4.2 Article

Measurements and estimation of cross sections of neutron and bremsstrahlung induced nuclear reactions for neodymium isotopes with covariance analysis

期刊

NUCLEAR PHYSICS A
卷 1020, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122399

关键词

Neutron activation analysis; Photon activation analysis; Covariance analysis; Correlation coefficients

资金

  1. SERB-DST [EMR/2017/002497]
  2. DAE-BRNS [36(6)/14/49/2016-BRNS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cross sections of various nuclear reactions and photon-induced reactions were measured and compared with previous data and evaluated nuclear data libraries. The experimental results were in good agreement with other literature and evaluated data, providing valuable information for the development of particle accelerators, reactors, and nuclear reaction databases.
The cross sections of the nuclear reactions 142Nd(n,2n)141Nd, 148Nd(n,2n)147Nd, 150Nd(n,2n)149Nd, 142Nd(n,2n)141mNd and 146Nd(n,p)146Pr at 14.77 MeV neutron energy and the cross section of the 142Nd(gamma ,n)141Nd, 148Nd(gamma ,n)147Nd and 150Nd(gamma ,n)149Nd nuclear reaction at 10 and 15 MeV bremsstrahlung endpoint energies were measured using offline gamma spectroscopy. The photon-induced cross sections are reported for the first time at 10 MeV and 15 MeV bremsstrahlung endpoint energies. The uncertainties in the measured data were calculated using covariance analysis. The experimental results were compared with the previously reported EXFOR data and with the evaluated nuclear data libraries ENDF/B.-VIII.0, JEFF-3.3, JENDL-4.0, CENDL-3.2 and TENDL-2019. The theoretical nuclear model calculations were performed using the TALYS-1.95 code with default and optimized input parameters tuned to reproduce the present and literature data. The present data are in good agreement with other literature and evaluated data. The results are useful for the development of particle accelerators, reactors and the EXFOR database. (c) 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据