Kinetics With Delayed Neutrons

B. Rouben
McMaster University
EP 6D03
Nuclear Reactor Analysis
(Reactor Physics)
2009 Jan.-Apr.

2009 Januar

Prompt and Delayed Fractions

We now have to distinguish between the prompt and

delayed neutrons. Lets write:
Average total number of neutrons released per fission
(1)
p Average number of prompt neutrons released per fission (2)
d Average number of delayed neutrons released per fission (3)
Therefore
p d
( 4)
and p d 1

(5)

where we have defined the delayed neutron fraction

2009 Januar

(6)

Prompt and Delayed Sources

Without delayed neutrons, we had gotten to the following

evolution equation for the neutron density:

n( r , t )
2
f n( r , t ) DB n( r , t ) an( r , t )
t

( 7)

Now, we will need to separate the neutron source into a

prompt part,
p f 1 f n

(8)

and a delayed part.

2009 Januar

Prompt and Delayed Sources

The delayed source comes from the decay of delayedneutron precursors. We saw last time that there are many
delayed-neutron precursors. However, we will for now
assume only 1 delayed-neutron precursor group. We will
write its concentration as C.
By the radioactive-decay law, the decay rate of the
precursor is C, where is the decay constant of the
precursor.
There is 1 delayed neutron born from the decay of 1
precursor nuclide. Therefore the production rate of the
precursor must be equal to the fission rate times d:
d f f n
2009 Januar

( 9)

Prompt and Delayed Sources

Therefore the equation for the evolution of the precursor

concentration is (production rate decay rate)
dC
f C
dt

and the new equation for the evolution of the neutron

density
is

n ( r , t )
2
(1 ) f n( r , t ) DB n( r , t ) an( r , t ) C
t

(10)

(11)

The above coupled equations are the point-kinetics

equations in 1 energy group, with 1 delayed-neutronprecursor group.
2009 Januar

Point-Kinetics Equations with 1 Precursor

At the end of the previous presentation, we had just

reached the point-kinetics equations with 1 delayedneutron-precursor group in the following form:
Equation for the evolution of the precursor:

C r , t
r , t C r , t
(1)
t

(we hadnt previously shown explicitly the dependence

of C and on space and time - we now added this for
completeness)
Equation
for the evolution of the neutron density:

n( r , t )
(1 ) f n( r , t ) DB 2n( r , t ) an( r , t ) C r , t ( 2)
t

2009 Januar

Point-Kinetics Equations with 1 Precursor (cont.)

Simplify Eq. (2) by factorizing f from first 3 terms:

n( r , t )
DB 2 a

f 1
n
(
r
,
t
)

C
r
,t

t
f

Now we use
1
neutron generation time

f
and keff

f
1

DB 2 a
keff

to get

n r , t 1
1
1
n r , t C , i.e.,
t

keff

n r , t

n r , t C r , t
t

2009 Januar

( 2)'

(3)
( 4)

( 2)' '

Point-Kinetics Equations with 1 Precursor (cont.)

So lets rewrite the final point-kinetics equations for the

neutron density and precursor concentration in terms of
time only (write equation for n first, as per convention):
dn

n C
dt

dC
n C
dt

( 6)

(7)

We can also rewrite the equations in terms of , using

n
:
d , but this will involve

dt

dC

C
dt

2009 Januar

(8)

( 9)

Solution of Point-Kinetics Equation

Lets try to solve the point-kinetics equations, (6) & (7).

Note that there are 2 time constants ( and 1/) which enter into
the equations, so we may expect that the time evolution will
somehow involve these 2 time constants.
We have a system of two differential equations in 1st-order in 2
variables, n and C. The usual form of solution tried for linear
differential equations is the exponential form, so lets try:
n net , C Cet
(10)
Substituting this form into Eqs. (6) & (7) yields, after division of
both sides by the common factor et, found in every term:

n
n C
(11)

n
n C C

2009 Januar
C

(12)

Solution of Point-Kinetics Equation

These are in fact 2 homogeneous equations in 2 unknowns:

n C 0
n

( ) C 0

(13)
(14)

We know that there will be a non-trivial solution only if the determinant

is zero, i.e.,

0, i.e.
toattack
this
are
2ways
0equation:
There

(15)

One is to realize that this is a quadratic equation, whose roots can be found. Well
come back to this method later.
The other method is graphical. In this approach, the form of the equation usually
seen is obtained by writing in terms of l*. Remember from Eq. (19) in the
previous presentation:
*

(1 )*
keff
2009 Januar
10

Inhour Equation

Eq. (15) then becomes:

1 * 0
The terms in are usually isolated , as follows :

*
1 * , or

1 * 1 *

(16)

This form of the equation is called the Inhour equation (for 1

delayed-neutron-precursor group).
The Inhour equation is not easy to solve, as the left-hand side is a
discontinuous function which goes to at 2 values of (at G+1
values of if we had done the analysis with many delayedneutron-precursor groups).
The way to visualise the solutions is to plot the left-hand side in
terms of , and see where it crosses a horizontal line at height .
2009 Januar
11

Inhour Equation

To plot Eq. (16), we need to note the following features:

*

(16)
1 * 1 *
The left hand side :
goes through 0 at 0 (is positive for 0, negative for 0)

1
because , as , and as and
*

1
1
as * , and as *

1 asymptotically from below as

1 asymptotically from above as
The right hand side is a horizontal line at height .

2009 Januar

12

Inhour Equation (cont.)

The plots of the l.h.s. and r.h.s. of Eq. (16) are then as follows:
[From Lamarsh]
There are always 2
solutions for :
When < 0, both
values are negative
1

When > 0, one

*
value is positive, and
the other is negative.

When = 0, one
value is 0, the other is
is negative.
2009 Januar
13

General Solution for 1 Precursor Group

Thus there are always 2 values of as solutions, and

consequently the general solution for the neutron density and the
precursor concentration is a sum of 2 exponentials:
n t n1e1t n2e2t

C t C1e1t C2e2t

(17)
(18)

By convention, lets agree that 1 is the algebraically larger

solution, i.e., the rightmost one.
Note that l* is very small (~1 ms), therefore the vertical line at
1/l* is very much to the left of the line at (i.e., the figure is far
from being to scale).
Thus, although 2 is algebraically smaller (i.e., it is the one on
the left), in absolute magnitude it is much larger than 1:

2 1

2009 Januar

(unless is l arg e positive)

14

General Solution for 1 Precursor Group

Physically, l* is the time constant at which the

neutron density (or power) would evolve without
delayed neutrons (as we showed before),
whereas 1/ is the time constant corresponding
to the delayed neutrons.
Because of the coupled nature of the kinetics
equations, the time constants for the evolution of
the neutron density (and power) are not equal to
l* or 1/, but at least one of the time constants is
intermediate between these values.
2009 Januar

15

General Solution for 1 Precursor Group (cont.)

Summarizing, therefore:
2 0 in all cases
1 0 if 0
0 if 0
0 if 0
and 2 1 ( and fairly l arg e negative ) in all cases

In the general solution, then, the exponential term in 2

will first die away (quite quickly), and the term in 1 will
remain as the asymptotic time evolution of the neutron
density:

increasing exponentially if > 0, decreasing exponentially if

< 0, and tending to a constant value if = 0.
2009 Januar
16

Stable Period

Since the asymptotic evolution of the neutron density

(or the flux, or power) will be proportional to the
exponential e1t , then we can write

1
Stable (or asymptotic ) period
1

(19)

which will be a positive period (increasing flux) if

1>0, and a negative period if 1<0.

2009 Januar

17

Kinetics with 6 Delayed-Neutron-Precursor Groups

If we retain 6 delayed-neutron precursor groups, the analysis

will be similar, but the Inhour equation will have 7 roots
instead of just 2. The graphic representation of the Inhour
is: [from Duderstadt & Hamilton]

1
*

2009 Januar

18

Kinetics with G Delayed-Neutron-Precursor Groups

Generalizing to any number (G) of delayed-neutron precursors,

the point-kinetics equations will be:
G
dn

n g C g
dt

g 1

( 20)

dC g g

n g C g , g 1 to G
dt

( 21)

and in this case the inhour equation will be

G
g
*

1 * 1 * g 1 g

( 22)

which will have (G+2) branches and (G+1) roots.

If <0 all roots will be negative, but
If >0 one root will be positive (1), and all other roots will be
negative
2009 Januar
19

Kinetics with G Delayed-Neutron-Precursor Groups

With G delayed-neutron-precursor groups, then, the general

solution will be a sum of (G+1) exponentials:,
n t n1e1t n2e2t ... nG 1eG 1t

C g t C1g e1t C2 g e2t ... CG 1, g eG t , g 1 to G

2009 Januar

( 23)
( 24)

20

General Solution

By convention, we denote 1 the algebraically largest

root (i.e., the rightmost one on the graph)
1 has the sign of .
Since all other values are negative (and more
negative than 1 if 1 <0), the exponential in 1 will
survive longer than all the others.
Therefore, the eventual (asymptotic) form for n and Cg
is exp(1t), i.e., the power will eventually grow or drop
1
with a stable (or asymptotic) period .
1

2009 Januar

21

General Solution (cont.)

In summary, for the asymptotic time dependence:

If 0, 1 0 [and becomes very l arg e for
this is prompt sup ercritical ity ]]
If 0, 1 0 [i.e., power will tend to a cons tan t ]
If 0, 1 0 [but note, cannot be more negative than
with the smallest absolute value, i.e.,
typically 1 0.013 s 1 , stable period 80 s.]

For not too large and positive (i.e., except for positive
reactivity insertions at prompt criticality or above):
1
1
, i.e., things evolve much more slowly than
*
without delayed neutrons
2009 Januar

22

Situation at Steady State

The point-kinetics equations apply even in steady state, with =0.

The relationship between the precursor concentrations and the
neutron density can be obtained by setting the time derivatives to
0 in the point-kinetics equations. For G precursor groups at
steady state (subscript ss):
G
dnss 0

nss g C g ,ss 0
dt

g 1

dC g ,ss
dt

( 25)

nss g C g ,ss 0 , g 1 to G

From Eq. (26) we get

Cg ,ss

( 26)

g nss
, g 1 to G
g

( 27)
G

Summing Eq. (27) over all g yields back Eq. (25), since g
g 1
2009 Januar
23

Prompt-Jump (or Drop) Approximation

We have seen that the time evolution of the flux/power is

a sum of exponentials, all with negative exponent, except
for a single one if > 0.
In either case, whether > 0 or <0. the exponential with
the (algebraically) largest exponent, 1, will quickly be
the surviving one, the other exponentials dying away
more quickly.
In a sudden insertion of reactivity (whether > 0 or < 0) in
a reactor running steadily, there will therefore be a prompt
jump or prompt drop, during which these dying
exponentials die away, after which the flux/power will be
on an exponential behaviour with a stable period 1/ 1 (see
figure).
2009 Januar

24

Prompt Jump

Illustration of prompt jump prompt drop is similar:

2009 Januar

25

Estimating the Prompt Jump/Drop

An estimate of the size of the prompt jump (or drop) can

be obtained most easily by making the following
approximations:
1) The delayed-neutron-precursor concentrations cannot
change substantially during the prompt jump, therefore
the precursor concentration at the start of the stable
period can be taken equal to the steady-state value.
2) The derivative of the time evolution at the start of the
stable period is much smaller than the derivative during
the prompt jump, therefore the derivative at the start of
the stable period can be approximated by zero.
contd

2009 Januar

26

Estimating the Prompt Jump/Drop (cont.)

Lets do this estimate with one precursor group, for simplicity:

Let C and n be the precursor concentration and neutron density at
the end of the prompt jump or drop.
Approximat ion 1 amounts to setting C Css

nss
( from Eq. ( 27)) ( 28)

dn
Approximat ion 2 amounts to setting
0, therefore from Eq.(6) :
dt
dn

0
n C
( 29)
dt

Substituting Eq. ( 28) in Eq. ( 29) gives

n
0
n ss

: Pr ompt Jump or Pr ompt Drop Approximat ion (30)

nss

2009 Januar

27

Prompt-Jump Invalidity

What happens if > ? We can see from Eq. (30) that

the r.h.s. would be negative, i.e. n would be < 0!
This is a symptom that the prompt-jump approximation
breaks down when the value of (positive) comes
close to the value of .
The reason that it breaks down is that as increases and
crosses the value of , the value of 1 becomes very
large (the exponential increases extremely rapidly), and
the approximation of setting the derivative of n to zero
simply breaks down.
Note that this is not the case for any negative value of :
The prompt-drop approximation does not break down.
2009 Januar

28

Prompt Criticality

The condition = corresponds to:

keff

1
1

1 ...
1 1

This means that keff = or >1 even if we ignore the delayed

neutrons ( ), i.e., the reactor is critical on prompt
neutrons alone. This condition is called prompt criticality.
The delayed neutrons then no longer play a crucial role,
and when increases beyond (prompt supercriticality),
very very short reactor periods (< 1 s, or even much
smaller, depending on the magnitude of ) develop.
Thus, it is advisable to avoid prompt criticality.
The next slide shows how the period changes above
prompt criticality for various prompt-neutron lifetimes.
2009 Januar

29

Reactor Period vs. Reactivity for Various

Prompt-Neutron Lifetimes

2009 Januar

30

Alternate Treatment for 1 Precursor Group

Now that we have analyzed the kinetics by means of the

Inhour equation, we will return to investigate the
alternate solution for the values, for 1 precursor group.
We return to Eq. (15):

(15)

This is in fact a quadratic equation in :

2 0

(31)

We can write the exact two solutions for :

1

2009 Januar

2 4

(32)

31

Alternate Treatment for 1 Precursor Group (cont.)

We can see that 1 and 2 are respectively the solutions

with the plus sign and the minus sign in front of the
square root.
Now 0.006, 0.001 s in most reactors , and 0.1 s 1.

So, as long as is sufficiently smaller than say ,

2

the sec ond term under the square root sign is much smaller
than the first term .

Under these conditions, then, we can see that

1


2
2

2009 Januar

(33)

32

Alternate Treatment for 1 Precursor Group (cont.)

As for 1:

1
4

1
1
2
2

1
2

has same sign as

1/ 2

(34)

Note again that a lg ebraically 1 2 ,

however in absolute value 2 1 .

The general solution is

n t n1e1t n2e2t

C t C1e1t C2e2t
2009 Januar

(35)
(36)
33

Alternate Treatment for 1 Precursor Group (cont.)

Each C is related to its corresponding n as per Eq. (12):

ni
Ci
, i 1, 2
(37)
( i )

Therefore Eqs. (35) & (36) become

n t n1e t n2e t
1

(35)

n1
n2
e1t
e2t
(36)'
( 1 )
( 2 )
We can calculate n1 and n2 by equating n 0 and C 0 to
known initial values. Here we will assume that the initial
state is a critical reactor , therefore
n 0 nss 1 (arbitrarily chosen initial value, for simplicity ),
n
and , as per Eq. ( 27), Css ss
(38)

2009 Januar
34
C t

Alternate Treatment for 1 Precursor Group (cont.)

So Eqs. (35) & (36) become, at t = 0:

n1

n2

(38)

n1
n2

Css
, which can be rewritten
1 2

n1
n2
1

(39)
1 2
1
We can e lim inate n2 by taking
* Eq. (38) Eq. (39) :
2
n1
n1
1
1
2

, i.e.
1 2 2 2
2 1
2
n1

1 2 2
2 1 1
n1

(39) , sin ce 2 1
2 1

2009 Januar

35

Alternate Treatment for 1 Precursor Group (cont.)

Using the value of 1 from Eq. (34),

1
, we get finally

1

n1

( 40)

We can immediately get n2 from Eq. (38) :

n2 1 n1
(41)

So the total solution for the neutron density or flux / power is

t
t

n t
e

e
( 42)


Note that we have rederived the prompt jump in a different way!

2009 Januar

36

Summary

This presentation has focused on presenting the

principles and concepts of delayed-neutron influence on
the kinetics of a reactor core.
Most of the analysis was based on a 1-delayed-neutronprecursor-group model. Some of the analysis was
generalized to 6 or G precursor groups.
However, remember that all the analysis was based on
point kinetics, in which the flux shape did not change.
In reality, for a more accurate analysis of what happens
in neutronic transients, spatial kinetics is required. We
will not cover this here.
2009 Januar

37

END

2009 Januar

38