MCNP6.2 - How to plot normalized tallies with MCNP6.2?

AI Thread Summary
To plot normalized tallies (F2, F4, F6) in MCNP6.2, users are exploring tools like Python and MATLAB, in addition to the internal MCPLOT. Normalization involves multiplying tallies by nu power and dividing by energy per fission and k_eff. There is a question about whether the FM multiplier subcard can accept a continuously updated k_eff value for real-time calculations. Users are also inquiring about plotting "time-based" tallies and how to achieve that. The discussion highlights the need for effective data processing methods for accurate plotting in MCNP.
19matthew89
Messages
46
Reaction score
12
TL;DR Summary
Newbie with MCNP here: how to plot (normalized tallies)?
Hi everyone,
I'm really new to MCNP here and I'm "playing" around trying to understand what is going on.

I'd like to plot my tallies (F2, F4 and F6). Is there any tool (e.g. python or matlab package) you recommend?

I know that the internal plot MCPLOT is available but I'm wondering how you normalize the tallies there. In a postprocess data treatment you'd multiply, for instance the F4 tallies, times nu power and divide by energy per fission and k_eff. But I was wondering, can you have that done by MCPLOT so to properly plot the "real" tally?

Thanks a lot in advance
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Perhaps you can try to use the FM multiplier subcard in the input program to process the data directly, then plot.
 
Hi,
Yeah. I had thought of that. But as you need to divide by the k_eff which is found in the code itself, can you feed in the FM card a parameter like the k_eff which is continuously updated? Or can you only multiply by a constant?
 
Do somebody uses "time based" tallies and know how to plot them
Regards
Thibaut
 
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