Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 297, Issue 3, pp 371–375 | Cite as

Experimental evaluation of epithermal neutron self-shielding for 96Zr and 98Mo

  • F. Farina Arboccò
  • P. Vermaercke
  • L. Verheyen
  • K. Strijckmans
Article

Abstract

In a previous work we experimentally tested some neutron self-shielding calculations methods for thermal absorbers, from which the semi-empirical “sigmoid method” gave the most accurate results. In this work we aim at evaluating the accuracy of this method on the epithermal self-shielding phenomena as compared to the analytical “MatSSF method”. Metallic foils of Zr and Mo were compactly stacked together into small cylinders (or disks) of different thickness, allowing for up to 20 % epithermal self-shielding when irradiated on two channels of the BR1 reactor. A 2 % relative difference between calculated and experimental self-shielding factors was obtained from the MatSSF method when a perpendicular source-sample axial configuration was assumed, while the isotropic or the co-axial configuration alternatives gave up to 10 % relative differences. On the other hand, the sigmoid method gave relative differences of up to 6 % that can be reduced to just 2 % by applying the “effective” epithermal absorption cross-sections for 98Mo and 96Zr proposed in this work.

Keywords

Neutron self-shielding Resonances Neutron absorption Bell factor Effective epithermal absorption cross-sections Sigmoid method MatSSF method 

JEL classification

C20 C30 C60 C61 C63 C90 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work would have not been possible without the technical support from the reactor staff: I. Verwimp, B. Van Houdt, P. Vandycke, S. Van Bijlen and J. Leeuws and their skillful assistance during the irradiations.

References

  1. 1.
    Žerovnik G, Trkov A, Snoj L, Ravnik M (2009) Nucl Instr Method A 610(2):553–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    IAEA (2009) MATSSF Program. Vienna. http://www-nds.iaea.org/naa/matssf/. Accessed 10 Aug 2010
  3. 3.
    Goncalves IF, Salgado J, Martinho E (2004) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 260(2):317–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goncalves IF, Martinho E, Salgado J (2004) Nucl Instr Method B 213:186–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kennedy G, Chilian C, St-Pierre J (2006) Nucl Instr Method A 564(2):629–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chilian C, St-Pierre J, Kennedy G (2008) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 278(3):745–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farina Arboccò F, Vermaercke P, Sneyers L, Strijckmans K (2012) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 291(2):529–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kennedy G, Chilian C, Jaćimović R, Žerovnik G, Snoj L, Trkov A (2012) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 291(2):555–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Farina Arboccò
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Vermaercke
    • 2
  • L. Verheyen
    • 2
  • K. Strijckmans
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Analytical ChemistryGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.k0-INAA LaboratorySCK-CEN, Belgian Nuclear Research CentreMolBelgium

Personalised recommendations