Geometry error: no intersection found in mcnp

AI Thread Summary
The user encountered a "geometry error: no intersection found" in MCNP due to infinite volumes in cells 14, 22, and 500, which are outside defined surfaces. The discussion highlights messy overlaps among cells, particularly suggesting that cell 21 may be unnecessary and that cells 22 and 200 overlap. It is recommended to avoid using the # operator for defining cells, as it complicates the geometry and may slow down older MCNP versions. Instead, splitting complex cells into simpler parts based on inner and outer surfaces is advised for clarity and efficiency. Properly defining sub-surfaces of RCCs can help resolve these geometry issues effectively.
khary23
Messages
92
Reaction score
6
Hello All,

I have yet another MCNP question. I received the following error "geometry error: no intersection found mcnp" when trying to run a a simulation. I looked at the output and according to it I have an infinite volume in cells 14 and 500. I plotted the geometry and don't see how its infinite. Can someone help me with what I am missing?
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
Cell 14 is outside of surface 3 (a RCC) and outside of surface 10 (a RCC) and so extends to infinity. Also, it has importance of 1 for p and e. The comment says "outside of problem" so that's weird.
Cell 22 is outside surface 10, a RCC, and it has # on a bunch of cells. So it extends to infinity. More weird.
Cell 500 is outside of surface 4, a SO, so it extends to infinity. It has importance 0.

You've got some messy overlaps going on here.

I think possibly you don't need cell 21.
And cell 22 and cell 200 seem to overlap.

I would suggest resisting using the # operator to define cells. Cell 22 is probably a lot simpler if you just figure out what are the inner and outer surfaces.

When you have different radius at different elevations, it is often simpler to split the cells outside those different radii. So you could split cell 22 into three parts, one above the disk, one extending from top to bottom of the disk, and one below the disk. With three parts you can easily get rid of all the # operators. Not sure if it's still true with MCNP 6.1, but older versions run slower if you have a lot of # operators.

Note that you can use the sub-surfaces of the rcc's to define cells. The top of rcc 40 is surface 40.2, the bottom is 40.3. But the sense is weird. +40.2 is outside the top of the rcc, and so it's the positive coord direction. +40.3 is outside the BOTTOM of the rcc, so it's the NEGATIVE coord direction. So the region -40.2 -40.3 is the region between the top and bottom of the rcc.
 
DEvens said:
Cell 14 is outside of surface 3 (a RCC) and outside of surface 10 (a RCC) and so extends to infinity. Also, it has importance of 1 for p and e. The comment says "outside of problem" so that's weird.
Cell 22 is outside surface 10, a RCC, and it has # on a bunch of cells. So it extends to infinity. More weird.
Cell 500 is outside of surface 4, a SO, so it extends to infinity. It has importance 0.

You've got some messy overlaps going on here.

I think possibly you don't need cell 21.
And cell 22 and cell 200 seem to overlap.

I would suggest resisting using the # operator to define cells. Cell 22 is probably a lot simpler if you just figure out what are the inner and outer surfaces.

When you have different radius at different elevations, it is often simpler to split the cells outside those different radii. So you could split cell 22 into three parts, one above the disk, one extending from top to bottom of the disk, and one below the disk. With three parts you can easily get rid of all the # operators. Not sure if it's still true with MCNP 6.1, but older versions run slower if you have a lot of # operators.

Note that you can use the sub-surfaces of the rcc's to define cells. The top of rcc 40 is surface 40.2, the bottom is 40.3. But the sense is weird. +40.2 is outside the top of the rcc, and so it's the positive coord direction. +40.3 is outside the BOTTOM of the rcc, so it's the NEGATIVE coord direction. So the region -40.2 -40.3 is the region between the top and bottom of the rcc.

Thank you for the explanation!
 
Just let us know with enough anticipation so we can head to the nearest shelter! ;).
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
914
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top