MCNP6.2 - Are results of FMESH tallies already divided by cell volume?

AI Thread Summary
FMESH tallies in MCNP are indeed divided by the mesh cell volume, not the geometry cell volume. This division allows for comparable results between FMESH and F4 tallies when they occupy the same space. The "out=cf" option further supports this by printing both the volume and tally results multiplied by the volume, implying that standard tally results are already adjusted. The similarity to TMESH, which calculates average fluence based on volume, reinforces this understanding. Overall, the FMESH calculation methodology is confirmed to align with these expectations.
19matthew89
Messages
46
Reaction score
12
TL;DR Summary
It's not clear whether the results of mesh tally for FMESH are already divided by the cell volume
Hi everyone,

I am struggling to understand whether the results of FMESH tallies are already divided by the cell volume or not.

I'd actually expect so considering:
1. the comparison with an F4 tally in the same cell where results are comparable only if I assume that the mesh tallies results are already divided by the cell volume
2. the fact that the option "out=cf" is available. With this option "the volume and the tally results multiplied by the volume are also printed". And so it would make sense multiplying the standard tally results by the volume only if its standard output were already divided by the volume
3. for "similarity" with TMESH, where indeed "average fluence is particle weight times track length divided by volume in units of number/cm2"

But I could not find anywhere in MCNP manual (MCNP® Code Version 6.3.0 Theory & User Manual) a clear statement about it.

Could you confirm, please?

Thanks in advance
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The FMESH calculation includes a division by the mesh cell volume, not the geometry cell.

So if you had a geometry cell and a mesh cell that were totally coincident you'd expect the F4 and the FMESH cell tally to match.
 
  • Like
Likes 19matthew89
Alex A said:
The FMESH calculation includes a division by the mesh cell volume, not the geometry cell.

So if you had a geometry cell and a mesh cell that were totally coincident you'd expect the F4 and the FMESH cell tally to match.
Great! Thanks!
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top