Figure 1.
Different scenarios for the projected availability for neutron beamtime in Europe. Its differences are caused by the assumption of different remaining runtimes from existing machines and different commissions of new instruments, especially at the ESS. Enhanced includes faster commissioning of the ESS instruments and longer runtime, while Degraded assumes faster decommissioning and delays in the ESS commissioning. The detailed explanation for each scenario is given in the ESFRI’s report [
4] (pp. 66–77).
Figure 2.
Flowchart of the modeling approach and the later usage of the resulting Surrogate model. The dashed lines indicate data flow, the solid lines indicate the input of the parameters from
Table 1, and the dashed and dash-dotted lines indicate the surrogate output. The dotted line indicates the spectrum model, and the dash-dotted line indicates the cut-off model.
are the real Neutron spectra, where
X is the energy value and
Y (
) the count rate at the corresponding
X. The hat indicates normalized quantities. The concrete definitions are given in Equations (
1) and (
2). The predicted quantities are indexed accordingly. Both are needed to extract a physically meaningful spectrum. We would like to reference the supplied scripts and examples for more details. Refer to the data availability statement for further details.
Figure 2.
Flowchart of the modeling approach and the later usage of the resulting Surrogate model. The dashed lines indicate data flow, the solid lines indicate the input of the parameters from
Table 1, and the dashed and dash-dotted lines indicate the surrogate output. The dotted line indicates the spectrum model, and the dash-dotted line indicates the cut-off model.
are the real Neutron spectra, where
X is the energy value and
Y (
) the count rate at the corresponding
X. The hat indicates normalized quantities. The concrete definitions are given in Equations (
1) and (
2). The predicted quantities are indexed accordingly. Both are needed to extract a physically meaningful spectrum. We would like to reference the supplied scripts and examples for more details. Refer to the data availability statement for further details.
Figure 3.
Simulation description plots for the Monte Carlo simulation geometry. (a) CAD of the simulation setup. Created using PHITS Angel tool. (b) Crosssection in the z-y-plane. Created using PHITS Angel tool. (c) Simulation sketch, true to scale, with ion source (red). The converter is centered at the origin.
Figure 3.
Simulation description plots for the Monte Carlo simulation geometry. (a) CAD of the simulation setup. Created using PHITS Angel tool. (b) Crosssection in the z-y-plane. Created using PHITS Angel tool. (c) Simulation sketch, true to scale, with ion source (red). The converter is centered at the origin.
Figure 4.
Model verification against the simulation data for proton-induced reactions. Solid lines indicate the model prediction (M), while the dashed lines are the resulting Monte Carlo spectra (D).
Figure 5.
Model verification against the simulation data for deuteron-induced reactions. Solid lines indicate the model prediction (M), while the dashed lines are the resulting Monte Carlo spectra (D).
Figure 5.
Model verification against the simulation data for deuteron-induced reactions. Solid lines indicate the model prediction (M), while the dashed lines are the resulting Monte Carlo spectra (D).
Figure 6.
Experimental data compared to the model (solid lines with shaded uncertainty). (
a) Data taken by Kamada et al. in 2011 with
[
18]. (
b,
c) contain data taken by Osipenko et al. in 2013 with
[
19]. The scattering angle is listed in the legend, the model prediction is the same color as the data, and the data have been multiplied by a factor as indicated by the legend’s prefix to increase the readability of the plot.
Figure 6.
Experimental data compared to the model (solid lines with shaded uncertainty). (
a) Data taken by Kamada et al. in 2011 with
[
18]. (
b,
c) contain data taken by Osipenko et al. in 2013 with
[
19]. The scattering angle is listed in the legend, the model prediction is the same color as the data, and the data have been multiplied by a factor as indicated by the legend’s prefix to increase the readability of the plot.
Figure 7.
Our model compared to the data extracted from ([
10], Figure 6). Our model gives the dashed lines with the corresponding uncertainty bands.
Figure 8.
Model output for the conventional accelerators in p+Be configuration.
Figure 9.
Model and simulation output for a TNSA proton beam.
Table 1.
Parameters of interest and their range. All parameters needed to set up the Monte Carlo simulations are listed here. Square brackets indicate each continuous interval, while categorical values are comma-separated. Steps indicate the number of possibilities (linearly divided) a parameter can take.
Table 1.
Parameters of interest and their range. All parameters needed to set up the Monte Carlo simulations are listed here. Square brackets indicate each continuous interval, while categorical values are comma-separated. Steps indicate the number of possibilities (linearly divided) a parameter can take.
Quantity | Values | Steps |
---|
Projectile | Deuterons, Protons | 2 |
Source Radius/cm | 0.5 | fix |
/MeV | | 56 |
Element | Li, LiF, Be, Va, Ta | 5 |
Length/cm | | 356 |
Angle/° | | 21 |
Converter Radius/cm | 2.4 | fix |
Table 2.
Network metrics for all trained networks. Id 0 means the raw data are used. The other nine numbers indicate the nine resampled datasets. MSE is the mean squared error training metric, and Normalization indicates the normalization constant applied to each dataset after the logarithm was applied.
Table 2.
Network metrics for all trained networks. Id 0 means the raw data are used. The other nine numbers indicate the nine resampled datasets. MSE is the mean squared error training metric, and Normalization indicates the normalization constant applied to each dataset after the logarithm was applied.
Id | MSE | Normalization |
---|
0 | 0.00128 | −16.0505 |
1 | 0.00124 | −16.2796 |
2 | 0.00128 | −15.9784 |
3 | 0.00119 | −16.6231 |
4 | 0.00114 | −16.9578 |
5 | 0.00114 | −16.8753 |
6 | 0.00125 | −16.1653 |
7 | 0.00120 | −16.5274 |
8 | 0.00140 | −15.3819 |
9 | 0.00121 | −16.4534 |
Table 3.
Parameters for several conventional compact neutron sources based on ion accelerators. The sources are given in the text.
Name | Energy | Current | |
---|
Unit | MeV | 10−4 A | cm |
---|
IAEA2 | 40 | 50 | 2.0 |
IAEA4 | 40 | 1250 | 2.0 |
RANS | 7 | 1 | 0.03 |
HBS | 70 | 1000 | 1.6 |
SONATE | 20 | 1000 | 0.2 |