22.

01 Fall 2015, Problem Set 7 (Normal Version)

Due: November 20, 11:59PM on Stellar

December 11, 2015

Complete all the assigned problems, and do make sure to show your intermediate work. Please upload your
full problem set in PDF form on the Stellar site. Make sure to upload your work at least 15 minutes early,
to account for computer/network issues.

1 Conceptual/Analytical Questions
1. Explain, using your knowledge of criticality (the four and six factor formulas) and nuclear reactions,
why water makes a fantastic moderator.
Water is an excellent moderator, due to a combination o1 - of its nuclear (cross section)
and thermal-hydraulic
o - properties. Hydrogen H has quite a low cross section, while
oxygen 16 O has the lowest capture cross section of any element. In addition, the high
density of hydrogen in water means that most collisions that happen have the potential
to immediately slow down neutrons in an elastic collision, making them skip over the
high-absorbance resonance energy regions. It is also generally non-corrosive, has a huge
heat of vaporization (good for heat transfer), and has one of the highest heat capacities
flui Its low viscosity also makes it great for pumping around a reactor with low
of any fluid.
frictional losses.

(a) What could you do to the reactor to increase moderation without changing the coolant?
There are a few ways: (1) Have more of it there (increase moderator to everything
else ratio), (2) Make the water denser by cooling it down, (3) suppress boiling (which
would lower the moderator density) by increasing the system pressure, like in a
pressurized water reactor (PWR).
(b) Can you think of a material that would moderate neutrons better than water, and why?
l’s moderating power is a function of how much is there, and its value of
A material’s
α, or how much it can slow neutrons down. Therefore, finding finding a way to increase the
hydrogen density, like by using liquid hydrogen (not very feasible) or using a solid
metal-hydride (much more feasible) could pack more hydrogen into a tighter space.
(c) For what reasons do some reactors (such as CANDU reactors) use heavy water as a moderator
instead of light water? What disadvantages does it have?
Looking at the absorption (n, γ) cross sections of H2 O vs. D2 O, one can see that while
normal water may be a more effective
ff moderator per se, normal water has a thermal
absorption cross section of 0.11 b, while heavy water has a thermal cross section
of 0.05 b. This means that heavy water absorbs fewer neutrons, which allows the
enrichment of the fuel in the CANDU reactors to be low, even being able to use
natural uranium! Its main disadvantages are (1) it creates tritium, a very radioactive
isotope of hydrogen, and (2) it is very expensive compared to normal water.
235
2. Consider the fission of U in these questions:

1
(a) Analyze the likelihood of forming each of these fission products, by computing the Q-values of the
nuclear reactions that form each of these fission products by a thermal neutron: 8 Be, 16 O, 32 S,
64
Zn, 128 Te. How do these compare to the fission product yields in figure 12.12?
The following reactions were found using the KAERI table of nuclides, assuming that
each takes the following form:
1 235
0n +92 U → 210 n + F P1 + F P2 + γ (1)

First Product Second Product Q (M eV )

8 226
Be Ra 4.2
16 220
O Rn 29.2
32 208
S Os N/A
64 170
Zn Sm N/A
128 106
Te Zr 181.5
None of the reactions shown here are likely, except for the tellurium-based one. The
first
first two have positive Q-values, but are extremely unlikely because the unequal nuclei
of the fission
fission products would have to overcome the strong-force barrier keeping them
together. The last reaction is quite likely, as the two fission
fission products are located
near the maxima of Figure 12.12, the fission
fission product distribution graph for U-235.
(b) For the case where one of the fission products is 128 Te, what is the average kinetic energy of the
neutrons emitted following fission? You may assume that all the daughter products, including the
neutrons, are emitted at equal angles from each other. For example, if two neutrons are emitted,
the four daughters leave the compound nucleus at 90 degrees.
For this problem we will assume that the fission fission products and neutrons all leave
at 90 degrees to each other. We will also assume that each carries away an equal
amount of momentum, therefore it actually doesn’t esn’t matter which particles exit in
which direction! In both cases:

pn = pZr ≈ pT e (2)

We also know that the total kinetic energy of all particles must equal the Q-value,
ignoring gammas, neutrinos, and anything else:

Q = Tn1 + Tn2 + TZr + TT e (3)

Let us also assume that each set of one neutron and one fi
fission product has about
half the kinetic energy of the whole equation:
Q
= Tn1 + TZr (4)
2
Using Equation 2, we can construct an equation relating the kinetic energies of the
two particles:
mn Tn
p2 = 2mT ; 2mn Tn = 2mZr TZr ; TZr = (5)
mZr
Substitute this into Equation 4:

Q mn Tn Q mn Q mZr
= Tn + ; = Tn 1 + ; Tn = ≈ 89.9 M eV (6)
2 mZr 2 mZr 2 mn + mZr

This means that simple conservation of energy and momentum does NOT explain the
neutron’s true energy of 1-10 MeV. Thinking back to the sequence of events occurring
in fission,
fission, first
first two very asymmetric fission
fission products are made, which then quickly
decay by neutron emission.

2
 3. For these questions, consider the ability to induce fission in 84 Kr, and look through the ENDF/B-VII.1
cross sections in the JANIS cross section database:

(a) Calculate the incoming neutron energy needed to induce the reaction of 84 Kr that releases one
neutron at the least excited state (n,n’1, MT=51). Compare this with the energy at which the
cross section for fission releasing one neutron begins from the JANIS database.
The incoming neutron energy needed to induce the reaction of Kr­84 needed to
release one neutron from the excited state is just the lowest­possible Q­value for
inelastic scattering. Looking up the excited states1 of Kr­84, we see that the first first
excited state is 881.6 keV. Looking up the first first non­zero cross section energy in the
Janis database, we see an energy of 892.5 keV. This could be due to energy level
splitting, as the two neutrons at this energy would have differen
different spins, and therefore
differen actual energy states.
slightly different
(b) Repeat your analysis for emission reactions producing one neutron from more and more excited
states (these are the reactions that look like (n,n’15)). Using JANIS, graph the maximum cross
section vs. the neutron’s energy state, and the energy of non-zero cross section vs. excited state.
What patterns do you see, and how can you explain the deviations you see in these patterns?
Here is the graph of all the relevant cross sections:

The following table of values can be extracted from this data:

1 S. I. Sukhoruchkin, Z. N. Soroko. Excited Nuclear States for Kr-84 (Krypton). Chapter Nuclei with Z =

30 - 47, Volume 25B of the series Landolt-Börnstein - Group I Elementary Particles, Nuclei and Atoms pp
1390-1399, Springer (2012).

3
 Excited State Emin (Me)V σmax (b)
1 0.892 0.813
2 1.858 0.107
3 1.923 0.340
4 2.127 0.180
5 2.383 0.138
6 2.678 0.156
7 2.751 0.093
8 2.808 0.097
9 2.823 0.137
10 3.107 0.110
11 3.278 0.043
12 3.393 0.045
13 3.542 0.032
14 3.633 0.038
15 3.712 0.021
16 3.784 0.031
We can see that the energy required to eject more and more excited neutrons con­
tinues to increase, while the cross section for the same reaction decreases. This is
because higher excitation states are less stable, being farther from the ground state.

4. Explain why delayed neutrons are the key to controlled neutron reactivity. Also explain why fast
reactors are inherently more difficult to control.
Without a small fraction of delayed neutrons, the chain reaction would proceed with a
very, very fast period. Having a fraction of delayed neutrons allows one to have a critical
reactor, while allowing some modicum of control. It also takes some time for the neutrons
to slow down, meaning that fast reactors (which don’t require the neutrons to slow down)
are inherently faster feedback compared to thermal energy reactors.

2 Designing Effective Shielding

Your job is to design effective shielding for the MIT nuclear reactor, knowing that fission products decay
with all manners of different mechanisms.
1. State which class of materials are best for shielding beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, and neutrons,
and state why using your knowledge of cross sections and stopping power.
Just about everything shields beta particles, as their stopping power is by far the highest
of all the particles mentioned here. They also originate in the fission fission products in the
fuel, and the fuel itself provides adequate shielding. Gamma rays can only be effectiv effectively
shielded by dense, high­Z materials. Therefore, lead and concrete are the best here: lead
for its high­Z and inexpensiveness, concrete for its high density and great inexpensiveness.
X­rays are more easily shielded than gamma rays, but proceed according to the same
mechanisms: all three photon effect effect cross sections (photoelectric, Compton scattering,
pair production) scale very strongly with increasing Z. Neutrons are all born fast inside
the reactor, and therefore must be slowed down. Any hydrogen­dense material is most
suitable for slowing down (moderating) the neutrons, at which point a strong thermal
neutron absorber can consume them. Water is an excellent shield, as it has the highest
moderating power and a non­negligible thermal capture cross section. Then, putting a
strong absorber like boron in the way will absorb the neutrons. Plastics like RecoRad,
a borated PVC, contain high densities of both hydrogen and boron to moderate and
absorb, respectively.

4
 2. What layers of shielding between the fuel and experimentalists outside the reactor will shield against
all potential types of radiation, and in which order? Consider types of radiation produced when others
interact with some of the layers of shielding. Estimate the required thicknesses of shielding in each
case to remove 99.99% of the radiation emanating from the reactor.
Assuming that the water and concrete block almost all the fast neutrons from escaping,
the only particles that will escape are high-energy gamma rays. The following shielding
exists in the MIT reactor, intentionally or not, to block the following types of radiation:
Layer Composition Mostly Blocks Reason Produces
Fuel/Cladding U/Al α, β − High stopping power x-rays (ionization by β − & γ)
Coolant H2 O Fast neutrons Excellent moderator Not much
Reflector D2 O Fast neutrons Good moderator and reflector β − from 3 H decay (neutron capture)
Shielding Concrete γ, x-rays Thick, dense material x-rays, mostly self-shielded
Assuming that only gamma rays escape the inner three layers, we can set up the simple
attenuation equation to calculate the required thickness of concrete shielding to attenuate
most of the gamma rays:
I µ
= 0.0001 = e−( ρ )ρx (7)
I0
Using the NIST tables of x-ray attenuation coefficientseffici for ordinary concrete, and as­
suming an average gamma ray energy of 1 MeV, and assuming s a fully dense concrete
g µ cm2
efficien of ρ ≈ 0.1 g . Solving for the con­
density of 2.5 cm3 , we get an attenuation coefficient
crete thickness, we get x = 36.8 cm.. This assumes that attenuating 99.99% of the gammas
brings the dose down to a reasonable level. From seeing the concrete at the MIT reactor,
which is 1-2 meters thick, this is probably not the actual case.
3. Given your shielding array in the previous question, what would happen in terms of radiation exposure

if the water in the MIT reactor were to boil away? Assume that the reactor continues producing

neutrons for some time.

If the water were to boil away, the people in the reactor building would be subject to a
huge dose from fast neutrons. Cross sections for all reactions for fast neutrons are very
low, in the 0.1-10 barn region, meaning that many fast neutrons will escape the reactor.
The concrete shielding, which contains lots of water in its structure (it is typically 15-20
percent water), will function as the primary neutron moderator in this case.

3 Applied Questions
For these questions, consider the MIT reactor in its critical state, and the various experiments that we do
with it. Here is a cross section of the relevant parts of the MIT reactor:
What would be the effect of each of the following changes on the reactor’s criticality, and which of the
terms in the six factor formula would be affected? Explain why, using your knowledge of neutron absorption
and leakage, and how they affect criticality.
For all these questions, we refer to the six factor formula:
kef f = η p f E P P
'FNL 'FNL 'FNL 'FNL 'FNL ' FFNN LL ' TFNN LL
M ultiplication f actor N eutrons per f issionResonance escapeF uel utilizationF ast f ission f actor F ast non−leakageT hermal non−leakage
(8)
1. Passing silicon ingots through the reactor, to dope them with phosphorus by transmutation
Decreases resonance escape a little bit, by introducing an element with a higher cross
section and more resonances than water (which has almost none) in place of water.
May decrease fuel utilization a bit, by putting something new in the reactor.
Decreases fast and thermal non-leakage, by replacing a good moderator with an OK one
wherever the Si ingots are. Fast non-leakage is decreased more, as thermal neutrons don’t
leak out much anyway.
Overall effect:
effect: Decrease keff

5
2. Inserting a small piece of stainless steel directly in the core of the reactor
Decreases resonance escape. If stainless steel is put in place of water, then the overall
reactor moderates less, making the spectrum a bit harder (faster).
Decreases fuel utilization, because elements in the stainless steel (particularly nickel) have
high absorption (n, γ) cross sections. This means more absorptions happen in places other
than the fuel.
Decreases fast non-leakage, by adding low-lethargy (ineffecti (ineffective) neutron moderator in the
core. Does not change thermal non-leakage, as thermal neutrons in the center of the core
will never make it to the outside.
Overall effect:
effect: Decrease keff
3. Replacing the coolant with liquid sodium
Greatly decreases resonance escape, as sodium is a far worse moderator compared to
water. We neglect the change in sodium’s dium’s capture cross section compared to water, as
dium’s capture cross section is incredibly low.
sodium’s
Can increase fuel utilization, because the lower absorption of sodium compared to water
means fewer neutrons are absorbed in the coolant. May decrease fuel utilization, as more
of the absorption events happen in the resonance regions of other materials (structural,
cladding, etc.) because the neutrons stay faster (higher energy).
Decreases fast non-leakage, as more neutrons stay faster and can scatter out to escape.
Likely increases thermal non-leakage, as the overall, averaged thermal absorption cross
section for the reactor is lower at about 0.025 eV (0.5 b) compared to water (1.1 b). Overall
effect
effect of non-leakage is stronger on fast neutrons, as there are more of them with sodium
coolant.
effect: Decrease keff , assuming the MIT reactor geometry is held constant. One
Overall effect:
would need tighter fuel spacing and a reflector
reflector or something to keep the fast neutrons in
and fully utilized.
4. Closing all the beamports which let neutrons out for experiments
Increases fast and thermal non-leakage, by reflecting
reflecting some of those neutrons back instead

of letting them all leak out.

effect: Increase keff , but not by very much at all.

Overall effect:
5. Raising the temperature of the coolant by 30 Kelvin
The principal change here is the decrease in number density by the thermal expansion of
everything in the core. The secondary effecteffect is spreading of the resonance regions due to
Doppler broadening, though this aspect wasn’t on’t be graded.
asn’t discussed in class and won’t
Decreases resonance escape probability by Doppler broadening, but slightly increases res­
onance escape by lowering the Σa , specifically
ecifically by lowering the number density.
Decreases fuel utilization, because if the number density of the fuel decreases, more neu­
trons escape the core without hitting the fuel. A more complete answer would look at
the change in total capture cross section resonance areas compared to fission
fission cross section
resonance areas, but that’s a topic for 22.05!
May change the fast fission
fission factor, for the same reason noted in the line above.
Decreases both fast and thermal non-leakage, by lowering the number density (and there­
fore total coolant mass) for a fixed
fixed geometry core.
effect: Decrease keff , because one should have negative temperature feedback
Overall effect:
efficien
coefficients!
6. Increasing the enrichment of the fuel
Actually decreases neutrons per fissionfissi a bit over time, as there is less U-238 to produce

Pu-239, which has a higher ν of about 2.9 compared to U-235’s ν = 2.44.

Probably changes resonance escape, as U-235 and U-238 have different differen resonances and

areas. Would have to do a complete resonance integral to figure figure this out. Then again,

fission cross sections also have resonances, which may help in this case.

the fission
fission.
Greatly increases fuel utilization, as more absorption events directly result in fission.

6
Increases fast fission
fission factor a bit, as U-238 has a lower fast fission
fission cross section compared
to U-235. Then again, the amount of Pu-239 in the core at any time will change this too,
in a time-dependent way.
Decreases fast and thermal non-leakage, as capture & fission
fission cross sections for U-235 are
higher than U-238.
effect: Increases keff , as generally higher fission
Overall effect: fission to capture cross section ratio and
more fissile
fissile vs. fertile fuel mean that more neutrons are created per neutron entering
any atom in the core.

7
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.01 Introduction to Nuclear Engineering and Ionizing Radiation

Fall 2015

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.