Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika

The peer-reviewed scientific and technology journal. ISSN: 0204-3327

About the Concept of «Prompt Criticality»

12/08/2021 2021 - #04 Personnel training

Yuferov A.G.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26583/npe.2021.4.12

UDC: 621.039.514.4:621.039.515:621.039.516.2

The article deals with methodological issues related to the conceptual and terminological apparatus of the dynamics of nuclear reactors. Based on the analysis of the standard point kinetics equations presented in the form of a balance of the processes velocities, it is shown that the concepts of «prompt criticality» or «prompt neutron criticality» (which are associated with the state of a nuclear reactor when the reactivity is equal to the «effective fraction of delayed neutrons», ρ = β) are appropriate to refer only to the state with zero reactivity. This is due to the fact that at ρ = β, the rate of reproduction of the neutron population is equal to the rate of generation of delayed neutrons, and the prompt neutrons «go out» to generate the precursors of delayed neutrons (PDN), since the rate of reproduction of prompt neutrons is equal to the rate of generation of PDNs. It is shown that, contrary to the traditional approach, it is impossible to oppose «prompt criticality» and «delayed criticality», since these states are identical (simultaneous and joint), coinciding with the state of zero reactivity. Similarly, the state of «prompt supercriticality» is identical to «delayed supercriticality», coinciding with the state of exponential increase in the velocities of all processes taken into account in the point reactor kinetics equation. It is found that the equality of reactivity to the effective fraction of delayed neutrons cannot be interpreted as a «safety limit» or «controllability limit», since the unacceptable period of reactor acceleration is achieved at significantly lower reactivity values. The proposed clarifications are appropriate both from the point of view of a more adequate description of the processes in a nuclear reactor, and in relation to the wording of nuclear safety requirements.


  1. Bahman Z. Neutronic Analysis For Nuclear Reactor Systems. Springer, 2019, 672 p.
  2. Marguet S. The Physics of Nuclear Reactors. Springer Publ., 2017, 1462 p.; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59560-3 .
  3. Oka Y.; Suzuki K. Nuclear Reactor Kinetics and Plant Control. Springer Publ., 2013, 305 p.; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54195-0 .
  4. Anglart H. Nuclear Reactor Dynamics and Stability. Warsaw University of Technology, 2013. 153p.
  5. Seleznev E.F. Kinetics of Fast Neutron Reactors. Moscow. Nauka Publ., 2013, 239 p. (in Russian).
  6. Sarkisov A. A., Puchkov V. N. Neutron-Physical Processes in Fast Reactors with Heavy Liquid-Metal Heat Carriers. Moscow. Nauka Publ., 2011, 168 p. (in Russian).
  7. Halimonchuk V.А. Dynamics of a Reactor with Distributed Parameters in Studies of Transient Operation Modes of VVER and RBMK. Kiev. Osnova Publ., 2008, 228 p. (in Russian).
  8. Naumov V. I., Smirnov V. E. Modeling of Non-Stationary and Emergency Processes in Nuclear Power Plants. Moscow. MEPhI, 2007, 104 p. (in Russian).
  9. Van Dam H., van der Hagen T.H.J.J., Hoogenboom J.E. Nuclear Reactor Physics. Delft University of Technology, 2005, 132 p.
  10. Yurkevich G.P. Power Reactor Control Systems. Moscow. ELEKS-KM Publ., 2001, 344 p. (in Russian).
  11. Ganev I. Kh. Physics and Calculation of the Reactor. Moscow. Energoatomizdat Publ., 1992, 496 p. (in Russian).
  12. Dementiev B. A. Kinetics and Regulation of Nuclear Reactors. Moscow. Energoatomizdat Publ., 1986, 272 p. (in Russian).
  13. Shikhov S. B., Troyansky V. B. Theory of Nuclear Reactors. Vol. 2. Gasokinetic Theory. Moscow. Energoizdat Publ., 1983, 368 p. (in Russian).
  14. Sarkisov A.A., Puchkov V.N. Physics of Transients in Nuclear Reactors. Moscow. Energoatomizdat Publ., 1983, 264 p. (in Russian).
  15. Bartolomei G.G., Bat G.A., Baibakov V.D., Alkhutov M.S. Fundamentals of Theory and Calculation Methods for Nuclear Power Reactors. Moscow. Energoizdat Publ., 1982, 512 p. (in Russian).
  16. Lewins J. Nuclear Reactor Kinetics and Control. Pergamon Press, 1978, 275 p.
  17. Akcasu Z., Lellouche G.S., Shotkin L.M. Mathematical Methods in Nuclear Reactor Dynamics. Academic Press, 1971, 465 p.
  18. Harrer J. M. Nuclear Reactor Control Engineering. Van Nostrand, 1963, 587 p.
  19. Physics of Nuclear Reactors. Moscow. Atomizdat Publ., 1964, 384 p. (in Russian).
  20. Glasston S., Edlund М. Foundations of the Theory of Nuclear Reactors. Moscow. Inostrannaya Literatura Publ., 1954, 458 p. (in Russian).
  21. Soodak Н., Campbell E.С. Elementary Pile Theory. UFN 42 93–156 (1950); DOI: 10.3367/UFNr.0042.195009g.0093. (in Russian).
  22. McLaughlin T.P., Monahan S.P., Pruvost N.L., Frolov V.V., Ryazanov B.G., Sviridov V.I. A Review of Criticality Accidents. Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-13638. 2000. 158 p.; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2172/760080 .
  23. Terminological Dictionary of Emergency Situations in Nuclear Power Engineering. Moscow. Nuclear Society of the USSR, 1990, 117 p. (in Russian).
  24. Polytechnic Dictionary. Moscow. Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya Publ., 1989, 656 p. (in Russian).

nuclear reactor dynamics prompt criticality delayed criticality

Link for citing the article: Yuferov A.G. About the Concept of «Prompt Criticality». Izvestiya vuzov. Yadernaya Energetika. 2021, no. 4, pp. 135-145; DOI: https://doi.org/10.26583/npe.2021.4.12 (in Russian).