Solving MCNP6 Burn Card Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter kslim
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mcnp6
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a user's issue with the MCNP6 code related to burn cards, specifically encountering a fatal error indicating that models are required and the memory reduction option cannot be used. The user shares their input example, which includes parameters for neutron transport and material definitions. There is a suggestion to verify the units and magnitudes used in the input, particularly questioning the significance of the value 1.0000E+36. The conversation emphasizes the importance of ensuring correct input values to avoid fatal errors in simulations. Proper troubleshooting and validation of input parameters are crucial for successful execution in MCNP6.
kslim
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello Every body,
I hope all is well.
I have a problem with MCNP6 code for using burn card, so please can anybody help me ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
particle maximum smallest largest always always
cutoff particle table table use table use model
particle type energy energy maximum maximum below above
1 n neutron 0.0000E+00 1.0000E+36 2.0000E+01 1.5000E+02 0.0000E+00 1.0000E+36

fatal error. Models required. Cannot use memory reduction option.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i don't konw why that fatal error occured.

I will give you my simple input.


-------------------------------------------------------------
Example
1 8 -15.973 -1 25 -27 imp:n=1 VOL=21.9982
2 0 #1 imp:n=0
1 cz 0.2837 $ Fuel(F)
25 pz -43.5 $ Lower Reflector(F)
27 pz 43.5 $ Inner Fuel(F), HT9 Follower(C)
BURN TIME = 120
MAT = 8
POWER = 1.0
PFRAC = 1.0
BOPT = 1.0 -24 1.0
m8 92234 3.0959E-05
92235 9.8822E-04
92236 6.0099E-05
92238 6.0904E-01
93237 5.5808E-03
94236 2.7995E-08
94238 2.7918E-03
94239 7.2628E-02
94240 3.3563E-02
94241 9.0784E-03
94242 6.7610E-03
95241 6.5719E-03
95242 1.7994E-04
95243 1.3456E-03
96242 2.2685E-04
96243 7.5349E-06
96244 3.3887E-04
96245 3.0141E-05
96246 2.0876E-06
40090 1.1575E-01
40091 2.5243E-02
40092 3.8584E-02
40094 3.9101E-02
40096 6.2994E-03
42000 2.5799E-02
nlib=66c $ Active Fuel Slug(Middle Core)
kcode 8000 1.0 30 130
ksrc 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------
Regrads
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Make sure the units and magnitudes are correct.

What is 1.0000E+36? That seems like a large number.
 
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