NEA/WPEC-1

International Evaluation Co-operation

VOLUME 1
COMPARISON OF EVALUATED DATA FOR
CHROMIUM-52, IRON-56 AND NICKEL-58

A report by the Working Partyon International Evaluation Co-operationof the NEA Nuclear Science Committee

CO-ORDINATORMONITOR

C.Y. Fu

D.C. Larson

Oak Ridge National LaboratoryUSA

Oak Ridge National Laboratory
USA

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENTORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which cameinto force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)shall promote policies designed:−−−to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard ofliving in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to
the development of the world economy;
to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in
the process of economic development; andto contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis inaccordance with international obligations.

The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France,
Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members
subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech
Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996); Korea (12thDecember 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14th December 2000). The Commission of the European
Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCYThe OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the nameof the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency. It received its present designation on 20th April 1972, when
Japan became its first non-European full Member. NEA membership today consists of 27 OECD Member
countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic ofKorea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of
the European Communities also takes part in the work of the Agency.
The mission of the NEA is:−−

to assist its Member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international
co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentallyfriendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as
to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as
input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy
analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development.

Specific areas of competence of the NEA include safety and regulation of nuclear activities,
radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of
the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear
data and computer program services for participating countries.
In these and related tasks, the NEA works in close collaboration with the International Atomic
Energy Agency in Vienna, with which it has a Co-operation Agreement, as well as with other internationalorganisations in the nuclear field.
© OECD 2001 (Reprint)
Permission to reproduce a portion of this work for non-commercial purposes or classroom use should beobtained through the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CCF), 20, rue des Grands-Augustins,
75006 Paris, France, Tel. (33-1) 44 07 47 70, Fax (33-1) 46 34 67 19, for every country except the UnitedStates. In the United States permission should be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center, Customer
Service, (508) 750-8400, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, or CCC Online:
http://www.copyright.com/. All other applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of thisbook should be made to OECD Publications, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France.

FOREWORD

A Working Party on International Evaluation Co-operation was establishedunder the sponsorship of the OECD/NEA Nuclear Science Committee (NSC)
to promote the exchange of information on nuclear data evaluations, validation,and related topics. Its aim is also to provide a framework for co-operative
activities between members of the major nuclear data evaluation projects.
This includes the possible exchange of scientists in order to encourage
co-operation. Requirements for experimental data resulting from this activity
are compiled. The Working Party determines common criteria for evaluatednuclear data files with a view to assessing and improving the quality andcompleteness of evaluated data.
The Parties to the project are: ENDF (United States), JEF/EFF (NEA Data
Bank Member countries), and JENDL (Japan). Co-operation with evaluation
projects of non-OECD countries are organised through the Nuclear Data Sectionof the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The following report is issued by a Subgroup investigating discrepancies indifferent evaluations of the major structural materials. The isotopes selected are
Chromium-52, Iron-56 and Nickel-58. Graphical overlay comparisons between
cross-sections, and also energy-angle correlated particle distributions, indifferent evaluated libraries was performed. Benefits from these comparisons
include information useful for improving structural material evaluations inindividual data libraries, for assessing differences associated with present-day
evaluation techniques and for development of techniques for graphicalrepresentation of the energy-angle correlated data.
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors only and do not
represent the position of any Member country or international organisation.
This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of
the OECD.

3

Members of Subgroup 1

IIJIMA, S.
Nuclear Engineering Laboratory
Kawasaki

AUSTRIA
VONACH, Herbert
Inst. f. Radiumforschung und
Kernphysik der Univ. Wien
ITALY

Kanagawa SHIBATA, Keiichi
JAERI
Tokai-Mura

MAINO, G.
ENEA
Bologna

YAMAMURO, N.
Data Engineering Inc.
Yokohama

MENAPACE, Enzo
ENEA
Bologna

THE NETHERLANDSKOPECKY, J.
Stichting Energieonderzoek-centrum
NederlandPettenMENGONI, I.
ENEA
Bologna

UNITED STATES OF AMERICAJAPAN
FU, C.Y.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

ASAMI, T.
Nuclear Energy Data Centre, NEDAC
Tokai-Mura

HETRICK, David M.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

CHIBA, Satoshi
JAERITokai-Mura

LARSON, Duane C.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary ...........................................................................................................

6

1. Introduction.................................................................................................

7

2. Difficulties in the evaluations for 58Ni (n,α)...............................................

8

3. Review of the ENDF /B-IV 58Ni (n,α) cross-section.................................. 10
4. MAURINA parameters in TNG ................................................................. 12
5. Neutron emission spectra from 58Ni (n,xn) ................................................. 14
6. Proposal for new Subgroup on level densities............................................ 15
7. Recommendations from Subgroup 1 .......................................................... 16
Acknowledgements........................................................................................... 16
References......................................................................................................... 17
Figures .............................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A Report on the meeting of Subgroup 1 of the
NEACRP/NEANDC Evaluation Co-operation.......................... 27
Appendix B M. Uhl’s letters .......................................................................... 35

5

SUMMARY

The purpose of Subgroup 1 is to graphically compare the cross-sections, andthe energy and angular distributions in JEF-2/EFF-2, ENDF/B-VI and JENDL-3
evaluations for 52Cr, 56Fe, and 58Ni, to understand the reasons for the observed
discrepancies among the three evaluations, and to come up withrecommendations for improvements. The goal has been met and this reportsummarises the results. The differences most difficult to understand are the ones
among the evaluated 58Ni(n,α) cross-sections. This part of the work is describedin detail and has led to the formation of a new Subgroup on Level Densities for
Structural Materials.

6

COMPARISON OF EVALUATED DATAFOR CHROMIUM-52, IRON-56 AND NICKEL-58

1. Introduction
The purpose of Subgroup 1 is to graphically compare all the evaluated datafor 52Cr, 56Fe, and 58Ni commonly present in ENDF/B-VI, JEF-2/EFF-2, andJENDL-3 and to resolve any observed differences. The first Subgroup meeting,held in December 1990 at the NEA Data Bank, reviewed the graphicalcomparisons, parts of which were provided from outside the Subgroup by
C.L. Dunford of Brookhaven National Laboratory, USA, and by S. Tagesen of
Vienna University, Austria. It was found that the differences among
the evaluated 58Ni (n,α) cross-sections are the largest; ENDF/B-VI is a factorof 2 larger than EFF-2 near 8 MeV. This comparison is shown in Figure 1. It isseen that, beside the large differences in magnitudes, EFF-2 also shows arise-flatten-rise shape not seen in the other two. A second problem that could not
be understood during the meeting was the secondary neutron energy distribution
from 58Ni (n,×n) for an incident neutron energy of 11 MeV. This distribution isshown in Figure 2. There were many other problems, though none serious ordifficult to understand. A paper summarising the observations andrecommendations of this meeting was presented at the Jülich conference in
May 1991 [1]. The meeting minutes contain more details and are attached
as Appendix A.
One of the recommendations of the first meeting was to understand the twolarge differences mentioned above. Both had been determined to be related tomodel calculations. An item of action was to compare the level densities of 58Ni
used in model calculations for the three evaluations. J. Kopecky and K. Shibata
were asked to provide this information for EFF-2 and JENDL-3 respectively,
and to send it to C.Y. Fu for comparison. This comparison was presented at thesecond working group meeting at Petten in May 1991. Level densities have verylarge differences: at an excitation energy of 8 MeV, the level density of 58Ni
used for ENDF/B-VI is a factor of 3 lower than those used for EFF-2 andJENDL-3 (see Table-1). H. Vonach pointed out that the smallest level density inthe neutron channel, as used for ENDF/B-VI, could have led to the largest (n,α)
7cross-section near 8 MeV. This is because, at 8 MeV, the secondary neutrons
can see the differences in the level densities but the outgoing α particles decay
mostly to the discrete levels. Following the meeting, H. Vonach sent to C.Y. Fu
evidence that the level density of 58Ni used for ENDF/B-VI is too low at 4 MeV.
The evidence is that the number of known discrete levels between 3.5 and
4.5 MeV is 19 while the level density used for ENDF/B-VI for this interval is 8.
However, from Table 1, it is seen that the level densities in this interval for
EFF-2 and JENDL-3 are also low – 11 and 13 respectively. The big problem
appears to be at higher energies where the differences in level densities are
increasingly larger. The work related to these problems is described in Sections
2 to 4 below. In Section 5, the problem of the neutron emission spectrum from58
Ni (n,xn) is explained. The proposal for a new Subgroup on Level Densities for
Structural Materials is given in Section 6. The recommendations supplementary
to those given in Appendix A and Reference [1] are given in Section 7.
Table 1. Number of levels per MeV used for 58Ni in
ENDF/B-IV, EFF-2 and JENDL-3 calculations
E (MeV)
1*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ENDF/B-VI
1.2
2.3
4.3
8.0
15
28
52
96
179
333
621
1110
1990
3510

JENDL-3
1.3
2.7
5.9
13
27
59
127
275
592
1188
2500
5090
10070
19400

E (MeV)
00-10
01-20
02-30
03-40
04-50
05-60
06-70
07-80
08-90
09-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14

EFF-2
0
1
4
9
13
48
101
205
388
747
1360
2500
4340
7550

* Midpoint of 1-MeV energy bin.

2. Difficulties in the evaluations for 58Ni (n,α)
The calculations (and evaluations) for 58Ni (n,α) cross-sections have some
intrinsic difficulties not always present in model calculations for other targets orreactions. These difficulties are described in this section.
The evaluations for 58Ni (n,α) cross-sections for the three files were allcompleted in 1987, at which time few experimental data were available.

8Therefore, the evaluations were mainly based on model calculations fitting towhatever data were known to the individual evaluator. For 58Ni, EFF-2 wasevaluated by M. Uhl using the MAURINA code, ENDF/B-VI by D.M. Hetrickusing TNG, and JENDL-3 by S. Iijima using PEGASA. D.M. Hetrick used thedata of Qaim, et al. [2,3] and Grimes, et al. [4] but not those of Graham, et al. [5].
On the other hand, M. Uhl did not know of either the Qaim or Graham data, all
he had was the measurement of Grimes, et al. [4] at 14.5 MeV. Iijima deceasedin November 1990, so it was not possible to find out what data he knew at thetime of his evaluation.
The original plot shown in Figure 1, contributed by C.L. Dunford, did nothave the data of Graham, et al. below 12 MeV or Grimes at 14.5 MeV. These
data were added to Figure 1 because the 14.5-MeV value of Grimes was the only
datum used by M. Uhl for EFF-2 and because the data of Graham, et al. werequoted at the first Subgroup meeting to support the EFF-2 evaluation. However,the present concern is not to determine which evaluation is better but to find out
why evaluations based on model calculations can be so different in bothmagnitude and shape. The findings could be important for nuclear model
parameter developments for structural materials.
Both the 58Ni (n,n′) and (n,p) cross-sections are a factor of six larger thanthe (n,α) cross-section at 8 MeV. These two cross-sections, being nearly equal,
are sensitive to the ratios of the level densities of their respective residual
nuclides but are not very sensitive to their absolute magnitudes. Reasonably
good agreement with the available experimental (n,n′) and (n,p) data are possible
with a factor of 3 changes in the same direction for the level densities of allresidual nuclides. However, the resulting (n,α) cross-sections show large
differences, particularly so near 8 MeV, a fact to be quantified in Section 4.
The reason why the level densities (see Table 1) used in the threeevaluations differ so much is that there is no level density information for 58Ni
and 58Co, the residual nuclides of the (n,n′) and (n,p) reactions, except for thediscrete energy region. The extrapolation from the discrete energy region tohigher excitation energies may have a rather large uncertainty. The uncertainty
may escape the attention of the evaluator if (n,n′) and (n,p) cross-sections have
similar magnitudes, as it is the case for 58Ni. In other words, if the (n,n′)cross-sections were much larger than the (n,p) cross-sections, then the wrong level
density in the (n,n′) channel would have hurt the calculated (n,p) cross-sections.
The evaluator would have noticed the problem from the available cross-section
data for these two reactions, and the problem in the calculated (n,α) cross-sections
would have been less serious. The fact that the observed (n,α) cross-section9differences in the 52Cr and 56Fe evaluations are much smaller than those for 58Ni,
seems to confirm the explanation that larger (n,n′) than (n,p) cross-sections help
constrain the level densities.
For the above reasons, the calculation for the 58Ni (n,α) cross-section isindeed a difficult one. The evaluation process in the present case, such as
adjusting the calculated cross-sections to experimental data, is not a easy taskeither since the available experimental data were discrepant and inconsistent
between 58Ni and natural nickel [6].
3. Review of the ENDF /B-IV 58Ni (n,α) cross-section
A discussion of this problem with M. Uhl, who evaluated the EFF-2 58Ni
using his model code MAURINA, led to the conclusion that the first step is toconcentrate at the energies near 8 MeV where the difference between EFF-2 and
ENDF/B-VI is the largest. This simplifies the problem because at 8 MeV, thecomplications due to tertiary reactions and pre-equilibrium effects need not be
considered. To begin with, the ENDF/B-VI part, evaluated by D.M. Hetrick withthe aid of TNG calculations, was reviewed.
It was found that the original TNG results for the 58Ni (n,α) cross-sections
calculated by D.M. Hetrick [6] were larger than the evaluated values shownin Figure 1 in the energy range from 6 to 13 MeV. The calculated results inthis energy range had been lowered to agree with the data of Qaim, et al. [2](the data shown in Figure 1 as the open triangles) to obtain the evaluated values.
The original calculated results by D.M. Hetrick are shown as TNG-H in Figure 3.
This means that the calculated results between M. Uhl (EFF-2) and D.M. Hetrick(ENDF/B-VI) were worse than shown in Figure 1.
The suggestion of H. Vonach that the 19 observed discrete levels in 58Ni
between 3.5 and 4.5 MeV should be included as a constraint for level densities
led to a review of all discrete levels. As a result, the discrete energy region of58
Ni used by D.M. Hetrick (TNG-H in Figure 3) was increased from 3.5 to
4.5 MeV and that of 58Co from 1.04 to 1.55 MeV. These two level schemes are
given in Table 2 where the added levels are shown in parentheses. These schemes
are based on Kocher and Auble [7] for 58Ni and 58Co, and Kocher [8] for 55Fe.
The level schemes used for 55Fe, unchanged from those used by D.M. Hetrick,are also given in order to be compared with those of M. Uhl’s, which are given
below in Section 4.
The number of discrete levels cannot be changed without a corresponding
modification in level densities. In TNG, the composite level-density formulas of
Gilbert and Cameron [9] were used. In this formalism, the high excitation energy

10Table 2. Level schemes used in TNG-H and TNG-FU calculations(TNG-FU used additional levels in parentheses)

formula is Fermi gas and the low excitation energy formula is constanttemperature. The low energy formula is required to agree with cumulative
discrete levels at the discrete energy cut-off and be tangent to the high-energy
part. So, changing the number of discrete levels or their energy range leads to achange in the low-energy level densities only. The resulting shape changes in thelevel densities yielded worse (n,n′) and (n,p) results than D.M. Hetrick’s [6].
To compensate, the Fermi-gas parameter a was changed from 5.438 to 5.400 for

11

58

Ni and from 7.062 to 6.200 for 58Co. Note that in the present calculation thespin cut-off parameters were changed with a according to the formula of Facchiniand Saetta-Menichella [10] and the parameters for the constant temperature partwere calculated automatically. Therefore, the only adjustment of level density
parameters required in TNG is a if the relation used between a and the spin
cut-off parameter is pre-determined. The combined changes in discrete levels
and Fermi-gas parameters gave slightly better agreement of the calculated (n,n′)and (n,p) cross-sections with the available data than obtained by D.M. Hetrick.
The (n,α) cross-sections resulting from this new calculation are shown as
TNG-FU in Figure 3. These cross-sections are smaller than those of TNG-H
below 12 MeV and larger above and are in good agreement with Qaim’s data
below 10 MeV [2] and at 14.5 MeV [3]. Note that Figure 3 has the same scaleas Figure 1.

Maintaining all parameters as TNG-FU above but changing the α-particle
optical model parameters from Huizenga and Igo [11] to McFadden andSatchler [12], we obtained TNG-MC shown in Figure 3. The new (n,α)
cross-sections are now in reasonable agreement with all data shown in Figure 1.
However, the rise-flatten-rise shape of EFF-2 was not reproduced.
For TNG-H, TNG-FU, and TNG-MC calculations, the neutron opticalmodel parameters are from Wilmore and Hodgson [13] and the proton fromBecchetti and Greenlees [14]. This information is given so that tests of opticalmodel parameters given below will have some significance.
4. MAURINA parameters in TNG
It was finally decided to test in TNG all binary-channel parameters used by
M. Uhl in MAURINA for EFF-2 in order to attempt to reproduce his results.
The information sent by M. Uhl is attached as Appendix B. It contains the
optical model parameters for the proton channels, the discrete levels used, andthe level density parameters. The optical model parameters for the neutron andα-particle channels were given in detail in a paper [15] presented at the 1991
Jülich conference. The idea of using Uhl’s parameters in TNG was notconsidered earlier because the work required was substantial: TNG had to bemodified to handle energy-dependent radius and diffuseness terms in the opticalmodel parameters and to change the level density formulas from Gilbert andCameron [9] to the back-shifted Fermi gas [16]. A temporary version of TNG
was created to accommodate these differences in the binary channel only, so thecalculated results shown below should not be compared with M. Uhl’s results forenergies above the tertiary thresholds about 11 MeV.

12

The starting point is TNG-MC, which is shown in Figure 3. Each calculation
described below was changed from the previous one, to isolate the effect of eachchange. First the discrete level schemes used by M. Uhl for EFF-2 were adopted.
Lower discrete energy cutoffs were used by M. Uhl, hence fewer discrete levels(see Table 2 and Appendix B). The resulting changes in all calculated crosssections were negligibly small, probably due to the fact that the reductions in
discrete levels are nearly proportional for the (n,n′), (n,p) and (n,α) channels.
Then M. Uhl’s optical model parameters for the n, p and α channels wereintroduced, one at a time in that order. The three results, shown in Figure 4, arelabelled n, np and npα. The changes in cross-sections from each addition of
M. Uhl’s optical model parameters are significant, but not large enough to
explain the difference at 8 MeV. There is no change in the shape from any of thethree calculations. It is now obvious that the explanation for the rise-flatten-riseshape of EFF-2 comes from the differences in level densities.
M. Uhl’s level densities for the n, p and α channels were then added, one ata time in that order. The resulting cross-sections, shown in Figure 5, are labelledn, np and npα. With the new level densities in the neutron channels, thecalculated (n,α) cross-sections (labelled n in Figure 5) drop sharply from theresults labelled npα of Figure 4 for energies above 6 MeV. This drop is due tothe large increase of level densities in the neutron channels, which enhances
neutron emission. The ratios of M. Uhl’s level densities to those of TNG-FU for
the three binary channels are shown in Figure 6. For the neutron channels, theratios increase with increasing excitation energies up to 12 MeV, peaking at
3.6 near 12 MeV. This explains the increasingly larger gap with energy in the(n,α) cross-sections between the npα results of Figure 4 and the n results of
Figure 5. For the same reason, after M. Uhl’s level densities in the proton
channels were added, the calculated (n,α) cross-sections (labelled npα inFigure 5) dropped even more. However, after M. Uhl’s level densities for
α-channels were included, the (n,α) cross-sections (labelled npα in Figure 5)
increased with energy for energies above 6 MeV. This energy range is wherelarge level densities in the α-channel start to come into play.
Both the magnitude and the rise-flatten-rise shape of the EFF-2 (n,α)
cross-sections are now closely reproduced when all parameters used by M. Uhl
for EFF-2 were introduced in TNG. The major reason for this difference inshape is the much larger level densities used by M. Uhl in all binary channels.
In a calculation near 8 MeV, secondary neutrons and protons can sense the large
differences in level densities, but outgoing α-particles emit predominantly to thediscrete levels, so the (n,α) cross-section is smaller in M. Uhl’s work. As incident

13energies go higher, the outgoing α-particles can reach the larger level densities
of M. Uhl shown in Figure 6, and the calculated (n,α) cross-sections increaseagain.
Figure 6 suggests two problems. First, the two sets of level densities differ
by up to a factor of 3.7. Which set is closer to the truth is a serious problem thatshould receive wide attention. The basic problem is that level densities in the(n,n′) channels for many important targets (including 52Cr and 56Fe) are notknown experimentally, hence all existing tabulations have large uncertainties.
The case for 58Ni is worse because the level density information for the (n,p)
channel 58Co, the cross-sections of which are large too, is also absent.
The second problem is that the ratios shown in Figure 6 are not linear withenergy but peak between 7 and 12 MeV, which is a result of the differences inenergy-dependence between the level-density formulas used in MAURINA and
TNG. On a log scale, the constant temperature formula, used below about
12 MeV for ENDF/B-VI, is linear in excitation energy while the back-shifted
Fermi-gas formula (used for EFF-2) varies with the square root of energy. Even
if the parameters in both approaches are adjusted to yield the same value at agiven energy, the shape difference will remain. For instance, if both level
densities in the proton channels are made the same at 10 MeV by adjusting the
Fermi gas parameter a, the ratio will become 1.09 at 7 MeV and 0.85 at 14 MeV.
This intrinsic shape difference in the two commonly used level density formulas
may lead to differences in the calculated (n,n′), (n,p) and (n,α) cross-sections.
Such differences should be quantified and fully understood for important
structural materials.
5. Neutron emission spectra from 58Ni (n,xn)
The differences in the neutron emission spectra for 58Ni (n,xn) for an
incident neutron energy of 11 MeV, shown in Figure 2, turned out to be due
to an error in interpreting the ENDF-6 formats in the plotting program. For
ENDF/B-VI and JENDL-3, the (n,np) component is given separately from the(n,n′) while the two components were summed for EFF-2. The plotting programof S. Tagesen was written for EFF-2 and when applied to ENDF/B-VI andJENDL-3, only the (n,n′) component was included.
A graph showing a corrected result for ENDF/B-VI is given in Figure 7.
This result was obtained by generating separate energy distributions for thesecondary neutrons from (n,n′) and (n,np), weighting them by the respective

14

cross-sections, and then re-normalising the weighted distribution using the same
discrete energy cutoff as in Figure 2. This new result is in much better agreementwith that of EFF-2.
Figure 8 shows a comparison between EFF-2 and ENDF/B-VI of thesecondary neutron emission spectra (instead of distributions normalised to acommon discrete energy cut-off), contributed by D.M. Hetrick. Both are in good
agreement for the continuum region.
6. Proposal for new Subgroup on level densities
A proposal to form a new Subgroup to study the level densities of the
major isotopes in stainless steel has been approved by the Working Party as
Subgroup 16. C.Y. Fu and D.C. Larson are the co-ordinator and monitor
respectively for this Subgroup. In view of the large differences in the level
densities used for the calculation of (n,n′), (n,p) and (n,α) cross-sections of 58Ni
shown in this report, the new Subgroup will initially study the level densities of58
Ni, 58Co and 55Fe, and the residual nuclides of these three reactions. The
specific steps may include the following:
1) Sensitivities of particle emission cross-sections and spectra todifferences in level-density formulas such as the back-shifted Fermi-gas
formula and the Gilbert-Cameron formula.
2) Level densities deduced from the calculational fits to the evaluatedcross-sections of 58Ni (n,n′), (n,p) and (n,α) up to 14 MeV. The
evaluation will include newly available experimental data.
3) Level densities deduced from averages of existing ones used in
calculations and/or evaluations.
4) Level densities from existing tabulations based on empiricism and/or
extrapolation.
5) Level densities deduced from theoretical approaches, including
moments method, combinatorial method based on shell model states,and pure shell model calculations.
6) Level density parameters deduced from updating existing systematics
such as Gilbert-Cameron by using the much improved neutron
resonance information for 58Ni (for level density of 59Ni).
7) Comparison of the above and final deduction.

15

Parts of the above work should include 52Cr and 56Fe and the related
residual nuclides. For example, Item 6 should include at least 56Fe
simultaneously.
Members will include scientists interested in working on one or more of theabove items. Interests have been expressed by H. Vonach, S. Grimes, G. Reffo,
S. Chiba, D.C. Larson and C.Y. Fu. Existing members of Subgroup 1 will be
asked to stay on as members of Subgroup 16.
7. Recommendations from Subgroup 1
Most of the recommendations from Subgroup 1 can be found in the minutesof its first meeting at the NEA Data Bank in December 1990 (see Appendix A)
and the paper by the Subgroup presented at Jülich [1]. A complete set ofcomparison graphs could be obtained from the following people who attended
the first meeting: H. Gruppelaar, J. Kopecky, K. Shibata, S. Tagesen, M. Kawai,
G.C. Panini, L. Petrizzi, A. Hogenbirk, and C.Y. Fu.
H. Vonach, et al. [17] have evaluated, based on Bayes theorem, the available
experimental data at 14 MeV for 52Cr, 56Fe, 58Ni, and 60Ni. The evaluated values
contain uncertainties and have been adjusted so the partial cross-sections sum tothe total. It has been found from comparisons made by this Subgroup that mostevaluated values at 14 MeV disagree with H. Vonach’s. It is recommended
that future evaluations or revisions of existing evaluations carefully consider
H. Vonach’s results.
Any near-term revision for 58Ni (n,α) should consider all measured data,
including older data shown in Figure 1 and recent data by Wattecamps [18] andVonach [19]. The evaluator should consider 60Ni (n,α) simultaneously so thatnew data for natural nickel by Wattecamps [18] and Chiba [20] can be used.
A new calculation fitting all other cross-sections and data will be needed. This
could be achieved by the new Subgroup on level densities.

Acknowledgements
The contributions of graphs, documents, or advice by C.L. Dunford,
H. Gruppelaar, S. Tagesen, M. Uhl, and K. Shibata, who are not members ofSubgroup 1, are gratefully acknowledged. The US part of this international
collaboration was sponsored by the Office of Energy Research, Division of
Nuclear Physics, US Department of Energy, under contract No. DE-AC0584OR21400 with Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
16

REFERENCES[1]

C.Y. Fu, et al., “International Evaluation Co-operation Task 1.1:
Intercomparison of Evaluated Files for 52Cr, 56Fe and 58Ni”, Nuclear Data
for Science and Technology, Proceedings of an International Conference,
S.M. Qaim, ed., Springer-Verlag (1991), pp. 857-859.

[2]

S.M. Qaim, R. Wolfe, N.M. Rahman, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 88, 143 (1984).

[3]

S.M. Qaim and N.I. Molla, Nucl. Phys., A283, 269 (1977).

[4]

S.M. Grimes, R.C. Haight, K.R. Alvar, H.H. Barschall and R.R. Borchers,
Phys. Rev., C19, 2 127 (1979).

[5]

S.L. Graham, M. Ahmad, S.M. Grimes, H. Satyanarayana, S.K. Saraf,
Nucl. Sci. Eng., 95, 60 (1987).

[6]

D.M. Hetrick, C.Y. Fu and D.C. Larson, “Calculated Neutron-induced
Cross-sections for 58,60Ni from 1 to 20 MeV and Comparisons with
Experiments”, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-10219,
ENDF-344 (1987).

[7]

D.C. Kocher and R.L. Auble, Nucl. Data Sheets, 19, 445 (1976).

[8]

D.C. Kocher, Nucl. Data Sheets, 18, 463 (1976).

[9]

A. Gilbert and A.G.W. Cameron, Can. J. Phys., 43, 1 446 (1965).

[10] U. Fachini and E. Saetta-Menichella, Energ. Nucl., 15, 54 (1968).
[11] J.R. Huizenga and G.J. Igo, Nucl. Phys., 29, 462 (1962).
[12] L. McFadden and G.R. Satchler, Nucl. Phys., 84, 177 (1966).
[13] D. Wilmore and P.E. Hodgson, Nucl. Phys., 55, 673 (1964).
[14] F.D. Becchetti and G.W. Greenlees, Phys. Rev., 182, 1 190 (1969).
17

[15] M. Uhl, H. Gruppelaar, H.A.J. van der Kamp, J. Kopecky and D. Nierop,“The EFF-2 Evaluation for the Reaction Systems n + 52Cr, 56Fe, 58Ni, and60Ni”, Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, Proceedings of anInternational Conference, S.M. Qaim, ed., Springer-Verlag (1991),
pp. 924-926.
[16] W. Dilg, W. Schantl, H. Vonach and M. Uhl, Nucl. Phys., A217, 269(1973).
[17] H. Vonach, S. Tagesen, M. Wagner, and A. Pavlik, “Uncertainty Estimates
for the Fast Neutron Cross-sections of the European Fusion File EFF for
52
Cr, 56Fe, 58Ni and 60Ni and Evaluation of the 14-MeV Cross-sections ofthese Isotopes from the Existing Experimental Database”, Institute ofRadiation and Nuclear Physics, Vienna University, Austria, EFF-DOC-85(1991), and private communication (1992).
[18] E. Wattecamps, “Measurement of Double Differential (n,×α) Cross-sectionsof natNi, 58Ni, 60Ni, natCu, 63Cu and 65Cu in the 5 to 14 MeV Energy
Range”, Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, Proceedings of anInternational Conference, S.M. Qaim, ed., Springer-Verlag (1991),
pp. 310-313.
[19] H. Vonach, Institute of Radiation and Nuclear Physics, University of
Vienna, private communication (1992).
[20] S. Chiba, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, Tokai Mura, Japan,
private communication (1992).

18

Figure 1. 58Ni (n,α) cross sections available in three evaluations:
ENDF/B-VI of the USA, JENDL-3 of Japan, and JEF-2/EFF-2 of Europe
The comparison was prepared by C.L. Dunford. The data of Grimes [4] and Graham [5]are added to aid in discussions presented in the text.

19

Figure 2. Secondary energy distributions from 58Ni (n,xn) for an
incident neutron energy of 11 MeV available in the ENDF/B-VI,
JEF-2/EFF-2 and JENDL-3 evaluations. Differences among the threeevaluations shown here and in Figure 1 are resolved in this report.

20

Figure 3. The 58Ni (n,α) cross-section in ENDF/B-VI, evaluated by
combining experimental data of Qaim [2,3] and acalculation using the
TNG code, is examined to see if the calculation could be reasonably
lowered to agree better with the other two sets of evaluated results
The calculated points labelled TNG-H was the original TNG results obtained by
Hetrick. TNG-Fu points are obtained by Fu using refined discrete level schemes in the
Hetrick’s input to TNG. TNG-MC results from replacing the parameters of the alphaoptical potential used in TNG-FU by that of McFadden and Satchler. This last result
agrees better with the other two evaluations.

21

Figure 4. Three TNG calculations using TNG-FU parameters except
the optical model parameters of Uhl used for the JEF-2/EFF-2 evaluation
The points labelled “n” had the neutron optical model parameters of Uhl. Thoselabelled “np” had neutron and proton optical model parameters of Uhl. Similarly,“npα” for n, p and alpha. These results ruled out the optical model parameters as the
major problem area for the differences seen in Figure 1.

22

Figure 5. Three TNG calculations using the “npα”
parameters of Figure 4 except the binary part of the level
densities of Uhl used for the JEF-2/EFF-2 evaluation
The results labelled “n” had the neutron part of the level density parameters of Uhl.
Those of “np” had both n and p parts of the level density parameters of Uhl and so on
for “npα”. The last result nearly reproduced Uhl’s results used for JEF-2/EFF-2 butwith a different model code and established the level density as the major cause of the58
Ni (n,α) problem.

23

Figure 6. Ratios of level densities used by Uhl for JEF-2/EFF-2
and by Fu slightly refined from that used for ENDF/B-VI
The curves labelled “n”, “p” and “α” represent level densities in the n-channel(58Ni), p-channel (58Co) and α-channel (55Fe), respectively.

24

Figure 7. Secondary neutron distributions from 58Ni (n,xn)
reproduced from Figure 2 with added data points
These added data result from adding the (n,pn) contribution to the dashed curvelabelled ENDF/B-VI that contains only the (n,n′) contribution. The newly added data
are the true ENDF/B-VI that agree with the solid curve labelled EFF.

25

Figure 8. Comparison of 52Cr (n,xn) neutron spectra of EFF-2
and ENDF/B-VI for an incident neutron energy of 11 MeVSome problems exist in the discrete energy region due to the use of discrepant level
schemes in the calculations performed for the two evaluated files.

26

Appendix A
Report on the Meeting of Subgroup-1of the NEACRP/NEANDC Evaluation Co-operation:
Intercomparison of Cross-sections For 52Cr, 56Fe. and 58Niin the JENDL-3, JEF-2, and ENDF/B-VI Evaluations
held at the NEA Data Bankon 3 December 1990

Participants
C. Y. Fu
H. Gruppelaar
M. KawaiA. Hogenbirk
L. Petrizzi
S. Tagesen
J. Kopecky
K. Shibata
G. C. Panini

ORNL – USA
Chairman
ECN – Petten
Secretary
Toshiba – Japan
ECN – Petten
ENEA – Frascati
IRK – Vienna
ECN – Petten
NEA Data BankENEA – Bologna

Absent but contributed documents and/or graphs:
N. Yamamuro
T. Asami
H. Vonach
D. Hetrick
D. Larson
C. Dunford
D. Zhou

DEI – JapanJAERI – Japan
IRK – Vienna
ORNL – USA
ORNL – USA
BNL – USA
CNDC – China

27

Task Force Monitor for Subgroup-I

The purpose of the meeting is to examine the large number of graphs
prepared by Subgroup 2 overlaying the cross-sections, energy and angular
distributions in the JENDL-3, JEF-2/EFF-2, and ENDF/B-VI evaluations for
52
Cr, 56Fe and 81Ni, to understand the reasons for the observed discrepancies
among the three evaluations, and to come up with recommendations for
improvement.
The meeting progressed while the plots were being copied by the Data Bankand made available so that all participants were looking at the same graph at thesame time. The following minutes of the meeting reflect the flow of the
discussions.

Cross-sections of (n,α) reactions
There are large discrepancies among the evaluations for the (n,α)
cross-sections. In general. there are two different shapes. Below 14 MeV, EFF-2
is relatively low and ENDF/B-VI is relatively high. Possible reasons are:•Competition of other channels.

•

Alpha-particle optical model.

•

Level density.

•

Preformation factors in pre-equilibrium model.

The last point seems most relevant, because it is known that there are large
differences among various models. The “best” theory at present is perhaps thedescription of Zhang (CNDC-China) based on the Harada model. It was concluded
that the evaluators should specify exactly which method was used for calculating
the (n,α) cross-sections, in preparation for further work on this problem.
Note that for 57Cr the recent calculations of N. Yamamuro confirm EFF-2
and there are also data points in favour of it.
It is recommended that more experimental data be taken at energies
between 8 and 10 MeV.

28

Angular distribution for elastic scattering
The a1, a2 and a3 Legendre coefficients for elastic scattering as a function ofincident neutron energy show very good agreement. However, the angular
distributions plotted at selected energies show some disagreement in the depth of
the first minima and at 14 MeV, suggesting discrepancies among the evaluationsin the higher-order Legendre coefficients. Since the low-order Legendre
coefficients are more important in neutron transport calculations, it is concluded
that the angular distributions for elastic scattering are satisfactory in general.
Total cross-sections
There is generally good agreement among the evaluations. For EFF-2, no
structure is included because the total cross-sections were calculated from theoptical model. It was questioned whether fluctuating cross-sections based on
measured data should be used or whether unresolved resonance parameters
should be given. For MCNP calculations, the first option seems to be preferredfor deep-penetration problems. For 56Fe in EFF-2, the evaluation plotted has
been lowered at energies near 1 MeV in order to follow the smoothedexperimental data (warning: even with the dispersion relations, the opticalmodel still does not work well enough near the 1-MeV minima in the total crosssections). Further work on the use of the dispersion relation in optical model
calculations should be pursued.
Energy distributions
The continuum inelastic cross-sections in the three evaluations have different
thresholds due to the different numbers of discrete levels used. For comparing
the total neutron emission spectra in the continuum range, Dr. Tagesen truncatedthe continuum inelastic distributions in all evaluations to simulate a common
threshold, and re-normalised the resulting distributions. Large differences were
found at energies below 14 MeV, in particular for 58Ni at 11 MeV. For 58Ni at
11 MeV, the (n,np) channel may lead to difficulties because the (n,2n) channel is
not open; so the calculated neutron emission is a result of photon emission incompetition with proton emission. Another possibility is that the level density,
which governs the shape of the evaporation spectrum, is different in different
evaluations. It was therefore recommended to ask the evaluators to specify the
total number of levels per MeV for 58Ni for each MeV up to 14 MeV in order toallow further study of the problem. Furthermore, more experimental DDX
measurements for iron at energies below 14 MeV are strongly encouraged.

29

Gas production cross-sections
The hydrogen production cross-sections are in good agreement below
14 MeV due to the availability of abundant experimental data for the (n,p)
cross-sections. However, they diverge above 14 MeV because of the (n,np)
contributions which were essentially based on calculations. Note that the plotted
ENDF/B-VI 60Ni(n,p) and hydrogen-production cross-sections have alreadybeen lowered to agree with the newly available data.
The helium production data show a rather large spread due to theabove-mentioned problems with the (n,p) cross-sections and they disagree evenmore above 14 MeV where the (n,nα) cross-sections begin to dominate.
Total photon-production cross-sections
Total photon-production cross-sections as a function of incident neutronenergy in the three evaluations were found to be in substantial disagreement:from 4 to 10 MeV for 52Cr, above 8 MeV for 56Fe, and above 4 MeV for 58Ni.
The discussion was centred on 56Fe. There were two suggested reasons for these
discrepancies.
The two major measurements for natural iron, one by J.K. Dickens and theother by G.T. Chapman, have large discrepancies. Dickens’ data is lower than
Chapman’s by nearly a factor of 2 near 8 MeV and 14 MeV. Even though
Chapman’s measurement is more recent, it may not be better around 14 MeV.
The second possibility has to do with a 3.5%-spread in the evaluated
non-elastic cross-sections near 14 MeV for 56Fe. Due to a photon multiplicity of
approximately 3, the spread in the non-elastic cross-section at 14 MeV canproduced a 10%-discrepancy in the total photon-production cross-sections This
correlation was confirmed by inspecting the relevant plots.
H. Vonach has provided an independent evaluation for the 14-MeV
cross-sections solely based on experimental data. Comparison of the ENDF/B-VI
56
Fe evaluation with that of H. Vonach showed agreement for all partial reaction
cross-sections to within 1%. Yet the ENDF/B-VI 56Fe cross-section for the
non-elastic, summed from the partials, is 3.5% low. This suggests discrepancies
in the experimental data used in H. Vonach’s evaluation, which needs to be
adjusted by least squares. However, it was recommended that all evaluators
consider H. Vonach’s evaluation (distributed during the meeting) for the 14-MeV
data in their future revisions.

30

It is also recommended that similar graphs be made for natural elements andcompared with experimental data. Further resolution of the discrepancies in the
total photon-production data will await the completion of plots for the photon
energy distributions.

(n,γ) cross-sections
There are large differences above 1 MeV, but the cross-sections are quite
small. For JENDL-3 the direct/semi-direct component is lacking.
(n,p) cross-sections
It is recommended to adopt the dosimetry cross-sections in the IRDF filefor 56Fe(n,p), 58,60Ni(n,p) in all future revisions.
Inelastic scattering to discrete levels
Good agreement was found around the cross-section maxima but not for thetails where the deformation parameters used for direct components may differ ineach evaluation. The overall agreement seems satisfactory, in fact, often better
than the agreement among the experimental data. More high quality
experimental data for the discrete levels are needed.
Double differential neutron emission
A comparison of the double differential neutron emission spectra is stilllacking. However, this work is currently being performed at CNDC-China by
D. Zhou, et al. and their results will be requested for consideration by thisSubgroup through official channels.
Resolved resonance range
Although there are a large number of graphs displaying the various
evaluations in the energy range below 1 MeV, there was no time for a good
discussion. There was, however, some discussion on this point during the JEF-2
meeting. Due to the importance of the resolved resonance range in fission
reactor applications, it should be covered in detail in the near future. It wassuggested to make also a comparison of group constants (3 per decade) in order31

to find important differences. Such intercomparisons should also be made fornatural elements. In particular it was considered of importance to study thestatus of the capture cross-sections. Recently, new data have become available.
At CBNM (Geel) capture data are re-analysed with new detector response
functions. It is desirable to check the evaluations against these new data whenavailable.
Evaluations for the natural elements
For ENDF/B-VI and EFF-2, there are at present no evaluations for natural
Cr, Fe or Ni. The understanding is, that these evaluations have already taken into
account experimental data for natural elements, hence they can be processed into
multi-group cross-sections and combined for the natural elements on themulti-group level. On the other hand, JENDL-3 has evaluated files for naturalelements. For JENDL-3 users, the evaluations for natural elements arerecommended for transport calculations, while the evaluations for the isotopes
were intended for activation applications. Therefore, if there are discrepancies
between JENDL-3 and the other evaluations for the isotopes, this is not always
serious as natural elements represent the leading evaluations in JENDL-3.
In ENDF/B-VI some total cross-sections measured for the natural elements
have been used for the isotopic evaluations where the isotopic data are either
unavailable or are judged to be inferior, for example 56Fe above 2 MeV.
In EFF-2, the evaluations above 1 MeV, including the total cross-sections,are entirely based upon calculations fitted, as well as possible, to the available
data. For this reason, the distinction among the total cross-sections of theisotopes is also entirely based on theory.
Information from Subgroup 2Some of the conclusions mentioned above were based on plots done byDrs. Tagesen and Vonach for the covariances in the EFF-2 evaluations.
Their covariance results were in turn largely based on the graphs provided bythis Subgroup. Conclusions to be made by Subgroup-2 will be obtained anddistributed for consideration by members of Subgroup-1.
One single evaluation
It was concluded that the main tasks of this Subgroup were to compare theevaluations, to come up with recommendations for improvements, and to32

recommend further studies for generic problems, such as the (n,α) reaction andthe level density. Evaluators are encouraged to update their evaluations rather
than creating one single evaluation at this stage. It seems likely that theevaluation methods will improve, that the modified evaluations will converge,
and that a consensus will be reached in the future.
Reminder of actions
The evaluators of JENDL-3 and EFF-2 should send to C.Y. Fu
immediately:1) A brief description of the α-particle pre-formation model used in theevaluations.
2) The level density (number of levels per MeV) for each MeV up to
14 MeV for 58Ni.
Responsible persons: K. Shibata for JENDL-3 and J. Kopecky for EFF-2.
This information will be examined along with that for ENDF/B-VI andsummarised by Fu and distributed to all members and interested parties.
Volunteers are needed to work on comparisons for:1) The secondary photon energy distributions.
2) The total and capture cross-sections in the resonance region in groups of
3 per decade with a flat weighting. If you have not contributed anythingso far, this is your chance. Please let the co-ordinator or monitor of the
Subgroup know of your progress or plans.

33

Appendix B
M. Uhl’s letters

OECD PUBLICATIONS, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
PRINTED IN FRANCE