Mina
look at the manual notes (note 13) of USRBIN below)
13) The results from USRBIN are normalised per unit volume and per unit
primary weight, except for region binnings and special user-defined
binnings, which are normalised per unit primary weight only, for
where it is written that region-like scoring is NOT normalized by volume,
which other explaination do you need?
Ciao
Alfredo
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Alfredo Ferrari || Tel.: +41.22.76.76119 |
| CERN-EN/STI || Fax.: +41.22.76.69474 |
| 1211 Geneva 23 || e-mail: Alfredo.Ferrari_at_cern.ch |
| Switzerland || |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Mina Nozar wrote:
> Dear Alfredo,
>
> Thank you for your explanation.
>
> You say 'as clearly explained in the manual'. But it is not explained in the
> manual at all. As such, a clear explanation should be added to remove all
> confusion.
>
> Best wishes,
> Mina
>
> On 14-02-27 10:46 PM, Alfredo Ferrari wrote:
>> Dear Mina
>>
>> I am afraid it is not (yet) clear at all. Obviously for FLUKA DOSE is dose
>> that is energy/mass and it would be crazy to claim otherwise! Only for a
>> region scoring where the volume normalizations are generally unknown to
>> the code, FLUKA gives you energy/density/ASSUMED VOLUME=1 cm^3 which is a
>> nice way to say this is energy/density, I don't know the volume,
>> please apply it yourself.
>>
>> It is to you as clearly explained in the manual and by Francesco to do the
>> final step, that is to divide by the region volume. There is no mistake
>> in the manual, no need for corrections, and contrary to your claim dose
>> for FLUKA is what it is for everybody as Francesco made already crystal
>> clear in his answer (which evidently was not clear enough).
>>
>> Ciao
>> Alfredo
>>
>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | Alfredo Ferrari || Tel.: +41.22.76.76119 |
>> | CERN-EN/STI || Fax.: +41.22.76.69474 |
>> | 1211 Geneva 23 || e-mail: Alfredo.Ferrari_at_cern.ch |
>> | Switzerland || |
>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Mina Nozar wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Francesco,
>> >
>> > Yes, this makes it clear and I appreciate your explanation, THANK YOU.
>> > The key point is that the FLUKA quantity scored as DOSE is not the
>> > standard definition of DOSE.
>> >
>> > FLUKA's quantity scored as DOSE: Energy/density
>> > Standard def. of DOSE: Energy/mass
>> >
>> > Can your explanation please be added to the manual for the future
>> > release?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Mina
>> >
>> >
>> > On 14-02-27 02:20 PM, Francesco Cerutti wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Dear Mina,
>> > >
>> > > deposited energy and absorbed dose are evidently related, one could
>> > > even
>> > > dare to say that basically they are the same thing, just differently
>> > > normalized. But I think you are overlooking a basic aspect:
>> > > actually the
>> > > strict relationship is between deposited energy *density* and dose.
>> > > Let's
>> > > consider that with a regular USRBIN mesh you get a local value and
>> > > with a
>> > > USRBIN per region you get a global value. In case of ENERGY, this
>> > > will
>> > > yield local energy density [GeV/cm3] and total (or integrated) energy
>> > > [GeV], respectively. Note that these are two different quantities, as
>> > > their units demonstrate, and both are well defined and meaningful,
>> > > because
>> > > energy is an extensive quantity, increasing with volume (or with
>> > > mass=volume*density). Instead in case of DOSE, calculated by FLUKA as
>> > > ENERGY/density, you will have local dose [GeV/g] and average dose
>> > > times
>> > > volume [GeV/(g/cm3)], respectively. The second quantity is not a
>> > > dose,
>> > > since a total (or integrated) dose does not make sense! And you
>> > > have to
>> > > divide it - divide, not multiply - by the region volume in order to
>> > > get
>> > > back the dose averaged over the region.
>> > > So you can happily compare the SCOREd ENERGY ([GeV], with no input
>> > > volume)
>> > > divided by the region mass (volume*density) - this way getting the
>> > > average
>> > > dose - to the USRBIN (per region) DOSE divided by the region volume.
>> > > But
>> > > you cannot call "dose" the value produced by the USRBIN per region,
>> > > being
>> > > the latter an odd quantity unless you divide it by the region volume.
>> > >
>> > > As you will score, e.g., PROTON, regular USRBIN on one side and USRBIN
>> > > per
>> > > region and SCORE on the other will yield you fluence [cm-2] and
>> > > tracklength [cm], respectively. Here again two different and
>> > > meaningful
>> > > quantities.
>> > >
>> > > Hope this helps
>> > >
>> > > Francesco
>> > >
>> > > **************************************************
>> > > Francesco Cerutti
>> > > CERN-EN/STI
>> > > CH-1211 Geneva 23
>> > > Switzerland
>> > > tel. ++41 22 7678962
>> > > fax ++41 22 7668854
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Mina Nozar wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hello Francesco,
>> > > > > > I completely understand the difference B/N 'binning' and
>> > > 'region' > definition in USRBIN (or at least I think I do). In the
>> > > 'binning' > case, quantities scored are given as /cm3*primary but for
>> > > 'region' case, > the quantities are given over the volume of the
>> > > region (so > integrated/total values).
>> > > > > The manual, under USRBIN, note 5 says:
>> > > > > 5. Energy deposition will be expressed in GeV per cm3 per unit
>> > > primary > weight.
>> > > > Doses will be expressed in GeV/g per unit primary weight. To
>> > > obtain > dose in Gy, multiply GeV/g by 1:602176462 10E7.
>> > > > > Why is the unit for the the Dose scored as the quantity, not
>> > > GeV/g/cm3 > here??? This is inconsistent with note 13:
>> > > > "The results from USRBIN are normalised per unit volume and per
>> > > unit > primary weight, except for region binnings and special
>> > > user-dened > binnings, which are normalised per unit primary weight
>> > > only"
>> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > The forum links you have sent, say in USRBIN region binning,
>> > > the units > are GeV/[g/cm3] when one scores Dose and has to multiply
>> > > to results by > the volume to get the actual dose [GeV/g]. Fine, but
>> > > this should be > added to the manual.
>> > > > > We used SCORING through score as a cross-check of the USRBIN
>> > > Region > binning results.
>> > > > Can we compare (non-normalized values) from SCORE for deposited
>> > > energy > to Dose from USRBIN region binning, scoring Dose, by
>> > > dividing the dep. > energy values in through SCORE by the mass of the
>> > > region???
>> > > > I guess the question is whether deposited energy and absorbed
>> > > dose are > related.
>> > > > > Thank you in advance,
>> > > > Mina
>> > > > > On 14-02-27 02:02 AM, Francesco Cerutti wrote:
>> > > > > > > Hallo Mina & Martin,
>> > > > > > > you do not need to send your inputs, your expectations
>> > > concerning > > USRBIN
>> > > > > per region are wrong, not complying with what is written in
>> > > the > > manual
>> > > > > (USRBIN, Note 13) and with what has been already explained in
>> > > this > > forum
>> > > > >
>> > > (http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/4288.html,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/3458.html).
>> > > > > > > > > Once more: FLUKA does not know region volumes, so
>> > > values per region > > cannot
>> > > > > be normalized per region volume. If you ask for ENERGY, you
>> > > will get > > GeV
>> > > > > (per primary) and not GeV/cm3, if you ask for DOSE you will get
>> > > the > > same
>> > > > > as before divided by the material density (i.e. GeV/(g/cm3)
>> > > and not
>> > > > > GeV/g).
>> > > > > > > (Only) SCORE values can be normalized by region volumes
>> > > provided that > > one
>> > > > > inputs them (though the practical benefit of that is quite > >
>> > > questionable -
>> > > > > I'm not aware of anybody using it -, since one can always
>> > > renormalize
>> > > > > SCORE values at postprocessing level; all this still assuming
>> > > that > > people
>> > > > > actually use values from SCORE, which is an historical scoring
>> > > option > > not
>> > > > > supporting automatic statistical analysis). If not, a default
>> > > value > > of
>> > > > > 1cm3 is used for normalization purposes as you noticed,
>> > > meaning > > that the
>> > > > > SCORE value for ENERGY should be intended as GeV, contrary to
>> > > your
>> > > > > conclusions and according to what is in the manual (SCORE,
>> > > Note 4).
>> > > > > > > Coming now to your case 2b, if you follow the manual and
>> > > set IVLFLG = > > 3 in
>> > > > > the geometry title card and write the volumes (in fixed format:
>> > > 10 > > fields
>> > > > > per region, 7 regions per row) before the GEOEND card (after
>> > > the > > region
>> > > > > END card), everything works as expected: the SCORE values will
>> > > get
>> > > > > normalized by your volumes and the latter ones will appear in
>> > > the > > volume
>> > > > > column. You still got default volume values of 1cm3 due to a
>> > > Flair > > bug,
>> > > > > not translating correctly what was input in the region metacard
>> > > under > > the
>> > > > > Volume label. This is going to be fixed in the next Flair
>> > > version (by > > the
>> > > > > way, Flair 2 is coming!), but it gives me the nasty opportunity
>> > > to > > remind
>> > > > > people that in case of problems and unexpected behaviors one
>> > > should > > look
>> > > > > at the input file as actually fed to FLUKA, leaving for a
>> > > little while > > the
>> > > > > wonderful Flair world and using a trivial text editor to
>> > > inspect what > > is
>> > > > > underneath.
>> > > > > > > Best wishes
>> > > > > > > Francesco
>> > > > > > > **************************************************
>> > > > > Francesco Cerutti
>> > > > > CERN-EN/STI
>> > > > > CH-1211 Geneva 23
>> > > > > Switzerland
>> > > > > tel. ++41 22 7678962
>> > > > > fax ++41 22 7668854
>> > > > > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Mina Nozar wrote:
>> > > > > > > > Hello everyone,
>> > > > > > > We are trying to score Absorbed Dose in a given region.
>> > > We > > have tried > two scoring methods:
>> > > > > > 1) via a USRBIN card with REGION binning and DOSE as the
>> > > quantity > > scored
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > 2) via a SCORE card and Energy as the quantity scored, with
>> > > no > > volume > input (case 2a) and with volume input (case 2b).
>> > > > > > > According to the manual, we should get
>> > > > > > - GeV/g per primary for option 1
>> > > > > > - GeV per primary for option 2a
>> > > > > > - GeV/cm3 per primary for option 2b
>> > > > > > > > As for the volume setting for the SCORE card, we set
>> > > IVFLG to > > 3 in the > GEOBIN title card and inputted the region
>> > > volume in the > > geometry region > card for the region.
>> > > > > > > > We are seeing some discrepancies. The value we get from
>> > > > > SCORE (with no > volume setting, case 2a) agrees with the
>> > > value from > > the USRBIN, if we > divide the SCORE value by the
>> > > density. This > > implies that the SCORE > value is GeV/cm3 per
>> > > primary which doesn't > > agree with what is in the > manual.
>> > > > > > > Furthermore, when we do set the volume, following the > >
>> > > instructions > above, we still see a value of 1.000000000D+00 for
>> > > the > > region's volume > and the same deposited energy value as
>> > > in case 2a.
>> > > > > > > This is a source of confusion for us and we are eager to
>> > > find > > whether we > are missing something. Can someone shed some
>> > > light on > > this please?
>> > > > > > Is there another way to score absorbed dose in a region?
>> > > > > > > Thank you very much,
>> > > > > > Mina & Martin
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Received on Fri Feb 28 2014 - 20:28:37 CET