All 2

Lulu Li <lululi@mit.
edu>
22.211 Nuclear Reactor Physics I
Prof. Kord Smith
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012
22.211 Class Notes
Contents
1
Introduction
1.1 Course Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Sample Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Summary: Reuss Ch 1 History . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Summary: Reuss Ch 2 Intro to Nuclear Physics
1.5 Summary: Reuss Ch 3 Intro to Neutron Physics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
11
12
14
14
16
Infinite Medium Monte Carlo Basics

2.1 Summary: Reuss Ch 7 Neutron Slowing Down . .
2.2 Summary: Reuss Ch 9 Thermalisation of Neutrons
2.3 Calculating Isotopic Importance . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 High Energy Elastic Scattering Physics . . . . . . .
2.5 Fission Emission Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6 Full Range Smooth Cross Sections . . . . . . . . .
2.7 Free Gas/Equilibrium Thermal Elastic Scattering .
2.8 Slowing Down Kernel from TE . . . . . . . . . . .
2.9 Convolution of 0K Cross Section . . . . . . . . . .
2.10 Thermal Bound Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.11 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
17
20
22
23
26
28
29
32
36
37
38
Infinite Medium Resonance Basics

3.1 Summary: Reuss Ch 2.7 Why Resonances? . . . . . . . .
3.2 Summary: Reuss Ch 8 Resonance Methods . . . . . . . .
3.3 Poor Mans Resonance Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Resonance Integrals & Group Cross Sections . . . . . . .
3.5 Dilution Cross Section/Dilution Factor . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6 Resonance Escape Probability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7 Doppler Broadening/Temperature Effects On Cross Section
3.8 Self-Shielding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.9 Spectral Hardening Shifts Resonant Absorption Rates . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
40
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
Infinite Medium Resonance Cross Section Models

4.1 NJOY Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Evaluating Monte Carlo Flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Narrow Resonance vs. Wide Resonance Model Overview
4.4 Livolant-Jeanpierre Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Duderstadts Formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.6 Examples Using Resonance Models . . . . . . . . . . .
4.7 Procedure for Generating Multigroup Cross Sections . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
57
60
61
62
64
67
69
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lulu Li
22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012
Finite Medium Spatial Self-Shielding: Two Region Approximations

5.1 Wigners Approximation of Pf f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Bell-Wigner Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Arrays of Rods, Dancoff Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Carlviks Refinements of the Bells Collision Probability . . . . .
5.5 Two-Region Pin Cell Code and Observations . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Making An Equivalent Pin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
74
76
78
80
81
84
Intro to 2D Transport: Three Methods for Solving Pin Cell Problems

6.1 Infinite Slab Transport by Methods of Chords . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Infinite Slab Transport by Direct 3D Volume Integration . . . . . . .
6.3 Infinite Slab Transport by Monte Carlo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4 Infinite Cylindrical Transport by Direct Numerical Volume Integration
6.5 Infinite Cylindrical Transport by Monte Carlo . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.6 Infinite Cylinder in Squre Cell Transport by Monte Carlo . . . . . . .
6.7 Special Topic: Ray Tracing using Quadratic Surfaces . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
85
87
90
91
93
95
96
100
Exam 1 Review: Spectral Calculation

7.1 Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Elastic Scattering Cross Section . . . . . . . .
7.3 Slowing Down Equation to Solve For Spectrum
7.4 Doppler Effect on Cross Sections . . . . . . . .
7.5 Resonances and Doppler . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.6 Homogeneous Resonance Self-sheilding . . . .
7.7 Heterogeneous Self-Shielding . . . . . . . . .
7.8 Other Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
101
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
109
Intro to Diffusion Theory

8.1 Why We Need Deterministic Codes . . . . . . . . . .
8.2 k-infinity Formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3 Derivation Of Diffusion Theory From Transport Theory
8.4 P1 Approximation, Net Current Equation . . . . . . .
8.5 Scattering and Diffusion Coefficients . . . . . . . . . .
8.6 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.7 Interface Conditions/Continuity Conditions . . . . . .
8.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
113
113
114
116
118
119
122
123
124
One-Group Diffusion: Non-Multiplying Medium with No Source

9.1 1D Non-Multiplying Medium With No Source . . . . . . . . .
9.2 Plane Source in Infinite Non-Multiplying Medium . . . . . . .
9.3 Plane Source in Finite Non-Multiplying Medium . . . . . . .
9.4 Point Source in Infinite Non-Multiplying Medium . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
125
125
126
127
128
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
130
130
133
134
135
136
137
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 One-Group Diffusion: Multiplying Medium

10.1 Sphere Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.2 Plane Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10.3 Arbitrary Source in Finite Multiplying Medium . . . . . .
10.4 Plane Source in Finite Multiplying Medium with k < 1
10.5 Plane Source in Finite Multiplying Medium with k > 1
10.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lulu Li
11 One-Group Diffusion: Criticality Problem

11.1 Helmholtz Equation . . . . . . . . . . .
11.2 Critical 1D Slab . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11.3 Critical Finite Cube . . . . . . . . . . .
11.4 Critical Finite Cylinder . . . . . . . . .
11.5 Critical Reflected Slab Reactor . . . . .
11.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
138
138
140
141
142
143
145
12 Multi-Group Diffusion Derivations

12.1 Derivation of Multi-Group Diffusion Theory
12.2 Matrix Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.3 Partial Currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12.4 Fundamental Mode Approximation . . . . .
12.5 1-1/2 Group Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
146
146
149
150
151
152
13 Two-Group Finite Difference Diffusion

13.1 Neutron Balance Equation . . . . .
13.2 Interface Flux . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3 Linear Finite Difference Equations .
13.4 BCs for Finite-Difference Equation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
153
153
154
155
156
14 Matrix Representation of 1D Slab Diffusion Equations

14.1 Construct Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.2 Method 1: Sequential Source/Fixed-Source Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.3 Method 2: Direct Matlab Eigenvalue Solver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.4 Method 3: Power Iterations with Matlabs Direct Matrix Inverter . . . . . . .
14.5 Method 3+: Power Iteration with Matlabs GMRES Numerical Invertion . . .
14.6 Method 4: Power Iteration with Point-Jacobi Iterative Flux Matrix Inversion .
14.7 Method 5: Power Iteration with Gauss-Seidal Iterative Flux Matrix Inversion
14.8 Matrix Representation of Higher Dimensions Diffusion Equations . . . . . .
14.9 Dominance Ratio/Eigenvalue Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.10Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
157
157
157
158
158
158
159
159
160
161
163
15 Fission Product Poisoning

15.1 Fission Product Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15.2 Nuclide Depletion Equation/Neutron Balance Equation
15.3 Iodine/Xenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15.4 Promethium/Samarium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15.5 Spatial Xenon Oscillations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15.6 Production Codes Fission Product Modeling . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
164
164
166
168
170
172
173
16 Fuel Depletion
16.1 Actinide Chain Balance Equation .
16.2 Actinide Chain Matrix System . .
16.3 Actinide Chain Solution . . . . .
16.4 Burnup: Why we use it and units .
16.5 History Effects . . . . . . . . . .
16.6 Numerous Subtle Effects . . . . .
16.7 Spent Fuel and Recycling . . . . .
16.7.1 Neutronic Consideration .
16.7.2 Spent Fuel Storage . . . .
16.8 Relate Neutronics and TH . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
174
174
176
178
181
182
185
188
188
189
191
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lulu Li
16.9 Depletion Code: ORIGIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

17 Exam 2 Review: Diffusion Theory
17.1 Most Important Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.2 Fission Product and Fuel Depletion . . . . . . . . . . .
17.3 Analytical Diffusion Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.4 From Transport to Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.5 Sample Diffusion Problems From Lectures . . . . . . .
17.6 Numerical Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.7 Appendix A: Finite Difference 1D Transport Equation
17.7.1 Deriving Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . .
17.7.2 Computing Interface Current . . . . . . . . . .
17.7.3 Deriving the Matrix Form . . . . . . . . . . .
17.8 Appendix B: Math Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17.9 Exam Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
196
196
199
208
209
210
217
220
220
222
223
225
226
18 Point Kinetics Without Feedback

18.1 Physics of Delayed Neutrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.2 Generalized PKE from Diffusion Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.3 Multi-Group Generalized PKEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.4 Classical PKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.4.1 Classical PKE Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.4.2 Classical PKE using Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.5 Analytical Solution with One Precursor Group . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.6 Numerical Solutions of Various Senarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.7 Prompt-Jump Approximations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.8 Inhour Equation / Nordheim Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.8.1 Inhour Equation: The Simpliest Inverse Kinetics Application
18.8.2 Application 1: Computing Reactivity of Core . . . . . . . .
18.8.3 Applications 2: HZP Rod Worth Measurement . . . . . . .
18.9 Derivation of IK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.10Applications of IK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.10.1 PWR Boration/Dilution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.10.2 SCRAM/Rod Drop Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18.10.3 Dynamic Rod Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
234
234
238
241
244
244
246
247
248
252
253
254
255
255
257
258
258
258
259
19 Point Kinetics With Feedbacks

19.1 Importance of Feedbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.2 Fuchs-Nordheim Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.2.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.2.2 First Derivation of P (t): Peak Temperature Characteristics
19.2.3 Second Derivation of P (t): Asymptotic Characteristics . .
19.2.4 Asymptotic Temperature Independent of Insertion Rate . .
19.3 PKEs with Simple Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.3.1 Derivation of Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.3.2 Neutroncis and TH Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.3.3 Operator Split Matrix Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19.3.4 Augmented Matrix Equations for 1st Order Coupled ODE
19.4 Examples Using PKEs with Simple Feedbacks . . . . . . . . . . .
19.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
261
261
263
263
264
265
266
267
267
268
269
271
273
278
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lulu Li
20 Nodal Diffusion Methods

20.1 3D Core Analysis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.1.1 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.1.2 Approaches to 3D core Problems . . . . . . . . . .
20.1.3 PWR Methods: A Historical Review . . . . . . . . .
20.2 Derivation of Nodal Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.3 Representing Interface Current in 1D . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.4 Representing Interface Current in 3D: Transverse Integration
20.5 Nodal Expansion Method (NEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.6 Two Group Analytic Nodal Method (ANM) . . . . . . . . .
20.7 Semi-Analytic Nodal Method (SANM) . . . . . . . . . . . .
20.8 Nonlinear Iterative Technique To Reduce Storage . . . . . .
20.9 Summary of Transverse Integration Methods . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
279
279
279
280
281
282
284
285
289
291
293
295
296
21 Homogenization Methods
21.1 Spatial Dependence of Nodal Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . .
21.2 Homogenization of Fuel Assemblies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21.3 Application of Homogenization Methods in 2D/1D MOC Solvers
21.4 Application of DFs: Reflector Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21.5 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21.6 Summary of Homogenization Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
297
297
298
301
302
303
304
22 Reconstruction/De-homogenization Methods
22.1 Superposition Assumptions . . . . . . . .
22.2 Non-Separable Flux Expansion . . . . . .
22.3 Corner Point Constraints . . . . . . . . .
22.4 Basic Reconstruction Steps . . . . . . . .
22.5 Homogeneous Cross Section Shape . . .
22.6 SIMULATE-5 Radial Sub-Mesh Model .
22.7 Nodal Method Summary . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
305
305
307
309
310
311
313
314
23 Adjoint Fluxes, Perturbation Theory

23.1 Adjoint Fluxes for Critical Reactor Systems .
23.2 First Order Perturbation Theory (FOP) . . . .
23.3 Relating Adjoint Flux to Neutron Population .
23.4 Multi-Group Real and Adjoint Flux Equations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
315
315
316
318
319
24 LWR Core Design and Optimization

24.1 Objectives & Constrain . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.2 Design Tools: Lattice Code, Nodal Code . . .
24.2.1 Lattice Code . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.2.2 Nodal Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.3 Uncertainty Analysis: Measurements . . . . .
24.4 PWR Core Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.4.1 Reactivity Effects . . . . . . . . . . .
24.4.2 Lattice Designs . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.4.3 Core Loading Patterns . . . . . . . .
24.4.4 PWR Reactivity Control . . . . . . .
24.4.5 Cycle Length and Equilibrium Cycle
24.5 BWR Core Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.5.1 Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.5.2 Core Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
323
323
324
326
327
328
329
329
331
331
332
332
335
335
336
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lulu Li
24.5.3 Operational Analysis, Reactivity Control . . .

24.6 PWR Core Loading Pattern Optimization . . . . . . .
24.6.1 Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24.6.2 XIMAGE: Loading Pattern Design . . . . . . .
24.6.3 Greedy Binary Random Swap in Quarter Core
24.6.4 Stochastic Optimization Schemes . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
337
341
341
342
343
344
25 Exam 3 Review: Dynamics & Kinetics

25.1 PKE Without Feedback . . . . . .
25.2 PKE with Feedback . . . . . . . .
25.3 Adjoint Flux, Perturbation Theory
25.4 Exam Problems . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
346
347
350
352
354
26 Review: Multi-dimensional Diffusion

26.1 Assumptions Made . . . . . . . .
26.2 Nodal Methods . . . . . . . . . .
26.3 Homogenization methods . . . . .
26.4 Pin power reconstruction . . . . .
26.5 Scale of 3D Problem . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
357
357
357
359
360
361
27 Qualify Exam Recap

27.1 Basics (with questions)
27.2 Cross Section . . . . .
27.3 Exam Problems . . . .
27.4 Steady State . . . . . .
27.5 2013 Written Qual . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
362
362
363
366
369
370
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Lulu Li
List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Flux vs. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Flux vs. Lethargy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spectrum, Added in Fission Neutron Emission Spectrum and Hydrogen Scattering XS . . . . .
Thermal Scattering Probability vs. Energy for Hydrogen and Graphite . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spectrum, Added in Thermal Scattering and 1/v Hydrogen Absorption XS . . . . . . . . . . .
Target Motion Is Important for U238 Resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slowing Down in Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flux Between Resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plots of the Psi, Chi Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The 1/E Spectrum Above A Resonance Suggests Group XS Independent of Higher Energy Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impact of Temperature On Effective RI, Doppler Broadening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impact of Energy Self-Shielding On Effective RI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impact of Spectral Hardening On RI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desired Product of NJOY: Multi-Group Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resonance Scatters Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison Of Wide and Narrow Resonance Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bells Factor for Various Geometris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dancoff Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Algorithm for a Simple Pin Cell Code with Collision Probabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pin Cell Code Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of Reactor Design Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Different Ways to Define Coordinate Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Our Choice of Coordinate Systems and Area of Unit Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Setup of Infinite Slab Problem using Methods of Chords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tube Presentation in Methods of Chords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Setup of Direct 3D Volume Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensitivities of Direct 3D Volume Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Setup of Direct 3D Monte Carlo Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensitivities of Direct 3D Monte Carlo Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylindrical Numerical Integral in 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sensitivities in Cylindrical Numerical Integral in 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cylindrical Monte Carlo Integral in 3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Monte Carlo Pin Cell Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pin Cell Code Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pin Cell Code Boundary Conditions: Opposite Face Periodic and Rotational . . . . . . . . . . .
Boundary Conditions and Interface Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flux Shape Depent On Diffusion Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plane Source in Finite Multiplying Medium with k < 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1/M plot and Flux Shape In Approaching Criticality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Critical Reflected Slab Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Energy Groups in Multi-Gruop Diffusion Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Diagram Illustrating Neighboring Cells in Finite Difference Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Destruction and Production Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Power Iteration Convergence Rate (left) and Dominance Ratio (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
24
27
29
30
31
34
35
44
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
52
54
55
58
60
66
76
78
81
82
82
83
83
83
85
86
86
87
88
90
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
123
129
135
136
143
146
154
157
158
Lulu Li
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Power Iteration With Gauss-Jacobi Numerical Inversion of Matrix . . . . . . . .

Destruction and Production Matrix Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dominance Ratio With An Symmetric Guess (left) or Random Guess (right) . . .
Dominance Ratio With Different Core Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fission Product Yields, Fission Fragments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I135/Xe135 Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Major Fission Products Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nuclide Depletion Equations in Matrix Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nuclide Balance Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reactivity vs. BU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simple Actinide Nuclide Transmutation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Actinide Balance Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nuclide Depletion Equations vs. Actinide in Matrix Form . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nuclide Depletion Equations vs. Actinide in Matrix Form . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Matrix Shape for Actinide Depletion Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Actinide Concentrations vs. BU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fission Fractions by Nuclide vs. BU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Isotropic Number Density vs. BU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Composition of WABA and IFBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Removable Burnable Poisons: History Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fuel Temperature: Depletion History Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gd Burnable Poisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
U233/Th Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Safety Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fuel Pellets Shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Under Moderation Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finite Difference Grids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross Sections for 12 Final . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prompt and Delayed Fission Neutron Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delayed Fission Neutron Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plot of Analytical Solution of PKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PKE Example 1, Instant Reactor Scram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PKE Example 2, Two Second Reactor Scram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PKE Example 3, Instant Rod Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PKE Example 4, Instant Rod Withdrawal With 8 Delayed Groups . . . . . . . .
PKE Example 5, Two Second Rod Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PKE Example 6, Rod Withdrawal and Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PKE Example 7, Failed Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HZP Rod Worth Measurement: Boron Dilution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IK Example 1, PWR Ex-core Detectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IK Example 2, Rod Drop for SCRAM Reactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IK Example 3, PWR Dynamic Rod Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IK, Be Careful of Reactor Power Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Local Flux Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fuel Enthalpy at Failure Depends on Fuel BU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5$ RIA Without Feedback (top row) and With Doppler Feedback (bottom row)
Assumption in Fuchs-Nordheim: No Precursors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Temperature Changes in a Transient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fuel Temperature Independent Reactivity Insertion Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Operator Splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
159
160
161
162
164
165
165
166
167
174
175
175
176
176
177
179
180
181
182
183
183
184
185
189
191
194
220
222
230
236
237
247
248
248
249
249
250
250
251
256
258
258
259
260
261
261
262
263
265
266
269
Lulu Li
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
Operator Splitting: Iteration Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Augmented Matrix Equations for 1st Order Coupled ODE . . . . .
Operator Split Solution vs. Direct Coupled Solution . . . . . . . . .
0.5 Reactivity Change with Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.5 Reactivity Change with Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 RIA from HZP with Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 RIA from HFP with Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 RIA from HZP with Feedback, Slower Ejection . . . . . . . .
1.5 RIA from HFP with Feedback, Slower Ejection . . . . . . . .
1.5 RIA from HZP with Feedback, Slowest Ejection . . . . . . . .
1.5 RIA from HFP with Feedback, Slowest Ejection . . . . . . . .
1.5 RIA from HFP with Feedback, Slowest Ejection, No Scram . .
PWR Reactivity Insertion Accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3D Core Calculation Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Integrate Within Node Over 2D Plane Normal to x-direction . . . .
Transverse Leakage Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Constraints on Transverse Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accuracy of SANM in Two-Group Application . . . . . . . . . . .
Nodal Flux Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
nTRACERs 2D/1D MOC Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Supercomposing Thermal Flux in a 1D UO2/MOX problem . . . .
Non-Separable Flux Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Group Cross Section Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximate Cross Section Corrections vs. More Groups . . . . . .
PWR Lattice Adjoint Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adjoint Weighted Reactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LWR Beta Effective and I-bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lattice Code Nodal Code Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lattice Code: Pin Spectrum Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lattice Code: Pin Spatial Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lattice Code: PWR Assembly Reactivity vs. Burnup, Enrichment .
PWR Reactivity Effects: Moderator Temperature Coefficients . . .
Arevas Chart Of Cycle length, # Assemblies, Enrichment for PWRs
Sample PWRs Core Loading Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PWR Out/In Loading Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PWR In/In/Out Loading Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PWR Equilibrium Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Linear Heat Generation Rate Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MAPLHGR Designed to Cover LOCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BWR Fuel Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BWR Control Cell Core (CCC) Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BWRs Need to Have Hot Excess Reactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BWRs Reactivity Flattening using Gd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BWRs Axial Power Shapes at BOC, MOC, and EOC . . . . . . . .
BWRs MFLCPR More Limiting Near End of Cycle . . . . . . . . .
BWRs Design for Startup Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elastic Scattering Cross Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Capture Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
270
271
272
273
273
274
274
275
275
276
276
277
278
279
285
288
288
294
299
301
305
308
311
312
320
321
322
325
326
326
327
329
331
331
332
333
334
335
336
336
337
338
338
339
339
340
364
365
Lulu Li
List of Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Topics Covered in This Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Main Reactions Undergone By Neutrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Slowing Down parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Characteristics of Moderators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volume Fraction/Isotopic Importance of Reactor Materials for Typical LWRs
Interactions At Energy Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resonance Escape Probability Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resonance Escape Probability For A Hydrogen System . . . . . . . . . . . .
Observation Concerning Self-Shielding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of Narrow and Wide Resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Physics and Their Corresponding Spectra in MC code . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subcritical System: Source and Flux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simple Geometry Laplacians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
One Group Fundamental Mode Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors . . . . . . . .
Nuclear Fuel Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Finite Geometries With Zero Flux BC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yields and decay constants depend on fissioning species . . . . . . . . . . .
Absolute Total Yields of Delayed Neutrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8-group Fixed Decay Constans for All Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Matrix Form of 2-Group PKE Diffusion Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Common Reactivity Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Typical Values for PKE Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BWR Predictive Accuracy of Nodal Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of PWR Reactivity Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BWRs Design Criteria and Acceptance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Units of Common Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
15
18
18
22
39
42
49
53
61
112
137
139
145
187
211
235
236
237
243
244
245
328
330
335
362
Lulu Li
1
1.1
22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012
Introduction
Course Coverage
Calculation of neutron spectra;
Resonance absorption and spatial self-shielding models;
Continuous energy transport, reduction to multi-group diffusion group;
Determination of few-group diffusion constants;
Elementary reactor transient analysis.
Topics
Calculating Spectra
Diffusion Equations
Break down
Slowing down & thermalization in
infinite medium
Resonance Models
This notes
Ch. 2
Reuss
Ch.7, 9
Ch. 3
Continuous energy derivation

One group: analytical
Ch. 8
Ch.
9,
Ch. 11, 10
Ch. 12,13,
14
Ch. 15, 16
Ch. 18, 19
Ch. 20
Ch. 21, 22
Ch.2.7,
Ch.8
Ch.5, 6
Ch.10
Multi group: derivation, numerical

solutions
Fission product, depletion
PKEs, with and without feedback
Dynamics & Kinetics Nodal Methods
Homogenization, Dehomogenization
Adjoint, perturbation
Ch. 23
Table 1: Topics Covered in This Class
11
Ch.10
Other Text
Duderstadt
p.316-332,
Hebert 4.2.3
Duderstadt p.333-347
Stacy 3.10.
Ch.11, 12
Ch.4, 13
Smiths paper
Smith, Palmtag, Rempse,
Jiang
Ch.16
Lulu Li
1.2
Sample Exercises
Example 1: Estimate the Mean Free Path of a Fission Neutron in an LWR
12
Lulu Li
Example 2: Estimate Prompt Neutron Lifetime
Example 3: Estimate Fast & Thermal Fluxes in an LWR
13
Lulu Li
1.3
Summary: Reuss Ch 1 History
1. Carnot efficiency rmax = 1
Tcold
Thot .
2. Moderator choice: low neutron capture, light nuclei to slow down neutrons, sufficienty dense (1.5).
1.4
Summary: Reuss Ch 2 Intro to Nuclear Physics
This chapter goes over some basic nuclear physics concepts which we just covered in 101 so I am going to skip
most of them and note on concepts that I did not remember.
1. Stable and unstable nuclei (2.1.4): all elements beyond bismuth (Z=83) are radioactive; there are no stable
isotopes found in nature for Z = 43 and Z = 61.
2. Mass defect m = Zmp + N mN mA . Nuclear binding energy: W = mc2 .
2
ac AZ1/3 + ap A1/2 . Even-even: = 1; odd-odd,

3. Liquid drop model: W = av A as A2/3 aa (A/2Z)
A
= 1; else, = 0.
4. Spin: even-even nuclei have zero spin, and can be approximately as spherical; even-odd nuclei have spin of
n + 1/2; odd-odd nuclei have integer number of spin.
5. The width of the excited states is related to their lifetime by Heisenberg uncertainty ~, which
decreases we increase the excitation energies, until a continuum zone where the levels overlap.
6. Positive mass defect (initial mass > final mass): exoenergetic/exothermic reaction; otherwise, endothermic
reaction.
7. Law of radioactive decay: N (t) = N (0)et , T = ln2 . Meanlife = 1 is the average amount of time after
which an unstable nucleus observed at a given instant will disintegrate.
8. Examples of radioactive decay (2.4.4).
9. THe interaction probability element for a path dx is dx. Mean free path is the average distance at
which the first collision occurs:
Z
Z
1
(1)
= hxi =
xp(x) dx =
x exp x dx =
0
0
10. Main reactions, see Table 2 (2.6.3).
11. Cross sections: a = f + c , t = a + s .
Absorption cross sections (radiative capture, fission, (n, p), (n, )) often follow 1/v behavior in the
thermal range (less than 1 eV).
Scattering cross sections tend to be constant corresponding to the potential scattering (the geometric
value of the image of the target and the projectile), plus possible resonances especially for intermediate
and heavy nuclides. pot is about a few barns, with the only exception being H with the largest
scattering cross section of 20 barns.
12. Fission barrier (2.9.2). Parity effect (2.9.3): the binding energy is much greater when the initial target has
an odd number of neutrons than an even number. Application: 235Us 6.5 MeV binding energy overweights
its fission barrier of 6.1 MeV, hence making fissioning easy; on the contrast, 238Us binding energy 4.8 MeV
is smaller than its 6.6 MeV fission barrier.
13. Tunnelling (2.9.4): even if the excitation energy of the compound nucleus is smaller than the barrier, fission
can still occurs through tunneling.
14
Lulu Li
Table 2: Main Reactions Undergone By Neutrons

14. Prompt neutron fission spectrum (2.10.1): Maxwell spectrum, Cranberg spectrum, etc. Energy released in
fission (2.10.3).
15
Lulu Li
1.5
Summary: Reuss Ch 3 Intro to Neutron Physics
1. Flux = nv, the population of neutrons travelling through the matter (3.1.1).
~ )
~ = ~v n()
~ = v n()
~
~
2. Current J(
= ().
3. Mean chord: the average distance separating the point of exit from the point of entry of a neutron crossing
4V
the area under consideration, l = 4V
S . The opacity of the area = S (3.1.5).
4. The Boltzmann equation (3.1.6):
Z
(~r) =
e
[f (~r0 )(~r0 ) + s (~r0 )(~r0 )] d3 r0
4R2
(2)
Operators associated with the Boltzmann equation (3.2.3).

5. Neutron spectra (3.3.1):
Fast reactors: the spectrum is degraded with respect to the fission spectrum. Reason: slowing down
by inelastic scattering off heavy nuclei and elastic scattering off sodium.
Thermal reactors:
(a) a high energy hump. Reason: fission spectrum, degraded due to scattering;
(b) slight decrease in the epithermal region. Reason: resonant capture losses, esp. U238;
(c) a low energy hump. Reason: Maxwell distribution of the thermal agitation but a little harder
because the temperature equilibrium has not been perfectly achieved.
6. Four factor formula (3.3.2).
16
Lulu Li
Infinite Medium Monte Carlo Basics
This Monte Carlo Model we develope for this chapter and next chapter is for infinite medium.
The goal of this and the next section (resonant approximation) is to derive group cross sections. Thus we need to
approximate the spectrum. We are going to consider:
Ignore space and angles (assuming infinite medium) and only consider the energy space. When we discuss
two region heterogeneous resonant model, we are going to add some spatial dependency back in the model.
Assume isotropic elastic down scattering, we get a P (E E 0 ) =
space, P (u u0 ) is a curve pointing downwards from 0 to .
1
(1)E
where E 0 [E, E]. In lethargy
Between resonances, we can assume the cross section is flat, thus we get the 1/E spectrum again.
In handling the resonances, we introduce NR (resonance is so narrow that a scattering can take us out of the
resonance and we can ignore resonances in a sense) and WR (resonance is so large that we are stuck inside
for a while, thus the reaction rate is constant).
Then we add back in spatial dependency, and discuss the simpliest two region approximation.
2.1
Summary: Reuss Ch 7 Neutron Slowing Down
1. Decouple absorption and scattering is possible because absorption is complicated at lower energies, whereas
scattering is the opposite (b/c inelastic and anisotropic aspects).
2. Elastic vs. inelastic: elastic scattering has no threshold, making it the most important one in neutron slowing
down. Inelastic scattering has a threshold of a few MeV for light nuclei, and a few tens of keV for heavy
nuclei, making it mainly observed in the fuel materials particularly 238U.
3. In Lab system, laws of elastic collision:
A2 + 1 + 2A cos
1
Enf
=
= [1 + + (1 ) cos ]
Eni
(A + 1)2
2
1 + A cos
cos =
A2 + 1 + 2A cos
(A 1)2
= min ratio between final n energy and initial
=
(A + 1)2
(3)
(4)
(5)
4. In CMCS, scattering is isotropic in solid angle (except very high energy), which implies that cos is
uniform, and Enf is uniform:
1
1
sin d = d| cos |
2
2
dE
P (E) dE =
(1 )Ei
P () d =
5. In Lab system, scattering towards the front it favored. The mean of cos is = hcos i =
(6)
(7)
2
3A .
6. Lethargy, a unitless measurement of energy (the idea comes from laws of elastic collision governs an energy
ratio):
u = ln
17
Eref
E
(8)
Lulu Li
Table 3: Slowing Down parameters
Table 4: Comparison of Characteristics of Moderators

Notice as time goes, neutrons slow down, u increases, making it like a measure of the age of the neutrons.
Then we know that the uniform distribution of energy becomes a decreasing exponential distribution for
lethargy gain:

1
w = uf ui = ln (1 + + (1 ) cos )
(9)
2
wmin = 0
(10)
wmax = = ln
(11)
P (w) dw =
e
dw
1
hwi = = 1
(12)

1
(13)
is like the efficiency of slowing down by a nucleus. That is, neutrons advance by lethargy units on
0
average at each collision. Then to overcome the total lethargy interval U = ln E
E1 , the number of collisions
needed is:
n=
(14)
7. Moderating power is the best measure of a materials ability to slow down neutrons. It has two forms:
per atom basis = s per volume basis = s
(15)
A good moderating material should have: high slowing down (hence light nuclei), low capture (D, Be, C),
moderating power (take into account both high slowing down and high scattering xs). Water has the highest
moderating power, but it requires an enriched fuel (around 1%).
8. Laws of inelastic collision. Elastic scattering is important for moderators because they are light; inelastic scattering is important for heavy materials like the fuel because they have almost no elastic collision.
Minimum energy of the neutron for an inelastic collision is:
Ethreshold =
18
A+1
Q
A
(16)
Lulu Li
9. Slowing down equations: a simplified Boltzmann equation performing neutron counts that depends on one
variable, either velocity or energy or lethargy. We pick lethargy. Then we assume an infinite, homogeneous
medium with a source uniform in space and time.
10. First form of the slowing down equation (7.1.9):
(u) du = arrival density =
zZ
# neutrons arriving per time and per volume

in du between u and u + du following a scattering to u0
1

}|
2

z
}|
{
0
s (u )(u ) du P (u u) du
(17)
(18)
1 = # neutrons travelling in du and scattered per time and per volume

2 = probability a neutron scattered at u will be transferred in du

Z u
(u) =
s (u0 u)(u0 ) du0
(19)
(20)
(21)
s (u0 u)(u0 ) du = (u)(u)
S(u) + (u) = S(u) +
(22)
In the specific case of COM isotropic, monatomic elastic slowing down, the transfer probability is:
0
P (u0 u) = P (u u0 ) =
e(uu )
1
(23)
11. Decay of neutron spectrum by successive scattering events (7.2.2): producing spectrum by adding up successive scattering events;
12. Slowing down without absorption (7.2.3). Asymptotic value of flux:
as (u) =
S
s (u)
(24)
If we plot flux vs. lethargy, all isotopes would fluctuate (Placzek transient) before reaching the asymptotic
flux value, except H which immediately reaches as .
13. Slowing down in hydrogen (7.2.4): uses Greens function; the Dirac distribution compensates for the source
in the equation; the Heaviside step function makes sure the neutrons scattered at least once scattered beyond,
not below, the original lethargy.
14. Slowing down with resonance absorptions (which is low energy) (7.2.5): we can approximate resonance
absorption of the following types
(a) Black resonance trap:
Z
1p=
du0
u
1 e(uu )
1 e
=
1
(1 )
(25)
when is small, we can simplify the above to be 1 p = .

(b) Narrow grey resonance trap:
Z
1p=
trap
19
a (u) du
t (u)
(26)
Lulu Li
(c) A set of narrow grey resonance traps: we express each resonance in exponential form, and find the
product of them:
Z

Z
a (u)
a (u)
pi = 1
du = exp
du
(27)
i t (u)
i t (u)
"
#
Y
X Z a (u)
p=
pi = exp
du
(28)
i t (u)
i
i
(d) General expression: Because the integrated function is zero outside of the resonance traps, we can
simply write,
Z

a (u)
p = exp
du
(29)
t (u)
This is the general expression for resonance escape probability.
15. Slowing down with low, slowly varying absorption (which is high energy) (7.2.6).
(a) Greuling-Goertzel approximations for slow and gradually varying absorption:
(b) Wigner approximation for resonance absorption:
2.2
Summary: Reuss Ch 9 Thermalisation of Neutrons
1. For monatomic gas, there is thermal agitation and no chemical bonds, we can approximaet with Maxwell
distribution.
2. For any thermaliser, the neutron spectrum at equilibrium and in the absence of absorption (or with low
capture) would be a Maxwell spectrum. A Maxwell spectrum depends on E, kT .
3. Microreversibility principle/detailed balance: at equilibrium and with no absorption, the number of transfers
by diffusion from dE to dE 0 as transfers in the other direction from dE 0 to dE.
4. Scattering equation (9.1.4):
r
0
s (E , E, ) = s (E )P (E E)P () = C
te
0

E
E E
exp
S(, )
E0
2kT
(30)
5. Thermalisation equation (9.1.5):

S
Ecutoff
s (E 0 )(E 0 ) dE 0 P (E 0 E) +
zZ
(E)
slow-down
}|
s (E 0 )(E 0 ) dE 0 P (E 0 E) = t (E)(E) (31)
Ecutoff
and the slow-down equation,

Z
exp((uu0 ))
1
z }| {
s (u0 ) P (u0 u) (u0 ) du0 + S(u) = t (u)(u)
(32)
The two are similar, except:

(a) The slowing down equation only down scatters, whereas thermalisation equation can transfer energies
in both directions. The upper boundary Ecutoff is the energy separating the thermalization domain
from the slowing down domain.
20
Lulu Li
(b) The source in the thermalisation equation Sslow-down (E) is not a true source; it is a density of
arrival at energies below the cutoff energy due to scattering events occurring in the last part of the
slowing down domain and transferring the neutron beyond the cutoff energy in the thermalisation
domain.
6. Thermal Spectrum(9.2): it is approximately reasonable well by Maxwell distribution, except,
0 2kT : real thermal spectrum is smaller due to absorption of neutrons;
2kT and above: Maxwell spectrum approaches zero quickly, whilst the real density falls slightly but
remains significant, due to the slowing down queue: neutrons coming from high energies slow down
and enter the thermal domain, compensating for the disappearances by absorption.
7. Comparing MOX and UOX spectrum: the two are close for the fast and epithermal domains, because they
essentially have the same quantity of moderator, U238, and cladding. Whereas in the thermal domain, the
number of neutrons in MOX is lower by a factor of 4 because of the high absorption by MOX fuel of thermal
neutrons.
8. Average cross section (9.2.3):
R
=
(E)(E) dE
R
(E) dE
(33)
Example: calculate the average xs for a Maxwell spectrum and a 1/v xs.
293
=
(v0 ) =
2200
2
2
T
(34)
where
is the average of x = v/v0 on a Maxwell spectrum, and also the average of 1/x.
9. Heterogeneous Configurations (9.2.4):

Vf Rf f Pf f + Vm (Rm m + Ssld )Pmf = Vf f f
(35)
Vf Rf f Pf m + Vm (Rm m + Ssld )Pmm = Vm m m
(36)
10. Approximate thermal neutron speeds(9.3.1): assume absorption xs are 1/v and scattering xs are constant,
we can approximate
r
T
v = 2200m/s
(37)
293.15
11. Thermal utilisation factor (9.3.2): the fraction of thermal neutrons absorbed in the fuel,
f=
Vf a,f f
,
Vf a,f f + Vm a,m m +
1
1=
f
Vm
Vf
|{z}
moderation ratio
disadvantage factor
z}|{
m
a,m
f
a,f
(38)
12. Reproduction factor (9.3.3):

=
21
f,f
a,f
(39)
Lulu Li
2.3
Calculating Isotopic Importance
Given an infintie medium LWR with volume fraction listed in Table. 5, we can calculate isotopes number densities:
Reactor
PWR
CANDU6
HTGR
SFR
Fuel
35%
5%
5%
60%
Coolant & Moderator

55%
85%
90%
30%
Structural
10%
10%
2%
10%
Table 5: Volume Fraction/Isotopic Importance of Reactor Materials for Typical LWRs
NAV molecule/mol
2/molecule = 3.68 1022
18g/mol
NAV molecule/mol
= 0.55 1g/cm3
1/molecule = 1.84 1022
18g/mol
NAV molecule/mol
2/molecule = 1.56 1022
= 0.35 10g/cm3
270g/mol
NAV molecule/mol
= 0.95 0.35 10g/cm3
1/molecule = 1.48 1022
270g/mol
NAV molecule/mol
1/molecule = 0.079 1022
= 0.05 0.35 10g/cm3
267g/mol
NAV molecule/mol
1/molecule = 0.56 1022
= 0.10 6.6g/cm3
90g/mol
NcH = 0.55 1g/cm3
(40)
NcO
(41)
NfO
Nf238
Nf235
N Zr
(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
That is, in a typical LWR the relative number densities come out to be around:
H = 1, O = 1, U 238 = 0.4, U 235 = 0.02, Zr = 0.15
(46)
Notice hydrogens and oxygens number densities are about the same.
Abtracting Cross Sections See Figure 146, Figure 147 for common cross sections. Notice resonance absorption and scattering tend to line up in terms of energy.
Practice: Why can we use sodium as coolant if its capture cross section is so high?
Answer: Sodium has a high capture xs in thermal range, and a small capture xs in fast range. But we can still
build a thermal reactor with water as moderator and sodium as coolant, as long as sodiums volume is lower than
that of the H.
22
Lulu Li
2.4
High Energy Elastic Scattering Physics
For high energy, we assume no absorption and scattering is isotropic in COM (target at rest in Lab system). Then
we arrive at some important parameters/properties:
1. After each collision, the minimum final energy is,
Emin
=
=
E0
A1
A+1
2
(47)
2. From conservation equations in the COM and translating back to the energies
FIXME
3. Differential scattering cross section:
(E E 0 ) = (E)P (E E 0 ) =
(E)
(1 )E
E E 0 E
(48)
4. Slowing down in non-absorbing, single specie, A = 1, isotropic elastic scattering material:

(a) Because we are dealing with a single specie and infinite medium, we can use instead of .
(b) Write a balance equation for sources and sinks:
(c) Assume a delta function source:
(d) Define collision density:
(e) Show that collision density is 1/E:
(f) Thus flux is 1/E at energies below the source energy:
(g) By super-position, we can deduce that for a distributed energy source:
(E) =
1
s (E)E
dE 0 S(E 0 ) +
S(E)
s (E)
(49)
5. Introduce lethargy:
6. Logarithmic energy decrement:
=1+
ln()
1
(50)
Examples: H = 1, D = 0.725, C = 0.158, U = 0.0084. A , .

The number of collisions required to slow a particle from E2 to E1 is:
n=
ln(E2 /E1 )
(51)
Examples: for E2 = 2 106 eV, E1 = 0.1eV, the number of collisions is: nH = 17, nD = 23, nC =
106, nU = 2000.
7. Slowing down in non-absorbing, arbitrary mass, isotropic scattering material:
8. Flux vs. energy:
There are two ways to understand flux here.
23
Lulu Li
Figure 1: Flux vs. Energy

Particle based: we let all the neutrons to scatter till death; then for each energy interval, if we add up
the number of neutrons with energies in that interval; we get the flux corresponding to each interval.
Generation based (as in Fig. 1): we let each neutron scatter once in each generation, save all the
number of neutrons vs. energy data, and add up all the generations, this would effectively give us flux
vs. energy as well. Notice with insufficient number of generations (left plot), the flux tails down at
lower energies, meaning that some neutrons are not slowed down entirely yet. With sufficient number
of generations (right plot), we get a 1/E spectrum for COM elastic scattering only.
9. Flux vs. lethargy: as in Fig. 2, flux is a constant in lethargy space.
Figure 2: Flux vs. Lethargy
24
Lulu Li
10. Placzek transients in energy:

(a) First generation: discontinuity in flux.
(b) Second generation: discontinuity in first derivative.
(c) Third generation: discontinuity in second derivative.
Notice in hydrogen there is no Placzek transient
Caution about number of bins: When we are plotting, we are really plotting the expectation value of the
numbers of neutrons.
Exercise: how many neutrons would there be at x energy level?
Answer: zero. So the bins have to be fine enough to see the details, but not too fine that the bins got no
more neutrons.
25
Lulu Li
2.5
Fission Emission Spectrum
There are a couple of different choices of the fission emission spectrum. We chose Maxwell spectrum because it
is easy the invert. The Maxwell spectrum is:

2
E
(E) dE =
E exp
dE
T = 1.33 MeV for U235
(52)
T
(T )3/2
Simulation: constructing a cdf for Maxwell distribution (when constructing any cdf, it is a good practice to
sample immediately and double check with the pdf); for each neutron, generate a random number [0, 1], and
use = cdf (E) to reverse-lookup for E, and this is the fission emission energy of that neutron.
Characteristics of spectra after adding in (E) (caution: Fig. 3 is plotted with x-axis being energy, but it is
still in lethargy space):
1. The spectrum is independent on the number of incoming neutrons;
2. For one specie, the spectrum is independent of its cross section; for two species, only the relative cross
section matters.
3. The effect of (E): smooth out the shart edge at the highest energy cutoff (Fig. 3 middle plot).
4. A little bump at fast energy due to source neutrons. FIXME.
Z
1
S(E)
(E) =
dE 0 S(E 0 ) +
s (E)E E
s (E)
(53)
5. Adding in real Hydrogen scattering cross section. So far we reach a constant spectrum in lethargy. To obtain
the fission source peak around 2 MeV, we have to divide the flux count by the hydrogen cross section:
(E)
XX
N
Ngn gn =
XX
n
Ngn
1
(Egn )
(54)
Recall the hydrogen scattering cross section decreases from 0 to 1 eV, stays constant between 1 eV to
10 keV, and decreases again afterwards. In the fast energies, the decreased hydrogen absorption cross
section increases the flux, causing the 1.7 MeV peak.
Notice hydrogens scattering cross section is not exactly flat in the eV to 0.1MeV region; it is slightly
decreasing, resulting in the spectrums middle region
26
Lulu Li
Slowing Down in Hydrogen From 2 MeV

1e+07
Flux (not normalized)
50 generations, 1 million neutrons, 1000 bins
1e+06
100000
0.01
100
10000
1e+06
Energy Associated with Lethargy Bins (eV)
Slowing Down in Hydrogen From Neutron Emission Spectrum
1e+08
1e+07
1e+06
100000
10000
1000
100
0.01
100
10000
1e+06
1e+08
Slowing Down in Hydrogen, Neutron Emission Spectrum, W/ Real H Elastic Scattering XS
1e+06
100000
10000
1000
0.01
100
10000
1e+06
1e+08
Figure 3: Spectrum, Added in Fission Neutron Emission Spectrum and Hydrogen Scattering XS
27
Lulu Li
2.6
Full Range Smooth Cross Sections
This lecture is given in 22.212 on 02/13/2013. In this session we cover cross section data sources, cross section
measurement techniques, and cross section impact.
1. Point-wise cross sections:
ENDF data provides enough resolution to linearly interpolate and claims to be 0.1% accuracy. See
ENDF data website.
JEF is used in Europe.
JENDL is used in Japan.
NGATLAS is mostly for activation (decay heat, captures that are not important for reactors).
2. Heavier nuclides tend to have more reactions/cross sections, and has data for angular distribution.
3. Resonance parameters:
For instance, Interpreted ENDF file for U238 resonance parameters is Reich-Moore data, thus we get
negative resonance energies etc.
U238 s-wave = 23 meV, and n changes anywhere from 1 to 70 meV. U238s resonances are
widely spaced (s-wave 21 eV spacing, p-wave 7 eV spacing) and are good for using SLBW because
resonances are widly spaced. Though typically odd isotope tends to widely spaced.
Resonance spacing is the spacing between two peaks; capture width is the width of a resonance.
Capture width tends to be constant (23 meV for U238), while neutron width tends to change (Hebert
thinks increasing as energy).
Unresolved resonances: it is not that resonances become tighter together (resonance spacing is almost
constant); it is that the xxxx gets too small to measure.
Doppler broadening is the same as thermal agitation and apparently they matter even more in high
energy range.
Resonance integral is a good measurement of the data: we do not care to compare data point by point,
but rather we care about the data in a range. For instance, ENDFB-VIIs resonance integral over the
8 energies are about 1% different from ENDFB-VI. This does not seem that much, but it leads to
100pcm in reactivity.
4. Example: U235 and Pu239 in fast range fission cross section does not change much while the capture cross
section decreases significantly, thus we are interested in operating these two isotopes in fast reactors.
5. How are cross sections measured? When cross sections become very large, neutrons cannot penetrate the
foil which is only a certain thickness, so the cross sections vs. energy we get are going to have a flat top for
the high cross section range. Thus it is common to do multiple measurements with different thickness. For
instance, U238s 6 eV is the largest and widest resonance, so we would want many points around there.
28
Lulu Li
2.7
Free Gas/Equilibrium Thermal Elastic Scattering
For the thermal energy range, we are going to start with elastic scattering from stationary, free particle. Then we
would consider the effects of having the target in motion and adding chemical bound.
1. We make three assumptions for the thermal energy range,
A monatomic free gas, that is, a Maxwellian distribution.
The target is at rest.
The target is free from chemical bonds.
Then the elastic scattering cross section dependent on A, E, and temperature T :
"
!
!
r
r
r
r
s0 2
E0
E
E0
E
0
(E)fs (E E ) =
erf
erf
+
2E
kT
kT
kT
kT
!
!!#
r
r
r
r
EE 0
E
E0
E
E0
+e kT
erf
erf
+
kT
kT
kT
kT
(55)
where the upper signs are for E 0 > E and the lower signs for E 0 < E, and the , terms are:
=
A+1
2 A
A1
2 A
(56)
2. For a proton gas (A=1), we can simplify the energy transfer function to be (notice the function is continuous,
but not the derivative),
EE0
q
E
kT erf
e
E0 > E
s0
q kT
s (E)fs (E E 0 ) =
(57)
E0
E
erf
E0 < E
kT
A=1 Scattering Probability vs Final Energy

1
E = 1 kT
E = 4 kT
E = 25 kT
E = 100 kT
E = 200 kT
E = 500 kT
0.8
Probability x Initial Energy x (1 - alpha)
0.6
0.4
0.2
E = 1 kT
E = 4 kT
E = 25 kT
E = 100 kT
E = 200 kT
E = 500 kT
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Scattered Energy Over Initial Energy
4.5
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4.5
Figure 4: Thermal Scattering Probability vs. Energy for Hydrogen and Graphite
Observations:
(a) The reason we make the y-axis P E(1 ) is because the asymptotic value would be normalized to
1.0 this way. Reason:
P (E E 0 ) dE =
dE
(1 )E
P (E E 0 )E(1 ) = 1.0
29
(58)
Lulu Li
(b)
E
, the ratio of the neutron energy to the medium temperature (energy), is what we care about. For
kT
instance, when we raise the neutron energy and the medium temperature both by a factor of 4, the
probability remains the same.
(c) In Fig. 4: E = 1kT to 25kT provides a good cover of range, and even at 1200K, 1kT = 0.1 eV, and
25kT = 2.5eV, so 4eV is a typical upper scattering cutoff. Although keep in mind that there is always
a very small probability to scatter to a much higher energy.
0
(d) In Fig. 4: the EE axis shows that there is a good probability that the neutron would gain energy from
the elastic scattering(the lower the initial neutron energy, the closer it is to the target nuclei thermal
agitation, the more probable is upper scattering). In fact this is the difference between this thermal
energy model and the previous high-energy model.
(e) We can add the thermal scattering into our MC model and observe a peak in the thermal range as in
the left plot of Fig. 5. To make the height more realistic, we add in the hydrogen absorption cross
section (a 1/v distribution, only affect the thermal range) as in the right plot of Fig. 5. The absorbing
strength is picked such that the absorption-to-scattering ratio is something reasonable, like 0.2.
Slowing Down and Thermalization in Hydrogen (no H absorption yet)
Slowing Down and Thermalization in H w/ 1/v absorber
1e+07
1e+06
"spec.dat" using 1:2
1e+06
100000
100000
10000
10000
1000
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1e+06
1e+07
1000
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1e+06
1e+07
Figure 5: Spectrum, Added in Thermal Scattering and 1/v Hydrogen Absorption XS

Adding Target in Motion (important for U238 resonances at hot fuel conditions). Thermal agitation does not
matter that much for non-resonance conditions; that is, when d/ dE is small, a small v hence a small E
does not change the cross section much. This is not true anymore for U238 resonances, because when cross
section changes very rapidly (especially true in the scattering cross section than the absorption cross section),
target motion/thermal agitation would affect up scattering quite significantly. As shown in Figure 6, it could be a
10% increase in LWR U238 Doppler.
We will cover resonance models later, for now we just need to know that the weird dips in scattering cross
section is a result of the interacting wave between the potential scattering and the compound nuclear scattering.
30
Lulu Li
Figure 6: Target Motion Is Important for U238 Resonances
31
Lulu Li
2.8
Slowing Down Kernel from TE
This lecture was given by Prof. Forget on 10/02/13. We start from the Transport Equation:
Z
Z
Z
1
(E)
dEvf + S
+ + t =
dE
ds +
v t
4
(59)
Apply assumptions:
1. Steady state, so
1
v t
0.
2. Infinite medium, so no streaming term 0.

3. No source, so S 0.
4. Slowing down happens through elastic scattering that is isotropic in the center of mass system (s-wave
elastic scattering), that is,
s (E 0 E) =
s (E 0 )
(1 )E 0
for E < E 0 <
(60)
where = (A 1/A + 1)2 . In assuming s-wave, the slowing down model only applies for neutrons
below 1MeV in light moderators and neutrons below 0.1 MeV in heavier materials, since the average
0 = 0.07A2/3 E [MeV]. For neutrons above 0.1 MeV, inelastic scattering from heavy nuclei becomes
important and cannot be ignored (but I dont think weve ever addressed inelastic scattering in this course).
When we had the time dependent term
t , flux changes with respect to time and is driven by source. Once
we go into steady state and take away the source, TE becomes an eigenvalue problem, and we need to add a k
on the bottom of the fission term. Notice that our TE only depends on energy now,
Z
Z
(E)
0
0
0
t (E)(E) =
dE s (E E)(E ) +
dE 0 (E 0 )f (E 0 )(E 0 )
(61)
k
0
0
If we re-write assuming the fission source is an external source of neutrons Sf (notice its energy independent):
Z
t (E)(E) =
dE 0 s (E 0 E)(E 0 ) + (E)Sf
(62)
0
where we can subsitute P (E 0 E) =

write the TE in lethargy space:
1
(1)E 0
into s (E 0 E) = s (E 0 )P (E 0 E). Alternatively we can
t (u)(u) =
s (u u0 )(u0 ) du0 + (u)Sf
(63)
1. Fast range (> 0.1MeV): Assume no upscattering, and any scattering event is likely to slow neutrons below
0.1 MeV. Then our TE becomes,
t (E)(E) = (E)Sf
(E) =
(E)Sf
t

(64)
(E) dominantes fast flux, because t is fairly flat in the fast range, and Sf = kf which is proportional
to (E) anyway (or say flux scales with source), so we are left with the distribution of prompt neutrons
dominant the flux in the fast range.
32
Lulu Li
2. Slowing down region/resonance region [1eV, 0.1MeV]. We define a slowing down density:
q(E) = number of minimum slowing down past energy E
(65)
Again assume no upscattering. In the presence of scattering, all neutrons born from fission will reach E
unless absorbed,
Z
Z
0
0
q(E) =
(E )Sf dE
a (E 0 )(E 0 ) dE 0
(66)
E
From the general expression 0 (E 0 ) dE 0 = 1, we can approximate

leaving the energy independent Sf term:
Z
a (E 0 )(E 0 ) dE 0 + Sf
q(E) =
R
0.1
(E 0 ) dE 0 = 1, thus only
(67)
Next we apply the second fundamental theorem of calculus, or the Newton-Leibniz axiom, which states
that,
F 0 (x) = f (x)
F (b) F (a) =
f (x) dx
(68)
Be careful about the bounds as the second theorem is not simply taking the derivative of Eq. 67. In our
case, q = F, = f . We already have q(E), substitute E = in Eq. 67 we get,
q() = Sf
(69)
Then Eq. 69 minus Eq. 67 yields,

Z
q() q(E) =
a (E 0 )(E 0 ) dE 0
(70)
which is the second expression in the second fundamental theorem of calculus. Then by the theorem,
dq(E)
= a (E)(E)
dE
(71)
Comments/notes:
If absorption increases, less neutrons would make it to E, then q(E) should be smaller.
q(E) changes proportional to a , because in our approximation the source term becomes indpendent
of energy.
If a = 0, q(E) = constant.
In reactor applications, most absorptions happen in the resonances of 238U. 238Us cross section changes by
order of magnitudes for each resonance, so we can assume that a = 0 between resonances (also because
33
Lulu Li
between resonances there is no quantum effect between compound nuclides). That is, q(E) = constant
between resonances. Consider our TE again with a = 0,
Z
s (E 0 E)(E 0 ) dE 0
(72)
s (E)(E) =
0
0
s (E )
Plug in s (E 0 E) = s (E 0 )P (E 0 E) = (1)E
0 . Also assume: below birth E of fission neutrons,
below inelastic scattering threshold, single scattering nuclei,
Z E/
1
(E 0 )(E 0 ) dE 0
(73)
s (E)(E) =
0 s
(1
)E
0
We know (magically) that the solution of the above integral is of the form,
s (E)(E) =
C
E
(74)
Figure 7: Slowing Down in Energy

Motivated by Fig. 7, we define q(E) in terms of scattering,
#
Z E/ "Z E 0
1
00
00
00
(E )(E ) dE
dE 0
q(E) =
00 s
E
E 0 (1 )E
Plug in s = C/E, integrate twice, we get,

q(E) = 1 +
ln C = C
1
(75)
(76)
Consider s (E)(E)E = C, that is q(E) = s (E)(E)E, we reach 1 ,

(E) =
q(E)
s (E)E
(u) =
34
q(u)
s ()
(77)
Lulu Li
Figure 8: Flux Between Resonances

FIXME: assume hydrogen is purely scattering. Again in an infinite medium the spectrum is independent of
the absolute number density; it only depends on the relative number density.
Duderstadt p.399 plots of spectrum when we add in different effects. One question is, the plots end around
0.2 eV.
p.17: left plot: constant power. right plot: average thermal flux to be 1.
Adding in absorption: fast peak is slightly decreased, flat portion is slightly decreasing as we lower energy,
and thermal peak magnitude is very depressed. Observation: if we want high thermal flux, we want low absorption
xs (flux trap!) In the old days (e.g., Duderstadts plots), we normalize the thermal average to 1, then we get the
new flux is slightly lowered and the flat portion raises up slightly, which makes it hard to observe absorption
hardening.
Perturb leakage. More likely to leak out in fast energy.
1 a subtle point here is that the equations here are the asymptotic values. Recall the Placzek Transient is due to the discontinuity of the flux
at u = , and its derivative at u = 2 etc where is the maximum lethargy gain. The discontinuity is more noticable for heavy nuclides, and
disappear for hydrogen.
35
Lulu Li
2.9
Convolution of 0K Cross Section
This lecture was given by Prof. Forget on 10/18/12 as part of the Thermalization of Neutron lecture.
So far in our slowing down derivation, we have implicitaly assumed that the target is at rest. In reactor
applications, thermal agitation is always present for the temperature of interest, and it increases as temperature
increases. Thus we need to account for the relative energy between the neutron and the target.
We call VA the atom velocity, Vn the neutron velocity, then the relative velocity is VR = Vn VA . The
convolution of 0K cross section is leads to the convolution integral,
Z
1
x (Vn ) =
d3 va p(VA )|Vn VA |x (|Vn VA |)
(78)
Vn
where p(VA ) is the Maxwellian distribution, and the x (|Vn VA |) is the 0K cross section at the corrected velocity
Vn VA .
Essentially we correct the cross section using an average velocity distribution of the material at temperature
T. The effect on resonance range is,
Resonances broaden as temperature increases.
The higher the temperature, the smoother the resonance would be, the smoother the cross section would be.
Resonances nearer to the thermal region would broaden more than resonances near the fast range.
In the thermal range, the convolution of a constant cross section would increase the thermal cross section as
temperature increases; more specifically, scattering cross section tends to be constant in low temperature, and
becomes 1/v as temperature increases; thus at higher temperatures it is harder to tell absorption cross section (1/v)
and scattering cross section apart.
Prof. Forget introduces SLBW here. The convolution integral will yield the expression in section 2.7.1 with
, definitions of 8.4.3.
term shows up in both absorption and scattering cross section terms and it gives the shape of the cross
section. term only shows up in the scattering cross section and it represents the interference effect. The sum of
and results in the dip before peaking that always shows up in the scattering cross section.
36
Lulu Li
2.10
Thermal Bound Scattering
Adding chemical bound to get bound elastic scattering of H in H2 O molecules. So far weve only talked about free
gas; in the case of tightly bound atoms at very low energy, the vibrations within a molecule due to the chemical
bond come into play:

1
bound = 1 +
free
(79)
Aatom
For bound water molecule for instance,
H
water
= (1 + 1)2 H = 4H
(80)
The dependency on A suggests that the bound elastic scattering matters for light nuclei, and not so much for
heavy nuclei. In the case of hydrogen, the free gas model would still provide the right shape, but the probability
can be off by a factor of 10. In the case of graphite, the free gas model does not provide the right shape. The lower
energy you want to go, the more careful you need to be.
Elastic scattering for bound molecules can be characterized by,
r
b
E0
d2
0
0
(E
E
,
)
=
e 2 S(, )
(81)
d dE 0
4kT
E
where b is the bound scattering cross section for the material, kT is in eV, S(, ) is the symmetric form of the
thermal scattering law, since , depends on temperature, S depends on temperature too.
2
+
exp 4
S(, ) =
4
(82)
where , depends on two terms:

The momentum transfer ,
~2 2
E 0 + E 2 E 0 E cos
=
=
AkT
2M kT
(83)
where A is the ratio of the mass of the scattering atom to the neutron mass.
The energy transfer ,
=
E0 E

=
kT
kT
(84)
Typically thermal bound scattering in LWRs because the change in cross section is not large, absorption cross
sections are high, and water number density is low. Though bound scattering becomes important in scattering
experiment, cold neutrons etc.
Be careful that free carbon cross section is very different from the graphite cross section because the latter has
a crystal lattice structure which affects the phonon distribution tremendously.
FIXME today: p.31 U238 scattering kernel: makes sense: T is the temperature of the medium, and earlier
plots E = blah kT describes the neutron energy.
Free gas model: target at rest? no!!!!! abs & leakage makes sense: they have the same effect.
Flux trap:
Why doesnt CMS uses new ENDF libraries?
37
Lulu Li
2.11
Summary
1. Properties of isotropic elastic scattering/asymptotic downscattering (which we assume for larger than 4 eV).
See Table. 3 for common values.
(a) After each collision, the minimum energy is characterized by:

2
Emin
A1
=
=
E0
A+1
(85)
(b) Mean log energy decrement: A , .

=1+
ln
1
(86)
(c) Number of collisions required to slow a particle from Ei to Ef :

n=
ln(Ei /Ef )
(87)
2. Not near sources or resonance (Duderstadt p.319):

(u)
1
s (u)
(88)
(E)Sf
t (E)
(89)
3. Fast energy range, (E) dominantes flux:

(E) =
4. Resonance energy range:
(a) Assumptions: between resonances a = 0, and s = constant (the compound nuclide scattering cross
section is again zero because no QM between nuclides, potential scattering is constant around 4R2 ).
(b) Collision rate density
F (E) = s (E)(E)
(90)
It is discontinuous for non-hydrogen atoms at E0 which are the minimum energy a neutron can
slow down to in the n-th collision.
(c) Slow down density q(E): # neutrons crossing the boundary. q(E) depends on: neutrons born (if no
absorption, all neutrons born would all cross boundary at some point), and absorption:
Z u
Z u0 +ln(1/)
0
00
eu u
q(E) =
du0 Fc (u0 )
du00
(91)
1
uln(1/)
u
We can reach an general expression for q(E):
dq(E)
= a (E)(E)
dE
(92)
(d) If we further assumes there is no absorption at all, all source S0 eventually slow down to E. F (E)
would eventually reach its asymptotic solution of:
F (E)
S0
E
F (u)
q(u) = S0
(u) =
38
S0
S0
s (u)
(93)
(94)
Lulu Li
Infinite Medium Resonance Basics
In calculating neutron spectra, we have to consider different interactions in different energy groups. Duderstadt
(p.316) has a good table for summary:
Thermalization
[0, 1eV]
Upscattering
Chemical binding
Diffraction
Slowing
Down/Moderation
[1eV, 0.1MeV]
Elastic scattering from stationary
free nuclei (s-wave: isotropic in CM)
No upscattering resonance absorption (resolved resonances)
Fast Fission [0.1MeV, 10MeV]

Elastic scattering
(p-wave: ansiotropic in CM)
No upscattering resonance absorption (unresolved resonances)
Table 6: Interactions At Energy Ranges

In Ch. 2, we end up with a spectrum of a thermal peak and a fast peak and a smooth transition in between. In
this section, we are going to focus on this middle resonance region. We will spend about 7 lectures in discussing
different aspects of modeling neutron spectra.
39
Lulu Li
3.1
Summary: Reuss Ch 2.7 Why Resonances?
1. Explaination of resonances: if the excitation energy acquired by the compound nucleus (which is neutrons
binding energy plus its KE) is located close to one of the levels of the compound nucleus, the reaction
would occur easily and a large cross section would be observed.
Light nuclei: simple structure, few or no resonances;
Heavier nuclei: a dense forest of peaks because of the crowded structure;
Nuclides with an odd number of neutrons (eg, 235U, 239Pu) have more resonances: because they have
higher binding energies, and higher excitation energies.
Resolved region: for low KE hence low excitation energies, the levels are clearly separated.
Unresolved region/statistical region: for high KE hence high excitation energies, the resonances remain but they can no longer be distinguished by measurement.
Continuum domain: for even higher energies, the resonances overlap because of their width.
This is why statistical domain is located around keV range for nuclides with odd number of neutrons, and
around 10 keV for nucleids with even number of neutrons.
2. Analytical resonance cross section model: Breit-Wigner (2.7.1). It is the simpliest approximation of the
R-matrix theorey. Keep in mind: a) wave-particle duality; b) s-wave dominates for thermal and epithermal
neutrons; c) we introduce a statistical factor g based on the momentum J; d) width of resonance: = ~
where is the average lifetime of the compound nucleus (the inverse of its decay constant), and width has
the dimensions of energy; the Breit-Wigner equations describe the partial cross sections for one resonance
assumed to be isolated and characterized by its resonance parameters E0 , j , and the expressions must be
summed for all resonances.
3. Statistical resonance cross section model (2.7.2): n widths fluctuate greatly from one resonance to the
other, but stays about the same. This section also include expressions for the average distance between
resonances, and the Wigner probability distribution.
4. Absorption cross section is 1/v in the thermal domain.(2.7.3) Reason: Breit-Wigner states that absorption
cross section is (i = for radiative capture and f for fission etc):
n i
(E E0 )2 + 2 /4
f , , etc are independent to energy E; n E (for s-wave);

2
i = g
(95)
1
E;
The denominator is approximately equal to the constant E02 assuming that E, are small compared
to E0 .
Thus f , c 1E v1 . Even if several resonances make a contribution, the reasoning remains valid. This
reasoning is not valid if E0 is close to zero.
40
Lulu Li
3.2
Summary: Reuss Ch 8 Resonance Methods
1. Self-shielding (Intro):
(a) Resonance capture xs can be tens of thousands of barns, but self-shielding makes sure that resonant
capture of neutrons remains limited. That is, even with an xs, the probability of falling in the trap
is limited, or even small, if the trap is narrow.
(b) Explaination: kangaroo leaps tell us that the resonant capture probability is just trap width in lethargy
divided by the average lethargy gain acquired by a neutron.
(c) Compared to slowing down by moderator, the resonance of capture by the fuel are always narrow.
(d) Technical term: absorption rate of neutrons remain approximately constant; that is,
1
a .
(e) Self-shielding occurs at resonant energies, and in regions containing resonant material.
2. Derivation of (u) =
C
t (u)
(8.1.1): starting from slowing down equation,

0
z }| {
(u) + S(u) = t (u)(u)
(96)
Before resonance the flux is asymptotic without absorption:

(u)
q(u)
q
=
= Constant
s (u)
s
(97)
Then the arrival density in the resonance is constant as well:

(u) = s (u)(u) =
q
=C
(98)
Plug back into the slowing down equation, we get the flux in the resonance:
(u)
q
C
=
t (u)
t (u)
(99)
3. Derivation of resonance escape probability formula (8.1.2):

Pabs = a (u)(u) du =
a (u) du
t (u)

a du
p = 1 Pabs = 1 a (u)(u) du = exp
t
(100)
(101)
(compare with the derivation we had in class)

4. Fine structure/self-shielding factor captures the detailed resonances, whereas macroscopit flux captures
everything else (8.1.3).
5. Fine structure in homogeneous mixture (8.2):
(a) We define dilution xs as: d =
Nm
Nr m
(8.2.1).
(b) Two models for transforming a heterogeneous situation into a homogeneous one: at very wide resonance (low energy), and at very narrow resonance (high energy).
6. Distinguish between the different cases: truely homogeneous mixture, two-isotope heterogeneous configuration, homogenized heterogeneous configuration, and arrays of rods.
41
Lulu Li
Homogeneous
General
i
h
N0 Ieff
p = exp (
s )m
VC N0 Ieff
p = exp
X(V )
s i
i
Table 7: Resonance Escape Probability Formulas

7. When a particle coming out of fuel is not necessarily interacting with moderator, that is in the case of tight
rods, we use Dancoff factor C, which is the probability for a neutron leaving a fuel element of crossing the
moderator without a collision. (8.3.4).
8. Derivation of resonance escape probability in a heterogeneous situation as in Table 7 (8.3.5).
9. Doppler Effect (8.4):
(a) Origin: we can ignore thermal agitation in treating scattering, because scattering xs is fairly constant,
so a small change in velocity (hence energy) does not change xs much. Whereas in absorption, near
resonance peaks, a small change in velocity (hence energy) would cause a huge difference in absorption xs, hence taking into account thermal agitation of the fuel material would make a difference.
(b) Characteristics 1: as temperatures increase, the resonance widens, and the peak is lowered, but with a
constant resonance integral (area under the curve).
(c) Characteristics 2: although integral is constant, self-shielding says that the widening of the resonances
has a much greater effect than the lowering of the peaks. That is, Doppler effect as a whole leads to
an increase in resonant capture by U238.
(d) RIeff for capture by U238 varies approximately linearly with the square root of dilution xs; it also
varies linearly with the square root of absolute temperature.
42
Lulu Li
3.3
Poor Mans Resonance Models
For our resonance model, we use the Single Level Breit-Wigner(SLBW) and assume:
The only resonance isotope is U238;
All resonances are well isolated;
Only s-wave interaction (scattering & absorption); there are p-waves in the absorption cross sections, but
their widths are so small that they would not affect out RI much.
Reich-Moore parameters can be used in SLBW;
Treat as resolved only the lowest 14 s-wave resonances;
Generate simple statistical model for energies up to 10 keV, assuming an uniform spacing 25 eV2 ;
One place to get resonance data is from LANLs website. For instance, U238 Resonance Parameters. We can find
parameters like, scattering length AP, and the potential scattering cross section is just 4A2p = 11.293 for U238.
Other parameters: GN means N with unit eV, and GG means G in eV. Extract the energy range from 0 to 10
keV (ignore the negative resonance energies).
Model For Resolved Resonance Absorption
r
(E, T ) =
n (E, T ) =
E0 2
A(x, )
E
(102)
2
[A(x, ) + B(x, )] + potential
To convert them into a form suitable for numerical calculation,

r
E0 n
r(x, )
(E, T ) =
E
n n
[r(x, ) + q(x, )] + potential
n (E, T ) =

(103)
(104)
(105)
where
r
2(E E0 )
q = rpotential
A
4kT E0
h2 A + 1
2603911 A + 1
r=
=
2E0 A
E0
A
= n +
=
x=
potential = 4R2
Notice there are many numerical representations of the , functions. For now, we can use,
"

2

#
x+i
x+i
(x, ) = Re exp i
erfc i
2
2
2
"

2

#
x+i
x+i
(x, ) = Im exp i
erfc i
2
2
2
(106)
(107)
(108)
(109)
(110)
They are plotted in Figure 9. Take-away:

2 notice on a typical plot which is log-log, the spacing appears to be closer and closer as energy increases; though it is actually reasonable
to assume that the spacing is uniform
43
Lulu Li
Figure 9: Plots of the Psi, Chi Functions

In principle, resonances at any energy contribute to all energies, even though their contributions can
be infinitesimally.
Because , functions are very temperature dependent, so when we perform a monte carlo simulation it
is important to take into account that different pins are at different temperatures. However currently only
MC21 supports temperature gradients (by pre-generating many many tables using NJOY).
Model For Unresolved Resonance Absorption: We assume 25 eV resonance spacing, and assume
r
= 0.023eV
n = 0.05
E
eV
Elast
(111)
in which Elast means the last resonance energy used in the 14 resonance region. Notice that for the purpose of
this excercise we assume this region to be unresolved, whereas in reality they are resolved.
44
Lulu Li
3.4
Resonance Integrals & Group Cross Sections
We introduce (Infinite) Resonance Integrals as flux weighted (that is, weighted with 1/E spectrum (E)
microscopic cross section:
Z
1
E)
u2
RI =
(u) du
u1
E0
u = ln
= ln(E0 ) ln E
E
1
du = dE
E
Z
1
RI = (E) dE
E
(112)
(113)
(114)
(115)
Notice,
RI is defined directly from cross section data; no flux calculation is required because 1/E spectrum is
assumed;
RI depends on the normalization of the 1/E flux spectrum; it is also implicitly assumed that flux equals 1
when E = 1 through normalization;
RI is independent of energy bounds for isolated resonances;
RI is independent of temperature. This is because if the energy bound is larger enough, then as temperature
increases, the spectrum would broaden, but because the area under the curve remains the same, assume
the cross section is constant, then RI is essentially integrating the spectrum, which would not change upon
temperature change;
RI is useful for inter-comparing libraries or cross section models. It is a classic way to evaluate new
resonance data typically from 0.5 eV to 10 keV. We use RI to check our resonance data, in particularly the
three big resonances at 6.67, 20.9, 36.7, 66 eV. Numerical test of the SLBW RIs shows that the RI comes out
to be within 1% of ENDF/B-VII Reich-Moore data (Lec 6, slide 17, with 0.01 eV as spacing in histogram).
Group cross section is a similar but much more useful quantity. From its definition, we see g does not depend
on the flux normalization:
R E2
(E)(E) dE
(116)
g = E1R E2
(E)
dE
E1
If we make assumptions on the flux spectrum, then we can relate g to RIeff ,
(E)
g =
1
E
R E2
E1
(117)
(E) E1 dE
R E2
E1
1
E
dE
RIeff
RIeff
=
ln(E2 ) ln(E1 )
ln(E2 /E1 )
RIeff = g ln(E2 /E1 )
(119)
Notice3 :
Group cross section by definition depends on both cross section and flux spectrum.
3 Review
(118)
here for exam
45
Lulu Li
Group cross section depends on the flux, but not on the normalization of flux (that is, only the shape matters,
not the magnitude);
Group cross section depend explicitly on energy bounds (widths) of the groups;
Effective RI can be computed from group cross sections and group energy bounds as in Eq. 119; As spectrum approaches 1/E, the effective RI computed from group cross sections will approach infinite RI.
46
Lulu Li
3.5
Dilution Cross Section/Dilution Factor
In an infinite homogeneous medium with one resonance absorber and one moderator, we write removal rates
equals scattering rates (see Reuss 8.2.1 for a similar derivation),
Z u
Nm m (u0 )(u0 )P (u0 u) du0
(120)
[Nr r (u) + Nm m (u)] (u) =
Z u
= Nm m
(u0 )P (u0 u) du0
(121)
= Nm m C
Nm m
(u)
Nr r (u) + Nm m
(u)
(122)
(123)
Nm
Nr m
m
r (u) + N
Nr m
(124)
In the above derivation we made two assumptions:

The moderators xs is independent of energy near resonances. For almost any moderators we can pick, the
assumption that the elastic scattering xs is constant is valid in the thermal range as in Figure 146.
R
(u0 )P (u0 u) du0 is constant. We know that the flux above the resonance is 1/E and hence constant
in lethargy. If we assume scattering into the resonance comes from this constant lethargy region, then the
resonance lethargy is constant as well.
Eq. 124 suggests that in infinite medium the flux shape near resonance depends only on the ratio of the number
density of the moderator to the resonance absorber and the moderator cross section. But once we move into a
finite medium or we take into account leakage, then the absolute number densities are needed.
To capture the ratio of number densities and the moderator cross section, we define dilution cross section as,
d =
Nm m
Nr
(125)
d
r + d
(126)
Then the flux shape near resonance is,

(u)
This flux shapes let us to compute approximated effective RI. Recall RI is defined as, RI =
approximated effective RI is,
Z
d
RIeff = r (u)
du
r + d
r (u) du. Then the
(127)
Two extremes of RIeff and d :

As d , the entire media is moderator, we reach the limit of infinite dilute, RIeff RI; we should get
within 1% of the ENDFVII xs data;
As d 0, analytically our assumptions do not hold true any more, but the MC is true that as RIeff
0, 0 as seen in Figure 12. Interpretation: as we have no moderator, every atom is essentially self-shield
because they are all resonant isotopes, hence infinite flux depression.
The scattering down to resonance is independent of the resonance. In other words, if the spectrum above a
resonance returns to 1/E as in Figure 10, the group cross sections will be independent of higher energy absorptions.
This may be related to what we talk about before, that
47
Lulu Li
Figure 10: The 1/E Spectrum Above A Resonance Suggests Group XS Independent of Higher Energy Absorption
48
Lulu Li
Table 8: Resonance Escape Probability For A Hydrogen System
3.6
Resonance Escape Probability
We define p as the ratio of the therm neutron absorption rate over absorption rate at all energies; it is the fraction
of neutrons absorbed thermally over all neutrons absorbed in the cell; hence it is the probability that a neutron
will escape capture at energies above thermal; finally since most of the non-thermal capture in natural or slightly
enriched uranium lattices is in the resonance part of the slowing down region, it is the resonance escape probability4 .

NR RIeff
RIeff
p = exp
= exp
(128)
m
d
Notice: (1) this expression is only an approximation; (2) p only depends on effective RI and dilution cross section.
For instance, in a hydrogen system with d = 200, we can tabulate the p values as in Table 8. The last entry tells
us that about 20% of neutrons are absorbed in U238 resonances.
Derivation of p expression:
1. Assumptions: only elastic down scatter above the resonance, a,m = 0, s =const, and only a single
resonance absorber.
2. Start from our balance equation (scattering in = resonance absorption),
S
du = [Nr a,r (u) + m ] (u) du = Nr [a,r (u) + d ] (u) du
(u)
S
(u) =
(u)Nr [a,r (u) + d ]
(129)
(130)
Define resonance escape probability as:

p=
=1
Nr a (u)(u) du
S
R
S
Nr a (u) (u)Nr [a,r
(u)+d ] du
Z
=1
S
a,r (u)
du
(u) [a,r (u) + d ]
3. Assume the mean logarithmic energy decrement is independent of lethargy,

Z
1
a,r (u)
p=1
du
a,r (u) + d
4 Henry,
p. 110
49
(131)
(132)
(133)
(134)
Lulu Li
4. Use our definition of effective RI,

u1u2
RIeff
=
u2
u1
a,r (u)d
du
a,r (u) + d
(135)
We can write p in terms of RI:

p12 = 1
RIu1u2
eff
d
(136)
5. Since the source is incrementally reduce with each successive resonance,

u1uN

=
RIu1u2
1 eff
d
!

uN 1uN
RIeff
RIu2u3
eff
1
1
d
d
(137)
We approximate the sequence as,
pu1uN = exp
uN 1
RIueff
u1
(138)
or

RIeff
Nr RIeff
p exp
= exp
d
m
(139)
which for hydrogen system becomes,

RIeff
p exp
d

(140)
The motivation for this derivation is because back in when we had no idea what the cross sections are, as long as
we can measure the flux at a high energy and at a lower energy, we can calculate the resonance escape probability,
and the expression we derived to tell how it depends on dilution cross sections, and thus use the experimental data
for a different set of conditions.
50
Lulu Li
3.7
Doppler Broadening/Temperature Effects On Cross Section
Doppler effect describes the importance of thermal agigation on cross section. Thermal equilibrium means:
All heat source are perfectly balanced and the temperature of the medium is assumed constant.
Atom energy/velocity distribution can be approximated by Maxwell-Boltzman distribution, that is, a probability distribution that expresses velocity distribution as a function of temperature and mass medium. The
higher the temperature, the wider the velocity range is; the lighter the atom is, the wider the velocity range
is. Know the Boltzmann constant.
U238 has a negative Doppler feedback. Reason: as temperature increases, the resonance width increases with
its depth decreases. We care less about the depth, because there is no neutrons present right at the peak anyway.
Doppler Broadening means, as the temperature increases, the width of the spectrum increases, although
the area under the curve stays the same5 . There are two possibilities:
1. Infinite RI (infinite dilution factor, negligible absorber concentration, t M
s ) is independent of temperature becase the area under the psi chi curves are constant. The absorber concentration is too low to perturb
the flux, hence no flux depression and no self-shielding.
2. Effective RI (finite concentration of 238U) is dependent of temperature and the resonant material density
because of the energy self-shielding effect as in Figure 11:
If temperature increases, RIeff would increase, because the broadened resonance increases the energy
range over which abosrption occurs, which outweighs the lowering of the resonance peak. Reason:
Energy self-shielding (the strong absorption of the resonance tends to shield the absorber nucleir from
neutrons with energy E E0 , hence the term flux depression). As temperature increases, the
resonance is broadened by the Doppler effect, the neutron flux depression is decreased, whereas the
area under the cross section curve is essentially constant. Hence the resonance absorption which is
the energy-integrated reaction rate a (E)(E) increases with increasing temperature.
If U/H increases, there are two consequences: one is that the flux is more depressed hence the RIeff
decreases; secondly the higher energies become more important as we would later see in Section 3.9.
The higher the concentration of U238, the larger the Doppler temperature effects become, and
the % change saturates at high temperature.
Why do resonance broaden?
If a neutrons energy equals that of the resonance, it will be absorbed. If it is slightly above or below the
resonance energy, it will scatter off the U-238 nuclei without absorption. As the fuel heats up, the nuclei vibrate
and this changes the relative speed between the neutron and the nuclei. Hence, the neutron is effectively at a
different energy. What are the consequences? Suppose a neutron is initially slightly below the resonance energy.
If the nucleus moves toward the neutron, the relative speed between the two goes up. Hence, that neutron will be
absorbed.
But for every neutron that is now newly absorbed, one that was previously at the resonance energy is now too
high and it only scatters off the nucleus. So, why is there a net increase in absorption? The reason is that scattered
neutron loses only a slight amount of energy (small object bouncing off a large one) and on its next collision,
which will likely be with the fuel again, it will be absorbed. Thus, U- 238 resonances broaden because (1) the
U-238 nuclei vibrate more rapidly on heat up and (2) the fuel is separate from the coolant so that successive
interactions occur in the fuel.
5 References: Reuss Section 8.4; Handbook of Nuclear Engineering Chapter 4 Section 3; Duderstadt p.337-338; Bell p.433 (points out the
area under the cross section curve is constant; hence the absorption rate is proportional to the magnitude of the flux in a sense.)
51
Lulu Li
(a) U/H = 0.001
(b) U/H = 0.1
Figure 11: Impact of Temperature On Effective RI, Doppler Broadening
52
Lulu Li
3.8
Self-Shielding
Self-shielding/flux depression is first observed through:
Spatial
Energy
Observation
if natural uranium was made into a lump
surrounded by moderator, resonance absorption
if U/H , absorption rate per atom (for neutrons slowed down in a water & U mix)
Explaination
U238 in the center of a pin is shielded
from neutrons in the moderator
the magnitude of absorption is proportional
to the width of the resonance;
Table 9: Observation Concerning Self-Shielding

In a sentence, lumped configuration shields the fuel region from neutrons with E E0 , hence decreasing resonance absorption and increasing p. As fuel diameter increases, the RI and therefore the absorption decreases.
For a homogenized medium, the value of p for natural uranium is about 0.70. However, larger values exist
for the heterogeneous case. This is because of a phenomenon called spatial self-shielding. The idea is to keep
the fuel and moderator separate. Neutrons slow down in a stepwise manner. Some collisions will cause neutrons
to jump over the energies that correspond to the U238 resonances. Others will land in resonance energies. What
happens to these neutrons? Suppose a neutron has an energy close to that of a U-238 resonance.
If a neutron scatters off U238 it will lose only a small amount of energy. In this case, the neutron is left near
the resonance energy.
If it scatters off moderator it will lose a lot of its energy. In this case the neutron is removed from that
energy.
What then is the effect of homogeneous or heterogeneous fuel? If the fuel and moderator are separate and
the neutron is in the moderator, chances are it will collide with another moderator atom and be scattered out
of the resonance region. So, heterogeneous arrangements favor resonance escape. In contrast, if the fuel and
moderator are infinitely mixed (homogeneous) or if the fuel rod/moderator volumes repeat on small scales with
dimensions less than a diffusion length, the next collision may again be with fuel and the neutron will be absorbed.
Heterogeneous arrays are sometimes called lumped meaning that the fuel and moderator are separate, widely
spread entities.
Notice both f and p depends on the moderator-to-fuel ratio and there is a trade-off between the two6 .
Energy Self-shielding: in a sentence, the strong absorption of the resonance tends to shield the absorber
nuclei from neutrons with energy E0 , hence creating the flux depression at E0 .
Prof. Forget states energy self-shielding as: when pure scattering, we can assume the thermal flux to be
Maxwellian. But as we increase absorption, the spectrum would harden. Example: compare spectrum of UOX
and MOX. UOX is 4% U235, 96% U238. MOX is 8% Pu (2/3 fissile, 1/3 parasitic absorber), 92% U238. The
reason MOXs thermal spectrum is depressed is,
1/3 of Pu in MOX is parasitic absorbtion, thus decreasing the thermal spectrum.
Pu239s fission cross section is significantly larger than U235s fission cross section, thus depressing the
spectrum.
Pu has huge thermal resonances.
6 It should be noted that if one separates the fuel and moderator (large amounts of moderator between fuel rods), one decreases the thermal
utilization. For f to be large, one seeks to maximize absorption in the fuel and hence minimize spatial self-shielding which could lead to
absorption in the moderator. Thus, there is a tradeoff between f and p. Both depend on the moderator-to-fuel volume ratio. Optimal designs
have both f and p at about 0.9.
53
Lulu Li
Figure 12: Impact of Energy Self-Shielding On Effective RI

Prof. Smith approaches self-shielding using RI values vs. U/H ratio. As we increase the U/H ratio, the RI
decreases in the three big resonance regions, and we see big dips on the spectrum plot. There are so much U238
in the fuel, that there is no flux in the fuel anymore.
As we increase the number of uranium atoms by a factor of 10, the number of absorption per atom is
decreased by a factor of 3. That is, the total aborption still increases, but the absorption per atom decreases.
Figure 12 illustrates that RI are very dependent on the density of resonant materials.
Recap: energy self-shileing means the decrease in absorption per atom (thus the depression of flux). Though
the flux between resonances are trying to remain 1/E.
54
Lulu Li
3.9
Spectral Hardening Shifts Resonant Absorption Rates
As U/H increases, the higher energy ranges become more important, and the peak of the thermal spectrum shifts
to the right. Distribution of group-wise absorption shifts towards the higher energy. 1/v absorption of U238
becomes more significant. Self-shielding reduces the large resonance absorption fractions. See Figure 13.
Figure 13: Impact of Spectral Hardening On RI

As Shultis states(p.286-297),
As the temperature of the core material increases, the thermal neutrons maintain a Maxwellian energy distribution one but shifted increasingly towards higher energies. The thermal spectrum is said to harden. If all the
cross sections in the core had exactly a 1/v dependence, there would be no change in the thermal-neutron interaction rates. However, most heavy nuclides have resonances near the upper end of the thermal energy range and
their cross sections, consequently, are not exactly 1/v in the thermal energy region. For example 239Pu has a large
resonance at about 0.3 eV, and, as the thermal neutrons shift in energy towards this resonance, more neutrons are
absorbed by 239Pu and thus the fission rate increases, thus producing a positive reactivity feedback. By contrast,
hardening the thermal neutron spectrum causes a very slight decrease in absorption by 235U.
This hardening of the thermal neutron spectrum with increasing temperature is taken to an extreme in the
TRIGA class of reactors which use as fuel enriched 235U blended in zirconium hydride. As the fuel temperature
increases, vibrating hydrogen atoms trapped in the zirconium-hydride crystal lattice can transfer some of their
vibratiorial energy (about 0.13 eV) to thermal neutrons, thereby removing them from the thermal energy region
so they are less likely to be absorbed by the fuel. This very rapid negative reactivity feedback effect is the
reason these reactors can be operated in a pulse mode, in which a large positive reactivity is inserted into the core
by rapidly removing a control rod to make the reactor very super prompt critical. However, the ZrH negative
temperature feedback acts within a few ms to stop the runaway chain reaction, which has increased the reactor
power by many thousands of times the initial power, and brings the reactor power back to safe limits.
Impact On Design:
k = pf
55
(141)
Lulu Li
is fast fission.
R
=
F +T
R
T
F
f (E)F dE
(142)
F
f F dE
p is resonance escape probability,
R
M
VF NF RI
VF T F
a F dE + VM T a M dE
R
R
p=
exp
X
F
M
VF T +I a F dE + VM T +I a M dE
(V s )i
R
(143)
eta is
R
= RT
T
F
f F dE
F
a F dE
(144)
f is
f=
VF
R
T
R
V F T F
a f dE
R
F
dE
+
VM T M
a F
a M dE
(145)
Insert image here. Maximum k gives us the optimal design (in terms of moderation). In reality we always
operate at slightly under moderated. With Boron in it, we need to operate at even under moderation, and have to
limit Boron concentration to 2000 ppm. Because now if we lose water, we not only lose moderation, but also lose
absorption, and when Boron concentration is to high, we lose more absorption than moderation, which actually
create a positive coefficient.
**** FIXME ****
As we increase H/U, there is still a finite absorption, but the absorption per atom approaches zero.
56
Lulu Li
Infinite Medium Resonance Cross Section Models
4.1
NJOY Mechanism
Reference paper: Methods for Processing ENDF/B-VII with NJOY by R. E. MacFarlane and A.C. Kahler.
Basic idea: we treat the resolved region and unresolved region separately:
Flux shape in resolved region: numerical solutions to the slowing down equations. For instance, if we
consider an infinite homogeneous mixture of two materials and assume isotopic scattering in CMCS, then
the integral slowing down equation is,
Z
E/1
(E)(E) =
E
s1 (E 0 )
(E 0 ) dE 0 +
(1 1 )E 0
E/2
s2 (E 0 )
(E 0 ) dE 0
(1 2 )E 0
(146)
Flux shape in unresolved region: probability tables and analytic functions. Example:
X Pi (E)xi (E)
i
x (E) = X
i
0 + ti (E)
Pi (E)
0 + ti (E)
(147)
NJOY flow of codes:

1. RECONR: reconstructs pointwise (energy-dependent) xs from ENDF resonance parameters (Reich-Moore)
and interpolation schemes.
2. BROADR: Doppler broadens and thins pointwise cross sections. There is no analytical way to Doppler
broadening.
3. UNRESR: unresolved range, we have probability table that tells you the distribution of resonance spacings
etc. Analytical flux depression.
4. HEATR: energy deficient. We do not really discuss this part.
5. THERMR: deals with S(, ) to treat chemical binding, etc that we skip.
6. GROUPR: important one. NJOY evaluates integral numerically, whereas We mimic this process using
Monte Carlo because MC is easier to set up though is not as accurate.
7. GAMINR: not that important.
We get multigroup cross sections out of NJOY. As illustrated in Fig. 14, the multigroup cross section may differ
by a factor of 10 depends on the resolution you run. Thus we cannot blindly use a set of multigroup cross sections
without evaluating it specifically to a problem. Unless you are using 100,000 energy groups, no matter how good
your spatial representation is, your results is no better than the multigroup cross sections you start out with.
57
Lulu Li
Figure 14: Desired Product of NJOY: Multi-Group Cross Sections
58
Lulu Li
NJOY Flux Spectra Model and Resonance Model We assume a homogeneous system comprised of a
moderator (m) and a resonance material (r) with a fission source. Then we can write the balance equation of
consumption equals fission and scattering source:
[NR tR (E)
NM tM (E)](E)
E/R
= (E) +
NR sR (E 0
E/M
E)(E ) dE +
NM sM (E 0 E)(E 0 ) dE 0
(148)
Further assume scattering is isotropic in CMCS, we write s (E 0 E) =
[NR tR (E)
NM tM (E)](E)
E/R
= (E) +
E
s (E 0 )
(1)E 0 :
sR (E 0 )
(E 0 ) dE 0 +
NR
(1 R )E 0
E/M
NM
E
sM (E 0 )
(E 0 ) dE 0
(1 M )E 0
(149)
Assume the resonance region starts well below the fission neutron emission energy region, (E) 0, and the
moderator scattering xs is independent of energy, that is,sM (E 0 ) sM , (E 0 ) E10 ,
[NR tR (E) + NM tM (E)](E) =
E/R
sM
sR (E 0 )
(E 0 ) dE 0 + NM
0
(1 R )E
1 M
NR
E
E/R
Z
=
E/M
sR (E 0 )
sM
0
0
NR
(E
)
dE
+
N
M
(1 R )E 0
E
1 1
dE 0
E0 E0
(150)
Assume the moderator has no absorption, on the LHS tM (E) sM ,

[NR tR (E) + NM sM ](E) =
E/R
NR
E
Recall the definition of background cross section b =
[tR (E) + b ](E) =
(151)
NR M
,
NR
E/R
sR (E 0 )
M
(E 0 ) dE 0 + NM s
0
(1 R )E
E
b
sR (E 0 )
(E 0 ) dE 0 +
0
(1 R )E
E
(152)
Know this derivation in your sleep!

Only relative number density shows up in final equation.
More specifically, it is b that matters, not moderator species. That is, M and number density ratio are
imbedded in b ; if we pick a b , and have a resonance absorber, then we can resolve the flux. If we switch
the moderator species while keeping b constant, then the spectrum should be blind to the moderators.
NJOY solves the above equation for any arbitrary cross sections of resonance material, so the flux shape
can be arbitrarily complicated, including resonance scattering.
Justification for assuming constant scattering cross section: main scatters are light isotopes, whose resonance energies are very high. Thus in the resonance range main scatters all have a constant scattering
cross section. The only exception might be Na-23, as Na has a large scattering resonances at around 1 keV.
Remember the heavier the isotope, the lower the resonance energies.
59
Lulu Li
4.2
Evaluating Monte Carlo Flux
Eq. 152 provides the analytical resonance model. Alternatively, we can use Monte Carlo to tally flux by tallying
1
at each collision, and tally RI (every time we say RI we mean absorption/capture, not scattering). We tested
t
for H/U = 100, A=1, 12, and 24:
1. MC RI is pretty much independent of moderating/scattering material. In the analytical expression, (E)
depends on . RI is not sensitive to moderating material mass because the resonance width is so narrow.
2. MC RI has small sensitivity to the existance of resonance scatter. Adding in resonance scatter, RIs decrease
slightly.
238
3. A subtle point here is that the little increases in flux generated by resonance scatters. The reason is: po
=
13.9barn, b = 100 20 = 2, 000barn. At certain energies, resonance scattering xs exceeds resonance
capture xs, adding a big extra slowing down source from scattering off U238.
Figure 15: Resonance Scatters Effects
60
Lulu Li
4.3
Narrow Resonance vs. Wide Resonance Model Overview
Reference: Alain Heberts Applied Reactor Physics (p.199-202, Livolant-Jeanpierre approximation), Duderstadts
p.343-347. We only use these models for unresolved energy region nowadays.
Narrow Resonance
Assumptions
Fine structure (u)
Total (E)
Comments
Wide Resonance
R
p E sR = po
=const.
(u) = const.
R
R
po
+ d
po
+ d
R
R
R +
a (u) + po
t (u) + d
d
M
R
s + p
t (E)E
Good for high energy.
E p E
reaction rates
sR (u)(u) = const.
d
d
= R
a (u) + d
tR (u) sR (u) + d
M
s
(t (E) M
s (E))E
R
Ignore po
b/c width.
Table 10: Comparison of Narrow and Wide Resonances

R
As energy increases, E , thus we use NR model for the unresolved resonance energy range.
To start, recall the assumptions we made for slowing down equation in Section ??:
Steady state.
Infinite medium: there is no spacial dependency.
No external source.
S-wave elastic scattering (that is isotropic in COM frame) for light nuclides,
s (E 0 E) =
s (E 0 )
(1 )E 0
for E < E 0 <
(153)
For resonance models, we further consider,

Neutron flux has achieved its asymptotic behavior (E) 1/E before reaching the resonance energy.
The moderator has a constant s and a negligible a (at least over the resonance range):
M
M
M
t (E) s (E) = po
61
(154)
Lulu Li
4.4
Livolant-Jeanpierre Approximation
This is the approach Prof. Forget followed in his lecture on 10/04/12. We manipulate Eq. 155:
1. Recall the slowing down equation for the resonance region of [1eV, 0.1MeV] is,
Z u
0
1
t (u)(u) =
e(uu ) s (u0 )(u0 ) du0
u 1
(155)
2. We facterize (u) = (u)(u), where (u) is the fine structure/self-shielding factor that models the
resonances, (u) is the flux outside the resonance (Hebert calls it macroscopic flux, and it represents the
asymptotic behavior of flux between resonances).
3. For the resonant material (R) and the moderating material (M), we define the slowing down operator using
the zeroth Legendre moment of the differential scattering cross section,
Z
Z
0
0
M
0
0
RR =
du0 R
(u
u)(
)
R
=
du0 M
(156)
s0
s0 (u u)( )
0
4. Then the slowing down equation becomes,

Z u
Z u
0
0
0
0
0
0
e(uu ) M
e(uu ) R
s (u )(u )
s (u )(u )
0
M
du
+
du0
(R
(u)
+
(u))(u)
=
t
t
R
M
1
M
R
u
u
(157)
We do not know what RR is yet besides its definition,
Z u
0
1
0
0
0
0
RR (u) = RR (u)(u) =
e(uu ) R
s (u )(u )(u ) du
R
uR 1
(158)
But for RM , we apply the 1/E flux between resonances and get rid of the (u) term,
RM (u) = M
t (u)
(159)
5. Then we can write (omitting u dependency for simplicity) and cancel out on both sides,
R
R
M
(M
t + t ) = R + t
(M
t
R
t )
=R +
M
t
(160)
(161)
6. If we divide by N R (the resonance nuclide number density), we get

(d + tR ) = rR + d
(162)
Ways to approximate rR (u):

1. Wide resonance assumes that the resonances are so large that we can assume the reaction rate (for the fine
structure) is constant.
R
r (u) =
uR
constant
}|
{
z
1
(uu0 ) R 0
0
e
(u
)(u
) du0 = sR (u)(u)
s
1 R
(163)
Then we arrive at,

W R (u) =
d
d
= R
a (u) + d
tR (u) sR (u) + d
62
(164)
Lulu Li
RIeff
Z
=
R (u)W R (u)
Z
du =
R (u)
d
du = ln
R
a (u) + d
E2
E1
R R (E)
d
1
R (E)+ E dE
a
d
R
d
1
R (E)+ E dE
a
d
(165)
Comments:
WRs sR (u) term on the bottom is the resonant materials scattering cross section including both
the potential scattering (hard sphere collision) and the compound nuclide scattering. That is, NR only
accounts for the potential scattering cross section, whereas WR uses the entire scattering cross section.
WR RIeff only depends on cross sections: d is assumed to be based on material composition of the
reactor, and r (E) are from libraries. There is no need for flux spectrum.
WR ignores U238 scattering, as there is no U238 scattering cross section in Eq. 164. Interpretation:
the resonance width is large compare with the approximately 1% energy lose upon a scattering, thus
we can ignore the U238 scattering. To improve this approximation, sometimes people add the potential
scattering of 11.39 barns.
WR approximations match direct MC results near infinite dilution.
2. Narrow resonance approximations assume resonance is very narrow, and a neutron is going to be out of the
resonance upon one scattering, thus cross section remains the same, thus (E) 1/E, (u) =constant.
Thus we can write,
Z u
0
1
e(uu ) sR (u0 )(u0 ) du0
(166)
rR (u) =
R
1
R
u
R
potential scattering, also
where (u0 ) = 1, sR (u0 ) po
Z u
0
1
e(uu ) du0 = 1
R
u 1
(167)
Thus narrow resonance approximation leads to,

R
rR (u) = po
(168)
That is,
R
po
+ d = (d + tR (u))N R (u)
RIeff =
N R (u) =
R
R
+ d
+ d
po
po
R +
aR + po
tR (u) + d
d
R (u)N R (u) du
(170)
R
pot
+ d
du
R +
R
a (u) + pot
d
R
pot
+d
1
R R (E)
R (E)+ R + E dE
a
E2
d
pot
= ln
R +
R
pot
d
E1
1
dE
R (E)+ R +d E
R (u)
(169)
(171)
(172)
pot
Comments:
NR approximation is good for higher energy. For instance, at 100 keV, scattering lose 1 keV, which is
larger than the 25 eV spacing of 238U. For fast reactor applications for instance narrow resonance is
used a lot.
However, the results on the slides come out to be that narrow resonance approximation is not really any
better than the wide resonance approximation at higher energy, so there must be some other physics
going on, see next section.
63
Lulu Li
4.5
Duderstadts Formalism
I find Duderstadts (p.343-345) approach to NR & WR as a helpful alternative without using the facterization
of the flux. The rest of this section (including IR, comparison with MC, CASMO IR model) comes from Prof.
Smiths 22.212 Lecture 6 on 02/27/2013. Recall Eq. 152, we split the resonants scattering cross section into a
constant potential component and an energy dependent resonance component:
R
R
[aR (E) + res
(E) + pot
+ b ](E) =
E/R
sR (E 0 )
b
(E 0 ) dE 0 +
0
(1 R )E
E
(173)
1. NR: assume the resonance width is small compared to the average energy loss in a collision with the
R
resonant material (since the average energy loss (12 )E0 , one can expect that NR is valid for high
energy):
R
p E =
1 R
E0
2
(174)
Then the resonant scattering integral can be approximated by replacing (E) by its asymptotic form:
Z
E/R
R (E 0 )(E 0 )
dE 0 a
(1 R )E 0
R
p
1 R
E/R
R
dE 0 1
p
=
E0 E0
E
(175)
We plug in Eq. 173,

t (E)(E) =
R
M
s + p
E
N R (E) =
R
M
s + p
t (E)E
(176)
Or with Prof. Smiths notation, using microscopic cross section and background cross section,
(E) =
R
+ b 1
pot
R
t (E) + b E
(177)
Further we can evaluate the effective RI (absorption) using NR model:

Z
E+
RI =
R
aR (E)(E) dE = (pot
+ b )
E+
aR (E)
R
t (E) + b
1
dE
E
(178)
In the limit of infinite background cross sections,

Z
E+
lim RI =
aR (E)
1
dE
E
(179)
2. WR: assume the resonance width is wide compared to the energy loss:
R
E =
1 R
M
E0 p E
2
(180)
WR can be referred to as NR infinite mass absorber (NRIM): resonant material is infinitely massive such
that neutrons suffer no energy loss in a collision with the resonant materials. That is, as AR , R =
(AR 1/AR + 1)2 1, and
Z
E/R
lim
R 1
0
0
0
R
s (E )(E ) dE
R
s (E)(E) lim
R
0
(1 )E
R 1
64
E/R
dE 0
= R
s (E)(E)
1 R
(181)
Lulu Li
Then slowing down equation becomes,

t (E)(E) = R
s (E)(E) +
M
s
E
W R =
M
s
(t (E) M
s (E))E
(182)
Prof. Smith introduces WR model as Narrow Resonance Infinite Mass model, that is, we approximate the
resonance material as having an infinite mass, thus R 1, thus we can evaluate the scattering integral in
Eq. 173:
Z E/R
sR (E 0 )
1
1
0
0
R
(E ) dE = s (E)(E)
dE 0
(183)
lim
(1 R )E 0
E 1 R E
R 1 E

1
1
E
1
1
1
= sR (E)(E)
E = sR (E)(E)
E
E sR (E)(E) (184)
E 1 R
E 1 R
E/R
Then our balance equation becomes,

[aR (E) + b ](E) =
b
E
(E) =
1
b
E aR (E) + b
(185)
WR: intuitively, you cannot get in, and cannot get out, so the two sides cancel out. Once you get in,
you pretty much just get absorbed.
3. IR/Goldstein-Cohen Model: since isotopes are going to be somewhere between the two extremes, we consider a linear combination of N R , W R ,
GC (u) =
g po + d
to (u) (1 g )so (u) + d
(186)
where g depends on isotope and energy band. When g = 1 we get the N R , g = 0 we get the W R .
Alternatively, we can discretize our energy group very finely, then we would not need any resonance models.
4. CASMO Intermediate Resonance Model: assume fixed temperature (900 K), assume fixed background
cross sections (either 30b or 60b),
1 g (M ) =
Ig (T = 900K, b = 60b) Ig (T = 900K, b = 30b, X = 30b)

Ig (T = 900K, b = 60b) Ig (T = 900K, b = 30b)
(187)
where g is the IR parameter, X represents the isotope of atomic mass M , and X is the contribution of
isotope X to the background cross section. The numerator of the above equation corresponds to the effect
of 30 barn of hydrogen to the resonance integral. The denominator correponds to the effect of 30 barn
of isotope X to the resonance integral. Therefore the above g can be interpreted as the effectiveness of
isotope X in terms of neutron slowing down capability relative to hydrogen. Hence g is called the
hydrogen-equivalence parameter. Actual IR model parameters g in CASMO:
Are based on 30 and 60 barn calculations with Monte Carlo.
Are tabulated for each mass of scatter ( dependence).
Are tabulated for each actinide.
Are tabulated for each resonance group (41 groups in CASMO).
g does not depend on temperature nor background cross section.
Compare with MC:
1. WR over-estimate absorption, NR under-estimate absorption, IR is the best, but is energy dependent.
65
Lulu Li
Figure 16: Comparison Of Wide and Narrow Resonance Approximation

2. As in Figure 16, WR agrees pretty well with MC results without U238 potential scattering; NR agrees
alright with the MC results with U238 potential scattering. Notice adding in scattering would change the
low dilution factor results.
3. Compare with MC results using real U238 and U235 xs data, the real results fall between the wide and the
narrow approximations for the high dilution factor; but for the low dilution factor, that is, when there are
lots of resonance material (uranium), the physics gets complicated:
Non 1/E slowing down sources;
Non constant moderator xs;
Resonance scattering alters sources;
We may have multiple resonance in each RI group; that is, each of our RI does not include a single
resonance anymore;
Resonance interference between 235U and 238U; eg: 238Us resonance spacing is 25 eV, whereas 235Us
resonance spacing is 5 eV, that is, for each 238U resonance, there are multiple 235U resonances on top
of it.
4. Helstrand Resonance Integral Measurements (for isolated rod): LWR has a radius of 0.4 to 0.5cm, but
a lattice of pins can be approximated with fatter isolated pins. So CASMO-5 results are about 2% different
from Helstrand RI measurements, which is equivalent to about 1% difference in Doppler coefficients.
66
Lulu Li
4.6
Examples Using Resonance Models
Prof. Forget described how to use resonance model in one group during lecture, and the two group problem
showed up in a homework assignment. To start, recall that
Flux facterization (u) = (u)(u) where is the fine structure function, (u) is the flux outside the
resonance.
Dilution cross section:
X
d =
Nm m
moderator
Nr
(188)
Narrow resonance approximation7 :

N R (u) =
po + d
d + to (u)
(189)
There are two possibilites in using NR approximation to calculate the condensed cross section depends on the
number of resonant isotopes:
1. One resonant isotope. Assume we have H2 O and 235U.
d =
NH H + NO O
NU
(190)
We evaluate using narrow resonance approximation:

N R (u) =
po + d
d + to (u)
Then the flux-weighted resonant material cross section is,

R
U (u)(u) du
R
U,g =
(u) du
2. Multiple resonant isotopes. Assume we have H2 O,
(191)
(192)
235
U, and 238U.
Solution 1 (Livolant-Jeanpierre): The idea is, we have to approximate d now that there are two resonant
isotopes. The reason we emphasize on d is because in production tool we resolve the spectrum/group cross
section for a number of dilution cross sections, and the data provided to the downstream applications would
be a function of the diluion cross sections.
(a) Assume 235U is the only resonant isotope, then we solve an energy independent d by
d =
N238 238 + NH H + NO O
N235
(193)
Then we solve for (u):

N R (u) =
po,235 + d
d + to,235 (u)
(194)
235 (u)(u) du
R
(u) du
(195)
Then calculate the collapsed 235 :

R
235 =
7 the
only energy/lethargy dependent term on the RHS should be to (u).
67
Lulu Li
(b) Assume 238U is the only resonant isotope.

N235 235 + NH H + NO O
N238
d =
(196)
Then we solve for (u):

N R (u) =
po,238 + d
d + to,238 (u)
(197)
238 (u)(u) du
R
(u) du
(198)
Then calculate the collapsed 238 :

R
238 =
Then we feed 238 back into step 1 and repeat the process until 235 , 238 converge, which happen fairly
fast with a simple resonance.
Solution 2 (Dederstadt):
In Eq. 195, (u) shows up in both the top and the bottom of the equation, so if we scale (u) by any
non-energy dependent term as they would just cancel out, the solution would not change. Recall (u) as in
Eq. 194, the top po,r + d is energy-independent, and Nr is energy-independent as well, that is,
N R (u) =
po,r + d
1
1
d + to,r (u)
d + to,r (u)
Nr d + Nr to,r (u)
1
X
Nm m + Nr to,r (u)
moderators
(199)
Then the total flux is fine structure times a 1/E dependency,
1
(E) =
"
E
#
X
(200)
Nm m + Nr to,r (E)
moderators
Then we dont have to compute d anymore. For each resonant isotope, the three steps becomes two steps:
calculating using last steps condensed cross section, and update this steps condensed cross section with
-collapsed cross section.
So effectively narrow resonance suggest,
(E) =
68
1
Et (E)
(201)
Lulu Li
4.7
Procedure for Generating Multigroup Cross Sections
How does a production tool uses resonance parameters?

Normal procedure for generating multi-group xs in a code like NJOY includes:
1. Use code to Doppler broaden cross sections for each resonance isotope for range of temperatures (eg, 300,
600, 900, 2000K);
2. Use code to apply the narrow or wide resonance models for a range of dilution xs (eg, 20000, 2000, 200,
20 barns);
3. Edit RIs or multi-group xs for your desired energy structure;
4. Build tables of xs vs. dilution xs and temperature;
5. For downstream computations, interpolate for the dilution cross section and temperature of each material in
the simulation to obtain accurate multigroup cross sections for that specific applications.
Problem with this approach: cannot take into account resonance interference from multiple isotopes resonances
in the same RI group. There are other assumptions
A better procedure for generating multi-group cross sections includes:
1. Same;
2. Use code to solve real neutron slowing down problem for a range of dilution cross sections (eg, 20000,
2000, 200, 20 barns);
3. Consider including a mix of resonance absorbers to make the spectrum as appropriate to the desired application as possible. For instance we put in U238 as admixed to take into account the first order effect of the
interference between U238 and other resonance materials.
4. Same;
5. Same;
6. Same.
Be careful about the assumptions we made: constant amount of U238. This model does not work well with
reactors with no U238.
For downstream applications that require cross section data, we cannot easily evaluate the pin-wise resonance
fluxes over all energy points to get multi-group xs, so instead we:
1. For each composition, evaluate the material temperature and isotopic densities.
F
2. Pre-build tables of cross section or RIeff as a function of potential cross section pot
and temperature using
NR approximation.
Z u2
F
pot
+ e
RIeff
RIeff =
rF () F
d
g =
(202)
F +
(u)
+
e
u1
pot
r
ln E2
E1
3. Evaluate pin-wise Dancoff factor from pin diameter, lattice pitch, etc.
4. Compute coefficients of rational expressions, e.g., Carviks 2 term:
5A + 6 A2 + 36A + 36
5A + 6 + A2 + 36A + 36
, 2 =
1 =
2(A + 1)
2(A + 1)
69
4A+6
A+1
2 1
A=
1C
C
(203)
Lulu Li
5. Compute the escape cross section for each resonance absorber from pin diameter (be careful e s unit is
b/resonant atom):
e =
e
1
Sf
1
=
=
=
Nr
lNr
4Vf Nr
2rNr
(204)
6. Compute potential xs using Intermediate Range s and isotopic number densities and non-resonant multigroup cross section. FIXME.
7. Interpolate in RI tables and add up terms to get final RIeff and multi-group xs for each resonant nuclide:
Z
u2
r (u)
RIeff =
u1
F
pot
+ 1 e
d + (1 )
F +
F
r (u) + pot
1 e
u2
r (u)
u1
F
pot
+ 2 e
d (205)
F +
F
r (u) + pot
2 e
For real application, it is rarely possible to just use someone elses cross section table; we almost certainly need
to generate xs suitable for our application.
70
Lulu Li
22.211 Class Notes: March 5, 2012
Finite Medium Spatial Self-Shielding: Two Region Approximations
This is probably the most important topic in generating cross section in reactor physics. We want to take into
account both the spatial and energy structure distributions of flux within each resonance when solving the neutron
slowing down problem.
Historically we have learnt early on that we need to lump resonant materials together to get criticality, which
leads to the understanding of spatial self-shielding. More specifically, we want to produce accurate multi-group
cross sections, for which the energy group width is very broad compared to any single resonance. All details
of the spatial and energy structure distribution of flux within each resonance must be treated when solving the
neutron slowing down problem.
1. Assumptions for heterogeneous geometry resonant approximations:
Moderator are purely scattering;
Moderator scattering xs is independent of energy;
The previous two points together leads to that the slowing down energy source in fuel and moderator
is 1/E;
Slowing down source is spatially uniform within each region. This is the case for non-resonant energy;
and we can make this assumption for resonant energies is because there is no much scattering in at
a resonant energy. This is the only additional assumption we are making compare with the previous
section
A single resonance absorber species exists only in the fuel;
Fuel scattering removes neutrons from resonance energy (that is, narrow resonance model);
2. Spatial Reciprocity Theorem. First we introduce the reciprocity condition. The only assumption we make
for this theorem is that the source is flat. This theorem does not depend on geometry.
Given two homogeneous region 1 and 2, the probability of going from point A in 1 to point B in 2 without
colliding is:
e
4R2
where =
x1
1
x2
2
(206)
= x1 1 + x2 2 . The probability of going from A to B and then colliding at B is:

e
2
4R2
The probability of going from A to any point in region 2 and colliding is:
Z
e
2 dV2
4R2
(207)
(208)
The probability of a uniform spatial neutron source in region 1 going to any point in region 2 and colliding
is:
Z
Z
e
dV1
2 dV2
(209)
4R2
First flight probability Pij describes the probability that a neutron born in Vi will make its first collision
in Vj (the average probability per unit volume of a uniform source neutron going from region 1 to 2 and
colliding):
Z
Z
2
e
P12 =
dV1
dV2
(210)
V1
4R2
71
Lulu Li
Likewise,
P21
1
=
V2
Z
dV2
e
dV1
4R2
(211)
Since the two integrals are symmetric (that is, PAB and PBA are essentially the same), we can write,
P12
V1
V2
= P21
2
1
(212)
Hence we reach the reciprocity condition:

P12 1 V1 = P21 2 V2
(213)
This is entirely general in geometry so far (maybe require convex geometry?) as we are just saying that
the attenuation coefficient is the same forward and backward.
3. Two Region Balance Equations. First collision reaction rate balance, where t,f (u) = r,f + pot,f (the
resonance absorption xs plus the potential scattering xs):
fuel region lost neutrons fuel region gain neutrons from slowing down sources
}|
{
z
}|
{
z
Qf Vf Pf f + Qm Vm Pmf
Nf t,f (u)(u)Vf
=
(214)
Because slowing down sources in both fuel and moderator are assumed to arise from the 1/E flux above the
resonance energy, we can write
Qm = Nm s,m (u)
Qf = Nf pot,f (u)
(215)
Plug the slowing down sources back into the reaction rate balance equation, and recall (u) = (u)(u)
where (u) is the fine structure energy shape of the flux for homogeneous mixture, we extand the definition
to define f (u) as the heterogeneous energy shape of flux in fuel,
Nf t,f (u)f (u)Vf = Nf pot,f Vf Pf f + Nm s, mVm Pmf
(216)
Next we use reciprocity relationship,

Pmf Nm m Vm = Pf m Nf f Vf
(217)
and substitute into the balance equation to get,

F
Nf tF (u)f (u)Vf = Nf pot
Vf Pf f + Nf tF Vf Pf m
(218)
Then we replace Pf m = 1 Pf f and get,

F
Nf tF (u)f (u)Vf = Nf pot
Vf Pf f + Nf tF Vf (1 Pf f )
(219)
Divide both sides by the number of neutrons, we get a balance equation in unit of cross section:
F
tF (u)f (u) = pot
Pf f + tF (1 Pf f )
(220)
That is, if we know Pf f , we can solve for the spatially averaged energy shape of the flux in the fuel.
4. Alternative derivation (approached using resonance scattering operators Rf , Rm ) presented by Prof. Forget:
We start by writing two region balance equation:
Vf tf (u)f (u) = Vf Rf f Pf f + Vm Rm m Pmf
72
(221)
Lulu Li
Vm tm (u)m (u) = Vf Rf f Pf m + Vm Rm m Pmm

We facterize m (u) = (u)(u), f (u) = (u)(u).
Z
1
R m m =
es
1 m
(222)
(223)
because moderator has no absorption, we can write sm as tm ; in moderator there is no resonance, so

= 1, and is constant, so we can pull out.
Then fuel region balance equation becomes,
Vf Rf Pf f + Vm tm Pmf = Vf tf
(224)
Write Vm tm Pmf = Vf tf Pf m = Vf tf (1 Pf f ), then our balance equation becomes,

tf
Rf tf 1 Pf f
+
=
Nf
Nf
Pf
Nf P f f
(225)
rf + d = (tf + d )
(226)
That is,
which is the same form as the homogeneous model, except with different definition of d =
73
tf (1Pf f )
.
Pf f
Lulu Li
5.1
Wigners Approximation of Pf f
In this section we compute numerically the fuel-to-fuel first flight collision probability Pf f , hence obtaining an
expression for the heterogeneous energy shape of flux in fuel f (u).
Assumption: size of the fuel is much larger than mean free path (basically Wigner works for a fat pin surrounded by an infintie sea of water). Then we approximate Pf f in terms of the mean chord length l:
Pf f
lNf t,f (u)

=
1 + lNf t,f (u)
1
lNf
t,f (u)
+ t,f (u)
(227)
Recall Cauchys Theorem for any convex body,

4V
S
and define escape cross section (with unit barns/resonance atom),
l=
e =
1
l
(228)
e =
e
Nf
(229)
Pf f simplifies to,
t,f (u)
t,f (u) + e
(230)
pot,f + e
pot,f + e
=
t,f (u) + e
r,f (u) + pot,f + e
(231)
Pf f =
Hence f (u) can be written as,
f (u) =
This is important as it shows that the only energy dependency is from r,f (u).
Heterogeneous/Homogeneous Equivalence suggests that the effects of heterogeneity are equivalent to some
dilution cross section in a homogeneous mixture:
pot,f + d
r,f (u) + pot,f + d
pot,f + e
Heterogeneous energy shape of flux in the fuel f (u) =
r,f (u) + pot,f + e
Homogeneous mixture energy shape of flux (u) =
Nm m
Nr
Sf
e =
4Vf Nr
d =
(232)
(233)
Notice in the homogeneous case, moderator (hydrogen for instance) is dominant. Whereas in the heterogeneous
case, we are dependent on hydrogen at all. The reason is because if we have a pin surrounded by an infinite
sea of moderator, then as soon as neutrons get out, they are not likely to go back, so it does not matter what the
moderator cross section is.
Examples:
1. Calculate corresponding cross sections. Given a PWR with a 0.41 cm radius pellet,
of 4.0 1022 cm3 , enriched to 3%, and fuel density is 10 g/cc.
238
U number density
If the system is homogeneous uranium and hydrogen, then the dilution cross section looks like:
d =
1
Nm m
=
20 barn = 100 barn/resonance atom
Nr
0.2
(234)
If the system is 2 region, and we homogenize the fuel region, then we can calculate the escape cross
section (be careful about the unit!)
e =
Sf
2rh
1
1
1barn
=
=
=
= 55 barn/resonance atom
2
22
3
4Vf Nr
4r hNr
2rNr
(2)(0.41cm)(2.2 10 cm ) 1024 cm2
(235)
74
Lulu Li
and for the potential scattering cross section we just add up that from every isotope,
235
O
bhom = 0.05pot
+ 2pot
= 0.05(11.3) + 2(4.0) = 9 barn
bhet
sF
=
=
bhom + e = 64 barn
R
238
pot
+ bhom = pot
+
(236)
(237)
235
0.05pot
O
2pot
= 11.4 + 0.05(11.3) + 2(4.0) = 20 barn (238)
2. (12 Qual #4) Calculate escape probability. Given a cylinder of radius r = 0.5cm, infinite height, and
= 10cm1 . Assume uniform source inside, calculate the probability of neutrons making first collision
outside the cylinder.
Answer: we calculate chord length l =
4V
S
4r 2 H
2rH
the probability of it making it out should be 9%.
75
= 2r, so PF F =
F
F +
1
l
10
= 91%, then
10 + 1
Lulu Li
5.2
Bell-Wigner Approximation
Bell Factor b can be read off a plot given opacity (average chord times total cross section) and geometry (eg:
homogeneous medium, infinite plate, sphere etc). It is then used to approximate Pf f and hence f (u):
Pf f =
t,f (u)
be + t,f (u)
f (u) = f (u) =
pot,f + be
t,f (u) + be
(239)
Notice at the limit of infinite opacity, Wigners approximation is accurate; whereas at the limit of a transparent
moderator, Wigners approximation alone may lead to a near 100% error.
Another way to approach this is to replace Rf f by RR f + RN f (R is resonant, N is non-resonant), and
replace tf = tR + tN . Then
PRR = Pf f
tR
,
tR + tN
d =
tR (1 PRR )
PRR
(240)
Bell-Wigner approximation becomes, where the first term is the homogeneous term, and the second term is the
heterogeneous term.
d =
N f
b
+
lN0
NN
(241)
Bells refinement does nothing to the infinite opacity case, but could be a factor of 50% or even a factor of 3
difference as opacity approaches zero.
Figure 17: Bells Factor for Various Geometris

[FIXME]: add materials from 2013 fall. We would typically compute a table of PF F as a function of opacity,
and sample from it on the fly.
76
Lulu Li
Collision probability only gives us the average behavior in space and in energy. For instance, in CASMO
when we run a 2D case we only have 8 energy groups.
[FIXME] Lecture 9, p.6. An error in PF F leads to a bigger error in flux. Group flux is not very sensitive
on the resonances (because the width of the resonances are small), so we need accurate group cross sections to
capture the resonance behavior.
77
Lulu Li
5.3
Arrays of Rods, Dancoff Factor
Notice our model so far is an isolated pin (that is, a fuel pin surrounded by an almost infinite moderator). Now
we are going to discuss arrays of rods. The major difference is that not all neutrons leaving a fuel pin would have
their next interaction in the moderator.
We hence define the Dancoff Factor C:
C =1
Pf f |isolated rods
Pf f |arrays of rods
(242)
In Fig. 18, the x-axis is the radius of the rods (in units of the mean free path of the moderators), and the curve also
depends on the lattice size/radius of the rods (know that in a uniform square lattice, the lattice size is the pitch).
Notice if the moderator is opaque, the Dancoff factor becomes zero; if transparent, the Danoff factor trends
Figure 18: Dancoff Factor

to 1.0. LWRs typically have a C of 0.3.
Pf f =
t,f (u)
(1C)b
(1C)+Cb e + t,f (u)
C changes the coefficient in front of the escape cross section from e

is reduced by 0.7 to 0.8.
d =
(243)
(1C)b
1C+Cb e .
For a typical PWR pin, that
D
f N
+
lN0
NN
(244)
(1C)b
+
where b = (1C)+Cb
is the b factor for a single pin cell.
+ where b
Example: Find Dancoff Factor. Given water at 1 g/cc with a number density of 6.6 1024 H atoms/cc,
hydrogen xs of 20 barns, a PWR pin with 0.41 cm radius, a lattice pitch of 1.26cm.
We first find the mean free path:

mf p =
1
1
1
=
=
= 0.76cm
24
N
0.066 10 20 1024
(245)
0.41cm
= 0.54, the other parameter is the lattice
Then we find the parameter one, pellet radius over mfp = 0.76cm
1.26cm
size over pellet radius 0.41cm = 3.07. Using these two parameters, we can read off the plot that C = 0.3.
For a Bell factor of about 1.1, the escape xs is reduced by,
(1 C)b
= 0.774
(1 C) + Cb
78
(246)
Lulu Li
Remember 60 barns as the approximate average cross section for PWRs. See slide 22 of Lecture 8.
From 22.212 HW7, Dancoff factor typically assumes the fuel to be a black absorber (with source placed on
the surface), because ultimately we care about the scattering from moderator to fuel. Production tools typically
generate tables of Dancoff factors as a function of energy, fuel cross section (sub-group methods: as a function of
the band of cross sections, that is, the width of resonance cross section energy) etc.
79
Lulu Li
5.4
Carlviks Refinements of the Bells Collision Probability

Pf f
t,f
(1 )t,f
+
1 + e + t,f
2 e + t,f
(247)
where
5A + 6 A2 + 36A + 36
1 =
,
2(A + 1)
5A + 6 + A2 + 36A + 36
2 =
2(A + 1)
4A+6
A+1
2 1
A=
1C
C
(248)
Carlviks two-term approximation is what is actually used in production tools nowaday. To use it, we essentially
look up the resonance integral (or group xs) twice, once with e multiplied by 1 and the second time with e
multiplied by 2 , each of them are simple functions of the Dancoff factor:
Z
u2
RIeff =
u1
pot,f + 1 e
r (u)
du + (1 )
r,f (u) + pot,f + 1 e
u2
r (u)
u1
pot,f + 2 e
du (249)
r,f (u) + pot,f + 2 e
To double check,
C 1, 1 0, 1, e.g., there is no escape from fuel.
C 0, 1 2, 2 3, 2, e.g., isolated rod.
For intermediate values of C, each coefficient is a monotonic function.
The beauty of this method is that the formula stays the same, we just have pre-tabulated table of the first and
second terms depend on background xs. So given a background xs, we just need to table look-up the two terms
and add them up.
Recap: moderator volume, cross section, density do matter when we come to arrys of rods through Dancoff factor.
80
Lulu Li
5.5
Two-Region Pin Cell Code and Observations
This section was covered in Lec10 of 22.211 (Spring 2012) and Lec 7 of 22.212 (Spring 2013).
Figure 19: Algorithm for a Simple Pin Cell Code with Collision Probabilities
1. With no oxygen or zirconium: flux dips in moderator are mild because there is only elastic scattering. See
Fig. 20.
2. Adding in Zr: Zr has massive elastic scattering resonances, hence creating fluctuations in both spectrums
most noticable in energies right above the resonance energies. The reactivity change is small (positive 560
pcm). See Fig. 21.
3. Adding in O: the fast flux looks distorded in both fuel and moderator, this is because the oxygen xs has
weird dips in high energy xs. The reactivity change is not large (negative 680 pcm). See Fig. 22.
4. Removing hydrogen absorption: the spectrum shape does not change much, but the reactivity change is
huge (8808 pcm), because there are so much hydrogen, and that hydrogen xs is 1/v down to 100 keV. This
is why LWR fuel has to be enriched. See Fig. 23.
5. Remove U238 fission: reduce reactivity by 2% (negative -1910 pcm). Spectrum shape does not change.
See Fig. 24.
6. PWR enrichment worth 4.5% k per %.
7. Doppler reactivity example: PWR Doppler worth = -2.7 pcm/K. It is important to generate the Dopplar
coefficient when preparing cross section data.
8. Boron reactivity: Borons capture cross section is almost entirely (n, ) cross section which produces He.
Boron worth: 16 pcm/ppm.
Looking at the flux in the moderator divided by the flux in the fuel, we see that:
Above resonance energies: fuel flux is depressed because absorption is high compared with fission;
In resonance energies: larger than 1 because of fuel spectrums dips for the resonances; especially at the
interval containing 6.7 eV;
Below resonance energies: the ratio is around 1, till we hit the really low energy (less than 0.1 eV), that
there is a 1/E tail that the fuel flux gets depressed.
81
Lulu Li
Figure 20: Pin Cell Code Results
82
Lulu Li
83
Lulu Li
5.6
Making An Equivalent Pin
This is covered in Lec 16 of 22.212. To use the equivalent model for a non-PWR pin cell geometry, we can
construct an equivalent pin model that has the following characteristics:
Fuel pin material;
Bond: He gap, Na bond;
Clad;
Coolant;
Other in-assembly moderators;
Structural can;
Moderator structure/tank.
In real life, there is no unique model exists in 1D; real analysis is done in 2D or 3D now.
84
Lulu Li
Intro to 2D Transport: Three Methods for Solving Pin Cell Problems
This section was given 03/11/2013 and 03/13/2013 in 22.212. The purpose of this section is to generate PF F , and
from there compute energy shape of flux and/or Bell factor. Basic steps:
1. Compute PF F . For instance, for 1D infinite slab, PF F = 1 Pescape .
2. From PF F compute spatially averaged energy shape:
fF () = PF F
F
pot
+ PF M
F
t
fM () = PM M + PF M
F
pot VF
M V M
(250)
Sensitivity: a 0.03 average error in PF F would lead to 3% over-prediction in U-238 capture; consider that
Figure 25: Purpose of Reactor Design Tools

U-238 capture makes up 20% LWR capture, we are looking at an keff error of: -20000 pcm times 0.03
which is -600pcm.
3. We can also compute Bells factor/Bell function as a function of fuel pin opacity:

OF ()
1
PF F =
b(O) = OF ()
1
b + OF ()
PFtrue
F
(251)
Before we start, notice there are multiple conventions about defining coordinate systems as illustrated in Fig. 26.
We choose to use Fig. 27.
85
Lulu Li
Figure 26: Different Ways to Define Coordinate Systems
Figure 27: Our Choice of Coordinate Systems and Area of Unit Surface
86
Lulu Li
6.1
Infinite Slab Transport by Methods of Chords
Reference Bell & Glasstone Section 2.8. Method of chords is kind of like MOC over a volume.
Basic Concept: Method of chords takes a tube that goes through the origin, and consider where the tube contact
the surface of the slab, and define the polar angle as , the azimuthal angle as , and the normal vector to the slab
surface to be n
as in Fig. 28.
Assumptions:
An uniform and isotropic source of S neutrons/scm2 .
A convex region containing material with constant total cross section.
Figure 28: Setup of Infinite Slab Problem using Methods of Chords

1. The probability that a neutron will escape from the region without a collision is:
Probability of escape = es( ~r , )
(252)
in volume dV is,
2. The probability that a neutron is generated in d about
Probability of generation =
d dV
4 V
(253)
3. The escape probability for neutrons born in volume V is the integral of the product of the two probabilities
derived above over all directions and volume:
Z Z
1
es( ~r , ) d dV
(254)
Pesc =
4V
87
Lulu Li
, with a typical
4. By graphical illlustration, we can express volume as parallel tubes to a fixed direction
n
tube of length R and a cross sectional area
dA:
) dA dR
dV = ( n
(255)
Alternatively we can also consider the volume: regardless of the orientation, we can generalize that the
n
projection of a curve surface dA onto the direction axis of the tube is
dA

2R
n

dA = 2R dA
(256)
V =
n
Notice the orientation of the tubes determined how many of them there are to represent the geometry as
illustrated in the left three plots of Fig. 29.
Figure 29: Tube Presentation in Methods of Chords

5. If we plug Eq. 255 int Eq. 254 and integrate over the path s, we get
ZZ
1
(1 eRs ) d dA
Pesc =
n
4V
n
>0
(257)
A
(a) In the limit of large geometries (e.g., Rs mfp 1 ), eRs 0, Pesc 4V
which equals to the
fraction of neutrons generated within a quarter of a mfp of the surface. It is as if all neutrons born
within a quarter mfp of the surface escape.
(b) In the limit of small bodies, Pesc 1.

(c) Putting the above two limits together, Wigner proposed a rational approximation:
Pesc
88
1
1+
4V
A
(258)
Lulu Li
6. From Eq. 257, Prof. Smith further applies V = 2R dA,

Pesc
1
=
42R dA
=
=
=
1
4(2R)
1
4(2R)
8
4(2R)
2R
nhat
ZZ
0
4
(1 eRs ) d dA
n
(259)
(1 e2R/( n ) ) d
n
(260)
0
1
d
1
Z 1
0
Z /2
d
0
(1 e2R/( n ) )
d n
(261)
(1 e2R/( n ) )
d n
(262)
expression by defining:
Next we simplify the n
2R
x =
1 2 cos
y =
p
1 2 sin
z =
Then we consider n
to be perpendicular to the planar surface, that is, n
= (1, 0, 0), then
p
p
1 2 sin
n
=
=
1 2 sin
(263)
(264)
Plug back into Eq. 262 and

Pesc =
1
R)
/2
d
0
2
1 2 sin (1 e2R/( 1 sin ) )
(265)
(a) Analytical solution: see Bell & Glasstone 2.112-2.117 for details,

1
1
Pesc =
E3 (2R)
2R 2
(266)
(b) Numerically integrate, we replace each integral with a summation with a weight:
Pesc =
X X p
2
1 2m sin (1 e2R/( 1m sin n ) )
R
m
where =
2
nm ,
Pesc =
2
n .
2R
If we let m,n = p
, then
1 2m sin n
X X p
1 2m sin (1 em,n )
R
m
(267)
PF F = 1 Pesc
(268)
7. Pesc implies escape without collision. If we further assume that the media is purely absorbing, that is, once
a neutron leaves the fuel it would never returns, then we can write Pesc = PF M .
8. Note: in polar angle, instead of uniformally pick , we uniformally pick = cos . We just sample u/#
polar angles. In the azimuthal angle, we sample 2/# azimuthal angles.
Results: the more polar angles and azimuthal angles we have, the better agreement we have with the Bell factor
curve. 20 polar angles and 20 azimuthal angles seem to be sufficient for this simple infinite slab problem.
89
Lulu Li
6.2
Infinite Slab Transport by Direct 3D Volume Integration
Basic Concept: we use the finite volume approach, and basically get the same integral. More specifically, we split
up the width of the slab into equal spaced intervals by
F
R
;
12
Looping through x [0.1], [0, 1], compute

Loop through all [0, /2] and set =
X
F
2
Accumulate PF F =
e R / 1 .
1x
sin
for sin > 0, or =
1x
sin
for sin 0.
Figure 30: Setup of Direct 3D Volume Integration

Results: with 100 spatial mesh, 10 polar angles, 20 azimuthal angles we get good agreement. Notice the sensitivity on the number of spatial mesh: it takes 60 spatial meshes to get a close agreement. That is, the advantage of
method of chords is that by doing math we remove dependency on large number of spatial meshes.
Figure 31: Sensitivities of Direct 3D Volume Integration
90
Lulu Li
6.3
Infinite Slab Transport by Monte Carlo
We pick random x, , . The rest of the expressions are the same as the previous method, and we finally arrive at
PF F = 1 e .
Figure 32: Setup of Direct 3D Monte Carlo Integration

Results: 100k neutrons per material generate wavy curve; having 1,000,000 neutrons generate smooth curve.
91
Lulu Li
Figure 33: Sensitivities of Direct 3D Monte Carlo Integration
92
Lulu Li
6.4
Infinite Cylindrical Transport by Direct Numerical Volume Integration
Moving to cylindrical geometry, we now have four variables and need 4 integrals: x, y, , . Sensitivities: more
sensitive to the azimuthal angle in cylindrical geometry; more
Figure 34: Cylindrical Numerical Integral in 3D

For each pin, loop over all isotopes, interpolate the tables for two terms, and then multiply the corresponding
or 1 that only depends on Dancoff Factors. The pre-computed table stores RI as a function of background
cross section, isotope type, energy.
93
Lulu Li
Figure 35: Sensitivities in Cylindrical Numerical Integral in 3D
94
Lulu Li
6.5
Infinite Cylindrical Transport by Monte Carlo
Figure 36: Cylindrical Monte Carlo Integral in 3D
95
Lulu Li
6.6
Infinite Cylinder in Squre Cell Transport by Monte Carlo
This is a simple pin cell code that treats energy dependency from Monte Carlo slowing down, and treats spatial
dependency from resolving collision probabilities. Again the results generated from this model are averaged
values.
Figure 37: Monte Carlo Pin Cell Algorithm

Problem Description (HW5 from Spring 2013 22.212):
1. Spatial treatment: an one-group flux calculation (one-group volume-averaged fluxes in fuel and coolant),
that is, we fix the fuel absorption xs, fuel has no scattering, and fix coolant abs xs (adjust it for different
cases). The reason is that we assume the separability of fluxs dependency on energy and its dependency on
space.
2. Energy fine structure and a piece of the geometry treatment: Dancoff factor. We can tabulate Dancoff
factors and PF F as a function of coolant cross sections.
3. For this model, we do not have any IR (intermediate range) s and no isotropic number densities.
4. Tracklength sampling: let f (x) be the probability of starting at 0 and collide in dx about x,
Z x
f (x) = et x dx
F (x) =
f (x0 ) dx0 = 1 et x
(269)
Then to sample a random tracklength,

x=
ln
t
(270)
Notice the limits work out too: ln(0) = , ln(1) = 0.

5. Tracklength tally: tallies estimators can be incremented as each track is generated. Every neutron that ever
crosses any region would contribute to the statistics, which makes it better than analog collision type.
6. Three assumptions went into this history-based statistics: central limit theorem, law of large numbers,
independency. In a fixed source problem, neutrons are independent from each other, so history-based
statistics are fine.
96
Lulu Li
7. History-based variance estimators cannot be incremented and squared until this history ends:
!
1 X 2
2
s =
x x2
(271)
N 1 i i
History-based standard deviation of means:
r
=
s2
N 1
(272)
x=
1 X
xi
N i
(273)
where sample mean is calculated from,
8. Unit cell boundary conditions:
Figure 38: Pin Cell Code Boundary Conditions

(a) Multiple cell typically uses natural BC as illustrated in green in Fig. 38.
(b) Reflective: illustrated in blue in Fig. 38.
(c) Opposite face periodic BC: illustrated in yellow in Fig. 38. This BC is good for repeating geometries,
especially checker-board repeating geometries the ABCD pattern in the left plot of Fig. 39. For more
specific geometries, full core periodic BC and quarter core mirrow BC are equivalent.
(d) Right-hand rotational BC: all 1st cycle PWR are octance symmetric, then we shuffle fuels, and place
the depleted fuel assemblies on the axis.
Our core is not diagonally symmetric, and 1/4 core rotational symmetry introduces lots of flexibility (e.g., allows us to balance reactivity along major axes instead of placing two fresh fuels
next to each other).
97
Lulu Li
Notice 1/4 mirros is not possible any more; instead we simulate 7 cells (as surrounded by the dark
red lines in Fig. 39), where these 7 cells can be arbitrary.
The advantage of keeping full nodes (instead of modeling the geometry marked by CLon the
graph, that is, keeping 1/2 node on the axis and 1/4 on the corner) is to preserve the truncation
error and thus get the same results regardless of whether we are solving quadrature, quarter or
full core.
Figure 39: Pin Cell Code Boundary Conditions: Opposite Face Periodic and Rotational
9. k is the number of absorption should equal to the total number of neutrons; in our case, we are losing a
small portion of neutrons to the cutoff energy; we can cheat by pushing those neutrons back up.
10. We almost always tally reaction rate or flux. Then at the end of the tallying, k and effective cross sections
can be calculated from:
X
X
xg g
f
xg = X
k = X
(274)
a
g
11. Flux disadvantage factor: (flux of the fuel times fuel volume) / (flux of the moderator times moderator
volume).
12. For debugging purpose, test the following limits: compute single rod PF F for F large and small; computed
single rod and rod array PF F for thick pitch limit; compute rod array Dancoff factor for thick pitch limit,
M = 0, .
Results: our Monte Carlo tools predict LWR parameters reasonable accurately,
1. k has a bias of about -700pcm relative to CASMO-5;
2. Reactivity (differential) effects are very accurate:
Enrichment worth is within a couple of percent;
Doppler worth is within a couple of percent;
Boron worth is within about 5 percent;
3. We should be able to use this tool to generate accurate differential reactivity effects and cross section data
for simple thermal reactor lattices;
98
Lulu Li
4. Remaining errors are likely due to,

Missing thermal bound scattering models;
Missing inelastic scattering;
Missing unresolved resonance models;
Simplified 2-region treatment, isotropic scattering;
Pf f from rational approximation, simple Dancoff factor.
5. Notes on flux depression factors:
Flux depression factor in fuel does not depend on collision rates in moderator m Vm , and it does
not depend on the lattice pitch. This is from the approximation that there is an uniform source in the
moderator.
Flux depression factor in moderator depends on collision rates in the moderator and on the pitch.
Reference: 3.6 of Albert. LWR macroscopic down scattering xs is 0.22. It is insensitive to enrichment. The
advantage of micro is that you can interpolate on enrichment with accuracy.
99
Lulu Li
6.7
Special Topic: Ray Tracing using Quadratic Surfaces
1. Constructive Solid Geometry(CSG): this is a common methodology used to describe 2D and 3D geometries.
2D CSG models represent primitive surfaces: planes, circles, etc. Primitives divide the universe into halfspaces. For instance, a circle divides a universe into what is inside and what is outside. Then we use union,
intersection, addition, subtraction to build complex objects.
2. Quadratic surfaces: a general quadratic surface in 2D for Cartesian coordinates is,
ax2 + by 2 + f xy + px + qy + d = 0
(275)
Some basic planes in 2D include:

x-plane: x x0 = 0 px + d = 0.
y-plane: y y0 = 0 qy + d = 0.
Arbitrary plane (plane): px + qy + d = 0.
Circle: (x x0 )2 + (y y0 )2 + (z z0 )2 R2 = 0 x2 + y 2 2x0 x 2y0 y + (x20 + y02 R2 ) = 0.
3. Ray tracing: ray tracing tracks a vector across geometry. There are three primary computations:
(a) Determine which cell the point (x, y) resides in.
(b) Determine the distance to the nearest surface.
(c) Determine the intersection point on the nearest surface.
100
Lulu Li
Exam 1 Review: Spectral Calculation
7.1
Basics
1. Know 1.0 kT correspond to 0.0253 eV. Know u = ln
Eref
.
E
NA
2. Know number density N =
, where NA is avogados number, take 0.6022, is density in g/cc, M
M
is atomic mass (unitless). (2012 Final #21) If paraffin (C25 H52 ) is used as the moderator and coolant for a
new district-heating reactor, what is the macroscopic elastic scattering cross section of paraffine at 10.0 eV
and a density of 0.8 gm/cc?
Answer: First we calculate the molecular number density,
Nmolecule =
0.8 0.6022
NA
=
= 0.00137 1024 1/cm3
M
352
(276)
Then we know the number density for Carbon atoms are NC = 25Nmolecule , NH = 52Nmolecule . C =
4.7 b, H = 20 b, then
= C NC + H NH = 25 0.00137 4.7 + 52 0.00137 20 = 1.584 cm1
(277)
3. In an elastic scattering
=
Emin
=
E0
2
A1
A+1
<1
(278)
4. Mean log energy decrement. Know maximum is 1 for hydrogen. A , .

=1+
ln
1
5. Number of collisions to slow neutrons from Ei Ef : n =

6. Moderating power =
s
a ,
(279)
ln(Ei /Ef )
.
a measurement of the slowing down ability.
7. Flux disadvantage factor (HW4) =
M
, and thermal group has > 1, fast group has < 1.
F
8. Spectrum summary:
(a) E < 1 eV (thermal range): a hardened Maxwellian distribution (hardened because the temperature equilibrium has not been perfectly achieved) plus a 1/E correction at higher energies, (E) =
n)
.
M (E, Tn ) + (E/kT
E
(b) 1eV < E < 50 keV (slowing-down domain): (E)
(c) E > 0.5 MeV: (E) =
1
(E)t (E)E .
(E)
t (E) .
9. Spectrum peaks:
(a) A hump in high energy. Reason: fission spectrum, degraded due to scattering;
(b) A slight decrease in the epithermal region. Reason: resonant capture losses, esp. U238;
(c) A hump in low energy. Reason: Maxwell distribution of the thermal agitation but a little harder
because the temperature equilibrium has not been perfectly achieved.
101
Lulu Li
7.2
Elastic Scattering Cross Section
1. Elastic Scattering
(a) Asymptotic elastic scattering for high energy (above 4eV): assume isotropic scattering in COM. Generate 1/E spectrum; asymptotic flux value is as (u) = Ss (u) according to Reuss (7.2.3).
(b) Thermal elastic scattering (below 4eV): use elastic scattering for monatomic (Maxwellian) free gas;
may up-scatter.
2. Lab system: is uniformly distributed, front favored.
Ef
1
= [1 + + (1 ) cos ]
Ei
2
(280)
3. CMCS: cos is uniformly distributed, that is, elastic scattering is isotropic in CMCS.
P (Ei Ef ) =
1
(1 )Ei
Ef [Ei , Ei ]
s (Ei Ef ) = s (Ei )P (Ei Ef )
(281)
(282)
This concept was tested multiple times:

12 Qual #1c: whats the probability of neutrons slowing down from 1 MeV to 100 keV from elastically
scattering off Hydrogen?
Answer: recall hydrogen has a flat distribution, so P = 100keV
1MeV = 10%.
12 Exam 1 #11: whats the probability that a neutron scattering off a hydrogen atom at 10 eV will
have its next collision within the energy interval of Absorbiums E0 = 6.67 eV resonance?
Answer: Absorbiums resonance is from 6.17eV to 7.17eV. Thats asking starting from 10eV whats
the chance of falling in between 6.17eV and 7.17eV. Answer is 10%.
12 Exam 1 #12: whats the probability that a neutron scattering off a hydrogen atom at 200 eV will
have its next collision within the energy interval of Absorbiums E0 = 57.3 eV resonance?
1eV
Answer: the exact same thing as the last problem, we get P = 200eV
= 0.0005.
102
Lulu Li
7.3
Slowing Down Equation to Solve For Spectrum
1. Slowing down equation (omitting the E dependency):

Z
t =
s (E 0 E)(E 0 ) + (E)Sf
(283)
2. Fast range: sl-d equation simplifies to,

(E)Sf
t
(284)
q(E) = # neutrons cross energy E per time per volume
(285)
t = Sf
(E) =
3. Intermediate range: we define a slowing down density/current,
sl-d equation simplifies to,

dq(E)
= a (E)(E)
dE
(286)
For regions that we can assume a = 0 (e.g., between resonances),

q(E) = constant,
(E) =
q(E)
s (E)E
(287)
4. Thermal range: assume thermal equilibrium, pure scattering xs, infinite medium, we get a Maxwellian
spectrum. See next section for more details.
103
Lulu Li
7.4
Doppler Effect on Cross Sections
We only discuss thermal range for now. Resonance range is reserved for next time.
1. Basic: Maxwellian spectrum + stationary target + free target. We get s depends on A, E, T . Using free
gas model, now upscattering is possible. This is where we implemented those erf() functions and get plots
like,

1
E = 1 kT
E = 4 kT
E = 25 kT
E = 100 kT
E = 200 kT
E = 500 kT
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
E = 1 kT
E = 4 kT
E = 25 kT
E = 100 kT
E = 200 kT
E = 500 kT
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4.5
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4.5
12 Exam 1 # 8: we are given a pdf symmetric about E 0 /E = 1. Whats the probability that a 0.0253 eV
neutron would be scattered to a higher energy in a collision with this thermal gas at 293K?
Answer: 0.5, because of the symmetry.
12 Exam 1 # 9: the cdf of this kernel predicts a probability of 0.0333 for a 0.025 eV neutron to be scattered
to energies greater than 0.05 eV in a material at 300K. If one uses the same curve to model the gas at 1200K,
what would be the probability that 0.10 eV neutrons would be scattered above 0.20 eV in the same gas at
1200K?
Answer: 0.0333. The ratio is all it matters.
12 Exam 1 # 10: draw and label the scattering kernel that you would predict for kT = 20.
Answer: the plot is probability vs. Eout /Ein , and it should be a box.
2. Add target motion/Doppler temperature effects: 12 Exam 1 #4,5: If the neutron cross section is independent
of energy at a temperature of 0K, what energy shape do you expect for the neutron xs at 1200K? Why?
Answer: 1/v shape, thermal motion/vibration.

2
A+1
3. Add chemical bond. bound =
free . Know the S(, ) term.
A
104
Lulu Li
7.5
Resonances and Doppler
1. SLBW Model for cross sections: the SLBW scattering cross section is,
s (x) =
2
(r(x) + q(x)) + p
(288)
where
x=
2(E E0 )
1
1 + x2
2x
1 + x2
(289)
Spring 2012 Exam 1 #6: given r, q, , T , at what energy does the scattering cross section peak?
Solve for
ds
dx
= 0 for x, then plug into the definition for x for E.
Alternatively, in this problem r q, dominate the scattering cross section, and maximize at
x = 1, hence x = 1.
2. Doppler effects
(a) Psi/chi functions
(b) Finite dilution: U/H , RIeff because of energy self-shielding: as U/H increases, more and more
self-shielding, the flux is more depressed, result in smaller RIeff . A second consequence is that the
higher energy range becomes more important. See Section 3.9.
(c) Temperature effects: T , RIeff becasue the broadened resonance increases the energy range over
which abosprtion occurs. There is less flux depression, whereas the area under the cross section is
about the same, result in an increase in the RIeff .
Spring 2012 Exam 1 #16: What is the value of the 300K infinite dilute RI for absorbium integrated
from 0 to 20 keV? (we calculated in the previous problem the RI for 0K.)
Answer: the infinite dilute RI is independent of temperature because in Doppler broadening the
area under the resonance is constant.
105
Lulu Li
7.6
Homogeneous Resonance Self-sheilding
1. Infinite media: In infinite medium, the flux shape near resonance depends only on the ratio of the number
density of the moderator to the resonance absorber and the moderator cross section. The absolute numbers
are not needed until we move into a finite medium and start to worry about leakage.
2. Know how to calculate group cross sections. 2012 Spring Exam 1, #14: what is the value of the Absorbium
infinite dilute microscopic absorption cross section (in barns) integrated from 100 eV to 20 keV? Answer:
R E2
hi =
E1
(E)(E) dE
R E2
E1
R E2
=
(E) E1 dE
RI
=
R E2 1
2
dE
ln E
E1 E
E1
E1
(E) dE
(290)
Infinite dilute implies that here is no neutrons being absorbed by the resonances. Recall that in HW2 when
our U/H is small, the flux is not perturbed by U238 resonances at all, suggesting that the resonance escape
probability is one.
3. Dilution factors/dilution cross section/background cross section, where r is resonance material, m is modNm m
.
erator, d =
Nr
4. Resonance Integral
(a) Calculation, 2012 Spring Exam 1, #13,#15, notice is given independent of E for simplicity,
Z
u2
RIeff =
E2
(u) du =
u1
(E)
E1
1
dE = ln
E
E2
E1

(291)
where is the resonance xs, not including potential xs. If there are multiple resonances, sum them up
with flux-weighting.
(b) RI represents the average absorption xs characterizing the resonance, averaged over the flux within
the resonance. It conserves the reaction rate/collision density.
(c) Relating to g , d :

RIeff = g ln
E2
E1
RIeff u1u2 =
u2
u1
aR (u)
d
R
a (u) +
du
(292)
(d) Narrow resonance RIeff approximation: assume any scattering with the resonant material scatters
neutrons below the resonance energy. Spring 2012 Exam 1 #18, assuming 1/E spectrum, homogeneous mixture of a scattering material and a resonance absorpting material.

Z E2
1
pr + d
E2
pr + d
dE = r
ln
(293)
RIN R =
r (E)
(E)
+
E1
r
pr
d
r
pr
d
E1
(e) Wide resonance RIeff approximation: assume scattering with the resonance material leaves the neutron within the resonance energy and they will be absorbed. Spring 2012 Exam 1 #19.

Z E2
d
1
d
E2
RIW R =
r (E)
dE = r
ln
(294)
(E)
+
E1
r
d
r
d
E1
106
Lulu Li
7.7
Heterogeneous Self-Shielding
1. Homogeneous/heterogeneous equivalence:
Homogeneous mixture energy shape of flux (u) =
pot,f + d
r,f (u) + pot,f + d
d =
Nm m
Nr
Heterogeneous energy shape of flux in the fuel f (u) =
pot,f + e
r,f (u) + pot,f + e
e =
Sf
4Vf Nr
2. Escape probabilities p: only depends on effective RI and dilution xs:

RIeff
Nr RIeff
p exp
= exp
d
m
Escape cross section e : e =
1
lNf
S
4V Nf
(295)
Spring 2012 Exam 1 #17: what is the resonance escape probability for infinitely dilute material 1 in 1
gm/cc material 2?
Answer: Material 1 is infinitely dilute, so we assume the flux is shaped entirely by material 2 and hence is
not affected by the resonances. p = 1.
3. 2-region reciprocity relation: P12 1 V1 = P21 2 V2 .
4. Collision probability: the most basic form is,
Pf f =
t,f (u)
e + t,f (u)
(296)
5. Bells refinement of the Wigners rational models, where b depends on geometry and material (opacity) as
plotted in Fig. 17.
Pf f =
t,f (u)
be + t,f (u)
(297)
and with Dancoff correction factor,

Pf f =
t,f (u)
(1C)b
(1C)+Cb e + t,f (u)
(298)
1
where escape cross section is calculated for a cylinder to be e = 2r
. Upon getting Pf f , we find Pf m =
1 Pf f , then use reciprocity to find Pmf . See Spring 2012 Exam 1: #20.
6. Dancoff factors: ratio of probability of next collision happens in a different rod over probability of next
collision in any rod. See Fig. 18 for plot.
If the moderator is opaque, the Dancoff factor becomes zero; if transparent, the Danoff factor trends
to 1.0.
r , C .
P/D C .
Spring 2012 Final #22 Using Bells approximation, estimate the ratio of escape cross section of an isolated
0.5 cm radius rod to the fuel escape cross section in a uniform hexagonal lattice with a Dancoff factor of
0.6?
107
Lulu Li
(1 C)b
. We are already given the Dancoff factor
(1 C) + Cb
C = 0.6. Recall the plot of Bells factor for various geometries, we approximate b as 1.1 (as in the examples
in lectures), then
Answer: Essentially we are asked to approximate
e
(1C)b
(1C)+Cb e
(1 C) + Cb
0.4 + 0.6b
=
= 2.4
(1 C)b
0.4b
(299)
7. Solving for spatially averaged energy shape of flux in the fuel8 from the first collision rate balance equation.
We construct a first collision rate balance equation (next collision for neutrons in fuel from slowing down
source and uncollided flux):
Nf t,f f Vf = Qf Vf Pf f + Qm Vm Pmf
(300)
where Q is the slowing down source, and it is assumed to arise from the 1/E constant lethargy flux above
the resonance energy,
Qm = Nm s,m
Qf = Nf pot,f
(301)
Substuiting and dividing by , we get an expression of the fine structure energy shape of flux ff = f /,
Nf t,f ff Vf = Nf pot,f Vf Pf f + Nm s,m Vm Pmf
Using reciprocity relation and plug in Pf f =
fuel:
t.f
t,f +e ,
ff (u) =
(302)
we get the heterogeneous energy shape of flux in the
pot,f + e
r,f (u) + pot,f + e
(303)
Comparing with the narrow resonance expression for the homogeneous mixtures energy shape of flux, we
notice the only difference the two e are replaced by d .
8 not
on the official review sheet
108
Lulu Li
7.8
Other Concepts
1. Monte Carlo
(a) Physical process: see Table 11
(b) Collision estimators: Spring 2012 Exam 1 #22: U238 absorption rate per atom, absorption rate is,
respectively,
X 238
a
N 238
X 238
a
(304)
(c) Simple statistics: need enough to provide resolution, but not too many that each bin does not get
enough particles.
2. Pin-cell code:
(a) Flux disadvantage factors:
M
F
(b) Fine structure effects.

(c) Scattering kernel: for larger than 4eV, asymptotic down scattering. For less than 4eV, thermal scattering, approximaetd by elastic scattering for Monatomic/Maxwellian free gas.
(d) Data:
Source from fission spectrum: chi, Maxwell spectrum.

sH : read in.
aH : 1/v absorber.
sU : resonance scattering cross section using , .
3. 1/v absorption cross section:

Wave-particle duality suggests that slow neutrons see a larger portion of space than fast neutrons,
which means that slow neutrons often have larger cross sections, which leads to the 1/v rule for
absorption (Reuss, 2.4.1).
Reason: Breit-Wigner states that absorption cross section is (i = for radiative capture and f for
fission etc):
n i
(E E0 )2 + 2 /4
f , , etc are independent to energy E; n E (for s-wave);

2
i = g
(305)
E1 ;
The denominator is approximately equal to the constant E02 assuming that E, are small compared to E0 .
Thus f , c 1E v1 . Even if several resonances make a contribution, the reasoning remains valid.
This reasoning is not valid if E0 is close to zero.
Henry (p. 202) has a derivation for why a (Er )
1
vr ,
but it is using Breit-Wigner for resonance xs.
Spring 2012 Exam 1: if the neutron cross section is independent of energy (flat) at a temperature of 0K,
what energy shape would you expect for the neutron cross section at 1200K? why?
(E) 1/v.
Phenomenon: neutron energy is on the same order as the thermal vibration of the interaction material.
109
Lulu Li
4. 1/E fluxes: true except when resonant absorber is present (recall we keep using 1/E for spectrum above the
resonance).
It is characteristic of the scalar flux in the slowing down energy range, as long as there is no upscattering and no fission source.
It arises basically from the kinematics of the scattering interaction (asymptotic elastic scattering, more
specifically). However it gets distorted by the energy behavior of the scattering cross sections and by
neutron-absorption processes (Henry, p. 90).
Stacy (p.103) derives from slowing-down equation that, with Hydorgen as the only moderator, and
2

:
very heavy nuclei with j = A1
A+1
Z
0
H
s (E )
t (E)(E) =
E
0
H
s (E )
a (E) +
H
s
X 1
dE 0
+
j (E)(E)
0
E
j s
(307)
j6=H
(E) =
(306)
j6=H
X Z E/j j (E 0 )(E 0 )
dE 0
s
+
dE 0
0 (1 )
E0
E
j
E
H
s
(E 0 )
dE 0
E0
(308)
#
" Z
E1
(a (E1 ) + H
a (E 0 ) dE 0
s )E1 (E1 )
(E) =
exp
0
(a (E) + H
(a (E 0 ) + H
E
s )E
s )E
suggesting that the neutron energy distribution varies with energy as (E)
(309)
1
.
(a (E)+H
s )E
5. Maxwellian shapes.
Fission emission spectrum: peak occurs at 1.7 MeV, average occurs at 2 MeV.
Thermal flux spectrum: for an infintie source-free medium with small absorption cross section (as
long as a (E) is small compare to s (E)), the thermal spectrum is Maxwellian. The higher energy
portion of the thermal region is approximately 1/E with slowing down source and absorption present
(Henry, p.98). Stacy (p. 109) provides a more detailed reasoning for why neutron energy distribution
in the thermal range can be approximately by Maxwellian distribution: the neutron balance equation
in the thermal energy range is,
Z Eth
t (E)(E) =
s (E 0 E)(E 0 ) dE 0 + S(E)
(310)
0
For the thermal range, we assume no absorption a (E) and no slowing-down source S(E), and we
extend the upper limit on the integral to infinity under the assumption that the scattering to energies
greater than Eth is zero; then the neutron flux balance is,
Z
s (E)(E) =
s (E 0 E)(E 0 ) dE 0
(311)
0
It can be shown that a Maxwellian distribution satisfies the above equation. However, absorption,
leakage and a slowing-down source would distort the actual spectrum from a Maxwellian. Since
most absorption xs vary as 1/v, absorption preferentially removes lower-energy neutrons, effectively
shifting the spectrum to higher energies than a Maxwellian at the moderator temperature T.
6. Group cross sections: the contribution of the resonance to a flux-weighted multigroup cross section for
reaction type :
R Eg1
(E)(E) dE
E
g
= gR Eg1
(312)
(E) dE
Eg
110
Lulu Li
Assume
1
E,
RIi
RIeff
ig
g =
=
E
ln(E2 /E1 )
ln Eg1
g
111
(313)
Lulu Li
Slowing Down in Hydrogen From 2 MeV

1e+07
1e+06
100000
0.01
100
10000
1e+06
1e+08
asymptotic elastic scattering in hydrogen with source neutrons from 2 MeV
1e+08
replace source neutrons with neutron emission spectrum
1e+08
add in real H elastic scattering xs (to divide the flux counter by)
1e+07
add in thermalization in hydrogen (< 4 eV, thermal scattering)
1e+07
add in 1/v H absorber (effective only in the thermal range)
1e+07
add in U238 resonance absorption cross section
Slowing Down in Hydrogen From Neutron Emission Spectrum

1e+07
1e+06
100000
10000
1000
100
0.01
100
10000
1e+06

Slowing Down in Hydrogen, Neutron Emission Spectrum, W/ Real H Elastic Scattering XS
1e+06
100000
10000
1000
0.01
100
10000
1e+06
Slowing Down and Thermalization in Hydrogen (no H absorption yet)

1e+07
1e+06
100000
10000
1000
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1e+06

Slowing Down and Thermalization in H w/ 1/v absorber
1e+06
100000
10000
1000
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1e+06
Flux vs Lethargy, U/H = 1

1e+07
5 million particles, 10,000 bins
1e+06
100000
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1e+06
Table 11: Physics and Their Corresponding Spectra in MC code
112
Lulu Li
Intro to Diffusion Theory
8.1
Why We Need Deterministic Codes
Monte Carlo produces accurate results (as demonstrated by our very simplified tool), but it requires too much
computer power:
Using our tool as an example, it takes about 14,000 CPU for one calculation of a full core (70,000 pins, 50
pcm).
BETTIS/KAPLs MC21: one state-point, no feedback, 1 billion tallies, about 200 billion active neutron
histories, for 1% 95/95 pin-power uncertainty, we are looking at 100 hours on 1000 ciores.
Hence we turn to deterministic codes, like diffusion theory. Common neutronics applications includes:
1. 2D Lattice transport/depletion calculation: approximate boundary conditions;
2. 3D simulation using few group diffusion models:
(a) 3D Pin Approach: solve unique pins or lattice in detail; treat each pin as homogenized; solve 3D
homogenized pin few-group diffusion problem.
(b) 3D Noval Approach: solve unique lattice in detail; treat each assembly as homogenized; solve 3D
homogenized-asssembly few-group diffusion problem.
The only difference between 3D pin approach and 3D noval approach is to treat a pin as a node vs. to
treat an assembly as a node. For BWRs, thats about 2-3% difference in power; for PWRs, thats only 1%
difference in power.
113
Lulu Li
8.2
k-infinity Formalism
The general definition of k is9 ,

k
R
R
dV f dE
total fissions
R
=
= R
= f p
total absorptions
dV a dE
(314)
1. k from One-Group Cross Section. We start by writing down the One-Group Balance Equation,
f
a = 0
k
(315)
Rearranging, we get
k =
f
f
=
a
a
(316)
Observations:
k is simply the ratio of total neutron production to destruction rate;
k does not depend on flux magnitude, normalization, etc;
k depends only on integrated cross sections;
Cross sections for down stream codes which treat pin-cells as homogenized will preserve exactly our
MC fuel reactivity for infinite repeating lattices.
Notice k assumes no leakage; keff would add an leakage term,
keff =
f
DB 2 + a
(317)
2. k from Two-Group Cross Section. Again we start with the neutron balance equations (assume all neutrons
born in fast group):
f1
f2
1 a1 1 s12 1 +
2 + s21 2 = 0
k
k
(318)
s12 1 s21 2 a2 2 = 0
(319)
(a) General case: we express the above expression in matrix form,

"
#

f1
f2
1
a1
s12
s21
k
k
=0
2
s12
s21 a2
(320)
We set determinant to be zero and solve for k .

(b) We define effective down-scattering cross section,
s12 = s12 s21 2
(321)
we define effective removal cross section as,

rg = tg sgg = ag +
G
X
g 0 =1,g 0 6=g
9 Reference:
Henry p. 104, Lec10
114
sgg0
(322)
Lulu Li
Then the matrix form becomes,

"
f1
k
s12
a1
s12
f2
k
#
a2
1
2

=0
(323)
The second row implies that,

s12
2
=
1
a2
(324)
f1
s12 + f 2 s12 = 0
a1
k
k a2
(325)
Plug into the first row, we get,
k =
f1 + f2
s12
a2
s12
a1 +
(326)
Notice that,
Know how to derive the above expression;
Two-Group k depends only on the intergrated cross sections;
s12 , my understanding
Although it looks like a chicken-to-egg problem that we include 21 in
is that we either know flux and needs to find cross section, or the other way around, hence we do
not need to worry about this term.
s12 is effectively s12 .
If no upscattering,
3. k from Balance Equation. For two region problem, we can also solve k from the neutron balance equation. We can reduce down scattering cross section from balance equation (instead of from group-to-froup
tallies),
s12 =
f1
k
a1
f2
k a2
The k from the three methods above should agree, because reaction rates conserves.
115
(327)
Lulu Li
8.3
Derivation Of Diffusion Theory From Transport Theory
The goal of diffusion theory is to eliminate angular dependancy by integrating over all angles
R
4
d.
1. Start from the steady state continuous energy transport equation:

Z
Z
~ (~r , E,
~ ) + t (~r , E)(~r , E,
~)=
~0
~ )(~r , E 0 ,
~ 0)
dE 0
d0 s (~r , E 0 E,
Z
(E)
~)
dE 0 f (E 0 )(~r 0 , E 0 ) + S(~r , E,
(328)
4
~ 0 can jump to E,
~ ; the distriNotice the scattering term is discontinuous, that is, a neutron at E 0 ,
bution Zis a delta function not a smooth continuous distribution. Notice in the fission term on the RHS
(E)
dE 0 f (E 0 )(~r 0 , E 0 ), is the scalar flux as we can see the angular dependency is gone al4
ready, and the 4 there is to balance in an equation of .
~0
~ ) s (~r , E 0 E, 0 ) where 0 =
~0
2. We treat the scattering kernel: s (~r , E 0 E,
~ because scattering only depends on the angle between
~ ,
~ 0 . We know for isotropic scattering, the
scattering term becomes,

Z
Z
Z
Z
s0 (~r , E 0 E)
~ 0 ) d0 =
dE 0
d
(~r 0 , E 0 ,
dEs (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 ) (329)
4
0
More generally, we would expand s (0 ) using Legendre polynomials, then the first term is the isotropic
scattering P0 (0 ) = 1. The next term is P1 (0 ) = 0 . Expand scattering source/flux in spherical harmonics, integrate over angle d,
1

}|
zZ
~ (~r , E,
~ ) +t (~r , E)
d
z
Z
2

}|
~)
d(~r , E,
z
l Z
L X
XX
i
l=0 k=l
3

}|
~)
dYlk (
{ Z
dE 0 s (~r , E 0 E)lk (~r , E 0 )
4

5

z
}|
{ Z
z
}|
{
Z
(E)
0
0
0
0
~)
+
dE f (E )(~r , E ) +
dS(~r , E,
4
4
(330)
The scattering kernel is nasty, because a) s depends on energy, hence we have to integrate over all energy;
b) s depends on angle, hence we have to integrate over all angle; c) s depends on isotope, hence we have
to integrate over all isotopes.
3. Simplify the angular integrals, assuming that the source is isotropic
Z

Z
~ ) =
~ = J(~
~ r , E)
1 =

d (
d
4
(331)
2 = (~r , E)

Z
~ )Ylk (
~ ) = 4l0 k0 , 400 =
3 = 4
d Y 00 (

Z4
4 = (E)

dE 0 f (E 0 )(~r , E 0 )
(332)
5 = S0 (~r , E)

(335)
116
(333)
(334)
Lulu Li
Z
~ (~r , E,
~ ), and scalar flux (~r , E) =
where weve defined the scalar current J(~r , E) =
d
Z
~ ). We drop the 4 on the bottom of term
4 because now every term is in scalar flux.
d(~r , E,
4. We obtain the continuity equation:
J~ ( ~
r , E) + t ( ~
r , E)( ~
r , E) =
XZ
i
E0
r , E E)( ~
r , E ) + (E)
dE s ( ~
dE f (E )( ~
r , E ) + S0 ( ~
r , E)
(336)
This balance equation is basically equalling the source and the sink. Notice this equation is exact so far.
The problem is this is one quation with two unknowns , J. Thus we need to approximate J.
Basically going from transport to diffusion theory we drop the dependency. Thus we define the scalar flux
(~r , E) and the net current J~ (~r , E):
Z
Z
~ ) = (~r , E)
~ (~r , E,
~ ) = J~ (~r , E)
d(~r , E,
d
(337)
4
The only reason we brought up the transport theory is that we need to set the boundary condition right.
117
Lulu Li
8.4
P1 Approximation, Net Current Equation
Start from the continuity equation, we can expand the scalar flux using Legendre polynomials:
~)=
(~r , E,
L
X
2l + 1
l=0
Z
where l=0 = scalar flux =
~)
l (~r , E)Pl (
~ ), l=1 = J(~r , E) =
d(~r , E,
(338)
~ (~r , E,
~ ).
d
The P1 angular expansion would be,

h
i
~ J~ (~r , E)
~ ) 1 (~r , E) + 3
(~r , E,
4
(339)
1. We start from transport equation again, multiple by and integrate over all angles:
5

}|
zZ
~
~ (~r , E,
~ ) +t (~r , E)
d
6

}|
zZ
{
~
~
d (~r , E, )
(340)
L
XX
i
l
X
7

}|
z
{ Z
Z
0
i
0
0
~ Ylk (
~)
d
dE s1 (~r , E E)lk (~r , E ) +
zZ
~ S(~r , E,
~)
d
l=0 k=l
8

}|
(341)
2. Substitute the P1 angular flux expansion,
h
i
~ ) = 1 (~r , E) + 3
~ J~ (~r , E)
(~r , E,
4
(342)
and recall four identities,

Z
~ =0
d
(343)
~
~
~ =0
d
(344)
d = 4,
4
Z
4
~
~ A
~ = 4 A,
~
d
3
We can simplify the angular integral terms:

Z
Z
1
~
~ + 3
~
~ (
~ J~ ) = 1
5 =

d
d
4 4
4 4
3
6 = J~ (~r , E)

7 lk = J~

~1 (~r , E)
8 =S

(345)
(346)
(347)
(348)
3. We obtain the net current equation (source includes fission):

X
1
(~r , E) + t (~r , E) J~ (~r , E) =
3
i
Z
E0
~1 (~r , E)
dE 0 is1 (~r , E 0 E) J~ (~r , E 0 ) + S
118
(349)
Lulu Li
8.5
Scattering and Diffusion Coefficients
We treat the scattering kernel: keeping the 1st angular moment of scattering, thus all the isotropic terms drop out
(fission, source), and we are left with the linear terms:
Z
dE 0 s1 (~r , E 0 E)J(~r , E 0 )
(350)
We make the in-scattering approximation (may not be a good approximation!) that basically assume at low
absorption, the in-scattering (E 0 E) is equivalent to/would balance with the out-scattering (E E 0 ), notice
we can pull out the J term now as well,
Z
Z
(351)
dE 0 s1 (~r , E E 0 )J(~r , E) = J(~r , E)
dE 0 s1 (~r , E E 0 ) = J(~r , E)0 s0 (~r , E)
Then our net current equation becomes
1
(~r , E) + t (~r , E) J~ (~r , E) = J(~r , E)0 s0 (~r , E)
3
(352)
which would yield

J(~r , E) =
1
(~r , E)
3 [t (~r , E) 0 s0 (~r , E)]
{z
}
|
(353)
tr
1
, then the flux is just J = D.
3tr
Alternative approach: start from the net current equation, assume the source is isotropic, then the source term
goes away:
XZ
1
~
(~r , E) + t (~r , E) J (~r , E) =
dE 0 is1 (~r , E 0 E) J~ (~r , E 0 )
(354)
3
0
E
i
In Ficks laws land, we define D =
Next we can either assume scattering to be isotropic in the Lab system, or isotropic in the Center of Mass
system.
1. Assume the scattering is isotropic in the Lab system, then the scattering kernel goes away:
1
(~r , E) + t (~r , E) J~ (~r , E) = 0
3
(355)
That is,
J~ (~r , E) = D(~r , E)(~r , E)
D(~r , E) =
1
3t (~r , E)
(356)
1
This is the first way to calculate diffusion coefficient, that is, D = 3
. Notice the assumption of isotropic
t
scattering in Lab system is not very good in a typical PWR because hydrogen scattering dominates, and
hydrogen scatters isotropically in the COM system, not in the lab system.
2. We can also start from the transport correction P0 approximation:

D(~r , E) =
1
3tr (~r , E)
tr (~r , E) = t (~r , E) s1 (~r , E)
119
(357)
(358)
Lulu Li
The transport cross section in the transport-corrected Po approximation for isotope i is,
i
s1
(E E 0 ) = 2
ds si (E E 0 , s )P1 (s )
(359)
ds si (E E 0 )(s s (E, E 0 ))s
(360)
= s (E 0 , E)si (E E 0 )
Z
i
s1 (E) =
dE 0 s (E, E 0 )si (E E 0 )
(361)
(362)
E0
i
= (E)si (E)
i
tr
(E)
=
=
ti (E)
ti (E)
(363)
i
s1
(E)
i
(E)si (E)
(364)
(365)
Under the assumption of isotropic scattering in COM, the mean value of cosine theta over the interval 1, 1
2
, hence,
is zero; the mean value of the cosine psi over the interval 1, 1 is 3A
i
tr
(E) = ti (E)
2 i
(E)
3Ai s
(366)
How do we collapse D?
(a) Assuming isotropic scattering in lab system, we can calculate the flux-weighted total cross section,
X
t
1
D=
(367)
,
t = X
3t
(b) Flux-weighted transport cross section:

X
1
D=
,
3tr
tr =
tr
X
(368)
The problem with this method is that flux collapse under-predict transport.
(c) Most accurate: flux-weighted diffusion coefficient,
1
3tr
X
X
Dg ==
(369)
(d) Curent weighted:

R Eg1
Dg =
D(E)(E) dE
R Eg1
(E) dE
Eg
Eg
(370)
More advanced methods include the out-scatter and in-scatter transport-corrected cross sections:
1. Out-scatter transport-corrected cross section for group g is just total cross section minus the total P1 scattering rate from group g to all other group g 0 divided by P1 flux in group g:
120
Lulu Li
G
X
g
g
trout
= tot
gg g
s1
g 0 =1
G
X
g
= tot
gg
s1
(371)
g 0 =1
However this method over-predicts leakage in hydrogenous systems.

2. In-scatter transport-corrected cross section:
G
X
g
g
trout
= tot
g g g
s1
g 0 =1
(372)
This method requires knowledge of an approximate P1 flux (leakage) spectrum. C5 uses this method by
solving the Pn equations for a uniform fission spectrum source in a homogeneous slab of water of infinite
thickness.
121
Lulu Li
8.6
Boundary Conditions
Again, recall that the only reason we brought up transport theory in this course is to set the boundary condition
straight. See Section 13.4 for using these BCs in finite difference approximation.
1. Zero flux BC:
(0) = 0
2. Vacuum BC, zero incoming flux, zero incoming current:

~ )
(~r , E,
~ <0
~
n
(373)
=0
(374)
Integrating over all angles in half space, that is incoming partial current is zero,
J (~r i , E) = 0
(375)
There are two formulism to solve this:

Kords formulism: using J (xs ) =
J (~r , E) =
R0
1
||(x, ) d, using P1 approximation,
1
1
(~r , E) Jn (~r , E) = 0,
4
2
J
1
=
(376)
The more conventional approach is to approximate with extropolation boundary condition:

1
D
+ n
4
2
2
1
3tr
1
2
where dextrap =
=
=
=
= tr = 2D
2D
2
dextrap
3tr
3
J =
(377)
(378)
where D is the property of the material inside, and tr is transport mean free path. Notice that the
exact coefficient in dextrap may be different. Take into account that thermal neutron mean free path is
on the order of 1cm, so dextrap is even less than 1 cm, which means that we dont really care about it
for LWR cores.
Note: in diffusion theory, we approximate the flux as linearly dependent on D, thus in diffusion land we
can define an extropolated distrance at which the flux goes to zero. In reality the flux does not actually
get to zero, as it would just exponentially decay outside the core and approaches zero (and argulably never
reaches exactly zero).
3. Reflective BC: net current at surface is equal to 0.
4. Albedo boundary condition is the measurement of how much flux is reflected back:
=
J (~r i , E)
J + (~r i , E)
122
(379)
Lulu Li
Figure 40: Boundary Conditions and Interface Conditions
8.7
Interface Conditions/Continuity Conditions
There are two conditions that cannot change instanteneously across the boundary. Though the gradient of flux can
change instanteneously if the diffusion coefficients change.
1. Continuity of angular flux:
~
~
(~r
r+
i , E, ) = (~
i , E, )
(380)
In diffusion theory, the above is written as Continuity of scalar flux, from integrating angular flux over all
angles d,
(~r
r+
i , E) = (~
i , E)
(381)
2. Continuity of normal component of current from multiplying by omega and integrating over angle,
Z
Z
~
~
~ (~r +
~
~n (~r i , E, ) d =
~n
i , E, ) d
4
J(~r
r+
i , E) = J(~
i , E)
~n
(382)
D(~r
i
, E)(~r
i , E)
(~r i , E)
(~r +
i , E)
123
=
=
~n D(~r +
r+
i , E)(~
i
D(~r i , E)
D(~r +
i , E)
(383)
, E)
(384)
(385)
Lulu Li
8.8
Summary
Diffusion equation assumes only linear component of angular dependency (that is, isotropy). So anytime there
is any distortion on the angular phase (e.g., strong absorber, vacuum boundry condition),
Diffusion theory breaks down: [FIXME]
1. Near interfaces. Example: MOX and UO2 fuel boundary. MOX has a stronger thermal absorption cross
section (thus the thermal spectrum is more depressed by a factor of 4), the neutron experiences a big change
at the interface.
2. Near strong absorbers. Example: control rods.
124
Lulu Li
9
9.1
One-Group Diffusion: Non-Multiplying Medium with No Source

1D Non-Multiplying Medium With No Source
d2 (x)
2 =0
dx2
L
(386)
Assume that flux is in the form of (x) = C exp(kx), substitute into the differential equation, and it turns out
k = L1 . Thus
x
(x) = C1 e L + C2 e L
(387)
We apply BCs: (0) = 0 , () = finite. Thus

x
(x) = 0 e L
125
(388)
Lulu Li
9.2
Plane Source in Infinite Non-Multiplying Medium
Consider an infinite non-multiplying medium with a plane source. We define the coordinate system to start at the
source (thus the source is at x = 0 now), and solve the symmetric problem to avoid having to solve for a general
and a particular solution.
Since the geometry is symmetric, we can solve for x > 0 first.
(x) = Aex/L + Bex/L
(389)
BCs:
lim (x) = 0, (x) = Bex/L ;
x
lim J(r) =
x0
d
S0
. Equate that with J = D
= BDex/L , we get B =
2
dx
(x) =
S0 L x/L
e
2D
S0 L
2D .
(390)
For the total geometry, we can simply place an absolute sign on x:

S0 L |x|/L
e
2D
(391)
S0 L |xb|/L
e
2D
(392)
(x) =
If the source is placed at x = b, the solution becomes,
(x) =
126
Lulu Li
9.3
Plane Source in Finite Non-Multiplying Medium
Consider a finite system from a to a with vacuum BCs.

The balance equation is,
d2 a
S0
(x) =
2
dx
D
D
(393)
We cannot play the trick in the infinite medium anymore to avoid solving for a homogeneous and a particular
solution:
phi(x) = HOM (x) + P (x)
(394)
The homogeneous solution is in the form of exponentials as we have solved for multiply times:
x
H (x) = C1 e L + C2 e L
(395)
Consider the particular solution has to be dependent on the source but independent of the space; that is,
0
z}|{
d2 a
S0
P =
dx2 D
D
P =
S0
a
(396)
Putting the homogeneous and particular solution together, and consider vacuum BCs on the extrapolated boundaries
a = (a + 2D):
(
a) = 0.
(
a) = 0.
We get to,
C1 = C2 =
1
a
e +
e L
S0
a
(397)
S0
a
(398)
Then we write our final solution in sinh, cosh,

(x) =
cosh
1
sinh
127
!
x
L
x
L
Lulu Li
9.4
Point Source in Infinite Non-Multiplying Medium
Conside an infinite non-multiplying medium with a point source. Eq. 420 become,
d2 2 d
S0
1
+
2 = (~r )
2
dr
r dr
L
D
(399)
We look for the homogeneous solution, and set w = r (this is an important trick because it would make a
spherical case identical to the plane case),
d2 w
1
2w = 0
2
dr
L
1
d2 2 d
+
2 = 0,
2
dr
r dr
L
(400)
The solution is,

w = Aer/L + Ber/L ,
(r) = A
er/L
er/L
+B
r
r
(401)
BCs:
lim = 0, A = 0.
r
lim 4r2 J(r) = S0 (this is also the particular solution), that is,
r0
d
J = D
= DBer/L
dr
1
1
+
r2
rL
lim 4r2 J(r) = 4DB = S0
r0
(r) =
B=
S0
4D
S0 er/L
4D r
(402)
(403)
Interpretations:
1. Extreme condition 1: no absorption: as a 0, L ,
lim (r) =
S0
= Geometrical Attenuation
4Dr
(404)
2. Extreme condition 2: pure absorber. We can easily solve the transport kernel:
Z
(r) =
V0
S(r0 )ea |rr |

S0
=
0
2
4|r r |
4r2
3. Diffusion results in a different shape for the decrease in neutron population as in Figure 41.
4. At r = 0 tere is a non-physical singularity due to the mathematical artifact of point sources;
5. Diffusion theory is not valid near singularities;
6. We can use diffusion kernel to solve source problems in non-multiplying media by superposition.
128
(405)
Lulu Li
Figure 41: Flux Shape Depent On Diffusion Coefficients
129
Lulu Li
10
One-Group Diffusion: Multiplying Medium
We are going to cover some classical examples to understand the mechanics, boundary conditions, and interface
conditions. Know these for the exam.
10.1
Sphere Geometry
1. For a non-multiplying medium (f = 0), and assume that D, a are constant in space, we arrive at the
inhomogeneous Helmholtz Equation,
D2 (~r ) + a (~r ) = S(~r )
r
D
, then the balance equation becomes,
We define the diffusion length as L =
a
2 (~r ) +
S(~r )
1
(~r ) =
L2
D
f
keff
2. For a multiplying medium, we typically use B 2 =
a
D
(407)
D2 (~r ) + (a f ) (~r ) = S(~r )
2 (~r ) +
a
D

1
f
a
(406)

(~r ) =
S
D
(408)
(409)
Next we are going to consider a bare sphere case:

(a) For k < 1, we define =
(r)
r ,
and can solve the homogeneous one:

= C1 er + C2 er
we know that the particular solution is p =
(b) For k > 1 and
f
a
S0

,
1 af a
(410)
then
C2 er
S0
C1 er

+
+
r
r
1 af a
(411)

1 > 0, then
d2 a
+
dr2
D

f
1 (r) = 0
a
(412)
that is, (r) = C1 cos(Bm r) + C2 sin(Bm r). Then the solution form is,
(r) =
C1
C2
S0
cos(Bm r) +
sin(Bm r)
r
r
f a
BCs:
(0) has to be finite. lim
r0
sin(Bm r)
cos(Bm r)
= Bm , lim
= thus C1 = 0.
r0
r
r
= 0. We fine C2 .
(R)
130
(413)
Lulu Li
Final solution is,

S0
(r) =
f a
"
#
sin(Bm r)
R
1
r sin(Bm R)
(414)
= is where the flux becomes undefined; there is no steady-state solution; it is a

Notice Bm R
critical reactor with a source.
Comments:
Subcritical reactor: only has a steady state solution when there is a source.
Critical reactor: only has a steady state solution when there is no source.
3. Now we consider a critical bare reactor with no source.
(r) =
C2
C1
cos(Bm r) +
sin(Bm r)
r
r
(415)
Apply similar BCs,

(0) has to be finite. C1 = 0.
that is, Bm R
= n, where n = 1 is the fundamental mode, others are
= 0 C2 sin(Bm R),
(R)
R
higher modes (higher modes can be negative, not that the total flux would be negative, but that the
higher mode is a negative addition to the fundamental modes).
Comments:
The fact that we cannot solve for C2 implies that reactor can go critical at any power as long as we do
not have any feedbacks.
2
=
Bm = Bg means critical; Bm < Bg means subcritical; Bm > Bg means super-critical. Bm

2
f a
2
, Bg = R .
D
The bigger the core is, the more oscillation there is.
4. Fundamental mode of Helmholtz equation: we start with a bare homogeneous reactors, notice geometric
buckling is a measurement of the flux curvature
2 (r) + Bg2 (r) = 0
Bg2 =
2 (r)
(r)
(416)
Then plug into the 1 group diffusion equation,

1
f (r)
k
1
DBg2 + a = f
k
f
k=
DBg2 + a
D2 (r) + a (r) =
5. Interpretation of cross section data:

(a) f < a : sub-critical. Should have a source to be steady state.
(b) f = a .
131
(417)
(418)
(419)
Lulu Li
2
(c) f > a , we can solve for the critical dimension using Bm
= Bg2 (if R < Rcritical then subcritical etc). Alternatively we can perform the fundamental mode of Helmoltz equation and get
f
. Should have no source to be steady state critical.
k=
DBg2 + a
2
2 (~r ) + Bm
(~r ) = 2 (~r )
S
1
(~r ) =
2
L
D
132
2
Bm
=
f a
1
=
2
L
D
(420)
Lulu Li
10.2
Plane Geometry
If we solve for a plane geometry, we would get

Cn cos(Bm x) n = odd
(x) =
Cn sin(Bm x) n = even
But the only mode that is positive everywhere is n = 1. Thus B =
balance equation,
d2
D 2 + a (x) =
dx

2
cos
x + a C1
x =
DC1
L
L
L
k1 =
which agrees with Eq. 419, provided that Bg2 =

eigenvalue of,

. Plug (x) = cos L

x back into the
L
1
f (x)
k

1
f C1
x
k1
L
f
2
D L
+ a
2
k2 =
D
(421)
(422)
(423)
(424)
for a slab. Further more, the secondary mode yields an
f
2
(425)
+ a
which leads to the discussion of
Dominance Ratio =
k2
=
k1
D
D
2
2
+ a
(426)
+ a
DR is a measure of the stability. The closer it is to 1 (the larger the system is), the less stable it is (the longer it
oscillates). It governs left-right/top-bottom oscillation.
A rule of thumb about k: in real reactor application, there is no source, so the balance equation is,
D2 + a = f
(427)
and the above equation describes a critical system (because in real reactor otherwise either the flux would die out
or it would explode and we would have no steady state solution). However in academic reason we are interested
in the subcritical and the supercritical condition as well, so we add in an artificial k on the bottom of the fission
term which would make the equation critical:
D2 + a =
(428)
Notice the k here is just a measurement of criticality of the system; it is not physical in the sense that a physically
existing system can only have k = 1.
133
Lulu Li
10.3
Arbitrary Source in Finite Multiplying Medium
Consider a subcritical multiplying medium, slab geometry from L/2 to L/2, and with a source.
d2
+ a (x) = f (x) + S(x)
dx2
d2
S(x)
2
+ Bm
(x) =
dx2
D
Given a > f , B 2 =
f a
D
(429)
(430)
< 0, we re-write B 2 = |B|2 ,

d2
|B|2 (x) = S(x)

dx2
(431)
H (x) = Ae|B|x + Ce|B|x = A cosh(|B|x) + C sinh(|B|x)
(432)
The general/homogeneous solution is,
The particular solution depends on source S(x).

Apply BCs L2 = 0, we get the boundary conditions in the
matrix form,

cosh(|B|L/2) sinh(|B|L/2)
A
p (L/2)
=
(433)
sinh(|B|L/2) cosh(|B|L/2)
C
p (L/2)
Coefficients A and C are uniquely determined for a given source distribution:
There always exists a physically realizable solution (no critical buckling!);
In the limit of S 0, the only physical solution is the trivial solution.
134
Lulu Li
10.4
Plane Source in Finite Multiplying Medium with k < 1
Consider a finite multiplying medium, k < 1, a slab geometry from 0 to H, and a plane source at 0.
2
Bm
=
f a
k 1
< 0,
=
D
L2
2
Bm
|Bm |2
(434)
1. For the homogeneous solution, we assume there is no source,

d2
|Bm |2 = 0,
dx2
(x) = A cosh(|Bm |x) + B sinh(|Bm |x)
(435)
2. BC 1: (0) = 0 , (H) = 0, we can solve for the coefficients,

cosh(|Bm |H)
(x) = 0 cosh(|Bm |x)
sinh(|Bm |x)
sinh(|Bm |H)
(436)
3. Extreme condition: if we let the size of the slab to go to infinity,

lim (x) = 0 [cosh(|Bm |x) sinh(|Bm |x)] = 0 e|Bm |x =
S0 L |Bm |x
e
2D
(437)
4. Notice in both finite and infinite case, the fluxes have convex shapes; the finite curve is below the infinite
curve though.
Figure 42: Plane Source in Finite Multiplying Medium with k < 1
135
Lulu Li
10.5
Plane Source in Finite Multiplying Medium with k > 1
Consider a finite multiplying medium with k > 1, it is a slab extending from H/2 to H/2, it is subcritical
with leakage, BC are from the current at center and the zero flux at the H/2 boundary.
d2
2
+ Bm
= 0,
dx2
2
Bm
=
BC1: (H/2) = 0; BC2: J(0) =

whole geometry:
f a
k 1
>0
=
D
L2
S0
2 .
(x) = A cos(Bm x) + B sin(Bm x)
(438)
We can solve for the coefficients, and place absolute sign to represent the

H
sin Bm
|x|
Bm H
2
2
S0
(x) =
2DBm cos
(439)
Interpretations:
1. Because k > 1, the flux shape is concave, that is, increasing negative slopes in the positive domain. In
Fig. 43, flux is convex when k < 1 and concave when k > 1, until we hit the cosine shape when
keff = 1, k = 1 + B 2 L2 from
B2 =
f
keff
a
D
k
keff
L2
k = keff + B 2 L2
(440)
2. If H is increased to the critical dimension, that is, H Bm , then (0) ; that is, if the reactor is
critical, the flux at the source is infinite. That is, there is no steady-state solution for flux at the source site.
In fact, if we place a fission detector at x = 0 and measure source multiplication,

Nd f,d Vd (0)
BH
f
Ms (0) =
tan
(441)
S0
2DB
2
Or the inverse source multiplication factor,
1
1
0
Ms (0)
tan BH
2
(442)
3. To reach criticality, we can add fuel elements, withdraw control rods, and dilute boron. 1/M is useful for
estimating criticality as shown in Figure 43.
Figure 43: 1/M plot and Flux Shape In Approaching Criticality
136
Lulu Li
10.6
Summary
1. Super-positioning of sources: if we are given a random source that is the sum of a couple of common
forms of sources, we can super-position the flux from each of the common sources. This method works in
any non-multiplying medium, and in multiplying medium in subcritical condition10 . For instance, we can
super-position point sources to get a line source.
2. Diffusion theory is valid:
when there is little geometry heterogeneity;
when a s ;
when position is not too close to interface and source.
Diffusion theory is not valid near singularities.
3. k is important11 :
k = 1: flux is straight line;
k < 1 means B 2 < 0, flux is sinh, cosh which is convex;
k > 1 means B 2 > 0, flux is sin, cos which is concave.
Source
Geometry
Material
BCs
Flux
Point
Sphere
Non-multi.
Plane
Slab
Non-multi.
Plane
Finite Slab
Multi. k < 1
Plane
Finite Slab
Multi. k > 1
lim = 0, lim 4r2 J(r) = S0

r
r0
S0
lim = 0, lim J(x) =
x
x0
2
(0) = 0 , (H) = 0
S0
(H/2) = 0, J(0) =
2
S0 er/L
4D r
S0 L |x|/L
e
2D
0 [cosh(|B|x) coth(|B|H)
sinh(|B|x)]

S0
H
sin B
|x|
2DBm cos(BH/2)
2
Table 12: Subcritical System: Source and Flux
10 Supercritical
11 know
condition, as source increaes, flux inverts

this for the exams
137
Lulu Li
11
One-Group Diffusion: Criticality Problem
In this section, we consider a critical multiplying system with no source (no source to reach steady state).
11.1
Helmholtz Equation
We start with the one-group diffusion equation,

D(~r )(~r ) + a (~r )(~r ) =
1
f (~r )(~r )
keff
(443)
Assume homogeneous material, that is, spatial constant cross section,

D2 (~r ) + a (~r ) =
1
f (~r )
keff
(444)
(~r ) = 0
(445)
Rearranging and defining a buckling term,

2 (~r ) +
f
keff
a
D
{z
B2
We obtain a classic Helmholtz Equation,

2
2 (~r ) + Bm
(~r ) = 0
(446)
Helmholtz Equation implies that,

2
Bm
=
2 (~r )
(~r )
(447)
Notice,
2
1. Since Bm
is a constant, that is to say
2 ( ~
r)
( ~
r)
is a constant, that is to say (~r ) has a constant curvature.
2. Material buckling:
2
Bm
=
f
keff
(448)
which matches geometry buckling,

keff =
f
DBg2 + a
(449)
where DBg2 is the leakage per unit volume per unit flux. Notice keff does not depend on volume or flux.
3. Critical buckling: when a system is critical, the material buckling is uniquely determined by cross sections,
2
Bm
=
f a
=
D
f
a
D
a
k 1
M2
(450)
Migration area M 2 = Da is a measurement of the amount of travelling before absorption. M 2 is typically

used in one group theory, whereas in other times we use Diffusion are L2 , and it is used to measure the
mean of the square of the crow-fly distance travelled by a neutron from emission to absorption respectively
from the projection of the path on the x-y plane and the x-axis:
2
r = 6L2
= 4L2
x = 2L2
(451)
138
Lulu Li
Slab
Sphere
Infinite Cylinder
Finite Cylinder
Cartesian
d2
dx2
d2
dr 2
d2
dr 2
d2
dr 2
d2
dx2
+ B 2 (x) = 0
2
+ 2r d
dr + B (r) = 0
2
+ 1r d
dr + B (r) = 0
d2
1 d
+ r dr + dz2 + B 2 (r, z) = 0
2
2
+ ddy2 + ddz2 + B 2 (x, y, z) = 0
Table 13: Simple Geometry Laplacians

4. Solutions exist only for certain values of the buckling such that the flux is everywhere positive and vanishing
on outer (or extrapolated) surfaces; we define these unique values as geometrical buckling Bg2 . The
allowable values of geometrical buckling that satisfy the boundary conditions are uniquely determined
reactor geometry.
5. For a criticality problem, we can solve find the B 2 such that the system is critical. Hence giving geometry,
only certain materials would make the system critical; given material, only certain geometries would make
the system critical. That is, given a reactor, it would be critical if and only if the material and the geometry
satisfy,
2
Bg2 = Bm
(452)
6. Solution only exists when k > 1 (exception: if there is external source, k can be less than 1 and the
system is still critical).
Talbe 13 lists a couple of one group homogeneous geometry Laplacians.
139
Lulu Li
11.2
Critical 1D Slab

Consider a 1D slab L20 , L20 :
d2
+ B 2 (x) = 0,
dx2
BCs: (L/2) = 0,
L
2
L0
2
(x) = A cos(Bx) + C sin(Bx)
+ 0.711tr . Two equations two unknowns,

cos(BL/2) sin(BL/2)
A
=0
cos(BL/2) sin(BL/2)
C
Set the determinant to be zero, we get 2 cos(BL/2) sin(BL/2) = 0. There are two possibilities:

n
An cos(Bn x) n = 1, 3, 5,
(x) =
Bn =
An sin(Bn x) n = 2, 4, 6,
L
(453)
(454)
(455)
But in order for (x) 0 everywhere, only n = 1 is possible; that is,

(x) = A cos
x
L
(456)
and the criticality condition implies that,

2
f a
=
D
L
140
(457)
Lulu Li
11.3
Critical Finite Cube
Consider a finite cube with the dimensions a/2 x a/2, b/2 y b/2, c/2 z c/2. The Helmholtz
equation is,
2 2 2
+ 2 + 2 + B2 = 0
x2
y
z
(458)
(x, y, z) = X(x)Y (y)Z(z)
(459)
Assume separation of variables,
d2 Y
+ By2 Y = 0,
dy 2
d2 X
+ Bx2 X = 0,
dx2
d2 Z
+ Bz2 Z = 0
dz 2
(460)
The solution is,

= A cos
x
Lx

cos
y
Ly

cos
z
Lz

,
141
B2 =
2
a
2
b
2
c
(461)
Lulu Li
11.4
Critical Finite Cylinder
Consider a finite cylinder from H/2 to H/2 with radius R. We assume azmimuthal symmetry of Helmholtz
Equation,

1 d
2
(462)
r
+ 2 + B2 = 0
r dr
r
z
(r, z) = R(r)Z(z)
(463)
We plut the sepration of variables into the Helmholtz Equation, break B 2 = Br2 + Bz2 , and we get two equations
one for each direction,

1 d2 R 1 dR
+
+ Br2 = 0
(464)
R dr2
r dr
d2 Z
+ Bz2 Z = 0
dz 2
(465)
In r direction, we can consider an infinite cylinder,

R(r) = A1 J0 (Br r),
Br =
2.405
R
(466)
In z direction, we can consider an infinite slab,

Z(z) = A2 cos(Bz z),
Bz =
We combine the two directions,

z
2.405
(r, z) = AJ0
r cos
,
R
H
B =
Br2
Bz2

=
2.405
R
(467)
2
+
2
H
(468)
Problems with less than one direction that is non-homogeneous can be solved this way with separation of variables.
142
Lulu Li
11.5
Critical Reflected Slab Reactor
Consider a critical reflected slab reactor as in Figure 44. The Helmholtz equations for the two regions are,
Figure 44: A Critical Reflected Slab Geometry

Dc 2 c + ca c =
B2 =
k
keff
L2c
1
cf c ,
keff
Dr 2 r + ra r = 0
2 =
2 c + B 2 c = 0,
(469)
1
r
2
= ar = Bm,r
2
Lr
D
(470)
2 r 2 r = 0
(471)
The solutions are in the forms of,

c (x) = C1 cos(Bx) + C2 sin(Bx),
r (x) = C3 cosh(x) + C4 sinh(x)
(472)
BC1: reflective boudnary condition at x = 0, BC2: zero flux at reflector surface,

(H 0 /2) = 0 C3 = 0
J c (0) = 0 C2 = 0,
(473)
We have:
r (x) = C40 sinh[(H 0 /2 x)]
c (x) = C1 cos(Bx),
(474)
Apply two interface conditions:

c (H/2) = r (H/2),
J c (H/2) = J r (H/2)
which can be written in the matrix form,

cos(BH/2)
sinh( )
C1
=0
Dc B sin(BH/2) Dr cosh( )
C40
We define the reflector thickness =
H 0 H
,
2
(475)
(476)
then the coefficients can be solved,

C40 = C1
C1 = c (0),
cos(BH/2)
sinh( )
(477)
which gives us the criticality condition,

c
D B tan
BH
2
= Dr coth( )
Interpretation:
143
(478)
Lulu Li
1. Since B is defined with keff ,

B2 =
k
keff
(479)
L2
we need to satisty an expression between keff and H. We can either,

(a) Given H, search for the keff that satisfies the equivalence;
(b) Given keff , search for the H that satisfies the equivalence,
r

2
D
1
H=
tan
coth( )
Bm
D c Bm
(480)
That is, as H , . For large , like > 3, coth( ) 1, the smallest H to reach criticality is,
r
2
D
1
H=
tan
(481)
Bm
D c Bm
2. Critical dimension is reduced by the presence of the reflector:
s=
tan
h
2
r

H
H
1
D
=
tan1
coth(
)
2
2
Bm 2
Dc Bm
i
tan1 x = cot[tan1 x] =
s=
1
1
= ,
x
tan[tan1 x]
tan1 x = tan1
2

c
1
D Bm
tanh(
)
tan1
Bm
Dr
(482)

1
x
(483)
(484)
3. For larger cores, Bm 0 and tan1 x x, that is,

s=

Dc
Dc r
tanh(
)
=
L
tanh
Dr
Dr
Lr
(485)
That is,

Lr
Lr
D
s D
r
Dc r
s Dr L
(tanh x x for x 1)
(tanh x 1 for x > 3)
4. For more on reflector saving, see Reuss Section 6.1.5 (p.173).
144
(486)
Lulu Li
11.6
22.211 Class Notes: April 2, 2012
Summary
Geometry

Slab L2 , L2
Sphere [0, R]
Cylinder (z : )
Cylinder (z: H/2)
Diffusion Equation
d2
+ B2 = 0
dx2
d2
+ B2 = 0
+ r2 d
dr
dr 2
d2
1 d
+ r dr + B 2 = 0
dr 2
2
2
d
+ ddz2 + B 2 = 0
+ r1 d
dr
dr 2
Parallelepiped ( L2i )
d2
dx2
d2
dy 2
d2
dz 2
+ B2 = 0
Flux

= A cos x
L
= A
sin r
r
R

= AJ0 2.405r
R

= AJ0 2.405r
cos z
R
H

y
x
x
= A cos L
cos L
cos L
x
y
z
Geometrical Buckling

2
B2 = L

2
B2 = R
2
B 2 = 2.405
R
2
2
+
B 2 = 2.405
R 2 H 2 2
B 2 = Lx + Ly
+ Lz
Table 14: One Group Fundamental Mode Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors

Observations:
The lowest node is the only one remains after the source is gone.
For any positive value of materials buckling, there is a unique critical size for each reactor geometry.
Know how to get the critical buckling for different geometries.
Seperation of variables works as long as there is no one more than one direction that is heterogeneous.
Example: know how to find height-to-diameter to minimize leakage. The optimal cylinder has a H/D of
around 0.92.
145
Lulu Li
12
12.1
Multi-Group Diffusion Derivations

Derivation of Multi-Group Diffusion Theory
1. Start from the steady-state continuous energy diffusion equation, we divide the energy range into G groups
as shown in Figure 45.
Figure 45: Energy Groups in Multi-Gruop Diffusion Theory

2. Define group terms. We define the yet unknown group fluxes by the integrals of the flux over individual
groups. Be careful about the units: g (~r ) is the real flux, (~r , E) is really the flux density. Similarly the
reaction rate is actually reaction rate density. This implementation does not have volume term in it because
we are considering an infinite system.
Z Eg1
g (~r ) =
(~r , E) dE
(487)
Eg
The group cross sections are defined such that the reaction rates in each interval are preserved,
R Eg1 i
Z Eg1
x (~r , E)(~r , E) dE
1
E
i
xi (~r , E)(~r , E) dE = g R Eg1
xg
(~r ) =
g (~r ) Eg
(~r , E) dE
(488)
Eg
Group constants are typically determined using neutron spectra obtained by solving local problems with
approximate boundary conditions, like our MC code. Group-wise cross sections cannot match the details
of Monte Carlo spectrum calculation, so it is important that detailed resonance effects are contained in the
multi-group cross sections when produced from some detailed spectral calculations. For instance, we can
approximate (E) using (E) for fast energies, using narrow resonances for intermediate energies, and
Maxwellian distribution for the thermal energies.
3. Integrate steady-state diffusion equation over each of the g energy groups:
z
Z
1
leakage/diffusion term
}|
Eg1
z
Z
2
total interaction term
}|
{
Eg1
dE D(~r , E)(~r , E) +
Eg
z
Z
Eg1
3
source term
}|
{
Eg1
dEt (~r , E)(~r , E) =

Eg
dES(~r , E)
(489)
Eg
4
fission source term
}|
{ z
Z
Z
0
0
0
dE(E)
dE f (~r , E )(~r , E ) +
E0
Eg
z
Z
Eg1
5
scattering source term
}|
{
Z
dE
dE 0 s (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 )
E0
Eg
(490)
4. Simplify terms using group terms,
(a) Leakage/Diffusion term:
Z Eg1
Z
1 =

dE D(~r , E)(~r , E) = Dg (~r )
Eg
Eg1
dE(~r , E) = Dg (~r )g (~r )
Eg
(491)
146
Lulu Li
The group diffusion coefficient Dg should be a tensor (a 3x3 symmetric matrix, called the Eddington
tensor); but in application, we assume that Dg is the same for all directions. That is, the tensor is
approximated by a diagonal matrix (or call it current-weighted-diffusion-coefficient):
R Eg1
dED(~r , E) u
(~r , E)
Eg
u
, u = x, y, z
(492)
Dg (~r ) =
u g
= 0 which would give us 0 over 0. A

It is not a great definition because for an infinite system u
more accurate approach is to let Dg be the same in the x-y plane, but different in axial direction.
(b) Total interaction term:
Z Eg1
Z Eg1
2 =

dEt (~r , E)(~r , E) = tg (~r )
dE(~r , E) = tg (~r )g (~r )
(493)
Eg
Eg
where the macroscopic cross section is a sum over all isotropes i:

X
i
tg (~r ) =
Ni (~r )tg
(~r )
i
tg
(~r ) =
(494)
i
R Eg1 i
t (E)(~r , E) dE
Eg
R Eg1
(~r , E) dE
Eg
(495)
(c) Source term:

Z
Eg1
3 =

dES(~r , E) = Sg (~r )
(496)
Eg
(d) Fission source term (this formation has only one fissioning species):
Z Eg1
Z
G
X
4 =

dE(E)
dE 0 f (~r , E 0 )(~r , E 0 ) = g
f g (~r )g (~r )
E0
Eg
(497)
g 0 =1
where
Z
Eg1
g =
fi g (~r ) =
dE(E),
Eg
1
g (~r )
Eg1
(E)fi (E)(~r , E) dE
(498)
Eg
(e) Scattering source term:

Z
Eg1
5 =

dE 0 s (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 )
dE
Z
Eg1
dE
Eg
g 0 =1
G
X
G Z
X
g 0 =1
G Z
X
(499)
E0
Eg
Eg1
Eg0 1
dE 0 s (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 )
(500)
dE 0 s (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 )
(501)
Eg0
Eg0 1
dE
Eg0
Eg
sg0 g (~r )g0 (~r )
(502)
g 0 =1
where
i
sg
r)
0 g (~
1
=
g0 (~r )
Eg1
Eg0 1
dE
Eg
Eg0
147
dE 0 si (E 0 E)(~r , E 0 )
(503)
Lulu Li
5. The Multi-Group Diffusion Equation is,

Dg (~r )g (~r ) + tg (~r )g (~r ) = g
G
X
f g0 g0 (~r ) +
g 0 =1
G
X
sg0 g (~r )g0 (~r ) + Sg (~r ) (504)
g 0 =1
Cancelling the within group scattering cross section from both sides and defining the group-wise net removal cross section,
X
rg = tg sgg = ag +
sgg0
(505)
g 0 =1,g 0 6=g
We obtain the final multi-group form of the neutron diffusion equation,
Dg (~r )g (~r ) + rg (~r )g (~r ) = g
G
X
f g0 (~r )g0 (~r ) +
g 0 =1
G
X
sg0 g (~r )g0 (~r ) + Sg (~r )
g 0 =1,g 0 6=g
(506)
Notes:
A note about the summation sign: the loss terms do not need to be summed over energy groups because
once a neutron leaves group g it does not matter where it goes, whereas the gain terms need to be summed
over energy groups to take into account all neutrons contributing from every other energy group.
A note about the sign of the leakage term: the absolute value of leakage always have a negative sign.
Typically RHS > 0 (we have either fission, scattering, or source), then the curve is concave down. We
can either think about it in terms of second derivative, which is negative; or we can think the slope
is decreasing, which means that 2 < 0. The heat transfer analogy is that when there are sources
everywhere in the slab, there would be heat transfer away at every point.
In the extreme case RHS < 0 , and the system is losing neutrons due to absorption or scattering out,
then the flux would be concave up, meaning 2 > 0. The heat transfer analygo is that when there
are sinks everywhere in the slab, there would be heat transfer inwards at every point.
When RHS = 0, the flux would be a straight line, = constant, 2 = 0, there is no leakage/diffusion at every point, that is, there is no net neutrons leaving any point, the neutron diffusion breakes
even at every point. The heat transfer analogy is that there is no heat leaving or entering any point.
148
Lulu Li
12.2
Matrix Form
If we keep the destruction terms on the LHS, and the construction terms on the RHS,
D1 2 + r1
D2 2 + r2
.
..
2
DG + rG
1 f 1
1 f 2

s21 + k
sG1 + 1 k f G
k

2 f 2

sG2 + 2 k f G
s12 + 2 k f 1
k
=
..
..
.
s1G +
G f 1
k
s21 +
1 f 2
k
1 f G
k
1
2
..
.
(507)
G
1
2
..
.
(508)
Alternatively, we can move the scattering terms to the LHS,
D1 2 + r1
s12
..
.
s21
D2 2 + r2
..
.
..
.
sG1
sG2
..
.
s1G
s21
DG 2 + rG
1
2
..
.
G
1 f 1
k
2 f 1
k
1 f 2
k
2 f 2
k
..
.
1 f G
k

+ 2 k fG
G f 1
k
1 f 2
k
1 f G
k
..
.
(509)
Notes: we have the k term in the equations to keep the fission source general. In the absence of spatial dependency
(for instance, in this formulation weve only considered energy dependency so far and assume spatial homogenization), notice the RHS matrix has order 1 (this can be seen from that every row vector is a constant times the 1st
row), leading to that there is only one eigenvalue, thus we do not have to worry about multiple eigenvalues. This
implies that the eigenvalue is a measurement of the spatial dependency. Once we add in the flux depending on
both space and energy, we cannot easily write each row as the 1st row times a constant anymore.
149
1
2
..
.
G
Lulu Li
12.3
Partial Currents
1. Scalar flux,
Z
~ ) d
(~r , E,
(510)
~ (~r , E,
~ ) d
(511)
(~r , E) =
4
2. Net current,
J~ (~r , E) =
Z
4
3. Partial Currents in diffusion theory:

Z
J + (~r , E) =
~ (~r , E,
~ ) d
~n
(512)
~ >0
~
n
1
4
~ [(~r , E) + 3
~ J~ (~r , E)] d
~n
Z 1
1
d
d[ + 32 Jn ]
4 0
0
1
1
= (~r , E) + Jn (~r , E)
4
2
Z
~ |(~r , E,
~ ) d
| ~n
J (~r , E) =
~ <0
~
n
Z 2
=
=
(513)
~ >0
~
n
Z 2
1
4
(514)
(515)
(516)
d[ + 32 Jn ]
(517)
1
1
(~r , E) Jn (~r , E)
4
2
4. A common expansion for angular flux (I think this is second order) from Reuss:
Z
d =
(518)
(519)
d = J~
(520)
i
1 h
J~
+3
4
(521)
150
Lulu Li
12.4
Fundamental Mode Approximation
One way to evaluate the leakage is to consider the fundamental mode: assume that the shape function remains the
same in different groups: 1 (r) = 1 (r), 2 (r) = 2 (r). Then the fundamental mode yields:
2 g (r) + Bg2 g (r) = 0 2 (r) + Bg2 (r)
=0
(522)
= R + 2Dg )
Then the question is of course what do we do with Bg2 ? Bg2 depends on extrapolated distance (e.g., R
which depends on group. One way we can approximate is that we use D1 because fast group leakage dominates.
Then our leakage term is 2 2g = Dg Bg2 .
151
Lulu Li
12.5
1-1/2 Group Model
Mean free path for thermal neutrons is 1-2cm, mfp for fast neutrons is 5-10cm. For 1-1/2 group model, we neglect
thermal leakage (e.g., for a fast reactor, a large core like CANDU). Then we write our two group equation, cross
out thermal leakage.
152
Lulu Li
13
Two-Group Finite Difference Diffusion
Reference: Stacys Section 3.10.
13.1
Neutron Balance Equation
We start with the two-group neutron balance equations, and apply assumptions:
Assume fission source is in the fast group. That is, 1 = 1, 2 = 0.
Assume no up-scattering. We define effective down-scattering, so up-scattering is zero 21 (r) = 0. Then
our down-scattering becomes an effective down-scattering cross section by conserving reaction rates (as
usual),
2
12 = 12 21
1
Thus two-group diffusion equations are:

D1 2 1 + (a1 + s12 )1 = f 1 1 + f 2 2 + S1
D2 2 2 + a2 2 = s12 1 + S2
(523)
(524)
If we are in an infinite system that we can ignore the leakage term, then we can write out an eigenvalue
problem in matrix form immediately. More specifically, without leakage, 1 , 2 are flat, and we can
directly write out the ratio of the two:
2
s12
=
1
a2
(525)
and the eigenvalue:

k=
f 2 s12
f 1
+
r1
a2 r1
(526)
Prof. Forget made a connection between the four-factor/sixe-factor formula and the 2 group theory:
1. Four factor: p =
s12 1
s12
f 1
f 2
f 1 a2
=
, k1 = 1 f1 =
, k2 = 2 f2 =
, = 1+
, k =
r1 1
r1
r1
a2
f 2 r1 12
pf .
2. Six factor: keff = pf P1,N L P2,N L where P1,N L =
1
D1
1
, L2 =
, P2,N L =
, L2 =
1 + L21 Bg2 1
r1
1 + L22 B 2 2
D2
.
a2
However to keep it general, we need to approximate the leakage term by constructing a finite spatial mesh
in which cross sections are constant. Integrate Eq. 524 over for node n with width n ,
Z
d n d n
D
dx + nr1 n1 n = nf1 n1 n + nf2 n2 n + S1 n
(527)
dx 1 dx 1
Z
d n d n
D
dx + na2 n2 n = ns12 n1 n + S2 n
dx 2 dx 2
153
(528)
Lulu Li
We evaluate the integral term12 ,

Z

d n d n
n d n
n d n
D1
1 dx = D1
1 D1
1
dx
dx
dx
dx
n+
n
(529)
where n+ is the right surface of node n, n is the left surface. Then the balance equations become,

d
d
(530)
D1n n1 + D1n n1 + nr1 n1 n = nf1 n1 n + nf2 n2 n + S1 n
dx
dx
n+
n
13.2
D2n

d n
n d n
2 + D2
2 + na2 n2 n = ns12 n1 n + S2 n
dx
dx
n+
n
(531)
Interface Flux
d
(which shows up in the balance equation, implying that it could help to
Recall that net current is J = D dx
manipulate this term). Assume neighboring cells have the same width as in Figure 46, and we make a linear flux
approximation between cell centers and cell edges, then the net currents at the cell edge have two formulations,
Figure 46: Diagram Illustrating Neighboring Cells in Finite Difference Scheme
Jn+ =
Jn+1 =
Dgn
Dgn+1

Sg ng
d n
g = Dgn
dx
/2
n+
(532)

n+1
Sg
d n+1
g
g = Dgn+1
dx
/2
n
(533)
By continuity of the net current, we know the net current at the surface from the left cell (Jn+ ) and from the right
cell (Jn+1 ) should be the same,
Dgn
Sg ng
n+1
Sg
g
= Dgn+1
/2
/2
(534)
From where we can solve for the interface flux Sg ,

Sg =
12 Lectuer
says use the divergence theorem
Dgn ng + Dgn+1 n+1

g
~ dV =
F
(535)
Dgn + Dgn+1
R
S
~ ~
F
n dS, I think this is just manipulating integral and
A|x2 A|x1
154
R x2
d
x1 dx A
dx
Lulu Li
Thus we have JS in terms of mesh-averaged fluxes13 :

n,n+1
D
JS = Jn+ =
2Dgn
}|
{
2Dn Dn+1
Dn n + Dn+1 n+1
n
=
(n+1 n )
Dn+1 + Dn
(Dn + Dn+1 )

(536)
Now we consider three neighboring cells with the same width, and following the previous analogy, we can get
the net currents in cell n:
2Dn Dn+1
(Dn + Dn+1 )
(537)
n1,n (n1 n1 ) D
n,n+1 (n+1 n1 ) + nr1 n1 n = nf1 n1 n + nf2 n2 n + S1 n
D
1
1
1
1
(538)
n,n+1 (n+1 n )
Jn+ = D
13.3
n1,n (n n1 ),
Jn = D
n,n+1 =
D
Linear Finite Difference Equations
Plug the interface flux in Eq. 537 back into diffusion equations, we get,
n1,n (n2 n1 ) D
n,n+1 (n+1 n2 ) + na2 n2 n = ns12 n1 n + S2 n
D
2
2
2
2
(539)
Rearranging terms by fluxes, we get the linear finite-difference diffusion equations:

n
n
n n
n
n n
n
n1,n n1
n,n+1 n+1
n1,n + D
n,n+1 ]n
D
D
+ [n
r1 + D1
1 = f 1 1 + f 2 2 + S1
1
1
1
1
1
n
n
n n
n
n1,n n1
n,n+1 n+1
n1.n + D
n,n+1 ]n
D
D
+ [n
a2 + D2
2 = s12 1 + S2
2
2
2
2
2
13 Kord
uses the notation Jn+ , Jn , which in this content are actually net currents not partial currents!!!
155
(540)
(541)
Lulu Li
13.4
BCs for Finite-Difference Equation
Review Section. 8.6. Interior BCs are implied, whereas the exterior BCs have to be specified.
1. Zero current, reflective BC: JgN = 0.
2. Zero flux: flux at the RHS of node N is zero. We can either think of the flux as keep going to be N
g in
the imaginary N + 1 node14 , or calculate the slope by doing N
/(/2),
g
JgN = DgN
N
N
2DgN N
g g
=
N
N g
(542)
3. Zero incoming flux, zero incoming current, vacuum BC: there is no partial current coming in from RHS,
JN
=
1
1
JN = 0
4
2
(543)
which implies,
JgN
sg
2DgN
sg N
g
=
= DgN
= N
2
/2
"
#
2DgN
1
= N
N
g
4DgN
1+
2DgN
1 N
N
N g
2D
g
1
+
2
(544)
(545)
Inspired by Eq. 545, we make up a coefficient C to unify 3 BCs:

JgN =
2DgN N
g
N + C DgN
(546)
If C 0, we get zero flux BC.

If C = 4, we get zero incoming current BC Jin = 0.
If C , we get zero flux BC JgN = 0.
Alternatively, we can also take Eq. 545 and make the DgN term into the diffusion coefficient of the imaginary
N + 1 node:
N
2D
1
g
N
JgN = N
(547)
g
4DgN +1
1+
N
14 we have to interpolate the node center value from the node edge value because in linear difference equation the center value is the averaged
value which is what we care about.
156
Lulu Li
14
14.1
Matrix Representation of 1D Slab Diffusion Equations

Construct Matrix
If we use L for the n1 term, U for the n+1 term, D for the n term, T for the transport term, we can express
the finite difference equation in matrix form as a net distruction term:
[L1 + D1 + U1 ][1 ] = [M1 ][1 ] + [M2 ][2 ] + [S1 ]
(548)
[L2 + D2 + U2 ][2 ] = [T2 ][1 ] + [S2 ]
(549)
We define a vector of group fluxes,

[L1 + D1 + U1 ]
[0]
1
[M1 ]
=
[T2 ]
[L2 + D2 + U2 ]
2
[0]
[M2 ]
[0]

1
2

+
S1
S2

(550)
Whose compressed form is,

[A][] = [M ][] + [S]
(551)
The two matrix are plotted in Figure 47. Notice there are missing points in A. Explaination: Block matrix: the
L + D + U term should only be doing in-group stuff, and the missing points would have been throwing group 1
stuff into group 2 when it is not supposed to do it.
Figure 47: Destruction and Production Matrix
14.2
Method 1: Sequential Source/Fixed-Source Problem

[A][] = [M ][] + [S]
[A M ][] = [S]
[] = [A M ]
(552)
(553)
[S]
(554)
In this method, we guess keff , and given a source we can solve for the flux. We can either use Matlab to solve the
Ax = b system, or we use Gaussian elimination/forward elimination backward substitution by hand. The basic
157
Lulu Li
Figure 48: Power Iteration Convergence Rate (left) and Dominance Ratio (right)
idea is to subtract ai,i1 /ai1,i1 times the (i1)th equation from the ith equation to eliminate the ai,i1 element
in the ith equation. The modified ith equation is then divided by ai,i . This process is repeated successively for
i = 1 through i = I 1.
We never solve real questions this way, because the flux approaches the right shape (as keff keff correct ),
but once keff > keff correct , the flux can be entirely inverted to become negative (recall that the 1/M curve goes
to 0 when we become critical, implying that M . Having a negative flux is fine because the flux solved can
be arbitrarily scaled). If we have a super-critical problem, then the only way to get criticality with an additional
source is through negative flux. A reactor is like an amplifier; the closer it is to criticality the more amplification
it is; when critical, the amplification is infinity.
14.3
Method 2: Direct Matlab Eigenvalue Solver
We can solve for keff directly from:

1
[M ][]
keff
[A]1 [M ][] = keff []
[A][] =
(555)
(556)
Notice that the eigenvectors are arbitrarily normalized; hence it is fine if the flux is negative.
14.4
Method 3: Power Iterations with Matlabs Direct Matrix Inverter
The equation we are trying to solve is,

[A][]n+1 = [M ][]n
(557)
(0)
An initial guess of the flux i at each point and of the eigenvalue (0) is made and an initial fission source at
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
each point is constructed Si = M i . The Gaussian elimination is performed to determine i = A1 Si .
Then we update the source term as well based on the flux. A new estimate of the eigenvalue is made from:
(1)
keff =
Si
(0)
(558)
Si
The process is continued until the eigenvalues obtained on two successive iterates differ by less than a threshold
level. The rate our fission source converges depends on material, geometry etc. See next section for dominance
ratio.
14.5
Method 3+: Power Iteration with Matlabs GMRES Numerical Invertion
With no pre-conditioner, GMRES is actually longer than Method 3.

158
Lulu Li
14.6
Method 4: Power Iteration with Point-Jacobi Iterative Flux Matrix Inversion
Figure 49: Power Iteration With Gauss-Jacobi Numerical Inversion of Matrix

The outter loop is on i (the fission source iteration index),
1
M i
keff
M i+1
=
M i
Ai+1 =
(559)
keff i+1
(560)
A = D + O Dm+1 =
1
M i Om
keff
(561)
The inner loop is on m (the flux iteration index),
m+1
=D
1
M i Om
keff

(562)
In a steady-state problem, it does not matter whether we fully converge our flux iteration.
14.7
Method 5: Power Iteration with Gauss-Seidal Iterative Flux Matrix Inversion
The outter loop is almost the same as Point-Jacobi,

A=L+D+U
1
(L + D)m+1 =
M i U m
keff
159
(563)
(564)
Lulu Li
Then the inner loop is on m (the flux iteration index),

m+1 = (L + D)1
1
M i U m
keff

(565)
Notice these Point-Jacobi and Gauss-Seidal only work with 2D problem that we can easily split a matrix into L,
D, and U. 3D and above problems would be hard to solve using these two methods.
14.8
Matrix Representation of Higher Dimensions Diffusion Equations
1. 1D matrix can be solved without iterations; this is not the case for higher dimenisions: we have to use
iterative methods for higher dimensions.
2. The matrix representation for higher dimensions looks the same as in 1D, except with one additional pair
of off-diagonal term for each additional dimension as in Figure 50
3. The size of the matrix increases as the dimensions increases. For instance, if we have 10 meshes per
dimension, then 1D matrix is 10x10, 2D matrix is 100x100, 3D matrix is 1000x1000.
Figure 50: Destruction and Production Matrix Representation
160
Lulu Li
14.9
Dominance Ratio/Eigenvalue Separation
Given an eigenvalue problem, if we specify the solved eigenvalues to be:

|1 | > |2 | |3 |
(566)
then |1 | is the spectral radius of the iteration matrix, and every mode has a dominance ratio,
drn =
n
1
(567)
and power iteration kills of the lowest dominance ratio modes. The last remaining mode is the fundamental mode
dr = 12 . If |1 | 1, the ietration scheme is unstable and it would not converge15 . Convergence of the power
method is slow when dr is close to unity; in fact in most numerical methods, convergence rate = 1 - dominance
ratio. Knowing the dominance ratio, we can estimate the number of iterations needed for convergence.
Dominance ratio measures the spatial decoupling. It depends on:
1. Symmetric mode. If the initial guess is symmetric, the solution is symmetric, and the method used is
symmetric, then only the symmetric mode shows up in the dominance ratio, and the asymmetric mode is
hidden. As shown in Figure 51, the symmetric guess may not display the highest dr convergence (0.99 in
this case), instead it display a symmetric mode (0.975 in this case). Whereas a random guess would excited
all modes and show all the dr convergence (though the lower modes die too fast to be observed; we can
only see the last two dominance ratio, 0.97 and 0.99), and the dominant mode has an asymmetric shape.
Figure 51: Dominance Ratio With An Symmetric Guess (left) or Random Guess (right)
2. Core size: As seen in Figure 52, as core size increases, dominance ratio increases, and it takes longer to
converge.
3. Decoupling of radial zones from inserting control rod, having asymmetric core loadings, or having xenon
distributions. For instance, in BWRs if we insert control rods to make the core into two halves, then it
would take a lot longer to converge.
4. Decoupling of axial zones form partially inserting control rods, axial fuel enrichment zoning, and axial
burnable absorber loading.
Dominance ratio should be a physical property, so it should not depend on mesh size.
15 See
Lewis Computational Methods of Neutron Transport Appendixe C for more details
161
Lulu Li
Figure 52: Dominance Ratio With Different Core Sizes
162
Lulu Li
14.10
Summary
Remember for real 3D problem,

Matrix inversion if of order N 3 , so in real applications no matrix inversion;
Finding all eigenvalues is at least order N 2 ;
Iterative inversion must be order N to be practical for large problems;
Multi-level iteration is a practical necessity.
Dominance ratio measures spatial decoupling-ness.
Gauss-Seidal is twice as Point-Jacobi.
163
Lulu Li
15
Fission Product Poisoning
15.1
Fission Product Chain
Figure 53: Fission Product Yields, Fission Fragments

The fission products have the following properties:
1. Number: almost all fissions produce precisely two fission produces per fission;
2. Unstability: most fission products are highly unstable and radially decay to other nuclides;
3. Thermal spectrum: some fission produces have large thermal absorption cross sections, which are important
for thermal spectrum reactors as in Figure 55;
4. Fast spectrum: fast reactors are much less sensitive to fission products, because thermal spectrum does not
matter.
5. Distribution: contributing factors are: which species are fissioned (U235, Pu239, etc), the incident fission
neutron energy, random statistical fluctuations nuclide breakup.
6. Independent fission yield is a different concept from the cumulative fission yield: the former only accounts
for fission yield, whereas the latter accounts for generation of the isotope from independent yield as well as
all the precursor isotopes that decay into a specific isotope.
7. Meda-stable state: an isotope may not directly decay into a stable state; it may branch into a meda-stable
state. For our purpose, we are going to take the simplified approach.
As an example, we look at the Xenon-135 Chain in Figure 54. Typically very rapid transitions are not followed
in details when modeling reactor behavior. For instance, because Tes half-life is 19s, we can assume that 135I is
producted instantenously. Most of the chains are similar and are dominated by beta decays until they are stable.
164
Lulu Li
Figure 54: I135/Xe135 Chain
Figure 55: Major Fission Products Absorption
165
Lulu Li
15.2
Nuclide Depletion Equation/Neutron Balance Equation
The numerical solution of nuclide depletion equation is:

dN
+ A(t)N (t) = Y
dt
R
IF = e A(t) dt = eAt
dN
eAt
+ eAt A(t)N (t) = eAt Y
dt
d At
[e N (t)] = eAt Y
dt
eAt N (t) = A1 eAt Y + C
(568)
(569)
(570)
(571)
(572)
Using the particular solution that N0 = N (t = 0), then

N0 = A1 Y + C C = N0 A1 Y
(573)
eAt N (t) = A1 [eAt Y Y ] + N0
(574)
N (t) = eAt N0 + eAt A1 [eAt Y Y ]
(575)
We can also write the above differential equation into the matrix form as in Figure 56. Notice we asume fission
yields, cross sections, and fluxes are constant over the time interval tn1 , tn ,
[N (tn )] = e[A]tn [N (tn1 )] + e[A]tn [A]1 [e[A]tn Y Y ]
Figure 56: Nuclide Depletion Equations in Matrix Form
166
(576)
Lulu Li
Figure 57: Nuclide Balance Equation

167
Lulu Li
15.3
Iodine/Xenon
Xe-135 has a thermal absorption cross section of 2.6 106 barns.

Major source: Iodine decay; 135I
135
Xe which happens with a half-life of 6.6 hours.
Major sink: burnup. Xe has a huge absorption xs (106 barns), so

decay again with a half-life of 9.1 hours.
135
Xe + n
136
Xe. Xe can also beta
Xenon peaking happens because after shutdown, the major sink is removed, but the major source remains, hence
Xenon peaks until the Iodine depletes. Reactors must be designed with enough fuel to offset the effect of Xenon.
At the end of core life, there may not be enough reactivity to override peak Xenon; such reactors are called
xenon-precluded. If a scram occurs, a restart may not be possible for 30-40 hours. See Stacys Example 6.2
(p.214) for an example of xenon reactivity worth and illustrating diagrams.
168
Lulu Li
After startup: both I and Xe increases, and

saturates after 30 hrs. After shutdown: I
decays quickly, whereas Xe peaks 9 hrs after shutdown, and decays away in 60 hours.
The peak happens because I coninues to decay into Xe, while Xe can no longer decrease
through capture. There is a 2.5% depress due
to Xe; the higher the flux, the higher the peak
is.
A rapid startup after a scram: the concentration decreases immediately after the startup,
because Xe absorption increases suddenely
due to flux, which over-weights the amount
from I decay. Xe would reach its equilibrium
value again after about 40 hrs.
Equilibrium Xe Worth: if , then

Xeq is independent of as shown in the Xeq
expression; additionally, the Xenon concentration drops right after everytime power increases for the same reason as the previous
case (flux increases, the destruction rate of Xe
increases instantenously, but the Iodine decay
rate has not increased yet).
169
Xe for high flux reactor: Xe peak gives rise

to a control constraint. If the reactivity reserves (control rods or poisons that can be removed) are insufficient, the reactor cannot be
restarted during this period of increased Xe
poisoning. We have to wait till Xe drops to
re-start. Alternatively, you can start before
Xe builds up, which is pretty rare.
Lulu Li
15.4
Promethium/Samarium
Samarium is another fission poisoner. It has one source: decay of Promethium; it has one sink: burnup.
170
Lulu Li
Promethium behaves normally: it builds up

and reaches equilibrium when in operation,
and it decays away after shutdown. Sm behaves similar to Xe in the sense that both
peaks after reactor shutdown (Sm peaks 200
hrs after shutdown, Xe peaks 9 hrs after shutdown). But Sm is stable unlike Xe, and once
Pm burns out, Sm would stay constant and
never decay away. Sm reactivity peaks by
200-300 pcm after shutdown.
Sm worth following a refueling outage: Overwrite Xenon by pulling the control rods out
for a couple of days; then insert the control
rods for Sm. Sm returns to equilibrium about
100 hours after restart.
Sm for high flux reactor (20x PWR power

density): Sm peaks a lot, which is bad because we may never be able to overrid Sm reactivity without refueling. Hence we should
always have a controlled shutdown that burns
out Xe/Sm before they build up.
171
Lulu Li
15.5
Spatial Xenon Oscillations
When a flux tilt is introduced into a reactor, the Xe concentration will initially increase in the region whose flux
is reduced, and initially decrease in the region of increased flux. This shift in the Xe distribution is such as to
increase (decrease) the multiplication properties of the region in which the flux has increased (decreased), thus
enhancing the flux tilt. After a few hours the increased Xe production due to the increasing I concentration in
the high-flux region causes the high-flux region to have reduced multiplicative properties, and vise versa. This
decreases, and may reverse, the flux tilt. In this manner it is possible under certain conditions for the delayed Xe
production effects to induce growing oscillations in the spatial flux distribution16 .
Chasing Xenon, meaning placing the control rods where there are high concentration of Xenon, is wrong
because we are nine hours out of sync then.
16 Quoted
from Stacys Section 16.6 on page 642
172
Lulu Li
15.6
Production Codes Fission Product Modeling
1. Point Fuel Models: ORIGEN: complete isotropic model.

2. Lattice Physics:
Traditional models: 30 FPs, 2 lumped FPs (these fission products do not saturate; they increase as
burnups).
Latest codes: 250 FPs.
3. Core Models:
Traditionally: explicit I/Xe, Pm/Sm, all other FPs are resiual macros (depend on burnups);
Latest codes: about 30 FPs, all other FPs count as residual macros vs. BU.
Benchmark: Nd is a burnup marker term b/c of its low absorption cross section. Each fission produces a fixed
amount of Nd (Pu and U produces slightly different amount of Nd). Use Nd number density and the yield, you
can back out the burnups.
Gd156 and Gd157 are important for startups when using old rods (15 years old). Once operating, we dont
really care about Gd that much.
173
Lulu Li
16
Fuel Depletion
For fuel assembly depletion, the reactivity of fuel changes dramatically with burnup as in Fig. 58. Typically fresh
assemblies would include burnable poisons to control initial reactivity. Notice the rapid drop right after reactor
start-up it is due to Xe buildup.
Figure 58: Reactivity vs. BU
16.1
Actinide Chain Balance Equation
Normally we would model around 400 actinides; for this class, we only discuss 22 of them that occupy the
high-end of actinides (with large N, large Z).
What happens during actinide chain construction?
1. FP absorbe neutrons and reduce reactivitiy of the fuel significantly, often 10-20%;
2. Fission cross section: isotopes have threshold energies, producing step-shape near higher energies (around
10 MeV)17 . Remember Pu is very fissile material. Am242 is a funny one although its an even isotope, its
fission cross section is large.
3. Simple actinide nuclide transmutation model as in Figure 59: red arrows designate the actinide chains we
model (chains end at isotopes that decay quickly compared with the phenomena we are trying to model);
blue arrows designate beta decay.
4. The higher you go up the chain (e.g., into the MA region), the worse the absorption would be.
5. Branching ratio is a function of energy. Example: 241Am can produce 242Am with a half-life of 16 hrs, and
the meta-stable 242mAm with a half-life of 141 years. 242Ams thermal branching ratio is about 10% that of
242m
Am.
17 Both even and odd isotopes have threshold energies, but odd isotopes have higher resonance fission cross section, hence even isotopes
threshold energy behavior is more pronoud.
174
Lulu Li
Figure 59: Simple Actinide Nuclide Transmutation Model
Figure 60: Actinide Balance Equations
175
Lulu Li
16.2
Actinide Chain Matrix System
Compare fission product matrix form vs. actinides matrix formin Fig. 61:
Actinides matrix form has no fission yield term so the solution is just [N (tn )] = e[A]tn [N (tn1 )] ;
FP matrix is decoupled; actinide matrix is not.
Figure 61: Nuclide Depletion Equations vs. Actinide in Matrix Form

More specifically, we focus on the actinides matrix which is illustrated in both Fig. 62 and Fig. 63.
Figure 62: Nuclide Depletion Equations vs. Actinide in Matrix Form

There are 4 blocks for the 4 species as in Fig. 63.
The decay terms sit outside of the blocks; they couple the blocks.
The capture terms are one line off the diagonal term (NP238 decays so quickly that its capture cross section
is zero and is not shown through the spy function in Matlab);
We dont have above the diagonal term because we ignore the n2n reaction and the n reaction. The reason
we ignore them is that having a sub-diagonal matrix we can invert analytically; whereas having a full matrix
176
Lulu Li
Figure 63: Matrix Shape for Actinide Depletion Equations

is a lot harder to invert. Another simplification we made is to ignore all meta-stable states and only have
the ground states, hence ignoring branching.
One side-note here is that Bateman equations can be very stiff. For a system of differential equation

N10
1
N20 = 11
N30
21
0
2
2
0
N1
0 N2
0
N3
(577)
whose solution is expressed as [N ] = [V ][][V ]1 [N0 ] where
[] = Diag[e1 t , e2 t , 1]
[V ] =
1
11
2 1
21 2
2 1
0
1
1
0
0
(578)
So if 1 = 2 (which is possible when absorption terms are present), numerical instability could happen
depends on the flux level!
177
Lulu Li
16.3
Actinide Chain Solution
Interpretation of Fig. 64:

1. U238 barely changes; there are a lot of it, and it probably decreases by 1%; often time the nuclear concentration is plotted with respect to initial heavy metal inventory, that is, U238 concentration.
2. U234, U235 does not have production, hence it decreases.
3. U236 is produced as we burnup U235; U236 has almost no destruction rates;
4. U237 is produced as we burnup
5. U239 is a constant because its capture from U238 is constant, and U239 decays so quickly (23 mins) that
its at equilibrium the whole time.
6. (remember) Np has a half-life of 2 and 2.5 days; Nps cancels out Am etc, and they have the same half-life,
so people use to ignore them.
7. Production with Pu;
8. Am244: takes a certain burnup to come up. Even though Am is a small concentration, we still care about
them.
Fig. 65 shows that about 40-50% of power would be produced from Pu instead of U by the time we shut down the
reactor.
178
Lulu Li
Figure 64: Actinide Concentrations vs. BU
179
Lulu Li
Figure 65: Fission Fractions by Nuclide vs. BU
180
Lulu Li
16.4
Burnup: Why we use it and units
Figure 66: Isotropic Number Density vs. BU

Fig. 66 shows that power level does not affect number density vs. BU plot. BU is a better gage of depletion
effect than time.
1. FIFA = fission per initial fissile atoms;
2. FIMA = fission per initial (heavy) metal atoms;
3. Atom percent (A%) = FIMA * 100;
4. Burnup: GWd/T = MWd/kg = thermal power per weight of heavy metal.
Advantages: we know the reactor power and initial fuel loading (almost).
Disadvantages: energy released is not a very clean term; we dont really care about neutrino energy,
gamma energy released from capture of neutrons; energy deposited in fuel assembly B from fissions in
assembly A etc. In LWR, it is a good approximation to assume that energy is depositied locally where
the fission happens; in MITR it is a bad approximation, fission product energy (deposite locally),
gamma heat energy (not necessarily deposited locally), etc.
5. EFPHs = Effective Full Power Hours; EFPD = Effective Full Power Days.
181
Lulu Li
Figure 67: Composition of WABA and IFBA
16.5
History Effects
1. Overall, we use WABA (Wet Annular Burnable Absorber), IFBA (Integral Fuel Burnable Absorber) and
Gd (mixed with fuel) to control reactivity.
2. Burnable Poisons History Effect (Fig. 68): hardern the spectrum, because it pushes some water away. It is a
history effect: you place BP at BOL and take it out later to achieve flat power through time. The BP effect
is about 250 pcm.
3. Fuel Temperature Depletion History Effects (Fig. 69): initially, the instantenous temperature effect is almost
independent of depletion; as the burnup increases, something happens. The moral of the story is, we not
only need to know the burnup but also the temperature.
4. Gadolinium burnable absorber (Fig. 70):
Gadolinium has a huge thermal absorption cross section. It is almost as high as Zn, but we cannot use
Zinon because it would decay;
What we do with Gadolinium is to replace part of the fuel with Gd and reactivity would be flatter with
respect to time.
Gad depletes/burns in layers around the fuel pin from outside to inside. ]
Hold-down is the difference between the reactivity at the BOL with and without the reactivity control
mechanism.
Gad residual: there is a little bit loss of reactivity due to Gad.
182
Lulu Li
Figure 68: Removable Burnable Poisons: History Effects
Figure 69: Fuel Temperature: Depletion History Effects
183
Lulu Li
Figure 70: Gd Burnable Poisons
184
Lulu Li
16.6
Numerous Subtle Effects
1. We didnt really cover the Thorium/U233 Chain in Kords class.

The chain for Th is very complicated; there are n2n reactions at all different levels; there are multiple
ways to get U232;
some of these isotopes have very rapid alpha decays;
Pa233 has 27 day half-life;
U232 has 70 year half-life; U232s daughter product Ta208 has 2.6 MeV gamma (which is the hardest
gamma known).
Figure 71: U233/Th Chains

2. Coverage of Th/U233 comparison from Bens class (11/29).
185
Lulu Li
Neutron yield increases with

incoming neutron energy, and
Pu239 produces almost 0.5 more
neutron per fission.
But fission probability once captures in larger in U233 except at
high energy.
Combining the two graphs yields:
f
. Thus Th cycle is
= f +
c
preferable for breeding in thermal
systems.
3. Th cycle advantages:
(a) Abundancy is 4x that of U.
(b) Less waste: we start further bottom left from the chain, and Th cycle would generate less MA waste.
(c) U-233 critical mass is smaller than U-235 and not diluted by U-238.
(d) U-232 emits high energy gamma.
(e) Difficult reprocessing.
Companies that considers Th cycle: Thorium Power Inc which is a subsidiary of Lightbridge Corp.
4. Where do reaction rates come from?
ORIGEN uses point depletion,
Fuel pin radial shape: the outter region almost have 2 times the flux compared with the inner ones.
5. Benchmark:
data set is the single most important things in determine the accuracy of your codes.
U235 has a pretty large error, but we dont care because there is so little of it;
Accuracy tends to decrease the further up the decay chains.
Measurements also have an intrinsic uncertainty; do not rely on single measurement campaigns; systematic errors in measurements are common.
In performing actinide burner analysis, when we place the actinide at the end of one analysis into
another one, the error builds up.
186
Lulu Li
Table 15: Nuclear Fuel Characteristics
187
Lulu Li
16.7
Spent Fuel and Recycling
16.7.1
Neutronic Consideration
The following spent fuel neutronics was given by Prof. Forget on 11/29/12 for 22.211.
1. Spent fuel: 15% of U-235 transmuted to U-236 and Np-237. 3.5% of U-238 transmuted to Pu-239. That is,
60% fissioned and the rest remains Pu-239 and higher actinides.
2. The majority of the spent fuel is U238 which is not real waste; the U and Pu in the spent fuel is sent back
to the core. The real waste is limited to MA and is vitrified in a borosilicate glass form.
3. MOX recycling: spent fuel contains enough fissile Pu to be recycled in a LWR. PuO2 is mixed with depleted
U (enrichment varies between 5 to 8% Pu). Pu recycling reduces amount of waste by 30 % (reduce total
TRU by 20%), but has minimal impact on radiotoxicity. MOX core loading is currently being done in
France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Japan. Current PWR are limited to 30% loading of MOX
assemblies b/c:
Pu reduces the delayed neutron fraction.
MOX fuel has a harder spectrum thus reducing the efficiency of the control rods and soluble boron.
Create pin peaking at the edge of MOX and UOX assemblies.
Newly designed PWRs would be able to accommodate full core MOX assemblies by:
number of control rods.
boron enrichment.
moderator to fuel ratio.
4. A higher Pu enrichment is typically required compare to U for two reasons: a) only 60% Pu is fissile 239Pu,
the rest of them are parisitic; b) Pu has a higher absorption rates.
5. Multi-recycling: we cannot recycle too many times. Reason: after 1st cycle the fissile content is 64.8%,
after 2nd cycle fissile is only 51.1% and requires a higher Pu enrichment; and if Pu enrichment is pass xxx,
then the void coefficient would become positive.
6. DUPIC cycle (used in CANDU): it is an entirely mechanical process during which we grind up everything,
the gas comes out, and re-construct the grinds into fuel which contains about 0.8% U235 and 0.8% Pu239,
which is about twice the excess reactivity of natural uranium and is more than enough for a CANDU.
7. Fast reactor transmutation: at high energy, all MA are fissionable (also high absorption cross section which
is why we dont expect to get energy from MA), so we can transmutate MA.
8. Safety concerns: See Fig. 72.
188
Lulu Li
Figure 72: Safety Concerns

16.7.2
Spent Fuel Storage
There are a couple of places that we store spent fuel

1. Spent fuel pool (SFP):
(a) Typically the three units in the same site share the same spent fuel pool.
(b) Requirement: keff < 0.95.
(c) SFP design simulation: it is common to use MCNP to calculate the inter-assembly spacing to keep
keff under the limit. US-APWR licensing assumes all fresh fuel in SFP. SFP absorber panels were
placed inside to reduce the inter-assembly spacing. The absorber panels are made of B-10 in the form
of B4 C in a metal matrix or a polymer matrix Boraflex (trademark of BISCO). Boraflex is great, except
it degenerates with gamma radiation which was not known at the time of construction.
(d) Other licensing simulation: calculate dilution time needed to reach 200ppm. That is, assuming a
200ppm perturbation, how much dilution do we need to keep it subcritical?
(e) Make most conservative assumptions possible: water density at its lowest, water temperature at its
highest, worst axial distribution etc.
189
Lulu Li
(f) SFP loading curves are developed where the y-axis is Burnup, x-axis is initial enrichment, and lines
were drawn to illustrate limitations.
2. Interim Storage: CLAB (Central Interim Storage Facility for Spent Fuel) is an interim storage facility for
all spent fuel from Swedish nuclear reactors. It was opened in 1950 and was expanded in the 2000s to its
current capacity. A Swedish reactor generates between 15 to 25 tonnes per year. It has also been used for
performing calorimeter measurements of full-length spent fuel assemblies.
3. On-site dry cast storage. These are dry casks built on-site. Under the current consideration, all sites are
going to get dry cast storage eventually. It consists of steel canisters (one canister holds 36 assemblies),
storage casts, and transport casts. Loading 36 assemblies into a canister takes about 1.5 days. Each fuel
transport operation (placing canister in cast, two welded steel lids, take out water and pump in He) takes
about 8 days to complete. At Yankee Rowe, the inner cast is a transport cast that can be taken out and
transport to a permanent site later on.
190
Lulu Li
16.8
Relate Neutronics and TH
This section was given by Prof. Forget on 12/04/12 and 12/06/12.

1. FP deposit energy locally, and fuel expands due to temperature changes. Because the temperature increase
on the inside is larger than the outside, pellets are fabricated with a slightly shorter height on the inside as
in Fig. 73
Figure 73: Fuel Pellets Shapes

2. UO2 is used in LWRs regardless of its low heat transfer property because it does not interact with water
violently. UO2 has a relatively low thermal expand, so the gap between the fuel and the clad can be relatively
small.
3. Fast reactors use metallic fuel because a) better heat transfer, b) coolant is not water so no worry for
chemical reaction, c) metallic fuel thermal expansion is large, which replaces Doppler effect(recall Doppler
is due to U238 ). Also because metallic fuel expands more, we build fuel pellets with more porosity to
limit the amount of volume expansion.
4. Grid straps: egg crates to place pins in them. Pin starts vibrating and may cause fuel failure.
5. To flattern power peaking:
(a) Core loading.
(b) Poisons: WABA, IFBA ZrB2 , Gd and other Lanthanum.
(c) Control rod sequence.
(d) Reflector.
(e) Core enrichment.
(f) Flow orificing: change flow pattern at different assemblies. It is not done in LWRs that often, more
common in SFRs to control temperature and flux spectrum.
6. Thermal transients in fuel:
MF Cp,f
dTf
1
= P (t)
(Tf (t) Tc (t))
dt
Rf
(579)
where Rf captures all the thermal resistance. Assume steady state, then
P (t) =
1
(Tf (t) Tc (t))
Rf
(580)
If we assume a fast transient with no cooling (Rf ), then we get adiabatic heat rate:
Mf Cp,f
dTf
= P (t)
dt
191
(581)
Lulu Li
7. Thermal transients in coolant:
MC CpC
dTc
1
=
(Tf (t) Tc (t)) 2m
c Cpc (Tc (t) Ti )
dt
Rf
(582)
where m=
mass flow of coolant, and the factor of 2 is there because the Tc (t) in the equation is assumed to
be the average.
Steady state: 2mC
Pc (Tc Ti ) =
1
(Tf Tc ) = P . That is, reactor power is determined from flow
Rf
and temperature measurements.

8. We can relate the above two equations with the PKE using P (t). That is, how do we relate temperature
change to reactivity change.
k1
dk
dk
(a) Set-up: consider =
, d = 2 . If we assume k 1, then d =
= d(ln k). There is
k
k
k
benefit in writing k in log form as now we can separate multiplication into additions.
(b) Consider keff = k PN L , where PN L =
1
L2 Bg2 ,
we can write,
d(ln k) = d(ln k ) + d(ln PN L ) =
dk
dPN L
+
k
PN L
(583)
We can do:
L2 Bg2
dPN L
=
PN L
1 + L2 Bg2
dBg2
dL2
+
L2
Bg2
!
(584)
(c) Recall

z
k =
}|
!{ z }| { z }| { z}|{
F
2
f 1 a2 + D2 Bg s12 f 2 F
a2
1+
f 2
12
R1 F
a2
a2
(585)
(d) If we characterize the temperature effect as k = f (Tm , Tf , Tm ). For PWR Tm = Tc ,

dk
1 d k
1 d k
=
+
k
k dTf
k dTc
(586)
1 dk
1 d
1 d
1 df
1 d
=
+
+
+
k dTx
dTx
dTx
f dTx
dTx
(587)
d =
If we define reactor coefficient,
x =
9. Fuel temperature feedback: Doppler (Doppler broadening of resonances capture of 238U,

Impact (resonance escape probability):
=
s12
R1
Tf , R1 ,
192
(588)
Lulu Li
Impact is negliable above resonance region.

F
Impact = Ff is very small because fission and absorption cross section scales with temperature
a2
approximately the same.
F
a2
Impact on f = a2
is very small because absorption cross section scales with temperature approximately the same in fuel and outside the fuel.
PWR has a f = 0.01 to 0.03 mk/degreeC. SFR is about the same.

10. Moderator temperature. Consider Tm = Tc for PWR,
m =
1 dkm
1 dk dNm
k dTm
k dNm dTm
(589)
There is no resonance effect; temperature effect is felt through density change.

We define expansion coefficient (volume changes at constant pressure)
m =
1 dNm
Nm dTm
m = m Nm
1 dk
k dNm
(590)
The expansion coefficient of sodium and salt is very large; it will change density, cross section, and
push some coolant outside thus changing the moderator-to-fuel ratio.
For our case, two terms depend on the fuel and do not change much: , . would go up a little
bit, as s12 = Nm s12 as Nm . Most of the effect is felt by resonance escape probability p and
thermalization factor f .
s12
Nm H,s12
In the resonance escape probability p, p =
=
as Nm . The cross sections are
R1
R1
considered flat, and in the R1 = a + s12 in which a dominates. The real formulation should be,
0
p=
z }| {
Nm s12,m + NF s12,F
s12
(591)
z }| {
R,m +R1,F
This is the largest effect that density change would produce.
a2,F
a2,F
=
:
In the thermalization factor f , f =
a2
a2,F + a2,M + a2,CC + a2 ,SB
a2,M does not change much because moderators absorption cross section is relative small compare with control rods and soluble borons absorption cross sections.
As Tc , water density decreases, NSB , f .
The effect of control rod is more subtle as Tc , water density decreases, water moderates
less, spectrum hardens, then the dominating cross section becomes smaller (recall 1/v behavior in
absorption cross section in thermal energy range), or say . This is a good way to consider spetral
effect: think about how the flux peak shifts, and think what the cross section is like at that peak.
Summary: as Tc , p , f . When we design a reactor, we have to balance p with f because an
optimal moderation exists. We want to stay under-moderated as in Fig. 74.
193
Lulu Li
Figure 74: Under Moderation Requirement

11. Fast reactor considerations: we pack fuels more tightly, m > 0, f < 0, we use leakage to control
reactivity:
L2 Bg2
dPN L
=
PN L
1 + L2 Bg2
dBg2
dL2
+
2
L
Bg2
!
(592)
Core flowering: fuel expands at different rate, and it would expand more on the top, creating a negative
coefficient.
As temperature , number of neutrons generated per fission event producing a positive feedback .
This is another positive temperature coefficient that LWRs do not have to worry about.
12. Power coefficient: at the end of the day, we really care about the power coefficient that combines fuel
temperature effect and moderator temperature coefficient. We want the power coefficient to be negative.
P =
1 k
1 dk dTf
1 dk dTc
d
=
=
+
dP
k d
k dTf dP
k dTc dP
(593)
The one reactor built that has a positive power coefficient unexpected (designed to be -0.12mk/MW, measured at 0.28 mk/MW had to be shutdown) is the MAPLEs medical reactor built around 2000. Fuel expands
by less than 1mm but because it is a small reactor it pushes the power coefficient to be positive.
Key points:
(a) Temperature defect: when we start up the reactor from CZP to HZP, we experience a negative reactivity due to resonances absorption increase:
Z
Ti
DT =
(m + f ) dT
Troom
(b) Power defect: when we go from HZP to HFP,
194
(594)
Lulu Li
Tf
DP =
Tc
f dTf +
Ti
c dTc
(595)
Ti
where Tc Ti is fairly small ( 20 C), whereas the power defect is dominated by the fuel materials.
(c) One way we can use power defect: if for some reason we need to stretch out the cycle length for some,
we can do coast-down by lowering the power, and by power defect, the reactivity would increase, thus
we can operator for a longer period of time before reaching subcritical.
(d) Excess reactivity: value of if all movable rods and poisons are removed from the core. We need
excess reactivity to compensate for the temperature defect, power detect and shutdown margin.
13. Reactor transients: if we assume initially critical core, m , f < 0. With a reactority insection (t), we
can write
(t) = i (t) |f |(Tf (t) Tf (0)) |m |(Tc (t) Tc (0))
16.9
(596)
Depletion Code: ORIGIN
This lecture was given on 10/28/13 in Lecture 15 of 22.251.

ORIGIN is a fuel depletion and decay heat calculation code. It is very accurate in the depletion calculation,
but could be too crude (3 energy groups, 0 dimension geometry), so it is better to use ORIGIN with a lattice code
(e.g., SCALE package, CASMO, MCNP) and feed reaction rates into ORIGIN. Sample calculation that ORIGIN
can perform:
1. Decay heat calculation: isotopes that dominate the decay heat:
2.5 days: Np-239.
41 years: Cs-137, Ba-137.
740 years: Am-241, Pu-240, Pu-239.
30,000 years: Pu-239, Pu-240.
2. Neutron & gamma spectra: for instance, it is useful to know neutron and gamma energy release during
shipping and storage.
3. Cask design: heat source, heat conduction, gamma/neutron transport.
195
Lulu Li
17
17.1
Exam 2 Review: Diffusion Theory

Most Important Concepts
1. k depends on integrated cross section only (cross sections that treat pin-cells as homogenized preserve
exactly the MC fuel reactivity for infinite repeating lattices):
(a) One group: k =
(b) Two group: k
f
.
a
f1 + f2
=
s12
a1 +
2
1
s12
a2
f1 + f2
s12
a1 +
2. keff : take into account leakage, notice keff does not depend on volume or flux.
(a) One group and two group,
keff
f
=
,
DB 2 + a
k =
f1 + f2
2
1
s12
D1 B 2 + a1 +
f1 + f2
s12
D2 B 2 + a2
(597)
s12
D1 B 2 + a1 +
(b) Spectral hardening: see Section 3.9. As U/H increases, the higher energy ranges become more important, and the peak of the thermal spectrum shifts to the right. Distribution of group-wise absorption
shifts towards the higher energy. 1/v absorption of U238 becomes more significant. Self-shielding
reduces the large resonance absorption fractions.
3. Buckling:
2
(a) Material buckling: the most general expression, Bm
=
f
keff
a
D
1 f
keff a
D/a
k
keff
M2
where M 2 is a measurement of the distance traveled before absorption. If keff = 1, the material
buckling is uniquely determined by the cross sections, which gives us the infinite medium critical
buckling.
(b) Critical buckling means B 2 is the same for all energy groups. This is a common given condition
in two-group diffusion problem.
4. Transport equation to diffusion equation:
),
(a) Real transport equation (not discussed in this class?) where every is (~r , E,
Z
Z
Z
+ t =
0
)(~r , E 0 , 0 ) + (E)
dE 0
d0 s (~r , E 0 E,
dE 0 f (E 0 )(~r , E 0 ) + S
4
(b) Assume isotropic scattering, we get neutron balance/continuity equation, which is is exact because we
havent approximate J~ yet,
XZ
J~ (~r , E) + t (~r , E)(~r , E) =
dE 0 is (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 ) + S0 (~r , E)
i
E0
R
R
~ dV = (
~ ~n ) dS. In deriving the diffusion theorem
(c) Gauss theorem/Divergence theorem: V ( )
S
from transport theorem, we use the divergence theorem to turn the surface integral into the volume
integral,
Z
Z
J~ ~n dS = J~ dV
(598)
From there we use the Ficks law, J~ = D to get the leakage term D2 .
196
Lulu Li
5. Diffusion equation implementation:

(a) Coefficient:
Transport cross section and diffusion coefficients: from the net current equation, assume the
scattering is isotropic in the COM system, and use transport correction P0 approximation,
D=
1
,
3tr
tr = t s1 = t
2
s
3A
(599)
Effective down-scattering cross section (if assume up-scattering is zero, effective down-scattering
is real down-scattering):
s12 = s12 s21 2
(600)
Removal cross section

G
X
rg = tg sgg = ag +
sgg0
(601)
g 0 =1,g 0 6=g
(b) Boundary condition

i. Zero flux boundary condition: (X) = 0.
ii. Zero Incoming Flux bc; if integrating over all angles in half space, it gives us Zero Incoming
Partial Current:

~ )
(~r , E,
= 0,
J (~r i , E) = 0
(602)
~ <0
~
n
There are two formulism to solve this:

Kords formulism:
J (~r , E) =
1
1
(~r , E) Jn (~r , E) = 0,
4
2
J
1
=
(603)
The more conventional approach is to approximate with extropolation boundary condition:

1
D
+ n
4
2
1
3tr
1
2
2
=
=
=
where dextrap =
= tr
2D
2
dextrap
3tr
3
J =
(604)
(605)
where D is the property of the material inside, and tr is transport mean free path. The
coefficient before tr can be 0.711 in other formulism.
(c) Collapsing coefficients and D:
X
= X
D
D = X
6. Multi-group approximation: know how to derive the following two.

(a) Scattering matrix:
(b) Reaction rate preservation
197
(606)
Lulu Li
7. Analytical solution of one group diffusion equation:

(a) Helmholtz: from one-group diffusion equation, we assume spatial constant cross section and use
buckling term,
2 (~r ) + B 2 (~r ) = 0
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(607)
This equation is important in showing that (~r ) has a constant curvature.

Laplacian: see Table 16.
Geometrical buckling: the allowable values that satisfy the boundary conditions are uniquely determined by reactor geometry. See Table 16
Reflector savings: See Section 11.5
Eigenvalues/eigenfunctions: 1D multi-group diffusion equations can be written as a matrix system,
and keff is the eigenvalue of the system, and the flux is the eigenfunction:
[A][] =
1
[M ][],
keff
[A]1 [M ][] = keff []
(608)
If using power iteration, we solve for [A][]n+1 = [M ][]n , and keff can be solved from,
keff =
[M ][]n+1
[M ][]n
(609)
8. Two group diffusion equations: very simple set-up, continuity conditions, BCs.
(a) General expression:

D1 2 1 + (a1 + s12 )1 = f 1 1 + f 2 2 + S1
D2 2 2 + a2 2 = s12 1 + S2
(b) Infinite medium: 2 0 for no leakage,

(a1 + s12 )1 = k1 (f 1 1 + f 2 2 )
a2 2 = s12 1
"
f1
k
s12
a1
s12
f2
k
#
a2
1
2
(611)

=0
(612)
(c) Finite medium: has leakage term DB 2 ,

1
(f 1 1 + f 2 2 )
(D1 B 2 + a1 + s12 )1 = keff
2
(D2 B + a2 )2 = s12 1
"
f1
keff
s12
D1 B 2 a1
s12
f2
keff
2
D2 B a2
(610)
#
1
2
(613)

=0
(614)
(d) Interface conditions:

i. Continuity of scalar flux:
(~r
r+
i , E) = (~
i , E)
(615)
~n D(~r
r
n D(~r +
r+
i , E)(~
i , E) = ~
i , E)(~
i , E)
(616)
ii. Continuity of normal current:
198
Lulu Li
17.2
Fission Product and Fuel Depletion
1. FP properties:
Most are highly unstable and rapidly decay;
Certain FPs are important to thermal spectrum b/c high thermal absorption xs and large concentration.
Top 6 that made up 50% of total FP absorption are: 135Xe, 103Rh, 143Nd, 131Xe, 133Cs, 149Sm).
FPs have little contribution to the fast spectrum. FRs are generally not very sensitive to FPs.
2. Fission yields.
3. Independent fission yield vs. cumulative fission yield (12 Exam 2 #4): independent yield is the yield of
a specific isotope directly from fission and nothing else. Cumulative yield includes the independent yield
PLUS all the precursor isotopes that decay into a specific isotope.
4. 12 Exam 2 #3: approximate values of 135Xe and
Answer:
135
Xe: 2 10 b,
149
149
Sm capture cross sections at 0.10 eV and 300K?
Sm: 1.15 10 b. Both are huge!
199
Lulu Li
5. FP balance equation:
dNi
=
dt
fission gain decay n capture decay of j n capture of k

z }| {
z }| {
z }| {
z }| {
z }| {
i f i Ni i Ni + j Nj + k Nk
6. Analytic solution first order ODE
(617)
R
dN
+ A(t)N (t) = Y , know to do IF = e A(t) dt = eAt ,
dt
eAt
dN
+ eAt A(t)N (t) = eAt Y
dt
d At
[e N (t)] = eAt Y
dt
eAt N (t) = A1 eAt Y + C
(618)
(619)
(620)
Using the particular solution that N0 = N (t = 0), then

N0 = A1 Y + C C = N0 A1 Y
(621)
eAt N (t) = A1 [eAt Y Y ] + N0
(622)
N (t) = eAt N0 + eAt A1 [eAt Y Y ] = N0 eAt + A1 Y [1 eAt ]
(623)
See Figure 56 for how to construct matrix form, assuming that fission yields, cross sections, and fluxes are
constant over the time interval tn1 , tn ,
[N (tn )] = e[A]tn [N (tn1 )] + e[A]tn [A]1 [e[A]tn Y Y0 ]
7. Nuclide depletion equations: it is exactly the same as the FP equations.

200
(624)
Lulu Li
(a) Capture: one line off the diagonal term.

(b) Beta decay: sits outside of the blocks; they couple the blocks.
(c) Matrix construction.
8. Xe-I, Pm-Sm decay chain: know Xe almost do not decay away (b/c relatively long half-life) and we can
ignore Sm decay and Sm fission generation too.
9. Equilibrium solution and interpretation:

(a) Equilibrium I-135 concentration is proportional to flux: Ieq =
I f
I ;
(b) Equilibrium Xe-135 concentration depends on flux at low flux, and it is independent at high flux level:
( +X )f
Xeq = I X +
;
X
(c) Equilibrium Pm-149 concentration is proportional to flux: Peq =
f
;
(d) Equilibrium Sm-149 concentration is independent of flux: Seq =
201
Lulu Li
10. I/Xe, Pm/Sm reactivity effects: Xe and Sm both are fission poisoners18 .
Major source of Xe: Iodine decay; Source of Sm: Pm decay;
Major sink of Xe: burnup; Sink of Sm: burnup.
Xenon peaking happens because after shutdown, the major sink is removed, but the major source remains,
hence Xenon peaks until the Iodine depletes.
11. In a LWR, equilibrium Xe accounts for about -4 (thats negative 2500 2800 pcm) of reactivity during
operation and does not depend on flux level. On shutdown, additional negative reactivity is added which
depends on flux level.
12. In a LWR, Sm-149 builds up at shutdown and does not decay. It accounts for about during operation,
and 0.5 at shutdown. This becomes a much bigger issue for high flux reactors.
13. Xe-precluded cores: reactors must be designed with enough fuel to offset the effect of Xe; otherwise at the
end of core life, there may not be enough reactivity to override peak Xe; such reactors are called xenonprecluded. If a scram occurs, a restart may not be possible for 30-40 hrs. See Stacys Example 6.2 (p.214)
for an example of xenon reactivity worth and illustrating diagrams.
14. Spatial Xe oscillations: if a core has a flux gradient, then regions with low flux would have a higher Xe
concentration (due to less burnup of Xe), thus a even reduced flux, until the I concentration becomes low
(Ieq ), and Xe would first slowing decrease then suddently decrease thus increasing the flux (see Fig in
class notes). The point is, with a feedback due to flux changing, Xe concentration and flux can oscillate.
15. Xe chasing is not right, because Xe concentration is 9 hrs behind what is actually going on in the core.
16. Production tool: Nd is a BU marker term b/c each FP produces a fixed amount of Nd. Thus using Nd
number density and the yield we can back out the BU.
17. Old rods (15 yrs) have 156Gd and
18 Xe-135
157
Gd which would make startup hard.
has a thermal absorption cross section of 2.6 106 barns.
202
Lulu Li
After startup: both I and Xe increases, and

saturates after 30 hrs. After shutdown: I
decays quickly, whereas Xe peaks 9 hrs after shutdown, and decays away in 60 hours.
The peak happens because I coninues to decay into Xe, while Xe can no longer decrease
through capture. There is a 2.5% depress due
to Xe; the higher the flux, the higher the peak
is.
A rapid startup after a scram: the concentration decreases immediately after the startup,
because Xe absorption increases suddenely
due to flux, which over-weights the amount
from I decay. Xe would reach its equilibrium
value again after about 40 hrs.
Equilibrium Xe Worth: if , then

Xeq is independent of as shown in the Xeq
expression; additionally, the Xenon concentration drops right after everytime power increases for the same reason as the previous
case (flux increases, the destruction rate of Xe
increases instantenously, but the Iodine decay
rate has not increased yet).
203
Xe for high flux reactor: Xe peak gives rise

to a control constraint. If the reactivity reserves (control rods or poisons that can be removed) are insufficient, the reactor cannot be
restarted during this period of increased Xe
poisoning. We have to wait till Xe drops to
re-start. Alternatively, you can start before
Xe builds up, which is pretty rare.
Lulu Li
Pm behaves normally: it builds up and reaches equilibrium when in operation, and it decays away after shutdown. Sm behaves similar to Xe in the sense that both
peaks after reactor shutdown (Sm peaks 200 hrs after
shutdown, Xe peaks 9 hrs after shutdown). But Sm is
stable unlike Xe, and once Pm burns out, Sm would stay
constant and never decay away. Sm reactivity peaks by
200-300 pcm after shutdown.
Sm worth following a refueling outage: Over-write

Xenon by pulling the control rods out for a couple of
days; then insert the control rods for Sm. Sm returns to
equilibrium about 100 hours after restart.
Sm for high flux reactor (20x PWR power density): Sm

peaks a lot, which is bad because we may never be able
to overrid Sm reactivity without refueling. Hence we
should always have a controlled shutdown that burns out
Xe/Sm before they build up.
204
Lulu Li
18. Actinide chain equations: similar to FPs except there is no direction production by fission anymore (so no
Y on the RHS) so the solution is just [N (tn )] = e[A]tn [N (tn1 )], and the matrix is more coupled than
FPs.
205
Lulu Li
19. Zooming in the matrix, there are four blocks for 4 matrixes,
The decay terms sit outside of the blocks; they couple the blocks.
The capture terms are one line off the diagonal term (NP238 decays so quickly that its capture cross
section is zero and is not shown throug the spy function in matlab);
We dont have above the diagonal term because we ignore the n2n reaction and the n reaction. The
reason we ignore them is that having a sub-diagonal matrix we can invert analytically; whereas having
a full matrix is a lot harder to invert. Another simplification we made is to ignore all meta-stable states
and only have the ground states, hence ignoring branching.
206
Lulu Li
20. Know some solutions of the actinide chain equations. E.g., U238 barely changes; U235 decreases b/c no
production; U236 increases b/c source is U235 plus n and no sink; U239 is constant b/c capture from U238
is constant, and U239 decays so quickly (23 mins) that it is at equilibrium the whole time.
21. Know the fission fraction vs. BU plot: by the EOL about 40-50% power was produced from Pu instead of
U.
22. BU is a good measurement, because number density vs. BU is independent of power level/time. BU units:
(a) FIFA = fission per initial fissile atoms;
(b) FIMA = fission per initial (heavy) metal atoms;
(c) Atom percent (A%) = FIMA * 100;
(d) Burnup: GWd/T = MWd/kg = thermal power per weight of heavy metal.
Advantages: we know the reactor power and initial fuel loading (almost).
Disadvantages: energy released is not a very clean term; we dont really care about neutrino
energy, gamma energy released from capture of neutrons; energy deposited in fuel assembly B
from fissions in assembly A etc. In LWR, it is a good approximation to assume that energy is
depositied locally where the fission happens; in MITR it is a bad approximation, fission product
energy (deposite locally), gamma heat energy (not necessarily deposited locally), etc.
(e) EFPHs = Effective Full Power Hours; EFPD = Effective Full Power Days.
23. History effects:
Burnable poisons: harden the spectrum. Remove 20 WABA at 20 MWd/kg generates a positive 350
pcm reactivity jump.
Fuel temperature depletion history effect: initially temperature independent of depletion; as BU ,
histories are approximately linear in BU.
Gd burnable poisons: burnup rates dependent on Gd concentration; residual is proportional to w% of
Gd.
207
Lulu Li
17.3
Analytical Diffusion Concepts
1. Multi-group diffusion equations: See Section 12.
z
Z
1
leakage/diffusion term
}|
Eg1
z
Z
2
total interaction term
}|
{
Eg1
dE D(~r , E)(~r , E) +
Eg
z
Z
Eg1
dES(~r , E)
(625)
Eg
4
fission source term
}|
{ z
Z
Z
0
0
0
dE(E)
dE f (~r , E )(~r , E ) +
E0
Eg
3
source term
}|
{
dEt (~r , E)(~r , E) =

Eg
Eg1
z
Z
Eg1
5
scattering source term
}|
{
Z
dE
dE 0 s (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 )
E0
Eg
(626)
Cancel the within group scattering cross section and define the group-wise removal cross section, we get
the final form,
Dg (~r )g (~r ) + rg (~r )g (~r ) = g
G
X
f g0
(~r ) (~r ) +
g 0 =1
g0
G
X
sg0 g (~r )g0 (~r ) + Sg (~r )
g 0 =1,g 0 6=g
(627)
2. Partial currents and albedos: use =
J+ =
1
4 [
1
1
D
1
+ Jn = ,
4
2
4
2
= 2[J + + J ],
~ J~ ],
+3
1
1
1
D
Jn = +
4
2
4
2
1
+
Jn = J J =
= D
3tr
J =
(628)
(629)
Albedo coefficient, the coefficient of reflection, is the measurement of how much flux is reflected back:
=
J
neutrons reflected back to the core
=
J+
neutrons leaving the core
208
(630)
Lulu Li
17.4
From Transport to Diffusion
1. Balance equation derived from transport equations,

XZ
~
J (~r , E) + t (~r , E)(~r , E) =
dE 0 is (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 ) + S0 (~r , E)
(631)
E0
This expression is exact, because we havent approximate J~ yet.

2. Using P1 angular flux expansion,
)=
(~r , E,
i
1 h
J~ (~r , E)
(~r , E) + 3
4
(632)
We can get the net current equation,

X
1
(~r , E) + t (~r , E) J~ (~r , E) =
3
i
Z
E0
~1 (~r , E)
dE 0 is1 (~r , E 0 E) J~ (~r , E 0 ) + S
(633)
3. From net current equation, assume no source and isotropic scattering in lab system, we can approximate
the transport equation as,
itr (E) = it (E)
Then we can solve for diffusion coefficient D =
2 i
(E)
3Ai s
(634)
1
3tr .
4. Steady-state continuous energy diffusion equation:

Z
D(~r , E)(~r , E) + t (~r , E)(~r , E) = (E)
dE f (~r , E )(~r , E ) +
E0
dE 0 s (~r , E 0 E)(~r , E 0 ) +
E0
(635)
5. One-group diffusion equation,
D(~r )(~r ) + a (~r )(~r ) =
1
f (~r )(~r )
keff
(636)
6. Helmoltz Equation: from one-group diffusion equation, we assume spatial constant cross section and use
buckling term,
2 (~r ) + B 2 (~r ) = 0
This equation is important in showing that (~r ) has a constant curvature.
209
(637)
Lulu Li
17.5
Sample Diffusion Problems From Lectures
1. Homogeneous (single-region) criticality problems: only the lowest node remains after the source is gone.
For any positive value of material buckling, there is a unique critical size for each geometry.

(a) 1D slab L20 , L20 , no source, critical.
d2
+ B 2 (x) = 0,
dx2
BCs: (L/2) = 0, where
L
2
(x) = A cos(Bx) + C sin(Bx)
(638)
L0
2
+ 0.711tr . Two equations two unknowns,

cos(BL/2) sin(BL/2)
A
=0
cos(BL/2) sin(BL/2)
C
(639)
Set the determinant to be zero, we get 2 cos(BL/2) sin(BL/2) = 0. There are two possibilities:

n
An cos(Bn x) n = 1, 3, 5,
(x) =
(640)
Bn =
An sin(Bn x) n = 2, 4, 6,
L
But in order for (x) 0 everywhere, only n = 1 is possible; that is,
(x) = A cos
x
L
(641)
and the criticality condition implies that,

2
f a
=
D
L
(642)
(b) Consider a finite cube with the dimensions a/2 x a/2, b/2 y b/2, c/2 z c/2.
The Helmholtz equation is,
2 2 2
+ 2 + 2 + B2 = 0
x2
y
z
(643)
(x, y, z) = X(x)Y (y)Z(z)
(644)
d2 X
+ Bx2 X = 0,
dx2
d2 Y
+ By2 Y = 0,
dy 2
d2 Z
+ Bz2 Z = 0
dz 2
(645)
The solution is,

= A cos
x
Lx

cos
y
Ly

cos
z
Lz

,
B2 =
2
a
2
b
2
c
(646)
(c) Consider a finite cylinder from H/2 to H/2 with radius R. We assume azmimuthal symmetry of
Helmholtz Equation,

2
1 d
r
+ 2 + B2 = 0
(647)
r dr
r
z
(r, z) = R(r)Z(z)
210
(648)
Lulu Li
We plut the sepration of variables into the Helmholtz Equation, break B 2 = Br2 + Bz2 , and we get two
equations one for each direction,

1 d2 R 1 dR
+
+ Br2 = 0
(649)
R dr2
r dr
d2 Z
+ Bz2 Z = 0
dz 2
(650)
In r direction, we can consider an infinite cylinder,

R(r) = A1 J0 (Br r),
Br =
2.405
R
(651)
In z direction, we can consider an infinite slab,

Z(z) = A2 cos(Bz z),
We combine the two directions,

z
2.405
(r, z) = AJ0
r cos
,
R
H
Bz =
B =
Br2
Bz2

=
2.405
R
(652)
2
+
2
H
(653)
Problems with less than one direction that is non-homogeneous can be solved this way with separation
of variables.
(d) Summary for a couple of geometries
Geometry

Slab L2 , L2
Sphere [0, R]
Cylinder (z : )
Cylinder (z: H/2)
Diffusion Equation
d2
+ B2 = 0
dx2
d2
+ B2 = 0
+ r2 d
dr
dr 2
2
d
1 d
+ r dr + B 2 = 0
dr 2
2
d2
+ ddz2 + B 2 = 0
+ r1 d
dr
dr 2
Parallelepiped ( L2i )
d2
dx2
d2
dy 2
d2
dz 2
+ B2 = 0
Flux

= A cos x
L
= A
sin r
r
R

= AJ0 2.405r
R

cos z
= AJ0 2.405r
R
H

y
x
x
= A cos L
cos
cos
L
Lz
x
y
Geometrical Buckling

2
B2 = L

2
B2 = R
2
B 2 = 2.405
R
2
2
+
B 2 = 2.405
R 2 H 2 2
B 2 = Lx + Ly
+ Lz
Table 16: Finite Geometries With Zero Flux BC

(e) Find the height-to-diameter that would minimize the leakage from a fixed-volume cylinder. To mini2
mize leakage, we need to maximize Bm
hence Bg2 . For a finite cylinder, we know
Bg2
and we solve
dBg2
dr

=
2.405
R
2
+
2
H
= 0. The optimal H/D ratio comes out to be 0.9236.
211
(654)
Lulu Li
2. Homogeneous (single-region) source problems:

(a) Consider a non-multiplying medium, slab geometry from 0 to l, no source in the slab:
D
d2
a = 0
dx2
(655)
The general solution is in the form of,

(x) = Aex/L + Cex/L = A0 sinh((l x)/L) + C 0 cosh((l x)/L)
(656)
BC1: (l) = 0 C 0 = 0. Then we are left with,

(x) = A0 sinh((l x)/L)
(657)
We can find the albedo coefficient:

=
1
,
1+
2D
coth(l/L)
L
(658)
The parameter is minus twice the current/flux ratio at the interface. The albedo improves as the
thickness of the reflector increases. Eventually an asymptote is reached from a thickness of 2 or 3 L,
=
1 2D/L
1 + 2D/L
(659)
(b) Consider a subcritical multiplying medium, slab geometry from L/2 to L/2, and with a source19 .
d2
+ a (x) = f (x) + S(x)
dx2
2
S(x)
d
2
+ Bm
(x) =
2
dx
D
Given a > f , B 2 =
f a
D
(660)
(661)
< 0, we re-write B 2 = |B|2 ,

d2
|B|2 (x) = S(x)

dx2
(662)
H (x) = Ae|B|x + Ce|B|x = A0 cosh(|B|x) + C 0 sinh(|B|x)
(663)
The general/homogeneous solution is,
The particular solution depends on source S(x).

Apply BCs L2 = 0, we get the boundary
conditions in the matrix form,

0

cosh(|B|L/2) sinh(|B|L/2)
A
p (L/2)
=
(664)
sinh(|B|L/2) cosh(|B|L/2)
C0
p (L/2)
The coefficients are uniquely determined for a given source distribution:
There always exists a physically realizable solution (no critical buckling!);
In the limit of S 0, the only physical solution is the trivial solution.
19 See
Section 10.3.
212
Lulu Li
(c) Conside an infinite non-multiplying medium with a point source.

d2 2 d
S0
1
+
2 = (~r )
dr2
r dr
L
D
(665)
We look for the homogeneous solution, and set w = r,

1
d2 2 d
+
2 = 0,
2
dr
r dr
L
d2 w
1
2w = 0
2
dr
L
(666)
The solution is,

w = Aer/L + Ber/L ,
(r) = A
er/L
er/L
+B
r
r
BC1: limr = 0, A = 0. BC2: limr0 4r2 J(r) = S0 (specific solution), that is,

1
d
1
r/L
+
J = D
= DBe
,
lim 4r2 J(r) = 4DB = S0
r0
dr
r2
rL
B=
S0
,
4D
(r) =
S0 er/L
4D r
(667)
(668)
(669)
(d) Consider an infinite non-multiplying medium with a line source along the z-axis. Use cylindrical
coordinates, only is involved:

d2
1 d
1
S
D
+
2 =
(670)
d2
d
L
D
The solution is in terms of Bessel functions,
() = AK0 (/L) + BI0 (/L)
(671)
BC1: lim = 0, B = 0, BC2: lim0 2J = S, that is,

() =
S
K0 (/L)
2D
(672)
(e) Consider an infinite non-multiplying medium with a plane source at x = 0. Since the geometry is
symmetric, we can solve for x > 0 first.
(x) = Aex/L + Bex/L
BC1: limx (x) = 0, (x) = Bex/L ; BC2: limx0 J(r) =
J = D
(673)
S0
2 ,
d
= BDex/L
dx
(674)
S0 L x/L
e
2D
(675)
(x) =
For the total geometry, we can simply place an absolute sign on x:

(x) =
S0 L |x|/L
e
2D
(676)
If the source is placed at x = b, the solution becomes,

(x) =
213
S0 L |xb|/L
e
2D
(677)
Lulu Li
(f) Consider a finite multiplying medium with k > 1, it is a slab extending from H/2 to H/2, it is
subcritical with leakage, BC are from the current at center and the zero flux at the H/2 boundary.
d2
2
+ Bm
= 0,
dx2
2
Bm
=
f a
k 1
=
>0
D
L2
(x) = A cos(Bm x) + B sin(Bm x)

BC1: (H/2) = 0; BC2: J(0) =
represent the whole geometry:
(x) =
S0
2 .
(678)
(679)
We can solve for the coefficients, and place absolute sign to
S0
2DBm cos

H
|x|
sin
B
m
Bm H
2
2
(680)
(g) Consider a finite multiplying medium with k < 1, a slab geometry from 0 to H, and a plane source
at 0,
2
Bm
=
f a
k 1
=
< 0,
D
L2
2
Bm
|Bm |2
(681)
The homogeneous solution is,

d2
|Bm |2 = 0,
dx2
(x) = A cosh(|Bm |x) + B sinh(|Bm |x)
BCs: (0) = 0 , (H) = 0, we can solve for the coefficients,

cosh(|Bm |x)
(x) = 0 cosh(|Bm |x)
sinh(|Bm |x)
sinh(|Bm |x)
214
(682)
(683)
Lulu Li
3. Multi-region diffusion problems

(a) Consider a critical reflected slab reactor in the following image.
Dc 2 c + ca c =
B2 =
k
keff
L2c
1
cf c ,
keff
Dr 2 r + ra r = 0
2 =
2 c + B 2 c = 0,
(684)
1
r
2
= ar = Bm,r
2
Lr
D
(685)
2 r 2 r = 0
(686)
The solutions are in the forms of,

c (x) = C1 cos(Bx) + C2 sin(Bx),
r (x) = C3 cosh(x) + C4 sinh(x)
(687)
BC1: reflective boudnary condition at x = 0, BC2: zero flux at reflector surface,

(H 0 /2) = 0 C3 = 0
J c (0) = 0 C2 = 0,
(688)
We have:
r (x) = C40 sinh[(H 0 /2 x)]
c (x) = C1 cos(Bx),
(689)
Apply two interface conditions:

c (H/2) = r (H/2),
J c (H/2) = J r (H/2)
which can be written in the matrix form,

cos(BH/2)
sinh( )
C1
=0
Dc B sin(BH/2) Dr cosh( )
C40
We define the reflector thickness =
H 0 H
,
2
(690)
(691)
then the coefficients can be solved,

C40 = C1
C1 = c (0),
cos(BH/2)
sinh( )
(692)
which gives us the criticality condition,

Dc B tan
BH
2
Interpretation:
215
= Dr coth( )
(693)
Lulu Li
i. Since B is defined with keff ,

B2 =
k
keff
(694)
L2
we need to satisty an expression between keff and H. We can either,

A. Given H, search for the keff that satisfies the equivalence;
B. Given keff , search for the H that satisfies the equivalence,
r

2
D
1
H=
tan
coth( )
Bm
D c Bm
(695)
That is, as H , . For large , like > 3, coth( ) 1, the smallest H to reach
criticality is,
r
2
D
1
H=
tan
(696)
Bm
Dc Bm
ii. Critical dimension is reduced by the presence of the reflector:
r

H
1
D
H
=
tan
s=
coth( )
2
2
Bm 2
D c Bm
tan
h
2
tan
x = cot[tan
s=
1
1
x] =
= ,
1
x
tan[tan x]
tan1 x = tan1
2

c
1
D Bm
tanh(
)
tan1
Bm
Dr
(697)

1
x
(698)
(699)
iii. For larger cores, Bm 0 and tan1 x x, that is,

s=

Dc
Dc r
tanh(
)
=
L
tanh
Dr
Dr
Lr
(700)
That is,

Lr
Lr
D
s D
r
Dc r
s Dr L
216
(tanh x x for x 1)
(tanh x 1 for x > 3)
(701)
Lulu Li
17.6
Numerical Solution
See Appendix A 17.7.

1. Linear Finite Difference equation:
n1,n n1 D
n,n+1 n+1 + [n n + D
n1,n + D
n,n+1 ]n = n n n + n n n + S n n
D
r1
1
f1 1
f2 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n1,n n1 D
n,n+1 n+1 + [na2 n + D
n1.n + D
n,n+1 ]n = n n n + S n n
D
2
s12 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2. Balance equation:
3. Interface flux:
n,n+1 (n+1 n )
Jn+ = D
n1,n (n n1 ),
J n = D
n,n+1 =
D
2Dn Dn+1
(Dn + Dn+1 )
(702)
4. BC:
Zero Flux BC:
JgN = DgN
Zero Incoming Flux BC:
JgN =
Zero Current BC:
JgN = 0
2DgN
N
N
2DgN N
N
g g
=
g
N
N
#
"
2DgN N
1
g
N
=
g
N + 4D N
4DgN
g
1 + N
(703)
(704)
(705)
5. Matrix form:

[L1 + D1 + U1 ]
[0]
1
[M1 ]
=
[T2 ]
[L2 + D2 + U2 ]
2
[0]
[M2 ]
[0]

1
2

+
S1
S2

(706)
Whose compressed form is,

[A][] = [M ][] + [S]
(707)
6. Direct inversion: take Eq. 707 and manipulate:

[] = [A M ]1 [S]
[A M ][] = [S]
(708)
7. Fission source iterations: the equation we are trying to solve is,

[A][]n+1 = [M ][]n
(709)
(0)
An initial guess of the flux i at each point and of the eigenvalue (0) is made and an initial fission
(0)
(0)
source at each point is constructed Si = M i . The Gaussian elimination is performed to determine
(1)
(0)
i = A1 Si . Then we update the source term as well based on the flux. A new estimate of the
eigenvalue is made from:
(1)
keff =
Si
(0)
(710)
Si
The process is continued until the eigenvalues obtained on two successive iterates differ by less than a
threshold level. The rate our fission source converges depends on material, geometry etc.
8. Gauss-Jacobi flux inner iterations: see screenshot below.
217
Lulu Li
9. Dominance ratio estimation: given an eigenvalue problem, if we specify the solved eigenvalues to be:
|1 | > |2 | |3 |
(711)
then |1 | is the spectral radius of the iteration matrix, and every mode has a dominance ratio,
drn =
n
1
(712)
and power iteration kills the lowest dominance ratio modes. The last remaining mode is the fundamental
mode dr = 21 .
12 Exam 2 #5, 13 S904 #4: What is dominance ratio for a reactor core? Answer: DR =
of the two largest eigenvalues of the equation:
M =
1
F
k
M 1 F = k
k2
k1
= the ratio
(713)
13 S904 Exam #5a: physical meaning of dominance ratio of a reactor?

Answer: dominance ratio measures the spatial decoupling, and it depends on: symmetric mode, core
size (size , dr , takes longer), decoupling of the radial zones, and of the axial zones. The more
decoupled the system is spatially, the larger DR is. In reactor application, we measure DR from how
long it takes for the system to be stable. It is independent of mesh size and energy groups etc.
12 Exam 2 #18: perform fission source power iteration to solve a finite difference diffusion equation
using Matlabs direct inversion for A matrix. The analyst observes the following values in the normalized peak fission source: iteration #10012: 1.98000; iteration #10013: 1.99000; iteration #10014:
2.00000. What is the dominance ratio of this model?
Answer: asymptotically, any norm (L1, L2, L) can be used to compute convergence or dominance
ratio. If using L, eps1 = 1.981.99
= 0.005025, eps2 = 2.001.99
= 0.005, then the DR = eps2
1.99
1.99
eps1
0.995.
218
Lulu Li
12 Exam 2 #19: continue from #18, estimate how many more iterations will it take to converge the
peak fission source to a fractional change of 106 between successive iterations?
Answer: the fractional change from iteration 10013 to 10014 is 0.005. We know that error reduction
is proportional to DR:
6
10
ln 0.005
106 = 0.005DRn
DR =
= 1708
(714)
ln DR
Prof. Smith noted that do not assume linear, as all convergence is exponential at the end.
13 S904 Exam #5b: physical meaning of spectral radius?
Answer: spectral radius |1 | is the max of all the absolute value of eigenvalues of a matrix. It is defined
for a particular iterative method, and has impact on how iterative methods converge. For instance, if
|1 | 1, the iteration scheme is unstable and it would not converge.
Convergence of the power method is slow when d is close to unity; in fact in most numerical methods,
convergence rate = 1 - dominance ratio.
10. Order of operations (not included in official list): Matrix inversion is of N 3 , finding all eigenvalues is at
least N 2 , iterative inversion must be order N to be practical, multi-level iteration is a necessity.
219
Lulu Li
17.7
Appendix A: Finite Difference 1D Transport Equation
In this chapter we are doing a fine-mesh finite difference (example: PDQ, CITATION).
Figure 75: Finite Difference Grids
17.7.1
Deriving Balance Equation
Start from neutron balance equation derive the finite-difference form of it. Note: we omit the g term but it could
be there.
G
X
G
1X
f,kg k (x)
k
(715)
G
G
X
1X
dJg
+ t,g g (x) =
s,kg k (x) +
f,kg k (x)
dx
k
(716)
Jg (x) + t,g g (x) =
s,kg k (x) +
k=1
k=1
k=1
k=1
We define the removal term,

rg
}|
{
dJg z
+ (tg s,gg ) g (x)
dx
G
X
s,kg k (x) =
k=1,k6=g
G
1X
f,kg k (x)
k
(717)
k=1
Then we can discritize the domain into the following (insert image).
We make assumptions,
All groups are spatially constant of a computational cell;
Average flux equals flux at the center of a cell;
First order approximation on
d
dx
(linear that is);
Integrate over an arbitrary cell,

Z
i+1/2
i1/2
dJg
dx +
dx
1/2
Z
rg g (x) dx
i1/2
i+1/2
G
X
i1/2 k=1,k6=g
220
s,kg k (x) =
1
k
G
i+1/2 X
i1/2 k=1
f,kg k (x) (718)
Lulu Li
1. The leakage term:

Z
i+1/2
i1/2
dJg
dx = Jgi+1/2 Jgi1/2
dx
(719)
2. First we find the exact expression for the volume-averaged flux in each cell:
i
g
R i+1/2
=
i1/2
g (x) dx
(720)
xi
Then we make a second-order approximation,

i
g
ig
i+1/2
g (x) dx = ig xi
(721)
i1/2
Then we have,
G
X
Jgi+1/2 Jgi1/2 + irg ig xi
is,kg ik xi =
i+1/2
i1/2
Jg
xi
+ irg ig
G
X
k=1,k6=g
(722)
k=1
k=1,k6=g
Jg
G
1X i
f,kg ik xi
k
is,kg ik =
G
1X i
f,kg ik
k
(723)
k=1
Notice here if we were to expand 1D into 3D, we need to add two more leakage terms making a total of six net
current terms.
221
Lulu Li
17.7.2
Computing Interface Current
Figure 76: Current Convention

We can write the net current at the boundary two different ways,
!

i+1/2

ig
g
i+1/2
i d
i
Jg
= Dg
Dg
dx i+1/2
xi /2
Jgi+1/2
Dgi+1

d
Dgi+1
dx i+1/2
i+1/2
i+1
g
g
xi+1 /2
(724)
!
(725)
and set the above two expressions to be the same, we can hence solve for the interface current,
!
!
i+1/2
i+1/2
ig
g
g
i+1
g
i
i+1
Dg
= Dg
xi /2
xi+1 /2
i+1/2
=
g
(726)
Dgi xi+1 ig + Dgi+1 xi i+1

g
(727)
Dgi xi+1 + Dgi+1 xi
Plug the interface flux into either expression for the interface net current, we get,
!
2Dgi Dgi xi+1 ig + Dgi+1 xi i+1
g
i+1/2
i
Jg
=
g
xi
Dgi xi+1 + Dgi+1 xi
2Dgi
=
xi
=
Jgi+1/2 =
2Dgi
xi
Dgi xi+1 ig + Dgi+1 xi i+1

Dgi xi+1 ig Dgi+1 xi ig
g
Dgi xi+1 + Dgi+1 xi
!
Dgi+1 xi i+1
Dgi+1 xi ig
g
Dgi xi+1 + Dgi+1 xi
2Dgi Dgi+1
Dgi xi+1 + Dgi+1 xi
gi+1/2 (i+1
(i+1
ig ) = D
ig )
g
g
(728)
!
(729)
(730)
(731)
Similarly, we can construct the net current on the left hand side,
Jgi1/2 =
2Dgi1 Dgi
Dgi1 xi + Dgi xi1
i1/2 (ig i1
(ig i1
g ) = Dg
g )
222
(732)
Lulu Li
17.7.3
Deriving the Matrix Form
Substuite the interface current term into the balance equation, we get an all-flux-equation,
gi+1/2
gi1/2
D
D
(i+1
ig ) +
(ig gi1 ) + irg ig
g
xi
xi
G
X
is,kg ik =
G
1X i
f,kg ik
k
(733)
k=1
k=1,k6=g
Rearranging,
gi+1/2
D
i+1 +
xi g
gi1/2
gi+1/2
D
D
+
+ irg
xi
xi
!
ig
gi1/2
D
i1
xi g
G
X
is,kg ik =
k=1,k6=g
G
1X i
f,kg ik
k
k=1
(734)
[M ][] =
1
[F ][]
k
(735)
The generalized eigenvalue problem is F = kM . If using solver, solving the generalized eigenvalue
problem is faster than the eigenvalue problem.
The eigenvalue problem is M 1 F = k. Notice we need to re-arrange the matrix form to the eigenvalue
form to get that k is the eigenvalue. Also keep in mind that [F ] can be singular, so we try to avoid inverting
[F ] whenever possible.
Keep in mind it is always column impact rows. The above expression is true all the time; with different BC, the
terms) would change20 . Next we will investigate the different boundary conditions.
coupling coefficients (the D
1. Zero Flux BC:
0
JgI+1/2
z }| {

2DgI I
I+1/2 Ig
d
I g
I+1/2 I

= DgI
=
D
=D
g
g
g
dx I+1/2
xI /2
xI g
(736)
2. Reflective Flux BC:

JgI+1/2 = 0
(737)
Jg = (Jg+ Jg ) ~n
(738)
3. Vacuum BC (Zero Incoming Flux BC):
From Mashek BC from transport theory, we know,

Jg+ =
1
1
g + Jg ~n ,
4
2
Jg =
1
1
g Jg ~n
4
2
(739)
The convention is that Jg is the incoming current for both surfaces. Then for vaccum BC, we set Jg = 0,
20 these
coupling terms couple the interface current to the cell-averaged fluxes
223
Lulu Li
I+1/2
that is, Jg
I+1/2
= 21 g
.
I+1/2
JgI+1/2
DgI
Ig
xI /2
2DgI I+1/2
(
Ig )
xi g
2DgI
=
(2JgI+1/2 Ig )
xi
2DgI
I
=
xI + 4DgI g
gI+1/2 Ig
=D
=
JgI+1/2
Algorithm 1 Index Scheme

for every cell do
irow = i + nx(g 1); i = mod(irown, nx) + 1; g = mod(irow, nx ny)/nx + 1;
end for
224
(740)
(741)
(742)
(743)
(744)
Lulu Li
17.8
Appendix B: Math Reviews
1. Trigonometry:
sin(x) = Im(eix ) =
eix eix
2i
cos(x) = Re(eix )
sin(ix) = i sinh(x)
e
ix
eix + eix
2
cos(ix) = cos(x)
= cos(x) i sin(x)
(745)
(746)
(747)
2. Hyperbolic functions:
ex ex
2
sinh(x) = i sin(ix)
ex + ex
2
cosh(x) = cos(ix)
sinh(x) =
x
cosh(x) =
= cosh(x) sinh(x)
225
(748)
(749)
(750)
Lulu Li
17.9
Exam Problems
1. Qual 2012 #2.
(a) From the two group equations,

(a1 + s12 )1 = k1 (f 1 1 + f 2 2 )
a2 2 = s12 1
(751)
Then we can solve for the k ,

k =
(b)
2
1
f 1 + f 2 s12
a2
a1 + s12
(752)
s12
a2 .
D
(c) To preserve reaction rates, = X To preserve leakage rates, D = X .
(d) Us the f , a , we can calculate

k =
f
a
(753)
The k calculated from effective one-group cross sections is the same as the one calculated from
two-group cross sections, because the one-group data is calculated preserving reaction rates.
226
Lulu Li
(e) The critical buckling is,

B2 =
f a
D
(754)
(f) unreflected means that there are leakages now, energy-independent means that B 2 is the same for
group 1 and 2,

1
(f 1 1 + f 2 2 )
(D1 B 2 + a1 + s12 )1 = keff
(755)
2
(D2 B + a2 )2 = s12 1
Then we can solve for B 2 given keff = 1.
(g) From the above equations taking into account leakage,
1
D2 B 2 + a2
=
2
s12
(756)
It is different from part b because the finite unreflected geometry has leakage terms.
(h) The k using one-group cross sections collapsed with the critically-buckled spectrum from part g
( 21 ),
k =
f 1 12 + f 2
a1 12 + a2
(757)
This k is smaller then the one in part d because most fission comes from thermal spectrum, and a
lot of it leaks out. Notice is is good to double check to make sure that the calculated k result is no
larger than .
227
Lulu Li
(i) Though this appears to be a multi-region problem. But since the reflector is made of absorbium whose
absorption cross section is infinite for both energy groups, the problem is effectively a one-group
problem, including the core with length L and the approximated extropolated distance of 2D on each
side. Hence we solve for,
2
B2 =
,
L = L0 4D
(758)
L0
(j) There are two approaches. Approach 1:
keff = 1 =
F
f
DB 2 + NF aF + NP aP
(759)
2
Approach 2: we solve for the unknown a that would make Bm
= Bg2 ; then solve for the concentration.
228
Lulu Li
(k) For the flux shape,

Fast energy: flux in the fuel region is cos shape, and suddenly drop to 0 at the interface because
the Reflectonium has an infinite large absorption cross section in fast energy.
Thermal energy: Reflectonium is a perfect reflector for the thermal region, hence the fluxs slope
should approach zero at the interface.
2. (12 Final #23) Compute the finite-medium energy-independent critical buckling and fast-to-thermal flux
ratio for Fuel 1.
Answer: This is essentially #10 in Exam 2. We start by writing the 2-group diffusion equations with B 2
being the same for the two groups,
D1 B 2 1 + (a1 + s,12 )1 = f 1 1 + f 2 2
2
D2 B 2 + a2 2 = s,12 1
(760)
(761)
From Eq. 761, we can write,

1
D2 B 2 + a2
=
2
s,12
(762)
Plug into Eq. 760 and divide every term by 2 we get,

(D1 B 2 + a1 + s,12 f 1 )
D2 B 2 + a2
= f 2
s,12
(763)
Solving this quadratic equation, we get B 2 = 0.008876 . Then plug into Eq. 762, we get,
1
D2 B 2 + a2
=
= 4.31
2
s,12
229
(764)
Lulu Li
Figure 77: Cross Sections for 12 Final

3. (12 Final #24) Using the infinite medium spectrum from #23, compute the effective one-group cros sections
for Fuel 1 by preserving reaction and leakage rates.
X
Answer: Recall collapsing cross sections is essentially = X . Thus we do,
f =
a =
D=
1 f 1 12 + 2 f 2
1
2
+1
a1 21 + a2
1
2 + 1
1
D1 1 + D2
1
2 + 1
= 0.03515
(765)
= 0.02384
(766)
= 1.27387
(767)
4. (12 Final #25) Using one-group cross sections from #24, what is the one-group, critical radius of a bare
square cylinder (i.e., height = diameter) using diffusion theory extrapolation distances for all surfaces?
Answer: There are two slightly different ways to do it.
Using collapsed one-group cross sections, we can write the material buckling as,
2
Bmaterial
=
f a
= 0.008876
D
(768)
The geometrical buckling with extrapolated distance 2 D is,

2
Bgeometrical
=
2.405
R+2D
2

+
2R + 4 D
2
(769)
Setting the two bucklings to be equal, we can solve for the critical radius to be R = 27.94cm .
Alternatively, we can recognize that we have already solved for B 2 in #23 and get 0.008876 (which
agrees with the previous method using collapsed one-group cross sections, because we are preserving
leakage by collapsing D ).
230
Lulu Li
Taking advantage of the square cylinder geometry and the assumption of one-group, if we define
R0 = R + 2 D where R is the critical radius we are actually solving for, R0 is the distance including
the extrapolated distance, we can easily solving for R0 through

2
2
2.405
2
+
B =
(770)
R0
2R0
and get R0 = 30.49cm, R = R0 2 D = 27.94cm .
5. (12 Final #26) What is the two-group, critical radius of a bare square cylinder of Fuel 1 using diffusion
theory extrapolation distances for each energy group and all surfaces?
Answer: We absolutely cannot use the 2nd method in #25 anymore because the extrapolation distance
2D which is different for the two energy groups. Instead, we have to define a bunch of transver buckling
terms (similar to #12 in Exam 2). This problem can be break into the following steps:
(a) Defining transverse buckling terms: there are two transverse leakage directions, the radial direction
and the z-direction,
2
2

2.405
2
2
(771)
Bg,H =
Bg,R =
R + 2Dg
2(R + 2Dg )
where the subscript g means energy group (thus 1 or 2), and subscript R, H designate Radial direction
or Height direction.
(b) Then we can write our two-group diffusion equations:
2
2
(D1 B1,R
+ D1 B1,H
+ a1 + s12 )1 = f 1 1 + f 2 2
2
(D2 B2,R
2
D2 B2,H
+ a2 )2 = s12 1
(c) Solving the above system. We do the typical thing: write
1
2
(772)
(773)
from Eq. 773,
2
2
D2 B2,R
+ D2 B2,H
+ a2
1
=
2
s12
(774)
plug into Eq. 772 and divide both side by 2 ,

2
2
D1 B1,R
+ D1 B1,H
+ a1 + s12 = f 1 +
2
D2 B2,R
f 2 s12
2
+ D2 B2,H
+ a2
(775)
We obtained a one equation one unknown (R), thus can solve for the critical radius R = 27.668cm .
6. (12 Final #27) Los Alamos scientists have created a system to monitor sub-criticality of spent fuel pools by
comparing detector responses from two identical point sources, one source/detector pair placed in the pool
and another source/detector pair placed in the fuel, as depicted in the following figure. What is the required
distance, L, between the water pool source and detector such that the signal will be exactly equal to the fuel
source and detector signal as the k of the fuel reaches the regulatory limit of 0.95?
Answer: Recall in lecture we solved the point source in an infinite non-multiplying medium problem to
S0 er/L
. This problem is essentially the same set-up, thus we can write,
have (r) =
4D r
q
F
F
a f
|B|r
S0 e
= 0.0707 Fuel region
F
D
q
(r) =
, where |B| =
(776)
P
4D r
a
= 0.1414
Pool region
DP
F
where F
f = k a . A quick review of how we obtained the above flux expression,
231
Lulu Li
Start by writing the diffusion equation using spherical coordinate systems,

S0
d2 2 d
+
|B|2 = (~r )
dr2
r dr
D
(777)
The solution is in the form of,

(r) = A
e|B|r
e|B|r
+B
r
r
(778)
BC1: lim = 0, thus B = 0.

r
BC2: lim 4r2 J(r) = S0 , thus

r0
(r) =
S0 e|B|r
4D r
(779)
Coming back to Eq. 776, the question is basically asking for,

S0 e0.1414r
S0 e0.0707200
=
4D
r
4D
200
(780)
Thus r = 104.58cm .
7. (12 Exam 2 #10) What is the energy-independent critical material buckling and fast-to-thermal flux ratio
for Fuel 1 material?
Answer: write out the two group diffusion equations with D1 B 2 , D2 B 2 and solve for B 2 . Notice the hint
of energy-independent critical material buckling, implying that the two groups share the same B 2 .
8. (12 Exam 2 #11) Los Alamos scientists have created a perfect neutron reflecting material, Reflectium. If
a homogeneous hemisphere is placed flat side down on an infinitely large table of Reflectium, what is the
critical radius of the hemisphere?
Answer: Dont forget extrapolation distance!
2
2
=R+d
B =
R
(781)
R
9. (12 Exam 2 #12) I.M. Lazy wants to analyze a finite slab reactor of Fuel 1 with infinitely thick pure water
reflector on both sides. I.M. decides to perform a two-group zero-leakage infinite-medium spectrum calculation for Fuel-1 material and collapse one-group cross sections and diffusion coefficients for both Fuel-1
and Reflector material using that spectrum. What critical thickness will he compute with his collapsed 1G
cross section data?
Answer:
232
Lulu Li
10. (12 Exam 2 #13) FP Answer:

11. (12 Exam 2 #14) FP Answer:
233
Lulu Li
18
Point Kinetics Without Feedback
In this chapter, I use generalized PKE to refer to the formulation using integrated cross sections terms, and
classical PKE specifically cast integrated cross sections into , , .
18.1
Physics of Delayed Neutrons
In this section, we would discuss:

1. The importance of neutron precursor data () and emission spectram () and how they are being treated in
diffusion equation.
2. Delayed neutron physics.
3. Delayed neutron models: PKE (know how to solve), prompt jump approximation, In-hour equation, IK.
Prompt neutrons: more than 99% of all neutrons are emitted in < 1010 s after the fission (prompt neutron
lifetime in a PWR is about 2 105 sec).
Delayed neutrons:
1. Importance. Assume no delayed neutrons, a reactor was operated at 1W, a control rod was moved to produce
an excess reactivity of 0.0005k, what would the power be 1s later?
5
P (t) = P0 (1.0005)t/(210
= 1W (1.0005)1/(210
= 70, 000M W
(782)
This reactor would be virtually impossible to control! Fortunately, delayed netrons exist and the reactor
time constant depend on more than just prompt neutron lifetime.
2. Review steady-state diffusion equation, and notice:
is the spectrum. So integrating over all energy should always give us 1.
id (E): delayed neutron groups, typically 6-8 groups.
j is delayed neutron fraction.
3. Measurement: delayed neutrons can be measured by counting neutrons emission after a pulsed irradiation
of a pure U235 foil.
Burst measurement: the amount of prompt neutrons.
Saturated measurement: the total amount of neutrons.
Measurement vs. evaluation: the data are recorded from measurements, but upon different evaluations
the final data would be different.
4. Neutron Precursor data. Delayed neutrons are emitted through the decay of fission products.
Br-87 is a dominant FP that emits delayed neutrons (longest half-life).
Delayed neutron precursors are embedded in fission species delayed yields.
5. Delayed yields d depend on fissioning species and neutron energy.
Absolute yield: number of delayed neutrons per fission; unit: 1/fission.
Relative yield: absolute yield of an isotope divided by total absolute yield by all isotopes.
234
Lulu Li
Delayed neutron fraction : absolute yield (# of delayed neutrons per fission) divided by (total
fission neutrons) = percentage of neutrons that are delayed.
We talk about effective once it is averaged over all isotopes and flux.
changes as a function of time through breeding of Pu-239 in U-239 cycle, though the variations in
BU are on a much larger time scale than usual range of application of PKEs so typically we ignore the
change in for short transients.
6 group yields and decay constants depend on fissioning species, as in Table 17.
Table 17: Yields and decay constants depend on fissioning species

U238 produce 4% delayed neutron per fission, more than U235s 1.7% delayed neutron per fission,
making U238 a very important isotope when it comes to delayed neutrons. Fast group absolute yield
for U238 is 0.0412, U235 is 0.0165, U239 is 0.0063 as in Table 18. Keep in mind: model the term
technically we need to know the delayed neutron spectrum etc.
6. Modeling . There are two ideas,
Why not use direct measured fission product yields and measured fission product neutron emission
rates? Issue: insufficient data to use directly for production analysis. There is a fairly large difference
between experimental data and calculated data, making it hard to find a direct agreement on what is
the correct fission product yields and emissionrates.
Keep track of all precursors. We make a 6-group to 8-group model21 , and each group has a fixed/homogeneous decay constants (the one that dominants in the group, that is, largest half-life). This way,
21 Typically 8-group and above would start to produce good fitting; anything less than 8 group you run into the risk of having too many
precursors/half-lives lumped in the same energy group and causing trouble.
235
Lulu Li
Table 18: Absolute Total Yields of Delayed Neutrons

all isotopes have the same half-life for the same group; but different isotopes would still have different
delayed neutron fraction. Remember the terms circled in blue in Table 19 (the delayed neutron fraction listed in this table might be in % unit, because U235 thermal fission fraction should be 0.0067.).
7. Delayed neutrons spectrum .
U238 is extremely important for delayed neutrons.
Delayed neutrons are produced at lower energy than prompt neutrons: average prompt neutron emission energy is 2 MeV; average delayed neutron emission energy is 0.4 MeV.
Delayed neutron comes out in the thermal energy range, which makes them more likely to fission.
Both spectrum comes out to be Maxwellian shapes for all the delayed groups, except the delayed one
is shifted as in Fig. 78. Keep in mind that these Maxwellian curves we use are approximations; real
data is often discrete in nature.
Figure 78: Prompt and Delayed Fission Neutron Spectrum

Delayed energy group: neutron spectra have similar shapes for all delayed groups. However different
energy groups have different mean energies.
Summary: Delayed neutron spectra vary only slightly for different fissioning nuclides; but the
spectra depends significantly on the delayed neutron group (in real production tools, there is a
separate for each energy group).
236
Lulu Li
Table 19: 8-group Fixed Decay Constans for All Species
Figure 79: Delayed Fission Neutron Spectrum
237
Lulu Li
18.2
Generalized PKE from Diffusion Equation
This lecture was given by Prof. Smith for 22.S904. Recall the steady-state diffusion equation:
Z
D( ~r , E)( ~r , E) + t ( ~r , E)( ~r , E) =
s ( ~r , E 0 E)( ~r , E 0 ) dE 0
0
Z
X j
jp ( ~r , E 0 )( ~r , E 0 ) dE 0 + Q( ~r , E)
T (E)
+
j
(783)
In steady-state transport or diffusion equation, we do not treat delayed neutrons directly. Instead the fission
emission spectrum must be properly weighted with prompt and delayed contributions.
A chicken-and-egg problem: we need fission rates to compute (E), and we need (E) to get fission rates,
so the real way to solve the balance equation is to iterate, though this is not how it is done normally.
Next we will start from the time-dependent neutron diffusion equation and go through various steps to arrive
at the generalized PKE.
1. The time-dependent neutron diffusion equation: now delayed neutrons must be treated explicitly. j =
X j
i is the delayed fission fraction (0.66% for instance); we use i is for isotropes, j is for energy groups.
i

1
(~r , E, t) = D(~r , E, t)(~r , E, t) t (~r , E, t)(~r , E, t)
t v
Z
+
s (~r , E 0 E, t)(~r , E 0 , t) dE 0
0
Z
X
+
jp (E)(1 j )
jf (~r , E 0 , t)(~r , E 0 , t) dE 0
0
id (E)i Ci (~r , t) + Q(~r , E, t)
(784)
X j
Ci (~r , t) =
i
t
j
Z
0
jf (~r , E 0 , t)(~r , E 0 , t) dE 0 i Ci (~r , t)
(785)
2. Assume that flux can be separated into a space/energy term and a time-dependent term:
(~r , E, t) = S(~r , E)T (t)
(786)
where S(~r , E) is the Shape function, T (t) is the amplitude function (remember this approximation may
not always be valid, and certainly in some cases it would not be a good approximation). Plug it into the
238
Lulu Li
above expressions.

(
1
S(~r , E)T (t) = D(~r , E, t)S(~r , E) t (~r , E, t)S(~r , E)
t v
Z
s (~r , E 0 E, t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
+
0
!Z
X
X
j
j
j
i
+
p (E)(1 ) +
d (E)i
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
j
jp (E) j
Z
0
jf (~r
, E , t)S(~r , E ) dE
T (t)
id (E)i Ci (~r , t) + Q(~r , E, t)
(787)
Ci (~r , t) =
ij
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
T (t) i Ci (~r , t)
(788)
R
R
3. Integrate over all space and energy and normalize to dE dr v1 S(~r , E) = 1.0,
(
Z
Z
d
[T (t)] =
dE
dr D(~r , E, t)S(~r , E) t (~r , E, t)S(~r , E)
dt
Z
+
s (~r , E 0 E, t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
0
!Z
X
X
j
j
j
i
+
p (E)(1 ) +
d (E)i
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
j
jp (E) j
Z
dE
dr
jf (~r
"
X
, E , t)S(~r , E ) dE
T (t)
#
id (E)i Ci (~r
, t) + Q(~r , E, t)
(789)
d
dt
Z
Z
dE
Z
Z
X Z
drCi (~r , t) =
dE
dr
ij
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0 T (t)
0
j
Z
Z
i
dE
drCi (~r , t)
(790)
4. Simplify energy dependency. In Eq. 789, notice in the term
X
j
239
jp (E) j
Z
0
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0 ,
Lulu Li
R
only jp (E) depends on energy, we can use jp (E) dE = 1 to get rid of the energy integral,
(
Z
Z
d
[T (t)] =
dE
dr D(~r , E, t)S(~r , E) t (~r , E, t)S(~r , E)
dt
Z
+
s (~r , E 0 E, t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
0
)
!Z
X
X
j
j
j
j
i
0
0
0
+
p (E)(1 ) +
d (E)i
f (~r , E , t)S(~r , E ) dE T (t)
j
dr
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0 T (t)
Z
+
"
Z
dE
dr
#
X
id (E)i Ci (~r , t) + Q(~r , E, t)
(791)
R
In a similar fashion, notice Eq. 790 no term has a E dependency, so we can cross out the dE in every
term to get,
Z
Z
Z
X
d
drCi (~r , t) =
dr
ij
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0 T (t)
dt
0
j
Z
i
drCi (~r , t)
(792)
5. Assume no net current (leakage) out of the reactor model22 , thus D(~r , E, t)S(~r , E) 0. Assume
no external source of prompt or delayed neutrons, thus Q(~r , E, t) 0.
6. Assume prompt fission spectrum jp is independent of fissioning species j, that is, we drop the j dependency on prompt terms jp , j ,
X
jp (1 j ) = p (1 )
(793)
j
7. Assume delayed fission yield j is independent of fissioning species j, that is, we drop the j dependency
on delayed terms,
X
X j
j =
i = i
(794)
j
The last two assumptions together, we can write jf f .

8. Assume delayed fission spectrum id is independent of delayed neutron group i23 , that is, we drop the i
dependency on id ,
X
X
id (E)i Ci = d (E)
i Ci
(795)
i
Together with the last assumption,

XX
j
id (E)ij = d (E)
22 Recall
23 we
we used Gauss theory to make the volume integral into surface integral, thus creating zero leakage for certain BCs.
saw from data two lectures ago that is slightly dependent on neutron group, but we dont care much about it for this context.
240
(796)
Lulu Li
9. Assume delayed neutron yield is independent of space, that is, (~r ) .

Taking into account all the assumptions we made, we reach,
(
Z
Z
Z
d
[T (t)] =
dE
dr t (~r , E, t)S(~r , E) +
s (~r , E 0 E, t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
dt
0
)
Z
j
0
0
0
f (~r , E , t)S(~r , E ) dE T (t)
+ {p (E)(1 ) + d (E)}
0
(Z
dr
f (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0 T (t) +
Z
dE
"
dr d (E)
i Ci (~r , t)
(797)
d
dt
Z

Z
Z
drCi (~r , t) = i
dr
f (~r , E , t)S(~r , E ) dE
Z
T (t) i
drCi (~r , t) (798)
R
10. We further assume that dEd (E) = 1, thus the last term simplifies, and two long terms cancel out,
Z
Z
Z
Z
i
0
0
0
dE drd (E)
f (~r , E , t)S(~r , E ) dE T (t)
dr
f (~r , E 0 t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0 T (t) = 0
0
Thus Eq. 797 becomes,

d
[T (t)] =
dt
Z
dE
t (~r , E, t)S(~r , E) +
dr
s (~r , E 0 E, t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
+ p (E)(1 )
f (~r , E , t)S(~r , E ) dE
T (t) +
dr
i Ci (~r , t)
(799)
11. Traditionally we weight the PKEs by adjoint flux, not by unity. We add because the prompt neutron
spectrum has energy dependency, but no for precursors because precursors emission is not energy dependency, it is just a fission rate.24
d
[T (t)] =
dt
Z
dE

Z
dr (~r , E) t (~r , E, t)S(~r , E) +
s (~r , E 0 E, t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
Z
+ p (E)(1 (~r ))
f (~r , E , t)S(~r , E ) dE
Z
T (t) +
Z
dE
dr (~r , E)d (E)
(800)
18.3
Multi-Group Generalized PKEs
Based on Eq. 798 and Eq. 800, we can further define multi-group PKEs.
R
add dE back on the last term in Eq. 799 after adding in . We give i its spatial dependency back in both equations. Though i
does not depend on fissioning species, meaning they are not spatially dependence.
24 We
241
i Ci (~r , t)
Lulu Li
X Z

1
Sg (~r ) = 1.0, we basically add a g subscript
vg (~r , t)
g
X
R
to every term applicable, and convert any dEA(E) to
Ag ,
1. Multi-group PKEs: normalize
drg (~r )
d
[Tg (t)] =
dt
drg (~r )
t,g (~r , t)Sg (~r )Tg (t) +
+ p,g (E)(1 (~r ))
s,g0 g (~r , t)Sg0 (~r )Tg0 (t)
g0
X
g0
Z
X
f,g0 (~r , t)Sg0 (~r )Tg0 (t) +
dr (~r )d,g
i Ci (~r , t)
(801)
d
dt
Z
Z
Z
X
drCi (~r , t) =
dri (~r )
f,g (~r , t)Sg (~r )Tg (t) i
drCi (~r , t)
(802)
2. 2-group PKEs: assumptions:

(a) No leakage out of the core.
(b) All fission neutrons born in the fast group.
(c) All delayed neutron born in the fast group.
(d) Downscattering is replaced by effective downscattering. No upscattering.
d
[T1 (t)] =
dt
dr1 (~r ) {r,1 (~r , t)S1 (~r )T1 (t) + [1 (~r )][f,1 (~r , t)S1 (~r )T1 (t) + f,2 (~r , t)S2 (~r )T2 (t)]}
dr (~r )
i Ci (~r , t)
(803)
d
[T2 (t)] =
dt
d
dt
Z
dr2 (~r ) [a,2 (~r , t)S2 (~r )T2 (t) + s12 (~r , t)S1 (~r )T1 (t)]
(804)
Z
Z
drCi (~r , t) =
dri (~r ) [f,1 (~r , t)S1 (~r )T1 (t) + f,2 (~r , t)S2 (~r )T2 (t)] i
drCi (~r , t)
(805)
Interpretaion:
(a) Notice we include the adjoint flux as weighting factors. Technically the parameters in the previous
sections should include corresponding weighting factors as well.
(b) has no T (t) temporal dependency. only depends on 1 but not 2 , because all delayed neutrons
are born in group 1, hence we do not care about the neutron importance in group 2.
(c) is the prompt neutron life time, thus only the importance of group 1 neutrons matters.
(d) Keep in mind that the classical PKE expression that we would show in the next subsection looks
simple; it is how these parameters are defined that is involved.
242
Lulu Li
If we drop the ~r , t dependency, we get a cleaner look of the 2-group PKE:

d
[T1 ] =
dt
dr1 {r,1 S1 T1 + (1 )(f,1 S1 T1 + f,2 S2 T2 )} +
dr
i Ci
(806)
Z
d
[T2 ] =
dr2 [a,2 S2 T2 + s12 S1 T1 ]
dt
Z
Z
Z
d
drCi =
dri [f,1 S1 T1 + f,2 S2 T2 ] i
drCi
dt
3. We can further write the 2-group PKEs in matrix form as in Table 20.
Table 20: Matrix Form of 2-Group PKE Diffusion Equations
243
(807)
(808)
Lulu Li
18.4
Classical PKE
For the classical PKE approach, we lump the integrals of cross sections and shape functions into simple parameters like , and . To start, for simplicity concern we omit the dependency on the following terms:
D(~r , E, t), t (~r , E, t), f (~r , E, t), S(~r , E), (E).
18.4.1
Classical PKE Parameters
1. Reactivity (t), where the top is the diffusion equation, and the bottom is fission rate if all the neutrons
show up instatenously.
=
net production
perturbation denomenator (if all neutrons show up instantaneously)
(809)
!Z
(
X i
X
R
R
j
j
0
j
j
f S dE
d (E)i
dE dr DS t S + s ( ~
r , E 0E, t)S dE 0 +
p (E)(1 ) +
i
(t) =
R
dE
dr
j
p (E)(1
)+
i
j
d (E)i
!Z
j
f S
(810)
dE
A special word about reactivity: (t) does not describe how much neutrons there are at a specific time;
it describes how much neutrons there would be eventually.
Static comes from steady-state transport equation, and it indicates excess (or lack) of reactivity
present in the system.
keff 1.0
keff
(t) =
(811)
Dynamic changes as a function of time and indicates changes from an initially stable system.
(t) =
f i
f
(812)
The unit of can be confusing. See Table 21.

Unit
k
% k
pcm
Dollars
Cents
Milli-beta
Definition
actual units of PKEs
Example
0.01
1%
1000 pcm
$1.5
150 cents
1500 milli-beta
105 k
k
100 Dollars
1000 Dollars
Table 21: Common Reactivity Units

2. The delayed neutron fraction (notice although this is called delayed neutron fraction, there is jp (E) term
X
in it). If we ignore fissioning spectrum,
i .
i
Z
X j
R
R
dE dr
(E) j
d
dE dr
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
i (t) =
jp (E)(1
)+
X
i
244
id (E)ij
!Z
(813)
jf S
dE
Lulu Li
3. Prompt neutron lifetime,

R
dE dr v1 S(~r , E)
!Z
X
R
R X
j
j
j
i
dE dr
p (E)(1 ) +
d (E)i
jf S dE 0
R
(t) =
(814)
1
1
criticality
vf
va
(t)
(815)
The prompt neutron life 1/v of shape divided by almost-instantenous-fission-rate.

4. The i-th precursor,
Z
Ci (t) =
Z
dE
drCi (~r , t)
(816)
drQ(~r , t)
(817)
5. The total eternal source,

Z
Q(t) =
Z
dE
Prof. Forget summarizes the PKE parameters using a weight function w:

w, v 1 0
hw, (F M )0 i
(t) =
=
hw, F 0 i
hw, F 0 i
LWR
5 105
0.0075
0.1
CANDU
1 103
0.06
0.1
Fast Reactors
1 106
0.0035
0.1
Table 22: Typical Values for PKE Parameters
245
eff =
hw, Fd 0 i
hw, F 0 i
(818)
Lulu Li
18.4.2
Classical PKE using Parameters
Now we are ready to use PKE parameters to define the classical PKE:
1. Using the defined PKE parameters, we get the classic point kinetics equations (PKE),
(t)
d
T (t) =
dt
i (t)
T (t) +
(t)
i Ci (t) + Q(t)
(819)
d
i (t)
Ci (t) =
T (t) i Ci (t)
dt
(t)
(820)
Remember that the above classic PKEs are obtained using assumptions:
No external source.
Constant i , i .
The approximation (~r , E, t) = S(~r , E)T (t), which is not always valid.
There is no feedback (e.g., the reactor is operating at low enough flux, no feedback, coefficients are
independent of solution), if (t) is known, one can solve for reactor power as a function of time.
2. For a steady state solution at power level T0 , we know,
d
Ci (0) = 0
dt
d
T (0) = 0
dt
Ci (0) =
i
T0
i
(0) = 0
(821)
3. The matrix form of the 1st order ODE is (assuming three precursor groups, can be easily extend for more
precursor groups),
T
C1
N =
C2
C3
d
N (t) =
dt
246
(t)
1
1
[N (t)]
2
3
(822)
Lulu Li
18.5
Analytical Solution with One Precursor Group
This lecture was presented by Prof. Forget on Sept. 20, 2013. We are interested in solving the classical PKEs
with one effective delayed neutron precursor group.
Problem statement: we hold steady state before t = 0 such that: (0) = 0, P (0) = P0 , C(0) =
P0 . Then
we perturbe the reactivity at t = 0 to be 0 .
Assume P (t) = P et , C(t) = Cet . Substitute into PKEs, we get
P =
0
P + C
P C
C =
This is a homogeneous linear system that can be written in the matrix form:

P
0
0
=
C
0
+
(823)
(824)
Non-trival solution exists if and only if the determinant of the matrix is 0, that is,
2 + ( + 0 ) 0 = 0
(825)
whose solution is,

=
i
p
1 h
( 0 + ) ( 0 + )2 + 40
2
(826)
That is, we arrive at P (t) = P1 e1 t + P2 e2 t , C(t) = C1 e1 t + C2 e2 t . Assume , |0 | , we can

approximate
1
0
,
0
(827)
Then

P (t) P0
0
0
0
e 0 t
e t
0
0
Figure 80: Plot of Analytical Solution of PKE
247
(828)
Lulu Li
18.6
Numerical Solutions of Various Senarios
1. Instantaneous reactor scram from criticality( = 8). Power goes almost instantly to about 10%, then it
ultimately decays with time constant of longest lived precursor (Br87 with a half-life of 55s).
Figure 81: PKE Example 1, Instant Reactor Scram

2. 2s rod drop scram ( = 8). This is a common assumption to make for real application because rods
are dropping to replace the water. Again, power goes to about 10% when rod fully inserted, and power
ultimately decays with time constant of the longest lived precursor (55s).
Figure 82: PKE Example 2, Two Second Reactor Scram
248
Lulu Li
3. Instantaneous rod withdraw ( = 0.1). In this senario, there is only one delayed neutron precursor group,
and we withdraw rod instantly. The reactor wants to response immediately (hence the jump) but it does not
have enough delayed neutron to sustain that increase, hence the jump is not enough and it will increase for
the rest of the way, until ultimately power increases with time constant of the longest precursor group (55s).
See next section for the derivation of prompt jump estimation.
Figure 83: PKE Example 3, Instant Rod Withdrawal

4. Instantaneous rod withdraw with 8 delayed groups. The intial part of the transient is slightly more complicated in Fig. 84a than 1-group case in Fig. 83(single delayed group is very sensitive to the time-constant).
Fig. 84b shows that, if we wait long enough, the power becomes an asymptotic exponential rise. We reach
secular equilibrium between power and precursor rate that the precursor rates have the same shapes as the
power, altough the rates may be off by a factor.
(a) Short Term Behavior
(b) Long Term Behavior
Figure 84: PKE Example 4, Instant Rod Withdrawal With 8 Delayed Groups
5. 2s rod insertion with 8 delayed groups ( = 0.1).
249
Lulu Li
Figure 85: PKE Example 5, Two Second Rod Insertion

6. Regulating rod withdrawal/insertion. Senario: rod is moved in for 2s, hold for 20s, re-positioned in 2s.
Power does not come back to the original state, because we are solving for an eigenvalue problem,
and what the asymptotic power is depends on how to get there. In the withdrawal case, the precursor
builds up and is continuing to build up during the second phase, so the power ends up higher than initially25 .
Figure 86: PKE Example 6, Rod Withdrawal and Insertion
7. Super-prompt criticality/rod ejection/failed housing. Senario: rod is moved in for 1s. The point is, power
ascension is very sensitive as . When > , reactivity does not have to wait for the delayed
neutrons anymore, changes can happen instantaneously. Thus if your data is more than 5% uncertain,
the answer would vary quite a lot.
25 it
is almost like driving, except there is no friction.
250
Lulu Li
Figure 87: PKE Example 7, Failed Housing
251
Lulu Li
18.7
Prompt-Jump Approximations
Prompt-jump approximation is used to estimate prompt-jump (of course). Stacy states that if we are not interested
in the details of the prompt neutron kinetics during the prompt jump, we can simplify the equations by assuming
that the prompt jump takes place instantaneously in response to any reactivity change, and afterward, the neutron
population changes instantaneously in response to changes in the delayed neutron source.
1. In a subcritical transient, assume precursors dominant, and prompt neutron changes are negligible,
K
X
d
P (t) =
P (t) +
k Ck (t) + S(t)
dt
1
k
d
Ck (t) =
P (t) k Ck (t)
dt
We set
d
dt P (t)
(829)
(830)
= 0, and can solve for P (t) and get an expression for
d
dt Ck (t):
P (t) =
X
S(t) +
k Ck (t)
K
k
k X
d
Ck (t) =
S(t) +
k0 Ck0 (t) k Ck (t)
dt
(831)
(832)
k =1
2. Assume one precursor group and no source,
d
T (t) 0 =
T (t) + C(t)
dt

+
+
T (0 ) =
C(0 ) =
T0

T (0+ )
=
T0
More general, if initial reactivity is not exactly zero (but small),
(833)
(834)
(835)
T1
0
=
.
T0
1
3. Assume one precursor group, a constant source and a constant ,
d
C(t) =
C(t) +
S(t)
dt
(
S
t + C0
=0

C(t) =
C0 +
S e t
S 6= 0
(
(S t + C0 ) +
S
=0

P (t) =

6= 0
S + C0 e
S
(836)
(837)
(838)
4. Interpretation:
Prompt jump approximation only works when < ! The smaller is compared to , the more
accurate the prompt jump approximation is, because at small reactivity, we can assume the change
in prompt neutrons are negligible compare with delayed neutrons (or say precursors dominates), in
d
which case it is valid to set dt
P (t) = 0.
If = 0, both P (t), C(t) increases linearly with respect to time.
If is slightly larger than 0, both P (t), C(t) explodes exponentially. Eg., given a reactivity change of
+
)
0.1, the prompt jump is T (0

= 0.1
= 1.111.
T0
252
Lulu Li
18.8
Inhour Equation / Nordheim Equation
Prof. Forget defines reactor period as the power level divided by the rate of change of power:
(t) =
p(t)
dp(t)
dt
(839)
Implications:
1. = means steady-state.
2. Small positive means a rapid increase in power. Small negative means a rapid decrease in power.
3. If period is constant, power varies exponentially:
P (t) = P0 et/
(840)
4. For one delayed precursor gropu, the reactor period can be separated into two parts (prompt period and
stable period) which are the two exponential of the solution with different coefficient. Recall Fig. 80.
5. After the initial transient, there is a fixed relation between the stable period and reactivity:
(
<
stable =
>
6. Typical values: when <1 mk, the period is larger than 1 min; when = 6 mk, 1 s.
253
(841)
Lulu Li
18.8.1
Inhour Equation: The Simpliest Inverse Kinetics Application
From the PKEs as in Eq. 1021, we can derive the In-hour Equation. We assume the solution is in the form of,
T (t) Ci (t) et
Then
d
dt T (t)
(842)
d
T (t), dt
Ci (t) Ci (t), and hence PKEs in Eq. 1021 becomes,
T (t) =
Ci (t) =
T (t) +
i Ci (t)
(843)
i
T (t) i Ci (t)
(844)
From Eq. 844, we can write Ci (t) in terms of T (t),

i
T (t)
( + i )
(845)
i i
T (t) +
T (t)
(
+ i )
i
(846)
Ci (t) =
Plug into Eq. 843,
T (t) =
We cancel the T (t) and multiply by on both sides,

w = +
Recall that =
X i i
+ i
i
(847)
i , we can write the reactivity as,
= +
X
i
i i
i
+ i

(848)
That is,
= +
X i
+ i
i
(849)
Implications:
Asymptotic periods 0 = 1 : we can only use Inhour equation for asymptotic period, that is, a stable
condition indicated by a constant period. Thus to use Inhour equation, we have to make the reactor stable
first. For any time dependent problem, we have to use the more general IK.
We can compute using inhour equation if we know i , , i .
A typically assumption is to set 0 because the prompt neutron lifetime is so small (with the exception
of super prompt in which case is huge). Another way to put it is that the frequency of the reactor is going
to be small.
254
Lulu Li
18.8.2
Application 1: Computing Reactivity of Core
Steps of computing for a reactor,

1. Make a perturbation (e.g., withdraw control rod) on a critical reactor.
2. Measure asymptotic reactivity period T0 : make sure T is constant before we measure it!
3. Infer the asymptotic frequency =
1
T0 .
4. Use inhour equation to compute reactivity: plug into inhour equation.

There are a couple of potential issues,
1. The requirement of waiting for asymptotic period puts a restriction on the reactivity: if the reactivity is too
large or too small then we might go over the range in side of which we can ignore feedback.
2. In-hour assumes constant i , where in reality Bete-effective can be changed by rod worth by 3%. For
instance, when we drive the control rod in the center of a core, we drive the flux towards the outter edge of
the core and thus change beta.
3. To perform an accurate measurement, we really need to perform calculation.
18.8.3
Applications 2: HZP Rod Worth Measurement
Inhour equation can be used to calibrate control rods and to measure small sample worths are measured. For
instance, to measure HZP rod worth due to Boron dilution, the steps are:
1. Make reactor stable (this is important, because without asymptotic period we cannot use the Inhour equation).
2. Start Boron dilution.
3. Move control rod in small number of steps and then wait.
4. Use point kinetics to convert ex-core detector signal into reactivity.
5. Infer differential and integral rod worths.
Fig. 88 demonstrate this process. The problem is, the entire process takes more than 1 hour for each rod (because
we have to carefully wait for the power to stablize after each step). This is too costly for real reactors, hence we
need to derive a more general expression, which leads us to the next section on IK.
255
Lulu Li
Figure 88: HZP Rod Worth Measurement: Boron Dilution
256
Lulu Li
18.9
Derivation of IK
Assume we know the amplitude function T (t) (that is, we are given a desired reactor power shape vs. time),
we can solve for the precursor function C(t); then plugging back in the PKEs, we can get (t), that is, how to
operator reactor to achieve the desired power shape.
1. Given T (t), we can solve for the precursor equations,
i
d
Ci (t) = T (t) i C(t)
dt
d
i
Ci (t) + i Ci (t) = T (t)
dt
If we define matrix [A] = diag[i ], [B] =

matrix system for all i,
diag[i ]
, [Y
(850)
(851)
(t)] = [B]T (t), then the above equation forms a
d
[C(t)] + [A][C(t)] = [B]T (t) = [Y (t)]
dt
(852)
2. Multiply by IF [eAt ],
[eAt ]
d
[C(t)] + [eAt ][A][C(t)] = [eAt ][Y (t)]
dt

d
[eAt ][C(t)] = [eAt ][Y (t)]
dt
(853)
(854)
3. Integrating both side from 0 to t, define C0 = C(t = 0), Y0 = Y (t = 0),

[eAt ][C(t)] [C0 ] = [A]1 [eAt ][Y (t)] [Y0 ]
(855)

[C(t)] = [eAt ][C0 ] + [eAt ][A]1 [eAt ][Y (t)] [Y0 ]
(856)
That is, we can solve for the time-varying concentrations of precursors for any desired reactor power shape
in time by applying this equation successively for discrete steps.
4. From the PKEs, we can solve for the reactivity in terms of C(t), T (t) by making finite-difference approximation for derivative term:
X
d
(t)
T (t) =
T (t) +
i Ci (t) + Q(t)
dt
(t) =
n =
(857)
d
X
T (t) +
i Ci (t)
Q(t)
T (t) dt
T (t) i
T (t)
(858)
Tn Tn1
X
+
i Ci,n
Qn
Tn tn tn1
Tn i
Tn
(859)
257
Lulu Li
18.10
Applications of IK
IK is what is used in production tools. We will discuss three examples.

18.10.1
PWR Boration/Dilution
The red lines in Fig. 89 point out the location of the excore detectors. These ex-core detectors are used to monitor
core flux/power level and axial power shape.
Figure 89: IK Example 1, PWR Ex-core Detectors

Prompt neutron life time is so short that spatial distribution of flux changes rapidly, thus we can assume that
it stabalizes already at each rod drop.
Disadvantages: time concern; boration dilution increases cost with waste disposal.
Alternatives: we use General Inverse Kinetics to get around about it.
18.10.2
SCRAM/Rod Drop Analysis
(a) No Fluctuation
(b) With Fluctuation
Figure 90: IK Example 2, Rod Drop for SCRAM Reactivity
258
Lulu Li
In this example, we would scram the core, then measure power change and infer T (t), thus estimating the
reactivity.
The rough method uses Prompt Jumpt Approximation.
More accurately, we need to model all the neutron sources, including (, n) reactions etc.
In reality, there are noisy signals in measured power and reactivity data; we need to smooth them out with
a fitted function before we can apply IK with external neutron sources.
The point is that we can use IK instead of prompt jump approximation to gain precision.
This technique is not used in the US that much because it is harsh on your system and it requires work to bring
the system back to critical. But it is one of the best ways to demonstrate to the licensing committee that a reactor
is capable of scraming.
18.10.3
Dynamic Rod Worth
This technique is widely used by Westinghouse to estimate their rod worth: starting with a critical reactor, and
drive a control rod in and out and repeat with a different rod.
The advantages are: no need to do boron dilution, and it takes 15 mins for each rod.
Figure 91: IK Example 3, PWR Dynamic Rod Worth

Alternatively, we can do sub-critical source multiplication, that is, IK with a source in the reactor. This way
we dont even need to start with a critical reactor. This technique has only been used in experimental reactors but
not so much in power reactors because it requires detailed knowledge about the source distribution.
Note: we should be careful about power level. As shown in Fig. 92, power can change from a few watts to
20,000 MW in less than a second! In order to make IK valid, we have to bring power down to make sure there
is no thermal feedback. So it is a balance between getting a good signal and making sure there is no thermal
feedback, thus people end up running the reactor in the intermediate range.
259
Lulu Li
Figure 92: IK, Be Careful of Reactor Power Level
260
Lulu Li
19
19.1
Point Kinetics With Feedbacks

Importance of Feedbacks
Why we care about feedbacks?

1. We used to just assume an artificially high rod worth and model fuels fresh. Then people realize that, the
rod movement in one assembly changes the local flux distribution as illustrated in Fig. 93.
Figure 93: Local Flux Changes

2. If we perform a rod ejection at hot zero power, the magnitude of flux/power can change from a few Watt to
20,000 MW in less than 1s! Also the fuel enthalpy at failure is dependent on fuel BU (the higher the BU,
the easier it is for the fuel to fail) as in Fig. 94. Thus we need to model control rods somewhat faithfully to
get a reasonable safety analysis.
Figure 94: Fuel Enthalpy at Failure Depends on Fuel BU

3. The importance of modeling feedback can be illustrated in Fig. 95. Without feedback, the reactor wants to
be a bomb and the power shoots up with an asymptotic period. With Doppler feedback, both the reactivity
and the power decreases before the rod is even fully inserted. When correctly designed, reactors use feed-
261
Lulu Li
back effects to keep them from acting like bombs26 . The feedback is especially strong when > 1$. A
second peak is the characteristic of longer rod change.
Figure 95: 1.5$ RIA Without Feedback (top row) and With Doppler Feedback (bottom row)
26 There is no Doppler feedback for fast reactors, so fast reactors have to do all kind of tricks to get a negative feedback. Also fast reactors
have positive sodium void worth, because as energy deposits in the sodium, voids are generated, pushing sodium away, generating a positive
sodium void worth
262
Lulu Li
19.2
Fuchs-Nordheim Model
The Fuchs-Nordheim Model predicts the shape and the magnitude of the transient. We do not really solve the
analytical solution of this model, but instead study some characteristics from it.
19.2.1
Assumptions
To start, we make three assumptions27 ,

1. If , we can ignore the delayed neutrons, hence the precursor equation in PKEs goes away, and we are
left with the power distribution P (t) with no precursor term28 .
X
d
(t)
(t)
P (t) =
P (t) +
i Ci (t)
P (t)
dt
(860)
It is fair to ignore the precursors, because as in Fig. 96 top row, we can see that the power with precursor is
small enough that the F-N model provides a good approximation; the bottom row images are plotted on a
log-log scale to show the small difference made by the precursors.
Figure 96: Assumption in Fuchs-Nordheim: No Precursors

27 The
historical reason for these assumptions is that the model was developed for weapon use, hence and rapid transient.
use P (t) instead of T (t) for the amplitude function now to avoid the confusion with temperature T that we would use repeatively in
this section.
28 we
263
Lulu Li
2. If transient is so rapid that no heat is transferred from the fuel29 ,

Z
1
0
Tfuel = Tfuel
+
P (t) dt
Cp
(861)
3. Assume a Doppler feedback coefficient independent of temperature (recall that we calculate that PWRs
have a Doppler coefficient is abou -3 pcm/K),
0
(t) = rod (Tfuel Tfuel
)
19.2.2
(862)
First Derivation of P (t): Peak Temperature Characteristics
So we want solve the first order ODE in Eq. 860 by using Eq. 861 and 862. We differentiate Eq. 861 to get,
P (t)
dTfuel (t)
=
dt
Cp
(863)
dP (t)
rod Tfuel
=
P (t)
dt
(864)
0
Plug Eq. 862 into Eq. 860 (omitting Tfuel
),
Divide Eq. 864 by 863, then integrate,

dP (t)
(rod Tfuel )Cp
1
dP (t)
dTfuel (t)
=
= [Cp (rod ) Cp Tfuel ]
=
dTfuel
dt
dt

1
Cp 2
Cp (rod )Tfuel (t)
T (t)
P (t) = P0 +
2 fuel
= 0,
Eq. 866 can be used to find peak power behavior, that is, we set dTdP
fuel
i
1h
peak
Cp (rod ) Cp Tfuel
=0
peak
Tfuel
=
rod
Then we can solve for peak power as well,

"

2 #
1
rod
Cp rod
peak
P
= P0 +
Cp (rod )
P peak = P0 +
Cp (rod )2
2
(865)
(866)
(867)
(868)
(869)
(870)
Take-away Messages:
1. Peak temperature is independent of neutron lifetime and heat capacity Cp .
2. Peak power is proportional to heat capacity Cp and inversely proportional to prompt neutron lifetime
and Doppler feedback coefficient . A direct consequence is, fast reactors whose is orders of magnitude
smaller than LWRs are going to generate a lot of heat in a short amount of time.
3. These equations are derived with > . As , the peak temperature and power become very sensitive
to .
29 The
time constant for heat to be removed from UO2 fuel is about 5 mins.
264
Lulu Li
19.2.3
Second Derivation of P (t): Asymptotic Characteristics
Alternatively, we derive and integrate P (t)s dependency on (t) instead of Tfuel (t). We use
the PKEs as in Eq. 860, and d
dt expression from Eq. 866 that we derived,
dP
dt
expression from
dP (t)
dP (t) d
=
dt
d dt

dP (t)
d
(t)
Cp
dP (t)
=
=
P (t)
P (t) =
[(t) ]
d
dt
dt
Cp
(871)
(872)
We integrate with repsect to and evaluate the constant of integration by using the step reactivity rod ,
P (t) = P0 +

Cp
((t) )2 + (rod )2
2
(873)
Consider the transient terminated when P (t) returns to P0 , then

end = 2 rod
(874)
Using the constant fuel temperature feedback coefficient, or Eq. 861,

end
0
2 rod = rod (Tfuel
Tfuel
)
(875)
That is,
end
Tfuel
=
2(rod )
0
+ Tfuel
(876)
peak
peak
end
end
Compare Tfuel
in the above expression with Tfuel
in Eq. 868, Tfuel
= 2Tfuel
, where peak is when the power
peaks as in Fig. 97. Temperature changes independent of neutron lifetime and heat capacity again. This makes
sense because we assume the transient stops when P (t) = P0 , and with a power distribution symmetric in time, it
makes sense that the temperature rise from P0 to P peak and the temperature rise from P peak to P0 should be the
same.
Figure 97: Temperature Changes in a Transient
265
Lulu Li
19.2.4
Asymptotic Temperature Independent of Insertion Rate
Asymptotic fuel temperature is independent of the reactivity insertion rate as in Fig. 98. The power vs. time
shape changes with different reactivity insertion rate, as we can see from the top row of the plots (for 2s, there is
a second peak that happens when the rod is fully inserted).
F-N model provides pretty good estimation, because temperature is basically integrated power, and the reactivity insertion rate does not matter much because we are integrating over time. Another way to think about is
that there has to be something to balance out the reactivity change, and it is the Doppler feedback/temperature
change that balance out the reactivity change. Thus the asymptotic temperature only depends on the asymptotic
reactivity. So we can calculate, for this case for instance,
end
Tfuel
=
2(1.8 0.0066 0.0066)

2(rod )
0
+ 540 = 892K
+ Tfuel
=
3 105
Figure 98: Fuel Temperature Independent Reactivity Insertion Rate
266
(877)
Lulu Li
19.3
PKEs with Simple Feedback
Now we turn away from Fuchs-Nordheim model and consider the PKEs with the simplest heat conduction and
transport for feedback. This lecture was mostly covered in 22.S904 Lecture 9 and 10, especially the operator
splitting and augmented matrix system part.
19.3.1
Derivation of Equations
We have two first order ODEs, one for Tfuel , one for Tcoolant . Basically the fuel temperature is driven by the
power and conducting to the coolant (a is coefficient). The coolant temperature is driven by the temperature
different between fuel and coolant (hence fuel temperatures sink) and conducting to the inlet (b is coefficient).
c is the heat transfer coefficient, and d is the axial transport term.
d
Tfuel (t) = aP (t) b[Tfuel (t) Tcoolant (t)]
dt
(878)
d
Tcoolant (t) = c[Tfuel (t) Tcoolant (t)] d[Tcoolant (t) Tinlet (t)]
dt
Re-write in a matrix form,

d
Tfuel (t)
b
+
c
dt Tcoolant (t)
b
c+d

Tfuel (t)
Tcoolant (t)

=
aPfuel (t)
dTinlet (t)
(879)

(880)
Using integrating factors to solve the above first order ODE system (we solved the exact form of problem
d
dT C + AC = Y for the IK equations as in Section 18.9), we get (assuming zero initial power, zero initial
inlet temperature),

n+1
n
Tfuel
b
b
Tfuel
n
= exp
t
n+1
n
c c + d
Tcoolant
Tcoolant

1

n+1
b
b
b
b
b
b
aPfuel
+ exp
nt
exp
nt
n+1
c c + d
c c + d
c c + d
dTinlet
(881)
We make use of that we know at full power, flow rate is 30 W/g, Cp = 300J/kg-s, = 3 pcm/K, Vcoolant =
0
0
0
2m/s, Tinlet
= 540K, Tcoolant
= 560K, Tfuel
= 900K, core height is 4m.
Recall if we do not have heat transfer (axial or radial), then the fuel temperature/power would (linearly)
increasing as weve demonstrated before.
267
Lulu Li
19.3.2
Neutroncis and TH Coupling
We have two parts to deal with: neutronics, and TH. For the neutronics part, recall that we can write the coupled
PKEs (prompt and precursor coupled) into matrix form
(t)
1
2
3
4
5
6
P
1
C1
1
2
C2
(882)
N = C3
[N (t)] =
[N (t)]
4
dt
C4
5
C5
6
C6
6
We know the analytical solution is,

(t)
N n+1 = exp 3
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
For the TH part, recall that we have derived the analytical solution Eq. 881.
268
t [N (t)]n

(883)
Lulu Li
19.3.3
Operator Split Matrix Solution
n+1
We evaluate the neutronics part using Eq. 883, then plug the Pfuel
into the TH Eq. 881, then plug the resolved
0
Tfuel to update (t) = rod (Tfuel Tfuel ) in the neutronics equation. Repeat for the next time step.
Alternatively we can do the TH part first and then neutronics. The order matters to some degree: if power is
increasing, we do the TH part first and then the neutronics part. If power is decreasing, we do neutronics portion
first then TH part. This is illustrated in Fig. 99.
Issue: solution may require very small time steps or synchronization iterations as illustrated in Fig. 100.
Figure 99: Operator Splitting

Take-away:
1. With no synchronization step, the order of operator splits matters.
2. With synchronization step, the two splits should approach the same. Though coarse time step with fine
synchronzization step is not as good as fine time step.
3. With a fine enough time step, it shouldnt take more than 1 iteration to synchronize.
269
Lulu Li
Figure 100: Operator Splitting: Iteration Scheme
270
Lulu Li
19.3.4
Augmented Matrix Equations for 1st Order Coupled ODE
Instead of solving for two 1st order matrix equations, we can put them together, and define a new N (t):
C1
C2
C3
C4
N =
C5
C6
Tfuel
Tcoolant
Then we have one ODE (be super careful about not leaving out the P terms!!!):
(t)(T n T 0 )
f uel
f uel
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
3
d
4
[N (t)]
4
dt
5
a
0
b
c
(884)
b
(c + d)
[N
(t)]
=
(885)
This is illustrated again in Fig. 101 with synchronization iteration.
Figure 101: Augmented Matrix Equations for 1st Order Coupled ODE
Then we can use our familar integrating factor method to solve this first order ODE:
1
[N ]n+1 = exp[A]m [N ]n + h[A]m i
271
h[1] exp[A]m i [S]m
(886)
0
Tfuel P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
dTinlet
Lulu Li
This solution requires no synchronization iteration and allows very large time steps.
There are two approaches here:
1. Replace with its old time step value.
2. Alternativley, we can do a synchronization step. Effectively we are doing JFK in the sense that derivative of
a term with two variables is just the derivative of one times the value of the 2nd term plus the derivative of
the 2nd term times the 1st term. We ignore the 2nd term of Jacobian, and as shown later with a reasonable
fine time step, we do not even need synchronization as the 2nd term of the Jacobian is so small.
Take-away:
Compare augmented solution with operator splitting, even with no synchronization, the augmented solution
is more accurate than operator splitting.
Time step is far less important than the order of the operator. In the 0.5 dollar ramp insertion case, direct
solution provides a factor of 10 more accuracy.
Figure 102: Operator Split Solution vs. Direct Coupled Solution
272
Lulu Li
19.4
Examples Using PKEs with Simple Feedbacks
1. Ramp +0.5 reactivity. The power decreases because of Doppler feedback and of delayed neutrons. Reactor seeks a new critical power level if the Doppler feedback is negative. Overshoots are very common in
positive reactivity transients.
Figure 103: 0.5 Reactivity Change with Feedback

2. Ramp 0.5 reactivity. Undershoots are very common in negative reactivity transients. The slower ramping results in smaller , P because slow transients are in pseudo-equilibrium, and there is enough time
for the feedback. That is, The smaller rate of reactivity change is, the smaller the overshoot/undershoot
is. The final/asymptotic results are a different story, as they only depend on (system always find stable
points) and are independent of d
dt .
Figure 104: 0.5 Reactivity Change with Feedback
273
Lulu Li
3. 1.5 RIA from HZP(eject rod in 0.1s, scram delay = 0.5s, scram time = 1s, follow to 3s). Nominal rated
power increases by about 100 times in 0.2s. The power and temperature turns around due to Doppler
feedback. Temperature peaks around 800K and ends around 760K:
end
Tfuel
=
2(1.5 0.0066 0.0066)

+ 540 = 761K
3 105
(887)
Figure 105: 1.5 RIA from HZP with Feedback

4. 1.5 RIA from HFP (exact same condition as last one except HFP this time). Power increases by about
70 times. Because we start at a higher power region, we get feedback more quickly, thus peak power is
lower compare with the HZP case. T is about the same as the HZP (initial temperature is higher, peak
fuel temperature around 1200K) because the are the same for the two cases and our Doppler feedback
coefficient is linear.
Figure 106: 1.5 RIA from HFP with Feedback
274
Lulu Li
5. 1.5 RIA from HZP (same condition as the previous HZP RIA case, but eject rod in 1s instead of 0.1s).
Power only goes up by 4 times in 1s. Again Doppler feedback turns the power around, and temperature
peaks around 800K which is the same as the fast ejection case.
Figure 107: 1.5 RIA from HZP with Feedback, Slower Ejection
6. 1.5 RIA from HFP (same condition as the previous HFP RIA case, but eject rod in 1s instead of 0.1s). The
ejection is slow enough that the reactor is at equilibrium the whole time. The power peaks by a factor of 5
in 0.2s. Peak fuel temperature is around 1200K which is again the same as the fast ejection case.
Figure 108: 1.5 RIA from HFP with Feedback, Slower Ejection
275
Lulu Li
7. 1.5 bank withdrawal RIA from HZP (eject in 100s). The ejection is so slow that the reactor is at equilibrium the whole time and the system never get super prompt critical (Doppler stops power ascension). The
system reaches its nominal rated power in 100s.
Figure 109: 1.5 RIA from HZP with Feedback, Slowest Ejection
8. 1.5 bank withdrawal RIA from HFP (eject in 100s). Doppler reactivity is continually synchronized with
rod reactivity (hence the straight line looking?). The system reaches twice its nominal rated power in 100s.
Figure 110: 1.5 RIA from HFP with Feedback, Slowest Ejection
276
Lulu Li
9. 1.5 bank withdrawal RIA from HFP (eject in 100s, no scram). Doppler reactivity is continually synchronized with rod reactivity (hence the straight line looking?). The ejection is slow enough that if we can take
away the scram, and the system reaches a new equilibrium at twice its nominal rated power in 100s.
Figure 111: 1.5 RIA from HFP with Feedback, Slowest Ejection, No Scram
Take-away: we dont really care about the temperal difference/integration, because the asymptotic temperature
only depends on the reactivity change, not on the time dependent behavior.
277
Lulu Li
19.5
22.211 Class Notes: May 2, 2012
Summary
1. PKEs assume you are solving for the core average properties; PKEs assume flux spatial shape is constant.
Thus PKEs are not very precise for large spatial flux changes.
2. Peak temperature are proportionally larger than core average properties.
3. If we really want spatial dynamics, we need to do 3D spatial dynamics to get correct predictions to complicated problems.
This thermal hydraulics model we have is very crude. For one thing, it has a huge diffusive property, that is, it
would not predict any thermal shock behavior.
As in Fig. 112, about 3% of the energy deposited into the coolant (about 2.5 2 MeV =5 MeV worth of
neutrons from 200 MeV just from neutron slowing down that is deposited into the coolant), hence the coolant
temperature would change slightly as well. Net reactivity comes back to zero. Remember PKEs are not precise
for large spatial flux changes.
Figure 112: PWR Reactivity Insertion Accident
278
Lulu Li
20
Nodal Diffusion Methods
There has not been a single LWR core that was solved using discrete transport. As we will see later, the number
of core hours needed to solve a LWR using discrete transport is approximately 100,000 core hours, whereas
pin-by-pin diffusion with homogenized pin cells reduce the core hours by a factor of 100,000.
20.1
3D Core Analysis Overview
Reference: Reactor Core Methods by Smith, MC 2003.

20.1.1
Challenges
There are a couple levels of complexity for performing 3D core analysis,

One reactor at one state point: couple core neutronics/fuel heat conduction/coolant hydraulics/structural
mechanics for 60,000 fuel pins and 100 axial levels to evaluate thermal margins;
Repeat for 50 depletion states and track 300 isotopes;
Repeat for 10,000s limiting conditional simulations and 100s of transient accident simulations for safety
analysis;
Repeat for 1000s of startup and maneuver simulations;
Repeat for millions of cycle depletion simulation for designing loading design and optimization;
For operator training simulator in real time, 24/7 operation at 5-10 Hz.
The challenges for 3D core calculation include,
Predict pin power, axial shapes of pin power: as in Figure 113, the spacers depress the flux. Though even
without the spacers, the axial shape would still be more towards the bottom compare with a cosine shape
due to the temperature coefficients;
Predict core reactivity with core burnup: as in Figure 113, burnable poisons deplete as burnup increases;
Predict in-core detector response;
Predict control rod worths and temperature coefficients.
Figure 113: 3D Core Calculation Samples
279
Lulu Li
20.1.2
Approaches to 3D core Problems
1. Discrete Transport: the number of meshes we need is approximately

100
mesh
pins
assemblies
300
200
100 axial mesh 100 energy groups 1000 angles = 6 1013
pin
assembly
core
(888)
The best parallel transport grind time currently comes from Texas A&M PDT code is 300 nanosecond/unknown. On top of that, assume we perform 20 fission source iterations, we are looking at 100,000 core hours.
Not to mension that we have no inlcude thermal-hydraulic feedback, cross section evaluations, boron search
to criticality, equilibrium xenon, and control rod search to criticality.
2. Pin-by-pin diffusion with homogenized pin cells: the number of meshes we need is approximately
1
mesh
pins
assemblies
300
200
100 axial mesh100 energy groups 1 angles = 6 108
pin
assembly
core
(889)
Thus we reduce the core hours from 100,000 to 1 core hour. The drawback is that pin homogenization causes
a loss of accuracy around strong absorbers. This is now a tractable problem, but not used for production.
3. Nodal method: this is what production codes typically use. There is a huge push towards nodal method,
because nodal methods take a mesh size of 20cm to be accurate, whereas Finite Difference method requires
a mesh size of about 1 cm. In terms of the amount of errors, using CMFD on a reactor application would
yield somewhere between 5-10% error.
Multilevel Approach for LWRs (the reason we emphasize this approach is for LWRs is because the spatial
mesh should agree with mean free path which depends on energies):
1. Spectral code to get from 1000s of energy groups to 100s of energy groups.
(a) Pin cell or homogenized medium.
(b) 0D or 1D spatial model.
2. Solve each unique lattice.
(a) Self-shielding corrections.
(b) 2D transport theory (100s energy groups).
(c) Homogenize parameters.
3. Solve nodal diffusion (3D diffusion equation with few energy groups).
For fast reactors, we solve a lattice with 10,000 groups and go straight to diffusion (with 30-40 energy groups)
because the mean free path is so long.
280
Lulu Li
20.1.3
PWR Methods: A Historical Review
1. Early 60s, core analysis were done using 2D/1D finite diffusion calculation. For steady state,
(a) Pin-cell cross section generation (e.g.: Westinghouses Leopard), uses supercell for absorbers (absorber/fuel buffer pin-cell).
(b) Radial shape generatoin (e.g., PDQ/HARMONY): generate 2-group homogenized pin cell F-xy peaking (axial plane peaking) using finite difference diffusion with no feedback
(c) Axial: generate A-O (axial offset) and F (z) axial shape using 2 group 1D axial finite difference
diffusion.
Transient analysis: 0D point kinetics with feedback, 1D axial 2 group, finite difference diffusion with
feedback, then we superimpose the steady state radial peaking to get the 3D peaking: F (z) F-xy.
2. Mid-60s: users want direct 3D computations, thus we do 3D steady-state multigroup neutron diffusion
equation.
(a) Mesh spacing: needs < 1cm to be accurate.
(b) FLARE BWR Nodal model (1964): one energy group, a source in node p is related to itself and its
six neighboring node q:
Sp =
6
X
k p
wqp S q )
(wpp S p +
q=1
(890)
where the migration coefficients Mp2 = pp , g is an adjustable parameter, and the coupling coefficients
q
Mp2
X
Mp2
are wpq = (1 g)
+ g 2 , wp p = 1
wpq . There is not much physics in this model,
2h
h
6
q=1
because the coefficients are derived assuming two infinite half planes.
3. 70s-80s advanced nodal diffusion methods.
(a) Goals:
Directly represent baffle/reflector, instead of like previous codes that just use screw-driver to
account for the albedos;
No user-adjusted parameters, should be all physics;
Full 3D thermal-hydraulic feedback by assemblies;
Recover individual pin powers;
(b) In Germany: KWU became Siemens who became Areva, and they have two version of the nodal
diffusion method:
NEM: Wagner, Koebke, Winter et. al.
CUBOX/QUABOX: Finnemann.
(c) At MIT:
Prof. Kent Hansen was working on FEM (finite element method), which turned out to be limited
because the methods are more complex compared with nodal methods.
Prof. Allan Henrys group did ANM-1D analytic, NEM variants, ANM-FLT, and QUANDRY.
(d) At University of Illinois, Prof. Jack Dornings group has NGFM.
4. Modern advance nodal codes: there are numerous of them, and they should all be the same. Specific code
names are listed in Lec 19 in 22.212.
281
Lulu Li
20.2
Derivation of Nodal Balance Equation
Reference: Sutton and Aviles Diffusion Theory Methods for Spatial Kinetics Calculations (1996).
To start, nodal methods are just a way of providing the higher-order coefficients that describe the net
current in terms of node-averaged fluxes:
J =
2D+ D
(+ )
D h+ + D+ h
+
(891)
D
where nodal methods is no better than the D2D
h+ +D + h .
Next we derive the nodal balance equations.
1. We start from 3D steady-state multigroup neutron diffusion equation,

G
G
X
X
1
J~ g (~r , E) + rg g (~r , E) =
g
f g0 g0 (~r , E) +
sg0 g g0 (~r , E)
keff
0
0
g =1
(892)
g =1
Apply Ficks Law of diffusion for current out of flux,

J~ g (~r , E) = Dg (~r , E)g (~r , E)
(893)
2. Volume average of diffusion equation for a node: we integrate every term over the node volume then divide
by volume. The volume averaged flux becomes,
Z hx Z hy Z hz
1
=
(x, y, z) dx dy dz
(894)
hx hy hz 0
0
0
3. The leakage term becomes (after integrating the divergence term using Gauss Theorem),
Z hx Z hy Z hz
Z hy Z hz
~
J g dx dy dz =
(Jx (hx , y, z) Jx (0, y, z)) dy dz
0
0
hx
+
0
(895)
0
hz
(Jy (x, hy , z) Jy (x, 0, z)) dx dz
(896)
(Jz (x, y, hz ) Jz (x, y, 0)) dx dy
(897)
0
hx
hy
+
0
If we define surface-averaged currents,

Z hy Z hz
1
J gxl =
Jx (0, y, z) dy dz,
hy hz 0
0
J gxr
1
=
hy hz
hy
hz
Jx (hx , y, z) dy dz
0
(898)
Then the leakage term becomes,

X
u=x,y,z
J gur J gul
hu
(899)
4. Together, the nodal balance equation with average terms is,

X
u=x,y,z
G
G
X
X
J gur J gul
1
+ rg g =
g
f g0 g0 +
sg0 g g0
hu
keff
0
0
g =1
Notice,
282
g =1
(900)
Lulu Li
Formally, we have not approximate yet.

The six surface-averaged currents are required to find the node-averaged flux which would determine
nodal power;
Surface-averaged currents are average of flux derivative on a surface, which equals derivative of average flux at the surface;
It is more efficient to work with diffusion equation for average flux rather than solving the diffusion
equation for the point-wise fluxes in 3D.
283
Lulu Li
20.3
Representing Interface Current in 1D
As we mentioned above, the nodal balance equation we arrived at Eq. 900 is exact thus far. The next step is to
represent the net current in terms of node-averaged fluxes. In 1D, for instance, we use two-node two-group finite
difference scheme as an example:
284
Lulu Li
20.4
Representing Interface Current in 3D: Transverse Integration
We need a set of equations for the surface average currents instead of solving 3D finite different equations directly.
The general idea is,
In approaching surface averaged current, the average of flux derivative on a surface is approximated as the
derivative of average flux at the surface.
It is more efficient to work with the diffusion equation for average flux rather than diffusion equation for
3D point wise fluxes.
We use the transverse integration scheme to approach the 3D diffusion equation: We pick a direction of
interest (eg., x direction), and perform integration within node over 2D plane normal to that direction (eg.,
the grey surface in Figure 114), then devide by the planar area.
Figure 114: Integrate Within Node Over 2D Plane Normal to x-direction

Next we discuss the details of transverse integration of the 3D diffusion equation.
1. The LHS of Eq. 900 becomes,
LHS =
1
hy hz
hz
Z
0
hy
J~g (~r , E) + rg g
dy
(901)
dz
2. The RHS becomes not interesting after a while because it is just the average flux times cross sections.
3. Define dimensionless independent variables,
x
x =
,
hx
y =
y
,
hy
z =
z
hz
(902)
and we can transform the integration and the derivative operator as well,
d
1 d
=
,
du
hu du
du
= du ,
hu
u = x, y, z
(903)
4. Simplify the averaging with dimensionless variables (l is left, r is right): we basically say the net current
on the left plane can be found by integrating the 3D net current at x = 0 over the left plane.
Z 1Z 1
Z 1Z 1
Jxgl =
Jx (0, y , z ) dy dz ,
Jgxr =
Jx (1, y , z ) dy dz
(904)
0
(x , y , z ) dx dy dz
0
285
(905)
Lulu Li
5. We recall the normalized 3D diffusion equation,

!
G
G
X Dg 2
X
X
1
0 g (x , y , z ) +
+
(
,
)
=
sg0 g g (x , y , z )
rg
g
x
y
z
g
f
g
h2 u2
keff
0
0
u=x,y,z u
g =1
g =1
(906)
6. We look at the leakage term after the transverse integration, notice that at the end of the day terms only
depend on x direction becuse we integrate away the corerwponding y and z directions:

Z 1Z 1
Z 1Z 1
1 Jx
1 Jy
1 Jz
J~ dy dz =
+
+
dy dz
(907)
hx x
hy dy
hz dz
0
0
0
0

Z 1Z 1
1 Jy
Dg 2
1 Jz
+
2
+
dy dz
(908)
=
hx x2
hy dy
hz dz
0
0
Z 1Z 1
Dg 2
(x , y , z ) dy dz
(909)
= 2
hx x2 0 0
Z 1
Z 1
1
1
(Jy (x , 1, z ) Jy (x , 0, z )) dz +
(Jz (x , y , 1) Jz (x , y , 0)) dy
(910)
+
hy 0
hz 0
=
J yr (x ) J yl (x )
J zr (x ) J zl (x )
Dg x (x )
+
+
h2x
x2
hy
hz
(911)
where we defined the plane-averaged 1D flux, and it does not have mesh spacing on the bottom because
we defined dimentionless terms:
Z 1Z 1
x =
(x , y , z ) dy dz
(912)
0
and line-averaged surface current at an arbitrary position x ,

Z
J yr (x ) =
Jy (x , 1, z ) dz ,
0
Z
J zr (x ) =
J yl (x ) =
Jy (x , 0, z ) dz
(913)
Jz (x , y , 0) dy
(914)
Z
J zl (x ) =
Jz (x , y , 1) dy ,
0
7. Collect all the terms, we get the transverse integration of 3D diffusion equation,
G
G
X
X
X J gur (x ) J gul (x )
D d2
1
0 g (x ) +
2
(
)
+
(
)
=
sg0 g g (x )
x
rg
x
g
f
g
gx
hu
hx dx2 gx
keff
0
0
u=y,z
g =1
g =1
(915)
If we define a transverse leakage term (the source that comes in the plane) and move it to the RHS,
Lgu (x ) =

1
J gur (x ) J gul (x ) ,
hu
u = y, z
(916)
and also define the diffusion equivalent group constant,

xDg =
286
D
h2x
(917)
Lulu Li
We get the transverse integrated 1D diffusion equation, with two additional terms that describe the leakage
in the other two directions. If we know the two leakage terms exactly, then we can solve the 1D diffusion
equation exactly.
xDg
G
G
X
X
d2
1
0 0 (x ) +
(
)
+
(
)
=
sg0 g g0 x (x ) Lgy (x ) Lgz (x )

g
x
rg
x
f
g
gx
gx
g
x
dx2
keff
0
0
g =1
g =1
(918)
8. Repeat for the other two directions, we get a set of 3 directional 1D diffusion equations.
xDg
G
G
X
X
d2
1
0
(x ) + rg gx (x ) =
g
f g g0 x (x ) +
dx2 gx
keff
0
0
g =1
yDg
G
G
X
X
d2
1
0
(
)
+
(
)
=
(
)
+
sg0 g g0 y (y ) Lgz (y ) Lgx (y )

y
rg
y
g
y
fg
gy
g0 y
dy2 gy
keff
0
0
g =1
zDg
g =1
g =1
G
G
X
X
1
d2
0
(
)
+
(
)
=
(
)
+
sg0 g g0 z (z ) Lgx (z ) Lgy (z )
0
z
rg
z
z
g
fg
gz
g z
dz2 gz
keff
0
0
g =1
g =1
9. Interpretations:
We turn a 3D partial differential equation into three 1D ordinary differential equation that are coupled
through average transverse leakage term.
It is exact if the transverse leakage shape is known.
Why nodal methods work? As the node becomes bigger and bigger, it is less likely that a random
neutron to stream right through the node (thus contributing to the J~ ). That is, J~ streaming out
the node from the right side is insensitive to the transverse leakage term from the top and the
bottom. Thus we can decouple leakage into three dimensions at large meshes.
10. Approximation On Transverse Leakage: Quadratic Approximation in Each Node (Finnemann, KWU).
From observation, flux is insensitive to the transverse leakage shape, so we are going to perform a quandrature polynomial with 2nd order polynomials of the leakage term, and iteratively update them. Quadratic
approximation in each node,
L() = L + l1 P1 () + l2 P2 ()
(919)
We apply average TL conservation scheme to determine l1 , l2 . We use three node average transver leakages
(the values of each node and its two adjacent nodes), and impose constraint of conserving the averages of
two adjacent nodes as in Fig. 116. Notice the parabola defined by the quadratic polynomial is assumed to
extend over three nodes, but is only used in the middle node to represent the transverse leakage shape. Alternative approach: Finnemann (1977) uses continuity on transver leakage and its first derivative to determine
the quadratic coefficients.
About how we handle the rest of this method, we present three methods in the following sections.
287
Lulu Li
Figure 115: Transverse Leakage Approximation
Figure 116: Constraints on Transverse Leakage
288
Lulu Li
20.5
Nodal Expansion Method (NEM)
NEM was developed by Finnemann (KWU 1975).

1. We approximate 1D flux by 4th order polynomial,
() =
4
X
ai Pi ()
(920)
i=0
where the basis functions are,

P0 () = 1
(921)
P1 () = 2 1
(922)
P2 () = 6(1 ) 1
(923)
P3 () = 6(1 )(2 1)
(924)
P4 () = 6(1 )(5 5 + 1)
(925)
Notice these basis functions are not orthogonal, and integration from 0 to 1 would result in zero which is
why we choose these basis (we should use these basis for 22.212 HW9). Keep in mind that our transverse
leakage is 2nd order (because the result is not very sensitive to the expansion of the transverse leakage).
2. BCs: For each node at each energy group, we have 5 unknown coefficients, and 3 constrains:
1 from node average fluxes, or say nodal balance.
2 incoming current boundary conditions.
Hence we need 2 additional constraints because polynomials can not satisfy the differential equations exactly.
3. To find the next 2 constrains, we use weighted residual method for each group in the 1D diffusion equation,

Z 1
Z 1
1
d
() + S() L() d
(926)
w()
w() D 2 () + r () d =
d
keff
0
0
The closure relationship basically forces the P1 , P2 integration to go to zero. Forcing the 1st moment of
diffusion equation to go to zero gives us,

Z 1
d
5q1 + 3q3 5a1 r
P1 () D 2 () + r () Q() d = 0,
a3 =
(927)
d
3(60D + r )
0
Forcing the 2nd moment of diffusion equation to go to zero gives us,

Z 1
d
7q2 + 3q4 + 7a2 r
P2 () D 2 () + r () Q() d = 0,
a4 =
d
420(D + 3r )
0
(928)
Notice how simple the expressions for a3 , a4 come out to be. Notice a3 only depends on the odd nodes;
a4 only depends on the even nodes. Notice we dont know a1 , a2 . But we get two pieces of information
from the spatial moments. That gives us in total 2 spatial moments 2 nodes 2 groups = 8 constraints.
Together thats 16 constraints for 16 unknowns.
4. The choice of the weighted residual equations is flexible the results are not very sensitive to the weights.
For instance, we can choose the same expansion coefficients for Pi .
5. Two-node 2-group NEM is different from finite-difference methods in terms of:
289
Lulu Li
Flux shapes in each group affects coupling equations for other group;
The coupling equations depend on transverse leakages;
Final form of the equations can be made similar to 3D finite difference.
There has been more paper on how to find other forms of weights, but it turns out Finnemanns weights were good
enough. Each energy group can be solved independently.
290
Lulu Li
20.6
Two Group Analytic Nodal Method (ANM)
2-Group Analytic Nodal Method (ANM) developed at MIT by Henry (1978).

1. We start from the 1D 2-Group transverse-integrated diffusion equations, and move all terms except the
transverse leakage terms to the LHS,
D1
d2 1 (x)
1
+ r1 1 (x)
(f 1 1 (x) + f 2 2 (x)) = L1 (x)
2
dx
keff
d2 2 (x)
+ r2 2 (x) 12 1 (x) = L2 (x)
D2
dx2
(929)
(930)
Now we need to solve the two energy groups simultaneously.

2. The analytic solution is in the form of a homogeneous solution plus a particular solution,
g (x) = gH (x) + gP (x)
(931)
We consider a trial homogeneous solution in the buckling space,

gH (x) = gH exp(iBx)
(932)
3. We find the homogeneous solution first. The characteristic equation is,

H
1
1
D1 B 2 + r1 keff
f 1 keff
f 2
1
0
=
2
0
12
D2 B + r2
2H
(933)
For nontrivial solution, we set the determinant to zero, and re-write the expression in terms of B 2 :
2b
z
(B 2 )2 +
c
}|
}|
{
z
!{

f 1
r1
r2
k r1 r2
keff
2
+
B + 1
=0
D1
D2
D1
keff
D1 D2
(934)
The roots of characteristic equations are the eigen-buckling; more specifically, one of them is the fundamental mode (this is the fast group), and the other is the harmonic mode (this is the thermal group)30 ,
r

c
> 0 k > keff
2
Fundamental Mode
B1 = b 1 + 1 2 =
(935)
< 0 k < keff
b
r

c
(936)
Harmonic Mode
B22 = b 1 1 2 < 0
b
The homogeneous solution for group g is:
Fundamental Mode
Second-Harmonic Mode
H
g1
(x) =
ag1 sin(B1 x) + ag2 cos(B1 x)

ag1 sinh(B1 x) + ag2 cosh(B1 x)
H
g2
= ag3 sinh(B2 x) + ag4 cosh(B2 x)
k > keff
k < keff
(937)
(938)
where k is for this specific node (depends on material properties), whereas keff is for the entire reactor
(depends on geometry). The combined homogeneous solution shows that group 1 and group 2 equations
are linearly dependent,
H

1 (x)
a11 sin(B1 x) + a12 cos(B1 x)
r1 r2
=
=
a21 sinh(B2 x) + a22 cosh(B2 x)
1 1
2H (x)
(939)
30 recall
quadratic roots for ax2 + bx + c = 0 are x =
b2 4ac
2a
291
Lulu Li
where the fast-to-thermal flux ratio is defined as,

rm =
2
a11
a12
D2 Bm
+ r2
=
=
a21
a22
12
(940)
4. Next we find the particular solution, which is determined solely by quadratic transverse leakage,
gP () = c0g + c1g P1 () + c2g P2 ()
where

c1p
c2p

=A
b1p
b2p

,
p = 1, 2.
c10
c20

=A
b10 + 6D1 c12 /x2

b20 + 6D2 c22 /x2
5. Hence the general solution in a node is,

H

P

1 (x)
r1 r2
1 (x)
=
+
1 1
2H (x)
2P (x)
(941)

.
(942)
(943)
That is, we have 4 coefficients to determine for a 2 group problem.

6. BCs: quadratic transverse leakage for two nodes, node-average fluxes for two nodes. We have 8 unknown
coefficients (4 per node times 2 nodes), and we have 8 constraints coming from:
4 node-averaged fluxes: 2 groups times 2 nodes;
2 flux interface continuity from 2 energy groups;
2 current interface continuity from 2 energy groups.
Hence there is no need for weighted residual equations because we have the exact solution to the 1D
diffusion equation. Then all groups are solved simultaneously.
7. Comments:
(a) The advantage of this analytical method is that we get an expression relating the net current and the
flux, so the partial current never shows up.
(b) No need for weighted residual equations because we have exact solution to the 1D diffusion equation.
(c) The drawback is, all groups are solved simultaneously, so the generalization is very hard. But with
the help of modal expansion, now we can do ANM for any number of energy groups.
292
Lulu Li
20.7
Semi-Analytic Nodal Method (SANM)
It was developed at Studsvik (1985) with the following motivation: NEM does a good job in the fast group but
not that well in the thermal group, so we use the analytical solution for the thermal group.
1. SANM uses NEM equations for the fast group, and performs transverse integrated 1D neutron diffusion
equation for the thermal group,
D2
d2
2 (x) + r2 2 (x) = s12 1 (x) Ly2 (x) = Q2 (x)
dx2
(944)
2. We approximate the source Q with 4th order Legendre Polynomial,

Qg (x) =
4
X

qi Pi
i=0
2x
h
2x
h
(945)
3. The analytic solution of thermal group diffusion equation is,

g (x) = A sinh(g x) + B cosh(g x) +
4
X
i=0
ci Pi

,
g =
g
Dg
(946)
We end up with exponential homogeneous solution and polynomial particular solution. The reason we
like this method is that these sinh, cosh terms provide huge gradient changes.
4. We differentiate to get expression for net current at the interface:
Jg (x) = Dg
d
g (x)
dx
(947)
We use the continuity of net currents/flux to get analytic expression for coupling.
5. Summary. SANM is advantage for two reasons:
(a) As in Fig. 117 the NEM predicts the center flux (where the instruments would be) wrong.
(b) Weighted residual has the advantage of capable of incorporating cross sections spatial dependence.
293
Lulu Li
Figure 117: Accuracy of SANM in Two-Group Application
294
Lulu Li
20.8
Nonlinear Iterative Technique To Reduce Storage
In this section we show how the three nodal methods come down to be pretty much the same. The classic solution
sequance involves,
1. Guess keff , approximate transverse leakages as zero.
2. Evaluate all coupling terms for 1-node equation,

" + #
" #
X c11
J1
1
1
a11 a12
b11 b12
=
+
+
J2
c21
a21 a22
b21 b22
2
2
m=1,4
3. Setup global matrix equation,
[A] [B] [C] [D]

[]
[E] [1] [F ] [G] [Lx ]
[H] [I] [1] [J] [Ly ]

[K] [L] [M ] [1]
[Lz ]
[m]
[0]
keff [0]
[0]
c12
c22

Lm1
Lm2
[0] [0] [0]

[]
[Lx ]
[0] [0] [0]
[0] [0] [0] [Ly ]

[0] [0] [0]
[Lz ]

(948)
(949)
4. We solve the 3D balance equation by fission source and flux/leakage iteration, similar to finite difference,
but leakate term has group-to-group coupling.
5. Update keff and return to 2 until converged.
Next the non-linear iterative solution sequence was developed,
1. Guess keff , solve the standard 3D finite difference equations.
2. Evaluate all interface currents from 2-node equations,
" #

" + #
X c11
1
1
b11 b12
J1
a11 a12
+
=
+
b21 b22
c21
J2
a21 a22
2
2
m=1,4
c12
c22

Lm1
Lm2

(950)
Its almost finite difference, but higher order in the sense that we say if flux has already converged, what
would the current be.
3. Redefine equivalent coupling terms to preserve nodal solution for current. Notice the coefficients , , ,
are non-linear functions of the solution.
" #

" + #
1
1
0
J1
0
(951)
=
+
J2
0
2
2
This is almost CMFD. As we solve the problem, we will slowly find out the 4 coefficients and if the solution
converges it should be identical to the original matrix problem.
4. Set up global matrix equation,
[A][[ ]] =
1
[M ][[ ]]
keff
(952)
5. Solve 3D balance equations by fission source and flux iteration (same as finite-difference, and no group-togroup spatial coupling term).
6. Update keff and return to 2 until converged.
This method is almost the same as CMFD, but with slightly different coefficients , , , . The point is, whether
we do any one of the three nodal methods, we get a slightly different net current, the rest of the iteration looks the
same. Mechanically, it is the same as the two-node two-group finite difference solution that weve already done.
295
Lulu Li
20.9
Summary of Transverse Integration Methods
The major assumption we make is that quadratic transverse leakage is a good representation; it if not, we need to
refine our mesh till quadratic expension is good for transverse leakage.
1. Transverse integration method is an innovative way to solve 3D diffusion equation by converting 3D PDE
into 3 ODEs:
Solutions are only weakly dependent on the leakage shapes;
Transverse leakage is approximated by a second order polynomial and iteratively updated.
2. NEM is simple and efficient; it facilitates multi-group calculations, but loses accuracy for highly varying
flux problems.
3. ANM has the best accuracy, but it is not easy (though has been done) for general multi-group problems.
4. SANM is the most practical for LWR applications, because it has simple algebra, is multi-group applicable,
and is comparable in accuracy to ANM.
5. Non-linear solution method (eg, iterative) can be easily applied to all three methods.
296
Lulu Li
21
Homogenization Methods
We continue our discussion on nodal methods, and would cover spatial dependency of cross sections and homogenization methods. This lecture follows closely on Smiths Assembly Homogenization Techniques for Light
Water Reactor Analysis (Prog. in Nulear Energy, 1986).
21.1
Spatial Dependence of Nodal Cross Sections
1. Spatial configuration of nodal cross sections matters because of the following three terms vary with respect
to space:
Burnup gradients: cross sections vary quadratically with respect to exposure, and we integrate bundle
surface burnups;
Fuel temperature gradients Doppler feedback: fuel temperature is related to the local fission rate;
and Doppler feedback is from fuel temperature variations;
Non-uniform density gradients coolant feedback: coolant feedback is caused by density distribution.
Spectral interaction between assemblies: for instance, leakage and MOX/UO2 interface depends on
cross sections.
For instance, if we know the fuel temperature gradient, from any library we know the cross section change
with respect to temperature, then we can compue the cross section distribution. Space-dependent nodal
xs is very easy to integrate in NEM nodal method, but not so easy with ANM and SANM because of the
polynomials.
2. Space-dependent XS Changes Flux. Recall that for 1 nodal balance equation and 2 incoming current BCs,
and the two additional conditions come from the weighted residual method. Now that we add in the spatial
dependency of the cross sections, the weighted residual method for 1D neutron diffusion equation remains
the same:

Z 1
Z 1
1
d2
()() + S() L() d
(953)
w() D 2 () + r ()() d
d
keff
0
0
Again, we set the 1st moment of neutron diffusion equation to zero, hence deriving an expression for a3 ,

Z 1
5q1 + 3q3 5a1 r +
d2
P1 () D 2 () + r ()() Q() d = 0, a3 =
(954)
d
3(60D + r ) +
0
Similarly we set the 2nd moment of neutron diffusion equaion to zero, hence deriving an expression for a4 ,

Z 1
d2
7q2 + 3q4 + 7a2 r +
P2 () D 2 () + r ()() Q() d = 0, a4 =
(955)
d
420(D + 3r ) +
0
Interpretations: flux distribution changes after we add in the spatial dependency of cross sections; but
mechanically there is nothing tricky: we are just adding more terms, designated by , to the expressions
in the above two equations.
3. KWU depletion benchmark using BOC-2 Powers: without space-dependent xs, the error on keff is about
12pcm (on the edge); with space-dependent xs, the error on keff drops to about 4pcm (on the edge). The
error on the interior is always smaller. Basically if we do not model the space-dependent xs, then our
assembly is solved using zero current BC and is not accurate when the location and/or the orientation of the
assembly is changed. Alternatively we can further sub-divide the node to get a reduced error as well.
297
Lulu Li
21.2
Homogenization of Fuel Assemblies
Homogenization can be done on either pins or assemblies. We are mostly going to talk about assembly level
because they are harder.
1. Given a reference solution, we build a heterogeneous reactor using,
J~ g (~r ) + tg (~r )g (~r ) =

G
X
1
Mgg0 (~r ) + gg0 (~r ) g0 (~r )
keff
0
(956)
g =1
and analogous equation for the homogenized model using homogenized parameters,

G
X
1
gg0 (~r ) g0 (~r )
~g (~r ) +
tg (~r )g (~r ) =
Mgg0 (~r ) +
J
keff
0
(957)
g =1
2. We need to decide what terms to preserve. For instance, if we preserve the scalar flux, reaction rates (for
every reaction type and every energy = t, gg 0 etc) and the leakage term, keff will be preserved.
R
Z
Z
g g dr
i
(958)
g g dr =
g g dr
g = VRi
dr
Vi
Vi
Vi g
R
Z
Z
S k J~ g dS
i
Jg dS =
J g dS
Jg = Dg g , where Dg = R i
(959)
g dS
Sik
Sik
Sk
i
3. What happens is that we dont really know the true heterogeneous flux, so we further approximate heterogeneous flux using results from assembly results.
Z
Z
g dr = Ag dr
(960)
R
k J~ g dS
gi = R Si
D
(961)
Ag dS
Sk
i
Using the assembly results give us AXS (assembly flux-weighted cross section).
4. AXS (assembly flux-weighted cross sections): in a HAFAS BWR benchmark case, notice that the error
(-0.44% for keff , 5.5% for average assembly power) is somewhat independent of the mesh size (1x1 vs.
3x3) and angular expansion (P1 vs. P3), which suggests that the error comes from homogenization of
the cross sections .
5. RXS (reference cross sections): the errors mentioned above do not go away neither if we use perfect cross
sections (RXS): -0.34% for keff , 4.1% for average assembly power. As we will examine in the next section,
the errors have to do with the discontinuity of scalar flux.
6. Flux discontinuity: since the homogenized flux distribution in each node is affected by the diffusion coefficients, and the choice of flux weighted diffusion coefficients is in a sense entirely arbitrary, the interface
fluxes can be different as in Figure 118(c). As a direct result, the homogenized flux in nodes i, i + 1 when
+
the two-node homogenized diffusion problem is solved with BCs Ji , Ji+1
and continuity of flux and current interface conditions would yield Figure 118(d), which is different from Figure 118(c). That is, the
homogeneous flux is not continuous across the surface anymore.
298
Lulu Li
Figure 118: Nodal Flux Distribution

7. Heterogeneity factor(HF): Koebke introduced the Heterogeneity Factor(Lugano, 1978), which states,
i fi+ =
i+1 fi+1
(962)
where the equivalence factors are defined as (and computed from reference solution),
fi+ =
+
i
,
+
fi+1
=
i+1
(963)
i+1
which says that the heterogeneous flux is continuous across the interface and that there exists a direct
relationship between the heterogeneous and homogenized surface fluxes. When the homogenized two
node problem is solved, the homogenized flux is made discontinuous (by a factor of fi+ /fi+1
) and the
homogenized flux distribution will be the same as that in Fig. 118(c), which results in the preservation
of interface current / net current by adding a degree of freedom which essentially relaxes boundary
conditions.
8. Nodal equivalence theory and discontinuity factor(DF): Koebkes method of constraining the diffusion coefficients such that the heterogeneity factors are identical on both surfaces of a node requires an iterative
299
Lulu Li
method to determine diffusion coefficients. A variation of Koebkes method takes advantage of the fact that
exact heterogeneity factors can be defined from Eq. 962 for any value of the diffusion coefficient. Note
that unless the diffusion coefficients are found iteratively, the values of the heterogeneity factors on the
opposite faces of a node will be different. These two factors are referred to as discontinuity factor(DF) to
distinguish them from heterogeneity factors,
u
fgi,j
=
ugi,j (ul )
,
u (ul )
u+
fgi,j
=
gi,j
ugi,j (ul+1 )
u (ul+1 )
(964)
gi,j
where ul , ul+1 are the lower and upper u-direction boundaries of node i, j.
9. Application of DF: Koebke modified the NEM code, demonstrating that heterogeneous reference solutions
could be reproduced by using heterogeneity factors; Smith modifed the QUANDRY code, demonstrating
that even CMFD method could reproduce heterogeneous reference solution using discontinuity factors. The
updated nodal interface current on the upper u-direction surface of node i, j in the CMFD approximation
is,
u+
u
2Di,j Di+1,j fgi,j gi,j fgi+1,j gi+1,j
u
Jgi,j
=
u
u+
hi hi+1
h(fgi+1,j
+ fgi,j
)
which is different from the traditional CMFD current,

i
2D h
u
Jgi,j
=
gi,j gi+1,j
h
(965)
(966)
Notice the heterogeneity-modified-CMFD is different from the traditional CMFD in the sense that the
coefficients in front of the two flux are not the same anymore.
10. Assembly Discontinuity Factor (ADF). Coming from the realization that the discontinuity factors are not
very sensitive to positions etc and mostly dependent on material distribution, we can simply approximate the
homogenized results using a single node with homogenized cross section and zero flux boundary condition.
That is, there exists a homogeneous analogy to the heterogeneous assembly calculation: a single-node
problem with zero net current boundary conditions. In the analogous problem, the homogenized fluxes
are spatially flat. Since the assembly-averaged fluxes in the homogeneous and heterogeneous assembly
calculations are by definition equal, the DFs are simply ratios of the surface-averaged fluxes to the cellaveraged fluxes in the heterogeneous assembly calculation. Notice this is not true in general; this is just
one approximation.
It is thus possible to approximate all of the equivalence parameters, assembly discontinuity factors
(ADFs), by perfoming assembly calculations for each type of assembly.
For the HAFAS problem, the ADFs are within a few percent of the mean values of the reference
discontinuity factor (RDFs) for all assembly types. Moreover, the fast group DFs are much closer to
unity than are the thermal group DFs; the wide gap DFs are much different than the narrow gap DFs.
The good agreement between ADFs and RDFs suggests that DFs are insensitive to the assembly
position, and ADFs can be computed directly from the information available in standard assembly
calculations.
ADFs dramaticaly reduce errors in both PWRs and BWRs.
The AXS-ADF combination is important in that it is more accurate than either RXS-ADF or AXSRDF. Part of the reason AXS-ADF is more accurate is that ADF and AXS tend to have erros opposite
in signs. Keep in mind that reference xs (RXS) is not sufficient to reduce errors.
11. ZION benchmark results. Reflector data mostly depends on boron distribution and do not depend much on
enrichment.
300
Lulu Li
21.3
Application of Homogenization Methods in 2D/1D MOC Solvers
Reference: M&C 2013 at Sun Valley, ID.

1. PROTEUS-MOC by Abel Marin-Lafleche and Michael Smith (ANL).
2. nTRACER by Prof. Hang Gyu Joo (Seoul National University): radial: pins each with homogenized xs
and coefficients coupling adjacent nodes; when solving MOC on the planar level, we now treat source as a
function of z plane and of polar angles. Axial SP3 nodal method (high order spatial accuracy). 300 core
hours to solve one step (compare with 50,000 core hours for MC21). Measured data is from Radian reaction
rates.
Figure 119: nTRACERs 2D/1D MOC Method
3. MICADO by Francois Fevotte and Bruno Lathuiliere (EDF R&D).
301
Lulu Li
21.4
Application of DFs: Reflector Modeling
PWR baffle/reflector (about 1.5in thick stainless steel outside the core) is non-trival to model because historically
nodal models have used empirical albedos to replace the baffle and reflector. Determination of albedos involves a
length trial and error procedure until the nodal power matches that of some higher-order solution. After improvements in nodal models, the difficulty became finding appropriate homogenized parameters for baffle/reflector
nodes. Since the baffle is a strong absorber, using flux-volume weighted cross sections distributes the absorption
over the entire baffle/reflector region, which can lead to error in power distribution as large as 10-15%.
We turn to DFs because they are less spatially sensitive than albedos (as shown in Table 12 in Smiths paper,
DF is more or less the same at different nodes). A typically treatment involves,
Use an assembly homogenization code (for instance CASMO) to model one or more fuel assemblies, the
baffle, and reflector;
Collapse baffle cross sections into two groups to assure that finite difference diffusion calculation would
reproduce the transport results;
Use flux, current distribution and reaction rates directly to define homogenized cross sections and DFs,
which accurately model the baffle and reflector.
The inherent advantage of HFs or DFs is that they are chosen in such a way that the nodal model would reproduce
the net currents at the core/baffle interface and the net reaction rates in both the fuel assembly and the homogenized
baffle/reflector without explicitly representing the baffle. It turns out that for reflector purpose, the fast neutron
leakage makes up for 90% of the leakage, and it is very insensitive to enrichment, burnup etc.
Application and Limitation of DFs:
Other geometries: Assembly/Reflector DFs also work in hexagonal geometry.
Other reactor types: DFs may not work because graphite or gas or fast reactor the mean free path is long.
DFs work well mostly for thermal LWRs.
Other applications of homogenization theory:
Fine mesh data generation for 3D/1D axial models. Basically we homogenize axial fuel asembly, and
depens on how we define the node, the DFs come out to be different.
Nonlinear acceleration of fine-mesh transport methods.
Nonlinear acceleration of Monte Carlo.
302
Lulu Li
21.5
Example
Fast flux peaks in fuel; thermal flux peaks in moderator.

Energy-in on every term, energ-out for the terms on the RHS. Working with a be careful about the (n,2n)
reactions. That is,
t = s + a + n,2n + n,3n +
s s = s + 2n,2n + 3n,3n +
(967)
Loop over all the surfaces, solve a fixed-source diffusion equation for each region (that is, given the current
on the boundary, we can solve each region separately). To get an accurate solution, we need to control D.
If we use the heterogeneous reference solution divided by single assembly (SA) solution, we get sort of like
the reference energy shape. It is almost the same as what we get out of the diffusion theory, except at the
interface, which has two reasons: 1) diffusion coefficient is off in diffusion theory; 2) we assume we can
separate form function and background behavior.
Full core diffusion eigenvalue solver: we need to preserve both leakage rate (DFs) as well as reaction rates
(XSs).
Apply DFs to spatial discretization method: puts f terms in there. Only the ratio matters. f s are different
for the two surfaces of the same node.
Diffusion coefficient: spatial first then energy to treat spatial void.
1. Spatial: we first do calculate resolve the spatial dependency of diffusion coefficient, if there is a void,
we average out the diffusion coefficient.
R 1
2. Energy: then we resolve the energy dependency by performing R3tr . In Monte Carlo, we cannot
really perform this in fine energy space, because for materials like hydrogen we quickly run into
tr 0 for hydrogens. Instead, we do a two-step process:
First flux collapse tr , get an approximate of Dg in fine groups.
Then flux collapse Dg for few groups.
It is not important for preserving keff what diffusion coefficient you use. Because keff only captures the
average behavior as it is integrated over all space.
Reconstruction: need to re-normalize the convolution flux, because the integral of the product is not the
same as the product of the integrals.
Subtle point: net down-scattering can be more accurate for certain single assembly calculation.
Recap: this DF is the physical DF that preserves the leakage in assembly calculation; whereas as the D
that we talked about before is a pure mathematical concept that we come up with to do non-linear iteration
to preserve physics between the high-order and low-order calculation. We need both to get it right. For
terms to force our low order finite difference model to match
instance, the f terms going into computing D
the higher order model. CMFD is effectively the physics MG.
On-the fly Re-homogenization: can generate the integrated form functions ahead of the time, and construct
the higher-order correction terms on the fly onece we resolve the coefficients on each basis.
Exact homogenization parameters depend on reference solution (which we do not have), and depend on
details of the nodal spatial model slightly. Homogenization for transport methods is not as simple as for
diffusion methods, because now we have to have DFs for the higher moments as well. Noweverday everyone uses AXS/ADF (assembly cross section and assembly discontinuity factors) in production tools. The
advantage of the ADFs are that they are almost free as they are just edits; we do need to tally them as
functions of temperature, etc.
303
Lulu Li
21.6
Summary of Homogenization Theories
Homogenization theories:
1. We would love to solve for the reference fluxes with all the detailed up and downs; but we can only solve
down to the level of nodal fluxes; to estimate the discontinuity conditions of nodal fluxes in two neihboring nodes, we use HF/DFs. We dont care that the nodal fluxes are discontinuous; all we care is the
re-constructed fluxes.
2. Homogenization is required any time spatial reduction is employed, be it at the pin-cell level, assembly
level, assembly clusters (BWRs);
3. Exact homogenization parameters depend on reference solutions, which are seldome available and certainly
self-defeating;
4. Exact homogenization parameters depend slightly on details of the nodal spatial model;
5. Homogenization for transport methods is not as simple as for diffusion methods;
6. Methods more accurate than simple AXS/ADFs are very desirable to further improve accuracy.
304
Lulu Li
22
Reconstruction/De-homogenization Methods
In this lecture we consider given a homogenized solution, how to we re-construct the heterogeneous solution.
Three references: Scott Palmtags MIT PhD thesis Advanced Nodal Methods for MOX Fuel Analysis for good
detailed math, Ken Rempse NSE paper SIMULATE-3 Pin Power Reconstruction: Methology and Benchmarking, Qunlei Jiangs NCS MS thesis for detailed plots of complex terms Intra-nodal Study for the Mixed LEUMOX Cores.
22.1
Superposition Assumptions
Basically we assume that the detailed flux distribution can be approximated by superposition of homogeneous
nodal fluxes and lattice fluxes. That is,
hom
het
(x, y)SA
g (x, y) = g
g (x, y)
(968)
Keep in mind that, as the example in Fig. 120, the heterogeneous flux should be continuous acorss the material
boundary now,

OX
OX
O2
(969)
(x)hom,M
(x)x=0
SA,U
(x)ghom,U O2 (x)x=0 = SA,M
g
g
g
Extensions:
Figure 120: Supercomposing Thermal Flux in a 1D UO2/MOX problem

The above equation is for 1D. We reconstruct in 2D and 3D.
305
Lulu Li
The above equation is for flux, we reconstruct pin power too, in which case we need to know the pin-wise
fission cross section form functions as well as the group-wise flux form functions. This would be a lot of
data considering that form function, like cross sections and discontinuity factors have to be built into giant
libraries vs. burnup, temperature, density etc).
Consequently, most often powers are reconstructed be approximated by a superposition of homogeneous nodal
powers and lattice pin powers.
P het (x, y) = P hom (x, y)P SA (x, y)
(970)
hom
hom
P hom (x, y) = hom
(x, y) + hom
(x, y)
f 1 (x, y)1
f 2 (x, y)2
(971)
where
For detailed pin power reconstruction, one needs 2D (x, y) shapes of fluxes which are not directly available.
Nodal methods only provide flux shape information for the 1D shape in each direction. Cross section shapes are
also only 1D averages.
FIXME: If we want to do pin power reconstruction in our current frame-work, we need to store four form
functions, two for flux and two for cross sections. Also be careful about fission rates, power and heat conducted.
306
Lulu Li
22.2
Non-Separable Flux Expansion
FIXME: fm , fn are just polynomials. 4th order polynomial has 25 terms. The point is, we do not need the exact
shape in thermal group, so we can choose not to reconstruct until we need to.
1. We asume nodal solution is known and construct a non-separable flux expansion for each group, analogous
to the 1D SANM expansions as the following:
2. Using 5th order polynomial, there are 25 unknown coefficients in the fast group (amn , where m, n each
goes from 0 to 4). For the thermal group, because of the polonomial and the hyperbolic functions, there
appear to be 50 unknowns bmn , cmn ; but it is really 25, because the other 25 for the specific colution can
be solved from the fast group.
3. We have 9 constrains provided by the nodal solution,
1 node average flux per group;
4 surface-averaged fluxes per group;
4 surface-averaged net currents per group.
4. To supplement, the four corner point flux conditions are often used using the KWU method (non-iterative,
second-order accurate):
Assume fluxes have quadratic shape on each node surface;
Constrain average surface value to be the known nodal surface-averaged flux;
Demand continuity of current in x-direction at the corner point;
Demand continuity of current in y-direction at the corner point;
Perform post-nodal iteration to simultaneously determine all corner point fluxes;
5. For each energy group, we have 9 + 4 = 13 constrains and 25 unknowns. What we do is that we disregard
the 12 highest order cross terms.
307
Lulu Li
Figure 121: Non-Separable Flux Expansion
308
Lulu Li
22.3
Corner Point Constraints
Nodal corner-point fluxes are approximated by assuming that intra-nodal flux distributions are separable:
g,i,j (x, y) =
g,i,j (x)g,i,j (y)

g,i,j
(972)
Since the expansion has been performed about the corner point, the error in each estimator of the corner-point
flux can be determined to be second-order; for instance, one of the corners has an error like,
3
1 1 2

=
+O
(973)
4cp x y
4 xy
3u
Another important point is that the heterogeneous corner point flux has to be continuous. Thus we need corner
point ratios that are analogous to discontinuity factors that can be edited from lattice calculations. The corner
point form function cp
g,i,f orm,f et is coming from the lattice code.
In the general case, the corner-point fluxes are determined by averaging the four estimates of the heterogeneous corner-point flux, cp is corner point,
het,cp
=
g
i
1 h hom,cp f ct,cp
f ct,cp
hom,cp f ct,cp
hom,cp
f ct,cp
g,i,j g,i,j + hom,cp
g,i+1,j g,i+1,j + g,i,j+1 g,i,j+1 + g,i+1,j+1 g,i+1,j+1
4
(974)
In order to satisfy the continuity conditions of reconstructed fluxes, the best-estimate homogeneous cornerpoint fluxes for each node are computed by,
hom,cp
=
g,i,j
het,cp
g
ct,cp
fg,i,j
(975)
The reconstructed corner point fluxes are then continuous. CP ratio is the corner point analogue of ADF
for assembly edges.
Surface constrains preserve flux shape. Each corner has 4 surfaces connected to it.
FIXME: this reconstruction method works for PWRs because the heterogeneous terms cancel out, whereas
this is not the case for BWRs. This leads to Studsviks separable corner point estimator:
309
Lulu Li
22.4
Basic Reconstruction Steps
1. Solve normal nodal model global equations.

2. Determine corner point fluxes: first obtain the corner point fluxes from nodal method, then re-compute them
to satisfy continuity.
3. Compute 2D fluxe expansions coefficients.
4. Compute 2D fission cross section shapes.
5. Integrate flux shape times cross section shape over each pin cell location to get homogenized pin powers.
6. Evaluate lattice pin power form function at the nodal exposure.
7. Multiply homogenized pin power by the pin power form function to get the heterogeneous pin powers.
8. Integrate the heterogeneous pin powers over time (usually exposure) to get heterogeneous pin burnups.
Recent years there are trends to do this heterogeneous power separately in fast and thermal groups (in
whatever number of groups that we need).
9. Determine pin-wise thermal margins (DNBR, CPR, LHGR, etc).
For every axial node, we perform this reconstruction, and use an axial shape for getting the 3D distribution. The
benefit of doing this two-step process (first solve things homogeneously, then re-construct) helps with water holes
etc., because in the first
gamma smearing affects Gd pins significantly.
310
Lulu Li
22.5
Homogeneous Cross Section Shape
The reconstructed pin powers have errors. There are two spectral effect on cross sections we can correct for:
1. The first thing we want to check is the 2 group cross sections, which turn out to be only approximately correct as in Fig. 122. Errors arise from spatially constant cross section approximation, not from inadequancies
of the spatial flux representations. This problem would go away if we use 10-ish energy groups instead of
just 2 in a lot of peoples nodal methods. More background: Lattice calculation uses 10-ish groups, nodal
methods use 2 groups typically (SIMULATE uses 10-ish groups). The problem is, a UO2 node and a MOX
node by themselves would give a flat flux, and once we put them together in nodal method, there will be a
large gradient at the interface of UO2 and MOX (thermal flux decreases significantly from UO2 to MOX).
To adjust the cross sections, we use instantaneous leakage and spectral corrections, where SA means
Figure 122: 2 Group Cross Section Errors

single assembly,

SA
B
D1 2 1 (x)
1 (x) 1
=
B
a1 (x)1 (x) + 21 (x)1 (x)

SA
1
311
(976)
Lulu Li

(x) SA Pg
Sg (x) B
g (x)

= Cg

B
SA
g (x)
where (x) =
2 (x)
1 (x) .
(977)
As in Fig. 123, we can see the cross section after approximation corrections. To
Figure 123: Approximate Cross Section Corrections vs. More Groups

measure power of a core, we pull out individual pins and measure the gamma deposited in it to get the
power profile of it. The uncertainty comes out to be about 1.5%, which is considered to be high precision.
Advanced topic: fixing Cross-sections On The Fly/Adhop Method.
This method is somewhat an empiracle one; hence it is not very robust. Nowadays, nodal methods just go
to higher order of energy groups.
2. Burnup effect on cross section: SH-1 etc. FIXME.
Sidenote: PWR tends to burn out the error because as the exposure increases, the faster spectrum
312
Lulu Li
22.6
SIMULATE-5 Radial Sub-Mesh Model
We go from our lattice calculation to radial sub-mesh model, so we dont need to use xs and df from ....
313
Lulu Li
22.7
Nodal Method Summary
Basically a production-grade nodal code must have,

Accurate lattice data;
Coupling to an accurate thermal-hydraulic model;
Accurate nodal flux model;
Accurate re-homogenization model for cross section heterogeneity;
Accurate spatial cross section (homogenized) representation;
Accurate non-separable flux (homogenized) model;
Accurate pin power form functions;
Accumulated pin exposure models.
314
Lulu Li
23
Adjoint Fluxes, Perturbation Theory
Perturbation theory provides us a pretty accurate prediction of reactivity without knowning . There is no
reactivity associated with a space and a time (it has a reactivity contribution). Reactivity is always integrated over
the entier system because of the denominator.
23.1
Adjoint Fluxes for Critical Reactor Systems
We express the transport of diffusion equation in operator notation,

A =
1
M
k
A =
1
M
k
(978)
We multiply the forward equation by adjoint flux, multiply the adjoint equation by real flux, subtract the two and
integrate over the phase space to get,
h , Ai h, A i
1
1
h , M i + h, M i = 0
k
k
(979)
But recalling the definition of the adjoint operating on any operator f ,

h , f i = h, f i
(980)
Consequently,

1
1

k k
h , M i = 0
(981)
The fundamental mode solution, which is the one we are interested in, has everywhere positive real and adjoint
fluxes, and since the fission operator is an everywhere positive operator, we find that the real and adjoint eigenvalus
must be identical,
k = k
315
(982)
Lulu Li
23.2
First Order Perturbation Theory (FOP)
In this section we evaluate the Rayleigh quotient [, ] =
h , Ai
for a critical reactor eigenvalue problem
, F
described by the transport and adjoint equations.

1. We start from an unperturbed system
A0 0 =
1
M0 0
k0
A0 0 =
1
M 0
k0
(983)
2. The perturbed system has operators,

A = A0 + A
M = M0 + M
= 0 +
k = k0 + k
(984)
and approximate the perturbed system with,

(A0 + A)(0 + ) =
1
(M0 + M )(0 + )
k0 + k
(985)
We first expand the keff term,

1
1
1
k
1
=
=
2 + O(k 2 )
k0 + k
k0 1 + k/k0
k0
k0
(986)
Plug back into Eq. 985,

(A0 + A)(0 + ) =
1
k
2
k0
k0

(M0 + M )(0 + )
(987)
1
1
1
k
M0 0 + M0 + M 0 2 M0 0 + O( 2 )
k0
k0
k0
k0
(988)
}| {

1
k
1
1
A0 M0 0 + A0 M0 + A M 0 = 2 M0 0 + O( 2 )
k0
k0
k0
k0
(989)
A0 0 + A0 + A0 =
0
z

k
2 M0 0 =
k0
1
A M
k0

1
0 + A0 M0 + O( 2 )
k0
(990)
Multiply by and integrating over phase space,
k
h , M0 0 i =
k02
, A
1
M
k0

0
1

}|
{
1
+ , A0 M0 +O( 2 )
k0
z
3. We use the definition of adjoint operator for any operator,

1
1
1 = 0 , A0 M0 = , A0 M0 0 = 0

k0
k0
(991)
(992)
Then Eq. 991 becomes,

D
k
=
k02

0 , A
1
k0 M
h0 , M0 0 i
Notice that,
316
E
+ O( 2 )
(993)
Lulu Li
There are only second order errors in reactivity, because the term multiplying is zero, hence the
first order error vanishes in the reactivity expression.
Thus Eq. 993 is clearly much more accurate than the 1st order accurate expression we had before we
multiply by 0 and integrate,

A k10 M 0 + A0 k10 M0
k
2 =
+ O( 2 )
(994)
k0
M0 0
4. Finally making use of the definition of reactivity,
=
k1
k
0 =
k 1 k0 1
k
=
k
k0
kk0
k
+ O(k 2 )
k02
(995)
One obtains the first order perturbation (FOP) expression for reactivity,
D

0 ,
1
k0 M A
h0 , M0 0 i
E
(996)
Interpretations of the equation,

One can evaluate reactivity resulting from any changes in operator, e.g., fuel temperature, coolant density,
boron concentration, by simply evaluating delta cross sections convoluted on unperturbed real and adjoint
fluxes.
Because of the linearility of the first-order perturbation theory, we can super-impose:
reactivity contributions from perturbations in different spatial regions;
reactivity effects from perturbations in different phenomenon, e.g., coolant density and temperature.
Each reactivity perturbation can be computed without need for solving for perturbed spatial flux distributions.
317
Lulu Li
23.3
Relating Adjoint Flux to Neutron Population
We consider the same problem two ways.

1. From the point kinetics that the neutron population is given by,
X
(t)
i
X
d
i
N (t) =
N (t) +
i Ci (t) + Q
dt
(997)
d
i
Ci (t) = N (t) i Ci (t)
dt
For criticality = 0, precursor populations are not changing

only have the source term left,
(998)
i
N (t)
= i Ci (t), hence the RHS of
d
dt N (t)
d
N (t) = Q
dt
(999)
That is, for a constant external source Q (unit: neutrons/s), neutron polulation grows linearly in time with
Q,
N (t) = N0 + Q(t t0 )
(1000)
, E) then
2. Now consider introducing Q neutrons: at time zero at position, energy, and direction (~r ,
d
N (t) = Q(t t0 ) N () = N0 + Q X
dt
(1001)
d
, E)
N (t) = Q(t t0 ) N () = N0 + Q (~r ,
dt
(1002)
Or
Combining the two methods, we get

N () N0
, E)
= (~r ,
Q
(1003)
The adjoint flux is defined as the asymptotic increase in total neutron population of a critical reactor for a
neutron introduced in a phase space (position r, direction , and energy E). The adjoint is only defined for
what reaction that we are interested in: in a critical reactor, that is neutron population; in a subcritical system, like
the one in detector, then it is whatever purpose, like detector response, that we are interested in.
318
Lulu Li
23.4
Multi-Group Real and Adjoint Flux Equations
Hebert states that the general rules for creating the adjoint of an operator are (p.77):
1. Transpose the matrix operators.
~
~ .
2. Change the sign of odd-parity differential operators. E.g.,
3. Interchange the arguments of the kernels of integral operators.
Dg (~r )g (~r ) + tg (~r )g (~r ) = g
G
X
f g0 (~r )g0 (~r ) +
g 0 =1
G
X
sg0 g (~r )g0 (~r )
(1004)
sgg0 (~r )g0 (~r )
(1005)
g 0 =1
Dg (~r )g (~r ) + tg (~r )g (~r ) = f g (~r )
G
X
g0 g0 (~r ) +
g 0 =1
For two group, infinite medium case, with effective downscatter only,

a1 + 12 k1 f 1 k1 f 2
1
=0
2
12
a2

1
a1 + 12 k
12
1
f 1
=0
1
2
k
f2
a2
G
X
g 0 =1
2
12
=
1
a2
2
=
1
1
k f 2
a2
(1006)
(1007)
where
k = k =
12
f 1 + f 2
a2
a1 + 12
(1008)
The above expressions show that knowing cross sections, we know k , hence we know k = k , then we
can solve for 2 .

1
We are also interested in adjoint weighted reactivity expression as in Fig. 125. Recall that PKE assumes flux
shape does not change with respect with time. We use adjoint flux weighted PKE to account for the flux change.
is very sensitive to adjoint flux.
319
Lulu Li
Figure 124: PWR Lattice Adjoint Spectrum
320
Lulu Li
Figure 125: Adjoint Weighted Reactivity
321
Lulu Li
Figure 126: LWR Beta Effective and I-bar
322
Lulu Li
24
LWR Core Design and Optimization
This lecture combines Jeremy Roberts PWR core loading pattern lecture given for 22.211 on 05/14/2012 and
Prof. Smiths LWR core design lecture given for 22.39 on 10/02/2012, 10/04/2012. The last section on core
loading optimization also incorporates Prof. Smiths 22.251 Lecture 10 on 10/07/2013.
24.1
Objectives & Constrain
We have 3 objectives:
1. Meet the cycle length requirement provided by the finance people; typically 18-20 months. Assure core
criticality for desired cycle operation.
2. Maximize economy, for instance, BU.
3. Assure plant availability: minimize vessel fluence, minimize back end costs.
and one constrain: Safety!
Assure control for steady state operation behavior.
Assure reactivity control for safe shutdown margin or any other operational transients.
Assure acceptable core behavior in accidents.
Reactor physics interacts with other disciplines:
Thermal hydraulics:
Temperature field and fluid density affects core neutronics.
Temperature impact materials properties.
Balance of plant affects core operating conditions (and vise versa).
For instance, the grid spacers are one of the most important factors, because the more fluid mixing we get,
the better performance we get out of the core.
Chemistry and materials:
Material interact: oxidation, corrosion, hydriding, PCI.
Radiation environment changes materials properties and affects chemical interactions (radiolysis).
323
Lulu Li
24.2
Design Tools: Lattice Code, Nodal Code
Overview of reactor physics tools:

1. Fuel pin performance code: FRAPTRAN, FALCON, etc.
2. Lattice physics code: CASMO, TGBLA, PARAGON, etc.
3. 3D steady state nodal code: SIMULATE, ANC, PANIC-x, etc.
4. Stability analysis tool: SIMULATE-3K, LAPUR, etc.
5. Transient system codes: RETRAN, RELAP, TRACE, etc.
Overview of reactor physics methods:
1. Monte Carlo: 75 hours on 750 CPU to get 1% 95/95 accuracy for the Hoogenboom/Martin problem.
2. Discrete transport method (eg: SN method):
Lots of unknowns need to be solved from the energy groups, angles, axial mesh etc. For example,
we can estimate the number of unknowns for a LWR core: (100 mesh/pin)(300 pins/assembly) (200
assemblies/core) (100 axial mesh) (100 energy groups) (1000 angles) = 6 1013 unknowns.
Fine mesh transport takes roughly the same time with Monte Carlo. For instance, the best parallel
transport Grind time SN code is Texas A&Ms PDT code which takes 300 nanosecond/unknown.
Then assuming perfect scaling, the time required to solve a full core is, (6E13 unknowns)(3E-7
s/unknown)(20 fission source iterations/case) = 100,000 hours. Not to mention we havent consider
any feedback, cross section evaluations, boron search to criticality, equilibrium Xenon, control rod
searches to criticality etc.
Hence discrete transport method has never been used for full core calculation.
3. Lattice code and nodal code (see Fig. 127: we start with basic cross sections (for instance, from ENDF),
generate multi-group library, perform an unit-cell calculation, perform a lattice calculation, and perform a
whole core calculation. Basically we go towards coarser energy groups in exchange for more spatial
dimensions/details(1D to 2D to 3D).
324
Lulu Li
Figure 127: Lattice Code Nodal Code Flowchart
325
Lulu Li
24.2.1
Lattice Code
A lattice code calculation includes:

1. Pin spectrum calculation (energy domain, see Fig. 128). Lattice code solves for fine energy fluxes (1000s
to 10,000s groups) with treatment of resolved resonances, and condense the cross sections to intermediate
group cross sections (100s groups):
R Eg
g =
(E)(E) dE
Eg1
R Eg
Eg1
(1009)
(E) dE
Figure 128: Lattice Code: Pin Spectrum Calculation
2. Intermediate group pin spatial calculation (spacial domain, see Fig. 129). Lattice code solves for radial
distributions of nuclides and fluxes in each type of pin. For a lattice depletion code, we want to know is the
pin-wise isotropic inventories vs. BU. Lattice code produces data library as a function of fuel BU, coolant
density, fuel temperature, void, etc (so lattice code does not just solve for a steady state condition, it solves
for about 2000 cases).
Figure 129: Lattice Code: Pin Spatial Calculation

3. Solve full assembly neutronics. Lattice code solves for pin-wise distribution of neutron fluxes (10-100
energy groups, homogenized pins). Thats about 5000 spatial regions per assembly; MOC would take
about 20 energy groups, 1000 angles, 0.05cm ray spacing. Then we compute keff .
326
Lulu Li
Comments:
One example of how lattice codes generate many lattices for possible uses: in PWRs, vs. BU (with no
burnable poisons) are just straight lines depending on enrichment as in Fig. 130. Thus to achieve desirable
long cycle and high BU, we need high enrichment, which is why almost all US fuel is around the 4-5%
enrichment level (currently fuels are made at 4.4% enrichment; US regulation requires less than 5.2% for
trasportation reason).
Figure 130: Lattice Code: PWR Assembly Reactivity vs. Burnup, Enrichment
Corner pin power peaking in PWRs: about 15%.
Fission products absorption reduces reactivity of the fuel.
U235 depletion significantly reduces reactivity as fissile inventory is reduced.
Transmutation (particularly of U238) leads to complicated isotopic inventory.
Pu239 production offsets part of the U235 reactivity depletion effects.
24.2.2
Nodal Code
A quick review of 3D advanced nodal codes:

2D lattice transport/depletion calculation with approximated boundary conditions.
3D simulation using few group diffusion models with homogenization/condensation approximations.
Fuel depletion on node-averaged basis: smooth intra-nodal spatial depletion representation.
Local detail by superposition-based reconstruction.
Pin conduction/bundle hydraulics: one characteristic pin and channel per bundle, no fluid cross flow between parallel channels, correlation-based heat transfer and void fraction models.
Know the basic idea of the Transverse-integrate method: we transverse integrate 1D diffusion equation for the
thermal group, approximate the source with 4th order Legendre polynomial, and solves for an analytical solution
for the thermal group. Then we differentiate to get the net current at the interface, and use continuity of net
currents/flux to get analytic expression for coupling.
327
Lulu Li
24.3
Uncertainty Analysis: Measurements
We have a number of ways to determine the accuracy/uncertainty of core physics methods,

1. In-core flux mapping system: 58 instrumented locations and 61 (or 610) axial point measurements (through
58 tubes coming in from the bottom of the vessel).
Measurement should agree with simulation at core loading time to assure proper core loading.
Measurements will be performed monthly afterwards to assure compliance of power distribution with
technical specifications (LHGR): verify peak LHGR with tech spec limits, verify pin/assembly burnup
limits, determine 95/95 reliability factors for predictive models.
Zr spacers depress the flux because it displaces some water/moderator.
CMS codes provide very accurate power distribution, 300pcm HFP core reactivity with depletion,
and about 300pcm bias from CFP to HFP reactivity (Doppler, MTC) as see in Table 23. Notice TIP
stands for Traversing In-core Probes, which are sensors inserted in the calibration tube of the LPRM
assemblies to perform periodic calibration. Instrument tubes bend easily in BWRs, so BWRs tend to
sample gamma for a more even distribution.
Table 23: BWR Predictive Accuracy of Nodal Codes

2. Ex-core detector: calibrate based on flux maps, used to monitor core flux (power level) and axial power
shape.
3. HZP rod worth measurements. We solve IKE (given power extracted from the ex-core detector, we can
back out (t) etc). Though when we are moving the rods, we cannot believe the point kinetics. Thats why
to perform a HZP rod worth measurement we have to wait: after a boron dilution, we move the rod in small
number of steps, then wait. This takes more than 1 hours/rod, thats why dynamic rod worth calculation
gets popular. Control rod worth has to be within 10%.
4. Dynamic rod worth: you pull rod out a little bit, then you drive your rod all the way in called banking (takes
2 minutes), then you pull the rod out again. A subtle point here is that the power does not start to go up
until the control rod is back in its criticality position (the power actually goes up a bit faster because of the
delayed neutrons). Caution: flux should be high enough that statistics is reliable, but cannot be too high
that the reactor goes critical. See Section 18.10.3 for more details.
Side note: Westinghouse designs have 228 notches in a control rod, CE has 100 notches.
328
Lulu Li
24.4
PWR Core Designs
24.4.1
Reactivity Effects
We consider some common reactivity effects (negative effects):

1. CZP HZP: moderator temperature coefficients must satisfy limits.
Moderator temperature coefficient cannot be too high; that is, boron concentration cannot be to high.
Reason: when boron is high, adding more boron decreases the moderator density and increases the
power. Sidenote: PWRs not only have boron in the coolant, but also in the rods.
Moderator temperature coefficient cannot be too low (otherwise steamlines may break: the huge
amount of secondary loop flow would remove all the heat out of the primary loop); that is, we need to
be careful when we increase power/burnup, because the following terms contribute to a more negative
moderator temperature coefficient: Doppler feedback, Xe build-up, balance out the change brought
by Boron.
Figure 131: PWR Reactivity Effects: Moderator Temperature Coefficients

2. HZP to HFP: due to resonance absorption (characterized by Doppler coefficient of reactivity).
As temperature increases, the thermal motion of the nuclei increases, causing a broadening of the cross
section resonances and a lowering of their peaks. Because of the self-shielding of the nuclei in a material,
the effective reaction rate as temperature . Common isotopes that have large near thermal resonances:
Xe135, Gd.
3. During HFP: Xe and Sm build-up decreases . Recall Fig. 55, where Xe and Sm are most important when
it comes to poisoning effect. We arrive at the following conclusions for the equilibrium concentration:
(
I 0
0 , I
(1010)
(I +X )f 0
0 , X saturates.
X = X +X 0
a
Important concepts about Iodine/Xe:

329
Lulu Li
After startup, it takes about 30 hours for the two isotopes to reach saturation.
After shutdown, Xe peaks in 9 hours (because Iodine decays into Xe, adding about 3000 pcm reactivity) and decays away in 60 hours.
If we perform a rapid startup after a scram, Xe would be too high, thus the flux may be too high, which
immediately burn out Xe and causing an overshoot.
Long term, a PWR core burns about 1000 pcm/month. So the 3000 pcm Xenon peak takes about 3
months to burn out.
Important concepts about Pm/Sm:
After startup, it takes about 600 hours for the two isotopes to reach saturation.
After shutdown, Sm peaks in 200 hours, but never decay away unlike Xe.
Following a refueling outage, Sm reactivity peaks by 200-300 pcm after shutdown, and then return to
equilibrium about 100 hours after restart.
See Section 15.3 and 15.4 for more details.
4. HFP Xe equilibrium: fuel depletion decreases .
Condition
CZP to HZP
HZP to HFP
HFP, no Xe to Eq. Xe
HFP with Eq. Xe
Total during startup
Reactivity effects
Moderator density change
Resonance Absorption/Doppler Coefficient
0 to equil. Xe
0 to equil. Sm
Fuel depletion
Table 24: Summary of PWR Reactivity Effects
330
Decrease in
2-5%
1-2%
2-3%
0.6%
5-10%
4600-10,000 pcm
Lulu Li
24.4.2
Lattice Designs
Step 1 of PWR core design includes picking the enrichment, number of assemblies, and cycle length. As illustrated
in Fig. 132, if we pick 330 days as cycle length, then we need about 4% enrichment and a reload fraction of
1/4.02. Take-away message: the average number of U235 is kind of conserved in the sense that enrichment
, number of assembly (which is good because less disposal cost).
Figure 132: Arevas Chart Of Cycle length, # Assemblies, Enrichment for PWRs
24.4.3
Core Loading Patterns
Step 2 of PWR core design is to pick a core loading pattern. One example is in Fig. 133, where it is important to
surround new fuel with burned fuel to reduce local peaking, as we know fresh fuels can have a keff = 1.3.
Figure 133: Sample PWRs Core Loading Pattern

We consider two famous patterns:
331
Lulu Li
1. Out/In Pattern. Notice the depletion terminates when boron becomes zero. Also the power peaking factor
as a function of time increases first and then decreases.
Figure 134: PWR Out/In Loading Pattern

2. In/In/Out Pattern (low leakage): the center fuel is taken from ancient batch; new fuels are surrounded by
burned fuel; power at periphery is reduced.
24.4.4
PWR Reactivity Control
In PWRs, about 1/2 assemblies have no control rods, so we need to use burnable absorbers etc.
1. Burnable absorber. To control reactivity/power peaking in the In/In/Out pattern, we place burnable absorber
(30,000pcm) in the interior fresh assemblies, and place no burnable absorber in the exterior assemblies
(without burnable absorber, the power may be peaking by a factor of 3).
2. IFBA: pro is that it can be placed anywhere as it is just a thin layer of coating outside of fuel pins. The
drawback is that IFBA produces He, which pressurizes the fuel pin and thus we need to design the core
with extra platinum space or to use empty blanket.
24.4.5
Cycle Length and Equilibrium Cycle
We want to cluster fresh fuels (which is a good thing for keff ), but could lead to bad power peaking. To estimate
cycle length though, we can place ALL fresh fuels on the inside and the depleted on the outside for a pretty
332
Lulu Li
Figure 135: PWR In/In/Out Loading Pattern

accurate estimate of cycle length.
An important fact is (know how to calculate the following for the qual),
1 Gwd/MT = 30 days = 30 million dollars
(1011)
Equilibrium cycle: we repeat the same core shuffle pattern cycle after cycle until the cycle length stops changing as in Fig. 136. Desirable features we are looking for: very flat peak power, and power peaks moves from
assembly to assembly between cycles. In practice, it is also common to design a 2-3 cycle pattern and repeat the
pattern until equilibrium.
333
Lulu Li
Figure 136: PWR Equilibrium Cycle
334
Lulu Li
24.5
BWR Core Designs
Now we move to BWR core designs. A major difference is that BWRs are bigger than PWRs and thus reducing
the power density from PWRs 100 kW/L to BWRs 50 kW/L. Reference: GEs ABWR seminar by LE Fennern.
24.5.1
Design Criteria
Table 25 lists the most important reactor physics core design criteria translated into plant technical specifications.
For instance,
Condition
Pseudo Steady State
Normal Operations
LOCA Limits
RIA Limits
Criteria
Shut down margin (cold, highest worth rod out)
Max notch worth for startups
Max linear heat generate rate
Min critical power ratio
Max average planer heat generation rate
Max calories per g enthalpy limit
Abbreviation
SDM
MLHGR
MCPR
MAPHGR
CPG
Table 25: BWRs Design Criteria and Acceptance Criteria

LOCA limit describes local behavior which is related to local power generated.
CPR is sensitive to spacers (because of dryout condition). When power increases or flow decreases, CPR
tells us what thermal margin we have.
MCPR is chosen from generic transient analysis. Core design is performed to satisfy those limits.
Linear heat generation rate limits.
Figure 137: Linear Heat Generation Rate Limits
335
Lulu Li
MAPLHGR tech spec are designed to cover LOCA (eg., peak cladding temperature).
Figure 138: MAPLHGR Designed to Cover LOCA
24.5.2
Core Designs
Overall BWR core designs (lattice designs, core loading patterns) are nightmares because: BWRs have 800
assemblies compare with PWRs 193; BWRs runs with CR inserted, while PWRs do not run with CR inserted;
BWRs have no soluble boron (because we do not want to boil boron everywhere) thus we have to rely on other
control mechanism.
1. Modern trend has been pushing the fuel limits (increasing the power density from 40 kW/L to 50 kW/L to
even higher as seen in Fig. 139. The issue with higher power density is that we need to install bigger pumps
and deal with more vibration issues.
Figure 139: BWR Fuel Limits
2. Also 7x7 bundle are being pushed towards 11x11 bundle, which means linear heat generation rate decrease,
though CPR may or may not increase.
336
Lulu Li
3. Simple Control Cell Core (CCC) has been used by many annual cycles (common in Europe). The motivation
is, when CRs are pulled out, local peaking factor would increase, thus a CCC with 20% fresh fuel and low
BU would be easy for an annual cycle. Though this is not the case in the US as there are not enough
locations for CCC because we need to put about 37% fresh fuel to sustain a longer cycle length. Again in
CCC notice the check board pattern in which fresh fuels are surrounded by depleted fuel.
Figure 140: BWR Control Cell Core (CCC) Layout
24.5.3
Operational Analysis, Reactivity Control
Keep in mind that BWRs can operate at various flow rate (unlike PWRs whose flow rate is fixed). There are three
modes we consider for BWRs (to extend cycle length):
1. Spectrum shifted operation: operate at reduced flow (70%) to increase void, thus decreasing fuel density,
hardening the spectrum, increasing U238 resonance absorption and produce more Pu, which would extend
the cycle length.
2. Increase core flow operation.
3. Coast down: maximize flow to increase reactivity, thus lowering feed water temperature and the power
would coast. Coast down can last as long as 3 months down to 50% power.
There is a need to have hot excess reactivity, though we want to keep the reactivity swing flatter. Eg., PWRs
have 20% k reactivity hold-down, whereas BWRs only have 2% k (the additional comes from Gd). Gd
is integrated with fuel, very self-shielding with huge a , and behave like onion skin burning31 . So the advantage
of Gd over IFBA is the Gd can control burning by density as in Fig. 142 whereas IFBA can only burn constantly.
We pick the Gd concentration and number of pins to flatten the reactivity vs. BU plot. Notice in Fig. 142,
Know how to extrapolate to get no-Gd curve thus the hold-down.
10 times Gd concentration only produces 25% more hold-down due to self-shielding.
If put in enough Gd, the curve could be totally flat.
31 Onion skin burning is used to describe when the cross section is very large (
6
Gd = 10 b), a thin layer of the material would be burned
out, then another thin layer slightly inside would be burned out, etc, like an onion peeling
337
Lulu Li
Figure 141: BWRs Need to Have Hot Excess Reactivity

In one bundle, we can put multiple concentration of Gd. For instance, Sweden has done pellet-by-pellet
design where every other pellet is all Gd.
Figure 142: BWRs Reactivity Flattening using Gd

BWRs generate high void at top of the core which means that the bottom fuel is more burned, there are more
fuel left on the top, and the flow is reduced at the top. To compensate for the bottom-heavy flux, we consider:
1. Add water rods to keep more coolant in the top.
2. Add part length fuel rods to allow for more water at the top.
3. Have more absorber rods in the bottom of the bundle.
4. Use axial enrichment zoning to flatten the power.
5. Insert some shallow rods in the bottom of the core.
Comments:
338
Lulu Li
1. PLRs make lattice more over-moderated when cold and lower reactivity (which is a shutdown margin improvement).
2. Deep inserted CR controls reactivity; shallowly inserted CR controls power peaking.
3. Towards the end of the cycle, we slowly remove all CRs, suddenly all the power rolls to the top, in which
case we can lose all CPR margin. Thus end-of-cycle condition can be more limiting for BWRs as in
Fig. 144.
Figure 143: BWRs Axial Power Shapes at BOC, MOC, and EOC
Figure 144: BWRs MFLCPR More Limiting Near End of Cycle

The last step is illustrated in Fig. 145, as we design the startup sequence (power, flow and rods) when the core
design is finished.
339
Lulu Li
Figure 145: BWRs Design for Startup Sequence
340
Lulu Li
24.6
PWR Core Loading Pattern Optimization
Reference: Turinskys Core Isotopic Depletion and Fuel Management in Handbook of Nuclear Engineering,
Springer (2010). Objectives:
Limit on power peaking.
Increased margins to thermal limits (CHF, Tfuel ).
Maximize economics.
24.6.1
Fundamentals
The fundamental trade off is between economics (maximize energy) and minimize safety risks (minimize peaking):
Maximize energy: maximize EOC reactivity, maximize cycle length, maximize fuel burnup.
Minimize peaking: minimize maximum enthalpy rise hot-channel factor FH , minimize heat flux hotchannel factor.
Common loading patterns:
1. Out-in: most burned fuel bundles are loaded on the inside. Result: reduced peaking factor (e.g., 1.404), but
bad economy (for instance, when an outer ring fresh fuel bundle has a kinf of 1.25, and the whole core has
a keff of 1, that implies that about 25% of the neutrons leak out).
2. In-out: most burned on the outside. good peaking factor, bad economics.
3. Ring of fire (or low leakage pattern, in/in/out pattern): checker board pattern of fresh and one cycle fuel,
with a ring of burned one near the out-side most. We get about 3 months additional operating time compared
with the traditional out-in pattern.
A note here is that a big difference between PWRs and BWRs is that:
PWRs: density is almost constant; a fuel shuffle affects the global problem and can produce flux tilting very
easily.
BWRs: because of the existence of void, effects tend to be local.
On a high level, a loading pattern problem
is a nonlinear, mixed-integer problem (so no derivatives).
is inherently a multi-objective problem.
is highly constrained.
has disjoint feasible regions.
has an extremely large decision space.
341
Lulu Li
24.6.2
XIMAGE: Loading Pattern Design
XIMAGE is basically a graphical tool that runs CASMO and SIMULATE underneath and displays the results
nicely for easy visualization. For this class we use X-IMAGE to optimize PWR loading pattern (quarter core
shuffling). BWR loading pattern is more difficult because:
BWRs typically do half core shuffling. There are four times as many bundles as in PWRs.
Multiple rod patterns are always possible, and rods must be moved for criticality.
Flow is a variable. It is common to drive pump speed to control reactivity (review load-follow). Because a
harder spectrum is beneficial for extending cycle length, typically we want to run the core with a low flow
rate for as long as we can, then slowly increasing the flow rate.
There are a couple of terms used in XIMAGE:
1. Boron search: at each cycle exposure, a search is performed to find the Boron concentration that achieves
a keff = 1.
2. F-Delta h: F is the power peaking factor, and h is the entropy increase. This is a good measurement
because it takes into account that not all energy generated from fission would be deposited locally. For
instance, gamma interactions in the structural material generate heat which is then picked up by the fluid
and reflected in h. The analog in BWR is the MCPR (Minimum Critical Power Ratio).
3. Equilibrium cycle calculation: assume the shuffling pattern (called the equilibrium cycle) stays identical
from cycle to cycle. The cycle length converges fairly quickly (e.g., in this case 5 cycles for a PWR).
Though in real life, the condition never stays perfectly identical from cycle to cycle, so small variation
exists. Typically a year before start-up, someone designs the core loading pattern, and this design finalizes
about 6 months before the actual start-up of the plant.
Some help in using XIMAGE:
Right click gives option, middle click gives configurations (for instance, display maps left and right maps
is a useful ting to do). Use View-Map layout option on the top menu to change displayed terms.
Shuffle: octant shuffle would touch four assemblies to keep the octant symmetry. There might be warning
messages. For instance, PWR has odd number of assemblies along each side, so you cannot shuffle anyone
on the axis.
Assembly inventory (automatically opened window). First box is fresh fuel, second box is depleted fuel,
and third box contains depleted fuel that is
Click on a patter in the LP window, right click on the map to restore that pattern.
Middle click to bring up LP library to name the loading pattern.
Rotate the exterior assemblies: circle means minimum exposure, typically you move them inwards. You
typically look at the BOC Boron concentration to be high.
After finding a good pattern, do an equilibrium cycle search to see find the final equilibrium parameters.
For this class, we optimize for maximum cycle length, F h < 1.60, MTC < 3 pcm/C. cycle length: 18.5
342
Lulu Li
24.6.3
Greedy Binary Random Swap in Quarter Core
It takes XIMAGE about 2 seconds to perform a 24-axial-node cycle depletion. That is about 14,400 patterns per
workday. But the limiting factor is on the human side that we have limited decision speed, limited persistence,
unable to recognize already searched space, and we tend to be greedy. That is why we move to automated
optimization that avoids the above limitations. The simpliest method is to perform a greedy binary random swap
in quarter-core:
add in greedy binary random swap
Algorithm 2 Basic Greedy Binary Random Swap Algorithm
Intialize x, C0 , L0 . k = 0.
while not converged do
do
end while
The question is, how do we make search faster?
There are a couple of issues we need to keep in mind:
1. No removable BPs under control rods.
2. Rods have to have limited burnup (say 30 MWd/kg) under control rod positions). The main reason is that
guide tube distorts when burnup is high, and the control rods may not go in. The secondary reason is that
we want the reasonable rod worth underneath the control rods.
3. We prefer quadrant/octant symmetry in the fresh fuel. Likely wise we can maintain batch symmetry in the
depleted fuel.
4. Use heuristics to eliminate unattractive patterns:
No fresh fuel on periphery.
Template heuristics.
5. Use surrogate model to replace expansive function evaluation. In most optimization, it takes more time to
decide the next step than to perform the function evaluation. For our problem, the function evaluation takes
significantly longer than the decision for next step.
Early stages we can use 2D rather than 3D.
Early stages we can use neural network.
Dont complete cycle depletion if first state point is not acceptable.
343
Lulu Li
24.6.4
Stochastic Optimization Schemes
Casting the objectives: A common way for using multiple objectives is the augmented (weighted) objective.
Example for k, p:
f (k, p) = (1.5 p) 100H(1.15 k)
(1012)
This is an easy way to include constrains as penalties. A better approach would the Pareto optimal which is
not covered in this lecture (Ask stephano for questions).
Stochastic optimization schemes are only real options,
1. Simulated Annealing: The physical process of annealing means bringing metals to a high temperature and
let it cool slowly; if it cools slowly enough eventually it would get to its minimum energy.
Algorithm 3 Basic Simulated Annealing Algorithm
Intialize x, C0 , L0 . k = 0.
do
end while
2. Genetic Algorithm
Algorithm 4 Basic Genetic Algorithm
Create and evaluate an initial population of N chromosomes.
Select n chromosomes to reproduce (crossover);
Crossover and/or Mutate chromosomes;
Replace n least fit chromosomes with n offsprings;
Evaluate the population.
end while
(a) Selection criteria: survival of the fittest.

i. Proportional selection, Russian-Roulette.
ii. Find the fittest one?
(b) Crossover: breeding patterns. This type of problem is called ordering problems: we have finite number
of something that need to be conserved in the crossover. A typically way to do it is the Heuristic TieBreaking crossover:
(c) Mutation: add a bit of local refinement to the global scopes of GA.
(d) Replacement:
i. Delete all (generational): replace all N parents with N offspring.
ii. Steady state: replace some subset of n parents with or without avoiding duplication.
3. Swarm intelligence (ant colony, particle swarm, etc).
4. Greedy Exhaustive Dual Binary Swaps (GEDBS).
Comparison between SA and GA:
344
Lulu Li
SA is simpler to understand. SA is harder to parallelize (because at each temperature you are making up a
L that depends on the previous steps).
GA is natural for true multiobjective optimization. GA is trivial to parallelize.
Both are heuristic and need some tuning. Both can be improved with hill-climbing heuristics (eg, greedy
exhaustive single binary swaps).
A subtle point: once you put the most burned cores on the outside-most ring, how the inside pattern does
not affect the cycle length anymore because the power on the outside is so small. But the peaking power is very
sensitive on the inner pattern.
345
Lulu Li
25
Exam 3 Review: Dynamics & Kinetics
1. Fission happens very quickly but depletion effects are felt on much longer time scales.
Fission: 1012 s.
Prompt neutron life time: 1054 s.
Temperature effects: fuel 102 s, coolant 100s.
Fuel depletion: Xe hours, Pu days, fuel depletion is on the order of months.
Spent fuel decay: 1000s years.
2. Delayed neutrons concepts:
Dominant FP that emits delayed neutrons is Br-87: we use Br-87 with a 55.6s half-life to represent
group 1 in 8-group model.
Burst vs. saturated measurement. Burst means prompt neutrons; saturated means total neutrons.
Delayed yields d depend on: fissioning species, neutron energy (E , ).
Absolute yield: # delayed neutrons per fission; unit: neutrons/fission. Know: U238 = 0.04,
U235= 0.016. 13 S904 Exam #1: What is the mean number of delayed neutrons emitted per
U235 thermal fission? Answer: 0.016.
Relative yield: absolute yield of an isotope divided by total absolute yield by all isotopes; unit:
percentage.
Delayed neutron fraction =
d
:
# delayed neutrons divided by total # fission neutrons. Know:
U-235 thermal: = 0.0067; Pu-239: thermal = 0.0022 fast = 0.002032 ; U-238: fast
= 0.0164.
We talk about effective that is weighted by flux.
can vary with BU, though the variations in BU are on a much larger time scale than usual range
of application of PKEs.
U-235
U-238
Pu-239
d (thermal/fast)
0.01668/0.01673
-/0.046
0.0157/0.0152
(thermal/fast)
0.0067/0.0064
-/0.0164
0.0022/0.0020
Neutron emission spectra :

Average neutron emission energy: 2 MeV for prompt neutrons, 0.4 MeV for delayed neutrons.
Both spectrum are Maxwellian, except delayed neutrons are more thermal, which makes them
more likely to fission. 13 S904 Exam #2, #3 asks for the mean emission energy of prompt and
delayed neutrons from U235 thermal fission.
Strong energy dependency week isotope dependency: delayed neutron spectra vary very slightly
for different fissioning nuclides, but very significantly on energy groups.
Know U238 is extremely important for delayed neutrons.
3. Know 8-group models: basically we dont have good theories to treat each isotope separately, thus we
homogenize similar isotopes with one fixed decay constant (typically of the largest half-life in this group).
32 less
delayed neutrons, could make control harder
346
Lulu Li
25.1
PKE Without Feedback
1. Reactivity definitions:
Static comes from steady-state transport equation, and it indicates excess (or lack) of reactivity
present in the system.
Dynamic changes as a function of time and indicates changes from an initially stable system.
(t) =
Unit
k
% k
pcm
Dollars
Cents
Milli-beta
keff 1.0
keff
(t) =
Definition
105 k
k
100 Dollars
1000 Dollars
f i
f
(1013)
Example
0.01
1%
1000 pcm
$1.5
150 cents
1500 milli-beta
2. PKE assumptions:
Flux is separable (~r , E, t) = S(~r , E)T (t) (S is the shape function, T is the amplitude function).
Classical PKE further assumes S(~r , E) to remain constant with respect to t.
Assume no leakage, no external source of neutrons, no feedback.
Average properties, by integrate over all space and energy and normalize.
Classical PKE further assumes constant i , i .
X
j = independent of fissioning species j; id d independent of
Minor: jp p , j
j
delayed neutron energy group i; (~r ) aka no spatial dependency.

3. 2-group general PKE (dropped ~r for every term, and t for , T, C:
d
[T1 ] =
dt
dr1 {r,1 S1 T1 + (1 )(f,1 S1 T1 + f,2 S2 T2 )} +
dr
i Ci
(1014)
Z
d
[T2 ] =
dr2 [a,2 S2 T2 + s12 S1 T1 ]
dt
Z
Z
Z
d
drCi =
dri [f,1 S1 T1 + f,2 S2 T2 ] i
drCi
dt
(1015)
(1016)
Implications:
(t) does not describe how much neutrons there are at a specific time; it describes how much
neutrons there would be eventually.
has no T (t) temporal dependency.
only depends on 1 but not 2 , because all delayed neutrons are born in group 1, hence we do not
care about the neutron importance in group 2.
Similarly is the prompt neutron life time, thus only the importance of group 1 neutrons matters.
347
Lulu Li
4. Classical PKE:
dT
=
dt
T+
i
d
Ci = T i Ci
dt
i Ci + Q
(1017)
PKE parameters:
w, v 1 0
=
hw, F 0 i
hw, (F M )0 i
(t) =
hw, F 0 i
hw, Fd 0 i
hw, F 0 i
eff =
(1018)
(a) Reactivity , where the top is the diffusion equation (or say the net production), and the bottom is
f a (1 + M 2 Bg2 )
keff 1.0
fission rate if all neutrons show up instantaneously. (t) =
=
,
f
keff
where keff =
R
f
a
1+M 2 Bg2 .
(
!Z
X
X i
R
R
j
j
j
j
0
r , E 0E, t)S dE 0 +
p (E)(1 ) +
d (E)i
dE dr DS t S + s ( ~
f S dE
j
(t) =
R
dE
dr
p (E)(1 ) +
i
i
!Z
d (E)i
(1019)
f S dE
(b) The delayed neutron fraction (notice there is prompt neutron dependent jp (E) term in it). If ignore
X
fissioning spectrum,
i .
i
Z
X j
j
dE dr
d (E)
jf (~r , E 0 , t)S(~r , E 0 ) dE 0
i (t) =
R
dE dr
jp (E)(1
)+
id (E)ij
!Z
(1020)
jf S
dE
(c) Prompt neutron lifetime, which is 1/v of shape divided by almost-instantenous-fission-rate. Know
105 for LWRs; smaller for SFR, and larger for CANDU.

R
R
dE dr v1 S(~r , E)
1
1
criticality
!Z
(t) =
v
v
X
R
R X
f
a
dE dr
jp (E)(1 j ) +
id (E)ij
jf S dE 0
j
(d) The i-th precursor, Ci (t) =
dE
drCi (~r , t). The total external source, Q(t) =
dE
drQ(~r , t).
5. Steady state solution of classical PKE:

d
Ci (0) = 0
dt
Ci (0) =
i
T0
i
d
T (0) = 0
dt
(0) = 0
(1021)
6. The matrix form of the 1st order ODE is (assuming three precursor groups, can be easily extend for more
precursor groups),
(t)
1
2
3
T
C1
1
d
1
[N (t)]
N =
N
(t)
=
(1022)
C2
2
dt
2
3
C3
3
348
Lulu Li
7. Numerical examples: the interesting cases:

Instantaneous = 0.1: reactor wants to response immediately, hence the jump, though it does not
have enough delayed neutron to sustain that increase, so the power would increase for the rest of the
way (curve up) till time constant reaches the longest precursor group (55s).
Insert rod for 2s, hold for 20s, re-position to original position. Power would stabilize again but not
to the original value, b/c we are solving for an eigenvalue problem, and what the asymptotic power is
depends on how we get there.
Super-prompt critical: power ascension very sensitive as . When > , reactivity does not
have to wait for the delayed neutrons and change happens instantaneously.
8. Prompt-jump approximation: assumptions: subcritical < (the smaller is, the more accurate the
+
approximation is), precursor

population

does not respond instantaneously (Ci = Ci ), prompt neutron
dT
dT
changes negligible ( dt t=0 = 0, dt t=0+ = 0), no source.
d
T (t) 0 =
T (t) + C(t) =
T (0+ ) + T0
dt
(1023)
T (0+ )
=
T0
(1024)
More general, if initial reactivity is not exactly zero (but small),
T1
0
=
.
T0
1
9. In-hour equation: assume solutions take the form of, T (t) Ci (t) et , plug into PKE. Basically if we
know i , , i we can find . Know is typically small except super prompt critical when is huge.
= +
X i
+ i
i
(1025)
Issues:
A small reactivity range such that ignoring feedback is valid.
In-hour assumes constant i which is not very accurate for, e.g. we drive the control rod in the center
of a core.
Asymptotic periods T0 = 1 : we can only use Inhour equation for asymptotic period, that is, a stable
condition indicated by a constant period. Thus to use Inhour equation, we have to make the reactor
stable first. For any time dependent problem, we have to use the more general IK.
10. Inverse Kinetics Equation: 1st order ODE again. First given T (t) we solve for the precursor concentration,
i]
using [A] = diag[i ], [Y (t)] = diag[
T (t).

[C(t)] = [eAt ][C0 ] + [eAt ][A]1 [eAt ][Y (t)] [Y0 ]
(1026)
Then manipulating PKEs, we can get (t) in terms of T (t), C(t),

(t) =
n =
d
X
T (t) +
i Ci (t)
Q(t)
T (t) dt
T (t) i
T (t)
(1027)
Tn Tn1
X
+
i Ci,n
Qn
Tn tn tn1
Tn i
Tn
(1028)
349
Lulu Li
25.2
PKE with Feedback
1. Why model feedbacks?

Magnitude of flux/power very sensitive (can grow very quickly): without feedback power shoots up
with an asymptotic period; with Doppler feedback, both the reactivity and power decreases before the
rod is even fully inserted.
Safety analysis: fuel enthalpy at failure depends on BU so we need to model rod worth accurately for
safety analysis.
2. Fuchs-Nordheim model for RIAs: nice for intuition
(a) 3 assumptions:
, ignore the delayed neutrons thus drop all Ci (t);
0
rapid transient thus no heat transfer from the fuel: Tfuel = Tfuel
+
1
Cp
P (t) dt;
0
Doppler coefficient independent of temperature: (t) = rod (Tfuel Tfuel
).
(b) First method to derive P (t):
dP
dTf uel
dP
dt
dT
dt
, integrate over temperature and get

1
Cp 2
P (t) = P0 +
Cp (rod )Tf uel (t)
T
(t)
2 f uel
At peak power, we set
dP
dTf uel
Tfpeak
uel =
(1029)
= 0,
rod
(c) Second method to derive P (t):
dP
d
P peak = P0 +
=
dP
dt
d
dt
P (t) = P0 +
Cp (rod )2
2
(1030)
, integrate over ,

Cp
((t) )2 + (rod )2
2
(1031)
Assume the transient terminates when P (t) returns to P0 , then end = 2 rod ,
Tfend
uel =
2(rod )
+ Tf0uel
(1032)
(d) Take-away messages:

Peak fuel temperature is independent of neutron lifetime and heat capacity Cp . Peak temperatures are proportionally larger than core average.
C
Peak power p ; consequence: FRs with smaller would generate tons of heat rapidly.
peak
Tfend
uel = 2Tf uel . Reason: power is symmetric around peak; temperature is integrated results.
Asymptotic fuel temperature is independent of: reactivity insertion rate, neutron lifetime, heat
capacity.
F-N model is a good estimation because temperature is basically integrated power, hence the
speed of reactivity insertion does not matter, it is the amount of reactivity inserted over time that
matters.
Using PKEs with feedback, we demonstrate that reactivity change rate , the smaller the overshoot is. Though teh asymptotic results are independent of the reactivity change rate (as also seen
in the F-N model).
350
Lulu Li
A second peak in power is characteristic of slow insertion.

3. PKEs with simple feedback:
d
Tfuel (t) = aP (t) b[Tfuel (t) Tcoolant (t)]
dt
d
Tcoolant (t) = c[Tfuel (t) Tcoolant (t)] d[Tcoolant (t) Tinlet (t)]
dt
(1033)
(1034)
4. Transient feedback effects

(a) Time constants: recall the asymptotic power decay time constant is just that of the longest precursor.
(b) < insertion/withdrawal: power overshoot/undershoot is proportional to the reactivity change rate
(rate , overshoot/undershoot ), and the asymptotic value is independent of the reactivity change rate.
(c) > insertion/withdrawal: power and temperature would turn around due to Doppler feedback.
(d) Asymptotic temperature only depends on the reactivity change, not the change rate.
5. Problem with our neutronics model: not accurate for large spatial flux changes. Problem with our TH
model: very huge diffusive property, would not predict any thermal shock behavior.
351
Lulu Li
25.3
Adjoint Flux, Perturbation Theory
1. Adjoint fluxes: only defined for what reaction we are interested in; e.g., critical reactor typically neutron
population; subcritical system could be detector response that we are interested in.
If we put a neutron at this phase space, adjoint flux is the probability that it would cause fission.
Asymptotic increase in total neutron population of a critical reactor for a neutron introduced in a phase
space.
N () N0
, E)
= (~r ,
Q
(1035)
Importance function.
2. First-Order Perturbation (FOP): solve for reactivity resulted from a perturbation without have to solving for
the perturbed spatial flux. There are three sets of expressions: unperturbed forward problem, unperturbed
adjoint problem, perturbed forward problem,
A0 0 =
1
M0 0
k0
A0 0 =
1
M 0
k0
A =
1
M
k
(1036)
FOP approximate the perturbed problem using,

A = A0 + A
M = M0 + M
1
1
k
1
=
=
2
k
k0 + k
k0
k0
= 0 +
Plug into Eq. 1036 and simplify, we reach the FOP which is 2nd order accurate,
D

E
0 , k10 M A 0

h0 , M0 0 i
(1037)
(1038)
3. Real and adjoint diffusion equations: group diffusion and absorption operators are self-adjoint; group scattering and fission operators are not.
Dg g + tg g = g
G
X
f g0 g0 +
g 0 =1
Dg g
tg g
= f g
G
X
sg0 g g0
(1039)
sgg0 g0
(1040)
12
2
=
1
a2
(1041)
g 0 =1
G
X
g0
g0
g 0 =1
G
X
g 0 =1
For two group, infinite medium case with effective downscatter only,

a1 + 12 k1 f 1 k1 f 2
1
=0
2
12
a2

1
a1 + 12 k
12
1
f 1
=0
1
2
k
a2
f 2
2
=
1
1
k f 2
a2
(1042)
where
k = k =
12
f 1 + f 2
a2
a1 + 12
(1043)
In the above example, we effectively have M = 0, M = 0, and by definition, the adjoint of Hermitean
conjugate of a mtatrix is just complex-conjugating each of its element and then transposing,

T

a11 a12
a11 a12
a11 a21
M =
=
=
(1044)
a21 a22
a21 a22
a12 a22
352
Lulu Li
4. Boundary conditions: , are any two functions satisfying the appropriate boundary and continuity con < 0, then the adjoint satisfying
ditions for the angular flux and adjoint flux. If (~r , , E) = 0 for all n

, E) = 0 for n
> 0.
(~r ,
5. Spectra:
The PWR adjoint spectrum: high in fast and thermal range b/c high probability of fissioning.
For a typical two group problem, the adjoint flux should have the same shape for the two groups,
except the magnitude is offset by 2 .

1
33
6. Adjoint fluxes in kinetics parameters
(a) Delayed spectra: 10 times that of the prompt for up to 0.1 MeV; then approahces prompt until smaller
than prompt spectrum for 1 MeV and above.
(b) I is the ratio of the adjoint weighted delayed chi to prompt chi, and it has a value of about 0.97.
I =
33 In
hS0 (E), d (E)i

hS0 (E), p (E)i
operating reactors, they measure the control rod worth; they are no better than the delayed spectra
353
(1045)
Lulu Li
25.4
Exam Problems
1. Qual 2012 #3.
keff 1
f
1
, keff =
, =
.
keff
a + DB 2
vf
(b) is prompt neutron lifetime, is decay constant.
(a) =
(c) We use the inhour equation, and can ignore the term can go away because is so small,
= +
X i
X i
+ i
+ i
i
i
354
(1046)
Lulu Li
Because we only have one group cross section,

= 0.1 =
where =
ln 2
.
Thus = 7.7 103 , T =
(1047)
= 130s.
(d) We use prompt jump approximation,

T (0+ )
=
= 1.111
=
T0
0.1
(1048)
2. (12 Final #28) When a control rod worth 37 cents is removed from a critical reactor (with beta-effective of
0.007), what is the ratio of power after and before the reactivity insertion (e.g., the prompt jump)?
Answer: We use prompt jump approximation, = $0.37 = 0.37,
T (0+ )
=
=
= 1.59
T0
0.37
(1049)
3. (12 Final #29) If a fully-enriched, uranium-fueld, thermal-spectrum reactor has a stable period of 60 seconds
after a control rod is moved following long-term stable operation at power of 100 watts, how much reactivity
(in dollars) was inserted? (note: use the eight group delayed neutron data from Lecture 17, slide 21).
1
Answer: Given i , i etc, we can calculate: = 6.65 103 , = T1 = 1/60s1 ; = v
f
5
1.87 10 s. Plug everything in the In-hour equation,
= +
8
X
i
= 9.60 104 = $0.1444
i
i=1
(1050)
You can also omit the part as it is very small and get = 9.59 104 = $0.1443.
4. (12 Final #30) If a room temperature critical reactor undergoes a $5.0 reactivity excursion from near zero
power, what is the approximate final core-averaged fuel temperature (K)? Note, assume prompt neutron
lifetime of 105 sec, beta-effective of 0.007, specific heat of the fuel of 1 J/gm-K, and Doppler coefficient
of 3.0 pcm/C
Answer: Be careful about the units! First we convert all the units into k : = 4 = 0.028k, =
3 105 k. Thus,
Tfend
uel =
2( )
2 0.0028k
+ Tf0uel =
+ 293 = 2159.67K
3 105 k
(1051)
5. (12 Final #31) What is the fast-to-thermal adjoint flux ratio in an un-reflected critical slab reactor of Fuel 1
material?
Answer: Keep in mind that un-reflected suggests there are leakage terms. We have solved earlier in #23
that B 2 = 0.008876, which would remains the same for the forward problem and the adjoint problem. We
write the two-group diffusion equations for the adjoint problem,
(D1 B 2 + a1 + s12 f 1 )1 = s12 2
f 2 1
= (D2 B +
(1052)
a2 )2
(1053)
From Eq. 1052, we can write

s12
1
=
= 0.6525
2
D1 B 2 + a1 + s12 f 1
355
(1054)
Lulu Li
From Eq. 1053, we can write

1
D2 B 2 + a2
=
= 0.6525
2
f 2
(1055)
Notice the fast-to-thermal adjoint flux ratio can be solved from either equation and they come out to be the
same.
356
Lulu Li
26
26.1
Review: Multi-dimensional Diffusion

Assumptions Made
1. FLARE BWR nodal model: one energy group, not much physics because coefficients are derived assuming
two infinite half planes.
2. Transverse leakage: approximately by second order polynomial.
3. NEM: good b/c multi-group, but loses accuracy for highly varying flux problems.
4. ANM: best accuracy, not easy for general multi-group problems.
5. SANM: most practical.
6. Homogenization theory: we want to preserve , RR, and leakage, thus preserving keff . But if conventional
continuity of scalar flux and net current as imposed on all nodal surfaces, then Dgi are different on each
surface, thus it is impossible to define spatially constant Dgi which preserve all quantities (both RR and
leakage). We have to either relax constraints or add degrees of freedome.
Conventional (AXS): relax constraints and focus on preservation of reaction rates (though only for the
infinite lattice case). Solve lattice problem with zero current BC.
i
2D h
u
Ji,j
=
i,j i+1,j
h
(1056)
Advanced: DF, which alter the nodal coupling continuity conditions, because the current becomes,
h
i
u+
u
2D fi,j
i,j fi+1,j
i+1,j
u
u

Ji,j
=
(1057)
u+
h fi+1,j
+ fi,j
AXS-ADF combination greatly reduces error.
26.2
Nodal Methods
Nodal methods34 . The point of Nodal methods is that we can achieve high accuracy with large node size (compared with finite difference methods). We turn a 3D PDE into 3 1D ODE that are coupled through averaged
transverse leakage terms. More specifically,
1. 3D to coupled 1D: we pick a direction of interest, perform integration within node over the plane normal to
that direction, then devide by the planar area. For instance, the transverse leakage term is,
Lgu (x ) =

1
J gur (x ) J gul (x ) ,
hu
u = y, z
(1058)
where the line-averaged surface current is,

1
Z
J yr (x ) =
Z
Jy (x , 1, z ) dz ,
Jy (x , 0, z ) dz
(1059)
Jz (x , y , 0) dy
(1060)
J zr (x ) =
Z
Jz (x , y , 1) dy ,
J zl (x ) =
0
34 weighted
J yl (x ) =
residual is not on the final
357
Lulu Li
2. After manipulation, we get,

G
G
X
X
1
d2
0 0 (x ) +
(
)
+
(
)
=
x
rg
x
g
f
g
gx
gx
g
x
dx2
keff
0
0
xDg
g =1
g =1
yDg
G
G
X
X
d2
1
0 0 (y ) +
(
)
+
(
)
=
sg0 g g0 y (y ) Lgz (y ) Lgx (y )

g
y
rg
y
f
g
gy
gy
g
y
dy2
keff
0
0
g =1
zDg
g =1
G
G
X
X
d2
1
0
(
)
+
(
)
=
(
)
+
sg0 g g0 z (z ) Lgx (z ) Lgy (z )
z
rg
z
z
g
fg
gz
g0 z
dz2 gz
keff
0
0
g =1
g =1
3. Flux distribution is not sensitive to transverse leakage shape, so we approximate transverse leakage with
quadratic shape (2nd order polynomial):
L() = L + l1 P1 () + l2 P2 ()
(1061)
and then use average TL conservation scheme to determine l1 , l2 .

Three Nodal Methods:
1. NEM: expand () by 4th order polynomial,
() =
4
X
ai Pi ()
(1062)
i=0
May need to use

n
an0gu = phi g
an1gu =
1 n
n
( gur gul )
2
an2gu = g

1 n
n
gur + gul
2
(1063)
Need weighted residuals for n > 2: in NEM, we have for each energy group 16 unknowns and 8 knowns,
the rest 8 comes from weighted residual method:

Z 1
Z 1
d
1
w() D 2 () + r () d =
w()
() + S() L() d
(1064)
d
keff
0
0
The closure relationship basically forces the P1 , P2 integration to go to zero:

Z 1
d
5q1 + 3q3 5a1 r
P1 () D 2 () + r () Q() d = 0,
a3 =
d
3(60D + r )
0
Z
0

d
P2 () D 2 () + r () Q() d = 0,
d
a4 =
7q2 + 3q4 + 7a2 r

420(D + 3r )
(1065)
(1066)
2. Analytical: we solve 1D 2-group transerse-integrated diffusion equation,

D1
d2 1 (x)
1
+ r1 1 (x)
(f 1 1 (x) + f 2 2 (x)) = L1 (x)
dx2
keff
d2 2 (x)
D2
+ r2 2 (x) 12 1 (x) = L2 (x)
dx2
358
(1067)
Lulu Li
We assume the solution is in the form of,

g (x) = gH eiBx + gP (x)
(1068)
such that ddx2 = B 2 . Plug in Eq. 1067, we get a system of two equations [A][H ] = 0. For non-trival
solution, we set det[A] = 0, thus getting a quadratic equation of B 2 that we can find the harmonic mode to
be,
r

c
> 0 k > keff
2
B1 = b 1 + 1 2 =
(1069)
< 0 k < keff
b
and the harmonic mode to be,
B22
r

c
= b 1 1 2 < 0
b
(1070)
We need both modes because B12 and B22 are different. In this case fast group uses fundamental mode,
thermal group uses harmonic mode, thus the solution is,
H

1 (x)
r1 r2
=
=
1 1
2H (x)
(1071)
where the fast-to-thermal flux ratio is defined as,
rm =
2
a11
+ r2
a12
D2 Bm
=
=
a21
a22
12
(1072)
The particular solution is determined solely by transverse leakage.

(a) The advantage of this analytical method is that we get an expression relating the net current and the
flux, so the partial current never shows up.
(b) No need for weighted residual equations because we have exact solution to the 1D diffusion equation.
(c) The drawback is, all groups are solved simultaneously, so the generalization is very hard. But with
the help of modal expansion, now we can do ANM for any number of energy groups.
3. SAMN: uses NEM for fast group, transverse integrated 1D diffusion equation for the thermal group. Approximate source with 4th order Legendre polynomial. Analytical solution of the thermal group is,
s

4
X
2x
g
ci Pi
g (x) = A sinh(g x) + B cosh(g x) +
,
g =
(1073)
h
Dg
i=0
That is, we have exponential homogeneous and polynomial particular solutions.
26.3
Homogenization methods
1. Discontinuity factors: since the homogenized flux distribution in each node is affected by D, and the
choice of the flux weighted D is somewhat arbitrary, the interface fluxes can be different. We define DF:
u
fgi,j
=
ugi,j (ul )
,
u (ul )
u+
fgi,j
=
gi,j
ugi,j (ul+1 )
u (ul+1 )
(1074)
gi,j
ADFs are the homogeneous analogy to the heterogeneous assembly calculation (which is calculating a
single-node problem with zero net current BC). ADFs are simply ratios of the surface-averaged fluxes to
the cell-averaged fluxes in the heterogeneous assembly calculation.
359
Lulu Li
2. Reflector modeling:
Using empiracal albedos to replace the baffle and reflector is bad because using flux-volume weighted
cross section distribute the strong absorption xs over the entire region.
We use DFs because they are less spatially sensitive than albedos. It is advantagous in that DFs are
chosen so that the nodal model wouold reproduce the net currents at the core/baffle interface and the
net reaction rates in both the assembly and the homogenized baffle without explicitly representing the
baffle.
Fast neutron leakage makes up for 90% of all leakage, so leakage is insensitive to enrichment, burnup
etc.
26.4
Pin power reconstruction
1. Form functions: we multiple homogeneous solution by the form function to get the heterogeneous solution.
hom
het
(x, y)SA
g (x, y) = g
g (x, y)
(1075)
2. Corner point discontinuity factors.

Corner point fluxes are approximated by assuming that intra-nodal flux distributions are separable:
g,i,j (x, y) =
g,i,j (x)g,i,j (y)

g,i,j
(1076)
Heterogeneous corner point flux has to be continuous. Thus we need corner point ratios that are
analogous to DFs that can be obtained from the lattice calculations.
In general, the corner-point fluxes are determined by averaging the four estimates of the heterogeneous
corner-point flux,
het,cp
=
g
i
1 h hom,cp f ct,cp
f ct,cp
f ct,cp
hom,cp f ct,cp
hom,cp
g,i,j g,i,j + hom,cp
g,i+1,j g,i+1,j
g,i,j+1 g,i,j+1
g,i+1,j+1 g,i+1,j+1
4
(1077)
In order to satisfy the continuity conditions of reconstructed fluxes, the best-estimate homogeneous
corner-point fluxes for each node are computed by,
hom,cp
=
g,i,j
het,cp
g
ct,cp
fg,i,j
(1078)
The reconstructed corner point fluxes are then continuous. CP ratio is the corner point analogue of
ADF for assembly edges.
Side note: there are two entirely different problems. One is an eigenvalue problem, using homogenized cross
section, and output k, and the flux computed would be continuous. The other is a fixed-source problem, using
keff as input (hence J at interface), and generate discontinuous flux.
360
Lulu Li
26.5
Scale of 3D Problem
# of fuel pins: 60,000 = 300 pins/assemblies times 200 assemblies/core.

# of axial levels: 100.
# energy groups: 100.
1 cycle depletion: 50 depletion states.
# isotopes to track: 300 isotopes.
Safety analysis: 10,000 limiting conditions.
361
Lulu Li
27
Qualify Exam Recap
27.1
Basics (with questions)
1. Common units, see Table 26. Angular flux is scalar quantity and the term with angular dependency is n not
v.
cm2
1/cm
= nv
J
e cmn2 s
n
cm2 s
R =
reactions
cm3 s
RI
barns
Table 26: Units of Common Terms
2. 1 GWd/MT = 30 days = 30 million dollars.

3. Boron worth: -16 pcm/ppm. Approximate as -10 pcm/ppm.
4. PWRs have 20% k reactivity hold-down, whereas BWRs only have 2% (b/c the use of Gd; Gd behaves
like onion skin burning; Gd can control burning by density).
5. Fast flux in hydrogen is around 1014 n/cm2 s, and on the order of 1012 n/cm2 s for thermal flux.
6. Average energies prompt neutrons are released: 2 MeV (peak prompt neutron energies: 0.7 MeV). Average
energies delayed neutrons are released: 0.4 MeV.
7. Core decay heat after 1 day is about 1% rated.
8. Constants to know: 1u = 931.5 MeV.
9. The effect of U238 energy self-shielding is about an effect of 10, that is, going from infinite dilution to U/I
= 0.1.
10. Reactivity units.
Unit
k
% k
pcm
Dollars
Cents
Milli-beta
Definition
105 k
k
100 Dollars
1000 Dollars
362
Example
0.01
1%
1000 pcm
$1.5
150 cents
1500 milli-beta
Lulu Li
27.2
Cross Section
1. * If the neutron cross section is independent of energy at 0K, at 1200K the cross section would have a 1/v
energy shape because of thermal motion.
2. * Resonance absorption cross section dominates resonance scattering cross section most of the time (except
U238).
3. * Fission cross section: U235 fission xs at 0.1 eV and 300K is about 200 barns (200-300 barns); Pu239
fission xs is about 475 barns (380-570 barns). Hence in thermal reactors, Pu absorption should be about
twice that of uranium.
4. Elastic scattering cross section as in Figure 146
5. Capture cross section as in Figure 147:
(a) H has no resonance; it has the highest scattering xs in LWR, so we can ignore any other isotopics
neutron scattering.
(b) Na has a huge resonance in 23 keV, and more resonances at higher energies because it is a heavy
isotope.
(c) Near zero energy,
r
(E 0)
kT
AE
(1079)
(d) Resonance at 6 to 7 eV: U238.

(e) U235s thermal elastic xs is larger than 238s, and they both have resonance around the same range.
(f) A small resonance at .3 eV: Pu239 (its signiture is a super low energy scattering xs).
6. Given an unknown material type, all we care is to count the nucleus density of each material and look at its
xs.
363
Lulu Li
Figure 146: Elastic Scattering Cross Sections

364
Lulu Li
Figure 147: Capture Cross Section

365
Lulu Li
27.3
Exam Problems
1. (Qual 2012).
(a) We approximate 1 GWd/MT (that is 1 MWd/kg) as 30 days of operation.

(b) Fission cross section at 0.1eV and 300K for U235 is 250b, for Pu239 is about 475b.
(c) The pdf is a flat distribution, so it is equally likely to get anywhere below 1.0 MeV, then the change of
below 100 keV is 100 keV/1 MeV = 10%.
(d) We treat this as a fuel to moderator two-region problem. Then we can calculate fuel to fuel probability.
4r 2 H
First we calculate chord length l = 4V
S = 2rH = 2r = 1 cm.
PF F =
10
F
t (u)
=
= 0.909
F
10 + 1
t (u) + e
(1080)
Thus the probability of escaping the cylinder is just 9.09%.

2. (12 Final #1-20)
(a) What are the average energies at which prompt and delayed fission neutrons are emitted?
Answer: 2 MeV for prompt neutrons, 0.4 MeV for delayed neutrons.
(b) What are the units of real and adjoint flux?
Answer: Real flux has a unit of neutrons per cm2 per second. Adjoint flux is typically unitless.
(c) What is the difference between true and effective downscatter in two-group cross sections?
Answer: True down-scattering cross section s,12 measures the probability of scattering from group
s,12 = s,12 s,21 2 is like combining
1 to group 2. Effective down-scattering cross section
1
flux-weighted up-scattering and down-scattering into one down-scattering term.
(d) What phenomenon is responsible for the 1/v tail of thermal scattering cross sections for isotopes with
constant elastic cross sections at higher energies?
Answer: Thermal motion/thermal vibration of the interaction material.
(e) What is the mean number of isotropic elastic scattering collisions with Livermorium, Lv293
116 , required
to slow neutrons from 1 MeV
to
1.0
eV?

2
A1
ln
ln(E2 /E1 )
Answer: A = 293, =
= 0.986, = 1 +
= 6.8 103 , n =
=
A+1
1
2028.6. Hence it requires 2029 collisions.

366
Lulu Li
(f) What is the average spacing (in eV) of U238 resolved capture resonances?
Answer: 25 eV.
(g) For Einsteinium Es253 in the energe range from 11.102 eV to 99.653 eV, what is the ratio of group
absorption cross section to resonance integral?

E2
Answer: Recall that RIeff and g are related through: RIeff = g ln
, hence the ratio is,
E1
g
1
= = 0.456.
RIeff
ln E2
E1
(h) What is the definition and units of dilution cross section for resonance absorbers?
Answer: Dilusion cross section is defined as,
d =
Nm rm
Nr
(1081)
where Nm , rm are the number density and cross section of the moderating material, and Nr is the
number density of the resonant material. d has the unit of cm2 .
(i) What is the approximate flux disadvantage factor at 0.5 eV for a 17x17 PWR lattice?
Answer: Notice flux disadvantage factor seem to be defined two ways:
The moderator flux over the fuel flux (as in Reuss book, e.g. Fig. 9.4) in which case the flux
disadvantage factor would be about 1.05 for standard fuel, 1.1 for MOX fuel.
The fuel flux over the moderator flux as in Kords lectures, in which case the flux disadvantage
factor would be around 0.9
Hence results within 0.9 to 1.1 receive credits for this problem.
(j) What is the approximate Doppler temperature coefficient in pcm/K in an LWR?
Answer: -3 pcm/K (it is important that the Doppler coefficient is negative), see slide 17, Lecture 10.
(k) What are the two primary sources for the production of Xe135 ?
Answer: Iodine decay (major source), fission/burnup (minor source).
(l) What is resonance escape probability for a material with a resonance integral of 100 barns, a dilution
cross section of 2000 barns, and a mean logarithmic energy decrement of 0.333?
Answer: Recall the expression for resonance escape probability:

RIeff
100b
= 0.861
(1082)
p exp
= exp
d
0.333 2000b
(m) What is Dancoff factor for unclad PWR fuel rods with radius 0.5cm in a voided uniform infinite lattice
with a pitch of 1.99 cm?
Answer: When the moderator is void, that is the opacity is zero, hence Dancoff factor is 1.0.
(n) What is the difference between delayed neutron fraction and delayed neutron yield?
Answer: Absolute delayed neutron yield is the number of delayed neutrons per fission. Relative
delayed neutron yield is the number of delayed neutrons per fission for an isotope divided by number
of delayed neutrons per fission for all isotopes. Delayed neutron fraction is the absolute yield divided
by .
(o) What are the approximate delayed neutron fractions for U235 , U238 , and Pu239 ?
Answer: U235 : 0.00665. U238 : 0.01650. Pu239 : 0.00225.
(p) What is an approximate expression for the extrapolation distance in diffusion theory for one-group
bare homogeneous reactor?
2
2
Answer:
= tr = 2D.
3tr
3
367
Lulu Li
(q) What is an expression for the mean cosine of the scattering angle in the lab system for an isotope with
atomic mass A, if scattering is isotropic in the CM system?
2
Answer: In 3D it would be cos = 0, cos = 3A
.
(r) For dense matrices of size N , what is the order of numerical operations required to find the full matrix
inverse, as N becomes large?
Answer: N 3 .
(s) If an infinite-repeating lattice calculation that is used to produce flux form functions and discontinuity
factors has assembly-averaged flux of 0.9 1013 and an surface-averaged flux of 1.1 1013 , what is
the assembly discontinuity factor (ADF)?
1.1 1013
surface-averaged flux
= 1.22.
=
Answer: Recall that ADF =
asembly-averaged flux
0.9 1013
(t) If two neighboring nodes have ADFs of 1.30 and 1.25 in the thermal group, what is the percentage
discontinuity in homogeneous thermal flux at the shared interface when the nodal diffusion equations
are solved using the NEM method?
HOM
fn
n+1
HOM
Answer: Recall fn HOM
= HET
= HET
=
. Thus the
n
n
n+1 = fn+1 n+1 , then
HOM
f
n+1
n
1.30 1.25
percentage difference in the homogeneous thermal flux is,
= 3.9%.
(1.30 + 1.25)/2
3. (12 Exam 2 #3) What are the approximate values of Xe-135 and Sm-149 capture cross sections at 0.1 eV
and temperature of 300K?
Answer: Xe-135: 2 106 b. Sm-149: 1.15 105 b.
4. (12 Exam 2 #4) Explain the difference between independent and cumulative fission yields for a given
nuclide.
Answer: The independent yield is the yield of a specific isotope directly from fission and nothing else. The
cumulative yield includes the independent yield plus all of the precursor isotopes that decay into a specific
isotope.
5. (12 Exam 2 #5) Definition of dominance ratio for a critical reactor?
368
Lulu Li
27.4
Steady State
1. A PWR typically have a Doppler coefficient of -3 pcm/K.

2. One Group k : in one group k only depends on cross sections k =
The flux is buried in the calculation of cross section.
f
a
and has no flux dependency.
3. Two group k : we start with neutron balance equation:

f 1
f 2
1 a1 1 s12 1 +
2 + s21 2 = 0
k
k
s12 1 s21 2 a2 2 = 0
(1083)
(1084)
Typically what we do is to write it in a matrix form and solve for a coupled system. But even better, we can
define the effective removal rate s12 , and re-write the two-group balance equation:
f 2
f 1
1 a1 1 s12 1 +
2 = 0
k
k
s12 1 a2 2 = 0
(1085)
(1086)
1
Then we can solve for
from the second equation in terms of cross section, plug in the first equation, and
2
get k from there. Notice that we only know the relative magnitude of and 2 .
4. Know Two-group diffusion model: group 1 is the fast group larger than 0.625 eV, and group 2 is the thermal
group.
(a) D1 = 1.5, D2 = 0.5.
(b) Total fission source: 1 = 1.0, 2 = 0.0 implies that the fission source in thermal group is zero,
X
Sf (~r ) = g
f g (~r )g (~r )
(1087)
g
(c) Scattering source: define effective down-scatter, so up-scattering is zero s21 (~r ) = 0.
(d) Final Two-Group Diffusion Equations:
D1 1 + [a1 + s12 ]1 = f 1 1 + f 2 2 + S1
(1088)
D2 2 + a2 2 = s12 1 + S2
(1089)
5. Know the one-group fundamental mode eigenvalues and eigenvectors as in Table 14.

Slab L2 , L2
Sphere [0, R]
Infinite cylinder [0, R]

H
Finite cylinder r [0, R], z H
2, 2

Parallelepiped L2i , L2i

(x) = A cos x
L
sin( r )
(r) = A r R

(r) = AJ0 2.405r
R

(r, z) = AJ0 2.405r
cos z
R
H

y
x
x
(x) = A cos L
cos L
cos L
x
y
z
369
B2 =
B2 =
B2 =
B2 =
B2 =

2
L

2
R

2.405 2
R

2.405 2
2
+ H
R
2 2
+ Ly
Lx
Lz
2
Lulu Li
27.5
2013 Written Qual
1. General Knowledge:
(a) If fuel in an LWR (with a rated power density of 37 W/g of heavy metal) is depleted for 600 EFPD,
what is the fuel burnup in MWd/kg HM?
Answer: Unit conversion:
37 103 MW
600day = 22.2MWd/kg
kg
(1090)
(b) What are the approximate 2200 m/s neutron-induced fission cross section for U235, U238, and Pu239
in barns?
Answer: U235: 500b, U238: 0 (1MeV threshold); Pu238: 700b.
(c) Delayed neutron fraction from fission of U235, U238, and Pu239 in barns?
Answer: U235: 0.0067; U238: 0.015; Pu239: 0.002;
(d) In the attached plots of total cross section, which curve corresponds to each of the following isotopes?
Answer:
Hydrogen: C.
Graphite: E.
Oxygen: F, the lightest resonance material in this problem. It also have that funny dips in the fast
range.
Sodium: G, a weird peak
Iron: D, the next light resonance material, high absorption xs so not a good cladding material.
U235: B, resonances.
Pu239: A, signiture peak at 0.3 eV.
Notes on 1/v low energy range:
The heavier an isotope is, the flatter the curve is (closer to 0K situation).
A & B have huge 1/v tail because they are dominated by absorption.
(e) What are the approximate thermal U235 cumulative fission yield and half-life of I135 and the half-life
of Xe135?
Answer:
2. Modeling Neutron Scattering (20%)
(a) If the elastic scattering cross section for a non-absorbing moderating material has the energy dependence shown below; plot the flux spectrum (first vs. energy and second vs. lethargy) that would be
observed between 10 MeV and 10 eV, when a mono-energetic source of neutrons is introduced at 20
MeV into an infinite medium of moderator with A=155 and a density of 2g/cc.
Answer: Insert plots.
(b) Neutrons are introduced at 200eV in an infinite medium of A=1, purely isotropic scattering, 0K,
monatomic gas that has a xs of 20,000 barns and a density of 10g/cc. What is the mean number of
collisions that neutrons have in scattering below 10eV?
Answer: Notice we are given way more information than needed. All we need is , .
(c) If the gas of problem 2b also contains an uniformly distributed 0.1g/cc, A=100, resonance absorber
that has zero xs at all energies except between 150 and 180eV, where it has an infinite absorption and
4,000 barn isotropic elastic cross sections. What is the approximate probability that source neutrons
will scatter below 10eV?
Answer: Remember that the P (E E 0 ) = flat. First generation, neutrons start from 200 eV,
30
; second generation, approximate the born energy
probability of falling into the black absorber is 200
30
to be 190 eV, the probability of falling into black absorber is 190
.
370
Lulu Li
3. Modeling Resonances (15%)

(a) A resonance absorber of 0.01g/cc and A=100 (having a square resonance abs xs of 100,000 barns)
is homogeneously mixed with 1g/cc, constant 5barn purely elastic scattering moderator with A=2.
Using the narrow resonance approximation, what is the ratio of neutron flux (per unit lethargy) in the
resonance to the flux (per unit lethargy) just above the resonance?
m Nm
d + po
, d =
.
Answer: (u) =
d + po + R
Nr
(b) If the effective resonance integral for the material in problem 3a is 1000 barns, what is resonance
escape probability?
RI
Answer: p = e d .
(c) An infinite 2D array of bare fuel pins containing 0.01g/cc, A=238, resonance absorber, is immersed
in pure scattering moderator with a fuel-to-moderator ratio of 1:2. At 6.67 eV, m = 0.5cm1 and
the resonance absorber has 100,000 barn scattering and 50,000 barn capture xs. If the probability that
a 6.67 eV neutron born in the fuel will have its next collision in fuel is 0.95, what is the probability
that a 6.67 eV neutron scattered in the moderator will have its next collision in the fuel pin?
Answer: Reciprocity relation.
4. Diffusion Theory for Reactor Analysis (30%): know k means k =
f
a
(a) Find k for fuel.

Answer:
(b) Perform a critically buckled energy-independent spectrum calculation to determine the fast-to-thermal
flux ratio of fuel.
Answer:
(c) Using the infinite medium flux spectrum from part b, compute effective one-group cross sections and
k for fuel by preserving reaction and leakage rates.
Answer:
(d) Fuel is used to construct a critical core of 1D slab reactor surrounded by a 1cm thick baffle and a 40cm
reflector. Using the same infinite medium flux spectrum from part b, collapse 1G baffle and reflector
xs, and then use this data to approximate critical core thickness L.
Answer: In 1G, the baffles
(e) Using 2-group cross section data and the proceding critical 1D reactor geometrical model, derive the
equation for the thermal flux distribution in the reflector, and compute the distance into the reflector
at which the thermal flux peaks.
Answer: Thermal flux at the left interface of the reflector is 0, source is fast group decaying flux. In
fact we dont even need the magnitude of the fast flux to get where the thermal flux peaks.
5. Transient Reactor Analysis (20%)
(a) Write the PKE with six delayed neutron groups.
Answer:
(b) Derive the in-hour equation from the PKE, explain all approximations.
Answer:
(c) Which isotope dominates the longest-lived delayed neutrons precursor group and approximately what
is its half-life?
Answer: Br, 55s.
(d) What is the mean energy at which delayed neutrons are emitted folllowing a thermal neutron induced
fission of U235?
Answer:
371
Lulu Li
(e) If = 200 milli-beta of reactivity is introduced into a critical reactor, what is approximate magnitude of the prompt drop in core power?
Answer:
(f) The Fuchs-Nordheim prompt reactivity excursion model predicts that the fuel temperature at the peak
of the power excursion can be expressed in terms of the Doppler feedback coefficient T =
+
T 0 . What is the Fuchs-Nordheim expression for fuel temperature at the end of the prompt reactivity
excursion?
Answer:
(g) If an LWR is on a positive 10s asymptotic period, what is the approximate core reactivity in dollars
(using a one delayed neutron group model with a precursor half-life of 10s)?
Answer:
6. Numerical Methods in Reactor Analysis (5%): an engineer sets up a 2-group, finite-difference, diffusion
model of a 1D reactor that has the following cross sections?
Answer:
372

All 2

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

All 2

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Lulu Li <lululi@mit.

Infinite Medium Monte Carlo Basics

Infinite Medium Resonance Basics

Infinite Medium Resonance Cross Section Models

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

Finite Medium Spatial Self-Shielding: Two Region Approximations

Intro to 2D Transport: Three Methods for Solving Pin Cell Problems

Exam 1 Review: Spectral Calculation

Intro to Diffusion Theory

One-Group Diffusion: Non-Multiplying Medium with No Source

10 One-Group Diffusion: Multiplying Medium

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

11 One-Group Diffusion: Criticality Problem

12 Multi-Group Diffusion Derivations

13 Two-Group Finite Difference Diffusion

14 Matrix Representation of 1D Slab Diffusion Equations

15 Fission Product Poisoning

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

16.9 Depletion Code: ORIGIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

18 Point Kinetics Without Feedback

19 Point Kinetics With Feedbacks

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

20 Nodal Diffusion Methods

23 Adjoint Fluxes, Perturbation Theory

24 LWR Core Design and Optimization

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

24.5.3 Operational Analysis, Reactivity Control . . .

25 Exam 3 Review: Dynamics & Kinetics

26 Review: Multi-dimensional Diffusion

27 Qualify Exam Recap

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

Flux vs. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

Power Iteration With Gauss-Jacobi Numerical Inversion of Matrix . . . . . . . .

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

Operator Splitting: Iteration Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012 - May 23, 2012

Topics Covered in This Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012

Continuous energy derivation

Multi group: derivation, numerical

Table 1: Topics Covered in This Class

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012

Example 1: Estimate the Mean Free Path of a Fission Neutron in an LWR

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012

Example 2: Estimate Prompt Neutron Lifetime

Example 3: Estimate Fast & Thermal Fluxes in an LWR

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012

Summary: Reuss Ch 1 History

1. Carnot efficiency rmax = 1

Summary: Reuss Ch 2 Intro to Nuclear Physics

ac AZ1/3 + ap A1/2 . Even-even: = 1; odd-odd,

22.211 Class Notes: February 8, 2012

Table 2: Main Reactions Undergone By Neutrons

22.211 Class Notes: February 13, 2012

Summary: Reuss Ch 3 Intro to Neutron Physics

Operators associated with the Boltzmann equation (3.2.3).

22.211 Class Notes: February 13, 2012

Infinite Medium Monte Carlo Basics

where E 0 [E, E]. In lethargy

Summary: Reuss Ch 7 Neutron Slowing Down

22.211 Class Notes: February 13, 2012

Table 3: Slowing Down parameters