MCNP6 BURN -- Testing about burnable poison depletion

AI Thread Summary
Testing burnable poison depletion with MCNP6 led to a fatal error due to certain nuclides requiring physics models instead of data tables. The user resolved this by using the omit option to bypass problematic isotopes, allowing the simulation to run. However, they expressed a desire to calculate gadolinium isotopes (64151, 64159) specifically. Suggestions included enabling advanced physics settings and checking for decay products like Tb-151 and Eu-159. Another recommendation was to install ENDF-VIII for potential data on the isotopes in question.
goyu96
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm testing about burnable poison depletion with mcnp6.

I'm using
m1 92233.82c -7.91619E-01
90232.82c -8.75802E-02
8016.82c -1.20800E-01
for fuel

and
m12 64152.82c -1.39023E-03 $ gd-152
64154.82c -1.53529E-02 $ gd-154
64155.82c -2.39616E-01 $ gd-155
64156.82c -1.46035E-01 $ gd-156
64157.82c -2.56647E-01 $ gd-157
64158.82c -1.79482E-01 $ gd-158
64160.82c -1.59950E-01 $ gd-160
8016.82c -1.52669E-03 $ o-16
for burnable poison.
but this caused fatal error
-----
The following nuclides use physics models rather than data tables:

6014. c
7016. c
8018. c
9018. c
64151. c
64159. c
66157. c
66159. c
------
so I used omit option
omit= -1 8 6014 7016 8018 9018 64151 64159 66157 66159
Then It works, but, I want calculate gadolinia (64151, 64159)..
how can I do this?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Have you tried turning the advanced physics on instead of using the omit line? You could check the decay products Tb-151 and Eu-159 are being produced.

It might be fine as it is. Unless the capture cross section is huge it might not affect the answer much.

Another option might be to install ENDF-VIII and see if it has data for those isotopes.
 
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