Shielded and unshielded dose from a Co-60 source are the same?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joao Pedro
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mcnp6
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around designing a shield for a Co-60 source using MCNP simulations and achieving a target dose of 1 mSv/year with approximately 9.5 cm of lead. The user encounters issues with tally 5 outputs showing similar pSv/gamma values for both shielded and unshielded configurations, raising concerns about potential input errors. A suggestion is made to use the MCNP option 'ip' to visualize geometry and identify errors, particularly with nested boxes in the geometry setup. Specific corrections to the geometry definitions are provided to resolve the inconsistencies. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurate geometry representation in radiation shielding calculations.
Joao Pedro
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Ambient dose equivalent from a Co-60 source shielded and unshielded dose are basically the same
I was tasked with designing a shield for a Co-60 source, I decided to use ambient dose equivalent, tally 5. I got my results, followed "Radiation Problems: From Analytical to Monte-Carlo Solutions" example and arrived at a dose of X. I performed some shielding equations and arrived on a required shield of ~9.5 cm of lead to bring the dose down to 1 mSv/year, but when I went to double check my answer performing a MCNP test I am getting basically the same pSv/gamma from the tally 5 output as my unshielded input file, am I doing something wrong here? Was my initial input incorrect? (the input file is a bit disorganized since I was tinkering if it)
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I couldn't attach files when making the tread.
 

Attachments

Hello @Joao Pedro,

Welcome to PhysicsForums. If you run mcnp with options ip it will plot the geometry. Dotted lines tend to indicate geometry errors.

As a shorthand for reading geometry +surface is usually above or outside, -surface is usually below or inside. You've added two nested boxes 20 and 21, cell 16 then needs to have that volume removed. I think you've tried to do that and called it cell 19, but the definition includes -20 21. Box 20 is inside box 21, so the volume inside 20 but outside 21 doesn't make sense. Likewise for cell 17 being +8 -20. That is the volume inside 20 but outside the whole experiment. I think you mean +5. So I've changed 3 lines, two fixed and one commented out.

Code:
c 16  2 -0.000124      5 6 7 -8  IMP:N=0 IMP:P=1 $ See if material for cell 15 and 16 are correct
17  304   -0.128     5 -20     IMP:N=0 IMP:P=1
19  304 -0.000124    -8 7 6 5 21       IMP:N=0 IMP:P=1

See if this solves the problem.
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
Hi everyone, I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start. I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6? If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning. I'd be really...
Back
Top