Optimizing Filter Thickness in MCNP5 for Phosphorus 32 Bremsstrahlung Reduction

  • Thread starter Addali sabah
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mcnp5
In summary, the conversation is about working on optimizing the thickness of filters to reduce the continuous Bremsstrahlung spectrum emitted by phosphorus 32, using MCNP5 code. However, there are uncertainties in the input file and questions about the modeling geometry and source composition. Suggestions are made to improve the input file and clarify the source definition. The conversation also touches on the option to use source biasing and the use of built-in distribution functions for uniform sampling.
  • #1
Addali sabah
8
0
I am working on the optimization of the thickness of filters in order to reduce the continuous Bremsstrahlung spectrum emitted by phosphorus 32 measured by the Ge(HP) detector using some MCNP5 code but unfortunately I couldn't find the exact form of declaration of bremsstrahlung in the MCNP input file.
and this is my input file can anyone find the mistakes in it
input file (The modeled geometry is composed of the detector( Ge HP) and a parallelepiped source)

1 1 -5.323 (2 :3 )1 -4 -5
2 2 -1.83 6 -7 8 -9 10 -11
3 0 -12 #1 #2
4 0 12

1 pz 0
2 pz 5.1
3 cz 0.6
4 pz 6.1
5 cz 3.025
6 px -0.5
7 px 0.5
8 py -0.5
9 py 0.5
10 pz 11
11 pz 11.1
12 so 15

mode p e
m1 32000. 1 $Ge
m2 15000. 1 $P
imp:p 1 2r 0 $ 1, 4
imp:e 1 2r 0 $ 1, 4
sdef par=3 erg=1.7 x=d1 y=d2 z=d3 vec= 0 0 -1 dir=1
si1 -0.5 0.5
si2 -0.5 0.5
si3 11 11.1
sp1 0 1
sp2 0 1
sp3 0 1
f8:p 1
e8 0 1e-04 120i 1.8
cut:p,e j 0.001
nps 1000000
phys:e 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
"x=d1 y=d2 z=d3", I don't understand what this is intended to be, but I'd set it to be inside, or impinging on, your source.

15000 is better and will produce bremsstrahlung, but probably not right. You won't literally have a lump of phosphorous smoking in the air I assume. Have a think what your source is actually made of. All the bits, is it on foil?, is it on a carrier?. You may want to relax the vectors on your source, the real thing would be omnidirectional and the interactions with the rest of the material of the source will contribute to the photon background.
 
  • #3
x=d1 y=d2 z=d3", because I have parallelepiped source
 
  • #4
Ohhh. I think I see. I don't know source biasing.

Why are the SP lines "0 1"?
Isn't that the same as "D 0 1", ie 2 bins?
Instead of "-21 0" which ought to be uniform sampling?

It might also help to have a cel=2 on the sdef line.
 
  • #5
thank you sir ,
for the sdef card we cannot use both definitions at the same time ( cell= and x, y, z) because x=d1 y=d2 z=d3 these are the extensions of the geometry of the source (this is the definition of a parallelepiped source in the mcnp5 code).
in this case the sp is the probability of taking the values of si for this si= -0.5 0.5 sp= 0 1 means either it takes the value 0 for a si -0.5 or a value 1 for si= -0.5 and the same for si= 0.5.
i don't understand this "Instead of "-21 0" which ought to be uniform sampling?".
 
  • #6
Putting a cel= in the sdef line will cause source particles generated that are not within that cell to be skipped.

-21 is a built in distribution function x^a, with a=0 this results in a flat probability spectrum. This is a method for a volume source.

As it is, you seem to have a 1cm x 1cm x 1mm strip of elemental phosphorus. It emits electrons in one direction, just from the corner points. This is intentional?
 
  • #7
I realised too late to edit, small correction. Corner point not points. This is a point source at 0.5,0.5,11.1 at the corner of the strip. All the other corners generated by the SI cards have zero probability because each of the SP probability entries correspond to an SI bin when this format is used.
 

1. How does filter thickness affect phosphorus 32 bremsstrahlung reduction in MCNP5?

The thickness of a filter in MCNP5 can significantly impact the reduction of phosphorus 32 bremsstrahlung. A thicker filter will absorb more of the bremsstrahlung radiation, resulting in a greater reduction. However, there is a point of diminishing returns where increasing the filter thickness will not have a significant impact on the reduction.

2. What is the optimal filter thickness for reducing phosphorus 32 bremsstrahlung in MCNP5?

The optimal filter thickness for reducing phosphorus 32 bremsstrahlung in MCNP5 will depend on the specific parameters of the simulation, such as the energy of the particles and the material of the filter. It is important to run multiple simulations with varying filter thicknesses to determine the optimal thickness for your specific scenario.

3. Can using a filter in MCNP5 reduce phosphorus 32 bremsstrahlung to zero?

No, using a filter in MCNP5 cannot completely eliminate phosphorus 32 bremsstrahlung. However, it can significantly reduce the amount of bremsstrahlung radiation, making the simulation more accurate and reducing potential health risks for researchers.

4. Are there any other methods besides filter thickness that can reduce phosphorus 32 bremsstrahlung in MCNP5?

Yes, there are other methods that can be used in addition to filter thickness to reduce phosphorus 32 bremsstrahlung in MCNP5. These include using different materials for the filter, adjusting the energy cutoffs, and optimizing the geometry of the simulation.

5. How can I determine the bremsstrahlung reduction achieved by a filter in MCNP5?

The bremsstrahlung reduction achieved by a filter in MCNP5 can be determined by comparing the results of simulations with and without the filter. The percentage difference between the two simulations can be used to quantify the reduction achieved by the filter.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
6K
Back
Top