Calculation of Excitation Function of Some Structural Fusion Material for (n, p) Reactions up to 25 MeV
 898 Downloads
 3 Citations
Abstract
Fusion serves an inexhaustible energy for humankind. Although there have been significant research and development studies on the inertial and magnetic fusion reactor technology, Furthermore, there are not radioactive nuclear waste problems in the fusion reactors. In this study, (n, p) reactions for some structural fusion materials such as ^{27}Al, ^{51}V, ^{52}Cr, ^{55}Mn and ^{56}Fe have been investigated. The new calculations on the excitation functions of ^{27} Al(n, p) ^{27} Mg, ^{51} V(n, p) ^{51} Ti, ^{52} Cr(n, p) ^{52} V, ^{55} Mn(n, p) ^{55} Cr and ^{56} Fe(n, p) ^{56} Mn reactions have been carried out up to 30 MeV incident neutron energy. Statistical model calculations, based on the Hauser–Feshbach formalism, have been carried out using the TALYS1.0 and were compared with available experimental data in the literature and with ENDF/BVII, T = 300 K; JENDL3.3, T = 300 K and JEFF3.1, T = 300 K evaluated libraries.
Keywords
(n, p) crosssection Excitation function Nuclear reactions TALYS1.0Introduction
The experimental crosssections can be extensively used for the investigation of the structural materials of the fusion reactors, radiation damage of metals and alloys, tritium breeding ratio, neutron multiplication and nuclear heating in the components, neutron spectrum, and reaction rate in the blanket and neutron dosimetry [1, 2, 3, 4]. And also these obtained data are necessary to develop more nuclear theoretical calculation models in order to explain nuclear reaction mechanisms [5, 6, 7, 8]. These nuclear reaction models are frequently needed to provide the estimation of the particleinduced reaction crosssections, especially if the experimental data are not obtained or on which they are hopeless to measure the cross–sections; due to the experimental difficulty. So the crosssection evaluation for materials irradiated by neutrons attaches special importance to use of systematics of neutron induced reaction crosssection. Such predictions can guide the design of the target/blanket configurations and can reduce engineering over design costs.
The nuclear physics community has developed tools for specific applications, such as accelerator driven systems, which can shed light on the many approximations in nuclear applications. One of these tools is the modern reaction code called TALYS [9, 10, 11, 12]. TALYS is a software for the simulation of nuclear reactions, which includes many stateof theart nuclear models to cover all main reaction mechanisms encountered in light particleinduced nuclear reactions. TALYS provides a complete description of all reaction channels and observables and in particular takes into account all types of direct, preequilibrium, and compound mechanisms to estimate the total reaction probability as well as the competition between the various open channels. The code is optimized for incident projectile energies, ranging from 1 keV up to 200 MeV on target nuclei with mass numbers between 12 and 339. It includes photon, neutron, proton, deuteron, triton, 3 He, and particles as both projectiles and ejectiles, and singleparticle as well as multiparticle emissions and fission. All experimental information on nuclear masses, deformation, and lowlying states spectra is considered, whenever available. If not, various local and global input models have been incorporated to represent the nuclear structure properties, optical potentials, level densitiesray strengths, and fission properties. The TALYS code was designed to calculate total and partial cross sections, residual and isomer production cross sections, discrete and continuumray production cross sections, energy spectra, angular distributions, doubledifferential spectra, as well as recoil cross sections.
Neutron irradiation produces significant changes in the mechanical and physical properties of each of structural fusion material systems raising feasibility questions and design limitations. A focus of the research and development effort is to understand these effects, and through the development of specific compositions and microstructures, produce materials with improved and adequate performance [9, 10]. ^{27}Al, ^{51}V, ^{52}Cr, ^{55}Mn and ^{56}Fe nuclei are the some structural fusion materials [11, 12]. Nuclear data evaluation is generally carried out on the basis of experimental data and theoretical model calculations. It is both physically and economically impossible to measure necessary crosssection for all the isotopes in the periodic table for a wide range of energies. Therefore model calculations play an important role in the evaluation of nuclear data [13, 14, 15]. In the present paper, by using equilibrium and preequilibrium reaction mechanisms, the (n, p) reactions for some structural fusion materials were investigated up to 25 MeV.
Nuclear reaction model
Over the level density \( \rho (E_{y} ,J,II) \), at an energy E _{ y }, spin J, and parity II in the CN or residual nucleus.

The first one is related to the reaction mechanism, i.e. the model of formation and deexcitation of the CN itself. Reaction mechanisms have compound, preequilibrium, and direct components. The compound formation is described by the HF theory.

Another type of uncertainty comes from the evaluation of the nuclear quantities required for calculating the transmission coefficients in Eqs. (1)–(4), i.e. the ground and excited state properties (masses, deformations, matter densities, excited state energies, spins, and parities, …), nuclear level densitiesray strength, optical model potential, and fission properties. When not available experimentally, this information has to be derived from nuclear models. Ideally, when dealing with nuclear applications, the various nuclear ingredients should be determined from global, universal, and microscopic models. The large number of nuclides involved in the modeling of some nucleosynthesis mechanisms implies that global models should be used. On the other hand, a universal description of all nuclear properties within a unique framework for all nuclei involved in a nuclear network ensures the essential coherence of predictions for all unknown data. Finally, a microscopic description provided by a physically sound theory based on first principles ensures extrapolations away from experimentally known energy or mass regions that are likely to be more reliable than predictions derived from more or less parameterized approaches of various types and levels of sophistication.
This is true even as new generations of such models are starting to be developed to compete with more phenomenological highlyparameterized models for the reproduction of experimental data [23, 24, 25, 26] Only a few reaction model codes adopt the largest possible extent of global and coherent microscopic (or at least semimicroscopic) models.
Briefly, the TALYS1.0 code (equilibrium and preequilibrium) is optimized for incident projectile energies ranging from 1 keV up to 200 MeV on target nuclei, with mass numbers between 12 and 339. It includes photon, neutron, proton, deuteron, triton, ^{3}He and αparticles, as well as projectiles and ejectiles and singleparticle and multiparticle emissions and fission. Equilibrium and preequilibrium particle emissions during the decay process of a CN are very important for a better understanding of the nuclear reaction mechanism induced by medium energy particles. The highly excited nuclear system produced by charged particles’ first decays by emitting fast nucleons at the preequilibrium (PE) stage and, later on, by the emission of lowenergy nucleons at the equilibrium (EQ) stage [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30].
Results and Discussions
^{27}Al(n, p)^{27}Mg Reaction
The experimental points are between 2 and 21 MeV, there is no experimental value between 21 and 25 MeV. ENDF/BVI, JENDL3.3 and JEFF3.1 files are in agreement with each other. There is excellent agreement between the crosssection calculated with TALYS1.0 and the experimental data.
^{51}V(n, p)^{51}Ti Reaction
The experimental points are between 1 and 25 MeV, ENDF/BVI and JENDL3.3 files are in agreement with each other. There is good agreement between the crosssection between 13 and 25 MeV calculated with TALYS1.0 and the experimental data.
^{55}Mn(n, p)^{55}Cr Reaction
There are only alimited number of experimental crosssection data for ^{55}Mn(n, p)^{55}Cr in the energy range up to 25 MeV. ENDF/BVI, JENDL3.3 and JEFF3.1 files are in agreement with each other. There is good agreement between the crosssection between 6 and 12 MeV calculated with TALYS1.0 and the experimental data. The calculations between 12 and 25 MeV are not in good agreement with experimental data for ^{55}Mn(n, p)^{55}Cr reaction.
^{52}Cr(n, p)^{52}V Reaction
The experimental points are between 1 and 20 MeV, ENDF/BVI, JENDL3.3 and JEFF3.1 files are in agreement with each other. It could not be said that the calculation are in good agreement with experimental data for ^{52}Cr(n, p)^{52}V reaction.
^{56}Fe(n, p)^{56}Mn
The experimental points are in the energy range up to 20 MeV, ENDF/BVI, JENDL3.3 and JEFF3.1 files are in agreement with each other. There is good agreement between the crosssection calculated with TALYS1.0 and the experimental data.
Notes
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
References
 1.E. Tel, J. Fusion Energ. 29, 332–336 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 2.M. Walt, Fast Neutron Physics, Part I: Techniques, in Fowler, ed. by J.B. Marion (Interscience, New York, 1960), p. 509Google Scholar
 3.S. Şahin, M. Übeyli, J. Fusion Energ. 27, 271 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 4.M. Übeyli, E. Tel, J. Fusion Energ. 22, 173 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 5.R.A. Forrest, J. Kopecky, Fusion Eng. Des. 82, 73 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 6.E. Tel et al., Acta Phys. Slov. 54(2), 191 (2004)Google Scholar
 7.S.L. Goyal, P. Gur, Pramana 72(2), 355 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 8.A.J. Koning, S. Hilaire, M. Duijvestijn, TALYS1.2 A Nuclear Reaction Program, User Manual (NRG, The Nether lands, 2009)Google Scholar
 9.A.J. Koning, H. Beijers, J. Benlliure et al., in Proceedings of Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, Suppl. 2, vol. 2, ed. by K. Shibata (Atomic Energy Society of Japan, 2002)Google Scholar
 10.A.J. Koning, J.P. Delaroche, Nucl. Phys. A713, 231 (2003)ADSGoogle Scholar
 11.A.J. Koning, M.C. Duijvestijn, Nucl. Phys. A744, 15 (2004)ADSGoogle Scholar
 12.A.J. Koning, S. Hilaire, M. Duijvestijn, in TALYS1.0, Proceedings of the International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and TechnologyND2007 (Nice, France, 22–27 May 2007)Google Scholar
 13.B. Sarer et al., Ann. Nucl. Energ. 45(36), 417–426 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 14.T. Belgya, O. Bersillon, R. Capote Noy et al., Handbook for Calculations of Nuclear Reaction Data, RIPL2 (IAEATecdoc1506) (Taylor & Francis, London, 2006)Google Scholar
 15.F. Christy, I. Duck, Nucl. Phys. 24, 89 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 16.J.J. Cowan, F.K. Thielemann, J.W. Truran, Phys. Rep. 208, 267 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 17.M. Aikawa, M. Arnould, S. Goriely et al., Astron. Astrophys. 441, 1195 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 18.J.M. Akkerman, H. Gruppelaar, Phys. Lett. B 157, 95 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.M. Arnould, Astron. Astrophys. 19, 92 (1972)ADSGoogle Scholar
 20.M. Arnould, S. Goriely, Nucl. Phys. A777, 157c (2006)ADSGoogle Scholar
 21.M. Arnould, S. Goriely, K. Takahashi, Phys. Rep. 450, 97 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 22.Z.Y. Bao, H. Beer, F. Käppeler et al., Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tables 75, 1 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 23.M.C. Duijvestijn, A.J. Koning, in Proceedings of the Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 769, ed. by Haight et al. (Santa Fe, USA, 2005), p. 422Google Scholar
 24.T. Rauscher, F.K. Thielemann, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tables 79, 47 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 25.D.G. Sargood, Phys. Rep. 93, 61 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 26.G.R. Satchler, Direct Nuclear Reactions (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar
 27.M. Sin, R. Capote, S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, A.J. Koning, in Proceeding of the International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and TechnologyND2007 (Nice, France, 2007)Google Scholar
 28.M. Sin, R. Capote, S. Goriely, S. Hilaire, A.J. Koning, Nuclear Data for Science and Technology (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2007)Google Scholar
 29.J.J.M. Verbaarschot, H.A. Weidenmüller, M.R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rep. 129, 367 (1985)Google Scholar
 30.J.J.M. Verbaarschot, H.A. Weidenmüller, M.R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rep. 129, 67 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 31.Brookhaven National Laboratory, National Nuclear Data Center, EXFOR/CSISRS (Experimental Nuclear Reaction Data File). Database Version of November 24 (2008)Google Scholar