-- Matthew Parnell m.parnell_at_lancaster.ac.uk > On 26 Aug 2015, at 11:05, Francesco Cerutti <Francesco.Cerutti_at_cern.ch> wrote: > > > Dear Matthew, > > I fail to understand which time information you refer to. > > You say that it is not the CPU time. This is printed at the end of the output file (Average CPU time per simulated history and Maximum CPU time taken by a simulated history). And it is proportional to the actual time required by your run, through the CPU percentage used. More particles per simulated history imply more CPU time. > > Then there is the physical time, i.e. the one taken in reality by radiation propagation. This can be accessed in user routines looking at the ATRACK variable in (TRACKR), which gives the age of the particle being transported since the start of the primary history (in case of constant speed, it is the travelled distance divided by the latter). It is used in time dependent scoring (TCQUENCH card). > > Finally there is the irradiation time with its respective primary particle rate, but this is just a normalization factor to be applied. > > Concerning the evergreen debate of fluence vs current (if this is what you meant with flux), note that with USRBDX you are free to choose the quantity relevant to your case. Keeping well in mind the unforgettable lesson > http://www.fluka.org/web_archive/earchive/new-fluka-discuss/0542.html > Both (fluence and current) get integrated over the (usually very short) radiation propagation time, and their rates can just be obtained by the user's normalization factor mentioned above. > > Cheers > > Francesco > > ************************************************** > Francesco Cerutti > CERN-EN/STI > CH-1211 Geneva 23 > Switzerland > tel. ++41 22 7678962 > fax ++41 22 7668854 > >> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Matthew Parnell wrote: >> >> Hi FLUKA users, >> >> TL;DR: >> >> Is there any way to know how long the simulation ran for in it's own >> universe? (not computational time) >> >> I'm trying to compare several geometries against another. For example, >> testing which shields around a target are better. >> >> Now I'm using the USRBDX, differential fluence from the *_tab.lis files, >> when combing the data. >> >> I'm dividing the output for the shield geometry by the output of no >> shielding. This should give an idea of how many more particles pass >> through the region; >1 bad, <1 good. >> >> However, I'm getting some larger numbers than I expected, and it could >> very well be close to the truth. However there are several factors that >> could be the issue. >> >> The higher the Z, the longer the particles will propagate through. >> Now I kind of understand the reason why FLUKA chooses to use fluence >> rather than flux, however it would be nice to have access to timing >> information. Even if it is the total time *within* the simulation, that >> would at least give me a timed average, however I cannot find such >> information. Is there a way to extract this information? >> >> -- >> Matthew Parnell >> m.parnell_at_lancaster.ac.uk >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id¬c_infoReceived on Wed Aug 26 2015 - 13:49:39 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Aug 26 2015 - 13:49:40 CEST