https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05372-z
Regular Article
Numerical intercomparison of PHITS and Geant4 Monte Carlo codes for fast neutron inelastic scattering applications
1
Jülich Center for Neutron Science, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425, Jülich, Germany
2
Dynaxion, High Tech Campus 12, 5656 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
3
Japan Atomic Energy Agency, 2-4 Shirakata, Tokai-mura, Naka-gun, 319-1106, Ibaraki, Japan
a
i.meleshenkovskii@fz-juelich.de
Received:
15
March
2024
Accepted:
17
June
2024
Published online:
1
July
2024
Fast neutron inelastic scattering is a promising non-destructive assay technique for various analytical applications. As an active neutron interrogation technique, its performance is a function of various different factors and parameters that require optimization. Monte Carlo simulation codes are indispensable for such tasks. However, the internal simulation routines implemented in such codes can rely on different physical models that can yield discrepancies in the simulation results. In this work we conduct an intercomparison of PHITS and Geant4 codes performance in application to fast neutron inelastic scattering simulations. The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we explain the differences in code configuration with respect to gamma and neutron transport, as well as internal simulation routines. Second, we conduct a performance assessment of the two codes using two different measurement configurations. One configuration consisted of a source of gamma rays in a broad energy range (100–9000 keV) and a CeBr3 detector. The other configuration consisted of a monoenergetic 2.5 MeV fast neutron source, Fe, Nd, Dy, B targets and a CeBr3 detector. Selected simulation configurations were chosen with a goal to compare the performance differences in neutron energy distribution, produced prompt gamma rays and energy deposition in CeBr3 detector between the two codes. Results of our study reveal a good coherence of both codes performance in the application of fast neutron inelastic scattering simulations. The simulation geometries and observed differences are described in detail.
© The Author(s) 2024
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
