Best Physics for 40 MeV Deuterons impinging on Graphite

I am trying to simulate a 40 MeV deuteron beam onto a thick graphite target.
the simulation I have currently seems to be producing much less neutrons than expected.
So I am wondering if potentially my physics are incorrect.
Currently I have:

GammaNuclearPhysics (from Hadr03)

I also have an issue where 95+% of the processes called is ionIoni from EM physics and the ionIoni reaction produces nothing.

Any insight or help about deuteron physics would be greatly appreciated!

I think have figured out the issue with the 95+% of the processes called being ionIoni…
But I am still not producing the expected amount of neutrons.
Is there any more ideal physics lists to use for deuterons?

Did you try G4IonINCLXXPhysics ?
Also, if you have downloaded G4TENDL data and set env variable G4PARTICLEHPDATA to point on it, you can try to play with G4IonPhysicsPHP.
I do not know if they are " better " or not than QMD …

I have tried G4IonINCLXXPhysics before with similar results but I may try it again.
I have had the G4TENDL data but i have the individual G4 HPData for each particle assigned.
i.e. I have G4ProtonHPData pointing to …/G4TENDL1.3.2/Proton, with alpha, he3, deuteron, trition all pointing to there respective Tendl Folders.

Would it make a difference to have the G4ParticleHPData instead of the particles separate??

When using G4IonINCLXXPhysics i get a warning:

INCL++/G4ExcitationHandler could not use its own level-density parameter for fission

It is just a warning but it repeats this multiple times. is this warning an issue?

Would it make a difference to have the G4ParticleHPData instead of the particles separate??

it should be equivalent.

okay good to hear it should be equivalent.
I am now getting a different issue from INCL++

[INCL++] Warning: energy conservation violated by 5.10202 MeV in 37.6347-MeV deuteron + C12 inelastic reaction, in direct kinematics. Will resample.

is this warning a problem?

I have similar warning too. I do not know what to think.
I forward your mail to the author of INCL++ package.

Hi Jason, the warning is harmless, you may safely ignore it.


Hello Davide, thank you for the confirmation!
The INCL physics seem to be the best I’ve tried so far!
I appreciate all the help given to me in this thread!