1 / 22

Investigation of the prompt neutron emission in low energy fission of 235 U( n th , f )

Investigation of the prompt neutron emission in low energy fission of 235 U( n th , f ). Vorobyev A.S. , Shcherbakov O.A., Gagarski A.M., Val’ski G.V., Petrov G.A. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute. 188300, Gatchina, Leningrad district, Russia E-mail: alexander.vorobyev@pnpi.spb.ru.

kiet
Download Presentation

Investigation of the prompt neutron emission in low energy fission of 235 U( n th , f )

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Investigation of the prompt neutron emission in low energy fission of 235U(nth, f) Vorobyev A.S., Shcherbakov O.A., Gagarski A.M., Val’ski G.V., Petrov G.A. Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute. 188300, Gatchina, Leningrad district, Russia E-mail: alexander.vorobyev@pnpi.spb.ru

  2. Stop MWPDs 235U 8 1 7 2 Start MWPD 6 3 5 4 4 5 3 6 2 7 1 8 Schematic view of the experimental set-up • TOF measurement technique used for fission fragments (140 mm) and prompt neutrons registration (~50 cm) • 235U target(99,9%, Ø15mm) - 280 μg/сm2 UF4 onto 70 μg/сm2 Ti backing at centre of reaction chamber at the low operating gas pressure (4-6 Torr) • Two neutron stilbene detectors (50 x 50 mm2 and 40 x 60 mm2 mounted on the Hamamatsu - R6091) in a cylindrical shielding (30 mm thick layer of lead and 40 mm polyethylene), neutron registration threshold ~200 keV

  3. PH 1 Delay Stop MWPDs Arc N1, T11 PS 1 CFD 2 2 Delay STOP ND1 ND 1 CFD 2 AND Stop MWPDs Arc N2, T21 2 CFD PH 2 Delay QDC PS 2 2 Delay STOP ND2 ND 2 CFD 2 QDC AND CAMAC Counter Clear STOP1 FF1 PF 1 Stop MWPDs Arc N1, T12 STOP2 FF1 2 CFD Timer AND STOP1 FF2 PC PF 2 STOP2 FF2 QDC Input 2 CFD Stop MWPDs Arc N2, T22 AND PF 3 TDC GATE Start MWPD CFD 2 START Electronic set-up TFA TFA TFA TFA TFA TFA TFA TFA TFA

  4. Analysis of the data Applied correction for: Time uncertainties in TOF measurement: Pulse-height dependent time walk in neutron and fission fragment channels Different fission fragments TOF to start MWPD Neutron detector background : a double-discrimination method (TOF and pulse shape with gamma suppression factor ~200) true coincidence subtracted and the linear approximation of the remain part of background Fission fragment detector efficiency Complementary fission fragment contribution and neutron recoil correction Angular and neutron energy resolution (timing resolution : 1.0 - 1.2 ns) Neutron detector efficiency determined as the ratio of the measured total neutron spectrum of 252Cf(sf) to the reference standard spectrum 4 4

  5. Analysis of the data: Measurement of the total prompt neutron spectrum of 235U(nth, f) relative to 252Cf(sf) (neutron detector efficiency determination) 252Cf target placed into the experimental set-up in place of 235U - linear interpolation of the 252Cf prompt neutron spectrum evaluation (C.W.REICH, W MANNHART, T ENGLAD – ENDF-B/VII).  - the angle between the neutron direction and the direction of motion of the light fragments Nexp(E, ) – measured prompt neutron spectrum for fixed angle  fresA and fresE – angular and energy resolution corrections BW – bin-width correction I - correction due to summing over angle  which was found by means of the following equation: 5

  6. Analysis of the data: Correction applied for ratio of neutron spectra 235U(nth, f) to 252Cf(sf) The angular and energy resolution correction are a minor influence on the total prompt neutron spectrum as well as correction due to summing over angle . 6

  7. Result: PFNS of 235U(nth, f) Comparison with literature data All these data are the TOF measurements of the absolute ratio 235U(En)/ 252Cf(En). Therefore presented PFNSs were obtained as the product of measured ratios, which were multiplied by 3.759/2.421, and the Mannhart’s evaluated spectrum of 252Cf. Present experiment <tot> = 2.44 ± 0.05 7

  8. Result: PFNS of 233U(nth, f) Comparison with literature data All these data are the TOF measurements of the absolute ratio 233U(En)/ 252Cf(En). Therefore presented PFNSs were obtained as the product of measured ratios, which were multiplied by 3.759/2.4894, and the Mannhart’s evaluated spectrum of 252Cf. Present experiment <tot> = 2.54 ± 0.06 8

  9. Angle and Energy distributions of the Prompt Fission Neutrons of 235U(n, f) 9

  10. General features of the investigation of neutron emission mechanism: The contribution of “scission” neutrons is usually determined as difference between experimentally observable variables in the laboratory system and those calculated using known neutron spectra in the center-of-mass system. As the prompt neutron energy spectra in the center-of-mass system of light and heavy fragments the Maxwellian or Weisskopf spectra are usually used. The parameters of these spectra are adjusted so as to show the best fit of available experimental data. In our analysis the angular and energy spectra of the prompt fission neutrons emitted by accelerated fragments are calculated using experimental data for 00, 180 and 360 angles relative to the fission direction. Thus the calculated spectra are free of any parameters concerning the prompt neutron spectra in c.m.s. As a first step, the model of two fragments with average mass and kinetic energy is used for calculation of neutron spectra in the laboratory system instead of real mass and kinetic energy distributions. Analysis of the data 10 10

  11. Main features of our calculation Used equations (two fragments approximation): The neutron spectra in the laboratory system: nlab (En ,  lab) = (En/ Ec.m.) 1/2 φ(Ec.m. , c.m.) nc.m.(Ec.m) The neutron energy and spectra in the c.m.s of the fission fragments: Ec.m. = En + Ef - 2  cos( lab )  (EnEf) 1/2 φ(Ec.m.,  c.m. ) = 1 + A2Ec.m. (3 cos2( c.m. ) - 1) / 2 , where anisotropy A2 = (1 - φ(1,900) / φ(1,00) )  0. Two fragments approximation gives a very good result, since, it was shown for 252Cf(sf)** , it has a minor influence on the total neutron energy spectrum. Analysis of the data **D.G. Madland, IAEA Report INDC(NDS) – 251, Vienna, 1991, p. 201 11 11

  12. Analysis of the data Calculation procedure At the first step, the neutron energy spectra in c.m.s are calculated under the assumption that neutrons registered at fixed angles relative to the light fragment direction were emitted solely by the light and heavy fragments, respectively; At the second step, the neutron contribution to the complementary fragment is subtracted and the energy spectra for these angles in the laboratory system are obtained; 12 12

  13. Analysis of the data Calculation procedure Further, using these energy spectra in the laboratory system, the neutron energy spectra for light and heavy fragments are obtained in the center-of-mass system; Finally, the spectra obtained in the center-of-mass system are used for calculation of neutron angular and energy distributions in the laboratory system. <L> = 2.04 ± 0.02 <H> = 1.69 ± 0.03 13 13

  14. Results:yield of prompt neutrons as a function of angle relative to the direction of light fission fragment in the lab. system • Introduction of anisotropy with A2 = 0.04 into the calculation improves agreement with obtained experimental data. At that, there is some surplus of measured yield over calculated at angles near 900.

  15. Results:angular distribution of the average prompt neutron emission energy • Under the assumption that the “additional” neutrons are emitted isotropically in the laboratory system, their yield is deduced as about 3% of the total neutron yield for 235U(nth, f).

  16. Result: PFNS of 235U(nth, f)Comparison with calculation Method 1 – summation over angles; Method 2 – calculated in a framework of neutron emission from accelerated fragments (two fragment approximation, A2=0.04) using experimental spectra measured at small angles relative to fragment direction. 16

  17. Result: PFNS of 252Cf(sf)Comparison with calculation The 252Cf(sf) total prompt neutron spectrum calculated from measured prompt neutron spectra at small angles relative to FF direction agree with Mannhart’s evaluation exclude low energy region. The difference between these two spectra obtained by us coincide with obtained by U. Brosa and H.-H. Knitter (p0 = 1.1±0.3%; TSCN = 0.20±0.03MeV). 17

  18. Result:Comparison with calculation • Both experimental and calculated prompt neutron spectra have been compared in 0.2-12 MeV energy range. • The calculation performed using experimental data obtained for small angles relative to the fission fragment direction reproduces the total prompt neutron spectra both the shape and the average multiplicity . • Also,the calculated energy spectra for fixed angles agree rather well with experimentally obtained ones. • There is a minor distinction which is that the calculation (A2 = 0) gives overestimated value of fission neutron yield as compared with experimental data. 18

  19. Results (correlation with FFs): • The transformation of neutron spectra in the laboratory system (at small angles relative to fragments direction) to the center-of-mass system was performed for each fragment fixed mass and energy. • A good agreement is observed between average number of prompt neutrons obtained by this experiment and other authors. • average prompt neutron multiplicity vs TKE 19

  20. Results (correlation with FFs):average prompt neutron multiplicity vs fragment mass • The total number of prompt neutrons calculated from measured data at small angle is practically coincident with obtained from direct measurement of Maslin et.al. (large Gd-loaded liquid scintillation counter with efficiency about 85% - 4-geometry). Probably, this means thata fraction of neutrons originating from sources other than accelerated fragments is small.

  21. Conclusion • Results of two our measurements (“efficiency” measurement and calculation performed using data obtained by us in previous experiment) are in a good agreement. • The average of two measurements is in a good agreement with ENDF/B-VII in 0.5-12 MeV energy range. • Comparison of experimentally obtained angular and energy distributions of prompt neutron and calculated one on the base of neutron evaporation from fully accelerated fragments enables: to estimate the contribution of “scission” neutrons asnot to exceed 5% of total neutron yieldin an assumption of isotropic evaporation in the laboratory system (two fission fragment approximation); to conclude that the angular anisotropy of the neutron emission in the fragment center-of –mass system, which is alike to  1 + 0.06Ec.m.cos2( c.m.),should be included into any calculation of prompt neutron properties in the nuclear fission. • To obtain certain estimation of the emission mechanism other than emission from accelerated fragments now we are doing more careful analysis of the obtained angle-energy distributions to determine the dependence of main characteristics of “scission” neutrons on fragment mass and kinetic energy.

  22. Thank you very much for your attention

More Related