--- ************************************************** 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_infoReceived 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