satif13, hzdr, dresden, 2016 benchmarking study for shielding analysis … · 2016-10-12 ·...

Benchmarking Study for Shielding Analysis using

FLUKA, PHITS, MCNPX & MARS

SATIF13, HZDR, Dresden, 2016

2Hee-Seock Lee, PAL SATIF13, HZDR, Dresden

Summary

Outline

Introduction & Motivation

Benchmarking Studies with Code Comparisons

Benchmarking Objects

Source Term Evaluation

Shielding Effects

Activation Estimation

Application Example & Exp. Study of Unknown Regions

Comparison with general model of large accelerator tunnel


Large Accelerator Facilities in Korea

Proton Therapy- KNCC (2006)- Samsung Medical

Center (2015)

Pohang Accelerator Laboratory (PAL)- PLS I (1994)→ PLS II (2011)

- PAL-XFEL (2016)

High Power Proton Linac- KOMAC/KAERI (2012)

Carbon Therapy- KHIMA/KIRAMS (2019)

Rare Isotope Accelerator- RAON/RISP (2021)

Needs of Standard Method, Technology, and Rule for Radiation Safety of Large Accelerator Facility


Motivations - Details

Large accelerators operate high-energy, high-power particles including heavy ion

Analysis tools are improved very much in Monte Carlo codes

Shielding analysis including activity estimation is an important process in designing large particle accelerator facility ..…

PALXFEL, KOMAC, KHIMA, RISP….

Eventually can the existing Monte Carlo codes give credible results? for the specific accelerator. How much accurate?

Performing the code comparison using benchmarking studies

KoreanSafety Authority’s(NSSC)Interests


Benchmark Studies

In the view of General Users, not Developers

6Hee-Seock Lee, PAL SATIF13, HZDR, Dresden 6

Objects & Tools


Monte Carlo Codes

PHITS 2.52 & later FLUKA 2011.2b.6 & later MCNPX 2.7MARS15(2015) & later

FISPACT (in EASY2010)DChain-SP 2001

ENDF-VI LA150 JENDL4.0 + JENDL/HE-2007All Models in Codes


Experimental Data - Examples

Source term evaluation(SINBAD)

Shielding evaluation(SINBAD)

O. Yordanov, et al. - 0.5 & 1 GeV/n Uranium induced reaction

D. Satoh, et al. - 290 MeV/n Oxygen induced reaction

T. Nakamura’s book


Source Term Evaluation


Source Term Evaluation - Proton

Nakamura & Meier’s Experiments❑ 52 MeV, 113 MeV, 256 MeV Proton❑ Thick Iron Target


Source Term Evaluation - ProtonProjectile : 590 MeV protonTarget : 60cm thick Pb


Source Term Evaluation - Proton

20 Combinations of Physics Models

물리모델만 적용, Intranuclear-cascade 옵션 변경에 따른0-5°, 30-45°각도에서의 2차 중성자 스펙트럼물리모델만 적용, Intranuclear-cascade 옵션 변경에 따른 90-120°, 150-165°각도에서의 2차 중성자 스펙트럼

믹스앤매치를 적용, Intranuclear-cascade 옵션 변경에 따른 2차 중성자 스펙트럼물리모델만 적용, evaporation(fission) 옵션 변경에 따른2차 중성자 스펙트럼물리모델만 적용, light ion 옵션 변경에 따른 2차 중성자스펙트럼


Source Term Evaluation – Heavy Ion

Experiments at HIMAC❑ Projectile – Carbon Ion❑ Detector Type and Size

- NE102 : 15 cm × 15 cm × 0.5 cm- NE213 : 12.7 cm (Φ) × 12.7 cm (L)

Carbon Energy (MeV/n) Target Thickness (cm) Detection Angle (°) Diameter of

Beam (cm)100 C (2.0), Al (2.0) Cu (0.5), Pb (0.5)

0, 7.5, 15, 30, 60, 90 1.5 180 C (6.0), Al (4.0) Cu (1.5), Pb (1.5)

400 C (20.0), Al (15.0) Cu (5.0), Pb (5.0)


Dependence of Incident Particle TypesLow energy tail is larger in the low-Z particle beamHigh energy peak is marked at the forward directionHigh energy peak is larger in the high-Z particle beam

Xenon BeamArgon BeamCarbon Beam


Dependence of Incident Beam Energy At higher energy beam, the forward intensity is high clearly and energy

spectrum is biased to higher energy neutrons Except of MCNPX results, PHITS and FLUKA show good agreement with

experimental results But at wider angle, the discrepancy becomes smaller In the case of higher energy beam, the discrepancy also becomes smaller

at 0o

100 MeV/n C on 2 cm C

400 MeV/n C on 20 cm C180 MeV/n C on 6 cm C100 MeV/n C on 2 cm C


Source Term Evaluation - MSU

Projectile : 155 MeV/n C-12Target : 13.34 cm-thick Al


Source Term Evaluation – Heavy Ion Dependency of Physics Models - HIMAC Exp. (D.Satoh) : 290 MeV/n O on C

Model Only vs Mix&Match (MCNPX)No big difference ( only LAQGSM, thin target)

Code Comparison - PHITS


Dependence of Target Materials

MCNPX Results ???


Source Term Evaluation – GSI

Projectile: 1 GeV/u UraniumTarget: 10x10x20 cm(T) Fe (O. Yordanov )

(in 2005)


Shielding Effects (Attenuation)


Shielding Effect (Attenuation) - HIMAC

Shielding material

Beam : 400 MeV/n C-12, Target : 5 cm Cu Shielding material : concrete (50 - 200 cm)Detector size : 12.7(D)x12.7(L)


Shielding Effect (Attenuation) - HIMAC ❑ Shield Material – Concrete (With floor)

BA

Source Spectrum from : Kurosawa’s Experiments


Dependence of Cross-section Library LA150 results show larger neutron yields than JENDL-HE07 results . Large discrepancy with experimental data at A position is not sure, but the experimental data

seems to have large uncertainty.

A B

200 cm Concrete 200 cm Concrete

Model: CEM/LAQGSM


Shielding Effect (Attenuation) - HIMAC

❑ Shield Material – Iron

❑ Geometry Effect of Floor

B

Source Spectrum from : Kurosawa’s Experiments


Activation Estimation


Activation – HIMAC (Yashima)

Experiments at HIMACProton & Heavy Ions

Experimental Geometray

Depth Profile by 100 MeV & 230 MeV proton

MCNPX + SP-FISPACT PHITS + DCHAIN-SP FLUKA


Fragment of incident particle (Be-7)⇒ Decrease after the particle range

Nuclide from target (Na-22)⇒ At higher energy, higher Z number, good agreement

Heavier ions increase activities at target

400 MeV/n C on Cu @HIMAC



Be-7

Be-7

Be-7 Na-22

Na-22

Na-22

Be-7

Be-7 Na-22

Na-22

400 MeV/n Ar on Cu @HIMAC

230 MeV/n Ar on Cu @HIMAC

Activation – HIMAC (Yashima)


950 MeV/n U-238 on STS @ GSI

Mn-54

Co-58

500 MeV/n U-238 on Cu @ GSI

Activation – Uranium beam


Limitation of Some Benchmarking

Eventually, we get some dose data

At forward angle, the tendency depending on target element was not shown, but at backward angle, dose generated from high-Z element is larger than from low-Z element.

At larger angle like higher than 60 degree, dose from high-Z element become independent of angle. That is more effective at higher energy of incident proton.

Big discrepancy at source term, activity, …

But SMALL discrepancy at Effective Dose


Application Example &

Studies for Unknown Regions


Activities & Fire, flooding Issues Estimation of Residual Activities

by Different Type of Particle Environmental Impact by fire &

flooding in accelerator tunnel


Tested Materials in Activation Study• Material Selection Red color : used in tunnel and soil

Type (No.) Material Reference Location (Geo.) Info.

Metal(9)

Magnet steel(2)

DT4 PAL-XFEL U1, F4 iron fraction: ~82% (PAL dipole magnet)KS D3512 SCP1-S PAL-XFEL U2,F5 iron fraction: ~87% (PAL quadruple magnet)

Stainless steel(3)

ST-37 PSI U3 iron fraction: 98% (impurities: Cs,Ba, etc.)ST-304L CERN U5, F6 iron fraction: ~70% (vacuum chambers)ST-316L CERN U4, F1 iron fraction: ~65% (vacuum chambers)

Others(4)

μ-METAL CERN B3 vacuum chambers, girder, detectorNiobium - U6 Superconducting cavity

Aluminum PAL, CERN B1, F3 Vacuum chambers, electromagnet coil etc.Used in the study on PAL&CERN’s FLUKA BenchmarkingCopper PAL, CERN TARGET, B2, F2

Concrete(6)

Ordinary Concrete NIST R1Normally used in shielding calculationConcrete Portland NIST, FLUKA R2

Concrete ANSI-ANS R4

Concrete KOMAC R6

Domestic institutions’ characteristics,KOMAC, RISP: with impuritiesRISP R5

PAL-XFEL R3

Soil (3)Global average NCRP, Fermilab B4 General compositionPAL-XFEL Soil PAL-XFEL B5

Domestic institutions’ characteristicsWeathered Rock RISP B6

Etc.(9)

Carbon compounds (4)

Epoxy FLUKA L2

Carbon compoundsKapton FLUKA L1Teflon FLUKA L5

Polyvinylchloride FLUKA L3

Superconducting cable (3)

Ni-Cr bandage GSI Far from the target Superconducting cableNbTi+Cu GSI

Cooling Tube GSI

Etc. (2)Marble Jungsun Marble L4 Shielding material for gamma, less activated materialWater FLUKA L6 Cooling water, water dump etc.


Activation in ST-304L< ST-304L, Carbon beam > < ST-304L, Uranium beam >

(Side disk) (Side disk)0 s 1 mon 0 s 1 mon

1) Major-radionuclides of steel (long half-life): 51Cr(27.7d), 52, 54Mn(5.6d, 312d), 48V(16d),

55Fe(2.73a), 56, 57, 58Co(77.3d, 272d, 70.9d),…2) Activity difference between the projectile

(proton): FISPACT > FLUKA > DCHAIN-SP(heavy ions): FLUKA > FISPACT or DCHAIN-SP⇒ Depend on secondary neutron spectrum


50 MeV/n Uranium beam Experiments

Side view of real experiment

Support for camera Dipole magnetBe stripper chamber

Beam


Depth profile of production yields of natPb(p, xn) reactions


Summary

FLUKA & PHITS showed good agreements in the most cases of our studies. MCNPX showed prominent discrepancy in the most cases. MARS … In most cases, the tested Monte Carlo codes give proper credible results except of a few limitation of each codes.

In the case of source term evaluation using proton, the discrepancy becomes smaller. MCNPX showed the improved agreement for the interaction of proton beam with high Z target

The degree of discrepancy between the experimental data and the calculated results were shown for many conditions. It will be the reference for safety inspection or safety analysis.

In the shielding analysis, the spectra itself of secondary particles like neutrons is significant factor. But the results or the decision standard of shielding analysis may be determined by the level of effective doses on the shield surface or in man-accessible region.

Therefore, the benchmarking results can be reviewed in the view of effective dose for shielding design.


Thank you for your attention!


Proving Dependence of Beam Energy

Trial using different target thickness

The same phenomena was found at the comparison with thinner (2 cm) target condition

The decrement of discrepancy within different codes results from the change of beam energy, not target thickness

satif13, hzdr, dresden, 2016 benchmarking study for shielding analysis … · 2016-10-12 ·...

Documents