ 5% pin power) Radial Power Profile A radial pin power pro file (relative to a to tal reactor power of 26 MW t ) is depicted in Figure 4 8 and Table 4 2 with power densities given in W/cc This was established using F7 tallies to yield total fission power in each pin As anticipated, t he reactor power is the highest near the core center in the immediate region which surrounds the largest experimental cavity; specifically, this is at pin number 76 with 0.901% of the total power generated, or 94.53 W/cc. The core average radial pin power was 63.6 W/cc. Figure 4 8. Radial (averaged over axial length) total power pin power densities based on relative errors of less than 4.2% for each value. PAGE 49 49 Table 4 2. Power density per pin (maximum error < 4.2%) pin number (W/cc) pin number (W/cc) pin number (W/cc) pin number (W/cc) 1 51.484 42 70.5 03 83 61.878 124 73.892 2 53.555 43 63.724 84 59.167 125 70.729 3 54.798 44 57.133 85 72.461 126 66.285 4 54.572 45 55.288 86 89.823 127 60.786 5 55.401 46 58.828 87 93.853 128 52.727 6 48.734 47 59.129 88 75.889 129 50.391 7 47.379 48 66.774 89 64.5 52 130 55.137 8 54.723 49 71.633 90 54.647 131 54.497 9 54.271 50 78.299 91 52.049 132 59.581 10 57.585 51 79.353 92 59.694 133 64.665 11 55.739 52 76.830 93 61.991 134 70.428 12 55.288 53 77.546 94 76.114 135 72.876 13 51.823 54 71.030 95 80.408 136 67.113 14 50.015 55 64.402 96 86.697 137 64.100 15 50.843 56 54.534 97 93.439 138 57.397 16 57.660 57 53.932 98 87.865 139 53.141 17 57.020 58 60.598 99 86.057 140 50.730 18 60.033 59 58.865 100 78.600 141 51.446 19 61.539 60 65.155 101 67.226 142 5 0.354 20 63.347 61 72.725 102 58.564 143 57.171 21 61.125 62 78.901 103 48.659 144 63.121 22 56.832 63 80.333 104 47.680 145 65.833 23 53.555 64 81.011 105 57.660 146 59.430 24 53.291 65 80.634 106 57.510 147 55.476 25 60.711 66 77.018 107 63.422 148 49.902 26 59.656 67 70.277 108 72.650 149 48.998 27 63.799 68 62.519 109 75.625 150 47.529 28 68.356 69 54.120 110 80.220 151 46.362 29 71.143 70 54.836 111 78.751 152 52.312 30 68.469 71 58.338 112 78.148 153 57.962 31 66.473 72 63.347 113 74.834 1 54 58.677 32 63.686 73 73.892 114 67.528 155 54.610 33 55.589 74 82.027 115 59.543 156 49.827 34 54.723 75 87.338 116 52.049 157 45.985 35 60.033 76 94.531 117 47.567 158 46.588 36 59.807 77 90.426 118 54.685 159 45.006 37 67.151 78 85.379 119 55.626 160 45.947 38 72.424 79 80.672 120 62.632 161 48.697 39 74.985 80 69.109 121 68.168 162 53.141 40 77.583 81 58.752 122 70.767 163 52.990 41 72.085 82 53.103 123 74.118 164 51.446 165 45.232 166 42.897 Average 63.195 PAGE 50 50 Axial Power P rofile Only five axial zones were modeled to obtain power density. Using five zones was convenient since five slugs compose a single pin. Since each fuel slug (~9.450 kg or ~500 cc) is the same volume and defined as a cell in the Monte Carlo Neutral Part icle version 5 (MCNP5) model, fission power tallies are conveniently obtained. The results of the axial power densities are in Table 4 3. Table 4 3. Computed power density per axial zone (errors < 4.2%) Axial Zone Axial Zone Power (W/cc) Hot Channel Powe r (W/cc) 1, (1.05 cm to 51.05 cm) 47.03 69.11 2, (53.15 cm to 103.15 cm) 72.69 112.23 3, (105.25 cm to 155.25 cm) 80.76 122.21 4, (157.35 cm to 207.35 cm) 70.79 103.95 5, (209.45 cm to 259.45 cm) 44.70 65.16 Average 63.20 94.53 Power Peaking Summar y Calculated power peaking factor (PPF) values representing peak to average assembly power d ensities are given in Table 4 4. Using Table 4 3 the radial PPF was calculated by locating the maximum power density (pin 76) of the 166 pins and dividing by the average power density. The axial PPF in the hottest pin was calculated by segmenting pin 76 into five (5) individual zones and calculating a local PPF for that pin alone. The PPF in the hottest pin/channel is calculated by multiplying the radial PPF with the axial PPF in the hottest pin. Table 4 4. Power Peaking Factor Summary Power Peaking Factor Summary radial PPF 1.496 axial PPF in the hottest pin 1.293 PPF in the hottest pin/channel 1.934 Therefore, 1.934 was the calculated power peaking factor using the Monte Carlo full core model. PAGE 51 51 Deterministic Analysis of Candidate Design 1 /8 th Core Candidate Design Model The Candidate Design (CD)was generated using L atte triangular lattice generator. Latte was developed in an effort to ease construction of t he model. Previously, the user would have to construct each individual pin. Latte was used to create the whole core assembly from the 21x19 single pin coarse mesh described in the previous chapter. Memory requirements for the Einstein 8 node, 16 process or cluster dictated that at most 1/8 th of the core could be modeled, resulting in a modified core design without the empty channels of the original core design. A 1/8 th core symmetry was obtained by modeling half the core in the z direction and core in the x y plane. The 1/8 th CD is shown in Figure 4 9 Figure 4 9. 1/8 th core Candidate Design. It should be noted that the graphite reflector was omitted due to the approximation that the D 2 O already serves as an infinite reflec tor under the specified operating conditions. The 1/8 th Core Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) model used a block adaptive mesh grid, where high resolution meshing is applied in zones where needed (in fuel pin zones). Meshing can be relaxed in the peripheral heavy water region. The final 1/8 core model used contained PAGE 52 52 361,584 mesh cells, and as many as 260 million multigroup simultaneous equations in a power/source iteration for determination of the criticality eigenvalue and pin power distribution Heavy water moderated systems are some of the most difficult systems to converge, since neutrons scatter quickly, and remain in thermal energies (as evidenced by the thermal group albedos of 0.995 determined previously). Deterministic Criticality Calcul ation 1/8 th Core Candidate Design The Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) deterministic criticality calculation presented several challenges due to limited cluster memory. Three calculations were performed using 21x19 x y meshes for each fuel pin, studying convergence effects of changing the Sn ordinate parameters and number of energy groups. k eff convergence for 8 group models using S4 and S8 angular quadrature, and a 6 group model using S10 angular quadrature were studied; all cases were run with P 1 scattering anisotropy. All calculations were initially performed using the Directional Theta Weighted (DTW) differencing scheme locked in all 1710 coarse meshes. The behavior of the criticality eigenvalue k eff and the convergence comparisons are prov ided in Figure 4 10 and Table 4 5, respectively. Figure 4 10. Convergence of the 1/8 th core Candidate Design for deterministic models. PAGE 53 53 Table 4 5. Final values for 6 group convergence comparison Model Final k Standard Deviation Final Iteration k toler ance Procs Space Procs Group Procs Angle MB/Proc CPU Time (hrs) S4 8 groups 1.00237 8.10E 05 84 1.00E 04 4 3 1 2714.3 54.7 S8 8 groups 0.99741 5.85E 05 75 1.00E 04 10 1 1 3994.8 87.3 S10 6 groups 0.99807 5.15E 05 75 1.00E 04 5 3 1 3270.3 99.2 Power Pe aking in the 1/8 th Core Candidate Design Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) is capable of delivering fission source information directly to the user via PENTRAN Data extractor (PENDATA), and can be used to yield volumetric fission neutron source valu es in the fuel, sorted by energy group. The volumetric fission source data corresponds to the fission neutron source in the fuel in user specified fine meshes within each coarse mesh volume. Therefore, group sorted fission sources (# of neutrons/cc) in f uel values were integrated over energy group and fuel zone volume, and divided by total zone fuel volume and the average number of neutrons per fission to obtain the mean fission reaction density per zone. The source density per zone was then scaled to yi eld a computed core thermal power of 26 MWt in accordance with Candidate Design (CD) specifications. (4 1) Radial pin power peaking was calculated by summing over zones of fuel pin power volumes axially, and determining peak to aver age ratios between radial pin power densities. The results of the pin mean power densities are shown in Figure 4 11. PAGE 54 54 Figure 4 11. Relative pin power for pins contained in 1/8 th Candidate Design (W/cc). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard de viation of less than 4.2% (1 sigma) PAGE 55 55 Axial power peaking was calculated in a similar manner, using 6 z axial zones, where the pin power was summed over radial volumes in each axial zone. The hottest half pin was split over 6 z levels. Axial zone boundari es and associated zone averaged power densities are in Table 4 6. Table 4 6. Axial zone boundaries, zone and hottest channel power densities computed using the deterministic model No. Boundaries in cm Axial Zone Power (W/cc) Hot Channel Power (W/cc) 1 0 20 69.191 113.220 2 20 40 68.099 111.324 3 40 60 65.887 107.359 4 60 80 62.626 101.718 5 80 100 58.218 94.298 6 100 125 53.196 86.244 Average 62.484 101.716 Power peaking values for the 1/8 th core deterministic computation are shown in Table 4 7. Average power density for each zone is shown in Table 4 8. Table 4 7. Hot channel power peaking factors compared to Monte Carlo Type Peak to Average Power Ratio Percent difference from MCNP 5 PENTRAN Radial 1.628 8.82% MCNP Radial 1.496 N/A PENTRAN Axi al 1.113 13.92% MCNP Axial 1.293 N/A PENTRAN Power Peaking Factor 1.934 6.73% MCNP Power Peaking Factor 1.812 N/A PAGE 56 56 Table 4 8. Average power density by zone compared to Monte Carlo Zone Average Power Density (W/cc) Percent difference from MCNP 5 MCNP5 Radial 63.6 0.01% PENTRAN Radial Full Core 63.605 N/A MCNP5 Axial (Hottest Pin) 94.53 7.65% PENTRAN Axial (Hottest Pin) 102.361 N/A Full Core Power Density Comparisons The pin powers for reactor power scaled to 26 MWt were computed as noted in previou s sections, and are reproduced here for direct comparison. A side by side pin power comparison is provided in Figure 4 12, and the ratio of power density per pin is given in Figure 4 13. Figure 4 12. Monte Carlo and Deterministic 6 group computed pow er densities (W/cc). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1 sigma). PAGE 57 57 Figure 4 13. Ratio of Monte Carlo power density to Deterministic power density. Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1 sigma). Ideally, all of the values in Figure 4 13 should be unity. In comparing these ratios, recall that Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) values are converged with a standard deviation (1 sigma) of 4.2% or less. Power density ratios diverge from unity in the pins primarily along the outer periphery, attributed largely to the use of inadequate mesh densities in outer core regions of the Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) model. Higher mesh PAGE 58 58 densities are needed there to r esolve the neutron leakage streaming off of the core, along with an investigation of adaptive differencing scheme behavior. The inadequate local mesh resolution at the edge of the core causes the leakage to be overestimated there, so that this directly ex plains why a lower system criticality eigenvalue ( k eff = 1.00) resulted from the deterministic models (compared to the k eff =1.04 in the Monte Carlo model). In addition, since the PENTRAN model was a 1/8 core symmetry model, some differences near the cent er of the core can be attributed to the empty channels not modeled in PENTRAN model which also affect k. Given these facts, the models are comparable, although the differences could be narrowed further by refinement of the deterministic model. The followi ng plots show that there was a severe flux drop at the outer edges of the core. The flux drop may not have been accurately modeled in the PENTRAN calculation due to limited memory capabilities. Further study was provided after expanding models on a new c luster named Bohr. Figure 4 14. Monte Carlo 6 group fluxes. PAGE 59 59 Figure 4 15. Deterministic 6 group fluxes. Further Refinement of the Deterministic Model The Bohr cluster supplied more speed of calculation and memory for the Parallel Environment Trans port (PENTRAN) simulation. To a limit, the meshing surrounding fuel elements on the perimeter of the model could be refined and the results are shown in Figure 4 16. Figure 4 16. Monte Carlo to Deterministic power ratios for S10 refined mesh (left) and S10 coarser mesh (right). Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1 sigma). PAGE 60 60 Mesh densities in Figure 4 16 were increased by a factor of 2 coarse meshes surrounding periphery fuel pins. Further study was employed in an effort to determine more accurate differencing schemes for the PENTRAN model. The Exponential Directional Iterative (EDI) differencing scheme has shown promising results in test problems and was implemented on the perimeter pins as indicated by Figure 4 1 7. 10 Figure 4 18 presents the ratios, Monte Carlo to deterministic power densities, for the calculation. Figure 4 17. PENTRAN differencing scheme map, blue = Directional Theta Weighted, red = Exponential Directional Iterative. PAGE 61 61 Figure 4 18. Monte Car lo to Deterministic power ratios for S10 refined mesh with updated differencing. Monte Carlo values are converged to a standard deviation of less than 4.2% (1 sigma). PAGE 62 62 The power ratios are closer to unity in the previous problem areas located at the top o f the figure. This demonstrates the need for a differencing scheme like EDI to account for streaming and edge effects in core physics calculations. Also, agreement for the pin on the upper left corner of Figure 4 18 still remains an issue. This could be due to higher stochastic error in the fission source inherent in the pins. Discussion Tandem methods for the analysis of the reactor model provided two independent solutions that, for the most part, were in good agreement. Monte Carlo Neutral Particle ve rsion 5 (MCNP5) yielded a converged solution with no approximations for geometric parameters, while the Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) calculation had to be carefully constructed so that a converged solution could be obtained. MCNP5 and PENTRAN were in reasonable agreement for power density calculations on all but the periphery fuel pins. For peripheral fuel, one must note whether or not the Monte Carlo calculations truly converged, or if the Sn solutions are accurate for the discretization used Further investigative techniques were employed in PENTRAN in order to access problem regions, which were prominent in the periphery of the model, with and improved with discretization and higher order differencing algorithm. The analysis identifie s areas of investigation for both deterministic and Monte Carlo solution approaches. PAGE 63 63 CHAPTER 5 FIXED SOURCE SIMULATION In the course of handling packaged radionuclides, it is often necessary to assay closed containers of radioactive materials for inventory and accountability, and to validate gamma ray dose rates and source spectra. Often, materials in sealed containers can be well characterized using gamma ray spectrometry and dosimetry when the container is readily accessible. With regard to emphasis on material accountability and minimizing personnel doses, it is useful to understand th e magnitude and the spectrum of a containerized source without requiring the container to be opened. However, some packaged or containerized sources are often stored in locations not completely accessible for repeated or convenient survey via spectrometry such as in spent fuel pools, fuel handling areas, etc, so that inventory, accountability, and control must be more generally verified through routine dose rate measurement audits. These measurements may be carried out in spent fuel pools at water depths of one to two atmospheres of pressure, and only a small probe ion chamber measurement for dose assessment is possible, given operational, environmental, or geometry constraints. Therefore, a study was commissioned at the FINDS Institute at the University of Florida to employ 3 D gamma radiation transport calculations to explore the extent of potential variations in measured dose rate from hypothetical containerized sources in a simulated spent fuel pool using standard stainless steel storage containers (S SC). These 3 D transport calculations were compared to and validated by Monte Carlo calculations under the use of MCNP5 code. 3 D Gamma Transport Methods Performing the gamma ray transport computations necessary for this study involved obtaining either a deterministic solution (achieved in our studies via the Sn method), or statistically (achieved using the Monte Carlo method). Both solution methods were applied to PAGE 64 64 provide consistent results in characterizing dose rates in this application. The steady st ate multi group form of the transport equation operating on the forward group angular flux using standard notation with total group cross section differential group scattering cross section and source terms q ( ) g is: 11 (5 1) Forward and Adjoint Operators Principally, scattering from all other energy groups into group g is dominated by downscattering from higher energies to lower energies. 11 The adjoint transport operator can be derived using the adjoint identity for real valued functions and the forward multi group transport operator, where the angled brackets r epresent integration over all independent variables, in this case phase space: 11 (5 2) Using Equation 4 1, it can be seen that the forward operator is (5 3) The angular adjoint (importance) function is, Applying the adjoint boundary condition that particles leaving a bounded system have an importance of zero in all groups (converse of the forward vacuum boundary condition) with the above equations, and requiring a continuous importanc e function mathematically leads to the multi group adjoint transport operator: 11 (5 4) PAGE 65 65 Note the minus sign on the streaming term indicates that adjoint particles travel along a reverse direction (relative to the forward transport fo rmulation), where scattering progresses from group g back to other groups (those groups formerly contributing to group g in the forward equation). Forward and Adjoint Detector Response To render a traditional detector response R (e.g., absorptions per u nit time) attributed to a specific reaction using an adjoint transport solution, the desired R must be linked to the adjoint R in the detector. To illustrate this, conside r a fixed forward source detector problem, where the radiation flux between the source and the detector must satisfy the transport equation: 11 ( 5 5) Where q g is the gamma source density, typically with units of /cm 3 /s. Alternativ ely, the adjoint transport equation should also be satisfied using an adjoint source aliased to the group detector response cross section typically with units of 1/cm: ( 5 6) Applying Equations 5 2, 5 5, and 5 6, and integrating over all variables results in the very useful expression for detector response R : ( 5 7) Therefore, a traditional detector response can be obtained from the adjoint transport solution by integration of the produc t of the source distribution with the adjoint function computed over the problem phase space, for any arbitrary source distribution. Thus, detector response R caused by several sources may be computed in two ways: PAGE 66 66 Directly from the left side of Equation 5 7 from several individual forward transport computations for each radiation source, or From the coupling of a single adjoint transport computation with the set of different source terms 11 Responses Aliased to Dose Rate Dose rate response ( ) computations in our study were rendered using energy group dependent flux to dose conversion factors (FDCFs) for gamma radiation (Chilton et. all, 1984). The units of these factors are in rem cm 2 (cSv cm 2 ), so that when a (forward) gamma flux is determined in a region in /cm 2 /s, the product of the group gamma fluxes with each group FDCF was computed, summed over all groups, and this yields the gamma dose rate in rem/s at that point. FDCFs interpolated onto BUGLE 96 multigroup energy bins are presented in Table 5 1. Table 5 1. Interpolated Flux to Dose Conversion Factors 1 cSv = 1 rem 12 Group MeV (hi) MeV (avg) FDCF ( cSv cm2 ) 1 1.40E+01 1.20E+01 3.10E 09 2 1.00E+01 9.00E+00 2.44E 09 3 8.00E+00 7.50E+00 2.13E 09 4 7.00E+00 6.50E+00 1.93E+09 5 6.00E+00 5.50E+00 1.72E 09 6 5.00E+00 4.50E+00 1.50E 09 7 4.00E+00 3.50E+00 1.28E 09 8 3.00E+00 2.50E+00 1.03E 09 9 2.00E+00 1.75E+00 8.11E 10 10 1.50E+00 1.25E+00 6.40E 10 11 1.00E+00 9.00E 01 5.09E 10 12 8.00E 01 7.50E 01 4.45E 10 13 7.00E 01 6.50E 01 4.00E 10 14 6.00E 01 5.00E 01 3.26E 10 15 4.00E 01 3.00E 01 2.07E 10 16 2.00E 01 1.50E 01 1.09E 10 17 1.00E 01 8.00E 02 6.80E 11 18 6.00E 02 4.50E 02 4.96E 11 19 3.00E 02 2.50E 02 3.90E 11 20 2.00E 02 1.00E 02 3.50E 11 PAGE 67 67 The desired dose rate can also be rendered usi ng an adjoint transport computation if the adjoint source is properly aliased to yield 11 To accomplish this for the adjoint transport calculation, the group adjoint source must be set equal to the group FDCFs with units of cSv cm 2 Once the adjoint function is determined at the location of interest, the dose can be rendered using Equation 5 7, where the forward source, being aliased to the FDCFs, must be a gamma ray flux with units of Since placement of a small localized source is defined as a source rate ( /s ) this must be properly converted to an estimated flux in the problem for proper computation of the dose rate (assuming volumetric variable dimensions canc el) : (5 8) Therefore, to convert a localized source rate to a source flux for coupling to the adjoint function (to then yield a dose rate), an equivalent radius ( r eq ) must be determined for computation of an effective surface area ( 1/( 4 r eq 2 )), which is used to divide into the source rate to yield an effective source flux, Since forward and adjoint calculations must each independently render the same this equality was used in this work to determine the equivalent radius ( r eq ) for each source rate. Therefore, use of the equivalent surface area in coupling a localized source with the adjoint aliased to the FDCFs is necessary to yield the correct within the practic al limits of truncation error in the two deterministic transport computations. Flux to dose conversions are assumed to be applicable in this case without the specific need to consider specific electron transport effects in the transport computations, since the range of ~1 to~2 MeV (the dominant source term) photoelectrons in water is <0.5 to <1cm; lower energy electrons caused by interactions with lower energy photons have even lower ranges in PAGE 68 68 water. Also, charged particle equilibrium can be assumed. As a result, dose rates computed using FDCFs coupled to transport determined photon fluxes are accurate. Solution Methodology Two source terms were selected to be simulated in closed containers for comparison: a t, and a Co 60 source. Transport computational models were constructed to determine the variation in the expected dose rate near the bottom of stainless steel ROI Detector Box position. In performing 3 D computations to determine the effect of dose rate attributed to the sources adjacent to the storage container, the following compu tations were performed: Forward 3 D Monte Carlo photon transport computations using the MCNP5 code. Continuous energy gamma ray treatments of the source are to compute a dose in the ROI Detector Box. Tallies are set up in MCNP using group bins aliased to the group structure of the BUGLE 96 gamma library to enable direct comparison to deterministic results; fluxes are rendered into a dose rate by coupling with ANSI flux to dose conversions interpolated onto BUGLE 96 group energy bins. Forward deterministic 3 D Discrete Ordinates (Sn) computations solving the 3 D radiation transport equation using the PENTRAN 3 D Sn code to compute dose in the ROI Detector Box using the BUGLE 96 multigroup gamma library. Resulting fluxes are rendered as a dose rate by coupl ing with flux to dose conversions. Adjoint 3 D Discrete Ordinates computations solving the adjoint transport equation with an adjoint source aliased to the ANSI standard flux to dose conversion factors, with this adjoint source placed in the ROI Detector B ox location. The adjoint transport result yields the relative contribution to the dose rate for any photon source placed anywhere in the model. Each of these computational approaches amounted to an independent method of determining a dose, and when conver ged, the result from each model for equivalent source terms should yield the same solution (within the statistical uncertainty for the Monte Carlo, and some small variation between the continuous energy and multigroup energy treatments, etc). PAGE 69 69 Modeling Proc edure In constructing the models for this effort, the following procedures were used: Evaluation of gamma source terms using the Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) package 19,800 MWD/MTU in a mean flux of 2.6E+13 n/cm 2 /s over a 3 cycle burnup history), and a Co 60 alloy source Use of the BUGLE 96 multigroup gamma cross section library (Sn) and continuous energy (Monte Carlo) cross sections Construction of 3 D Monte Carlo Neutral P article version 5 (MCNP5) and 3 D Sn Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) models Execution of models on computer systems (parallel clusters), post processing and analysis of results Source Spectra The simulated fuel pellet gamma source, rendered using Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1), yielded a total of 1.8441E+10 photons per second, and is characterized by the normalized spectrum data in Figure 5 1. Figure 5 1. Standard f uel pellet gamma source spectrum normalized from specified upper MeV bounds. PAGE 70 70 This d ata is partitioned into upper group energy bins compatible with a BUGLE 96 group structure. The cobalt 60 alloy source is given in Figure 5 2, yielding a total of 1.99E+12 photons per second. Figure 5 2. Co balt 60 source spectrum normalized from spec ified MeV upper bounds Results Monte Carlo, deterministic forward, and deterministic adjoint results are presented here to profile dose variation as a function of source position in the sealed stainless steel containers submersed in a spent fuel pool. Mon te Carlo Simulation of the Container Assembly A graphical rendering of the geometry used in the Monte Carlo simulation of a stainless steel container assembly resting in a spent fuel pool given in Figure 5 3. The simulated spent fuel pool bottom was made of 1 cm of Type 304 stainless steel (SS304) liner assumed to be PAGE 71 71 dirt. For this model, it was also assumed that the container assembly was submerged, resting d irectly on the bottom of a pool as shown (on the top surface of the SS304 liner). The water (shown in dark red in Figure 5 3). The Region of Interest (ROI) Detec tor Box geometry was selected for the detector region for ready comparison with deterministic Sn computations discussed in later sections. Figure 5 3. Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 generated picture of region of interest detector box position and assumed container assembly immersed in water. The fuel pellet and Co 60 sources were modeled individually using Monte Carlo as point sources inside the left most container in Figure 5 3 (adjacent to the ROI Detector Box), initially at a height of 4 c m above the bottom of the stainless container, and at higher z axis elevations in the container. Doses were computed using Flux to Dose Conversion Factors (FDCFs) following simulation of photon transport with volumetric flux tallies. With a consideration of the percent PAGE 72 72 contribution to the total dose, the main contribution to the dose from the fuel pellet was in energy groups 18 to 13, corresponding to gamma energies between 0.06 MeV to 0.70 MeV respectively; this accounts for over 97 percent of the total dose at the detector due to the fuel pellet. Based on the Monte Carlo results, the fuel pellet would yield a dose of 5.1 (+/ 0.01) rem/hour at the ROI Detector Box location. For the Co 60 source, considering the contribution to the total dose (72.21 rem /hr) and, group 10, with energies ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 MeV, accounts for 56.8 % of the total dose at the detector due to the Co 60 source. Deterministic (Sn) Forward Transport Simulation One forward calculation was performed using Sn methods using the P arallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) code in order to validate dose results for comparison with Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5), and establish a reference dose for the more useful adjoint calculation (for assessment of the variation of th e dose depending upon source placement, detailed later). For the Sn computation, a mean fuel unit source was placed 4 cm above the bottom of the outer container (equivalent to the source placement in the Monte Carlo models discussed previously). Recall t hat the deterministic solution of the problem requires that the meshes (containing fine meshes) projected on 6 z levels. A total of 775,184 fine meshes were defined t o describe the 3 D geometry of the container and surrounding water and components. These models used an S14 quadrature with an angular splitting technique available in PENTRAN (splitting S14 into additional directions for octant ordinates 12 and 27 with 2 x2 segments, 18 added directions/octant) in an effort to mitigate ray effects in the detector region with P 1 scattering. Therefore, the biased quadrature yielded an Sn equivalent quadrature comparable to S18. Model dimensions were 60 cm x 104 cm x 70 cm, and gamma ray water albedos, defined in a manner similar to that in Chapter 3, were used on all sides. This problem PAGE 73 73 required the solution of 5.457 billion simultaneous equations in the PENTRAN code, and was solved using the high performance computing clu sters at the University of Florida, with infinity norm convergence to at least 10 3 or better. Figure 5 4 depicts the 0.65 MeV (average) gamma flux results with all water regions hidden for demonstration of the flux behavior. Unphysical ray effects are ev ident in the calculation at the outer perimeter of the problem away from the fuel unit source term placed Box location is adjacent to the container in a region where ray effects were less of a concern; note that 35% of the ROI Detector Box dose is attributed to the 0.65 MeV averaged group. Figure 5 4. Gamma flux at 0.65 MeV (average), projected on SS304 materials immersed in water. Figure 5 5 represents a 0 .08 MeV (average) gamma transport calculation where the ray effects are reduced due to photon scattering interactions. PAGE 74 74 Figure 5 5. Gamma flux, 0.08 MeV (average) projected on stainless steel 304 materials The PENTRAN Sn rendered dose computed by fol ding group fluxes with Flux to Dose Conversion Factors ( FDCFs ) at the ROI Detector Box location was 5.17 rem/hr, and compares extremely well with the continuous energy MCNP Monte Carlo rendered dose of 5.1 (+/ 0.01) rem/hr for the same source term. An adj oint transport computation and resulting adjoint function becomes particularly useful in analysis of different source locations in the geometry, and the predicted detector response. The Sn model constructed for the forward case (detailed in the previous s ection) was also used to perform an adjoint computation to analyze the effects of moving the source up through the container assembly. The adjoint source spectrum located at the ROI Detector Box is PAGE 75 75 set to the FDCFs, and yields results that produce a dose caused by any source when the adjoint function values are folded together with a corresponding source flux at the desired location, anywhere in the model (reference Equation 4 7). Figure 5 6 portrays the scalar adjoint importance function for the 0.08 MeV (average) energy group, representing the relative importance (in the same units of the FDCF) of the gamma rays in each group as they contribute to the total dose. Ray effects are of smaller consequence in the adjoint solutions like this, partly because t he adjoint source is aliased with the FDCFs distributed over the volume of the ROI Detector Box and is not a small localized source, and therefore the problem is much less prone to ray effects. Figure 5 6. Gamma group adjoint function al iased to Impo rtance at 0.08 MeV (average) projected on SS304 container materials immersed in water. PAGE 76 76 The adjoint source used here is the FDCF as a function of energy in the ROI Detector Box. To compute the dose observed in the ROI Detector Box, the resulting adjoint a t any location in the problem (where any true source could be placed) must be coupled to an effective source flux as noted previously. Since forward Sn and Monte Carlo results confirmed that a dose of ~5.1 rem/hr would be obtained for a single mean fuel u nit located at z =4 cm in the container, and by Equation 5 7 and Equation 5 8, the adjoint result must match this result. The equivalent radius was calculated conservatively so that the adjoint model would yield 5.17 rem/hr at the original forward source l ocation; this equivalent radius was calculated to be 5.01 cm (with a corresponding surface area equivalent of 315.4 cm 2 ) for consistency among the results. Once determined, the group source flux (e.g. for fuel or alloyed Co 60) was then multiplied by the s calar adjoint importance function for each energy group (aliased to a dose in the ROI Detector Box). Summing this then yields the integrated dose at the ROI Detector Box caused by the source at the location selected. To analyze the overall effect of the s ource, it was then moved from the first position at 4 cm above the bottom of the outermost container along the z axis, to 14 cm and 27 cm above the container bottom; detailed adjoint results are shown in Figure 5 7 for the mean fuel unit case mapped over t he 3 source locations. Here, it is important to note that the time of calculation for the forward MCNP5 run was on the order of 12 hours. Considering that three forward runs were computed to yield doses at three locations, and that 1 PENTRAN calculation c an provide a contiguous solution, it was shown that PENTRAN, in this particular instance using the adjoint, saved hours of computing. Depending on the number of points of interest, PENTRAN could save weeks of evaluation and computer hours. PAGE 77 77 Figure 5 7. Dose for a single Fuel unit (mean burnup) in the Region of Interest as a function of source height at the x y center of nearest container (Adjoint Deterministic dose vs. Monte Carlo dose). Figure 5 8 exclusively shows the results for all fuel unit cases at the 3 source point locations. Figure 5 8. Dose from single fuel unit sources coupled for various burnups (low, mean, and high) in the Region of Interest as a function of source height at x y center of nearest container. PAGE 78 7 8 Obtaining adjoint function va lues using an adjoint source spectrum with flux to dose conversion factors is convenient, so that other source spectra can be applied. Assuming a 1g alloyed Co 60 source spectrum (3 cycles) was applied to obtain a dose of 74.07 rem/hr at the container nea rest to the detector at 4 cm above the bottom of the container shown in Figure 5 9. Figure 5 9. Dose caused by 1 gram alloyed Co 60 (3 y center of nearest containe r. This compares extremely well with the Monte Carlo dose for 1 g of alloyed Co 60 of 72.2 rem/hr. Similarly, the assumed 1g alloyed Co 60 source spectrum (5 cycle) was applied and yielded a dose of about 1668.3 rem/hr at the same location shown in Figure 5 10. PAGE 79 79 Since the doses matched so well for the fuel pellet model, there was no need to run an MCNP5 calculation and compare results. Here the adjoint equation could save even more time. Figure 5 10. Dose caused by 1g alloyed Co 60 (5 cycle irradiatio n) as a function of source height at x y center of nearest container. Discussion In determining the dose at the Region of Interest ( ROI ) Detector Box (Ref Figure 5 6), Monte Carlo and deterministic radiation transport computations based on low, average, a nd high burnup single segmented fuel unit sources, and also calculations of expected dose rate 60 materials were performed The fuel sources were determined PAGE 80 80 by simulating radiation histories of 8x8 boiling water re actor ( BWR ) fuel using the Scale version 5.1 (Scale5.1) package for typical fuel cycle data A summary of the results for the mean fuel unit (1 fuel segment with clad) and the single gram of 3 cycl e irradiated Co 60 (assuming 100% irrad iation) is given i n Table 5 2. Table 5 2. Deterministic and M onte Carlo dose c omparisons of d ose r ate (rem/hr) at the Region of Interest Source Sn Forward (PENTRAN) Monte Carlo (MCNP5) Monte Carlo 1 sigma rel (MCNP5) Sn Adjoint (PENTRAN) Rel % Difference + Fuel Pellet at z=4cm 5.17 5.1 <0.01 5.18 0.0153 Fuel Pellet at z=14cm 2.55 <0.01 2.53 0.0072 Fuel Pellet at z=27cm 0.55 <0.01 0.57 0.0291 Co 60 at z=4cm 72.2 0.04 74.07 0.0256 Co 60 at z=14cm 37.2 0.03 35.23 0.0544 Co 60 at z=27cm 9.1 0.01 8.29 0.0932 *Aliased to a Phantom Photon Dose Response in Detector Box ROI using a source flux computed from an effective radius of 5.01 cm + Relative difference of the mean of the two values Because the method of calculation between the Monte Carlo (with conti nuous energy) and the deterministic Sn (with multigroup energy) are completely independent, the results exude very high confidence, where the forward Monte Carlo, Forward Sn, and Adjoint Sn results yielded of the container rack will yield a dose of ~5 rem/hr when measured at the ROI Detector Box. PAGE 81 81 In addition, the adjoint results permit coupling of any source inside the container rack assembly to predict an effect ive dose measured in the ROI Detector Box, useful in estimating doses attributed to new source materials. A djoint derived dose results at elevated z axis values were fully consistent with Monte Carlo predicted doses as indicated in Table 5 2 PAGE 82 82 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS The advantages and disadvantages of each Monte Carlo stochastic methods, and deterministic methods of radiation systems analysis can be listed side by side with no other conclusion than that the two methods must be used side by side. Given the proper tools, deterministic Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) yields results that are accurate, speedy, and compare well with Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) while highlighting problem areas and designs that require further study. The single uranium Pin (suPin) cross section generation process delivered accurate results when compared with 3 D models in MCNP5 and PENTRAN, while allowing for some flexibility in geometry approximations. The suPin procedure also proved to be ac curate and the 1/8 th core model, while comparisons with MCNP5 revealed that periphery pins need to be locked into an EDI differencing scheme. The adjoint equation proved to be very powerful for fixed source problems. Multigroup adjoint study with PENTRAN reduced ray effects and matched MCNP5 dose calculations at the Region of Interest (ROI) detector box location. Also calculations utilizing the adjoint equation give dose importance in all regions with one calculation, rather than just one location for eve ry source position as does MCNP5. With parallel machine clusters, parallel 3 D deterministic transport calculations can be performed on heterogeneous radiation systems under time constraints comparable to MCNP5. Further, with understanding of adjoint tran sport methods, stochastic solutions can verify parameters of the deterministic solution and reduce analysis time from weeks to days. PAGE 83 83 CHAPTER 7 FUTURE WORK Integration of deterministic methods into the highly stochastic saturated nuclear reaction/eigenvalue, and flux calculation arena naturally leads to the need for deterministic techniques in other areas of nuclear evaluation. The adva ntage of using two fundamentally different methods of solution reach out to obtain a system of checks and balances on each method. The problems of a nonconverged system are readily seen by a drastically different deterministic solution and raises new ques tions about the nature of the radiation system. Candidate Design Deterministic/Monte Carlo Agreement Further work includes evaluation of differencing schemes for reactor physics, and methods for obtaining multigroup cross section sets for different reactor cores. Advanced study could provide a sleek, easy to use manual on differencing schemes for set geometries and spectrum specific cross section sets. Cross section sets generated by SCALE5 are limited to certain typical reactors and geometry restraints ap ply. Future work will involve seeking other means to obtain cross section sets for any geometry in a thermal or fast reactor system. Flexibility of reactor system modeling should give new insight to experimental reactor design. It is apparent from this s tudy that different meshing, and differencing schemes are desirable for different radiation system configurations. More work must be completed in order to set up preferred meshing/differencing schemes on the periphery of different reactor systems. Since PENTRAN is capable of a multitude of coarse mesh differencing schemes, it is in a prime position to be used for further study on reactor modeling and tandem use with MCNP. PAGE 84 84 Parallel Environment Burnup The obvious next step from using stochastically determin ed radiation flux values for reaction rate calculations in a burnup solver, is to use deterministically solved flux values for reaction rate calculations in a burnup solver. Some preliminary studies have been completed with Parallel Environment Transport (PENTRAN) on various reactor cores to develop a parallel 3 D deterministic burnup solver. The Parallel Environment Burnup solver (PENBURN), will allow for further evaluation and comparisons between deterministic type solvers and Monte Carlo solvers. PENB URN will be produced independent of PENTRAN, and will be able to take reaction rate information from Monte Carlo Neutral Particle version 5 (MCNP5) as well as PENTRAN to solve for isotopic compositions for user specified burnsteps. PAGE 85 85 LIST OF REFERENCES 1. L. BOLTZMANN (English translation from original German manuscript (1872)), University of California Press, ( 1964 ) 2. J. DUDERSTADT and L. HAMILTON, Nuclear Reactor Analysis Wiley, New York ( 1976 ) 3. N. GREENE and L. PETRIE Dimensional Discrete Ordinat es Code Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee (2006). 4. Dimensional Discrete Ordinates Analysis in Non Orthogon al Geometries Ridge, T ennessee (2006). 5. D. LUCAS et al. D Deterministic Transport At tila for Core Safety Americas Nuclear E nergy Symposium, Miami Beach, Florida (2004). 6. G. SJODEN and A. HAGHIGHAT, "PENTRAN A 3 D Cartesian Parallel SN Code with Angular, Energy, and Spatial Decomposition Mathematical Methods and Supercomputing for Nuclear Applications Vol I, p. 553, Saratoga Springs, New York (1997). 7. R. BLOMQUIST Loose The 7th International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, (2003). 8. H. FISHER s Section Databook 11711 M, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico (1989). 9. Atomic World, Vol 10, (1959). 10. Three Dimensional S n Computations in XYZ Geomet Nuclear Science and Engineering 155 179 189 (2007). 11. E. LEWIS American Nuclear Society Publishing Co., LaGrange Park, Illinois, (1993). 12. A. C HILTON J. SHULTIS, and R. FAW Principles of Radiation Shielding Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, (1984). PAGE 86 86 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Travis Owings Mock was born in 1981, on a cold day in the Mohave Desert, California, the first of two children. He spent most of his early years in Florida, participating in organized sports and water sports. After graduating high sch ool in 2000, he began further study at the University of Florida. He spent 2 years studying physics before committing to nuclear engineering, and in all spent 7 years at the University of Florida. 