See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257587914

Analysis for Radiation and Shielding Dose in Plasma Focus Neutron Source
Using FLUKA

Article in Journal of Fusion Energy · June 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s10894-011-9454-8

CITATIONS READS

6 780

3 authors:

M.J. Nemati Reza Amrollahi

Dalian University of Technology Amirkabir University of Technology
8 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS 117 PUBLICATIONS 675 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Morteza Habibi
Amirkabir University of Technology
112 PUBLICATIONS 650 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by M.J. Nemati on 20 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297
DOI 10.1007/s10894-011-9454-8
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Analysis for Radiation and Shielding Dose in Plasma Focus
Neutron Source Using FLUKA
M. J. Nemati • R. Amrollahi • M. Habibi
Published online: 7 September 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract Monte Carlo simulations have been performed
for the attenuation of neutron radiation produced at Plasma
focus (PF) devices through various shielding design. At the
test site it will be fired with deuterium and tritium (D-T)
fusion resulting in a yield of about 1013 fusion neutrons of
14 MeV. This poses a radiological hazard to scientists and
personnel operating the device. The goal of this paper was
to evaluate various shielding options under consideration
for the PF operating with D-T fusion. Shields of varying
neutrons-shielding effectiveness were investigated using
concrete, polyethylene, paraffin and borated materials. The
most effective shield, a labyrinth structure, allowed almost
1,176 shots per year while keeping personnel under
20 mSV of dose. The most expensive shield that used,
square shield with 100 cm concrete thickness on the walls
and Borated paraffin along with borated polyethylene
added outside the concrete allowed almost 15,000 shot per
year.
Keywords Plasma focus
FLUKA
Neutron
Introduction
Plasma focus (PF) devices have proven to be effective tools
in the investigation of a variety of phenomena such as
M. J. Nemati (&)
R. Amrollahi
M. Habibi
Nuclear Engineering and Physics Faculty, Amirkabir University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: arash_nemati@aut.ac.ir
123
J 9 B acceleration of current sheath, and pinch formation
[1]. Essentially, the plasma pinch is a very fast compres-
sion and the consequent heating of the plasma by means of
the associated magnetic field, during which substantial
amounts of different types of radiation are produced,
namely, neutron, X-rays, electrons, and ions [2]. On the
other hand PF is a prolific source of high energy neutrons
along with gamma radiation. While these type and amount
of radiation are useful for experiments, they present a
radiological hazard to the personnel the device and carry-
ing out experiments. Total elimination of dose to personnel
operating the device cannot be achieved without placing
the device in a very remote location. Additionally, the
device must be accessible for both experimental use and
maintenance. There for we must provide enough shielding
to reduce dose to nearby personnel to a safe level, while
still retaining functionality of the device. Shielding for the
device must be effective and not cost prohibitive. Both the
thicknesses and order of materials are important in reduc-
tion of dose [3].
The Monte Carlo program FLUKA has traditionally
been employed for radiation protection and dosimetry
simulation, owing to its sound and internally consistent
framework which relies primarily on microscopic physics
models. In order to accurately predict effects of cosmic
radiation in space, particularly in connection with shielding
questions, the functionality of FLUKA is being extended to
include heavy ion nuclear interaction by implementing
suitable, available models [4].
The aim of this paper is analysis of various shielding
configurations; in fact determine dose to personnel near the
device using FLUKA code (Version 3.2 Oct-10 by A.
Ferrari). In order to maximize the potential scientific value
of the device, operating the device multiple times a day and
several days a week is must.
J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297
Simulation Method
Accurate FLUKA simulations require the input of a source
term representing the radiation emitted [5]. Both the
plasma created in the PF device and the possible fusion
reaction emit large amounts of radiation [6]. Fusion occurs
at the focus point at the bottom of the anode [7] and can be
modeled for our purposes as a point source of radiation. For
D-D reactions dose was calculated as if the point source
were to emit 1011 neutrons of 2.45 MeV. In the D-T
reaction we used a yield of 1013 neutrons of 14 MeV.
Maximum possible neutron yields were assumed for our
models in order to represent a worst-case scenario. So
utilizing a D-T reaction will increase both the energy and
yield of radiation in the device, adding to the radiological
hazard. Realizing this radiological hazard while still
reducing dose to personnel require shielding. The total
energy deposition due to neutrons of 14 MeV, and model
potential shielding designs and analyze dose to nearby
personnel modeled by M. J. Nemati.
In this paper the point source consider at the center of
the building with dimension of 400*400 cm. Neutrons are
emitted from a flat source with a cosine distribution in a
forward direction along the Z-axis, the center of the point
source considered at (0,0,100) cm. For several shielding
design the code require the input of geometries, and
materials. Radiation shielding analysis involves the inves-
tigation of configurations of shielding, thicknesses, and the
actual types of materials used. Investigating shield con-
figuration involves determining the optimal location and
placement of shielding around the source that minimize
dose to personnel but still allows for experimental work.
The methode of dose calculation is using of USRBIN
detector. The USRBIN detector is a regular spatial mesh
completely independent from the regions defined by the
problem’s geometry. On user’s request, FLUKA can cal-
culate the distribution of several different quantities over
one or more binning structures, separated or even over-
lapping [5].
Simulation Results
Various shielding configurations modeled as describe at
following:
Square Shield Result
The square shield provides excellent protection since
radiation must pass directly through the barrier to reach
personnel with no scattering routes aside from traveling up
and out of the shield. Additionally, utilization of different
shielding materials and configuration are examined here.
285
For the square shield, the tally points are consider in 5
points as following describe, Tally 1 (80 cm from the
source), Tally 2 (300 cm from the source), Tally 3 (400 cm
from the source), Tally 4 (500 cm from the source), Tally 5
(400 cm Above the source) .
A cross-section of the first square shield is shown in
Fig. 1 with the source completely enclosed on four sides
with 50 cm concrete shielding, and the top is covered by a
25 cm concrete shielding (Fig. 2).
Light elements such as hydrogen are excellent neutron
shielding material due to the large amount of energy lost in
each collision of up to half of the neutron energy. Com-
position of concrete used in this study with density of
2.3 g/cm3, which contain only 1% by weight of hydrogen
as shown in Table 1.
Dose equivalent results from shielding the device with
this configuration are plotted in FLUKA and the curves
with The dashed lines indicate the shielding limits are
shown in following Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Note that most personnel will be in the trailer at loca-
tions 3 or 4 during the testing and that the 20 mSV is the
limit. From Table 2, one can see that personnel in the
trailer at point 4 will receive 20 mSV after about 454 shots
of the device. This means the device could be fired 454
times over the course of 1 year while remain below
20 mSV/year dose limit. In this paper, the effectiveness of
each shielding was rated by the number of times the device
can be fired before personnel receive 20 mSV at tally
point 4.
Fig. 1 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shielding on four sides
with 50 cm concrete shielding, and the top by a 25 cm concrete
shielding, X–Y
123
286 J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297

Fig. 4 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shielding on four

sides with 50 cm concrete shielding, and the top by a 25 cm concrete
shielding, X–Z

Fig. 2 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shielding on four sides

with 50 cm concrete shielding, and the top by a 25 cm concrete
shielding, X–Z

Table 1 Composition of
Composition
concrete used on this study with
density 2.3 g/cm3 Atomic Fraction by
number weight

1 0.010000
6 0.001000
8 0.529107
11 0.016000
12 0.002000
13 0.033872
14 0.337021
19 0.013000
20 0.044000
26 0.014000

Fig. 5 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Z axis, Square

Shielding on four sides with 50 cm concrete shielding, and the top by
a 25 cm concrete shielding

For the next square shield, we attempt to further reduce

Fig. 3 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shielding on four
sides with 50 cm concrete shielding, and the top by a 25 cm concrete
shielding, X–Y
dose by increasing thickness of the walls 2 times than
before. A cross-section of the this square shield is shown in
Fig. 7 with the source completely enclosed on four sides
with 100 cm concrete shielding, and the top is covered by a
50 cm concrete shielding (Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).
From Table 3, one can see that personnel in the trailer at
point 4 will receive 20 mSV after about 2,150 shots of the
device.

123
J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297 287

Fig. 6 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the X axis, Square

Shielding on four sides with 50 cm concrete shielding, and the top by
a 25 cm concrete shielding
Table 2 Dose at five tally
locations for square shield with
top from a 1013 yield 14 MeV
Neutrons
Fig. 8 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shielding on four sides
with 100 cm concrete shielding, and the top by a 50 cm concrete
shielding, X–Z
Location Neutron dose
(mSV/Shot)
1 0.7
2 0.11
3 0.07
4 0.044
5 0.75

Fig. 9 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shielding on four

sides with 100 cm concrete shielding, and the top by a 50 cm concrete
shielding, X–Y

The borated polyethylene was used due to its large

Fig. 7 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shielding on four sides
with 100 cm concrete shielding, and the top by a 50 cm concrete
shielding, X–Y
weight percentage of hydrogen. Composition of the poly-
ethylene used in this paper was, by weight, 13.65%
hydrogen, 81.35% oxygen and 5% boron. The polyethylene
is doped with boron since the natural isotopes of boron,
B-10 and B-11, have increasing capture cross-section for
lower neutron energies lower than 4 meV. In this shielding
configuration the borated polyethylene was added outside
the concrete just on the one wall and roof using 25 cm

123
288 J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297

Fig. 10 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shielding on four

sides with 100 cm concrete shielding, and the top by a 50 cm concrete
shielding, X–Z
Fig. 12 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the X axis, Square
Shielding on four sides with 100 cm concrete shielding, and the top
by a 50 cm concrete shielding

Table 3 Dose at five tally

locations for square shield with
top by increasing concrete from
a 1013 yield 14 MeV Neutrons
Location Neutron dose
(mSV/Shot)
1 0.4
2 0.23
3 0.016
4 0.0093
5 0.15

Fig. 11 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Z axis, Square

Shielding on four sides with 100 cm concrete shielding, and the top
by a 50 cm concrete shielding

thickness to reduce neutron scatter from the ground and

provide absorption as shown in Figs. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and
18.
From this simple addition of borated polyethylene out-
side the concrete, we reduced the dose to point 4 in the
trailer by almost 63% as shown in Table 4 to 0.0058 mSV
per shot. The device could now be fired over 3,448 Fig. 13 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shield with additional
reaching the 20 mSV limit at point 4. shielding material, X–Y

123
J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297
Fig. 14 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shield with additional
shielding material, X–Z
Fig. 15 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shield with addi-
tional shielding material, X–Y
In another square shield we attempt to reduce dose much
more than before by adding additional materials to the
shielding. Borated paraffin is paraffin doped with boron,
14.12% hydrogen, 80.88% oxygen and 5% boron by
weight, properties very similar to polyethylene. Borated
paraffin along with borated polyethylene again was added
outside the concrete which is shown in Figs. 19, 20, 21, 22,
23 and 24.
From Table 5, one can see that personnel in the trailer at
point 4 will receive 20 mSV after about 15,384 shots of the
device.
289
Fig. 16 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shield with addi-
tional shielding material, X–Z
Fig. 17 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Z axis, Square
Shield with additional shielding material
The added cost of borate poly and paraffin lead us to
investigate the effect of removing the boron and using pure
polyethylene and paraffin instead. Conventional shielding
technique uses boron to capture thermal neutrons. However
in our case the personnel are located so far from the device
that thermalized neutrons are unlikely to reach them before
interaction in the air. Additionally, non-borated poly and
paraffin have slightly higher hydrogen weight percentage.
Non-Borated poly is 14.37% hydrogen and non-borated
paraffin is 14.86% hydrogen by weight. In the following
square shield as shown in Fig. 24 Non-Borated poly and
123
290 J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297

Fig. 18 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the X axis, Square

Shield with additional shielding material Fig. 20 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shield with additional
shielding material in two side, X–Z

Table 4 Dose at five tally

locations for square shield with
additional shielding material
from a 1013 yield 14 MeV
Neutron
Location Neutron dose
(mSV/Shot)
1 0.83
2 0.016
3 0.0091
4 0.0058
5 0.051

Fig. 21 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shield with addi-

tional shielding material in two side, X–Y

non-borated paraffin are considered (Figs. 25, 26, 27, 28,

Fig. 19 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shield with additional
shielding material in two side, X–Y
29, 30).
From Table 6, we see that the dose to point 4 is very
close and actually smaller than the dose when using
borated polyethylene as additional shield for square shield,
0.0036 mSV for square shield added with non-borated poly
and paraffin as opposed to 0.0058 mSV for square shield
added with borated polyethylene. So using this configura-
tion personnel in the trailer at point 4 will receive 20 mSV
after about 5,555 shots of the device.

123
J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297 291

Fig. 22 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shield with addi-

tional shielding material in two side, X–Z

Fig. 24 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the X axis, Square

Shield with additional shielding material in two side

Table 5 Dose at five tally

Location Neutron dose
locations for square shield with
(mSV/Shot)
additional shielding material in
two side from a 1013 yield 1 0.27
14 MeV Neutron
2 –
3 0.0018
4 0.0013
5 0.019

Fig. 23 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Z axis, Square

Shield with additional shielding material in two side

Labyrinth Shield Result

While the square shield is effective at reducing dose, the

usability of the device is severely limited since the roof of
the shield must be removed whenever access to the device
is required. Additionally, no direct Line of sight is avail-
able apart from the small area inside the shield near the Fig. 25 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shield with additional
device. The issue of the access can be resolved by using a pure shielding material, X–Y

123
292 J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297

labyrinth concept that will shown in Fig. 31. This config-

uration requires radiation to undergo scatter before leaving
the shield while allowing easy access to the device. The
tally points for the labyrinth is identical to the square
shield. The Labyrinth of Fig. 31 uses concrete as shielding

Fig. 28 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shield with addi-

tional pure shielding material, X–Z

Fig. 26 FLUKA geometry plotted, Square Shield with additional

pure shielding material, X–Z

Fig. 29 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Z axis, Square

Shield with additional pure shielding material

materials. One can see that neutrons escape through the

entrance by scattering (Figs. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37).
From Table 7, one can see that personnel in the trailer at
Fig. 27 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Square Shield with addi- point 4 will receive 20 mSV after about 1,176 shots of the
tional pure shielding material, X–Y device.

123
J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297 293

Fig. 30 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the X axis, Square

Shield with additional pure shielding material
Table 6 Dose at five tally
locations for square shield with
additional pure shielding
material in two side from a 1013
yield 14 MeV Neutron
Fig. 32 FLUKA geometry plotted, Labyrinth Shield with 100 cm
concrete shielding on the walls, X–Y
Location Neutron dose
(mSV/Shot)
1 0.23
2 0.01
3 0.0063
4 0.0036
5 0.86

Fig. 33 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Labyrinth Shield 100 cm

concrete shielding on the walls, X–Y

Cave Shield Result

A design that provides easy access to the device and line of

sight operation is the cave. This shield is most versatile
design but also the least effective in radiation protection
Fig. 31 FLUKA geometry plotted, Labyrinth Shield with 100 cm since one side of the shield is removed. For this shield, we
concrete shielding on the walls, X–Y removed one side of the square shield simulated previously

123
294 J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297

Fig. 34 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Labyrinth Shield 100 cm

concrete shielding on the walls, X–Z

Fig. 36 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Y axis, Labyrinth

Shield 100 cm concrete shielding on the walls

Fig. 35 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Z axis, Labyrinth

Shield 100 cm concrete shielding on the walls
Fig. 37 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the X axis, Labyrinth
Shield 100 cm concrete shielding on the walls

so that the open side faces south and away from tally 4.
This configuration is shown below in Fig. 36. The tally Table 7 Dose at five tally
Location Neutron dose
locations for Labyrinth Shield
points for the cave is identical to the square shield (mSV/Shot)
100 cm concrete shielding on
(Figs. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45; Table 8). the walls from a 1013 yield 1 0.82
One can see the dose at tally 4 in the trailer was now 14 MeV Neutron
2 0.036
significantly higher than either the 100 cm concrete laby-
3 0.028
rinth or the square shield designs. A little over 1,050
4 0.017
shots can be done per year before reaching the 20 mSV
5 0.15
limit.

123
J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297
Fig. 38 FLUKA geometry plotted, Cave Shielding showing open
side, X–Y
Fig. 39 FLUKA geometry plotted, Cave Shielding showing open
side, X–Z
Simulation Conclusions
A summary of the dose to tally point 4 the location in the
trailer, where personnel would receive the highest dose, is
presented below in Table 9. Also is presented the number
295
Fig. 40 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Cave Shielding showing
open side, X–Y
Fig. 41 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Cave Shielding showing
open side, X–Z
of times the device could be fired per year while point
remains below 20 mSV.
Ultimately, a decision on which shielding configuration
to use will be based on a comparison of the installation and
materials costs compare to the number of times the device
can be fired. The square shield with 100 cm concrete
thickness on the walls and Borated paraffin along with
borated polyethylene added outside the concrete allow the
greatest number of shots, almost 15,000 per year, but
would also be the most expensive due to the material and
installation cost. Future Funding, after demonstration of the
device as a versatile D-T neutron source for experimental
123
296 J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297

Fig. 42 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted, Cave Shielding showing

open side, Y–Z

Fig. 44 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Y axis, Cave

Shielding showing open side

Fig. 43 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the Z axis, Cave Fig. 45 FLUKA dose equivalent plotted along the X axis, Cave
Shielding showing open side Shielding showing open side

Table 8 Neutron dose with

Location Neutron dose
cave shield from a 1013 yield
use, would go towards the construction of labyrinth (mSV/Shot)
14 MeV Neutron
shield to increase the number of times the device can be
1 0.86
operated.
2 0.0493
Future study should include experimental measurement
3 0.0293
of neutron dose at multiple points should take place after
4 0.019
shielding has been installed to verify these FLUKA
5 0.17
prediction.

123
J Fusion Energ (2012) 31:284–297 297

Table 9 Summary of dose to tally point 4 from all shield
configurations
Shield type
Square Shield, walls with 50 cm concrete
Square Shield, walls with 100 cm concrete
Square Shield, walls with 100 cm
concrete, with poly outer
Square Shield, walls with 100 cm
concrete, with poly and paraffin outer
Square Shield, walls with 100 cm
concrete, with non-borated
Labyrinth Shield, walls with 100 cm
concrete
Cave Shield, walls with 100 cm concrete
2. C. Moreno, H. Bruzzone, J. Martı́nez, A. Clausse, Conceptual
engineering of plasma-focus thermonuclear pulsors, IEEE Trans.
Plasma Sci. 28(5), (2000)
Point 4 Shot per 20 3. R.J. O’Brien, Shielding and Radiation Dose Analysis for A Dense-
(mSV) (mSV) Plasma Focus Neutron Source, (Mechanical Engineering Univer-
sity of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2005)
0.044 454 4. V. Andersen, F. Ballarini, G. Battistoni, M. Campanella, M.
0.0093 2,150 Carboni, F. Cerutti, A. Empl, A. Fasso, A. Ferrari, E. Gadioli,
0.0058 3,448 M.V. Garzelli, K. Lee, A. Ottolenghi, M. Pelliccioni, L.S. Pinsky,
J. Ranft, S. Roesler, P.R. Sala, T.L. Wilson, Fluka toward a
FLUKA based simulation tool aimed at the evaluation of space
0.0013 15,384
radiation environments (2004)
5. A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fass‘o, J. Ranft, Fluka: a Multi-Particle
0.0036 5,555 Transport Code (Program version 2008)
6. L. Soto, New Trends and Future Perspectives on Plasma Focus
0.017 1,176 Research, (Institute of Physics Publishing, 2005)
7. S. Lee, Scaling of the Plasma Focus. Viewpoint from Dynamics,
0.019 1,052 Nanyang Technology University, National Institute of Education
469, Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 259756 (1998)

References

1. H.R. Yousefi, F.M. Aghamir, K. Masugata, Effect of the insulator

length on Mather-type plasma focus devices. Phys. Lett. A 361,
360–363 (2007)

123

View publication stats