Dear Vittorio,
Thanks for your help and patient reply. These suggestions are very helpful for me. Thanks again.
Best regards,
Yang.
-----原始邮件-----
发件人: "Vittorio Boccone" <dr.vittorio.boccone_at_ieee.org>
发送时间: 2016年11月28日 星期一
收件人: "YANG Tao" <yangt_at_ihep.ac.cn>
抄送: "fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org" <fluka-discuss_at_fluka.org>
主题: Re: [fluka-discuss]: Contribution of different particles to the detector signal !
Dear Yang,
1. My simulation goal mainly has two aspects. One is to simulate the detector response in a beam loss situation, either assuming a point loss,a uniform loss(these loss patterns are indefinite and only based on some reasonable assumptions) or a definite loss(loss on a dump), however, response simulations could be compared to the experimental measurements. The other goal is to study which particle in radiation field generated by beam loss has the higher contribution to the BLM signal, which is mainly limited to a theoretical research and could provide useful informations for the detector optimisation.
For the first part I can tell you that it’s very difficult to perform a direct comparison (absolute numbers) w/o the full detector simulation (I mean w/o modelling the detector response for different particles).
First you must know your detector and have some benchmark of the simulation with real data (beam-test)
For the beam loss study scenario what one might achieve is to reproduce the loss pattern on different BLM. Depending on the case the details of the beam pipes and the beam components around the loss can also play an important role and shouldn’t be neglected. In some case those details count more than the detector details itself. Neutron spectra after shielding strongly depends on the material composition for example.
If you introduce a boundary crossing and study the particle fluencies and spectra as a function of the angle you will know more about the radiation field you are in for the different cases. This study is not easy - clearly - but it’s not magic either. If that was easy some other people would have done it already.
2. In fact, I am not very sure what should be specially concerned in the FLUKA simulation of ionization chamber response, e.g., setting in the DEFAULT card, EMFCUT card, THRESHOLD card, PHYSICS card, or any relevant card. Could you give me some suggestions in the card setting by looking at the input file in the last email?
Nothing special at the end. You are not interested in the particle tracks inside the detector (a t least I suppose). In case you could lower down the threshold but that would help only if you would use the fluencies as a function of the position and energy for the evaluation of the signal response. The first step for me is always to study how the detector works and respond to the particle, which is the detector efficiency etc… I’m sorry those are very general comments but there’s no golden recipe.
--
杨涛
中科院高能所东莞分部（东莞中子科学中心）加速器技术部
地址：东莞市大朗镇中子源路1号中国散裂中子源A2栋606室
E-mail：yangt_at_ihep.ac.cn
电话：0769-38944239
邮编：523803
__________________________________________________________________________
You can manage unsubscription from this mailing list at https://www.fluka.org/fluka.php?id=acc_info
Received on Mon Nov 28 2016 - 09:47:47 CET