Comparison of fluence-rate determination techniques for the Advanced Test Reactor-Critical Facility
The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is a unique, water-cooled, high-flux test reactor capable of performing tests prototypical of PWR operating conditions. The design and safe operation of experiments in ATR is aided by the operation of the ATR-Critical Facility (ATR-C), a lower-power reactor with the same size and geometry of the ATR. Short, low-power irradiations at the ATR-C are used to study the effects of control devices and test assemblies on the overall power distribution of various core loadings and to compare calculated data for reactor models. A technique was developed at INL to measure fission rates in fuel plate assembly reactors utilizing small, enriched uranium-aluminum (U-Al) alloy monitors, and to support ATR-C irradiations for forty years. Several hundred monitor wires placed throughout the reactor provide fine spatial resolution of the fission rates. A direct correlation exists between the fission rates of the U-Al monitors and the immediately adjacent reactor region. Extensive calibration was previously performed to determine the conversion factor for beta-particle activity of the irradiated U-Al monitors. The fission rate in the U-Al monitors can thus be determined by measuring the beta-particle decay of fission-products following irradiation of the monitors. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International) has established a standard practice for determining neutron fluence rate by radioactivation of depleted uranium. The ASTM standard practice also measures the concentration of fission-products in the uranium monitors. Rather than measuring the beta-particle decay from fission-products, the decay rate of fission-products is determined by gamma-ray spectroscopy. The feasibility of the ASTM standard practice was investigated for ATR-C irradiations and compared to the present method. The need to analyze hundreds of samples for each irradiation posed several challenges. Therefore, practical considerations such as expected fluence-rates, sample activity, and counting-time were compared between the two methods and the expected sources of error for each method were investigated.