PHYSICAL REVIEW C 73, 014602 (2006

)
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

_
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


exp
_
−(TKE −TKE
A
)
2

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)

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
=

h
3
c
3
ε
2
γ

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

c
3
h
3
ε
2
γ
ω
A
(U
/
)
ω
A
(U)

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
)

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
)

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 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful