A Solid of Revolution Time Study using COG11.1 and MCNP6.1
- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, L-198, Livermore, California, 94550 (United States)
The performance of two continuous energy Monte Carlo transport codes, COG11.1 and MCNP6.1, has been compared for the {sup 239}Pu Jezebel Benchmark using cross sections based on the ENDF/B-VII.1 evaluated nuclear data library. The purpose of this study is to determine the length of time it takes each code to complete a series of criticality calculations, using two different methods to model a solid of revolution. A solid of revolution is essential in many fields of engineering and mathematics, and has been a standard feature in computer-aided design and manufacturing since the 1970's. In the field of criticality safety, a solid of revolution can be used to reproduce and simplify complex engineering drawings and systems that would otherwise require excessive use of geometric primitives and computational resources to achieve a comparable level of fidelity. There are two basic methods to model a solid of revolution: Method 1 (COG) specifies a set of x-y pairs or polar coordinates and rotate the curve about the x-axis. Method 2 (COG and MCNP) creates a set of end-to-end conical frustums and/or cylinders. Method 1 is only available in COG and can be implemented using one surface and sector specification. Method 2 can be implemented in both COG and MCNP. This time study was initially conceived as a result of criticality safety analysis performed for a complex system with a high degree of rotational symmetry. Each COG input deck typically took 1-2 days to run in serial mode. COG input decks were then converted to MCNP format and run on the same computer cluster. Instead of expected 1-2 day runtimes, it took MCNP6.1 more than one week to complete each run. Since MCNP typically runs faster than many codes, these lengthy runtimes were considered unusual. This study attempts to investigate the runtime discrepancy between the two codes. The methods and benchmark in this time study were selected to provide a consistent, generalized approach to modeling an arbitrary solid of revolution. While there are many different ways to model the {sup 239}Pu Jezebel Benchmark, the focus of this study is on investigating the practical difference between the two basic methods to model a surface of revolution. Throughout this study, the only code that maintains reasonably low runtimes is COG11.1 (Method 1). Based on the observed performance of each code and method, it is likely that the divergent runtimes are the result of tracking particles across planes that lie between conical frustums, as opposed to defining the object boundary as a single surface. Slight fluctuations in graphed results were also observed, due to random sampling and CPU loading. This was confirmed by re-running input decks and comparing average runtimes to a preliminary curve fit. From the perspective of a criticality safety analyst, the results of this study are expected to contribute towards understanding one of the practical trade-offs between codes and methods as they apply to real-world analysis. Ultimately, it's about choosing the right tool for the job.
- OSTI ID:
- 22991937
- Journal Information:
- Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, Vol. 114, Issue 1; Conference: Annual Meeting of the American Nuclear Society, New Orleans, LA (United States), 12-16 Jun 2016; Other Information: Country of input: France; 3 refs.; Available from American Nuclear Society - ANS, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, IL 60526 United States; ISSN 0003-018X
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Comparison of ENDF/B-VI and preliminary ENDF/B-VII results for the MCNP criticality validation suite
Validation of MCNP6.1 for Criticality Safety of Pu-Metal, -Solution, and -Oxide Systems