Re: [fluka-discuss]: Problems with Double defined LOW-MAT cards

From: Stefan Roesler <sroesler_at_mail.cern.ch>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 08:31:43 +0200

Hi Sophie and FLUKA users

Thanks for reporting the observation. There is an inconsistency in reading
repetitive LOW-MAT cards for the same material but only if they are not
immediately following each other. If will be fixed in the next respin.

Cheers
Stefan


On Tue, 6 May 2014, Sophie Mallows wrote:

>
> Dear Experts,
>
> We have been comparing simulations of 2 inputs with identical geometries
> (but defined in slightly different formats) and trying to understand the
> unexpected differences in results. After several tests, the cause of the
> difference was found only to be a few LOW-MAT cards that had accidentally
> been defined twice on one of the inputs. 
>
> Whilst of course this is not really a problem (as the repeated cards were a
> removable mistake), I would not have expected a repeated LOW-MAT card to
> cause a difference to the simulation and would like to understand better. 
> Is there a known issue/problem with defining the same LOW MAT card twice ?
>  
> [ We also tested & verified that the position of the LOW-MAT card within the
> input (provided it is not in the geometry definition) was not the problem. 
> However, I would be grateful if you could also clarify that this is the
> case]
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Sophie
>
>
>
Received on Mon May 12 2014 - 09:51:18 CEST