Beginner Seeking Help: MCNP6 Burnup Example (OECD-NEA Benchmark)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around performing burnup calculations using MCNP6, specifically in the context of the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B). Participants share their experiences, challenges, and suggestions related to setting up the calculations and addressing issues with isotopes in the input files.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • A beginner seeks guidance on using MCNP6 for burnup calculations and requests an example input file.
  • One participant suggests starting with a simple geometry and provides specific lines of code for a "Case A" burn, noting that their results were not accurate.
  • The beginner expresses difficulty in finding data for Am241 and Am243 in the output results and seeks advice on how to address this issue.
  • Another participant proposes adding a small quantity of Am and Pu isotopes to the material to ensure cross sections are loaded into memory, while also mentioning the use of an OMIT line for certain isotopes.
  • The beginner reports errors related to missing cross-section tables for specific isotopes after attempting to include them in the burnup materials.
  • A participant suggests using an OMIT line to manage isotopes that are not tabulated and mentions an alternative method involving a BOPT card to turn models on.
  • The beginner expresses gratitude for the guidance received and reports successfully resolving their issue using the suggested approaches.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the methods for addressing issues with isotopes in MCNP6, but there are varying opinions on the best approach to take, indicating that multiple competing views remain on how to effectively set up the burnup calculations.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention limitations related to the availability of cross-section data for certain isotopes and the need for specific configurations in the input files, which may depend on the user's data library and setup.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in nuclear engineering, computational physics, or those learning to use MCNP for burnup calculations may find this discussion beneficial.

HEU_LL
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) : mcnp6 input file
Hi everyone,
I'm a complete beginner with MCNP and trying to learn how to perform burnup calculations. Right now, I'm feeling a bit lost and not sure where to start.
I found the OECD-NEA Burnup Credit Calculational Criticality Benchmark (Phase I-B) and was wondering if anyone has worked through this specific benchmark using MCNP6?
If so, would you be willing to share your MCNP input file for it? Seeing an actual working example would be incredibly helpful for my learning.
I'd be really grateful for any guidance or code you could share!
Thank you so much in advance!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PhysicsForums @HEU_LL,

I don't really know burnup, but the geometry is fairly simple. Try writing one for a single cell with reflecting edges, make the fuel material 1 and put it in the center. Then try these lines for a "Case A" burn,
Code:
ksrc 0 0 0
kcode 10000 1 50 300
BURN TIME=306 71 381.7 83.1 466 85 461.1 1870
     MAT= 1
     OMIT=-1,7,6014,7016,8018,9018,90234,91232,66159
     POWER= 4.46272126E-2
     PFRAC= 0.887287699 0 1 0 0.876994339 0 0.749871333 0

I simplified a few things and my run did not give a good answer, e.g. 3.9mg 94239 when the right answer is 4.2mg, but I figure the burn lines are not very wrong.

If you get stuck doing the geometry I'm happy to help, but I don't want to put all the effort in.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Alex A said:
Welcome to PhysicsForums @HEU_LL,

I don't really know burnup, but the geometry is fairly simple. Try writing one for a single cell with reflecting edges, make the fuel material 1 and put it in the center. Then try these lines for a "Case A" burn,
Code:
ksrc 0 0 0
kcode 10000 1 50 300
BURN TIME=306 71 381.7 83.1 466 85 461.1 1870
     MAT= 1
     OMIT=-1,7,6014,7016,8018,9018,90234,91232,66159
     POWER= 4.46272126E-2
     PFRAC= 0.887287699 0 1 0 0.876994339 0 0.749871333 0

I simplified a few things and my run did not give a good answer, e.g. 3.9mg 94239 when the right answer is 4.2mg, but I figure the burn lines are not very wrong.

If you get stuck doing the geometry I'm happy to help, but I don't want to put all the effort in.
Thank you so much for your enthusiastic reply, which has been very encouraging. Based on your suggestions, I carefully studied the usage rules of the BURN card, but I did not find data for Am241 and Am243 in the output results. How should this issue be addressed?
 
Adding a token quantity of Am and Pu isotopes to the material being burned seems to work (0 might work too?). A listing in a material will also load the cross sections into memory rather than rely on the multigroup data in CINDER (I think this is right). Additional isotopes will be tracked according to some simple rules but IIRC their cross sections don't get loaded. I added some of the weirder ones to the OMIT line.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
Alex A said:
Adding a token quantity of Am and Pu isotopes to the material being burned seems to work (0 might work too?). A listing in a material will also load the cross sections into memory rather than rely on the multigroup data in CINDER (I think this is right). Additional isotopes will be tracked according to some simple rules but IIRC their cross sections don't get loaded. I added some of the weirder ones to the OMIT line.

Alex A said:
Adding a token quantity of Am and Pu isotopes to the material being burned seems to work (0 might work too?). A listing in a material will also load the cross sections into memory rather than rely on the multigroup data in CINDER (I think this is right). Additional isotopes will be tracked according to some simple rules but IIRC their cross sections don't get loaded. I added some of the weirder ones to the OMIT line.
Thank you very much for your patient guidance. Actually, I added Am241 and Am243 to the initial composition of the burnup materials and set them to a minute quantity of 1.0E-36, but the code failed to run and reported the following errors:
“ fatal error. cross-section tables missing for zaid = 95240. c
fatal error. cross-section tables missing for zaid = 97245. c
fatal error. cross-section tables missing for zaid = 97246. c
fatal error. cross-section tables missing for zaid = 97247. c ”
So, it should be an issue with my mcnp data library?
 
The automatic search can produce isotopes that are not tabulated. There are multiple ways to deal with that, one is to use an OMIT line, (I didn't need to deal with 97247)
OMIT=-1,11,6014,7016,8018,9018,90234,91232,66159,95240,95244,97245,97246
-1 means all materials being burned, 11 is how many isotopes are in the list. So using that and adding the missing one is one option.

A second method is to turn models on in a BOPT card.
 
Alex A said:
The automatic search can produce isotopes that are not tabulated. There are multiple ways to deal with that, one is to use an OMIT line, (I didn't need to deal with 97247)
OMIT=-1,11,6014,7016,8018,9018,90234,91232,66159,95240,95244,97245,97246
-1 means all materials being burned, 11 is how many isotopes are in the list. So using that and adding the missing one is one option.

A second method is to turn models on in a BOPT card.
Thank you very much for your enthusiasm and patient guidance. I deeply admire your excellent professional knowledge. With the two approaches you mentioned above, I have successfully resolved the issue. Once again, I sincerely appreciate your help. Wishing you all the best in your endeavors.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Alex A

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
970
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K