Neutron yield measurements by use of foil activation at JT60U

Magnus Hoek, Takeo Nishitani, Yujiro Ikeda, and Atsuhiko Morioka Citation: Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66, 885 (1995); doi: 10.1063/1.1146527 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1146527 View Table of Contents: http://rsi.aip.org/resource/1/RSINAK/v66/i1 Published by the AIP Publishing LLC.

Additional information on Rev. Sci. Instrum.

Journal Homepage: http://rsi.aip.org Journal Information: http://rsi.aip.org/about/about_the_journal Top downloads: http://rsi.aip.org/features/most_downloaded Information for Authors: http://rsi.aip.org/authors

Downloaded 10 Sep 2013 to 128.118.88.48. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://rsi.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

Neutron yield measurements

by use of foil activation

at dT-6OU

Magnus Hoek,a) Takeo Nishitani, Yujiro Ikeda, and Atsuhiko Morioka Department of Fusion Plasma Research,Naka Fusion ResearchEstablishment,Japan Atomic Energy ResearchInstitute, Naka-machi, Naka-Gun, Zbaraki-ken311-01, Japan (Presented on 12 May 1994) To study the 14 MeV neutron emission, the neutron yield measurements have been complemented by a recently installed neutron activation system, By using threshold reactions (Si, Al, and Cu foils), it is possible to distinguish between the 2.5 and 14 MeV neutron emission. Neutron transport calculations have been performed using Monte Carlo trajectory sampling methods (MCNP code) in order to determine the neutron fluency and energy distribution at the irradiation position. The results from the MCNP calculations together with the known cross sections of the foils, make it possible to calculate a calibration factor, which relates the fluency at the irradiation position to the total fluency from the JT-60U plasma. The accuracy of these calculations have been confirmed (-20%) by comparing the total 2.5 MeV neutron yields obtained from foil activation, with those obtained from the fission chambers, which were calibrated using a 252Cf source. The efficiency calibration of the HP-Ge detector have been performed using a set of calibration sources. However, due to sum-coincidence effects, the efficiency is expected to have large errors (- 10%). 0 199.5American Institute of Physics.

I. INTRODUCTION The total neutron yield is a suitable parameter for the evaluation of the plasma performance and is routinely measured by calibrated fission chambers at JT-6OU. When deuterium (D) ions fuse, the reactions D(D,n)3He and D(D,p)T have equal probability which implies that tritons (T) are generated in the same rate as the 2.5 MeV neutrons in a DD plasma. The generated 1 MeV triton is of interest due to its similar kinematics to the 3.5 MeV cr particles, which might be used for the heating of a DT plasma in a future commercial fusion reactor. When the confined tritons are slowing down and thermalized in the plasma, a T(D,n)cr reaction is possible (Yriton burnup), thereby generating a 14 MeV neutron which can be measured. The flux of these 14 MeV neutrons depends on the slowing down of the tritons and how well the tritons are confined. The slowing down time of the tritons and the yield of the 14 MeV neutrons have been measured using a silicon surface barrier detector (SBD).53 However, due to the intense 2.5 MeV neutron flux, this kind of detector soon has to be replaced due to radiation degradation. This paper describes the time-integrated measurements of the 2.5 and 14 MeV neutron yields by means of foil activation of different materials with well-known neutron interaction cross sections. The sample to be irradiated, is positioned very close to the plasma (-1.5 m) using a pneumatic rabbit system. After removal of the sample, the induced radioactivity is measured using a high-resolution semiconductor diode (HP-Ge crystal). If the efficiency of the y detector is known then, from the area under the measured y peak, the neutron flux at the sample can be derived. In order to calculate the total neutron yield from the plasma, the relation between the neutron flux at the irradiation position and total neutron yield Corn the whole plasma region, has to be
%TA Postdoctoral Fellowship. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66 (l), January 1995

known. This has been achieved by using Monte Carlo trajectory sampling methods, the MCNP code.4 II. NEUTRON YIELD MEASUREMENTS The measured neutron yield S, can be evaluated using CM SIX= 6me-htl( 1 -e-Af)C@*(Ei)(T(EI)

0)

where C is the measured y counts during measurement time At, M is the molar mass of the nuclide, E is the efficiency of the y detector, h is the decay constant of the daughter nuelide, tl is the cooling time of the irradiated foil, m is the mass of the foil, and Z$*(E,)a(Ei) is the calibration factor which relates the flux at the irradiation position to the total emitted flux from the plasma region. @ *(El) is the flux per source neutron in energy group i and was obtained from MCNP calculations and c+(Ei) is the neutron cross section of the nuclide from the same energy group. After irradiation, the foil is transferred to a neutron shielded environment, where, for some foils a certain cooiing time is allowed before the y-detector measurement. The y measurement is done utilizing a HP-Ge coaxial y detector. The multichannel analyzer is interfaced to a computer where the y peaks are analyzed. A. Irradiation polnt and MCNP calculations

Figure 1 shows a poloidal cross section of JT-60U to indicate the irradiation point of the activation foils. The foils mounted in a polyethylene capsule are transferred by a pneumatic rabbit system to the irradiation point in the re-entrant type diagnostic port. Only lo-mm-thick stainless steel wall including the pneumatic tube exists between the irradiation point and the plasma. The energy distribution of the neutron flux/source neutron, @ *(Ei), has been calculated using the MCNP code. In the calculations, the JT-60U components are described by -110 surfaces which are combined into the specifications of
D 1995 American institute of Physics a85

0034-6748/95/66(1)/685/3/$6.00

Downloaded 10 Sep 2013 to 128.118.88.48. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://rsi.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

(ml

FIG. 1. Schematics of a poloidal cross section of JT-60U to indicate the irradiation point of the activation foils.

-190 cells. Components around the irradiation point such as the capsule and the diagnostic port are carefully modeled. The geometrical descriptions also include the vacuum vessel with the horizontal port box, carbon tiles, poloidal and toroida1 coils, the center column assembly, and floor and building walls. To obtain a number which could be compared to other tokamaks, assuming similar amount and composition of neutron scattering material, we have used an expression, derived in Ref. 7, for the calculation of the neutron flux assuming no scattering and attenuation. The neutron flux at a distance of 150 cm from a toroidal line source at a poloidal angle of 0 and with 10.5as a toroidal neutron emitting cutoff angle, we obtain a neutron flux of 6.1X10F7 cm . This value can be compared to the MCNP value (integrated over neutron energy 0.5-2.5 MeV) of 1.3X 10m6 cm-?. This means that the is -2.1. ratio r,c,/l?, me SOrCe B. The foils For the measurement of the yield of 2.5 MeV neutrons, in the purpose of cross calibration with the fission chambers, possible isotopes may be IsIn 4Zn and 58Ni. Indium is the most sensitibe of ;hese materials, with a large cross section around 2.5 MeV (maximum at 2.5 MeV). Further, the threshold of the (rz,p1 ) reaction is at 0.3 MeV which effectively limits the contribution from low energy scattered neutrons. The total necessary neutron yield from the JT-60U plasma for sufficient y-counting statistics is -5X1014 neutrons assuming a typical mass of -0.3 g. The cross section of the 64Zn(n,p) reaction is small and needs neutron yields in the order of --5X 1Ol6 neutrons for sufficient statistics (-0.2 g). Further, apart from the relatively large sensitivity for competing 14 MeV neutrons, competing neutron reactions make it necessary to make two successive y measurements. Also, the daughter nuclide decays by pf giving rise to 511 keV annihilation photons. As long as all ,B annihilates in the sample, the y measurement
888 Rev. Sci. Instrum., Vol. 88, No. 1, January 1995

should be reliable. However, in the case of thin samples, a substantial amount of p+ may escape the foil, leading to annihilation in the surrounding material, giving too many measured y counts. Nickel demands very high total neutron yields (-1017 neutrons for a mass of -0.7 g and no measurements have so far been successful at JT-60U. However, the advantage with Ni is the possibility to obtain the fraction between the 14 and 2.5 MeV neutrons directly by utilizing the (n,2n) and (n,p) reactions, respectively. The 14 MeV neutrons have been measured by activating 28Si, 27Al, and 63Cu. The activation of silicon (-0.04 g) and aluminum (-0.2 g) [both (n,p) reactions] have given reasonable y-counting statistics. The necessary total neutron yields are -5X 1015neutrons for sufficient statistics, assuming the total neutron yield consists of -1% 14 MeV neutrons. The daughter nuclide of the 63Cu(n,2n) reaction decays by P+- Further, the competing reactions 63Cu(n,y) and 65Cu(n,2n) must be corrected for. The correction procedure is described in Ref. 5. The advantage with copper foils, is that the cross section for the 63Cu(n,2n) reaction is very large and total necessary emitted neutron yields are as low as -lOI neutrons for typical masses of -0.7 g. III. RESULTS AND ERROR ANALYSIS The dominant errors for the calculation of the neutron yield are the values of the measured y counts, the efficiency of the y detector, and the value of the calibration factor, see Eq. (1). The error of the efficiency of the y detector is not known. However, we have assumed that the error is better than 10% at the first measurement position. The error of the flux integral depends on the errors of both the cross sections and the calculated flux from MCNP. The errors of the flux can be obtained from MCNP. However, these errors are statistical errors from the Monte Carlo calculations and to get an estimated error of the calibration factor we have assumed that the error of the fluency from each energy group is - 10%. This error should then cover the error due to the flux dependency of the plasma position and errors due to modeling. The errors of the cross sections which have been obtained from FNS,6 are -5% per energy group. With these assumptions, the final error of the calibration factor, generally becomes better than 15%. Figure 2 shows the ratio of measured neutron yield from activation of In and Zn and the neutron yield measured by fission chamber versus the neutron yield measured by the fission chamber. The calibration factor has been calculated with a polyethylene capsule surrounding the foil but without the stainless steel (SS) tubes which surrounds the capsule. Therefore it is surprising that the obtained neutron yield from activation of indium is 10%-20% higher than the yield from the fission chambers. The neutron yields from zinc are even higher, probably due to the sensitivity of 14 MeV neutrons.5 Further, too many measured y counts may be the case due to escaping pf from the thin (CO.2 mm) sample. The error of the neutron yield measured by the fission chamber is -10%. The error bars of the neutron yield from the indium foils are
Plasma diagnostics

Downloaded 10 Sep 2013 to 128.118.88.48. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://rsi.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions

1.6 f 1.4 0
.6 1.2 1 ii ; 1 $ .? 0.8 z u $ - 0.6 w @z 0.4

10 5 10 6 Total Yield, Fission Chamber FIG. 2. Ratio of neutron yield from neutron activation of foils and the fission chamber vs the yield measured by the fission chamber. The obtained neutron yields from foil activation of indium are generally lo%-20% higher than those obtained from the fission chamber. Foil activation of zinc gives even higher neutron yields. The error of the yield from the fission chamber, the zinc measurements, and the indium measurements are -lo%, -2O%, and -15%, respectively.

estimated to -15% while the errors of the zinc measurements are -20%. The error bars of the neutron yield from copper, aluminum, and silicon foils are -20% giving a 25%-30% error of the triton burnup. Figure 9 in Ref. 5 shows that the measured values of the triton burnup are -0.5% and that the tritons are better confined for larger values of the plasma current as expected. The conclusions from the error analysis and the measurements done so far, are that for the measurement of the 2.5 MeV neutron yield, indium should give the best overall error (-15%). Using zinc gives a larger error mainly because of the uncertainty in the measurement of the number of annihilation photons and the low cross sections. For the measurement of the 14 MeV neutron yield, the silicon and aluminum samples should give the most reliable values of the T/D fraction due to the relatively high sensitivity to the 14 MeV neutrons. The 63Cu(n,2n) reaction are very sensitive for 14 MeV neutrons but the calculation of the neutron yield is complicated due to the measurement of annihilation photons (including background) and the necessity of two successive y measurements. IV. SUMMARY The neutron yield measurements at JT-60U have now been complemented by foil-activation technique. A sample is exposed to a flux of neutrons for a period of time, and then removed by a rabbit system, to a y detector where the induced radioactivity is measured.

The main advantage of foil activation is that the samples can be positioned very close to the plasma (-1.5 m) without any regards of radiation damages to detectors or electronics. Further, the necessary equipment is simple and reliable. The main disadvantages are that high neutron yields are necessary (-1016) and that every measurement have to be done manually due to that an automatic procedure is not trivial. The neutron activation system has recently been installed and good agreement of the measurements of the 2.5 MeV neutron yield from foil activation and fission chambers has been shown. Further, the fractions between 14 and 2.5 MeV neutrons have been measured for a few .pulses and seem to yield reasonable values. The dominant errors for the calculation of the neutron yield, are the values of the measured y counts, the efficiency of the y detector, and the value of the calibration factor which determines the fraction of the neutron flux at the irradiation position to the whole plasma. If it is assumed that the errors of the efficiency of the detector and the calibration factor are -10% and -15%, respectively, the errors of the measured 2.5 MeV neutron yield, utilizing indium [ 151n(n,n )51n] and zinc [64Zn(n,p)64Cu], become -15% and -2O%, respectively. For the measurement of the 14 MeV neutron yield, the estimated errors for silicon [?Si(n,p j28Al], aluminum [27Al(n,p> 7Mg] and copper [63Cu(n,2n)62C~] are -20%. Utilizing zinc and copper foils implies the difficulty in measuring annihilation radiation, with the subsequent background correction, and the necessity of two successive y measurements due to unavoidable competing neutron reactions. The experiences have shown that, among the materials tested for neutron activation at JT-60U for the measurements of the 2.5 MeV neutron yields, indium is the most suitable material. For the measurement of 14 MeV neutrons, utilizing silicon and aluminum, have given best results (relatively small errors).

T. Nishitani, H. Takeuchi, C. W. Barnes, and T. Iguchi, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Report No. JAERI-M 92-073, 1993, pp. 23437.

T. Nishitani, A. Morioka, and Y. Ikeda, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Report No. JAERI-M 93-057, 1993, pp. 267-270. 3T. Nishitani and Y. Ikeda, Japan Atomic Energy Research institute Report No. JAERI-M 92-073, 1992, pp. 242-245. 4Los AIamos Monte Carlo Group, LANL Report No. U-7396-M, Rev. 2, 1986. h/I. Hoek, T. Nishitani, Y. Ikeda, and A. Morioka, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Report No. JAERI-M 94-002, 1994. Y. Ikeda er a& Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Report No. JAERI 1312, 1988. G. Z&I, J. D. Strachan, R. Lewis, W. Pettus, and J. Schmotzer, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 185, 321 (1981).

Rev. Sci. Instrum., Vol. 88, No. 1, January 1995

Plasma diagnostics

887

Downloaded 10 Sep 2013 to 128.118.88.48. This article is copyrighted as indicated in the abstract. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://rsi.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions