Hi
yes! Your summary is correct.
Indeed the executable is called flukadpm3. Flukadpm is tle old name and it
should be corrected in the manual
To be more precise, actually the "boundary" between BME and RQMD is
smeared, with 100% of the ion interactions managed by RQMD above 150
MeV/n, going down to 0% (100% by BME) at 100 MeV/n. Eg at 125 MeV/n
BME and RQMD treat 50% of the interactions each.
The protections built in Fluka2011.2x are there to prevent inadvertent use
of the code in conditions where energetic ions can be produced, but
no "naive" (ionsplit) or "serious" interaction model is activated
for their nuclear interactions. The consequences can be very minor,
eg some deuteron below 150-200 MeV/n for a ~400 MeV proton beam
which are ranged out instead of having sometimes nuclear interactions,
or dramatic, eg like again a deuteron (or heavier ion) at tens of GeV/n
out of a ~300 GeV p beam which undergoes only dE/dx, de facto behaving
like a "heavy" muon and travelling for long distances, why in reality
it would generate a hadron cascade on a much shorter scale, or, even
worse, an ion primary beam at high energy which does nothing (only dE/dx)
because no nuclear interaction model is linked.
I hope this helps to clarify the rationale for the introduction of those
checks, they are there to help!
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, 25 Jan 2019, Paolo Giunio Pisano wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> First of all, thanks Francesco and Andrea for your answers.
>
> To wrap up and see if I got the point:
>
> - All ions, including deuterium, above 150 MeV/n are treated according to
> RQMD (for "low" energy) and DPMJET (above 5 GeV/n);
> - All ions, excluding deuterium, below 150 MeV/n are treated according to
> BME;
> - Deuterium below 150 MeV/n should always be treated by invoking the
> IONSPLIT option.
>
> Am I correct?
>
> One last question: when I try to link the RQMED and DPMJET libraries as
> explained in the manual I obtain an executable file named flukadpm3 instead
> of flukadpm as stated in the manual. Is that normal? How should I proceed?
> I'm not sure if I correctly understood the process of linking the
> aforementioned libraries and run the input file accordingly.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Paolo Pisano
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francesco Cerutti <Francesco.Cerutti_at_cern.ch>
> Sent: 24 January 2019 19:37
> To: andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it
> Cc: Paolo Giunio Pisano <paolo.giunio.pisano_at_cern.ch>;
> fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
> Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: IONSPLIT option
>
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> indeed it has been recently added a check to prevent to unintentionally
> simulate ions above 150 MeV/n without having linked into the executable the
> respective interaction models (provided by the RQMD and DPMJET libraries).
>
> In your case, the code suspects that you may have ions (A>1 nuclei) above
> 150 MeV/n (possibly generated by coalescence) and sees that on one hand the
> mentioned libraries were not linked and on the other hand you did not
> request to split them (as a crude alternative to nuclear interactions).
> If in fact you have such high energy ions, you must link those libraries by
> ldpmqmd.
> If instead you happen not to have a high energy ion beam and in your problem
> actually coalescence cannot produce such energy ions, then the aborting
> message was triggered with no valid reason (let us know if this is the
> case). The solution to overcome it is still to link RQMD and DPMJET.
>
> Unless you have specific reasons to split all ions (which, as you correctly
> guessed, is NOT an innocent choice), IONSPLIT should be used in all cases
> (being coalescence activated) ONLY to split deuterons (A=2) below 150 MeV/n
> (based on the manual instructions Andrea recalled below), for which there is
> no interaction model available.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Francesco
>
> **************************************************
> Francesco Cerutti
> CERN-EN/STI
> CH-1211 Geneva 23
> Switzerland
> tel. +41 22 7678962
>
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019, Andrea Fontana wrote:
>
> > Dear Paolo,
> > the IONSPLIT option has been recently improved (since the FLUKA
> > version 2011.2x), in particular for what concern the meaning of the
> > parameters WHAT(4)-WHAT(6) in the PHYSICS card: they were not used in
> > previous versions of Fluka and I suspect that in your input files you
> > have the condition WHAT(6)=0, which is now deprecated.
> >
> > The online manual was also recently updated and reads as follows:
> >
> > For
> > SDUM
> > = IONSPLITting:
> >
> > WHAT(1)
> > : flag for activating ion splitting into nucleons
> > < 0.0 : false, no ion splitting
> > = 0.0 : ignored
> > > 0.0 : true: ion splitting is activated
> > Default
> > = -1.0 (no ion splitting)
> >
> > WHAT(2)
> > : minimum energy for ions (GeV/n) above which splitting into
> > nucleons will be performed
> > =< 0.0 : ignored
> > Default
> > = 0.1 GeV/n
> >
> > WHAT(3)
> > : maximum energy for ions (GeV/n) below which splitting into
> > nucleons will be performed (default: 5 GeV/n)
> > =< 0.0 : ignored
> >
> > WHAT(4)
> > : minimum ion mass for splitting (default: 2)
> >
> > WHAT(5)
> > : maximum ion mass for splitting (default: 500)
> >
> > WHAT(6)
> > : flag for the spliting algorithm
> > = 0.0 : deprecated since Fluka2011.2x (default)
> > = 1.0 : probability according to 1 - exp(- Ek/n / Emnspi)
> > where Emnspi=
> > WHAT(2)
> > and Ek/n is the kinetic energy
> > per nucleon of the current ion
> > = 2.0 : not implemented
> > = 3.0 : deuteron splitting performed at interaction
> > point computed according to a parameterized
> > formula, like 1.0 for heavier ions
> >
> >
> > You could try with these new settings.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> > Kind regards,
> > Andrea
> >
> >
> > On 24/01/2019 11:24, Paolo Giunio Pisano wrote:
> >>
> >> Good morning,
> >>
> >> I received two different Fluka input files used for activation
> >> calculations. If I try to run them as they are, the execution is
> >> terminated right away and I get the following message:
> >>
> >> Coalescence activated and beam above BME limit with no rQMD
> >>
> >> And no or incompatible IONSPLIT option!
> >>
> >> The problem is quickly solved if I switch on the IONSPLIT card (as
> >> suggested by the error message). However, it is my understanding that
> >> these two input files were running just fine (i.e. without IONSPLIT
> >> option) a few years ago (ca. 2013?). Is that possible? If yes, has
> >> the IONSPLIT option become strictly needed once the coalescence is
> >> activated in more recent versions of the code?
> >>
> >> From what I have read on the manual, the IONSPLIT option handles
> >> ions interactions by treating the nucleons one at the time and by
> >> superimposing their effects. Can someone, please, tell me if I
> >> should be careful in using this option or it is not expected to
> >> possibly affect the results in a negative way? Since I don˘t really
> >> know the physics behind it and I cannot run the model without it, it
> >> is hard for me to get a feeling about it.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>
> >> Paolo Pisano
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ========================================================================
> > Dr. Andrea Fontana tel: +39 0382 987991
> > Istituto Nazionale fax: +39 0382 423241
> > di Fisica Nucleare
> > Sezione di Pavia e-mail: andrea.fontana_at_pv.infn.it
> > Via Bassi 6 web : www.pv.infn.it/~fontana
> > 27100 PAVIA, Italy
> > ======================================================================
> > ==
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > ____ 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=acc_info
Received on Fri Jan 25 2019 - 13:41:58 CET