Abstract
The majority of fission yield measurements to date have examined cumulative yields of long-lived nuclides. We present a method for determining independent as well as cumulative fission yields using gamma spectrometry and a Bayesian inverse analysis. This paper outlines the impetus for new fission product yield measurements, the methodology developed to measure these and other nuclear parameters, and initial experimental results for long-lived nuclides and sensitivity analyses. In initial scoping measurements, the cumulative yield of \(^{140}\)Ba was estimated as \(4.9966\pm 0.3309\) %, and the independent yield of \(^{140}\)La was estimated to be \(0.0045\pm 0.0022\) %. These estimated values are commensurate with existing literature values.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Some values are not independent, and a multivariate normal distribution must be used with the appropriate covariance matrix. For example, the decay constants of radionuclides are used in computing the predicted nuclide activities as well as the measured activities, thus the measured activities and decay constants used in computing \(R_{\theta }\) are correlated.
If there was an unforeseen bias in the methodology or data collection, the estimation of the flux would be skewed. Using this value in subsequent analyses based on the same experiment would remove effects present in both analyses. Using the average flux determined using \(^{99}\)Mo as a standard essentially normalizes results using this flux value to the fission yield of \(^{99}\)Mo.
Recall, the uncertainty used in the prior distribution is three times the maximum literature value.
Sufficient convergence was obtained after 5000 samples. Thus, no additional samples were computed in order to conserve computational resources.
References
Chadwick MB, Herman M et al (2011) Nucl Data Sheets 112:2887–2996
Selby HD, Innes MRM, Barr DW et al (2010) Nucl Data Sheets 111:2891
Chadwick MB, Kawano T, Barr DW et al (2010) Nucl Data Sheets 111:2923
Laurec J, Adam A, Bruyne T et al (2010) Nucl Data Sheets 112:3135
Metz LA, Payne RF, Friese JI et al (2009) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 282:373
Finn E, Metz LA, Greenwood L et al (2012) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 296:763–767
Mills RW (1995) Fission product yield evaluation. PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham
Wahl AC (1962) Phys Rev 126:1112
Wahl AC (1980) J Radioanal Nucl Chem 55:111
Wahl AC (1988) At. Nucl Data Tables 39:1
Koning A, Dean C, Fischer U et al (2013) Validation of the JEFF 3.1 nuclear data library: JEFF Report 23. Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris
Aster RC, Borchers B, Thurber CH (2012) Parameter estimation and inverse problems. Academic, Boston
Kapur JN, Kesavan HK (1992) Entropy optimization principles with applications. Academic, Boston
Boyd S, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kelley CT (1999) Iterative methods for optimization. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia
Boyce WE, DiPrima RC (2005) Elementary differential equations and boundary value problems. Wiley, New York
Gauld I, Radulescu G, Ilas G et al (2011) Nucl Technol 174:169
Knoll GF (2010) Radiation detection and measurement. Wiley, New York
Tarantola A (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia
Katakura JI (2012) JENDL FP decay data file 2011 and fission yields data file 2011. Japan Atomic Energy Agency
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Grant Award Number, 2012-DN-130-NF0001-02. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dayman, K., Biegalski, S. & Haas, D. Determination of short-lived fission product yields with gamma spectrometry. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 305, 213–223 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-015-3993-9
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-015-3993-9