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, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top