DOCSLIB.ORG

Sk00st112 Reactivity and High Negative Subcriticality L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sk00st112 Reactivity and High Negative Subcriticality L SK00ST112 REACTIVITY AND HIGH NEGATIVE SUBCRITICALITY L.Shishkov. RRC "Kurchatov Institute", Institute of Nuclear Reactors, Russia ABSTRACT In the paper the classical notion of core reactivity is discussed, various ways of this notion modifications are shown. Various methods for reactivity measurements are commented. The causes of significant disagreement between the calculation and experimental data on scram system efficiency are given, a suggestion on changing the interpretation of the results of WER startup experiments with scram are made. The author is of the opinion that the classical notions and determinations introduced by the founders of reactor physics should be kept unchanged. These should be followed not only out of respect to the authorities but rather in order to avoid confusion and K —1 alternative readings. Among these notions ths reactivity p = -~— should be K*ff mentioned, whose introduction into common use was, may be, not very fortunate but which has quite a single meaning. Indeed, using the generally accepted notation the neutron transport in the reactor can be described using the equations: *-"* ft _ fTyjyj (i) If we confine ourselves to the case of linearity OZQTAL operators, a part of equation (1) can be formally separated, forming a new relation: (2) 447 It has been proved that Eq.(2) has indispensably a single positive solution n>0, (1- p)>0, i.e. at Q and L unchanged the reactivity p, which "physically" characterizes the "proximity" of non-critical reactor to critical state, is unambiguously determined. Strictly speaking, only the "proximity (the degree of proximity) and nothing more. In some cases, using p, one can estimate the rate of change in the full reactor power, but not always. For the time the reactor physics has existed the notion of reactivity has been continuously used, not always in the same form but this, as a rule, did not result in any negative consequences, as the authors of novations did not go beyond the internal logics of their concepts. Let us consider some modifications of reactivity notion. Local reactivity. Suppose a physically large reactor is divided into parts, assume that each part receives no neutrons from outside, and determine "in standard way" the reactivity of each part These would be "correct" reactivities, the point is how to use them anyway. It should be noted that, strictly speaking, we always deal only with local reactivities, in the sense, that at an NPP (or on a globe) several reactors are simultaneously in operation, and the reactivity of the whole system is either zero or somewhat positive (provided that at least one reactor has a positive period). Of course, the reactivity of all the reactors is not interesting practically, it is more reasonable to estimate the reactivity of one actually bound system.but taken as a whole. The local properties and effects can be characterized by means of other notions, or "directly", using the codes of spatial dynamics. Dynamical reactivity. When the composition, state and location of individual parts of the reactor are known, at each moment of time its reactivity is unambiguously determined. If the properties or composition of the reactor change, its reactivity also changes. It is this dynamical reactivity that is mentioned, for example, in [1]. Sometimes the dynamical reactivity is determined as a value obtained reversing the point kinetics equation, when the neutron flux at some point in the reactor or near it is substituted into the equation as power. Sometimes this dynamical reactivity does not coincide with p and can change essentially depending on the point where the neutron flux is fixed. Reactivity as a parameter determining the change in the integral power of the reactor. If one assumes that the integral power of the reactor is described by point kinetics equations, the reactivity can be determined proceeding from the power change in time. In fact, it is another reactivity: p/t)*p- Even with the system properties remaining unchanged, pi can change in time and will approach p when the neutron flux is becoming asymptotic. Let us briefly consider the specific conditions of the use of high and low reactivity. The physicists operating the power reactors are mainly interested only in the reactor states which are nearly critical. In this case the reactivity constituting fractions of /?<#• determines directly the dynamical properties of the core: rates of power level rise or reduction. An example of this can be the conditions under which the reactor is found after partial movement of group VI control rods (CR). 44X It is quite another matter when the critical reactor quickly turns into subcritical state with reactivity (-5) + (-20)fitff. At each point of such a reactor the power will reduced by several times for a time of about Jffs+J(T4s. Further decrease in the power will go on at a rate determined by the lifetime of the longest lived group of delayed neutrons. Any precision determination of a high negative reactivity has no sense in itself, it only becomes actual if we feel concern that the negative reactivity would be compensated for a' higher positive reactivity. Thorough knowledge of high negative reactivity is only needed for setting up balance relationships, check of safety assurance after all the effects accompanied by "arising" of positive reactivity manifest themselves. The balance can be set up only for " correct" positive and negative reactivities. The above mentioned "local dynamical reactivities" cannot be summed up in many cases, and this does not "speak well for them". In any case, today the NPP personnel and regulatory bodies have already got accustomed to know and to use the scram system efficiency - the value of high subcriticality upon insertion of the scram system. At present the calculation and measurement of the reactor scram system worth (without one most efficient CR) is a mandatory normal operation in the power unit startup. However, as a rule, a significant disagreement between the calculation and measurement results is observed. This disagreement has a principal character and is accounted for by the presence of spatial effects and is practically unavoidable. In order to decrease the discomfort due to the difference in the calculation and measurement data, it is advisable to change the treatment of measurement results on the rate of neutron density decay after the drop of scram rods as it is proposed, for example, at the end of this communication. Measurement of reactivity. The attempts to measure the reactivity directly, using relation (2) or the equation for a joint function <p*' (2') are unsuccessful as there is no method to change the number of secondary neutrons per fission act. The situation may be improved when introducing an external neutron source to the non-critical reactor. If S is a stationary source, the neutron distribution will be represented by the equation: Qn-£n + S = Q (3) Both equations (1) and (2) have the positive solutions <p and n. Multiplying the first equation scalarly by n, and the second one - by <p and subtracting one from the other we obtain, under assumption of Q H L self-conjugation: 449 (4) <Q<p,n> However relation (4) is not practically used for two reasons: - at real values of S the absolute values of n are small and do not provide reliable statistics; - formula (4) permits the necessary accuracy to be reached only in measuring n at many spatial points; otherwise the "spatial" effect is unavoidable. Practical measurement of high subcriticality is carried out when the neutron density decreases (falls) from the initial, relatively high level provided by either a pulse neutron source or by the initial critical state of the reactor. Here we shall confine ourselves to the second method which is the normal one when the WER scram system worth is measured. After the scram rods have been inserted into the critical reactor the neutron density there changes according to the equation (1). Considering Eq.(l) together with (2) under the condition of core parameter constancy, we shall obtain the expression determining the constant reactivity value p. d<n,<p> (p-B)<n,q>> A ;=l 9>J^.6 (5) here A is the time of prompt neutron generation; <n, <p > is the time-dependent integral of the product of neutron density times importance of neutrons, taken over the reactor volume; <Cj. <p> is the integral of delayed neutron concentration. Equation (5) must be solved taking into account the conditions corresponding to the dn dC, beginning of the process when — = —- = 0. di dt Here, as in the case of stationary case of the reactivity measurement, the change in n at any point of core space must be known for p to be correctly measured. Having obtained the scalar products and solving the inverse equation relative these products, p can be determined. In the actual experiments n is only measured at several points of core space and is substituted into the inverse equation instead of the scalar product over the reactor volume. This, naturally, introduces an error consisting of two components: the error of the first jump of neutron density and the error of its further change in time. The relative 450 contribution of these components is determined by the reactivity magnitude, and for high negative reactivities the former reactivity dominates significantly. It is clear that in this case a more correct result for the determination of p will be obtained if <n,<p> is substituted by n at points where <p are large, as it is these values that give the main contribution to <n,<p>. The -above considerations make it possible to recommend to change the treatment of scram experiment. In the author's opinion, the calculation and experimental values of the initial drop in the neutron flux and their logarithmic derivatives in time should be compared at several spatial points.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • KINETIC ANALYSIS of SUB-PROMPT-CRITICAL REACTOR ASSEMBLIES Hy S Das Theoretical Physics Division
    BARC/1992/E/011 O 1 "o KINETIC ANALYSIS OF SUB-PROMPT-CRITICAL REACTOR ASSEMBLIES hy S Das Theoretical Physics Division 1992 BARC/1992/E/011 o UJ GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - AATOMIT C ENERGY COMMISSION U KINETIC ANALYSIS OF SUB-PROMPT-CRITICAL REACTOR ASSEMBLIES by S. Das Theoretical Physics Division BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE BOMBAY, INDIA 1992 BARC/1992/E/011 BIBLIOBRAPHIC DESCRIPTION SHEET FOR TECHNICAL REPORT (as par IS i 94BNB - 1980) 01 Security classification i Unclassified 02 Distribution t External 03 Report status i New 04 Series i BARC External 05 Report type i Technical Report 06 Report No. i BARC/1992/E/011 07 Part No. or Volume No. i 08 Contract No. i 10 Title and subtitle i Kinetic analysis of sub-prompt- critical reactor assemblies 11 Collation i 14 p.f 4 figs., 1 tab. IS Project No. i 20 Personal author<s> i S. Das 21 Affiliation of author(s) i Theoretical Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay 22 Corporate author(s) i Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Bombay - 400 085 23 Originating unit i Theoretical Physics Division, BARC, Bombay 24 Sponsor(s) Name i Department of Atomic Energy Type i Government 30 Date of submission i May 1992 31 Publication/Issue date i June 1992 Contd... (ii) 1 40 Publ i»h»r/Distributor t Head, Library and Information Division, Bhabha Atomic Rasaarch Contra, Bombay 42 Form of distribution t Hard Copy 50 Languaga of taxt i English 51 Languaga o-f summary i English 92 No. of references i % rafs. 53 Givas data on i 60 Abstract x Nautronic analysis of safaty-ralatad kinetics problams in experimental neutron multiplying assemblies has bean carried out using a sub-prompt-critical reactor model.
    [Show full text]
  • Total Prompt Energy Release in the Neutron-Induced Fission Of
    Nuclear Physics A 772 (2006) 113–137 Total prompt energy release in the neutron-induced fission of 235U, 238U, and 239Pu D.G. Madland Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA Received 12 January 2006; received in revised form 28 March 2006; accepted 29 March 2006 Available online 2 May 2006 Abstract This study addresses, for the first time, the total prompt energy release and its components for the fission of 235U, 238U, and 239Pu as a function of the kinetic energy of the neutron inducing the fission. The com- ponents are extracted from experimental measurements, where they exist, together with model-dependent calculation, interpolation, and extrapolation. While the components display clear dependencies upon the incident neutron energy, their sums display only weak, yet definite, energy dependencies. Also addressed is the total prompt energy deposition in fission for the same three systems. Results are presented in equation form. New measurements are recommended as a consequence of this study. © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. PACS: 24.75.+i; 25.85.Ec; 25.85.Ca; 27.90.+b Keywords: Energy release and energy deposition in neutron-induced fission; Experiment and Los Alamos model; 235U; 238U; 239Pu 1. Introduction This study is a consequence of open questions on the magnitudes of the total prompt energy re- lease in fission, the total prompt energy deposition in fission, the components of these quantities, and their dependencies upon the kinetic energy of the neutron inducing the fission. Our results are given in Eqs. (31)–(33) and Fig. 17 for the total prompt energy release in fission, and in Eqs.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Detection from Fission
    ORNL/TM-2004/234 RADIATION DETECTION FROM FISSION J. T. Mihalczo DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Information Bridge. Web site http://www.osti.gov/bridge Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source. National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847) TDD 703-487-4639 Fax 703-605-6900 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source. Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865-576-8401 Fax 865-576-5728 E-mail [email protected] Web site http://www.osti.gov/contact.html This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fission Dynamics: Past, Present, Needs, and Future
    NT@UW-19-18,LA-UR-19-32211 Nuclear Fission Dynamics: Past, Present, Needs, and Future Aurel Bulgac,1 Shi Jin,1 and Ionel Stetcu2 1Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195–1560, USA 2Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA (Dated: March 23, 2020) Significant progress in the understanding of the fission process within a microscopic framework has been recently reported. Even though the complete description of this important nuclear reac- tion remains a computationally demanding task, recent developments in theoretical modeling and computational power have brought current microscopic simulations to the point where they can pro- vide guidance and constraints to phenomenological models, without making recourse to parameters. An accurate treatment compatible with our understanding of the inter-nucleon interactions should be able to describe the real-time dynamics of the fissioning system and could justify or rule out assumptions and approximations incompatible with the underlying universally accepted quantum- mechanical framework. Of particular importance are applications to observables that cannot be directly measured in experimental setups (such as the angular momentum distribution of the fission fragments, or the excitation energy sharing between the fission fragments, or fission of nuclei formed during the r-process), and their dependence of the excitation energy in the fissioning system. Even if accurate predictions are not within reach, being able to extract the trends with increasing exci- tation energy is important in various applications. The most advanced microscopic simulations of the fission process do not support the widely used assumption of adiabaticity of the large amplitude collective motion in fission, in particular for trajectories from the outer saddle towards the scission configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactor Physics
    REACTOR PHYSICS COURSE INTRODUCTION This Training Manual assumes prior knowledge of Nuclear Theory. It extends this information into a discussion of Reactor Physics, particularly as it relates to CANDU reactors. The course begins with the general principles of reactor configuration required to maintain a self- sustaining chain reaction. It continues with reactor dynamics (in both the critical and subcritical core), reactivity feedback effects (temperature effects, fission product poisoning, and fuel burnup), and ends with operational considerations (at low and high power). The material covers four main areas, subdivided into eight major sections as follows: • The Critical Reactor at Steady Power Output (Section 1) • The Dynamic Reactor (Sections 2 and 3) • Reactivity Feedback Effects (Sections 4, 5, and 6) • Reactor Operations (Sections 7 and 8) CNSC i Science and Reactor Fundamentals – Reactor Physics Technical Training Group TABLE OF CONTENTS Objectives 1 The Critical Reactor at Steady Power Output 9 1.0 INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Fission 9 1.2 Harnessing Fission 15 1.3 Movement of Neutrons Through the CANDU lattice Lattice 18 1.4 The Finite Reactor 26 Response of The Critical Reactor to a Reactivity Change 31 2.0 INTRODUCTION 31 2.1 Exponential Power Rise 31 2.2 Corrections to Exponential Reactor Response 33 2.3 The Effect of Delayed Neutrons 36 2.4 Prompt Criticality 40 2.5 Power Rundown: The Prompt Drop 42 Responsiveness of The Subcritical Reactor 45 3.0 INTRODUCTION 45 3.1 Neutron Flux in a “Shut Down” Reactor 45 3.2 Dynamics in the Subcritical
    [Show full text]
  • 1- TOPIC: 292001 KNOWLEDGE: K1.02 [3.0/3.1] QID: B45 the Term “Neutron Generation Time” Is Defined As the Average Time Betw
    NRC Generic Fundamentals Examination Question Bank--BWR May 2020 TOPIC: 292001 KNOWLEDGE: K1.02 [3.0/3.1] QID: B45 The term “neutron generation time” is defined as the average time between... A. neutron absorption and the resulting fission. B. the production of a delayed neutron and subsequent neutron thermalization. C. neutron absorption producing a fission and absorption or leakage of resultant neutrons. D. neutron thermalization and subsequent neutron absorption. ANSWER: C. TOPIC: 292001 KNOWLEDGE: K1.02 [3.0/3.1] QID: B174 Which one of the following is the definition of the term, prompt neutron? A. A high-energy neutron emitted from a neutron precursor, immediately after the fission process. B. A neutron with an energy level greater than 0.1 MeV, emitted in less than 1.0 x 10-4 seconds following a nuclear fission. C. A neutron emitted in less than 1.0 x 10-14 seconds following a nuclear fission. D. A neutron emitted as a result of a gamma-neutron or alpha-neutron reaction. ANSWER: C. -1- Neutrons NRC Generic Fundamentals Examination Question Bank--BWR May 2020 TOPIC: 292001 KNOWLEDGE: K1.02 [3.0/3.1] QID: B245 Delayed neutrons are neutrons that... A. have reached thermal equilibrium with the surrounding medium. B. are expelled within 1.0 x 10-14 seconds of the fission event. C. are expelled with the lowest average kinetic energy of all fission neutrons. D. are responsible for the majority of U-235 fissions. ANSWER: C. TOPIC: 292001 KNOWLEDGE: K1.02 [3.0/3.1] QID: B1146 (P1945) Which one of the following types of neutrons has an average neutron generation lifetime of 12.5 seconds? A.
    [Show full text]
  • Module 2: Reactor Theory (Neutron Characteristics)
    DOE Fundamentals NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND REACTOR THEORY Module 2: Reactor Theory (Neutron Characteristics) NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND REACTOR THEORY TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Co nte nts TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................iv REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ v OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................vi NEUTRON SOURCES .................................................................................................... 1 Neutron Sources .......................................................................................................... 1 Intrinsic Neutron Sources ............................................................................................. 1 Installed Neutron Sources ............................................................................................ 3 Summary...................................................................................................................... 4 NUCLEAR CROSS SECTIONS AND NEUTRON FLUX ................................................. 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 24)Ay Nuclear Criticality Safety Course
    NUCLEARCRITICALITYSAFETY: 2-DAYTRAININGCOURSE Offeredat o TheLosAlamosNationalLaboratory EditedandCompiledby JohnA. Schlesser LosAlamos NATIONAL LA80RATORV LosMnos, NO.Jhhxieo87S45 4P . , t . “ AnAffirmativeAction/EqualOpportunityEmpbyer TheLosAiamosNationalLaboratoryk operatedbytheUniversityofCaliforniafortheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEnergy undercont~t W-7405ENG-35. Theillustrationonthecoverwasdesi nedbyJohnSchlesserandGaryWebbanddrawn byAnnMarieDyson.Itdepictsoneof thecourse’stwocriticalexperiments. DISWNMER ThismanuscriprwaspraparadasanaccourrtofwwksponsoradbyanagencyoftfmUnitedStatesGovernment.Neitfwhe ntsofthaUniversityofCaMqnia,,theUnitadStatesGovarnqrepInoranyageqthemof, noranyoftheirempbyaes, 3% anywarrantyexpqmwxforI bed,orassumesanyI a!habdttyorresponshIty@rtheaccaracy,compfetenass,or usefufney30faniM’ormatmn,apa ,p*c~tip_%-,u_* tiWtmumwould~tkh~tim~y ownednghk ke~ herwrrto anyapqifc commercialprodurxprocess,or servioeby trqcfename, rnamkturar,orotherwrae,doasnotnemssanIyconstituteor&n yb endrxaementorecommendabon,orfavoringbyUp Un”ti StaresGOmrnmantorfyy ~ thereof.Theviews!snJ”q“nbnsofauthorsexpressedhereindonot~Y stateormflacttfmseoftheUrrned?&esGovernmentoranyagencyUmeof. This com ilation of notes is presented as a source re?erence for the criticality safety course. It represents the contributions of many people, particularly Tom McLaughlin, the course’s primary instructor. Tableof Contents I. General 2-Day Course Objectives Course Critique 11. History Early History of Criticality Safety Criticality Control in Operations with
    [Show full text]
  • Neutron Numbers 8, 20 and 28 Were Considered As Magic Over Several Decades
    Introduction to nuclear physics with accelerated beams O. Sorlin (GANIL) What are limits of stability ? Which new phenomena emerge at the drip lines (halo, clustering, breaking mirror symetry… ) ? How do nuclear structure and shape evolve along the chart of nuclides ? How does nuclear structure change with Temperature and Spin value ? How to unify nuclear structure and reaction approaches ? How to probe the density and isospin dependence of the nuclear equation of state ? What are nuclear processes that drive the evolution of stars and galaxies in the universe ? How / where are nuclei synthesized in the universe ? Find a universal interaction, based on fundamental principles, that can model nuclear structure and reactions in nuclei and in stars (i.e. from the fm to 104 km, over 1022 orders of magnitude) Scientific council IN2P3- June 26th Accelerators, reactions and instrumentation Detectors: Charged particles: GRIT, ACTAR-TPC g-rays: AGATA, nu-ball, PARIS Facilities: spectrometer GANIL, GSI, Dubna, RIKEN, Licorne Neutron wall Stable / radioactive beams EXPAND 5 - 500 MeV/A Reactions: Fusion, transfer, Fission, knockout... A wide variety of phenemona to understand Magic nuclei Fission, pear shapes GDR Soft GMR n p Implantation Residual nuclei b, a-decay, isomeric decay Exotic decays 2n halo molecular cluster rotation- deformation Scientific council IN2P3- June 26th Nuclear physics impact many astrophysical processes X-ray bursts normal star H surface Neutron star Neutron star merger Price & Rossworg ) r s r s Abundance ( solar Sneden & Cowan 2003 Log Mass Number H. Schatz (2016) Nuclear astrophysics Energy profile of X-ray burst and nuclear physics X-ray bursts X-ray burst normal star Neutron star 10s (p,g) (a,p) b- 3a Departure from Hot CNO cycle depends crucially on 15O(a,g)19Ne reaction It is followed by (a,p), (p,g) reactions and b-decays Determination of the 15O(a,g)19Ne reaction rate Cyburt et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1#Later_operation Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) was the Site of the First Self Sustaining Nuclear world's first nuclear reactor to Reaction achieve criticality. Its construction U.S. National Register of Historic Places was part of the Manhattan U.S. National Historic Landmark Project, the Allied effort to create Chicago Landmark atomic bombs during World War II. It was built by the Manhattan Project's Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago, under the west viewing stands of the original Stagg Field. The first man-made self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was initiated in CP-1 on 2 December Drawing of the reactor 1942, under the supervision of Enrico Fermi, who described the apparatus as "a crude pile of black bricks and wooden timbers".[4] The reactor was assembled in November 1942, by a team that included Fermi, Leo Szilard, discoverer of the chain reaction, Location Chicago, Cook County, and Herbert L. Anderson, Walter Illinois, USA Zinn, Martin D. Whitaker, and Coordinates 41°47′32″N 87°36′3″W George Weil. It contained 45,000 Built 1942[2] graphite blocks weighing 400 NRHP Reference # 66000314 [1] short tons (360 t) used as a neutron moderator, and was Significant dates fueled by 6 short tons (5.4 t) of Added to NRHP 15 October 1966 [1] uranium metal and 50 short tons (66000314) (45 t) of uranium oxide. In the Designated NHL 18 February 1965[2] pile, some of the free neutrons Designated CL 27 October 1971[3] produced by the natural decay of uranium were absorbed by other uranium atoms, causing nuclear fission of those atoms, and the release of additional free neutrons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Study of Beta-Delayed Neutron Decay Near the Neutron Drip Line
    THE STUDY OF BETA-DELAYED NEUTRON DECAY NEAR THE NEUTRON DRIP LINE By Chandana Sujeewa Sumithrarachchi A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial ful¯llment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Chemistry 2007 ABSTRACT The Study of Beta-delayed Neutron Decay Near The Neutron Drip Line By Chandana Sujeewa Sumithrarachchi The study of neutron-rich oxygen and uorine isotopes can provide important information on the evolution of nuclear shell structure close to the neutron drip line. The structural changes in this region are reected with observations of the rapid change in the location of the drip line at uorine and appearance of a new shell closure at N = 14. The recent experiments along with the shell model calculations provide evidence for the doubly magic nature of 22O. The negative parity states in 22O rooted in the neutron pf orbitals are not experimentally known. The knowledge of nuclear structure in 23F, which has the structure of a single proton outside the doubly magic 22O, is also important as it should be sensitive to the proton s and d orbital splitting. The present work focused on the beta-delayed neutron and gamma- ray spectroscopes from 22N and 23O beta decay. The measurements of 22N and 23O were carried out at the NSCL using fragments from the reaction of 48Ca beam in a Be target. The desired isotopes were stopped in the implantation detector and then monitored for beta-delayed neutrons and gamma- rays using a neutron spectroscopic array and eight detectors from SeGA, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Prompt and Delayed Neutron Emissions and Fission Prod- Uct Yield Calculations with Hauser-Feshbach Statistical De- Cay Theory and Summation Calculation Method
    EPJ Web of Conferences 211, 04005 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf /201921104005 WONDER-2018 Prompt and Delayed Neutron Emissions and Fission Prod- uct Yield Calculations with Hauser-Feshbach Statistical De- cay Theory and Summation Calculation Method Shin Okumura1;3;∗, Toshihiko Kawano2;∗∗, and Satoshi Chiba1;∗∗∗ 1Laboratory for Advanced Nuclear Energy, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro- ku, Tokyo, 152-8550, Japan 2Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA 3NAPC-Nuclear Data Section, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna A-1400, Austria Abstract. We demonstrate the neutron emission and fission product yield cal- culations using the Hauser–Feshbach Fission Fragment Decay (HF3D) model and β decay. The HF3D model calculates the statistical decay of more than 500 primary fission fragment pairs formed by the neutron induced fission of 235U. In order to calculate the prompt neutron and photon emissions, the primary fission fragment distributions, i.e. mass, charge, excitation energy, spin and parity are deterministically generated and numerically integrated for all fission fragments. The calculated prompt neutron multiplicities, independent fission product yield are fully consistent each other. We combine the β-decay and the summation calculations with the HF3D model calculation to obtain the cumulative fission product yield, decay heat and delayed neutron yield. The calculated fission observables are compared with available experimental data. 1 Introduction The nuclear data of fission yields are essential ingredients for numerous nuclear applications such as the conception of new generation of reactors and nuclear fuel cycle developments. With increase in requirements by those applications, fission yields from wide variety of ac- tinides and wide ranges of energy have become of great interest.
    [Show full text]