# Fwd: Re: [fluka-discuss]: Attenuation coefficient for photons in a material

From: Beatrice Pomaro <beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:17:30 +0100

Dear Fluka experts,
can someone check whether the attached input file is correct for the
computation of the linear attenuation coefficient of a sample at 20cm
from a gamma-source in a collimated geometry, please?
BIN 42 and 43 correspond to two thin bins (2cm long in direction of the
beam) in the front and back face of the sample, which is 10cm thick.
I would like to know in particular if SCORE and AUXSCORE cards are
correctly defined in the input file.
Therefore I would compute the attenuation coefficient as: ln(BIN 43/BIN
42), divided by the thickness. Is it correct?
Would you use the same procedure also for a non-collimated geometry? Or
would you say that it is meaningless to reproduce a non-collimated
experiment for the computation of the attenuation coefficient?
Bests
Beatrice

---
**************************************************
Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
tel.: +39 049 8275592
e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Beatrice Pomaro <beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Fasso',
> thank you, I read that the score card gives a result by region of the density of stars produced by the selected particles (photons in my case). Does it mean that to compute the linear attenuation coefficient of the medium I have to calculate this quantity with and without the absorbing medium and do the natural logarithm of the ratio: ln(beampart_with sample/beampart_without sample) and divide it by the thickness of the sample?
> Thank you for your explanation,
> Best regards,
> Beatrice
>
> ---
>
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy [1])
> tel.: +39 049 8275592 [2]
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
>
> Il 16-02-2018 17:03 Fasso, Alberto ha scritto:
> Dear Beatrice,
> the easiest way to calculate the linear attenuation coefficient is to score the flux of
> primary particles (BEAMPART). This avoids the buildup due to scattered particles.
>
> Alberto
> ________________________________________
> From: Beatrice Pomaro <beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 4:53 PM
> To: Fasso, Alberto
> Cc: Mauro Valente; Vasilis Vlachoudis; fluka-discuss; owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it
> Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: Attenuation coefficient for photons in a material
>
> Ok, thank you very much Dr. Fassò. Does it mean that I have to correct the computation with a buildup factor coming from literature for the absorbing medium (and keep the ratio of the fluxes given by Fluka) or shall I totally change the geometry of the problem?
> Thank you,
> Bests
> Beatrice
>
> ---
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy [1])
> tel.: +39 049 8275592 [2]
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it<mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it>
>
> Il 15-02-2018 16:18 Fasso, Alberto ha scritto:
>
> Dear Beatrice,
> you cannot calculate a linear attenuation coefficient unless in what in dosimetry
> is called a "good geometry": both source and target being narrowly collimated.
> In the "bad geometry" that you have (no collimation) you get in addition to linear
> attenuation a buildup factor due to scattering inside the target.
> Check on any good dosimetry textbook.
>
> Alberto
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it<mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it> <owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it<mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it>> on behalf of Beatrice Pomaro <beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it<mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it>>
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2018 2:30 PM
> To: Mauro Valente
> Cc: Vasilis Vlachoudis; fluka-discuss; owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it<mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it>
> Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: Attenuation coefficient for photons in a material
>
> Thank you very much for your explanations,
> so if I would like to estimate the linear attenuation coefficient through the different media, am I allowed to do the natural logarithmic ln(flux_in/flux_out) and divide it by the thickness, whatever the inner flux is?
> Or would you suggest a more elegant approach?
> Thank you once more,
> Beatrice
>
> ---
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy [1])
> tel.: +39 049 8275592 [2]
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it<mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it><mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it<mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it>>
>
> Il 14-02-2018 15:53 Mauro Valente ha scritto:
>
> I am not Fluka expert, but regarding the problem you pointed out, photon flux might not be the same in the different situations your are studying. Particularly, if you tally photon flux in the near of "entrance" surface, you may count both primary and scattered photons (it may depend on the FLUKA tally you used, "photon" or "beampart").
>
> changing material shall vary scattering (backscattering, for the purposes of your problem, mainly) and therefore some differences could be present.
>
> If "beampart" tally does not account (please check, I am not FLUKA expert) any kind of scattered particles (i.e. if you can be sure that inelastic/elastic scattered primary are not accounted by beampart tally), then you may compare this tally among your different setups. Otherwise, if "photons" in your tally include all types of photons, you should notice some differences at the entrance due to backscattering.
>
> Best regards,
>
> 2018-02-14 10:21 GMT-03:00 Vasilis Vlachoudis <Vasilis.Vlachoudis_at_cern.ch<mailto:Vasilis.Vlachoudis_at_cern.ch><mailto:Vasilis.Vlachoudis_at_cern.ch<mailto:Vasilis.Vlachoudis_at_cern.ch>>>:
> back scattering from the material maybe?
>
> Cheers
> Vasilis
>
> ________________________________
> From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it<mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it><mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it<mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it>> [owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it<mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it><mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it<mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it>>] on behalf of Beatrice Pomaro [beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it<mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it><mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it<mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it>>]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 11:36
> To: fluka-discuss
> Subject: [fluka-discuss]: Attenuation coefficient for photons in a material
>
> Dear Fluka experts,
> I am simulating an irradiation experiment with a Co60 source of samples made by a different material at the same distance (20cm) from the source. I have plotted the photon flux against the sample thickness, 10cm (here below) and I find curiously that the flux at the face in front of the source (_at_20cm) is never the same, in particular it is much different when the propagation is in air (no sample).
> Can you, please, explain me how I can fix this aspect?
> Thank you, bests
> Beatrice
>
> [X]
>
> --
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> tel.: +39 049 8275592 [2]
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it<mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it><mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it<mailto:beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it>>
>
> --
>
> ******************************************************************************************************************
> ******************************************************************************************************************
>
> Prof. Mauro Valente, PhD.
>
> Medical Physics
>
> IFEG - CONICET &
> University of Cordoba
> Argentina
>
> Office 102 - Laboratory 448
> TE: +54 351 4334050 ext. 102 [3]
> FAX: +54 351 4334054 [4]
>
> http://www.famaf.unc.edu.ar/~valente/ [5]
>
> ******************************************************************************************************************
> ******************************************************************************************************************
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id¬c_info [6]
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id¬c_info [6]

------
[1]
[2] tel:+39%20049%20827%205592
[3] tel:+54%20351%20433-4050
[4] tel:+54%20351%20433-4054
[5] http://www.famaf.unc.edu.ar/~valente/
[6] https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id&not;c_info

__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info

Received on Tue Feb 20 2018 - 17:37:22 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 20 2018 - 17:37:24 CET