Comparison of irradiated foil measurements with activation calculations and HPGe simulations
- 116 Downloads
Theoretical activation calculations for Fe, Ni, and stainless steel foils were compared against irradiated foil measurements from a critical assembly. Calculated/experiment values spanning 0.62–1.31 showed that the restricted approach used here is insufficient for experiment planning, with the collapsed cross-section being the primary source of error. The effect of decay time on gamma-ray spectroscopy measurement reliability was investigated using a Monte Carlo HPGe detector model. Simulations showed no correlation with decay time, absent interferences. Specific interferences for Fe-59 (Ni) and Co-60 (stainless steel) activation product ratios suggested optimal measurement windows having respective decay times of 9–11 days and 4–7 days.
KeywordsMCNP Gamma-ray spectroscopy Neutron activation HPGe model Critical assembly
This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
- 5.Planning guidance for response to a nuclear detonation 2nd ed., Radiation Emergency Medical Management, National Library of Medicine. https://www.remm.nlm.gov/PlanningGuidanceNuclearDetonation.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2017
- 11.Chart of the Nuclides Database, National Nuclear Data Center. http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/. Accessed 19 May 2017
- 13.Material Analysis Sheet. Shieldwerx. http://www.shieldwerx.com/activation-foils.html. Accessed 20 June 2017
- 14.Stainless Steel—AISI 304—Foil, Goodfellow Corporation. http://www.goodfellow.com. Accessed 13 May 2017
- 15.Brewer R et al (2016) Uranium-235 Sphere reflected by normal uranium using flattop. International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments NEA/NSC/DOC/(95)03/IIGoogle Scholar
- 16.Keith C et al (2017) Report on Activation Product Interpretation for Critical Assemblies. LA-CP-17-20209Google Scholar
- 17.Gunnink R, Niday JB (1972) Computerized Quantitative Analysis by Gamma-ray Spectroscopy (GAMANAL), Vol. 1-4, UCRL-51061Google Scholar
- 18.Coursey J et al. atomic weights and isotopic compositions with relative atomic masses. NIST Physical Measurement Laboratory. https://www.nist.gov/pml/atomic-weights-and-isotopic-compositions-relative-atomic-masses. Accessed 5 June 2017
- 19.Koning A et al. TENDL-2015: TALYS-based evaluated nuclear data library. https://tendl.web.psi.ch/tendl_2015/tendl2015.html. Accessed 23 May 2017
- 21.Rooney B et al (2015) PeakEasy 4.84. Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-CC-13-040. https://PeakEasy.lanl.gov
- 22.OECD/NEA Data Bank (2014) JEFF-3.2 evaluated nuclear data library. http://www.oecd-nea.org/dbforms/data/eva/evatapes/jeff_32/