Essay: Essay 2017 01 28 000CL9



Applications of Nuclear Engineering

A dissertation

submitted to the Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Department

Faculty of Engineering ' Alexandria University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Nuclear and Radiation Engineering

by

Eng. Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed Hassanein

January 2017

Applications of Nuclear Engineering

Presented by

Ahmed Mohamed Ahmed Hassanein

for the degree of

Ph.D.

in

Nuclear and Radiation Engineering

Examination Committee:                                                Approved

Prof. Dr. '''''''.                                                           '..''''''

Prof. Dr. '''''''.                                                           .''.'''''

Prof. Dr. '''''''.                                                           ''..'''''

Vice Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

 Prof. Dr. Magdy Abdelazim Ahmed

Supervisory Committee:

Prof. Dr. Mohsen A. Abou Mandour                                

Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Department

Faculty of Engineering – Alexandria University

Dr. M. H. Hassan   

Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Department

Faculty of Engineering – Alexandria University

Dr. Nader M.A. Mohamed

Reactors Department

Nuclear Research Center – Atomic Energy Authority

                             

'''''' '''''' ''''''

'''' ''''

''''  '' '' '''''' '''''' '' ''''''

'''' ''''''  ' '''' ''''''''

'''''' '''''' '''''' '''' '' ''''

'''''' ''''''

''

'''''' '''''' '' ''''''

'''' ''

''/ '''' '''' '''' ''''

'''' 2017

'''''' '''''' ''''''

'''' '''' ''

''/ '''' '''' '''' ''''

'''' '' ''''

'''''' '''''' '' '''''' '''''' '' ''''''

'''' '''''' '''' '' ''''''                                                                                       ''''''

'''''' '''''' / …………………..                                                                                  ………………….

'''''' '''''' / …………………..                                                                                  ………………….

'''''' '''''' / …………………..                                                                                  ………………….

'''' '''' '''''' '''' ''''''

'''' '''''' ' '''' ''''''''

''.''.   '''' '' '''' ''''

'''' ''''''

 '''''' '''''' / '''' '''' ''''''    

 '''' '''' '''''' '''''' '' ''''''

 '''' '''''' ' '''' ''''''''

'''''' / '''' '' '''' ''

 '''' '''' '''' '''''' '''''' '' ''''''

 '''' '''''' ' '''' ''''''''

 '''''' / '''' '''' '' ''''                                                        

'''' '''' '''' ''''''

'''' '''' '''''' ' '''' '''' ''''

ABSTRACT

Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) technique needs a special design methodology. In this work, a new design method for a multilayer spectrum shifter is proposed in order to improve the design process of epithermal BNCT beams for research reactors. This design method is based on two concepts: stepwise spectrum shifting, and separation of the design process into two design stages, namely the material(s) selection and the thickness(es) determination. Java-based Nuclear Information Software (JANIS) and Monte Carlo N'Particle code 'MCNP5' have been used for cross sections computations and beam design, respectively. In order to validate the developed methodology, it has been applied on two cases studies using two different neutron spectra as neutron sources: a Watt fission neutron spectrum and a leakage neutron spectrum of a typical MTR-TYPE reactor. The different beam components have been designed but more concern has been given for the spectrum shifter. Various parametric studies have been done for the selected spectrum shifter materials using the MTR-TYPE reactor spectrum. For both cases studies, comparisons have been done between the proposed spectrum shifter and the well-known patent material 'FLUENTALTM'. The results of comparisons confirm that the proposed design outperforms the patent material 'FLUENTALTM'. These results indicate that the developed design method in this work could generate efficient and effective spectrum shifters for epithermal BNCT beams in research reactors. The proposed method has some advantages as: time saving, simplicity, effectiveness, and efficiency. Therefore, this method may be extended to be applied for other BNCT facilities such as accelerator-based BNCT as well as other epithermal beams used for different applications.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

LIST OF FIGURES 5

LIST OF TABLES 7

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 9

Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) 9

General requirements of BNCT Facility at a Nuclear Research Reactor 9

Desired Neutron Beam Parameters 14

General beam properties 14

Epithermal beam intensity 16

Incident beam quality 17

Beam size 19

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 20

Reactor And Beam Design Considerations 20

Approaches to Using Reactors for Epithermal Neutron

BNCT 29

Performance of Some Current Epithermal Neutron Irradiation Facilities 31

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY 34

BNCT beam configuration 34

Proposed spectrum shifter design methodology 36

First stage: Material selection 38

3.2.2 Second stage: Thickness determination 39

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41

Introduction 41

BNCT beam design using Watt fission neutron spectrum 41

Reflector, Collimator, and Shield 41

Spectrum shifter 42

First stage: Material selection 45

Second stage: Thickness determination 46

Thermal neutron filter 47

Gamma filter 47

Optimum position of the thermal neutron filter 48

Validation of proposed spectrum shifter design methodology

using a Watt fission neutron spectrum source 49

BNCT beam design for a typical MTR-TYPE reactor 51

4.3.1 Reflector, Collimator, and Shield

First thermal neutron filter 53

Spectrum shifter 53

Second thermal neutron filter 54

Gamma filter 55

Collimator thickness 56

Validation of proposed spectrum shifter design methodology

in a typical MTR-TYPE reactor 57

Parametric analysis for the selected spectrum shifter materials   57

4.4.1 Verification of material sequence 65

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68

REFERENCES 69

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1 schematic for BNCT irradiation facility 10

Fig. 1.2 Comparison of flux-depth distributions for thermal and epithermal neutrons 16

Fig. 1.3 Typical spectrum shifting arrangement 21

Fig. 1.4 Example of an effort to minimize core-to-patient distance 22

Fig. 3.1 Schematic diagram BNCT beam configuration 35

Fig. 4.1. Group ratios for the studied materials 43

Fig. 4.2. Group ratios for the studied materials 44

Fig. 4.3. Schematic diagram of the final beam MCNP model for case 49

Fig. 4.4. Beam inlet normalized neutron energy spectrum for case 2 52

Fig. 4.5. Beam inlet gamma energy spectrum for case 2 52

Fig. 4.6. Schematic diagram of the final beam MCNP model for case 57

Fig. 4.7. Change in fast and epithermal currents for 7LiF with

Thickness 61

Fig. 4.8. Change of fast neutron groups to epithermal current ratios for 7LiF with thickness 61

Fig. 4.9 Change in fast and epithermal currents for AlF3 with

Thickness 62

Fig. 4.10. Change of fast neutron groups to epithermal current ratios for AlF3 with thickness 62

Fig. 4.11. Change in fast and epithermal currents for 60Ni with

Thickness 63

Fig. 4.12. Change of fast neutron groups to epithermal current ratios for 60Ni with thickness 63

Fig. 4.13. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni at thicknesses 4-60 cm 63

Fig. 4.14. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-60 cm for the 3rd fast neutron group 65

Fig. 4.15A. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-60 cm for the 2nd fast neutron group 66

Fig. 4.15B. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-24 cm for the 2nd fast neutron group 66

Fig. 4.16. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-60 cm for the 1st fast neutron group 66

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Facility characteristics and beam performance figures of merit for various clinical NCT centers determined by in-air and in-phantom measurements using BPA and where available (in brackets) a hypothetical advanced boron compound 31

Table 3.1 The layers and fast groups numbers, energy groups, and corresponding fast neutron groups 37

Table 4.3 In air beam port quality parameters for the empty beam for

case 1 42

Table 4.4 Neutron in air beam port quality parameters after adding reflector, collimator, and shield for case 1 42

Table 4.5 The efficient & selected materials of each layer and corresponding neutron & energy groups for case 1 45

Table 4.6 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the first spectrum shifter layer for case 1 46

Table 4.7 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the second spectrum shifter layer for case 1 46

Table 4.8 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the third (last) spectrum shifter layer for case 1 47

Table 4.9 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the thermal filter for case 1 47

Table 4.10 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the gamma filter for case 1 48

Table 4.11Comparison between in air beam port quality parameters when placement of the thermal filter in two different positions for case 1 49

Table 4.23 Comparison between in air beam port parameters of the proposed spectrum shifter and FLUENTALTM for case 1 50

Table 4.12 In air beam port quality parameters for the empty beam for case 2 51

Table 4.13 Neutron in air beam port quality parameters after adding reflector, collimator, and shield for case 2 53

Table 4.14 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the first thermal filter for case 2 53

Table 4.15 The selected materials and optimum thickness for each  spectrum shifter layer for case study two 54

Table 4.16 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the first spectrum shifter layer for case 2 54

Table 4.17 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the second spectrum shifter layer for case 2 54

Table 4.18 In air beam port quality parameters after adding the third (last) spectrum shifter layer for case 2 55

Table 4.19

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the second thermal filter for case 2 55

Table 4.20

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the gamma filter for case 2 56

Table 4.21

Final in air beam port quality parameters after adding two Bismuth gamma filters for case 2 56

Table 4.22

Comparison between in air parameters when using Pb collimator with thickness 10 and 20 cm for case 2 57

Table 4.24

Comparison between in air beam port parameters of the proposed spectrum shifter and FLUENTALTM for case 2 59

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT)

Boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT) is a biochemically targeted radiotherapy based on the nuclear capture and fission reactions that occur when non-radioactive boron-10, which is a constituent of natural elemental boron, is irradiated with low energy thermal neutrons to yield high linear energy transfer alpha particles and recoiling lithium-7 nuclei. Therefore, BNCT enables the application of a high dose of particle radiation selectively to tumour cells in which boron-10 compound has been accumulated [1].

General requirements of BNCT Facility at a Nuclear Research Reactor

The design and construction of a BNCT facility in a nuclear research reactor is a very demanding task. From the engineering and physical viewpoint, the general requirements to house a complete facility in the confines of a reactor building are [2]:

i) there should be a sufficient and adequate fluence rate of neutrons that emanate through a large diameter beam tube, that itself preferably faces a large source area of the neutron source.

ii) there must be suitable space at the exit side of the beam, to accommodate a large working area for building the irradiation room.

iii) the facility should be freely accessible such that the patient, who may be unable to walk, can be readily and easily brought into the irradiation room from outside.

Furthermore, outside the reactor building confinement:

iv) there should be space allocated outside the reactor building to house facilities for the reception and preparation of the patient prior to entering the facility for treatment. However, this latter condition, providing that there is sufficient space within the reactor building, may apply to within the building.

The basic design can be broken down into specific components, which formed the basis of one of the 2 Working Groups held at the Prague Workshop, entitled: 'How to build up an irradiation facility for BNCT'. The Working group defined the following 9 components, based on the schematic simplification, shown in figure 1.1, where each numbered component represents:

Fig. 1.1 schematic for BNCT irradiation facility

1. Reactor

2. Beam tube

3. Patient

4. Irradiation room

5. Control room

6. Reception area

7. Beam dosimetry/characterisation

8. Beam monitors

9. Beam shutter

Following are some details for each component requirements:

1. The Reactor

In BNCT, there is no singly-available reactor-type that may be regarded as the ideal reactor to develop a BNCT facility. Over the decades a wide variety of reactor-types have been utilised, as the neutron source for a BNCT facility. The closest single design could be a TRIGA, however even this may vary in power and configuration, e.g. utilisation of the thermal column or beam tube.

2. The beam tube The neutrons, and gammas, emanating from the reactor, need to be moderated, filtered and/or attenuated, such that the required beam intensity and average neutron energy are within the requirements, which themselves can vary depending on the type of tumours to be treated. The recommended beam parameters will be discussed in details later.

3. The patient

The type of tumour to be treated will also influence the beam design, whether an epithermal beam or thermal beam is required. Also whether the patient can only be treated in a horizontal position or seated, will influence the design.

4. The irradiation room

If a patient is to be treated in a horizontal position, and especially if brain tumours are to be treated, there should be sufficient space, such that the treatment table can be rotated ''90 degrees about the beam axis. Preferably, the central beam axis should be at least 1m vertically above the floor. The room itself should contain most if not all facilities expected in a conventional radiotherapy room, e.g. cameras, laser positioning devices, ease-of-access, etc.

5. The control or observation room

The patient and the facility need to be monitored. Monitoring equipment such as, puls-oxymeters, TV monitors, microphones, radiation level instrumentation, radiation monitors measuring the beam characteristics, all need to be housed in an area or room, where the medical and physics staff can comfortably sit and observe the patient and radiation beam parameters. Such a room should be next to the irradiation room and be at least 10m2.

6. Reception area or building

Next to, or outside but close to the entrance to the reactor, an area or dedicated building should be available, where the patient can be received prior to treatment. It will be necessary to prepare the patient, e.g. infusion of the drug, change of clothing, medical examination. The area or building should also have the provisions of an office, for the medical staff, a waiting room, for accompanying relatives, as well as,, of course, a WC.

7. Beam dosimetry/characteristion

The radiation beam is a mixture of neutrons, of all energies, and gamma rays. The beam must be thoroughly characterized, as part of any quality assurance system, as well as, being absolutely necessary, in order that accurate and reliable calculations, especially for treatment planning can be performed. There are a variety of techniques available to characterize such a beam. The irradiation room should be designed such that any eventual measurements can be readily carried out.

8. The beam monitors

A beam monitoring system must be available that can measure the radiation beam during treatment and have the capacity to automatically close the beam when the required radiation dose is achieved or when an emergency situation occurs. As in conventional radiotherapy, all safety systems should be backed-up by an independent, second device acting in case of failure of the first. In BNCT, a beam monitoring system normally consists of four beam monitors: two 235U fission chambers (neutron counters) and two GM-tubes (gamma ray counters), which are located close to the beam line, usually in the wall of the beam tube or in the (fixed) collimator, downstream from any beam shutter. The automatic opening and closing of the beam should be controlled by the fission chambers, according to a pre-set number of monitor counts which correspond to the required boron dose delivered at the dose group identification point in a patient. Both fission chambers are pre-set to close the shutters, which are automatically triggered when the target counts are reached. The fission chambers, as well as the GM-tubes, should be monitored and the counts and count rates displayed on two independent computer systems. As an additional back-up for beam shutter closure, i.e. if the monitoring system fails, a timer should be available, with a pre-set time at 2% above the given irradiation time. If called into use, closure of the beam shutters is automatically triggered.

9. Beam shutter

Depending on the reactor-type utilized, a beam shutter or shutters are necessary, such that the radiation can be stopped or reduced sufficiently in intensity, such that staff can enter the irradiation room. Some reactors, such as the HFR at Petten, operate 24 hours a day, as such the beam shutters must open and close without any mutual effect on the operation of the reactor and to reduce radiation levels to levels where the staff can enter the room. At some facilities, such as low power, TRIGA reactors, the reactor itself is shut-down as part of the treatment procedure. Beam shutters are generally made of layers of lead and borated or lithiated polyethylene. Opening and closing of the beams must be performed remotely, with emergency back-up facilities to shut the shutters, if the power supply fails. The shutters must be equipped with interlock devices to enable automatic shut-down when the required dose is achieved or in emergencies. If necessary, it should be possible to close the beam shutter(s) manually, if any electrical failure occurs. As a last resort, the beam operator has the mandate to instruct the reactor operators to scram the reactor.

DESIRED NEUTRON BEAM PARAMETERS [3]

General beam properties

Before addressing how to modify reactors and how to condition beams, it is first necessary to establish the beam characteristics desired for BNCT.

For BNCT, an adequate thermal neutron field has to be created in the boron-labelled tumour cells within a prescribed target volume. This means that for target volumes well below the surface, epithermal beams will generally be best, while for target volumes near the surface, thermal beams will suffice.

Figure 1.2 shows that an epithermal beam entering tissue creates a radiation field with a maximum thermal flux at a depth of 2'3 cm, which drops exponentially thereafter. The penetration of the beam can be increased by increasing the average energy of the epithermal neutrons and by increasing the forward direction of the beam, especially with small beam sizes. In contrast to the epithermal beam, which shows a skin-sparing effect, the thermal flux falls off exponentially from the surface. Thus, thermal neutron irradiations have been used for melanoma treatments in the skin, as well as with open craniotomy for glioma treatments. In general, however, the current trend for treatment of patients with brain tumours is to use epithermal neutron beams.

Radiobiology research for NCT, on the other hand, requires access to both thermal and epithermal beams. Clinical facilities can be used to study the effects of epithermal irradiation, but when studying the effect of boron carrier compounds using cell cultures or small animals, a pure thermal neutron field is preferred.

Most epithermal beams are accompanied by, and produce, other radiations that are not selectively absorbed by labelled cells, and therefore contribute to both normal and tumour tissue damage. It is clearly desirable to reduce these radiations as much as possible in the incident neutron beam. Since the bulk of the report will focus on patient related aspects, it can be stated that the beam design objective is to deliver an epithermal neutron fluence within a reasonable treatment time and to produce the desired thermal neutron fluence at tumour depth with minimal other radiations present.

Fig. 1.2 Comparison of flux-depth distributions for thermal and epithermal neutrons.

The two principal beam characteristics of interest are intensity and quality. Beam intensity will be the main determinant of treatment time. Beam quality relates to the types, energies, and relative intensities of all the radiations present.

Epithermal beam intensity

For the purposes of reporting beam intensity, the common definition for an epithermal energy range should be used, namely 0.5 eV to 10 keV. If other energy limits are used, they should be clearly reported. Current experience shows that a desirable minimum beam intensity would be 109 epithermal neutrons cm'2 s'1. Beams of 5 x 108 n cm'2 s'1 are useable, but result in rather long irradiation times.

When aiming at higher intensities (>1010) the advantages of shorter irradiation times must be weighed against those of improved beam quality. Where there is a choice to be made, most practitioners would rather have better quality rather than more intensity, within the constraint of having a reasonable treatment time (possibly extending up to one hour). Requiring immobilization of patients for significantly longer times reduces the clinical acceptability of BNCT as a therapy.

Tumour boron concentration will affect the requirements for beam intensity. If the boron concentration can be raised from the currently values, the beam intensity requirement (or treatment time) will be reduced proportionately. On the other hand, if the beam intensity is too low, it may be difficult to maintain the necessary boron concentration in the tumour for the total irradiation time required. To avoid unduly lengthy irradiation times, fractionation may be considered as an alternative. It could also provide opportunity for boron compound retargeting.

Incident beam quality

Beam quality is determined by four parameters under free beam conditions. They are discussed below in order of importance.

The fast neutron component

In BNCT the energy range for fast neutrons is taken as >10 keV. Fast neutrons, which invariably accompany the incident beam, have a number of undesirable characteristics such as the production of high LET protons with a resulting energy dependence of their induced biological effects. Therefore, it is one of the main objectives of BNCT beam design to reduce the fast neutron component of the incident beam as much as possible.

Another major objective is clearly to have as high an epithermal flux as possible. In existing facilities the range of dose from this component is from 2.5 to 13 x 10'13 Gy cm2 per epithermal neutron. A target number should be 2 x 10'13 Gy cm2 per epithermal neutron.

The gamma ray component

Because of the energy range of the gamma radiation, it results in a non-selective dose to both tumour tissue and a large volume of healthy tissue. Hence it is desirable to remove as much gamma radiation from the beam as possible. Since there are also (n,'') reactions occurring inside the patient, the importance of this component in the incident beam is somewhat reduced. Nevertheless, a target number for this should be 2 x 10'13 Gy cm2 per epithermal neutron. The range in existing facilities is from 1 to 13 x 10'13 Gy cm2 per epithermal neutron.

The ratio between the thermal flux and the epithermal flux

To reduce damage to the scalp, thermal neutrons in the incident beam should be minimized. A target number for the ratio of thermal flux to epithermal flux should be 0.05.

The ratio between the total neutron current and the total neutron flux

This ratio provides a measure of the fraction of neutrons that are moving in the forward beam direction. A high value is important for two reasons: (1) to limit divergence of the neutron beam and thereby reduce undesired irradiation of other tissues, and (2) to permit flexibility in patient positioning along the beam central axis. A high ratio means that the epithermal neutron flux very close to the beam port opening will change only slightly with distance from the port. In cases where the body of the patient must be positioned perpendicular to the beam axis, this will permit a patient to be positioned somewhat farther from the port. This will increase the depth dose and facilitate patient positioning without seriously diminishing the available incident beam intensity. A target number for this ratio should be greater than 0.7.

Beam size

Circular apertures of 12 to 14 cm diameter are being used in the present clinical trials. However, sizes of up to 17 cm have been proposed for irradiation of brain tumours. Other cancers in the body might require even larger apertures. These maximum sized apertures are reduced in accordance with the tumour size and position as determined by the treatment planning requirements.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

REACTOR AND BEAM DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS [3]

It is important to know how the conversion of existing research reactors was done. Typically, this has meant modifying or adding components such as the reflector, a beam port or thermal column, shielding, collimators and filters in order to try to obtain a beam of the intensity and quality needed. Key aspects of reactor modification and beam conditioning are discussed. Much of the discussion is also relevant to the design of new reactors.

Core reflector

Most existing thermal research reactors have reflectors to optimize the core efficiency. Clearly, the need to provide a source of fast neutrons for the spectrum shifting moderator, or the filter, demands that the reflector must be removed from that part of the core. This means that a careful analysis of the core neutronics needs to be undertaken prior to this modification, and more fuel may be needed as a consequence.

Spectrum shift vs. filtered beam

While spectrum shifting using a moderator has proven to give a higher efficiency in producing an epithermal beam than filtering, the choice of which technique to use is typically determined by the existing reactor design. The former method requires the availability of a large opening in the shield such as that often used for a thermal column. Figure 1.3 shows a typical example. If the reactor does not have such a space then a higher powered reactor (>10 MW) with a beam port has the option of filtering the beam. Alternatively, part of the shielding can be opened up or removed to provide space for a spectrum shifter.

Fig. 1.3 Typical spectrum shifting arrangement

Core-to-patient distance

For spectrum shift facilities, the moderator has to be placed as close to the reactor core as possible to maximize the input of fast neutrons. A shorter distance from core to patient will thereby result in a higher epithermal flux at the dose point. In addition, it will allow the reactor core to subtend a larger angle allowing the production of a converging beam of higher intensity. However, the core-to-patient distance is often limited by the need to accommodate features such as a fission converter, moderator, filters, collimators, and shutters. Certainly, increasing the distance from the reactor to the patient beyond the thickness of the existing shield decreases the available flux and should be avoided if possible. Therefore, every effort should be made to fit all beam-conditioning components and shutters within the existing shielding dimensions (Figure 1.4). Some facilities have successfully opened up their existing reactor shielding in order to provide a larger beam aperture, and shorter core-to-patient distance.

Practically, the beam components, the moderator and collimator, need a length of about 1 to 2.5 meters. This gives the desired position for irradiating the patient supposing that the patient and the personnel can be shielded from the undesired radiation from the reactor core.

Fig. 1.4 Example of an effort to minimize core-to-patient distance

For filtered beam facilities the core to patient distance is usually dictated by the original design of the reactor and is not as critical because of the inherent higher current to flux ratio.

Beam intensity and current-to-flux ratio

Increasing beam intensity is achieved by surrounding the beam with an appropriate reflector and tapering it from a wide to a narrow aperture. Suitable reflector materials for this are those with high scattering cross section and high atomic mass (resulting in little energy loss). They include Pb, Bi, PbF2.

A forward-directed beam with a current-to-flux ratio of greater than 0.7 helps to deliver a higher intensity neutron beam at a distance from the reactor shield face. This allows greater flexibility in positioning the patient. The use of collimators can be used to improve the current to flux ratio of the final incident beam.

Increasing the distance between the core and the patient will improve the current to flux ratio for a given beam diameter. Hence, for reactors which use the filtering method rather than the spectrum shift method, a very forward directed beam is the natural result of a long, narrow penetration through the biological shield. The filtering components can be installed in the beam tube and the beam can then be transported long distances without further sacrifice in intensity. The longer distance between the core and the patient may offer additional space for beam shutters.

It is important to note that removing as many fast neutrons as possible, and using a beam delimiter to improve directionality, will not necessarily maximize the dose delivered at depth. MCNP modeling has shown that hardening the spectrum slightly by adjusting the thickness of the moderator results in better beam penetration. It also has shown that attempts to improve the directionality of the beam too much can remove so many neutrons that the intensity of the beam is reduced, lowering the dose delivered to the target volume. Optimal conditioning of the beam for a given case may be dependent on the detailed geometry of the target volume.

In the final analysis, the quest for high intensity is perhaps not as important as the production of a sharply defined, high quality epithermal beam, which limits the whole body dose to the patient. With small enough whole body doses, treatment in multiple fractions can be given, compensating for lower epithermal beam intensity.

Undesirable radiation components in the incident epithermal beam

One of the key aspects of reactor conversion and beam design is to maximize the desired epithermal neutrons while minimizing the healthy tissue dose from all other radiations in the incident beam.

Fast neutron contamination

In the spectrum shift type facilities, the objective is to moderate as many fast neutrons (>10 keV) as possible down to the desired epithermal energies. In the filter type facilities, fast neutrons are removed by filtration. Moderators and filters are discussed below

Gamma contamination

Materials such as Pb and Bi, which are relatively transparent to neutrons, may be placed in the beam to reduce gamma rays originating from the reactor core, but these will nonetheless somewhat reduce neutron beam intensity. Bismuth is nearly as good as lead for shielding gamma rays, while having a higher transmission of epithermal neutrons. However, caution is necessary in handling neutron-irradiated bismuth, because of the buildup of 210Po, a bone seeking alpha emitter created by neutron capture in 209Bi with subsequent beta decay of 210Bi. Encapsulation of the bismuth is highly recommended.

Outside of the neutron beam area, high-density concrete (mixed with iron minerals) can be used to reduce gammas. Steel and iron can be protected from neutrons by shielding containing 10B or 6Li, to prevent neutron activation of these components with subsequent emission of hard gamma rays. It should be noted that 10B emits a low energy capture gamma ray (478 keV) but 6Li does not and its use is to be preferred in locations close to the patient.

Thermal neutron contamination

For epithermal neutron beams, it is desirable to limit thermal neutron contamination by filtering. Filter materials for thermal neutrons require either elements with 6Li or 10B (1/v cross sections) or Cd (0.4 eV resonance). The 1/v cross section materials may deplete the lower energy part of the epithermal neutron spectrum, but Cd produces a high energy capture gamma ray which is difficult to control and cadmium oxide represents a health hazard.

Moderators (or spectrum shifters)

Moderation of fast neutrons is best accomplished by low atomic mass materials. Any moderator or filter materials chosen must not decompose in a high radiation field, nor produce moisture. Any neutron activation products from the materials should be short lived. Suitable candidates in the literature are Al, C, S, Al2O3, AlF3, D2O, and (CF2)n. Combinations of Al followed by Al2O3 or AlF3 downstream are very efficient because the O and F cross-sections fill in the valleys between the energy resonance peaks of Al. FLUENTALTM was developed by the technical Research Centre of Finland and stands up well to radiation, but is very expensive. TEFLONTM is susceptible to radiation damage, but even so, may be acceptable when exposed to the relatively modest neutron fluences projected for the facility over its anticipated lifetime.

Filters

Analyses have been done for various materials that may be helpful for reactor facilities desiring to use the filter methodology. The objective is to start with a very high intensity beam from a high power reactor and filter out all but the neutrons with energies of 0.01 to 10 keV from the reactor beam. This can be done with thick neutron filters of natural or isotopically enriched materials, for which an interference minimum in the total neutron cross section exists in this epithermal energy range.

The total cross section of 60Ni isotope has the deep and wide interference minimum in the energy range from several eV to 10 keV and therefore this material is useful for BNCT purposes. To suppress the neutron groups with energies above 10 keV a set of additional filter materials must be used. Materials such as the isotopes 32S, 10B and others may be used.

By using the 99.5% enriched 60Ni isotope (112 g cm'2) as the main filter component and 32S (54 g cm'2) and 10B (1.15 g cm'2) isotopes as additional filters, a beam with an energy range of 0.01 to 9 keV may be obtained with a purity in the main neutron group of about 92%.

If the above filter design is modified by the addition of some 99.7% enriched 54Fe (50 g cm'2) isotope, a filtered neutron beam may be obtained with approximately 96% of the neutrons in the energy range of 0.01 to 6 keV.

Collimators

Collimators inside the shielding should reflect neutrons back into the beam. Therefore, neutron reflecting type materials are used. Collimators that are used near the beam exit are beam delimiters and should absorb rather than reflect neutrons. Interchangeable exit collimators having different size inner bore diameters can be used to delimit the final size and divergence of the beam delivered at the patient treatment position. These collimators are made with B4C or 6Li2CO3 dispersed in polyethylene. Epithermal neutrons striking the wall of the collimator are thermalized and captured with minimal emission of hard gamma rays, which could shower the patient.

Shutters

A dedicated NCT reactor that can be started up and brought to full power quickly and reproducibly might not need a shutter. However, the need for continuous operation of the reactor or other characteristics of the reactor operation can dictate the installation of one or more beam shutters. Even with the reactor shut down, a shutter may be required to protect personnel working in the treatment area from radiation from the core and long lived radioactive components along the beam line.

The extra space required for a shutter needs to be taken into account in the design of the irradiation facility. To save space along the beam direction, the filter/moderator can be arranged to move into the space in the beam line vacated by the shutter when it moves into the open position. Another important consideration is the loading capacity of the building structure supporting the weight of the shutter and the available crane capacity required to assemble the shutter. This is not a trivial problem, since the dense materials comprising the shutter can weigh many tons.

A combination of fast acting and slow acting shutters achieve a balance between requirements for quick termination of high dose levels and reduction of low level residual dose at the patient position. The fast acting shutter can be thinner and lighter. Also, the use of a fission converter may require a separate shutter to prevent undesired burnup of the converter fuel.

One shutter design involves pumping water, containing boron, in or out of a tank placed in the beam. This has the advantages of remote storage capability in the open beam configuration, and mechanical simplicity compared with controlled movement of massive blocks. Under power failure, shutter mechanisms should fail in the closed position (i.e. use gravity to close the shutter).

Reactor beam design analysis

Beam design requires a great deal of safety analysis prior to any submission of the facility change to the licensing authority for approval.

The Monte Carlo code, MCNP, has been demonstrated to be very useful for the detailed design of a beam facility and gives excellent agreement with measured values of spectra and flux. However, it can be very laborious to use at the early stages when a variety of potential configurations are being studied. Therefore, for design optimization studies a 2 or 3 dimensional transport codes is more convenient.

The adaptability of the 2-D ordinate transport code DOT for the design of a neutron beam for BNCT was verified during the design of the JRR-4 neutron beam facility. The neutron spectra and neutron fluxes calculated by DOT were in good agreement with those measured by the foil activation method using Au, Au covered by Cd, Cu and Ni foils.

Approaches to Using Reactors for Epithermal Neutron BNCT

In the past, neutron beam facilities for NCT have not generally been part of the original design specifications for research or test reactors. The two exceptions are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor (MITR) [4] and the now decommissioned Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor (BMRR) [5], both of which were commissioned in the 1950s when interest in testing the concept of BNCT initially developed. The NCT facilities at these reactors were designed specifically for thermal neutron NCT and were used in the early clinical studies during the 1950s. During the 1990s, Brookhaven [6] and MIT [7] each constructed epithermal neutron beams at these reactors that were subsequently used in more recent trials of BNCT. More recently, a new, small (30 kW) reactor specifically designed for NCT has been constructed near a hospital site in Beijing, China [8]. This is the first reactor constructed specifically for BNCT since the 1950s.

Research interest in BNCT grew rapidly in the 1990s, and as the feasibility of external beam irradiations became clear, a significant number of research or test reactors were modified to incorporate epithermal neutron beams. The most common approach for retrofitting these reactors is to use the reactor core directly as the source for the epithermal neutron beam. Reactors ranging in power from 100 kW to several MW have been successfully converted using this approach. Examples include the low-power (250 kW) Finnish reactor FiR-1, the 1 MW Washington State University Reactor, and the high-power (45 MW) test reactor, HFR, at Petten. Small, low-power ultrasafe reactors could also be built to obtain high-performance epithermal neutron beams using designs that are specifically optimized for BNCT. These reactors would require only 100'300 kW of fission power because core neutrons could be used directly as a source for the epithermal neutron beam. Several preliminary designs have been proposed for this type of special purpose reactor. These special purpose NCT reactors could be expected to meet the requirements for clinical investigations of BNCT as well as more routine clinical treatments [9].

Another approach to modifying existing reactors for epithermal NCT is to use a subcritical array of fuel called a fission converter originally proposed by Rief et al. that is located outside the reactor core and driven by thermalized neutrons from the moderator. The first such facility, known as the fission converter beam (FCB), was constructed at the MITR. A few other fission converter-based beams have been designed, one for the 3-MW BMRR and another for the 2 MW McClellan Air Force Base Reactor. A fission converter is particularly appropriate for higher power or multipurpose research reactors without a movable core that support a broad range of experiments [9].

Performance of Some Current Epithermal Neutron Irradiation Facilities [9]

Table 1.1 summarizes parameters and figures of merit published for most epithermal neutron beams that have been used in NCT clinical trials together with pertinent details about the corresponding irradiation facilities. The figures of merit are good first-order indicators of beam performance. More sophisticated analyses, such as treatment plans for identical targets showing tumor isodose contours as well as dose to nearby normal tissue, are beyond the scope of this chapter. The data in Table 1.1 are taken from an experimental study comparing seven different clinical epithermal neutron beams [10] as well as published reports on the performance and features of the irradiation facilities. Unless otherwise noted, the figures of merit (where available) are all derived using a common set of dose conversion parameters, boron concentrations, and

Table 1.1 Facility characteristics and beam performance figures of merit for various clinical NCT centers determined by in-air and in-phantom measurements using BPA and where available (in brackets) a hypothetical advanced boron compound

Boron concentrations of 18 and 65 ''g g'1 are assumed in normal brain and tumor tissue, respectively, for BPA and 0.65 and 65 ''g g'1 for the advanced compound. The applied RBEs are 1.0 for photons and 3.2 for neutrons. The cRBEs are 1.35 in brain and 3.8 in tumor for BPA and 3.8 in both tissue and tumor for the advanced compound

a Advantage parameters for the KUR epithermal neutron beam are reported for tumor and brain boron concentrations of 40 and 11.4 ''g g'1, respectively

weighting factors that are representative of brain irradiations using both BPA and an advanced compound.

The advantage depth (AD) or useful beam penetration should exceed a minimum of 8 cm if external beam brain irradiations are contemplated. An 8'10-mm-thick filter of pure 6Li as in the case of the Studsvik and MIT beams hardens the neutron energy spectrum and provides a significant increase in AD, thereby improving dose coverage for the deepest tumors. A lithium filter does, however, reduce therapeutic margin in shallow tumors and is associated with a roughly 50 % reduction in beam intensity that increases treatment time. 6Li filtration is therefore best used as an option for deeper tumors in beams with the highest intensity where the reduced output does not lead to excessively long irradiations. All of the currently available epithermal neutron beams achieve an AD of at least 8 cm with BPA, increasing significantly when parameters for an advanced compound are applied, where the most penetrating beams have an AD exceeding 11 cm.

The advantage ratio (AR) is the total tumor-to-normal-tissue dose ratio averaged from the beam entrance to the advantage depth. This varies between five and six in most beams when using BPA which indicates an average tumor dose five to six times higher than in nearby normal tissue. The advantage ratio is generally higher in beams with lower contamination, but this figure of merit depends principally on the boron uptake parameters, increasing to nearly 12 for an advanced compound in the cleanest beams.

High beam intensity is important to minimize treatment times. Short irradiations are more comfortable for the patient and more efficient for clinical staff. Shorter fields also mitigate degradation in the therapeutic advantage that may occur as the compound is washed out of tissue and tumor following administration. However, patient throughput is at present limited by the clinical resources available to BNCT rather than the duration of irradiations or the capacity and availability of suitable neutron sources. High beam intensity is nevertheless desirable for the reasons described earlier and for future development to enable larger, more comprehensive studies that rigorously evaluate the efficacy of this modality.

Some facilities have incorporated options to control the neutron energy spectrum by adding one or more tanks to the beamline that can be filled with heavy water to moderate neutrons with low parasitic absorption. Other groups have augmented their beamline to accommodate cassettes containing solid lithium metal which hardens the neutron energy spectrum and may be added or removed as needed. Reactor-based beamlines can therefore extract neutrons spanning the entire energy range of interest in BNCT from thermal up to ~10 keV, and this may prove advantageous because no single neutron energy is optimum for tumors at all depths in tissue.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

BNCT Beam configuration

A schematic diagram for a multilayer BNCT beam is illustrated in Fig. 3.1. Monte Carlo N'Particle code 'MCNP5' [11] is usually used for beam modeling and design calculations [3]. MCNP tallies provide the ability to calculate different required parameters. Free beam parameters are calculated at the beam port.

The beam is designed starting with the empty beam which is modeled by an aluminum hollow cylinder of 50 cm internal radius, 5 cm radial thickness, and 200 cm length, which is the source to patient distance, filled with air and surrounded by a cylindrical layer of water with 25 cm radial thickness. The neutron source is placed in the beam inlet. It is modeled as a surface source with 30 cm radius.

The design process of the beam components is developed in sequence as follows:

Reflector (R), Collimator (C), and Shield (SH)

First thermal neutron filter (TF1), if needed

Spectrum shifter layers (L1, L2, '..,and LN)

Second thermal neutron filter (TF2)

Gamma filter/s (GF).

Fig. 3.1 Schematic diagram BNCT beam configuration

A special concern is given to the spectrum shifter design since it is the most challenged and effective component in the beam design as well as the novelty of the approach used for its design. A simplified design has been done for other components of the beam, whenever needed, in the cases studied in this work (Sec. 3 and 4).

The radial components (Reflector, Collimator, and Shield) have been designed first because they have less effect than axial components on the spectrum shape as well as they are assumed as a frame for the neutrons movement. In this way, it is easier to evaluate the performance of the axial components, especially the spectrum shifter. However, an optimized design could be done for the radial components after completing the beam design, if needed. The radius of the spectrum shifter is considered 30 cm as the source radius.

Lead is suitable and widely used for reflector and collimator [3], since it has a high scattering cross section and a high atomic mass to reduce energy loss per collision. So, a cylindrical layer of Lead reflector of 30 cm internal radius, 20 cm radial thickness, and 100 cm length is modeled inside the beam next to the source surface. Also, a truncated hollow cone collimator of Lead is connecting between the reflector and the beam port with 100 cm length. The inner and outer base radii are 30 cm and 50 cm, respectively, while the inner and outer aperture radii are 7 cm and 27 cm. The space between the collimator and the aluminum layer is filled with Li2CO3-poly to act as a neutron shield.

3.2 Proposed spectrum shifter design methodology

The main function of the spectrum shifter is the modification of the neutron spectrum to provide an intense epithermal flux with an accepted quality by reduction of fast neutron dose per epithermal flux 'or specific fast neutron dose',  (D_f ) '''_epi . This function could be achieved through using materials having appropriate characteristics and arranging them in a suitable manner.

The proposed design method for epithermal multilayer BNCT spectrum shifter is based on two concepts. The first is named: 'the stepwise spectrum shifting', and the second is 'the separation of the design process into two design stages', namely the materials selection and the thickness determination.

Stepwise spectrum shifting:

The spectrum shifting process will be done in steps using successive layers of efficient materials. Each layer focuses on a corresponding specific energy interval 'group' in the fast energy range starting with the higher energies first. This process could be achieved by dividing the fast energy range into a number of fast energy groups (m) as shown in table 3.1, where:

(j = 1:n) are the numbers of layers,

(i = 1:m) are the numbers of fast groups,

Ei (i = 1:m) are the energy lower boundaries,

E1 is the minimum energy in the fast neutron spectrum (equals to 10 keV),

Gi (i = 1:m) are the fast neutrons groups.

    Table 3.1

    The layers and fast groups numbers, energy groups, and corresponding fast neutron groups

Layer # Fast group #

(in descending order) Energy group

(Range of energy) Fast neutron group

(in descending order)

1 m E>Em Gm

2 m-1 Em-1<E<Em Gm-1

3 m-2 Em-2<E<Em-1 Gm-2

j i Ei<E<Ei+1 Gi

n-1 2 E2<E<E3 G2

n 1 E1<E<E2 G1

The sequence of energy levels is from the higher to the lower energies because the spectrum shifting process is required in this direction. The energy range 'and boundaries' of each group depend on the efficiency range of the corresponding efficient material. In other words, the energy range extend to the lowest energy level at which the corresponding efficient material still achieves the efficiency criterion.

In this way, it will be feasible to select the most efficient materials that are appropriate for each energy group.  Also, we will be able to arrange the materials in order based on the energy levels. This will result in an arrangement of a multilayer spectrum shifter. The number of layers 'n' will be equal to the number of energy groups 'm'. After the appropriate materials for all groups are selected, the thickness of each layer is determined.

First stage: Material selection

The materials will be selected based on neutron cross section data from which an efficiency criterion is defined. The function of each layer is to moderate the fast neutrons of the corresponding energy group to the lower energies with minimum reduction of neutrons with lower energies 'especially the desired epithermal neutrons'. Therefore, the efficient material for a certain layer should have a large scattering cross section in the corresponding energy range but relatively low cross section at the lower energies especially at the epithermal energies.

The material of the first layer (L1) is selected to deal mainly with the last fast neutron group 'Gm' that has the most energetic neutrons with energies (E > Em). The aim of this layer is to moderate neutrons in this energy group and shift them down to the lower energies (i.e. E < Em). Then, the material of the second layer (L2) is selected to deal mainly with the fast neutron group 'Gm-1' to shift the neutron energies from this group to the lower energy groups. The sequence is followed for all other layers. To select the efficient materials for each energy group, a parameter R_FG (E) 'Fast Group Ratio' is defined as:

R_FG (E)=''_FG (E)/''_Epi

where ''_FG (E) is the fast elastic scattering cross section at energy, E and ''_Epi is the effective epithermal cross section.

A material will be efficient for a certain energy group if it has values of  R_FG for all or most of energies in this group larger than the values of R_FG for lower energies. That is the efficiency criterion for the material selection. It is worth mentioning that the general considerations for selection of spectrum shifters materials, which were previously mentioned in the introduction, are still applied.

Java-based Nuclear Information Software (JANIS) [12] has been used to calculate and plot the parameter R_FG over the fast energy range for the studied elements: (Al-27, Mg, C, F-19, O-16, Li-7, Ni-60), which are the main components of materials usually used as spectrum shifters or filters [1,13]. Neutron cross section data used has been obtained from ENDF/B-7.1 library. Accordingly, the efficient and suitable materials have been selected.

Second stage: Thickness determination

Since the function of the spectrum shifter is to reduce the fast neutron dose per epithermal flux, (D_f ) '''_epi , the optimum thickness of each layer is determined based on the partial achievement of this function to reach the final design goal. We have put a final design goal that the in-air fast neutron dose per epithermal flux at the beam port reduced to a value less than 1.0E-13 Gy.cm2/n. The final design goal assumed here is less than the IAEA recommended value, which is 2.0E-13 Gy.cm2/n. (table 1). To achieve this final goal, the following thickness criteria are proposed:

The 1st layer should has a thickness that reduces the specific neutron dose, at the beam port, resulting from neutrons with energies > Em, i.e. D ''_(f(E>E_m))'''_epi , to a value less than 1.5E-13 Gy.cm2/n.

Each of other layers, Lj, should has a thickness that reduces the specific neutron dose, at the beam port, resulting from neutrons with energies > Ei, i.e. D ''_(f(E>E_i))'''_epi , to a value less than 1.5E-13 Gy.cm2/n.

The last layer should has a thickness that reduces the specific neutron dose resulting from all fast neutron groups, i.e. D ''_(f(E>E_1))'''_epi , to a value less than 1.0E-13 Gy.cm2/n.

In this way we can determine the optimum thickness for each layer.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

In order to validate 'or test' the developed methodology (or proposed method) of the spectrum shifter design, it has been applied on two cases studies using two different neutron spectra as neutron sources:

Watt fission neutron spectrum.

Leakage neutron and gamma spectra of a real typical MTR-TYPE reactor.

In both cases, the source neutrons assumed to be monodirectional.  

BNCT beam design using Watt fission neutron spectrum source

In the first case study, Watt fission neutron spectrum is assumed as a neutron source to consider the case of fission converter-based BNCT beam which found to be more efficient approach in the literature [14]. The constants for the fissionable isotope 235U given in MCNP5 manual [11], are used for SDEF card in MCNP input file.

The beam has been designed in sequence as mentioned in Sec. 2. In air beam port quality parameters for the empty beam have been calculated and shown in Table 4.3.

Reflector, Collimator, and Shield

Neutron in air beam port quality parameters after adding reflector, collimator, and shield have been calculated and presented in Table 4.4. It could be noted that the epithermal flux has been enhanced but the epithermal current has not been increased with the same factor, so current to flux ratio has been decreased. Also, thermal to epithermal flux as well as specific fast neutron dose have been decreased by factor more than 10.

            Table 4.3

          In air beam port quality parameters for the empty beam for case 1

'''_epi='''_epi0  

(n.cm2/sec) ''_th'''_epi (D_f ) '''_epi =D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

2.41E-07 0.64 6.54E-09 3.19E-12 0.82

Table 4.4

Neutron in air beam port quality parameters after adding reflector, collimator,

and shield for case 1

''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

16.99 0.06 5.61E-10 0.62

Spectrum shifter

The spectrum shifter is designed in two stages according to the proposed method mentioned previously in Sec. 2.

First stage: Material selection

The parameter R_FG for the studied elements have been plotted using (JANIS) over the fast energy range of the fission neutron spectrum (i.e. E > 10 keV) as shown in Fig. 4.1 and 4.2.

It is obvious in Fig. 4.1 that Li-7 mostly meets the efficiency criterion for the energy range, E > ~200 keV since the values of R_FG at the energy range, E > ~200 keV, are larger than 1 with values reach to 10 at some energies, whereas its value at the energy range, E < ~200 keV, equals to ~1. In addition, Li-7 has the advantages of its low mass number and low gamma emission. To overcome the high reactivity problem of pure lithium [15], it could be used in a compound form. Since fluorine is a good inelastic scattering material, Lithium fluoride (7LiF) has been selected as a first layer  

Fig. 4.1. Group ratios for the studied materials

Fig. 4.2. Group ratios for the studied materials

material in the spectrum shifter. Considering the energy range, ~30 < E < ~200 keV, it is clear that Aluminum and Fluorine are better than all other studied materials with values for Aluminum reach to 20 at some energies, whereas its values at the energy range, E < ~30 keV, are ' 1, with only an exception within a very narrow energy range around 8.5 keV. Therefore, AlF3 has been selected as the second layer material in the spectrum shifter. Considering the energy range, ~10 < E < ~30 keV, Ni-60 has been selected for the third layer since it is the most efficient material in this energy range as shown in the fig. 4.2. In this manner, the spectrum shifter is structured from three layers. The efficient and selected spectrum shifter materials, and corresponding energy groups are presented in Table 4.5.

  Table 4.5

  The efficient & selected materials of each layer and corresponding neutron & energy groups for case 1

Layer

# Fast group # Energy group

(Range of energy) Fast neutron group Efficient Material(s) Selected Material

1 3 > 200 keV G3 7Li 7LiF

2 2 30 keV – 200 keV G2 Al & F AlF3

3 1 10 keV – 30 keV G1 Ni-60 Ni-60

In this simple way the optimum material for each layer as well as the sequence of these materials could be determined rapidly based on a rigid basis making use of the neutron cross section data.

Second stage: Thickness determination

The optimum thickness for each layer is determined according to the thickness criteria stated in Sec. 2. Firstly, the 1st layer should reduce the specific neutron dose resulting from neutrons with energies > 200 keV, D ''_(f(E>200keV))'''_epi , to a value less than 1.5E-13 Gy.cm2/n. Using MCNP5 code, a parametric study for 7LiF has been done. The optimum thickness is found to be 36 cm since the ratio of interest is 1.24E-13 Gy.cm2/n. In air beam port quality parameters after adding the first spectrum shifter layer (7LiF) have been calculated and presented in Table 4.6.

  Table 4.6

     In air beam port quality parameters after adding the first spectrum shifter layer for case 1

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>200keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

7LiF 36 24.75 0.13 1.24E-13 0.72

Then, the second layer (AlF3) has been introduced next to a thickness of 36 cm of 7LiF. It should reduce the specific neutron dose resulting from neutrons with energies > 30 keV, D ''_(f(E>30keV))'''_epi , to a value less than 1.5E-13 Gy.cm2/n. The optimum thickness has been found to be 2 cm, since D ''_(f(E>30keV))'''_epi  value reduced to 1.14E-13 Gy.cm2/n. as shown in Table 4.7.

     Table 4.7

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the second spectrum shifter layer for case 1

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>30keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

AlF3 2 23.31 0.14 1.14E-13 0.72

Finally, for the third layer which is the last layer; the design goal is to reduce D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  to be less than 1.0E-13 Gy.cm2/n. 2 cm thickness of 60Ni layer is enough to reduce D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  value to be 9.19E-14 Gy.cm2/n. without significant effect on epithermal flux as shown in Table 4.8. In this way, the required design goal has been achieved. The relative epithermal flux '''_epi'''_epi0 ' at the beam port, is 23.03.

     Table 4.8

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the third (last) spectrum shifter layer for case 1

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

60Ni 2 23.03 0.09 9.19E-14 0.72

In other words, this design of spectrum shifter could increase the epithermal flux at the beam port as well as reducing specific fast neutron dose from the value 5.61E-10 Gy.cm2/n to a value less than 9.2E-14, i.e. more than 6000 times lower, which is enough below the recommended value by IAEA. In this way, the optimum thickness could be determined for each layer rapidly and in a simple way.

Thermal neutron filter

Since the value of ''_th'''_epi  is about 0.09 which is higher than the recommended value (0.05), a thermal neutron filter is needed to achieve this goal. A Cadmium filter has been selected to be 0.02 cm thickness has been found enough to reduce the thermal flux to a value below the recommended value. The ratio of interest, ''_th'''_epi , has been reached to a value of 0.04, which is acceptable. In air beam port quality parameters after adding the thermal filter are calculated and presented in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the thermal filter for case 1

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

Cd 0.02 22.84 0.04 9.33E-14 2.39E-13 0.74

Gamma filter

After adding Cadmium filter, gamma dose per epithermal flux has reached a value of 2.39E-13 Gy.cm2/n. So, a gamma filter is needed to reduce this value to be less than the recommended value by IAEA. Bismuth is usually used as a gamma filter in BNCT beams. Using 2 cm of bismuth could reduce the specific gamma dose to 1.41E-13 Gy.cm2/n, which is below the recommended value. Final values for the in air beam port quality parameters after adding the gamma filter have been calculated and listed in Table 4.10. It is clear that all parameters meet the IAEA recommended values which are desired.

Table 4.10

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the gamma filter for case 1

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

Bi 2 20.82 0.04 8.74E-14 1.41E-13 0.72

Optimum position of the thermal neutron filter

It may be better to place the thermal filter between the first and the second layers in the spectrum shifter in order to make use of the second and the third layers of the spectrum shifter reducing gamma radiation passing to the beam port as well as to avoid activation of AlF3 layer, since Aluminum emits hard gamma. A comparison has been done between the in air parameters resulting from this configuration, when placement of the thermal filter between the first and the second layers in the spectrum shifter, versus those resulting from the previous assumed configuration when placement of the thermal filter next to the last layer in the spectrum shifter. The results of comparison are listed in Table 4.11. It is clear from the table that the new position gives about 10% less contamination than the previous configuration while there is no significant effect on other parameters. So, the selected position of the thermal filter is between the first and the second layers in the spectrum shifter. The final MCNP beam model is illustrated in fig. 4.3.

Table 4.11

Comparison between in air beam port quality parameters when placement of the thermal filter in two different positions for case 1

Position of the thermal filter ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

Next to the last layer in the spectrum shifter 20.82 0.04 8.74E-14 1.41E-13 0.72

Between the 1st and the 2nd spectrum shifter layers 20.74

0.04 8.86E-14

1.26E-13

0.72

Fig. 4.3. Schematic diagram of the final beam MCNP model for case 1

Validation of proposed spectrum shifter design methodology using a Watt fission neutron spectrum source

To evaluate and validate the developed design method, comparisons have been done, between the in air beam port parameters of the proposed spectrum shifter and the well-known patent material 'FLUENTALTM' which gives high quality BNCT beams found in the literature [3].

Comparisons have been done for case study 1. Firstly, a comparison has been done between the proposed spectrum shifter (40 cm thickness) with Cd thermal filter (0.02 cm) and Bi gamma filter (2 cm) versus those of FLUENTALTM (40 cm thickness) but without thermal filter nor gamma filter since no need for them. The results listed in Table 4.23 confirm that the proposed spectrum shifter is more effective than FLUENTALTM, since it could reach the design goals with a thickness of 40 cm only while FLUENTALTM still far from the recommended value of specific fast neutron dose, (D_f ) '''_epi , which is about 600% higher than its value for our design. To reduce the value of (D_f ) '''_epi  when using FLUENTALTM to be comparable with its value for the proposed spectrum shifter, the thickness of FLUENTALTM has been increased. But when this thickness reaches to 55 cm, the intensity of epithermal flux deceased below its value for our design while the specific fast neutron dose, (D_f ) '''_epi , still 60 % higher than its value for our design as well as the thermal neutron contamination increased to a value above the recommended value as shown in Table 4.23. These results confirm that the proposed design is more efficient than FLUENTALTM for such a hard fission neutron spectrum.

TABLE 4.23

Comparison between in air beam port parameters of the proposed spectrum shifter and FLUENTALTM for case 1

Material

& Thickness ''_epi'''_epi0 ''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

Proposed spectrum shifter (40 cm)

with Cd thermal filter (0.02 cm)

and Bi gamma filter (2 cm) 20.74

0.04 8.86E-14

1.26E-13

0.72

FLUENTALTM (40 cm) 26.31 0.04 5.31E-13 1.51E-13 0.71

FLUENTALTM (55 cm) 19.84 0.07 1.43E-13 1.06E-13 0.73

 

The significant difference in fast neutron dose per epithermal flux,  (D_f ) '''_epi , values between our design and  FLUENTALTM) need a special concern since it is the most important parameter in spectrum shifter design. The efficiency of the spectrum shifter could be measured from this parameter coupled with the value of epithermal flux. So, it is really an interesting result that the proposed design could achieve this goal with only 40 cm thickness of the multilayer spectrum shifter.

BNCT beam design for a typical MTR-TYPE reactor

Another case has been studied, in which a multilayer spectrum shifter has been designed using a normalized leakage neutron spectrum of a real typical MTR-TYPE reactor [16]. Neutron and gamma-ray spectra of the MTR reactor have been calculated using the MCNP5 code, and plotted in figures 4.4 and 4.5, respectively. MCNP model obtained from Ref. [16]. The beam has been designed in sequence as mentioned in Sec. 2. In air beam port quality parameters for the empty beam for this case are shown in Table 4.12. It could be noted that thermal and fast neutrons as well as gamma rays contaminations are far from the recommended values by IAEA. So, they need to be reduced without significant effect on epithermal flux. The value of ''_epi0 is given per source neutron.

Table 4.12

In air beam port quality parameters for the empty beam for case 2

''_epi0  

(n.cm2/sec) ''_th'''_epi

D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

1.03E-04 0.86 3.25E-12 1.27E-11 0.99

Fig. 4.4. Beam inlet normalized neutron energy spectrum for case 2

Reflector, Collimator, and Shield

The same simplified design of the reflector, the collimator, and the shield is assumed as the first case. The neutron in air beam port quality parameters when adding reflector, collimator, and adding shield have been calculated and presented in Table 4.13. Although the epithermal current is increased, the epithermal flux is also increased with a larger fraction, so the current to flux ratio has been reduced.

Fig. 4.5. Beam inlet gamma energy spectrum for case 2

Table 4.13

Neutron in air beam port quality parameters after adding

reflector, collimator, and shield for case 2

''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi

D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

1.83 0.79 2.61E-12 0.81

First thermal neutron filter

Since there are a high fraction of thermal neutrons emitted from core, a thermal neutron filter is needed to be placed prior to the spectrum shifter to reduce activation of the spectrum shifter materials and the production of more gamma radiation.

Cadmium is efficient in cutting the thermal neutrons from the spectrum with a slight effect on epithermal neutrons. The disadvantage of Cadmium is its intense gamma emission. Considering that the gamma radiation emitted from core already requires a gamma filter and because this position, in the beam inlet, is far from the patient position and followed by a thick spectrum shifter materials; Cd has been selected as a thermal neutron filter in the beam inlet. Thickness of 0.2 cm is enough to reduce ''_th'''_epi  to a very low level, 0.02 with a small effect on epithermal neutrons, about 3% drop, as shown in Table 4.14.

     Table 4.14

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the first thermal filter for case 2

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

Cd 0.2 1.77 0.02 2.63E-12 0.80

Spectrum shifter

The proposed method has been applied to design a spectrum shifter for this case study. The results are presented in Table 4.15. It is worth mentioning that the selected materials are the same as in the first case study since the range of energy is similar. However, the optimum thickness of layer 1 is found to be 28 cm. That is less than its value in case 1 with 8 cm. This is logic since the spectrum of case study 2 is a moderated spectrum.  

  Table 4.15

  The selected materials and optimum thickness for each

 spectrum shifter layer for case study two

Layer # Selected Material Thickness(cm)

1 7LiF 28

2 AlF3 2

3 Ni-60 3

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the first, the second, and the third spectrum shifter layers are presented in tables 4.16, 4.17, and 4.18, respectively.

Table 4.16

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the first spectrum shifter layer for case 2

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi

D ''_(f(E>200keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

7LiF 28 4.66E-02 0.23 1.49E-13 0.72

     Table 4.17

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the second spectrum shifter layer for case 2

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi

D ''_(f(E>30keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

AlF3 2 4.32E-02 0.26 1.36E-13 0.73

Table 4.18

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the third (last) spectrum shifter layer for case 2

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi

D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

60Ni 3 3.97E-02 0.14 9.41E-14 9.53E-12 0.73

Second thermal neutron filter

Because of moderation through the spectrum shifter, the thermal to epithermal flux ratio increased to a value of 0.14, which is larger than the recommended value. So, a second thermal filter is required. As mentioned before, Cadmium is an efficient thermal neutron absorber but emits intense gamma radiation. Since a gamma filter is required to shield gamma rays emitted from spectrum shifter materials and others coming from core, Cadmium has been used as a 2nd thermal neutron filter between the second and the third layer in the spectrum shifter as in case one. A layer of 0.3 cm thickness of Cd reduces the thermal to epithermal flux ratio to a value of about 0.04, which is below IAEA recommended limit, with neglected effect on epithermal flux (about 5 % decrease). The results of calculations after adding the 2nd thermal filter are listed in Table 4.19.

   Table 4.19

   In air beam port quality parameters after adding the second thermal filter for case 2

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

Cd 0.3 3.70E-02 0.04 9.81E-14 8.96E-12 0.73

Gamma filter

The sources of gamma rays include: the reactor core, Cadmium thermal filters, and the spectrum shifter. Comparison between Pb and Bi has been done to select the optimum gamma filter. A gamma filter has been examined next to the spectrum shifter.

After adding the second thermal filter, gamma dose per epithermal flux has reached a value of 8.96E-12 Gy.cm2/n. So, a gamma filter is needed. A comparison has been done between two arrangements: using a single bismuth filter with 10 cm thickness next to the second thermal filter versus using two bismuth filters, the first is 5 cm thickness and placed between the first thermal filter, and the second is 5 cm thickness also but placed next to the second thermal. The results of comparison are shown in Table 4.20. It is clear that in air beam port quality parameters are better when using two gamma filters with 5 cm thickness each than using a single gamma filter with 10 cm thickness. So, it has been decide to use two gamma filters in the positions as mentioned above.

Table 4.20

In air beam port quality parameters after adding the gamma filter for case 2

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi

D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

Bi 10 2.46E-02 0.05 7.60E-14 3.02E-13 0.73

Bi 5+5 2.69E-02 0.05 6.40E-14 2.80E-13 0.73

Since the value of (D_'' ) '''_epi  is still higher than the recommended value by IAEA, the thickness of the first gamma filter has been increased to 8 cm to reach a value of 1.46E-13 Gy.cm2/n., which is accepted.

Final in air beam port quality parameters after adding the gamma filters have been calculated and presented in Table 4.21. It is clear that all parameters meet the IAEA recommended values except epithermal to thermal flux ratio which is slightly below the recommended value. Also, the final MCNP beam model is illustrated in fig. 4.6.

 Table 4.21

 Final in air beam port quality parameters after adding two Bismuth gamma filters for case 2

Material Thickness

(cm) ''_epi'''_epi0

''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

Bi 8+6 2.33E-02 0.05 5.95E-14 1.46E-13 0.72

Collimator thickness

Finally, to evaluate the effect of decreasing the thickness of collimator, a comparison between in air parameters when using Pb collimator with cross section thickness of 10 and 20 cm. The results of this comparison are listed in Table 4.22. Although the current to flux ratio could be increased by 3% when decreasing the collimator

Fig. 4.6. Schematic diagram of the final beam MCNP model for case 2

thickness from 20 cm to 10 cm, this would reduce the epithermal flux with percentage more than 20% drop as well as increase the specific fast neutron and gamma doses with more than 16% each. So, this has a considerable effect on both of the intensity and quality of the beam which is undesired.

Table 4.22

Comparison between in air parameters when using Pb collimator with thickness 10 and 20 cm for case 2

Collimator

cross section

thickness ''_epi'''_epi0

''_epi'''_th

D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi  (Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

20 cm 2.33E-02 0.05 5.95E-14 1.46E-13 0.72

10 cm 1.78E-02 0.05 6.95E-14 1.72E-13 0.75

Validation of proposed spectrum shifter design methodology in a typical MTR-TYPE reactor

In a similar manner, comparisons have been done between some configurations for case 2 using the proposed spectrum shifter and the patent material FLUENTALTM. The results of these comparison are listed in Table 4.24. To evaluate the relative difference between the proposed spectrum shifter and the patent material FLUENTALTM, we have used the results presented above in Table 4.18 for configuration 1 and compare these results with others resulting from configuration 2 when using FLUENTALTM instead of the proposed spectrum shifter. Also, configuration 1 has been compared with configuration 3 in which the thickness of FLUENTALTM is increased to 45 cm. As for case 1, it is clear from the results that the proposed spectrum shifter is more effective in achievement of a BNCT beam with low specific neutron dose.

Another comparison has been done between the results listed in Table 4.20 for configuration 4 of the proposed spectrum shifter versus the results from configurations 5 of FLUENTALTM as shown in Table 4.24. It is clear from the results that the proposed spectrum shifter gives higher quality beams than FLUENTALTM.

These results confirm that the developed design method in this work could generate efficient and effective spectrum shifters for epithermal BNCT beams in research reactors compared to one of the best beam designs.

Parametric analysis for the selected spectrum shifter materials

Various parametric studies have been done for the selected spectrum shifter materials (7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni) using MCNP5 code to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of these materials for each energy group. The neutron spectrum of the case study two has been used as a neutron source. A cadmium layer with 0.1 cm thickness is used as a thermal neutron filter placed next to the

TABLE 4.24

Comparison between in air beam port parameters of the proposed spectrum shifter and FLUENTALTM for case 2

Configura-tion

# Material

& Thickness ''_epi'''_epi0 ''_th'''_epi D ''_(f(E>10keV))'''_epi   

(Gy.cm2/n) (D_'' ) '''_epi  

(Gy.cm2/n) J_epi'''_epi

1 Proposed spectrum shifter

(33 cm) with the 1ST Cd thermal filter 3.97E-02 0.14 9.41E-14 9.53E-12 0.73

2 FLUENTALTM (33 cm) with the 1ST Cd thermal filter

(0.2 cm) only 5.11E-02 0.13 4.12E-13 8.24E-12 0.73

3 FLUENTALTM (45 cm) with the 1ST Cd thermal filter

(0.2 cm) 3.49E-02

0.17 1.50E-13 4.58E-12 0.73

4 Proposed spectrum shifter

(33 cm) with the 1ST and the 2ND Cd thermal filters (0.2 cm and 0.3 cm, respectively) as well as the 1ST and 2ND gamma filters (5 cm each)

2.69E-02

0.05

6.40E-14

2.80E-13

0.72

5 FLUENTALTM (45 cm) with the 1ST and the 2ND Cd thermal filters (0.2 cm and 0.3 cm, respectively) as well as the 1ST gamma filter (8 cm) 2.77E-02 0.03 8.12E-14 6.72E-13 0.72

source surface. For each material, a bulk of 60 cm thickness is modeled next to the cadmium layer. The neutron spectrum exit from the cadmium layer is used as a reference spectrum. To exclude effects on the calculated parameters, no other component of the beam is assumed. For each material, the important parameters have been calculated at different thicknesses (from 4 to 60 cm) in steps of 4 cm. The calculated parameters are: F/F0, P/P0, F/P, F1/P, F2/P and F3/P, where:

F: total fast neutron current,

F0: total fast neutron current without any spectrum shifter material 'exit from Cd layer',

P: epithermal neutron current,

P0: epithermal neutron current without any spectrum shifter material 'exit from Cd layer',

F/F0: relative fast neutron current,

P/P0: relative epithermal neutron current,

F/P: the ratio between fast and epithermal currents,

F1: fast neutron current with energies in the range (10 keV ' 30 keV),

F2: fast neutron current with energies in the range (30 keV ' 200 keV),

F3: fast neutron current with energies (> 200 keV).

The results of these parametric studies are shown in figures from 4.7 to 4.13. The physical meanings of the change of the calculated parameters with thickness are explained below:

F/F0: indicates to what limit the fast current is dropped,

P/P0: indicates how the epithermal current changes,

F1/P: indicates the effectiveness of the considered material to moderate the neutrons in the energy range (10 keV ' 30 keV),

F2/P: indicates the effectiveness of the considered material to moderate the neutrons in the energy range (30 keV – 200 keV),

F3/P: indicates the effectiveness of the considered material to moderate the neutrons with energies (> 200 keV).

Fig. 4.7. Change in fast and epithermal currents for 7LiF with thickness

 Fig. 4.8. Change of fast neutron groups to epithermal current ratios for 7LiF with thickness

Fig. 4.9 Change in fast and epithermal currents for AlF3 with thickness

Fig. 4.10. Change of fast neutron groups to epithermal current ratios for AlF3 with thickness

Fig. 4.11. Change in fast and epithermal currents for 60Ni with thickness

Fig. 4.12. Change of fast neutron groups to epithermal current ratios for 60Ni with thickness

Fig. 4.13. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-60 cm

The change in relative values of fast and epithermal currents at thicknesses 4-60 cm are illustrated in fig. 4.7, 4.9, and 4.11 for 7LiF, AlF3, and Ni-60 respectively. It is clear in these figures that the fast current drops more sharply than epithermal current. Thus, the quality is enhanced with thickness while the epithermal intensity is decreased.

Also, the change of fast neutron groups to epithermal current ratios with thickness, that indicates the effectiveness to moderate the neutrons of each fast neutron group, is illustrated in fig. 4.8, 4.10, and 4.12 for 7LiF, AlF3, and Ni-60 respectively. Fig. 4.8 shows that 7LiF is most effective for energy group 3. On the other hand, its lowest effectiveness is at energy group 1. Thus, there is a relative difference in effectiveness of the same material at different energy groups. This difference has been appeared when dividing the fast energy range into some energy groups. Considering AlF3, it has the most effectiveness at energy group 2 as shown in fig. 4.10. Also, there is a relative difference in effectiveness of the same material which has been appeared when dividing the fast energy range into some energy groups. Finally, as shown in fig. 4.12, there is a significant increase in effectiveness of 60Ni at energy group 1. On the other hand, its lowest effectiveness is at energy group 3. Again, there is a relative difference in effectiveness of the same material which has been appeared when dividing the fast energy range into some energy groups. The difference in performance at different energy groups will lead to difference in performance at these energy groups.

To assess the overall efficiency of a material, a relation has been generated between the two most important ratios (P/P0) and (F/P) by plotting the values of (F/P) as a function in (P/P0) on the same graph, making use of the corresponding values for both of these ratios at different thicknesses. In this way, it could be more representative to see how the epithermal current is influenced by reducing the fast to epithermal ratio. These plots are presented for 7LiF, AlF3, and Ni-60 on the same graph for comparison as shown in Fig. 4.13.

4.4.1 Verification of material sequence

To verify the material sequence, comparisons have been done between the performances of the selected materials at each energy group on the same graph. The comparisons are presented for 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni comparing each of the parameters: F3/P, F2/P and F1/P as a function in P/P0 at figures 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16 respectively.

Fig. 4.14. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-60 cm for the 3rd fast neutron group

Fig. 4.15A. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-60 cm for the 2nd fast neutron group

Fig. 4.15B. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-24 cm for the 2nd fast neutron group

Fig. 4.16. Performance of selected materials: 7LiF, AlF3, and 60Ni

at thicknesses 4-60 cm for the 1st fast neutron group

It could be seen in Fig. 4.14 that 7LiF is the most efficient material for group 3. It can reduce the fast neutrons in this energy group with the minimum effect 'drop' on the epithermal neutrons. Considering the energy group 2, AlF3 is the most efficient material for this group for thickness of about 24 cm as shown in Fig. 4.15B. It gives a slightly better performance compared with 7LiF within this thickness range. When using more thicknesses, 7LiF begins to perform better as shown in Fig. 4.15A. Although 60Ni have the lowest efficiency at energy groups 2 and 3, it is clear from Fig. 4.16 that 60Ni is the most efficient material for group 1.

CHAPTER 5

Conclusions and recommendations

The methodology for epithermal BNCT beam design has been developed. In which, a new design method for a multilayer spectrum shifter has been proposed. The different beam components have been designed using a leakage neutron spectrum of a typical MTR-TYPE reactor. By comparison, the proposed design outperforms the patent material 'FLUENTALTM'. These results confirm that the developed design method in this work could generate efficient and effective spectrum shifters for epithermal BNCT beams in research reactors. The proposed method has some advantages as: time saving, simplicity, effectiveness, and efficiency. Therefore, this method may be applicable for other BNCT facilities such as accelerator-based BNCT. Moreover, efforts could be done to generalize the proposed method may be extended to design any epithermal beam as those used for cross section measurements and/or other applications.

References

Mohd Rafi Mohd Solleh et al., Collimator and Shielding Design For Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) Facility at Triga Mark II Reactor, Journal of Nuclear and Related Technologies, Volume 8, No. 2, December, 2011

R.L. Moss, "The BNCT Irradiation facility" in "Requirements for Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) at a Nuclear Research Reactor", 2009

Current status of neutron capture therapy, IAEA-TECDOC-1223, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, May 2001.

Thompson TJ, Benedict M, Cantwell T, Axford RA, Final hazards summary report to the Advisory Committee on reactor safeguards on a research reactor for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Published Cambridge, MIT [1956] located in the Institute archives, non-circulating collection 2 TK9202.M36, 1956

Godel JB, Description of facilities and mechanical components, medical research reactor (MRR) Brookhaven National laboratory, BNL-600, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, 1960

Liu HB, Brugger RM, Rorer DC, Tichler PR, Hu JP, Design of a high- flux epithermal neutron beam using 235U fission plates at the Brookhaven Medical Research Reactor. Med Phys 21:1627'1631, 1994

Rogus RD, Harling OK, Yanch JC, Mixed field dosimetry of epithermal neutron beams for boron neutron capture therapy at the MITR-II research reactor. Med Phys 21:1611'1625, 1994

Guotu K, Ziyong, S, Feng, S, The study of physics and thermal characteristics for in hospital neutron irradiator (IHNI). Appl Radiat Isot 67:S234-S7, 2009

Otto K. Harling and Kent J. Riley, Fission Reactor-Based Irradiation Facilities for Neutron Capture Therapy, 2012

Binns PJ, Riley KJ, Harling OK, Epithermal neutron beams for clinical studies of boron neutron capture therapy: a dosimetric comparison of seven beams. Radiat Res 164:212'220, 2005

X-5 Monte Carlo Team, MCNP5 Manual, 2003.

N. Soppera, M. Bossant, E. Dupont, "JANIS 4: An Improved Version of the NEA Java-based Nuclear Data Information System", Nuclear Data Sheets, Volume 120, June 2014, Pages 294-296.

Richard A. Lillie, Medical Application of Doors, Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab, 2005

Current status of boron neutron capture therapy of high grade gliomas and recurrent head and neck cancer, Rolf F Barth et al., Radiation Oncology 2012, 7:146

Kamienski, C. W.; McDonald, D. P.; Stark, M. W.; Papcun, J. R., Lithium and Lithium Compounds; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York, 2004.

Nader M. A. Mohamed, M.Sc Thesis, "Nuclear Radiation Interactions in Research Reactors", Nuclear Engineering Department, Alexandria University, 2002.