Chapter 1: Useful definitions

1.1. Cross-sections (review)

The Nuclear and Radiochemistry class, listed as a prerequisite, is a good place to start. The
understanding of a cross-section being fundamentaI in this course, I will review it quickly.

1.1.1. So, what is a cross-section ?

The short story is : “The cross-section represents the probability of an interaction”. Now, that is
a quite good story, but it lacks substance, don’t you think ? Well, I agree, which is why I happily
refer you to the previously cited class (chapter 3).

As you thus already know, a cross-section can be microscopic, meaning that it is characteristic
of an individual target, or macroscopic, meaning that it is characteristic of a material containing
a large number of targets.

1.1.2. Microscopic cross-section

It is very important to start by defining some of the vocabulary you’ll have to know when talking
of neutron-induced reactions.
First, “scattering”. This refers to any reaction that re-emits a neutron. This can be compared with
a bouncing effect of the neutron on the atom.
Second, “absorption”. No surprise here, ladies and gentlemen. This simply indicates that the
neutron was absorbed by the atom it collided with.

Now, the absorption has two different consequences. It either induces the “fission” of the atom
that absorbed the neutron, i.e. the atom breaks into two smaller atoms and gives away
neutrons, or it induces a “capture”, i.e. the atom “accepts” the additional neutron and is
transformed into another atom, an isotope of the first atom.
In a mathematical form, we can write :
,
where and are respectively the fission and the capture cross-section.
Now, all that means that we have a total microscopic cross-section that can be expressed as
the sum of the absorption cross-section and the scattering cross-section. Indeed, the absorption
cross-section represents the probability that the neutron is absorbed (and then induces fission
or capture), and the scattering cross-section the probability that the neutron is scattered. As
those are the only options for the interactions, it represents the total cross-section.
Therefore, we can write :
,
where and are respectively the scattering and the absorption cross-section.
The microscopic cross-section can be considered as an area of interaction. The larger the area,
the higher the probability of interaction. Note that the largeness of this “area” does not depend
on the size of the atom itself, no, in fact it takes into account the energy of the incoming particle,
neutron in our case, among other factors. As a sort of area, the unit of a microscopic cross-
section is . The area we’re talking about being very small (of the order of ),
physicists have created a specific unit, the barn (b), to express those quantities.
.

1.1.3. Macroscopic cross-section

Now that we have seen the case of an individual target, let’s look at a higher level, with a large
number of targets. Imagine a neutron travelling in matter, which the neutron “sees” as if it were
a vacuum with nuclei here and there, since the neutron is unaware of electrons. It therefore
travels in a straight line at a constant speed until it hits a nucleus in its path, very much like a
flipper game. For a short path , this collision probability is infinitesimal and proportional to the
distance dx. This translates into : “the path is twice as long ? Then the probability of interaction
is twice as high”.
This probability can be written as where is the appropriate proportionality coefficient,
called macroscopic cross-section. Neutron physicists generally use the centimetre as the unit of
length for their calculations (order of magnitude for typical materials), and so macroscopic
cross-sections are expressed in .

Let us calculate the probability relationship that governs the distance between the starting
point of the neutron and the point where it will have its first collision.

So, the first collision takes place between and + :

● if the neutron has had no collision between 0 and x
○ This probability is denoted ,
● and if the neutron has a collision and +
○ by definition, this probability is

The probability of the collision happening between and + is therefore :

,
where is the probability density function.

Now, we need to calculate .

In order to do that, we must realize that + ) -- the probability of no collision over the
distance + -- is the product of :
● the probability of no collision between 0 and , i.e. ;
○ Indeed, the neutron has to not collide before that point
● the probability of no collision between and + , i.e., by definition, .
○ Indeed, the neutron must not collide before + but is assumed to collide at
+

This gives :
+
We can notice that by definition. Indeed, it is given that the neutron has not collided at
its exact starting point, because, well, we say so by defining 0 as the starting point. This allows
us to simplify the previous equation and obtain :
,

Question n°1 : 
Please demonstrate why .

Rewriting the previous equation with the explicit expression of , we find that :

We have thus calculated the probability of the collision happening between and + ,
.

This allows us to calculate the mean free path of the neutrons , i.e. the average value of the
distance at which the first collision occurs. This is the inverse of the macroscopic cross-
section :

Question n°2 : 

Please demonstrate why . (Hint : , “the average value of the distance at which
the first collision occurs”)

Finally, one can express the macroscopic cross-section as a function of the density of obstacles
(nuclei) on the way and the probability of interacting with a specific obstacle (microscopic cross-
section).
Indeed, the probability element of interaction with matter for a path is quite obviously
proportional to the number of obstacles the neutron is likely to encounter, and therefore to the
number of nuclei per unit volume (# ). Once again, one can try to visualize that by
comparing with a flipper game. The proportionality coefficient is the probability of interaction with
a specific target, the microscopic cross-section ( ).
We can thus write :

1.2. Neutron density, neutron flux, reaction rate

In a nuclear reactor, the population of neutron is very small compared to the population of atoms
(there is something like a factor !) . But that does not mean that it is a small population in
and by itself, no. Indeed, there are of the order of neutrons per cubic meter in a nuclear
reactor. This is why we use the concept of density and statistic to describe their behavior.

1.2.1. So, let’s define the neutron density

Imagine a small cube, in the region of interest, whose edges length is , centered at a point ⃗.
Its volume is therefore , that is . Then, consider you take a picture of that scene,
and look at it later (indeed, everything is moving quite fast in there !). Then the average number
of neutron found in this little cube is :
⃗ ,
where is the density (number of neutrons observed per unit volume). Keep in mind that this is
an average.

1.2.2. Reaction rate

Let’s say that does not depend on ⃗, (homogeneous repartition) for the sake of simplicity, and
let’s call the speed of the neutrons. During a time interval , a neutron travels a path . A
very simple and well-known formula gives us :

If we recall the previous section (macroscopic cross-section), we can remember that the
probability of interaction of one neutron with matter over a path is .
This then translates to :

Note that the only thing done there was to inject the new expression of into the equation.

If you want to know the number of neutron-matter interactions taking place in the little cube we
were considering -- in more mathematical terms in the volume element -- we just have to
multiply the probability that one neutron interacts with matter by the average number of neutrons
in that volume.
Thus, the number of neutron-matter interactions taking place in the volume element during
a time is :

From that expression, we can obtain what is called the reaction rate , which is the number of
interactions per unit volume and unit time :
 1.2.3. Neutron flux

If we look at the units of the product , we can see that it is :

,
thus apparently a number of neutron going through a surface area during a given time. This has
the dimension of a flux, doesn’t it ? Yes, but it isn’t a flux as we are used to see them. It has no
connection to a surface, it is a volumetric quantity. We’ll go ahead and call that a flux anyway,
the angular flux. Why do this if it isn’t an actual flux ? Well, that’s a historical definition, and
things are really hard to change.
In the previous equation, I wrote . This corresponded to the total macroscopic cross-section.
One can notice that we can separate this total macroscopic cross-section into several
interaction cross-sections ( for absorption, for scattering), which yields to a specific
reaction rate per interaction. Just wanted to clarify that.

Thus, we finally obtain :

,
where represents the matter (as in “the cross-section depends on the matter density and
other variables”) and represents the neutron population.

1.3. The phase space

We have to use seven independent variables to describe the neutron population behavior in
space and time :
● Space :
● Velocity :
● Time :

One has to notice that this Cartesian coordinate system can be translated into a spherical one
(you can see the “translation graph” on figure 1)
 fig. 1

The materials inside the reactor are theoretically isotropic, which means that no matter which
angle they’re seen from, they have the same properties. Cross-sections are thus not dependent
on the direction of the incident neutron, but only on its speed, and by speed I mean energy.
Indeed, instead of velocity, we use kinetic energy ( ) and direction ( ̂ ) :

⃗ ̂ √ ̂,

with the unit velocity vector ̂ , identified by the two angles of the spherical coordinates :
⃗
̂

We can keep in mind several useful formulas concerning ̂ :

So, that’s all good and stuff, but what next ? Well, this takes us to the notion of angular
density, the that we have talked about earlier. When I introduced this density, I did not
consider speed nor time. This angular density depends on ⃗ ⃗ .
So, ⃗ ⃗ is the number of neutrons in the volume around ⃗ and with their
velocity in the “volume” (velocity space) around ⃗, at time .
If, as we said earlier, we use and ̂ instead of ⃗, we obtain ⃗ ̂ instead of ⃗ ⃗ .
Then, the number of neutrons in the volume around ⃗, with energy between and ,
and with their direction between ̂ and ̂ , at time , is :
⃗ ̂

Consequently, the relationship between ⃗ ⃗ and ⃗ ̂ is given by the change of

variables :
⃗ ⃗ ⃗ ̂

Let us quickly come back to the fluxes for a moment. After all, it will be the main focus of our
work later on.
We’ve seen that we can write the angular flux (not a “real” flux) as the product of the neutron
density and their velocity, i.e. :
⃗ ̂ ⃗ ̂

From there, it is also possible to define what we’ll call the scalar flux, ⃗ . The scalar flux
is the angular flux integrated over all angles :

⃗ ∫ ⃗ ̂

In a similar way, integrating over all angles the angular density gives us the energy dependent
density :

⃗ ∫ ⃗ ̂

1.4. Concept of current

We’ve seen that neutron physicists used the term “flux” to describe something that, despite
having the unit of a flux, was not a flux. And they’ve been consistent in this notation changes.
That’s why the term “current” is used, in neutronics, to denote what is known as “flux” in other
branches of physics : the number of neutrons passing through a surface area, normalized
per unit surface and unit time.

1.4.1. Angular current density

We can first define the angular current density ⃗ ⃗ ̂ , which is the angular flux
⃗ ̂ multiplied by the unit velocity vector ̂ .

⃗ ⃗ ̂ ̂ ⃗ ̂ ⃗ ⃗ ̂
 1.4.2. Neutron current

Now, consider a surface element ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ ̂ , with surface area and located perpendicular
to the unit vector ̂ (normal). Let’s examine the neutrons with a given direction between ̂ and
̂ . The situation can be seen on figure 2 below.

fig. 2

We can define the neutron current, i.e. the number of neutrons with energy and direction ̂
which cross the surface ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗ per unit time :
̂⃗ ⃗ ̂ ⃗⃗⃗⃗⃗

1.4.3. Current density

As with the angular and scalar flux, one can integrate the angular current density ⃗ ⃗ ̂
over all angle in order to obtain the current density ⃗ ⃗ .

⃗ ⃗ ∫ ⃗ ⃗ ̂
 1.4.4. Partial currents

fig. 3

The current considers both neutrons going in a direction (following ̂ ) and in the opposite
direction ( ̂). Therefore, we can further define partial currents, and .

⃗ ∫ ̂ ⃗ ⃗ ̂
̂ ⃗⃗⃗

⃗ ∫ ̂ ⃗ ⃗ ̂
̂ ⃗⃗⃗

It is useful to note that ̂ ̂ indicates that the direction of the neutron projected on the
normal is positive. This means that, if we look at figure 3 (or figure 2), the neutron with such
direction ̂ is going from left to right, hence, . Of course, ̂ ̂ represents the opposite,
hence .

If the flux is isotropic, i.e. if it doesn’t have a privileged direction (independent of ̂ ), then :
⃗
⃗ ⃗

Question n°3 : 
⃗
Please demonstrate why ⃗ ⃗ in the case of an isotropic flux.
Well, this ends the first lecture. If you have any question, please let me know directly or post a
thread in the dedicated subreddit. Do not forget, and I can’t stress this enough : if you have a
question, then someone else in the class is wondering the same thing, or should be. Therefore,
asking it will help you and others.

The homework #1 (which will be the three questions that I’ve written in this lecture in order to
give you context, as well as a bonus problem) can be difficult if you are not familiar with the
mathematics involved. If you have any difficulty (it’s definitely okay not to know how to integrate
a “hidden” multiple integral), once again, use the discussion platform (refer to previous link) or
email me directly.

There is another thing that I should say. If you do not understand something, do not feel like it’s
your fault, and do not give up. It merely means that my explanations were not good enough. I
will gladly upgrade the class by taking into account your suggestions and remarks.