Dear Alexander,
you say "The MCNP results should be deemed correct.".
Can you tell us why?
And can you give some detail about how you simulated this model with MCNP?
You ask: "does FLUKA simulate a volume source differently than MCNP?"
How does MCNP simulate a volume source?
Alberto
On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, "Alexander Götzelmann (alexander.goetzelmann_at_hs-furtwangen.de)" wrote:
> Dear FLUKA-users,
>
> I score the ambient dose rate, outside an container with radioactive waste
> (Co-60 with A = 7,5E10). I simulated this model in MCNP without any
> energy-cutoffs. The MCNP results should be deemed correct. The FLUKA results are
> higher by a factor of approximately 3,5. I have no idea, what the source of
> error for this deviation could be.
> Even, when I score ambient dose rate inside the source (Vol-Cyl) I get an even
> higher deviation.
> The results of USRBIN are identical to the results of USRTRACK; thus, there is
> no error in setting the scoring-cards.
>
> regarding this problem I have two questions:
>
> 1) using EM-CASCA as default, are all effects like photoeffect, comptoneffect
> and pair production activated?
> 2) does FLUKA simulate a volume source differently than MCNP
>
>
> The image shows the deviation:
>
> the USRTRACK-results (part.: "DOSE-EQ") are in pSv/Bq. To get mSv/h I calculated
> the USRTRACK-result * activity of my source *(3600/1E9). This conversion of the
> values should be correct!?
>
> My input-file is in the attachement
>
> I would appreciate it if somebody can explain the deviation.
>
> thank you,
> Alexander
>
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at
https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Wed Jul 01 2015 - 12:03:18 CEST