How can I calculate view factor using MCNP for radiation heat transfer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter seedsluis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on calculating the view factor for radiation heat transfer using MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code). The user initially attempted to use F4 tallies but found the results unsatisfactory due to normalization issues. The community suggested switching to F2 tallies, which measure surface flux, as a more appropriate method for obtaining the desired results. Additionally, the user is exploring surface segmentation to calculate flux through individual segments, indicating a need for further experimentation and reference to the MCNP manual.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of MCNP (Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code) version 6 or later
  • F2 and F4 tally usage in MCNP for radiation calculations
  • Knowledge of surface segmentation techniques in MCNP
  • Familiarity with radiation heat transfer concepts
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn how to implement F2 tallies in MCNP for surface flux calculations
  • Study the MCNP manual on surface segmentation and its application
  • Explore advanced MCNP features for optimizing tally results
  • Investigate boundary conditions in MCNP for radiation heat transfer scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Researchers and engineers working in radiation heat transfer, MCNP users seeking to optimize tally methods, and anyone involved in computational radiation transport simulations.

seedsluis
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
hello, everybody, I try to use mcnp to calculate view factor of radiation heat
transfer, could somebody give me some advice? I want to use surface
source, but I do not know how to get the number of the particles
emitted from the source from the output file? and I use F4 tally, I do
not know how to use the values of the tally from the output file, the
values seem to be very small?
Thanks a lot. The attachment is the output file, Hope you can help me .
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
It has been a while since I've used MCNP, but since no one else has responded I'll give it a shot answering your question.

I believe the tally results are normalized to a single source particle. That actually explains both your questions in one. You don't need to know the number of source particles because the answer is PER source particle. It also explains why your answer is so small.
 
Thanks so much for your respond. I know I should not care the magnitude about the value. I think F4 tally is not so good in my case, 'cause usually the sum of all value should be 1, but in my case it is far more than one, there should be some where I should modify in my input, F4 gives flux inside the cell, but what I really need is # of particles passing through the surface, even through I made everything is void, maybe scattering will influence the process, I tried to use boundary condition to solve the problem, but I still did not find the correct way to do so.
 
Since you only care about the surfaces I believe you should be using the F2 tallies which are surface flux instead of F4 tallies which are cell (volume) flux. Give that a try and see if you get better results. Also, if all your materials are void than scattering in MCNP should not be an issue.
 
OK, since scattering will not be an issue. Now I'm using F2 tally, since I should divide the whole surface into many segments, and I need the flux through individual segment, I try to use FSn to get it, I still try to find an way to calculate it in one time, since now I only can get one flux for one time, do you have some advice?
 
My MCNP experience is pretty limited so I don't remember how segmenting surfaces work. I believe the segmentation let's you divide a surface (from the surface card) into smaller sections for the tally. You'll have to read the manual and play around. Maybe someone else here with more experience can help you.
 
Sure, Thanks for your help. I am using the most time-assuming way to do so, I think. Maybe later I will find a better method, *.*
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
750
Replies
1
Views
2K