MCNP6.2 - SDEF on a RCC surface

  • Thread starter Thread starter 19matthew89
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cylinder Surface
AI Thread Summary
Setting up a surface neutron source on a cylindrical macrobody in MCNP6.2 can lead to a "fatal error: sdef surface not valid surface" if the surface is not correctly defined. The issue may stem from an incorrect input file or surface definition. It is confirmed that defining a surface source on a cylindrical surface is possible, so verifying the input details is essential. Running a simple test case may help identify the problem. For further assistance, consider reaching out to the MCNP6.2 user community or developers.
19matthew89
Messages
46
Reaction score
12
TL;DR Summary
Error for SDEF source on RCC surface
Hi everyone,

I'm trying to set up a surface neutron source on the surface of a cylinder defined as a macrobody (RCC) and used also to define cell of the system. My aim is setting up a surface source where I'd like to give a specific spectrum (and DIR) at each surface defining the cylinder.

But, before getting so far, I simply tried to set up a monoenergetic source on the surface of the macrobody (see attachment). Unfortunately, the code gives me this fatal error: "fatal error sdef surface not valid surface" and I don't manage to understand why. In fact, the simulation runs smoothly if I simply replace the cylinder surface with a spherical surface. Aren't you allowed to define a surface source on a cylindrical surface? can you spot what the issue could be?Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
for your help!

Hi there,

It is possible to define a surface source on a cylindrical surface in MCNP6.2. The error you are receiving may be due to an incorrect definition of the surface or a problem with your input file. I suggest double-checking your input file and making sure the surface is correctly defined as an RCC macrobody. You may also want to try running a simple test case with a monoenergetic source on a cylindrical surface to see if the issue persists.

If the problem persists, you can also try reaching out to the MCNP6.2 user community for assistance or contacting the developers for further support. They may be able to provide more specific guidance on troubleshooting this issue.

I hope this helps, and good luck with your simulation!
 
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