Calculating Neutron Flux using SN Method

AI Thread Summary
Calculating neutron flux in a finite medium using the SN method often yields values between 0 and 1, which may indicate normalization rather than actual flux. The real flux can be determined by multiplying the normalized values by the local or average power level, which can range from 1 W to 1 GW in a critical fission system. The actual neutron distribution is influenced by fission density and the relative fission cross-section compared to absorption cross-sections. Additionally, temperature effects, such as Doppler broadening and moderator density, must be considered for accurate calculations. Understanding these factors is essential for obtaining the real neutron flux in steady-state conditions.
NukeLion
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
when we calculate the neutron flux in finite medium using sn method for steady state neutron transport equation, it gives us some numbers up to 1. I am sure its not the real flux, can someone explain how we can calculte the real flux using sn method.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
NukeLion said:
when we calculate the neutron flux in finite medium using sn method for steady state neutron transport equation, it gives us some numbers up to 1. I am sure its not the real flux, can someone explain how we can calculte the real flux using sn method.
If values are going from 0 to 1 for a value, then it is probably normalized or represents a probability. Then the question is to what quantity I the value normalized. Perhaps the reaction rate or neutron production rate/density, which relates to the fission density.

One can solve for a neutron distribution, but the actual value depends on fission density. A finite critical fission system can have any power level up to some limit, e.g., 1 W to 1 GW. Criticality means steady-state. The local fission density will depend on the relative fission cross-section in comparison to other absorption cross-sections.
 
Thanks Astronuc for your reply. So is it means that we need to multiply with power to get the real flux?
 
NukeLion said:
Thanks Astronuc for your reply. So is it means that we need to multiply with power to get the real flux?
Correct, there would have to be some local or average (integrated) power from which to obtain a real flux. In conjunction with power and temperature (assuming some heat transfer), the temperature would have to be consistent with the resonance (doppler) broadening and moderator density.
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top