Radioisotope Decay Simulation in MCNP6

  • Thread starter Thread starter frhnsaif
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Decay Simulation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around simulating the radioactive decay of Bi-213 using the MCNP6 code, specifically focusing on the energy deposited in concentric spheres of water. Participants explore the necessary physics models and input file configurations for accurate simulation results.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Farhan seeks advice on simulating the decay chain of Bi-213 and is uncertain about defining a source that emits alphas and betas with varying probabilities.
  • One participant suggests running separate simulations for alphas and electrons to simplify the process and reduce potential errors.
  • Another participant mentions the possibility of using a distribution for the PAR variable to handle mixed simulations, though they express uncertainty about the specifics of energy allocation to particles.
  • Farhan reports a significant discrepancy in absorbed dose calculations between MCNP6 and GEANT4, noting that MCNP yields much lower values.
  • A participant questions the units of the GEANT4 results and provides a sanity check regarding the stopping power of alphas in water, suggesting that the results from MCNP may be reasonable given the parameters.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the simulation approach and the interpretation of results, particularly regarding the absorbed dose calculations. There is no consensus on the best method for defining the source or on the reasons for the discrepancies between MCNP6 and GEANT4 results.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the assumptions regarding the energy deposition calculations and the definitions of the source parameters in MCNP6. The discussion highlights the complexity of simulating mixed particle emissions and the potential for varying results based on simulation parameters.

frhnsaif
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Decay of Radionuclide in MCNP6
Hi all
I am a new user of MCNP.I want to simulate radioactive decay of Bi-213 (whole decay chain till stable element) in two concentric spheres of water (let say 5um and 10 um).I want to calculate energy deposited in big sphere(10um) if source is distributed in inner sphere(5 um) .What physics models i need to include in input file. I am specially confused about defining a SDEF.In don't know how to define Source which is emitting alphas and betas at a time with different probabilities.

Thanks
Farhan
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to physicsforums Farhan,

I have a few suggestions, other people may have better advice. You don't need to simulate the electrons and the alphas at the 'same time'. You can do two separate runs, which would get you energy deposited per alpha, and energy deposited per electron then you can multiply by the activity and the electron/alpha probability and sum the result. There are fewer places for mistakes to hide when done this way.

If you need a mixed simulation you can make the PAR variable a distribution. This isn't difficult and would just use probability bins but how energy is locked to a particle I would need to look up.

If you can share your input file, there may be people with a lot more experience than can comment. If so you can rename it to add .txt and the forum will then let you attach it to a post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: frhnsaif
Thanks for your guidance. Please check appended input and guide
Thanks
 

Attachments

  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alex A
That looks fine to me.
 
The problem is absorbed dose calculated is much lower as compared to the GEANT4.In GEANT4 it is in order of 10-2 .but in case of MCNP it is much lower(10-15) order.
 
What are the units for the GEANT result? With X the result is MeV per gram per source alpha particle and I get values in the 10^8 range. Are you getting a different value?

Sanity check, 10um of water would probably stop alphas, and this and this is 3 orders smaller than 1cm, so 9 orders higher stopping power per gram. This sounds about right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K