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 ANS Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Latest Magazine Issues
Jan 2026
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2026
Nuclear Technology
January 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
Jeff Place on INPO’s strategy for industry growth
As executive vice president for industry strategy at the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Jeff Place leads INPO’s industry-facing work, engaging directly with chief nuclear officers.
B. M. Durst, S. R. Bierman, E. D. Clayton, J. F. Mincey
Nuclear Technology | Volume 48 | Number 2 | April 1980 | Pages 128-149
Technical Paper | Fuel | doi.org/10.13182/NT80-A32460
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
A series of experiments was performed at the Batelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories on water-flooded arrays of Fast Test Reactor fuel elements (PUO2-UO2) intermixed with solid neutron absorbers. The objective of these experiments was to provide reliable experiment data that could be used to benchmark computer codes and calculational schemes commonly used in criticality analysis of such systems. The neutron absorbers used were cadmium and Boral plates and gadolinium cylindrical rods. Critical array sizes were determined for square lattice pitches ranging from 9.7 to 24.9 mm, corresponding to water-to-fuel volume ratios of 3.5 to ∼31 (hydrogen atom to fissile atom ratios of 58 to 473). For both systems, poisoned and unpoisoned, the minimum number of rods required for criticality occurred at a lattice pitch of ∼20.5 mm, which also corresponds to a water-to-fuel volume ratio of 20.5. The smallest critical number of rods for the unpoisoned array was 157. Boral was the most effective absorber, irrespective of degree of moderation or its position in the assembly. However, all three absorbers varied in degree of effectiveness with moderation.