Subroutine Sources option in MCNP

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on using the Subroutine Source option in MCNP to record particle data from an electron beam hitting a tungsten target for future simulations. The user initially attempted to create a secondary source based on energy bin tallies but found discrepancies in photon flux results between the primary and secondary setups. Concerns were raised about the accuracy of the secondary source due to the simplification of photon emission as parallel, which does not reflect real conditions. Suggestions included splitting the test area into sections to improve data collection and verifying the behavior of the 5 MeV electron beam in the target material. The user seeks further advice on reconciling the differences in photon flux results from the two setups.
thanhpham
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi, everyone. I am using MCNP to simulate an incident electron beam hitting a tungsten target and obtaining the bremsstrahlung spectra in natural element samples placed behind the initial setup.
I want to use the Subroutine Source option in MCNP to record all the directions, weights, energies, etc., of all the particles crossing the surface right in front of the sample. This recorded data will be used as a secondary source for other simulations with different elements in the future to reduce simulation time.
I have read the MCNP manual, but I still don’t understand how to use this option.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could help me.
 

Attachments

  • 5MeV.txt
    5MeV.txt
    2.4 KB · Views: 34
  • 1.png
    1.png
    9 KB · Views: 36
  • 2.png
    2.png
    13.3 KB · Views: 74
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PhysicsForums @thanhpham,

I assume you are talking about the user source subroutine source.f? This routine can be written to create source particles but they get sent to transport. They don't get sent back to the source routine at any point. I don't know a way to do what you want efficiently.

I also wonder if any extra information you get will be overshadowed by the worse statistics from fewer particles. That you might have a single photon of one particular energy that always hits the same spot at the same angle may not help the accuracy of the result.

I suggest you start by using energy bin tallies on the flux, and then use this to make a distribution you can use with an SDEF card.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes thanhpham, berkeman and Astronuc
Thanks for your reply, @Alex A.

I already did as you suggested. I obtained the energy bin tallies and used them as a secondary surface source.

However, the F4 tally results of photon in the sample from the secondary surface source are significantly different from those obtained using the primary setup.

I think, the difference may be due to the fact that I can only describe the energy beam of photons emitted from the secondary surface source as parallel, while in reality, it is not. Moreover, electrons passing through the tungsten target from the initial electron beam, along with a small fraction of neutrons generated when the electron beam interacts with the tungsten target, may also alter the photon flux in the sample.

With a low-energy electron beam and a thin tungsten target, the simulation time required to achieve a reasonable statistical error is relatively short. However, with a higher-energy electron beam, a thicker tungsten target, or when adding additional structures, the simulation time becomes significantly longer. That is why I want to find a way to record a secondary source for future use with different samples.
 
If you can share what results didn't work and the input files, someone might have an idea.

I'm wondering if you should split the test area into three sections, upper tally, lower tally and middle section to kill all particles that enter. You will need to run your result tally(s) as well.

The 5 MeV electron beam is fully stopped by the target and PET right? (btw PET is not a hydrocarbon, it has oxygen in it)
 
Alex A said:
If you can share what results didn't work and the input files, someone might have an idea.

I'm wondering if you should split the test area into three sections, upper tally, lower tally and middle section to kill all particles that enter. You will need to run your result tally(s) as well.

The 5 MeV electron beam is fully stopped by the target and PET right? (btw PET is not a hydrocarbon, it has oxygen in it)
Please see the attachment.

I used the photon flux results (f2 tally) through the surface of the Titanium sample in the 1st setup to model it as a photon-emitting surface with a parallel beam incident on a same Titanium sample in the 2nd setup. The photon flux results (f4 tally) in Titanium sample of the two setups are different, but they have the same ratio. Is there a way to solve my problems?
 

Attachments

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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
54
Views
7K
Back
Top