Re: RES: [fluka-discuss]: Statistical error

From: Masoomeh Yarmohammadi <myarmohammadi_at_ipm.ir>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:30:52 +0430 (IRDT)

Dear Francesco,

Many thanks for your reply and please accept my apologize for this late reply.

About the Fig.10, True! I made a mistake and calculated the 84cm of concrete by doing mistake in reading and considering the 1.0MeV curve instead of 10MeV and did not watch the other curves.

You mentioned a very good point about setting an interval along y direction (e.g. a bin). But as you expressed, statistical error increased. For decreasing this error, If increasing the Imp in biasing card is a good solution? Would you please let me know if you have a suggestion for decreasing that?

About T/M gymnastic: True! 3600 works the same and summarize the writing.

Masoomeh Yarmohammadi Satri
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, School of Particles and Accelerator, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM)
E-mail : myarmohammadi_at_ipm.ir, myarmoha_at_cern.ch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Francesco Cerutti" <Francesco.Cerutti_at_cern.ch>
To: "Masoomeh Yarmohammadi" <myarmohammadi_at_ipm.ir>
Cc: "fluka-discuss" <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 1:08:33 PM
Subject: Re: RES: [fluka-discuss]: Statistical error


Dear Masoomeh,

first, based on Fig.10 of the paper you attached, giving numerical
integration estimates of dose rates in 0.01 Gy/hour for 1 mA, I cannot
understand your expectation after 84cm of concrete, which looks to me much
lower than what I see in the Figure for 5-10 MeV electron beams.

Then, when you look at a 2D dose map, you should not directly average over
the third dimension (y), since this way you may miss high values at beam
height (you should set the relevant y interval in the Flair plot frame and
you will get even higher dose rates, with larger statistical errors, which
however are not the problem here).

As a side note, you do not need your T/M gymnastics to conclude that there
are 3600 seconds in one hour and that 3600 is indeed the multiplication
factor to convert a rate expressed in s^-1 into a rate expressed in h^-1.

Kind regards

Francesco

**************************************************
Francesco Cerutti
CERN-EN/STI
CH-1211 Geneva 23
Switzerland
tel. ++41 22 7678962
fax ++41 22 7668854

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016, Masoomeh Yarmohammadi wrote:

> Dear Marlon,
>
> Many thanks for your comment. It is helpful.
> You introduces FS "%dose-Eq em uSv/h, where FS is my conversion factor" in the Matlab Manuscript that you sent. I did this conversion for my case, the shield of a continuous 12uA, 10MeV Electron beam hitting the 3mm copper. For doing this conversion from pSv/Primary to uSv/h with the goal of comparing the dose rate after shield with the standard safe value of 10uSv/h for radiation workers.
>
> A = 12e-6 (The electron beam current in my case)
> B = 6.25e18 (Current(A) is Ampere (coulomb/s) and B is the number of electrons per Coulomb)
> Y = 10e-6 (Y is the pSv to uSv conversion)
> T = 72e5 (T is the conversion of a year to second: 1year=72e5 s)
> M = 2000 (M is a year to hour converter, a year has 40 working weeks and 8hour working hour per week, 1year=2000h)
> CoFa =(A*B*Y*T)/M (CoFa is conversion factor of pSv/primary to uSv/h)
> CoFa =27e10
>
> I was expecting to reach the standard safe level of 10uSv/h with 84cm concrete thickness for the forward wall in my case, considering and calculating from the Fig 10 of http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020708X71901566.
>
> While as the attachment file shows the Dose rate after the forward wall (after 150cm concrete thickness) reach to more that 1000uSv/h. I don't get what is not working well, the simulation, the conversion factor that I used, explained above, explained above, or my expectation that was came from Fig.10 of the above paper link.
>
> Dear Marlon, Vittori and All Your suggestions are welcome.
>
> Masoomeh Yarmohammadi Satri
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marlon Saveri Silva" <marlon.saveri_at_lnls.br>
> To: "Masoomeh Yarmohammadi" <myarmohammadi_at_ipm.ir>
> Cc: "fluka-discuss" <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2016 3:18:31 PM
> Subject: RES: [fluka-discuss]: Statistical error
>
> Dear Masoomeh,
>
> I'm not sure if I've understood your question, but maybe I could help a little about plotting USRBIN Error:
>
> When you use a USRBIN card (for example, using unit 82 BIN), and plot the result using Flair/Plot, it will generate an output file named ...82_plot.dat (and not "... 82_plot.geo.dat"). In such file, there's DOSE and Error related to that interval you plotted (defined in "Projection & Limits")
> This file present 4 columns: first and second with bin coordinates; third with DOSE, DOSE-EQ (type of particle/information you are recording at USRBIN) and fourth column present the error.
> You can plot the error, for example, using MATLAB:
>
>
> clc; clear; close all; fclose('all');
> addpath('C:\[address of the file]')
> MyData=load('My_file_plot_dat.txt'); %Import file (I use to convert to txt, but perhaps it's not necessary)
> %% Input about number of bins (in my case, I'd plotted in X plane)
> Ybin=301; %number of bins in Y
> Zbin=201; %number of bins in Z
> %%
> Z=zeros(Zbin,1);
> Y=zeros(Ybin,1);
> for i=1:Zbin
> for j=1:Ybin
> Z(i)=MyData((i-1)*Ybin+j,1); %position Z
> Y(j)=MyData((i-1)*Ybin+j,2); %position Y
> DOSE(i,j)=MyData((i-1)*Ybin+j,3); %dose-eq in pSv/primary weight
> DOSE(i,j)=FS*DOSE(i,j); %dose-Eq em uSv/h, where FS is my conversion factor
> ERROR(i,j)=MyData((i-1)*Ybin+j,4);
> end
> end
>
> figure('color','white');
> surf(Y,Z,ERROR,'EdgeColor','none'); %plot ERROR
> set(gca, 'ZScale', 'log');
> h=colorbar;
>
>
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it [mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it] Em nome de Masoomeh Yarmohammadi
> Enviada em: segunda-feira, 7 de março de 2016 06:49
> Para: Vittorio Boccone <dr.vittorio.boccone_at_ieee.org>
> Cc: fluka-discuss <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
> Assunto: Re: [fluka-discuss]: Statistical error
>
> Dear Vittorio,
>
> Thanks again,
>
> True, I mentioned the error a bit general by writing "Less that 10%". while I was interested to the error in the position of x= -100 +_ 0.5 cm, y= 137 +_ 0.5 cm, z= 549 +_ 0.5 cm, that is the area that I set for VALUE Mesh 1*1*1.
>
> Could you please let me know, if the error and dose data, point by point or bin by bin, is available in a file that I can open and plot it?
>
> I will be grateful if you give your suggestion about the post that I had with the title of "Biasing and Redusing the statistical error".
>
> Best regards
> Masoomeh Yarmohammadi Satri
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vittorio Boccone" <dr.vittorio.boccone_at_ieee.org>
> To: "Masoomeh Yarmohammadi" <myarmohammadi_at_ipm.ir>
> Cc: "fluka-discuss" <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
> Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2016 5:19:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: Statistical error
>
> Dear Masoomeh,
> as you compare two different bins with two different bin sizes you will have different errors.
>
>
> In the las mail you mentioned 2% vs 24%, now 10% vs 24. Your comparison is very qualitative and in order to be more precise you should tell me at which position you are doing the comparison, as the first USRBIN does not contain the second one (5 cm downstream) and the statistic is very poor (just plot a slice of your USRBIN to see the effects…). Still bin will have different sizes and are from different places.
>
>
> Cartesian binning n. 1 "DEq-Be-WF " , generalized particle n. 240
> X coordinate: from -1.6000E+02 to 5.0000E+01 cm, 100 bins ( 2.1000E+00 cm wide)
> Y coordinate: from 0.0000E+00 to 2.5000E+02 cm, 100 bins ( 2.5000E+00 cm wide)
> Z coordinate: from 5.3500E+02 to 5.4500E+02 cm, 100 bins ( 1.0000E-01 cm wide)
>
>
> Cartesian binning n. 2 "Value " , generalized particle n. 240
> X coordinate: from -1.0050E+02 to -9.9500E+01 cm, 1 bins ( 1.0000E+00 cm wide)
> Y coordinate: from 1.3650E+02 to 1.3750E+02 cm, 1 bins ( 1.0000E+00 cm wide)
> Z coordinate: from 5.4850E+02 to 5.4950E+02 cm, 1 bins ( 1.0000E+00 cm wide)
> Data follow in a matrix A(ix,iy,iz), format (1(5x,1p,10(1x,e11.4)))
>
> From my side there’s absolutely no mismatch, just different bin sizes with different statistics in different places.
>
>
> Best,
> V.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06 Mar 2016, at 13:17, Masoomeh Yarmohammadi < myarmohammadi_at_ipm.ir > wrote:
>
> It seems this averaging for flair plotting and reading about 1 bin are not in agreement about the error, less that 10% and 24% respectively. But they are in a good agreement about Does Eq. (Photon scoring) values. Does it correct?!?
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id???c_info
>
>

__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id¬c_info
Received on Tue Mar 29 2016 - 15:34:58 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Mar 29 2016 - 15:34:59 CEST