JEF-2.2 JEFF-3.0 JEFF-3.1 JEFF-3.1.1 JEFF-β Proposals Submit new feedback

Feedback on JEF-2.2



Feedback on JEF-2.2 General Purpose File

Nuclide* From Date Comment Status
8-O-16 C. Nordborg 26.01.94 (n,alpha) reaction MT=107, 800s :At one of the first energies these reactions have cross sections of 10e-38 which may cause problems on short word machines.  
13-Al-27 C. Dean 22.10.94 MT=102 SIGMA is recorded as having been changed from 232 mb to 213mb(upon recommendation from Bologna?). However, c.f. with Mughabgabab which quotes 231+-3 and this change looks suspicious.  
6-O-16 C. Dean 6.10.94 Atomic Weights on the 1994 WIMS library.

The atomic mass values on the 1994 WIMS library are listed in Table 10 of AEA-RS 5690. They are taken from the relevant JEF2.2 evaluation. These are given relative to a neutron. The NJOY code converts them to the C12 scale by multiplying by the neutron mass. Values on JEF2.2 are often dated because "current" values were included when the evaluation was FIRST produced. Many parts of JEF and ENDF libraries are converted from older issues without updating the mass values. Values from the latest mass evaluations should be included in later WIMS libraries.

6/10/94 Mike Halsall noted Table 10 contained a value of 15.9905 for O16. He expected a value of ~15.995. The JEF2.2 evaluation is taken from ENDF/B-VI. Both contain a mass of 15.85316 relative to a neutron giving 15.9905 on the C12 scale. JENDL3 contains 15.8575 and JEF1.1 15.858. ENDF/B-VI hydrogen in H2O contains an oxygen mass of 15.858.

Checks against the latest mass evaluation indicate the JEF2.2/ENDFB-VI evaluations may be wrong!

Currently JEF and ENDF/B-VI will not be changed - neither will the WIMS 1994 library. However the US evaluators should be asked to examine the value.

 
38-Sr-90 M. Sowerby 6.2.95 Problem in Sr-90 capture cross section - thermal capture is x60 to high in JEF-2.2  
Many P. Ribon   All energy points in the partial sections should be present in the total sections. Examples: 174Hf, 176Hf, 235U.  
4-Be-9
5-B-10
7-N-14
8-O-16
G.C.Panini   Missing angular distributions for the following light isotopes:
9Be (MT=700-701), 10B (600-603, 800-801), 14N (600-604, 650-653, 700-701, 800-810), 16O (800-803).
 
5-B-11
9-F-19
11-Na-23
19-K-nat
74-W-182
74-W-183
74-W-184
74-W-186
83-Bi-209
G.C.Panini   Kerma calculation problems for some isotopes  
Many C. Dean   Checking of the unresolved resonance parameters needed. Processing problems, especially with parameters taken from KEDAK formatted evaluations, have been encountered.  
25-Mn-55 P. Ribon   Modification of the capture resonance region background cross section needed.  
42-Mo-100 C. Gragg   (n,2n) - tabulated subsection must be last.  
50-Sn-122 T. Nakagawa   Upper limit of the resolved resonance region should be 8.603905+3 eV.  
63-Eu-154 T. Nakagawa
C. Gragg
  Contains artificial resonance parameters from ENDF/B-V  
63-Eu-155 T. Nakagawa
C. Gragg
  Needs updating  
68-Er-166 C. Gragg   Resonance integral and 2200 m/s values much larger than ENDF/B-VI  
92-U-233 H. Tellier   Needs updating  
92-U-235 P. Ribon   There are two resonances with the same energy and same spin at 2.2 keV  
92-U-235 C. Dean   Verify the consistency between the JEF-2.2 and ENDF/B-VI rev. 1 evaluations  
94-Pu-239 P. Ribon and E. Dupont   neutron widths for L=1, J=1 unresolved resonance parameters should be divided by 2, following an earlier correction to the value of parameter AMUN and upper limit unresolved resonance range to 30 keV JEF22N9437_CEA.ASC corrected evaluation available
94-Pu-239 H. Derrien   New resonance parameters up to 2 keV from H. Derrien available  
95-Am-241 J.L.Rowlands 25.08.95 Resonance widths, for capture and fission need x7/6 adjustment. Resonance width for neutron needs x2 adjustment  
82-Pb-nat A. Hogenbirk 08.04.97 Format problem; for threshold energies in the MF6 data the distribution is not normalised.
It occurs for MT numbers for which MF6 data are given (not only MT16 and MT91)
 
94-Pu-239 M. Mattes 21.02.96 Redundancy in fission spectra (MF=5) leads to processing problems with NJOY.

JEF-2.2 evaluation contains both MT=18 and also the partials - MT=19,20,21 and 38.

 
92-U-235 P. Ribon 13.05.97 Resolved resonance region: J=4 two resonances with the same energy (744.2 eV)  
92-U-235 P. Ribon 13.05.97 Resolved resonance region: 300-500 eV: 6 pairs of resonances with spacings of <0.04eV, i.e. statistically impossible.  
48-Cd-nat P. Ribon 13.05.97 Pointwise cross sections: the resonance at 58.7eV is a phantom (i.e. does not exist in JENDL and has not been observed in GEEL experiments).  
45-Rh-103 P. Ribon 13.05.97 Spin of resonance at 154eV is J=0. This gives a poor fit to with predictions from GEEL, and Older experiments.  
68-Er-166 P. Ribon 13.05.97 Resolved resonance region: missing resonance at 170eV  
68-Er-166 P. Ribon 13.05.97 Pointwise cross section: interpolation of a background capture cross section between 0.025eV (33.3b) and 2000eV (0.118b) this is an absurd interpolation  
45-Rh-105 P. Ribon 13.05.97 Pointwise cross section: lack of data between 0.5 and 2.0 eV  
26-Fe-56 P. Ribon 13.05.97 Pointwise cross section: inelastic cross section too low between 1.5 and 4.5 MeV  
11-Na-22
18-Ar-36
18-Ar-38
18-Ar-40
27-Co-58m
27-Co-58
28-Ni-59
30-Zn-64
50-Sn-112
Waclaw Gudowski via NJOY list server via C. Dean 05.06.2000 Evaluations are not complete. They include cross sections and angular distributions for (n,n'p) and (n,n'alpha), but the corresponding File 5 secondary energy distributions are missing. This makes it impossible to run HEATR, GROUPR matrices, or ACER "c" files, and it is impossible to do neutron transport calculations. The ENDF format requires that both MF4 and MF5 be present for reactions in the range MT=16-50.

However, the cross sections can be used for dosimetry or activation purposes.
 

Feedback on JEF-2.2 Decay Data

Nuclide* From Date Comment Status
49-In-104 F. Chukreev 18.10.93 15.4s state missing  
49-In-126 F. Chukreev 18.10.93 Isomer and ground states probably transposed. At present Q(isomer)< Q(g.s.). Comparing spin and T1/2 with nuclear wallet supports this assumption  
49-In-126 F. Chukreev 11.11.93 Ba-129 decay data contains gamma line 419.83kev twice  
Many M. Konieczny 10.11.93 All data taken from ENSDF - error in translating ENSDF to ENDF format : Error in RADLST (SIGFIG) causes uncertainties to reset to zero when in fact they are non-zero :  
66-Dy-147
68-Er-149
67-Ho-160
81-Tl-183
81-Tl-185
81-Tl-185
81-Tl-191
83-Bi-197
97-Bk-248
M. Konieczny 30.11.93 Ground state missing in decay file.

In the case of: 66-Dy-147, 68-Er-149, 67-Ho-160, 81-Tl-185, 83-Bi-197, 97-Bk-248 - the g.s. is known in ENSDF should be included in JEF.

 
92-U-235m A. Nichols 05.03.96 In JEF-2.2 the average gamma energy is given as 76 eV (equal to the Q-value).

In the original evaluation, A. Nichols had the av. gamma energy set to 0.0, since the internal conversion coefficient has been set to 10E17, indicating that nearly all the gammas are internally converted (i.e. only 76 eV /10E17 are emitted as gamma rays).

However, it appears that the preprocessing of UKHEDD2_1 into JEF-2.2 using CORDECAY has reset the av. gamma energy to be equal to the Q-value - which is clearly wrong.

This looks like a problem with CORDECAY

 
90-Th-206 A. Nichols   In JEF-2.2 the spin/parity is given as +0.0. However, A. Nichols maintains that he had evaluated it as -0.0.

Upon investigation, it appears that it was set as -0.0 in UKHEDD1 but changed to +0.0 in UKHEDD2.

6/3/96 - A. Nichols has informed me that the +0 and -0 problem is caused by computer dependancy. Some machine will see -0 and reset this to +0

 
34-Se-79   12.03.96 Se79 decays by beta emission (150keV) to Br(g.s.) - No intermal Bremsstrahlung, no annihilation radiation, no x-rays, no gamma-rays.

Thus, mean electromagnetic energy (or mean gamma energy in ENDF terminology) is zero.

However, in JEF-2.2, then mean gamma energy is reset to 0.0496662 MeV!

NB. mean beta energy is not all the energy of the decay because the neutrino energy is not included.

 
40-Zr-93 A. Nichols   Zr-93 decays to Nb(g.s) (Q-value=91 keV) and to Nb(m.s) (Q-val=62keV).

From Blachot's evaluation (JEF-2.2) we only have the m.s. decay.

A. Nichols thinks that this decay should be clearly labelled as a branching to the two states of Nb

 
35-Br-88
35-Br-89
35-Br-90
 
+possibly
 
35-Br-87
37-Rb-93
37-Rb-94
37-Rb-95
39-Y-98
39-Y-99
51-Sb-135
53-I-137
53-I-139
85-At
A. Nichols 15.03.96 In the JEF-2.2 file, for both modes 1.0 (beta- decay) and 1.5 (beta- followed by neutron emission), LCON=2 indicating that both discrete and continuous spectra are given. In each case FD (the discrete spectrum normalisation factor is set, but FC (the contiuum spectra normalisaton factor) is given as zero (INCORRECT) ==> multiply the continuum spectra values by this number.  
59-Pr-144 R.W.Mills 24.01.97 Two major gamma lines at 1489 and 2186 keV missing.  
98-Cf-255, 86-Rn-224, 66-Dy-169, 66-Dy-170 R.A.Forrest 04.10.2000 The value of AWR is given incorrectly as the A value.  
83-Bi-210n C.J.Dean 04.10.2000 This second metastable state is a "copy" of the first metastable state data and so should be removed. This state does not exist in reality.  
56-Ba-142 C.J.Dean 27.11.2008 Rudstam had measured 760+/-80keV whereas summation calculations gave 1.069MeV at the time of JEF2.2. The JEFF3.1.1 value is based on summation calculations giving 1.03863MeV. This discussion was hiding a MAJOR error in JEF2.2 in that there was a factor 10 discrepancy on the gamma normalisation factor - FD. The value is 2.11E-3 and should be 2.11E-4.The effect of this is that the energy release from gamma lines in a shielding study is 10.69 MeV not 1.069MeV.The error can be seen by running FIZCON on the JEF2.2 file.This means that Ba-142 is no longer such a strong component of gamma dose in safety studies.  

Feedback on JEF-2.2 Fission Yields Data File

Nuclide* From Date Comment Status
92-U-235
94-Pu-241
P. de Leege 08.10.97 Values of NN and NNP incorrect (at E=4.0E+5 - mt=454,459)  

Last reviewed: 24 September 2010