Help debugging MCNP code - particle lost and zero latice element found

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on troubleshooting a "particle lost" error in MCNP code, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that every part of the 3-D space is filled with exactly one cell without any gaps. Users are advised to utilize the MCNP plotting package to identify geometry errors, particularly by looking for dotted lines around cells. The interactive plotter can help visualize the geometry, revealing issues such as the void cell being incorrectly defined. It is suggested that using simple surfaces instead of macrobodies for defining reflectors may simplify the void cell definition. Proper geometry setup is crucial to prevent errors in MCNP simulations.
AlexFi
Messages
19
Reaction score
5
TL;DR Summary
Help identify gap in geometry or something
I keep getting particle lost error even though there were no hole in the lattice.
Can someone identify any mistake in my code?
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
The first thing to do is fire-up the plotting package that comes with MCNP. Look for those dotted lines around some cells. These indicate geometry errors.

In an MCNP model, every part of 3-D space must be filled with exactly one cell. There must be no gaps that are not part of a defined cell. And no point can be part of more than one cell.
 
To give a few more hints, search for "interactive plotter" in the manual and use the "ip" option on the command line.
 
  • Like
Likes Alex A and Grelbr42
I ran mcnp5 ip inp=file
i means process the input file, p means plot the geometry in the interactive plotter.
I click on the "Click here or picture or menu" and type "pz 0" to get a cross section through the reactor. Nothing is coloured in, everywhere I click on the plot is cell 99. This strongly suggests an error in the definition of cell 99, the void cell. Without having much time to look into it :5:6 where 5 and 6 are macrobody surfaces "Top reflector" and "Bottom reflector" feels wrong. Defining those reflectors with simple surfaces rather than macrobodies might make defining the void cell easier.
 
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...
Back
Top