Comparison of proton energy loss in thick absorbers in terms of a reduced calibration curve

Monte Carlo simulations are essential for the support of particle experiments and developments of novel particle registration systems ranging from detectors developed for high-energy physics experiments at CERN to those for medical tomography. For proton beams, popular Monte Carlo codes like TRIM/SR...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment, 2011-10, Vol.652 (1), p.862-865
Hauptverfasser: Yevseyeva, O., de Assis, J.T., Evseev, I.G., Schelin, H.R., Ahmann, F., Paschuk, S.A., Milhoretto, E., Setti, J.A.P., Diaz, K.S., Hormaza, J.M., Lopes, R.T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 865
container_issue 1
container_start_page 862
container_title Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment
container_volume 652
creator Yevseyeva, O.
de Assis, J.T.
Evseev, I.G.
Schelin, H.R.
Ahmann, F.
Paschuk, S.A.
Milhoretto, E.
Setti, J.A.P.
Diaz, K.S.
Hormaza, J.M.
Lopes, R.T.
description Monte Carlo simulations are essential for the support of particle experiments and developments of novel particle registration systems ranging from detectors developed for high-energy physics experiments at CERN to those for medical tomography. For proton beams, popular Monte Carlo codes like TRIM/SRIM, MCNPX and GEANT4 generate very similar final energy spectra for relatively thin absorbers, with differences unlikely to be detected in experiments. For thick absorbers, however, the disagreement is much larger, even for a moderate energy resolution. The reason for this is unclear because the actual overall accuracy of the proton stopping power in the Bethe–Bloch domain is known to be about 1%. One approach to investigate these differences is to compare, for example, the data from the NIST PSTAR and the SRIM reference data tables with the output of the Monte Carlo codes. When the various codes are validated against these tables, the differences in the simulated spectra mainly reflect the differences in the reference tables. Of more practical interest is the validation of the codes against experimental data for thick absorbers. However, only few experimental data sets are available here, and the existing data have been acquired at different initial proton energies and for different absorber materials. In order to compare the results of Monte Carlo simulations with existing experimental data, we applied the so-called reduced calibration method. This reduced calibration curve represents the range–energy dependence normalizing the range scale to the full projected range (for a given initial proton energy in a given material), and the proton energy scale to the given initial proton energy. The advantage of this approach is that the reduced calibration curve is nearly energy and material independent, and, thus, experimental, simulated and published reference data obtained at different energies and for different materials can be compared in one graph.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.nima.2010.08.083
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671396233</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0168900210018577</els_id><sourcerecordid>1671396233</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-3610baa2221e96726bb3118cc48341de488a90e31b17a985c6d889ffd65cbc713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UE1LxDAQDaLguvoHPOXopWs-dtMEvMjiFyx40ZOHkKRTzdo2NWkX9t-bUs8OAzMM783MewhdU7KihIrb_arzrVkxkgdE5uQnaEFlyQq1KcUpWmSQLBQh7BxdpLQnOVQpF-hjG9reRJ9Ch0ON-xiG3EEH8fOIm5AS9h0evrz7xsamEC3EeQSxTRPD4AjV6KDCzjTeRjP4vMCN8QCX6Kw2TYKrv7pE748Pb9vnYvf69LK93xWOcz4UXFBijWGMUVCiZMJaTql0bi35mlawltIoApxaWholN05UUqq6rsTGWVdSvkQ38978_c8IadCtTw6axnQQxqSpyCAlWL62RGyGupi1Rah1H7Nx8agp0ZOTeq8nJ_XkpCYy50S6m0mQRRw8RJ2chy5r9hHcoKvg_6P_AkNOfOY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1671396233</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of proton energy loss in thick absorbers in terms of a reduced calibration curve</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Yevseyeva, O. ; de Assis, J.T. ; Evseev, I.G. ; Schelin, H.R. ; Ahmann, F. ; Paschuk, S.A. ; Milhoretto, E. ; Setti, J.A.P. ; Diaz, K.S. ; Hormaza, J.M. ; Lopes, R.T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Yevseyeva, O. ; de Assis, J.T. ; Evseev, I.G. ; Schelin, H.R. ; Ahmann, F. ; Paschuk, S.A. ; Milhoretto, E. ; Setti, J.A.P. ; Diaz, K.S. ; Hormaza, J.M. ; Lopes, R.T.</creatorcontrib><description>Monte Carlo simulations are essential for the support of particle experiments and developments of novel particle registration systems ranging from detectors developed for high-energy physics experiments at CERN to those for medical tomography. For proton beams, popular Monte Carlo codes like TRIM/SRIM, MCNPX and GEANT4 generate very similar final energy spectra for relatively thin absorbers, with differences unlikely to be detected in experiments. For thick absorbers, however, the disagreement is much larger, even for a moderate energy resolution. The reason for this is unclear because the actual overall accuracy of the proton stopping power in the Bethe–Bloch domain is known to be about 1%. One approach to investigate these differences is to compare, for example, the data from the NIST PSTAR and the SRIM reference data tables with the output of the Monte Carlo codes. When the various codes are validated against these tables, the differences in the simulated spectra mainly reflect the differences in the reference tables. Of more practical interest is the validation of the codes against experimental data for thick absorbers. However, only few experimental data sets are available here, and the existing data have been acquired at different initial proton energies and for different absorber materials. In order to compare the results of Monte Carlo simulations with existing experimental data, we applied the so-called reduced calibration method. This reduced calibration curve represents the range–energy dependence normalizing the range scale to the full projected range (for a given initial proton energy in a given material), and the proton energy scale to the given initial proton energy. The advantage of this approach is that the reduced calibration curve is nearly energy and material independent, and, thus, experimental, simulated and published reference data obtained at different energies and for different materials can be compared in one graph.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0168-9002</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-9576</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2010.08.083</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Calibration ; Calibration curve ; Computer simulation ; Detectors ; Energy measurements ; Monte Carlo codes ; Monte Carlo methods ; Proton beams ; Proton energy ; Reinforced reaction injection molding ; Spectrometers ; Tables</subject><ispartof>Nuclear instruments &amp; methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment, 2011-10, Vol.652 (1), p.862-865</ispartof><rights>2010 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-3610baa2221e96726bb3118cc48341de488a90e31b17a985c6d889ffd65cbc713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-3610baa2221e96726bb3118cc48341de488a90e31b17a985c6d889ffd65cbc713</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900210018577$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Yevseyeva, O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Assis, J.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evseev, I.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schelin, H.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahmann, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paschuk, S.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milhoretto, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Setti, J.A.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, K.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hormaza, J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lopes, R.T.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of proton energy loss in thick absorbers in terms of a reduced calibration curve</title><title>Nuclear instruments &amp; methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment</title><description>Monte Carlo simulations are essential for the support of particle experiments and developments of novel particle registration systems ranging from detectors developed for high-energy physics experiments at CERN to those for medical tomography. For proton beams, popular Monte Carlo codes like TRIM/SRIM, MCNPX and GEANT4 generate very similar final energy spectra for relatively thin absorbers, with differences unlikely to be detected in experiments. For thick absorbers, however, the disagreement is much larger, even for a moderate energy resolution. The reason for this is unclear because the actual overall accuracy of the proton stopping power in the Bethe–Bloch domain is known to be about 1%. One approach to investigate these differences is to compare, for example, the data from the NIST PSTAR and the SRIM reference data tables with the output of the Monte Carlo codes. When the various codes are validated against these tables, the differences in the simulated spectra mainly reflect the differences in the reference tables. Of more practical interest is the validation of the codes against experimental data for thick absorbers. However, only few experimental data sets are available here, and the existing data have been acquired at different initial proton energies and for different absorber materials. In order to compare the results of Monte Carlo simulations with existing experimental data, we applied the so-called reduced calibration method. This reduced calibration curve represents the range–energy dependence normalizing the range scale to the full projected range (for a given initial proton energy in a given material), and the proton energy scale to the given initial proton energy. The advantage of this approach is that the reduced calibration curve is nearly energy and material independent, and, thus, experimental, simulated and published reference data obtained at different energies and for different materials can be compared in one graph.</description><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Calibration curve</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Detectors</subject><subject>Energy measurements</subject><subject>Monte Carlo codes</subject><subject>Monte Carlo methods</subject><subject>Proton beams</subject><subject>Proton energy</subject><subject>Reinforced reaction injection molding</subject><subject>Spectrometers</subject><subject>Tables</subject><issn>0168-9002</issn><issn>1872-9576</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UE1LxDAQDaLguvoHPOXopWs-dtMEvMjiFyx40ZOHkKRTzdo2NWkX9t-bUs8OAzMM783MewhdU7KihIrb_arzrVkxkgdE5uQnaEFlyQq1KcUpWmSQLBQh7BxdpLQnOVQpF-hjG9reRJ9Ch0ON-xiG3EEH8fOIm5AS9h0evrz7xsamEC3EeQSxTRPD4AjV6KDCzjTeRjP4vMCN8QCX6Kw2TYKrv7pE748Pb9vnYvf69LK93xWOcz4UXFBijWGMUVCiZMJaTql0bi35mlawltIoApxaWholN05UUqq6rsTGWVdSvkQ38978_c8IadCtTw6axnQQxqSpyCAlWL62RGyGupi1Rah1H7Nx8agp0ZOTeq8nJ_XkpCYy50S6m0mQRRw8RJ2chy5r9hHcoKvg_6P_AkNOfOY</recordid><startdate>20111001</startdate><enddate>20111001</enddate><creator>Yevseyeva, O.</creator><creator>de Assis, J.T.</creator><creator>Evseev, I.G.</creator><creator>Schelin, H.R.</creator><creator>Ahmann, F.</creator><creator>Paschuk, S.A.</creator><creator>Milhoretto, E.</creator><creator>Setti, J.A.P.</creator><creator>Diaz, K.S.</creator><creator>Hormaza, J.M.</creator><creator>Lopes, R.T.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>L7M</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111001</creationdate><title>Comparison of proton energy loss in thick absorbers in terms of a reduced calibration curve</title><author>Yevseyeva, O. ; de Assis, J.T. ; Evseev, I.G. ; Schelin, H.R. ; Ahmann, F. ; Paschuk, S.A. ; Milhoretto, E. ; Setti, J.A.P. ; Diaz, K.S. ; Hormaza, J.M. ; Lopes, R.T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-3610baa2221e96726bb3118cc48341de488a90e31b17a985c6d889ffd65cbc713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Calibration curve</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Detectors</topic><topic>Energy measurements</topic><topic>Monte Carlo codes</topic><topic>Monte Carlo methods</topic><topic>Proton beams</topic><topic>Proton energy</topic><topic>Reinforced reaction injection molding</topic><topic>Spectrometers</topic><topic>Tables</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Yevseyeva, O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Assis, J.T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evseev, I.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schelin, H.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahmann, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paschuk, S.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milhoretto, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Setti, J.A.P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, K.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hormaza, J.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lopes, R.T.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><jtitle>Nuclear instruments &amp; methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Yevseyeva, O.</au><au>de Assis, J.T.</au><au>Evseev, I.G.</au><au>Schelin, H.R.</au><au>Ahmann, F.</au><au>Paschuk, S.A.</au><au>Milhoretto, E.</au><au>Setti, J.A.P.</au><au>Diaz, K.S.</au><au>Hormaza, J.M.</au><au>Lopes, R.T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of proton energy loss in thick absorbers in terms of a reduced calibration curve</atitle><jtitle>Nuclear instruments &amp; methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment</jtitle><date>2011-10-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>652</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>862</spage><epage>865</epage><pages>862-865</pages><issn>0168-9002</issn><eissn>1872-9576</eissn><abstract>Monte Carlo simulations are essential for the support of particle experiments and developments of novel particle registration systems ranging from detectors developed for high-energy physics experiments at CERN to those for medical tomography. For proton beams, popular Monte Carlo codes like TRIM/SRIM, MCNPX and GEANT4 generate very similar final energy spectra for relatively thin absorbers, with differences unlikely to be detected in experiments. For thick absorbers, however, the disagreement is much larger, even for a moderate energy resolution. The reason for this is unclear because the actual overall accuracy of the proton stopping power in the Bethe–Bloch domain is known to be about 1%. One approach to investigate these differences is to compare, for example, the data from the NIST PSTAR and the SRIM reference data tables with the output of the Monte Carlo codes. When the various codes are validated against these tables, the differences in the simulated spectra mainly reflect the differences in the reference tables. Of more practical interest is the validation of the codes against experimental data for thick absorbers. However, only few experimental data sets are available here, and the existing data have been acquired at different initial proton energies and for different absorber materials. In order to compare the results of Monte Carlo simulations with existing experimental data, we applied the so-called reduced calibration method. This reduced calibration curve represents the range–energy dependence normalizing the range scale to the full projected range (for a given initial proton energy in a given material), and the proton energy scale to the given initial proton energy. The advantage of this approach is that the reduced calibration curve is nearly energy and material independent, and, thus, experimental, simulated and published reference data obtained at different energies and for different materials can be compared in one graph.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.nima.2010.08.083</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0168-9002
ispartof Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment, 2011-10, Vol.652 (1), p.862-865
issn 0168-9002
1872-9576
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1671396233
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Calibration
Calibration curve
Computer simulation
Detectors
Energy measurements
Monte Carlo codes
Monte Carlo methods
Proton beams
Proton energy
Reinforced reaction injection molding
Spectrometers
Tables
title Comparison of proton energy loss in thick absorbers in terms of a reduced calibration curve
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T09%3A54%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20proton%20energy%20loss%20in%20thick%20absorbers%20in%20terms%20of%20a%20reduced%20calibration%20curve&rft.jtitle=Nuclear%20instruments%20&%20methods%20in%20physics%20research.%20Section%20A,%20Accelerators,%20spectrometers,%20detectors%20and%20associated%20equipment&rft.au=Yevseyeva,%20O.&rft.date=2011-10-01&rft.volume=652&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=862&rft.epage=865&rft.pages=862-865&rft.issn=0168-9002&rft.eissn=1872-9576&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.nima.2010.08.083&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1671396233%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1671396233&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0168900210018577&rfr_iscdi=true