Optimizing Filter Thickness in MCNP5 for Phosphorus 32 Bremsstrahlung Reduction

  • Thread starter Thread starter Addali sabah
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mcnp5
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on optimizing filter thickness in MCNP5 to reduce the Bremsstrahlung spectrum emitted by phosphorus-32, as measured by a Ge(HP) detector. Participants are examining the input file for potential errors and discussing the implications of various parameters and configurations within the MCNP5 code.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks assistance in identifying mistakes in their MCNP5 input file related to Bremsstrahlung declaration.
  • Another participant questions the meaning of "x=d1 y=d2 z=d3" and suggests that it should represent a source that is inside or impinging on the defined geometry.
  • There is a discussion about the appropriateness of the phosphorus source definition, with suggestions that it may not accurately reflect the physical setup (e.g., whether it is on foil or a carrier).
  • Concerns are raised about the SP lines being set to "0 1," which may not provide uniform sampling, and a suggestion is made to consider using "cel=2" on the sdef line.
  • A participant clarifies that using both "cel=" and "x, y, z" definitions simultaneously is not possible, and explains the meaning of the SP values in relation to the SI values.
  • Another participant explains that "-21" is a built-in distribution function that results in a flat probability spectrum, suggesting that the current setup may imply a point source rather than a volume source.
  • There is a correction regarding the source being a point source at a specific coordinate, indicating that other corners generated by the SI cards have zero probability.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct configuration of the MCNP5 input file, particularly regarding the source definition and sampling methods. No consensus is reached on the optimal approach or the correctness of the current setup.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the definitions used in the MCNP5 code and the implications of the chosen parameters on the simulation results. There are unresolved questions about the physical representation of the phosphorus source and its interaction with the surrounding materials.

Addali sabah
Messages
8
Reaction score
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
"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.
 
x=d1 y=d2 z=d3", because I have parallelepiped source
 
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.
 
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?".
 
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?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K