Applied Radiation and Isotopes 69 (2011) 975–981

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Radiation and Isotopes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apradiso

Recognition of effective parameters and investigating their effects on the

beam tube application
Marzieh Moguiy a, Amir Hosein Fadaei b,n, Amir Saeed Shirani a
a
Nuclear Engineering Department, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
b
Faculty of Nuclear Engineering & Physics, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnique), Hafez Street, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Applying the available neutron flux for medical and industrial purposes is the most important
Received 22 August 2010 applications of research reactors. For this aim, the beam tube facilities provide the required equipments
Received in revised form to exploit the neutron flux for different intentions. Hence, this study intended to investigate the effect
12 February 2011
of different parameter on the beam tube function. These parameters can affect the behavior and energy
Accepted 20 February 2011
spectrum of neutrons at the outlet of the beam tubes.
Available online 29 March 2011
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Beam tube
Beam tube design
Flux distribution
Parameters recognition
Experimental facility
Neutronic calculation

1. Introduction
The goal of research reactors design is mainly for the neutron
production for industrial and medical utilizations, and therefore
beam tubes have very important role for the achievement of this
goal. Various types of beams are available at the outlet of beam
tubes. The main types of beams required in neutron experiments
are as follows:
(i) Thermal neutrons, usually with the smallest possible con-
tamination of fast neutrons and gamma rays.
(ii) ‘Cold’ neutrons with energies less than about 5  10  3 eV
(wavelengths longer than about 4 Å).
(iii) ‘Hot’ neutrons with energies of about 0.1–0.5 eV (wave-
lengths 0.9–0.4 Å).
(iv) Epithermal neutrons in the ‘1/E’ flux region with low con-
tamination of fast neutrons and gamma rays.
It is important to express that the thermal research reactors
have capability to give beams in all these mentioned groups. This
ability is unique, because accelerators, fast reactors, or other types
of neutron generation devices cannot produce neutrons in all
groups. The beams are obtained with tubes, which penetrate into
the biological shield of the reactor and have their inner ends in
the different positions related to the core according to the
neutron energies required. A radial tube, pointing directly to the
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Fadaei_amir@aut.ac.ir (A.H. Fadaei).
core is used for the epithermal experiments and may well have a
bismuth filter to reduce the number of gamma rays. The gamma
rays can also be reduced if the beam can be arranged not to view
the fuel elements (Walker, 1967).
Since the design of beam tubes is complex, the effective
parameters should be recognized and their effects are required
to be investigated. The effective parameters are those parameters
which affect on the behavior and the quality of the outlet flux. For
this study, the following parameters have been determined:
Photon flux, total neutron flux, 3 group neutron flux, divergent
beam, neutron and photon dose rate.
The most important parameters under study are the position
of the inner end of beam tube related to the core, the diameter of
beam tube and the substance of beam tube, which are described
in Section 5.
Section 2 describes the characteristics of beam tube in
research reactor, Section 3 titled by MCNP code, Section 4
includes the MCNP simulation of the reactor, Section 5 includes
the procedure of determining effective parameters. Calculation of
neutron flux in 3 groups with using MCNP code and comparison
of the effective parameters are presented in Section 6. The
investigation of parameters and their effects will be discussed in
the conclusion of Section 7.
2. Description of beam tube
40 MWth research reactor, meets the requirements for a range
of neutron irradiations. These include radioisotope production for

0969-8043/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2011.02.054
976 M. Moguiy et al. / Applied Radiation and Isotopes 69 (2011) 975–981

research, medicine and industry and also industrial irradiations

such as neutron radiography and neutron scattering research
using the various beam tube facilities.
This reactor is operating with uo2 as fuel and heavy water as
moderator, coolant and reflector. This reactor has three horizontal
beam tubes in the west, south and north sides of the core. The
horizontal zircalloy beam tubes is rolled into SS-304L sleeves welded
to the reactor tank wall. Horizontal beam tube has its center located
near the core center. The beam tube has extensions made of stainless
steel, going through suitable cavities in the concrete biological shield
surrounding the reactor. Stainless-steel tube has the diameter of
140 mm, which is attached to the inside of calandria. The zircalloy
beam tube is located inside of the calandria. The beam tube
extension at the outer end is provided with a steel and heavy
concrete shutter having thickness of 50 cm. This beam shutter helps
to reduce the irradiation dose from the reactor during operations.

3. MCNP code
Fig. 1. Mid-plane section of the tube arrangement in the vessel (contains 150 fuel
Since this reactor has much heterogeneity with air filled assembly, CTL, reflector and vessel).
neutron beam tube inside core, it was modeled by MCNP code.
MCNP is a general purpose Monte Carlo N-particle code, which
can be used for neutron, photon, and electron or coupled neutron/
photon/electron transport, including the capabilities of calculat-
ing eigen values for critical systems. The code treats an arbitrary
three dimensional configuration of materials in geometric cells
bounded by first and second degree surfaces and fourth degree
surfaces (elliptical tori).
The model is submitted in the form of a text input file to MCNP.
The input file contains the geometry information, source informa-
tion, material information and the type of output required in terms
of standard tallies already provided in MCNP (Breismeister, 2000).
Fig. 2. Vertical layout of reactor core, beam tube and its vicinities in a cone.

4. MCNP simulation of the reactor

Since this reactor has much heterogeneity with air filled beam
tube adjacent to its core, it was decided to perform a modeling of
the system by a Monte Carlo code. In the model, the core is
modeled as a lattice filled with fuel subassemblies, coolant and
moderator. Each fuel assemblies is modeled as per of its exact
dimensions and the repeated structure capability of MCNP is
utilized for filling the lattice with all the fuel subassemblies. There
are 18 fuel pins in each fuel assembly. The fuel pins are
surrounded by a fuel channel made up of zircalloy and placed in
the calandria tube. There are 9 grid lattices made of zircalloy each
one 1.5 cm of thickness and placed 36 cm from each other along
the active core zone. The space between fuel pins in each fuel
assembly is filled with coolant (D2O). Fig. 1 shows the mid-plane
section of the tube arrangement in the vessel (contains 150 fuel
assembly, CTL, reflector and vessel) by MCNP code.
The reactor has neutron beam port for experimental needs,
which is made of graded cylindrical aluminum channel. The beam
port starts from the core, pierces the biological shield and is
180 cm long at shield.
The analog MCNP techniques are not suitable for deep pene-
tration transport problems. Hence, variance reduction schemes
have been employed in the present calculations. The variance
reduction techniques employed for the present calculations are
elaborated in following sections.
4.1. Simulation of beam facility
All calculations are performed for the state that main shutter is
open and beam tube is interrupted by calandria and vessel. Inlet
of beam tube at the steel main shield is closed with steel plate
with the thickness of 5 mm (Fig. 2).
4.1.1. Geometry model
The geometry model which is applied in the MCNP code
contains the core, reflectors, vessel, beam tube and close vicinities
of beam tube. For the core, detail description of it, including all
150 fuel assemblies, CTL, etc. are considered. The extension of fuel
assemblies up to the top of calandria and down to the bottom of
the calandria is exactly modeled. The construction elements, that
is, heavy water, fuel pin, cladding, etc. are modeled according to
the isotopic compositions.
The vessel, air vault, main shield (steel and heavy concrete)
around the beam tube, and main shutter, are confined in a cone
with light of sight on the whole height of the active part of the
core. The model is shown in Fig. 2. The steel and concrete shields
out of the cone have no serious effect on the results, so they are
omitted to decrease the MCNP run time.
The beam tube is formed by cylindrical tube with 140 mm
diameter. The length of the research beam tube from the core to
the inner surface of the calandria is 455 mm. The research beam
tube is equipped by a main shutter as specified below (Fig. 2).
Main (first) shutter, D  H¼800 mm  500 mm, made of three
layers; 10 cm borated steel, 30 cm borated heavy concrete, and
10 cm borated steel.
4.1.2. Variance reduction techniques
The challenge in using the MCNP is to minimize the computing
expense needed to obtain a tally estimate with acceptable relative
 M. Moguiy et al. / Applied Radiation and Isotopes 69 (2011) 975–981
error (as well as satisfying nine other statistical criteria). For
many deep penetration problems, a direct simulation (analog
MCNP) would require far too many histories to achieve acceptable
results with the computer time available. For such cases, the
analyst must employ ‘‘tricks’’ to reduce the relative error of a tally
(or its variance) for a fixed computing time, or to reduce the
computing time to achieve the same relative error. Four techni-
ques in MCNP can be used for penetration:
Geometry splitting/Russian roulette,
exponential transform,
forced collisions, and
weight window (Thomas, 1985).
The selection of effective variance reduction methods for a
particular problem requires considerable experience and skill on
the part of the analyst in interpreting the MCNP output. For deep
penetration problems, either cell importance or (preferably)
weight windows should be used to keep the particle population
high in the cells of interest. Weight windows are more difficult to
implement but more effective when done correctly. However,
geometry splitting through cell importance is relatively safe and
easier to implement (Faw and Shultis, 2005).
4.1.2.1. Geometry splitting. In geometry splitting, importance is
assigned to each cell in the problem. Generally, cells near the tally
region should have a greater importance than cells farther away.
Of course, in the each splitting or Russian Roulette the weight of
the remaining particles is adjusted to leave the tally unbiased.
This technique of geometry splitting with Russian roulette is very
reliable since, if no other biasing techniques are used, all the
particles in a cell will have the same weight regardless of the
paths taken to reach the cell.
In addition, importances increasing in the outward direction
were used in the tube walls to ensure that neutrons colliding in
them would contribute to tallies. In the concrete surrounding the
beam tubes is used importance lower than in the tube, but also
increasing outward (Kotiluoto and Wasastjerna, 2006).
4.1.2.2. Weight windows. The weight-window variance reduction
technique adjusts the weights of particles as they change energy
and move through the various cells in the problem geometry. In
each cell, a lower weight bound and an upper bound (defined as a
multiple of the lower bound) are specified. If a particle entering a
cell or a particle created in the cell has a weight above the upper
bound, the particle is split such that all split particles are within
the weight window. Similarly, if a particle has a weight below the
lower bound, Russian roulette is used to increase the particle’s
weight until it lies within the window or until it is killed
(Kotiluoto and Wasastjerna, 2006).
4.1.3. Calculation model
The source model considered in the MCNP calculations is neutrons
and secondary (capture gamma rays) and prompt gamma rays
transport. In MCNP code, neutron source, which has fission energy
distribution, applies the KCODE card. In this model, the spectrum of
delayed neutrons is assumed to be the same as neutrons from prompt
fission. In a mode N, P problem, secondary photons produced from
neutrons (n,g), and prompt photons produced from fission are
considered.
Delayed gamma rays contribution does not exceed 0.6% of
total sources. Therefore, in this work the delayed gamma rays
contribution is omitted. MCNP calculates the flux normalized to
one particle generated from the source (from fission all over the
core). To normalize the criticality calculations by steady-state
977
power level of reactor, normalization factor should be used as
following:
Normalization factor¼(P MW)  (3.467E þ16 fission/MW s) 
(2.442 neutron/fission).
That normalization factor is 3.387Eþ18 neutron/s for this
reactor.
To obtain the real flux, the output of MCNP is multiplied by the
above normalization factor.
Point detector tally (F5) and surface tally (F2) of MCNP-4C
code is used.
The angular distribution was averaged over a surface flux (F2)
and current (F1) tallies of MCNP, respectively.
Z Z Z Z
!
F1 ¼ Jð r ,E,t, mÞdEdtdmdA
A m t E
Z Z Z
! dA
F2 ¼ Fð r ,E,tÞdE dt
A t E A
|m| is the absolute value of cosine of angle between surface
normal and particle trajectory, A is the surface area (cm2), and
E is the energy (MeV)
Tally F1 is the number of particles crossing a surface. The
scalar current is related to the flux as J(r,E,t, m) ¼|m|F(r,E,t)A.
Therefore, the angular distribution of neutrons can be obtained
with the calculation of ‘current-to-flux’ ratio at the outlet of beam
tube (Nemoto et al., 2004).
5. Procedure
5.1. Problem definition
The beam tube design is very difficult. Therefore, the identification
of the effective parameters is necessary for the convenient design. The
goal of this study is to investigate the efficiency of different
parameters on beam tube function. The beam tube function is defined
by the irradiation time, the dimensions of sample and the standard of
energy and wave length. They are defined by flux, beam size,
divergent beam, the strength of source and quality of beam. For the
best design, it is necessary that the effective parameters determined
and the sensation parameters surveyed.
5.2. Treatment
At first, the effective parameters should be defined. These
parameters are as follows:
– Length of beam tube.
– Diameter of beam tube.
– Substance of beam tube.
The beam tubes penetrate into the biological shield of the
reactor and have their inner ends in the different positions related
to the core according to the neutron energies required. In this
study, 4 different moods are assumed for investigation of the
length of beam tube such as:
– The inner end of beam tube is located in the 46 cm of the
inside of the core but it is perturbed by vessel and calandria.
– Beam tube is in calandria not in vessel.
– Beam tube is in vessel not in calandria.
– Beam tube penetrates only into the biological shield of the
reactor.
978 M. Moguiy et al. / Applied Radiation and Isotopes 69 (2011) 975–981

Fig. 3. Length of the beam tube (a). Beam tube penetrates only the biological shield of the reactor. (b) Beam tube is in vessel not in calandria. (c) Beam tube is in calandria
not in vessel. (d) Beam tube is in vessel and 46 cm inside the calandria but perturbed by vessel and calandria.

Table 1
Photon flux (effect of the length of the beam tube).

Substance Surface flux Error Point detector Error Dose Error

1 – 6.626Eþ 08 0.07 7.107Eþ 08 0.04 2.013E þ03 0.04

2 S.S 6.536E þ 08 0.07 7.599Eþ 08 0.03 1.989E þ03 0.04

Zr 7.383Eþ 08 0.08 7.972Eþ 08 0.04 2.094E þ03 0.04

3 S.S 1.040Eþ 09 0.08 1.238Eþ 09 0.04 4.342E þ03 0.03

Zr 6.857Eþ 08 0.07 9.132Eþ 08 0.03 2.543E þ03 0.03

4 S.S 1.190Eþ 09 0.09 1.422Eþ 09 0.04 4.865E þ03 0.03

Zr 8.414Eþ 08 0.04 1.250Eþ 09 0.04 3.413E þ03 0.03

They are presented in Fig. 3. The other parameters relevant to the
investigation of the length of beam tube are considered in real design.
In this case, the diameter of beam tube is 14 cm, but the substance of
beam tube in the above mentioned moods of 1, 2 and 3 is considered
zircalloy and stainless steel.
In this calculation, the weight window method is applied for
variance reduction.
One of the effective parameters is the diameter of beam tube that
is between 10 and 30 cm for the scrutiny of the diameter of beam
tube, the length of beam tube is fixed for this calculation. The array of
fuel assembly caused restriction for the diameter beam tube inside
the core. So, the diameter of beam tube in core is fixed. The diameter
of the beam tube out of the core is modified from 10 to 26 cm by a
step of 2 cm. The calculation is carried by two different methods in
the variance reduction.
Another effective parameter is the substance of beam tube
inside of core that it is normally zircalloy but in this study
stainless steel is modeled too.
6. Results
As mentioned, one of the effective parameters is the length of
beam tube. For this investigation, photon flux and photon dose
rate, angular distribution and neutron flux in three groups in the
outlet of beam tube are calculated. The results are summarized
respectively in Tables 1–3.
As it was expected and it was specified through investigations
and calculation, it can be deducted that the length of beam tube is
 M. Moguiy et al. / Applied Radiation and Isotopes 69 (2011) 975–981 979

the effective parameter for maximizing the flux at the outlet of
beam tube and the spectrum of flux.
For the scrutiny diameter of beam tube, the beam tube is
modeled in the 46 cm inside of the core. The array of the fuel
assembly caused restriction for the diameter beam tube inside the
core. So, the diameter of beam tube in the core is fixed, by 14 cm.
The diameter of the beam tube in the out of the core is modified
from 10 to 26 cm by step 2 cm.
The goal of this calculation is to determine photon flux and
photon dose rate, neutron flux in three groups and angular

Table 2
Effect of the length of the beam tube on the angular distribution of neutrons beam and neutron dose rate.

Substance Surface flux Error Surface current Error Dose Error f1/f2

1 – 9.225E þ07 0.03 9.645E þ07 0.02 8.035E þ02 0.04 0.95

2 S.S 1.3123E þ 08 0.03 1.3581E þ 08 0.03 1.2655E þ 03 0.04 0.96

Zr 1.6127E þ 08 0.02 1.6771E þ 08 0.02 1.4141E þ 03 0.04 0.96

3 S.S 1.133E þ08 0.05 1.189E þ08 0.05 3.431E þ 03 0.05 0.95
Zr 1.954E þ08 0.05 2.039E þ08 0.05 4.329E þ 03 0.04 0.96

4 S.S 1.983E þ08 0.07 2.039E þ08 0.06 1.774E þ 04 0.03 0.97
Zr 3.388E þ08 0.07 3.552E þ08 0.07 2.530E þ04 0.05 0.96

Table 3
Effect of the length of the beam tube on 3 groups neutron flux.

Thermal flux Epithermal flux Fast flux Total flux

Flux Thermal/Total Error Flux Epithermal/Total Error Flux Fast/Total Error Flux Error

1 – 7.22Eþ 7 0.76 0.01 1.63E þ7 0.17 0.01 5.86E þ 6 0.06 0.05 9.44E þ 7 0.01

2 S.S 1.01Eþ 8 0.73 0.01 2.52E þ7 0.18 0.01 9.99E þ 6 0.07 0.04 1.37E þ 8 0.01
Zr 1.27Eþ 8 0.76 0.01 2.80E þ7 0.17 0.03 1.06E þ7 0.06 0.05 1.66E þ 8 0.01

3 S.S 7.51Eþ 7 0.53 0.02 3.35E þ7 0.23 0.03 3.22E þ 7 0.22 0.05 1.40E þ8 0.02
Zr 1.24Eþ 8 0.6 0.02 4.25E þ7 0.21 0.03 3.93E þ 7 0.19 0.06 2.06E þ8 0.02

4 S.S 1.21Eþ 8 0.32 0.03 6.99E þ7 0.18 0.03 1.90E þ8 0.49 0.02 3.82E þ 8 0.02
Zr 2.59Eþ 8 0.43 0.03 1.03E þ8 0.17 0.04 2.43E þ 8 0.42 0.03 6.06E þ8 0.02

Table 4
Effect of diameter of beam tube on photon flux for stainless steel beam tube.

Diameter (cm) Surface current Error Surface flux Error Point detector Error Dose Error

10 3.299E þ 8 0.09 3.366E þ 8 0.09 9.705E þ8 0.03 3.588E þ3 0.02

12 6.661E þ 08 0.08 6.875E þ 08 0.08 1.197E þ 09 0.03 4.268E þ03 0.02
14 1.318E þ 09 0.08 1.356E þ 09 0.08 1.532E þ 09 0.03 5.225E þ03 0.03
16 1.401E þ09 0.08 1.458E þ 09 0.08 1.604E þ09 0.04 5.555E þ03 0.03
18 2.634E þ 09 0.06 2.738E þ 09 0.06 2.035E þ09 0.03 6.403E þ03 0.02
20 4.145E þ 09 0.06 4.342E þ 09 0.06 2.404E þ09 0.04 6.807E þ03 0.04
22 5.422E þ 09 0.04 5.694E þ 09 0.04 2.681E þ 09 0.03 7.488E þ03 0.02
24 8.308E þ09 0.06 8.808E þ09 0.06 3.376E þ 09 0.04 9.817E þ03 0.04
26 1.095E þ10 0.05 1.159E þ 10 0.05 3.834E þ 09 0.05 1.041E þ04 0.04

Table 5
Effect of diameter of beam tube on 3 groups neutron flux for stainless steel beam tube.

Diameter (cm) Flux

Thermal flux Epithermal flux Fast flux Total flux

Flux Thermal/Total Error Flux Epithermal/Total Error Flux Fast/Total Error Flux Error

10 7.91Eþ 7 0.28 0.03 5.15 E þ 7 0.18 0.04 1.55Eþ 08 0.54 0.04 2.863Eþ 8 0.02
12 9.93Eþ 7 0.32 0.02 6.39E þ7 0.20 0.03 1.51Eþ 08 0.48 0.03 3.14Eþ 8 0.02
14 1.10Eþ 8 0.32 0.02 6.93E þ7 0.20 0.02 1.69Eþ 08 0.48 0.02 3.49Eþ 8 0.01
16 1.25Eþ 8 0.34 0.02 7.40E þ7 0.20 0.03 1.63Eþ 08 0.45 0.04 3.63Eþ 8 0.02
18 1.59Eþ 8 0.37 0.04 9.86E þ7 0.23 0.03 1.71Eþ 08 0.40 0.03 4.29Eþ 8 0.02
20 1.82Eþ 8 0.37 0.02 1.14E þ8 0.23 0.04 1.97Eþ 08 0.40 0.03 4.94Eþ 8 0.02
22 2.17Eþ 8 0.41 0.02 1.24E þ8 0.24 0.03 1.84Eþ 08 0.35 0.04 5.25Eþ 8 0.02
24 2.47Eþ 8 0.40 0.02 1.48E þ8 0.24 0.03 2.08Eþ 08 0.34 0.04 6.03Eþ 8 0.02
26 3.00E þ8 0.44 0.03 1.70E þ8 0.25 0.03 2.09Eþ 08 0.31 0.04 6.80Eþ 8 0.02
980 M. Moguiy et al. / Applied Radiation and Isotopes 69 (2011) 975–981

Table 6
Effect of diameter of beam tube on the angular distribution of neutron beam and neutron dose rate for stainless steel beam tube.

Diameter (cm) Surface current Error Surface flux Error Dose Error f1/f2

10 6.67E þ07 0.09 6.84E þ07 0.09 1.38Eþ 04 0.03 0.97

12 1.23E þ08 0.07 1.27E þ08 0.07 1.46Eþ 04 0.04 0.96
14 2.05Eþ 08 0.08 2.13E þ08 0.07 1.50Eþ 04 0.03 0.96
16 2.66E þ08 0.05 2.79E þ08 0.05 1.55Eþ 04 0.04 0.95
18 4.35E þ08 0.08 4.59E þ08 0.08 1.64Eþ 04 0.04 0.94
20 6.50Eþ 08 0.04 7.00E þ 08 0.04 1.72Eþ 04 0.04 0.92
22 9.42E þ08 0.08 1.01Eþ 09 0.08 1.78Eþ 04 0.04 0.92
24 1.42E þ09 0.08 1.55E þ09 0.08 1.83Eþ 04 0.03 0.91
26 1.77E þ09 0.08 1.91E þ09 0.08 1.89Eþ 04 0.04 0.92

Table 7
Effect of diameter of beam tube on photon flux for zircalloy beam tube.

Diameter (cm) Surface current Error Surface flux Error Point detector Error Dose Error

10 1.52Eþ 08 0.07 1.56Eþ 08 0.07 6.49Eþ 08 0.04 1.71Eþ 03 0.04

12 4.36Eþ 08 0.08 4.51Eþ 08 0.07 9.22Eþ 08 0.04 2.55Eþ 03 0.04
14 7.92Eþ 08 0.06 8.24Eþ 08 0.06 1.12Eþ 09 0.04 3.07Eþ 03 0.03
16 1.36E þ09 0.05 1.44Eþ 09 0.05 1.47Eþ 09 0.04 3.97Eþ 03 0.03
18 2.08Eþ 09 0.05 2.18Eþ 09 0.05 1.80E þ09 0.03 4.91Eþ 03 0.02
20 3.60Eþ 09 0.05 3.80Eþ 09 0.05 2.23E þ 09 0.03 6.08Eþ 03 0.03
22 4.88Eþ 09 0.04 5.16Eþ 09 0.04 2.53Eþ 09 0.02 6.78Eþ 03 0.02
24 7.95Eþ 09 0.06 8.39Eþ 09 0.06 3.08Eþ 09 0.03 8.46Eþ 03 0.04
26 9.86Eþ 09 0.05 1.05Eþ 10 0.05 3.60Eþ 09 0.04 9.24Eþ 03 0.03

Table 8
Effect of diameter of beam tube on 3 groups neutron flux for zircalloy beam tube (weight window method).

Diameter (cm) Flux

Thermal flux Epithermal flux Fast flux Total flux

Flux Thermal/Total Error Flux Epithermal/Total Error Flux Fast/Total Error Flux Error

10 1.71Eþ 8 0.41 0.03 7.17Eþ 7 0.17 0.04 1.75Eþ 8 0.42 0.03 4.18E þ 8 0.02
12 2.03Eþ 8 0.42 0.02 8.43Eþ 7 0.18 0.03 1.91Eþ 8 0.40 0.03 4.79E þ 8 0.02
14 2.52Eþ 8 0.46 0.02 1.00E þ8 0.18 0.03 1.91Eþ 8 0.36 0.02 5.44E þ 8 0.01
16 2.75Eþ 8 0.46 0.02 1.14Eþ 8 0.19 0.04 2.05Eþ 8 0.35 0.04 5.95E þ 8 0.02
18 3.18Eþ 8 0.50 0.02 1.19Eþ 8 0.19 0.03 2.02Eþ 8 0.31 0.03 6.40E þ8 0.02
20 3.47Eþ 8 0.51 0.04 1.32Eþ 8 0.19 0.04 2.04Eþ 8 0.30 0.04 6.85E þ 8 0.02
22 4.05Eþ 8 0.50 0.01 1.64Eþ 8 0.20 0.02 2.44Eþ 8 0.30 0.04 8.14E þ 8 0.02
24 4.27 E þ8 0.50 0.01 1.78Eþ 8 0.22 0.02 2.39Eþ 8 0.28 0.04 8.46E þ 8 0.02
26 4.72Eþ 8 0.50 0.01 2.14Eþ 8 0.23 0.02 2.56Eþ 8 0.27 0.04 9.43E þ 8 0.01

Table 9
Effect of diameter of beam tube on angular distribution neutron flux for zircalloy beam tube (weight window method).

Diameter (cm) Surface current Error Surface flux Error Dose Error f1/f2

10 1.091E þ 08 0.08 1.123E þ08 0.08 1.697E þ 04 0.04 0.97

12 1.976E þ 08 0.05 2.029Eþ 08 0.05 1.836E þ 04 0.03 0.97
14 3.544E þ 08 0.08 3.671E þ08 0.08 1.834E þ 04 0.03 0.96
16 4.561E þ 08 0.05 4.746E þ08 0.05 1.910E þ04 0.03 0.96
18 5.046E þ 08 0.06 5.313E þ08 0.06 1.936E þ 04 0.05 0.95
20 8.608E þ 08 0.05 9.106Eþ 08 0.05 1.952E þ 04 0.04 0.94
22 1.329E þ 09 0.06 1.431E þ09 0.06 2.044E þ04 0.04 0.93
24 1.852E þ 09 0.05 2.024Eþ 09 0.06 2.235E þ 04 0.04 0.92
26 2.565E þ 09 0.07 2.805Eþ 09 0.07 2.499E þ 04 0.05 0.91

distribution neutron flux and neutron dose rate at the beam tube
outlet. The results of the stainless steel case are tabulated
respectively in Tables 4–6.
The results show that fast neutron flux is fixed and is
independent of beam tube diameter. But epithermal and ther-
mal neutron fluxes are increased when beam tube diameter
increased.
The calculation is also repeated for zircalloy beam tube. The
calculation is carried by two different methods in variance
reduction. The calculation results are presented in Tables 7–10.
 M. Moguiy et al. / Applied Radiation and Isotopes 69 (2011) 975–981 981

Table 10
Effect of diameter of beam tube on 3 groups neutron flux for zircalloy beam tube (importance method).

Diameter (cm) Flux

Thermal flux Epithermal flux Fast flux Total flux

Flux Thermal Total Error Flux Epithermal Total Error Flux Fast Total Error Flux Error

10 1.88E þ8 0.42 0.01 7.58E þ 07 0.17 0.01 1.79Eþ 8 0.40 0.04 4.44E þ 8 0.01
12 2.21E þ8 0.44 0.02 7.90E þ7 0.16 0.04 1.95Eþ 8 0.40 0.04 4.95E þ 8 0.02
14 2.59E þ8 0.46 0.02 9.76E þ 07 0.17 0.04 2.02Eþ8 0.36 0.04 5.59E þ 8 0.02
16 2.67E þ8 0.48 0.02 1.04E þ08 0.18 0.04 1.92Eþ 8 0.34 0.04 5.65E þ 8 0.02
18 3.06Eþ 8 0.48 0.02 1.14E þ 08 0.18 0.04 2.09Eþ8 0.33 0.04 6.30E þ8 0.02
20 3.49E þ8 0.49 0.02 1.47E þ 08 0.20 0.04 2.21Eþ 8 0.31 0.04 7.18E þ 8 0.02
22 3.84E þ8 0.53 0.02 1.49E þ 08 0.20 0.04 2.01Eþ8 0.27 0.04 7.34E þ 8 0.02
24 4.41E þ8 0.52 0.02 1.83E þ 08 0.22 0.04 2.16Eþ 8 0.26 0.04 8.40E þ8 0.02
26 4.95E þ8 0.53 0.02 2.03E þ08 0.22 0.04 2.34Eþ 8 0.25 0.04 9.34E þ 8 0.02

Effect of increase on the diameter of beam tube on photon flux
for zircalloy beam tube is tabulated in Table 7. Table 8 shows
results of effect of increase on the diameter of beam tube on
3 groups neutron flux for zircalloy beam tube by weight window
method and results of calculation by importance method is
tabulated in Table 10. Table 9 shows effect of diameter of beam
tube on angular distribution of neutron flux for zircalloy beam
tube weight window method.
As it is shown in the results, exit neutron flux has increased
when beam tube diameter increased. If zircalloy is used as a
substance of beam tube, the outlet photon flux will also be
increased. This results show that both methods (1.weight window
and 2. Importance) were supported when flux determined in
3 groups.
7. Conclusion
serious effect on the results, so they are omitted to decrease the
MCNP run time.
The most important parameters are the length of beam tube,
the diameter of beam tube and the substance of beam tube.
When the length of beam tubes increased and the diameter is
fixed at 14 cm, the total flux due to stainless steel and zircalloy
substances will be increased to 30–75% and 40–85%, respectively.
Thermal neutron flux will be increased to 25–40% and 40–70% for
stainless steel and zircalloy, respectively. In the case of epither-
mal neutron, 35–75% for stainless steel and 40–80% for zircalloy
will be increased. This modification also leads to the increase of
the independent fast flux amounted to 40–90%.
Photon flux is increased by 10–50% for stainless steel and
5–45% for zircalloy.
When the length of beam tubes is fixed and the diameter is
being increased, the divergence beam and flux will be increase.

As mentioned, the purpose of this study was to investigate the

effect of the parameters on quality and quantity. In the first step,
the reactor is modeled by MCNP code. In the full geometrical
calculations, many histories waste a lot of time wandering around
in the complicated geometry of the reactor, while the most
important contribution comes from the source neutrons emerging
directly through the beam tubes (Kotiluoto and Wasastjerna,
2006).
So, the vessel, air vault, main shield (steel and heavy concrete)
around the beam tube, and main shutter are confined in a cone
with light of sight on the whole height of the active part of the
core. The steel and concrete shields out of the cone have no
References
Breismeister, J.F. (Ed.), 2000. MCNP-A General Monte Carlo N-particle Transport
code, Los Alamos National laboratory. LA-13709.
Faw, R.E., Shultis, J.K., 2005. An MCNP Primer.
Kotiluoto, P., Wasastjerna, F., 2006. Calculating the Neutron Current Emerging
Through the Beam Tubes in IFMIF.
Nemoto, H., Saegusa, J., Tanimura, Y., Yoshida, M., Yoshizawa, M., 2004. Neutron
spectra and angular distributions of concrete-moderated neutron calibration
fields at JAERI. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 110 (1–4), 81–84.
Thomas, E. Booth, October 1985. Los Alamos National laboratory. A Sample
problem for Variance Reduction in MCNP.
Walker, J., 1967. Nuclear reactors as research instruments. Reports on Progress in
Physics 30 (1), 285–332.