Looking for Nuclear Engineering must reads - General Engineering - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards
Sign in to follow this  
random_soldier1337

Looking for Nuclear Engineering must reads

Recommended Posts

I'm asking for suggestions in various categories as some of them might be more important for coursework whereas others might be more recreational and to expand knowledge.

I know for example that Knoll is the go to for radiation detection and Lamarsh and Baratta is the most important for intro to nuclear engineering (of course some disagree with dumbing down in it, which is why I ask). Any books that anyone would like to recommend as a must have for core nuclear courses?

Other books that I'm looking for are more for my knowledge. For example, I found introductory nuclear physics by krane really helpful in explaining some of the concepts and bridging the gap between quantum/particle physics and nuclear for someone who hasn't had a rigorous physics background in those. Not to mention a fun read. But despite all that, it has been not useful for coursework and has been more recreational for me. Point is, I enjoy it for knowledge and recreation and I would like other suggestions for these as well so that I may expand my understanding of nuclear even if I don't formally take a course, please?

There is one pet peeve that I would like to address specifically, however. I'm unable to find much information on books that detail nuclear engineering from a fusion perspective. For example, materials and neutronics usually detail everything from fission reactor standpoints with a very minor aside, if at all, towards fusion. Any suggestions for those as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@random_soldier1337

Lamarsh is the foundation of any nuclear study. It's still the most used textbook on my shelf. I take offense that anyone would consider it "dumbed-down". It was intentionally written as a 200 level textbook so that the student would have the knowledge for more advanced coursework. And he did a fantastic job! It was a must-have during the pen-and-paper nuclear PE exam. Honestly, if I had to choose between Lamarsh and a calculator for the PE, I would have taken Lamarsh.

I use the Chart of the Nuclides all the time. The most recent edition (17) is produced by Knolls Atomic Power Lab and Bechtel.

You should also consider Turner for general nuclear and radiation physics. I've personally found Gloyna and Ledbetter great for more obscure nuclear physics equations, but I know that I'm in the minority.

Shultis is the standard for Radiation Shielding.

Benedict, Pigford, and Levi for Nuclear Chemical Engineering.  Duderstadt is hands-down the best reference for Transport Theory. But good luck finding copies of either, they've been out of print for decades - despite being the superior texts.

Stacey's many books are the go-to for anything related to fusion. i.e Fusion Plasma Engineering.

I haven't found a reactor theory book that I actually liked.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say personally for Lamarsh. The person who said such was a on track for a physics PhD before switching to nuclear engineering. They think it really doesn't do the physics justice. I asked if they could point out an example. They showed me in the first chapter that Lamarsh refers to neutrons, electrons and protons as fundamental particles which according to them and particle physics/physicists in general is false since if you look at the standard model, the fundamental particles are quarks, leptons and bosons.

Thanks for the rest of the suggestions. Can I request you to give me the names for them as well? For some of them I feel like you are referring to a specific book rather than books by the author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random_soldier1337 said:

I can't say personally for Lamarsh. The person who said such was a on track for a physics PhD before switching to nuclear engineering. They think it really doesn't do the physics justice. I asked if they could point out an example. They showed me in the first chapter that Lamarsh refers to neutrons, electrons and protons as fundamental particles which according to them and particle physics/physicists in general is false since if you look at the standard model, the fundamental particles are quarks, leptons and bosons.

FWIW, Lamarsh is an introductory text to nuclear engineering, not nuclear physics, and certainly not particle physics. I'm not going to fault Lamarsh for ignoring SM to that audience. For reference, humanity deployed power reactors and weapons long before we even imagined quarks, or thought that neutrinos had mass. Very few NukeE's will ever have to work with quarks, bosons, SR, or GR professionally. I've only had the pleasure (and I mean that sincerely) to work those problems a handful of times.

 

1 hour ago, random_soldier1337 said:

Thanks for the rest of the suggestions. Can I request you to give me the names for them as well? For some of them I feel like you are referring to a specific book rather than books by the author.

The titles aren't very imaginative

Benedict, Pigford, and Levi - Nuclear Chemical Engineering

Faw and Shultis - Radiation Shielding

Stacey - Fusion Plasma Engineering , he has others but I think this is the capstone

Duderstadt and Martin - Transport Theory

Chart of the Nuclides 17th edition - KAPL and Bechtel Corp

Lamarsh - Introduction to Nuclear Engineering (many editions)

Turner - Atoms Radiation and Radiation Protection (many editions)

Gloyna and Ledbetter - Principles of Radiological Health

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RBHeadge PE said:

FWIW, Lamarsh is an introductory text to nuclear engineering, not nuclear physics, and certainly not particle physics. I'm not going to fault Lamarsh for ignoring SM to that audience. For reference, humanity deployed power reactors and weapons long before we even imagined quarks, or thought that neutrinos had mass. Very few NukeE's will ever have to work with quarks, bosons, SR, or GR professionally. I've only had the pleasure (and I mean that sincerely) to work those problems a handful of times.

Seeing as you have dealt with those topics closer to pure physics, would you say it's handy to know them? I mean more than what we are taught in our classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, no. It has little utility outside of academia. It's only of use during advanced research and special projects.

There's nothing wrong with learning about it to satisfy your own curiosity though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RBHeadge PE said:

Generally speaking, no. It has little utility outside of academia. It's only of use during advanced research and special projects.

There's nothing wrong with learning about it to satisfy your own curiosity though.

Any specific examples of advanced research and special projects? I'm going for research in plasma facing components in tokamaks but I don't know what the future may bring.

With that in mind however, I would just rather focus my energy and expertise in our current work than spend energy in satisfying my curiosity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advanced research is high energy physics, theoretical physics, astrophysics, general academia etc. I'm not sure how many proper NukeE's work in those fields, or at least as anything more than a RSO. Most of those engineers tend to be EE, ME, applied physics, or material science. If you want to do that sort of work, go study physics.

Higher energy dosimetry (solar and cosmic radiation) is an area of active research for some health physics and radiation engineers.

Special projects would be nuclear forensics, detection, non-power space applications, and other ifkyk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a bit strange to hear. I would have imagined the physics people would have drafted a physical phenomena their device wanted to replicate, explain the physics of it to the engineers and the engineers would then decide on the device specifications and how to efficiently build device with said specifications. I might have misunderstood but it sounds like engineers have more of a say in the physics than just the design of the device.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In high energy physics there isn't a much of a difference between experimentalist and engineer. Everything is cutting edge and custom made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, you mean to tell me that nuclear engineers have less of a say than an ME or EE for the topics you mentioned like high energy physics, astrophysics, etc.? That's what it's sounding like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...