Short communication

The X-ray and electron benchmarking of the Monte

Carlo Codes MCNP-4A and 4B on dierent computers
C R EDWARDS, BSc, MPhil and P J MOUNTFORD, PhD, FIPEM
Medical Physics Division, North Staordshire Hospital (Royal Inrmary), Princes Road, Hartshill,
Stoke-on-Trent, Staordshire ST4 7LN, UK
Abstract. MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle) is a Monte Carlo transport code which has been of
widespread use in modelling the dosimetry of ionizing radiations. The most recent version (4B)
features improved electron transport compared with the previous version 4A. The processing time
required by a number of computing systems to carry out X-ray and electron transport calculations
using both versions of the code was compared. Version 4A was installed onto a Dec Alpha Server
8200, a personal computer (Pentium 90 MHz), and a Sun Sparc20, 10, 4 and 1+. MCNP-4B was
also installed onto the Sun Sparc20. The benchmark tests consisted of determining the transmission
of 2 MeV X-rays and 30 MeV electrons through lead. It was found that the Dec Alpha Server 8200
was the fastest computing platform, and the Sun Sparc1+ was the slowest for both tests. The dier-
ence in computational speed between dierent platforms was not matched by the corresponding
dierences in price. The time required by version 4B to complete the X-ray and electron benchmark
tests was found to be 1.4 and 2.3 times greater than version 4A, respectively, without any dierence
in the results of the calculation for each type of radiation. This suggests that in cases where
computing time is important, it may be preferable to use version 4A instead of 4B.
The Monte Carlo method is a computational
technique based on statistical physics, which can
be used to analyse the dosimetry of ionizing radia-
tions [1]. An important factor in running any
Monte Carlo code is the computing time necessary
to trace a sucient number of particle or photon
histories which will reduce the uncertainty to the
required level [2]. This requirement could have a
signicant inuence on computer purchasing deci-
sions depending on whether access is required to a
large platform, such as a network server system, or
whether a less sophisticated system such as a work-
station or a desktop personal computer (PC) is
adequate.
MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle) is a general
purpose Monte Carlo code written in the Fortran
and C languages [3]. Although MCNP-4A has
been used for modelling X-ray transport and dosi-
metry [4], its standard of electron transport was
below that achieved by other Monte Carlo codes
(e.g. EGS4) [5]. There were two limitations to this
modelling in MCNP-4A. Firstly, the limited tabu-
lation [6] in the code of the Landau energy loss dis-
tribution results in accurate mean energy loss
modelling only in the region of 1 MeV [7].
Secondly, the broadening [8] applied to this distri-
bution becomes inaccurate at short path lengths
[7]. Since July 1997, version 4B has been made
available and contains an improvement to the
modelling of electron energy loss. The range of
electron path lengths has been expanded to provide
accurate modelling over a greater range of ener-
gies. Moreover, application of a correction factor
[9] to the approximation used for the energy loss
cross-section has led to improved modelling of
electron energy loss, and the photon interaction
cross-section library has been revised [7].
The cost-speed relation of the earlier version
(MCNP-4A) has been reported in two studies [2,
10]. However, neither study used one of the more
recent network server systems or Sun workstations
and only version 4Awas tested. The purpose of this
study was to compare the time taken by a network
server system, a range of Sun workstations and a
PC to calculate an X-ray and an electron transport
benchmark test with MCNP-4A, and to compare
the time required by version 4A and 4B to execute
each test. These benchmark tests were chosen
because they are based on experiments [11, 12]
which have been cited in authoritative recommen-
dations and data sources for radiation protection
[13^15].
Materials and methods
MCNP-4A was installed onto the following
computing platforms whose operating systems
Received 16 January 1998 and in revised form 14 July
1998, accepted 11 August 1998.
The British Journal of Radiology, 72 (1999), 196^200
E
1999 The British Institute of Radiology
196 The British Journal of Radiology, February 1999
and processors are shown in Table 1: a Sun
Sparc20, a Dec Alpha Server, a Pentium 90 PC, a
Sun Sparc4, a Sun Sparc10, and a Sun Sparc1+.
MCNP-4B was also installed onto the Sun
Sparc20 computer.
An X-ray benchmark test was designed to repre-
sent the experiment performed by Karzmark and
Capone [11] and modelled the history of 10
6
photons as they passed through various thick-
nesses of lead (2^28 cm) (Figure 1a). To reduce
computing time, the 6 MV polyenergetic X-ray
beam used in their experiment was represented as
a 2 MeV monoenergetic X-ray beam, since this lat-
ter energy corresponded to the mean energy of the
polyenergetic beam [16]. The beam was assumed to
originate from a point source at a distance of 2.6 m
from the lead block and had a divergence of 6.5.
Air scatter between the X-ray source and the
lead block was ignored with the transmission
determined by calculating the number of photons
passing through a circular eld of radius 2.5 cm.
The electron benchmark test (Figure 1b) repro-
duced the experiment performed by Loevinger et
al [12]. Due to the longer time required to model
electron transport, the history of only 10
5
electrons
was modelled as they passed through various
thicknesses of lead (0.01^0.1 cm). The 30 MeV
electron beam generated during the original
experiments was represented as a monoenergetic
source, with the transmission then determined by
calculating the number of electrons passing
through a circular eld of radius 5 cm at a distance
of 2 m from the scattering material.
Results
The results of the X-ray transmission calcula-
tions generated by MCNP-4A and 4B on the Sun
Sparc20 computer are shown in Figure 2, with the
values of absorption coecient, half value depth
and one-tenth value depth shown in Table 2. The
X-ray calculation times and relative speeds of each
computer normalized to that of the Sun Sparc20
operating version 4A are listed in Table 1. It can
be seen that the Dec Alpha Server 8200 was the
fastest computer platform with the Sun Sparc1+
being the slowest. When the X-ray calculations
were repeated on the Sun Sparc20 using version
4B, the computing time was 39% greater than the
time required by version 4A. The results of the
electron transmission benchmark test generated
by MCNP-4A and 4B on the Sun Sparc20 compu-
ter are shown in Figure 3, with the calculation
times and relative speed of versions 4A and 4B also
shown in Table 1. It was found that the time
required by version 4B for the electron calculation
was greater than that required by 4A by a factor of
2.33.
Discussion
Hendricks and Brockho [10] used the 25-pro-
blem test set included within the MCNP-4A
Table 1. Time taken to perform the X-ray [11] and electron [12] transmission benchmark test, normalized to the com-
puting time taken by version 4A to perform the calculation on a Sun Sparc20
Computer Operating Processor MCNP Benchmark
System (MHz)
X-ray Electron
Time Relative Time Relative
(h:min:s) speed (h:min:s) speed
Sun Sparc20 Solaris 2.5 150 4A 0:13:16 1.00 8:24:50 1.00
Sun Sparc20 Solaris 2.5 150 4B 0:18:29 0.72 19:21:24 0.43
Dec Alpha Digital UNIX 23300 4A 0:04:09 3.20
Server 8200
Pentium 90 MS-DOS 6 90 4A 0:31:41 0.42
Sun Sparc4 Solaris 2.5 70 4A 0:39:10 0.34
Sun Sparc10 Solaris 2.5 50 4A 0:39:55 0.33
Sun Sparc1+ Solaris 1.5 25 4A 3:16:23 0.07
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of (a) the X-ray attenua-
tion benchmark and (b) the electron attenuation bench-
mark modelled by MCNP-4A and 4B, based on the
experimental arrangement of (a) Karzmark and
Capone [11] and (b) Loevinger et al [12].
Short communication: A Monte Carlo comparison
197 The British Journal of Radiology, February 1999
package to compare the processing speeds of a
number of computing platforms, and found that a
Sun Sparc2 workstation was approximately 13%
slower than a 66 MHz Gateway-2000 PC (model
4DX2-66V). However, they did not test any of the
computing platforms used in this study. A speed
test by Al-Aan [2] using version 4A of MCNP
showed that for modelling the transmission of 6
MV X-rays through a water medium, a PC with a
Pentium 90 MHz processor was faster than a Sun
Sparc4 by a factor of 3.0. However, it was found
that for the X-ray benchmark used in this study
(Table 1), this type of PC was faster than a Sun
Sparc4 by a factor of 1.2. Possible causes of the dif-
ference between these factors, and between the
times taken to calculate each benchmark, may
include the compiler and ags used during compi-
lation [17] of the code, the construction of the pro-
cessors and their mother boards, as well as
dierences between the features of the two X-ray
benchmark tests, such as the number of incident
photons, and the attenuating material which will
in turn aect the number of interactions modelled
per incident photon.
The Sun Sparc20 was faster than the Sun
Sparc1+ and the PC (Pentium 90 MHz) for the X-
ray benchmark test by a ratio of 14.8:1 and 2.4:1,
respectively. However, this increase in speed was
not matched by the relative cost of the two systems,
since the current (late 1997) United Kingdom cost
of the Sun Sparc20 is greater than that of the PCby
an approximate ratio of 9:1. Comparison of the
Dec Alpha Server 8200 and the Sun Sparc20 work-
station shows that the former was faster by a ratio
of 3.2:1. However, as before, this improvement in
speed of the Dec Alpha system was not matched
by the relative cost of the two systems, since the
United Kingdom cost ratio (late 1997) of the Dec
Alpha Server 8200 and the Sun Sparc20 is approxi-
mately 21:1.
There was good agreement between the values of
absorption coecient, half value depth and one-
tenth value depth measured by Karzmark and
Capone [11] and the values calculated by both ver-
sions of MCNP on the Sun Sparc20 (Table 2). The
uncertainty associated with the calculated data
was found to be 63%. As the penetration depth
increased, the calculated results began to deviate
below the published data (Figure 2 and Table 2)
[11]. This was probably caused by the use of a 2
MeV monoenergetic X-ray beam in the benchmark
test rather than the polyenergetic beam used by
Karzmark and Capone [11].
The dierence between the times taken by ver-
sion 4A and 4B to carry out a calculation will
depend upon the same hardware, software and
benchmark factors described above. For instance,
when comparing the speed of versions 4A and 4B
on a Pentium 200 PC using the Lahey F77-EM/32-
5.2 Fortran compiler [Al-Aan IAM, Private com-
munication, 1998], Love et al found version 4B was
only 5% slower than version 4A when calculating
the percentage depth dose variation of 6 MV X-
rays in a water phantom [18]. Whereas, version
4B was found to be 39% slower than 4A when cal-
culating the transmission of a 2 MeV monoener-
getic X-ray beam in lead on a Sun Sparc20
computer using the Sun Sparc Fortran 4.0 compi-
ler (Table 1). Table 2 shows that for the X-ray
Figure 2. Transmission of 2 MeV X-rays through lead
(2^28 cm) calculated by MCNP-4A and 4B compared
with experimental data produced by Karzmark and
Capone [11].
Table 2. X-ray linear absorption coecient, half value
and one tenth value depth derived by MCNP-4A and
4B for lead
Karzmark MCNP-4A MCNP-4B
and
Capone [11]
Absorption 0.41 0.4260.01 0.4360.01
coecient
(cm
^1
)
Half value depth 1.7 1.6460.05 1.6360.05
(cm)
One-tenth value 5.66 5.4460.16 5.4260.16
depth (cm)
Figure 3. Transmission of 30 MeV electrons through
lead (0.01^0.1 cm) calculated by MCNP-4A and 4B
compared with experimental data produced by
Loevinger et al [12].
C R Edwards and PJ Mountford
198 The British Journal of Radiology, February 1999
benchmark test used in this study, the improved
electron transport modelling of MCNP-4B did
not produce a signicantly dierent transmission
when compared with the results generated by ver-
sion 4A. However, this may not apply in all cases
as Love et al have shown that for their dierent
benchmark, version 4B produced results which
were closer to measured data than version 4A [18].
It has been shown that the approximations for
electron transport used by MCNP-4A may result
in electron transmission being underestimated by
up to 10% [7, 19], as compared with models based
on the PRESTA scheme which can be accurate to
within 1% [20]. However, because both versions of
MCNP produced a deviation between the calcu-
lated electron transmission and the measured data
of Loevinger et al [12] (Figure 3), the cause may be
due to the assumptions made in this study to
reduce the overall time. For instance, Loevinger
et al [12] used a lead applicator between the source
and detector, and a lead shield to surround the
detector, both of which would produce a number
of secondary electrons. Neither the applicator nor
the shield were modelled to reduce the overall com-
puting time.
It can also be seen from Figure 3 that even
though the electron benchmark test took longer
to calculate using version 4B due to its more
detailed electron transport modelling (Table 1),
there appeared to be no dierence between the
transmission results produced by versions 4A and
4B. However, other studies measuring collision
energy loss straggling of a 10 MeV electron beam
have demonstrated signicant improvements to
the transport modelling [21].
Conclusion
Of the computers compared for X-ray transport
calculations, it was found that the Dec Alpha sys-
tem was the fastest, although the relative speed
increase of this system compared to the Sun
Sparc20 was not matched by its respective increase
in cost. It was also shown that less costly systems
might require prohibitively long computing times.
However, the choice of computer system will
depend upon individual judgement as to the accep-
table values of cost and time. Improvements added
to the electron transport modelling included in ver-
sion 4B of the MCNP code have signicantly
slowed the modelling for X-ray and electron beams
compared with version 4Awithout necessarily pro-
ducing more accurate results. Although version 4A
produced acceptable results for the benchmark test
used in this study, further studies such as those car-
ried out by Love et al [18] are required to identify
the range and type of radiation transport calcula-
tions for which version 4B should be used.
The authors would like to thank Mr Mark
Engham (School of Physics and Space
Research, Birmingham University) for his help
and assistance with the X-ray timing benchmark.
Advice is gratefully acknowledged from: Dr John
Hendricks (Los Alamos National Laboratory,
USA), Dr David Picton and Dr David Weaver
(School of Physics and Space Research,
Birmingham University), Dr Stuart Green
(Regional Radiation Protection & Physics
Service, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham),
Dr Derek Wanless (Computer Science
Department, Keele University) and Mr Andrew
Moloney and Dr Julia-Claire Handley (North
Staordshire Hospital). Mr C R Edwards would
also like to thank the West Midlands NHS
Executive for their nancial support.
References
1. Andreo P. Monte Carlo techniques in medical
radiation physics. Phys Med Biol 1991;36:861^920.
2. Al-Aan IAM. A comparison of speeds of personal
computers using an X-ray scattering Monte Carlo
benchmark. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:309^13.
3. Briesmeister JF. MCNPa general Monte Carlo
Code N-Particle Transport Code, version 4A. LA-
12625-M, Los Alamos, NM: LASL, 1993.
4. DeMarco JJ, Solberg TD, Wallace RE, Smathers JB.
A verication of the Monte Carlo code MCNP for
thick target bremsstrahlung calculations. Med Phys
1995;22:11^6.
5. Halbeib JA, Vandevender WH. TIGER, a one-
dimensional multilayer electron/photon Monte
Carlo transport code. Nucl Sci Eng 1975;57:94^5.
6. Borsch-Supan W. On the evaluation of the function
w(l) for real values of l. J Res National Bureau of
Standards 1961;65B:245.
7. Haleib JA, Kensek RP, Mehlhorn TA, Valdez GD,
Berger MJ, Seltzer SM. ITS version 3.0: the
integrated TIGER series of coupled electron/photon
Monte Carlo transport codes. Albuquerque, NM,
USA: Sandia National Labs, 1992.
8. Blunk O, Leisegang S. Zum energieverlust schneller
elektronen in du nnen schichten. Z Physik
1950;128:500.
9. Seltzer S. Electron-photon Monte Carlo calcula-
tions: The ETRAN code. Appl Radiat Isot
1991;42:917^41.
10. Hendricks JS, Brockho RC. Comparison of scienti-
c computing platforms for MCNP4A Monte Carlo
calculations. Nucl Sci Eng 1994;116:269^77.
11. Karzmark CJ, Capone T. Measurements of 6 MV X-
rays 1. Primary radiation absorption in lead, steel
and concrete. Br J Radiol 1968;41:33^9.
12. Loevinger R, Karzmark CJ, Weissbluth M.
Radiation therapy with high energy electrons Part
1. Physical considerations 10 to 60 MeV. Radiology
1961;77:906^27.
13. National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements. Radiation protection design guide-
lines for 0.1^100 MeVparticle accelerator facilities,
NCRP Report 51. Washington: NCRP, 1977.
14. International Commission on Radiological
Protection. Protection against ionising radiation
from external sources used in medicine, ICRP
Publication 33. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982.
Short communication: A Monte Carlo comparison
199 The British Journal of Radiology, February 1999
15. International Commission on Radiation Units and
Measurements. Radiation dosimetry: electrons with
initial energies between 1 and 50 MeV, ICRU Report
21. Washington: ICRU Publications, 1971.
16. Mohan R, Chui C, Lidofsky L. Energy and angular
distributions of photons from medical linear accel-
erators. Med Phys 1985;12:592^7.
17. Bielajew A, Rogers DWO. A standard timing bench-
mark for EGS4 Monte Carlo calculations. Med Phys
1992;19:303^4.
18. Love P, Lewis DG, Al-Aan IAM, Smith CW.
Comparison of EGS4 and MCNP Monte Carlo
codes when calculating radiotherapy depth doses.
Phys Med Biol 1998;43:1351^7.
19. Rogers DWO, Bielajew AF. Dierences in electron
depth-dose curves calculated with EGS and
ETRAN and improved energy-range relations. Med
Phys 1986;13:687^94.
20. Nahum AE. Monte Carlo simulation of dosi-
meter response. In: Proceedings of the 1997
Conference on Elocutions on Monte Carlo, in
Monte Carlo; 20 September 1997. Monte Carlo,
Monaco, 1997.
21. Hendricks JS. Introduction. In: Briesmeister JF,
Hendricks JS, editors. Advanced MCNP. New
Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1997:1^19.
Book review
Imaging of Abdominal and Pelvic Anatomy. Ed. by
F S Welli and M Manco-Johnson (Churchill
Livingstone, Edinburgh)
ISBN 04430512387
This is a Franco^American text which is well illu-
strated with high quality radiological images and
line drawings where appropriate. The book is
divided into 14 parts, in total there are 36 chapters.
Each part covers a single organ or system and
each chapter details the normal radiological
appearance of the particular system, using dier-
ent methods of imaging, e.g. ``Part 8. The
Pancreas'' contains three chapters, detailing sec-
tional imaging, pancreatography and angiography.
The images are of uniform high quality through-
out with good labels and easy to follow legends. It
also contains some embryological anatomy which
is helpful for understanding subsequent anatomi-
cal variants, for example embryology of the pan-
creas. One of the aims of the book is to
``underscore the primacy of angiography and clas-
sical radiolography in learning the anatomy of the
abdomen and pelvis and to integrade results of the
newer modalities into this knowledge base''. It
therefore concentrates on angiography and con-
ventional contrast studies, but also includes com-
puted tomography, magnetic resonance imaging,
transabdominal ultrasonography and a small
amount of endoscopic ultrasonography.
There is a wealth of information in this book.
Most of it is available in other atlases but in this
degree of detail it would probably be necessary to
go to several dierent atlases and to this extent the
book might be a useful addition to a departmental
library. At a cost of almost 100 it is unlikely that a
junior trainee would invest in this book in addition
to the other atlases which are currently available
for preparation for the rst part FRCR exam.
J BARBER
M B SHERIDAN
C R Edwards and PJ Mountford
200 The British Journal of Radiology, February 1999