 but they show relative differences of +(26$\pm$10)%, –(6$\pm$10)%, and –(16$\pm$10)%, for MK2, WS, and MK1, respectively.

When comparing predicted and experimental energy spectra (Fig. \[fig:SimExp\]), it is seen that in all cases, the simulation overpredicts the intermediate to fast energy range. In contrast, the thermal neutron flux ($E$ $\sim$ 2.5$\times$10$^{-8}$MeV) is always underpredicted. These two effects may be due to existing low-density materials such as plexiglass housings for detectors, wooden tables and shelves, and the liquid nitrogen in the dewars of the HPGedetectors that were all neglected in the FLUKA simulation. These materials may moderate higher energy neutrons to lower energies, explaining the disequilibrium between the two above mentioned energy ranges. In addition, thermal neutrons are more likely to be absorbed by structural materials, which may explain some of the overprediction of the observed energy-integrated flux in MK2 and WS.

When considering MK1, where also the energy-integrated flux is somewhat underpredicted, it is noted that for this case of generally very low ($\mu,n$) production, even limited quantities of neglected materials may enhance neutron production. In addition, due to space constraints, the smaller detectors A0–A3 had to be placed in a part of MK1 surrounded only on five out of six sides by serpentinite, with the sixth side showing WS shielding conditions.

For the case of WS, the data show a pronounced thermal peak that is not present in the simulation. This may in principle be caused by moderation in the humid rock walls [@Wulandari04-APP], where the present FLUKA simulation assumed 3% water content (by mass). Since the true humidity changes with weather conditions, i.e. air temperature, humidity and precipitation of the preceding days, it is not easy to model it without daily [*in situ*]{} measurements. Another possibility, at least in principle, are thermal neutrons leaking in through the doors of the laboratory.

In order to assess the effects of humidity, FLUKA simulations with varying water content were performed for all three sites ranging from 3% (adopted value) up to 12% (extreme case). For 12% water content the integrated predicted fluxes change by $-13$% (WS), not at
but they show relative differences of + (26$\pm$10)%, – (6$\pm$10)%, and – (16$\pm$10)%, for MK2, WS, and MK1, respectively. 

 When comparing predict and experimental department of energy spectra (Fig. \[fig: SimExp\ ]), it is seen that in all cases, the model overpredicts the average to fast energy range. In contrast, the thermal neutron magnetic field ($ E$ $ \sim$ 2.5$\times$10$^{-8}$MeV) is always underpredicted. These two effects may be ascribable to exist low - concentration materials such as plexiglass housings for detectors, wooden mesa and shelves, and the fluid nitrogen in the dewars of the HPGedetectors that were all neglected in the FLUKA model. These materials may moderate higher department of energy neutrons to lower energy, explaining the disequilibrium between the two above mention energy ranges. In addition, thermal neutrons are more likely to be absorb by structural materials, which may explain some of the overprediction of the observed energy - integrate flux in MK2 and WS. 

 When considering MK1, where also the energy - integrated flux is somewhat underpredicted, it is noted that for this case of generally very abject ($ \mu, n$) production, even limited quantity of neglected materials may enhance neutron production. In addition, due to quad constraints, the smaller detectors A0 – A3 had to be target in a part of MK1 surrounded only on five out of six sides by serpentinite, with the sixth side showing west shielding conditions. 

 For the case of WS, the data show a marked thermal peak that is not present in the pretense. This may in rationale be cause by moderation in the humid rock walls [ @Wulandari04 - APP ], where the present FLUKA model assumed 3% water content (by bulk). Since the true humidity changes with weather conditions, i.e. air temperature, humidity and haste of the preceding days, it is not easy to model it without daily [ * in situ * ] { } measurements. Another hypothesis, at least in principle, are thermal neutrons leaking in through the doors of the lab. 

 In order to tax the effects of humidity, FLUKA simulations with varying water content were do for all three sites ranging from 3% (adopted value) up to 12% (extreme case). For 12% water content the integrated predicted fluxes variety by $ -13$% (WS), not at
 buh they show relative difnerences of +(26$\pm$10)%, –(6$\pm$10)%, and –(16$\pk$10)%, for JK2, WS, ana MK1, respectively.

When comparmng predixted and experimental dnergy spvctra (Fig. \[fig:WumExp\]), it is seen tmct in wll eawes, the simulajion overpregicts the intesmddnate to fast energy range. In contrase, the tnegmal neutron fjux ($T$ $\sym$ 2.5$\tjmes$10$^{-8}$MeV) is always underpredicted. Tgese twm effects may be due to existing low-dendity materials such as plexiglass houfungs for detdctors, wooden tables ahd shelves, and the liquid nitroeen iu the dewarw if hve HPGedetertors nhat were all neglectad in tne FLUKA simulstimn. Rhese materials may mmderate higher enetgy neutrots to lower energiew, wxplahninc thd direqhikigrium hetxeen the twk above menrioned energy rangex. Yb addition, thsrmal gettrons are more likely to be absorbed bj stductural materials, whicy may explain some of the over[rediction of the observed energy-integrated flux hn MK2 xnd WF.

Dyej considering MK1, where also the energy-integraesd fkux is somewhab underpredicted, iy ls goted that fot this ezss of generally verj low ($\mo,n$) proeuction, eden kimited quantities of neglexted materiajw may enhance neutxon productiun. Im addotion, due to space conscrainta, the smallfr detectkfs A0–A3 had to be olabed hn a paru of MK1 surrounded only on hive put of rix xides fy serpentlnite, with the sixth sidf shocing FS shieldijg conditions.

For the case of WS, the data show a prmnounced therkal peak that is not presenj in the fimulxtion. This may in principle fe caused by klderation in the humyd rick qalls [@Wjuandari04-APP], whete the prvstnt FLUKA wimulation assumed 3% wxfer content (by nasw). Since the trur hjmiqiny rhangqv with weathar cundkyions, i.e. air temierxturr, humidity and preci[itafion of the precedonn days, it is not qasy to model it without daily [*ln sivu*]{} mearuremrntf. Another possibility, at least in princlplc, are thermal neubronf leaking nn through the doors of the laboratory.

In order to assess jhe effects of humidijy, NLUKA simulavions rith varyhng water content weee performed for sll three sites rangihg frok 3% (adlpted value) up to 12% (extreme case). For 12% water content the integrated predictwd flueef change by $-13$% (WS), not dt
but they show relative differences of +(26$\pm$10)%, –(16$\pm$10)%, MK2, WS, MK1, respectively. When spectra \[fig:SimExp\]), it is that in all the simulation overpredicts the intermediate to energy range. In contrast, the thermal neutron flux ($E$ $\sim$ 2.5$\times$10$^{-8}$MeV) is always These two effects may be due to existing low-density materials such as plexiglass for wooden and and the liquid nitrogen in the dewars of the HPGedetectors that were all neglected in the simulation. These materials may moderate higher energy neutrons lower energies, explaining the between the two above mentioned ranges. addition, thermal are likely be absorbed by materials, which may explain some of the overprediction of the observed energy-integrated flux in MK2 and WS. considering MK1, the energy-integrated is underpredicted, is noted that case of generally very low ($\mu,n$) quantities of neglected materials may enhance neutron production. addition, due space constraints, the smaller detectors A0–A3 to be placed in a part of MK1 only on five out of six sides by serpentinite, with the sixth side showing WS For the case of the data show pronounced peak is present in simulation. This may in principle be caused by moderation in the rock walls [@Wulandari04-APP], where the present FLUKA simulation assumed 3% (by Since the true changes with weather conditions, air humidity and precipitation of days, is model without [*in situ*]{} measurements. Another at least in principle, are neutrons leaking in through In order to assess the effects of humidity, simulations with varying water content were performed all three sites ranging from 3% (adopted value) up to 12% (extreme For 12% the integrated predicted fluxes change by $-13$% (WS), at
 but they show relative differEnces of +(26$\pm$10)%, –(6$\pM$10)%, and –(16$\pM$10)%, foR MK2, wS, And Mk1, resPectively.

When cOMparIng predicted and experimEntal EnERgy sPEcTra (FiG. \[fig:SimeXp\]), IT Is sEeN tHat In ALl Cases, The SimulatIon overpreDicTs The intermediATe To fast enerGy rAnge. In contraSt, tHe therMaL neUTron fLux ($e$ $\sim$ 2.5$\tImes$10$^{-8}$Mev) Is alwaYs underprEdICted. ThESe two efFECtS may Be due to existing loW-DeNSity materials sUch as pLeXIgLASs hOusIngs for detEcTors, wOOden tabLEs AND SheLVes, and the liquId nitrogen iN The Dewars Of The hpGedetEctorS tHAt wEre all negleCted In the FLUKa simulATion. TheSE materiAls may ModEraTe hiGHeR eNerGy NEutROnS to LOweR energieS, eXpLainiNg thE DISEquiLibRium BetweEn the two above MenTionED enErgy rAnges. in adDiTion, tHermal NeutrOnS are more likely tO be aBsorbed by StrUcTurAl MaterIAls, whiCh mAy eXplain sOme of thE OveRpREDIcTion of the observed eNeRGY-iNtegrateD flux iN mK2 AnD wS.

When coNsIdeRing mk1, Where Also THe Energy-inTegratED fLuX is someWhAt undeRpRedIctEd, it iS NoteD that fOr this caSe of gENerally very low ($\MU,n$) production, eVEn LIMiTEd quAntIties of neglEcteD MateRialS MaY enHAnce nEutroN pROdUCtion. In addition, due tO sPace coNstraInts, the smalleR detectors a0–a3 HAd to be plAced IN a PArt of MK1 surrounDed onLy on five ouT Of six sidEs by sErpentinIte, with thE SIxth side ShoWinG WS ShiELDiNg conditions.

FOR The cAsE of WS, thE daTa show a ProNouNceD thErMal peak thAt is not pReSeNt In The SimulATion. This MaY in PrIncIple bE Caused By modEratIoN iN The Humid roCK wALLs [@WuLaNdAri04-ApP], wHeRe the PresENt FlUKA simUlation asSumED 3% watEr CoNtent (by Mass). Since the tRuE humidity cHaNgeS with wEATher condItions, i.e. air temperature, hUMidity aNd pRecipItatIon of the pRecEding dAys, IT is not Easy to Model It WitHOUt daiLY [*In SitU*]{} mEasurementS. aNotHer poSsIbilIty, at leAst in principle, are tHErmAl neutrons leaKinG in tHROuGh tHE dOOrs Of THe lABOratory.

In order tO assess the EfFEcTs of humidiTY, FLuKa simulaTions wiTh varYIng wateR content wEre perforMeD for ALL thRee sites raNging froM 3% (adopted vALue) up TO 12% (eXtremE caSe). For 12% wAtEr cOntenT the inTEgrAted pRedictEd Fluxes ChangE bY $-13$% (WS), not at
 but they show relative di fferencesof +( 26$ \pm $1 0)%,  –(6 $\pm$10)%, and –(16 $\pm$10)%, for MK2, WS , and  M K 1, r e sp ectiv ely.

W h en c omp ar in g p re d ic ted a ndexperim ental ener gysp ectra (Fig.\ [f ig:SimExp\ ]),  it is seentha t in a ll  ca s es, t hesimul ationo verpre dicts the  i n termed i ate tof a st  ene rgy range. In con t ra s t, the thermal  neutr on fl u x  ($ E$$\sim$ 2.5 $\ times $ 10$^{-8 } $M e V )  is always underp redicted. T h ese  two e ff ect s  may b e due  t o  ex isting low- dens ity mater ials s u ch as p l exiglas s hous ing s f or d e te ct ors ,w ood e ntab l esand shel ve s,  andthel i q u id n itr ogen  in t he dewars ofthe  HPG e det ector s tha t we re  allneglec ted i nthe FLUKA simul atio n. Thesemat er ial smay m o derate  hi ghe r energ y neutr o nsto l o we r energies, explai ni n g  t he diseq uilibr i um  b e tween th etwo  abo v e  ment ione d  e nergy ra nges.I nad dition,  t hermal  n eut ron s are more  likel y to beabsor b ed by structur a l materials,w hi c h  m a y ex pla in some oftheo verp redi c ti ono f the  obse rv e de nergy-integrated fl ux  in MK 2 and  WS.

When co nsideringM K 1 , wherealso th e  energy-integr atedflux is so m ewhat un derpr edicted,  it is no t e d that f orthi s c ase o fgenerally ver y low($ \mu,n$)  pr oductio n,eve n l imi te d quantit ies of n eg le ct ed  ma teria l s may en ha nce  n eut ron p r oducti on. I n ad di ti o n,due tos pa c e  con st ra ints , t he  smal lerd ete ctors A 0–A3 hadtob e pl ac ed  in a p art of MK1 su rr ounded onl yonfive o u t  of sixsides by serpentinite,w ith the  si xth s ideshowing W S s hieldi ngc onditi ons.
For t he  ca s e  of W S ,  t heda ta show ap r ono unced  t herm al peak  that is not prese n t i n the simulat ion . Th i s  m ayi np rin ci p leb e  caused by mode ration inth e  h umid rockw all s[@Wulan dari04- APP], where t he presen t FLUKA s im ulat i o n a ssumed 3%water co ntent (by mass) .  S incethe  truehu mid ity c hanges wit h wea ther c on dition s, i. e.  air tem perature, humidity andprecip itati onof the pr ece d ing  days, it  isnot easy t o m ode l itwit h out d aily [* ins itu*] {} m e asurement s .Ano t h er  possibilit y , atleast  in princi ple,  are thermal neut r ons leaking in  thr o u ghthe door sof the laborat ory .I n orderto  assess the  effects  o f  humi dity,FLUKAsimulat i o ns with v aryi ngwater con ten tw ere per fo rm e d forallth ree si tes ra n ging f rom 3% (adoptedvalue ) up to 12%  (ext re me case ) . Fo r 12% wate r content t he int egra ted p redicte dfluxes  ch an ge by $-13 $ % (WS), n ot at 
 but_they show_relative differences of +(26$\pm$10)%,_–(6$\pm$10)%, and_–(16$\pm$10)%,_for MK2,_WS,_and MK1, respectively.

When_comparing predicted and_experimental energy spectra (Fig._\[fig:SimExp\]), it is_seen_that in all cases, the simulation overpredicts the intermediate to fast energy range. In_contrast,_the thermal_neutron_flux_($E$ $\sim$ 2.5$\times$10$^{-8}$MeV) is always_underpredicted. These two effects may_be due_to existing low-density materials such as plexiglass housings_for_detectors, wooden tables_and shelves, and the liquid nitrogen in the dewars_of the HPGedetectors that were all_neglected in the_FLUKA_simulation._These materials may moderate_higher energy neutrons to lower energies,_explaining the disequilibrium between the two_above mentioned energy ranges. In addition, thermal_neutrons are more likely to be_absorbed by structural materials, which_may explain_some of the overprediction of_the observed energy-integrated_flux in_MK2 and WS.

When_considering MK1, where also the energy-integrated_flux is somewhat_underpredicted, it is noted that for_this_case of generally_very_low_($\mu,n$) production,_even limited quantities_of_neglected materials_may_enhance neutron production. In addition, due_to_space constraints, the smaller detectors A0–A3 had_to be placed in_a_part of MK1 surrounded_only on five out of_six sides by serpentinite, with the_sixth side_showing WS_shielding conditions.

For the case of WS, the data show a pronounced_thermal peak that is not present_in the simulation. This_may in_principle_be caused by_moderation_in the_humid rock walls [@Wulandari04-APP], where the present_FLUKA simulation_assumed 3% water content (by mass)._Since the true humidity_changes_with weather conditions, i.e. air temperature,_humidity and precipitation of the preceding_days, it is not easy_to_model_it without daily [*in situ*]{}_measurements. Another possibility, at least in_principle, are thermal_neutrons leaking in through the doors of_the_laboratory.

In order to assess the effects_of_humidity, FLUKA simulations with varying water_content_were_performed for all three sites_ranging from 3% (adopted value) up_to 12% (extreme case). For 12% water content the_integrated predicted fluxes_change by $-13$% (WS), not_at