MCNP: Is this a valid way to define "two sources with different sizes"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BaoNgoc
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion addresses the setup of two source cells in MCNP6, specifically a large concrete wall and a thin granite wall, with the intention of using different RAD and EXT values for each. The initial setup using SDEF is questioned, with concerns raised about the validity of independently generated random numbers for the sources. It is suggested that defining the sources separately would be simpler and more flexible, and a union of cell definitions is mentioned as a potential workaround. The proper method involves using dependent variables, as illustrated in the MCNP6 manual, to ensure accurate source definitions. Overall, the consensus is that the proposed method may not be valid, and alternative approaches should be considered.
BaoNgoc
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I'm a new user MCNP6 and want to define two source cells (cell 1 and cell 5), each with different sizes:

Cell 1 is a large concrete wall (500×400×300 cm)
Cell 5 is a thin granite inside concrete wall (20 cm thick)
Therefore, I want to use different RAD and `EXT` values for each source. I tried this setup:

To implement this, I’m using the following SDEF:
SDEF PAR=2 ERG=d1 L=d10 POS=0 0 0 AXS=0 0 1 CEL=d11 RAD=d12 EXT=d13

And these source distributions:
Code:
c ---Source: 1 = cell 1, 2 = cell 5
SI10 L 1 2
SP10 D 0.5 0.5            $ choose probably for each cell
c --- CELL
SI11 L 1 5
SP11 D 0.5 0.5
c --- RAD
SI12 L 420 320
SP12 D 0.5 0.5
c ---  EXT
SI13 L 200 150
SP13 D 0.5 0.5
Is this a valid way to define "two sources with different sizes" in one input file using SDEF?

Thank you very much.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi @BaoNgoc,

Welcome to PhysicsForums. I'm a bit confused by L=d10, but I'm fairly sure the answer is no. Random numbers picked independently would be wrong half or more of the time.

There are advantages to doing the sources separately, it's simpler and more flexible. You could also define the source cells to be the same with a union of the cell definitions, but this is a bit 'hacky'.

The proper way to do it is to define dependent variables. Take a look at this example in p387 the manual for MCNP6.3.
Code:
SDEF CEL=D1 POS=FCEL=D2
C
SI1 L 101 102 103
SP2 0.4 0.2 0.4
C
DS2 S 4 5 6
C
SI4 L VOLUMER
SP4 1
C
SI5 L .1 .2 .3
SP5 1
C
SI6 L VOLUMER
SP6 1
VOLUMER is an unstructured mesh source. Don't worry about it except that to see that this contains sources in three cells (101 102 and 103) and three source distributions (d4 used in cell 101, d5 used in cell 102 and d6 used in cell 103). These could be point sources or volume sources.
 
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...
Back
Top