THE RADIATION FIELDS AROUND A PROTON THERAPY FACILITY: A COMPARISON OF MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 14

Dr. Sandro Sandri ( President of Italian Association of Radiation Protection , AIRP) PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 68 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

THE RADIATION FIELDS AROUND A PROTON THERAPY FACILITY: A COMPARISON OF MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS. Dr. Sandro Sandri ( President of Italian Association of Radiation Protection , AIRP) Head, Radiation Protection Laboratory , IRP FUAC Frascati ENEA – Radiation Protection Istitute

Download Presentation

Dr. Sandro Sandri ( President of Italian Association of Radiation Protection , AIRP)

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Dr sandro sandri president of italian association of radiation protection airp

THE RADIATION FIELDS AROUND A PROTON THERAPY FACILITY: A COMPARISON OF MONTE CARLO SIMULATIONS

Dr. Sandro Sandri

(President of ItalianAssociation of RadiationProtection, AIRP)

Head, RadiationProtectionLaboratory, IRP FUAC Frascati

ENEA – RadiationProtectionIstitute

[email protected]

12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics

07 to 12 October 2012 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Contents

CONTENTS

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ

  • The TOP-IMPLART

  • Scope of the analysis

  • Simulation model

  • The computer codes

  • Results

  • Discussion and conclusion


Top implart accelerator

TOP-IMPLART accelerator

  • TOP-IMPLART are the acronym of TerapiaOncologica con Protoni (Oncological Therapy with Protons) and Intensity Modulated Proton Linear Accelerator for Therapy

  • The first 7 MeV module of the accelerator, is already installed and has been tested

  • Additional modules will be added leading proton energy to 30, 70 and 150 MeV

  • In the final layout the bunker will be 30 m long and 3 m wide

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Computer codes

COMPUTER CODES

  • The principal subject of the current work is the analysis of the performance of two different computer codes

  • both based on the Monte Carlo algorithm:

    • FLUKA (FLUktuierendeKAskade) and

    • MCNPX (Monte Carlo N-Particle eXtended)

  • Info on the web sites:

    • www.fluka.org

    • mcnpx.lanl.gov

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Simulation model

SIMULATION MODEL

  • The model has been developed to simulate a 150 MeV proton beam

  • hitting a water phantom of cubic form, 32 cm thick (32x32x32 cm3)

  • with 2 mm plexiglasswalls

  • and located in front to the kapton membrane, 50 µm thick, that seals the vacuum chamber of the accelerator

  • Between the kapton membrane and the phantom there is a 2 cm air gap

  • The cross section of the proton beam reaching the kapton membrane has the maximum dimension of 7 mm (in x and y directions)

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Secondary particles

SECONDARY PARTICLES

Several secondaries are generated in the inelastic interactions

of the beam protons with the target components (plexiglass and water).

Both the codes were able to follow the different produced particles

and provided different kind of related results.

FLUKA for examples provided the following table per beam particle

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Neutron production

NEUTRON PRODUCTION

The comparison of the data for neutron production

shows a reasonable agreement between the two codes.

However using the libraries in MCNPX the neutron yield is about 7% higher

2,6%

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Parameters of comparison

PARAMETERS OF COMPARISON

  • the comparison of the code concentrated on the following fluence results:

  • Proton fluence in the target and in air around the target

  • Neutron fluence in the target and in air around the target

  • Photon fluence in the target and in air around the target

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Fluka proton fluence

FLUKA protonfluence

Water phantom

  • In FLUKA the spatial distribution of a quantity can be reported in a 2d chromatic picture

  • MCNPX doesn’t have this capability

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Mcnpx proton fluence

MCNPX protonfluence

  • MCNPX, Proton fluence in air, 100 cm after the target

  • The total proton flux of about 1 10-8 (8,44% uncertainty) is the same of FLUKA

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Photon fluence

Photonfluence

FLUKA

MCNPX

Discrepancies in the results for photons are mainly due to differentunits and scaling

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


N eutron fluence

Neutronfluence

FLUKA

MCNPX

Due to the differentunits, the qualitative pathonly can be compared in the graphs,

showing a goodagreement

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Fluka neutron fluence spatial distribution

FLUKA, Neutron fluence, spatial distribution

Neutrons are more intense in the forwarddirection, asforeseeable

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


Conclusions

CONCLUSIONS

  • Both computer codes used in the simulation are well suitable to be applied to the analysis of the secondary radiation produced by the proton beam of the TOP-IMPLART accelerator

  • While MCNPX seems to be more flexible in the data library selection and update, FLUKA can provide a more complete output in term of graphical detail

  • Another advantage of MCNPX is the availability of versions developed to run on the world wide diffused Windows™ personal computer, on the other hand FLUKA can be installed on a pc with Linux system

  • The results obtained with the two codes showed a good agreement for the fluencevs energy spectra of the neutrons (the main secondary radiation)

  • In conclusion both the codes are appropriate for the specific calculation and the selection should be mainly based on the hardware and operative system availability, and on the specific skilfulness of the users

S. Sandri - 12th International Symposium on Radiation Physics - Rio de Janeiro - RJ


  • Login