Dear Authors,
If you believe that your paper was mistakenly rejected by other leading journals and you do not agree with final decision, the editors of Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy offer new fast track review. You may submit your manuscript to Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy together with all prior peer-reviews obtained from the other journal and your rebuttal letter. We guarantee review based decision within 72 hours from the time we will receive your manuscript.

Fast track submission process: Please submit the manuscript with all reviews and rebuttal letter by email to Dr. Michal Masternak (michal.masternak@ucf.edu) for fast review processing. To assure immediate attention the email title must to include: RPOR-fast track- Last Name First Name (of corresponding author).

Volume 11, Number 6, 2006

Assessment of different MCNP Monte Carlo codes in electron absorbed dose

Hassan Ali Nedaie, M. A. Mosleh-Shirazi, H Gharaati, M. Shariari, M. Allahverdi

Summary:

Background MCNP is a general-purpose Monte Carlo code for simulation of neutrons, photons and electrons or coupled neutron/photon/electron transport. This code is based on ETRAN/ITS codes. There are different versions of this code.
Aim This work aims to compare the more recently released MCNP codes with the earlier version in terms of the central axis absorbed dose (CADD), the energy spectrum and the computational efficiency. MCNP codes 4A, 4B, 4C, X and 5 were compared for a 10MeV electron beam in water.
Materials/Methods The energy spectra of electrons were scored on the phantom surface and planes 3 and 5cm deep using F2 tally subdivided into 0.1MeV energy bins. This tally also was repeated for 4A, 4B, 4C and X with smaller energy bins (0.05MeV). The simulated geometry and other input parameters were kept the same. Both the default and ITS energy indexing algorithms (EIA) were used in 4B, 4C and X, while only the default EIA was employed in 4A and 5.
Results With default indexing, X and 5 showed no difference in CADD compared to 4B and 4C and were within 3% of 4A. We found no differences in CADD between codes when 4B, 4C and X were used with ITS indexing. The ITS algorithm improved computational efficiency. For the energy spectrum at the phantom surface, all codes except X show very similar results (within 2%). However, changing the energy indexing to ITS as well as using a 0.05MeV bin removed this discrepancy at the surface for X code.
Conclusions While, under the examined conditions, versions 4B and later behaved similarly in terms of the resulting CADD, the ITS indexing should be used due to its agreement with measurements and computational efficiency.

Signature: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother, 2006; 11(6) : 293-298

FULL TXT (PDF: 0,24MB)

« back

 
INDEXED IN:

Indexed in: EMBASE®, the Excerpta Medica database, the Elsevier BIOBASE (Current Awareness in Biological Sciences) and in the Index Copernicus.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15071367/19/2