104 Atentie
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
EFDA TECHNOLOGY WORKPROGRAMME 2006
TT-TRITIUM BREEDING AND MATERIALS
TTM - MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT
TW6-4.2; TW6-TTMN-001
DEVELOPMENT OF CALCULATION TOOLS: CALCULATION OF CROSS
SECTIONS FOR Mn AND Cu UP TO 60 MeV TO BE USED TO THE EAF
AND THE EFF LIBRARIES
V. Avrigeanu, M. Avrigeanu, and F.L. Roman
“Horia Hulubei” National Institute of R&D for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Magurele
1. Introduction
As part of a general investigation [1-4] of the reaction mechanisms of fast neutrons at
low and medium energies, we have analyzed the activation cross sections of the odd-mass
isotopes 55Mn and 63,65Cu in the excitation-energy range up to 60 MeV. Although our primary
aim was to comply with the needs of a sound, complete and reliable neutron-induced cross
section data library to address safety and environmental issues of the fusion programme [5],
the analysis results also enabled a stringent test of models for the above-mentioned nuclear
processes. Thus, in order to gain insight into this problem, we have analyzed the activation cross
sections of 55Mn and 63,65Cu isotopes using the parameter databases obtained previously by
global optimization within the computer codes TALYS [6] and EMPIRE-II [7], as well as a
local parameter set within the STAPRE-H code [8]. No fine tuning was done to optimize the
description of the nucleon emission for all the cases, but for STAPRE-H a consistent set of local
parameters has previously been established or validated on the basis of independent
experimental information of, e.g., neutron total cross sections, proton reaction cross sections,
low-lying level and resonance data, and gamma-ray strength functions based on neutron-capture
data. The comparison of various calculations, including their sensitivity to model approaches
and parameters, has concerned all the activation channels for which there are measured data.
It was thus avoided the use of model parameters which have been improperly adjusted to take
into account properties peculiar to specific nuclei in the decay cascade, considered to be the
case for discrepancies observed around the closures of both the f7/2 proton and neutron shells.
2. Local approach
A closer look on each class of important model parameters has been essential for this
approach. The neutron optical model potential (OMP) has obviously been the first subject of the
local parameter analysis. A basic point in this respect was the highlighting by Koning and
Delaroche [9] that their global potential, used by default in both TALYS and EMPIRE codes,
does not reproduce the minimum around the neutron energy of 1-2 MeV for the total neutron
cross sections of the mass A~60 nuclei. Following also their comment of the constant geometry
parameters, which may be responsible for this aspect, we used the recent RIPL-2 data [10]
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
105
for low-energy neutron scattering properties (S0, S1, R’) and measured [11] neutron total cross
sections (Figs. 1,2) for comparison with the corresponding calculated values and final selection
of OMP parameters. A larger change was necessary for Cu isotopes, where only an energy
dependence of both the radius and diffuseness of OMP real part provides the appropriate
neutron total cross sections below the incident energy of 1 MeV (Figs. 1,2). Next, this potential
has been involved for the calculation of the collective inelastic scattering cross sections
(e.g. Fig. 1, right) by means of the direct-interaction distorted-wave Born approximation
(DWBA) method and the local version [12] of the computer code DWUCK4. The weak
coupling model was adopted in this respect for odd nuclei using the collective state parameters
of Kalbach [13].
0.20
55
n + Mn
55
Mn
(b)
DWBA
(n,n')
S1=0.3(1)
3
0.15
CN / 10
0.10
DWBA / CN
0.05
Koning+ (global, 2003): S0=3.8, S1=.70
Koning+ (local, 2003): S0=4.1, S1=.58
SCAT2: OMP: Koning-Delaroche (2003)-mod.
+
+
DWUCK4:  (21 ,41 ,31 ): Kalbach (2001)
-mod.(E<5MeV): aV=.563+.02E: 3.8/.48
Shibata (1989)
2
1
0.00
10
En (MeV)
0
20
40
DWBA / CN
t (b)
4
Foster Jr+ (1971)
Cierjacks+ (1969)
Abfalterer+ (2001)
RIPL2: S0=4.4(6)
60
En (MeV)
Figure 1. Comparison of calculated and experimental [11] neutron total cross sections (left), and the
corresponding collective inelastic scattering cross sections obtained by DWBA method for 55Mn nucleus.
20
18
16
14
12
10
63
65
n + Cu
n + Cu
S0/S1 (80 keV)
Hetrick+ (1984): 2.1/1.2
Guenther+(1986):2.2/.63
KD (2003)-global:2.2/.81
KD (2003)-63Cu: 2.1/.77
KD (2003)-63Cu/m: 2.2/.48
aR=.213+.15E, E<3 MeV
8
6
S0/S1 (50 keV)
Hetrick+ (1984): 2.0/1.25
Guenther+(1986): 2.2/.71
KD (2003)-global: 2.1/.81
KD (2003)-65Cu: 1.76/.75
KD (2003)-63Cu/m:1.73/.45
n+
Finlay+ (1993, sm)
Morales+ (1991)
Koester+ (1990)
Guenther+(1986,av)
Poenitz+ (1983)
Larson+ (1980, sm)
Bubb+ (1974)
Pineo+ (1974)
Galloway+ (1973)
Foster+ (1971, sm)
Whalen+ (1971, sm)
Angeli+ (1971)
nat
Cu
rR=1.26-.02E, E<3 MeV
tot (b)
4
RIPL2: S0=2.1(3)
S1=0.44(7)
Mook+ (1980,sm)
Mook+ (1980,sm)
Pandey+ (1977,sm)
Pandey+(1977,sm)
Filippov(1975,av)
Dyumin+ (1972)
2
0.01
0.1
RIPL2: S0=2.2(3),
Dyumin+ (1972)
1
10
4.0
0.01
0.1
S1=0.47(8)
1
63
10
0.01
0.1
Hetrick+ (1984)
Guenther+(1986)
KD (2003)-global
KD (2003)-65Cu
KD (2003)-65Cu/mod.
3.0
2.5
2.0
0
10
20
30
Pandey+(1977,sm)
Filippov(1975,av)
Dyumin+ (1972)
40
50
0
20
30
40
50
nat
Cu
Hetrick+ (1984)
Guenther+(1986)
KD (2003)-global
KD (2003)-65Cu
KD (2003)-65Cu/m
Mook+ (1980,sm)
Mook+ (1980,sm)
Pandey+ (1977,sm)
Dyumin+ (1972)
10
10
n+
n + Cu
Hetrick+ (1984)
Guenther+(1986)
KD (2003)-global
KD (2003)-63Cu
KD (2003)-63Cu/mod.
1
Finlay+ (1993, sm)
Morales+ (1991)
Koester+ (1990)
Guenther+(1986,av)
Poenitz+ (1983)
Larson+ (1980, sm)
Bubb+ (1974)
Pineo+ (1974)
Galloway+ (1973)
Foster+ (1971, sm)
Whalen+ (1971, sm)
Angeli+ (1971)
65
n + Cu
3.5
Hetrick+ (1984)
Guenther+(1986)
KD (2003)-global
KD (2003)-65Cu
KD (2003)-65Cu/m
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
En (MeV)
Figure 2. Comparison of calculated and experimental [11] neutron total cross sections for 63,65,natCu.
The proton optical potential [9] has been also modified on the basis of a comparison of
calculated and measured cross sections of (p,n) reaction on 52,53,54Cr target nuclei as well as the
(p,) reaction on 50Cr (Fig. 3). At the same time, the electric dipole -ray strength functions
fE1(E) which are used for the calculation of the -ray transmission coefficients, have been
106 Atentie
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
obtained by means of a modified energy-dependent Breit-Wigner (EDBW) model [14].
Moreover, systematic EDBW correction factors FSR were obtained by using the experimental
average radiative widths 0exp of the s-wave neutron resonances, and assuming that
FSR=0exp/0EDBW. Next, the fE1(E) thus obtained were checked by calculation of capture data.
Effects of the neutron and proton OMPs on the calculated reaction cross sections are
shown in Fig. 4 for the (n,2n) and (n,p) reactions on 65Cu. The modified neutron OMP is leading
to a change of -5% of the calculated 65Cu(n,2n)64Cu reaction cross section. At the same time,
the modified proton potential led to a change of -20% of the calculated 65Cu (n,p) 65Ni reaction
cross sections, while the two changes together lead to a compensation of the latter one and a
final change of ~+10% for the calculated (n,p) reaction cross sections. Finally, the additional
OMP analysis improved the accuracy of the calculated cross sections from ~20% to around 5%.
1E-3
1
55
Mn(n,) Mn
RIPL-II:  = 750 (150) meV
Fsr = 0.87(0.17)
0.1
 (b)
56
0.01
1E-3
1E-4
1E-3
Hummel+ (1951)
Leipunskij+ (1958)
Bostrom+ (1959)
Lyon+ (1959)
Kononov+ (1959)
Stavisskij+ (1961)
Macklin+ (1963)
Chaubey+ (1965)
Menlove+ (1967)
Peto+ (1967)
Stupegia+ (1968)
Colditz+ (1968)
Spitz+ (1968)
Dovbenko+ (1969)
Schuman+ (1970)
Le Rigoleur+ (1976)
Trofimov (1987)
Gautam+ (1990)
1E-4
50
1E-5
Krivonosov+ (1977)
1E-6
BARC79-G
ORNL'84
WGY
WGY (E<4) + ORNL'84(E>5)
Fsr=1.5:  = 1300 meV
0.01
0.1
1E-7
1
0
1
2
53
3
1
53
54
Cr(p,n) Mn
54
Cr(p,n) Mn
0.1
52
 (b)
0.1
52
Cr(p,n) Mn
Johnson+ (1958)
Tanaka+ (1959)
52m
Taketani+ (1962): Mn
Wing+ (1962)
Johnson+ (1964)
Antropov+ (1985)
Shakun+ (1986)
52m
Levkovskij+ (1991): Mn
0.01
1E-3
0.01
4
8
Ep (MeV)
12
54
55
Cr(p,) Mn
1E-3
Johnson+ (1960)
Kailas+ (1975)
Zyskind+ (1979)
Kailas+ (1979)
Antropov+ (1985)
Shakun+ (1986)
Gusev+ (1990)
Levkovskij+ (1991)
1E-4
ORNL'84
BARC-G
WGY
WGY (E<4) + ORNL'84(E>5)
1E-4
4
Ep (MeV)
En (MeV)
1
51
Cr(p,) Mn
16
ORNL'84
BARC-G
WGY
WGY (E<4) + ORNL'84(E>5)
1E-5
1E-6
0
3
6
9
Ep (MeV)
Figure 3. Comparison of calculated and measured (n,), (p,) and (p,n) reaction cross-sections on 55Mn
and, respectively 50,52,53,54Cr target nuclei.
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
107
65
65
64
Cu(n,2n) Cu
0.03
 (b)
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
TALYS-0.64
EMPIRE-2.19
STAPRE-H + KD(2003)
STAPRE-H + KD(2003)-mod.
15
En (MeV)
Paulsen+(1965)
Bormann+(1969)
Ryves+ (1978)
Ngoc+ (1980)
Csikai (1982)
Winkler+ (1983)
Ghanbari+ (1986)
Meadows+ (1987)
Ikeda+ (1988)
Molla+ (1994)
Filatenkov+(1999)
Mannhart+ (2004)
20
0.02
0.01
65
Cu(n,p) Ni
Shimizu+ (2004)
Shimizu+ (2004)
Filatenkov+ (1999)
Molla+ (1994)
Uwamino+ (1992)
Ikeda+ (1988)
Meadows+ (1987)
Pepelnik+ (1985)
Gupta+ (1985)
Ngoc+ (1980)
Ryves+ (1978)
Qaim+ (1977)
Sigg+ (1976)
Robertson+ (1973)
Dresler+ (1973)
Maslov+ (1972)
Prasad+(1971)
Clator (1969)
Santry+ (1965)
Santry+ (1965)
Santry+ (1965)
Bormann+(1963)
5
TALYS-0.64
EMPIRE-2.19
STAPRE-H + n/p/KD(2003)
STAPRE-H + n/KD, p/KD-mod
STAPRE-H + n/p/KD-mod
10
15
20
En (MeV)
Figure 4. Comparison of experimental and calculated (n,p) and (n,2n) reaction cross-sections of the 65Cu
nucleus, showing the effects of neutron and proton modified OMPs.
These reaction model calculations made use of the pre-equilibrium emission
(PE) model Geometry-Dependent Hybrid (GDH) within the code STAPRE-H, along with
DWBA method and statistical Hauser-Feshbach model. No free parameter was involved in the
GDH calculations while the same common parameters of OMP and nuclear level density was
used in the DWBA, GDH and HF model calculations. Thus, a proper description of a large body
of data without free parameters validated both the adopted nuclear model assumptions and
parameter set. Finally, it was obtained a suitable description of all activation cross sections for
55
Mn and 63,65Cu isotopes up to 60 MeV (Figs. 5-7). Actually it resulted to be of rather equal
importance the agreement with both the large body of data for, e.g., the (n,2n) reactions around
the neutron energy of 14 MeV, and the (n,p) and (n,xn) data above 20 MeV. The former
is critical for the check of the partial level densities that trigger the PE calculated data, while
the latter makes possible the analysis of the basic assumptions of the PE model within an
enlarged energy range.
108 Atentie
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
1.2
65
Mannhart+ (2004)
Filatenkov+ (1999)
Molla+ (1994)
Ikeda+ (1988)
Meadows+ (1987)
Ghanbari+ (1986)
Winkler+ (1983)
Csikai (1982)
Ngoc+ (1980)
Ryves+ (1978)
Sigg (1976)
Spangler+ (1975)
Mannhart+ (1975)
Robertson+ (1973)
Araminowicz+ (1973)
Qaim (1972)
Mogharrab+ (1972)
0.9
 (b)
65
64
Cu(n,2n) Cu
0.6
0.3
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.0
65
Cu(n,p) Ni
0.04
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.03
0.02
0.01
Shimizu+ (2004)
Shimizu+ (2000)
Filatenkov+(1999)
Molla+ (1994)
Uwamino+ (1992)
Ikeda+ (1988)
Meadows+ (1987)
Pepelnik+ (1985)
Gupta+ (1985)
Ngoc+ (1980)
Ryves+ (1978)
Qaim+ (1977)
Sigg+ (1976)
Robertson+(1973)
Dresler+ (1973)
Maslov+ (1972)
Prasad+ (1971)
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.020
65
0.015
65
Cu(n,2d+2n2p)
62g
Cu(n,2d+2n2p) Co
 (b)
[2+ 1.5 min]
0.010
0.010
Cserpak+ (1994)
Artem`ev+ (1980)
Clator (1969)
Bramlitt+ (1963)
Kantele+ (1962)
0.005
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.005
0.000
Co
[5+ 13.91min]
0.015
Cserpak+ (1994)
Bormann+ (1966)
Bramlitt+ (1963)
62m
0.000
65
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.02
Cu(n,x)
m / g
61
Cu(n,n'+n) Co
0.08
Molla+ (1994)
Artem`ev+ (1980)
Preiss+ (1960)
65
 (b)
65
62
Cu(n,+2d+2n2p) Co
0.06
62m/g
Co
Ryves+ (1978)
Qaim+ (1974)
Santry+ (1965)
Bramlitt+(1963)
Kantele+ (1962)
Bormann+(1962)
Cserpak+(1994)
1.0
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.04
0.5
0.01
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
0.02
60
0.00
0.1
0.01
 (b)
65
Cu(n,xd)
65
64
Cu(n,n'p+pn+d) Ni
Ahmad+ (1987)
Grimes+ (1979)
1E-3
Joensson+ (1969)
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
STAPRE-H
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.01
1E-4
10
20
30
En (MeV)
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
En (MeV)
Figure 5. Comparison of experimental, calculated, and evaluated reaction cross-sections of the
nucleus for incident energies up to 60 MeV.
55
Mn
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
109
0.20
63
0.8
62
Mannhart+ (2004)
Sakane+ (2001)
Pansare+ (1993)
Uwamino+ (1992)
Ghanbari+ (1986)
Ryves+ (1978)
Jarjis (1978)
Jarjis (1978)
Majumder+ (1977)
Sigg (1976)
Valkonen (1976)
Qaim (1972)
Mogharrab+ (1972)
0.6
 (b)
63
Cu(n,2n) Cu
0.4
0.2
61
Cu(n,3n) Cu
Soewarsono+(1992)
Uwamino+ (1992)
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.15
0.10
0.05
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.0
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
60
20
30
40
50
60
0.6
0.15
63
63
62
Cu(n,n'p+pn+d) Ni
63
Cu(n,p) Ni
Joensson+ (1969)
Colli+ (1959)
0.4
0.10
 (b)
Qaim+ (1996)
Bowers+ (1989)
Qaim+ (1977)
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.05
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.2
0.0
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
10
60
20
30
40
50
60
0.03
0.06
63
63
60
Cu(n,2d+2n2p)
Cu(n,2d+2n2p) Co
Plompen+ (2001)
Filatenkov+(1999)
Meadows+ (1999)
Ykeda+ (1996)
Konno+ (1993)
Csikai++ (1991)
Hanlin+ (1990)
Yongchang+(1990)
Greenwood (1987)
Winkler+ (1980)
Garuska+ (1980)
Artem`ev+ (1980)
 (b)
0.04
0.02
60m
Co
[2+ 10.5min]
[5+ 5.27y]
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.02
Kasugai+ (1998)
Cserpak+ (1994)
Paulsen (1967)
Kantele+ (1962)
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.01
0.00
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
10
60
20
30
40
50
3
61
60
0.1
63
0.01
Cu(n,xd)
63
1E-3
 (b)
0.01
Qaim (1978)
Diksic+ (1974)
Bramlitt+ (1962)
Pollehn+ (1961)
1E-4
Ahmad+ (1987)
Grimes+ (1979)
1E-3
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
STAPRE-H
Cu(n, He) Co
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
1E-5
1E-6
1E-4
10
20
30
40
En (MeV)
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
En (MeV)
Figure 6. Comparison of experimental and calculated reaction cross-sections of the
incident energies up to 60 MeV.
63
Cu nucleus for
3. Global approach
The global predictions provided by the computer codes TALYS-0.64 and
EMPIRE-II v.2.19 up to 60 MeV are shown in Figs. 5-7, in comparison with the experimental
data at lower energies. On the other hand there are shown in Figs. 5,8 the corresponding
evaluated data within the libraries ENDF/B-VII.0 [15], JEFF-3.1 [16], JENDL-3.3 [17], and
ACSELAM [18], the fourth being the only one including non-zero evaluated data for energies
above 20 MeV. The calculated cross sections were obtained by using for the PE calculation the
corresponding default single-particle level density values, i.e. g=A/13 MeV-1 by EMPIRE-II and
110 Atentie
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
A/15 MeV-1 by TALYS, respectively. The Hybrid Monte-Carlo model for multiple PE was
taken into account within EMPIRE-II calculations since the interest for neutron energies higher
than 20 MeV, beyond the use of the exciton PE model for cluster emission in the last code
version [7].
1.2
65
Mannhart+ (2004)
Filatenkov+ (1999)
Molla+ (1994)
Ikeda+ (1988)
Meadows+ (1987)
Ghanbari+ (1986)
Winkler+ (1983)
Csikai (1982)
Ngoc+ (1980)
Ryves+ (1978)
Sigg (1976)
Spangler+ (1975)
Mannhart+ (1975)
Robertson+ (1973)
Araminowicz+ (1973)
Qaim (1972)
Mogharrab+ (1972)
0.9
 (b)
65
64
Cu(n,2n) Cu
0.6
0.3
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.0
65
Cu(n,p) Ni
Shimizu+ (2004)
Shimizu+ (2000)
Filatenkov+(1999)
Molla+ (1994)
Uwamino+ (1992)
Ikeda+ (1988)
Meadows+ (1987)
Pepelnik+ (1985)
Gupta+ (1985)
Ngoc+ (1980)
Ryves+ (1978)
Qaim+ (1977)
Sigg+ (1976)
Robertson+(1973)
Dresler+ (1973)
Maslov+ (1972)
Prasad+ (1971)
0.04
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
10
20
30
40
50
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.020
65
0.015
65
Cu(n,2d+2n2p)
62g
Cu(n,2d+2n2p) Co
 (b)
[2+ 1.5 min]
0.010
0.010
Cserpak+ (1994)
Artem`ev+ (1980)
Clator (1969)
Bramlitt+ (1963)
Kantele+ (1962)
0.005
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.005
0.000
Co
[5+ 13.91min]
0.015
Cserpak+ (1994)
Bormann+ (1966)
Bramlitt+ (1963)
62m
0.000
65
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.02
Cu(n,x)
m / g
61
Cu(n,n'+n) Co
0.08
Molla+ (1994)
Artem`ev+ (1980)
Preiss+ (1960)
65
 (b)
65
62
Cu(n,+2d+2n2p) Co
0.06
62m/g
Co
Ryves+ (1978)
Qaim+ (1974)
Santry+ (1965)
Bramlitt+(1963)
Kantele+ (1962)
Bormann+(1962)
Cserpak+(1994)
1.0
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.04
0.5
0.01
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
0.02
60
0.00
0.1
0.01
 (b)
65
Cu(n,xd)
65
64
Cu(n,n'p+pn+d) Ni
Ahmad+ (1987)
Grimes+ (1979)
1E-3
Joensson+ (1969)
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
STAPRE-H
TALYS-0.64
TALYS-0.72
EMPIRE-II
STAPRE-H
0.01
1E-4
10
20
30
En (MeV)
40
50
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
En (MeV)
Figure 7. Comparison of experimental and calculated reaction cross-sections of the
incident energies up to 60 MeV.
65
Cu nucleus for
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
111
0.15
0.06
63
Cu(n,p) Ni
0.10
60
Cu(n,) Co
JENDL-3.3
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
0.04
Qaim+ (1996)
Bowers+ (1989)
Qaim+ (1977)
JENDL-3.3
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
0.05
 (b)
1.0
63
63
63
[5+ 5.27y]
Plompen+ (2001)
Filatenkov+ (1999)
Meadows+ (1999)
Ykeda+ (1996)
Konno+ (1993)
Csikai++ (1991)
Hanlin+ (1990)
Yongchang+(1990)
Greenwood (1987)
Winkler+ (1980)
Garuska+ (1980)
Artem`ev+ (1980)
0.02
62
Cu(n,2n) Cu
0.8
Mannhart+ (2004)
Sakane+ (2001)
Pansare+ (1993)
Uwamino+ (1992)
Ghanbari+ (1986)
Ryves+ (1978)
Jarjis (1978)
Jarjis (1978)
Majumder+ (1977)
Sigg (1976)
Valkonen (1976)
Qaim (1972)
Mogharrab+(1972)
0.6
0.4
0.2
JENDL-3.3
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.6
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0
10
20
30
40
63
63
62
Cu(n,n'p+pn+d) Ni
0.4
63
0.01
Cu(n,xd)
3
60
61
Cu(n, He) Co
1E-3
0.01
Joensson+ (1969)
Colli+ (1959)
1E-3
JENDL-3.3
ACSELAM
0.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.15
1E-4
10
20
30
63
63
Cu(n,p) Ni
0.10
JENDL-3.3
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
0.05
50
60
1E-6
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.0
60
Cu(n,) Co
JENDL-3.3
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
0.04
Qaim+ (1996)
Bowers+ (1989)
Qaim+ (1977)
40
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
1E-5
En (MeV)
0.06
63
Qaim (1978)
Diksic+ (1974)
Bramlitt+ (1962)
Pollehn+ (1961)
1E-4
Ahmad+ (1987)
Grimes+ (1979)
JENDL-3.3
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
0.2
 (b)
50
0.1
63
[5+ 5.27y]
Plompen+ (2001)
Filatenkov+ (1999)
Meadows+ (1999)
Ykeda+ (1996)
Konno+ (1993)
Csikai++ (1991)
Hanlin+ (1990)
Yongchang+(1990)
Greenwood (1987)
Winkler+ (1980)
Garuska+ (1980)
Artem`ev+ (1980)
0.02
62
Cu(n,2n) Cu
0.8
Mannhart+ (2004)
Sakane+ (2001)
Pansare+ (1993)
Uwamino+ (1992)
Ghanbari+ (1986)
Ryves+ (1978)
Jarjis (1978)
Jarjis (1978)
Majumder+ (1977)
Sigg (1976)
Valkonen (1976)
Qaim (1972)
Mogharrab+(1972)
0.6
0.4
0.2
JENDL-3.3
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.6
0.00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0
10
20
30
40
63
63
62
Cu(n,n'p+pn+d) Ni
0.4
63
0.01
Cu(n,xd)
3
60
61
Cu(n, He) Co
1E-3
0.01
Joensson+ (1969)
Colli+ (1959)
1E-3
JENDL-3.3
ACSELAM
10
20
30
40
Qaim (1978)
Diksic+ (1974)
Bramlitt+ (1962)
Pollehn+ (1961)
1E-4
Ahmad+ (1987)
Grimes+ (1979)
JENDL-3.3
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
0.2
0.0
50
0.1
50
60
1E-4
10
20
30
40
ENDF/B-VII
ACSELAM
1E-5
50
60
1E-6
10
20
30
40
50
60
En (MeV)
Figure 8. Comparison of experimental and evaluated reaction cross-sections of the
incident energies up to 60 MeV.
63,65
Cu nuclei for
4. Conclusions
Finally one may note some large differences between the experimental and global
calculated cross sections especially above 20 MeV, e.g. for the (n,p) and (n,2n) reactions on
63,65
Cu, which were not really changed even by using the most recent version of the code
TALYS-0.72 [19]. Thus, the overview of the calculated activation cross sections shows that an
analysis based on a consistent local parameter set is necessary in order to explain the differences
between the experimental, calculated and evaluated cross sections.
References
[1] Reimer P., Avrigeanu V., Plompen A.J.M., Qaim S.M., “Reaction mechanisms of fast
neutrons on 51V below 21 MeV”, Phys. Rev. C 65 (2001) 014604.
112 Atentie
2006 Annual Report of the EURATOM-MEdC Association
[2] Semkova V., Avrigeanu V., Glodariu T., Koning A.J., Plompen A.J.M., Smith D.L.,
Sudar S., “A systematic investigation of reaction cross sections and isomer ratios for neutrons
up to 20 MeV on Ni-isotopes and 59Co”, Nucl. Phys. A 730 (2004) 255.
[3] Reimer P., Avrigeanu V., Chuvaev S., Filatenkov A.A., Glodariu T., Koning A.J.,
Plompen A.J.M., Qaim S.M., Smith D.L., Weigmann H., “Reaction mechanisms of fast
neutrons on stable Mo isotopes below 21 MeV”, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 044617.
[4] Avrigeanu V., Chuvaev S.V.,. Eichin R, Filatenkov A.A., Forrest R.A., Freiesleben H.,
Herman M., Koning A.J., Seidel K., “Pre-equilibrium reactions on the stable tungsten
isotopes at low energy”, Nucl. Phys. A 765 (2006) 1;
[5] Avrigeanu M., von Oertzen W., Avrigeanu V., “On temperature dependence of the
optical potential for alpha-particles at low energies”, Nucl. Phys. A764 (2006) 246.
[6] Forrest R.A., Kopecky J., Fus. Eng. Design 82 (2007) 73.
[7] Koning A.J., Hilaire S., Duijvestijn M.C., in: R.C. Haight et al. (Eds.), Proc. Int. Conf. on
Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, 2004, Santa Fe, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 769 (American
Institute of Physics, New York, 2005), p. 1154.
[8] Herman M., Oblozinsky P., Capote R., Sin M., Trkov A., Ventura A., Zerkin V., in:
R.C. Haight, M.B. Chadwick, T. Kawano and P. Talou (Eds.), Proc. Int. Conf. on Nuclear Data
for Science and Technology (ND2004), 26 Sept. - 1 Oct. 2004, Santa Fe, New Mexico (AIP,
New York, 2005), p. 1184; EMPIRE-II v.2.19, http://www-nds.iaea.org/empire/.
[9] Avrigeanu M., Avrigeanu V., “STAPRE-H95 Computer Code”, IPNE Report NP-86-1995,
Bucharest, 1995, and references therein; News OECD/NEA Data Bank 17 (1995) 22.
[10] Koning A.J., Delaroche, J.P., Nucl. Phys. A 713 (2003) 231.
[11] A.V. Ignatyuk, at http://www-nds.iaea.or.at/RIPL-2/resonances/ .
[12] EXFOR Nuclear reaction data, http://www-nds.iaea.or.at/exfor/ .
[13] Avrigeanu M., Avrigeanu V., “Computer code system DWUCK4 (INPE-Bucharest local
version)”, NEA-DB Index: NESC9872/09; News NEA DB 17, 22 (1995), OECD/NEA, Paris.
[14] Kalbach C., Phys. Rev. C 62 (2000) 044608.
[15] Avrigeanu M., Avrigeanu V., Cata G., Ivascu M., „EDBW model for the E1 gamma-ray
strength function in the mass range 50<A<90“, Rev. Roum. Phys. 32 (1987) 837.
[16] Chadwick M.B. et al., Nucl. Data Sheets 107 (2006) 2931.
[17] Joint Evaluated Fission and Fusion File (JEFF-3.1), www.nea.fr/html/dbdata/JEFF/ .
[18] Japanese Evaluated Nuclear Data Library JENDL-3.3, wwwndc.tokai.jaeri.go.jp/jendl/j33/
j33.htm .
[19] Tanaka S. et al., “Development of IRAC code system to calculate induced radioactivity
produced by ions and neutrons, in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Radiation Shielding”, Arlington,
April 1994, ANS, p. 965.
[20] Koning A.J., Hilaire S., Duijvestijn M.C., “TALYS-0.72 User Manual”, Dec. 21, 2006,
www.talys.eu.