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.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2025 ANS Winter Conference & Expo
November 9–12, 2025
Washington, DC|Washington Hilton
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
Sep 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
October 2025
Nuclear Technology
September 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
NNSA awards BWXT $1.5B defense fuels contract
The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration has awarded BWX Technologies a contract valued at $1.5 billion to build a Domestic Uranium Enrichment Centrifuge Experiment (DUECE) pilot plant in Tennessee in support of the administration’s efforts to build out a domestic supply of unobligated enriched uranium for defense-related nuclear fuel.
A. D. Krumbein, J. H. Ray
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 13 | Number 2 | June 1962 | Pages 166-170
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE62-A26145
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The effect of control rod movement in a fast reactor has been calculated directly by solving a series of two-dimensional multigroup problems and indirectly by using a set of danger coefficients derived from one-dimensional calculations. The values of reactivity insertion calculated by the two methods for complete safety rod withdrawal agree within three percent. The shape of a curve of relative reactivity insertion vs. rod withdrawal distance is also predicted, with good agreement between the two methods. Differences between the two predictions are within three percent of the maximum value. Comparison of these predictions with a set of normalized experimental values shows agreement within four percent of the maximum value.