LIST OF TABLES
Table page
1-1 Comparison between Monte Carlo methods and deterministic techniques.............._.. ....28
1-2 Approximate attenuation of photons with a layer of water equal to the maximum
range of secondary charged particles28 .........._.... ........_....._. ............3
1-3 Approximate thickness of water needed to achieve various attenuation amounts
compared to maximum energy electron ranges generated by the same beam ...................32
2-1 Total number of directions, cumulative problem time** required for a single energy
group, P3 scattering, 126,000 fine mesh cells using 12 processors on a parallel
cluster ................ ...............54..__.._.......
3-1 Computed tomography image sources for the development of the UF pediatric
phantom series .............. ...............60....
3-2 Total number of directions, Cumulative Problem Time required for different energy
groups, P3 Scattering, and 189k fine mesh cells............... ...............76.
5-1 Comparison of selected organ absorbed dose rate (MeV/g. s) calculated using
MCNP5 pulse height tally with (photon, electron mode) and EDK-SN for the UF
hybrid 15-year-old male phantoms for a chest 8 MV X-ray flat weighted source ..........115
5-2 Prostate absorbed dose rate (MeV/g.s) calculated for the test problem using EDK-SN
and MCNP5 using pulse height tally (*F8) with (photon, electron mode) at different
MCNP5 Monte Carlo running times .....__._.. ... ..._.... ...............116.
5-2 Absorbed dose rate (MeV/g. s) calculated for the test problem using EDK-SN and
MCNP5 using pulse height tallies (*F8) with (photon, electron mode) .......................117
5-3 Absorbed dose rate (MeV/g. s) calculated for the test problem using MCNP5 using
pulse height tally *F8 with (photon, electron mode) and MCNP5 energy deposited
tallies (F6) ........._ .......... ...............118....
A-1 Ratios of photon interactions in water for range of energies ..............._ ............ .....124