MCNP Barrel Geometry Help

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on troubleshooting geometry errors in an MCNP input deck, specifically related to the vised plot appearing red. Key issues identified include the need for a void cell with importance 0 and ensuring all points in space belong to a single cell. Inconsistent usage of surfaces and the requirement to mention all rods in cell definitions are highlighted as potential problems. Additionally, errors in material definitions are attributed to formatting issues, such as extra blank lines and exceeding character limits. The conversation concludes with the user gaining clarity on the corrections needed to resolve the errors.
wtobias
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
Hey all. I am creating an MCNP input deck but my geometry is appearing red in the vised plot and I am receiving errors relating to the geometry and material card sections. Could anyone potentially help me figure this issue out?
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi @wtobias, welcome to PhysicsForums!

All problems need a void cell with importance 0, or particles transport forever. Every point in space must belong to only one cell and all space must be in a cell.

You are using surface 1 and 3 in what feels like inconsistent ways. I've ignored surface 1, and putting it back in is your job. If you need a cell between these think about what you need to do to create that.

For cell 111 to not include any of the rods, you have to mention them all. For example,
Code:
  111     0         -3 2
       #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60
       #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70
       #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80
       #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90
       #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100
       #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100
       #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 imp:n=1

I've used cell 50 as the central rod and added 999 as the void. Does this start to make sense?
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Yes thank you that makes sense. I still run into a fatal error when defining the materials however. I define material 1 for cell 111 and material 2 for the new cell I made 112. I'm not exactly sure where I am going wrong with my input. Ill provide the updated copy of the code below that sends the error. all that was changed was the material definition in the cell section for cells 111 and 112.
 

Attachments

You have an extra blank line just before the material cards and the program stops reading. One blank after the cell definitions and one after the surface definitions is all you should have. There is also stuff beyond the 80 char limit, which makes my version unhappy, but a new copy might be fine with that. It was an old IBM mainframe punched card limitation. Lastly there are too few spaces here
Code:
   24052.80c -0.18 $ 18% Chromium for SS 304
   28058.80c -0.12 $ 12% Nickel for SS 304
5 spaces will tell the code you are continuing the last line.
 
This helped thank you
 
  • Like
Likes Alex A and berkeman
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
1
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
781
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top