## 3 Results and Discussion  
In this study, five different Sm\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)-reinforced heavy metal oxide glasses based on the nominal composition of (75-x)TeO\({}_{2}\)-15 Sb\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)-10 WO\({}_{3}\)-xSm\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) (where; x = 0.2, 0.5, 0.8, 1, and 1.5 mol\(\%\)) have been investigated in terms of their gamma-ray and neutron shielding properties. First, we calculated the linear attenuation coefficients by using MCNPX code. Following the given details above, linear attenuation coefficients for each glass sample were determined at different energies that varied from 0.015 MeV to 15 MeV. Next, the same glass compositions (see Table 1) along with their densities were defined in the Phy-X/PSD platform. Overall, the obtained results agreed well with each other. Figure 1: MCNPX simulation setup used for gamma-ray transmission simulations (**a**) direct screenshot from the MCNPX Visual Editor VE X_22S. (**b**) 2D view of simulation setup obtained from MCNPX visual editor. Figure 2 shows the comparison of obtained \(\upmu\) values from MCNPX and Phy-X/PSD at low energy region (i.e., 0.015 MeV, 0.02 MeV, 0.03 MeV, 0.04 MeV, 0.05 MeV, 0.06 MeV, and 0.0 MeV). As shown in Figure 2, there is a strong correlation between the two results. However, we discovered some minor inconsistencies as well. Due to the fact that the MCNPX and Phy-X/PSD formats are diametrically opposed, it is quite reasonable to anticipate some discrepancies in the results. MCNPX is a user-friendly program that needs certain fundamental processes, such as material design and source specification. On the other hand, there is a direct correlation between a computer's performance and its relative error. Additionally, there are many sub-titles that may affect the consistency of the Monte Carlo simulation results. However, Phy-X/PSD is a web-based platform that enables users to get different shielding characteristics based on just the material description and energy range. It is worth noting that the total relative variation between the findings ranged from 1.2% to 2.9%. After checking the consistency of the tools, we proceed to the following parameters. Meanwhile, our results indicate that the SM1.5 sample exhibits \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample Code** & **TeO\({}_{2}\)** & **Sb\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)** & **WO\({}_{3}\)** & **Sm\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)** & **Density (g/cm\({}^{3}\))** \\ \hline SM0.2 & 74.8 & 15 & 10 & 0.2 & 5.834 \\ SM0.5 & 74.5 & 15 & 10 & 0.5 & 5.841 \\ SM0.8 & 74.2 & 15 & 10 & 0.8 & 5.852 \\ SM1.0 & 74 & 15 & 10 & 1 & 5.865 \\ SM1.5 & 73.5 & 15 & 10 & 1.5 & 5.898 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Chemical compositions (mol%) and density values of HMO glasses. Figure 2: Comparison of linear attenuation coefficient (\(\upmu\)) values for SM1.5 sample obtained from MCNPX and Phy-X/PSD at low gamma ray energy region. the highest linear attenuation coefficients throughout the whole energy range. This may be explained partly by the glass densities, as well as the chemical compositions listed in Table 1. Figure 3 illustrates the difference in glass densities. As can be observed, density levels significantly increased from SM0.2 to SM1.5. As seen in Table 1, increasing the Sm\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) reinforcements also improved the glass density. Our findings indicated that adding Sm\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) to HMO glasses enhanced their density and, therefore, their linear attenuation coefficients. At this moment, Figure 4 depicts the changes in \(\upmu\) values as photon energy (MeV) function. From 0.015 MeV to 0.03 MeV, a sharp decrease was seen. Following that, a sharp peak near Te's k-absorption edge was found. This demonstrates that Te is present in all glass samples. We would like to emphasize that the results of the glass samples were near to each other due to the low molar variations in the Sm\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) additive. Nevertheless, adding the Sm\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) additive had a synergistic impact on the linear attenuation coefficients of SM glasses.