4.6 Article

Evaluation by thickness of a linear accelerator target at 6-20 MeV electron beam in MCNP6

期刊

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 1994-1998

出版社

KOREAN NUCLEAR SOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.net.2023.02.026

关键词

Linear accelerator; Source term; MCNP6; Evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study quantitatively evaluated the source term of a linear accelerator for a 6-20 MeV electron beam according to target thickness using MCNP6. Different thickness parameters were set to simulate a composite target and single target consisting of tungsten and copper. The results showed that the energy accumulation peaks varied depending on the target and energy, with less than 3% reference error. At 8 and 10 MeV, the movement of electrons and the proportion of escaped electrons were observed in a single target of copper.
This study quantitatively evaluated the source term of a linear accelerator according to target thickness for a 6-20 MeV electron beam using MCNP6. The elements of the target were tungsten and copper, and a composite target and single target were simulated by setting different thickness parameters depending on energy. The accumulation of energy generated through interaction with the collided target was evaluated at 0.1-mm intervals, and F6 tally was used. The results indicated that less than 3% reference error was maintained according to the MCNP recommendations. At 6, 8, 10, 15, 18, and 20 MeV, the energy accumulation peaks identified for each target were 0.3 mm in tungsten, 1.3 mm in copper, 1.5 mm in copper, 0.5 mm in tungsten, 0.5 mm in tungsten, and 0.5 mm in tungsten. For 8 and 10 MeV in a single target consisting only of copper, the movement of electrons was confirmed at the end of the target, and the proportion of escaped electrons was 0.00011% and 0.00181%, respectively.& COPY; 2023 Korean Nuclear Society, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据