ROSI and GEANT4 – A comparison in the context of high energy X-ray physics

This work compares two popular MC simulation frameworks ROSI (Roentgen Simulation) and GEANT4 (Geometry and Tracking in its fourth version) in the context of X-ray physics. The comparison will be performed with the help of a parameter study considering energy, material and length variations. While t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section B, Beam interactions with materials and atoms Beam interactions with materials and atoms, 2016-06, Vol.377, p.50-58
Hauptverfasser: Kiunke, Markus, Stritt, Carina, Schielein, Richard, Sukowski, Frank, Hölzing, Astrid, Zabler, Simon, Hofmann, Jürgen, Flisch, Alexander, Kasperl, Stefan, Sennhauser, Urs, Hanke, Randolf
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This work compares two popular MC simulation frameworks ROSI (Roentgen Simulation) and GEANT4 (Geometry and Tracking in its fourth version) in the context of X-ray physics. The comparison will be performed with the help of a parameter study considering energy, material and length variations. While the total deposited energy as well as the contribution of Compton scattering show a good accordance between all simulated configurations, all other physical effects exhibit large deviations in a comparison of data-sets. These discrepancies between simulations are shown to originate from the different cross sectional databases used in the frameworks, whereas the overall simulation mechanics seem to not have an influence on the agreement of the simulations. A scan over energy, length and material shows that the two parameters energy and material have a significant influence on the agreement of the simulation results, while the length parameter shows no noticeable influence on the deviations between the data-sets.
ISSN:0168-583X
1872-9584
DOI:10.1016/j.nimb.2016.04.029