Why Are Burnup Numbers Identical for Different Fuels in MCNP?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the issue of obtaining identical burnup numbers for different fuels in MCNP simulations, despite their differing compositions (LEU, LEU+, and thorium-based fuel). The confusion arises from the understanding that burnup is typically an input parameter, defined as energy per mass of heavy metal, rather than a calculated output. Participants suggest examining the isotopic distribution and k-effective values, which should vary between the different fuel types. Additionally, one user notes that if the reactor is under critical, it may not run correctly, affecting the results. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly setting input parameters and interpreting the output for accurate fuel comparisons.
Rafimah
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Different fuels are giving the same burnup in MCNP
Hi everyone,

I'm trying to compare 3 different fuels and MCNP and I want to recover the burnup of each. When I do that however, I get identical numbers for burnup, which doesn't make sense to me, as they have different materials (LEU vs LEU+ vs a thorium-based fuel).

Does anyone know what could be the issue here? My understanding is that burnup is the energy reduced per unit mass of isotopes >=90, so it should be pretty different for these 3 cases. I uploaded the 3 out files.

Thanks!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi @Rafimah , I can't see the out files.
 
I don't see your output files, but I think you have a conceptualization problem. For burnup calculations, ther burnup is an input (usually specified as energy per mass of heavy metal), and the code will calculate the isotopic distribution and k-effective.

It sounds like you ran three cases and received the same burnup. Not surprising, since this is an input. Look at the isotopics and k-effective, and they should be different.
 
There is a BURN card in the other thread specified as a power level and number of days to burn for but the reactor isn't finished and has a k of around 0.01, it's actually so under critical the code won't run. I think comparing fuels with BURN is valid, but if the conversion ratio is low any fuel is just going to yield the strictly theoretical amount of time and energy.
 
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...
Back
Top