ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2025 ANS Winter Conference & Expo
November 9–12, 2025
Washington, DC|Washington Hilton
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Oct 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
November 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Leading the charge: INL’s role in advancing HALEU production
Idaho National Laboratory is playing a key role in helping the U.S. Department of Energy meet near-term needs by recovering HALEU from federal inventories, providing critical support to help lay the foundation for a future commercial HALEU supply chain. INL also supports coordination of broader DOE efforts, from material recovery at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina to commercial enrichment initiatives.
J. V. Muralidhar Rao, S. M. Lee, M. L. Sharma
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 76 | Number 3 | December 1980 | Pages 351-356
Technical Note | doi.org/10.13182/NSE80-A21326
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Within the framework of the Abajan, Bazazjantz, Bondarenko, and Nikolaev (ABBN) shielding factor approach, several methods have been proposed in the past for the treatment of resonance shielding of multigroup cross sections in heterogeneous cells of fast reactor lattices. First, the approximations made in the different methods and their interrelationship is briefly reviewed. Then, three recent efficient methods proposed by Bitelli et al., by Tone, and by Kujawski and Protsik are numerically compared by checking against exact fine-group collision probability calculations. It is found that the method of Bitelli et al. may give erroneous results, while the methods of Tone and of Kujawski and Protsik show satisfactory agreement with the exact calculations.