1. Validation of EAF-2005 ( New tools for EAF-2007 ) J. Kopecky JUKO Research The Netherlands TC IFMIF Meeting FZK 4-6/10/2005

2. EAF validation scheme (2 years)  EAF starter file (previous release)  EAF starter file (previous release) - Subject to validation against all feedback information (such as diff. data, int. data, cross section systematic and comparison with other data sources (libraries); during the file assembling a number of modifications applied.  New release of EAF file - provided with quality scores (first for EAF-2003) and a complete uncertainty file (uncertainty factors based on cross section variances or their estimates).  Validation report (first for EAF-2001) – Collection of reactions provided with differential and integral data, reactions with quality scores 5 or 6. This report is released one year after EAF file release.

3. EAF-2005 validation results Reactions by quality SCORES and SOURCES  Score 0 ----- 61035  TALYS-5 (5a)  Score 1 ----- 111 |  Score 2 ----- 797 |  Score 3 ----- 52  The best available  Score 4 ----- 480 | source<20 MeV +  Score 5 ----- 79 | TALYS-5(5a)>20 MeV  Score 6 ----- 139 |  Total 1-6 ----- 1658  Total 0-6 ----- 62693 (EAF-2003 –12617)

4. EAF-2005/2007 validation  Standard validation against differential data, the most recent data will be considered (EXFOR data base, Safepaq internal data base).  Validation against integral measurements, the integral data data base (upgrade of UKAEA FUS 500 for EAF- 2003) extended by new measurements and by using a large set of older data from KfK Juelich (d-Be source).  Cross-section trend analysis (recently in SAFEPAQ-II) studying  (max), E[  (max)] and HWFM of the excita- tion curve as a function of A or s.  Validation against cross section systematic formulae (primarily at 14.5 MeV; (n,  ) at 30 keV ).

5. Validation against differential data old data new data

6. Differential data problem  The fact that the majority of charged particle- emission reactions have their effective threshold (Q + Coul. barrier) close to 14 MeV complicates the use of 14 MeV differential data (located in the beginning of the steep slope of excitation curve) for validation or modification applications.  The main part of integral cross section for these reactions is often above 20 MeV.  Such data can be best addressed and verified in libraries with Emax > 20 MeV, e.g. such EAF.

7. 20 MeV upper limit limitations C/E(fns_5min) = 0.934 -> 0.747 // 1.043 -> 0.404 exp. data not to be used for RN

8. (n,t) problem ADL-3 TALYS, JENDL

9. (n,t) problem  E shift? old data recent Geel data

10. (n,h) problem HEPRL other libraries  E shift all other evaluations HEPRL  E-shift

11. (n,t)(n,h) conclusions  Need of better theoretical shape of calculated excitation functions.  Need of integral data (neutron spectra) well above 14 MeV (better above 20 MeV) in order to address the whole strength of the excitation function.

12. Integral data (>14 MeV)  Fzk Karslruhe cyclotron white spectrum, SS-316 measurement (spectrum fzk_ss316). U.Fischer et al., EFF-Doc-859 (April 2003).  INP Rez cyclotron spectrum (spectrum Rez_foils). P. Bem et al., NPI ASCR Rez EXP(EFDA) 08/2004.  d-Be neutron source from Juelich, measured by the group of Qaim between 1975 –1980. Published in many references. Converted in average cross sections by R. Forrest for two spectra, for deuteron energies Ed = 30 MeV (spectrum d_Be3) and 53 MeV (spectra d-Be and d-Be2). The important feature of these spectra is a negligible low energy component.

13. fzk_ss316 (d-Li) 14 MeV

14. Rez_foils (p-D 2 O) 14 MeV

15. Ed=53 MeV (d-Be) Ed=30 MeV 14 MeV

16. Validation against integral data  Starter file = ‘Validation of EASY-2003 using integral data’ (UKAEA FUS 500, December 2003). Final table includes list of 287 validated reactions.  The draft of Final table for ‘Validation of EAF-2005’ includes total of 474 reactions.  For 47 reactions data from EAF-2003 have been improved, primarily based on a better fit with new differential data. This action resulted in C/E improvements for 41 reactions, only for 6 reactions C/E worse (see examples).  Report will be completed during this year (new integral measurement from 2005 will be also considered) and prepared for publication in December 2005. It will also serve as a basis for data improvements leading to EAF-2007.

17. Validation against integral data (cont.)

18.  d-Be data of Qaim included primarily (n,t) and (n,h) reactions. For (n,t) C/E was between 0.3 and 1.8, which is a rather reasonable result, in contradiction with C/S (14.5MeV) (suggests an overesti- mation).  Since none of C/E(integral) > 2, it may be concluded that the (n,t) 14.5 MeV systematic is better not to be used. In general (n,t) data are in a reasonable agreement with both differential and integral data.  For (n,h) data is the situation more complex. Many differential data are suspiciously scattered and the integral data have often C/E <<1, the low energy slope seems to be the reason for this effect, the effective threshold is too high. The 14.5 MeV systematic is based on several measurements, which probably are more an ‘upper limit’ data. The (n,h) problem is pending at this moment and will be addressed together with A. Koning.

19. C/E(d_Be) = 0.65 C/E(d_Be2) = 1.31 t-counting = (n,xt) act. measur. = (n,t+) Reasonable agreement

20. (n,t) performance against integral data (n,xt) (n,t+)

21. C/E(d_Be2) = 0.190 C/E(d_Be2) = 6.267 underestimatation overestimation if exp.data 14 MeV considered

22. (n,h) performance against integral data

23. New tool (excitation curve trend analysis)  Based on the assumption that excitation curves have for all targets a similar bell-shaped form shifted only by the differences in Q, and the quantities such as  (max), E[  (max)] and HWFM have a pronounced smooth trend as a function of A or (N-Z)/A.  It can be demonstrated, that the above assumption is valid and such an analysis is a very effective and novel way to validate reaction cross section data both for their shape and their magnitude.  The incorrect reaction data can be effectively spotted. The ‘format’ errors from modification procedures can be easily found. Further, more physical shortcomings can be seen too, e.g. in latest TALYS calculations it seems that targets way off the stability line sometimes give strange results, which may be due to the quality of correspon- ding input parameters taken from RIPL data bases.

24. New tools (cont.)  This analysis is now in progress, it has been introduced in SAFEPAQ-II just a few months ago for  (max), E[  (max)] and FWHM, together with the odd-even option. A possibility of deriving a trend systematic of these parameters and eventually C/T values will be considered in the future for EAF-2007.  An important result: E[  (max)] for majority of charged particle emission is above 20 MeV. Only for (n,p) and (n,  ) reactions with A < 100 is the excitation curve maximum < 20 MeV.  Some examples will be now shown, which demonstrate some features and applicability of this analysis.

25. New tools (cont.) Applications will be demonstrated on few examples:  (n,2n) reaction data and (n,p) reaction data ;  (n,  ) at 14 MeV, check of the pre-equilibrium treatment;  (n,pa) from TALYS calculations.

26. (n,2n) (n,2n) + (n,n’p)  f   i-59 Rh-99m Co-55 (n,n’p) Ni-59 (n,n’p) (n,f)

27. Ni  Ni-57

28. E(th) n,2n = 14.12 MeV, E(th) n,n’p = 5.15 MeV (n,n’p) competition

29. S = 0 +(n,n’p) S -> 0 +(n,n’p)

30. wrong RN calculational bug

31. wrong shape

32. EAF-2005.1 Isomeric targets Hf-178n,Hf-179n, Au-198m (n,3n) competition (n,2n) + (n,f)

33. Ge-76 Kr-76

34. wrong shape

35. agreement

36. Emin = 13 MeV test of PEQ in (n,  ) Np-237

37. Emin = 13 MeV test of PEQ in (n,  ) overestimation

38. Odd-even effect

39. trend curve

40. (n,pa) from TALYS-5 actinides

41. Conclusions  Validation of EAF-2005 (before 12/2005):  Completion of the final validation report with differential and integral experimental data against EAF-2005 excitation curves (follow-up of UKAEA FUS 500) is in progress. Due date December 2005.  Completion of the validation report of high energy EAF-2005 data against differential measurements and comparisons with other libraries (IEAF-2001, MENDL-2 and WIND) – action completed, the draft version is prepared.  New validation tool (excitation curve analysis) proves to be a novel and very efficient way to check the cross section. It’s test application resulted in the release of EAF-2005.1.

42. Conclusions  Validation of EAF-2005 (before 12/2005):  The library format with MT reaction channels (not lumped data) proves to be an advantageous approach, because it enables to follow individual reaction data properties by means of cross section trend analysis. This is especially valuable for data with Q > 20 MeV.  From TALYS global calculations (TALYS-5 used) only (n,t) and (n,h) results have a problem, for (n,h) both in the shape and the magnitude of excitation curves and for (n,t) in the shape, which seems to be an odd-even effect.