Question Regarding Energy Deposition in an LBE Target

Versions

Please provide the used software versions.

FLUKA:4-5.1
Flair:3.4-4
Operating system:

Description

Please describe the issue. In case of reporting a bug, please provide step-by-step instructions for reproducing the error

Dear FLUKA experts,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am simulating energy deposition from protons in a cylindrical Lead-Bismuth Eutectic (LBE) target (radius = 32.5 cm, height = 100 cm) for incident proton energies ranging from 0.5 GeV to 4.0 GeV .

In my simulation results, I observe that the energy deposition at 1 GeV is higher than at 0.5 GeV . However, some literature (e.g., Fig. 7 in the attached reference) suggests the opposite trend — that energy deposition at 1 GeV can be lower than at 0.5 GeV in LBE.

I’m trying to understand the reason for this discrepancy. Could it be due to:

  • Differences in the physics models activated (e.g., PEANUT vs. DPMJET, coalescence, pre-equilibrium models)?
  • The definition of “energy deposition” (e.g., total deposited vs. locally deposited energy, or inclusion/exclusion of escaping particles)?
  • Target size effects (my target is thick enough to stop lower-energy protons but not higher ones, which might affect lateral leakage and energy containment)?
  • Differences in cutoffs (e.g., transport thresholds for electrons, photons, or neutrons)?

I’ve attached:

  1. A screenshot of my simulation geometry (cylindrical LBE target).
  2. A reference figure (Fig. 7 from literature) showing the Bragg peak curves for 0.5–4.0 GeV protons in LBE.

I’d greatly appreciate any insight into what might cause this trend reversal, and whether my setup might be missing a key physical process or simulation setting.

Thank you very much for your time and help

Input files

Please upload all relevant files. (FLUKA input file, Flair project file, user routines, and data files)

I’d rather say that the reason may lie in the transverse surface of the scoring bin, over which the energy deposition density is averaged, and the transverse size of the beam.

Thank you for your response. Regarding the current bin division, could you advise on how it should be properly set?

What matters is the radial resolution with regard to the beam size, namely what you and the Fig.7 authors plotted (the maximum or the average energy density? which transverse surface was considered in the reference figure?) and which beam size you respectively adopted.
Look at (slide 10 of) the scoring beginner lecture to realize the relevance of the above.