MCNP: Integral flux crossing the spherical surface of a spherical cap

AI Thread Summary
Surface tallies in particle transport simulations can be configured to measure scalar flux through defined surfaces. The suggested setup involves using F1:n 110 with FS1 10, which will provide integrated flux values across a specified sphere divided by surface 10. This configuration allows for the differentiation of flux in regions based on their z-coordinates. When a neutron crosses from one cell to another and scatters, the scalar flux is cumulative, meaning it adds up rather than cancelling out. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurate flux measurement in simulations.
xisco
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I want to calculate the integral flux crossing the spherical surface of a spherical cap, which I have defined using a spherical surface and a plane. What tally should I use?
c *************** BLOCK 2: SURFACE CARDS **************
10 PZ 100
110 SO 110
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
c ---- TALLIES-------------------------------------
F1:n 10
 
I'm not that familiar with surface tallies, so I've checked a few things in the manual. If what you want is an integral of the *scalar* flux in particles (per source particle) then what I think you want is,
Code:
F1:n 110
FS1 10
So that is a tally through the sphere, with the sphere split by surface 10. That should give two values, the integrated flux through the sphere in the region where Z is larger than 100, since the sense is positive in the FS card, and all other flux. All other flux in this simple example is the sphere with Z<100. If you want it the other way around use -10 instead.
 
Thanks for your reply. Maybe I didn't quite understand what the question was.
 
If you have two cells A and B, and a neutron crosses the surface from A to B the flux is now 1 neutron. Say this neutron scatters from something in B, back to A. The scalar flux, as I understand it, is now 2 neutrons. They don't cancel, they don't vector sum, they add like simple scalars. It's the usual meaning of flux, I'm sorry if I made it sound weird. Does that help?
 
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