LA-UR-20-22603 Correlations Between Fission Fragment and Neutron Anisotropies in Neutron-Induced Fission A. E. Lovell,1, ∗ P. Talou,1 I. Stetcu,1 and K. J. Kelly1 1Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA (Dated: May 8, 2020) Several sources of angular anisotropy for fission fragments and prompt neutrons have been studied in neutron-induced fission reactions. These include kinematic recoils of the target from the incident neutron beam and the fragments from the emission of the prompt neutrons, preferential directions of the emission of the fission fragments with respect to the beam axis due to the population of particular transition states at the fission barrier, and forward-peaked angular distributions of pre- equilibrium neutrons which are emitted before the formation of a compound nucleus. In addition, there are several potential sources of angular anisotropies that are more difficult to disentangle: the angular distributions of prompt neutrons from fully accelerated fragments or from scission neutrons, and the emission of neutrons from fission fragments that are not fully accelerated. In this work, we study the effects of the first group of anisotropy sources, particularly exploring the correlations between the fission fragment anisotropy and the resulting neutron anisotropy. While kinematic effects were already accounted for in our Hauser-Feshbach Monte Carlo code, CGMF, anisotropic angular distributions for the fission fragments and pre-equilibrium neutrons resulting from neutron- induced fission on 233;234;235;238U, 239;241Pu, and 237Np have been introduced for the first time. The effects of these sources of anisotropy are examined over a range of incident neutron energies, from thermal to 20 MeV, and compared to experimental data from the Chi-Nu liquid scintillator array. The anisotropy of the fission fragments is reflected in the anisotropy of the prompt neutrons, especially as the outgoing energy of the prompt neutrons increases, allowing for an extraction of the fission fragment anisotropy to be made from a measurement of the neutrons. I. INTRODUCTION emission of fission fragments and neutrons during the de- cay. There are several sources of this anisotropy: fission fragment emission with respect to the incident beam, Being able to accurately and reliably model the fis- neutron emission from the fission fragments (including sion process and the resulting observables is important whether neutrons are emitted from the fully accelerated for a variety of applications, including security, non- fragments), along with the emission of scission, multi- proliferation, energy, and fundamental science. While chance, and pre-equilibrium neutrons before fission. microscopic models for this process, beginning from fundamental nucleon-nucleon interactions, are available Although, there is no reason to expect that fission [1, 2], more often these models are constructed based fragments should be emitted anisotropically with respect on a combination of macroscopic and microscopic theo- to the incoming neutron beam from the compound nu- ries [3, 4]. Still, at the moment, these methods are lim- cleus, many experimental studies from the 1950's through ited; they are computationally expensive, and the range today have shown that there can be a large degree of of observables that can be calculated generally ends at anisotropy - defined as the ratio of the cross section at the post-scission fission fragment yields. These results 0◦ to the cross section at 90◦. The enhancement with can then be used as input for codes that calculate the respect to the beam axis can be as much as 30% to 60%. prompt and delayed neutron and γ-ray observables. There have, in particular, been several measurements of the anisotropy of actinides, including 235U [12{16], 238U These codes (e.g, CGMF [5, 6], FREYA [7, 8], HF3D=BeOH [12, 15, 17{21], and 239Pu [15, 22, 23]. arXiv:2005.03206v1 [nucl-th] 7 May 2020 [9], FIFRELIN [10], GEF [11]) employ a variety of physics models describing how the excitation and kinetic energies This anisotropy was postulated, by A. Bohr [24], to are shared between the light and heavy fission fragments, stem from the populated transition states at the fission and determine neutron and γ-ray observables on either an barrier of the parent nucleus, which would account for the event-by-event basis or as averages. Event-by-event cal- changing anisotropy as a function of incident neutron en- culations allow for the determination of all observables, ergy. At low incident energies, few states are populated, including correlations, as consistently as possible, from resulting in an anisotropic distribution of fission frag- scission to prompt particle emissions, conserving energy, ments depending on the quantum numbers of the states spin, and parity at every step of the decay. One effect that are populated. As the incident energy increases, that has been studied over the years, but is not always more states are available in the parent nucleus (and the fully included in these types of codes, is the anisotropic angular distribution becomes more isotropic) until the second-chance fission channel opens up, at which point the A nucleus is fissioning instead of the A + 1 system, lowering the number of available states, increasing the ∗Electronic address: [email protected] anisotropy again. Of course, the picture is more compli- 2 cated than this since the opening of the second-chance II. THEORY fission channel leads to a possibility of fission from either the A+1 or A compound nucleus. A recent measurement There are several physical processes that could lead 239 of the anisotropy of Pu confirmed that the changes in to an anisotropic distribution of the prompt neutrons anisotropy track the shape of the fission cross section [16], emitted during the fission process. The following sec- in agreement with many previous measurements that ob- tions describe these processes along with the Monte Carlo served the same trends, e.g. [15, 22, 23]. Hauser-Feshbach code CGMF, used here to calculate the decay of the fission fragments by prompt neutron and There have also been several studies to assess whether γ-ray emissions. or not the prompt neutrons are emitted isotropically from the fission fragments, along with whether the neutrons are emitted from the fully accelerated fragments, both A. Fission Fragment Anisotropy of which are commonly assumed in the fission fragment deexcitation codes mentioned above. Often, differences The first process we discuss is the fission fragment an- between the measured and calculated neutron angular gular anisotropy coming from the population of the tran- distributions are attributed to scission neutrons, those sition states [24]. The angular distribution of the fission neutrons that are emitted during the rupture of the neck fragments can be described with the help of the Wigner of the compound nucleus. However, this interpretation d-matrices [33], defined as does not take into account the assumptions in the model J that could change the resulting calculations (such as that dM;K (θ) = all prompt neutrons are emitted from the fully acceler- 1=2 X [(J + M)!(J − M)!(J + K)!(J − K)!] ated fragments). The percentage of neutrons that are (−)n (J − M − n)!(J + K − n)!(M − K + n)!n! not emitted from fully accelerated fission fragments is n somewhat of a controversy [25{29]. θ 2J+K−M−2n θ 2n+M−K × cos sin ; (1) 2 2 As the incident neutron energy increases, reaction channels beyond first-chance fission open. Besides the where J is the total angular momentum of the compound scission neutrons that may be emitted, other pre-fission nucleus, K is its projection on the fission axis, M is its neutrons can be emitted before the compound nucleus projection on the beam axis, and θ is the angle of the fissions. Most often, these pre-fission neutrons are emit- fission fragments with respect to the beam axis. The ted from the fully equilibrated compound nucleus. How- angular distribution of the fission fragments in the lab frame would be ever, for incident neutrons with high enough energy, & 12 MeV, a neutron can be emitted with or without the dσ 2J + 1 f (J; K; M) = jdJ (θ)j2; (2) compound nucleus forming. When the compound nu- dΩ 2 M;K cleus does not form, the emitted neutrons are considered to be pre-equilibrium. These pre-equilibrium neutrons if the fission only occurred through one of these (J; K; M) have a different energy spectrum from the pre-fission neu- states. Instead, each state must be weighted by its pop- trons coming from the compound system [30] and have ulation, Ps(J; K; M), and the full angular distribution is a forward-peaked angular distribution, more akin to the given by angular distribution of an inelastically scattered neutron dσf X 2J + 1 than the isotropic distributions of the pre-fission neutrons W (θ) ≡ = P (J; K; M) jdJ (θ)j2: dΩ s 2 M;K emitted from the compound system [31]. Pre-equilibrium s(J;K;M) neutrons have been definitively observed and their angu- (3) lar distributions measured for the first time for neutron- The weight of each state is often extracted from exper- 239 induced fission of Pu [32]. imental measurements, e.g. [16], but these weights are P R dσf connected to the fission cross section, Ps = dΩ dΩ. Recently, the fission fragment anisotropy and pre- The anisotropy of the fission fragments is defined as the equilibrium angular distributions have been implemented ratio of the angular distribution at 0◦ to the angular dis- into the Monte Carlo Hauser-Feshbach code CGMF [5, 6]. tribution at 90◦ relative to the beam axis, often written In this work, we describe the implementation and study as W (0◦)=W (90◦). of the correlations between the fission fragment and neu- tron directions.