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.
Division Spotlight
Young Members Group
The Young Members Group works to encourage and enable all young professional members to be actively involved in the efforts and endeavors of the Society at all levels (Professional Divisions, ANS Governance, Local Sections, etc.) as they transition from the role of a student to the role of a professional. It sponsors non-technical workshops and meetings that provide professional development and networking opportunities for young professionals, collaborates with other Divisions and Groups in developing technical and non-technical content for topical and national meetings, encourages its members to participate in the activities of the Groups and Divisions that are closely related to their professional interests as well as in their local sections, introduces young members to the rules and governance structure of the Society, and nominates young professionals for awards and leadership opportunities available to members.
Meeting Spotlight
ANS Student Conference 2025
April 3–5, 2025
Albuquerque, NM|The University of New Mexico
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Mar 2025
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
March 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
February 2025
Latest News
Prepare for the 2025 Nuclear PE Exam with ANS guides
The next opportunity to earn professional engineer (PE) licensure in nuclear engineering is this fall, and now is the time to sign up and begin studying with the help of materials like the online module program offered by the American Nuclear Society.
R. A. Karam, J. E. Marshall, K. D. Dance
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 43 | Number 1 | January 1971 | Pages 5-26
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE71-A21241
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The heterogeneity and sodium void effects in ZPR-6 Assembly 5, a 2700-liter UC core, were analyzed using ENDF/B data. The cross-section sets used were generated for the homogeneous composition of this assembly, corrected for resonance spatial self-shielding in 238U via equivalence theory, and weighted with the fine structure of the fluxes in the unit-cell. Bilinear weighting with the unit-cell fine structure of the real and adjoint fluxes was also performed. The calculated critical mass was 18% greater than the measured value. The calculated keff of the as-built system was 0.988. The calculated ratio of fission in 238U to fission in 235U was, depending on the loading pattern in the unit-cell, 13 to 26% less than the measured value. The calculated ratio of capture in 238U to fission in 235U was 7 to 10% greater than the measured value. The measured reactivity difference between a small homogeneous sample and another matched plate heterogeneous sample was a factor of 4 greater than the calculated value, indicating the analytical tools used for treating the heterogeneity effects were not adequate. The reactivity difference between homogeneous and rodded samples was nil. The calculated reactivity worths of 235U samples are in a reasonable agreement with measurements. The predicted 238U reactivity worth was 15 to 20% greater than the measured value. The measured sodium-void coefficient was about 25% greater than the calculated value. The magnitude of this coefficient is quite sensitive to the particular loading pattern in the unit-cell and it is strongly dependent on the effective capture rates in 238U. The dependence of the void coefficient on loading patterns is predictable in direction but not magnitude. The void coefficient in a rodded sample was the same as that in a plate heterogeneous sample. The void coefficient in a homogeneous sample was 56% greater than that in the rodded or the plate samples.
