1 / 29

MCNPX simulations of spallation experiments

MCNPX simulations of spallation experiments. Mitja Majerle majerle@ujf.cas.cz. Outline. Phasotron and EPT experiment Simulations Disagreement between experiment and simulation : Experimental uncertainties MCNPX code Other applications of MC simulations. Dubna experiments. Phasotron

elpida
Download Presentation

MCNPX simulations of spallation experiments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. MCNPX simulations of spallation experiments Mitja Majerle majerle@ujf.cas.cz

  2. Outline • Phasotron and EPT experiment • Simulations • Disagreement between experiment and simulation : • Experimental uncertainties • MCNPX code • Other applications of MC simulations

  3. Dubna experiments • Phasotron • Bare, lead target + 660 MeV protons • Activation detectors longitudinally, samples

  4. Dubna experiments • EPT • Complex setup, energies from 0.7-2.5 GeV • Activation detectors, SSNTd, samples

  5. Dubna experiments +results from radial detectors, SSNTd, samples…

  6. MCNPX simulations • Geometry is implemented in MCNPX • Incident particles are directed to the setup • Neutrons are counted at the places of the detectors EPT SETUP PHASOTRON SETUP

  7. Neutron spectra, cross-sections • XS for convolution are calculated with the combination of TALYS and MCNPX codes

  8. Comparison exp/simPhasotron experiment Longitudinal detectors Beam monitors

  9. Comparison exp/simEPT experiment Activation detectors - radial SSNTd Energy range : 10-100 MeV Energy range : 200-1000 MeV

  10. Comparison exp/simEPT - (n,g) reactions • EPT has neutron reflector – polyethylene (most neutrons back to the system and induce (n,g) reactions) • (n,g) product Au-198 reliably tells us about the number of produced neutrons • Production rates of Au-198 are very well predicted by MCNPX

  11. Comparison exp/sim • Disagreement in the range 10-100 MeV • Total number of neutrons is ok (n,g) • Activation detectors are NOT ok • SSNTd are ok again • What are the possible reasons ? • Experimental uncertainties • Partially wrong code • ?

  12. Experimental uncertainties From the seminary in 2005 : • INFLUENCE OF THE SETUP PARTS • simplifications of the setup description • different parts of the setup • SYSTEMATIC ERROR (not accurately known exp. conditions) • beam geometry • reactions with protons • inserted detectors • ACCURACY OF SIMULATION • intra-nuclear cascade model used in calculations • PARAMETERS OF THE SETUP • the number of produced neutrons (spallation, fission, ..) • k (criticality)

  13. Polyethylene, Cd layer • The spectra were taken inside the 1st and 3rd gap. • No influence on HE neutrons. absorption done by238U resonance capture

  14. The wooden plate • Wooden plate under the target(1+2cm,0.5kg/l). • Without box. • Detectors from top to bottom. • Asymmetry 5% => negligible wood influence.

  15. Aluminum and iron holders, upper iron plate • Two simulations with and without Al, Fe components. The results do not differ outside the limits of statistical error - (HE 3%, LE 10%) • The upper iron plate reduces the number of neutrons for 2%.

  16. Beam profile • Simulations with 3mm, 3cm homogenous beams and with a beam with gaussian profile (FWMH=3cm). • Differences only for few percents. • Not important.

  17. Beam displacement • Beam displaced for 3,5,8, and 10 mm. • Differences between results up to tens of %Displacement must be measured as accurately as possible !

  18. The influence of detectors on neutron field • Metal plate on top reduces the number of neutrons only for 2%. Our detectors are much smaller. • Golden strap (2mm, 4mm) in the first gap has no influence on detectors in other gaps. • Only 0.1 mm thick golden strap is an obstacle for thermal neutrons : it can reduce the production rates of reactions with thermal neutrons inside the same gap for 20%.

  19. Intra-Nuclear Cascade models • In MCNPX are 3 models (above 150 MeV): • Bertini • CEM • Isabel • The differences are up to 30% (standard, our detectors).

  20. Total uncertainty: 50% Setup description < 10% Experimental uncert. ca 20% Differences in models ca 30% Total for SSNTd : >>50%

  21. Comparison exp/simPhasotron experiment Longitudinal detectors Beam monitors

  22. Comparison exp/simEPT experiment Activation detectors - radial SSNTd Energy range : 10-100 MeV Energy range : 200-1000 MeV

  23. Systematical error in analysis ? • HPGe detectors simulations (efficiencies, cascade coefficients) • Good knowledge of processes • Consistent results • Little chance to explain the discrepancies…

  24. Is MCNPX wrong ? • Calculations with simplified setup were repeated in FLUKA code (Maxime Oden) • The same, wrong trends exp/sim were obtained (presented on Prague Physics summer school)

  25. Is MCNPX wrong ?Spallation experiments on thin targets • Recent experiments with protons directed on thin targets • Leroy, Ledoux • Trebukhovskiy, Yurevich • Meigo… • Some of their simulations show that there are exp/sim discrepancies in the region 20-80 MeV

  26. .. or is something wrong with our experiments ? • Repeat one experiment, which we believe that is good and see if we get the same results • Perform experiments with changed setup (without blanket, uranium) .. not very likely, so ..

  27. Other work connected to ADS simulations Blanket made of ENH, BaF rods and lead • Polish subcritical setup, based on MARIA reactor (Gael de Cargouet) EK-10 rods Beam from horizontal channel of the reactor

  28. GAMMA-MD • Pb target • Graphite block • 2.33 GeV deuterons

  29. Conclusion • Simulations unify experimental data from different experiment well, but they are not precise everywhere • Maybe we can confirm exp/sim discrepancies from completely different experiments • That many simulations require a lot of processor power (CESNET) Thank you for your attention.

More Related