Re: [fluka-discuss]: DPA underestimation in Fe target

From: Phillip Pare <phillip.pare_at_necsa.co.za>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 14:15:39 +0000

Dear Fluka experts

I am a new FLUKA user

When I tried to use this Fe.inp file for the modelling of Radiation induce damage, I received this message:

 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 !!!! ATTENTION PLEASE !!!!
 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Coalescence activated and beam above BME limit with no rQMD
 and no or incompatible IONSPLIT option!
 Execution terminated.

This problem has been addressed earlier:


From: Paola Sala <paola.sala_at_mi.infn.it<mailto:paola.sala_at_mi.infn.it?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Bfluka-discuss%5D%3A%20Problems%20while%20simulating%20residual%20dose>>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 09:05:13 +0200

Hello

If coalescence is (correctly!) activated, ions will be produced. The code
checks that they can be transported and that their interactions are
simulated. Depending on beam energy, this means that one has to include
the ion interaction generators (RQMD and DPMJET). you can have a look at
past answers to learn how

http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/14583.html
http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/15273.html

Regards
Paola

As a new user I was not able use the two URL's to find out how to
to include the ion interaction generators (RQMD and DPMJET).



Would you perhaps have any further advice?


Thank you.


Regards


Phillip




Phillip Pare

S.E.

Tel: +27-12-305-5219

Fax: +27-86-625-5462

Cell: +27-72-397-8356

Email: phillip.pare_at_necsa.co.za

Website: www.necsa.co.za<http://www.necsa.co.za>

[cid:imageb82eb3.JPG_at_0b86da2d.478910d7]<http://>


[Facebook]<https://web.facebook.com/necsasoc/> [Twitter] <https://twitter.com/necsa_Ltd> [LinkedIn] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/necsa/>



________________________________

This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version from NECSA.



________________________________
From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it <owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it> on behalf of Answers <answers_at_pcfluka.mi.infn.it>
Sent: Wednesday, 02 June 2021 09:17:12
To: 朱雪燕
Cc: fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: DPA underestimation in Fe target

Dear Zhu

first of all there is a misunderstanding about the normalization of
USRBIN's by regions. The code has no obvious way to know the volume of
a region, which can be very complex.
Hence, contrary to cartesian or cylindrical USRBIN's, those by region
still have to be divided by the region volume by the user (of course it is
unfortunately the user task to calculate that volume). In your case the
(interesting) region volume is easy to calculate, it is 0.3 cm^3 (of
course you have to consider only the irradiated volume). Hence, after
dividing by the region volume, the DPA's are now 0.13/atom for 10^20
incoming protons.

This is still a factor ~2 less than what reported in the 2011 paper,
because since that time many refinements and improvements have been
implemented into the DPA calculations, particularly for particle below
threshold. Those improvements, related to the correct applications of the
xsi function (see eq. 2) in the 2011 paper) close to threshold are
responsible for the present, more correct, value.

In the attached input, which is a slight re-elaboration of your original
one, you can find a cylindrical bin (so no volume re-normalization issue)
covering the 1 cm^2 (circular) irradiation area, scoring both DPA's and
restricted NIEL. If you take the latter and apply without any "higher
order" correction the NRT formula, DPA=0.8 Tk / 2 Eth, which in this
case translates to:

   DPA = 0.8 NIEL_restr(GeV/cm^3)/(2 Eth(eV))x10^9 x 55.85 / 7.87 / N_av

where 55.85 is the iron atomic weight, 7.87 its density in g/cm^3,
and N_av the Avogadro number, Eth=40 eV, you will find 0.29 DPA's for
10^20 protons (~ the old result) showing how important and delicate is
to apply the efficiency corrections close to threshold. Since DPA's
cannot be measured in reality, when comparing results among different
calulations, or referring to material properties as a function of DPA's,
it is important to be sure to use the same DPA definition/method of
calculation, hence for a "standard" NRT calculation one can always resort
to the restricted NIEL and proceed as above.

Best regards
The Fluka developers

On Fri, 30 Apr 2021, 朱雪燕 wrote:

> Dear fluka experts,
>
> I am trying to reproduce the results from the paper in the attached file.
> This is a case of 1 GeV proton on 3 mm thick Fe with a beam area of 1 m^2.
> Table 2 in the paper shows the results of the DPA calculated by fluka, which
> is 0.28 for 1E20 beam particles.
>
> My inputfile is in the attachment. USERBIN with region type was used for
> scoring. The output file print the following result:
> accurate deposition along the tracks requested
> 4.2169E-22
>
> According to my understanding, 4.2169E-22 * 1E20 = 4.2169E-2 should be the
> DPA. However, this value is one order of magnitude lower than the value 0.28
> in the paper.
>
> Could you please help to have a look if there is any misunderstanding of the
> output of fluka or there is any error in my inpufile?
>
> Thanks a lot in advance.
>
> Best wishes,
> Xueyan Zhu
>

#####################################################################################
Scanned by MailMarshal - Trustwave's comprehensive email content security solution.
Download a free evaluation of MailMarshal at www.trustwave.com
#####################################################################################





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

Received on Wed Jun 02 2021 - 18:01:02 CEST