Annals of Nuclear Energy 38 (2011) 28102817

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Annals of Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/anucene

An efcient technique for the point reactor kinetics equations with Newtonian
temperature feedback effects
Abdallah A. Nahla
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Tanta 31527, Egypt

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 28 April 2011
Received in revised form 16 August 2011
Accepted 26 August 2011
Available online 29 September 2011
Keywords:
Backward Euler approximation
Crank Nicholson approximation
Fundamental matrix
Stability analysis
Reactivity changes

a b s t r a c t
The point reactor kinetics equations of multi-group of delayed neutrons in the presence Newtonian temperature feedback effects are a system of stiff nonlinear ordinary differential equations which have not
any exact analytical solution. The efcient technique for this nonlinear system is based on changing this
nonlinear system to a linear system by the predicted value of reactivity and solving this linear system
using the fundamental matrix of the homogenous linear differential equations. The nonlinear point reactor kinetics equations are rewritten in the matrix form. The solution of this matrix form is introduced.
This solution contains the exponential function of a variable coefcient matrix. This coefcient matrix
contains the unknown variable, reactivity. The predicted values of reactivity in the explicit form are
determined replacing the exponential function of the coefcient matrix by two kinds, Backward Euler
and Crank Nicholson, of the rational approximations. The nonlinear point kinetics equations changed
to a linear system of the homogenous differential equations. The fundamental matrix of this linear system
is calculated using the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors of the coefcient matrix. Stability
of the efcient technique is dened and discussed. The efcient technique is applied to the point kinetics
equations of six-groups of delayed neutrons with step, ramp, sinusoidal and the temperature feedback
reactivities. The results of these efcient techniques are compared with the traditional methods.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The reactor kinetics equations of multi-group of delayed neutrons in the presence of Newtonian temperature feedback effects
are a couple of stiff nonlinear ordinary differential equations. This
system is one of the most important reduced models of nuclear science and engineering. It has been the subject of countless studies
and applications to understand the neutron dynamics and its effects. The presence of temperature feedback is useful to provide
an estimate of the transient behavior of a reactor power and other
variables in reactor cores which are tightly coupled.
The nature of reactivity input in liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR) can be of any form like the external reactivity, which
comes from the withdrawal of control rod, a gas bubble passing
through the core, or the feedback reactivity, which arises due to
the change in reactor power and the reactor material temperature
in comparison with the equilibrium state. So, the solution of point
kinetics equations is useful in understanding the nuclear reactor
power level and the power uctuation during the start up, shut
down and the control rod adjustment during the normal operation.
Present address: Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Taif University, Taif, Al-Haweiah, P.O. Box 888, Zip Code 21974, Saudi Arabia. Tel.: +20 40
5771074; fax: +20 40 3350804.
E-mail address: nahla@tu.edu.eg
0306-4549/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2011.08.021

In this subject, some works were developed and applied to solve

the reactor kinetics equations. These works are briey discussed
as follows.
da Nobrega (1971) applied a technique based on the Pad
approximations to solve point kinetics equations with step and
ramp reactivities. Hennart and Barrios (1976) applied the Pad
and Chebyshev types to solve the point kinetics equations with
various reactivity insertions. Aboanber and Nahla (2002a, 2002b)
presented the analytical inversion method (AIM) using different
types of Pad approximations to solve point kinetics equations
with step, ramp, sinusoidal and temperature feedback reactivities.
The numerical tests demonstrate that high accuracy can be
achieved in strong step and ramp reactivities insertion.
Yeh (1978) presented Hermite polynomials method (HPM) to
solve point kinetics equations. This method is based on using third
order Hermite polynomials for the approximation of neutron density and delayed group precursors in nite time intervals. HPM is a
kind of the power series solution (PWS). Basken and Lewins (1996)
used a straightforward recurrence relation of the PWS to obtain the
accurate solution of the reactor kinetics equations in a lumped
with time varying reactivity. Aboanber and Hamada (2002) used
PWS for solving space-independent nuclear reactor dynamics.
Nahla (2011) used Taylors series method (TSM) for the nonlinear
point kinetics equations. A high accuracy in the slow transient case
can be obtained.

2811

A.A. Nahla / Annals of Nuclear Energy 38 (2011) 28102817

Chao and Attard (1985) presented the stiffness connement

method (SCM) for solving the kinetics equations with step and
ramp reactivities. This method is based on the observation that
the stiffness characteristic is conned inside the time response of
the prompt neutron density and eliminated the delayed neutron
precursors. The numerical results demonstrate that SCM is moderate accuracy under moderate stiff conditions and low accuracy
where the stiffness is strong.
Snchez (1989) described the generalized RungeKutta methods (GRK) and applied to solve the point reactor kinetics equations
with step and ramp reactivities. Aboanber (2006) studied the stability of GRK method for stiff kinetics coupled differential equations. Yang and Jevremovic (2009) described the fourth order
Rosenbrock method (RM) with an automatic step size control feature and applied to solve the point reactor kinetics equations. The
coefcients of the third and fourth order GRK are calculated by
solving systems of linear equations. Good agreement between
the GRK and the exact solution of the linear ordinary differential
equations is obtained, but this agreement is decreasing for nonlinear differential equations.
Quintero-Leyva (2008) developed numerical algorithm (CORE) to
solve the point kinetics equations of nuclear reactor. The explicit
solution of this system was given by Laplace transform and Heaviside expansion theorem. The roots of the inhour equation serve as
the parameters in the exponential term and the other coefcients
can be found through another explicit formula. Then, determining
the initial condition for the next time interval was required to advance to the next step. This method is relatively moderate accuracy.
Aboanber (2003) presented the analytical exponential model
(AEM) to solve the point kinetics equation with constant reactivity.
Nahla (2008) generalized the analytical exponential model (GAEM)
to solve the point kinetics equations of beryllium and heavy-water
moderated reactors with step, ramp and temperature feedback reactivities. This method is based on the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors of the coefcient 16  16-matrix of system.
Li et al. (2009) described and investigated a numerical integral
method that efciently provides the solution of the point kinetics
equations. This method is using the better basis function (BBF)
for the approximation of the neutron density in one time step integrations. The numerical tests show that this method is relatively
accurate compared to the large step size used in those benchmarks.
Recently, Nahla (2010) presented new analytical method (NAM)
and applied to solve the point kinetics equations with constant,
ramp and temperature feedback reactivities. This method is based
on the roots of inhour equation and using Gauss elimination method to determine the variable coefcient.
In this work, the nonlinear point kinetics equations of multigroup of delayed neutrons in the presence of the adiabatic feedback are introduced. The predicted value of the reactivity is needed
to change the nonlinear differential system to a linear differential
system. The predicted values of reactivity are determined using
two kinds, Backward Euler and Crank Nicholson, of the rational
approximations. The eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenvectors of the coefcient matrix are calculated. The efcient techniques using the fundamental matrix of the homogenous
differential equations are applied. Stability of the efcient technique is dened. The results of the efcient techniques are compared with the traditional methods.
2. The nonlinear point kinetics equations
The space-independent reactor kinetics equations of multigroup delayed neutrons in the presence Newtonian temperature
feedback reactivity are stiff nonlinear ordinary differential equations which write as (Hetrick, 1993; Glasstone and Sesonske,
1994; Stacey, 2001)

dNt

dt

qt
K


I
X
 l Nt
ki C i t

i1

dC i t
li Nt  ki C i t;
dt
qt q0  aTt  T 0 

i 1; 2; 3; . . . ; I

2
3

dTt
K c Nt
dt

where N(t) is the neutron density, t is the time, q(t) is the reactivity
which dependent on the temperature and the neutrons density, Ci(t)
is the precursor concentration of i-group of delayed neutrons,
P
P
l Ii1 li Kb ; b Ii1 bi is the total fraction of delayed neutrons,
bi
li K ; bi is the fraction of i-group of delayed neutrons, ki is the
decay constant of i-group of delayed neutrons, K is the prompt
neutron generation time, I is the total number of delayed neutron
groups, T(t) is the temperature of the reactor, T0 is the initial temperature of the reactor, q0 is the initial reactivity, a is the temperature coefcient of reactivity and Kc is the reciprocal of the thermal
capacity of reactor.
Differentiating Eq. (3) with respect to time t and substituting
the result into Eq. (4) yield

dqt
eNt
dt

where e = aKc.
Eqs. (1), (2) and (5) are a couple of stiff nonlinear ordinary differential equations. To change this nonlinear system to a linear system must be determined the predicted value of reactivity.
3. The predicted values of reactivity
Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (1) yields
I
X
dNt
1 dqt
lNt
ki C i t 
qt
dt
e
K dt
i1

Eqs. (2), (5) and (6) can be written in a matrix form as

dWt
AtWt
dt

where W(t) = [N(t) C1(t) C2(t)   

and the coefcient matrix A(t) is

l

6
6 l1
6
6l
6 2
At 6
6 ..
6 .
6
6
4 lI
e

CI(t) q(t)]T

k1
k1

k2
0




kI
0

1 dqt
eK dt

0
..
.

k2
..
.


..
.

0
..
.

0
..
.

   kI



3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

The general solution of Eq. (7) takes the following form:

Wt exp

Z


Atdt Wt 0

t0

where t0 is the initial time and W(t0) is the initial condition.

This solution, Eq. (9), contains the exponential function of a variable matrix A(t). We can not dealing with the exponential function
of a variable matrix. So, the exponential function of a variable matrix must be replaced by the exponential function of a constant matrix. Then, let us rewrite the solution, Eq. (9), over the small time
interval [tm, tm+1] as

Wtm1 exphBWtm

10

2812

A.A. Nahla / Annals of Nuclear Energy 38 (2011) 28102817

R tm1

where h = tm+1  tm and the matrix B 1h

l k1
6
6 l1 k1
6
6l
0
6 2
B6
6 ..
..
6 .
.
6
6
0
4 lI
e
0

tm

k2
0




kI
0

qm qm1
eh K

k2
..
.


..
.

0
..
.

0
..
.

   kI



Atdt is

qm1

3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5

11

3.1. Pad01: Backward Euler approximation

The Backward Euler approximation (da Nobrega, 1971; Aboanber and Nahla, 2002a, 2002b), Pad01, takes the following form:

I
1
I  hB
I  hB

Eq. (17) represents the predicted value of reactivity using Backward Euler approximation.

The CrankNicholson approximation (da Nobrega, 1971; Aboanber and Nahla, 2002a, 2002b), Pad11, takes the following form:

f2 hB

exphB  f2 hB 

Nm1

Nm1

C j;m1

1h

qm qm1 
PI

eK

2
3
q q  P
hli
1  h m 4Km1  Ii1 2hk
i5
Nm
4
q q  P
hli
1 h m 4Km1 Ii1 2hk
i
PI 2hki C i;m qm qm1 
qm
i1 2hki
eK

qm qm1  PI hli

1h
i1 2hk
4K

qm

14

hli
i1 1hki

2
PI hki C i;m qm qm1  3

qm
2hlj Nm i1 2hk
2 eK
4

qm qm1i PI hl 5
i
2 hkj
1h
i1

C j;m1

2  hkj
C j;m ;

2 hkj

qm1 he4

Nm

1h

qm qm1 
PI

eK

21

2
P hki C i;m qm qm1  3
Nm Ii1 2hk

qm
2 eK
5q
he4
q q i P
m
hli
1 h m 4Km1 Ii1 2hk

qm1

8j 1; 2; . . . ; I
hki C i;m
i1 1hki
qm qm1 

8j 1; 2; . . . ; I

22

Eq. (22) represents the implicit form of reactivity. So, the explicit form of the reactivity can be written as
I
2K X
2Kli

1hki

PI

qm1

2hki

C j;m
;
1 hkj

20

4K

2
P hki Ci;m qm qm1  3
N m Ii1 1hk

qm
hlj
eK
4

qm qm1i PI hli 5

1 hkj
1h
i1

1 3 3
4
h B Oh
12

Substituting Eq. (12) into Eq. (13) then substituting the result into
Eq. (10) yield
hki C i;m
i1 1hk
qm qm1i

18

The error of CrankNicholson approximation is smaller than the

error of the Backward Euler approximation. Substituting Eq. (12)
into Eq. (18), the exponential function of the matrix (hB) is given as
32
3T 2
3
2
1
0
0
0  0 0
2  r2
6 hl1 76 2hk1 7 6 hl1 2hk1 0  0 0 7
7
6 2hk1 76 2hk1 7 6 2hk1 2hk1
76
7 6
7
6
7
6 hl2 76 2hk2 7 6 hl2
2hk2
0

0
0
7
7
7
6
6
6
2hk2
1 6 2hk2 76 2hk2 7 6 2hk2
7
19
exphB  6 . 76 . 7 6 .
7
.
.
.
.
.
76
7 6
r2 6
..
..
. . .. .. 7
7
6 .. 76 .. 7 6 ..
7
6 hl 76 2hk 7 6 hl
I
I
I
I
76
7 6
6
0
0  2hk
07
5
4 2hkI 54 2hkI 5 4 2hkI
2hkI
qm qm1
1

 12 he
h
e
0
0

0
1
eK
2
q q  P
hli
where r2 1 h m 4Km1 Ii1 2hk
.
i
Substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (10), we get

1 2
3
exphB  f1 hB  h B2 Oh
2

PI


1 

I 12 hB
1
1
hB
hB
I

I

2
2
I  12 hB

This approximation is valid for any real values of eigenvalues of

the matrix (hB), except that one must always choose h such that
the eigenvalues of the matrix (hB) are not equal 2, hxi 2, to keep
f2(hxi) bounded. For small h the error of CrankNicholson approximation is given by

13

This approximation involves no particular difculty, except that

one must always choose h such that the eigenvalues of the matrix
(hB) are not equal unity, hxi 1, to keep f1(hxi) bounded. For
small h, the error of this approximation is given by

Nm

17

3.2. Pad11: CrankNicholson approximation

where qm = q(tm) and qm+1 = q(tm+1).

This solution, Eq. (10), contains the unknown variable, reactivity, qm+1. So, we need some rational approximations for the exponential function of the matrix (hB) to determine the predicted
values of reactivity. There exist a particular class of the rational
approximations for the exponential function of the matrix (hB).
These approximations are known to be consistent and unconditionally stable when the numerator is a polynomial of the same degree as the denominator or smaller (da Nobrega, 1971; Aboanber
and Nahla, 2002a, 2002b). These approximations are based on an
expression for the inverse of [I  hB], where  is, in general, a
complex number. This expression takes the form
3T 2
32
3
2
1
1
0 0
0  0 0
6
7
6 hl1 76 hk1 7
6
7 6
7
6
0 11hk1 0  0 0 7
1hk1 7
7
6 1hk1 76
7 6
76
7
6
6
7 6
7
6 hl2 76
hk2
7
6
1
6 1hk 76 1hk2 7 6 0 0 1hk  0 0 7
2
7
27
16
7 6
1
76
7
6
12
I  hB 6

7
6
7
..
7 6
..
..
.. . .
..
.. 7
r6
7
6 .. 76
6
7 6.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
6 . 76
7 6
76
7
6
7 6
7
6 hlI 76
hkI
7 60 0
6 1hk 76
0  11hkI 0 7
7
6
1

hk
I
5
4
I 5
5 4
4
0 0
0  0 1
he qm eKqm1
q  q  P
hli
where r 1 2 h m K m1 Ii1 1
hki .
Let us choose some kinds of the rational approximations to
replace the exponential function of the matrix (hB).

f1 hB

I
K qm X
Kl i

2h 2
2 2hki
i1
s

2

XI hki C i;m 
K qm XI
Kli

Ke N m


i1
i1 1 hk
2h 2
2 2hki
i

15

qm

hli
i1 1hki

3
5q

16

Eq. (16) represents the implicit form of the reactivity qm+1. So,
the explicit form of the reactivity can be written as

h
2 hki
i1
s


XI 2Kl 2
XI hki C i;m 
2K
i

4Ke N m
 qm
i1 2 hk
i1 2 hk
h
i
i

23

Eq. (23) represents the predicated value of the reactivity using

CrankNicholson approximation. So, the point kinetics equations
in the presence of Newtonian temperature feedback changed to a
linear system using Eq. (17) or Eq. (23). The solution of this linear
system can be calculated using the fundamental matrix.

2813

A.A. Nahla / Annals of Nuclear Energy 38 (2011) 28102817

where the value of reactivity qm+1 can be determined from Eq. (17)
or Eq. (23).
Eq. (30) is called inhour equation. This equation is a (I + 1)th
degree algebraic equation which has (I + 1) roots. To determine
the roots of this equation, let us simplify this equation as (Nahla,
2008, 2010)

4. The fundamental matrix

Let us rewrite the linear ordinary differential Eqs. (1), (2) and
(5), using the predicted value of the reactivity qm+1, in the matrix
form as

dUt
FUt
dt

24

where U(t) = [N(t)

matrix F is

2 qm1
K

6
6
6
6
F6
6
6
4

l

C1(t)

C2(t)

I
Y

x k i Kx

i1

k1

k2



k1



..
.

0
..
.

k2
...


..
.

lI

l1
l2

qm1

CI(t)]T and the coefcient



kI

I
Y

I
X

x ki x

i1

bi

i1

I
Y

x kl

31

l1
li

and consequently, we get

7
0 7
7
0 7
7
.. 7
7
. 5

25

I1
X

KDk;0  qm1 Dk1;0

k0

I
X

!
bl Dk1;l xI1k 0

32

l1

   kI
where

Denition 1. (Jordan and Smith, 2007) For homogenous differential Eq. (24) with F real, constant matrix whose eigenvalues x0, x1,
x2, . . . , xI are all different,

Ht U0 ex0 t

U1 ex1 t

U2 ex2 t



UI exI t

Dk;l

26

is a fundamental matrix, where Uk is any eigenvector corresponding

to xk.
The solution of Eq. (24) over the time interval [tm, tm+1] is taken
the following form:

Utm1 Htm1 H1 tm Utm

and the value



27

UI 

U1 ehx1

U2 ehx2

UI ehxI

   klk 0 for lk > I.

The eigenvectors Uk of the matrix F corresponding to eigenvalues xk take the following form (Aboanber and Nahla, 2002a,
2002b)

28



lk lk1 1 kl1 kl2

lk l

4.2. The eigenvectors of the matrix F

and

Htm1 U0 ehx0

PI

The benet of Eq. (32) is that equation presents a simple form to

get the required coefcients to be able to solve inhour equation
using FORTRAN program. This program calculates all roots of an
algebraic equation with real coefcients using Laguerres method
(Mekwi, 2001).

where H(tm+1) is the fundamental matrix at tm+1 for the homogenous differential Eq. (24) and H1(tm) is the inverse of the fundamental matrix at tm.
The fundamental matrices H(tm) and H(tm+1) take the form

Htm U0 U1 U2


for k < 0 or k > I; 


for k 0;




I
I
I
P
P
P
>

>
>



k
k



k
;
for
0
<
k
6
I
l1 l2
lk

>
>
>

1
l
1
l
1
l
l
l
:1 2 1
k k1

l1 l
l2 l
lk l
8
0;
>
>
>
>
>
>
< 1;


Uk 1

29

l1

l2

xk k 1

xk k 2



lI

T
33

xk k I

4.1. The eigenvalues of the matrix F

where k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , I
The eigenvalues of the matrix F (da Nobrega, 1971; Aboanber
and Nahla, 2002a, 2002b) are the roots of the following equation:

qm1 Kx x

I
X
i1

bi
x ki

4.3. The inverse of the fundamental matrix H(tm)

30

The inverse of the fundamental matrix H(tm), Eq. (28), is calculated analytically and taken the following form:

Table 1
The relative errors and the exact neutron density of the thermal reactor with step reactivity.
Reactivity ($)

Time (s)

AIM

Exact

1.0

0.1
1.0
10.0

ET
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.20E4
0.0
0.0

1.92E7
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.5205643
0.4333335
0.2361107

0.5

0.1
1.0
10.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

3.15E6
0.0
0.0

1.43E7
0.0
0.0

1.43E7
0.0
0.0

0.6989252
0.6070536
0.3960777

+0.5

0.1
1.0
10.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

3.98E7
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
7.03E7

0.0
0.0
0.0

1.533113
2.511494
14.21503

+1.0

0.1
0.5
1.0

0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
3.11E7

0.0
0.0
0.0

2.515766
10.36253
32.18354

0.0
0.0
3.11E7

TSM

AEM

2814

A.A. Nahla / Annals of Nuclear Energy 38 (2011) 28102817

Table 2
Comparison between the efcient technique and other traditional methods for the ramp reactivity 0.1$ s1.
Time (s)

ET
h = 0.001

RM
h = 0.008

BBF
h = 0.1

CORE
h = 0.01

AIM
h = 0.001

GRK
h = 0.056

SCM
h = 0.1

0
2
4
6
8
10

1.0
1.3382
2.2284
5.5820
42.786
4.5116E5

1.0
1.3382
2.2284
5.5820
42.786
4.5116E5

1.0
1.3382
2.2284
5.5820
42.786
4.5041E5

1.0
1.3379
2.2278
5.5805
42.774
4.5103E5

1.0
1.3382
2.2284
5.5820
42,786
4.5116E5

1.0
1.3382
2.2284
5.5820
42.786
4.5115E5

1.0
1.3382
2.2284
5.5819
42.788
4.5391E5

Denition 2. (Quarteroni et al., 2000) The numerical solution

U(tm+1) of Eq. (24) is absolute stable if this solution tends to zero as
time tends to 1, i.e.,

lim kUt m1 k 0:

35

tm1 !1

Denition 3. (Quarteroni et al., 2000) The region of absolute stability of the numerical solution is the subset of the complex number set C such that



hx 2 C : lim kUt m1 k 0

36

t m1 !1

where x represents the eigenvalues of the coefcient matrix F

according to Section 4.
Denition 4. (Quarteroni et al., 2000) The numerical solution is Astable if the condition (36) is satised for all values of h, i.e.,

D \ C C

37

p
where C fz a ib 2 C : a < 0g; i 1.
The solution U(tm+1) represents the values of the neutron density N(tm+1) and the precursor concentration of i-group of delayed
neutrons Ci(tm+1) which must be a nonnegative real numbers, form
physics properties. If the solution U(tm+1) is decreasing function
until tend to zero, then the condition (35) may be satised. Hence,
the solution, efcient technique U(tm+1) is absolutely stable.
On the other hand, we can be used the eigenvalues of the matrix
F to dene the stability of the efcient technique as


Fig. 1. The neutron density for ramp reactivity as a function of time.

H0

6
6 H1
6
6
6
1
H t m 6 H2
6
6 .
6 ..
4

HI

H0 u1

x0 k1

H0 u2



H1 u2



x0 k2

H1 u1

x1 k1

x1 k2

H2 u1

H2 u2

x2 k1

x2 k2

..
.

..
.

HI u1

HI u2

xI k1

xI k2

QI

Hk QI

where
QI

xk kj

i1 kj ki
ij

7
7
7
H2 uI 7
   x2 kI 7
7
..
.. 7
.
. 7
5
uI
   xHIIk

xk ki

j0 xk xj
jk

uj  Qk0
I
lj

i1

H0 uI

x0 kI

H1 uI

x1 kI 7

34

; k 0; 1; 2; . . . ; I

and

j 1; 2; . . . ; I.

5. Stability of the efcient technique

Let us consider, the efcient technique U(tm+1), Eq. (27), represents the numerical solution of the point kinetics equations.

Theorem 1. (Jordan and Smith, 2007). Let F be a constant matrix

in the system (24), with eigenvalues xi, i = 1, 2, . . . , m.
(i) If the system is stable, then Re{xi} 6 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , m.
(ii) If either Re{xi} < 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , m; or if Re{xi} 6 0, i = 1, 2, . . . ,
m; and there is no zero repeated eigenvalue; then the system
is uniformly stable.
(iii) The system is asymptotically stable if and only if Re{xi} < 0,
i = 1, 2, . . . , m.
(iv) If Re{xi} > 0 for any i, the solution is unstable.

Table 3
Comparison between the efcient technique and other traditional methods for the sinusoidal reactivity.

s (s)
50
150
250
350

q0  103
5.3333
3.2327
2.3193
1.8083

Peak of the neutron density

Time of the peak

ET

PWS

HPM

AC

Anal.

ET

PWS

HPM

AC

Anal.

61.531
95.811
113.46
123.82

61.530
95.811
113.46
123.82

61.534
95.811
113.46
123.82

61.371
95.561
113.19
123.55

61.534
95.820
113.46
123.82

39.111
137.32
237.12
337.07

39.112
137.29
237.15
337.05

39.075
137.35
237.16
337.04

39.115
137.35
237.17
337.10

39.108
137.32
237.12
337.07

2815

A.A. Nahla / Annals of Nuclear Energy 38 (2011) 28102817

0.0317 s1, k3 = 0.115 s1,

k4 = 0.311 s1,
k5 = 1.40 s1,
1
3.87 s , b1 = 0.000285, b2 = 0.0015975, b3 = 0.00141,
0.0030525,
b5 = 0.00096,
b = 0.000195,
b = 0.0075,
 6

N calc: Nexact
, of neutron density
0.0005 s. The relative errors,
N exact

k6 =
b4 =
K=
with

four cases of the step reactivity 1.0$, 0.5$, +0.5$ and +1.0$ are
presented in Table 1. The comparison between the results of the
efcient technique (ET), Taylors series method (TSM) (Nahla,
2011), the analytical exponential model (AEM) (Aboanber, 2003),
the analytical inversion method using Pad11 approximation
(AIM) (Aboanber and Nahla, 2002a, 2002b) and the exact method
(da Nobrega, 1971) is presented in Table 1. All methods take the
same time step h = 0.1. This comparison substantiates the accuracy
and the efciency of the efcient technique.
6.2. Ramp reactivity
Fig. 2. The neutron density of one and six groups of delayed neutrons for sinusoidal
reactivity.

Table 4
The peak of the neutron density and its time for temperature feedback reactivity.

q0 ($)
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0

Peak of the neutron density

Time of the peak

ET-BE

ET-CN

NAM

ET-BE

ET-CN

NAM

45.75945
805.1905
41,183.77
153,735.3

45.57390
806.5291
42,093.39
160,612.7

45.75240
807.8666
430,25.93
167,856.6

28.353
0.955
0.168
0.098

28.097
0.954
0.168
0.098

28.293
0.953
0.168
0.098

6. Results and discussion

To check the accuracy and the efciency of the efcient technique, it is applied to solve the nonlinear point kinetics equations
with six-groups of delayed neutrons. The four kinds of problems:
step, ramp, sinusoidal and feedback reactivities are presented. All
results started from the equilibrium conditions with neutron density N0 = 1.0 and i-group of delayed neutron precursors density
C i0 Nlk0 bi . For the cases: step, ramp and sinusoidal reactivities, the
i
point kinetics equations are a linear ordinary differential equations. So, the efcient technique does not need Backward Euler
and Crank Nicholson approximations.
6.1. Step reactivity
To substantiate the accuracy of the efcient technique for solving the point kinetics equations with constant reactivity, it is
applied to the thermal reactor with the following parameters
(Aboanber and Nahla, 2002a, 2002b) k1 = 0.0127 s1, k2 =

To substantiate the accuracy and the efciency of the efcient

technique for solving the point kinetics equations with linear
ramp reactivity, it is applied to the thermal reactor with the following parameters (Li et al., 2009) k1 = 0.0127 s1, k2 = 0.0317 s1,
k3 = 0.115 s1, k4 = 0.311 s1, k5 = 1.40 s1, k6 = 3.87 s1, b1 =
0.000266, b2 = 0.001491, b3 = 0.001316, b4 = 0.002849, b5 =
0.000896, b6 = 0.000182, b = 0.007, K = 0.00002 s. The ramp
reactivity takes the form q(t) = 0.1bt = 0.0007t. The neutron density
of thermal reactor is presented in Table 2. The comparison between
the results of efcient technique and the analytical inversion method for ramp reactivity 0.1$ s1,0.2$ s1 and 0.3$ s1 is shown in
Fig. 1. The results of the efcient technique (ET) are accurate comparing with the results of the fourth order Rosenbrock method
(RM) (Yang and Jevremovic, 2009), the better basis function (BBF)
(Li et al., 2009), The numerical algorithm (CORE) (Quintero-Leyva,
2008), the analytical inversion method using Pad11 (AIM)
(Aboanber and Nahla, 2002a, 2002b), the generalized RungeKutta
(GRK) (Snchez, 1989) and the stiffness connement method
(SCM) (Chao and Attard, 1985).
The calculation times, CPU times, of the efcient technique to
the analytical inversion method are 0.20 s: 0.26 s at the same time
step, h = 0.001, using personal desktop computer (processor: Core
2 Duo, 2.93 GHz). This means, the efcient technique is faster than
the analytical inversion method.
6.3. Sinusoidal reactivity
To check the accuracy of the efcient technique, more comparisons are made with cases for which analytical solutions exist. This
case is the sine reactivity for the point kinetics equations of average one group of delayed neutron which devised by Vigil (1967)
and Lewins (1995). This problem is dened by the following
equations:

Table 5
The neutron density and the reactivity as a function of time at q0 = 1.0$.
Time (s)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

Reactvity ($)

Neutron density

ET-BE

ET-CN

NAM

ET-BE

ET-CN

NAM

1.0
0.18579
0.50585
0.65332
0.74087
0.79982
0.84241
0.87463
0.89997
0.91892
0.93474

1.0
0.18604
0.50595
0.65321
0.74070
0.80018
0.84122
0.87818
0.89771
0.91619
0.93468

1.0
0.18627
0.50621
0.65360
0.74109
0.80011
0.84275
0.87495
0.89973
0.91917
0.93460

1.0
132.1052
51.72712
28.18947
18.15454
12.78886
9.482830
7.248503
5.646767
4.458845
3.550773

1.0
132.0679
51.71622
28.18784
18.15552
12.78617
9.489881
7.232454
5.653475
4.468407
3.553165

1.0
132.0391
51.69971
28.17450
18.14629
12.77951
9.475042
7.244338
5.646299
4.456941
3.550194

2816

A.A. Nahla / Annals of Nuclear Energy 38 (2011) 28102817

Table 6
The neutron density and the reactivity as a function of time at q0 = 1.5$.
Time (s)

Reactvity ($)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

Neutron density

ET-BE

ET-CN

NAM

ET-BE

ET-CN

NAM

1.5
0.82008
1.07899
1.19961
1.27331
1.32384
1.36068
1.38849
1.40904
1.42606
1.43869

1.5
0.82562
1.08380
1.20381
1.27732
1.32773
1.36469
1.39177
1.41025
1.42874
1.44722

1.5
0.83141
1.08887
1.20895
1.28202
1.33205
1.36848
1.39597
1.41713
1.43365
1.44647

1.0
108.5460
41.83258
23.41236
15.36867
10.93202
8.130170
6.204616
4.812251
3.769579
2.977983

1.0
108.2318
41.72055
23.35934
15.33605
10.90965
8.115094
6.193371
4.810045
3.765779
2.965561

1.0
107.9093
41.60327
23.29860
15.30321
10.89008
8.101000
6.182614
4.793221
3.755480
2.966149

dNt qt  b

Nt kCt
dt
K
dCt b
Nt  kCt
dt
K  
pt
qt q0 sin

q0 = b. The average decay constant is k

P6

P6

i1 bi =

bi
i1 ki

38

where the notation has its conventional meaning and q0 < b. If q0

8b
and s are related by the expression q0 8k
s.
An analytical solution is available for limiting case K = 0 s (Vigil,
1967). This solution takes the following form:
N0 b
Nt
b  qt
2

3

 


2
kb
s
q
b
q
t

q
6
7
1
1
0
0
sin
 exp 4kt q sin
5
b
q0 b  qt
p b2  q20

39

The one group delayed neutron parameters are k

0:077s1 ; b 0:0079; N0 N 0 1:0; C0 NK0kb,
and
K=
108 s. The comparisons of the peak value N(t) and related time
for four different values of q0 and s are presented in Table 3. The
results of the efcient technique (ET) are accurate comparing with
the results of the power series solution (PWS) (Aboanber and
Hamada, 2002), Hermite polynomials method (HPM) (Yeh, 1978),
the analytical continuation method (AC) (Vigil, 1967) and the analytical solution, Eq. (39), (Anal.). All methods take the same time
step h = 0.001.
On other case, the one-group of delayed neutron precursor
approximation is used as well as six-group of delayed neutrons.
The kinetics parameters of the reactor take the following
(Quintero-Leyva,
2008)
k1 = 0.0124 s1,
k2 = 0.0305 s1,
1
1
1
k3 = 0.111 s , k4 = 0.301 s , k5 = 1.14 s , k6 = 3.01 s1, b1 =
0.000215, b2 = 0.001424, b3 = 0.001274, b4 = 0.002568, b5 =
0.000748, b6 = 0.000273, b = 0.0065, K = 0.0005 s, s = 5.0 s and

0:07669s . The comparison between the neutron density of the

one and six group of delayed neutron precursor is drawn in
Fig. 2. This gure proves that, there exist difference between using
one group and six groups of delayed neutrons. So, it is preferred to
use six groups of delayed neutron instead of one group.

6.4. Temperature feedback reactivity

The efcient techniques using Backward Euler and Crank
Nicholson approximations are applied to solve the point kinetics
equations with six-groups of delayed neutrons in the presence of
Newtonian temperature feedback reactivity. The following parameters of U235 reactor (Aboanber and Nahla, 2002b; Nahla, 2010) are
k1 = 0.0124 s1, k2 = 0.0305 s1, k3 = 0.111 s1, k4 = 0.301 s1,
k5 = 1.13 s1, k6 = 3.0 s1, b1 = 0.00021, b2 = 0.00141, b3 = 0.00127,
b4 = 0.00255,
b5 = 0.00074,
b6 = 0.00027,
b = 0.00645,
K = 5.0  105 s, the temperature coefcient of reactivity is
a = 5  105 K1 and the reciprocal of the thermal capacity of the
reactor is Kc = 0.05 K/MW s.
The peak of the neutron density and its time at the initial reactivity values q0 = 1.0$, 1.5$ and 2.0$ are introduced in Table 4. All
methods take the same time step h = 0.001. The efcient techniques using Backward Euler approximation, ET-BE, and Crank
Nicholson approximation, ET-CN, give good results comparing with
the new analytical method (Nahla, 2010), NAM. The calculation
times, CPU times, of the ET-BE, to ET-CN, to the new analytical
method are 2.04s: 2.01s: 3.04s at the same time step h = 0.001. This
substantiates that, the efcient techniques ET-BE and ET-CN are
faster than the new analytical method.
The neutron density and the reactivity as function of time with
the initial reactivities q0 = 1.0$, 1.5$ and 2.0$ are presented in
Tables 57 respectively. The results of the efcient techniques,

Table 7
The neutron density and the reactivity as a function of time at q0 = 2.0$.
Time (s)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

1

Reactvity ($)

Neutron density

ET-BE

ET-CN

NAM

ET-BE

ET-CN

NAM

2.0
1.31740
1.56502
1.68012
1.75046
1.79866
1.83328
1.85932
1.87896
1.89498
1.90635

2.0
1.34201
1.58776
1.70182
1.77101
1.81841
1.85537
1.87842
1.89690
1.91538
1.93386

2.0
1.36886
1.61285
1.72608
1.79534
1.84274
1.87729
1.90317
1.92341
1.93893
1.95060

1.0
105.1118
39.77467
22.33538
14.69613
10.45320
7.761803
5.904826
4.559800
3.555554
2.795546

1.0
104.2632
39.46449
22.17502
14.59655
10.38715
7.706731
5.868982
4.535230
3.532518
2.766554

1.0
103.5110
39.17932
22.02499
14.50649
10.32771
7.669895
5.834524
4.502759
3.509922
2.757519

A.A. Nahla / Annals of Nuclear Energy 38 (2011) 28102817

2817

perature feedback effects are absolutely stable for all t P 0. The

results of the efcient techniques are compared with the results
Taylors series method, the analytical exponential model, the analytical inversion method using Pad11 approximation, Fourth
order Rosenbrock method, the better basis function, the numerical
algorithm, the generalized RungeKutta, the stiffness connement
method, the power series solution, Hermite polynomials method,
the analytical continuation method and the new analytical method. These comparisons substantiated the accuracy, faster and the
efciency of the efcient techniques.
In the future works, the readers can be replaced Backward Euler
and Crank Nicholson approximations by other kinds of rational
approximations, Pad and Chebyshev approximations (Hennart
and Barrios, 1976; Aboanber and Nahla, 2002a, 2002b), which give
the accurate predicted values of reactivity. h-method may be used
to change the nonlinear reactor kinetics equations to linear system.
The developed numerical methods can be used to determine the
roots of inhour equation.
Fig. 3. The neutron density for temperature feedback as a function of time.

References

Fig. 4. The temperature feedback reactivity as a function of time.

ET-BE and ET-CN, are compared with the new analytical method
(Nahla, 2010), NAM.
For different values of initial reactivity (0.2$, 0.5$, and 0.8$), the
neutron density is increasing until to the peak point and decreasing
until tend to zero as shown in Fig. 3. The reactivity
 is decreasing
R1
until tend to the negative value q0  0 Ntdt as shown in
Fig. 4. So, the neutron density of the efcient technique is absolutely stable in the presence of Newtonian temperature feedback
reactivity.
7. Conclusions
The efcient techniques were applied to solve the nonlinear
point reactor kinetics equations of six-groups of delayed neutrons
in the presence step, ramp, sinusoidal and Newtonian temperature
feedback reactivities. The efcient techniques based on Backward
Euler and Crank Nicholson approximations to change the nonlinear
point kinetics equations to a linear ordinary differential system.
The fundamental matrix was used to solve this linear differential
system. Stability of the efcient technique was discussed. The efcient techniques for point kinetics equations in the presence tem-

Aboanber, A.E., 2003. Analytical solution of the point kinetics equations by

exponential mode analysis. Prog. Nucl. Energy 42, 179197.
Aboanber, A.E., 2006. Stability of generalized RungeKutta methods for stiff kinetics
coupled differential equations. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 18591876.
Aboanber, A.E., Hamada, Y.M., 2002. PWS: an efcient code system for solving
space-independent nuclear reactor dynamics. Ann. Nucl. Energy 29, 2159
2172.
Aboanber, A.E., Nahla, A.A., 2002a. Generalization of the analytical inversion
method for the solution of the point kinetics equations. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.
35, 32453263.
Aboanber, A.E., Nahla, A.A., 2002b. Solution of the point kinetics equations in the
presence of Newtonian temperature feedback by Pad approximations via the
analytical inversion method. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 96099627.
Basken, J., Lewins, J.D., 1996. Power series solutions of the reactor kinetics
equations. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 122, 407416.
Chao, Y., Attard, A., 1985. A resolution of the stiffness problem of reactor kinetics.
Nucl. Sci. Eng. 90, 4046.
da Nobrega, J.A.W., 1971. A new solution of the point kinetics equations. Nucl. Sci.
Eng. 46, 366375.
Glasstone, S., Sesonske, A., 1994. Nuclear Reactor Engineering. Chapman & Hall
Inc.
Hennart, J.P., Barrios, B.T., 1976. Generalized Pad and Chebyshev approximation for
point kinetics. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 59, 170198.
Hetrick, D.L., 1993. Dynamics of Nuclear Reactors. American Nuclear Society, La
Grange Park.
Jordan, D.W., Smith, P., 2007. Nonlinear Ordinary Differential Equations, fourth ed.
Oxford University Press.
Lewins, J.D., 1995. Reactivity oscillations and stability with delayed neutrons. Ann.
Nucl. Energy 22, 411414.
Li, H., Chen, W., Luo, L., Zhu, Q., 2009. A new integral method for solving the point
reactor neutron kinetics equations. Ann. Nucl. Energy 36, 427432.
Mekwi, W.R., 2001. Iterative Methods for Roots of Polynomials. Masters Thesis,
University of Oxford. <http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/16/>.
Nahla, A.A., 2008. Generalization of the analytical exponential model to solve the
point kinetics equations of Be- and D2O-moderated reactors. Nucl. Eng. Des.
238, 26482653.
Nahla, A.A., 2010. Analytical solution to solve the point reactor kinetics equations.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 240, 16221629.
Nahla, A.A., 2011. Taylors series method for solving the nonlinear point kinetics
equations. Nucl. Eng. Des. 241, 15921595.
Quarteroni, A., Sacco, R., Saleri, F., 2000. Numerical Mathematics. Springer-Verlag,
Inc., New York, USA.
Quintero-Leyva, B., 2008. CORE: a numerical algorithm to solve the point kinetics
equations. Ann. Nucl. Energy 35, 21362138.
Snchez, J., 1989. On the numerical solution of the point reactor kinetics equations
by generalized RungeKutta methods. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 103, 9499.
Stacey, W.M., 2001. Nuclear Reactor Physics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA.
Vigil, J.C., 1967. Solution of the reactor kinetics equations by analytic continuation.
Nucl. Sci. Eng. 29, 392401.
Yang, X., Jevremovic, T., 2009. Revisting the Rosenbrock numerical solutions of the
reactor point kinetics equation with numerous examples. Nucl. Technol. Rad.
Prot. 24 (1), 312.
Yeh, K., 1978. Polynomial approach to reactor kinetics equations. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 66,
235242.