Geometry error: no intersection found in mcnp

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an error encountered in MCNP simulations, specifically the "geometry error: no intersection found" message. Participants explore potential causes related to cell definitions and overlaps in the geometry setup, focusing on the implications of infinite volumes in certain cells.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that cell 14 is outside of two RCC surfaces and extends to infinity, raising questions about its importance and the comment indicating it is "outside of problem."
  • Another participant points out that cell 22 also extends to infinity due to being outside surface 10 and suggests that it has overlaps with other cells.
  • Concerns are raised about the use of the # operator in defining cells, with a recommendation to simplify cell definitions by identifying inner and outer surfaces instead.
  • It is proposed that splitting cell 22 into three parts based on different radii could help eliminate the need for the # operator and potentially improve simulation performance.
  • Participants discuss the use of sub-surfaces of RCCs for defining cells, noting the peculiarities in coordinate directions for the top and bottom surfaces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the geometry setup and potential solutions, indicating that multiple competing views remain regarding the best approach to resolve the error.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved aspects regarding the implications of using the # operator and the specific configurations of the cells, which may affect the simulation outcomes.

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! ;).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
7K