## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

)

Monte Carlo approach to sequential γ -ray emission from ﬁssion fragments

S. Lemaire,

1,∗

P. Talou,

1

T. Kawano,

1

M. B. Chadwick,

2

and D. G. Madland

1

1

Theoretical Division, Nuclear Physics Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA

2

PADNWP, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA

(Received 7 July 2005; published 19 January 2006)

A Monte Carlo simulation of the ﬁssion fragment statistical decay based on a sequential neutron followed by

γ -ray emission is proposed. The γ -ray energy spectrum is calculated as a function of the mass of the ﬁssion

fragments and integrated over the whole mass distribution. The prompt γ -ray multiplicity distribution, both

the average number of emitted γ rays and the average γ -ray energy as a function of the mass of the ﬁssion

fragments [respectively,

¯

N

γ

(A) and ¸ε

γ

)(A)], are also assessed. The γ -γ correlations emitted from both light

and heavy fragments are calculated as well as correlations between γ -ray energies. Results are reported for the

neutron-induced ﬁssion of

235

U (at 0.53 MeV neutron energy) and for the spontaneous ﬁssion of

252

Cf.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.73.014602 PACS number(s): 25.85.Ca, 21.10.Gv, 21.60.Ka, 24.10.Pa

I. INTRODUCTION

The γ rays emitted from the deexcitation of ﬁssion

fragments (FF) are very important because they can provide

information on the basic ﬁssion process. They are also of

considerable interest for various nuclear applications. Indeed,

prompt ﬁssion γ rays appear to be a means to determine

the mass of ﬁssile materials by standard nondestructive assay

measurements.

A number of early studies of prompt ﬁssion γ rays can

be found in the literature. For instance, Leachman and Kazek

[1], in an approach based on Weisskopf neutron evaporation

spectrum with a ﬁxed nuclear temperature, used three ﬁssion

fragment pairs to estimate the energy dissipated in γ rays

¯

E

γ

.

In the case of spontaneous ﬁssion of

252

Cf, they found

¯

E

γ

= 4.0 MeV, which was lower than the experimental value

(between 6.5 and 7.5 MeV). In the case of thermal neutron-

induced ﬁssion of

235

U, Terrell [2] found

¯

E

γ

= 4.9 compared

to experimental data lying between 6.0 and 7.5 MeV.

Later, Thomas and Grover [3] discussed, for an average

light and heavy fragment, the competition of neutron and γ -ray

emission in ﬁssion in a statistical approach taking into account

the angular momentumof the ﬁssion fragments. They obtained

for

235

U thermal ﬁssion, using a measured value of

¯

E

γ

to infer

the total ﬁssion fragment initial excitation energy, an energy

dissipated as γ rays of 7.08 MeV in good agreement with

experimental data. They also provided, with the same degree

of agreement, the number of emitted γ rays and their average

energy. The photon energy spectrum obtained is consistent

with data well below 2.0 MeV, but deviates from data above

that level.

Recently, we developed a theory to study the prompt ﬁssion

neutron evaporation process, where neutrons are emitted

sequentially from ﬁssion fragments. In that calculation, the

distribution of initial excitation energy in the ﬁssion fragments

is assessed by means of experimental data on total kinetic

energy (TKE) distribution, nuclear masses, neutron separation,

and kinetic energies (in the case of neutron-induced ﬁssion),

making two assumptions regarding the distribution of the total

∗

Electronic address: lemaire@lanl.gov

excitation energy between the ﬁssion fragments. In the present

work, this approach is extended to account for the γ -ray cas-

cade following the evaporation of prompt neutrons. We apply

a statistical method, similar to the one developed by Weisskopf

for neutrons or charged particles. A mathematical expression

for the γ -ray energy spectrum is derived (see Appendix) and

used to carry the full FF deexcitation down to its ground state.

This Monte Carlo approach allows us to compare our results

with various prompt ﬁssion γ -ray observables: γ energy

spectrum, γ multiplicity distribution, average number and

energy of emitted γ rays as a function of ﬁssion fragment

mass and total kinetic energy,

¯

N

γ

(A, TKE) and ¸

γ

)(A, TKE),

respectively, and total energy removed by γ rays as a function

of ﬁssion fragment mass and total kinetic energy

¯

E

γ

(A, TKE).

We ﬁrst present the theoretical methodology used and give

the input parameters that enter into our calculation. This is

followed by a presentation and discussion of the results for two

ﬁssioning systems:

252

Cf (sf ) and n÷

235

U at E

n

= 0.53 MeV.

A conclusion and discussion of future improvements of this

work completes this paper.

II. THEORETICAL APPROACH

The general principle of this study is the same as in Ref. [4],

and we will recall in the next sections some of the main

steps of our approach. A Monte Carlo technique is used to

simulate ﬁssion fragment deexcitation by a sequential neutron

followed by γ -ray emissions. This method offers a unique way

to track each ﬁssion fragment, subsequent neutrons, and γ rays

throughout the decay chain.

A. Methodology

1. Mass distribution

We ﬁrst sample the preneutron emission FFmass and charge

distributions and pick a pair of light and heavy nuclei:

Y(A, Z) = Y

exp

(A)P(Z), (1)

where Y

exp

(A) represents the experimental preneutron emis-

sion FF mass distribution, and P(Z) is the corresponding

0556-2813/2006/73(1)/014602(9)/$23.00 014602-1 ©2006 The American Physical Society

LEMAIRE, TALOU, KAWANO, CHADWICK, AND MADLAND PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006)

charge distribution assumed to be Gaussian,

P(Z) =

_

1

cπ

_

e

−(Z−Z

p

)

2

/c

, (2)

where Z

p

is the most probable charge for the light or

heavy fragment obtained from a corrected unchanged charge

distribution (UCD) assumption [5]. For given light, heavy, and

compound nucleus mass numbers, the most probable charge

is given by the UCD assumption

_

Z

L

p

−

1

2

__

A

L

=

Z

c

A

c

=

_

Z

H

p

÷

1

2

__

A

H

, (3)

where c, L, and H refer to compound ﬁssioning nucleus, light

ﬁssion fragment, and heavy ﬁssion fragment, respectively. The

width parameter c in Eq. (2) is deﬁned as

c = 2

_

σ

2

÷

1

12

_

, (4)

with σ the average charge dispersion. An experiment by

Reisdorf et al. [6] on the preneutron emission charge dis-

tributions for thermal neutron-induced ﬁssion of

235

U gave

σ = 0.4 ±0.05.

2. Total FF excitation energy

The total excitation energy TXE available for a given light

and heavy pair (A

L

, Z

L

), (A

H

, Z

H

) is

TXE(A

L

,A

H

,Z

L

,Z

H

) = E

∗

r

(A

L

,A

H

,Z

L

,Z

H

)

÷B

n

(A

c

, Z

c

) ÷E

n

−TKE(A

L

, A

H

),

(5)

where E

∗

r

(A

L

, A

H

, Z

L

, Z

H

) is the energy release in the ﬁssion

process, which is given, in the case of binary ﬁssion, by the

difference between the compound nucleus and the FF masses:

E

∗

r

(A

L

, A

H

, Z

L

, Z

H

) = M(A

c

, Z

c

) −M(A

L

, Z

L

)

−M(A

H

, Z

H

), (6)

where M are the nuclear masses in MeV.

In Eq. (5), B

n

(A

c

, Z

c

) and E

n

are the separation and

kinetic energies of the neutron inducing ﬁssion. In the case of

spontaneous ﬁssion, both B

n

(A

c

, Z

c

) and E

n

terms in Eq. (5)

are zero.

The total FF kinetic energy in Eq. (5) is labeled

TKE(A

L

, A

H

) and obtained by sampling over the correspond-

ing distribution P(TKE), given by

P(A, TKE) =

1

σ

A

√

2π

exp

_

−(TKE −TKE

A

)

2

2σ

2

A

_

. (7)

Both the mean value TKE

A

and width σ

A

are taken from

experiment.

3. Energy partition

As in [4], we considered two hypotheses for the total

excitation energy partitioning:

(H1) Partitioning so that both light and heavy fragments share

the same temperature at scission (hypothesis identical to

the one made in the Los Alamos model [7]),

E

∗

L,H

= TXE

1

1 ÷

a

H,L

a

L,H

, (8)

where L and H refer to the light and heavy system, and

a is the level density parameter.

(H2) Partitioning using the experimental ¯ ν

exp

(A) and

¸ε)

exp

(A) to infer the initial excitation energy of each

fragment,

E

∗

L,H

= TXE

¯ ν

exp

(A

L,H

)¸η)

L,H

i=L,H

¯ ν

exp

(A

i

)¸η)

i

, (9)

where ¸η)

L,H

is the average energy removed per emitted

neutron,

¸η)

L,H

= ¸ε)

L,H

exp

÷

1

2

B

2n

(A

L,H

, Z

L,H

), (10)

where B

2n

is the two neutron separation energy and

¸ε)

L,H

exp

the average neutron kinetic energy for neutron

emission from a given initial ﬁssion fragment.

4. Neutron evaporation

The probability that a FF will emit a neutron at a given

kinetic energy is obtained by sampling over the Weisskopf

spectrum at this particular temperature [8]. Assuming a

constant value of the cross section of the inverse process of

compound nucleus formation, the normalized spectrum is

φ(A, Z, ε, T ) =

ε

T

2

A−1,Z

exp

_

−

ε

T

A−1,Z

_

. (11)

At higher nuclear excitation energies, within the Fermi gas

model, the initial FF excitation energy E

∗

L,H

is simply related

to the nuclear temperature T

L,H

as

T

A−1,Z

=

_

E

∗

(A, Z) −B

n

a

A−1,Z

, (12)

with a

A−1,Z

the level density parameter of the (A −1)

nucleus. At lower excitation energies, we assumed a constant

temperature regime for neutron evaporation.

The emission of a neutron of energy ε from the FF at the

excitation energy E

∗

produces a residual nucleus with the

excitation energy

E

∗

(A −1, Z) = E

∗

(A, Z) −ε −B

n

. (13)

The sequential neutron emission stops when the excitation

energy of the residual nucleus is less than the sumof its neutron

separation energy and pairing energy. By including the pairing

energy, we simulate the competition between neutron and

γ -ray emission at ﬁssion fragment excitation energies close

to the neutron binding energy.

The transformation of the center of mass spectrum to

the laboratory spectrum is done by assuming that neutrons

are emitted isotropically in the center of mass frame of a

FF, taking into account the recoil energy of the residual

nucleus.

014602-2

MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL γ -RAY EMISSION FROM . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006)

5. γ -ray evaporation

The probability that a FF will emit a γ ray at a given

energy is obtained by sampling over the center of mass γ -ray

spectrum at this particular temperature. The normalized γ -ray

energy spectrum obtained assuming a constant value for the

γ -ray absorption cross section on a given nucleus is

φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T ) =

ε

2

γ

2T

3

A,Z

exp

_

−

ε

γ

T

A,Z

_

. (14)

This expression is derived in the Appendix. Two regions of

temperature are considered. A Fermi gas region for higher

nuclear energies and a constant temperature region for lower

nuclear energies. The sequential γ -ray emission ends when a

given FF has reached its ground state. The emission of a γ ray

of energy ε from a FF at the excitation energy E

∗

produces a

residual nucleus with an excitation energy E

∗∗

E

∗∗

(A, Z) = E

∗

(A, Z) −ε

γ

. (15)

In our problem, laboratory and center of mass frames are

assumed identical, so we make the assumption that the center

of mass γ -ray energy ε

γ

is equal to its value E

γ

in the

laboratory frame.

B. Input parameters

For both reactions studied, the input parameters used in

the present work are the same as in Ref. [4]. In particular,

we use the data by Hambsch and Oberstedt [9] in the case of

252

Cf(sf ), and the data by Schmitt, Neiler, and Walter [10] in

the case of the neutron-induced ﬁssion (at 0.53 MeV) on

235

U.

We considered 85 equispaced fragments with masses between

76 A160 and three isobars per fragment mass, around the

most probable charge Z

p

. In the case of spontaneous ﬁssion

of

252

Cf, we used 315 FF between 74 A178 with 105

fragment masses.

Nuclear masses are used to calculate the energy release

for a given pair of FF. The data tables by Audi, Wapstra, and

Thibault [11] were used in the present calculation.

The level density parameter reads

a(A, Z, U) = a

∗

_

1 ÷

δW(A, Z)

U

_

1 −e

−γ U

_

_

, (16)

where U = E

∗

−(A, Z), γ = 0.05, a

∗

is the asymptotic

level density parameter [12]. The pairing and shell cor-

rection δW energies for the FF were taken from the nuclear

mass formula of Koura et al. [13].

The total kinetic energy is used to assess the total FF exci-

tation energy distribution. It is assumed to be approximately

Gaussian in shape with an average value and width taken from

the experiment: Ref. [9] data for spontaneous ﬁssion of

252

Cf,

and Ref. [10] data for the neutron-induced n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U

reaction.

For simplicity, we assumed no mass, charge, or energy

dependence of the cross section for the inverse process of

compound nucleus formation for both neutron and γ emis-

sions. This assumption will be lifted later in a more reﬁned

calculation.

We used the experimental average number of emitted

neutrons ¯ ν(A) as a way of partitioning the total excitation

energy distribution between the light and heavy fragment. For

the spontaneous ﬁssion of

252

Cf, we used data from Ref. [14].

For the neutron-induced n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction, we used

data from Ref. [15].

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our Monte Carlo simulations were done using 10

9

events

for both spontaneous ﬁssion of

252

Cf and neutron-induced

ﬁssion n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

Ureactions. In this work, we chose to

compare experimental data with our calculations made under

the (H2) assumption only, since very little sensitivity has been

found for various prompt ﬁssion γ -ray observables upon the

partition of the total excitation energy between light and heavy

fragments at scission. We also checked that our conclusions

were not changed by using different sets of input parameters.

A. Average total prompt ﬁssion γ -ray energies and multiplicities

1. Energies

The calculated and experimental average values for γ -ray

total energy are shown in Table I. A reasonable agreement

with experimental data is found for the average total energy

of γ rays for both reactions studied. Moreover, it was

observed experimentally by Pleasonton et al. [17], for the

TABLE I. Average total prompt γ -ray multiplicities and energies.

Fission reaction Source N

γ L

N

γ H

N

γ

¸E

γ

)

L

¸E

γ

)

H

¸E

γ

)

T

235

U÷n (0.53 MeV) Monte Carlo calc. 3.70 3.54 7.24 3.77 3.37 7.14

Frehaut [16] − − − − − 6.74±0.38

Pleasonton et al. [17] 3.63 2.88 6.51 ± 0.30 3.78 2.66 6.43±0.30

Verbinski et al. [18] − − 6.70 − − 6.51

Peelle et al. [19] − − 7.45 ± 0.32 − − 7.18±0.30

252

Cf (sf ) Monte Carlo calc. 3.94 3.71 7.65 3.87 3.28 7.15

Pleasonton et al. [20] − − 8.32 ± 0.40 − − 7.06±0.35

Verbinski et al. [18] − − 7.8 ± 0.30 − − 6.84±0.30

Nifenecker et al. [21] − − − − − 6.5

Bowman et al. [22] − − 10 − − 8.6

Nardi et al. [23] − − − − − 6.7 ± 0.40

Val’skii et al. [24] − − 7.5 ± 1.5 − − −

014602-3

LEMAIRE, TALOU, KAWANO, CHADWICK, AND MADLAND PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006)

80 100 120 140 160

A

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Ε

γ

(

M

e

V

)

Pleasonton et al. (1972)

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 1. Average total γ -ray energy as a function of FF mass

for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction. Points are experimental data from

Ref. [17] for thermal neutron-induced ﬁssion of

235

U.

neutron-induced reaction n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U, that the average

total γ -ray energy is higher for the light fragment than for

the heavy one. This fact is reproduced by our approach. In

particular, the average total energy of γ rays emitted from

the light fragment is well reproduced. However, the value

obtained for the heavy fragment is 26% too high compared

to Pleasonton’s measurement.

For the neutron-induced reaction on

235

U, the average total

energy removed by γ rays as a function of ﬁssion fragment

mass is shown in Fig. 1. Our calculation does not reproduce

the sawtooth behavior observed experimentally; instead, small

ﬂuctuations around the mean value are obtained. These

ﬂuctuations reﬂect the behavior of the limit chosen between the

neutron evaporation regime and the γ -ray evaporation regime

that is the neutron separation energy plus pairing energy. To

understand the fact that we fail to reproduce the sawtooth

behavior of Fig. 1, we have to estimate the average total

60 80 100 120 140 160

A

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

ν

Nishio et al. (1998)

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 2. Average neutron multiplicity ¯ ν as a function of mass num-

ber of FF for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction. Points are experimental

data from Ref. [15] at thermal incident neutron energy.

80 100 120 140 160

A

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

<

ε

>

(

M

e

V

)

Nishio et al. (1998)

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 3. Average neutron energy ¸ε) in the center of mass frame

as a function of FF mass for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction. Points are

experimental data from Ref. [15] at thermal incident neutron energy.

energy removed by neutrons for two ﬁssion fragments, let’s say

A = 132 and A = 154, and compare it with the one estimated

from experiments. For A = 132 and A = 154, experimental

data fromNishio et al. [15] give ¯ ν

132

. 0.6, ¸)

132

. 1.6 MeV

and ¯ ν

154

. 1.7, ¸)

154

. 1.5 MeV which give, assuming an

average neutron binding energy of 5.5 MeV, a total energy

removed by neutrons of 4.3 and 11.9 MeV. From our calcula-

tion we ﬁnd (see Figs. 2 and 3) ¯ ν

132

. 0.3, ¸)

132

. 0.5 MeV,

and ¯ ν

154

. 2.1, ¸)

154

. 1.2 MeV, which correspond to a total

energy removed by neutrons of 1.8 and 14.0 MeV. Clearly,

the fact that we underestimate ¯ ν and ¸) for A = 132 (the

same trend is obtained and discussed by Kornilov et al.

in [25]) results in too little energy removed by neutrons

which means more energy available for γ rays. In contrast,

the overestimation of the energy removed by neutrons in our

calculation for A = 154 results in less energy available for

γ rays. Hopefully, a better description of the average number

and energies of prompt ﬁssion neutrons will help solve the

discrepancy observed in Fig. 1.

80 90 100 110 120 130

A

L

4

6

8

10

E

γ

(

M

e

V

)

Nifenecker et al. (1972)

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 4. Average total γ -ray energy as a function of light FF mass

for

252

Cf(sf ). Points are experimental data from Ref. [21].

014602-4

MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL γ -RAY EMISSION FROM . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006)

144 156 168 180 192 204

TKE (MeV)

0

2

4

6

8

10

E

γ

(

M

e

V

)

Pleasonton et al. (1972)

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 5. Average total energy of γ rays emitted per ﬁssion as a

function of FF total kinetic energy for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction.

Points are experimental data from Ref. [17].

The total average γ -ray energy summed over the light and

heavy fragments is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of the light

ﬁssion fragment mass for

252

Cf(sf ). The same conclusion as

in the neutron-induced ﬁssion of

235

U is drawn but with more

ﬂuctuations around the mean value of the γ -ray energy given

in Table I.

The average total energy of γ rays is plotted in Fig. 5

for neutron-induced ﬁssion of

235

U as a function of the ﬁssion

fragment total kinetic energy. The general trend obtained in this

calculation is in fair agreement with Pleasonton’s experimental

data [17] except for values of the total kinetic around 166 MeV

and between 174 and 188 MeV. To explain the decrease of

¯

E

γ

for 190 < TKE < 204 MeV, we have to remember that in our

approach FF with excitation energies lower than the neutron

binding energy plus pairing energy will only emit γ rays.

10

2

4

6

8

10

2

4

6

8

2

4

6

8

10

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

A

0

2

4

6

8

10

E

γ

(

M

e

V

)

T

K

E

(

M

e

V

)

189

177

165

150

FIG. 6. Average energy of γ rays emitted as a function of FF

mass at constant total kinetic energy for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction.

Points are experimental data from Ref. [17].

So, the total energy removed by γ -rays will increase with

decreasing TKE as long as the FF excitation energy remains

below the neutron emission limit we ﬁxed.

In Fig. 6, we represent, for neutron-induced ﬁssion of

235

U,

the total energy removed by γ rays versus FF mass and total

kinetic energies (for the speciﬁc total kinetic energies 150, 165,

177, and 189 MeV). Again, we obtain ﬂuctuations around a

mean value that is in reasonable agreement with experimental

data.

In Fig. 7, the average total energy of emitted γ rays is

plotted as a function of TKEfor three pairs of ﬁssion fragments

for neutron-induced ﬁssion of

235

U. Note that the calculated

distributions exhibit steps at one, two, etc., neutron threshold

emissions. Even if we obtain the right order of magnitude

2

4

6

8

10

2

4

6

8

10

2

4

6

8

10

E

γ

(

M

e

V

)

2

4

6

8

10

150 160 170 180 190 200

0

2

4

6

8

10

150 160 170 180 190 200

0

2

4

6

8

10

100 136

94 142

88 148

TKE (MeV)

FIG. 7. Average total γ -ray energy as a

function of total kinetic energy at constant ﬁssion

fragment mass for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction.

Points are experimental data from Ref. [17].

014602-5

LEMAIRE, TALOU, KAWANO, CHADWICK, AND MADLAND PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006)

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

A

0

2

4

6

8

10

N

γ

Pleasonton et al. (1972)

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 8. Average number of γ rays as a function of FF mass

for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction. Points are experimental data from

Ref. [17].

for γ -ray energies, we fail in describing the ﬁne structure

observed in Fig. 7. It is interesting to point out that the

values of TKE for which steps are found in our calculation

correspond to FF excitation energy thresholds for neutron

emissions.

2. Multiplicities

Experimental and calculated average multiplicities are

given in Table I. For both reactions studied, we found a

reasonable agreement with experimental data, in particular

due to the wide spread in the data. As with the total γ -ray

energy, we succeed in describing the average total number

of emitted γ rays. Again, a good agreement is found for the

average number of γ -rays emitted from the light fragment. We

calculate 3.70 for N

γ L

compared to 3.63 from Pleasonton’s

measurement. For the heavy fragment, our result is 23%higher

than the experimental value.

144 156 168 180 192 204

TKE (MeV)

0

2

4

6

8

10

N

γ

Pleasonton et al. (1972)

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 9. Average number of γ rays as a function of FF total kinetic

energy for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction. Points are experimental data

from Ref. [17].

0 5 10 15 20 25

γ multiplicity

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

P

r

o

b

a

b

i

l

i

t

y

Calculation with (H2)

Brunson’s model

FIG. 10. γ -ray multiplicity distribution for

252

Cf(sf ). Experimen-

tal ﬁt from Brunson [26].

In Fig. 8, the number of emitted γ rays is plotted as

a function of FF mass for the neutron-induced ﬁssion of

235

U. Again, even if the average N

γ

is correct, we fail in

reproducing the sawtooth shape observed experimentally. A

possible explanation for these discrepancies is that we did

not include ﬁssion fragment spin in our calculation. Indeed,

as pointed out by Pleasonton [17], if we assume that all

prompt ﬁssion γ rays arise from collective E2 transition after

prompt neutron emission, then the angular momentum of the

fragments range from 0 to 2¯ h for FF near magic numbers

(A = 84, 130, for example) to about 10¯ h for deformed FF

at the end of the two fragment groups. This results in a larger

phase space available for γ rays fromthe latter group compared

to the former one.

In Fig. 9, the measured and calculated number of emitted

γ rays is plotted as a function of TKE. The calculated N

γ

lie

slightly on the high side of the experimental data.

B. Multiplicity distribution

To the best of our knowledge, very few experimental

data exist for the γ -ray multiplicity distribution for the two

TABLE II. Average prompt ﬁssion γ -ray energies.

Fission Source ¸ε

γ

)

L

¸ε

γ

)

H

¸ε

γ

)

reaction (MeV) (MeV) (MeV)

235

U÷n

(0.53 MeV)

H2 0.994 0.928 0.962

Pleasonton et al. [17] − − 0.99±0.07

Verbinski et al. [18] − − 0.97±0.05

Peelle et al. [19] − − 0.96±0.05

252

Cf (sf ) H2 0.955 0.860 0.909

Verbinski et al. [18] − − 0.88±0.04

Pleasonton et al. [20] − − 0.85±0.06

Bowman et al. [22] − − 0.90±0.06

Val’skii et al. [24] − − 0.96±0.08

014602-6

MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL γ -RAY EMISSION FROM . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006)

0 1 3 2 4 5 6 7 8

Energy (MeV)

10

-4

10

-3

10

-2

10

-1

10

0

E

n

e

r

g

y

s

p

e

c

t

r

u

m

(

1

/

M

e

V

)

ENDF/B-VI

JENDL-3.3

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 11. γ -ray energy spectrum for n(0.53 MeV)÷

235

U reaction.

ﬁssioning systems studied here. Our numerical results are

given in Fig. 10 for

252

Cf (sf ), which are in good agreement

with the distribution given by Brunson [26] in which a double

Poisson model is used to ﬁt measured data.

C. Prompt ﬁssion γ -ray energy spectra

The calculated average γ -ray energies are compared in

Table II with several experiments for both reactions studied.

The values obtained are in very good agreement with exper-

imental data. Calculated γ -ray energy spectra are plotted in

Figs. 11 and 12 and compared to ENDF/B-VI and JENDL-3.3

evaluated values. Globally, the agreement is reasonable.

In the case of

252

Cf (sf ), we found global satisfactory

agreement with the ENDF/B-VI evaluation. For neutron-induced

ﬁssion of n÷

235

U in Fig. 11, we predict a γ -ray energy

spectrum that is too hard in the range 1.5−5 MeV. However,

our approach gives a much better description of the high-

energy tail of the spectrum for

235

U÷n (0.53 MeV) compared

to calculations from Thomas and Grover [3,27] as well as

Zommer, Saveliev, and Prokoﬁev [28], which are too soft.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Energy (MeV)

10

-4

10

-3

10

-2

10

-1

10

0

E

n

e

r

g

y

s

p

e

c

t

r

u

m

(

1

/

M

e

V

)

ENDF/B-VI

Calculation with (H2)

FIG. 12. γ -ray energy spectrum for

252

Cf(sf ).

IV. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we have developed a Monte Carlo approach

based on sequential neutron and γ -ray emission. We assume

that γ -ray statistical evaporation appears as the last stage

of the ﬁssion fragment decay. This approach allows us to

assess various prompt ﬁssion γ -ray observables and compare

them to experimental data. In particular, we obtain the γ -ray

multiplicity distribution as well as the full correlation matrices

¯

E

γ

(A, TKE) and

¯

N

γ

(A, TKE).

Because of the limit we chose between neutron and

γ -ray evaporation regimes, our results for ﬁssion γ -ray

observables are not sensitive to the partition of the to-

tal excitation between ﬁssion fragments and they exhibit

ﬂuctuations that reﬂect the trend in the neutron binding

energy plus pairing energy. On average, we ﬁnd a reasonable

agreement with experimental data but fail in describing ﬁne

structures.

A natural extension of this work is a Monte Carlo im-

plementation of the Hauser-Feshbach statistical decay theory

that accounts properly for spin and parity conservation rules.

The distinction between different E

x

and M

x

transition

multipolarities can also be treated properly.

APPENDIX: CENTER OF MASS γ -RAY ENERGY

SPECTRUM AT FIXED NUCLEAR TEMPERATURE

Astatistical approach, similar to the one used by Weisskopf

[8] to describe neutron evaporation, is used here to derive a

formula for the center of mass γ -ray energy spectrum for a

given nuclear temperature.

We want to calculate the probability per unit time

φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T )dε

γ

that the nucleus A, Z, with the excitation

energy U, emits a γ -ray with an energy between ε

γ

and

ε

γ

÷dε

γ

, leaving a residual excitation energy U

/

= U −ε

γ

.

This probability, φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T )dε

γ

, is averaged over all

excited states of A whose energy lies near U. It assumes that

the interval dε

γ

is chosen big enough so that there is a large

number of levels of the nucleus A with energies between U

/

and U

/

−dε

γ

. This assumption can be justiﬁed for most FF

that exhibit a level density higher than 100 above 3–4 MeV

only. For lower excitation energies, we expect this assumption

to break down.

To get a continuous function φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T ), it is nec-

essary to average over a number of ﬁnal states. We shall

assume that the interval dε

γ

is much bigger than the dis-

tance between the levels of the nuclei in the excited state

considered.

If we consider a nucleus enclosed in a volume , then

P

c

= σ(U

/

, ε

γ

)

c

(A1)

is the mean probability per unit time of the γ ray with

an energy between ε

γ

and ε

γ

÷dε

γ

and a velocity c to

be captured by the nucleus A(U −ε

γ

) forming the nucleus

A with an energy between U and U ÷dε

γ

. This proba-

bility is a function of the γ -ray absorption cross section

σ(U

/

, ε

γ

).

014602-7

LEMAIRE, TALOU, KAWANO, CHADWICK, AND MADLAND PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006)

We then obtain the probability φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T ) for the

reverse process by dividing P

c

by the number ω

A

(U)dε

γ

of

states in which the γ ray can be captured and multiplying by

both the number of states into which A(U) can decay and the

number of quantum states N(ε

γ

)dε

γ

in the volume at the

disposal of the γ rays.

The probability φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T )dε

γ

then reads as

φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T )dε

γ

= P

c

N(ε

γ

)

ω

A

(U

/

)

ω

A

(U)

dε

γ

, (A2)

with ω

A

(U)dU the numbers of levels of the nucleus A.

The quantity N(ε

γ

) is obtained by counting the number

of oscillators at a given frequency in a given energy range.

In the case of a three-dimensional standing electromagnetic

wave in a cubical box of size a, such a wave is transverse with

two independent polarizations that add to the total number of

degrees of freedom. The frequency of the vibration having

wave numbers (k

x

, k

y

, k

z

) is

ω = c

_

k

2

x

÷k

2

y

÷k

2

z

. (A3)

A ﬁxed value of the frequency corresponds to a spherical

surface in k space with a radius ω/c.

Therefore, the number of possible modes of radiation in

the box having frequency in the range ω and ω ÷ω is

equal to the number of lattice point wave number values

(k

x

, k

y

, k

z

) between two spherical surfaces centered at the

origin and having radii (

ω

c

;

ω÷ω

c

) and only counting the octant

corresponding to k

x

> 0, k

y

> 0, k

z

> 0.

Each lattice point can be associated with a small cube of

volume (π/a)

3

. Assuming we choose ω ¸a, there will be

many of these small cubes between the spherical surfaces,

and the total number of lattice points between the spheres

in the positive octant will be just the volume of the space

between the spheres divided by the volume of one of these

cubes.

Finally, the number of possible modes of radiation in the

box with (ω, ω ÷ω) is

N(ε

γ

)dε

γ

=

8π

h

3

c

3

ε

2

γ

dε

γ

, (A4)

where = a

3

is the volume of the box. We used the fact that

ω = 2πf and ε

γ

= ¯ hω which leads to dε

γ

= ¯ hdω, where h is

Planck’s constant. Then we get for the probability

φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T )dε

γ

= P

c

8π

c

3

h

3

ε

2

γ

ω

A

(U

/

)

ω

A

(U)

dε

γ

. (A5)

If we introduce the logarithm of the density of levels

S

A

(U) = log[ω

A

(U)], (A6)

where S(U) corresponds to the entropy of the nucleus having

an energy between U and U ÷dU, then

φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T )dε

γ

=σ(U

/

, ε

γ

)

8π

c

2

h

3

ε

2

γ

exp[S

A

(U −ε

γ

) −S

A

(U)]dε

γ

. (A7)

Let us assume ε

γ

_U, then

S

A

(U−ε

γ

) = S

A

(U) −ε

γ

dS

A

dU

÷

ε

2

γ

2

_

d

2

S

A

dU

2

_

U ÷o

_

ε

3

γ

_

,

(A8)

where

dS

A

dU

=

1

T

A

(U)

, (A9)

with T

A

the temperature at which Uis the most probable energy

of the nucleus A in the thermodynamic equilibrium.

An estimate of the amplitude of the corrections in the Taylor

expansion (A8),

ε

2

γ

2

_

d

2

S

A

dU

2

_

U,

is obtained assuming a Fermi gaz relation between nuclear

excitation energy and temperature, U = aT

2

. With the help of

Eq. (A9), one obtains

S(U) = 2

√

aU ÷C, (A10)

where a is the level density parameter and C a constant. So we

ﬁnd

ε

2

γ

2

_

d

2

S

A

dU

2

_

U =

ε

2

γ

4UT

A

(U)

. (A11)

This correction is smaller than the term ε

γ

/T

A

(U) in the ratio

ε

γ

/4U.

Finally,

φ(A, Z, ε

γ

, T ) = σ(U

/

, ε

γ

)

8π

c

2

h

3

ε

2

γ

exp

_

−

ε

γ

T

A

(U)

_

. (A12)

If normalized to 1 when integrated from ε

γ

= 0–∞ and

assuming a constant γ -ray absorption cross section σ(U

/

, ε

γ

),

we obtain

φ(ε

γ

) =

ε

2

γ

2T

3

exp

_

−

ε

γ

T

_

. (A13)

[1] R. B. Leachman and C. S. Kazek, Jr., Phys. Rev. 105, 1511

(1957).

[2] J. Terrell, Phys. Rev. 113, 527 (1959).

[3] T. D. Thomas and J. R. Grover, Phys. Rev. 159, 980 (1967).

[4] S. Lemaire, P. Talou, T. Kawano, M. B. Chadwick, and D. G.

Madland, Phys. Rev. C 72, 024601 (2005).

[5] J. P. Unik et al., in Proc. Third IAEA Symp. on Physics and

Chemistry of Fission, Rochester, N.Y., 1973 (IAEA, Vienna,

1974), Vol. II, p. 19.

[6] W. Reisdorf, J. P. Unik, H. C. Grifﬁn, and L. E. Glendenin, Nucl.

Phys. A177, 337 (1971).

[7] D. G. Madland and J. R. Nix, Nucl. Sci. Eng. 81, 213

(1982).

[8] V. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. 52, 295 (1937).

[9] F. J. Hambsch and S. Oberstedt, Nucl. Phys. A617, 347

(1997).

[10] H. W. Schmitt, J. H. Neiler, and F. J. Walter, Phys. Rev. 141,

1146 (1966).

014602-8

MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL γ -RAY EMISSION FROM . . . PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006)

[11] G. Audi, A. H. Wapstra, and C. Thibault, Nucl. Phys. A729, 337

(2003).

[12] A. V. Ignatyuk, K. K. Istekov, and G. N. Smirenkin, Sov. J. Nucl.

Phys. 29, 450 (1979).

[13] H. Koura, M. Uno, T. Tachibana, and M. Yamada, Nucl. Phys.

A674, 47 (2000); private communication, 2004.

[14] C. Budtz-Jørgensen and H. H. Knitter, Nucl. Phys. A490, 307

(1988).

[15] K. Nishio, Y. Nakagome, H. Yamamoto, and I. Kimura, Nucl.

Phys. A632, 540 (1998).

[16] J. Frehaut, IAEA INDC(NDS) 220, 99 (1989).

[17] F. Pleasonton, R. L. Ferguson, and H. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. C 6,

1023 (1972).

[18] V. V. Verbinski, Hans Weber, and R. E. Sund, Phys. Rev. C 7,

1173 (1973).

[19] R. W. Peelle and F. C. Maienschein, Phys. Rev. C 3, 373 (1971).

[20] F. Pleasonton, R. L. Ferguson, and H. Schmitt, Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, ORNL-4844, 109–112 (unpublished).

[21] H. Nifenecker, C. Signarbieux, M. Ribrag, J. Poitou, and

J. Matuszek, Nucl. Phys. A189, 285 (1972).

[22] H. R. Bowman and S. G. Thompson, in Proceedings 2

nd

International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy,

1958 (United Nations, Geneva, 1958), Vol. 15, p. 212.

[23] E. Nardi, A. Gavron, and Z. Fraenkel, Phys. Rev. C 8, 2293

(1973).

[24] G. V. Val’skii, B. M. Aleksandrov, I. A. Baranov, A. S.

Krivokhatskii, G. A. Petrov, Pleva, and S. Yu, Sov. J. Nucl.

Phys. 10, 137 (1969).

[25] N. V. Kornilov, A. B. Kagalenko, and V. P. Lunev, in XII

International Seminar on Interaction of Neutrons with Nuclei,

Proceedings, Dubna, May 26–29, 2004, ISINN-12, p. 316.

[26] G. Brunson, Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-9408-T, 1982

(unpublished).

[27] J. R. Grover, Phys. Rev. 123, 267 (1962).

[28] V. P. Zommer, A. E. Saveliev, and A. I. Prokoﬁev, At. Energ.

19, 116 (1965).

014602-9

L . both Bn (Ac . ZL ). Zc ) − M(AL .4 ± 0. aA−1. Z) = E ∗ (A.ZH ) = Er (AL . 2 the one made in the Los Alamos model [7]). Energy partition As in [4]. 2 (10) with σ the average charge dispersion.H ¯ . An experiment by Reisdorf et al. (2) is deﬁned as c = 2 σ2 + 1 12 where η neutron. The emission of a neutron of energy ε from the FF at the excitation energy E ∗ produces a residual nucleus with the excitation energy E ∗ (A − 1. (5). ZL . and a is the level density parameter. AH . ZL.H ). KAWANO. TALOU. Z. in the case of binary ﬁssion. At higher nuclear excitation energies. 2.Z = E ∗ (A. 2 TA−1. 2 2σA σA 2π (7) with aA−1. 014602 (2006) charge distribution assumed to be Gaussian. (2) ∗ EL. AH ). [6] on the preneutron emission charge distributions for thermal neutron-induced ﬁssion of 235 U gave σ = 0. Neutron evaporation The total excitation energy TXE available for a given light and heavy pair (AL . (5) is labeled TKE(AL . AH . (13) Both the mean value TKEA and width σA are taken from experiment. The total FF kinetic energy in Eq. Total FF excitation energy where B2n is the two neutron separation energy and ε L. Assuming a constant value of the cross section of the inverse process of compound nucleus formation. At lower excitation energies. light ﬁssion fragment. T ) = ε ε exp − . η L.Z (11) process.H the average neutron kinetic energy for neutron exp emission from a given initial ﬁssion fragment. (AH . we assumed a constant temperature regime for neutron evaporation. L. Zc ) and En terms in Eq.H is simply related to the nuclear temperature TL. ∗ EL.H (9) where c. ZL . which is given. Zc ) and En are the separation and kinetic energies of the neutron inducing ﬁssion. ZH ). and heavy ﬁssion fragment. given by −(TKE − TKEA )2 1 P (A. ZH ) is the energy release in the ﬁssion The probability that a FF will emit a neutron at a given kinetic energy is obtained by sampling over the Weisskopf spectrum at this particular temperature [8].H = TXE 1 aH. Bn (Ac .Z TA−1. 3. ZL ) − M(AH . ZH ) is ∗ TXE(AL . 4. ZH ) = M(Ac .H = TXE 1 2 AL = Zc 1 H = Zp + Ac 2 AH . taking into account the recoil energy of the residual nucleus. In the case of spontaneous ﬁssion. by the difference between the compound nucleus and the FF masses: ∗ Er (AL . (5) ∗ where Er (AL . 014602-2 . the initial FF excitation energy EL.ZL .H + 1 B2n (AL. (4) L. CHADWICK. within the Fermi gas ∗ model. P (Z) = 1 cπ e−(Z−Zp ) /c . and H refer to compound ﬁssioning nucleus. Zc) + En − TKE(AL.H is the average energy removed per emitted = ε L.LEMAIRE.H exp . (H2) Partitioning using the experimental νexp (A) and ¯ ε exp (A) to infer the initial excitation energy of each fragment.H .Z (12) (6) where M are the nuclear masses in MeV.ZL . AH ) and obtained by sampling over the corresponding distribution P (TKE).AH. The transformation of the center of mass spectrum to the laboratory spectrum is done by assuming that neutrons are emitted isotropically in the center of mass frame of a FF. heavy.ZH ) + Bn (Ac.H ) η L. we considered two hypotheses for the total excitation energy partitioning: (H1) Partitioning so that both light and heavy fragments share the same temperature at scission (hypothesis identical to The sequential neutron emission stops when the excitation energy of the residual nucleus is less than the sum of its neutron separation energy and pairing energy. AND MADLAND PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73.H as TA−1. the most probable charge is given by the UCD assumption L Zp − where L and H refer to the light and heavy system. For given light. The width parameter c in Eq. By including the pairing energy. (3) νexp (AL.Z the level density parameter of the (A − 1) nucleus. ε. and compound nucleus mass numbers. respectively. the normalized spectrum is φ(A.05. TKE) = √ exp .AH. Z) − ε − Bn . 1 + aL.H (8) where Zp is the most probable charge for the light or heavy fragment obtained from a corrected unchanged charge distribution (UCD) assumption [5]. we simulate the competition between neutron and γ -ray emission at ﬁssion fragment excitation energies close to the neutron binding energy. In Eq. νexp (Ai ) η i ¯ i=L. Z) − Bn . (5) are zero.

(15) In our problem.14 6. [20] Verbinski et al. or energy dependence of the cross section for the inverse process of compound nucleus formation for both neutron and γ emissions. it was observed experimentally by Pleasonton et al. TA. We also checked that our conclusions were not changed by using different sets of input parameters. Average total prompt γ -ray multiplicities and energies.53 MeV)+235 U reaction. The pairing and shell correction δW energies for the FF were taken from the nuclear mass formula of Koura et al. the input parameters used in the present work are the same as in Ref.88 − − 3. [19] Monte Carlo calc. Pleasonton et al.53 MeV)+235 U reactions.51 ± 0. We used the experimental average number of emitted neutrons ν (A) as a way of partitioning the total excitation ¯ energy distribution between the light and heavy fragment.30 6. The total kinetic energy is used to assess the total FF excitation energy distribution. laboratory and center of mass frames are assumed identical. [17] Verbinski et al. we use the data by Hambsch and Oberstedt [9] in the case of 252 Cf(sf ). [21] Bowman et al.18 ± 0. Z). The emission of a γ ray of energy ε from a FF at the excitation energy E ∗ produces a residual nucleus with an excitation energy E ∗∗ E ∗∗ (A. A Fermi gas region for higher nuclear energies and a constant temperature region for lower nuclear energies. we used 315 FF between 74 A 178 with 105 fragment masses. [22] Nardi et al. we assumed no mass. Wapstra. a ∗ is the asymptotic level density parameter [12].05.78 − − 3. Average total prompt ﬁssion γ -ray energies and multiplicities 1. Z) 1 − e−γ U U .38 6.54 − 2. [14]. Moreover. Z) = E ∗ (A. and the data by Schmitt. 5. γ = 0.53 MeV) 3. γ -ray evaporation PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73. around the most probable charge Zp .35 6.MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL γ -RAY EMISSION FROM . .30 7. [4].53 MeV) on 235 U.6 6. we chose to compare experimental data with our calculations made under the (H2) assumption only. since very little sensitivity has been found for various prompt ﬁssion γ -ray observables upon the partition of the total excitation energy between light and heavy fragments at scission. In this work. Z) − εγ . For simplicity. T ) = 2 εγ 3 2TA.37 − 2.66 − − 3.15 7. εγ .Z exp − εγ . For the neutron-induced n(0. [18] Peelle et al.30 6.84 ± 0.24 − 6. [9] data for spontaneous ﬁssion of 252 Cf.8 ± 0. and Ref.06 ± 0.45 ± 0. and Walter [10] in the case of the neutron-induced ﬁssion (at 0.63 − − 3. In the case of spontaneous ﬁssion of 252 Cf.43 ± 0. A reasonable agreement with experimental data is found for the average total energy of γ rays for both reactions studied. Nuclear masses are used to calculate the energy release for a given pair of FF. The sequential γ -ray emission ends when a given FF has reached its ground state. In particular. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION For both reactions studied.87 − − − − − − 3.5 8. [24] NγL 3. The data tables by Audi.32 ± 0. [13]. [23] Val’skii et al. A. Energies The calculated and experimental average values for γ -ray total energy are shown in Table I. 014602 (2006) The probability that a FF will emit a γ ray at a given energy is obtained by sampling over the center of mass γ -ray spectrum at this particular temperature.Z (14) This expression is derived in the Appendix. Neiler. Input parameters where U = E ∗ − (A. we used data from Ref. [15].5 ± 1. Frehaut [16] Pleasonton et al. so we make the assumption that the center of mass γ -ray energy εγ is equal to its value Eγ in the laboratory frame. and Thibault [11] were used in the present calculation.94 − − − − − − Nγ H 3.53 MeV)+235 U reaction. for the TABLE I. we used data from Ref. Fission reaction 235 Source Monte Carlo calc. Two regions of temperature are considered.30 − 10 − 7.28 − − − − − − 7. It is assumed to be approximately Gaussian in shape with an average value and width taken from the experiment: Ref.7 ± 0.51 7. For the spontaneous ﬁssion of 252 Cf. [18] Nifenecker et al. We considered 85 equispaced fragments with masses between 76 A 160 and three isobars per fragment mass.30 6. [17]. (16) Our Monte Carlo simulations were done using 109 events for both spontaneous ﬁssion of 252 Cf and neutron-induced ﬁssion n(0. The level density parameter reads a(A.71 − − − − − − Nγ 7. B. [10] data for the neutron-induced n(0.65 8.74 ± 0. This assumption will be lifted later in a more reﬁned calculation. The normalized γ -ray energy spectrum obtained assuming a constant value for the γ -ray absorption cross section on a given nucleus is φ(A. . U ) = a ∗ 1 + δW (A. III. Z.77 − 3.70 7.40 7.40 − 252 Cf (sf ) 014602-3 .5 Eγ L Eγ H Eγ T U+n (0.70 − 3. Z.32 7. charge.

This fact is reproduced by our approach. A FIG. that the average total γ -ray energy is higher for the light fragment than for the heavy one. Points are experimental data from Ref. AND MADLAND 9 8 7 Pleasonton et al. instead. 4 80 90 100 110 120 130 AL FIG.5 0 80 100 120 140 160 80 100 120 140 160 A FIG. [17] for thermal neutron-induced ﬁssion of 235 U. Points are experimental data from Ref.53 MeV)+235 U reaction. in [25]) results in too little energy removed by neutrons which means more energy available for γ rays. For A = 132 and A = 154. Clearly.7.3.LEMAIRE. Points are experimental data from Ref. (1998) Calculation with (H2) 2 Ε γ (MeV ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 < ε > (MeV) 1.53 MeV)+235 U. 1.1. 014602 (2006) 2. which correspond to a total ¯ energy removed by neutrons of 1. a total energy removed by neutrons of 4.6 MeV ¯ and ν154 1. [15] give ν132 0. Average total γ -ray energy as a function of light FF mass for 252 Cf(sf ). These ﬂuctuations reﬂect the behavior of the limit chosen between the neutron evaporation regime and the γ -ray evaporation regime that is the neutron separation energy plus pairing energy. let’s say A = 132 and A = 154. Points are experimental data from Ref. However. For the neutron-induced reaction on 235 U. 1. the fact that we underestimate ν and ¯ for A = 132 (the same trend is obtained and discussed by Kornilov et al.8 and 14. 154 1. the average total energy of γ rays emitted from the light fragment is well reproduced. Our calculation does not reproduce the sawtooth behavior observed experimentally. neutron-induced reaction n(0. [21].2 MeV. and compare it with the one estimated from experiments. a better description of the average number and energies of prompt ﬁssion neutrons will help solve the discrepancy observed in Fig. In particular. KAWANO. 1. assuming an ¯ average neutron binding energy of 5. [15] at thermal incident neutron energy.9 MeV.0 MeV. 132 0. In contrast.5 Nishio et al. 2 and 3) ν132 0. 1. To understand the fact that we fail to reproduce the sawtooth behavior of Fig. 132 1. the value obtained for the heavy fragment is 26% too high compared to Pleasonton’s measurement. (1972) Calculation with (H2) PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73. 3.5 MeV.53 MeV)+235 U reaction. CHADWICK. 014602-4 .5 1 0. (1998) Calculation with (H2) energy removed by neutrons for two ﬁssion fragments. 2. small ﬂuctuations around the mean value are obtained. Average neutron multiplicity ν as a function of mass num¯ ber of FF for n(0.53 MeV)+235 U reaction. the average total energy removed by γ rays as a function of ﬁssion fragment mass is shown in Fig. From our calculation we ﬁnd (see Figs. Hopefully.5 0 60 ν 8 6 A FIG.5 2 Nishio et al. we have to estimate the average total 3 2.5 MeV which give. 4. Average total γ -ray energy as a function of FF mass for n(0.6. [15] at thermal incident neutron energy.3 and 11. experimental data from Nishio et al. Average neutron energy ε in the center of mass frame as a function of FF mass for n(0. the overestimation of the energy removed by neutrons in our calculation for A = 154 results in less energy available for γ rays.5 1 0. 154 1. (1972) Calculation with (H2) E γ (MeV) 80 100 120 140 160 1. TALOU. ¯ and ν154 2.5 MeV. 10 Nifenecker et al.

The same conclusion as in the neutron-induced ﬁssion of 235 U is drawn but with more ﬂuctuations around the mean value of the γ -ray energy given in Table I. 5 for neutron-induced ﬁssion of 235 U as a function of the ﬁssion fragment total kinetic energy. etc. The total average γ -ray energy summed over the light and heavy fragments is shown in Fig. In Fig. and 189 MeV). 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 A FIG. Note that the calculated distributions exhibit steps at one. we obtain ﬂuctuations around a mean value that is in reasonable agreement with experimental data.. Again. . The general trend obtained in this calculation is in fair agreement with Pleasonton’s experimental data [17] except for values of the total kinetic around 166 MeV ¯ and between 174 and 188 MeV. Even if we obtain the right order of magnitude 100 8 6 4 2 10 136 Eγ (MeV) 8 6 4 2 10 8 6 4 2 0 150 160 170 180 94 8 6 4 2 10 142 FIG. [17]. the total energy removed by γ -rays will increase with decreasing TKE as long as the FF excitation energy remains below the neutron emission limit we ﬁxed. we have to remember that in our approach FF with excitation energies lower than the neutron binding energy plus pairing energy will only emit γ rays. neutron threshold emissions. 5. Points are experimental data from Ref. Average total γ -ray energy as a function of total kinetic energy at constant ﬁssion fragment mass for n(0. The average total energy of γ rays is plotted in Fig. 6. the total energy removed by γ rays versus FF mass and total kinetic energies (for the speciﬁc total kinetic energies 150. [17]. 7. Average total energy of γ rays emitted per ﬁssion as a function of FF total kinetic energy for n(0. for neutron-induced ﬁssion of 235 U. Average energy of γ rays emitted as a function of FF mass at constant total kinetic energy for n(0. Points are experimental data from Ref. 4 as a function of the light ﬁssion fragment mass for 252 Cf(sf ). 7. [17]. Points are experimental data from Ref. .MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL γ -RAY EMISSION FROM . 88 8 6 4 2 190 200 0 150 160 170 148 180 190 200 TKE (MeV) 014602-5 TKE (MeV) . In Fig. 177. the average total energy of emitted γ rays is plotted as a function of TKE for three pairs of ﬁssion fragments for neutron-induced ﬁssion of 235 U. To explain the decrease of Eγ for 190 < TKE < 204 MeV. 014602 (2006) 8 189 E γ (MeV) 4 Pleasonton et al.53 MeV)+235 U reaction.53 MeV)+235 U reaction.53 MeV)+235 U reaction. two. 10 8 6 4 2 10 10 So. (1972) Calculation with (H2) E γ (MeV) 6 177 165 2 150 0 144 156 168 180 192 204 TKE (MeV) FIG. we represent. 6. 10 10 8 6 4 2 10 8 6 4 2 10 8 6 4 2 10 8 6 4 2 0 80 PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73. 165.

Average number of γ rays as a function of FF mass for n(0.LEMAIRE.994 − − − 0. the number of emitted γ rays is plotted as a function of FF mass for the neutron-induced ﬁssion of 235 U. we found a reasonable agreement with experimental data. as pointed out by Pleasonton [17]. (1972) Calculation with (H2) U+n (0.53 MeV)+235 U reaction. Experimental ﬁt from Brunson [26]. A possible explanation for these discrepancies is that we did not include ﬁssion fragment spin in our calculation.04 0. a good agreement is found for the average number of γ -rays emitted from the light fragment. We calculate 3.53 MeV)+235 U reaction.90 ± 0. This results in a larger phase space available for γ rays from the latter group compared to the former one. 8. our result is 23% higher than the experimental value.07 0. we fail in reproducing the sawtooth shape observed experimentally.1 4 2 0. It is interesting to point out that the values of TKE for which steps are found in our calculation correspond to FF excitation energy thresholds for neutron emissions. As with the total γ -ray energy.909 0. The calculated N γ lie slightly on the high side of the experimental data. [17].08 4 Pleasonton et al. Indeed. even if the average N γ is correct. Again. [20] − Bowman et al. [19] εγ L εγ H (MeV) (MeV) 0.96 ± 0. (1972) PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73.15 Calculation with (H2) Probability 6 Brunson’s model Nγ 0. AND MADLAND 10 Pleasonton et al.2 8 Calculation with (H2) 0. Points are experimental data from Ref. 7. for example) to about 10¯ for deformed FF h at the end of the two fragment groups. [18] Peelle et al. [17]. [24] − .955 Verbinski et al. CHADWICK. γ -ray multiplicity distribution for 252 Cf(sf ). Average number of γ rays as a function of FF total kinetic energy for n(0. [22] − Val’skii et al. Multiplicities Experimental and calculated average multiplicities are given in Table I.962 0. In Fig.928 − − − 0.05 0 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 0 A FIG. Multiplicity distribution To the best of our knowledge.05 0. if we assume that all prompt ﬁssion γ rays arise from collective E2 transition after prompt neutron emission. [18] − Pleasonton et al.63 from Pleasonton’s measurement.70 for N γ L compared to 3. the measured and calculated number of emitted γ rays is plotted as a function of TKE. Average prompt ﬁssion γ -ray energies. KAWANO. Again. 9. 10.85 ± 0. Points are experimental data from Ref. then the angular momentum of the fragments range from 0 to 2¯ for FF near magic numbers h (A = 84. TALOU. 8. 014602-6 H2 0. very few experimental data exist for the γ -ray multiplicity distribution for the two TABLE II.99 ± 0. 10 In Fig.06 0. for γ -ray energies. 014602 (2006) 0. 9. 2.88 ± 0. B.97 ± 0.860 − − − − εγ (MeV) 0. in particular due to the wide spread in the data. 130.53 MeV) 2 0 144 156 168 180 192 204 252 Cf (sf ) TKE (MeV) FIG. For both reactions studied.05 0. For the heavy fragment. 0 5 10 15 20 25 γ multiplicity FIG. we fail in describing the ﬁne structure observed in Fig.96 ± 0.06 0. we succeed in describing the average total number of emitted γ rays. 8 6 Fission reaction 235 Nγ Source H2 Pleasonton et al. [17] Verbinski et al.

014602-7 . APPENDIX: CENTER OF MASS γ -RAY ENERGY SPECTRUM AT FIXED NUCLEAR TEMPERATURE 10 0 Energy spectrum (1/MeV) 10 -1 ENDF/B-VI Calculation with (H2) 10 -2 A statistical approach. In particular. we predict a γ -ray energy spectrum that is too hard in the range 1. γ -ray energy spectrum for n(0.3 evaluated values. . TKE) and Nγ (A. T ).5−5 MeV. εγ . For neutron-induced ﬁssion of n+235 U in Fig. TKE). with the excitation energy U. is used here to derive a formula for the center of mass γ -ray energy spectrum for a given nuclear temperature.MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL γ -RAY EMISSION FROM . Globally. Z. εγ . similar to the one used by Weisskopf [8] to describe neutron evaporation. If we consider a nucleus enclosed in a volume . 014602 (2006) IV. then Pc = σ (U . our results for ﬁssion γ -ray observables are not sensitive to the partition of the total excitation between ﬁssion fragments and they exhibit ﬂuctuations that reﬂect the trend in the neutron binding energy plus pairing energy. it is necessary to average over a number of ﬁnal states. In the case of 252 Cf (sf ). Energy spectrum (1/MeV) C. The values obtained are in very good agreement with experimental data. However. Saveliev. which are in good agreement with the distribution given by Brunson [26] in which a double Poisson model is used to ﬁt measured data. the agreement is reasonable. . we expect this assumption to break down. We assume that γ -ray statistical evaporation appears as the last stage of the ﬁssion fragment decay. Z. 0 PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73. CONCLUSION 10 10 -1 ENDF/B-VI JENDL-3. This probability. Z. ﬁssioning systems studied here.27] as well as Zommer. we have developed a Monte Carlo approach based on sequential neutron and γ -ray emission. 11 and 12 and compared to ENDF/B-VI and JENDL-3. we found global satisfactory agreement with the ENDF/B-VI evaluation. φ(A. T )dεγ . We shall assume that the interval dεγ is much bigger than the distance between the levels of the nuclei in the excited state considered. Our numerical results are given in Fig. A natural extension of this work is a Monte Carlo implementation of the Hauser-Feshbach statistical decay theory that accounts properly for spin and parity conservation rules. To get a continuous function φ(A. εγ ) c (A1) 10 -3 10 -4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Energy (MeV) FIG. γ -ray energy spectrum for 252 Cf(sf ). Because of the limit we chose between neutron and γ -ray evaporation regimes. On average. This approach allows us to assess various prompt ﬁssion γ -ray observables and compare them to experimental data. We want to calculate the probability per unit time φ(A. and Prokoﬁev [28]. εγ ). Calculated γ -ray energy spectra are plotted in Figs. 12. is averaged over all excited states of A whose energy lies near U. 11.3 Calculation with (H2) 10 -2 10 -3 10 -4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Energy (MeV) FIG. This assumption can be justiﬁed for most FF that exhibit a level density higher than 100 above 3–4 MeV only. which are too soft. Prompt ﬁssion γ -ray energy spectra The calculated average γ -ray energies are compared in Table II with several experiments for both reactions studied.53 MeV)+235 U reaction. our approach gives a much better description of the highenergy tail of the spectrum for 235 U+n (0. This probability is a function of the γ -ray absorption cross section σ (U . For lower excitation energies. is the mean probability per unit time of the γ ray with an energy between εγ and εγ + dεγ and a velocity c to be captured by the nucleus A(U − εγ ) forming the nucleus A with an energy between U and U + dεγ . Z.53 MeV) compared to calculations from Thomas and Grover [3. emits a γ -ray with an energy between εγ and εγ + dεγ . T )dεγ that the nucleus A. we obtain the γ -ray multiplicity distribution as well as the full correlation matrices ¯ ¯ Eγ (A. It assumes that the interval dεγ is chosen big enough so that there is a large number of levels of the nucleus A with energies between U and U − dεγ . 10 for 252 Cf (sf ). 11. we ﬁnd a reasonable agreement with experimental data but fail in describing ﬁne structures. In conclusion. εγ . leaving a residual excitation energy U = U − εγ . The distinction between different Ex and Mx transition multipolarities can also be treated properly.

141. 337 (1971). 527 (1959). εγ ) 8π 2 ε c 2 h3 γ × exp[SA (U − εγ ) − SA (U )]dεγ . kz ) between two spherical surfaces centered at the origin and having radii ( ω . Talou. Then we get for the probability φ(A. on Physics and Chemistry of Fission. Therefore. εγ ) εγ 8π 2 . ky > 0. (A12) ε exp − c 2 h3 γ TA (U ) where = a 3 is the volume of the box. εγ . Nucl. A177. kz > 0. Eng. Nix. A617. (A7) U . Phys. Vienna. Z. 980 (1967). We used the fact that ¯ ¯ ω = 2πf and εγ = hω which leads to dεγ = hdω. Vol.. The probability φ(A. Phys. [8] V. 014602-8 . G. Jr. Finally. J. where h is Planck’s constant. [7] D. The quantity N (εγ ) is obtained by counting the number of oscillators at a given frequency in a given energy range. 213 (1982). CHADWICK.. H. Kazek. C. J. εγ . The frequency of the vibration having wave numbers (kx . [5] J. Rev. Schmitt. where a is the level density parameter and C a constant. T )dεγ = Pc 8π 2 ωA (U ) ε dεγ . Z. such a wave is transverse with two independent polarizations that add to the total number of degrees of freedom. εγ ). J. Third IAEA Symp. W. c3 h3 γ ωA (U ) (A5) If normalized to 1 when integrated from εγ = 0–∞ and assuming a constant γ -ray absorption cross section σ (U . ωA (U ) (A2) If we introduce the logarithm of the density of levels SA (U ) = log[ωA (U )]. T )dεγ = σ (U . So we ﬁnd 2 εγ 2 d 2 SA dU 2 U= 2 εγ 4U TA (U ) . Z. Weisskopf. [10] H. Neiler. 159. R. T )dεγ = Pc N (εγ ) ωA (U ) dεγ . B. ky . 113. ky . Unik et al. E. T (A13) [1] R. P. [9] F. Z. Lemaire. dU TA (U ) (A9) (A3) A ﬁxed value of the frequency corresponds to a spherical surface in k space with a radius ω/c. Phys. Phys. D. C 72. T )dεγ then reads as φ(A. [6] W. Madland and J. 1974). Rochester. one obtains √ (A10) S(U ) = 2 aU + C. and the total number of lattice points between the spheres in the positive octant will be just the volume of the space between the spheres divided by the volume of one of these cubes. Grifﬁn. ω + ω) is N (εγ )dεγ = 8π 2 ε dεγ . Thomas and J. P. 1146 (1966).Y. Rev. φ(A. 19. p. Reisdorf. Oberstedt. Kawano. In the case of a three-dimensional standing electromagnetic wave in a cubical box of size a. T ) for the reverse process by dividing Pc by the number ωA (U )dεγ of states in which the γ ray can be captured and multiplying by both the number of states into which A(U ) can decay and the number of quantum states N (εγ )dεγ in the volume at the disposal of the γ rays. ω+c ω ) and only counting the octant c corresponding to kx > 0. H. Sci. Rev. SA (U − εγ ) = SA (U ) − εγ where d 2 SA dU 2 3 U + o εγ . h3 c 3 γ (A4) with TA the temperature at which U is the most probable energy of the nucleus A in the thermodynamic equilibrium. R. in Proc. P. we obtain φ(εγ ) = 2 εγ 2T 3 exp − εγ . Madland. and D. 52. kz ) is 2 2 2 ω = c kx + ky + kz . Phys. εγ . Grover. and L. there will be many of these small cubes between the spherical surfaces. Phys. Phys. Chadwick. Rev. εγ . Nucl. εγ . T. Unik. 2 εγ 2 d 2 SA dU 2 U. S. (A6) where S(U ) corresponds to the entropy of the nucleus having an energy between U and U + dU . KAWANO. 1511 (1957). Each lattice point can be associated with a small cube of volume (π/a)3 . is obtained assuming a Fermi gaz relation between nuclear excitation energy and temperature. Rev. 105. then 2 dSA εγ + dU 2 Let us assume εγ with ωA (U )dU the numbers of levels of the nucleus A. Hambsch and S.LEMAIRE. Terrell. [2] J. With the help of Eq. the number of possible modes of radiation in the box with (ω. Leachman and C. Assuming we choose ω a. Z. (A11) This correction is smaller than the term εγ /TA (U ) in the ratio εγ /4U . [3] T. Phys. (A9). 014602 (2006) We then obtain the probability φ(A. Walter. 347 (1997). T ) = σ (U . N. M. [4] S. An estimate of the amplitude of the corrections in the Taylor expansion (A8). II. the number of possible modes of radiation in the box having frequency in the range ω and ω + ω is equal to the number of lattice point wave number values (kx . and F. Nucl. 81. AND MADLAND PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73. TALOU. Finally. 024601 (2005). B. 295 (1937). Z. 1973 (IAEA. J.. then φ(A. U = aT 2 . (A8) dSA 1 = . Glendenin. Rev. G. εγ .

Phys. 1958 (United Nations. Los Alamos National Laboratory. ORNL-4844. Hans Weber. Maienschein. [11] G. Pleasonton. Rev. Nucl. E. Nucl. C 7. Geneva. Gavron. Budtz-Jørgensen and H. A632. G. Schmitt. Y. [27] J. 1982 (unpublished). Yamada. Val’skii. [25] N. 014602 (2006) [21] H. Dubna. and Z. I. Smirenkin. Phys. Uno. Ignatyuk. p. Pleasonton. Phys. Phys. [23] E. J. [15] K. ISINN-12. M. 2004. Bowman and S. A729. Lunev. 267 (1962). 99 (1989). in Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. 2004. Thibault. and V. Phys. C. 123. Audi. Kornilov. P. C. K. Phys. 1958). [20] F. and C. V. R. Rev. C 6. and R. 15. A189. Rev. . Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 450 (1979). Poitou. P. Rev. L. Pleva. 337 (2003). S. 373 (1971). Kagalenko. Baranov. Yamamoto. Signarbieux. [24] G. J. [28] V. R. Saveliev. At. Sov. . [19] R. 540 (1998). Ferguson. Nardi. W. Nucl. Tachibana. and H. 212. A. private communication. Aleksandrov. and A. H. 2293 (1973). 285 (1972). B. Nishio. LA-9408-T. and J. G. A. [13] H. Istekov. [12] A. Kimura. L. 47 (2000). B. K. Proceedings. A674. Brunson. [14] C. A490. and I. Matuszek. M. Koura. R. 307 (1988). H. Petrov. and G. V. N. Frehaut. Ferguson. [26] G. PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73. Sund. M. 316. in XII International Seminar on Interaction of Neutrons with Nuclei. Zommer. Verbinski. [22] H. Prokoﬁev. Vol. and M. C 8. Ribrag. and H. E. H. A. and S. 19. T. I. Peelle and F. Krivokhatskii. A. Grover. 1173 (1973). Phys. p. 137 (1969). Nucl. Nifenecker. Nucl. Wapstra. V. Schmitt. 29. 10. A. C 3. [17] F. Thompson. Phys. 1023 (1972). Rev. R. A. 109–112 (unpublished). Yu. Nucl. Nucl. Nakagome. May 26–29. A. Phys. 116 (1965). Phys. Knitter. Phys. V.MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO SEQUENTIAL γ -RAY EMISSION FROM . IAEA INDC(NDS) 220. [18] V. Energ. J. Sov. Phys. Fraenkel. [16] J. 014602-9 .

- ionizing radiation
- Physics Fundamentals Chapter30
- Nuclear Fission
- Lect1-Intro-20121.pdf
- 6A Synthesis V1
- is.2808.1964
- Imp Aptitude Questions 1
- BNCT- Sources of Epithermal Neutron Beam
- Fermi Gas Model(2c)
- AP Physics B
- Live and let Die
- Bonding in the Nucleus of an Atom
- Lesson Plan New
- physics
- PC Chapter 45
- Elliptical Zoom Animation
- Lucent Sample Aptitude Placement Paper
- Lecture 11
- Solution
- III B.sc. Physics Syllabus
- Physics Review
- Nuclearpowervillainorvictim 2nd Edition
- Properties of Triangle_khasa Bazar_amritsar
- 1938 - 1644
- SNECMA 14.5 L06 Local Mesh Controls
- ECSS-E-HB-31-01_Part1A (1)
- Sample Paper Tcs
- resumen electromagnetismo
- Radioactive Decay
- Class A

- W70 Nuclear Weapon
- tmpADD4.tmp
- tmp791F.tmp
- tmp4D4.tmp
- The K-Factor by Harrison, Harry, 1925-
- Precision-Guided Munitions and the Neutron Bomb, Cato Policy Analysis
- tmpD5FE
- tmp7744.tmp
- The Ultimate Weapon by Campbell, John Wood, 1910-1971
- tmp489E
- Nuclear Weapons Glossary
- tmp247A.tmp
- Uranium
- HOUSE HEARING, 111TH CONGRESS - CAUGHT BY SURPRISE
- HOUSE HEARING, 112TH CONGRESS - DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY USER FACILITIES
- Tmp 5314
- tmpBD0B.tmp
- tmpD10E
- tmpF0E2.tmp
- Science in Flux NASA's Nuclear Program at Plum Brook Station

- 6 CHS and Sphere FAQs (Handout 4 - Optional) Final
- Guidecraft v. Magformers
- tmp4CF4
- tmp5F0A
- Echo I Press Kit 60-237
- tmpBDAA
- tmp4F24
- GMAT Practice Set 5 - Quant
- As 2410-2005 Laboratory Glassware - Interchangeable Spherical Ground Glass Joints
- as5
- Pageos Press Kit
- Tmp 1495
- ch13-3web
- 1 Module A8 the CHS in the Sphere Handbook Plan
- tmp1F5F.tmp
- as1
- tmpFC6E.tmp
- tmpCF8B
- Sphere Core Standards and CHS Comparison
- tmpA26A
- Tmp 9506
- Southwest Products Company v. The Heim Universal Corporation, 443 F.2d 621, 2d Cir. (1971)
- tmpBF5
- Optimization
- Geometrical Solutions Derived from Mechanics; a Treatise of Archimedes by Archimedes, 280? BC-211? BC
- The Whispering Spheres by Winterbotham, Russell Robert

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading