Cross sections for the fission of235U and239Pu by 2-, 24-, 55-, and 144-keV neutrons

Zhuravlev, K.D.; Kroshkin, N.I.; Karin, L.V.

doi:10.1007/bf01119709

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…magnet) [59] and by design of the measurement at large (design) [60,67,80]. The remaining background is often measured [25,29,32,33,36,38,41,43,45,46,49,51,52,56,57,60,61,63,65,66,68,79,80]. Some of these measurements are with sample out (Sample out) [43,49,71,75], use various monochromatic filters (monomchrom.…”

Section: Sub-process: Determining C B1 and C B2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…filt.) [51], are time-of-flight measurements (TOF) [37,61] or use the black resonance filter technique (BRF) [51][52][53]56,57,66,68,69,71,74,75,78,79]. The background corrections, C b1 and C b2 , are also identified by pulse-height discrimination (PHD) [30,[36][37][38][39]43,45,46,[48][49][50]52,59,61,[65][66][67]70,75], calculated [36,60,68] (in some cases via Monte Carlo simulation [33]) or estimated by fitting a curve to measured data (fit) [41,57].…”

Section: Sub-process: Determining C B1 and C B2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…cor.) [32], an oil bath [36], indirect Boron pile measurements [36], α-monitors (α-monitor) [39,53], monochromatic filters [51], stacked target irradiation (STTA) [56], coincidence measurements (COINC) [56], silicon surface barrier detector measurement (SSBD) [60], method of slowing-down-time in lead cube (SLODT) [67,79], methods using scandium, iron and silicon filters (FNB) [51] and using unspecified filters [78] were used to determine E. The energy was calculated in a few cases [43,61].…”

Section: Sub-process: Determining Ementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validating nuclear data uncertainties obtained from a statistical analysis of experimental data with the “Physical Uncertainty Bounds” method

Neudecker

White

Vaughan

et al. 2020

EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns within the nuclear data community led to substantial increases of Neutron Data Standards (NDS) uncertainties from its previous to the current version. For example, those associated with the NDS reference cross section 239Pu(n,f) increased from 0.6–1.6% to 1.3–1.7% from 0.1–20 MeV. These cross sections, among others, were adopted, e.g., by ENDF/B-VII.1 (previous NDS) and ENDF/B-VIII.0 (current NDS). There has been a strong desire to be able to validate these increases based on objective criteria given their impact on our understanding of various application uncertainties. Here, the “Physical Uncertainty Bounds” method (PUBs) by Vaughan et al. is applied to validate evaluated uncertainties obtained by a statistical analysis of experimental data. We investigate with PUBs whether ENDF/B-VII.1 or ENDF/B-VIII.0 239Pu(n,f) cross-section uncertainties are more realistic given the information content used for the actual evaluation. It is shown that the associated conservative (1.5–1.8%) and minimal realistic (1.1–1.3%) uncertainty bounds obtained by PUBs enclose ENDF/B-VIII.0 uncertainties and indicate that ENDF/B-VII.1 uncertainties are underestimated.

show abstract