- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to “Evaluation of the Neutron Data Standards” [Nucl. Data Sheets 148, p. 143 (2018)]
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Nuclear Data Sheets 163 (2020) 280–281 www.elsevier.com/locate/nds
Corrigendum to: “Evaluation of the Neutron Data Standards” [Nucl. Data Sheets 148, p. 143 (2018)] A.D. Carlson,1, ∗ V.G. Pronyaev,2 R. Capote,3 G.M. Hale,4 Z.-P. Chen,5 I. Duran,6 F.-J. Hambsch,7 S. Kunieda,8 W. Mannhart,9, † B. Marcinkevicius,3, 10 R.O. Nelson,4 D. Neudecker,4 G. Noguere,11 M. Paris,4 S.P. Simakov,12 P. Schillebeeckx,7 D.L. Smith,13 X. Tao,14 A. Trkov,3 A. Wallner,15, 16 and W. Wang14 1 National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8463, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8463, USA 2 PI Atomstandart, State Corporation Rosatom, 117342, Moscow, Russia 3 NAPC-Nuclear Data Section, International Atomic Energy Agency, A-1040 Vienna, Austria 4 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA 5 Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China 6 Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain 7 EC-JRC-Directorate G, Unit G.2, B-2440 Geel, Belgium 8 Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Data Center, Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan 9 Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Org. 6.4, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany 10 Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 11 SPRC/LEPh, CEA Cadarache, 13108 Saint Paul Lez Durance, France 12 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany 13 Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA 14 China Nuclear Data Center (CNDC), China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China 15 Vera Laboratory, Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 16 Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia (Received 29 November 2019; revised received 13 December 2019; accepted 13 December 2019)
A corrected description of the interpolation scheme for the neutron data standards is given. It is emphasized that the energies (nodes) listed are where the evaluated cross sections are shown. A numerical example that shows how the high-resolution 235 U(n,f) data should be averaged to be compared with lower resolution cross sections is given.
The italicized sections in the following statements of Ref. [1] are incorrect: • In the caption of Table XV (tabulating the 197 Au(n,γ) cross section): Linear interpolation between GMA nodes is recommended above the thermal energy (0.0253 eV). • In the caption of Table XVI (tabulating the 235 U(n,f) cross section): The energy interval for the point at 0.15 keV starts at 0.1 keV. From there on, all intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. Linear interpolation between GMA nodes is recommended above 0.15 keV. • In the caption of Table XVIII (tabulating the 238 U(n,γ) cross section): The energy interval for the point at 0.15 keV starts at 0.1 keV. From there
∗ †
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.nds.2018.02.002. Corresponding author: [email protected] Deceased
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2019.12.008 0090-3752/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
on, all intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. Linear interpolation between GMA nodes is recommended above the thermal energy (0.0253 eV). • In the caption of Table XIX (tabulating the 238 U(n,f) cross section): All intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. • In the caption of Table XX (tabulating the 239 Pu(n,f) cross section): Linear interpolation between GMA nodes is recommended above 0.0253 eV. Interval corresponding to the node at 0.15 keV starts at 0.1 keV. From there on, all intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. The correct procedure is given in the GMA code written by Poenitz [2]: below 30 keV log-log interpolation should be used for all data except ratio and absolute ratio data. Thus, log-log interpolation should be used below 30 keV, and linear interpolation should be used for energies above that for all standard and reference cross sections listed above.
Corrigendum: Neutron Standards . . .
NUCLEAR DATA SHEETS
lets above: ... all intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. It is misleading to state that all averaging intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. In fact, different averaging intervals can be used to compare with point-wise data as long as comparable resolution is used in the data reduction procedure. Averaging intervals that result in an asymmetric location of a node relative to the midpoints should be avoided. An example is given to show a proper comparison of high-resolution data vs. the cross sections tabulated in Ref. [1] following our corrected guidelines below, which supersede what was written in our original paper. To obtain values for conversion to the energy grid of experimental data, use the node values with the appropriate interpolation law to get values away from the nodes. For experimental data that have been averaged over a given energy interval E1 to E2, obtain the corresponding average for the value from Ref. [1] by integrating over the curve from E1 to E2 obtained using the node values and the appropriate interpolation law. The comparison to the cross section is expected to be very weakly dependent of the selected energy bins as long as the energy bins are similar or broader than the intervals between nodes. New 235 U(n,f) data were measured by the n TOF collaboration [3] and compared to the standard cross sections of Ref. [1]. An updated comparison, averaged following corrected guidelines from 2 to 28.2 keV, is listed in Table I. It demonstrates the importance of corrections described in the present Corrigendum for comparison of standard cross sections with measured data.
TABLE I. Comparison of average 235 U(n,f) cross sections measured by the n TOF collaboration [3] vs. the average cross sections [1] in the keV regiona . Experimental cross sections were taken from Table 4 of Ref. [3] as values given for energy bins; those values were averaged over the quoted below intervals, which are similar to the intervals between the GMA nodes. n TOF Standard Ratio E1 E2 average average n TOF/Standard (b) (keV) (keV) (b) 2.00 3.16 5.476 5.440 1.007 4.760 0.973 3.16 3.98 4.634 4.284 1.007 3.98 5.01 4.316 3.744 0.961 5.01 6.31 3.599 3.265 0.994 6.31 7.94 3.247 3.064 0.982 7.94 8.91 3.010 2.947 0.933 8.91 12.6 2.750 2.528 0.960 12.6 17.8 2.428 2.335 0.994 17.8 22.4 2.321 2.149 0.958 22.4 28.2 2.059 a
A.D. Carlson et al.
Average of 235 U(n,f) cross sections were calculated for each listed interval using log-log interpolation as implemented in the LINEAR and GROUPIE modules of the PREPRO-2019 data processing package [4].
Also, it should be emphasized that the tabulated cross sections in Ref. [1] at the GMA nodes are NOT the average of the cross sections between associated midpoints. In Ref. [1] the following statement was made in p.172 (left column), as well as in the italicized text in the bul-
[1] A.D. Carlson, V.G. Pronyaev, R. Capote, G.M. Hale, Z.-P. Chen, I. Duran, F.-J. Hambsch, S. Kunieda, W. Mannhart, B. Marcinkevicius, R.O. Nelson, D. Neudecker, G. Noguere, M. Paris, S.P. Simakov, P. Schillebeeckx, D.L. Smith, X. Tao, A. Trkov, A. Wallner, and W. Wang, “Evaluation of the Neutron Data Standards,” Nucl. Data Sheets 148, 143 (2018). [2] W.P. Poenitz and S.E. Aumeier, “The simultaneous evaluation of the standards and other cross sections of importance for technology,” Tech. Rep. ANL/NDM-139, Ar-
gonne National Laboratory, Argonne (1997). [3] S. Amaducci et al., “Measurement of the 235 U(n,f) cross section relative to the 6 Li(n,t) and 10 B(n,α) standards from thermal to 170 keV neutron energy range at n TOF,” Eur. Phys. J. A55, 120 (2019). [4] D.E. Cullen, “PREPRO 2019: 2019 ENDF/B Preprocessing Codes (ENDF/B-VIII Verified),” Tech. Rep. IAEA-NDS-229, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (2019).
281
Nuclear Data Sheets 163 (2020) 280–281 www.elsevier.com/locate/nds
Corrigendum to: “Evaluation of the Neutron Data Standards” [Nucl. Data Sheets 148, p. 143 (2018)] A.D. Carlson,1, ∗ V.G. Pronyaev,2 R. Capote,3 G.M. Hale,4 Z.-P. Chen,5 I. Duran,6 F.-J. Hambsch,7 S. Kunieda,8 W. Mannhart,9, † B. Marcinkevicius,3, 10 R.O. Nelson,4 D. Neudecker,4 G. Noguere,11 M. Paris,4 S.P. Simakov,12 P. Schillebeeckx,7 D.L. Smith,13 X. Tao,14 A. Trkov,3 A. Wallner,15, 16 and W. Wang14 1 National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8463, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8463, USA 2 PI Atomstandart, State Corporation Rosatom, 117342, Moscow, Russia 3 NAPC-Nuclear Data Section, International Atomic Energy Agency, A-1040 Vienna, Austria 4 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA 5 Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China 6 Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain 7 EC-JRC-Directorate G, Unit G.2, B-2440 Geel, Belgium 8 Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Data Center, Ibaraki 319-1195, Japan 9 Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Org. 6.4, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany 10 Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 11 SPRC/LEPh, CEA Cadarache, 13108 Saint Paul Lez Durance, France 12 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany 13 Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA 14 China Nuclear Data Center (CNDC), China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, China 15 Vera Laboratory, Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 16 Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia (Received 29 November 2019; revised received 13 December 2019; accepted 13 December 2019)
A corrected description of the interpolation scheme for the neutron data standards is given. It is emphasized that the energies (nodes) listed are where the evaluated cross sections are shown. A numerical example that shows how the high-resolution 235 U(n,f) data should be averaged to be compared with lower resolution cross sections is given.
The italicized sections in the following statements of Ref. [1] are incorrect: • In the caption of Table XV (tabulating the 197 Au(n,γ) cross section): Linear interpolation between GMA nodes is recommended above the thermal energy (0.0253 eV). • In the caption of Table XVI (tabulating the 235 U(n,f) cross section): The energy interval for the point at 0.15 keV starts at 0.1 keV. From there on, all intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. Linear interpolation between GMA nodes is recommended above 0.15 keV. • In the caption of Table XVIII (tabulating the 238 U(n,γ) cross section): The energy interval for the point at 0.15 keV starts at 0.1 keV. From there
∗ †
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.nds.2018.02.002. Corresponding author: [email protected] Deceased
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2019.12.008 0090-3752/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
on, all intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. Linear interpolation between GMA nodes is recommended above the thermal energy (0.0253 eV). • In the caption of Table XIX (tabulating the 238 U(n,f) cross section): All intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. • In the caption of Table XX (tabulating the 239 Pu(n,f) cross section): Linear interpolation between GMA nodes is recommended above 0.0253 eV. Interval corresponding to the node at 0.15 keV starts at 0.1 keV. From there on, all intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. The correct procedure is given in the GMA code written by Poenitz [2]: below 30 keV log-log interpolation should be used for all data except ratio and absolute ratio data. Thus, log-log interpolation should be used below 30 keV, and linear interpolation should be used for energies above that for all standard and reference cross sections listed above.
Corrigendum: Neutron Standards . . .
NUCLEAR DATA SHEETS
lets above: ... all intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. It is misleading to state that all averaging intervals are located half-way between given GMA nodes. In fact, different averaging intervals can be used to compare with point-wise data as long as comparable resolution is used in the data reduction procedure. Averaging intervals that result in an asymmetric location of a node relative to the midpoints should be avoided. An example is given to show a proper comparison of high-resolution data vs. the cross sections tabulated in Ref. [1] following our corrected guidelines below, which supersede what was written in our original paper. To obtain values for conversion to the energy grid of experimental data, use the node values with the appropriate interpolation law to get values away from the nodes. For experimental data that have been averaged over a given energy interval E1 to E2, obtain the corresponding average for the value from Ref. [1] by integrating over the curve from E1 to E2 obtained using the node values and the appropriate interpolation law. The comparison to the cross section is expected to be very weakly dependent of the selected energy bins as long as the energy bins are similar or broader than the intervals between nodes. New 235 U(n,f) data were measured by the n TOF collaboration [3] and compared to the standard cross sections of Ref. [1]. An updated comparison, averaged following corrected guidelines from 2 to 28.2 keV, is listed in Table I. It demonstrates the importance of corrections described in the present Corrigendum for comparison of standard cross sections with measured data.
TABLE I. Comparison of average 235 U(n,f) cross sections measured by the n TOF collaboration [3] vs. the average cross sections [1] in the keV regiona . Experimental cross sections were taken from Table 4 of Ref. [3] as values given for energy bins; those values were averaged over the quoted below intervals, which are similar to the intervals between the GMA nodes. n TOF Standard Ratio E1 E2 average average n TOF/Standard (b) (keV) (keV) (b) 2.00 3.16 5.476 5.440 1.007 4.760 0.973 3.16 3.98 4.634 4.284 1.007 3.98 5.01 4.316 3.744 0.961 5.01 6.31 3.599 3.265 0.994 6.31 7.94 3.247 3.064 0.982 7.94 8.91 3.010 2.947 0.933 8.91 12.6 2.750 2.528 0.960 12.6 17.8 2.428 2.335 0.994 17.8 22.4 2.321 2.149 0.958 22.4 28.2 2.059 a
A.D. Carlson et al.
Average of 235 U(n,f) cross sections were calculated for each listed interval using log-log interpolation as implemented in the LINEAR and GROUPIE modules of the PREPRO-2019 data processing package [4].
Also, it should be emphasized that the tabulated cross sections in Ref. [1] at the GMA nodes are NOT the average of the cross sections between associated midpoints. In Ref. [1] the following statement was made in p.172 (left column), as well as in the italicized text in the bul-
[1] A.D. Carlson, V.G. Pronyaev, R. Capote, G.M. Hale, Z.-P. Chen, I. Duran, F.-J. Hambsch, S. Kunieda, W. Mannhart, B. Marcinkevicius, R.O. Nelson, D. Neudecker, G. Noguere, M. Paris, S.P. Simakov, P. Schillebeeckx, D.L. Smith, X. Tao, A. Trkov, A. Wallner, and W. Wang, “Evaluation of the Neutron Data Standards,” Nucl. Data Sheets 148, 143 (2018). [2] W.P. Poenitz and S.E. Aumeier, “The simultaneous evaluation of the standards and other cross sections of importance for technology,” Tech. Rep. ANL/NDM-139, Ar-
gonne National Laboratory, Argonne (1997). [3] S. Amaducci et al., “Measurement of the 235 U(n,f) cross section relative to the 6 Li(n,t) and 10 B(n,α) standards from thermal to 170 keV neutron energy range at n TOF,” Eur. Phys. J. A55, 120 (2019). [4] D.E. Cullen, “PREPRO 2019: 2019 ENDF/B Preprocessing Codes (ENDF/B-VIII Verified),” Tech. Rep. IAEA-NDS-229, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (2019).
281