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
2026 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Jun 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
July 2026
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
May 2026
Latest News
Breaking ground on a new approach to construction
The drive to Kairos Power’s reactor demonstration site in Oak Ridge, Tenn., is not only scenic—it’s historic. Nearly 85 years ago, roughly 30,000 construction workers transformed orchards and farmland into a key Manhattan Project site. Depending on your route, you may pass by one of the three gatehouses that were once military checkpoints controlling access to Atomic Energy Commission production facilities.
R. A. Karam, W. Y. Kato
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 52 | Number 2 | October 1973 | Pages 201-208
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE73-A28189
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Systematic errors responsible for the large discrepancy between the measured and calculated central reactivity coefficients were examined. These errors were narrowed to two sources: the normalization integral (or perturbation denominator) and the conversion factor of inhour, or dollars, to Δk/k units. The magnitude of both sources of error is uniquely determined by the ratio of the measured-to-calculated normalization integral when the measurement is carried out using the 252 Cf source-reactivity method. The measured-to-calculated normalization integral ratios for ZPR-6 Assemblies 6A and 7, two typical demo-plant-size Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor criticals, were 1.19 and 1.21, respectively. The magnitude of this discrepancy is essentially the same as that found for the central reactivity coefficient. Analysis of the available fission rate distribution in both assemblies indicates that the calculated normalization integral may be underestimated by 6 to 8% and that the remainder of 10 to 14% must come from the conversion factor. The delayed-neutron data of Krick and Evans, when used with the appropriate average number of neutrons per fission in each assembly, yield conversion factors 9 to 13% higher than the delayed-neutron data of Keepin. This would provide the explanation of the central reactivity discrepancy. Unfortunately, the method of calculating βeff could also produce errors of this magnitude even if one has an absolutely correct set of delayed-neutron fractions. More definitive measurements of the delayed-neutron fractions of pertinent isotopes, as a function of the incident neutron energy, are needed. In addition, measurements of βeff in various assemblies by different methods are required.