From: ISHIKAWA Makoto [mailto:ishikawa.makoto@jaea.go.jp] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:26 AM To: DUPONT Emmeric, NEA/DB Cc: NEA_SG33_ML Subject: Re: Plots of SG33 benchmark results Dear Emmeric, I am sending the revised SG33 formats of JAEA results in the attached file. (1) nuclear_data_prior_caseJ4 (120110).txt --> Same contents with Jan.10, 2012 version. (2) nuclear_data_post_caseJ4 (Rev. 121219).txt --> The posterior data of MT100 were corrected. (3) nuclear_data_prior_caseC2 (121219).txt --> Newly generated. Cross-section: JENDL-4.0, Covariance: COMMARA-2.0 (4) nuclear_data_post_caseC2 (Rev. 121219).txt --> The posterior data of MT100 were corrected. I thank you again for your help. (I hope I did not make another erorr...) Sincerely yours. Makoto ----------------------------------------------------------- From: ISHIKAWA Makoto [mailto:ishikawa.makoto@jaea.go.jp] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 3:56 AM To: DUPONT Emmeric, NEA/DB Cc: NEA_SG33_ML Subject: Re: Plots of SG33 benchmark results Dear Dr.Dupont, I have to apologize you for my caless mistake. I checked the plots you made on Web, and found the prior- and posterior-uncertainties of all nuclear data by JAEA are identical. I looked for the reason and found it as below: (1) I sent you the adjustment results of SG33 formats for Case J4 and Case C2 on Jan. 10, 2012. In the files, the uncertainty values of "nuclear_data_post" files were wrong. I forgot to replace the uncertainties from prior values to the poseterior values in the post file. (Cross-section values were OK.) (2) On the other hand, I found the "nuclear_correl_post_CaseJ4" file was correct. The posterior uncertainy values were in the right place. (3) I think you used the "nuclear_data_post" files for the plotting work, not "nuclear_correl_post" files. I attached the corrected "nuclear_data_post" files for Case J4 and Case C2. Could you kindly replace the wrong files on Web to the attached ones, and draw the plots of JAEA again? I am very sorry for giving you this trouble and extra-work. Sincerely yours. M.Ishikawa ----------------------------------------------------------- From: ISHIKAWA Makoto [mailto:ishikawa.makoto@jaea.go.jp] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 4:19 AM To: DUPONT Emmeric, NEA/DB Cc: Kazuyuki NUMATA; Kenji YOKOYAMA; Teruhiko KUGO; Tokio FUKAHORI Subject: Re: SG33 Benchmark format by JAEA Dear Emmeric, I am sending three files as the attachment. 1) nuclear_correl_after.caseJ4.txt This is the after-adjustedt covariances by JEDL-4.0. 2) integral_data.target.caseJ4.txt The target core results with SG33 format. 3) Contribution to C_E Changes (Case J4).txt This is the same file I sent you on Jan. 10 as the additional information. You can find the nuclide- and reaction-wise contribution for C/E changes and target core design value changes. If you have any questions, please write me again, though I will be out tomorrow (May 9) for a business trip. Thank you for your dedicated efforts for SG33 activity. Sincerely. Makoto ----------------------------------------------------------- From: ISHIKAWA Makoto [mailto:ishikawa.makoto@jaea.go.jp] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:02 AM To: DUPONT Emmeric, NEA/DB Cc: NEA_SG33_ML Subject: SG33 Benchmark format by JAEA Dear Emmeric, I hope you have a happy new year of 2012. I am sending the contribution of JAEA to SG33 as the attached benchmark format ZIP file. (1) The adjustment cases are two: Case J4: Use of JENDL-4.0 for all related data: nuclear data and covariances, sensitivity coefficients, C/E values and error matrices. Case C2: Use of COMMARA-2.0 for nuclear data covariance, the other input data are identical with Case J4. (No addition of missing data in COMMARA-2.0.) (2) All data including nuclear data and covariances, C/E error matrix were checked and slightly corrected if needed, therefore, please throw away the all precious data I sent you, and replace them with the attached data. However, the conclusions by the JAEA survey are still valid. (3) I added the new file we agreed in the last meeting, that is, "nuclear_data_after_adjustment.txt", the format of which is the same with "nuclear_data.txt". (4) I also added an extra file, that is, "Contribution to C_E Changes.txt" which contains - the table of cross-section changes by adjustment, - their contributions to the C/E improvement of the 20 integral parameters, - Cross-section-induced- errors before and after adjustment(GMG and GM'G). It is easy to read the file. You may upload it if you think it is useful for other SG33 members. (5) I also attached a PDF file which show the comparison of STD and cross-section changes in the Case J4 and C2. It is your choice to upload it or not. I really appreciate your hard work for SG33 activities. Sincerely yours. Makoto ----------------------------------------------------------- From: ISHIKAWA Makoto [mailto:ishikawa.makoto@jaea.go.jp] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:22 AM To: DUPONT Emmeric, NEA/DB; NEA_SG33_ML Cc: Giuseppe Palmiotti (Home); SALVATORES Massimo 090089 Subject: SG33: Report draft of Integral error matrix, and A Request (Correction) Dear SG33 members, At the end of last September, I sent you the SG33 report draft on the integral error matrix, and asked you to replace the experimental error matrix we agreed in the last SG33 meeting to the revised one, Fig.A.3. as below. However, I made one more mistake for the experimental matrix, which was found by Dr.Palmiotti. The mistake is the error value of ZPPR-9 criticality. The reason of my mistake is that I forgot we had changed the ZPPR-9 model from the IRPhE benchmark to the as-built ZPPR-9 core in last April. You can find the difference of two values in the attached PDF file. I apologize all of you again, and ask to use the Fig.A.3 of the attached WORD file as the experimental error matrix for the SG33 adjustment exercise, not Fig.A.3 of the previous draft I sent you. I also attached the adjustment result of JAEA after this experimental error matrix correction. The effect was only the change of the adjusted ZPPR-9 keff by 0.02%dk, compared with the previous result. Dear Dr.Dupont, Could you kindly replace the two text files [integral_correl_111012(Rev.2).txt, integral_data_111012(Rev.2).txt] attached in this e-mail with the previous benchmark format files of the JAEA contribution, which I sent you on Sep.29 as the ZIP file? The other format files have no changes. Thank you for your kindness in advance. Sincerely yours. M.Ishikawa ----------------------------------------------------------- From: ISHIKAWA Makoto [mailto:ishikawa.makoto@jaea.go.jp] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:22 AM To: DUPONT Emmeric, NEA/DB Cc: wpec-sg33@nea.fr Subject: Re: SG33: Summary Record and Actions from May 2011 Meeting Dear Dr.Dupont, In the minutes of last SG33 meeting, there is an request below: > To complete, by September 2011, the phase I of the benchmark > adjustment exercise and distribute the data in the agreed format. > All Sg33 members should provide at least the integral C/E values > calculated with their own data library. I am sending the revised data and results of JAEA adjustment as a ZIP file with this e-mail. The revised files are three: 1) Integral_data: The reason is in the previous e-mail at 17:00 today (9:58 in Paris). 2) Integral_correl: The same (reason). 3) Nuclear_correl: The covariance of resonance regions in U-235, 238 and Pu-239 of JENDL-4.0 are recently revised. There is no effects for the fast reactor adjustment, but it is needed for the comparison among libraries. Please replace them on the SG33 web. Thank you very much in advance. Sincerely yours. M.Ishikawa ----------------------------------------------------------- From: ISHIKAWA Makoto [mailto:ishikawa.makoto@jaea.go.jp] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 9:58 AM To: Giuseppe Palmiotti (Home); SALVATORES Massimo 090089 Cc: DUPONT Emmeric, NEA/DB; NEA_SG33_ML Subject: SG33: Report draft of Integral error matrix, and A Request Dear Dr.Palmiotti, Dr.Salvatores, In the last SG33 meeting in May, Dr. Salvatores asked me to make the report draft on the error matrix of integral data. I am sending the first draft as a WORD file, the contents of which are based on the viewgraph I showed in the last meeting. It would be very nice to me if you give me any kind of comments to the draft. Here, I have to apologize all of you, and ask one thing. During this report-making, I found I made very careless mistakes in the experimental error matrix I proposed in the last meeting. The revised one is in Fig.A.3 of the attached draft. Let me excuse the error points: 1) In last March, Dr.Palmiotti leaded to revise the experimental errors of our 20 integral data. When the total errors were changed, the related correlation factors must have been also recalculated, but I forgot this. The revised correlations in the new Ve matrix are among the keffs of ZPR-6/7, ZPR-6/7-Pu240 and ZPPR-9. The correlation factors of them became quite small, since the total errors increased. 2) I made a stupid mistake to convert the temperature uncertainty of ZPPR-9 sodium void reactivity to the percent-unit in Fig.A.1 of the attached report. As the results, the total error became 1.9% from the previous 1.7%, and the correlation factor became 0.41 from the previous 0.53. Though there is only two months before the next SG33 meeting, I ask all of you to replace the experimental error matrix of the SG33 exercise with Fig.A.3 in the attached report, if possible. (I am sending the effect of this Ve revision to the JAEA adjustment in the attached text files. The effect appeared to the adjusted keff of the three cores by 0.1%dk closer to the unity, and no changes to the sodium void reactivity of ZPPR-9.) Sincerely yours. M.Ishikawa ----------------------------------------------------------- From: ISHIKAWA Makoto [mailto:ishikawa.makoto@jaea.go.jp] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:57 AM To: DUPONT Emmeric, NEA/DB Cc: sg33@nea.fr Subject: Re: Benchmark input FW: Sg33 benchmark input/output format Dear Dr.Dupont, I really appreciate your efforts to promote the SG33 activities. I am sending the text files you mentioned below as the attached ZIP file. I hope you can receive it safely. I need some explanations about JAEA case: 1) Nu-p, MT456, in your instruction is replaced Nu-total, MT452 in the attached file, since JAEA uses Nu-total to solve the neutron transport equation. I believe this difference never affect our benchmark results. 2) Neutron-disappearance cross-section, MT101, is replaced with an un-used number, MT100. The reason is a little complicated, that is, JAEA uses not only the NJOY code but a national code TIMS to treat the resonance-region partly. To make the total cross-section MT1 and MTS coincident, JAEA has to change the definition of MT101 a little, so we changed the MT number. This is only a special condition in JAEA, so please regard the MT100 as MT101 practically. 3) The sensitivity of Nu-d appears in all 33 groups, but this should be the sensitivity of one summed-group value, since the sensitivity was calculated from the isotope-wise fraction of total beta-eff. (The sensitivity comes from the unit-change of reactivity from delta-k to cent.) This mismatch simply came from our editing system for generating these text files. Very sorry. If you have any ambiguous points in the attached files, please write me. I am going to bring the remaining integral-data files to the SG33 meeting room directly. Sincerely yours. M.Ishikawa