Dear Philippe,
Thank you for your hints. Indeed when I scored fluence (USRBDX WHAT(1) = 101) and I didn't normalise by 2 pi the output graphs were similar. I'm only confused why yerrorbars in both cases are so large (I run simulation with 500000 particles).
Regards,
Karolina
________________________________________
From: Philippe Schoofs [philippe.schoofs_at_cern.ch]
Sent: 12 August 2016 16:23
To: Karolina Kokurewicz; Anna Ferrari; fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: RE: [fluka-discuss]: RE: USRTRACK vs. USRBDX
Hello,
In your USRBDX, you are actually asking for a current, not a fluence (see WHAT(1), i3 of USRBDX).
Then you say that in order to obtain the integrated fluence from your USRBDX, you have to multiply by the angular bin size. Well that depends which table you consider. In the output file tab.lis you find first the single-differential value (already integrated over the solid angle) and then, below, you find the double differential distributions, for each of the angular bins. Of course if you asked for only one bin from 0 to 2 pi, those two tables are only going to be differing by a factor 2*pi. Anyway, be careful of which one you are using. I suspect you might have used the first one, in which case you shouldn't normalize with the solid angle.
I've run your input, and I find similar results for both estimators
Have a good evening,
Philippe
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it [mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it] On Behalf Of Karolina Kokurewicz
Sent: 12 August 2016 15:43
To: Anna Ferrari <a.ferrari_at_hzdr.de>; fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: RE: [fluka-discuss]: RE: USRTRACK vs. USRBDX
Dear Anna,
Thank you for your advice. I double checked if volume in USTRACK and area in USRBDX are right. Definitely I should give more details about my volume and I misled you saying 'cube' (the whole water tank was originally a cube). This is cuboid 10 cm long on x, 10 cm long on y and 0.01 cm long on z. Therefore for USRTRACK I used 1 cm^{3} for volume and 100 cm^{2} for area in USRDBX. The beam propagates along z axis.
After the run I scored fluence that varies by more than one order of magnitude between these two graphs. I attached input file with plots of spectra. I'm using user routine source.f to create focused beam.
Thank you,
Karolina
________________________________________
From: Anna Ferrari [a.ferrari_at_hzdr.de]
Sent: 12 August 2016 13:21
To: Karolina Kokurewicz; fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
Subject: Re: [fluka-discuss]: RE: USRTRACK vs. USRBDX
...just to be more precise with the number: I wrote that it should be
what(6)=1.E-4 in USRBDX card considering as boundary one side of a cube of
0.01 cm size (since you did not send the input file - thing that is always recommended - it is not clear to me if this is exactly your geometry). If not, you have in any case to provide a detector surface in USRBDX and a detector volume in USRTRACK, as I wrote in the previous email.
Note that the quantities can vary a bit accordingly with the estimator: in the USRTRACK case you obtain the track-length density distribution normalized to the detector volume (= the fluence averaged over the whole volume), while in the USRBDX case the average fluence through (a parte of) its surface.
Regards,
Anna
Am Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:24:49 +0000 schrieb Karolina Kokurewicz
<karolina.kokurewicz_at_strath.ac.uk>:
> Dear FLUKA experts,
>
> I've noticed that graphs have not been attached. Please see them in
>the separated files.
>
> Thank you,
> Karolina
> ___________________________
>From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it [owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it]
>on behalf of Karolina Kokurewicz [karolina.kokurewicz_at_strath.ac.uk]
> Sent: 11 August 2016 19:03
> To: fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org
> Subject: [fluka-discuss]: USRTRACK vs. USRBDX
>
> Dear FLUKA experts,
>
> I'm scoring energy spectra of photons, emitted by 200 MeV electrons
>focused in water. I'm particularly interested in photons at 20 cm
>depth. For that I defined 0.01 cm thin volume within water cube by
>using XYP plane. To score energy of photons I chose tabs USRTRACK with
>AUXSCORE for that volume. The results I've got are fine however I
>wanted see if USRBDX will give me the same spectra. I specified
>boundaries to cover the same region as in USRTRACK (also I added
>AUXSCORE command to score exatly energy of photons). The results I normalized (according to manual) as follows:
>
> USRTRACK = Y(axis) * energy bin (I get rid of 'per GeV')* number of
>particles (I get rid of 'per primary'), so I get fluence in cm^{-2}
>
> USRBDX = Y(axis)* energy bin*2pi (because I requested one way scoring)
>*number of particles.
>
> The results I've got are:
>
> USRBDX 1. ENERGY -34. TARGET TARGET6
> 100.usrbdx_his
> USRBDX 0.2 0.1 200. 0.0 1. &
>
>
> [X]
>
>
> USRTRACK 1. ENERGY -30. TARGET6 100.
> 400.histogram6
> USRTRACK 0.2 0.1 &
>
>
> [X]
>
>
> I would like to ask how can I explain difference between these two spectra?
>I have noticed that whenever I change the thickness of my volume
>fluence increases in USRTRACK. So how thick should be my scoring volume
>to get the same results as for USRBDX?
>
> Thank you,
> Karolina
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>___ You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at
>https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id¬c_info
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Anna Ferrari
Institute of Radiation Physics
Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf e.V.
Tel. +49 351 260 2872
a.ferrari_at_hzdr.de
http://www.hzdr.de
Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Roland Sauerbrey, Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Peter Joehnk
Vereinsregister: VR 1693 beim Amtsgericht Dresden
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at
https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id¬c_info
Received on Sun Aug 14 2016 - 20:53:01 CEST