Literature DB >> 26060927

Comparison between EGSnrc, Geant4, MCNP5 and Penelope for mono-energetic electron beams.

John Paul Archambault1, Ernesto Mainegra-Hing.   

Abstract

A simple geometry is chosen to highlight similarities and differences of current electron transport algorithms implemented in four Monte Carlo codes commonly used in radiation physics. Energy deposited in a water-filled sphere by mono-energetic electron beams was calculated using EGSnrc, Geant4, MCNP5 and Penelope as the radius of the sphere varied from 0.25 cm to 4.5 cm for beam energies of 0.5 MeV, 1.0 MeV and 5.0 MeV. The calculations were performed in single-scattering mode (where applicable) and in condensed history mode. A good agreement is found for the single-scattering calculations except for the in-air case at 0.5 MeV where differences increase with decreasing radius up to 5% between EGSnrc and Penelope. Differences between results calculated with the default user settings when compared to their own single-scattering modes are under 5% for all codes when the sphere is surrounded by vacuum, however, large differences occur for Geant4, MCNP5 and Penelope when air is introduced around the sphere. Finally, the parameters associated with the multiple scattering algorithms were tuned reducing these differences below 10% for these codes at the expense of increased computation time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26060927     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/13/4951

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  2 in total

1.  Set-up error validation with EPID images: Measurements vs Egs_cbct simulation.

Authors:  D van Eeden; F H J O'Reilly; F C P du Plessis
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2019-10-21

2.  Monte Carlo and analytic simulations in nanoparticle-enhanced radiation therapy.

Authors:  Autumn D Paro; Mainul Hossain; Thomas J Webster; Ming Su
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2016-09-16
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.