MCNP6: Energy and angular distribution of neutrons after moderation

  • Thread starter louisdpt04
  • Start date
In summary, "MCNP6: Energy and angular distribution of neutrons after moderation" explores the simulation capabilities of the MCNP6 code in analyzing how neutrons interact with materials during the moderation process. The study focuses on the changes in energy and angular distribution of neutrons as they slow down after colliding with moderating substances. It highlights the importance of accurate modeling in predicting neutron behavior, which is crucial for applications in nuclear engineering and radiation shielding. The findings demonstrate the effectiveness of MCNP6 in providing detailed insights into neutron transport phenomena.
  • #1
louisdpt04
4
0
Hello,

I'm currently working on a project that studies the influence of a PE moderator on the neutron capture rate of a He3 detector. So far, I've only experimented with the thickness of the PE moderator. The results I have obtained are interesting and I'm trying to justify them. In order to do so, I need to obtain three things:
1) The mean energy of the transmitted neutrons
2) Their energy distribution
3) Their angular distribution

I've already obtained (1) by using a very large half sphere full of He3 and the *F8 tally. However for (2), I struggle to understand what tally I should be using. I would either need the energy of the neutrons (as a spectrum) when absorbed by He3 (assuming there is little energy lost due to scattering) or the energy deposited by the neutrons before absorption as a spectrum as well.

For (3) I'm planning to sort of stack He3 cells on top of each other but is there a better way to approach the problem ?

Thank you in advance,

Louis
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Welcome to physicsforums Louis,

I don't quite follow your solution to (1). (2) can be solved using a tally with energy bins. For example f4 for an empty cell in the right place, put e4 for the next line and add a list of boundary energies. (3) can be solved a few ways, you can put a sphere round it and chop it up with, say cones, you could probably use a mesh.

If you can share your input file, rename to add .txt and then attach to a post.
 
  • #3
Thanks for your response Alex.

For (1), I've basically created a half sphere containing He3 that is sufficiently large to make sure all the neutrons are absorbed. Then I used the *f8:n tally in that half sphere to get the energy deposited by the neutrons. This method works well as, when removing the PE moderator from the simulation, the energy deposition is equal to the energy I've given my neutrons through the SDEF card.

That seems like a good idea for (2), and one quite simple to implement. If I understand correctly, MCNP will score for every neutron that passes through the cell and class them depending on their energy ?

For point (3), chopping a sphere into cones as you suggested seems like the best solution to me. I've started reading the documentation about FMESH & TMESH but I'm still not sure to understand how to implement it, could you perhaps provide me some insights ?

I've attached my input file, it's a bit messy so don't hesitate if you get lost.
 

Attachments

  • SimpleHe3x-E_t.txt
    4.1 KB · Views: 43
  • #4
There is some advanced stuff in that, yikes. I am mystified by "NOT USING F6 tally because unreliable since CPE (charged particles equilibrium) not holding".

The neutron source has a weirdly low energy, 12.3kev. Not saying it's wrong, I don't know what you are modeling, but it's just strange.

Right now you are simulating a sheet of moderator, is the detector arrangement a sheet or a ball or a cylinder?
 
  • #5
I initially started using the F6 tally to get the average energy of the neutrons after moderation but the results it would give me were wrong. For instance, it would say that the energy deposited by each neutron was higher than the energy I gave them through the sdef card. Using the *F8 tally instead solved the issue. I think that has to do with the fact I'm creating charged particles (H3 & protons) from neutral ones (neutrons).

I'm working in the context of the 7Li(p,n) reaction near threshold and the neutrons near that have that sort of energy. I've calculated the neutrons energy based on the protons' and it's in accord with what I found in the literature so no problem on that front.

In the file I gave you, the cell of He3 (the detector sort of) is basically half a sphere which is large enough to make sure the neutrons are absorbed, allowing me to get reliable value from the *F8 tally. Otherwise in normal time I'm using a cylinder as detector (that has 1.2cm radius for a length of 20.3cm). But if we go back to my "to do" list, at (2) with the option you suggested, I don't think a cell of He3 will even be needed. No idea for (3) though.
 
  • #6
The more I think about this the more I wonder why you are doing (3). I wouldn't have thought abstract experiments would help. Why not simulate the detector and move the source around to work out directional sensitivity?
 
  • #7
The source is initially a perfect beam that opens up as it enters the moderator. I have already moved the detector closer to the moderator to see if the capture rate of the detector changes. It does indeed but it's not a massive change. I believe the angle the detector covers is quite small despite being very close to the moderator hence the relatively minor change.

I have experimented with the detector radius to make it cover almost half the solid angle and here there is very a very significant change. So the only thing left would be to obtain some sort of angular distribution. Chopping up a sphere into cones using meshes (as you suggested earlier) is what I'd basically like to achieve but I don't know whether that's possible or not.
 

FAQ: MCNP6: Energy and angular distribution of neutrons after moderation

What is MCNP6 and its relevance to neutron moderation?

MCNP6 (Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code, version 6) is a general-purpose Monte Carlo radiation transport code used for simulating the interaction of particles with matter. It is particularly relevant to neutron moderation because it allows users to model the behavior of neutrons as they interact with various materials, including moderators, to understand how their energy and angular distributions change after scattering events.

How does neutron moderation affect energy and angular distribution?

Neutron moderation is the process of slowing down fast neutrons through interactions with a moderator material, typically composed of light nuclei such as hydrogen or carbon. As neutrons lose energy, their angular distribution tends to become more isotropic, meaning they are emitted more uniformly in all directions. This change in energy and angular distribution is crucial for applications like nuclear reactors, where moderated neutrons are needed for sustaining chain reactions.

What types of materials are commonly used as moderators in MCNP6 simulations?

Common materials used as moderators in MCNP6 simulations include water (H2O), heavy water (D2O), graphite, and polyethylene. Each of these materials has different properties that affect the moderation process, such as the scattering cross-sections and the ability to slow down neutrons effectively. The choice of moderator can significantly influence the energy and angular distribution of neutrons after moderation.

How can I analyze the results of neutron energy and angular distributions in MCNP6?

Results from MCNP6 simulations can be analyzed using built-in tally features that allow users to collect data on neutron energy and angular distributions. The output files can be processed using MCNP's output analysis tools or external software to visualize and interpret the results. Users can create histograms, scatter plots, or angular distributions to better understand how neutrons behave after moderation.

What are the limitations of using MCNP6 for neutron moderation studies?

While MCNP6 is a powerful tool for neutron moderation studies, it has limitations. These include the computational resources required for complex simulations, potential inaccuracies in cross-section data, and the need for careful validation against experimental results. Additionally, the code may not fully capture all physical phenomena under certain conditions, such as very high energy ranges or specific material compositions, which can affect the reliability of the results.

Back
Top