MCNP Geometry Error when I try to create a sliced geometry in a torus structure

AI Thread Summary
Creating a sliced geometry in a torus structure in MCNP can lead to issues with the automatic volume calculation failing. To address this, users can manually specify the volume in the cell definition using "vol=" or apply a divisor card SD, especially if a tally is involved. For thin slices resembling cylinders, an approximate volume calculation using Pi*200*200*70*2 may suffice. If the output file indicates "reason volume not calculated asymmetric," further adjustments to the geometry may be necessary. Properly defining the geometry and volume should resolve the issue.
Osas
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
In a study I did in MCNP, I want to create a sliced geometry in a torus structure. But MCNP cannot calculate the volume of the geometry I created. What should I do about this issue?

2 0 -50 -12 13
3 0 #2

12 pz 34.4985
13 pz -34.4985
50 ty 0 0 0 620 200 200
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hello @Osas, welcome to PhysicsForums.

It's quite common for the automatic volume routine to fail. The actual volume can be added to the cell definition using "vol=", or with a divisor card SD. Usually it's only needed if the cell has a tally. Such a thin slice is quite close to a pair of cylinders, so Pi*200*200*70*2 might be good enough for most purposes.
 
Alex A said:
Hello @Osas, welcome to PhysicsForums.

It's quite common for the automatic volume routine to fail. The actual volume can be added to the cell definition using "vol=", or with a divisor card SD. Usually it's only needed if the cell has a tally. Such a thin slice is quite close to a pair of cylinders, so Pi*200*200*70*2 might be good enough for most purposes.
Thank you so much for your answer Alex but in output file,
reason volume
not calculated

asymmetric

I come across with this, how can I solve this?
 
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