simulations on energy plus transmutation setup 1 5 gev n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Simulations on “Energy plus Transmutation” setup, 1.5 GeV PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Simulations on “Energy plus Transmutation” setup, 1.5 GeV

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35

Simulations on “Energy plus Transmutation” setup, 1.5 GeV - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 111 Views
  • Uploaded on

Simulations on “Energy plus Transmutation” setup, 1.5 GeV. Mitja Majerle majerle@ujf.cas.cz. The document about simulations of EPT setup can be downloaded in form of report at : http://ojs.ujf.cas.cz/~mitja/articles/ept.pdf. Outline. Cluster of computers (linux) MCNPX 2.4.0

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Simulations on “Energy plus Transmutation” setup, 1.5 GeV' - rose-dudley


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
simulations on energy plus transmutation setup 1 5 gev

Simulations on “Energy plus Transmutation”setup, 1.5 GeV

Mitja Majerle

majerle@ujf.cas.cz

The document about simulations of EPT setup can be downloaded in form of report at :

http://ojs.ujf.cas.cz/~mitja/articles/ept.pdf

outline
Outline
  • Cluster of computers (linux)
  • MCNPX 2.4.0
  • First tests with PVM (in Třešt)
  • Simulations of PHASOTRON experiment (presented in Pavia, Avignon)
  • Simulations of ENERGY PLUS TRANSMUTATION setup (Dubna, Jaipur)
cluster
Cluster
  • 1 server (the slowest machine)
  • Hosts boot through DHCP, filesystem through NFS – extendable to many hosts
  • Connections through SSH
  • PVM (Parallel Virtual Machine)
  • PVM works also on li1 and li2.
slide4

Parallel processing

  • The use of parallel processing (PVM) speeds up our calculations significantly.
  • A very powerful tool – where to use it ?

?

simulations how what we calculate
Simulations, how/what we calculate
  • MCNPX code v. 2.4.0 (on Linux, parallel computing)
  • Input :
    • setup geometry
    • starting conditions
  • Output 1:
    • neutron distribution
  • Cross-section libraries (Au, Al - ENDF; Bi - experimental; Iodine - ?)
  • Output 2:
    • masses of produced elements or B-values
influence of the setup parts
Influence of the setup parts

No walls

  • Concrete walls :
    • Neutrons are moderated and reflected back

Walls

energy transmutation
ENERGY + TRANSMUTATION
  • 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)
control detectors for studying the setup
Control detectors for studying the setup

- with (n,g) we study LE neutrons (flat part) – odd numbers

-(n,4n) threshold is 23 MeV – even numbers

the influence of setup parts
The influence of setup parts
  • We cannot remove some things from the setup and measure.
  • Simulations help us understand what would happen if we did that.
the simplifications of the blanket
The simplifications of the blanket
  • No influence on high energy neutrons (even numbers)
  • Box has no influence on HE neutrons !
  • Box blurs differences.
  • 40%, 10%
polyethylene cd layer
Polyethylene, Cd layer
  • The spectra were taken inside the 1st and 3rd gap.
  • No influence on HE neutrons.

absorption done by238U

resonance capture

aluminum and iron holders upper iron plate
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%.
the wooden plate
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.
systematic error
Systematic error
  • Systematic error may be done, because we can/did not measure all the experimental conditions.
  • Simulations give us the estimation of the error.
  • In simulations we vary experimental conditions in limits of the accuracy with which we measured them.
beam parameters influence
Beam parameters influence
  • Beam profile is approximated with Gaussian distribution (good only near the beam center !).
  • We must always count with beam displacement.
  • Experimentally determined beam profiles and displacement (V Wagner using monitor and track detector data – for profile mainly I Zhuk data):
beam profile
Beam profile
  • Simulations with 3mm, 3cm homogenous beams and with a beam with gaussian profile (FWMH=3cm).
  • Differences only for few percents.
  • Not important.
beam displacement
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 !
the influence of protons
The influence of protons
  • Activation detectors could also be activated by protons.
  • Cross-sections for reactions with protons are not included in MCNPX.
  • Estimations from Phasotron experiment and neutron/proton ratio : in gaps, near the central axis ca. 10% of activation is due to protons.
the influence of detectors on neutron field
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%.
the influence of plastic foils for detectors on neutron field
The influence of plastic foils for detectors on neutron field
  • The 4mm and 8mmpolyethylene on which were placed the detectors for 1.5 GeV experiments had effect on LE neutrons.
  • Au in sandwich of 2 Bi foils => no influence.
intra nuclear cascade models
Intra-Nuclear Cascade models
  • In MCNPX are 3 models (above 150 MeV):
    • Bertini
    • CEM
    • Isabel
  • The differences are up to 50% (standard, our detectors).
neutrons per proton criticality
Experimentally we cannot measure these.

For 1.5 GeV experiment, neutron production :

29 in nuc. Interactions

8 in (n,xn)

14 prompt fission.

Together 54 neutrons per 1 proton.

Without box 49 neutrons, box reflects back 10% of them.

KCODE calculations for criticality :

k=19.2%

k was calculated also by S.R. Hashemi-Nezhad - 22%.

If we add polyethylene wall at the back, k stays the same.

Neutrons per proton, criticality,..
neutrons per proton with beam energy
Neutrons per proton with beam energy
  • Neutrons per 1 proton and per 1 MeV in the beam
  • Box adds ca. 5 neutrons
  • Saturation
  • Peak at 1500 MeV
comparison with the experiment
Comparison with the experiment
  • The Greek group measures the ratios of neutrons inside and outside the box.
  • Calculated results do not agree with experiment.
  • Possible reason...
group from e
Group from Řež
  • 4 detector types
  • A lot of cross-section libraries
  • Trends in ratios experiment/simulation are seen
  • 3 GeV experiment would confirm these trends
slide33

Comparison between experiment and simulations

194Au

196Au

Longitudinal distribution

Radial distribution

slide34

6 MeV

8 MeV

11 MeV

23 MeV

23 Mev

23 MeV

23 MeV

11 MeV

8 MeV

6 MeV

Experiment: Ep = 1.5 GeV

0.7 GeV, 1.0 GeV - the similar shape of radial distribution

for experiment and simulation

1.5 GeV-different shape of radial distribution

for experiment and simulation

Cleardependenceon reaction energy threshold ↔on the neutron energy

ratios normalized on first foil

Longitudinal distribution – small differences, maybe done by not included protons

Radial distribution– big differences, description is worse for neutrons with higher energy

slide35

Radial distribution for 0.7 GeV and 1.0 GeV

Conclusions:

  • Very small differences of shape
  • Maybe increase with energy?

Necessary systematic of experiments with different beam energy

Dependence of EXP/SIM ratios for first

radial foil on beam energy

Very important: 1) To analyze 2 GeV experiment

2) To make 3 GeV experiment