Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-mphil-in-nuclear-energy-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2020/paper-ne3/2/d/solution

Use the same atomic fractions and collision assumptions as in part(c). Let be the irradiated area. The number of atoms in the sheet is , while the number of incident neutrons is , where is the neutron fluence.
Counting one primary knock-on atom for each neutron that scatters and using displacements per recoil gives the first-collision estimate
Hence the nominal damage is about displacements per atom under the assumed composition. In the thin-sheet approximation the density and thickness cancel:
The difference comes from using first-collision attenuation rather than the linear approximation. Treating repeated collisions after deflection would require angular and energy information not provided; this correction is already smaller than the precision warranted by the composition assumption.
There is also a counting convention in “other atoms”: counts secondary displacements, while including the displaced primary knock-on atom itself gives . The corresponding first-collision result is rather than dpa, an increase of only . Both conventions round to about dpa. The numerical estimate is explicitly conditional on assigning the stated displacement yield to each scattering event.
A value greater than one is physically possible. Displacements per atom counts displacement events relative to the initial atom inventory: atoms can be displaced repeatedly, and many vacancies and self-interstitials recombine. It does not mean surviving vacant sites per original lattice site, or that every atom has moved exactly times. This is a large nominal exposure for which evolving dislocation loops, cavities and irradiation hardening matter; the surviving microstructure additionally depends on irradiation temperature, displacement dose rate, recombination and defect sinks.

New to topics? Read the docs here!