Inconsistent residual dose rates

Dear @horvathd ,

Thank you for confirming. However, in this attached input, the DOSEEQ and Dose value seems to be quite high if we compare the time = 0 and time = 120 hour. The activity in RESNUCLEI output seems reasonable for these times, but the corresponding dose should not be so high if we see the activity levels for these times (at least after a decay period of 120 hours).

May be I am missing something very trivial. It will be helpful if you can provide any insight.

18MeV_p_on_W.inp (5.2 KB)

Regards,

Riya

Dear experts,

I re-looked into the input and observed the dose rate at the detector location has contribution from 1. Cu beam dump blocks (for which I calculated activity).
2. The major contribution is coming from the irradiated Tungsten itself.

Now, usually, target is removed after experiment, so the intention was to get the dose rate due to activated Cu block only, and not from irradiated target.

Now, to achieve this, if I set Mat(Decay) as Vacuum in Tungsten material, then the contribution from Tungsten after irradiation is gone and I am getting appropriate dose rate due to activated Cu block only, not from irradiated target.

2

  1. Is this how we should do?

  2. Also, it will be helpful if you can explain what is happening when we select Mat(Decay) = VACUUM. With this setting, there is no activity build up in the target.

Also, in some cases, we use AIR as decay material. What is the difference between choosing AIR and VACUUM in this card?

Regards,

Riya

Dear Riya,

I’m sorry, I missed your previous post, and I am glad you figured out the cause of inconsistency.

Using the Mat(Decay) option is the correct way to ignore residual activation from materials which will be removed after the irradiation. See slide 24 of https://indico.cern.ch/event/1352709/contributions/5824068/attachments/2840739/4965424/18_RP_calculations_2024_INTA.pdf

It is possible to use any material for the decay phase not just VACUUM. These materials interact with the particles coming from decays, thus altering the results.

Cheers,
David

1 Like

Dear @horvathd ,

Thank you for confirming and for the slide link. So, Just for clarity, is there any other purpose (other scenarios) where we need to set the Mat Decay card apart from this case of calculating residual dose etc. I would remember this then for future simulations.

Regards,

Riya

Dear Riya,

this feature is only used for Activation studies to change the materials for non-activated ones (Remove activated shielding, add non-activated shielding, etc).

It is important to remember if you want to remove the activation from a material but keep the material type (e.g. discarding air activation) then you cannot use the same material for the Mat and Mat (Decay) fields, you need to define a separate material for the decay, like:

Mat: AIR, Mat (Decay): AIR2

Cheers,
David

Dear @horvathd ,

Sorry I could not understand the statement. If I do not want air activation, then I need to choose Mat: AIR, Mat (Decay): VACUUM or any other material name e.g. WATER etc, anything other than AIR. Right?

Regards,
Riya

Dear Riya,

yes, you need to use a different material. So if you want to keep the material as air, you need to define a new air material (AIR2) and use that as the decay material.

Cheers,
David

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

Regards,

Riya