I am sorry to disturb you again. I got the results through FLUKA!
At present, I have a doubt, in terms of dose calculation, FLUKA and Phits results are basically the same, but in terms of activity calculation, the two MC have some gap. I would like to ask you, are these gaps caused by the different particle cross-section database? How can I close the gap between the two? Here is a screenshot of my specific parameters:
You posted this message on a thread about compilation with DPMJET, while it doesn’t refer to compilation problems. Please, contribute keeping this forum clean and create separate threads for separate topics.
If you want any help understanding the behavior of your code, you have to upload your input (.flair and .inp files and in case, all the other necessary files, like user routines), otherwise it is not possible to understand what is going on.
First of all, these days, I have thought about your question. When I multiplied the dose obtained by FLUKA by 1.602176462E-7, I finally found that the specific value was very close to the results obtained by PHITS in terms of dose!
Secondly, as for the significance of using these cards, my current idea is to define a lower neutron cut-off energy (10E-10 MeV), and eventually I have to use LOW-BIAS. For the optoelectronic cut-off energy, I used the default EMFCUT of FLUKA.
Finally, about the problem of volume normalization you mentioned, I think there is no problem with mine! Because the final obtained activity is divided by the volume of the copper target body, so that I can get the activity of a unit volume.
My ultimate goal is to get the activity of the radionuclide produced by the particle bombardment target, but now I feel if something is wrong with me, the activity calculated by FLUKA is much less than by PHITS!! To illustrate, I give you an example. PHITS calculates that the activity of the iron target at some point is 13000 Bq / cm3, but the value of FLUKA is 5700 Bq / cm3. So, my question is why do two MC doses work the same, but so much difference in activity?
I may have described a bit tedious, I’m sorry to let you wait so long! I look forward to giving me a relatively reasonable explanation, this is the system difference between the two MC cores? Or did I wrong with a specific FLUKA setting?
we highly recommend to rely on the default setttings (here e.g. PRECISION) and only to modify specific parameters if there is a good reason for it to do so. Arbitrary energy cuts may be unphysical and alter the results in an undesired way. If you want to determine activity produced, I recommend to remove the EMFCUT and LOW-BIAS cards.
As stated in my previous message: We cannot help to interpret or compare results obtained with other MC codes.
The reason why your scoring volume is not correct (7x7x7) is that you cut out the collimation holes, which you need to deduce as well from your the volume used for the normalisation.
I know the cause of the problem, and although there are still some questions in my files, I want to take a closer look at the relevant content of the user manual again. If I can’t solve it, I’ll turn to the forum again.
Thank you for your guidances. I wish you every success in your work and family.