Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding additional ZA values to thermal scattering ACE files #126

Closed
whaeck opened this issue Apr 11, 2019 · 6 comments
Closed

Adding additional ZA values to thermal scattering ACE files #126

whaeck opened this issue Apr 11, 2019 · 6 comments
Assignees

Comments

@whaeck
Copy link
Member

whaeck commented Apr 11, 2019

Card 8a on the ACER input allows a user to set the ZA values that go into the ACE file for a thermal scattering file. By default, NJOY limits these to 3 while the ACE format actually allows up to 16 values. This becomes an issue when one tries to specify the ZA values for a thermal scattering file such as ZrH or SiO2. Previously, these were added by hand as required.

This issue is related to an email received on the MCNP forum about a discrepancy between the ZA values in zr-zrh.80t, zr-h.20t and zr-h.30t.

By chaning the NJOY input to allow up to 16 values, we would avoid errors during the manual modification phase.

@whaeck
Copy link
Member Author

whaeck commented Apr 11, 2019

There are multiple ways to solve the issue:

  • either reuse nxtra on card 2 and card 4
  • or modify card 8 and 8a to read into an array instead of reading only three values (at least on must be given)

The first option would be the cleanest as this is read for every iopt and izn, awn are transmitted to the various functions that handle the different iopt values. On the other hand, this would make card 8a obsolete and would break backwards compatibility.

The second solution would not break backwards compatibility. By adding an additional variable called niza on card 8 (default value set to 3), we would retain backwards compatibility and allow a user to add more values should he so desire.

@paulromano
Copy link
Member

This is actually a duplicate of #25, but glad to see it's receiving attention!

@whaeck
Copy link
Member Author

whaeck commented Apr 11, 2019

@paulromano I had a feeling I had already seen something like this before. I went over the issues but did not pay enough attention apparantly.

@paulromano
Copy link
Member

No worries. I would suggest just closing #25 since you've already elaborated on the problem much more here than my three sentence description.

@whaeck whaeck self-assigned this Apr 11, 2019
whaeck added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 11, 2019
@whaeck
Copy link
Member Author

whaeck commented Apr 11, 2019

One point remains to be resolved: what does the awn array mean for thermal scattering. If a user uses card4, we'll have values in the izn and awn array but we overwrite the values in izn array in acesix for thermal scattering data using iza01, iza02 and iza03 but we don't touch awn (in the proposed resolution I moved this outside of acesix).

I would surmise that awn is meaningless for thermal scattering - to be determined.

@whaeck whaeck mentioned this issue Apr 11, 2019
@whaeck
Copy link
Member Author

whaeck commented Oct 31, 2019

Done, merged #127

@whaeck whaeck closed this as completed Oct 31, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants