---
**************************************************
Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
Universita' degli Studi di Padova
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
tel.: +39 049 8275592
e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
Il 18-10-2016 17:35 Joachim Vollaire ha scritto:
> Dear Beatrice
>
> Maybe a first suggestion (as already mentioned by Francesco) is to use the decay of Co-60 in the source definition (it is more elegant than averaging the two gamma rays) and would allow you to use your source activity for the normalization. Consider the following cards:
>
> BEAM 0.0 ISOTOPE
>
> HI-PROPE 27. 60.
>
> RADDECAY 1.
>
> And don't forget DCYSCORE otherwise you will not get any contribution associated to the decay of Co-60....
>
> DCYSCORE -1.0 0. 0. ***** ***** USRBIN
>
> *
>
> Concerning the transport threshold I would use something lower for electrons (1 MeV is high), what about using 100 keV as for photons....
>
> Could you please reformulate your question on the normalization, not sure I understand properly. You source is calibrated and you know it gives 53 Gy/h _at_ 20 cm ? If this is the case, you should use this value to derive the corresponding Co-60 activity (1 Bq leading to two photons in 99.88 % branching ratio) and use this for normalization all quantities scored with FLUKA.
>
> Looking at analytical codes based on gamma conversion factor, your source strength should be of the order of 6.5 TBq, does it make sense ?
>
> Greetings
>
> Joachim
>
> FROM: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it [mailto:owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it] ON BEHALF OF Beatrice Pomaro
> SENT: 13 October 2016 10:56
> TO: Francesco Cerutti <Francesco.Cerutti_at_cern.ch>
> CC: FLUKA discussion <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
> SUBJECT: RE: [fluka-discuss]: Fwd: Gamma-ray experiment
>
> Dear Dr. Cerutti,
> sorry but I'd have another question about the photon flux rate of the experiment with gamma-ray source that I submitted to the forum's attention: since 53 Gy/h is the declared dose at 20cm from the source (in contact with the irradiated concrete sample) shall I use 53Gy/h for the computation below (which leads to 7.668E10 photons/(s kg_concrete) ) or shall I use the dose exactly at the source?
> And should I multiply the photon flux obtained from Fluka (particle/(cm2 primary)) by the same quantity: photons/(s kg_concrete) to get the flux rate: photons/(cm2 s kg_concrete) ?
> In the input file I used NEW-DEFA and card EMFCUT with sdum: PROD-CUT for electron kinetic energy threshold 0.001: GeV and photon production threshold: 0.0001 GeV . Hope it is fine.
> Many thanks for your kind attention,
> Best regards,
> Beatrice
>
> ---
>
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
> tel.: +39 049 8275592
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
>
> Il 09-10-2016 23:07 Francesco Cerutti ha scritto:
>
> actually the average gamma energy is 1.25 MeV, giving 7.36E10 photons/(s kg)
>
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Francesco Cerutti wrote:
>
> Dear Beatrice,
>
> fine with the first point. Then, when one divides by 1.2 MeV transformed into J [assuming the all energy is absorbed in the sample], the result is 7.668E10 photons/(s kg), to be multiplied by the sample mass [assuming an uniform irradiation].
> I understand that you already multiplied by the concrete density and are left with the volume normalization, that's correct.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Francesco
>
> **************************************************
> Francesco Cerutti
> CERN-EN/STI
> CH-1211 Geneva 23
> Switzerland
> tel. ++41 22 7678962
> fax ++41 22 7668854
>
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016, Beatrice Pomaro wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Cerutti,
>
> thank you very much for your explanation. I agree with you in the
> definition of the
> energy deposition in a volume. Also I am using PHOTONs as primary
> particle, yes.
> If I want to compute the photon rate, the 60Co source working at
> 53Gy/h=0.01472
> Gy/s and 1.2MeV, shall I transform 0.01472 Gy/s into 0.01472 W/kg where
> this
> quantity is per kg of the concrete sample placed around the source (to be
> tested),
> is it correct?
> Then I need to divide it for the electronic charge (1.6*10-19 C) and the
> energy of
> the gamma rays (1.2*10+6 eV) so to obtain: 1.92*10+8 photons/(cm3 s) where
> cm3 is
> the volume of the concrete sample?
> Is it correct?
> Thank you in advance,
> Best regards,
> Beatrice
>
> ---
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
> tel.: +39 049 8275592
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
>
> Il 07-10-2016 19:17 Francesco Cerutti ha scritto:
>
> Dear Beatrice,
>
> I miss the expected meaning of GeV/(cm2 s). Energy is deposited in a
> volume and with a cartesian or cylindrical USRBIN [*not* with a
> USRBIN
> per region] you get GeV/(cm3 primary) as you wrote. Multiplying by
> the
> photon rate (I assume you decided to use PHOTONs as primary
> particles
> instead of directly simulating the 60Co decay through ISOTOPE), you
> will get power deposition density (that can be expressed in W/cm3)
> and
> I would be pretty happy with that, with no need for a further
> manipulation by an ill-defined quantity.
> Do not hesitate to come back with your thoughts if in fact you turn
> out
> not to be happy.
>
> Cheers
>
> Francesco
>
> **************************************************
> Francesco Cerutti
> CERN-EN/STI
> CH-1211 Geneva 23
> Switzerland
> tel. ++41 22 7678962
> fax ++41 22 7668854
>
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2016, Beatrice Pomaro wrote:
>
> Dear Anton,
> thank you very much for your advice, may I ask you also about the output
> results of a USRBIN score? We read in fact from the manual: "The results
> from USRBIN are normalised per unit volume and per unit primary weight,"
> does it mean that for energy deposition in order to get GeV/(cm2 s) out of
> GeV/(cm3 primary) one needs to multiply Fluka result by the particle flux
> (particle/s) and the length in direction orthogonal to the flux of the
> region of interest for the scoring?
> Thank you in advance for your explanation,
> Best regards,
> Beatrice
>
> Il 27-09-2016 15:49 Anton Lechner ha scritto:
>
> Dear Beatrice,
>
> Running your input file, one gets following error message:
>
> *** Too many terms in parenthesis expansion ***
> *** Execution terminated ***
>
> I think the message is quite self-explaining. The issue lies in
> the definition of the second zone of the rAir region. As a good
> practice, I would try not to use too many parenthesis (you can
> equally define the geometry without using any parenthesis at
> all). Also note that if you have too many bodies in a zone
> definition this can also slow down the simulation. It is better
> to have more zones with fewer bodies than to have one zone with
> many bodies.
>
> Besides, on the EMFCUT card you set the production cuts for
> e-/e+ and photons to 0. Note that physics models are no longer
> applicable at very low energies and one should respect the
> minimum values recommended in the manual. I quote:
> "The minimum threshold energy for transport and production of
> photons is 100 eV. For electrons and positrons, it is 1 keV."
>
> Cheers, Anton
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> From: owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it
> [owner-fluka-discuss_at_mi.infn.it] on behalf of Beatrice Pomaro
> [beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it]
> Sent: 27 September 2016 15:00
> To: fluka-discuss
> Subject: [fluka-discuss]: Fwd: Gamma-ray experiment
>
> Dear Fluka experts,
> I am trying to reproduce an irradiation experiment due to gamma-rays
> from a Cobalt60 source.
> I am using Flair. I can not run the input file because the 001.out
> file stops before reading regions, while the file .out gives a
> generic error message (that I am reporting here below):
>
> Dir: /home/flupix/Desktop/Prova
> Cmd: /usr/bin/nohup /usr/local/fluka/flutil/rfluka -e
> /home/flupix/Desktop/Prova/Prova.flair -M 2 Prova
> $TARGET_MACHINE = Linux
> $FLUPRO = /usr/local/fluka
>
> Initial seed copied from /usr/local/fluka
> Running fluka in /home/flupix/Desktop/Prova/fluka_2030
>
> ======================= Running FLUKA for cycle # 1
> =======================
> /usr/local/fluka/flutil/rfluka: line 359: 2058
> Aborted (core dumped) "${EXE}" < "$INPN" 2> "$LOGF" >
> "$LOGF"
>
> No .err files are produced yet, since the analysis stops before.
> I am attaching here my input file. Would you tell me what I am doing
> wrong, please?
> Thank you in advance,
> Best regards,
> Beatrice Pomaro
>
> --
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
> tel.: +39 049 8275592
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
> --
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
> tel.: +39 049 8275592
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
>
> --
> **************************************************
> Ing. Beatrice Pomaro
>
> Universita' degli Studi di Padova
> Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e Ambientale
> Via F. Marzolo, 9 - 35131 Padova (Italy)
> tel.: +39 049 8275592
> e-mail: beatrice.pomaro_at_dicea.unipd.it
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Wed Oct 19 2016 - 12:44:38 CEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Oct 19 2016 - 12:44:54 CEST